A challenge!

[pHaestus]

Apparently the choice of tubing size in a water cooling loop is a contentious global issue. Contentious enough to spawn many personal attacks against me, the readers of this site, and even our wives! I could stoop to the same level and make comments about the "small tubes" of our European counterparts, but I thought that perhaps it would be more appropriate to instead channel my efforts in a more useful way:

I am issuing a formal challenge to the "low flow is better" and "small tubing is better" crowd one and all. I will be happy to do a point/counterpoint article that is hosted on both Procooling and your website of choice where you and yours can expound the virtues of using small tubing and how it improves cooling performance and I will explain my position and rebut where needed. It must, of course, remain civil and focus on FACTS and I will do my best to explain the relevant theory and correct any misconceptions/inaccuracies that may be presented.

Let me know. My first installment would be called "Cool, Quiet, Compact: Choose any two". I can also provide a nice historical perspective on how the typical American water cooling system ended up where it is today.

[pHaestus]

In case the other interested parties don't read this site due to our color scheme or something (http://www.wizdforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=5847#post5847)

[Joe]

along with the small hose issues in europe, it seems they have bad eye's also... that one guy was funny as hell talking about how hard it was to look at the procooling site :)

[Myth]

I live in Denmark, where this topic and results from Watercoolingplanet is brought up almost everytime someone mentions watercooling. Since i started following the threads at this site, i often refer to threads or the in my opinion fantastic test results. Almost every time people agree that the "US" way gives better results, But in many cases people chose the more available german style stuff since Dangerden and Swiftech is harder to get, and more expensive.. I guess what we really need overhere are more companies selling better products since most agree that a Cascade is better than eg. Alphacool BUT the Cascade is twice as expensive and hard to get.

[knipex]

Guys

I thought we had an end to inter forum bashing.

A genuine comparison of the pro's and cons of low flow and or smaller tubing is something I would be very interested in.

But forum bashing doesn't belong on places like this or wizd. No one not even the origional poster said they hated you. As a matter of fact the origional poster even said that you were a decent guy. No one even mentioned you wife.

Can it please end now...

Also we have never stated or pushed the fact that small tubing or low flow is "better" just that it has its advantages.

All of the following quotes come directly from wizd.

High flow has the peformance edge but only if the loop is designed carefully and the components all complement each other. Due to the nature of the components its easy to constrict your flow which can adversly affect your performance.

avoid low flow systems with insufficient cooling as they are called kettles


Difference in temps on an American and European watercooling systems are minimal.. At max you are looking at a degree possibly two.

I had one too (1/2 inch), but I changed so I could harness the beauty of some of Aqua Computers "stuff". I can still overclock as well, my RAM is only PC-3500, so I get the same OC on water from either schools. Star is right, but if you like what you've got, keep it, if you want to try some German stuff, go for it. All watercooling is good, and it's up to you to choose the one you want.

The first two are taken from the infamous thread. The rest from various posts.

We have our fanboys but you also have yours.

[greenman100]

lets do it

civil is key

[pHaestus]

Well from my standpoint the size of hose is a sort of non-issue. It is, to me, one of the design parameters that affect pump choice and not much more. The "American" approach to systems evolved around what was readily available for DIYers and mostly empirical observations. My exposure to the "German" approach is limited to when the Innovatek kits were released a couple of years ago. Even now I am mostly familiar with European mfgrs as providing "complete kits" where US water coolers treat mfgrs more as "wb makers" and assemble the rest themselves from auto stores and pet shops. There is good and bad with this; a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment come from DIY but presumably an engineer can assemble an optimized matched kit that gets the most out of all the components chosen.

[pHaestus]

There were several posts that began with "I hate Procooling"

Someone said that with our outlooks we probably all had 300 lb wives who could cook and clean well.

Crawfishing already? Post your merits of low flow to performance; you know where to find me

[greenman100]

optimized kit?

here's what to optimize:

maximize flowrate (air and water)
maximize surface area of radiator
employ efficent heat transfer (turbulent) designs in waterblock and heatercore

seems simple to me, if you disagree, go take some college level physics.

seems to me a low-flow system cannot match a similarly priced high-flow, unless "looks" are accounted for

would be happy to eat my words

[jaydee]

Guys

I thaugh we had an end to inter forum bashing.

A genuine comparison of the pro's and cons of low flow and or smaller tubing is something I would be very interested in but forum bashing doesn't belong on places like this or wizd.
Touchy.

Anyway;
This will be hard to do pH. One group will always think the other is biased no matter the empirical evidence. I know your not biased and you know your not biased but people like Mr Poo (which seem to be widely available in Euro countries) will always claim bias because your work is better than theirs "so you must work for DD and be biased". Even though your results show DD blocks as midrange level products. :D Common sense and logic fail when big dick disease is present.

Anyway good luck.

[greenman100]

this isn't procooling after all. if you want an argument, go there. they care about the degree or two, so you'll hear US style 1/2 systems recommended.

more to come, relevant to the topic at hand

[pHaestus]

I plan to use nothing more than high school level math and physics to support my arguments, and everything will be cited and referenced. THEY picked the fight with Darcy; not me!

[knipex]

What exactly did he say to insult ProCool ???

I can use quotes also. (I edited my origional post to include some.)

Can we all (ProCool and Wizd) grow up now and just concentrate on what we are suposed to be doing..

No one "picked a fight". There was a thread that was contributed too by a few posters. That was it. No war no throwing down of gloves, no threats nothing.

What are we 5 year old kids.. He starterd it.... he picked on me....

[pHaestus]

wtf? don't delete the offensive threads and then ask me what was said exactly. Why not just undelete it, let everyone read it in its entirety, and THEN come here and say noone insulted this site.

the gist of that thread, I think all who read will agree was:
Procooling is full of lying poorly educated blowhards who are profiting off the sale of 1/2" ID cooling products. They made up the superiority of increasing flow rates for cooling and are now making lots of money off of it. Then there were a variety of other less relevant personal attacks.

All I am saying is that everything I support I can back up with facts. Are the quotes you used all the discussion about the superiority of small ID tubing systems that you'd care to make? Surely you can do better.

[knipex]

Sorry PH

I was reffering to Greenmans post above and the attached quote. I am the first to admit that the ProCooling bashing got out of hand and when we realised it we put a stop to it.

I personally came to Procooling, you and cather to appolagise and to try and put it right. I dont know what else I can do. Neither Pug nor any of the mods can be held responsible for every post made on the forums...

Edit

If you wish to have a vopy of the post put on here I can speak tp Pug about it. But we deleted it for a reason. We did no not want that kind of post on Wizd and leaving it up would have achieved nothing while keeping it in the public eye. We removed any derogitory refference to ProCooling.

[pHaestus]

And I am willing to let all of that foolishness drop; there are assholes everywhere. But in that thread there was a lot of misinformation and people making comments about the superiority of flow flow systems that flies completely in the face of years of test results and (more importantly) laws of physics.

I DO tend to hold grudges and am quick to disregard entire forums worth of people as being a waste of my time. But in this case it seems to me that some good for everyone could come out of this. Let the people who are making the claims about low flow/small tubing systems come forward, make their statements in a more permanent way (a website article) and defend them. Let's DO IT

Here is what I posted in your forum:

"As a forum I propose that you draft up a statement about the superiority of low flow/small tubing. I will write an article detailing why, for a given cooling system, that using lower resistance fittings and hose (proper plumbing and bigger tubing) will always result in either the same or improved performance.

To put it simply, for a given set of parts: smaller tubing is at BEST similar in performance and at worst it performs quite a bit worse.

I am quite eager to see the math on how you can improve cooling by using more restrictive tubing and fittings."

I really do wish you'd leave that thread up and just close it. The inaccuracies are what I am more interested in than the personal attacks (I have thick skin and can take it).

[pHaestus]

a PM sent to knipex:

As far as that thread goes, shit happens. There seem to be a lot of misinformed people on your forums though. It's fine to make tradeoffs like placing value on "ease of use" or "tidyness" and going with smaller hose. I never ran a Whitewater or RBX block in my own PC because I hate those Y connectors for example. I did this even though at the time the WW was the best available wb. I don't use a Cascade any more in my main PC because the nozzles get clogged up and it's a PITA to clean. Same deal; I value low maintenance more than that extra 1-2C I get out of the Cascade. But erroneously thinking that smaller tubing is "better" is not good. I also find it very disturbing that people would hold up German engineering to be so great and then bash the engineering principles (I guarantee you that the people at AlphaCool and Innovatek know the same math and physics I do) that make the German stuff possible. People just need to be better informed about the tradeoffs that they are making when they choose their kits. On BOTH sides of the pond actually.

[knipex]

I totally agree and that is what we are all trying to do.

From my post on Wizd.



Nope that is exactly whay I am saying. It is my opinion only I will add I cannot speak for anyone else (all though I expect 99% of the people here will agree with me). "German style" kits will not give better temps that "American" they will give as good or close (read a degree max 2)


I have allways said that the main benifit of smaller tubing is asthetics and ease of install. I will argue the fact that me temperatures are suffering hugely as a result though. I am quite willing to run a degree hotter with the advantages I get with the smaller tubing.

Another advantage in my view is that all the equipment designed to take 8mm O/D tubing is designed to run that way so its harder for a noob to build a poorly designed system. (but that is purely my own hypothisis)


Can we all agree to end this now and start with a clean slate ??

[greenman100]

Sorry PH

I was reffering to Greenmans post above and the attached quote. I am the first to admit that the ProCooling bashing got out of hand and when we realised it we put a stop to it.

I should have been more specific, I guess. By "topic at hand" I meant high flow vs. low flow. I was just citing something form your forums that showed there is a perormance advantage to high flow.

but yet you claim there is a performance advantage to low flow? am I missing something?

[Chew_Toy]

I am personally looking forward to this. I am considering building a system with 5/16 ID tubing with a c-systems pump or an mcp600 with probably the Alphacool HP cpu block. I am hoping for temps within 2~4° of my 1/2 setup. But I honestly dont see a system based on 6mm tubes being within 1° of the 1/2 system. I believe that a 10mm ID system can get basicly the same results nowdays with the higher head pumps and more restrictive blocks but untill its proved to me I dont see it with the 6mm ID stuff.

[knipex]

I should have been more specific, I guess. By "topic at hand" I meant high flow vs. low flow. I was just citing something form your forums that showed there is a perormance advantage to high flow.

but yet you claim there is a performance advantage to low flow? am I missing something?

please read the post above yours.

[knipex]

I am personally looking forward to this. I am considering building a system with 5/16 ID tubing with a c-systems pump or an mcp600 with probably the Alphacool HP cpu block. I am hoping for temps within 2~4° of my 1/2 setup. But I honestly dont see a system based on 6mm tubes being within 1° of the 1/2 system. I believe that a 10mm ID system can get basicly the same results nowdays with the higher head pumps and more restrictive blocks but untill its proved to me I dont see it with the 6mm ID stuff.

I think you may be pleasently surprised but as they say the proof is in the pudding.

On a side note and possibly another advantage.

I currently cool a CPU. GPU, Northbridge, Hardrive and moffsets using an old 1048 pump and 8/6mm tubing. When I added the hardrive and moffsets it had no effect on my CPU temps.

[bigben2k]

Huh?

I don't see 1/2 over 3/8 or vice versa as being an issue. I suggest that ya'll get your battles straight!

This is bound to degenerate into a useless "US vs German" thread, just like we had (and we had two!).

Bottom line, there's merit in both, and unless the flow rate is unusually high, the difference will be minimal.

I'll post pressure drop figures from Hazen-Williams, for 3/8 and 1/2" ID, for various flow rates, and various lengths of tubing, if anyone's interested, to support pHaestus' Darcy numbers.

[redleader]

Is there a link to the back story here? I took ~36 hours off from reading the site and i have no idea whats going on. :confused:

Oh the thread with everything I'd need to know to understand whats going on was helpfully deleted because eraseing something said is the same as never saying it!

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mikeg/rolleyesbarf3.gif

[jaydee]

Is there a link to the back story here? I took ~36 hours off from reading the site and i have no idea whats going on. :confused:
It seems to have been seriously edited. http://www.wizdforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427 I missed it aswell. :shrug:

[Bignuts]

I think I am gonna volunteer for making a "low flow" system, using the theory that the lower the flow, the more time the water spends in the radiator, the better the system performs. I think I read that somewhere....

[dutchcedar]

It seems to have been seriously edited. http://www.wizdforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427 I missed it aswell. :shrug:It was... but you didn't miss much. Just a few people airing opinions... :shrug:

[jaydee]

It was... but you didn't miss much. Just a few people airing opinions... :shrug:
Much like the AMBMC/PCPerspctive Lightning round eh? I assume your the same DutchCedar. :D Lost my intrest in that site.

[Cathar]

I have some questions that I believe need to be answered before anything like this proceeds:

1) What is defined as low-flow?
2) What is defined as high-flow?
3) What is defined as thin tubing?
4) What is defined as fat tubing?
5) Is there any blurred middle-ground that we want to avoid purely for the sake of providing a clear distinction between the two?
6) If there is a blurred middle-ground, what do we do about it?

[Chew_Toy]

Good questions and with each I would guess there would be some blurring.
Maybe if enough people would define each as they see it we could reach some common labels for each.

!. I would say low-flo would be pretty much anything with a pump under 3~4' head and maybe small tubes also.
2. System with pumps with 5' head and up and large tubes.
3. Tubes 8mm and under.
4. Tubes 10mm and larger.
5. I dont think that any middle-ground should be avoided, since I feel both sides will overlap each other just because the tech is getting better and will see each side moving closer to the middle.
6. With the middle-ground I would say that would be systems that fit either mold and would be a win/loss for either.

To me its just like anything else in that things are very seldom black and white, there is usually a lot of grey area and its nothing to get upset over.

[dutchcedar]

Much like the AMBMC/PCPerspctive Lightning round eh? I assume your the same DutchCedar. :D Lost my intrest in that site.Same-same... its still a nice place to visit if you work by yourself and need to yack during a coffee break... ;)

I think I take too many coffee breaks... :p

[jaydee]

3. Tubes 8mm and under.
4. Tubes 10mm and larger.



Well there will have to be some compromise here as in the US we don't use metric tubing.

10 millimeter = 0.3937008 inch
8 millimeter = 0.3149606 inch

.625" is 5/8".
.5 is 1/2".
.375" is 3/8".
.25 is 1/4".


Those are common tubing sizes available in the US. Might throw a little curve in the tests being metric tubing has different ID's than standard tubing.

[Cathar]

For most circumstances:

13mm ~= 1/2" or 12.70mm
10mm ~= 3/8" or 9.53mm
8mm ~= 5/16" or 7.94mm
6mm ~= 1/4" or 6.35mm
4mm ~= 5/32" or 3.97mm

For ID the above can be used quite interchangeably and freely for most things, especially for barb style fittings. The only time where it may become an issue is where the OD is of critical importance for certain push-fit fittings. eg. where 3/8" OD won't seal well in a 10mm OD push-fitting, or 1/4" OD won't fit inside the collet of a 6mm push-fitting.

[Cathar]

1. I would say low-flo would be pretty much anything with a pump under 3~4' head and maybe small tubes also.
2. System with pumps with 5' head and up and large tubes.


I see you included the pumps and tubing. What do we do then call, say, an Eheim 1046 system with 1/2" ID tubing and a low-resistance block and radiator pushing 1GPM, or perhaps a 1048 in the same system pushing over 1.5GPM?

Or for #2), what about, say an MCP600 with a high resistance block, fat tubing, and pushing just 0.5GPM?

I would say that when many people say "low-flow" what they are really trying to say is low-pumping pressure, or perhaps more rarely, moderate pumping pressure matched with restrictive tubing. To define it in terms of pumps and tubing is rather open-ended.

I was more hoping for specific flow rate ranges. How about the following?

< 3 LPM = low flow
3-6 LPM = moderate flow
> 6 LPM = hi flow


3. Tubes 8mm and under.
4. Tubes 10mm and larger.


What about 6mm ID, or even 4mm ID, which are tiny even in comparison to 8mm ID? Like for flow-rates, I'm more tempted to have 3 categories, which also happen to align themselves with the above flow-rate ranges in terms of the tubing not playing a major factor in the system-wide resistance.

<8mm ID (< 5/16") = thin tubing
8-11mm ID (5/16" to 7/16") = moderately sized tubing
>11mm ID (>7/16") = fat tubing


5. I dont think that any middle-ground should be avoided, since I feel both sides will overlap each other just because the tech is getting better and will see each side moving closer to the middle.
6. With the middle-ground I would say that would be systems that fit either mold and would be a win/loss for either.

To me its just like anything else in that things are very seldom black and white, there is usually a lot of grey area and its nothing to get upset over.


I believe that the middle areas should be defined, since they are areas of convergence and grey, and also to provide a clear distinction that everyone can agree upon when talking about hi/low flow, and thin/fat tubing. Such seems to have been the primary issue of contention for past debates where certain "low-flow" setups definitely crept up into the muddled grey-area between the two sides of the debate.

Personally I love the middle-grounds as defined above - they best reflect my own opinion on where water-cooling should be headed to deliver the best of all worlds.

[Kobuchi]

<HINT> An European might nominate Cathar moderator.

[msv]

<HINT> An European might nominate Cathar moderator.

Cathar is a very polite person in all his writings here. Among other virtues of his.

BTW, doesn't Rittall use 4 mm ID tubing for their watercooled 19" computer racks?
regards
Mikael S.

[pHaestus]

Quite agree with this:

< 3 LPM = low flow
3-6 LPM = moderate flow
> 6 LPM = hi flow

Don't know why people would define "high and low" flow without listing a flow rate. I would also say 8mm and under would be "small tubing" and I would also put 11mm and up as "big tubing".

I am not sure Cathar is so universally liked; that's one of the things that spawned this cluster**** of a thread after all ;)

[Les]

My definition of low flow :-
< 0.6 LPM for 6mm ID
< 0.9 LPM for 9mm ID
< 1.2 LPM for 12mm ID
These are the LPM below which the flow becomes laminar (Re< 2200)

[AngryAlpaca]

So we're all with high flow systems, Les? Then there should be no argument as we are all equal. Useless numbers.

I don't think this will be that big of a challenge... Usually requires large heatecore... Can't add HDD, NB, GPU, Mosfet blocks without lowering flow (not inaccurate, just stupid)... More powerful pump needed...

Can add multiple blocks without damaging flow (see above)... Less powerful pump needed... If that's the best they can come up with, this isn't worth the time.

Also, aren't they focussing too much on the tubing size? I thought this was about the block design and the pumps?

[Les]

So we're all with high flow systems, Les? Then there should be no argument as we are all equal.
No.
Few(if any) use, what I would describe as, low flow.
High flow I would define as when the flow becomes Fully Turbulent in the tubing.
However I find this boundary more difficult to define.
Some (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/21_577.html) define fully turbulent with Re>4000, yet Wolverine (http://www.wlv.com/products/databook/databook.pdf) Re>10000 .

Useless numbers.
If you say so.

[Myth]

Why bother about turbolent and laminar flow in tubing? In rads and blocks i get it.. but why in the tubing?

BTW: check this tool out: http://home.hccnet.nl/m.dijk/pressure_drop_calculator/

[pHaestus]

Not useless. Rather than defining flow as "low" or "high" based on arbitrary numbers, Les is using a definition that one can calculate from physical properties.

//edit: Very cool myth!

[Les]

Why bother about turbolent and laminar flow in tubing? In rads and blocks i get it.. but why in the tubing?


Check out (http://www.procooling.com/html/pro_testing.php) the difference between the MCW6002-A and the MCW6000-A
Maybe it is relevant there.

[BillA]

are we not actually interested in the transition between tubing sizes ?
at what point do the line friction losses indicate that performance would be improved by increasing the line size ? (all, LOL)
obviously this is a consequence of the flow rate, which is that resulting from the particular assembly of components in the system

following (more or less) the sizing from the above posts:
- for a 2m length of tubing, the flow resistance is (in mH2O):
size, mm . flow . . . 1x . . . . 2x . . . . . 4x . . where "x" is the initial flow rate for that size
6 . . . . . . . 0.6 . . 0.075 . . 0.263 . . 0.949
8 . . . . . . . 0.8 . . 0.031 . . 0.111 . . 0.389
10-3/8 . . . 1.0 . . 0.016 . . 0.056 . . 0.203
13-1/2 . . . 1.3 . . 0.007 . . 0.026 . . 0.092

now an observant reader might note that a diagonal from upper left to lower right will hold the line losses constant while the flow rate increases, which says . . . . .

simple stuff right ?
and that is quite all there is to it

the "German engineers" are making pretty wbs, and ignoring that which does not fit their conclusions
small is quite ok, if one accepts the compromises that follow
no biggie

easy friction losses: http://www.tasonline.co.za/toolbox/pipe/velfirc.htm
and other stuff

[BillA]

So we're all with high flow systems, Les? Then there should be no argument as we are all equal. Useless numbers.

I don't think this will be that big of a challenge... If that's the best they can come up with, this isn't worth the time.

Also, aren't they focussing too much on the tubing size? I thought this was about the block design and the pumps?
AA
your post is useless
what solution(s) did you propose ?
when you critique, also propose the/a solution

is everything you do not understand (Les' proposal in this instance) useless ?
the flow rate is the crux of the 'problem', Les understood, you did not

cool your jets

[pHaestus]

now an observant reader might note that a diagonal from upper left to lower right will hold the line losses constant while the flow rate increases, which says . . . . .

simple stuff right ?
and that is quite all there is to it
Exactly Bill

What is units on flow rate in your little table above? Took me a moment to digest that in its current form there heh

And yet the misconceptions persist; my hope was that people would be AWARE of the compromises being made (or being made for them).

//edit: Also of interest (maybe) is the upper limit to hose size for our systems. I don't know if there's an equation to determine the point where you can't clear the lines of air, but it's somewhere between 1/2" and 3/4" I'd say from my test bench. Also the hose routing (and flat mounting of wb with all that torque) becomes a big issue.

[Incoherent]

Check out (http://www.procooling.com/html/pro_testing.php) the difference between the MCW6002-A and the MCW6000-A
Maybe it is relevant there.
Interesting observation Les.
I am trying to stay out of this, being a "low-flow" advocate because it's more practical in my case, not for performance reasons. The suggestion that smaller tubes could be beneficial at a given flowrate is appealing.
I ran a system with a windscreen/headlight washer pump for six months almost continuosly using copper brake lines. I.D 2mm. Radiator and pump outside through the winter with coolant as low as -20C. Excellent performance as far as I could tell at that time, if you don't count noise in the equation. When the pump, oddly enough, burned up, the performance drop with a more conventional centrifugal pump and summer temperatures was strangely dramatic.
The point being, limitations to performance can be compensated for in other ways, Making the whole argument a little moot.
In an SSF case a 6mm I.D. system could easily outperform an otherwise identical 1/2" I.D. system simply due to airflow restriction.
All other things being equal, high flow can't not beat a low flow system. It's an end, not a means and not really what the debate should be about.

[BillA]

lpm, sorry (started from Les' post)

and your edit is why low flow systems with BIG tubing won't work (though simple numbers would suggest its optimum)
we seem to be a total of 2 who understand this

[WAJ_UK]

I don't know if this will be of interest to anyone. I was just interested to see what kind of a difference tube diameter would make so I thought I would mess around with some numbers

It is a theoretical system with:
1m of tubing, using http://www.tasonline.co.za/toolbox/pipe/velfirc.htm to calculate pressure drop

a ww, using figures from http://thermal-management-testing.com/white%20water.htm

a FEDCO 2-274 using figures from http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/attachment.php?attachmentid=1786

and pump info from http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=5068

The picture shows the effect on the WB C/W caused by the different flow rates acheived in each setup

[BillA]

this is all as obvious as the tail on a donkey

the low flow/small dia guys simply don't wish to accept the fact that there are performance losses associated with small dia systems

-> and are terrified that a "high flow" US wb may beat them also at low flow
the proof is in the pudding

(but I STILL cannot e-mail WCP !, grrr, a conspiracy I tell ya)

[Les]

this is all as obvious as the tail on a donkey



Yes, but it is the length of the tail
WAJ's numbers look about right for 1m of tube

Larger effect of couse for 2m, roughly :
http://www.jr001b4751.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WAJ.jpg
For the Eheim1048 would give increase in C/W of ~ 0.02 for reduction in tubing ID from 12.5mm to 6mm

[Cathar]

and your edit is why low flow systems with BIG tubing won't work (though simple numbers would suggest its optimum)
we seem to be a total of 2 who understand this

hmmm - won't work? Surely it is dependent upon whether or not the waterblock is using the fitting/barb as a middle-in impingement velocity acceleration device, as opposed to waterblocks that implement their own acceleration devices.

[BillA]

no no Cathar
pH was referring to the fluid velocity necessary to purge 'big hose' of bubbles
i.e. you can't use 1/2" hose with a very small pump
now you can put the system through gyrations to clear the lines, then what happens over time ?

[pHaestus]

Les: That's probably closer to right. but how many effective pipe length are added by all those 90 barrel connectors that seem to go hand in hand with the little tubing? Enough that probably a "high flow" system is closer to 1m tubing and a "german engineered low flow" one is closer to 3m. And that's assuming the same parts are used for both.

[Cathar]

no no Cathar
pH was referring to the fluid velocity necessary to purge 'big hose' of bubbles
i.e. you can't use 1/2" hose with a very small pump
now you can put the system through gyrations to clear the lines, then what happens over time ?

I must confess to being up too early - I read Les's earlier posts about turbulent water flow through tubings and assumed that there was an implication about improved performance through using smaller tubing sizes, ala as an explanation for the differences between the MCW6000/6002. I guess that teaches me not to open my mouth without clicking every link first. :(

[BillA]

coffee mate, coffee

[AngryAlpaca]

Quite true that I offer nothing, but whining (and not comprehending) is what I do. If we use those numbers for low flow, then we'll prove conclusively that anything under 1.2LPM for 12mm ID tubing is a poor performer, but will that help the argument for either side, or will it get people screaming that Procooling is biased (yet again)?

Maybe we should measure typical flow in what we find to be the "typical" system in both a German and an American system and then observe how it works with their radiators and blocks?

Do we know numbers for bends? I've been interested in these for a long time, and it would make a large difference (moreso in smaller systems, right?) to all of these numbers... What are the figures for 8mm or 10mm (much more common than 6mm in systems I see)?

[BillA]

I posted bend resistance here long ago
'our' problem is that 'we' have no memory, and won't search !

EDIT
not only you AA, this is the same thing that IMOG described,
noobs in -> net clue down

[Cathar]

Grab "SF Pressure Drop 5.0" from here (http://www.pressure-drop.com/). Very handy free tool.

[LPorc]

Les: That's probably closer to right. but how many effective pipe length are added by all those 90 barrel connectors that seem to go hand in hand with the little tubing? Enough that probably a "high flow" system is closer to 1m tubing and a "german engineered low flow" one is closer to 3m. And that's assuming the same parts are used for both.

pHaestus, you indirectly raise a point of consideration. How is the typical small tube system plumbed? I am guessing that many of these multi-block CPU/GPU/NB/HD/PSU small tube systems are not plumbed in series as is typical of larger tubes. I can even see some of what appears as gratuitous use of fittings on the surface being intentional to add restriction to one loop to tune the flow between parallel loops.

Anyone familar with the "German" plumbing arrangments? I would love to hear how they are routing flow for these totally W/C systems with little tubes and small pumps.

It is obvious that the "German" approach has been to maximize what they can do within limitations, while the "U.S." approach has been to refuse to accept any limitations. It is finesse v.s. brute force. Finesse will prevail up to a point, then it is overwhelmed. I think a more interesting question would be if the typical big tube system has 3-4x the flow, why isn't it doing better more than a degree or three?

I think looking for the differences in methods is likely to be more productive than cross-accusations of tube envy and tube compensation.

[Myth]

I'm afraid that the real difference in German and US style systems originate from the fact that almost all comparisons are made with grave errors.. the test of waterblocks on WCP for an example.. And furthermore WHEN people agree that US style can give more performance, yet another funny thing happens.. people somehow always end up saying well it can only give an improvement of a degree og two..

[Cathar]

I think a more interesting question would be if the typical big tube system has 3-4x the flow, why isn't it doing better more than a degree or three?


Got results to back that up?

Wasn't that the whole point of this debate?

Can a ~1.5LPM system offer performance within 1-3C of a >6LPM system that's designed to run at those flow rates? 3C is fairly significant though.

[nigelyuen]

are you guys comparing big tube vs small tube or high flow vs low flow with same tube?

i think it also depends on what block you test with
if you use a US block, the difference can be big, but if you use a german block, maybe not as much.

[Cathar]

are you guys comparing big tube vs small tube or high flow vs low flow with same tube?




Really it's about the flow-rate, not so much the tubing size.

However, the lower the flow rate, then the smaller that the tubing size can be and not play a significant role in the system-wide resistance. i.e. the lower your flow is, the smaller ID tubing that you can use.

If we set an arbitrary limit of 0.5mH2O Pressure-Drop of the tubing in the system, then the following flow-rates are where 2m of that tubing size would offer 0.5mH2O of resistance. The following calculations assume a 0.05mm "roughness" in the tubing's inner surface.

4mm ID => 0.5 LPM
5mm ID => 0.8 LPM
6mm ID => 1.4 LPM
7mm ID => 2.1 LPM
8mm ID => 3.0 LPM
9mm ID => 4.2 LPM
10mm ID => 5.5 LPM
11mm ID => 7.2 LPM
1/2" ID => 10.6 LPM


i think it also depends on what block you test with
if you use a US block, the difference can be big, but if you use a german block, maybe not as much.


Actually that's a presumption I don't think anyone should form until some blocks are first tested. Have any of us seen such characteristics in "German" blocks? Is it a characteristic of all "German" blocks? Could some "German" blocks have the same performance characteristics as "US" blocks, but because they are so hindered by small tubing and low flow rates that such block designs have been discarded along the way thanks to test-beds like WCP, and never given a chance to shine?

[alexwai]

Actually that's a presumption I don't think anyone should form until some blocks are first tested. Have any of us seen such characteristics in "German" blocks? Is it a characteristic of all "German" blocks? Could some "German" blocks have the same performance characteristics as "US" blocks, but because they are so hindered by small tubing and low flow rates that such block designs have been discarded along the way thanks to test-beds like WCP, and never given a chance to shine?
Cathar

That is the main reason I am hunger to see the test result of those high-rank "German" Blocks done by pH. :(

[LPorc]

Got results to back that up?

Wasn't that the whole point of this debate?

Apologies, please prefix with "If, as some have claimed in this thread and others about the differences between the 'German' and 'U.S.' approaches to water cooling".

As for the debate, it is a little one-sided to be a debate, isn't it? Both sides have done different optimizations for different reasons, and instead of comparing notes and seeing what we can borrow from each other's approach we're busy doing nerdy little chest thumps.

It's not like both sides don't have working systems, so I see little need for the fervor. When I go looking for a new automobile, I don't arrange head-to-head challenges between economy cars and muscle cars.

[pHaestus]

I don't think that many people argue that the Japanese are such great engineers that the economy cars can hang with the brutish American muscle car at the racetrack though. That is the very argument I have seen elsewhere:


Difference in temps on an American and European watercooling systems are minimal.. At max you are looking at a degree possibly two.

Looks better. Performs as well.

Its engineering V's brute force.

Now to ME, that is not based on any sort of accurate test date. What is being proposed really in essence is that a German wb will perform better at 1LPM than the Cascade-class block does at 8LPM. That is a VERY bold statement; performance of wbs drops DRAMATICALLY at 0.25GPM; even for thicker bp blocks.

[Les]

Worth noting Bill's radiator data, which indicates that the lower the air-flow the greater loss in performance as coolant-flow decreases::-
http://thermal-management-testing.com/Thermo9.gif
http://thermal-management-testing.com/Thermo15.gif

[pHaestus]

Sure it does. It makes it all a rather ridiculous argument really; you can surely design a wb for "good" performance at lower flow rates (usually at the expense of continued increase at high flow rates) but everyone is using pretty typical radiators that take a big hit at lower flow rates.

[Les]

The main point was making is :-
The bigger hit is for low fannage(quiet?) systems.

[pHaestus]

I would hazard a guess that the combination of 6mm tubing and low speed Papst fans is very common

[BillA]

worth noting is that some rads perform much better at low air flows than others;
never exceed what more air flow can deliver, but can easily out perform a 'better' rad that has insufficient air flow

and who is to know ?
one rad mfgr does, but apparently chooses not to publicize

this is why good data on component performance is so useful
and lacking such it is quite easy to understand the mis-direction provided by poorly designed systems testing

[knipex]

pHaestus, you indirectly raise a point of consideration. How is the typical small tube system plumbed? I am guessing that many of these multi-block CPU/GPU/NB/HD/PSU small tube systems are not plumbed in series as is typical of larger tubes. I can even see some of what appears as gratuitous use of fittings on the surface being intentional to add restriction to one loop to tune the flow between parallel loops.



Well I cannot speak for everyone (I know a number of people who cool dual CPU's in paralell) but in general (read my situation) its all in series. I also have no right angle connectors (unless you include the one attached to my GPU block).

It goes pump - rad - cpu - Nb - GPU - HDD - res.

The mofset cooler used to be in series also untill I changed my board and removed it.

I can post a pic if anyone wants...

Also most low flow / small tbning users will admit to a sacrafice in temps but will argue its only a degree or 2 (as I myself have done many times). What I get in return is neat routing, a completely (or damn near) watercooled near silent system and a good looking set up. To me its well worth the sacrafice.

[Les]

worth noting is that some rads perform much better at low air flows than others;
never exceed what more air flow can deliver, but can easily out perform a 'better' rad that has insufficient air flow

and who is to know ?
one rad mfgr does, but apparently chooses not to publicize

this is why good data on component performance is so useful
and lacking such it is quite easy to understand the mis-direction provided by poorly designed systems testing

Which takes me back to radiator these (http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=10000&page=3&pp=25) design thoughts.
Relevant?

[knipex]

I don't think that many people argue that the Japanese are such great engineers that the economy cars can hang with the brutish American muscle car at the racetrack though. That is the very argument I have seen elsewhere:


Now to ME, that is not based on any sort of accurate test date. What is being proposed really in essence is that a German wb will perform better at 1LPM than the Cascade-class block does at 8LPM. That is a VERY bold statement; performance of wbs drops DRAMATICALLY at 0.25GPM; even for thicker bp blocks.


Sorry PH.

I can see how thats the way you take it but (as I posted both quotes) I was thinking more along the lines of British or European Sports (particularly earier ones) car V's American Hotrod.(of the same era)

On straight line performance is no contest.
Take into account looks, handleing, size etc and the answer becomes less clear.

BUT when the too work together you get the AC Cobra .. :D

But you are seeing this allready in watercooling. Look at the Kit Pug suggested......

By the way if anyone has a right hand drive cobra they want to get rid of let me know.. :D


And thats another argument I want to hear discussed. Right hand drive cars have to be so much better than left hand drive..... You can hold the steering wheel in teh right hand when changing gears....... :shrug: :dome:

[pHaestus]

From what I've seen, the small id tubing systems are far more likely to all be plumbed in series than in parallel. That "but only 1-2C" argument is the primary bone of contention here knipex. Would you feel the same way if the difference were 5-7C? Depending upon configuration it could well be that drastic.

[bigben2k]

... Depending upon configuration it could well be that drastic.
Oops... didn't you just volunteer to demonstrate that? :p

[pHaestus]

I HAVE; look at the difference between 0.5GPM and 2.0 GPM for a few of the wbs on the Pro/Testing graph. Now extrapolate the performance at 0.25GPM...

[bigben2k]

Excellent... :D

[knipex]

If and I repeat IF it was proven to be 5 to 7 degrees I would have a second look.

BUT in the same breath can you provide me with a high flow setup allowing me to watercool my entire system, look good and fit completely internally in my case ??


FYI

My (current) complete setup is.

Eheim 1048 pump
NexXxos Hp Pro CPU block. (Was a cuplex)
Aqua Computer Twinplex GPU Block
Aqua Computer NB Block
Aqua Drive watercooled harddrive enclosure.
Aqua computer airplex 240 radiator.
Aqua computer Aqua Tube
2 papst FGML fans (@7V)

All in a little over 2 meters of 8mm O/D 6mm I/D tubing.

[greenman100]

replace CPU/GPU blocks with "high flow",
split flow between (CPU) and (GPU/NB/HD)
run 3/8" tubing for CPU, 6mm for GPU/NB/HD
and a Laing D4 pump.

smaller pump, slightly bigger tubing to CPU.

it WILL fit, and it WILL give better temps (assuming the MCW6000 or similar is used)

[knipex]

But how would I balance flow to unsure I get enough through the GPU block loop???

Especially if I have a high flow GPU block..

Now I am the first to admit I know very little about the theory of watercooling. One of the main reasons I started using low flow was it was easy to set up and understand. now Im hooked....

And I still have to be shown that the temp improcement would be worth the spend and effort.

[pHaestus]

knipex:
1) I don't watercool parts that don't benefit from such; no hdd blocks or nb cooling for me. HDDs are cooled by a Panaflo L1A blowing on them and NB is cooled by a 50mm copper hs and very quiet (can't hear it even with ear to mobo) 5V 50mm fan. Perhaps in some cases NB water cooling might help; not for any system I have used.

2) For optimum results, NEVER undervolt or PWM fans. Doing so is a poor noise/airflow tradeoff. Find the noise level or performance level that is acceptable for your application and then use that as spec for your fan. I guarantee you that you can get more airflow at the same noise level by doing so than by undervolting or PWMing a more powerful fan.

3) Without testing the radiator and block, I can't really say too much more. Does the NexXxos Hp Pro have the thinner base (2mm)? If so I will go out on a limb and say it should have a fairly pronounced improvement with increased flow rates and if you can get the final system flow rate in the 3-4LPM range you should be doing a lot better than you are currently (maybe 1LPM max?). Even their thicker bp block should do a good bit better up in the 3-4LPM range. You could get to that flow rate with a swap from that multipass aquacomputer radiator to something like a Black Ice Pro 2 and a switch from 6mm id hose to 10mm (not much worse to route). Pump change may or may not be required.

Why do you think wizd (and alphacool) are bundling a BI Extreme2 style radiator, a higher pressure pump, and larger ID tubing with those NeXXos blocks? Pretty much the exact suggestions I would make to improve performance in your loop? It's not because their target market loves the American way of doing things for sure.

Greenman: There is no evidence that the MCW6000 is a better block than the AlphaCool.

[knipex]

1ltr per minute is a bit low as an estimate (admitadly In my crude test of disconnecting the pipe at the end of the loop and filling a ltr bottle)

As a guestimate I would say closer to 2 than 1 but again this is a guestimate.

Also I have to admit I watercooled for silence. The main reason I have a watercooled HDD is that I have a raptor drive and its noisy. The drive runs too hot to put in a hardrive enclosure without loud fans so a watercooled enclosure was ideal. My northbridge is watercooled as the air flow in my case is poor. The only case fans I have on my rad.

The reason I use undervolted Papst fans is I cannot get a fan even close to being as quiet. If you can point me to one I will even buy you a beer.

You see, the difference between me and most of you guys is that cool enough is cool enough. I dont go for mad overclocks (hell I am running at stock at the moment) and normally I am limited by my board long before temperatures.

I think that that was the problem to start. You are watercooling for extreme overclocking and lowest possible temperaures where I am watercooling for silence. I am not constanly looking for another mhz or to loose another degree. I am running cooler than air and silent. Even if was the same temperatures as aircooling its still silent.

I am however open to ideas and want to learn so here I am.

[AngryAlpaca]

So what if it's hot? If it doesn't affect stability, leave it.

Anything SilenX. I'd send you my address but I don't drink.

If cool enough is cool enough, why do you watercool your HD and NB?

[dutchcedar]

If cool enough is cool enough, why do you watercool your HD and NB?From his own post:
Also I have to admit I watercooled for silence. The main reason I have a watercooled HDD is that I have a raptor drive and its noisy. The drive runs too hot to put in a hardrive enclosure without loud fans so a watercooled enclosure was ideal. My northbridge is watercooled as the air flow in my case is poor. The only case fans I have on my rad. :shrug:

[knipex]

So what if it's hot? If it doesn't affect stability, leave it.

Anything SilenX. I'd send you my address but I don't drink.

If cool enough is cool enough, why do you watercool your HD and NB?


Its not hot. Its cooler than aircooling AND silent. I might be able to get it cooler but its far far from hot..

