Engine Coolant

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Engine Coolant

Post

I am reading that almost all teams still use regular H2O in their cooling systems. After studying a substance called "ferofluid" where 25nm particles of iron oxide is suspended in water to make a magnetic fluid, I wondered if the same could be done with other metals.

The more I investigated, the more interesting the proposition of using the same process to suspend 25nm particles of either aluminum or copper in the wather became. The suspension process guarantees that there would be no clumping effects, and that heat would not seperate the suspension.

My question is, would water that is 10% copper by volume offer better cooling than just plain water? And if so, would aluminum or copper be the better colloid metal for heat transferrence?

Thanks!

Chris

User avatar
Steven
Owner
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 18:32
Location: Belgium

Post

Good question!

Instinctively I would say that adding copper particles to water for improved heat transfer would not help. As far as I know the heat transfer properties of solid metals are mainly the result of their roster structure, resulting in free electrons.

Free electrons residing in the hot area of the material pick up heat energy, which is in the form of kinetic energy. Migration of the free electrons to cooler areas results in some of this kinetic energy being imparted on the surrounding lattice, or individual free electrons. Transference of this kinetic energy (in the form of vibrations) comes about by collision with other electrons, or the lattice structure in general.

Fluids of any kind (whatever the material) do not have this property and therefore have a far lower thermal conductivity. Therefore I presume it won't make too much (if any) difference.

Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Post

Thanks for the reply!

This place is great! I can quickly jot down what has been rattling around in my head, and get a serious, explanitive answer within a few hours.

Thanks alot, I have many more questions and concepts that I will share on this board, and I appreciate getting direct and scientific answers.

Thanks again,

Chris

Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Post

Does anyone else think that this is bunk? Or at lease willing to pitch in for a special order from Ferro-Tech to do some testing?

I would deffinately ask for a quote and contribute if there is a credible poster on here that can do the independant testing.

Chris

Belatti
Belatti
33
Joined: 10 Jul 2007, 21:48
Location: Argentina

Post

viewtopic.php?t=3862

Hey men, a link to another older thread about engine coolant.
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio

"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna

ginsu
ginsu
0
Joined: 17 Jan 2006, 02:23

Post

Yeah, water has the highest specific heat for like all materials.
Specific heat capacity, also known simply as specific heat, is the measure of the heat energy required to increase the temperature of a unit quantity of a substance by a certain temperature interval.
Copper solid 24.47 J/mol*K


Water

gas (100 °C) 37.47 J/mol*K
liquid (25 °C) 75.327 J/mol*K
solid (0 °C) 38.09 J/mol*K

Looks like liquid water takes the cake here, this is at Constant Volume, which is comparable to the water in a radiator. Kind of strange with all the exotic materials these days that liquid H20 is still the king of refrigerants. Obviously, the only problem is if your near freezing temperatures, but Ice would still be better than copper!

If you want to know more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capac ... t_capacity
I love to love Senna.

Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Post

ginsu wrote:Yeah, water has the highest specific heat for like all materials.
Specific heat capacity, also known simply as specific heat, is the measure of the heat energy required to increase the temperature of a unit quantity of a substance by a certain temperature interval.
Copper solid 24.47 J/mol*K


Water

gas (100 °C) 37.47 J/mol*K
liquid (25 °C) 75.327 J/mol*K
solid (0 °C) 38.09 J/mol*K

Looks like liquid water takes the cake here, this is at Constant Volume, which is comparable to the water in a radiator. Kind of strange with all the exotic materials these days that liquid H20 is still the king of refrigerants. Obviously, the only problem is if your near freezing temperatures, but Ice would still be better than copper!

If you want to know more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capac ... t_capacity
I understand the heat capacity numbers, but I would think that the SPEED of absorbsion and release would be a larger factor than the total capacity. Remember, the coolant system is pressurized up to 5BAR (or something), so the coolant is flowing at a very high rate of speed.

It may not work better than water, but does anyone know the difference in the absorb and release speed of water and copper/aluminum?

