what is the best mix?

[wfarid]

I've been looking around, and there are SOOO many water additives and they all claim to improve performance and protect ur waterblocks from corrosion (ie HydrX, or Zerex Racing Super Coolant), but I'd like to see a liquid additive roundup! I'd like to see what really performs the best...

[dino-new]

I live in cali, and everyone here uses water wetter to race their buggies in the san dunes. And it gets pretty hot out in the desert here in San Diego. I noticed a big drop in temps, about 5c-10c when I switched from normal antifreeze to water wetter.

[Player0]

I've never heard anyone claim those kinds of numbers with water wetter. Ive used it and it didnt do anything for me. What ratios do you use Dino?

[dino-new]

Hi Player0,

I was running hiperformance rad fluid and my temps were good 12c load. Then I ran out and was using 25% zerex to 75% water and my idle was around 0-5c/ load around 15-20c. Then, as you may remember I decided to see what was wrong as I had only changed two variables, the fluid and parallel looping, I switched to water wetter (well it's actually supposed to be better, it's a redline product which has water wetter in it) and now my temps get down to -10c idle and about 8-10c full load.

[Player0]

Not worried about CPU temperatures. More worried about the difference your water temperatures have made.

Which redline product?

[dino-new]

That's actually the funny thing, now my flow rate is somewhere around double, but my water temps are 5c above ambient. My water temps used to be around 2c above ambient. But even with the higher temps, my cpu get's much colder. I beleive it's due to the increased flow rate and turbulance in the waterblock and rad. I ran an experiment where I put two ball valves at the end of each side of the parallel loop and tested the temps at different flow rates. The best temp I got was at the highest flow rate.

Anyways, here's the make and model of the water additive I'm using:

Red Line - Super Cool w/ Water Wetter

I went to their site and didn't find it listed. I got it from a local shop here in San Diego.

[Synthohol]

Originally posted by dino-new
25% zerex to 75% water there is the first mistake, 90%distilled water and 10% antifreeze is a pretty standard mix.
I just don't think you gave it a fair shake in your trials.
Any chance for a re-match?:)

[dino-new]

Re-match? I think I'm runnin the champ now, no sense in down grading :)

[dicki]

water wetter isn't really worth the money, its designed to work at ridiculous temperatures that any normal cooling system (hopefully) won't get near... if there were temp gains like that to be had everyone and his dog would be using it.

dicki

[wfarid]

well running a 226 and a 176 pelt (Even with a he120.3) will make watertemps significantly high, so wouldn't the redline solution that dino is using making a difference here?

[Player0]

WaterWetter is designed for use at 70C or higher. I've had over 1000w of peltiers on a system and never achieved any better results with waterwetter.

Waterwetter is ALSO designed for use in Glycol antifreeze, and does very little for just standard water. It's properties interact with the glycol.

Most of the watercooling community has basically given up the use of waterwetter because very few people claim to have noticed any improvement. I say CLAIM because even if there is a noticicable improvement, I havent seen any REAL testing to prove this one way or the other.

Straight water is the best thing to use for your cooling system in terms of getting the best temperatures. However, a 10% mix of Glycol antifreeze will prevent growth and corrosion in the system.

I have tested different brands of antifreeze and water. I have never measured a noticible difference with or without water wetter. I have also not seen a performance drop with using Glycol in up to almost a 50-50 ratio.

My recent test was just before Waterblock roundup 2003. I had a DangerDen Maze4 and I ran it with straight water for a while before I got my antifreeze mix in. The temperatures didnt change a bit.

Adding waterwetter certainly won't hurt. But I don't beleive the numbers that are being thrown around here in the slightest.

[wfarid]

i read somewhere that the BEST mix is like 85% distilled water, 10%glycol and then 5% water whetter, i dont know how tru that is... but i would really like to see some testing and benchmarking on the liquids... anyone up for it???

[Player0]

Theres people who even sell premixed liquids at incredible prices.

Depends on your school of thought. Some people are going to swear theres a difference. Ive never noticed one unless I went really thick with the glycol.

[dicki]

maybe we're too old and cynical...

the trouble is most water cooling is 99% exact science and 1% voodoo... and people seem to break thier backs trying to explain that last 1% and eek every single last fraction of a degree out of thier systems before concentrating on the 99% that they can actually effect easily and get real noticable gains from.

i'll break it down...

things that matter:
1: mounting pressure - more = better
2: flow - more = better
3: radiators and fans - more = better
4: free flowing loops = good (keep tubing runs short, direct and kink free)

if you *ONLY* use the above 4 tips you could probably run vegemite round your loop and still get good temps. (i'm kidding before anyone tries this!!!)

things that make a *TINY* difference
1: water / antifreeze concentrations
2: any type of water wetter in any concentration
3: dyes

the reason people don't do tests on the fluid in the loop is because the other factors are soooo much more important and yield vastly more results that theres no point scrabbling for that final 0.5c there are much better things to worry about in this world.

dicki

[dino-new]

Now I'm no expert on water wetter by any means. And, like you guys have pointed out, I haven't run enough tests to back up my claim. But I can say this:

The effectiveness of a liquid in a radiator system depends on four factors of the liquid: (other factors of the radiator and others are involved, but let's just examine the liquid for now)

1. The thermal conductivity of the liquid.
2. The potential for thermal storage (related to mass).
3. Velocity of the liquid thru the system.
4. And perhaps, as player0 pointed out, pressure which I'm not going to get into here.

The liquid is nothing more than a carrier for heat. Think of heat as cargo on a ship. The amount of cargo you can deliver depends on:

1. The time required to load the ship (thermal conductivity)
1. The size of the ship (mass of the liquid molecules)
2. Time required to get to the destination (velocity of the liquid)
3. The amount of time required to unload the ship (once again thermal conductivity)


So you see, that the molecules that make up the liquid play a huge role in the thermal transfer ability of the liquid in a radiator system.

My quarter,

Devin

[dino-new]

I found this, take a look at the thermal conductivity of water...

Material Coefficient of Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)

Air 0.026
Water 0.609
Glass 0.8
Concrete 1.0
Steel 46
Copper 401

Kinda makes you wonder what liquid silver (mercury) would do for a rad system.

[Player0]

Mercury, as it has been pointed out to me many times and yet I still cant remember it, has a property that makes it poor for cooling, a bad specific heat capacity I beleive. Water itself has one of the best heat capacities around, which is quite handy since it's pretty non-toxic and available.

Dino, I wish you would stop taking your opinions and listing them as facts here on this site. You say things like The potential for thermal storage (related to mass). which is called Specific Heat Capacity, yet you aren't familiar enough with this topic to list the proper name for this factor.

Thermodynamics, which I have been learning more about since getting in to this hobby, is based on solid math and facts. Many of this information is available in the library or even online, yet I just feel as though you don't have a solid grasp of this yet. I know your excited and Im glad to see you participating here, but I wish you would research more in to your answers.

Please read some of the wonderful information found here: http://www.thermal-management-testing.com/ I've read most of this already, and its basically the larger portion of thermodynamics broken down in to the smaller portions that relate most to liquid cooling.

http://www.thermal-management-testing.com/radiator%20testing%202.htm

This has some good radiator testing. (whether this has anything to do with the scope of this thread, Im not sure)..

[dino-new]

Just curious, all terminology aside, am I right?

[dino-new]

Player0, I found this at Engineering Toolbox (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/36_339qframed.html)

Perhaps this will help, it states:

The heat capacity C of a substance is the amount of heat required to change its temperature by one degree, and has units of energy per degree. The heat capacity is therefore an extensive variable since a large quantity of matter will have a proportionally large heat capacity. A more useful quantity is the specific heat (also called specific heat capacity), which is the amount of heat required to change the temperature of one unit of mass of a substance by one degree. Specific heat is therefore an intensive variable and has units of energy per mass per degree.

the heat capacity term you pointed out is actually related to how much heat is required to raise it by one degree. If it has a high heat capacity in this case then it is very bad at absorbing heat. Here's a chart that I found on various materials and their heat capacity:

Product Specific Heat Capacity
Btu / lb oF kJ / kg K
Antimony 0,05 0,21
Apatite 0,2 0,84
Asbestos 0,2 0,84
Ashes 0,2 0,84
Asphalt 0,19 0,8
Augite 0,19 0,8
Bakelite, wood filler 0,33 1,38
Bakelite, asbestos filler 0,38 1,59
Barite 0,11 0,46
Barium 0,07 0,29
Basalt rock 0,2 0,84
Beryl 0,2 0,84
Bismut 0,03 0,13
Borax 0,24 1
Boron 0,31 1,3
Brick 0,22 0,92
Cadmium 0,06 0,25
Calcite 32 – 100F 0,19 0,8
Calcite 32 – 212F 0,2 0,84
Calcium 0,15 0,63
Carbon 0,17 0,71
Carborundum 0,16 0,67
Cassiterite 0,09 0,38
Cement dry 0,37 1,55
Cement powder 0,2 0,84
Charcoal 0,24 1
Chalcopyrite 0,13 0,54
Chromium 0,12 0,5
Clay 0,22 0,92
Coal min 0,26 1,09
Coal max 0,37 1,55
Cobalt 0,11 0,46
Coke 0,2 0,85
Concrete stone 0,19 0,8
Concrete cinder 0,18 0,75
Cork 0,49 2,03
Corundum 0,1 0,42
Diamond 0,15 0,63
Dolomite rock 0,22 0,92
Fluorite 0,22 0,92
Fluorspar 0,21 0,88
Galena 0,05 0,21
Garnet 0,18 0,75
Glass 0,2 0,84
Glass crystal 0,12 0,5
Glass plate 0,12 0,5
Glass wool 0,16 0,67
Granite 0,19 0,8
Graphite 0,17 0,71
Hermatite 0,16 0,67
Hornblende 0,2 0,84
Hypersthene 0,19 0,8
Ice –112F 0,35 1,47
Ice -40F 0,43 1,8
Ice -4F 0,47 1,97
Ice 32F 0,49 2,05
India rubber min 0,27 1,13
India rubber max 0,98 4,1
Iridium 0,03 0,13
Labradorite 0,19 0,8
Lava 0,2 0,84
Limestone 0,2 0,84
Lead 0,03 0,13
Magnetite 0,16 0,67
Malachite 0,18 0,75
Manganese 0,11 0,46
Marble 0,21 0,88
Mica 0,21 0,88
Oliglocose 0,21 0,88
Orthoclose 0,19 0,8
Peat 0,45 1,88
Plaster 0,2 0,84
Porcelain 0,26 1,07
Potassium 0,13 0,54
Pyrexglass 0,2 0,84
Pyrolusite 0,16 0,67
Pyroxylin plastics 0,36 1,51
Quarts 55 – 212F 0,19 0,8
Quarts 32F 0,17 0,71
Rock salt 0,22 0,92
Rubber 0,48 2,01
Sand 0,19 0,8
Sandstone 0,22 0,92
Serpentine 0,26 1,09
Silk 0,33 1,38
Sodium 0,3 1,26
Stone 0,2 0,84
Stoneware 0,19 0,8
Sulphur 0,17 0,71
Tar 0,35 1,47
Tellurium 0,05 0,21
Tile hollow 0,15 0,63
Topaz 0,21 0,88
Tungsten 0,04 0,17
Vanadium 0,12 0,5
Vulcanite 0,33 1,38
Wood min 0,32 1,34
Wood max 0,48 2,01
Wool 0,33
1,38

I'm unsure that heat capacity in this case is really related to heat storage, which is more related to mass.

[dino-new]

Take note of cork and wood, in the above, and perhaps compare it too uranium. Both matter require a large amount of energy (heat) to raise their temp, but I wouldn't try using cork or wood in a cooling system as it doesn't store the heat very well, and if heated cork and wood aren't a very good heat conductors anyways.

[Player0]

Originally posted by dino-new
Just curious, all terminology aside, am I right?

Are you right about what? IM not sure what your asking.

[mdzcpa]

Just my to cents:

As P0 said, 100% water is best, but 5 to 10% anti freeze is needed for anti life, anti corrosion, and pump lubricating properties.

Water Wetter does not work. Based on the how's and why's of WW's successful automotive application, it is clear that it cannot provide any benefits.

Basically what it does in the automotive applications is stop the small boiling areas in your cooling system by reducing the water's surface tension. WaterWetter prevents (or lowers) the occurence of these tiny boiling hotspots resulting in more surface area contact between the fluid and the metal surfaces. That is how it "improves cooling" in auto applications. So unless your water blocks are getting hot enough to cause flash boiling in spots, WW will not help. It's that simple.

[dino-new]

I'm thinking of playing around with other liquids. I'll have to do some research in the area. Then do some tests.

[Denovin]

I think alcohol would be great because it doesnt slow down as water would at sub 0 temps. Though it doesnt have that great of a capacity, or so I hear, though I have yet to see the specs. Would it be possible to mix water and this? Alcohol also might cause corrosion, though Im not expert on any of this. I believe Alcohol is also less dense and lighter(if tha is the case it would move faster).

I think actuelly, the clear oil stuff, pure ethynol(watch im such a noob, when ethynol is alcohol..which.. im so confused it might be, cuz I know glycol is the antifreeze stuff) is it? mixed with water is the best

[wfarid]

hmm, ethynol evarporates like a b*tch at room temps, so u might have run into a problem even if its enclosed in a loop... i wouldn't suggest ethynol, although i'd like to see it tested never the less... DO IT DINO!!! I agree with player0 and Synthohol, water is the best but 10% antifreeze for anti-corrosion/ anti fungal ish...

