Go Back   Pro/Forums > ProCooling Technical Discussions > General Liquid/Water Cooling Discussion > Water Block Design / Construction
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar JavaChat Mark Forums Read

Water Block Design / Construction Building your own block? Need info on designing one? Heres where to do it

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 10-30-2002, 03:05 PM   #226
myv65
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: home
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by unregistered
I do know Mike, he posts on OC and OCAU as Aesik
So the "has a solid grasp on all of this and didn't wish to bog down the readers" is the correct answer.

Thanks for chiming in, Bill.
myv65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-30-2002, 03:44 PM   #227
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

For what it's worth...

What I got from Mike's article is that the boundary layer restricts the flow. In a circular cross-section, the flow is higher in the middle. I also deduced that this would be similar in non-circular channels. Turbulence is wanted for improved heat dissipation. Putting it all together, what we want is turbulence at, or near the boundary layer.

Upon closer examination, it seems that the turbulence provided by high speed flow alone, doesn't fit with what's needed to improve cooling.
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-30-2002, 03:51 PM   #228
utabintarbo
Cooling Savant
 
utabintarbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sterling Hts., MI
Posts: 496
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by bigben2k
Putting it all together, what we want is turbulence at, or near the boundary layer.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted what I've read (or skimmed ), or perhaps I am merely saying what you said in a different way, but is turbulence not sought to reduce the boundary layer? I think one causes the other, no?

Bob
__________________
Sarcasm is yet another of the free services we offer!
utabintarbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-30-2002, 04:01 PM   #229
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by utabintarbo
Perhaps I've misinterpreted what I've read (or skimmed ), or perhaps I am merely saying what you said in a different way, but is turbulence not sought to reduce the boundary layer? I think one causes the other, no?

Bob
No, that's the whole issue.

If you look at the first graph in Mike's article, there's what is labelled as "Buffered Layer" and more importantly "Laminar sub layer".


This is why a rough surface (sandblasted?) is better, because it helps break up this laminar sub layer.
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-30-2002, 04:33 PM   #230
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

Incidentally...

The surface roughness adds to the flow restriction, as per this formula:

f=0.2083 (100 / C) ^ 1.812 * (Q^1.852 / d^4.8655)

Where
f = friction loss per 100 feet in feet of water
C=roughness coefficient (Hazen-Williams factor)
Q=flow rate (gpm)
d=inside diameter of pipe (inches)

Source: http://www.ppfahome.org/pdf/pvcpipewaterspec.pdf

For PVC piping, a value of 150 is used for C. A steel pipe would have a C value of about 100, and a rusty one about 80.

While on the topic, the optimal tubing size should allow a flow speed of no more than 8 fps (feet per second), otherwise the tubing becomes a significant restriction. A flow speed of 5 fps is the guideline for 1 inch ID and higher.
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-30-2002, 05:04 PM   #231
myv65
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: home
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by bigben2k
While on the topic, the optimal tubing size should allow a flow speed of no more than 8 fps (feet per second), otherwise the tubing becomes a significant restriction. A flow speed of 5 fps is the guideline for 1 inch ID and higher.
This guideline works fine for industrial pumps, but would cause most aquarium style pumps to struggle. Low speed is the weak pump's friend. Save the high speed for where it is needed, and that isn't in the tubing.
myv65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-31-2002, 08:47 AM   #232
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

Agreed.

I ran the numbers last night, and 1/2 inch tubing will have a flow velocity of about 5 fps, with a 3 gpm flow rate.

If I shoot for 5 gpm, I will have to go to 3/4 inch tubing, because 5 gpm in 1/2 inch is 8 fps!!!
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-31-2002, 04:11 PM   #233
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

Well, it's official.

It's going to 3/4 inch tubing.

Now all I have to figure out is why my pump has 1/2 fittings... Otherwise, the pump is at its max P/Q curve with a flow of about 250 gph (4 gpm), at which point the head is 11 feet. That converts to 0.42 atmospheres, or 4.4 meters of water, or 323 mm of mercury, or 0.43 bars, or 43 kPa, or 6.25 psi.

