Ballast Pump Flow Comparison

[chpthril]

I was able to finely get some time this weekend to do some flow comparisons amongst some of the common ballast pumps used.

In this test, I used an Attwood Tsunami T800, T1200 and a Rule 1100 All 3 are common live-well style Aerator pumps used for ballast installs.

I have been wanting to do this anyway, but it moved to the forefront this weekend when it was posted in another thread that the Rule pumps were always over rated, as there is no standard of measuring that is used. Well, doing some investigation, I fond two interesting things: 1) Rule does not list a standard of measurement used to rate their pumps (but that doesnt mean they are over rated). The next bit of info was the most interesting. I found that Rule is under the same parent company as Jabsco, ITT Flow Control, and that in the flow rating for the Jabsco, there to is no std of measurement listed. So, is it safe to say that the Jabsco Ballast Puppy too is over rated?????? Well, we will have to answer that question later, as I did not break out the only Puppy I have on hand and test it, but i will here at some point.

Here is how I laid the test out. I tried to make at as real-world as possible, so I set up a mock ballast setup.

I used a Fly High W713 v-drive sac rated @ 400 lbs
5 gal bucket fed by hose as water supply
deep-cycle battery with 2A trickle charge
5' fill hose from pump to top of sac
2' hose from vent on top of sac.

The water supply was lower then sac, typical of a ballast install, and the vent was higher then sac. Sac was drain dry between each test. The clock started as soon as the pump was turned on, and the clock was stopped as soon as I had a steady flow from the vent. Each pump was run 3 times to get an average. For the Rule and T1200, I used 1" hose and 1" fly High quick-connect fittings. For the T800, I used both 1" and 3/4" hose slid over the threads, as well as 3/4 hose on the supplied 3/4" barbed fitting. For on of the T1200 tests, I also used the Fly High W747 3/4" sac valve threads x 1-1/8" Tsunami threads adapter.

Rule 405FC 1100 GPH pump. 3/4" threaded inlet and a 1-1/8" outlet and 1" hose: 4:29 avg fill time.

Attwood Tsunami T1200 pump. 1-1/8 inlet and 1-1/8 outlet and 1" hose: 4:37 avg fill time.

Attwood Tsunami T1200 pump. 1-1/8 inlet and 1-1/8 outlet and 1" hose and W747 adapter: 4:44 avg fill time.

Attwood Tsunami T800 pump. 3/4" inlet and outlet with 1" hose. 4:57 avg fill time.

Attwood Tsunami T800 pump. 3/4" inlet and outlet with 3/4' hose and 3/4 Fly High quick-connects. 5:11 avg fill time

Attwood Tsunami T800 pump. 3/4" inlet and outlet with 3/4' hose and 3/4 Fly High quick-connects and the supplied 3/4 hose-barb connection on the outlet of the pump. 5:25 avg fill time.

Two surprises, here! 1, the Rule 1100 was actually faster then the Tsunami T1200. Not by alot, but IMO, certainly not well over rated :02: 2, the W747 adapter did not slow the T1200 flow down as much as I expected. This is great news, because with the use of the adapter, you can easily mate this pump right to a 3/4" thru-hull setup, and not loose a ton of volume.

Again, this was not meant to be scientific, but simply to compare these pumps flow rates in what is as close to a real world situation as possible. So, take the info with a grain of salt.

[Timmy!]

Very cool test Mike! After reading your results, I'm glad I didn't spend the extra $60 on the 1200's since I would have only gained 20 seconds on a fill of the v-drive sac.

Any chance you can test a Jabsco Ballast Puppy?

[chpthril]

Very cool test Mike! After reading your results, I'm glad I didn't spend the extra $60 on the 1200's since I would have only gained 20 seconds on a fill of the v-drive sac.

Any chance you can test a Jabsco Ballast Puppy?

I definitely will test it. It has a 9.0 GPM, which actually puts it slower then the T800, but, the impeller type pumps are supposed to have less flow drop then the aerators due to head pressure and lift. So in reality, the flow at the sac with an aerator, could actually be less then impeller pump, even though the ballast puppy starts out with a lower GPM rating at the pump.

[WABoating]

Does the Rule pump have a replacable cartridge like the Tsunami pumps do?

[chpthril]

Does the Rule pump have a replacable cartridge like the Tsunami pumps do?

Sure does!