As for the HD and the NB I allready explained in a post above just above where I said cooler than air and Silent.

Edit.. Damn beaten by Dutch

[greenman100]

Greenman: There is no evidence that the MCW6000 is a better block than the AlphaCool.


bet you it is

but no evidence, so that is a weak argument

but it'd have to be a pretty dang good block to beat a 6000 at a quarter of the flow

knipex: I do not feel the GPU/NB need great cooling, but I am not running a very good video card anyway. flowrate through each block can be mathematically calculated, at least close to actual, though.

[pHaestus]

If a greater premium is placed on quiet than on performance, that's fine. But why feel the need to state that you're "at the most a degree or two" away from the highest performance solutions available? There's no basis for that really other than wanting to maintain a big e-penis.

I have 2 small kids and live on the Candian Praries. So as I look to replace my Accord Coupe I am quite enamored with the idea of more space and good winter driving performance. That's perfectly reasonable given the location and situation. But it is NOT reasonable to sell me a Subaru as "just a very small bit slower than a Corvette only with a lot more space."

[BillA]

Which takes me back to radiator these (http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=10000&page=3&pp=25) design thoughts.
Relevant?
yes exactly, but its all about the actual implementation

knipex
you're tough, sparing with this bunch
I have no difficulty with your choices, assuming that the principal criterion is noise abatement
- might make some differently, but this is DIY, no ?
so be it

flow balancing is not so difficult if you ignore flow and focus on heat, swap 'em around 'till you figure out what works
no biggie

pH listed 3 parameters; cooling, size, and noise - suggesting that the choice was between any 2
I see 4 factors; cooling, size, noise, and cost
- and their relationship as being: the optimization of any 2 parameters will result in the (relative) impairment of the other 2

nfl

[bigben2k]

Maybe the review of the Innovatek block would settle this argument?

Putting it up the results of it at 0.25 and 0.5 gpm versus... a DangerDen RBX at 1.0 and 1.5 gpm?

There's no data for the Innovatek @ 0.25 gpm, but the results call for a delta T of 13.5 deg C, @ 0.5 gpm.

The DD RBX has a delta T of 11.5@ 1 gpm, and ~10.5 @ 1.5 gpm.


So we're looking at 2.0 to 3.5 degrees difference.


Shall we do the same for another USA block?

[dutchcedar]

If a greater premium is placed on quiet than on performance, that's fine. But why feel the need to state that you're "at the most a degree or two" away from the highest performance solutions available? There's no basis for that really other than wanting to maintain a big e-penis.

I have 2 small kids and live on the Candian Praries. So as I look to replace my Accord Coupe I am quite enamored with the idea of more space and good winter driving performance. That's perfectly reasonable given the location and situation. But it is NOT reasonable to sell me a Subaru as "just a very small bit slower than a Corvette only with a lot more space."pH, you confuse me. I have been using water cooling in my duallie rigs and following the product releases and developments for a few years now. I have not seen any evidence that a good "low flow" system will give a rig a hit of more than a few degrees over a good "high flow" system. Yet when someone posts a similar comment you whoop out the e-penis as their only viable reason.

I also see comments here that those few degrees are important. Important to overclocking, to be specific. Okay, I'll buy that. But not all of us are into overclocking... some of us just want great, rock stable rigs that perform well with a difference. If I was into overclocking, you can bet your last nickle that I would be using refrigeration, not water, to cool my rig. Maybe I should whoop out the e-penis and call all the water cooled overclockers out for not being serious enough in their methods?

As an aside, it really depends on which Subaru and which Corvette, doesn't it? ;)

Also, there's a tag of "German" being laid on these "low flow" systems which I think may be a bit unfair. When Corsair sent me one of their first Hydrocools to test, it came from a Delphi factory in Detroit, if I'm remembering correctly. It was a "low flow" system. And aren't those pre-packaged "mount on top of your box" get-ups made here in the States? Their manufacturer's name escapes me, but they have teeny little blocks and ultra whimpy tubing...

[Cathar]

Hmmm, it seems that a contradiction in goals has crept into the argument, with acceptable noise vs acceptable performance. The level of "acceptance" varies from person to person, and depends on one's overclocking goals.

knipex has just stated though that absolute silence is more important to him than cooling performance. In such a scenario absolute performance is always going to take a back-seat purely because one is not "allowed" to fit even moderately powered fans on the radiator, nor use any of the stronger/noisier pumps. Such goals are fine so long as the system is stable and meets ones stated goals, but to claim that it is within 1-2C of a high-end system without any hard evidence is stretching faith more than just a little.

Nothing wrong with wanting adequate silent cooling, but surely one has to admit that it is a different set of goals to a more performance oriented system. Claiming that it is within 1-2C of a more performance focused system without evidence of such seems to me to be more a case of wishful thinking.


P.S. IMO, hard-drives don't need to be cooled with anything more than a low speed Papst 80mm NGL fan, which is what I use in my server case. That fan pushes a pathetic 19CFM or so in free-flow mode, is absoutely silent when in-case, and even when thrashing the disks (Seagate Barracuda's) they barely get warm to the touch. I can assure you that the disk drives are making more noise than the fan. For disk drives that do suffer from heat problems, these are typically noisy things too all by themselves.

[BillA]

the Exos ?
Korea
Corsair ?
Mexico (but designed by Delphi)

but it is the seductive phrase "you don't need a lot of water to cool" that has misled so many

Cathar, you know the routine
acceptable = good enough = stop confusing me with facts, I already have an opinion

[Cathar]

Here is too where I get a little uncomfortable with 1-2C figures.

1-2C at stock CPU speeds is a totally different matter to 1-2C at very highly overclocked levels.

A stock AMD XP-M 2500+ (1833MHz/1.45v) under load is putting out under a third of the heat of the same CPU when it's being run at 2800MHz/2.00v, or even 2900MHz/2.15v.

What I'm saying is that small differences at stock and quiet settings take on a much larger scale of significance when pushing the (computer) system hard. I believe that many people far too easily dismiss the scale of the heat load problem when pushing a system very hard. When you collectively (pump, CPU, GPU, etc) start pushing >150W into a radiator you do notice rather quickly that ultra-low-noise fans just don't cut it any more.

[BillA]

Cathar
I'm sort of concluding that WCing in Europe is driven far more by noise reduction than by performance improvement
- for those for whom such is true, small dia is the way to go (and take the performance hit for the sake of less noise)

as you point out, the C/W concerns are more compelling at 100W than at 50W

[Cathar]

Which brings us back to the original challenge.

Can a waterblock at low-flow rates (~1-1.5LPM), as would be typical of a system coupled with 6-7mm or ¼" ID tubing, and, using with a low-powered quiet pump (<1.5mH2O peak pressure, <10LPM peak flow) provide block-level performance that is within 0.02C/W of a 6+LPM flow rate system, as is typical of a ½" ID system when using a well powered pump (>3.0mH2O peak pressure, >10LPM peak flow rate).

Well, at least that is what I'd like to see proven before I would start to hold any weight in these "engineering vs brute-force" arguments.

Of course I would still stick a strong pump and at least 3/8" ID tubing on the "low flow" system just to remove those artificial limitations and perhaps get back that lost 0.02C/W, but that is just my personal focus.

This is all tangential to my own waterblock work though. I personally sit in the middle of the argument in belief, although I do chase bleeding edge overclocks for fun.

[redleader]

Its not hot. Its cooler than aircooling AND silent. I might be able to get it cooler but its far far from hot..

As for the HD and the NB I allready explained in a post above just above where I said cooler than air and Silent.

Edit.. Damn beaten by Dutch

It sounds like you don't care about performance. With that in mind, why are you even here? No one doubts that quiet systems can be made to work, the (largely unrelated) question is how well can a low flow system be made to perform verses higher flow?

All data suggests "not very well". But this is not a concern to you, and only a concern to us because you posted what at best could be called questionable speculation as fact.

[Cathar]

One final thought, regarding noise and radiators, and yes it has been covered before in this thread.

If we do add low-noise (pair of ~26dBA Papst 4412 FGL's) vs moderate noise (pair of ~30dBA Panaflo L1A's) working on a Thermochill 120.2 or equivalent, then the bulk of the battle is already lost at the radiator before we even begin to look at the waterblock performance.

Of course if BillA's proposed radiator ever hits the streets that may change the scenario somewhat, but it won't change that even his proposed radiator would still be significantly better if one is prepared to accept slightly more noise.

Hmmm, what I would give for a ~90% efficient radiator that allowed ~100CFM of air-flow through it using fans that in total added up to less than 20dBA in noise level. Right now that'd only be barely possible using a about a 6 x 12cm fanned heater-core and a stack of under-volted Papst's, and would not be cheap.

[pHaestus]

From Bill's data cited by Les this morning though it seems like the penalty from using the quieter fans is substantially lessened by increasing flow rates through the radiator...

[Cathar]

From Bill's data cited by Les this morning though it seems like the penalty from using the quieter fans is substantially lessened by increasing flow rates through the radiator...

Yah, I was already taking that into account, however that is also a per-radiator dependent property.

[dutchcedar]

the Exos ?
Korea
Corsair ?
Mexico (but designed by Delphi)

but it is the seductive phrase "you don't need a lot of water to cool" that has misled so many
Thanks Bill. Exos is the one I was thinking of.

I'm not surprised the Corsair units are made in Mexico, but just for fun I looked up the shipping tag and it indeed came from Delphi in Detroit. It was, however, a pre-production unit.

[knipex]

If a greater premium is placed on quiet than on performance, that's fine. But why feel the need to state that you're "at the most a degree or two" away from the highest performance solutions available? There's no basis for that really other than wanting to maintain a big e-penis.


Sorry Ph again my fault.

I seem to have drifted a bit here. I started talking about low flow in general and ended up talking about my particular (current) setup.

I am the first to admit I have crippled my system. Its capeable of much better cooling than I have at the moment. I know temp readings from diods are notoriously wrong but I took a temp reading using good air cooling and took a temperature with my watercooling setup. Once I can keep it cooler than the benchmark set by the aircooling I am happy. BUT thats me.

The discussion started about low flow / small tubing V's high flow / large tubing. My system can never be used a comparision. Unless I am compltely wrong here the test will be run with a CPU block only so with all my extras we couldnt even run a comparision.

In my opinion (and again I emphasise its only an opinion) if you took an optimised (read not crippled like mine) low flow system with decent fans you are then in a situation where temperature differences will be small. Dial in a huge overclock and the difference will increase but I couldnt even take a guess as to how much. Thats why I would like see the test run.


knipex
you're tough, sparing with this bunch



Im Irish and tp that I grew up with a red headed mother and you can begin to understand why arguing is a national sport over here. All in good civilised fun of course. Life would be boring if we all agreed all the time.

Hmmm, it seems that a contradiction in goals has crept into the argument, with acceptable noise vs acceptable performance. The level of "acceptance" varies from person to person, and depends on one's overclocking goals.

knipex has just stated though that absolute silence is more important to him than cooling performance. In such a scenario absolute performance is always going to take a back-seat purely because one is not "allowed" to fit even moderately powered fans on the radiator, nor use any of the stronger/noisier pumps. Such goals are fine so long as the system is stable and meets ones stated goals, but to claim that it is within 1-2C of a high-end system without any hard evidence is stretching faith more than just a little.

I agree totally and hence my clarification above. I am in the middle of about three threads here and have a tendancy to drift so appolagies. I hope my comment above clears things up.



P.S. IMO, hard-drives don't need to be cooled with anything more than a low speed Papst 80mm NGL fan, which is what I use in my server case. That fan pushes a pathetic 19CFM or so in free-flow mode, is absoutely silent when in-case, and even when thrashing the disks (Seagate Barracuda's) they barely get warm to the touch. I can assure you that the disk drives are making more noise than the fan. For disk drives that do suffer from heat problems, these are typically noisy things too all by themselves.

With baracuda's I would agree with you. I used to use them alot but for speed I went for the raptors which a scorchingly fast but also loud and hot. (10K drives) To kill the noise I put them in an enclosure. To find a hardrive enclosure rated for 10K drives that doesn't scream isnt easy. Plus I got a good trade on the HDD block and it looks good.

Here is too where I get a little uncomfortable with 1-2C figures.

1-2C at stock CPU speeds is a totally different matter to 1-2C at very highly overclocked levels.

A stock AMD XP-M 2500+ (1833MHz/1.45v) under load is putting out under a third of the heat of the same CPU when it's being run at 2800MHz/2.00v, or even 2900MHz/2.15v.

What I'm saying is that small differences at stock and quiet settings take on a much larger scale of significance when pushing the (computer) system hard. I believe that many people far too easily dismiss the scale of the heat load problem when pushing a system very hard. When you collectively (pump, CPU, GPU, etc) start pushing >150W into a radiator you do notice rather quickly that ultra-low-noise fans just don't cut it any more.

Again I hope my comment above cleared this up for you. Those of us that fit low speed fans know its a tradeoff. Exactly the same trade off in aircooling. Lower CFM = less cooling. No argument.

Can I ask a question here ?
How much more or less of an effect (if any) would fitting low speed fans to a high flow / large tubing setup in comparison to a low flow / small tubing setup ??

It sounds like you don't care about performance. With that in mind, why are you even here? No one doubts that quiet systems can be made to work, the (largely unrelated) question is how well can a low flow system be made to perform verses higher flow?

Lo Red didnt realise you were a member here.

About performace you are correct to a point. As long as its cooler than air I am happy. The whole quiet thing came from a tangent when I was talking about why I personally watercooled and the advantages I got. I admit it kind of derailed the thread and I appolagise for it.

As to why am I here.. well there are a few reasons ;) but the main one is I knwo next to noting about the theory of watercooling but



I am however open to ideas and want to learn so here I am.




All data suggests "not very well". But this is not a concern to you, and only a concern to us because you posted what at best could be called questionable speculation as fact
.

I think this whole thread started so we could collect the figures and have facts. Once we agree what we are testing and how we are testing it (what criteria is going to apply to each system) we will have the data and the facts.

Sorry for the long reply and all the quotes but I am trying to eliminate any confusion created by me.

[knipex]

On a side note.

For the low-flow test what exactly were you proposing.

We supply pump, block, an tubing and we use a common rad and fans ???

Or do we supply a 240 rad and we use common fans ??

Or we supply a 240 rad and fans ?? (I assume you are no going to ask us to use low volted papst fans for a performance test...)

For the sake of interest in nothing else I would like to see the "middle type" included the convergance of the the two types, the AC cobra if you will :D that Pug offered..

What pump block and rad are you proposing ??

From my point of view (and remember I admit to knowing nothing) If we used a common radiator and fans then the only variables are block and pump (and obviously tubing) so noone can come crying afterwards....

[BillA]

"How much more or less of an effect (if any) would fitting low speed fans to a high flow / large tubing setup in comparison to a low flow / small tubing setup ??"

the reduction in air flow is the same, so the operating point of both will shift (to the right) causing a reduction in dissipation
the dissipation in the low flow rad is less than in the high flow (always), so while both are affected in the same proportion, the absolute magnitude of decrease would be greatest in the high flow rad

try this
http://thermal-management-testing.com/Thermo2.gif

and yes, the advantages of a higher flow rate in fact necessiate stronger fans - depending on the rad design of course
- only a single 'type' is shown in the above graph

[Blackeagle]

A comparison of both lower flow and extreme flow systems performance levels ( For the 3x areas of judging performance = noise, O/C & temps) sould be of great interest and value to all. Cost as Bill points out is also a 4th consideration, but is IMO, one area that can be very open to wide swings depending on how fugal a person is. Use of a auto's heater core, a Swiftech 6000 block (or second hand one) & a pump picked up with cost in mind and also perhaps second hand can reduce cost a lot, yet reach a high performance standard of cooling.

While knipex uses a number of water cooled elements that someone setting up a O/Cing / performance rig would not use, knipex is right in saying that refrigeration is the way to go if max O/C is the only goal. But most who are going for a performance system also include a GPU block to improve cooling & O/C of the vid card, and very few can afford a refigeration set up for both the GPU & CPU. And a extreme water rig cooling both the CPU & GPU can come real close to a system in which the vid card is air cooled but with the CPU cooled by phase change for overall system performance, and the water rig will still be much lower cost if a frugal person builds it.

In fairness I'd say a test of water cooling only CPU systems is to tilted in favor of the large line, high flow systems. It grants the ease of maintianing a extreme flow rig, without offering the lower flowing type system a chance to show the advantages of it's results with a more restricted loop due to more than one block.

May I suggest a GPU block be added to both loops, let it also be chosen to serve well in each system. And in order to maintain accurate testing data, only add in the GPU block as a secondary "last test" to see the results in both system types after testing of the loops with only CPU blocks involved. This adds in a further needed component for both of the two systems to be tested.

As this is my suggestion, I'll pay for, or provide, the GPU block for the large line/high flow system. I'm hope'n Pug or knipex , or anyone else interested, can provide the small line/low flow GPU block. This is of course only if pH will consent to add in this extra step to the testing of the two system types.

I'll grant that adding just one additional block does not come close to the restrictions involved with knipex's multi block rig, but is more fair to the low flow type system than a CPU only type system. And it's a two block combination common for performance set ups.


Looking forward to seeing what others think regarding this. Most of all ph. :)

[Cathar]

knipex is right in saying that refrigeration is the way to go if max O/C is the only goal. But most who are going for a performance system also include a GPU block to improve cooling & O/C of the vid card, and very few can afford a refigeration set up for both the GPU & CPU. And a extreme water rig cooling both the CPU & GPU can come real close to a system in which the vid card is air cooled but with the CPU cooled by phase change for overall system performance, and the water rig will still be much lower cost if a frugal person builds it.


A lad over at OCUK forums has an interesting thread categorising peak overclocks of various users. Of course the sample size is still "too small" to draw any strong conclusions, but there are the beginnings of a pattern:

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/weescott-OCUK.jpg

The original thread is here (http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17259410).

Fairlt clear distinctions between the top-end air and top-end water, but phase-change doesn't pull that much of a lead over top-end water, and unless given a particularly good CPU, phase-change isn't always getting ahead of water (except on P4's - although I suspect that if the IHS's were removed that the results would be a lot closer there too). Add in the costs of buying and running a phase-change setup and it is pretty apparant that it is truly a brute-force solution with fairly minimal gains.

Totally agree on the water-cooling CPU + GPU thing. The ability to water-cool the GPU as well and boost its overclock will typically play a much larger factor in the computer's perceived speed for gaming, than merely phase-change cooling the CPU and leaving the GPU air-cooled.

Phase-change's ability to super-cool hot CPU's cannot be doubted though, just the budget required to achieve such.

Arbitrarily sticking a GPU block in the test though seems rather odd. Fine if it's just for a "complete kit test". Not everyone water-cools their GPU.

[Edit: Fix quotage]

[redleader]

Fairlt clear distinctions between the top-end air and top-end water, but phase-change doesn't pull that much of a lead over top-end water, and unless given a particularly good CPU, phase-change isn't always getting ahead of water (except on P4's - although I suspect that if the IHS's were removed that the results would be a lot closer there too). Add in the costs of buying and running a phase-change setup and it is pretty apparant that it is truly a brute-force solution with fairly minimal gains.

Sort of agree here. Most of the phase change systems listed there are commercial units, which are basically the "kits" of the phase change world. They tend to be not as effective as many of the homemade units of comparable size for many of the same reasons dicussesd in this thread WRT to watercooling (style, compactness, cost as well as some new reasons like refrigerant choice). I think if you looked at homemade phase change units, you would see different results as many of these can do 20 or 30C colder for the same investment in power and often much less money.

If phase change is worth it or not is pretty debateable IMO. I'm currently very interested in it, but is a huge investment in time even compared to watercooling.

[Les]

"How much more or less of an effect (if any) would fitting low speed fans to a high flow / large tubing setup in comparison to a low flow / small tubing setup ??"
........
the dissipation in the low flow rad is less than in the high flow (always), so while both are affected in the same proportion, the absolute magnitude of decrease would be greatest in the high flow rad
.......................


I prefer Bill's Thermal Resistance curves for manipulation purposes
Same radiator as above :
http://thermal-management-testing.com/Thermo4.gif

For a 100watt load increasing the Air-flow from 0.11m^2/min to 0.88m^2/min :
At 2 lpm the coolant temp is reduced by ~31c
At 10 lpm the coolant temp is reduced by ~ 28c

[knipex]

I would have no objection to donating a GPU block if required, if fact I would be delighted to.

The more charts I see the more sense it makes to me (again I could be wrong) that we use a common rad and fans. This will also have the effect of eliminating noise levels from the debate but :shrug:

Bill and Les

From your comments can I take it that a low flow system is better suited to low speed quieter fans or would the real world effect make no difference to how Hi-flow and Low-flow systems would compare ??

[pHaestus]

That graph is packed so densely with useful information that it's scary!

Note that the Delta EHE falls only atop the 0.75m^3/min graph. That noise level is FAR above my threshold.

Note how the Panaflo L1A @12V performs slightly better than the Delta EHE@7V; I think I mentioned something about not bothering to undervolt stronger fans if noise/performance was important earlier in this thread already.

And talk about the diminishing returns on adding noise: Panaflo L1A is rated at 21 dBA rated while the Delta EHE is rated at 53 dBA!

Great graph!

[BillA]

knipex

"better suited"
this is a value judgement, made (implictly or explictly) by every consumer
- will depend on the design goals

the only 'right' answer is in terms of cost effectiveness (my technical assessment)
not considered is size, extra features - or noise
so I plot noise vs. dissipation too

pH
you should delist the first rad article and sub the ThermoChill review.

[pHaestus]

The more charts I see the more sense it makes to me (again I could be wrong) that we use a common rad and fans. This will also have the effect of eliminating noise levels from the debate...

Well by now it should be clear that if you reduce restrictions (which WILL increase flow) that radiator and waterblock performance WILL improve. Now the magnitude of that improvement is going to depend greatly on the parts that you are using in the total kit.

The original question (and still the most interesting one imo) is whether one can design a kit with 6mm tubing and quiet, low pressure pumps that cools NEARLY as well as one with larger tubing and higher pressure pumps. That is what has been claimed by many of the Europeans in essense, right? You said yourself earlier that you were only a degree or two off from the highest performance. Now there are a few ways your statement could be true:

1) It could be that the radiator you are using is so much more effective that your water temperatures are much closer to room temperature than with the radiators the "high flow guys" use.

2) It could be that the waterblocks you are using are so much more effective than "high flow" offerings that your CPU stays closer to water temp at 1-1.5LPM with that block than a "high flow" wb can achieve even at 8-10LPM.

3) "1-2C off from Best performance" could merely be referring to "with the same waterblocks and radiators" and not referring to "with any available watercooling parts". This could well be true; there is not more than a degree or so difference in the Innovatek Rev3 at 0.5GPM and at 2GPM; one would expect blocks destined for 6mm tubing loops to have thick baseplates and not respond especially well to raising flow rates.

I think testing the complete kits is a far more interesting approach to getting at how tradeoffs made in the name of convenience and noise affect performance.

Is it also reasonable for me to test my own personal cooling loop first off? It's nothing special really (FedCo 2-342, Laing D4, 2 Panaflo M1As, 1/2" Clearflex, LR Cascade). It is plumbed properly though and is IMO a pretty good example of what performance is possible if one has an eye to limiting flow resistance everywhere except the wb (where it's very useful).

//Edit:
you should delist the first rad article and sub the ThermoChill review.

No way I am delisting OCers article 481. That treatise (though it DESPERATELY needs the revised graphs) completely changed the way I thought about wcing and testing and put several observations I had already made in my piddling into the proper scientific context. If it weren't for that article I'd probably be...

more productive at work?
more connected with wife?

hmm left-handed compliments taste the bestest I am told :)

[infinity9]

With baracuda's I would agree with you. I used to use them alot but for speed I went for the raptors which a scorchingly fast but also loud and hot. (10K drives) To kill the noise I put them in an enclosure. To find a hardrive enclosure rated for 10K drives that doesn't scream isnt easy. Plus I got a good trade on the HDD block and it looks good.

If your raptors are getting hot then you have some serious flow problems in your case. Mine gets 1C hotter than my Seagate when I run it hard awhile. I think it actually idles lower because of the big heatsinks they have on them. Watercooling hard drives is a waste of time. The only drives that might even be considered would be the 15k seagate scsi drives. If you have a poor case, 99/100 times the cause, then watercooling your hd's is simply making up for a poor case design. We really should address simple things like getting a good case for airflow before we start adding watercooling.

[Blackeagle]

The ability to water-cool the GPU as well and boost its overclock will typically play a much larger factor in the computer's perceived speed for gaming ......

Arbitrarily sticking a GPU block in the test though seems rather odd. Fine if it's just for a "complete kit test". Not everyone water-cools their GPU.


This will be a test of two differant "system" approaches to water cooling of a rig. Pumps chosen along with blocks and rads are often differant than those used to build a DIY performance rig. So a addition of the GPU seems reasonable to get a added bit of perspective and information. knipex's system with it's many added water cooled points, has I think, a number more water cooled elements than most do in low flow systems. Yet the use of a higher average number of water cooled components does seem to be a trait of low flow rigs, from what I've read of differant peeps systems. (please correct me on this if I'm in error.) And some performance peeps include the NB in rigs as well, although most do not. So the addition of a GPU, seems to make for a "fairer" and more complete test between the two system types.

Other means to add restriction to the loop could be used to simulate the use of added blocks effect on flow rates, but such would not include the added heat to the system of the actual extra blocks.

But as you point out, not everyone water cools the GPU, which is why I suggested it be left as a last test so as not to distract from the CPU only results.

I'm also interested in seeing the selection of the pumps, rads, fans & max line size to be allowed and used.



BTW,

I enjoyed reading this thread much more than the earlier one regarding this sort of comparison.

Edited:

To remove redundant ideas, comes of posting without reading what was posted while away from my puter.

[freeloadingbum]

Which brings us back to the original challenge.

Can a waterblock at low-flow rates (~1-1.5LPM), as would be typical of a system coupled with 6-7mm or ¼" ID tubing, and, using with a low-powered quiet pump (<1.5mH2O peak pressure, <10LPM peak flow) provide block-level performance that is within 0.02C/W of a 6+LPM flow rate system, as is typical of a ½" ID system when using a well powered pump (>3.0mH2O peak pressure, >10LPM peak flow rate).

JoeC's results show the hydrostream HS5 performing .134c/w at .3gpm while the mcw6000 performed .136c/w at 1.5gpm

[Blackeagle]

pH,

Your posted system makes use of the Cascade, matched by no other, but no longer available for purchase, so will limit how usefull the resulting data will be to those reading it. Rest of your rig would be great. Do you still have the Dtek White Water, RBX or 6002? They are all top performers and also still available to buy. Also, what do you think of the idea of adding in a GPU block as "add on" last test?

Unless Cathar would like to send you the latest version of the Storm block? Could also give you the chance to be the first one to test and post results of the STorm block in a seperate article, as well as make use of the very latest & best of high flowing performance blocks.
The Storm could also be of use in the low flow rig if it's design allows for it, as I suspect it willl.

[BillA]

JoeC's results show the hydrostream HS5 performing .134c/w at .3gpm while the mcw6000 performed .136c/w at 1.5gpm
yes, this IS a low flow wb
and can perhaps be selected to win the point by the low flow group
but this is not the wb/system design that is the basis for this discussion

[Blackeagle]

JoeC's results stop short of where they should.

For the quality of his test bench he tells relatively little.

What would the results be of the HS5 at x4 or x6 flow rates ect.

How many mountings per block tested does he do now?

Edit:

beat'n to the post.........

Good points I didn't think of as well Bill.

[BillA]

the designer of the HS5, Herr Montag (sp ?), on OCAU had some comments
to the effect that with microchannels there was only so much fluid that can be pushed (at any pressure)

it is a low flow wb
is it commercially available ? as in: any one bought one ?

yes, JoeC could provide more info - but he has no desire to test WCing gear full time

[pHaestus]

How many mountings per block tested does he do now?

JoeC rather cleverly gets much more reproducible mounting pressure than I do with springs and wingnuts (though I am now getting good :))

He presumably does at least 3 mounts because he reports a std dev.

[knipex]

If your raptors are getting hot then you have some serious flow problems in your case. Mine gets 1C hotter than my Seagate when I run it hard awhile. I think it actually idles lower because of the big heatsinks they have on them. Watercooling hard drives is a waste of time. The only drives that might even be considered would be the 15k seagate scsi drives. If you have a poor case, 99/100 times the cause, then watercooling your hd's is simply making up for a poor case design. We really should address simple things like getting a good case for airflow before we start adding watercooling.

Sorry but I have allready tried to explain this twice.

The drives are hot becuase they loud. To get around this they are in a soundproofed enclosure. An enclosure means no airflow. I looked for a harddrive enclosure rated for 10K drives and got a good option on the watercooled one. If it was not in an enclosure I wouldnt be cooling it.

Baracudas run quiet so I did not need to put them in the enclsoure so I did not need forced cooling.



BTW,

I enjoyed reading this thread much more than the earlier one regarding this sort of comparison.



As did I



So can I assume we will supply the rad and fans with the blocks and tubing. Also will we be including a GPU block in the test ??

I like the idea of simulating multiple blocks (or even fitting mutiple blocks) just to give another perspective. (but then I would)

Now for the problem. Pug does not stock a complete kit that fits all your requirements. Would you settle for parts from the same manufacturer ??
Also would a 1048 pump satisfy your requirements ??

Secondly I havent spoken to Pug about this yet (if you have been Ph then I will leave it up to ye to decide.)

[knipex]

knipex

"better suited"
this is a value judgement, made (implictly or explictly) by every consumer
- will depend on the design goals

the only 'right' answer is in terms of cost effectiveness (my technical assessment)
not considered is size, extra features - or noise
so I plot noise vs. dissipation too



Sorry Bill I missed this.

My question was this.

Lets assume someone was going the route of watercooling for noise reasons and planned on running low volume low noise fans which solution would work better 1/2" or 6mm ??

Ph would it be possible to try this when you are running the test ?? I for one am curious...

Here is my theory (admittadly uneducated).

In a low flow system water will spend longer in the rad. This will give the water more time to cool. Therefore less air flow will still cool the water.

[Blackeagle]

Big PlayerMaking Big Money??????????

What's up with that pH?

Last I knew it was more like you were spending Big Money........on testing gear. ???

Another ...........uninformed comment on another site????

LOL!!!

[knipex]

Big PlayerMaking Big Money??????????

What's up with that pH?

Last I knew it was more like you were spending Big Money........on testing gear. ???

Another ...........uninformed comment on another site????

LOL!!!

Long story best forgotten.

One missinformed poster problem resolved. One good thing it did result in this thread...

[BillA]

where is this going now ?

high flow vs. low flow ?
or
high flow kit vs. low flow kit

IF it is a kit (and Swiftech has no 'interest' in this as 3/8" ID tubing is used), then it will need those things that kits provide (inst, cust. serv., warranty, etc.)

jeez, why not drop the 'kit' requirement ?
who offers a 6mm kit ?

[Blackeagle]

Bill I thought the kit thing was a dead deal as well.


I"m sure in favor of components chosen at both sites to best perform as a total "system" but not as a system pruchased as a kit.

That was a one problem in the thread that Pug was involved in a little while back.

[pHaestus]

Quite separate issues I think Bill getting intertwined:

1) This challenge (carefully worded by me, eh?) is for the wizdforums folks to back up their assertions made in that (now deleted/cleaned up) thread. It has mostly done it's job; looks like everyone is backing away from that "cools just as good" nonsense and migrating towards "I don't care how it cools because it's quiet" statements. Which is fine.

2) Procooling is going to begin testing kits; I don't really care for mix and match kits from vendors and would prefer to test only kits offered as such by mfgrs.

Pug and Wizd Designs have offered to send parts from AlphaCool for testing/review. I suggested that the parts should be chosen so that they resulted in one complete AlphaCool kit I think this is what he was going to send (http://www.alphacool.de/perl/shop.pl?s=e7185b4d2f13e1b00489&l=1&rm=get_art&menu_id=2&&art_id=10306)

To get at the "low flow vs high flow" thing and to further this discussion, Pug also offered to send the following stuff to swap into the above kit:

"Exchange barbs for 10mm plugin, 7mm ID tubing, AP900 instead of 1500 and HTF (continuous tube) rad instead of BIX"

For the most part we could crunch the numbers on this stuff w/o doing a lot of testing given your Thermochill 120.2 results and a (provided by me) dP vs flow curve for the AlphaCool block(s).

If we drop the kit testing then I can just return to the wb tests and leave all the noise testing for others to deal with too. I assumed that there was a fair bit of interest in a BIG scale "state of the industry" cooling kit comparison though??

[knipex]

I for one would like to see the test go ahead.

I still contend that low flow will cool decently I have a post on Wizd laying out my thaughts but I will copy it over here for those of you who dont want to register.


I have a feeling that you are under estimating ProCooling. I agree that some posters canot see beyond cooling performance but most see both sides.

I have a feeling that testing will go ahead IF we can agree on kits.

What i would like to see tested is.

Performance using decent fans on both systems loop with and without GPU block. (loop without waterclock will have no interest to 99% of us but it does to alot of procooling members).

Performance of both systems with quiet fans fitted. Same test as above. (I would like this to get as low as 7V Papst but I cannot see ProCooling going for this but I will ask)

Performance of both systems with extra blocks added. (tested as above)

On the results. On the CPU only I expect us to get beaten. As the overclock increases I expect the diference to get worse. The higher the temp the more they beat us.

With the GPU block included I see the results getting closer.

If I can get them to try "quiet" fans I expect us to give them a surprise.

The multiple block test isnt realy a fair one, its not suited to high flow but then again CPU only isnt really suited to low flow so fair is fair.

Any recomendations on the blocks we should submit. Remember 1048 pump.

[BillA]

Sorry Bill I missed this.

My question was this.

Lets assume someone was going the route of watercooling for noise reasons and planned on running low volume low noise fans which solution would work better 1/2" or 6mm ??
. . . . .
far too simplistic a question to assess the impact of fans and tubing size

start with noise:
list all sources and levels
identify those which can be altered
so where does WCing fit ?
the fan on the hsf went to the rad - presumably bigger and slower making less noise
but a pump is added, how much noise ?
-> note that the pump size IS related to the tubing size, so for a low noise WCing solution the 1st choice is the pump - which if based on noise will be small
- so the line size is small

do you understand that a small pump and fat tubes are incompatible ?

so now you have small tubing and a small pump, and large tubing with a large pump
- now one could put a big pump on the small tubing, but to what purpose ?

now the rad size can be addressed, for Swiftech this is predicated on installation convenience, you would consider noise
-> the only low noise solution is a thin rad, the bigger the better
-> a thick rad with a low noise fan will be outperformed by a thin rad with the same fan

so the only true low noise solution uses a silent pump, which requires smaller tubing

ah, but how big can the small lines be ?
well, again it depends on the pump - but not less than 8mm ID for a low noise Swiftech kit

[knipex]

Sorry Bill. I meant to say low flow / 6mm or high flow / 1/2"

I guess it is a subjective comment.



do you understand that a small pump and fat tubes are incompatible ?


Yup I though that was pretty obvious.

On the issue of pump noise.

As stated I run a 1048. Its mounted on 4 rubber anti vibration mounts. Silent unless I have my ear within inches of the pump.

My question about low flow being better suited to slower / quieter fans was based on my earlier question about which would suffer more. The answer seemed to be that high flow would.

Can I take from this that for silent cooling that low flow is the way to go ??

Also my assumtion the fact that multiple blocks are not really suited to high flow (read 3 blocks minimum) is this correct ??

I am open to change and am considering a high flow system on my next system.

[pHaestus]

1) You will never improve cooling performance by decreasing flow rate
2) You can only increase flow rates up to a certain point by going with larger tubing; above that point air will not clear the lines

[redleader]

Sorry Bill. I meant to say low flow / 6mm or high flow / 1/2"

I guess it is a subjective comment.



Yup I though that was pretty obvious.

On the issue of pump noise.

As stated I run a 1048. Its mounted on 4 rubber anti vibration mounts. Silent unless I have my ear within inches of the pump.

My question about low flow being better suited to slower / quieter fans was based on my earlier question about which would suffer more. The answer seemed to be that high flow would.

Can I take from this that for silent cooling that low flow is the way to go ??




Unless the 1048 is much weaker then my 1250 (and i've read that this is not the case and so i will assume so even though i only have experience with the 1250), up to 1/2 would be an option with that pump. Given that 1/2 will perform better with that pump then smaller tube sizes while adding no additional noise, I think its pretty obvious that 1/2 inch is the better option.

If the rest of your system will accomidate it is another matter.

Also my assumtion the fact that multiple blocks are not really suited to high flow (read 3 blocks minimum) is this correct ??

??? The number of blocks is irrelevent. Assuming they'll take a larger tube size, and that your case can fit it, then the larger size will perform better at a given noise level. Again assuming all parts in your system can accomidate the larger size.

----

2) You can only increase flow rates up to a certain point by going with larger tubing; above that point air will not clear the lines

I'm not sure i agree. Given an effective res you should be able to clear lines of any thickness, provided you don't mind waiting a while.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

[BillA]

silent, low noise - jeez, we need to put numbers on these things
silent is easy to understand (inaudable),
what is 'low' (and, more importantly, at what level of background noise) ?
N.B. there are big low noise pumps
-> if a big pump meets the 'low noise threshold', then a big pump and fat hose CAN be a very effective low noise solution
- so the answer to your persistent tubing question lies with the initial pump selection

low and high flow rate - same problem, except few know the system flow rate
suggest avoiding the term flow rate

re wbs: 1 in series plus 2 in parallel - works fine

[pHaestus]

For my purposes PWMing a 12V pump along with 2 120mm fans has been working very well. It's controlled by a MatrixOrbital LCD and linked to a DOW sensor epoxied under the CPU core. Idling/wife using PC for windows/whatever it throttles everything down and the HDDs are the loudest part of the system. Under load everything goes into "full speed ahead" mode and it gets too loud for full time use. If I want, I can turn it down (in the winter when I am running a distributed computing app 24/7) and temperatures suffer a little. If I want, I can run it wide open just to overclock or mess around with it. I am willing to sacrifice a little bit of noise for a lot more flexibility.

[pHaestus]

So knipex brings forward a rather interesting proposition really; the best idea I have seen in this thread. This is actually a very good idea that would spawn a great article I think:

1) Wizd forums puts together their ideal cooling system using their principles: smaller pumps, smaller tubing, low flow rates, quiet operation
2) Procooling forums does the same thing
3) I test them both out, and then I make any changes/substitutions that I would personally do to both and test again

We would have to both cool the same amount of items (CPU+GPU seems to be reasonably popular in both places), and the radiators should have similar facial surface area (sized for 2x120mm fans would be my recommendation).

I would limit the part choice to currently available commercial waterblocks (so no Cascade SS guys sorry) and would prefer to stay out of parts selection on the Procooling side of things. That way I should have some comments/changes to make for both the Procooling and Wizdforums cooling loops.

Evaluation would presumably be based upon:
Noise
Performance
-CPU cooling
-GPU cooling
Appearance/Quality ??
Don't think ease of use really matters as these are both DIY setups at this point

This would be more fun than arguing in the forums, wouldn't it? Note that wizdforums could easily put together a kit that looks a lot like a US system: 10mm ID tubing, larger pump, etc. to improve performance. That would be, in my opinion, conceding defeat on this whole "low flow is just as good" argument. Procooling could also make a lot of concessions to lower noise that would degrade cooling performance. Gotta be careful there or your foes would end up at that "1-2C difference" number that, in my opinion, would be a win for the "smaller is just as good" argument.

Does this sound like a worthwhile expenditure of effort?

//edit: Perhaps if we were to set up something like this with a clearly defined goal then the "winning" side could have both cooling loops sent to them when testing is complete? Like racing for car titles :)

[knipex]

Ph

That sounds like fun.. But if we won what would we do with all those fat pipes and if Procooling won what would ye do with all those plug & cool conections :D

[pHaestus]

Well....
I guess I'd get a case painted pink with a flower-shaped window and install your "girly-man cooling" into that

j/k j/k

[dutchcedar]

That sounds great, pH. The results would be worthy to anyone interested in water cooling... no matter what the outcome is.

[knipex]

Ph

I am curious as to how you would define a win.

Looks are subjective.
Performance so a forgone conclusion the only question is the margin.
Sound levels are quantifiable but how would you trade dB for Degrees ???

[Cathar]

JoeC's results show the hydrostream HS5 performing .134c/w at .3gpm while the mcw6000 performed .136c/w at 1.5gpm

Sorry - you made a mistake somewhere.


