Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Too goofy?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
HLS@nospam.nix - 13 Sep 2006 20:15 GMT
With all the problems we have discussed recently about cooling systems, I
would like to
revisit a question that, I believe, was posted some time ago:

Basically, why could not a system be developed that used an
electromechanical
clutch coupled to the water pump?

You might not need a thermostat at all, as no water flow would occur at
startup.  Water
flow would be governed entirely by the action of the water pump.

Thermosiphon techniques could allow the system to work without application
of the
water pump when heat generation is low.

When the heat generation increases beyond the capacity of the thermosiphon,
the clutch
could engage, activating the water pump for extra circulation.

Benefits:  maybe less dependence upon a thermostat and potentially less
wasted energy
in the water pump (meaning somewhat better fuel efficiency.)   The radiator
fan system could be
activated as and if needed.

Detriments: The system would have to be designed to optimize the principle,
and the electromechanical
clutch would cost a bit of money.  Maybe such a system would be too costly
and would
jeffcoslacker - 13 Sep 2006 21:30 GMT
The thermostat serves pupose in the cooling system other than just a
temperature regulator...it also regulates flow and provides needed
turbulence by presenting an obstacle in the flow of the coolant that
churns up the coolant as it passes through...without that turbulence
and flow control, the coolant enters the radiator in a near laminar
flow, and the result is that the outside of the flow that is in contact
with the tubes will cool, but the interior volume will not, and upon
re-entering the motor will continue to superheat...

An engine will begin to overheat if run at higher RPMs for extended
periods without a thermostat in place...and will not be able to quickly
warm itself on start -up as well, with unregulated flow to the
radiator...

Signature

jeffcoslacker

http://www.automotiveforums.com

HLS@nospam.nix - 14 Sep 2006 00:26 GMT
> An engine will begin to overheat if run at higher RPMs for extended
> periods without a thermostat in place...and will not be able to quickly
> warm itself on start -up as well, with unregulated flow to the
> radiator...

Your comments are well appreciated.

The turbulence is provided in the radiator, not by the thermostat.  The old
story that the
water circulates too quickly to cool is pure bullshit.  Does not hold water.

But still, I know that there are many problems.  Problems are made to be
solved.

Thanks again.
jeffcoslacker - 14 Sep 2006 01:13 GMT
> > An engine will begin to overheat if run at higher RPMs for extended
> > periods without a thermostat in place...and will not be able to
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Thanks again.

I didn't say it circulates too fast to cool...and the turbulence going
IN to the radiator is what I was referring to. Just had this same
conversation with another one who thought they understood all the
dynamics of a cooling system.

Familiar with DNB?

Racing engines that don't use a thermostat still will use a reducer in
the water outlet. Know why?

Signature

jeffcoslacker

http://www.automotiveforums.com

HLS@nospam.nix - 14 Sep 2006 01:58 GMT
> Racing engines that don't use a thermostat still will use a reducer in
> the water outlet. Know why?

Yes, I am familiar with this.    But it has nothing to do with the
turbulence in
the radiator.
TeGGeR® - 14 Sep 2006 03:51 GMT
>> Racing engines that don't use a thermostat still will use a reducer
>> in the water outlet. Know why?
>>
> Yes, I am familiar with this.    But it has nothing to do with the
> turbulence in
> the radiator.

And what about engines with the thermostat in the LOWER rad hose? Many (if
not most) modern engines are of this configuration. In that case, the upper
hose inlet into the rad is completely unimpeded by any sort of baffle or
restriction.

Signature

TeGGeR®

jeffcoslacker - 14 Sep 2006 09:15 GMT
> > Racing engines that don't use a thermostat still will use a reducer
> in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> turbulence in
> the radiator.

I didn't say it did. How'd you folks get so smart, when you can't
follow the logic contained in a single paragraph?

DNB is supressed by the additional pressure generated by the water pump
as it pushes against the restriction of the closed thermostat. This
helps negate the effect when the motor is started cold, and the coolant
is not moving.

I wondered where your system provides for this. That's all.

