18x worse as far as viscosity, but not thermal transfer.
on another note, the article has been up less than an hour and I already have one email:
Quote:
Hi there,
I just read your very interesting article, and I saw the section about water and flow, and your statements about the radiator. I don't agree on that one 100%. While you are right in your assumption about the time spent in the radiator (the racing car analog) I think you forget that the car will use much more fuel in order to spend the same time on the stretch.
In a closed loop water cooling system you will have the same flow of water but not necessarely the same speed. If you lower the speed in the radiator (relatively to the rest of the system) the water will stay longer in the radiator and thus become more effective. With your statement, speed doesn't matter as the water will spend the same time in the radiator anyway. While this is correct, my take is that when the water passes for instance twice per minute (and thus spend the same time as with the lower speed) it also passes the heat source (CPU) twice. As the water absorbs heat twice instead of once, it will lead to a less efficient radiator.
The conclusion is that yes if you have the SAME speed everywhere in the system, changing it up or down will not make a huge difference, but if you have a relatively lower speed in the radiator (maintaining the same speed in the CPU-block), it will have a positive impact on the radiator performance. If you take a look in this document from our 1st generation WaterChill, you will see that it takes a 10x increase in flow in order to see some impact - so we do agree on that one  http://www.asetek.com/DownloadArea/M...eport_v1.1.pdf
Again your article was interesting reading, and we do have to fight the same myths on an everyday base
Best regards,
André
asetek Inc.
|
how do we go about handling this, when the manuf. is believing in myths?