Talk:Water cooling

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

Engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

T-Line was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 5 January 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Water cooling. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Water cooling for computer

Water cooling for computer did exist well before the Cray 2 (1982). Actually, it was the base cooling of numerous mainframe including the IBM 360 dating back 1964. Ref: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421669/fifty-years-of-water-cooling/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.148.68 (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

noise

Does water cooling reduce computer noise relative to the alternatives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.231.27 (talk • contribs)

It can, depending on how far you take it. In my system (the one shown in the photo), I have a fanless radiator for the cpu cooling...but I still have fans for my power supply, harddrives, and graphics card. I would think that if you had a relatively extensive watercooling system that it would reduce the system noise, or at least remove the watercooler radiator fans from the area immediately around your computer (like put it in another room). --Syrthiss 16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== The G5 and water cooling ==

Is there a website or something that claims that the G5 has water cooling? I have looked for one, but have not found one. Maybe this is false information?

This article is much too focused on water cooling of computers

This article is focused too heavily on water cooling of of computer components. It should either:

Have the title changed to "Water cooling of computers" and remove the section about industrial water cooling
Or drastically revise the wording of the article. Nobody in an oil refinery or petrochemical plant or power plant would define watercooling as heat removal from "components". Nor would anyone in such industries talk about "tubing" instead of "piping". And there is nothing involved in an industrial cooling water and cooling tower system that "... can be "purchased for $1".

I am not trying to be sarcastic. I am only pointing out that this article does a poor job of blending information about computer cooling and the vastly larger industrial cooling systems. - mbeychok 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can talk about watercooling of machine guns as well. Though this method is no longer/rarely used, it is of historical significance. --Rifleman 82 18:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest keeping this article general in nature (and improving its "generality") and moving the computer-specific parts into a separate article titled, as suggested, "Water cooling of computers", or perhaps "Computer water cooling". There are enough information and developments in computer water cooling to make for a very detailed and dynamic article. --Dderkits (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it has been some time since the last post in this discussion, but I agree with the suggestion to keep this article general in it's focus, and instead create a separate "Computer water cooling" article. I suggest so based on a significant increase in the publication of articles on this exact topic, within notable WP:RS such as books and credible magazines.

I'd like to reach a more recent consensus on this before moving forward. Any others able to weigh in? Cheers, Carthan (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water cooling in biological systems

Someone might like to point out that water cooling by evaporation and/or circulation isn't just the province of machines :) Grassynoel (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by tagging

User:Thumperward's recent tagging would be more useful if better focused by explanation on this talk page. The Lead too short tag specifically requests talk page discussion of the perceived inadequacies. Although the deficiency to be addressed by the reorganise tag might be inferred from the edit description rm excess bold, the article title seems to be the only bold text. Perhaps the edit summary, which may soon be lost among other edits, referred to the Industrial cooling water regulations paragraph of the Environmental considerations section? An unexplained reorganise tag seems unnecessarily confusing in view of the previous discussion about possible subsidiary articles covering certain subsets of water cooling applications. Thewellman (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is five sentences in one paragraph, which is wholly inadequate as a summary of all the article's key points (per WP:LEDE). The diff which removes excessive bold is in line with MOS:BOLDTEXT, which discourages the arbitrary use of bold to emphasise terms in articles. The {{reorganise}} tag plainly pertains to the way that the article incoherently leaps between concepts and disparate examples (ending with a discussion of the underlying science) instead of coherently discussing the content. At least the first two of those points shouldn't have required more than the most trivial examination of the text to comprehend and the third is warranted by a fairly brief skim of the article contents. If they're not addressed in time by others then I'm sure I'll get round to fixing them all myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I suggest revision of the lead might best be delayed until the article is reorganized. With respect to reorganization of the remainder of the article, I suggest merging contents of the Nomenclature section into the Advantages section expanded to describe the unique thermodynamic properties of water, mentioning its abundance and lack of toxicity, and explaining the fundamental difference between evaporative cooling and recycle cooling loops (both pressurized and unpressurized.) Other nomenclature could be put in the Disadvantages section including subsections on Chemistry and Environmental considerations. Talk page comments indicate many readers find this page searching for information about a specific application; so I suggest those readers might best be served by following the aforementioned sections with sections devoted to applications including computers, steam power plants, internal combustion engines, firearms, and evaporative cooling by flora and fauna. Some of these sections might be summaries with main article links to more focused description of specific applications. In the absence of alternative suggestions, I will commence such reorganization. Thewellman (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]