Nanofluid tested with three different temperatures on a Q6600

being I have experience running abrasive water jet cutting machines, the ones I ran would cut through 6 inches of amour plate, using 50,000psi water pressure and garnet abrasive. it Left a .062 inch kerf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fart_plume

being I have experience running abrasive water jet cutting machines, the ones I ran would cut through 6 inches of amour plate, using 50,000psi water pressure and garnet abrasive. it Left a .062 inch kerf.

---

I have experience too, but I can't recall the garnet particle size. Do you know off hand? Do you know what orifice size your jet used as well?

thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Don't know about this particular fluid, but most have a concetration of 3% by volume. Even with the largest nanoparticla size, at that volume abrasion wouldn't be an issue. You can't compare nanofluids comprised of nanoparticles to hydro blasting with abrasive materials. The grit making up most water jet processes are 1000's of times bigger than the largest nanoparticle.

So if I were applying some critical thinking to the use nanofluids for cooling a LC loop, I wouldn't be focusing on the abrasive aspects. Just not an issue. I don't even know where you'd come up with such a conclusion if you know the stuff or technology..

andyc

---

*sigh*

Andy, its not instantanous cut like a water jet. (i was using it as an example)

Its gradual, have particles, create impact, over time you will have abrasions. (this is phsysics dude)

You think the grand canyon was cut out using a waterjet?

Your using simple concepts like errosion.

i gave approximate timelines on things that should happen using accelerators. Dude these are from friends who work with this stuff.

i seriously was considering super fine dust diamond particle powder.
Basically a friend sat me down for a few hours and told me why it was a nono.

ultimate he said this that made sense... if nanofluid is so good, why isnt it like flournet which is used in other applications.
Price per liter would definitely be cheaper.

3M also has way more resources then any of us combined to make a perfect nano fluid.
They dont why?

I like using the stuff either way and I didn't see any wear on the block or anything else.... I will put it in on my B3 as soon as I get time. I should have done it already just not really in the mood to deal with it I guess....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaeKuh

*sigh*

Andy, its not instantanous cut like a water jet.

Its gradual, have particles, create impact, over time you will have abrasions.

You think the grand canyon was cut out using a waterjet?

Your using simple concepts like errosion.

---

but NaeKuh! Plain water does the same thing......... I think you guys are going a lot deeper then it really is!!! That is what Andy is trying to point out here IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleowl

but NaeKuh! Plain water does the same thing......... I think you guys are going a lot deeper then it really is!!! That is what Andy is trying to point out here IMO

---

blah..

But you dont have solid particles impacting. <You guys dont see this aspect, your thinking visocisty and concentration>
particles will abrase the internals of your stuff, this will happen over time.

as i said my friend gave me these timelines.. and scenarios.

And he's 99% right when i have a firm debate with him,
so feel free to agrue with him.

Only way to pull this off is to use particles which is less dense then the copper its impacting.

I should call him in this thread.

But NaeKuh I am running his stuff! It does a decent job.. I took it off my E6600 and plan on putting it on a B3 Q6600

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleowl

But NaeKuh I am running his stuff! It does a decent job.. I took it off my E6600 and plan on putting it on a B3 Q6600

---

owl never said it didnt work.

i even said under low flow situations his data is TRUE.

Blah... seriously once again, if nanopartilcles was sooo good, why didnt 3m make one for computer usages like flournert?

i can thikn of a bunch of crays that would of used it in a heart beat, and even the military went on liquid gallium. <-- doesnt this sound wierd to you guys?

That is a good question. I have found that like he said a while back that if I use a smaller rad it works better then when I use my 120.3 rad's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleowl

That is a good question. I have found that like he said a while back that if I use a smaller rad it works better then when I use my 120.3 rad's.

---

if he didnt bend physics every time he tried to answer, i wouldnt be so mean.

But he's trying to write the code in watercooling which no one but phsysics can.

This is why i want to talk to its creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

I'm not saying that nanofluid is good or bad either way as far as this stuff is concerned, or any other for that matter as it relates to LC. I'm just saying that abrasion isn't an issue to be concerned about. Not enough surface area on the nanoparticles themselves to worry about, or pressure to cause it in a LC loop.

I understand your a legend and all, but I think your a tad off base on this premise.

andyc

---

okey so tell me.. why my friends reason holds false.

I told you guys what he told me.

As you accelerate the water in the block, you will cause more kentic impact. Since water is super super fine were looking at molecule dimensions now, there is no impact besides mol. on mol. on the copper.

You introduce a hard substance such as a nano particle, and speed it though an injector, you get the same effect of little hammers hitting your plate.
(tell me THIS IS NOT TRUE)

So over the time as these particles hit your base plate, it will change the shape of the copper and the cooling area.
(tell me this is ALSO not true)

So for the particles to work and NOT damage the copper, the particles must be of less desnity the copper which then WONT aid in thermal transfer.

So andy, Tell me where im wrong... so i can take it back to my friend who taught me nanofluids and fight back with him.

dude you guys are butching physics... seriously..

I haven't kept track of all the nano fluid threads that are floating about. What i do know is that in areas with water which is pumped from underground, sand particulates can cause extensive damage to pumps etc. This is for domestic supply... so we're not talking about 50,000 PSI jet cutters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaeKuh

=snip-..

---

Good points... but he said the mixture was the same density (or nearly) as water?

But anyways... what we need to know is what is the hardness and does it decrease with the size of the grain at these particular sizes.

When you decrese somethings size, Naekuh, it becomes virtually harder but after a critical size hardness decreases. Sounds mad but true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

But anyways... what we need to know is what is the hardness and does it decrease with the size of the grain at these particular sizes.

---

Rip read my entire arguement.

this is what ive been trying to get for the past 2 pages. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

When you decrese somethings size, Naekuh, it becomes virtually harder but after a critical size hardness decreases. Sounds mad but true.

---

yes i know which is why i want to know what the heck it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

I'm just saying that the basis of your argument is wrong from the abrasion perspective.

andyc

---

Ummm then why did rip say this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

I haven't kept track of all the nano fluid threads that are floating about. What i do know is that in areas with water which is pumped from underground, sand particulates can cause extensive damage to pumps etc. This is for domestic supply... so we're not talking about 50,000 PSI jet cutters.

---

They won't give you what the particle is or it's actual density, I'm afraid, as that would id the material for other companies to copy it, ie. trade secret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fart_plume

They won't give you what the particle is or it's actual density, I'm afraid, as that would id the material for other companies to copy it, ie. trade secret.

---

brings me back to one.

if its so powerful, how come a large comapny like 3M hasnt invented it yet?

Do systems typically last long enough for damage to be done by nanofluids? Seriously, if you're using the same WC hardware after 10 years of use... something isn't right (like those people who still bring Windows 98 machines into my shop).

I can understand the effects of it all... but what is the timeline for damage to be noticable and affect performance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

I have no idea, but doesn't mean anything as it relates to nanoparticles as far as I'm concerned. As much as I respect Rip, doesn't make it any more so becuase he said than when you did.

Mass, velocity and concentrations come into play when your talking about sand, water pipes and water jets. Just not the same with nanoparticles in the concentration and size being used for nanofluids right now.

andyc

---

and how do you know this?

The OP hasnt told us anything besides its close to water. (if it is how does that help at all?)
The OP hasnt even given any sample to skinnee or Martin310 who had all the stuff to test it.
(infact i told him the choices he made were kinda off)

So how do you know what the particles are and what he is talking about? Until he says something we have to assume its:

One of these:
Quantum dots
Nanostructures
Colloidal gold
Colloidal silver
Iron nanoparticles
Platinum nanoparticles


If he just answer this question, we can all be happy because i'll just ask my friend the results of it.

But having the particle be some mystery element X.
Common, this isnt a fruit roll were buying.

Do you want to see another repeat of Fluid XP original on our forum but only on a much larger bibblical proportion is what i am talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaeKuh

brings me back to one.

if its so powerful, how come a large comapny like 3M hasnt invented it yet?

---

Dunno, maybe they don't feel the market for it is big enough? :shrug::shrug: