Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:44:20 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-2644405@logan.com>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
References: <list-2642501@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: RotaryEng List was Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Series vs PARALLEL pumps & flowmeter
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Ed Anderson wrote:

> Paul Lamar appears to have access to the FlyRotary List.  I just got a
couple
> of blistering e mails from him.  In that somebody provided him a copy of
an
> e mail exchange from this list.

Let me add my voice to the chorus of those happy to have you here, Ed.

Personally, I'm a member of both lists, and I take everything EITHER side
says with a grain of salt. Paul does often have a one-sided view of things,
but he is still full of useful information, and they're currently debating a
muffler design that looks very interesting to me. On the other hand, if the
EWP works, it works, and I'll be happy enough with that. Cooling the rotary
has turned out to be as much art as science anyway, since nobody has the
perfect answer yet.

For what it's worth, my view is that Paul is very much a theoretician - he
likes to prove his cases before he starts experimenting. The EWP is more
"bucket chemistry" - toss some stuff into a bucket, and see what happens.
Look, we didn't even have accurate data on impeller flow obstruction. In
response to my e-mail the makers said the flow should be almost
unobstructed, but (was it you, Russell? I forgot already!) somebody already
showed that this is NOT the case, so we're back to talking about check
valves and parallel setups.

There's enough that's unproven here that I'm acknowledging that I'll be
taking a bit of both styles as I put this together. Then I'll test the hell
out of it. And no battles.

=)

Regards,
Chad


Thanks Chad,

    Yes, I agree, that is one reason why I stayed on Paul's list for as long
as I did.  We all venture an opinion (which is different from data and
knowledge) and can all be wrong at times.  But, hey, that's why we are here
exchanging viewpoints and experiences.

   I think Paul is  a theoretician as well, which means only perfection can
ever be the goal, whereas I am an engineer and close-enough just might be
good-enough {:>).  I think Paul does a lot of research and is clearly a
reader of just about anything techncial.  However, I also think he will
focus on one aspect and ignore a number of equal valid aspects or
interpretations.

  So Just because I am no longer on Paul's list does not mean I would
suggest to anyone else that they should not be.  The only reason this list
exists is because of Paul's unwillingness to accommodate a different
viewpoint about "Plugs Up".  I guess that is one thing I do hold against
Paul, with a bit different handling of things he could have been a
solidifying force for the rotary community, but instead split it almost from
the beginning.

   I would certainly encourage anyone who finds it useful to stay on Paul's
list, after all there is room in this country for different view points {:>)

Best Regards

Ed Anderson