Dual IC Pump setup?
09-30-2011, 04:50 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dual IC Pump setup?
So here's the background:
I'm in training to operate shipboard nuclear reactors, and the most important thing when it comes to using a reactor is how to keep it cooled. One way to lower coolant temperature is to increase the rate at which the coolant flows.
What that means for our cars?:
My "hypothesis" is that if you were to run two stock IC pumps in parallel, you would double the flow rate in the IC loop. Loop pressure wouldn't change, but twice the amount of coolant would be flowing through the laminovas. This SHOULD drop IAT's and may be a viable replacement for dual pass? The only problem is, the location of the IC pumps would have to change and option B would almost be a must to prevent cavitation and subsequent reductions in pump efficiency. The theory behind this setup basically goes like this
If the fluid is flowing faster, it has less time to heat up in the laminovas, BUT since there's more fluid moving, the same cooling is provided while preventing the coolant temperature from getting as high during its heat cycle. Since heat transfer requires a temperature difference, and the rate of heat transfer depends on the magnitude of that temperature difference, sending cooler coolant to through the IM would promote faster heat transfer-> lower IAT2s
Just kind of word vomiting right now, but I feel like this could work. What do you guys think?
I'm in training to operate shipboard nuclear reactors, and the most important thing when it comes to using a reactor is how to keep it cooled. One way to lower coolant temperature is to increase the rate at which the coolant flows.
What that means for our cars?:
My "hypothesis" is that if you were to run two stock IC pumps in parallel, you would double the flow rate in the IC loop. Loop pressure wouldn't change, but twice the amount of coolant would be flowing through the laminovas. This SHOULD drop IAT's and may be a viable replacement for dual pass? The only problem is, the location of the IC pumps would have to change and option B would almost be a must to prevent cavitation and subsequent reductions in pump efficiency. The theory behind this setup basically goes like this
If the fluid is flowing faster, it has less time to heat up in the laminovas, BUT since there's more fluid moving, the same cooling is provided while preventing the coolant temperature from getting as high during its heat cycle. Since heat transfer requires a temperature difference, and the rate of heat transfer depends on the magnitude of that temperature difference, sending cooler coolant to through the IM would promote faster heat transfer-> lower IAT2s
Just kind of word vomiting right now, but I feel like this could work. What do you guys think?
09-30-2011, 05:22 PM
#5
New Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 04-04-11
Location: Pell City
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the only problem with that could be that the coolant is moving to fast for the heat to transfer, correct me if im wrong but i belive the stock pump flows at like 6gpr and is the same pump on the ford lighting witch one of my frinds had and we bumped up the flow to like 12gpr and the ait2 went up bit but that is a pos ford but the setup would be differnt
09-30-2011, 05:35 PM
#6
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm thinking mount the option b in the regular spot, run two lines out of the resevoir, mount the dual pumps directly underneath the tank, run two lines with threaded fittings from both pumps, screw the two fittings into a garden-like y fitting then run a larger line to the IM.
Sound like it would work?
Sound like it would work?
09-30-2011, 05:37 PM
#7
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm thinking mount the option b in the regular spot, run two lines out of the resevoir, mount the dual pumps directly underneath the tank, run two lines with threaded fittings from both pumps, screw the two fittings into a garden-like y fitting then run a larger line to the IM.
Sound like it would work?
Sound like it would work?
09-30-2011, 05:45 PM
#8
I'm thinking mount the option b in the regular spot, run two lines out of the resevoir, mount the dual pumps directly underneath the tank, run two lines with threaded fittings from both pumps, screw the two fittings into a garden-like y fitting then run a larger line to the IM.
Sound like it would work?
Sound like it would work?
09-30-2011, 05:48 PM
#9
Platinum Member
Join Date: 03-16-07
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 2,884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am intrigued. IF you do a single pass manifold you could essentially have each pump handling two lamnova cores each. There would be several ways to route the tubing and how you would make your connections but I think the theory is there. I imagine your IAT2's would drop somewhat and your recovery time would be very quick.
09-30-2011, 07:17 PM
#11
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bumping up the speed on a single pump would raise coolant temps because the coolant is most likely used to cool and lube the pump itself. Upping the pump speed creates more friction and other heat producing losses.
I thing keeping the pumps separate and running them through two laminovas each might be a better plan
I thing keeping the pumps separate and running them through two laminovas each might be a better plan
09-30-2011, 08:50 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-13-09
Location: Davie, Fl
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldnt this also allow the coolant to flow to quickly through the h/e not allowing a proper cool down? I think a dual or single pass would work better if you could increase(maybe double) the capacity of the system
10-01-2011, 12:59 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-08-09
Location: Chandler, Az
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO, the more capacity the system has the better and faster it will cool. A decent size flow through style tank, not a overflow, but an actual tank that the fluid enters and leaves on a regular basis will benefit you greatly. This can also be used as an ice tank for racing.
I know a lot of jbody guys use cobra tanks and cobra heat exchangers only (not added to any other h/e) with cobalt pumps, and see 12-15 degree drops with the addition of the cobra tank over the stock "t" neck or a option b. If filled properly, a system with out the option b can be very effective too. I only use the stock filler neck, and I have NO air in the system. I did for a while, then took about 25 mintues "bleeding" it one day, got about 3/4 to 1 cup more liquid in the system and temp dropped 5-6 degrees.
I know a lot of jbody guys use cobra tanks and cobra heat exchangers only (not added to any other h/e) with cobalt pumps, and see 12-15 degree drops with the addition of the cobra tank over the stock "t" neck or a option b. If filled properly, a system with out the option b can be very effective too. I only use the stock filler neck, and I have NO air in the system. I did for a while, then took about 25 mintues "bleeding" it one day, got about 3/4 to 1 cup more liquid in the system and temp dropped 5-6 degrees.
10-02-2011, 07:50 PM
#19
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha, never heard that one before....no just kidding, this is just me trying to do something that hasn't been done before. Its just like that guy that tried the air to air IC, IIRC it didn't work like he wanted it to, but he wouldn't have known that until he tried. Difference is, I'm taking information that I've learned from a completely different field and trying to apply it here. If it works, GREAT, if it doesn't, chalk it up to a learning experience.
The thing about raising the flow rate is that, yes, it would go through the HE faster, so basically the hot coolant wouldn't get as hot, and the cool coolant wouldn't get as cool, but the fact the average temperature of the coolant in the entire system would remain relatively unchanged.
The way I'm thinking about it, there are three possible outcomes:
1. With a constant heat load (meaning there is no considerable change in the heat removed from the intake charge) and a doubled flow rate, the hot coolant temp drops and the cold coolant temp raises making the difference in temperatures smaller. This should result in faster recovery times from hard pulls aka less heat soak.
2. If flow rate doubles, and the change in coolant temperature from hot to cold is affected by a factor less than .5 (the difference in the hot coolant temp and cold coolant temp is less than half of original), then the amount of heat transferred out of the heat exchanger goes down.
3. If flow rate doubles, and the change in coolant temperature from hot to cold is affected by a factor greater than .5 (the difference in the hot coolant temp and cold coolant temp is greater than half of original), then the amount of heat transferred out of the heat exchanger will increase.
With increasing heat loads though, this means that the doubled flow rate will cause hot temps to go up and cold temps to go down. Once again this means less heat soak, and correct me if I'm wrong, but more efficient cooling.
The way I'm thinking about it, there are three possible outcomes:
1. With a constant heat load (meaning there is no considerable change in the heat removed from the intake charge) and a doubled flow rate, the hot coolant temp drops and the cold coolant temp raises making the difference in temperatures smaller. This should result in faster recovery times from hard pulls aka less heat soak.
2. If flow rate doubles, and the change in coolant temperature from hot to cold is affected by a factor less than .5 (the difference in the hot coolant temp and cold coolant temp is less than half of original), then the amount of heat transferred out of the heat exchanger goes down.
3. If flow rate doubles, and the change in coolant temperature from hot to cold is affected by a factor greater than .5 (the difference in the hot coolant temp and cold coolant temp is greater than half of original), then the amount of heat transferred out of the heat exchanger will increase.
With increasing heat loads though, this means that the doubled flow rate will cause hot temps to go up and cold temps to go down. Once again this means less heat soak, and correct me if I'm wrong, but more efficient cooling.
10-02-2011, 07:54 PM
#20
Haha, never heard that one before....no just kidding, this is just me trying to do something that hasn't been done before. Its just like that guy that tried the air to air IC, IIRC it didn't work like he wanted it to, but he wouldn't have known that until he tried. Difference is, I'm taking information that I've learned from a completely different field and trying to apply it here. If it works, GREAT, if it doesn't, chalk it up to a learning experience.
The thing about raising the flow rate is that, yes, it would go through the HE faster, so basically the hot coolant wouldn't get as hot, and the cool coolant wouldn't get as cool, but the fact the average temperature of the coolant in the entire system would remain relatively unchanged.
The way I'm thinking about it, there are three possible outcomes:
1. With a constant heat load (meaning there is no considerable change in the heat removed from the intake charge) and a doubled flow rate, the hot coolant temp drops and the cold coolant temp raises making the difference in temperatures smaller. This should result in faster recovery times from hard pulls aka less heat soak.
