Message-ID: <3FE8BF66.9000400@nc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:19:18 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: dual EWP plumbing?
References: <list-2902735@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russell Duffy wrote:
> I agree. But Rusty is talking about placing the pumps after the rads and 
> before the engine.
> Should be better to place one pump per rad just before the rad. 
>  
> My pump location, and hose routing won't be determined until I get stuff 
> like the intake, and exhaust in place.  I still think it will be easier 
> to put the pumps in the return hose to the engine.  I could certainly 
> put them before the cores, but I'm still not sure I agree with doing that. 
>  
> The factory pump is essentially ahead of the engine, and it's outlet 
> forces water into the block.   The Davies Craig, and Meziere EWP's are 
> designed to do the same thing.  I've always understood that the idea was 
> to artificially increase the pressure in the block, to raise the boiling 
> point further, and this seems like as good a reason as any for pump 
> placement. 
>  
> Thanks again for the comments.
> Rusty (don't know if I'm coming or going)
>  
>  
>  
>  

I don't see the difference.  It's a closed circuit.  There is a pressure 
drop across the engine, and one across the radiator, both drops 
determined by the flow and their individual resistance to that flow. 
It's the A+B=B+A thing (isn't it?)

-- 
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
   alleviated by information and experience."
                                   Veeduber