Originally Posted By: Jetronic
not true, rpm is the main driver of heat production in the oil, regardless of load.
Not true you.
not true, rpm is the main driver of heat production in the oil, regardless of load.
Not true you.
Economy benefits of increasing (starting) oil temp
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Ohle_Manezzini
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
not true, rpm is the main driver of heat production in the oil, regardless of load.
Not true you.
Yes it is, Pontual.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
not true, rpm is the main driver of heat production in the oil, regardless of load.
Not true you.
Yes it is, Pontual.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Ohle_Manezzini
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
not true, rpm is the main driver of heat production in the oil, regardless of load.
Not true you.
Yes it is, Pontual.
No, it isn't!
So, going up hill (just 20% or 18 degrees) aclive, at 3k rpms for half an hour, the oil will be cooler than revving at 4k rpms in neutral for half an hour ...
Aham...
Nice try! Have you ever heard of power-to-heat ratio? And that's easy math.
Some people never learn.
Oleh, Toro!!
Kkkkk
Originally Posted By: Ohle_Manezzini
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
not true, rpm is the main driver of heat production in the oil, regardless of load.
Not true you.
Yes it is, Pontual.
No, it isn't!
So, going up hill (just 20% or 18 degrees) aclive, at 3k rpms for half an hour, the oil will be cooler than revving at 4k rpms in neutral for half an hour ...
Aham...
Nice try! Have you ever heard of power-to-heat ratio? And that's easy math.
Some people never learn.
Oleh, Toro!!
Kkkkk
Last edited:
It is true that some people never learn, especially evident by those who get banned from this site for good reason yet come back as some reincarnated "other" person.
What Jetronic said was:
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
not true, rpm is the main driver of heat production in the oil, regardless of load.
And he is correct. That's different than what you posted.
Reading comprehension issues? That would explain it.
What Jetronic said was:
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
not true, rpm is the main driver of heat production in the oil, regardless of load.
And he is correct. That's different than what you posted.
Reading comprehension issues? That would explain it.
MolaKule
Staff member
Increased RPM requires more chemical energy which results in increased thermal energy production. Of course the thermal energy gets converted to mechanical energy minus frictional losses and the shearing, whipping, and movement of the oil.
The oil temp also rises accordingly.
Now Olhe-Rosetta-Pontual; was that so difficult?
The oil temp also rises accordingly.
Now Olhe-Rosetta-Pontual; was that so difficult?
LOL!
Suppose, hypothetically, that I insulated my engine. Active water cooling is still operational so it should'nt overheat overall, but any passive air-cooling is gone.
Is this likely to cause problems, in an old installation with originally quite a lot of air space around it?
I'm thinking main changes would be under the rocker cover, and around the exhaust manifold. The latter could be serious and might cause a damaging local hot spot. Leaving a gap around the exhaust manifold might be safer but I'm wondering if there's still potential for serious distortion.
Is this likely to cause problems, in an old installation with originally quite a lot of air space around it?
I'm thinking main changes would be under the rocker cover, and around the exhaust manifold. The latter could be serious and might cause a damaging local hot spot. Leaving a gap around the exhaust manifold might be safer but I'm wondering if there's still potential for serious distortion.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ohle_Manezzini
No, it isn't!
So, going up hill (just 20% or 18 degrees) aclive, at 3k rpms for half an hour, the oil will be cooler than revving at 4k rpms in neutral for half an hour
Nah, that's another in your long line of linear thinking simplistic stupid strawmen.
Going up the same hill, with the same load, and same speed (total reactive effort if you will), the guy doing it at 3,000 RPM will have a lower oil temperature than the guy doing it at 4,000 RPM...we've been over it a couple (dozen ???) times with my measurements with a type k thermocouple down the dipstick tube.
What's this power to heat ratio ?
And how does it apply to your strawamn "proof" ? ...where the no load engine has no actual load ?
No, it isn't!
So, going up hill (just 20% or 18 degrees) aclive, at 3k rpms for half an hour, the oil will be cooler than revving at 4k rpms in neutral for half an hour
Nah, that's another in your long line of linear thinking simplistic stupid strawmen.
Going up the same hill, with the same load, and same speed (total reactive effort if you will), the guy doing it at 3,000 RPM will have a lower oil temperature than the guy doing it at 4,000 RPM...we've been over it a couple (dozen ???) times with my measurements with a type k thermocouple down the dipstick tube.
What's this power to heat ratio ?
And how does it apply to your strawamn "proof" ? ...where the no load engine has no actual load ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Ohle_Manezzini
No, it isn't!
So, going up hill (just 20% or 18 degrees) aclive, at 3k rpms for half an hour, the oil will be cooler than revving at 4k rpms in neutral for half an hour
Going up the same hill, with the same load, and same speed (total reactive effort if you will), the guy doing it at 3,000 RPM will have a lower oil temperature than the guy doing it at 4,000 RPM...we've been over it a couple (dozen ???) times with my measurements with a type k thermocouple down the dipstick tube.
Your thermocouple tests were on flat land at minimum engine load at different RPM ... not comparing minimum flat land engine load at say 60 MPH to much higher engine load going up a steep grade (or pulling a heavy trailer) for instance in the same gear (even if slightly lower RPM, but much higher throttle opening) to significantly increase the engine's load. Go try that actual test and come back with results. I think that's what he's getting at.
Originally Posted By: Ohle_Manezzini
No, it isn't!
So, going up hill (just 20% or 18 degrees) aclive, at 3k rpms for half an hour, the oil will be cooler than revving at 4k rpms in neutral for half an hour
Going up the same hill, with the same load, and same speed (total reactive effort if you will), the guy doing it at 3,000 RPM will have a lower oil temperature than the guy doing it at 4,000 RPM...we've been over it a couple (dozen ???) times with my measurements with a type k thermocouple down the dipstick tube.
Your thermocouple tests were on flat land at minimum engine load at different RPM ... not comparing minimum flat land engine load at say 60 MPH to much higher engine load going up a steep grade (or pulling a heavy trailer) for instance in the same gear (even if slightly lower RPM, but much higher throttle opening) to significantly increase the engine's load. Go try that actual test and come back with results. I think that's what he's getting at.
Still, what Jetronic said:
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
not true, rpm is the main driver of heat production in the oil, regardless of load.
is true. He's not talking about the total heat load into the oil.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
not true, rpm is the main driver of heat production in the oil, regardless of load.
is true. He's not talking about the total heat load into the oil.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Ohle_Manezzini
No, it isn't!
So, going up hill (just 20% or 18 degrees) aclive, at 3k rpms for half an hour, the oil will be cooler than revving at 4k rpms in neutral for half an hour
Going up the same hill, with the same load, and same speed (total reactive effort if you will), the guy doing it at 3,000 RPM will have a lower oil temperature than the guy doing it at 4,000 RPM...we've been over it a couple (dozen ???) times with my measurements with a type k thermocouple down the dipstick tube.
Your thermocouple tests were on flat land at minimum engine load at different RPM ... not comparing minimum flat land engine load at say 60 MPH to much higher engine load going up a steep grade (or pulling a heavy trailer) for instance in the same gear (even if slightly lower RPM, but much higher throttle opening) to significantly increase the engine's load. Go try that actual test and come back with results. I think that's what he's getting at.
Yes, the truth ^^ Retest ^^
Hah, now the discussion turn to "same load", before was "regardless of load".
The worst story was that one were the ATF was going way up temperature, by reducing speed in lower gear going downhill, so you should use brakes or the fluid would overheat :headscratch: . Even worst was the problem of his wife killing the engine in the garage with the clutch could made a huge scar in the cranck journals. :headscratch2: Let's put up some pearls...
So, I endedup banned a few time because I spok what?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Ohle_Manezzini
No, it isn't!
So, going up hill (just 20% or 18 degrees) aclive, at 3k rpms for half an hour, the oil will be cooler than revving at 4k rpms in neutral for half an hour
Going up the same hill, with the same load, and same speed (total reactive effort if you will), the guy doing it at 3,000 RPM will have a lower oil temperature than the guy doing it at 4,000 RPM...we've been over it a couple (dozen ???) times with my measurements with a type k thermocouple down the dipstick tube.
Your thermocouple tests were on flat land at minimum engine load at different RPM ... not comparing minimum flat land engine load at say 60 MPH to much higher engine load going up a steep grade (or pulling a heavy trailer) for instance in the same gear (even if slightly lower RPM, but much higher throttle opening) to significantly increase the engine's load. Go try that actual test and come back with results. I think that's what he's getting at.
Yes, the truth ^^ Retest ^^
Hah, now the discussion turn to "same load", before was "regardless of load".
The worst story was that one were the ATF was going way up temperature, by reducing speed in lower gear going downhill, so you should use brakes or the fluid would overheat :headscratch: . Even worst was the problem of his wife killing the engine in the garage with the clutch could made a huge scar in the cranck journals. :headscratch2: Let's put up some pearls...
So, I endedup banned a few time because I spok what?
Pontual
Whatever this time given that you are an aircraft
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4278470/Re:_B24_flight_manual#Post4278470
ATF ???
Wife killing car with clutch ???
What on earth are you talking about ???
Last edited:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4312694/Re:_Assessment_of_Lubrication_#Post4312694
Quote:
Table III shows the temperature rises in the big end bearings for different viscosities at different RPM...will show the Newtonians here for e.g. The 80C sump temps are shown, but they are also at 125, and 150C in the document...the chart I use above shows the general trend anyway.
Code:
RPM 5W20 10W30 15W40 15W50 SAE50
2,000 7C 10C 12C 14C 17C
3,000 14C 19C 25C 20C 27C
4,000 20C 30C 37C 30C 40C
5,000 31C 37C 52C 42C 54C
Quote:
IV-2 Influence of Operating Conditions on Big-End bearing temoerature
Figure 6 (the one that I use) shows the variation of the bearing temperature versus speed and load at different sump temperatures. As expected, speed is an important parameter. The temperature increase induced by the load is maximum at low speed, but rarely exceeds 10C. At 5,000RPM the variation of temperatures with load is only 3 or 4C, except when a sharp peak of temperature occurs (*)
.
.
.However, it is well known that bearing failures occur mostly at both high speed and high load. This means that under boundary lubricating conditions, small variations in load and/or temperature can have dramatic consequences.
(*) subsequently explains this as the onset of metal/metal.
Quote:
Table III shows the temperature rises in the big end bearings for different viscosities at different RPM...will show the Newtonians here for e.g. The 80C sump temps are shown, but they are also at 125, and 150C in the document...the chart I use above shows the general trend anyway.
Code:
RPM 5W20 10W30 15W40 15W50 SAE50
2,000 7C 10C 12C 14C 17C
3,000 14C 19C 25C 20C 27C
4,000 20C 30C 37C 30C 40C
5,000 31C 37C 52C 42C 54C
Quote:
IV-2 Influence of Operating Conditions on Big-End bearing temoerature
Figure 6 (the one that I use) shows the variation of the bearing temperature versus speed and load at different sump temperatures. As expected, speed is an important parameter. The temperature increase induced by the load is maximum at low speed, but rarely exceeds 10C. At 5,000RPM the variation of temperatures with load is only 3 or 4C, except when a sharp peak of temperature occurs (*)
.
.
.However, it is well known that bearing failures occur mostly at both high speed and high load. This means that under boundary lubricating conditions, small variations in load and/or temperature can have dramatic consequences.
(*) subsequently explains this as the onset of metal/metal.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
