5 ms·

The link you cited is not evaporative cooling and a pot of boiling water with a sealed lid on it is a pressure vessel which eventually explodes.

Ductapemaster 22d ago
If you were to remove the heat at a sufficient rate by, say, turning the lid into a heat exchanger, you would have a stable system.
- Eisenstein 22d ago
  How is that different from not using evaporative cooling and just putting the heat exchanger on the burner?
  - Ductapemaster 21d ago
    Water is being used to get heat from one place to another. The idea is being able to separate the heat generation and the heat extraction
    - Eisenstein 21d ago
      You are adding an extra step though. Use a closed loop coolant and remove the heat from that coolant with the heat exchanger. Why would evaporation in between be more efficient?
- gorbypark 22d ago
  That's the problem, removing heat at a sufficient rate. Of course it can be done, but the most efficient way (in terms of cost) is just open loop evaporation. I'm not a datacenter engineer, but I used to work in the ski industry. Snowmaking systems use vast quantities of compressed air. It works better if that air is cool. Blowing hot compressed air out of a snow cannon means the air temperature (wet bulb to be specific) needs to be colder to make snow. Anyways, most air compression stations use water to cool the air, and then evaporative coolers to cool the water. The water is reused, but a ton (not sure of the percentage) is lost into the air. It's more or less a tower with a big fan on top, and water percolates down from the top, being cooled by the air as it goes. The water is then collected and pumped through the system again (but of course has to be always topped up to counteract what was lost to evaporation). Anyways, long story short is it's most cost effective to just spray water into the air to cool water, as long as water is free/cheap.
  - minimaltom 21d ago
    Oh like one of those scenic cone towers like on a nuclear power plant? Iiuc youre saying: its more cost-efficient to waste water using evaporative cooling so thats what we'll get, not that a closed loop with a heat exchanger is technically infeasible?
    - SirMaster 20d ago
      Closed loop is of course feasible, and closed loop with an evaporation step is also feasible, but open loop evaporative is the most efficient in terms of total energy usage (cost) and most cost effective in general, so that's what we mostly get right now.
    - gorbypark 17d ago
      Exactly. A car is a closed loop system. Coolant (which is water with some chemicals) cools the engine, then the hot coolant flows through a radiator which transfers that heat to the air, and then it just keeps cycling through. If there's no leaks then no coolant is lost. The above method could be scaled up to data center levels, but is less efficient in terms of energy usage and cost. Cheaper/easier to just spray water into the air and get "free" cooling that way, as long as you have a source of free/cheap water to replenish what is lost to evaporation. I'm not a nuclear engineer either, but I assume this is what is happening inside of the big iconic nuclear stacks. That's just cooling water being evaporated off to keep it cool.

Ductapemaster 22d ago

If you were to remove the heat at a sufficient rate by, say, turning the lid into a heat exchanger, you would have a stable system.

Eisenstein 22d ago
How is that different from not using evaporative cooling and just putting the heat exchanger on the burner?
- Ductapemaster 21d ago
  Water is being used to get heat from one place to another. The idea is being able to separate the heat generation and the heat extraction
  - Eisenstein 21d ago
    You are adding an extra step though. Use a closed loop coolant and remove the heat from that coolant with the heat exchanger. Why would evaporation in between be more efficient?
gorbypark 22d ago
That's the problem, removing heat at a sufficient rate. Of course it can be done, but the most efficient way (in terms of cost) is just open loop evaporation. I'm not a datacenter engineer, but I used to work in the ski industry. Snowmaking systems use vast quantities of compressed air. It works better if that air is cool. Blowing hot compressed air out of a snow cannon means the air temperature (wet bulb to be specific) needs to be colder to make snow. Anyways, most air compression stations use water to cool the air, and then evaporative coolers to cool the water. The water is reused, but a ton (not sure of the percentage) is lost into the air. It's more or less a tower with a big fan on top, and water percolates down from the top, being cooled by the air as it goes. The water is then collected and pumped through the system again (but of course has to be always topped up to counteract what was lost to evaporation). Anyways, long story short is it's most cost effective to just spray water into the air to cool water, as long as water is free/cheap.
- minimaltom 21d ago
  Oh like one of those scenic cone towers like on a nuclear power plant? Iiuc youre saying: its more cost-efficient to waste water using evaporative cooling so thats what we'll get, not that a closed loop with a heat exchanger is technically infeasible?
  - SirMaster 20d ago
    Closed loop is of course feasible, and closed loop with an evaporation step is also feasible, but open loop evaporative is the most efficient in terms of total energy usage (cost) and most cost effective in general, so that's what we mostly get right now.
  - gorbypark 17d ago
    Exactly. A car is a closed loop system. Coolant (which is water with some chemicals) cools the engine, then the hot coolant flows through a radiator which transfers that heat to the air, and then it just keeps cycling through. If there's no leaks then no coolant is lost. The above method could be scaled up to data center levels, but is less efficient in terms of energy usage and cost. Cheaper/easier to just spray water into the air and get "free" cooling that way, as long as you have a source of free/cheap water to replenish what is lost to evaporation. I'm not a nuclear engineer either, but I assume this is what is happening inside of the big iconic nuclear stacks. That's just cooling water being evaporated off to keep it cool.