This has degenerated from a discussion of possibilities into what I
would expect in a board meeting, not in an engineering lab. So I am
bailing out to look elsewhere.

By the way, I didnt reject air cooling, only expressed my concern that
it could cause corosion. BTW, thanks for those comments, they WERE
valuable.

Keith Hughes wrote:
jim.isbell wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:

Jim,

Sorry, but changing the mode of cooling for an engine without proper
engineering *is* jury rigging.


I didnt say I wanted to do it "without proper engineering."

OK, but 'wrapping copper tubing around the cylinders' doesn't sound like
an approach resulting from much engineering analysis.

That is why I am here, to get information on how to properly engineer
it. I am an engineer so with proper input I think this can be done.

Well then, surely you must know that you first need the designed
combustion chamber temperature range and the thermal conduction profile
for the cylinder sleeve (top to bottom), to properly size the multiple,
vertically segmented, cooling loops you'll require. You could estimate
the vertical temperature cline by analyzing the relative fin surface
areas, air flow rates, and standard thermal conduction value (F sub r, U
sub L as ASHRAE defines it) and the emissivity of the fin material. And
that just gets you the info you need to design the heat exchange
process. You need to go through the same exercise with the copper
tubing with the bonding method, heat transfer characteristics, mass flow
requirements, baffling to ensure turbulent flow, etc., etc. Not a
trivial exercise.


As you say, it may not be economical, but to reject it out of hand is
shortsighted.

As you seem to have rejected, out of hand as you say, the most simple
way of achieving your stated goal? I.e., not air cooling with "salt"
air. Properly trapped (i.e. collection drain) demisters are the
standard method for achieving these results. Used all the time to pull
moisture from ductwork.

I always like to point out to young engineers that if we didnt try what
couldnt be done, nothing would ever be accomplished.

You might also want to point out that trying to create novel designs and
implementations when existing designs *meet all customer requirements*
results in nothing but higher development costs and, typically,
unnecessary process complexity. This, IME, is the biggest failing of
most engineers (excepting R&D of course).

And, I might point out, this thread epitomizes that situation; trying to
redesign the end point of the process (i.e. the engine) instead of
addressing the problem earlier in the process (i.e. the cooling air
supply) where it can be solved easier, cheaper, and with less complexity.

Almost any
engineering project has never been done before or it wouldnt be in the
engineering department, the technicians in the lab would have looked it
up and done it by now.

Well, sorry but that's just ridiculous. Virtually all day to day
engineering projects are varying implementations of basic
systems/processes that are done all the time. The vast majority of
engineers are not involved in R&D work; they're doing practical process
applications using basic engineering principles. I'm not trivializing
the Engineering process. The most difficult engineering exercise, IME,
is taking an existing process or piece of equipment and implementing
that process or equipment into a specific/unique application and
achieving a result that is timely rugged, efficient, cost-effective, and
meets the specific needs of the end user. If you can do all of those
five, you're a damn fine engineer.

Keith Hughes