For all you watercooling nuts out there - hard data

[r0ckstarbob]

okay, um.... no.

listen man, i'm not trying to step all over you but you're bustin in here with both guns blazing when what you need to be doing is slowing down a tad and listen to whats being said. you're wrong and you're making contradicting or half formed statements based upon (i can only assume) partial information.

Originally posted by sappo

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.[/i]

listen, your point is flawed. the reason diamond is such a good material to use for heat transfer is not because of one set of stats or another set, ITS THE COMBINATION OF STATS THAT MAKE IT GOOD. it's this combination of stats that is expressed as it's Thermal Differential.

You missed my point again. 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.

well, duh...

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!

the puropse of this study was to look at polar coolants. yes it can be used with standard room-temp systems and yes there is a risk using a methanol based system. that risk is neglegable and with all things that we do in overclocking, the weights of the benefits must be weighed against the negatives when doing anything and then a personal choice must be made. if you're not comfortable using it, fine, don't use it. you don't have the data however to condemn its use because it's a perfectly viable solution with FAR LESS problems then using mercury. afterall, we're talking about a 30:70 ratio of methanol to water to get some really incredible performance. that is a pretty miniscule amount of methanol compared to the water. don't give me some crap about flash point at those ratios - it's not even an issue. nobody should even consider using better than a 40:60 ratio solution unless you plan to go past -50C! hA! fat chance.

personally, if you die because you couldn't put it together enough to handle windshieldwiper fluid without hurting yourself, you deserve to die. pure darwinian here, you deserve to die if windshield wiper fluid kills you (or blows up on you). and good riddance! improve the gene pool, cease to breed. eliminate stupidity through stupidity. it's a self consuming organism.

the idea of using mercury in a computer cooled system is not a good idea. in fact as an idea it sucks. it's utterly toxic, it's prohibitively expensive, it swells to extremes with heat, shrinks to extremes with cold... you couldn't even afford the equipment required to try and make something like that work in a computer system, much less to buy it in a quantity necessary for any kind of practical cooling use.

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!!! [/B]

i'm glad you think so. we're all entitled to our opinions. thank you for sharing your opinion. i'm sure you'll get adequate results and accomplish whatever it is you would like to accomplish.

The facts are that windshield wiper fluid is cheaper, doesn't have an age requirement to purchase, is not at risk of being drunk by your roommate, has a better viscosity level, has a vastly better thermal differential, has no sugars to screw up the works in your pump, and in addition to performing much much better, you can also find it at virtually any autoparts store. now granted it's not as cool as making white russians out of it, but my computer will outperform yours and won't be at risk of being consumed in some fratboy drinking frenzy....

... i can just picture it - shotgunning the computer like a beer bong, someone holding my antec over the face of some jock moron with a hose jammed in his pie hole with the rest of the room chanting "drink drink drink drink!" while my little enheim chugs away....

oh wait, i'm 26. i don't live in a dorm.

whew.

thems the stuff nightmares are made of boy i tell ya...

 

[safemode]

i'm willing to bet a bunch of us are in university. Do you really think a vodka cooled computer is going to last long in the dorms? you'd better put some water wetter in it to discourage yourself later. Or just dont tell your roomate or anyone what's really cooling it. mmm.vodka


oops almost forgot. Underage drinking is bad...dont do it. Ok, yea.

 

[glass]

just use denaturated-ethanol to keep yourself from drinking it. that's the only 'pure' alcohol that is available(for normal folks) around here(finland), because of high alcohol tax.. because of this it used to be illeagal to use methanol in wiperfluids (to keep alcoholist bums from dying), but since EU this has been legalized. drinking methanol == bad, you drink enough you die, you drink less, you lose vision, you drink even less and get a HUGE hangover, in every case it's a trip to hospital and better have good luck, these cases happen from time to time, it's one of those reasons why you should know the guy you buy your (illeagal) pure spirits or moonshine. btw, normal alcohol products do have (miniscule) amounts of methanol in them (and this adds to the hangover too), IIRC clear vodka has least, and whiskey has most.

anyways, i wouldn't worry using methanol in closed loop system, you worry when you smell the washer fluid while in car?

 

[Ct. Strangelove]

wait, are you guys saying i could replace my water in my system with vodka? no seals would be at danger? temps still good? transfer rate high? thermal capacity high? plz explain this vodka thing.....
thx

 

[r0ckstarbob]

Well, I've spent the last few hours looking at data sheets for washer fluids. It seems most have about a 30-35% ratio of methanol to deionized water.
Here's a typical spec:
BOILING RANGE: Approximately 64.5ºC -100ºC
FLASH POINT: Approximately 101ºF
SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Soluble
VAPOR PRESSURE: 42mm @ 20ºC (methanol)
VAPOR DENSITY: 1.11 (methanol)
IONIZATION POTENTIAL: 10.84 eV (methanol)
FREEZING POINT: Approximately -30ºF

From what I've been reading, it doesn't react w/ anything and has balanced ph.
Seems like it's a viable option.
Anyone w/ more info on this?

-Eli

 

[sappo]

wait, are you guys saying i could replace my water in my system with vodka? no seals would be at danger? temps still good? transfer rate high? thermal capacity high? plz explain this vodka thing.....

Its vodka man, as far as seals go, I say if your stomach can handle it, so could your watercooling system. Temps are excelent. Ethanol (the alcohol in vodka) has a freezign point of -113C so you wouldnt have to put as much ethanol to your water as you would methonal.

After some calculations, I found some interesting stuff. Supposedly the IDEAL mixture of water to methanol is 66% to 33%. That would give you a freezing point of about -32C. Well, a 29:71 ratio of water to ethonal would give you a freezing point of -32C if my calculations are right*. Since there is less ethonal slowing down the heat transfer, the two mixtures have an extremely close heat transfer ratio. .48 for methanol and .47** for ethanol--a difference of less than 3 percent. Whats more, the ethanol mixture will have a FAR superior viscosity level. The minute difference in heat transfer ratios will will probably be made up because you'll have a faster moving solution with ethonal. Factor in "coolness points" for using vodka-like mixture of 29:71, and an ethanol wins in a landslide.

Luckily the heat capacity (which doenst make a difference anyway) between ethonal and methonal is pretty much the same, so i dont have to open that can of worms.

Actually, when i brought up the vodka thing, i was kinda joking. But now im convinced it's the way to go.. I guess the only problem is fending off all the punks that will steal your coolant.

*0Cx.71%+113C*29%= -32.7C
**.6(watts per cube of water)X71%+.15(watts per cube ethanol)X29%=.47 watts/cube of mixture

 

[sappo]

r0ckstarbob,

Debunking the thermal differential theory once and for all:

Ok, you say it’s better to have a higher thermal differential. Whereas the numerator is the thermal conductivity and the thermal capacity is the denominator, (or conductivity/capacity). If we're looking for bigger numbers, then you would want your liquid to have a LOW thermal capacity. But thermal capacity is good –you don’t want your coolant to "heat up" quickly. You want it to TRANSFER heat quickly. So why is capacity the denominator? It shouldn’t be.

Well that would throw everything out of whack, right? That’s because it is. That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. Since both are desirable you should somehow ADD the two together, certainly not divide. Since conductivity is much more important, it should be weighted more heavily. Then your results would fall into place. Gold is not a better cooling material than copper and silver is certainly not twice as good as copper, actually i doubt it’s even better at all. Your results are skewed because your methods were completely wrong.

A second mistake is that you should include density into the equation. Those thermal capacity figures only factor grams. When you fill up a reservor grams are variable. The thing that is constant is the VOLUME. So you'll need to multiply the capacity by the density. I dont think it would make much of a difference because 1) heat capacity doenst really make a difference anyway, and 2), i think all the liquids that were examined differ only slightly in density.

sorry to rain on your parade, but you are wrong wrong wrong. Can i get a witness up in here?!?! *dead silence*

How do you figure a methanol mixture would have better viscosity levels than an ethanol mixture? I could see how a methanol mixture may have a better viscosity than vodka (which i still doubt), but an ethanol mixture is gonna be alot better.
YA BABY! I HAVE EXERCIZED THE DEMONS!!!

 

[r0ckstarbob]

okay, lets see if i can explain this so you can understand it without blowing a gasket.

Its vodka man, as far as seals go, I say if your stomach can handle it, so could your watercooling system.

oh, well since you put it that way, gee whiz, why not?...
if thats not the voice of reason and logic then i don't know what is. that kind of logic is bound to take you far.

note to self: in the future when overclocking, sappo says that if you can put it into your own body, then it can't be too bad for your computer. brilliant. absolutely brilliant.

Ethanol (the alcohol in vodka) has a freezign point of -113C so you wouldnt have to put as much ethanol to your water as you would methonal.

3 things
* you misspelled methanol... and freezing.
* no matter what ratios of ethanol you use, ethanol is THICKER than water which means that no matter what you do, you will ALWAYS have worse viscosity and worse flow if you use Ethanol.
* and while it's true that you wouldn't have to use quite as much of it to beat the freezing point, what you did use would STILL not give you as good of thermal properties had you just used methanol in the first place. see below. you prove my point for me beautifully.

After some calculations, I found some interesting stuff. Supposedly the IDEAL mixture of water to methanol is 66% to 33%. That would give you a freezing point of about -32C. Well, a 29:71 ratio of water to ethonal would give you a freezing point of -32C if my calculations are right*. Since there is less ethonal slowing down the heat transfer, the two mixtures have an extremely close heat transfer ratio. .48 for methanol and .47** for ethanol--a difference of less than 3 percent.

correct, though miniscule, methanol still comes out ahead. thank you for proving my point.

Whats more, the ethanol mixture will have a FAR superior viscosity level.

DEAD WRONG.

methanol is the only thing thinner than water. thinner = better viscosity/flow. ethanol is thicker than water

How do you figure a methanol mixture would have better viscosity levels than an ethanol mixture? I could see how a methanol mixture may have a better viscosity than vodka (which i still doubt), but an ethanol mixture is gonna be alot better.

every single time you add ethanol to water it's viscosity gets a little worse. period.

again. Ethanol is thicker than water. Methanol is thinner than water. hello?

alternately, every single time you add methanol to water, it's viscosity gets a little better.

Factor in "coolness points" for using vodka-like mixture of 29:71, and an ethanol wins in a landslide. Actually, when i brought up the vodka thing, i was kinda joking. But now im convinced it's the way to go.. I guess the only problem is fending off all the punks that will steal your coolant.

wow, are you for real? you just get more and more screwed up as you go. hoorah for tenatiousness boy but chu're wrong wrong wrong and you just get worse...

r0ckstarbob,

Debunking the thermal differential theory once and for all:

chuckle... you go boy...

Ok, you say it’s better to have a higher thermal differential. Whereas the numerator is the thermal conductivity and the thermal capacity is the denominator, (or conductivity/capacity). If we're looking for bigger numbers, then you would want your liquid to have a LOW thermal capacity. But thermal capacity is good –you don’t want your coolant to "heat up" quickly. You want it to TRANSFER heat quickly. So why is capacity the denominator? It shouldn’t be.

Well that would throw everything out of whack, right? That’s because it is. That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. Since both are desirable you should somehow ADD the two together, certainly not divide.

listen, i didn't make this stuff up. is it possible i'm wrong? sure. but i'm not. thermal differential isn't just something i whipped up on ths spot to make me feel good and you feel bad. if you don't believe me, go and talk to Dave Smith over at the AMDmb forums (aka Myv65 ---[email protected]---) who wrote THIS article that Hoot had stickied right below this post right here.

so what if you had a fluid that had a Specific heat of 3 cal/g C (3 times more than water) and a Conductivity of 0.01 w/m C? (approximately 60 times worse than water)

according to your system of ADDING these numbers together, this mystery fluid would have a Thermal Differential of 3.01 versus that of water which is at 1.6 under your system - according to your system, this mystery fluid could be predicted to outperform water by 3 TIMES as much, even though it conducts thermal energy 60 TIMES worse than water.

not a chance.

if you had a second mystery liquid that had a Specific Heat of 0.01 cal/g C and a Conductivity of 3 w/m C, that would ALSO equal a thermal Differential of 3.01. under your system you're saying that these two substances with exactly the same differential would perform the same?

yeah. likely. *chuckle*

look at the thermal differnetial for metal versus liquid.
the higher the number the better.

thermal differential is the description of the relationship. this relationship can be expressed in many different ways, but this one is ours.

100% Ethanol - 27%
100% Methanol - 42%

this isn't rocket science. higher is better. how do we get this? we are looking at a relationship between the specific heat and the conductivity of a liquid while in steady state heat transfer (not phase change, not solid state, not florida state, not anything else - steady state)

look at the conductivity rates and the specific heat indexes of liquids versus metals. we want a high conductivity and a low specific heat index ideally. we do not want our coolant to store thermal energy- we want it to transfer it as quickly as possible, not hang onto it.

BUT
you cannot have one without the other. all materials have these characteristics - Specific Heat and Conductivity. you CANNOT look at one set of characteristics without looking at the other at the same time.

for example:
what if you had a metal that had an incredibly great Heat Conductivity rating of 628 (w/m C) but had a horrible Specific Heat index of 10 (cal/gram C)?

you'd have a metal that transfered heat only slightly better than water.

or look at it this way...

if you had an olympic gold medalist track star with two recently broken arms versus a perfectly healthy highschool track runner, which one would finish a 2 mile run first?

okay, don't hurt yourself, i'll answer it for you - the highschool kid. whats the point of this parable? you have to look at the whole picture in order to make accurate predictions, not just one set of stats or another.

Since conductivity is much more important, it should be weighted more heavily.

wrong again. you keep getting lost in the details. it's not one set of characteristics over the other, it's the relationship between these two characteristics that is important.

silver is certainly not twice as good as copper, actually i doubt it’s even better at all.

do i really have to address this statement? yes sappo - silver really IS better than copper for heat transfer - ask anyone on earth with even the most rudimentary knowledge of heat transfer.

A second mistake is that you should include density into the equation. Those thermal capacity figures only factor grams. When you fill up a reservor grams are variable. The thing that is constant is the VOLUME. So you'll need to multiply the capacity by the density. I dont think it would make much of a difference because 1) heat capacity doenst really make a difference anyway, and 2), i think all the liquids that were examined differ only slightly in density.

it's possible that this is a better technique. so go ahead. do it. the numbers are all there. knock it up. lets see it.

edit: Density plays no part in steady-state heat transfer. you're wrong again sappo.

if you're going to do it, do it by volume.

sorry to rain on your parade, but you are wrong wrong wrong. Can i get a witness up in here?!?! *dead silence*

you don't need a witness, you need a decent science teacher.

YA BABY! I HAVE EXERCIZED THE DEMONS!!!

i'm revising my statement. you don't need a witness, you need a therapist and drugs. lots of drugs.

 

[sappo]

EXCELLENT I EVEN GET A FRESH NEW PAGE TO TELL YOU YOU'RE WRONG

Ok about the Methanol thing, I was wrong. I looked at that first viscosity chart, and made the mistake of thinking that the right on the X-axis meant more. Next time I'll be careful to make sure that right actually does mean more, just like it has on every graph ive ever looked at.

listen, i didn't make this stuff up. is it possible i'm wrong? sure. but i'm not. thermal differential isn't just something i whipped up on ths spot to make me feel good and you feel bad. if you don't believe me, go and talk to my friend Dave Smith over at the AMDmb forums (aka Myv65 [email protected]---) who wrote THIS article that Hoot had stickied right below this post right here.

so what if you had a fluid that had a Specific heat of 3 cal/g C (3 times more than water) and a Conductivity of 0.01 w/m C? (approximately 60 times worse than water)

according to your system of ADDING these numbers together, this mystery fluid would have a Thermal Differential of 3.01 versus that of water which is at 1.6 under your system - according to your system, this mystery fluid could be predicted to outperform water by 3 TIMES as much, even though it conducts thermal energy 60 TIMES worse than water.

not a chance.

Good greif, you're still sticking to your guns. Its posted on a forum, it must be right, you say. It's best not to stick to your guns when there's holes in your "findings".

Well, if you had actually read all of what i had said, and not broken it up, it would have made alot more sense. Look, if it was WEIGHTED, it wouldnt add up to be 3.01. Since conductivity is much more desirable than than heat capacity, try multiplying the conductivity by 100 times. Water would be .6X100+1=61 the "mystery fluid" would be .01x100+3=4, making water 15 times better than the mystery fluid. Now that 100 figure is just to show you that a weighted addition would work. I'm not saying that conductivity really is 100x better. This explains the inconsistancies in your differential chart perfectly. You're saying that copper conducts heat over 7000 times better than water. Uh, na. I dont think so. I cant believe you're being so dogmatic when you admit yourself that gold isnt better than silver, but your dumb chart says it is. Give it up. Let it go.....

what if you had a metal that had an incredibly great Heat Conductivity rating of 628 (w/m C) but had a horrible Specific Heat index of 10 (cal/gram C)?

DUDE! Specific heat is GOOD, not bad. Your example was just retarted. Imagine you are the cpu. you put out heat. Now imagine there are two bath tubs you can hop into (tub A and tub B). They both have the same thermal conductivity, and they are both 10C. However, tub A has a heat capacity of one half of tub B. Which one is going to cool you down more? B, it takes twice the energy to heat it up. Tub B will cool you more. No if's, and's, or but's about it. You're are wrong, very very wrong.

If you're still too thick headed to be convinced, imagine if the heat capacity was infinite. Would that be good for cooling or bad... HMMMM.. tough one

do i really have to address this statement? yes brainiac - silver really IS better than copper for heat transfer - yes brainiac it's almost twice as good. ask anyone on earth with even the most rudimentary knowledge of heat transfer.

Na man, high heat capacity is good. If silver was twice as good, it would be used for heatsinks. Think im crazy? The amount of silver it would take to make a decent sized heatsink is about $60. With the cost of machining it would be well under $100. People spent nearly that much when copper heatsinks first came out. Think they wouldnt spend that much for somethign twice as good??? Then why has no one made one?

it's possible that this is a better technique. so go ahead. do it. the numbers are all there. knock it up. lets see it.

Translation: You were right and I was wrong. Im so embarrassed that i spent all that time organizing graphs when they were wrong from the get go.

BTW. isnt it customary for the guy that made the mistake to fix it? Im doing you a favor here. Fix it yourself chump.

Once again, i was wrong on viscosity. I'm man enough to admit it, but your whole differential chart is so fouled up that I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[sappo]

Found something so good it deserves a new post altogether. I just found out that zinc has a higher "thermal differential" than Aluminum. We've reached a major conundrum here. Do we say that aluminum is a better material for heatsinks and say we are wrong, or do we say that zinc must therefore be a better material and still stick to our guns??

