

| Subject: | Re: Water Cooler System Design Flaw Workaround? |
| From: | Scott Daniel - Turbovans |
| Date: | Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:52:25 -0700 |
My 1970 gasoline 250 Sedan Mercedes car has an electric aux fan too ...in front of the radiator. and of course... you can increase coolant flow ( like more tubes in the radiator ) OR you can increase air flow through the radiator .. to increase the heat removing abilities of the cooling system. or both. ( you can also help the heat -removing qualities of the coolant mixture too ....water wetter for example ) here's cheater or augmenting system I always wanted make... use the rear heater core under the back seat ... and duct it's exit air overboard right beneath the van. that would add the odd 4 % increase in total heat removal, or so I'd think. Don't be worried if you coolant temp gets up to even say, 200 F in extreme conditions.. as long as it comes back down going down the other side of the hill, or back on the level... that's not a problem, it's even normal. Maybe even 205. Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Hargrave" <thargrav@HIWAAY.NET> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:58 PM Subject: Re: Water Cooler System Design Flaw Workaround? > David, > > Your logic is flawed - you are considering instantaneous and not > continuous > heat transfer. The coolant is circulating and heat is being continuously > pulled off through the radiator. > > The real question should be - if you could figure out how to push 20% more > air through the radiator than you are now, how much additional heat can > you > continuously pull out of the system? Would the answer be 20% more or > something less? I can't answer that question but maybe someone else can. > > BTW, this is exactly what Mercedes did in the 1987 300SDL I own. There is > a > cooling fan mounted in front of the engine then there is an auxiliary fan > mounted in front of the radiator. The aux fan comes on under 2 conditions > when the A/C compressor is on or when a high temp sensor screwed into the > engine coolant circuit comes on. > > And I can say that the aux fan works very well. I've been idling in 100F+ > temperatures, watched the engine temperature climb to 110C then drop back > down to 95C after the aux fan came on. And no, my fan coupling is not bad. > I > originally though so and replaced it with a new one. I also checked to > make > sure the fan was pulling plenty of air through the radiator and it was. > The > aux fan pushed even more air through the radiator. > > They've used this system since at least the late 60's, maybe earlier. At > least everyone I've owned except for the 50 had a aux cooling fan that was > switched on the same way. > > Tom > www.towercooler.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On Behalf Of > David Beierl > Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:01 PM > To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM > Subject: Re: Water Cooler System Design Flaw Workaround? > > At 01:22 PM 4/25/2010, Jake de Villiers wrote: >>When approaching the long (15 - 30 minute) second and third gear grades >>through Eastern Washington and Idaho you'd turn on the fan before the >>rad got too hot. > > Ok, I see the idea. But do the numbers make sense? > > Lessee... at 75 horsepower output and 1/3 efficiency the engine's going to > be putting out something like 200 kw of waste heat, or 3.4 kWh per minute. > > 18 quarts of 50/50 coolant weighs around 36 lb and has a specific heat > capacity of roughly 0.85 BTU per lb per deg F at working temperature. So > changing the entire coolant by 20F would get you > 0.85 x 20 x 36 = ~600 BTU, about what a sedentary human throws off in an > hour. > > 600 BTU = ~0.18 kWh. 3.4 kWh x 0.18 x 60 = ~32 > > So a twenty-degree change in the entire coolant would absorb the waste > heat > of the engine for about thirty two seconds. I think this is conservative > since the coolant inside the engine won't be participating in this, and > because 75 hp may be conservative for climbing a steep hill. > > Somebody check my numbers. If this number is anywhere near correct I > don't > think it's worth the hassle. > > Yours, > David
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »