From: emory!wal.hp.com!lupienj (John Lupien)
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: May 1993
Subject: Re:  Evils of Glycol.
X-Sequence: 5354

> > There are water-based (glycol free) coolants which are much cheaper than
> > glycol based ones and have an excellent performance record.
> What glycol free coolant products are available in the US?  It's warm enough
> here to use something else most of the year.

Water 8*)

Actually, try some Water Wetter as well - it reportedly helps a lot.

--
---
John R. Lupien
lupienj@wal.hp.com

[Actually pure water - even distilled water - is a poorer coolant than
anti-freeze because it will cause corrosion and because the anti-freeze
elevates the boiling point of the solution.  The elevated boiling point
is important because it helps cool hot spots in the head that might otherwise
transition into film boiling (essentially no cooling).

I have experimented with distilled water in one of my Z cars.  Both the engine
and the radiator were new or freshly rebuilt so there was no residual crud.
Within a week, the water was red with rust.

Has anyone experimented with propylene glycol?  I've seen several writeups
in the mags but no hard data.  I'd like to hear some first-hand experience.
JGD]

From: emory!Eng.Sun.COM!Scott.Griffith (Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware)
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: May 1993
Subject: Re:  Evils of Glycol.
X-Sequence: 5356

On May 18, Keith Kucera wrote:

> What glycol free coolant products are available in the US?  It's warm enough 
> here to use something else most of the year.

Well, I very much like Redline Water Wetter. The granular
mix-it-yourself stuff has waterpump lubricants and anticorrosive
agents, but mostly it's a surfactant to help keep steam pockets from
forming. In my cooling-challenged track car, it's good for about
15-20degF reduction in water temps. And best of all, it is
significantly less _slick_ than glycol mixes. 

This is especially germane in track use, where coolant is often
spilled on the surface. As far as I'm concerned, glycol-based coolants
ought to be banned from racing for this reason alone. Several of the
worst incidents I've seen as a flagger were caused by slick conditions
from glycol-based coolants. The Redline stuff is still slick, mind
you, but not disastrously slick, a la oil. And it evaporates back to a
dry, sticky surface rather than needing speedydry to get up all the
traces.

-skod

--
Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware
expatriate SCCA New England Region Flagging/Communications worker
(and sometimes driver, of anything that turns both right and left,
and can pass tech...) Return Path : skod@sun.COM

From: emory!syl.nj.nec.com!behanna (Chris BeHanna)
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: May 1993
Subject: Re:  Evils of Glycol.
X-Sequence: 5361

In article <c=awla+@dixie.com> hotrod@dixie.com writes:
>[Actually pure water - even distilled water - is a poorer coolant than
>anti-freeze because it will cause corrosion and because the anti-freeze
>elevates the boiling point of the solution.  The elevated boiling point
>is important because it helps cool hot spots in the head that might otherwise
>transition into film boiling (essentially no cooling).
>
>I have experimented with distilled water in one of my Z cars.  Both the engine
>and the radiator were new or freshly rebuilt so there was no residual crud.
>Within a week, the water was red with rust.
>
>Has anyone experimented with propylene glycol?  I've seen several writeups
>in the mags but no hard data.  I'd like to hear some first-hand experience.
>JGD]

	I have three gallons of propylene glycol (1/2 for the bike, one for
the truck, and one for the lady's car).  I haven't tried it yet.  Next week is
the 12K service on the ZX-11, so I'll be putting the propylene glycol in it
(60/40 or 50/50 mix) then.  The manufacturer claims it's run 1,000,000 miles
and more in commercial diesels with no ill effects.  I'll let you know how it
goes.

[Waitaminit.  I thought one was supposed to run proplylene glycol without
water.  Unless my brain has core dumped this morning, I distinctly remember
reading that water would greatly lower the boiling point of PG.  What's
the poop?  JGD]

Later,
--
Chris BeHanna	DoD# 114          1983 H-D FXWG Wide Glide - Jubilee's Red Lady
behanna@syl.nj.nec.com	          1975 CB360T - Baby Bike
Disclaimer:  Now why would NEC	  1991 ZX-11 - needs a name
agree with any of this anyway?    I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.

