Chuck Spalding wrote:
>
> Douglas,
>
> I'm sure you'll hear from people who are more knowledgable about this
> than I am, but here's my two-cents worth.
>
> I recall previous postings about air-line plumbing that claimed that
> copper work hardens, becoming brittle and subject to rupture. That may
> be true, but I can't help notice that my employer's 90,000 square-foot
> facility uses copper for all its many air lines.
>
> The intercoolers I recall seeing had a single large tube with lots of
> fins, like a big radiant-heater tube. Is it possible for you to easily
> plumb your design to be effectively like this (use your imagination):
>
> +------------------------------+
> | |
> +----------------------------+ |
> | |
> +----------------------------+ |
> | |
> +----------------------------+ |
> | |
> +----------------------------+ |
> | |
>
> Considering the small diameter of your tubing, that serpentine might be
> too constricting. However, I wonder how effective your parallel paths
> would actually be.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chuck
>
Chuck,
Thanks for your feedback--regarding the serpentine vs. parallel
approach, I guess I was thinking that with the parallel approach, the
air would spend the same time in the "cooler" either way--it would just
move more slowly through the parallel approach and, hopefully, it would
be less restrictive. I was thinking about putting the "feed" side at
the motor end, and the exit side in front of the flywheel/fan, hopefully
keeping a reasonably high thermal gradient along the full length.
But, honestly, I am just guessing here and would appreciate any advice
or opinions.
thanks again,
shook
B50SS advocate
|