I lower my bills: special coolant

[Did67]

You surprise me there, chatelot!

a) "heats up a little faster" ... For the same power, that would mean a lower specific heat capacity. It is, indeed, probable ... That of glycol is lower than that of water. No ?

b) but this argument turns around like a pancake: in a boiler, for the same flame power and the same heat exchanger surfaces, same flow rate of the circulators, this would ALSO mean higher temperatures (to release these calories produced). So a lower "exchanger" efficiency. No ?

c) a burner which goes out (and comes on again) more frequently, this is a drop in efficiency because the "combustion" efficiency is less good during the start-up phase. No ?

There is, on this forum, people who strongly believe in surunitaire. And let them express themselves. So ?

I had decided, until then, not to intervene, even if I find it strange that we let express what for me is pure and simple advertising.

But I will rather go back to my "superunitary" garden since I switched to the "I garden in my deckchair, a glass of beer in my left hand and a good book in my right hand" method. I still have to harvest !!!

[chatelot16]

When I say that to do better than water you have to go to the surunitaire, it's good to say that I don't believe in it!

sorry to have let believe that I believed in the surunitaire ...

water is a liquid having an exeptional specific heat, largely superior to all other liquid, therefore water is the ideal heat transfer liquid

I agree that a liquid which heats up faster is a liquid with lower mass heat, therefore which transports heat less well: rather an inconvenience than a quality: with such a liquid it is necessary to increase the flow rate for the same performance

I see some bizarre tests coming, like all radiators fully open without thermostat: a liquid less good than water reduces heat transmission, therefore reduces the power taken from the boiler, so its thermostat will cut more often and consumption will decrease ! it is not a gain in yield! it's a power limitation!

to make the same savings no need to change the liquid, just lower the thermostat!

[Did67]

sorry to have let believe that I believed in the surunitaire ...

No, I didn't believe that.

But I understand that you thought that a less coolant could increase the efficiency of the burner ... That's what I understood. But I don't see how!

For the explanation of a decrease in consumption, I join you. If we "restrict" the "flow" of calories (by a lower capacity - it's like replacing trucks by vans!) It is obvious that consumption drops.

But logically comfort too.

Do not measure temperatures (if the regulator is based on temperatures, it will not see that the same "delta t", as we say, corresponds to a lower flow of calories ...).

So that it can consume less, poruqoi not? That the temperatures arrival, departure, etc., could be the same, logical if we did not modify the regulation ... But that it is "so hot", there, I very much doubt! But as it is a "subjective" datum ... As man is a strange animal whose judgment also depends on his capacity to persuade himself to be right (or on his difficulty in admitting that he is wrong !) ... ?????

I can not find the reference, but I have been reported tests with LPG equipment: even if they accidentally remain in "gasoline" mode, drivers actually consumed less. It is quite simply that unconsciously, in order not to be disappointed, they eased off! I don't know if somewhere in a "behaviorism" section of a college somebody would want to do this again in "blind protocol" ...

[Ahmed]

As it stands, nothing explains the possibility of a decrease in consumption.
The arguments put forward are ineffective; for example, the role that the phase changes of this miraculous liquid would play is obviously a sham: if they are able to restore more calories, it is because they absorb more previously ... (like the ad of a VPC brand of storage heaters that continues to heat up free of charge (sic!), half an hour after the power was cut!
As for the bank that would be interested, it is not by the process which it royally does not care, but by the potential of gogos which would come to fill the seller's account!

[Alfa-x]

It smells like a scam full nose this thing.

I can admit that the "miraculous" side is hard to believe and that as long as we were the only ones offering it it might sound "too good to be true" but if everyone can question us, you can't. about this wholesaler that you may not know but which is THE firm which has the biggest growth on the Walloon market and whose reputation for seriousness is well established.

Imagine for a single second that such a firm would put its image at stake, in the name of profit, in front of more than 4000 professionals who supply themselves at home and when they are already turning over tens of millions of euros in turnover per year ??

Obviously not.

[Alfa-x]

I really like these supposed "certification" which show with a lot of numbers and curves (obtained by sometimes obscure or questionable test protocols) that the product in question has properties almost identical to water but which by a This totally unexplained phenomenon still saves energy.
And the conclusion of these studies each time, to summarize roughly, "it works but we don't know why ...."

The phenomenon, as you say, is perfectly explicable and explained, just read the cards ...

Nothing is obscure at all

[Alfa-x]

water is a perfect heat transfer fluid for the temperature of a central heating: I really don't see what a different fluid can do to improve a thermal transmission efficiency which is already 100% with water!

