Topic: DataTank Mining: 1.2MW 3M Novec Immersion Cooled 2PH Mining Container - page 4. (Read 44451 times)

Not sure how much of Capacitor electrolyte it can filter, but the article entitled "Bitcoin 2-Phase Immersion Cooling and the Implications for High Performance Computing" mentions Carbon Filters. Apparently those are good for filtering a lot of organic compounds.

Edit: For ionic compounds, Silica Gel should work. It would not target them directly, but rather pull the water out of solution. Presumably, the ionic compounds would then precipitate out.

Edit3: 3M's "Open Bath Immersion Cooling" video mentions both the carbon filter and silica gel at about 31:35. They also explain how to avoid losing unicorn tears during venting or maintenance.

He has exhausted every avenue now and DTM guys have skillful and without malice answered everything to my satisfaction. He and his posse of alts are on ignore. I am more keen on the what DTM thinks will be the returns for investors? Give we all know the margins for mining are slim even in massive farms is there realistically any potential return for basically being VC funders without the benefits of 'ownership'?

+1

It would be nice to know if shareholder records will be kept outside of havelock, as well as a backup plan for a catastrophic failure of the exchange.

What is your plan if Havelock disappears off the map? A fallback needs to be in place for this.

Any updates since the last update of 23 Jun 2014?

The opportunity here is really interesting but what are some of potential projection on the returns?

VC's would expect a better than "average" return on this sort of investment. Distinguished Innovator Lecture - Adam Grosser

I know with mining it is a crap shoot of sorts given the price of BTC etc but the margins right now are small and returns for mining are very low even on a massive scale is that not correct?

----

OT - I think this troll and his alter egos are actually very good for this security offering.

1. It shows the professionalism of the team and further provides mountains of evidence to support the claims of Data Tank Mining.
2. It shows clearly that the design implications for chips and boards is increasing density and we are already seeing the limits of heat sinks.
3. It correctly questions the viability of air, oil or water blocks moving forward and exposes the weaknesses in the other systems.
4. It attacks the weakest point in the Data Tank Mining offering that cost to cost comparisons of DTM to Massive Chicken Coop (MCC) designs.
5. It is a comparison of apples to oranges, MCC to DTM, but we want to have an itemized line for line of these and a pretty spreadsheet of it.

As posted before already, we have built multiple profitable and large scale 2-phase immersion cooled Bitcoin mines and received various media coverage to prove it.


Look for my earlier post on why it didn't take off before: The fluid price as ratio over low density hardware was not so good in the past. But especially cryptocurrency mining hardware has changed that and it's still continuously increasing. Further, as pointed out earlier, the price for e.g. tens of thousands of pounds is different - another key advantage as 3M Technology Partner vs. others. As mentioned earlier, we have set up profitable mines = cost/benefit made sense.

Yes, the basic principle is simple and that's why we like it so much. But again, google for Dunning-Kruger effect: Go ahead and build one yourself without losing too much fluid. Or apply for a position as professional football player - the basic principle/rules are simple and it looks easy on TV, right?

Experimental and commercially viable systems are two different things. We have invested a lot of money into R&D and many tens of thousands of hours over years to get this far and have therefore an immense head start (like fluid loss prevention). 3M chose to work with us as official 3M Technology Partner for 2-phase immersion cooling technology, since we were able to build multiple commercially viable large scale commercial systems.

Having said that, we think it's good that there are more enthusiasts jumping on it and congratulated them already. smracer recognized the superior 2-phase cooling abilities, confirming what I've mentioned earlier. So at the same time you are actually making a point that there are more people believing in this technology. Thanks! And once again I appreciate that you give me the opportunity to provide any interested reader here with more info on why we think that we have a competitive advantage.

***

I try to keep this short, since it's OT - but I think it's beneficial to this thread enough to post it to address the troll problem here:

Guess I searched a bit around like jimmothy did, and found another alt account "Ask Ken About Love". That account together with IPO Magic and NotLambchop (and apparently a few others) troll almost exclusively threads in the securities group. You use multiple of those alt accounts within the same thread in alternation to apply the same false illusion of multiple persons having the same message. There are many other posters who got pissed off in very same fashion - so really good call on jimmothy to open a thread on that: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/should-notlambchopcrumbs-be-re-banned-677833

Will it help to discourage you from using those tactics? No idea, maybe not. But whenever you post something, we can point out this troll alert for newbies to this and other thread and the entire credibility of your post will be questioned, no matter what you write. It could be like some kind of DOS defense, where the effort to dispel your unfounded claims will be minimized for frequent and low effort repetition from our side.

Having everything "set up and working fine" tells me nothing about improving MTBF, commercial viability (err... unless you consider selling unicorn dreams to ignorant bitcoiners "proof of viability"), or usefulness of this Goldbergian contraption (Rube Goldberg's machines did exactly what they were designed to do).
That said, I'm guessing nothing (other than a few burnt "investors") would come of this.

As far as me wanting to scope out DataTank's secret sauce?  What DataTank is doing has been done multiple times before, there's nothing mysterious about the basic process.  It hasn't been shelved because of insurmountable technical problems, but simply because cost/benefit makes no sense.

As far as complexity?  This is a functional phase-change cooling setup.  Not rocket surgery.  Shell out $350 for a gallon of unicorn tears, and have a blast!

 
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--7216
(it is wikid fun)

Yeah, he comes up with some arbitrary problems he seems to deem to hard to overcome and claims the guys haven´t thought the system through.

Obviously nobody is going to hand him the exact plans to build his own, so he is spamming the forum and flinging shit like an ape.

I hope he remembers his words when in 3-6 months everything is set up and working fine.

What is the score now?

What is it?


Is this a published study?  Title? ISBN? Link?


Lol, Google "mill engine" to  savor the full extent of your ignorance


Wait, you're saying NotLambchop is a sock?  But if Lambchop is a sock, how could NotLambchop also be a...  Ohhhh....  He probably thought he was so cunning with that "Not", but there's no fooling a clever feller like you!  No sir!



*I've been accused of being Mircea Popescu (Romanian exchange owner), Eduardo de Castro (HashFast), crumbs (of Active Mining fame), MikeMikeMike and Puppet (PETA), and countless other bogeymen.
If it helps you to think me any or all of the above, or that I'm being paid for my posts, I won't ruin it for you.  Makes you that much more amusing to deal with.
ty

That's exactly why I have posted: "regardless of that - once again, you are conveniently omitting my other claim with hundreds of thousands of completely normal capacitors in long-term use in two large scale industrial, 2-phase immersion cooled Bitcoin mines. Not a single capacitor failed. Not an extrapolation, but actual real-world proof." - it is the relevant argument here which you can still not counter.

I've posted my area of expertise already, but we know nothing from you except your experience as five year old fiddling with resistors and "playing with scraps of wire I stripped with my little teeth".


I was referring to the very same US Army Research Laboratory study and it actually analyzes single phase water cooled systems (water inlet temperatures): "Most silicon power electronics have a full-power operating temperature limit of about 125 °C [...] These high inlet temperatures limit the electronic device temperature increase to only 25–45 °C above inlet temperature, reducing electronic cooling potential and requiring exceptional cooling performance to dissipate high-heat-fluxes and prevent overheating." and goes on to compare with a superior 2-phase cooling system which "was implemented using HFE-7100 dielectric coolant fluid to safely dissipate 150-200W/cm2" - very comparable or even higher than most low nm crypto mining ASICs, incl. commercial GPUs for Scrypt. And that's by far not the limit yet.

So yes, they were using in that particular test single phase water cooled systems vs. Novec 7100 and found 2-phase cooling to be superior with significantly less pumped water in secondary stage (less cooling electricity = less costs) without letting the chips overheat. No conjecture, referenced proof.

It doesn't matter whether you claim that you only meant water 2-phase cooling is more effective and not Novec. It's the same physical principle generically for ALL 2-phase cooling systems and have already quoted that earlier out of the same report:



So let me get this straight: IPO Magic never posted anything about "mill engines" (= military engines), but NotLambchop did instead. I've checked every single post of IPO Magic in this thread to confirm. I've already thought about that possibility, but now we've got clear evidence: That means that the person behind IPO Magic and NotLambchop is one and the same and is deliberately using multiple handles to create the false illusion of multiple posters bringing up arguments against 2-phase cooling, one of which not denying to get paid for posting. That's just very low and unethical if one needs to resort to such tactics and can still not make any significant progress. At least to me, any kind of credibility of these two posters is pretty much confirmed to be down the drain with this (likely stating the obvious for other more credible posters who had the honor to be insulted by IPO Magic and NotLambchop).

Correct. Solving longevity (>1-2 years) problems of equipment in the current environment is a bad allocation of time and investment capital. Competitive edge is realized in reliance (which includes sourcing electronic components) and deployment speed. And based on what DataTank mining is proposing that is a strong point about them.

The discussion about phase conversion based cooling is really a discussion about how to get the heat transported into the environment effectively. The current strategy to put equipment into a wind tunnel only scales so far... there is a point at which you get diminishing returns (av. air temp goes up, inc. air speed reduces conductance) - it would be interesting to know what the theoretical limits of air cooling are. With those limits one can get an estimate of the minimum real estate cost per kW hashing power.

Lol, so what's your area of expertise, if you don't know that tantalum and ceramic caps are not electrolytic capacitors being discussed here?  Tantalum caps are much more expensive per mF, and ceramics are only good for pico range.  Learn to electronics.  
BTW, stop equating phase change cooling with Novec.  The mill engines I've mentioned are boiling plain old water.
Flaunting your ignorance may feel liberating, but it's absolutely painful to watch

Thanks - so that's settled once and for all. NotLambchop acknowledges that 2-phase immersion cooling works exceptionally well.


Check with Northrop Grumman - there is a white paper confirming that 2-phase cooling promotes the use of "commercial grade electronics", specifically referring to tantalum and ceramic capacitors, where otherwise more durable components have to be used. And regardless of that - once again, you are conveniently omitting my other claim with hundreds of thousands of completely normal capacitors in long-term use in two large scale industrial, 2-phase immersion cooled Bitcoin mines. Not a single capacitor failed. Not an extrapolation, but actual real-world proof. This combined is still stronger than your wild and completely unfounded claim pulled out of thin air that capacitors have a lower MTBF under 2-phase cooling.


Not true. I have never claimed that it was the fundamental problem faced by Bitcoin miners in general. To me that's only a potential side effect when looking at the open air facilities - the key argument on more cost-efficient cooling has been already won above.

I have even posted that there are many other Bitcoin miners not facing that problem (proper building, better air, etc.), but that there is a risk of that occurring for open air facilities, next to other pollution, dust and humidity (which was again omitted), having potential effect on reliability. I have never ever claimed that I know for sure it's there and posted that for clarification earlier, but only that there could be the possibility/risk, supported by the supplied reliable studies on similar or even better scenarios (data centers and other buildings). So a logical reasoning would be that worse scenarios (complete open sides, exposed to nature, high air flow supplying with more contaminants), might have a bigger effect on reliability, and only what the consequences could be "IF" it happens. Again, falsely claiming things which I never wrote. Looks to me like grasping for straws because you're running out of arguments.


NotLambchop and others made various unfounded claims, trying to question the sense of 2-phase immersion cooling. But essentially all claims made so far are either apparent irrelevant diversions or just simply outright wrong claims. No reliable source has been provided so far from their side to support their arguments. I have on the other hand provided multiple scientific studies to back up my claims and those could still not be dispelled. Btw.: It's interesting that NotLambchop didn't care to deny when I "seriously" asked whether he gets paid for these posts - I would have jumped on it and denied clearly if it wasn't the case. If that was true then it might shed another light on the motivation/background of trolling here.

But what counts most to me is that NotLambchop eventually doesn't deny the findings of the US Army Research Laboratory on overall more reliable and cost-efficient cooling than air and water cooling for high powered electronics, and agreed that 2-phase cooling "works exceptionally well". It's the key and main argumentation line. Everything else are just less relevant branches/forks of side-arguments.

I don't think it solves a problem that is currently plaguing miners.  However, with ASIC development inevitably slowing as technological limitations begin being reached, corrosion could become an issue as mining equipment stays profitable for longer.  Exploring this angle couldn't be a bad thing, although I don't think we're there yet.  Thinking that development will continue to make miners useless every year forever would not be smart.

Sure.  LeanSixSigma is trying to sell the rubes of this forum shares of a pricey 40-footer full of unicorn tears.
He claims that it will solve the fundamental problem faced by Bitcoin miners:  "creeping corrosion."  You do not know about this creeping corrosion because the miners are too proud to talk about it, but LeanSixSigma knows it's there, and it's super srs.

Would somebody please make an executive summary of the current trolling (200-300 words)? Thanks.

Lol, "we have it, but can't tell you because secrit"  Try harder, this one's been pretty much played out here on Bitcointalk.

Re. US army:  phase change cooling works exceptionally well, it worked for thousands of years, it takes place every time you splash some water on a hot rock.  It worked surprisingly well in hit and miss engines of the early 1900s, which simply allowed the coolant (water) to boil away.  The physics are not in question here.



OTOH, extrapolating from this that common electrolytic capacitors would function reliably is pure nonsense.

The question is what is being cooled, and with what fluid.  US Army used purpose-designed components in vehicles which were to be torn down, tested and serviced at short, regular intervals--approximately the opposite of what is required of a Bitcoin mining farm.

I would really like to do that to show off, especially because we have worked very hard on our cleaning system and are kind of proud - but we are preparing to protect it. So until then, we can't reveal any details on that to the public yet (basic procedure). If you like, then I can provide you the contact to our law firm with the relevant US attorney to vouch for that personally.

You could as well make an offer and buy it. It's up to you then to publish it here if you are so keen on it. It won't be cheap though. Ask for any mining hardware manufacturer to give you their ASIC mask because you don't believe their performance claims - similar story. Building a small scale experimental 2-phase immersion cooling system is one thing. Building it commercially feasible for heavy duty industrial use is another - that's where the key expertise sits and why 3M is so keen on working with Allied Control, since systems they have worked on were more experimental or one-off only, without continuous operation for long time in large scale - the military has such applications, too.

So I assume that the non-reply to the US Army Research Laboratory study and the successful use in UAV drones, clearly stating the cooling superiority and mission-critical long-term reliability of 2-phase immersion cooling over air and water cooling in high density electronic applications (you claimed the contrary before), can be assumed as you having no counter-argument with sources any more, and therefore admitting to it as key benefit? Let me return the favor: Please keep your reply focused - A clear Yes or No, if No then prove it with sources. No distraction on this one.

ORLY?  Please elaborate on the process used, and the types of electrolytes it is capable of removing/neutralizing.  Here, feel free to be as expansive as you wish
ty

*Though do try to keep your reply focused.