• Contramuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Good question. I had to modify my code to run more efficiently, since not throttling implies that the copper block reaches a steady state with very little temperature changes over time.

    But, with the changes, I can say that there is no copper block length that would prevent throttling with a 120 W CPU. It seems the heat transfer within the block is slow enough over such long lengths that you get diminishing returns with longer and longer copper blocks. Here’s a graph I made summarizing the different block lengths that I tested

    With a 65 W CPU, a 32 cm (double the original length) copper block is sufficient to prevent throttling, but it’ll reach steady state at 97 C

    • Avicenna@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      Have you considered the possibility that Ea-nāṣir might have been delivering inferior quality copper to you?

      • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 days ago

        Ea-nasir promised that these were good quality copper, and I do not have any reason to suspect otherwise. But I’ll have you know, if the copper is of inferior quality, I will make sure to send my messenger to complain. He will not hear the end of it!

    • Jumi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Would the result change if the copper block gets wider instead of higher?

      • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        Apparently, yes. You can prevent thermal throttling if you expanded the base from 4 cm x 4 cm to 4.5 cm x 4.5 cm, and if you increased the height from 16 cm to 100 cm. The temperature caps at around 97 C.