Go Back   Pro/Forums > ProCooling Technical Discussions > Testing and Benchmarking
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar JavaChat Mark Forums Read

Testing and Benchmarking Discuss, design, and debate ways to evaluate the performace of he goods out there.

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 10-10-2005, 02:30 PM   #51
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

10mm ID
0.8 lpm Re=1902
0.9 lpm Re=2139
Many would say ~0.85 LPM
Give Mir if wish

Ta for Excel, even tho I hate them- u use too much magic(formulas) which confuse my simple Excel operations - pasting to other work sheets

Last edited by Les; 10-10-2005 at 02:37 PM.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2005, 02:51 PM   #52
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
10mm ID
0.8 lpm Re=1902
0.9 lpm Re=2139
Many would say ~0.85 LPM
Give Mir if wish

Ta for Excel, even tho I hate them- u use too much magic(formulas) which confuse my simple Excel operations - pasting to other work sheets


You should like that one, not a single formula in it.
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2005, 08:59 AM   #53
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incoherent


You should like that one, not a single formula in it.
What temperates are Tflux and Tdie.
Getting uncorrected C/W above yours
Probably done something stupid, but thought better check before looking again for silliness.

Watts calculated from 5mm spacing( 0.127551c/w)
Am simply adjusting reported dTs differences by 0.056888 c/w(2.23mm) for C/W(wb+TIM) and 0.102041c/w(4mm) for C/W(TIM)

Edit Added TIM Inco
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Fantasy20.jpg (21.3 KB, 10 views)

Last edited by Les; 10-11-2005 at 12:53 PM.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2005, 10:28 AM   #54
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
What temperates are Tflux and Tdie.

Not quite sure what you mean Les. I am preparing a Post with calculations so you can see how I generate the numbers in the logfile.
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2005, 11:05 AM   #55
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

1. @FLUX=393*0.00010*(@LOW4 + @TOP3*-1)/0.005077
2. @CU=(@LOW4 + @TOP3*-1)/5.077
3. @TI=((@CU*1.988 + @FB2)*-1 + (@TOP3 + @CU*-2.081))/@FLUX
4. @CW=(@FB2 + @CU*-2.017 + @WIN5*-1)/@FLUX + @TI*-1
5. @FLOW=60*(@FLUX/(4186*(@WOT6 +@WIN5*-1)))
6. @SYS=(@FB2 + @CU*-2.017 + @AIR1*-1)/@FLUX + @TI*-1

These are cut and pasted directly from my DAQ monitoring script. Translated into readable equations as follows:

1. Heat flux = k x A x (Tdie_low - Tdie_top)/L (heat in watts, Fourier, q=k.A.dT/L, k=393W/m°C, A=0.0001m^2, L=0.005077m, [nominally 5mm])

2. Cu dT = (Tdie_low - Tdie_top)/L (Temperature gradient in °C/mm)

3. TIM C/W = ((Tdie_top - Cu dT x 2.081) - (Cu dT x 1.988 + Tfluxblock))/Heat flux
or: (Extrapolated die top surface temp minus extrapolated FB lower surface temp, i.e Interface dT) divided by watts

4. C/W waterblock = (Tfluxblock - Cu dT* x 2.017 -Twater_in )/Heat flux -TIM C/W
or: (Extrapolated FB top surface temp minus Water in temp) divided by watts minusTIM i.e Air to WB base C/W

5. Flowrate (lpm) = 60 x (watts/(Cp x (Twater_out - Twater_in))

6. System Cw = (Extrapolated FB top surface temp minus Air temp) ...Not very useful, air is too variable


I realise I have named these very badly, particularly Die Top, sounds like die top surface, actually Die upper (top!?) sensor and Die low, = lower die sensor. I will rename them for future logs.
One thing I have noticed, different k here (393) than model (392). won't make any observable difference but shows I am making mistakes. Note the scripts inability to deal with the minus operation, I have to use + xx*-1.

