X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c2) with ESMTPS id 5837535 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:26:31 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.52; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id hz10so1977463pad.25 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:25:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=z/CRdMWpqN0YbNbIszj2LrCgtwmtQ4gVYf+EdP70ouo=; b=ezWw6Rcr/18Ya6m3jt/r5kmDnHhz+C3eNocq6dPB28kDl8LUg09J5qcHKD2eZYuhaH Uaz4LiGsPbxEL4KtPhzd+F/v+/w9/VokCy9SAU1Fn8w4th90rzWjNegv0mXpIyHZ2rpY H88Z0/bw9uGf9v+N4cy+DxDM+ev16Us2CTy/fmGEPXw5ykhtJVP+zKAyfvvSCTsIdVJb oS+pKzsSRLjcv+vjks71erT9L0wtYcUZq/FSVPdL+1wsnDr5p5hqpnjH4rffmZl7ZnTX 6Yur5mn+XDv3UQGS/Dgfu1Ni23mYqY42+gurWzR+RVlhGYmJS4sfSHTJaoLDcnqClF8X LLzw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.66.81.103 with SMTP id z7mr29909964pax.57.1350948354862; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.4.132 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:25:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:25:54 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042de43fcd2cc604ccae2cbe --f46d042de43fcd2cc604ccae2cbe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Charlie, So, with the bottom-up flow what what happens if you get a little low on coolant? My guess is the pump will start pumping air along with the coolant, and eventually loose prime altogether and the remaining coolant will stop flowing, followed shortly by a catastrophic boil-over. This may be why auto makers favor the top-down flow design. The Mazda's water pump is already very high up on the engine. I wouldn't want to aggravate this even more. Also, the cross-flow design doesn't suffer this failure mode, assuming you draw from the lower hole. Mark S. On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Bill Schertz 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 > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *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 > --f46d042de43fcd2cc604ccae2cbe Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Charlie,=A0

So, with the bottom-up flow what what happen= s if you get a little low on coolant? =A0My guess is the pump will start pu= mping air along with the coolant, and eventually loose prime altogether and= the remaining coolant will stop flowing, followed shortly by a catastrophi= c boil-over. =A0This may be why auto makers favor the top-down flow design.= =A0The Mazda's water pump is already very high up on the engine. =A0I = wouldn't want to aggravate this even more. =A0Also, the cross-flow desi= gn doesn't suffer this failure mode, assuming you draw from the lower h= ole.

Mark S. =A0 =A0

On Mo= n, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Bill Schertz <wschertz@comcast.net><= /span> wrote:
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 functio= n of=20 RPM and can rise to as much as 20 psi (10 psi over system pressure in the= =20 expansion bottle).
=A0
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.
=A0
Bill=20 Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase one testing Completed
=A0
From: Ben Haas
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <= /div>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional=20 radiator
=A0
Unless there is a serious restriction through the radiator= =A0 I=20 can't imagine there would be anything greater then 1 psi over system pr= essure=20 caused by pump output.=A0 As for the reverse flow, ie, bottom to top,,, It&= #39;s=20 called counter flow, and yes it can work. My set up has worked flawlessly f= or=20 500 hours and I use the Moroso swirl / pressure tank and a air bleed line f= rom=20 the output of the radiator...=A0 About 3 minutes into this video shows my s= et=20 up.....
=A0
= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrCNnEgRkdXc&context=3DC3e091d3ADOEgsTo= PDskKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu

Ben Haas
www.haaspowerair.com
=
=A0
To: flyrot= ary@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:40:11=20 -0500
From: ce= england7@gmail.com
Subject: [FlyRotary] flow path in=20 conventional radiator

I'v= e 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 drop= s=20 some of the pressure seen by the cap.

Here's my question: Is ther= e any reason a=20 conventional rad can't be fed from the bottom, instead of the top? This would achieve similar effect as the cr= ossflow 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-p= ressure port=20 could function as the air removal port in the top tank of= the=20 radiator.


What am I missing?

Thanks,

Charlie= =20

--f46d042de43fcd2cc604ccae2cbe--