ON Topic: 88 Supra overheating...
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Groups want FCC to police hate speech
Next: Where's the monthly number of who posted the mostest?
From: jim beam on 7 Jun 2010 22:29 On 06/07/2010 02:37 PM, clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:59:46 -0700, jim beam<me(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> On 06/06/2010 07:51 PM, clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: >>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:00:19 -0700, jim beam<me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 06/06/2010 04:43 PM, clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:50:58 -0700, jim beam<me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> OK - I checket out your reference - it is NOT checking the pH of the >>>>>>> coolant. >>>>>> >>>>>> you can use it either way. if the system is bubbling, then the gasket >>>>>> is leaking. and don't need a reagent to tell you that! >>>>> >>>>> Not necessarily true. >>>>> If you have air trapped in the system it will bubble like crazy as it >>>>> warms up, and sometimes even blow all the antifreeze back out - >>>>> without there being ANY leakage in the system >>>> >>>> ok, so i'm guilty of presuming that we're not talking novices here and >>>> that we know how to bleed a cooling system. >>> >>> And they don't know how to check for a damaged head gasket - RIGHT!!! >>> Bleeding the cooling system requires different procedures on different >>> cars. Some can be extremely difficult to "burp". Ever bleed the >>> cooling system on a Renault R12???? >>> And the Supra M engine is a BIT more difficult than some, although >>> much simpler than many others. On some you need to remove a hose - and >>> different hoses on different vehicles. Some need filling through the >>> expansion bottle - all kinds of different ways - >>> >>> We ARE talking to novices in this group >> >> well /i'm/ not. >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> otoh, if you use the reagent to test the coolant, and you can, then you >>>>>> have your result. >>>>> >>>>> But if the PH of the coolant is "off" in the first place, >>>> >>>> "off"??? not unless you've got a beer pump attached to your cooling >>>> system. >>> >>> In many cases a 50% mixture of tap water and glycol is very high in pH >>> - and depending on the water source, it can be very low. Low PH (acid >>> condition) causes corrosion in the cooling system. High pH >>> (alkalinity) causes scale build-up in the cooling system. Correct >>> buffering of the coolant prevents both problems - and ONLY a correctly >>> buffered system can accurately be checked for leaks by testing the >>> coolant with Bromothymol Blue. >> >> two things: >> >> 1. you shouldn't be filling the cooling system with tap water in the >> first place. it should be de-ionized/distilled. for precisely the >> contamination/corrosion reasons you cite. > > NEVER use de-ionized water in a cooling system. Distilled is great - ok dude, i love a lot of your contributions, but that one is pure bullshit. and if you're confused about "de-ionized" being a misnomer for the product of a water softener, you still have an understanding problem. de-ionized is the product of reverse osmosis and while not perfectly pure, is pretty danged close. certainly close enough as to be indistinguishable for this application. > and most tap water is acceptable. Virtually every dealership in the > country uses tap water. yet another reason to do it yourself. dealers should know better - if they bother to read their manufacturer service bulletins anyway. >> >> 2. who is supposed to be buffering these solutions in the first place? >> and for what conditions??? certainly not the end user. this is not a >> "one size fits all" situation. >> > The garage when it is installed by a garage. show me one garage that's ever had the chemistry equipment to buffer an antifreeze solution. just one. > I have never had the pH > come out where it belongs with a 50% mix of antifreeze and ANY water. what pH is that supposed to be then??? > Many times it's been close, but USUALLY the pH is too high. meaning what? put numbers to it. >> >>> On the other hand, using it in a "sniff tester" as described to >>> detect CO2 in the air coming off the top of the rad you can accurately >>> determine if there is a combustion leak into the cooling system, >>> regardless of the pH of the system before the test. >> >> yes in theory, but in practice, only in the later stages of gasket >> leakage. at which point, it's pretty danged obvious what's going on anyway. > > >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> the reagent >>>>> will show you have a leak when you don't, using it your way. >>>>> >>>>> Using it the right way, it won't lie. >>>> >>>> not true. early stage head gasket can persist for quite some time. one >>>> of my cars took roughly a year and ~30k miles between the overheating >>>> event that initiated failure and the exhaust venting into the coolant >>>> badly enough to be visible. and even then, it was only a small amount, >>>> and only when hot, not cold. all this would have been resolved with a >>>> pH test early on. if you're worried about a false positive, change the >>>> coolant, and re-test a couple of weeks later. >>> >>> I'd be much more worried about a false negative >> >> i'm not. just change the coolant. it's a few bucks. > > A false negative on many cars will cause engine damage before you > realize you have a problem. you don't get "false negatives" with this test. and stop wriggling - you were bleating about the cost of a false positive. > ONE OUNCE of glycol in the crankcase of a > Ford 3.8 can trash the bearings. again, stop wriggling. coolant in the lube is a whole different issue. we [i] was talking about exhaust leaking directly into the coolant. like on an open deck honda. >> >> >>> - and leakage on a >>> COLD engine is much more common than on a hot engine, >> >> untrue. early stage leakage is usually only manifest when hot. we want >> to catch this thing as quickly as possible. >> > I've been a mechanic since 1969 - and I've seen more engines leak > coolant only when cold than only when hot. like i said, you're only getting to see late stage, not early. i don't disregard your experience - although i'm not /that/ far behind you - but i've bothered to study beyond the simple "obvious" cases, and as i said before, early stage can be very non-obvious. > The only reason you see it > more when hot is because when hot the system is under pressure. no, it's because of thermal distortion. the "pressure", i.e. pressurized coolant as it warms, works /against/ gas leakage, it doesn't assist it. > Pressurize the cold system and generally it leaks more, and sooner, > than when hot. nope. see above. >> >>> when it is >>> intermittent.Starting with a cold engine, with the sniffer tester >>> connected and run untill warm under a light load (fast idle in drive >>> on an automatic, or A/C on and headlights on high beam) will catch >>> even a small elusive leak with fair reliability. >> >> indeed, but later stages. in which case, bubbles in the coolant should >> be making the problem obvious anyway. >> >> >>> And changing the antifreeze to resolve the uncertainty is totally >>> un-necessary (even in your scenario), Antifreeze is routinely >>> "reconditioned" by running ithrough a filter and the pH corrected by >>> the addition of buffering agents. >> >> you can't recover ethylene glycol by filtering dude. sorry. and buffer >> with what? buffering with inorganics increases corrosion rates. > > It is done ALL THE TIME. if you think that's what you're seeing, you don't understand what you're looking at. you cannot filter a solute from a solution - by definition. > The coolant is filtered and a buffering agent > is added to bring the pH back to spec. what is this "buffering agent" clare? and which way does it buffer? serious question. >> >> >>> Antifreeze is a hazardous waste >>> which must be properly disposed of - and it is also not inexpensive. >> >> c'mon clare. it's $7 or $8 for a gallon. anyone not prepared to spend >> that on an accurate diagnosis needs more than their gaskets testing. > > Up here it's generally $14 per gallon. to the man on the street. so, it's $14 for an accurate diagnosis. [to the man in the street, not the dealer.] hardly a serious consideration when looking at whether to drop a grand on a gasket job wouldn't you say? not if you're being rational anyway. >> >> >>> Recycling the coolant is the responsible thing to do - as well as the >>> economical thing to do. >> >> that might be something available to those working in large shops, but >> not the man on the street. besides, the "environmental hazard" is >> primarily to biosystems like dogs who like the sweet taste. while more >> so, its toxicity is not unlike that of alcohol. mmm. >> >> >>> >>> When an engine warms up, the parts expand and the clearances decrease, >>> causing many minor coolant leaks, both internal and external, to >>> temporarily stop with the engine at operating temperatures. >> >> not head gaskets - other way around. restricted linear expansion causes >> them to bow in the middle - hence warping. that's why it's usually the >> middle pistons where the leakage is evident. and if you can see >> bubbling when cold, the gasket is already pretty far gone. [maybe your >> experience is skewed - most shops only get to see late stage leakage >> since owners usually never notice early and thus never take their >> vehicles in.] > > My experience may well be skewed a bit, because I've wrenched > professionally for many years. (with many of those years on Toyotas) > Many head gasket leaks have absolutely nothing to do with restricted > linear expansion and bowing, and everything to do with gasket material > failure, corrosion, head bolt torque, and many other causes. again, you're confused. the results of leakage, like corrosion and erosion are not causes. and incorrect bolt torque, or even bolt failure [remember bmw?] is a whole different issue again. classic overheat, like when an old radiator is clogged or a thermostat fails, causes the head to bow. if you don't believe that, you need to study this topic some more - and bother to look into [and think about] why it's the middle pistons where the