Performance Boats Forum banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I posted my engine HP as 800 and I was turning an "A" impeller 6,500 RPM

It was pointed out that there is no way and my pump is ineffecient.

As it turns out yes the pump was not loading properly.

So...... With all the recent comparisons of this boat pump turns this impeller this RPM with this HP but this boat only turns the same impeller this much less RPM with more hp so the pump is more effecient.

How do we know the more effecient pump is actually moving more water? The boat goes much faster and quicker than the boat with the same impeller but more RPM?

Seems to me that a restrictive pump would load the engine down giving a false impression of more effecient. Less RPM like a cavitating pump gives more RPM

How do we actually know more water is being moved because the pump is more effecient? Based on just HP and RPM
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Really? Give an instance where a pump can move more water with less efficiency with the same power input? Comes down to pure physics.
You can't cut the quotes short man

I'm asking a question and apparently poorly.

If a boat turns XYZ impeller less RPM with more HP that another boat...... how do we know it's due to the pump is more effecient and moving more water rather than just restrictive?

Restrictive seems to me would do the same thing. Cause less RPM with more HP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,731 Posts
I'm asking a question and apparently poorly.

If a boat turns XYZ impeller less RPM with more HP that another boat...... how do we know the pump is more effecient and moving more water rather than just restrictive?

Restrictive seems to me would do the same thing. Cause less RPM with more HP
Sorry, I can answer that question better, typically when a pump is restrictive it will cavitate the impeller and thus letting it spin higher rpm with less water flow. If the water is unable to properly load the impeller it will cause that cavitation. As water flows around the veins inside the pump it can either do one of two things create air bubbles and caviation or flow smoothly around the veins and allow water to enter and exit the impeller/ volute assembly with a certain pressure and head.

With turbos and forced induction these are nothing more than air pumps. Have very similar properties as to how they flow. Now with a turbo or blower the boost number that we see is taken down stream of the pump and is a measure of restriction. That is why when you change something like exhaust to less restrictive the boost pressure goes down and making the efficiency increase.

How this applies to a water pump is looking down stream of the impeller you have to look at the exit volute(or in this case the bowl and nozzle assembly) The nozzle diameter is the last (restriction if you want to call it) that the water sees. By changing that nozzle will change flow inside the pump as well, now not all restriction is a bad thing. This is where thrust is created thus moving the boat forward. If you make the nozzle too big will be just as bad as making it too small. You have to have a balanced flow into and out of the pump to be efficient otherwise cavitation is a direct result, and it won't matter how much power you put to the impeller.

As a side note that is why most of the really fast boats are running data acquisition, we are trying to balance the pressures in the pump to make it the most efficient. The data before and after the impeller is very important and it taken at several points along the way.
 

·
Resident Ford Nut
Joined
·
10,033 Posts
I was somewhat heading there on my last post and you closed that thread on me when I hit " enter". :(:( :):)punch

The short answer is trail and error. You need clocks at the races or data acq. to have an idea. A radar gun or GPS will not answer the question. I have a new AT HH "A" sitting that I'm going to run against my current MPD Legend "B"( 6,200 off the bottle 99.8 mph best and 6,800 109 on the bottle) it will be run as is out of the box to see what it does,it's expected to turn 5,800-5,900 off the bottle, it will then be detailed to turn an expected 6,500-6,600 off the bottle.

I've been told by a few here to expect the HH to ET better but loose a few mph. That is something that is not measurable without clocks. My Radar/Laptop testing system will be able to do it but without it you would need the track.

The impeller charts that have been posted by me and others have worked well for me in the past. They do not work for a MPD detailed impeller. You can use Jack's impeller for this exercise. The impeller charts say that a "B" impeller will absorb 825 hp at 6,800 rpm. The MPD "B" absorbs 825hp at 6,200 which reads like an " A+" on the chart. The fact that the MPD impeller "bites" more does that equate to being more efficient? That's a good question. If I ran an "A+" at 6,200 and the boat ran 99 and the smaller cut MPD "B" turned 6,200 at 99 I'd say the smaller impeller is more efficient.

Other than a Pump dyno (test bed) the only particle way to test is ET and MPH over a set distance and 660' it probably good enough for that.

I was hoping to see some posted info over this past year on the in-boat impeller dyno (strain gauge attached to the input shaft in the boat).

Edit: I've worked on this in the past with our boat by taking the mph and dividing it by the rpm it took to achieve it. IE 99(mph)/62 (6200 rpm) = 1.59 mph per 100 rpm. If a different impeller propelled the boat at 104 mph at 6,400 that would be 104/64=1.62 mph per 100 rpm. Which is more efficient ? This is mph and has nothing to do with ET.

