Author Topic: water jacket problem  (Read 3245 times)

Offline stirling lad

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • Stirling Scotland
water jacket problem
« on: September 19, 2015, 05:33:44 PM »
I'm curious to know if there is a reason why I can't reduce the the bore of the piping to/from the water jacket on the casting below? The old drawings call for a 1/2" gas thread to be cut into the hole,,The hole is already bigger than 1/2" before cleaning to thread, I found one 1/2" gas tap on ebay and the seller measured the flutes at 7/8ths wide.. the casting is only 4" square and I think it will look out of proportion with such large bore piping .. I fancied using  8mm or 10mm central heating microbore pipe as its more flexable so won't need ugly big elbows on it.. does this seem like an ok way to proceed or is there likely to be some hard and fast rule that states I need to use the large pipe to cool this hot air engine?
...Mike...

Offline vintageandclassicrepairs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: water jacket problem
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2015, 06:12:59 PM »
Hi,
Pipe thread sizes refer to the nominal pipe bore not the actual thread sizes
Heres a link to a whole raft or thread information,  and BSP threads
http://www.gewinde-normen.de/en/index.html
http://www.gewinde-normen.de/en/whitworth-pipe-thread.html

If the casting hole is already over 1/2in dia it looks like the next size up may work 3/8 BSP
3/8 BSP will work well with 10 mm pipe, as thats the standard microbore heating size
8mm to 3/8th fittings are also common

HTH
John

Offline Pete W.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
  • Country: gb
Re: water jacket problem
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2015, 04:40:01 AM »
Hi there, Mike and John,

Pipe threads can be a bit confusing!   :scratch:   :scratch:   :scratch:  The key to the enigma is knowing a bit of the history.

Here's my take on the subject:

When drawn steel pipe was first standardised, the then current technology caused the pipe wall to be quite thick.  (Maybe also, in those days, folded and seam-welded pipe.)  The pipe was denoted by its bore but when pipe threads were standardised they obviously had to be based upon the outside diameter, NOT the bore.

Technology improved as time progressed and the pipe manufacturers learnt how to make pipe with thinner wall, more economical of material and lighter, hence easier to handle.  However, by that time, there was a lot of pipe-threading tackle in wide use so the standardised pipe OD had to be maintained and the wall thinned from the inside outwards.

Hence the modern situation where the OD of a nominal 1½" pipe is actually 1_29/32" and nowhere on it will you find a dimension of 1½" !!!   :bang:   :bang:   :bang: 

(Pipe standards have proliferated as time progressed.  I know that some branches of engineering (e.g. hydraulics) do, nowadays, use a range of pipe that's denoted by its OD - what I've written above relates to traditional steel pipe.  As I write, I'm unsure as to how our modern domestic copper pipe is denoted, ID or OD.) 
Best regards,

Pete W.

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you haven't seen the latest design change-note!

Offline Jasonb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
  • Country: gb
Re: water jacket problem
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2015, 05:06:27 AM »
The only downside I can see to using a smaller pipe is that you will get some flow restriction, as you are just relying on the thermal movement of the water rather than a pump this may affect the running of the engine.

Domestic copper is sized by OD, 15mm OD is approx equal to old 1/2" ID and 22mm OD approx equal to 3/4" Id and so on.

Offline stirling lad

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • Stirling Scotland
Re: water jacket problem
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2015, 10:00:52 AM »
Hi guys, thanks for your input,,
Jason, Ive seen one completed that had a simple pump set up to run via the spare flywheel so I'm hoping to incorporate  something like that into the flo/return line if i can...

..mike..