Without getting scientific at all actually, since the chemical make up of "anti-freeze" isn't the same across different brands. No source and no information on the equations used either.
Of course, if you look at the "plain water" numbers they match the ones I gave earlier that you felt the need to "correct" with the generic linear estimate.
Yup, different charts using different methods to calculate the temperatures with different results, clear as mud. Two from Pearson that use the linear estimate of 3° per PSI, which is not the real equation. Makes sense though because they're from automotive texts not engineering texts. Two from who knows where that use a different method of calculation, which is not described but is probably based off the actual equation based on their results.
And of course, the generic "antifreeze" term that doesn't describe the actual chemical, brand or make up of the antifreeze used. Also, I see that none of these charts list the elevation that they're accurate for. If it mattered, the elevation the chart was calculated for should be listed. Like a dyno corrected for sea level with the little foot note in the corner.
I'm tired of going around on this. There was no need to correct my numbers, they're accurate. The 3° per PSI estimate is close enough for automotive use, as you can see from the charts you posted the difference is only a few degrees between the estimate and what is probably the real equation. But the 3° estimate just a dumbed down version of the real equation, it's not correct it's just close enough for the narrow application and temperature range being used here.
Can we go back to what actually matters now? The only reason to mention the boiling point at all was to help explain to the OP why 210° F isn't a big deal.
