a silent air cooled computer project

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:27:58 GMT, "stormrider" <oceanwind42@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>if anyone is curious I documented all the steps and components that I used
>to build a silent air cooled pc for games:
>http://silentgamingreview.com/components.htm
>
>Silent Gaming Review
>http://silentgamingreview.com

Great post. I will be building a dual Opteron or Xeon workstation
before the end of the year and I am putting a premium on quiet. Most
of your ideas are applicable to me and I look forward to an end (or
severe reduction) to the ear buzzing I get from fans/hard drive
noises.

R.

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:51:30 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
>L. Davidson) wrote:
>>which now you are attempting to limit to
>>only the items that are "water-cooled", but in fact it is far
>>more serious than that. *Everything* in the case is "in
>>jeopardy", not just those parts that are water cooled. The
>>entire system has to be monitored according to your concept!
>
>Actually, your idea to monitor water flow then goes one
>worse in that water temp or flow rate is about the only
>parameter that doesn't matter.

A lack of coolant flow on the return line is the *best*
indication that a disaster is happening.

>>something slits, whatever... if we have a flow meter where it
>>should be, the *immediate* effect is to shut the system down.
>
>Unless it's not calibrated properly, or breaks, or the logic
>was wrong, etc. Essentially, it does not displace or better
>the monitoring of other parts, it only serves as a suitable
>alarm against coolant loss, but not even that because
>significant coolant will be lost from the (typical)
>reservior with no drop in flow rate.

It's inexpensive insurance for expensive equipment.

>>Or... if the hose exiting the water block has broken and we
>>wait until the cpu gets hot... the entire surge tank will be
>>pumped dry, and all of that coolant will be sprayed into the
>>case before the cpu even begins to get warmer...
>
>For it to go dry, all the coolant was sprayed into the case
>either way.

That *doesn't* happen with a careful design.

>>Then, in about
>>2 seconds, the cpu is going to go from fully cooled to *no*
>>cooling, and may or may not actually shutdown before it fries
>>(depending on the cpu).
>
>Nope, the CPU will heat up far more gradually than a 2
>second interval, in fact anyone and everyone can right now
>stop their heatsink fan and expect dozens of seconds- quite
>sufficient for thermal shutdown mechanisms already in place.

On some cpu's. Not on others. Note that the water block
does *not* provide the kind of minimal protection that air
flow heat sinks do.

>Regardless, I do agree that a detection method for coolant
>loss can be a good idea, but only in the context of a simple
>shutdown mechanism,

So why is it like pulling teeth to get you to admit that?

>with the thermal control of the parts
>still being part of shutdown or fan RPM variable control.

Nobody, except *you* has claimed anything other about the
shutdown mechanism. As to the thermal control, you still have
yet to understand how the system works:

1) heat exchange system #1 (waterblocks on cpu etc)
transfers heat *to* the coolant.

2) heat exchange system #2 (radiator, fans, etc)
transfers heat *from* the coolant.

*You* want to control the second part with metering in the first
part. A *better* way is separate metering and control for
both parts; and since the mechanism to implement it is required
anyway, proper design is a trivial addition.

>Good engineering requires quality parts and testing. You
>don't just buy a cheap flow sensor and slap in in there. If
>the system isn't as relable as an air-cooled system you have
>a system hardly worth the bother- in this day and age there
>is no reason for an unreliable system.

Water cooled systems are *not* as reliable as air cooled
systems, and nobody should misunderstand that fact. Water
cooling can result in lower temperatures (which overclockers
like) or in lower noise (which has been the main focus in these
threads), but if for /higher/ /reliability/ go with air cooling
and the higher temps and more noise.

>>Not metering to prove the design is just simply *piss* *poor*
>>*engineering*.
>
>You seem to have misunderstood. I mean you have to test the
>METERING before ever relying on it. Use the system but you
>can't put an unknown design or quality meter in a dodgy
>water cooling system and think you've done anything positive
>UNTIL that metering system has been fully tested- not just
>to work but to REMAIN working, including remaining working
>long term with your choice of water and water additives.

More mumbling... most of which I've snipped out, but since
this one was particularly ridiculous and off topic, I thought
I'd point out out how unfocused and non-topical most of your
comments are. *You* are the one suggesting that metering of
component parts of the system is unnecessary. That *is* the
only way to test. My point all along has been to build in
the testing (particularly where it is trivial to add it), while
*you* keep saying it is unnecessary.

Your comments are running in circles on this and several other
subtopics. (Which is why I've suggested that you just don't
understand water cooling well enough to be making critical
comments.)

>>What you "still contend" is of no significance. You are
>>the guy who wants to monitor every heat sensitive component,
>
>No, only those water-cooled and with potential to exceed
>their thermal threshold. That is trivial to do and very
>reliable. In fact off the shelf kits with all the leads and
>alarm exist.

So tell me, if it is trivial to monitor *all* water-cooled
parts, why is it not trivial to monitor the functional parts of
the system? It's the same temperature probes...

>>who claims the coolant will boil,
>
>You might want to set a shrink, your imagination is getting
>in the way of reality here. I never claimed coolant will
>boil.

"and that fan is also being controlled, then all
passively cooled components much also be weighed in
the determination of proper fan speed control, but
still, NEVER the water temp. Water is absolutely
the very last thing anyone should care about until
it starts boiling- and if your water is boiling you
have far larger problems than which fans are
spinning."

