REFLECTOR:Why not test NPG+?
Dennis Martin
reflector@tvbf.org
Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:42:27 -0600
--============_-1129614345==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Chuck,
Kudos for keeping the fun in the debate. Anticipating the need to
move fluid faster with NPG+, I installed a high-flow Mezziere racing
pump, the same high-flow pump used by hundreds of NASCAR engines.
To keep it in warranty, I even paid a few bucks extra to have
Mezziere drill/tap a hole in the top of the pump to vent air into my
burp tank. This pump has all ceramic seals and is bench-tested at
2,000 plus hours. And, since it's electric, it won't rob too much
HP. I know, I know. What if my 110 AMP electrical system fails?
I've got to devise another scientific test for that. You guys want
to take all the fun out of this. Just in case, I'm taking glider
lessons.
Best,
Dennis
P.S. A student who works for me at the university just went down at
night in a Cessna 172 about two miles from Provo airport at 3AM. It
was pitch black with no moon. They glided into some trees and
smashed up the empenage, but both walked away. About two cups more
fuel and they would have made it.
>Dennis,
>
>It's always distressing when people want to rely on facts and
>science instead of time-test anecdotes and conjecture. It takes all
>of the fun and excitement out of watching the resulting blow-ups.
>But one tiny little note is worth noting about 1). As John pointed
>out (at least I think that was is what he was pointing at), the
>water antifreeze solution actually boils at the point of contact
>with the metal in a conventional system. However, this is good.
>
>The nucleate boiling is a more efficient heat transfer system than a
>non-boiling liquid, such as NPG+, that stays in intimate contact
>with the metal surface. Intuitively, that seems like a good thing,
>but a boundary layer next to the metal may form and will be slow to
>conduct its heat away from the surface. A higher capacity water
>pump may help create turbulence to destroy this
>metal/liquid boundary but at the cost of some lost hp. Nucleate
>boiling does a superior job of heat transfer and at no cost.
>
>It'll be interesting to see what the testing shows, but losing the
>nucleate boiling may actually result in a hotter engine overall.
>
>Last time, I promise.
>
>Chuck
>
>[Chuck Jensen] -----Original Message-----
>From: reflector-admin@tvbf.org [mailto:reflector-admin@tvbf.org]On
>Behalf Of Dennis Martin
>Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 3:11 PM
>To: reflector@tvbf.org
>Subject: Re: REFLECTOR:Why not test NPG+?
>
>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
>
>
>
>
--============_-1129614345==_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>Chuck,</div>
<div>Kudos for keeping the fun in the debate. Anticipating the
need to move fluid faster with NPG+, I installed a high-flow Mezziere
racing pump, the same high-flow pump used by hundreds of NASCAR
engines. To keep it in warranty, I even paid a few bucks
extra to have Mezziere drill/tap a hole in the top of the pump to vent
air into my burp tank. This pump has all ceramic seals and
is bench-tested at 2,000 plus hours. And, since it's electric,
it won't rob too much HP. I know, I know. What if my
110 AMP electrical system fails? I've got to devise
another scientific test for that. You guys want to take all the
fun out of this. Just in case, I'm taking glider
lessons.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Dennis</div>
<div>P.S. A student who works for me at the university
just went down at night in a Cessna 172 about two miles from Provo
airport at 3AM. It was pitch black with no moon. They
glided into some trees and smashed up the empenage, but
both walked away. About two cups more fuel and they would have
made it. </div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#0000FF">Dennis,</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#0000FF">It's always distressing when people want to rely on
facts and science instead of time-test anecdotes and conjecture.
It takes all of the fun and excitement out of watching the resulting
blow-ups. But one tiny little note is worth noting about 1). As
John pointed out (at least I think that was is what he was pointing
at), the water antifreeze solution actually boils at the point of
contact with the metal in a conventional system. However, this
is good. </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#0000FF">The nucleate boiling is a more efficient heat transfer
system than a non-boiling liquid, such as NPG+, that stays in intimate
contact with the metal surface. Intuitively, that seems like a
good thing, but a boundary layer next to the metal may form and will
be slow to conduct its heat away from the surface. A higher
capacity water pump may help create turbulence to destroy this
metal/liquid boundary but at the cost of some lost hp.
Nucleate boiling does a superior job of heat transfer and at no
cost.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#0000FF">It'll be interesting to see what the testing shows,
but losing the nucleate boiling may actually result in a hotter engine
overall.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#0000FF">Last time, I promise.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#0000FF">Chuck</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Tahoma"><br>
</font><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#0000FF">[Chuck
Jensen] </font><font face="Tahoma" size="-1">-----Original
Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> reflector-admin@tvbf.org
[mailto:reflector-admin@tvbf.org]<b>On Behalf Of</b> Dennis Martin<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 20, 2004 3:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> reflector@tvbf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: REFLECTOR:Why not test NPG+?</font><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="-1"></font>
<blockquote>Lots of thoughtful comments on this debate; you all
have me thinking.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>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:</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>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 <u> my engine</u> rather than trust
their data.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>All the best,</blockquote>
<blockquote>Dennis</blockquote>
<blockquote>FG Elite, Chevy 4.5 Liter V-6</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>John<br>
<blockquote>----- Original Message -----<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>From:</b> <a
href="mailto:NMFlyer1@aol.com">NMFlyer1@aol.com</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:reflector@tvbf.org">reflector@tvbf.org</a><br>
</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><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 17, 2004 7:06 PM<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Subject:</b> Re: REFLECTOR:Velocity Manuals, Methods &
Views<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>Greetings,<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> 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.<br>
</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+.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><a href="http://www.evanscooling.com/index2.html">Evans
Cooling Systems, Inc. High Performance Engine Cooling and Power
Production.</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>Let me know what you think, and I hope it helps.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>Kurt Winker<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1129614345==_ma============--