Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 161

Thread: Best water pick-up ever!

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    6,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by forescott View Post
    I bought one of these from ose for my sv-27/stiletto outboard conversion and I have to say this is the highest flowing water pick-up I've ever used! It almost looks comical how much water shoots out the side of the hull even at low speeds. I know its not the most hydro-dynamic piece, but there is no doubt that my esc is getting all the cool water it can handle. I will definitely be using more of these!!

    http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pro...?prod=oct-ocsw
    I've been following this thread and think there's some good info on both sides of the controversy, but agree with those that state that a proper setup is most important and proactive in controlling temps - more important than depending on cooling to prevent problems on borderline setups.

    FWIW I've used the pickup for an outlet ; picture on my beater T29. Makes the flow more visible.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    2008 NAMBA P-Mono & P-Offshore Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder; '15 P-Cat, P-Ltd Cat 2-Lap
    2009/2010 NAMBA P-Sport Hydro Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder, '13 SCSTA P-Ltd Cat High Points
    '11 NAMBA [P-Ltd] : Mono, Offshore, OPC, Sport Hydro; '06 LSO, '12,'13,'14 P Ltd Cat /Mono

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    200

    Default

    I prefer a pair of these.
    http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/pro...prod=ose-80400
    one for an inlet and one for the outlet.

    Harry

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    92

    Default

    the french fry analogy is the best analogy ever!

    if you stick a french fry out a window while driving, eventually it will cool down. the faster you drive the quicker it cools down. so you either need more time out the window or more speed to get a cold fry. are we all in agreement here?

    in an open loop system(FE boats) the boat motor is the french fry and the water is the air. the faster you drive(higher flow rate) the quicker the french fry will cool off.

    in a closed loop system(cars) the the coolant is the french fry and the radiator is "out the window". the time the coolant spends in the radiator is the equivalent to the time the fry spends out the window. THIS is where the too high flow rate idea comes from. if the coolant isn't in the radiator long enough it won't cool down. just like if you don't fold the french fry out the window long enough it won't cool down.

    now, with the closed loop systems we have two "fry out window" scenarios within the one system. the one above, and the radiator/air relationship. radiator vs air is an open loop system much like the boats and the fry/window. the radiator is the fry and the air is, the air. the more air you get over the radiator the quicker it cools down. that's why your fan kicks on when you're idling too long, you need airflow!

    anyone care to disprove this? I'm open to learning...


    EDIT: you may substitute the phrase "more heat removed" for "quicker it cools down" anywhere above. and more heat removed is the goal of every cooling system.
    Last edited by PDR447; 02-16-2011 at 12:27 AM. Reason: clarification

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    6,962

    Default

    Well it's raining & I'm bored so I thought I'd jump in to this discussion again with my latest thoughts. I have some boats with high flow rates & some with slow rates & I'd really like to learn more about what's most effective. I'm not sold on the french fry experiment application logic to water-cooled boat electronics ( and what a waste of a good french fry) ! What, at least in my thinking, is most important is the transfer rate between the heat source and the cooling medium which is critically tied to the contact time between these two.

    Here's my lab experiments ( perform these at your own risk) :

    Test 1:
    Run your finger over a hot motor [ say 165 degrees] in one second total. How hot is your finger ?

    Then do the same thing but take five seconds to do the same. Hotter finger, right ?

    My take is that the longer the cooling medium (your finger) is in contact with the object to be cooled, the more heat transfer from the object to be cooled.

    Test 2 : Build a ten foot by five foot bed of hot coals.
    Walk (very !) quickly over them. I'm sure you've seen this done on some TV show or something. Feet maybe warm.
    Now take ten seconds to do the same. Feet VERY HOT !

    Again, the point I'm proposing is that the longer the cooling medium is in contact with the object to be cooled, the more heat extraction takes place.

    Slower flow = better cooling
    QED

    Now go eat some french fries
    Last edited by properchopper; 02-19-2011 at 12:39 PM.
    2008 NAMBA P-Mono & P-Offshore Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder; '15 P-Cat, P-Ltd Cat 2-Lap
    2009/2010 NAMBA P-Sport Hydro Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder, '13 SCSTA P-Ltd Cat High Points
    '11 NAMBA [P-Ltd] : Mono, Offshore, OPC, Sport Hydro; '06 LSO, '12,'13,'14 P Ltd Cat /Mono

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by properchopper View Post
    Well it's raining & I'm bored so I thought I'd jump in to this discussion again with my latest thoughts. I have some boats with high flow rates & some with slow rates & I'd really like to learn more about what's most effective. I'm not sold on the french fry experiment application logic to water-cooled boat electronics ( and what a waste of a good french fry) ! What, at least in my thinking, is most important is the transfer rate between the heat source and the cooling medium which is critically tied to the contact time between these two.

    Here's my lab experiments ( perform these at your own risk) :

    Test 1:
    Run your finger over a hot motor [ say 165 degrees] in one second total. How hot is your finger ?

    Then do the same thing but take five seconds to do the same. Hotter finger, right ?

    My take is that the longer the cooling medium (your finger) is in contact with the object to be cooled, the more heat transfer from the object to be cooled.

    Test 2 : Build a ten foot by five foot bed of hot coals.
    Walk (very !) quickly over them. I'm sure you've seen this done on some TV show or something. Feet maybe warm.
    Now take ten seconds to do the same. Feet VERY HOT !

    Again, the point I'm proposing is that the longer the cooling medium is in contact with the object to be cooled, the more heat extraction takes place.

    QED

    Now go eat some french fries
    I completely agree!
    Many issues!!!

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    4,670

    Default

    Wrong! Higher flow carries the heat away faster. The greater the delta the more efficient it will be.
    IMPBA 20481S D-12

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by properchopper View Post
    Well it's raining & I'm bored so I thought I'd jump in to this discussion again with my latest thoughts. I have some boats with high flow rates & some with slow rates & I'd really like to learn more about what's most effective. I'm not sold on the french fry experiment application logic to water-cooled boat electronics ( and what a waste of a good french fry) ! What, at least in my thinking, is most important is the transfer rate between the heat source and the cooling medium which is critically tied to the contact time between these two.

    Here's my lab experiments ( perform these at your own risk) :

    Test 1:
    Run your finger over a hot motor [ say 165 degrees] in one second total. How hot is your finger ?

    Then do the same thing but take five seconds to do the same. Hotter finger, right ?

    My take is that the longer the cooling medium (your finger) is in contact with the object to be cooled, the more heat transfer from the object to be cooled.

    Test 2 : Build a ten foot by five foot bed of hot coals.
    Walk (very !) quickly over them. I'm sure you've seen this done on some TV show or something. Feet maybe warm.
    Now take ten seconds to do the same. Feet VERY HOT !

    Again, the point I'm proposing is that the longer the cooling medium is in contact with the object to be cooled, the more heat extraction takes place.

    QED

    Now go eat some french fries
    Tony, I dont understand how you relate hotter finger/feet, to better cooling. If you were trying to figure out the best way to heat the water coming out of your boat that logic would make sense, but youre not. The idea is to cool the electronics, not heat the water. The slower the flow, the hotter the water will get. Thats what your experiments confirm. I would assume we all knew that though?

    The water is ALWAYS in contract with the item that is being cooled if the flow is good and there is some backpressue there. You are not removing your finger from the motor as you did in experimnet one, you are simply applying constant COOL finger, instead of allowing your finger to heat up and the cooling effect from your finger to diminish.

    Look at it this way. Take your same coals, lets say they are 200 degreees. Put them in a pan with a little bit of water in it. Lets say that water is 70 degrees. The coals with heat the water, and water temp will rise. Coal temperature will drop, until they meet at a given temp (lets say 150 degrees, just picking a number). If this were done in an insulated situation, where there was no outside cooling source (like cooler air), and cooling was only dependant on the water, the temp would never go below 150 degrees.

    Now take another set of 200 degree coals, in an identical pan, except this pan is plumbed to have a constant flow of fresh 70 degree water, in one side of the pan is a water inlet filling it, and an outlet on the other side letting water escape at the same rate so the pan doesnt overflow.. The water leaving the pan WILL BE COOLER THAN 150 degrees. The water doesnt sit in the pan with coals as long, so a given amount of water will not have absorbed as much energy. It doesnt take a leap of faith, however, to agree that this setup will cool the coals beyond 150 degrees, and eventually all the way down to 70 degrees.

    Heres the moral: In these two situations, lets say the pan held 1 quart of water. The quart from the first example where the water sat in the coals would contain more heat energy per quart. HOWEVER, if during the course of cooling in the second example, you pumped 10 gallons through, while the temperature would be lower in that water, it would contain more energy (since it removed more), but since it takes more energy to heat a larger amount of water, temps would be lower.

    SO...slower flow is a better means if your goal is to have the hottest water coming out of your boat, but faster flow will keep the largest constant temperature difference in your cooling system, netting the coolest components.

    I dont think anyone is arguing that leaving the water in there longer will heat it more. If the opposite were true our real problem would be too fast of flow would heat the lake.

    One more thing...if your motor and coal examples proved better cooling, why move water at all?

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    6,962

    Default

    Wow, my head's starting to hurt thinking about this. Im not advocating not moving the water at all, I think you know that. Simply that the water/motor interface needs sufficient time for heat transfer to equilibrate. In my model I'm assuming that, in an imaginary sense, a "slug" of water enters the cooler, heat transfer/equilibration takes place, and then the water is discharged, and a fresh slug of water enters, and on and on. In my way of thinking ( and I got a D in Thermo in college BTW ) , the length of time the slug stays in place is critical for maximum transfer to take place. In actual application, the rate of (continuous) flow is likened to the latency of slug enter/stay/exit. I think I'll go sharpen some props
    2008 NAMBA P-Mono & P-Offshore Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder; '15 P-Cat, P-Ltd Cat 2-Lap
    2009/2010 NAMBA P-Sport Hydro Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder, '13 SCSTA P-Ltd Cat High Points
    '11 NAMBA [P-Ltd] : Mono, Offshore, OPC, Sport Hydro; '06 LSO, '12,'13,'14 P Ltd Cat /Mono

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,453

    Default

    WE're not trying to transfer heat here. Keeping the coolest water possible on the esc and can is the best way to keep the item cool. Allowing the water to warm is just allowing everything to warm. This is why when I run in ice cold water min the winter my components run cooler than in a warm pond in the summer.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    2,686

    Default

    I just wanna see someone walk over a bed of hot coals in the spirit of this thread!

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by properchopper View Post
    Wow, my head's starting to hurt thinking about this. Im not advocating not moving the water at all, I think you know that. Simply that the water/motor interface needs sufficient time for heat transfer to equilibrate. In my model I'm assuming that, in an imaginary sense, a "slug" of water enters the cooler, heat transfer/equilibration takes place, and then the water is discharged, and a fresh slug of water enters, and on and on. In my way of thinking ( and I got a D in Thermo in college BTW ) , the length of time the slug stays in place is critical for maximum transfer to take place. In actual application, the rate of (continuous) flow is likened to the latency of slug enter/stay/exit. I think I'll go sharpen some props
    The problem with all of this is that people seem to be missing the fact that there is always water there. People are thinking that water has to be there for a certain length of time, not realizing that water is ALWAYS there. There is no time where the cooling system is without water...its constantly being cooled (If there is aeriation that is a completly seperate problem), either by cool water, or by warm water. Keeping the same water there longer and allowing it to heat provides no advantage. Heat energy is like anything else, it will naturally seek an equalibrium. The cooler the water, the faster the heat flows to it, period. Its just the way it is guys.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    9,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rumdog View Post
    WE're not trying to transfer heat here. Keeping the coolest water possible on the esc and can is the best way to keep the item cool. Allowing the water to warm is just allowing everything to warm. This is why when I run in ice cold water min the winter my components run cooler than in a warm pond in the summer.
    Yes

    Quote Originally Posted by keithbradley View Post
    The problem with all of this is that people seem to be missing the fact that there is always water there. People are thinking that water has to be there for a certain length of time, not realizing that water is ALWAYS there. There is no time where the cooling system is without water...its constantly being cooled (If there is aeriation that is a completly seperate problem), either by cool water, or by warm water. Keeping the same water there longer and allowing it to heat provides no advantage. Heat energy is like anything else, it will naturally seek an equalibrium. The cooler the water, the faster the heat flows to it, period. Its just the way it is guys.
    and Yes

    I think some are forgetting the fact that there is constant water contact with our systems (heat transfer)
    .NAMBA20...Caterpillar UL-1, P-Spec OM29, P-Mono DF33, P-Spec JAE, Aussie 33" Hydro-LSH, Sprintcat CC2028 on 8s, PT SS45 Q Hydro, PS295 UL-1 power, OSE Brothers Outlaw QMono 4-sale, Rio 51z CC2028 on 8s

