I have just enough formal physics education to be real dangerous, or at least very skeptical at times. So, my "BS" antenna is up whenever I hear claims about additives like "Water Wetter" (WW) enhancing engine cooling.
I'm gonna go away now and do some research and maybe some experimenting, but this is what gets me to
and thinking
:
Fact: Water is a compound that has a very high "specific heat" factor. The higher the "specific heat" factor, the more heat (calories) it will absorb to raise its temperature by a given amount, and the more heat it will carry: like a sponge holds liquid, water holds heat. This is a good thing for a coolant to do.
Fact: The bigger the heat differential between two materials (the radiator and air, in this case) the faster (and more) heat will transfer.
Fact: Coolant temperature is an
indirect method of determining engine heat: the temperature of the engine surfaces is the "real deal", but because we're so familiar with engine temp in terms of standard water coolant temp characterisitics, we take it for granted. The point is, if it ain't a well known comodity, i.e. "water" (50/50 antifreeze), then all bets are off as to actual engine metal temp/ effectiveness in the presence of an unknown coolant.
My point is, colant temp changes claimed by the makers of the WW is not proof of better cooling, due to the fact measuring coolant temp is an indirect measurement of engine surfaces.
If the WW does NOT combine with the water to form a new compound, and thereby altering it's specific heat (raising it), then the 6-12 oz of the WW stuff would have more of a placebo effect (on the purchaser) than actual heat transfer effectiveness.
But, if the WW does in fact form a new compound with the water/glycol solution, one that is more efficient (read: higher specific heat factor), then perhaps it might well carry heat away more efficiently. A simple experiment could be conducted to prove or disprove WW's ability to transfer heat... Is it golden, or is it snake oil? I dunno, but
"Ahl be back!"
P.