who is running pusher fans?
06-05-2014 | 10:55 AM
#41
TECH Addict
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,610
Likes: 4
From: Maricopa, AZ
Haha, perpetual motion huh? Oh you're so clever. Because that's what I said, right? The belt is still turning the alt which requires power to do. But installing an EWP changes NOTHING in how the alternator does its job. It changes nothing in the way it functions. The engine is still turning the alt. at the same RPM, you've added no mechanical drag to the alt. The only thing you can possibly do to it is create more demand than it can supply, which that tiny motor isn't going to do.
Think about it this way. You're in 4th at 75mph and hit a small hill (load increase). Your car starts to slow down, you give it more gas but you don't down shift or come out of lock out (increased power without increasing RPM's), you maintain 75mph.
Originally Posted by Spartan7
Either the alt. can supply enough voltage, or it can't. When it needs to supply more voltage, you think the alternator has to "try" harder? It has to overcome some internal resistance? The only things I mentioned above create friction, voltage is generated by an alternating magnetic field.
Originally Posted by Spartan7
The voltage regulator compensates for this.
Originally Posted by Spartan7
Does the alternator generate more charge at higher RPM's? Sure it does, the lines of flux are being cut faster. But do your headlights get super bright, do wires start to melt from overheating when you go WOT? No, because the voltage regulator REGULATES the voltage to keep it around 14v. Crazy, huh?
The voltage regulator has nothing to do with the lights not getting brighter or melting wires. The lights draw a specific load and that's it. That load is in AMP's not volts. It runs on a specific voltage range, but that voltage is supplied and regulated by the vehicle.
Like a garden hose only sprays a certain amount of water depending on the attachment on the end. The water flow is Amps and the PSI is Volts. It is the same equation.
Originally Posted by Spartan7
When you jump a vehicle, you're taking potential energy away from the other one. You're draining the battery a bit, and the alternator on the running car must supply that now to compensate. This can affect the ignition system and PCM voltage, which can cause stumbling. Your example proves no part of your previous point and just illustrates you don't know how an alternator works.
Some simple formula's to live by....
HP=(Tq*RPM)/5252
HP=(PSI*GPM)/1714
W=AMPs*Volts
W= HP (more specifically 745W = 1 HP)
W=Power
Power equals pressure (torque/psi/volts) multiplied by flow (rpm/gpm/amps).
Last edited by hrcslam; 06-05-2014 at 11:26 AM.
06-05-2014 | 05:03 PM
#44
TECH Addict
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,610
Likes: 4
From: Maricopa, AZ
Not on my Camaro, but my Suburban has 1 pusher fan and two pullers. The pusher fan really helped with cooling during those really hot 110°F+ days while towing with both A/C's blaring.
I'm not sure how well a pusher fan set up would work on one of our cars though, clearance is especially tight and weird.
I'm not sure how well a pusher fan set up would work on one of our cars though, clearance is especially tight and weird.
06-05-2014 | 07:34 PM
#45
Seriously? You post the definition of efficient and its the system you defend that is less efficient by the definition you posted. Lol.
Also I never said it didn't flow what they claimed. I said it flowed less than advertised under pressure. That is a factual statement verified by Mezeire.
Now for a quick lesson in physics.
HP = (GPM*PSI)/1714
So at 1 psi (which is higher than free flow pressure) it takes .02hp to move 43GPM. But the pump is free flow rated at 43GPM and using .13hp? So it's less than 15% efficient at moving coolant. Hmmmm.
Later will come the thermal dynamics lesson of BTUs of cooling capability based on GPMs.
Again the system uses less power but at a sacrifice to cooling capability. Which is fine for drag racing and many other scenarios.
UPDATE:
As promised, here's the math on GPM and cooling.
This equation goes like this BTU/Hr= GPM*500*Temperature Difference °F
So if the coolant enters the radiator at 220°F and leaves at 195°F it would have a Temperature difference of 25°F.
So at 43GPM (again not the case under operating pressure but we'll roll with it) the equation above provides a total of 537,500 BTU's/hr of cooling.
With the factory rated max of 66GPM operating the equation above provides 825,000 BTU's/hr of cooling. A 50+% INCREASE in cooling capability. That is HUGE. And that is giving the electric pump an inaccurate rating of 43GPM under operating pressure. The real difference is much bigger.
But hey what do engineers and scientists know.
The problem I have with your reasoning, is you are assuming you know what restriction the pump sees in the cooling system. You keep talking about PSI, but PSI is being made by restriction on the outlet side of the pump. Can you tell me how much restriction the pump sees? If freeflow is 43, or 55 GPM then what is it under restriction in the cooling system?
We keep using this factory test of the mechanical pump as bible.. is 66 GPM the freeflow rating too? Where is this literature at that states the ratings?The factory mechanical pump is susceptible to cavitation at higher RPM's the same as any pump.. So at a certain pressure differential it flows... almost nothing.
Actually, yes it does.... Literally.
That is more of an opinion than fact. I don't call a car that runs 11.5 once in mineshaft air an 11.5 sec car. It's very misleading... especially when drawing a comparison to another car that may run 11.7 or 11.8 in 3000 DA.
Also I never said it didn't flow what they claimed. I said it flowed less than advertised under pressure. That is a factual statement verified by Mezeire.
Now for a quick lesson in physics.
HP = (GPM*PSI)/1714
So at 1 psi (which is higher than free flow pressure) it takes .02hp to move 43GPM. But the pump is free flow rated at 43GPM and using .13hp? So it's less than 15% efficient at moving coolant. Hmmmm.
Later will come the thermal dynamics lesson of BTUs of cooling capability based on GPMs.
Again the system uses less power but at a sacrifice to cooling capability. Which is fine for drag racing and many other scenarios.
UPDATE:
As promised, here's the math on GPM and cooling.
This equation goes like this BTU/Hr= GPM*500*Temperature Difference °F
So if the coolant enters the radiator at 220°F and leaves at 195°F it would have a Temperature difference of 25°F.
So at 43GPM (again not the case under operating pressure but we'll roll with it) the equation above provides a total of 537,500 BTU's/hr of cooling.
With the factory rated max of 66GPM operating the equation above provides 825,000 BTU's/hr of cooling. A 50+% INCREASE in cooling capability. That is HUGE. And that is giving the electric pump an inaccurate rating of 43GPM under operating pressure. The real difference is much bigger.
But hey what do engineers and scientists know.
The problem I have with your reasoning, is you are assuming you know what restriction the pump sees in the cooling system. You keep talking about PSI, but PSI is being made by restriction on the outlet side of the pump. Can you tell me how much restriction the pump sees? If freeflow is 43, or 55 GPM then what is it under restriction in the cooling system?
We keep using this factory test of the mechanical pump as bible.. is 66 GPM the freeflow rating too? Where is this literature at that states the ratings?The factory mechanical pump is susceptible to cavitation at higher RPM's the same as any pump.. So at a certain pressure differential it flows... almost nothing.
Actually, yes it does.... Literally.
That is more of an opinion than fact. I don't call a car that runs 11.5 once in mineshaft air an 11.5 sec car. It's very misleading... especially when drawing a comparison to another car that may run 11.7 or 11.8 in 3000 DA.
06-05-2014 | 08:10 PM
#47
TECH Addict
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,610
Likes: 4
From: Maricopa, AZ
The problem I have with your reasoning, is you are assuming you know what restriction the pump sees in the cooling system. You keep talking about PSI, but PSI is being made by restriction on the outlet side of the pump. Can you tell me how much restriction the pump sees? If freeflow is 43, or 55 GPM then what is it under restriction in the cooling system?
We keep using this factory test of the mechanical pump as bible.. is 66 GPM the freeflow rating too? Where is this literature at that states the ratings?The factory mechanical pump is susceptible to cavitation at higher RPM's the same as any pump.. So at a certain pressure differential it flows... almost nothing.
We keep using this factory test of the mechanical pump as bible.. is 66 GPM the freeflow rating too? Where is this literature at that states the ratings?The factory mechanical pump is susceptible to cavitation at higher RPM's the same as any pump.. So at a certain pressure differential it flows... almost nothing.
Think about it this way, it takes approx 10-20rwhp to maintain 60mph in one of our cars, but to get to 60mph in less than 4 seconds requires 350+rwhp.
The Meziere HD pump can see head pressures up to 6 psi (this is the 55GPM free flow rating HD model, according to the rep at Mezeire). This pump draws 11-12 AMP's, or about 164.4W at 13.7V. Using HP=(GPM*PSI)/1714 I get a pumping rate under operating load of 43GPM @ 6PSI for the 55GPM model. Not bad, but that gives me a operating pumping efficiency of 68%. That doesn't count alternator efficiency losses (approx 90-99% depending on manufacturer, etc).
This also gives me a cooling rate (most radiators are designed to provide a 10°F drop) of 215,000 BTU/hr.
A car typically releases it's equivalent in BTU's for heat through the radiator as it puts to the transmission. So at max power a radiator has to deal with the same amount of power as the flywheel.
Anything more than 84 horsepower per hour being generated by a car with the Mezeire 55GPM HD will result in increased coolant temperatures.
Originally Posted by PA94Z
That is more of an opinion than fact. I don't call a car that runs 11.5 once in mineshaft air an 11.5 sec car. It's very misleading... especially when drawing a comparison to another car that may run 11.7 or 11.8 in 3000 DA.
06-05-2014 | 09:26 PM
#48
A quick google search will show that mechanical pumps can and do exceed 100GPM at high rpms. What the Stock LT1 does specifically is supposed to be 66GPM at 6000 rpms (yes under operating pressure). But to find out what the head pressure is, it's not a straight convertion. It takes a lot less power to pump 66gpm than 6 horsepower, but to go from 1500 rpms to 6000 rpms in seconds takes into consideration acceleration of the water which will lead to pump head pressures in excess of 100PSI (66GPM*150PSI/1714= 5.7HP). But to flow 66 GPM at 6 PSI only requires .21hp steady state, and on an LT1 it will draw marginally more than that. To accelerate the fluid takes much more power.
Think about it this way, it takes approx 10-20rwhp to maintain 60mph in one of our cars, but to get to 60mph in less than 4 seconds requires 350+rwhp.
The Meziere HD pump can see head pressures up to 6 psi (this is the 55GPM free flow rating HD model, according to the rep at Mezeire). This pump draws 11-12 AMP's, or about 164.4W at 13.7V. Using HP=(GPM*PSI)/1714 I get a pumping rate under operating load of 43GPM @ 6PSI for the 55GPM model. Not bad, but that gives me a operating pumping efficiency of 68%. That doesn't count alternator efficiency losses (approx 90-99% depending on manufacturer, etc).
This also gives me a cooling rate (most radiators are designed to provide a 10°F drop) of 215,000 BTU/hr.
A car typically releases it's equivalent in BTU's for heat through the radiator as it puts to the transmission. So at max power a radiator has to deal with the same amount of power as the flywheel.
Anything more than 84 horsepower per hour being generated by a car with the Mezeire 55GPM HD will result in increased coolant temperatures.
I don't need to search google, I need you to provide data to back up your claim. All this babble means nothing without real world testing. By that I mean how much pressure is created at the outlet side of the pump? How much water is the pump actually flowing under restriction? How much horsepower taking into account additional work from the alternator to drive the pump? How much water does the stock LT1 pump flow under real world conditions? Does the pump actually cavitate at high RPMS.. flowing close to nothing? How much power does it take to turn that pump at idle through redline?
These are questions you make assumptions on knowing the answers to. You can use all the laws of physics in the book to explain your side, but none of those laws can take into account variables for specific situations. To be honest.. I usually breeze through a lot of your posts looking for evidence, real world testing, something that relates specifically to this discussion. You are speaking to me in a language I don't know a lot about, and am not real interested in learning. I know enough to know when someone who is knowledgable is trying to win a debate purely from speaking above someone elses understanding.
It is pretty simple for me.. I have seen a dozen EWP dyno charts over the years running them back to back and showing gains... Not just gains above 3200 RPM, but across the entire RPM band. Sure they aren't much in the low RPMs, but they are there. I have personally driven my own car in all types of conditions with the exception of autocross and never had one issue with overheating. Now unless the EWP flows much, much less than advertised in real world conditions.. I don't see how that isn't proof enough it is more efficient. What is your own personal experience with EWP HRC?
People who get to hung up on what should work or what looks good on paper never have the benefit of learning from other peoples experience. I have seen more than a few turds cammed for dynamic/static compression numbers and what's supposedly ideal. Spec a cam based on cross sectional area, port flow, CI, RPM etc. and watch dynamic compression exceed what's in the calculation due to higher volumetric efficiency.
Now really, I am growing tired of the lesson professor. Unless you have some proof.. I am done with the debate.
It's not an opinion if a car did something or not. It's a fact.
I don't disagree the car ran 11.5, but I don't call it a 11.5 car. If I run 11.0's most of the time, and one very cold day with a -1000 ft DA and 20% humidity I hook and run a 10.99 - I don't have a 10 second car.. I have a best ET in some very good conditions. I think a lot would agree with me, and know what I mean. If I were bracket racing that same car.. I sure as hell wouldn't dial in a 10.9.
Conditions irrelevant. This is why people need to list there DA with their 1/4 times and traps. It makes it comparable for different seasons and locations. Add in race weight and now we have more accurate comparisons for horsepower than any dyno can provide.
I agree 100% with this, and is why I said something to ol Dwayne in the first place. He is very misleading to people when talking about performance numbers.
Think about it this way, it takes approx 10-20rwhp to maintain 60mph in one of our cars, but to get to 60mph in less than 4 seconds requires 350+rwhp.
The Meziere HD pump can see head pressures up to 6 psi (this is the 55GPM free flow rating HD model, according to the rep at Mezeire). This pump draws 11-12 AMP's, or about 164.4W at 13.7V. Using HP=(GPM*PSI)/1714 I get a pumping rate under operating load of 43GPM @ 6PSI for the 55GPM model. Not bad, but that gives me a operating pumping efficiency of 68%. That doesn't count alternator efficiency losses (approx 90-99% depending on manufacturer, etc).
This also gives me a cooling rate (most radiators are designed to provide a 10°F drop) of 215,000 BTU/hr.
A car typically releases it's equivalent in BTU's for heat through the radiator as it puts to the transmission. So at max power a radiator has to deal with the same amount of power as the flywheel.
Anything more than 84 horsepower per hour being generated by a car with the Mezeire 55GPM HD will result in increased coolant temperatures.
I don't need to search google, I need you to provide data to back up your claim. All this babble means nothing without real world testing. By that I mean how much pressure is created at the outlet side of the pump? How much water is the pump actually flowing under restriction? How much horsepower taking into account additional work from the alternator to drive the pump? How much water does the stock LT1 pump flow under real world conditions? Does the pump actually cavitate at high RPMS.. flowing close to nothing? How much power does it take to turn that pump at idle through redline?
These are questions you make assumptions on knowing the answers to. You can use all the laws of physics in the book to explain your side, but none of those laws can take into account variables for specific situations. To be honest.. I usually breeze through a lot of your posts looking for evidence, real world testing, something that relates specifically to this discussion. You are speaking to me in a language I don't know a lot about, and am not real interested in learning. I know enough to know when someone who is knowledgable is trying to win a debate purely from speaking above someone elses understanding.
It is pretty simple for me.. I have seen a dozen EWP dyno charts over the years running them back to back and showing gains... Not just gains above 3200 RPM, but across the entire RPM band. Sure they aren't much in the low RPMs, but they are there. I have personally driven my own car in all types of conditions with the exception of autocross and never had one issue with overheating. Now unless the EWP flows much, much less than advertised in real world conditions.. I don't see how that isn't proof enough it is more efficient. What is your own personal experience with EWP HRC?
