Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: flyrotary Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:05:01 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from ncsmtp03.ogw.rr.com ([24.93.67.84] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b9) with ESMTP id 1830521 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:26:35 -0400 Received: from mail6.carolina.rr.com (fe6 [24.93.67.53]) by ncsmtp03.ogw.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9HDQIib021570 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:26:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from o7y6b5 ([24.25.90.153]) by mail6.carolina.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:26:32 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <003201c275e1$6e95d600$1702a8c0@WorkGroup> From: "Ed Anderson" X-Original-To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Tech Data X-Original-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:31:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01C275BF.E762A440" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C275BF.E762A440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Al, Rusty, My take is not that the EWP is 57 times more efficient than a = mechanical water pump. If I understood the charts on the Davies EWP = site, it indicates to me that a mechanical pump at engine rpm of 6000 = may be a case of a lot of wasted power. In other words, at the higher = rpm a lot of the energy is simply wasted in churning water through = restrictions, surface friction and against head pressure. That would seem to imply that perhaps a mechanical pump could be = turned at a lot lower rpm and still provide adequate coolant circulation = flow rate for cooling. If however, this is the case - you would have = thought the OEM of autos would have jumped on that like a dog on a bone = to gain a 5% increase. Although the cost/benefit trade-off reasons for = manufacturing mulit million units may have dictated otherwise. As Leon points out the 80 lit/min flow is equivalent to approx 25 US = gallons/min. The only figure I recall seeing on the Mazda (if memory = serves me correctly) coolant is approx 13 GPM flow. If that is the = case, then the data on the EWP indicates it will have no problem meeting = the flow needs of the rotary. . So, I don't think anyone is claiming the EWP is 57 times more = efficient than a mechanical pump, however, it does seem to imply = mechanical pumps at engine rpm of 6000 are wasting a lot of energy to no = additional cooling benefit. =20 Thats my 0.02 worth on the topic and I think I'll now wait to see what = we hear from Todd. Best Regards Ed Anderson flow----- Original Message -----=20 From: Al Gietzen=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 8:43 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Tech Data Some improvement in=20 efficiency over a belt drive wouldnt surprise me, but 57 times as=20 efficient? That would be a shocking improvement in efficiency. You'd = think=20 that the OEM's would be all over that. Not only would 57 times as efficient be shocking; it is impossible. = A 1 1/2 times increase would qualify as amazing. Al ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C275BF.E762A440 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Al, Rusty,

My take is not that = the EWP is=20 57 times more efficient than a mechanical water pump. If I = understood the=20 charts on the Davies EWP site, it indicates to me that a mechanical pump = at=20 engine rpm of 6000 may be a case of a lot of wasted power. In = other words,=20 at the higher rpm a lot of the energy is simply wasted in churning water = through=20 restrictions, surface friction and against head = pressure.

That would seem to imply that = perhaps a=20 mechanical pump could be turned at a lot lower rpm and still provide = adequate=20 coolant circulation flow rate for cooling. If however, = this is=20 the case - you would have thought the OEM of autos would have jumped on = that=20 like a dog on a bone to gain a 5% increase. Although the = cost/benefit=20 trade-off reasons for manufacturing mulit million units may have = dictated=20 otherwise.

As Leon points out the 80 lit/min flow is equivalent to = approx 25 US=20 gallons/min. The only figure I recall seeing on = the Mazda (if=20 memory serves me correctly) coolant is approx 13 GPM flow. If that = is the=20 case, then the data on the EWP indicates it will have no problem = meeting=20 the flow needs of the rotary. .

So, I don't think = anyone is=20 claiming the EWP is 57 times more efficient than a mechanical pump, = however, it=20 does seem to imply mechanical pumps at engine rpm of 6000 are wasting a = lot of=20 energy to no additional cooling benefit.

Thats my 0.02 worth on the topic = and I think=20 I'll now wait to see what we hear from Todd.

Best Regards

Ed Anderson

flow----- Original Message -----

From:=20 Al=20 Gietzen
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft

Sent: Thursday, October 17, = 2002 8:43=20 AM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP = Tech=20 Data

Some improvement in
efficiency over a belt drive = wouldnt=20 surprise me, but 57 times as
efficient? That would be a shocking = improvement in efficiency. You'd think
that the OEM's would be = all over=20 that.

Not only would 57 times as = efficient be=20 shocking; it is impossible. A 1 1/2 times increase would = qualify=20 as amazing.

Al

------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C275BF.E762A440--