Slashdot Mirror


Sapphire: A Liquid That Won't Get Things Wet

eaglebtc writes "Tuesday on Good Morning America, a representative from Tyco Fire & Security demonstrated an amazing new substance called Sapphire: a water-like fluid that does not get things wet. He filled a small fish tank with Sapphire and submerged a book, a laptop, and a flat panel TV. Both electronics were turned on when submerged; all three items came out completely unharmed. Click here for a slideshow of the demonstration. The official name for Sapphire is actually Novec 1230. Read about it here (PDF). Tyco sees practical applications of Sapphire in fire extinguisher systems for museums and libraries. By the same token of practicality, regular readers of Slashdot probably have something else in mind: total-immersion watercooling. Just think of the possibilities!"

843 comments

  1. "Water"-cooling by Liselle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Offtopic, but the submitter opened the door: according to their specs sheet (PDF warning), this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas? I also have to wonder what the long-term effects of exposure would be... it's one thing to dunk a laptop for a few seconds, it's something else entirely to have it swimming all day long. At least your machine would never catch on fire.

    They might have some information there about how well the stuff will conduct heat, but I got a lousy grade in Chemistry, so I'll leave it to the experts. ;)

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    1. Re:"Water"-cooling by davebarz · · Score: 1, Interesting

      how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?
      Potentially very useful depending on the properties of that gas.

    2. Re:"Water"-cooling by Brento · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...according to their specs sheet (PDF warning), this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?

      If they're using it to put out fires, it's a safe bet that it can handle your Athlon.

      --
      What's your damage, Heather?
    3. Re:"Water"-cooling by shuz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could always do a cooling tower like system. The saphire boils, turns into a gas, and then in the cooling stack condensates back into a liquid. Also it should be noted that 3M has a liquid product that does the same thing as saphire and has a higher boiling point. It probably still gets things wet, which saphire aparently doesn't, but it is not electicly conductive. Its also really expensive! I think THG did an article on the stuff a few years back.

      --
      There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
    4. Re:"Water"-cooling by stereoroid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The actual usefulness of the fluid in any state depends on the specific heat capacity, which I can't see 'coz the site is /.'d ...

      Since the phase change itself is be a major energy-absorber, that could be very helpful indeed as long as fresh condensed fluid comes in after a radiator of some sort.

      --
      (this is not a .sig)
    5. Re:"Water"-cooling by akaina · · Score: 1

      I think the point is to squelch the flames. No product can really ever claim to make things "melt proof"

      --
      Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
    6. Re:"Water"-cooling by rangek · · Score: 4, Insightful
      this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that

      Not if they are cooled. The real question is what is this stuff's heat capacity and thermal conductivity. (I.e., how much heat can I stuff in to a given mass of this substance, while staying below a certain temperature (like 49C) and how quickly can I suck it up and push it out?)

    7. Re:"Water"-cooling by purdue_thor · · Score: 1

      That might be very useful. It takes a huge amount of heat to boil something -- and then the vapor just takes it away. Then you place a condenser somewhere and have the vapor condense, dump the heat, and then return to the processor in a loop.

      This is essentially why places use radiators. A heater vaporizes water and then the steam carries that heat efficiently to the radiator where it's dumped into the room. The vapor condenses and the liquid returns to the boiler.

    8. Re:"Water"-cooling by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Even if "total immersion" cooling were possible with water... it still wouldn't be that good an idea. The idea behind water cooling is that the water that is over heat-producing components is quickly pushed away and will spend most of its time in the radiator where it is cooled.

      This idea just doesn't make much sense...

    9. Re:"Water"-cooling by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Informative
      If they're using it to put out fires, it's a safe bet that it can handle your Athlon.

      yes... but no-one's concerned about reusing the water you used to put out the fire. coolant, on the other hand, should stick around for more than a few seconds before it bubbles off into the atmosphere.

    10. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "...according to their specs sheet (PDF warning), this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?"

      If they're using it to put out fires, it's a safe bet that it can handle your Athlon.


      Not if it doesn't conduct heat very well. A cloud of scalding hot carbon dioxide gas would put out a fire, too, but it wouldn't do much for cooling your processor.

    11. Re:"Water"-cooling by robslimo · · Score: 1

      OK, so use a pressurized system like in automobiles. Well, maybe that's not so practical.

      Still, looking at the MSDS sheet, this stuff is amazingly stable and non-irritant. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but a new wonder-compound like this leaves me thinking cancer.

    12. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, processors do run hotter than the boiling point...but if it does any kind of good job cooling, we wouldn't have to worry about it boiling.

      The real question is how does it compare to water in terms of heat retention and transfer...or how easy is it to cool this stuff?

      I know, i know...i didn't RTFA.

    13. Re:"Water"-cooling by underworld · · Score: 1

      If this stuff boils at 120, how useful and practical is it for fire suppression?

    14. Re:"Water"-cooling by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 4, Funny

      this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?

      So you pump the substance in a liquid state over the processor, the heat boils it and it turns to a gas, taking much of the heat along with it. The gas passes through a small turbine, which generates electricity to power a peltier cooler, attached to a condensing tank. That cools the gas down to liquid state again, and the liquid is fed back into the system.

      I call it the Rube Goldburg 2000 cooling system. Time to file a patent!

    15. Re:"Water"-cooling by Chiasmus_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F)

      I'm sure that's the boiling point at standard atmospheric pressure at sea level, although the page is slashdotted, so I can't verify that.

      It's not difficult to raise a liquid's boiling point by pressurizing it. Cooks do it all the time: it's called a pressure cooker.

      But really, there's no reason to bother with that. Cooling a processor isn't about dunking a computer in a liquid and letting the heat evenly distribute. You're gonna want to chill it, no? It's probably more relevant to talk about the liquid's freezing point than its boiling point.

      --
      "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
    16. Re:"Water"-cooling by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 5, Interesting
      yes... but no-one's concerned about reusing the water you used to put out the fire. coolant, on the other hand, should stick around for more than a few seconds before it bubbles off into the atmosphere.

      If you put it deep enough in the fluid, the bubbles will condense on the way up. If the heat of vaporization is anything reasonable, this should work quite well to remove heat from your chip--the fluid changing to a gas absorbs a bunch of heat, and then swims away with it, while more cool fluid rushes in to take its place. Probably look cool, too.

    17. Re:"Water"-cooling by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Numbers straight from the PDF are...

      Specific Heat, Liquid 1.103 kJ/kgC (0.2634 BTU/lbF)
      Specific Heat, Vapor @ 1 atm 0.891 kJ/kgC (0.2127 BTU/lbF)

      Compute away...

    18. Re:"Water"-cooling by M1FCJ · · Score: 2, Informative

      A boiling substance is a brilliant coolant. Boiling uses a lot of energy and this can result in very large temperature drops. A refrigeration system where the substance gets boiled by a pressure drop is perfect (all fridges work this way). Also it will keep your CPU at a fixed temperature which is quite desirable. On the other hand I haven't seen the P-T diagram of this fluid so I can't comment if this is suitable or not as a refrigerant coolant.

    19. Re:"Water"-cooling by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4, Informative
      Provided the fluid was allowed to circulate, a boiling point at 49.2C should actually be pretty good- the fluid will give you micronucleation boiling and that will leverage the latent heat of vapourisation to carry away heat.

      You're only going to get big problems if the processor reaches about 70C- then the boiling will become film- and you'll get an insulating gas layer- (the density of the gas is almost 100x lower than the liquid- and the thermal coefficient is much the same), so shortly after that your processor will fail (hopefully just the thermal protection kicking in, but don't mess with this stuff if you have an early AMD :-) ).

      One good thing about this fluid is that you can refrigerate it down to -100C with it still being a liquid. That's very nice for overclocking purposes.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    20. Re:"Water"-cooling by promethean_spark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The bubbles would really help the convection current along too. The whole system could also be enclosed so none of the coolant evaporates. A pressure switch on the enclosure could turn the system off when it reached dangerous pressures or temperatures.

    21. Re:"Water"-cooling by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?

      Incredibly so. The act of boiling sucks up a lot of heat in the state-change.

      If the system is easy enough to recondense, and the boiling doesn't damage the proc, it sounds like the ideal watercooling substance.

    22. Re:"Water"-cooling by jspoon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If they're using it to put out fires, it's a safe bet that it can handle your Athlon.

      Not the same thing. You aren't trying to put out fires by cooling them, you're depriving them of oxygen. It could be that it's just as good at that application in gaseous state as when a liquid. In processor's, on the other hand, you want something to conduct away the heat from the processor. Gasses are usually bad heat absorbers.

      I do like what was said below about using the state change to cool, pumping the gaseous Sapphire away and re-condensing it. It would be more complicated than just putting your computer in a fish tank full of the stuff and letting convection do the rest (circulate the liquid keeping the coolest of it at the bottom), though.

    23. Re:"Water"-cooling by fatray · · Score: 1

      very--The main way that water puts out fire is by cooling. (the other way is by covering the fire and, therefore, excluding oxygen). If this stuff boils in the fire it will cool even better because of the latent heat of vaporization. The vapor will help exclude oxygen, too.

    24. Re:"Water"-cooling by davebarz · · Score: 1


      Hahahaha

    25. Re:"Water"-cooling by Rosyna · · Score: 1

      ...according to their specs sheet, this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F).

      What I wonder is how good will it be in places like Phoenix, AZ where a summer's day can exceed 120.6F?

      Doesn't seem to have much practical use outside of what it seems to have been designed for (keeping fire off water damaged items). Not that that is a bad thing but knowing the /. crowd, they'd probably try to install Linux on a liter of the fluid and make a Beowulf cluster out of it.

    26. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the good thing about this stuff is that if your cooling system sprung a leak, it wouldn't fry any of your components. Your processor might start to overheat, but most BIOSes have protective measures to shut it down before that happens.

    27. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the boiling liquid actually help the cooling process since heat would be absorbed to convert the liquid to gas. As the gas rises, it will quicky recondense as it encounters cooler liquid. With such a low boiling point, though, I would wonder about loss due to evaporation. The whole thing would probably have to be carefully enclosed.

    28. Re:"Water"-cooling by egarland · · Score: 1

      Acually, heat is transmitted very rapidly when a phase change is involved. It changes the design a bit but doesn't eliminate it as a possible coolant.

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    29. Re:"Water"-cooling by dbIII · · Score: 1
      this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that
      Well, they won't until they boil it all away - it takes a lot more energy to change the phase of a material than it does to raise the temperature, so the remaining liquid will be at the boiling point. That's why you have boiling water at 100C until it all boils away, and ice water at 0C until all the ice melts.

      If you have a layer of vapour between the hot object and the liquid (ie. it flashes off) the hot object can stay hotter since it won't be in contact with a liquid to conduct heat into. Keeping up the flow of liquid solves this.

      If it is a very poor thermal conductor (I'm assuming it's a very poor electrical conductor from the demo) then it wouldn't be all that useful for cooling unless you make sure you keep up the flow, and there will be a point where you may as well be blowing in a lot of cold air.

      The boiling point which is not far beyond room temperature makes this very useful.

    30. Re:"Water"-cooling by Chiasmus_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      If this stuff boils in the fire it will cool even better because of the latent heat of vaporization. The vapor will help exclude oxygen, too.

      And that's just great, until the building fills up with five hundred degree anoxic Sapphire steam.

      See, the reason that sprinkler systems are popular is that they tend to preserve human life. Unfortunate drawback: they fry electronics.

      Conversely, the reason that Halon is popular is that it tends to preserve electronics. Unfortunate drawback: it tends to kill people.

      It seems that Sapphire is not the holy grail of fire prevention: a system that will save both your NOC and the geeks inside it. Somebody ought to try to come up with that. There's probably a lot of money there.

      --
      "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
    31. Re:"Water"-cooling by random+coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the fact sheet, this is meant to put out fire by lowering the temperature below the burning point, not by preventing oxygen from combusting the fuel. So it is the same thing, in fact.

    32. Re:"Water"-cooling by Aindair · · Score: 1

      I think the strong selling point is that other things besides the processor/motherboard could get wet, and still be 'ok'.
      From a few years back, some might remember http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/06/30/132221 9&mode=thread&tid=137" an article on Liquid Nitrogen cooling using http://products3.3m.com/catalog/us/en001/oil_gas/s pecialty_materials/node_HX0DNRHXKWge/root_GST1T4S9 TCgv/vroot_G1F6DNZDBVge/command_AbcPageHandler/the me_us_oilgas_3_0 Fluorinert to cool a motherboard.
      The projects can be found http://www.octools.com/index.cgi?caller=articles/s ubmersion/submersion.html"> here
      and http://www.octools.com/index.cgi?caller=articles/s ubmersion2/submersion2.htmlhere:
      I'd guess Saphire property of not getting wet and not conducting would be the seller for the product, and not the 'cooling ablilites + not conducting.'

    33. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this stuff really different from the flourocarbon liquids that have been around for many years? I mean, does a spot on Good Morning America really make it news-worthy?

    34. Re:"Water"-cooling by psychofox · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You have to be careful with 3M's Fluorinert: Mustard gas doesn't sound too pleasant to me!

      Mustard gas

      Corporate site for Fluorinert

    35. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get things too cold though and you start getting condensation.

      This was what caused the Early PPro 200 based liquid nitrogen cooled systems to fail.

    36. Re:"Water"-cooling by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?

      That's precisely how we cooled our UHF transmitter. Evaporative cooling. As the water boiled off, it would draw much more heat than if it simply flowed over the tube. Something about "change of state". Where the energy required to change a substance from a solid to a liquid to a gas is much greater than that required to simply change the temp.

      --
      What?
    37. Re:"Water"-cooling by autocracy · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is this actually makes a lot of sense to me, and seems to be quite efficient (maybe not the right word, but the first to mind) in increasing the cooling power of the system.

      --
      SIG: HUP
    38. Re:"Water"-cooling by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      I do like what was said below about using the state change to cool, pumping the gaseous Sapphire away and re-condensing it. It would be more complicated than just putting your computer in a fish tank full of the stuff and letting convection do the rest (circulate the liquid keeping the coolest of it at the bottom), though.

      Yeah, but if you're going to implement a pump with a condenser/radiator in it anyway, why not just use water? It's probably way cheaper than this Sapphire stuff.

    39. Re:"Water"-cooling by The+Unabageler · · Score: 1

      by looking cool, do you mean like a pot of boiling water? because that's exactly what it would look like. I don't find it particularly cool to watch water boil.

      --
      perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'
    40. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the link to the FS-World site, there's a quote from Joe Ziemba, Ansul's marketing manager for engineered systems, "It is based on NOVEC(TM) 1230 fluid by 3M, which is the first alternative chemical clean agent to offer a viable long-term solution for special hazards fire protection." So it sounds like the 3M product you alluded to may infact be the basis for this product. Maybe they figured out a way to keep things from getting wet but at the expense of a lower boiling point.

    41. Re:"Water"-cooling by AnonymousKev · · Score: 1
      I see one problem. No Rube Goldburg contraption is complete without a bowling ball that falls onto a see-saw.

      Not sure how you'll work that in...

      --
      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997
      (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
    42. Re:"Water"-cooling by Laur · · Score: 4, Informative
      You could always do a cooling tower like system. The saphire boils, turns into a gas, and then in the cooling stack condensates back into a liquid.

      That is not a cooling tower. A cooling tower works by evaporating a liquid (usually water) to a gas and then just venting this to the atmosphere. It is not a closed system. BTW, this is why cooling towers have visible clouds of steam rising from them on cold days. What you are describing is a simple refrigeration circuit, such as what is used in your fridge or AC unit. The refrigerant is evaporated in the evaporator inside your house, absorbing heat, and condenses back into a liquid in the condenser located outside, giving off heat to the environment.

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    43. Re:"Water"-cooling by whodunnit · · Score: 1

      Well,

      If you can put electronics in it with no harm, why bother with pumps, just use your regular ole fans to have a nice current if fluid flowing through the case???

    44. Re:"Water"-cooling by kcdoodle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A good cooling setup would have enough flow to keep the liquid from boiling.

      With a high enough recirculation flow rate, any boiling the would take place would be at the chip. Small bubbles would form and be swept away by the fluid flow.

      This process is called "Nucleate Boiling" and is the best heat transfer method there is. The latent heat of vaporization is absorbed by the liquid in it's phase change to a gas. Then the tiny gas bubbles are swept away by the fluid flow and the gas bubbles collapse, giving their latent heat to the surrounding fluid. This heat is later removed by the cooling radiator at the other end.

      As long as the bulk temperature of the fluid stays well below the boiling point and the fluid flow is sufficent to strip the small bubbles that form on the heat source surface, this is really the best setup imaginable!

      I live the greatest adventure anyone could want -- Tosk the Hunted.

      --

      - I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
    45. Re:"Water"-cooling by trmj · · Score: 1

      I do like what was said below about using the state change to cool, pumping the gaseous Sapphire away and re-condensing it

      Check this out. It doesn't use Sapphire, but it does use the state change to cool the material and then bring it back to the processor.

      IMHO, it works very well in my PC.

      --
      Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
    46. Re:"Water"-cooling by kevlar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In all honesty, who gives a crap about whether it can be used as a coolant? There are already existing non-conductive liquid coolants on the market. The problem is that they're $X000/gallon, which is something most people cannot afford to invest in a heat sink!

      It's not only about whether it could be a coolant, but whether it'd be affordable for anyone for personal use.

      Personally the idea of using a chemical as a coolant doesn't put me at ease... especially when its something that you invite into your personal environment....

    47. Re:"Water"-cooling by parksie · · Score: 1

      The liquid will probably be far too viscous for the fans to turn properly, you'll just damage their electronics.

    48. Re:"Water"-cooling by essreenim · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it won't be long before someone makes
      a cauldron box (of witchcraft).

      Then all thats needed is a pointy hat and a big ladle!! .then slaps a big patent on it :/

    49. Re:"Water"-cooling by gManZboy · · Score: 1

      And how is this better than just using water? (No, really)

      --
      Ed Grossman, InformationWeek
    50. Re:"Water"-cooling by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 4, Funny

      You don't think a large glass case full of possibly colored clear liquid bubbling away like mad while you're working would look cool?

      Toss in a few plastic carrots and other vegetables for decoration, maybe add a concentric spiral of red EL lighting at the bottom to look like an electric oven burner, etc?

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    51. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's better because you don't have to worry about your electronics frying if it springs a leak!

    52. Re:"Water"-cooling by nullforce · · Score: 1

      That's its boiling point at 1 atm of pressure. If it were in a pressurized container, it might be possible to keep it from boiling.

    53. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big deal...H2O doesn't conduct electricity either (the trace minerals suspended in it do), and it has a 2x boiling point of this new stuff.

      Your laptop will run just fine after being dunked in de-ionized H2O, trust me!

    54. Re:"Water"-cooling by racas · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind, though, that this is exactly how refrigerant compressors work (read: A/C and refrigerators). Both are expensive, and the most costly part of it is compressing the coolant back to a liquid. What you're suggesting in the first sentence of your second paragraph is essentially adding an A/C unit to your computer. Not very cost-efficient.

    55. Re:"Water"-cooling by Myrrh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, it is the same thing.

      Fire suppression systems such as those that use Halon (which was outlawed in the '90s due to its ozone-destroying side-effects) put out fires by displacing oxygen with some other gas.

      Spraying water on a fire does not "deprive" the fire of oxygen. In fact, this is why you aren't supposed to fight certain types of fires (a magnesium fire, for example) by spraying water on it. That's because if the fire is hot enough, it will "crack" the water molecules, liberating both oxygen and hydrogen -- which will of course make the fire much worse.

      Spraying water on a fire robs the fire of thermal energy. Evaporation (converting a liquid to a gas) is an endothermic process; it takes a significant amount of energy. When you dump a bunch of water on a fire, it takes energy from the combustion reaction to turn the water into steam. Eventually so much thermal energy has been taken from the fire that the fire extinguishes.

    56. Re:"Water"-cooling by nameer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Been there, done that. Here is a snippet from a quick search on the Cray II. I'm sure someone else will find a better link, but:

      The CRAY 2 was completely flouronics cooled. The cooling fluid, made by 3M, allowed the whole computer to be immersed in the electrically insulated fluid, and yet conduct the heat away by conduction and ebullient vaporization. It looked much like a fish tank.

      --
      "Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
    57. Re:"Water"-cooling by pudding7 · · Score: 1

      I think it'd be pretty cool to watch your system run while submerged in a pot of boiling water.

      Pretty cool indeed.

    58. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      test - autoreply? you are leet!

    59. Re:"Water"-cooling by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1, Funny

      See, the reason that sprinkler systems are popular is that they tend to preserve human life.

      So in the situation where Le Louvre has to choose between seeing the Mona Lisa destroyed by a conventional water sprinkler or seeing a few hundred filthy American tourists being cooked alive by 500 degree anoxic Sapphire steam, which do you think they'll choose?

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    60. Re:"Water"-cooling by FluffyWhiteBunny · · Score: 1

      It seems that the most useful application for this product in terms of cooling would be as a vapor barrier to prevent frost build up around a cascade type cooler. If you notice the boiling point is not that hot but the freezing point, at -100 something, now we are talking some serious chill factors and can retain a liquid state

    61. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your WC setup is running at 49.2C, you need a new WC setup.

    62. Re:"Water"-cooling by zelphior · · Score: 1

      Not sure what kind of processor you are running. Maybe a laptop (my old micron used to burn my legs when i had it on my lap for long periods of time), but my pc runs at a nice, cool 29-33C (a few degrees more when playing games. I get very nervous when the processor tops 40C, and it auto-shuts down when it's at 50C for more than a few seconds. With any decent cooling system you aren't going to run that hot. The problem is that it has a thermal conductivity of about 1/4 the conductivity of water, so it would be pretty crappy. If you could use an externally cooled tank of the stuff running into your sealed computer case, it would take away a lot of the heat, more so than just circulating air. IIRC, water is about 24 times more thermally conductive than air, so this stuff would be about 6 times more efficient than air, by my rough estimate. Still don't know if it'd be worth it.

      --
      If you can read this then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously"
    63. Re:"Water"-cooling by rattler14 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Offtopic, but the submitter opened the door: according to their specs sheet (PDF warning), this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?

      But remember, this is at ONE atmosphere or "standard" pressure. It is quite possible that in a relatively small pressure vessel with leads etched through it, that the boiling point could be raised. How much, that is something that has to figured out, but it's not completely unreasonable.

      Also, processors burn hotter than 120F because the cooling sucks. If a liquid were to be well circulated, it might be possible to keep the temperature of the outside of the heat sink at a reasonable temp (~100F). But that will depend mainly on the thermal diffusivity of the liquid as well as the circulation rate of the liquid.

      So yeah, a boiling point of 120F is pretty shitty, but there are reasonable ways around it, if the properties of this liquid have cooling properties that are worth the effort.

      --
      my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
    64. Re:"Water"-cooling by smitty+werbenjuegerm · · Score: 1

      you could just use a simple impeller to push the liquid around like in a fish tank instead of a fan.

    65. Re:"Water"-cooling by Mignon · · Score: 1
      It would be more complicated than just putting your computer in a fish tank full of the stuff and letting convection do the rest (circulate the liquid keeping the coolest of it at the bottom), though.

      But wouldn't that be a cool case? Everything but your drives sits in a fish tank. No fans running, but you have that soothing fish tank compressor running instead. Bonus style points for the fake plastic ferns, multi-colored stones, and deep-sea diver figure.

    66. Re:"Water"-cooling by ryepup · · Score: 5, Interesting

      on a more practical note, do you want a hermetically sealed case? Thats seems like it would be a lot more expensive and much more difficult to maintain. When you're hard drive dies, not only do you have to get a replacement drive and pop it in, you have to pop the seal on your case, drain some fluid, switch the hardware, then re-fill and re-seal the case.

    67. Re:"Water"-cooling by rjelks · · Score: 1

      ....I'm picturing a really cool, fish tank mod case right now....

    68. Re:"Water"-cooling by Chiasmus_ · · Score: 1

      So in the situation where Le Louvre has to choose between seeing the Mona Lisa destroyed by a conventional water sprinkler or seeing a few hundred filthy American tourists being cooked alive by 500 degree anoxic Sapphire steam, which do you think they'll choose?

      A simpler question: for any given non-American, given the choice between cooking a few hundred Americans alive with 500 degree anoxic Sapphire steam, and not doing that, which do you think they'll choose?

      --
      "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
    69. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how you turn it on and oof.

    70. Re:"Water"-cooling by zelphior · · Score: 1

      Even better, add a few fake tropical fish, let them "swim" around your exposed cpu (no case needed, so you could see everything)

      --
      If you can read this then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously"
    71. Re:"Water"-cooling by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You've made one of the three classic blunders, the most famous of which is "never start and land war in Asia." But only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    72. Re:"Water"-cooling by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      You do know that water is a chemical don't you?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    73. Re:"Water"-cooling by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Or you could fill your case with fish. They're pretty good at pushing things around.

    74. Re:"Water"-cooling by rot26 · · Score: 1

      if you circulate it, even a little bit, it's not likely to get hot enough to vaporize anyway.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    75. Re:"Water"-cooling by asavage · · Score: 3, Informative

      The heat capacity is 1.1kJ/Kg Kalvin so about 1/4 that of water. It's freezing point however is -108 C so it could could be easily used at -30 or -40 to keep everything nice and cool. It would also insulate some of the sound I expect.

    76. Re:"Water"-cooling by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Or rather some sort of tiny dolphin, that wouldn't need real water.

    77. Re:"Water"-cooling by Pegasus377 · · Score: 1

      nope, not on and off, just off....

    78. Re:"Water"-cooling by kevlar · · Score: 1

      hey now, you're just silly.

    79. Re:"Water"-cooling by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 1

      Water doesn't boil at 120.6F.

      Didn't pay much attention in school, did you?

    80. Re:"Water"-cooling by zelphior · · Score: 1

      Not to worry, it has a freezing point at -108C (-162.4F for all you non metric people).
      This would be great for overclocking if you could refrigerate it down close to the freezing point and circulating it through your computer. Not as good as liquid nitrogen, but you don't have to worry about it destroying your system if anything leaks, and you could use it to cool the entire motherboard and all your expansion cards equally, rather than focusing on a few heat sinks for heat transfer.

      --
      If you can read this then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously"
    81. Re:"Water"-cooling by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      And as long as you have convection/flow it shouldn't stay in one place long enough reach boiling point, right? Provided you have enough volume relative to the size of the heat source.

      Combining the liquid with a heat-pipe system like Shuttle uses might work well in a system too. The fluid draws more heat away from the CPU than air would, but also conducts more heat to the pipes, and therefore increases the speed at which heat is conducted out of the case. Would it be effective enough at conducting the heat outward to maintain the liquid state?

      Pardon me if I'm stating the glaringly obvious, or making an uninformed assumption. My physics education ended at high school.

    82. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try looking into evaporative cooling. See also refridgeration using CFCs.

    83. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call it the Rube Goldburg 2000 cooling system. Time to file a patent!

      No, to make money with a patent you have to put time and effort into developing your idea.

      Think along the lines of "one-click shopping" or a "shopping cart" or "run a program in a browser". Uh...wait..nevermind...

    84. Re:"Water"-cooling by syn3rg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually you're right. Hard drives aren't hermetically sealed either -- They have small holse to allow the air inside to expand or contract based on heat load. The liquid would get in. It might not fry your electronics, but I'll bet it'd give the heads a hard time. possibly even corrupt the disks.

      --
      The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
    85. Re:"Water"-cooling by AgBullet · · Score: 1
      "..while more cool fluid rushes in to take its place. Probably look cool, too."

      yeah... with your cpu fizzing away in a vat looking like some indigestion tablet in a glass of water. switching the damn thing on and off would be a bitch.

      snorkels, anyone?

    86. Re:"Water"-cooling by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of comments here to the effect that the important secs are the specific heat capacity, or the specific heat capacity and conductivity.

      It's mostly just conductivity that matters. Aluminum is the most often used heat sink these days, and it has a very low specific heat capacity. Copper's another favorite, and it has a fairly high specific heat capacity. For heat sinks if there is a contiuous (rather than one-time or highly uneven) heat source, you don't really care how much of the heat sucked away is stored in the heat sink (specific heat capacity)- you just care how fast it can get rid of it. Conductivity's where it's at for heat sinks.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    87. Re:"Water"-cooling by PretzelBat · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or you could fill your case with fish.

      Given that it's NOT ACTUALLY WATER, this might damage the fish is some irreparable way.

    88. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      existing non-conductive liquid coolants = mineral oil

    89. Re:"Water"-cooling by Bfaber · · Score: 1

      Have you used a modern P4? They run at 53C no problem. They load down to 56C in many cases, and start throttling back at 60. (or was it 65?)

      Thats die temp. Are you using an Athlon?

    90. Re:"Water"-cooling by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 2, Funny
      by looking cool, do you mean like a pot of boiling water? because that's exactly what it would look like. I don't find it particularly cool to watch water boil.

      I'm afraid you lack the soul of the geek, sir. Boiling is a fascinating process, but one that we usually don't get to observe closely because a) boiling water is hot and b) pans are usually opaque. I imagined something like your motherboard standing on end in a clear sealed tank, with bubbles rising off the stuff that produced significant amounts of heat (probably just the CPU).

      Unless your comment was a pun on "cool," in which case you do have the soul of a geek . . .

    91. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    92. Re:"Water"-cooling by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you have a definate point there. Moving parts would have more friction moving through (or in contact with) the denser matter. The motor in the hard drive would have to work harder, and the arms that the heads are attached to would be slower to move through the liquid than air. It makes me wonder why they haven't developed hard drives to work in a vacuum. With less friction due to the lack of air, the heads should move quite a bit faster.

      I suspect a dunking wouldn't allow any or enough water inside the hard drive, but continued use in such an environment would obviously allow the liquid in.

      And obviously it would make CDRoms very hard to use. :)

      But, it does sound like a good idea for a full submersion motherboard. But, you'd probably have to mount the motherboard so all the connectors (keyboard, mouse, etc) were on top, or it would leak.

      I'd be just a bit nervous of about having a power supply submerged.

      And what happens if there's any condensation, or the liquid gets contaminated by any sort of conductive material? The liquid may be non-conductive, but contaminants would be.

      It does sound like a better solution for current design liquid cooling systems. If they leak, it won't fry anything. That is assuming it conducts heat, rather than insulate from it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    93. Re:"Water"-cooling by bob_the_clown · · Score: 1
      I call it the Rube Goldburg 2000 cooling system. Time to file a patent!

      Too late, I've already trademarked the name.

      -Rube Goldberg

    94. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't trying to put out fires by cooling them, you're depriving them of oxygen. It could be that it's just as good at that application in gaseous state as when a liquid.

      Fires operate on 3 components - remove any one of the 3 to put out the fire:

      1) Fuel
      2) Oxygen
      3) Heat

      Halon attacks the oxygen supply through displacement. Water attacks the heat component (but not the oxygen component unless you're talking about flooding).

    95. Re:"Water"-cooling by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      But, if your constantly cooling the CPU, it will maintain a temperature much lower than when it's being cooled by air.

      That is assuming it conducts heat.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    96. Re:"Water"-cooling by M1FCJ · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If the fluid is dielectric, just immerse the PC completely into it. You don't need a sealsed case, just a tub with cables going in and out. Btw, forget about moving parts, (CD-ROM/floppy). The fluid friction will be far too much. As long as you move the fluid around... It would make a nice aquarium job...

    97. Re:"Water"-cooling by casehardened · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mean, like...mineral oil? I know a guy who put his entire motherboard in an aquarium tank of mineral oil; it's non-conductive, has reasonable heat transfer, and won't dissolve PCB's. Only problem was that hardware changes were...messy

    98. Re:"Water"-cooling by convolvatron · · Score: 1

      too late. my understanding is that Cray has a patent for spray evaporative cooling as used in the current
      X1 product

    99. Re:"Water"-cooling by The+Unabageler · · Score: 1

      no, i just don't think boiling fluids are fascinating. I've watched plenty inside beakers, etc that are clear. Now, if it were something like lead boiling, that's exciting to watch, since it's REALLY hot when it does that. If i wanted to watch bubbles in a clear tank I'd go watch a fish tank, which also has shiny fish swimming around, not just a cpu that doesn't move. There's a reason computers are put in cases...they're boring to watch!

      --
      perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'
    100. Re:"Water"-cooling by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that,

      In air, yes. But if it has thermal conductive properties similar to water, you probably wouldn't get up that high running immersed in it.

      As for the problems with hard drives in this thread, why not put the stuff over the motherboard only? Have IDE (or SATA) cables coming out of a case in a case kind of design.

      Another issue not addressed yet, at least that I saw, is noise. Generally, sound doesn't transmit well between liquid/gas interfaces. Also, you wouldn't need as many fans, nor would they have to spin them as fast. Even if you had to keep the drives out of the fluid, and had that noise to deal with, you'd still get a pretty siginificant drop.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    101. Re:"Water"-cooling by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      But MUST todays processors run hotter than that? I was under the impression that this temperature is more of a "best we can do" limit than an ideal temperature for processor operation. If that's the case, then using this liquid would appear to present an excellent solution to the ever-worsening cooling problem.

      Liquids present much higher heat capacities as well as much higher heat-transfer coefficients than gas counterparts. Hence, flowing a modest amount of this liquid around a chip and then dumping that heat to a separate air/fluid heat exchanger seems to me to be an excellent idea. Low fluid speeds = low noise as well.

      By keeping the chip's operational temperature below 49.2 C you remove the gas problem. Although all us good heat transfer engineers know how much heat is absorbed in liquid vaporization.

      Wanna really get chips movin', just run the coolant through small tubes imbedded in the chip itself!!

      Ahhhhh, too many ideas at once!

    102. Re:"Water"-cooling by ePhil_One · · Score: 4, Funny
      You don't think a large glass case full of possibly colored clear liquid bubbling away like mad while you're working would look cool?

      I'm thinking more of a Chemestry set environment. The fluid boils off then condenses into those cool spiral glass tubes (a glass radiator, in effect) then drips back down into the resevoir.

      Space efficent? No.

      Cool? You Betcha.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    103. Re:"Water"-cooling by zod1025 · · Score: 0, Troll
      Spraying water on a fire robs the fire of thermal energy.

      Dude, the water doesn't magically swipe heat out of the fire. When you dump a bunch of water on a fire, you are covering all the burning surfaces and preventing them from getting oxygen, dousing the flame. The heat already in the doused surfaces will steam the water off, sure, but by then it's too late for the fire.

      There are certain types of fires you aren't supposed to put out with water because the mechanical action of spraying them causes them to get worse (only in rare cases, like perhaps your magnesium example, is the fire wicked enough to actually eat water). For example, a grease fire: take a pan of pooled grease or oil on the stove, heat it up enough to burn. If you're an idiot and spray it with water, you blow the pooled grease out of the pan, and suddenly there's a LOT more surface area of hot oil to react with the air and FWOOOHM.

      It's so funny, how many folks chime in with their completely bogus knowledge. The peppering with 'big' science words like 'endothermic' on top of factually incorrect information and mis-understood theories must fool too many people around here. One would think geeks would know a little fire safety...

      --

      -ZOD-
    104. Re:"Water"-cooling by fintler · · Score: 5, Informative
      It makes me wonder why they haven't developed hard drives to work in a vacuum.


      Hard drives work because air is there. The head basically "takes off" in a sense. It flys above the platters. In a vacuum, the head would just drag along the platter, probably destroying the drive.
    105. Re:"Water"-cooling by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Well the trick there is to move the parts around such that it becomes fun to watch. the CPU, and powersupply would always give off bubbles, but when playing some good techno, your sound card would to, and let's not even think about how many bubbles you could generate playing UT2004. Sound card, network card, video card, motherboard. watch that sucer boil, ad then overheat and shut down.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    106. Re:"Water"-cooling by jaysones · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, there goes my scalding hot carbon dioxide gas case mod!

    107. Re:"Water"-cooling by B3ryllium · · Score: 3, Funny

      wah, wah, it'll harm the electronics if I submerge them, it'll harm the fans if I turn them on in it, it'll drown the fish ...

      wah wah wah, why don't I just shut my computer off and die already?

    108. Re:"Water"-cooling by sharkdba · · Score: 1

      You do know that water is a chemical don't you?

      Certainly, but he said "introduce", which implies something new, not already existing. Water being a chemical is available in nature, and it's not harmful to us when exposed to it. This chemical on the other hand, who knows... Remember they used to say DTD is not harmful when first introduced.

      --
      The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
    109. Re:"Water"-cooling by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I have a better idea, stop using intel processors

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    110. Re:"Water"-cooling by Myrrh · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You haven't explained why you think my argument is bogus.

      Considering I'm both a computer (programming) and chemistry geek, I think I can reasonably say I know a thing or two about what I'm talking about. In fact, I still have the lecture notes from the day we talked about this very topic in p-chem, and I remember the prof saying that it's a common misconception that water extinguishes fires by way of displacing oxygen.

      Nowhere did I mention "magic." What you call magic is the flow of thermal energy -- and in centuries past was in fact considered magic. It's not.

      I suspect that we may both be right, in a way. It's true that dumping water on a fire does cover the area that is burning and would temporarily prevent local sites in the combustible material from getting oxygen. But dumping water on a fire cannot drive all the oxygen off -- as I said, only gas-based systems such as Halon do that.

      Your argument about grease fires is well noted and completely true. That's one of the prime reasons you're supposed to read the type of fire extinguisher (A, B, or C, or all of the above) before putting out such a fire.

      As a scientist, I accept the possibility that I may be wrong, but I place the burden upon you to prove it. I am using, as you say, "'big' science words like 'endothermic'" because for one, they're the correct terms -- take a chemistry class or two -- and because a significant portion of the audience here on Slashdot is well educated. I am not simply bandying about big words to make myself look important -- I studied this stuff so I could make arguments like this and actually [i]know[/i] what I'm talking about.

      What is your field, by the way?

    111. Re:"Water"-cooling by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

      And there's one liquid coolant that's non-conductive and almost free. You can buy it at almost any store for not much more than $1/gallon. It's called purified water. Only problem is, if it gets impurities it becomes conductive. Possibly the same with some of the other non-conductive coolants.

    112. Re:"Water"-cooling by RevDobbs · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Personally the idea of using a chemical as a coolant doesn't put me at ease...

      I completely concur; I keep hearing about the dangers (and pervasiveness!) of Dihydrogen Monoxide, and don't understand why the Powers that Be haven't done anything about this health and environmental danger yet...

    113. Re:"Water"-cooling by Bagheera · · Score: 1

      You're describing an open circuit, where he's describing a closed circuit. They are both classified as "cooling towers" since it's the "tower" part (either as a simple evaporative cooling stack, or as a liquid to liquid heat exchanger) that makes them "cooling towers." The pillars of steam you see coming off the cooling towers at power plants are (usually) cooling water evaporating off the tower/heat exchanger. Your working fluid is enclosed in pipes in the tower, and cooling water flows over the outer surface of the exchanger cooling it.

      You're both right?

      Here's a link to the cooling technology institute.

      Now, on a side note, Rolls Royce (or possibly Napier - memory is a little fuzzy here) experimented with evaporative cooling on some of their aero engines back int he 30's and early 40's. They let the coolant boil off in the block, and had large condensers out in the wings to return it to liquid and run it back through the engine. I could see a similar system working in this application, but there'd be some obvious problems with closing the circuit, etc.

      Now, from a fire fighting perspective, this stuff seems like a godsend. Sprinklers cause water damage. Halon causes ozone damage. This stuff seems to kill both birds with the same stone.

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
    114. Re:"Water"-cooling by technos · · Score: 4, Funny

      this might damage the fish is some irreparable way

      Damage them? They'll simply die. They're fish, not a video card. "Well, we did some damage to the goldfish, had three fail and the other half dizen are intermittant" just doesn't happen.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    115. Re:"Water"-cooling by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?

      Ever heard of Freon? It was FANTASTIC for cooling purposes even though it's boiling point was MUCH lower than this. This could be used in a heat pump, catch the vapor and condense it, start the process again.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    116. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To lubricate, you have to get it wet...

    117. Re:"Water"-cooling by SnappleMaster · · Score: 1

      Well yeah that would look pretty cool but is it really practical to use this for PC cooling if you have to dunk your PC in a swimming pool of it?

      The best criticism against using this for PC cooling was posted above: it's going to be a PITA to crack open your case and do maintenance when it's full of liquid.

      OTOH if we had sealed PC cases I'd no longer have to worry about cat hair build-up! That would rock! I hate having to constantly replace fans that start to make that uber-annoying hum once they get exposed to enough cat hairs and dust.

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
    118. Re:"Water"-cooling by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's because if the fire is hot enough, it will "crack" the water molecules, liberating both oxygen and hydrogen -- which will of course make the fire much worse.

      There have been accidents in steel mills where someone allowed water to becomed trapped unter liquid steel, the problem is two fold first is like putting water on a grease fire the instant evaporation causes the hot grease (or steel) above it to explode and 4000 degree steel can cause the water to crack into H2 and O2. Very bad stuff.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    119. Re:"Water"-cooling by PretzelBat · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh. I truly thought fish were electronic. Forgive my abhorrant ignorance, oh great one.

    120. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not ture in this case since this is not a heat sink, it's a coolant. It needs to hold the heat and when it flows away it takes the heat with it. The more heat it can hold, the more that's carried away when the coolant moves.

    121. Re:"Water"-cooling by SirDrinksAlot · · Score: 1

      If you were to keep the liquid and hardware all enclosed and pressurized the liquid would not boil. It would stay in its liquid state and allow you to conduct heat out of it.

      Think Compressed liquids in cans. Release pressure it boils but its at room tempterature and cools it self while boiling and turning to gas. Now that would be costly to allow it to boil off. Recondenseing is a possibility but slim. Just keep it pressurized and it'll stay in liquid form.

    122. Re:"Water"-cooling by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Funny


      Oh ya. :)

      I knew that, I just forgot..

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    123. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife cooked some "liquid" stuff like this one time. I think it was called kuzu. It is made from kudzu roots if I remember correctly. Really funny, neat stuff. The surface tension is huge or something cause you can stick somethin in it but it snaps back together.

      Tim

    124. Re:"Water"-cooling by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      If its vapor pressure is low enough for it to boil at that temperature, I'd be more concerned about it simply evaporating off from the surface.

    125. Re:"Water"-cooling by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      Ha, I don't know man. Athlon's have some serious heat...

      I think that if it was cool enough though, it could be used for a cooling-system (not saying that it's not) because it can contain a lot of stuff.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    126. Re:"Water"-cooling by jay+age · · Score: 1

      I don't, but that is just me, there are enough crazy people out there. Just think about how this would improve aquarium mods, fish swimming around in your case and all.

      Naturally, only if they can survive the liquid.

    127. Re:"Water"-cooling by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 1

      So in the situation where Le Louvre has to choose between seeing the Mona Lisa destroyed by a conventional water sprinkler or seeing a few hundred filthy American tourists being cooked alive by 500 degree anoxic Sapphire steam, which do you think they'll choose?

      I'm thinking 500 degree steam would do quite a lot of damage to paintings too.....

    128. Re:"Water"-cooling by rangek · · Score: 1
      It's freezing point however is -108 C so it could could be easily used at -30 or -40

      What is going to get it that cold? An external refridgeration unit I guess, but that is complicated and loud, and power hungry... But I guess those crazies who do water-cooled over clocking don't care about that...

    129. Re:"Water"-cooling by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      As liquids go, this stuff is pretty thin. With such a low boiling point, there can't be much in the way of intermolecular forces holding it together. Therefore there can't be much in the way of intermolecular forces preventing it from flowing.

    130. Re:"Water"-cooling by Asicath · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot, if we can't find a way to turn something into a bewolf cluster/web server or show how linux is better than microsoft, then we have to find a way to use it to help overclock a processor. NO MATTER WHAT!

    131. Re:"Water"-cooling by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, good fire suppressants should do both.

      That is why CO2 extinguishers are lousy at putting out paper fires. They smother it, and then as soon as you stop the gas flow, it flares back up as the embers are still hot.

      Dry chemical puts out paper fires just fine since it does not dissipate (thus keeping it smothered long enough to cool).

      This stuff would smother the fire, and then cool it as well.

      The mechanism for putting out solvent fires is probably different. It probably will tend to smother it initially (but not cool it sufficiently - these fires have very low flash points). However, enough of the liquid would probably dilute the solvent - thus lowering its vapor pressure and raising its flash point.

    132. Re:"Water"-cooling by Laur · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's a link to the more detailed explanation of cooling towers at the site you linked to. The "closed circuit" cooling tower consists of two circuits, one of which is closed, the other which is open and is evaporated to the atmosphere. The open evaporation circuit is what is responsible for the cooling. The "cooling tower" method of cooling relies on evaporating a liquid and exhausting it to atmosphere. The grandparent described a closed system where the working fluid was evaporated then later condensed. This is not a cooling tower design, since there is no open component exhausting to atmosphere. BTW, a simple example of a residential cooling tower type device is an evaporative (or swamp) cooler of the type frequently used in hot, dry locations such as Arizona (where I used to live). It works by blowing air over pads soaked with water. The water evaporates, cooling the air, which is then used to cool the house. In this case the "working fluid" is actually the air, not the water, so it is not a straight cooling tower design, but it is very similar.

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    133. Re:"Water"-cooling by zulux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It makes me wonder why they haven't developed hard drives to work in a vacuum.

      Because gas makes it soo easy!

      As the hard-drive spins, it pulls in some air along with it at the surface. The read/write head literally floats above this fast moving airstream. This allows the head to be made cheeply - they don't have to have inteligent or actuators to keep the head right above the disk itself. They just float.

      If you read the spec sheets for most hard drives - they ususall have a limit of 10,000 ft. Above that, the air is not dense enough.

      One could argue, why don't the just presurise the drives and seal them off: I've heard that the drives need to out gas for a few months after manufacture.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    134. Re:"Water"-cooling by etLux · · Score: 0



      I dunno about that one -- I think you could anneal horseshoes on top of mine...

    135. Re:"Water"-cooling by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Let's add vehicle engine cooling into this discussion. The green stuff you add to your radiator fluid is to keep the stuff from Freezing -> anti-freeze. The water in your closed circuit cooling system has a boiling point of 100 Degrees Celcius. Your engine runs MUCH hotter. Where ignition takes place, you're looking at > 200 C... Of course, some of that temperature is lost in the metal engine, but still enough to make the water boil. The reason that your rad core isn't 100% steam is because the water is in constant circulation. I'm sure if you keep this substance flowing it would be a fine coolant...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    136. Re:"Water"-cooling by sylvandb · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of comments here to the effect that the important secs are the specific heat capacity, or the specific heat capacity and conductivity.

      It's mostly just conductivity that matters.


      Not true when talking about water or any other kind of liquid or gas cooling. Conductivity is important when the "heat sink" is not moving.

      When moving coolant past the heat source, capacity is more important than conductivity. That is because you want the moving coolant to pick up as much heat as possible as quickly as possible so the heat can be moved away.

      Heat capacity is why water is better than air at cooling CPU's, engines, etc. Because of water's higher heat capacity, it can move the same amount of heat away with a smaller volume of coolant exposed to the heat source. So with small water filled passages the heat is collected, and then a large area (radiator) is used to transfer that heat to air. (That "large" radiator is needed because air has a lower heat capacity than water.)

      sdb

    137. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a joke, learn to take them with grace.

    138. Re:"Water"-cooling by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Correction... Temperature where combustion occurs is > 1200C, not 200C...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    139. Re:"Water"-cooling by ultranova · · Score: 1
      So in the situation where Le Louvre has to choose between seeing the Mona Lisa destroyed by a conventional water sprinkler or seeing a few hundred filthy American tourists being cooked alive by 500 degree anoxic Sapphire steam, which do you think they'll choose?

      Well, while I'm no expert, I'd hazard to guess that Mona Lisa, being an oil painting, that is, being composed of paints that can be dissolved by oil but not water, wouldn't be seriously damaged by what's basically equivalent to rain.

      On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that 500 degree Celsius chemical gas would do a considerable amount of damage.

      But excatly how do you heat the gas to 500 degrees Celsius ? The sprinklers start working when the fire is still small, they won't wait untill it's a raging inferno...

      Besides, like I said, I'm no expert, but if I had to guard priceless paintings I would install a fire alarm system and adjust it to the point of raising alarm when someone who's been smoking in the last hour comes in :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    140. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. So this one is going to be anonymous :)

      A group of us engineers needed some very pure water to cool a plasma device. Since there were two large electrodes fairly close together with a 40,000 volt potential across them...impurities would be really, really bad in the water.

      So we got a bucket and walked over to a nearby nuclear reactor that happened to be around. Big ol' resevoir of really pure water.

      *dip*

    141. Re:"Water"-cooling by JeffWhitledge · · Score: 0

      the holy grail of fire prevention: a system that will save both your NOC and the geeks inside it. Somebody ought to try to come up with that. There's probably a lot of money there.

      You mean like FM-200? Yeah, somebody out to try to come up with that. It's ozone friendly, too!

      --
      These comments do express the opinions of my employers, and, personally, I think they're complete rubbish.
    142. Re:"Water"-cooling by Suidae · · Score: 1

      That does make me wonder if anyone has done a 'I've got a 500lb CO2 cylinder to waste' cooling system, where you simply put a funnel over the processor, connect the gas to the funnel output, and turn on the gas. Escaping carbon dioxide gas freezes the processor (and generates dry ice snow as a bonus visual effect) and keeps the system at about dry ice temperature.

    143. Re:"Water"-cooling by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >Fire suppression systems such as those that use Halon (which was outlawed in the '90s due to its ozone-destroying side-effects) put out fires by displacing oxygen with some other gas.

      Halon's not a good example of the point you're making.

      Halon works at low concentrations, without displacing oxygen, by chemically jamming the chain of reactions in the combustion process. You could think of it as the opposite of a catalyst. The bromine atoms do it, by binding to free radicals that normally keep the fire going. Sorry, I've never found a good online description of exactly how this works.

      WAY back when, the manufacturer ran a TV commercial showing a guy in a chair surrounded by a ring of fire. They put out the fire with Halon to show that it didn't interfere with the guy's breathing.

      If it were just a matter of displacing oxygen, don't you think they would have used something cheaper?

    144. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      off topic on the cooling thing:

      but what about this: I've read, a bit ago, about a circus trick, circa 1900, where a man would stick his hand in a big pot of liquid lead, i belive. And miraculously not burn his hand. How? He would dip his hand in water before inserting into the lead. The water "boiled" off so quickly it formed an air pocket between his hand and the lead. And as we all know, heat transfers far slower through air than,... direct contact(duh!) Now, water goes at 220, this shit goes at 120. I dont have the article nor recall the specific facts but when water is super heated it will do this. If you heat a pot, with a considerablely strong heat source, the water will appear to stop boiling. What is happening is the same thing with the circus monkey. A pocket of air restricts heat transfer because of the air. Now, not knowing this "super heated point" for saphire, this might be a problem. Also, i have no fucking clue what the surface tempurature of a processor is. but this was just the first thing that came to my mind.

    145. Re:"Water"-cooling by miked1001 · · Score: 1

      This is probably not near as good as water for cooling purposes.

      An important parameter for a cooling medium is heat conductivity (which directly effects the convective heat transfer coefficient). While there is no mention of this parameter in the spec sheet mentioned above, it can't be that high.

      If it were, the chemical would cause the submerged electronic devices in the demo to short out regardless of whether it got them wet. This is because a general rule of thumb is that something thats a bad electrical conductor is a bad heat conductor.

      Just my 2 cents (no one ever uses this sig anymore... sad).

    146. Re:"Water"-cooling by rickst29 · · Score: 1

      The original Cray-2 design, circa 1982/83, ran within a "fish tank" sized about 3' by 2' by 2'. The immersion fluid was a medical product, originally intended/used to create blood volume for patients suffering critical, massive blood loss.

    147. Re:"Water"-cooling by goat_attack · · Score: 3, Informative
      According to the Material Safety Datasheet, flowinert only becomes hazardous if heated above 200 degrees celsius. I wouldn't worry about it.

      Incidentally, you can drink the stuff!

    148. Re:"Water"-cooling by Legume · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered about this cracking of water by extremely hot fires.

      Burning stoichiometric quantities of H2 and O2 gives you heat + H2O. Cracking water apparently uses heat and H2O to produce stoichiometric quantities of H2 and O2. It must require more heat to actually crack the water than you obtain from burining the resulting hydrogen and oxygen, otherwise you're violating the laws of thermodynamics. So if your fire cracks water, then burn's the resulting gasses to re-form the water, it's just gotten a little cooler, not hotter.

      I can see the problem with the liquid steel, because it's quite happily sitting around at 4000 degrees not doing anyone any harm and introducing water may cool it, but also produces an explosive gas mixture that wasn't there before, but when you've just got a really hot fire I don't see what the problem is.

    149. Re:"Water"-cooling by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Dude, the water doesn't magically swipe heat out of the fire.

      What's "magical" about the fact that water absorbs heat when it evaporates? This is very well known in dryer parts of the the world, where evaporative cooling is commonly used.

    150. Re:"Water"-cooling by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      Very nice observation, but if it actually is cool, I believe that it can be very useful as a cooling system. Take for example, it can be used to compress objects inside from getting too hot, instead of just cooling them in general. I know that seems oxymoronish, but it makes a lot of since if you think about it. Instead of going full-out to actually "cool it down," we can just stop it from heating up in general. There has to be something chemically astounding with the way this works, and I do believe that it can be used for a very effective cooling system.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    151. Re:"Water"-cooling by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 1

      With frickin' laser beams on its head.

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    152. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Water is applied to fire to cool it below it's fire point. Also, if a liquid is kept in an enclosed and pressurized container it will raise it's boiling point, although pressure is the key here.

    153. Re:"Water"-cooling by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'm convinced, I think the primary reason water makes a much better coolant than air is that it has a much higher conductivity. Air is a great insulator.

      You may be right that specific heat capacity plays a larger role when dealing with fluid cooling than when dealing with a solid heat sink. For one thing, the rate of temperture exchange is proportional to the temperature difference between the heat source and the heat sink, so when using a flowing liquid, one with a higher specific heat capacity won't heat up as quickly, so you can use a lower flow rate to acheive the same level of cooling. Of course, the rate of heat exchange is also proportional to the flow rate, so you start to lose other advantages when you turn the flow rate down. Also, on the other end, it's slower to disperse the heat back out of the liquid at the radiator if the water isn't as hot, so I'm not sure the entire system runs any cooler if the water has a higher specific heat capacity. Another consideration is that the liquid not boil, and you're right that a higher specific heat capacity can help out there, but in many cooling scenarios, boiling isn't a problem anyway. For example, a silicone processor would fry way before it got to the boiling point of water.

      Anyway, I'm not convinced that if water had half it's specific heat capacity and double the conductivity that it would be a worse heat sink- I suspect that even for fluids, the conductivity is the most important part.

      IANAP, but that's my guess. I'd appreciate it any physicists here would weigh in on the matter.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    154. Re:"Water"-cooling by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      on a more practical note, do you want a hermetically sealed case? Thats seems like it would be a lot more expensive and much more difficult to maintain.

      Why not just seal up the mobo itself? There's no reason to totally hermetically seal the whole case. You could even use it to seal around the hot parts of the system -- power supply, CPU, memory, graphics card, northbridge, etc...leaving the physical drive media alone.

      I'd say that the biggest problem is the weight that coolant (and related equipment) will add...not to mention that you're going to have to circulate that liquid a whole lot (pumps will add weight as well). I never really cared much about the weight of a system until I bought an aluminum case (just for the hell of it) and I found that it's nice to have a system that I can haul around with ease.

      --

      -Turkey

    155. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm gonna eat you little fishy, I'm gonna eat you little fishy.

    156. Re:"Water"-cooling by sporktoast · · Score: 1

      this might damage the fish is some irreparable way

      Damage them? They'll simply die.

      No no no. Video cards don't reproduce themselves. He was talking about evolutionary damage. Who knows what will happen to fish that are born and raised in THX(TM) 1138. Once you start getting fish with extra eyes and prehensile tails, you're gonna have a hard time breeding that stuff back out.

      --
      In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
    157. Re:"Water"-cooling by asdf+101 · · Score: 1

      I don't get it.

      This liquid is apparently a bad conductor of electricity. Most bad conductors of electricity are also insulators of heat (except for one I know that works otherwise -- DOW CORNING Thermal Grease -- good conductor for heat, bad for electricity).

      If Sapphire has implications as a fire-retardant fluid in museums, as a non-wetting retardant, it must be working by insulating the covered surface from external heat just as much as it works to suffocate a fire.

      Therefore if it is essentially a insulator of heat, how then will it server the purpose of a heatsink.

      Just my hypothesis.

    158. Re:"Water"-cooling by syn3rg · · Score: 1

      It's called the Bernoulli Principle. Zip drives used to be called Bernoulli drives for the same reason.

      --
      The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
    159. Re:"Water"-cooling by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      Seal the case and pressure should keep a processor mounted at the bottom of the case submerged.

    160. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      take a look at the PCs from hush technologies. i bought one that doesn't have any fans - just a big heat pipe and a case with heat-dissipating fins on the exterior. it's really quiet and doesn't get dirty on the inside.

    161. Re:"Water"-cooling by jlaxson · · Score: 1

      Not that that is a bad thing but knowing the /. crowd, they'd probably try to install Linux on a liter of the fluid and make a Beowulf cluster out of it.

      Using the heat produced to cook hot grits for Natalie Portman?

      --
      On Apple Input Peripherals: They're okay, I guess, but I was really hoping for a one-key keyboard and a 109-button mouse
    162. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I liked these articles, wish there were more

      http://www.octools.com/index.cgi?caller=submersi on .html

    163. Re:"Water"-cooling by gorgon · · Score: 1
      Whether conduction or heat capacity is more important depends on the mode of heat transfer that is going to be in use. If conduction is the mode of heat transfer, than the conductivity is most important. If its convection, than the heat capacity is most important.

      In most applications involving fluid convection is the dominant form of heat transfer. Sometimes its forced and sometimes its natural convection, but either way convection is more common.

      --

      And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
      Berke Breathed
    164. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      So if your fire cracks water, then burn's the resulting gasses to re-form the water, it's just gotten a little cooler, not hotter.
      That's true for fire involving hydrogen atoms. However, regarding the metal-burning-in-water mentioned by the previous comments, sticking the metal atom onto the hydroxide group releases more energy than prying off the proton. These things really do burn underwater. Metallic sodium likes hydroxide so much it ignites spontaneously, with great vigor. ("Great vigor" being chemist-speak for "BANG!")

      Some metals, like magnesium, can even burn in carbon dioxide. Even in solid form--stick magnesium inside a chunk of dry ice and it keeps on burning. Care is needed to extinguish burning metal.

    165. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The bromine atoms do it, by binding to free radicals that normally keep the fire going. Sorry, I've never found a good online description of exactly how this works.
      IIRC, fire in most organic materials is sustained by H+ radicals. In other words, free protons, which are highly electropositive. Bromine is electronegative enough to share an electron with a free proton, but not so electronegative that much energy is released. So it sops up free protons and quenches the chain reaction.
    166. Re:"Water"-cooling by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      Yeah, that's more or less what I had in mind- use this stuff instead of water cooling- however, in view of the boiling point, it's rather more marginal as regards boiling; it may boil slightly next to the processor, but the fluid around it should recondense it. Actually come to think of it, that might be a bad thing- you may be able to hear it(!)

      Anyway, when you use water cooling you have to keep the water below the point that the processor cooks anyway- it doesn't matter that much what fluid you use- this fluid has the advantage that if you leak it everywhere:

      a) it evaporates away cleanly

      b) it's non toxic

      c) it's non conductive

      d) it's non corrosive

      You pretty much have to keep the fluid below 50C anyway- some sort of radiator would be nice. Of course you could run the coolant open loop, as others have suggested, but I bet it's relatively expensive.

      I don't know off-hand whether you could run this with convective cooling or whether you'd need a pump. It depends partly on the layout of the system.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    167. Re:"Water"-cooling by zelphior · · Score: 1

      1 year old P4 2.6, OC'd to 2.84.
      The die may be a few degrees warmer, I've got my thermometer mounted at the mating point between the cpu and heat sink)
      I've got a water cooling system to keep it cool, and I know it can get hotter, but I'd rather keep it in the 30's just to preserve it's lifetime. I set the shutoff temp lower because if the cpu reaches 50C, it means the water cooling has failed, and the temp is shooting up all over the system (already had this happen once, almost destroyed the heat sink on the video card).

      --
      If you can read this then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously"
    168. Re:"Water"-cooling by ErikZ · · Score: 4, Funny

      I noticed you forgot to add the phrase "and it won't kill you!"

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    169. Re:"Water"-cooling by sylvandb · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'm convinced, I think the primary reason water makes a much better coolant than air is that it has a much higher conductivity. Air is a great insulator.

      Air is only a great insulator if you can stop it from moving. Air conducts heat primarily by moving because the molecular density is so low that the molecules cannot transfer energy from one to another very well. But air moves very readily and does conduct heat. This is why a vacuum thermos bottle works so well -- the vacuum is a much better insulator than air. Stopping air movement is the primary method used in most insulating materials. Vacuum would be even better, than those insulating materials, but cost:benefit ratios favor entrapped air.

      Water also conducts heat by moving. If you stop water from moving it conducts heat better than air. This effect is at least partially because of higher molecular density, air is closer to a vacuum than water. This density is also the reason why water has a higher heat capacity than air which in turn is higher than vacuum.

      In fact, any fluid or gas conducts heat primarily thru moving, and how well it conducts at any given speed of movement is determined primarily by the heat capacity of the fluid or gas.

      Only when you start talking about solids is heat conductance an issue, and there it is because the molecules themselves do not move and carry the heat around. They can only vibrate and bump their neighbors in the lattice causing them to vibrate. This vibration is energy is heat.

      sdb

    170. Re:"Water"-cooling by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 1

      If the processor was immersed in the substance it probably would never reach the 120 degree mark.

      --
      I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
    171. Re:"Water"-cooling by infinite9 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're fish, not a video card

      That's ok, fish are hot-swappable. You can use the net to pull out a dead one and replace it with a new one. You could even have a hot-spare in a cup on top of the tank... i mean case.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    172. Re:"Water"-cooling by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't worry about it.

      I wouldn't either as long as I wasn't using nVidia's new card.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    173. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck does halon kill people?

      Sure what it leaves isn't particulaly healthy - but you sure don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    174. Re:"Water"-cooling by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "Hard drives aren't hermetically sealed either -- They have small holse to allow the air inside to expand or contract based on heat load. The liquid would get in. It might not fry your electronics, but I'll bet it'd give the heads a hard time. possibly even corrupt the disks."

      While that makes sense, didn't you read the post?
      He filled a small fish tank with Sapphire and submerged a book, a laptop, and a flat panel TV. Both electronics were turned on when submerged; all three items came out completely unharmed.

      He submerged a laptop, which obviously has ventilation holes which likely lead to the hard drive. Laptop was completely unharmed, or so they say: just because it was working for the 5 seconds it was on TV doesn't mean it'll continue to function.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    175. Re:"Water"-cooling by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Personally the idea of using a chemical as a coolant doesn't put me at ease...

      What was it you planned on using as a coolant then, vacuum?

      The most popular coolants (motor oil, water, tropospheric vapour, ...) are
      all made of chemicals.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    176. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember seeing an artical where some guy in New Zealand submerged his motherboard cpu video card ect in Fluorinert but left the drives outside. He then ran tubing through the box and pumped liquid nitrogen through it. he oc'ed a celeron 366 to close to 1GHz really impressive if its true

    177. Re:"Water"-cooling by hardcode57 · · Score: 1

      Excellant boiling point: it boils off the processor and condenses elsewhere, _very_ efficient cooling, processor never exceeds boiling point while there is liquid (remember latent heat from school physics lessons?).
      Gimme!

