kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>On the other hand, that does not displace my opinon about
>the need for thermal shutdown based on component temps.
>There are more factors than merely whether there's water and
>what the water temp is.

This is a prime example of flawed logic. The issues of
/thermal/ /control/ devices and /safety/ /shutdown/ devices are
separate. Just because a safety shutdown device that is totally
separate from the thermal control mechanism is discussed does
*not* mean that no thermal control mechanism is necessary, yet
you reject all such devices that are not directly tied to the
thermal control system as if that is a valid dichotomy.

You keep trying to tie *everything* to a thermal probe on the
CPU, and that is simply *not* the best way to design such a
system.

There are *two* heat exchanging systems. It is possible, as you
wish to do, to operate both of them based on metering of only
one; but that does not provide optimal functionality. Indeed,
the typical system does that to a great degree, and in the
process uses either gross granularity or even no control at all
on one of the two systems. Commonly that means excessive noise
is generated because there is little or no linkage to the actual
need for air flow.

If the object is to reduce fan noise, it is necessary to use
separate logical control systems for the two separate heat
exchange systems. And since the major physical components
necessarily are already there, it is relatively trivial in an
original design.

(Perhaps I should point out that there are other ways to reduce
fan noise... one of which is to eliminate the fan entirely;
which can be done with an external radiator of appropriate size
or location. One trick is to bury a large enough tank in the
ground...)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com