From: emory!rtfm.mlb.fl.us!gwalker (Grayson Walker)
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: May 1993
Subject: Re:  Evils of Glycol.
X-Sequence: 5365

Distilled water is HIGHLY reactive. DON'T EVER put pure distilled
water into your cooling system. On the other hand, mixed with
equal parts of ethylene glycol, you're in good shape.

[The real issue is dissolved oxygen.  Deaerated distilled or deionized water
is NOT reactive.  Water in the radiator quickly becomes saturated with
oxygen unless a closed recovery system is used, in which case, it becomes
saturated a bit slower.   Ethylene glycol is fairly corrosive without its
anti-corrosive additive package.  Got to see that effect first hand a few
years ago.  I working heavy equipment maintenance on a government construction
site.  Some low-bid wazo in purchasing bought a bunch of ethlyene glycol
feedstock in 55 gal drums because it was cheaper than anti-freeze.  No
additive package, no dye, just ethylene glycol.  The destruction was massive.
I graduated to "heavy equipment mechanic" while being pressed into service
flushing and repairing all the equipment on the site.  It looked almost
like someone had poured acid in the cooling systems.  In many cases we had
to actually pull heads to get to all the water passages in order to clear
the rust clogs.  The wazo probably got promoted. JGD]

From: Carl Ijames <ijames@helix.nih.gov>
Subject: Re:  Evils of Glycol.
Date: May 1993
X-Sequence: 5376

>Fisher Scientific sells Aerosol.  You can get it in solid form (100
>%) for $27 for 500g,  (75% aqueous) $19.35 for 500ml, (10% clear, laboratory
>Aerosol) $54.25 for 4Liters.'

93/94 catalog prices are $33.40, $23.95, and $65.60, respectively.  Phone #
is 1-800-766-7000.  Aerosol is really the sodium salt of dioctyl
sulfosuccinate, a common surfactant.  Aldrich Chemical has 99% pure
material for about the same price and 96% pure material for $23 for 1000 g.

>It's funny how redline also uses the term water wetter.  I picked up
>the redline liquid water wetter (no lube or anticorrosives).  I has
>the same odor as the 10% Aerosol.  Except the redline has a weaker smell.
>My guess is that the redline is something like a 2 to 5 % solution
>(when starting from the 10% Aerosol).

>Anybody have any other ideas on how to figure out the concentration
>of the redline?  Maybe weight?
>
>Rob
>gallant@oasys.dt.navy.mil

Is the Redline sold as a solid or (I assume) a liquid solution?  One way to
get an idea of total solids would be to take a known volume (100 to 200 ml)
and evaporate it to dryness in a pre-weighed beaker, if you have access to
a balance which can handle a few hundred grams at +/- .1 gram or so.  How
expensive is the Redline WaterWetter?


Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov

From: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: May 1993
Subject: Re:  Evils of Glycol.
X-Sequence: 5378

-> I recall seeing some product announcements for chemically inert
-> coolants; I think they were heavily fluorinated hydrocarbons (called
-> Fluorinert I believe).

 Callaway was supposed to be running some type of flourocarbon coolant
in their turbo Corvettes for a while.  Dunno what happened to that.

 I have a problem with anything that originates at Callaway.  Their
claimed boost/bhp figures just don't make sense.  Add less than 1/2
atmosphere of boost, and increase power by more than half - must be the
negative entropy additive in the oil or something.

[Last time I bought any Fluroinert, before the econazi tax, it was several
hundred dollars a gallon.  It's big claim to fame is a high boiling point
(>400 deg, depending on which particular one).  It's specific heat isn't
very hot (NOT the hot ticket for cooling applications).  It is a good
dielectric so it is a useful coolant for things that operate at high
voltages such as large power vacuum tubes.  Very pure water has displaced
it for most such applications because of the cost.  Frankly I can't imagine
using something in a radiator whose cost is measured in dollars per drop :-)
JGD]

From: Carl Ijames <ijames@helix.nih.gov>
Subject: Re: Evils of Glycol.
Date: May 1993
X-Sequence: 5395

>} >Fisher Scientific sells Aerosol.  You can get it in solid form (100
>} >%) for $27 for 500g,  (75% aqueous) $19.35 for 500ml, (10% clear, laboratory
>} >Aerosol) $54.25 for 4Liters.'
>} 93/94 catalog prices are $33.40, $23.95, and $65.60, respectively.  Phone #
>} is 1-800-766-7000.  Aerosol is really the sodium salt of dioctyl
>} sulfosuccinate, a common surfactant.  Aldrich Chemical has 99% pure
>} material for about the same price and 96% pure material for $23 for 1000 g.
>
>Anyone know what impurities are likely to be in that other 4%, how
>corrosive it is, and what the appropriate concentrations are?  Might be
>time for a group buy...

