Swapped an Eheim 1048 for a Eheim 1250, Interesting results! - Page 4

pHaestus · 09-15-2002, 10:46 AM

300 GPH actual flow rate? With what pump? I would consider 1 gpm (60gph) to be a good minimum flow rate to design flow for. My testing is of course limited to "typical" blocks and so I am not sure what flat plate wbs need in terms of flow rates to be effective.

BillA · 09-15-2002, 11:20 AM

300gph (actual) is beyond the pale (translate: pointless)
2 - 3gpm is adaquate even for the Swifties

as #Rotor and others have observed:
its not the volume of flow that is as important as is the maximization of the turbulence potential of the available head

Occam's razor

Les · 09-15-2002, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unregistered

its not the volume of flow that is as important as is the maximization of the turbulence potential of the available head

Occam's razor

Possible neither "volume of flow" nor turbulence should be maximised to get the best performance from "available head"
Using Kryotherm for designing a thereotical wb with a 50x50mm baseplate for an "available head" of 30KPa(10.04 ft water) the best designs I came up with were laminar flow.
For example for 90 fins this would be my choice from one Turbulent and two Laminar ::

Links to the other 90fin designs:-
http://www.jr001b4751.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/LesD7.jpg
http://www.jr001b4751.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/LesD6.jpg

Note that the K/W( =C/W) is for cooling a 50x50mm heat source.

Edit: Deleted "However" from "However using ....."

myv65 · 09-15-2002, 10:08 PM

deleted

HMB · 10-08-2002, 12:21 PM

Get a serck radiator and I think you will see much better temps

bigben2k · 10-08-2002, 12:26 PM

Do you know where to get one? I've got a running alert on EBay, and I haven't seen any.

Besides, according to BillA's revised numbers, the Serck isn't that far off from a heatercore.

HMB · 10-08-2002, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bigben2k
Do you know where to get one? I've got a running alert on EBay, and I haven't seen any.

Besides, according to BillA's revised numbers, the Serck isn't that far off from a heatercore.

U mean the numbers from overclockers.com:s radiator roundup? Anyhow. The serck will definately get the gph higher. And if I recall correctly it doesnt perform worse with higher flow?

Edit: I've seen what u mean now. The serck and big momma(heater core) perform on par @ low flow. So a bypass as i think u proposed should do the trick. Anyhow. I want a serck as i think u would put less stress on the pump and that gives u less vibrations. I know u can isolate the vibrations but i dont wanna put pressure on my pump as i find that more comforting.

Edit2: Come to think of it I find it hard to believe that a bypass would give u better temps but im surerly wrong

Edit3: Just came to think of it, the serck is made out of aluminium.... A standard heatercore is often made of copper/brass. I find it entriguing that it beats a copper/brass radiator with almost the same design (surplus from BillA:s round up). It would be fun to see the difference between a copper/brass lets say black ice extreme(if it indeed is made out of copper/brass)? And one made out of aluminum.

Edit4: just saw that the surplus radiator had about 50% less opening area..... Anyhow... still think the copper/brass vs aluminum comparison would be fun to see

Edit5: Since i live in sweden i think it would be kinda hard for me to find a serck. For the moment i have a chevette heatercore bought from www.dtekcustoms.com and i think i will stick with it for a while since i am running without a peltier and want my case to be portable(to a certain degree

)

bigben2k · 10-08-2002, 01:24 PM

Well, you're not likely to find two heatercores, exactly the same, where one is copper, and the other, aluminium.

The aluminium seems to be best at transfering heat to air (from previous discussions) where copper is best for transfering heat to/from water. Many radiators have copper tubing, with soldered aluminium fins. That seems to be the best combination of metals.

Metals aside, the (internal) design of the rad is far more important, since the airflow that we're using is very low (relatively, in mass).

HMB · 10-08-2002, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bigben2k
The aluminium seems to be best at transfering heat to air (from previous discussions) where copper is best for transfering heat to/from water. Many radiators have copper tubing, with soldered aluminium fins. That seems to be the best combination of metals.

