Return-Path: Received: from [65.54.168.117] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 813207 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:14:22 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.168.117; envelope-from=lors01@msn.com Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:13:36 -0800 Message-ID: Received: from 4.171.174.170 by BAY3-DAV13.phx.gbl with DAV; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:13:36 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [4.171.174.170] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: BMW and EWP Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:13:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0097_01C52DAA.D198CEF0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.10.0011.1703 Seal-Send-Time: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:13:33 -0500 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2005 05:13:36.0331 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC2D01B0:01C52DD4] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01C52DAA.D198CEF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There is no data (that I know of) that shows what the minimum acceptable = flow at any given power level is. But the laws of thermodynamics are = very unambiguous: Faster is better. Tracy (hoping this does not result in a quest for 100 GPM flow rates) I seem to have missed a lot of posts. When I'm going to be out of = town=20 for more than couple of days I stop the list. That could explain some = of it. 12 GPM and 34 GPM is a pretty wide window of stuff that=20 apparently works. 34 is like cycling your whole coolant supply = through=20 the system every 4 seconds or so. That just seems really really fast = to=20 me. It was 40+ years ago last time I studied this stuff, so all I've=20 got is intuitive guesses. Which is, of course, exactly what I keep complaining about :o) ... Jim = S. Bob White wrote: >Hi Jim, > >Bill Schertz has made the acutal flow measurements by driving his = EDWP >with an electric motor. The EDWP can push 34 GPM thru two parallel >evaporator cores at 5600 rpm. Todd Bartrim is seeing over 9 gpm with = an >EWP (Davies- Craig) only system (but that was at 12 V). I have = measured >the flow in my engine with two EWP (Meziere WP136) and two GM evap >cores at about 11-12 GPM. I have "calculated that a WP336 should = give >me about 16 GPM. > >That sums up the measurements I know about. I have just about = decided >to get the WP336 and run my system on 16 GPM. I am a little cautious >about the 12 GPM flow even though Todd is doing OK with less. Living >in New Mexico, I might encounter harsher conditons. :) > >Bob W. (Working hard at collecting hard data.) > > >On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:40:46 -0600 >Jim Sower > = wrote: > > =20 > >>Wasn't someone talking about the 12-16 GPM his EWP was pumping = through his [not running, no EDWP] engine? Assuming 2-3 gal capacity, = that circulates every bit of coolant through the system 5 or 6 times per = minute. That's an entire cycle of coolant every 10 seconds or less. = That sounds pretty fast to me. >> >>Does anyone actually know what the flow through a rotary is with = EDWP? I mean, like measured (the other list can be relied upon to = calculate stuff). Just as important, does anyone actually know how far = open/closed a thermostat is in our applications. I know some folks = don't have thermostats installed. Is it possible that EDWP might be = circulating coolant so fast it doesn't have time to cool off much in the = radiator or heat up much in the block? That the same system would work = as well at lower flow? Or something like that?=20 >> >>It seems to me that all this quibbling about Beemer power levels on = the autobahn ignore the obvious fact that as Leon has attested, EWP = works quite well on the race tracks of Oz. I would hazard a guess that = the stress on the system (WOT nearly all the time, maybe 1/3 the Q = through the cooling system, SL summer temps rather than cruising much = faster (3x the Q) at 80% at much higher/cooler altitudes) would hold a = lot more water than a bunch of Beemer marketing brochures.=20 >> >>The other list is forever making pronouncements about what will or = will not work. Their math is impeccable. The premises they operate = from are not Is it not possible that we are overlooking or = underemphasizing some important factor? That the hybrid (EWP and EDWP) = systems we have online now are distorting the data? Leon's experience = cannot ignore any of the factors. Our estimates can ignore as many as = we want to (or are unaware of). I can't help but think that a little = morel hard data gathered from a purely EWP system will put a lot of the = controversy to rest. >> >>A flawless line of reasoning, based on a false premise leads us = right through the lookin' glass ... >>Jim S. >> >> >>Leon wrote: >>=20 >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Al Gietzen >>To: Rotary motors in aircraft >>Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 5:45 PM >>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: BMW and EWP >> >> >>=20 >> >>In a message dated 3/18/2005 11:24:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, = ALVentures@cox.net writes: >> >>Let’s say the rated hp is at 4800 rpm. The only time you = approach rated power with this car is WOT at 4800 rpm at sealevel on a = 60F day. How long would you ever sustain that condition. >> >>Al >> >>Al, How about 100mph for 20 minutes on the autoban? >> >>Bill >> >>=20 >> >>Ah-h-h-h; you’re getting close now. That‘s probably = about 80% power. But you’d probably have to stop once to pay a = toll, and slow down for the Opal that’s driving in the left laneJ. = Or maybe they don’t sell the EWP version in Germany. >> >>=20 >> >>All >> >> =20 >> >>>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>>> =20 >>>> >>>> Archive: = http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >>>> =20 >>>> > > > =20 > >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive: = http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01C52DAA.D198CEF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There is no data (that I know of) that shows what the minimum = acceptable=20 flow at any given power level is.  But the laws of thermodynamics = are very=20 unambiguous:  Faster is better.
 
