Joe's Thermosyphon at overclockers.com - Page 3

UNDERBYTE · 08-11-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobkoure

As in "what would happen to the thermosyphon device efficiency if about 2/3 of the coolant were removed?" Something less obvious that I missed...?

Read the papers on thermosyphons I would be surprised if there was more than 50 -100ml, what ever the coolant is

redleader · 08-11-2005, 02:14 PM

Yeah these things probably run on almost empty. You just need enough so that theres liquid in contact with the CPU block. Maybe a little more to be safe.

Long Haired Git · 08-11-2005, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobkoure

As in "what would happen to the thermosyphon device efficiency if about 2/3 of the coolant were removed?" Something less obvious that I missed...?

I was actually thinking more in line with Cathar's lament you can't easily add a GPU block....

|kbn| · 08-13-2005, 12:26 PM

Havent read the whole thread but Im interested in the results of this.

To me this seems like the logical way heatpipes should be made.

I assume the coolant is water, at vaccume. While there are good resons not to use them, it may be better to consider other coolants lower boiling points at normal pressure.

I have always thought the block for a heatpipe cooler should acctually be part of the heatpipe - and not just a bit of copper with a hole and the heatpipe inserted into it - which must hurt performance a lot.

There was a thread about this on bit-tech, but it didnt go anywhere as no suitable coolant exists at normal pressure for DIY research.

Block deigns for evaporative cooling would also be very different to normal watercooling, so maybe there is a lot of space there for improvement - as you wouldnt judge watercooling based on a maze1 cpu block performance would you?

Unfortunatly this would not be useable on GPUs? where as normal heatpipes and watercooling can.

cotdt · 08-13-2005, 05:38 PM

Wouldn't adding a copper wick improve performance of thermosyphons? Anyone know?

The performance seems very good even as it is. Would work great with a peltier to freeze things up a bit, for extreme overclocking.

UNDERBYTE · 08-13-2005, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt

Wouldn't adding a copper wick improve performance of thermosyphons? Anyone know?

The performance seems very good even as it is. Would work great with a peltier to freeze things up a bit, for extreme overclocking.

How about a peltier on the condenser instead? increase the rate of condensation ?

Idle speculation here as I do not know just some thoughts

they report the large die C/W as being .12 C/W overall

assume the the syphon condenser is comparable to an equivalent water radiator, maybe .08C/W?

Ok, that leaves ..04 C/W Boiler and TIM.

Take away .02 C/W on the TIM That leaves .02 for the boiler? Not bad

double the boiler performance to .01 C/W takes you to an overall of .11

double the condenser performance .04 C/W and you are at .08C/W overall

flip the ratios if you want, as with water cooling you are on a pretty rareified edge.

Big changes sometime make little differences, little changes can make big differences

Ruiner · 08-13-2005, 08:44 PM

There have been updates to the site regarding this, including an independent test from an unnamed source.
http://www.overclockers.com/articles1249/

I don't suppose BillA's fingerprints are on this?

Cathar · 08-13-2005, 09:14 PM

Hmmm.

Paint me black and white if you wish, but is anyone else perturbed by the transition from OC.com being an industry independent test source to now being a site that is conducting competitive performance analysis against a product that they are now going to have a vested commercial interest in seeing succeed?

I am not saying that results are biased or inaccurate or anything of that nature, but in declaring a now very public conflict of interest with respect to what they're working on doesn't that then now remove the very independent nature upon which OC.com reviews were once thought to exist under?

What I mean is that OC.com has now crossed the line from an industry independent review source, to effectively being a nascent manufacturer hosting their own internally conducted competitive analysis reviews. This now means that the very independence with which OC.com used to operate under is now conflicted. This doesn't extend to water-cooling, but includes all cooling reviews of all products that they have conducted. This thermosyphon product has by their admission been in development for over two years - where does that place the independence of any review conducted by OC.com in the last two years?

I guess I'm just saddened to see the loss of independence of OC.com, especially since it existed for so long.

UNDERBYTE · 08-13-2005, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathar

Hmmm.

What I mean is that OC.com has now crossed the line from an industry independent review source, to effectively being a nascent manufacturer hosting their own internally conducted competitive analysis reviews. This now means that the very independence with which OC.com used to operate under is now conflicted. This doesn't extend to water-cooling, but includes all cooling reviews of all products that they have conducted. This thermosyphon product has by their admission been in development for over two years - where does that place the independence of any review conducted by OC.com in the last two years?

