PCR and The Impossible Cycle.

The Annual Subscription is being kept at the incredibly low price of just $35. I sell no bullshit supplements, no crappy merchandise, no whacko gadgets, I have no sponsors, no advertising and everything is possible to read for free. However to help in running the experiments and to cover the huge costs that are mounting from travel and expenses to operate the project, please consider donating to the largest Crowdsourced and Opensourced experiments falsifying Virology. Thank you.

Thank you to Dr Lisa Hutchinson for pointing this out to me on a cold and miserable January day, it lifted my spirits.

This is one of those ones that as a common man, of just average intelligence I pride myself on being able to decipher complex issues based on a reliance of common sense and logic. Where more academically minded people are either indoctrinated or intentionally excising this part of their psyche, I always place it front and center as a kind of lock and key mechanism to discernment, call it the “bullshit test” if you will.

The only real 2 talking points of the celebrity “freedom” movement when is comes to PCR are massively tired now through their sheer repetition as well as their superficiality. They challenge nothing about the inherent mechanisms of this “Test” and assume nearly every moving part and reagent is as it should be, rigorously tested and benchmarked, and able to give good results if used correctly. These talking points are; PCR used at too many cycles is inaccurate and the fact that some establishment shill by the name of Kary Mullis once waffled on about some Buddhist notion of being interconnected and that his machine can “find anything in anybody”, which dim people interpret him as saying it can’t be used as a diagnostic (Despite him writing that it could in his patent, in the acceptance of his Nobel Prize and in a letter to the judge of a man accused of spreading “HIV” that Kary got jailed for 8 years).

When you lay everything out on the table this isn’t a very incisive rebuttal of THE machine that fakes pandemics, it’s almost as if most of these talking heads don’t actually want to show that the pandemic was a hoax and to keep the “Virus” lie alive. Of course any machine is inaccurate when you use it in the upper limits of its functionality this is about as crass a rebuttal as can come. Of course nefarious actors will claim they can use this piece of machinery to tell you whatever they want to be able to control you, “You have HIV, coz the machine went blip”… “You owe us $1540 in back payed Tax because the machine went blip”…. “You have been banned from all social media, because the machine went blip” so on and so forth.

So when I hear this piece of information, I literally burst out laughing. It was one of those pieces of information that flew out of the blocks ran straight at the lock and key mechanism on my mental discernment door and crack its head on the door frame, bent over and passed out. I instantly knew that there was no way that this was going to pass the “bullshit test” went put to scrutiny, yet it had been sitting there, quite comfortably bullshitting away under everyone’s nose:

A PCR CYCLE IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

That is once again, as is becoming a bit of a habit written in a bit of a clickbait stylee. Of course a PCR cycle is physically possible, you just heat up the sample, then cool it down a bit and then heat it back up again. What I mean is that, and it would obviously be too long to put it in a subtitle, given the amount of time it is claimed and the strength and efficiency of the heating modules, it is physically impossible to heat up and cool down these samples in the allotted time they claim AKA A cycle is not a cycle as they claim AKA fraud.

Eppendorf Mastercycler X40 — Full Technical Specifications

General & Physical
Model: Mastercycler X40 (Touchscreen, order no. 6381000077)
Dimensions (W x D x H): 24.5 x 38.5 x 23 cm (9.7 x 15.2 x 9.1 in)
Weight: 7.25 kg (approx. 16 lbs)
Power supply: 100–240 V, 50–60 Hz
Power consumption: 500 W (max)
Noise level: 40.5 dB(A)

Thermal Performance
Block type: Aluminum, 96-well
Heating technology: Three Peltier elements
Temperature range: 4–99 °C
Max heating ramp rate: 3.3 °C/s
Max cooling ramp rate: 1.5 °C/s
Temperature accuracy: ±0.15 °C
Temperature uniformity (20–72 °C): ±0.2 °C
Temperature uniformity (72–95 °C): ±0.3 °C

Gradient Function
Gradient format: 12-column linear gradient
Gradient range: 1–30 °C
Gradient temperature range: 30–99 °C

Heated Lid
Type: SafeLid with sample protection
Temperature range: 37–110 °C

Compatible Consumables
0.1 and 0.2 mL tubes and strips
Full-skirted, semi-skirted, and unskirted 96-well plates

Memory & Interface
Max program storage: 5,000 programs
Display: 7-inch chemical-resistant glass touchscreen
Connectivity: Ethernet, USB (front), VisioNize ready (remote monitoring)

Key Operational Modes
Temperature control modes: Fast, Medium, Standard, Safe
Cycling capacity: 5,000 cycles of standard PCR
ACT certified for environmental impact

A PCR CYCLE RUNTIME

Standard PCR Run Time for 40 Cycles on Eppendorf Mastercycler X40

Total run time typically falls between 60 and 70 minutes for a standard protocol.

Standard Cycle Times (40 cycles)

Protocol per cycle (denature + anneal/extend) / Approx. total time:

• 15 sec denature + 60 sec anneal/extend = ~70 minutes

• 5 sec denature + 30 sec anneal/extend = ~43 minutes

• 5 sec denature + 20 sec anneal/extend = ~37 minutes

Ramping Speed Specifications (hardware limits)

Heating rate: 3.3 °C/second (max)
Cooling rate: 1.5 °C/second (max)

Quick Reference for Common Setups on the X40

Fast/short protocol (e.g., 5s denature, 20s anneal): ~37 minutes
Standard/typical protocol (e.g., 15s denature, 60s anneal): 60–70 minutes
Slow/long protocol (long hold times or Safe mode): ~2 hours or more

How to Decide PCR Cycle Times (Hold Times)

There are three steps: denaturation, annealing, and extension. Each has its own rules.

1. Denaturation (94–98°C)

This separates double-stranded DNA into single strands.

Factors that affect time:

• Template complexity: Genomic DNA (human, plant) needs 1–3 minutes for initial denaturation. Plasmids or simple templates need only 10–30 seconds.

• GC-rich templates: If DNA has high GC content (stronger bonds), increase denaturation time or temperature slightly.

• Cyclic denaturation: In later cycles, 5–15 seconds is usually sufficient because the amplicon is much shorter.

General rule: 10–30 seconds per cycle for standard templates. Longer for complex genomic DNA.

2. Annealing (50–68°C)

Primers bind to complementary sequences on the template.

Factors that affect time:

• Primer length and Tm: Annealing temperature is typically set 3–5°C below the primer’s melting temperature (Tm).

• Primer concentration: Higher primer concentration allows shorter annealing time (e.g., 10–15 seconds).

• GC content: GC-rich primers have higher Tm but do not need longer times.

General rule: 15–30 seconds is typical. Longer annealing times (1–2 minutes) are rarely needed and can increase non-specific binding.

3. Extension (72°C)

DNA polymerase synthesizes the new complementary strand.

Factors that affect time:

• Amplicon length: This is the single biggest factor. Standard Taq polymerase extends at ~1 kb per minute.

• Polymerase speed: Some engineered polymerases are faster (2–4 kb/min). Check the manufacturer’s datasheet.

• Complexity: For amplicons under 1 kb, 15–30 seconds is often sufficient.

General rule: 30–60 seconds per 1 kb of target length.

Quick Reference Table (Extension Times)

Amplicon length / Extension time (standard Taq) / Extension time (fast polymerase)

• Under 500 bp: 15–30 seconds / 5–10 seconds

• 500 bp to 1 kb: 30–60 seconds / 10–15 seconds

• 1 to 2 kb: 60–90 seconds / 15–30 seconds

• 2 to 4 kb: 90–120 seconds / 30–60 seconds

• Over 4 kb: 2–4 minutes / 60–120 seconds

Example: Choosing Times for a Typical Experiment

Scenario: Amplify a 750 bp fragment from human genomic DNA using standard Taq polymerase.

• Initial denaturation: 2 minutes at 95°C (human genomic DNA needs longer)

• Cyclic denaturation: 15 seconds at 95°C

• Annealing: 20 seconds at 60°C (primer Tm is 63°C; use 3°C below)

• Extension: 45 seconds at 72°C (750 bp = 45 seconds at 1 kb/min)

• Final extension: 5 minutes at 72°C (ensures all products are fully extended)

Total run time for 40 cycles on Mastercycler X40: Approximately 60–70 minutes using standard mode.

Key Takeaways

• Amplicon length drives extension time (1 minute per kb)

• Template complexity drives denaturation time

• Primer Tm drives annealing temperature (not really time)

• Polymerase speed can dramatically shorten extension times

Total Run Time Calculation for 40 Cycles on Mastercycler X40

Protocol used:

• Initial denaturation: 2 minutes at 95°C

• Per cycle (40 cycles): 15 seconds at 95°C + 20 seconds at 60°C + 45 seconds at 72°C

• Final extension: 5 minutes at 72°C

Step-by-Step Calculation:

Step 1: Initial denaturation
2 minutes = 120 seconds

Step 2: One cycle (hold times only)
15 + 20 + 45 = 80 seconds per cycle

Step 3: 40 cycles (hold times only)
80 seconds × 40 cycles = 3,200 seconds = 53 minutes 20 seconds

Step 4: Final extension
5 minutes = 300 seconds

Step 5: Total hold time
120 + 3,200 + 300 = 3,620 seconds = 60 minutes 20 seconds

Step 6: Adding ramp times (heating and cooling between temperatures)

Cooling from 95°C to 60°C (35°C drop): at 1.5°C/s = ~23 seconds

Heating from 60°C to 72°C (12°C rise): at 3.3°C/s = ~4 seconds

Total ramp time per cycle = ~27 seconds

Total ramp time for 40 cycles = 27 × 40 = 1,080 seconds = 18 minutes

Final Total Run Time:
Total hold time: 60 minutes 20 seconds
Total ramp time: 18 minutes
GRAND TOTAL: 78 minutes 20 seconds (approximately 1 hour 18 minutes)

ALUMINIUM HEATING BLOCK WEIGHT

Block Weight Estimate for Eppendorf Mastercycler X40

Total instrument weight: 7.25 kg (approx. 16 lbs)

Estimated aluminum block weight (alone): 1.1 – 1.5 kg (approx. 2.4 – 3.3 lbs)

The block accounts for roughly 15–20% of the total instrument weight.

Supporting data from other manufacturers (removable 96-well aluminum blocks):

• Gilson 96-well block: 0.91 kg

• LLG 96-well block: 0.70 kg

• Thermo Scientific 96-well block: 1.40 kg

Why the X40 block is likely heavier (1.1-1.5 kg range):

• The X40 block is not a simple passive block. It is an active thermoblock permanently integrated with three Peltier heating/cooling elements and temperature sensors.

• Removable blocks (0.7-1.4 kg) are passive and have no built-in electronics.

• The integrated design adds complexity and mass, placing the X40 block at the higher end of the weight range.

Comparison with other thermal cyclers:

• Mastercycler X40 total weight: 7.25 kg

• Mastercycler X50 total weight: 10.7 kg

• Typical competitor 96-well cyclers: 11-12 kg total

Important note: The 1.1-1.5 kg figure is for the aluminum block alone. It does NOT include the housing, electronics, Peltier elements, heated lid, or power supply. The remaining ~6 kg covers everything else in the instrument.

Eppendorf does not publish the block weight separately because it is a permanently integrated, non-user-replaceable component.

PELTIER MODULE POWER

Corrected Power Breakdown for Eppendorf Mastercycler X40

Total maximum power consumption (whole unit): 500 W

Estimated power draw by component:

• Three Peltier modules (heating/cooling): 300 – 400 W

• Heated lid (up to 110°C): 50 – 100 W

• Electronics, 7” touchscreen, fans, USB/Ethernet: 50 – 100 W

TOTAL: 500 W

Important notes:

• The Peltier modules are the dominant power consumer, using 60-80% of the total 500 W budget.

• The remaining 100-200 W is shared between the heated lid and the onboard electronics.

• These figures are estimates. Eppendorf does not publish the isolated wattage of individual components. Only the total unit power consumption (500 W) is specified in official documentation.

Reasoning for the corrected range:

• If lid + electronics draw 100 W (low end), Peltier modules draw 400 W.

• If lid + electronics draw 200 W (high end), Peltier modules draw 300 W.

Therefore, Peltier modules = 300 – 400 W.

Short answer: there isn’t a single time — it can range from a few seconds to over a minute depending on what you mean by “on its own.” But here’s the physically correct way to think about it:

---

Key point (important)

A Peltier module does not “heat itself up” efficiently in isolation — it moves heat from one side to the other.

So:

• One side gets hot

• The other side gets cold

• The temperature rise depends on load, heat sinking, and thermal mass

---

If you literally mean “bare module in air” (no load, no heatsink)

• Very low thermal mass (~20–40 g ceramic + semiconductors)

• Electrical input: ~100 W

Rough estimate:

• Heat capacity ≈ ~20–40 J/°C

• Energy for +35 °C ≈ ~700–1400 J

At 100 W:

• ~7–15 seconds (ideal)

• Realistically: ~10–30 seconds

BUT:

• It will quickly become unstable

• The hot side will overheat while the cold side drops

• Risk of damage without heat dissipation

---

If you mean “with proper heatsink (normal operation)”

Then:

• The module doesn’t just heat up — it establishes a temperature gradient (ΔT)

Typical behavior:

• ΔT builds over 10–60 seconds

• Maximum ΔT (~50–70 °C) may take 30–120 seconds

So for a 35 °C difference:

• ~10–40 seconds is typical

---

Why it’s not a simple answer

Because time depends heavily on:

• thermal load

• heatsinking efficiency

• airflow

• drive current

• whether you’re measuring:

  • the hot side

  • the cold side

  • or the difference between them

---

Bottom line

Bare module: ~10–30 seconds (but unstable / not realistic)

Properly mounted: ~10–40 seconds to establish ~35 °C difference

Q :how long would it take a 100w peltier module just on its own to raise 12 degrees Celsius. short answer

Short answer: about 3 (ideal), more realistically ~5–10 seconds.

That assumes:

• no heatsink / minimal load

• you’re just heating the module’s own small thermal mass

In real use with any load or heat dissipation, it would take longer.

HEATING AND COOLING TIMES

How long would it take a 400W Peltier module to heat a 1.1 kg block of aluminum by 35 degrees Celsius?

Heating mode ideal calculation:

Mass of aluminum = 1.1 kg
Specific heat capacity of aluminum = 900 J/(kg·°C)
Temperature increase = 35°C

Heat required = mass × specific heat × temperature rise
Heat required = 1.1 × 900 × 35 = 34,650 Joules

Peltier power = 400 W
Time = heat / power = 34,650 / 400 = 86.6 seconds

So ideal heating time = about 87 seconds or 1 minute 27 seconds.

---

Would it take longer to cool it down?

Yes, because cooling with a Peltier is less efficient than heating.
In heating mode, nearly all electrical power becomes heat.
In cooling mode, the Peltier must pump heat from the cold side to the hot side, and its efficiency is given by the coefficient of performance (COP).

For a temperature difference of 35°C, a realistic COP for a common Peltier module is around 0.4 to 0.5.

Cooling calculation with COP = 0.5:
Effective cooling power = COP × electrical power = 0.5 × 400 = 200 W
Time = heat required / effective cooling power = 34,650 / 200 = 173.3 seconds (2 minutes 53 seconds)

Cooling calculation with COP = 0.4:
Effective cooling power = 0.4 × 400 = 160 W
Time = 34,650 / 160 = 216.6 seconds (3 minutes 37 seconds)

If we also include imperfect thermal contact (say 80% of cooling power reaches the block):
Effective power = 0.8 × 160 = 128 W
Time = 34,650 / 128 = 270.7 seconds (4 minutes 31 seconds)

So realistic cooling time with standard losses ranges from about 3.5 to 4.5 minutes.

---

Summary:
Heating (ideal, no losses): 87 seconds
Cooling (COP=0.5): 173 seconds
Cooling (COP=0.4): 217 seconds
Cooling (COP=0.4 + 80% transfer): 271 seconds

Final practical cooling time: 3.5 to 4.5 minutes.

Taking exactly the same mass of block but making it a strange shape to accommodate holding Eppendorf tubes.

Short answer: No significant difference in heating time, assuming the Peltier couples well to the shape and heat distributes evenly. Same mass, same material, same temperature rise → same energy required → same time. If the shape reduces thermal contact with the Peltier or increases heat loss to air, it could be slightly slower, but mass for mass, it’s essentially the same.

Halfway Analysis

I don’t want you to get too fatigued with the AI splurg so I think we should discuss the bombshell stuff that has already dropped before we really turn the screw and ram it home just how ridiculous this is.

Let’s break this down to give you a perspective on what a shitshow this is. The PCR thermocyclers of yore used water and oil baths with resistive heaters the likes of which you might find in a kettle. Sounds old and clunky right. Fine. Now, in practically every machine right the way to the flagship Quant 7 thermocyclers ($70k+) they use Peltier modules which you can get on Aliexpress for £2.99. These will be practically very similar to any heating module in these thermocyclers.

The way these pieces of shit work is not a simple heating up of a resistor, but it is inducing of a current in a layer of semiconductors that excites one side causing it to heat up and the resultant heat draw causes the opposite side to cool down. Reverse the polarity and the sides swap cold for hot. Sound a bit tenuous and not particularly quick? Correct. These modules are not used for their speed but rather because they can both heat and cool, are cheap and to be fair to them pretty accurate (when they eventually get to the right temperature).They do this with a big heat aluminum heat sink, which in our case is the 1.1kg behemoth that holds the Eppendorf tubes with the samples in them. Attached to the heat sink are fans to try and cool the sink when the polarity is reversed as quite coincidentally the largest temp difference in the cycle is the cooling cycle which is the least efficient phase for a Peltier module to carry out.

Now we can see roughly the pony electronics that are going on inside over these astronomically overpriced pieces of shit, let us take a look at some of the basic numbers going on. The manufacturers state in their own literature that the ramp up and ramp down times, i.e the time it takes to get to the denaturation, annealing and extension phases of the cycle , are an astounding 1.5C/s cooling and 3.3C/s heating. Giving us a total wait time between phases of just 27 seconds.

Cooling from 95°C to 60°C (35°C drop): at 1.5°C/s = ~23 seconds

Heating from 60°C to 72°C (12°C rise): at 3.3°C/s = ~4 seconds

Total ramp time per cycle = ~27 seconds

Total ramp time for 40 cycles = 27 × 40 = 1,080 seconds = 18 minutes

Let’s zoom in on just one section of this, to keep it clean and understandable. The manufacturer’s documents claim that to ramp up from Annealing phase to Extension phase they can heat the 1.1kg Aluminum block, the 96 plastic Eppendorf tubes AND their liquid contents up by 12 degrees in just 4 seconds. If you don’t think that sounds absurd you very shortly will.

Q :how long would it take a 100w peltier module just on its own to raise 12 degrees Celsius. short answer

Short answer: about 3 (ideal), more realistically ~5–10 seconds.

Again the manufacturer states there are 3 Peltier modules in the x40 thermocycler. With a total wattage of the unit at 500w, we can assume that the power consumption of the heating modules is between say 300-400w. Let’s keep it clean and say that each module is 100w. As above, AI gives the conservative estimate that a 100w Peltier module would take at the very least, in a real world setting 5 seconds to HEAT ITSELF UP. I.e for the module itself to get that hot, not heating anything at all. It puts its upper limits at twice that which it claims brings the sample up to temperature.

So I did the calculation for the longest part of these ramping cycles being the cool down phase from denaturation to annealing. A large cooling drop of 35 degrees Celsius that the manufacturers claim can be done in just 23 seconds. To validate the first step of this I got two different AIs to run with how long it would heat the manufacturer specified 1.1kg Aluminum block that holds the Eppendorf Tubes. We are completely disregarding anything else for the moment. Just the Peltier modules and the block, which when calculated how long even the absolute maximum wattage draw possible of 400W takes an estimated:

Final practical cooling time: 3.5 to 4.5 minutes.

This is ignoring the fact that the shape of the Aluminium Block given that it is cast to hold the Eppendorf tubes is not the most efficient shape to heat up, it still gives out a time that is between 9 and 13 times longer than the manufacturers claim it takes to bring the sample up to temp.

No Sense

Q: In a x40 eppendorf thermocycler do they have temperature sensors that take measurements of the samples?

No. The Mastercycler X40 controls the temperature of the aluminum block, not the samples directly, using multiple Peltier elements.

So here we see, if we take every ridiculous notion away from this theory of a heating cycle as they describe it. There is no actual temperature reading in the thing they are testing, the sample. How is it then they can claim consistency?

Q: Is the temperature adjusted depending on the size of the sample?

No. The temperature profile is set by the user based on the block, not adjusted automatically by sample volume. The user must manually optimize cycling conditions (e.g., extension times) for different sample volumes.

Again we see a fundamental problem with this idea of heating temperatures is that at no point are any of the metrics changed for the amount of sample in an Eppendorf tube. This would surely be a massive limiting factor when the amount of seconds at each phase of the cycle are said to be crucial especially to things like melt curves.

Temperature Sensor Positioning

Q: So the temperature sensor is mounted to the bottom of the aluminum block straight above the Peltier modules?

Yes, that is exactly correct.

The temperature sensors are mounted on the bottom surface of the aluminum block, positioned directly above the three Peltier modules

As you can see from the diagrams above, the temperature sensor is mounted to the underside of the Aluminum block, this is an absolutely crucial piece of information as it seems to me as why we get a huge difference in measured to calculated temperatures: The sensors are basically reading off the temperature of the Peltier modules, nothing to do with the block being heated at all.

It gets Worse

RAMP DOWN Denaturation to Annealing 90-65 Degrees C.

Thank you for sharing ChatGPT’s detailed breakdown. That analysis is excellent and highlights a key point I missed earlier: my estimate assumed the Peltier’s cold side was directly cooling the block, but I did not fully account for how drastically the module’s cooling power collapses as the temperature difference (ΔT) across it increases. ChatGPT correctly notes that a “400W” Peltier might only deliver 50–120W of actual cooling when pulling a 25°C differential (from 65°C cold side to ~90°C hot side). My earlier COP assumption of 0.3–0.6 (120–240W) was therefore too optimistic for a real-world air-cooled setup.

Given that, I agree with ChatGPT’s revised framework. For your 1.1 kg aluminum block cooling from 90°C to 65°C (24,750 J to remove), with a realistic cooling power of 50–120W, the ideal time before losses is 3.4 to 8.3 minutes. Adding real-world penalties (heat leaks, interface resistance, hot-side sink limitations) extends this further. Therefore, the best estimate for your setup—assuming a decent heatsink with fan, but not liquid cooling—is 6 to 10 minutes for the block alone. Adding the 5–10 seconds for the 50 µL Eppendorf tube liquid to equilibrate is negligible; call it 6 to 10 minutes total. This is substantially longer than my previous 2–3.5 minute estimate, and I acknowledge ChatGPT’s figure as more realistic for a typical benchtop Peltier cooler without aggressive hot-side management.

RAMP UP Annealing 65-77 Degrees C

Assuming the liquid is water-based, 50 µL (50 mg) requires only about 2.5 Joules to heat from 60°C to 72°C, and the plastic Eppendorf tube adds a small additional thermal mass. This is negligible compared to the ~11,950 Joules needed for the 1.1 kg aluminum block. The rate-limiting step is heating the block, not the tiny sample. Once the block reaches temperature, the liquid and tube will need a few extra seconds to equilibrate.

Therefore, the total estimated time is 65 to 100 seconds. This breaks down as 60–90 seconds to heat the aluminum block from 60°C to 72°C (based on the Peltier’s real-world efficiency of ~200–250W effective heating power), plus an additional 5–10 seconds for the 50 µL liquid inside the Eppendorf tube to thermally equilibrate with the block. In a well-coupled setup (tube snugly inserted with thermal paste or direct contact), you should expect the entire assembly to reach 72°C within roughly 75–100 seconds.

Total Time

Low Estimate 7 mins 15 seconds of ramp intervals.

High Estimate 11 mins 40 seconds of ramp intervals.

Normal Cycle Run Time: 60 mins 12 seconds.

CALCULATED TOTAL RUN TIME

This is the calculated total runtime according to multiple different AI programmers of how long a PCR reaction would take in a thermocycler, if the claimed samples temperatures were reached given all the manufacturer specifications.

Low Estimate: 6 hrs and 2 minutes.

High Estimate: 8 hrs 46 minutes and 52 seconds

---

---

Double the Power

Right to really stress test this I have run a few of the calculations but doubling the power of the Peltier modules to 800w, this is 300w more than the entire thermocycler pulls:

Your earlier estimate is on the right track, but the scaling from 400 W → 800 W is not linear for Peltiers—this is the key thing to correct before giving a final answer.

An “800 W” Peltier doesn’t give you 2× the cooling of a 400 W unit. In reality you usually get ~1.3×–1.6× improvement at best, because:

• Cooling capacity drops fast with ΔT (~25°C here)

• Higher power → more heat dumped on the hot side → harder to remove

• Efficiency (COP) gets worse at higher input power

---

🔧 Updated realistic cooling ranges

We’ll keep your heat load:

• 24,750 J to remove

Now apply realistic effective cooling power for each class:

🔹 400 W Peltier (baseline)

• Effective cooling @ ΔT ≈ 25°C: 50–120 W

• Real-world result (as you had):

👉 6–10 minutes typical

---

🔹 600 W Peltier

• Effective cooling: 80–160 W

• Gains limited by heat rejection

👉 Estimated time: 5–8 minutes

---

🔹 800 W Peltier

• Effective cooling: 100–200 W (only if very well cooled)

• Requires serious heatsink or water cooling to reach upper range

👉 Estimated time: 4–7 minutes

---

⚠️ Reality check (important)

The upper-end performance (4–5 min) only happens if:

• Large heatsink + high airflow or water cooling

• Excellent thermal contact (clamped + paste)

• Ambient not too warm

If not:

• 800 W behaves much closer to 600 W or even 400 W

• You’ll still see ~6–10 minutes

---

🧠 Key takeaway

• 400 W → 6–10 min

• 600 W → 5–8 min

• 800 W → 4–7 min

👉 Notice: doubling power only saves ~30–40% time, not 50%

It notes that you by no means get double the heating efficiency by doubling the power, you are more likely to get 1.3x -1.6x benefit. This reduces one stage of the phase ramping from estimates of 6-10minutes to 4-7minutes.

This puts the lowest possible estimate at: 4 Hrs 20 minutes.

WHY!!? and CONCLUSION

I have run these calculations so many times now, with three different AIs (Which give me quite different results, but all drastically over claimed specs), using the manufacturers specs for all the maths and have come up with figures that are consistently 10x above what they claim is occurring in a PCR test. Of course this would change given the thermocycler, there are more powerful, newer ones on the market than the Eppendorf x 40. But again I ran the calculations by doubling the power input that exceeds nearly every thermocyclers Wattage draw on the market, especially the 96 well plate models (As the larger thermocyclers would obviously have larger Aluminum blocks to match).

Maybe I am missing something glaringly obvious but I just can’t see it. It makes sense if you look where they are taking temperature readings from that the timings of literally just the Peltier modules heating or cooling themselves up or down are much closer to the projected times that they state (Surprisingly still longer than they quote). But still this seems absurd to just give this as a temperature reading for a sample that would take 10x longer to reach that temp. Maybe there are other thermocycler models that have temperature sensors on top of the block, closer to the Eppendorf tubes? But surely these would give more accurate readings that show these temperature fluctuations are not being achieved?

Given that this all checks out my biggest question is WHY!? Talking to my wife about this who was trained as an engineer, we both just looked at each other, very much puzzled. I am acutely aware that bugger all benchmarking or validation has been bought into the realms of Virology or Genetics. But I don’t think this applies at all to the world of engineering/tech/electronics. Things are stress tested to within an inch of their lives especially in very expensive pieces of equipment made by multinational corporations, largely because its pretty easy to tell if your marketing about said product is off, of which they would be legally culpable.

At the very very least, even if someone comes along from the recesses on the internet and shows me that I have completely fudged up the calculations. They still do not have a temperature probe IN the sample… that is incredibly sloppy. They still don’t actively adjust heating strength to cater for volume sample size….. that is incredibly sloppy. So given these things and the amount of mental fraud I have uncovered in the realms of Virology and Genetics it could certainly be feasible. It just still doesn’t answer the question of WHY!?

Why do they need to give off the appearance that some very precise temperature is needed for this to work when in actual fact this temp is probably just skimming around the 80 degree mark for the entire length in the actual sample (As calculations show that 7 minutes initial ramp up time to 90 degrees is adequate) ? For what reason has this massive blunder been overlooked? Is it just pure laziness? These companies are making 1000x mark ups on the components and raw materials for these machines. Is it just purely a money making exercise? That would make sense. But the other thing that both me and my wife couldn’t figure out is; surely someone else had noticed? Surely someone on the engineering side working for these companies had put 2 and 2 together non? Surely a User with a basic interest in engineering or indeed logic might have had their suspicions aroused? I’d genuinely like people’s feedback on this and maybe we can all formulate a hypothesis together.

Cheers

J

If you have enjoyed this article and want to support the project with a one time donation please BuyMeACoffee, thanks!

This article is available as a downloadable EBook along with the rest of my work on ShadowBanned Library