[Les]

Originally Posted by unregistered

.....

my old stuff (pages gone from H)
.....

All I've got :-

"mldhab


Registered: Jan 1970
Location:
Posts:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by X-Silver
mldhab
Please do post more pics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



OK you asked for it

OK, here are a few pictures:

First is the heat die housing, broken apart:



Here is a picture of the pieces put together:


(Red cross, Les)

this is the housing with an unmachined copper slug in place:



This is the machined heat die slug, the green arrow shows a .050" hole for a thermocouple in a small shelf to the side of the die face, the upper surface of the slug is relieved to limit its contact with the upper assembly cover, the bore for the heater is centered lengthwise in the copper slug:



This is a heater (two wires for heater power, other two wires for thermocouple in the heater):



You can search the different Overclocking oriented sites and come up with several different approaches to 'Heat Die' construction.

After analyzing all the different approaches we could find, BillA and I came to the conclusion that nothing we saw met our requirement for an accurate method of measuring the energy input to the waterblock’s baseplate surface. This is primarily because of the inability to differentiate between:
1), the energy input to the heat die assembly and
2), the energy input to the waterblock’s baseplate

There are undoubtedly some circumstances which only require throwing a bunch of energy at a waterblock or heatsink, but the kind of analysis we wanted to accomplish requires an accurate, quantitative accounting of the energy at several points in the water cooling system, under various conditions. Needless to say, knowing exactly how much energy is being put into the system is of paramount importance to our ability to accomplish these studies.

We have both been accused of being anal and overly scientific (as if that were a bad word) about how we approach these things. In justification, I can only say that Bill and I come from environments that require a fairly extreme level of accuracy and total repeatability in any given analysis. When you work professionally in this kind of environment - finding, focusing upon, and figuring out how to limit the 'weak links' in an analysis regime is the first thing you try to accomplish. We independently came to the conclusion that the 'heat die' was that 'weak link' in a water-cooling analysis. A search for a solution to this 'problem' is the reason we have been working together for some time now.

No tool is ever exactly perfect for the job it is used for, but I believe we have come closer to having 'the right tool for the job' with this heat die than anything else I have been able to find. And, I certainly expect that the search for the 'perfect solution' will make this tool better, in its future iterations. Read that to mean that any suggestions are always welcome.

Consider trying to quantify the difference in efficiency of the heatdie to heatsink interface when checking two different thermal compounds. Inaccuracy of the energy measurements, in this circumstance, is magnified to the point where (at some point) the analysis becomes meaningless. So far, this heat die has kept us at a level of accuracy that makes the product of the work we've done worthwhile.


Last edited by mldhab on 11-16-2001 at 11:40 PM "