Quote:
Originally posted by unregistered
our difference lies with the definition of "a minimum flow rate"
had you said 1.5gpm I'd not have even posted
but 0.3 to 0.4 is far below what can be useful
but looking at your system description it is very clear why you see no benefit from higher flow rates:
you cannot achieve them
your 'chiller' is killing your flow (potential), and also any cooling benefit as the chiller 'can't cope'
-> chillers ONLY 'work' (and I misuse the word here) at very low flow rates
because their capacity is so limited
just saw your note
NB wb in series or parallel ?
(I would suspect this as a contributing factor)
and either way confuses the issue: in parallel diverts some of the flow, in series severely limits it
|
I agree 100% with that.
From all the data that BillA (and others) have shared, if I looked at a range of flow rate where the difference in the cooling ability (c/w) is less than 5%, it seems like 300 gph would be a good target flow rate, but that's still an off-hand observation. 300 gph effective flow rate is not easy (read cheap) to achieve, and that only takes into account the WB, not the rad.
It then became apparent that 300 gph is not only hard to achieve, but most blocks have a cross-sectional channel that is too large, which, although less restrictive, makes 300 gph a futile attempt.
300 gph is also quite useless to a rad. A heatercore would be too restrictive for that kind of flow rate anyways.
So I'm back to the old addage: either you use a high flow rate to achieve turbulent flow, or use a lower flow rate, but figure out the best way to induce turbulation in the water.
Then there's the fins...
Just check out the waterblock design thread I started.