I'm going to try to use PVC (CPVC) parts to construct that "cube-res", starting with this:
Attached Images
File Type: gif 1 1-2 tee.gif (6.0 KB, 425 views)
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-01-2002, 09:01 AM   #234
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

Here's a diagram:

As I explained it, the tee (1 1/2, threaded at all ends) is capped with 1 1/2 to 3/4 threaded adaptors at the in/outlet. The inside pipe could either be a 3/4 piece of PVC piping (which I'd bend with heat) or the tube (it's possible to mount a barb on both sides of the adapter). The branch, which goes to the block, would have a 1 1/2 barb screwed into it.
Attached Images
File Type: gif cube res in case2.gif (5.0 KB, 419 views)
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-01-2002, 11:48 AM   #235
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

Here's an overview of it all (not to scale):

[edit]
(updated pic, with more details)
[edit]
(closer to scale)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg cube final.jpg (23.5 KB, 401 views)

Last edited by bigben2k; 11-02-2002 at 02:47 PM.
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-01-2002, 12:16 PM   #236
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

so you would couple "fitting" and "high flow" ?
truly Ben, you do not listen (or are incapable of comprehending ??)
just post, and post, and post some more

have fun, too much for me (I'll leave you in peace)
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-01-2002, 12:37 PM   #237
utabintarbo
Cooling Savant
 
utabintarbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sterling Hts., MI
Posts: 496
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by unregistered
so you would couple "fitting" and "high flow" ?
truly Ben, you do not listen (or are incapable of comprehending ??)
just post, and post, and post some more

have fun, too much for me (I'll leave you in peace)
I think what "Mr. Sunshine" is referring to is the barbs (allegedly) necessary at the intake side (to block) of the separator tee. If there is a way to perform the transition without "fittings", this would be preferable, no? I am referring only to the intake side - the "exhaust" side is less relevant due to your use of an air trap/reservoir.

Perhaps you could look into allowing the intake hose to go thru the separator tee, and simply sealing around it at its entrance point. Not the most reliable solution, I admit. Hmmm...


Bob
__________________
Sarcasm is yet another of the free services we offer!
utabintarbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-01-2002, 12:59 PM   #238
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

He he.

What "M. Sunshine" might have missed is that the tee is 1 and 1/2 (1.5) inch in size, which has an ID of about 1 7/8 (1.875) inch.

Last I checked, a tee of that size wasn't significantly restrictive, even theoretically, given a 4 gpm flow!

edit: calculated, the pressure drop across the run of a tee, 1 1/2 inch at 4 gpm is approximately the equivalent of a quarter inch of head.

Given that the expected head is about 11 feet, I'm not going to loose any sleep over it...

Last edited by bigben2k; 11-01-2002 at 01:12 PM.
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-02-2002, 07:58 PM   #239
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by morphling1
As I know Reynolds number is v*d/kinematic viscosity

v.... velocity [m/s]
d... diameter [m]
kinematic viscosity [m2/s]

if the chanell isn't round you have to take the equivalent hidraulic diameter d' = 4*A/C
A... cross area [m2]
P... circumference [m]

so for bb2k rectangular chanell d'=2ab/(a+b)
So you can see that narrow rectangular chanell isn't realy too good for introducing turbolence round chanell is much better.... but with central nozzle and short paths I realy don't think that there would be lamilar flow in that kind of block
It's Saturday... I've tested my airtrap (with some success: the thin wall vynil tubing just collapses, otherwise all air is cleared within 10 seconds).

I'm recalculating the different radius' involved: boy was I off!

