74 replies to this topic

[TerrA LX]

No water means no expansion.

Oh common man, your alot smarter than this.

[TerrA LX]

You can safely remove the radiator cap when the cooling system is at operating temperature. See around 3:30 in this clip.
 

In stead of quoting anyone's propaganda, why don't you just answer the question I asked you?

I have to ask a really stupid question.
 
I was under the impression the pressure in the cooling system was both to raise the boiling point and to put the water everywhere it needs to be, not where it feels like being.
 
If you remove the pressure, will the fluid just go where it wants (path of least resistance) instead of going where it needs to be?
 
Cheers.

I think you are pretty much spot on here mate, about the only application this has is in old thermo syphon systems.

^ Try doing that in a commodore without a litre of coolant flowing all over the ground.

[ls2lxhatch]

In stead of quoting anyone's propaganda, why don't you just answer the question I asked you?

 
Which question have I not answered?

I assume you are nit picking about the expansion of Evans Coolant.

The Evans coolant will expand as it gets hotter as it has to obey the laws of physics.

I thought the video demonstrated that the expansion in the Evans coolant is not significant enough to cause the system generate significant pressure or overflow. The video could be a fake however if it was I would expect there would be plenty of videos on YouTube showing the Evans coolant overflowing when you remove the cap.
 
Water is responsible for the majority of expansion in water based coolants. The water in the water based coolants will expand enough to require the use of a pressure control radiator cap and coolant expansion/recovery tanks.
 
 

I am sorry I can't afford to pay for independent laboratory testing to answer your questions. Here is some more propaganda for you. I hope that Rotax have done some testing before they accepted Evans claims.

Rotax Aircraft Engines recommend and in some case require using Evans NPG+ in their 912 and 914 engines.  
 

If however your cylinder head temperature reaches the "hot" range of the third column, the use of Evans NPG+™ non-aqueous (waterless) liquid is mandatory.

 
 

The Evans NPG+™ non-aqueous cooling liquid is mandatory under certain circumstances, but we recommend it for every engine since it offers more efficient cooling, an extremely high boiling point, a very low freezing point, corrosion prevention and unlimited life (no need to renew every two years). Also notable is that it operates at no or minimal pressure which greatly increases safety in case of an in-flight leak.

 
 

Edited by ls2lxhatch, 02 November 2013 - 01:04 PM.

[TerrA LX]

http://www.norosion.com/evanstest.htm

www.norosion.com/evanstest.h

I can copy and paste stuff too, just asked a simple question and hope that some common sense prevales...

[76lxhatch]

The Evans NPG+™ non-aqueous cooling liquid is mandatory under certain circumstances, but we recommend it for every engine since it offers more efficient cooling, an extremely high boiling point, a very low freezing point, corrosion prevention and unlimited life (no need to renew every two years). Also notable is that it operates at no or minimal pressure which greatly increases safety in case of an in-flight leak.

Cylinder head temperatures of 115-140oF hotter with the Evans products translates to a stabilized bulk coolant temperature increase of 31-48oF, as compared to No-Rosion and water.
...
The other reason that Evans products are prohibited at race tracks is that they are flammable. They have flash points in the range of 225-232oF. This means that if Evans coolant were released at or above the flash point, it could ignite. Because we observed coolant temperatures in this range during actual operating conditions, this is a real risk.

Hmmm... these sources don't seem to agree! Obviously each is pushing their own agenda so that's not surprising, but the increase in temperature seems quite believable. The graphs above show a very high top end of the "Normal" operating range. The flammability would be a significant concern if there is any truth to that.

[ls2lxhatch]

As your last post demonstrates, posting laboratory test results and propaganda/marketing has its value.

 

 

The Evans test results for ASTM D-1384 are similar to the results Norosion reported for the Evans coolant so there is no argument there. When it comes to corrosion protection the Norosion test results are better than Evans. Electrolysis is still possible with Norosion however that is reasonably easy to avoid.

 

http://www.evanscool...rosion-test.pdf

 

Norosion report that Evans is thicker than water (2.3 cp) verses around 0.7 cp for typical coolant which again is confirmed by the Evans website. It would be reasonable to expect that pumping Evans coolant will require more horsepower than typical water based coolant. I suspect there is a little bit of marketing when it comes to the claimed 4-5%HP loss but I don't doubt there will be a loss.