I called Aldrich's Tech. Info line and the very nice young lady told me
that their last batch had about 1% water, and she guessed the rest would be
sodium benzoate or a similar sodium salt.  Shouldn't cause problems in an
aluminum/steel/copper system.  Also, they have no minimum order...

[Got a number for Aldrich? JGD]

>} Is the Redline sold as a solid or (I assume) a liquid solution?  
>
>Both.  The crystalline form is sold as a combination "water wetter",
>anti-corrosive, and water pump lubricant.  (This version apparently
>contains phosphates, which FoMoCo recommends against in its cars.)  The
>liquid only contains the water wetter.
>
>} How expensive is the Redline WaterWetter?
>
>About $5-7 for a single treatment in either form.  It seems to work,
>both from my own experience and those of other Mustang nuts.
>
> -- Chuck Fry, keeping it cooler than usual

I take it that you are using the liquid form, to avoid the phosphates.  If
you have their number, you should be able to call Redline and request a
Material Safety Data Sheet, which should list the ingredients.  It would be
interesting to see what surfactants they are using.

Also, has anyone heard of using polyethylene oxide (PEO, molecular weight
100,000 or so) to lower viscosity in an automotive cooling system.  I know
that a few percent lowers viscosity substantially, enough so that fire
fighters use it in their tank trucks to squeeze more water through their
hoses.  Should be stable and safe in a radiator, but I don't know if the
increased flow would yield a significantly cooler engine.

Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov, wanting to keep it cooler than usual

From: emory!msc.edu!tom (Tom Kroeten)
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: May 1993
Subject: Re:  Evils of Glycol
X-Sequence: 5396

->From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 19 14:51:35 1993
->
-> I recall seeing some product announcements for chemically inert coolants; I
->think they were heavily fluorinated hydrocarbons (called Fluorinert I believe).
->The heat transfer was not quite as good as water but the stuff had a pretty
->high boiling point and wouldn't be capable of supporting galvanic corrosion.
->
A product of 3M.  We use it here in our Cray-2 4/512.  From the jug label:

"Thermal decomposition may produce toxic products.  Small amounts of
decomposition may occur at 200 degrees C.  Increased rate of decomposition
at increased temps."

One of our on-site Cray techs says someone in their Kansas City center
ingested some on a bet, alledgedly no ill effects.  Lots of it sitting around
here.

-tom kroeten
 Minnesota Supercomputer Center

[There is a whole family of Fluoroinert products.  The highest boiling point
ones are used for vapor reflow soldering.  That is, they boil at a high enough
temperature to melt solder.  JGD]

From: Carl Ijames <ijames@helix.nih.gov>
Subject: Re: about Flourinert
Date: May 1993
X-Sequence: 5406

>If all you want is higher operating temperatures, why not straight
>water?  Just crank up the pressure.  There are other possibilities from
>the high tech world.  One that is curently trendy seems to be poly-alpha-
>oelefins (PAO).  These are supposedly non-fouling (unlike some earlier 
>fluids) have decent oxidative and moisture stability and cost a mere 
>$30/gallon, I'm told.  IBM uses this instead of helium to fill the modules
>in their latest mainframes.  There are several companies that make PAO 
>(Royal Lubricants and Frisbi[?], I recall).  I don't know upper temperature 
>limets, etc.  There's a more expensive version ($100/gallon) that has 
>microencapsulated phase change material, but I think it might be tailored 
>for lower temperature electronic cooling.  It's supposedly been selected 
>for Lockheeds ATF (Advanced Technology Fighter) program.  So if you've
>got to have the most high tech stuff . . .
>
>/Bill
>
>------- End of Forwarded Message
>
>Posted by: "Chris Kent Kantarjiev" <emory!parc.xerox.com!cak>
 
