Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.167; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <423EEBBF.20702@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:43:59 -0600
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: BMW and EWP
References: <list-813457@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-813457@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


William wrote:

> Jim,
> Think of it this way, it may help -- When you increase the flow rate 
> through the system, the overall temperature drop/rise across the 
> radiators/engine are decreased. This means the radiators have a higher 
> temperature to reject the heat to the air (beneficial), and the metal 
> components of the engine do not have to get as hot to drive the heat 
> into the coolant going through the engine (beneficial). The price you 
> pay is having more pumping power.

I had looked at it as: 
High Flow - engine can't heat the water as much as it would if the flow 
were slower and there was more time to heat the water, resulting in less 
temp rise in water across engine and more uniform temps in the block.  
Water emerges from block not much hotter than it went in.  Water doesn't 
stay in the radiator long enough to be exposed to air flow long enough 
to be cooled very much.  Good news: it doesn't *have* to be cooled much 
- it's not all that hot.
Low Flow - coolant spends more time in engine and gets hotter.  Greater 
dT across engine block, coolant hotter exiting engine and entering 
radiator.  Radiator has to draw more heat out of the coolant to get it 
back to acceptable block entry temp, but has more time to do it on 
account of lower flow.
What I hadn't seen, is how apparently wide a range of flows would 
produce acceptable results.  I suppose a better radiator (more flue 
area, better air flow, etc. - better cooling per in^3) would reduce the 
volume requirement.  Lower limit on flow would seem to be that flow at 
which the temperature gradient across the engine becomes unacceptable.
Thanks for the details ... Jim S.

>
> With the lower flows of the EWP, greater temperature drop/rise across 
> the radiators/engine are required in order to get the heat out. This 
> means that you have to have a larger or more efficient radiator, and 
> the metal surface inside the engine needs to run at a higher temperature.
>
> It is all a series of trade-offs.
>
> Bill Schertz
> KIS Cruiser # 4045
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Sower" <canarder@frontiernet.net>
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 11:04 PM
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: BMW and EWP
>
>
>> I seem to have missed a lot of posts.  When I'm going to be out of 
>> town for more than couple of days I stop the list.  That could 
>> explain some of it. 12 GPM and 34 GPM is a pretty wide window of 
>> stuff that apparently works. 34 is like cycling your whole coolant 
>> supply through the system every 4 seconds or so.  That just seems 
>> really really fast to me.  It was 40+ years ago last time I studied 
>> this stuff, so all I've got is intuitive guesses.
>> Which is, of course, exactly what I keep complaining about :o) ... 
>> Jim S.
>>
>> Bob White wrote:
>
> /List.html
>
>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>
>
>