I am nobody d00de, take a chill pill, will ya?
I wasn't making any personal remarks nor was I attacking anyone. THis is free public forum and freedom of speach is as far as I know one of the foundations of western life style:)
If you feel offended by my general remarks I am sorry :(
Maybe it is my general resources and costs conciousness that drives me through research first to production later. I personally would rather spend time designing things and fine tuning them as far as possible in virtual world and then, when theoretical means are exhausted, only start making working model. In this way I feel I am contributing my little bit towards saving energy and resources (not to mention I do not have time nor means to do countless prototypes as well as calcs take no time for me-theorycising deas take time mind you).
Trial and error development methods are as valid as theoretical research and practiced by countless invemtors worldwide.
Sorry again if I treaded on your toes, I did not mean to.

P.s. Flatness of cold plates is one of the reasons why ther are not performning as well as they could :D

Les, your data is most interesting. I only wish the resolution was finer a bit.
The reason behind it is that it looks like the optimal thickness for all grpahs is the same.
I know it is not but it looks like differences are extremely small and can be disregarded.
It is very good news for costs of production since it'd mean 'one size fits all':)
I jus wonder how this relationship behaves for more powerful elements and more complex cold plate geometry? Are differences going to be equally minuscule?

hmm, "d00de" is one of the most irritating "words" I've seen on the internet in quite a while.

what about HaX0r?
hehe.

bloody hell i think i started a flame war...and no-one has answered my question!!!

Use the smallest drill you can to drill as many 1mm deep 'craters' and make a lid out of sth eith inlet and outlet. Seriously, there's not nuff meet to carve anything out of 3mm copper sheet. Then you enter solder type blocks and .... countless designs are possible here.

I'd rather drill than cut in 3mm since driling is more precise (I hope you got sth like a drill press at least) and will leave you nice flat border to fix your top to (may want to research derlin).

I hope that at least I tried to answer your original quetion here :)

P.S. Why not buy commercila block?

Ummm, never said you you did? :shrug: And no it isn't a public forum, Freedom of Speech doesn't apply here. Remember agreeing to the TOS to become a member? :dome: Keyword "member".

Not offended at all. I have real hands on experience. Not offended by someone that doesn't and has yet to provide anything resembling a product better than what he bashes.

Trial and error is what drives the economy of the world. ;)
Would love to here the reasoning behind that.

jaydee116 - I couldn't be bothered any more to reply to your posts.
Whatever you say...

well, I'll bite since jd no longer has your 'ear'
- an awful lot of blah blah here with no specifics

1) define flatness as it relates to cold plates
2) identify your source of data that reveals sub-potential performance
3) what 'should' the flatness be ? - and why ?
4) and what performance gains will result from using cold plates to your spec ?

no "d00de" is much worse. :p

indeed, "d00de" is a pointed insult when the individual's name or nick is known

I guess Jabo's lofty self-esteem permits him such gratuitous dings

Jabo, I'll give you a handle if you do not wish to use names when responding
think KIA might fit ?

I'll try to deflate my baloon a bit and aspire to keep my written English cleaner, just because I like you lot :) It was not meant as any form of insult.

Forgive me being a tad thick but what KIA stands for?

Jabo
you are not thick, suspect a language thing
a name is far preferable to a label, shows a bit of courtesy

you may skip KIA, too sarcastic by far; withdrawn - sorry

-> and my questions above ?

First of all the whole thing was a misunderstanding caused by lack of precisssion in expressing myself.
1.Contact surface between CPUs die and cold plate should be as flat as possible/feasible.
2.First amendment please :)
3. See point 1, reason as many molecules of each of materials are gonna be in cotact with ever flatter surfaces, flatness 'level' is gonna be governed by costs only.
4. One is quite certian, cold plate will be lighter:) dT and flux spikingg capacity is goning to be increased potentially allowing for higher overclocks (yeah, it is lots of blah, blah, blah without numbers support - so take it as you wish everybody).

Now, theoretically perfect water block of classical pin design resembles a hedgehog. Imagine swiffy's lates but base is a hlaf sphere with pins 'bit' curved. inlet at the top and outlet as a gutter on the perimeter (get a glass ball and run a stream of water down on it)
Reason? Equal distance from each point on the thermal exchange surface from energy source resulting in perfect isotherms layout and superior surface are to any of the current designs.
This is why Bill's new block performs so well compared to Cathars designs. Swiftech's block has much lower energy dissipation per mm^2 (jetted area) compared to Cathars design but makes iit up with MUCH larger surface on which such desnity is present making it extremely good low flow (read universal) design - overall winner.
Trully elegant engineering solution, no fireworks but good solid conceptual work transpiring into extremely low production costs (pleae, do not read any brown nosing into this, it is sincere and I have no business saying one way or the other).

Anyone want to attempt spherical block with 'gutter' return?

I know, it is pretty obvious I was not born speaking English and me being dyslectic shines pretty brightly too I guess :D
and sometimes I too get carried away (I catch fire pretty easily)

what would be the best way to have the water flowing through the system?

I was think of having the water go through the pump then through the heatercore and then onto the CPU waterblock. now at the water block i was planning on splitting the water path in two making one go to the mobo chipset and the other go to the graphics card. then they would both meet up again and go back to the pump

is that ok for the flowpath?

that was the question that i asked

thanks for anyone who answers the question

Go like this : rad->pump->CPU->gp->rad
Radiator does not benefit from high pressure nearly as much as water blocks and unless your pump dumps massive amounts of heat into water there's no point in placing rad between pump and CPU block - we want block to enjoy the highest pressure in the system

Evidence please.
It is a new concept to me.
Think is crap but I am open to elucidation

[quote=Jabo]
I jus wonder how this relationship behaves for more powerful elements ...........?[quote]

http://www.jr001b4751.pwp.blueyonder.../TEC%20Sp4.jpg

But the question is whether the method is right ?
Then whether my implementation is correct.

It's a compromise. Agree to a point but with the added surface area comes a lower water velocity and hence lower turbulence for a given pump. Add the thermal gradient of copper and it can easily end up way inferior.

The order is not going to affect the pressure drop that each device creates in the loop. Similarly, the water temperature does not vary that much around the whole loop and you won't see a significant cooling advantage in any certain order of devices.

You should go whichever order gives you the shortest and straightest tubing runs. That gives the best flow and thus the highest pressure. As pressure in a given compenent is a factor of flow and the design of that component, and flow is uniform throughout the loop (unless it's leaking), different order doesn't inherently alter either.
I'd expect someone who lectures people about thermal dynamics in such an arrogant tone as you do Jabo to know this.

Pump adds kinetic energy to water. This energy is being lost bit by bit at each piece of kit (pressure loss).
Play with Bernoulli Law equations (using simplified set of condtions as described in your favorite physics compendium ;) ) -> as pressure drops velocity drops *hint, hint* - just play with supplied calculator to check it if ya want Les.
I am not able to produce any other evidence and I deem this to be as conclusive as possible.

See above and learn basics first and stop calling me arrogant when I simply state facts of life (physics) discovered tens of years before your birth. I do not make any personal remarks nor I criticise anyone - I merely add my 2 pennies to discussion on a given subject:)
Peace Butcher!
:cool:

Not necessarily, if you decrease 'headroom' (pins height) you will create very much more velocity due to decreased cross-sectinal area (see Bernoulli Law again) even though surface area increased - again quite nice trick employed here - mre surface area but smaller stream cross sectional area. Pins in hit&miss pattern would create very much yummy turbulence:) I suspect (to calculate this .... forget it) that the pressure drop of such a block would be even more than the smallest nozzle size Cathars produce but then again with taller pins one could have an universal block like latest swiffy offering but providing much better performance.
Thermal gradient SPREAD would be superior with regards to max attainable overclock and flux spikes dissipation capacity.

The basic rule for all water block designs is the bigger thermal exchange area the better and the higher energy density dissipation per blocks area unit the better. Inertia of a block is an added bonus.


Anyone knows how much does a 60mm diameter copper ball cost?
and how much would it cost to solder all this pins to its surface (BillA? curious how would it cost to produce in USA)?

Um, bernoulli's law states the the energy in the fluid is conserved before and after the constriction, thus there is no loss of energy according to this and so the pressure is not affected by the position of the component in the loop.

Totally wrong I am affraid Butcher.
Not energy but mass is conserved.
Well, if you consider mass to be a form of energy (E=mc^2) then yes, you are right :D ;)

If what you say was true we wouldn't need pumps in our loops. A little hand crank would be nuff to increase energy state of our WC loops and voila, perpetuum mobile (sp?) in its finest:)

It is a tad confusing and it took me some time to get through the lot of it. What really helps me is the fact that all systems thrive to assume the lowest energy state possible and to get ANY work done energy MUST be inserted into a system and if this work is to be sustained energy needs to be added continually I am affraid.

Bernoulli's Law states that energy is conserved, if energy is not conserved, then Bernoulli's law does not apply.
Also, if mass is conserved, then energy is conserved according to E=mc² - c is contant after all. Try again.
You still haven't offered a reasonable explaination of where the energy in the loop is actually going (hint: think friction).

The fact of the matter is, flow is uniform throughout the system. For a given flow rate and density, water will flow through an aperture of a fixed size at a fixed speed. Changing where it is in the loop won't change the flow, nor will it change the size of the aperture. Water doesn't compress very well, nor does it expand or contract much with heat, so the density can be assumed to be constant throughout the system (especially given the temperature difference is on the order of 0.1-0.2C). I'm really not seeing where this huge difference in pressure is coming from.

Additionally, Bernoulli only works for non-vicious fluids, which water isn't.

Bernoulli Law is a special case but demonstrates a principle and it can bve used for viscous fluids if it is assumed that distance between non-restriction and restrion parts of a loops is so small taht viscous losses do not have any effect.

If theoretical approach does not work try an experiment at home. hav an open loop with thrre blocks and a rad. One setup has block just after the pump and the second has same block as the last thing on the line before discharge. Which one is better for this block? Flow is constant through both systems.

Pressure loss in a loop is basic fact and you are right that it is contributed to viscous loses. This is basically where using ernoulli velocity decreases despite aperture size decrease and to make it all tick pressure must drop:).

Oh, and this one should be able to answer some of your questions I hope :) *hint* mass conservation*end hint*