We use a PAO based oil in our mechanical vacuum pumps.  It was developed by
a local company, Appropriate Technical Resources, Laurel, MD
(301-467-1270).  They include anti-oxidants and a pH indicator.  Stuff
really stands up to water and organic solvents that would turn a
mineral-oil based vacuum pump oil to sludge.  Also does a very good job of
protecting the pump from corrosion.  Has a flash point of 510 deg. F and a
viscosity of 55 cst at about 170 deg. F.  I was told that the viscosity
doesn't fall nearly as rapidly as mineral oils as the temperature
increases, but have no numbers at hotter temps.  Don't know what the heat
capacity or thermal conductivity are.  We pay $13.50 per one liter bottle
(only 8 times more than Prestone :-)).  I'm sure buying even 5 gallons at
once would get a substantial discount.
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov

From: Steve Andersen <emory!me.udel.edu!andersen>
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: May 1993
Subject: Re: about Flourinert

On Thu, 20 May 1993, The Hotrod List wrote:

> If all you want is higher operating temperatures, why not straight
> water?  Just crank up the pressure.  There are other possibilities from
> the high tech world.  One that is curently trendy seems to be poly-alpha-
> oelefins (PAO).  These are supposedly non-fouling (unlike some earlier 
> fluids) have decent oxidative and moisture stability and cost a mere 
> $30/gallon, I'm told.  IBM uses this instead of helium to fill the modules
> in their latest mainframes.  There are several companies that make PAO 
> (Royal Lubricants and Frisbi[?], I recall).  I don't know upper temperature 
> limets, etc.  There's a more expensive version ($100/gallon) that has 
> microencapsulated phase change material, but I think it might be tailored 
> for lower temperature electronic cooling.  It's supposedly been selected 
> for Lockheeds ATF (Advanced Technology Fighter) program.  So if you've
> got to have the most high tech stuff . . .


Just a tidbit.  Polyalphaolefins used to be used as the basis
on which several synthetic motor oils were concocted (Older
formula Mobil 1 for example).  The synth manufacturers have
mostly switched over to a Di-ester formulation since the
ester's have some better lubrication qualities.  I would 
expect the PAO coolant to have somewhere near the PAO
oil's temperature capability...

Steve
--
 Steve Andersen  DoD #0239                               andersen@me.udel.edu
 (302) 832-0136                                     andersen@zr1.ccm.udel.edu
 1992 Ducati 907 I.E.                                      1987 Yamaha SRX250
 "Life is simply a consequence of the complexities of carbon chemistry..."

From: David Wright <emory!tog-34.hac.com!dwrig>
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: May 1993
Subject: Re: Evils of Glycol.
X-Sequence: 5420

>[Because EG also raises the boiling point of the coolant. This is a subtle
>point lost on many people.  Bulk cooling isn't the issue in most cases.
>The issue is cooling hot spots such as between the valves and around the
>exhaust port.  If a hot spot gets hot enough to cause localized film
>boiling, that spot get VERY hot because steam is a very poor conductor of
>heat.  The higher temperature increases the film thickness which raises
>the thermal resistance and so on until some equilibrium is reached or
>something breaks.  Such hot spots can cause detonation, burned valve
>seats, stuck valve guides and other such nasties.
>
>Now, raising the pressure in the system with a higher PSI cap directly
>helps.  BUT.  Adding glycol is a freebie because it raises the
>boiling temperature even higher for a given temperature.  Given all
>the benefits from EG coolant, using it is kinda a no-brainer.  Only
>if unusual service conditions exist should some alternative be
>investigated.  JGD]
>

Hold on a second, John - Due to its lower heat capacity, EG ends up raising
the internal temperature.  According to Redline's (advertising) numbers, this
rise in internal temperature is on the order of the rise in boiling point, so
you effectively have no improvement or degradation on the high temp end by
using EG.  Are Redline's numbers fudged, or is EG really only useful as
anti-freeze?