 

[r0ckstarbob]

Ok about the Methanol thing, I was wrong. I looked at that first viscosity chart, and made the mistake of thinking that the right on the X-axis meant more. Next time I'll be careful to make sure that right actually does mean more, just like it has on every graph ive ever looked at.

translation: hi, i'm sappo and i wouldn't know a motherboard from a frozen pizza, but like.. could i cool it with 7up or Pepsi maybe? and then we could make rootbeer floats out of them when we're done. that like... would be sooo cool.

Good greif, you're still sticking to your guns. Its posted on a forum, it must be right, you say. It's best not to stick to your guns when there's holes in your "findings".

i just collected and collated data. don't think i ever stated that my techniques were perfect or without fault but i think it's obvious you have some issues. Dave was among those people who helped me interpret the numbers and understand what i was looking at. he's a mechanical engineer who does cooling systems for paper mills among other things. i'm not subscribing to dogma by pointing to something posted on a forum, i'm pointing to a reliable source of information that has been proven time and time again.

Well, if you had actually read all of what i had said, and not broken it up, it would have made alot more sense. Look, if it was WEIGHTED, it wouldnt add up to be 3.01. Since conductivity is much more desirable than than heat capacity, try multiplying the conductivity by 100 times.

hunh?

Water would be .6X100+1=61 the "mystery fluid" would be .01x100+3=4, making water 15 times better than the mystery fluid. Now that 100 figure is just to show you that a weighted addition would work. I'm not saying that it really conductivity is 100x better. This explains the inconsistancies in your differential chart perfectly. You're saying that copper conducts heat over
7000 times better than water. Uh, na. I dont think so.

why would we do this again? just to make your screwed up numbers work? so what you're saying is that we should just arbitrarily start adding numbers until they make us feel good and your system works, huh? this is beginning to sound a whole lot like "gee if we'd scored more points we would have won the game". we'll call this wishful thinking. or maybe fairytale mathematics by sappo.

and noooo sappo... i'm saying that copper conducts energy 700% better than water, not 7000 times. i AM saying however that copper (as a system) transfers energy 7104% better than water on an even playing field, during a steady-state heat transfer scenario. this means that if there were a way to cycle copper through a hose without generating friction heat and cycle it the same way we cycle water through a water block, the copper would out perform water by 7000 percent. alternately, if you could somehow make a heatsink out of nothing but water and bolt it to the CPU somehow, again copper would outperform water by 7000 percent.

but we can't. not in reality. maybe in Sappo's fantasy world it's possible. but not here. not now. sorry charrie. dream on.

the truth of the matter is that the model i created was designed from the word go to examine liquids and coolants, not metals. i extended the model to include metals for the same reason i included things like hydrogen peroxide, as a control and to put things into perspective. thats why we call it a comparison. it compares. this model was never designed to look take a hard indepth look at metals (though in theory it can), as metals can only ever be used in a static steady state heat transfer system. and in a static steady state heat transfer model, Specific Heat has NO impact on heat transfer - it only measures how hot or how cold your heat sink is while it's doing it's job.

note: the russians used to use molten metal as their coolant in nuclear reactors because nothing transfers heat as well... but that only worked because the coolant was at 3500 C and the operating temperature of the reactors needed to remain somewhere around 5000 C or something ridiculous like that. maybe you could look into something like that in Sappo land...

I cant believe you're being so dogmatic when you admit yourself that gold isnt better than silver, but your dumb chart says it is. Give it up. Let it go.....

okay, this isn't dogma, this is basic physics. welcome to the wonderful world of chemistry. i'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable. does reality often do that to you?

this is pathetic. i was giving you a hyperbolic scenerio to illustrate the inconsistancies with your premise. weighted mathmatics hunh?

riiight.

DUDE! Specific heat is GOOD, not bad. Your example was just retarted.

d00d, specific heat is NOT necessarily good. only in your hypothetical fairyland world is it good or evil.

and in a steady-state heat transfer scenario, specific heat by itself HAS NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on static steady state heat transfer.

and i can only assume that you actually meant RETARDED and not retarted.

Imagine you are the cpu. you put out heat. Now imagine there are two bath tubs you can hop into (tub A and tub B). They both have the same thermal conductivity, and they are both 10C. However, tub A has a heat capacity of one half of tub B. Which one is going to cool you down more? B, it takes twice the energy to heat it up. Tub B will cool you more. No if's, and's, or but's about it. You're are wrong, very very wrong.

If you're still too thick headed to be convinced, imagine if the heat capacity was infinite. Would that be good for cooling or bad... HMMMM.. tough one

if heat capacity were infinite. yes it would be good. but it's not. your example is flawed like the rest of your arguements. Specific heat is finite and the fact of the matter is that we're dealing with steady-state heat transfer and using a replenishable medium in which to transfer energy, not an imaginary endless well in which to pour heat into... your example is not a model for steady state heat transfer, just a one time cool down job. not what we're doing.

but then again, thats if we get tied up in the details. but we're not. we have to deal in whole systems. and we're back to where we started, back to the thermal differential because we have to deal with the conductivity of an item too.

If silver was twice as good, it would be used for heatsinks.

silver IS used for heat sinks you moron.

Think im crazy? The amount of silver it would take to make a decent sized heatsink is about $60.

silver shot, unmilled and unforged, not in ingots, wire or sheet retails in bulk for around $6.70 an ounce from Alpha Supply in Seattle Washington. thats not counting design, development, production, promotion, packaging, and transportation costs just to bring it to market. $60 dollars might be a little conservative, don't you think?

With the cost of machining it would be well under $100. People spent nearly that much when copper heatsinks first came out. Think they wouldnt spend that much for somethign twice as good??? Then why has no one made one?

well i guess if i lived in lala land and could make numbers up like you obviously do that would probably be a viable option. completely silver heat sinks tend to be a little cost prohibitive manufacturers tend to use silver in parts or in pieces instead... or they use it in an alloy more often than not.

but yes, they do make silver heat sinks. they also make this stuff called arctic silver - maybe you've heard of it? hm, why don't they make arctic copper i wonder? hmmm?

they sure as hell don't use diamond or mercury for computer cooling.

Translation: You were right and I was wrong. Im so embarrassed that i spent all that time organizing graphs when they were wrong from the get go.

BTW. isnt it customary for the guy that made the mistake to fix it? Im doing you a favor here. Fix it yourself chump.

step up or step off. theres nothing wrong with this data or the techniques used to compile and compare it. if you can do better, pAH-LEEEEASE do it. otherwise shut your whiney pie hole.

Once again, i was wrong on viscosity. I'm man enough to admit it, but your whole differential chart is so fouled that I'm embarrassed for you.

thus far you've been wrong on viscosity, silver (manufacture costs AND thermal properties), mercury, density, specific heat in a steady-state heat transfer model, the thermal differential, and almost every other arguement you've proposed so far, you fail to grasp the intricacys of steady-state heat transfer and you've managed to kick and scream the whole way down. just climb off the horse Eric. please. you talk to me about embarassing? watching you do this is just plain painful.

but seriously, thats really touching. you're embarrassed for me? wow, i'll loose some sleep over it now... an stuff. i prolly won't ever be the same. oh please sappo, won't you ever forgive me?

i got your chump right here.

 

[r0ckstarbob]

read it sappo:

http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=105&PageID=3

if you continue to have questions, email him.

this is a waste of time. when you're done being in la la land, come back and talk. i'm really interested in everything you have to say.

 

[sappo]

no prob man. hey, i'll even field all the questions and comments others might so you wont be "wasting time" anymore in this thread. you'll never have to come back again.

 

[r0ckstarbob]

well, finally. 17,000 hits after the fact, after having this data and information published on a dozen websites, after having these findings consistantly backed up and correlated with facts, data, and other knowledgable people on the subject time and time again... 6 months after the fact, FINALLY Sappo's come to the forefront with the REAL truth complete with weighted mathematics, obscure inaccurate hypothetic speculations, and the drive to cool his computer with Belvedere. Thank you in advance for all the help i'm sure you're about to bring us ignorants here at overclockers.com. take a bow sappo. you're number one.




ya know it's too bad you're such a dense jerk, i think you prolly have quite a bit to offer the forums here... almost as much as they have to offer you.

*shrugs*

i'm not wrong. and you won't go through the work and don't have the data to prove me wrong because it's not there. if you can do it better, then shut up and do it.

oricinally posted by myv65 at the AMDmb Forums



Truth: Density has no direct relationship with steady-state heat transfer.

http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=105&PageID=4

 

[sappo]

straight outta overclockers.com

The conclusion is simple: If we compare two heatsinks identical in shape and dimensions made of copper and aluminum, the one made of copper is going to perform better since it will have both total thermal conductivity and total capacity higher than the other one.

Of course, I dont blindly accept anything that is published online. Common sense backs me up here, and please note the usage of the word *SIMPLE* cause it's not that difficult.

If you have 3 heatsinks identically dimensioned, one copper, one silver, and one aluminum. Assuming all are the same temp, the copper heatsink will be able to hold the most heat. The silver heatsink will only hold 69% of the heat and the Aluminum will only be able to hold 62%. This is what negates silver's minimal heat transfer ratio which is only about 5%.

'nuff said.

if you had an olympic gold medalist track star with two recently broken arms versus a perfectly healthy highschool track runner, which one would finish a 2 mile run first?

okay, don't hurt yourself, i'll answer it for you - the highschool kid. whats the point of this parable? you have to look at the whole picture in order to make accurate predictions, not just one set of stats or another.

Had to comment on this. Any boxing fans out there? The most amazing fight I ever saw was when Roy Jones Jr. whooped up on what was supposedly "a" #1 contendor at the time. Unfortunately the fight went the distance. After the fight, they interviewed Jones and he said he had broken his (right?) arm about two weeks before the fight in training. I was floored, but the replays confirmed it. He only did use one arm. Did anyone else see it?? Make no mistake, Jones is the best pound for pound fighter (or shall i say he has the best specific volume index... actually that was terrible) in the world, maybe ever.

Edit: Here's the link. i got a couple details wrong, but the story speaks for itself http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000119/sports.htm#7

 

[r0ckstarbob]

straight outta overclockers.com

Of course, I dont blindly accept anything that is published online. Common sense backs me up here, and please note the usage of the word *SIMPLE* cause it's not that difficult.

If you have 3 heatsinks identically dimensioned, one copper, one silver, and one aluminum. Assuming all are the same temp, the copper heatsink will be able to hold the most heat. The silver heatsink will only hold 69% of the heat and the Aluminum will only be able to hold 62%. This is what negates silver's minimal heat transfer ratio which is only about 5%.

'nuff said.

no, you're still wrong.

normally i'd be nice about all this but you came in with both guns blazing and now you're going to eat crow.

copper heatsink will outperform an aluminum heatsink, and a silver heatsink will outperform a copper one. this is not rocket science. and it's not because of it's specific heat index, it's because of it's Thermal Differential - in specific it's conductivity rating.

you are not thinking steady-state heat transfer.

here, have some laws of physics, thermodynamics, and overclocking.

THE SPECIFIC HEAT INDEX OF A MATERIAL HAS NO IMPACT UPON STEADY STATE HEAT TRANSFER.

SILVER WILL ALWAYS OUTPERFORM COPPER

Had to comment on this. Any boxing fans out there? The most amazing fight I ever saw was when Roy Jones Jr. whooped up on what was supposedly "a" #1 contendor at the time. Unfortunately the fight went the distance. After the fight, they interviewed Jones and he said he had broken his (right?) arm about two weeks before the fight in training. I was floored, but the replays confirmed it. He only did use one arm. Did anyone else see it?? Make no mistake, Jones is the best pound for pound fighter (or shall i say he has the best specific volume index... actually that was terrible) in the world, maybe ever.

Edit: Here's the link. i got a couple details wrong, but the story speaks for itself http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000119/sports.htm#7

Translation : i couldn't hit water if i fell out of a boat and since i dont' know anything about computer cooling either, lets change the subject to something i kinda know stuff about - how about boxing?

 

[r0ckstarbob]

Fact 1: Aluminum has a higher specific heat and lower density than Copper. Specific heat is a measure of how densely a material can store thermal energy. If you add thermal energy to a specific mass of material, it will increase in temperature.

The specific heat of aluminum is 903 joules/kg*K at 300K while copper is only 385. The density of aluminum is 2702 kg/m^3 at 300K while copper’s is 8933. The product of specific heat and density determines how much energy may be stored in a given volume. For a given volume of material, copper will store more energy at a given temperature change than aluminum.

False Perception: Since aluminum stores less energy per volume, it must be more efficient at getting rid of heat.

Truth: During steady-state operation, there is no net energy storage in the heat sink or fins/pins; hence, specific heat plays no part in steady-state performance.

Fact 2: Aluminum has lower density than Copper. Volume for volume, aluminum is much lighter than copper.

False Perception: Weight acts as a “sink�Efor heat. Since copper is more dense, it absorbs heat well from the die. Since aluminum is light, it gets rid of heat more effectively than copper.

Truth: Density has no direct relationship with steady-state heat transfer.

Fact 3: A small volume of aluminum will cool more quickly than an equal volume of copper once the heat source is gone. This is due to the same reason as fact #1, namely there is less energy stored per unit volume is aluminum than copper. This is, however, a transient condition. Heat transfer from a computer is a steady-state condition where the temperature of the heat sink remains relatively constant. The specific heat of a material partially determines how a material responds to transient conditions but has no effect at all on steady-state operation.

False Perception: Since aluminum cools more quickly once a heat source is removed, it must be more efficient at convection.

Truth: The heat source driving energy into the heat sink remains in effect until you turn off your computer. If you have aluminum pins or fins, congratulations, they will cool off more quickly than copper ones after you shutdown your PC.

The only properties belonging to the solid that affect convection are geometry and surface temperature. The fluid stream has no knowledge of what lies beneath the surface of the material. If an aluminum and copper item have the same precise geometry including microscopic surface details and they have the same temperature then they will have precisely the same convection.

If you are still unconvinced, consider this little thought exercise. Imagine a magic heat sink pin. This magic pin has an adjustable conduction coefficient that allows you to dial the conduction coefficient between a range of zero and infinity. Heat enters the magic pin through its connection to the heat sink. Heat leaves the magic pin through air convection.

When the pin’s conduction coefficient is very near zero, heat has a tough time transferring down the length of the pin. The end near the heat sink gets very hot, while the opposite end remains cool. Convection can only occur with a temperature differential, thus only occurs near the hot end. Most of the pin does no useful work.

When the pin’s conduction coefficient is near infinity, there is little resistance to conduction. The pin will attain a nearly uniform temperature over its entire length and convection will occur over its entire length.

Now let us go back to the aluminum versus copper debate. Copper’s higher conductivity means is that a thinner copper fin can transmit as much heat as a thicker aluminum fin. However, on a weight-basis, aluminum can conduct more heat than copper. If weight was no object, copper holds the edge. When weight is a limitation, aluminum has the advantage. Conductivity multiplied by density is a "weighted" measure of a material’s conduction efficiency. It is this "weighted" efficiency that leads to the use of aluminum in the fins/pins of many heat sinks. It is certainly not because "aluminum gets rid of heat better than copper".

and would you look at that, silver outperforms copper. jeez. who would of thunk it? and wait@! thats not MY chart now is it???

hmmm

and just to clarify here, according to my professors, there are two types of steady state heat transfer, static and dynamic. mostly what daves writing about here is static steady state for the purposes of simplicity. when you're cycling something like liquid, thats dynamic steady-state. heatsinks are static steady-state. when you're dealing with dynamic steady-state heat transfer, such as a coolant, the specific heat makes a slightly different impact upon things, which is why with coolants we defer to the relationship between the specific heat and the conductivity ie the thermal differential.

this was pulled directly from the AMDmb website. author Dave Smith aka myv65. you should go read it.
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=105

 

[sappo]

I dont even know why I bother, but

(QUESTION 1) if "specific heat plays no part in steady-state performance" why is it a huge factor in your thermal differential???

Supposedly in your thermal differential, silver boosts from about a 5% performance advantage (just factoring conductivity) over copper to a 75% advantage. Then there's that HUGE nagging problem of gold whooping up on all. Oh ya, and then there's the comical problem of zinc being better than aluminum.

Using your thermal differential where gold is the best (we'll call it "r0ckstarbob's gold standard"), zinc has 11% of the performance of r0ckstarbob's gold standard, aluminum has 10%, silver has 77%, and copper has 44%.

(QUESTION 2) Would you hold it that zinc would make a better heatsink than aluminum??

(QUESTION 3) Would you still hold to it that a silver heatsink is nearly twice as good as a copper one?

specific heat plays no part in steady-state performance.

That quote was the nail in your coffin. It showed that specific heat was unimportant. All this time you have been saying that it is every bit as important as thermal conductivity.

=======
Start Edit
=======
Also note we know that CPU's aren't perfectly steady state. The temps change quite a bit during full load and idle. If silver only has a 6% thermal conductivity rating over copper in steady state transfer, that margin would shrink even more with a CPU because copper is able to hold 50% more heat than silver.

Truthfully, I'm not sure if in steady state heat transfers, that specific heat is a factor. I have always advocated that it makes little or no difference. And if it DID, specific heat was a GOOD thing not a bad thing. YOUR "CALCULATIONS" HAVE BEEN SHOWING THAT SPECIFIC HEAT IS A BAD THING. After much searching online I have found two credible articles, but they are in disagreement: the one at amdmb.com and the one at overclockers.com.. The one at overclockers says heat capacity is good:

Why is the thermal capacity so important? In a few words, if the heatsink base and fins are too thin and light, they will not be able to absorb enough heat without a substantial rise in temperature, making the CPU run too hot. It is very likely that, in case of heatsink comparisons, the heaviest one with the largest total surface is going to be an overall winner if they are all made of the same material.

That explanation is a really good one, but I'm not convinced it is all that important. ***Also, if you read the article, take note that they do factor in density***

The one at amdmb.com says it makes no difference during steady state operation (but as I have already said, CPU's aren't completely steady state). Just so you know that amdmb.com isn't infallible they said this:

The newly designed Z4 Aqua combines a gear-star mazed silver plated copper alloy core for maximum heat absorption with an aluminium top for maximum heat dissipation.

located here

Aluminum doenst give off heat better than other metals.

Rockstarbob, either way, you are wrong. You have said specific heat makes as big of difference as conductivity, AND that the more specific heat something has, the WORSE it is.
=========
End edit
=========

Im tired of of saying I'm right. There's no point. I'm more worried about your sanity. And dont bother writing back if if you are not gonna answer those questions, you've backed yourself into a corner and you have ZERO credibility before you can answer them.

I've been watching your posts go from technical, to non technical, to absurd, to not even containing your thoughts but random articles you've found online. I think that's funny (and sad). So dont get on my case for posting a couple sentences on Roy Jones.

 

[r0ckstarbob]

as long as CPU's are putting our heat (ie are receiving power and are functioning), they are a steady-state heat source. it's only when you turn your computer off does it quit being a steady-state heat source.

during dynamic steady state heat transfer, Specific Heat by itself plays a small part of the whole process to transfer energy, taking a back seat to Conductivity. but Specific Heat cannot be ignored (even though it does not play as direct a part as conductivity) when dealing with coolants due to the nature of the techniques involved. it is the relationship between the two characteristics that will play a crutial factor in coolant performance predictions, not one aspect of it or another. you want to take one little piece of the pie and say "here is the answer" and i am saying that you cannot approach complex systems in the manner you seem so want to do, and expect reliable results. this shortcut searching appears to be a recurring problem with you if your comments on this and other threads are anything to guage by. and on the forums, they are. sorry sappo. there are no shortcuts in overclocking. i'm not trying to be mean to you. thats just the way it works.

my calculations and conclusions show what the numbers show. nothing more, nothing less. i don't particulary care what works better, i just wanted to know what worked the best, and be able to prove it. i'm not making anything up. the only thing that is the remote bit wishy washy is my personal theory why gold doesn't stack up the way we know it does, and i qualified that at the beginning. my conclusions are based upon the facts that i have been able to correlate... and the facts are that: materials that transfer heat the best, tend to have a low Specific Heat and a high Conductivity rating in relationship to one another. look at the numbers eric. go get them from somewhere else if you need to, the numbers won't be any different.

i don't know if zinc would be better at heat transfer, i've never looked into it. i would guess that it would probably look okay initially if you looked at nothing but the thermal characteristics and tried to run a comparison.

but again, that is typical of your approach, isn't it. to want to find the shortcut, take one piece of the puzzle and cry eureka! zinc may indeed look better if you take all those characteristics out of context and didn't look at the plethora of other reasons why it would be BAD to consider using Zinc. the same way you tried to do with mercury.

i do know that aluminum isn't all that great for heat transfer, but it's cheap and easy to manipulate and it works okay.

and yes, i would hold that silver is by far and away a vastly better material to use for heat transfer and i have the chemistry and physics to back me up. credibility? i've got it fallin out my ears. am i perfect? nope. so far though, all you've done is try to shoot holes in my findings without so much as an alternate or improved model to supplement it. unless you REALLY want to consider weighted mathmatics as a possible recourse (for your sake i hope you don't). you've come up with no scientific or mathmatical premise to back your arguements up, no data. just a truck load of complaints, poorly formed arguements based on those complaints, and the tenacity to hold on and let this horse kick you to death. my model of the thermal differential isn't the only one to be had and there are many ways to express this relationship. if you have a better way i invite you to demonstrate it here. (and i invited you to earlier as i recall). i don't mind heated discussion but leave the half-formed, immature, poorly thought out, and creditless arguements at home. weighted mathematics. indeed. bring some facts. improve the knowledge pool.

and before you are willing to discredit an EXTREMELY good article written by someone with more credibility and thermodynamic knowledge than you'll ever see in your lifetime by pointing out an article written by someone else on a different topic on the same website, i'd take a long hard look at your own position and premise for a statement like that and quickly reevaluate.

it takes nothing to try and poke holes in others arguements. anyone can walk by and take potshots with or without any kind of knowledge or background (as you've clearly demonstrated).

try to establish a document for the good of the community that can withstand the rigors of public scrutiny one of these days and then come and talk to me about credibility and corners and the like.

my findings can and have withstood your arguements. you've been able to provide nothing in the way of an accurate alternate model in which to work from, no scientific or mathematical basis in which to measure it, no laws of thermodynamics to back your baseless hypothesis' with. in fact you've been able to convey little more than a generalized feeling of righteousness and angst that appears to be based on little else than your personal desire for things to be different, or if nothing else, for you to be right.

okay, you can be right. well done sappo. you're right. woo hoo.

the rest of us will have to console ourselves with being accurate.

 

[sappo]

as long as CPU's are putting our heat (ie are receiving power and are functioning), they are a steady-state heat source. it's only when you turn your computer off does it quit being a steady-state heat source.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the differences in temp between idol and full load...

during dynamic steady state heat transfer, Specific Heat by itself plays a small part of the whole process to transfer energy, taking a back seat to Conductivity.

You got an equation for this "back steat" theory? what a load.

but Specific Heat cannot be ignored (even though it does not play as direct a part as conductivity) when dealing with coolants due to the nature of the techniques involved. it is the relationship between the two characteristics that will play a crutial factor in coolant performance predictions, not one aspect of it or another.

Cannot be ignored..? relationship? this is sounding like phychology.. Surly not physics. you dont have logic or math to back you up.

The line of thinking that the easiest explanation to a problem is probably the right one went RIGHT out the window there!

you want to take one little piece of the pie and say "here is the answer" and i am saying that you cannot approach complex systems in the manner you seem so want to do, and expect reliable results. this shortcut searching appears to be a recurring problem with you if your comments on this and other threads are anything to guage by.

Ok, so after the highly ambiguous language above, we start talking about pieces of pies. Excuse me, but dont go around proving someone else is calculating things wrong by pretending to be a physchologist. Can you tell me what type of "relationship" they have? Direct? linear? Negative?

Maybe some numbers to back you up there? Or perhaps its a father/son relationship?

and on the forums, they are. sorry sappo. there are no shortcuts in overclocking. i'm not trying to be mean to you. thats just the way it works.

my calculations and conclusions show what the numbers show. nothing more, nothing less. i don't particulary care what works better, i just wanted to know what worked the best, and be able to prove it.

Good cliche's. Unfortunately, they dont mean a thing.

i'm not making anything up. the only thing that is the remote bit wishy washy is my personal theory why gold doesn't stack up the way we know it does, and i qualified that at the beginning.

Oh, so as long as you say from the BEGINNING that gold makes no sense, everything is ok. Maybe, like in Lord of the Rings, Gold is always cool, even if you put it in the fire. Maybe gold still has some of those properties left over from Middle Earth.

But hey, if you say it's off BEFORE you draw any conclusions, you should be OK. I forgot that was one of the steps in the scientific method.

my conclusions are based upon the facts that i have been able to correlate...

No, mine are. Thats why were're having this disagreement. See, if I beleived that, we wouldnt be having this disagreement. Duh.

and the facts are that: materials that transfer heat the best, tend to have a low Specific Heat and a high Conductivity rating in relationship to one another. look at the numbers eric. go get them from somewhere else if you need to, the numbers won't be any different.

Ah yes, the old trend/fact. Unfortunately for you, thats not right. Zinc, platinum, and Tungsten are a few sore thumb standouts. You wanna see a coorelation between one thing and another, look at electrical conductivity vs. thermal conductivity in metals.

But who cares? BUT THAT'S COMPLETELY OFF THE SUBJECT. YOU MADE NO POINT WHEN YOU SAID THAT. HOWEVER, IM ASSUMING IT WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WAS UNDERLINED. SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT????

i don't know if zinc would be better at heat transfer, i've never looked into it. i would guess that it would probably look okay initially if you looked at nothing but the thermal characteristics and tried to run a comparison.

Translation: I cant make a inference on anything. It must be spoon-fed to me by some guy with an engineering degree. Although I suppose if anyone makes a statement that disagrees with my conclusions I could infer that they are wrong.

COMEON MAN! WHICH IS IT?? YEA OR NAY?

but again, as typical of your approach, isn't it. thats if you take those characteristics out of context and didn't look at the plethora of other reasons why it would be BAD to consider using it. the same way you tried to do with mercury.

Ok, mercury is liquid. Thats a pretty big factor. But what factors seperate zinc and aluminum?

i do know that aluminum isn't all that great for heat transfer, but it's cheap and easy to manipulate and it works okay.

That's probably the dumbest comment you have made thus far. I believe Aluminum ranks only behind certain arrangements of carbon, silver, gold, and copper. How in the world does that make alunimum "[not] all that great for heat transfer." You're joking right?

and yes brainiac, i would hold that silver is by far and away a vastly better material to use for heat transfer and i have the chemistry and physics to back me up.

BAHAHA. YOU'RE disagreeing with the chart from amdmb.com. It shows that silver only holds a slight advantage over copper in thermal conductivity. 6% to be more exact. So it gets all the rest from the back seat/relationship/pie thingey? Oh wait! but thats not important in steady state heat transfer right?

Oh my..

credibility? i've got it fallin out my ears. am i perfect? nope.

Hmm.. there seems to be some dissention somewhere in that statement.

so far though, all you've done is try to shoot holes in my findings without so much as an alternate or improved model to supplement it.

Ok, thats a fair statement. Here's what I've been trying to say: Specific heat makes little or no difference. And IF it DOES make adifference it is a GOOD thing.

In your thermal differential you divide conductivity by heat capacity. If heat capacity is reduced to one half, your thermal differnetial (which is hogwash anyway) doubles. You are saying that they are EQUALLY significant and that capacity is BAD. That is absolutely wrong!

Piece of the pie??? Hello, you are bringing in two factors. Remember when we learned fractions to call those halves?

Both are equally important in your "equation" (conductivity/capacity). THATS WHAT YOUR THERMAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION IS SAYING. DONT YOU SEE IT??

If not, here's what the "equation" means. If thermal capacity is reduced to one half, the *cough* thermal differential doubles. Where in the world does the whole "back seat" "piece of the pie" thing come into this equation? It doesn't..

Why am i argueing FOR your equation? It doesnt make sense anyway. The really funny thing is that your equation is wrong AND you dont even know what it means.. BAHAHAHA!!

And you say you have math, physics, and chemistry on your side? ROTFLMAO...

unless you REALLY want to consider weighted mathmatics as a possible recourse (for your sake i hope you don't). you've come up with no scientific or mathmatical premise to back your arguements up, no data.

funny how YOU of all people should be accusing me of that.

just a truck load of complaints, poorly formed arguements based on those complaints, and the tenacity to hold on and let this horse kick you to death. my model of the thermal differential isn't the only one to be had

funny how i cant find those "resources" online. Thermal differential is the difference in temp between the heatsink and the air. It is a MEASUREMENT. Not some stupid number to tell you how efficient a meterial would be for a heatsink.

and there are many ways to express this relationship.

Oh. there's the cop out for not having any resources to back it up.... Other people call it other things.. Goodness sakes.

if you have a better way i invite you to demonstrate it here. (and i invited you to earlier as i recall). i don't mind heated discussion but leave the half-formed, immature, poorly thought out, and creditless arguements at home. weighted mathematics. indeed. bring some facts. improve the knowledge pool.

Translation: Anything you do is wrong. But spend alot of time doing it, because I'm embarrassed im the only one that spent so much time on it.

and before you are willing to discredit an EXTREMELY good article written by someone with more credibility and thermodynamic knowledge than you'll ever see in your lifetime by pointing out an article written by someone else on a different topic on the same website, i'd take a long hard look at your own position and premise for a statement like that and quickly reevaluate.

No no, YOU were disagreeing with his statements. (see above).

it takes nothing to try and poke holes in others arguements. anyone can walk by and take potshots with or without any kind of knowledge or background (as you've clearly demonstrated).

Yes, and you would know. Iv'e been trying to show you your mistakes by examples, each time, it opens up a new can of worms and a cage of red herrings.

Try this one on for size, bucko. In your charts You said that aluminum conducts 155 watts to silver's 417. Thats absolutely wrong. Luckily, I dont have to explain anything. It's all in the math. Aluminum's relative conductivity is about 56% of silver's (you can get that figure from a # of sites). So aluminum would conduct somewhere in the 233 range. Look it up!

Aluminum was wrong all this time, har har har. Now I know what you are probably thinking. "Thats why zinc was so high!" Recrunch the numbers. Zinc is still better. Explain that one, poptart. Where are all your 16,000 viewers now?

try to establish a document for the good of the community that can withstand the rigors of public scrutiny one of these days and then come and talk to me about credibility and corners and the like.

Good one... I advise you to do the same. And another thing: just because someone disagrees, does not make them wrong, so be open-minded.

my findings can and have withstood your arguements. you've been able to provide nothing in the way of an accurate alternate model in which to work from, no scientific or mathematical basis in which to measure it, no laws of thermodynamics to back your baseless hypothesis' with. in fact you've been able to convey little more than a generalized feeling of righteousness and angst that appears to be based on little else than your personal desire for things to be different, or if nothing else, for you to be right.

I think this statement can best be sumarized by what roy jones jr's opponent said: "I think I hurt him to the body," said Telesco. "I think I did enough to win." It's alot easier saying youre right when you cant PROVE your right.

Personal attacks now, eh? Declaring yourself the victor, eh?

That is really funny because after responding to your ENTIRE post, I have responded to virtually NO technically related material. How can this be?

okay, you can be right. well done sappo. you're right. woo hoo.

Make up your mind.

the rest of us will have to console ourselves with being accurate.

Speak for yourself.