Is the perspex top made out of two layers?

Archicad, why is that every time I took pictures on my mouse pad, it takes all the attention (like before with my older pad with girl sitting on a toilete) :D those pads were given away on computer show, I don't use archicad
To second q. no, it's just one top.

stunning!

Dammit - every time I read the updates to this thread, I want one of these even more. Expect my order as soon as I can decide if I want to get a TBred-B/A7N8X combo now, a Barton/A7N8X combo soon, or if I can convince myself to wait till September for a Athlon64/something. Currently poor Barton reviews are making me lean towards the TBred-B around 2000+ OC'd to hopefully 2600ish with one of those blocks, but I'm really interested in seeing what people can do when the Barton 2500+ hits the shelves.

Couple of questions about the barbs you are using.

1. What material. Stainless steel?
2. THey don't appear to have the typical hexagon profile to allow tightening. Did you buy them like this or turn them to this finish. If so, how and how did you tighten them.
3. How much did they cost and where from.

8-ball

Yes the barbs are steinless steel, I actualy couldn't find any brass barbs here so I finaly find those they were quite expensive 2,86 euros/piece. But for me the look great so I go with them.
I tighten them with wrench and a piece of rubber so I wouldn't scratch them.
And I bought them here in Slovenia of course.

while you're at it ... what's the interior and exterior size of those barbs? :) . (in mm please)

Nice block man... But all I have to say is that; people with CNC/Mill access shouldn't be allowed to post pics and RUIN any hopes for us DIY'ers whom could only hope to EMULATE a mill with a sorry a$$ drill press :( ARGH!

:(

OD 13, ID 8mm

Just curious, would a 10mm ID be overkill ?

Is it possible to use 16mm or 5/8" OD barbs with your block for someone with a pump like a Iwaki 20Z?

And would a slightly wider slit be better for a pump of the MD-20Z type? How much wider would it need to be for best performance with the 20Z?

Thanks

Are people talking about the ID of the tubing the barbs will accept, or the actual dimensions of the barbs as quoted by morphling.

13mm OD, 10mm ID implies the use of 13mm ID tubing. This is essentially 1/2"ID.

8-ball

Morphling..................that turned out absolutely beautiful!
Great F'in job man!!

OT anybody have a current link to that thread at OCAU where cathar flames morphling? cause I sure would like to catch up and the link in this post is dead.

Morph,
That block is the cooolest looking block I have seen. around. Your patience and attention to detail is amazing.

Liquid,
By attempting to rehash old flames is as bad as starting a flame yourself. Let it die.

I've found 1/2'' tubing to be more than adequate with my 20z, and you would want to try a slightly narrower slit, given the 20z's higher pressure capability. (=higher water volecity)

awsome job on the block morph:drool:

5/8 barbs would be prolly hard to fit on current design, because the barbs would be to close and if you add hose thickness, hmm, very tight. I would need to move outlet a little higher then. But I agree with Volenti about the need for bigger barbs

My silver bar is in the making, so in the meantime here's P4 version.
http://www2.arnes.si/~mlivak/Mk4/P4/MK4%20P4%2002.JPG

I wasnt trying to "rehash" anything. I just wanted to see what was said about morphling and his design.

I dont see anything wrong with that.

And Im sorry that you took it that way,but "rehashing" anything was not my intention at all.
I have the utmost respect for both Cathar and Morphling1, and wouldnt try to slander either one of them.

I apologize for not making myself clear.

I have just completed converting my heat die over to the P4 mounting configuration
and must say that it is quite superior to the AMD mobo hole/stud spacing
better stability, more clearance around the hoses and studs

and the 2-hole hammer mounting is going to add to the criticality of adjustment

To say the least.

Makes one wonder why they didnt just do a complete revamp of there mounting technique on the Hammer......Doesnt look to stable to me.
Seems like its going to be a pain to mount it right, unless Im missing something.

I think there is also a 4-hole optional layout

but this, and the 90lbf load, is why the IHS is being used

makes the P4 look better every day

Ah those Hammers, god know when will they become widely available and if the current shape is the final. Prolly only good for server market.
I also think I saw 4 holes two. Bill where you got that 90 lbs load info ? P4 uses 70 right ? And the size if the ihs isn't that much different.

Who cares about the "recommended" load anyway? The more the merrier. It's like saying the recommended voltage for a p4 is 1.525V.

I may be wrong, but having studied the AMD technical papers, it appears that the HAMMER has for contact points in similar locations to the mounting holes currently used. However, these are not holes. I "think" they may have something to do with an EM sheilding mount. Or something like that. I'll have another look and check.

Also, re mounting pressure, the problem is the board bending, and although we will now be stuck with using two holes, atleast we aint gonna bust the core.

8-ball

Basically Cathar saw Morph's design as very similar to his. Though I don't think he had seen this thread or the detailed pictures at the time.

This was not the problem, the problem was that Cathar was under the impression Morph was making a fair few and selling them, and one or two people Cathar had been talking too had ended up going with Morphling's block.

Thus Cathar was dissapointed and annoyed that his block theory and design had been exploited, however once I informed him that AFAIK only a few blocks had been made at all, he apologised.

He did not directly flame Morphling in anyway, just made a brief comment saying he was dissapointed (Didn't mention any names). It was I that actually asked further and asked if it was Morph.

The thread was deleted after this as the thread was meant to be about my blocks but ended up on the debate over microchannels and people thinking Cathar was claiming soles right to use them that had been done to death.

I admire Cathar. He is a good application guy for the known technology and he actually applies his understanding to a business model. I do question one thing. If I made a paperclip.. and didn't get a design patent, or technology patent. Could I stop or even be upset with anyone for making a paperclip that looked or performed on the same general principles?
If these scenarios are true (I don't know.. im asking..) why not capitolize on that principle.

Another question: Was cather the first person to use microchannels or small fins in any type of water cooling device? If anyone else has ever used a small fin and forced water over it... I don't understand why there is grounds for hostility.

If no patent exists, and Cathar has found the secret to efficiency, then I encourage morph to or anyone to be capitolistic.

If morph is violating a patent, then cathar has every reasonable grounds to be pissed. Which is true? I find it hard to take sides at all without knowing these answers. Can anyone help me understand this scenario?

I don't think it will ever be about patents, or who invented what, largely as the enthusiast watercooling market is so small that the cost of maintaining patents would far outweigh any profits made.

It is more an issue of giving credit where it is due. Cathar, as far as I know, was the first person in the enthusiast scene to combine two existing principles, microfins and jet impingement, to produce a waterblock showing admirable performance. No one in the enthusiast market can claim to have "invented" many of the techniques currently used, as they have all been used in commercial cooling applications. However, they have shown the nouse to apply them to our little field of "expertise". If you come up with a new way to use an existing application resulting in imporved performance, then you deserve the credit.

By the sharing of these ideas, other people may come up with their own variations on the theme, further enhancing the performance, and provided they don't run off and try and take all the credit for the original design, there shouldn't be a problem. This is surely the best way for watercooling to advance, by the sharing of ideas (everyone has them), and provided people acknowledge those who make these advances, then everyone should be happy.

What is not right is for a commercial watercooling company to rip from these public forums, and patent them, claiming them as their own. This shows a certain sence of greed and selfishness, as the original inventor is rarely credited.

This is by no means the same thing as someone making a handful of blocks for a few mates, where the price paid reflects the effort put into the production more than an attempt to make a considerable profit. I don't believe Morphling ever tried to take credit for this design, as it is a mere tweak of that proposed by cathar.

On that note, may I suggest that we put all this to rest, as has clearly been done over at OCAU, by the deletion of threads where the topic got out of hand, and return this thread to its original topic of Morphlings block.

Sorry if I've gone on for a bit. Just my feelings on the issue.

8-ball:)

I think 8Ball put it right. It's one of those old fashioned Gentlemans Agreements, that never seem to exist these days. Its all about how much $$$ you can get away with and who you can sue for how much.

As I understand it, even for a patent pending you are lookings at thousands of dollars, not something youe average guy can fork out in the off chance he might make a million.

Cathar was not pissed about Morph using his ideas, but he though it was a direct copy of the jet impingement and microchannel work, and that he was selling them in large amounts.

I think the issues is dead though and should be laid to rest.

I wasn't aware there was even a problem before I read this thread. I am grateful for the update. I do not subscribe to overclockers. Guess I should. Perhaps this can end here. Sorry for bringing it up.

ANYHOO.. 2 holes for the Hammer? why would they go to 2 holes when it seemed that a 4 hole standard was being implimented?

I personally don't think it will be a big problem, afterall the P4 uses a 2 point mounting setup with similar spacings to what the hammer will have.

with the relitively large surface that the heatspreader will have plus the mounting pressure, the heatsink/waterblock will self level, up to a point.

:drool: That is a sexy block :D