Quote:
Originally posted by airspirit
Some blocks like to have a good 3-4 GPM running through them. Some like more. 1 GPM (around 4 LPM) is absolutely NOT a good idea for many of the blocks out there currently and would cause instant meltdown in some of the systems that we are trying to cool.
|
1GPM (~3.9lpm) causing instant melt-down? Surely you jest?
For a real 100W heat load, water flowing at 1 US GPM will heat up by around 0.36C as it absorbs the heat from inlet to outlet of the heat source.
Not exactly melt-down. The majority of water-coolers in Germany are getting by quite happily with down to even 0.5lpm (1/8th GPM) and cooling "okay". Many of these guys are using traditional Maze-style blocks too.
Quote:
Originally posted by airspirit
If I cut my bypass off in my cooling chest it lowers my flow rate to around 1.3 GPM per block (over 5 LPM, IIRC). Doing this causes my temps to go up around 6-7C. I like to keep my flow rates at least over 2.5 GPM per block to ensure that I'm cooling adequately. Are these results a figment of my imagination?
|
Over 10lpm is a fairly rushing flow rate for a computer cooling setup. I think you'd find that in a quick poll of members here at this forum that many are at or well below the 2gpm mark and aren't suffering for it.
What waterblock(s) do you have where you are witnessing a ~6C difference between 1.3GPM and 2.5GPM?
Quote:
Originally posted by airspirit
To further understand this, go read some of BillA's reviews on overclockers.com. The graphs might open your eyes to the fact that your ideas, however grounded in fact you may think they are, are incorrect.
|
Which graphs were you looking at? Pretty much all graphs of BillA's I saw had a definite tendency to start tailing off between 3-6LPM, and past 8LPM almost all tested blocks are picking up very minimal gains as the flow rate is increased.
4-6lpm is ~1-1.5gpm, and 8lpm is ~2gpm.
I don't mean to be rude, but as you're knocking LHG for stating that the conversions from Imperial to Metric can be confusing and you're claiming they're not, is it perhaps possible that you have in fact confused BillA's graphs and what you think you're reading as GPM, really is LPM?