Water Wetter is for the track - where glycol can do bad things, especially in the burnout box or the course.
Redline water wetter
- Thread starter Nissan101
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Water Wetter is a surfactant, in theory it should promote a better liquid/metal interface. We ran it in a circle track stock car running 100% water and a flow restrictor instead of a thermostat and it did lower max running temp. Not sure how it can be measured in a car with a thermostat as it would just stay closed until it reaches temp. Maybe under heavy load conditions it would slow the temp rise and/or lower max temp.
How did it impact the maximum metal temperature or the cylinder block and head? That's what is really important not necessarily the coolant temp.
No idea, we're talking a bunch of Pa rednecks running a 1/2 mile pavement stock car not Petty Enterprises here. All I know is the driver reported lower gauge temps with it so we used it. I wouldn't call a Redline product snake oil but it may not apply to all uses.
Think logically...your pump moved an amount of water between the radiator and the engine, exchanging heat between the two.
The cold sink is the ambient air, and the "volume" of heat that can be removed is related to the surface area of the radiator, and the delta T between the radiator metal and the ambient air.
Lower coolant temperatures mean less heat transfer to the ambient...just like less temperature rise in the engine does.
These products claim to reduce nucleate boiling, which as a surfactant, then certainly can do. However nucleate boiling removes massively more (like multiple times the) heat from a particularly hot spot than simpl flow of coolant could ever do.
So in matching their claim of
a) reducing nucleate boiling; and
b) reducing coolant temperatures.
They are actually reducing the amount of heat removed from the engine, and in all likelihood making the hot parts that NEED nucleate boiling even hotter.
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Water Wetter is a surfactant, in theory it should promote a better liquid/metal interface. We ran it in a circle track stock car running 100% water and a flow restrictor instead of a thermostat and it did lower max running temp. Not sure how it can be measured in a car with a thermostat as it would just stay closed until it reaches temp. Maybe under heavy load conditions it would slow the temp rise and/or lower max temp.
How did it impact the maximum metal temperature or the cylinder block and head? That's what is really important not necessarily the coolant temp.
No idea, we're talking a bunch of Pa rednecks running a 1/2 mile pavement stock car not Petty Enterprises here. All I know is the driver reported lower gauge temps with it so we used it. I wouldn't call a Redline product snake oil but it may not apply to all uses.
Think logically...your pump moved an amount of water between the radiator and the engine, exchanging heat between the two.
The cold sink is the ambient air, and the "volume" of heat that can be removed is related to the surface area of the radiator, and the delta T between the radiator metal and the ambient air.
Lower coolant temperatures mean less heat transfer to the ambient...just like less temperature rise in the engine does.
These products claim to reduce nucleate boiling, which as a surfactant, then certainly can do. However nucleate boiling removes massively more (like multiple times the) heat from a particularly hot spot than simpl flow of coolant could ever do.
So in matching their claim of
a) reducing nucleate boiling; and
b) reducing coolant temperatures.
They are actually reducing the amount of heat removed from the engine, and in all likelihood making the hot parts that NEED nucleate boiling even hotter.
When I was chasing an overheating problem in the MG last summer, I ran straight DI water with this product. In this application, adding a surfactant(which is what Water Wetter is) has some definite value vs. plain water. Water DOES cool better than a water/antifreeze mix. With that said, the surfactants provide the benefits mentioned-they provide lubricant to the water pump, help prevent cavitation, and help the water more effectively "wet" the metal surfaces. Kodak Photoflo would probably achieve the same thing as Water Wetter, but it's also a lot more expensive.
Ultimately, I had my radiator recored and have not seen a need since then-I run 50:50 Prestone plain old green glycol and DI water.
I see little value in adding it if you are using any type of antifreeze at all-as mentioned they all include surfactants to provide the above mentioned benefits.
Ultimately, I had my radiator recored and have not seen a need since then-I run 50:50 Prestone plain old green glycol and DI water.
I see little value in adding it if you are using any type of antifreeze at all-as mentioned they all include surfactants to provide the above mentioned benefits.
Last edited:
AZjeff
$50 Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Think logically...your pump moved an amount of water between the radiator and the engine, exchanging heat between the two.
The cold sink is the ambient air, and the "volume" of heat that can be removed is related to the surface area of the radiator, and the delta T between the radiator metal and the ambient air.
Lower coolant temperatures mean less heat transfer to the ambient...just like less temperature rise in the engine does.
These products claim to reduce nucleate boiling, which as a surfactant, then certainly can do. However nucleate boiling removes massively more (like multiple times the) heat from a particularly hot spot than simpl flow of coolant could ever do.
So in matching their claim of
a) reducing nucleate boiling; and
b) reducing coolant temperatures.
They are actually reducing the amount of heat removed from the engine, and in all likelihood making the hot parts that NEED nucleate boiling even hotter.
You just nuked my brain. Up is now down.
Think logically...your pump moved an amount of water between the radiator and the engine, exchanging heat between the two.
The cold sink is the ambient air, and the "volume" of heat that can be removed is related to the surface area of the radiator, and the delta T between the radiator metal and the ambient air.
Lower coolant temperatures mean less heat transfer to the ambient...just like less temperature rise in the engine does.
These products claim to reduce nucleate boiling, which as a surfactant, then certainly can do. However nucleate boiling removes massively more (like multiple times the) heat from a particularly hot spot than simpl flow of coolant could ever do.
So in matching their claim of
a) reducing nucleate boiling; and
b) reducing coolant temperatures.
They are actually reducing the amount of heat removed from the engine, and in all likelihood making the hot parts that NEED nucleate boiling even hotter.
You just nuked my brain. Up is now down.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Water Wetter is a surfactant, in theory it should promote a better liquid/metal interface. We ran it in a circle track stock car running 100% water and a flow restrictor instead of a thermostat and it did lower max running temp. Not sure how it can be measured in a car with a thermostat as it would just stay closed until it reaches temp. Maybe under heavy load conditions it would slow the temp rise and/or lower max temp.
How did it impact the maximum metal temperature or the cylinder block and head? That's what is really important not necessarily the coolant temp.
No idea, we're talking a bunch of Pa rednecks running a 1/2 mile pavement stock car not Petty Enterprises here. All I know is the driver reported lower gauge temps with it so we used it. I wouldn't call a Redline product snake oil but it may not apply to all uses.
Think logically...your pump moved an amount of water between the radiator and the engine, exchanging heat between the two.
The cold sink is the ambient air, and the "volume" of heat that can be removed is related to the surface area of the radiator, and the delta T between the radiator metal and the ambient air.
Lower coolant temperatures mean less heat transfer to the ambient...just like less temperature rise in the engine does.
These products claim to reduce nucleate boiling, which as a surfactant, then certainly can do. However nucleate boiling removes massively more (like multiple times the) heat from a particularly hot spot than simpl flow of coolant could ever do.
So in matching their claim of
a) reducing nucleate boiling; and
b) reducing coolant temperatures.
They are actually reducing the amount of heat removed from the engine, and in all likelihood making the hot parts that NEED nucleate boiling even hotter.
Exactly!
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Water Wetter is a surfactant, in theory it should promote a better liquid/metal interface. We ran it in a circle track stock car running 100% water and a flow restrictor instead of a thermostat and it did lower max running temp. Not sure how it can be measured in a car with a thermostat as it would just stay closed until it reaches temp. Maybe under heavy load conditions it would slow the temp rise and/or lower max temp.
How did it impact the maximum metal temperature or the cylinder block and head? That's what is really important not necessarily the coolant temp.
No idea, we're talking a bunch of Pa rednecks running a 1/2 mile pavement stock car not Petty Enterprises here. All I know is the driver reported lower gauge temps with it so we used it. I wouldn't call a Redline product snake oil but it may not apply to all uses.
Think logically...your pump moved an amount of water between the radiator and the engine, exchanging heat between the two.
The cold sink is the ambient air, and the "volume" of heat that can be removed is related to the surface area of the radiator, and the delta T between the radiator metal and the ambient air.
Lower coolant temperatures mean less heat transfer to the ambient...just like less temperature rise in the engine does.
