[promptcritical]

Originally Posted by dataway

Were you a nuke? Seems like I remember a couple on here.

I think if you'll recall your formulas ... more flow = more heat transfer (all things remaining constant), not better transfer. Transfer coefficients are based on materials used, medium of transfer and type of flow (laminar or turbulent). But yes total heat transfer in the sink would include Delta T and flow rate.

So, if an increase of flow changes a turbulent flow in to laminar, you could have a lower transfer coefficient. And if T-in is so low that the Delta T between heat source and heat sink are too small transfer efficiency can suffer depending on materials used etc. Not to mention possible aeration of the coolant which does bad things to heat transfer coefficients.

T-in and T-out are used to calculate total heat loss through the heat sink when combined with flow rate and btu/lb-ma of the transfer medium. Actual transfer coefficient calculation for the whole sink would have to take into consideration surface area of the heat sink, flow type, material coefficients, corrosion layers etc.

From a practical standpoint, yeah, ((t-in)-(t-out)) x flow rate(lb-ma) x btu/lb-ma would give you the total heat loss through the exchanger. But only in a perfect system. If flow rate alters flow type, or causes aeration, etc. it's not always a straight line relationship. And material thermo-conductivity changes based on temperature. Also radiation heat loses increase with temperature.

Every system has an ideal flow rate and Delta-T that it is designed to operate within. If flow rate was the only consideration .... all any system would need to be a better system would be bigger and bigger pumps. Usually the heat sink has to be matched with the heat source. Remove a thermostat and it's possible the temps could go down. It's also possible the heat sink would be incapable of lowering the temps beyond the designed limit ... such as 180 degrees, and also possible a flow rate which the system was not designed to handle could reduce the efficiency of the entire system. Also possible the radiator would be incapable of using the extra flow.

I would say it all depends on the particular system in question. Might cool some vehicles down, might make others run hotter.

Don't make me get out my Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow notes .... I still have them you know Class of 7801 (Instructor at M.A.R.F. 79-82, Kesselring Site, NY)

Ha they’re everywhere. S3G in 78, splitting atoms in the fleet until Trident Design School in 80 at S8G, then New construction at EB, and back out to sea 82-86.

[dataway]

You and I were probably at the Kesslering site at the same time. I think I got there late 78 sometime ... maybe early 79.
Took a tour of S3G ... saw the steam powered feed pumps ... that's all I needed to see, didn't want to see anymore

You wouldn't recognize Saratoga now.

[6ragtop8]

I also use 160, but if I had to choose 180

[Bill Boyle]

I've run a 160 in my '79 TA for 33 years with standard TA radiator with AC and clutch fan. It's been driven across the country plus living in NM, CA, LA, VA and FL. This runs the coolest in my car at all altitudes and climates.