(NVIDIA) Fan-Based-Heatsink Designs are probably wrong. (suck, don't blow ! heatfins direction)

Hello,

I am starting to believe that NVIDIA's Fan-Based-Heatsink Designs like the
recent GTX 690 are totally wrong !

And here is why:

The heatsink fins are placed in the same direction as the airflow. This will
cause dust to easily get stuck between the heatsink fins and especially in
front of it.

THIS IS WRONG. This will cause the heatsink to get full of tiny little hair
pieces and dust particles.

HERE IS HOW TO RESOLVE/IMPROVE THE SITUATION:

Place the heatsink fins 90 degrees turned so that the overflow must go OVER
the heatsink fins and not in between.

So here is a picture to show the wrong situation and the better situation:

top view of card when place on table:

1. WRONG DESIGN:

HEATSINK FINS:

---------------------
------------------------
+-------+
--------------------- <----- airflow | FAN
<--airflow--- -----------------------
+-------+
---------------------
-----------------------

2. BETTER DESIGN:

| | | | | |
|
| | | | +------+ | | |
| | | | <---- airflow | fan | <--- airflow | | |
| | | | +------+ | | |
| | | | | | |


This better design should hopefully and be designed in such a way... that
air/heat GETS sucked out of the heatfins by blowing air OVER IT and not in
between... to reduce the chance of stuff getting stuck in it !

So there should be some room OVER the heatfins to be able to blow air
through it.

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

Additional:

Since my horror experience with the 7900 gtx cards I am afraid to buy
graphics cards with the nvidia heatfins direction.

I am afraid that the graphics cards heatsink fins will get full of dust and
stop to function !

My newest passively cooled graphics card is actually also an nvidia/asus
design. Where the heatfins are in the direction against the airflow.

So far there is probably no dust in side of it... or very little... which
seems to be much better.

If nvidia wants my bussiness back they will have to design cards which can
operate for the long term, without requiring any cleaning what so ever.

I am not going to open up my PC and risk damage during cleaning operations.

NO CLEANING operations should be necessary.

THEREFORE nvidia must design graphics cards which will operate for a long
time... 5 to 10 years of blowing/sucking air.

Perhaps the heatfin direction that I proposed is less optimal in the short
term... but will probably be optimal in the long term.

Therefore my advise to nvidia which they hopefully already have:

1. BUILD A DUST/PARTICLE LAB.

2. TEST the graphics card heatsink design for as long as possible... and
test the situation with dust build up.

3. Build the graphics cards which has the least problems with dust build up.

Otherwise you can go to hell... I do not ever want to face overheating
problems because of gpu overheat/heatsink full problems !

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

One last explanantion/addition for any potential dumbos out there to explain
the "suck, don't blow" part of the title.

The idea is to:

BLOW air OVER heat fins.

Hopefully this will create some kind of suckage effect over the heatfins and
suck heat from between the heat fins and blow it away.

This might also have a beneficial effect of sucking any dust/hair particles
out of it and blowing it out.

That's the idea at least... which would be very nice.

I am not sure if it will work like that in practice... since there is no
opening on the other side of the heat fin to suck from....

So maybe some kind of vacuum would result from it...

If that is a good or bad thing remains to be seen/tested.

Very maybe openings could create on the other side... but that would
probably start to suck dust between the fins which would be bad.

So experimenting with this idea is required to see what works best long
term.

My only worry would be that the opposite might happen, maybe dust will start
to fall down between the heatfins....

What will happen in reality I don't know...

THIS REMAINS TO BE TESTED ! =D

Perhaps someday... a dust particle simulator might show what happens

Bye,
Skybuck

 

You are an idiot.

They suck so that YOU still have direct access to clean the tines of
the heat sink. If they blew, the heat sink would get plugged up in a
place under the fan, and you would have to remove the fan to clean it.

Now shut up and go away and stop making posts which you are then the
only idiot who responds to it the first 5 times!

Grow up, child! You are immature AND stupid. Get over it. Leave US
out of it.

You are a very particular type of Usenet idiot, and you are blind to
it.

 

When a video driver installation takes 200 MB on a hard drive
and is still full of bugs, there is every reason to question designers'
competence.

DK

 

That's a different group of engineers. I doubt seriously if the design
engineers are also the software engineers, although there is probably *some*
collaboration between the two groups.
The design engineers I worked with had a motto: "If it ain't broke, redesign
it!" No such thing as leaving well enough alone

 

Come on. That's software vs. hardware. The engineers may design and
build superb hardware, but if the software isn't up to scratch, it's
wasted effort. Look at ATi/AMD cards, for instance. Good hardware,
lousy drivers.

 

I realize that. Just couldn't resist. Plus, I think it points to some
fundamental management/business philosophy problems that are
very likely to influence all layers in the company, harware included.

DK

 

Oddly, my new, stock heatsink is designed with fins arranged
not-quite-radial, in an X pattern around the center. It looks like
extrusion oriented axially (axis normal to the processor face), rather
than transverse. The fan blows air over the center and fins.

At 100% CPU I get 42C tops, so it seems to be doing its job. Nothing
special, a dual core 3.2GHz Athalon II. It's also entirely possible AMD
(or whoever they contracted to make them) doesn't know their physics.

Note that heat transfer by volume isn't usually the goal, so much as
minimum temperature is. In a counterflow setup, the hottest part of the
heatsink is cooled by the hottest air. If you flip it around, the hottest
part of the heatsink gets cooled by the coolest air, achieving the highest
heat flux for a given surface area and temperature difference -- more
power density, at some expense to mass flow and pumping loss. You might
avoid this, for example, if you had to use pure nitrogen (or helium, for
that matter) for some process, minimizing the gas flow to keep operating
cost down.

Tim

 

The air density drops from 1.2 kg/m³ at +25 C to about 0.6 kg/m³ at
+325 C, so yes, it might make sense to double the exhaust cross
section area.

However, for practical semiconductor cooling applications, with intake
temperature at +25 C and exhaust temperatures below +60 C, air density
is about 1.07 kg/m³, an expansion is only about 10 %. I doubt it
would make much sense to try to optimize exhaust areas.

 

Why not use compressed/expanded air for this purpose ? Using a piston
compressor to compress the air to a few bars, the air gets quite hot,
then let it go through a heat exchanger to get rid of most of the heat
and cool the pressurized air closer to ambient temperature.

Let the air expand to normal ambient pressure and the air temperature
is now well below ambient temperature and let it flow through
semiconductor heatsinks to the environment.

To avoid problems with dust and condensation, a closed loop might make
sense, but of course, now the heat exchanger would also have to
dissipate the heat from the semiconductor. However, the heat exchanger
can be remotely located and it can have much higher temperatures than
the semiconductors, getting rid of the heat into the environment would
be easier.

 

More to the point if the heatsink fins are not thick enough to conduct
heat away from the thing being cooled it doesn't matter how easily you
can push air through them. Equally it is no good if you get perfect
laminar airflow since then only the air touching the surface warms up
and the core air remains cool. So you have to have some turbulence and
opposition to free flow but the tricky question is how much is enough?

Something like this might be close :

====o ====o ====o
====o ====o
====o ====o ====o

(slightly tighter together than ASCII art will allow)
Airflow from left to right with a blob on the end to mix the air up.

But also very probably wrong. The volume of air going through the heat
sink is proportional to the amount of cooling you get for a given design
so there is a definite bias towards not blocking off half the free air
flow. I would guess at something more like allowing 2/3 to 3/4 of free
airflow as about the best depending on the exact heatsink geometry. It
could easily be higher - easy enough to do the experiment.

I suspect the perfect shape for an optimum heatsink is rather more
complex than the typical fins we get but the designs used at present are
good enough and much easier to engineer. Heat pipes have helped
enormously with the latest generation of quiet heatsinks.

It is a sobering thought that high performance CPUs often have a heat
output per unit area that exceeds the tip of a soldering iron.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

You just invented the refrigerator.

 

Who would want to carry out repairs or mods on such a machine?

 

I know, I know.

The point is that by using compressed air, problems with hazardous
substances and circulating liquids can be avoided.

The problem is how to solve the problem with humidity in the air,
which might condensate or even form ice, when sub-zero air
temperatures are used. The situation gets complex during startup,
reboot, shutdown and especially during a power failure. If the
humidity can be removed somewhere before expansion, the situation is
greatly simplified.

 

I tried that on an old AMD and got the same results; the CPU was much hotter
with the air being pulled through than it was with it being blown through.
One of the electrical engineers at work explained it this way: If the air is
being pulled through, most of the air is moving through the fin area closest
to the fan, with the lower fins (closest to the CPU) getting the least
amount of flow. Therefore the heat has to transfer through the fins before
it gets to an area where there is enough air flow to actually aid in heat
removal. But, with the air being blown down, through the fins, there is
enough back-pressure to allow the air to travel almost equally across all
fin surfaces before exiting, carrying a larger amount of heat with it. Don't
know if that's exactly how it works, but it made sense to me, and would
explain why most newer heatsinks have the air blown through rather than
pulled through the fins.

 

Volume is good, sure, but everything else equal,that takes a bigger fan. The
question is, given a fan optimize the resistance. It's an impedance matching
sort of question. Constrict the air too much, with heatsink blades and the
airflow goes down. Open it up and there is no contact between the heatsink
and air. As others have mentioned, the point isn't to reduce the boundary
layer by increasing velocity, rather to upset the boundary layer with a
turbulent flow. ...just enough turbulence to upset the boundary layer but not
so much as to restrict flow. Just enough heatsink material to transfer heat
and not so much as to restrict flow. It's not just a single variable
equation. The heat-transfer people at IBM (sat down the hall from me, moons
ago) used our electronics simulation programs to design these things. Their
sim models were just as large as ours and took just as much CPU time (hours).

 

Air has a very low specific heat. Liquids are much better. Phase change is
even better but you still have to dump the heat somewhere.

How about out the drain connection? ;-)

 

IBM mainframes all used chilled air for the peripheral components, like
memory, power supplies, and controls; anything that was card-on-board
technology. Smaller systems used chilled air from under the floor (heat
exchanger not built into the system).

<...>

 

Indeed, and add to that the fact that fans are not "resistive" air
sources. The peak power point (pressure * flow) occurs at a pressure of
about 25% of maximum (fully blocked) pressure. You can't operate very far
from this condition or your flow will be too slow.

If you include dynamic pressure (mass flow), fans are even more nonlinear.
Next time you have a squirrel cage type laying around, hook it up and play
with it. Put your hand over the outlet. You'll find the velocity is
great until about 1-2 diameters away, where you start feeling the force of
ram air. Within about 0.5 to 0.25 diameters, pressure is maximum, because
flow hasn't gone to zero yet, meanwhile static pressure is building. Put
your hand all the way up to block it, and static pressure goes to maximum,
but velocity goes to zero, so the power you're feeling drops sharply.

BTW, I use the example of a squirrel cage because they provide more
pressure, making a more illustrative example. Regular axial fans do as
well, and manufacturers typically provide comparable graphs.

Tim