That is a hellava thread on hardforum, lots of different (to me) stuff. OK, back to work.
No Joe, no bitch. I was stupefied with your super-monster-mutha-waterbox, did (do) not understand the purpose of that degree of complexity, and have said that. It was explained to me that you did it to receive free equipment to test. ok, that's your deal, not mine.
I observed that as how you had spent $1200, for $400 you could have bought a recirculating chiller (+ or - 1C to -15C), plus say another say $100 for incendentals, and had some control over your tests.
The basis of my critical comments has to do with the "design" of the experiment. The more variables, the harder to control, and the harder to understand the results. This is particularly the case when the increment being measured is very small. (If it is below the coefficient of variation for the equipment and procedure, it is invisible.)
Good testing equipment is simple, as are the procedures.
Why is it my opinion that the MCW462 will "be tops" ?
Glad you asked (and so politely, too).
The heat removal capability of the coolant is (among other things) a function of the temperature difference between it and the object being cooled. By initially applying the coolant, when it is at its coldest, to the center of the waterblock (which is presumed to be the hottest area), the heat transfer is optimized for that specific area of the waterblock.
The heat "removal" capability of the waterblock is (again among other things), a function of/dependant on the heated surface area exposed to the coolant; and the MCW462 has far more than the OCWC designs.
I am not convinced of the benefits of swirling coolant. The transfer of heat to the coolant takes time, note the very real design flow rate limits for flat tube (and fin) radiators. I suspect that your "sweet spot" (if I understood your reference correctly) may well be at lower flow rates. This testing can easily demonstrate - or deny.
While I like the use of polycarbonate for sub-zero cooling, I think a metal waterblock might be incrementally better at ambient. (I think we are now picking invisible nits, very hard to test.)
The best waterblock of Chip's was probably the Hedgehog in a box. Perhaps I should cut one down and solder it into a cutout in the MCW462's baseplate.
And the choice of materials, Joe: Go to
http://www.overclockers.com/articles305/ and READ the GD article. If you wish to use that DATA, GET IT RIGHT. You waste everyone's time, and obscure the issues, by scrambling the numbers. Here now, I'll lead you by the hand .......
Aluminum: 220
Copper: 388
Silver: 418
Silver/Copper (Cusil) Alloy: 515
The difference between copper and silver is ... 30
The difference between silver and Cusil is ... 97
Now I will let you explain how that is LESS.
I will return to this issue (but why ?) after you straighten out your comments.
Am I tight with Gabe at Swiftech ?
No more so than with any technically competent individual with shared interests.
(But he did like the article on cold plate materials.)
be cool
[This message has been edited by BillA (edited 01-05-2001).]