|
|
Water Block Design / Construction Building your own block? Need info on designing one? Heres where to do it |
Thread Tools |
04-19-2003, 07:26 AM | #101 | |
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
|
Let's hope that we can clear this up, once and for all.
I found that most people that have a hard time understanding the whole concept, or have a difficulty getting into such a discussion, have the difficulty of not being able to differentiate the starting conditions from the running (aka balanced) conditions: sure your water temp is 20 deg, when you start your PC, but it will rise. Quote:
The quantity of water is irrelevant: it will reach a specific temperature (and temperature gradient) regardless: it would just take a bit more time with a larger quantity of it. By having a lower flow rate, the water temperature will be spread over a larger range. That's your increased thermal gradient. The average temp remains the same. Yes, there is a temp difference, within the rad, but the flow rate is such that it would be hard to measure. The average flow rate of a rig is ~50 gph, that's roughly 1 gpm (gallon per minute): think about it. |
|
04-19-2003, 08:03 AM | #102 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
hey guys, we have been feeding a troll
I just wasted 15min reading the OCers thread Since87 (?) linked to previously and this Greystar is gameing the world but eliciting some explanations of great clarity, over, and over, and over, and over I would suggest just following his posts with the caption: Caution: lots of words, no understanding, too stupid to learn; Greystar is struttin' his stuff |
04-19-2003, 08:58 AM | #103 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oxford University, UK
Posts: 452
|
I've been starting to wonder about that.
Man I'll be fuming if I've wasted that much of my precious revision time for no good reason. 8-ball
__________________
For those who believe that water needs to travel slowly through the radiator for optimum performance, read the following thread. READ ALL OF THIS!!!! |
04-19-2003, 09:13 AM | #104 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oxford University, UK
Posts: 452
|
OK, I've got a question which is kind of related to the original title of the thread.
Suppose you have flow vs head loss charts for various lengths of tubing, a radiator and a waterblock, and maybe a gpu block as well. How would you combine this to produce a head loss vs flow curve for the whole loop from the pump outlet round to the pump inlet for comparison with the pump p-q curve. Also, can you do the same thing with flow vs efficiency charts to try and predict a systems sweetspot. 8-ball
__________________
For those who believe that water needs to travel slowly through the radiator for optimum performance, read the following thread. READ ALL OF THIS!!!! |
04-19-2003, 09:55 AM | #105 |
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
|
Absolutely.
You must have three things: the pressure drop curve for the heatercore/rad the pressure drop curve for the block the PQ curve for the pump. As long as you keep the flow speed less than 2 or 3 feet per second within the tubing, you can basically ignore it (unless you want to be accurate). You then add the pressure drops for the block and core, overlay this total over the pump curve, and see where the lines cross: that's your resulting flow rate and total pressure drop. It's easier said than done, but that's the principle. I usually run the numbers at different flow rate increments. |
04-19-2003, 10:00 AM | #106 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
Posts: 294
|
Quote:
It does have a built-in valve to tailor flow rate, but I doubt you'll run it at anything but wide-open. |
|
04-19-2003, 10:04 AM | #107 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: May 2002
Location: home
Posts: 365
|
@8-ball,
In priciple, you can "add" the curves as Ben has suggested. Practically speaking, it doesn't work to perfection. As you likely know, the impact on flow from a given object doesn't begin and end at the object's physical boundaries. Fortunately, the very nature of a centrifugal's curve means that it minimizes the errors in your estimate. What I mean is that if you guess your resistance higher than it really is, the flow will not go up much because increasing the flow will increase the delta-P. Likewise, if you estimate your resistance lower than it really is, the corresponding drop in flowrate drops the system resistance a little. It's a sort of attenuated error, I guess one could say. Does that make sense? |
04-19-2003, 10:15 AM | #108 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oxford University, UK
Posts: 452
|
By adding, do you mean that I can develop a curve by considering each discrete flow rate in turn and adding the corresponding pressure drops for all of the components.
How about efficiencies? Or is that a bit more complicated. 8-ball
__________________
For those who believe that water needs to travel slowly through the radiator for optimum performance, read the following thread. READ ALL OF THIS!!!! |
04-19-2003, 10:51 AM | #109 |
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
|
Yes, you can simply add the dP of each component, for a given flow rate.
