Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IBM Supercomputer Cooled With Hot Water

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the do-not-try-this-at-home dept.

Supercomputing 89

1sockchuck writes "IBM has deployed an innovative supercomputer cooled by hot water in a Zurich computer lab. The Aquasar supercomputer employs a chip-level liquid cooling system that can use water at temperatures as high as 60 degrees C (140 degrees F), and as a result consumes up to 40 percent less energy than a comparable system using room-level air-cooling. The system also uses waste heat to provide warmth to buildings, reducing Aquasar's carbon footprint even further."

cancel ×

89 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sooo (2, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802312)

You could prepare soup while you supercompute?

Re:Sooo (5, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802362)

a soupercomputer?

Re:Sooo (1, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802544)

No, a souped-up computer.

Re:Sooo (2, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32804202)

I would think it would soup or computer.

Re:Sooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32804412)

No Soupercomputer for You!

Re:Sooo (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32805924)

No soup for you!
                                    -Soup Nazi

In United soviet-States, Hot-water cools you. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32802566)

When will they talk about the cooling capabilities of a GEET Heat Exchanger, or pre-ignition Catalytic Converter? Plasma physics practically transmutes radiant heat into actual matter, so that would be interesting if excess heat was carbonized into coal or perhaps into White light for an inductable surface-level cold fusion illuminance and energy collection from the surrounding environment! This would do well to cool rooves, because I know that rooftops on houses absorb sunlight into heat that does more to cause The Greenhouse Effect than actual Greenhouse Gas released through combustion.

PS: Thread Lost, OP's face: \*o*/

Re:In United soviet-States, Hot-water cools you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32802874)

This could be controlled if you stayed on your medication.

Re:In United soviet-States, Hot-water cools you. (1)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802970)

You had me until you said 'rooves'. :)

- Dan.

Re:In United soviet-States, Hot-water cools you. (1)

manicmike66 (1487957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32807080)

I still remember learning that rooves is the plural of roof. It is quite correct - in English, that is, as opposed to American. The latter has over the past century or so made up their own spelling and called it English. See http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_plural_form_of_roof_-_roofs_or_rooves [answers.com] and http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081014042809AArplwb [yahoo.com] I was taught English in Northern Ireland, not Australia.

Re:In United soviet-States, Hot-water cools you. (1)

instarx (615765) | more than 4 years ago | (#32807130)

Ok, so he got "rooves" right. The rest is total baloney.

Baloney is right. OP must be Irish. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32807152)

drinking too much of that ellicit waters is right. pro'ly drinkin on his rooves too.

Re:In United soviet-States, Hot-water cools you. (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803114)

Sorry, some conditions are beyond any medication known to man. However, the GP may have a bright future in politics.

politics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32803430)

Neutrons don't vote. You need to be assimilated into an acceptable party approved by government.

Re:politics? (1)

Denihil (1208200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32804464)

no you don't! join the apathy political movement! we do stuff, but mostly we just, you know...get baked and watch mst3k in our parents basements.

Re:politics? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32806464)

I considered joining the apathy party, but it seemed like too much effort. I prefer the Official Monster Raving Looney Party anyway.

Re:In United soviet-States, Hot-water cools you. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803206)

Plasma physics practically transmutes radiant heat into actual matter, so that would be interesting if excess heat was carbonized into coal or perhaps into White light for an inductable surface-level cold fusion illuminance and energy collection from the surrounding environment!

What the hell are you talking about?

Are you in any way related to Professor Irwin Corey [youtube.com] ?
 

Re:In United soviet-States, Hot-water cools you. (1)

Dr Herbert West (1357769) | more than 4 years ago | (#32807128)

Roofs?

Re:Sooo (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802576)

Could get messy. The Styrofoam might melt.

Re:Sooo (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802686)

Maybe if you like cold soup. Soup is normally served at around 80 degrees C.

Re:Sooo (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803094)

No problem. If the water is coming away from the machine at 80'C, run it directly to the soup kitchen and connect the hot water pipe from the kitchen back to the computer.

Re:Sooo (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802780)

More like ramen noodles and pizza. Gotta be thematically appropriate.

Saw a presentation on this last year... (4, Informative)

Saint Aardvark (159009) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802328)

I was at LISA '09 [usenix.org] , and Dr. Bruno Michel (works for IBM, mentioned in the article) made a presentation on this work (or at least very, very similar work). You can see the presentation, or download the MP3, here:

http://www.usenix.org/event/lisa09/tech/tech.html#michel [usenix.org]

Interesting talk, and well worth your time.