[WABoating]

>>with the use of the (W747) adapter, you can easily mate this pump right to a 3/4" thru-hull setup, and not loose a ton of volume.<<

The W747 has male threads. So do the thru-hulls I've seen. You'd still need something to connect the male to male threads... a 3/4 ball valve, perhaps? That would work but you'd need a 90 degree angle to keep things low and help insure self-priming.

For the fill (not drain) pump, I think what we're talking about here is (starting from the water):

* Thru-hull fitting
* 90 degree fitting
* Ball valve
* T1200
* Hose to fat sac

Where did you insert the W747 - on the pump's input or output? I wouldn't be surprised if the pump's throughput differed based on which side had the restriction down to 3/4.

Just thinking out loud here... thanks!

[chpthril]

>>with the use of the (W747) adapter, you can easily mate this pump right to a 3/4" thru-hull setup, and not loose a ton of volume.<<

The W747 has male threads. So do the thru-hulls I've seen. You'd still need something to connect the male to male threads... a 3/4 ball valve, perhaps? That would work but you'd need a 90 degree angle to keep things low and help insure self-priming.

For the fill (not drain) pump, I think what we're talking about here is (starting from the water):

* Thru-hull fitting
* 90 degree fitting
* Ball valve
* T1200
* Hose to fat sac

Where did you insert the W747 - on the pump's input or output? I wouldn't be surprised if the pump's throughput differed based on which side had the restriction down to 3/4.

Just thinking out loud here... thanks!

The W747 has 1-1/8" female threads that mate with the 1-1/8" male threads on the Tsunami, and then 3/4" male threads.

Yes, you do need something inbetween the thru-hull and the W747 on the Tsunami. It is heighly recommened to put a ball-valve in there to act as an emergency shutoff is a leak accures. Some use PVC, but i prefer to use bronze from the thru-hull ot the valve, then PVC from there is ok.

In some installs, there is no issue having the thru-hull, ball-valve, then pump. On some, a 90* is needed, either due to lack of overhead room or just to keep the pump below the water line.


* Thru-hull fitting
* 90 degree fitting
* Ball valve
* T1200
* Hose to fat sac

Should work, just dont let the pump get lower then the 90* or it may trap air.

The W747 is intended for the pump's inlet. It will also allow the T1200 to connect directly to the drain port of the Fly High sacs, but I dont like doing this, if I can avoid it. This sometimes places the pump between a full sac and a storage wall, and something can break.

[WABoating]

On some, a 90* is needed, either due to lack of overhead room or just to keep the pump below the water line.

That's why I would do it - to keep the body of the pump as low as possible. Then insure that the slope is monotonically increasing from thru-hull to pump output and there should be no issues with trapped air.

It will also allow the T1200 to connect directly to the drain port of the Fly High sacs, but I dont like doing this, if I can avoid it. This sometimes places the pump between a full sac and a storage wall, and something can break.

Totally agree.

[Coop]

Thanks for all the work, Mike.

What pump(s) does Tige use in its factory install?

[chpthril]

Thanks for all the work, Mike.

What pump(s) does Tige use in its factory install?

At one time, Tige used Johnson/Mayfair pumps, but I'm not sure what they're using currently.

[majestic]

Why to go Chpthril! You saved me some time and also assured me that the T-800's are an ok choice.

What isn't solved for me is am I building a manifold or individual thru-hulls? I keep going back and forth but after all the threads I have read it doesn't seem right to mount the T-800's in the vertical position.

My electrical is 90% done just need to cut holes in the dash and mount/connect the switches. So I will need to decide pretty quick on my manifold vs. individual thru-hulls. Maybe I will flip a coin!

[Timmy!]

I had the same choice majestic. Another idea with the individual thru hulls is to put them on the transom with their own screen and then they will be mounted horizontally instead of vertically.
Mount these above the taps plate:
http://bakesonline.com/detail.aspx?ID=1219
and then buy a screen that fits over the end of them:
http://www.iboats.com/Aerator-Strainer-3-4-T-H-Marine-Supply/dm/view_id.168871

Those links are just for reference, I'm sure Mike or Andrew can get you those parts as well.

If I hadn't already bought a mushroom and a ball valve, I would have gone this route. Epic's come with 3 tsunami 1200's hooked up just like this.

[majestic]

I had the same choice majestic. Another idea with the individual thru hulls is to put them on the transom with their own screen and then they will be mounted horizontally instead of vertically.
Mount these above the taps plate:
http://bakesonline.com/detail.aspx?ID=1219
and then buy a screen that fits over the end of them:
http://www.iboats.com/Aerator-Strainer-3-4-T-H-Marine-Supply/dm/view_id.168871

Those links are just for reference, I'm sure Mike or Andrew can get you those parts as well.