I've heard this is a myth that was created with the alpha coolers that were among the first hybrid heatsinks. The fact that they aren't entierly made out of copper is that they would weigh too much/cost too much. When i see the slk800 beat the shit out of the lets say alpha pal 8045 and swiftechs dito i begin to wonder. Sure heatsinkdesign has alot to do with it...

myv65 · 10-08-2002, 02:51 PM

Copper vs aluminum is nothing more than conduction vs convection. Where conduction is paramount, copper wins by virtue of higher conductivity. Where convection to a lousy medium (read: air) is paramount, surface area tends to rule. Even though aluminum has a lower conductivity, when you consider the ratio of density to conductivity, aluminum is actually better. All this means is that you can get a lot more surface area from a given mass of aluminum. This extra surface area makes up for the lousy conductivity.

If you have two identical shapes, copper will win. If you have two identical masses, you can generate a lot more surface area with the aluminum and win a convection-to-air competition. This is the real reason for hybrid heat sinks. The fact that aluminum is cheaper and easier to work with also explains why you'll normally find it in applications convecting heat to air.

HMB · 10-08-2002, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by myv65
Copper vs aluminum is nothing more than conduction vs convection. Where conduction is paramount, copper wins by virtue of higher conductivity. Where convection to a lousy medium (read: air) is paramount, surface area tends to rule. Even though aluminum has a lower conductivity, when you consider the ratio of density to conductivity, aluminum is actually better. All this means is that you can get a lot more surface area from a given mass of aluminum. This extra surface area makes up for the lousy conductivity.

If you have two identical shapes, copper will win. If you have two identical masses, you can generate a lot more surface area with the aluminum and win a convection-to-air competition. This is the real reason for hybrid heat sinks. The fact that aluminum is cheaper and easier to work with also explains why you'll normally find it in applications convecting heat to air.

Well then its true that aluminum is not as good as copper

So it was just a myth

BillA · 10-08-2002, 06:11 PM

more lives than the proverbial cat,
this one really does need a stake driven through it's heart
or, what's that ?

a silver bullet ?

bigben2k · 10-08-2002, 06:18 PM

I know... I wish it would sink in, so that I could at least remember the details of the explanation, for when I'm on the spot...

gmat · 10-09-2002, 02:42 AM

myv65, can i quote you on that one ? That'll save me a lot of time.

MadDogMe · 10-09-2002, 09:12 AM

Did'nt the 'ALu gives up heat better than Cu' thing come from the fact that ALu WILL cool down quicker once the heat source has been removed than Cu?. size for size, shape for shape?...

ALu would cool down the same as Cu if they were of equal mass though right?,or store the same amount of heat?...

BillA · 10-09-2002, 09:24 AM

biting my tongue, mouth filling with blood; choke choke

godamn sports, 'we' need to think about what is read

bigben2k · 10-09-2002, 09:33 AM

MadDog: go read this!

Let's put an end to this now, before BillA keels over...

MadDogMe · 10-09-2002, 09:35 AM

Just took in myv65's bit he wrote, of course!, the Alu would have a huge surface area compared to the Cu...

Where do you think the Alu cools better myth came from then?...

BB, sorry, I tried reading through that a couple times before. I never knew you could make scrambled eggs so 'cotonwool light' from brains before!

...

BillA · 10-09-2002, 10:08 AM

I have been seeing it on any number of idiot 'hardware review' sites for 2 1/2 years, or better
truly it is one of the most pervasive pieces of dis-information in the WCing world

aluminum is cheaper and less costly to fab
but if its not being shot into space, who cares if its lighter ?
(yea, I know, the max hsf weight limits)

any cooling product of aluminum needs to have a price 'advantage', for it will not have a performance one

morphling1 · 10-09-2002, 10:27 AM

Amen to that !

MadDogMe · 10-09-2002, 10:28 AM

It's truely annoying!, when you can't actualy test something yourself,~ to try to find out the truth of it, and you read it at so many sites telling you 'X is true', to find out afterwards it was aload of boldrix

.
Makes you wonder/realise how much is plaugerised from one site to another then accepted as gospel

.

Well on our quest for truth, be thankful we have BillA, he may not be gentle, but you get there in the end

...

BillA · 10-09-2002, 10:39 AM

all are well advised to spend the time and effort to absorb Dave Smith's (myv65) articles
he is far more 'gentle' than I (and a better writer)

myv65 · 10-09-2002, 12:18 PM

Anyone is free to quote anything I write in any forum or article. More often than not, it'll even be right, though I admit I am not infallible.

In the very first of my articles I tried to imagine the common sources for the Al vs Cu myth. I suppose what really gets me is two-fold.

One, so many people still insist that aluminum is better at getting rid of heat while copper is better at absorbing it. Yeah, like metals have a brain and can decide to behave differently depending on which way heat is travelling. This is nothing more than confusion over transient vs steady-state conditions. Two, aluminum does have an advantage in the right situation. In air-cooling especially, the thermal resistance of convection largely dominates. This makes aluminum the winner when handled properly. Only when conduction through an unchangeable and small cross section (read: from a die) is important does conductivity really matter much. If you can afford (or make your own from) all copper, it'll always win an "identical shape vs performance" test. If you can't meet those specs, aluminum has its place.

HelpImNewbish · 10-09-2002, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unregistered
any cooling product of aluminum needs to have a price 'advantage', for it will not have a performance one

So true, and the bad thing is alot of aluminum or alu/cu products are MORE expensive. Thermalrights coolers seem to always be at/near the top, and they are so CHEAP, too. You can grab a 30 buck sk-7 with a not-too-noisy fan for so cheap, and that will get you a pretty darn good overclock.

MadDogMe · 10-10-2002, 04:45 AM

Quote:

all are well advised to spend the time and effort to absorb Dave Smith's (myv65) articles

Modesty too!!

...

Quote:

so many people still insist that aluminum is better at getting rid of heat while copper is better at absorbing it. Yeah, like metals have a brain and can decide to behave differently depending on which way heat is travelling. This is nothing more than confusion over transient vs steady-state conditions.

Transient?, is that after the heatsource has been removed?. I recon ALu cooling faster after heatsource removal has to be the source of the AL/Cu thing/myth , they just carried it over to heatsource~continued without thought!.

I was trying to imagine ALu having the same density as Cu when I asked the 'BillA choker' question

, if it was somehow compessed to the size & shape of Cu, I thought it would cool down afterheat the same.
Is heat storage directly related to density?, how far apart are ALu & Cu with conduction?, I know Cu is better but by how much?, do you think density plays any part in that?. is Lead any good for conducting?.

10-08-2002, 12:26 PM	#81
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	Do you know where to get one? I've got a running alert on EBay, and I haven't seen any. Besides, according to BillA's revised numbers, the Serck isn't that far off from a heatercore. __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

10-08-2002, 01:24 PM	#83
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	Well, you're not likely to find two heatercores, exactly the same, where one is copper, and the other, aluminium. The aluminium seems to be best at transfering heat to air (from previous discussions) where copper is best for transfering heat to/from water. Many radiators have copper tubing, with soldered aluminium fins. That seems to be the best combination of metals. Metals aside, the (internal) design of the rad is far more important, since the airflow that we're using is very low (relatively, in mass). __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

10-08-2002, 06:18 PM	#88
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	I know... I wish it would sink in, so that I could at least remember the details of the explanation, for when I'm on the spot... __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

10-09-2002, 09:12 AM	#90
MadDogMe Thermophile Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Just shut up ;) ... Posts: 1,068	Did'nt the 'ALu gives up heat better than Cu' thing come from the fact that ALu WILL cool down quicker once the heat source has been removed than Cu?. size for size, shape for shape?... ALu would cool down the same as Cu if they were of equal mass though right?,or store the same amount of heat?... Last edited by MadDogMe; 10-09-2002 at 09:19 AM.

10-09-2002, 09:33 AM	#92
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	MadDog: go read this! Let's put an end to this now, before BillA keels over... __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

09-15-2002, 10:46 AM	#76
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	300 GPH actual flow rate? With what pump? I would consider 1 gpm (60gph) to be a good minimum flow rate to design flow for. My testing is of course limited to "typical" blocks and so I am not sure what flat plate wbs need in terms of flow rates to be effective.

09-15-2002, 11:20 AM	#77
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	300gph (actual) is beyond the pale (translate: pointless) 2 - 3gpm is adaquate even for the Swifties as #Rotor and others have observed: its not the volume of flow that is as important as is the maximization of the turbulence potential of the available head Occam's razor

09-15-2002, 10:08 PM	#79
myv65 Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2002 Location: home Posts: 365	deleted

10-08-2002, 12:21 PM	#80
HMB Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 63	Get a serck radiator and I think you will see much better temps

10-08-2002, 02:51 PM	#85
myv65 Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2002 Location: home Posts: 365	Copper vs aluminum is nothing more than conduction vs convection. Where conduction is paramount, copper wins by virtue of higher conductivity. Where convection to a lousy medium (read: air) is paramount, surface area tends to rule. Even though aluminum has a lower conductivity, when you consider the ratio of density to conductivity, aluminum is actually better. All this means is that you can get a lot more surface area from a given mass of aluminum. This extra surface area makes up for the lousy conductivity. If you have two identical shapes, copper will win. If you have two identical masses, you can generate a lot more surface area with the aluminum and win a convection-to-air competition. This is the real reason for hybrid heat sinks. The fact that aluminum is cheaper and easier to work with also explains why you'll normally find it in applications convecting heat to air.

10-08-2002, 06:11 PM	#87
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	more lives than the proverbial cat, this one really does need a stake driven through it's heart or, what's that ? a silver bullet ?

10-09-2002, 02:42 AM	#89
gmat Thermophile Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,221	myv65, can i quote you on that one ? That'll save me a lot of time.

10-09-2002, 09:24 AM	#91
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	biting my tongue, mouth filling with blood; choke choke godamn sports, 'we' need to think about what is read

10-09-2002, 09:35 AM	#93
MadDogMe Thermophile Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Just shut up ;) ... Posts: 1,068	Just took in myv65's bit he wrote, of course!, the Alu would have a huge surface area compared to the Cu... Where do you think the Alu cools better myth came from then?... BB, sorry, I tried reading through that a couple times before. I never knew you could make scrambled eggs so 'cotonwool light' from brains before! ...

10-09-2002, 10:08 AM	#94
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	I have been seeing it on any number of idiot 'hardware review' sites for 2 1/2 years, or better truly it is one of the most pervasive pieces of dis-information in the WCing world aluminum is cheaper and less costly to fab but if its not being shot into space, who cares if its lighter ? (yea, I know, the max hsf weight limits) any cooling product of aluminum needs to have a price 'advantage', for it will not have a performance one

10-09-2002, 10:27 AM	#95
morphling1 Cooling Savant Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Slovenia Posts: 468	Amen to that ! __________________ [My ftp, with lots of pics, hope to be home page someday

10-09-2002, 10:28 AM	#96
MadDogMe Thermophile Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Just shut up ;) ... Posts: 1,068	It's truely annoying!, when you can't actualy test something yourself,~ to try to find out the truth of it, and you read it at so many sites telling you 'X is true', to find out afterwards it was aload of boldrix . Makes you wonder/realise how much is plaugerised from one site to another then accepted as gospel . Well on our quest for truth, be thankful we have BillA, he may not be gentle, but you get there in the end ...

10-09-2002, 10:39 AM	#97
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	all are well advised to spend the time and effort to absorb Dave Smith's (myv65) articles he is far more 'gentle' than I (and a better writer)

10-09-2002, 12:18 PM	#98
myv65 Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2002 Location: home Posts: 365	Anyone is free to quote anything I write in any forum or article. More often than not, it'll even be right, though I admit I am not infallible. In the very first of my articles I tried to imagine the common sources for the Al vs Cu myth. I suppose what really gets me is two-fold. One, so many people still insist that aluminum is better at getting rid of heat while copper is better at absorbing it. Yeah, like metals have a brain and can decide to behave differently depending on which way heat is travelling. This is nothing more than confusion over transient vs steady-state conditions. Two, aluminum does have an advantage in the right situation. In air-cooling especially, the thermal resistance of convection largely dominates. This makes aluminum the winner when handled properly. Only when conduction through an unchangeable and small cross section (read: from a die) is important does conductivity really matter much. If you can afford (or make your own from) all copper, it'll always win an "identical shape vs performance" test. If you can't meet those specs, aluminum has its place.

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