I find that hard to believe. Your logic doesn't jive, even my wife who is an idustrial engineer would have been able to make the same deduction.

You don't have a grasp on some fundamental concepts and could shred that "information" you posted to pieces.

This isn't "hardcore" stuff either, this is childs play.

 

I also agree with everything that SS00Blue said.

 

Both of your posts are very off topic... are you trying to start a flame war or is this just revenge?

Sorry you feel that way.... you're an engineer, you answer the question then ...and actually contribute something to this post.

-Jarrod

 

Whoa.... you guys went way off the deep end with all that technical talk!! I guess that's just the way you engineers sit around and talk huh?! I'll try to test it again tomorrow. FWIW I am testing this using a Raytek temp. gun checking the temp just before it goes into the inlet of the core and on the outlet pipe to the Mass air. I guess what I'll do is check the IAT on he Tech2 also.

 

 

If you are taking temps of the Al of the intercooler than that's why you got those lower than ambient readings.... for the reasons i mentioned above.... and those readings are not actually the temperatures of the air going through it, which would be warmer.

 

Hardly a flame war or off topic , someone got fishy results, you tried to answer with bad information and misconceptions, I corrected it and gave possible reasons as to what COULD cause the bad data. I didn't even address you directly to avoid problems. SS00Blue backed up exactly what I said and added other possibilities (cheap sensors). Thats two engineers, 1 young, 1 older and wiser, same response....see a trend? And I threw in a third for kicks.

I asked my wife the same questions, as I mentioned she's an industrial engineer

"honey lets say you have an infinite air to air heat exchanger, and you have hot air coming in at lets say 200 deg. And lets say you have colder air crossing at 50 deg. Lets assume adiabatic heat transfer. What would the temperature be at the exit?"

"50 deg, why?..........."

The details aren't so much important as the concept.

3 to 1 bud, who do you think is wrong?

positive contribution if you ask me.

 

If I am correct that checks surface temp?

The readings are going to be off from the actual temperature of the air. It also takes time for the heat to transfer from the air through the aluminum and onto the surface. What you can do is get a voltmeter that comes with a thermocouple.

Usually its about 3-4 ft long which should be enough to stick through some of the silicon joints of the piping. The wires are really thin so it should seal if not you can get some RTV and seal it that way. You can bend the wiring around, so what I would suggest is bend it so the bead (tip) of the thermocouple is at the center of the ducting. Thats where your going to get the best avgerage readings and you can cross check the IAT sensor readings.

You can also take readings at the front and the rear of the intercooler to get an idea of how well its performing.

This isn't the best way to test, actually kinda shabby, but should be sufficient for your needs.

Using the 4 temps you can find how effective the intercooler really is.

Good luck!

 

Well anyone would guess that... and that's what that is.. a guess based on common sense.... i asked my g/f the same question, she is a medical student by the way... and she said the same thing.... as anyone would.
100% efficient intercooler at those extremes would be breaking some laws of physics.

The temperature readings i was referring to and basing my colder than ambient was the high speed/cruise situations... which is the only place you would see it unless you were running an aftercooler with ice water or whatever.
At say 70mph, low load, no boost situations i think you could get cooler than ambient intake temps with an intercooler that large.

But... i already responded to that:

So the whole reason for those particular readings being cooler than ambient was because of them being taken off of the metal's surface, not the intake charge temp..

I have never listened to SS00Blue.... and definitely don't plan on doing it in the future.


And i agree with using thermocouples at the joints... i have done this before and it sealed, well if it didn't seal 100%, the loss was very negligible.

 

I have a little test for you all go out into the shop or a room and pick up a piece of metal I will bet that the piece of metal will be cooler than ambient temperature? Especially aluminum.

 

yep.... what i was trying to say earlier:

 

I am doing a little research on this subject. I am not this type of engineer. I will post what I come up with later today.

 

Ok... please do.
Thanks

the more i think about this, the more i get confused. Thermodynamics is against it.. but i swore i remember seeing Dave Inall saying it was possible with the incon mustang intercooler.

Hopefully someone will get in here and explain what's happening.. if anything.

The only other thing after talking to a friend about it is condensation build up(as mentioned), and that evaporating is causing the cooler than ambient temps at idle/cruise.

 

Make that 4-1. I just read this thread and I have to say I was STUNNED! An intercooler with the ability to "change the laws of physics"??? Sweeeet.

Actually, Scam and SS00Blue answered accurately. I personally didn't see the responses as flaming, when reading inaccurate thermodynamics information based on a Supervisor and a Nurse's opinion, can be harmful to many people. It makes it that much tougher for guys like me to explain to people why their IC only gets the air to just above ambient. Which is why the poster asked for ENGINEERS to answer.

But then again, if Dave Inall said it, it must be true!

 

Ok.... been thinking about this some more.

The Al's surface could not be cooler than the ambient air... it just feels that way due to it's heat transfer coefficient pulling heat away from the body... thus giving the sensation of a cold surface.
The only two options are a pressure drop/vacuum severe enough to cause the temp to drop, or condensation on the core that is evaporating and adding to the cooling effect.

This is of course assuming that the equipment used is accurate....... and yes as SS00Blue mentioned.

Rob.... "I get dumber by the minute just trying to talk to you." .. you really should show up to a local event

 

Maybe we can have Cal, Harlan, and Kevin (No Go) back us up here. That would make it 7 to 1.

Would you believe us then?

 

Finally, something that you posted is right

I touched on that in my first post. I think you are just figuring out what we have been saying all along.


Is that a threat?

 

RICE ETR - I don't really understand the meaning behind why you posted this statement. Are you trying to now make this personal??

 

No more than this....


Rob, i just quoted what you have already told me before.... and you criticize me for getting personal?
You should re-read the majority of your replies to everyone in that last flame war about your turbo kit.


So i am human.... how about i dig up some of the crap you and especially SS00Blue posted?


You know... SScam and 00Blue... you guys dawg me now... that's fine, whatever... but by the end of this year, maybe not until the first of next, but you will see that what i have been posting about the QMP kit is true.

I think even after he is forced to switch to a tubular manifold to get more power (as well as help to prevent lifting his heads or having all that $$$ machine work done to the block and heads to hold them down now due to all that cylinder pressure from the log manifold).... he still won't admit to anything.

 

Cry cry cry thats all I hear. I can't wait to hear the crying after he proves you an idiot once more when his log style manifolds produce some stupid power with the turbo upgrade and continues to get faster and faster. But I didnt think he could make the power he's making with a log style manifold </*******>