# A Universal Formula To Rate The Performance of Any Cooling Solution

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heat removal quantifier is the unknown, you are solving for...
EDIT: once again doesn't have anything to do with this thread.

Last edited:
I don't agree, im sorry i brought this up, since its not something to discuss here.

Case closed for me.

Wouldn't it be true for any given temperature?

I'm a wordsmith. I'm also a published a.i. author. Words mean something.

Your original statement, my original interpretation of that statement, and your above statement are ALL DIFFERENT.

Your original statement governed the nature of a cooling solution always removing a constant amount of heat for a GIVEN, fixed temperature.

This has nothing to do with WHICH temperature is selected.

In the first case, you were talking about ONE specific temperature.

In the case you just mentioned, you are referring to ANY temperature being held constant, although it is a DIFFERENT constant temperature than the first case.

Pure nomenclature gymnastics. And I cannot be convinced you did not know this. You are incapable of that level of misunderstanding.

Typically you see temperatures follow 1:1 with ambient. In that if my system yields 90C at 150W with 22C ambient, I'll hit 100c with 32 ambient. Same amount of heat transfer but different ambient temps yield different end temps. But is the cooler doing anything different at all?

A big, big, "no way Jose."

Your own DELTA T is also a function of the ambient temperature! But don't take my word for it. See...

https://www.ekwb.com/blog/what-is-delta-t/

...for example.

Or if you just want to "skip to the important graphic," here it is.

View attachment 210020

Does this extrapolate to sub ambient cooling methods or would the equation have to change?

22C room temp, -150C cpu temp @ 150W, 149mm die area
22c room temp, -40C cpu temp @ 150W, 149mm die area
22c room temp, 90C cpu temp @ 150W, 149mm die area

I have a sub-ambient cooler that holds -50C under no load. But this is never a CORE temperature. In fact, I don't think any software shows negative temps for the core.

Edit:You said this to blaylock.. but the first post says this is a rating. The higher the value (if you dont want to call it a score) the better it performs, right? What is the intended use of the contrived end value? We've heard rating, snapshot, etc and higher is better beat removal, but... I'm still left looking for more than an arbitrary value in the end.

Back to the car analogy I guess. To me, your question is like "How fast does your car go?"

I believe some of you are in search of Max(HRQ(w, delta t, area)) but the equation gives only HRQ(w, delta t, area).

Today, I only drove to the store and back. I did not exceed 35 MPH in that 15 minute drive.

Last week, I was on a limited access highway, and drove 65 MPH for more than an hour.

I've driven this car as fast as 90 MPH on one or two occasions.

So my question to you is: How fast does my car go?

Today, I only drove to the store and back. I did not exceed 35 MPH in that 15 minute drive.

Last week, I was on a limited access highway, and drove 65 MPH for more than an hour.

I've driven this car as fast as 90 MPH on one or two occasions.

So my question to you is: How fast does my car go?

You car goes as fast as it was designed (cooler design) to, and it can be limited by your environment (cpu type and ambient temp).

You car goes as fast as it was designed (cooler design) to, and it can be limited by your environment (cpu type and ambient temp).

Correct! I could not agree more!

Having said that, my HRQ function is only telling you the "miles per hour" part of the car analogy.

So "how fast can it go?" The speedometer does not tell you.

Drive it under different conditions, as long as you are comfortable, and find out.

The same for the HRQ equation.

Take different data points. Note the evaluation. The biggest number you encounter is your current max(HRQ).

That does not mean there is a higher number, as of yest undiscovered.

What is the application for all of this data? Or is this just a fun thought experiment?

Also congrats on being published and all, I know what kind of work that takes, but it is as much a matter of effort as it is intellectual ability. This is a discussion forum, not a classroom. I think you will get a lot further if you treat the members as your peers rather than your pupils.

Your car goes as fast as you pushed the pedal (heat load). That's the only thing that changed. Not the engine, tires, nothing. You push the pedal more, you go faster (add more wattage to the same cooling solution temperatures go up). The difference in your analogy, however, is an engine does work harder to gain speed (unless it's an electric motor where all hp/tq are available instantly) whereas a cooling solution just does its thing. So, not sure that analogy works.

As far as the ln2, there are two temps, one from probe at the bottom of the pot and the other next to the core under the ihs. That should be close enough to tell us a story.

That aside, thanks again..Things have come together over several explanations, but finding worth out of what this tells us escapes me. Neat dataset....still not sure what to do with it. Sorry, Doc.

