Pro/Forums - View Single Post - Water block Writeup with the big dogs!!!!

Cova · 08-08-2002, 11:48 AM

Ok - after reading this thread, and very quickly scanning the OC thread, I've got a few suggestions...

1. As far as flow is concerned - Measure each block once in a loop of its own (eg. using #rotor's method), or perhaps a couple of times and average the result, post that flow-rate for each block you test and then forget about flow-rates for the rest of the experiment. Most of us don't know what our flow-rates are, and don't really care I think. All we know is that we have a pump rated at eg. 400GPH at 0 head - so tell us how a block performs with pumps of various flows so that when we buy a block we know if we can get by with a cheap pump or if we need to go buy a big high-flow pump.

Actually - for the flow tests, get a larger bucket for the source for #rotor's method (larger = more accurate, it should take at least a minute to drain or the variance in you stopping the watch will be too much) and drain it through just a straight piece of tubing. Then (using the same piece of tubing) test all the blocks. Then you can give as a percentage the amount ot change of flow each block showed. That percentage could not be directly applied to a system (eg. it won't kill 25% of the flow in an already much restricted system with rad) but it would make for an easy comparison of block to block which are more/less restrictive and by about how much.

2. For temp monitoring, IMHO a CPU for a heat-source and the on-board temp diode of an XP is plenty accurate. You should note though that most of the hardware readers for that diode have a precision of 0.1C, but an accuracy of +/- 1C. 1C is within the margin of error of your thermal paste and other variances in the system though, so I wouldn't worry about it. I'd like to see temps collected of the core, and coolant into and out of the block, pump, and rad - which should be 4 temp sensors from the digidoc (which again has a precision of .1C, but it's accuracy is only about +/-2C because thermistors really aren't very good). One sensor after the res (eg. pump intake), one sensor between pump and block (pump output and block input), one sensor between pump/rad (block output and rad input), one sensor after rad. Of course if you order your parts differently the sensors will tell you different things, but it should still be 4 sensors. Also of course ambient temp, and if you have extra sensors a air-temp of rad exhaust air. In my system at home I also have a sensor on top of my block (yes, Maze-2 with copper top or you would have to use a side of block or something) for block temp, but I'm not sure if it's that useful, I just had one left over - perhaps if you could attach it to the bottom of the block near the core you could get an idea of how well your TIM is working (eg. if one block reads really cool on that sensor likely the AS3 application went bad).

Overall - I'm really looking forward to this article. I think a good analogy would be to compare to a CPU review/roundup and to say that Billa's tests would be your synthetic CPU tests, while your roundup/tests would be your real-world CPU comparisons. Good luck in your reviewing.

08-08-2002, 11:48 AM	#40
Cova Cooling Savant Join Date: May 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 247	Ok - after reading this thread, and very quickly scanning the OC thread, I've got a few suggestions... 1. As far as flow is concerned - Measure each block once in a loop of its own (eg. using #rotor's method), or perhaps a couple of times and average the result, post that flow-rate for each block you test and then forget about flow-rates for the rest of the experiment. Most of us don't know what our flow-rates are, and don't really care I think. All we know is that we have a pump rated at eg. 400GPH at 0 head - so tell us how a block performs with pumps of various flows so that when we buy a block we know if we can get by with a cheap pump or if we need to go buy a big high-flow pump. Actually - for the flow tests, get a larger bucket for the source for #rotor's method (larger = more accurate, it should take at least a minute to drain or the variance in you stopping the watch will be too much) and drain it through just a straight piece of tubing. Then (using the same piece of tubing) test all the blocks. Then you can give as a percentage the amount ot change of flow each block showed. That percentage could not be directly applied to a system (eg. it won't kill 25% of the flow in an already much restricted system with rad) but it would make for an easy comparison of block to block which are more/less restrictive and by about how much. 2. For temp monitoring, IMHO a CPU for a heat-source and the on-board temp diode of an XP is plenty accurate. You should note though that most of the hardware readers for that diode have a precision of 0.1C, but an accuracy of +/- 1C. 1C is within the margin of error of your thermal paste and other variances in the system though, so I wouldn't worry about it. I'd like to see temps collected of the core, and coolant into and out of the block, pump, and rad - which should be 4 temp sensors from the digidoc (which again has a precision of .1C, but it's accuracy is only about +/-2C because thermistors really aren't very good). One sensor after the res (eg. pump intake), one sensor between pump and block (pump output and block input), one sensor between pump/rad (block output and rad input), one sensor after rad. Of course if you order your parts differently the sensors will tell you different things, but it should still be 4 sensors. Also of course ambient temp, and if you have extra sensors a air-temp of rad exhaust air. In my system at home I also have a sensor on top of my block (yes, Maze-2 with copper top or you would have to use a side of block or something) for block temp, but I'm not sure if it's that useful, I just had one left over - perhaps if you could attach it to the bottom of the block near the core you could get an idea of how well your TIM is working (eg. if one block reads really cool on that sensor likely the AS3 application went bad). Overall - I'm really looking forward to this article. I think a good analogy would be to compare to a CPU review/roundup and to say that Billa's tests would be your synthetic CPU tests, while your roundup/tests would be your real-world CPU comparisons. Good luck in your reviewing.