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ql
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Well after absorbing the info on this thread from you guys that know heat exchangers, & after a long discussion with a new member at our club who also designs heat exchangers for a petroleum company, I have to say that I am a convert to the 'More is Better' philosophy.
    He went into the laminar flow & turbulent flow with their corresponding heat transfer co efficients & even into the Reynolds numbers of the drag on the water.( he lost me there a bit) & lots of other stuff too, but the outcome is that I'm a convert.
    But as others have said, if cooling is becoming too critical in a boat, the setup & prop choice needs to be looked at.
    We've got to remember that heat is a by-product of the electrical work being done by the components. If they are being over worked they will break down. Cooling or no cooling. Just like us really
    Cheers.
    Paul.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    601

    Default

    All of its a funny debate coz as far as electrics are concerned when the motor is set up right it will like a little heat the batteries too. Whats critcal in my opinion is the esc coz it is the one thing that Truly performs better cooler. If the setup is efficient the motor should not go crazy on heat anyway. With electrics it seems to me all you cooling is the waste you need an efficient set up from the get go . Who cares how much you cool it if you real hot with the electrics the you real wasteful. Most people probably get too hot coz the dont have the headroom in batteries or the motor considering the WORK they expect. Ex. a 1527 is a popular motor for scale guys it surges around 4500 watts or 6 hp but in truth they should want maybe a 2215 with 8000 watts and the batteries to support it. We look at peak specs and say wow but they mean diddly squat you should want rms power anyway. Most of us including my self are fooling ourselves coz to support 8000 watts in batts and a motor that will produce it IS EXPENSIVE so if we can abuse a motor and put a water bandaid on it we do. Thats my take.
    Last edited by TotalPackage; 02-20-2011 at 09:35 AM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    1,711

    Default

    I think the misconception that a slower water flow rate produces better cooling came from the auto industry. Engineers place a water restriction where the coolant exits the block. The water pump was placed at the intake of the block, this raises the water pressure between these to points and raises the boiling point of the fluid inside the engine. These engines run close to the boiling point and needed more margin. If water boils inside the block it drastically lowers the heat transfer rate.
    Mechanics thought the purpose for the restriction was to reduce the flow rate and the MYTH was created. It is still believed by many.
    We are not running close to the boiling point in our cooling systems and do not need to raise the pressure. Let the water flow freely for the best heat exchange rate. Do not slow it down to a trickle for better cooling as some have suggested.
    Last edited by ReddyWatts; 02-20-2011 at 12:03 PM.
    ReddyWatts fleet photo
    M1 Supercat - Neu 1527 1Y, 8s / Mean Machine- Feigao 580, 8s, 120 HV esc
    Mean Machine - Feigao 540 14XL, 8s, 100 amp HV esc, X537/3

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    623

    Default

    This thread is great everyday i read more and become more confused! Nah just jokin but it is interesting.
    Many issues!!!

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    6,962

    Default

    Part of the conflict between the "slower flow/faster flow" controversy here is the possible confusion in considering and differentiating between flow rate and latency in the cooling/heat exchange environment. While it's possible to vary the flow rate by controlling the variables of inlet/ outlet size, tubing size (diameter) and length, the input pressure ( which ties to the final flow rate when combined with these variables) should be viewed as a constant, given , let's say a WOT run. [ Yes, I'm aware that heat generation is moderated by throttle position, but to keep things simple, I'm leaving WOT as a constant in this example]. Hence, the only way to control flow rate is to play with these variables. I stand by my statement that the longer the cooling medium (water in the cooling jacket or SC tubes) stays in contact with the device to be cooled ( motor/SC), the more transfer of heat, e.g. cooling) will take place. Since my "finger on the motor" and "walking on hot coals" example failed to convince some on this, let's go to the good ole' french fry out the window experiment. Simply stated, a french fry held out the window for ten seconds will be cooled more than one held out for only one second. It cooled better when it was in the cooling medium/environment LONGER. Since, in the case of r/c boats we can only vary the heat exchange TIME by controlling the flow RATE, I have concluded that a slower rate allows for better cooling.

    I have a simple experiment in mind to gather actual empirical data to support this using my leak tester apparatus, which connects to my kitchen sink faucet. Problem is that in five days I'll be racing five boats in five classes in AZ and my plate is currently full with final testing/tuning and the butterflies are starting to do the Macarena in my stomach so it'll have to wait
    2008 NAMBA P-Mono & P-Offshore Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder; '15 P-Cat, P-Ltd Cat 2-Lap
    2009/2010 NAMBA P-Sport Hydro Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder, '13 SCSTA P-Ltd Cat High Points
    '11 NAMBA [P-Ltd] : Mono, Offshore, OPC, Sport Hydro; '06 LSO, '12,'13,'14 P Ltd Cat /Mono

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    4,670

    Default

    Your french fry example is a bit off. The air going past it is not warmer do to restricted flow. For example if you hold one out the window and one near the window where there is less air flow it will take longer to cool than the one out the window.
    IMPBA 20481S D-12

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    6,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egneg View Post
    Your french fry example is a bit off. The air going past it is not warmer do to restricted flow. For example if you hold one out the window and one near the window where there is less air flow it will take longer to cool than the one out the window.
    The speed of the airflow near the window in your example is slower than the speed of the airflow out the window. If the speed of the flow is held constant
    { as it is in a boat setup once installed}, the TIME in the flow is the critical factor, at least as I see it.
    2008 NAMBA P-Mono & P-Offshore Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder; '15 P-Cat, P-Ltd Cat 2-Lap
    2009/2010 NAMBA P-Sport Hydro Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder, '13 SCSTA P-Ltd Cat High Points
    '11 NAMBA [P-Ltd] : Mono, Offshore, OPC, Sport Hydro; '06 LSO, '12,'13,'14 P Ltd Cat /Mono

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by properchopper View Post
    Since, in the case of r/c boats we can only vary the heat exchange TIME by controlling the flow RATE
    This makes no sense, nor does the example about holding a french fry out the window longer...Regardless of flow rate, the time that the cooling media is exposed to the heat source is the same: A-L-L ---- T-H-E ----T-I-M-E. Slowing the flow rate does not do anything but raise the temperature of the cooling media.
    The equivelant to stopping exposure of the french fry to cool air would be STOPPING the flow rate, not raising it.

    I have to beleive at this point that this is just a matter of looking at things with a confirmation bias. I don't know how its not crystal clear, unless some people just want to hold on to their belief so much they refuse to look at this objectively.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    4,670

    Default

    But the speed of the water flow isn't a constant. It is being slowed down by the size of the tubing or whatever. The constant is the volume of the water jacket or ESC tubes. The time it takes for a complete exchange of water takes longer with smaller tubing ergo higher outlet temps. The more times this volume can be exchanged in a given time period the more efficient the cooling will be.
    IMPBA 20481S D-12

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    6,962

    Default

    In response to " Slowing the flow rate does not do anything but raise the temperature of the cooling media" : Maximally raising the temperature of the cooling media is what is desirable in this model. Where does the heat in the cooling media come from ? From the object to be cooled. The hotter the cooling media becomes from extracting heat from the object to be cooled, the cooler the object to be cooled becomes from this transfer and the more efficient the system is. Of course a closed loop system in a car doesn't hold to this, so closed loop systems won't be a good comparison, and of course the boat system is a total-loss configuration.
    2008 NAMBA P-Mono & P-Offshore Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder; '15 P-Cat, P-Ltd Cat 2-Lap
    2009/2010 NAMBA P-Sport Hydro Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder, '13 SCSTA P-Ltd Cat High Points
    '11 NAMBA [P-Ltd] : Mono, Offshore, OPC, Sport Hydro; '06 LSO, '12,'13,'14 P Ltd Cat /Mono

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,663

    Default

    Ok, here we go...

    There is an elementary equation from basic thermodynamics that states that the rate of heat transfer (Q) equals the mass flow rate (M) times a Constant (the specific heat of water) times the Delta T (fluid temp out minus fluid temp in):


    Q = M x C x Delta T

    In other words, the rate of heat transfer is directly proportional to mass flow rate. If you increase the flow rate, you will then increase the rate of heat transfer. Since you cannot mess with mother nature, it is very naive to think it works any other way.

    Assume the object being cooled inserts a constant rate of energy (Q) into the cooling system. Then, from the relationship above, increasing the mass flow rate must result in a smaller delta T because Q remains constant. This smaller Delta T (fluid out – fluid in) also means that the average fluid temperature coming out is somewhat lower even though the rate of heat transfer has not changed.

    Now let’s look at the heat transfer from the source to the water:

    The rate of heat transfer between two points is proportional to the temperature difference between those points.

    In our case, this Delta T (not to be confused with the one above) is the temperature of the heat source minus the average water temperature coming out of the heat source. Lowering the average water temperature, as we did above by increasing the flow rate, means we have a little better heat transfer from the heat source to the now somewhat cooler water. The result is that the heat source becomes cooler.

