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

General Liquid/Water Cooling Discussion For discussion about Full Cooling System kits, or general cooling topics. Keep specific cooling items like pumps, radiators, etc... in their specific forums.

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 09-30-2002, 12:21 PM   #51
nikhsub1
c00ling p00n
 
nikhsub1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
Default

Cathar, have you tested performance with one of the outlets closed? I'd be very interested to see how it would perform going in the center, and out only ONE barb. Sorry if this has been asked/tested already.
__________________

*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
E6700 @ 3.65Ghz / P5W DH Deluxe / 2GB 667 TeamGroup / 1900XTX
PC Power & Cooling Turbo 510 Deluxe
Mountain Mods U2-UFO Cube
Storm G5 --> MP-01 --> PA 120.3 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
1,223,460+ Ghz Folding@Home
aNonForums
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
nikhsub1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-30-2002, 03:29 PM   #52
dream caster
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atacama desert, Chile
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by bigben2k
I was just thinking (uh oh!)...

If someone here wants to try to reproduce this kind of cooling, one could take a copper HSF, and add barbs and a lid.

From this list , I found the following were of a copper finned design:
(of course the fin spacing is WAY off, but it's not too bad)

Thermalright SK7

Vantec 1U

Global Win CAK II 38 and CAK II 16

Evercool CUD-725

Dynatron DY1206BH-638

Cho-Liang CB0315U-17

CoolerMaster HSC-V62

Dynatron DC1206BM-R


Now, never mind how they perform as air coolers! BTW, some of these have soldered fins, some have skived fins (fins are shaved off of the copper base). The skived models would probably offer better heat transfer from the baseplate.

(I avoided listing those HSF where the middle fins were removed for the mounting bracket).

What about using a dremel?

I had the idea of similars blocks and my thought was to build them using a dremel or a dremel-like tool and a reinforced cutting disk having the dremel in a fixed stand and a guide to move the blokc inside a thight fitting slot and advance the whole thing sideways a fixed amount (channel + fin thickness) each time you completed a slot.

I just measured the thickness of reinforced disks cuts and it is 1mm and a 5mm deep slot should not be so difficult.
dream caster is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-30-2002, 05:22 PM   #53
decodeddiesel
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: classified
Posts: 535
Default

Damn Cathar, that pump is expen$ive!! It is similar to an Iwaki though, something I hope to get soon...
__________________
...i hurt...
do me a favor, disconect me...
they can re-work me
but i'll never be top of the line again
...i'd rather be nothing...
decodeddiesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-30-2002, 06:03 PM   #54
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by decodeddiesel
Damn Cathar, that pump is expen$ive!! It is similar to an Iwaki though, something I hope to get soon...
$200 AUD, or around $105USD, tax inclusive (10%) is what it cost me.

Not quite that expensive.

Expensive if you walk into an aquarium and try to buy one retail, yeah. Not expensive if you go to a cut-price outlet store.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-30-2002, 06:38 PM   #55
decodeddiesel
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: classified
Posts: 535
Default

True...good to see it helped though.
__________________
...i hurt...
do me a favor, disconect me...
they can re-work me
but i'll never be top of the line again
...i'd rather be nothing...
decodeddiesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-09-2002, 09:17 PM   #56
DodgeViper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 204
Default

Hey Cathar, ever thought of trying a dual output rad. I made this rad today. Got to finish the shrouds, but will be done by the end of the week.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg heater core.jpg (30.6 KB, 295 views)
DodgeViper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-09-2002, 09:18 PM   #57
DodgeViper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 204
Default

.

Last edited by DodgeViper; 10-10-2002 at 07:52 PM.
DodgeViper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 03:33 AM   #58
g.l.amour
Cooling Savant
 
g.l.amour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: on da case
Posts: 933
Default

i feel like a total amateur looking at all the heavy equipment u guys r using. my shrouds are mostly comprised of cardboard and ducttape. works though, but i'm not gonna win any beauty contests with em.
g.l.amour is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 03:35 AM   #59
morphling1
Cooling Savant
 
morphling1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 468
Default

Damn I just love that rad, is that one also from Chevrolette Chavette? I found one from Opel Corsa it's very similar, the only thing is it's 19cm wide, and that 1cm to much to fit it in most cases. What are dimensions of that rad?
morphling1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 04:33 AM   #60
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

No, never used a dual-outlet radiator.

What are you using it for?
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 05:11 AM   #61
HMB
Cooling Neophyte
 
HMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by morphling1
Damn I just love that rad, is that one also from Chevrolette Chavette? I found one from Opel Corsa it's very similar, the only thing is it's 19cm wide, and that 1cm to much to fit it in most cases. What are dimensions of that rad?
Width:15cm height:18,5cm, depth:5cm (excluding the outlets).
the airintakeopening is 15x15cm. I bought mine from www.dtekcustoms.com and it was cheap. 30 dollars, but shipping was 40 dollars But i still find it to be extremely cheap

Ontopic: Cathar, couldnt you send the block to some site who has the proper measuringequipment?
HMB is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 05:52 AM   #62
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by HMB
Ontopic: Cathar, couldnt you send the block to some site who has the proper measuring equipment?
Like who? Who do people trust?

The only person I trust to do it right is BillA myself.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 06:30 AM   #63
morphling1
Cooling Savant
 
morphling1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 468
Default

My thought the same, Bill is the man if you want to know how your waterblock perform, and get something meaningfull from results.
I also found out latly when tested my own block, the core voltage fluctuation and the nature of loading program, max temp. just vary too much for good repeatability of the test.
So cpu simulator with regulated PSU is the only way to get quality heat output.
morphling1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 06:32 AM   #64
DodgeViper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 204
Default

morphling1, yes it's from a Chevy Chevette. The core size is 6" x 6-1/8" x 2". With the tanks on each end its is 6" x 7-3/8".

g.l.amour, This article I wrote may be of interest to you on making a shroud. CLICK

Last edited by DodgeViper; 10-10-2002 at 07:50 PM.
DodgeViper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 12:26 PM   #65
GeminiCool
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20
Default Cathar some thoughts...

Hey Cathar, nice to see someone actually going against BillA, I thought I was alone there. ;-) Yes thinner can be better, I think I argued that point with him for a week and finally just gave up.

A thought or two... Backpressure. I agree you are correct in thinking that "jetting" the water onto the block is better, however this comes at a price. That price is backpressure. Backpressure will cause the pump to work harder which will increase the temp of the pump which will increase the temp of the water. So the question becomes one of tweaking the flow for a spacific size pump and radiator combination. If someone has a weaker radiator, then perhaps the extra heat added by the hard working pump would actually yield worse results.

I'm working on a base design that will vary the thickness of the base in the channel as a function of the radial distance from the core. The end result should be a better transfer of heat at the center do to a thin base and better transfer of heat in a radial direction do to the decreased thermal resistance. I believe I may even introduce this new block in a .. dare I say.. 1/2 version.

Lastly, I noticed that you don't have any GeminiCool water blocks on that list. Drop me an e-mail geminicool@epix.net and we'll see if we can rectify that situation.

Peter.
GeminiCool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 12:38 PM   #66
gone_fishin
Cooling Savant
 
gone_fishin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Da UP
Posts: 517
Default Re: Cathar some thoughts...

Quote:
Originally posted by GeminiCool

I'm working on a base design that will vary the thickness of the base in the channel as a function of the radial distance from the core. The end result should be a better transfer of heat at the center do to a thin base and better transfer of heat in a radial direction do to the decreased thermal resistance. I believe I may even introduce this new block in a .. dare I say.. 1/2 version.

Lastly, I noticed that you don't have any GeminiCool water blocks on that list. Drop me an e-mail geminicool@epix.net and we'll see if we can rectify that situation.

Peter.
Hmm.. sounds similar to my concept in my recent block. Have you seen it?
gone_fishin is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 12:55 PM   #67
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

It sounds a lot like what we've been discussing in my "Ultimate Waterblock? Theory" thread.

I'm fixing to have a prototype made (with a little help from my friends ) of my design#2. I haven't ironed out the details yet, but it'll also have a radial pattern of fins, over the core.

It seems like the best option for structural integrity (given a very thin baseplate) would be to start going around the sides of the core, and/or like Cathar, have fins to reinforce the structure.

