here it is in a nutshell about the elite...for $400, i would pass on it unless you are a strict idle conditions type puter user...it will give you cool temps at idle.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...29#post2699329
Printable View
here it is in a nutshell about the elite...for $400, i would pass on it unless you are a strict idle conditions type puter user...it will give you cool temps at idle.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...29#post2699329
And thats news when? Any one serious know's they're garbage, Here we know pelts are garbage, dead and gon as the power to chilling efffect is bismal.
You get neggitive efficiency with a PELT as comparred to a possitive efficiency that you get with a vapour compression cycle.
it'll be news for some who are newbies or early into computer hardware where they can be swayed by the marketing hype.
listen...i was hoping so i could stick it to YOU!;):D
Ah, perhaps I've been in the game too long, seems like forever, I'm suprised people even bother with them now days, just look how horrorid thoughs so called portable coolers perform!
I think that there could be a way to make them work efficently. But that is for a numbers rig and not a 24/7 rigQuote:
Originally Posted by Xeon th MG Pony
I agree TEC's are not good for 24/7 but I thinnk i can build a rig that will give me good cooling using TEC's. I guess the main thing is Cost. I want to try TEC's, since they can be moded with smart idea's, Maybe vapour compression will be down the road, who knows, but I don't think i will ever be ready for LN2 but just water is not Extreme enough for me....
Per wat cunsumed they yeild far less cooling, so efficiency is only like 45 or so % where as vapour compression is like 350% or so compared to a pelt.
Efficiency is never over 100%, never below 0...
depends on your starting point, thinking like that gets you into politics!
A resister is 99% efficient at making heat, a heat pump compared to a resister is 300+% more efficient then a resister. Under stand?
If something is 99% efficient and the other thing is 3x as efficient as that they both are basically equivalent.
You need to describe both on the same scale, or yes, you are into politics :)
I think the point to note here is that water coolers and refridgerators and AC units all use phase. Maybe the millions of technology hours spent on those technologies might know a thing or two?
However what we have here is a sense of scale too. And in an enclosed space (small often) with a tiny heat source, the difference begins to get smaller.
I wonder what the maintenance factor does to the equation. Probably nothing.
/
TECs lose to vapor compression on pretty much all fronts. Cost, efficiency, cooling power, complexity etc. :( Placed directly on die they can do a little bit, but to get any decent temps you end up spending wayyy too much. Used to chill water they become even more useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by systemviper
Try a waterchiller or something, much simpler and probably cheaper/more powerful.
And with the great air cooling hardware out there today, they kick a lot of watercooling butt, on a price for performance basis...
Both on the CPU and GPU, Plus with the new smaller die 45nm chips and the voltages they are using, the gap is growing even wider.......
So it's really not the numbers but why are you using it.
IT's not necessarily a pure price/performance ratio though. Of course you pay a premium for super low temps.... But if you can get more for less, that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for tecs in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by systemviper
If a $50 air cooler stomped a $300 watercooling loop, then no one would watercool, but it doesn't.
Until we see some more efficient TECs, they're dead as far as I'm concerned. Just cannot handle the heat of modern components without becoming insanely expensive/complex to set up.
the only one that comes close to giving a good watercooling system a run for its money is ThermalRight's Ultra Extreme with a good 120mm fan on it like the Panaflo 2.7K rpm one....but...it still has its limitations when compared to an excellent water cooling system.Quote:
Originally Posted by systemviper
Maintenance is a BIG factor the domestic fridges for example, if every one kept the back clean energy draw would drop significantly, but they don't so energy draw is increased in the 30% range annually and life is shortened considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anemone
No they are not the same, thats the thing A resister creates heat using electricity, a heat pump moves heat, a heat pump is thus 300% MORE efficient at giving heat then a resister, so no they are not essentially the same, Heat pump does as it name implies it pumps the heat from one gradient to another, and that requires far less energy then creating it. Thus you can not use the same scale as they are not on the same level, you only can compare the % of efficiency based on their respective scales and we see that the heat pump wins, now no situation is ideal so lets say worst case cenario, bad maintanace in a verry cold environment with an air source heat pump, now it would be geting close to & or less efficency then a resister, as they too have limmitations, thus they add electric suplimentry heat in the event of an exceedingly cold day. (Again maintanance is a HUGE factor in systems and their opperating efficency!)
Most systems don't die, they're murdered! Take a window mounted A/C, whens the last time you cleaned the condenser and evap? That there on peak demand will cost you up to 50% or more in efficiency and subsequently its shortened life!
Again to under stand the the mechanics behind it to under stand the how and why, The peltier uses electricity to move heat, and it generates its own heat in the process, to over come this for a given heat load you need to use a size up of pelt to gain even remote efficiency. For both energy savings and better effect a vapor compression system is by far superior, the reason pelts are used despite their horrid efficiency is they do have an advantage in the transportation & Aerospace is the fact they are solid state and can be operated in any direction, but this too is slowly being dissolved with new technology of the vapor compression systems.
So in the end, unless your on a plane or a tractor trailer pelts are a masochistic choice and an energy waster, clean your fridges condenser, And if you can afford it get a geothermal heat pump (Best year round COP/SEER) as long term savings are well worth it!
Ok lets do some factoring, Lets see pelt check, Huge current consuming psu that produces tons of its own heat, check,, Massive cooling system to dissipate the heat moved and generated by pelt check.Quote:
Originally Posted by systemviper
Lets hook this system up! WOW look at that power meter spin!
Ah whats this? The pelts geting warmer Oh thats right the pelt has a bismaly small pumping gradient and as the room temp rises by a couple degrees so does the pelts low side!
the Pelt has a pumping ability that of a garden pond pump, perhaps a couple of inches, and a vapor compression system has a pumping ability of an industrial turbine pump!
Thats what it is all about, not even to mention Capacity per watt consumed @ X degrees gradient!
Again they are the poorest pick at any moment unles you have the PC in a moving car or air plane or in a shuttle in space!
Xeon, please understand I wasn't arguing with your points, only with the presentation. Let me give an example. If 2 cars give 10 and 15mpg each, it would be a fair presentation to say car #2 gets 50% better gas mileage than car #1. That is true. However the useful # to most folks is the 10 and 15 figures because they are both based on the same base and tell you more about what each does.
So to take this back to our example, is there a cold efficiency rating system for a pelt? (I have no idea, only asking the question) And then is there an efficiency rating system on a heat pump?
If that fails maybe try to give an amount of energy needed to get to a given temp for each one? I don't know, only trying to suggest ways to get to the two on a comparable level with the same basis.
I was not arguing against your points however. And mentioning the maintenance factor was only throwing the mild point out there in the tiny remaining defense of pelts (simpler lower maintenance systems) and I didn't think that was much of a defense, because you'd basically made overwhelming points in favor of heat pumps.
Sorry if my earlier comments didn't read this way, as in I didn't say "hey I agree with you" that would have made this much easier :)
Probably my fault, I'm only used to dealing with tradesman and contractors where all the linquo is well known albeit a tad convoluted at times!
Now I'm just going to toss some made up numbers as ruftimates of a pelt system and compare that to a ruftimated vapor system
Lets say we have two identical procs that put out a perfect 150 Watts ALL the time. Now to dissipate that heat and then further cool it to lets say minus 20C To do that with a pelt you'd need a 400W++ Pelt to get an ok efficiency from it where as you could do the same with a well made vapor compression system that only draws 250, even with poor maintenance the impact may only be 50W increase in draw, where as with a pelt it will effect temps directly and possibly cause thermal run away.
A pelt is a direct acting device watt per watt has to be matched, 150W generated the pelt must be 150 Watts, this will keep the thing at equilibrium temp wont rise nor fall, now to start bring the temp down we must add more wattage So to get to zero we must make the pelt 200+ Watts, Now our theoretical 100% efficient pelt will hold our theoretical proc at 0C, Now pelts are less then 100% efficient, So now we again must raise the wattage to over come this So now we need even more watts so our pelt to hold a 150W proc at Zero must be sized at 350W, to gain a reasonable performance we need to further size it to 400 and up wards of watts, A pelts pumping gradient is very small to it can only implement a difference of 64C So ambient will deeply effect it.
Due to a Pelts sensitive nature to the hot side maintenance is critical to keep it safe and to ensure good performance as a dirty hot side heat sink can cause far more then just bad temps! (Can we say thermal runaway?)
A vapor compression system is indirect, it utilizes the latent heat of a fluid to move the heat, since the compression of a gas requires little energy and a given fluid can have a very high latent heat value we can move far more heat per watt then we could with a pelt giving us a very appreciable gain in capacity with out an equal gain in power consumed, So now we can hold the same load at 0C for only a 150W as the fluid can move 2W of heat per Watt of power in! A Vapor compression system has a very high pumping gradient to further improve temperature difference, it can pump the hot side temp to 35+C and reject it at a good stable rate thus ambient flux effects it far less to use imperial measures for every 10F the system capacity will either go up or down by .5% where as a pelt it is usually much larger of an effect!
Okay I didn't take physics before so don't kill me, but this is what I believe is logically correct:
Work done/Work put in=efficiency. Work done can never surpass work put in. The "400% efficiency" thing is a marketing tool in my opinion, because 400% efficiency is not possible. Its just 400% efficient for the purposes of creating heat where you want it. An electrical resistance heater has near 100% efficiency for creating heat. That is heat that is created.
You say the heat pump is 300% more efficient at PRODUCING heat, but it did not produce more heat, it simply took the heat from somewhere else and put it there (which is doing work). The heat it produces is the heat from friction, resistance, etc.
No heat pumps do not produce heat! they move it and they move MORE heat per watt put in! I put 1Watt in and I get 3Watts out worth of heat. You have much to learn about how percentages and magnitudes are utillized!
As I said all above you seem to have failed to understand the scenario I layed out, we are comparring some things efficiency from a base line, in the heating and cooling world the resistive heater is the base line @ 100% for 1W in we get 1 Watt out
A heat pump for 1w in we can get 2.5 -4W worth of heat out but the average is a 3:1 ratio for every 1w we can bet on geting 3w of heat out thus it is 300% more efficient then a resister at geting heat INTO the desired zone as the resister is our base line and the heat pump is ABOVE the base line it is indicating the magnitude of comparetive efficiency it shows the heat pump is more efficient then a resistive heater by a magnitude of 300% it isn't a marketing tool! It is a proper messure.
You have much to learn yet but when it comes to messuring and magnitudes you go well above and below 100% and 0% and any one who claims you cant go above is usual called a crack pot!
Then what the hell are you arguing this no above 100% bs when you all ready get the concept there is? AHF! where's a brick wall I can beat my head against?Quote:
Its just 400% efficient for the purposes of creating heat where you want it.
I've said through this ENTIRE THREAD that it is 300-400% MORE
Key word MORE effient then a resister!!!!!!!!!!!!! the resistive heater is the base line!
Why is it? Becuase a bunch of einstines said it was, then came along the vapour compression systems that nuked the resister, but rather then them admiting they where wrong and the resister is not all that great they decided to say No, it is just more efficient then the resister but the resister is still 100%.
So people not admiting they where wrong and politics is to thank for this system of messuring the efficiencies of heat pumps, resistive heaters & Furnaces!
for a 2Kw motor I get 4.9Kw worth of heat, where as a resister for 2Kw's I'd get 2Kw's of heat! and with a gas furnace for 2Kw worth of fuel at best I'd get 1.78Kws of heat out!