Re:Saw a presentation on this last year... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#32806192)

The idea of using "hot" water (well above room temperature) makes sense to me; it's so easy to lose heat using evaporation that way (cooling tower) and it takes very little extra energy to transport the heat away from the chips. When I hear that cooling of a data centre can take more power than the actual computers I would say there is an enormous power saving to be made by not using inefficient heat pumps like used in traditional aircon systems.

What does surprise me really is why those chips appear to run best at any temperature up to just above room temperature (usually they are rated for temperatures of up to 60 C or so). Room temperature is defined at 25 C, or 298 K. So a chip runs perfectly well at 298 K but is not considered so reliable anymore when it reaches a just 20% higher temperature of 360 K.

I see this as either a total coincidence, or a serious design issue. Maybe any chip-experts here can chip in on that? Why can't silicon/CMOS work reliably when it's at temperatures of some 80-100 C? It's not that it is anywhere near melting temperature. Also taken the proper material the housing of the chips should also have no problem in handling those temperatures.

Re:Saw a presentation on this last year... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32807752)

Short answer...because they were engineered to that tolerance, and not beyond.

We could design chips that would run well at 80-100 degrees, but they would have to run slower and probably use larger transistors than current generations. The reason why all the chips run well at 60 degrees is because that's a reasonable temperature to be able to keep them at. They would run faster if we could keep them even cooler with practical approaches. You might have heard about "extreme overclockers" that use liquid nitrogen to get a desktop chip to run at 4-5 GHz. If it were practical and cost effective for everyone to cool their computers with liquid nitrogen, then they would all run faster, but you'd have someone on slashdot asking the questions "Why can't silicon/CMOS work reliably at room temperatures?".

because of (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32808048)

nonlinear, and even exponental change in resistance etc with increase in temperature

Re:Saw a presentation on this last year... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32808394)

Higher temperature means higher electrical noise, slower transistor switching, and greater resistance leading to more power converting to heat, at a certain point this will become a positive feedback loop known as thermal runaway and the chip will convert itself into a pile of goo, like old AMD cpus were liable to do. This temp. is probably around 80+ C for most chips I guess...

Re:Saw a presentation on this last year... (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32809254)

Thermal expansion, among other things. The heat causes the conductors in the chip to expand (as almost any material does), and because they get longer their electrical resistance also rises.

Re:Saw a presentation on this last year... (1)

srinathhs (1637523) | more than 4 years ago | (#32806266)

thats a good one..

There is a video (3, Informative)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802346)

There is a video in the article, as well as a diagram that seems to explain how this works. (the long and short of it is, the hot water cools off quickly towards the lower atmospheric temperature (which allows passive coolers), but is cool enough to remove heat from the chips.

first?

Re:There is a video (2, Informative)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802372)

replying to myself to explain better. the chips need to be run at 85 C, (185F) and the water is about 60C (140F) this means the water is cooler than the chips, and will remove heat from them, and then, as i said above, it dissipates that heat quickly because of its high temperature. (along the lines of that whole "hot water freezes faster" thing)

Re:There is a video (3, Informative)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802504)

The temperature difference is higher, so the heat flow is more.

As for the frozen water: Hot water gets dissolved gas driven off and cold not. Cool both and the one with more solutes (the cold) gets frozen last.

Evidence of this: Hot tap that was not turned off at the mains snorts.

Re:There is a video (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802640)

thats what i was trying to say, thank you for clarifying.

Re:There is a video (2, Funny)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802646)

>Evidence of this: Hot tap that was not turned off at the mains snorts.

My hot tap is not turned off at the mains and it has never snorted.

Re:There is a video (3, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802916)

I'm much more puzzled by what a hot water tap would snort. There can't be much that would give a lump of metal much of a buzz.

Re:There is a video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32810026)

@"can't be much ... give a lump of metal much of a buzz"

An electromagnet?

Re:There is a video (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32802702)

>The temperature difference is higher, so the heat flow is more.

I don't understand. The temperature difference is higher than what? Higher than it would be for even colder water? That doesn't sound right.

The bit about why hot water freezes faster made sense to me.

Re:There is a video (4, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803080)

Hot water doesn't freeze faster. However, water at 80'C will cool to 60'C much faster than water at 60'C will cool to 40'C, given standard atmospheric temperature and pressure for the ambient temperature of the room. The flow of heat from a hot medium to a cooler medium varies non-linearly with temperature. For example, as you approach the same temperature, the flow of heat approaches zero.

(In other words, if they piped through cold water which was heated to room temperature, a passive radiator would be useless.)

There is a drawback with hot water, though. The temperature gradient issue cuts both ways. As the temperature of the water approaches the temperature of the chips, the heat flow from the chips is reduced. Thus, water at 60'C will not draw off as much heat as water at 40'C, if the chips were to run at 80'C. You've got to balance this sort of approach fairly carefully.

I rather like the Cooling Tower approach (evaporative passive cooling). Basically, you blast the water through a nozzle that turns it into a fine mist. You collect the water that actually reaches the reservoir at the bottom and top it off. The drawback of this method is that it is somewhat bulkier than a radiator system. It is also not a closed system and therefore is a bit more expensive to run. On the other hand, evaporative cooling is much more effective than relying on simple heat flows, so you can get away with a lower temperature gradient at the cooling end. This, in turn, means you get a steeper temperature gradient for the chips, which means they're cooled much more effectively and can therefore be driven much harder without loss of reliability.

Re:There is a video (2, Interesting)

Przepla (637674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803152)

Hot water doesn't freeze faster.

Sometimes, it does [wikipedia.org] .

Re:There is a video (2, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803354)

If evaporation is considered a possible explanation, then the containers aren't sealed. If the containers aren't sealed and have equal volumes of water, then they have unequal masses of water. The specific heat is the amount of heat per unit mass required to raise the temperature by one degree Celsius. In order to prove that hot water can freeze faster, you must have an equal mass. Since radiation is a function of surface area, you must also have an equal volume. Therefore you must have sealed containers and unequal pressures. This is not the experiment described on Wikipedia.

However, it would be an extremely interesting experiment to perform. I'd actually suggest three closed containers (one with cold water, one with hot water and equal pressure, one with hot water and equal mass). I'd also suggest running thermocouples to the center of each container and plotting the temperature over time. This will eliminate all of the unknowns and variables not accounted for in the original experiment or in the Wikipedia write-up.

Regardless of what the results show, they will be quite interesting and useful for students starting on the topic of thermodynamics.

Re:There is a video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32804424)

Regardless of what the results show, they will be quite interesting and useful for students starting on the topic of thermodynamics.

Unless you are planning to extract mechanical work from the freezing water, thermodynamics students are not going to benefit much from this experiment.

Re:There is a video (2, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32806508)

Thermodynamics students would benefit from a correct understanding of heat transfer. If the model is faulty, then their calculations will be in error. If the counter-claims are faulty, knowing and understanding why will prevent them from going in messed-up directions. Extracting useful work is only possible (on any quantitative level) if you know what work can be usefully extracted.

Re:There is a video (2, Funny)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803858)

the explanation that i was given for hot water freezing faster (and i'll admit that i am not a hydrologist of whatever so work with me here) that hot water froze faster because the water molecules where in a more energetic state, which allowed them to assemble into crystalline structures more readily.
retrospectively, that does sort of sound like bullshit.

so i'll admit, the hot water example was a extremely bad one based on anecdotal evidence. But hey! my grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be... well she's still alive.

Re:There is a video (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32805152)

I was under the impression that hot water can never freeze.

*shrugs*

Re:There is a video (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32806164)

The freezing point of water is altered by pressure. The triple point (where water can be solid, liquid and gas) is fascinating. I've not looked this up in a while, but IIRC there is a pressure/temperature combo where ice sublimes without going through a liquid state at all. With sufficient pressure, of course, anything at any temperature will set solid. You just need a pressure so great that the molecules are locked into a single position.

Re:There is a video (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32806852)

If only they could nudge up the operating temperature of the chips from the stated 85C to something over 100C, they could be making steam (instead of just warming water) which consumes a huge amount of energy without a big temperature gradient; evaporative cooling seems like just a step in that direction. (Heat pipes do use phase change; do most of the use alcohol or something with a lower boiling point than water so the chip doesn't have to operate over 100C?)

Re:There is a video (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32807364)

Hot water doesn't freeze faster

Who would've thought. Hot water actually does freeze faster:
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/General/hot_water.html

Re:There is a video (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#32831288)

Evaporative cooling is getting to be a real problem in some areas due to water shortage. That could make it anywhere from prohibitively expensive to just plain prohibited during the drier months.

Re:There is a video (1)

Gubbeson (1846468) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803284)

Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has got a nice differential equation (Newton's law of cooling) which states that the rate of heating = [stuff]*(surrounding temperature - temperature of object). If the temperature of the object is greater than the surrounding temperature, the rate of heating will be negative (cooling) and the hotter the object is, the more negative the rate will be (faster cooling).

Re:There is a video (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 4 years ago | (#32806118)

but is cool enough to remove heat from the chips.

Why do that? Cold, soggy chips don't usually taste as good.

Supercomputer ? (1)

andymar (690982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802402)

6 TeraFlops is not much, it will not be close to even a 500th place at top500.org.
I realize it's new technology, but it is a bit too early to call it a supercomputer.

Re:Supercomputer ? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802550)

6 TeraFlops is nothing to sneeze at, but this is just an experimental implementation ... and it only uses 10 liters of water for cooling (a pump ensures a flow rate of roughly 30 liters per minute). I'm sure they can easily handle a larger water system which could cool many servers which would eventually produce several Supercalifragilflops of computing power ;-)

waste heat to provide warmth to buildings (-1, Troll)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802412)

When did IBM switch over to AMD?

Re:waste heat to provide warmth to buildings (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802808)

Not completely AMD, but IBM's Roadrunner system (built in 2008) uses AMD chips in conjunction with Cell procs.

Re:waste heat to provide warmth to buildings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32807206)

You're aware that the #1 in the top500 is an Opteron machine right?

Re:waste heat to provide warmth to buildings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32807312)

In what, heat output?

They should put the chips underneath (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802446)

When the pipes start leaking, it won't pee all over the board

Re:They should put the chips underneath (2, Interesting)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32802902)

IBM is very good at making non-leaking water hoses. I wish Sears would license their technology.

Re:They should put the chips underneath (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32803564)

That's why I have all the super computers hanging upside-down from the ceiling in my batcave.

Re:They should put the chips underneath (1)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32806162)

That would be a computer whiz...

Bathtub water! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32802514)

Take a long bath and the recirculated bath water will be nice and toasty!

Hypothermia in hot water (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32803022)

Water is really an effective cooler even at what you might normally think of as quite high temps.

Reminds me that you can die of hypothermia even in tropical waters of 80 degrees if you are unfortunate enough to get trapped in such water for long enough.

Re:Hypothermia in hot water (1)

aiht (1017790) | more than 4 years ago | (#32807316)

Just a note for the confused (like me) :
This phenomenon occurs in water "as warm as 82 degrees F - 91 degrees F" - not degrees C.
This makes sense, because it's still a lower temp. than your body requires to survive.
I would certainly be concerned if it was possible to die of hypothermia at 80 deg C.

Moronic buzzwords "carbon footprint" (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803068)

when there is a perfectly straight-forward clear phrase: energy efficiency.

Re:Moronic buzzwords "carbon footprint" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32813174)

Energy efficiency = useful energy out / energy in.

Most computers have an energy efficiency of 0%.(all energy needed gets converted to useless heat)

Carbon footprint = total amount of (fossile) energy needed to build, run and recycle somehing.

Next up? (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803148)

"Home heated with ice water."

taking a shower (3, Funny)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803166)

"Honey, we ran out of hot water, could you put on some DOOM5 while computing all of pi?"

Drying your hair, grilling a burger (1)

MightyDrunken (1171335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32824098)

A flight of fancy of mine recently is the idea of using high powered CPUs as heaters. Imagine if every hair dryer and electric grill was part of a massive distributed computing effort. When my girlfriend is drying her hair should could be computing the folding of proteins!

Shame the least likely part is me having a girlfriend. :(

In soviet Russia... (1)

prxp (1023979) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803226)

...hot water cools you!

Re:In soviet Russia... (1)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32810416)

Actually, that's happening at IBM...unless they moved their research facility to soviet russia...To stay true to the meme, you would have to say, "in soviet russia, hot water warms you". Or something....

Re:In soviet Russia... (1)

hbush (130363) | more than 4 years ago | (#32814460)

Nope. In Soviet Russia, you warm the hot water.

Re:In soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32819654)

meh... I think being true to the meme also means you have to say something logically obscure... How about "In Soviet Russia, SuperComputer cools you!" or something.

This is more idiotic "conservation" (0, Offtopic)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803490)

The problem is, you can't conserve your way out of the current set of problems. Just plugging the thing in consumes power. Power that, if it wasn't generated in the first place, wouldn't need any help in reducing some carbon footprint.

Come on, folks. There are two possible alternatives here. Plugging in yet another computer pushes things closer and closer to a tipping point where all life on the planet may suddenly die or there is no such thing as "anthropomorphic climate change", in which case it makes no difference. You can't have it both ways, which means any "conservation" effort which doesn't have a net negative consumption of resources is simply misdirection.

So if you want to talk about carbon footprints, it is really quite simple - don't plug it in. Unplug something else. This is a net benefit. Everything else, and I do mean everything else, is just moving things closer and closer to the point where the problems will be obvious.

So far, I have yet to see someone actually unplug something. They will make all kinds of excuses about how they are really "conserving" something or another by making their own lives easier. They are taking advantage of the electric power that through its generation may be destroying the biosphere. They are flying in planes that may be destroying the biosphere. They are driving cars that may be destroying the biosphere. I don't care if they traded in a Hummer for a Prius - it is simply a matter of degree. So they are contributing to the end of all life on the planet a little more slowly than they were before.

Of course, the other alternative is that "climate change" is something that is happening fully apart from the actions of humans and it makes no difference between driving a Hummer or a Prius, or not driving at all - as far as climate change is concerned. But to a lot of people it is deeply offensive to think that there are things that are utterly and completely beyond their (or anyone else's) control. I like to call this the "Not a sparrow shall fall" philosophy.

So if you are deeply committed to anthropomorphic climate change, go out a blow something up today or tomorrow. You will be doing your part to ensure that life does not end on Planet Earth. One (empty) jetliner is probably worth 1000 cars, at least.

Re:This is more idiotic "conservation" (1)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803702)

How is not driving at all unlike unplugging something? Also, blowing up or destroying vehicles is a stupid way to protect anything, especially since it will likely result in a net increase in every kind of pollution.

Re:This is more idiotic "conservation" (1)

Krahar (1655029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803842)

Wouldn't the same argument say that eating healthy food to prolong life is pointless, since it cannot completely stop aging?

Re:This is more idiotic "conservation" (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803960)

Holy Balls.

aaaaand then the FBI, NSA, and department of homeland security shut down /. for promoting terrorism.

Re:This is more idiotic "conservation" (1)

pudro (983817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32804250)

People are stupid, and it isn't limited to this kind of "conservation". How many times have you heard someone talk about how much money they "saved" by buying something on sale that they would not have paid full price for?

Re:This is more idiotic "conservation" (1)

Red_Chaos1 (95148) | more than 4 years ago | (#32804444)

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. If the new computer consumes less energy than the computer it replaces, then it *is* a conservation of energy. Your whole theory revolves around the assumption that "nothing goes offline, it's just one more thing added" and that is faulty. When it comes to racks of servers, replacing old units with new ones with more efficient PSUs and less power hungry components males quite an impact on how much *less* energy is consumed overall. As long as everything we do pushes the older inefficient stuff out to be replaced by the more efficient models, then we continue to reduce our power consumption.

What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32803608)

Using fire to fight fire?

Re:What's next? (1)

aiht (1017790) | more than 4 years ago | (#32807376)

Burn-off
to preemptively burn an area in a controlled fashion in order to avoid future uncontrolled fires.
E.g. Burning-off in Queensland, Australia [news-mail.com.au]

</smartarse>

Lack of cooling water = overheated chips = ? (2, Funny)

mbstone (457308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803742)

If a lot of people take a shower all at once will this cause a network latency?

Re:Lack of cooling water = overheated chips = ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32805278)

There wouldn't be a lack. The local loop would almost certainly be closed, and heat exchanged to a wider system. If nothing else, looking at the very narrow water channels they're using local to the cpu, you wouldn't want the same water the utility uses. If you've ever looked in the bottom of an electric kettle, you'll see exactly why.

But (0, Offtopic)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32803944)

wouldn't it work better with cold (or at least room temperature) water? After all there is a lot more water around at ambient temperature.
And if the ambient temperature gets to 60c then global warming has gone too far, and the planet is uninhabitable (by humans anyway.

I have an idea... (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32804102)

They could attach the system to the bathroom urinals and gain additional heating for the building.

over-the-top overthinking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32805054)

If you fancy the incidental availability of your expelled heat for building heating, it means that you are in a cool enough climate that can perhaps take advantage of a cheaper design that use the cold ambient air?

Also Newton's law of cooling regarding the rate of heat transfer being proportional to the difference in temperatures might have been a design dogma more sedate engineers might have avail themselves to.

underclocking (1)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 4 years ago | (#32805408)

i knew there's be underclocking enthusiests sooner or later

So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32811308)

So basically they just made the heat-sink bigger and added convection to it.

Good idea, but still rather simple.

I especially love how they heat the building the using a radiator, just like my car.

quibbles and bits (1)

nobodie (1555367) | more than 4 years ago | (#32820496)

yeah, a geeky quibble: In heating (and i guess therefore cooling) system design "hot water" is water just below boiling, thus 200F to 210F. Warm water is 180 to 200F. This is neither, so to call is hot or even warm is a gross exaggeration. (True story: when I built my own heating system some time ago i ran into this confusion because the engineers and spec sheets kept talking about "warm water heating" which sounded to me like bathing temperature. Totally wrong, and it took a while before I ferreted out the information that brought understanding.)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?