fhorst
The heat transfer of a design, all other things being equal can often be roughly correlated with pressure drop. For example, heat trasnfer is aided by high liquid velocities, which in turn lead to high pressure drops. Thing like nozzles and whatnot will restrict the flow, but at the same time aid heat transfer.

More often than not, the recommendation to have a high water flow is for the sole reason of creating turbulence within the waterblock that aids heat transfer. It's not the high flow per se that is desired, it's the turbulence that it creates. Restrictive designs like the WW are designed to maximise turbulence even at low flows, i.e. they don't totally rely on the high flow to create the turbulence but rather create their own added trbulence as part of the design.

So having a lower flow through a block like this is nothing to worry about.

I cant believe i just read this whole post. 1 hour of my life gone to see you girls fight. Uhgg. Anywho , i have owned a dtek WW and now i have an RBX. The RBX gets me better temps. I load at 36c now as opposed to 39c with the ww. I am using the #2 jet.

Thats not bad results, not bad at all. How is the flow through the rbx compared to the ww? Higher or lower?

i really cant tell how the flow has been affected. and not to sound like a jackass , but i really dont care how the flow is as long as i have better temps. one more thing, DD sent me extra cpu pads because the ones on the cpu would not touch the copper plate.

Ok, im interested in the flow since im gonna hook up a chipset and gpu-block in the loop. But the #2nozzle to the rbx is larger than the WW is isnt it?

yes it is

What a hissy fight, lol.

Call me retarded but here is my recollection of events up to Cascade.

Cathar discusses all aspects of the design and gives credit (the ol tip o the hat) to a few regulars here who were discussing concepts. He admittedly felt rushed to get Cascade out because others were working on the same concept. (sorry can't remember that many names).

To Cathar, whom I said to not feel so rushed because it can easily and cheaply be modified, I say I told ya so! You were the first one to do a quality job and prove the concept, just as you were with WW.

It's an amazing journey. The credibillity Cathar needed to be able to sell his products came at the cost of disclosure. Now it's a page out of a George Lucas novel, let the clone wars begin!

You all realize that if Cathar should develop anything in the future that he has no need for this full disclosure process any longer, that is as long as he holds onto his credibillity.

I can understand why people thought the RBX was a WW clone from the initial pics, but from the later (internal) pics it's obvious that it's totaly different. It's obviously inspired by Cathars work (which was inspired by many other WRT Cascade), but does that make it a clone?...

It's a bit of a shame that the usual (in many regards :rolleyes: ) flames interupted some rather interesting reading though. Joe!... Sometimes I wish you'd take a more 'pro~active' stance in moderating! Used that edit function maybe?! Seperated the 'bulk' from the 'BS'?! :dome: ...

No one said the RBX was like the Cascade other than Player0, who based that upon performance and not design as far as I know.

I am not a big fan of moderating posts and editing them just because I don't like the direction they are taking the thread. Everyone is supposed to be adults here. And while it may look like Player0 was getting unjustly berated, in fact if you look at the things that were being said on his forums (Procooling are Dangerden haters; I don't need solid test methods to tell block performance apart etc) then they were actually much more damaging to us (Dangerden is a sponsor and I think it is known that I am slow to publish reviews because I am rather anal about testing) than anything said here about Player0.

What I'm most looking to see come out of this and other topics regarding testing is that those members here who are already started down the road to being good testers will push forward and do so.

Reviewing of the RBX so far, as opposed to real testing, has shown nothing concreate as far as how well this new block will perform vs the White Water, Slit Edge and Cascade. Yet on a number of differant forums I now see the RBX being talked of as the new top block. That's BS. It hasn't even been tested well enough to say it's the new "best bang for the bucks block". The Slit Edge & White Water (with it's now reduced prices) have a better claim to the "best bang for the bucks block" than does the RBX. And while the Cascade hasn't had a real bench testing, it's been shown to improve enough systems performance's for users who also had a White Water prior to the Cascade to lay claim to the top perfornace slot.

The RBX SHOULD perform pretty well based on it's design, but that does not mean it is able to exceed the performance of these other 3 top shelf blocks by any means.

The 2 reviews posted so far end up as more of a marketing boost for Danger Den than they are accurate and factual.

pH,

I hope you will test the above named blocks as soon as you can get to it. 2 of them would give a good cross comparison with BillA's and the Slit Edge will even allow a cross check with JoeC's test bed. And the Cascade and RBX have never been run through a real bench testing to determine how high the performance is with any ACCURATE DATA ! ! While the Cascade has dozens of reports of performance that it is above all others, it would still be really nice to see accurate data indicating just what that margin of higher performance is.

Note:

I'm glad to see that Danger Den is providing extra pads with the RBX. Would have been better had the RBX been made with wide enough "fingers" to use the original pads properly as they would, being set farther apart, offer a bit better balancing of the block on the die. But adding in these extra pads does show Danger Den is once agiain quick to react to such a need in one of it's products.

I've been waiting for a test-bed that I feel I can trust to measure things right. Sending off one's loved creation to review to most web-sites is like sending it off to a pack of monkeys to use their vast understanding of the theory of thermal dynamics to dictate where your product stands. Actually a pack of monkeys would be better because they couldn't type anything misleading and still be legible, although you might get some Shakespeare out of them.

I have a fear. I believe to the very core of myself in the Cascade, but I am terrified of some reviewer slapping it on wrong with a bad mount, or not reporting ambient and testing the Cascade during a hot day and testing another block on a cold night, or whatever.

If you want a good example of how silly some reviewers can be, then check this out:

http://www.ksbrainstorms.com/index.p..._H20_Power_Kit

Note, I have nothing against the product being reviewed, I'm purely talking about the quality of the review.

I know that the Cascade is expensive. I know that the rapidly falling US dollar value is making it look even more so, even at a time when the Cascade shipped to most countries in the world is quite closely priced (within 20%) to other blocks. It's just in North America that a largish pricing anomaly exists.

So I'm afraid of the measures that I simply have no control over.

Lately I've been having a stronger and stronger leaning to voluntarily sending a block off to review to JoeC at OC.com, as well as a Cascade SS, and again a special 4-of block (only 4 will be made) that I'm working on which IMO will demonstrate a new high-water-mark (no pun intended) in both performance and machining.

I test what is sent to me; it isn't out of greed in getting new stuff but necessity. I sink enough dollars into instrumentation and operating costs (seems like I am at Home Depot buying $20 in fittings and tubing every time I mess with the setup at all). I just don't have the money to buy every block that comes out in addition to that. Not sure if it's even worth it to me to do so; free marketing for block manufacturers and I get nothing out of my investment. I would be looking at probably $300CAD to get two blocks for testing if I am to purchase a Cascade and WW from Cathar directly. I just can't justify it in my budget and neither can Cathar justify sending out a lot of review blocks with his profit margins.

I have spoken to Bruce at Cooltechnica and I think he will loan me an RBX and a DTek WW to test out eventually. He has to make money though and I would frankly feel bad if he were sending me blocks to test when the store is sold out otherwise.

I wish JoeC would put his equipment to a bit better use; he has a nice test setup but doesn't seem to be producing exactly the breadth of review I'd really like. As far as it goes though i think he's about as good as there is right now. My TBred system is nice but it's really a sort of hybrid bench/system testing unit. Still not able to directly measure CPU current which is a problem.

Cathar, I think that the vast majority of us have no doubt about the performance of the Cascade based on your work. But why on earth would you come up with a great new design and only make 4 of them. I really wish you could find a production deal which you could assure quality control to your standards and start making these great blocks readily available around the world. No matter what you do there will always be some naysayers and bad reviewers, but once we get ahold of a few of the blocks and pass the word, the reviews become secondary anyway. Thanks for your work!

Only 4 because there's no cheap way to make it. It'll never be a productisible block. Well, maybe it could but it would require a level of engineering investment well beyond my resources to muster.

I will be PM'ing you too. I can send you my Cascade, my original WW (Cathar's) and have D-Tek send you their WW for you to test at your leisure. At least if you have an original WW, you can see how your C/W stacks up against Bill's. Anyway, YGPM.

Don't tell me "at my leisure" lol. nikhsub1 that is a very generous offer and I will certainly take you up on it. I am estimating that at my current testing methods I can run one block per week. I am planning on setting up a page like overclockers that combines all the results for people to be able to compare and then post individual waterblock reviews with testing as I complete them.

:drool: If you can get the RBX aswell that will be one hell of a roundup!

I believe I can talk Bruce out of one if not Dangerden directly.

Humm.... have you named that secret-waterblock yet?
Could you give us some details?

And, could you check This

Yes.

No. Not even sure if it's possible to make it at this stage. The machinists are working on it. It will look impressive, especially when viewed in person, if I can get the thing built.

Replied.

pHaestus if you need the blocks for 2 months, be my guest. I only run one block at a time, and the Cascade SS is hard to beat.

Given your track record and the desire of people to have the best "whatever the cost", I think you underestimate the potential demand.

If this new block lives up to your expectations, work out what it would cost to make say, 100, and then see how many orders you get. If you don't get 100 confirmed orders, don't make any. If you don't get 100 confirmed orders, I will be surprised.

Good pic of the RBX on the A64. Notice the overhang of the A64.

http://www.dangerden.com/images/rbx/A64_lg.jpg

the IHS is designed to support a uniformly applied load - all mfgrs

for AMD the minimum clip force is 60lbf, the maximum is 100lbf
for Intel the maximum is 100lbf

It seems to me that some warping of the IHS may begin to take place with this sort of less than full coverage if enough force is applied, but I am given to understand that the performance is still good. Still, I am not entirely confortable with this less than optimal coverage.