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 5837596 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:56:01 -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 hz10so2017636pad.25 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:55:24 -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=yNpNdz8MQSgkl8ooIsfZPM5PmlmMCI877zwZhnsglF4=; b=oe+bYdyJvyy4rTpnGqTX+MFW6JxWHZLDb/yCy12HGTKuVHn9GVKgHAQF4Xq6nQRMsd P/0zY5EpSiPjcBZ5Y/Gab1hTcztYIpvzGrOSJarrzd9pOc3Wdzkj5EzIYdckbRtxOKn6 z8Hh2KlolH6qXiQvIYaE30jMDn4OV6KEej/BEEWQsiLlRBJxnDUx14q8IDw//GjTcvih HJHpENhZNSSFkyHzH+nDwK66Jlm0DQn+aJvPK1t9+rS0SE5P7gKGbrH4cGf5mrXhzZ3+ Dujdq7mT75iQAN1+/85bFfMB7SoFwVpXaxADEllOHbRkFO/iF1rVvEWCWgDq21CKim4T WScQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.66.77.201 with SMTP id u9mr30575204paw.6.1350953724152; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.4.132 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:55:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:55:24 -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=f46d042f948ad60bb304ccaf6cbd --f46d042f948ad60bb304ccaf6cbd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Steve, As I recall, the high pressure raises the boiling point of the coolant which is a good thing. Mark On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Izett wrote: > I understood the higher pressure caps being used was to compensate for > atmospheric pressure dropping with altitude. > If the atmospheric pressure drop at 10K is approx 11psi over sea level > then a traditional low pressure cap is not going to provide much margin. > Is there another reason for the higher cap rating? > > Steve Izett > > On 23/10/2012, at 4:23 AM, Tracy wrote: > > 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" 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 > > > --f46d042f948ad60bb304ccaf6cbd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Steve,=A0

As I recall, the high pressure raises the boil= ing point of the coolant which is a good thing.

Ma= rk

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Steph= en Izett <steveizett@me.com> wrote:
I unders= tood the higher pressure caps being used was to compensate for atmospheric = pressure dropping with altitude.
If the atmospheric pressure drop at 10K is approx 11psi over sea level then= a traditional low pressure cap is not going to provide much margin.
<= div>Is there another reason for the higher cap rating?

Steve Izett

On 23/10/2012, at = 4:23 AM, Tracy wrote:

I think One of the most restrictive points in = the system is the passage to the outlet of the water pump housing. =A0Remem= ber this is NOT the outlet of the water pump itself. =A0In the pump housing= =A0is an oval passage that is too small to get two fingers through. =A0It = 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= . =A0Hi pressure in the block is a good thing. =A0 I run a 29 PSI cap.

Tracy

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:05 PM, "Bill Schertz" &l= t;wschertz@comcas= t.net> 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


--f46d042f948ad60bb304ccaf6cbd--