Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=67.18.103.7; envelope-from=piolenc@archivale.com
Message-ID: <4BDC0F5F.1080508@archivale.com>
Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 19:24:15 +0800
From: Marc de Piolenc <piolenc@archivale.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Subject: Ejector cooling
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Mike Wills wrote the quoted passages:

"1) It adds measurable weight."

Compared with what? What if a small addition of weight solves your 
cooling problems and reduces cooling drag. Would you refuse to do it?

"2) It adds complexity."

How complex can a device with no moving parts be?

"3) It adds noise (that alone in hindsight makes me glad I didn’t do it 
- god knows I don’t need more noise)."

No. Mixer-ejectors are used for noise REDUCTION. Successfully.

"4) And finally, not a single person I spoke with noticed a measurable 
improvement in either cooling performance or drag reduction after adding 
an augmentor, or noticed a measurable reduction after eliminating the 
augmentor."

You seem to have consulted a very select group. In volume 2 of 
Alternative Engines, page 139 et seq, Charles Airesman Jr. documents his 
experiments with a very primitive ejector that generated 6 inches of 
water pressure drop under shop runup conditions. That equates to a 
considerable shaft power savings, more reliable ground cooling and a big 
step forward. And this was Airesman's first attempt.

There are other success stories if you choose to seek them out.

Best regards,
Marc de Piolenc

Those seem like good enough reasons to pass on an augmentor unless you 
are one of those guys that just has to prove it to yourself.

Mike Wills