|
|
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. |
Thread Tools |
09-30-2002, 12:21 PM | #51 |
c00ling p00n
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
|
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 *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:* |
09-30-2002, 03:29 PM | #52 | |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atacama desert, Chile
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
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. |
|
09-30-2002, 05:22 PM | #53 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: classified
Posts: 534
|
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... |
09-30-2002, 06:03 PM | #54 | |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Quote:
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. |
|
09-30-2002, 06:38 PM | #55 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: classified
Posts: 534
|
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... |
10-09-2002, 09:17 PM | #56 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 204
|
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.
|
10-09-2002, 09:18 PM | #57 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 204
|
.
Last edited by DodgeViper; 10-10-2002 at 07:52 PM. |
10-10-2002, 03:33 AM | #58 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: on da case
Posts: 933
|
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.
|
10-10-2002, 03:35 AM | #59 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 468
|
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?
__________________
[My ftp, with lots of pics, hope to be home page someday |
10-10-2002, 04:33 AM | #60 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
No, never used a dual-outlet radiator.
What are you using it for? |
10-10-2002, 05:11 AM | #61 | |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 63
|
Quote:
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? |
|
10-10-2002, 05:52 AM | #62 | |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Quote:
The only person I trust to do it right is BillA myself. |
|
10-10-2002, 06:30 AM | #63 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 468
|
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.
__________________
[My ftp, with lots of pics, hope to be home page someday |
10-10-2002, 06:32 AM | #64 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 204
|
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. |
10-10-2002, 12:26 PM | #65 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20
|
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. |
10-10-2002, 12:38 PM | #66 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Da UP
Posts: 517
|
Re: Cathar some thoughts...
Quote:
|
|
10-10-2002, 12:55 PM | #67 |
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
|
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... |
10-10-2002, 06:07 PM | #68 | |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Re: Cathar some thoughts...
Quote:
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. |
|
10-10-2002, 09:01 PM | #69 | |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
Re: Cathar some thoughts...
your advantage Peter, is a unencumbrance of knowledge about thermo
Quote:
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 |
|
10-10-2002, 09:59 PM | #70 |
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
|
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: |
10-10-2002, 11:25 PM | #71 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
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. |
10-11-2002, 01:20 AM | #72 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20
|
BillA, check your mail...
I'll try to use a little more tact and take this off line...
|
10-11-2002, 07:41 AM | #73 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
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 |
10-11-2002, 08:09 AM | #74 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20
|
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... |
10-11-2002, 08:37 AM | #75 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20
|
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! |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|