# Oil filled water cooling loop?



## RejZoR (Jan 5, 2016)

*I watched this yesterday:*









And it made me wonder. Milk would turn into yogurt because of proteins in it and acidity from it would eat the metal parts, orange juice would also corrode metal stuff, Powerade would eventually grow algae etc.

But then it struck me. What about motor oil? A very thin (very liquidy one)?

- it is made to be used in hot conditions
- is not corrosive
- won't allow algae to grow
- won't go bad like ever

Seems like a perfect candidate. There might be some concerns regarding pump and maybe rubber gaskets here and there, but in theory, it should work. I'd love to see how it performs thermally as I don't know how oil performs as heat transportation medium.


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 5, 2016)

What about automotive water cooling fluid?


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 5, 2016)

That too. If it works in a car, one would assume it should work in a computer as well.


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 5, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> That too. If it works in a car, one would assume it should work in a computer as well.



Right! Thats what I was thinking! 

Edit: http://www.overclock.net/t/401891/regular-car-coolant-for-pc


----------



## Jetster (Jan 5, 2016)

Mineral Oil. Its what is used in heaters. Motor oil eventually breaks down. To many hydro carbons and other organic materal. Or synthetic oil


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 5, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> That too. If it works in a car, one would assume it should work in a computer as well.



that i am pretty certin is what your all in one sealed loops contain
with other additives for patent reasons ext

Fill your Loop with 170 proof vodka or the alcohol/spirit  of your choice


----------



## trog100 (Jan 5, 2016)

oil is used as a coolent for high voltage power cables and transformers so in theory it would work.. its not motor oil though.. more a special type produced for the job..

trog


----------



## RCoon (Jan 5, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> That too. If it works in a car, one would assume it should work in a computer as well.



It would be worse than distilled water. The liquid used in car watercooling systems contains anti-freeze among other things, so it has to operate below 0 degrees as well as above 180 degrees. It also contains properties to lubricate the impeller in the cooling system. It works well for engines because it's designed to. Automotive coolant would be worse in a computer cooling loop than plain old distilled water because some of the aspects make it transfer heat less effectively at PC temperatures.

Maybe if you diluted the automotive coolant with distilled water, like 6:1, it might be as good. But distilled water is so cheap, why bother?

Also as above, motor oil breaks down. You don't want to scrub expelled oil from your $100 water block every few months.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 5, 2016)

Jetster said:


> Mineral Oil. Its what is used in heaters. Motor oil eventually breaks down. To many hydro carbons and other organic materal. Or synthetic oil



Motor oil breaks down because of shit tons of impurities introduced through combustion and insane temperatures. Something PC cooling loop would never experience. Even mineral oil should last for ages.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 5, 2016)

Topic title suggestion:

How to make something cheap and simple, expensive and labor-intensive, 'The 101'


----------



## trog100 (Jan 5, 2016)

for what is worth super high voltage 240K underground power cables are oil filled.. using oil as a coolant aint a new idea.. he he

with the right oil it would work and last for ever.. maybe some company will actually do it in the future.. it would remove all the scary thoughts most folks have about mixing water and electricity.. 

oil also cools a motor engine as part of its job.. it lubricates and it cools the bearings and such as it is pumped around the engine.. 

trog


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 5, 2016)

Mmmmmmmm...Sodium-23?  Probably not.  It reacts _enegetically_ if it comes into contact with water/air and it is conductive.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 5, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Motor oil breaks down because of shit tons of impurities introduced through combustion and insane temperatures. Something PC cooling loop would never experience. Even mineral oil should last for ages.



Mineral oil is refined further than motor oil. Its distilled. I use to work in a refinery in another life. Motor oil has surfer among many other corrosive chemicals. Its not meant to last forever. Its temporary lubricant. Mineral oil is made for cooling.

Even better would be synthetics. But costly.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 5, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Mmmmmmmm...Sodium-23?  Probably not.  It reacts _enegetically_ if it comes into contact with water/air and it is conductive.



*Disadvantages*
A disadvantage of sodium is its chemical reactivity, which requires special precautions to prevent and suppress fires. If sodium comes into contact with water it explodes, and it burns when in contact with air.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 5, 2016)

I'm sure most AIO coolers have distilled water and a antimicrobial. That's it. Its why they only last and couple of years is my guess. Why would you spend more money just to have it last longer


----------



## 64K (Jan 5, 2016)

From what I've seen from people that know a lot about cooling, oil doesn't transfer heat as well as water and that's why it isn't used in cooling CPU/GPU. In situations where oil is used to transfer heat, like in a space heater, it's probably because of the risk that water might boil and turn your heater into a steam bomb.


----------



## JalleR (Jan 5, 2016)

Yes Oil isn't a conductor, so no worries if it leaks   (i guess it will still make a mess though. )

But What about D2O (Heavy Water)  that is what they are using in Nuclear power plants. I guess that is the S........


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 5, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> *Disadvantages*
> A disadvantage of sodium is its chemical reactivity, which requires special precautions to prevent and suppress fires. If sodium comes into contact with water it explodes, and it burns when in contact with air.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 5, 2016)

Just FYI, if you want to do it, do it right.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/submerged.php


----------



## Outback Bronze (Jan 5, 2016)

Not sure I would like to keep changing the loop with different parts or drain it coz it's sprung a leak or something.

I have been using car coolant for my water cooling loops for the best part of 10 years now and its the best stuff I've ever found!


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 5, 2016)

im certain antifreeze would work(iirc many Closed loop systems use AF i believe), but as MANY people already know, water is extremely efficient when it comes to heat dissipation. I dont think there would be a benefit from this "mod".


----------



## bencrutz (Jan 5, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> But then it struck me. What about motor oil? A very thin (very liquidy one)?



with lower thermal conductivity & heat capacity than water?
stick with distilled water, less hassle - more efficient


----------



## stinger608 (Jan 5, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> What about automotive water cooling fluid?





RejZoR said:


> That too. If it works in a car, one would assume it should work in a computer as well.



Right. I always use 25% antifreeze along with distilled water. I use the non poisonous "gold" colored stuff.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jan 5, 2016)

For some reason i read this thread and thought to myself, isn't PC Ice oil based coolant? Not exactly motor oil, but oil none the less.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 5, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


>



Sodium is a pansy.  Use Cesium if you want a real explosion.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 5, 2016)

Jetster said:


> I'm sure most AIO coolers have distilled water and a antimicrobial. That's it. Its why they only last and couple of years is my guess. Why would you spend more money just to have it last longer


Glycol/water mixes in every single one. Glycol is the one additive that help water's thermal conductivity at the termps we use, and also prevents the AIO's from popping under expansion while shipping (or you'd never get one in the mail from Newegg).


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 5, 2016)

I remember people using water and antifreeze for cars when they made custom loops using heating radiator from Lada and Yugo cars as a heatsink rad  Not sure if anyone still bothers with those since dedicated water cooling accessories are so widely accessible now.


----------



## Brusfantomet (Jan 5, 2016)

Have been on the lookout for the optimal water cooling cooling medium for some time now, as i see it there is three chemical properties that are important:
Heat capacity
Viscosity
Electrical conductivity

Heat capacity is important because the better it is the better cooling one unit (L/Gal/mL wathever) of the fluid passing through the block will grab more heat from the block.
Viscosity is important because it denotes how difficult it is to force the fluid though the loop, so lower Viscosity better flow.
Electrical conductivity is mostly a nice to have, as it only makes the fluid NOT kill your computer should you get a spill.

In addition, a fluid that is not reactive to the other metals and plastics of the loop, and no thigns can live in (algae)

Something with low viscosity and high heat capacity that wont kill you computer should you spill and is stable would be ideal   

Now for the fluids i have found:

Water: 
Very high Heat capacity for a fluid: 4.1813 [J/(g*K)]
Very Low Viscosity: 0.894 [CP]
But it is conductive and algae likes to live in it

Propylene glycol: its the stuff in engine coolant additives
Heat capacity: 2.521 [J/(g*K)]
Viscosity: 42 [CP]
Still conductive but nothing lives in it, and it has a lower freezing point so its possible to use radiators outside in winter (if you live in a part of the world that gets that kind of temperatures. Also, Here is some interesting stats about water/glycol solutions.

