Scientific Approach to Intercooler Research

[Gr8Speed]

So my school decided I need to do a Senior Project. I figured what better thing to do than do some research on the car. @Bullet; and I often talk about ways we could make the intercooling system more efficient creatively. He has some crazy awesome ideas aswell. I've been curious on some of the water/water-meth sprayers that have been attempted on our platform and am curious to see why they are failing. This works on the Subarus, why not on our cars? I decided I am going to take a scientific approach to this rather than just building something and seeing what it does. I will make comparisons between different setups to attempt to measure the benefits of an upgraded intercooler. Yes, we all know its better. What we don't have is a comparison of stock intercooler did X and upgrade did Y. I will attempt to put some level of comparison with hard numbers between these during my process. The intercooler I will be using is a StreetUnit (Cullen Eats Penises).

I'll have a week before I start my testing/building so any suggestions are not only welcome but would be much appreciated! If this project fails, I don't really care. I want to try it and put some level of science behind why it worked/why it didn't work.

Here is the start to my paper:

Abstract: Forced induction applications require the use of a heat exchanger. This heat exchanger is often times inefficient in cooling properties while being mounted on the top of the engine due to lack of airflow. This can be combated with improved ducting, the spraying of a water-methanol mixture, and improved insulation.

Introduction: In modern forced induction applications, a major element that is battled is heat. Most turbochargers and superchargers will output heat at temperatures of 250-350 degrees Fahrenheit. This is combated with the use of intercoolers. Intercoolers are heat exchangers often consisting of an air-to-air transfer. Hot air travels into the bars of the intercooler and in contact with the cold walls of the bars. This heats the bars and cools the air within. Cool air flows over the fins that are attached to the bars and cools the bars while heating the air outside. A problem faced with top mounted intercoolers, which are located on top of the engine, is that the air is trapped within the engine bay. Ducting is used on the front of the car to move air into the engine bay and flow over the intercooler. While the car is not moving, heat soak occurs. Heat soak is the result of a lack of airflow over the intercooler, the hot air is trapped and instead of cooling the air within the bars the heat transfer is limited and inefficient. Another issue faced is the lack of ducting removing the hot air. In the given circumstance, hot air travels above cold air. This traps the hot air on the top of the engine bay, and does not allow it to vent downward. The ducting for the intercooler promotes the opposite flow. The cold air is introduced from the top and the hot air is forced downward to escape over the engine bay. Because of the lack of space for an ideal venting situation, I propose to cool the air on both the top side of the intercooler with the use of a sprayed water-methanol mixture and improve the exit ducting to allow the hot air to escape more efficiently. Methanol is an alcohol that is highly flammable when concentrated, so it is often diluted with water. The particular mixture I am using a an off-the-shelf windshield washer fluid. The water-methanol mixture will absorb some of the heat exchanged from the intercooler when it evaporates, and thus allow more heat to be exchanged. The ducting will allow the air to escape, and allow more cold air to enter. These two things combined with the use of more effective insulation under the intercooler will allow for reduced boosted air temperatures and result in gains in performance.

Procedure:
1. I will test the stock intercooler with a Mass Air Flow Sensor Calibration set to flow the maximum allowed air at a targetted 21 PSI and record the resulting airflow. Ambient Air Temperature, Intake Air Temperature, and Boosted Air Temperature will also be recorded. The engine will be fully warmed up and should be at 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

2. I will test the upgraded intercooler with a Mass Air Flow Sensor Calibration set to flow the maximum air allowed at a targetted 21 PSI and record the resulting airflow. Ambient Air Temperature, Intake Air Temperature, and Boosted Air Temperature will also be recorded. The engine will be fully warmed up and should be at 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

3. I will test the upgraded intercooler with a Mass Air Flow Sensor Calibration set to flow the maximum air allowed at a targetted 21 PSI and record the resulting airflow. Ambient Air Temperature, Intake Air Temperature, and Boosted Air Temperature will also be recorded. The engine will be fully warmed up and should be at 190 degrees Fahrenheit. This test will also include an improved air ducting exit system and silicon sealed air ducting entry system.

