X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from qmta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.27.211] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c2) with ESMTP id 5837190 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:05:43 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.27.211; envelope-from=wschertz@comcast.net Received: from omta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.51]) by qmta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id EDvy1k00416AWCUABK57at; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:05:07 +0000 Received: from WschertzPC ([71.57.77.95]) by omta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id EK551k00R23NHuF8SK566U; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:05:06 +0000 Message-ID: <7BEA68C364BE4FF49144FF1CF76EABCB@WschertzPC> From: "Bill Schertz" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:05:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0026_01CDB05E.3CBE95F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01CDB05E.3CBE95F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Charlie, I am using two evap cores in parallel, with system pressure = limited to 10 psi on the expansion bottle. When the engine is running, = the pressure measured at the inlet to the cores (exit of the pump) is a = function of RPM and can rise to as much as 20 psi (10 psi over system = pressure in the expansion bottle). Having the flow enter the bottom of the radiator and out the top, then = going to the inlet of the pump sounds like a good way to avoid problems. Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser #4045 N343BS Phase one testing Completed From: Ben Haas=20 Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator Unless there is a serious restriction through the radiator I can't = imagine there would be anything greater then 1 psi over system pressure = caused by pump output. As for the reverse flow, ie, bottom to top,,, = It's called counter flow, and yes it can work. My set up has worked = flawlessly for 500 hours and I use the Moroso swirl / pressure tank and = a air bleed line from the output of the radiator... About 3 minutes = into this video shows my set up..... =20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrCNnEgRkdXc&context=3DC3e091d3ADOEgsToPD= skKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu Ben Haas www.haaspowerair.com =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:40:11 -0500 From: ceengland7@gmail.com Subject: [FlyRotary] flow path in conventional radiator I've been doing research on radiators, & my 1st 'experiment' will be a = conventionally configured radiator (downflow design) with inlet & = pressure cap on top. In reading about issues with conventional = radiators, a common complaint is pressure venting due to the water pump = + system pressure exceeding the cap's rating. Crossflow types like the = Sirocco are supposed to avoid this because the cap is at the mid-point = in the flow through the rad, which drops some of the pressure seen by = the cap.=20 Here's my question: Is there any reason a conventional rad can't be fed = from the bottom, instead of the top? This would achieve similar effect = as the crossflow cap location (all the way to the end of the flow path) = & any air could be vented using the existing fittings. I'm also = considering the removal of the spring loaded seal, & moving the pressure = cap function to a separate swirl can. By doing this, the existing = over-pressure port could function as the air removal port in the top = tank of the radiator. What am I missing? Thanks, Charlie=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01CDB05E.3CBE95F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Charlie, I am using two evap cores in parallel, with system = pressure=20 limited to 10 psi on the expansion bottle. When the engine is running, = the=20 pressure measured at the inlet to the cores (exit of the pump) is a = function of=20 RPM and can rise to as much as 20 psi (10 psi over system pressure in = the=20 expansion bottle).
 
Having the flow enter the bottom of the radiator and out the top, = then=20 going to the inlet of the pump sounds like a good way to avoid = problems.
 
Bill=20 Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase one testing = Completed
 
From: Ben Haas
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional=20 radiator
 
Unless there is a serious restriction through the = radiator  I=20 can't imagine there would be anything greater then 1 psi over system = pressure=20 caused by pump output.  As for the reverse flow, ie, bottom to = top,,, It's=20 called counter flow, and yes it can work. My set up has worked = flawlessly for=20 500 hours and I use the Moroso swirl / pressure tank and a air bleed = line from=20 the output of the radiator...  About 3 minutes into this video = shows my set=20 up.....
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrC= NnEgRkdXc&context=3DC3e091d3ADOEgsToPDskKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu
Ben Haas
www.haaspowerair.com

 
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:40:11=20 -0500
From: ceengland7@gmail.com
Subject: [FlyRotary] flow path in = conventional radiator

I've = been doing research on radiators, & my 1st 'experiment'=20 will be a conventionally = configured=20 radiator (downflow design) with inlet & pressure cap = on top.=20 In reading about issues with conventional radiators, a common complaint = is=20 pressure venting due to the water pump + system=20 pressure exceeding the cap's rating. Crossflow types like the Sirocco are supposed = to avoid this=20 because the cap is at the mid-point in the flow through the rad, which = drops=20 some of the pressure seen by the cap.

Here's my question: Is there = any reason a=20 conventional rad can't be fed from the bottom, instead of the top? = This would achieve similar effect as the = crossflow cap=20 location (all the way to the end of the flow path) & = any air=20 could be vented using the existing fittings. I'm also = considering the removal of the spring loaded = seal, &=20 moving the pressure cap function to a separate = swirl=20 can. By doing this, the existing over-pressure port=20 could function as the air removal port in the top tank = of the=20 radiator.


What am I missing?

Thanks,

Charlie= =20
= ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01CDB05E.3CBE95F0--