this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
174 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
85745 readers
3714 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They kinda do, they say that, because the coolant is so efficient at transferring energy, a data center will not need evaporative cooling.
It would be very interesting to know what the upper limit of air temperature would be.
They already don't need evaporative cooling. They just don't want to pay for closed loop systems because they're more expensive than evaporative cooling.
The solution exists, it's just not required so no one is paying to do it when they don't have to.
Existing systems rely on air to pass heat to a radiator, which then relays heat to the ambient air outside. In order to keep temperatures inside the data centre at sane levels, the cooling water needs to be below ambient temperature, which can be done with either chillers or evaporative cooling. Running a chiller takes a lot of electricity to say the least.
By exchanging heat between the chip and the cooling water directly, it seems they're claiming they can just have a heat exchanger with no chiller or evaporative cooling required. Which is probably true, it's why over clocked gaming PCs are often water cooled.
Why a chiller? You don't need to freeze the servers. If you just use a normal radiator you remove the compressor and just need a pump and a fan
This has to be the dumbest reply I've had in a while.
I said below ambient, not below freezing. You can only ever cool to ambient temperature with a radiator.
Yeah and a processor's ideal temperature is 70°C... If the ambient temperature is above that, nevermind the server.
You're a rude motherfucker btw
If the ambient temperature is 70c, that's the least of your worries. There's probably an electrical fire at that point.
thatsthejoke.jpg
Again, they’re not using water for its properties. Heat transfer efficiency is low on the list of priorities. Cost, both upfront and running, is the deciding factor
Surely you must realise heat transfer efficiency and cost are closely linked, right? You haven't told us anything we don't already know. Of course this is about saving money, that's already obvious.
Who’s us? I didn’t struggle understanding what they said at all
I'm not sure what argument or point you're trying to make here. Why do you think they're using water, exactly? And surely you must realise how efficiency and cost are linked?
I don’t know how to be any clearer.
LOW COST > HIGH COST.
It’s money. The goal is to save as much money as possible. Businesses, corporations, contractors, investors. All the people making decisions are trying to save every bit of money possible.
Surely you realize heat transfer efficiency isn’t linked to the cost of water. Which doesn’t even show up on the balance sheet.
100 * 0 = 100000000 * 0
Do you genuinely think I didn't know businesses want to save money? Why are you telling me this?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
You seem to have a hard time understanding that water is used because it is cheaper than the alternatives which already exist. This new development won't replace water while the water remains cheap.
Are you talking about evaporative cooling? Because this new system still very much uses water, in a closed loop.
And I'm aware water is cheap, it falls out of the sky.
After your previous comment, i thought that about you as well.
Why do people keep acting like a company wanting to save money is a revelation? It's so blindingly obvious, there's no need to tell everyone all the time?
You're the one who asked. Don't ask questions you don't want answers to, i guess?
Their argument was that companies don't care about efficiency, they just want to save money. Without realising they're the same thing. As far as I can tell, they were arguing with themselves.
Cost and efficiency may not be the same at all. If the true cost of a utility like water aren’t being passed on to the businesses, then they don’t need to focus on efficiency.
See literally any of the giant farms with legacy water rights in California to understand why there is very little incentive for them to become more efficient with water usage.