Doing a quick recalc of Reynolds# at center, assuming the last design posted (center square post):
-opening size (for trial): 5mm diameter, aka 3/16 inch.
(At 4 gpm, I loose 2 feet of head!)
-Velocity: 40 m/s
-4 openings measuring 1 by 5 mm (still not accurate)

Quote:
if the chanell isn't round you have to take the equivalent hidraulic diameter d' = 4*A/C
A... cross area [m2]
P... circumference [m]

so for bb2k rectangular chanell d'=2ab/(a+b)
(I assume that the "C" in the equation is "P"?)

where
a=.001
b=0.005
A=0.000005
P(or C?)=0.031

so
d'=.00167 (using: 2ab/(a+b) )
multiply by 4 (4 channels)
d' becomes .0067

so Reynolds = ... What is "dynamic viscosity"?
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-02-2002, 09:42 PM   #240
myv65
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: home
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by bigben2k
-Velocity: 40 m/s
And just what pump do you think will manage this? How pray tell did you arrive at this number? You'd need at least 80 meters of static head to generate a velocity of 40 m/s. Maybe you missed this musing of mine a while back.

Water's dynamic viscosity varies with temperature (as do all liquids). At a reference temperature of 20°C, the dynamic viscosity is about 8.9*10-4 N-s/m^2.
myv65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-03-2002, 02:00 AM   #241
Alchemy
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 238
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by myv65
Water's dynamic viscosity varies with temperature (as do all liquids). At a reference temperature of 20°C, the dynamic viscosity is about 8.9*10-4 N-s/m^2.
I think you misread. That's its viscosity at 25°C.

Rather big difference five degrees makes. Viscosity is incredibly temperature-sensitive.

Alchemy
Alchemy is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-03-2002, 06:27 AM   #242
morphling1
Cooling Savant
 
morphling1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 468
Default

Wow being optimistic bb2k, for 40m/s to be pushed through 4*5mm2 openings you need 2880 L/h pump, and if you're thinking of pushing that kind of flow rate through 20mm2 opening , you'll need "slightly" different type of pump
morphling1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-03-2002, 09:05 AM   #243
myv65
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: home
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Alchemy
I think you misread. That's its viscosity at 25°C.

Rather big difference five degrees makes. Viscosity is incredibly temperature-sensitive.

Alchemy
Could well be as my texts are at work and I was trying to recall from the top of my head. Details would appear to be like hair in that there is less up there with each passing day. LOL.
myv65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-03-2002, 02:25 PM   #244
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

Ah yes, that was in feet per second, oops, my bad!


Anyways, I figured that the nozzle is either going to be 1/2 inch diameter, or 3/16:

3/16 nozzle: the opening of such an area is 17.8 mm^2, and that leaves an exit through the fins that can best be described as 8 channels (1 by 5) so 40mm^2, for a ratio of entrance to exit of 0.45 .

Flow speed is 14.2 m/s (46.5 fps). Pressure drop over one inch is 11.7 feet of head.


1/2 nozzle: the opening is 126.7 mm^2, with an exit of 16 channels, 80mm^2, for a ratio of 1.6 .

Flow speed is 8 m/s (26.1 fps). Pressure drop over one inch is 0.1 foot head (1.2 inch).

The above ratios are the smallest and largest, respectively.


Here's the bug: what am I trying to achieve with this inpingement? Since the flow rate is the same everywhere, the exit speed will be higher than the entrance, with a 1/2 nozzle. Using a 3/16 nozzle, the entrance speed is higher, but the exit speed is lower.

So if I go with a 3/16 nozzle, I'll have high-speed (and turbulent) flow within a very small area, which has a diameter of about 5 mm. The nozzle will have to be kept short, given the very high pressure drop.

Note that the turbulence that occurs due to the 90 deg flow bend hasn't been accounted for, yet.


Other progress:

Round saw blades:
The 20mm saw blade, if used to cut 5mm deep, will extend 13.2mm beyond the point of cut, in either direction.
25mm: 15 mm
32mm: 17.2 mm

Which makes the blades pretty useless except for the central cuts, which leaves a center square post.


Turbulator thoughts:

Turbulators at the bottom of the channel: using a 1.0mm drill bit, drill a hole every other 1.0mm, to a depth of 0.5 mm.

Turbulator at the fin: don't leave the fin tips at an angle, cut them off at 90 degrees. Necessary?

[edit]: added depth-of-cut to bottom-of-channel turbulator.

