brass/copper
we've shipped lots of wet systems, so ?
think: a company with a specific need, and no time to play amateur plumber

jd
you look at your perception of DIY watercooling and presume that to be the description of all WCing apps
your stance is anti-innovation, if everything is 'good enough' for jd - where is the incentive for improvement ?

You must know something I don't then JayDee. I have only used one hc-style radiator (my single pass from the Chevy C10) that DIDN'T need to be turned on its side and shaken a bit to clear totally of air. Even the 1pass Blazer hc I use for testing benefits from a tipping to get the air out of the tank. Now I see plenty of sideways mounted HWLabs rads (dual BIMs; BIX and Pro mounted in front of cases) and clearing the tubes that are higher than the outlet of air would definitely be an issue. How can you think it wouldn't?

I believe that was my point exactly. People buy kits because they either don;t want to build their own custom system be it DIY parts or commercial or they have no clue how to do it and would rather not bother. If the kit was filled and bleed for them the better for both sides.
Your wrong here. I personally do not even like the BI series. I want a radiator that can perform as well a heater core yet is made specifically for a computer. The BI series isn't it, the innovatek series isn't it and I doubt these rads are it being the guy won't post real numbers.

I am all for innovation. But performance must be first, then all the little details like barb placement to aid in bleeding. It just seems to me the industry is going BACKWARDS not forwards.

pH, I always put the barbs up in my systems. Air naturally bleeds out being the barbs are the highest point on the rad. And my T always rises above all parts in the system. Just seems like common sense to me.
The only place air can get trapped is in the tanks.Does the tanks really aid in performance? Worst case scenario you have your rad on it's side and one of the outer most channels is filled with air and not water. First how much water would actually flow through that channel being it is on the outer part of the rad and if it was filled how much air flow would that channel get being it is on the outer parts of the rad? I do not see a significant difference in temps even if air was trapped in the rad.

And furthermore if these rads this non respondent guy posted are aluminum then that certainly is not innovative (I believe innovative to be bettering something) and I don't see how it is any better than the BI. And has anyone suggested to the one making the BI's to change the placement of the barbs for easier bleeding? I assume so.....

" I want a radiator that can perform as well a heater core yet is made specifically for a computer. The BI series isn't it"

can you spell w r o n g ?
the BI Pro series (MCR120) does beat any comparably sized 2" thick heater core at reasonable noise levels

where have you been this last month ?
you are stuck in the past, it seems you missed Cathar's rad posts

HW Labs sells direct, why should I improve my competitors' products ?

I do not believe that brass/copper rads are inherently superior to copper. Spend $350 for a Lytron rad and you'll be converted - IF performance is your thing
or spend $90 or so for a Japanese aluminum heater core

you've been 2 days with this, I'm gonna pass now

By subtraction, these apparently contradictory statements don't leave much to be desired. What is "innovation" then? Bettering "something" but, mysteriously, not just anything.

Comparably sized? How close are we talking? I can easily understand a BIX being worse, but I have more difficulty with something that's 6*6.

Is it the all copper that makes the Lytron better, or are they brazed? It seems to me that the solder is the weak point in copper/brass heater cores. I see that as being the reason (seeing as aluminum solder is only [and can only be] used in aluminum cores, and that's much better thermal conductivity than lead/tin) that some radiators are better than others.

Edit: Silver brazed. That's where the money goes and that's where the performance comes from (I think)

Well if you consider that mole sticking on the outside of the computer "designed for a computer" then whatever. I would like to see that rad and a "comparably sized" heatercore one on one. And price most certainly is an issue. That thing is what? $50+??? $88 with the fancy mounting "Rad Box"..... It better be MUCH better. But better as you speak is less than a 1C no?
Wait a minute, I thought you were selling them (MCR120)? Why would you sell your competitors products then if you don't want them improved aswell? Don;t you want better products? Or did I miss understand something and the MCR120 is not HW Labs product.
As far as radiators how can performance NOT be the thing. The better it performs the quieter fan you can mount on it no? But what is the difference between a lytron and a MCR120? a C or 2?
I am waiting for the original authors input. He started this thread in a SPAM attempt and I am trying to figure why he posted such crap. If the rad can't sell by it's own then it doesn't need a bunch of spam posts and so called testing results that mean nothing. Is this rad better than any other rad out there? It is a simple question is it not? I have yet to hear an answer from anyone in this thread yet all this useless rambling continues about innovation and barb placement. Does the damn thing work or not and if so it better or worst than whats already out there?

And yes I missed Cathars rad posts I guess. Will look it up.

I really don't care. You missed the point and the context which they were stated. Any relevant info on the rads posted in the first post? Didn't think so...

Where is this post Bill? I'm curious to what he found out.

I'm a terrible person to ask
Cathar ?
Cathar has over time described his ideal rad, and his reasoning is correct
my choices are a tad different - but not published, for now

That's ok. The search function did wonders. Yes the reasoning is correct as I picked that out of the published data on your site. Not sure what my choices are, maybe It's just not practical - performance/cost, user friendly. I'm probably asking to much and there is no all in wonder. My optimum choice is most likely inline with yours, gleaming from your past post, but I got flamed many times over it. Then I'm looking at the dual 120's out there and the more I dig deaper, the more I wonder if it's all what they say it is. I may just spring for the mcr120 and be done with it.