4. I will allow the car to sit for 10 minutes in order to heat soak the intercooler. I will record Ambient Air Temperature, Intake Air Temperature, and Boosted Air Temperature. I will then spray a water-methanol mixture over the intercooler and record any change in temperatures.

[Fjager]

you have to take into account the intake manifold is also getting heat soaked as your car warms up and warms the incoming air after the intercooler, the BAT sensor is located in the intake manifold and can also get heatsoaked. in order to do a proper test you would need some sort of sensor directly after the intercooler outlet and one before the intercooler as well to record the difference. also pressure drop if you could.

[Fjager]

I've also thought about doing intercooler sprayers but I have a FMIC so it is a little bit more practical for me to do it since I have more air flowing through the intercooler to cool the water. Like how when you feel a breeze after getting out of a pool, when there is no breeze you aren't as cold, same principle would apply I think. I read about someone wanting to try sprayers and hooking them up to a boost sensor so after a certain psi you get automatic spray, with a manual override for when sitting in traffic. traffic won't help much at first because the water would just absorb the heat and become soaked and not evaporate effectively, but when you start moving airflow increases, a good concept but so far hasn't been implemented or observed to do much good... good luck getting some results, better than no results as others have had. I do hope you can get some results as I want to try this sometime in the future as well. Just one word of caution, methanol is corrosive, I wouldn't recommend spraying it, personally I would just spray water, although meth I'm sure is 1000 times more effective at cooling.

[SyntheticAtmosphere]

12-inch slimline cooling fan mounted to top mount signaled to turn on by brake pedal thru brake light circuit? I know it sounds fromage, but ive entertained the thought in my head. Would be interesting to see the results.

[Gr8Speed]

I'm going to be adding an electric vacuum under the intercooler also. I think the issue with most intercooler misters is that the air still isn't moving. A vacuum would take the hot air out and allow the mist to travel through the fins. We'll see how things work out, as I'll be working on fabbing everything up this week.

[Vansquish]

What sort of program are you in?

The only reason I ask is that there's a fair bit of flow modeling you should be doing if you're going to get any real, measurable, improvement in the hot-air evacuation from the intercooler.

Currently, the system is set up so that the air that enters the hood scoop (GenPu) or the ducting (Gen1/MS6) and flows through the intercooler is evacuated through the opening at trailing edge of the undertray.

My suspicion is that without being able to increase the space between the intercooler and the valve cover and improve the low pressure extraction zone somehow, you're not going to be able to improve upon the OE intercooler all that much.

Furthermore, from a scientific perspective, since that seems to be the point of the thread, you're changing an awful lot of variables to try and test your WM/sprayer.

How many iterations of each test are you planning on running? In order to have statistically-significant results, you're going to have to do a LOT.

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Vansquish What sort of program are you in? The only reason I ask is that there's a fair bit of flow modeling you should be doing if you're going to get any real, measurable, improvement in the hot-air evacuation from the intercooler. Currently, the system is set up so that the air that enters the hood scoop (GenPu) or the ducting (Gen1/MS6) and flows through the intercooler is evacuated through the opening at trailing edge of the undertray. My suspicion is that without being able to increase the space between the intercooler and the valve cover and improve the low pressure extraction zone somehow, you're not going to be able to improve upon the OE intercooler all that much. Furthermore, from a scientific perspective, since that seems to be the point of the thread, you're changing an awful lot of variables to try and test your WM/sprayer. How many iterations of each test are you planning on running? In order to have statistically-significant results, you're going to have to do a LOT.

Although I say "scientific" I don't by any means mean to find out exactly how "x" part of system helped and "y" part helped too. I mean I'm going to take the results of stock IC, upgraded IC, and then with the sprayer/evacuation system and then compare between the 3 instead of just saying "yeah it helped a little". Just want to provide some evidence that it helps a little. So I will be taking logs with all three systems in the same locations with same conditions.

It's not going to be a perfect experiment by any means, but at least it will have some level of comparison with some hard data.

[Vansquish]

Without taking a lot of data, under relatively controlled conditions, you're not going to have much that will actually provide a firm foundation for a paper. That's what I'm trying to get at.

I'm not trying to shoot down your thoughts, mind you, I'm just trying to make sure that you end up with the best result for your project, and to get a decent grade.

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Vansquish Without taking a lot of data, under relatively controlled conditions, you're not going to have much that will actually provide a firm foundation for a paper. That's what I'm trying to get at. I'm not trying to shoot down your thoughts, mind you, I'm just trying to make sure that you end up with the best result for your project, and to get a decent grade.

Yeah I appreciate your comments! It just really isn't feasible to get a super conclusive data set with what I have. I'm more interested in just seeing if there are any results at all. I'm going to do my best to get the most unbiased results I can. I think I'll be able to get the conditions to be close enough that I'll be able to get at least an idea of "did this help, or no?" which is really all the school is looking for. They want me to implement an idea and report what worked/what didn't and how it worked.

[Mazdazilla6]

I would consider doing multiple tests on days where the ambient temps are drastically different (like 20F). I would assume the effects of the water would be more exponential than linear.

[Gr8Speed]

Ran into a problem with the ducting under the intercooler. I decided that since I am routing the vacuum off of that duct that runs to the battery, I would raise the IC a little bit, and block off the back side from flowing over the exhaust manifold area. This proved to be useless, and caused the IC to heaksoak super fast. If I'm going less than 20 mph it's over 100 degrees, and I'm in 40 degree ambient temps. I'm guessing its a combination of not enough flow over the top of the IC (since its raised) and not enough flow underneath, since it was diverted to the front and sides. I have not added the vacuum yet, but the idea was that the vacuum would only be needed when I'm not moving and I would rely on the current system to cool while I'm moving.

The sprayer I am noticing does not "cool" it at all, but I have noticed it takes longer to heat soak while it is spraying. Maybe it is absorbing some of the hot air when it evaporates? Either way, since this mod cost me $6, I'd consider cost/benefit to be worth it. I think once vacuum is added, I might see a little bit more benefit, especially seeing as the water/meth will be getting pulled through the fins instead of pooling on top of the intercooler.

So, back to the drawing board on the ducting. I am wondering if it really is even beneficial to modify the ducting underneath. Maybe having the vacuum pulling air will be enough to help. I mean really, it may not be ideal, but air moving is better than air sitting. Maybe I can spray the water/meth UNDER the intercooler and that way when it vacuums it will pull the water/meth through. I'm going to be doing more testing tonight on this.
@Vansquish; you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on this kind of stuff, any ideas?

[Gr8Speed]

@Payne Racing 67; @Tokay444; I was reading some threads and found you guys were really the only ones that discussed the practicality of this. Did anyone ever try anything? I have a Shopvac rigged up to work, just need to duct it.

I'm also thinking of heat wrapping my exhaust manifold and downpipe.

What do you guys think of the idea of reversing the flow and sucking the air through the battery duct? This would only be while I'm not moving. I feel my IC does a decent enough job while moving.

[Vansquish]

