this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2026
944 points (99.8% liked)

Science Memes

20690 readers
1801 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Meta Post Tags



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"

Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.

Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.

We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged.

See the pinned paper on Shitposting as Public Pedagogy if you want the academic case for why this works.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 48 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (6 children)

Was intrigued, so made a simulation to figure it out.

TLDR: 592.2 seconds, or 9 minutes and 52.2 seconds. Very similar to the other comment - it appears temperature differentials and heat loss to the air have opposite effects on thermal throttle time and mostly cancel themselves out. For the most part, heat transfer and heat loss appear to affect the thermal throttle time less than the sheer heat mass of the block by several multiples

Assumptions:

  • Copper's heat conductivity is 400 W/m-K, and specific heat is 0.4 J/g-K, and density is 9000 kg/m^3, and these values do not change over the range of temperatures
  • Air's heat transfer coefficient is 20 W/m^2-K and does not change over the range of temperatures
  • The surrounding air does not change in temperature and remains at room temperature (25 C)
  • The input wattage is actually 120 W and not just random marketing bullshit
  • The copper block's size is 4 cm x 4 cm x 16 cm (same as other comment)
  • The temperature within the copper block differs only by the vertical axis; it is assumed that temperature does not change if you move horizontally into the block

Modeling conditions:

  • The block is sliced into 100 equally-sized slices, stacked vertically.
  • Each slice starts off with a temperature of 25 C
  • 120 W is input directly into the bottom slice
  • Heat transfer is modeled between each slice
  • Heat loss into the air is modeled for each slice (top slice has more heat loss due to more contact with the air)
  • Temperature changes are calculated per millisecond
  • Final time is calculated by the total number of milliseconds it takes for the bottom slice to reach a temperature greater than 100 C

Fun facts I found from playing around with the model:

  • According to this model, at the time that the CPU thermal throttles, the top of the block should be 85 C
  • If we assume instantaneous heat transfer, time to thermal throttle goes up to 703 seconds (11 minutes and 43 seconds). Difference is about 2 minutes.
  • If we assume no heat loss to the air, time to thermal throttle goes down to 500.0 seconds (8 minutes and 20 seconds). Difference is about 1.5 minutes.
  • The copper block should be able to prevent throttling as long as the CPU remains idle (30W for AMD CPU's). The CPU should cap out at around 82-83 C.
  • The copper block can prevent thermal throttling for a 170 W CPU for 368.1 seconds, or 6 minutes and 8.1 seconds
[–] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago

Well goddamn... Ok. Go ahead and dm me your home address, phone number, social and/or tax id number, the name of the street you grew up on, the name of your favorite teacher, the IMEI number of your cellphone, a high resolution set of your fingerprints, and a list of your three greatest fears, and I'll get your sticker sent over as soon as I can.

[–] kunaltyagi@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How long a copper block do I need to prevent any throttle?

[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day 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 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day 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.

[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

You did the monster math.

Respect.

[–] kahjtheundedicated@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Respect for taking the time to model that. Goes to show why heat sinks look the way they do, and not just big lumps of metal lol

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Numerical methods is cheating! Real men use PDE's!

/s of course, though I was kinda hoping you'd use PDE's

[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

See, I thought about doing that, but then I realized: I don't actually want to do that

[–] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What software did you use to model this, btw?

[–] Piemanding@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Did the model include some air movement by way of the fans on the case. That would be a fun thing to think about.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 7 points 2 days ago

The fact that the air remains a constant temperature means the model is assuming infinite airflow.

It didn't model convection at all.