At one point the AT 9.25 AA ran 93mph at 5,200= 93/52(100) = 1.78 mph per 100 rpm. If the current Legend was that efficient it would be 1.78 mph x 62(100)rpm= 110.3 mph
As it is the Legend is 99/62(100) = 1.59 mph per 100 rpm.

When I run the new AT HH I will compare the mph/RPM using this system. It's the best way I've been able to figure how to do it. But I'm up for suggestions ?

That's a hell of a goal. I could be done playing with the boat.

Just my .02

Sleeper CP :D
 

·
Sit N' Spin
Joined
·
1,345 Posts
While not being the ONLY thing that can affect max MPH (boat weight and how it rides come into play here as well), the comparison of RPM required to get the boat to a certain speed can be a good indicator of this.

Basically if you took the same boat, installed pump "A" into it, ran it and turned 6500 RPM and did 95MPH, then installed pump "B" and turned 6800 RPM but only did say...87, it's pretty clear that pump "B" is much less efficient than pump "A" (was doing less MPH for more RPM).

In regards to flow, one would think efficiency would be a measurement gallons of water flowed per RPM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
So I posted my engine HP as 800 and I was turning an "A" impeller 6,500 RPM

It was pointed out that there is no way and my pump is ineffecient.

As it turns out yes the pump was not loading properly.

So...... With all the recent comparisons of this boat pump turns this impeller this RPM with this HP but this boat only turns the same impeller this much less RPM with more hp so the pump is more effecient.

How do we know the more effecient pump is actually moving more water? The boat goes much faster and quicker than the boat with the same impeller but more RPM?

Seems to me that a restrictive pump would load the engine down giving a false impression of more effecient. Less RPM like a cavitating pump gives more RPM

How do we actually know more water is being moved because the pump is more effecient? Based on just HP and RPM
Info,
I have asked myself the same question many times over the last 20 years of testing boats with different impellars and engine combo's.
When I first got my 1999 19 ft. stealth set up by Tom Papp I installed a 572 blown chevy that made 930hp on the dyno. I ran an aggressor pump with a stock a/b aggressor impellar that turned 6900 rpm's. Tom set the pump and droop snoot with no wedges and a place divertor. The boat went 99mph on the radar gun. After installing a stuffer plate, different loader, dropping the shoe, changing the shoe to a backcut shoe from Jack Mcclure, changing to a short droop and various other changes one at a time the boat eventually ran 117mph and with no changes to the motor the rpm's dropped to 6400. I had Jack blueprint the pump and he modified the impellar. The rpm's dropped to 5950 by the computer and still went 117 mph.
Each change I made had a direct effect on the lowering of the rpm's and each change gave an increase in speed.
Hope this does not muddy up the question too much.
Kojac
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
So I posted my engine HP as 800 and I was turning an "A" impeller 6,500 RPM

It was pointed out that there is no way and my pump is ineffecient.

As it turns out yes the pump was not loading properly.

So...... With all the recent comparisons of this boat pump turns this impeller this RPM with this HP but this boat only turns the same impeller this much less RPM with more hp so the pump is more effecient.

How do we know the more effecient pump is actually moving more water? The boat goes much faster and quicker than the boat with the same impeller but more RPM?

Seems to me that a restrictive pump would load the engine down giving a false impression of more effecient. Less RPM like a cavitating pump gives more RPM

How do we actually know more water is being moved because the pump is more effecient? Based on just HP and RPM
It's not, nor will it ever be that simple.......There are way too many things coming into play that just X RPM and Y impeller..

You have to see the pump as a small component of a larger machine. Let's say the pump was 100% efficient (Impossible BTW) and was installed in a 1000 HP 6000 RPM scenerio (that's an assload of torque). just the angle the pump is installed in the hull can make an incredible difference in the outcome as far as efficiency (not fuel mileage, but use of pump pressure to obtain outlet speed and volume/thrust).

The same setup, spinning say 7000 RPM with a pump efficiency of 80% (pretty real) may have a better result because of the way the pump is instaled in the hull, we are talking enourmous amounts of water and literally bending it for a nano second and making a 300-600 pound change of pressure and expect the results to be spot on each time. From what I have seen, no two pumps are the same.

Interesting question in the "how do we know more water is moving" part, if more water is being moved, the pressure differential will increase, period.

