X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.187] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2503097 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:55:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.198.187; envelope-from=rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c27so133068rvf for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:54:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=JpzKMGNCNGmj2cu7nOVhjHyhnOqO+B7ggRvuGMfvcIw=; b=uVZR4GzGHH/WFTB9PnIMYqMSE1OgYyM6Q6Wh6sk+QsrhpkTALuho995dJj4Z9QdqwVpQWCTTT3lgLJLg7YMu5sS9oIJDwgMZW9W7//xJrkdNwCLJMiTNu1Qka+l/ZRb3YdGzaU8aES7tFP1gA2B4q0ddLM4gZyodstNYsumvCEM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=kFUeTKaAWH6kU/spZejPZj4JgvDLBc5vnhB/N62T0r8DlD7yFO9mDZm14xAAhEl5KVs7SEIF8hRO1DfTXfMz782aW678W3x8TuTlIN+rNopNdqtaquaJzWEKpvf4iL0BTMMV3Z/eUeW6Uto9j64KF1t47ghzncTXUuJN0TpgYRM= Received: by 10.142.14.20 with SMTP id 20mr47541wfn.1195919683459; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:54:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.98.2 with HTTP; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:54:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1b4b137c0711240754r3ea74bd5icf84193cda3c4717@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:54:43 -0500 From: tracy@rotaryaviation.com Sender: rwstracy@gmail.com To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Thick vs Thin was : Diffuser Configuration Comparison In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Google-Sender-Auth: dd85dfc7c614fe63 On 11/21/07, Ron Springer wrote: Mass flow rate = density x area x velocity Consider an example with the inlet and exit areas the same. Then, density times velocity is the same at the inlet and the outlet. The density at the outlet will be lower than at the inlet because the air has been heated. So, the velocity must be higher at the outlet than at the inlet. This is true for this case regardless of the drag created by the radiator, or the efficiency of the system, as long as inlet amd outlet areas match. (Actually, if drag is increased too much, the inlet will spill air and the mass flow rate will be lowered to below that of a full flowing inlet. A smaller streamtube of air would be captured, there would be external diffusion prior to the lip of the inlet, and the effective inlet area (or capture area) would need to be used instead, which is less than the physical area of the inlet.) More sophisticated examples can be done for non-equal areas, but then it becomes more involved. The point is that the air exits with significant velocity as long as there is significant mass flow and the effects can't be ignored. Ron Your logic is correct but the fact is that inlet & outlet sizes are not equal. It is a rare installation that has outlet size equal (or smaller) than the inlet. I have never seen an example of this in a home built but I have read of a couple (in *extreamly* refined cooling systems). Most are at least 2 times the inlet size. I typically orient my approach toward real world conditions, not theoretical possibilities. Optomizing outlets with equal or even smaller area than inlets is the way to go *IF* your inlet diffuser is already optomized. EVERYTHING depends on getting the diffuser right regardless of whether you are a thick or thin rad fan. Estimates of "correct" inlet & outlet area ratios are all over the map with Paul L's paper designs being the largest on the outlet. He likes zero back pressure on the back side of the rad with big louvers to the airstream which are about the most draggy kind I can imagine. Tracy