 

 

 

 

Based on everything discussed so far the pros don't even come close to outweighing the cons of using Evans coolant.  I will stick with my Toyota spec coolant, or maybe look into using Norosion.

[ls2lxhatch]

The graphs above show a very high top end of the "Normal" operating range.

 
I believe that Rotax are saying that you can safely increase the hot operating temperature range if you raise the boiling point of the coolant.
 
The first two graphs show a higher pressure radiator cap (which increases the boiling point) increases the safe hot operating temperature.
 

Edited by ls2lxhatch, 03 November 2013 - 09:20 PM.

[rodomo]

 good ol water with a little antifreeze. 

I'm with ya on this one buddy but anti-freeze? In QLD? I'm in Melb and have only ever used a straight corrosion inhibitor mixed with water. Castrol. Used to be able to buy it in Woolies here.

[76lxhatch]

I believe that Rotax are saying that you can safely increase the hot operating temperature range if you raise the boiling point of the coolant.

Yep, I was just commenting that this could be convenient for the Evans marketing if their coolant isn't efficient enough to keep temperatures down around the thermostat temp as No-rosion claim.

[ls2lxhatch]

Maybe. Earlier on though Rotax state that if you are going into the hot range with water based coolant then you should switch to Evans to increase the hot range. The lower hot range is limited by the boiling point of the water based coolant.
 

If however your cylinder head temperature reaches the "hot" range of the third column, the use of Evans NPG+™ non-aqueous (waterless) liquid is mandatory.

 
Rotax state that Evans NPG+ provides more efficient cooling. Rotax basically repeat the Evans marketing claims in the next paragraph.
 

The Evans NPG+™ non-aqueous cooling liquid is mandatory under certain circumstances, but we recommend it for every engine since it offers more efficient cooling, an extremely high boiling point, a very low freezing point, corrosion prevention and unlimited life (no need to renew every two years). Also notable is that it operates at no or minimal pressure which greatly increases safety in case of an in-flight leak.

 
Based on the discussion so far it is hard to believe that Evans coolant is more efficient than all water based coolants. At the same time it is hard to believe that Rotax would recommend Evans without doing their own testing to confirm the Evans marketing claims.
 
It could be that because Evans can safely run at much higher temperatures than water based coolant this increases the difference between ambient temperature and the coolant temperature thus increasing the cooling system efficiency.

http://www.evanscool...om.au/faqs.html
 

In a 38°C environment (under bonnet) a radiator that is 121°C will dissipate 25% more heat than one at 104°C.

 
 
If you have no choice but to run an engine at 250 F+ then Evans coolant would be more efficient than water based coolant.

Edited by ls2lxhatch, 04 November 2013 - 11:31 AM.

[76lxhatch]

Most of that makes pretty good sense, basically it has some merit in high temperature situations but is quite impractical for cars especially if we want to keep the operating temperature somewhere near factory specs.

In a 38°C environment (under bonnet) a radiator that is 121°C will dissipate 25% more heat than one at 104°C.

Had to laugh at this, one could also say that in a 38°C environment a radiator that is 90°C will dissipate 100% more heat than one at 38°C...

[ls2lxhatch]

I agree, maybe worthwhile for a burnout car.

[TerrA LX]

I think the thing they are trying to hit on with what you guys keep quoting is that as the temp of water/coolant rises the pressure rises accordingly, same for evans [or similar product (as it has to follow the laws of physics)] but albeit the running temp will be higher the operation pressure will be lower.

Frack, for what it's worth transmission fluid will cool the engine, it would probably also run over 100deg c but there would still be a cooling effect.
It too would offer 100% no steam or corrosion....

As I said, these things have their place, If I owned a 1900's water cooled thermo syphon system car I would have no doubt I would run such products, but where I want temps in the 90/100 deg C range on my holden V8 then I will stick with the water/inhibitor coolant and only use anti freeze when visiting the snow.

[TerrA LX]

http://www.cdc.gov/n...3/pdfs/0272.pdf

http://en.wikipedia....Ethylene_glycol

[Statler]

Some of your ancestors are still arguing the square vs round wheel.

[Toranamat69]

  

 

Thank you for that - hard to put it more concisely.

[Toranamat69]

I have always been dubious of water wetter for all the same reasons above. Water is hard to beat on specific heat and thermal conductivity.