Instructables
Picture of How to Watercool a PC
How-to-Watercool-a-PC_tech.jpg
Why would you want to water cool a PC? First of all it can much more quiet and it drops the temperature of your computer greatly. My quad core went from 50C under load to 28C Idle and under load! It is also good for overclocking. When you overclock the components of a PC get hot. The more you do it the hotter they get. It gets to a point were air cooling just won't cut it.

I really enjoy water cooling and it recently became one of my new hobbies. A water cooling rig requires maintenance. You need to know your way around a computer pretty well to be able to do this. I've been building computer since I was 10 and this really pushes you to the limit. I want to go even farther and try vapor phase change cooling. It's pretty much building a refrigerator inside of your computer. Drops things to around -20C

The image shows my build before I cleaned up the wiring.

Some more pics of my computer here
 
Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up

Step 1: Finding your way around.

Picture of Finding your way around.
MotherboardB.jpg
ram.jpg
First know your way around a computer. Refer to the pictures.
1-40 of 242Next »
Prometheus6 years ago
Might I add that instead of using plain water, try using a proper antifreeze mix instead, just as you would for your car, as it has far better heat-transfer properties? Water has no viable R-rating, but antifreeze does because it is actually rateable. This eliminates factors of corrosion and algae/bacterial growth altogether, and at the same time acts as a lubricant for all non-potable water pumps. Antifreeze has inherent anti-oxidants already in it. Some people are debating various grades and purities of water and I say to just do without it in it's pure state. That way it doesn't matter i the tubing is clear PVC or natural rubber (clear PVC preferred of course). Antifreeze is a coolant above all else, and far better than water alone. I suggest as a preventative measure to prototype the system to the box, remove it, and do a leak test separate from the motherboard itself. Fittings should be a press fit to the hose and firmly (not tightly) clamped to prevent leaks. As a secondary preventative measure in case of potential future failure, separate the cooling system from the electrical with a physical barrier such as a plastic sheet that is "drip-proof", meaning that even dripping water will only find it's way out, and not in. If anything, only the CPU would benefit from this in terms of extending it's useful life for a few more decades. If you do this project (and including the author), be sure to maintain the system integrity with extreme prejudice to prevent a severely damaging lesson as to why electricity and water do not mix. A great instructable in any case (lol), well done! I will apply much from this design with due credit in my own system.
(removed by author or community request)
"Water is a much better coolant than antifreeze" No, or water would have a better R-rating than antifreeze. Just because it is called "anti-freeze" does not mean it is solely to lower the freezing point. I think you are not quite understanding the conditions that this coolant will endure as opposed to internal-combustion usage: Temperatures less than 150C Low flow rate Low pressure High heat transfer An anti-foaming agent is completely unnecessary, and $10 for wetter is a bit overkill for such a system that can make a gallon of orange antifreeze last about 20 years for $6, and wetter will degrade any vinyl in the system by gradually hardening it (or drying it out). If you really want to super-cool, forget water altogether and use denatured alcohol, or better yet acetone, methyl-ethyl-ketone, or low-octane gasoline (70-80 octane), if you can manage the flammability hazard and prevent degradation of your parts, for an automatic anti-foam and anti-algae agent. Water is a very simple coolant, in any form. Technically I can use R-134a to cool better than 90x this method, but this is quite sufficient with simple, cheap, and readily available green or orange antifreeze, and will not yield any better results on the processor. In any liquid-cooled computing system, the only danger of frying the CPU is loss of flow due to a failed pump or constricted line. Even water cooling alone through a surface area of greater than 3.5 square feet will suffice for the hottest processors to maintain service limits for the component. Overclock it all you will, but no manner of "cost-effective" cooling will improve performance measurably as opposed to service life. A CPU's FSB might gain a slight improvement in speed, but it still has limits per it's design, and are often internally-regulated. When you have a cpu designed to run itself into full thermo-nuclear meltdown, then every last effort for cooling is prudent, but in this case, it is replacing a cloggable fan with a more steady coolant that can maintain a more constant temperature. Temperature differences from idle to "hot" and back is what kills semiconductors because of molecular expansion that literally rips internal connections apart mechanically. Forcing a maintained temperature throughout all phases of operation improves reliability and overall performance *within it's operating limits*. Super-cooling does not make any component faster other above it's ability to switch a 1/0 signal. Typical semiconductors are made to run in a room-temperature ambient of 40C or less, and the only performance gain by supercooling is increased joule capacity, which often does not apply to CPU's at all. Simply put, a plain antifreeze will suffice for this level of heat capacity required. Wetter is just wasting money, and simply using bottled water eliminates 99.8% of particulate. Proper attention to the system prevents the other 0.2% of issues. Wetter will not improve any means in this system. I was a driver/mechanic on the track long enough to know what is expected of the coolant I used, and I know of the "water-and-wetter", which is necessary when your headers are glowing orange constantly, but it is absurd in this case. A good idea, but far overkill in this particular project. Glad to see that I am not the only one who knows about wetter here.... This is the result of me "doing the math", I hope you see why I came to the conclusion I did. This is not a debate about who is the better racer, it is more about what is the most prudent means of liquid cooling. I'm just saying that wetter is not necessary here due to lack of actual heat being transferred. A racing engine wastes up to 5 million watts of energy to heat, the most reckless of typical cpu's waste all of 100 watts or so. Many more than seven degrees of separation..... Nothing is truly "maintenance-free", regardless of design. Good design makes for easy maintenance, and that is what is most important.
I've never really seen R-value tables include water or ethylene glycol - and in this case, we want to know how well of a conductor they are as opposed to an insulator (just saying, perhaps it's better to use their K-values as a metric).

From my dusty thermo book:

Thermal Conductivity (k) - W/mK
Water: .58 W/mK
E. Glycol: .25

Then there's Specific Heat Cap. KJ/KgK
Water: 4.184
E. Glycol: 2.38

If E. Glycol was a more efficient heat transfer fluid - we'd be using 100% in car cooling systems. The coolant will cost a little more - but we wouldn't need the relatively large radiators. I know there's more to it than that (just a crude example) :p

In any case - as it applies to water cooling a PC (and comparing a water/glycol mix)...
Here's a pretty comprehensive look....
(removed by author or community request)
If you guys are so adamant about it why don't you test it? side by side tests, i think, is the only thing that will silence this argument. If I have time I'll try it myself!
Because the countless tests on the substances completed are no good? Grab a thermodynamics or fluid dynamics book and you'll find all of this information. Hell, I've got a table showing the flow increase necessary for different percentages of E. Glycol to reach an equivalent cooling capacity to water :p
(removed by author or community request)
To use such refrigerants would actually largely decompose the effect of such devices, because internal combustion DOES have a need to retain particular temperatures for the most efficient combustion. This is why your car engine runs most efficiently when "warm" than "cold". For internal combustion, there is a limit to how well you want a coolant to actually cool.....what you really want is a "regulation" of temperature instead of an ultimate cooling. Water is used in nuclear fusion reactors for the purpose of cooling as a result of maintaining a specific heat capacity, not because water does better work than antifreeze. The water coolant in such a reactor is more a ballasting heatsink than an active coolant, so that situation is not of comparison in this project. An antifreeze mixture does a better job of heat-transfer than water alone, no matter what it's state, distilled or not, which is why it's used for internal combustion applications than otherwise.Increasing the boiling point and lowering the freezing point makes plain water a more efficient coolant, but this is not to say that the water does the work. The reason that the properties are changed is because "the work" is being diverted to the ethylene-glycol", with the H2O as a ballast ingredient in the mix, not the other-way around. Water is only doing it's job in it'[;s best capacity, as a ballast for other chemicals.....Water is nothing more, and has no reactivity to anything else known to man. Water only does part of the work to an extent. Addition of ethylene glycol increases it's ability to do the work of a better coolant because it transfers heat better than water alone. Water in a cooling system is not serving the purpose of a coolant so much as it serves as a "temperate regulator". The addition of ethylene glycol simply improves it's performance in heat-transfer. The most common misnomer is to call water a "coolant", when actually it is a "highly-stable temperate medium". A similar argument is made for aluminum skillets vs cast-iron skillets in terms of cooking ability.
Cyto Prometheus6 years ago
Emphatically NO! Water has by far a higher specific heat capacity, it can absorb and carry more heat energy without raising it's temperature as much. The work is NOT diverted to the ethylene glycol. And rather than water being the regulator, that is what the ethylene glycol is, it's sole purpose in the mix is NOT because it conducts heat better, it is because of the colligative properties of solutions that make it so that the mix has a higher boiling point and lower freezing point than water alone. Antifreeze is just there to make it harder to boil off or freeze the REAL coolant k? BTW Cooler is actually bad for the speed at which an electronic pulse (signal) can be carried at a certain point as well, getting to -20 C as someone said earlier, may actually slow you down, although it may make it so that you need less power to run your processor (superconduction) it will start to be bad to make it colder at a certain point.
Cyto Cyto6 years ago
The reason the colligative properties change for a solution is not because the work is being diverted to the additive, it is (in simple terms) because the additive makes for less surface area of the coolant and makes it harder for the coolant molecules to bond together into solid structures (freezing). This means that with less surface area, coolant vapor particles are more likely to be reabsorbed into solution, but because of less coolant (not counting additive) surface area less particles are likely to break free. Thus the boiling point and the energy needed to make the coolant evaporate are increased while more energy must be lost in order to transform the coolant to it's solid state.
Prometheus Cyto6 years ago
So, if the work is not in any way diverted or taken by EG, then why would it have a higher boiling point in the first place? The water would simply boil off and leave the EG behind. And just how do you reduce the surface area of a liquid, per se? The only way to change the surface area of the coolant is to change the physical structure by which it is contained, unless I am not aware of some new wormhole technology in coolants that alters the water-jacket of any engine for a specific heat-transfer property.

Did you ever wonder why Icebergs are the freshest water on earth, even though they are formed from seawater? Why doesn't the salt freeze in with it? Perhaps it is the effect of basic chemistry that makes a different liquid with different properties, but somehow EG is exempt from this and I didn't know because somehow EG is not water-soluble.

Also, if it is to prevent boil-off of the water, then why do they both fume equally when the mixture does hit it's boiling point?

Try holding a brick of solid sodium and go jump in a lake. Chemistry will have a lesson for you too.

FYI, the pressurized system is to prevent boil-off. The EG resists surface-boiling on contact with the water-jacket walls around the combustion chambers. You should review the temperatures in the water-jacket near the combustion chambers, or at least combustion-chamber temperatures in general.

BTW....Water = water, EG = EG, water + EG = coolant. Go ahead and test your theory by running your car on water alone then. Obviously, in a tropical environment, EG serves no purpose, right?.

EG reduces the corrosive effects of water. EG lubricates the water-pump and seals. EG improves the heat-transfer of water because the solution has a better ability to move heat than water alone. Accept and move on.
Cyto Prometheus6 years ago
Prometheus, half of what you said is exactly what I said and the other half is just stupid. The EG added to water decreases it's surface area by taking up some of that surface area! leaving a smaller ration of surface area to the water component by ratio with what it had before, this is one of the colligative properties of solutions, if you don't believe me, go read your chemistry book again, water does the work, EG keeps it from freezing or BOILING off. Icebergs are fresh because when salt water freezes the salt is collected into small pockets, the salt does freeze in with it, but in small pockets of sometimes unfrozen extremely salty water instead of evenly disbursed throughout. They both "fume" (read vaporize) equally because of the ratios of solution compounds that also cause the water to have less surface area (lost to the EG) when the EG is added. As for your tropical jab, you would do well to reread and see that I said freezing AND BOILING!!! Do you know what vapor pressure is? It is present even when a liquid/solution is not a vapor for the most part, the higher the vapor pressure, the closer it is to the point of vaporization, the EG lowers the vapor pressure by, as I said several times before, taking up more surface area in ratio when combined with the water, thus giving itself an equal vaporization energy while in solution, the lesser surface area causes water vapor particles to be absorbed back into the solution more readily than they "leap" out of the solution. Similarly, the solution has a lower freezing point because the EG molecules are interposed between the water molecules and cause the need for a larger loss of energy to force the water molecules together into freezing while forcing the EG into pockets of unfrozen water/EG. EG may reduce the corrosive "effects" of water a very insubstantial amount in cars, but not chemically, it would have to be because of some minor side effect, it probably does help lubricate however. Certainly, some of the workload is taken by the EG, but more is taken by the water per mass unit and per volume unit. Sodium huh? You like acid/base burns along with other assorted unpleasant effects? I don't. FYI, the pressurized system ASSISTS in preventing boil-off as you call it (vaporization). The solution has a lesser ability to transfer heat than water by itself, however the solution is less likely to "boil-off" or freeze up. End of story, look in you chemistry book, try reading it, you might learn something very basic.
Prometheus Cyto6 years ago
I don't know why I am validating this with a response......

Where you get this anecdotal-science of "surface area" is beyond me. Furthermore, you are getting a little too hyper without actually getting into chemistry yourself. Water does not react with anything, however, other things react with water. FYI, pure sodium explodes on contact with water Mr. Bill Nye. Your reference to "acid/base burns" clearly shows you don't know where sodium fits in on the scale. Try looking at a basic pH scale for a little help.

"the higher the vapor pressure, the closer it is to the point of vaporization"

Me thinks you have your science backwards, and EG has no noteable effect on the vapor-pressure of water or a mixture therein. What you are referring to is "evaporative pressure" BTW, which is again unchanged. Maybe you should consult the Clausius-Clapeyron relation and do your math again. As such an esteemed physicist as you are, you should already be familiar with it.

Salt does not freeze with icebergs because the freezing point for sodium is so much lower than water. Any potentially-trapped sodium would literally melt it's way down through the ice to be reclaimed by seawater, if it could be trapped at all in the freezing process. Why do you think salt melts ice on contact? Ever heard of the "ice-and-table-salt deep-freezer"? Apparently not.....but I suppose pouring salt on ice cubes increases their surface area, as opposed to the accepted science that the salt is soluable in water and changing it's properties such as it's freezing point....

I will continue this fruitless debate no further, as there is no proving fact or fiction to you. Go tell a particle-physicist about your "surface-area" theory, I'm sure they'll need a good laugh. Maybe you could revolutionize hydraulic mechanics with this new theory too. Why waste time here, you have an entirely-new scientific frontier to explore, and prove wrong hundreds of years of scientific study!
Cyto Prometheus6 years ago
Ahahaha, ok well first I should tell you that I'm 18 and JUST FINISHED the section on these things in my chemistry 2 weeks ago. I passed with flying colors. Second of all, both things going into a reaction are REACTANTS, I can't say I know precisely how pure sodium and water react, the water may serve to start a multi stage reaction that is continued with the sodium then oxidizing rapidly (exploding), but the water DOES react with the sodium at the beginning. Water reacts, as I said before, with many things. Both water and the other compound are REACTANTS, the other side of the equation is PRODUCTS, don't try to sustain your ridiculous statement that water reacts with nothing while some things react with water, they both react TOGETHER. Any solute in solution, according to the colligative properties of solutions (google it and don't even bother to reply until you do.) lowers the ratio of surface area of the pure solute. Do you even know what the Clausius-Clapeyron equation is? Apparently you don't. The "Freezing" point of Sodium Chloride (and of sodium as it is in solution) is/are well above room temperature. That was retarded of you to say the freezing point of sodium is lower than water... Again, the reason it makes it harder for the water to freeze is because it has to be "pushed" out of solution with the water and into pockets of Salt, slightly in solution with water. Yes, I know how to make homemade Ice Cream. I disprove no scientific ideology. On the contrary I concur with it, while you, apparently are #1: Slightly "Special". #2: Aroused at the thought that you have been proven wrong and refusing to admit it by backing it up with utterly foolish claims. #3: 14 years old and don't know what on earth you are talking about. By the way you write I will assume it is neither #1 or #3, so it must, logically be #2 (although some of your spelling sucks. So maybe #3 after all...) Also you are constantly insulting me to try and prove you nonvalid point, this is a sign of immaturity, or foolishness, or both (even without the nonvalid point). You decide.
Prometheus Cyto6 years ago
It's rather amusing that you are talking about maturity, because your response is as immature as they come. By attempting to attack my character, you are clearly on the defensive. Furthermore, you are only 18, and no viable judge of character. When you look back 10 years you will see what I mean. I never insulted you, and if you find my comment offensive, the only one insulting you is in the mirror. You mention the freezing point of sodium chloride. You better work on your basic observational skills because I said sodium, not sodium chloride. If you think the freezing point of sodium is higher than room temperature in a solution, I invite you to go to the beach sometime. Or put sodium-chloride in a glass of water to peak dissolution and not very clearly that it will not freeze at room temperature. You are clearly mistaking the difference between a solid-to-liquid state and a melting point. My spelling sucks? Maybe as you are making your salt-water solution, take time to peruse a dictionary as well. Enough with you and your ridiculous attempt to incense me. Your grasp of science is weak and so is your grasp of social behavior, and I will have no part of it any further. Get your last word (because you must), and don't expect me to play this game with you because I know better. Come to a debate when you have gained ten years of maturity (which doesn't necessarily mean ten years of age). When you can see my response as anything other than a personal attack, your suggestions will be noted....until then, grow up little boy, the world's much bigger than you are. -Fin
Cyto Prometheus6 years ago
Hmnn, maturity. Ok, I stated what was logical to assume from your extremely sarcastic last paragraph. Admittedly, after that in the parentheses I did get a bit sarcastic myself, but nowhere near the level you seemed to be at. Furthermore, you continually make threats of ceased communication, and neither follow through, nor apologize. Also, as I said, instead of stating facts to prove your points (You said a few things that were untrue, and concurred with a few of the things I said while trying to make it look like I said the opposite, and then a few accurate statements, which were obvious.) you resort to finding fault with me, my attempting to debate this logically with you, and the fact that you are seriously confused as to what is happening here chemically and physically. Try entering any of the issues we are debating on into Google, etc. and see what you get. You certainly won't get anything along the lines of "Water has no reactivity with anything else known to man."

You are completely accurate in stating that maturity has nothing to do with age. It is easy to find a particular 5 year old child that is more mature than some octogenarians. If that is what you were stating. Experience comes with age. Maturity is entirely unrelated. Explain, please, in what way my reply was immature, or in what way it attacked you character. I merely set up the three likely possibilities as to why you would be responding the way you began to, and ordered them from most to least likely. You on the other hand, in reply, essentially pulled an adult version of the child's "Bounces off me and sticks to you!" without any explanation of why, or any facts. I am not saying that you are immature, but you certainly are acting like it. True it could be that you are just having a bad day, but that's psychology, and still no excuse.

I mentioned both sodium and sodium chloride, because I realize that they dissociate into separate ions in solution, and you seemed to be implying that because an ionic compound was dissolved, that it was melted. This is incorrect. An ionic compound in solution, is, as I said, dissociated, not melted. As for the sodium which I DID mention (I have been using caps because you seem to be skimming my replies and skipping things...) you will find by looking it up that the melting point of PURE sodium is very close to the vaporization point of pure water. Not even remotely near or below the freezing point of water.

You also tried to imply that I was saying that the solution of sodium chloride and water has a freezing point lower than pure water not because this salt influences the properties of the solution, while I stated that it did, and a SIMPLIFIED VERSION of WHY it did. I did so by referring you to the colligative properties of solutions, which you apparently still haven't looked up. Also you state that I am mistaking the difference between an ionic solid dissociated in solution, and a melting/freezing point, which, from what I have been reading, is either exactly what YOU did in the

***"Salt does not freeze with icebergs because the freezing point for sodium is so much lower than water. Any potentially-trapped sodium would literally melt it's way down through the ice to be reclaimed by seawater, if it could be trapped at all in the freezing process."***

or else you have horrible grammar, which does not seem to be the case.

You resort to calling me a little boy, and then imply that you are far wiser than I am, me being obviously practically and infant... you that I have a weak grasp of science and social behavior, but provide no logic to back up your claims, you insult me again, by calling what is considered a man, in both this society, and long before in many other societies, a "little boy", and call my response to you a personal attack. Again you take exactly what I said,

***"Also you are constantly insulting me to try and prove your nonvalid point, this is a sign of immaturity, or foolishness, or both (even without the nonvalid point). You decide."*** (I took your earlier incredible sarcasm and implication of how completely moronic I was as an insult, if i should not have, please explain why. It seems insulting to me and would as well to most logical people.)

and attempt to turn it around and say that I am the guilty party, while at the same time making immature attacks on me and using a stereotype fallacy. It has been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I don't think this is what was meant. How have I attacked you personally or otherwise? I merely requested that you stop attacking me and pondered why you would feel the need to do so.
You're clearly both immature, and Prometheus, if you were really that mature to point out those flaws he has and not ending the argument sooner, that just proves you aren't as mature as you say you are. Cyto, you are the most immature having to retaliate at everything he says and say hes stupid, not right, or anything like that.
I ended this discussion quite some time ago. I am stating fact while dissenters choose to deny it. Maturity has little to do with it. I've let this go, it is up to you to decide when they have let this go sooner. Just because some people can't concede a wrongful point is no fault of mine. I state what I know and defend my experience. I will not have some half-witted neo-scientist go off on me with facts they drew up on a napkin in the middle-school cafeteria. Maturity is subjective, and as I have pointed out, I have no further interest in butting heads with such a thick skull. You seem to mistake my repeated attempts to end this so-called argument as a continuance of such. I will exert no further effort into this thread regarding this particular subject. I have better teachings to spread than proving an obvious scientific fact here. This matter IS CLOSED. If this were my board, this topic would be locked and closed, forbidding any further postings. This is where it should stay, and will from today forward. This thread is ended here and now, do not reply. No interest is placed regarding this subject any further except by the extraordinarily-immature who need the last word.
omg, it's like a marathon word war :D no offence. keep going.
All right, I was fine reading these insane comments until now. I was a reactor mechanic for the Navy. I work on reactors. First, fusion reactors don't use water, because FUSION REACTORS AREN'T USED. The water used as coolant in a fission reactor however is very good at what it does. The only things added to the coolant are there to reduce oxygen content and to maintain a slightly basic pH. If it's good enough for a multi-megawatt reactor, it's good enough for your rinky-dink pc.
Out of curiosity, why is a basic pH beneficial? Is this for inhibiting corrosion or biological growth or some other reason? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, just legitimate curiosity that google hasn't been able to answer :p
You got it, it's all about reducing corrosion.
Yeah, I realized that fusion is beyond current political agendas for now about after I posted, but I forgot to come back and change that. My bad for drive-by posting ;P
Cyto Prometheus6 years ago
Water has no reactivity to anything else known to man?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Stupidest thing I have ever seen said... almost. Water reacts with most things, it reacts with both acids and bases, it reacts with ionic compounds, it reacts with metallic compounds. Don't say obviously incorrect things like that. (OMG how can you say that...)
There's one thing you miss: Over-cooling can do just as much damage to an engine as under-cooling. Also, let's make this clear:

Water + ethylene glycol = coolant

Ethylene glycol by itself is NOT a coolant specifically.

Furthermore, the antifreeze mixture is too thick by itself to be used alone and would cause excessive cavitation in the pump, resulting in severely reduced cooling efficiency and flow. This is why we don't use pure mixtures. Ethylene glycol is the higher-performing replacement for salt, which only encourages corrosion especially between dissimilar metals such as steel and aluminum. Radiators would have to be larger just to reduce the restriction of this thicker mixture.

Does your dusty thermo book cover the combination of the two specifically? Probably not, but this is how a compound can have completely different characteristics than it's base elements, much like how water puts fires out, but decomposed, it is explosively flammable.

Does your book cover C[2]H[4](OH)[2] + H[2]O which combines to form HOCH(2)CH(2)OH?

So you know, the R-value for EG is R-22 or R-36 and it's S values are S26, S36, S37, S39, S45, and S53.

Also, the viscosity of EG is 16.1 mPa s , whereas the viscosity of water is 0.001 Pa·s at 20 °C. Still need convincing why we don't use EG straight? I can't help you.

Oxidane in any form is NOT better alone as a coolant than an antifreeze mix, and never will be. Believing that is trusting anecdotal science over the proven kind.
There's one thing you miss: Over-cooling can do just as much damage to an engine as under-cooling. Also, let's make this clear:
No, because if that were the case, a smaller cooling system would be required...

Does your dusty thermo book cover the combination of the two specifically?
Yes, it does, and I've already posted about this. It even includes convenient tables for the increase in flow necessary for given concentrations - higher concentration requires a higher flow rate.

Thankfully, the thermo book isn't so dusty anymore :)

In any case, I'm pretty much done with this... I'm working elsewhere on other projects, my cooling systems aren't failing - it's not worth my time. Before it was a good laugh for the coworkers (don't get me wrong, I respect the passion and all), now it's just clogging the my inbox.
"No, because if that were the case, a smaller cooling system would be required..." Go take auto shop offered at your local high school, or just remove the thermostat in your car's engine and see what happens.. You are a complete dolt for even considering your comment to be based anywhere near fact. Perhaps it is best you leave this topic alone, as you clearly know nothing of which you speak. With that ridiculous comment of yours, I'll be taking any "fact" you state with a shaker's worth of salt...good riddance!
I didn't say I was going away :p Just no arguing about this - I did like that last comment though - you totally missed the point :p

With that ridiculous comment of yours, I'll be taking any "fact" you state with a shaker's worth of salt...

We've been enjoying your "facts" around the water cooler :D
Better check it for lead...Have you removed the thermostat from your car yet? Since overcooling is not a problem for your engine, you should remove it to make coolant flow more efficient. Post when you have results on that, because my pit buddies still haven't stopped laughing yet (that's "pit" as in "pit crew", Captain Anecdotal-Science).
What was meant to be posted without site-format complications was: Does your book cover C{2}H{4}(OH){2} + H{2}O which combines to form HOCH(2)CH(2)OH?
Antifreeze is also listed as a coolant as well. When I lived in AZ, we had very hard water. As such, I used distilled water in my radiator in order to keep it from getting clogged with scale. In my experience, distilled water is NOT a more effective coolant than anti-freeze. As my car would overheat (old car, bad fan), if sitting in traffic, with distilled water alone. When anti-freeze was added into the system, I no longer had that problem. Figures aside, this was my experience. And all things considered, I think you're incorrect.
(removed by author or community request)
Antifreeze has a much higher heat conductivity than water does. However, to fill a system completely full of antifreeze would be a bad option too (something about the way the liquid flows or something). The very best thing you can do is make a mix of both antifreeze and distilled water. That way you get the best of both.
Wrong.
Water has a thermal conductance of 1.03 Btu/ ft * deg F (at 25 deg F)
(di)Ethylene Glycol (common antifreeze) Ct is only 0.1175 Btu/ ft * deg F (25F)

Water is 8x better at conducting heat.
Cyto bmlbytes6 years ago
If you mean that it loses heat more easily yes. But it also has a harder time absorbing as much in the first place. Water is far superior, antifreeze is just there to keep it from freezing/boiling. If you think antifreeze is better try draining all of the coolant from your car sometime and putting in just pure antifreeze, no water. >:) And prepare to die.
(removed by author or community request)
;-)
When I was refering to antifreeze, I meant the kind that is sold for cars. Respectively they almost all (that I've seen) have coolant in them as well. They are both. I am sorry if I wasn't clear. Also, I never said to use it alone. No more than fifty percent is what I'd suggest, depending on workload (probably closer to 10-20% in this case at most). I realize water does the work, but the antifreeze/coolant helps. It's give and take, but it should assist the system. Though, unless you had some serious overclocking heat coming off your system, it would likely prove unneccesary. In which case, it would be most effective to use just water as it does flow better. But in the extreme case that your processor likes to melt things then it would be a good idea. My old Pentium II did that till I took the side of the case off, apparently came with a defective fan. Didn't agree with diablo II much, made it a bit toasty. Though it ran fine for 2 years without any fan at all, after that. Note that it was not overclocked.
my car overheated when somehow the coolant tank was FULLY DRAINED the gauge normally floats at around 90oC while at the time of overheat it was 130oC
1-40 of 242Next »