Thanks

Chris

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

Here's an idea, and please feel free to shoot holes in my idea, but I had an epiphany. What if the metallic additive could have magnetic properties, posessed by metals such as iron or steel? Now, by placing electromagnets at strategic locations, induce fluid flow, such as described in the movie "The Hunt For Red October". The caterpillar drive, which does exist in real science. I don't know if it is efficient enough to be practical, but what the heck, I hope so because it's a fundamental principle to this concept. Maybe not enough for racing, but maybe production vehicles? But I can already see lots of disadvantages. Added weight, complexity, cost, difficulty in construction and assembly, to just begin with.
But there's one advantage that may be interesting, because we could wind up with a cooling system with no moving parts.

Saribro
Saribro
6
Joined: 28 Jul 2006, 00:34

Post

DaveKillens wrote:Here's an idea, and please feel free to shoot holes in my idea, but I had an epiphany. What if the metallic additive could have magnetic properties, posessed by metals such as iron or steel?
Actually, metals in your cooling system thends to cause erosion of your lines if you're not careful, due to different electronegative values of the metals in the coolant and lines. Added to this, water has a high specific heat capacity, so it's usually not worth it adding crap to it to try and aid cooling.

Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Post

DaveKillens wrote:Here's an idea, and please feel free to shoot holes in my idea, but I had an epiphany. What if the metallic additive could have magnetic properties, posessed by metals such as iron or steel? Now, by placing electromagnets at strategic locations, induce fluid flow, such as described in the movie "The Hunt For Red October". The caterpillar drive, which does exist in real science. I don't know if it is efficient enough to be practical, but what the heck, I hope so because it's a fundamental principle to this concept. Maybe not enough for racing, but maybe production vehicles? But I can already see lots of disadvantages. Added weight, complexity, cost, difficulty in construction and assembly, to just begin with.
But there's one advantage that may be interesting, because we could wind up with a cooling system with no moving parts.
It's a funny thing that you should say what you just did, since I came up with the coolant epiphany while spending several hundred hours researching and developing my concept of using a very similar system to pressurize hydraulic fluid for use to drive a hydraulic motor that could replace current internal combustion gasoline engines in automobiles.

Unfortunately, everyone that I have shared this concept with (other than a close engineering friend of mine who has several engineering degrees in different disciplines) thinks that it is impossible.

Now if only I could find someone willing to invest some capital so I can actually build the prototype that I have spent so much time developing, we can all find the answer on if it works or not.

Any takers on this forum for a lifetime %??? :D

Chris

Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Post

Saribro wrote:
DaveKillens wrote:Here's an idea, and please feel free to shoot holes in my idea, but I had an epiphany. What if the metallic additive could have magnetic properties, posessed by metals such as iron or steel?
Actually, metals in your cooling system thends to cause erosion of your lines if you're not careful, due to different electronegative values of the metals in the coolant and lines. Added to this, water has a high specific heat capacity, so it's usually not worth it adding crap to it to try and aid cooling.
First, the metal additive is by necessity coated with a surfacant to allow it to fully go into solution, so there would be zero metal on metal contact.

Second, the concept is not necessarily the specific heat density of the materials, it is the ability to quickly absorb the heat, then quickly disipate it in the radiator. It is not a question of max density, its a question of speed since the coolant system is under pressure, and has a very hi flow rate.

Third, copper is a prescious metal that is in high demand currently and far from the "crap" that your statement infers.

Thanks for your input tho, I appreciate any shared wisdom before spending money to try it out.

I am currently awaiting a quote on the manufacture of 5 gallons of this stuff. Is there any poster that has the credibility to do an independant test and post the results here? If there are enough people here that are willing to chip in to purchase the mixture, I think that the results should be openly shared with the people that contribute, as well as an equal share of any possible profit that could be made if the test results prove positive.

Is there a member that would be willing to test this product?