People who get to hung up on what should work or what looks good on paper never have the benefit of learning from other peoples experience. I have seen more than a few turds cammed for dynamic/static compression numbers and what's supposedly ideal. Spec a cam based on cross sectional area, port flow, CI, RPM etc. and watch dynamic compression exceed what's in the calculation due to higher volumetric efficiency.
Now really, I am growing tired of the lesson professor. Unless you have some proof.. I am done with the debate.
It's not an opinion if a car did something or not. It's a fact.
I don't disagree the car ran 11.5, but I don't call it a 11.5 car. If I run 11.0's most of the time, and one very cold day with a -1000 ft DA and 20% humidity I hook and run a 10.99 - I don't have a 10 second car.. I have a best ET in some very good conditions. I think a lot would agree with me, and know what I mean. If I were bracket racing that same car.. I sure as hell wouldn't dial in a 10.9.
Conditions irrelevant. This is why people need to list there DA with their 1/4 times and traps. It makes it comparable for different seasons and locations. Add in race weight and now we have more accurate comparisons for horsepower than any dyno can provide.
I agree 100% with this, and is why I said something to ol Dwayne in the first place. He is very misleading to people when talking about performance numbers.
06-06-2014 | 05:19 AM
#49
TECH Addict
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,610
Likes: 4
From: Maricopa, AZ
To be honest.. I usually breeze through a lot of your posts looking for evidence, real world testing, something that relates specifically to this discussion. You are speaking to me in a language I don't know a lot about, and am not real interested in learning. I know enough to know when someone who is knowledgable is trying to win a debate purely from speaking above someone elses understanding......
And you still keep insisting that I am saying it doesn't add power. I never once said that. In fact, I've said that it does add power the entire time. But the power it adds comes from the power that WAS in the cooling system to cool the engine down. The power is no longer in the cooling system and will have less cooling capacity. Whether the difference between the two is needed depends on the vehicle driving conditions and purpose.
I hope this helps you understand what I am saying.
06-06-2014 | 08:03 AM
#50
All you have told us is vague theory with no proof. If .1396 HP is not enough to move 43 GPM then I guess Meziere is lying. Prove it.
It's funny you say that, because I don't know how many times you have given your car as an example of being a top performer with the AI topend. How many times have you ran 11.5's - or even .6 .7 .8? What was the DA when you ran it? It looks pretty cold out in the vid. A car that can run 11.5 once in the winter doesn't make it a 11.5 second car.
It's funny you say that, because I don't know how many times you have given your car as an example of being a top performer with the AI topend. How many times have you ran 11.5's - or even .6 .7 .8? What was the DA when you ran it? It looks pretty cold out in the vid. A car that can run 11.5 once in the winter doesn't make it a 11.5 second car.
There is no vague theory just your refusal to understand the subject.
Far as my car with this setup I never ran at better than a +500ft DA at a track a little over 700ft elevation so good weather but not anything special. It hotlaps 11.5-6.
Haha, perpetual motion huh? Oh you're so clever. Because that's what I said, right? The belt is still turning the alt which requires power to do. But installing an EWP changes NOTHING in how the alternator does its job. It changes nothing in the way it functions. The engine is still turning the alt. at the same RPM, you've added no mechanical drag to the alt. The only thing you can possibly do to it is create more demand than it can supply, which that tiny motor isn't going to do.
When you jump a vehicle, you're taking potential energy away from the other one. You're draining the battery a bit, and the alternator on the running car must supply that now to compensate. This can affect the ignition system and PCM voltage, which can cause stumbling. Your example proves no part of your previous point and just illustrates you don't know how an alternator works.
When you jump a vehicle, you're taking potential energy away from the other one. You're draining the battery a bit, and the alternator on the running car must supply that now to compensate. This can affect the ignition system and PCM voltage, which can cause stumbling. Your example proves no part of your previous point and just illustrates you don't know how an alternator works.
