Mass X Volume = Thrust
How do we actually know more water is being moved because the pump is more effecient?
You can't cut the quotes short manReally? Give an instance where a pump can move more water with less efficiency with the same power input? Comes down to pure physics.
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.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
Info,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..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
very interesting,thanks for sharing.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.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
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
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.The short answer is trialand error. You need clocks at the races or data acq. to have an idea.
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.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.
disagree. 660' is not enough to get a valid comparison.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![]()
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: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.
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.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.
disagree. 660' is not enough to get a valid comparison.
?
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?
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.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![]()
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 efficencydevil
S CP
Bif Inch Ford Lover![]()