Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [205.245.5.87] (account <marv@lancaironline.net>)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.0.3)
  with HTTP id 1940931 for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 20:40:15 -0500
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Ordered my EWP
To: flyrotary
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.4.0.3
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 20:40:15 -0500
Message-ID: <web-1940931@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <000e01c2ae83$8acdff20$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>:

Hi Todd,

      Looking foward to your report.  I agree, that the smaller, more numerous 
tubes would offer more surface area for heat transfer.  My concern would be 
that they will also offer increased resistance to coolant flow.  So the 
question is which factor dominates?  But, the proof of the pudding is in the 
eathing, as they say, so your data will be most welcome.  Hopefully, it will 
work as you hypothsize.  Good luck at tech school.

Ed

   
>>>       My theory is that the smaller passages in the Ford cores will allow 
more surface to coolant contact, which is what we are looking for. The size of 
the Ford cores allow for a far better mounting arrangement, which positions 
the cores for optimum airflow.<<<