Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • 3
    This is wrong. At least the first point is wrong. It's the same fallacy I've heard in the automotive community regarding engine radiators. Heat transfer is proportional to temperature differential, so slowing things down reduces heat transfer because the average differential will be smaller. Commented Jan 11, 2023 at 20:12
  • 1
    and it's proportional to the amount of time the heat differential is present. Things will cancel out there. Therefore keeping the water in the radiator slow will help heat transfer. The other option is to zigzag the pipe around. Commented Jan 12, 2023 at 3:51
  • 2
    No. Over time heat is lost, reducing the differential. With higher flow the differential remains higher, on average. If what you're saying is true these systems would have trickle pumps. The only relevant factors are input temperature and surface area. Commented Jan 12, 2023 at 14:37
  • @isherwood You seem to be confused. In automotive (as well as here) there are 2 delta Ts that must be managed to produce the best efficiency, engine to water and water to air. If we maximized water to air efficiency as you suggest, then when water returned to the engine it would be very close to engine temp, and engine to water efficiency would be minimized. Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 12:22
  • In this case, furnace-to-water is not constant. It's an on-demand situation. There's nothing to maximize from the radiator. Also, in the case of the automobile, the engine expels massive amounts of heat to the air directly. The concept is cut-and-dried. Slowing flow in either case is detrimental. Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 13:50