Chris

ginsu
ginsu
0
Joined: 17 Jan 2006, 02:23

Post

have you taken thermodynamics and heat transfer classes?

for one, the faster the fluid flows the higher the rate of convective heat transfer so that's probably why it is preferable to have a high flow rate, this is called forced convection.

also the pressure being 5 bar prevents the water from boiling at 100C, in fact it can reach 151C before boiling which is preferable since the vapor has a half the specific heat capacity (see previous post)
Temperature (T) 151.9 C
Pressure (P) 5.0000 bar
personally, (although i have not done alot of heat exchanger problems yet) i do not think the problem is with the water not being able to transfer heat, but rather exchange that heat with the outside air.

- convective heat transfer from the water to the inside radiator surface
- conduction through the inside radiator surface to the outside surface
- convective heat transfer from the outside radiator surface to the outside air

i'm pretty sure that the limiting value is the heat transfer to the outside air, lets see:

the equations:

dQ/dt = rate of heat tranfer
h = convective heat transfer coefficient
A = area
L = material thickness
DT = temperature difference

- convection (inside): dQ/dt = h*A*DT

obviously, water is ideal here because of it's specific heat capacity,

* h_Water - 500 to 10 000 W/m2K


- conduction: dQ/dt = k*A*DT/L

*k_silver = 429 W/m*K
*k_copper = 401 W/m*K
*k_aluminum 221 W/m*K

thin silver tubing is ideal, but probably has bad mechanical properties at high temperatures and pressures (not sure though)


- convection (outside): dQ/dt = h*A*DT

* h_Air - 10 to 100 W/m2K


Yup, definitely looks like convection to the outside air is the bottleneck here, depending on flow conditions it's between 100-1000 times worse than water at transferring heat.
I love to love Senna.

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

ginsu wrote:Yup, definitely looks like convection to the outside air is the bottleneck here, depending on flow conditions it's between 100-1000 times worse than water at transferring heat.
The current fashion

of shaping the pontoon ducts is so that the air slows down some around the heat exchangers. Seemingly this wouldn't necessarily bode well with inducing maximum forced convection, but perhaps the flow at most times is sufficient still and it's better to avoid some drag than induce massive pressure differences around the heat exchangers.

The heat exchanger grid designs surely are optimised to use the mazimum of the passing mass of gases. Large compound surface area, very tight mesh and I would be surprised if the small vortices and such between single elements hadn't been minutely studied too, to expose the shapes to the largest possible temp differences in an unevenly heated mass of air while it finds its way through the structure. Without mechanical fans, low speeds are more significant in this respect, of course.

I don't know/remember what measures beyond the direct coolant flow, if any, are in place to keep the engine and transmission components at optimal temperatures (beyond acknowledging the thermodynamic variables of working the components of the engine and the transmission itself). One can imagine certain coolant flow speed variablity built in the current systems already, but perhaps not any secondary systems since weight and balance are such overriding issues in the overall dynamics.

Before the 10 year engine freeze thingy came about, some suggestions promised variable aero in this area. I certainly think the pontoons and heat exchangers have a lot of design potential still, in all aspects - shaping, placing, secondary functions. Now, I can't see how the suggestions related with an improved L/D ratio can be realised, heat exchangers included. Speeds would soon reach critically unsafe levels without radically different, more efficient and economical engine and powertrain concepts.

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

I think that some posts are attempting to substitute engineering for conceptulization The original thread on this subject, is much more suited, to a continued examination of "free-thinking" about new ideas:

viewtopic.php?t=3862

Conceptual
Conceptual
0
Joined: 15 Nov 2007, 03:33

Post

Carlos wrote:I think that some posts are attempting to substitute engineering for conceptulization The original thread on this subject, is much more suited, to a continued examination of "free-thinking" about new ideas:

viewtopic.php?t=3862
Maybe i found the wrong forum entirely? I do believe that I was clear about my post beibg conceptual, not engineering fact.

If my questions continue to be a bother, please let me know, and I will find someplace else to post my ideas.

Chris