Signature

jeffcoslacker

http://www.automotiveforums.com

TeGGeR® - 14 Sep 2006 12:44 GMT
> DNB is supressed by the additional pressure generated by the water
> pump as it pushes against the restriction of the closed thermostat.
> This helps negate the effect when the motor is started cold, and the
> coolant is not moving.

The coolant IS moving with the thermostat closed -- through the
thermostat bypass. That's the device that keeps the block temperature
even as it warms up, and helps the thermostat open.

Signature

TeGGeR®

jeffcoslacker - 14 Sep 2006 13:13 GMT
TeGGeR® Wrote:

> > DNB is supressed by the additional pressure generated by the water
> > pump as it pushes against the restriction of the closed thermostat.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> --
> TeGGeR®

You're right. I just don't understand how to generate the pressure
required in the thermosiphon model.

Signature

jeffcoslacker

http://www.automotiveforums.com

willy - 14 Sep 2006 15:28 GMT
> TeGGeR® Wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> You're right. I just don't understand how to generate the pressure
> required in the thermosiphon model.

?. An automotive cooling system is not a thermosiphon system. A
thermosiphon system "does not" use a circulating pump.

> --
> jeffcoslacker
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> http://www.automotiveforums.com
jeffcoslacker - 14 Sep 2006 18:08 GMT
willy Wrote:
> > TeGGeR® Wrote:
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> >
> > 'http://www.automotiveforums.com' (http://www.automotiveforums.com)

I give up...I was talking about the OP's idea, not current
systems...like talking to a wall...

Signature

jeffcoslacker

http://www.automotiveforums.com

TeGGeR® - 14 Sep 2006 22:53 GMT
> I give up...I was talking about the OP's idea, not current
> systems...like talking to a wall...

Since nobody has actually answered HLS's original questions, I will try.

Thermosyphon (convection) in a modern engine could not work because
combustion temperatures are about 2,000 degrees, and the engine is meant
to operate at 194F. This excess heat must find its way, quickly, into
the cooling system. A thermosyphon system would operate far too slowly
for the heat generated to be removed before localized overheating
occurred.

As I said in an earlier message, with the thermostat closed, the water
pump constantly circulates and mixes the coolant in the block and head,
sending it round and round again, but ONLY within the engine so as to
minimize heat loss and promote rapid warmup. This keeps the temperature
even throughout the block and head. If you did not circulate the coolant
right from startup, you would risk localized overheating, boiling and
engine damage, even as outlying areas remained cold (including the
temperature sensor).

Thermosyphon is a far less efficient heat-transfer mechanism, since as
the surrounding water heated up, the rate of heat transfer from the
source would slow dramatically, and in any case would be far slower than
it would be under high-flow conditions. Also, the water pump's forced
flow provides the turbulence necessary to help disrupt any boundary
layer that may form and prevent efficient heat transfer.

Modern cooling systems use a high-flow, low thermal transfer
arrangement, taking advantage of the fact that greatest heat transfer
takes place at the largest temperature difference between source and
destination.

Finally, I'm not sure the water pump is much of a drain on engine power.
Or if it is, my guess is that there have already been steps taken to
reduce engine load as much as possible while maintaining necessary flow.
Emissions regs and CAFE would have seen to that.

Signature

TeGGeR®

dingbat@codesmiths.com - 15 Sep 2006 00:30 GMT
> Thermosyphon (convection) in a modern engine could not work because
> combustion temperatures are about 2,000 degrees, and the engine is meant
> to operate at 194F.

Thermosyphons, and pump-assisted thermosyphons were used in cars for
_years_, well into the '80s.  Peak combustion temperatures have also
dropped, if anything.

If there's a single reason why thermosyphons no longer cut it for car
engines, it's to do with mechanical density of cylinders in smaller
blocks with smaller passageways. Flow velocities are increased, and on
many systems the pressure is too. 15psi used to be fairly standard, now
it's often around 30psi.
TeGGeR® - 15 Sep 2006 01:08 GMT
>> Thermosyphon (convection) in a modern engine could not work because
>> combustion temperatures are about 2,000 degrees, and the engine is
>> meant to operate at 194F.
>
> Thermosyphons, and pump-assisted thermosyphons were used in cars for
> _years_, well into the '80s.

