Power port question

[Eric_Phillips]

I was working on my new three spool valve and planned on using the port on the top of the valve for the power in instead of the side port. When I removed the plug I noticed there is only a slit opening into the body of the valve. The side port is fully open. It seems to me this will restrict flow. So would you go with the top port and a single 90* elbow or go into the side but need to use 2 90* elbows?

 

[kennyd]

Can you take that restricter out? Often you can...

 

[Eric_Phillips]

No. It is actually part of the casting.

 

[kennyd]

No. It is actually part of the casting.

Then I would not use it....

 

[Eric_Phillips]

Thanks Kenny. I will have to take another look to see but I might be able to come off the side port with a 90 and loop the hose around the back of the valve. I am going to use R16 hose so a 2-3 in radius turn might be doable.

 

[3RRL]

I don't want to step on Kenny's toes here, but I'd check a couple things first.
If it was me, I'd try to reduce the amount of 90 degree elbows as much as possible because that in itself (especially 2 in row) can create quite a bit of heat. And maybe that slot isn't as restrictive as it looks?

What I'd do is measure the size of that slot and calculate the surface area.
Then check the inside diameter of the 90 degree bend to see what that surface area is. I'm only guessing from the picture here, but chances are the two will be the same or perhaps the slot might even be larger? If the slot area ends up larger, the same or even slightly smaller than the diameter area (say within 10%-15%), I'd still use that top port (your call). If it turns out the restriction is greater than that, then I'd use the side ports with those elbows and bends. My goal would be to reduce heat build up either from the slot being too small or too many 90 bends, whichever causes the most heat.
Rob-

 

[kennyd]

I don't want to step on Kenny's toes here, but I'd check a couple things first.

Please, Go ahead...they are already flat from others before you

Actually, that is a great idea you have...

 

[Eric_Phillips]

The inside diameter of a 90 should be the same as the opening to the fitting. The restriction in a 90 is not the size of the tubing but the turbulent flow through the fitting. I would even venture to bet a 90 fitting that is cast has more restriction than a 90 hose end that uses a piece of smooth pipe for the bend. This is being fed by 3/8" hose so the cross sectional area of that is 0.0123 sq. in and the area of the slot is 0.156 sq. in. the unrestricted port is 0.5182 sq. in. So does a 90 elbow or a 2"-3" radius bend on 3/8" hose make more or less restriction that a 0.362 sq. in. reduction in port size?

 

[forester2]

Eric, are those in and out ports for 1/2 inch hose?

 

[Eric_Phillips]

Yes the in/out ports are SAE 10 and the work ports are SAE 8. The port on my hydraulic distribution block is SAE 8 and all the ports on my loader valve are also that is why I was sticking with the 3/8" hose. I have been debating replumbing the whole thing and use 1/2" out of the distribution block to my rear remotes then 1/2" to the loader valve and leave the 3/8" out of the loader back to the 3PH. I wish I knew enough about how to calculate all the back pressures to determine if it is worth the extra $100 or so to get the extra hose. The interesting thing is the only hose fitting from the loader that is not JIC8 is the end of the tank line where it goes back to the sump. The hose fitting is actually M20 with an adapter to JIC10 and a reducer to JIC8 to fit the port in the sump. This is all on 3/8" hose.