*** The surface tension that diffuses the heat FASTER (we didn't say anything else).

to improve the water transmission efficiency, you have to go to the surunitaire! [/ quote]

*** We never claimed to create energy

Good remarks from Chatelot,

In fact this fluid contains (drai) t glycol, which protects the circuits from freezing. And perhaps corrosion (to be taken with caution).

*** Not only a glycol but also corrosion inhibitors and a dozen other products including some close to MCP. Not to be taken with caution at all, it is tested.


For thermal performance, it would seem that the fluid heats a little faster than simple water, but in a heating installation, the time is very long, and the unsteady perforations of the fluid are not very influential.

*** between 25% and 32% from time to month to reach the same temperature, I don't find that "a little". And indeed it is the heating time that consumes the most energy.


In addition, if it heats up faster, it will also cool down faster for the same physical reasons (thermal capacity and thermal conductivity unchanged).

*** Quite right and that's what we ask, right? The goal is to heat the room as quickly as possible and as best as possible. Not only will it cool faster but it will cool MORE than water alone, the Delta is INCREASED.


I do not objectively see where the deposit is for 20% fuel savings (in the broad sense, electric water heater included). It is the insulation work and the moderation of the interior temperature that can allow as much savings, not the heat transfer fluid.

*** NO influence on an electric water heater, it is only heating, on the other hand it also works in the other direction for "cold" installations.

Perhaps a fairly small gain is possible on contact with the burner: if the fluid takes the ° C faster, the losses of the burner can be reduced by turning it off more frequently. [/ Quote]

*** Almost all losses are reduced, not only those of the burner. It takes ° C, as you say, faster and BETTER. Dry walls absorb less.

[Alfa-x]

a) "heats up a little faster" ... For the same power, that would mean a lower specific heat capacity. It is, indeed, probable ... That of glycol is lower than that of water. No ?

*** see sheets published on the site, these figures are verifiable.

b) but this argument turns around like a pancake: in a boiler, for the same flame power and the same heat exchanger surfaces, same flow rate of the circulators, this would ALSO mean higher temperatures (to release these calories produced). So a lower "exchanger" efficiency. No ?

*** NO since the boiler switches off the burner when the requested temperature is reached.

c) a burner which goes out (and comes on again) more frequently, this is a drop in efficiency because the "combustion" efficiency is less good during the start-up phase. No ?

*** NO it is an increase in efficiency, all the heating engineers agree that the ideal boiler should not go out ... which is impossible. The more often it starts, the less it will consume.

I had decided, until then, not to intervene, even if I find it strange that we let express what for me is pure and simple advertising.

*** Any technological advance must be known and I am willing to admit the "pub" side but I only sell in Belgium and have nothing to gain, financially speaking, by discussing it with French or Swiss people. . And sincerely I do not think that it is among you that I will make the least customer

[Alfa-x]

But logically comfort too.

Do not measure temperatures (if the regulator is based on temperatures, it will not see that the same "delta t", as we say, corresponds to a lower flow of calories ...).

So that it can consume less, poruqoi not? That the temperatures arrival, departure, etc., could be the same, logical if we did not modify the regulation ... But that it is "so hot", there, I very much doubt! But as it is a "subjective" datum ... As man is a strange animal whose judgment also depends on his capacity to persuade himself to be right (or on his difficulty in admitting that he is wrong !) ... ?????

**** Well, you put your finger on it, not only is consumption reduced, but comfort is increased. Loss regulation, cleaning of the installation and ESPECIALLY the surface tension explain this.

If, among you, there are scientists equipped with a laboratory that can test the product, I will gladly give the required quantity. ***

[Alfa-x]

As it stands, nothing explains the possibility of a decrease in consumption.
The arguments put forward are ineffective; for example, the role that the phase changes of this miraculous liquid would play is obviously a sham: if they are able to restore more calories, it is because they absorb more previously ... (like the ad of a VPC brand of storage heaters that continues to heat up free of charge (sic!), half an hour after the power was cut!
As for the bank that would be interested, it is not by the process which it royally does not care, but by the potential of gogos which would come to fill the seller's account!

*** phase changes do not restore more calories but in a delayed manner. And for the bank think again, they also studied the seriousness of the thing. In Belgium in any case the banks also care about their brand image.

But we don't pretend our components are MCPs, we just say "close". One of the components is close to paraffin which is an MCP. And, indeed, a thermochemical reaction takes place during the cooling process. (and so there we regain a little heat).