I will be after the testing, and with honest marketing.

Randy

 

Thank YOU..

that is what I needed to hear... HONEST

btw... I like sig.... careful of queens.... they sneak up on you and bite you in the.....

 

Yes I know it wasn't you who said those things. It looks like the source was Autorotor, but I cannot be for sure. Density is good, unless it is mental in nature. In the words of McFly, "You are my density."

 

Instead of saying that my "theorhetical situation is wrong", why don't you explain your point in actual heat transfer terms. Have you studied heat transfer or are you simply repeating what RMS told you about the design?

 

Sounds like you are questioning Webb's intelligence and ability.

What I would like to see is (and I will pay money for this)

Webb Mule
El Diablito Rojo
Andy@Ross-Tech's MINI

The above cars do a Car and Driver style challenge, using their driver or owners, doesnt matter. Overall wins. Other tuners more than welcome to partake.

There is enough in the challenge to cover 1/4 mile, 0-60, cornering, braking, etc etc.

The winner can add the sillhouette of the loser's cars to his door.

 

I can guarantee that my car is slower than either of the ones you listed above. I am just tired of vendors repeating marketing claims without understanding the science behind them. BTW, questioning whether someone has studied heat transfer has nothing to do with intelligence.

 

What if the efficiency of two smaller exchangers was higher than the efficiency of one? This is entirely possible. The answer to the question is more likely that the heat exchanger manufacturer in question didn't offer the appropriate size so it was more practical, or cheaper, to use two smaller units.

BTW, without knowing the temp of the coolant, it's just as likely that the hoses are absorbing heat from the engine bay.

I agree with your point that resellers shouldn't necessarily be making claims that they don't understand. At the same time though, if you dispute those claims shouldn't you be taking it up with the manufacturer? It's not necessarily the place of a reseller to have to research and fact-check every product they sell - or in this case, may possibly sell in the future. Why is this really worth argueing about. One hose versus two is completely irrelevent and is not a sticking point on anyone's purchase decision.

 

I see your point, and in the grand scheme of things, one hose -vs- two does not have a lot of significance. I am just questioning Randy's statement that this IC is better BECAUSE it has two hoses. I haven't seen a plausible answer for that other than what you mentioned.

 

I don't doubt that you are fed up with phony vendors with fake marketing claims. From the specs I see on your MINI I can see why.

I also noticed that you have no WMS products on the car. None at all.

Quite frankly, Randy Webb does not fall into the phony clueless vendor category you refer to. The guy is genuine, like his passion for the car.

When you realise this, like many have, you're gonna tattoo his name to your butt.

 

I've never accused Randy of being a phony or a clueless vendor. I am simply asking him to back up his somewhat odd statements with scientific explanation. Please go back and re-read my statements and questions.

 

I never said you did. What I was trying to say is you do not need to worry about WMS and their new product. If WMS on it, you know it's going to be good.

 

I don't think Nuzzo's car is all mini, by any means: Motronic and mechanical throttle, for example.


Andy's citing form Corky about relative boost/vs rpm would distinctly favor the twincharge route: using the low rpm boost building of the roots and the higher rpm and efficiency of the turbo.

Randy's explanation for the twin water flow is not sufficient yet. As I get it, each of the two water volumes (at the same temp and lowest (T1) they will get, since they are right out of the radiator) are introduced to the separate cores and will spend equal time in each core as they pass through. the core closer to the blower (air at T2) sees a delta of (T2-T1=combustion air temp-corewater temp). the water temp (and therefore its heat content, based on temp and proportional to mass) will rise depending on this delta plus a few other variables, like flow rate, conduction efficiency, etc. and the air temp will drop to T3. Since T2>T3, the water in the second core will heat up less.
now the water volumes mix again. I see no difference in the final heat energy being passed to the water as two 1/2 masses or one mass unless a Jeff has indicated, some other variable has changed, like conduction efficiency.

 

Randy's got a car to finish-up, and soon, as he's heading for the Bay Area tomorrow morining. And I know he's following-up on several buisness matters, one more me . I don't think we can (or should) expect him on the boards at all times of the day. I'm sure he'll chime-in later...

The marketing info provided earlier can be found here:

http://www.kennebell.net/misc/class-act.htm

Just in the portion that dominicminicoopers referenced, it's apparent that they are poking fun at turbos, not so much other supercharger solutions (none were mentioned):

"....Maximum mid-range and low-end torque. No one can touch us in this area. "Instant maximum boost" means instantly more torque and horsepower when you punch it at any rpm above 2000...
....Unlike others that depend on rpm for boost (approx. 1-1.5 psi of boost per 1000 rpm), there's no waiting for the rpm to build with the Kenne Bell supercharger..."

The innuendo is supportive of supercharging (what they sell, of course), and in particular the twinscrew. With turbo comparisions being made in the thread at that time, it was provided for that reason. If one wants to draw conclusions from this info in relation to Eatons, do so at your own risk...

 

My take is this: The water side is in parallel so the water inlet temps will be the same. The air sides of the cores are in series so the first core takes the brunt of the heat soak leaving the second core to stabilize the temps. I'd suspect the first core temp is higher than the second so the water outlet temps would differ as well until they mix. If the water temp is lower on the second core it will be able to absorb additional heat from the charge air. If the heat exchanger is large enough to dissipate the heat from the water I don't see why this wouldn't work.







[font=Times New Roman][size=3] [/size][/font]

 

You need to open the mind a bit more here.

If you have a water inlet on one side and the outlet on the other the water will have that much longer to heat up thus making the outlet side of the IC less efficient as the water is not cooling it as well being that it's gotten that much warmer.

If this same IC were cut to half the length then the water would have that much less chance to warm up making the outlet temp lower, ...thus becoming that much more efficient and cooling the IC more evenly as the outlet side is still running cooler water.



Make sense?

 

try this bit of reasoning, heh, heh!


assume the assertion is true, that twin core system results in a lower water temp than a single mass. If that is so, then a triple core system would be better, etc. But approaching the limit of an infinite number of cores is the same thing as a single core system. threfore, the assertion is false, QED

 

Why?

 

maybe for this reason, offered by another sage:

"You need to open the mind a bit more here."

You gotta problem with that?

 

I have studied heat transfer - and I've had no information from RMS on the theory, those were my conclusions.

I have stated why I believe it works, and I know it works in practical testing - end of story.

I'm not getting my education into this, but I am well versed in these matters.

Randy

 

Okay, the novice is speaking.

What if jlm, the IC had six different inlets and outlets tethered to six different cores. Lets neglect everything else if that's okay for the moment.

 

then you are more on the way toward the limit, imagine having as many as there are core passages...
oops, gotta go cook a meatloaf.

 

Heat exchangers occur naturally in the circulation system of whales. Arteries to the skin carrying warm blood are intertwined with veins from the skin carrying cold blood causing the warm arterial blood to exchange heat with the cold venous blood. This reduces overall heat loss by the whale when diving in cold waters.

 

 

Thanks for bringing it back. It's a great thread.

 

I have to disagree, politely. The issue about cooling liquid really is a matter of container surface area to fluid volume. One tank with a given amt. of water [x] will eventually heat up and stay hot [heat soak] when the surface area bounding that volume is not enough to cool the liquid any faster than the rate at which heat is being made.

Now, when you seperate the water into two different areas, the total surface area of the container increases [you added two more contact sides for fluid to dissipate energy to, remember], while the volume stays the same [x/2 per zone]. True, the contact patch with the surface being 'intercooled' will not increase, but nevertheless the volume of the container (and its heat-dissipating efficiency) will increase.

In a two-zone system, there is less water per unit surface area. When temps plateau, the temp will be less than with a single zone, since there is more efficient heat discharge (more surface area with which to absorb/transfer). Surface area to volume is THE determining concept.

You are right, though to point out that eventually adding more zones will give fewer returns. The rate will not, however, even out to the cooling of a one zone system. The real-world limit would be one of balancing the diminishing returns with the dramatic increase in complexity of design, manufacturing, and install. 1,000 zones is just not practical, but two is better than one.