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 5837859 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:45:23 -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 hz10so2300785pad.25 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 03:44:46 -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=t33s7ByMaf7Vx2cCnlxjYMafWDsUxRBsHmhZmUyNRpU=; b=Mg+Hbg0A3Tk+WU8szR/2BKqXrWwf4SlF3FrNMRHJ2NnzgkKn+WKd+WGEn1N4zI37qi QqtGNO7lHVvPjQzZlWGbS9EfRUFpqulujpBfbdrFZfkF4mEacpBNh5zHfOMmPICos5Z/ xa6GKs4T0QEqPI5GWmQK6u3pYEQNKTh1znKkIvuVmyP7n3hJmTR9ry0M3uZ41WIxFwhT SMF2beF7eKYxl5LIToP4T5hrSaX3z/T78qSjECqYk5hrmljaOdCoKtH65LTKviquewPd fKWcfSRRrhy4AIzkfpZUW39B+DSeITmdHhb7gbGT7Ed+uj2dzPcmQvVJyetdtGpkd2VX VLhQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.66.81.138 with SMTP id a10mr33861821pay.53.1350989086413; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 03:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.4.132 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 03:44:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 05:44:46 -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=f46d042ef4c19753fb04ccb7a8be --f46d042ef4c19753fb04ccb7a8be Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, Since Charlie hasn't posted any pictures or sketches of his design, I was referencing more what you'll find in auto installations than in a/c. Still the principles are the same, namely that the coolant naturally flows to the bottom and air goes to the top. If it gets low enough, the pump will begin sucking air and will soon loose prime. This will happen much quicker if you're drawing off the upper tank. Of course, if the radiator is located below the engine it will take longer for this to happen than if it is beside the engine because the air pocket will be inside the engine rather than in the radiator. If you have a coolant leak in flight, you'll benefit from more time to get on the ground rather than less. I don't see where it makes any difference which tank you *return* the coolant to, but when supplying the pump, any air will risk loss of prime. So, it makes sense to me to draw from the bottom and return to the top. At least that's how I understand it. In the end its Charlie's decision. Mark On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Bill Schertz wrote= : > I guess that I don=92t understand this (Mark=92s) comment. I am assumin= g > 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=92s. = 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=92t see the difference. What am= I > missing? > > Bill Schertz > KIS Cruiser #4045 > N343BS > Phase one testing Completed > > *From:* Mark Steitle > *Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2012 6:25 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator > > 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 ma= y > be why auto makers favor the top-down flow design. The Mazda's water pum= p > 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, t= he >> 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 flawlessl= y >> 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=3DrCNnEgRkdXc&context=3DC3e091d3ADOEgsToP= DskKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu >> >> 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 fl= ow >> 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 consider= ing >> the removal of the spring loaded seal, & moving the pressure cap >> function to a separate swirl can. By doing this, the existing over-press= ure >> port could function as the air removal port in the top tank of the >> radiator. >> >> >> What am I missing? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Charlie >> > > --f46d042ef4c19753fb04ccb7a8be Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill,=A0

Since Charlie hasn't posted any pictures or= sketches of his design, I was referencing more what you'll find in aut= o installations than in a/c. =A0Still the principles are the same, namely t= hat the coolant naturally flows to the bottom and air goes to the top. =A0I= f it gets low enough, the pump will begin sucking air and will soon loose p= rime. =A0This will happen much quicker if you're drawing off the upper = tank. =A0Of course, if the radiator is located below the engine it will tak= e longer for this to happen than if it is beside the engine because the air= pocket will be inside the engine rather than in the radiator. =A0If you ha= ve a coolant leak in flight, you'll benefit from more time to get on th= e ground rather than less.=A0

I don't see where it makes any difference which tan= k you return the coolant to, but when supplying the pump, any air wi= ll risk loss of prime. =A0So, it makes sense to me to draw from the bottom = and return to the top. =A0At least that's how I understand it.

=A0In the end its Charlie's decision.
Mark

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at = 11:10 PM, Bill Schertz <wschertz@comcast.net> wrote:
I guess that I don=92t understand this (Mark=92s) comment. I am assumi= ng that=20 the radiator is lower than the water pump in any circumstance, since in gen= eral=20 it is either below the engine, or on the side like Tracy=92s. The Mazda pum= p 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=92t see the difference. What am I missing?
=A0
Bill=20 Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase one testing Completed
=A0
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 6:25 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <= /div>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional=20 radiator
=A0
Charlie,=A0=20
=A0
So, with the bottom-up flow what what happens if you get a little low = on=20 coolant?=A0 My guess is the pump will start pumping air along with the=20 coolant, and eventually loose prime altogether and the remaining coolant wi= ll=20 stop flowing, followed shortly by a catastrophic boil-over.=A0 This may be= =20 why auto makers favor the top-down flow design.=A0 The Mazda's water pu= mp is=20 already very high up on the engine.=A0 I wouldn't want to aggravate thi= s even=20 more.=A0 Also, the cross-flow design doesn't suffer this failure mode,= =20 assuming you draw from the lower hole.
=A0
Mark S.=A0=A0=A0

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, th= e=20 pressure measured at the inlet to the cores (exit of the pump) is a funct= ion=20 of 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, th= en=20 going to the inlet of the pump sounds like a good way to avoid problems.<= /div>
=A0
Bill SchertzKIS Cruiser=20 #4045
N343BS
Phase one testing Completed
=A0
From: Ben Haas
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional=20 radiator
=A0
Unless there is a serious restriction through the radiat= or=A0=20 I can't imagine there would be anything greater then 1 psi over syste= m=20 pressure caused by pump output.=A0 As for the reverse flow, ie, bottom to= =20 top,,, It's called counter flow, and yes it can work. My set up has w= orked=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...=A0 About 3 minutes into thi= s=20 video shows my set up.....
=A0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrCNnEgRkdXc&conte= xt=3DC3e091d3ADOEgsToPDskKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu

Ben Haas
www.haaspowerair.com
=
=A0
To: flyr= otary@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 t= o 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 m= y question: Is=20 there any reason a conventional rad can't be fed fr= om the=20 bottom, instead of the top? This woul= d achieve=20 similar effect as the crossflow cap location (all the w= ay to the=20 end of the flow path) & any air could be vented usi= ng 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 ex= isting over-pressure port could function as=20 the air removal port in the top tank of the radiator.


What am I missing?

Tha= nks,

Charlie<= /font>=20
<= /div>
=A0

--f46d042ef4c19753fb04ccb7a8be--