Motherboard:abit nf7-2 rev 2.0 Bios 1.4 (-10c)

Watercooler Setup

Pump : Quietone 1100 gph
Radiator : F2 Extreme
Block: LRWW


OBS : nf7-s bio1.4


in the images I simulate something below as the cpu die simulator to 70w, my delta the times it accuses 1c, the times not to delta, or better, the mobo doesn't have a scale to measure it

http://www.watercooler.com.br/xp/314i.jpg

http://www.watercooler.com.br/xp/314.jpg







would I like to know where has more wc systems making that? :)

but how is all this worth very a little for some, are we going to the simulator ok?

Bill, I had never noticed that test before. I don't suppose you ever produced any numbers at all for heatercores?

put it up today, should be on OCers in a week or two
heater core data in the simulator section
here
the threads have become invisible as they have no new posts
- when we lost gmat the simulator ran out of gas

in the overclockers Joe did speak to me in two months to be capable to evaluate only the radiators, because him this in trip, and here we do have as only evaluating the radiators?

How do I proceed in case it is possible?

If it doesn't go, is it possible to evaluate my complete system?

thanks

guessing this question was to me ??

copyman
on my site you will find a great deal of testing and related bits
the ThermoChill report was my last 'public' article
I now work at Swiftech and am not doing 'outside' testing
(but you can bet I'm doing a BUNCH of in-house testing, much in the works)

I am helping JoeC select the equip for his lab, but not sure just how far he is going to get involved (for example a lab chiller is needed to control the coolant temp)

who else does testing ?

well, today Cathar brought this waterblock review to my attention
done by Marilyn Maple P.Eng, PhD Mechanical Engineering, University of Calgary
(there may be a pressure problem, or not - I have not checked it out yet)
- details on equip and procedures lacking yet, but a possibility

Interesting.

Definitely aberrant results on the head loss vs flowrate curve. Much too flat for me to believe it is accurate.

The C/W vs flowrate curve is a bit hard to swallow as well.

Wow, I missed that article too.

That is pure gold.

Good work as always Bill.

My only concern lies with the "rating" chart at the end. I'm sure that some people will then run off and say that a Black Ice Xtreme is rated for 919W, therefore it's almost twice as good as the HE120.3, and firmly believe it.

My guess is all ok, but c/w is for an 128sq mm Die.
P/Q similar to Slit Edge http://thermal-management-testing.com/slitedge.htm

Les, I have an EvoS here.

An Eheim 1048 pushes 3.9lpm through the EvoS and 2 x 30cm long pieces of 1/2" ID tubing

The Iwaki MD-30RZ (50Hz model) pushes 9.4lpm through the EvoS and 2 x 30cm long pieces of 1/2" ID tubing, and a 20cm x 5/8" ID tubing on the pump inlet.

The inlet slot is 9mm long x 4mm wide, for which it flows into 5 x 0.8mm wide channels with 1mm wide fins (think White Water style design), leaving a total orifice area of around 20mm² for the jet nozzle into the channels. The inlet and outlet barbs are 9mm ID. The ends of the channels that lead to the outlet barb are 2.5mm high, and there is about 18mm² of orifice area leading to the outlet.

Such a design will not have ~1m H2O pressure drop at 10lpm, and looking at the PQ curves for the Eheim 1048 and MD-30RZ and the flow rates seen for each, they indicate a level of restriction that more correctly resembles what one would expect (~7m of pressure drop at 10lpm). It's quite clear the impact that such differences would have on the pressure vs C/W graph, and correspondingly pump selection criteria.

I've tested the EvoS and have a fair idea of its performance potential, but it would be pointless for me to state any of my data as it could never be classed as being independent.

A widespread confusion still exists on that, and the people will really get confused

Another factor that worries me, but now in the tests of the bill, they are the cooland flow rate used , a variation from 2 to 12 liters per minute generates a very calm situation of entrance in the cameras, generating very little turbulence and checking a homogeneous feeding of the flat tubes, very different situation when it is used above 20 or 30 liters per minute, in my opinion demanded for systems of high efficiency.

I spent a long time working the cameras of entrance of F2 for not losing efficiency due to turbulence generated in the feeding of the flats the on higher flow rates

If I lower to the flow rate of my closed system going by the rlww and for the f2 of 38 liters for minute for 12, the delta differences and of the temperature of the processor they will be very different than he suggests in your plane curves as approaches of 12 liters hour in the tests of the lrww



With relationship to the thermochill

Same type of construction of my old F1, they need fans with a lot of pressure to work appropriately, because they are very dense, among other more things.