GT :)hand
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
I'm not a pump guru, i built mine and it is nice and tight, but my pump understanding is still very limited. Saying that, one thing i have heard, which seems to bring up differing ideas from pump guy to pump guy is intake pressure. I've heard some say they want the least amount of intake pressure possible without cavitation, and i've heard some say they want to see the maximum amount of intake pressure that still allow for safe shutdown. (I think I'm remembering this correctly) But it seems to me this is a debate where people are all over the board, yet in my head it also seems that this would be a large resistance factor...or load the impeller has to overcome that would effect rpm and efficiency.

Am i thinking about this correctly? There are many that know way more about this than me, but thought id bring it up, because it was the first thing i thought of while reading this effeciency/rpm/hp question.

AP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,674 Posts
Info,
I have asked myself the same question many times over the last 20 years of testing boats with different impellars and engine combo's.
When I first got my 1999 19 ft. stealth set up by Tom Papp I installed a 572 blown chevy that made 930hp on the dyno. I ran an aggressor pump with a stock a/b aggressor impellar that turned 6900 rpm's. Tom set the pump and droop snoot with no wedges and a place divertor. The boat went 99mph on the radar gun. After installing a stuffer plate, different loader, dropping the shoe, changing the shoe to a backcut shoe from Jack Mcclure, changing to a short droop and various other changes one at a time the boat eventually ran 117mph and with no changes to the motor the rpm's dropped to 6400. I had Jack blueprint the pump and he modified the impellar. The rpm's dropped to 5950 by the computer and still went 117 mph.
Each change I made had a direct effect on the lowering of the rpm's and each change gave an increase in speed.
Hope this does not muddy up the question too much.
Kojac
very interesting,thanks for sharing.
 

·
Amber Racing Services
Joined
·
4,250 Posts
Info,
I have asked myself the same question many times over the last 20 years of testing boats with different impellars and engine combo's.
When I first got my 1999 19 ft. stealth set up by Tom Papp I installed a 572 blown chevy that made 930hp on the dyno. I ran an aggressor pump with a stock a/b aggressor impellar that turned 6900 rpm's. Tom set the pump and droop snoot with no wedges and a place divertor. The boat went 99mph on the radar gun. After installing a stuffer plate, different loader, dropping the shoe, changing the shoe to a backcut shoe from Jack Mcclure, changing to a short droop and various other changes one at a time the boat eventually ran 117mph and with no changes to the motor the rpm's dropped to 6400. I had Jack blueprint the pump and he modified the impellar. The rpm's dropped to 5950 by the computer and still went 117 mph.
Each change I made had a direct effect on the lowering of the rpm's and each change gave an increase in speed.
Hope this does not muddy up the question too much.
Kojac
Thus showing that a more efficient pump will flow more water while at the same time pulling the rpm's down. You picked up 18mph and lowered your RPM by 950.


It makes sense that if the pump is doing it's job properly (just like a well built tranny) that it will place more of a load on the engine and have a better output.
 

·
Resident Ford Nut
Joined
·
10,033 Posts
Info,
I have asked myself the same question many times over the last 20 years of testing boats with different impellars and engine combo's.
When I first got my 1999 19 ft. stealth set up by Tom Papp I installed a 572 blown chevy that made 930hp on the dyno. I ran an aggressor pump with a stock a/b aggressor impellar that turned 6900 rpm's. Tom set the pump and droop snoot with no wedges and a place divertor. The boat went 99mph on the radar gun. After installing a stuffer plate, different loader, dropping the shoe, changing the shoe to a backcut shoe from Jack Mcclure, changing to a short droop and various other changes one at a time the boat eventually ran 117mph and with no changes to the motor the rpm's dropped to 6400. I had Jack blueprint the pump and he modified the impellar. The rpm's dropped to 5950 by the computer and still went 117 mph.
Each change I made had a direct effect on the lowering of the rpm's and each change gave an increase in speed.
Hope this does not muddy up the question too much.
Kojac

Apply my formula to that.

99/69(100 rpm)= 1.43 mph per 100 rpm

117/64 (100 rpm) = 1.82 mph per 100 rpm

117/59.5 (100 rpm) = 1.96 mph per 100 rpm

That's a perfect example of increased efficency :)devil

S CP

Bif Inch Ford Lover :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
696 Posts
Im new to pumps, that being said, in the name of pump efficiency would a "G" gauge reading have any merritt? Like to measure how hard the pump is pushing the boat.
 

·
Thrust Whisperer
Joined
·
87 Posts
Sah-weeet! Somebody is asking the right questions!!!
I will be getting into a long rant when I put out Vol 2 of the Handbook. For now I will try to keep it short.

The mythical, magical "Impeller HP curves" are only useful for one scenario that I can think of: Making an approximate match of motor hp/rpm to an approximate impeller size. Now this IS a useful scenario which is why a lot of people like them.

But the charts are USELESS for comparing one make/model of impeller to another. And they are USELESS for expressing what the pump/impeller's power conversion efficiency is. (Converting shaft HP into hydraulic HP.)

An industrial cake batter mixer can have the exact same absorbed power curve as an "AA" cut impeller, but it won't generate one mouse turd of thrust. The more efficient a pump/impeller system is at converting shaft power to hydraulic power, the more potential it has at creating thrust. The power conversion efficiency of a pump/impeller system is = output (hydraulic) power / input (shaft) power.

Shaft power is a well understood formula that takes rpm and observed torque and converts into units of HP or kW or any other recognized power unit of measure. On a dyno it is easy to measure. In a boat you need to have a "dynamic torque ring" (or similar sensor) installed if you want to measure shaft power into the pump. It is doable but expensive.

Hydraulic power is also a well understood formula that takes flow rate and pressure and converts into units of HP or kW. On a boat, pressure is easy to measure and (accurate) flow rate is really hard. There are several types of flow rate meters/sensors but they all have tradeoffs and most of them can't work well in the environment of a jet boat (and with the 1,000's of gpm we are talking about).

The most practical way of trying to get accurate flow rate data is to use a pitot tube in the flow downstream of the impeller - most likely after the split bowl face. The sensor has to be rigged to read "dynamic pressure". And even then, you still have to make assumptions about what the water density and velocity profile is at the location you are sensing.

But IF you do all of this and talk yourself into believing that you are getting accurate shaft torque and flow rate data, then you can infer what the efficiency of the pump/impeller system is and can compare one make/design of hardware with another. If you had this data, then you could create a VERY useful graph that would look kind of like this:
Text Line Green Plot Slope


In my example, Impeller #1 is better because it moves more flow with less input HP. If impeller vendors had these kinds of charts, we jet boaters could make much better decisions. Now to defend the vendors, with the size of customer market we have, they can't really justify the economics of doing these tests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,655 Posts
The short answer is trialand error. You need clocks at the races or data acq. to have an idea.
not always trial and error. if you have clocks and data, test results can be -somewhat- predictable. without that info, then you're getting into trial and error. there are many things i've tested where i knew the boat would go faster/quicker, or slower, before i ever tested it - i may not have known exactly how much quicker or slower, but i knew there would be a change. and, just to toss another wrench into it, a known result from a change at one track can be very different at another track that has different characteristics.

A radar gun or GPS will not answer the question. I have a new AT HH "A" sitting that I'm going to run against my current MPD Legend "B"( 6,200 off the bottle 99.8 mph best and 6,800 109 on the bottle) it will be run as is out of the box to see what it does,it's expected to turn 5,800-5,900 off the bottle, it will then be detailed to turn an expected 6,500-6,600 off the bottle.

I've been told by a few here to expect the HH to ET better but loose a few mph. That is something that is not measurable without clocks. My Radar/Laptop testing system will be able to do it but without it you would need the track.

The impeller charts that have been posted by me and others have worked well for me in the past. They do not work for a MPD detailed impeller. You can use Jack's impeller for this exercise. The impeller charts say that a "B" impeller will absorb 825 hp at 6,800 rpm. The MPD "B" absorbs 825hp at 6,200 which reads like an " A+" on the chart. The fact that the MPD impeller "bites" more does that equate to being more efficient? That's a good question. If I ran an "A+" at 6,200 and the boat ran 99 and the smaller cut MPD "B" turned 6,200 at 99 I'd say the smaller impeller is more efficient.
true. but one more thing - different brand impellers that are blueprinted by mpd behave differently. for example, years ago when we changed from an mpd blueprinted berk B to an mpd blueprinted legend B, we lost around 200 rpm while going .20+ quicker.

Other than a Pump dyno (test bed) the only particle way to test is ET and MPH over a set distance and 660' it probably good enough for that.

Sleeper CP :D
disagree. 660' is not enough to get a valid comparison.

Widowmaker said:
If you make the nozzle too big will be just as bad as making it too small. You have to have a balanced flow into and out of the pump to be efficient otherwise cavitation is a direct result, and it won't matter how much power you put to the impeller.
the effect of going large diameter or small diameter is very different. i've tested from 3.23 to 2.90. both will result in slower speed/et, but how that occurs is very different. and i've never cavitated anything due to nozzle diamter changes.

Widowmaker said:
As a side note that is why most of the really fast boats are running data acquisition, we are trying to balance the pressures in the pump to make it the most efficient. The data before and after the impeller is very important and it taken at several points along the way.
true, but a boat doesn't have to be really fast to benefit from data acquisition. data doesn't make the boat run faster or quicker. but it's an invaluable tool, along with what the boat looked like, what it felt like, and what the timeslip said.

i'm not one of the guys that is trying to run as absolutely fast as the boat can go everytime i go on the water. been there, done that, not what i'm interested in. at any race location, from oregon to arkansas, i have very little time to plant the boat on a number, and then know what changes will make it very slightly quicker or slower. then i can race.
at a recent race, i'm sitting next to a boat in my class, driver leaves and i can hear a problem. after i run, sitting next to the driver, i say "hey, it did this...", and the driver (knowing there's something not right, but not exactly when/where) asks me to explain what i saw to the crewchief, so i do. couple qualifying rounds later, i'm sitting next to it again, and it does something different (still not right). i go tell the crewchief what i saw that time. by the 2nd round of elims (which is a little late), they finally have it responding correctly so they redlight...
while data wouldn't have fixed their problem or pointed directly at the cause, the crewchief would have been able to see exactly what happened when, and the effect, which is invaluable when you've got to thrash on something to get it working right.

info, given your stated hp, your engine is spinning considerably too much rpm for an A impeller. i would have to run my C to get the engine close to that rpm, and it's making quite a bit more than 800 at 6500. why your pump is performing like this is just speculation.
where/when is your next race? will you be going to marble falls?
 

·
Resident Ford Nut
Joined
·
10,033 Posts
disagree. 660' is not enough to get a valid comparison.


?

2 out of 3 isn't bad. :)

I'd guess your boat is 93-94% done at 660' ( speed) what's your typical 1/2 track speed vs typical trap speed when you don't lift. I know that's a problem for you bracket racers when lifting at the light. But nonetheless you have a good idea.

When Segni was over Monday afternoon we kind of figured the typical river race is over from 175-200 yrds. Note "typical" yes some are longer but not most. Wouldn't 660' kind of establish your "trend" line for this kind of deal?
But a racer to know everything needs the full run or at least 1,000 ft I'd agree.

S CP :D
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
My first post was before jacking with the hardware. It ended up turning about 5,900 RPM after getting the pump to load. But never got intake pressure to read more than 5 lbs.

Next race is Choteau Bend. Aug 1st. We will skip Lubbock and wait for Malvern.

Currently we have an unstamped MPD detailed bronze B with an inducer purchased from HTP. The intake is a mess and have a 3.090 bushing. Got the intake pressure to 40

It flashes 7k for a split sec and runs out about 6,600 RPM. Can leave flat foot from a dead stop. Picked up 2 or 3 GPS MPH and it pulls real hard.

Don't have a time slip on this new combo until Choteau.


bp298 said:
info, given your stated hp, your engine is spinning considerably too much rpm for an A impeller. i would have to run my C to get the engine close to that rpm, and it's making quite a bit more than 800 at 6500. why your pump is performing like this is just speculation.
where/when is your next race? will you be going to marble falls?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,655 Posts
2 out of 3 isn't bad. :)

I'd guess your boat is 93-94% done at 660' ( speed) what's your typical 1/2 track speed vs typical trap speed when you don't lift. I know that's a problem for you bracket racers when lifting at the light. But nonetheless you have a good idea.

When Segni was over Monday afternoon we kind of figured the typical river race is over from 175-200 yrds. Note "typical" yes some are longer but not most. Wouldn't 660' kind of establish your "trend" line for this kind of deal?
But a racer to know everything needs the full run or at least 1,000 ft I'd agree.

S CP :D
more like 88-92%, but it depends on what i'm trying to do and how i'm doing it. i can change quite a few things that will affect 1/2 track et quite a bit, but changing impellers is a whole different deal and to validate one against another, i'd say you'd need at least 1000', but better if 1320'. especially with a heavy deal like mine or yours. ron's junk wasn't heavy, kind of like the old guy. they'll be closer to all done at the 1/8 than you or i would be. even on the biz, which was a relatively light tunnel, you could use 93-94% almost like clockwork.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Thats an interesting formula until you change the impeller.

We started out with 1.35
Bumped it to 1.52 got 2 MPH and 2 10ths

Changed the Impeller

Now we are at 1.41 but 3 MPH faster and 2 10ths quicker than the 1.52

And our time slips show MPH increasing every increment to the finish line.


Apply my formula to that.

99/69(100 rpm)= 1.43 mph per 100 rpm

117/64 (100 rpm) = 1.82 mph per 100 rpm

117/59.5 (100 rpm) = 1.96 mph per 100 rpm

That's a perfect example of increased efficency :)devil

S CP

Bif Inch Ford Lover :D
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top