Edit added pic
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Layout.jpg (56.5 KB, 33 views)

Last edited by Incoherent; 10-11-2005 at 11:23 AM.
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2005, 12:05 PM   #56
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Was only inquiring whether "FLUXBLOCK 2", "DIE TOP 3 and "DIE LOW 4" where raw data values.
Using those as raw data getting the above graph..
Graph generated with

1. Heat flux = k x A x (Tdie_low - Tdie_top)/L (heat in watts, Fourier, q=k.A.dT/L, k=392W/m°C, A=0.0001m^2, L=0.005m)

2. Cu dT = (Tdie_low - Tdie_top)/L (Temperature gradient in °C/mm)

3. TIM C/W = ((Tdie_top - Cu dT x 2.) - (Cu dT x 2 + Tfluxblock))/Heat flux
or: (Extrapolated die top surface temp minus extrapolated FB lower surface temp, i.e Interface dT) divided by watts

4. C/W waterblock = (Tfluxblock - Cu dT* x 2.23 -Twater_in )/Heat flux -TIM C/W
or: (Extrapolated FB top surface temp minus Water in temp) divided by watts minusTIM i.e Air to WB base C/W

My values should show uncorrected values.Designated as (C/W) rather than (C/W)".
These (C/W)wb have previously been lower than (C/W)"wb.
Here, mine is higher than yours.
Was going to simply multiply (C/W)wb by 1.038069 to get (C/W)"wb.
1.038069 is my new number now I have(poached from you) the " positions in the Fluxbloc.However my values are higher.
Something is amiss.

Edit
Like the picture. Yes, does help.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Fantasy21.jpg (13.4 KB, 8 views)

Last edited by Les; 10-11-2005 at 12:18 PM.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2005, 01:18 PM   #57
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
Was only inquiring whether "FLUXBLOCK 2", "DIE TOP 3 and "DIE LOW 4" where raw data values.

My values should show uncorrected values.Designated as (C/W) rather than (C/W)".
These (C/W)wb have previously been lower than (C/W)"wb.
Here, mine is higher than yours.
Was going to simply multiply (C/W)wb by 1.038069 to get (C/W)"wb.
1.038069 is my new number now I have(poached from you) the " positions in the Fluxbloc.However my values are higher.
Something is amiss.
Ah.

I understand.
All the temperatures are raw or at least ADC counts converted to voltage converted to resistance then spun through the Steinhart-Hart equation with coefficients generated from the calibration.
Not sure what's going on. Can you simply use a multiplier? I'll double check this.
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2005, 01:25 PM   #58
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Dunno but was going to check against your sums.
Seems your W" is a tad higher than mine - only calculating now
eg 61.67384 vs 61.51689896
The corresponding W(mine) is 62.4642592

These are line1 in above pic (Log Period 25470)

Edit CudT" the same at 1.569308647(les) and 1.569309(Inco)
The difference is the 393 and 392 Cu.
Which is it? Obviously neither but..........

Last edited by Les; 10-11-2005 at 02:02 PM.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2005, 02:03 PM   #59
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

Don't know Les, this is what I get.

The TIM has settled quite a bit.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Inco_calcs.jpg (234.2 KB, 15 views)
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2005, 02:27 PM   #60
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Your quick.
True positions = 2.23,2,2,and 5? - my L

2.017,.........5.077 are my L"

Will leisurely do some(depending on how much data u post) L" and post overnight/tomorrow

Last edited by Les; 10-11-2005 at 02:33 PM.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2005, 04:29 PM   #61
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
Your quick.
True positions = 2.23,2,2,and 5? - my L

2.017,.........5.077 are my L"

Will leisurely do some(depending on how much data u post) L" and post overnight/tomorrow
Sounds good.