David Wright

[I've not seen Redline's propaganda.  What I use is experience, SAE standards,
what professional tuners do and experimentation.  You'll not see any
pro tuner, from Indy cars to IMSA, not use anti-freeze.  There is a reason.
A simple experiment will illustrate the effect.  Get a Caldrod heater such
as a water heater element or even one of those little coffee cup heating
elements.  Attach a thermocouple.  Plop it in a basin of your fluid of
interest, turn it on and note the temperature when it reaches an equilibrium.
At equilibrium, this models the situation in a head quite well.  Try
50-50 antifreeze and then pure water.  The antifreeze cooled element will
get a LITTLE hotter but not much.  Now crank up the heat flux (use a higher
wattage element, for example) until film boiling occurs.  Note how tremendously
hotter the element gets.  Avoiding film boiling is paramount.

The most telling evidence is actual experience.  The limiting factor with
the turbocharged Datsun engines I build is cooling.  This manifests itself
as delayed onset of detonation during full throttle running and as bulk
overheating after extended running.  I know from experimenting that raising
the coolant pressure raises the boost pressure at which delayed detonation
occurs.  I also know from experimentation that pure water - even distilled
water directly from my still - is significantly worse than 50-50 antifreeze.
I have NOT experimented with other concentrations.  That would be
most interesting.  JGD]

From: emory!merlin.gatech.edu!ucsd!btree!hale
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: May 1993
Subject: Re: Evils of Glycol.
X-Sequence: 5428

> [ JGD writes ] I also know from experimentation that pure water - even distilled
> water directly from my still - is significantly worse than 50-50 antifreeze.
> I have NOT experimented with other concentrations.  That would be
> most interesting.  JGD]

I once had a car with very marginal cooling.  I found that a 1/3
antifreeze and 2/3 distilled water mix worked a lot better than
either a 50/50 mix or plain water.  The antifreeze containers used
to have a chart which showed concentration versus freezing protection
but I haven't seen those charts for years.  Now they all seem to say
use a 50/50 mix.  It figures; that means more profit for them.

BTW, I finally fixed that cooling problem by changing the heads on
the engine.  Helped the power and mileage, too.  The original heads
were a low-turbulence open design and the replacements were Chevy
202 FI heads.

Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!hale@brooktree.com (preferred)

From: emory!Eng.Sun.COM!Scott.Griffith (Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware)
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: May 1993
Subject: Re: Evils of Glycol.
X-Sequence: 5436

On May 24, John DeArmond wrote:

> I've not seen Redline's propaganda.  What I use is experience, SAE standards,
> what professional tuners do and experimentation.  You'll not see any
> pro tuner, from Indy cars to IMSA, not use anti-freeze.

Man, I hate to argue with you on your own list, John- but this
sweeping generalization is wrong. There are a number of pro tuners
who do not use glycol, in Indycars, IMSA, NASCAR, and other
categories. I would go so far as to say that the vast majority of F1
teams do not use glycol. They make it work for a number of reasons,
but one major one is safety. That stuff is slick as snot when dumped
on the track, and it does not evaporate or get absorbed by the
pavement- it just lays there being slick. Given that an F1 car pukes
about 50% of its coolant and oil load over the course of an event, the
grip gets pretty dodgy even using pure water.

I spent a good many hours in the Jaguar pits at the 1990 Daytona 24
Hours (when I was off shift at my turn), and watched them play their
fun and games with their cooling systems. They kept breaking waterpump
drives, and eventually killed the block by overheating. Similarly, the
privateer Nissan right next door (Busby, I think, bought the '89 Elvis
chassis), and had problems after hitting some debris and holing the
radiator. Both were running without glycol. The Jags mixed in some
sort of soluble oil, and eventually tried the old NASCAR trick of
mixing in some sodium silicate solution, but there was no antifreeze
to be seen. And I'd credit both teams with having some significant
development work in.

Antifreeze has its place, but IMHO the racetrack isn't one of them.
There are better ways to lube the water pump, control corrosion, and
fix heating problems. If the only way you can get your motors to live
is by using glycol, go for it! But it's not the ideal solution to the
problem, nor is it the universal solution. Glycol coolant mixes are
not permitted in AMA motorcycle competition for a good reason...