If I hadn't already bought a mushroom and a ball valve, I would have gone this route. Epic's come with 3 tsunami 1200's hooked up just like this.

Thanks Timmy! Bakes is just down the street and they actually use those on all the Malibu's and pepper the bottom of the hull with them. The pumps they use thread right into them. My arms are way too short to be able to get to them and shut them off if mounted in the tansom in an emergency which is why I have drifted away from that idea.

[Timmy!]

The Tsunami 800's should thread into those as well, 3/4".

[WABoating]

What isn't solved for me is am I building a manifold or individual thru-hulls?

I originally thought to go with a single huge inlet (1.5 or 2.0 inch) into a manifold, from which all pumps would draw. However, after extensive research, and discussions with Jason at WakeMakers (disclaimer: no connection), I'm convinced separate intakes are the way to go.

First, it simplifies layout. A manifold requires a lot of open space, particularly when you're trying to keep the pumps oriented to avoid trapped air. Multiple single inlet+pumps are a lot easier to tuck into available space.

Second, it minimizes turbulence which increases flow and thus decreases time. Multiple pumps drawing from a single manifold will cause turbulence, and the downstream pumps will likely be poor stepchildren compared to the upstream pumps, leading to annoying dissimilar fill rates.

At present I'm leaning toward 1.5 inch mushroom intakes on the hull driving one T1200 each.

The biggest question on MY mind right now is whether the effort to use anything larger than a T800 is worth it. Why? Because after 1.5 inch inlets, and 1+ inch pumps, and one inch hose, the fittings on the bags themselves are only 3/4 inch. I understand keeping things larger to reduce the inline turbulence and wall friction, but perhaps "one inch all the way to the sac fitting" is enough. It would certainly avoid dealing with the T1200's weird threading.

The alternative is to fill into two sac inputs. Hey, there's a test for chpthril: Does having a T1200 driving into TWO 3/4 inputs yield a noticeable reduction in fill time? Inquiring minds want to know!

[chpthril]

Why to go Chpthril! You saved me some time and also assured me that the T-800's are an ok choice.

What isn't solved for me is am I building a manifold or individual thru-hulls? I keep going back and forth but after all the threads I have read it doesn't seem right to mount the T-800's in the vertical position.

My electrical is 90% done just need to cut holes in the dash and mount/connect the switches. So I will need to decide pretty quick on my manifold vs. individual thru-hulls. Maybe I will flip a coin!

From a feeding the pumps standpoint, a 1-1/4" common manifold with support 3-4 pumps with know issue.

Individual 3/4" thru-hulls will work just fine. You can even add an elbow to the ball-valve so the pump lays on it's side.

Putting the pickup in the transom works fine, the only downside IMO, is that you cant fill on the fly.

I've done the common manifold and the single shrooms, and it really comes down to which setup will fit best in the bilge so you can orient the pumps in order to avoid vapor-lock.

[Timmy!]

@WABoating - The data above supports the 1" > 3/4" hose theory. I think what you need to do next is weigh the cost of making everything 1" hose vs 3/4" hose. Tsunami 800's are cheaper, 3/4" hose is cheaper, 3/4" thru hulls are cheaper, smaller hose clamps are cheaper, etc.

[WABoating]

@WABoating - The data above supports the 1" > 3/4" hose theory. I think what you need to do next is weigh the cost of making everything 1" hose vs 3/4" hose. Tsunami 800's are cheaper, 3/4" hose is cheaper, 3/4" thru hulls are cheaper, smaller hose clamps are cheaper, etc.

What I'm trying to do is overcome the inherent limitation imposed by those small 3/4 inch fittings on the sacs themselves. Many of the sacs have multiple top and bottom fittings. I agree that a one inch system (pumps, hoses, fittings, etc.) is somewhat more expensive than a 3/4 inch system, but it's way less expensive than dual pumps.

Maybe we can get a "poor man's speed increase" with a hybrid of the two. Spend a little more on a one inch system, then right at the sacs split it into two hoses each connecting to a separate 3/4 fitting. Now you'd have a full one inch system, with no artificial restrictions to limit the pump's throughput, and instead of it running into a 3/4 restriction at the sac it would see two 3/4 fittings.

Let's presume some easy numbers. A one inch aperture (hose, fittings) has 0.79 square inches of cross-sectional area. A single 3/4 aperture (fat sac opening) has 0.44 square inches. In other words, the sac's opening is about half that of the system driving it. That is serious restriction. But if the one inch system was driving TWO fat sac fittings, then the 0.79 aperture would see a combined cross-section of 0.88.

And you can have this reduction for the cost of a little bit more hose and one extra Y fitting. No wires, no pumps, no valves. You'd want to be sure to use a Y fitting, and not a T, because Y's have significantly less insertion loss. Something like this:

http://static.coleparmer.com/small_images/30726_57.jpg

If I had the equipment I'd run the test myself, but I don't. (hint hint hint)

[WABoating]

...here's a $13 solution:

http://flexpvc.com/cart/html/images/672-4550.png

Check these guys out - I had no idea you could get PVC fittings like this.

http://flexpvc.com/cart/agora.cgi?product=PVC-Manifolds

[chpthril]

[QUOTE=WABoating;446314]I originally thought to go with a single huge inlet (1.5 or 2.0 inch) into a manifold, from which all pumps would draw. However, after extensive research, and discussions with Jason at WakeMakers (disclaimer: no connection), I'm convinced separate intakes are the way to go.

First, it simplifies layout. A manifold requires a lot of open space, particularly when you're trying to keep the pumps oriented to avoid trapped air. Multiple single inlet+pumps are a lot easier to tuck into available space.

1st, 1.5 is more then enough to support 3-4 pumps, 2" is way overkill. I use 1-1/4" for 2 reasons, its more then enough to support a typical 3-4 pump system, and there is a considerable price difference between the 1.5" and 1.25" bronze hardware.

Second, it minimizes turbulence which increases flow and thus decreases time. Multiple pumps drawing from a single manifold will cause turbulence, and the downstream pumps will likely be poor stepchildren compared to the upstream pumps, leading to annoying dissimilar fill rates.

At present I'm leaning toward 1.5 inch mushroom intakes on the hull driving one T1200 each.

A 3/4 thru-hull will support a single T1200 pump and 1" is enough to support two.

The biggest question on MY mind right now is whether the effort to use anything larger than a T800 is worth it. Why? Because after 1.5 inch inlets, and 1+ inch pumps, and one inch hose, the fittings on the bags themselves are only 3/4 inch. I understand keeping things larger to reduce the inline turbulence and wall friction, but perhaps "one inch all the way to the sac fitting" is enough. It would certainly avoid dealing with the T1200's weird threading.

How are you getting down from 1.5 to 1.125"? The Tsunami's oddball 1.125 (1-1/8") is not very common in the plumbing world, so fittings are not that common. 2nd, the more fittings added in is more places to leak as well as it's moving the pump further away from the water source.

At the end of the day, the sacs 3/4 threaded port is the bottle neck in the entire system, so 1" all the way will be plenty. Keep in mind that aerator pumps are meant to move water, not create pressure. The only way to overcome the smallest orifice in the system, would be to go with a pump that will provide pressure as well as volume.

The alternative is to fill into two sac inputs. Hey, there's a test for chpthril: Does having a T1200 driving into TWO 3/4 inputs yield a noticeable reduction in fill time? Inquiring minds want to know!

Yes, it would be 2x one pump. This will be the only way to overcome the sac's 3/4 port if filling speed is a top priority.

[Timmy!]

Wow! Those manifolds are crazy! If you could pressurize the system, you could increase flow through the existing fittings :)

[chpthril]

...here's a $13 solution:

http://flexpvc.com/cart/html/images/672-4550.png

Check these guys out - I had no idea you could get PVC fittings like this.

http://flexpvc.com/cart/agora.cgi?product=PVC-Manifolds

Those dont allow enough room between the outlets to mount pumps side by side, but I like the way yur thinking :ro:

[chpthril]

What I'm trying to do is overcome the inherent limitation imposed by those small 3/4 inch fittings on the sacs themselves. Many of the sacs have multiple top and bottom fittings. I agree that a one inch system (pumps, hoses, fittings, etc.) is somewhat more expensive than a 3/4 inch system, but it's way less expensive than dual pumps.

Maybe we can get a "poor man's speed increase" with a hybrid of the two. Spend a little more on a one inch system, then right at the sacs split it into two hoses each connecting to a separate 3/4 fitting. Now you'd have a full one inch system, with no artificial restrictions to limit the pump's throughput, and instead of it running into a 3/4 restriction at the sac it would see two 3/4 fittings.

