X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:37:08 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [68.98.211.24] (HELO systems3.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.12) with ESMTP id 2301239 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:42:07 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.98.211.24; envelope-from=cberland@systems3.net Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7EB35.606D8E70" Subject: [LML] favorite pressurization debug techniques X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Original-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:41:29 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <87C33F695961494D886EB3B6C8A4765138D2F7@s3server.Systems3.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] favorite pressurization debug techniques Thread-Index: AcfrIXG7aoZA/ZeQQLSF3bTY6WnL5wAElZcg From: "Craig Berland" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7EB35.606D8E70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Colyn wrote: I've developed a pressurization problem. So far the best debug method I know of is to hook a vacuum exhaust up to the cabin inlet, and get inside with something that smokes and watch where the smoke goes. Anyone want to nominate a more effective, or less flammable approach?=20 =20 I can tell you what NOT to do. When I was at General Motors, I used a chemical "smoke" flare to run a visual test to determine air flow through an intake manifold that I modified with a plex-i-glass top. After the engine seized and the lab exhaust stack was plugged with red smoke, the 55 gallon drum containing the smoke flare starting leaking into the test lab. Man those things make a lot of smoke. Let's just say I spent a lot of time with the security and plant safety folks. I have to honestly say it stills brings a smile to my face when I remember the red smoke incident. =20 Stick with the Cuban smoke generators. =20 Craig Berland =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7EB35.606D8E70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Colyn wrote: I've developed a=20 pressurization problem.

So far the best debug method I know of = is to hook a=20 vacuum exhaust up to the cabin inlet, and get inside with something that = smokes=20 and watch where the smoke goes.

Anyone want to nominate a more = effective, or=20 less flammable approach?

I can=20 tell you what NOT to do. When I was at General Motors, I used a = chemical=20 "smoke" flare to run a visual test to determine air flow through an = intake=20 manifold that I modified with a plex-i-glass top. After the engine = seized=20 and the lab exhaust stack was plugged with red smoke, the 55 gallon = drum=20 containing the smoke flare starting leaking into the test lab. Man = those=20 things make a lot of smoke. Let's just say I spent a lot of time with = the=20 security and plant safety folks. I have to honestly say it stills = brings a=20 smile to my face when I remember the red smoke=20 incident.

Stick=20 with the Cuban smoke generators.

Craig=20 Berland

------_=_NextPart_001_01C7EB35.606D8E70--