Anyone Ever Played with Luminol in a Loop?

[For Science!]

1 minute ago, Nanook said:

Yes, RGB tubing is cool, but could it really compete with actual glowing fluid?

 

As for UV reactant coolants...I would like to know more.

Yes, it can, especially if compared to things like luminol or fantasy physics. As for UV coolants, there are plenty to choose from, take mayhems range for example

 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Nanook said:

Yes, RGB tubing is cool, but could it really compete with actual glowing fluid?

 

As for UV reactant coolants...I would like to know more.

There is UV and fluorescent.  Mostly it’s about the kind of lighting you need to use. They have issues though that are the same as opaque coolants.  They have stuff in them that isn’t liquid.  It’s not a solution it’s a suspension.  This means over a long period of time they build up in crevices and stuff so maintenance is mor frequent.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Bombastinator

[Nanook]

26 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

There is UV and fluorescent.  Mostly it’s about the kind of lighting you need to use. They have issues though that are the same as opaque coolants.  They have stuff in them that isn’t liquid.  It’s not a solution it’s a suspension.  This means over a long period of time they build up in crevices and stuff so maintenance is mor frequent.

Just our of curiosity, how long does it take on average for the suspended particles to fall out of opaque fluids?

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Nanook said:

Just our of curiosity, how long does it take on average for the suspended particles to fall out of opaque fluids?

Very dependent on the particle and the fluid.  There will likely be maintainance instructions with a given fluid.  The particles are likely to be microscopic flakes of some sort. It 

[For Science!]

36 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

There is UV and fluorescent.  Mostly it’s about the kind of lighting you need to use. They have issues though that are the same as opaque coolants.  They have stuff in them that isn’t liquid.  It’s not a solution it’s a suspension.  This means over a long period of time they build up in crevices and stuff so maintenance is mor frequent.

Would you like to elaborate which coolants require fluorescent lighting? Also perhaps examples of UV reacting coolants that have issues with precipitation, as far as I know they all behave as non-opaque coolants and are not a suspension.

[Nanook]

10 minutes ago, For Science! said:

Would you like to elaborate which coolants require fluorescent lighting? Also perhaps examples of UV reacting coolants that have issues with precipitation, as far as I know they all behave as non-opaque coolants and are not a suspension.

This is what I kinda thought also just from intuition. A liquid that is reactant to UV seems more an intrinsic chemical property of the fluid itself rather then some suspended particles, but don't quote me on that because I am not sure.

[Bombastinator]

5 hours ago, For Science! said:

Would you like to elaborate which coolants require fluorescent lighting? Also perhaps examples of UV reacting coolants that have issues with precipitation, as far as I know they all behave as non-opaque coolants and are not a suspension.

I don’t know coolants by brand.  I did have training about pigments though. Also binders and solvents (paint is a pigment a binder, and a solvent)  Not a suspension is highly unlikely for anything opaque. Literally anything at all.  Milk is a suspension for example. It’s water casein and a bunch of other things.  Spin milk and the oils come out and you get cream and skim milk.  Spin it more though and other things start to come out. Eventually you get a layer of water with things in solution, and a layer of other things including casein. A suspension will separate in a centrifuge.  A solution won’t. A standard rather antique paint type is something called gauche which is more or less watercolor mixed with milk.  The milk is for the casein. It’s a protein and a binder. It makes paint hard, brittle and permanent. For a solution rather than a suspension you more or less need single molecules.  To have a solution instead of a suspension you’d need a molecule soluble in a solution which includes water (so not a supersolvent like xylene) very few thing that arent toxic are better solvents than water.  Pure alcohol can act as a pretty good solvent but you couldn’t put that in a loop.  There are actually alcohol based paints.  They’re nearly useless though and haven’t been used for much since the 40’s.  Xylene works better.  It’ll kill you, but it works better.  molecules that fluoresce under ultra violet aren’t generally soluble in water. There are some hydrocarbons that fluoresce like mataline, but it’s an oil. Most of the rest are phosphor compounds or fluorides and fluorines.  Water soluble fluorine compounds are generally fantastically toxic so that leaves phosphors, and phosphor compounds aren’t stable generally in water because of the O inH2O.  Phosphorous is oil soluble but not water soluble and doesn’t do well in loops either.  I suppose it’s outside possible they built something, but it sounds really really expensive. 
 

One remains: fluorides.  Fluorine salts. Sodium fluoride, magnesium fluoride, stuff like that.  Might explain why they can get some colors but not anything.  With microscopic fluorescent pigmemt suspensions you could get likely any color at all.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Bombastinator

[Bombastinator]

Derp.  Screwed up the edit.  Ignore this

[For Science!]

6 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t know coolants by brand.  I did have training about pigments though. Also binders and solvents (paint is a pigment a binder, and a solvent)  Not a suspension is highly unlikely for anything opaque. Literally anything at all.  Milk is a suspension for example. It’s water casein and a bunch of other things.  Spin milk and the oils come out and you get cream and skim milk.  Spin it more though and other things start to come out. Eventually you get a layer of water with things in solution, and a layer of other things including casein. A suspension will separate in a centrifuge.  A solution won’t. A standard rather antique paint type is something called gauche which is more or less watercolor mixed with milk.  The milk is for the casein. It’s a protein and a binder. It makes paint hard, brittle and permanent. For a solution rather than a suspension you more or less need single molecules.  To have a solution instead of a suspension you’d need a molecule soluble in a solution which includes water (so not a supersolvent like xylene) very few thing that arent toxic are better solvents than water.  Pure alcohol can act as a pretty good solvent but you couldn’t put that in a loop.  There are actually alcohol based paints.  They’re nearly useless though and haven’t been used for much since the 40’s.  Xylene works better.  It’ll kill you, but it works better.  molecules that fluoresce under ultra violet aren’t generally soluble in water. There are some hydrocarbons that fluoresce like mataline, but it’s an oil. Most of the rest are phosphor compounds or fluorides and fluorines.  Water soluble fluorine compounds are generally fantastically toxic so that leaves phosphors, and phosphor compounds aren’t stable generally in water because of the O inH2O.  Phosphorous is oil soluble but not water soluble and doesn’t do well in loops either.  I suppose it’s outside possible they built something, but it sounds really really expensive. 
 

One remains: fluorides.  Fluorine salts. Sodium fluoride, magnesium fluoride, stuff like that.  Might explain why they can get some colors but not anything.  With microscopic fluorescent pigmemt suspensions you could get likely any color at all.

I’m sorry to inform you that this is mostly irrelevant and too far away from anything to do this liquid cooling in PCs. Your background in “pigments” has not given you the right knowledge for this topic of discussion, and I would perhaps advise you to actually give custom liquid cooling a go with modern components as maybe you will find the details and chemistry quite fun.

[Bombastinator]

56 minutes ago, For Science! said:

I’m sorry to inform you that this is mostly irrelevant and too far away from anything to do this liquid cooling in PCs. Your background in “pigments” has not given you the right knowledge for this topic of discussion, and I would perhaps advise you to actually give custom liquid cooling a go with modern components as maybe you will find the details and chemistry quite fun.

So you’re saying what?  That it was incorrect?  You wanted brand names.  You do realize that products are made of things, right?  You asked me to expand on why I thought what I did.  You asked I answered. You apparently don’t know what is in those liquids or why they might have the colors they do.  

[For Science!]

59 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

So you’re saying what?  That it was incorrect?  You wanted brand names.  You do realize that products are made of things, right?  You asked me to expand on why I thought what I did.  You asked I answered. You apparently don’t know what is in those liquids or why they might have the colors they do.  

No, what I’m saying it is irrelevant, I asked purely to give you a chance to backup your claims above, and I think as usual, you have just infodumped on a liquid cooling thread with little knowledge about the topic.

 

 Yes, milk is a suspension, yes a compound only dissolves in the solvent that it is soluble in. But neither of these points are related to the fact that water soluble fluorescent dyes exist, are actively used in the market (EK, Mayhems, Alphacool) Or the fact that coolants can be rather organic as opposed to aqueous. And unlike paints, coolants are not designed With drying in mind.

 

I don’t feel there is a need to breakdown your post above to point out which are the irrelevant pieces of information, and I think those who read this thread in future have enough information at hand to see who can provide relevant, and informative content.

[For Science!]

12 hours ago, Nanook said:

This is what I kinda thought also just from intuition. A liquid that is reactant to UV seems more an intrinsic chemical property of the fluid itself rather then some suspended particles, but don't quote me on that because I am not sure.

After giving him a chance, I think it is clear that there is nothing productive to learn from him for this thread. The Mayhem's various XT range and EK-CryoFuel are water soluble dyes and under normal circumstances will not precipitate out of solution. IIRC Mayhem's pastel series also has some UV reactive properties but that is an opaque fluid and will fall out over time, this can range widely depending on the color, temperature, and other factors such as metal identity and flow rate (I would put the average range from 0.5~3 years).

 

To my knowledge there are no fluids in the market that do anything special with fluorescent light sources in the visible spectrum (apart from (not) reflecting it, as per most things in this universe).   

[Bombastinator]

39 minutes ago, For Science! said:

After giving him a chance, I think it is clear that there is nothing productive to learn from him for this thread. The Mayhem's various XT range and EK-CryoFuel are water soluble dyes and under normal circumstances will not precipitate out of solution. IIRC Mayhem's pastel series also has some UV reactive properties but that is an opaque fluid and will fall out over time, this can range widely depending on the color, temperature, and other factors such as metal identity and flow rate (I would put the average range from 0.5~3 years).

 

To my knowledge there are no fluids in the market that do anything special with fluorescent light sources in the visible spectrum (apart from (not) reflecting it, as per most things in this universe).   

Well a pretend chance anyway.  opacity still requires suspension.  Milk is sort of a classic example which is why I brought it up. 
 

The rest was the thought process on what I was thinking about your apparently disingenuous question.  What I get I guess.  You did behave politely for a time.  I thought you would continue to do so.  I was foolish.

 I find it entertaining that you inform people I’m utterly full of it then repeat the only thing I said about the general subject rather than your specific question.  
 

with dyes we’re back to pigments though.  If they’re dyes most will break down slowly.  A few years.  I’m mostly familiar only with coal lake dyes though.

 

by organic you’re referring to various glycols. They would be too thick to be used in a loop pure.  They would need to be mixed with water.  So back to water again. 

Edited November 3, 2020 by Bombastinator

[For Science!]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Well a pretend chance anyway.  opacity still requires suspension.  Milk is sort of a classic example which is why I brought it up. 
 

The rest was the thought process on what I was thinking about your apparently disingenuous question.  What I get I guess.  You did behave politely for a time.  I thought you would continue to do so.  I was foolish.

 I find it entertaining that you inform people I’m utterly full of it then repeat the only thing I said about the general subject rather than your specific question.

You made a claim which I quote below:

 

Quote

There is UV and fluorescent.  Mostly it’s about the kind of lighting you need to use. They have issues though that are the same as opaque coolants.  They have stuff in them that isn’t liquid.  It’s not a solution it’s a suspension.  This means over a long period of time they build up in crevices and stuff so maintenance is mor frequent.

You refer to "they" which I have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) is coolants used in PC liquid cooling. If "they" did not refer to coolants used in PC coolants, then once again I would bring up the importance of keeping things relevant, this is the liquid cooling subsection of a cooling section of a PC/tech forum.

 

To my knowledge, this is not the case, and so in case there is something you know that I did not know, I asked for you to elaborate

 

A: Which coolants need (benefit from) fluorescent lighting

B: Which UV reacting coolants behave as opaque coolants

 

Quote

Would you like to elaborate which coolants require fluorescent lighting? Also perhaps examples of UV reacting coolants that have issues with precipitation, as far as I know they all behave as non-opaque coolants and are not a suspension.

 

And then you proceeded to your regular infodump, filled with a  smokescreen of tidbit facts to hide the fact that actually you are not informed about the topic at hand. We have gone over this time and time again, and I personally really hope that you refrain from spreading misinformation. Perhaps if you really aren't "full of it" you would actually provide information that actually helps the reader and not just trying to desperately show that you know something.

 

1: UV reactive coolants mostly use soluble dyes and are transparent coolants (i.e. not opaque). In normal operation they rarely precipitate out of solution, and are generally long lasting. The fluorescent effect can be lost over time, but that is another topic of discussion.

 

2: Some opaque coolants are also UV reactive, but not all are, but they carry the general downside of being an opaque coolant.

 

3: There are no coolants on the market that benefit in particular from fluorescent lighting, since that is normal light and so there is no special effect to be generated from it.

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, For Science! said:

You made a claim which I quote below:

 

You refer to "they" which I have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) is coolants used in PC liquid cooling. If "they" did not refer to coolants used in PC coolants, then once again I would bring up the importance of keeping things relevant, this is the liquid cooling subsection of a cooling section of a PC/tech forum.

 

To my knowledge, this is not the case, and so in case there is something you know that I did not know, I asked for you to elaborate

 

A: Which coolants need (benefit from) fluorescent lighting

B: Which UV reacting coolants behave as opaque coolants

 

 

And then you proceeded to your regular infodump, filled with a  smokescreen of tidbit facts to hide the fact that actually you are not informed about the topic at hand. We have gone over this time and time again, and I personally really hope that you refrain from spreading misinformation. Perhaps if you really aren't "full of it" you would actually provide information that actually helps the reader and not just trying to desperately show that you know something.

 

1: UV reactive coolants mostly use soluble dyes and are transparent coolants (i.e. not opaque). In normal operation they rarely precipitate out of solution, and are generally long lasting. The fluorescent effect can be lost over time, but that is another topic of discussion.