These products claim to reduce nucleate boiling, which as a surfactant, then certainly can do. However nucleate boiling removes massively more (like multiple times the) heat from a particularly hot spot than simpl flow of coolant could ever do.
So in matching their claim of
a) reducing nucleate boiling; and
b) reducing coolant temperatures.
They are actually reducing the amount of heat removed from the engine, and in all likelihood making the hot parts that NEED nucleate boiling even hotter.
Exactly!
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Water Wetter is a surfactant, in theory it should promote a better liquid/metal interface. We ran it in a circle track stock car running 100% water and a flow restrictor instead of a thermostat and it did lower max running temp. Not sure how it can be measured in a car with a thermostat as it would just stay closed until it reaches temp. Maybe under heavy load conditions it would slow the temp rise and/or lower max temp.
How did it impact the maximum metal temperature or the cylinder block and head? That's what is really important not necessarily the coolant temp.
Unless you have thermocouples in your engine block and head you'll never know. So the next best thing are oil and coolant temps. Considering that WW is a fluid more similar to water than glycol, one would have to say that cylinder temps would be lower using WW. I used a 90% water, 10% glycol, and WW mix in my '68 GTX years back. I tried literally everything in that engine bay over a 3 yr period short of rebuilding the engine to get it to run cooler from June-September....literally a list of 30 or more items including Infra Red gun to a new stock cam and all new cooling system components. The only thing that helped was the water/WW mix....and using 104 octane gas helped as well. The engine probably only had 10K-30K miles on it when I owned it. WW helped me get through several hot summers.
I've ran that experiment with 200+ thermocoples throughout an engine. The results of that testing is why I will not use the product despite running Redline in every other system in my racecar.
Originally Posted By: 09_GXP
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Water Wetter is a surfactant, in theory it should promote a better liquid/metal interface. We ran it in a circle track stock car running 100% water and a flow restrictor instead of a thermostat and it did lower max running temp. Not sure how it can be measured in a car with a thermostat as it would just stay closed until it reaches temp. Maybe under heavy load conditions it would slow the temp rise and/or lower max temp.
How did it impact the maximum metal temperature or the cylinder block and head? That's what is really important not necessarily the coolant temp.
Unless you have thermocouples in your engine block and head you'll never know. So the next best thing are oil and coolant temps. Considering that WW is a fluid more similar to water than glycol, one would have to say that cylinder temps would be lower using WW. I used a 90% water, 10% glycol, and WW mix in my '68 GTX years back. I tried literally everything in that engine bay over a 3 yr period short of rebuilding the engine to get it to run cooler from June-September....literally a list of 30 or more items including Infra Red gun to a new stock cam and all new cooling system components. The only thing that helped was the water/WW mix....and using 104 octane gas helped as well. The engine probably only had 10K-30K miles on it when I owned it. WW helped me get through several hot summers.
I've ran that experiment with 200+ thermocoples throughout an engine. The results of that testing is why I will not use the product despite running Redline in every other system in my racecar.
I don't see anything in the WW technical paper that says it reduces nucleate boiling, hence impeding heat transfer. It's the onset of departure from nucleate boiling that we wish to avoid. That occurs when larger bubbles form and they stay attached to the engine metal walls for too long, eventually leading to pockets of steam blanketing. I haven't tested RLWW in a lab environment to prove or disprove what RL states. Just from what they have stated, I wouldn't say RLWW leads to increased cylinder head temps. From their own curves the added benefit of RLWW seems somewhat small as water is the primary reason for better heat transfer vs. glycol.
If we want to get fussy, we could state that using IAT coolant technology leaves a layer of chemicals on coolant system walls that also has to raise the engine metal temps....resulting in a lowered bulk coolant system temperature. What RL also states on the WW basic info is that it 1) Reduces or eliminates bubbles or vapor barrier that form on hot metal surfaces to reduce coolant temperatures by up to 20° and 2) Improves heat transfer and reduces cylinder head temperature. 1) as I read suggests it pulls those steam bubbles off the metal wall more quickly before they can get stay time or get too large....which would enhance NB. A vapor barrier is not good. "Too many" bubbles on or near the wall surface is not good either. The radiator is not the only heat sink involved in this equation. The engine block itself giving off ambient heat is a significant source. If one were to run a proper test to evaluate RLWW, it would have to be on a virgin engine that had no chemical buildup of any sort.
Heat Transfer:
Red Line WaterWetter
can reduce cooling system
temperatures compared to glycol solutions and even
plain water. Water has excellent heat transfer proper-
ties in its liquid state, but very high surface tension
makes it difficult to release water vapor from the
metal surface. Under heavy load conditions, much of
the heat in the cylinder head is transferred by local-
ized boiling at hot spots, even though the bulk of the
cooling solution is below the boiling point. Red Line's
unique WaterWetter reduces the surface tension of
water by a factor of two, which means that much
smaller vapor bubbles will be formed. Vapor bubbles
on the metal surface create an insulating layer which
impedes heat transfer. Releasing these vapor bub-
bles from the metal surface can improve the heat
transfer properties in this localized boiling region by
as much as 15%....
WW technical paper
If we want to get fussy, we could state that using IAT coolant technology leaves a layer of chemicals on coolant system walls that also has to raise the engine metal temps....resulting in a lowered bulk coolant system temperature. What RL also states on the WW basic info is that it 1) Reduces or eliminates bubbles or vapor barrier that form on hot metal surfaces to reduce coolant temperatures by up to 20° and 2) Improves heat transfer and reduces cylinder head temperature. 1) as I read suggests it pulls those steam bubbles off the metal wall more quickly before they can get stay time or get too large....which would enhance NB. A vapor barrier is not good. "Too many" bubbles on or near the wall surface is not good either. The radiator is not the only heat sink involved in this equation. The engine block itself giving off ambient heat is a significant source. If one were to run a proper test to evaluate RLWW, it would have to be on a virgin engine that had no chemical buildup of any sort.
Heat Transfer:
Red Line WaterWetter
can reduce cooling system
temperatures compared to glycol solutions and even
plain water. Water has excellent heat transfer proper-
ties in its liquid state, but very high surface tension
makes it difficult to release water vapor from the
metal surface. Under heavy load conditions, much of
the heat in the cylinder head is transferred by local-
ized boiling at hot spots, even though the bulk of the
cooling solution is below the boiling point. Red Line's
unique WaterWetter reduces the surface tension of
water by a factor of two, which means that much
smaller vapor bubbles will be formed. Vapor bubbles
on the metal surface create an insulating layer which
impedes heat transfer. Releasing these vapor bub-
bles from the metal surface can improve the heat
transfer properties in this localized boiling region by
as much as 15%....
WW technical paper
WW is best suited for the track, where you're not allowed to run any type of anti-freeze. It lubricates seals, slows electrolysis, and provides a measure of rust prevention. All of which are completely superfluous in a street car cooling system.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
I was looking at Water Wetter at Advance one time and I noticed some of it looked grayish and muddy,kind've cloudy. While other bottles were that clear pink color. I wonder what was wrong with those particular bottles?
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I was looking at Water Wetter at Advance one time and I noticed some of it looked grayish and muddy,kind've cloudy. While other bottles were that clear pink color. I wonder what was wrong with those particular bottles?
could be old stock
I was looking at Water Wetter at Advance one time and I noticed some of it looked grayish and muddy,kind've cloudy. While other bottles were that clear pink color. I wonder what was wrong with those particular bottles?
could be old stock
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I was looking at Water Wetter at Advance one time and I noticed some of it looked grayish and muddy,kind've cloudy. While other bottles were that clear pink color. I wonder what was wrong with those particular bottles?
could be old stock
Yeah that's what I was thinking. You REALLY have to watch out very carefully buying chemicals at the parts chains. Seems they all keep ancient stock on the shelf.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I was looking at Water Wetter at Advance one time and I noticed some of it looked grayish and muddy,kind've cloudy. While other bottles were that clear pink color. I wonder what was wrong with those particular bottles?
could be old stock
Yeah that's what I was thinking. You REALLY have to watch out very carefully buying chemicals at the parts chains. Seems they all keep ancient stock on the shelf.
- Status