Received it yesterday. Some issues with packaging. Styrofoam made its way into all of the barbs. I will be forced to completely disassemble the unit to remove it. :)

crap !
sorry
would suggest blowing out with air, then flushing

you will have little success reassembling it (gasketing and torque setting)

if it cannot be flushed suggest sending it back and let us do it

damn

yours was the first 'retail' packaging as we have been shipping these in cases of 20
another lesson

Tape over the barbs or better yet parafilm would be suggested. I don't remember off the top of my head if there was styrofoam shavings in the smaller central barbs or if it is isolated to the 1/2" barbs on the outer blocks. Those are easy enough to deal with; the central chamber was my concern.

I've always kinda figured it this way....

(Just side thoughts. IF you stick your hand in the water and take it out quickly it might get a little colder and then get warmer again...
IF you stick you hand in the water and keep it there it might get colder but then after a while if the water is cold enough to overcome your warmth your hand will freeze, if not your hand will warm the water around it, by very little mind you.
IF you stick your and in the water and take it out quickly, and do so repeatedly, your hand will become cold if the water is cold enough to regenerate its "coldness" in that area, if not, your hand will become cool and overcome the coldness there and exhange it with heat... )

The problem is for each is that you have energy that is constantly replenishing itself... Therefore you must think of the exchanging as constant.

Becuase copper itself has a rate of exchange, the amount of exhange taken place will be affected by the design of the block and how much of the copper is in contact with the water and the chip. For the water has a rate of exchange as well, the amount of exchange determined by the flow and impingement.

Many people think of the water since its cold will cool the copper down, which in actuallity is sorta true. The water in which its being cold is drawing the heat away from the copper at a certain rate of exchange. Many people think of the copper as being warm and warming the water... Either way the water needs to get away from the copper... but it also needs to contact as much of the copper as possible. But the myth is that the water "needs" to stay in there to take the heat away for X amount of time in order to pull the heat away or cool the copper down. It doesnt need to although it might help, the water will just impinge the colder water coming in to exhange heat with the copper and thus make that water warm as well...

IN all actuallity, for me at least and my theories, is that the faster the flow and the least impingement, but the most contact with copper is the best idea. You need to have water block inside the same volume as a hose the same length....
IF you have more volume inside, then you have dead spots and spots that just take more heat.... but dont exit to give time for the other water entering to take its place....

Although all of this can be calculated to create pretty much the perfect water block....

I believe at least that a very thin base, with fins inside very much like a HS, with an inside volume the same as the tube the same length, with the fins over the whole chip only, will create almost the best environment for the chip to become cool...

How much wattage do the chips produce? I am trying to build a pelt system soon...

The uniformly por results are, imo, a result of poor efficiency waterblock usage.
Plenty of people have made the "water spends as long as possible int he block" approach, because it seems so logical if you dont know about heat transfer efficiencies.
Look, it may be that you can achieve, WITH YOUR WATERBLOCK (designed for low flow) better temps with low flow through the chiller, but you havent even come close to addressing the idea that low flow is the "key" to chiller performance. I may be wrong, and am of course thinking aobut this in my spare time here at work, but right now, i cant see why a system designed with waterblocks that work more efficiently at high flows might not easily be able to offset the resultant higher coolant temps. And the temps will be less higher than simple logic would dictate due to increased efficiency in heat transfer. You are right, i am sure, for your waterblock - but i still remain convinced that the solution is sub-optimal anyways, and that a higer flow, higher efficiency setup could be created that would "win".

cristoff:
"IN all actuallity, for me at least and my theories, is that the faster the flow and the least impingement, but the most contact with copper"
how do you think you get mroe contact with copper? Let me tell you, impingment is one way.....

I think we may be in complete agreement.
In fact you are being excessively polite.

Ah, c'mon Les. It's your turn to be rude for a change. ;)

Here's my impression on the issue...

We all know that higher flow in the waterblocks gives better performance. That will be true regardless of whether the coolant is 0C or 100C. Whats different here is the heat exchanger. Logic says we want the water to stay in the heat exchanger as long as possible to get the water cooled down as much as possible, and therefore want low flow rates. However, billA's testing shows that this isn't entirely true in heatercores as you will actually see an improvement in performance up to about 4 GPM thanks to the added turbulence at these flow rates exposing more water to the copper of the heatercore. But now we're not working with a heatercore, but instead a waterblock with peltiers on either side. This is a different environment with different characteristics, most notably the drastically reduced surface area, which has a new sweet spot; instead of the 4 GPM of the heatercore we have a much lower flow rate that billA is using here for a balance of the high flow the waterblock wants and the low flow the heat exchanger wants.

Hopefully there is some accuracy in all that. Some people (my physics teacher, the AP tests) tell me I know physics, but I know their full of shit and I actually have no idea whats going on.

I'm thinking along similar lines.