I'm getting excited about this project...
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 06:07 PM   #68
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default Re: Cathar some thoughts...

Quote:
Originally posted by GeminiCool
Hey Cathar, nice to see someone actually going against BillA, I thought I was alone there. ;-) Yes thinner can be better, I think I argued that point with him for a week and finally just gave up.

A thought or two... Backpressure. I agree you are correct in thinking that "jetting" the water onto the block is better, however this comes at a price. That price is backpressure. Backpressure will cause the pump to work harder which will increase the temp of the pump which will increase the temp of the water. So the question becomes one of tweaking the flow for a spacific size pump and radiator combination. If someone has a weaker radiator, then perhaps the extra heat added by the hard working pump would actually yield worse results.

Lastly, I noticed that you don't have any GeminiCool water blocks on that list. Drop me an e-mail geminicool@epix.net and we'll see if we can rectify that situation.

Peter.
Flowrate is a function of backpressure against a pump's performance curve. If the concept block is achieving 6.8lpm with the Eheim 1250 then the pump is not working hard at all. The highest flow rate I achieved with the 1250 was 8.6lpm with the open-pool Cyclone 3. The extra pump heat of the 1250 (28W) between the Cyclone 3 and the Conept was not detectable within the 0.1C resolution of my water thermometer, meaning that the actual temperature rise was less than 0.1C with my radiator.

Now my radiator is good, but even with a radiator 1/3 as effective (Black Ice Pro) the pump heat is not going to be a noticable issue within 0.2C or so. Sure if the block reduced flow rates to 2lpm or something like that, but then I'd have issues more than just the pump generating extra heat.

I've tested the block with my 90W pondmaster and yes the extra heat is noticable, but even with my radiator fans on low power it was able to handle it although I wouldn't recommend it for those with lesser radiators. This however was true of all blocks tested to a fair extent. The 4200lph Pondmaster is meant to have a 3/4" outlet, and a 1/2" outlet is already a major source of restriction and backpressure for it.

ie. the pump heat issue will be a problem when talking about pumps with motors rated above 50W or so, and when using a small radiator, at least that's my take on the matter.

Actually it was BillA who implicitly suggested thinner base-plates, although he didn't say it as such. I believe the actual phrase used was "Think about how we can lower the effective thermal resistance of copper."

Cheers.

Last edited by Cathar; 10-10-2002 at 09:24 PM.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 09:01 PM   #69
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default Re: Cathar some thoughts...

your advantage Peter, is a unencumbrance of knowledge about thermo

Quote:
Originally posted by GeminiCool
Hey Cathar, nice to see someone actually going against BillA, I thought I was alone there. ;-) Yes thinner can be better, I think I argued that point with him for a week and finally just gave up.
. . . .
I'm working on a base design that will vary the thickness of the base in the channel as a function of the radial distance from the core. The end result should be a better transfer of heat at the center do to a thin base and better transfer of heat in a radial direction do to the decreased thermal resistance.
. . . .
Peter.
something new here, indeed

thermally anisotropic copper

a Nobel for sure

or you are now suggesting that thermal resistance is inversely related to thickness ?
(truly a garden too often visited)

another wisecrack Peter and I'll repost your arrant foolishness on this forum so all can see how vast is your knowledge
- and precipitate another round of EE jokes

be cool
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 09:59 PM   #70
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

All right, there's no need to get all huffy, and puffy!

BillA, I think you might have misunderstood GeminiCool (Peter?)'s words.

He's talking about a baseplate optimized for the radial heat dissipation.

Something like this:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg bp prototype.jpg (5.2 KB, 216 views)
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-10-2002, 11:25 PM   #71
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

The problem here bigben is that the statement is first made that we need thin base-plates to decrease the thermal resistance of the copper perpendicular to the CPU die, and then it's now stated that we need to increase the copper thickness to decrease the thermal resistance laterally.

Which is it? Can't have it both ways.

A base-plate that's "optimised" for radial heat dissipation is a very thick base-plate. As you reduce the thickness of the base-plate above the die, you can count far less on heat moving side-ways, which means you have to count more on getting rid of the heat as it moves up, be that through fins, pins, channel walls, etc. There needs to be some copper height above the thin base-plate to increase the convectional surface area.

