Carl Byck

Barwick, Just curious, with my 26x10x3 core, why am I screwing myself??? Is there more resistance to flow through the longer IC, or does it just take longer? Also, If you can move enough CFMs to "fill the pipeline", what is the negative of a larger heat sink? Isn't that what an IC does??? I realize I am avoiding all the calculations, and analysis, but that is because it is not that complicated, IMHO. Bigger heat sink= more heat removed, end of story. If you have a turbo large enough to move the air through the system( I do ), and maintain boost, and response, who cares about the theory. That may sound ignorant, but at some point common sense wins out over engineering, and in this case, I believe we have reached that point. My IAT will be lower than somebody using a smaller IC all other things being equal, The End. Respectfully submitted, Carl

Barwick

Grab two 12" long straws and blow through them.

Then grab twelve 2" long straws and blow through them.

Tell me which is easier to blow through.

PLUS both of them will offer nearly identical heat exchange (if they were intercoolers)

Carl Byck

That would be assuming that the end tanks are equally efficient. In your example the air flow from the twelve straws has to be collected, merged, and transfered as efficiently as the two straws to gain an advantage. Additionally the air will still be traveling through the same 2.5-3" outlet. Finally, you will be dealing with far more turbulence with 6 times the number of tubes. I don't think that a vertical tube IC gives you much of an advantage unless you are outflowing the horizontal design, and it has been shown empirically on 1000RWHP Supras that the horizontal design is plenty efficient. It seems to me the challenges surrounding collecting the far greater # of tubes is greater than the advantage you could theoretically gain. There are some people using the vertical design, but they are expensive(nearly twice the price), and I doubt that they are measurably better under 1000rwhp.

Barwick

I guess we'll find out. I've got a guy willing to do the work and design, and he's pretty excited about it.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

do it! i doubt you'll have a measureable difference, but it will be fun, right?

RETed

And your reason being?
Horizontal running cores have better heat exchange efficiency versus higher pressure drop, all things being equal.
If we run the biggest things we can find, then why worry about boost drop?  The old way to combat pressure drop is just to jack up the boost.



-Ted

RETed

You sound like the Spearco brochure.


I'd like to see PROOF of this.
Running 24" long (horizontal) tubes sound like a signficant difference than 12" long (vertical) tubes.



-Ted

Barwick

A 24" wide x 12" long intercooler running left to right would cool about the same as a 24" wide by 12" long intercooler running top to bottom.

You tell me how running vertical vs running horizontal changes the ambient airflow area and I'll believe you.

SPOautos

I started thinking about this and it seems to me thats not really an accurate example. I'll try to explain it this way.

The straws are open to atmosphere and in the example your trying to push the air to the other side. The reason its harder to push thru the 12" straw is that your having to push 12" worth of air before it gets released back to atmosphere and in the 2" straw your only pushing 2" worth of air so its much less resistance.

NOW, the reason this isnt the same as a IC is cause for one, your not pushing the air out into the atmosphere, its a closed system thats pressurized. And for 2, in either case the over all distance of your closed loop system from point A (the turbo) to point B (the engine) is the same. You might have more row length in one design than another but that just means its going to cool better. The overall length of the entire system is the same so I'd go with the design that cools the best.

I think if your worried about pressure drop you should look more into the design of the end tanks and where the inlet/outlets are located on the end tank. I think the best design (this is hard to explain) is where the endtank is shaped like a V and the inlet/outlet is in the point of the V so that the air doesnt have to run all over itself to get to the outlet. The other thing I think you should pay attention to is the size of the actuall rows that the charge air flows thru. I've noticed that IC's that have a ton of very narrow row seem to have more pressure drop that IC's that have less rows but they are much bigger. I think its cause it creates more pressure drop to split the air up so much.

STEPHEN

SPOautos

It wont change the ambient air flow but the charge air flow will benifit caues it will stay in the IC for a longer period of time. If the distance is twice as long, the charge will stay in there twice and long and the IC has twice as long to extract heat from it.

In addition it kinda falls back on what I was mentioning in my last post. Your going to have a ton more rows and your going to have to split the air up a lot more which to me seems like that would cause more pressure drop. I have noticed that cores with a ton of smaller rows have more pressuredrop that big row cores.

STEPHEN

RacerXtreme7

iTrader: (2)

Also, with the top to bottom intercooler your essentially adding another whopping 48" of tubing into your system do to the long end tanks (the long *** 24" end tanks top and bottom). This extra volume is going to kill turbo response, even if it flows through the actual core better.

~Mike...........

Barwick

You're right about the end tanks, you have to optimize those.

With the "system that cools the best", you're forgetting that when you have the pressure drop you're causing by having a restrictive intercooler (half as many tubes, twice as long), first off I'll stand by my statement that they'll cool the same (the ambient air determines most of the cooling properties), except for being more restrictive which makes it cool a *little* bit better (usually hardly noticable even on a dyno), BUT you're also forgetting that even if it *did* cool better, you have to have the turbo work harder to make the same amount of intake manifold pressure b/c of the pressure drop caused by having half as many longer tubes.

Here... I'm no fluids expert, but as I understand it:

Flowing through 12 tubes 24" long will flow say 288 units of fluid (or air).

Flowing through 24 tubes 12" long will flow 288 units of fluid (or air).

In order for the system to flow 288 units of air through the same overall dimensions of tubing, it will take the same time (all things being equal) once the air is in the tubes.

