a silent air cooled computer project

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Near as I can tell the only 'confusion' is you changing the goal posts.

Same goal posts that I have been talking about all along, with
kony and others. Your refusal to take a look and see what you
missed is noted. Your inexperience with water cooling
electronics is also obvious.

You have an annoying tendency to accuse people of 'missing'
things simply because they have a different opinion.

I have the annoying habit of pointing out facts. You had
*clearly* missed a great deal of the discussion, and have done
*nothing* to change that situation. Why do you expect me to
waste time if you won't read the history? It has crossed over
two or three *other* subject headers too, and there have been
several people involved. Google is your friend, *use* *it*.

Btw, not that I want to get into designing one but, considering
the potential thermal lag in the water cycle it might be better
to use electronic component temps to control the loop
anyway. Especially since it's 'free'.

Not that you have any experience at all, or know anything
about it. Right?

Whatever, if you actually want to discuss this, read the other
messages first. Only when you can at least get half the facts
correct and land on the same sheet of music will I bother.

 

[David Maynard]

Ah yes, the ever so popular and an oh so subtle as a nuclear flash on a
moonless night technique of snipping all context, mischaracterization,
innuendo and baseless ad hominem.

Same goal posts that I have been talking about all along, with
kony and others.

You may have had it in your mind but no one else did, till it became your
'argument', and you never gave any clue about it either till mounting one
of your attacks. And I already provided your own words showing so.

Your refusal to take a look and see what you
missed is noted. Your inexperience with water cooling
electronics is also obvious.

Then you've again imagined the non existent and if anything's obvious it's
that you were unable to deal with the content of my previous message.

I have the annoying habit of pointing out facts. You had
*clearly* missed a great deal of the discussion, and have done
*nothing* to change that situation. Why do you expect me to
waste time if you won't read the history? It has crossed over
two or three *other* subject headers too, and there have been
several people involved. Google is your friend, *use* *it*.

My quoting of the original post as well as your own reply to it is a heck
of a lot more 'factual' than your fatuitous self aggrandizing declarations.

Not that you have any experience at all, or know anything
about it. Right?

Since you obviously haven't a clue as to what I may or may not know that's
baseless nonsense. But I'll give you one hint. I know how to run an R&D
project and the first thing one needs is a specification.

And "I've been tossing around the idea of using a water cooling system"
isn't one nor does it specify a "one of a kind" never been done before
dynamic flow control system regardless of what you rashly presumed.

I was giving you the perspective Kony was coming from but you're so self
absorbed you can't even comprehend what someone else is saying.

Whatever, if you actually want to discuss this, read the other
messages first.

Already did the first time around.

Only when you can at least get half the facts
correct and land on the same sheet of music will I bother.

Don't bother. By the time you get half way started there won't be enough
sensors left on the market for anyone else anyway.

God help anyone who even mentions they're looking for a watch. You'll be
off buying cesium and designing a new 'one of a kind' never been done
before atomic clock before they have a chance to mention they just want a
pocket watch.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

You may have had it in your mind but no one else did, till it
became your 'argument', and you never gave any clue about it
either till mounting one of your attacks. And I already provided
your own words showing so.

Here, for your edification, is my initial comment on this subject,
in Message-ID: <[email protected]>, posted 6 days ago.

You'll note where the goal post was then, and what we have been
discussing every since, with the exception of your comments.

Just want to know if anyone has one of these 100+ cfm sunon or panaflo
fans. I'd like to know how loud exactly they can be a full speed and how
quite and performing they can be at minimum revs.
My application is to cool a watercooling HW Labs xtreme radiator. I went
watercooling to have a dead silent pc and not to overclock in general. So
the fan would always be at minimum revs and maybe turn it off if temps are
not too high. But when gaming, i'd like to have full power and noise would
be less of a factor but still, I don't want a vaccum cleaner in my pc. I've
heard these fans a screaming loud.
Just want real life opinions about these. Other fan suggestions are welcomed
too.
Thanks

Regardless of the fan(s) you use, have you looked at the
Crystalfontz CF633 units? It can do two things your system
needs, 1) monitor temperature probes and 2) control fans.

Which is to say, it can be used to throttle those screaming loud
fans right down to nothing when they aren't needed.

It takes a bit of non-trivial software development, but a water
cooled system controlled by a CF633 can monitor temperatures in
a number of locations (coolant and air), and automatically
adjust the fan speed to the heat load. It also has failsafe
shutdown hardware for ATX power supplies.

