Milwaukee Midget

[fordboy628]

Forum members, guests, occasional readers,

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Kwanzaa, etc, etc, etc . . . . . .

Regardless of your background, ethnicity, beliefs, politics, religious persuasion, we all share the common interests of racing & performance.

We should also share one other interest . . .  the hope for Peace on Earth, within our lifetime.    (Well, at least until the aliens come to enslave or eat us . . . .)

I hope you choose to be part of the solution.   Not making a choice, just makes you part of the problem . . . . . . .

I hope you will think about it . . . . .

Mark

[fordboy628]

Midget,

You will find this site interesting:

http://www.med-engineering.co.uk/catalogue/engine-assembly/plates-covers/water-pump-blanking-plate

Other items may be of interest as well . . . . .

Fordboy

[Milwaukee Midget]

My pump tests have been forestalled due to the holidays - I will conclude them and report as promised.

Don's been pushing the electric pump thing - and now Mark finds a source to make a quick, easy retrofit.

I don't disagree with the obvious benefits.  My previous disinclination was based on the cobble-crafted engineering that I would have had to do to make it work.

But if a bolt-on adapter is readily available - well, now I'll take a serious look at it.

My concern is if it will clear the cam belt drive cover.

Yes - a Merry Christmas from all of us in Beerhaven - where the party is just getting under way - provided you don't count last night. 

[Jon]

Would recommend an electric water pump for a few of reasons;
1. Parasitic hp loss is significant
2. Better flow control over varying revs
3. Reliability of electric vs belt drive at high rpm
4. Can keep the pump running post run to stop hot spots.

Would not recommend an electric lubricatiion pump for a couple reasons;
1. no oil flow because of a blown fuse/broken wire/ missed switch in starting sequence etc will cause a dead engine very quickly
2. Volume requirement is engine rpm related

My opinion only
jon

[Milwaukee Midget]

True, Jon - I do not want an engine that runs without lubrication integrally corresponding with the rotating assembly.

A belt driven dry sump is something that still scares me a bit, and that would require a ton of engineering I'm not up to this year, although I see our buddy Joe Radosevich here in Beerhaven has a used Huffaker kit up for sale.  :|

For certain, a scraper, a tray and probably a lighter viscosity oil is on the list.

We did lose 2/3 of the speed the pump turned at with the Gilmer drive over the stock configuration, but again, at this point, it's gone beyond horsepower to Newtons.

[Milwaukee Midget]

Probably the coolest Christmas gift I've ever received. 

About a month ago, Kate and I went to a few antique shops.  There was one dealer who had some Starrett adjustable bore gauges for $5.00 each – I snapped them up without even haggling.

In his stall, he had a mid 1950's Kennedy model 520 7 Drawer Machinist's tool chest.  My dad has one, but not quite as old.  They're a quality box at every level.

Not beat, clearly old, but with a nice patina on it – very functional and in great physical shape, priced about right.  I passed on it, despite needing storage for my ever increasing number of micrometers, dial indicators, radius gauges, calipers, etc.

I had no idea I had made Kate's Christmas shopping this easy.



Just too cool, that Mrs. Midget . . . 

[fordboy628]

Not beat, clearly old, but with a nice patina on it – very functional and in great physical shape, priced about right.  I passed on it, despite needing storage for my ever increasing number of micrometers, dial indicators, radius gauges, calipers, etc.

Midget,

How unfair is life?  I mean come on, requiring precision tools to work on a BMC!!!       

Fordboy

[Milwaukee Midget]

Well, there WAS a leather and pewter umbrella stand full of sledge hammers at the antique shop - maybe I should exchange it? 

[fordboy628]

Well, there WAS a leather and pewter umbrella stand full of sledge hammers at the antique shop - maybe I should exchange it? 

Whatever works for you . . . . . .     although I'm the dope who started you on this science "stuff" . . . . . . .   

F/B

[Podunk]

Why not put nitrous in the roll cage? 

[Seldom Seen Slim]

Podunk -- is your real name Smokey Yunick?

[fordboy628]

Midget, Rex,

What do you think of this formula?

http://www.wallaceracing.com/oil-pump-hp-calc.php

If the formula is accurate, it would stop a lot of debate . . . .

Fordboy

[Interested Observer]

MM, Rex, F/B;
The Wallace calculation is the same as Rex's and is the correct way to calculate hydraulic horsepower, although it neglects friction losses.  (However, in reply #3408 Rex inadvertently mis-stated that the pump efficiency is a multiplicative factor when it should be a divisor in the expression.)

As Fordboy alludes to and Rex stated, there isn't a lot of Hp going into pumping the oil.  The whole discussion about the bypass flow was an effort to head MM off from an essentially pointless endeavor and possibly unnecessary expense.

[Rex Schimmer]

IO,
Just to do a "CYA" on my formula, which I wrote as:HP=GPM x PSI/1714 x (pump efficiency) which means in a verbal description: flow rate, in GPM, multiplied by the pressure, in PSI, divided by the constant 1714 that is multiplied by the pump efficiency as a percentage. So in affect the pump efficiency is a divisor and it make the horse power required higher than if the pump were 100% efficient.

IO is correct regarding friction loss, especially in gear pumps as shaft seal friction can be a large part of the total parasitic power loss especially as the pressure increase and the seal is energized by the increased pressure. I know that most of the dry sump pumps cannot be easily turned by hand and this is due to seal drag and also the fact that there is no oil to lubricate the gears and also the clearance between the side of the gears and the housings. Once the pump is actually working these areas are lubricated by oil going from the high pressure side of the pump to the low pressure side (inlet side) which really reduces friction loss of course that is at the expense of volumetric efficiency which is the theoretical flow divided by the actual flow and is all a part of calculating the total pump efficiency.

Rex

[Interested Observer]

Well, to beat it completely to death...
The concern with Rex's formula is that if it were entered into an automated calculation, e.g. a spreadsheet cell, the way it is written, the result would be incorrect.  Even for a calculation done "by hand" the expression as written is somewhat ambiguous.
Arithmetic operators, by convention, have an order of precedence, wherein one type of operation is done before another of lower precedence.  In this case both the multiplication and division operators, being of the same precedence level, are then executed on a "left-to-right" basis.  This would result in the pump efficiency being multiplied by the rest of the expression instead of divided into it.  Adding parentheses or revising the notation would correct it.
HP=GPM x PSI/(1714 x (pump efficiency))   or   HP=GPM x PSI/1714/(pump efficiency)