Placing extra demand on the alternator DOES INCREASE LOAD. For it to not increase load one of two things has to happen, either perpetual motion or the previously excess energy generated by being at full load all the time needs to be diverted somewhere when unneeded, it can't just vanish, where do you think it is going?
06-06-2014 | 08:37 AM
#51
So after all this, you don't want to understand the PROOF I am giving you because you don't care to? I wasn't trying to belittle you, I was honestly trying to give you the proof you kept asking for. Do you think the parts on your car didn't go through even more scrutiny than I am providing by the engineers that designed them using much more detailed calculations?
And you still keep insisting that I am saying it doesn't add power. I never once said that. In fact, I've said that it does add power the entire time. But the power it adds comes from the power that WAS in the cooling system to cool the engine down. The power is no longer in the cooling system and will have less cooling capacity. Whether the difference between the two is needed depends on the vehicle driving conditions and purpose.
I hope this helps you understand what I am saying.
And you still keep insisting that I am saying it doesn't add power. I never once said that. In fact, I've said that it does add power the entire time. But the power it adds comes from the power that WAS in the cooling system to cool the engine down. The power is no longer in the cooling system and will have less cooling capacity. Whether the difference between the two is needed depends on the vehicle driving conditions and purpose.
I hope this helps you understand what I am saying.
06-06-2014 | 09:42 AM
#52
TECH Addict
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,610
Likes: 4
From: Maricopa, AZ
Yeah. If only there was an electric water pump set up that had a variable pumping capacity based on user pre programmed conditions. That can be tuned to turn off during full throttle drag runs, but run high at idle. Or run medium at idle and high over 4000 rpm until full throttle where it would shut off for up to 15 seconds....
Last edited by hrcslam; 06-06-2014 at 09:58 AM.
06-06-2014 | 03:32 PM
#54
Yeah. If only there was an electric water pump set up that had a variable pumping capacity based on user pre programmed conditions. That can be tuned to turn off during full throttle drag runs, but run high at idle. Or run medium at idle and high over 4000 rpm until full throttle where it would shut off for up to 15 seconds....
06-09-2014 | 12:07 AM
#55
You guys and your fancy science.
I have two 16925 pushers in front of a stock radiator, with a mezirerere pump and a stupid hot *** turbo behind the radiator.
Never runs hot. But, hey, the internet says I am doing it wrong. Mai bad.
I have two 16925 pushers in front of a stock radiator, with a mezirerere pump and a stupid hot *** turbo behind the radiator.
Never runs hot. But, hey, the internet says I am doing it wrong. Mai bad.
06-09-2014 | 01:33 AM
#56
TECH Addict
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,610
Likes: 4
From: Maricopa, AZ
But I think the Op was looking for your advise having run the set up.
Last edited by hrcslam; 06-09-2014 at 04:02 AM.
06-09-2014 | 12:11 PM
#58
I would think it will allow you to be closer to the 1.21 gigawatts needed for the Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor to convert household waste to power for the time machine's flux capacitor and time circuits using nuclear fusion.
06-09-2014 | 01:12 PM
#59
TECH Addict
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,610
Likes: 4
From: Maricopa, AZ
Electric Cooling Fans and Electric Power Steering are more "efficient" by reducing the time part of the power equation (work over time), thus reducing power usage. They literally do the same amount of work for less time, they turn off when not needed.
Electric Water pumps reduce power consumption by reducing force in the work equation (force over distance). Water pumps have to have a more constant run time because no external forces can be used to replace it while running (electric fans turn off because of air flow through the radiator at higher speeds and electric power steering turns of at a stop - not needed- and at higher speed -again not needed).
Both are considered more "efficient" because they use less power. But, by definition, they are not more efficient because they actually do less. However, the effect of the less they do may not be detrimental, but actually beneficial, to the operation of the system as a whole.
I'd imagine over time (maybe 15-20 years) this system would get small enough to be a "Mr. Fusion", without the actual fusion part of course...