[dicki]

i think everyone here is missing the point...

the fact is it doesn't matter! you are argueing about difference in the order of fractions of a degree!

regarding alternative liquids like mecury / alcohol / whatever.

mercury is dangerous (deadly) and really really hard to pump and it has a poor specific heat capacity

alcohol will evaporate, attact seals and have poor SHC (though incorporating it into some kind of evaporative cooler could be interesting and even if its not you just have to open it up and take a sniff and you won't care!)

pure water with small amounts of anti freeze really is the best solution for this application please believe us we've been doing this for a very long time!

[dino-new]

Dicki,

In my earlier post I cut and pasted the definition of specific heat capacity from an Engineering Site. Specific heat capacity is not the ability for matter to store energy in the form of heat. But rather it's the heat required to raise a unit of mass 1 degree. It really is somewhat illusive when discussing in heat dissipation systems. Some matter, like wood, has a high specific heat capacity (it takes a lot of heat to raise it 1 degree) but it doesn't absorbe heat well.

For instance, the matter that makes up the tiles on the space shuttle has an enormous specific heat capacity and absorbes very little heat.

On another note, I was wondering about Hydrogen Peroxide and the effect of it in a cooling system. It's close to water in structure but has one more oxygen atom to absorb heat.

Anyways, I am going to test different liquids and further investigate.

[Player0]

First off, there have been many people in the community that have tried other fluids. There ARE fluids that work better than water, but they are all more hazardous. I remember that one of the alchohols does work better. However, its flammable, and ruins the tubing and pumping. There are some other very nasty chemicals, one of the benzenes, etc. There has already been extensive study and testing on this in watercooled PCs. Do a web search.

And for god sakes, do some research in to what others have done before going to do something like this yourself. Hydrogen peroxide is NOT going to work better because its 'like water but has more mass'. There is also Heavy Water H3O which is used in nuclear reactors. The reality is, it doesnt ABSORB more heat because of its larger mass. This is myth. It does however last longer under radiation bombardment. Assuming that H2O2 is like water is just an example of your inexperience. It certainly will NOT work better. It also reacts badly with certain kinds of metal, and releases gas. You dont want an O2 or H2 build up in your system. Again, its dangerous to mess with chemistry without the proper knowledge.

Specific heat capacity is not the ability for matter to store energy in the form of heat. But rather it's the heat required to raise a unit of mass 1 degree.

This made me chuckle. Its the same damn thing either way you slice it. "Storing Heat Energy" is simply an abstract expression which means "Raising the Temperature of Matter". Dude... I guess reading information isnt everything. There has to be some form of comprehension.

Some matter, like wood, has a high specific heat capacity (it takes a lot of heat to raise it 1 degree) but it doesn't absorbe heat well.

Right, there are two factors. Specific Heat Capacity and Thermal Conductivity. A substance with one and not the other is not going to work well. Water has a good SPC and a good Thermal Conductivity. Mercury has a good Thermal Conductivity (most metals do) and a bad SPC, making it a bad choice.

[wfarid]

agreed.... but the only real way to settle this dispute between dino and player0 is a duel.... someone's gotta go...

[Player0]

Yeti at noon?

[dino-new]

First off, let me say, I enjoy being here at the forum. I hope that our discussion will prove to be a learning experience for all those involved, including myself. And let it be a positive experience as well. Perhaps we could leave the debasing out of our responses.

>>Right, there are two factors. Specific Heat Capacity and thermal Conductivity.

Thank you for pointing that out. Which makes me glad that I used the term 'potential for thermal storage' instead of the term 'Specific Heat Capacity'. As you've pointed out there are other factors involved in the overall "potential for thermal storage" of a material.

A cargo ship wouldn't be any good if the doors couldn't open :)

And again, player0, I don't look at this as a showdown, but rather a learning debate.

[Player0]

I am not looking for any kind of show down. But I am also not looking for a debate. There is nothing to debate here. Theres simply thermodynamics. The only thing that is at question is your level of knowledge on this subject. Frankily, you shouldnt be TRYING to debate anyone becuase you simply dont have the knowledge or experience behind you. Id a given up a long time ago if you havent been on this board claiming what you know is fact.

Thank you for pointing that out. Which makes me glad that I used the term 'potential for thermal storage' instead of the term 'Specific Heat Capacity'. As you've pointed out there are other factors involved in the overall "potential for thermal storage" of a material.

No, there arent. That IS one of two factors that basically determine how good a material will be as a transfer medium. There are NO other factors involved in the overall 'potential for thermal storage'. Thats called Specific Heat Capacity, it HAS no 'parts'. Thats just it.

Thermal Conductivity is something different all together, which has NOTHING to do with storage potential. It has everything to do with how well heat transfers in to a material, basically speed, but also how well the heat spreads evenly.

They are two different root factors, and you can't lump them under one term.