    178. Re:"Water"-cooling by Iamthewalrus · · Score: 1

      That's one of the prime reasons you're supposed to read the type of fire extinguisher (A, B, or C, or all of the above) before putting out such a fire.

      I know that the first thing I do when I grab a fire extinguisher to put out a fire is to carefully read the label to see what letter is on it.

      --
      Help prevent the slashdot effect; stop reading the articles.
    179. Re:"Water"-cooling by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. Conservation of energy. "Crack"ing the water molecule must take at least as much energy as is released when the oxygen and hydrogen recombine. So at worst, the water will have no effect. It won't fuel the fire.

    180. Re:"Water"-cooling by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have an alternate idea; build a small lava lamp on top of the CPU. It can optionally be lit by several SMT LEDs on the spreader. Might as well have something inside that windowed case that's worth looking at.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    181. Re:"Water"-cooling by SeregonSandgrain · · Score: 0
      Even IF it could get in the hard-drive and ruin it, who says you are going to have the whole computer submersed in it?

      For a desktop, you could just have half the motherboard submersed (half with the cpu, etc. keep slots for memory, IDE, AGP, etc. slots on the other side to allow easy access) and not have to worry about hard-drives. With mainframes couldn't you just submerse most of the electronics and leave the hard-drives in a seperate part of the case, not submersed?

      --
      My User Agent: "Where is the pr0n?"
    182. Re:"Water"-cooling by iamhassi · · Score: 1
      "this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?"

      believe it or not water also boils, but somehow people use it to cool their PCs! How? They keep the water cool!

      Won't that work here? Just pump it through a radiator with fans attached.

      Real question is how well does this stuff cool? Water takes forever to boil, how well does this stuff absorb heat? The specific heat as a liquid is 1.103 kJ/kg*C, but I don't remember enough chemistry to have any clue what that means.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    183. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>The bromine atoms do it, by binding to free radicals

      Doesn't Oil of Olay do this, too? Does this mean that I can cool my PC with skin cream? COOL!

    184. Re:"Water"-cooling by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Wow, who said that? I think anyone interested in internet publishing would agree from the beginning that the DTD is downright harmful, in fact, it just might kill you!

      DDT on the other hand is definitely dangerous when overused, and it was overused, but it arguably should still have its place today.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    185. Re:"Water"-cooling by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Why dunk your box in it, or hermetically seal your box? What's wrong with simply altering heat sink construction to form a passive liquid radiator?

      Have each spike be hollow, with connecting tubes between the spikes and a regualr cooling fan. The cpu heats the liquid immediately over it. This would force the liquid up the nearest spikes. The heat would radiate off the spikes and be disperesed by the fan. As the liquid cools, it begins to sink. The rising action from the middle spikes would force the cooled liquid down the "edge" spikes. Thermal convection. :)

      The more divisions between the spikes, the better (greater surface area for dissipation). The ideal would be a 3-D cubicle mesh with a fan.

      But you wouldn't need Sapphire to do this. Any decent heat transfer liquid would work (as long as it doesn't expand tremendously when heated).

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    186. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but what would you do without our money? Your beautiful Lourve would whut down without the likes of us paying to come tour it, right?

      And do you really think that Americans (90% of whom shower EVERY day) are filthy compared to their French (who have historicaly just peppered on a bit of cologne to mask the B.O.) counter-parts?

    187. Re:"Water"-cooling by Jasa · · Score: 1

      Way back in 1984 at the Perth electronics show I saw a Commodore 64 mother board suppended in a fish tank and it was switched on at the time. The reason it could survive was that it was coated with a spray on water proof coating. Now I am wondering why no one has used this for water cooling a more recent PC...

      But I just can't remember the name of that spray on coating...

      --
      -Jasa -- Linux - The SOURCE will be with you, ALWAYS
    188. Re:"Water"-cooling by spotteddog · · Score: 1

      Congratulations - you just designed the CPU powered lava lamp, the newest retro 21st century fad!

      --
      . there used to be a sig here.....
    189. Re:"Water"-cooling by insanechemist · · Score: 1

      Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?



      Actually air conditioners work just that way. They take a volitile liquid and run it through a "hot" radiator. The liquid absorbs the heat and vaporizes, resulting in a temp drop in the radiator. The gas is returned to a compressor via a second radiator used to blow off some of the heat and the compressor reliquifies the gas to start the process all over again. Not terribly efficient, but thats what cools our homes. Manufacturers actually already use fluorinated hydrocarbons and esters in regular ACs.

    190. Re:"Water"-cooling by bbdd · · Score: 1

      So you pump the substance in a liquid state over the processor, the heat boils it and it turns to a gas, taking much of the heat along with it. The gas passes through a small turbine, which generates electricity to power a peltier cooler, attached to a condensing tank. That cools the gas down to liquid state again, and the liquid is fed back into the system.

      hell, why hook up a peltier? power the cpu itself, off its own waste heat output! think of the run-time for your new "perpetual motion powered" laptop!

      now, the only question is how do i turn it on with no heat source in the first place... hmm..

    191. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously never had sex in water

    192. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that if you make beer with it we can finally have a drink that doesn't touch the sides on the way down?

    193. Re:"Water"-cooling by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that John, Sarah and dr. Dyson didn't have to wear oxygen masks after all?

    194. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot more airflow through a hard-drive than just thermal expansion, isn't there? I thought the hard-drive pretty much centrifuged all the air out of the case, sucking air in through the other vents? You can use a dead hard-drive as a water pump!

    195. Re:"Water"-cooling by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1

      If you build it - I'll buy it.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    196. Re:"Water"-cooling by TLSPRWR · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to submerge your entire PC in the (I'm guessing) expensive chemical? Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just put the proccessor/board in a small tank full of Sapphire and just run all the drives outside of the tank?

    197. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      begin Ramble

      I thought that Tech TV showed a total immersion setup several months (maybe even a year) ago. I'm sure you can find information on their web site. They used some other liquid. Heck, it doesn't matter if the liquid gets stuff wet as long as it doesn't electrically conduct. (And thermally conducts well) Of course you would want to pair a system like this with an aluminum case. It's not like you'd have fans circulating air. You would need as much thermal conductivity between the case itself and the air surrounding the case. With a system like that, you'd never get below ambient temperature.

      As an aside, it's a shame that Athlons still have the reputation as being a hot processor. (Not that they're cold) Search for heat output for the Prescott core Pentium 4s and compare it to the heat output of even the old furnace Thunderbird core Athlons and I think you'll be (un)pleasantly surprised. (If you can't find a heat output - see how many watts the thing consumes and divide it by the surface area of the CPU die itself) That'll give you an idea of the power that needs to be dissipated.

      end Ramble

    198. Re:"Water"-cooling by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      And speaking of "boiling into the atmosphere", what environmental effects does this substance have in the air and ground water? I bet nobody knows yet, but with the exotic properties it has, it could easily have some exotic carcinogenic or thermal properties that would exacerbate existing environmental issues.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    199. Re:"Water"-cooling by bobv-pillars-net · · Score: 1
      I've got a 500lb CO2 cylinder to waste...

      Just wondering. What are your monthly cooling costs?

      --
      The Web is like Usenet, but
      the elephants are untrained.
    200. Re:"Water"-cooling by LuxFX · · Score: 1

      That is not a cooling tower. A cooling tower works by evaporating a liquid (usually water) to a gas and then just venting this to the atmosphere. It is not a closed system....What you are describing is a simple refrigeration circuit

      So would it be correct to say that a refridgeration circuit would be the "Sterling engine" equivalent of a cooling tower?

      --
      Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
    201. Re:"Water"-cooling by shthd · · Score: 1

      3M already produces a nonconductive fluid. The Semiconductor industry has been using them to test devices for years. They're called perfluorocarbon fluids. I saw a similar demonstration with a TV and a fish tank years ago. Rumor has it that there were fish swimming in the tank too...but I've never seen that. There are different fluids with different boiling points up to 150 C that I know of. I do not know what the Heat Capacity of either fluid is but is a necessary parameter. Here's where you need to nut up and step up. This stuff cost $200 a pound, and evaporates faster than you can blink.

      --
      brrrrrrrrrppp 'Ey Homer...Why don't girls like me?
    202. Re:"Water"-cooling by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      10,000 feet.
      That is interesting. I wonder now many private pilots with Mooney 252s know that?
      In an unpressureised plane you can fly to 12,500 without the use of oxygen. I have driven that high in a car on my way to Moab Utah. I am glad I did not have to use my notbook.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    203. Re:"Water"-cooling by dragon8x4x · · Score: 1

      WRONG!

      The whole point of Halon was that it could put out fires with out killing people or damaging electronics. The only trouble is that it's really really bad for the ozone layer.

      The best replacement for Halon currently is FM-200, as some else has already mentioned.

    204. Re:"Water"-cooling by Noren · · Score: 1
      It must require more heat to actually crack the water than you obtain from burining the resulting hydrogen and oxygen, otherwise you're violating the laws of thermodynamics.
      This is false. It must require precisely the same amount of heat to crack the water(if what is meant by 'cracking' is the conversion of water to molecular hydrogen and oxygen) than is produced in conversion of molecular hydrogen and oxygen to water. If it required more you'd be making energy magically disappear and thus violating the laws of thermodynamics.
    205. Re:"Water"-cooling by Myrrh · · Score: 1

      Well, I didn't say people do, I said people are supposed to.

    206. Re:"Water"-cooling by Legume · · Score: 1

      As I understand the laws of nature, nothing is perfectly reversable. I'm not saying the energy disappears, just that you don't get it all back in the combustion process.

    207. Re:"Water"-cooling by Noren · · Score: 1
      2H2O + Energy(1) --> 2H2 + O2 ('cracking')
      2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O + Energy(2) ('combustion')
      Energy(1) is exactly equal to Energy(2), as a direct consequence of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

      We can't convert heat back to useful energy with 100% efficiency due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but your original statement that the amounts of heat involved were different does not involve such a process!

      There's a little wiggle room here in different forms of energy... I suppose that if some of the energy from combustion is in a form other than heat (photons?) you might be technically correct, but I'd be more inclined to believe that the cracking step was photonic than the combustion step.

    208. Re:"Water"-cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      definite

      Rememeber that it is finite.

  2. Don't tell my boss by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    [...] a total flooding clean agent, which serves as an effective halon replacement.

    So, in other words, a server room full of "Sapphire" will kill us just as fast as a server room full of Halon? That and the added entertainment of watching lifeless geeks float around behind the room's glass wall? My PHB will likely be faxing Tyco a P.O. this afternoon!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Don't tell my boss by DeepDarkSky · · Score: 1

      Actually, because it's liquid, it wouldn't. It can cover the surfaces where the fire is burning, but because it's not gaseous, it would not displace air completely (unless you completely displace the air in a room by flooding it from floor to ceiling, but you don't need that much to put out a fire).

    2. Re:Don't tell my boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the added entertainment of watching lifeless geeks float around behind the room's glass wall?

      No need for chemicals, I see that every time I walk by our server room.

    3. Re:Don't tell my boss by OmniVector · · Score: 1

      Note to employees: The beatings will continue until morale improves.

      --
      - tristan
    4. Re:Don't tell my boss by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Except it boils at low temps, so there'll be a lot of it in gas form too once it hits the fire.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    5. Re:Don't tell my boss by jtwJGuevara · · Score: 1
      I actually watched them present this on CNBC's Bullseye last night. I believe it was the same Tyco rep as seen on the morning show.

      From what was discussed, this "Sapphire" is environment safe and it was perfectly safe to come into contact with it, just so long as it wasn't consumed. The host of the show as well as the Tyco rep were splashing their hands in the water as if there were no danger at all. They didn't discuss anything scientific about "Sapphire" itself in the show so I'm just as ignorant as the next ordinary Joe when it comes to how safe it really is. But from all indications from last nights demonstration, it looks very safe.

  3. Safe? by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The new substance by Tyco is supposed to be environmentally safe.

    Have them drink a glass of it, then I'll believe it.

    Prior Art(!): Bartholomew and the Oobleck

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Safe? by C.Batt · · Score: 1

      So did blinky the 3 eyed fish.

      3 eyes!

      Still, not as bad as mexican water.

      --
      -- All views expressed in this post are mine and do not
      -- reflect those of my employer or their clients
    2. Re:Safe? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are a lot of things that are poisonous to humans in the environment. Being poisonous in large doses is not a problem.

      The problems would occur if it is poisonous in small or cumulative doses, or if it breaks down into something that is. If it clears out quickly, and does no lasting harm (to humans, plants, animals, land, water or air) while doing so, it is environmentally safe. Just don't drink it.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    3. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nitrogen is environmentally safe, too, but I don't plan on drinking a glass of it. Then again, this guy did, and (barely) lived to tell about it.

    4. Re:Safe? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      The PDF says:

      "the inhalation LC50 and cardiac sensitization NOAEL are greater than 10% v/v."

    5. Re:Safe? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      So did blinky the 3 eyed fish.

      ObSimpsons:

      "Smithers, did we kill that family of ducks?"
      "I think so, Sir."
      "Ehhhxcellent."

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:Safe? by jetkust · · Score: 4, Funny

      And while their at it, have them eat 11 cups of soil and rocks. And if they curl up and die, it shall be concluded that the earth itself is not enviromentally safe. And that we should stop trying to save it.

    7. Re:Safe? by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That doesn't really relate. Caffeine is more toxic than plutonium, but I don't see anyone claiming that caffeine is environmentally unsafe.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    8. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that cow shit is environmentally safe, but I wouldn't want to drink a glass of THAT. Care to fashion us a better test for environmental safety?

    9. Re:Safe? by heir2chaos · · Score: 1

      Drinking it doesn't prove anything. I remember watching informational ads from the 50's showing people spraying CFC's all over things to prove how safe they were. Hell my dad was telling me about a friend of his who was a salesman for some halon company or something similar and would consume the product to show how safe it was. That same friend later died of cancer of the throat and gastrointestinal system. Just because it doesn't kill you today doesn't mean that it won't kill you or the planet 50 years from now.

    10. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PDF says:

      "the inhalation LC50 and cardiac sensitization NOAEL are greater than 10% v/v."


      Wow. OK, I understand. Can I have a Sapphire float now? (/sarcasm)

    11. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of things that are poisonous to humans in the environment. Being poisonous in large doses is not a problem.

      So true. There have been cases of water poisoning. I recall a case where an idiot (while on drugs) drank 18 litres of water and died. Your body can't handle that much water.

      He should get a Darwin award though...

    12. Re:Safe? by Himring · · Score: 1

      Have them drink a glass of it, then I'll believe it.

      You drink it with a Linstraw....

      /duck

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    13. Re:Safe? by Chiasmus_ · · Score: 1

      Nitrogen is environmentally safe, too, but I don't plan on drinking a glass of it.

      Whoa there... are you saying liquid nitrogen is environmentally safe? Seems to me that dumping a few thousand gallons of that stuff into a river or lake would probably not be particularly good for the biosphere.

      It takes a really weird definition of "environmentally safe" to apply to something that can kill just about any known form of life on Earth. Let's hope that's not the same definition they're using for this Sapphire stuff (Something like "Oh, sure, it's incredibly destructive, but it's not harmful after a couple hours")

      --
      "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
    14. Re:Safe? by eclectus · · Score: 1

      In the immortal words of Jefferson Airplane, 'Poison Oak is natural, too. Why don't you put some of that in your food?'

      --
      This signature is a waste of 42 characters
    15. Re:Safe? by jspoon · · Score: 1, Informative

      Tell that to the NCO's in Viet Nam who had to drink glasses of Agent Orange to show the men it was safe. Many had children with severe birth defects, assuming the stuff didn't make them completely infertile.

    16. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it decomposes into ordinary organic compounds it's environmentally safe. There are plenty of plans and animals which generate toxic substances, so I don't see how your test is meaningful in the least.

    17. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I think environmentally safe, I think "doesn't damage the environment in the long term."

    18. Re:Safe? by jackbird · · Score: 1
      Whoa there... are you saying liquid nitrogen is environmentally safe? Seems to me that dumping a few thousand gallons of that stuff into a river or lake would probably not be particularly good for the biosphere.

      What dastardly environmental effects of Nitrogen exposure did you have in mind? You do know the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, right? Wile I agree that any fish/wildlife that happen to be in the immediate vicinity of a few thousand gallons of liquid nitrogen would be frozen to death, the contamination wouldn't exactly have a long half-life.

    19. Re:Safe? by kajoob · · Score: 0, Funny

      Caffeine is more toxic than plutonium

      Congratulations, you just wont he most asinine statement of the day award!

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    20. Re:Safe? by Chiasmus_ · · Score: 1

      Wile I agree that any fish/wildlife that happen to be in the immediate vicinity of a few thousand gallons of liquid nitrogen would be frozen to death, the contamination wouldn't exactly have a long half-life.

      That kind of disruption *does* have a long "half-life" - maybe not in a chemical sense, but certainly in a biological sense.

      I mean, just look at what rotting wildlife does to an aquatic ecosystem. Bacteria suck oxygen out of the water as they decompose the dead plants and fish, quickly rendering it uninhabitable to anything that was there before.

      Saying liquid nitrogen is "environmentally safe" because it doesn't have a long half-life is a little like saying enormous fishing nets are "environmentally safe." Sure, you can eat one without being poisoned, but believe it or not, simply killing off too many large fish can turn an acquatic ecosystem into a wasteland.

      --
      "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
    21. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is water "environmentally safe"? I can go into the desert, pour a ton of it on low-water plants, and kill them. I can also use it to flood areas, killing plenty that way, too. A ton of ice dumped in a small river wouldn't exacltly be very kind, either.

    22. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll drink a glass as long as you grab a nossle of a fire extinguisher and drink up. After all, this chemical is for fighting fires, not bodily refreshment.

    23. Re:Safe? by jackbird · · Score: 1
      I mean, just look at what rotting wildlife does to an aquatic ecosystem.

      I always wondered why deer bury their dead on high ground.

    24. Re:Safe? by HeghmoH · · Score: 4, Informative

      Asinine is defined as "Utterly stupid or silly." Doesn't that disqualify true statements? Caffeine is more toxic than plutonium.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    25. Re:Safe? by Chiasmus_ · · Score: 1

      Is water "environmentally safe"?

      There's no yes-or-no answer here. I recall reading that, after the Exxon Valdez flood, cleanup workers were experimenting with cleaning up the oil by spraying it with high-pressure boiling water from massive hoses... until it was determined that the water was doing more damage to the ecosystem than the oil itself.

      --
      "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
    26. Re:Safe? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    27. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... what is environmentally safe?

    28. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, he might be right. You probably could injest more plutonium by volume/mass than caffeine without dying outright.

    29. Re:Safe? by Chiasmus_ · · Score: 1

      So... what is environmentally safe?

      It's really an issue of context. I guess it really doesn't make sense to point to X and say "X is environmentally safe" with no qualifiers whatsoever.

      Of course, every company does it, because that's what customers and investors need to hear... that exact meaningless sentence... "X is environmentally safe."

      What the sentence actually means is that X is neither particularly toxic nor radioactive. But there are lots of things that are neither particularly toxic nor radioactive that can do massive environmental damage. Things like fishing nets, chainsaws, boiling water hoses, earthquakes, liquid nitrogen, Republican administrations...

      --
      "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
    30. Re:Safe? by cubic6 · · Score: 1

      The nitrogen is environmentally safe. The temperature that you put it at makes it unsafe. You could also say that water isn't environmentally safe, since throwing a few thousand gallons of 99.9 degree Celsius water into a river would probably kill a good portion of the life too. Temperature and extreme amount make your example unsafe, not the actual material

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    31. Re:Safe? by dedalus2000 · · Score: 1
      The effects of nitrogen compounds from fertilizers are pretty disastrous to lakes and streams it promotes algae growth, which leads to oxygen depletion in the water.

      --
      My keyboads not woking popely.
    32. Re:Safe? by kajoob · · Score: 1

      OK, how about this....

      You drink some plutonium while I sit and watch you while sipping on some coffee, if I die first I'll apologize.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    33. Re:Safe? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the articles listed? Try reading the first one.

    34. Re:Safe? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Liquid nitrogen is NOT a nitrogen compound the way fertilizers are. It's just nitrogen, and will evaporate without a trace. That's like saying carbon is sugar.

    35. Re:Safe? by dedalus2000 · · Score: 1

      isn't it?? I thought that graphite tasted funny.

      --
      My keyboads not woking popely.
    36. Re:Safe? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Whoa there... are you saying liquid nitrogen is environmentally safe? Seems to me that dumping a few thousand gallons of that stuff into a river or lake would probably not be particularly good for the biosphere.

      And dumping a few thousands of pounds of non-toxic rocks on a some deer isn't going to do wonders for them either.

      Your example is just dumb.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    37. Re:Safe? by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stop being an ignorant jackhole and read the links I provided, would you? The caffeine in your coffee is extremely dilute. Plutonium at the same level of concentration would as harmless as the caffeine is. One of them involves basically the same contest you proposed, in fact, although it sadly never took place. Being afraid of something with no evidence to back the fear up and much evidence to dispel it is superstition.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    38. Re:Safe? by Spyky · · Score: 1

      Obviously you didn't read this link provided by the poster, which states that Dr. Bernard Cohen challenged Ralph Nader to do just that.

      -Spyky

    39. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah, blah, blah. This is what I like to call a "subtle troll". Your post was clearly designed to get a response out of someone who hadn't happened to hear about the Nader incident. Having set your bait, you repeatedly checked for a reply til you caught a victim and then had your multi-link response ready. So what? I heard of this story a few months ago, but before hearing about it, I would have agreed with Nader, and I'll bet you would have too.

      In addition, your sources don't hold up. The pitt article author states that caffeine is AS toxic as plutonium, not more:

      "It is 5,000 times more dangerous to inhale plutonium than to eat it, and eatingplutonium is about equal in danger to eating the same quantity of caffeine...I offered to eat (not inhale) the same amount (not 1,000 times as much) of plutonium as he would eat caffeine, giving us equal risks."

      Also, from what the various sources said, inhaling plutonium is nothing to sneeze at. I can't find any sources, but I'd _assume_ that it's worse than inhaling a similar amount of caffeine. To define a substance as "more toxic", a) it should really be _more_ toxic, not equal and b) it should take into account all the various ways you might be exposed to it.

      In summary, I call troll.

    40. Re:Safe? by Piquan · · Score: 1

      I read those articles. The first one doesn't say anything about their relative toxicities; I expect that Dr. Cohen expected Mr. Nader to cease ingestion of caffeine at a point that would still be safe for both of them.

      The second says that, under certain conditions, caffeine can be more toxic. It doesn't discuss the conditions.

      The third was best. It stated that the chemical toxicity of caffeine was greater than that of plutonium, but I didn't see anything to back it up.

      The fourth didn't address the issue. Dr. Cohen clarified what he said previously, and discussed ingestion vs inhalation, but regarding relative toxicities only said: "eating plutonium is about equal in danger to eating the same quantity of caffeine", but I couldn't find where he explains that claim. (Admittedly, since it's a 17-chapter book, I didn't finish the whole thing.)

      The final link again makes the claim that caffeine is more toxic than plutonium, but doesn't discuss it further.

      Now, I took it upon myself to do a bit of research, using TOXNET (which doesn't handle deep linking well). I couldn't find any toxicity reports regarding ingestion of plutonium. But there are a number of intravenious studies of both caffeine and plutonium.

      It looks like the LDLo (smallest dose recorded to kill) of intravenious caffeine on a dog is 4 mg/kg, while the LD50 (50% kill) of intravenious plutonium citrate is merely 300 ug/kg. Note that since this is comparing an LDLo to an LD50, it doesn't tell us the relative toxicities, but it does seem to suggest that plutonium is more toxic. (Sources: plutonium citrate, caffeine).

      To compare LD50 to LD50, we can first look at [JPETAB Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. (Williams & Wilkins Co., 428 E. Preston St., Baltimore, MD 21202) V.1- 1909/10- Volume(issue)/page/year: 82,89,1944]. This paper establishes the LD50 of caffeine administered intraveniously to a rat at 105 mg/kg. Now, [Venugopal, B. and T.D. Luckey. Metal Toxicity in Mammals, 2. New York: Plenum Press, 1978. 169 (peer reviewed)] establishes the LD50 for plutonium administered intraveniously to a rat at 0.0014 uCi/g. Now, since 5 ug of plutonium has a radioactivity of 0.3 uCi (reference), this figure is equivalent to 8.4e-5 mg/kg.

      Perhaps the absorption rate of plutonium is 1e6 times less than that of caffeine. There are suggestions that plutonium is not absorbed easily. But 1e6 still seems like a lot, lacking any other evidence.

      But pointing the other way, remember that plutonium builds up on the bones, leading to a chronic toxicity which is higher than its acute toxicity.

      So, I'm going to remain skeptical for the time being. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that I'm not sure that I agree with that statement.

    41. Re:Safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but before hearing about it, I would have agreed with Nader, and I'll bet you would have too.

      Not so fast. It is well known in areas with cane toad infestations that caffeine makes for a good frogicide -- just sprinkle concentrated caffeine powder around the area. But the EPA won't let us use it for that in the USA. I still haven't heard the details of the Nader thing, yet I would not be so quick to fall for this "troll" and probably neither would anyone else in Australia or Hawaii, just to name a few places with excess amounts of cane toads.

    42. Re:Safe? by thetaikung · · Score: 1

      I thought you were going to say that water poisoning is when you drown.

      --
      P226 .40cal
    43. Re:Safe? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      An interesting analysis, though plutonium citrate [aka 1,2,3-Propanetricarboxylic acid, 2-hydroxy-, plutonium(3+) salt] is a heck of a lot different than plain old plutonium. I'd be willing to wave my hand through hydrogen, but not through hydrochloric acid.

      The rest of your post seems sound, though.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  4. Uhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm no expert but if something's on fire, getting it wet is the least of your worries.

    1. Re:Uhm by strictnein · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm no expert but if something's on fire, getting it wet is the least of your worries.

      Yep, you are no expert. In many fires by far the most damage is not caused by the fire itself, but by the massive amounts of water used to put it out.

    2. Re:Uhm by four12 · · Score: 1

      ...and if you "wet" it first, you can keep it from burning.

    3. Re:Uhm by Proud+like+a+god · · Score: 1

      Think electic fires. Never noticed the extinguishers say whether they can be used on electric fires or not because they use conductive substances?

    4. Re:Uhm by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      I'm no expert but if something's on fire, getting it wet is the least of your worries.

      However, sometimes nothing is on fire. A while back they were doing a video in one of the labs near where I worked, and a hot light was set up too close to a sprinkler head and set it off. The entire lab was doused with the stinky stale water from the fire control system, ruining much of the equipment.

    5. Re:Uhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In many fires by far the most damage is not caused by the fire itself, but by the massive amounts of water used to put it out.

      If you're trying to save your supercomputer from damage though, chances are it cought fire from overheating. Whoops, it was toast from the fire, not from the water we used to stop the fire which was after it was toast but before it was soggy toast.

    6. Re:Uhm by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      Either way, the foundations' are saved...

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    7. Re:Uhm by strictnein · · Score: 1

      but how about the computers and hardware next to the one that's on fire? And how about the equipment on the floor below the computer that caught on fire?

    8. Re:Uhm by STFS · · Score: 1

      Ok... just bear with me.

      What they're suggesting is that we use this thing in libraries and museums to kill fire.

      But with water, the reason you can mop it up is because it gets the mop wet... but this thing??? How the hell are you supposed to get rid of this thing after its been sprayed all over the place??? I don't suppose you can mop it up since the mops will probably not absorb it any better than the books?!?! I guess your best bet would be a vacum cleaner?

      --
      You don't think enough... therefore you better not be!
    9. Re:Uhm by FryGuy1013 · · Score: 1

      In another post, they said it was photolythic and would only survive a few days in UV light. Maybe just shine everything with flourescent tubes for a while?

      --
      bananas like monkeys.
    10. Re:Uhm by ByteMangler_242 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Water is a danger. Personal story:

      I had my apartment building catch on fire, but it was the floor above me. I thought things would be mostly fine, since the floors are fireproof. Well, a ladder truck was stationed outside my apartment, and if the newspapers are right, that truck shot about 1-3 million gallons of water that night (6 hrs to get fire under control). Well, that much water had a poor effect on my floor, and well, I was second floor. My living room fell into my downstairs neighbor from it. Not one lick of flame hit my stuff, but builing condition left my area condemned.

      Moral of this story? Buy renter's insurance. It would have cost me $6-7 a month to get $5000 or more, and if I had started the fire, I would have been footing the bill for the whole building. I have a house now, and even if my mortgage didn't require it, I would have insurance.

      --

      Rule of the open mind
      People who are resistant to change cannot resist change for the worst.

    11. Re:Uhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This compound is so volatile that it should dry pretty quicky if you have decent ventilation. Its boiling point is lower than that of acetone!

    12. Re:Uhm by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      this is why most smart places use CO2 near the expensive items. almost no damage and cane be extremely effective when use properly.

      carbon dioxide... puts out almost all fires except for metal fires .... and I believe NOTHING can put out a burning Magnesium Server case with a go faster aluminum Wing.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Uhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or like the moron on the second floor above me in college who decided to use the sprinkler in his room as a hook to hang his clothes. The hanger broke the little heat-sensitive plastic that sets off the sprinkler system and we all had fun cleaning up the water that night. Weee.

  5. Great! by Rapid+Home+Offer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I don't have to rub myself with ducks before I go swimming!

    1. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dear Mr. User ID 770408, Must you overtly spam /. so? We're not retards and will look at your site if we want without it having to be in your sig and your message headers. Not to mention it being your user name as well! Jesus H. Krust with a buttplug, you're clueless.
    2. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just think of the possibilities!

      Can this liquid be used as a good lube?

    3. Re:Great! by SamSpectre · · Score: 1

      I wonder if I could wash my cats with this?! Somehow, I don't think they'll be fooled. Might make hot tubbing in the winter a bit more tolerable... No need to towel off. Stange...

    4. Re:Great! by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      Considering it boils at 42 C, I think not....

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    5. Re:Great! by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1
      Now I don't have to rub myself with ducks before I go swimming!

      Would that make you a duckie-rubber?

    6. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is that what they call it these days?

    7. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you will anyway, right?

  6. That's pretty cool. by demonic-halo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps I'll use it to fake my death by submerging myself in a bath tub full of it, then dropping a hair dryer into the tub and video tape the whole thing.

    1. Re:That's pretty cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they never said it didn't conduct electricity but I didn't RTFA anyhow

    2. Re:That's pretty cool. by ChibiOne · · Score: 1

      I didn't read te RTFA either, but if it were to conduct electricity, the laptop and everything else would've been fried instantly, doncha think?

    3. Re:That's pretty cool. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Maybe I am missing something but if your going to "fake" your death why do you need the electricity? You could say arrange the outlet to be nonpowered and use regular water. If I were going to fake my death I would rather use inexpensive water to do it rather then high priced fire suppression chemistry, that way I can keep my money in order to start a new life with it.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:That's pretty cool. by demonic-halo · · Score: 1

      I'm a NERD..

      I'll do it in the most expensive way possible.

      Anyways, that was a joke.. don't think too much of it.

      =)

    5. Re:That's pretty cool. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I'm a NERD.

      I'll think too much about anything possible.

      Anyways, I was just stating the obvious.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  7. Sapphire 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't use Sapphire on your girlfriend.

  8. Fluorocarbons by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hmmmm. This sounds like the fluorocarbons that we used to bathe the insides of Cray supercomputers with. They were pretty cool with little windows that one could look in and see "waterfalls" of fluorocarbon flowing over the circuitboards and components to keep them cool.

    Of course we had to have an entire floor below us dedicated to refrigeration, but hey. Governments can afford this kind of stuff.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Fluorocarbons by theEd · · Score: 1

      Bing, bing, bing! Give the man a cigar.
      Chemical formula CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2. Better known as Dodecafluoro-2-methylpentan-3-one

      --
      "And now you shall learn the secret of boot to the head"
  9. Pricey by Brento · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they're targeting it for fire prevention applications, not industrial cooling, then you can bet it's pretty pricey.

    After all, 3M's not stupid: they price things correctly. These are the guys behind the Post-It Note.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
    1. Re:Pricey by pangloss · · Score: 1

      After all, 3M's not stupid: they price things correctly. These are the guys behind the Post-It Note.

      Like, everyone knows Romy & Michele like invented Post-It Notes.

    2. Re:Pricey by promethean_spark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More like the opposite. Many times more buildings need fire prevention systems than a liquid cooling system. One library would need thousands of gallons of the stuff to feed their sprinkler system. If a library can afford thousands of gallons, the average geek should be able to afford a few quarts for coolant.

    3. Re:Pricey by rzbx · · Score: 1

      "After all, 3M's not stupid: they price things correctly. These are the guys behind the Post-It Note."

      3M is not a person. "These guys"? The ones that created Post-It Notes? Suddenly because one person (did the person work for 3M, sell it to them, was there more than one, do they still work there, etc?) created Post-It Notes, the entire company is smart? Please, I'm tired of hearing people speak of corporations like they are people. Although the ones responsible for pricing this may be smart, it does not make an entire company (which is NOT a person) smart. I'm sure you work with people both competent and incompetent at their jobs. I don't label the company I work for smart or stupid. Decisions in a company are made by people. PEOPLE!!!!!! Sorry, and thank you for not treating companies like people in the future.

      --
      Question everything.
    4. Re:Pricey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, you actually watched that movie? I think I'm stupider just from knowing that you saw it.

    5. Re:Pricey by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      And since you already had a cerebrectomy from watching it yourself, you're suffering from ur-stupid levels of dumb. Sux 2 b u.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  10. powerbook by blackmonday · · Score: 1

    You know it's safe when they drop a precious running powerbook in there. I mean, they didn't use an emachines, did they?

    1. Re:powerbook by blackmonday · · Score: 1

      oops I'm on the stupid tip today. I will now dissapear.

  11. Finally... by jlowery · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can give my cat a bath.

    --
    If you post it, they will read.
    1. Re:Finally... by dr_dank · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Gave my cat a bath the other day... she LOVED it, it was fun for me, fun for the cat, the fur kept sticking to my tongue though."

      - Steve Martin

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget about your cat. Now _I_ can take a bath!

    3. Re:Finally... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Finally Now I can take a bath!

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Finally... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      oops...sorry 'bout that...didn't see it. Go ahead mark it redundant. I can take it.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I did say the same too, or nearly so.

      "Gave a pussy a bath the other day... she LOVED it, it was fun for me, fun for the pussy, the fur kept sticking to my tongue though."

      - Me

  12. Ted Kennedy by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they could make this available on Cape Cod, Ted Kennedy would not have to worry about explaining his drenched suits after he goes driving.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Ted Kennedy by michaelggreer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow. I didn't know anyone here was old enough to make that joke.
      It was in Chappaquiddick, by the way.

    2. Re:Ted Kennedy by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Its so funny yet I don't get the joke! I am literally pissing myself at a joke a don't understand, god its so hard to type this post!!!@

    3. Re:Ted Kennedy by bombadillo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Same for the Bush's and Cheney. Cheney has 2 or 3 DUI's. W Bush was arrested for a DUI. Mrs. W Bush killed her best friend when she ran into her car. Yep, most of the "Pillars" of our community suck!

    4. Re:Ted Kennedy by Frennzy · · Score: 1

      We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

      Bah Dah BUM bump.

    5. Re:Ted Kennedy by bitrott · · Score: 1

      I'm not a democrat, but Ted Kennedy jokes STILL aren't funny. They're old and tasteless. And not funny.

    6. Re:Ted Kennedy by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Mary Jo doesn't think they're funny either.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    7. Re:Ted Kennedy by self+assembled+struc · · Score: 1

      And for those of us not familar on our northeast geography, that's on Nantucket.

    8. Re:Ted Kennedy by bombadillo · · Score: 1

      How is my above post rated as flamebait? It's the truth. The comment was geared to show that both parties have their issues. I guess some hard core Bush supporters must have mod points...

    9. Re:Ted Kennedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Martha's Vineyard.

    10. Re:Ted Kennedy by winkydink · · Score: 1

      I don't seem to see anywhere that Mrs W was drunk at the time of the accident that occurred when she was 17 (emphasis on the word accident, or was the vast, right-wing conspiracy prescient enough to anticipate that she'd one day be first lady and covered it up?). I also don't see where she was married and driving (drunk) late at night with a young member of the opposite sex who was not her spouse.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    11. Re:Ted Kennedy by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      He probably heard about it from Rush.

    12. Re:Ted Kennedy by bombadillo · · Score: 1

      You are jumping to conclusions. I personally think Ted Kenedy is a slime ball. Like it or not the current people in the White House have skeletons in their closet. Normally I wouldn't care about DUI's that happened in the past. However, there is bit of a hipocracy in their cases. As far as Laura goes... She ran a stop sign and hit her boyfriends car and killed him. The boyfriend was DOA with a broken neck. The report filed had inelligible writing for the speed of her vehicle. One could logically conclude that she must have been traveling at a pretty good pace to break someone's neck. She also recieved NO citation.

      It has nothing to do with "Right-wing conspiracy". Just the fact that you made that statement shows that you are not thinking critically. Just like Ted Kenedy , Laura Bush comes from a wealthy family. The police did not issue any form of traffic citation for this accident. It's simply a matter of being from a wealthy family and being able to get away with things. If you killed some one in an accident would you get away so easily? You would definitely be issued citations and chances are you would be investigated for Vehicular Homicide.

    13. Re:Ted Kennedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there really a place called Nantucket? I thought it was just made up for all those jokes.

      And what's with that Chankatonkpaqqaquidditch name? Are the people always that drunk up there?

    14. Re:Ted Kennedy by ocie · · Score: 1

      You're right. We should be searching for the real drivers.

      --
      JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
    15. Re:Ted Kennedy by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That is a good one.
      Wow, you deserve Score:6, Funny.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  13. Beyond 2000 by menacing_cheese · · Score: 1

    I don't know if its the same stuff or not, but I saw something like this liquid on Beyond 2000 at least a decade ago. They even mentioned that it could be useful in cooling supercomputers.

    1. Re:Beyond 2000 by frankie · · Score: 1
      For the benefit of /.ers who (as usual) didn't RTFA:
      There was a substance that had similar properties produced in the past, but that fire suppression liquid was damaging the ozone layer. The new substance by Tyco is supposed to be environmentally safe.
      Obvious question: anyone know if Tyco is telling true, or is this just a stunt to distract us from the Kozlowski trial?
    2. Re:Beyond 2000 by willwinter · · Score: 1

      Check the calendar. Its 4 years beyond 2000.

    3. Re:Beyond 2000 by n1ywb · · Score: 1
      That was the coolest episode of the coolest show EVER! I LOVED it when they dunked that Mac Plus and they had it set up to display
      IT'S FREEZING IN HERE!

      Classic :)
      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
    4. Re:Beyond 2000 by menacing_cheese · · Score: 1

      I did RTFA (as usual) you asshole. I was just saying that I saw something like this on Beyond 2000.

    5. Re:Beyond 2000 by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      This isn't actually Tyco's invention, it's 3M's. Tyco's involvement is because they make fire supression systems, and are going to offer this as a replacement for Halon and such.

      I'd say this is Tyco doing business as usual despite the trial, which is exactly what they should be doing.

    6. Re:Beyond 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw that episode too. I seem to recall that 3M had developed the product on Beyond 2000. I could be wrong though.

    7. Re:Beyond 2000 by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Dang, do you know what happened to that show, and others like NextStep? I've heard rumors they're still on in Britain or Australia...

      Gosh, I don't think Discovery channel or TLC do *any* future-tech related shows these days. Aren't there any cool technologies being developed? :(

    8. Re:Beyond 2000 by mebob · · Score: 1

      loved those shows... any one remember the make your own holograms?

      Things were just better than I think. I remember ryan secrest on some those technology shows and they didn't suck... that much.

      --
      =1000101
    9. Re:Beyond 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The show got progressively pared back, losing half an hour, its set, the more famous of its presenters and most of its fancy opening credits, switching networks where it was produced in Australia by the time it had its last season to air in early 1999. Appropriately enough.

      The parent company, Beyond International, has long since spread its roots into lots of other drama and documentary series.

      There was a spinoff website that was going strong a couple of years later, rather good content actually. It even had lots of video clips from the twenty years of the show, back to when it was called Towards 2000 on the public broadcaster. But even that died a year ago -- nominative determinism, anyone?

      I've still got my first-of-a-kind Beyond 2000 Smartcard from the days when the show was a touring exhibition in the late 80s.

      CK.

  14. Ramen noodles? by Himring · · Score: 2, Funny

    Has anyone tried it with ramen noodles? I figure, no need to drain!...

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    1. Re:Ramen noodles? by Washizu · · Score: 1

      " Has anyone tried it with ramen noodles? I figure, no need to drain!..."

      They'd stay hard.

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    2. Re:Ramen noodles? by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1
      They'd stay hard.

      Viag-ramen?

  15. Freezing temperature by akaina · · Score: 2, Informative

    A very interesting note is that Saphire/Novec 1230 has a freezing point at -162.4*F according to 3M's white paper

    --
    Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
    1. Re:Freezing temperature by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      what's that in Celcius?

      Anyway, should be interesting in places were the winters are harsh... I've seen the surroundings of a building after the firemen hosed it down for a few hours at -26C... everything is encased in ice.

    2. Re:Freezing temperature by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1


      Try the Google calculator...

      I love that thing :)

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  16. Hasn't this been done before? by PeterChenoweth · · Score: 2, Informative
    I remember watching a show called "Beyond 2000" on the Discovery Channel years and years ago (1995ish?). I remember an episode where they had a tank of some liquid that they submerged a TV into.

    So is this concept of non-conductive-water-like substances all that new?

    1. Re:Hasn't this been done before? by Colonel+Angus · · Score: 1

      I believe the main difference is the ability of this new material to prevent any water damage. I've seen the TV submerged in a tank before, but if you take that TV out, I believe it would be dripping wet. Not so with this material as far as I can tell. I'd like to see the video of the book coming out of the tank.

    2. Re:Hasn't this been done before? by g-san · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are not crazy, I saw the same show, so this is not "an amazing new substance." I also recall they were able to do some kind of component fault checking with that liquid too. They dunked a PCB into a tub of this stuff and a small stream of bubbles rose from some failed component. Perhaps that component was excessively hot or something and that was the juice boiling on it.

      And I disagree with my co-replyer about coming out wet or dry. If you put something in liquid, it will come out wet. If you put something in sand, it will come out sandy. There will always be pockets that will trap some of this substance. Even liquid mercury, which doesn't seem to get things wet, would find some little nook(s) to get stuck in.

  17. Distilled Water? by tvh2k · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wouldn't distilled water work just fine for total-submergion water cooling? After all, it's the ions in water that make it a conductor, correct?

    1. Re:Distilled Water? by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      The short answer is no. Distilled water has far less conductivity but it still is a conductor.

    2. Re:Distilled Water? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      for about 1/10000 of a second till all the dirt on what you are placing in the h20 disolves into it turing your distilled h20 into 'normal' conductive h20.

    3. Re:Distilled Water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Water ionizes itself. There is a certain amount of the reaction 2 H20 -> H30+ + OH-. While very distilled water does not conduct electricity very well, it is still a highly polar substance and will still foul things up.

    4. Re:Distilled Water? by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      But you have contamination in the laptop and such.

      If you were to douse a room with distilled water, the water would probably be ionized by something in the room, and zap! there goes your electornics.

      -Grump

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    5. Re:Distilled Water? by tstoneman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Water naturally ionized into H+ and OH-, which is the cause of the conduction of water.

    6. Re:Distilled Water? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      In theory. In practice, your distilled water will probably pick up enough silver and lead ions from the circuit traces to be conductive. That's if you managed the required level of purity required in the first place.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    7. Re:Distilled Water? by sacremon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure, until ions are leeched out of the components, allowing a current to flow.

      In a lab that I worked in we had water that had been passed through several kinds of filters and ion exchangers. You were good to go when the machine said that it had 10+ megaohm of resistance. We stored the water in clean glass bottles, but after about a week had to dump it because the ions leeched from the glass.

      --
      If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
    8. Re:Distilled Water? by mcowger · · Score: 1

      Sure, but its not possible to get totally deionized water. By it very nature, The water will ionize due to radiation of sorts, naturally (the H+'s break off from the HO's).

      Its possible to make water nearly non conductive, but not totally.

    9. Re:Distilled Water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not exactly. H20 is in a constant balanced reaction, H2O becomes OH- and H30+, and of course visa versa, those to ions can carry a current

    10. Re:Distilled Water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      And you still would have to worry about corrosion and rot.

    11. Re:Distilled Water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot get rid of the ions. Water = H20 = H+ and OH-, two ions which will happily conduct electricity. Put enough voltage over water and it will be ripped apart. Only for very low voltages do you need spare ions (sodium, for example) to conduct electricity.

    12. Re:Distilled Water? by ugo · · Score: 1

      When I was in highschool a friend and I used synthetic Motor oil to submerge a old computer to see if it would work. Worked fine for a couple of week untill we put the hard drive in as well. Then it didn't last very long...

    13. Re:Distilled Water? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      deionized water is even better... distill it, deionize it ant then run it through enough filters and you get 13-16 Megaohm conductivity out of water.

      I know, that was the conductivity level we looked for before starting to make reagents in the lab.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Distilled Water? by SB9876 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, as long as you keep purifying the water, it would work. Unfortunately, ions leaching off of the parts and CO2 going into solution greatly increase the conductivity. The systems for keeping the water low conductivity are fairly simple but expensive and a pain to keep running 24/7. It's actually used for high powered lasers where costs isn't much of an object.

    15. Re:Distilled Water? by SB9876 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the equilibrium of H20 -> H+ + OH- is almost entirely due to thermodynamic concerns, not ionizing radiation.

    16. Re:Distilled Water? by mcowger · · Score: 1

      I totally recognize that - I meant ionizing radiatin as another way to generate ions in water, not as the cause of the equilibrium.

  18. Electronics will benifit the most.. by xot · · Score: 1

    Rightly said that water cooling systems for electronics and computers will benefit the most. I can think of many places where you'd like to put in cooled liquid but cannot cause it would messup the electronic system.
    Also , it appears that its not a conductor of electricity which will help tremendously.

    --
    Lord of the Binges.
    1. Re:Electronics will benifit the most.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is, is it a good conductor of heat? You can take the liquid right down to the freezing point if you want, but if it doesn't conduct heat well it won't cool your system one bit.

  19. Neato by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

    I like images 14 & 15 in the sldeshow. I wish they had video clips, though.

  20. What we really need by Rorschach1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Forget water that doesn't get stuff wet.

    What we need is fire that doesn't burn stuff.

    1. Re:What we really need by TheZalm · · Score: 1

      What we need is fire that doesn't burn stuff.

      Yeah!!! We cold call it 'Ruby'

    2. Re:What we really need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have that already. It's called aafire. :)

    3. Re:What we really need by dupper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Prior Art - God

    4. Re:What we really need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish that there was some I could be outside playing basketball in the rain and not get wet!

    5. Re:What we really need by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1
      Come on, you've got to at least give a proper reference.

      Exodus 3:2

      Sounds more like a fireproof bush than a non-consuming fire to me.

    6. Re:What we really need by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Now wouldn't that be great? Hm?

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  21. Chemical properties by detritus` · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry to say but this wont be a very good immersion cooling solution, the heat capacity of this stuff is WAY less than water, at least according to the info i could find on it. As well the toxicity is not something you'd want to be exposed to on a daily basis, i just feel sorry for that poor guy on TV who was blithely sticking his hands into the tank of this stuff and such, hope he doesnt need his liver for anything if he does this sort of thing on a regular basis.

    1. Re:Chemical properties by sacremon · · Score: 4, Informative

      In addition the stuff is photolytic by UV light. The PDF states the stuff would be expected to last about five days when exposed to the atmosphere. Fluorescent lights put out a fair amount of UV, so if it were used for cooling, it would have to be a well-sealed opaque tank.

      --
      If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
    2. Re:Chemical properties by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      There goes the idea of tossing UV reactive dye into the stuff and flipping on a blacklight too.

    3. Re:Chemical properties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or use glass, or a UV-filtering plastic. Like sunglasses.

  22. PHB Alert! by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny
    My PHB will likely be faxing Tyco a P.O. this afternoon!

    Memo To All Valued Employees:

    When a fire breaks out, please remain calm. Additional stress during this time of continued right-sizing is unproductive. I personally assure you that all valued assets will be safe and secure.

    If you have any questions, please address them to my secretary who can forward them to me in my personal bunker in Tahiti.
    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  23. Uh.. by hookedup · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why give a new substance the name of an older substance?

    1. Re:Uh.. by Rick.C · · Score: 1
      Why give a new substance the name of an older substance?

      All the good names were already taken.

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    2. Re:Uh.. by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

      You mean like the guys who called this non-silver stuff "silver"

    3. Re:Uh.. by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Marketing.

    4. Re:Uh.. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      That was the first thing I thought too. I think they need to rename it to Sapphspire to avoid litigation.

    5. Re:Uh.. by six11 · · Score: 1

      I think it's OK as long as the new thing won't be confused with the older thing. Some terms from computing that spring to mind: mouse, firewall, bug... Word overloading is one of the ways that languages evolve.

      It's much easier to remember the name of the thing as 'Sapphire' rather than 'Novec 1230' or whatever. In some industries (high tech and pharmacy) they like to invent new words all the time and it just ends up being hard to remember. For example, Paxil. What the heck is that? It's not always bad, for example, 'Zoloft' has a phonetic similarity to 'Loft', as in, raise your spirits.

      I'm sure they spent a chunk of change in doing some research before giving their new concoction a street name. I wish the Mozilla people would do that with The-Browser-Currently-At-0.8.

  24. It sounds like dry-cleaning fluid by bartash · · Score: 1

    Could someone leave a dirty jacket in the machine room and accidentally cause it to be flooded with Sapphire? File your report as a reply here.

    --
    Read Epic the first RPG novel.
  25. Tyco... by PixelScuba · · Score: 1

    ...making showering quicker and more efficient since 2004.

  26. here is a video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    of the chemical in action.

    1. Re:here is a video by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

      Looks like water to me. Plus that video is shit quality.

  27. If it doesn't get things wet... by ShdwStkr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    how to you clean it up? Or pick it up? Say, after it's been used to put out a fire? Or does some 'special' cloth absorb it?

    -j

    1. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by PixelScuba · · Score: 2, Funny

      Use the quilted, quicker picker upper... ...Bounty

    2. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by Himring · · Score: 4, Funny

      how to you clean it up? Or pick it up? Say, after it's been used to put out a fire? Or does some 'special' cloth absorb it?

      You use a wetvac, no, wait....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    3. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kinda like the old "If nothing sticks to Teflon, how does Teflon stick to the pan?"

      I expect that a draining system would be the best way...

    4. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by volve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The parent has a very good point.

      The good thing about using water to put out fires is: it's already everywhere, so it doesn't really matter if a "little more" runs down the drawn.

      Saphire, however, is not /anywhere/, so what happens when the Lourve catches fire and the fancy new Saphire sprinkles kick into action? One more Mona Lisa saved, oh, but an entire building full of a strange liquid that, from what I can tell, would require a hazmat crew to clean-up.

      I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want this stuff simply running down the drawn... :-/ So what are you going to do? Add special filters to all the drains in the Lourve? What if one of the sprinkles ends-up spraying outside, what happens to the environment?


      -VolVE

    5. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by volve · · Score: 1

      I wish I could spell.

      Saphire = Sapphire drawn = drain Lourve = Louvre sprinkles = sprinklers

      <sigh>

      -VolVE

    6. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by Raunch · · Score: 3, Informative

      > how to you clean it up?

      From the article:
      The fire protection fluid will quickly evaporate, safeguarding
      these items - and leaving them unaffected.

      --
      George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
    7. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by strike2867 · · Score: 1

      'special' cloth absorb it

      Yes, and i invented it. I call it a wet cloth.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    8. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      The same way you clean up spilled Mercury.

    9. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The way you clean up spilled Mercury is to sprinkle zinc dust all over, and then sweep it up. It's one of the very few toxic substances that Environmental Health and Safety people will let an "untrained" chemistry or physics person clean up without a lot of shoulder-peeking. Hell, they even hand out these "special" sponges, which are essentially just a regular sponge with zinc bits glued on.

      The point is that Mercury WILL stick to zinc (amalgam, anyone?) and copper, but zinc is a bit less toxic than copper to have around.

      Similarly, I work with 3M's fluorinert liquids quite a bit, although not for cooling. They're useful for some of their other properties (which I'm not revealing right now, because my research could get scooped -- that's science in action!), but the BEST property is that they're STABLE, and they're awfully nonreactive with organics (humans). There've been studies where fish were immersed in fluorinert liquids for long times. Just bubble some oxygen through the stuff so the fish can breathe, and choose the right density, and the fish do fine. Choose the wrong densities, though, and the fish'll be bobbing about on the surface, wondering how the hell to deflate their swim bladders.

    10. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Damn! And so the point is, to clean up fluorinert liquids, you pump the bulk of it into a holding tank to be reused (it's expensive stuff!), and put fans on the rest of it. Smells a little fruity for a while (it's not TOTALLY unreactive), but it's safe and almost sane to just vent the vapor to the outer air. There's no bloody way you'll get away with doing this with Hg.

    11. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by ShdwStkr · · Score: 1

      I did read the article honest. I must have missed that part.

      Yes yes, I read the article, I must be new here.

      -j

    12. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by thdexter · · Score: 1

      Same way one would clean mercury, I'd fancy... with a brush and pan.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    13. Re:If it doesn't get things wet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't humans breathe certain flourocarbons as well? I recall the fluid demonstrated in the Abyss really does exist but for it to be used by humans they have to use sedatives to slow breathing down to 3-4 breaths per minute to prevent lung damage.

  28. Slideshow was made of Sapphire as well by your_mother_sews_soc · · Score: 1

    I followed the link but it was all dried up. No slideshow. BTW, the only thing nice I ever saw on WPVI.com was Monica Malpas in a short skirt, but that was 10 years ago.

    --
    My user name was a mistake. Input wasn't restricted, my bad.
    1. Re:Slideshow was made of Sapphire as well by dominator2010 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have to open the slideshow by clicking on the link between the short opener in bold and the beginning of the article. Here's the link Look for the link "IMAGES: Liquid in action on Good Morning America" in between the two.

  29. Another liquid that won't get things wet: by rsidd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mercury. May not be a good idea to submerge electronics in it though. And it's expensive, and toxic.

    1. Re:Another liquid that won't get things wet: by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      Mercury. May not be a good idea to submerge electronics in it though. And it's expensive, and toxic.

      And conductive.

    2. Re:Another liquid that won't get things wet: by Inominate · · Score: 1

      Mercury in metallic form isn't all that dangerous. (Wouldn't want to drink any though) It's various mercury based compounds which cause all the problems.

    3. Re:Another liquid that won't get things wet: by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2, Informative

      Okay, chemistry geeks, it's:

      1,1,1,2,2,4,5,5,5-NONAFLUORO-4-(TRIFLUOROMETHYL)-3 -PENTANONE

      Anyone know if that's conductive?

    4. Re:Another liquid that won't get things wet: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will stick to your gold jewelry.

    5. Re:Another liquid that won't get things wet: by fiori · · Score: 1

      This is what the structure looks, based on the name, like if anyone is interested.

      F
      |
      F F O F-C-F F
      | | " | |
      F-C---C---C---C---C--F
      | | | |
      F F F F

      No wonder it doesn't wet anything with all those fluorines on the structure!!

  30. Tastes good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What... Mercury?

  31. Distilled water by getnate · · Score: 1

    I dont think distilled water will conduct either. Could you drop a running tv into a vat of distilled water and it will still work then?

    1. Re:Distilled water by monster811 · · Score: 1

      I doubt it, as the purity of the water would be ruined as soon as it made contact with a (likely dirty) surface.

  32. Tyco? by sulli · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does this mean that the liquid will be pissed out by an ice sculpture of David?

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:Tyco? by RadRafe · · Score: 1
      11 Ext. Interior Courtyard.

      (In the courtyard is a 50 foot high statue of LISTER, in "toilet position", holding its penis, positioned so that it can pee into the courtyard fountain.)

      GILBERT: I am most awfully sorry about the statue, sir. The contractors still haven't devised a way of making it urinate champagne into the courtyard, although I am assured that it will be fully functional for the royal visit this week.

  33. Re:"Water"-cooling - Phase-change cooling? by jmac880n · · Score: 1

    according to their specs sheet (PDF warning), this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?

    Phase-change cooling comes to mind. Does anyone know if it would be better/cheaper/safer than freon?

  34. This is TV. by botzi · · Score: 1
    Charles Gibson/Good Morning America: "It looks like water, but it's not."

    Half the liquids on earth "look like" water. Pretty sad when Good Morning America makes /..

    --
    1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
  35. They should call it... by thestarz · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I can't believe it's not water."

    --

    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  36. Read the PDF by Ralconte · · Score: 3, Informative

    This was on Fark already. Read the PDF. It's stored as a liquid in the tank, but its a cyclic fluorocarbon that vaporizes on release. This is simply the latest version of Halon (TM) fire extinguishers, not an "non-wetting water" or an "non-flammable organic with a water-like viscosity" At work we have carbon dioxide jets in the server room in case of fire. We've never had the building burn down so I don't know the merits of either method.

    1. Re:Read the PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've never had the building burn down, then your CO2 system must be working pretty well. Just like this rock, it keeps tigers away. Don't see any tigers around here, do you?

    2. Re:Read the PDF by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      How much for your rock?

    3. Re:Read the PDF by thetaikung · · Score: 1

      He didn't say the building hasn't burned down yet BECAUSE of the CO2 jets. He said he hasn't seen the merits (that's kind of like the "good points") of the system because there hasn't been a fire yet.

      --
      P226 .40cal
    4. Re:Read the PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, I hope you're not a Mac user, or you're going to have a hell of a time installing 10.4 when it comes out!

  37. Sapphire by fkamogee · · Score: 1

    How is it acceptable to create a new substance and give it the same name as an existing substance? Can I grow some Magic Rocks, call them "Diamonds" and sell them online?

    1. Re:Sapphire by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Yep. Just don't lose the quotation marks.

    2. Re:Sapphire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Can I grow some Magic Rocks, call them "Diamonds" and sell them online?

      Sure, I'll even buy it off you in exchange for the "Uranium" that my dog produces.

  38. Quicksilver anyone? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    Except the fact that it's rather poisonous and conducts electricity so it won't do any good to submerged electronics, it doesn't make things wet and has several other interesting properties as a liquid.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  39. Breath.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me when i can breathe it k? Although it is going to be pretty nice for cooling applications.

  40. Combination by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 1

    Actually, all the suggestions in the summary will work for me. My 486 66Mhz belongs in a museum, but I've overclocked it (manually) to nearly 200MHz, so I can put out fires in my museum-worthy system, while utilizing water cooling!

    I don't like to brag, but I smell a Nobel Prize...

    --
    True story.
    1. Re:Combination by DR+SoB · · Score: 1

      Bah I overclocked my 8Mhz XT into 290 Mhz just by using the graphite on a pencil and drawing a couple lines down the CPU.. (I actually know a person that thinks they can overclock a cpu, using only a pencil.).

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
    2. Re:Combination by dr+bacardi · · Score: 1

      like this?

  41. Fluorinert by Winter · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is of course not the first liquid that does not cause harm to electronics, and can be used for total immersion water cooling. Fluorinert (3m) has been around for a while. One version of it is(was) also used for liquid breething deep diving (same as used on "The Abyss").

    --
    main(i){putchar(177663314>>6*(i-1)&63|!!(i<5)<<6)&&main(++i);}
    1. Re:Fluorinert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      MSDS for Fluorinert. All it says is avoid prolonged exposure to vaporous Fluorinert

    2. Re:Fluorinert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      "Can anyone confirm/deny this?"

      Nope. They're all dead.

    3. Re:Fluorinert by mac+os+ken · · Score: 1

      The ScreenSavers on TechTV cooled a PC with this stuff. It is extremely expensive and evaporates insanely quick. This is some awesome stuff. Maybe 3M will drop the price if more people get into it.

      --
      .deviatefromtheabsolute.
    4. Re:Fluorinert by threees · · Score: 1

      Neat stuff, but i don't see a reference to 'breething' anywhere in there... is that a fast one you're trying to pull, or do you have some evidence of abyss-like breathable liquid somewhere?

    5. Re:Fluorinert by jcdick1 · · Score: 1

      Here you go...

      University of Pennsylvania Veterinary School

      There are other bits if you google for "breathable liquid"

      --
      What?
    6. Re:Fluorinert by erikharrison · · Score: 1

      Actually, I can find several references after a quick google search, but most of them seem bogus.

      The most reputable paper I could find was this, which refers to testing possible side effects of the fluid when used on dogs. Could be full of horse shit.

      http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0984/5_118/6 77 08350/p1/article.jhtml?term=

    7. Re:Fluorinert by jonin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The movie "The Abyss" gives a totally incorrect view about breathing liquids. People are not meant to breath liquids and don't unless they enjoy dying. As a fetus and until you are born your lungs are collapsed. It is not until birth and you take your first forceful breath does anything enter your lungs. One of the first things you have to do when a baby is born is suction out ithe nose and mouth because the amniotic fluid can cause infection in the lungs. The fetus receives oxygen through the blood stream from the placenta until birth.

      As far as Flourinert being used for deep diving, I think the poster is just completely incorrect. I have seen no valid evidence of liquid breathing. Most deep divers use Trimix (a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, and helium.) One of the major challenges of breathing liquids, other than your alveoli require a gas exchange not likely to happen with a liquid, is how do you circulate the liquid from inside the lungs to the outside environment. Your diaphram and accessory muscles don't have enough strenght to move mass quantities of liquid.

    8. Re:Fluorinert by JayBlalock · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well, according to all the making-of stuff on the Abyss DVD, they really submerged a rat in the stuff and filmed it breathing. So unless they were flat-out lying, it's real.

      And besides that, if you watch the scene in question, there's just no way they could've built such a lifelike robo-rat. At least, not cheaply enough to make it worth the cost, compared to just faking the effect.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    9. Re:Fluorinert by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      Well, according to all the making-of stuff on the Abyss DVD, they really submerged a rat in the stuff and filmed it breathing. So unless they were flat-out lying, it's real.

      Did the making-of stuff on the Abyss DVD also report on how much brain damage the rat suffered due to this experiment?

    10. Re:Fluorinert by jonin · · Score: 1

      Decalin which they talk about in the article is not used to completely fill the lungs. Only small amounts are used so when a person inhales both air and Decalin are in the lungs. When ther person exhales the air is evacuated and only Decalin is left allowing for more oxygen exchange. They don't fully submerge or completely fill the lungs with fluid.

    11. Re:Fluorinert by khrtt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Non-toxic fluorocarbons often generate nasty thermal decomposition products. Mustard gas is a bad example, what you would get is a lot more like phosgene. Burn enough refrigerant, or just teflon in an open flame, and you will die.

      They coat kitchen utensils with teflon, and it releases a small amount of phosgene into your kitchen atmosphere every time you ruin a cooking pan. Not enough to kill you, but the effects of phosgene are cumulative. I suppose this feature of teflon complements other natural selection mechanizms against forgetful people.

    12. Re:Fluorinert by Piquan · · Score: 1

      Well, according to all the making-of stuff on the Abyss DVD, they really submerged a rat in the stuff and filmed it breathing.

      First, rats have a different respiratory system than humans.

