Message-ID: <3F725937.3AFBA4A4@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:55:51 -0400
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: DIE the short Answer
References: <list-2602546@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I don't think ingesting iron filings is the way to go, and I don't think magnets
will prevent ingestion.  I further don't think any of us can develop a reliable
(key word here), simple (even more key) telescoping intake.  For openers, it
would involve a largish object (plenum, throttle valve and connection to air
filter/turbo) that sort of meanders all over the engine compartment, roaming
hither and yon in search of the ideal runner length, and only very marginally
lashed down (as that would inhibit its meanderings).  This whole train of
thought is turning into a ten cent tail wagging a forty dollar dog.

It was my brain fart and I'm sorry I let it slip out  ... time to take a
different tack .... Jim S.

William wrote:

> Ed,
> There is a sealing technique that relies on surface tension that might work,
> tolerance would not have to be super accurate.
>
> Visualize a small groove on the inside of the outer tube, and then fill it
> with a high temperature silicone oil that is loaded with very fine iron
> particles.  put a magnet around the tube, and the particles stay in the
> location of the magnet, and the surface tension of the oil to the particles
> holds the oil where the particles are.  Then slip the inner tube into the
> outer tube, and the oil-ring acts like an 0-ring, but with very low
> friction.
>
> Bill Schertz
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ed Anderson"
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: DIE the short Answer
>
> >
> > Either I am going to have to stop talking with you guys all together or
> else
> > start talking to you a lot sooner on my projects {:>)  Good idea, Jim, if
> I
> > say so myself.
> >
> > The two tubes in my newest manifold design (after combining primary and
> > secondaries for each rotor) do telescope within one another.  There is no
> > sealing at this point.  IF you use tubing meant for telescoping you can
> get
> > it so that there is .0045 " clearance between the OD of inner tube and ID
> of
> > outer tube.  Now this does not stop air leaks, but it sure slows it down.
> > You can maintain pressure in the tubes just with your breath.  However,
> what
> > I next plan to do is to have the tubes nickle plated (as I did Tracy's
> > PSRU).  Nickle it turns out has a property that is akin to lubrication
> > (Sorry not sure what the mechanism is) in that given Nickle's hardness and
> > this "Lubrication" property it would 1. prevent the aluminum from gauling
> > and 2. facilitate the tubes sliding and 3.  If you coat with the right
> > amount you reduce that .0045" clearance even more.  Now, my problem is I
> > don't know for say a 2" dia tube what clearance below .0045" might be
> fairly
> > air tight.  As I said, the leak is slow enough with the .0045" that your
> > breath can maintain pressure in the tube against the leak.  So that big
> pump
> > of an engine might not notice the leak at all except perhaps ad idle.  If
> > thats not the case, then rubber booties like you suggest would probably
> > work.
> >
> > So my two tubes have the plenum and throttle body with two injectors on
> the
> > one end and the lower manifold on the other.  IF my concept for
> > self-alignment of the tubes work out together with my plan on using a ball
> > bearing draw-slide (or something a bit more expensive designed for this
> type
> > of thing) and mount the Plenum to the part that slides and the other end
> of
> > the drawer slide to the lower manifold.  Then a screw driven by a 12V
> motor
> > would drive a "NUT" fixed to the plenum up and down on this track.
> >
> > I really would like to use one of those electromechanicam actuators that
> > have the screw going throught the middle of the motor, but they are a bit
> > expensive.
> >
> > I think I partially answered your last question, already.  My design have
> > the two runners from each rotor "merged" into one tube for a total of two
> > tubes.  In the automobile and with different port timing for primary and
> > secondary, the separate runners were just about necessitated.  However, if
> > like with a turbo block or any block where the port timing is the same,
> then
> > I can no longer see any great advantage for separate runners.  However,
> > merged or not, it does not change the pulse timing in the rotary for the
> > EDDIE.  I don't quite see that your suggestion of a common plenum up close
> > and personal to the rotaries would work with the EDDIE.  I'll have to give
> > it some thought.
> >
> > Calibrate - based on manifold air temperature, Hummmm.  Like I say -
> either
> > got to stop talking with your guys or talk with you a lot sooner {:>)
> >
> > Some excellent ideas. Keep 'em coming.
> >
> > Ed Anderson
> >