What is the application for all of this data? Or is this just a fun thought experiment?

Also congrats on being published and all, I know what kind of work that takes, but it is as much a matter of effort as it is intellectual ability. This is a discussion forum, not a classroom. I think you will get a lot further if you treat the members as your peers rather than your pupils.
Mmhmm.

Last edited:
This is a discussion forum, not a classroom. I think you will get a lot further if you treat the members as your peers rather than your pupils.

I think it has been established that I was not the first to cast stones.

I understand this is just a snapshot of efficiency but this snapshot is bunk unless you wait until the saturation point. Otherwise you will get results all over the board and the results will be void.

IMO, you're just convoluting a principle here. I see no revolutionary formula.
Standing with Earth_dog and Blaylock here.

Doc has tried explain how at least 7 highly knowledgeable people just don't get it. Well, I'm here to say Doc you don't get it.

And I believe my responses to these were rather tame.

The common thread seems to have been "I didn't understand it, therefore it is meaningless."

Isaac Newton formulated the Universal Law of Gravitation by combining Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion with Calculus.

But even Newton could not finish a sentence that began with "Gravity is..."

Einstein was bothered by this. He found the way to finish that sentence and forever change our view of the Universe.

"Gravity is the normal behavior of the spacetime continuum in the presence of matter."

Furthermore, matter tells space how to bend, and space tells matter how to move.

The HRQ is like Newton's Law of Gravity. I took the concept of wattage/"delta t" (Kepler's Law in the analogy) and extended it since removing heat is harder with a smaller contact surface than a larger contact surface.

Clearly the concept of wattage/"delta t" being somewhat useful as a metric meets with little rebuke.
Clearly there is no argument when stating it harder to remove 200W from the head of a pin vs. an area the size of a dinner plate.

Why the resistance when the two are combined?

I admit there is still an undiscovered "Einsteinian Version" of this that will account for the granular subcomponents and their contributions.

Just like Newtonian Mechanics fails to predict the exact location of Mercury's orbit around the sun due to Relativistic Effects such as frame dragging, likewise my formula lacks the perfection associated with "just the core heat" vs "the whole package heat."

There is probably an elegant way to deal with this without performing the Method of Exhaustion of Archimedes on all of the individual surface areas that spawn heat.

Last edited:
The common thread seems to have been "I didn't understand it, therefore it is meaningless."
Why the resistance when the two are combined?
It felt like we were (constantly?) being told we dont understand. I believe a great many of us have the general idea. The problem is finding meaning and worth for the average user/enthusiast.

Personally, my resistance to this isn't the science behind it, but attaching relevance to the formula in our enthusiast world. I guess I don't care how 'hard' my cooling solution is working as being armed with this information doesn't yield anything over existing measures. The die size is irrelevant in our quest. I think Zerilious put it best...fun thought experiment. I appreciate it, and the thought going into it, but IMO it's just not useful/applicable so far.

The problem is finding meaning and worth for the average user/enthusiast.

Well in building a cooling solution completely from scratch, I found it useful, many times.

What size copper condenser is required if I want 4 fans x 800 RPM to deliver the max CFM needed to quietly cool a 200W load on my 8-core CPU?

Repeated application of the formula revealed this, and I delegated most of the heat removal to the massive condenser with a much lower dependency on the airflow.

Is my solid copper cold plate designed optimally?

I actually placed it 90 degrees out of synch with the internal microchannels the first time, and got much lower scores than I anticipated.

Removing it and rotating it to the proper orientation yielded scores that jumped up considerably.

Tuning the flow rates, refrigerant volume, and even the determination that DuPont makes the absolute best TIM in the world were all determined objectively by CHANGING ONE ASPECT of the cooling system at a time, noting the change in score, and repeating the swap back and forth to test for experimental precision.

In the end, I was left with a cooling solution whose HRQ I could not improve, meaning each individual contribution to the system was at or near the theoretical maximum.

I also have a BASELINE to work with that should be able to help me identify if any components wear down with age.

You guys have your thermometers with 2 digits to stare at. I have 5 digits that can tell me if the slightest perceptible variance from the baseline occurs.

Is it just me or does it work just like this already?
I actually placed it 90 degrees out of synch with the internal microchannels the first time, and got much lower scores higher temperatures than I anticipated.

Removing it and rotating it to the proper orientation yielded scores temperatures that jumped up lowered considerably.