      Second, last I heard, they haven't figured out how to get the rat out of the liquid without suffocating him. Once he goes in, he's in for life.

    13. Re:Fluorinert by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      Recalling the movie, they pulled the rat out and he was still alive... I wonder how long he lived afterwards.

    14. Re:Fluorinert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure they showed the rat being taken out.

    15. Re:Fluorinert by eunos94 · · Score: 1

      Or you could just try checking google and find out that it is correct and that humans can breath liquid.

    16. Re:Fluorinert by praedor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Eh? Rats (dogs, cats, cows, horses, skunks, ...) do NOT have a different respiratory system than humans. They work exactly the same, by the same mechanisms, and for the exact same purpose. Birds are mechanically a little different but their lungs work the same way too.


      It is real stuff and it works. It did not kill the rodent. It could be a temporary hazard for developing pneumonia after the fact if the lungs don't clear the liquid soon enough and a bacteria can get started in it.


      Basically, expell the liquid and then cough, cough, cough to clear most of it, then slowly eliminate the rest the same way your lungs clear mucus contaminated with dirt, bacteria, viruses, etc.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    17. Re:Fluorinert by symbolic · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Burn enough refrigerant, or just teflon in an open flame, and you will die.

      I saw a news report about this, and it doesn't even require an open flame or "ruining" a pan - according to the reporter, all it requires is the same level of heat you'd use to fry bacon.

    18. Re:Fluorinert by RevPsycho · · Score: 1

      I know this generally isn't an issue for humans, but if you have any pet birds, the fumes from Teflon, even in very small amounts, can easily kill them. You can have the same problem if you have a "self-cleaning oven." Some appliance manufacturers are even starting to include warnings in their product manuals about this problem. Whirlpool is one that I've seen before.

      Here is a link to some information about it. They also discuss what they call "polymer fume fever" which occurs in humans. The particulate matter that is given off is supposed to be some pretty nasty stuff.

      Also, if you're suspicious about the information contained there because it's from an environmental group, try searching for "Teflon toxicosis" for any number of other sources.

    19. Re:Fluorinert by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative
      I saw the same demonstration on "Late Night with Johnny Carson" a long time ago with my dad. A scientist dropped a rat into a covered tank and the audience oohed and aahed as the critter swam around for several minutes before the next guest came out.

      This wasn't new tech when "The Abyss" came out.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    20. Re:Fluorinert by The+Metahacker · · Score: 1

      (RTFL?)

      Actually it says that it thermally decomposes into HF and PFIB, and that respirators are necessary for cleaning it up in the event of a fire. Sounds like the parent comment is correct; if it boils, it releases hydroflouric acid into the atmosphere, and you'd best be somewhere else.

    21. Re:Fluorinert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the National Geographic issue with the demise of the U.S.S. Thresher, they do mention the liquid breating. Don't know what it's called though.

    22. Re:Fluorinert by iantri · · Score: 1
      I saw this too; apparently cooking on Teflon at slightly higher than normal temperature can kill any birds you happen to have in the room.

      Scary.

    23. Re:Fluorinert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct, but the original poster is wrong, it ain't got a thing to do with flourinert.

    24. Re:Fluorinert by JayBlalock · · Score: 1
      This wasn't new tech when "The Abyss" came out.

      Right. The problem, if I recall, is one of volume. It isn't good as a deep-sea breathing solution because you'd need to haul around a tank the size of a swimming pool to be able to breathe for any reasonable period of time.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    25. Re:Fluorinert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is called drowning.

    26. Re:Fluorinert by anethema · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lets not forget Mineral Oil. This is available at any drugstore, its completely inert, wont harm the environement, wont harm electronics, etc. Works great for immersion cooling. I'm not sure about it's heat transfer propreties, but I sumberged an old pentium for fun. Just left the drives out (hard drives are NOT sealed incase someone didn't know) and the power supply. Changed the cpu fan for something a bit stronger, and put the whole thing in a glass box with some bubbles. Looked very cute, ran decently well. I pumped all the fluid through a small radiator so it wouldnt get too hot. Put some LED's in there..looked nice.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    27. Re:Fluorinert by jonin · · Score: 1

      It's not as easy as cough, cough, cough to clear the liquid. It is especially hard if your lungs are complete filled with liquid. In cases where liquid (Decalin) is introduced in the lungs it is in small proportions because you still need to oxygenate the liquid and the lungs, and the easiest way to do that is to allow normal respiration.

      With any liquid being introduced into the lungs there are not just temporary hazards, there are very real and persistent hazards, hense the incidences of secondary drowning is so great.

      I would venture a guess that the rodent they did use did die shortly there after. Once the oxygen was used up from the liquid source it probably suffocated to death. I wouldn't be suprised if they had to use more than one rodent in the movie. But I don't know for sure, I don't have the movie and haven't seen the special features to know the details.

    28. Re:Fluorinert by jonin · · Score: 1

      "Or you could just try checking google and find out that it is correct and that humans can breath liquid."

      I google for aliens landing on earth, humans not landing on the moon, and humans being able to levitate. All must be true based on some of the results.

    29. Re:Fluorinert by eunos94 · · Score: 1
      Well, let's see. Links to Argonne National Labs, University of Arizona, links to Liquivent's manufacturer, or links to articles in the New England Journal of Medicine.

      You're right. Not everything on the web is real. However, there is an occasional kernel of truth.

    30. Re:Fluorinert by eunos94 · · Score: 1

      Hey, check me out! Replying to my own post...doh!

    31. Re:Fluorinert by eunos94 · · Score: 1
      Well, let's see. Links to Argonne National Labs, University of Arizona, links to Liquivent's manufacturer, or links to articles in the New England Journal of Medicine.

      You're right. Not everything on the web is real. However, there is an occasional kernel of truth.

    32. Re:Fluorinert by bobv-pillars-net · · Score: 1

      IIRC from the special edition, the rat died about a month later of unrelated causes.

      --
      The Web is like Usenet, but
      the elephants are untrained.
    33. Re:Fluorinert by jonin · · Score: 1

      Kernel of truth is right. In All the articles you link to all talk about liquivent. In none of the studies do people breath liquids. In all of the studies then and now people breath air, the liquid in dripped down an endotracheal tube, and is used as an oxygen storage reserve.

      I guess I needed to make my point more clear earlier. People don't breath liquid. You may have some injected into your lungs that will store oxygen that you breath through air, but the systems do not have you breathing straight liquid. And I would think that it would be nearly impossible to breath straight liquid without intubation because you would have so many contaminates in the liquid that you would be guaranteed to get an infection. And even while being intubated the sustem would be difficult because you would have to keep high oxygen levels in the fluid.

    34. Re:Fluorinert by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative
      Please, if you don't know anything about the topic, don't clutter up slashdot with meaningless speculation. That's my job.

      From here:

      Patients Breathing Liquid in UMC Intensive Care Unit

      By Kevin Rademacher

      Like a scene from a science-fiction movie, some of the sickest at University Medical Center are breathing fluid as a critical life-saving treatment.

      Steven B. Johnson, MD, associate professor of surgery at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, and Steven R. Knoper, assistant research professor with the College of Medicine, are leading a study examining liquid ventilation, a new treatment that has produced impressive results.

      The liquid is administered to patients suffering from severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and breathing with the aid of mechanical ventilation. The liquid ventilation therapy involves trickling the fluid, LiquiVent®, into the patient's lungs through the endotracheal tube.

      The fluid _ a clear, colorless, oily liquid that looks and flows like water but is twice as dense _ carries oxygen and promotes respiratory gas exchange while opening up the lungs. The dense fluid also serves to wash out the ailing lungs, assisting in the removal of debris and other contaminants.

      A picture of a 1960's mouse in a beaker too.
  42. That's what they thought about... by MrNonchalant · · Score: 1

    ...Dihydrogen Monoxide, but how wrong they were.

  43. Gratuitous TMBG quote by swordboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    When he's underwater does he get wet or does the water get him instead? Nobody knows, particle man!

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  44. You'll forgive me by karmaflux · · Score: 1

    if I don't believe that a material which doesn't conduct electricity might also be a poor conductor of heat.

    Just sayin' is all.

    --

    REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

    1. Re:You'll forgive me by karmaflux · · Score: 1

      for typing things in that don't make sense.

      I bet bad electricity conduction means bad heat conduction -- as evidenced by its low boiling point -- and thus, this stuff is useless for cooling computers.

      --

      REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

    2. Re:You'll forgive me by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 1

      so what are your feelings on distilled water, then? And liquid nitrogen?

      --
      Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
    3. Re:You'll forgive me by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I bet bad electricity conduction means bad heat conduction

      Wrong, look at diamond, which has negligible electrical conductivity but extremely good heat conductivity.

  45. A few things.... by ghettoboy22 · · Score: 1

    What is the energy capacity of this liquid? That would be the real question of whether this would feasibly work for a total immersion liquid cooling setup. Other points to consider would be if there is any long term corrosive properties, as well as the price of the liquid as well. One would think if they're planning it for fire-suppression systems the price wouldn't be too prohibitive, however I bet Tyco plopped a good amount of $$ in R&D for this substance.

  46. You Insensitive Clod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Don't use Sapphire on your girlfriend.

    Girlfriend? What's a girlfriend?

    BTW, did I mention I just got another 512MB of DDR RAM and an Audigy 2 ZS Platinum and a pair of 160GB SATA drives on order? Gosh. I may have to install a couple more LED fans, I hope 7 is enough...

  47. Conductivity by davebarz · · Score: 1

    The all-important questions for amazing water cooling:

    1. Is it electrically conductive? 2. Is it thermally conductive?

    If it is electrically conductive, you can pretty much forget about it having any greater use in water cooling than water, except to minimize risk in spills. If not, we can move on to question 2.

    Just because it is a liquid does not necessarily mean it will have the thermal conductivity necessary to successfully cool a system.

    1. Re:Conductivity by frankie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if you don't RTFA, you could at least look at the pretty pictures. They submerged a laptop and a plasma TV in the stuff while running, so that covers electrical. And since its intended use is fire suppression, its thermal specs must be fairly good.

    2. Re:Conductivity by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      Just because it's used for fire supression means that it's thermal specs are good. It simply means it's keeping oxygen from reaching the base of the fire. Temperature has nothing really to do with it.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    3. Re:Conductivity by Lord_Breetai · · Score: 1

      It simply means it's keeping oxygen from reaching the base of the fire. Temperature has nothing really to do with it.

      Not quite. Here's an excerpt from the PDF:

      Q. If Novec 1230 performs as well as you say,
      explain why it is not a "drop-in" for halons?


      A. Novec 1230 and halons are different and their
      physical properties require different delivery
      system design. Also, a high-boiling liquid like
      Novec 1230 protection will behave
      differently than low-boiling gases like the halons.
      While both Novec 1230 and the halons
      perform effectively at their respective design
      concentrations, their extinguishing mechanisms
      differ. Novec 1230 is a physically-acting
      agent cooling the fuel to extinguishment, whereas
      the halons inhibit the combustion chain reaction to
      extinguish a fire.

      --
      "You are only young once, but you can be immature forever." -www.animemusicvideos.org
  48. Saphire doesn't really cool anything by kazama · · Score: 1

    From Tyco's Press Release, "The SAPPHIRE Suppression System chemically interferes with the fire combustion process, therefore bringing it to a halt." The side effect would be a reduction of flames and heat but it's primary purpose is not to draw heat away from a fire. It is to stop the fire from continuing to combust. That's why electronics submerged int he fluid would still work. You aren't damaging the components with a heat reducing element, you are bathing them in a combustion stopping element. Tv's don't tend to combust from what I rememebr. :)

  49. Specs Data by Liselle · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here, I pulled it before /. nuked the site:
    Chemical Formula CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2
    Molecular Weight 316.04
    Boiling Point @ 1 atm 49.2&#176;C (120.6&#176;F)
    Freezing Point -108.0&#176;C (-162.4&#176;F)
    Critical Temperature 168.7&#176;C (335.6&#176;F)
    Critical Pressure 18.65 bar (270.44 psi)
    Critical Volume 494.5 cc/mole (0.0251 ft3/lbm)
    Critical Density 639.1 kg/m3 (39.91 lbm/ft3)
    Density, Sat. Liquid 1.60 g/ml (99.9 lbm/ft3)
    Density, Gas @ 1 atm 0.0136 g/ml (0.851 lbm/ft3)
    Specific Volume, Gas @ 1 atm 0.0733 m3/kg (1.175 ft3/lb)
    Specific Heat, Liquid 1.103 kJ/kg&#176;C (0.2634 BTU/lb&#176;F)
    Specific Heat, Vapor @ 1 atm 0.891 kJ/kg&#176;C (0.2127 BTU/lb&#176;F)
    Heat of Vaporization @ boiling point 88.0 kJ/kg (37.9 BTU/lb)
    Liquid Viscosity @ 0&#176;C/25&#176;C 0.56/0.39 centistokes
    Solubility of Water in Novec 1230 Fluid <0.001 % by wt.
    Vapor Pressure 0.404 bar (5.85 psig)
    Relative Dielectric Strength, 1 atm (N2=1.0) 2.3
    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    1. Re:Specs Data by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1, Informative

      So if it is 1.103 kJ/kg C and water is 4.18 kJ/kg C
      Water is about 4 times better, eh?

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    2. Re:Specs Data by tijnbraun · · Score: 1

      >> Chemical Formula CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2

      Looks like a real ozone killer... well as long it doesn't evaporate easily, maybe this will not be a problem

    3. Re:Specs Data by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but, what's the flash point? :-)

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Specs Data by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 1

      actually, a page from 3M's website says that, as a fire retardant, it does its work in gaseous form (check out the PDF link near the bottom of the centre column). And is quite given to evaporation in a normal (room-temperature) environment. Yikes!

      --
      Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
    5. Re:Specs Data by Stavr0 · · Score: 0
      Chemical Formula CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2

      IANAChemist, but geez! That's a LOT of fluorocarbons. Looks like it would punch a hole in the ozone layer sumptin' fierece ...

    6. Re:Specs Data by Compuser · · Score: 1

      Well, looks like this stuff is 4 times worse than
      water at grabbing heat from your processor...
      unless your processor gets to ~50 C, at which
      point this will become very good at cooling via
      evaporation. Looks good for a closed cycle
      radiator type cooler.

    7. Re:Specs Data by elvum · · Score: 1

      RTFA

    8. Re:Specs Data by pragma_x · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I thought the same thing... looks like a CFC to me.

      Actually, 3M's FAQ (the PDF linked in the post) claims that it has "zero ozone depletion potential". But it also seems to indicate that it degrades when it gets into contact with UV radiation (ie. keep it out of direct sunlinght). This leaves open the question: is it only ozone-safe as long as it doesn't decompose?

      Still the fluorine content of the chemical raises concerns beyond ozone depletion. This stuff may very well be even nastier to produce than, say, teflon. (With similar ecological and safety concerns)

      Additional info:
      http://www.tldp.com/issue/202/Notes_Fluorin e.htm
      http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluorosis-indi a.htm

    9. Re:Specs Data by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except for the rather obvious fact that ozone is constantly created by the bombardment of solar radiation on atompsheric oxygen. The only way to get rid of ozone is to eliminate all atmospheric oxygen. Not even the environmental wackos are saying that Haliburton or Bush can do that. Yet.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    10. Re:Specs Data by scrytch · · Score: 1

      > Chemical Formula CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2

      Yay, it's a CFC. The properties of CFC's have been known for a long time -- just about everyone has seen the demonstration of a computer dunked in the stuff. Nothing new to see. No way will the EPA let people use this as a fire extinguisher. Well, maybe if dubya gets elected this year...

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    11. Re:Specs Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of electric conductivity does it have? I imagine that it's nonpolar so it's pretty small. The dielectric might affect some capacitances on electronic components if they are submerged.

    12. Re:Specs Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that's necessary is to destroy faster than is created.

    13. Re:Specs Data by scrytch · · Score: 1

      ok so i don't know my CFC's from my FC's ... still, looking at it and its boiling point makes me think "flourinert", and why crays have gas masks inside them...

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    14. Re:Specs Data by Cecil · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am not a chemist, but you do know that CFC stands for 'chlorofluorocarbon' right? As in, Chlorine, Flourine, and Carbon? Where in that chemical composition do you see any chlorine? It's not a CFC just because it has the letters 'C', 'F', and 'C' in it somewhere.

      Which isn't to say fluorine is pleasant stuff, but it's not going to destroy the ozone layer.

    15. Re:Specs Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pressume that you are a troll (and a skillfull one indeed), but there is also a small chance that you are just unknowing. Therefore I will give you an explanation.

      In the ozone layer is not at chemical equilibrium. This means that if the radiation stopped the ozone would slowly degenerates to oxygen. Happily the rate of degeneration is very small, and the radiation constantly creates new ozone.

      The CFC gases create a problem because the act as catalysts and make the ozone degenerate faster. Thus the presence of CFC gases lowers the concentration of ozone in the ozone layer.

    16. Re:Specs Data by goatan · · Score: 1

      From the article There was a substance that had similar properties produced in the past, but that fire suppression liquid was damaging the ozone layer. The new substance by Tyco is supposed to be environmentally safe. Looks like protecting the Ozone was the reson for making this, Presumably there also refering to 3M's product.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    17. Re:Specs Data by JamesKPolk · · Score: 2, Redundant

      How can it be a CFC without any Cl?

    18. Re:Specs Data by Handpaper · · Score: 4, Informative
      For the chemically-challenged: CFC stands for Chloro-Fluoro-Carbon.
      That means that the compound contains Chlorine, Fluorine and Carbon.
      This compound is a Fluorocarbon - it contains no Chlorine. The C in the formula represents Carbon.
      As for the EPA, according to page 2 of the PDF, they are already considering it - and since the product was developed as a greener replacement for CFC-based fluids, it probably has a good chance of acceptance.

    19. Re:Specs Data by mrwonton · · Score: 1

      Well, if you plan on using this to cool your PC in a convection fashion, this could actually be superior. The lower specific heat just means the part close to say your processor would heat faster, causing larger differences in temperature, and encouraging convection. But yes, you would need more of it, as it would have a higher tendency to heat up.

      --
      Not more than you need, just more than you want
    20. Re:Specs Data by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      If you're going to give lessons, get them right. Chemical equilibrium is the state at which products and reactants are formed at the same rate, making the net production of products/reactants zero.

      Removing either products or reactants from an equilibrium system will cause a shift in the amount of reactant/product present until equilibrium is re-established.

      The reactants are solar radiation and oxygen. The product is ozone.

      Removing ozone shifts the equilibrium in favor of products. In other words, more ozone will be created from the reactants (radiation and oxygen) until the equilibrium state is achieved or until the reactants are completely consumed.

      This is a simplified model, but essentially accurate.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    21. Re:Specs Data by sharkdba · · Score: 1

      As in, Chlorine, Flourine, and Carbon? Where in that chemical composition do you see any chlorine?

      I'm not a chemist either, but didn't you just answer your own question (contradicting your own point?)

      --
      The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
    22. Re:Specs Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... read carefully. That's not what he's saying.

      I'd recommend you go to you're 3rd grade reading comprehension teacher and get your money back.

    23. Re:Specs Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It STILL doesn't have any chlorine in it.

      The chemical symbol for chlorine is Cl.

    24. Re:Specs Data by Cecil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You misunderstood. My wording was a bit unclear. By "that chemical composition", I was referring to the composition of this "Sapphire" (hooray for overloading material names, guys. Imagine if they had named plexiglas "Diamond"...)

      Anyway, the composition of this liquid is CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2. No chlorine at all. Carbon, Fluorine, and oxygen.

    25. Re:Specs Data by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Funny


      So it's a CFO?

      That doesn't deplete the ozone; just your bank account, while denying you headcount...

    26. Re:Specs Data by Luminari · · Score: 1

      Which isn't to say fluorine is pleasant stuff, but it's not going to destroy the ozone layer.

      No Just You.

    27. Re:Specs Data by Wellspring · · Score: 1

      Hey! Didn't the unibomber sign his manifestos "FC"??? So not only is this a Chloroflourocarbon, it's also a terrorist!

      :)

      I'm actually glad that they're developing safer alternatives for halon systems. This is a pretty good step, but I wouldn't have thought of it as slashdottable-- except for the CPU cooling potential. Sheesh, some of you people would move to finland for the sake of overclocking.
    28. Re:Specs Data by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      Removing ozone ONCE shifts the system away from equilibrium to favor products in the original reaction.

      Changing the equilibrium by adding a high-rate reaction that uses ozone as a reactant (as occurs when CFC breakdown introduces Cl ions) does not result in the same amount of ozone; rather, the chemical equilibrium point is located at a lower ozone concentration.

      You've simplified the model too much to capture the essentials of the atmospheric problem.

    29. Re:Specs Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd recommend you go to you're 3rd grade reading comprehension teacher and get your money back.

      Hi. I think you meant to say: you go to your 3rd grade.
    30. Re:Specs Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also a very slow process since ozone is unstable and is destroyed as well as created by solar radiation.

      Problem arises from the fact that chlorine is a catalyst and is not consumed in the process, single chlorine atom can theoretically destroy unlimited amount of ozone.

    31. Re:Specs Data by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Heh.. my mistake. Slashdot may not be a wiki, but its nice to get help honing a point of view on a topic like this. I should've thought of this earlier. Thanks.

  50. /.'d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ansul's Newest Gem: SAPPHIRE(TM) Clean Agent Fire Suppression System

    August 4 2003

    Ansul Incorporated, a business unit of Tyco Fire & Security, announces its SAPPHIRE(TM) Fire Suppression System containing a total flooding clean agent, which serves as an effective halon replacement. Complementing Ansul's existing INERGEN® line of fire suppression systems, the new product has been presented at the National Fire Protection Association Annual Exposition in Dallas on May 2003.

    "The SAPPHIRE system is a sustainable, long-term technology. It meets today's regulations and those for the foreseeable future," says Joe Ziemba, Ansul's marketing manager for engineered systems. "It paid off waiting for the right agent to introduce with our SAPPHIRE system. It is based on NOVEC(TM) 1230 fluid by 3M, which is the first alternative chemical clean agent to offer a viable long-term solution for special hazards fire protection."

    'With pressure from environmental regulations growing in all industries, sustainability is becoming a critical issue in selecting a clean agent fire protection system,' says John Schuster, business development manager at 3M Performance Materials Division. 'Ansul is a leader in environmentally responsible fire protection and with NOVEC 1230 fluid and the new SAPPHIRE system, Ansul's global organization can now offer its customers everywhere an even broader choice of sustainable fire protection technologies.'

    NOVEC 1230 fire protection fluid has zero ozone depletion potential and an atmospheric lifetime of just five days, the lowest for halocarbon alternatives. Its global warming potential is one; lower than any halocarbon agent acceptable for use in occupied spaces. Stored as a liquid but expelled as a gas, NOVEC 1230 fluid is easy to handle, is field rechargeable, and requires about the same number of cylinders as halocarbon agents. It is ideal for special hazards like electronics, ships and critical military applications.

    About Ansul Incorporated
    Ansul Incorporated, a unit of Tyco Fire and Safety, is a leader in the design, manufacture and sale of "special hazard" fire protection equipment. Ansul's products include portable and wheeled fire extinguishers; pre-engineered vehicle, restaurant, and industrial systems; engineered detection and suppression systems; firefighting foams and hardware; large-hose units; fire extinguishing agents and hazardous spill control products. Ansul products protect people and property from fire in virtually every market around the world.

    About Tyco Fire & Security
    Tyco Fire & Security designs, manufactures, installs and services electronic security systems, fire protection, detection and suppression systems, sprinklers and fire extinguishers. Tyco Fire & Security consists of more than 60 brands including ADT, Scott, Sensormatic, SimplexGrinnell, Ansul, Total Walther, and Wormald, which are represented in over 100 countries. Its products are used to safeguard firefighters, prevent and fight fires, deter thieves and protect people and property.

    --
    Yeah, not a complete karma whore, posting this as AC :P

  51. I was just about to ask the same thing by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    I would have thought that the word Sapphire was already taken. What's it gonna be next? A superconducting coolant called 'Gold?'

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  52. Conductivity? by addie · · Score: 1

    In addition to how good a conductor of heat it is (the fact sheet doesn't say) what about its electrical conductivity? They only say it is "water-like" and don't really get into detail on physical properties aside from boiling point. If one can build a totally sealed cooling system for a PC it would obviously have to have zero conductivity. One would still need a pump to move this substance in and out of the case, and the substance would have to have low heat retention for it to be useful at all... None of these things are really covered in the whitepaper.

    That said, this is a very clever invention. They'll have no problem marketing something that can be so easily demonstrated to have such remarkable properties.

    1. Re:Conductivity? by boisepunk · · Score: 0
      what about its electrical conductivity?

      Did you RTFA? The thing doesn't conduct electricity. After all, they did have some electronics immersed in the stuff WHILE RUNNING.

      --
      main(0)
    2. Re:Conductivity? by rot26 · · Score: 1

      Yeah BUT... just playing devil's advocate here, but you DO realize that pure water is also a very good insulator as well? The problem is, water is also a very good solvent, so once you put anything in it, you start getting ionic contaminants and it DOES begin to conduct. This is something that wouldn't be (and wasn't) addressed in TFA; that is, how likely electronic components immersed in it are to leach contaminants into it, potentially causing its conductivity to change. I *think* that CFC's are pretty benign in this regard, and this stuff may be similar, but it's something to consider.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    3. Re:Conductivity? by dzd12 · · Score: 1

      Pure water is a very good insulator. It's only the impurities that conduct electricity. So if you can just keep your water pure (probably near impossible), then why not just use water?

    4. Re:Conductivity? by mrwonton · · Score: 1

      At least he didn't ask if it was flammable!

      --
      Not more than you need, just more than you want
  53. If you really think about it... by Psyqlone · · Score: 0

    ...you really only rent Sapphire/Novec 1230.

  54. Re:FAQ on the new substance by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    you cruel, heartless person.

    No, wait. If you were truly heartless, you'd make pop-overs and -unders that all showed those hideous pictures and screamed that inane alarm.

    --
    Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
  55. Re:FAQ on the new substance by DjMd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ugh I agree.... Damn fake FAQ troll.
    Anyone surfing at -1 DO NOT follow the parent/parent link.. not at work anyways, it's bad (and loud!)

    --
    DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
  56. How is this stuff different than FM-200? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any advantage to this stuff over FM-200?

    We use FM-200 as a fire suppressant in our Data Center. FM-200 also causes no collateral damage to equipment.

    http://www.e1.greatlakes.com/fm200/jsp/collatera l. jsp

    1. Re:How is this stuff different than FM-200? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, my radio only goes to FM-107.9. That must be some nasty shit they're playing on FM-200 if it stops fire dead in its tracks!

  57. So can we have underwater cities n ow? by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    Electronics are unharmed so traffic lights and telephones will work and we could get to make alot more breeding room for us underneath the ocean, just make a few gallons, build the city and we have our new atlantis!

  58. Fluorinert by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I was in intern at the Chippewa Falls offices of Cray (well, SGI, but we all called it Cray) back in 1999.

    I seem to remember hearing that the fluorinert they cooled the processors with was perfectly safe unless turned into a gas, in which case it was roughly as toxic as mustard gas. So, if there was ever an electrical fault in one of the machines that caused the coolant to boil off, there was a distinct possibility that you'd end up with a few dead operators.

    Can anyone confirm/deny this? Actually, don't deny -- this is one of my best geek stories.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  59. The official name for Sapphire is actually... by kulakovich · · Score: 1


    The official name for Sapphire is actually Ice-9.
    We are hereby screwed.

    No doubt this will lead to another movie deal for Vonnegut.

    kulakovich

  60. Boiling point by TehChubbz0r · · Score: 1

    Offtopic, but the submitter opened the door: according to their specs sheet [mmm.com] (PDF warning), this stuff has a boiling point of 49.2C (120.6F). Processors burn hotter than that, how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?

    Well, if the Sapphire were cooled low enough and moving fast enough, when it absorbs the heat from the processor, you wouldn't have to worry about it evaporating because each molecule wouldn't absorb enough heat to reach the boiling point.

    Not sure on the math here, because I don't know the exact specs of the heat absorbancy of the material, but if you had to cooled down to...say...34 degrees farenheit and had it moving fast enough, it would take an amount of heat much higher than the normal range of heat given off by a processor to get the temperature of the fluid up to boiling point.

    --


    Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
  61. BTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a conspiracy theory! We have decided that dry water is impossible. Anybody who believes this is a kook, and should be put in prison ASAP.

    NASA Your source of truth. ;)

  62. Re:wow? by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

    Wow, just like, uh, inert mineral oil. Stop the presses?

    I think this thing doesn't even leave a drop, while mineral oil gets things all oily.

  63. Pure H2O by javatips · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is my understanding that H2O (without any minerals) is not a conductive material. So could probably put my laptop (It would have to be clean to not introduce minerals) in pure H2O and it would not be affected.

    Am I right?

    1. Re:Pure H2O by bombadillo · · Score: 1

      You are correct.... However, it is impossible to get your laptop that clean. Your laptop is made of all sorts of minerals that would leach impurities into the water.

    2. Re:Pure H2O by jdrake · · Score: 1

      water is corrosive... so umm...

      go for it... but it won't last all that long...

      --
      "...and I am _not_ intoxicated... YET!" --John Wayne
    3. Re:Pure H2O by Control+Group · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Technically, yes, but pure water is a very strong solvent (strong enough to give you mild burns if you pour it on your skin); something in your laptop is guaranteed to dissolve into the water, thereby making the solution conductive.

      And then, of course, *zap*

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
  64. Ice Nine anyone? by m11533 · · Score: 1

    I can't help but think... what happens when this stuff gets out in the wild?

  65. Re:wow? by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except for the fact that after you remove the electronics, the Sapphire drips off and dries into the air (i.e. no rubbing required) whereas to get that mineral oil off you'd have to painstakingly open and isolate each part, and dab/wipe all that oil off. Not to mention that inert mineral oil would be absorbed into the fibers of a book or of a fabric, whereas Sapphire wont (which makes it ideal for fire suppression in libraries/clothing stores/repositories.

    --
    "Stumble before you crawl"
  66. Can we can back to the news? by psbrogna · · Score: 1

    There are many liquids that don't conduct electricity or corrode conductors.

  67. Oooh, Tyco? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that the company that defrauded shareholders out of several billion dollars?

    Hopefully they'll float their executive management in this stuff as a trial...

  68. Interesting standard you've devised there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Household ammonia is environmentally safe enough to be sold at every drugstore and supermarket in America, but I wouldn't advise drinking a glass of it.

  69. How does it put out a fire? by suso · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know that being wet might not be the only thing that puts a fire out, after all, look at gasoline. But I'm curious to know why Tyco Fire & Security came out with this. How does it put out a fire?
    Would be great for machine rooms.

    1. Re:How does it put out a fire? by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      By depriving the fire of oxygen, I suppose?

    2. Re:How does it put out a fire? by arantius · · Score: 1

      Being wet doesn't put out a fire.
      A fire needs three things. Heat, oxygen, fuel.
      Adding water, which quickly boils, removes heat.

      Any way to douse a fire removes one of those three things.

      --
      Health is simply dying at the slowest rate possible.
    3. Re:How does it put out a fire? by bobv-pillars-net · · Score: 1
      fire needs three things. Heat, oxygen, fuel.

      Correction: Fire needs four things:

      1. Heat
      2. Oxygen
      3. Fuel
      4. Free Radicals
      --
      The Web is like Usenet, but
      the elephants are untrained.
  70. What are it's cleaning capabilities? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Funny

    It could be interesting for those geeks who are allergic to water...

    1. Re:What are it's cleaning capabilities? by NivenHuH · · Score: 1

      Geeks allergic to water? How do you become a geek without drinking coffee?!? =)

      --
      Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
  71. Air conditioning by tepples · · Score: 1

    how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas?

    The compressor in your air conditioner turns gas into liquid and back to cool your house. Would "Sapphire" work as a refrigerant?

  72. They shoulda tried . . . by jafac · · Score: 1

    Ice-9.
    Another form of water that doesn't get things wet. . .

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  73. How is that new? by Eric+Smith · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fluorinert does the same thing, and it's been around for many years. That's what was used in some Cray machines.

    1. Re:How is that new? by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      I've heard Sun used to burn in SparcStations in vats of Fluorinert.

      Neat stuff, the first time I've seen a demo of it was on Beyond 2000 a decade ago (The Ausssie version), where they had a TV turned on in a giant fishtank full of the stuff. I still wouldn't drink it, though...

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  74. There already is a liquid Sapphire by lunartik · · Score: 1

    And it goes great with tonic & a lime.

  75. Hate to pop your bubble, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sapphire is already widely known and established as a gemstone.

    "I just invented a new water-like substance! I decided to call it... PLASTIC! Now THAT'S a catchy name that nobody will confuse with anything else!"

  76. other liquids that don't conduct electricity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm very supprised no one has listed.
    edm oil, or mineral oil. neither conduct electricity and are excelent heat movers.

    though you should mount the electronics off the bottom of the tank else the condinsation from most coolers will short it out.

  77. One question by jalilv · · Score: 1

    Can you drink it ???

  78. A Liquid That Won't Get Things Wet by tony1c · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hopefully this will work out better than their previous product "The Towel That Won't Get Things Dry".

    1. Re:A Liquid That Won't Get Things Wet by Fox+(Canada) · · Score: 1

      What a loser buddy... W.A.L.B.

    2. Re:A Liquid That Won't Get Things Wet by RedA$$edMonkey · · Score: 0

      You owe me a new keyboard.

    3. Re:A Liquid That Won't Get Things Wet by Beowulf_Boy · · Score: 1

      "you wanna get high..."

  79. Distilled? How about ultrapure? by Big+Bob+the+Finder · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I've often wondered if ultrapure water could be employed if the substrate were properly prepared. In other words, if the components had a very thin passivating or inerting layer that would prevent ions from leaching into solution, and then the water was very high purity (higher than distilled), you *could* immerse the components. Ultrapure water straight out of the tap has a resistance of 18.3 million ohms per centimeter (until it hits air, and carbon dioxide drops it to about 500,000 ohms).

    So, if you could exclude air, coat the components, and then recirculate the ultrapure water through a resin bed (which is how it's made ultrapure in the first place), it *could* be done- but it would be a lot of work. Plus, very pure water is surprisingly corrosive, so the inerting layer would have to be pretty specific, like the polyethylene that coats the inside of soda cans (cheap but effective).

    Water has the benefit of having a large specific heat (4.18 kJ/kg), which is about as good as it gets. While Novec 1230 is good stuff, it has low specific heat (1.103 kJ/kg). It's a trade-off, though, since you can't get pure water below 0 C without the risk of it freezing, unlike Novec, which gets down to -108 C.

    1. Re:Distilled? How about ultrapure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you were going to coat the circuit board with something anyway, you could just use regular water!

  80. Evaporate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this stuff evaporate over time, or will a spilled mess of it just sit there forever?

  81. Oh crap, another thing we can't use against RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    >"Making bits hard to copy is like making water not wet..." - Bruce Schneier

    Shit, here goes another argument against DRM.

  82. Read the datasheet! by rarose · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It puts out a fire by cooling the combusting materials. The data sheet takes pains to point out that this is different from halon systems that deprive the fire of oxygen.

    --
    --Rob
    1. Re:Read the datasheet! by sean.peters · · Score: 1
      this is different from halon systems that deprive the fire of oxygen.

      Your post is good up to this point. HALON does not put out fires by depriving them of oxygen - HALON will effectively put out a fire at relatively low concentrations, and while there's still plenty of O2 present. HALON works by interfering with fire chemistry - more details here.

      Sean

  83. Heat conductivity & some math by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They might have some information there about how well the stuff will conduct heat, but I got a lousy grade in Chemistry, so I'll leave it to the experts. ;)

    A liquid conducts heat EXTREMELY well. You're thinking in terms of a solid, where atoms are fixed and have to transfer energy to each other. However, in a liquid, if one portion of the liquid is heated, this creates a stream of molecules in the liquid to disperse the heat. The heated molecules will actively move away from the heat source, giving room to cooler liquid molecules, which is a hell of a lot more efficient than normal solid-state heat conductivity.

    Additionally, it has an heat capacitivity of about 1.1 kJ/kg/degree C, which compares to 4.2 for water. This means that 1.1 kJ (1.1 kW for one second) will heat one kilogram of the stuff one degree Celsius.

    One can use this number for some interesting math. A normal box draws maybe 250W, all of which becomes heat. The density of the stuff is 160% of water's. I guesstimate that my tower will hold about twelve liters of water, or about 20 kg of this stuff.

    (Note the scientifically correct notation "this stuff".)

    Anyway, 20 kg exposed to 250W means that this stuff will heat by 0.75 degrees C every minute if the heat is not dissipated. Assuming a room temperature of 25 deg C, and an electronics-critical point of 45 deg C (the upper bound of operating temperature for some things I've seen; hell, some even have 40 tops), we have a span of 20 degrees, or about 30 minutes of operation until components are out of spec in their operating environment.

    Again, this assumes that no heat is dissipated. A miditower probably has about 0.5 to 0.75 square meters of dissipating surface, with good heat transfer from this stuff inside.

    Anybody knows if hard drives are built to operate immersed in liquid? :-)

    1. Re:Heat conductivity & some math by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      If I recall, some HD's have a little screen (or s/th) somwhere on them so the air can move in/out. It's small enough so dust, etc., won't get in, but I'd wonder if this stuff could still pass through it and screw things up.

    2. Re:Heat conductivity & some math by markan18 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hard drives may be operating, i don't know if some are completly sealed off but i know some are not. What i am sure is someone using this will have a hard time reading/burning cds.

    3. Re:Heat conductivity & some math by Joe5678 · · Score: 1

      Anybody knows if hard drives are built to operate immersed in liquid? :-)

      They are not :)

    4. Re:Heat conductivity & some math by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 1

      I guesstimate that my tower will hold about twelve liters of water, or about 20 kg of this stuff.

      Which is all good until someone invites you to a LAN party and you have to carry the heavy SOB all the way there.

    5. Re:Heat conductivity & some math by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Your hard drive will need to be in some kind of case. If you want to transfer heat from them you will either need air ducting, or to mill and lap your hard drive's upper case, and to attach a heat sink which will extend into the liquid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Heat conductivity & some math by misterpies · · Score: 1

      >>A liquid conducts heat EXTREMELY well. You're thinking in terms of a solid, where atoms are fixed and have to transfer energy to each other. However, in a liquid, if one portion of the liquid is heated, this creates a stream of molecules in the liquid to disperse the heat. The heated molecules will actively move away from the heat source, giving room to cooler liquid molecules, which is a hell of a lot more efficient than normal solid-state heat conductivity.

      This reasoning is plausible, simple, and absolutely false. Your explanation would suggest that gases conduct heat even better than liquid, because molecules in a gas actively move away faster than those in a liquid. Or how about a vacuum - all those infra-red photons, they move away really fast.

      The best heat conductors are actually solids, because what's important for heat conduction is not how quickly the hot molecules move away, but how quickly they pass on their heat to neighboring molecules. And that tends to happen much faster in solids (the denser the better) than in any liquid or fluid. Each molecule or atom stays in the same place, but it passes on its heat to its neighbours via lattice vibrations or (in a metal) free electrons. You know what's the best heat conductor known to man? Diamond. Not exactly a liquid.

      So why do most cooling systems use fluids? Not because the fluid itself is a good heat conductor, but because you can actively pump the fluid around to speed up the heat transfer from one place to another. Leave the cooling effect to molecular diffusion and you might as well give up.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
  84. Vapor Pressure by ka9dgx · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You WILL breath this stuff if its in an open container. Give it long enough, and it'll reach an equilibrium nearly 40% of the atmosphere in an enclosed space. (I.E. an indoor room with low ventilation)

    I wouldn't want to breath this stuff any more than I want to inhale octane, or anything else.

    --Mike--

    1. Re:Vapor Pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wouldn't want to breath this stuff any more than I want to inhale octane, or anything else.

      I think it's best to inhale at least something; I find an Oxygen/Nitrogen mix works well for me YMMV.

    2. Re:Vapor Pressure by PhilipOfOregon · · Score: 1

      It's also got a high molecular weight. Breathe near the ceiling, and you'll last longer. Actually, it might be kind of fun. Remember helium's effect on your voice? This stuff will make your voice a lot lower. Then you suffocate.

  85. hmm interesting by albertotomba · · Score: 1

    Just one step closer to Farenheit 451 (making it a coating) and firemen get new jobs

  86. Sapphire: A spill that never gets cleaned up by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rats, I spilled some. Well, I'll just use a towel to...
    Hold on there, this is taking longer than...
    No matter, I'll just get the mop and...
    Sponge? No...
    Paper towels? No...
    Hazmat pellets? No...

    I may be here awhile.

    --
    Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
    1. Re:Sapphire: A spill that never gets cleaned up by Alsier · · Score: 1

      Rats, I spilled some. Well, I'll just use a towel to... Hold on there, this is taking longer than... No matter, I'll just get the mop and... Sponge? No... Paper towels? No... Hazmat pellets? No... I may be here awhile.

      Try a straw.

    2. Re:Sapphire: A spill that never gets cleaned up by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      Easy, just open the door and sweep it outside!

      --
      SIGFAULT
  87. Because it is 3m liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look at their announcement in their website, it uses 3M product
    http://www.tycofireandsecurity.com/Internet/view.j sp?news_id=953

  88. convenient timing... by Spatula+Sam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The cynic in me has to wonder if this announcement/demonstration hasn't been conveniently timed to draw attention away from the fact that Tyco's former CEO is currently on trial for looting the company and a lot of its former board members are also facing criminal charges... "Hey! Look over there! Water that doesn't get stuff wet!" //ss

    1. Re:convenient timing... by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Are you suggesting that all corporations should halt all development and marketing of products whenever some of their officers get in trouble with the feds?

      The key here is "former CEO" and "former board members." I highly doubt that the current administration of Tyco is at all interested in defending a bunch of ex-officers from federal prosecution. Why would they want to involve themselves in that?

    2. Re:convenient timing... by Spatula+Sam · · Score: 1

      No, but I would suggest that the rationale to dragging this out onto national television was to counteract the massive negative publicity that the corporation has been getting lately with the boardroom shennanegins and the stock trading at a third of it's value 2 years ago. I mean, companies invent cool stuff all the time, but how often do you see them plugging this sort of thing on morning talk shows? And with expected uses in fire systems for museums and galleries, it's not even a very consumer-oriented project.

  89. Next Step in Plan for world domination by ZipR · · Score: 1

    Replace all of the water in all of the oceans with Sapphire.

    I can't wait to replace that water in my swimming pool. Bye-bye itchy-wet-swimsuit feeling!


    I too am confident that I made some mistakes.

  90. drinking agent orange? by kajoob · · Score: 1

    Since agent orange contained either kerosene or diesel, I find it hard to believe our boys were chugging the stuff.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  91. One word: by Johnny+Doughnuts · · Score: 0

    Lawsuit. Sapphire is also a company that makes videocards. After Tyco's legal troubles I doubt they want another lawsuit on their hands.

  92. UV Light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The PDF says it breaks down quickly under UV light...

  93. Immersion won't work..... by lhaeh · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not for long anyways, heres the rundown of tryed and failed experments:

    -immersion in tap water: its conductive, one person was stupid enough to try this on his shiny new system, lets just say the power supply did somehting intersting.....

    -immersion in distilled/de-ionised water: it gets contaminated by the computer and becoms slightily conductive, all the traces corrode.

    -immersion in mineral oil: works for a few days but then stopped working with no obvious damage. Probily the capacitors soaked up the oil and that changed their electrical properites.

    So theonly this stuff will work is if you use some kind os sealent on the board around the capicators and that might not even work...

    1. Re:Immersion won't work..... by pclminion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just to add to your list... I've tried it with ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and that doesn't work either :-)

  94. The roof, the roof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the roof is on fire! We don't need no Sapphire, let the motherfucker burn!

  95. RTFA. by iamsure · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "There was a substance that had similar properties produced in the past, but that fire suppression liquid was damaging the ozone layer. The new substance by Tyco is supposed to be environmentally safe."

  96. And the safety of what it degrades into? by David+Hume · · Score: 1


    And what about the safety of the products it degrades into? After all, according to the FAQ, "Novec 1230 fluid is photolitically sensitive to sunlight," "substantial decay occurs when exposed to UV radiation," and "an atmospheric lifetime of 5 days is appropriate for Novec 1230 fluid."

  97. This stuff probably kills fish too. by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    Imagine a couple of hundred gallons of this stuff dumped in the ocean, preventing fish from breathing and killing them.

    And what if we swallow the stuff?

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    1. Re:This stuff probably kills fish too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't dissolve in water. I suppose it will sink to the bottom and sit there for a while.

    2. Re:This stuff probably kills fish too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will just float to the surface and evaporate.

    3. Re:This stuff probably kills fish too. by ZipR · · Score: 1

      Both of you Anonymous Cowards are right! It sinks! It floats! It's a witch!

  98. So..... by NIN1385 · · Score: 1

    Will work for lubrication? This could revolutionize the world of sex!

    --

    If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
  99. Evaporation... by Benm78 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Take a look at these specs:

    Boiling Point @ 1 atm 49.2 C
    Heat of Vaporization @ boiling point 88.0 kJ/kg
    Vapor Pressure 0.404 bar

    This is a liquid that will readily evaporate (a little slower than ether would). If a limited quanitity is used (such as in a hand-held extinguisher), it will probably evaporate before you get the chance to clean it up.

    The article also states that the LC50 is over 10% by volume, which tells this substance is probably not very dangerous, unless specific medical problems arise.

    As it seems to be safe to the atmosphere as well, i guess the 'plan' is to just let it sit there and evaporate.

    This may sound dangerous, but we do the same with CO2 - which is more lethal to anyone entering the room and possibly to the environment (global warming) as well.

    1. Re:Evaporation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if it evaporates into the atmosphere what does it do to rain? Does the rain not get things wet either

    2. Re:Evaporation... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Vapor Pressure 0.404 bar
      LC50 is over 10% by volume

      Yikes! At room temperature in a closed room this stuff would be present at 40% by volume!

      This stuff is quite dangerous.

    3. Re:Evaporation... by Glog · · Score: 1

      As it seems to be safe to the atmosphere as well, i guess the 'plan' is to just let it sit there and evaporate.


      I love it how you readily accept that it is "safe" for the atmosphere. Next thing you know you'll be using it as a vodka chaser?!
    4. Re:Evaporation... by beattie · · Score: 1

      This may sound dangerous, but we do the same with CO2 - which is more lethal to anyone entering the room and possibly to the environment (global warming) as well.

      I dont think CO2 is dangerous unless you are getting in INSTEAD of oxygen. In which case anything is dangerous... Nitrogen, or even Water for example.

    5. Re:Evaporation... by cft_128 · · Score: 1

      I dont think CO2 is dangerous unless you are getting in INSTEAD of oxygen. In which case anything is dangerous... Nitrogen, or even Water for example. I do believe that is his point.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    6. Re:Evaporation... by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Informative

      This may sound dangerous, but we do the same with CO2 - which is more lethal to anyone entering the room and possibly to the environment (global warming) as well.

      that is just plain funny! let's look shall we?

      MSDS for C02

      Health Haz Acute And Chronic: INHALATION:SIMPLE ASPHYXIANT.HIGH
      CONCENTRATIONS IN AIR CAN REDUCE OXYGEN NECESSARY TO SUPPORT LIFE.

      The EXACT same health hazard as water... damn dangerous stuff there!

      after researching it, More CO2 is released into the atmosphere by human beings simply opening and consuming Carbonated beverages and breathing than is released by firefighting every day. please RE READ that line again... you EXHALE Carbon Dioxide and it is in your beloved pop.

      Please get your fact's straight before you start fearmongering...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Evaporation... by Benm78 · · Score: 1
      Its all about being realistic about how 'toxic' a substance actually is. 10% by volume is a huge concentration to breathe for any gas, except oxygen and nitrogen.

      My point was, and still is, that breating this substance is not more dangerous than breathing a common and wellknown gas like CO2. Both can kill you, given high enough concentration and exposure time, but neither should be considered hazardous substances.

    8. Re:Evaporation... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Nitrogen: 78% (78 parts out of a hundred)
      Oxygen: 20% (21 parts out of a hundred)
      Carbon Dioxide: 0.03% (3 parts out of a thousand)
      Rare Gases (Helium, Argon, Krypton, Neon, Xenon and Radon together make up 0.97%)
      Water Vapour (the amount varies)

      CO2 is not dangerous at all for any reason other than it displaces the oxygen. that is it.

      Yes breathing a gaseous flourocarbon is pretty nasty no matter what they say, flouride ions are extremely tenacious..they will attach themselves to glass after 5 minutes...

      but your remark about CO2 is just funny... it is not dangerous as a gas. it was a bad example to use as it is mis-information and the part about harming the environment is just plain old silly! I generate CO2 for my plants in my fish tank, and CO2 is used in some greenhouses to increase the growth rate of the plants cince plants breathe CO2 and respirate Oxygen.

      A better example would be letting gasoline evaporate into the air... hydrocarbons can and do damage to humans and the air and have tha ability to cause atmospheric problems...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:Evaporation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes breathing a gaseous flourocarbon is pretty nasty no matter what they say, flouride ions are extremely tenacious..they will attach themselves to glass after 5 minutes...

      Yes, fluoride is extremely reactive and reacts with just about anything - but after it does, it's stuck.

      There's necessary nothing wrong in breathing stable fluorocarbon, the fluoride is already bound tight.

    10. Re:Evaporation... by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      CO2 is not dangerous at all for any reason other than it displaces the oxygen. that is it.

      Not true. Suppose I set up a room which has a normal atmosphere, except the N2 concentration has been reduced by 10%, and Argon was added in its place. It probably would have little to no effect, since argon is not involved in any metabolic reactions.

      Now suppose I had a room where the N2 concentration was reduced by 10%, but CO2 was added in its place. That would probably kill you.

      Why?

      Simple - in order to get rid of CO2 built up in the body, you need a lower partial pressure of the stuff in the atmosphere. If you raise the atomspheric pressure of CO2, the amount in the tissue will also rise.

      Now, take the chemical reaction:
      Sugar + O2 -> H2O + CO2 + energy

      As long as O2 is plentiful and CO2 is rare, this reaction moves forward quickly, generating energy for the body to use.

      If CO2 builds up, then this reaction will produce less energy, and you will die.

      A little thermo (it has been a few years - I'm sure somebody in freshman chem can fix any errors):

      Delta-G = Delta-G-0 + RT ln Q

      Q = [H2O][CO2] / [sugar][O2]
      (Ok, I'm neglecting stoichiometry, but this is fine to show the trend).

      If the concentration of CO2 increases, then the value of Q increases, and therefore Delta-G increases. The more negative Delta-G is, the more energy is produced by the reaction which is useful for work (such as staying alive). An increase in Delta-G means less energy for work. When Delta-G hits 0 you're at equilibrium (and your body temperature will hit room temperature eventually - not a good thing). Of course, you're effectively dead long before you actually hit equilibrium.

      Note that in normal live [CO2] is very low - so it doesn't matter how much water is around.

      Oh yeah - I am a biochemist... I don't have practical experience with this, so I don't know how much it takes, but too much CO2 will certainly kill you even if O2 is at 20%.

      This whole bit is the reason that submarines have scrubbers...

  100. Re:"Water"-cooling - Phase-change cooling? by TigerNut · · Score: 1

    The heat of vaporization is only 88 kJ/kg, as compared to 2260 kJ/kg for water, and 165kJ/kg for Freon-12, so you'd have to design in about double the flow rate compared to Freon. You'd be better off running a partial-vacuum water based system (getting the local atmosphere low enough that the water will boil near the desired operating temp of your system)

    --

    Less is more.

  101. Cleanup of Sapphire/water? by Fox+(Canada) · · Score: 1

    They speak of how this product prevents water damage to articles, but what about the clean up after? I mean, I don't assume this product just evaporates, right? Water clean up is brutal, but wouldn't this be akin to a hazmat clean-up afterwards?

    1. Re:Cleanup of Sapphire/water? by Fox+(Canada) · · Score: 1

      That was awesome! Did you think that up all by yourself, or did your mamma help you?! lol... What's up Jim? :) Eeee! (I SAID YOUR MAMMA!)

  102. Total immersion by SquadBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    overclocking has been being done for years with mineral oil.

    --

    Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
  103. OT: Fluorinert by LetterJ · · Score: 1

    Cool. I haven't seen a URL from that site in a forum for a while. I was part of the team that re-built the 3M product catalog (the version they're still running apparently) and there's actually a lot of cool products buried in that application. Browse around in there and you may be surprised some of the exotic products that 3M makes.

  104. Deep Sea exploration by Stitch_626 · · Score: 1

    The first thing that comes to mind is creating a submersibile that is completly filled with fluid. Since liquids compress very little this thing should be able to go deeper than anything we have build so far.

    --
    Ohana means family. Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.
  105. Sapphire'n'Tonic? Martini Dry? by tigertiger · · Score: 1
    I am surprised nobody has pointed that out before, but isn't "Sapphire" (besides being a gem stone) a popular gin from Bombay? At least around Boston you used to be able to order Sapphire 'n' Tonic in bars...

    They probably wanted to call it Martini Dry but management knew this one...

  106. PRIOR ART - license fee please by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

    See cold fire here

  107. HazMat Implications by BrianGa · · Score: 1

    This would be an amazing boon for HazMat if it was not a polar solvent. It would solve the problem of 'what to use' in terms of decontamination of a water reactive material from HazMat entry personnel.

  108. Misleading Sig (was Re:"Water"-cooling) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I felt the need to respond to your sig, not your post.

    Support our troops: Elect a responsible president!
    I agree with this part. Bush should be re-elected. A President Gore would have been disasterous after 9/11. We would still be negotiating with the Taliban over Al Queda. That would be the height of irresponsibility!

    Unless you die soon, Bush raised your taxes! You must have a crappy accountant. I'm middle income, married, filing jointly and my taxes are down this year.

  109. Finally... by G.I.Joehosaphat · · Score: 1

    ...no more wrinkly fingers from showering.

  110. Get off my planet by MacFury · · Score: 2, Interesting
    what happens to the environment?

    What planet are you from? Here on earth we only care about what happens to their stock price!

    Get off my planet, you're not ruining it for the rest of us. :-)

    1. Re:Get off my planet by volve · · Score: 1

      Doh, I hate it when selflessness equates to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and a communist...

      Oh well, I'll be leaving now ;)

      -VolVE

  111. They say no ozone risk by billstewart · · Score: 2, Informative

    Their PDF blurbs talk about the ozone question, and say that the stuff breaks down in about 5 days in sunlight and doesn't bother the ozone. It doesn't say exactly what happens to the Fluorine in the process, but it does say that it's much different from the hydrogen-fluorine-carbon compounds like Freons. From what I remember, the freons catalyze the breakdown of ozone; perhaps the breakdown products from this compound don't do that (e.g. maybe the fluorine atoms all end up as F2.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:They say no ozone risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it probably just flouridates your water supplies and poisons your vital bodily fluids.

    2. Re:They say no ozone risk by bassinskeet · · Score: 1, Informative

      I dont mean to be rude or anything but its not the hydrogen-fluorine-carbon compounds that are bad for the ozone layer. The chlorine-fluorine-carbon compounds are. The reason we are using hydrogen-fluorien-carbon compounds with our non-industrial (not sure if they still use CFC's in industries) is because the chlorine reacts with the O3 and the hydrogen doesnt. Now i may be wrong because i learned it from my thermo prof earlier this year.

    3. Re:They say no ozone risk by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      I'm in an air conditioning class and the dumbed down version (which is to say, all I've been given recently) is that the Chlorine is what is harmful and that's why we're moving to HFCs from CFCs. Of course R-12 (the big bad guy) still isn't illegal, but it is a whole shitload more expensive than R-134a which is usually enough. (Retrofit is trivial.) Industrial cooling is also being done with R-134a and other non-CFC refrigerants because of this price difference. (R-12 is about ten times as expensive as R-134a and maybe cools 2-5% better depending on who you believe, though certainly it does have a very slightly diminished heat-carrying capacity as compared to R-12.) Some industrial cooling is done with flammable stuff (isobutane, propane) because it's even cheaper, and compatible with R-12 which R-134a is not. If you have 2% R-12 in your R-134a it's time to recycle your refrigerant. Luckily it's only like ten bucks in refrigerant to put R-134a in the average modern car. Some people have been known to put flammable refrigerants in automobiles, which could potentially blow the car up, if say your evaporator leaked into your car and you lit a cigarette, or if you blew an A/C line when your compressor clutch engaged unexpectedly at high RPMs (happened to me) and you had a short in an ignition system component which touched it off - that probably wouldn't harm you but it could certainly harm something under the hood, and potentially even blow the hood up which would be, as we say, "bad".

      Okay, way more about refrigeration than you even wanted to know. But the point is, they trust the dumb old boys to remember just one thing, and the thing they point out to us in A/C class, and all the documentation, is that it's the Chlorine in CFCs that's harmful to ozone.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  112. not an ozone killer by nallen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was developed as a ozone same halon replacement, so no worries there.

    As further explanation, the presence of fluorine atoms alone doesn't make a ozone depleting compound. CFCs are a problem due to the chlorines getting into the upper atomosphere, the clorine radical is a catalyst for the decomposition of O3. The fluorines aren't an issue since F radicals are too reactive to exist for a long period of time.

    Also, the 3M compound is too heavy to make it up to the ozone layer, CFCs were a combination of inertness to the troposphereic environment and being light enough to rise to the ozone layer.

    1. Re:not an ozone killer by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the chemistry of ozone depletion, an O-X bond is formed, where X is a halogen. Stratospheric UV breaks this bond for X = Cl or X = Br, allowing one atom halogen to destroy many ozone molecules (catalytic destruction). But, stratospheric UV can't break the O-F bond. So one F atom destroys one ozone molecule only.

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  113. Ice 9.... by pottymouth · · Score: 1

    Let's just hope that it doesn't change other water molecules it comes in contact with. Who
    wants a world where you can't get good and wet! (That sounds dirtier than it is...)

  114. pure water is non conductive by mt2mb4me · · Score: 1

    the problem is, it is only non conductive if you have no impurities in the water what-so-ever.

  115. Finally! by dj245 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Finally the development "A Liquid That Won't Get Things Wet" is complete and it can join the ranks of the pedigree of advanced fluids such as Liquid that you can immerse running computers in and Liquid you can breathe in

    But when will we have "Liquid you can drink and not be accused of modding on crack"?

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  116. ICan'tBelieveIt'sNotWater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    would be a good name for it

  117. So what happens by aclaudet · · Score: 2, Funny

    So what happens when you pour this stuff into a Teflon pan?

  118. server protection by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

    Everyone is thinking about cooling their Athlons... has anyone considered the fact that this could be the next (possibly more cost effective) method of protecting the NOC?

    --
    ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
  119. CFCs by Sanity · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that the chemical that made minced-meat of the ozone layer?

  120. Wetvacs... by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Why wait? Vacuum it up right away :-) Should work fine.
    That does leave you a shop-vac full of this liquid, mixed with whatever other gunk is on the floor, but that's ok.

    Or you could pour liquid nitrogen on it and sweep up the resulting ice - freezing point is -108 C, so you can't just use dry ice to freeze the non-wet liquid :-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  121. Thirsty? by theraccoon · · Score: 1

    So what would happen if you drank it? Is it toxic?

  122. Hot grits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. The quality of our broadcast standard is pitiful

    2. Finally, I can make hot grits that won't ruin my pants!!!

  123. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article was referring to Halon, not Fluorinert.

  124. Well here's something to think about... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    When water converts to steam, steam loses about 1/2 it's heat capacity. Most of the energy is absorbed by evaporation during conversion. It also means water is a better at exchanging heat to the environment after it's condensed into liquid phase.

    This liquid has an almost identical heat capacity as gas or liquid. The bubbles can carry more heat away directly. OTH the heat capacity of the steam is about 40% less than water vapor, and the liquid is 60% denser.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  125. Hazardous vs Toxic by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    There are a lot of things that are poisonous to humans in the environment. Being poisonous in large doses is not a problem.

    Large or Small?

    A friend who worked in waste management explained to me the often confused difference between Hazardous Waste and Toxic Waste, in a nutshell:

    Toxic Substance kills cells even in small doses, because it breaks down or disrupts the chemistry of cells.

    Hazardous Substance could be anything, even Cola Cola, in a large enough concentration to disrupt biological functions, i.e. you drown in it.

    My suspicion is this substance is hazardous, and would still require some clean-up after use. It's very well that he tosses a laptop into a fishbowl of it, which immediately does no harm, but what will the laptop be like tomorrow or in a week?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  126. total immersion isn't anything new... by kendoka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They've had a chemical called flourinert out for years - When I first came to my current place of work, you could see it coming out of the Cray we had in a little waterfall. It was kind of neat... As I understood it, oxygenated flourinert was what they dunked the little mouse into in the Abyss movie...

  127. Sapphirebed? by kelk1 · · Score: 1

    Some places forbid waterbeds for risks of water damage. This shouldn't be a problem with this liquid as long as the envelope is opaque. If it leaks, it will simply evaporate.

  128. This is fantastic news... by pergamon · · Score: 0, Funny

    ... that means I finally have a market for my most promising invention: a towel that doesn't get things dry!

  129. Easier and cheaper solution for liquid cooling by orasio · · Score: 1

    Check TorderaWireless.

    Although the main purpose of these people is keeping water out of the case, they built a case submerged in oil, and it must work for cooling, because oil can reach 150C without boiling, at least.

  130. Environmentally Safe? Cl vs F by pertinax18 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There was a substance that had similar properties produced in the past, but that fire suppression liquid was damaging the ozone layer. The new substance by Tyco is supposed to be environmentally safe.
    I am no an expert in these matters but the checmical formula they give is: CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2, which looks like any other CFC except for one key thing, no chlorine. It is the chlorine that breaks off normal CFCs like Freon (CCl2F2) when exposed to UV rays and in turn breaks down Ozone. However, Florine is also a very toxic chemical as it is in the same period as Chlorine and can also have the same reactions with Ozone. I am curious to see if this new compound actually is safe for the Ozone layer or is there simply some hand waving going on.
    1. Re:Environmentally Safe? Cl vs F by patbob · · Score: 1
      It is the chlorine that breaks off normal CFCs like Freon (CCl2F2) when exposed to UV rays

      As I recall, the C-Cl bond absorbed the UV energy and broke. That required that the UV energy be the right wavelength. The C-Fl bond will be much tighter, so will take a different (shorter?) wavelength. Of course, as you pointed out, once broken, it too will start the Ozone-destroying chain reaction just as well as Cl does.

      --
      Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
  131. Breathing Liquids by billstewart · · Score: 1
    It's not an incorrect view about breathing liquids - it's a science fiction futuristic view. Breathing Fluorinert works fine for mice, because it can dissolve lots of oxygen, and theoretically someone could do the same thing for humans, not that *I* want to try it. There's lots of science fiction around the problems or opportunities for doing it in different environments.

    But no, I'm not aware of anybody actually using it for deep diving either, as opposed to Trimox or other mixtures. Liquid breathing would have some advantages, because it would let you avoid the risks of crushing that high-pressure water environments have.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Breathing Liquids by meringuoid · · Score: 1

      There's lots of science fiction around the problems or opportunities for doing it in different environments.

      And if I've learned anything from anime, all you need to do is get a giant Marshmallow Man type of thing, nail it to the wall and chop off its legs, then harvest the blood. Instant breathable liquid. You can also clone it off a few times to provide the basic organisms for a series of mecha, with which you can do all sorts of nifty things that can only end well.

