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 09-23-2002, 12:45 AM   #1
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default My micro-channel concept block

Thought you lot might be interested in my concept block I had made up.

Fins/channels are 1mm wide (0.04") and 5mm deep (0.20") and 30mm long (1.2"). Baseplate thickness is 1.25mm, with the main cooling section of the block just 6.25mm high (1/4").

Water goes in the middle and out the two sides (which are reconnected later with an external Y piece).

The block design itself was arrived at through use of a thermal simulator that I wrote in C on Linux, with thanks to BillA, Aesik and Les for prompting me to think harder on various ideas.

The block is made out of 99.99% pure copper, and the internals have been bead-blasted which gives it that pinkish color.

Anyways, here's the pics. Would like to know what you guys think. (Oh, BTW that's a DD Maze 3 beside it)













Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-23-2002, 01:54 AM   #2
Brad
Thermophile
 
Brad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Nuu Zeeelin
Posts: 3,175
Default

very nice block, how does it perform compared to your maze3?

Also do you think that your base thickness is possibly a little too light?
__________________
2x P3 1100's at 1400, Abit VP6, 2x Corsair 256mb PC150 sticks, 20gb 'cuda ATA-III, 2x 40gb 'cuda ATA-IV in raid 0. 20" Trinitron. No fans

2x 2400+ at 2288mhz (16.0 x 143), Iwill MPX2, 2x Kingmax PC-3200 256mb sticks, 4x 20gb 60gxp in Raid 5 on a Promise SX6000. Asus Ti4200 320/630. Cooled by Water
Brad is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-23-2002, 02:22 AM   #3
Pinkster
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: adelaide, australia
Posts: 61
Default

on ocau he said while his temps were found to be inaccurate due to some other stuff creating heat nearby it was able to post at 11mhz higher than on his cyclone 5, which is already a pretty good block. his cyclone 5 outperformed a maze 3 by around 30-40mhz from a previous post, using an athlon xp (1900xp?) at 2.0-2.2v at a touch over 2ghz.
__________________
whats a sig?
Pinkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-23-2002, 02:32 AM   #4
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

As near as I can tell it's 3C better than my Cyclone 5. Buying a new motherboard that reads the on-die diode to test it out properly.

With the Maze 3, I could only hold my CPU stable to 1980MHz. With the Cyclone 5, to 2024MHz, and now 2035MHz with this block. All those overclocks are the best results from multiple mountings of the blocks.

How much better than the Maze 3? Not sure exactly. Guessing around 5C at these levels (~2.0GHz/2.2v).

Now I know those figures/differences seem rather large and perhaps hard to believe, so like I said I'm off to get a new motherboard to verify.

The observed temperature difference however does align itself with the theoretical values that I calculated on my thermal simulator, so I'm fairly confident that they're correct.

The base-plate is not too thin at all.

Judging from reading some of the threads here about water-block design, I figure this design may challenge some commonly held precepts.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-23-2002, 08:25 AM   #5
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Cathar


The observed temperature difference however does align itself with the theoretical values that I calculated on my thermal simulator, so I'm fairly confident that they're correct.

The base-plate is not too thin at all.


I am still of the opinion you underestimate the importance of heat spreading in the bp.
For a similar 22x22mm wb with eight(8) 1x5mm channels would predict* with ,uniform convection, using Kryotherm and Waterloo:



Dunno the Convection Coeffs to expect in the area directly under the inlet.However,so far,play with the Flomeric Impingement calculators** have suggested only moderate(maybe 30%) possible gain over that expected by directing the flow through the channels. The only way can get get significant(100% and above) gains are by using a small (2mm diam,say) inlet charactaristics and nigh impossible velocities( 10m/s and above.(Having little joy with the numbers from the Slot Nozzle version)

The C/W v Flow rate curves for a "side inlet" model:




* Equated the Thermal Conductance (obtained from Kryotherm for a wb with a 0.1mm bp) to the Film Coeff. in a Waterloo calculator**. Then used the Waterloo calculator to obtain the Thermal Impedance. The Convection Coeffs of 1,645W/m2K - 91,304W/m2K translate to Waterloo "Film Coeffs" of 6,957W/m2K - 137,741W/m2K.
** http://www.coolingzone.com/Content/D...Problem_9.html
*** http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/old/onl...rce/intro.html
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-23-2002, 09:07 AM   #6
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Les, you may wish to rework those graphs somewhat. You seem to be listing 8 channels over a 22x22mm area, when really it's 8 channels (9 walls) over a 30mmx17mm area.

I agree that to cool a 1mm^2 heat source that a thicker base-plate would definitely be needed, but we're not cooling 1mm^2 heat sources.

Most of the graphs you showed had the 1mm base-plate (actually I'm using 1.25mm) being ahead for the larger die sizes for flow rates that are quite achievable.

However, I would suggest re-running with the finer and closer packed together channels and walls as I'm using. This will have a significant impact (it does for me) on the effect of the "desired" base-plate thickness. I can't stress this enough. It's the density of the walls and channels that makes the super-thin base-plate feasible. I agree that as we shrink down to well under 50mm^2 sized dies, that a thicker base-plate would be required, however as all future CPU's will be using integrated heat spreaders, the work will already be done.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-23-2002, 09:19 AM   #7
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

Thanks Cathar, I had a similar design in mind, but opted to rough up the surface, instead of having fins. Check out the Ultimate WB thread. What flow rate do you use with it?
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-23-2002, 10:20 AM   #8
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Currently getting 7.5lpm through it, which is the same I was getting with the Cyclone 5. The Maze 3 saw 7.0lpm. Using an Eheim 1250 and a heater-core and 2m of Tygon tubing.

Just got an Asus A7V333 mobo setup to measure the on-die temps, so I should be able to get some solid temperature comparison figures soon.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-23-2002, 11:06 AM   #9
nikhsub1
c00ling p00n
 
nikhsub1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
Default

Cathar, that looks like a very nice, no-nonsense block, I REALLY like it. If you can muster up some production of them, I would definately want one! Cheers and great work!
__________________

*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
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 09-23-2002, 01:05 PM   #10
morphling1
Cooling Savant
 
morphling1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 468
Default

Congrats on great work and engineering Cathar, but for good evaluation and comparison you definetly need better way of describing block performance then higest overclock, which is good in own way and tells a story pretty well, but I would rather see, temp measured with internal diode. Now are you absolutely sure that you used same clamping force for C5 and yours? What about thermal paste layer, I know that you have lots of experience but just need to know, that difference can easily fall in variance of those two factors. As for thickness, I also think that 1.25 may be to little, this was calculated with your simulator right? It would be good to see exactly inner geometry of the block, but using 3mm base, I know that most of the heat transfer happen directly above the core, but still,heat will spread across the block and other parts of the block would definetly help cooling.
morphling1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-23-2002, 04:20 PM   #11
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Cathar
Les, you may wish to rework those graphs somewhat. .....
Not really, but a token to show willing:

Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-23-2002, 08:09 PM   #12
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default Base-plate thickness debate

Okay, I'll try and clarify where I'm coming from with using such a thin base-plate.

Basically the design is optimised for certain die sizes. In this case the design is optimised for CPU dies up to 15mm x 15mm in size, and as low as 9mm x 9mm. Outside of these ranges the block's performance will be less optimised.

The widths of the channels/walls is just 15mm (17mm if you include the out walls). The baseplate is 1.25mm. The P4/AthlonXP dies are around 11.5 x 11.5 mm on a side, or thereabouts.

A thicker base-plate is actually a hindrance to heat transfer when there's enough micro-channels, walls and surface area to effectively raise the convective heat ratio to be higher than that of copper's conductivity. Meaning that for die sizes greater than 50mm^2 or so, one can actually get away with many microchannels right above the die and a very thin base-plate (no thinner than the channels are wide though) and get away with it.

Like I said, I'm not disagreeing that a thicker base-plate is required for very small heat sources. It is. It's the only way to spread the heat effectively out over a larger surface area.

As a rough rule of thumb with the micro-channel block design, you want your base-plate to be half of the distance from the edges of the CPU die to the two outermost fins for optimal performance. As we get thicker than this, the benefit of the sideways spread of the heat from the copper is overcome by the thermal resistance of the copper itself as we make the copper thicker.

If I was building this block for a 7mm x 7mm CPU die, I'd make the base 3mm thick. For a 1mm x 1mm die, we may as well go open pool, but like I said, CPU's aren't that small (yet). For an 8mm x 8mm die, it'd be 2.5mm thick, and so on.

Now the performance drop-off as we shrink the CPU die is also masked to a large extent by the water-jet coming in straight over heat source. The net result is that the block can quite safely get away with the optimal base-plate thickness for today's CPU die sizes, and still offer close to optimal performance for tomorrow's 88mm^2 CPU die sizes (T'Bred) and 100mm^2 (Barton).

It's really all about trade-offs and optimising for a certain task. Sure, we can build a block that tries to be a jack-of-all trades, and will work well almost regardless of what sizes heat die we stick under it, but that wasn't my design goal. My design goal was explicitly to get the best overall performance for 9mmx9mm to 12mm x 12mm CPU dies and any combination of sizes in between.

I've had people ask me about peltiers in other forums, and the answer is no. This block is not aimed at peltiers at all. That's not its goal. It's aimed at providing close to the best possible performance for straight water-cooling of a CPU die similar is size to those being used today, and planned for the next year.

This is why the channels are low, narrow, and the number of channels isn't that high. All aimed to boost water velocity through the block as low and as close to the heat source as possible, and focuses around maximising the surface area directly above die, and most importantly, cooling the VERY hot dead center of the CPU die.

On of the things I had my simulator do was track the hottest location of the die, and what it's temperature was. The centre of the CPU die is always hotter and in fact by up to 3 or even 4 C over the edge of the CPU die. As we raise the base-plate thickness, we can actually get into the situation where the overall temperature of the die can drop, but the hottest spot actually gets hotter, depending on the location of various channel walls, etc.

There are many balls being juggled here, but I still firmly stand behind by decision to go with a 1.25mm base-plate on the basis of it being optimised for its intended target application.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-23-2002, 08:56 PM   #13
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

I can follow that logic...

One question though: when you tested the coolant from one side to the other, did you plug up the center inlet? If not, the water would exit the channels, where the center barb is.

I think it would make a difference, since the fins are right over the CPU die.

May I suggest that you re-test, and replace the center barb with a plug?
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 01:52 AM   #14
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default Re: Base-plate thickness debate

Quote:
Originally posted by Cathar

..............There are many balls being juggled here, ..............
Exactly.
It depends where and how you look which and what you see .
A different view of the predictions in previous graph(whch has been updated):



BTW The 1x1mm heat-source curves are intended to relate to hot-spots in the die.
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 02:01 AM   #15
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Picked myself up an Asus A7V333 mobo which reads the CPU on-die diode. This allows much better accuracy for taking temperatures than using an in-socket diode like my Abit KR7A has.

I have results for the Silverprop Cyclone 5 w/3mm base, the Danger Den Maze 3, and the micro-channel concept block.

I used an Eheim 1250 pump, and a dual fan heater-core (aka the Big Arse).

Using an AthlonXP @ 1925MHz, 2.15v. Using BurnK7 (CPUBurn) to generate load. Tests were run until temperatures had stabilised for 15 minutes (typically 30 minutes to an hour per test).

The Maze 3 drew in some pretty poor results initially, even getting some system instability. I lapped the base of the Maze 3 and found that it was slightly concave. In fact, I could even see the oval shape outlined in the base early on during th lapping. After lapping, the results for the Maze 3 improved by around 2C, as well as removing stability issues.

I mounted each block 3 times to gather data and reduce the effect of mounting irregularities and took the best results.

Flow Rates

Danger Den Maze 3: 7.0lpm
Silverprop Cyclone 5: 7.5lpm
Micro-channel Conept: 7.5lpm

Results

Radiator Air Intake: 23.0C
Water temperature: 25.5C (radiator fans at 7V)

The CPU on-die temperatures observed were:

Concept Block: 44.0C
Maze 3: 46.0C
Cyclone 5 (3mm): 46.5C

All blocks have been mounted with a fairly extreme amount of pressure. The motherboard begins to flex slightly around the socket with the mounting pressure. I apply WAY more pressure than AMD recommends as kosher, but these organic package CPU's can handle it just fine. The difference between mounting these blocks with some of the flimsy springs that are provided can be more than 1C warmer. With the Maze 3 springs I see 2C warmer.

Currently I'm using springs meant for the Pentium 4 and wind them right down to even heights. I'd estimate CPU block-mount pressure would be around the 50lbs (23kgs) mark (AMD recommend 15-25lbs).
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 04:31 AM   #16
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Les, thank you as always for your graphs.

Could I please trouble you just one last time to do a C/W comparison for an 11mm x 11mm die size generating 85W on the 30mm x 15mm channel setup, for 1, 2 and 4mm bases?

These are the parameters that I was mainly focussing on optimising in my simulation (since they most closely matched a Northwood P4 and an AthlonXP) and wanted to get an idea on how close your predictions and my predictions are. A 0.01 C/W at this level is fairly significant.

Just a single 3-curve graph plotting C/W vs flow-rates for each base-plate thickness would be wonderful.

You've suddenly got me second guessing myself, but before I tie myself into a knot deciding whether or not I should get a batch of blocks machined with a thicker base, I'd greatly appreciate an independent appraisal of whether or not I'm totally off-base.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 08:57 AM   #17
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Cathar

........Could I please trouble you just one last time to do a C/W comparison for an 11mm x 11mm die size generating 85W on the 30mm x 15mm channel setup, for 1, 2 and 4mm bases?.........



Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 09:26 AM   #18
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

Hum...

It looks like there's a cross over point, at 900 L/h, where 1mm baseplate performs better.

It also looks like 4000 L/h is getting close to the point of "diminishing return" (off-hand), where more flow yields little improvement.

Of course 4000 L/h is 1063 gph!

Cathar, are you still of the opinion that higher flow doesn't matter much?

BTW, I found that the Rio 2500HP is pretty cheap, and is available in Australia. It's rated for about 800 gph, with a max head of 10 feet. It's much better than the Eheim 1250 (cheaper too!).

I'd consider using one (or more, in series) of these.
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 04:22 PM   #19
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Thank you so, so much Les.

Interesting that the 2mm bp is pretty much it until the 900lph mark, ahead of both the 4mm and 1mm solutions, at least until we get to low flow rates.

The flow coming in from on top and the 1.25mm base-plate pretty much keeps what I went with in the game at lower flow rates than 900lph I suspect, but thank you indeed. It means the 1.25mm solution is a good tradeoff between the AthlonXP die, and the P4 with its IHS, which is where I was aiming at.

Quote:
Cathar, are you still of the opinion that higher flow doesn't matter much?
Huh? I was never of that opinion. I was of the opinion that as we got above 800lpm we get into rapidly diminishing returns and what Les is showing is that's basically true.

I have a seller here offering me a 2800lph (720gph) pump for a very good price ($35 USD) and am about to try that option out - perhaps two in series as you suggest.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 04:53 PM   #20
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

900 L/h, aka 240 gph, or 4 gpm. That's very hard to achieve, with any of the pumps anyone has ever used here.

If you get 7.5 L/min (2 gpm) with the same setup and 7.0 (1.86 gpm) for the Maze3, then yours is less restrictive. Nice!

I still think I'll stick with 2mm baseplate. I'm not concerned about it being too thin, because the fins actually act as additional structural support!

I mentionned the thing about higher flow because I thought you said something to that effect over at OCAU. My mistake...
bigben2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 05:34 PM   #21
aabtek
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: aalborg.dk
Posts: 19
Default

cathar, if your cpu is unlocked, could I persuade you to do a temp test at 1600@1.75V???
I have an asus a7v333 myself with a locked xp1900, and am using a innovatek rev3 with innovarad dual and eheim 1048 .... would love to see how the temps compare with a more extreme setup.

please? (and please state the bios version you use)
__________________
---
eheim 1048, innovarad dual, innovacool rev3, tank-o-matic
xp1900@1750 on a7v333
aabtek is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 06:20 PM   #22
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by aabtek
cathar, if your cpu is unlocked, could I persuade you to do a temp test at 1600@1.75V???
I have an asus a7v333 myself with a locked xp1900, and am using a innovatek rev3 with innovarad dual and eheim 1048 .... would love to see how the temps compare with a more extreme setup.

please? (and please state the bios version you use)
Hmmm, temperature comparisons over the internet always suck. You simply cannot control the number of variables. Even certain CPU's run hotter than others at the same speed/voltage, and I have two CPUs here that exhibit just this behavior, with one being 2C cooler than the other. Then we have variations in motherboard calibration (they are not calibrated independently), ambient temperature probe accuracy, water temperature probe accuracy, even case temperatures can affect the final CPU temperature as the water block is not the sole source of cooling of the CPU as the CPU does emit a decent quantity of heat through the socket and the case temperature and air-flow impacts how well that is cooled, even on the A7V333.

All of the above can result in a reported temperature varying by 5C or more depending on circumstances. I would be doing neither myself nor yourself a service by allowing a comparison. The values that I get and you get cannot be compared in any meaningful way due to the lack of control over the environments in which those values were achieved in.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 06:26 PM   #23
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by bigben2k
I still think I'll stick with 2mm baseplate. I'm not concerned about it being too thin, because the fins actually act as additional structural support!

I mentionned the thing about higher flow because I thought you said something to that effect over at OCAU. My mistake...
The base-plate can be as thin as you want. It won't bend so long as the top-plate sits flush with the tops of the fins, which is how I have my block.

My view on higher flow-rates is that if you can obtain them easily, then that's nice and good, but I don't believe a block should be design with the intention of selling it, and then requiring a high pressure high-flow pump for it to work, forcing people who bought the block to upgrade their pumps as well. My game is "how much better can we do with the same flow-rate/pressure?"
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 07:22 PM   #24
aabtek
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: aalborg.dk
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Cathar
All of the above can result in a reported temperature varying by 5C or more depending on circumstances. I would be doing neither myself nor yourself a service by allowing a comparison. The values that I get and you get cannot be compared in any meaningful way due to the lack of control over the environments in which those values were achieved in.
yes I know, I wouldn't base any decision on how temps on different setups compared .... but I would still find it interesting to see on-die temps on the same mb with a comparative load ... but if it isn't to bee so be it
__________________
---
eheim 1048, innovarad dual, innovacool rev3, tank-o-matic
xp1900@1750 on a7v333
aabtek is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-24-2002, 09:15 PM   #25
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by aabtek
yes I know, I wouldn't base any decision on how temps on different setups compared .... but I would still find it interesting to see on-die temps on the same mb with a comparative load ... but if it isn't to bee so be it
Okay, here goes, but as I said, take them with a grain of salt when doing comprisons.

AthlonXP CPU @ 1606MHz, 1.77v (1.75v setting in the BIOS)

Radiator air intake: 21.5C
Water temperature: 23.0C (fans at 7V)

Using BurnK7 (part of the "CPUBurn" suite - I recommend running this - nothing loads the CPU up more - it leaves Sandra for dead).

CPU idle temperature: 26.0C (no CPU idling measures/programs used)
CPU on-die temperature: 29.0C (after 1 hour)

How does that compare?

Edit: Forgot to say - using 1011 BIOS

Last edited by Cathar; 09-24-2002 at 09:48 PM.
Cathar 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 04:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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...