X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma04.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c2) with ESMTP id 5837491 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:37:26 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.42; envelope-from=ARGOLDMAN@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.77]) by imr-ma04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q9MMah3q018119 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:36:43 -0400 Received: from core-dsa001c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dsa001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.252.65]) by mtaomg-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 77214E000093 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:36:43 -0400 (EDT) From: ARGOLDMAN@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d52d.446c2251.3db7247b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 5004 X-Originating-IP: [67.184.50.137] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20110426; t=1350945403; bh=jbW58uBGW0TACTadnQvF7fNjHkTQ0EG9INjm9oze1A4=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=IPPL5qUk0SL+Q8fd+l0hMq0fbVYGi0Pi41HqF7oI1VOW8pqMkbr53N6ZMhCWjmyV+ LOTnMUDduaG27azjwqiEhYQH++PWCSQwViYS259p5y/dD6VMSjmCP+6YDe66RnEeaL IzLjvSXenESSpIL7+SEf2HvCfD0KNywwoULkdD8Q= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:470248896:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294d5085ca7b7475 --part1_d52d.446c2251.3db7247b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Interesting, Tracy, With that high cap pressure setting, what is the actual water (coolant) pressure that you experience. With those using lower caps, are you experiencing coolant blow off??(or out). It has been my understanding, perhaps incorrectly, that the increase in pressure, of the coolant, is a product of the expansion of the coolant body due to the increase in temperature. At the specified coolant max temperature, wouldn't the pressure relatively the same. Wouldn't it increase, only with greater temps which would endanger the "O" rings? OR, am I full of it (coolant). I will be the first to admit that my engine is not running yet and thus have not had to deal with problems of the pressure, or even radiator persuasion yet. Rich In a message dated 10/22/2012 3:24:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time, rwstracy@gmail.com writes: 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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto:stol83001@live.com) Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM To: _Rotary motors in aircraft_ (mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net) 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=C3e091d3ADOEgsToPDskKmHo 69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCNnEgRkdXc&context=C3e091d3ADOEgsToPDskKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu) Ben Haas _www.haaspowerair.com_ (http://www.haaspowerair.com/) ____________________________________ To: _flyrotary@lancaironline.net_ (mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:40:11 -0500 From: _ceengland7@gmail.com_ (mailto: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 --part1_d52d.446c2251.3db7247b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 =20
Interesting, Tracy,
 
With that high cap pressure setting, what is the actual water (coolant= )=20 pressure that you experience.
 
With those using lower caps, are you experiencing coolant blow off??(o= r=20 out).
 
It has been my understanding, perhaps incorrectly, that the increase i= n=20 pressure, of the coolant, is a product of the expansion of the coolant body= due=20 to the increase in temperature. At the specified coolant max=20 temperature, wouldn't the pressure relatively the same. Wouldn't = it=20 increase, only with greater temps which would endanger the "O" rings?
 
OR, am I full of it (coolant).
 
I will be the first to admit that my engine is not running yet and thu= s=20 have not had to deal with problems of the pressure, or even radiator persua= sion=20 yet.
 
Rich
 
In a message dated 10/22/2012 3:24:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 rwstracy@gmail.com writes:
=
I think One of the most restrictive points in the system is the pass= age=20 to the outlet of the water pump housing.  Remember this is NOT the o= utlet=20 of the water pump itself.  In the pump housing  is an oval pass= age=20 that is too small to get two fingers through.  It has been my assump= tion=20 that this was to make the pressure high in the block at high rpm in order= to=20 avoid local boiling in the combustion chamber area.  Hi pressure in = the=20 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>=20 wrote:

Charlie, I am using two evap cores in parallel, with system pressu= re=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 fun= ction=20 of RPM and can rise to as much as 20 psi (10 psi over system pressure i= n 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=20 problems.
 
Bi= ll=20 Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase one testing Completed
 
From: Be= n=20 Haas
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional=20 radiator
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrC= NnEgRkdXc&context=3DC3e091d3ADOEgsToPDskKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu
<= BR>Ben Haas
www.haaspowerair.com
 
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net=
Date:=20 Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:40:11 -0500
From: ceengland7@gmail.com
Subjec= t:=20 [FlyRotary] flow path in conventional radiator

<= FONT=20 face=3DArial>I've been doing research on radiators, &am= p; my 1st=20 'experiment' will be a conventionally configured radiator (downflow=20 design) with inlet & pressure cap on top. In reading about issues w= ith=20 conventional radiators, a common complaint is pressure venting due to the water pump + system pressure exceedi= ng the=20 cap's rating. Crossflow= types like=20 the Sirocco are supposed to avoid this because the cap = is at=20 the mid-point in the flow through the rad, which drops some of the=20 pressure seen by the cap.

Here<= FONT=20 size=3D+1>'s my question: Is there any reason a convent= ional rad=20 can't be fed from the bottom, instead of the top? This = would achieve similar effect as the crossflow cap location (<= FONT=20 size=3D+1>all the way to the end of the flow path) & any air could = be=20 vented using the existing fittings. I'm also considering the removal of the spring loaded sea= l, &=20 moving the pressure cap function to a separate swirl can. By doing this, the existing over-pressure port could function as the air remo= val port=20 in the top tank of the radiator.


What am I= =20 missing?

Thanks,

Charlie<= /FONT>=20
--part1_d52d.446c2251.3db7247b_boundary--