Its a little more complicated than that. I would need either a pump curve or the ability to collect the necessary data to generate a pump curve.
-
This site contains eBay affiliate links for which Sea-Doo Forum may be compensated.
Water Pressure Regulator
- Thread starter 1GaryBryan
- Start date
- Status
Its a little more complicated than that. I would need either a pump curve or the ability to collect the necessary data to generate a pump curve.
lamajama
Well-Known Member
African or European?
SabrToothSqrl
Well-Known Member
Best guess?
Assuming 130bhp and 70% effeciency with a total head of 60 ft, you will be in the 6000gpm range.
lamajama
Well-Known Member
Well everyone knows African swallows don't migrate so...
SabrToothSqrl
Well-Known Member
6,000 GPM and a 15 GPH of fuel at WOT. SO, one tank of gasoline moves around 36,000 gallons of water. Cool. Wonder how much space that would occupy.
compare that to the commonly referenced Olympic size swimming pool at 88,000 ft^3 or 660,000 usgal.
SabrToothSqrl
Well-Known Member
somehow i thought it would be more.
6,000 GPM still is a lot of water.
did you take the pump into account or just the horsepower? ie the power required to move X amount of weight of water?
so 70% efficiency on the pump as to the HP to weight of the water moving.
6,000 GPM still is a lot of water.
did you take the pump into account or just the horsepower? ie the power required to move X amount of weight of water?
so 70% efficiency on the pump as to the HP to weight of the water moving.
Yes and yes. Without getting too technical and deriving the equations (I have made that mistake before on other forums) the equation is this for volume flow rate:
Q= (3960 X WHP)/H
Q= Flow rate in gal/min
WHP= Water Horsepower
H= Total Head in feet
3960= a conversion number obtained by dividing 8.333 (the weight, in pounds, of one gallon of water) into 33,000 (foot pounds in one horsepower).
To determine WHP:
WHP=BHP x n
n=pump efficiency
BHP= Brake Horsepower
Assuming brake horse power (engine output) to be 130 and pump effciency (n) to be 70%, WHP comes out to 91.
Also assuming total head to be 60ft (from pressure measurements I have collected on a 140mm pump)
Plugging the above info into the original equation:
Q= (3960 X WHP)/H
= (3960 x 91)/60
= 6006 gpm
Obviously, any of the above assumptions being incorrect will change the flow rate, but for anyone to prove me wrong they would need to provide those assumed values.
Last edited by a moderator:
SabrToothSqrl
Well-Known Member
I like the way you think 
where does the 3960 come from or is that just fact?
I was thinking of doing it
130 HP * 70% efficiency = 91 HP
1 HP = 33,000 lb-ftf/min
so 3,003,000/lb ft / min?
then, figure out how much a gallon weighs, and see how much 'water weight' you could move?
or would that not work?
horse power is such a stupid term. it's been depreciated.
"With the implementation of the EU Directive 80/181/EEC on January 1, 2010, the use of horsepower in the EU is only permitted as supplementary unit."
where does the 3960 come from or is that just fact?
I was thinking of doing it
130 HP * 70% efficiency = 91 HP
1 HP = 33,000 lb-ftf/min
so 3,003,000/lb ft / min?
then, figure out how much a gallon weighs, and see how much 'water weight' you could move?
or would that not work?
horse power is such a stupid term. it's been depreciated.
"With the implementation of the EU Directive 80/181/EEC on January 1, 2010, the use of horsepower in the EU is only permitted as supplementary unit."
Last edited by a moderator:
I like the way you think
where does the 3960 come from or is that just fact?
I was thinking of doing it
130 HP * 70% efficiency = 91 HP
1 HP = 33,000 lb-ftf/min
so 3,003,000/lb ft / min?
then, figure out how much a gallon weighs, and see how much 'water weight' you could move?
or would that not work?
horse power is such a stupid term. it's been depreciated.
"With the implementation of the EU Directive 80/181/EEC on January 1, 2010, the use of horsepower in the EU is only permitted as supplementary unit."
I edited my post to explain where the 3960 comes from. sorry.
n3k0de
Active Member
Alright, Swallow this! Just buy some new ones. Fresh delivery today for the Challenger I'm working on.:drool5::drool5:
Hello if you did not install them yet could you show the size of the spring and tell us if the insides just pulls out with ease or its tight... thank you. Just wondering what todays new ones look like.
SabrToothSqrl
Well-Known Member
HA! so i was right, you used horse power and the weight of the water!
Ok here you go. The springs on my old Speedster one(on the left) measures 50mm with a wire diameter of 1.26mm, that is exactly the same as the new ones I have (on teh right). The one in my 96 XP has a spring length of 44mm with a wire diameter of 1.26mm. So the ski has a different length than the boats do, I guess for 95 and 96.
Now you can visually see a difference in the top caps, the two bump outs with the holes. There is also a difference in the internal cap that the bellow clamps to, it's more like the RAVE cap on the guillotine valves on the engine are. Also, the fitting on the bottom that threads into the water box is different. The old one has a 3mm thru hole where the new ones have a 4.5mm thru hole.
As far as the internal fitment, it's what I refer to as B.A.T.--Balls Azz Tight or a Honeymoon fit.
The main lower base is the same part# on all of them. So if you were to put one of these on a ski, I would verify that the brass fitting is either the same OR you reuse your old one, verify the spring is the same or reuse your old one. Or just install the new one as is, since they are like that on all the 97+ skis/boats and probably wouldn't make a difference.
So on a 96 XP it's part# 274000316 which lists for $222.49 and on the 97+ skis/boats it's 276000134 which will set you back $113.49, we paid $90.79 each. So you can save yourself $131.70 by getting the later unit and just do the part swap (spring and fitting) yourself.
Ok here you go. The springs on my old Speedster one(on the left) measures 50mm with a wire diameter of 1.26mm, that is exactly the same as the new ones I have (on teh right). The one in my 96 XP has a spring length of 44mm with a wire diameter of 1.26mm. So the ski has a different length than the boats do, I guess for 95 and 96.
Now you can visually see a difference in the top caps, the two bump outs with the holes. There is also a difference in the internal cap that the bellow clamps to, it's more like the RAVE cap on the guillotine valves on the engine are. Also, the fitting on the bottom that threads into the water box is different. The old one has a 3mm thru hole where the new ones have a 4.5mm thru hole.
As far as the internal fitment, it's what I refer to as B.A.T.--Balls Azz Tight or a Honeymoon fit.
The main lower base is the same part# on all of them. So if you were to put one of these on a ski, I would verify that the brass fitting is either the same OR you reuse your old one, verify the spring is the same or reuse your old one. Or just install the new one as is, since they are like that on all the 97+ skis/boats and probably wouldn't make a difference.
So on a 96 XP it's part# 274000316 which lists for $222.49 and on the 97+ skis/boats it's 276000134 which will set you back $113.49, we paid $90.79 each. So you can save yourself $131.70 by getting the later unit and just do the part swap (spring and fitting) yourself.
The cap with ear holes looks like the same cap used on a sled rave.
Alright, Swallow this! Just buy some new ones. Fresh delivery today for the Challenger I'm working on.:drool5::drool5:
Are the adjusters in different positions? Left one looks to be out further than the right.
Yes, I vaguely remember seeing them on my buddies sled before, what sux is now you have to slide the clip AND then pop one of the sides as the clip will hit the bump out. The red caps are like one thread in, you need to set them.
- Status
Similar threads