Last edited by bigben2k; 11-04-2002 at 10:49 AM.
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-03-2002, 09:25 PM   #245
myv65
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: home
Posts: 365
Default

Still seems awfully optimistic. Make it and measure it. Reality is the best and most objective means of determining true flow rates. Once you've tested both options to determine true flow and performance, the better one will be clear.
myv65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2002, 09:13 AM   #246
Dix Dogfight
Cooling Savant
 
Dix Dogfight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Posts: 128
Default Small suggestion

@BB2K
Why not use a straight inlet?????
To eliminate a bend in the piping where the water velocity is high.

Nice to see you are making progress with your design.
I'm looking forward too see it in action.


cheers

EDIT: It might not matter but you are aiming for a top performer right?
Attached Images
File Type: gif tee.gif (1.7 KB, 360 views)
__________________
If it ain't broke, fix it.

Setup:
Dual Duron 1100 | Voodoo 3 2000 | Addtronics W8500(WTX) | Eheim 1250
| Car radiator | 2 Innovatech WB |
Dix Dogfight is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2002, 10:43 AM   #247
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default Re: Small suggestion

Quote:
Originally posted by Dix Dogfight
@BB2K
Why not use a straight inlet?????
To eliminate a bend in the piping where the water velocity is high.

EDIT: It might not matter but you are aiming for a top performer right?
The problem is that this 1 1/2 (1.5) tee is about 3.5 inch wide, at the branch. Since there's only 8 inches in width in the case (which I assume is typical), that would only leave a couple of inches for a tube to bend, with a "straight inlet". That bend would make it all much worse for flow (I'll be using thick braided 3/4" tubing).

The inner tube would be bent in the largest radius possible. I'm even considering using a drain trap tee, which has a nice curve from the branch to one of the runs (ends).

The only thing I have to add about it is that the water return should exit downward, to make draining this thing easier.

I am aiming for a top performer, yes, but I have A LOT of calculations to go through! I was hoping to do that Saturday, but I got caught up in all of the other calculations:

Fin set #2 starts (the pointy tip) at radius 2.5 mm
Fin set#2 taper ends at 3.3mm.

Fin set #3 starts at radius 4.6mm, and the taper ends at 6.4 mm.

fin set #4 does not appear in this design, because it starts at radius 9.0 mm, and the whole fin pattern has been reduced (temporarily) to 7.5, pending my thermal calculations.

I made a number of drawings (which I'll try to post this week), so that I can visualize the inpingement. I have more work to do on that too, using some info found here:
http://www.electronics-cooling.com/h...01_may_a2.html

and
http://widget.ecn.purdue.edu/~eclweb/jet_benchmark/

To be explored: using 4 nozzles/holes, instead of one.

Myv65: I'm not done with the numbers yet, to even say that I'm redy to experiment. I'd rather spend more time going through the numbers, until I get this thing to a point where I have a fair idea of how well it will cool. I know that ya'll just can't wait to see it in action, but unless someone is going to run the thermals for me, ya'll are going to have to wait!


I still need help on the Reynolds calculation.
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-05-2002, 11:52 AM   #248
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default Reynolds calc?

Reynolds calculation

v=14.2 m/s
a=0.001 m
b=0.005 m
A=0.000005 m^2
P(or C)=0.031 m

d'=0.00167 by 8 channels= .0134

So Reynolds = 14.2 * .0134 / 8.9*10-4

= 107 ?

(didn't I say I needed help )
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-05-2002, 02:01 PM   #249
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by bigben2k
2" outer hose ugly? I don't think so... I'll pick up a foot of the stuff this weekend. We can apply our artistic interpretations then!
Quote:
Originally posted by morphling1

Ok, I'll be waiting
Well, here it is, in all it's glory...
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-05-2002, 02:02 PM   #250
bigben2k
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here.
 
bigben2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
Default

And the pic (DOH!)

(If you look REAL close, you can see me!)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1 1-2 tubing.jpg (30.9 KB, 365 views)
bigben2k 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 06:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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...