"Pump assisted thermosyphon"? Isn't that contradictory?

>  Peak combustion temperatures have also
> dropped, if anything.

They have. From about 2,700F to about 2,000F. Nitric oxide emissions are
the reason. NO emissions become significant at about 2,500F.

> If there's a single reason why thermosyphons no longer cut it for car
> engines, it's to do with mechanical density of cylinders in smaller
> blocks with smaller passageways. Flow velocities are increased,

As I said...

> and on
> many systems the pressure is too. 15psi used to be fairly standard,
> now it's often around 30psi.

I'm wondering about your examples. I see 13psi (0.9bar) and 16psi
(1.1bar). 30psi would be 2.0bar. Personally, I've never seen a road-
going automotive cooling system running under that kind of pressure.

Signature

TeGGeR®

dingbat@codesmiths.com - 16 Sep 2006 00:13 GMT
> "Pump assisted thermosyphon"? Isn't that contradictory?

Why?  You have a large bore, slow flow system, and it gains a pump too.
Think of all those '50s Brit engines that stayed in production until
the '80s.

> They have. From about 2,700F to about 2,000F. Nitric oxide emissions are
> the reason. NO emissions become significant at about 2,500F.

Depends on the engine - some of the leaner burn engines still have
pretty high temperatures  (NOx is indeed a major problem with their
adoption).

> I'm wondering about your examples. I see 13psi (0.9bar) and 16psi
> (1.1bar). 30psi would be 2.0bar. Personally, I've never seen a road-
> going automotive cooling system running under that kind of pressure.

Look at modern mainland Europe. 2 bar is almost commonplace on recent
designs.
TeGGeR® - 16 Sep 2006 00:25 GMT
>> "Pump assisted thermosyphon"? Isn't that contradictory?
>
> Why?  You have a large bore, slow flow system, and it gains a pump
> too. Think of all those '50s Brit engines that stayed in production
> until the '80s.

Didn't those things overheat all the time? And in any case, we're
talking modern engines designed by people who hadn't had two gallons of
best bitter at the pub the night before.

>> They have. From about 2,700F to about 2,000F. Nitric oxide emissions
>> are the reason. NO emissions become significant at about 2,500F.
>
> Depends on the engine - some of the leaner burn engines still have
> pretty high temperatures  (NOx is indeed a major problem with their
> adoption).

Like I said...

It does not depend on the engine. If combustion temperatures approach
2,500, you start to get vastly increased amounts of NO. Period. All NO
reduction strategies that I'm aware of involve reducing combustion
temperatures.

>> I'm wondering about your examples. I see 13psi (0.9bar) and 16psi
>> (1.1bar). 30psi would be 2.0bar. Personally, I've never seen a road-
>> going automotive cooling system running under that kind of pressure.
>
> Look at modern mainland Europe. 2 bar is almost commonplace on recent
> designs.

Really? I wonder how their rad hoses are built.

Signature

TeGGeR®

dingbat@codesmiths.com - 16 Sep 2006 11:33 GMT
> Didn't those things overheat all the time?

No.  Unless people took the thermostats out, as the BL A & B series
engines were one of those where removing the stat completely would
disrupt the waterflow.

> And in any case, we're
> talking modern engines designed by people who hadn't had two gallons of
> best bitter at the pub the night before.

Are we?   Like much of Usenet, this group is somewhat US-centric. You
can lecture Europe on engine design when you lose your obsession with
huge low-compression OHV V8s.

> It does not depend on the engine.

Of course combustion temperature depends on the engine!  Look at the
trouble Porsche had with the 911 engine, where they had to start
watercooling the heads to get emissions under control. It's not just
the peak temperature that matters here, for volumes of NOx, it's an
integral over the whole volume of the combustion chamber and duration
of combustion.

> All NO
> reduction strategies that I'm aware of involve reducing combustion
> temperatures.