gasket fails. > On the "M" engine, in particular, early head gasket failures were > attributed to shearing of the gasket because of the large differential > in expansion rates between the aluminum head and the cast head. which actually accords with what i was saying - if you bothered to think about it and weren't so intent on simply trying to argue a contrary position. > Toyota > got that problem pretty well sorted out by the time the 4M engine was > introduced. Most of the 3M engines were also good - but the 2M (Early > Crown ) engines had a significant head gasket problem. > From 4M on up, the ONLY head gasket failures I ever saw were due to > uverheating from blown hoses, leaky rads, and sticking aftermarker > thermostats. see above. > > Our dealership saw just about every vehicle we serviced a minimum of > twice a year - and the vast majority 3 or 4 times a year. We did not > have many failures of any sort. >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is detecting CO2 by bubbling air from the cooling system >>>>>>> through the reagent (which you have correctly identified) and if the >>>>>>> air contains CO2 it is absorbed in the water the reagent is disolved >>>>>>> in, forming carbonic acid, and changing the colour of the fluid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From your reference- >>>>>>> Bromothymol blue is mostly used in measuring substances that would >>>>>>> have relatively low acidic or basic levels (near a neutral pH). It is >>>>>>> often used in managing the pH of pools and fish tanks, and for >>>>>>> measuring the presence of carbonic acid in a liquid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A common demonstration of BTB's pH indicator properties involves >>>>>>> exhaling through a tube into a neutral solution of BTB. As carbon >>>>>>> dioxide is absorbed from the breath into the solution, forming >>>>>>> carbonic acid, the solution changes color from green to yellow. Thus, >>>>>>> BTB is commonly used in middle school science classes to demonstrate >>>>>>> that the more that muscles are used, the greater the CO2 output. >>>>>> >>>>>> it's also used for testing radiator leaks at $50 per quart as opposed to $5. >>>>> >>>>> Nothing stopping you (or me) from buying it for $5 instead of $50 and >>>>> still using it the right way - to tetect CO2, not coolant pH. >>>> >>>> a decrease in coolant pH is /caused/ by CO2. i thought the cites were >>>> self explanatory. would you like more explanation? >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From the instructios for the leak detector kit- >>>>>>> To do the test, add the blue detector fluid to the (block-tester) >>>>>>> plastic container according to the directions, and place it onto the >>>>>>> radiator filler neck. The squeeze bulb is placed on top of the >>>>>>> reservoir and squeezed repeatedly (Some block testers, have a tube >>>>>>> that connects to a vacuum line instead of a squeeze bulb). Squeezing >>>>>>> the bulb will draw air from the radiator through the test fluid. Block >>>>>>> tester fluid is normally blue. Exhaust gases in the cooling system >>>>>>> will change the color of the fluid to yellow, indicating a combustion >>>>>>> leak. If the fluid remains blue, exhaust gases were not present during >>>>>>> the test. The vehicle should be started and at operating temperature >>>>>>> before performing the test. Vehicles with head gasket leaks may >>>>>>> overheat, and purge hot water and steam out of the radiator. Perform >>>>>>> this test, at your own risk, and do not do the test, unless you are >>>>>>> experienced and are wearing clothing and equipment to protect you from >>>>>>> burns, or injury. >>>>> >>> > -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: clare on 7 Jun 2010 23:52 On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:29:58 -0700, jim beam <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> NEVER use de-ionized water in a cooling system. Distilled is great - > >ok dude, i love a lot of your contributions, but that one is pure >bullshit. and if you're confused about "de-ionized" being a misnomer >for the product of a water softener, you still have an understanding >problem. de-ionized is the product of reverse osmosis and while not >perfectly pure, is pretty danged close. certainly close enough as to be >indistinguishable for this application. You are full of it. Reverse osmosis water is NOT de-ionized water. de-ionized water is an almost universal solvent, in that it will grab ions from anything it contacts - causing rapid deterioration of things like aluminum radiators. > > > >yet another reason to do it yourself. dealers should know better - if >they bother to read their manufacturer service bulletins anyway. Their service buletins will warn specifically AGAINST de-ionized water. Soft water is definitely better than hard (naturally soft, not softened) and distilled is definitely OK - but you want ionically balanced water of neutral pH for cooling systems. Tap water sourced from surface water is just fine. Water from deep wells is suspect - usually too alkaline, and too high in TDS (Total disolved solids) - which will scale up the cooling system.
From: jim beam on 8 Jun 2010 00:43 On 06/07/2010 08:52 PM, clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:29:58 -0700, jim beam<me(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > >>> NEVER use de-ionized water in a cooling system. Distilled is great - >> >> ok dude, i love a lot of your contributions, but that one is pure >> bullshit. and if you're confused about "de-ionized" being a misnomer >> for the product of a water softener, you still have an understanding >> problem. de-ionized is the product of reverse osmosis and while not >> perfectly pure, is pretty danged close. certainly close enough as to be >> indistinguishable for this application. > > You are full of it. Reverse osmosis water is NOT de-ionized water. > de-ionized water is an almost universal solvent, in that it will grab > ions from anything it contacts - causing rapid deterioration of > things like aluminum radiators. clare, sorry dude - but you're fundamentally misinformed on that. the difference between de-ionized is practically zero, and for radiator purposes /is/ zero. if you have experience of "de-ionized" causing problems, it wasn't de-ionized, it was softened, a whole different animal and that indeed can be corrosive. >> >> > >> >> yet another reason to do it yourself. dealers should know better - if >> they bother to read their manufacturer service bulletins anyway. > > Their service buletins will warn specifically AGAINST de-ionized > water. Soft water is definitely better than hard (naturally soft, not > softened) and distilled is definitely OK - but you want ionically > balanced water of neutral pH for cooling systems. utter bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deionized_water unless you think that hydroxide and hydronium ions are a problem. > > Tap water sourced from surface water is just fine. Water from deep > wells is suspect - usually too alkaline, and too high in TDS (Total > disolved solids) - which will scale up the cooling system. more bullshit. "surface water" has a multitude of chemistries. and well water can be fine - it all depends on substrate. you're WAY out of your depth on this one. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: clare on 8 Jun 2010 08:10 On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:43:59 -0700, jim beam <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >clare, sorry dude - but you're fundamentally misinformed on that. the >difference between de-ionized is practically zero, and for radiator >purposes /is/ zero. if you have experience of "de-ionized" causing >problems, it wasn't de-ionized, it was softened, a whole different >animal and that indeed can be corrosive. > Deionization The process used for removal of all dissolved salts from water is referred to as deionization. Deionization requires the flow of water through two ion exchange materials in order to effect the removal of all salt content. Deionization. The terms demineralization and deionization are used somewhat interchangeably by the industry. While the term demineralization is generally better understood, deionization is especially apt. The passage of water through the first exchange material removes the calcium and magnesium ions just as in the normal softening process. Unlike home equipment, deionization units also remove all other positive metallic ions in the process and replace them with hydrogen ions instead of sodium ions. As the metallic ions in the water affix themselves to the exchange material, the latter releases its hydrogen ions on a chemically equivalent basis. A sodium ion (Na+) displaces one hydrogen ion (H+) from the exchanger; a calcium ion (Ca++) displaces two hydrogen ions; a ferric ion (Fe+++) displaces three hydrogen ions, etc. (Recall that home softeners also release two sodium ions for every calcium or magnesium ion they attract.) This exchange of the hydrogen ions for metallic ions on an equivalent basis is chemical necessity that permits the exchange material to maintain a balance of electrical charges. Now because of the relatively high concentration of hydrogen ions, the solution is very acid. At this point the deionization process is just half complete. While the positive metallic ions have been removed, the water now contains positive hydrogen ions, and the anions originally in the raw water. The partially treated water now flows through a second unit, this time an anion exchange material normally consists of replaceable hydroxyl anions and fixed irreplaceable cations. Now the negative ions in solution (the anions) are absorbed into the anion exchange material. Released in their place are hydroxyl anions. All that emerges from such a two unit system is ion-free water. It still contains the positive hydrogen ions released in the initial exchange plus the negative hydroxyl ions released in the second exchange. What has become of these two ions? Through the magic of chemistry they have combined (positive to negative) to produce water molecules which are in no way different from the water in which they were produced. The result of this two-stage ion exchange process is water that is mineral-free. Equipment for use in the deionization process may be of several types. Available are both multiple bed and single bed units. Multiple bed units have pairs of tanks, one for the cation exchanger, the other for the anion exchanger. Single bed units incorporate both the cation and anion exchangers, mixed in a single tank. Deionized water has a wide range of uses in industry. Chemical production, pharmaceuticals, electroplating, television tube production and leather goods processing are among the many diversified applications for deionized water. Reverse Osmosis Reverse osmosis (RO) is the most economical method of removing 90% to 99% of all contaminants. The pore structure of RO membranes is much tighter than UF membranes. RO membranes are capable of rejecting practically all particles, bacteria and organics >300 daltons molecular weight (including pyrogens). In fact, reverse osmosis technology is used by most leading water bottling plants. Natural osmosis occurs when solutions with two different concentrations are separated by a semi-permeable membrane. Osmotic pressure drives water through the membrane; the water dilutes the more concentrated solution; and the end result is an equilibrium. In water purification systems, hydraulic pressure is applied to the concentrated solution to counteract the osmotic pressure. Pure water is driven from the concentrated solution and collected downstream of the membrane. Because RO membranes are very restrictive, they yield slow flow rates. Storage tanks are required to produce an adequate volume in a reasonable amount of time. RO also involves an ionic exclusion process. Only solvent is allowed to pass through the semi-permeable RO membrane, while virtually all ions and dissolved molecules are retained (including salts and sugars). The semi-permeable membrane rejects salts (ions) by a charge phenomena action: the greater the charge, the greater the rejection. Therefore, the membrane rejects nearly all (>99%) strongly ionized polyvalent ions but only 95% of the weakly ionized monovalent ions like sodium. Reverse osmosis is highly effective in removing several impurities from water such as total dissolved solids (TDS), turbidity, asbestos, lead and other toxic heavy metals, radium, and many dissolved organics. The process will also remove chlorinated pesticides and most heavier-weight VOCs. Reverse osmosis and activated carbon filtration are complementary processes. Combining them results in the most effective treatment against the broadest range of water impurities and contaminants. RO is the most economical and efficient method for purifying tap water if the system is properly designed for the feed water conditions and the intended use of the product water. RO is also the optimum pretreatment for reagent-grade water polishing systems _Water Purification Text____________________________________________ According to tis, there is a 5% difference in removal rates of monovalent ions like sodium, and only a 1% difference in covalent ions. _CS____________________________________________________________ Deionized water goes through basically the same process as softened water - ionic exchange - but substitutes hydrogen ions instead of sodium ions. The positive and negative hydrogen ions combine to produce pure water, so they are taken intirely out of the equation. Deionized water is neutral in pH (7) but very quickly becomes acidic as it has a strong afinity for CO2 from the air, forming carbonic acid. Reverse osmosis water is very similar in this regard but has somebuffering capacity due to the presence of a low level of monovalent ions. Distilled water has a less agressive affinity for CO2, as well as having a varying buffering capability due to the presence of SOME monovalent and co-valent ons, so does not acidify quite as quickly. Both reverse Osmosis and deionized water are considered to be "agressive" - but in a chemically different way than "hard" or highly mineralized water. _CS______________________________________________________________ From the Work Health Organization guides for drinking water quality: Demineralised water is highly aggressive and if untreated, its distribution through pipes and storage tanks would not be possible. The aggressive water attacks the water distribution piping and leaches metals and other materials from the pipes and associated plumbing materials. _WHO_____________________________________________________________
From: Ray O on 12 Jun 2010 00:56
"Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message news:Xns9D8D3FF63D12Ftegger(a)208.90.168.18... > "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote in > news:hu9ui8$81p$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > > >>> >> >> A gas leak detector will work. > > > > Like this one? > <http://www.grahamtool.com/combustionleakdetector.aspx> > > > -- > Tegger Yup, that looks like it would work, as would an electronic detector used to detect refrigerant or natural gas leaks. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |