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 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.

[IDBoating]

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!

[IDBoating]

>>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.

[IDBoating]

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-Strain...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-Strain...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".

[IDBoating]

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!