If it were feasible to put barbs on it and mount it, I could cut my block down to 20mm x 20mm in size, and it'd still perform about the same.

In short, if you're thinking about lateral heat spread, then you're thinking about the wrong thing. If you're thinking you need to get rid of heat that's more than 5mm away from the heat die in any direction (for heat loads less than a few hundred watts), you're thinking about the wrong thing.

Water-blocks are NOT air-based heatsinks. They don't need the heat to spread side-ways. That defeats the purpose of having a thin copper base in the first place.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2002, 01:20 AM   #72
GeminiCool
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20
Default BillA, check your mail...

I'll try to use a little more tact and take this off line...
GeminiCool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2002, 07:41 AM   #73
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

Thanks Cathar
for the lucid, logical, and measured response
(which should have been apparent to a blind man on a galloping horse)

no need to take anything anywhere Peter
deal with the issue, not the individual
Cathar's words should suffice
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2002, 08:09 AM   #74
GeminiCool
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20
Default Hey Cather

Hey Cather,

I'm not sure I understand your wording. The "problem" here? What is wrong with what I have stated?

Anyway, it would be an interesting experiment to weight the advantages of an intention increase in base thickness vs "fin" height in the channel above the core. Perhaps a melding of the two would yield the most significant improvements.

I think one issue that may be overlooked is what "design" will work well through the greatest range of variables. Look, a 1C difference is purely bragging rights. The block which can be used with a 100gph through a 400gph pump is truly going to offer the end consumer the most flexibility.

It is in this last statement where I believe the varied base block would hold its greatest merit.

....

I read your observations about pumps adding heat to the water. I'm have not made any real world tests on this topic. I'm uncertain exactly how much more heat a "hard" working pump would add to a closed loop system. I've read posts where people have seen their water temps upward of 50C when just the pump was running with no radiator fan. I'm not sure I'm convinced that the added heat from a "harder" working pump would not increase water temperatures by more than the benefit you observed by nozzle-ing the flow. I'm sure there is a sweet spot for this and it is dependant somewhat on the pump and radiator used.


That's it for now...
GeminiCool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2002, 08:37 AM   #75
GeminiCool
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20
Default

BillA - man I'm so fired up...

Perhaps you and I simply speak different languages!?

Cathar said the same thing I stated.. he contradicted nothing as far as I could tell. So what the HELL are you talking about?

You had a nice laugh at my expense Mr Bill. I take that personally. In fact you publicly ridiculed me for stating that the thin base had merit. Fast forward six months, I come to this forum and someone has posted something to the effect... using some of BillA's advice along with other knowledge, this block was designed with a 1.5mm base. WTF man, that is the base thickness that I used in my blocks over six months ago!! You lectured me for an hour on the phone about the subject!

Look personally I think your an arrogant ass. I find your comments unconstructive and personally demoralizing. You attack me, my family and our company with your arrogant commentary. Your negative comments toward me and our product effect my life, my three kids, my wife and five other family's. I'd love to meet you face to face and give you a piece of my mind.

The problem is, your respected in these forms, for whatever reason. Every time you make a wisecrack about someone's "method" without taking the time to ask or under stand what the hell they are saying, you hurt them.

I've read through many of your past posts. There was a good one about flow rate's over at overclockers... Once again, you couldn't resist making fun of someone's observation.... Flow rate thought Bill... if you had a 1" diameter hose and reduced it through a 1/4" hole, then back up to 1" then back down... where will the backpressure be GREATEST. You are such an ass! The resistance felt at the 1st reduction will be ORDERS of magnitude greater. The second is likely to be negligible in comparison. Why argue with the guy.. ever think that his point was, in a system such as that, maybe just maybe, the other resistances are negligible? Why do you have to come out with google.. bla bla bla... I'm an arrogant ass crap again?

Stop taking peoples words so damn literally and try to understand the spirit of the conversation. Stop flapping your arrogant self righteous jaws and use the ears God gave you.

What value have you added to this thread BillA what value. That should be your daily question!
GeminiCool 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 02:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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...