Originally Posted by Gr8Speed Ran into a problem with the ducting under the intercooler. I decided that since I am routing the vacuum off of that duct that runs to the battery, I would raise the IC a little bit, and block off the back side from flowing over the exhaust manifold area. This proved to be useless, and caused the IC to heaksoak super fast. If I'm going less than 20 mph it's over 100 degrees, and I'm in 40 degree ambient temps. I'm guessing its a combination of not enough flow over the top of the IC (since its raised) and not enough flow underneath, since it was diverted to the front and sides. I have not added the vacuum yet, but the idea was that the vacuum would only be needed when I'm not moving and I would rely on the current system to cool while I'm moving. The sprayer I am noticing does not "cool" it at all, but I have noticed it takes longer to heat soak while it is spraying. Maybe it is absorbing some of the hot air when it evaporates? Either way, since this mod cost me $6, I'd consider cost/benefit to be worth it. I think once vacuum is added, I might see a little bit more benefit, especially seeing as the water/meth will be getting pulled through the fins instead of pooling on top of the intercooler. So, back to the drawing board on the ducting. I am wondering if it really is even beneficial to modify the ducting underneath. Maybe having the vacuum pulling air will be enough to help. I mean really, it may not be ideal, but air moving is better than air sitting. Maybe I can spray the water/meth UNDER the intercooler and that way when it vacuums it will pull the water/meth through. I'm going to be doing more testing tonight on this. @Vansquish; you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on this kind of stuff, any ideas?

I think the problems you're running into stem from the same central source, that is, pressure differentials. It's not clear to me that you have much of a foundational understanding of aerodynamics, and this is crucial to your testing. For instance, you can't just "reverse the flow" of a duct and expect it to work. How are you planning on doing this? Are you adding a mechanical pump to the system?

By tilting the TMIC, you could effectively have improved the flow, but where is that hot air going to go if you block off the area through which it normally travels? I can't understand why you'd block off the area behind it, that's a low-pressure zone, and you want the high-pressure air being directed through the TMIC to flow through that in order to evacuate/cool the engine bay.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but it really sounds like you're not thinking things out before you're doing them. You have to understand the pathways that the air will take and why before you can make effective changes and understand why they worked.

Since aero-engineering is extremely complicated and challenging, I'd suggest you modify your project goals to something more attainable.:

Change the research parameters to something you can actually control and test. Instead of trying to manage airflow and water spray, why don't you focus on the water sprayer itself?

You could experiment with different water/meth mixtures, spray patterns, density, flows, and so forth. This would be relatively easy to test, as you're only changing one parameter at a time, and you could get some pretty solid data.

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Vansquish I think the problems you're running into stem from the same central source, that is, pressure differentials. It's not clear to me that you have much of a foundational understanding of aerodynamics, and this is crucial to your testing. For instance, you can't just "reverse the flow" of a duct and expect it to work. How are you planning on doing this? Are you adding a mechanical pump to the system? By tilting the TMIC, you could effectively have improved the flow, but where is that hot air going to go if you block off the area through which it normally travels? I can't understand why you'd block off the area behind it, that's a low-pressure zone, and you want the high-pressure air being directed through the TMIC to flow through that in order to evacuate/cool the engine bay. I don't mean to sound harsh, but it really sounds like you're not thinking things out before you're doing them. You have to understand the pathways that the air will take and why before you can make effective changes and understand why they worked. Since aero-engineering is extremely complicated and challenging, I'd suggest you modify your project goals to something more attainable.: Change the research parameters to something you can actually control and test. Instead of trying to manage airflow and water spray, why don't you focus on the water sprayer itself? You could experiment with different water/meth mixtures, spray patterns, density, flows, and so forth. This would be relatively easy to test, as you're only changing one parameter at a time, and you could get some pretty solid data.

You're right in that I really don't know a lot about aerodynamics. I'm not running calculations or anything, just trying to logic my way through that portion.

What I am doing to reverse the flow, is adding that Shopvac. It will be sucking the air out through the duct that runs to the battery (I don't think you guys have this on a Speed6, it runs off the ducting under the hood to the battery. So I will be sucking the air out from there. It will be flowing from under the intercooler to the top and out through the vac. This is only going to happen when I have the car not moving. When the car starts moving, the vacuum will kick off and flow will be restored to how it flows stock.

I really am not seeing benefit from the sprayer itself other than that it slows the heat soak down a bit. So in order to see any benefit, I think I'm going to need to add that vacuum. Seeing as the ducting isn't helping and I don't really know what I can do to make that work, maybe I could just simply not worry about ducting and just add the vacuum and see what happens? I have it all set up and ready to go, why not slap it on and see what happens?