>>and says the surge tank
>>does not store heat in one article and claims it has to in
>>another.
>
>No I claimed it is not a significant pseudo-radiator
>relative to the actual radiator.

You did that too, but that has nothing to do with going in
circles over the heat storage issue. One of your circular
comments does not cancel another of them.

>>The rest of this article isn't worth responding to, because
>>the questions you ask have all been answered previously.
>
>I'm not asking questions
....

And you should be!

>I"m pointing how how far off on a
>tangent you've gone instead of focusing on failure points.

Another hilariously inaccurate statement.

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

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

For my next trick I will build a silent dual-core CPU, top of the line GPU
gaming machine - so stay tuned!
The more I think about it the less I like the idea of leaks and the
potential maintanence headaches of water cooling, so it will most likely be
air cooled.
I am playing with the idea of custom air ducts and double sound padding.
And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled this time.
http://silentgamingreview.com

"rhys" <rhys@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:i2ofd1da40h84ejo3r31s3016ahp4oad50@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:27:58 GMT, "stormrider" <oceanwind42@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>if anyone is curious I documented all the steps and components that I used
>>to build a silent air cooled pc for games:
>>http://silentgamingreview.com/components.htm
>>
>>Silent Gaming Review
>>http://silentgamingreview.com
>
> Great post. I will be building a dual Opteron or Xeon workstation
> before the end of the year and I am putting a premium on quiet. Most
> of your ideas are applicable to me and I look forward to an end (or
> severe reduction) to the ear buzzing I get from fans/hard drive
> noises.
>
> R.
>

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:23:55 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
L. Davidson) wrote:

>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.

Yes a cooling system necessarily has to be tied to the temp
of the cooled part. Any avoidance of this is simply a
defective design. I"m not apathetic about your ramblings so
I'm done with this topic.

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:23:55 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
>L. Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>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.
>
>Yes a cooling system necessarily has to be tied to the temp
>of the cooled part.

You *still* haven't understood that the there are *two* cooling
systems, and the "cooled part" in one of them is the liquid.

>Any avoidance of this is simply a
>defective design. I"m not apathetic about your ramblings so
>I'm done with this topic.

Well I *am* apathetic about your ramblings, so I agree the
topic is finish.

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:27:58 GMT, "stormrider" <oceanwind42@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>if anyone is curious I documented all the steps and components that I used
>to build a silent air cooled pc for games:
>http://silentgamingreview.com/components.htm

Did you ever try the Scythe SCNJ-1000 "Ninja" heatpipe fanless cpu
cooler? It looks less bulky than the one you chose and the review I
read was favorable.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:23:55 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
>>L. Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Yes a cooling system necessarily has to be tied to the temp
>>of the cooled part.
>
>
> You *still* haven't understood that the there are *two* cooling
> systems, and the "cooled part" in one of them is the liquid.

In any design there are cost vs benefit considerations and the point here
is that if the cooling system is operational (as opposed to an experimental
design) then CPU temp provides the most benefit (for a cost that's already
included in virtually all modern motherboards) with little, if anything,
gained by adding the expense to also monitor water temp. If the water is
'over temp' then the CPU will be too so CPU monitoring catches the problem.
If the water is within spec, however, you still don't know if the CPU temp
is. It 'should be' but monitoring the CPU ensures it while water temp does not.

Using your logic of monitoring 'all the cooled parts' one could also demand
a radiator sensor as it's a 'cooled part' too. And while that, too, might
be a useful diagnostic tool for debugging the design it's an added cost to
an operational system that, again, adds little to the task of detecting a
general cooling system failure.

CPU temperature is sufficient to determine if it's doing the job, or not,
as that's the purpose of it, and all those other intermediate 'cooled
parts': to keep the CPU cool.

Now, another purpose past diagnostic that monitoring other parts might
serve is in detecting an impending failure 'earlier' so there's more time
to shut down but I don't know that's of much benefit to a typical PC.

I am assuming you're talking about a constant flow design and not trying
some kind of closed loop flow rate control.

>>Any avoidance of this is simply a
>>defective design. I"m not apathetic about your ramblings so
>>I'm done with this topic.
>
>
> Well I *am* apathetic about your ramblings, so I agree the
> topic is finish.
>

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> You *still* haven't understood that the there are *two* cooling
>> systems, and the "cooled part" in one of them is the liquid.

Given the length of this thread, and the lack of focus, I can
see why it is confusing...

>In any design there are cost vs benefit considerations and the
>point here is that if the cooling system is operational (as
>opposed to an experimental design)

Right. Of course what we are talking about *is* an experimental
design. One of a kind, first ever... This is *not* a drop in
pre-engineered and beta tested system.

Hence the point here is not what you apparently have addressed.
That makes most of your comments invalid for what we have been
looking at, even though they are indeed correct for what *you*
are talking about.

>then CPU temp provides the
>most benefit (for a cost that's already included in virtually
>all modern motherboards) with little, if anything, gained by

You missed the fact that we are discussing a system where the
*intention* is to reduce noise. That's the target: minimum
noise.

Which is to say, the goal posts aren't the same as it would
be for an overclocker or someone who simply wants to see a
water cooled cpu system functioning.

>adding the expense to also monitor water temp. If the water is

Note that the "expense" to also monitor water temperature,
assuming that the system monitors *any* temperature, is minimal.
Temperature probes cost a couple dollars. It might actually
cost 3-4 more bucks to mount a probe (for example in a water
jacket). Overall, it isn't a significant expense.

>'over temp' then the CPU will be too so CPU monitoring catches
>the problem. If the water is within spec, however, you still
>don't know if the CPU temp is. It 'should be' but monitoring the
>CPU ensures it while water temp does not.

But monitoring the CPU won't help decide when and how to reduce
the fan noise associated with cooling the water! Since that was
the entire point of this design, we it makes no sense to leave
out that part of the design.

>Using your logic of monitoring 'all the cooled parts' one could

NO, NO, *DO NOT* pin that crap on me. That was kony's statement,
which he then confuses because he doesn't realize how many
"cooled parts" there are! As I noted, the cpu is *not* the
only "cooled part".

>also demand a radiator sensor as it's a 'cooled part' too. And

Smart idea! (There is hope for you!)

Given that it cost only a couple bucks and some wire, it really
is a good idea to measure the water temperature going into and
coming out of any heat exchanger intended to change the water
temperature. That difference is what can be used to control the
fan noise with fine enough granularity to make a "quiet" system.

(Of course, since I'm a geeky kinda guy, I'll spend another $5
and measure the air temperature on each side of the heat
exchanger too, just because it makes a really interesting graph.)

>while that, too, might be a useful diagnostic tool for debugging
>the design it's an added cost to an operational system that,

Nobody has discussed adding that to an operational system which
is *not* trying to be super quiet. (Which is what I assume you
mean, because otherwise your statement doesn't make good sense.)

>again, adds little to the task of detecting a general cooling
>system failure.

Nobody has claimed that it has *anything* to do with "system
failure". Other than kuny's strawman claim that failure
detection systems were somehow intended to replace control
systems. In addition to not being able to separate the *two*
cooling systems (one for the cpu and one for the water), he also
could not separate failure monitoring from control monitoring.

>CPU temperature is sufficient to determine if it's doing the
>job, or not, as that's the purpose of it, and all those other
>intermediate 'cooled parts': to keep the CPU cool.

That simply isn't true. That isn't true even for systems that
overclockers want! It takes a significant amount of design
effort to balance the cooling such that each specific part that
is cooled gets exactly what it needs, and no more or no less.
Have you looked at some of the more complex systems? Water
jackets on disk drives and in power supplies, as well as on hot
chips!

There is no way to simply calculate that, throw a system
together, and end up with a optimal configuration. The
variation is in *how* it is monitored, not if.

For example, if software design is not part of the project (and
in fact not even all programmers are able to write the software
required, much less hardware hackers who don't do serious
programming), some of the manual probes might be used, or just
simple software, and only a few parameters measured at a time
over many tests to eventually compile a full set of data. It
will work just as well. But by the same token if complex
software design is part of the project, it doesn't cost
significantly more to monitor one or a couple *dozen*
temperature probes all at once!

>Now, another purpose past diagnostic that monitoring other parts
>might serve is in detecting an impending failure 'earlier' so
>there's more time to shut down but I don't know that's of much
>benefit to a typical PC.

It serves the purpose of controlling the noise making apparatus,
the fans, with much finer granularity.

>I am assuming you're talking about a constant flow design and
>not trying some kind of closed loop flow rate control.

You did assume something right! :-)

I suspect from what you have said that if you adjust to the
actual target here, you'll see some differences.

Of course, there are also other ways to reduce fan noise, and
one of those is to *not* use fans to cool the water. For
example, where I live the outside temperature is always low
enough to allow convection cooling if the heat exchanger is
large enough. Hence I could mount a large enough outdoor
radiator and probably not even use a fan to cool the water. A
relatively low speed (quiet) fan could then be the only fan
needed to keep the case temperature down.

Others have done things like bury a surge tank in the ground to
accomplish the same thing. It works well. (Heh, I could bury a
tank in the permafrost, and end up having to *heat* the incoming
coolant rather than cool it!)

In those cases the initial stages require metering, but once a
good data set is obtained there is little need to continue
monitoring (other than for curiosity). But the same is not
really true for any system using a fan to provide cooling for
the liquid as long as the objective is to control the fan for
minimum noise.

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

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>You *still* haven't understood that the there are *two* cooling
>>>systems, and the "cooled part" in one of them is the liquid.
>
>
> Given the length of this thread, and the lack of focus, I can
> see why it is confusing...

Near as I can tell the only 'confusion' is you changing the goal posts.

>>In any design there are cost vs benefit considerations and the
>>point here is that if the cooling system is operational (as
>>opposed to an experimental design)
>
>
> Right. Of course what we are talking about *is* an experimental
> design. One of a kind, first ever... This is *not* a drop in
> pre-engineered and beta tested system.

It appears to be what *you* are talking about, at least at this stage of
the game, but it wasn't what the original poster said with the rather
benign comment that he was "tossing around the idea of using a water
cooling system."

I suppose it's possible he meant to begin an extensive R&D project
inventing, as you now put it, a "One of a kind, first ever..." never been
done before experimental dynamic flow control water cooling system but it's
usually the case that when someone mentions "water cooling," with no
further clarification, they're speaking of something a bit more conventional.


> Hence the point here is not what you apparently have addressed.
> That makes most of your comments invalid for what we have been
> looking at,

Define "we."

> even though they are indeed correct for what *you*
> are talking about.
>
>
>>then CPU temp provides the
>>most benefit (for a cost that's already included in virtually
>>all modern motherboards) with little, if anything, gained by
>
>
> You missed the fact that we are discussing a system where the
> *intention* is to reduce noise. That's the target: minimum
> noise.

You have an annoying tendency to accuse people of 'missing' things simply
because they have a different opinion.

I didn't 'miss' it at all and, again, when people talk of minimizing noise
with a water cooling system they are generally speaking of the
conventional, well established, means of doing so.

This case might be different but, near as I can tell, no one has talked
about embarking on a nobel prize effort other than you.

> Which is to say, the goal posts aren't the same as it would
> be for an overclocker or someone who simply wants to see a
> water cooled cpu system functioning.

I rather suspect the original poster was contemplating a process that is
already known to work.

The point of contention began when, in response to the question of what
happens in the even of pump failure, you suggested that flow monitoring
would detect it and Kony suggested it was better to monitor the device
being cooled.

I imagine he presumed, since I would, that a poster in this news group is
not likely an 'enterprise' operation.

>>adding the expense to also monitor water temp. If the water is
>
>
> Note that the "expense" to also monitor water temperature,
> assuming that the system monitors *any* temperature, is minimal.
> Temperature probes cost a couple dollars. It might actually
> cost 3-4 more bucks to mount a probe (for example in a water
> jacket). Overall, it isn't a significant expense.

That assumes the motherboard has 'spare' temperature monitoring inputs and
that is certainly not universally true.

>>'over temp' then the CPU will be too so CPU monitoring catches
>>the problem. If the water is within spec, however, you still
>>don't know if the CPU temp is. It 'should be' but monitoring the
>>CPU ensures it while water temp does not.
>
>
> But monitoring the CPU won't help decide when and how to reduce
> the fan noise associated with cooling the water! Since that was
> the entire point of this design, we it makes no sense to leave
> out that part of the design.

Reinventing the wheel does, indeed, seem to be a part of your design but,
as I said, I'm not so sure the original poster had in mind becoming the
Thomas Edison of PC water cooling.

>>Using your logic of monitoring 'all the cooled parts' one could
>
>
> NO, NO, *DO NOT* pin that crap on me. That was kony's statement,

Kony never made any such statement. It came from your 'admonition' that the
water must be monitored because it's a "cooled part."


> which he then confuses because he doesn't realize how many
> "cooled parts" there are! As I noted, the cpu is *not* the
> only "cooled part".

Your assumption of what 'confuses' Kony is self serving nonsense.

I am sure that Kony made the reasonable assumption that when a posters says
he is "tossing around the idea of using a water cooling system" that they
mean the same kind of conventional water cooling system everyone else means
when they say it. And, under that criteria, his comment about monitoring
CPU temp is perfectly valid.


>>also demand a radiator sensor as it's a 'cooled part' too. And
>
>
> Smart idea! (There is hope for you!)
>
> Given that it cost only a couple bucks and some wire, it really
> is a good idea to measure the water temperature going into and
> coming out of any heat exchanger intended to change the water
> temperature.

Beyond the fact that not all motherboards have a spare input for your
'couple of bucks and some wire', anyone who's done an 'experimental' system
should know that nothing is 'a couple of bucks' by the time you finish
figuring out why it doesn't work as originally envisioned.

> That difference is what can be used to control the
> fan noise with fine enough granularity to make a "quiet" system.

That's a possibility. It's also possible that straight CPU temp fan control
would suffice. And then it's possible that simply using a large, fixed
speed, low RPM fan like everyone else does would be sufficient too.


> (Of course, since I'm a geeky kinda guy, I'll spend another $5
> and measure the air temperature on each side of the heat
> exchanger too, just because it makes a really interesting graph.)

Well, let's see, we're now up to at least 4 (water, radiator, exchanger air
inlet and outlet) 'spare' temperature inputs without even trying.

>>while that, too, might be a useful diagnostic tool for debugging
>>the design it's an added cost to an operational system that,
>
> Nobody has discussed adding that to an operational system which
> is *not* trying to be super quiet. (Which is what I assume you
> mean, because otherwise your statement doesn't make good sense.)

I didn't say anyone had discussed it. It's simply an example of how one can
monitor themselves to death as long as cost/benefit is of no consideration.
You did me two better with the inlet/oulet air temps.

>>again, adds little to the task of detecting a general cooling
>>system failure.
>
>
> Nobody has claimed that it has *anything* to do with "system
> failure".

In your eagerness to explain how others 'miss' things and get so 'confused'
you've lost track of the discussion. The discussion between you and Kony of
what to monitor began in response to "What do you think about the pump
stopping, though. First it will fry the components."

Sounds like a failure to me.

> Other than kuny's strawman claim that failure
> detection systems were somehow intended to replace control
> systems.

The strawman is yours as Kony never made such a claim.

> In addition to not being able to separate the *two*
> cooling systems (one for the cpu and one for the water), he also
> could not separate failure monitoring from control monitoring.

It's you who haven't been able to separate what someone says from what you
misinterpret.

>>CPU temperature is sufficient to determine if it's doing the
>>job, or not, as that's the purpose of it, and all those other
>>intermediate 'cooled parts': to keep the CPU cool.
>
>
> That simply isn't true. That isn't true even for systems that
> overclockers want!

Of course it's true.

> It takes a significant amount of design
> effort to balance the cooling such that each specific part that
> is cooled gets exactly what it needs, and no more or no less.

Nonsense. There is no problem with 'overcooling' one of the components.

> Have you looked at some of the more complex systems? Water
> jackets on disk drives and in power supplies, as well as on hot
> chips!

Yes. And I assure you they didn't worry about any of them getting 'more
cooling' that what it 'needs', just as you won't find air blocks in your
typical ventilated case because, "Oh my god, the northbridge is only 4C
above ambient without one."

> There is no way to simply calculate that,

Sure there is. Watts in, watts out.

> throw a system
> together, and end up with a optimal configuration. The
> variation is in *how* it is monitored, not if.

For your 'one of a kind never been done before' experimental R&D project,
yes, assuming anyone wants to embark on it.

> For example, if software design is not part of the project (and
> in fact not even all programmers are able to write the software
> required, much less hardware hackers who don't do serious
> programming),

That should be a pretty dern good clue that your average everyday home PC
user didn't have this in mind when they said they were "tossing around the
idea of using a water cooling system." Or, if they did, you should be
warning them about the magnitude of the effort.

> some of the manual probes might be used, or just
> simple software, and only a few parameters measured at a time
> over many tests to eventually compile a full set of data. It
> will work just as well. But by the same token if complex
> software design is part of the project, it doesn't cost
> significantly more to monitor one or a couple *dozen*
> temperature probes all at once!

Yeah. I've heard that one before. "Now that we're hip deep in [complex
software design] costs we'd never planned for then piling more on won't hurt."

>>Now, another purpose past diagnostic that monitoring other parts
>>might serve is in detecting an impending failure 'earlier' so
>>there's more time to shut down but I don't know that's of much
>>benefit to a typical PC.
>
>
> It serves the purpose of controlling the noise making apparatus,
> the fans, with much finer granularity.

You have yet to establish any required degree of granularity.

>>I am assuming you're talking about a constant flow design and
>>not trying some kind of closed loop flow rate control.
>
>
> You did assume something right! :-)
>
> I suspect from what you have said that if you adjust to the
> actual target here, you'll see some differences.

It should be obvious I know both ends of the matter but I suspect you've
way over estimated what a normal person means when they're "tossing around
the idea of using a water cooling system."

Btw, not that I want to get into designing one but, considering the
potential thermal lag in the water cycle it might be better to use
electronic component temps to control the loop anyway. Especially since
it's 'free'.

<snip of more design theories>

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>> Given the length of this thread, and the lack of focus, I can
>> see why it is confusing...
>
>Near as I can tell the only 'confusion' is you changing the goal posts.

Same goal posts that I have been talking about all along, with
kony and others. Your refusal to take a look and see what you
missed is noted. Your inexperience with water cooling
electronics is also obvious.

>You have an annoying tendency to accuse people of 'missing'
>things simply because they have a different opinion.

I have the annoying habit of pointing out facts. You had
*clearly* missed a great deal of the discussion, and have done
*nothing* to change that situation. Why do you expect me to
waste time if you won't read the history? It has crossed over
two or three *other* subject headers too, and there have been
several people involved. Google is your friend, *use* *it*.

>Btw, not that I want to get into designing one but, considering
>the potential thermal lag in the water cycle it might be better
>to use electronic component temps to control the loop
>anyway. Especially since it's 'free'.

Not that you have any experience at all, or know anything
about it. Right?

Whatever, if you actually want to discuss this, read the other
messages first. Only when you can at least get half the facts
correct and land on the same sheet of music will I bother.

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

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

Ah yes, the ever so popular and an oh so subtle as a nuclear flash on a
moonless night technique of snipping all context, mischaracterization,
innuendo and baseless ad hominem.

>>>Given the length of this thread, and the lack of focus, I can
>>>see why it is confusing...
>>
>>Near as I can tell the only 'confusion' is you changing the goal posts.
>
>
> Same goal posts that I have been talking about all along, with
> kony and others.

You may have had it in your mind but no one else did, till it became your
'argument', and you never gave any clue about it either till mounting one
of your attacks. And I already provided your own words showing so.

> Your refusal to take a look and see what you
> missed is noted. Your inexperience with water cooling
> electronics is also obvious.

Then you've again imagined the non existent and if anything's obvious it's
that you were unable to deal with the content of my previous message.

>>You have an annoying tendency to accuse people of 'missing'
>>things simply because they have a different opinion.
>
>
> I have the annoying habit of pointing out facts. You had
> *clearly* missed a great deal of the discussion, and have done
> *nothing* to change that situation. Why do you expect me to
> waste time if you won't read the history? It has crossed over
> two or three *other* subject headers too, and there have been
> several people involved. Google is your friend, *use* *it*.

My quoting of the original post as well as your own reply to it is a heck
of a lot more 'factual' than your fatuitous self aggrandizing declarations.

>>Btw, not that I want to get into designing one but, considering
>>the potential thermal lag in the water cycle it might be better
>>to use electronic component temps to control the loop
>>anyway. Especially since it's 'free'.
>
>
> Not that you have any experience at all, or know anything
> about it. Right?

Since you obviously haven't a clue as to what I may or may not know that's
baseless nonsense. But I'll give you one hint. I know how to run an R&D
project and the first thing one needs is a specification.

And "I've been tossing around the idea of using a water cooling system"
isn't one nor does it specify a "one of a kind" never been done before
dynamic flow control system regardless of what you rashly presumed.