Making a rude comparison, I have with two F1 in parallel, more area than the model 120,2 and much less restriction to the flow

using 4 fans of 120 x 38 mm 130 cfm, two in each rad and with 23 liters for minute of flow rate going by a mcw462-ut, I never got to dissipate the heat reviewed to the fluid so that he came back close the room temperature, using a tec of 226w generating heat, it is almost incredible that the model 120,2 gets to dissipate 400w using any fan

Only some differences....


thanks

few understand the magnitude of a 900W load; last week I ran a device putting out a measured 520W - and it overwhermed my chiller !!

yes, a dilemma for Karl Smith for sure
but I have found it always better to take the high road, and leave the misrepresentation to others

Perhaps the die simulator is larger than Bill's. I may be blind, but I didn't find dimensions for it. I was assuming from the following quote that the test results were intended to be comparable.

Hopefully we'll see more testing detail soon.

Tests done by BillA are only valid for his die simulator.. You can't compare directly the 2 graphs between 2 different die simulator.

First, the die area could be changed (so C/W TIM changed too but just a linear offset) and there is a thermal resistance in the C/W graphs from BillA which it is due to the T° probes location (copper volume between baseplate and probe), there is an C/W offset from all the bloc tested, but are they linear for each wattage and flowrate, that is the question?? It's not really the C/W waterbloc we have but the C/W of waterbloc+a part of the BillA die (probe location), we can't have the temperature on the die/bloc contact (temperature in base is not really the same). This little part is the same for all bloc so it's good.

His die simulator isn't the same than BillA, it's impossible. The test could be valid for him because with the same reference point on a same die simulator, after we can see how measures are taken, precision, etc to have a better view of the testing methodology.

Let him the time to explain his test rig, his methodology, etc.. :D


Billa > there are some little mistakes in your nice article, you say "This is the same data as in Graph 3" but it's "This is the same data as in Graph 2" and the graph 11 is untitled "Thermochill 120.2" but it's "Thermochill 120.1"

ahh, Roscal
from a French man, I am dissapointed
you missed the most interesting aspect
apart from all the degrees, Marilyn is of the other species
amazing in our little world (can only think of Amy doing similar stuff)

Edit
thanks for the corrections, will address

Arf oki sorry , I didn't pay attention to her name :D

Cathar
Would concur that your observations are inconsistent with the data.
Would further agree that your cbservations are more akin to the behaviour I would expect from the block you describe. The 2.4mm Slot,19sq mm guess on this old graph shows the behaviour I would predict.

http://www.jr001b4751.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Iwaki.jpg

First posted on OC Aus (Search on OC Aus is disabled so cannot find link)

Since87
Judging by the discrepancies with Cathar's findings I,perhaps, was a litlle hasty saying ok.

Roscal
All ponts valid.

Yes more testing details are required

True, regardless of differences in the die face area, other issues impact the measurement. Not fair on my part, to criticize C/W results when the details of the die simulator are unknown. We can hope the author will do testing on a block Bill has also tested, in order to characterize her test setup.

20 or 30 lpm is many times greater then the highest flow system I have ever heard of. AFAIK no such systems exist. You'd need hundreds of watts of pump to push that through a 1/2 inch system.

12lpm was included as an extreme upper limit. Even pushing that through a system is very impressive.

I HAVE USING A QUIETONE 1100GPH => RAD F2 => LRWW = 34 LITERS PER MINUTE WITH 2,5 METERS OF TUBES OF 1\2 INCH .:eek:

MY BOMB CONSUMES 80W, AND IT REVIEWS A TINY PART OF THAT HEAT FOR THE FLUID, YOUR ROTOR IS STAMPED AND LUBRICATED WITH DISTILLED WATER.

YOUR PRICE IS 60-70 DOLLARS


REVIEW YOUR CONCEPTS.... :)

IT IS POSSIBLE TO REACH EASILY MORE THAN 20 LITERS PER MINUTE WITH BOMBS OF 500GPH, CLOSE TO 30 LITERS PER MINUTE WITH BOMBS OF 700 GPH, SAME USING VERY RESTRICTIVE BLOCKS, AND FOR THAT YOU DOESN'T NEED HUNDREDS OF WATS

[]'S

Ivo Guilhon (COPYMAN)

nooo Ivo, something is amiss
how are you measuring your flow rate ?

I will try to explain in a very simple way


30 liter mark reservoir => QUIETONE 1100GPH => RAD F2 => LRWW => 30 liter reservoir


I caught two reservoirs of 30 liters, I made 10 demarcations of 2 in 2 liters in one of them

I uncoupled the tubes of y I changed the tube of entrance of the bomb for a more length and I dipped the tip of the return of the block in the gallon with demarcation and the tube of entrance of the bomb in the full reservoir

after removing the air of the system, and leaving a little of fluid so that the air didn't come back inside of the exit tubes in the reservoir with the demarcations, I tied the bomb and I gave start in I time it when he reached the first mark and I stopped in the last.

it was long 35 seconds of the first mark to the last when it completed the volume of 20 liters

I know Bil that I began with more pressure in the entrance of the pump and for the other I had to dip the tube and to hold the flow after threading in the fluid,but I also had the opposite pressure when the level of the two gallons was and the one of demarcation was larger, even so they were not exactly with the same fluid surpluses in the two, I also know, it is not the most beautiful way and of larger precision of doing, but it works.

Okay, something is terribly amiss here.

Taking BillA's pressure drop data for the White Water alone of ~3.0m of pressure drop at 10lpm.

At 34lpm we're looking at around 35m of pressure drop for the White Water alone at a minimum.

To push 34 lpm against a pressure drop of 35m requires 195W of mechanical power to do so as an absolute physical minimum.

i.e. it's physically impossible for an 80W power-draw pump to be doing 195W of work.

Something wrong with your calculations Ivo.

Good cathar, I am right of my numbers, it was not alone with that bomb and your block that I obtained more than 25 liters per minute in a system, I can re-do the tests, I can film, I can order for bill the whole system for him to test, but I am completing 34 liters for minute of final flow of the system, unless the way as I made the tests above it is wrong

cathar, my wife that to kill me, I wet half of my house, I tested here only to remove one doubts two your calculations, I used a bomb of 30w 1,5 meters of tubes of 1\2, a new rad that I am doing of 6 " x 6 " of measures, and logical, much more restrictive than F2 and a block tc4, obtained 10.9 liters per minute in the end circuit.

and now?

for your calculations I do think still has something not wandered?

as I think the tc4 requests something as 3m pressure drops at 10lpm

To something wrong somewhere, because that horrible bomb that used of 30w could not also make that

and now friend?

I've searched at several sites that carry Quiet one water pumps.

The one that would push the most through a system I was able to find:

Model #4000 high head

Free flow rate of 980 gph.

Max head rate of 13'

watts draw of 120 watts

But this pump would fall far short of 30lpm system flow, yet it is the highest head rate I've found so far for a Quiet one pump.

While you may well have a model I wasn't able to find yet this shows that something is wrong with the stats you are giving for your largest pump. It just can't possibly have 1100gph with a draw of only 80 watts yet drive a flow of 30lpm through a LRWW block. A 80 watt pump just isn't strong enough to push such a system flow rate.

Sence I read your posts with BillA and Cathar I've been searching. Not just for a Quiet one pump that could meet those performance figures while drawing only 80 watts, but for any pump by any maker that could do so. After searching a number of sites I've come to believe such a pump does not exist. Closest I've seen was a Iwaki MD-70rlzt with 20m of head rate, but a wattage draw that was sky high.

Could you please post your Quiet one model number and full stats for it? That should help solve the issue.

The Quiet One I found with a draw rate close to your stated draw.

Free flow 1040gph

Flow @ 6' of head 600gph

Watts draw of 85 watts

Max head rate wasn't stated, but the above shows it wouldn't be more than about 10.5'

That also bestirs me and a lot, somewhere to a mistake, doesn't care mine or of other, but it would like of you find it, that is the objective

What finds strange it is to obtain a rate with that equipment that is also impossible according to the measures of the review of the tc4, and I have just made the tests with that system

I tested here only to remove one doubts two your calculations, I used a bomb of 30w 1,5 meters of tubes of 1\2, a new rad that I am doing of 6 " x 6 " of measures, and logical, much more restrictive than F2 and a block tc4, obtained 10.9 liters per minute in the end circuit.

as I think the tc4 requests something as 3m pressure drops at 10lpm

To something wrong somewhere, because that horrible bomb that used of 30w could not also make that

and now friend?

my model

model 40R175254V

MAX-FLOW (GPH) 1140
horse power 1/25 HP
WATTS 87w
SHUT-OFF PRESSURE 6.5 psi
Shut Off Heat Ft 15,5

GPM 19
L/M 72.2
GPH 1140
L/H 4332

Man now I have to change my pants... :D

Very nice work.

hehehehe

aff

thanks:D