Engine internal coatings
06-15-03, 08:00 PM
#1
Corn-to-Noise Converter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Elysian Fields (Texas)
Posts: 1,527
Received 386 Likes
on
154 Posts
Engine internal coatings
My reply to a recent questions about engine internal coatings for your information:
I have seen some benefit in ceramic coating the rotors' combustion faces. It helps reduce oil temps and give some (unspecified) increase efficiency (i.e. power) due to the increase thermal efficiencies. This coating application had no discernable degradation at approximately 20K mile when the rotors were damaged due to an oil system failure. About 7 years ago it was $350 to have Swain do the coating (with their piston ceramic barrier coating).
Racing Beat's plasma spraying of new front/intermediate/rear housing plates seems like another worthwhile coating, and I'm planning to try this next time I crack open my engine (not TOO so I hope). That said, I would only worry about any of these process if you are already FULLY modded with the other usual internal design improvements (ports, rigid and pliant seals, et.) and the engine is already undergoing a rebuild. The money seems better spend on more tried and true improvements.
One additional coating worth considering is molydisulfide (lubricant) coating of wear parts. I know several of the tuners like to use this on the internal bearings and races, though it's longevity is unproven.
Talk amongst yourselves...
I have seen some benefit in ceramic coating the rotors' combustion faces. It helps reduce oil temps and give some (unspecified) increase efficiency (i.e. power) due to the increase thermal efficiencies. This coating application had no discernable degradation at approximately 20K mile when the rotors were damaged due to an oil system failure. About 7 years ago it was $350 to have Swain do the coating (with their piston ceramic barrier coating).
Racing Beat's plasma spraying of new front/intermediate/rear housing plates seems like another worthwhile coating, and I'm planning to try this next time I crack open my engine (not TOO so I hope). That said, I would only worry about any of these process if you are already FULLY modded with the other usual internal design improvements (ports, rigid and pliant seals, et.) and the engine is already undergoing a rebuild. The money seems better spend on more tried and true improvements.
One additional coating worth considering is molydisulfide (lubricant) coating of wear parts. I know several of the tuners like to use this on the internal bearings and races, though it's longevity is unproven.
Talk amongst yourselves...
06-18-03, 05:55 PM
#3
Corn-to-Noise Converter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Elysian Fields (Texas)
Posts: 1,527
Received 386 Likes
on
154 Posts
Theory?
I don't understand what you mean by "remember?" The only thing that I "remember" is that I've seen this theory put out by some of the "false prophets" in the rotary community. I also don't "remember" having ANY problems or increased water temps after this upgrade.
OK, after some thought I find this theroy difficult to accept, so here goes debunking another "rotary legend..."
First off, if each combustion chamber (space create by the rotor face, rotor housing lining and endplate faces) was 100% thermally insulated, then there would be a nominal need for "cooling" of any sort, as the all of the heat of the combustion process could be harnessed to expand the combustion chamber. Therefore, the more of the combustion chamber surfaces that are thermally insulated (e.g. thermal barrier coated), the LESS of the total heat of combustion that has to be dissipated via a cooling system. The reason that cooling systems are required is because the exposed metal structures (e.g rotors, housings, et) are NOT compatible with temperatures of the combustion process. So to bring the temp down in line with the limits of the materials, heat is extracted from the metal structures via a cooling system. This is were a thermal barrier coating fit in to both keep the combustion process heat AWAY from the metal while allowing tha same heat to maximize the power stroke expansion of the combustion chamber. So the theory that "X" amount of heat must be removed by the sum metallic surface area doesn't make sense to me. Is it possible that as "exposed" surface area goes down, that more of the heat just gets "wasted" in the power stroke and/or out the pipe?
So to summarize: Coating = (LESS heat in metals + more power stroke expansion) = LESS cooling need = more expansion from combustion = (more heat out the "sewer pipe" + more power)
Though I'm not a materials expert (hi Duane and David), I've had plenty of Guinnesses with a couple of them!
:
OK, after some thought I find this theroy difficult to accept, so here goes debunking another "rotary legend..."
First off, if each combustion chamber (space create by the rotor face, rotor housing lining and endplate faces) was 100% thermally insulated, then there would be a nominal need for "cooling" of any sort, as the all of the heat of the combustion process could be harnessed to expand the combustion chamber. Therefore, the more of the combustion chamber surfaces that are thermally insulated (e.g. thermal barrier coated), the LESS of the total heat of combustion that has to be dissipated via a cooling system. The reason that cooling systems are required is because the exposed metal structures (e.g rotors, housings, et) are NOT compatible with temperatures of the combustion process. So to bring the temp down in line with the limits of the materials, heat is extracted from the metal structures via a cooling system. This is were a thermal barrier coating fit in to both keep the combustion process heat AWAY from the metal while allowing tha same heat to maximize the power stroke expansion of the combustion chamber. So the theory that "X" amount of heat must be removed by the sum metallic surface area doesn't make sense to me. Is it possible that as "exposed" surface area goes down, that more of the heat just gets "wasted" in the power stroke and/or out the pipe?
So to summarize: Coating = (LESS heat in metals + more power stroke expansion) = LESS cooling need = more expansion from combustion = (more heat out the "sewer pipe" + more power)
Though I'm not a materials expert (hi Duane and David), I've had plenty of Guinnesses with a couple of them!
:
Last edited by carlos@the-rotary.net; 06-18-03 at 06:12 PM.
06-18-03, 06:49 PM
#4
Open up! Search Warrant!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kicking down doors in a neighborhood near you
Posts: 3,838
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: Theory?
First off, if each combustion chamber (space create by the rotor face, rotor housing lining and endplate faces) was 100% thermally insulated, then there would be a nominal need for "cooling" of any sort, as the all of the heat of the combustion process could be harnessed to expand the combustion chamber. Therefore, the more of the combustion chamber surfaces that are thermally insulated (e.g. thermal barrier coated), the LESS of the total heat of combustion that has to be dissipated via a cooling system.
So to summarize: Coating = (LESS heat in metals + more power stroke expansion) = LESS cooling need = more expansion from combustion = (more heat out the "sewer pipe" + more power)
The exhaust gas is a byproduct. The temprature of its container is not going to increase the performance of the combustion that caused the byproduct.
Heat is an engines worse enemy, and having a cooler running engine is better. The hotter engine will break down the oil viscosity faster which has its own chain reaction of events like poorer lubrication, and everything else will jump off from there.
Though I'm not a materials expert (hi Duane and David), I've had plenty of Guinnesses with a couple of them!
Last edited by Project84; 06-18-03 at 06:54 PM.
06-18-03, 07:40 PM
#5
it WILL run
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raleigh,MS
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heat = energy
the more heat is kept withing the combustion chamer the more energy is kept there
keeping the heat gives an increase in efficientcy by makeing the gas burn more completey (the extra super heated air will futher burn the hydocarbons usually missed)
also the hotter air expands more give higher pressure in the chamber, and giveing more power
lastly the less conductive the surfaces of the combustion chamber are the less heat they transfer into the incoming charge suring the compression stroke, lessening detonation
the main reason a rotary is less efficent than a pissed-on is the greater surface area for heat to escape during the combustion procces
the more heat is kept withing the combustion chamer the more energy is kept there
keeping the heat gives an increase in efficientcy by makeing the gas burn more completey (the extra super heated air will futher burn the hydocarbons usually missed)
also the hotter air expands more give higher pressure in the chamber, and giveing more power
lastly the less conductive the surfaces of the combustion chamber are the less heat they transfer into the incoming charge suring the compression stroke, lessening detonation
the main reason a rotary is less efficent than a pissed-on is the greater surface area for heat to escape during the combustion procces
06-18-03, 08:20 PM
#6
Corn-to-Noise Converter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Elysian Fields (Texas)
Posts: 1,527
Received 386 Likes
on
154 Posts
Hey Project84,
Thanks for the interesting response.
You're basic premise is backward:
You say that "The heat is the byproduct of expansion..." and I argue the oppposite is true.
The exothermic (giving off heat) chemical reaction we all know and love as air\fuel combustion is literally what causes the expansion of the matter in the combustion chamber. So by definition, heat (i.e BTUs) IS the primary dynamic in the expansion which "powers" the power stroke. If not, then what specific dynamic or unit are you proposing causes the expansion in the first place? The flame front pressure wave? Some other alchemy?
So if the expansion of the combustion chamber (i.e power stroke) is DIRECTLY cause by the expanding exhaust resulting from exothermic reaction, then the HOTTER that the exhaust stays (doesn't dissipate into the surrounding chamber) the greater the expansion and therefore the higher the work that is done.
Here's a quote from NASA's "Combustion for Idiots" that I found on the Internet (http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/combst1.html):
"During the combustion process, as the fuel and oxidizer are turned into exhaust products, heat is generated. Interestingly, some source of heat is also necessary to start combustion. (Gasoline and air are both present in your automobile fuel tank; but combustion does not occur because there is no source of heat.) Since heat is both required to start combustion and is itself a product of combustion, we can see why combustion takes place very rapidly. Also, once combustion gets started, we don't have to continually provide a heat source. THE HEAT OF COMBUSTION WILL KEEP THINGS GOING."
So to put the mail in the (simplistic) coffin for ALL internal combustion engines:
Heat = BTU
BTU / Time = Power
Oh yeah, I'm also a Maintenance Officer in the U.S Navy, so I'm a little familiar with the theory of internal combustion as it applies to engines.
Thanks for the interesting response.
You're basic premise is backward:
You say that "The heat is the byproduct of expansion..." and I argue the oppposite is true.
The exothermic (giving off heat) chemical reaction we all know and love as air\fuel combustion is literally what causes the expansion of the matter in the combustion chamber. So by definition, heat (i.e BTUs) IS the primary dynamic in the expansion which "powers" the power stroke. If not, then what specific dynamic or unit are you proposing causes the expansion in the first place? The flame front pressure wave? Some other alchemy?
So if the expansion of the combustion chamber (i.e power stroke) is DIRECTLY cause by the expanding exhaust resulting from exothermic reaction, then the HOTTER that the exhaust stays (doesn't dissipate into the surrounding chamber) the greater the expansion and therefore the higher the work that is done.
Here's a quote from NASA's "Combustion for Idiots" that I found on the Internet (http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/combst1.html):
"During the combustion process, as the fuel and oxidizer are turned into exhaust products, heat is generated. Interestingly, some source of heat is also necessary to start combustion. (Gasoline and air are both present in your automobile fuel tank; but combustion does not occur because there is no source of heat.) Since heat is both required to start combustion and is itself a product of combustion, we can see why combustion takes place very rapidly. Also, once combustion gets started, we don't have to continually provide a heat source. THE HEAT OF COMBUSTION WILL KEEP THINGS GOING."
So to put the mail in the (simplistic) coffin for ALL internal combustion engines:
Heat = BTU
BTU / Time = Power
Oh yeah, I'm also a Maintenance Officer in the U.S Navy, so I'm a little familiar with the theory of internal combustion as it applies to engines.
06-18-03, 11:25 PM
#7
Open up! Search Warrant!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kicking down doors in a neighborhood near you
Posts: 3,838
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The heat caused by the ignition of the air fuel mixture is a byproduct. The detonation comes first, then the heat. Hence, byproduct of an incompete, less than 100% thermally efficient chain reaction. The ignition is caused by the spark plug, not an exothermic chemical chain reaction. The air/fuel mixture is not exothermic because mixing those chemicals together does not in itself give off heat, or as you said, the air and fuel in the gas tank would generate heat. When I was in college, I was a co-op student at B.F. Goodrich (chemical division). I know that the chemicals we mixed were exothermic. Compressing the air/fuel mixture in the cylinder, or rotor, causes it to heat up, just like compressing air in a turbo charger causes air to heat up. This is not an exothermic reaction.
Sounds like byproduct to me.
See, not exothermic.
I do see how you would be able to prevent the expanding heat energy from being wasted by transferring into the engine block by coating the internal parts with a heat resistant compound. Its like boiling water in a pot. If the lid is off, the heat goes out. But if the lid is on, the pressure increases from thermal expansion and forces the lid to move, or it will push the water to the top, depending on which requires the least amount of force to move. This question you posed is what made it click for me.
Though heat is a byproduct of the ignition of the air/fuel, thermal expansion is the driving force behind a piston, rotor, or grenade. It is the driving force that cycles the bolt carrier group on a M-16 assault rifle. The more focused that thermal expansion is on the part needing to be driven, the more force and power it can put toward that part. Anything absorbing the heat will be lessen the efficiency.
And oh, yeah, I'm also a non commissioned officer, aircraft mechanic in the U.S. Air Force and am familiar with internal combustion and many other theories and principles that apply to engines and aircraft.
During the combustion process, as the fuel and oxidizer are turned into exhaust products, heat is generated.
Sounds like byproduct to me.
Gasoline and air are both present in your automobile fuel tank; but combustion does not occur because there is no source of heat
I do see how you would be able to prevent the expanding heat energy from being wasted by transferring into the engine block by coating the internal parts with a heat resistant compound. Its like boiling water in a pot. If the lid is off, the heat goes out. But if the lid is on, the pressure increases from thermal expansion and forces the lid to move, or it will push the water to the top, depending on which requires the least amount of force to move. This question you posed is what made it click for me.
heat (i.e BTUs) IS the primary dynamic in the expansion which "powers" the power stroke. If not, then what specific dynamic or unit are you proposing causes the expansion in the first place? The flame front pressure wave? Some other alchemy?
And oh, yeah, I'm also a non commissioned officer, aircraft mechanic in the U.S. Air Force and am familiar with internal combustion and many other theories and principles that apply to engines and aircraft.
Trending Topics
06-19-03, 01:55 AM
#10
it WILL run
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raleigh,MS
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ERAUMAZDA
WTF.......why are u making things complicated. K.I.S.S
I never said anything about coolant or theory.
More heat. Bang bang bang. dentonation.
WTF.......why are u making things complicated. K.I.S.S
I never said anything about coolant or theory.
More heat. Bang bang bang. dentonation.
that includes conducting heat into the air of the inake charge
so it would heat the charge less
and give less detonation
06-19-03, 02:05 AM
#11
it WILL run
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raleigh,MS
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Project84
This is not an exothermic reaction.
This is not an exothermic reaction.
The more energy kept within the combustion chamber the more reations are able to complette in the time between spark and exuast.
also, The reaction in the chamber is ony started by spark plug, almost all of the combustion is carried out as some of the mixture combust and the heat from that ignights the surrounding mixture in a chain reaction(flame front)
with less energy lost into the coolant there is more heat/energy to keep the flame front going, thus allowing more complete combustion
sorry i it isnt written clear, I killed all my college physics and chemistry classes, but had to retake english
06-19-03, 12:56 PM
#12
Open up! Search Warrant!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kicking down doors in a neighborhood near you
Posts: 3,838
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Your definition of exothermic is incorrect because the mixture of the fuel and air does not create the heat. But like I said, I see how you would gain more use of the expanding gasses if you prevent the heat from transfering into the engine block.
06-19-03, 08:06 PM
#14
Open up! Search Warrant!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kicking down doors in a neighborhood near you
Posts: 3,838
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
What part don't you understand William54? The air mixing with the fuel does not give off heat. Period. End of story If it did, you would be able to put your hand on the gas tank and feel the heat generated by the air and fuel mixing together. Like I said, I worked in a chemical plant, and you can feel heat generated by exothermic chemical reactions. Using a spark plug to ignite something does not make it exothermic. If I smoke a cigar, is the tobacco and paper exothermic because I ignited them? No. They didn't give off heat until I lit them on fire. Are the curtains on your window exothermic because I can light them on fire? No. Just because something burns doesn't mean its exothermic.
This is from one of those website dictionaries:
exothermic
Describes a chemical reaction that releases energy (usually in the form of heat).
(09 Oct 1997)
This is from one of those website dictionaries:
exothermic
Describes a chemical reaction that releases energy (usually in the form of heat).
(09 Oct 1997)
06-20-03, 12:22 AM
#15
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daytona beach
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats corrected the ceramic doesn't conduct heat. Remember the rotor is connected to the e-shaft and the e-shaft runs througth the housings. which has coolant and oil running through it. Heat has to dissapate some where. With people running with no oil injectors and pre-mix. Its a recipe for detonation. Just like in a piston engine combustion heat is actually transfered from the head, to the rod, to the shaft. coating the rotor also means it has to be rebalanced and increases compression slightly. The last thing you need is for all the heat tring to run from the housing walls to the apex seak because the rotors will not except the heat. Heat needs to be transfered evenly.
Changing the engineering for heat transfer is not a wise Idea.
Changing the engineering for heat transfer is not a wise Idea.
06-20-03, 07:34 AM
#17
Corn-to-Noise Converter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Elysian Fields (Texas)
Posts: 1,527
Received 386 Likes
on
154 Posts
Theory v. anecodatal
Have any of you ever experienced FIRST HAND ceramic coating of ANY type? What about (professionally applied) internal thermal barrier coating in specific? Is there ANY ONE OUT THERE who actually has! If so, what product, applied where and exactly what were your experiences?
THEORY aside, I HAVE and have found nothing but positive results. I can't give empirical data, but ony anecdotal.
- NO coolant temp rise.
- NO balance problems to 8300 rpms.
- NO **I REPEAT** detonation EVER per my J&S SafGuard out to 18lbs of boost on STOCK turbos.
- Compression increase is LESS (at a 5-8 thousands for the coatings) than the CARBON buildup that would occur over the same interval... ANY RECOMMENDATIONS HERE?
I have to admit that it's quite frustrating sometime when all of the "knowledgable theroist" discuss thing that I've experienced FIRST HAND and often at relatively high expense. But ultimately, I only do it to myself by not unsubscribing from a thread that I no longer have positive contribution to. As I like to say about ****, if you don't like it, just shouldn't watch it!
Beside, this medium tends to make us less tolerant of dissension for some reason; I find it in myself all the time.
Guess I better unsubscribe from this thread lest I open my big mouth again.
THEORY aside, I HAVE and have found nothing but positive results. I can't give empirical data, but ony anecdotal.
- NO coolant temp rise.
- NO balance problems to 8300 rpms.
- NO **I REPEAT** detonation EVER per my J&S SafGuard out to 18lbs of boost on STOCK turbos.
- Compression increase is LESS (at a 5-8 thousands for the coatings) than the CARBON buildup that would occur over the same interval... ANY RECOMMENDATIONS HERE?
I have to admit that it's quite frustrating sometime when all of the "knowledgable theroist" discuss thing that I've experienced FIRST HAND and often at relatively high expense. But ultimately, I only do it to myself by not unsubscribing from a thread that I no longer have positive contribution to. As I like to say about ****, if you don't like it, just shouldn't watch it!
Beside, this medium tends to make us less tolerant of dissension for some reason; I find it in myself all the time. Guess I better unsubscribe from this thread lest I open my big mouth again.
Last edited by carlos@the-rotary.net; 06-20-03 at 07:44 AM.
06-20-03, 08:12 AM
#18
I ve heard about this ceremic thing few times.. ceremic coating, ceremic apex seals...
All I know is that some of the draggers in AU, NZ and some USA used Ceremic.. but not sure how it is on daily cars..
Also far as the who exothermic thing.. I agree with Project84... I am in medical field and gas/air and igniting with spark is not consider exothermic reaction.. Exothermic reaction in definition is when two or more chemicals are mixed and heat is given off.. not heat is given off due to buring it..
All I know is that some of the draggers in AU, NZ and some USA used Ceremic.. but not sure how it is on daily cars..
Also far as the who exothermic thing.. I agree with Project84... I am in medical field and gas/air and igniting with spark is not consider exothermic reaction.. Exothermic reaction in definition is when two or more chemicals are mixed and heat is given off.. not heat is given off due to buring it..
06-20-03, 11:21 AM
#19
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daytona beach
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROFL
Aircraft tech:
Ceramic coated gas turbine blades
Ceramic coated aircraft pistons. Most AVCO IO-540 engines
Plasma coating in DELTA AIRLINES and know a guy who works at NASA USA at cape canav...who gives me tech advise. Oh he is a heat treatment engineer.
Thank you very much.
Aircraft tech:
Ceramic coated gas turbine blades
Ceramic coated aircraft pistons. Most AVCO IO-540 engines
Plasma coating in DELTA AIRLINES and know a guy who works at NASA USA at cape canav...who gives me tech advise. Oh he is a heat treatment engineer.
Thank you very much.
06-20-03, 12:10 PM
#20
Corn-to-Noise Converter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Elysian Fields (Texas)
Posts: 1,527
Received 386 Likes
on
154 Posts
Perhaps let me restate:
So have any of YOU (not my cousin's barber in Florida or some guy that you might have talked to who makes ceramic plates for Lladro or some other ambiguous association) experienced the use any of these coating in ANY OF YOUR rotary engines? I suspect that there is no one on this forum who particularly cares about the use of ceramic in jet engine stators, space shuttle heat shields, dental work, body armour or any other none rotary related.. this is the "Genreal Rotary Tech Support" section after all.
Now aircraft pistons... hmmm, wonder why they'd use it in that application (see ALL of the arguments AGAINST it's use previously posted above)?! Sounds like it's ok for aircraft pistons but not rotary engine rotors....hmmm?
Oh yeah, yeah... and Richard Feynman personally discussed with me over some Moonpies, the nature of structures as applied to Swain Piston Ceramic coatings in 13B-REW internals from a Quantum Electrodynamic perspectives during his contributions to the first space shuttle mishap committee...
I guess my point is, if you're still reading this thread (or any thread in this forum), be especially critical of the credibility of some of the "theroist" who espouse knowedge but have no personal involvement (i.e $$) in their theories. In my book, there are few more important datapoints (when available) when making decisions then DIRECTLY observed experience. As the old say goes in sports: "those who can not do, coach/teach."
The one point that I'm not sure on is the exact definition of "Exothermic." Most of the web sources that I find give too simple a definition to differential whether the combustion process would apply. The most common definition seems to be "A chemical process or reaction that produces or gives off heat (has a negative Delta H)."
So have any of YOU (not my cousin's barber in Florida or some guy that you might have talked to who makes ceramic plates for Lladro or some other ambiguous association) experienced the use any of these coating in ANY OF YOUR rotary engines? I suspect that there is no one on this forum who particularly cares about the use of ceramic in jet engine stators, space shuttle heat shields, dental work, body armour or any other none rotary related.. this is the "Genreal Rotary Tech Support" section after all.
Now aircraft pistons... hmmm, wonder why they'd use it in that application (see ALL of the arguments AGAINST it's use previously posted above)?! Sounds like it's ok for aircraft pistons but not rotary engine rotors....hmmm?
Oh yeah, yeah... and Richard Feynman personally discussed with me over some Moonpies, the nature of structures as applied to Swain Piston Ceramic coatings in 13B-REW internals from a Quantum Electrodynamic perspectives during his contributions to the first space shuttle mishap committee...
I guess my point is, if you're still reading this thread (or any thread in this forum), be especially critical of the credibility of some of the "theroist" who espouse knowedge but have no personal involvement (i.e $$) in their theories. In my book, there are few more important datapoints (when available) when making decisions then DIRECTLY observed experience. As the old say goes in sports: "those who can not do, coach/teach."
The one point that I'm not sure on is the exact definition of "Exothermic." Most of the web sources that I find give too simple a definition to differential whether the combustion process would apply. The most common definition seems to be "A chemical process or reaction that produces or gives off heat (has a negative Delta H)."
Last edited by carlos@the-rotary.net; 06-20-03 at 12:29 PM.
06-20-03, 12:42 PM
#21
Corn-to-Noise Converter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Elysian Fields (Texas)
Posts: 1,527
Received 386 Likes
on
154 Posts
Regarding the term "exothermic" nature of combustion, the best I've found is the definition of "fire" in the American Heritage, 2nd College Edition, AND in Webster's II, New Riverside University dictionaries. Read 'em if you'z got 'em:
"A rapid, persistent chemical reaction that releases heat and light, especially the EXOTHERMIC combination of a combustible substance with oxygen."
"A rapid, persistent chemical reaction that releases heat and light, especially the EXOTHERMIC combination of a combustible substance with oxygen."
Last edited by carlos@the-rotary.net; 06-20-03 at 12:44 PM.
06-20-03, 02:28 PM
#22
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daytona beach
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so where is your proof. explain oh great one.
What your saying is ceramic coating doesn't do anything except reduce carbon build up. thats it, thats why I am going to dump money into coating my rotors do reduce carbon build up.
ALSO you are full of it. Because You said
"Have any of you ever experienced FIRST HAND ceramic coating of ANY type? What about (professionally applied) internal thermal barrier coating in specific? Is there ANY ONE OUT THERE who actually has! If so, what product, applied where and exactly what were your experiences"
and then you return with
"So have any of YOU (not my cousin's barber in Florida or some guy that you might have talked to who makes ceramic plates for Lladro or some other ambiguous association) experienced the use any of these coating in ANY OF YOUR rotary engines? I suspect that there is no one on this forum who particularly cares about the use of ceramic in jet engine stators, space shuttle heat shields, dental work, body armour or any other none rotary related.. this is the "Genreal Rotary Tech Support" section after all. "
science doesn't change for a rotary....so what are u talking about "This is a rotary tech forum" The science of matter and structures doesn't change because that compressing mass doesn't go up and down. You are stuck on being right that you fail to provide a CON to your Ceramic coating. Everything has a con and a pro. Your "theory" is not perfect.
Oh yeah when you learn the meaning of Exothermic than you can bullshit. Oh great one.
What your saying is ceramic coating doesn't do anything except reduce carbon build up. thats it, thats why I am going to dump money into coating my rotors do reduce carbon build up.
ALSO you are full of it. Because You said
"Have any of you ever experienced FIRST HAND ceramic coating of ANY type? What about (professionally applied) internal thermal barrier coating in specific? Is there ANY ONE OUT THERE who actually has! If so, what product, applied where and exactly what were your experiences"
and then you return with
"So have any of YOU (not my cousin's barber in Florida or some guy that you might have talked to who makes ceramic plates for Lladro or some other ambiguous association) experienced the use any of these coating in ANY OF YOUR rotary engines? I suspect that there is no one on this forum who particularly cares about the use of ceramic in jet engine stators, space shuttle heat shields, dental work, body armour or any other none rotary related.. this is the "Genreal Rotary Tech Support" section after all. "
science doesn't change for a rotary....so what are u talking about "This is a rotary tech forum" The science of matter and structures doesn't change because that compressing mass doesn't go up and down. You are stuck on being right that you fail to provide a CON to your Ceramic coating. Everything has a con and a pro. Your "theory" is not perfect.
Oh yeah when you learn the meaning of Exothermic than you can bullshit. Oh great one.
06-20-03, 02:41 PM
#23
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daytona beach
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know the purpose of the oil control ring and do you know how much oil cools an engine. How changing the amount of temp of the rotors can effect the viscosity of the oil and the clearnace between the bearing and the rotor.
Yeah what was the reason for the oil system failure. explain oh great one. Temps are critical and I suggest you learn the basics first before you jump on theories on a rotary. I know the science on a piston, jet, and rotary and the science doesn't change. You fail to see that. Read a book pal and tell me that ceramic coating doesn't have draw backs. If it didn't every one would be doing it.
Yeah what was the reason for the oil system failure. explain oh great one. Temps are critical and I suggest you learn the basics first before you jump on theories on a rotary. I know the science on a piston, jet, and rotary and the science doesn't change. You fail to see that. Read a book pal and tell me that ceramic coating doesn't have draw backs. If it didn't every one would be doing it.
06-20-03, 02:44 PM
#24
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daytona beach
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its Ironic that this was in your first post.
"ne additional coating worth considering is molydisulfide (lubricant) coating of wear parts. I know several of the tuners like to use this on the internal bearings and races, though it's longevity is unproven."
"ne additional coating worth considering is molydisulfide (lubricant) coating of wear parts. I know several of the tuners like to use this on the internal bearings and races, though it's longevity is unproven."
06-20-03, 03:10 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Houston Tx
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
"If it didn't every one would be doing it."
Umm... Isn't it fairly proven that ceramic-coating(just an example) a header is beneficial? Yet not a lot of people do it,; if you are going to argue so vehemently, use valid points, please, I would like to see the conclusion of this thread...
"If it didn't every one would be doing it."
Umm... Isn't it fairly proven that ceramic-coating(just an example) a header is beneficial? Yet not a lot of people do it,; if you are going to argue so vehemently, use valid points, please, I would like to see the conclusion of this thread...