Let's presume some easy numbers. A one inch aperture (hose, fittings) has 0.79 square inches of cross-sectional area. A single 3/4 aperture (fat sac opening) has 0.44 square inches. In other words, the sac's opening is about half that of the system driving it. That is serious restriction. But if the one inch system was driving TWO fat sac fittings, then the 0.79 aperture would see a combined cross-section of 0.88.

And you can have this reduction for the cost of a little bit more hose and one extra Y fitting. No wires, no pumps, no valves. You'd want to be sure to use a Y fitting, and not a T, because Y's have significantly less insertion loss. Something like this:

http://static.coleparmer.com/small_images/30726_57.jpg

If I had the equipment I'd run the test myself, but I don't. (hint hint hint)

I can test that theory, but it will probably be sometime next week after we get back from Vegas. I will do it with both 3/4" 1-1/8" Y's.

[WABoating]

Those dont allow enough room between the outlets to mount pumps side by side, but I like the way yur thinking :ro:

I know, but the spec sheet for T-series pumps shows them using short hoses on their inlet side. (They caution against permitting dips in the hose to prevent air entrapment.) Using hoses you COULD use a manifold like this one with multiple pumps. Your reliability would go up, too, since this is a monolithic piece instead of a bunch of joints screwed/glued together.

So I was only sort of joking when I posted that photo. {grin}

[WABoating]

I can test that theory, but it will probably be sometime next week after we get back from Vegas. I will do it with both 3/4" 1-1/8" Y's.

Excellent, thanks! I suspect we may find a relatively inexpensive speed boost waiting for us in there.

Next week..? If it was me, the thrill of discovery would keep me up all night running the experiment. Looking forward to the results!

[talltigeguy]

Thanks Timmy! Bakes is just down the street and they actually use those on all the Malibu's and pepper the bottom of the hull with them. The pumps they use thread right into them. My arms are way too short to be able to get to them and shut them off if mounted in the tansom in an emergency which is why I have drifted away from that idea.

Mike, thanks for doing that. Did you post this on WW yet? I would like to see it.

The best thing I see is that the T800 is not 2/3 the speed of the T1200.

A poor man's math suggests that a 400 pound sac = 50 gallons of water. If you push that in 5 minutes, then they are all pretty close to 10 GPM, give or take. I really want to see what the Jabsco ballast puppy does. The newer ones are supposed to be 11 GPM. Be sure to let us know what model you are using when you do it. This says 11 GPM: http://www.ittflowcontrol.com/marine-and-rv/general-purpose-pumps/18220-1121-ballast-puppy.htm

[talltigeguy]

I definitely will test it. It has a 9.0 GPM, which actually puts it slower then the T800, but, the impeller type pumps are supposed to have less flow drop then the aerators due to head pressure and lift. So in reality, the flow at the sac with an aerator, could actually be less then impeller pump, even though the ballast puppy starts out with a lower GPM rating at the pump.

See which one you have.

[chpthril]

I know, but the spec sheet for T-series pumps shows them using short hoses on their inlet side. (They caution against permitting dips in the hose to prevent air entrapment.) Using hoses you COULD use a manifold like this one with multiple pumps. Your reliability would go up, too, since this is a monolithic piece instead of a bunch of joints screwed/glued together.

So I was only sort of joking when I posted that photo. {grin}

No joke, the concept is a great idea. I have looked at having someone mold one for me, I just cant swing the cost of the mold plus the initial order. Too much upfront right now.

[majestic]

Why can't Fly high just upsize the inlet to meet customer demand?

[chpthril]

See which one you have.

The one I have I got in just last week, so it's not an old one. I grabbed that spec off Fly High's website, which was stated at 540 GPH. If I remember right, the Puppy does have a 9.0 GPM flow rate are 3.3ft of hose.

Either way, the lab results for the rated flow rate are irrelevant once it's installed in a boat's ballast system.

[WABoating]

No joke, the concept is a great idea. I have looked at having someone mold one for me, I just cant swing the cost of the mold plus the initial order. Too much upfront right now.

Check their website - they have a TON of ready-to-ship manifolds. Some are truly bizarre, like these one inch to multiple 3/4's:

http://flexpvc.com/cart/html/images/672-4410.png
http://flexpvc.com/cart/html/images/672-4260.png

You probably don't need to tool up anything, just buy off the shelf!

[WABoating]

Why can't Fly high just upsize the inlet to meet customer demand?

Speaking for Fly High... I don't know, you'll have to ask them! {grin}

[chpthril]

Mike, thanks for doing that. Did you post this on WW yet? I would like to see it.

The best thing I see is that the T800 is not 2/3 the speed of the T1200.

A poor man's math suggests that a 400 pound sac = 50 gallons of water. If you push that in 5 minutes, then they are all pretty close to 10 GPM, give or take. I really want to see what the Jabsco ballast puppy does. The newer ones are supposed to be 11 GPM. Be sure to let us know what model you are using when you do it. This says 11 GPM: http://www.ittflowcontrol.com/marine-and-rv/general-purpose-pumps/18220-1121-ballast-puppy.htm

OK, I'm looking at the Ballast Puppy box, and it clearly states: 9.0 flow rate! There are now shipping with the green impellers, i believe, I wonder if that has contributed to the drop in flow, and the PDF on line was out dated and represented the black impellers?

When I get some time next week, I will flow test the Jabsco along with WA's "Y" connector. I'll do the "Y" on both the jabsco and an aerator just to see how it effects the flow rate of each.

Also, I measured the ID's of the sac and both the 1" and 3/4" Fly High fittings.

Sac threads ID = 1.025
1" W743 = .735
3/4" W736 .525

In the original test, I tested the T800 with both 1" hose and 3/4" (without the supplied 3/4" fitting). In the 1" hose test, I had the 1" quick-conns on the sac, and for the 3/4 hose, I had the 3/4" quick-conn fittings. IMO, it's the 3/4" fittings that slow the water flow, not really the 3/4 hose, but I also feel it's too much trouble to try and stretch 3/4 hose over the 1" quick-conns.

Conclusion: No matter what pumps you choose, go with 1" hose and sac fittings if fill time is at or near the top of your ballast needs. If you want a bear-bones but functional 3-beer system (you can drink 3 beers while it fills) :D, then 3/4 hose will work just fine and save some $$$ on the hose and fittings.

[WABoating]

When I get some time next week, I will flow test the Jabsco along with WA's "Y" connector. I'll do the "Y" on both the jabsco and an aerator just to see how it effects the flow rate of each.

Excellent, thank you!

Sac threads ID = 1.025

Is that the ID of the threads on the sac's female fitting? If so, what really matters is the ID of a male fitting that screws into it. That's the real ID that the water will see as it flows into or out of the sac. Since these are considered 3/4 inch fittings, I suspect it will be nearer 0.75 than 1.0 inch. What is THAT measurement?

[WABoating]

IMO, it's the 3/4" fittings that slow the water flow, not really the 3/4 hose

I share that opinion. As stated earlier, I believe the restriction presented by the fittings is both severe and abrupt. Severe is bad enough, but an abrupt (shoulder wall) restriction causes enormous turbulence that makes the already bad situation worse.

I agree: (At least) one inch hoses and fittings everywhere. That leaves the problem of the sac's fittings. I suspect the actual water passage through them is narrower than the 1.025 you measured at the threads. Y'ing two hoses to two fittings should remove that obstruction. Your tests next week will determine any benefit to that trick.

Thanks!

[chpthril]

Excellent, thank you!



Is that the ID of the threads on the sac's female fitting? If so, what really matters is the ID of a male fitting that screws into it. That's the real ID that the water will see as it flows into or out of the sac. Since these are considered 3/4 inch fittings, I suspect it will be nearer 0.75 than 1.0 inch. What is THAT measurement?

That's the W743 Fly High fitting noted above, it's ID = .735 It's the 1" male quick-conn sac-valve thread fitting. In a 1" system, it will be the true bottle-neck.

[chpthril]

I share that opinion. As stated earlier, I believe the restriction presented by the fittings is both severe and abrupt. Severe is bad enough, but an abrupt (shoulder wall) restriction causes enormous turbulence that makes the already bad situation worse.

I agree: (At least) one inch hoses and fittings everywhere. That leaves the problem of the sac's fittings. I suspect the actual water passage through them is narrower than the 1.025 you measured at the threads. Y'ing two hoses to two fittings should remove that obstruction. Your tests next week will determine any benefit to that trick.

Thanks!

I cant remember which thread it was here lately, but I noted in one that extra ports can be added to an existing sac, but it's tricky. What Fly High calls their standard sacs, called the Pro-X series, all have at least 3 fittings and a couple of the non-std sacs have more. For a custom, they can have as many as is needed and the placement is where ever they need to be.

