X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm16.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com ([98.139.52.213] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with SMTP id 4600683 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:26:15 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.52.213; envelope-from=keltro@att.net Received: from [98.139.52.189] by nm16.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2010 03:25:39 -0000 Received: from [98.139.52.134] by tm2.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2010 03:25:39 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1017.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2010 03:25:39 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 200723.68949.bm@omp1017.mail.ac4.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 8317 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Dec 2010 03:18:50 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1291346330; bh=JlN7zIVeZ6jcjGe40PBiQ7USDGsPSncMw0q3w+c3mv4=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Y7T//lgtlPKlFs6pvXHcYOpLPgwmzcdI7kl01sVB6sLRDeaJKhMmR0U3Pnx9HLbGviqxBgADwMp5lFg8g61XxdUuPIFbM+dvBIWRwtelKRwXUexrTH/X6XmativExyDfki5qyxV1V5Bf1tw4CCJ6vqIo3OeCR99FIQqRSZRQNzY= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=att.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qgH7ZEiVdotgedQNeMwgoBVrOfKJyQOzxJgGNttT3oHI54QXRybwnujFPa0xEbvQcaUNRW3KhA6Xv2KaBBiJdDy4Q3CHi7+pZFvd4LA6RiwTr4M8p3uWG+G7dUpcaMZ993Nq8Pa3BtutaWk+ZCg5uJQqTxJAnbjRhFP9trx6rRU=; Message-ID: <683758.8228.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: suXpVSEVM1moJXDIlVctZD7jcaBjotistMaysWB.LJjKBQB k.waxb4mvv2MruDmk4fHXh.9zFOBlcQf5ejl806MhRdiIvzn41yKiPzi5OGB d4LIsiCrLJ3UTXl7DOVs_w4YFw7TYBPOdPx6tsc5QCThGq5qvp9EYp4MlZT4 trwQ._Yjk.r_S_WDQg1ytQNL.60ItSx8HwLHu8hQSj5vASMBoEJUIM.kczFL ph8mbuLNx5.ppjmHwYYyxBM6ikj2HY1jgNLJhjEIL.U9DiO6HIt8zRsbN2wb jwAjC0chTtvDqsn_ZaQ-- Received: from [208.114.38.107] by web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:18:49 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/553 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 References: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:18:49 -0800 (PST) From: Kelly Troyer Subject: Re: Reactive Muffler Design for PP To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1622367533-1291346329=:8228" --0-1622367533-1291346329=:8228 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill,=0A=A0=A0 Do you know approx weight of your total exhaust system inclu= ding the Spintech =0A??=0A=0A=0AI ask wondering how it would compare to my = proposed turbo system to get a =0Aballpark=0Aweight figure to see what weig= ht penalty I may have............=0A=0AThanks,=0A=0AKelly Troyer=0A"DYKE DE= LTA JD2" (Eventually)=0A"13B ROTARY"_ Engine=0A"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2=0A"MISTRA= L"_Backplate/Oil Manifold=0A"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A______= __________________________=0AFrom: Bill Schertz =0ATo= : Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASent: Thu, Dece= mber 2, 2010 7:18:44 PM=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Design = for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: =0AModified header Calculations=0A=0A=0ANo, the = Spintech held up, Tracy had earlier used another automotive muffler that = =0Afailed quickly.=0A=0AI have a spintech on my plane, 39.8 hours in the ai= r and still holding up.=0A=0A=0ABill Schertz=0AKIS Cruiser #4045=0AN343BS= =0APhase I testing=0A=0AFrom: bktrub@aol.com =0ASent: Thursday, December 02= , 2010 1:14 PM=0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Reactive Muffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: =0AModified header Calcu= lations=0ATracy used one and it blew out like a cheap tire, IIRC. It's got = sharp corners, =0Awhich don't hold up to heat and stress very well.=0A=0ABr= ian Trubee=0A=0A=0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: Mark S= teitle =0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 11:00 am=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re:= Reactive Muffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: =0AModified header Calc= ulations=0A=0A=0AI looked at the Spin Tech site and those look to be a very= robust design... used =0Aby many serious racing types.=A0 I may try one (s= ome day in the future).=A0=A0 =0A=0A=0AMark=0A=0A=0AOn Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at = 11:40 AM, Ed Anderson wrote:=0A=0AAll I can rea= lly tell you it combined the most sound deading with the least =0Arestricti= on of any of the muffler designs I tried - which really doesn't =0Anecessar= ily prove anything.=A0 I guess what you could do is calculate the open =0Aa= rea of the disc and compare it to the area of the Exhaust port - if as =0Al= arge/larger in area then not necessarily a lot of restriction to gas flow.= =0A>=A0=0A>SpinTech was the first reactive muffler Tracy used.=0A>=A0=0A>Ed= =0A>=0A>=0A>From: Mark Steitle =0A>Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:23 = PM=0A>To: Rotary motors in aircraft =0A>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive M= uffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: =0A>Modified header Calculations= =0A>=0A>Ed,=A0 =0A>=0A>It sounds like it might work, but also appears to be= very restrictive.=A0 Did you =0A>make any measurements regarding flow rest= riction?=A0 Maybe a larger diameter main =0A>body would alleviate the back = pressure to an acceptable level, maybe not.=A0 I =0A>would want to run some= tests first.=0A>=0A>What do you make of this site?=A0 =0A>http://en.wikibo= oks.org/wiki/Acoustics/Filter_Design_and_Implementation=0A>I think we can p= retty much rule out "absorptive" type mufflers for our =0A>purposes.=A0 Was= n't Tracy's early muffler a "reactive" type (Hushpower)?=A0 As I =0A>recall= it was heavy, but it worked very well.=0A>=0A>Mark=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>On T= hu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Ed Anderson wrote:= =0A>=0A>I agree, Finn.=A0 It probably would=A0 not take much, but I just go= t to the point I =0A>was tired of messing with it and put on the HushPower = II.=A0 I always felt I was =0A>just one more step away from making it succe= ssful - but did not take it.=A0 Just =0A>too leery of learning to weld with= only one good eye ball left {:>)=0A>>=A0=0A>>The 5/8" SS threaded shaft ra= n through the middle of the tube/discs with a jam =0A>>nut on each side of = each disc.=A0 The shaft/rod was not anchored otherwise.=A0 =0A>>However, I = did have a squished "Fishtail" end so that the last disc could not =0A>>bac= k out of the tube.=0A>>=A0=0A>>Ed=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>From: Finn Lassen =0A>>Sent= : Thursday, December 02, 2010 10:45 AM=0A>>To: Rotary motors in aircraft = =0A>>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary= ] Re: =0A>>Modified header Calculations=0A>>=0A>>Hi Ed,=0A>>=0A>>Not that I= 'm going to jump on this right away, but it seems that it would be =0A>>rel= atively easy to rosette weld the tips of the discs. Drill 1/8" (or slightly= =0A>>bigger) holes through the tube at the center of each disc tip.=0A>>= =0A>>But, how did you secure the 5/8" shaft itself?=0A>>=0A>>Finn=0A>>=0A>>= On 12/1/2010 5:45 PM, Ed Anderson wrote: =0A>>Mark, =0A>>>=0A>>>Since you h= ave not gotten to the muffler part of your design, here are some =0A>>>thou= ghts (Yes, I did do 6 muffler experiments - don't ask me why)=0A>>>=0A>>>Th= e one design that was "almost" totally successful in achieving my goals is = =0A>>>attached.=A0 Hard to make out the details, but enough to give you the= general =0A>>>ideal.=0A>>>=0A>>>My objective was trying to decided how to = muffler the shock wave (which creates =0A>>>most of the ear problems) but l= et the exhaust gas flow freely.=A0 My conclusion =0A>>>was that reactive de= sign muffler was the only acceptable choice given our =0A>>>constraints.=0A= >>>=0A>>>What I came up with was the idea of stuffing (I=A0 put five but I = think three =0A>>>would make a considerable difference) disc with outer par= ts cut into blades and =0A>>>bent at a 45 deg angle into a tube.=A0 Looked = a bit like an old farm windmill.=0A>>>=0A>>>=A0 The idea behind this approa= ch was if you looked head on at the fan-disc - you =0A>>>see basically a so= lid metal front.=A0 That is what the shock wave would see and =0A>>>most (a= lot?) of the energy would be reflected back toward the engine (actually = =0A>>>to the next disc in the tube).=A0 The bent blades on the other hand w= ould permit =0A>>>exhaust gas to flow with minimum restriction.=0A>>>=0A>>>= It really did deaden the sound where folks could stand by the wing tip with= no =0A>>>problem hearing someone else talk. I was thrilled.=A0 It also met= =A0 my minimum =0A>>>restriction as I could still get my 6000 rpm static.= =0A>>>=0A>>>Ok, what went wrong - well, not being a welder I resorted to ot= her methods - =0A>>>which ultimately failed. =0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>Two things o= ccurred - =0A>>>=0A>>>one if the disc broke loose of the small 5/8" thread = SS shaft from the Jam nuts =0A>>>on each side holding the disc, well, the d= isc could (and did) begin to spin =0A>>>inside the tube like the turbine wh= eel of a jet engine. This windmilling effect =0A>>>acted just like a windmi= lling prop on the exhaust gas and definitely impeded gas =0A>>>flow.=A0 So = can not permit the disc to spin (the tips polished the inside of the =0A>>>= tube where the spun)=0A>>>=0A>>>Second because I donot weld, I did not secu= re the tips of the blades of the disc =0A>>>to the sides of the tube.=A0 We= ll the shock wave naturally causes those blades to =0A>>>flex and eventuall= y break off.=0A>>>=0A>>>The SS disc were 2" in diam 1/8 thick and fit reall= y nice inside the 2 1/4" =0A>>>tubes.=A0 I cut slots in the outer part of t= he SS disc and then used pliers to =0A>>>bend the tabs to an approx 45 deg = angle (see attached Jep).=0A>>>=0A>>>So none of this was difficult to fabri= cate (tedious perhaps but not =0A>difficult).=0A>>>=0A>>>I gave up on it be= cause without welding skills I could not figure out away to =0A>>>secure th= e tips of the blades to the tube to give them better support.=A0 Perhaps = =0A>>>better than disc would have been cones but couldn't find any {:>).=0A= >>>=0A>>>So since I couldn't see any way around my lack of welding (and too= cheap to hire =0A>>>someone), I went=A0 the hushpower II route.=0A>>>=0A>>= >Just thought I would throw some fuel on your fire {:>)=0A>>>=0A>>>FWIW=0A>= >>=0A>>>Ed=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>=0A>=0A --0-1622367533-1291346329=:8228 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A
Bill,
=0A
   Do you know approx = weight of your total exhaust system including the Spintech ??
=0A<= DIV> 
=0A
I ask wondering how it would compare to my proposed= turbo system to get a ballpark
=0A
weight figure to see what weig= ht penalty I may have............
=0A
 
=0A
Thanks,<= /DIV>=0A
 
=0A

Kelly Troyer
"DYKE= DELTA JD2" (Eventually)

=0A

"13= B ROTARY"_ Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold=

=0A

"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo

=0A

=0A

=0A
From: Bill Schertz <wschertz@comcast.net>
<= B>To: Rotary motors in aircraf= t <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, December 2, 2010 7:18:44 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Desi= gn for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: Modified header Calculations

= =0A
=0A
=0A
No, the Spintech held up, Tracy had earlier used ano= ther automotive muffler that failed quickly.
=0A
 
=0AI have a spintech on my plane, 39.8 hours in the air and still holding u= p.
=0A
 
=0A
 
=0A
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4= 045
N343BS
Phase I testing
=0A
=0A
=0A
 
=0A
=0A
F= rom: bktrub@aol.com =
=0A
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 1:14 PM
=0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft
=0A
Subje= ct: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: = Modified header Calculations
=0A
 
=0A=
=0A
Tracy used one and it = blew out like a cheap tire, IIRC. It's got sharp corners, which don't hold = up to heat and stress very well.
=0A
 
=0A
Brian Tru= bee
=0A
 
=0A


 
=0A


=0A
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stei= tle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrota= ry@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 11:00 am
Subject: [Fl= yRotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: Modified he= ader Calculations

=0A
I looked at the Spin Tech site and those look to be a very rob= ust design... used by many serious racing types.  I may try one (some = day in the future).   =0A
 
=0A
Mark

=0A=
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@caro= lina.rr.com> wrote:
=0A
=0A
=0A
All I can really tell you it combined th= e most sound deading with the least restriction of any of the muffler desig= ns I tried - which really doesn't necessarily prove anything.  I guess= what you could do is calculate the open area of the disc and compare it to= the area of the Exhaust port - if as large/larger in area then not necessa= rily a lot of restriction to gas flow.
=0A
 
=0A
SpinTech was the first rea= ctive muffler Tracy used.
=0A
&nb= sp;
=0A
Ed
=0A
=0A
 
=0A
=0AFrom: = Mark Steitle
=0A
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:= 23 PM
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A=0A
Subject: [FlyRota= ry] Re: Reactive Muffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: Modified header = Calculations
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
 
Ed,  =0A
 
=0A
It sounds= like it might work, but also appears to be very restrictive.  Did you= make any measurements regarding flow restriction?  Maybe a larger dia= meter main body would alleviate the back pressure to an acceptable level, m= aybe not.  I would want to run some tests first.
=0A
 =0A
What do you make of this site?  http://en.wikibooks.org/wi= ki/Acoustics/Filter_Design_and_Implementation
=0A
I think we can p= retty much rule out "absorptive" type mufflers for our purposes.  Wasn= 't Tracy's early muffler a "reactive" type (Hushpower)?  As I recall i= t was heavy, but it worked very well.
=0A
 
=0A
Mark=

=0A
=0A
 
=0A
On Th= u, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wro= te:
=0A
=0A
=0A
I agree, Finn.  It probably would  not take much, but I just= got to the point I was tired of messing with it and put on the HushPower I= I.  I always felt I was just one more step away from making it success= ful - but did not take it.  Just too leery of learning to weld with on= ly one good eye ball left {:>)
=0A
 
=0A
The 5/8" SS threaded shaft ran = through the middle of the tube/discs with a jam nut on each side of each di= sc.  The shaft/rod was not anchored otherwise.  However, I did ha= ve a squished "Fishtail" end so that the last disc could not back out of th= e tube.
=0A
 
=0A
<= FONT face=3DArial>Ed
=0A
=0A 
=0A
=0A
From: Finn Lassen
=0A
Sent:<= /B> Thursday, December 02, 2010 10:45 AM
=0A
=0A
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
=0A
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Desi= gn for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: Modified header Calculations
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
 
Hi Ed,

Not that I= 'm going to jump on this right away, but it seems that it would be relative= ly easy to rosette weld the tips of the discs. Drill 1/8" (or slightly bigg= er) holes through the tube at the center of each disc tip.

But, how = did you secure the 5/8" shaft itself?

Finn

On 12/1/2010 5:45 = PM, Ed Anderson wrote: =0A
=0A
Mark,
=0A
 
=0A
Since= you have not gotten to the muffler part of your design, here are some thou= ghts (Yes, I did do 6 muffler experiments - don't ask me why)
= =0A
 
=0A
The one design that was "alm= ost" totally successful in achieving my goals is attached.  Hard to ma= ke out the details, but enough to give you the general ideal.
= =0A
 
=0A
My objective was trying to d= ecided how to muffler the shock wave (which creates most of the ear problem= s) but let the exhaust gas flow freely.  My conclusion was that reacti= ve design muffler was the only acceptable choice given our constraints.
=0A
 
=0A
What I came up with= was the idea of stuffing (I  put five but I think three would make a = considerable difference) disc with outer parts cut into blades and bent at = a 45 deg angle into a tube.  Looked a bit like an old farm windmill.
=0A
 
=0A
  The idea b= ehind this approach was if you looked head on at the fan-disc - you see bas= ically a solid metal front.  That is what the shock wave would see and= most (a lot?) of the energy would be reflected back toward the engine (act= ually to the next disc in the tube).  The bent blades on the other han= d would permit exhaust gas to flow with minimum restriction.
= =0A
 
=0A
It really did deaden the sou= nd where folks could stand by the wing tip with no problem hearing someone = else talk. I was thrilled.  It also met  my minimum restriction a= s I could still get my 6000 rpm static.
=0A
 
=0A=
Ok, what went wrong - well, not being a welder I re= sorted to other methods - which ultimately failed.
=0A
&nb= sp;
=0A
Two things occurred -
=0A<= DIV> 
=0A
one if the disc broke loose of t= he small 5/8" thread SS shaft from the Jam nuts on each side holding the di= sc, well, the disc could (and did) begin to spin inside the tube like the t= urbine wheel of a jet engine. This windmilling effect acted just like a win= dmilling prop on the exhaust gas and definitely impeded gas flow.  So = can not permit the disc to spin (the tips polished the inside of the tube w= here the spun)
=0A
 
=0A
S= econd because I donot weld, I did not secure the tips of the blades of the = disc to the sides of the tube.  Well the shock wave naturally causes t= hose blades to flex and eventually break off.
=0A
 =0A
The SS disc were 2" in diam 1/8 thick and fit= really nice inside the 2 1/4" tubes.  I cut slots in the outer part o= f the SS disc and then used pliers to bend the tabs to an approx 45 deg ang= le (see attached Jep).
=0A
 
=0A
So none of this was difficult to fabricate (tedious perhaps but no= t difficult).
=0A
 
=0A
I = gave up on it because without welding skills I could not figure out away to= secure the tips of the blades to the tube to give them better support.&nbs= p; Perhaps better than disc would have been cones but couldn't find any {:&= gt;).
=0A
 
=0A
So since I= couldn't see any way around my lack of welding (and too cheap to hire some= one), I went  the hushpower II route.
=0A
 
= =0A
Just thought I would throw some fuel on your fir= e {:>)
=0A
 
=0A
FWIW
=0A
 
=0A
Ed
= =0A
=0A
 
=0A
 

=0A
 =
=0A
 
=
--0-1622367533-1291346329=:8228--