Good Point, Have to see how they handle it in the long run when they actually have a product. If he sends it out for independent review and it is validated then drops it from the site and no further product pumping occurs OC will have done a service to market by developing an alternative. If not, and the product is focused to making sales on the site you are right. Right now he seems just to be introducing the technology;

Cathar · 08-13-2005, 09:55 PM

Well it gets a little seedier than that IMO, the more I think about it.

Under the guise of an independent review site, over the last two years JoeC has been receiving free competing manufacturer equipment with which to conduct competitive analysis for a product that has been in development by himself. In fact, his testbed is largely the result of freely donated time, equipment and efforts by various people.

What nascent (upstart) manufacturer wouldn't love to freely receive competing products with which to assess one's new products against in order to find a market for it, and position it appropriately?

Some people may call it clever. I call it something else.

plywood99 · 08-13-2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathar

Well it gets a little seedier than that IMO, the more I think about it.

Under the guise of an independent review site, over the last two years JoeC has been receiving free competing manufacturer equipment with which to conduct competitive analysis for a product that has been in development by himself. In fact, his testbed is largely the result of freely donated time, equipment and efforts by various people.

What nascent (upstart) manufacturer wouldn't love to freely receive competing products with which to assess one's new products against in order to find a market for it, and position it appropriately?

Some people may call it clever. I call it something else.

I see your point. I hope your line of thinking proves to be false, but it does raise important questions of ethics....

UNDERBYTE · 08-13-2005, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathar

Well it gets a little seedier than that IMO, the more I think about it.

Under the guise of an independent review site, over the last two years JoeC has been receiving free competing manufacturer equipment with which to conduct competitive analysis for a product that has been in development by himself. In fact, his testbed is largely the result of freely donated time, equipment and efforts by various people.

What nascent (upstart) manufacturer wouldn't love to freely receive competing products with which to assess one's new products against in order to find a market for it, and position it appropriately?

Some people may call it clever. I call it something else.

Hey Cathar lighten up - You are a waterblock manufacturer posting on a water cooling forum,(am I right?) Yet I do not assume sinister motives to you other than than you are an enthusiast.

Joe C Looks to me to be one of the original OC enthusiasts like yourself, probably one much longer than you. Like I said see where it goes. Benchmarking product? Trivial. When was the last time OC reviewed a competitive thermosyphon?

plywood99 · 08-13-2005, 10:32 PM

I think the point is the resources available to Joe C., aka all the review samples he has received. It is like having a bottomless pocket to buy up all the heatsinks and w/c gear money can buy.

jaydee · 08-13-2005, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UNDERBYTE

Hey Cathar lighten up - You are a waterblock manufacturer posting on a water cooling forum,(am I right?) Yet I do not assume sinister motives to you other than than you are an enthusiast.

Joe C Looks to me to be one of the original OC enthusiasts like yourself, probably one much longer than you. Like I said see where it goes. Benchmarking product? Trivial. When was the last time OC reviewed a competitive thermosyphon?

This thermosyphon is being designed and tested against products OTHER than other thermosyphons so I don't see your last sentance relevant to anything. You simply do not do reviews and be a manufacture of a product that relates to those reviews.

JoeC will either have to drop cooling reviews or drop is product or loose any credibility.

I was going to bring this samething up earlier but decided to drop it being I don't care much for overclockers.com anyway.

UNDERBYTE · 08-13-2005, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plywood99

I think the point is the resources available to Joe C., aka all the review samples he has received. It is like having a bottomless pocket to buy up all the heatsinks and w/c gear money can buy.

Trivial advantage- there is allot of junk out there. I can buy one xp90 and 1 top of the line water cooling system and I know all I need to know. Probably I could read Procooling and benchmark without ever buying a system

Besides I do not think JoeC is stealing waterblock designs or heatpipes designs to arrive at product, The thermosyphon is JoeC generated, unique, original,a different animal altogether.

Determining whether the C/W bar is just yea high? That's a crime? Everybody does it everyday on this site. It;s kind of a common knowledge thing

UNDERBYTE · 08-13-2005, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydee

This thermosyphon is being designed and tested against products OTHER than other thermosyphons so I don't see your last sentance relevant to anything. You simply do not do reviews and be a manufacture of a product that relates to those reviews.

JoeC will either have to drop cooling reviews or drop is product or loose any credibility.

I was going to bring this samething up earlier but decided to drop it being I don't care much for overclockers.com anyway.

What if it pans out when it finally reviewed by Procooling? I have not seen anything in his benchmark data competitive or otherwise so far that makes me feel like he has a credibilty issue. Maybe later if it pumped on the site I would have a problem after product release.

OC' thermosyphon has some very interesting possibilities for those who are not too emotionally invested on one track to consider another

Ls7corvete · 08-13-2005, 11:19 PM

Comes down to the same was the WEI thing I guess.

Bah, lets try to encourage innovation like this instead of worrying about these little things

Basicaly I really dont care. Its his site and his invention let him do what he wants with it. Not even a hint of unethical actions. Who says you cant manufacture and be a hobbiest?

AngryAlpaca · 08-13-2005, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Paint me black and white if you wish, but is anyone else perturbed by the transition from OC.com being an industry independent test source to now being a site that is conducting competitive performance analysis against a product that they are now going to have a vested commercial interest in seeing succeed?

Good, I was thinking about that at first, but no one seemed to share that opinion, so I stayed quiet.

UNDERBYTE · 08-13-2005, 11:32 PM

In any event, any guesses as to what Joe is using in his boiler? he kinda quiet about that, Carbon Foam? some kind of micro channel? The HP link/test unit was not very good, this is the only thing I am curious about

jaydee · 08-13-2005, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UNDERBYTE

What if it pans out when it finally reviewed by Procooling? I have not seen anything in his benchmark data competitive or otherwise so far that makes me feel like he has a credibilty issue. Maybe later if it pumped on the site I would have a problem after product release.

OC' thermosyphon has some very interesting possibilities for those who are not too emotionally invested on one track to consider another

This isn't so much about you and me and the average reader (although it could be). It has a lot more to do with professionalism and JoeC is setting himself up for one hell of beating from other manufactures. I can already see lawsuits being prepared. Anything that rates worst than his product on his site will be open to lawsuit.

They already have a claim from what Cathar stated above. Joe would have been better off not mentioning the product at all on his hardware site IMO.

Anyway I don't care to much either way. JoeC can dig his own grave how ever he see's fit.

UNDERBYTE · 08-14-2005, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydee

This isn't so much about you and me and the average reader (although it could be). It has a lot more to do with professionalism and JoeC is setting himself up for one hell of beating from other manufactures. I can already see lawsuits being prepared. Anything that rates worst than his product on his site will be open to lawsuit.

They already have a claim from what Cathar stated above. Joe would have been better off not mentioning the product at all on his hardware site IMO.

Anyway I don't care to much either way. JoeC can dig his own grave how ever he see's fit.

Well, There is an incentive for Joe C to be honest then= he just reports data as taken and nobody can complain. If the numbers don lie the truth shall set you free

and that's a fact

cotdt · 08-14-2005, 12:59 AM

I think this will turn out all right at the end. If it ends up commercial there will be other independent tests to verify his claims. He did give himself a publicity advantage, but that's not really a bad thing as long as he's honest.

I'm more interested in the technology. And this is really interesting. The idea isn't new to hardcore hobbyists but who would have thought that this type of cooling was actually this effective.

Cathar · 08-14-2005, 01:42 AM

The technology is interesting. That is not in question.

What is needed here now is a disclaimer on every cooling based review that has been done at overclockers.com in the last 2 years, something to the order of:

"The author of this review is actively engaging in the prototyping, development and future production of a CPU cooling product that will compete with the product that is the subject of this review".

That disclaimer should be the first thing that people read in every cooling review that's been posted in the last 2 years at OC.com.

Look, there is nothing wrong with being an enthusiast and straddling the lines between research and development and commercialism. I open admit that I do such myself. Four years ago I was doing occasional forum based reviews of water-cooling equipment. However the moment that I thought that I would possibly be selling stuff that I made, even if it wasn't for profit, I informed those who had sent products to me that I would not be reviewing them due to a direct conflict of interest, and offered to return their products.

This is just a basic concept of reviewers, and the absolute duty of care that they owe to their readers. To do anything less than give full and open disclosure to both readers and companies sending you products for review is questionable in the extreme. The numbers may not lie, and I never said that they did, but it is the lack of transparency in light of a direct conflict of interest that is at issue here.

The technology is sound. The ethics at OC.com have been compromised. Pure and simple.

Oh - one last thing. A review/results are NOT independent if the source is not revealed.

dr.chaos · 08-14-2005, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathar

The technology is sound. The ethics at OC.com have been compromised. Pure and simple.

I agree with Cathar but....
I'm a long time reader of both Overclockers.com and Procooling and I'd like to remind all Procooling readers (or tell you if you didn't know) that in the first years of activity OC.com was designing and selling their own heatsink, so this is not the first time they have a conflict of interest.
In all honesty I don't remember if they stopped selling their own heatsink when they begun to review third party products or if they weren't making enough money with it.
Joe did also act as a consultant for different kind of manufacturers in the past (I think it was something related to video card cooling or similar, but I may be wrong).
Joe or Ed did also do some interesting tests with an oscilloscope about motherboard built quality, but they stopped immediately... dunno if they were asked to stop or if it is a different story, I'm just suspicious about that :shrug:

Ruiner · 08-14-2005, 07:25 AM

I can't say that it would taint previous testing results, but he'll probably have to quit posting further tests if he is successful in going commercial with this. It would be a loss to the community for sure, but OC.com has been a 90% editorial site for a long time anyway.

He's spent years contributing to the community for (I'd guess) nearly free.
If the fund of knowledge he's built over time has allowed him to come up with something that might make some money, then more power to him. Who knows, this design might make it into millions of OEM boxes and make JoeC a millionaire. That would be a good thing.

I don't recall anyone questioning BillA's radiator analyses, or his motives after he made the leap to Swiftech. He was a valuable member of this forum as well for a while until that company started going public.

08-13-2005, 12:26 PM	#54
\|kbn\| Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: W. Sussex, UK Posts: 329	Havent read the whole thread but Im interested in the results of this. To me this seems like the logical way heatpipes should be made. I assume the coolant is water, at vaccume. While there are good resons not to use them, it may be better to consider other coolants lower boiling points at normal pressure. I have always thought the block for a heatpipe cooler should acctually be part of the heatpipe - and not just a bit of copper with a hole and the heatpipe inserted into it - which must hurt performance a lot. There was a thread about this on bit-tech, but it didnt go anywhere as no suitable coolant exists at normal pressure for DIY research. Block deigns for evaporative cooling would also be very different to normal watercooling, so maybe there is a lot of space there for improvement - as you wouldnt judge watercooling based on a maze1 cpu block performance would you? Unfortunatly this would not be useable on GPUs? where as normal heatpipes and watercooling can. __________________ Waterblocks Last edited by \|kbn\|; 08-13-2005 at 12:35 PM.

08-13-2005, 05:38 PM	#55
cotdt Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: CALIFORNIA Posts: 50	Wouldn't adding a copper wick improve performance of thermosyphons? Anyone know? The performance seems very good even as it is. Would work great with a peltier to freeze things up a bit, for extreme overclocking. __________________ SilentPCReview.com Silence = no fans, no harddrive

08-14-2005, 12:59 AM	#72
cotdt Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: CALIFORNIA Posts: 50	I think this will turn out all right at the end. If it ends up commercial there will be other independent tests to verify his claims. He did give himself a publicity advantage, but that's not really a bad thing as long as he's honest. I'm more interested in the technology. And this is really interesting. The idea isn't new to hardcore hobbyists but who would have thought that this type of cooling was actually this effective. __________________ SilentPCReview.com Silence = no fans, no harddrive

08-14-2005, 01:42 AM	#73
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	The technology is interesting. That is not in question. What is needed here now is a disclaimer on every cooling based review that has been done at overclockers.com in the last 2 years, something to the order of: "The author of this review is actively engaging in the prototyping, development and future production of a CPU cooling product that will compete with the product that is the subject of this review". That disclaimer should be the first thing that people read in every cooling review that's been posted in the last 2 years at OC.com. Look, there is nothing wrong with being an enthusiast and straddling the lines between research and development and commercialism. I open admit that I do such myself. Four years ago I was doing occasional forum based reviews of water-cooling equipment. However the moment that I thought that I would possibly be selling stuff that I made, even if it wasn't for profit, I informed those who had sent products to me that I would not be reviewing them due to a direct conflict of interest, and offered to return their products. This is just a basic concept of reviewers, and the absolute duty of care that they owe to their readers. To do anything less than give full and open disclosure to both readers and companies sending you products for review is questionable in the extreme. The numbers may not lie, and I never said that they did, but it is the lack of transparency in light of a direct conflict of interest that is at issue here. The technology is sound. The ethics at OC.com have been compromised. Pure and simple. Oh - one last thing. A review/results are NOT independent if the source is not revealed. Last edited by Cathar; 08-14-2005 at 02:03 AM.