Tuning the flow rates, refrigerant volume, and even the determination that DuPont makes the absolute best TIM in the world were all determined objectively by CHANGING ONE ASPECT of the cooling system at a time, noting the change in score temperature, and repeating the swap back and forth to test for experimental precision.

In the end, I was left with a cooling solution whose HRQ temperatures I could not improve, meaning each individual contribution to the system was at or near the theoretical maximum.

I also have a BASELINE to work with that should be able to help me identify if any components wear down with age.

You guys have your thermometers with 2 digits to stare at. I have 5 digits that can tell me if the slightest perceptible variance from the baseline occurs.
The slightest perceptible variance most users would realistically want is a single degree Celsius (maybe a few care about a tenth?), Doc. Most common probes are only good to +/- 0.5C or so as it is, so what good is that kind of granularity when some instruments are barely whole digit accurate?

What size copper condenser is required if I want 4 fans x 800 RPM to deliver the max CFM needed to quietly cool a 200W load on my 8-core CPU?
How does this work with your formula as it stands? I thought it was performance of an existing system? Is 3 beers too deep and ~1AM too late?

..until tomorrow. lol

Last edited:
I think it has been established that I was not the first to cast stones.

FWIW, I cast no stones. You asked for opinions from members that were trusted and had experience. I gave my opinion.
Next time be prepared, you might not get the answer that you want to hear.
Anyhow, I'm out of this because for my usages, I see no value what so ever in your formula.

Joe can continue if he wants.

Is it just me or does it work just like this already?
The slightest perceptible variance most users would realistically want is a single degree Celsius (maybe a few care about a tenth?), Doc. Most common probes are only good to +/- 0.5C or so as it is, so what good is that kind of granularity when some instruments are barely whole digit accurate?

Concrete example.

I had an HRQ(155.0, 82.5000, 19.0, 174) = 14,028 one day for the Corsair H150i. It was usually in the high 15,000 - low 16,000 range for my baseline at 19C under a similar load.

It turns out someone in the office tested an air cooler on the system, and didn't reapply the thermal paste.

I removed the water block, reapplied the paste, and the score returned to 15,907 with temps down to 75C from 82.5C.

At a casual glance, would 82.5C seem out of line for this particular data set? I have no idea. 155 Watts with a cool 19C room temp is not a common condition. It's still one I had data for, it just was not one I remembered off the top of my head.

But a 14,000 score? That seemed too low for the range of numbers I have seem for the H150i I have been tracking.

FWIW, I cast no stones.

I disagree. You posted the item below with no backing at all. You just made a statement without offering proof.

IMO, you're just convoluting a principle here.

If you care to explain what is being convoluted, and how, then maybe I could assign a non-zero weight to your opinion. But I could get the same quality of answer from a street derelict.

Point to the subset of the formula that is in error, and demonstrate why it is so. Show data that backs your correction to the formula. Give examples.

Next time be prepared, you might not get the answer that you want to hear

If you were a horse, I could lead you to water, and you'd die of thirst.

Last edited:
I would die of thirst waiting for you to play ring around the rosie with the formula for water.

WTG

Now you're gonna be a d1ck because somebody doesn't agree with you.

Just drop the theory stuff will ya, show us the numbers & results and photos of the setup, "IF" its jaw dropping, all of us will shut up and you'll have our all respect, how hard is that ?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Just drop the theory stuff will ya, show us the numbers & results and photos of the setup, "IF" its jaw dropping, all of us will shut up and you'll have our all respect, how hard is that ?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
That wont make this better... really.

To all.. enough insults. That's not how we roll here, Doc.

Just drop the theory stuff will ya, show us the numbers & results and photos of the setup,

Well I do show a complete build log.

And there's a short video clip of one of the early prototypes cranking away.

https://www.overclockers.com/forums...HRQ)-numbers?p=8140928&viewfull=1#post8140928

To all.. enough insults. That's not how we roll here, Doc.

Boy, you postulate what might happen if someone was an Equus Ferus near a source of DiHydrogenMonoxide with an internal homeostasis condition depriving its senses of detecting thirst, and you get called a 4-letter misspelled weener by the hypothetical Equus Ferus, then singled out by a friend of the hypothetical Equus Ferus even after the friend used the comprehensive term "all."

Quo usque tandem abutere ...

Quo usque tandem abutere

This thread has run its course.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
3
Views
391
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
530
Replies
38
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
155