Mods : Get More Cooling Capacity From Your Radiator

[pokipoki]

http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/images/0906_finished.jpg

1-pass crossflow radiator modded into 3-pass radiator (http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-06_radiator.asp) (achieved by inserting baffles into tank - see blue arrows in pic)

Better cooling with the same radiator and fans, but at the expense of pressure.

Note : Differences between a crossflow rad and a downflow rad


Crossflow vs. Downflow Radiators
Crossflow radiators have radiator rows located horizontally so that water travels across the radiator, and downflow radiators have rows positioned vertically so that water travels downward. A crossflow radiator is typically more efficient than a downflow for the simple reason that the pressure cap is located on the low-pressure side (opposite the outlet or upper hose location). This cap location allows sustained high-rpm operation without forcing fluid past the cap. In addition, under-hood-space considerations typically allow a shorter and wider crossflow radiator to utilize a larger core with added surface area, which provides more effective and efficient cooling.

source (http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0504_cooling_system_info/index.html)

[Rob_B]

Is that going to cool better? There is less water running longer in the rad. With a single pass it will have more water a shorter time in the rad.

[Bli]

Interesting... Do you have any testing results comparing the two?

[schoolslave]

Why anyone would want to go through the trouble of using a modded airplane radiator for PC watercooling when there are PC-specific radiators on the market is beyond me.... :confused:

[ryan92084]

Why anyone would want to go through the trouble of using a modded airplane radiator for PC watercooling when there are PC-specific radiators on the market is beyond me.... :confused:

where is your modding spirit?

[Cookiesowns]

Why anyone would want to go through the trouble of using a modded airplane radiator for PC watercooling when there are PC-specific radiators on the market is beyond me.... :confused:

This forum is called "Xtremesystems" for a reason :)

[Vetalar]

Why ... using a modded airplane radiator... :confused:

why not? if someone already have it collecting dust in the garage :)

[pokipoki]

Is that going to cool better? There is less water running longer in the rad. With a single pass it will have more water a shorter time in the rad.


Myth: Water must slow down to fully absorb heat.

Reality: In a closed loop, a given water molecule actually spends
the same amount of time in the radiator, no matter how fast it is
moving, as long as the water is indeed moving.

If this is a difficult concept to understand, think about a race car on a track.
If the track is one mile (5280 ft) long and the car is driving at 60
mph, the car will spend about one second in a 100 ft stretch. Think
of the 100 ft stretch as the radiator.

If the speed is doubled, the car only spends ½ a second in the 100 ft section, but it passes through that same section twice a minute, so it spends a total of one second in the 100 ft section per minute.

source (http://www.overclockers.com/watercooling-myths-exposed/)


Interesting... Do you have any testing results comparing the two?

None. From various discussions on car radiators, it all depends on the local context and various factors (radiator bypass, low fan pressure etc). Google "single pass vs 2 pass radiator" to read the opposing views with different results.


Why anyone would want to go through the trouble of using a modded airplane radiator for PC watercooling when there are PC-specific radiators on the market is beyond me.... :confused:

You can refer to the article, it's at the 2nd paragraph. A little history on what pc-wc started could be helpful.


HOW IT’S DONE
For this illustration we are using a new, all-aluminum, Chevrolet-style cross-flow radiator measuring 31 inches wide by 19 inches high by 3 inches thick, which can be purchased for around $200 from a racing speed shop.

[Mudgey]

dude, you should have tested it before and after modifications to find out which is best.

I personally do not believe you will notice a difference either way.

[Utnorris]

Cool mod and kudos to you for doing something outside of just buying a rad. I like to see mods on all types of parts. Personally, I do not have the time or tools for these types of mods, so I have to resort to throwing cash at the problem. I like the concept, would have been neat to have the before and after data, but it's done now. The main thing with this hobby is to have fun and it looks like you are having some fun.

[MpG]

Neat mod, but

The theory is that more of the water will spend more time in the core, which will exponentially increase cooling capacity.
This fallacy makes me highly skeptical of the effectiveness of the mod.

True, you'd have higher fluid velocity within the rad, which could translate into more turbulence and better heat transferal, but a properly spec-ed automotive water pump should be giving plenty of flow anyway. In a computer setting, with a weaker pump, there might be some merit. Of course, considering that this involves some serious square-footage of radiator, one has to question whether the advantage is even needed.

[meanmoe]

Myth: Water must slow down to fully absorb heat.

Reality: In a closed loop, a given water molecule actually spends
the same amount of time in the radiator, no matter how fast it is
moving, as long as the water is indeed moving.

If this is a difficult concept to understand, think about a race car on a track.
If the track is one mile (5280 ft) long and the car is driving at 60
mph, the car will spend about one second in a 100 ft stretch. Think
of the 100 ft stretch as the radiator.

If the speed is doubled, the car only spends ½ a second in the 100 ft section, but it passes through that same section twice a minute, so it spends a total of one second in the 100 ft section per minute.
source (http://www.overclockers.com/watercooling-myths-exposed/)


.

This is an approximation...
(rather, the reasoning is sound, but treats heat rate as constant)

Now here's a source (http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html)