X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-yh0-f52.google.com ([209.85.213.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c2) with ESMTPS id 5837645 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:53:25 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.213.52; envelope-from=ceengland7@gmail.com Received: by mail-yh0-f52.google.com with SMTP id o22so588247yho.25 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:52:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=asKtbH/xWsRrCXttqbTgCPyyBBuEA+CpjkjbILWJ3/U=; b=0RGwbZWs0NdtHAySIVMeyR2vH1ZfWZOY8lhLwI1ZBZLPuY3eaIPZRBWQTEdUOoiuhe GcKURqI45tBIGimILHz7trBi2SQ9j7nXLPaa/xhoH42d/SnCbB7+fwLh8Sgd9ZDvBhmd go2R3Dwg31bDJQZsJ4XKthQ6VjVjvRT86ckLkiM2gvt9HVJ3GvR1lMRaDmlf9xPcf1CZ 1hJUZaomcJGTh2EuqoijAUxN+TW8YSSMVyxIVPSO9Ci5qAUp/8zW2+bDlrJm45nbDwQ/ dyYHopXQUyhCvUefafrz3A/5ftvBgN8B3F6yb1SFSg0/HkluyrxScq0fJIaG2omyL//E 9JRQ== Received: by 10.236.52.198 with SMTP id e46mr10204089yhc.57.1350960770088; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.10.30] (adsl-98-95-189-156.jan.bellsouth.net. [98.95.189.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m26sm10761445yhc.17.2012.10.22.19.52.48 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:52:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5086067E.4070405@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:52:46 -0500 From: Charlie England User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060108080505010502080702" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060108080505010502080702 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I can't find it either, but I think that we're on the same page: swirl tank highest in the system, air bleed vents from top of rad & top of engine block to swirl tank, bottom of swirl tank to water pump inlet. Thanks again for the reminder about drawing from the bottom of the rad. Charlie On 10/22/2012 08:08 PM, Mark Steitle wrote: > 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 > 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 >> > 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 (downflowdesign) >> 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 >> ventedusing the existing fittings. I'm also considering the >> removal of the spring loaded seal, & moving the pressure cap >> function to a separate swirlcan. 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 >> >> > > --------------060108080505010502080702 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I can't find it either, but I think that we're on the same page: swirl tank highest in the system, air bleed vents from top of rad & top of engine block to swirl tank, bottom of swirl tank to water pump inlet.

Thanks again for the reminder about drawing from the bottom of the rad.

Charlie


On 10/22/2012 08:08 PM, Mark Steitle wrote:
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
 
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




--------------060108080505010502080702--