View Single Post
Unread 10-02-2004, 03:49 AM   #149
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incoherent
Assuming/expecting tests do show an improvement, what has given you the most gain do you think? My calculated guess would have to be the flow rate vs water velocity optimisation. There is a peaking curve in that.
Yes, and no. The flow/velocity optimisation improved things, true, but they were all "lost" again by moving to a truer impingement effect. I have disruptor-less bases here and they perform about the same as the Cascade does, but a whole lot more restrictive. Therefore this just re-affirmed to me that the Cascade's design approach was/is still very valid.

The disruptor pins are key here. Without them, the block is no better than a Cascade, although the block would certainly be cheaper to make than a Cascade without the pins, just a lot more restrictive than a Cascade, but then again with the disrupter pins the G3 also pips the Cascade for performance

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incoherent
I am curious about your new jet vs cup diameter ratio with regards to the jet impingment / mashing transition. Cup walls make the scenario lean heavily towards mashing. They are wider, are your cups shallower?
The cups are marginally shallower than the Cascade, but this is done mostly to increase bp thickness to assist in a more even cooling effect across the base of the block. The Storm's bp is about twice as thick as that on the Cascade, which still makes it very thin. The base-plate thickness is something that I really focused on with respect to achievable CPU overclock, rather than relying on the actual temperatures being reported. With a thinner bp it's possible to get lower reported temperatures with the Storm block, at the expense of peak overclock. This was something that I also spent a lot of time optimising as really this block was more about me getting as much overclock as possible out of my CPU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incoherent
Is the 4-6d z really optimum with the increased shear from exiting rather than sitting water ... these are somewhat rhetorical Friday night questions... better go to bed...
4-6 z/d is apparantly optimal for maximised Nusselt numbers for submersed jets. I don't use a z/d of 4-6 in the block though. This was something else that I worked with for optimising with the disruptor pin.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote