Joe,
Thanks for keeping up with the "flow" (Ha!) of info. I'm certainly not complaining when I say this, and am still more than interested to see this come to an "engineering" conclusion, but this whole thing started when I began to question the suggestion I got for reducing my "supposedly" high volume of flow at high engine RPM (427 with 4:11 rear) at highway speed (65 mph+) for my resulting "higher" operating temp (215+). Since the discussion reached a level far above my expertise, I decided to "gracefully" sit down and listen (and exit with my novice attempt at "engineering humor" about perpetual motion.)
My own dilema now is that my "position" on the matter has become more "centered" to "definately undecided". I admit that Jerry's early information helped me to better understand the "fast" flow position. The "cooler example" I injected even helped me to better understand that, since I could imagine passing "through" the cooler more times. But that hasn't convinced me.
Where I continue to have difficulty is with the "efficiency" of the radiator (and the entire component set up of the automotive cooling system). Granted, with the design of the radiator, its material (aluminum), the surface area, narrowed tubing for coolant flow, etc., I don't have enough information to conclude that the radiator is efficient ENOUGH to "transfer" heat away with a higher rate of flow of the coolant. To me it would be more of a "flip-flop" exchange of volume, more on a level of "flash cooling" and "flash heating".
My objective is to not continually muddy the water. I am beginning to reach a point of "applied" principles, purchase the $7.00 restrictor kit, and test run my engine without the thermostat as well. In chance, this may become resolved on our NDB "blackboard" and can save me the time and trouble. That is if my slow-to-understand-mind can eventually absorb all the information. Though silent, I have been continuing to follow each post. Thanks again, Joe. Tom #24014.
Thanks for keeping up with the "flow" (Ha!) of info. I'm certainly not complaining when I say this, and am still more than interested to see this come to an "engineering" conclusion, but this whole thing started when I began to question the suggestion I got for reducing my "supposedly" high volume of flow at high engine RPM (427 with 4:11 rear) at highway speed (65 mph+) for my resulting "higher" operating temp (215+). Since the discussion reached a level far above my expertise, I decided to "gracefully" sit down and listen (and exit with my novice attempt at "engineering humor" about perpetual motion.)
My own dilema now is that my "position" on the matter has become more "centered" to "definately undecided". I admit that Jerry's early information helped me to better understand the "fast" flow position. The "cooler example" I injected even helped me to better understand that, since I could imagine passing "through" the cooler more times. But that hasn't convinced me.
Where I continue to have difficulty is with the "efficiency" of the radiator (and the entire component set up of the automotive cooling system). Granted, with the design of the radiator, its material (aluminum), the surface area, narrowed tubing for coolant flow, etc., I don't have enough information to conclude that the radiator is efficient ENOUGH to "transfer" heat away with a higher rate of flow of the coolant. To me it would be more of a "flip-flop" exchange of volume, more on a level of "flash cooling" and "flash heating".
My objective is to not continually muddy the water. I am beginning to reach a point of "applied" principles, purchase the $7.00 restrictor kit, and test run my engine without the thermostat as well. In chance, this may become resolved on our NDB "blackboard" and can save me the time and trouble. That is if my slow-to-understand-mind can eventually absorb all the information. Though silent, I have been continuing to follow each post. Thanks again, Joe. Tom #24014.
Comment