As myv65 pointed out, this method is not terribly accurate, and a small margin of error on the pressure, won't amount to a big difference on the flow rate. It gets a bit tricky if you have an odd configuration, where you've got an extra component running in parallel, like a chipset block. |
04-19-2003, 01:50 PM | #110 | |
Pro/Guru - Uber Mod
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 834
|
Quote:
Most devices have a PQ curve of the form: dP= Q^2 * Rf where dP is the pressure differential across the device Q is the the flowrate through the device Rf is what I call the flow resistance Based on Bill's data, waterblocks generally match the equation very well, radiators are more aberrant but 'close enough' for meaningful quicky checks. You can calculate Rf for a device by picking a point towards the right end of a device's PQ curve and solving the equation. A quicky shortcut for determining Rf, is to just take the pressure drop at 10 lpm and divide it by 100. So, find Rf for the devices in the loop. Then add them up for a combined Rf, or: dP-system = Q^2 * ( Rf-block + Rf-rad + Rf-tubing... ) Plug the equation into Excel and graph. Voila! System PQ curve. As myv65 pointed out, the nature of centrifugal pump PQ curves tends to minimize the effect of errors, so although this is a somewhat sloppy technique, you still can get results accurate enough to do meaningful comparisons fairly quickly. |
|
04-19-2003, 03:02 PM | #111 |
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that equation only works if the curve is actually a straight line, no?
From what I've seen, for a typical range of flows, the curve is actually "curved"! |
04-19-2003, 04:24 PM | #112 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 238
|
Quote:
As you probably know, you can then take this overall head loss chart and plot against the pump curve. The interesection point is the head loss and flow rate of the entire system. Not sure what you mean by "flow vs efficiency charts." Alchemy |
|
04-19-2003, 04:29 PM | #113 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 381
|
Ben... Since87's equation is that of a parabola.
__________________
Michael E. Robbins M.A.Sc. Candidate, University of Toronto 12.1 GHz of AMD's finest (17.7 GHz total) crunching proudly for the AMDMB.com Killer Frogs SETI BOINC: Dual Opteron 246s (Iwill DK8N) | XP2800+ (Shuttle SN41G2) | 3x XP2400+ (ASUS A7N266-vm) SETI BOINC: 2x P4 2.8E (ASUS P4R800-vm) | Crunching 24/7 Last edited by Skulemate; 04-19-2003 at 04:41 PM. |
04-19-2003, 04:38 PM | #114 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: OR/CA/NY
Posts: 81
|
I thought it would be somewhere between parabolic and cubic. Doesn't the "flow resistance" Rf increase as Q increases? If so, it wouldn't be parabolic, would it? I could be totally off base here, but I am curious enough to ask.
|
04-19-2003, 04:39 PM | #115 | ||
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oxford University, UK
Posts: 452
|
Quote:
Quote:
I guess what I'm asking is can you produce a C/W vs flow chart for each stage in the transfer of heat from the cpu to the air, then sum these to determine an overall C/W vs flow for the entire loop, including all of the waterblocks. Factor in the variation in heat load for different flow rates and try and predict the sweet spot for the system. Or have I just ridiculously oversimplified what people are trying to do in the thermal simulator forum. 8-ball
__________________
For those who believe that water needs to travel slowly through the radiator for optimum performance, read the following thread. READ ALL OF THIS!!!! |
||
04-19-2003, 04:43 PM | #116 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 381
|
Quote:
__________________
Michael E. Robbins M.A.Sc. Candidate, University of Toronto 12.1 GHz of AMD's finest (17.7 GHz total) crunching proudly for the AMDMB.com Killer Frogs SETI BOINC: Dual Opteron 246s (Iwill DK8N) | XP2800+ (Shuttle SN41G2) | 3x XP2400+ (ASUS A7N266-vm) SETI BOINC: 2x P4 2.8E (ASUS P4R800-vm) | Crunching 24/7 |
|
04-19-2003, 05:03 PM | #117 | ||
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
|
Quote:
Let's put it to the test, with some data I've extracted from Bill's roundup: Using the "Surplus"'s curve, I extracted the following info: dP @ 2.0 gpm: 1.6 psi dP @ 1.5 gpm: 1.0 psi dP @ 1.0 gpm: 0.3 psi (a rough extraction, but let's take a look!) Quote:
using the first set of numbers, Rf = 0.4 using the second set of numbers, Rf = 0.44 using the third set of numbers, Rf = 0.3 Hum...:shrug: |
||
04-19-2003, 05:34 PM | #118 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