Mineral oil: there is a lot of different oils, but they are high Viscosity.
Heat capacity: 2.521 [J/(g*K)]
Viscosity: 35 to 400 [CP]
Not conductive, i dont know if stuff grows in it tho.

There are probably other fluids but the Heat capacity and Viscosity will be the most important ones comparing it to water.


----------



## silentbogo (Jan 5, 2016)

In the regular LC loop there will be no reason to use oil (probably less effective than aftermarket air cooling), but a few months ago I saw a video on Youtube of 2 kids testing mineral oil vs. vegetable oil in a tank. Maybe not the best test, but the proof of concept definitely works.

EDIT: here's the video


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 5, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> *I watched this yesterday:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


.there are systems that are fully submerged with oil, not just flowing through tubes.


----------



## peche (Jan 5, 2016)

the difference between using just distilled water and silver coils in tubing vs pre-mixed coolant is not even noticeable and using that distilled water and the solver coil will make the loop almost and AIO that will just need to have some cleanliness on the rad...
so why getting another fluids on the loop? and a ultra pain in the ass with the ood results you might get... distilled water and silver dice are cheap enough to get... also coolants are pretty cheap...



MxPhenom 216 said:


> .there are systems that are fully submerged with oil, not just flowing through tubes.


correct... oil chilled systems... well the biggest disadvantage there is that everything you'll submerge there is almost lost... [cleaning all back for a future sale ...nahh  not worth at all ]


----------



## erocker (Jan 5, 2016)

Why not the most simple form of liquids... Water? Automotive coolants are designed to run through various metals and operating temperatures outside that of a computer. Other oils just put unneeded stress on the pump. Computer water pumps are designed to operate best using water.


----------



## peche (Jan 5, 2016)

erocker said:


> Other oils just put unneeded stress on the pump.


f*cking waterbumps....


erocker said:


> Computer water pumps are designed to operate best using water.


correct... that's why they are named "WaterPumps" 

thanks


----------



## Loosenut (Jan 5, 2016)

Distilled water and some Redline Water Wetter. I use a 5:1 ratio

Quote:
"Red Line Water Wetter provides corrosion and rust protection for modern aluminum and cast iron cooling systems. This unique additive reduces coolant temperatures by as much as 20 degrees F. It can be used in plain water to provide much better heat transfer properties and protection than glycol-based antifreeze, or added to new or used antifreeze to fortify inhibitors and reduce foaming."

http://www.summitracing.com/int/parts/red-80204/overview/


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 5, 2016)

People apparently think only oil is a thick oil. Apparently some don't know that oils can be almost as thin as water. Not identical, but so close it's almost hard to tell.


----------



## kenkickr (Jan 5, 2016)

Back in the day when I had all the time in the world and was building my water cooling systems from car heat exchangers I used to use Water Wetter.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jan 5, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> People apparently think only oil is a thick oil. Apparently some don't know that oils can be almost as thin as water. Not identical, but so close it's almost hard to tell.


I don't think you understand how truly special water is.   
While @Brusfantomet mentioned water's ability to _carry_ heat, what was not mentioned was water's high heat transfer rate.  Those 2 facts, and that water is cheap and nonreactive, is the reason that water is what is normally used for cooling.
Also, water is easy to pump, normally with (easy to implement) impellers.  Oil normally needs a positive displacement pump, which is MUCH more difficult to implement in a closed system. (this barely scratches the surface on this point)


----------



## xorbe (Jan 5, 2016)

trog100 said:


> for what is worth super high voltage 240K underground power cables are oil filled.. using oil as a coolant aint a new idea.. he he



I think this is primarily because (1) water evaporates and sneaks out much more easily, (2) water boils at 100C, and (3) rust.

Car coolant is for the anti-freeze properties -- it doesn't cool as well, actually.

Regarding that Redline Water Wetter (a surfactant) a _very_ tiny dash of baby shampoo should give a similar effect in water.  Or HE detergent (anti-suds).  I don't know how the water pumps will react to "finer" water though.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 5, 2016)

Brusfantomet said:


> Have been on the lookout for the optimal water cooling cooling medium for some time now, as i see it there is three chemical properties that are important:
> Heat capacity
> Viscosity
> Electrical conductivity
> ...




Right track, only a few problems.

1) Water is not conductive.  The impurities commonly found in water (and those introduced whenever a metal oxidizes and partially dissolves) conduct electricity.  Don't believe me?  Get a glass of tap water, salt, and a digital multimeter.  As more salt is dissolved into the water you get less resistance.

2) Viscosity isn't really a factor in PC water cooling.  The flow rates are comparatively low, which means that the energy required to move the fluids is negligible.  Viscosity is only of concern when you've got tiny tubes, and high flow rates.  While standard (and cheap) centrifugal pumps would have a harder time with oil, it's not a deal breaker. 

3) Everyone's missed the really fundamental part.  The difference between inlet and outlet temperatures on radiators varies very minimally (1-2 degrees).  As such, oils generally can't heat up enough to actually have a significant difference between their temperature and surrounding air.  If the delta between ambient and fluid is very small no heat transfer occurs.  This is why we don't use oils.

4) Glycol is an alcohol.  Glycol has the tendency to bond to the polarized section of water, and make it "slippery."  This is why it's used with water (if the water is less polarized it tends to oxidize less), but not on its own.  On its own glycol is another hydrocarbon with relatively poor conductivity.



To all of those people who are commenting about water being special, you're about 80% of the way there.  It's a unique substance, in that similar chemicals have a vaporization point so much lower that it isn't funny.  Water has a huge heat capacity, it's relatively abundant, and the cost is very low.  Oils are used in things like power transformers because the delta between operational and ambient temperature would vaporize water.  If you ever get a chance run an old school transformer for some time, and just feel how hot it gets.  As industrial transformers are several times larger than than, it isn't hard to imagine 200-300 F temperatures.  This is why oil is used.  Computers have a delta that is comparatively so small as to be non-existent, which is why we use water.



TL;DR:
Water isn't an arbitrary choice.  Water is demonstrably the best option available for PC cooling.  We add things to water that make it a worse cooling fluid because it's pretty much the only way chemicals reactions occur (read: aqueous solutions), and water is a great oxidizer.  The chemicals we add are uniformly less efficient coolers (in this instance), but their improvements (namely biocidal, aesthetic, or stability) outweigh the substantial costs.  While liquid metals do technically have better properties, it's difficult to justify the slight improvements while looking at the smoking slag heap that was your computer.



xorbe said:


> I think this is primarily because (1) water evaporates and sneaks out much more easily, (2) water boils at 100C, and (3) rust.
> 
> Car coolant is for the anti-freeze properties -- it doesn't cool as well, actually.
> 
> Regarding that Redline Water Wetter (a surfactant) a _very_ tiny dash of baby shampoo should give a similar effect in water.  Or HE detergent (anti-suds).  I don't know how the water pumps will react to "finer" water though.



Not quite (to the oil).

The reason that oil is used in high energy lines is that even tiny resistance produce huge amounts of heat.  Between that, and the fact that oil is completely non-conductive, oil is used for safety reasons.

Glycol and surfactants are one in the same.  Molecules with one polar end and a relatively non-polar end allow water to "stick" to impurities but remain in solution.


----------



## xorbe (Jan 5, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> The reason that oil is used in high energy lines is that even tiny resistance produce huge amounts of heat. Between that, and the fact that oil is completely non-conductive, oil is used for safety reasons.