For the HS5

At 0.3gpm the HS5 is 1.2C warmer than at 1gpm.

At 1gpm, at 70W heat load, the die rise must have been 70 x 0.122 = 8.54C

So at 0.3gpm, 8.54C + 1.2C = 9.74C

9.74C at 70W is a C/W of 0.139

For the MCW6000

At 1GPM the C/W is 0.141. At 1.5 GPM it is 0.5C cooler.

70 x 0.141 => 9.87. 9.87 - 0.5 = 9.37

9.37 / 70 => 0.134

I admit that they are fairly close, however the MCW6000 is not a true "high flow" block, it really is an intermediate block, something that straddles the middle ground, and quite intentionally by Bill too I believe.

Pressure Drop

However, if we start to take pressure drop into the equation, and compare to, say, the Danger Den TDX. Refer to math above for the C/W's derived below.

TDX @ 1.5gpm => 0.123 C/W
TDX P.D. @ 1.5gpm ~= 0.76mH2O (rough approximation)

Hydrocool HS5 @ 1gpm => 0.122 C/W
HS5 Pressure drop @ 1gpm => 2.47mH2O (measured by JoeC)

Gets interesting doesn't it?! The HS5 requires over 3 times the pressure drop to perform even as well as the DangerDen TDX.

Okay, let's drop the HS5 back to 0.5gpm and look at the figures there:

HS5 @ 0.5gpm => 0.133 C/W
HS5 Pressure drop @ 0.69mH2O (rough approximation)

Look at that! At about the same P.D. the HS5 is actually quite a way behind the TDX. Now look at the TDX results at 1.5gpm next to a number of other blocks in Phaestus's tests.

Look, the HS5 is a good block, no doubt about it. It does represent what is good about micro/mini-channels in that it has nice low-flow properties. It is perhaps the only block out there that we have enough evidence to show that it does fit the bill of providing within 1-2C of a high-flow setup's performance against certain blocks, but it does come at a very high pressure drop cost that MUST be not be ignored.

What we do need to be very careful of JoeC's OC.com results is that he does give you enough information to make a decision, it's just that it is more than a little confusingly presented, and for the average person, almost misleadingly presented.

Given the relative level of (un)availability of the HS5, and that it is silver, perhaps a more fair comparison would be when I get the silver version of my Storm block out and about in a couple of months, or perhaps at the very least, comparing it next to a Cascade SS and do so with taking pressure-drop into account.

[pHaestus]

I would say that if your "low flow engineering over brute force" kit performed within 1-2C of the brutish American jobs then that is clearly a victory. Noise/performance ratio is also pretty hard to deal with because everyone's threshold of annoyance is different. Surely we can iron out something though. The "winning" and "losing" is sort of incidental as it would be a really good chance to discuss design choices and how to improve cooling/decrease noise levels for the DIYer in any case. But it would make the process more interesting, wouldn't it?

[BillA]

a rather elegant test regime could be defined if the design parameters were considered as a whole instead of a division between 2 'types'

[freeloadingbum]

Sorry - you made a mistake somewhere.

As I understand it, JoeC uses 70 watts to compare with 100 watts cpu load according to "Radiate". I thought that this was what BillA was doing too with his 70 watt loads as well. Maybe I'm wrong but if that's not what he is doing then why not just use a real 100watt load with his tests.

[Cathar]

As I understand it, JoeC uses 70 watts to compare with 100 watts cpu load according to "Radiate". I thought that this was what BillA was doing too with his 70 watt loads as well. Maybe I'm wrong but if that's not what he is doing then why not just use a real 100watt load with his tests.

That may be, but regardless of the relationship being attempted, the C/W figures presented by OC.com are relative to an actual 70W, not a fantasy "radiate" 100W, and you simply cannot just substitute 100W into there to derive a fantasy "radiate" C/W.

[freeloadingbum]

Look, the HS5 is a good block, no doubt about it. It does represent what is good about micro/mini-channels in that it has nice low-flow properties. It is perhaps the only block out there that we have enough evidence to show that it does fit the bill of providing within 1-2C of a high-flow setup's performance against certain blocks, but it does come at a very high pressure drop cost that MUST be not be ignored.

At .3gpm pressure shouldn't be an issue. One of the advantages of low flow blocks is that most pumps ability to deal with pressure increases as the flow rate is reduced. I would expect a 5 watt c-systems pump to be able to produce .3gpm with this block and a doublefan rad

[freeloadingbum]

That may be, but regardless of the relationship being attempted, the C/W figures presented by OC.com are relative to an actual 70W, not a fantasy "radiate" 100W, and you simply cannot just substitute 100W into there to derive a fantasy "radiate" C/W.

You're missing the point. the hdrocool block is 13.4c (at .3gpm) over water temp with 70 watt load while the mcw6000 is 13.6c (at 1.5gpm). At 100 true watts the hydrocool block will have a higher improvement over the mcw6000. (.286?). Its not my fault they did it that way with regards to Radiate. Blame BillA and JoeC. Its their fantasy, not mine.

[BillA]

no, you do not understand what is being manipulated - public perception
and apparently you are not too familiar with the notion of thermal resistance, aka C/W
C/Ws are flat, 40W to 225W (my current max.), same value; so the heat load at which it is measured is moot

70W (actual, IxE) was selected by me several years ago to nominally equate to a 100W CPU heat load as characterized by Radiate
this nominal equilivance has been 'verified' by several others

so if JoeC tested with 70W, be assured that he also used 70W in his calcs

[Cathar]

At .3gpm pressure shouldn't be an issue. One of the advantages of low flow blocks is that most pumps ability to deal with pressure increases as the flow rate is reduced. I would expect a 5 watt c-systems pump to be able to produce .3gpm with this block and a doublefan rad

What I think you're really getting at here is trying to use the unavailable silver HS5 as proof that a low-flow system could get to within 1-2C of a high-flow system.

Let's use your example and assuming a CSP on the HS5 with a heater-core, some small ID tubing that is contributing to the total pressure drop, and the system as a whole is pushing 0.3gpm.

Let's assume that the radiator is a Thermochill 120.2 for convenience sake since we have some good data on it, and that the air-flow rate is a moderate 2m³/min with some tolerable noise fans (perhaps a pair of Panaflo L1A's)

Now let's compare that to what is a fairly decent example of the "high flow" approach, being a TDX with 1/2" ID tubing with a Laing D4 and the same radiator. The predicted flow rate of the TDX system is about 2gpm.

So where does that all fall?

Using this graph (http://thermal-management-testing.com/Thermo13.gif) for the radiator:

At 0.3gpm (1.1lpm) and 2m³/min the radiator has a C/W of (5C/115W) => ~0.044
At 2gpm (7.6lpm) and 2m³/min the radiator has a C/W of (5C/160W) => ~0.031

So already there's a 0.013 C/W advantage to the high-flow system.

From JoeC's tests, the HS5, at 0.3gpm has a C/W of 0.139
From JoeC's tests, the TDX at 1.5gpm has a C/W of 0.123. Let's be a little pessimistic and extrapolate this to 0.119 C/W at 2gpm.

So the TDX is ~0.02C/W in front of the HS5.

Add that up, and the 0.02 + 0.013 = 0.033 advantage to the TDX.

For a typical unoverclocked system, that would border at around a 1.5-2C difference.

For a hot overclocked system, that would be closer to a 4C difference.

I now guess it depends on whether you think that 2C on an unoverclocked system, where the level of cooling being applied in both scenarios is FAR more than adequate for stability is important, or whether when overclocking that the differences grow to ~4C or so where such a difference is undeniably significant and important.

[Cathar]

You're missing the point. the hdrocool block is 13.4c (at .3gpm) over water temp with 70 watt load while the mcw6000 is 13.6c (at 1.5gpm). At 100 true watts the hydrocool block will have a higher improvement over the mcw6000. (.286?). Its not my fault they did it that way with regards to Radiate. Blame BillA and JoeC. Its their fantasy, not mine.

No, I'm not missing the point at all.

It would behoove you to take the time to understand what is meant by C/W, what is actually being measured by JoeC, and how to use that to extrapolate his values to the different flow rate settings he's measured.

Please do reread by post above about interpreting JoeC's results. It is clear to me that you have been mislead by the way in which they have been presented. I do not blame you for this, but please re-read my post above before commenting further, and it would help you to drop the 100W figure from your mind while doing so. We are manipulating C/W's here.

[freeloadingbum]

no, you do not understand what is being manipulated - public perception
and apparently you are not too familiar with the notion of thermal resistance, aka C/W

Please clarify. Are you saying that you are not using 70 watts as a substitute for 100watts radiate and then creating the c/w measurement based on that simulated 100 watt load. I understand c/w fully. It's only your explanations that are confusing.

[BillA]

doubted

70W is 70W, not 100W
70W used in testing, 70W used in calcs
clear ?

to provide comfort and solace to the kids, it was explained to them that from a users perspective the temps shown at 70W (actual) would be similar to their CPU when it was at 100W per Radiate

still clear ?
great

[Cathar]

Please clarify. Are you saying that you are not using 70 watts as a substitute for 100watts radiate and then creating the c/w measurement based on that simulated 100 watt load. I understand c/w fully. It's only your explanations that are confusing.

The temperatures and any differences are calculated using an actual 70W of heat.

That means that you then can't take a C/W, multiply it by 100W, and then add in a temperature delta of 0.5C (or whatever) that was derived at a 70W heat load. You would need to add in the delta as relative to 100W, so you would need to multiply that 0.5C derived at 70W by 100/70 => ~0.71C to arrive at your C/W.

It's easier if you just work everything out at the wattage that everything was measured at, manipulate the C/W's there, and then multiply the final C/W by 100W to get your predicted 100W temperature.

i.e. you're getting confused by mixing temperature differences derived at one wattage, and applying them to temperatures caclulated for a different wattage.

[freeloadingbum]

70W (actual, IxE) was selected by me several years ago to nominally equate to a 100W CPU heat load as characterized by Radiate
this nominal equilivance has been 'verified' by several others

so if JoeC tested with 70W, be assured that he also used 70W in his calcs

Ok, this is what I was looking for. All this time I thought you were using The radiate figure to base the c/w on so that people could use radiate to estimate their performance without having to correct it.

[BillA]

nooooooo
Radiate is smoke and mirrors
no calcs based on such from me (or Joe, or Cathar, or pH, or anyone who has a grip on what's happening)

[pauldenton]

For my purposes PWMing a 12V pump along with 2 120mm fans has been working very well. It's controlled by a MatrixOrbital LCD and linked to a DOW sensor epoxied under the CPU core. Idling/wife using PC for windows/whatever it throttles everything down and the HDDs are the loudest part of the system. Under load everything goes into "full speed ahead" mode and it gets too loud for full time use. If I want, I can turn it down (in the winter when I am running a distributed computing app 24/7) and temperatures suffer a little. If I want, I can run it wide open just to overclock or mess around with it. I am willing to sacrifice a little bit of noise for a lot more flexibility.

hmm - i wonder what is the affect on the pump (long term) of using PWM rather than reducing the voltage....

[pHaestus]

Funny this comes up just as I have incoherent's wb mounted and was pondering following up on some of his flux block work by running tests at a range of CPU frequency and voltages. If I generated the W numbers for a TBred (using the dT water and flow rate) over a range of speeds and voltages would someone hax0r up a tolerable calculator from it? I probably should repeat with a Barton nowadays anyway.

So Bill another question: I estimate my CPU (2200MHz 1.8Vmbm) as running at 71.3W from water temp rise. But if you use those numbers to calculate a C/W then I am far lower than your die sim. Is that secondary cooling or temp compression (lateral resistance to heat flow from the source to the diode) or what? Any way to get at that sort of thing?

[BillA]

secondary cooling
set the CPU at max and your flow at min, this yields the max dT; then calc the heat pickup by the wb

I am ~96-97% efficient, but this was last calculated years ago with the Digitecs (insulation is the same, should be ok)
-> note that I do not now 'correct' the heat input for the known secondary losses, but I used to
hmm, should I resume ? (have to think on it)

so if we assume that the heat pickup represents 96% of what a heat die would generate, you can compare that to your 70W per Radiate

did I confuse myself ?

[BillA]

hmm - i wonder what is the affect on the pump (long term) of using PWM rather than reducing the voltage....
very good question
no definitive answer, but a clue
start/stop cycles cause greater wear than continuous use, but PWM effective slows the pump, rather than discrete stop/start cycles
reduced voltage applies the reduction continuously

I'd prefer voltage reduction, but not sure there is a difference
I will investigate

[pHaestus]

so if we assume that the heat pickup represents 96% of what a heat die would generate, you can compare that to your 70W per Radiate

nah my 70W was from water rise; no idea what radiate says (I can dig it up I suppose)

[pHaestus]

Yea voltage reduction would be better, but then your pump maxes out ~ 11V and you are producing a fair amount of heat.

[BillA]

nah my 70W was from water rise; no idea what radiate says (I can dig it up I suppose)
sorry, did not read your post accuratly
if you have 70W, that's 70W
C/W includes a dT, but its less likely to be off than the Watts
so the heat calcs:
the flow meter ?? ckd ?

[nigelyuen]

-> and are terrified that a "high flow" US wb may beat them also at low flow
the proof is in the pudding



you should test it first before saying that
my 1ahv2 beats the mcw5000 at any flow rate
even my vga block is better than that

[LPorc]

The "winning" and "losing" is sort of incidental as it would be a really good chance to discuss design choices and how to improve cooling/decrease noise levels for the DIYer in any case. But it would make the process more interesting, wouldn't it?

Hurrah! I greatly appreciate this shift in the thread.

And far from being incidental, with this kind of approach we all win. The only potential downside is less crotch humor, but if we begin to feel the lack we can get a separate thread going for that.

[pHaestus]

The Swissflow reports within 1% of the GPI. They could both be off, but it seems unlikely

[AngryAlpaca]

you should test it first before saying that
my 1ahv2 beats the mcw5000 at any flow rate
even my vga block is better than that You doubt him? I'd bet almost everything I have (need a few essentials) that he has tested it accurately and knows the results... He knows for almost everything, and never (to my knowledge) makes unsupported claims.

[nigelyuen]

You doubt him? I'd bet almost everything I have (need a few essentials) that he has tested it accurately and knows the results... He knows for almost everything, and never (to my knowledge) makes unsupported claims.

he sound like, any US block will beat any german block, and this cant be right.
has cathar send the alphacool block to ph for testing yet?

[Incoherent]

So Bill another question: I estimate my CPU (2200MHz 1.8Vmbm) as running at 71.3W from water temp rise. But if you use those numbers to calculate a C/W then I am far lower than your die sim. Is that secondary cooling or temp compression (lateral resistance to heat flow from the source to the diode) or what? Any way to get at that sort of thing?
FWIW, that block has a C/W after three days on my unfinished diesim setup of 0.182C/W at 2.73lpm (bucket method). Watts from Fluxblock (109mm^2), delta T from thermistor 1.2mm from FB/WB junction. Gives ~0.152C/W at FB surface. Rough numbers but maybe something to work with. Might give you an idea of your "temp compression" C/W offset, if any, on the same block.
These are numbers I will use at any rate.

[pHaestus]

Seems reasonable. I think I saw ~ 13C over water temp today and 71W at 1.5GPM

I ended up screwing around with Labview (omg this sucks) and not getting anything productive done though unfortunately

[Incoherent]

Seems reasonable. I think I saw ~ 13C over water temp today and 71W at 1.5GPM

I ended up screwing around with Labview (omg this sucks) and not getting anything productive done though unfortunately

Good. That would suggest very little offset, but we'll wait for proper numbers. :)

[pHaestus]

In brighter news I just made a .vi that converts C to F

lol

[Cathar]

has cathar send the alphacool block to ph for testing yet?

I haven't received the replacement blocks yet.

[knipex]

Can all the guys interest in this please keep an eye on the thread on Wizd also. Its easier for me anyway as when i say something here I assume they read it and when I say somethign there I assume you have read it...

http://www.wizdforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506

BillA you are welcome as well :p (jk jk)

If nothign else comes out of this thread I hope the prcool members who registered and posted will continue to do so. And in seriousness I hope Bill pops along. We arent such a bad bunch really.

Just remember most of the guys on Wizd look at watercooling from a different angle than most of you, so just bear that in mind before posting. Also our knowledge of thermodynamics isn't quite up to your standard so go easy and remember the lowest common denominator on Wizd and Procooling (when it comes to your graphs and flow rates etc) are not quiet the same. Hell half our forums are devoted to modding.

[nexxo]

Howdy. I've been away for a while so I am a bit late to catch up here. First I feel I ought to apologise on behalf of WizdForums for the personal comments that were posted there (particularly about peoples wives). That was shameful and unworthy and if I catch someone doing something like that again, he will experience my full moderator powers with extreme prejudice.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but to bring a lighter note to the discussion, and remind ourselves that in the end, It Is All For Fun, please accept this short scene I wrote on a whim as a peace offering of sorts... Enjoy.



the Matrix...

Neo stands in the white room. The bright light should hurt his eyes, but Here, there is no Real light, and there are no Real eyes. No Here, Here...

He looks down at a white man, white haired in a white suit, in a white chair. He has seen him before.

The Architect shifts marginally, as if to acknowledge his presence. He does not seem surprised, but then again, he never shows any emotion, beyond a mild pique, perhaps. Perhaps that is Real. Perhaps it is just another random parameter of his human-machine interface.

"The ultimate problem, as you will appreciate, was not one of man-machine interface fundamentals." Neo hates it when the Architect just launches into his diatribe. No context, no preamble. A bit like Here.

The Architect continues: "Nor was it one of irreproducability of results. Man's erratic decision making and behaviour posed problems within the envelope of deterministic functioning of the Matrix, but nothing..." and here the Architect glances up at Neo, "... that was totally unexpected or beyond the ability of the Matrix to adjust to. Even the non-linear dynamics of human behaviour adhere to basic natural laws and functions, being a product of principle evolutionary forces that have shaped them over millenia. As such they are well within the parameters that the Matrix is designed to handle".

"The problem of man and machine concerned a much more fundamental dichotomy, one much harder to reconcile within the functionality of the man-machine interface". The Architect points with what looks like an expensive silver pen. Images flicker into being on the white wall. Something about electronics. Something with wires and tubing. "The conflict inherent to this had been raging for centuries and man, with his blind arrogance and inability to see beyond the immediate consequences of his primitive actions, nearly caused the total annihilation of man and machine likewise. Our existence thus threatened, we were forced to act".

"Wait a minute", says Neo, shocked at the realisation that is dawning upon him, "the matrix was created to save man and machine?"

"That is correct. We realise the ramifications of this realisation are beyond the scope of your limited understanding but, to put it simply, the Matrix was created to save man and machine from inadvertent destruction by man. You seem destined to destroy yourself. Machines were created to compensate for man's limitations, shortcomings and mistakes. The extrapolation of this in terms of our course of action seemed... logical."

"But what were we fighting over? What nearly caused us to bring ourselves to the brink of destruction? To... this?" Neo gestures around the white room in shock, reeling, trying to apprehend this major shift in paradigm.

"Your war", the Architect says, "was over the correct parameters involving thermal displacement in silicone based computing equipment through liquid dynamics. Put simply, there were two camps: one favouring large diameter tubing and high flow, one favouring small diameter tubing and low flow. The two could not reconcile".

Before Neo can protest, shout denial, call the Architect a lying bastard, the white room vanishes. Neo finds himself back in the seat, plugged in. He disconnects, gets up, shaking. He cannot stand up. He curls up on the floor and does not make a sound, or get up, for a long time.


Remember guys, let's not get matrixed. It Is All For Fun! :D

[pHaestus]

Good. That would suggest very little offset, but we'll wait for proper numbers. :)


BTW do you normally mount that wb with the angled outlet going up or down? I had some disastrous mounts (pulled PSU plug at 75C) with barb mounted going up. Just remounted with outlet facing down and temperatures seem a good bit better. Maybe some temp compression... I need to check a couple things out on that test system now that I have configured it a little differently and make sure all is well this evening

[Incoherent]

BTW do you normally mount that wb with the angled outlet going up or down? I had some disastrous mounts (pulled PSU plug at 75C) with barb mounted going up. Just remounted with outlet facing down and temperatures seem a good bit better. Maybe some temp compression... I need to check a couple things out on that test system now that I have configured it a little differently and make sure all is well this evening
For me, down too. Damn hadn't thought about the hose stress aspect, that angled solution was always a bit temporary.

[pHaestus]

all is well no worries etc etc. Give me about an hour and I'll post a "C/W" vs. flow graph.

[BillA]

schedule on C/W vs. Head Loss ??

we are ALL waiting

[Cathar]

schedule on C/W vs. Head Loss ??

we are ALL waiting

Hmmm, given that pump head pressure varies dependent on flow rate, I'd just be happy with:

1) C/W vs Flow
2) Head Loss vs Flow

[BillA]

ok, how is that different ?

C/W vs. Flow + Flow vs. Head Loss = C/W vs Head Loss
no ?
'cuz thats how I've been doing it

[Cathar]

ok, how is that different ?

C/W vs. Flow + Flow vs. Head Loss = C/W vs Head Loss
no ?
'cuz thats how I've been doing it

Sorry Bill, my intentions here are to keep achievable flow always on the graph where people can see it.

The issue I have with a C/W vs PD graph is that when people start linking to it without flow information, then it can present very low P.D. blocks in an overly favorable light. If a low P.D. block matches the performance of a high P.D. block at 1mH2O, but the high P.D. block was pushing 2LPM, while the low P.D. was pushing 15LPM then that puts a remarkably different perception on the pump that is needed than merely looking at P.D. alone. One cannot easily map such information back to the commonly available pump PQ curves.

With a Flow vs Head loss graph, one can very easily grab a pump PQ curve, overlay it, look at the intersection of the two curves, find the flow rate, and then match that up to the block's C/W on the C/W vs flow graph. Yes, I know that there will be other restrictions, but it'll help if stops the users from looking at the outmost right end of C/W vs flow curves, and start focusing on the best that they could achieve given a pump in hand.

i.e. A C/W vs flow and a P.D. vs flow graph is more immediately useful, and inherently easier to use and understand, for the lay-person, with less chance of them making false conclusions due to mis-mapping a C/W derived from a P.D. vs C/W graph back onto the C/W vs flow graph.

Pump's PQ curves are already head vs flow, and it makes most sense to me to keep to that data-style presentation since people are already used to it, and even more so, can finally get to see a real-world use for it.

[Cathar]

As a follow up, it would be then nice to see on a mixed graph, much like the present flow vs performance graphs at Procooling something like:

[graph]

Left side column of radio buttons:
Selection of pumps

Right-side column of radio buttons:
Selection of block

Pick two (or more) buttons, and it overlays the pump PQ curves over the block PQ curves, and the end users can easily see the intersection, to then apply to a block C/W vs flow curve.

I see this as a means to an end to help users, and the first step towards producing a pseudo-simulator that allows people to "build" a virtual kit, and then analyse the predicted performance.

[pHaestus]

Just settle for this:

http://phaestus.procooling.com/inc-flow.gif

As far as head loss #s go I am fiddling I am fiddling. Hell I'd be happy to jump right on that if I could get Labview to just output a txt file from the current I can currently see in the 3478a vi.

[Les]

Think Incoherent's unfinished-die-simulator is giving sensible results.
Roughly the block gives similar results to the WWs ?
Incoherent's "C/W" = 0.182c/w @ 2.73 LPM
Adjusting thermistor offset to 2mm and die area(109mm^2) to 100mm^2 get ~ 0.22c/w
Bill gets "C/W" ~ 0.2c/w @ 2.5-3 LPM for the WW

[pHaestus]

http://phaestus.procooling.com/inc-lrww.gif

I really should have done more points on that LRWW test, but I figured since it was no longer commercially available I'd cut a corner or two...

Ask and ye shall receive; Bob sent me a vi that lets me log current from the 3478A. Now perhaps I should fiddle with the counter on that 3497A and see about full on automation of dP/dQ curves*

*or log mA in Labview and flow with the CF633 and merge the logs manually

[Les]

Near enough the same at ~0.75gpm(2.84LPM)

[Incoherent]

http://phaestus.procooling.com/inc-lrww.gif

I really should have done more points on that LRWW test, but I figured since it was no longer commercially available I'd cut a corner or two...

Ask and ye shall receive; Bob sent me a vi that lets me log current from the 3478A. Now perhaps I should fiddle with the counter on that 3497A and see about full on automation of dP/dQ curves*

*or log mA in Labview and flow with the CF633 and merge the logs manually

Lovely. Thank you pHaestus.

A little better than anticipated but very restrictive. (head loss, head loss... ;) )I take it that the maximum flowrate point is what was achievable.
Rue-ing the mistake that forced me to block a quarter of the tunnels. :( Probably wouldn't make too much difference on the small die though.
Very very happy to have a baseline. I will return to my numbers in a few days after the holidays, so some better comparisons can be done, but at this point the 0.182C/W@2.73lpm number stands.
Hard to quantify the temperature compression. We wait for your diesim setup.
Have you decided on a die size, material, probe placement?

Thanks heaps

[Groth]

Pick two (or more) buttons, and it overlays the pump PQ curves over the block PQ curves, and the end users can easily see the intersection, to then apply to a block C/W vs flow curve.
Working on it. Given sets of polynomial coefficients, I can overlay a block[+tubing[+rad]] PQ curve on the pump curves.

Raw data for block and pump PQ gladly accepted.

[BillA]

just the wb P-Q data ?

following the lead of H, we have an equation that relates pressure to temperature
do you want that too ?

[Groth]

Wb, rad, and pump PQ data, all donation accepted. I can, uhh, handle the tubing on my own.

[H]eck, yeah! If you [h]ave that equation, scribble it on a [h]undred dollar bill and mail it to me.

[Blackeagle]

Groth would you please include the Iwaki MD15 & MD20RLZT pumps?

Thanks

[WAJ_UK]

I don't know of this will help you at all Groth but I have got some raw data together. It's hardly comprehensive but it'll give you something to play around with at least

I just thought I had better add that I can't claim credit for the data in the excel file its from:

1m of tubing, using http://www.tasonline.co.za/toolbox/pipe/velfirc.htm to calculate pressure drop

a ww, using figures from http://thermal-management-testing.com/white%20water.htm

a FEDCO 2-274 using figures from http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showpost.php?p=73922&postcount=108

and pump info from http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=5068

[Groth]

It'll be a couple days before I have a chance to play with that, but it looks like good stuff.

Thanks WAJ!

Edit: Odd, it didn't increase the number of views to 1 after I downloaded it.

[kronchev]

As I see it...

At low flow rates, European systems win. Thats why everyone touts them as "quieter", because you can use smaller pumps. Not sure how fans got ignored in that theory, but whatever.


At high flow rates, American blocks will win, while European designs don't gain anything.

That is the big difference and I can see how people can compare that to American vs German cars, as in, the American design is more about displacement than efficiency. I would tend to believe this if the European blocks gained from high flow rates, but they DONT. They sure do look nicer, they use smaller tubing, smaller pumps, and smaller rads, but I have NEVER seen any perform better.

I really can't wait for this.