[s-cars] Re: Air to Water intercoolers

[Mark Strangways]

Let me throw this at you... :-)

I think you will like it.

If we used a glycol mixture (since I am in Canada), we could set up things
like so,
    Air to fluid exchanger,
    Storage tank,
    Fluid to fluid exchanger (with the second fluid being refrigerant of
course)
    Add a thermostatic control to the refrigeration system so that you
maintain a set point in the storage tank.

Now you have a system that is automatic, stores energy, and can be you can
shut the compressor off during WOT pulls.

No HP loose when you need it, and you could set things up to turn the
compressor on during de-acceleration phases and therefore grab some of that
energy.

Sound fun ? I think so ! Will I build it, not unless I can find a few tens
of hours around.
I have bigger fish to fry, and I love my water injection :)

Mark S
----- Original Message -----
From: "mlp qwest" <mlped at qwest.net>
To: "Mark Strangways" <strangconst at rogers.com>; <Djdawson2 at aol.com>;
<toddekramer at msn.com>; <s-car-list at audifans.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:17 PM
Subject: RE: [s-cars] Re: Air to Water intercoolers


> Mark - I don't think I'm disagreeing with you.  From what I've seen of the
> charge (intake) air to water heat exchangers, they generally seem, at
least
> the photos do, to be much more compact than equivalent air to air units.
> It's one of the air to water units potential packaging advantages.  On the
> other hand, the charge air exchanger is only one of the two heat
exchangers
> that an air to water system needs.  It looks to me like the individual air
> to water cores can be extremely efficient, but you have to use two of them
> in the air to water systems - Don't I get to argue that, to a certain
> extent, you have to add the efficiency losses across both heat exchanges
> together?  Second, for the most part (at least within the air to air FMIC
> that have been done to date), well the heat exchange area's are huge, even
> in comparison to the stock air to air unit.
>
> OTOH, from what little I know about the process, at least as important, if
> not perhaps more so, are comparing pressure, or?  pumping losses, along
with
> the extent of the temperature drop across the charge air heat exchange
> system.  I think one gets to ignore the pressure loss across the 2nd
> external radiator in the air to water setups, but pressure loss across the
> charge air heat exchanger, whether in an air to air or air to water
system,
> I would guess could be compared on a 1:1 basis, with the advantage going
to
> the system with the least restriction or pressure loss?  Depending on the
> designs used, its my impression that some of the air to water exchangers
> feel they often have an advantage on pressure loss vs. some of the really
> "efficient" air to air units, e.g. the long 24", thickly internally
> "turbulated" side to side runs on units like Hap's and my and a few
others,
> like Brian Bilotti and Josh Moody's FMIC adaptations.  I guess the claim
is,
> they can offer more heat transfer capacity in a small "run" for less
> drag/pumping loss.  Unfortunately my amateur attempts to get some "real"
> measured pressure loss number for the stock IC came to naught.  Couldn't
get
> the manometer to provide a differential pressure reading for some reason.
>
> Heck, let's have some one build & install an air to water unit on their
car
> and report the results.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ~-----Original Message-----
> ~From: Mark Strangways [mailto:strangconst at rogers.com]
>
> ~
> ~Mike I have to disagree on the air to water being LESS efficient
> ~than air to
> ~air.
> ~I can get a much closer ratio of water in to air out temperatures than is
> ~possible with air to air exchangers.
> ~Water has a higher moisture content than air does (obviously) and
> ~essentially than is all that is heating up...
> ~There really is very little latent energy in dry air.
> ~
> ~I cannot write very good explanations with out many drafts so I hope this
> ~makes sense.
> ~
> ~If you had to remove as much heat using air to air methods in your
fridge,
> ~the surface area's of the heat exchangers would be huge.
> ~I can get a 100,000 BTU hydronic coil (hydronic is the term for hot water
> ~heating) and put it into a relatively small (sq.ft) air stream. I can get
> ~air temperatures fairly close to the exiting water temp while passing
1000
> ~CFM over it.
> ~
> ~Mark S
> ~
> ~
>
>