Interesting conversation with a Mech. Engineer at Work

[Bobby_M]

My reaction to the design was that it's much easier and cheaper to build a longer single core design to acheive the same effect as a shorter dual core design. Yes, you'd probably get cooler in a shorter coil, but building the end caps will be a bit more complicated and you have the added cost of a larger outer copper coil also. It's getting to the point where an Ebay plate chiller would be cheaper and much more efficient.

 

[Anthony_Lopez]

I'd have to kindly disagree with you too.. My first car, 1980 citation, would get 27mpg. Now a 2009 corsica with the same motor (3.0 V6) get 27mpg...??
Where's the benefit of 28 years of R&D? Cars are getting no better mileage now than they were in the 80's, it just costs more so we think about it more.

As to the chiller (CFC or not) You can only get as cold as the source water no matter what design or how long or how many tubes you run it through.

We have never stated that we wanted to get the wort cooler than the "cooling" liquid. We are just trying to push the envelope as far as cooling efficiency as well as trying to discuss a topic that many are interested in.

As far as a Chevy Citation, the only information I could find is on a 1985 Citation II with the 6 cylinder. It got 18 city/24 highway.

 

[SILVER13ACK]

here we go!

That would work well in a tube in shell design I'd bet...

I don't get it. You like that design, but every tube in shell design that I recommend you shoot it down like a maimed horse.

If you bend the tube into a U shape, then you have a multi-pass heat exchanger. Bend it into and S and you have another pass.

If you are going to look at tube-in-shell designs then you can go with something like this... errr, nevermind, ASCII art isn't working, and I cant do a pic now.

Basically you have a shell with dampers in it to direct flow across the pipes. Then you have your pipes either coiled or in an S shape(More passes the better). I still don't think it's as efficient for a homebrewer as far as temperature decreases and water usage goes. But maybe you can use much less copper and end up with a cheaper overall design.

Shell and tube heat exchanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heat exchanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ridemywideglide]

Please read the prior posts, the discussion is not whether you can "magically" cool water to below the temperature of the source, it's how you can cool it to that temperature more efficiently.

If your numbers are correct, could you also tell me the Horsepower/torque for both models? I have a hunch that the 2009 corsica has a bit more power.

The car is one example, if you'd rather have a closed mind about these types of things, then go for it. I for one would rather improve than conform.

I wasn't being a smartass or closed minded, and I did read the whole thread.

I would seem the NY'r in you has come out.

 

[JMD87]

The whole point of this forum is to discuss better ways of making beer. If you go into a discussion claiming that 28 years of R&D was a waste of time & money, then prove it.

Don't assume just because I'm from NY I'm a typical "New Yorker". We're trying to have an interesting discussion, and you are just trying to prove why we're wrong instead of adding anything to our conversation.

 

[Ridemywideglide]

You don't have to explain the point of this forum or thread, I understand the principle. I also didn't say 28 years of R&D was a waste of time. I DID state that we are getting no better mileage based on my experience and knowledge of then vs. now mileage statements. You want to know the horsepower etc. of said models here you go;
1981 Chevy 60* v6 found in Citation x-11
170.87ci, 135hp/165#'s tq. Works out to .78hp per cubic inch.

1993 Camaro v6 (but now 3.4 litre)
207.48ci, 160hp/tq not listed. Works out to .77hp per cubic inch.

Later 2005-2008 V6 models (lumina, malibu, etc) do slightly better, but with larger engines as well.

3.4litre/207ci comes out to .86hp/ci - 3.8litre/231ci comes out to .86hp.ci

So it would seem pretty linear to me as far as R&D goes. Making more power is a byproduct of making a larger motor. If I swing a larger hammer, I can hit harder with same input force.
I'm going to make a pretty reasonable assertion that the mileage factor doesn't change a whole lot in 20-25 years. 18-24 (as posted above) seems to be the mean average I found as well with google.

I will didn't assume you as a typical NY'r, you acted like one. And twice now.
I even used the word "kindly" in my first post quoting you. My mistake.
You quickly jump and react like I was personally attacking YOU. When I simply disputed your basis for comparison.

I have no idea what heat transfer or drag coefficients need to be considered, but I'm not a complete idiot either and don't really appreciate you presuming that I am. Maybe you should push that chip off your shoulder before you reply to people.

Hopefully the original topic will resume.

