Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.180.170.33; envelope-from=crj@lucubration.com
Message-ID: <43CA7C3D.2010202@lucubration.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:45:49 -0500
From: Chad Robinson <crj@lucubration.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20050923)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 13B and Renesis oil pans
References: <list-927360@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-927360@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russell Duffy wrote:
> Now I'm sure this only happens to some extent, so there's still 
> considerable cooling done, but it seems like it would be much better if 
> you could find a double sided heat sink.  In other words, one that has 
> fins sticking into the oil, and out into the air. 
>  
> Has anyone ever seen double sided heat sinks?  

If you want a double-sided heat sink, why not just put a heat sink on the 
inside of the oil pan? The heat sink doesn't have to be a solid block to work, 
as long as each of them makes good contact with the inside and outside 
surfaces of the pan.

This all sounds fairly heavy though. I'd be curious to know just how well it 
would work, which I'd assume would depend on the quality of airflow across the 
sink. I'd assume you'd want it to work pretty well so you could get some other 
benefit, like a smaller or simpler oil cooler, or solve a problem, like 
inadequate oil cooling.

I think the figures were 4.5lbs per foot. That's 9lbs if you want fins inside, 
too.