    This all says that if you increase the flow rate and everything else remains constant, you will decrease the heat source temperature.

    NAIL ---------> COFFIN

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    6,962

    Default

    OK, sounds convincing. Bottom line, I'm heading to the lake for some test/tune
    H2O therapy. Have a good one !



    Quote Originally Posted by keithbradley View Post
    Ok, here we go...

    There is an elementary equation from basic thermodynamics that states that the rate of heat transfer (Q) equals the mass flow rate (M) times a Constant (the specific heat of water) times the Delta T (fluid temp out minus fluid temp in):


    Q = M x C x Delta T

    In other words, the rate of heat transfer is directly proportional to mass flow rate. If you increase the flow rate, you will then increase the rate of heat transfer. Since you cannot mess with mother nature, it is very naive to think it works any other way.

    Assume the object being cooled inserts a constant rate of energy (Q) into the cooling system. Then, from the relationship above, increasing the mass flow rate must result in a smaller delta T because Q remains constant. This smaller Delta T (fluid out – fluid in) also means that the average fluid temperature coming out is somewhat lower even though the rate of heat transfer has not changed.

    Now let’s look at the heat transfer from the source to the water:

    The rate of heat transfer between two points is proportional to the temperature difference between those points.

    In our case, this Delta T (not to be confused with the one above) is the temperature of the heat source minus the average water temperature coming out of the heat source. Lowering the average water temperature, as we did above by increasing the flow rate, means we have a little better heat transfer from the heat source to the now somewhat cooler water. The result is that the heat source becomes cooler.

    This all says that if you increase the flow rate and everything else remains constant, you will decrease the heat source temperature.

    NAIL ---------> COFFIN
    2008 NAMBA P-Mono & P-Offshore Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder; '15 P-Cat, P-Ltd Cat 2-Lap
    2009/2010 NAMBA P-Sport Hydro Nat'l 2-Lap Record Holder, '13 SCSTA P-Ltd Cat High Points
    '11 NAMBA [P-Ltd] : Mono, Offshore, OPC, Sport Hydro; '06 LSO, '12,'13,'14 P Ltd Cat /Mono

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    494

    Default

    I understand both points of view and in the end a combination of both theories is what's working here. But from what I see if Q rate of heat transfer then wouln't allowing the water to sit on the motor longer (resulting in hotter water leaving the system) increase Delta T resulting in a higher Q? The question is how much higher compated to increasing M instead.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hyrulejedi86 View Post
    wouln't allowing the water to sit on the motor longer (resulting in hotter water leaving the system) increase Delta T resulting in a higher Q?
    Simple answer, no.

    Delta T in the equation will increase at a rate relative to decreased flow rate. The slower the flow rate, the LOWER the delta T will be between the heat source and inlet water, which lowers the cooling efficiency. What I'm saying is by raising the delta T in the equation, "M" will always be lowered at a greater rate, resulting in a Lower Q. It wont work to a greater degree becuase the delta T between the heat source and inlet water temps is less. Its not physically possible.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    3,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by properchopper View Post
    OK, sounds convincing. Bottom line, I'm heading to the lake for some test/tune
    H2O therapy. Have a good one !
    Im jealous! Our "cooling system" is too efficient here in Michigan. Our water will be hard for another month or two.
    Enjoy the california weather!

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Is it worth going through the trouble of adding an extra cooling system that'll be directed to just the motor or ESC rather than having one system that flows through everything? I have a stock SV27 on the way that only has the rudder pick up and was going to add this system. Was even thinking of using the pick up as an outlet too, as mentioned in the top post. Thanks guys, Joe

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    2,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joeyhatch11 View Post
    Is it worth going through the trouble of adding an extra cooling system that'll be directed to just the motor or ESC rather than having one system that flows through everything? I have a stock SV27 on the way that only has the rudder pick up and was going to add this system. Was even thinking of using the pick up as an outlet too, as mentioned in the top post. Thanks guys, Joe
    I added the transom mount water pickup from the supervee nitro version to my sv a long time ago. The stock rudder pickup would lose pressure when turning the opposite direction of the rudder pickup hole, and flow was minimal. After I added the nitro pickup, the flow inreased dramatically and was drastically improved. Especially at low speeds!

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    43

    Default

    If I go with the transom or under hall mount system, what diameter hose do I need? Thanks, Joe

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •