BigJim,
<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> I love these discussions! You're wrong about this issue, and I know you ain't going to admit it! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
You continue to ignore the unique characteristics and chemical properties of water! Water has to absorb a tremendous amount of heat energy to go from a liquid phase to its gaseous water vapor phase. Nothing else like it! Your alcohol, glycol, has a higher boiling point, but it can't hold a <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" /> to water in absorbing and transfering heat from the "fire"! Considering the temperatures we control the coolant just before it enters the radiator, your straight/neat glycol coolant has been squeaking by possibly due to the thermostat being constantly open to sustain a greater flow per hour through the block to compensate for its lower capacity to absorb heat compared to a glycol treated water solution! There ain't no amount of testing/readings at the engine's effluent port going to show possibly the reduced heat transfer capacity of your neat glycol coolant compared to the treated water solution's heat transfer capability.

a 70/30 mixture is 70 parts glycol to 30 parts water mixture to depress the freeze point of water to allow Tom to park his snow-plowing rig ouside at night during NY State winters, and yet, have liquid coolant and no ruptures in the coolant plumbing system when he goes to start the rig in the morning.
<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

Yes, the temperature where glycol self-ignites is up there a ways, something like 400 degrees F. You'd have to be in a fire to reach that temperature. But, you be careful around those tanker truckloads of chemicals around the ship channel, it's very unlikely, but if you crash into the right chemical spill, you could convert your glycol into an explosive! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Heat is the amount of subatomic kinetic energy a substance has. You can just consider it energy, like BTU's. Temperature is the average heat per unit area. So, if you had letÆs say 15 units of energy in 5 units of space, you would have 15/5 or 3 units of temperature. If you had 15 units of energy in 20 units of space, you would have 15/20 or .75 units of temp. Both substances would have the same amount of heat, but the temperatures are radically different.

Now when we say water has more heat CAPACITY, we mean it can hold more heat before it starts going up in temp.

Now we are saying that water will hold almost twice the amount of heat that pure ethylene glycol will. That is all we are saying. not that pure water will run colder. As you know cooling depends on a lot more things than just the transfer medium such as; flow rate, turbulence, pressure of the system, condition of the radiator... ETC.

Do you know what a BTU is? It is the amount of energy it takes to heat up 1 pound of water 1 degree F (about 4186 joules) It only takes .66 units of energy to raise 1 pound of ethylene glycol 1 degree F. That means the water is taking more energy, storing it.

If you still don't believe/understand do this.

Go get a medium sauce pan and measure out 2 cups of water. Get a stop watch and a thermometer capable of 220*. put the pan on the stove and light the fire and start your stop watch. Now do the same to 2 cups of pure antifreeze. You'll find that it takes less time to heat the antifreeze at the same fire setting. thatÆs because the antifreeze can hold less heat, causing the fluid to get hotter faster.


I just did this experiment to make sure I wasnÆt talking out my <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/butwiggle.gif" alt="" /> . It took about 3 minutes to bring the water temp up to 140, and about 2 min. to bring the antifreeze up to 140. It doesnÆt take thousands of dollars of lab equipment to do this; I used the clock with the seconds hand in my kitchen and a sauce pan out of the cupboard.

just did this experiment to make sure I wasnÆt talking out my . It took about 3 minutes to bring the water temp up to 140, and about 2 min. to bring the antifreeze up to 140. It doesnÆt take thousands of dollars of lab equipment to do this; I used the clock with the seconds hand in my kitchen and a sauce pan out of the cupboard.

Sunder Was some of the water turning to steam at the bottom of the pan and riseing up turbulating the upper levels? This action placing the steam heat into the upper levels of the water?
Nope a test must be done under 16lbs pressure. You are going to force me to go purchase an upper and lower hose and a couple of sending units aren't you.. you nonbelievers!
I hope the muslims are not reading these posts. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Big Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

This can't happen

#1 because the water was not boiling, and #2 as soon as the steam was fully surrounded by liquid again, it would have cooled and turned to the temp that the rest of the water is.

AND because I used the same pan both the substances would have done the same thing negating the results.

AND assuming that the antifreeze boils hotter, it would have seam that the water got hotter faster than the antifreeze because it boiled first...

Pressure, especially low pressure, does not effect the specific heat to a large enough degree to matter because the pressure is uniform.



In order for your experiment to work you must force a fixed flow rate. That means you need to fix the thermostat in a certain position. You could pull the T-stat and run some open tests, but then the flow rate will be so high that the coolant will not be in contact with the hot parts long enough to efficiently conduct heat.

Unless sunder is at a very high altitude I doubt if steam had any effect on his 140* experiment! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/notooth.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

BTW that's above 30000 feet...

Sunder you think that with the 100% in there the flow rate is greater? And the flow rate thru the radiator is faster? So the 100% has less time to lose it's heat? AND it enters the engine hotter? Then the thermostat opens even WIDER increasing the flow rate... And the 100% loses even LESS heat in the radiator and enters the engine even HOTTER? So there is a build up of heat till the engine splodes?
I have driven 1000 miles a day without this happening.. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Big Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Heat flows from high to low like pressure. When it is in the radiator, the lower temp air absorbs heat from the cooling fins which in turn absorbs heat from water. Then when the water re-enters the block, the higher temp from the block is transferred to the water... The thermo stat not only regulates the temp, but the flow rate as well. How come you can take a "hot potato" from the oven and toss it from hand to hand without getting burned? It does take a certain amount of time for heat to flow, as we have all learned. How big is the opening in the thermostat housing, how about the thermostat itself? Without a thermostat some engines will pump water faster than heat can properly transfer and the motor will overheat.

What I am saying about flow rates and the t-stat, it goes from pinched up tight to wide open in a mater of 6-10 degree's. The resolution of the water temp gauge isn't that good. So when you are running pure water the t-stat might be open 20-30%. If you were to run pure antifreeze, the temp might raise a couple degree's opening the t-stat some more increase the flow rate and subsequently dropping the temp. This process will go on within a few degree's.

If you want to test to see if the motor gets hot, get an old t-stat, gut it and put in the plate so that the flow is restricted. Then drain the cooling system fill it with water find a big long hill and drive it up it and keep an eye on it. Then do the same thing with pure antifreeze. That way all you will be eliminating a variable.

"Sunder Was some of the water turning to steam at the bottom of the pan and riseing up turbulating the upper levels? This action placing the steam heat into the upper levels of the water?
Nope a test must be done under 16lbs pressure. You are going to force me to go purchase an upper and lower hose and a couple of sending units aren't you"

If I understand your comment "turbulating the upper levels", BJ, it doesn't matter. Even at 16 PSI in the engine coolant system, the water in contact with the hot metal surface may form water vapor (steam)which may not remain water vapor when mixing with the cooler water volume circculating through the engine block. Sunder's stove top physics lab is pretty good! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" /> Even though the measurements made are a little course, the difference in time between heating water and pure glycol to 140 degrees F in his experiment is enough to understand each medium's ability to absorb heat energy. If anything, it's true any steam formed in the water would quickly be lost to the atmosphere as water vapor, and be lost from the water solution; and therefore, would not be available in the water volume to warm the thermometer. But, where the water and glycol were only warmed to 140 degrees F, it is unlikely that any appreciable amount of steam was formed. It's a sound demonstration.

Good enough! And, Good for you, Sunder! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

my old lady gets so pissed when i use kitchen implements for anything other than cooking. i think i'm with jim about doing my expiriment right in the cars cooling system but only because i don't want to get hit with a broom <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />.

in any event, are we chaulking off the 2 year radiator to cat piss and sodium chloride? clearly antifreeze isn't caustic to the cooling system, so it must be some external issue.

try to keep the highly toxic chemicals out of the kitchen guys, sounds like a very dangerous proposition. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/barf.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/zombie.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/barf.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shiner.gif" alt="" />