THEREFORE, I think the following will happen:

"a" is intercooler with 12 tubes 24" long, "b" is intercooler with 24 tubes 12" long.

Say we're watching 240 CFM through the intercooler... obviously not ALL this happens at these exact time intervals, but you get the point...

Time:
1a) 40 CFM enters intercooler
1b) 80 CFM enters intercooler

2a) 40 CFM is 4" into intercooler, another 40 CFM goes into intercooler
2b) 80 CFM is 2" into intercooler

3a) 40 CFM is 8", 40 CFM is 4", another 40 CFM enters
3b) 80 CFM is 4" into intercooler, another 80 CFM enters intercooler

4a) 40 CFM is at 12", 40 CFM is at 8", 40 CFM is at 4", another 40 CFM enters intercooler
4b) 80 CFM is 6" into intercooler, 80 CFM is 2" into intercooler

5a) 40 CFM is at 16", 40 CFM is at 12", 40 CFM is at 8", 40 CFM is at 4", another 40 CFM enters intercooler
5b) 80 CFM is 8" into intercooler, 80 CFM is 4" into intercooler, 80 CFM enters intercooler

6a) 40 CFM is at 20", 40 CFM is at 16", 40 CFM is at 12", 40 CFM is at 8", 40 CFM is at 4", another 40 CFM enters intercooler
6b) 80 CFM is at 10", 80 CFM is at 6", 80 CFM is at 2"

7a) 40 CFM is at 24" (exiting), 40 CFM is at 20", 40 CFM is at 16", 40 CFM is at 12", 40 CFM is at 8", 40 CFM is at 4"
7b) 80 CFM is at 12" (exiting), 80 CFM is at 8", 80 CFM is at 4"

8a) 40 CFM is at 24" (exiting), 40 CFM is at 20", 40 CFM is at 16", 40 CFM is at 12", 40 CFM is at 8"
8b) 80 CFM is at 10", 80 CFM is at 6"

9a) 40 CFM is at 24" (exiting), 40 CFM is at 20", 40 CFM is at 16", 40 CFM is at 12"
9b) 80 CFM is at 12" (exiting), 80 CFM is at 8"

10a) 40 CFM is at 24" (exiting), 40 CFM is at 20", 40 CFM is at 16"
10b) 80 CFM is at 10"

11a) 40 CFM is at 24" (exiting), 40 CFM is at 20"
11b) 80 CFM is at 12" (exiting)

12a) 40 CFM is at 24" (exiting)
12b) last bit of 80 CFM is exiting (again due to time slices, this all doesn't happen at exact intervals)

Barwick

Turbo response change is going to be negligible with even that extra tubing. Even if you have a MASSIVE bucket you're trying to fill (say 2 feet by 2 feet by 2 feet completely wide open), you're flowing more than 8 cubic feet of air per second out of the turbo, it'd take that massive bucket one second to completely fill up. (imagine, that's 224 liters of space to fill up) Those tanks aren't going to change things by more than a quarter cubic foot, probably way less.

SPOautos

I think the way your looking at doing it would have a higher over all flow rating but would not cool the charge down as well.

If you have a core that flows long ways and is large enough to flow the cfm you need at a reasonable pressure drop then I'd go that way.

But hey, try it out and let us know.

STEPHEN

Barwick

I think it'd go out the out end just the same...

Think about it, take a 24" wide * 8" tall * 3" thick bucket and cut a 2" hole in the bottom of it.

Now take a 12" wide * 24" tall * 3" thick bucket and cut a 2" hole in the bottom of it.

They should both flow the same amount out the bottom at the same rate.

Jahoo88

I agree with Barwick. An core with 12 * 24" tubes will NOT flow as well as a core with 24 * 12" tubes but the later core will cool just as well.

As Barwick explained it above, both cores will hold the same volume of air for teh same amount of time. In the shorter core the air flows SLOWER and spends the same amount of time inside as the air flowing through the longer core becuase the air in that core is flowing FASTER due to the smaller cross section and the same volume of air.

I think it would be much harder to make an end tank to use the 24 * 12" core efficiently though. It would need internal fins to direct the air across the whole core to work optimally.

RETed

Uh, WTF???

At a derivative of delta-time, yes both cores have the same amount of air.  They do NOT do this with the same airflow rates - how are you assuming the shorter rows are moving SLOWER?  You're totally ignoring pressure drop!  You're trying to apply Bernoulli's theorem on a wrong application; Bernoulli's theorem only applies to unobstructed laminar flow, and not turbulent flow like the intercooler row with has internal fins as heat sinks.

For every inch of the intercooler row, the flow rate potential is the same.  If we're assuming the turbo is pushing more than the IC core can handle (i.e. IC core is the restriction), then airflow is identical through an inch of a row of the IC core.  The airflow would flow SLOWER through the longer row!



-Ted

Barwick

does anyone have a freaking flow bench? Let's solve this sucker, and let's check the heat transfer as well.

Oh by the way it'll have internall baffle(s) to get the air to the proper places.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

that right there is going to be a lot of effort to setup

Carl Byck

" at some point common sense wins out over engineering, and in this case, I believe we have reached that point. My IAT will be lower than somebody using a smaller IC all other things being equal, The End. Respectfully submitted, Carl [/B][/QUOTE] " like I said...

Carl Byck

BTW here is your IC, but you are gionna need a bigger car

Carl Byck

http://www.supraforums.com/forum/att...postid=1090173


damn forum

Carl Byck

notice it takes 8 wheels just to hold the thing up

Carl Byck

here you go, sorry

reboot