Don't know if this will have any value to you but saw this t'other day.
http://www.techtransfer.anl.gov/techtour/nanofluids-summary.html
http://www.techtransfer.anl.gov/techtour/nanofluids-summary.html
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
For all you watercooling nuts out there - hard data
- Thread starter r0ckstarbob
- Start date
Methanol. A vapour for sore eyes...
Warning! Long post! (I thought I'd better put this at the top). I hope this issue hasn't long since been taken care of...
Has anybody used methanol yet? And more importantly, are they still alive and if they are, can they still see?!
I havn't seen a post from this guy since
(I haven't really been looking though)! Are you still ok Hachet?!
Seriously though, I would have thought having methanol in your room/enclosed area is a bad idea. I'm thinking of using ethanol instead (read nontoxic!).
I thought about using methanol, and it appears to be a good deal better, but I want to go to bed at night knowing that there's a chance I'll wake up again! Just reading this MSMethanol.html ensured I wasn't going to attempt it!
Am I over reacting here? Everyone else seems to think it's fine. These things jumped out at me (from that MSMethanol.html) though:
1. I think 200ppm is the exposure limit. This seems low to me.
2. It's boiling point is about 65c. This seems low to me.
3. It's evaporation rate is 5.2. This seems high to me (i haven't a clue really).
4. The two previous points makes me think there will be plenty of vapour about (depends on what the air is like about your area, I suppose).
5. Density of 1.1 (Air=1). It's heavier than air. To me this means vapours concentrating at gound level (and not going up and out the window you left open for them. That's the thanks you get!)
6.
7.
8. Well let's see, Ingestion :
9. Chronic [exposure] :
10. 'nuff said.
On the other hand, you can actively engage with ethanol purity testing with a few friends!
"Save lives - don't use methanol. (You'll save yourself for a start, and perhaps your unsuspecting cat aswell)."
Later,
Ro
Warning! Long post! (I thought I'd better put this at the top). I hope this issue hasn't long since been taken care of...
Has anybody used methanol yet? And more importantly, are they still alive and if they are, can they still see?!
I havn't seen a post from this guy since
(I haven't really been looking though)! Are you still ok Hachet?!Seriously though, I would have thought having methanol in your room/enclosed area is a bad idea. I'm thinking of using ethanol instead (read nontoxic!).
I thought about using methanol, and it appears to be a good deal better, but I want to go to bed at night knowing that there's a chance I'll wake up again! Just reading this MSMethanol.html ensured I wasn't going to attempt it!
Am I over reacting here? Everyone else seems to think it's fine. These things jumped out at me (from that MSMethanol.html) though:
1. I think 200ppm is the exposure limit. This seems low to me.
2. It's boiling point is about 65c. This seems low to me.
3. It's evaporation rate is 5.2. This seems high to me (i haven't a clue really).
4. The two previous points makes me think there will be plenty of vapour about (depends on what the air is like about your area, I suppose).
5. Density of 1.1 (Air=1). It's heavier than air. To me this means vapours concentrating at gound level (and not going up and out the window you left open for them. That's the thanks you get!)
6.
This, coupled with the previous points should be enough to make any non-blind, 'respiratory tract intact' person stop right there (Blind people with an already suspect respiratory tract, knock yourselves out). But wait, there's more!
7.
Really? And what effects might that be...
8. Well let's see, Ingestion :
"Oh. That 'death' thing seems particularly nasty." Yes, it is. Even if you don't drink or inhale heavily there's always...
9. Chronic [exposure] :
I don't need to reiterate what 'acute inhalation and ingestion' can lead to, do I? 'dermatitis' - I don't know what it is, but I know I don't want it!
10. 'nuff said.
On the other hand, you can actively engage with ethanol purity testing with a few friends!
"Save lives - don't use methanol. (You'll save yourself for a start, and perhaps your unsuspecting cat aswell)."
Later,
Ro
eithier one you would want a closed system. dermatitis isn't that dry skin? http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=DS00339
A closed system is a good idea for both methanol and ethanol. Still, I'd much rather be cleaning up an ethanol leak than a methanol one.
Anyway I was thinking of using ethanol for my system. But given the data on this post, ethanol is worse at transfering heat than water. So what about some ethanol-water solution?
This site Colligative Properties: Freezing Point Depression and Molecular Weight seems to have some formulas for calculating what would give the optimum ratio. I want as much water in the solution as possible, without the solution freezing. I'm going to use a chest freezer for cooling the ethanol-water, so that means having enough ethanol to keep the freezing point below about -20c.
Or maybe I should be just looking for anti-freeze? I was betting on the ethanol, 'cause I thought it might allow for much lower temperatures. If I tamper with the freezer's termostat, will the freezer stay on and keep cooling down to -50c, or something? Or is it determined by the refridgerant in the freezer?
Later,
Ro
Anyway I was thinking of using ethanol for my system. But given the data on this post, ethanol is worse at transfering heat than water. So what about some ethanol-water solution?
This site Colligative Properties: Freezing Point Depression and Molecular Weight seems to have some formulas for calculating what would give the optimum ratio. I want as much water in the solution as possible, without the solution freezing. I'm going to use a chest freezer for cooling the ethanol-water, so that means having enough ethanol to keep the freezing point below about -20c.
Or maybe I should be just looking for anti-freeze? I was betting on the ethanol, 'cause I thought it might allow for much lower temperatures. If I tamper with the freezer's termostat, will the freezer stay on and keep cooling down to -50c, or something? Or is it determined by the refridgerant in the freezer?
Later,
Ro
The ethenol/water mixture would have better heat tranfer and would have more viscosity. I think you should also take into account the thickness of the mixture once it's at those low temps.Ro said:
Maybe a combination of the three.
Last edited:
cant see core project pic?
cabt see pics..just an outline with red x...am interested in watercooling...and please please some one tell me quickly which way to go..AMD<--prvious owner and big fan or the new intel... and which vendr is most respected on PRICEWATCH i see Accubyte alot, if i buy something i want a reliable company not a con... my goal for a pc system is at least 2100xp 333chipset with pc2700 aka ddr333 mem... or a 2.2 pentium, and what mother board? epox i have heard good things also the ECS k7vta3.v 3.1 looks impressive for what it is please help on all issuses for he who is GOD of O/C lol
ALSO my budget is 500 i already have my HD, floppy, ti4200 vid and 19 crt..monitor, need a barebones basically..
cabt see pics..just an outline with red x...am interested in watercooling...and please please some one tell me quickly which way to go..AMD<--prvious owner and big fan or the new intel... and which vendr is most respected on PRICEWATCH i see Accubyte alot, if i buy something i want a reliable company not a con... my goal for a pc system is at least 2100xp 333chipset with pc2700 aka ddr333 mem... or a 2.2 pentium, and what mother board? epox i have heard good things also the ECS k7vta3.v 3.1 looks impressive for what it is please help on all issuses for he who is GOD of O/C lol
ALSO my budget is 500 i already have my HD, floppy, ti4200 vid and 19 crt..monitor, need a barebones basically..
I've been wondering about the methanol toxicity question also. If you have an open system (which I imagine alot of the water chiller people do) is it really a wise thing to use?
Now about Ethanol:
Ethanol will keep the viscosity much lower than antifreeze, which will definately help pump it at -20c (antifreeze gets pretty thick at -20c), but Ethanol's heat transfer capabilities look to be poor.
Since Ethanol does have a lower freezing point you wouldn't have to use as much of it in a mixture of water to equal out Methanol, can anyone put some graphs up comparing a methanol-water vs ethanol-water vs antifreeze-water where they have freezing points at about -34 ? Ethanol seems like a much safer thing to use, just dunno how good it is.
Thanks,
-Sidney
Now about Ethanol:
Ethanol will keep the viscosity much lower than antifreeze, which will definately help pump it at -20c (antifreeze gets pretty thick at -20c), but Ethanol's heat transfer capabilities look to be poor.
Since Ethanol does have a lower freezing point you wouldn't have to use as much of it in a mixture of water to equal out Methanol, can anyone put some graphs up comparing a methanol-water vs ethanol-water vs antifreeze-water where they have freezing points at about -34 ? Ethanol seems like a much safer thing to use, just dunno how good it is.
Thanks,
-Sidney
On topic off direct subject tidbit of info
Having not read every reply to this thread, (sorry), but going through the entire article from the main site, I'd like to add just a small bit of information to the methanol/water mix and its combustability.
This information is taken directly from personal experience in racing.
1) methanol burns competely clear. (you won't know it til you see something discoloring from incineration, or you feel it cooking you)
2) very small amounts of water mixed with methanol in a fuel cell can produce BETTER combution when compressed. (methanol makes more power by combusting slower than gasoline, therefore it pushes the piston for a longer period of time once ignited. Water, in VERY small amounts can extend this burn time)
3) the more water added to methanol, the less "naturally" combustible it becomes. (you need to atomize and/or compress it more to attain any sort of combustion)
4) methanol is utterly toxic and deadly to life forms as we know it. If as little as a 1/4 teaspoon gets ingested into your system, you WILL die, (absolute best case scenario in that event you don't die: you will be blinded permanantly from alcohol poisoning). Even a couple drops in your mouth is enough to give you the pukes for a long period of time. (don't eat the coolant/fuel if you construct a system cooled this way) oen wound contact usually isn't an issue other than the really nice burning sensation it gives.
5) methanol fires are extinguished with WATER extinguishers, NOT chemical or foam types, (these can just spread the fire, or not efficiently extinguish it). Keep a water container around for just that purpose when uncut methanol is being worked with. Do not attempt to smother the fire if you catch a sleeve or other loose clothing alite, drown it in water. (at times when burning, methanol can create a highly dense alchol vapor, this can actually seep into the smothering item and create a torch, complete with spontanious combustion)
6) the more water dominant mixes are definitely safer, as described in the article, but under compression and if there is a chance to create any kind of vapor area, there "may" be risk. If there is a non-moving air pocket in the system for example, and enough heat gets generated to vaporize some methanol. (you would still need a spark of some type to set it off, but then again you ARE working inside an electronic device........)
7) don't pay more than $3.25 for a gallon of the stuff. (you can readily get it at most of the performance karting shops, places that build some classes of dragsters, and most chemical distributors)
I'm not trying to scare anyone away from this type of cooling, in fact I'm looking at trying it myself. I just wanted to pass along some potentially useful information that could keep some folks out of trouble if they knew ahead of time. (ever meet that guy who feels he needs to siphon everything to purge the system?)
Tape your mouth shut, don't huff the fumes, don't wear baggy clothes that may get soaked/wet from indavertant contact, and keep a bucket of water handy. Once the stuff is mixed, the system purged, and some evaporation time is given for the "outside" stuff that may have gotten splashed on, you should be golden . (and all that from just racing that type of engine out on the track! See, the world DOES cross reference itself at some point or another........ LOL)
Having not read every reply to this thread, (sorry), but going through the entire article from the main site, I'd like to add just a small bit of information to the methanol/water mix and its combustability.
This information is taken directly from personal experience in racing.
1) methanol burns competely clear. (you won't know it til you see something discoloring from incineration, or you feel it cooking you)
2) very small amounts of water mixed with methanol in a fuel cell can produce BETTER combution when compressed. (methanol makes more power by combusting slower than gasoline, therefore it pushes the piston for a longer period of time once ignited. Water, in VERY small amounts can extend this burn time)
3) the more water added to methanol, the less "naturally" combustible it becomes. (you need to atomize and/or compress it more to attain any sort of combustion)
4) methanol is utterly toxic and deadly to life forms as we know it. If as little as a 1/4 teaspoon gets ingested into your system, you WILL die, (absolute best case scenario in that event you don't die: you will be blinded permanantly from alcohol poisoning). Even a couple drops in your mouth is enough to give you the pukes for a long period of time. (don't eat the coolant/fuel if you construct a system cooled this way) oen wound contact usually isn't an issue other than the really nice burning sensation it gives.
5) methanol fires are extinguished with WATER extinguishers, NOT chemical or foam types, (these can just spread the fire, or not efficiently extinguish it). Keep a water container around for just that purpose when uncut methanol is being worked with. Do not attempt to smother the fire if you catch a sleeve or other loose clothing alite, drown it in water. (at times when burning, methanol can create a highly dense alchol vapor, this can actually seep into the smothering item and create a torch, complete with spontanious combustion)
6) the more water dominant mixes are definitely safer, as described in the article, but under compression and if there is a chance to create any kind of vapor area, there "may" be risk. If there is a non-moving air pocket in the system for example, and enough heat gets generated to vaporize some methanol. (you would still need a spark of some type to set it off, but then again you ARE working inside an electronic device........)
7) don't pay more than $3.25 for a gallon of the stuff.
(you can readily get it at most of the performance karting shops, places that build some classes of dragsters, and most chemical distributors)I'm not trying to scare anyone away from this type of cooling, in fact I'm looking at trying it myself. I just wanted to pass along some potentially useful information that could keep some folks out of trouble if they knew ahead of time. (ever meet that guy who feels he needs to siphon everything to purge the system?)
Tape your mouth shut, don't huff the fumes, don't wear baggy clothes that may get soaked/wet from indavertant contact, and keep a bucket of water handy. Once the stuff is mixed, the system purged, and some evaporation time is given for the "outside" stuff that may have gotten splashed on, you should be golden . (and all that from just racing that type of engine out on the track! See, the world DOES cross reference itself at some point or another........ LOL)
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2002
- Location
- Euless, TX
specific heat of a liquid also makes a big difference in cooling as it can directly affect the rate of heat transfer
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2001
- Location
- Seattle Washington
- Thread Starter
- #132
000 said:
sorry man, someone else will have to compile that data for you, but essentially i've provided all the information you would need to answer that question by yourself in the graphs... it's what i would do to answer it. while not 100% accurate, the changes with temperature and mixture are relatively linear so graph the data, draw a line and predict...
good luck
and to answer alot of questions and save alot of headache, has it been mentioned that there are several brands of windshileld wiper fluid on the market that are nothing more than a 70:30 water-methanol mix with some blue dye thrown in.
(no the dye is not harmful to computer components)
thought i'd mention it.
Last edited:
3 corrections
your overall thermal differential does not work because it assumes that heatsinks of the same weight (not size) are being applied to the cpu. you need to multiply the differential by each metals’ weight density. this would make gold an even better in comparison, which brings up mistake #2: i'm almost positive there isnt a direct relationship between conductivity and heat capacity. think about it. as long as my heatsink's material is close to the same temperature as my cpu slug, i could care less how much energy it takes to raise my heatsink’s temperature. a diamond has a heat transfer ratio 10X better than gold, but it takes about 10X more energy to raise the temperature of a portion of equal volume. Which would you rather have? diamonds are so efficient at heat transfer in fact that they actually are used in high tech manufacturing processes for heat transfer despite their HUGE pricetag!! gold isnt. dang it, if diamonds werent a girl's best friend they would surely be an overclockers best friend. Hmmmm…... diamondddd…..
a diamond would annihilate copper too. in fact, I think that heat capacity may even be NEGLIGIBLE in the heat conduction of solid metals. In liquid cooling applications, would adding twice as much water (to simulate heat capacity increase) work as well as pumping the water twice as fast (simulating heat conduction)? Basically, heat capacity only acts as a buffer, but once the cooling material (be it liquid or metal) is heated up during full load, it no longer matters.
Assuming a copper heatsink weighs 300 grams and it is raised from a room temperature 25C to maximum full load temperature of 40C it would only take 1740 joules for the change in temperature, assuming no heat is dissipated along the way (.092 calories/gram X 4.2 joules per gram X 300 grams X 15C). an 80 watt cpu will give off 1740 joules in about 20 seconds. of course, along the way it will dissipate some heat, but the heat capacity’s “buffer” obviously isnt very long.
it makes sense to me that once the maximum temperature is reached, heat capacity has little to offer. i suppose that you could advocate the benefits of a larger reservoir in liquid cooling, but even then, it’s probably more efficient due to the larger surface area of the coolant as opposed to the larger heat capacity.
with air-cooled heatsinks, the real bottleneck is convection into the air. i think it would be interesting to test two identically dimensioned heatsinks with identical heat transfers that differ greatly in heat capacity. the results may be surprising.
another VERY IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind is that with liquid convection/cooling, the thermal conductivity of the liquid wont matter very much if it is being pumped through a block that offers little surface area. i suspect that a very large bottleneck in liquid cooling is actually the block itself. people tend to overlook this. most of the time they make a couple round tubes for liquid to flow through. granted, it is MUCH easier to machine a copper block that way, but do air-cooled heatsinks have a couple drilled holes for air to flow through. heck no!! i bet if i increased the surface area inside a block by 5 times, i could use whatever liquid i wanted and it would still be better than water.
one more thing, water isn’t the best thing for liquid cooling. mercury is. its melting point is -40C and is almost 14X more conductive than water. it would be extremely difficult to use (although i still think its possible), but i think these qualities alone at least make mercury deserving of lip service.
eric
your overall thermal differential does not work because it assumes that heatsinks of the same weight (not size) are being applied to the cpu. you need to multiply the differential by each metals’ weight density. this would make gold an even better in comparison, which brings up mistake #2: i'm almost positive there isnt a direct relationship between conductivity and heat capacity. think about it. as long as my heatsink's material is close to the same temperature as my cpu slug, i could care less how much energy it takes to raise my heatsink’s temperature. a diamond has a heat transfer ratio 10X better than gold, but it takes about 10X more energy to raise the temperature of a portion of equal volume. Which would you rather have? diamonds are so efficient at heat transfer in fact that they actually are used in high tech manufacturing processes for heat transfer despite their HUGE pricetag!! gold isnt. dang it, if diamonds werent a girl's best friend they would surely be an overclockers best friend. Hmmmm…... diamondddd…..
a diamond would annihilate copper too. in fact, I think that heat capacity may even be NEGLIGIBLE in the heat conduction of solid metals. In liquid cooling applications, would adding twice as much water (to simulate heat capacity increase) work as well as pumping the water twice as fast (simulating heat conduction)? Basically, heat capacity only acts as a buffer, but once the cooling material (be it liquid or metal) is heated up during full load, it no longer matters.
Assuming a copper heatsink weighs 300 grams and it is raised from a room temperature 25C to maximum full load temperature of 40C it would only take 1740 joules for the change in temperature, assuming no heat is dissipated along the way (.092 calories/gram X 4.2 joules per gram X 300 grams X 15C). an 80 watt cpu will give off 1740 joules in about 20 seconds. of course, along the way it will dissipate some heat, but the heat capacity’s “buffer” obviously isnt very long.
it makes sense to me that once the maximum temperature is reached, heat capacity has little to offer. i suppose that you could advocate the benefits of a larger reservoir in liquid cooling, but even then, it’s probably more efficient due to the larger surface area of the coolant as opposed to the larger heat capacity.
with air-cooled heatsinks, the real bottleneck is convection into the air. i think it would be interesting to test two identically dimensioned heatsinks with identical heat transfers that differ greatly in heat capacity. the results may be surprising.
another VERY IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind is that with liquid convection/cooling, the thermal conductivity of the liquid wont matter very much if it is being pumped through a block that offers little surface area. i suspect that a very large bottleneck in liquid cooling is actually the block itself. people tend to overlook this. most of the time they make a couple round tubes for liquid to flow through. granted, it is MUCH easier to machine a copper block that way, but do air-cooled heatsinks have a couple drilled holes for air to flow through. heck no!! i bet if i increased the surface area inside a block by 5 times, i could use whatever liquid i wanted and it would still be better than water.
one more thing, water isn’t the best thing for liquid cooling. mercury is. its melting point is -40C and is almost 14X more conductive than water. it would be extremely difficult to use (although i still think its possible), but i think these qualities alone at least make mercury deserving of lip service.
eric
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2001
- Location
- Seattle Washington
- Thread Starter
- #134
sappo said:
um, yeah, okay. do it. using water in the same system will still do better than anything else you can afford to put through there. you're not thinking in whole systems, you're only thinking in pieces. if you can increase the surface area inside a block by 5 times, the water will ALSO perform that much better.
am pretty sure we covered all these points earlier on in this thread. yes theres a relationship between the specific heat and the conductivity of an item - yes it's called the thermal differential. yes there are several ways of determining the thermal differential. for the purposes of a direct comparison, i picked a fixed point and ran my comparisons appropriately. the focus of this research was to create a relative comparison between the substances that we most often use (or fantasize about using) and provide some data that was relevant to us.
yes we all know that mercury is pretty good at heat transfer but there are some really obvious and incredible reasons for not using it... the fact it's one of the most toxic substances on earth being one of them, the fact that it expands and contracts... the list goes on and on... diamond is obviously so prohibitively and pointlessly expensive... everyone and their mom knows these arguements. neither of these items really matter in the world of practical computer cooling as far as i've ever known, and tend to fall into the speculatively ridiculous to even consider.
so to remain level headed and even keeled, lets just say that using mercury is not the best solution for liquid cooling.
water is the best substance for heat transfer. period. per price, availability, toxicity, thermal performance, etc... when looking at ALL these things as a complete system (and we must), water comes out far far ahead. you cannot take one element out of the basket and make a blanket statement encompassing an entire field of study and consideration. you must consider the whole of the problem, or what you're engaging in is only so much disproportionate mental masturbation.
want a best to worst setup for coolants at all temps? its this.
#1 66:33 ratio water/methanol windshield wiper fluid at all temps actually does better than just plain distilled water, though not by much - in truth it's likely you'd be hard pressed to see the performance increases at above freezing temps, but they are there. open system users should keep an eye out for slightly increased evaporation rates (over water) but all in all you'll probably be pretty safe. increased ratios of methanol to water will not increase performance as it pretty evenly cancels itself out as you go... much better visosity but much worse thermal properties the higher the ratio you go... pretty pointless if you ask me and if your methanol ratio gets too high it becomes a health issue...
#2 Distilled Water and Redlines Water Wetter (95:5 approx ratio) again, hard pressed to find performance increases over straight water, but in theory they're there.
#3 100% distilled water. straight up, can't go wrong.
#4 Antifreeze-water. use as little antifreeze as humanly possible as your performances starts bottoming out when you start adding antifreeze to the mix.
equilibrium. balance. focus. rock on crouton.
happy overclocking and welcome to the forums.
Last edited:
r0ckstarbob:
I was mainly interested in the viscosity of ethanol as the temperature falls. Unfortunately viscosity is usually not linear with temperature changes.
Also if you know the viscosity of acetone at lower temperatures
~ -20c that would be very helpful also.
Thanks,
-Sidney
I was mainly interested in the viscosity of ethanol as the temperature falls. Unfortunately viscosity is usually not linear with temperature changes.
Also if you know the viscosity of acetone at lower temperatures
~ -20c that would be very helpful also.
Thanks,
-Sidney
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2001
- Location
- Seattle Washington
- Thread Starter
- #136
um, dunno off hand. you're right of course in that these things aren't perfectly linear, but the best you're going to get from the numbers is a pretty solid approximation anyhow. punch visosity and ethanol into google and see what comes up... someones bound to have posted some data on it.
r0ckstarbob,
sorry to take your time with this stupid question.
if i need the liquid to have good viscosity and thermal differential at -30 degrees, and i WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES use methanol, wouldn't the best solution for me be ethanol/water mix?
antifreeze has extremely poor viscocity, it will eventually kill my pump. thermal differential of it is not the best, either.
distilled water-water wetter will freeze up.
well if ethanol water is not the best solution, what is?
and if it is, how come its not anywhere of your list?
thanks
sorry to take your time with this stupid question.
if i need the liquid to have good viscosity and thermal differential at -30 degrees, and i WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES use methanol, wouldn't the best solution for me be ethanol/water mix?
antifreeze has extremely poor viscocity, it will eventually kill my pump. thermal differential of it is not the best, either.
distilled water-water wetter will freeze up.
well if ethanol water is not the best solution, what is?
and if it is, how come its not anywhere of your list?
thanks
OP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2001
- Location
- Seattle Washington
- Thread Starter
- #138
dmitriyaz said:r0ckstarbob,
sorry to take your time with this stupid question.
if i need the liquid to have good viscosity and thermal differential at -30 degrees, and i WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES use methanol, wouldn't the best solution for me be ethanol/water mix?
antifreeze has extremely poor viscocity, it will eventually kill my pump. thermal differential of it is not the best, either.
distilled water-water wetter will freeze up.
well if ethanol water is not the best solution, what is?
and if it is, how come its not anywhere of your list?
thanks
nah man, nothin stupid about questions.
seriously, i have no idea. are you morally/principaly opposed to using windshield wiper fluid as a coolant? i guess if i had to do a quick once over of the data, a 80:20 to 60:40 ratio of ethanol/water should be fine and still better than antifreeze, though i can't give you any numbers at this time to support it. call it a decent bare bones guestimate... bout the best i can do at this stage of things. sorry.
Last edited:
thanks!
i don't want to use methanol or methanol containing substances because frankly, i'm scared of it.
but i guess this question won't bother me any more,
as i've decided to go with direct dye cooling.
BTW, do you know how much they charge to fill a gehumidifier-sized loop with r134?
thanks again
i don't want to use methanol or methanol containing substances because frankly, i'm scared of it.
but i guess this question won't bother me any more,
as i've decided to go with direct dye cooling.
BTW, do you know how much they charge to fill a gehumidifier-sized loop with r134?
thanks again
quote:
um, yeah, okay. do it. using water in the same system will still do better than anything else you can afford to put through there. you're not thinking in whole systems, you're only thinking in pieces. if you can increase the surface area inside a block by 5 times, the water will ALSO perform that much better.
I agree totally, but you missed my point. If you are going all out with all these toxic cooling mixtures, you had better make sure the block is extremely efficient, otherwise, its all for naught.
quote:
am pretty sure we covered all these points earlier on in this thread. yes theres a relationship between the specific heat and the conductivity of an item - yes it's called the thermal differential. yes there are several ways of determining the thermal differential. for the purposes of a direct comparison, i picked a fixed point and ran my comparisons appropriately. the focus of this research was to create a relative comparison between the substances that we most often use (or fantasize about using) and provide some data that was relevant to us.
Well, if youre going to factor in specific heat you should at least be factoring in the VOLUME and not the MASS. You dont fill up a reservor with grams of a liquid; you do it with cc's. Weight should be a variable in your comparisons. Either way though, heat capacity isnt that important (although i think we already all agree on this).
quote:
yes we all know that mercury is pretty good at heat transfer but there are some really obvious and incredible reasons for not using it... the fact it's one of the most toxic substances on earth being one of them, the fact that it expands and contracts... the list goes on and on... diamond is obviously so prohibitively and pointlessly expensive... everyone and their mom knows these arguements. neither of these items really matter in the world of practical computer cooling as far as i've ever known, and tend to fall into the speculatively ridiculous to even consider.
About diamonds, you missed my point agian. It is 10x worse in thermal capacity and 10x better in conductivity. Yet they are vastly different in thier heat dissipating capabilities.
And about mercury, its about like lead. Handle it properly and it shouldnt be a problem. When soft, It is even ok to handle the dental filling material made from mercury, so long as you dont do it everyday. Good grief, pure Methanol has a flash point!
I think the best way to go is to use vodka. its cheap, has a low freezing point, has a low viscosity level, is nontoxic.... But most importantly, you can make white russians with it. Plus, its just plain cool to have vodka cooling computer!!!
um, yeah, okay. do it. using water in the same system will still do better than anything else you can afford to put through there. you're not thinking in whole systems, you're only thinking in pieces. if you can increase the surface area inside a block by 5 times, the water will ALSO perform that much better.
I agree totally, but you missed my point. If you are going all out with all these toxic cooling mixtures, you had better make sure the block is extremely efficient, otherwise, its all for naught.
quote:
am pretty sure we covered all these points earlier on in this thread. yes theres a relationship between the specific heat and the conductivity of an item - yes it's called the thermal differential. yes there are several ways of determining the thermal differential. for the purposes of a direct comparison, i picked a fixed point and ran my comparisons appropriately. the focus of this research was to create a relative comparison between the substances that we most often use (or fantasize about using) and provide some data that was relevant to us.
Well, if youre going to factor in specific heat you should at least be factoring in the VOLUME and not the MASS. You dont fill up a reservor with grams of a liquid; you do it with cc's. Weight should be a variable in your comparisons. Either way though, heat capacity isnt that important (although i think we already all agree on this).
quote:
yes we all know that mercury is pretty good at heat transfer but there are some really obvious and incredible reasons for not using it... the fact it's one of the most toxic substances on earth being one of them, the fact that it expands and contracts... the list goes on and on... diamond is obviously so prohibitively and pointlessly expensive... everyone and their mom knows these arguements. neither of these items really matter in the world of practical computer cooling as far as i've ever known, and tend to fall into the speculatively ridiculous to even consider.
About diamonds, you missed my point agian. It is 10x worse in thermal capacity and 10x better in conductivity. Yet they are vastly different in thier heat dissipating capabilities.
And about mercury, its about like lead. Handle it properly and it shouldnt be a problem. When soft, It is even ok to handle the dental filling material made from mercury, so long as you dont do it everyday. Good grief, pure Methanol has a flash point!
I think the best way to go is to use vodka. its cheap, has a low freezing point, has a low viscosity level, is nontoxic.... But most importantly, you can make white russians with it. Plus, its just plain cool to have vodka cooling computer!!!
