Any news on the cascade xxx? - Page 7

9mmCensor · 05-09-2004, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathar

Okay, it's really late here and I probably shouldn't give even this much of a hint away, but here it is with my mind being tired and all. Nature is such a wonderful teacher.

"What is one of the most violently turbulent and destructive forces in nature?"

The sun?
Fusion?

Cathar · 05-09-2004, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groth

And it has to swirl faster if you taper your chamber towards the outlet (conservation of angular momentum).

...and...what happens after that...?

9mmCensor · 05-09-2004, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathar

...and...what happens after that...?

The water reaches relitivistic speeds, and reaches aboslute zero, right?

murray13 · 05-09-2004, 10:50 PM

Stew, it will be interesting to see how you integrated a 'tornado' affect into the Cascade.

Actually the most destructive 'natural' force on earth is lightning (per area).

Still, can't wait to see the Cascade Tornado.

Groth · 05-09-2004, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathar

...and...what happens after that...?

Well, if you get swirling really fast, centrifugal force opens up a partial vacuum in the center, which means more of your water molecules are closer to the metal, plus a small amount phase change fun. Of course you still have the overall goodness of higher pressure and higher velocity at your boundary layer.

Cathar · 05-09-2004, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groth

Well, if you get swirling really fast, centrifugal force opens up a partial vacuum in the center, which means more of your water molecules are closer to the metal, plus a small amount phase change fun. Of course you still have the overall goodness of higher pressure and higher velocity at your boundary layer.

No vacuums - we don't want the water to cavitate leaving dry spots on the metal - besides - the pumping power required to effectuate a phase-change on water in these conditions is significantly greater than what hobbyist pumps can achieve.

Groth · 05-10-2004, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathar

No vacuums

Ahh, yer no fun!

jlrii · 05-10-2004, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAlpaca

Ooh! I know! Mini spirals! (Slaps self, so others don't have to) jlrii: If you're forcing the spiral, it's irrelevant.

Twas' but a joke

AngryAlpaca · 05-10-2004, 05:51 PM

I should have realized that from a mile off.

We want vacuums! Hmm... I think meteors are more destructive than most other things, as destruction is much larger. Just because they are more rare does not make them less destructive. However, I cannot see how this would be applied to watercooling (little copper pellets shooting at high speeds?)

jlrii · 05-10-2004, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAlpaca

I should have realized that from a mile off.

We want vacuums! Hmm... I think meteors are more destructive than most other things, as destruction is much larger. Just because they are more rare does not make them less destructive. However, I cannot see how this would be applied to watercooling (little copper pellets shooting at high speeds?)

Iread some where about experiments going on trying to increase the heat carrying capacity by adding copper nano-particals

Groth · 05-10-2004, 08:40 PM

Yeah, those are some cool experiments. The suspended copper would work especially well with a whirlpool/tornado block -- the centrifugal forces would push the copper to the outside and into the boundary layer where you want it. The trick is to use a low enough concentration so that you don't have so much copper accumulate such that you end up with a zone of shear-thickening fluid lining your block's passages.

BillA · 05-10-2004, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groth

Yeah, those are some cool experiments. The suspended copper would work especially well with a whirlpool/tornado block -- the centrifugal forces would push the copper to the outside and into the boundary layer where you want it. The trick is to use a low enough concentration so that you don't have so much copper accumulate such that you end up with a zone of shear-thickening fluid lining your block's passages.

and this would be done how ?
you could make the sg the same as copper, but then the viscosity goes to hell, . . . . .
however there is a solution, patented of course

AngryAlpaca · 05-10-2004, 09:01 PM

Of course there's a solution. There's always a solution, and it's usually found by someone outside of PC watercooling. Patented by whom? I personally think that instead of focussing on crack-headed-copper-suspended-in-some-sort-of-liquid solutions, we should be working on the block designs, like Cathar is. It seems that everyone everywhere has looked for a fluid better than water, but I don't know of anyone finding any. sg means what? I looked it up and I found "specific heat" but I'm not sure how that's relevant, as copper doesn't have the greatest of that.

Groth · 05-10-2004, 09:51 PM

sg = specific gravity

I wouldn't mess with viscosity or specific gravity. I'd experimently determine a curve for benefit vs copper amount for my system.

What patent?

AngryAlpaca · 05-10-2004, 10:03 PM

So density as opposed to water, as I understand it? What is the point of making the liquid the same density of copper? Wouldn't the point of using copper be to utilize the high conduction, and not worry about corrosion?

Groth · 05-10-2004, 10:19 PM

A higher specific gravity fluid would decrease the tendency of the copper to be centrifugally separated out of the fluid in the highly swirly sections -- you want some copper suspended in the boundary layer, not a layer of powdered copper coating your heat transfer surfaces. Note: this is only an issue for the theoretical fast spinning tornado blocks.

BillA · 05-10-2004, 10:44 PM

aw, both headed in the wrong direction
come on now:
so if the medium's sg is the same, then . . . . .

Groth · 05-10-2004, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unregistered

aw, both headed in the wrong direction
come on now

I'd head over to your house and give you a swift kick in the rear for being so annoyingly abstruse, except that I do the same damn thing.

I haven't the faintest idea where you're trying to lead me, more hints please.

jlrii · 05-11-2004, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unregistered

and this would be done how ?
you could make the sg the same as copper, but then the viscosity goes to hell, . . . . .
however there is a solution, patented of course

Ahhtook me 15 min to find a relevent article...HERE ...$$$??? says up to a 40% increase in thermal conductivity HERE

AngryAlpaca · 05-11-2004, 08:27 AM

Quote:

so if the medium's sg is the same, then . . . . .

Then what? You've got a fluid that can move through your tubing, but probably sucks at removing heat?

05-10-2004, 05:51 PM	#129
AngryAlpaca Cooling Savant Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 631	I should have realized that from a mile off. We want vacuums! Hmm... I think meteors are more destructive than most other things, as destruction is much larger. Just because they are more rare does not make them less destructive. However, I cannot see how this would be applied to watercooling (little copper pellets shooting at high speeds?) Last edited by AngryAlpaca; 05-10-2004 at 07:07 PM.

05-09-2004, 10:50 PM	#124
murray13 Cooling Savant Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Omaha, NE USA Posts: 216	Stew, it will be interesting to see how you integrated a 'tornado' affect into the Cascade. Actually the most destructive 'natural' force on earth is lightning (per area). Still, can't wait to see the Cascade Tornado.

05-10-2004, 08:40 PM	#131
Groth Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: MO Posts: 781	Yeah, those are some cool experiments. The suspended copper would work especially well with a whirlpool/tornado block -- the centrifugal forces would push the copper to the outside and into the boundary layer where you want it. The trick is to use a low enough concentration so that you don't have so much copper accumulate such that you end up with a zone of shear-thickening fluid lining your block's passages.

05-10-2004, 09:01 PM	#133
AngryAlpaca Cooling Savant Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 631	Of course there's a solution. There's always a solution, and it's usually found by someone outside of PC watercooling. Patented by whom? I personally think that instead of focussing on crack-headed-copper-suspended-in-some-sort-of-liquid solutions, we should be working on the block designs, like Cathar is. It seems that everyone everywhere has looked for a fluid better than water, but I don't know of anyone finding any. sg means what? I looked it up and I found "specific heat" but I'm not sure how that's relevant, as copper doesn't have the greatest of that.

05-10-2004, 09:51 PM	#134
Groth Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: MO Posts: 781	sg = specific gravity I wouldn't mess with viscosity or specific gravity. I'd experimently determine a curve for benefit vs copper amount for my system. What patent?

05-10-2004, 10:03 PM	#135
AngryAlpaca Cooling Savant Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 631	So density as opposed to water, as I understand it? What is the point of making the liquid the same density of copper? Wouldn't the point of using copper be to utilize the high conduction, and not worry about corrosion?

05-10-2004, 10:19 PM	#136
Groth Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: MO Posts: 781	A higher specific gravity fluid would decrease the tendency of the copper to be centrifugally separated out of the fluid in the highly swirly sections -- you want some copper suspended in the boundary layer, not a layer of powdered copper coating your heat transfer surfaces. Note: this is only an issue for the theoretical fast spinning tornado blocks.

05-10-2004, 10:44 PM	#137
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	aw, both headed in the wrong direction come on now: so if the medium's sg is the same, then . . . . .

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)