X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.32] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c2) with ESMTP id 5837679 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:10:57 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.32; envelope-from=wschertz@comcast.net Received: from omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.36]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id EBHn1k00J0mv7h053UASmT; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 04:10:26 +0000 Received: from WschertzPC ([71.57.77.95]) by omta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id EUA81k00M23NHuF3XUA9P0; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 04:10:09 +0000 Message-ID: From: "Bill Schertz" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:10:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01CDB0AA.683560F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01CDB0AA.683560F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I guess that I don=E2=80=99t understand this (Mark=E2=80=99s) comment. I = am assuming that the radiator is lower than the water pump in any = circumstance, since in general it is either below the engine, or on the = side like Tracy=E2=80=99s. The Mazda pump is very high, and any loss of = coolant will cause loss of prime if air gets in the pump, but whether = the outlet of the pump goes to the bottom of the radiator, or the top, I = don=E2=80=99t see the difference. What am I missing? Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser #4045 N343BS Phase one testing Completed From: Mark Steitle=20 Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 6:25 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator Charlie, =20 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. =20 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=20 Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 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..... =20 = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrCNnEgRkdXc&context=3DC3e091d3ADOEgsToPD= skKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu Ben Haas www.haaspowerair.com =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- 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.=20 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=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01CDB0AA.683560F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I guess that I don=E2=80=99t understand this (Mark=E2=80=99s) = comment. I am assuming that=20 the radiator is lower than the water pump in any circumstance, since in = general=20 it is either below the engine, or on the side like Tracy=E2=80=99s. The = Mazda pump is=20 very high, and any loss of coolant will cause loss of prime if air gets = in the=20 pump, but whether the outlet of the pump goes to the bottom of the = radiator, or=20 the top, I don=E2=80=99t see the difference. What am I missing?
 
Bill=20 Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase one testing = Completed
 
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 6:25 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional=20 radiator
 
Charlie, =20
 
So, with the bottom-up flow what what happens if you get a little = low on=20 coolant?  My guess is the pump will start pumping air along with = the=20 coolant, and eventually loose prime altogether and the remaining coolant = will=20 stop flowing, followed shortly by a catastrophic boil-over.  This = may be=20 why auto makers favor the top-down flow design.  The Mazda's water = pump is=20 already very high up on the engine.  I wouldn't want to aggravate = this even=20 more.  Also, the cross-flow design doesn't suffer this failure = mode,=20 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=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 = function=20 of RPM and can rise to as much as 20 psi (10 psi over system pressure = in 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 = problems.
 
Bill = Schertz
KIS Cruiser=20 #4045
N343BS
Phase one testing Completed
 
From: Ben Haas
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional=20 radiator
 
Unless there is a serious restriction through the = radiator =20 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=20 top,,, It's called counter flow, and yes it can work. My set up has = worked=20 flawlessly for 500 hours and I use the Moroso swirl / pressure tank = and a air=20 bleed line from the output of the radiator...  About 3 minutes = into this=20 video shows my set up.....
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrCNnEgRkdXc&context=3D= C3e091d3ADOEgsToPDskKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu

Ben Haas
www.haaspowerair.com

 
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 22 Oct = 2012=20 12:40:11 -0500
From: ceengland7@gmail.com
Subject: [FlyRotary] flow = path in=20 conventional radiator

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

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


What am I missing?

Thanks,

Charlie= =20 =
<= /DIV>
 
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01CDB0AA.683560F0--