as has been pointed out, the individual resistances can be simply added
but this sum will be 'correct' only at that specific flow rate as each component's rate of variation is different and consider the potential accuracy, 15% would be unusually good this is due to the quite small 'individual' resistances being measured; the instruments' accuracy and the substantial effect of rounding errors Null-A Ben if you are going to calculate; use the Chevette hc data, it is much more accurate what a pleasant thread without having to push a rope uphill |
04-19-2003, 06:07 PM | #119 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oxford University, UK
Posts: 452
|
Quote:
__________________
For those who believe that water needs to travel slowly through the radiator for optimum performance, read the following thread. READ ALL OF THIS!!!! |
|
04-19-2003, 06:21 PM | #120 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 238
|
Quote:
Hm. 1.5 gpm for an overall pressure drop of 5 psi (~10ft H2O) gives you an energy increase in the water of 3 W. So, maybe 5% of the CPU load. If you have flowrate constant, flow resistances add up just like resistances in an electrical circuit. [Edit - removed non sequitir. Thanks, Since87.] And to nitpick on what someone else said, centrifugal pumps *are* analagous to voltage sources. But they are not analagous to *ideal* voltage sources. They induce a potential in the fluid (pressure), but that potential is a function of flow rate. I've only studied basic circuits so I don't know if there are any voltage sources that act this way. But it's still a decent analogy, in my opinion. Alchemy Last edited by Alchemy; 04-21-2003 at 11:54 AM. |
|
04-19-2003, 07:00 PM | #121 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oxford University, UK
Posts: 452
|
I'm tempted to have a look over at the ideas in the simulator forum, but I really don't have the time, what with finals this summer. Maybe afterwards.
8-ball
__________________
For those who believe that water needs to travel slowly through the radiator for optimum performance, read the following thread. READ ALL OF THIS!!!! |
04-19-2003, 07:02 PM | #122 | |
Pro/Guru - Uber Mod
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 834
|
Quote:
However, no electronics manufacturer is going to sell a voltage regulator, who's output voltage sags as much with output current as the dP of a centrifugal pump does with flowrate. Voltage regulators will typically maintain an output within 5% of nominal (or substantially better) over their entire operating range. I'd still have to say that a practical voltage source is an awfully poor analogy to a centrifugal pump. Edit: I suppose a battery with its inherent series resistance behaves somewhat like a centrifugal pump. No competent electrical engineer would consider a battery a 'voltage source' though. Last edited by Since87; 04-19-2003 at 07:15 PM. |
|
04-19-2003, 07:21 PM | #123 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Here is a link to a post I made at OCAU for working out the target flow rate of your system given a few things that you can figure out for yourself.
As Bill says, getting to more than a 10% accuracy is hard, especially when hand-plotting/reading information from crappy PQ graphs/plots, but for the most part, 10% slop is "good enough" unless you're down below the 2lpm mark. Thread is here: On pressure drops and flow rates |
04-19-2003, 07:41 PM | #124 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: May 2002
Location: home
Posts: 365
|
Quote:
|
|
04-19-2003, 09:52 PM | #125 | ||
Pro/Guru - Uber Mod
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 834
|
Quote:
Quote:
I printed the graph, and used digital calipers to get as accurate data as possible off the graph. My results: dP = 0.71 @ 12 lpm, Rf = 0.00493 dP = 0.32 @ 8 lpm, Rf = 0.00500 dP = 0.092 @ 4 lpm, Rf = 0.00575 Pretty good match at high flowrates. Less good for low flowrates. The following graph illustrates the effect of modeling my HC with two different waterblocks, and using both 0.005 and 0.00575 for Rf. Fairly small errors IMO. (Especially when you consider the C/W change associated with the difference in flowrate.) But, like I said, the techniques I suggested were for quickly doing "good enough" analysis. This is not the way to get the most accurate results. If someone understands the limitations and can make use of my suggestions, great. I didn't really expect my suggestions to enable you to do more useful analysis than you already do Ben. Last edited by Since87; 04-19-2003 at 09:59 PM. |
||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|