surely there is no objection to testing the method to confirm it works?

in fact, wouldn't it always be prudent to subsequently crack that bleeder
screw to make sure all air was purged - something like checking for leaks
and proper oil level after an oil change?

although air bubbles do get buoyed up, if there is a local maximum in
height somewhere, air can get trapped, and require a standard bleeding
method to purge.

dlk

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:11:57 EST, George Goff <THX0001@AOL.COM> wrote:

>In a message dated 3/4/04 4:23:02 AM, katzd54@YAHOO.COM writes:
>
><< and, proposed method, like any good scientific theory, can be proven
>false. if anyone does this, please follow with standard bleeding method,
>see if there is any remaining air, and report to list.
>
>dlk
>
>On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 03:49:06 -0500, Daniel L. Katz <katzd54@YAHOO.COM>
>wrote:
>
>>interesting. seems like a reasonable approach for initial fill. but isn't
>>the tall filling reservoir in back coupled with open vent in front just
>>another artifice for providing a pressure difference?
>>
>>i would be surprised if this method alone purges all the air. >>
>
>Katz, my man, your words are little more than unfounded speculation.  As
it
>is, until you try what I suggested, you can't say much with any authority
>regarding the matter.
>
>The temporary reservoir does provide head to the system, that's the whole
>idea of it, but this approach is so patently obvious that it could hardly
be
>termed a feux d'artifice.
>
>George