Air vs. Liquid Cooling

Liquid is definitely not as efficient, because you need to pump the liquid around and there is an extra medium to get the heat out of the system but it might be more effective because you can keep pumping cold water onto the heat source. Whereas air cooling the heat source has to be able to withstand the temps until the heat has a chance to transfer to the cold air.

If your radiator is too small or something it will be substantially worse than correct sized air cooling and you might not notice because you are unfamiliar with the system

>>1159045
Depends on the application. Liquid cooling is useful for where you need to keep a system sealed of potential contaminants (dirt, dust, bugs, etc) but it's also vulnerable to absolutely destroying the machine if it's damaged significantly. It's also more complicated and requires more power to run pumps. But heat transfer can be optimized well beyond what air can deliver.

Air cooling is effective due to simplicity. Basic radiators and/or fans are cheap and less likely to have a catastrophic failure from damage, making repairs easy. But they can be significantly more heavy and require more frequent cleaning and maintenance, plus filters for keeping out particles. They also work better in moving devices due to airflow from speed. There are diminishing returns as the cooled temps become higher and higher though, as you need more and more conductive material and faster airflow to move the heat (and have it not melt on you).

>>1159045
Liquid cooling is better at cooling than air. But it's not recommended for most people unless they do massive overclocking, which most people don't do. It's like saying you need jet fuel to gas up your Toyota Camry because it's the best.

Another downside to liquid cooling is it's complicated with more points for failure unless you keep up on maintenance. That's just a lot of extra work and worry for no real benefit.

File: vIVYxrI.gif (590KB, 400x244px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 400x244px

>>1159048
first part isnt true, liquid cooling is more efficient because those coolants have higher specific heat capacities than air

>>1159045
it isnt a case of one being "definitively" better than the other, it depends on what kind of setup you want and your budget. ill break it down into pros and cons

>AIR COOLING
PROS
-cheap as fuck
-plug-n-play, minimal installation fuckery needed
-can always add more fans if you need more cooling
-air is "safe" for electronics
-pretty reliable
CONS
-fan bearings have limited lifespan
-can be loud as fuck
-cooling capacity dependent on ambient air temperature
-air-cooled CPU heatsinks are fucking massive, take up valuable case space
>LIQUID COOLING
PROS
-much higher heat transfer capacity
-lower profile, more space left in case
-much quieter
-looks dope af
-minimal maintenance if installed properly
CONS
-way more expensive
-need different mountings and fittings for different boards
-leaks or improper installation can fry your shit
-not as flexible in application as air cooling

so overall, if you know youre gonna want overclocking or that youll be constrained by case size or heat capacity then liquid cooling is probably best. if you have a less intense setup and dont want or need to spend 5x the shekels for a few percent better performance, or dont care as much about noise, then air cooling is plenty fine.

in either case the cooling efficiency goes out the window if you dont keep your shit clean and dust-free

File: 1401765892571.gif (128KB, 498x410px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 498x410px

>>1159062
Thanks, from what it seems, I might want to go for liquid cooling due to Oklahoma's mid to late spring up until late fall's heat. The ambient air temperature is around 80-90 degrees farenheit (26-32 degrees celsius) at all times, even at night. The only problem that I think would be there is cleaning the PC, and I'm sure that's still not that large of an issue. Currently my hardware just BARELY can't keep up t date without overclocking, so I think I might change to a liquid cooled system in order to overclock my hardware.

Liquid is less efficient but more effective

>>1159072
np, do it mang. never done liquid cooling myself (because poor) but it seems best for squeezing the most out of a setup. for cleaning, as long as you install everything cleanly and correctly it shouldnt need much maintenance other than blowing a layer of dust off the cards and making sure the radiator fins arent covered in crud every month or two. just make sure you take into consideration how much cooling you need and how much different radiators and pumps are designed for. if in doubt, get a bigger pump and radiator than you think you need. having extra capacity is way better than buying and setting up an anaemic system that cooks your cpu

liquid is better at carrying heat than just letting it diffuse through a big block of metal.
Heat pipes are even more effective than liquid. Way way way more effective.
Old school air cooling was just 'extract heat directly into a heatsink with a big base, and blow air over the heatsink' and liquid cooling definitely beats this.
Modern 'air' cooling uses heat pipes-- this is orders of magnitude more effective at delivering the heat to a huge heatsink than a big ass block-of-copper base, and also more effective than liquid and simpler.

Back in the day, I was an avid water cooler and even originally took up machining 20 years ago to custom mill my own blocks and fittings. Then around 2005 I tried my first heatpipe cooler and thought 'well, that's the end of that'. Gave it up cold turkey. I occasionally make custom heatpipes now, but for the most part, just buy some cheap heatpipe cooler.

That said, I'm glad PC watercooling is still a huge thing, because it's great for every non-PC application where you can't just slap a ready-made processor-specific heatsink on something. I'm building some laser cutters now, and being able to buy cheap, well-made compact water cooling parts off the shelf that can handle 1000w of heat without even trying has been a godsend.

>>1159062
Thank you very much

>>1159045
Hard to get a straight answer.


How many big cars and bikes are air cooled?

>>1160272
liquid cooling and all this fancy car shit is still somewhat new in bikes, liquid cooling is on the older side but still you can have a large cc bike and not need liquid cooling

thread being in the concept of computers but the same pros and cons apply

>>1160272
>>1160616
Most modern cars and bike are liquid cooled via radiators. Even Harleys, the last bastion or air cooled engines are turning to liquid cooling by trying to make the radiators as small and inconspicuous as possible.

But cars and bikes are not computers. Liquid cooling is like putting NOS in your car because that's the next logical upgrade, and look at how many people drive around with NOS.

>>1160616
Not need liquid cooling. New on bikes.

MY LAWNMOWER HAS A RADIATOR ARE U 65 WTF

>>1160653
Most eceryone i know races. But nos is a drying agent and too much. As is alcohol. For now good ol 110 or lithium is all i run