Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
You are using three variables ($S_A$, $S_B$ and $S_C$) to examine the problem. They are not independent from each other. I would suggest having two constants $d_{AB}$ and $d_{BC}$ for the distance between the atoms and a single variable $x$ for the distance of the centre of mass from one of the atoms.
The fluid there is in direct contact with the CPU, skipping the intermediate conduction steps. The heat of vaporisation and thermal capacity are not very relevant, the fluid is just less efficient per unit mass: you’d have to use more of it to cool down an object at a given temperature, but here you are trying to remove a (somewhat) constant amount of heat per unit time. I couldn’t find details about the thermal conductivity of the fluid, but in a situation like that the heating should be dominated by convection, which also depends on viscosity, and it seems to be less viscous than water.
A larger volume for the gas to fill would certainly postpone the problem, by lowering the rate at which pressure increases, and it might give enough time for the water to re-condense. One thing to be careful of is that, just as low pressure “helps” with boiling, it will also hinder condensation.
Aye, but as I interpret the question (I might be mistaken there...) it seems to be implying that dark matter might be composed of top quarks, which is what I meant to refute.
