heating issues when idling 340 73 duster

[toolmanmike]

Without getting too scientific:

 

[toolmanmike]

A few charts from different sites.

 

[72bluNblu]

That's apples to oranges the way you state it.
Boiling water in a pressure cooker is the same as a radiator under pressure and elevation dependent. As is water in a pot or a radiator with no cap on.
This is all very interesting. Back to chemistry class.

Without getting too scientific:

View attachment 1715558084

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.

A few charts from different sites.

View attachment 1715558095

View attachment 1715558096

View attachment 1715558098

View attachment 1715558099

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.

 

[toolmanmike]

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.

Oh I agree fully and I think the 3° ballpark figure is close enough. There is always something or some way to be more exact. The same as the 212° figure. It is a base number and unless you live on the beach your water will boil at a different temperature. Where you live is different than where I live. It's a moot point really. There have been so many people with threads about "overheating" lately and they often take a left turn. Many trust their factory gauge which doesn't even have numbers on it and claim they are overheating. Others think 200° is in the danger zone. Some actually have boil over issues (now we are talking overheating). You can overhaul your cooling system with a different water pump, a 3 core radiator, a high flow thermostat, cooling fans, shrouds and still have a boil over because you have a bad radiator cap. That's why simple is often best. Never overlook the obvious and start with the basics.

 

[AJ/FormS]

I'm at 930 ft and a 7psi cap is more than adequate, on my system.

As I keep saying; overbuild it, so know you what your system is capable of. Then, if you feel that you must, then you can start messing with it.