-skod

--
Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware
expatriate SCCA New England Region Flagging/Communications worker
(and sometimes driver, of anything that turns both right and left,
and can pass tech...) Return Path : skod@sun.COM

[  Hey, don't worry about arguing with me.  I can take it :-)

I'll back off relative to F1 because I don't have any first-hand experience.
That's far enough from anything we're likely to ever do that it doesn't
much matter.  I do know for a fact that every car I had a chance to look
at at the GP of Atlanta uses antifreeze.  That goes for GTP cars (all 7 of
'em), Camel lites, super cars and Formula firehawk, formula saab (that Zerex
sponsors 'em probably has nothing to do with it :-), and formula ford.
I found it surprising enough to see the bright green coolant dripping from
engines being removed from cars that I started taking notice.  Not because
I expected to see pure water but because I expected something exotic
like propylene glycol.

I know you don't like antifreeze in racing cars.  My opinion is different but
those are both just opinions.  I think the technical merits for some mix
of antifreeze and water are strong enough that it will be around for quite
some time.  it's not THAT much less slick than plain old water or water
with an additive package.  JGD]

From: James TenCate <emory!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!jtc>
X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Oct 1993
Subject: Re:  Sierra antifreeze?
X-Sequence: 6742

Since no one replied right away, perhaps I can shed a little light on this.
Sierra is propylene glycol rather than ethylene glycol.  A 50/50 mix
is supposed to be good down to -27F.  Some of our local club members
are going to try it out;  someone in the club lost her dog because
of ethylene glycol poisoning.  The Sierra is supposed to have
corrosion protection equivalent to ethylene glycol and is STILL
supposed to be safe and non-toxic.  It's also touted as safe for all
metals.  Wonder how this stuff would work with something like RedLine's
WaterWetter?

Anyway, that's about all I know (and most of the above is from an ad
that the Sierra people put out).  It's available here in Austin at
Pep Boys (and maybe elsewhere now too).  It's only a little bit more
expensive than regular antifreeze.  Any experiences with the stuff
that anyone's heard about?

L8er,
jim

[I have mixed emotions about this stuff.  propylene glycol is an excellent
coolant, having a boiling point of 372 degrees at atmospheric pressure and
a very low freezing point (can't find the exact value but I think it is
below -50).  That means a cooling system can be operated without water
at atmospheric pressure and still not boil.  Dilluting it as Sierra
recommends defeats this benefit, of course.  On the other hand
Sierra's marketing approach of wrapping themselves in the green mantle
of econazism makes me sick.   I stopped at the antifreeze shelf yesterday
and read the label.  Sickening.  I guess I ought to be glad I can easily
buy propylene glycol off the shelf and leave it at that.  BTW, the
price at Downeys (local area chain car parts store) was $5.45 a gallon.
In other words, used undiluted, it is about 4X the cost of ethylene glycol.
JGD]

X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Date: Oct 1993
From: Carl Ijames <ijames@helix.nih.gov>
Subject: Glycol data (was: Sierra antifreeze?)
X-Sequence: 6764

Now that we know that Sierra antifreeze is propylene glycol (thanks to
whomever posted that), I looked up some of the properties of water,
ethylene glycol, and propylene glycol.  Submitted, for you amusement:


Property                 Water      EtGly      PropGly      Units

boiling point            100         197          188       deg C
freezing point             0         -13                    deg C
molar heat capacity       18          36           45      cal/mol-C
specific heat              1        0.58         0.59     cal/gram-C
vapor pressure at 25 C    24        0.12         0.13       torr
molecular weight          18          62           76      gram/mol
heat of vaporization    9.72       12.06        12.94     kilocal/mol
heat of vaporization     540         195          170      cal/gram
viscosity at temp.    1 @ 20 C  13.6 @ 30 C  18.0 @ 40 C



For mixtures of glycol and water (sp gr = specific gravity at 15 C or 59 F,
fp = freezing point in deg C):

                    EtGly             PropGly
% by volume      sp gr    fp        sp gr    fp

   9.2           1.013   -3.6
  10                                1.006   -2.2
  20                                1.017   -6.7
  23             1.033  -10.7
  25                                1.020   -8.9
  28             1.040  -14
  30                                1.024  -12.8
  38             1.053  -22.3
  40                                1.032  -20.6
  45                                1.037  -26.7
  48             1.067  -33.8
  50                                1.040  -33.3


This table shows that a given concentration of ethylene glycol gives a
lower freezing point up to about 45 %, but for the usual 50:50 mix they
both freeze at -33 C (-28 F).  Also, _Lange's Handbook of Chemistry_
(source of the second table; the first table is from _Solvents_) says that
a mixture of 70 % propylene glycol and 30 % glycerol (% by weights, both
ingredients non-toxic) "makes a suitable antifreeze" and has the same
specific gravity-freezing point curve as ethylene glycol.  This means that
it can be tested with a standard hydrometer calibrated for ethylene glycol.
 Wonder why Sierra didn't use this mixture instead of pure propylene
glycol.  What do they say about testing?  Maybe I should find a jug and
read the label for myself :).  Finally, in my brief search I wasn't able to
find information on boiling point versus composition.

