REFLECTOR:Why not test NPG+?

Dennis Martin reflector@tvbf.org
Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:10:54 -0600


--============_-1129630638==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

Lots of thoughtful comments  on this debate; you all have me thinking.

A few assumptions about NPG+ deserve testing before I throw out my 
three bottles of product.   I believe in the scientific method, and 
I've got two fluid engineers living a block or two away.  They have 
the ability to remain objective by testing conventional vs. NPG+ . . 
. and they are rigorous.  I know they'll keep it based on science, 
not opinion or wishful thinking.  Like Kurt Winker, first I'll test 
my Chevy aluminum block with conventional coolant, and then with 
NPG+.   Here are the  assumptions that I consider worth investigating 
NPG+ technology:

1) If you compare two coolants (conventional 50/50 water antifreeze) 
and NPG+, the NPG should result in lower CHTs because when water 
comes into contact with hot metal (350+ degrees) it's going to boil 
away and leave that part of the metal hotter.  That segment of hotter 
metal temp has to go somewhere, so it ultimately spreads out to the 
rest of the block, hypothetically migrating to the rest of the block, 
thus resulting in higher CHTs.  If you have a normal functioning 
cooling system, NPG+ claims their product will result in lower block 
(CHT) temps than conventional 50/50 mix.  I'll wait and see what 
happens inside  my engine rather than trust their data.

2) NPG technology is based on a much higher surface tension compared 
with conventional 50/50 antifreeze & water.  If this hold true in my 
tests, NPG+ should remain attached to the hot spots in my engine. 
It's kind of like "Water Wetter" products, but Water Wetter is 
basically a surfactant.  If you use it you'll end up with a 
"detergent"  in your coolant - the poor man's way of trying to get 
higher surface tension.  Better than nothing to increase surface 
tension, but it's still a surfactant which means you have bubbles, 
but smaller bubbles.

3) As for the failure of a system, this should be easy to test if I 
put 20-30 hours of static plus taxi testing on my system.  In theory, 
you could run at zero pressure, but Evans rcommends a 5 lb. pressure 
cap.  That's an absolute safety advantage over conventional pressures 
because it puts 50-75% less stress on all the hoses and gaskets.  In 
my book, that's definitely worth testing scientifically.

My plan is to reserve judgment until after run the test, and I'll 
definitely let you people know.  I'll be the  first guy to throw out 
the NPG+ if it does not provide the safety margin I'm looking for. 
No guarantees which ever way I go, but at least I'll have done my 
best to work on more fact than fiction.

All the best,
Dennis
FG Elite,  Chevy 4.5 Liter V-6



>This is news to me.  My only agument to the documented success is 
>that it seems contrary to principals of engine cooling.  The 
>conventional water/antifreeze mix boils in the cylinder jacket and 
>boiling is the most efficient means of heat transfer which means it 
>will keep your engine the coolest.  They admit that with NPG+ the 
>engine runs hotter, but claim that is a good thing for better 
>efficiency.  It is true that the hotter the engine the more 
>thermodynamically efficient it will run, but it won't run long if 
>the temperature is too high.  Us with air cooled engines don't seem 
>to be looking for ways to increase our engine temps.  I suggest you 
>record your CHT/EGT temps wtih the distilled water and compare with 
>NPG+.  If you're comfortable with the higher temps using NPG+, then 
>I guess it will be ok.  Eliminating boil-over is a detriment rather 
>than an asset IMO.  With a conventional coolant if you lose coolant 
>circulation, it boils over.  However as long as it is boiling over, 
>you still have cooling and time to prepare to shutdown before your 
>engine overheats.  With the NPG+, I think overheating would happen 
>immediately upon loss of coolant circulation.
>
>John
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:NMFlyer1@aol.com>NMFlyer1@aol.com
>To: <mailto:reflector@tvbf.org>reflector@tvbf.org
>Cc: <mailto:dmartin@cougar.netutah.net>dmartin@cougar.netutah.net ; 
><mailto:ALVentures@cox.net>ALVentures@cox.net
>Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 7:06 PM
>Subject: Re: REFLECTOR:Velocity Manuals, Methods & Views
>
>Greetings,
>
>  I wanted to get the information on a product I plan on using to all 
>the liquid cooled engine experimentors.  Specifically the NPG+ is of 
>interest.  I know that it seems to work well in race applications 
>and should add the little extra benefit that our hard run engines 
>may need.
>I plan on firing up my Chevy V-6 in about 4-6 weeks and will use 
>distilled water to ensure I have no leaks. Then I will flush the 
>system and put in the NPG+.
>
>
><http://www.evanscooling.com/index2.html>Evans Cooling Systems, Inc. 
>High Performance Engine Cooling and Power Production.
>
>Let me know what you think, and I hope it helps.
>
>Kurt Winker
>
>

--============_-1129630638==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
 --></style><title>Re: REFLECTOR:Why not test
NPG+?</title></head><body>
<div>Lots of thoughtful comments&nbsp; on this debate; you all have me
thinking.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>A few assumptions about NPG+ deserve testing before I throw out
my three bottles of product.&nbsp;&nbsp; I believe in the scientific
method, and I've got two fluid engineers living a block or two away.&nbsp;
They have the ability to remain objective by testing conventional vs.
NPG+ . . . and they are rigorous.&nbsp; I know they'll keep it based
on science, not opinion or wishful thinking.&nbsp; Like Kurt Winker,
first I'll test my Chevy aluminum block with conventional coolant, and
then with NPG+.&nbsp;&nbsp; Here are the&nbsp; assumptions that I
consider worth investigating NPG+ technology:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>1) If you compare two coolants (conventional 50/50 water
antifreeze) and NPG+, the NPG should result in lower CHTs because when
water comes into contact with hot metal (350+ degrees) it's going to
boil away and leave that part of the metal hotter.&nbsp; That segment
of hotter metal temp has to go somewhere, so it ultimately spreads out
to the rest of the block, hypothetically migrating to the rest of the
block, thus resulting in higher CHTs.&nbsp; If you have a normal
functioning cooling system, NPG+ claims their product will result in
lower block (CHT) temps than conventional 50/50 mix.&nbsp; I'll wait
and see what happens inside&nbsp;<u> my engine</u> rather than trust
their data.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>2) NPG technology is based on a much higher surface tension
compared with conventional 50/50 antifreeze &amp; water.&nbsp; If this
hold true in my tests, NPG+ should remain attached to the hot spots in
my engine.&nbsp; It's kind of like &quot;Water Wetter&quot; products,
but Water Wetter is basically a surfactant.&nbsp; If you use it you'll
end up with a &quot;detergent&quot;&nbsp; in your coolant - the poor
man's way of trying to get higher surface tension.&nbsp; Better than
nothing to increase surface tension, but it's still a surfactant which
means you have bubbles, but smaller bubbles.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>3) As for the failure of a system, this should be easy to test if
I put 20-30 hours of static plus taxi testing on my system.&nbsp; In
theory, you could run at zero pressure, but Evans rcommends a 5 lb.
pressure cap.&nbsp; That's an absolute safety advantage over
conventional pressures because it puts 50-75% less stress on all the
hoses and gaskets.&nbsp; In my book, that's definitely worth testing
scientifically.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>My plan is to reserve judgment until after run the test, and I'll
definitely let you people know.&nbsp; I'll be the&nbsp; first guy to
throw out the NPG+ if it does not provide the safety margin I'm
looking for.&nbsp; No guarantees which ever way I go, but at least
I'll have done my best to work on more fact than fiction.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>All the best,</div>
<div>Dennis</div>
<div>FG Elite,&nbsp; Chevy 4.5 Liter V-6</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>This is news to me.&nbsp; My only agument
to the documented success is that it seems contrary to principals of
engine cooling.&nbsp; The conventional water/antifreeze mix boils in
the cylinder jacket and boiling is the most efficient means of heat
transfer which means it will keep your engine the coolest.&nbsp; They
admit that with NPG+ the engine runs hotter, but claim that is a good
thing for better efficiency.&nbsp; It is true that the hotter the
engine the more thermodynamically efficient it will run, but it won't
run long if the temperature is too high.&nbsp; Us with air cooled
engines don't seem to be looking for ways to increase our engine
temps.&nbsp; I suggest you record your CHT/EGT temps wtih the
distilled water and compare with NPG+.&nbsp; If you're comfortable
with the higher temps&nbsp;using NPG+, then I guess it will be ok.&nbsp;
Eliminating boil-over is a detriment rather than an asset IMO.&nbsp;
With a conventional coolant if you lose coolant circulation, it boils
over.&nbsp; However as long as it is boiling over, you still have
cooling and time to prepare to shutdown before your engine overheats.&nbsp;
With the NPG+, I think overheating would happen immediately upon loss
of coolant circulation.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>&nbsp;</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>John<br>
<blockquote>----- Original Message -----</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>From:</b> <a
href="mailto:NMFlyer1@aol.com">NMFlyer1@aol.com</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:reflector@tvbf.org">reflector@tvbf.org</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:dmartin@cougar.netutah.net">dmartin@cougar.netutah.net</a
> ; <a
href="mailto:ALVentures@cox.net">ALVentures@cox.net</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 17, 2004 7:06 PM</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Subject:</b> Re: REFLECTOR:Velocity Manuals, Methods &amp;
Views</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>Greetings,</blockquote>
<blockquote>&nbsp;</blockquote>
<blockquote>&nbsp;I wanted to get the information on a product I plan
on using to all the liquid cooled engine experimentors.&nbsp;
Specifically the NPG+ is of interest.&nbsp; I know that it seems to
work well in race applications and should add the little extra benefit
that our hard run engines may need.</blockquote>
<blockquote>I plan on firing up my Chevy V-6 in about 4-6 weeks and
will use distilled water to ensure I have no leaks. Then I will flush
the system and put in the NPG+.</blockquote>
<blockquote>&nbsp;</blockquote>
<blockquote>&nbsp;</blockquote>
<blockquote><a href="http://www.evanscooling.com/index2.html">Evans
Cooling Systems, Inc. High Performance Engine Cooling and Power
Production.</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>&nbsp;</blockquote>
<blockquote>Let me know what you think, and I hope it
helps.</blockquote>
<blockquote>&nbsp;</blockquote>
<blockquote>Kurt Winker</blockquote>
<blockquote>&nbsp;</blockquote>
<blockquote>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1129630638==_ma============--