That makes sense.  But I got to wondering as to exactly what conditions the pump
_and pulley!_ were designed around.  What if, at 5000 or more rpm at cruise, we
have more capacity than we need, and end up pumping a lot of back pressure
against a partially closed thermostat.  A scenario like that would be wasted
power.  If that were so, and we just put a larger pulley on the pump, it would
not absorb as much power, and the lower pump rpm would better match
requirements.  How do we tell if a water pump/pulley configuration is wasting
power trying to over achieve?  Has anyone tried a larger pulley (less pump speed,
less power drain, less flow, but still plenty sufficient for the application)??
Tracy, are you out there??
Inquiring minds need to know .... Jim S.


Mike Wills wrote:

> John,
>
>   I'm with Ed. The electric water pump may work in a low duty cycle
> application, but not in a high duty cycle application like an aircraft
> engine. Trying to cool a high power, high duty cyle application with an
> electric pump and expecting to gain power in the process sounds an awful
> lot like a perpetual motion machine to me.
>
>   I've read Hot Rod for 30 years and have always enjoyed it. But if I
> applied all of the tricks like this that I've read about over the years,
> I'd be able to build a 1000HP small block Chevy using only bolt on parts
> (sold by Hot Rod advertisers) for less than $2000. :-)
>
> Mike Wills
>
> At 02:47 PM 9/29/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >There is an article in hot rod mag this month that says an electric water
> >pump has made gains of 40 hp, it states that it takes less power to run an
> >alternator than a pump and units can be fabricated from universal units from
> >hot rod supply houses.  JohnD