Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2006
Too goofy?
|
|
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.
|
|
|