[jbort]

Mike:

Sent PM on custom sac. Jbort

[chpthril]

Ok, I got the Jabsco Ballast Puppy tested and wanted to update the results:

Rule 405FC 1100 GPH pump. 3/4" threaded inlet and a 1-1/8" outlet and 1" hose: 4:29 avg fill time.

Attwood Tsunami T1200 pump. 1-1/8 inlet and 1-1/8 outlet and 1" hose: 4:37 avg fill time.

Attwood Tsunami T1200 pump. 1-1/8 inlet and 1-1/8 outlet and 1" hose and W747 adapter: 4:44 avg fill time.

Attwood Tsunami T800 pump. 3/4" inlet and outlet with 1" hose. 4:57 avg fill time.

Attwood Tsunami T800 pump. 3/4" inlet and outlet with 3/4' hose and 3/4 Fly High quick-connects. 5:11 avg fill time

Attwood Tsunami T800 pump. 3/4" inlet and outlet with 3/4' hose and 3/4 Fly High quick-connects and the supplied 3/4 hose-barb connection on the outlet of the pump. 5:25 avg fill time

Jabsco Ballast Puppy reversible impeller type pump
1" hose and 1" Fly High Fittings filling at the bottom of the sac - Avg fill time = 5:20

1" hose and fittings filling at the top of the sac - Avg fill time 5:15

3/4" hose and fittings - Avg fill time = 5:42

[WABoating]

Ok, I got the Jabsco Ballast Puppy tested and wanted to update the results

Did you get a chance to try the Y fitting to two sac inputs?

[talltigeguy]

Which jabsco model is it? The old ones were quoting 9 gpm, IIRC, but the new one says 11GPM. Please double check.

[chpthril]

Which jabsco model is it? The old ones were quoting 9 gpm, IIRC, but the new one says 11GPM. Please double check.

It's a brand new Jabsco 18220-1127 series Ballast Puppy pump with a green impeller.

[WABoating]

Hey chpthril, did you get a chance to try the Y fitting to two sac inputs?

Thanks!

[chpthril]

Hey chpthril, did you get a chance to try the Y fitting to two sac inputs?

Thanks!

Net yet, and here is why: Ran cut me short the other day, and I just haven't had the time to set it all back up. But, here is a minor dilemma that I thought about.......The standard Fly High sacs come with 3 ports. For a typical aerator pump setup, you need a port on the bottom for the drain, a port on the top for filling, and one for a vent. This doesn't leave a port open for Y'd fill setup. Now, I have seen/read that some people do not do a vent, but IMO, the sac will collect air from the lines. The other reason I dont like going without a vent, is that the sacs will blow up like a balloon once full.

I can do this test with a std sac using the ballast puppy and use the bottom port and one top port to fill and the third port to vent. This will work with the ballast puppy because it showed little difference in fill time between filling through the bottom port or the top post. The aerators on the other hand, falling through the bottom will reduce the flow as the sac fills due to head pressure. IMP, this will lead to skewed data.

[WABoating]

I have seen/read that some people do not do a vent, but IMO, the sac will collect air from the lines. The other reason I dont like going without a vent, is that the sacs will blow up like a balloon once full.

If you completely flattened the bag ahead of time (as little trapped air as possible), that would permit a reasonable test. The incoming water would not have to displace air, so no vent would be required. You might have to estimate when "full" occurs but it would be only a few seconds of uncertainty during a several minute test - not bad at all.

[chpthril]

If you completely flattened the bag ahead of time (as little trapped air as possible), that would permit a reasonable test. The incoming water would not have to displace air, so no vent would be required. You might have to estimate when "full" occurs but it would be only a few seconds of uncertainty during a several minute test - not bad at all.

Problem with that is that my numbers are based on the sac reaching a point to where it begins to vent. If I am using the vent to fill, I cant stop the clock at the same point as I did during the other test. Therefore, I dont have a baseline to gauge off of and will will not know it the Y'd setup improves flow or not.

[WABoating]

Therefore, I dont have a baseline to gauge off of and will will not know it the Y'd setup improves flow or not.

That's why I said it would be approximate. If it only changes a by a few seconds, it's not worth the extra hardware anyway. If it changes meaningfully, then absolute numbers aren't as important as knowing that it made a difference.

I suspect you'll know when you reach "full" by the sound of the pump. That's close enough to yield useful data.

[chpthril]

That's why I said it would be approximate. If it only changes a by a few seconds, it's not worth the extra hardware anyway. If it changes meaningfully, then absolute numbers aren't as important as knowing that it made a difference.