08-11-2005, 02:14 PM	#52
redleader Thermophile Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: The deserts of Tucson, Az Posts: 1,264	Yeah these things probably run on almost empty. You just need enough so that theres liquid in contact with the CPU block. Maybe a little more to be safe.

08-13-2005, 08:44 PM	#57
Ruiner Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2003 Location: New Smyrna, FL Posts: 258	There have been updates to the site regarding this, including an independent test from an unnamed source. http://www.overclockers.com/articles1249/ I don't suppose BillA's fingerprints are on this?

08-13-2005, 09:14 PM	#58
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	Hmmm. Paint me black and white if you wish, but is anyone else perturbed by the transition from OC.com being an industry independent test source to now being a site that is conducting competitive performance analysis against a product that they are now going to have a vested commercial interest in seeing succeed? I am not saying that results are biased or inaccurate or anything of that nature, but in declaring a now very public conflict of interest with respect to what they're working on doesn't that then now remove the very independent nature upon which OC.com reviews were once thought to exist under? What I mean is that OC.com has now crossed the line from an industry independent review source, to effectively being a nascent manufacturer hosting their own internally conducted competitive analysis reviews. This now means that the very independence with which OC.com used to operate under is now conflicted. This doesn't extend to water-cooling, but includes all cooling reviews of all products that they have conducted. This thermosyphon product has by their admission been in development for over two years - where does that place the independence of any review conducted by OC.com in the last two years? I guess I'm just saddened to see the loss of independence of OC.com, especially since it existed for so long.

08-13-2005, 09:55 PM	#60
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	Well it gets a little seedier than that IMO, the more I think about it. Under the guise of an independent review site, over the last two years JoeC has been receiving free competing manufacturer equipment with which to conduct competitive analysis for a product that has been in development by himself. In fact, his testbed is largely the result of freely donated time, equipment and efforts by various people. What nascent (upstart) manufacturer wouldn't love to freely receive competing products with which to assess one's new products against in order to find a market for it, and position it appropriately? Some people may call it clever. I call it something else.

08-13-2005, 10:32 PM	#63
plywood99 Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cincinnati, ohio Posts: 39	I think the point is the resources available to Joe C., aka all the review samples he has received. It is like having a bottomless pocket to buy up all the heatsinks and w/c gear money can buy.

08-13-2005, 11:19 PM	#67
Ls7corvete Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: FL Posts: 164	Comes down to the same was the WEI thing I guess. Bah, lets try to encourage innovation like this instead of worrying about these little things Basicaly I really dont care. Its his site and his invention let him do what he wants with it. Not even a hint of unethical actions. Who says you cant manufacture and be a hobbiest?

08-13-2005, 11:32 PM	#69
UNDERBYTE Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CENTRX Posts: 75	In any event, any guesses as to what Joe is using in his boiler? he kinda quiet about that, Carbon Foam? some kind of micro channel? The HP link/test unit was not very good, this is the only thing I am curious about

08-14-2005, 07:25 AM	#75
Ruiner Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2003 Location: New Smyrna, FL Posts: 258	I can't say that it would taint previous testing results, but he'll probably have to quit posting further tests if he is successful in going commercial with this. It would be a loss to the community for sure, but OC.com has been a 90% editorial site for a long time anyway. He's spent years contributing to the community for (I'd guess) nearly free. If the fund of knowledge he's built over time has allowed him to come up with something that might make some money, then more power to him. Who knows, this design might make it into millions of OEM boxes and make JoeC a millionaire. That would be a good thing. I don't recall anyone questioning BillA's radiator analyses, or his motives after he made the leap to Swiftech. He was a valuable member of this forum as well for a while until that company started going public.

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