Look at modern Japanese small engines, like the Honda Jazz. Tiny engine
with high compression, lean mixtures, high specific outputs and every
sign of peak combustion temperatures being set to go high -- yet they
keep the emissions down somewhow.  I don't know how they do it, but I
guess it's by avoiding localised high temperatures (we're back to
cooling system density again, and the problems of small waterspaces and
making them reach absolutely everywhere).

> > Look at modern mainland Europe. 2 bar is almost commonplace on recent
> > designs.
>
> Really? I wonder how their rad hoses are built.

Same as ever. The limit is in hoses are attached to spigots. If you see
a failure it's nearly always because a hose has blown off, not because
it has split. If you do see a car boiled up by the side of the road
today, it's usually full of teenage chavs wondering why their silicone
dress-up hoses have blown off from their Subaru, when they didn't fit
them carefully enough.
Don - 14 Sep 2006 02:18 GMT
>> > An engine will begin to overheat if run at higher RPMs for extended
>> > periods without a thermostat in place...and will not be able to
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>Racing engines that don't use a thermostat still will use a reducer in
>the water outlet. Know why?

I do not use a reducer in my racecar.  It runs cooler with no
thermostat, no reducer.  In early spring I use a thermostat, but I
take it out when I need maximum cooling.

Don
www.donsautomotive.com
willy - 14 Sep 2006 03:12 GMT
> >> > An engine will begin to overheat if run at higher RPMs for extended
> >> > periods without a thermostat in place...and will not be able to
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> thermostat, no reducer.  In early spring I use a thermostat, but I
> take it out when I need maximum cooling.

Same here. I run with nutin in the thermostat housing. I put reducers
in to heat it up when its 65 degrees or less outside. Ifin it don't run
160 or so with nutin in it, you got other problems. Taking a thermostat
out makes an engine "not reach operating temperture". I've run into a
few exceptions to the rule, but 95% of the time, an engine will run
cooler with the thermostat out! Simple example: thermostat out or stuck
open, got heat, defroster melt the ice off the windshield?!?!

> Don
> www.donsautomotive.com
willy - 14 Sep 2006 03:18 GMT
> >> > An engine will begin to overheat if run at higher RPMs for extended
> >> > periods without a thermostat in place...and will not be able to
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> thermostat, no reducer.  In early spring I use a thermostat, but I
> take it out when I need maximum cooling.

Same here. I run with nutin in the thermostat housing. I put reducers
in to heat it up when its 65 degrees or less outside. Ifin it don't run
160 or so with nutin in it, you got other problems. Taking a thermostat
out makes an engine "not reach operating temperture". I've run into a
few exceptions to the rule, but 95% of the time, an engine will run
cooler with the thermostat out! Simple example: thermostat out or stuck
open, got heat, defroster melt the ice off the windshield?!?!

> Don
> www.donsautomotive.com
TeGGeR® - 14 Sep 2006 03:49 GMT
>> An engine will begin to overheat if run at higher RPMs for extended
>> periods without a thermostat in place...and will not be able to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> water circulates too quickly to cool is pure bullshit.  Does not hold
> water.

Lack of a thermostat results in OVERCOOLING, as anyone who has actually
tried it can attest. If an engine overheated even with no thermostat, there
was something else wrong to begin with.

Signature

TeGGeR®

HLS@nospam.nix - 14 Sep 2006 09:13 GMT
> Lack of a thermostat results in OVERCOOLING, as anyone who has actually
> tried it can attest. If an engine overheated even with no thermostat, there
> was something else wrong to begin with.

Fully agree with eveyone who has posted about the increase in cooling when
the
thermostat is removed.   Sometimes you get more cooling that you really
want.

Some may remember the old Volvos that had a 'venetian blind' in front of the
radiator that could help warm the engine even in cold Swedish winters.
Those
cars had thermostats and still had to keep the frigid air flow off the
radiator
and engine.
jeffcoslacker - 14 Sep 2006 09:21 GMT
TeGGeR® Wrote:

> >> An engine will begin to overheat if run at higher RPMs for extended
> >> periods without a thermostat in place...and will not be able to
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> --
> TeGGeR®

Really? Of course it does...initially. Ever run one near WOT for
prolonged periods without one? Not talking about driving around town,
or for a few minutes at the track.. It was a statement of what CAN
happen, to illustrate a point, not what WILL happen in normal useage.

Signature

jeffcoslacker

http://www.automotiveforums.com

Irwin Corey - 14 Sep 2006 01:50 GMT
> The thermostat serves pupose in the cooling system other than just a
> temperature regulator...it also regulates flow and provides needed
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> warm itself on start -up as well, with unregulated flow to the
> radiator...

A dwarf who clearly couldn't differentiate between either
enthalpy and entropy or a Reynolds Number and Reynolds
Aluminum, provides a supercilious and didactic, yet totally
erroneous "lecture" on Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics.

Too precious, not to mention thoroughly hilarious.
dingbat@codesmiths.com - 15 Sep 2006 00:32 GMT
> A dwarf who clearly couldn't differentiate between either
> enthalpy and entropy or a Reynolds Number and Reynolds
> Aluminum, provides a supercilious and didactic, yet totally
> erroneous "lecture" on Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics.

Who mentioned either enthalpy or entropy ?

Besides which, what does it matter ?  We're not changing coolant
characteristics or temperature here, just regulating the simplest mass
flow of it and wondering whether that's best done with a valve or a
controlled-speed pump.
jeffcoslacker - 13 Sep 2006 21:47 GMT
Anyway...your ideas are not crazy, just have some flaws and kinda amount
to re-inventing the wheel...current systems work well and the parts are
durable, no reason to change anything...

Signature

jeffcoslacker

http://www.automotiveforums.com

Knifeblade_03 - 14 Sep 2006 18:23 GMT
I give up, too, was going to give my :2cents: worth, but nah.

Signature

Knifeblade_03

http://www.automotiveforums.com

dingbat@codesmiths.com - 15 Sep 2006 00:18 GMT
> Basically, why could not a system be developed that used an
> electromechanical
> clutch coupled to the water pump?

1.  Of course it could.

2.  It's not worth it (little benefit, more cost, less reliability)

3.  I'm sure there's at least one vehicle driving around with one
already.

There are a couple of good reasons against it. Economics and
reliability are probably the best.  Also a pump is usually a _big_ flow
restrictor when it's not turning, so you might even need to add a
bypass valve to it.

Main one though is that cooling needs are matched fairly well to rpm,
so having  an engine driven pump is already a reasonable first
approximation to what you need. Couple this with the airspeed-sensitive
cooling efficiency of typical radiators and an electrically driven
radiator fan that only puts in an appearance when stationary, and
things are already quite well matched.

If you're after a few HP back at top speed, why not switch from
hydraulic power steering to electric ? Now there's a system that works
well and saves wasted power (if it's Japanese rather than American, at
least).

As to the thermostat, then so what ?  You don't need thermostats or
restrictors by some divine law, you just need them in systems designed
around having them. I've got car engines that run cold with no
thermostat, are infamous for running hot with no thermostat, and even
that form an outside 3-way pipe junction (try removing that!)  I used
to have one where the thermostat was known for having no effect at all,
but the radiator blind had to be adjusted according to the weather
forecast.
Steve - 15 Sep 2006 02:11 GMT
> With all the problems we have discussed recently about cooling systems, I
> would like to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> electromechanical
> clutch coupled to the water pump?

Because you NEVER want to slow down the water flow through the engine.
Modern cooling systems (and even ancient ones, but to a lesser degree)
do not SLOW the flow of coolant when little cooling is needed, they
DIVERT it away from the radiator and circulate it back through the
engine. What this does is make the temperature through the engine more
uniform, because without recirculation some parts of the engine would
overheat and others would be running too cold for maximum efficiency and
minimum wear. Even when maximum cooling IS needed, a lot of heavy-duty
cooling systems still recirculate up to 50% of the total flow volume to
mix with the cool water returning from the radiator so that the engine
isn't cold around the cylinder skirts and boiling in the heads.
Reverse-flow cooling systems achieve similar results, but still use some
blending.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.