I was giving you the perspective Kony was coming from but you're so self
absorbed you can't even comprehend what someone else is saying.

> Whatever, if you actually want to discuss this, read the other
> messages first.

Already did the first time around.

> Only when you can at least get half the facts
> correct and land on the same sheet of music will I bother.

Don't bother. By the time you get half way started there won't be enough
sensors left on the market for anyone else anyway.

God help anyone who even mentions they're looking for a watch. You'll be
off buying cesium and designing a new 'one of a kind' never been done
before atomic clock before they have a chance to mention they just want a
pocket watch.

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>Near as I can tell the only 'confusion' is you changing the goal posts.
>> Same goal posts that I have been talking about all along, with
>> kony and others.
>
>You may have had it in your mind but no one else did, till it
>became your 'argument', and you never gave any clue about it
>either till mounting one of your attacks. And I already provided
>your own words showing so.

Here, for your edification, is my initial comment on this subject,
in Message-ID: <877jfwg6lj.fld@barrow.com>, posted 6 days ago.

You'll note where the goal post was then, and what we have been
discussing every since, with the exception of your comments.

"Frank" <Frank@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Just want to know if anyone has one of these 100+ cfm sunon or panaflo
>fans. I'd like to know how loud exactly they can be a full speed and how
>quite and performing they can be at minimum revs.
>My application is to cool a watercooling HW Labs xtreme radiator. I went
>watercooling to have a dead silent pc and not to overclock in general. So
>the fan would always be at minimum revs and maybe turn it off if temps are
>not too high. But when gaming, i'd like to have full power and noise would
>be less of a factor but still, I don't want a vaccum cleaner in my pc. I've
>heard these fans a screaming loud.
>Just want real life opinions about these. Other fan suggestions are welcomed
>too.
>Thanks

Regardless of the fan(s) you use, have you looked at the
Crystalfontz CF633 units? It can do two things your system
needs, 1) monitor temperature probes and 2) control fans.

Which is to say, it can be used to throttle those screaming loud
fans right down to nothing when they aren't needed.

It takes a bit of non-trivial software development, but a water
cooled system controlled by a CF633 can monitor temperatures in
a number of locations (coolant and air), and automatically
adjust the fan speed to the heat load. It also has failsafe
shutdown hardware for ATX power supplies.

Now, it should be clear that in three short paragraphs in the
very first article I posted in this discussion, several items
were mentioned that you have since claimed have never been
discussed mentioned.

If you had, when politely asked, brought yourself up to date on
what had already been discussed enough to at least know what we
were talking about you might not have posted quite as much
misguided commentary as you have.

Instead, here you are looking a little lost...

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

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Your refusal to take a look and see what you
>> missed is noted. Your inexperience with water cooling
>> electronics is also obvious.
>
>Then you've again imagined the non existent and if anything's
>obvious it's that you were unable to deal with the content of my
>previous message.

BTW, despite your inability to notice what the subject line says
this thread is all about, or notice that the discussion was a
continuation of another thread, you probably *should* have
noticed that I am not the only person posting that actually does
have experience building quiet cooling systems.

Here's the last comment made in this thread by stormrider, who
did read the entire exchange and does have enough experience to
understand what was being said:

"And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled
this time."
stormrider
Message-ID: <6YTBe.23528$eM6.6479@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink .net>

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:54:22 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
L. Davidson) wrote:

>David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> Your refusal to take a look and see what you
>>> missed is noted. Your inexperience with water cooling
>>> electronics is also obvious.
>>
>>Then you've again imagined the non existent and if anything's
>>obvious it's that you were unable to deal with the content of my
>>previous message.
>
>BTW, despite your inability to notice what the subject line says
>this thread is all about, or notice that the discussion was a
>continuation of another thread, you probably *should* have
>noticed that I am not the only person posting that actually does
>have experience building quiet cooling systems.
>
>Here's the last comment made in this thread by stormrider, who
>did read the entire exchange and does have enough experience to
>understand what was being said:
>
> "And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled
> this time."
> stormrider
> Message-ID: <6YTBe.23528$eM6.6479@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink .net>


This is supposed to be evidence of what?

A system NOT implemented yet, not even in alpha stage of
testing, only your ramblings about a concept when an
expressed goal of low noise is extremely easy without any of
this time and expense.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Near as I can tell the only 'confusion' is you changing the goal posts.
>>>
>>>Same goal posts that I have been talking about all along, with
>>>kony and others.
>>
>>You may have had it in your mind but no one else did, till it
>>became your 'argument', and you never gave any clue about it
>>either till mounting one of your attacks. And I already provided
>>your own words showing so.
>
>
> Here, for your edification, is my initial comment on this subject,
> in Message-ID: <877jfwg6lj.fld@barrow.com>, posted 6 days ago.
>
> You'll note where the goal post was then, and what we have been
> discussing every since, with the exception of your comments.
>
> "Frank" <Frank@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Just want to know if anyone has one of these 100+ cfm sunon or panaflo
> >fans. I'd like to know how loud exactly they can be a full speed and how
> >quite and performing they can be at minimum revs.
> >My application is to cool a watercooling HW Labs xtreme radiator. I went
> >watercooling to have a dead silent pc and not to overclock in general. So
> >the fan would always be at minimum revs and maybe turn it off if temps are
> >not too high. But when gaming, i'd like to have full power and noise would
> >be less of a factor but still, I don't want a vaccum cleaner in my pc. I've
> >heard these fans a screaming loud.
> >Just want real life opinions about these. Other fan suggestions are welcomed
> >too.
> >Thanks
>
> Regardless of the fan(s) you use, have you looked at the
> Crystalfontz CF633 units? It can do two things your system
> needs, 1) monitor temperature probes and 2) control fans.
>
> Which is to say, it can be used to throttle those screaming loud
> fans right down to nothing when they aren't needed.
>
> It takes a bit of non-trivial software development, but a water
> cooled system controlled by a CF633 can monitor temperatures in
> a number of locations (coolant and air), and automatically
> adjust the fan speed to the heat load. It also has failsafe
> shutdown hardware for ATX power supplies.
>
> Now, it should be clear that in three short paragraphs in the
> very first article I posted in this discussion, several items
> were mentioned that you have since claimed have never been
> discussed mentioned.

That's your 'first article' in another thread, not this one, to a different
person about a different component, unless you've lost sight of a fan not
being a pump.


> If you had, when politely asked, brought yourself up to date on
> what had already been discussed enough to at least know what we
> were talking about you might not have posted quite as much
> misguided commentary as you have.

What "Frank" may have wanted has nothing to do with what Stormrider, the
originator of this thread, may have wanted nor does it have anything to do
with your reply to his question.

So what's your point? That the only thought your mind is capable of
handling is a 'one of a kind' never been done before R&D project regardless
of what anyone else asks or talks about? Or is it that folks need to google
every thread you've ever been in to gleen your universal one track 'goal'?


>
> Instead, here you are looking a little lost...
>

No, you're looking desperate.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>> Your refusal to take a look and see what you
>>>missed is noted. Your inexperience with water cooling
>>>electronics is also obvious.
>>
>>Then you've again imagined the non existent and if anything's
>>obvious it's that you were unable to deal with the content of my
>>previous message.
>
>
> BTW, despite your inability to notice what the subject line says
> this thread is all about,

You really should stop trying to 'guess' what people notice because you're
lousy at it.

The subject line says "a silent air cooled computer project" and last time
I checked air isn't water.

> or notice that the discussion was a
> continuation of another thread,

And other than you being so one track minded you can't speak of anything
else just exactly how is a pristine post by a different user with a
completely different topic the 'continuation' of another thread?

> you probably *should* have
> noticed that I am not the only person posting that actually does
> have experience building quiet cooling systems.

Oh I did. It's just a shame you didn't.

> Here's the last comment made in this thread by stormrider, who
> did read the entire exchange and does have enough experience to
> understand what was being said:
>
> "And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled
> this time."
> stormrider
> Message-ID: <6YTBe.23528$eM6.6479@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink .net>
>

ROTFLOL

Well, let's see the rest of it, shall we? The part before that cute little
cull.

"The more I think about it the less I like the idea of leaks and the
potential maintanence headaches of water cooling, so it will most likely be
air cooled.
I am playing with the idea of custom air ducts and double sound padding.
And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled this time."

Gonna be a real bitch monitoring water temp in an all air system.

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Now, it should be clear that in three short paragraphs in the
>> very first article I posted in this discussion, several items
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> were mentioned that you have since claimed have never been
>> discussed mentioned.
>
>That's your 'first article' in another thread, not this one, to
>a different person about a different component, unless you've
>lost sight of a fan not being a pump.

The *discussion* didn't start with this particular thread, and
if you won't read the entire discussion you simply can't make
pertinent comments. Moreover, this particular subject line did
*not* start with the article you claimed was the original post
(and now you are acknowledging a *different* OP than you claimed
before!).

In the original thread there were 17 posts, by 4 authors, and
kony and I accounted for 13 of those articles. The last post
under that subject line was dated

Date: Wed Jul 13 19:14:40 2005 -0800

And then stormrider moved the discussion to a new subject line:
(Actually, stormrider just posted it, and kony moved the discussion
to this thread.)

Subject: a silent air cooled computer project
Message-ID: <2ZkBe.10031$aY6.3718@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink .net>
Date: Wed Jul 13 19:27:58 2005 -0800

Note the time relationship. And then a few hours later the
article you claimed several times was the "original post":

From: "Beall" <k.beallNOSPAM@mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: a silent air cooled computer project
Date: Thu Jul 14 02:53:41 2005 -0800

The discussion had been going on for nearly 3 days, with almost
20 articles, by the time that was posted! There have been 13
authors since, posting a total of 46 articles under that subject
title, and clearly you have only read those in the smallest
splinter of the entire discussion, less than one third of the
discussion. It is little wonder that your articles are so
factually off base in regard to context that they don't make
sense.

Like I said, get your facts at least 50% straight, and we can
have a serious discussion. But I'm not going to go through your
285 line pile of drivel and point out ever 10 lines that the
previous ten lines are out of context, factually incorrect, and
otherwise fabrications of your imagination.

>So what's your point? That the only thought your mind is capable
>of handling is a 'one of a kind' never been done before R&D
>project regardless of what anyone else asks or talks about? Or

That is what has been *asked* about. If you had read the entire
discussion that would be obvious. You can't expect to enter into
the middle of a discussion without having read the basic blocks
on which it is built. That is particularly true when it is a
technical subject that *you* have little or no experience with.

>is it that folks need to google every thread you've ever been in
>to gleen your universal one track 'goal'?

How cute! First you accused me of moving the goal posts, and
when that is shown to be false... here you are *now*
complaining that I just have a "one track 'goal'"! Logically,
that kind of bickering doesn't fly well. It makes you appear to
lack one or the other of integrity or comprehension.


>> Instead, here you are looking a little lost...
>
>No, you're looking desperate.

I was being kind.

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

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:54:22 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
>L. Davidson) wrote:
>>Here's the last comment made in this thread by stormrider, who
>>did read the entire exchange and does have enough experience to
>>understand what was being said:
>>
>> "And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled
>> this time."
>> stormrider
>> Message-ID: <6YTBe.23528$eM6.6479@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink .net>
>
>This is supposed to be evidence of what?

The different reaction from someone who *has* experience,
compared to kony and Maynard, who don't.

>A system NOT implemented yet, not even in alpha stage of
>testing, only your ramblings about a concept when an

Unlike you, I'm not talking about something that I've never
implemented.

>expressed goal of low noise is extremely easy without any of
>this time and expense.

Try it, and then come back and we'll talk.

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

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> BTW, despite your inability to notice what the subject line
>> says
>> this thread is all about,
>
>You really should stop trying to 'guess' what people notice
>because you're lousy at it.

Nobody is guessing, because *you* made it so obvious. When
*you* claim that a thread with a subject line about "silent"
cooling projects is *not* about how to silence fan noise, there
is little choice but to realize that you've missed quite it bit.

>The subject line says "a silent air cooled computer project" and
>last time I checked air isn't water.
>
>> or notice that the discussion was a
>> continuation of another thread,
>
>And other than you being so one track minded you can't speak of

So if you can't support your claim that I'm moving the goal post,
you rale that I'm not. (Do you have any integrity at all?)

>anything else just exactly how is a pristine post by a different
>user with a completely different topic the 'continuation' of
>another thread?

That is very common on Usenet. (You missed that too???)

>> you probably *should* have
>> noticed that I am not the only person posting that actually does
>> have experience building quiet cooling systems.
>
>Oh I did. It's just a shame you didn't.

Chest thumping is great for gorillas in the jungle.

>> Here's the last comment made in this thread by stormrider, who
>> did read the entire exchange and does have enough experience to
>> understand what was being said:
>> "And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled
>> this time."
>> stormrider
>> Message-ID: <6YTBe.23528$eM6.6479@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink .net>
>>
>
>ROTFLOL
>
>Well, let's see the rest of it, shall we? The part before that
>cute little cull.
>
>"The more I think about it the less I like the idea of leaks and the
>potential maintanence headaches of water cooling, so it will most likely be
>air cooled.
>I am playing with the idea of custom air ducts and double sound padding.
>And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled this time."
>
>Gonna be a real bitch monitoring water temp in an all air system.

Oh goodness, now you'll be able to accuse me again of moving the
goal posts. You probably should have (as I've suggested to you
several times) read the previous discussion. I have in *no*
*way* advocated that water cooling is necessarily the "right",
the "best", the "quietest" or anything other than complex and
fun. Actually I've suggested that most people probably *don't*
want to try it, simply because it is none of those.

The topic has been how to silence *fans*. It makes little
difference whether there is a water system or not. Just one
more thing, besides the topic itself, that you've missed.

You miss a lot, don't you?

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:40:14 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
L. Davidson) wrote:


>Chest thumping is great for gorillas in the jungle.
>


LOL

I'll take your word for it!

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>Now, it should be clear that in three short paragraphs in the
>>>very first article I posted in this discussion, several items
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>>were mentioned that you have since claimed have never been
>>>discussed mentioned.
>>
>>That's your 'first article' in another thread, not this one, to
>>a different person about a different component, unless you've
>>lost sight of a fan not being a pump.
>
>
> The *discussion* didn't start with this particular thread,

This thread started with this thread and I've got some disappointing news
for you. Every 'discussion' isn't attached to your butt.

> and
> if you won't read the entire discussion you simply can't make
> pertinent comments.

When reading a thread I'm not going to search the entire newsgroup for
everything you may have posted elsewhere simply because you think wherever
you've been is 'the discussion'.

> Moreover, this particular subject line did
> *not* start with the article you claimed was the original post

Yes. it did.

> (and now you are acknowledging a *different* OP than you claimed
> before!).

False. And your inability to understand the difference between which post
"started" a thread vs which post you first "replied" to is your problem,
not mine.

>
> In the original thread there were 17 posts, by 4 authors, and
> kony and I accounted for 13 of those articles. The last post
> under that subject line was dated
>
> Date: Wed Jul 13 19:14:40 2005 -0800
>
> And then stormrider moved the discussion

"Stormrider" didn't 'move' a damn thing. He started his own thread of his
own topic regarding "a silent air cooled computer project" and wasn't even
in the one you claim began 'the discussion'.


> to a new subject line:
> (Actually, stormrider just posted it, and kony moved the discussion
> to this thread.)
>
> Subject: a silent air cooled computer project
> Message-ID: <2ZkBe.10031$aY6.3718@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink .net>
> Date: Wed Jul 13 19:27:58 2005 -0800
>
> Note the time relationship. And then a few hours later the
> article you claimed several times was the "original post":
>
> From: "Beall" <k.beallNOSPAM@mchsi.com>
> Subject: Re: a silent air cooled computer project
> Date: Thu Jul 14 02:53:41 2005 -0800

So now your ego centric, self centered, mind claim