As my above post seems to be a bit TOO fortuitous I thought I'd snap a pic:

http://phaestus.procooling.com/nopcdeltat.jpg

you should expect a diff when flowing
the question is at zero flow rate
one would suspect that the origin will not be attainable
- but this is not the principle cause of the Wattage discrepancy

everything has been on a couple of hours beforehand, eh ?
(between the Flukes and astd dmms 2 hrs is the minimum warmup time for me)

Perhaps 0.00045 C for the Maze4 at 1.5gpm ( 5.68lpm,0.19mH2O extrap JoeC, using W=lpm*m(H2O)/6=0.18watt)?

Edit. The graph:
http://www.jr001b4751.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pHugh2.jpg

Diff between dT @1.5gpm and 3gpm is ~ 0.0013 C

Hmm.

I figured about 0.0649C. I guess math matches reality once in a while. Cool.
Better verify that the lower thermometer is the outlet T? The offset I see is negative.

A table of the offset vs flow rate with no heat load would give us a calibration.

Happy.

Cheers

Incoherent

on the topic of: Some Interesting/Confusing Data from testing

http://thermal-management-testing.com/vert-horiz.gif

recognize it ?
gonna add whole new complexities to testing our little toys

Is 24.71 the water temp you test with? The offset might be a little different at 28C for instance.

I generally test around 19-20C; the pump imparts a substantial amount of heat into the water, and when the fans on my radiator aren't running this can warm the water up a fair amount. I just swapped the probes (put the inlet probe into the outlet probe's fitting and vice versa) and now the top reading is a little higher. I'll let it return to equilibrium and then check it in an hour or two. I'll replace the probes as they were for all of the earlier wb testing and see if I can't generate an offset vs flow rate curve for you guys tonight too.

This is actually a VERY good thing; I can deal with a little offset in my thermistors a hell of a lot easier than I can more fundamental problems with the experiment (like large secondary heat inputs from mobo traces).

Bill ummm trying to guess what could give you such a curve... Heat pipe of some sort??

OK I am officially dumb. I spent about 30 minutes looking at my test system this evening and FINALLY realized that the probes aren't all configured the same way that they used to be. When I replumbed everything to get the wb inlet and outlet probes closer to the waterblock, I must have moved one of the matched set of thermistors around because that probe is now between the pump outlet and the radiator inlet. I have a fourth probe that wasn't in use that is brand new. It reads 0.02C higher than the probe I have in the inlet. What I'll do tonight is run a flow test with and without PC running. This will give me the offset over the whole range and should be able to verify that this was the problem with the earlier data.

I am JUST smart enough to be dangerous

Ok makes sense now and looks sensible. Here's W estimates from flow rate and delta t across waterblock (adjusted 0.02C to account for difference in probe without PC running):

http://phaestus.procooling.com/revisions/wattsest.jpg


Block used in today's testing is the Swiftech MCW5000-A; deltaT CPU-wb in looks like this:

http://phaestus.procooling.com/revisions/deltat.jpg

If you take the average watts from top graph (73.14W) then you can estimate a C/W:

http://phaestus.procooling.com/revisions/cw.jpg

All becomes clear now (and more test data as f(MHz and VCore shall be collected over the weekend)

I'm impressed. Wish I'd come up with that solution, Incoherent:) (definitely a misnomer)
Looking forward to more graphs…including P/Q!

give that man a chocolate ceegar
yup

Nice work pHaestus!

Not to put a damper on your success, but to what do you attribute the variation on the CPU power (I have a fair idea, I'd just like to hear your version, and I think a lot of people would be interested).


Bill, before I wander off thinking about this graph for two or three weeks, then bring it back up again (!), is there anything else that you can share about it?

The variation in power from last night/this am's data? At very low flow rates it's difficult to perfectly insulate the hoses and I suspect that the 0.5GPM flow number is somewhat suspect for that reason. For the numbers above 2GPM the delta T is so small that better resolution than 0.01C is required (a difference of 0.01C corresponds to nearly 10W). The numbers from 0.75-2GPM are pretty much dead even at 72-74W; not much variation of CPU power with flow in that case.

If you mean the earlier test results then there was a 0.06-0.07C offset in my temperature probes that I didn't catch (but incoherent did).

As for Bill's graph, consider that we are dealing with water inside a heat pipe, and that water has some interesting properties which occur near phase transitions. Solid water floats, for instance.

Bill a question about your heatpipe:

If you go low enough in power applied do you see a flat C/W vs power region? I'd expect that you'd hit a point where there isn't enough heat to cause a phase change in the pipe. Then if you keep boosting power over the heatpipe's working range far enough does it return back to that same flat line? Where you just add so much more heat into the system that the heatpipe doesn't work because the cold side is too hot?

I am visualizing a situation where at really low and really high power (temperatures completely outside the heatpipe's operating range) that you get performance that is pretty similar to just the heatsink alone, and that only within mfgr specs is there a big improvement by adding a heat pipe.

I have never personally used a heat pipe though so I could be way off base about how they supplement convective cooling...

pHaestus identified it, a heat pipe
why the curves are the way they are is pretty obvious upon reflection
- not so obvious is the 4 days of testing (at 12 hrs/day, eh) to obtain repeatable results, and my initial disinclination to believe what I was seeing

pHaestus' results and his quandary expressed in this thread are a typical 'obstruction' encountered in this type of thermal testing, the smallest oversight can consume huge amounts of effort to identify the discrepant element
- this is not a criticism, pHaestus will do this many times more until he follows a written setup procedure - and establishes his own means of 'zeroing' the test bench prior to the collection of data
-> if the first data point does not replicate something already known there is always the potential to be heading off on a wild goose chase

take the time to ck everything out first
look at the Digitec photos, see those colored dots on the thermistor connectors and the face plates ?
(that was part of a setup control system)

Bill's exactly right; wild goose chase fairly accurately describes this thread. I feel bad about wasting lots of Les's and incoherent's time because I had a problem with my data collection. On the other hand I have learned a good lesson, and my testing is better now than it was yesterday at this time.

If you are concerned this offset in temperature probes did NOT affect earlier waterblock tests that were posted; it was an issue with waterblock outlet temperature measurement and that wasn't used in those reviews.

//edit: Another good lesson; looks like my 8K3A socket lugs are a bit dogeared and that the MCW5000-A is a good bit better than the above results would indicate when extra care is taken in mounting.

I too would guess that at extremes, a heat pipe is a lump of copper,
and a 'good' plot would show the hysteresis curves;
but really at extremes

excess local heating will cause the 'vaporising area' to dry out, and that is the end of the heat pipe until it is cooled and re-condenses

not too sure I would agree with "supplement convective cooling", while convection is one of the mechanisms utilized, a 'heat pipe solution' would utilize the heat pipe as the primary transport mechanism

But if only transport is involved then shouldn't C/W remain fixed? It has to serve as another repository for CPU heat to lower the C/W, correct? Or does the C/W have a different meaning now as you have basically "lowered the thermal resistance of copper"?

I'll jump in. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

C/W does not remain fixed because the transport mechanism in a heat pipe only works for a defined range of input power. This is why (in my opinion) heat pipes stink for general purpose usage. They have to be made for a specific heat load, which is fine for a manufactured system, where you match the heat pipe to a known CPU with known heat output. For consumers, you'd have to select a heat pipe for your particular CPU and then swap it out if you overclocked it differently.

Heat pipes work by depending upon a pool of liquid that evaporates from the hot end, travels to condense on the cool end, and then uses capillary action to migrate back to the hot end (repeat ad nauseum). This mechanical action of moving the phase change liquid (I doubt it is water, it is probably an alcohol or cheap refrigerant) depends upon several things.

If the hot end isn't hot enough to vaporise the liquid, then no heat pipe action occurs (no phase change).

If the hot end becomes too hot, then it "dries out", as Bill mentioned. The cool end may be able to recondense the liquid, but the liquid may re-vaporise before it reaches the hot-side.

the thermal resistance of a specific heat pipe varies with the heat flux density of the source (not the case with wbs and hsfs)

I do not yet know as a demonstrated fact, but I strongly suspect that there are several additional parameters which also influence the heat pipe's efficacy (thermal resistance), and I will be isolating and testing these in the future
- the capillary plus vapor 'transport'
- the condensation at the 'cold' end

not a DIY device in anything other than the crudest sense
Brians256 is correct

As long as you're looking for more tests to do, I'd be interested in see how the vapor pressure (and thus coolant boiling point) varies with heat-load. :)

ah Groth, gotta love it
you gonna design, build, and gift the probe to me ?

Can't afford a pressure transducer? Hmm, I guess one question that should have been asked is, are you making prototypes in-house, having them made, or are you just playing with someone else's pipe?

eh ?
the pressure transducer is not the difficulty,
it is its insertion into the heat pipe after the fact

looking only for the moment