Wetter Water?

I've been doing a little experimenting now that I have my loop working well. I know for a fact that bubbles sticking to surfaces reduce the ability for maximum thermal transfer to take place, so I've been trying different things to see what helps reduce these bubbles.

I have a new product I'll be testing today. I am working on my graphics card right now, so my loop is going to be drained shortly. In the meantime, I thought I put a bit of this stuff in the rad and see what it does.

I have the Koolance RP-401x2 pump/rad. The clear windows for both reservoirs are fully visible right in the drive bay. Looking at them and seeing the thousands of small bubbles attached to all the surfaces in there is what makes me think it is similar throughout the loop.

All I can say is, I should have had a video camera on it. All I put in was about .3% of this stuff and within 5 seconds or less, all the bubbles vanished! Little spurts of popped bubbles were throwing up microscopic like particles of water out of the fill port. Almost couldn't see them, but could feel them hitting my fingers above the port.

So, not to rush this, I will do some more testing to see how effective this is. When I take the loop down to work on the graphics cards, I will fill it again with pure distilled water first and do some timed stress tests on the cpu. I can monitor case ambient air inlet temps as I have a sensor installed at the inlet fan. So, if ambient temps are steady, I should be able to record actual differences in CPU temp readings with and without the wetting agent, which would be the actual difference in cooling ability. If I get lower CPU temps, it has to be because of less or no bubbles in the loop. If I get the same temps, then it didn't do what I was hoping for. Can't imagine why, but if the temps are higher, then a pretty drastic change must be happening due to this additive in the loop.

I'll be doing this today, so I'll post back here as I find out more.

Keep your fingers crossed...

-Rodger

Not sure if you will see any measurable (more than 1C-2C) gains, but here is to hoping you do!

If the ambient temperatures change for the testing, just add the difference. For example, you test at 21C, but the next test is 23C, add 2C to your results. It is called 'normalization' (you can read on this at Martin's as well ).

Also, it does not 'have to be because of less or no bubbles in the loop. Remember in the other thread I mentioned mounting and TIM application being the biggest factor in temps? That holds true here as well. If you are to try this, empirical testing would include multiple mounts to ensure the results are similar across the testing.
EDIT: The bubbles may be on the walls of the res, but are they on the block or the rad? They are different materials and also, flow goes through those faster in the block through the channels and through the rad so it may 'wipe' them off the walls of the things that are actually doing the cooling.

Looking forward to seeing the results!

After you bleed your loop over a few days, you shouldnt have bubbles in the loop unless you have a leak.

Water wetter has the surfactant, PolySiloxane Polymer, like any other surfactant, reduces vapor bubble formation for use in high output engine cars. It can actually increase temps overall since it has poor thermal properties, but in a car where temps can reach 150C in localized hot spots and cause vapor bubbles, it can lower the temp in those select areas.

Many used water wetter 10 years ago for anticorrosion properties, but that stuff coats everything with a poor thermal conducting polysiloxane. But there is zero chance you will lower cpu or gpu temps using water wetter, increase them very slightly maybe.

Though unless you have very accurate calibrated thermocouples, you wont be able to measure any difference anyways.

Not sure if you will see any measurable (more than 1C-2C) gains, but here is to hoping you do!

If the ambient temperatures change for the testing, just add the difference. For example, you test at 21C, but the next test is 23C, add 2C to your results. It is called 'normalization' (you can read on this at Martin's as well ).

Also, it does not 'have to be because of less or no bubbles in the loop. Remember in the other thread I mentioned mounting and TIM application being the biggest factor in temps? That holds true here as well. If you are to try this, empirical testing would include multiple mounts to ensure the results are similar across the testing.
EDIT: The bubbles may be on the walls of the res, but are they on the block or the rad? They are different materials and also, flow goes through those faster in the block through the channels and through the rad so it may 'wipe' them off the walls of the things that are actually doing the cooling.

Looking forward to seeing the results!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the hope, I need it.

Not removing the CPU so no problems there. My extent of knowledge of bubbles in water is somewhat limited. I do know bubbles are a good insulator as they are made up of air. If my reservoir is any indicator of bubbles sticking well in fast moving water, then believe me they stick. When I put this wetter-water back in for the test, I'll make sure to do a video to show just how many bubbles there are and how fast they disappear -- Pretty amazing to see.

It will have to be a DIVX file. Only way to get it small enough to upload here. I'll include the DIVX installer in the ZIP file for those who don't have it already installed.

-Rodger

rge said:

After you bleed your loop over a few days, you shouldnt have bubbles in the loop unless you have a leak.

Water wetter has the surfactant, PolySiloxane Polymer, like any other surfactant, reduces vapor bubble formation for use in high output engine cars. It can actually increase temps overall since it has poor thermal properties, but in a car where temps can reach 150C in localized hot spots and cause vapor bubbles, it can lower the temp in those select areas.

Many used water wetter 10 years ago for anticorrosion properties, but that stuff coats everything with a poor thermal conducting polysiloxane. But there is zero chance you will lower cpu or gpu temps using water wetter, increase them very slightly maybe.

Though unless you have very accurate calibrated thermocouples, you wont be able to measure any difference anyways.

Click to expand...

This ^^^
Been there, done that.

rge said:

After you bleed your loop over a few days, you shouldnt have bubbles in the loop unless you have a leak.

Water wetter has the surfactant, PolySiloxane Polymer, like any other surfactant, reduces vapor bubble formation for use in high output engine cars. It can actually increase temps overall since it has poor thermal properties, but in a car where temps can reach 150C in localized hot spots and cause vapor bubbles, it can lower the temp in those select areas.

Many used water wetter 10 years ago for anticorrosion properties, but that stuff coats everything with a poor thermal conducting polysiloxane. But there is zero chance you will lower cpu or gpu temps using water wetter, increase them very slightly maybe.

Though unless you have very accurate calibrated thermocouples, you wont be able to measure any difference anyways.

Click to expand...

This isn't water wetter, it's something else and not intended for an engine coolant additive. Different chemicals then what you specified as well. Only way to know is to test it. So we shall see... Less bubbles I hope.

-Rodger

Forgot something... My reservoir has never not had bubbles. Even before I put it in the computer, I tested it with just a loop the rad for a number of hours. The bubbles were always in the reservoir. No place for air to leak in as it is a pressurized system once it is filled fully, which take a day or more of running, usually. Even then, I have had to add distilled water every few days or few weeks as more and more of the bubbles pop. Might just be my setup, don't know. But within 10 minutes or so of adding .3% of this wetter-water, it got rid of so many bubbles throughout the loop, I had to add at least an oz. more water right away. Never did that before.

Mr.Scott said:

This ^^^
Been there, done that.

Click to expand...

Well maybe, but unless you've used what I'm trying now, there could be different results.

-Rodger

I shot that video above around lunch time. It's now about 3 hours later. Almost all the micro bubbles are gone. Never seen this water like this. Just about crystal clear. I don't even care anymore if it's no cooler, just the clarity is so much nicer. Think I'll put those LED's in this reservoir now.

Here's a regular pic of it.

-Rodger

Doesn't really matter what it is, it's a surfactant. They all work the same way. None of them will decrease temps. There is no miracle chemical that does this.
Aquarium water clarifiers do the same thing that you're seeing.

Mr.Scott said:

Doesn't really matter what it is, it's a surfactant. They all work the same way. None of them will decrease temps. There is no miracle chemical that does this.
Aquarium water clarifiers do the same thing that you're seeing.

Click to expand...

I see. So you would have me believe any chemical that is used to do this will produce the same results as stated in these few posts you've made? If so, that is a pretty broad statement, and actually I'd find it hard to believe in all the aspects you've described.

What I can believe is you are for some reason or another trying to tell me it's of no use to experiment with this idea, as you do not believe anything can come of it.

Which is fine BTW.

-Rodger

marjamar said:

I see. So you would have me believe any chemical that is used to do this will produce the same results as stated in these few posts you've made? If so, that is a pretty broad statement, and actually I'd find it hard to believe in all the aspects you've described.

What I can believe is you are for some reason or another trying to tell me it's of no use to experiment with this idea, as you do not believe anything can come of it.

Which is fine BTW.

-Rodger

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is, that unless you're a chemical engineer and are physically making some new additive, chances are somebody else would have already tried it. Seeing how you haven't named the chemical in any of your posts, I will assume that it's readily available already, and you're just sitting on the information thinking it gives you some kind of edge.
Experiment all you want, nobody's stopping you. Necessity is the mother of invention after all.

Mr.Scott said:

What I'm saying is, that unless you're a chemical engineer and are physically making some new additive, chances are somebody else would have already tried it. Seeing how you haven't named the chemical in any of your posts, I will assume that it's readily available already, and you're just sitting on the information thinking it gives you some kind of edge.
Experiment all you want, nobody's stopping you. Necessity is the mother of invention after all.

Click to expand...

That is one of the singular rules I live by.

-Rodger

marjamar said:

That is one of the singular rules I live by.

-Rodger

Click to expand...

Me too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Table_of_specific_heat_capacities

You'll want volumetric heat capacity, you'll find that most liquids don't come CLOSE to water. This is not to say that there's not something better, because there's plenty that is (graphene suspensions come to mind), but rather that there's not much that is common that comes close. Not being a chemist, I couldn't tell you how combining materials would affect their specific heat...just to provide some food for thought.

Well I am adding at this point anyways about 1/2 of 1% of this stuff to distilled water. It is itself a diluted number of chemicals in distilled water. So the ratio is a extreme one. How much of this or that can make cooling better or worse is beyond me without alot of testing this stuff. I will say though, I am still pretty sure about bubbles holding back thermal transfer in about anyplace they are found. How much trapped air in the form of bubbles is or was in my loop, I just don't know, so the only thing left is to test it both ways. Seems like it will either be better, the same, or worse. That's a pretty safe bet I'd expect.

For sure, appearances are better though. My eyes, they don't lie.

-Rodger

I guess my day is pretty well gone, so not going to have much more info here most likely until next week. Got plans tonight to go watch one of my grand kids do some tumbling routines at her dance class. Tomorrow will be hiking in the mountains with my son Andy. He is an avid and professional Landscape photographer and I have been after him to let me follow him around and shoot some video. Sunday, maybe after church, but not sure.

See ya.

-Rodger

bro no ones trying to burst ur bubble here Mr Scott ED myself and other speak from years of water cooling experience. I myself have tried every type of cooling except LN2 been doing it going on 20+ years. We've seen all the miracle additives that fall short of their claims. Its great that it cleared out you bubble issues but I know another way of doing that without adding chems to the water. Anywho good luck and I look forward to more results good or bad.

From wikipedia

luke forgive me if im reading the chart wrong but does the chart say that alcohol is better than water????

Acuradude said:

luke forgive me if im reading the chart wrong but does the chart say that alcohol is better than water????

Click to expand...

That's my understanding but for some reason I keep getting headaches the next day.