X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-gh0-f180.google.com ([209.85.160.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c2) with ESMTPS id 5837330 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:24:19 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.160.180; envelope-from=rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by mail-gh0-f180.google.com with SMTP id f19so539340ghb.25 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:23:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:references:from:content-type:x-mailer:in-reply-to :message-id:date:to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=5sq1j8j0e625y86am5DvNVHbnRqKFuX+OLSU2hK7xpM=; b=y6+XpM1nPjtQjooFPrdUYiQJQYQl+vdZ9VUr52gDmZzcGJWBNuAJuNPNb+O2y9o43L Q64BwAP8Q7/eWa4dBe+ovzDpGOxFzAVC/KuyNJAean8QwlJspqqEIoygsJOu9AZRL9Pr qIAVcNBhAMhbDA7eseHiaZ3Gtki3MUr9dP7RfHZ5azjIf3PLdY9Y75h2GQfT0atRHZLM Hq/O8KwVquxWVcVtGW2R5HBmHMOGxJq9NMEmFHNr0dMQiJHi2S6j8vFbhI/B3KnXFA2N CefAfLzQyICchsT3M0EoRSTbEu8Vj1iFj4FWITyqeEdw/oM5clWunrKZ6MIRCS5cf1XD OM+Q== Received: by 10.236.140.10 with SMTP id d10mr9592327yhj.112.1350937422020; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.1.3] (149.sub-70-196-198.myvzw.com. [70.196.198.149]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a44sm9918044yhe.21.2012.10.22.13.23.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator References: From: Tracy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-FA9916B9-EDA3-46B9-8ECD-7CBF7EBAC08C X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10A403) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <50B50C54-15E1-4902-8959-12B92E08A298@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:23:35 -0600 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-FA9916B9-EDA3-46B9-8ECD-7CBF7EBAC08C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think One of the most restrictive points in the system is the passage to t= he outlet of the water pump housing. Remember this is NOT the outlet of the= water pump itself. In the pump housing is an oval passage that is too sma= ll to get two fingers through. It has been my assumption that this was to m= ake the pressure high in the block at high rpm in order to avoid local boili= ng in the combustion chamber area. Hi pressure in the block is a good thing= . I run a 29 PSI cap. Tracy Sent from my iPad On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:05 PM, "Bill Schertz" wrote: > Charlie, I am using two evap cores in parallel, with system pressure limit= ed to 10 psi on the expansion bottle. When the engine is running, the pressu= re measured at the inlet to the cores (exit of the pump) is a function of R= PM and can rise to as much as 20 psi (10 psi over system pressure in the exp= ansion bottle). > =20 > Having the flow enter the bottom of the radiator and out the top, then goi= ng to the inlet of the pump sounds like a good way to avoid problems. > =20 > Bill Schertz > KIS Cruiser #4045 > N343BS > Phase one testing Completed > =20 > From: Ben Haas > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator > =20 > Unless there is a serious restriction through the radiator I can't imagin= e there would be anything greater then 1 psi over system pressure caused by p= ump output. As for the reverse flow, ie, bottom to top,,, It's called count= er flow, and yes it can work. My set up has worked flawlessly for 500 hours a= nd I use the Moroso swirl / pressure tank and a air bleed line from the outp= ut of the radiator... About 3 minutes into this video shows my set up..... > =20 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrCNnEgRkdXc&context=3DC3e091d3ADOEgsToPDs= kKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu >=20 > Ben Haas > www.haaspowerair.com >=20 > =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 >=20 > I've been doing research on radiators, & my 1st 'experiment' will be a con= ventionally configured radiator (downflow design) with inlet & pressure cap o= n top. In reading about issues with conventional radiators, a common complai= nt 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 b= ecause the cap is at the mid-point in the flow through the rad, which drops s= ome of the pressure seen by the cap.=20 >=20 > Here's my question: Is there any reason a conventional rad can't be fed fr= om the bottom, instead of the top? This would achieve similar effect as the c= rossflow cap location (all the way to the end of the flow path) & any air c= ould 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. >=20 >=20 > What am I missing? >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Charlie=20 --Apple-Mail-FA9916B9-EDA3-46B9-8ECD-7CBF7EBAC08C Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think One of the most restrictive points in the system is the passage to the outlet of the water pump housing.  Remember this is NOT the outlet of the water pump itself.  In the pump housing  is an oval passage that is too small to get two fingers through.  It has been my assumption that this was to make the pressure high in the block at high rpm in order to avoid local boiling in the combustion chamber area.  Hi pressure in the block is a good thing.   I run a 29 PSI cap.

Tracy

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:05 PM, "Bill Schertz" <wschertz@comcast.net> wrote:

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
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM
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.....
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCNnEgRkdXc&context=C3e091d3ADOEgsToPDskKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu

Ben Haas
www.haaspowerair.com

 
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.

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
--Apple-Mail-FA9916B9-EDA3-46B9-8ECD-7CBF7EBAC08C--