Meantime, a rather clean log (some formulae)

Look for more stable flowrate, (grounding problem fixed - no more flyers at high flowrates, plus a recalibration of water temperatures)
Attached Files
File Type: zip mcw6000_on_100sqmm_3.zip (80.7 KB, 4 views)
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2005, 04:50 PM   #62
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

All looks sweet after all.
Made some wholesale cock-up some where.
First graph crap.
Not even know where offending curve came from.
Only data on work sheet resembling is your "System C/W".
Have recalculated nothing.
.
Ratio 1.038069429 is way out.
Horse lost.
Not been my day.
Ta for extra Excel.

With the amount of data you produce even I am considering some magic.
Thinking of LMTD ?

Morning Edit . Added Series3. Every thing behaving.
Retaining "L=2.23......" in picture .

Effect on predictions of moving "Shadow Model" zero to the, possibly more realistic, wb/Fluxbloc interface ? Having a look-see.

Lunch update
Not sure whether needs Fermi to have another crack at it.
Not sure is better.
Not sure ............
Though, is food for thought
Manually getting Ts and Ls is a chore and my magic is very limited
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Fantasy22.jpg (41.2 KB, 14 views)
File Type: jpg Fantasy23.jpg (52.5 KB, 7 views)
File Type: jpg Fantasy24.jpg (12.0 KB, 7 views)

Last edited by Les; 10-12-2005 at 06:45 AM.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-12-2005, 11:33 AM   #63
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
Effect on predictions of moving "Shadow Model" zero to the, possibly more realistic, wb/Fluxbloc interface ? Having a look-see.

Lunch update
Not sure whether needs Fermi to have another crack at it.
Not sure is better.
Not sure ............
Though, is food for thought
Manually getting Ts and Ls is a chore and my magic is very limited
Good idea. Do you think I am right in saying that it might be a way to test the validity of the model? i.e same raw data should give the same result... if not, one is wrong... not sure...

I'll work some Excel magic, will post new L''s (L'''?) and result when done.


Edit: Of course. The numbers for L''' are exactly the same. They should be, that's the whole premise.

Last edited by Incoherent; 10-12-2005 at 11:57 AM.
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-12-2005, 11:59 AM   #64
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Dunno but need careful think after re-crunching with new parameters.
Am producing new L" but slowly - am useless against the clock.
If not get your more reliable(my opinion) L", will then plug into Series2 and 3 - again slowly.
Then we look-see?

Edit
"Of course. The numbers for L''' are exactly the same. They should be, that's the whole premise."
Will find out - slowly
Edit
Yes,or at least Flovbloc 2.23 gives 1.65 gr at 2.016578788

Last edited by Les; 10-12-2005 at 12:12 PM.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-12-2005, 12:14 PM   #65
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
Dunno but need careful think after re-crunching with new parameters.
Am producing new L" but slowly - am useless against the clock.
If not get your more reliable(my opinion) L", will then plug into Series2 and 3 - again slowly.
Then we look-see?

Edit
"Of course. The numbers for L''' are exactly the same. They should be, that's the whole premise."
Will find out - slowly

Meantime I'm ready to try a remount of the block. All this data has been the 2nd mount of the block for the sake of getting the testbed characterised. It's important that I be able to reproduce this mount for mount so that any TIM results I generate have meaning. With the previous 12x12mm fluxblock this was no problem, I was consistantly able to get very similar numbers mount for mount. Remains to be seen if it is possible with the 10x10.

My feeling is that the TIM settling time is longer with this one, can't think of any reason for that except perhaps that the paste has aged six months or so.
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-12-2005, 12:55 PM   #66
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incoherent
Good idea. Do you think I am right in saying that it might be a way to test the validity of the model? i.e same raw data should give the same result... if not, one is wrong... not sure...
.
Hot water and 0 watts might be interesting.
Yep Ls are the same .
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-12-2005, 01:08 PM   #67
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

yes, get fresh paste
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-12-2005, 05:01 PM   #68
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incoherent
..... to test the validity of the model?
Maybe some reassurance.
Cannot split

The uncorrected values later/tomorrow.