Now, it should be clear that in three short paragraphs in the
very first article I posted in this discussion, several items
were mentioned that you have since claimed have never been
discussed mentioned.

If you had, when politely asked, brought yourself up to date on
what had already been discussed enough to at least know what we
were talking about you might not have posted quite as much
misguided commentary as you have.

Instead, here you are looking a little lost...

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Then you've again imagined the non existent and if anything's
obvious it's that you were unable to deal with the content of my
previous message.

BTW, despite your inability to notice what the subject line says
this thread is all about, or notice that the discussion was a
continuation of another thread, you probably *should* have
noticed that I am not the only person posting that actually does
have experience building quiet cooling systems.

Here's the last comment made in this thread by stormrider, who
did read the entire exchange and does have enough experience to
understand what was being said:

"And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled
this time."
stormrider
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

 

[kony]

BTW, despite your inability to notice what the subject line says
this thread is all about, or notice that the discussion was a
continuation of another thread, you probably *should* have
noticed that I am not the only person posting that actually does
have experience building quiet cooling systems.

Here's the last comment made in this thread by stormrider, who
did read the entire exchange and does have enough experience to
understand what was being said:

"And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled
this time."
stormrider
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

This is supposed to be evidence of what?

A system NOT implemented yet, not even in alpha stage of
testing, only your ramblings about a concept when an
expressed goal of low noise is extremely easy without any of
this time and expense.

 

[David Maynard]

Here, for your edification, is my initial comment on this subject,
in Message-ID: <[email protected]>, posted 6 days ago.

You'll note where the goal post was then, and what we have been
discussing every since, with the exception of your comments.



Regardless of the fan(s) you use, have you looked at the
Crystalfontz CF633 units? It can do two things your system
needs, 1) monitor temperature probes and 2) control fans.

Which is to say, it can be used to throttle those screaming loud
fans right down to nothing when they aren't needed.

It takes a bit of non-trivial software development, but a water
cooled system controlled by a CF633 can monitor temperatures in
a number of locations (coolant and air), and automatically
adjust the fan speed to the heat load. It also has failsafe
shutdown hardware for ATX power supplies.

Now, it should be clear that in three short paragraphs in the
very first article I posted in this discussion, several items
were mentioned that you have since claimed have never been
discussed mentioned.

That's your 'first article' in another thread, not this one, to a different
person about a different component, unless you've lost sight of a fan not
being a pump.

If you had, when politely asked, brought yourself up to date on
what had already been discussed enough to at least know what we
were talking about you might not have posted quite as much
misguided commentary as you have.

What "Frank" may have wanted has nothing to do with what Stormrider, the
originator of this thread, may have wanted nor does it have anything to do
with your reply to his question.

So what's your point? That the only thought your mind is capable of
handling is a 'one of a kind' never been done before R&D project regardless
of what anyone else asks or talks about? Or is it that folks need to google
every thread you've ever been in to gleen your universal one track 'goal'?

Instead, here you are looking a little lost...

No, you're looking desperate.

 

[David Maynard]

BTW, despite your inability to notice what the subject line says
this thread is all about,

You really should stop trying to 'guess' what people notice because you're
lousy at it.

The subject line says "a silent air cooled computer project" and last time
I checked air isn't water.

or notice that the discussion was a
continuation of another thread,

And other than you being so one track minded you can't speak of anything
else just exactly how is a pristine post by a different user with a
completely different topic the 'continuation' of another thread?

you probably *should* have
noticed that I am not the only person posting that actually does
have experience building quiet cooling systems.

Oh I did. It's just a shame you didn't.

Here's the last comment made in this thread by stormrider, who
did read the entire exchange and does have enough experience to
understand what was being said:

"And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled
this time."
stormrider
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

ROTFLOL

Well, let's see the rest of it, shall we? The part before that cute little
cull.

"The more I think about it the less I like the idea of leaks and the
potential maintanence headaches of water cooling, so it will most likely be
air cooled.
I am playing with the idea of custom air ducts and double sound padding.
And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled this time."

Gonna be a real bitch monitoring water temp in an all air system.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

That's your 'first article' in another thread, not this one, to
a different person about a different component, unless you've
lost sight of a fan not being a pump.

The *discussion* didn't start with this particular thread, and
if you won't read the entire discussion you simply can't make
pertinent comments. Moreover, this particular subject line did
*not* start with the article you claimed was the original post
(and now you are acknowledging a *different* OP than you claimed
before!).

In the original thread there were 17 posts, by 4 authors, and
kony and I accounted for 13 of those articles. The last post
under that subject line was dated

Date: Wed Jul 13 19:14:40 2005 -0800

And then stormrider moved the discussion to a new subject line:
(Actually, stormrider just posted it, and kony moved the discussion
to this thread.)

Subject: a silent air cooled computer project
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed Jul 13 19:27:58 2005 -0800

Note the time relationship. And then a few hours later the
article you claimed several times was the "original post":

From: "Beall" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: a silent air cooled computer project
Date: Thu Jul 14 02:53:41 2005 -0800

The discussion had been going on for nearly 3 days, with almost
20 articles, by the time that was posted! There have been 13
authors since, posting a total of 46 articles under that subject
title, and clearly you have only read those in the smallest
splinter of the entire discussion, less than one third of the
discussion. It is little wonder that your articles are so
factually off base in regard to context that they don't make
sense.

Like I said, get your facts at least 50% straight, and we can
have a serious discussion. But I'm not going to go through your
285 line pile of drivel and point out ever 10 lines that the
previous ten lines are out of context, factually incorrect, and
otherwise fabrications of your imagination.

So what's your point? That the only thought your mind is capable
of handling is a 'one of a kind' never been done before R&D
project regardless of what anyone else asks or talks about? Or

That is what has been *asked* about. If you had read the entire
discussion that would be obvious. You can't expect to enter into
the middle of a discussion without having read the basic blocks
on which it is built. That is particularly true when it is a
technical subject that *you* have little or no experience with.

is it that folks need to google every thread you've ever been in
to gleen your universal one track 'goal'?

How cute! First you accused me of moving the goal posts, and
when that is shown to be false... here you are *now*
complaining that I just have a "one track 'goal'"! Logically,
that kind of bickering doesn't fly well. It makes you appear to
lack one or the other of integrity or comprehension.

No, you're looking desperate.

I was being kind.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

This is supposed to be evidence of what?

The different reaction from someone who *has* experience,
compared to kony and Maynard, who don't.

A system NOT implemented yet, not even in alpha stage of
testing, only your ramblings about a concept when an

Unlike you, I'm not talking about something that I've never
implemented.

expressed goal of low noise is extremely easy without any of
this time and expense.

Try it, and then come back and we'll talk.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

You really should stop trying to 'guess' what people notice
because you're lousy at it.

Nobody is guessing, because *you* made it so obvious. When
*you* claim that a thread with a subject line about "silent"
cooling projects is *not* about how to silence fan noise, there
is little choice but to realize that you've missed quite it bit.

The subject line says "a silent air cooled computer project" and
last time I checked air isn't water.


And other than you being so one track minded you can't speak of

So if you can't support your claim that I'm moving the goal post,
you rale that I'm not. (Do you have any integrity at all?)

anything else just exactly how is a pristine post by a different
user with a completely different topic the 'continuation' of
another thread?

That is very common on Usenet. (You missed that too???)

Oh I did. It's just a shame you didn't.

Chest thumping is great for gorillas in the jungle.

ROTFLOL

Well, let's see the rest of it, shall we? The part before that
cute little cull.

"The more I think about it the less I like the idea of leaks and the
potential maintanence headaches of water cooling, so it will most likely be
air cooled.
I am playing with the idea of custom air ducts and double sound padding.
And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled this time."

Gonna be a real bitch monitoring water temp in an all air system.

Oh goodness, now you'll be able to accuse me again of moving the
goal posts. You probably should have (as I've suggested to you
several times) read the previous discussion. I have in *no*
*way* advocated that water cooling is necessarily the "right",
the "best", the "quietest" or anything other than complex and
fun. Actually I've suggested that most people probably *don't*
want to try it, simply because it is none of those.

The topic has been how to silence *fans*. It makes little
difference whether there is a water system or not. Just one
more thing, besides the topic itself, that you've missed.

You miss a lot, don't you?

 

[kony]

Chest thumping is great for gorillas in the jungle.

LOL

I'll take your word for it!

 

[David Maynard]

The *discussion* didn't start with this particular thread,

This thread started with this thread and I've got some disappointing news
for you. Every 'discussion' isn't attached to your butt.

and
if you won't read the entire discussion you simply can't make
pertinent comments.

When reading a thread I'm not going to search the entire newsgroup for
everything you may have posted elsewhere simply because you think wherever
you've been is 'the discussion'.

Moreover, this particular subject line did
*not* start with the article you claimed was the original post

Yes. it did.

(and now you are acknowledging a *different* OP than you claimed
before!).

False. And your inability to understand the difference between which post
"started" a thread vs which post you first "replied" to is your problem,
not mine.

In the original thread there were 17 posts, by 4 authors, and
kony and I accounted for 13 of those articles. The last post
under that subject line was dated

Date: Wed Jul 13 19:14:40 2005 -0800

And then stormrider moved the discussion

"Stormrider" didn't 'move' a damn thing. He started his own thread of his
own topic regarding "a silent air cooled computer project" and wasn't even
in the one you claim began 'the discussion'.

to a new subject line:
(Actually, stormrider just posted it, and kony moved the discussion
to this thread.)

Subject: a silent air cooled computer project
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed Jul 13 19:27:58 2005 -0800

Note the time relationship. And then a few hours later the
article you claimed several times was the "original post":

From: "Beall" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: a silent air cooled computer project
Date: Thu Jul 14 02:53:41 2005 -0800

So now your ego centric, self centered, mind claims that any post in 'time
relationship' must necessarily be 'your discussion'?

The discussion had been going on for nearly 3 days, with almost
20 articles,

"A" discussion had been going on.

by the time that was posted!

By the time someone else posted a message on a different topic of their own.

I hate to burst your bubble but this happens all the time. People post
messages without taking into account that 'Master Floyd' has been talking
elsewhere.

There have been 13
authors since, posting a total of 46 articles under that subject
title, and clearly you have only read those in the smallest
splinter of the entire discussion, less than one third of the
discussion. It is little wonder that your articles are so
factually off base in regard to context that they don't make
sense.

News flash: "a silent air cooled computer project" isn't a closed loop
water control R&D project.


<snip of more delusions>

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

This thread started with this thread and I've got some
disappointing news for you. Every 'discussion' isn't attached to
your butt.

Talk about clueless.

The point is *still* pertinent: if you had read the whole
discussion, as you were initially advised to do, you would not
be still making such obviously invalid statements. You are now
claiming to know the flow of the discussion, when you haven't
even *read* it.

And your statements about it are still just as off base.

 

[David Maynard]

Nobody is guessing, because *you* made it so obvious.

That kind if irrational nonsense is why you're so lousy at it.

When
*you* claim that a thread with a subject line about "silent"
cooling projects is *not* about how to silence fan noise, there
is little choice but to realize that you've missed quite it bit.

In the first place the title of the thread is "a silent air cooled computer
project" and I never said any such thing. What I did say was it's going to
be a bitch monitoring the water temp of an air cooled system.

So if you can't support your claim that I'm moving the goal post,
Air-water-air-water-air-water

you rale that I'm not. (Do you have any integrity at all?)

I have both integrity and rationality of thought.

That is very common on Usenet. (You missed that too???)

News flash: when someone who was never in your previous discussion posts a
new and different thread of their own with a new and different topic they
are not 'continuing' your discussion and it is the height of irrational
arrogance for you to claim so.

Chest thumping is great for gorillas in the jungle.

I defer to your experience in the matter.

Oh goodness, now you'll be able to accuse me again of moving the
goal posts. You probably should have (as I've suggested to you
several times) read the previous discussion.

At least you finally got around to calling it "the previous discussion."

I have in *no*
*way* advocated that water cooling is necessarily the "right",
the "best", the "quietest" or anything other than complex and
fun. Actually I've suggested that most people probably *don't*
want to try it, simply because it is none of those.

That sounds all nice and cuddly but it isn't how you represented things in
this thread.

The topic has been how to silence *fans*.

No, the topic was "a silent air cooled computer project" of which
controlling fan speed could be one approach. But it is not 'the topic' of
this thread.

Which you then turned into a piss fight about whether it's 'necessary' to
monitor water temp, not to mention 'necessary' to embark on an R&D project
to invent, as you put it, a 'one of a kind' never been done before closed
loop water control system, and had the irrational temerity to accuse others
of 'missing' how important that was by pointing to the title "air cooled."

It makes little
difference whether there is a water system or not.

It sure as hell does make a difference when the 'argument' is about
monitoring water temperature.

Just one
more thing, besides the topic itself, that you've missed.

You miss a lot, don't you?

Unfortunately for you, no.

 

[David Maynard]

Talk about clueless.

No, you're just irrational.

The point is *still* pertinent: if you had read the whole
discussion, as you were initially advised to do, you would not
be still making such obviously invalid statements.

That's a real knee slapper coming from someone who points to an 'air
cooled' title as 'proof' that water temp monitoring is a necessity.

You are now
claiming to know the flow of the discussion, when you haven't
even *read* it.

What I claim is it's irrational to presume that a new and different topic
starting a new thread posted by a new person who was never in your previous
discussion is a 'continuation' of it.

And it's also irrational to imagine that people are going to search usenet
for whatever other threads you may have been in to figure out what you
'think' the 'discussion' is.

And your statements about it are still just as off base.

I haven't made any "statements" about the previous discussion.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

No, you're just irrational.


That's a real knee slapper coming from someone who points to an
'air cooled' title as 'proof' that water temp monitoring is a
necessity.

The discussion was about controlling fans. Whether it is water
cooled or air cooled is only a detail.

You don't seem to be able to follow any of this, even when
you do read the articles, and you call me irrational!

I haven't made any "statements" about the previous discussion.

You haven't made many statements that are not off base.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
In the first place the title of the thread is "a silent air
cooled computer project" and I never said any such thing. What I
did say was it's going to be a bitch monitoring the water temp
of an air cooled system.

And the *essential* point is how to make it silent. Quieting
fans that are cooling air or water is the same. The point was
how to control the fans to keep them quiet.

News flash: when someone who was never in your previous
discussion posts a new and different thread of their own with a
new and different topic they are not 'continuing' your
discussion and it is the height of irrational arrogance for you
to claim so.

However, someone who was, *did*; and that is why it was a
continuation (which neither you nor I had anything to do with).
You then jumped into the middle and had everything out of
context and were politely advised to read the entire discussion
to get that context. You refused to do that. That is
irrational behavior *on* *your* *part*, not mine.

No, the topic was "a silent air cooled computer project" of
which controlling fan speed could be one approach. But it is not
'the topic' of this thread.

Read the discussion, and stop being silly. I've posted
other options, and nobody has followed up on anything other
than fan noise control.

 

[David Maynard]

The discussion was about controlling fans.

The discussion in this thread was "a silent air cooled computer project."

Whether it is water
cooled or air cooled is only a detail.

Then it was irrational of you to start a pissing contest over water temp
monitoring.

You don't seem to be able to follow any of this, even when
you do read the articles,

That's amusing since I'd be willing to bet you have no idea what you're
trying to 'prove'.

and you call me irrational!

And hysterical, in both senses.

You haven't made many statements that are not off base.

"On base." Happy now?

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Then it was irrational of you to start a pissing contest over
water temp monitoring.

Hey, you get credit for that.

I'm just sort of poking you with a stick to see how far you'll
go with this. It's good for giggles.

 

[David Maynard]

And the *essential* point is how to make it silent.

Pretty good assumption as long as one doesn't get carried away with
expensive, undefined, 'one of a kind' never been done before R&D projects.

Quieting
fans that are cooling air or water is the same. The point was
how to control the fans to keep them quiet.

Since the big 'argument' was over water temp monitoring, and you're the
'expert' on these 'all the same' methods, please explain how water temp
keeps the fans in an air cooled system quiet.

However, someone who was, *did*;

No, 'someone' didn't. The thread was started by Stormrider and he wasn't in
the thread you've said was 'the previous.'

and that is why it was a
continuation (which neither you nor I had anything to do with).
You then jumped into the middle and had everything out of
context and were politely advised to read the entire discussion
to get that context.

You haven't said a 'polite' thing yet.

You refused to do that. That is
irrational behavior *on* *your* *part*, not mine.

No, it's a bad assumption on your part.

Read the discussion, and stop being silly. I've posted
other options, and nobody has followed up on anything other
than fan noise control.

That no one 'followed up' on a 'one of a kind' never been done before
closed loop water control R&D project is for precisely the reasons I mentioned.

However, Stormrider's last message included "The more I think about it the
less I like the idea of leaks and the potential maintanence headaches of
water cooling, so it will most likely be air cooled.
I am playing with the idea of custom air ducts and double sound padding.
And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled this time."

You will note that custom air ducts and double sound padding is not "fan
speed control" and if you were as much of an 'expert' as you claim you'd
know there are other methods and means to making a 'silent' PC, depending
on what one means by 'silent' and what tradeoffs they're willing to make.
Which is why "a silent air cooled computer project" and "fan control" are
not synonyms, much less "water" and "air."