X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from outbound-mail02.vgs.untd.com ([64.136.55.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with SMTP id 6513944 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 19:44:23 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.55.36; envelope-from=alwick@juno.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juno.com; s=alpha; t=1381707829; bh=47DEQpj8HBSa+/TImW+5JCeuQeRkm5NMpJWZG3hSuFU=; l=0; h=Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:Content-Type; b=ZDyAaeiA+6kQTLcoWZqLiY8pz0uN0MHBEr1F9Qwsmmx34bIBl8KgasxBPLKgByZ5G MoOr55wZxnTJ/J+mOZ7jktM9cthwtAa318zO6nuL5mtyWhJq4n3Jjt6+O8GwIBt1AB OTCwnZ1GJd/QgOhr9CqkJZGZf5ZhQ6dgD4JxFsx8= Received: from Penny (50-39-160-216.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.160.216]) by smtpout04.vgs.untd.com with SMTP id AABKFYNAKAFQWHH2 for (sender ); Sun, 13 Oct 2013 16:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: From: "Al Wick" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: waterless coolant? Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 16:43:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_055B_01CEC833.49A9DFC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 X-Originating-Ip: 50.39.160.216 X-UNTD-BodySize: 26415 X-ContentStamp: 62:31:675149240 X-MAIL-INFO: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 6d493c3125a121ed317561490541cd052c75b931357c35693dad28618d00cdf86148ac9d88d1ec5c61f8e85839a8b538c87108c5f1b5c91c99c94df19c9c9c4d4169250d45dc18898ccc217dfc65ac658dd879556dd578450cbdbd29004c21a93c0181756c8c2dbd39b9e13c99a158bc31b991819d7cdc00659995bcf538ad9838655cc995ec98a971e85839a8dcddc198618915696981c9889c5dc5e89c9141ec55a51555ec21f8d9c56cfc086c7979d8ece98d6dfc00bc79fcf5081d4c X-UNTD-OriginStamp: L941HVjjYzDhN3itp//mkMQO6m3gmwZ4k2taqWEz49FT0lG0Wlih7g== X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 10.181.42.34|smtpout04.vgs.untd.com|smtpout04.vgs.untd.com|alwick@juno.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_055B_01CEC833.49A9DFC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Neil says:
Neil says:
<current thinking of running a thermostat, yes , no or = possibly
 
Safety decisions trump all others. I'd encourage using thermostat = for the=20 first 30 flights. You should also make sure you measure BLOCK = temperature, not=20 radiator or some other area. That way you will know if thermostat = behaving=20 properly prior to takeoff (Block temp would be hotter than normal during = taxi if=20 thermostat stuck closed. )
 
You don't want to increase workload during those first flights just = for=20 purpose of improving efficiency. Playing with a stupid coolant flap = during=20 initial flights not recommended. Likewise, normally coolant temp causes = big=20 mixture changes. Why screw with it? Let engine run at normal operating = temp for=20 less risk of mixture issues (more stable).
 
After 30 flights, then it's reasonable to consider flying without=20 thermostat if you desire reduced drag by choking off rad air flow. There = might=20 be a small risk reduction by removing thermostat, although it would fail = any=20 test for significance.
 
-al wick
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Neil=20 Unger
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 = 1:23=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = waterless=20 coolant?

Regarding coolants of both types, what is the current thinking of = running=20 a thermostat, yes , no or possibly?  Neil.
 
From: Al Wick
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:08 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: waterless = coolant?
 
Good discussion on that link Michael. Although I noticed one of = the=20 posters referred to 30% glycol mix as 70%. Making it quite confusing. =
 
Over the years, I've encountered pilots who've done good job of = measuring=20 Evans vs. glycol temperatures. We would expect them to have 20% higher = temps,=20 but usually find 15% or so. I'm always intrigued when the occasional = person=20 describes that Evans reduced their temp. It defies physics. But when = you think=20 about it, it's possible that person started out with trapped air in = system.=20 When converting to Evans, he may have eliminated that trapped air. = Thus sees=20 much improved cooling. That's my best guess. That and pareidolia. =
 
-al wick
 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Michael = Silvius=20
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Friday, October 11, = 2013 4:16=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = waterless=20 coolant?
 