Update
Added uncorrected .
Also cannot split( the two have done)
So no wiser
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Fantasy26.jpg (20.2 KB, 8 views)

Last edited by Les; 10-12-2005 at 07:27 PM.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-13-2005, 12:28 AM   #69
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Happy the "Shadow Correction" method applies to the fb/die IF where IF is included in the model.
Happy the "Shadow Correction" values are correct for C/W(TIM).
However have grave niggles about C/W(wb).values
Here IF is not included in the model.
Moving zero again to water/bp IF.
This is closer to reality.
However the gr=1.65 constraint does not apply.in bp section.
In fact the constraint varies from wb to wb.
The wb has to be modeled before any error correction can be applied.
Ugh.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-13-2005, 02:36 AM   #70
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
However the gr=1.65 constraint does not apply.in bp section.
In fact the constraint varies from wb to wb.
The wb has to be modeled before any error correction can be applied.
Ugh.

Horrible isn't it?

L''s for another model, see chart for details
0.000
1.976
3.953

3.953
6.030
11.105
13.456
Attached Images
File Type: jpg temp gradients.jpg (60.0 KB, 12 views)
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-13-2005, 02:54 AM   #71
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Interesting
Dumbfounded you have come up with numbers so quick.
Still digesting.

May edit this post(rather than repost) as thoughts emerge
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-13-2005, 03:14 AM   #72
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Have I got this right: Tdev curves are about same for two examples.
Wattage L 5.075
wb+TIM L 1.976
TIM L 4.054


Like(iI think) the always + Tdev
Reasoable guess for MCW6000 at *lpm
Have you plugged in ?

Last edited by Les; 10-13-2005 at 03:37 AM.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-13-2005, 03:59 AM   #73
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
Have I got this right: Tdev curves are about same for two examples.
Wattage L 5.075
wb+TIM L 1.976
TIM L 4.054

L's look right

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
Reasoable guess for MCW6000 at *lpm
Have you plugged in ?
I don't understand.
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-13-2005, 04:21 AM   #74
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incoherent
I don't understand.
Have you plugged Ls into data

The MCW6000was rant
To expand on rant
The 20,000 h(eff) on 50x50x5mm bp = 77,519W/m^2C h(eff) on die-surface
The 20,000 h(eff) on 50x50x5mm bp would be a fair guess of conditions in MCW6000 @ 0.25 lpm.However in tests there is TIM which reduces h(eff) to ~50,000(on fb-surface)
My model
17,000 on 40x40 @ 0.25 lpm
75,000 on 40x40 @ 10 lpm
Values are in Book1 Excel. No idea whether dimensions are correct.
Consider much higher h(eff) in small patch thin bp wbs.
For MP-05-SP with 1mm bp
10,000 on 14.4x14.4 @ 0.25 lpm
250,000 on 14.4x14.4 @ 10 lpm
In general possibly looking at an h(eff) range of 10,000 to 300,000(call it 500,000).and areas 10x10 to 60x60 with bps 0.1 to 10


Change in Ls changes nothing much =
Can distinquish a different curve
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Fantasy27.jpg (22.6 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg Fantasy28.jpg (19.4 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg Fantasy29.jpg (13.9 KB, 6 views)

Last edited by Les; 10-19-2005 at 10:26 AM.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-13-2005, 06:28 AM   #75
Incoherent
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Vallentuna, Sweden
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
Change in Ls changes nothing much =
Can distinquish a different curve
Yes, I make it about 0.0009°C/W difference for these two models.
Incoherent is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(C) 2005 ProCooling.com
If we in some way offend you, insult you or your people, screw your mom, beat up your dad, or poop on your porch... we're sorry... we were probably really drunk...
Oh and dont steal our content bitches! Don't give us a reason to pee in your open car window this summer...