copper being the emphasized word *snigger*:rolleyes: :dome:

Something is missing here: The CPU loop is going to require a specific low flow block and pump that don't exist in the current Swiftech line. ;)

this product was developed for an industrial application, though it can be applied to CPU cooling

you are correct that we do not offer a very small pump such as would be appropriate,
the instructions will address this when the product is announced
- the MCW5000 works just fine as the cooling does not rely on flow regime effects,
effective system insulation is quite important

re COPPER:
a copper top will provide no improvement in cooling
we are not seeing corrosion problems with our aluminum tops (we sell a corrosion inhibitor, eh ?)
-> a copper top would have a huge impact on costs

so where is the benefit to the user ?

#Rotor
boards have been shown with both 2 and 4 holes, and one at least with both (the 2 plus the 4)
in an Inquirer writeup several months ago

Certainly not fully appreciated here, that in a closed loop "low flow is the key to chiller performance".
In fact I am not sure it is correct, will have to think about that one.

Bill we know that a copper top will have no effect on cooling. The reason I ask is that you always seemed very against using aluminum and copper due to corrosion issues. You have voiced this many times. Just thought your influence may have brought a copper top is all.

Got me baffled as well.

I can see that reducing pump heat is a significant issue, but that's not the same thing as low flow.

were there no cost impact, copper or brass would be preferable - no argument from me
but such is not the case

as before:
always use an inhibitor

You want low flow in a chiller, so as to give the water more "time" to get cooled off.

Hmmm, but as more time it is cooled, the same happens with the warming on the cpu side; balancing things out. My guess is that heat transfer is more eficient on the wide surface of the TEC's than on the small CPU, so the sweetspot is to the low flow side.

A low flow pump would be better if it were a "screw" or suction pump for these types of situations where water isn't flung around more but relies more on the slow powerful movements to pass the water around the circuit. In much the same way 7v fans work :D.

Shame most of the pumps on the market now are impeller style.

~ Boli

I cannot beleve it has happened. Im extremely dissapointed in you.

extremely disapointed at who...and for what?

this is the same sort of thinking that says you'd want low flow through a rad, for the same reason. But it seems wrong to me. Higher flow results in same avg time for each "piece" of water to spend in chiller block. Delta T is higher, so more efficient heat transfer.

You only think that because most of the best water blocks today work on impingment where faster flow is best. Yet low resistance blocks such as swifttech and the maze3 will work as well with any flow (even convection as I found out to my surprise one day).

This is of course a never ending debate.

~ Boli

Actually a restrictive impingment block usually works just as well at low flow, whereas a high flow block requires more flow to be as effecient at transfering heat to the water, and at low flows becomes a rather poor performer.

BrianW

cant argue with that boli he is an uber geek where as you are just a geek

*Bows to the Uber Geek*

*Beats up Noob for pointing it out* :D

~ Boli

good point, good point, but look at it this way.

In a rad, the deltaT is not very large, in relation to the deltaT of a cooler or instance, so the flow rate of water really doesn't make much of a difference since high flow or low flow, the efficiency will be more or less the same. The reason you would want high flow on a rad setup is because it is better for your specific block, since some blocks perform better with higher flow.

In a cooler, however, the deltaT is much greater, therefore the more "time" the water spends in contact with the cooler, the longer it will be exposed to the "greater deltaT", the more efficient and effective the cooler will be. Because of this lower flow rate, you would probably want to pair the setup up with a block that performs better at lower flow rates.


Am i thinking along the right track?

Sounds right to me, And I would pair it up with a cascade....

BrianW

nooo, not at all
as it applies to the cooling chamber, so it applies equally to the wb

the cascade would not work so well, maximizing 'h' at a small area will not get it done
review in your mind all of the many many TEC chillers that have been made over the years
what did they have in common ?
how is this one different ?

superart is on the right track, as are several others

Well then you would want a CPU block that would be able to keep flow non laminar at low flow. I imagine a grid array would be able to do this. Although it is obviously all conjecture.

BrianW

I'd argue with a couple of things:
"some blocks perform better with higher flow" is false. All blocks perform better with higher flow, all other things remaining constant. (this is refering to cpu blocks, of course).

And remaining in the chiller for longer results in lowered efficiency, as delta T drops as more time is spent in chiller. Now, that said, if one imagines a loop with no heat source, and only a chiller block, slow flow through the chiller will deliver really cold water faster to the cpu block (assuming it is right after the chiller) than high flow, but high flow will chill ALL the water faster. At least, i think so.

I just dont see how lower flow can help - if X watts of heat can be removed from the water via the chiller per delta T per second, then maximizing the delta T maximizes efficiency. This is how water cooling works! Feel free to explain the wrongheadedness in this, because from a mathematical/heat transfer perspective, i simply dont see it.

Feel free to get as technical as you want, i am familiar with PDE and the general heat transfer equations.

The pin-grid is indeed the best known ,to me anyway, for chilling a sluge.... It is the reason Why I came to my design in the first place. The other benifits was just cherry on the cake, :D

do keep in mind, that Delta-T is inversely proportional to the time spent in any particular location.... thus, the longer the substance stay in that location, the smaller DT will become... this is true for any initial DT value, and therefor high flow will always get you better thermal transfer, by virtue of the fact that DT is maximized.
Do, however not link this, with the ability to sustain "high flow".... and it is In there that lies the reason why chillers tend to revert to a "low-flow" senario, only because it's more work to push a sluge through a pipe.... [M2C] :D

The chiller is not a rad. Its an active heatpump. If you leave water in it longer, it will chill that water cooler and then reduce its temp as well. In theory at least, since TEC performance doesn't vary vastly over the narrow range of temps we're considering, the deltaT is the same no matter the flow (within reasonable flows that is).

Actually a chiller is a radiator.... Just that a chiller has external propulsion to enhance the thermal capacity and lower the operating temperature at which it still can opperate with a DT. A radiator is reliant on the temperature of the air being moved through it, for it's operational temperature. Both are, in principle exactly the same thing, they move heat from one substance, to another... In fact... all the heat transfer devices in a system work on exactly the same set of rules, they are all radiators or "heat transducers" as I like too call them....

wrong.
Heat transfer follows some basic rules - the chiller cools the waterblock, which cools the water. Delta T matters for this thermal interface. Period.

good, glad to know that I haven't gone completely mad......only partially

lol, all kinds of wierd science goin' on here

Althornin
focus on the attainable temp, not the efficency

#Rotor
please; wbs, rads, and 'chilling chambers' are all heat exchangers

I dont see how it will achieve lower temps.
Pls explain.

If at some deltaT, the chiller is able to "extract" say, 100 watts out of the water, and the cpu puts in say, 80 watts, then the water will eventually cool down to a lower deltaT and a rough equilibrum (swings lower thru chiller, then high again thru waterblock). slower flow will result in lower water temps in the chiller, but higher water temps over the waterblock (more time to absorb heat). I'm just not sure what gains you could see, if any, especially due to the lowered Waterblock efficiency at lower flow. I'd take some real convincing that you'd see a good difference, and i'd tend to believe that the solution is sub-optimal anyways, and that a higer flow, higher efficiency setup could be created that would "win".

keep going
and . . . . .

so the temps at flow rate X are A and B (coolant and cpu)
what will the temps be at flow rate 2X ?
and at 4X ?

the cpu/coolant gradient (°C/W) will be less; due to 'h' generally speaking;
but this is more than offset by the rise in the coolant temp

all heat exchangers have a limiting function (one side/conditions wrt the other side/conditions),
in this case it is the extraction of the heat from the 'cold' coolant
(do not ask me why it is more difficult to cool than to heat, I do not know - anyone ?)
- just as with liquid/air radiators it is the air side that is limiting
(which is why slowing the coolant down can result in lower temps, though in a 'big' rad such is not perceptible; with two smaller rads in parallel it is quite apparent)

as to the 'real convincing',
apparently you are not aware of the very long history that TEC chillers have in the overclocking world
- with uniformly poor results

my humor, eh ?
this course is called: How Things Work