Al:
 
I did a bit more = digging on=20 the stuff and came up with this which makes the same = point.
http://www.rx7club.com/3rd-generation-spe= cific-1993-2002-16/skeptical-evans-npg-coolant-945513/
 
Michael = Silvius
Scarborough,=20 Maine
 
 
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Al = Wick
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Friday, October 11, = 2013 10:33=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = waterless=20 coolant?
 
I've researched this product thoroughly and used to do fluid = heat=20 transfer experiments in my occupation. If you drained all the = fluid in=20 your radiator, replaced it with 100% antifreeze (normal ethylene = glycol)=20 you'd have identical boiling point and heat transfer = characteristics to=20 Evans product. So you could operate zero pressure, as it wouldn't = boil=20 over until it reached 392F.
 
Unfortunately both Evans and 100% glycol have very low heat = transfer=20 coefficient (.66). They are both insulators, so all things being = equal,=20 you have to increase your radiator area by 30% to achieve the same = engine=20 operating temperature. Compared to running with 30% glycol mix, = that's=20 quite a penalty.
 
Ethylene glycol is substantially superior to Evans, as you = can tune=20 it's efficiency by adding water. For example, it you decide to = operate=20 with more efficient 50/50 mix, the heat transfer coefficient jumps = from=20 .66 to .86. You get to reduce your radiator size a lot, yet still = have=20 230F boiling point.
 
Evans has a great propaganda web site, a lot of people get = sucked in.=20 It's one of those rare products that has zero redeeming value. Far = inferior to glycol. Yet I bet it will continue to sell for = decades.
 
 
-al wick
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Ed Anderson
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Thursday, October = 10, 2013=20 11:15 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = waterless=20 coolant?
 
You might want to check what happens to the viscosity of = this fluid=20 at lower temperatures.  Its been a while, but as I recall = this=20 fluid  turns into heavy syrup at lower temps.  You can = visualize your water pump churning (cavitating)  in a void = of this=20 fluid at low temperatures while not moving any through your = cooling=20 system. 
 
The fluid next to the rotors would undoubtedly get = hot  -while=20 that in the radiator and water pump may act as a (Temporary) = plug to=20 coolant flow =E2=80=93 until the heated fluid explosively forces = the=20 issue.
 
I tried finding the viscosity charts they used to have on = the site,=20 but could not find it.
 
My impression when I looked into this fluid back a few = years ago,=20 was that this heavy viscosity at low temps was probably not much = of a=20 draw back  compared to the benefits in a racing motor = =E2=80=93 heated=20 garage, summer temps, etc.  But, might be a different story = for=20 aircraft application.
 
Ed
 
Edward L.=20 Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton=20 Road
Weddington, NC=20 = 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com
 
From: Gordon=20 Alling
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:05 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: waterless=20 coolant?
 

This=20 appears interesting.  I looked at the website and was = unable to=20 find the heat capacity of the fluid.  The higher boiling = temp may=20 not be helpful if the heat capacity is such that you need a = large delta=20 T to transfer the same amount of heat as a water-based=20 system.

 

One=20 must also consider the effect of the higher operating = temperature on=20 engine oils.  At some temperature, oil loses its = lubrication=20 ability.  I don=E2=80=99t know what that temp is but assume = it is different=20 for different oils.  Just because the coolant allows higher = operating temperatures, doesn=E2=80=99t mean one should do=20 that.

 

Gordon=20 C. Alling, Jr., PE

President

acumen=20 Engineering/Analysis,=20 Inc.

 

540-786-2200

www.acumen-ea.com

 

From: = Rotary=20 motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On = Behalf Of=20 Michael Silvius
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 = 1:19=20 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] waterless coolant?

 

While on = the subject=20 of cooling, I am curious if anyone has tried the waterless = coolant?=20 Seems to offer some advantages, namely higher boiling boint and = low=20 pressure, is there any reason it should not be used in our=20 aplication?

http://www.evanscooling.com/

 

Michael

No virus found in = this=20 message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: = 2013.0.3408 /=20 Virus Database: 3222/6738 - Release Date:=20 = 10/10/13

------=_NextPart_000_055B_01CEC833.49A9DFC0--