I suspect you'll know when you reach "full" by the sound of the pump. That's close enough to yield useful data.

If I had an industrial scale, then I could base the cutoff point (baseline fill time) on the sacs actual weight and not when it begins to purge out of the vent (purging is more like a real-world ballast setup, rather then actual weight in a sac), so without that, the numbers would be skewed as compared to the numbers the pump delivered originally. This would lead to a false positive or negative.

[Ewok]

If I had an industrial scale, then I could base the cutoff point (baseline fill time) on the sacs actual weight and not when it begins to purge out of the vent (purging is more like a real-world ballast setup, rather then actual weight in a sac), so without that, the numbers would be skewed as compared to the numbers the pump delivered originally. This would lead to a false positive or negative.

You could use a lever and a bathroom scale like you would to find your trailer tongue weight.

[chpthril]

You could use a lever and a bathroom scale like you would to find your trailer tongue weight.

Too much thinking involved :p

[WABoating]

Hey, it doesn't have to be all that complicated. Just run the test and listen to the pump. When the bag appears full and the pump changes sound, call it full and stop the timer. Simple as that.

[Ewok]

Are there any repair kits someone could get to add fill ports to a bag?

[chpthril]

Are there any repair kits someone could get to add fill ports to a bag?

These can be glued in and mate with the 3/4" Fly High female quick-conns.

[WABoating]

These can be glued in and mate with the 3/4" Fly High female quick-conns.

So there you have it. Two solutions. If you want to do it with a vent, there's a solution. If you want to do it by sight and sound, the sac is already set to go.

Now all that's left is to actually run the test.

[jake's02-22i]

Maybe we should get a simer and a Johnson ultra ballast pump in there too?

the simer is rated at 10gpm and the Johnson is 12gpm.

[WABoating]

No, let's stick with what chpthril has already used. I'll be thankful if he just uses the existing 800 and 1200 pumps, since we already have data on them. Let's not discourage him from running the test by piling on more and more variations.

[Ewok]

These can be glued in and mate with the 3/4" Fly High female quick-conns.

Thanks, I was just asking so folks would not have to order new custom sacs if they wanted fill or vent ports in different locations.

I don't expect chpthril to add these extra ports to bags he has not sold yet.

[talltigeguy]

To be honest, I think he has proven that there is not a lot of difference no matter what you do. Since the slowest was 5:45 and the fastest was 4:29, I think you are hard pressed to think that saves any of us very much time on the water filling or emptying sacs. Amplify this for a 1200 pound sac and we are still talking a little over 3 minutes difference, which we probably waste that much time before we even decided to turn the pump on.

I predict that there will be very little difference between a Y split into 2 ports and a single 1 inch fitting. If you watch the way a 1 inch drain shoots out water, then there is very little excess pressure, whereas the 3/4 inch ports shoot water pretty good. I have both on my boat and it is easy to see that the 3/4 inch discharge hose on a Jabsco pump shoots about 4 feet from the boat and has a sort of spray to it, whereas the 1 inch discharge has about 18 inches of discharge and has more of a chuga chug sound to it as it falls into the lake. If that makes any sense.

[helmut]

I agree with Tall. I just gutted my ballast system in an 02 xstar and gave all three pumps its own through hull. I am glad I stayed with Ballast Puppy instead of changing out to the aerator style pump. I think with all the possible issues that come into play those styles and extra tubing what you gain in speed you lose in hassle and cost of fittings etc. Even though more expensive glad I stuck with my puppies. I do realize the pumps are $200 bones but seem pretty bullet proof mounted properly.

[cowwboy]

I know this is a old post.
But what about the current limitation of the 2amp charger feeding pumps that require 11.5 amps(water puppy)?
The information is great though.

[chpthril]

I know this is a old post.
But what about the current limitation of the 2amp charger feeding pumps that require 11.5 amps(water puppy)?
The information is great though.

Im not sure I understand what you are asking, can you put it in some context? The RPM of a simple DC motor like a pump will be effected by voltage and available current. This would effect its output.

[lancehon]

I think he means you need a bigger charger to act more like an alternator to keep up with the draw of the heavier output of the reversible pumps

[WABoating]

I think he means you need a bigger charger to act more like an alternator to keep up with the draw of the heavier output of the reversible pumps

...so he can run it without a battery? Or...? :confused:

[cowwboy]

Oops I missed a point.
I thought it was just the charger and not the battery and charger.
Now I feel pretty dumb.
Great write up though.
What pumps did you end up running?