Brad

The whole point of this forum is to discuss better ways of making beer. If you go into a discussion claiming that 28 years of R&D was a waste of time & money, then prove it.

Don't assume just because I'm from NY I'm a typical "New Yorker". We're trying to have an interesting discussion, and you are just trying to prove why we're wrong instead of adding anything to our conversation.

 

[SILVER13ACK]

You don't have to explain the point of this forum or thread, I understand the principle. I also didn't say 28 years of R&D was a waste of time. I DID state that we are getting no better mileage based on my experience and knowledge of then vs. now mileage statements. You want to know the horsepower etc. of said models here you go;
1981 Chevy 60* v6 found in Citation x-11
170.87ci, 135hp/165#'s tq. Works out to .78hp per cubic inch.

1993 Camaro v6 (but now 3.4 litre)
207.48ci, 160hp/tq not listed. Works out to .77hp per cubic inch.

Later 2005-2008 V6 models (lumina, malibu, etc) do slightly better, but with larger engines as well.

3.4litre/207ci comes out to .86hp/ci - 3.8litre/231ci comes out to .86hp.ci

So it would seem pretty linear to me as far as R&D goes. Making more power is a byproduct of making a larger motor. If I swing a larger hammer, I can hit harder with same input force.
I'm going to make a pretty reasonable assertion that the mileage factor doesn't change a whole lot in 20-25 years. 18-24 (as posted above) seems to be the mean average I found as well with google.

I will didn't assume you as a typical NY'r, you acted like one. And twice now.
I even used the word "kindly" in my first post quoting you. My mistake.
You quickly jump and react like I was personally attacking YOU. When I simply disputed your basis for comparison.

I have no idea what heat transfer or drag coefficients need to be considered, but I'm not a complete idiot either and don't really appreciate you presuming that I am. Maybe you should push that chip off your shoulder before you reply to people.

Hopefully the original topic will resume.

Brad

Check the weight of each of those cars. More than likely the cars got heavier and heavier due to safety regulations = worse MPG.

Also, we now have ethanol in almost all of our fuel and that kills power and MPGs.

 

[JMD87]

"Making more power is a byproduct of making a larger motor. If I swing a larger hammer, I can hit harder with same input force."
- The whole point I am trying to make is if you continue to think this way, we'll never have the desire to improve a current design.

"I will didn't assume you as a typical NY'r, you acted like one. And twice now.
I even used the word "kindly" in my first post quoting you. My mistake.
You quickly jump and react like I was personally attacking YOU. When I simply disputed your basis for comparison."
- Maybe so, instead of talking about the OP's design, people were talking about why it was a stupid idea. Perhaps I jumped down your throat assuming you were like the others, if so please accept my apology. I am not here to make enemies, I'm here to talk about homebrew and everything to do with it.


"I have no idea what heat transfer or drag coefficients need to be considered, but I'm not a complete idiot either and don't really appreciate you presuming that I am. Maybe you should push that chip off your shoulder before you reply to people."
- I don't presume anyone to be an idiot, I also don't care for people who are quick to knock other's ideas, no matter how "stupid" they sound. Like I said, maybe I was quick to judge, but I don't find "where's the benefit of 28 years R&D" as positive response.

"Hopefully the original topic will resume."
-Ditto

 

[Anthony_Lopez]

Sweet Jesus... someones gonna scorch the grains with all these flames... Lets try to keep this conversation/discussion within the realm of my intent. If not, I'll just ask for it to be locked and deleted. I can do my own experiments with these HEX designs, I just thought it would be nice to let everyone in on what we have been talking about at work.

 

[sigmund]

Sweet Jesus... someones gonna scorch the grains with all these flames... Lets try to keep this conversation/discussion within the realm of my intent. If not, I'll just ask for it to be locked and deleted. I can do my own experiments with these HEX designs, I just thought it would be nice to let everyone in on what we have been talking about at work.

Your intentions are good but you haven't really shown anything yet, just proposed. It's going to be damned tough to come up with a more efficient design than a CFC for the time and money and skill level to build it. I'm all for new designs and better "stuff", but I also know when to put my efforts into a project and when the laws of diminishing returns takes over. More efficient is one thing, more efficient and cheaper is a whole new ballgame.

 

[Anthony_Lopez]

I completely agree... Projects are easy to build on paper, but once you compile a parts list, things grow exponentially.