 

2: Some opaque coolants are also UV reactive, but not all are, but they carry the general downside of being an opaque coolant.

 

3: There are no coolants on the market that benefit in particular from fluorescent lighting, since that is normal light and so there is no special effect to be generated from it.

Re: they.

That first sentence does suck. It implies UV light and fluorescent light are different kinds of light.  This was not my intention. A fluorescent light is a UV light. It just has a fluorescent coating. UV reactive and fluorescent are the same thing.
I did make an assumption that using a pure dye would not be something anyone would do because such a thing would degrade too fast.  Replacing them periodically would effectively avoid that though.  I made the mistake of thinking too long term.

 

re: to your knowledge

this is what I thought you did.  Then you said you didn’t.  You have a history of subtly barbed statements at least with me. 
 

re: 2.

I suspect the opaque stuff maintains its effect for longer.  Or at least could be made to using the right materials.  There are materials that maintain their fluorescence more or less permanently.  I need to look up whether fluorine salts are even soluble and if so in what.  I assumed they were because sodium chloride is. An error perhaps.  

[For Science!]

15 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: they.

That first sentence does suck. It implies UV light and fluorescent light are different kinds of light.  This was not my intention. A fluorescent light is a UV light. It just has a fluorescent coating. UV reactive and fluorescent are the same thing.

Yes, UV reactive and fluorescent are the same thing in this context, and its good that at least we can agree on that.

 

A fluorescent light has a UV light source, but is not the same as a UV light. You cannot get the same effect of a UV reactive coolant + UV light with a fluorescent lamp. And so No, UV light and fluorescent light are not the same and need to be distinguished.

 

Quote

 You have a history of subtly barbed statements at least with me. 

Don't worry, its not just you, anybody spreading misinformation and behaving like they aren't will receive the same treatment (and that is the history you have on the liquid cooling subsection). Notice how it almost exclusively happens in Liquid cooling, as that is the topic I feel I know enough to justify raising a point, but will not go unnecessarily infodumping on other threads that do not justify it.

 

Quote

re: 2.

I suspect the opaque stuff maintains its effect for longer.  Or at least could be made to using the right materials.  There are materials that maintain their fluorescence more or less permanently.  I need to look up whether fluorine salts are even soluble and if so in what.  I assumed they were because sodium chloride is. An error perhaps.  

I would suggest you to read up further and you will find modern fluorescent dyes have very little to do with fluoride salts. Some fluoride salts are indeed soluble in water, but once again, not relevant in the discussion of fluorescent dyes. I think you are out of your depth here so would suggest you to refrain from speculating too much.

 

[Bombastinator]

Just now, For Science! said:

Yes, UV reactive and fluorescent are the same thing in this context, and its good that at least we can agree on that.

 

A fluorescent light has a UV light source, but is not the same as a UV light. You cannot get the same effect of a UV reactive coolant + UV light with a fluorescent lamp. And so No, UV light and fluorescent light are not the same and need to be distinguished.

 

Don't worry, its not just you, anybody spreading misinformation and behaving like they aren't will receive the same treatment (and that is the history you have on the liquid cooling subsection). Notice how it almost exclusively happens in Liquid cooling, as that is the topic I feel I know enough to justify raising a point, but will not go unnecessarily infodumping on other threads that do not justify it.

 

I would suggest you to read up further and you will find modern fluorescent dyes have very little to do with fluorine salts. Some fluoride salts are indeed soluble in water, but once again, not relevant in the discussion of fluorescent dyes. I think you are out of your depth here so would suggest you to refrain from speculating too much.

 

I didn’t think they did.  The concept of using pure dyes was the bit I missed because I thought it was something no one would do.  You presented non opaque fluorescing liquids  put up for sale commercially and asked me what I thought they were.  I forgot that part of that barb thing is where you ask question you already know the answer to.  Dyes were not on the menu because what company would sell something like that? It was my thinking that it had to be something longer lasting, and that such a thing therefore existed. 
“Ide” means salt. a fluoride is a fluorine salt. One could also call it protonated too I suppose.  A fluoride solution wouldn’t be a dye. it might make a garbage material in a loop for any number of reasons. More speculation though. 
Was I speculating? Yes. About the fluids you presented.  As commercial products for water cooling loops they had to have a number of properties.  I was under the impression you asked me to.  The opaque thing might also be considered speculation. Are opaque fluids suspensions? Yes, as of about 1993, when I stopped worrying about such things.  I suppose some breakthrough I’m not aware of could have been made.  It seems unlikely. Opaque is opaque.