I'm wondering if the attached picture doesn't somewhat describe the pattern of flow through the block at low vs high flowrates. (left and right respectively) Obviously the inlet and outlet on the chiller are different than on an MCW5002, but I'm just trying to convey a general idea.

Maybe such a change in the pattern of flow could be consistent with die simulator test results as well as chiller test result?

Exactliy.

Looks rubbish to me.
The science is somewhat iffy.

those without an 'historical' (sp ?) perspective of these devices may not appreciate this question, but

anyone, please:
provide a link to a successful TEC chiller that had a high flow rate in the chilled loop

now this is not for lack of trying, also by some clever minds

effort might be better spent determining why this scheme works,
than in an attempt to disprove it with words

Since87
I'v done a rather lot of work manipulating the flow path(s) in the MCW5000,
it will not change in that fashon, at least not with the flow rates we can create

well, thats why i am posting here. I'd like an explaination, rather than vagueness. I have also said that i understand your point about lower water temps offsetting lower efficiencies - i just disagree that a high flow setup is crap.

Mind, just because it hasnt been done, doesnt mean that its wrong/impossible/etc.

And as for an example - nope, most TEC based chillers have fialed miserably. Of course, what is "high flow"? I'd like to see some more of cathars work with his "hydra" style pelt block - he was working on a pelt setup that i would call "high flow", compared to this swiftech model.

Ah yes - please stop assuming i have no "history" of following this, eh?

Les, I was hoping for a bit more, like why I'm wrong.

vagueness ??
no, I would say you did not think through the scenario I posed
don't get your panties bunched
several of us here have been at this a long time, I simply do not recognize your 'handle' as a long term, ahem, contributor

perhaps Cathar will share his experiences with his late chiller project

Since87, see what happens when you give Les some slack ?
next he'll be pounding on me, lol

This post was reported to me, but after reading through it, I dont see anything THAT wrong.

Just some dudes looking for answers, and the people who have the knowledge/experience maybe not spelling it out clear enough.

such is life I guess... overall this thread doesnt warrant a "mod report" since its quite civil, and productive.

I agree, Joe. There have been some posts in this thread which seem negative and without value to this discussion. Not terrifically obnoxious, all things speaking, but not nice. In other words, kind of like real life, and not worth getting all excited and putting on the super-mod hat. People are showing whether they can be adult and polite. Or not.

We all know that there are terrifically smart and knowledgeable people here. What is most important to remember is that lots of knowledge does not mean that some beginner doesn't deserve an explaination geared to his level. If someone does not understand your first explaination but still wants to learn (and is not simply a troll), I suggest trying again (with patience) using different analogies etc. Someone may simply be new, or may not have understood previous explainations. Remember: everyone learns in a different way and one explaination may not work for everyone who is listening.

Now for the obligatory "Adding something worthwhile to this thread" portion of my post:

Does anyone other than BillA understand why a peltier would behave differently than a radiator in terms of the flow-rate vs. CpuTemp graph? I can understand BillA not wanting to leak all his company proprietary info to public domain.

My thought is that an active device is fundamentally different than a passive device. Having the water in the pelt device longer results in more heat extracted per unit time because the pelt can deal with a much higher DeltaT on the hot side. So, as the flow rate is decreased, the hot side deltaT goes way up, causing higher efficiencies in dumping heat. At the same time, the pelt is removing similar amounts of heat (calories) from less water. So, a low-end maxima in the SYSTEM efficiency curve is seen.

The sweet spot would therefore be where the heat moving efficiencies in hot-side deltaT best combine with the efficiencies of the low-side. There should be a sweet spot simply because both functions are monotonically increasing in different directions on the X axis. There would not, of course, be any maxima if both functions were perfect inverses, but there definitely is an observable maxima.

Note that none of this has any mathematical rigor, so feel free to tell me I don't have a clue as long as you attempt to explain yourself. Because of the fact that I do not have good training in this area, I have kept my mouth shut in this thread until now. :D

Flames away!

I find it amusing that Bill gets reported to the moderators for not giving up his company's trade secrets. In another thread he is asked who mfgrs the new pumps so Swiftech can be undercut on price. Laughable.

The important point here is that Bill pointed out that lower flow rates coupled with the pin fin design on the inner chamber are how the swiftech pelt chiller succeeds while other setups have failed. That seems to be useful information. Also consistent with Lytron's choice of pumps in their chillers:

http://www.lytron.com/standard/cs_th...be_perform.htm

This may or may not be relevant though; Lytron uses incredibly restrictive waterblock designs, don't they?

Now it seems clear to me that I should test the Swiftech chiller with a valve in the loop to adjust flow rates way down. The smallest pump (and lowest power) I have handy is a Hydor L20 and so it should still be able to go from 0.3-1 GPM or so with my flowmeter present. The reasons why this works are probably something we should come up with ourselves. Develop a hypothesis that can be tested and I will be glad to do so if it's reasonable. I haven't had time to think too much about this because I am trying to get work stuff done :(

for those with a sense of humor, catch this thread
http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/sho...&threadid=7992
where you will soon see a demonstration of just what I'm talkin' about
note that there is nothing instructive about watching a fool be a fool, its purely for entertainment

yes pHaestus, I debated even contributing to this thread
and then that di*kheaded pump comment, which was made by wormywood also
makes me question what I'm doing, clearly I am in error
hmmm

Hmm, ok. With some further thought, let me say:

You are simply saying that with the blocks you use, the limiting factor is heat "Extraction" at the chiller, and thus, you slow coolant flow to change this limit point great enough to offset the decreased efficiency of the waterblocks (both chiller blocks and cpu block).

Ok, i understand that.
Now, why must this be the only way? Why wont a high flow, high efficiency system work?

Oh yes: No, i am not a long time contributor, but i am a long time lurker. Just because i only registered a year ago and dont post much doesnt mean i am clueless/dont know history, etc.

No, i reported this thread because of Les. At the time, it really pissed me off - and in retrospect, i agree with Joe, but i think that rudeness is uncalled for and should not be accepted in polite company - which this should be.

I GREATLY prefer to see you dangle carrots a la this thread than not contribute. It's a good way to learn for those of us interested. We can't have it both ways; we don't heavily moderate here so we get some stupid questions and flames to go with reasonably unfettered discussion.

I spent an hour today trying to convince a modeler that an outlying point on a plot of data was just "the way it was in the lab" and didn't justify modifications to the underlying chemistry in said model. I finally took him to the lab and showed him all the steps between "idea" and "data point". Ben will learn eventually by trying and doing (over and over) perhaps? Expensive lessons when dealing with equipment purchases though...

Yes, I strongly agree. Besides, I like having the puzzle in front of me. Even if I don't figure out the answer, I'm likely to learn all kinds of things in the process of trying to figure it out.

I've had to give myself a refresher course in Physics in discussing things with Bill in the past. Doing so lead to me having more clarity wrt some things I deal with at work. With my present line of thinking, I may have to relearn Calculus. Hmm, rethinking whether I like this puzzle...

Les,

LOL, I think you're right.

When a pelt setup is utilized directly on the die, the the heat goes from die-tim-coldplate-tim-pelt-tim-wbbp-water.

In waterchillers the heat is located in the water and goes water-through block interior geometry surface area-tim-pelt-tim-wbbp-water.

In all the former shitty attempts I have seen, heatsinkfans were used in an attempt to remove heat from the hotside pelt.

There is one less tim per the two heat exit paths(each side of the chiller) compared to direct die pelt usage which is good. Water is being asked to give up its heat instead of a solid material of much more highly concentrated heat. Water is better at absorbing heat energy than giving it up.

The fin arrangement is equivalent to expanding the heat exchanger size.
Slowing the flowrate of the heatsource (water) would be equivalent to expanding the heat exchanger size would it not? Also slowing the flowrate concentrates more heat per unit of water.

Just some observations, nothing new just didn't see them spelled out for those scratching their heads.

Bill why did you pull the pics, didn't get to see em, darn.

This has turned into an unexpected highly interesting thread.:)

Actually I only just got a hold of the last pieces of equipment that I need to do it, after all this time.

One of these days I'll give it a burl....

It's on my "To Do" list which is presently stretching out of sight. :rolleyes:

Don't sleep.

Some night I can't sleep at all... but somehow I find the enargy and end up doing stuff I've being putting off for ages... washing my socks for instance.

~ Boli

"Water is better at absorbing heat energy than giving it up."
what is the basis for this statement ?
while I am sympathetic of this view, I know of NO reason why it is true - and plenty why it is not

yes, the 3 observations are valid

my old site is down, ???
I'll repost from another

"better at absorbing heat than giving it up" is a common misconception held for copper too. Its just the specific heat of the object; a higher specific heat means it can absorb more energy with the same temp increase. This leads to the absorbing heat part; it can absorb a lot of energy without a great increase in temps. This also however leads to the giving it up part- now that it has heated up, it holds a lot of energy so cooling it down takes a while to cool down.

Dangit! I was hoping someone would tell me why my wacky theory was wrong.

Water has a high specific heat index. This means that water can absorb a lot of heat before it begins to get hot. Inversely does this mean that a lot of energy needs to be removed from the water before it begins to cool off?
Can't give a difinitive reason for my thinking this way and I wish I had a more clear understanding of it.

Assuming we're ignoring quantum mechanics...

There is no sudden transition going on where water absorbs a certain amount of heat and then steps in temperature.

Water "begins to get hot" when the slightest amount of heat is added, and "begins to cool off" when the the slightest amount of heat is removed.

Temperature - A measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter, expressed in terms of units or degrees designated on a standard scale. (From www.dictionary.com)

Simple conservation of energy dictates that if adding X amount of heat changes the temperature of a quanity of water from A to B, then removing the same amount of heat will change the temperature from B to A.