Return-Path: Received: from [65.33.166.167] (account ) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.0b9) with HTTP id 1831143 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:07:34 -0400 From: "Marvin Kaye" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP adapter pics To: flyrotary X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.4.0b9 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:07:34 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3DAF870D.D7C601DC@starband.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Posted for Jim Sower : <... do you plug this hole or not ...> Just off the top of my head, I would say yes. EWP doesn't need a thermostat since the motor doesn't start pumping until the water gets hot. No kind of bypass is needed except to vent air from any high spots in the water jacket. As for relative efficiency, I have a big BIG problem with the power that some folks claimed the engine driven water pump (EDWP) absorbed, i.e. 6000 watts. Like 8 hp. Like over FOUR HUNDRED amps (Ed correctly pointed out that it was the equivalent of starter current draw on a BIG engine. I tried to think this through: Could I start my engine with just a water pump belt connecting the starter with the crank?? Indefinitely?? Where's a belt that could drive a 6000 watt (450 amp) alternator? How long would my pisant 1/2" water pump belt last, driving that alternator? That 6000 watts figure sounds more preposterous the more I think about it. That said, I have no doubt that the EWP is enormously more efficient overall than the EDWPs that we're all used to. Nor do I doubt that it's efficient enough to operate off of a normal sized alternator that most of us use. Just that somebody's overstating their case. Like by a @($^$% ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. Let's get real, girls. Just tryin' to do the math .... :o)) Jim S.