We all know the answer to this is going to be FMIC, seeing as I'm already a couple hundred into this thing, and the difference between a TMIC and FMIC is really only a few hundred anyway.

[Dimenus]

@Vansquish; Just to clarify, this is a High School project not a Senior Design Engineering project. No offense @Gr8Speed;, I just wanted to make sure that those who are contributing are aware of the level of analysis required.

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Dimenus @Vansquish; Just to clarify, this is a High School project not a Senior Design engineering project. No offense @Gr8Speed;, I just wanted to make sure that those who are contributing are aware of the level of analysis required.

Yeah thanks. I hadn't realized I didn't mention that anywhere LOL. Basically I need to be able to measure changes and give reasons why. Anything above that is merely icing on the cake. But if I were to say "I did this and it cooled it an extra 5 degrees at 100 degrees, and this is why it did that" that would be adequate.

[Vansquish]

Originally Posted by Gr8Speed You're right in that I really don't know a lot about aerodynamics. I'm not running calculations or anything, just trying to logic my way through that portion. What I am doing to reverse the flow, is adding that Shopvac. It will be sucking the air out through the duct that runs to the battery (I don't think you guys have this on a Speed6, it runs off the ducting under the hood to the battery. So I will be sucking the air out from there. It will be flowing from under the intercooler to the top and out through the vac. This is only going to happen when I have the car not moving. When the car starts moving, the vacuum will kick off and flow will be restored to how it flows stock. I really am not seeing benefit from the sprayer itself other than that it slows the heat soak down a bit. So in order to see any benefit, I think I'm going to need to add that vacuum. Seeing as the ducting isn't helping and I don't really know what I can do to make that work, maybe I could just simply not worry about ducting and just add the vacuum and see what happens? I have it all set up and ready to go, why not slap it on and see what happens? We all know the answer to this is going to be FMIC, seeing as I'm already a couple hundred into this thing, and the difference between a TMIC and FMIC is really only a few hundred anyway.

I'm not necessarily saying that you have to run calculations to figure out where things need to go. What I'm trying to say is that it's not clear to me that you understand enough about the aero to make reasonably logical decisions. Blocking off the escape route for air through the intercooler makes no sense at all. That's why I'm suggesting something you *can* actually control relatively easily.

The shop vac hooked up to the battery duct is unlikely to help for precisely the same reason. You're going to be moving air away from the top of the intercooler, thereby reducing the amount of flow *through* the intercooler. I can almost guarantee that you're going to have noticeably higher BATs when the car is moving and only barely lower ones than stock at rest (if there's any change at all).

It's the flux through the intercooler, and moving the air away from it that you need to focus on, if you're going to continue down this path.

IMO, the only way you're likely to see an improvement in flux through the intercooler, using the shop-vac, is to leave the ductwork where it is, then create a new one that sucks air away from the underside of the intercooler. Basically, make the intercooler look a bit like the OE airbox with a panel filter. Force air through it, and move it away as quickly as possible.

Originally Posted by Dimenus @Vansquish; Just to clarify, this is a High School project not a Senior Design Engineering project. No offense @Gr8Speed;, I just wanted to make sure that those who are contributing are aware of the level of analysis required.

Argh! That's why I asked "What kind of program are you in?" in my very first response to this thread!

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Vansquish I'm not necessarily saying that you have to run calculations to figure out where things need to go. What I'm trying to say is that it's not clear to me that you understand enough about the aero to make reasonably logical decisions. Blocking off the escape route for air through the intercooler makes no sense at all. That's why I'm suggesting something you *can* actually control relatively easily. The shop vac hooked up to the battery duct is unlikely to help for precisely the same reason. You're going to be moving air away from the top of the intercooler, thereby reducing the amount of flow *through* the intercooler. I can almost guarantee that you're going to have noticeably higher BATs when the car is moving and only barely lower ones than stock at rest (if there's any change at all). It's the flux through the intercooler, and moving the air away from it that you need to focus on, if you're going to continue down this path. IMO, the only way you're likely to see an improvement in flux through the intercooler, using the shop-vac, is to leave the ductwork where it is, then create a new one that sucks air away from the underside of the intercooler. Basically, make the intercooler look a bit like the OE airbox with a panel filter. Force air through it, and move it away as quickly as possible. Argh! That's why I asked "What kind of program are you in?" in my very first response to this thread!

My bad, I didn't see that. Sorry for the confusion! But thanks for all the help. I thought about doing it under, but there really isn't a lot of room to pull from under the intercooler. I could try it with a really thin duct though. And I guess that would force air to pull through the top.

[Mattyhawk1]

I commend your efforts.

I think others have mentioned enough about the scientific methodology here, no need to rehash. I will say though, if this is a high school senior project, remember, all they care about is the application of the scientific method. You could do a project that if you flush your toilet, it will a automatically refill itself every time. Sure, a cool project will get you to state, but to get an A, you just need to follow scientific method to the "t".

I will mention your abstract and introduction needs work. Consider your teacher knows nothing about cars, they will know nothing about what you are talking about without proper explanation of unknowns (which are likely many for our cars), which you will spend the body of the paper discussing with proper citations.

I actually didn't know what you were trying to do until I read further down the thread. Even after realizing what you were doing, I reread the intro and still don't see an adequate explanation, mostly in the area of the airflow design of the car and how it relates to a TMIC.

Hope this helps and good luck. I suspect you will learn something great through this process.

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Mattyhawk1 I commend your efforts. I think others have mentioned enough about the scientific methodology here, no need to rehash. I will say though, if this is a high school senior project, remember, all they care about is the application of the scientific method. You could do a project that if you flush your toilet, it will a automatically refill itself every time. Sure, a cool project will get you to state, but to get an A, you just need to follow scientific method to the "t". I will mention your abstract and introduction needs work. Consider your teacher knows nothing about cars, they will know nothing about what you are talking about without proper explanation of unknowns (which are likely many for our cars), which you will spend the body of the paper discussing with proper citations. I actually didn't know what you were trying to do until I read further down the thread. Even after realizing what you were doing, I reread the intro and still don't see an adequate explanation, mostly in the area of the airflow design of the car and how it relates to a TMIC. Hope this helps and good luck. I suspect you will learn something great through this process.

There's a 10 page paper following the abstract/intro that explains everything. If you would like I can link it here but I doubt you want to read 10 pages of "how a car works" lol. That's why I just posted that portion that I think most people here will understand. What parts are unclear about what I'm doing in it? I can revise that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baloo]

Originally Posted by Gr8Speed OP

Looks like an interesting project indeed. Much more interesting than the final project I did in my degree, that is for sure.

I had written up a few pointers about the technical writing but then actually read the rest of the posts and realized that several other people are on it.

[Gr8Speed]

Here's the paper. I don't really touch on airflow a lot, because that was not in my original idea. I was originally going to spray and that was it, but I didn't like the results. I added the idea of the vacuum after the fact. This paper is what "kicks the project off". I will be putting together a portfolio outlining my work throughout the project. That will include the info on why I added the vacuum. If it doesn't work, I'm just going to need to explain why it didn't, and will likely just explain why a FMIC is a better solution.

[Gr8Speed]

Now the part of the paper that is weak in the shorts is obviously "how am I going to get rid of the hot air/cool the air".

That's going to be explained in the portfolio/final project presentation.

I'm having a hard time finding any information on aerodynamics. It would be nice to be able to at least explain the fundamentals behind why I am doing what I'm doing. Does anybody have a link to a good article/paper/site that will help me at least gain a basic understanding? @Baloo; @Mattyhawk1; @Vansquish;

[Vansquish]

I'm editing the paper now...

[Yatta]

I've thought it would be interesting to place a heat riser/duct behind the IC duct on a genpu, with shrouding from under the IC to it, or simply to allow the heat from the TC to vent up and out (as it wants to do). As for your controls, others have mentioned this but ambient temps will affect your results; I would measure airflow on the MAF, record it and the ; 21 PSI is a measure of resistance in your intake compared to current barometric pressure. I am not an engineer (even though they call me one here at my workplace) but this page might help. This is a seriously cool experiment but quite a bit more complicated to do correctly.

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Yatta I've thought it would be interesting to place a heat riser/duct behind the IC duct on a genpu, with shrouding from under the IC to it, or simply to allow the heat from the TC to vent up and out (as it wants to do). As for your controls, others have mentioned this but ambient temps will affect your results; I would measure airflow on the MAF, record it and the ; 21 PSI is a measure of resistance in your intake compared to current barometric pressure. I am not an engineer (even though they call me one here at my workplace) but this page might help. This is a seriously cool experiment but quite a bit more complicated to do correctly.

I'm in the same boat lol. I do Solidworks modeling, product design, and CNC programming and I'm considered an "engineer"...

But I think the only problem with that is that yes the hot air is escaping, but it is running through the IC to do that. So I think it will still heat soak it.

I am going to be doing all of the testing for this on the same day, so differences in temperature and barometric pressure will be minimal. I will also be logging them just to make sure if there is any difference, it will be corrected.

[Mattyhawk1]

After looking at it a bit more, I see three areas that might be areas of improvement.

Couple sentences where wording changes might be considered:
1. "It is common knowledge that hot air moves upward of cold air."
- common knowledge assumes it is a universal truth, but is this the case in all situations? There are outliers occasionally, and you identified one later in the paragraph. Might be better to say "commonly accepted".

2. "Since this idea is not as easy as it may seem,"
- Personal opinion is left exclusively to the conclusion in scientific papers. Best leave this out. Write your sentences as statements, this phrase sounds like you are questioning your own methodology.

Secondly, the intercooler explanation of bars and air through it may be best described in depth in the body of the paper, not the intro, with just a reference to it in the intro. It seems to me it needs more information to properly explain it (with even illustrations). The ducting explanation was also a bit confusing when I tried to look at it as a novice who doesn't know our cars would read it. Might be best left to expansion in the body of the text, your call.

Third is the use of what I would call trade terminology. Things like heat soak or engine bay are acceptable words for us, but a female science teacher with a BS in Biology driving a Prius and has never opened his hood may not know what you are referencing. You did fine with heat exchanger = intercooler, just consider the terminology you use when a 100% noob with the power of life and death of your paper reads this. If this was a trade article or writing this for automotive class, then you are 100% free to use the terminology of the trade.


Take these as simple suggestions, nothing more. I'm not going to pretend I know everything.

I will say, I am excited to see you doing this for a senior project, this is the kind of thinking and curiosity that makes the next generation of engineers and scientists.

[mize13]

For my graduate fluids class, I did a 60ish page research paper on flow through catalytic converters (I.E. porours media flow). I modeled and analyzed different pore geometry, spacing, and hydrualic diameter and used a combination of Matlab, Solidworks, and Ansys (fuck that shit) for the analysis. There is so much to account for with air flow. You need some powerful software (ANSYS) to get a true good model. I just switched from MS to PhD in ME so I'm hoping to revisit this in the future if I have time because I made a bunch of limiting assumptions so that I could it done in a reasonable amount of time without it turning into an additional dissertation.

I commend your efforts.

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Mattyhawk1 After looking at it a bit more, I see three areas that might be areas of improvement. Couple sentences where wording changes might be considered: 1. "It is common knowledge that hot air moves upward of cold air." - common knowledge assumes it is a universal truth, but is this the case in all situations? There are outliers occasionally, and you identified one later in the paragraph. Might be better to say "commonly accepted". 2. "Since this idea is not as easy as it may seem," - Personal opinion is left exclusively to the conclusion in scientific papers. Best leave this out. Write your sentences as statements, this phrase sounds like you are questioning your own methodology. Secondly, the intercooler explanation of bars and air through it may be best described in depth in the body of the paper, not the intro, with just a reference to it in the intro. It seems to me it needs more information to properly explain it (with even illustrations). The ducting explanation was also a bit confusing when I tried to look at it as a novice who doesn't know our cars would read it. Third is the use of what I would call trade terminology. Things like heat soak or engine bay are acceptable words for us, but a female science teacher with a BS in Biology driving a Prius and has never opened his hood may not know what you are referencing. You did fine with heat exchanger = intercooler, just consider the terminology you use when a 100% noob with the power of life and death of your paper reads this. If this was a trade article or writing this for automotive class, then you are 100% free to use the terminology of the trade. Take these as simple suggestions, nothing more. I'm not going to pretend I know everything. I will say, I am excited to see you doing this for a senior project, this is the kind of thinking and curiosity that makes the next generation of engineers and scientists.

Thank you. I am going to revise that to reflect those changes. As far as the terminology in the abstract/intro, I am not that concerned but do see that some changes could be beneficial. I explain a lot of those things in the paper itself. That part is more geared toward people that actually understand the subject. The rest of the paper is more geared toward the people that will not understand that. I'm still going to revise it to explain and define a little bit, because I do see some areas that even to a car mechanic or someone with knowledge of the subject, a definition might be helpful- plus definitions make the paper seem more objective to the reader.

[mize13]

Originally Posted by Mattyhawk1 After looking at it a bit more, I see three areas that might be areas of improvement. Couple sentences where wording changes might be considered: 1. "It is common knowledge that hot air moves upward of cold air." - common knowledge assumes it is a universal truth, but is this the case in all situations? There are outliers occasionally, and you identified one later in the paragraph. Might be better to say "commonly accepted".

Definitely not only case. If the air is stagnant then buoyancy forces caused by density differences induce circulation (natural convection heat transfer), but when is air stagnant in a car's engine bay when the car is on? Never.

[Gr8Speed]

I have updated the introduction. I'm going to just wait on all of the critiques of the paper and then repost the revised paper. I know @Vansquish; is editing it, and @rfinkle2; was also reading it over for me. I really appreciate everyone helping me out on this. Hopefully I'll end up with a pretty cool final result and maybe even a solution to help out with heat soak.

[Vansquish]

Here are my edits. Make sure you have track-changes turned on.

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Vansquish Here are my edits. Make sure you have track-changes turned on.

That's a lot to digest. I'm going to work through all of this tonight and revise it following your suggestions. Thank you for the time you spent editing that for me. I'll hopefully get the paper revised and re-posted tonight.

[Vansquish]

Keep in mind, you don't have to change anything. The modifications I suggested/made were to improve accuracy, readability, understandability, and to try and get you talking from a perspective that gives your statements more credibility.

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Vansquish Keep in mind, you don't have to change anything. The modifications I suggested/made were to improve accuracy, readability, understandability, and to try and get you talking from a perspective that gives your statements more credibility.

Just reading through a few of them, they are very valid points.

[Vansquish]

When's this whole thing due?

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Vansquish When's this whole thing due?

Next week Thursday. LOL. Procrastination at its finest. I've got off until Monday though, so I should be able to bang it out.

[Vansquish]

I should think you'll be able to get it banged out. The edits should only take a couple of hours at most, but the data acquisition/analysis will be interesting.

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by Vansquish I should think you'll be able to get it banged out. The edits should only take a couple of hours at most, but the data acquisition/analysis will be interesting.

I think of it this way:

Finish paper tonight
Work on project tomorrow
Acquire Data Saturday
Analyze Data Sunday

During the week I have time to work on getting the presentation hammered out. Should only take a couple hours.

[Vansquish]

Originally Posted by Gr8Speed I think of it this way: Finish paper tonight Work on project tomorrow Acquire Data Saturday Analyze Data Sunday During the week I have time to work on getting the presentation hammered out. Should only take a couple hours.

I was thinking you were going to have to add all that information to the paper (i.e. have data and analysis sections).