      Q, though: if it's breathable (as we see every time someone pilots an Eva), why was Ritsuko using a snorkel to swim in the lake of LCL in ep. 1?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  132. total immersion cooling by MoFoQ · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's only useful in total immersion cooling if and only if it's cheaper than fluorinert (by 3M).
    Of course, due to the low boiling point of Sapphire, it would be necessary to isolate the cpu and probably the gpu and cool them with normal watercooling and the rest can be submerged in sapphire, which will also help reduce the build up of dust, enemy of efficient cooling.

    BTW, TIC is nothing new. There are these crazy New Zealanders who bought 2 gallons of fluorinert, priced at 500 bucks a gallon (and you thought gas prices in california was bad), submerged their entire setup in it and cooled the liquid.
    Unfortunately, LN2's temp was well below the freezing point of fluorinert. Here's a linkie

  133. How do you clean it up? by Aumaden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since the book came out dry, it would appear that paper cannot absorb Saphire. Given that, how do you clean it up? It's not always convenient, or even possible, to turn the heat up to 120.6F.

    1. Re:How do you clean it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's volatile. It will evaporate.

    2. Re:How do you clean it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about polution ?

    3. Re:How do you clean it up? by JFMulder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, at these temps, chances are you book will burn!!!

    4. Re:How do you clean it up? by neilcSD · · Score: 1

      I predict the hairdryer market will explode once this stuff goes mainstream!

    5. Re:How do you clean it up? by andfarm · · Score: 1

      No, books don't burn until 451F. (Remember Guy Montag?)

      --

      TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.

    6. Re:How do you clean it up? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You ate Alanis Morissette?

  134. I think you need to re-read the pdf... by sean.peters · · Score: 3, Informative

    It specifically states that it's NOT like HALON - it puts out fires by cooling vs. interference with fire chemistry (as HALON does). And it can also be used in "streaming" applications (like water).

    Sean

    1. Re:I think you need to re-read the pdf... by Ralconte · · Score: 1

      Hmm..sorry, I thought the PDF referenced was this one, www.ansul.com/fireprotection/Products/ Inergen/F-2003128.pdf, originally referenced in the Fark story. There are more technical details on that discussion board than here on /.

  135. Oh, no, another opportunity for spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just boil it in Sapphire and it'll stay hard....

  136. total immersion cooling - amendment by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    btw, it was /.'ed too.

  137. Too dense to be used in a laptop... by LeJoueur · · Score: 1

    Critical Density 639.1 kg/m3 (39.91 lbm/ft3)

    Granted that's ~60% of the density of water, but I fail to see how anyone could use total immersion (in this/another comparable liquid) cooling in a laptop/weight-limited application.

    Surely such technique, when used in common devices, will be restricted to desktops.

  138. I knew scientific innovation doesn't require b00bs by HungWeiLo · · Score: 2, Funny

    For once, you can be sure the adult entertainment industry did not spawn the need for this invention.

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  139. The MSDS sheet shows the facts by TheDigitalOne · · Score: 2, Informative

    The MSDS sheet for ansul is here: http://www.ansul.com/docs/msds/F-2003263.pdf

    Specific Physical Form: Liquid

    Odor, Color, Grade: clear colorless, low odor

    General physical form: Liquid

    Autoignition temperature Not Applicable

    Flash Point Not Applicable

    Flammable Limits - LEL Not Applicable

    Flammable Limits - UEL Not Applicable

    Boiling point 46C

    Vapor Density 11.6 [RefStd: Air=1]

    Vapor Pressure 244mmHg [Details: @20C]

    Specific Gravity 1.6 [RefStd: Water =1]

    pH Not Applicable

    Melting Point -108C

    Solubility in Water None

    Evaporation Rate >1 [RefStd: BUOAC=1]

    Volatile Organic Compunds No Data Available

    Percent volatile 100%

    VOC Less H20 No Data Available

    Viscosity 0.5 centiposise

    1. Re:The MSDS sheet shows the facts by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 0

      Hrm. A boiling point of 46C means you'd have to use something else to keep the Sapphire cold as well. Perhaps what someone else commented here: Take a mini fridge, fill it with Sapphire, submerge parts in need of cooling, turn on mini fridge, provided it will work on it's back. Hopefully the cooling capability of the fridge will be enough to keep the Sapphire from boiling.

      Thing is, I think they made it with a low boiling point for a reason. In a fire it immediately goes gas, and chokes the fire out since it will have no oxygen to feed on.

  140. Waterbed filler by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Funny

    Advantages: density 1.6X water, specific heat ~1/4 water. Disadvantages: evaporates easily, expensive. Unknown: Probably not good to breath for a long time, probably won't support mold/fungus growth.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  141. Surface tension? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to understand what is going on it would be more useful to know the surface tension and the Gibbs energy per surface area in constact with various substances.

  142. Bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    One problem. Try heating a frying pan with nothing on it. After you can sense that it's hot enough, sprinkle a little water on it. The water will float over the pan.

    When the water makes contact with the hot pan, it turns to steam, which then insulates the remaining water above the pocket. The temperature of that pocket of steam gets quite high since it has little opportunity to escape and doesn't really get cooled. More importantly, the pan gets very little cooling effect from the water evaporation.

    Therefore, you should never rely on coolant when any part of it is at or very close to its boiling point. The coolant properties of the fluid break down.

    The above doesn't really match your example, since it's not immersed within a coolant environment. For a better example, use a boiling pot of water. Examination of the locations of steam nucleation reveal that those areas (however small) do not get wet, and gets insulated as illustrated above.

    1. Re:Bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh yeah, those areas don't get wet. Instead they release the heat which bubble up to the top. Doesn't matter if it's wet or not, just as long as the heat gets out of there.

    2. Re:Bad idea. by mozzis · · Score: 0

      That's not a good example of how this substance would be used as a coolant.
      Liquids absorb the most energy per degree of temperature increase at their boiling point.
      I've seen demos like those mentioned as long ago as 1985 - there was even one in a print ad in Time (?) magazine. In those cases the "substance" was a CFC.

      --
      This is not a self-referential sig.
    3. Re:Bad idea. by NoData · · Score: 1


      Therefore, you should never rely on coolant when any part of it is at or very close to its boiling point. The coolant properties of the fluid break down.

      Uhm, is this not how refrigerants work is closed systems?

    4. Re:Bad idea. by dberger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's called the Leidenfrost effect.


      The temp. range in which it occurs (and is sustainable) is specific to each liquid. Also, AFAIK, it also doesn't occur if you heat the body while in constant contact with the liquid.

    5. Re:Bad idea. by Slowleggs · · Score: 1

      You may still need a fan of sorts, pushing the fluid to the processor? Also, the cooling takes effect before the pan err processor gets too hot.

    6. Re:Bad idea. by rthille · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just because the coolant is boiling doesn't mean the cooling properties break down, they are just different.
      The droplet of water example is pretty silly, since little droplets of water wouldn't cool the pan much even if they weren't boiling.
      Here's an example that shows that even boiling water cools just fine. Take a sheet of notebook paper and hold it over a gas stove. Watch it burst into flames. Now fold another sheet of notebook paper until it works as a paper cup. Fill the paper cup with water, put directly over the flame of the gas stove. Wait for water to boil, add tea bag and enjoy.
      Google Search for 'water boil paper cup'

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    7. Re:Bad idea. by otter42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is *very* incorrect. I don't mean to flame, just to set the record straight.

      Nucleate boiling is the BEST form of heat transfer known to man. What you're describing is film boiling, which is what occurs when there's SO much nucleate boiling that the molecules of vapor push away ALL the molecules of fluid.

      You know all those heat pipes that are so popular these days? They all use, without exception, nucleate boiling.

      --
      www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
    8. Re:Bad idea. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0
      When the water makes contact with the hot pan, it turns to steam, which then insulates the remaining water above the pocket. The temperature of that pocket of steam gets quite high since it has little opportunity to escape and doesn't really get cooled. More importantly, the pan gets very little cooling effect from the water evaporation.

      You can experience the same effect by pouring liquid nitrogen over your hands. It only feels slightly cool, no frostbytes. The effect is the same: your hand is so much hotter than the LN that a thin layer of it instantly evaporates on contact with your hand, creating quite an efficient insulation.

      However, if you try this, do be careful to not have your hands wrinkled, or the LN might get trapped in the wrinkles, leading to a more significant cooling effect...

  143. I wonder if... by rednoise · · Score: 1

    ...Sapphire is similar -- or identical -- to a product I saw demontstrated on... I think it was "Computer Chronicles" some years back called "Fluor-Inert".

    As I recall, it was being pitched as a way to troubleshoot bad circuit boards. They had a clear vat full of the stuff, attached power leads to a board, and simply threw the whole thing in the liquid.

    Wherever it bubbled was where the bad solder/connection was.

    It was pretty cool. Too bad there's no money in board-level repair.

  144. the ultimate cooling material is... by jsahol · · Score: 3, Funny

    ice-nine

  145. Lousy coolant - low boiling point by Animats · · Score: 1
    Look at the physical properties. The stuff boils at 50C at one atmosphere.

    If you want to cool by immersion, get Fluorinert, with a boiling point well above 100C.

  146. Mod Parent Up by Gabrill · · Score: 1

    He has a good point

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by M1FCJ · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Now if I can remember my heat transfer lectures, boiling is pretty good at moving energy. What you don't want to do is having the bubbles stick to the surface. Usually you get rid of this problem with a gentle forced convection. The fluid pump should generate enough flow. In most cases a gas bubble generated by boiling is no worse than a typical solid-gas interface heat transfer. Convection will improve the matters in all cases.

      Also I believe the gpp is comparing apples with oranges. When you boil your kettle, these bubbles occur all the time but still the temperature of the heating element stays same until amount of cavity increases incredibly and the element heats up, the circuit gets open again. Kettles only have natural convection which is not enough to sustain the steady heat transfer between the fluid and the heating element.

    2. Re:Mod Parent Up by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      boiling is fucking good at removing energy.

      he does not have a good point(it sounds good maybe, but it isnt).

      evaporation coolers are used on high end cpu cooling all the time, what that means is that there is a refrigant evaporating on the coldplate(that is pressed against the cpu) constantly.

      with a liquid that has a nice boiling point you could build a very nice passive cooler(basically an enermous heatpipe) that would be pretty sweet for cooling.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Mod Parent Up by SnappleMaster · · Score: 1

      "boiling is fucking good at removing energy"

      But perhaps not if the boiling point of the coolant is only 49C. If the device was generating enough heat I suppose it would stay at 49C. Not a very good PC coolant!

      --
      Be happy. Nothing else matters.
    4. Re:Mod Parent Up by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      If you take some ice at 0C and heat it up enough to turn all of it to steam at 100C, you'd have used up enough energy to heat up the liquid to 700C. The phase change costs you (for water at least) almost 6 times the energy needed to reach the boiling point.

      A 49C boiling point for this liquid could be good OR bad, depending on the phase change energy.

  147. A Liquid That Won't Get Things Wet by EachLennyAPenny · · Score: 0

    Mercury! It only makes people sick.

  148. Don't let it Freeze! by KnarfO · · Score: 1

    ...cause then it turns into Ice IX!

    --


    "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
  149. Oh great, another plug by snStarter · · Score: 1

    Gee, Neal Stephenson's new book, sequel to "Quicksilver" comes out and you have to run and do a "spin plug" for it.

    SHAME

  150. Stupid idea by khrtt · · Score: 2, Informative

    Go back and read the datasheet. This saphire stuff has very low heat of evaporation. Basically, it's designed to boil off right away when you pour it on fire. It has high vapor pressure, which allows a large amount of it to stay in gaseous form mixed into the air, extinguishing the fire by oxigen displacement. A good coolant, on the other hand, would have a high heat of evaporation and low vapor pressure, like water. Water puts out the fire by using up the thermal enerrgy on evaporation and cooling down the materials, not by oxigen displacement. If you want submersion cooling, look for something that won't evaporate easily.

  151. Great produce, crappy name. "Sapphire" is taken. by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 1
    What a crappy marketing move -- naming a new material like another well-known material that is almost entirely unlike it. Holy fuck, people will be saying things like "Hey, could you go get the sapphire detector?" and they won't know if it's an ultraviolet-sensitive CCD or a leak-sensor for the damned fire suppression system.

    Imagine the fun they'll have with it in Austin Powers 3. "No, you idiot, I wanted the sapphire(tm), not the sapphire."

  152. Mission Submersible! by BFaucet · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of a guy who used 3M's flourinert along with liquid nitrogen to see how far he could overclock a submerged system. Funny stuff!

    http://www.octools.com/index.cgi?caller=articles /s ubmersion2/submersion2.html

    --
    -Derick
  153. What I want to know is ... by DikSeaCup · · Score: 1
    How do you clean it up?

    Once you've coated all of your equipment with this goop to make sure the small fire that's developed doesn't burn anything else, and you've put out said fire, how do you clean it all up?

    (Of course I didn't RTFA)

    I guess some kind of wetvac would work, but since this stuff isn't supposed to get anything wet, could you call it a wetvac?

    You can't simply sponge it up ... again, I'm guessing that whatever it is, it won't be absorbed by the sponge!

  154. You do not want to use this for cooling by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This is a hydrocarbon with a bunch of floruine in it. It's similar enough to many general anesthetics that I would imagine it could be used as one in its gas form. If the molecule is small enough to be absorbed in the lungs and carried through the blood-brain barrier, I'm guessing it would be a GA. Not something I want in my computer case.

    ------------
    Create a WAP server

    1. Re:You do not want to use this for cooling by mgg4 · · Score: 1

      This is a hydrocarbon with a bunch of floruine in it.

      How do you figure it's a hydrocarbon? There's no hydrogen in the formula. It only has Carbon, Florine, and Oxygen. To be a hydrocarbon, the molecule must have hydrogen in it.

      --
      -- This space for rent.
  155. Strange but serious question by Rufus88 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In this context, what does "get something wet" mean? Just because you can submerge electronics in it, doesn't mean it isn't getting wet. Rather, it merely isn't getting wet with a liquid full of dissolved electrolyte conductors.

    1. Re:Strange but serious question by sp00j · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would hazard to guess that the molecules of this substance do not stick to anything but themselves, as water does.

  156. Total sub by JDizzy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why would I use saphire, which is probably very expensive to appropriate, when I could just use mineral oil to do the same exact thing more cheaply? For those that are not aware, mineral oil doesn't conduct electricity either, although it *does* get things "wet". To be fair so does saphire, but the way it touches a surface is different, not unlike the way teflon touches things in an inert way. From what I hear saphire was invented for clean-room fire situations like at a data-center full of computers. This stuff will add an extra notch in the 99.9% uptime of any facility who has it.

    --
    It isn't a lie if you belive it.
  157. never get components wet again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we need to do is figure out a way to replace the Earth's water with Sapphire. iPod use in the rain, simultaneous snorkeling and WiFi; it would be beautiful.

  158. Futurama... by Sophrosyne · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here is a possibility, we take celebrity heads, put them in saphire, so that in the future everyone can enjoy their wisdom, and entertaining abilities.

    1. Re:Futurama... by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Here is a possibility, we take celebrity heads, put them in saphire, so that in the future everyone can enjoy their wisdom, and entertaining abilities.

      Ok, that's just freaky.. As I got to this post I happened to be watching Futurama on TV, where Fry drinks the Emperor of the water people by accident.

  159. No, you fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is on Amity Island.

  160. Ingest it by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    ...and watch your body explode from the confusion.

    Cells: "Here comes the water... wtf is this shit?". Boom.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  161. Carbon Tetrachloride worked well too by bl8n8r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Until people started dieing off from being exposed to it. I think R-22 refrigerant has the same wonderful properties.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  162. Insulate sound? by djohnsto · · Score: 1

    That's kind of funny. The only things that make noise in a computer are the mechanically moving parts: hard drives, CD/DVD drives, and fans (along with the air being moved). Presumably, using a liquid cooling system would remove the fans and moving air, which are by far the loudest parts of a typical PC.

    --
    Dan
    1. Re:Insulate sound? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      Liquids don't conduct sound very well, so that is where you'll probably find big noise level reductions.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    2. Re:Insulate sound? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Liquids don't conduct sound very well, so that is where you'll probably find big noise level reductions.

      A perfect vacuum will conduct no sound at all, because there are no particles through which the compression waves can travel. It seems logical to me that as you increase the density of particles, the sound conduction also increases. Therefore, a gas conducts sound much better than a near-vacuum, a liquid should conduct sound much better than a gas, and a solid much better than a liquid.

      I know that the *speed* of sound in water is much greater than in the air, but I don't know how this translates in terms of sound levels.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:Insulate sound? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      By your logic, you would be able to hear a conversation in the next room more clearly if you closed the door, because the door would conduct sound better than air.

      I'm not too up on the physics of it, but I believe the sound vibrations are converted to (a tiny amount of) heat by solid (or liquid) objects, which is why they cut down sound levels, and also a lot of reflection happens at the boundary between the air and the insulator.

      You can demonstrate this effect by listening to a (waterproof) radio while having a bath. Stick your head under the water and the sound will be very muffled.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    4. Re:Insulate sound? by djohnsto · · Score: 1

      This is kind of late, so I doubt anyone will read this, but...

      What noise is this liquid going to insulate? That was the whole point of my original post. The CPU fan? Not needed in liquid cooling. The PSU fan? Not needed in liquid cooling. The HD and CD/DVD can't be put in liquid, so no insulation there.

      PC's submerged in liquid will be quiter than air-cooled PC's, but not because the liquid is insulating the sound. It's because the liquid is replacing the parts that cause the sound in the first place!

      --
      Dan
    5. Re:Insulate sound? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      By your logic, you would be able to hear a conversation in the next room more clearly if you closed the door, because the door would conduct sound better than air.

      Good point! I suppose the sound levels are greatest when they are created in a medium (eg: air) of the same density as that in our ears. Transitioning between mediums probably loses quite a bit in the conversion.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    6. Re:Insulate sound? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      Well, I keep reading replies as long as people write them ;-)

      Unless the liquid cooling is convectional, there are going to be pumps involved.

      If the HD is watertight, there is no reason it shouldn't be in the liquid too, and 5 of the 6 faces of a cuboid cd/dvd can safely be immersed. These are the 2 major sources of noise with my fanless iMac.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  163. BAD idea for total immersion cooling system by MtlDty · · Score: 2, Funny

    This will never work for total immersion cooling. Every single computer case I've ever seen has been FULL of holes, it will just leak out.

    Plus, every time you take a CD out you'll need to towel it dry before putting it back in the case

    It would be cool for bathing in though. I could take a bath without bothering to get undressed first. That would be a real timesaver.

    1. Re:BAD idea for total immersion cooling system by Quixotic137 · · Score: 1

      Plus, every time you take a CD out you'll need to towel it dry before putting it back in the case

      Don't worry, it won't get the CD wet.

  164. Old and tasteless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " They're old and tasteless"

    Just like Ted Kennedy himself.

  165. cleanup method by TechnoFreek · · Score: 1

    due to filters, I couldn't RTFM, but from what I've heard it seems like sweeping would be able to clean it up (mostly).

  166. Done since.. like... 1920 by poptones · · Score: 4, Informative
    All it takes is a tank of Mineral oil. Mineral oil has been used to cool electronic components since there WERE electronic components. I'm surprised no ham has chimed on on this yet - a "dummy load" antenna is little more than a bigass resistor submerged in a gallon pail of mineral oil, and one of those things will take several hundred watts of RF energy before overloading.

    I've seen submerged mineral oil cpu boards before. Heck, here's one right here at the very top of the Google.

  167. Know your fluorocarbons by Kaseijin · · Score: 1

    There are several different kinds of fluorocarbons. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) deplete stratospheric ozone; perfluorocarbons (PFCs) like Fluorinert have high greenhouse potentials but are not dangerous to the ozone layer.

  168. Old News by ntba · · Score: 1

    This is old news a while ago (about a year or so) I saw an article on an overclocking website where they actully took this type of liquid and submerged a whole motherboard in it with liquid nitrogen running through some pipes. The original speed was about 500Mhz and they got it up to about 900Mhz.

  169. Cooking Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have we tried any of a variety of cooking oils yet? I read about some people who had a wireless rig on a hot rooftop and just sank the thing in a bath of cooking oil.

  170. "Water"-cooling by bedwyrbannog · · Score: 1

    Ok haven't read all the posts so this might have been brought up. It's not about the boiling point and basicly not about the thermal props. Think of this take a small dorm room refrigerator, drop it on it's back fill her up with sapphire drop in your mb extended up the cables to the top side for cd/hd/floppy drives through the door then seal door for a vapor lock. Now you get a cold container for sapphire with a vapor lock to keep it from getting into your environment.

  171. Drink it? by Arlo · · Score: 1

    I wonder what would happen if you were to drink this stuff, thinking it was actually water?

    Anyone remember that movie where someone made an explosive that looked like water but when you drank it you exploded? yea not fun.

  172. Oh no! not chemicals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    because "chemicals" like DihydrogenMonoxide is some dangerous stuff.

  173. Under pressure by acariquara · · Score: 1

    As long as a (liquid, gas, whatever) is pressurized the boiling point siginifically increases. I assume it CAN be used as a coolant in pressurized environments.

    Of course, it means that if you drop your laptop the whole thing could explode.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  174. What is its density relative to H20? by SnappingTurtle · · Score: 1
    Knowing nothing about chemistry, I couldn't figure out from the technical notes if this stuff is heavier than or lighter than water.

    If it's heavier than water, would it be possible to immerse the processor at the bottom, and have H20 at the top of the column? The water could cool the saphire-steam, sending it back down again. In effect, the saphire would work as a heat transfer between the processor and water. The water could be inexpensively cycled through.

    OK, now show me how little I know what I'm talking about. It's OK. I claim no expertise.

    --
    I've found that my posts don't format quite right w/o a sig.
  175. Implications for mating? by fzammett · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now, if they could just find a way through some sort of bizarre gene therapy maybe to make male ejaculation fluids based on this stuff, my bed sheets would thank the scientific community!

    (Stop looking so disgusted, you were thinking it too!)

    *

    Omnytex Technologies - Where dreams and software unite

    K&G Arcade - 26 games in one, a unique blend of action, adventure and humor
    Invasion: Trivia! - Trivia, with a very sick twist!
    Electro - The premiere electronics tool for PocketPC

    --
    If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
  176. Re:"Water"-cooling = do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the spec sheet:
    boiling point: 49.2 C
    Specific Heat (liquid): 1.103 kJ/kg C (water: 4.18 kJ/kg C)
    Latent Heat vaporization: 88 kJ/kg (water: 2260 kJ/kg)
    Density: 1.6 kg/L
    Assume an Athlon produces 69 W (argue with it, it doesn't matter--it's the right order of magnitude) Assume start CPU at room temp of 25 C.
    Delta T to raise liquid to boiling point: 49.2-25 = 24.2 C
    Energy required to raise liquid to boiling point: 24.2 C * 1.103 kJ/kg C = 26.69 kJ/kg
    Time it takes to raise liquid to boiling point: 26.69 kJ/kg / 69 W = 387 seconds/ kg = 6.45 minutes/kg
    Time it takes to boil the liquid: 88 kJ/kg / 69 W = 1275 s/kg = 21 minutes/kg.
    For those who can't think in Litres, assume you have one gallon of this liquid to cool your system
    1 gal = 3.79 litres => 1.6 kg/L * 3.79 L = 6 kg.

    6.45 minutes/kg * 6 kg = 39 minutes
    21 minutes/kg * 6 kg = 126 minutes.
    126+39 = 167 minutes
    Time to raise CPU temp from 25 C to 49.2 C and boil off your gallon of coolant: Just under three hours. The specific heat of the gas is 0.89 kJ/kgC, so you aren't going to be keeping your CPU cool for very long. If the CPU puts out twice as much heat, cut that time in half.

    This is the ideal situation. Any added heat from the rest of the system will decrease the efficiency. If you try to capture the gas and re-condense and re-use it, you'll decrease the efficiency of the system.

    This stuff is designed for electrical and chemical fires where water cannot be used. This is not meant to be used as a coolant (even when fire fighting)--it's meant to be used as an evacuant.

  177. Doesn't look promising for cooling. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you put it deep enough in the fluid, the bubbles will condense on the way up.

    However the shockwaves from their formation and collapse (cavitation) could cause physical damage to the chip packaging, especially where conductors penetrate it. If the chip package isn't designed for it, total immersion is proably out. Back to liquid-cooled clampons. (In which case, why not use water, which has extremely high specific and vaporization heats?)

    If the heat of vaporization is anything reasonable, this should work quite well to remove heat from your chip--the fluid changing to a gas absorbs a bunch of heat,

    But the heat of vaporization is extremely low compared to water - by a factor of 25! (That's why it can be "stored as a liquid and used as a gas" - the small amount of heat in the air causes a spary to immediately evaporate).

    Specific heat wasn't stated - but with such a low heat of vaporization it is also probably low and/or doesn't matter. You're going to have to circulate this stuff REALLY FAST to get usable cooling.

    Note that its use as fire suppression is not relevant to its use as cooling. Though this stuff DOES suppress fires by cooling (unlike halon, which interferes with the chemical reactions), fire suppression is a one-pass rather than multi-pass function. So the cooling can be accomplished by breaking up the molecule - using the heat of formation, in addition ot the the specific or vaproization heats, to cool the fuel. I doubt that you want to be continuously consuming your coolant and disposing of the resulting fluorinated alkyl radicals in your home system.

    Also, I'm concerned about the toxicity.

    This is being sold as a fire suppressant. Fires, and their combustion products, are SO toxic that a suppression system chemical can be quite hellish and still be a drastic improvement. But long-term exposure as an alternative to non-exposure is a far different can of worms.

    One document touts that the LD50 (concentration that kills 50% of those exposed) and cardiac sensitization NOAEL (no observable effects level) - both ACCUTE (immediate) poisoning measures - are both "over 10% v/v". But another document, touting its rapid vaporization, point out that the equilibrium vapor pressur in air is four times that: 40% (nearly half the air replaced by vapor). And given how easily this stuff vaporizes, it can approach that damned quickly. So dumping warm coolant might quickly displace nearly half the air with this stuff's vapor and put you in jepoardy - of suffocation if nothing else. Not a problem if it's putting out a fire - BIG problem if it's not.

    With that high vapor pressure and low heat of vaporization, exposure would tend to be very high during handling or in the presense of even a tiny leak. So if there are even small long-term toxic effects you'd want to avoid having this where it could result in repeated and prolonged contact.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  178. not just cpu's by fantastic · · Score: 1

    I've also heard it will help make cases not stick...

    http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040402/crime_kozlowski_1 1. html

  179. don't be denied by zptdooda · · Score: 2, Informative

    "I seem to remember hearing..."

    Maybe this glossary is where the person who told you read it from. Under PFIB it says:

    "Perfluoroisobutylene. A toxic, colorless, odorless gas that can be produced when Fluorinert liquid thermally decomposes when exposed to open flames, glowing electric heating elements, electric arcs, or temperatures above 200 degrees Celsius."

    --
    Esteem isn't a zero sum game
  180. question about not being wet by sharkdba · · Score: 1

    By checking this discussion I've seen mostly discussions related to: how well this would work as a coolant, various thermal parameters, conductivity, etc. This is all interesting of course, but what I really want to know is:

    why the heck will the stuff not be wet when immersed in this substance? Can someone explain it in (relatively) simple terms?

    --
    The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
    1. Re:question about not being wet by aXis100 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Things 'wet' due to very small forces between molecules. For instance, water molecules are more attracted to paper than to itself, so paper gets wet. Water molecules are not attracted to grease/oil, so they dont mix.

      Same thing here - basically the liquid is more attracted to itself than other objects, so it basically stays in it's own droplets.

      That's about as simple as it gets.

  181. Smoking? by moxiez · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else notice the TV was smoking when submerged? Or am I seeing things? Damn cataracts...

  182. NOT NEW!! This is not new I repeat Not New by tyrione · · Score: 3, Informative

    Being a Mechanical Engineering by training I used this technology back in early 1990s while doing my undergraduate degree at Washington State University.

    It is expensive as hell (at the time it was expensive).

    It is by no means a new break through, unless they are considering the barrier of entry being no longer cost prohibitive as a break through.

  183. I heard it from Rush by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Funny

    "He probably heard about it from Rush"

    Yes. It is buried somewhere in one of the later stanzas of their hit song "Tom Sawyer". As I recall,

    "Today's tom sawyer,
    He gets high on you,
    And the space he invades
    He gets by on you.

    No, his mind is not for rent
    Ted Kennedy swam in Chappaquiddick
    in Cape Code, yet discontent,
    He knows changes aren't permanent,
    But change is....."

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:I heard it from Rush by Impeesa · · Score: 1

      Wow. I didn't know anyone here was old enough to make that joke.

      Yeah, given the above post about how he heard it from Rush... I'm torn between claiming that any fan of Mike Oldfield and Rush is indeed that old, and admitting that I also enjoy both.

  184. Low Boiling Point could make this a good coolant! by roberto0 · · Score: 1

    Think about it this way, Liselle:

    When a substance undergoes a phase change (say, boiling a liquid to male a gas), the average temperature remains the same during the transition. That means that a processor submersed in fluid would heat the fluid up to its boiling point, and the temperature would remain constant at 49.2C while the liquid boils away. All the while, the processor is still pumping heat energy into the system, but theenergy is going to the phase change, not an increase in temperature.

    It's just like sweating. The reason why sweat cools us is because the evaporation of moisture on the skin absorbs heat from the body and carries it away. The key here would be to be able to conduct the vapor to a reservoir where it could cool back to liquid form and be reintroduced to the sytem.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, simulate.
  185. Vapor phase cooling by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    More or less how most vapor phase cooling systems work, using liquids whose boiling points are lower than room temperature. It's been done with liquid nitrogen (anyone remember the Kryotech Super-G?) and freon as far as I know. Very effective, but very expensive.

  186. Pah! Who cares! by evil-osm · · Score: 1

    What we really haven't seen here is what their true goals are with this stuff. Their true goal? taking towel companys out of business!

    Just think of the millions people would save in towel expenses every year by showering/swimming with this stuff!

    Hahahahah! thats it I'm dropping all my stocks in the towel companys and putting it in this! I see the future, and towels paper or cloth are not a part of it! Begone things of the past!

    --


    E.

    Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker
    1. Re:Pah! Who cares! by evil-osm · · Score: 1

      Hahahah! That guy is funny, you moderators should mod him up!

      --


      E.

      Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker
  187. Nuclear Reactors do it by MikeMo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some reactors (namely, Boiling Water reactors) run right at the boiling point. They use nucleate boiling at the surface of the fuel rod to break up a laminate layer that tends to insulate the rod from the rest of the water. In other words, the turbulance caused by the boiling increases the heat transfer rate.

  188. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just had an exam 4 hours ago on the very subject dealing with that stuff, organic chemistry.

    1,1,1,2,2,4,5,5,5-NONAFLUORO-4-(TRIFLUOROMETHYL)-3 -PENTANONE

    So the main component is the pentanone, a 5-carbon ketone, which must have a double bonded oxygen being a ketone, in this case at the 3rd atom. Then there's the trifluoromethyl at the 4th carbon atom of the pentanone. The trifluoromethyl is CF3, that is, 1 carbon atom and 3 fluorine. The nonafluoro ("nona" being the prefix meaning "nine"); 9 fluorines, 3 attached at the 1st C atom of the pentanone, 2 attached at the 2nd c, 1 attached at the fourth, and 3 attached at the 5th.

    It looks like a ketone of 5 CH2's with an organic halide methyl (CF3) group, the latter having 3 fluorines attached. And then 9 fluorines sticking out of the pentanone.

    And as the article says that a TV submerged in the liquid still functioned, it is like not conductive.

    Beast of a molecule, harder than anything on my exam.

    well, that's the extent of my using chemistry outside of class.

  189. back problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have back problems from sitting long periods of time and always wondered whether working in water would help. Obviously, not easy to try out. Maybe this is something that would work. Any other ideas on preventing back problems from sitting too long?

