backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by Archmaille.. on Jun 16 at 4:29 PM


The OCZ Hydrajet cooler, featured upside-down to reaveal the carbon nanotube conductor. (Source DailyTech, Anh Huynh)
The OCZ Hydrojet cooler uses an advanced heatsink material

The first heatsink to make use of directional carbon nanotubes, the OCZ Hydrojet, was on display at Computex 2007. Carbon nanotubes, an allotrope of carbon, are widely regarded as the next major thermal interface material because of their superior thermal conduction properties.  

The contact base of the OCZ Hydrojet is made completely of carbon-nanotubes, which OCZ claims are five times more efficient than copper. Carbon nanotubes have been looked upon as a strong alternative to traditional copper based heatsinks. They are ideal for application in heat transfer products because of their impressive heat-conduction properties.  Carbon nanotube based interfaces have been shown to conduct more heat than conventional thermal interface materials at the same temperatures. In addition, they have shown to be ballistic conductors at room temperature, which means electrons can flow through CNTs without collisions.

Carbon nanotubes are small wire-like structures made out of a sheet of graphene.  The sheet of graphene used to construct CNTs is roughly one-atom thick, and is rolled up into a cylinder. The diameter of the cylinder ranges in the nanometers.

Unlike most other thermal materials, carbon nanotubes are able to move heat in one direction. On the other hand, copper, which is looked upon as one of the more superior thermal materials, moves heat radially. In the case of CNTs, heat is moved along the alignment of the nanotubes.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Mm,, interesting
By tuteja1986 on 6/9/2007 3:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
What does this mean in real term cooling... Will i be able to cool my E6600 @ 3.9GHz below 30C




RE: Mm,, interesting
By UppityMatt on 6/9/2007 5:04:27 AM , Rating: 3
Whats the point? If your spending $300 on a Cooler to overclock... Just use that 300 to buy a faster processor model. I learned this the hard way by investing a little over 250 on a water cooling system by thermaltake. The gains i made from the water were not as substantial as just upgrading to a higher end processor. And then the pump went out and long story short i spent a hell of alot more. Its going to take quite a few reuses on your system to pay out.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By CplGaydar on 6/9/2007 6:14:06 AM , Rating: 4
With all due respect - if you spent 250 dollars on a watercooling system from THERMALTAKE, you clearly didn't do any research.

It's certainly true that with the new Core 2 Duo chip, watercooling brings LESS of a gain than it otherwise would have. However, the Thermaltake watercooling systems are so woefully inadequate that it's not surprising you didn't get the results you wanted; the pump (on the most powerful system) outputs at a mere 500 Litres/Hr, compared to the 1200l/hr or 1500l/hr on most custom-built systems; the tubes are 3/8" rather than the less restrictive 1/2", the radiators are poorly designed and use ALUMINIUM, which is a joke, and the waterblocks have been described as 'archaic'.

Apologies for the off-topic, but you can't just slate watercooling because you had one bad experience.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By PlasmaBomb on 6/9/2007 6:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
It also depends what you are into, some people don't really need the performance and overclock for the challenge and enjoyment. Some people just like to have high end kit or something a bit different from the normal.

Don't forget if this is successful the prices will drop and you could well end up owning a CNT cooler in the future.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/10/2007 4:30:59 PM , Rating: 3
I use watercooling and I dont overclock anything in my system at all. I do it for 2 reasons. First: noise. When my computer is on, its dead silent (I use a reserator; nothing but good things to say. the only moving fan is 135mm silent power supply fan). Second: its just fun. Working inside my computer is kind of a hobby.

This kind of product (nanotube) may be the kind of thing that allows for silent/passive cooling systems WITHOUT water. I mean, if my water cooling system ever gave out and there was a simply non-water, silent replacement for roughly the same cost, I would buy it. I dont think I'm alone when I say that I've HAD the computer that sounds like a jet taking off, but I'm never going back.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Archmaille on 6/16/2007 4:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
See that's funny I use water cooling for the exact same reason! Well it's also nice to know that my computer will last much longer since enough though overclocked by 500mhz still runs cooler than it did with a Zalman CNPS9700. My system is dead silent and I love it (well, other than the four Delta TFB1212GHE fans that each put off 65 decibels)

Okay obviously I'm kidding about my computer running silent, but yes this shows two extremes of why someone might choose a more expensive water cooling setup. Mojo the Monkey here has it for silent operation, I on the other hand have it for extreme overclocking purposes. Sure I paid $500 for my water cooling setup, but seeing that my 3700+ is running at 30° C while at 2.7ghz is just plain awesome! If I can get better cooling from something that costs the same/less I say bring it on!!!


RE: Mm,, interesting
By xsilver on 6/9/2007 6:30:06 AM , Rating: 3
I agree that thermaltake = crap water cooling
but you do you have to admit that watercooling will never become mainstream - too many potential problems/costs for small gains. especially now that regular air cooling has kicked it up a notch with heatpipes and whatnot.

but true - if this thing is going to cost $100+ - it will be hard to market to a large audience.
personally I think the thermalright ultra 120 is already too expensive. (eg. like the OP said you could just get a better cpu for the $$ instead)


RE: Mm,, interesting
By CplGaydar on 6/9/2007 8:46:13 AM , Rating: 5
If you would rather spend money on a better processor, you're clearly not an overclocker. If you're not an overclocker, you're not going to spend £40 (around 80 in monopoly money) on a heatsink; because there would be no need to do so. So the whole 'might as well spend the money on a better CPU' is wholly without merit!

The fact that you are not in their target audience doesn't mean no one else is either.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By xsilver on 6/9/2007 10:27:51 AM , Rating: 3
i never disagreed with you, but I am an OC'r - and yes overclocking doesnt all have to be about performance.

but the fact remains that thermaltake and ocz etc. are trying to market products to the masses to cater for overclocking.
However these products are unlikely to ever become mainstream. In fact I think I think part of the allure to overclocking is the fact that it IS niche.

Some may draw analogies to something like people ricing up their cars in something like "pimp my ride" but I wont comment on that.

oh also, on your logic, just because YOU dont think that anybody would be insane enough to spend $80 on a cooling setup without overclocking; it doesnt mean that somebody else wont. In fact I pretty much guarantee that there are plenty of people that spend $$$ on cooling without overclocking at all.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By tehfire on 6/9/2007 11:46:19 AM , Rating: 3
As an avid Silent PC'er, I can attest to this. Both overclockers and silent PC enthusiasts use high-performance heatsinks - one with high-speed fans for max cooling and the other with low-speed or no fans for the quietest cooling. My current setup is overclocked, but I know many people who pay $60 or more for heatsinks on non-overclocked systems.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By CplGaydar on 6/9/2007 6:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
Xsilver: So if not about performance, what is overclocking?

You are right about heatsinks, some people will pay more money for something they don't use - but for those people for which cooling their PC is a hobby, watercooling is a much more likely choice. Presumably, we can agree that cooling your PC with a fancy heatsink is pretty much pointless UNLESS you're overclocking, or going for a silent system. This brings me onto tehfire's point.

The argument was that the Ultra 120 was 'too expensive' at its current price. I don't see why you would need to get the most expensive cooler on the market just to get a silent, stock-clocked PC - especially when the stock heatsink will pretty much do the job.

As for watercooling, it's as mainstream as it needs to be. Even Dell sell it now.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By tehfire on 6/9/2007 8:20:58 PM , Rating: 3
Well the Thermalright 120 Extreme and Scythe Ninja are some of the best passive heatsinks. They do so well when running fans that they can actually be used (in some cases) without a fan at all, and that is why they're so prized. I can see your point, most people will find the stock Intel Core2Duo HSF quiet, but not the most picky SPCers.

And actually, air cooling at its best is quieter than watercooling. It doesn't cool as well, but it is much quieter.

SPCR ftw


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Peacemaker on 6/10/2007 3:45:25 PM , Rating: 3
Ever heard of a passive water cooling system? I've been running my reserator on x2 4400 for 2 years now, silent, idle/load 30/42.

I hope DT follows up on this as I'm curious to see some test numbers.

I wish for a silent pump yet strong enough to circulate cooking oil, that would cool extremely well and attach an "oil block" to every freaking heat source in the case and a have a dead silent pc.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Hare on 6/10/2007 3:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you want to use oil instead of distilled water with added corrosion etc. protection?


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/10/2007 4:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
I read some articles about getting a water-tight case and filling it with cooking oil, thereby submersing your entire system in the oil for silent cooling - I'm guessing thats where this idea comes from.


RE: Mm,, interesting
RE: Mm,, interesting
By tehfire on 6/11/2007 12:56:33 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't a reserater still have a pump? That's the problem...water pumps are too loud for use in Silent PCs


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Peacemaker on 6/11/2007 3:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't you try or read about a product before you say something about it that might be completely wrong?

Yes, the reserator has a pump but it is silent. The only way you can heat the faint hum is by pressing your ear against the top, that's why they included a flow indicator so you can see if it's working.

Oil would increase performance (better heat dis.) and I could add a couple of blocks and somewhat sound-proof the hard drives to get close to silent pc...

Overclocking does get more out of the computer, the problem is that in order to really see benefits (FPS in games, faster apps) you need "drastic" measures (ever ran a compressor indoors?).

Regarding OC: It's all nice if OC can get me extra 10 FPS in Crysis when it comes out but I'll also get 80 dB's from the compressor needed run cooling to take all the extra heat away created by aiming for those 10 FPS in the first place.
Is it a viable day in day out solution? Nope. Besides, >stock voltage will shorten the lifespan. Chasing records is cool with extreme OC is cool as long as no one pretends that it'a still a regular desktop for daily (dare I say 24/7?) use.

Benefits one might get from a good (expensive) sound card may be nullified by noise today's computers make, that's where WC enters the equation. It's variables(passive active WC) that allow for "trade" between noise/efficiency in diff. coolers are what makes WC appealing to a wide array of consumers.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Hare on 6/11/2007 9:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Overclocking does get more out of the computer, the problem is that in order to really see benefits (FPS in games, faster apps) you need "drastic" measures (ever ran a compressor indoors?).

Really? I'm running my E6300 @ 3Ghz, performance increase (1.2Ghz oc) was easily noticed. Noise is not an issue. I have a Tuniq Tower at around 5V and it can't be heard outside the case.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By xsilver on 6/9/2007 8:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if not about performance, what is overclocking?

well I answered that already - its about bragging rights and bling as well as performance.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By GlassHouse69 on 6/11/2007 4:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
yes, I have paid 300 dollars over what i needed to for silence and not overclocking. nanotubes will provide some nice alternatives to watercooling as well as be awesome for watercooling setups. to take the heat away from a chip quickly and let it be picked up by the water is how it all works.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Archmaille on 6/16/2007 4:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However these products are unlikely to ever become mainstream. In fact I think I think part of the allure to overclocking is the fact that it IS niche.


You are probably correct, as will Heatpipe coolers never become mainstream because they too are marketed towards overclockers. Nevermind the fact that most new processors today come with a heatpipe cooler in the box with the CPU that's irrelevent.

For someone to say that it will NEVER become mainstream is just foolish. Watercooling might not ever become mainstream because of the difficulties of using it, and little gains from using a craptacular system, but something like this may see mainstream use in 2-3 years. Not saying that people won't have better nanotube coolers marketed for the overclockers, but I'm sure they'll find a way to make this thing available for less to the mainstream. More effective than the current heatpipe offerings, but less effective than the more expensive ones made for overclockers.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By essjae on 6/10/2007 4:57:07 PM , Rating: 3
My thermaltake LCS system works fine. It's dropped my CPU (x6800 @ 3.47GHz) by 10-20 deg, and my 8800GTX by 40-50 deg, at idle. It's also got 1/2" tubing standard, not 3/8".

I did do a lot of research and found that I didn't want to spend the $$$ for a custom WC system, so I got an LCS case for $220 and a 8800GTX block for $60.

Not everyone is an extreme overclocker, extreme gamer, etc and don't need extreme watercooling.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Goty on 6/9/2007 2:03:03 PM , Rating: 4
It ultimately depends on the ambient temperature.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By dajeepster on 6/9/2007 2:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
exactly what this guy said. The best you'll do is ambient temperatures.. but then that is really good to.

if you can get it below ambient temperatures without having to supply power to it... I would highly suggest you keep it a secret until you patent it in every country that has a patent system and then get yourself lots of body guards because you will become richer than (Bill Gates)^2.

plus you've just broken the laws of physics and the universe will come to a screeching halot


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Dactyl on 6/9/2007 3:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you can get it below ambient temperatures without having to supply power to it... I would highly suggest you keep it a secret

Nobody tell WikiPedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline...
(search for "freezing point")


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Treckin on 6/9/2007 3:37:33 PM , Rating: 1
That had absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing.. The AMMONIA in the oil has a lower freezing temp than the oil, and therefor wont freeze. Think of the ocean. The salinity wont allow it ti freeze at standard Terran temperatures.
The point the poster made was that it would defy the baser principals of thermodynamics for air-cooling to reach a temperature lower than the ambient temperature of the surrounding air. Of course, if you cooled it with a gas other than air (analogous to the ammonia in the oil), than reaching below ambient temps would not be far off. Their are also phase change systems that are pretty effective, however draw a lot of power.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Dactyl on 6/9/2007 5:08:25 PM , Rating: 3
It's not about the temperature of the oil, it's about freezing the permafrost under the pipeline, which normally melts at that time of year, which would destroy the pipeline (if the ground on which it rests melted).

A passive, self-contained phase-change cooling system involving vertically-oriented tubes of ammonia stuck on top of a CPU could theoretically lower the CPU below ambient temperature--especially when the CPU is off! I don't know if it would transfer heat efficiently enough to be useful for cooling CPUs when they are on (or OCed), but it would cause temperatures at the base of the tubes to be below-ambient while the CPU was off.

I think the main reason this approach isn't used is because below-ambient temperatures lead to condensation, which is no good inside your computer case. That's why phase change coolers seal off the area around the CPU completely (also so people aren't injured by touching something at extremely low temperature). There's no reason a passive phase-change cooling solution could not work, except perhaps that it wouldn't cool the system enough to keep the CPU from overheating.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Goty on 6/9/2007 8:09:38 PM , Rating: 3
*psst* Permafrost doesn't melt. Hence the name perma frost.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By PlasmaBomb on 6/9/2007 9:14:23 PM , Rating: 3
Goty is right about the perma frost.

The system is unlikely to be phase change as the permafrost temperature at the depth of the foundations is unlikely to vary much from -5°C which is well above anhydrous ammonia's boiling point (-33°C).


RE: Mm,, interesting
By dok405 on 6/9/2007 9:59:23 PM , Rating: 3
*pssst* To be classed as permafrost, it only has to be below the freezing point for more than 2 years. I wouldn't quite call that perma .


RE: Mm,, interesting
By masher2 (blog) on 6/9/2007 10:08:00 PM , Rating: 5
You cannot cool below ambient without an energy input of some sort...this is the second law of thermodynamics. If this wasn't true, you could easily create a perpetual motion machine.

Ammonia-absorption freezers still use energy. They just use a heat source, rather than electricity. And while a savvy person might ask "why not use the heat of the cpu itself?" a slightly savvier person will quickly realize why this won't allow below-ambient cooling either.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By dajeepster on 6/10/2007 5:16:29 PM , Rating: 3
thank you masher2... I knew that taking second semester physics wasn't a total waste for me :D


RE: Mm,, interesting
By MrPickins on 6/10/2007 12:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Each heat exchanger is thermally coupled by a heat pipe to the base of the VTM. Running through the VSM, the heat pipe transports heat from the VTM base to the heat exchanger. Since ammonia, the working fluid in heat pipes, has a freezing point lower than the permafrost, the heat pipe works throughout the year, even during the coldest winter nights


The cooling system you are referring to are heat pipes, which we already cool our CPU's with. And no, they don't go below ambient.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By MrTeal on 6/10/2007 12:31:51 PM , Rating: 3
You're both incorrect. There are two seperate systems here, and they're getting confused.

1. When the pipeline is buried unground, there is a refridgeration system in place to prevent the hot oil from melting the permafrost. This refridgeration system does not use ammonia, it uses brine cooled below the freezing point of water.

2. When the pipeline is above ground, to prevent the heat from passing through the metal supports into the ground and cause melting around them, they have a heatpipe system. Nothing is cooled below ambient, but the 50 degree celsius heats up the pipeline, but the heatpipe setup helps keep the supports near ambient temperature, providing a thermal break between the ground and pipeline. This is where the ammonia is used.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By Goty on 6/10/2007 6:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't brine be a little corrosive?


RE: Mm,, interesting
By MrTeal on 6/10/2007 7:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on what they use for piping. The brine doesn't go through the oil pipeline, it's very possible they use plastic lines.


RE: Mm,, interesting
By sapiens74 on 6/13/2007 5:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
When I first read that last line i thought it read "Screeching Harlot"


needs some work
By Comdrpopnfresh on 6/9/2007 10:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
Oak, so it is soooo much more efficient at moving heat away. IHS's are still made from copper, so that'd become a bottleneck. Also, if they only move heat one direction, I could only see them being used as heatpipes. the point of a heatsink is to move heat radially, so copper won't be going anywhere.




RE: needs some work
By pauldovi on 6/9/2007 11:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
Not even close bud.

The bottleneck is not the copper. It is the surface area.

Why do you think we have heatsinks? It increases the surface area to dissipate heat.

Why is watercooling so efficient? Because it can move the heat away and then spread it out over a large surface area. (radiator)

If you were correct, water cooling would have no advantage over air cooling.


RE: needs some work
By cochy on 6/9/2007 12:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not entirely true. Water can transport heat better than air can. That's the main reason water cooling is more effective.


RE: needs some work
By Hare on 6/9/2007 1:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not entirely true. Water can transport heat better than air can. That's the main reason water cooling is more effective.
Eh. No...

Exactly how are you going to get the heat out of the water unless you dissipate it to air? That's what the radiator is for. Water is just a way to transport the the heat to just another heatsink. Usually a big one when water cooling is used...

First law of thermodynamics . Energy does not disappear.


RE: needs some work
By Dactyl on 6/9/2007 5:13:19 PM , Rating: 1
First Law of Arguing on the Internet: you can accuse anyone of anything

Please describe in detail how the post to which you were responding (cochy 12:29 pm) denies or misrepresents the First Law of Thermodynamics.


RE: needs some work
By Hare on 6/10/2007 2:57:37 AM , Rating: 3
As you wish. The previous poster said that the main reason why water cooling is effective is because water is a good transport. In practise, this doesn't matter much since the same amount of energy still needs to be dissipated to the surrounding air and that's the bottleneck. The transport (water, heatpipes or solid copper) doesn't have a huge impact unless we are talking about really big heatsinks, extremely cold surrounding air or higher source temperatures.

Just because a certain transport might be more effective than another doesn't change things radically since the same amount of energy needs to be released from the heatsink/radiator. Hence: energy does not disappear.

It's early in the morning here so don't mind the typos etc.


RE: needs some work
By MrTeal on 6/10/2007 12:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
While that's true, there will be differences between pumped fluids and solid copper. If you had your baseplate connected to the radiator by a solid piece of copper, your only means of transporting the heat is conduction. Even with an infinite radiator (the radiator is at ambient temp), you'd still have a temp difference between base and radiator caused by the heat transfer coefficient of the material. Vastly simplified, with fluids you have the baseplate heating a small volume of water, that water then moves to the radiator, where it gets dissipated. Very little temperature difference between radiator and baseplate.

That's kind of the same mechanism as heatpipes, although they uses the evaporation and condensation of the liquid to transfer heat, and are not pumped.


RE: needs some work
By Hare on 6/10/2007 1:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
True. Like I said in my last paragraph, the more efficient the heatsink is, the bigger the difference. My point was that water as a transport is not the main reason why water cooling is effective. Nowadays the heat generated by CPU's can be pretty easily handled with heatpipes. At >200W heat loads water cooling starts to show its power.

Water cooling has also another benefit. Usually the heat is exhausted out of the case compared to traditional air cooling. Air cooling can not be as effective if the ambient temperature is >30C compared to water ~20C (room temperature).


RE: needs some work
By SmokeRngs on 6/11/2007 10:06:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point was that water as a transport is not the main reason why water cooling is effective.


This is not completely correct. The water is a big reason why water cooling is more efficient. While copper absorbs heat better than aluminum, it does not release the heat as easily. Water acts as an intermediate between the two. In most cases, water can pull the heat off the copper plate a lot better than aluminum keeping efficiency high. The water then travels to the radiator where the larger surface area of the aluminum dissipates the heat much more quickly than the copper.

Water allows both materials to work more efficiently together.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing a carbon nanotube based waterblock. The results from that would definitely be interesting. It absorbs and releases heat more efficiently than copper and would be very well suited to replace it as the base material in a waterblock.


?
By Harkonnen on 6/9/2007 4:29:34 AM , Rating: 3
Why don't they show some results? Touting a product like this and not giving results is a waste of time.

What does five times more efficient translate too?




RE: ?
By xsilver on 6/9/2007 4:39:18 AM , Rating: 2
definitely not 5x the performance, thats what!

however it does sound interesting as most people consider phase change and water cooling a bit too "extreme"
I also like the fact that it will consume little power.

since this is one way conductivity - im imagining some passive water cooling might be a good application for it?


RE: ?
By Hare on 6/9/2007 4:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
As we have seen with heatpipes more is not necessarily any better (See Tuniq Tower). The bottleneck is elsewhere (not base conductivity). To actually get the heat out of the heatsink in to the surrounding air is the biggest problem. The brute force method of increasing the surface are or using a more powerful fan are the obvious ways to increase performance.


RE: ?
By Omega215D on 6/9/2007 7:27:13 AM , Rating: 2
That's why I'm happy with the Zalman CNPS 9500 cooler. It has a unique method of pulling air into the cooler and passing it out to the exhaust case fan all while being pretty quiet.


RE: ?
By Kaleid on 6/9/2007 8:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunaly Zalman fans are not quiet enough even at the lowest setting (5v).


RE: ?
By oab on 6/9/2007 8:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
"Not quiet enough" is completely subjective based on ones own individual tollerances for noise.

Obviously for the poster, he thinks it is "quiet enough" for him.

Now, if someone were to call a 10k RPM Delta fan quiet, then he needs to have his head examined, but the fan in my zalman coolers is "quiet enough" that I have no complaints, I can't hear it above the ambient noise in my room.


RE: ?
By tehfire on 6/9/2007 11:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
Scythe Ninja Rev B. w/ Stock fan @ 7v ftw :-P


RE: ?
By dever on 6/9/2007 1:20:31 PM , Rating: 1
That's what I immediately thought of. Nanotubes aren't very long, so the surface area on the other side is about equal to the area on the base. Whatever is on the top needs to be able to dissipate the heat well. I too would like to see some empirical results.


huge
By Gul Westfale on 6/9/2007 10:02:05 AM , Rating: 3
for something with the word "nano" in the name this thing sure looks huge.
also, why the "hydrojet"? is it a watercooler of some sort?




RE: huge
By glitchc on 6/9/2007 11:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
My sentiments exactly. How is anyone supposed to fit this behemoth into their case?

... in other news, OCZ introduced a recess panel into the Hydrajet model which allows the user to chill two beers along with keeping their CPU cool.


RE: huge
By GaryJohnson on 6/9/2007 12:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why the "hydrojet"? is it a watercooler of some sort?


Yes. It has a built in pump and is filled with coolant. OCZ claims this thing can dissipate 400W of heat.


RE: huge
By Gul Westfale on 6/9/2007 12:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
so isn't this then more some sort of novelty watercooler rather than some revolutionary "nano tube" cooler?


RE: huge
By GaryJohnson on 6/9/2007 4:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's both?


Phase Change
By ZimZum on 6/9/2007 3:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'm still waiting on that sub $300 OCZ phase change cooler that they debuted over a year ago. Whatever happened to that?




RE: Phase Change
By tuteja1986 on 6/9/2007 4:46:59 AM , Rating: 2
Boy doesn't OCZ guys chat on anandtech forum... send him a message and ask when can we buy the Sub $300 phase cooling solution they promised a year ago.


RE: Phase Change
By BladeVenom on 6/9/2007 5:45:16 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the liquid metal cooler. I can't even remember who was demoing that.


RE: Phase Change
By oab on 6/9/2007 8:48:35 AM , Rating: 2
I believe that was either Saphire or PowerColor, my guess is PowerColor.


RE: Phase Change
By Etsp on 6/9/2007 9:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
I believe it was Sapphire...and I remember seeing a follow-up article based on a follow up with the people who made it... it seems the liquid metal is quite expensive, and the limiting factor had been transferring heat from the heatsink to air... meaning that heatpipes weren't much of a bottleneck, and that liquid metal pipes were just to get people talking about Sapphire...


Safety???
By raddude9 on 6/10/2007 5:38:38 AM , Rating: 3
I'm all for new technology but is it safe to put a bunch of nanotubes on a commercial technology like a heatsink. In the headlong rush to get nanotechnnology out-the-door companies are failing to test if these products are safe to humans!!! Often they try to pass off their nanotubes as being as safe as graphite, but in fact nanotubes are not soluble in water and behave like asbestos when they get in the lungs, and research into these effects is still in a very early stage:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/nanotubestoxic.php

http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_15847...




RE: Safety???
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/10/2007 7:25:52 AM , Rating: 2
The research cuts both ways though too. Of the very few studies out there, someone has found that minnows get deformed in water with C60, but someone else has found that diluted C60 will pass right through organic tissue.

Semi-off topic: Asbestos is relatively safe when handled and used properly. There's no reason to think CNT will be any different IMO


RE: Safety???
By peldor on 6/12/2007 2:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
Semi-off topic: Asbestos is relatively safe when handled and used properly. There's no reason to think CNT will be any different IMO

That's not saying much. By definition, everything is safe when handled and used properly. Guns, knives, flammables, poison gas, mercury, radioactive materials. Use it properly!


RE: Safety???
By James Holden on 6/13/2007 3:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
Which is probably why its perfectly legitimate and safe to have all the things you listed :)


Not happening
By pauldovi on 6/9/2007 6:36:26 AM , Rating: 2
Considering how difficult and expensive C60 is to mass produce, I don't think you will be seeing this on the egg.




RE: Not happening
By Bladen on 6/9/2007 7:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
For now...


RE: Not happening
By AnnihilatorX on 6/9/2007 9:27:18 AM , Rating: 2
I think nanotubes are grown with carbon molecules joining the end of the chain with chemical vapour decomposition. I don't think we need a lot of C60

Still the process is slow


RE: Not happening
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/10/2007 7:22:42 AM , Rating: 2
According to OCZ, the material they use is actually a commercial-grade substance from one of the major chemical guys. It's apparently as cheap as copper at the material level, but much more expensive to tool (for now).


In my understanding
By Treckin on 6/9/2007 3:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the main bottleneck in cooling now is no longer the heat dissipation rate of the air coolers; The best out there (tuniq, 120, etc) already move more heat than is transfered to them. The main bottleneck is the bridge between the core --> die. As the process shrinks, more heat is generated in a smaller space, and more and more core layers are added, generating a hot-spot where the core on die is located. Essentially, you could cool to your hearts content, but unless there is a more effective way to move the heat away from the core and into the cooler, than the rate at which the CPU can be cooled will stagnate.

Perhaps CNT's that extend from/through (possible?) the core out of the top of the die, working in consort with tubes on base of your cooler?

Also, I wanted to point out why downward facing heat pipe coolers are less effective than laterally cooled towers:
The way heat pipes work is through the heat transference principle of convection. When cooling the pipes in a downward fashion, the cool air moving down the length of the heat pipes disrupts the convection occurring in the pipes, essentially making sure that the convecting heat never reaches the top of the pipes and is conducted to the fins ---> air.




RE: In my understanding
By Cogman on 6/9/2007 7:52:20 PM , Rating: 1
move more heat than is transfered to them

Wrong.. they move as much heat as is transfered to them, it is impossible to move more heat then is available. there is still room for advancements and I think CNT are a step in the right direction.

As the process shrinks, more heat is generated in a smaller space

Semi Wrong, when there is a process shrink, heat produced tends to go down per transistor, however, more transistors are packed together generating a fair amount of heat.

and more and more core layers are added, generating a hot-spot where the core on die is located.

you are forgetting that your layers are getting thiner and thinner. as well there are really no gaps in between layers. the heat transfer will be very good in this part, until we are talking about 100's of layers there really is no problem of heat transfer from them.

Perhaps CNT's that extend from/through (possible?) the core out of the top of the die, working in consort with tubes on base of your cooler?

This, however, is a good idea. Heck, constructing the entire cpu out of CNTs would be ideal as they can work at much higher temps then normal silicon can (and near indestructible). I think that CPU manufactures should look into changing the heat spreaders on the cores from nickel (I believe) to Carbon-nano tubes, however that might make lapping impossible :P

Basically, you make some assumptions that are just wrong. if we where working with very large things they might be right, but not when you are getting as small as we are. The proof? Pelter + water cooling. it is able to transfer much more heat out of the core then regular air cooling. Until air cooling gets to the point where it cools the CPU to room temps (or within a couple of *C), there is still room for improvement.


RE: In my understanding
By Treckin on 6/9/2007 9:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the feedback.
As it may that my understanding of the mechanics behind the limitations of air cooling are somewhat flawed, consider this:
Why is it then that the temperature of the fins on the air cooler are not the same temperature as the core?
Obviously there is a block between the heat coming out of the core, and the final destination of the core. And as to die shrinks, I was right. You were simply nitpicking (badly). If we were cooling individual transistors, than your bringing them into it would have relevance. However, as we are not, you shouldn't have. More transistors per square millimeter = more heat, albeit each individual T has a lower thermal output.
My lack of micro-processor design knowledge will start here, so forgive me and feel free to correct me-
If the CNT's are ballistic connectors ion addition to being one of the best thermal conductors around, wouldn't manufacturing the connections (wires?) inside a core allow for the pathways to functions exactly as a great conductor in addition to a heat pipe? I don't think one would preclude the other from working; the electrons are conveyed along the atoms and bonds themselves, while the heat is transmitted via conduction though the center of the tube.


RE: In my understanding
By jtok202 on 6/10/2007 12:53:14 AM , Rating: 2
Check out a couple of articles on the design and energy usage for C.P.U's I feel that will give you a better understanding of the need for cooling within a die. Interestingly in millions of transistors there are significantly more transisters in a C2D versus a 939/AM2 however the actual Thermal output is decreased and energy usage is down this goes hand in hand with more efficient transistors even after a increase of density per mm. The idea of a more efficient cover for the CPU is intriguing and there I see a real application for the carbon nanotubes. (if heat transfer is one way they will kill the idea of peltiers :( ) Lapping is not only to remove the nickel which is a relatively poor heat conductor but also to smooth out the insane bows that are present in most CPUS AMD's and INTELS. (read anandtech for a good article on C2D imo and check out xtremesystems.org if you want to see a community for all things overclock/watercooling/lapping so on imo)


RE: In my understanding
By Cogman on 6/10/2007 8:57:35 AM , Rating: 1
For the first questions, that is simple, it is because the heat transferred from core - heatspreader - heatsink bottom - fins is not a perfect one thermally. That's all there is too it. However, we know that air cooling is not at its best, you just have to look at a water cooling system to know you can do better. A wc system will get better and lower temps then an air cooling system will, yet their is no change in core, heatspreader, or the likes.

as stated above, due to processor design, the Core 2 Duo actually produces less heat while having more transistors to its predecessors.

and for the next question, You are perfectly right in saying that one would not preclude the other from working, however, you really would not need that great of cooling with a CNT processor as they would withstand much higher temps without causing instability (they don't have problems with electron leakage or burnout that occurs on modern cpus when they overheat) the reason it is not used is because the manufacturing process is not there. I don't know how it is now, but just a couple of years ago CNT where some of the most expensive substance on earth, manipulating them is a fair amount different from the ability to manipulate silicon, that is why they are not used (yet) for microprocessor, but trust me, they would be far Superior to current silicon.


Water Cooling
By Etsp on 6/9/2007 11:26:58 AM , Rating: 2
Although it's a neat technology for air, wouldn't it make for a really nice waterblock instead seeing as it is supposedly "5x more efficient than copper"? That is of course... if it's waterproof. I remember reading somewhere that someone did a study on carbon nanotubes and water... and that water traveled through the nanotubes a few times faster than predicted... I kinda wouldn't want a nano-sieve as my water cooling block =P

Of course, I don't know how the tubes are arranged so I have no idea whether or not it's waterproof...




RE: Water Cooling
By PlasmaBomb on 6/9/2007 9:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
From the looks of it OCZ have attached the carbon nanotubes to an aluminium block then used water for secondary thermal transfer to the copper fins.


She's a bit too big for my HTPC
By lumbergeek on 6/9/2007 2:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Now, if you have a copper heatspreader sheet to make the surface area the nanotubes can contact larger (the aluminium on most CPUs would probably do, but why stop there?), then make heatpipes out of nanotubes you could change the angles this baby sits at and it could fit into more cases.




RE: She's a bit too big for my HTPC
By Etsp on 6/9/2007 5:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think you miss-read what the significance of this cooler is... They intentionally avoided using copper where the heatsink meets the CPU due to the fact that carbon nanotubes supposedly transfer heat better than copper...that's the whole point...to get something better than copper at the CPU...


Now wait a minute....
By cupocoffee on 6/9/2007 4:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
Did anybody notice this?

quote:
In addition, they have shown to be ballistic conductors at room temperature, which means electrons can flow through CNTs without collisions.


At first this sounded to me like a room temperature superconductor, but then I read up a little and found that:

Ballistic Collision = Superconductivity - Meissner Effect

...Check out the following if you are interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_conductor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_conduction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect




RE: Now wait a minute....
By GaryJohnson on 6/9/2007 7:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
As I understand it: a ballistic conductor is the best conductor behind a superconductor. And because no known superconductor works at room temperature, a ballistic conductor is the best room temperature conductor.


By Bennyjets on 6/10/2007 3:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
It seems to me that just about everything OCZ has released in recent months has been some over-hyped but pretty worthless product. It's like they have run out of ideas for good products or something.




By ThisSpaceForRent on 6/12/2007 8:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to laugh if, it turns out, this thing is awesome at moving heat, but sucks at dissipating it.


A few questions being left unanswered.
By KnightProdigy on 6/11/2007 11:42:18 AM , Rating: 2
This technology sounds great. A great low cost alternative to watercooling. Since it was just at computex, there isn't a whole lot of information being released about it. Performance stats, possible usages. I mean, they talk about being only atoms thin and a heat transfer material. Can this be used to replace thermal compounds? I deal with phase change and peltier type cooling. I took these statements as these tubes being a replacement for the cooling plate (copper wafer that sits between the cold side of the device and the processor).

What kind of applications or packaging can we expect this new tech to come in? It looks like, in this picture, they used it to replace copper heat pipes. It looks to me that they are still using a conventional HSF type setup on top of the tubes... Maybe a self contained water cooling unit over the tubes... Hard to say without dissecting it.

Definitely something I am going to keep my eye on in the next year or two.




By Peacemaker on 6/11/2007 3:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
Low cost alternative to water cooling? More like a more expensive variation of liquid cooling but let's wait out performance numbers.
As of right now, liquid cooling needs a combo with other methods in order to efficiently cool the entire system, I see some TEC/WC combos, that's something I considered doing to improve cooling. Let's see what this innovation brings to the table.
Whoever figures out how to combine a passive power supply or a tower case with efficient/silent cooling will have a good chance at making some serious money.
The first one to offer a product that will cool all the components and enclose HDD's to reduce noise will appeal to the HTPC/gaming rig crowd. While that market may not seem like a gold mine now maybe it just needs the right product to grow...


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki