Doesn't matter if it is moving or not.

If that was the case then it wouldn't matter if air was moving or not...
Using that consept I can remove all the fans out of my pc and have it just as cool... NOT...

I believe that moving water will remove heat faster then a non moving piece of copper.
Unfortuatly I have no proof...
and don't have the math background to create one.

The Storm doesnt rely on the spreading properties of copper, and look at its performance. The thinner the baseplate, the better. Swiftech blocks rely on spreading the heat laterally and then transferring it, thus they have thicker baseplates but are very effecient as well. There is a trade off somewhere...

Determined by the concentration of tubulance, I think. As focal turbulance increases, resistance increases more. That widening gap keeps us from extremes.

Not quite true. Storm does indeed need and make use of a certain amount of the lateral thermal spread properties of copper - not quite to the extent of the thicker base-plate blocks, granted, but it's definitely not a case of "thinner = better", that is only true with tremendously powerful pumps.

Not what I ment. The thermal conductivity stays the same when the water is moving or not. As I said before you need to make the water go a hell of a lot faster to make up for the lack of surface area. Problem with that is faster the water goes the higher the secondary heat sources get making it a near waste of time.

Needs more surface area OR a lot faster water. Only way to make it worth while is to chill the faster water.

Anyway, if your that interestred then do it and prove us wrong. ;)

as i mentioned i don't have the math background to prove it..
then again i'm missing a lot of background information on the whole subject...
I'm not saying your wrong... I just like to be proven wrong...
saying I'm wrong doesn't cut it for me sorry...

What if we used water with nano particles of thermaly conductive metal suspended in it.

That would increase the thermal conductivity, while keeping the advantage of movement and greater deltaT.

done, patents awarded
copper microspheres, adjust for desired sg
not commercially available

If you were being sarcastic, don't be.
Theres actually a professor in Canada (not pH, some frenchie) working on just that, with great success.

http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=10871

was not, google it
I tried to buy some, not available
been there

any indications on when/if it might be available?

nope
10 char

Well, point one:
Wrong. Air's thermal conductivity is not changing just because it is moving -neither does water. But you have to have airflow or water flow, or the water/air around your heatsink/waterblock will continue to heat up. The thermal energy transfered is a function of the difference in temperatures between the two.

Same here. I have done it but my experiemnts are far from scientific. I had a reasonably decent direct die cooler with jets and it couldn't beat out a Maze 4. That was also with a HydroThruster 500 pump.

I got all my parts (I think) to do the project over again. I can reset it up. Will have to search for the direct die block. Somewhere around here...

but if i had a solid block of water(ice) to apply heat to one side to raise the temperature from -20 deg to -10 to the other side...
it would take a long time... how to measure the time or the amount of heat involved is unknown to me...
but using the same volume of water(not solid but fluid) applying heat to one side the oposite side would get a fater increase in temperature because the heated water can move... while ice can't...

or is it a case that water (fluid) is close to but not quite as efficient of removing heat directly from a core as copper(solid) is and if the water was frozen it would have absolutly terrible toi remove heat?

it would be interesting to see some actual temperatures but if it is too much work...
my existance can go on without know the exact answer...

It is not even close to. Waters thermal conducticity is .6 while coppers is 390. Yes that is a point in front of that 6!

http://www.hukseflux.com/thermal%20c...ty/thermal.htm

If I can find the block I can rehook it up. Not a big deal at all. I have a feeling the block is were I had my mill which is 120miles one way at my grandparents place. If that is the case I will pick it up during Christmas and bring it back.

I still never got around ot making the second block for the Chip bretb sent me. I got it sitting here with a 75% done block but I think I got to change it all.

Volenti is perhaps the most successful person I've seen with a direct die setup using a set of high-speed jets. Using a fairly meaty pump (MD-20RZ) he was able to get it to roughly perform on par with his old White Water clone that he made up himself, but this was also on a P4 die (~147mm^2).

I have a feeling that an extremely well setup direct die setup can come close to a top-end enclosed water-block, but it requires the use of fairly strong pumps to generate the jet velocities required to over-come the surface area disadvantage.

Really this is what it comes down to. Enclosed waterblocks have the TIM + conduction cost but make up for it with increased surface area. Direct-die doesn't have the TIM + conduction cost, but will typically have 1/2 the convectional surface area available.

It's a case of 6 of one and half-dozen of the other. Jet impingement on such a small scale is highly dependent upon jet velocity, and hence the pumping power. This is an issue that I tried hard to solve with the Storm blocks, but none of the performance enhancing features of the Storm blocks would be available in a bare die.

My best answer is that "maybe direct die could be as good as an enclosed waterblock, but my feeling is that it will fall somewhat short". Direct-die waterblocks come with the added hassle of being more difficult to setup and maintain without dripping water over the inside of the computer. Since CPU's are not water-proof either it becomes even more of an undesirable cause to attempt to prove because the CPU will die anyway.

