| Charlie,
I can't find it at the moment, but Lynn H. posted a rotary cooling schematic a while back. You may find it helpful in working out your design. As for the radiator cap on the swirl tank, that's what I've done and it works well provided it is at the high point in the system. I rarely have to add coolant to my system. A picture or sketch of your design would be helpful for the rest of us in visualizing your layout.
Mark On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
Ahhh, yes; an answer that gives a
logical reason for top feeding the rad. Thanks Mark; I figured
that I must be overlooking something.
If I move the pressure cap to the swirl tank & use the higher
pressure cap, I should be able to feed the rad normally.
Charlie
On 10/22/2012 06:25 PM, Mark Steitle wrote:
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 <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
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
|