Some welder in his garage has just proven the world's thermodynamic experts across all areas and centuries wrong.

What's next? Gonna prove the theory of relativity is false?

Maybe you ought to go read up on how it works and then you'll understand the reason high flow is the key, here's a hint it has little to do with time.

Some welder in his garage has just proven the world's thermodynamic experts across all areas and centuries wrong.

What's next? Gonna prove the theory of relativity is false?

Maybe you ought to go read up on how it works and then you'll understand the reason high flow is the key, here's a hint it has little to do with time.

Exactly what I said dip sh!t TIME

I have done several projects with industrial air to water heat exchangers that are copper/nickel material with a fan (e.g. a giant radiator), and the heat transfer continues to increase with water velocity up to the point the tubes actually start to erode from the turbulence. Turbulent water flow causes mixing and is good for heat transfer. There was a statement on a previous page that each system has an optimum flow point for heat transfer. That's incorrect - you can always increase cooling by increasing flow up to the point of material limitations, pumping cost (friction loss), or other physical limitations. There's no heat transfer coefficient that reverses at some flow condition and causes the heat transfer of the system to decrease.

In the bucket analogy, the heat transfer RATE between the hot part and the water is actually greater when you first immersed it, and that heat transfer RATE between the part and the water decreases as the difference in temperature between them decreases. If you wanted to cool the part even faster, you would have turbulent mixing in the bucket or the water exchanging itself out so there was no temperature rise of the cooling fluid. It's not a comparable analogy to an automotive cooling system, because the hot part isn't continuously generating its own heat either.

High flow rates tend to "wash away" any bubble formations which might insulate the part needing cooling. there are lots of papers out there on the issue.

One analogy to make the point was using a garden hose to cool then using a fire hose to cool. Which do you think did a better job?

Was this a small closed loop system, or a large industrial set up with huge cooling tank? The turbulent flow that is generated will also result in turbulent flow at the pump which is part of the system on a car, followed by cavitation, air pockets, nucleate boiling, then reduced flow and steam pockets.

The car system is different. Air flow is an open system and you have a constant temp cooling air. Increase air flow, increase cooling effect in the radiator. Increase area of water and air contact increase cooling effect. Increase water flow through heat source and cooling source with internal pump part of small closed water system and effect can vary. There is a point when the coefficient of heat transfer can change an reduce effective heat transfer. Heat transfer is different for straight plate and a curved plate of same material.

There are engineering studies that show how the heat transfer coefficient changes. It is not linear in all ranges with flow. Just like hp and torque curves fall off. It would be optimized in a system design. Heat transfer is a rate right? One molecule of water moving through the radiator at the speed of sound would cool less then one moving a 10mph. At higher speeds it is in the cool zone less. Of course the next molecule in would probably be hotter then the one in front because it is a closed loop. Obviously the goal is keeping the engine at the correct operating temp during various uncontrollable conditions like winter versus summer.

Can't give you a reason why the facotory did what they did, but the more/faster the water moves through the system the more heat transfer/cooling you get. The old wives tale of water going too fast is just that, a tale.

Of course, the University of Minnesota heat transfer lab could be wrong too, but since they have been at it since 1880, probably not.

Who here believes Chrysler had a Thermodynamics Engineer/Scientist on staff during the late 60's, doing "Nucleate Boiling Analysis" before "finalizing" a coolant system.
Or was it Trial&Error as with many of the racers of that era?
They took it to an "acceptable" level & then rubber stamped it.
After all it was Chrysler & not NASA.
Guess that's why many of these cars are marginal at-best wrt cooling.

"Just because something is non-linear, does not mean that it has an inflection point and decreases over a specific value. The rest of those analogies aren't even relevant."

Of course not, but with nucleate boiling it does occur.

Just because something is non-linear, does not mean that it has an inflection point and decreases over a specific value. The rest of those analogies aren't even relevant.

This is probably some of the best compiled cooling system information on the internet; Stewart did a ton of testing on stock car/NASCAR engines and posted some of their findings, unfortunately only the summaries are still available.
https://www.stewartcomponents.com/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=14

I never commented on the original post regarding why A/C cars are over-driven and non-A/C cars are under driven. It has everything to do with the fan speed. Due to the condenser being in front of the radiator (higher pressure drop through the stacked cores) and also the need to have airflow for the A/C to work at low car speeds (e.g., sitting in traffic), the water pump pulley was overdriven to spin the fan quicker.

Now... for using a 22" radiator to cool the big block. Hopefully cleaning this one out works, but if not, find a radiator that has the widest tubes possible and most tube-to-fin contact area. Unfortunately, this is where expensive radiators earn their keep over the cheaper ones. The hotter you keep the radiator fins due to their contact with the coolant tubes, the more heat will get transferred to the air stream. Aluminum is stronger than copper, so the AL radiators can run larger tubes and get significantly more fin contact area. For example... three rows of 9/16" tubes = 1-11/16" of tube/fin contact length. A radiator with two rows of 1" aluminum tubes likely fits in the same core spot and gets 2" of tube/fin contact. Radiator core design can be a bit tricky, because if you just increase thickness, the pressure drop across the air side increases, which then decreases fan flow and is counter productive... most of the expensive units have figured this out.