Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.71; envelope-from=atlasyts@bellsouth.net
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:10:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: BMW and EWP
From: Bulent Aliev <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Message-ID: <BE645C22.157BB%atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-813741@logan.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Jim, by the same reasoning, when you are hot and sweaty in front of your fan
at home: The slower the fan turns, the colder you get since the air has more
time to pick up heat from your body? :)
Buly

> 
> 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.