2. If flow rate doubles, and the change in coolant temperature from hot to cold is affected by a factor less than .5 (the difference in the hot coolant temp and cold coolant temp is less than half of original), then the amount of heat transferred out of the heat exchanger goes down.
3. If flow rate doubles, and the change in coolant temperature from hot to cold is affected by a factor greater than .5 (the difference in the hot coolant temp and cold coolant temp is greater than half of original), then the amount of heat transferred out of the heat exchanger will increase.
With increasing heat loads though, this means that the doubled flow rate will cause hot temps to go up and cold temps to go down. Once again this means less heat soak, and correct me if I'm wrong, but more efficient cooling.
The thing about raising the flow rate is that, yes, it would go through the HE faster, so basically the hot coolant wouldn't get as hot, and the cool coolant wouldn't get as cool, but the fact the average temperature of the coolant in the entire system would remain relatively unchanged.
The way I'm thinking about it, there are three possible outcomes:
1. With a constant heat load (meaning there is no considerable change in the heat removed from the intake charge) and a doubled flow rate, the hot coolant temp drops and the cold coolant temp raises making the difference in temperatures smaller. This should result in faster recovery times from hard pulls aka less heat soak.
2. If flow rate doubles, and the change in coolant temperature from hot to cold is affected by a factor less than .5 (the difference in the hot coolant temp and cold coolant temp is less than half of original), then the amount of heat transferred out of the heat exchanger goes down.
3. If flow rate doubles, and the change in coolant temperature from hot to cold is affected by a factor greater than .5 (the difference in the hot coolant temp and cold coolant temp is greater than half of original), then the amount of heat transferred out of the heat exchanger will increase.
With increasing heat loads though, this means that the doubled flow rate will cause hot temps to go up and cold temps to go down. Once again this means less heat soak, and correct me if I'm wrong, but more efficient cooling.
10-03-2011, 09:24 AM
#21
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: 01-15-11
Location: Brunswick, ME
Posts: 2,390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I see it is both pumps flow the same speed, thats not going to make the coolant flow any fatser. Just because you have one car going 55 and another on his bumper also doing 55 doesn't mean your doing 110....see what i'm saying. Just buy a bigger option b tank so there is more coolant to flow there for making it harder to get all that fluid hot (shot of water/pan of water. Which gets hotter faster?) Good though tbut I really doubt it will work and besides it's not a nuclear reactor it's just a cobalt. Phenolic spacer= low IAT2's
10-03-2011, 10:17 AM
#23
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I see it is both pumps flow the same speed, thats not going to make the coolant flow any fatser. Just because you have one car going 55 and another on his bumper also doing 55 doesn't mean your doing 110....see what i'm saying. Just buy a bigger option b tank so there is more coolant to flow there for making it harder to get all that fluid hot (shot of water/pan of water. Which gets hotter faster?) Good though tbut I really doubt it will work and besides it's not a nuclear reactor it's just a cobalt. Phenolic spacer= low IAT2's
) reactor, then why shouldn't it work on a cobalt? I don't think anyone has tried this yet. So in a sense, yes I'm just trying to do something different. Like I said, if it works, GREAT! Now people have another option to combat heat. If it doesn't, no one will waste time on the idea in the future, and efforts can be put elsewhere.Besides, I don't imagine this would make a huge difference in IAT's. I DO, however, think it would allow your IATs to recover faster. So a phenolic spacer, option b, dual pass, and this (if it works), would enable you to make multiple pulls with cooler IAT's and virtually no heat soak.
10-03-2011, 10:34 AM
#25
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 09-05-10
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was doing a little research and found this. Its a description of one of the upgrades in a Renntech Stage 2 kit for the Mercedes SLR.....a dual IC pump upgrade.
"INTERCOOLER PUMP UPGRADE KIT
Our latest second generation intercooler pump out performs any other unit on the market; flowing over twice as much coolant as the problematic OEM pump and significantly more than its predecessor. Testing showed our Intercooler pump flowed 6.60 G.P.M compared to the OEM pumps 3.00 G.P.M flow rate. This increase in flow dramatically removes heat from the incoming air; allowing for a denser air/fuel mixture and substantially cooler charge air temperatures over the entire operating range."
Its starting to look promising.
"INTERCOOLER PUMP UPGRADE KIT
Our latest second generation intercooler pump out performs any other unit on the market; flowing over twice as much coolant as the problematic OEM pump and significantly more than its predecessor. Testing showed our Intercooler pump flowed 6.60 G.P.M compared to the OEM pumps 3.00 G.P.M flow rate. This increase in flow dramatically removes heat from the incoming air; allowing for a denser air/fuel mixture and substantially cooler charge air temperatures over the entire operating range."
Its starting to look promising.