Given the drawbacks and the evidence which suggests that at best direct die cooling is still somewhat behind the current top-end waterblocks, and at worst a long way behind, this hardly instils me with a lot of faith that it's something worth pursuing. This makes the answer just pure theoretical conjecture in the mean-time until someone proves otherwise, and right now the limited experiments and theory available tell us that enclosed waterblocks are superior for performance, as well as for practicality (and also for lack of CPU death).

that starts to make sense to me...
.6 wow.. copper is 650 times more conductive... I guess i'm convinced
I can C why mebe putting nano particals of copper in the water would be helpful... but wouldn't that aid in corrosion? duno.. off topic anyways...

What strikes me as odd is that most ppl start talking about the thermal conductivity when it comes to this question.

The 1 thing most seem to forget is that the water carries the energy (water can hold a bit more energy (heat) than copper can) and since the water is the carrier, everything btw the water and the heat source becomes a thermal resistance.

OK things were starting to make sense ...
but now I'm confused again... :shrug: nothing new...
so by not using copper as a heat spreader you lower the thermal resistance?
so there must be a point where having a higher thermal conductivity outweighs thermal resistance?

When I first read the article and discussed it with pH, he had the same concern. I emailed the professor doing the research and asked him if he noticed any corrosion either to his pumps or his blocks.

He replied saying that since the particles are so tiny, on the order of microns, after extended use and testing, he has seen no sign of excessive wear or corrosion. BTW, the guy I'm referring to isn't using copper, hes using Aluminum Oxide, but that's beside the point.


....and yes, your'e right...off topic :shrug:

Yes, but without the high thermal conductivity (or high surface area) of a copper waterblock...the temperature differential must be higher between the two (die and water) before all the heat is transfered.

You cannot look at one, without the other.

In direct die, the low thermal conductivity of water becomes the barrier - the delta between the die and the water must be higher in order to transfer all the heat produced.
With a water block, the thermal resistance of the copper and TIM become the issue - Because the high surface area makes up for the low thermal conductivity of the water/copper interface.

Remember the units - that one problem in this thread. I see tons of numbers being thrown around, most of em don't have units....and are thus worthless.

Look at JD's numbers for example. .6 and 390 - what good are they? Without the units, thermal conducitivity number mean nothing. Because thermal conductivity changes based on temp delta and surface area of contact...

Indeed the larger area will make up 4 a lot of it, otherwise we would proborably allready been discussing inlet designs to our directdie blocks instead of the numourous designs on normal block`s.

But I am looking forward to the results from http://www.ocshoot.no `s tests

They are currently testing direct-HSF, by modifying an WC Antarctica. Those guys have a lot of experience with cooling (Normal Watercooling, direct die, direct TEC and so on).

Perhaps we are about to get an eye-opener?

http://www.ocshoot.no/antarctica_xtreeme1.htm

With the direct-die block set up like that? Not a chance.

Dosn't change that much....

OK, he doesn't give units, I'll give them to you, standard, almost always used in a metric world, the unit is W/m*°C. Watts per metre for one degree celsius. Even if it was given without a unit the proportion is enough to tell you what you want to know, Copper is ~650 times better than water. Heat transfer is directly proportional to k. Irrelevant for a comparison when we have no idea of the convection coefficient.

Bullshit. Thermal conductivity changes based on absolute temperature (google Wiedemann-Franz Law). It has nothing to do with surface area and delta T is only relevant insomuch as k is varying slightly throughout the heat path. Slightly.
What I think you mean is that heat transfered, heat flux or watts changes based on temp delta and surface area of contact. Rearrange this to our scenario, temp delta is directly proportional to heat flux 'Q'. Surface area 'A' is a constant, heat path length 'L' is a constant and thermal conductivity 'k' is a constant.
EDIT: Thermal conductance, defined as the inverse of thermal resistance, is perhaps your intended meaning?
The formula, Fouriers Law is Q=k*A*dT/L or for us dT=Q*L/k*A. This applies to a waterblock, it is half the story. It is not applicable to direct die. (except within the die itself, this is the same for DD or conventional WB)
Direct die is almost purely governed by Newtons law of cooling. Water blocks are dominated by it as well, how much so depends on the design philosophy. It is similar. Q=h*A*dt. 'h' is the convection coefficient, units W/m^2*°C. It is a function of water flowrate, thermal conductivity, density, viscosity, specific heat capacity, thermal diffusivity and the main problem, surface geometry and localised water velocity...
We do not know it. Thats the problem.

That is, indeed, what i meant.
appologies on incorrect terminology - it's been awhile since my PDE classes.

Note: Please say "bullshit" to everyone else who used the incorrect terminology before me in this thread.