Excellent, thanks. I didn't see that sub-board. Appreciate it.

If the benefit of liquid cooling is high enough, I would expect to be able to convince a mining machine OEM to design/build a liquid cooled version (ie/Bitmain or another supplier). I'm sure these companies have some customers that are large enough to warrant a completely liquid cooled design, should someone place a large enough order.

Conversely if they don't entertain it (which would surprise me) that could justify a full in-house design from one of these big mining farm companies. For the amount they spend in buying machines, I'm sure the cost would be negligible to them to create some in-house prototypes for testing. Long-term, I expect someone to design/build their own miner and use it exclusively themselves rather then sell it to others to run. There probably are some mining farms that already do this. (Do you know any mining farms that make their own miners?)

More importantly, I would expect this switch to liquid cooling to be accompanied with a full architecture change on the machine and the farm such that both would look very differently: no tubular case and the chipsets could be stacked.

chipset - LC heatsink - chipset - LC heatsink - repeat.

one larger power supply to support the larger number of chipsets

These could be made in reasonable size heights, perhaps 100mm tall for 4 chipsets, or 500mm tall for 20 chipsets.

The liquid cooled versions could be approx 10X physically smaller than their air cooled equivalent which further reduces the costs for a farm (smaller building)

Thanks for the info Phil.

3% is small.

That 30kW (30%) additional load in the summer is getting pretty high. Do you have any thoughts on where that comes from?  I mean, I wouldn't expect a fan to pull more power (maybe it does). However, if the chipset temp increases maybe it uses the additional power?

Also, are you running additional fans in the building or is this strictly the small fans on each miner. IMO, if you have extra fans in the building those should be included in this estimate.

If the 30% additional energy consumption is due to atmosphere temps, then a liquid cooled system may be appropriate for hot areas that have cheap power. For example, the desert where you could use solar energy and then couple that with geothermal cooling.

Hi.

This question may have been discussed at length, however after a few searches I can't find it. If someone knows a good thread please point me in the right direction.

How much energy is used for air cooling vs for conducting the computational efforts for mining? As a percentage. (ie/ chipset vs fans)

The reason I'm asking is because I expect air cooling to use a lot more energy than liquid cooling, and I would like to find out by how much. I'm imagining a large mining farm is running thousands of little fans, and then also a few very large fans in the facility. In total, the fan energy consumption is probably not negligible.

There may be a good case to use less energy by running a liquid cooled geothermal system. The energy costs for pumping the water around are very low, and you can use the ground to dissipate the thermal energy. This configuration would be very low energy use relative to air cooling, and could be done almost anywhere because the temp below ground is cooler than the surface. It might be possible to cool enough that you could overclock the mining machines. If you have a small river near by then it gets even better in every way (less capital time/cost to set up, and cooling performance is better).

Ideally, the energy spent is utilized to conduct the calculations, and minimal for cooling. I'm curious how beneficial a liquid cooling system would be. For example, if the air cooling energy is only 0.5% of the total energy than a liquid cooled solution is not worth the efforts. Although, if air cooling is 40%+ of the energy consumed then liquid cooling is most likely very beneficial.

Thanks,
George.