Ah very good point.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 5, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> 3) Everyone's missed the really fundamental part. The difference between inlet and outlet temperatures on radiators varies very minimally (1-2 degrees). As such, oils generally can't heat up enough to actually have a significant difference between their temperature and surrounding air. If the delta between ambient and fluid is very small no heat transfer occurs. This is why we don't use oils.


inlet/outlet temps with only 1-2 degrees delta is based on a limited amount of water, a specific heat load, water speed, and specific radiator designs. This is NOT a rule of any sort, merely something skinnee measured and verified within his own loop. I can easily show you differently (I asked my teacher how to do this properly, even). Heating and cooling is my specialty (HVAC).


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 5, 2016)

oil would likely make the rubber seals swell up and fail ...
distilled water/silver coil and some glycol are the only things that should be in a loop if you care about performance


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 5, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> oil would likely make the rubber seals swell up and fail ...
> distilled water/silver coil and some glycol are the only things that should be in a loop if you care about performance


flourinert begs to differ. cost is prohibitive, but oh well. No different than spending $1300 on a CPU, or buying 4 VGAs for one system, or even water-cooling! ROFL.


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 5, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> flourinert begs to differ. cost is prohibitive, but oh well. No different than spending $1300 on a CPU, or buying 4 VGAs for one system, or even water-cooling! ROFL.


lol iv always wanted to swap out water for a 3m fluid in a loop and see what happens
I think 3M Novec 7100 has a boiling point of like 60C


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jan 6, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> The reason that oil is used in high energy lines is that even tiny resistance produce huge amounts of heat.


And when things don't go quite right: (about 100 yards from my house)


----------



## xvi (Jan 6, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Glycol/water mixes in every single one. Glycol is the one additive that help water's thermal conductivity at the termps we use, and also prevents the AIO's from popping under expansion while shipping (or you'd never get one in the mail from Newegg).





Loosenut said:


> Distilled water and some Redline Water Wetter. I use a 5:1 ratio


I picked up some water wetter from Walmart for pretty cheap (basically just glycol in a bottle). I ran that in my loop for a while. When I first added it, it managed to find and remove a *lot* of small bubbles trapped in my loop almost immediately. Worked better than dish soap and gave my water a nice green tint.

I think @Norton has some experience running a bit of radiator fluid in his loops. Care to weigh in, sir?


----------



## Norton (Jan 6, 2016)

xvi said:


> I think @Norton has some experience running a bit of radiator fluid in his loops. Care to weigh in, sir?


Wasn't me? I use straight distilled water in mine and have had no issues thus far.

I'm not against using a bit (<5%) of radiator fluid or methanol in a loop since just that will do a good job inhibiting bacterial growth w/o significantly affecting the performance of just water.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 6, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> inlet/outlet temps with only 1-2 degrees delta is based on a limited amount of water, a specific heat load, water speed, and specific radiator designs. This is NOT a rule of any sort, merely something skinnee measured and verified within his own loop. I can easily show you differently (I asked my teacher how to do this properly, even). Heating and cooling is my specialty (HVAC).



Are you really asking to rehash a discussion in which I already proved my point?: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/water-cooling-questions.216240/

Jesus, you were the one questioning my units, even after I proved everything out using the only sensible measuring system (and I'm saying this to a Canadian, as someone from the US; if I didn't know better I'd say I was drunk).

I'll ask out of courtesy again, but if you really want to start the math there I'm more than happy to copy and paste.


Respectfully, I trust measurements and a year and a half worth of college classes more than rules of thumb from HVAC.  That little blue book is awesome for getting the ballpark figures for gasses (read: stuff people measure frequently but are compressible and very dependent upon atmosphere), but I've yet to see that little blue book produce consistently accurate results (within 5%) for complex situations.  If you'd like to change conditions you can prove anything, but it's stupid.  Nobody has a lake to cool their system, nobody expects a thimble of water to cool their system (except in phase change cooling, but that's another story), and changing the system specifications is stupid.  I proved that a single degree of temperature across a radiator, dissipates 250 Watts of thermal energy.  Even a socket 2011 processor (140 Watts) and a trio of 390x GPUs (275 Watts each) would only produce a change in temperature of 4 degrees C (965/250) at most.


Can we please not rehash this?


----------



## xvi (Jan 6, 2016)

Norton said:


> Wasn't me?


Huh. Must have been a different cruncher.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 6, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Can we please not rehash this?


When you stop posting bullshit, I'll stop refuting it. It takes how many watts to raise 1 lb of water one degree? This is science!

EDIT:

to clarify, a watt is a measurement of the rate of energy, not the amount. This is why your power bill reflects kwh, not kw. The rate of energy (kw), over a specified time(h).


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 6, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> When you stop posting bullshit, I'll stop refuting it. It takes how many watts to raise 1 lb of water one degree? This is science!
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> to clarify, a watt is a measurement of the rate of energy, not the amount. This is why your power bill reflects kwh, not kw. The rate of energy (kw), over a specified time(h).



Perhaps you missed the point.  Perhaps you forget that this is a dynamic system, not some stationary calculation.  The CPU feeds energy into the liquid at a rate, based upon the difference in temperature.  It doesn't just magically dump it all at once.  Said energy is measured in the amount of Joules (a unit of energy) per second (a unit of time), which is colloquially referred to as a Watt.  This is why TDP is expressed in Watts.

The water is changing temperature constantly.  There was a flow rate stated.  The water doesn't just change temperature once, it is constantly dispersing power.  As such, when the water passes through the cooler and dumps 1 degree Celsius it will effectively dump energy into the environment.  Said energy dump occurs over time across the entire radiator, and is also expressable as Joules/second.  In case you missed it the first time, that's Watts.



At this point, you're either trolling or don't know what the base units are.  The reason you have a KWh on your power bill is because is is measuring the amount of energy you use, not the amount of energy you disperse over time.  Pay attention to your damn units.  KWh is calculated by the power consumption (J/s, or Watts) multiplied by the amount of time (let's express is in seconds).  Baby steps here, but (Joules/time)*time=Joules.  KWh is a bass ackwards way of measuring consumed Joules.


Edit:
So we're clear, this level of complete misunderstanding is why I asked you for proof earlier.  You state things as "fact" without ever proving them.  Hell, a grade schooler is taught to check their units in science, but that seems utterly beyond you.

Maybe this will help.  A KWh is 3.6*10^6 Joules.  Instead of using a tiny unit, we convert to KWh so that we can understand it.


Edit:
As to the initial comment, it can take any number of Watts to heat a pound of water one degree.

1055 Joules = 1 BTU
1 BTU raises 1 pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit

Assuming perfect insulation in all cases:
1 watt for 1055 seconds would heat the water one degree F.
1055 watts for 1 second would heat the water one degree F.
527.5 watts for 2 seconds would heat the water one degree F.
The answer you were supposed to come to was 1055 Joules, no matter how it is added, would raise one pound of water one degree F.

Science works by theory, measurement, and checking units.  You failed theory, by missing the fact it was a dynamic system and therefore energy is transferred over time.  You failed measurement, by not understanding what your units represent.  You failed a unit check in such a spectacular fashion as to likely be one of the people at NASA who managed to make a rover miss its target by not converting metric to imperial.

Worst of all, you've failed the human part of science.  Instead of showing me how I'm wrong, you spouted a bunch of crap then claimed "it's science you idiot."  Fine.  Just never get anywhere near my HVAC, or the damn thing won't ever work.

Also, stay the hell away from my computers.  I don't trust anyone who can't even understand the difference between energy, energy over time, and total energy utilized.



If you're too damned lazy to do the math yourself, here's the quick and dirty way to measure a single flow.
Flow rate * time = volume of fluid
volume of fluid * density of fluid = mass of fluid
find the molar mass of the fluid
mass of fluid / Molar mass of fluid = moles of fluid
Measure temperature difference across the radiator
find the heat capacity of the fluid (water is about 75 Joules/mole/Degree C)
Heat capacity * moles of fluid * temperature difference = Joules of energy

If you have a constant flow all you have to do is get the moles of fluid in a moles/unit time measurement.  You'll note that the units it comes out in are then Joules/s, our good old friend Watts.


If you'd like to poke a hole in that logic, go ahead.  I've provided units, measurement, concrete logical pathways to get to the answer, and you've yet to even demonstrate the understanding that dynamic systems aren't static.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 6, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> If you'd like to poke a hole in that logic, go ahead.  I've provided units, measurement, concrete logical pathways to get to the answer, and you've yet to even demonstrate the understanding that dynamic systems aren't static.



Great, so you've got the part about wrong units straight. So please stop using watts as a reference.

Your base logic is sound, but please continue the math and show the equations for the flow from the CPU, the heat added, the flow through the rad and how the water at inlet vs outlet is only one to two degrees. Within the math of that the fallacy (or correctness) of what you assert will be. I do have the prepared calculations here on paper in front of me (thanks to my prof). Or, as an alternative, show your own testing in your own loop, since you can't properly calculate how much of the power consumed by the CPU is output as heat...


That's what I'm asking you for. The math that proves skinnee's observation. I question the whole "any loop will only have 1-2 degree diff between inlet and outlet", and that is all. You asked to not re-hash an old argument, so I won't... I'll ask directly for the equations.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 6, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Great, so you've got the part about wrong units straight. So please stop using watts as a reference.
> 
> Your base logic is sound, but please continue the math and show the equations for the flow from the CPU, the heat added, the flow through the rad and how the water at inlet vs outlet is only one to two degrees. Within the math of that the fallacy (or correctness) of what you assert will be. I do have the prepared calculations here on paper in front of me (thanks to my prof). Or, as an alternative, show your own testing in your own loop, since you can't properly calculate how much of the power consumed by the CPU is output as heat...
> 
> ...



To reply in the same fashion you did earlier, pay me.

I've proven my math.  I've demonstrated that you somehow can't understand dynamic versus static systems.  If you want me to do the math for you again, fork over the money.


Does that sound familiar?


Edit:
Let's make it immensely familiar.

I have a degree in engineering.  My degree says that I know more than you do, and it also means that if you want something from me you should pay for it.  If not, then shut the hell up and believe.


If it isn't immensely clear by now, this parrots the argument you made to me earlier.  Kinda shitty being on the other end, no?

You know, let's do one better.  I have a degree.  I'm a certified engineer (and if you'd ever taken that test you'd understand exactly how insane it is).  I've got a textbook in front of me, and I double checked my notes from the class before doing the initial proof.  Pay up, or believe.


Edit:
Let me be charitable.  You obviously didn't even put forward an ounce of effort to review the old thread.  I stated quite clearly the assumptions.  If you want me to calculate a case in which the temperature is more than 1-2 degree (as per the presented reasonable situation) I'll happily take checks or money order.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 6, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Edit:
> Let me be charitable.  You obviously didn't even put forward an ounce of effort to review the old thread.  I stated quite clearly the assumptions.  If you want me to calculate a case in which the temperature is more than 1-2 degree (as per the presented reasonable situation) I'll happily take checks or money order.



Nah, it's pretty simple. Your "proof" is skinnee's observations. No big deal. But again, as you've said, we are dealing with a dynamic closed system, and that system can have various configurations that can counteract skinnee's findings. Flow Rate, block design (like impingement, etc), are all factors that affect a loop's efficiency, and as such, affect water temps at inlet/outlet. Simply changing tubing size, restricting flow on inlet or outlet, can affect water temps. The ideal is 1- 2 degrees between inlet and outlet, not the standard.

I'm not sure why that seems untrue to you, but that's OK. I'll continue to reiterate this no matter who posts that. It doesn't take much effort.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 6, 2016)

Is there any other liquid that absorbs more energy than water but doesn't boil in conditions experienced in water cooling loop?


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 6, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Nah, it's pretty simple. Your "proof" is skinnee's observations. No big deal. But again, as you've said, we are dealing with a dynamic closed system, and that system can have various configurations that can counteract skinnee's findings. Flow Rate, block design (like impingement, etc), are all factors that affect a loop's efficiency, and as such, affect water temps at inlet/outlet. Simply changing tubing size, restricting flow on inlet or outlet, can affect water temps. The ideal is 1- 2 degrees between inlet and outlet, not the standard.
> 
> I'm not sure why that seems untrue to you, but that's OK. I'll continue to reiterate this no matter who posts that. It doesn't take much effort.



You seem to miss the point.  I did calculations based upon a reasonable approximation of what you'd see in a water cooling loop.  If you'd like to make an unreasonable loop, you're more than welcome to do that.  It's an exercise in being a moron, and arguing that because other configurations exist that no math can ever be right.

Why am I so very adamant that you're being an obstinate ass?  I don't know who skinee is, nor do I give a crap about them.  I've demonstrated why general observations about "optimal" water cooling are as they are.

I've also demonstrated that you could theoretically have 4 devices in a loop, and only experience a temperature differential of about 4 degrees.  



You seem to want this to be a simple problem, but allow me to hit the very simple things which you seem to not understand.
1) HVAC primarily deals with convection heating.  Water coolers primarily deal with conduction heating.  Different equations, different methodologies, but somehow you equate the two.  I'd just love to see how you account for all these variables you seem to want to interject.  Unfortunately you don't have any mathematics or logic demonstrated, nor do you even state what assumptions are being made.  Seems like an argument of "there are exceptions, so there can never be a reasonable approximation" is what you're saying.

2) You don't seem to understand why certain flow rates are chosen.  Again, something HVAC nearly never accounts for is laminar and turbulent flows.  I'd love to see you justify why above a certain flow rate water coolers don't work better, remembering that tube diameter and surface finish are all components of the equations you seem to not be able to produce.  I'll give you a hint, conduction becomes convection when laminar flow becomes chaotic.  The reason this isn't accounted for is variable densities within a convective flow make the math...painful.  Ask your professor to describe heating in a convective oven.  If they do anything but whip out that blue book I'd be surprised.  When I asked my professor it took nearly an hour to setup the equations, and it was a single point source of heat being modeled, not a surface.

3) Who said anything about standards for this measurement?  What I said was a system should have a minimal variance in temperature across the radiator.  I cited degrees, but I should have cited degrees Celsius for perfect accuracy.  What was proven earlier is that a system running under reasonably optimal conditions could dissipate 250 Watts of energy for every degree Celsius that the radiator inlet and outlet varied by.  You asked me about the amount of BTU (a measurement of energy, not rate of energy), and implied that I didn't know what I was doing (somehow equating energy and energy rates without clear linking).  If you'd like to be an ass, let's assume some crazy shit to make my reasonable approximation inaccurate.  Let's first assume you use 1/32" diameter tubing, so that with a reasonable flow rate the velocity would be insane (leading to chaotic flow).  Let's further compound the problem, and instead have a dual socket 2011 system with 4 390x cards.  Now let's compound the problem further, the computer is an enclosed air space, meaning that the ambient temperature is variable and thus a dynamic balance calculation has to account for thermal rejection outside of your system and within the enclosed space.  You've now gone from a home computer, into the territory of a rack space server.  While still possible, how does this influence how a home system might work?

All of that sounds pretty stupid, no?  We work under the auspices of some assumptions, because reality is hugely more complex.  I assume a reasonable tube diameter, and a minimum of bends so that laminar flow is reasonably present.  Throw that assumption out the window, and you can't reasonably ballpark anything.  I assume that ambient temperature is constant, because nobody seems to list the volume of air within their room (or how the house is temperature monitored for that matter).  If that isn't the case the change in temperature across the radiator fluctuates as ambient increases, leading to a long form equation which varies wildly with enclosure size and atmospheric conditions.  I assume a reasonable amount of power dissipation (100-600 Watt TDP) because most people aren't out there buying enthusiast processors, and they've got a single GPU.  If you change the assumptions, or are intentionally obtuse, you can prove anything.  You seem to be hell bent on doing so.


4) Would you like to be more obtuse?  I'll give you a few more topics which aren't ever accounted for in calculations, but do influence reality.  First off, fluid does compress and does have minor variations in density with varying temperature.  Next, every single fluid flow has a fouling layer, along which the velocity of the flow is substantially less than the rest of the flow.  Fouling layers are influenced by fluid viscosity, tube finish, and velocity of the flow.  Given that the fouling layer moves slower, it picks up particulate matter rather quickly, influencing thermal conductivity by both increasing surface area and changing surface composition.  Moving on, if you get small enough you suddenly enter the world of micro-fluidics, and your water loop can now function as a phase change cooler (making conduction seem ineffective by comparison at cooling).  None of that is accounted for.  Finally, water isn't just water.  We haven't done the immensely complicated math of finding the actual heat capacity of our substance, accounting for everything from ions to distilled gasses.  Where exactly are those calculation?



In short, whenever you can provide every single calculation, for every single cooler, you haven't brought anything to the discussion.  If that isn't fair, then why exactly are you asking it of me?  I offered a simple rule of thumb, applicable to most systems at most times, and you've demanded that because it isn't 100% for everyone that it be thrown out the window.  Fine, show me your math.  Do what you expect of me, or pay me.  You seemed content with that argument before, so either it was bullshit then or you're full of it now.  If that answer is unacceptable, I suggest you write the 3-4 pages of equations that would be needed to calculate everything out.  I'm sure that your HVAC training has led you to believe that it's not really that complicated.  Here's a little bit of advice, they remove about 90% of the variables because their influence is minor and at room temperatures their influence amounts to fractions of a degree.  If you don't believe me I implore you to learn the math.  After a week of proving everything out in class (and a four hour lab to demonstrate it all working), our professor whipped out that little blue book, and gave us its estimate of the situation.  It was off by about 7%, and took less than 5 minutes to look up.  The reason rules of thumb exist is because they're good approximations of reality inside the bell curve (where most things are).  That blue book isn't worth crap on the outliers of the bell curve, but I'm not looking at the outliers you seem hell bent on making the majority.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 6, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Why am I so very adamant that you're being an obstinate ass?  I don't know who skinee is, nor do I give a crap about them.  I've demonstrated why general observations about "optimal" water cooling are as they are.



I've been around the OC scene for years. Since 586 days. My first watercooler used a 85 Bonneville heater core, and a had to braze on my own fittings. That's just what we did back then. The actual originator of the "1-2c between inlet and outlet" was a user named Skinnee, who did a huge whackload of watercooling testing many many years ago (like a decade ago). Those of us that have been in this hobby and did watercooling in Athlon XP days know who skinnee is and what Skinnee Labs meant to the community. You might actually say that his testing lead into a tonne of decent watercooling options. Anyway, ever since he's posted that, I've seen this regurgitated countless times. But he was the first.

Here is his page:

http://skinneelabs.com/



So, I guess in the end, we'll just do this every time you decide that you need to post this. NO sweat off my back. You can post pages of written stuff to try to back your ideas up, but do keep in mind, most people will simply TL;DR.

There used to be days when cooler reviewers used simulated heatloads for cooler testing.


----------



## Arctucas (Jan 6, 2016)

Heh...

PC water cooling; Distilled water, a couple of drops of benzalkonium chloride, no dis-similar metals in the loop, it is all good.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 6, 2016)

Norton said:


> Wasn't me? I use straight distilled water in mine and have had no issues thus far.
> 
> I'm not against using a bit (<5%) of radiator fluid or methanol in a loop since just that will do a good job inhibiting bacterial growth w/o significantly affecting the performance of just water.


I use some valvoline pc additive in distilled water and a bit of anti corosion fluid now and have had no issues in the last 2 years.
I did with just distilled water,, have several bio outbreaks one of which killed a pump.
Oil is for full submersion only imho and I'm going that way next rig but I'm waiting on both money and Zen.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 6, 2016)

Vodka  with a dash of martini to lubricate the pump which stirs and circulates to cool the system

Bond's the name


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 6, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> I've been around the OC scene for years. Since 586 days. My first watercooler used a 85 Bonneville heater core, and a had to braze on my own fittings. That's just what we did back then. The actual originator of the "1-2c between inlet and outlet" was a user named Skinnee, who did a huge whackload of watercooling testing many many years ago (like a decade ago). Those of us that have been in this hobby and did watercooling in Athlon XP days know who skinnee is and what Skinnee Labs meant to the community. You might actually say that his testing lead into a tonne of decent watercooling options. Anyway, ever since he's posted that, I've seen this regurgitated countless times. But he was the first.
> 
> Here is his page:
> 
> ...



Here's the shortened version then.

You're full of shit.  At this point, I'm willing to eat a ban to simply state the obvious.

Someone apparently went to the trouble of real world testing, but you dismiss that as "not 100% of the time."  Someone else used the math to prove the point.  Despite this, your response is "but I can intentionally damage my system to get different performance."  Well, prove it.  Prove that damaging a system appreciably changes the output.  I'd also like you to prove that playing in traffic is a bad idea.  I'd really appreciate you backing up your bullshit with a single fact or equation.

Oh wait, I forgot.  You don't do the whole proof thing.  I've seen pastures recently fertilized with less crap in them.



Edit:
One last thing.  I've been doing it for a long time means nothing.  I know 80 year olds who drove since they were 18.  Despite that, driving a new car is dangerous because they still want to pump the breaks, rather than trust ABS.  Not understanding the fundamental mechanics, and subsequently dismissing all the proofs offered, is a sign of a retarded mental faculties not genius.  Experience isn't an automatic ticket to understanding.  It definitely isn't reason that your opinion and statements are gospel over reality.


----------



## peche (Jan 6, 2016)

Arctucas said:


> Heh...
> 
> PC water cooling; Distilled water, a couple of drops of benzalkonium chloride, no dis-similar metals in the loop, it is all good.


you forgot about this ...





Silver coils...


----------



## Norton (Jan 6, 2016)

Arctucas said:


> a couple of drops of _benzalkonium chloride_


A quaternary Ammonia compound such as this should do very well as an antibacterial agent in a loop.

It does a great job killing off the bacteria/microbes at my treatment plants


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 6, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Edit:
> One last thing.  I've been doing it for a long time means nothing.  I know 80 year olds who drove since they were 18.  Despite that, driving a new car is dangerous because they still want to pump the breaks, rather than trust ABS.  Not understanding the fundamental mechanics, and subsequently dismissing all the proofs offered, is a sign of a retarded mental faculties not genius.  Experience isn't an automatic ticket to understanding.  It definitely isn't reason that your opinion and statements are gospel over reality.



Meh. I'll still keep responding as I have been, regardless, without having to resort to personal attacks. There's no emotion in my posting. You've had me refuting your post, and it angers you? You feel the need to constantly refute me, even. Maybe you should take some time off the internet.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Meh. I'll still keep responding as I have been, regardless, without having to resort to personal attacks. There's no emotion in my posting. You've had me refuting your post, and it angers you? You feel the need to constantly refute me, even. Maybe you should take some time off the internet.



Get bent. 

Not a personal attack, but a refutation of an obstinate individual who, when pressed for the slightest modicum of proof continually fails to deliver.  Hell, that would be one thing, but you don't stop there.  You say people are incorrect, and don't have the simple courtesy of stating why.  You make baseless accusations built on nothing, explain nothing, and believe that you deserve to be listened to.  I'll offer you some advice now, either understand and demonstrate your points or your points deserve the same respect my toilet paper does.


I'll offer you an apology whenever you prove anything.  As yet, there is no proof that you've been able to demonstrate.  None.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 7, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Get bent.
> 
> Not a personal attack, but a refutation of an obstinate individual who, when pressed for the slightest modicum of proof continually fails to deliver.  Hell, that would be one thing, but you don't stop there.  You say people are incorrect, and don't have the simple courtesy of stating why.  You make baseless accusations built on nothing, explain nothing, and believe that you deserve to be listened to.  I'll offer you some advice now, either understand and demonstrate your points or your points deserve the same respect my toilet paper does.


I did already in this thread post why you were wrong. You didn't agree with those reasons. So whatevs... your anger is blinding you. You seem incapable of having a discussion with someone who doesn't agree with you. PLease note the lack of thanks on your posts, but present on my own... not because I'm right... but because I remain calm  and civilized about it.

Take a step back, calm down, heck, have a beer. If you can't afford that, send me your paypal email and I'll buy you a case.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> I did already in this thread post why you were wrong. You didn't agree with those reasons. So whatevs... your anger is blinding you. You seem incapable of having a discussion with someone who doesn't agree with you.
> 
> Take a step back, calm down, heck, have a beer. If you can't afford that, send me your paypal email and I'll buy you a case.



What in the hell?



cadaveca said:


> It's not really that complicated. I suppose you could make it complicated, but having taken this in school now, it's pretty simple to calculate airflow stuff, but to do it right, you do need some tools, like a pressure gauge, which of course, I have in my tool box (and part of our learning was to use different tools and see how they give different results, too). That's the thing with refrigeration... you need the gas knowledge, waterflow, airflow, pressure, electrical, blah blah blah ad nauseum.
> 
> Anyway, you can consider all you want about water flow and rads and pressure drop in the loop, but if you do not provide proper airflow, it's all for naught. Like the idea that has been bandied around for ages that water temp from inlet to outlet of a rad will never differ more than 1 degree C... All done by people not using proper calculations, yet is accepted as fact because it was measured that way in certain practice.



Accusation of incorrect mathematics, with no proof.



cadaveca said:


> Q: What's a BTU?
> 
> A: The amount of heat required to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit
> 
> ...



Fundamental misunderstanding of units.  There are no Watts is a BTU.  You failed to understand that a Watt is one Joule per second.  The amount of Joules in a BTU is about 1055.

I can't tell exactly how this sort of idiocy is allowed to occur.  Let's look at definition, that you provided.

What is a BTU - The amount of energy required to heat one pound of water 1 degree farenheit.  It is a unit of energy.
What is a Watt - The amount of energy consumed over the course of time.  It's expressed as Joules/second
What is a Joule - a unit of energy.

What in the Hell?  You accuse me of not understanding, but this sort of fundamental misunderstanding of units is what you bring to the table?


Prove a damn thing, please. Just for giggles, bring that quotation to your professor.  If they don't ask you how you managed to not fail basic HVAC courses I'm not sure I'd trust them near a heating element.  CHECK YOUR UNITS.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 7, 2016)

Oh, you missed the bit where I leave holes for people to poke at on purpose. It furthers the discussion. I expect to be corrected, but politely.

I guess it simply takes a far better man to stay calm and offer correction rather than getting upset and emotional about it.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jan 7, 2016)




----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Oh, you missed the bit where I leave holes for people to poke at on purpose. It furthers the discussion. I expect to be corrected, but politely.
> 
> I guess it simply takes a far better man to stay calm and offer correction rather than getting upset and emotional about it.



I'm not sorry.  Whenever I politely asked you to check units you suggested I was incompetent and didn't know how to do the math.

You proceeded to completely not understand how units work, and continue to tell me I didn't know how to do the math.

When the math agreed to the measurements *you *provided I was told it was still wrong.


Talking to a brick wall, that accuses you of idiocy while committing fundamental errors of understanding is difficult.  Especially when they want to play the "I'm taking the high road" attitude.  Especially whenever asked nicely they simply tel you "nuh-uh."


----------



## stinger608 (Jan 7, 2016)

crazyeyesreaper said:


>




 I know, right? Like a dinner and a movie.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 7, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'm not sorry.  Whenever I politely asked you to check units you suggested I was incompetent and didn't know how to do the math.
> 
> You proceeded to completely not understand how units work, and continue to tell me I didn't know how to do the math.
> 
> ...



Nuh-uh. When did I do that? that doesn't sound like me AT ALL.

My chosen vocabulary gets under your skin. Oh well. It still doesn't change the fact that it is more than possible to have a larger delta on a rad than 2c. Hence the whole pointing to BTUs and watts. Its simple math.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Nuh-uh. When did I do that? that doesn't sound like me AT ALL.
> 
> My chosen vocabulary gets under your skin. Oh well. It still doesn't change the fact that it is more than possible to have a larger delta on a rad than 2c. Hence the whole pointing to BTUs and watts. Its simple math.




Give me the conversion units for BTU to Watts.

Can't do it.  The reason you can't is that BTU measures an amount of energy, and Watts measures a momentary usage of energy at a specific time.  

In a static equation, like HVAC enjoys playing with, you need an amount of energy to either heat or cool a gas to the desired temperature.  According to your point before, this is why we measure KWh on our power bill.

In a dynamic system, such as a closed water cooling loop, you need to know change rate of power.  This is why TDP, for a chip isn't in BTU.  The amount of time it's on multiplied by its power dissipated over time varies as the amount of time on varies.  Water cooling loops are dynamic, thus you measure the amount of input energy over time, and the output energy over time.




As far as continuing to claim you can get more than 1-2 degrees C (and maybe that's why you've got an issue, since you never prove anything I can't tell), I agree.  As stated above you can get that with either imprecision in measurement or with a system dissipating an excess of 500 Watts of energy thermally.  Say, in a socket 2011 processor with two 390x's and a giant radiator.  Thing is, that configuration isn't common.  It's outside the common setups, what I called the bell curve earlier.  Most people aren't capable of spending thousands of dollars on computers then several hundred more on extremely high end water coolers.  It can be done, but as its a fringe case it's not being considered because it's not useful to the majority of people.

Seriously though, you work with gasses that require phase change to get them to cool (as a dig, isobaric, isochoric, or isothermal assumptions for the liquid phase?).  You do something that dangerous, and missed basic units?  I implore you to invest in a life insurance policy.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Jan 7, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'm not sorry.  Whenever I politely asked you to check units you suggested I was incompetent and didn't know how to do the math.
> 
> You proceeded to completely not understand how units work, and continue to tell me I didn't know how to do the math.
> 
> ...


bruh chill its just internets why u heff to be mad?


----------



## flmatter (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> I'll buy you a case.



I can afford beer but if you are offering free beer, PM incoming


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 7, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Give me the conversion units for BTU to Watts.
> 
> Can't do it.  The reason you can't is that BTU measures an amount of energy, and Watts measures a momentary usage of energy at a specific time.




Uh, 1 BTU roughly equals 3.413 W? It's not a direct conversion, but still possible. One fo those things you are required to remember as a HVAC engie


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Uh, 1 BTU roughly equals 3.413 W? It's not a direct conversion, but still possible. One fo those things you are required to remember as a HVAC engie



You might have been cheated out of a degree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt - Note that unit is given as Joules/second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_thermal_unit - Note that the unit is converted to approximately 1055 Joules

Show me a conversion that converts the unit (J/s) into the unit J.

This is fundamental stuff here. 


Now, what I think is that you made a critical error that can be easily rectified.
KWh is a measurement of (J/s)*s = J
1 KWh = 3412.14 BTU


I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that's what you meant to convert.  Again though, this is a unit of total energy.  It's only useful if you have a static start and end situation.  Water cooling isn't static, it's dynamic.  HVAC calculations are two or three lines because they assume static situations.  Once you start working in dynamics everything gets much more difficult. 

Would you care to take another go at this, and apologize?  I can see you trying the math again, but given the ego demonstrated I'll not be holding my breath on you actually demonstrating that you are a "better man" as you so claim.


Edit:


Sir B. Fannybottom said:


> bruh chill its just internets why u heff to be mad?



This stems from a couple of earlier discussions.  I linked to the one on water cooling, but the more difficult one is where I stated that my experience differed from what people "conventionally" think.  I was told I was wrong, and told to believe because Cadaveca knew better than me.

I asked for proof, and was told I should just believe.  I should just believe because of qualifications tangentially related to the topic.  I rejected said notion, and asked for proof, but was told I knew nothing and should just shut up.

I'm tired of the mushroom treatment.  I'm told someone knows more, so I should listen, but they never want to prove it.  I nail them in factually incorrect statements, and their response is to say "U mad bro?"  I'm tired of people saying factually ignorant shit, and more tired of being told to shut up and believe.  Stupid is stupid.  If nobody else has the fortitude to call bullshit out on what it is, I'm going to make it my business.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 7, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Would you care to take another go at this, and apologize?  I can see you trying the math again, but given the ego demonstrated I'll not be holding my breath on you actually demonstrating that you are a "better man" as you so claim.


I never said I was the better man... you chose to read it that way.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> I never said I was the better man... you chose to read it that way.



And the ninja edit to remove the comment specifically about that.  Kudos.  It's like talking to the living embodiment of bullshit.

Edit:
Isn't it amazing.  When I quote your posts, they are static in my response.  It's like there's a record of exactly what you said, despite your editing.  Care to not try and feed me some more crap?


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 7, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> And the ninja edit to remove the comment specifically about that.  Kudos.  It's like talking to the living embodiment of bullshit.



ROFL.

I didn't edit anything. So yeah.... you were saying...


Best re-read that post you should.

And no, it didn't spawn out of nothing but you posting that all rads will have 1-2 difference between inlet/outlet. That is all I refuted, while you tried to obfuscate.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> ROFL.
> 
> I didn't edit anything. So yeah.... you were saying...



I was incorrect.  You did not edit. - It is my error, that I jumped to this conclusion.  I've dealt with it in the past, and was more than ready to jump the gun.  I apologize for this error.-

You worded it in such as a way to call me your lesser, because I couldn't stay calm.  You didn't explicitly state you were a better man.  It's arguing semantics though.  Do you honestly want to tell me that because you weren't explicit that it wasn't what you said?  If you were five years old I'd believe that, but I'm working under the auspices that you are an adult and capable of understanding your own words.



Allow me to exercise the same.  I believe that any person who claims to understand the basics of heat transfer, a bare minimum for working with HVAC, and cannot check the basic units is in fact incompetent.  Anyone suffering from such a fundamental lack of basic understanding should in fact take their cyanide pill now, because that level of incompetence being passed onto the next generation is morally incorrect.  Furthermore, the only type of person more deserving to win a Darwin award is someone who observes both experimental results and theoretical models producing the same results, and has the gall to believe that through sheer misunderstanding on their part that everyone else is incorrect.


To wrap an iron fist in a velvet glove is not to make it prettier, or more gentle.  It is to shroud the basest and most vile tendencies of humanity, so that ignorance might retard human progress. 
I can't remember who the quote was from, but it's how I've lived my life.  If you want to call someone out, be plain and make sure you're right first.  If you can't be plain, your words have no value.  If you can't be right be prepared to stand your ground until your arguments have been eviscerated, and then accept the truth presented to you.

The truth here is that you don't understand units, a fundamental part of any calculations.  The truth is that you were wrong before, and yet still trumpet the same ignorance.  I'll talk politely with you whenever you show adequate reason to believe you understand what you speak of.  For now, you and a braying ass have something in common.  A loud voice, that is incapable of anything but demonstrating that you aren't capable of talking.


Edited:--


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 7, 2016)

Still doesn't have one iota to do with a rad inlet or outlet.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Still doesn't have one iota to do with a rad inlet or outlet.



Are you intentionally being obtuse?  I'm asking because at this point you have to be freaking kidding me.

The basic assumption, when doing calculations, is that there is no heat transfer within the tubing.  As such, you've got a pump that adds some heat (though it's negligible compared to the CPU).  You've got a CPU block that transfers its excess thermal energy into the cooling fluid.  The only other thing you've got is a radiator which transfers thermal energy from the liquid into the surrounding environment via conduction with the air.  If there's no heat rejection by tubing, the only temperature drop in the system is from inlet to outlet of the radiator.

The amount of energy conducted by the radiator is a function of the amount of fluid flowing, the material it is composed of, and its surface area.  We could model a radiator as such, and try to calculate heat transfer, but that's a royal pain in the ass.  Instead, we find the amount of energy transferred in total by just measuring the temperature at each end.  As the heat capacity is a relative constant, and the flow rate is measurable, we calculate the amount of energy that flow rate can disperse.  This amount of energy, per units time (jesus I hope you're getting tired of hearing that) is the Watts of heat energy rejected from the cooling fluid into the surrounding environment.


There are three ways to increase the amount of energy being transferred.  One is to increase the surface area of the fluid exposed to transfer, but that's complicated because above a certain point the flow turns turbulent and doesn't conduct as well (this is why people don't see improvements in cooling above certain flow rates).  The next is to have delta between cooling fluid and ambient air larger. Finally, you increase the surface area with an absolutely gigantic pipe with lots of fins.  Option 1 isn't an option due to varying flow.  Option 2 would require you chill ambient air, and if you're doing that why not just chill the CPU?  Option 3 is our only solution.  You can have a single huge radiator, which would allow for a greater energy transfer.  

The only other option is simply to increase the heating.  More input Watts require more output Watts.  As flow is constant and thermal capacity is constant the temperature variation must increase.



Measuring temperature is easy.  Calculating thermal wattage dispersed is easy.  Measuring thermal energy dispersed is nearly impossible.  That's what wattage, temperature variance, and fluid choice matter.  I don't know exactly how to explain that any simpler.  I can't understand how someone claiming that they are versed in HVAC doesn't understand this.  It was damn near the first thing they taught us in thermo.


----------



## flmatter (Jan 7, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> One is to increase the surface area of the fluid exposed to transfer, but that's complicated because above a certain point the flow turns turbulent and doesn't conduct as well (this is why people don't see improvements in cooling above certain flow rates).


   I think you meant flow rate instead of surface area because if you meant surface then your option #3 would be null


lilhasselhoffer said:


> Finally, you increase the surface area with an absolutely gigantic pipe with lots of fins


   because option and 1 and 3 are the same  increasing surface area.

Just asking here if @cadaveca works with HVAC what type of engineer are you @lilhasselhoffer?  Just curious.


----------



## xorbe (Jan 7, 2016)

This thread has sharked the jump.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 7, 2016)

flmatter said:


> I think you meant flow rate instead of surface area because if you meant surface then your option #3 would be null
> because option and 1 and 3 are the same  increasing surface area.
> 
> Just asking here if @cadaveca works with HVAC what type of engineer are you @lilhasselhoffer?  Just curious.



Yes and no.  I did word the explanation poorly.  Fluid flow rate, assuming laminar flow, is a good approximation of the amount of the surface of the liquid coming into contact with the heat source.  As a constantly flowing fluid generally is assumed to heat evenly, despite the fact that the fluid conducts heat only on the surface that it touches, we assume that fluid flow rate is a functionally the same as direct conductive heating.

That was probably an even more convoluted explanation.  For the sake of simplicity, you are correct.



I've had the opportunity to work with an HVAC specialist on a few occasions.  The beauty, or maybe tragedy, is that rarely do they have the ability to transition their knowledge into other fields.  This isn't a knock, only an observation that "specialist" is their title.  They know a lot about one field, in a rather limited range of situations.  You'll note that an HVAC specialist wasn't consulted for the space station, engineers designed it because the insane conditions meant that regular HVAC was functionally worthless (you can't be ball parking when dealing with ammonia).  A huge depth of knowledge, with no girth, doesn't transition anywhere well.  HVAC specialists, in my experience, knows their coolant specifications and rules of thumb extremely well.  Thing is, once you leave those coolants their ingrained knowledge is often difficult to apply.  The HVAC people I knew could estimate a building's floor space by observing the building's vents.  They could tell me how long it would take for the AC to drop to a given temperature (and how much power would be consumed).  The second I asked about the impact a gigantic fish tank would have on the system, and what we needed to keep it heated, they knew nothing.  That's water, a liquid and its thermal impact was unknown.  This could have just been a string of incompetent people, but if so they were idiot savants.  I respected their skills (and honestly admired the ability to be so accurate without ever picking up a calculator), and they understood when something was beyond their depth and they needed backup.

As far as my engineering, I chose the bastard versions (or jack of all trades if you're being realistic).  I'm a mechanical engineer.  That means I've had 1.5 years of thermo (which is a rough estimate, because my school did a 4 term year with summer being a fourth term).  I've had 1 whole year of just state equations (and if anybody tries to model a double pendulum for you begin drinking immediately).  Fluid dynamics was relatively brief at 1 year, but had overlap into thermo.   I've modeled heat transfer from a rectangular surface into ambient air (if the description doesn't give it away, exactly the same situation as a processor) and into a crude finned heat sink.  I've even had the opportunity to model a radiator which would drop the temperature of a fluid by 100 C in a space no bigger than a shoebox (83 simulated runs to get the damn thing right).  The only topic that we were brief on was electronics, only getting up to crude 8 bit processors during labs (with primary focus on much higher voltage systems. generally motors).  I've had my ass reamed more times than I'd care to count because I missed a single unit somewhere. You'll find that this is why I'm so keen to point it out.  Most of the time people calling you incompetent either missed a variable and are getting the wrong answer because they don't understand the units, or don't understand how to apply equations.  I've learned that whenever I come to an odd conclusion I need to prove my steps, and that the best thing you can do is ask someone about their units whenever they seem to not have a grasp on the subject.

I've got one request, if anyone believes I'm full of crap.  Beat me at the game.  I'm a certified engineer, which means I passed a test.  Once you've taken that 8+ hour torture and passed it I'll gladly believe you're qualified to talk about theory.  Until then, you've got as much right to believe in your superiority of knowledge as I do in my understanding of programming.  To put that in perspective, I'm outclassed unless my competition can't understand a batch file and introductory C++.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 7, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I've got one request, if anyone believes I'm full of crap.  Beat me at the game.  I'm a certified engineer, which means I passed a test.  Once you've taken that 8+ hour torture and passed it I'll gladly believe you're qualified to talk about theory.  Until then, you've got as much right to believe in your superiority of knowledge as I do in my understanding of programming.  To put that in perspective, I'm outclassed unless my competition can't understand a batch file and introductory C++.



Let me enlighten you to something. Quick simple answers don't educate readers. You like to post long-winded responses, so post away, but please have one thing clear... At no point was I calling you full of crap, or was anyone else. I'm not sure why you feel that way, but there's nothing for me to do about that, since that's your personal feelings. Yet I still won't stop posting that all rads do not have a 1-2c delta between inlet and outlet. I do not agree with that one point, and you can argue your end any way you want. I am more than comfortable with possibly being wrong.

But, if you'd like me to stop, you do have to meet my simple requests.


Maybe I am asking you to do so, and to do things like post all the math, so that others reading this can have a direct education on the subject?? Maybe it's the opposite of what you think... maybe it's not that you're wrong, maybe its that you're right. You have no idea what motivates me...


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 7, 2016)

Well I just got my entertainment for all of 2016.


----------



## JalleR (Jan 7, 2016)

crazyeyesreaper said:


>



HAHAHA... thats grate...


----------



## RCoon (Jan 7, 2016)

We can do without the useless replies which is outlined in forum posting rules. On topic please.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Let me enlighten you to something. Quick simple answers don't educate readers. You like to post long-winded responses, so post away, but please have one thing clear... At no point was I calling you full of crap, or was anyone else. I'm not sure why you feel that way, but there's nothing for me to do about that, since that's your personal feelings. Yet I still won't stop posting that all rads do not have a 1-2c delta between inlet and outlet. I do not agree with that one point, and you can argue your end any way you want. I am more than comfortable with possibly being wrong.
> 
> But, if you'd like me to stop, you do have to meet my simple requests.
> 
> ...



When I asked you the same courtesy you told me that I either needed to pay you, or take your word as law.  I can't even understand how you've forgotten that.  Whenever I asked you for proof, you told me that you'd be glad to post it if I paid you to do it.  I'm not indulging your double standard.  Either pay me to do the math for you, as you demanded of me, or acquiesce to the fact that you don't know what you're doing.


On the topic at hand, temperature is a measurement of random kinetic energy.  You put kinetic energy in at the processor, and we understand that amount of energy as an amount of Watts.  You pump it to the radiator.  Depending upon the design of the radiator, and the physical properties of the fluid, you release a certain amount of energy.  This is why you need bigger radiators to dissipate heat in more powerful systems, and smaller ones in smaller systems.  Because the system is constantly moving toward a thermal equillibrium, the temperature of the cooling fluid increases until the amount of input energy matches the output energy of the radiator.  Given the chemical properties of water, and assuming that you don't have multiple thousand dollars worth of hardware, you discover that for most users the temperature differential between radiator inlet and outlet turns out to be somewhere between 1-2 degrees Celsius to attain that dynamic system balance.  The only time this is not the case is if you either severely oversize the radiator or actively cool the ambient air substantially below room temperature.  In either case though, you're dealing with an outlier which does not apply to the majority of people.  It's like asking everyone in a room who's been to the moon.  Yes technically some people have been there, but if you polled a random sample of people there wouldn't likely be anybody who could truthfully say they had.


Further on topic, let me introduce everyone to a wonderful tool.  It's the engineering toolbox: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-fluids-d_151.html

A quick perusal there, of commonly available fluids, leads to a simple conclusion.  Ammonia outstrips water slightly, if you used it in a cooling loop.  I'm going to assume that everyone can do their own research here, but that effectively means water is, by a rather substantial margin, the best cooling fluid choice.  Dope it how you want, but it needs to be mostly water.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 7, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> When I asked you the same courtesy you told me that I either needed to pay you, or take your word as law.  I can't even understand how you've forgotten that.  Whenever I asked you for proof, you told me that you'd be glad to post it if I paid you to do it.  I'm not indulging your double standard.  Either pay me to do the math for you, as you demanded of me, or acquiesce to the fact that you don't know what you're doing.



You missed that here, I'm front page staff, and you're a member. That affords me special treatment.  It's not a double standard. It's a fact of life that I play with and test more hardware than most, for free, while most other people pay for it. Me giving my opinion on hardware is something that pays me, and you... not so much. I have access to hardware that not in the public domain and things like ES CPUs.

Yet don't get me wrong. All that is rather meaningless, except that no one here can make any demands of me when it comes to computer hardware. Except W1zzard. Excuse me while I exercise that privilege.


----------



## RCoon (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> I'm front page staff, and you're a member. That affords me special treatment.



Sorry, but no. As staff we should hold ourselves accountable to a much higher standard. "Pulling rank" like that in a debate isn't the most honorable thing. I'd ask that both you and @lilhasselhoffer stop it here. This is no longer a healthy science debate, and is getting to the stage of pettiness on both ends.

I'm posting this as a member of the forum, not as a member of staff - my views on this debate between you two are not representitive of what the rest of the mod staff think, but I feel I cannot sit back and watch this any further without attempting to nip things in the bud. If another mod disagrees then that's fair game.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 7, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> to clarify, a watt is a measurement of the rate of energy, not the amount. This is why your power bill reflects kwh, not kw. The rate of energy (kw), over a specified time(h).



What if you live in a dimension without time?  Then it'd be an amount. 

Ok, I think it's my bed time...


----------



## erocker (Jan 7, 2016)

Thread shutting down as it has veered way off course from its original intent.


----------