  190. Idiots! by Niello · · Score: 3, Funny

    If they had just put the same R&D into fire that doesn't burn, then we'd be all set!

    --
    I give men fish.
  191. We're saved by ehiris · · Score: 1

    Finally something to save us from dihydrogen monoxide.

  192. Ah. No they don't. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Fire suppression systems such as those that use Halon (which was outlawed in the '90s due to its ozone-destroying side-effects) put out fires by displacing oxygen with some other gas."

    Nope. Halon systems work by absorbing free radicals in the fire. It literally interferes with the chemical processes required to sustain burning. The same reason they are so dangerous to the ozone layer. It's also the reason the newer gas based fire suppressants aren't nearly as effective.

    Free radicals are also the reason pre-burned wood can be restarted burning again so easily, and why burned toast is more likely to give you bowel cancer than lightly tanned toast.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    1. Re:Ah. No they don't. by shawb · · Score: 1

      "Free radicals are also the reason pre-burned wood can be restarted burning again so easily"

      I've always wondered why charcoal is used instead of wood in a grill.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  193. poo-tee-weet? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Funny


    If you freeze this stuff does it turn into Ice-Nine?

  194. Preserving articfacts and very old documents by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

    Assuming there isn't an issue with long term exposure with other materials, Novec 1230 might be useful in preserving artifacts and very old documents; like the documents that corrode when they come in contact with air.

  195. Special case by DarkMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nuclear reactors have a lot of design time to make sure they work. They're also made to exacting tolerances - thus things like the surface roughness are precisly known and controlled.

    More importantly, a boiling water reactor uses the water as a moderator. When as a gas, it's much less effective as a moderator than as a liquid. This operates as a feedback system (too much heat generated - water boils - reaction rate slows - system cools), which is critical to the design here. The water would be more efficent at cooling, if the system was run at a lower temperature. However, the system of reactor - turbine - generator is more efficent as a whole when the water is run near it's boiling point (because the heat exchanging systems work more efficently with a greater temperature differenctial).

    So, yes, it is used in those cases - but that's not the most efficent method of using the water _as a coolant_. Within a microprocessor, you have no feedback loop to reduce heat production when the temperature peaks the boiling point [0], and no desire to maximise the running temperature.

    Personally, I'll stick with water for electronics cooling.

  196. So when do we get the transparent aluminum? by payote · · Score: 0

    I really hope someone's working on it.

    --


    Never pet a burning dog.
  197. Water that isn't wet by futurekill · · Score: 1

    I remember seeing something like this 10+ years ago on a show called Beyond 2000 that aired on the Discovery channel.

    --
    The gates in my computer are AND, OR and NOT; they are not Bill.
  198. fluorinert | `dielectric` | prices by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    - is `dielectric` the correct term to use for this or just `insulator`?

    - prices? ; fluorinert is expensive

    - seems to behave quite similar to water, hmm what's the composition?

    - http://www.uspto.gov/ (us patent office) may hold more info. Searching for ingredients now

    similar:

    "A group of crazy overclockers decided to fully submerge a motherboard in a liquid nitrogen cooled fluorinert? bath (Fluorinert? is an electronic testing fluid manufactured by 3M? -- $500/gallon),"
    - from http://slashdot.org/articles/00/06/30/1322219.shtm l
    and
    http://www.octools.com/index.cgi?caller=ar ticles/s ubmersion2/submersion2.html

  199. Well, there goes the towel industry! by Mr2cents · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll miss you, towly!

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  200. Any chances of this being a hoax? by xv4n · · Score: 1

    If it isn't wet how it is supposed to extinguish any fire?

    1. Re:Any chances of this being a hoax? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Lots of fires are extinguished without getting wet... pouring sand on a campfire, for example... or using dynamite to put out a burning oil well... putting the lid on your flaming frying pan... blowing out your flaming moe... dry-chemical fire extinguishers... the list goes on..

  201. Dammit. by Anhaedra · · Score: 0

    I sent an article in on Sapphire last night, I thought this was it. Got my hopes up. Oh well.

    --
    Please flee in terror in an orderly manner.
  202. That's Just Great... by RussDavisDotCom · · Score: 1

    Greeeat. Something else in my life that won't get wet. *sigh*

    --
    My favorite phrase: You have 5 Moderator Points! Use 'em or lose 'em!
  203. Re:Oh crap, another thing we can't use against RIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, just because this thing is a liquid doesn't mean it's water.

  204. Re: Maybe not a problem after all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of these posts about the boiling point rest on the assumption that the processor is running at hotter than 49.2C (the boiling point of Sapphire) and thus it would not work well as a coolant when in its gaseous state.

    However, if designed properly, it may be possible to keep the processor from ever reaching the boiling temperature at all. Then your point about whether it works as a gas or not is moot.

    As one person brought up, there still may be a problem with its "specific temperature", which I know nothing about. I don't know if that's a problem or not.

  205. "Just think of the possibilities!" by hethatishere · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, does this mean we can have "Wet" T-shirt contests without offending feminists?

    --
    Something intelligent here.
  206. Its already been done by dicepackage · · Score: 1

    3M already has something that does just this. It is called HFE-7100 and you can get it for about $220 dollars per gallon.

  207. Non-Conducting Fluid 20 Years Ago by gilgongo · · Score: 1

    I saw a demonstration on live TV of a "non-conducting fluid" on BBC's Tomorrows World about 20 years ago. They had tank of the stuff and put a radio in it - then put a mic next to the tank to hear the music from the radio as it was submerged.

    They said it was to be used for cooling. No mention of whether it got things "wet" though.

    But then, like so many things on that programme, we never heard of it again. Just like the fire and heat-proof paint that they demonstrated by holding a blowtorch on an egg painted with the paint - then picked up the egg and cracked it showing the yolk unboiled. Never seen that again.

    Odd.

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
  208. My observations on this... by chadjg · · Score: 3, Informative

    I was a small time firefighter for awhile, and we trained to deal with this stuff all the time.

    First off, you can put a fire out by using water to cover all the surfaces and deprive it of oxygen. One one fire the gire started in a basement room that was closed on all sides. We didn't get there fast enough to snuff it out at the point of origin. But the fire damned sure went out when we pumped the basement full. That's not the goal, but it works, guaranteed.

    The ideal way of dealing with ordinary house fires is to get there fast enough so it's confined to one room. You advance a hoste team a bit into the room, set the nozzle to a 30 degree fog pattern and move thestream in a clockwise pattern thru the seat of the fire, up to the ceiling and back down. A few sweeps like that and a small fire will be out and you can get to work. At no time is the fire actually "drowned."

    If the room is already mostly engulfed, you just crack the door, pump a bunch of fog in, and let your old friend vapor phase cooling suck the heat out of the fire. The only downer is that anybody in there is gonna cook for sure.

    In our training burns we would start a fire in the tower, let it build up, and then run the hose team in. The boundary between smoke and clear air is actually quite distinct, i'd say no more than a foot high. When you cut loose with the water everything gets dak fast, the layer drops down, and life starts to suck. It does give ou confidence in your gear though. You have to experience it if you get the chance.

    Theoretically you can put out a room fire without causing any water damage by putting in just the right amount of a fog stream into the room and letting all the water be vaporized. But fire fighting isn't ballet, and I've never seen it happen. Usually water damage is pretty bad.

    One effect that can't be ignored is the mechanical force of a stream of water coming out of a hose. It can and will tear stuff up. If you spread out the stuff that is burning, stuff gets cooler and is easier to deal with. A nice straight bore nozzle hooked up to a good size pump can and will tear thru roofs without a problem. You absolutely have to get a hold of one of these things at least once in your life :)

    This is so not my area, but Metal fires, Class D in the U.S., are only fought with powder extinguishers. Any extinguisher that isn't marked as a Class D is useless and a health hazard. One of the main reason you don't spray water onto a Class D fire is that you tend to get violent and explosive spalling. Life will start to suck in a big way if a moron tries that. It's a specialty area and any shop that workes with these metals, zirconium, and a bunch of others should put bucks into their training and safety gear. It's not to be messed with by amateurs.

    --
    Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
    1. Re:My observations on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One of the main reason you don't spray water onto a Class D fire is that you tend to get violent and explosive spalling.
      And many metals in fact burn quite well in water, which is a much more concentrated source of oxygen than air. Worse, the "ash" is a metal hydroxide, and those are generally very corrosive (a la lye).
  209. Tech TV did this over a year ago by tokabola · · Score: 3, Informative

    They used the Flourinert from 3M (link in another post). Drives are NOT submersed, only the Mobo, CPU and cards. Since it's the CPU, GPU, chipset and memory that really need the extra cooling when overclocking anyway that's fine.
    The liquid Tech TV used cost over $900 US per gallon, so Saphire is just a cheaper version of the same basic thing. It's chemically inert (won't cause corrosion), non conductive (won't cause short circuits), and non toxic (fish can live in it if you add a standard aquarium air pump). Overclockers.com also has articles on submersion cooling.
    I'm glad to see this, the only thing that stopped me from building an E-quarium (complete with fake swimming fish (no fish poop on my Mobo, thank you!)) was the price, since I calculated it would take three gallons to fill a recirculating system.

    Tommy

    --
    Open Source for Open Minds
  210. I guess what I aiming for here is that... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    if water evaporates completely on a very hot surface it ceases to effectively cool the surface because it becomes an insulator (due to the large drop in heat capacity and the inability for the gas to easily escape). With this liquid the different in heat capacities between phases is close to parity so as long as the medium is kept moving, there shouldn't be as extreme a failure condition when things get unexpectedly hot.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  211. Effectiveness? by ashridah · · Score: 1

    If this substance doesn't actually get things "wet" i assume you mean it doesn't form a proper surface with the material, that gets maintained by hydrostatic attraction (the kinds of things that holds water droplets against gravity, and causes capillary action in thin plates, trees, etc).

    If this is the case, just how is it going to be effective at removing heat from substances, if it doesn't actually fill in the nooks and crannies that your average surface has, where most of the inefficiency of a normal heatsink kicks in?

    You'd be far better off just coating the entire thing in a non-electrical-condutive material that was a good heat conductor, and then just pour water into it, or a type of mineral oil, and cool appropriately.

    ashridah

  212. Why not just immerse in REGULAR water? by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 3, Informative

    how useful would it still be for cooling purposes if it were a gas? Potentially very useful depending on the properties of that gas.

    Of course!

    More importantly, though, if the "water" is boiling because of the heat of your motherboard, it's undergoing a phase change - while it does that, it will consume all available heat to continue the phase change rather than elevate the temperature.

    A pot of boiling water will never get over 100C until after all the water has boiled off (or if you increase the pressure, ie. a pressure cooker or a steam engine - PV = nRT!). Likewise, this will never let the processor get above 50C until all the coolant has boiled off. But if you capture the vapor, condense it, and drip it back into the computer's enclosure, you've got a closed system which is good indefinitely. I would worry, however, that if this stuff doesn't "wet", it probably has a lot of surface tension - so the "water" to processor interface won't be as tight as it would be with water, and therefore there might be a little more localized heating effects, similar to water droplets flying across a hot skillet. On the other hand, I'm sure the liquid, being capable of convective flow and in direct contact with the processor, will probably couple heat at least as well as a conventional heat sink. We should also look up the specific heat of this stuff. (Too lazy, didn't check to see whether it was in any of the cited links.)

    Personally, I doubt you'd actually maintain the entire vessel at the temperature of the hottest component (the processor) - convective flow within the enclosure will move the hot "water" to the outsides of the container, where the surface area (thousands of times greater than the surface area of the processor) will couple away the heat to the atmosphere.

    But why can't you do this with regular water? Submerge the motherboard and cards only - not the drives or the power supply. The thermal transfer grease isn't water soluble, so I don't think you'll make it into a conductive ionic solution. Voltages from pin to pin are pretty low, and pure water is a good insulator - the only problem is getting pure enough water, and keeping it pure enough. Corrosion will also not be a problem, again if the water is pure, the motherboard is continually submerged (preferably with a small surface area to the air so that less oxygen dissolves in it), and connectors are tin/nickel/gold plated - as most of them are. Wash the motherboard/cards/cables in distilled water before putting them into the bath, to make sure that you don't take any ionic contaminants (salts, etc. in dust, fuzzies around old CMOS batteries, manufacturing chemical remnants, little bits of leakage from electrolytic capacitors) in with you.

    Components? Modern components are usually sealed anyway - the last step of manufacturing is removing the soldering flux, and that's usually done in what is, essentially, a dishwasher. They're not actually rated for immersion, but most of them do take a good spraying. I'd take out PC-board mounted piezo speakers, but offhand, I think that's the only part that would really have a problem with it.

    I think I'd try this with an old computer before doing it with my real one. I seem to have an old 486DX-33 with 30-pin SIMMs and 16-bit ISA slots only... it's been begging for a job. I'll check out retail distilled water on my megaohm meter first.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
    1. Re:Why not just immerse in REGULAR water? by dtperik · · Score: 1

      Ok. You first. Just make sure you take pictures to show everyone. Then use the submerged machine to host the pictures, and post the link on /. Then we can _really_ see how well it cools. :-)

    2. Re:Why not just immerse in REGULAR water? by RedWizzard · · Score: 2, Informative
      A pot of boiling water will never get over 100C until after all the water has boiled off (or if you increase the pressure, ie. a pressure cooker or a steam engine - PV = nRT!). Likewise, this will never let the processor get above 50C until all the coolant has boiled off.
      Not quite. The water in a pot of boiling water will never get over approximately 100C, the pot however can be higher than that. It all depends on the efficiency of the heat transfer from the element to the pot to the water. You think an element on a stove suddenly drops to 100C when the water in the pot starts boiling? So the phase change in this Sapphire-based system won't limit the processor to 50C. Infact once the stuff starts boiling the system will probably lose efficiency. That's why most cooling systems work on the principle of circulating coolant rather than phase changes.
    3. Re:Why not just immerse in REGULAR water? by shfted! · · Score: 1

      Pure water is actually not a good insulator. Water, when liquid, is always in a state of equlibrium: H2O h(+) + OH(-). As such, even pure water contains ions which can carry a charge.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    4. Re:Why not just immerse in REGULAR water? by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 1

      Pure water is actually not a good insulator. Water, when liquid, is always in a state of equlibrium: H2O h(+) + OH(-). As such, even pure water contains ions which can carry a charge.

      I think you need to balance that equation!

      Actually, it is. It's on the order of 18M ohms per centimeter. Whether or not that's good enough is still undecided, given a pin spacing of (estimated) 0.5mm and therefore an adjacent resistance of 900k - in CMOS, it would depend on whether or not the output stage is low enough in impedance.

      --
      Fire and Meat. Yummy.
    5. Re:Why not just immerse in REGULAR water? by Fian · · Score: 1

      1. You would need to keep the water free from air to prevent carbon dioxide dissolving resulting in a pH less than 7 - conductive and slightly corrosive

      2. The metal on the motherboard would slowly dissolve/corrode into the water - charged ions in solution - conduction

      3. Think those electrolyte containing capacitors are sealed nice and tight?

      Short exposure to relatively pure water is probably ok, you can even clean electrical equipment with water as long as it is powered down when you do it and allow it to dry completely before you plug it in again.

    6. Re:Why not just immerse in REGULAR water? by shfted! · · Score: 1

      Hmm... it looks like slashcode ate my equation. There are parts missing.

      I guess it really does come down to what is an acceptable limit or not.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    7. Re:Why not just immerse in REGULAR water? by MemoryAid · · Score: 1
      Infact once the stuff starts boiling the system will probably lose efficiency. That's why most cooling systems work on the principle of circulating coolant rather than phase changes.

      Actually, the most efficient heat transfer occurs when the steam bubbles are carried away from the cooled surface by the flow of liquid over that surface. The phase change of the bubble captures a lot of energy, which is then swept away by the flow.

      When the bubbles start to form, in what is known as nucleate boiling, the bubbles tend to grow until they break away from the surface (carried away by buoyancy or drag). The bubbles will often collapse as they transfer heat to the rest of the cooling liquid. As heat transfer increases, the bubbles can group together before breaking away from the surface, forming a layer of vapor that acts as an insulating barrier to heat transfer (film boiling). The temperature will then increase locally, causing any liquid that comes in contact with the surface to flash to vapor. Heat transfer can still be quite high, but the temperature difference required may have already cooked your hardware.

      Integrated Publishing has a good explanation of heat transfer here.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
  213. That was OZ unfriendly RTFA by spoco2 · · Score: 1

    RTFA - It says it right there in the article that yes there was a similar fluid before, but it was destroying the Ozone layer, this is supposedly environmentally friendly.

  214. Ah, but... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    ... the hole is usually covered by a fine mesh. Presumably, if the liquid won't wet a surface, it won't penetrate the mesh. This depends on how big a "blob" a single droplet will form.

  215. That... is ... not ... the .. point by spoco2 · · Score: 1

    Go back to the original post and read what the point of this is... it's not to cool motherboards, it's to be primarily used as a fire retardent, in places like... museums. The demonstration shows a book being dunked in it and COMING OUT DRY! Try doing that with mineral oil... put out a fire with mineral oil and you're going to have some pretty f**ked up tapestries and illuminated manuscripts.

  216. Well then! by Accipiter · · Score: 1

    You would think that dipping a laptop in a liquid would ruin it, and cause anger and irritation in its owner. That's probably an accepted idea, and since this liquid obviously doesn't harm the electronics of the laptop, it can serve to be an interesting solution for laptop storage. You think people would bother to swipe a laptop that's sitting in a tub of "water?"

    Clearly, having the laptop immersed in this liquid would be a barrier to unauthorized usage, providing the owner with a STRONG DIGITAL DEFENSE.

    --

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
    (If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

  217. The question is... by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    how well does it work with soap.
    If only it were possible to shower with this stuff, you wouldn't need a towell anymore :)

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  218. Whatever next by minator · · Score: 1, Funny

    A liquid which doesn't get stuff wet? Next thing they'll invent is a towel which doesn't dry...

  219. get... your...head...out...ofyerbutt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That post was replying to the MULTITUDE of people in this thread who have picked up on the statement made by THE ORIGINAL POST wherein it was mentioned this could be used for... guess what? Motherboard cooling.

    Jeezus. There's one in every crowd...

  220. Credulity Alert by blair1q · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the article: "The chemical has all the firefighting properties of water..."

    Except one. It doesn't wet. It will slide right off anything it touches, allowing the fire back onto it.

    We also don't know what its evaporative cooling properties are. Someone might, but we don't. The misting of water in a burning room cools gases and reduces flashing probabilities.

    The smothering property is nice, but it doesn't have all the firefighting properties of water.

    But then, it has firefighting properties water doesn't have. Water, for instance, will cause electrical fires, and electrical explosions if the voltage of the electrical system is particularly high (first it electrolyzes to hydrogen and oxygen, then it recombines explosively to become water again).

    1. Re:Credulity Alert by DavidH_Mphs · · Score: 1
      check this out:

      http://www.yorbamicro.com/stuff/Sapphire-Novec1230 -FAQ.pdf

      might answer some of your questions

  221. Soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can it be carbonated?

  222. Party tricks by maggern · · Score: 1

    I'd bet this stuff will make great partytricks when throwed at people! he-he. And stop worring about health-effects and supply me with a 100.000 liters so I can go swim in it! Then I would get rid of the whole stupid dry\wipe-off-process.

  223. Re:Great produce, crappy name. "Sapphire" is taken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not in Austin Powers 3... I just saw it.

    (Remember, Austin Powers, The Spy who Shagged me, Goldmember.) I think you mean AP4.

  224. Can I make coffee with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of it: No prroblem if it spilled on the keyboard...My drream come trrue...

  225. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't use enough of the stuff to fill the whole room! From this pdf:

    NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level): 10%
    Use Concentration: 4-6%
    Safety Margin: 67-150%

    In comparison, the same data for other fire retardants:

    CO2 NOAEL: (N/A)
    CO2 Use Concentration: 30-75%
    CO2 Safety Margin: Lethal at Use Concentration

    Halon NOAEL: 5%
    Halon Use Concentration: 5%
    Halon Safety Margin: 0%

    Inert Gas NOAEL: 43%
    Inert Gas Use Concentration: 38-40%
    Inert Gas Safety Margin: 7-13%

    I think I'd much rather have this stuff around for fire protection than the alternatives.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't use enough of the stuff to fill the whole room!

      Fooey. The stuff is lethal under equilibrium vapor pressure conditions. That is very dangerous.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The point is that you don't need to use that much to put out a fire.

      At equilibrium CO2 is 100% saturated in the air - and yet we use CO2 to put out fires. You don't even need a license to possess a CO2 extinguisher.

      Of course, a CO2 extinguisher doesn't contain enough volume to completely displace the air in any room bigger than a closet - and the flow rate is low enough that in most circumstances it dissipates faster than it builds up. In any case, it is safer than the fire you're putting out.

      This stuff is potentially dangerous if you use too much of it, but it is safer than stuff which is already in use - both for the user and for the environment. Halon is somewhat safe, but not completely so - it also is lethal at equilibrium. Halon on the other hand is nasty for the ozone layer...

    3. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      You don't even need a license to possess a CO2 extinguisher.

      Fixed CO2 fire supression systems are highly regulated because of their hazards.

      http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/co2/co2report .h tml

      CO2 fire extinguishers all come with warnings that they can cause asphyxiation if used in confined spaces.

      http://www.wilsonfire.com/FIRE_EXT.HTM

      CO2 can even cause asphyxiation in low lying areas outdoors. See Cameroon's Lake Nyos in 1986.

  226. Hmm by Red+Dane · · Score: 1

    I would be interested to see what this stuff will do when exposed to a persons skin for a long period of time. Surely it leaves a residue of some type.

  227. Slashdotting a 486 with 4 megs of RAM? by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 1

    Ok. You first. Just make sure you take pictures to show everyone. Then use the submerged machine to host the pictures, and post the link on /. Then we can _really_ see how well it cools. :-)

    Heheh... First, to find a Linux distro that actually still installs on a 486!

    (Actually, I'll probably use FreeBSD because it seems to be happier on old machines, but I'm not going to commit my collection of might-come-in-handy-someday 4 meg 30 pin SIMMs, so it'll be 4 banks @ 1 meg per bank = 4 megs of RAM. Now, is it possible to survive a Slashdotting with Apache on 4 megs of RAM? Maybe if my network connection is PPP/SLIP over a 110 baud serial line...)

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  228. Finally! by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1

    ...a wet t-shirt contest you can hold in Kansas.

  229. not a problem by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Why would you need a sealed case? Why not a vat you just put your computer system in? Also, you could make the drives external.

    So you have a tub of this liquad, you just toss in the non mechanical part of your system.
    Now, under the vat, you run refridgeration coils to keep the vat temperture down.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  230. Conserving energy by Kommet · · Score: 1
    The problem is those freed-up bits of H and O which are now free to wander off and make new friends. Converting back into water is by FAR not the lowest possible energy state for those two elements when joined to new partners.

    To borrow my post's grandparent's example, pairing with magnesium to form magnesium oxide is a sufficiently exothermic reaction that cracking water to make more oxygen is a sustainable process. This is what you call a chain reaction and it will run until the reactants run, out are separated, or magically chilled below the temperature required to initiate reaction. Add this to the hydrogen gas you are making which will happily burn back into water once it gets in contact with more oxygen and an ignition source (like the burning magnesium). The hydrogen can also move away from the site of the "cracking" before reacting with free or gaseous oxygen, for instance bubbling out of the water before being ignited by a spark from the magnesium fire below. As an aside, I don't remember at what temperature hydrogen and oxygen become molecular, so I may be wrong about needing a spark.

    Conservation of energy is maintained. You just need to take into account the fact that there are going to be more elements and compounds at hand than H2, O2, and H2O.

    By the way "cracking" water doesn't take "at least" as much energy as burning hydrogen with oxygen produces, it takes exactly as much energy.

  231. Problem for NASA. by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    Much as we abuse nasa for using 1970s technology on board spaceprobes, it's not easy to find a harddrive that'll run at 10 degrees K, in a vacuum and in zero gravity..

    1. Re:Problem for NASA. by x00101010x · · Score: 1

      Sure it is. Compact Flash. =P Isn't that what the rover used, and got corrupted? (I have no facts on hand, but that's what i think i remember reading somewhere)

      --
      DONT PANIC
    2. Re:Problem for NASA. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0
      Sure it is. Compact Flash.

      Wouldn't this have issues with the higher Alpha radiation in space, unless hardened?

    3. Re:Problem for NASA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not corrupted -- just filled up.

  232. OT by luckyguesser · · Score: 1

    In response to your sig, I agree. I think it's important for those who don't already know to be informed of resellers. A great place to check your seller's reliability before buying: http://www.resellerratings.com

    --


    The power of Christ compiles you.
    A Random Blog
  233. Why not water? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

    Err.. Why not just use deionised water? It's not electrically conductive...

    1. Re:Why not water? by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you are joking but deionized water just means there are no chemical ions in it, like sodium usually found in tap water, or calcium. Deionized water will still be an ion though and would conduct electricty, just not as well as tap water.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    2. Re:Why not water? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Pure water is not conductive.

  234. Tried it, ... by Derf+the · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We draw very clean water from a spring, gravity feed it through polythene pipe straight to the house. One day I gravity feed this water straight into my office to a depth of 200mm [8 inches].

    An old P200 tower under the desk was running happily; immersed up to the bottom of the RAM chips! It never missed a beat.

    The UPS beside it [there to power the important things] fried beyond repair. The battery ionised stuff maybe, cause it corroded dramatically over the next few days.

    The P200 still ticks away in the corner.

    --
    No. You can't look at my Sig; it's mine, and I'm not showing you.
    1. Re:Tried it, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why exactly did you dump water into your office?

    2. Re:Tried it, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is hilarious! Hillbilly swimming pool!

    3. Re:Tried it, ... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0
      It never missed a beat.

      How can that be, if its UPS was fried?

    4. Re:Tried it, ... by Derf+the · · Score: 1

      The UPS is there to protect our main computer & its modems etc.; I don't care too much bout the old P200, its just a back-up box & somthing for the young kids to play on these days.

      --
      No. You can't look at my Sig; it's mine, and I'm not showing you.
    5. Re:Tried it, ... by Derf+the · · Score: 1

      But give credit, it's indoor & heated.

      --
      No. You can't look at my Sig; it's mine, and I'm not showing you.
    6. Re:Tried it, ... by Derf+the · · Score: 1

      The office used to be a coal shed [concrete walls & a 200mm stepped-down concrete floor] & has a handbasin just outside its door. This 50year old handbasin had an inbuilt overflow drain but I put in a flood diverter at the office doorway anyway when I did the convertion.
      At some later stage I blocked the diversion to stop the rain coming back up through it.
      I upgraded the the water pressure [increased the pipe diameter over the 1.8km between source & houses] which caused over the next month or so many old water fitting to leak, one of which was my handbasin.
      I awoke 4am that night to hear water hissing somewhere, so got out of bed [naked], to turn whatever tap it was off.
      It had apparently been leaking for quite a while cause what with the face-cloth having been left [unusually] in the basin that night & that 50 years is too long to leave an overflow unmaintained, the water had overflowed onto the floor, over the flood barrier at the door & into the office up to a depth of almost the doorway.

      I arrived to actually witness the death of the UPS, I was looking at both computers [we leave them always-on] still working & considering if I could reach that wall-plug if I just streched across the water... I love my computers but were they worth that kind of risk... news headline "Naked man found drowned in front of the computers which killed him, pornographic screensaver still working"... That conflict, the 4am'ness & general disbelief were together leaving me standing struck actionless in the doorway when the UPS literaly exploded in front of me.
      Stung into action again, "Mains!".
      It was all over moments later,... excepting of course the 2 days of stripping out, drying & reinstalling everything, but that goes wihtout saying.

      --
      No. You can't look at my Sig; it's mine, and I'm not showing you.
  235. The only thing... by JumperCable · · Score: 1

    ...that kept us from going nuts in the office with a Super Soaker or water guns was that fact that we knew we would kill our computer equipment.

    I think that problem is now gone.

  236. Re: Blobs by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    This depends on how big a "blob" a single droplet will form.
    It's called "manisc...", "menusc...", }:-/ "surface tension".
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  237. Sapphire is a System, Not a Chemical by LanceTaylor · · Score: 1
    All of the posts here, and the quoted news article all refer to Sapphire as a chemical developed by Tyco. This is incorrect. The chemical is made by 3M and the name Sapphire refers to a fire suppression system, not the chemical. As quoted from the press release on the Tyco website:
    The SAPPHIRE Suppression System uses 3M® NOVECÔ 1230 Fire Protection Fluid.
    3M developed the chemical, Tyco simply put it to good use.
  238. Movies by Sgt_Jake · · Score: 1

    This is what all those movie stars must have been swimming in when they get out of the pool dry...

  239. My questions not answered. by Wargames · · Score: 1

    I saw the Good Morning America broadcast (Ah, the joys of the technically unemployed)

    It looked like a glass of water.

    They poured it on each other's clothes then remarked that they were not even wet. They demoed the led monitor working under the "water".

    What they didn't say, as far as I could tell, was:
    What does the stuff smell like? I imagine since it evaporated so fast that it would smell like dry cleaning fluid.
    What does it taste like?
    What happens if you drink the stuff?

    --
    -- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
  240. I saw this demonstrated in the '80s by barakn · · Score: 1
    ... on an Australian science and technology show with the futuristic name Discover 2000 or something like that. They dunked a tv in carbon tetrachloride and it kept working. So this new substance isn't the first fluid that doesn't wet things, its novelty stems from the fact that it doesn't destroy ozone.

    I remember some aspects of the show very well for some reason. It had a cute red-head and a slightly balding guy with a mustache. Does anybody else remember this show? I can't google any references to it, so I must have the name wrong.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    1. Re:I saw this demonstrated in the '80s by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      I didn't even read it correctly. I read it is "futuristic name Beyond 2000 or something" as the show is actually named that. I didn't notice you used the wrong word until you said you couldn't remember it. But that is probably the show you are thinking of. I liked it too. I still remember a weird device one of the woman hosts was doing which was somehow antigravity. It used gyros and flywheels and such. I've always wondered how it worked.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    2. Re:I saw this demonstrated in the '80s by barakn · · Score: 1

      "Beyond 2000" is correct. Give the man a virtual cigar.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  241. Re: Blobs by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that thing. You know. When a liquid sticks to the side of a glass, and curves up or down. Yeah.

  242. Re:You can drink the stuff by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

    And you can eat Olestra potato chips too....

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  243. Streaming application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kinds of streaming applications? And what codec? I know it's not gonna be Real, so AAC?

  244. Actually, it makes sense. by Chrontius · · Score: 1

    Ok, what you have here is NOT a perpetual motion machine. It's powered by constant heat from the processor, which it dissipates to the environment.

    What you have is a very flashy heat sink which will probably be slightly more effective and less attractive than the on-chip lava lamp.

  245. The most important question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is can you drink it?

  246. Re:"Water"-cooling drives in vacuum by Seannon · · Score: 1

    The other main reason is that as pressure goes down, the ease of electron transfer between conductors goes up...because the dielectric strength of air is higher than vacuum this is also why aircraft ignition wires are fully shielded and externally grounded... to reduce the likelyhood of RFI at altitude... this was ALSO common practice for radio operators to do until the late seventies to thier cars... completely shielding the ignition system... with this kind of stray electron flow near a magnetic media... corruption is almost assuredly going to follow... Seannon FAA A&P, FCC GROL+RADAR FCC GMDSS OPERATOR/MAINTAINER

    --
    I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! E. A. Poe
  247. been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we've done it, sort of.

  248. Indoor Pool by lionchild · · Score: 1

    Hmm...with a relatively low boiling point (120.6F), you couldn't use it outdoors for fear that it might boil off on a hot summer day. But, I wonder if you could use it for an indoor pool? I wonder if it has the same bouancy properties as water...

    Imagine coming in from a hot day, then just walk right into the pool, don't change clothes, cool off, walk out...poof, you drip dry and are once more comfortable!

    Hmm...I should RTFMSDS, shouldn't I?

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]