I'm going to answer your comments out of sequence.
First, I didn't know that about the rad caps.
Next, I thought I had found some useful information about water pumps, but after reading it, realized it did not help a lot. However, it appears to give real numbers as to flow, so here is the link.
http://asecertificationtraining.com/water-pumps-in-automotive-engine-coolant-systems/
Not sure if their numbers are any better than yours, and that unreal maximum seems to be for a stand-alone pump, not one on an actual working engine with restrictions. I do note that they make the point about the displacement pump and say that it does not add to the pressure of the system. I would point out to them that it is a recirculating system and no pump is going to add to the overall pressure but again, like we agree, there must be a pressure differential.
I have worked with, and understood the difference between pressure and volume water pumps for decades. The common, shallow well jet pump, of which there are thousands within a few miles of me, is a centrifugal pump just like a auto water pump. Yet, they have no problem developing 40 to 60 PSI of water pressure with no valves other than the check valve to keep it from losing its prime when it turns off.
However, the Gal per Min is probably in the 10 to 25 GPM. On the other hand, my high volume pump looks pretty much the same inside. It would strain to produce 10 PSI, but is rated at 22,500 GPH, or about 375 GPM. Its all in the design.
As for your first comment, we seem, to be running into the same problem I got into many years ago here with a well respected member. If I can remember his name, I'll post it. Neither of us has anything to be ashamed of.
Basically I noticed he posted something that was wrong. I never for a second thought he was lying, I just realized he did not understand what he was saying. He was saying that a certain aftermarket part would cause engine damage due to a fact that was not true.
I tried, as nicely as I knew how, to explain that basically physics did not work that way. He said that it certainly did, and that he, having repaired and rebuilt hundreds of motors, knew that it was true.
I was going to back off, knowing he was arguing from ignorance, not malice, when he said something that stopped me cold.
He stated that he, personally, had repaired many engines with that damage, that the damage had returned, but once the aftermarket part was removed, the damage stopped happening.
This changed the whole picture. Unless I thought he was lying, which I did not, it meant that the part was causing the damage, even though I knew that it could not do so in the manner described. This meant that in some ways, we were both wrong. He was wrong in his idea of the manner that the part was causing the damage, and I was wrong in thinking it was just an old wives tale about what was happening.
I went back and restudied the setup, and I'm pretty sure I discovered what was actually happening. I was going to try to explain it to him, but realized it was a waste of time. Even though he was wrong about how it was happening, he was right about the final result.
If I can find the thread later, and it makes sense at this late date, I'll post a link. Otherwise I will do a quick summery.
The whole point to this walk down memory lane, is to show one thing. Even though, without doing lots of actual real world measurements, we are probably not going to figure out how its happening, the fact of the matter is, people we know have actually seen it happen, so for what ever reason, it can happen. Maybe due to a bad hose, some kind of super aftermarket water pump, or a certain phase of the moon, odds are it has happened in the past and may happen in the future.
Personally I love trying to figure out the cause, and will keep studying the causes. Maybe we can find a theory that will explain it.
OH, just to throw in something to make you question my personal sanity, I make this as a statement of fact. I cannot explain it, and the professor at my college I asked about it, backed quickly away from me and avoided me the rest of the quarter.
Did you know, that if you dig a hole during a certain part of the moon's cycle, and use the same dirt to refill that hole a day or so later, you will have more dirt than you need to refill the hole.
If you do that during a different part of the cycle, you will have to haul dirt in to fill the hole.
People who dig and refill holes for a living have known about that for decades or longer. But I have never heard an explanation. My personal theory, is that it has to do with tides. The ocean rises and falls due to the moon's gravity, I assume that the land does also only much less. This might tend to make the dirt more or less dense.
I had a friend, whose son was going to dig a hole every day for a month, placing the dirt on a tarp so as to use the same dirt each time and record the results for a school science project. But, to get usable results he was going to dig a fairly large hole each time, and he quit after about 5 days and did a much less ambitious project.
First, I didn't know that about the rad caps.
Next, I thought I had found some useful information about water pumps, but after reading it, realized it did not help a lot. However, it appears to give real numbers as to flow, so here is the link.
http://asecertificationtraining.com/water-pumps-in-automotive-engine-coolant-systems/
Not sure if their numbers are any better than yours, and that unreal maximum seems to be for a stand-alone pump, not one on an actual working engine with restrictions. I do note that they make the point about the displacement pump and say that it does not add to the pressure of the system. I would point out to them that it is a recirculating system and no pump is going to add to the overall pressure but again, like we agree, there must be a pressure differential.
I have worked with, and understood the difference between pressure and volume water pumps for decades. The common, shallow well jet pump, of which there are thousands within a few miles of me, is a centrifugal pump just like a auto water pump. Yet, they have no problem developing 40 to 60 PSI of water pressure with no valves other than the check valve to keep it from losing its prime when it turns off.
However, the Gal per Min is probably in the 10 to 25 GPM. On the other hand, my high volume pump looks pretty much the same inside. It would strain to produce 10 PSI, but is rated at 22,500 GPH, or about 375 GPM. Its all in the design.
As for your first comment, we seem, to be running into the same problem I got into many years ago here with a well respected member. If I can remember his name, I'll post it. Neither of us has anything to be ashamed of.
Basically I noticed he posted something that was wrong. I never for a second thought he was lying, I just realized he did not understand what he was saying. He was saying that a certain aftermarket part would cause engine damage due to a fact that was not true.
I tried, as nicely as I knew how, to explain that basically physics did not work that way. He said that it certainly did, and that he, having repaired and rebuilt hundreds of motors, knew that it was true.
I was going to back off, knowing he was arguing from ignorance, not malice, when he said something that stopped me cold.
He stated that he, personally, had repaired many engines with that damage, that the damage had returned, but once the aftermarket part was removed, the damage stopped happening.
This changed the whole picture. Unless I thought he was lying, which I did not, it meant that the part was causing the damage, even though I knew that it could not do so in the manner described. This meant that in some ways, we were both wrong. He was wrong in his idea of the manner that the part was causing the damage, and I was wrong in thinking it was just an old wives tale about what was happening.
I went back and restudied the setup, and I'm pretty sure I discovered what was actually happening. I was going to try to explain it to him, but realized it was a waste of time. Even though he was wrong about how it was happening, he was right about the final result.
If I can find the thread later, and it makes sense at this late date, I'll post a link. Otherwise I will do a quick summery.
The whole point to this walk down memory lane, is to show one thing. Even though, without doing lots of actual real world measurements, we are probably not going to figure out how its happening, the fact of the matter is, people we know have actually seen it happen, so for what ever reason, it can happen. Maybe due to a bad hose, some kind of super aftermarket water pump, or a certain phase of the moon, odds are it has happened in the past and may happen in the future.
Personally I love trying to figure out the cause, and will keep studying the causes. Maybe we can find a theory that will explain it.
OH, just to throw in something to make you question my personal sanity, I make this as a statement of fact. I cannot explain it, and the professor at my college I asked about it, backed quickly away from me and avoided me the rest of the quarter.
Did you know, that if you dig a hole during a certain part of the moon's cycle, and use the same dirt to refill that hole a day or so later, you will have more dirt than you need to refill the hole.
If you do that during a different part of the cycle, you will have to haul dirt in to fill the hole.
People who dig and refill holes for a living have known about that for decades or longer. But I have never heard an explanation. My personal theory, is that it has to do with tides. The ocean rises and falls due to the moon's gravity, I assume that the land does also only much less. This might tend to make the dirt more or less dense.
I had a friend, whose son was going to dig a hole every day for a month, placing the dirt on a tarp so as to use the same dirt each time and record the results for a school science project. But, to get usable results he was going to dig a fairly large hole each time, and he quit after about 5 days and did a much less ambitious project.
Last edited:
............. 