Tracy  (hoping this does not result in a quest for 100 GPM = flow=20 rates)
I=20 seem to have missed a lot of posts.  When I'm going to be out of = town=20
for more than couple of days I stop the list.  That could = explain=20 some
of it.  12 GPM and 34 GPM is a pretty wide window of = stuff that=20
apparently works.  34 is like cycling your whole coolant = supply=20 through
the system every 4 seconds or so.  That just seems = really=20 really fast to
me.  It was 40+ years ago last time I studied = this=20 stuff, so all I've
got is intuitive guesses.
Which is, of = course,=20 exactly what I keep complaining about :o) ... Jim S.

Bob White=20 wrote:

>Hi Jim,
>
>Bill Schertz has made the = acutal flow=20 measurements by driving his EDWP
>with an electric motor.  = The EDWP=20 can push 34 GPM thru two parallel
>evaporator cores at 5600 = rpm. =20 Todd Bartrim is seeing over 9 gpm with an
>EWP (Davies- Craig) = only=20 system (but that was at 12 V).  I have measured
>the flow = in my=20 engine with two EWP (Meziere WP136)  and two GM evap
>cores = at=20 about 11-12 GPM.  I have "calculated that a WP336 should = give
>me=20 about 16 GPM.
>
>That sums up the measurements I know = about. =20 I have just about decided
>to get the WP336 and run my system on = 16=20 GPM.  I am a little cautious
>about the 12 GPM flow even = though=20 Todd is doing OK with less.  Living
>in New Mexico, I might = encounter harsher conditons. :)
>
>Bob W. (Working hard at = collecting hard data.)
>
>
>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 = 14:40:46=20 -0600
>Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>= =20 wrote:
>
> 
>
>>Wasn't someone = talking about=20 the 12-16 GPM his EWP was pumping through his [not running, no EDWP]=20 engine?   Assuming 2-3 gal capacity, that circulates every = bit of=20 coolant through the system 5 or 6 times per minute.  That's an = entire=20 cycle of coolant every 10 seconds or less.  That sounds pretty = fast to=20 me.
>>
>>Does anyone actually know what the flow = through a=20 rotary is with EDWP?  I mean, like measured (the other list can = be relied=20 upon to calculate stuff).  Just as important, does anyone = actually know=20 how far open/closed a thermostat is in our applications.  I know = some=20 folks don't have thermostats installed.  Is it possible that EDWP = might=20 be circulating coolant so fast it doesn't have time to cool off much = in the=20 radiator or heat up much in the block?  That the same system = would work=20 as well at lower flow?  Or something like that?=20
>>
>>It seems to me that all this quibbling about = Beemer=20 power levels on the autobahn ignore the obvious fact that as Leon has=20 attested, EWP works quite well on the race tracks of Oz.  I would = hazard=20 a guess that the stress on the system (WOT nearly all the time, maybe = 1/3 the=20 Q through the cooling system, SL summer temps rather than cruising = much faster=20 (3x the Q) at 80% at much higher/cooler altitudes) would hold a lot = more water=20 than a bunch of Beemer marketing brochures. =
>>
>>The other=20 list is forever making pronouncements about what will or will not = work. =20 Their math is impeccable.  The premises they operate from are = not =20 Is it not possible that we are overlooking or underemphasizing some = important=20 factor?  That the hybrid (EWP and EDWP) systems we have online = now are=20 distorting the data?  Leon's experience cannot ignore any of the=20 factors.  Our estimates can ignore as many as we want to (or are = unaware=20 of).  I can't help but think that a little morel hard data = gathered from=20 a purely EWP system will put a lot of the controversy to=20 rest.
>>
>>A flawless line of reasoning, based on a = false=20 premise leads us right through the lookin' glass ...
>>Jim=20 S.
>>
>>
>>Leon wrote:
>>=20
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Al=20 Gietzen
>>To: Rotary motors in aircraft
>>Sent: = Sunday,=20 March 20, 2005 5:45 PM
>>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: BMW and=20 EWP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>In a = message=20 dated 3/18/2005 11:24:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, ALVentures@cox.net=20 writes:
>>
>>Let&#8217;s say the rated hp is at = 4800=20 rpm. The only time you approach rated power with this car is WOT at = 4800 rpm=20 at sealevel on a 60F day.  How long would you ever sustain that=20 condition.
>>
>>Al
>>
>>Al, How = about=20 100mph for 20 minutes on the=20 autoban?
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>=20
>>
>>Ah-h-h-h; you&#8217;re getting close = now. =20 That&#8216;s probably about 80% power.  But you&#8217;d = probably=20 have to stop once to pay a toll, and slow down for the Opal = that&#8217;s=20 driving in the left laneJ.  Or maybe they don&#8217;t sell = the EWP=20 version in Germany.
>>
>>=20
>>
>>All
>>
>>   =20
>>
>>>> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>&= gt;>>       =20
>>>>
>>>> Archive:   http://lancai= ronline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>>>  =      =20
>>>>
>
>
> =20
>

>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>&= gt; =20 Archive:   http://lancai= ronline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_0097_01C52DAA.D198CEF0--