X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm25-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.91.213] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c2) with ESMTPS id 5840387 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:15:15 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.138.91.213; envelope-from=kjohnsondds@yahoo.com Received: from [98.138.226.178] by nm25.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2012 16:14:42 -0000 Received: from [98.138.87.11] by tm13.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2012 16:14:42 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1011.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2012 16:14:42 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 438193.77631.bm@omp1011.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 28940 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Oct 2012 16:14:41 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1351095281; bh=9QdI2wNN6ICsCdWTdwTY5HKOByjMa5EPFYgG0BQpMP0=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JABbqhE1k3kdMzYDkT58Fco5mKejvISsXkmRDXapVIS6m9mAtWHBtz8+JVsejIxWQKRKUe/Adq3pzSGLN6U55G41PVSQWSd7KGmg6gw4qv/6GNiJ4Dcm/HiDPH8+Ipmg2ve11Cqx1lzwdA8IAFUvhgBJA/NsTYvVTl0QNGXxSi4= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tsytlBPvTJ7PpTLBUm/qXCc1M0AMut2UlYOPoxMzICKXcqLlEhTZJK1H+fGuElXsQzRlMidXYX6EbD27bBSv23KDkypCvkITurlBYJJ9k+fpNApajyDZypKuVI8sh8IKK1zF+tXn1myhuToCe4KX0cfkM93g+a1F4PwZkP/dXf4=; X-YMail-OSG: t_8CP_QVM1l4wMvvzx9oCHttKARbtxb2coFT_sbipTPH1sB oy.p4DjZhlMa7NoO.3OOMnax98XE28_jWocUSxml_Zdd7gvz0cPtijFOhe.e fU0ItO5ZWXYWbWxWHS.6uD1BPf1lKjUraaWEEsf5dtzG78dru_s__FJmTY7i 3rrg6o2O1Nx3_zubuTfLK.YO4hc23nM0M5dX37_GxWWukSoW.ta5nL1xfPAJ w9d0E5Wj4oLK34U2oiPo4XvXkYp5ifnQu_niOl2mvfxuTFDtYaQNPL2cf9xq oBqCAMgdGdp_4WbOngiBZVBXnr_rM6WLkwk2vIuB6HlGthv71XbccrcZWEkJ fEkJ1gys4h6jgGhIqzhGL5Z9po7XGylt8bccDz4xxbMowdhMIBLQqv7rJMTp qE4NM6B9D5pgPueDlAk.W95Kh4JZ5jrpOtzgr2EYZg1hpDkYJDVkdal8M1A7 T7Ze5vxrLsX560PFiqeeJdPmK0EJn_xrAYfbPsXb6yJ4VfbtOra6jJ_Py8AC fG8CUmhAdEfV2FtPmFdoXeA2xQa6smOh2jbOSWMfQvCesqtgsLW2qfgajd_i HVymze4VsmbNBkwcGQxdotgxa0CEXArXdZ5iqJ5TmBtQehlkO.z4Pfvkg4ET tTVFCDy7xXnaJrHfasSKmhMz_ROKY9QbHiVnIxOIoJP9Qn8Opl36iqPntmRz qKi.M8XZY.8UR_Lldaz0gBL.b9zXiXEhFcT8wcfhSoY_ARuW3dYih_RM4uLF 9G_L5u4tg8oPuU7Fdd6JKyy1CWQRGFwkdNI66PweqOqPYNBo9Wl2alZZw_7b 8IcvBuElhqNi4Tmt1SgQKJsH.nXc32r4wqoOFv0sNX9iV51VyRIbFUl7VG9Q Z3IC1zy5jc6QSBRPKN3sQtP_uDNnmgtKQWo27ghiycNyrvEo- Received: from [66.168.8.63] by web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:14:41 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 001.001,SGkgQWxsLApPdmVyIHRoZSBsYXN0IHNldmVyYWwgd2Vla3MgdGhlcmUgaGFzIGJlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gb24gdXNlIG9mIGRpZmZlcmVudCByYWRpYXRvcnMsIGFuZCBzaXplIG9mIGNvd2wgb3BlbmluZ3MgZm9yIGNvb2xpbmcuwqAgSGFzIGFueW9uZSByZWFkICJIb3cgdG8gQ29vbCBZb3VyIFdhbmtlbCIgYnkgUGF1bCBMYW1hcj_CoCBTb21lIHZhbGlkIHBvaW50cyBhcmUgbWFkZS7CoCBJIGFtIG5vdCBhbiBlbmdpbmVlciBhbmQgZG8gbm90IGtub3cgYWxsIHRoZSBmb3JtdWxhcy7CoCBNZWFzdXJpbmcgYWkBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.123.460 References: Message-ID: <1351095281.25548.YahooMailNeo@web120304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:14:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Kenneth Johnson Reply-To: Kenneth Johnson Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="877965879-1255193083-1351095281=:25548" --877965879-1255193083-1351095281=:25548 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All,=0AOver the last several weeks there has be discussion on use of dif= ferent radiators, and size of cowl openings for cooling.=C2=A0 Has anyone r= ead "How to Cool Your Wankel" by Paul Lamar?=C2=A0 Some valid points are ma= de.=C2=A0 I am not an engineer and do not know all the formulas.=C2=A0 Meas= uring air flow over the coolant system seem to be a key.=C2=A0 Variables wo= uld include take-off speed of the aircraft and average in flight speed.=C2= =A0 Slow air speed and the angle of attack in take-off greatly affects air = flow through the system.=C2=A0 This is the greatest concern regarding cooli= ng and should be considered in the shape of cowl openings, radiator positio= ning, and ducting.=C2=A0 This book is at the least a good reference in cons= idering the size of the radiator for cooling and gives a recommendation for= folding a radiator in half with minimal changes in the cooling ability.=C2= =A0 =0A=0A=0AI understand Paul has offended many in his past discussions on= the rotary engine.=C2=A0 Unfortunately, this might make the consideration = of his recommendations difficult. =0A=0A=0AI am currently working on the wi= ring of my panel with hopes of starting my 13B rotary engine this coming ye= ar.=C2=A0 This engine is mounted to a Zenith Ch801 where both take-off and = top air speeds will by slow.=C2=A0 My take-off my angle of attack will also= by high.=C2=A0 As I have studied ducting the radiator, all aircraft design= ers have decided to recommend anterior cowl openings and duct the exit air = to flow under the aircraft.=C2=A0 A more efficient design would=C2=A0 have = intake air entering the bottom anterior of the the cowl and to pass through= the radiator. =C2=A0 As this air is heated by the radiator it rises and sh= ould exit the top sides of the cowl.=C2=A0 No one has done that because of = the risk of engine oil on the windshield.=C2=A0 =0A=0A=0AAs Ben Haase has m= entioned, he had difficulty with cooling and only the bent edge of his diff= user made the difference.=C2=A0 As I begin to fly my plane we will find out= if my cooling system is effective.=C2=A0 At that time I will get back with= my cooling results.=C2=A0 Ken Johnson=0A=0A=0AIf there are =0A=0AFrom: Cha= rlie E =0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 8:00 AM=0ASubject: [F= lyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator=0A =0A=0AOK, actual: 13.75= " H between tanks, ~14.25" W including protective rails on sides, 2.25" thi= ck protective rails (actual core slightly less). So slightly under 440 cu i= n.=C2=A0=0A=0A17.75 bottom of tank to top of filler cap. 14.5 max width. 2.= 5 max thick. Mount studs ~1" on bottom.=0A=0ACharlie=0A=0ASent from my iPho= ne=0A=0AOn Oct 23, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Charlie England = wrote:=0A=0A=0AIt came from CX Racing; I'm pretty sure that this is it:=0A= >http://www.ebay.com/itm/290600743649?ssPageName=3DSTRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=3D= p3984.m1423.l2649=0A>=0A>I wrote the actual core dimensions on the rad, but= they are now=0A covered with protective tape for making the duct. IIR= C, the core=0A is roughly 14x14x2 1/2, around 450 cu in. (Yes, I know = that the=0A math doesn't 'multiply up'.) Don't trust the numbers in th= e link;=0A I think that they include the tanks. I picked it based on h= aving a=0A bit more than 2/3 of Tracy's core volume (2 rotor vs 3 roto= r).=0A>=0A>I'll try to get you the actual core dimensions tomorrow.=0A>=0A>= Thanks for the feedback on the flyin. I learned a lot, too, &=0A we ha= d a great time hosting. Y'all were wonderful house guests.=0A Tupper's= already asking about doing one 'next year'. =0A>=0A>Charlie=0A>=0A>=0A>On = 10/23/2012 06:53 PM, DALE HARVEY wrote:=0A>=0A> =0A>>Hi Charlie, what size = is your rad and where did you get it?=C2=A0I will have the same set-up as y= ou pretty much.=0A>>=C2=A0=0A>>Dale Harvey=0A>>=C2=A0=0A>>PS. thanks=C2=A0f= or having a great fly-in, got some good ideas!=0A>>=C2=A0=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>___= _____________________________=0A>>To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net=0A>>Date:= Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:27:04 -0500=0A>>From: ceengland7@gmail.com=0A>>Subject= : [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>Here are= a couple of low res images (list limits on size; if bigger are needed, I'l= l send in separate emails). Basically the same config as Tracy's -8, except= a downflow rad instead of crossflow dual pass. Bottom of rad is several in= ches below bottom of engine; top is roughly even with or slightly above the= water pump height.=0A>>=0A>>I can see Mark's point about reversing the flo= w in this=0A configuration; if coolant drops below the level of = the rad's=0A top tank, the pump will be sucking air. In a coolan= t loss=0A situation, it might only buy a couple of minutes, but = could=0A still be the difference between a safe/unsafe landing s= pot.=0A>>=0A>>If I move the pressure cap to the swirl pot, there really=0A = isn't any reason to reverse the flow.=0A>>=0A>>Charlie=0A>>=0A>>= On 10/23/2012 05:44 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:=0A>>=0A>>Bill,=C2=A0 =0A>>>=0A>= >>=0A>>>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.= =C2=A0Still the principles are the same, namely that the coolant naturally= flows to the bottom and air goes to the top. =C2=A0If it gets low enough, = the pump will begin sucking air and will soon loose prime. =C2=A0This will = happen much quicker if you're drawing off the upper tank. =C2=A0Of 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 insi= de the engine rather than in the radiator. =C2=A0If you have a coolant leak= in flight, you'll benefit from more time to get on the ground rather than = less.=C2=A0=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>I don't see where it makes any difference whic= h tank you return the coolant to, but when supplying the pump, any air will= risk loss of prime. =C2=A0So, it makes sense to me to draw from the bottom= and return to the top. =C2=A0At least that's how I understand it.=0A>>>=0A= >>>=0A>>>=C2=A0In the end its Charlie's decision.=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>Mark=0A>= >>=0A>>>=0A>>>On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Bill Schertz wrote:=0A>>>=0A>>>I guess that I don=E2=80=99t understand this (Ma= rk=E2=80=99s) comment. I am assuming that the radiator is lower than the wa= ter pump in any circumstance, since in general it is either below the engin= e, or on the side like Tracy=E2=80=99s. The Mazda pump is very high, and an= y loss of coolant will cause loss of prime if air gets in the pump, but whe= ther 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?=0A>>>>=C2=A0=0A>>>>= Bill Schertz=0A>>>>KIS Cruiser #4045=0A>>>>N343BS=0A>>>>Phase one testing C= ompleted=C2=A0=0A>>>>From: Mark Steitle =0A>>>>Sent: Monday, October 22, 20= 12 6:25 PM=0A>>>>To: Rotary motors in aircraft =0A>>>>Subject: [FlyRotary] = Re: flow path in conventional radiator=0A>>>>=C2=A0 =0A>>>>Charlie,=C2=A0 = =0A>>>>=C2=A0=0A>>>>So, with the bottom-up flow what what happens if you ge= t a little low on coolant?=C2=A0 My guess is the pump will start pumping ai= r along with the coolant, and eventually loose prime altogether and the rem= aining coolant will stop flowing, followed shortly by a catastrophic boil-o= ver.=C2=A0 This may be why auto makers favor the top-down flow design.=C2= =A0 The Mazda's water pump is already very high up on the engine.=C2=A0 I w= ouldn't want to aggravate this even more.=C2=A0 Also, the cross-flow design= doesn't suffer this failure mode, assuming you draw from the lower hole.= =0A>>>>=C2=A0=0A>>>>Mark S.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =0A>>>>=0A>>>>=0A>>>>On Mon, = Oct 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Bill Schertz wrote:=0A>>>>= =0A>>>>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 functi= on of RPM and can rise to as much as 20 psi (10 psi over system pressure in= the expansion bottle).=0A>>>>>=C2=A0=0A>>>>>Having the flow enter the bott= om of the radiator and out the top, then going to the inlet of the pump sou= nds like a good way to avoid problems.=0A>>>>>=C2=A0=0A>>>>>Bill Schertz=0A= >>>>>KIS Cruiser #4045=0A>>>>>N343BS=0A>>>>>Phase one testing Completed=C2= =A0=0A>>>>>From: Ben Haas =0A>>>>>Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM=0A= >>>>>To: Rotary motors in aircraft =0A>>>>>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow pa= th in conventional radiator=0A>>>>>=C2=A0 =0A>>>>>Unless there is a serious= restriction through the radiator=C2=A0 I can't imagine there would be anyt= hing greater then 1 psi over system pressure caused by pump output.=C2=A0 A= s 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 th= e Moroso swirl / pressure tank and a air bleed line from the output of the = radiator...=C2=A0 About 3 minutes into this video shows my set up.....=0A>>= >>>=C2=A0=0A>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrCNnEgRkdXc&context=3DC3e= 091d3ADOEgsToPDskKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>Ben Haas=0A>>>>>www.= haaspowerair.com=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>=C2=A0=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>_____________= ___________________=0A>>>>> To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net=0A>>>>>Date: Mo= n, 22 Oct=0A 2012 12:40:= 11 -0500=0A>>>>>From: ceengland7@gmail.com=0A>>>>>Subject: [FlyRotary]=0A = flow path in=0A = conventional=0A = radiator=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>I've been doing r= esearch on radiators, & my 1st 'experiment' will be a conventionally config= ured radiator (downflowdesign) with inlet & pressure cap on top. In reading= about issues with conventional radiators, a common complaint is pressure v= enting 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 p= ressure seen by the cap. =0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>Here's my question: Is there any r= eason 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 wa= y 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, & mov= ing the pressure cap function to a separate swirlcan. By doing this, the ex= isting over-pressure port could function as the air removal port in the top= tank of the radiator.=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>What am I missing?=0A>>>>>=0A= >>>>>Thanks,=0A>>>>>=0A>>>>>Charlie =0A>>>>> =0A>>>>=C2=A0 =0A>>>=0A>>=0A>>= --=0A Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http:= //mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html=0A> --877965879-1255193083-1351095281=:25548 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All,
Over the last several weeks there has be discussion on= use of different radiators, and size of cowl openings for cooling.  H= as anyone read "How to Cool Your Wankel" by Paul Lamar?  Some valid po= ints are made.  I am not an engineer and do not know all the formulas.=   Measuring air flow over the coolant system seem to be a key.  V= ariables would include take-off speed of the aircraft and average in flight= speed.  Slow air speed and the angle of attack in take-off greatly af= fects air flow through the system.  This is the greatest concern regar= ding cooling and should be considered in the shape of cowl openings, radiator positioning, and ducting.  This book is at the least a good = reference in considering the size of the radiator for cooling and gives a r= ecommendation for folding a radiator in half with minimal changes in the co= oling ability. 

I understand Paul has offended many in his past discussions on the rotary= engine.  Unfortunately, this might make the consideration of his reco= mmendations difficult.

I am currently working on the wiring of my panel with hopes of star= ting my 13B rotary engine this coming year.  This engine is mounted to= a Zenith Ch801 where both take-off and top air speeds will by slow.  = My take-off my angle of attack will also by high.  As I have studied d= ucting the radiator, all aircraft designers have decided to recommend anter= ior cowl openings and duct the exit air to flow under the aircraft.  A= more efficient design would  have intake air entering the bottom ante= rior of the the cowl and to pass through the radiator.   As this air i= s heated by the radiator it rises and should exit the top sides of the cowl= .  No one has done that because of the risk of engine oil on the winds= hield. 

<= span>As Ben Haase has mentioned, he had difficulty with cooling and only th= e bent edge of his diffuser made the difference.  As I begin to fly my= plane we will find out if my cooling system is effective.  At that time I will get back with my cooling results.  Ken Johnson<= br>

If there are
From: Charlie= E <ceengland7@gmail.com>
T= o: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=
Sent: Wednesday, Oct= ober 24, 2012 8:00 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator
=0A
OK, actual: 13.75" H between= tanks, ~14.25" W including protective rails on sides, 2.25" thick protecti= ve rails (actual core slightly less). So slightly under 440 cu in. 

17.75 bottom of tank to top of filler cap. 14.5 max = width. 2.5 max thick. Mount studs ~1" on bottom.

C= harlie

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 23, 2012, at 7:31 PM= , Charlie England <ceengland7@gm= ail.com> wrote:

=0A =0A= =0A =0A =0A
It came fr= om CX Racing; I'm pretty sure=0A that this is it:
=0A =0A = http://www.ebay.com/itm/290600743649?ssPageName=3DSTRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksi= d=3Dp3984.m1423.l2649
=0A
=0A I wrote the actual core dime= nsions on the rad, but they are now=0A covered with protective tape fo= r making the duct. IIRC, the core=0A is roughly 14x14x2 1/2, around 45= 0 cu in. (Yes, I know that the=0A math doesn't 'multiply up'.) Don't t= rust the numbers in the link;=0A I think that they include the tanks. = I picked it based on having a=0A bit more than 2/3 of Tracy's core vol= ume (2 rotor vs 3 rotor).
=0A
=0A I'll try to get you the = actual core dimensions tomorrow.
=0A
=0A Thanks for the fe= edback on the flyin. I learned a lot, too, &=0A we had a great tim= e hosting. Y'all were wonderful house guests.=0A Tupper's already aski= ng about doing one 'next year'.
=0A
=0A Charlie
=0A =
=0A
=0A On 10/23/2012 06:53 PM, DALE HARVEY wrote:
= =0A
=0A
=0A =0A
=0A Hi Charlie, what size = is your rad and where did you get it? I=0A will have the same s= et-up as you pretty much.
=0A  
=0A Dale Harvey=0A  
=0A PS. thanks for having a great fly-in,= got some good ideas!
=0A  
=0A
=0A =
To: flyrota= ry@lancaironline.net
=0A Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:27:04 -0= 500
=0A From: ceengland7@gmail.com
=0A = Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator
=0A =
=0A
Here = are a couple of low res=0A images (list limits on size; if bigge= r are needed, I'll send=0A in separate emails). Basically the sa= me config as Tracy's=0A -8, except a downflow rad instead of cro= ssflow dual pass.=0A Bottom of rad is several inches below botto= m of engine; top=0A is roughly even with or slightly above the w= ater pump=0A height.
=0A
=0A I can = see Mark's point about reversing the flow in this=0A configurati= on; if coolant drops below the level of the rad's=0A top tank, t= he pump will be sucking air. In a coolant loss=0A situation, it = might only buy a couple of minutes, but could=0A still be the di= fference between a safe/unsafe landing spot.
=0A
=0A = If I move the pressure cap to the swirl pot, there really=0A = isn't any reason to reverse the flow.
=0A
=0A = Charlie
=0A
=0A On 10/23/2012 05:44 AM, Ma= rk Steitle wrote:
=0A
=0A
Bill, = ;=0A

=0A
=0A
Since Cha= rlie hasn't posted any pictures or sketches of=0A his design, = I was referencing more what you'll find in=0A auto installatio= ns than in a/c.  Still the principles are=0A the same, na= mely that the coolant naturally flows to the=0A bottom and air= goes to the top.  If it gets low enough,=0A the pump wil= l begin sucking air and will soon loose prime.=0A  This w= ill happen much quicker if you're drawing off the=0A upper tan= k.  Of course, if the radiator is located below=0A the en= gine it will take longer for this to happen than if=0A it is b= eside the engine because the air pocket will be=0A inside the = engine rather than in the radiator.  If you=0A have a coo= lant leak in flight, you'll benefit from more=0A time to get o= n the ground rather than less. 
=0A

=0A =
=0A
I don't see where it makes any difference w= hich tank=0A you return the coolant to, but when supply= ing the=0A pump, any air will risk loss of prime.  So, it= makes sense=0A to me to draw from the bottom and return to th= e top.  At=0A least that's how I understand it.
=0A =

=0A
=0A
 In the e= nd its Charlie's decision.
=0A

=0A =0A
Mark
=0A
=0A
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:10=0A = PM, Bill Schertz <wschertz@comcast.net>=0A wrote:=0A
=0A
= =0A
=0A
=0A
I guess that I don=E2= =80=99t understand this=0A (Mark=E2=80=99s) commen= t. I am assuming that the=0A radiator is lower tha= n the water pump in any=0A circumstance, since in = general it is either=0A below the engine, or on th= e side like Tracy=E2=80=99s.=0A The Mazda pump is = very high, and any loss of=0A coolant will cause l= oss of prime if air gets=0A in the pump, but wheth= er the outlet of the=0A pump goes to the bottom of= the radiator, or=0A the top, I don=E2=80=99t see = the difference. What am I=0A missing?
=0A =
=0A =
 
=0A
Bill Schertz
=0A KIS Cruiser #4045<= br>=0A N343BS
=0A = Phase one testing Completed
=0A
=0A =
=0A =
=0A
 
=0A =
=0A = =0A
Sent: Monday, Octo= ber 22, 2012=0A 6:25 PM
=0A =
=0A
=0A =0A
Subject: [FlyRotar= y] Re:=0A flow path in conventional radi= ator
=0A
=0A =
=0A
=0A =
=0A
 
=0A =
=0A
=0A =
=0A
Charlie, =0A=0A  
=0A
So, with the bottom-up= flow what what=0A happens if you get a litt= le low on=0A coolant?  My guess is the = pump will=0A start pumping air along with th= e=0A coolant, and eventually loose prime=0A = altogether and the remaining coolant=0A = will stop flowing, followed shortly by a=0A = catastrophic boil-over.  This may be why=0A= auto makers favor the top-down flow=0A = design.  The Mazda's water pump is=0A = already very high up on the engine.  I=0A = wouldn't want to aggravate this even=0A = more.  Also, the cross-flow design=0A = doesn't suffer this failure mode,=0A = assuming you draw from the lower hole.
=0A =
 
=0A
M= ark S.   
=0A
=0A =
On M= on, Oct=0A 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Bill Scher= tz <wschertz@c= omcast.net>=0A wrote:
=0A=
=0A
=0A =
=0A =
=0A =
Charlie, I am using two=0A = evap cores in parallel, with=0A = system pressure limited to=0A = 10 psi on the expansion=0A = bottle. When the engine is=0A = running, the pressure=0A = measured at the inlet to the=0A = cores (exit of the pump) is=0A = a function of RPM and can=0A = rise to as much as 20 psi=0A (= 10 psi over system pressure=0A i= n the expansion bottle).
=0A =
 
=0A
Having t= he flow enter the=0A bottom of t= he radiator and=0A out the top, = then going to=0A the inlet of th= e pump sounds=0A like a good way= to avoid=0A problems.
=0A =
 
=0A =
Bill=0A = Schertz
=0A = KIS Cruiser #4045
=0A = N343BS
=0A Phas= e one testing Completed
=0A <= div style=3D"=0Afont-size:small;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;text-d= ecoration:none;display:inline;">=0A =
=0A
 <= /div>=0A
=0A =
From: Ben Haas=0A =
=0A
Sent:= =0A Monday, October 22,=0A= 2012 1:06 PM
=0A = =0A =
Subject:=0A = [FlyRotary] Re: flow=0A = path in conventional=0A = radiator
=0A =
=0A =
=0A
 
= =0A
=0A =
=0A =0A
=0A
Unless=0A there is a se= rious=0A restriction throu= gh=0A the radiator  I= can't=0A imagine there wo= uld be=0A anything greater= then=0A 1 psi over system= =0A pressure caused by=0A = pump output.  As for= =0A the reverse flow, ie,= =0A bottom to top,,, It's= =0A called counter flow,= =0A and yes it can work.= =0A My set up has worked= =0A flawlessly for 500=0A = hours and I use the=0A = Moroso swirl /=0A = pressure tank and a=0A = air bleed line from=0A = the output of the=0A = radiator...  About 3=0A = minutes into this=0A = video shows my set=0A = up.....
=0A =  
=0A ht= tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrCNnEgRkdXc&context=3DC3e091d3ADOEgsToPD= skKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu
=0A =
=0A Ben=0A Haas
=0A www.haaspowerair.com
=0A =
=0A &n= bsp;
=0A
=0A =
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
=0A = Date: Mon, 22 Oct=0A = 2012 12:40:11 -0500
=0A = From: ceengland7@gmail.com
=0A = Subject: [FlyRotary]=0A = flow path in=0A = conventional=0A = radiator
=0A =
=0A I've=0A = been=0A = doing research=0A = on radiators,=0A = & my 1st 'experiment'=0A=0A = will be a conventionally=0A = configured=0A = radiator=0A = (downflow=0A = design) with=0A = inlet &=0A = pressure cap=0A = on top. In=0A = reading about=0A = issues with=0A = conventional=0A = radiators, a=0A = common=0A = complaint is=0A = pressure=0A = venting due to=0A = the water pump=0A = + system=0A=0A = pressure=0A = exceeding the=0A = cap's=0A = rating. C= rossflow=0A=0A = types like the=0A = Sirocco=0A=0A = are supposed=0A = to avoid this=0A = because the=0A = cap is at the=0A = mid-point in=0A = the flow=0A = through the=0A = rad, which=0A = drops some of=0A = the pressure=0A = seen by the=0A = cap.
=0A =
=0A = Here's=0A = my question:=0A = Is there=0A = any reason a=0A = conventional=0A = rad can't be=0A = fed from the=0A = bottom,=0A = instead of the=0A = top? This wo= uld=0A=0A achieve= =0A similar effect= =0A as the=0A = crossflow cap=0A = location (all=0A the wa= y to the=0A end of= the=0A flow path)= =0A & any air= =0A could be=0A = vented=0A using the= =0A existing=0A = fittings. I'm=0A = also considering=0A=0A = the removal of=0A = the spring=0A=0A = loaded seal,=0A = & moving=0A = the pressure=0A = cap function=0A = to a separate=0A = swirl=0A = can. By doing=0A = this, the existing=0A= =0A over-pressure=0A=0A = port could function=0A=0A = as the air=0A = removal port=0A = in the top=0A = tank of the=0A = radiator.
=0A =
=0A =
=0A What=0A = am I missing?
=0A =
=0A <= font size=3D"+1">Thanks,
=0A =
=0A = Charlie= =0A =
=0A =
=0A =0A
=0A =
=0A =
=0A
=0A =
=0A =0A
=0A =
=0A
 
=0A =
=0A
=0A=
=0A
=0A =
=0A
=0A =0A
=0A
=0A <= br>=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A =
=0A --=0A Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/=0A Archive and UnSub:= =0A http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A =0A=0A


--877965879-1255193083-1351095281=:25548--