Too goofy?

The thermostat serves pupose in the cooling system other than just a temperature regulator...it also regulates flow and provides needed turbulence by presenting an obstacle in the flow of the coolant that churns up the coolant as it passes through...without that turbulence and flow control, the coolant enters the radiator in a near laminar flow, and the result is that the outside of the flow that is in contact with the tubes will cool, but the interior volume will not, and upon re-entering the motor will continue to superheat...

An engine will begin to overheat if run at higher RPMs for extended periods without a thermostat in place...and will not be able to quickly warm itself on start -up as well, with unregulated flow to the radiator...

Anyway...your ideas are not crazy, just have some flaws and kinda amount to re-inventing the wheel...current systems work well and the parts are durable, no reason to change anything...

Your comments are well appreciated.

The turbulence is provided in the radiator, not by the thermostat. The old story that the water circulates too quickly to cool is pure bullshit. Does not hold water.

But still, I know that there are many problems. Problems are made to be solved.

Thanks again.

I didn't say it circulates too fast to cool...and the turbulence going IN to the radiator is what I was referring to. Just had this same conversation with another one who thought they understood all the dynamics of a cooling system.

Familiar with DNB?

Racing engines that don't use a thermostat still will use a reducer in the water outlet. Know why?

View this thread:

A dwarf who clearly couldn't differentiate between either enthalpy and entropy or a Reynolds Number and Reynolds Aluminum, provides a supercilious and didactic, yet totally erroneous "lecture" on Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics.

Too precious, not to mention thoroughly hilarious.

Yes, I am familiar with this. But it has nothing to do with the turbulence in the radiator.

I do not use a reducer in my racecar. It runs cooler with no thermostat, no reducer. In early spring I use a thermostat, but I take it out when I need maximum cooling.

Don

Same here. I run with nutin in the thermostat housing. I put reducers in to heat it up when its 65 degrees or less outside. Ifin it don't run

160 or so with nutin in it, you got other problems. Taking a thermostat out makes an engine "not reach operating temperture". I've run into a few exceptions to the rule, but 95% of the time, an engine will run cooler with the thermostat out! Simple example: thermostat out or stuck open, got heat, defroster melt the ice off the windshield?!?!

Same here. I run with nutin in the thermostat housing. I put reducers in to heat it up when its 65 degrees or less outside. Ifin it don't run

160 or so with nutin in it, you got other problems. Taking a thermostat out makes an engine "not reach operating temperture". I've run into a few exceptions to the rule, but 95% of the time, an engine will run cooler with the thermostat out! Simple example: thermostat out or stuck open, got heat, defroster melt the ice off the windshield?!?!

wrote in news:5t0Og.1123$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Lack of a thermostat results in OVERCOOLING, as anyone who has actually tried it can attest. If an engine overheated even with no thermostat, there was something else wrong to begin with.

wrote in news:0P1Og.1143$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

And what about engines with the thermostat in the LOWER rad hose? Many (if not most) modern engines are of this configuration. In that case, the upper hose inlet into the rad is completely unimpeded by any sort of baffle or restriction.

Fully agree with eveyone who has posted about the increase in cooling when the thermostat is removed. Sometimes you get more cooling that you really want.

Some may remember the old Volvos that had a 'venetian blind' in front of the radiator that could help warm the engine even in cold Swedish winters. Those cars had thermostats and still had to keep the frigid air flow off the radiator and engine.

I didn't say it did. How'd you folks get so smart, when you can't follow the logic contained in a single paragraph?

DNB is supressed by the additional pressure generated by the water pump as it pushes against the restriction of the closed thermostat. This helps negate the effect when the motor is started cold, and the coolant is not moving.

I wondered where your system provides for this. That's all.

Really? Of course it does...initially. Ever run one near WOT for prolonged periods without one? Not talking about driving around town, or for a few minutes at the track.. It was a statement of what CAN happen, to illustrate a point, not what WILL happen in normal useage.

jeffcoslacker wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@no-mx.nodomain.com:

The coolant IS moving with the thermostat closed -- through the thermostat bypass. That's the device that keeps the block temperature even as it warms up, and helps the thermostat open.

You're right. I just don't understand how to generate the pressure required in the thermosiphon model.

?=2E An automotive cooling system is not a thermosiphon system. A thermosiphon system "does not" use a circulating pump.

I give up...I was talking about the OP's idea, not current systems...like talking to a wall...

I give up, too, was going to give my :2cents: worth, but nah.