Happy hot-rodding,

Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov

X-Source: The Hotrod Mailing list
Subject: more cooling stuff
Date: Tuesday, Aug 16 1994 16:34:42
From: John De Armond

> Back to the Callaway, what would be the advantage of Freon over plain
>old water?  If pressures were like normal AC systems, it'd be
>interesting to convert the engine from 15 psi liquid cooling to several
>hundred PSI of gas.

I suspect they're talking about one of the FluroInerts, freons with
boiling points up in the hundreds of degrees.  One past use of
FluroInert was vapor reflow soldering, where vaporized freon condensed
on PCBs and melted the solder, and reflowed it to a uniformly smooth
surface.  We used to use the stuff at the nuclear plant for thermocouple
and high temperature thermometer calibrations.  That was back when the
stuff was "only" about $400/gal.  Now that the econazis are getting
their ozone tax, the stuff is out of sight.

The benefit would obviously be that there would be no localized boiling
even without pressurization.  The great negative (other than cost) is
that the specific heat is much lower than water so a higher flowrate
would be necessary.  I really couldn't see it being worth the money.

John

From: ijames@netaxs.com (Carl Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: Propylene Glycol antifreeze: recipe?
Date: 9 Apr 1999 22:49:33 GMT

On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:15:46 -0700, Bob Greer <greers_maps@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
>Carl Ijames wrote in message ...
>>On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 17:15:26 -0400, Bill Walker <bhw@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>>>what concentration solution should he make up to use as an
>>>antifreeze/coolant.
>>
>>And the answer to that question is "as little as necessary to get the
>>minimum freezing point depression to make sure the engine won't freeze",
>>since water is a much better heat transfer fluid than either ethylene or
>>propylene glycol.
>
>There is also the boiling point to consider.  Antifreeze is desirable for
>that reason too.
>
>A radiator "boiling over" is more spectacular but far less costly to repair
>than a cracked block (from freezing) so they emphasize the "anti-freeze"
>aspect.
>
>But raising the boiling point is also important, or so I've been led to
>believe, in hot areas and on mountains.

I don't know about in mountains, but the boiling point elevation is one of
those catch-22 things - the glycol solution is poorer at heat transfer so
the motor runs hotter so you need the elevated boiling point to keep from
boiling over :-).  It's true that when the manufacturers went to 190-195
degree thermostats the base temp got a little close to 212 deg F so some
extra cushion is nice, but the fact is an engine with pure water will run
cooler than one with 50% antifreeze (notice how in recent years they quit
putting the chart on the bottle that told the freezing point at various
concentratins and just started recommending 50/50? :-)).  Besides, with a
15 or 16 psi radiator cap the boiling point goes up to about 250 deg F
anyway, so if your cooling system is in decent shape you never need the
extra boiling point elevation. There is also a product made by RedLine
called WaterWetter that I believe is mostly Aerosol OT (sodium
dioctylsulfosuccinate) at some concentration around .25% that when added
to pure water will lower temps another 5-10 degrees.  Works by cutting the
surface tension to give better wetting of surfaces and thus improving heat
transfer and reducing localized hot spots that could initiate film
boiling.  WaterWetter also helps with antifreeze but not as much as if you
run pure water (and it has anticorrosion stuff in it which of course you
need but I haven't gone into).  I have a professional mechanic friend in
Phoenix, where they have to be serious about cooling, and his standard
recipe is to put in antifreeze for winter then distilled water/WaterWetter
(or a product called RMI25 which is similar) for the summer, and he
routinely sees coolant temperature drops of 15-20 degrees when he does
this.

--
Regards,
Carl Ijames     ijames@netaxs.com