Bill I doubt your point about copper superiority applying in a rad.
IMO, copper beat Al in air heatsink for its more conductive ability cause the fins of a heatsink is usually 3~4cm high, the heat spread on the fins of hinksink make the diff, therefore copper fins can spread heat more uniformity.
but for a rad, diff case it is. the thickness of the tube of a HC or BIX is not more than .5mm I guess. so it won't bring a distinct temp diff when moving from brass or Al to Copper. what make the heat spread along the brass tube effectively? not the material of the tube but the velocity of the flow inside the tube.
and don't forget the "huge" heat exchange area for a rad, and this make the watt per square cm quite low, which can lower the temp diff 2.
I have compared a BIX2 and Dtek procore, for my single cpu(AMDxp@2.33g/1.875V) heat load, bix2 beat procore by only 2~3c(at most), not bad but still a shame for a 2 fans holder.

eek, wrong statement
should have been "I do not believe that brass/copper rads are inherently superior to aluminum.

for the tube of a Rad, material is not the key of performence, but for the fins it is.
Like the fins in aircooling, aluminum fins of a rad never can be "longer" than copper one, check a 90's HC made in aluminum, the length of the fin between the tubes is much more shorter, u can easy tell it by comparing the numbers of the tubes in almost the same width of a copper fin HC and the aluminum fin one.

However, these fins in a HC are still shorter than 1/2" usually, further more the heat is conducted from the two sides(tubes), unlike the fins in aircooling only from one side(the base), all of these contribute to restraining the superior of copper fin 2.

IMO, the reason of brass/copper is a good combination for a rad includes:

1. brass can get along with the copper base of waterblock and other copper parts in the loop better than aluminum; if only concerning performance copper is the best, even aluminum tube easily beat the brass one, but considering the thickness of the tube, its not a big deal, brass tube is not as soft as copper one and can make the liquid snake;

2. for the junction of the fins and the tube, I am not familiar with soldering, but brass and copper should be better. copper fins can be longer, which is helpful to maximum the air flow inside the rad.

so, brass/copper is still a good choice expecially for its low cost.
Sorry for my poor english expression.

Ummm, I would think the tube material is very important. If it cannot transfer heat well then it isn't going to move the heat to the fins well either making the fins useless even if they were silver. By your logic we could use plastic for the tubes and copper for the fins with no loss in performance compared to a copper tubed rad. :shrug:

On the subject of material let's look at this page http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dm.../materials.htm and tell me which has better thermal properties of the materials used in HC's?

From my interpretation it is
1) Copper
2) Aluminum
3) Brass

Yes.
In my various plays with design .,using Al fins would, to get the same Finning Efficiency, reduce the spacing between flat water tubes to ~75% of that for Cu fins.

unfortunately copper and aluminum don't bond easily (that I'm aware of)
brass tubes are for strength, the modern aluminum tubes have internal dividers or dimples increasing both the surface area and/or turbulence
and aluminum is cheaper

always compromises

Aluminum is cheaper but is it cheaper to manufacture a all AL heater core? AL seems harder to bond (even AL to AL) than copper to copper or brass to copper. Wonder how they bond the fins to the tubes in all AL heater cores. Interesting about the dimples and dividers.

I find it funny that people will pay out the nose for 1C (at most) cooler temperatures and will argue about the superiority of such matrerials to the point at which they are splitting hairs. Obviously the auto manufacturers have chosen a proven and reliable design in their heatercores (as in not using plastic tubes and copper fins). They must have done research in this area at some time. And it really doesnt matter that much that the tubes are brass: they have a rediculous amount of surface area and are quite thin. If you look at the half tube on the edge of any heatercore, that is the thickness of the walls of the tube. Nearly any material will be able to conduct well with that thickness. Plus, there is a zig zag flow pattern in nearly all heatercores which (I think) is supposed to create turbulence (and possibly rigidity?). This feature is not found on any computer specific radiator (BIX or those aluminum ones) that I have seen.

I do find it difficult to bleed my heatercore unless the barbs are completely flush with the tank on the inside. If the barbs protrude too far inside the tank, the radiator seems to accumulate air in there, which is occasionally sucked in and I get a little bubble noise in the pump.

Until there is proof that one design is better than another, believe nothing.

Well if it wasn't for this nothing would ever get better. If we held the mentality that gaining 1C isn't worth it then we would all still be using Maze 1's. 1C at a time, it all adds up down the road.

I realize this, but ther isnt much we can improve in radiator design at the moment. Besides the average user cannot build a radiator and a radiator can always be adapted for brute force cooling. I guarentee I can design a plastic tubed radiator with plastic fins that can beat a heatercore, it would just take up a lot more room and have a lot more air going through it.

Also, there is a distinct difference between coming up with a brand new design for something and just changing around the materials a little bit. Using better materals to improve performance imposes a natural limit to what can be achieved from a certain design. It is changing the design that produces better results.

An all silver maze 1 would be stomped on by a cascade, even if the cascade had an aluminum base.

I dont see anyone creating a new style radiator. When someone does, that is when it is time to split hairs.

does not need to be "a new style", better is sufficient for me

aluminum is furnace brazed, very economical - and capital intensive

kn
LOTS of data, only my old articles in the public domain

Pair these:
and bear in mind that aluminum, being a stronger metal, can be thinner than copper. So there's more to it than just comparing thermal conductivity pound-for-pound. We build ship hulls out of heavy steel, not wood. Just looking up the densities of those materials wouldn't explain why.

We resist aluminum partly because of that raw appeal copper has, on the chart, but mainly because of it's incompatibility with existing copper components. Copper is the qwerty keyboard of water cooling.

Let's all stick with qwerty.

Brass is generally used in heatercores for the tubes. If you look at the half tube on the edge of every heatercore, it is easy to see that the thickness is less than .5mm. If I had some dial calipers I would measure the thickness. The shape of the tubes also seems to give them more strength than straight tubes, plus they are made of brass which is stronger than aluminum.

Brass is also not prone to galvanic corrosion when combined with copper plus it is simple to solder to copper, so it is easy to see why it is used in radiators.

the Copper Research Inst has developed 'hard' copper tubes that are thinner and stronger than brass a number of years ago
- no economic incentive I'd guess