X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-05.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.104] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTP id 2075759 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 May 2007 20:49:02 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.104; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-103-061.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.103.61]) by ms-smtp-05.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l4V0mPfP025233 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 20:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000f01c7a31d$6b7aaf90$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Evans Coolant Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 20:48:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C7A2FB.E3F1E3C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C7A2FB.E3F1E3C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ah, but, That is my point, Al. You will see a temperature increase = with Evans over a 50/50 even with OEM flow rates. We are in agreement. = But, since Evans has a lower Cp than the traditional 50/50 mixture, = then you either have to heat it to a higher temperature or flow it = faster to remove the same amount of heat. There is no way around it - = one or the other (well, you could do both {:>).=20 If your coolant system were removing sufficient heat with a 50/50 = mixture at say a coolant temp of 200F, then using Evans+ (at the same = flow rate), you would need to heat it to 234F to remove the same amount = of heat. The only way you could lower that temperature (and remove the = same amount of heat) is to flow Evans at a higher rate. But, since our rotary's do not have the same tolerance for higher = temperatures as other engines (apparently Subaru is one) , I maintain = just sticking EVANS in a rotary is simply asking for problems unless you = increase the flow rate by approx 17%. Even Evan's web page points out to gain the optimum benefits you need to = increase the flow rate and they even offer higher flow water pumps, = thermostats and radiators to achieve that optimum level. I am not = saying Evans is bad - it clearly offers some significant advantages - IF = your engine is able to take advantage of it - its my opinion, however, = that our rotaries are not able to do that without risk of damage unless = some modifications are made to the coolant system along the lines that = Evans suggested =3D> higher flow rates. Regarding OEM flow rates. Several folks have measured the flow rates = for their installations but, I don't have any of that information = available, so don't know how it might compare to the OEM flow rates. I = fly without a thermostat which I would think would then permit higher = flow than an installation with a thermostat (even when it is open).=20 However, I do use GM cores which do have a smaller cross channel than a = traditional radiator, so you are likely correct that my flow rate would = likely be less than OEM. I keep thinking I need to get Ed Klepeis make = me up some "real" radiators just to see how much improvement there would = be over the GM cores. However, there are others that are using "real" = radiators which should enable them to equal or surpass OEM flow rates. = So hopefully we will at some point be able to do an apples and oranges = comparison {:>). As always, best regards Ed . ----- Original Message -----=20 From: al p wick=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:11 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Evans Coolant If you were flowing the same volume as the OEM installations, then no, = you would not need to flow more fluid. (You'd just see temperature = increase). Looks like most of you flow substantially less coolant than = OEM, so Evans would be a disaster. We had well proven example in a = Subaru. This guy used 3/4" radiator tubing as I recall. Temperatures = went to hell a number of months after first flight. Boil over. He = switched to evans and it got substantially worse. Boil over. This is = uncharacteristic. Ended up his unusually long coolant lines, combined = with small diameter tubing, represented something like 80% reduction in = coolant flow (compared to OEM). Since evans made it so much worse, it = was obvious he had restricted coolant flow excessively. He changed to 1" = coolant lines, all symptoms permanently disappeared. I believe he went = back to traditional coolant. His radiators are in the wing.=20 Doesn't matter though, as Evans is only advantage if your engine likes = higher temps. Since it is less efficient. Not desirable for the rotary. So, all in all, I agree with your statement Ed. -al wick Cozy IV powered by Turbo Subaru 3.0R with variable valve lift and cam = timing.=20 Artificial intelligence in cockpit, N9032U 240+ hours from Portland, = Oregon Glass panel design, Subaru install, Prop construct, Risk assessment = info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html On Wed, 30 May 2007 11:58:32 -0400 "Ed Anderson" = writes: I have mentioned several times in discussions regarding the EVANS = coolant that to really gain benefits from its use that the coolant flow = would have to be increased to ensure the removal of adequate heat from = the engine. The fact that the EVANS has a 300F+ boiling point may delay = "boil over" but it does little to protect our rotary's because they are = cooked long before that point is reached. In fact, the 250F boil over = of the 50/50 mixture pretty much ensures that if you reach those temps = you have probably cooked your engine. However, preventing Boil-over (as = Al Wick has mentioned) is a worthwhile consideration. But, all that aside, my point was that give the lower specific heat = and the fact that the rotary engine is more constrained temperature = wise- means that to flow the same amount of heat out of your engine per = unit time with Evans - you MUST increase the coolant flow rate. IF you = do increase the flow rate with Evans to the point that the coolant = temperatures are within the limits for the rotary then you stand a much = better chance of benefiting from using EVANS. I happen to notice in reading material on the EVANS coolant, that = the above point is also made by them: This is a direct quote from = material on their web site. "THE EVANS SYSTEM=20 Since the Evans coolant possesses different flow and thermal = characteristics than normal EGW, some changes are in order. First, there = is no need to use a pressurized cooling system, but an overflow bottle = is necessary due to the expansion rate of the coolant. Evans markets 0- = and 4-lb. caps for most radiators. The low-pressure cap is used to keep = coolant loss in check on late-model engines. To totally optimize this = system, a high-flow Evans water pump, thermostat and radiator should be = installed. Working with data from the field, most late-model performance = cars, unless approaching the 650-hp level, can reap substantial = performance gains with just the installation of the Evans coolant and = high-flow thermostat. Realizing the huge potential for power generation = through the use of this coolant, Evans has designed many ancillary = components to maximize the potential for late-model fuel-injected = engines. Pulleys to increase stock water pump speeds, water pump = application for TPl, 5.0s and Buick GNs along with radiators. " Note the reference to late-model performance cars is a reference to = the fact that these newer engines are designed for and operate at = higher coolant temperatures (more fuel efficiency) than previous = engines (or our rotary engines). The point is as EVANS points out - there are some definite benefits = to EVANs. However to gain the maximum benefit and given our rotary's = lower temperature limits, I personally believe these changes are = essential if you want a system that keeps you engine within safe limits. = The changes Evan's mentions include high flow pumps, pulleys for = faster flow, high flow thermostat and high flow radiators. This implies = (to me at least) that if you are going to use Evans then you need to = design your coolant system for its use from the git-go. My trouble-making 0.02 {:>) Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html -al wick Cozy IV powered by Turbo Subaru 3.0R with variable valve lift and cam = timing.=20 Artificial intelligence in cockpit, N9032U 240+ hours from Portland, = Oregon Glass panel design, Subaru install, Prop construct, Risk assessment = info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C7A2FB.E3F1E3C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ah, but, That is  my = point,=20 Al.  You will  see a temperature=20 increase with Evans over a 50/50 even with OEM flow=20 rates. We are in agreement.  But, since Evans has a lower Cp = than the=20 traditional 50/50 mixture,  then you either have to heat it to a = higher=20 temperature or flow it faster to remove the same amount = of=20 heat. There is no way around it - one or the other (well, you could = do both=20 {:>). 
 
If your coolant system were removing sufficient = heat with=20 a 50/50 mixture at say a coolant temp of 200F, then using Evans+ = (at the=20 same flow rate), you would need to heat it to 234F to remove = the same=20 amount of heat.  The only way you could lower that temperature (and = remove=20 the same amount of heat)  is to flow Evans at a higher = rate.
 
 But, since our rotary's do not have = the same=20 tolerance for higher temperatures as other engines (apparently Subaru is = one) ,=20 I maintain just sticking EVANS in a rotary is simply asking for problems = unless=20 you increase the  flow rate by approx 17%.
 
Even Evan's web page points out to gain the = optimum=20 benefits you need to increase the flow rate and they even offer higher = flow=20 water pumps, thermostats and radiators to  achieve that optimum=20 level.  I am not saying Evans is bad - it clearly offers some = significant=20 advantages - IF your engine is able to take advantage of it - its = my=20 opinion, however,  that our rotaries are not able to do that = without risk=20 of damage unless some modifications are made to the coolant system along = the=20 lines that Evans suggested =3D> higher flow rates.
 
Regarding OEM flow rates.   Several = folks have=20 measured the flow rates for their installations but, I don't have any of = that=20 information available, so don't know how it might compare to the OEM = flow=20 rates.  I fly without a thermostat which I would think would then = permit=20 higher flow than an installation with a thermostat (even when it is=20 open). 
 
 However, I do use GM cores which do have a = smaller=20 cross channel than a traditional radiator, so you are likely correct = that my=20 flow rate would likely be less than OEM.  I keep thinking = I need=20 to get Ed Klepeis make me up some "real" radiators just to see how much=20 improvement there would be over the GM cores.  However, there are = others=20 that are using "real" radiators which should enable them = to equal or=20 surpass OEM flow rates.   So hopefully we will at some = point be=20 able to do an apples and oranges comparison {:>).
 
As always, best regards
 
Ed
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.
 
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 al p = wick
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 = 8:11=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Evans=20 Coolant

If you were flowing the same volume as the OEM installations, = then no,=20 you would not need to flow more fluid. (You'd just see temperature = increase).=20 Looks like most of you flow substantially less coolant than OEM, so = Evans=20 would be a disaster. We had well proven example in a Subaru. This guy = used=20 3/4" radiator tubing as I recall. Temperatures went to hell a number = of months=20 after first flight. Boil over. He switched to evans and it got = substantially=20 worse. Boil over. This is uncharacteristic. Ended up his unusually = long=20 coolant lines, combined with small diameter tubing, represented = something like=20 80% reduction in coolant flow (compared to OEM). Since evans made it = so much=20 worse, it was obvious he had restricted coolant flow excessively. He = changed=20 to 1" coolant lines, all symptoms permanently disappeared. I believe = he went=20 back to traditional coolant. His radiators are in the wing.
 
Doesn't matter though, as Evans is only advantage if your engine = likes=20 higher temps. Since it is less efficient. Not desirable for the = rotary.
So, all in all, I agree with your statement Ed.
 

-al wick
Cozy IV powered by Turbo Subaru 3.0R with = variable valve=20 lift and cam timing.
Artificial intelligence in cockpit, N9032U = 240+ hours=20 from Portland, Oregon
Glass panel design, Subaru install, Prop = construct,=20 Risk assessment info:
htt= p://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
 
On Wed, 30 May 2007 11:58:32 -0400 "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com&g= t;=20 writes:
I have mentioned several times in = discussions=20 regarding the EVANS coolant
that to really gain benefits from its use = that the=20 coolant flow would have to be increased to ensure the removal of = adequate=20 heat from the engine.  The fact that the EVANS has a 300F+ = boiling=20 point may delay "boil over" but it does little to protect our = rotary's=20 because they are cooked long before that point is reached.  In = fact,=20 the 250F boil over of the 50/50 mixture pretty much ensures that if = you=20 reach those temps you have probably cooked your engine.  = However,=20 preventing Boil-over (as Al Wick has mentioned) is a worthwhile=20 consideration.
 
But, all that aside, my point was that give = the lower=20 specific heat and the fact that the rotary engine is more = constrained=20 temperature wise-  means that to flow the same amount of = heat out=20 of your engine per unit time with Evans - you MUST increase the = coolant flow=20 rate.  IF you do increase the flow rate with Evans to the point = that=20 the coolant temperatures are within the limits for the rotary then = you stand=20 a much better chance of benefiting from using EVANS.
 
I happen to notice in reading material on = the EVANS=20 coolant, that the above point is also made by them:  This is a = direct=20 quote from material on their web site.
 
"THE EVANS SYSTEM

Since the Evans coolant = possesses=20 different flow and thermal characteristics than normal EGW, some = changes are=20 in order. First, there is no need to use a = pressurized=20 cooling system, but an overflow bottle is necessary due to the = expansion=20 rate of the coolant. Evans markets 0- and 4-lb. caps for most = radiators. The=20 low-pressure cap is used to keep coolant loss in check on late-model = engines. To totally = optimize=20 this system, a high-flow Evans water = pump,=20 thermostat and radiator should be installed. Working = with=20 data from the field, most late-model=20 performance cars, unless approaching the 650-hp = level, can=20 reap substantial performance gains with just the installation = of  the=20 Evans coolant and high-flow=20 thermostat. Realizing the huge potential for power=20 generation through the use of this coolant, Evans has designed many=20 ancillary components to maximize the potential for late-model fuel-injected = engines.=20 Pulleys to increase stock water pump=20 speeds, water pump application for TPl, 5.0s and = Buick GNs=20 along with radiators.  "

Note the reference to late-model performance = cars is a=20 reference to the fact  that these newer engines are designed = for and=20 operate at higher coolant temperatures (more fuel efficiency) =  than=20 previous engines (or our rotary engines).
 
The point is as EVANS points out - there are = some=20 definite benefits to EVANs.  However to gain the maximum = benefit and=20 given our rotary's lower temperature limits, I personally = believe these=20 changes  are essential if you want a system that keeps you = engine=20 within safe limits. 
 
The changes Evan's mentions  include = high flow=20 pumps, pulleys for faster flow, high flow thermostat and high flow=20 radiators.  This implies (to me at least) that if you are going = to use=20 Evans then you need to design your coolant system for its use from = the=20 git-go.
 
My trouble-making 0.02 {:>)
 
Ed
 
 
 
 
 
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary=20 Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.comhttp:/= /members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda= /index.html
 

-al wick
Cozy IV powered by = Turbo Subaru=20 3.0R with variable valve lift and cam timing.
Artificial = intelligence in=20 cockpit, N9032U 240+ hours from Portland, Oregon
Glass panel = design, Subaru=20 install, Prop construct, Risk assessment=20 = info:
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
= ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C7A2FB.E3F1E3C0--