[Gooserider]

bigben2k:
I had to print that to read it, and I still don't get it (sorry!).

Don't feel bad, I didn't do a great job of describing what I had in mind. The picture in my head is pretty clear, but it's hard to turn it into words.

Can you clarify?

Will try. Essentially there are two parts to my proposed setup:

1. An outer sleeve that simulates the socket & CPU, and provides a mounting surface for the WB under test. It should be made of non thermally conductive material, and be insulated to the greatest extent feasible. The WB is mounted to this sleeve in a manner that is as rigid as possible, giving a constant location for the base's die contact area.

2. A heated 'die core' that fits snugly inside the sleeve, This would have the surface which contacts the WB, along with the heating and temp monitoring components. It would have a consistently repeatable mechanism for applying a constant pressure against the test WB's base (Possibly a cross bar holding one end of a spring, with the other pushing on the die core.)
There would be no insulation on the core, but it would be necessary to insulate the back side of the hole that the core fits into.

Have you seen the pictures of Bill's first heat die?

Yes I have, it certainly works, but seems to me like something excessively complicated.

It's a copper slug that includes a heater, and protrudes out of a phenolic resin wall, to simulate a CPU die.

Agreed, and it seemed to cause no end of grief in terms of repeatability in mounting (Witness the stated need for doing multiple mounts to ensure repeatable results)

I'm suggesting a design that sacrifices some slight level of 'real world' duplication in an effort to get a more repeatable mount that would reduce or eliminate the need for multiple iterations of the same tests

That's essentially the route that I'm going. There's nothing simple about it though: if I decide to use another die size, I have to replace the slug, which makes up the die, and includes the heater.

Note that my design would also require a new slug IF you change the DIE size. However if you could keep the same die size, it should be possible to just change the sleeve, and keep the die.

Some of the earlier discussion seemed to be suggesting standardizing on the die size. If this is done, then it would work well with my proposal, as the die, which I see as the most critical part of the WB setup stays the same regardless of the sleeve that is used to match different form factor CPU's.
[/quote] Maybe a diagram of your idea would help?[/quote]
Difficult as I don't have an easy way to attach a drawing, but will try some ASCII art...

                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cut
                WBWBWBWBWBWBWBWBWBWB
WB Base         WBWBWBWBWBWBWBWBWBWB
                XXXX            XXXX 
               XXXXX SSSSSSSSSS XXXXX
                XXXX SSSSSSSSSS XXXX
              XXXXXX SSSSSSSSSS XXXXXX
              XXXXXX SSSSSSSSSS XXXXXX
              XXXXXX SSSSSSSSSS XXXXXX
              XXXXXX SSSSSSSSSS XXXXXX
              XXXXXX   <<<<<<   XXXXXX
              XXXXXX   >>>>>>   XXXXXX
              XXXXXX   <<<<<<   XXXXXX
              XXXBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBXXX

X = Sleeve material
S = heated slug / die (pwr. and inst. wires not shown)
<> = Spring
B = crossbar for spring anchoring

(Cross section drawing, not to scale)

Note that the slug is shown spaced away from the WB for clarity, normally the two would be in contact with a known pressure. The slug would be a snug but sliding fit inside the sleeve (note, enough allowance must be made for thermal expansion differential to ensure this is the case at all operating temps.)

yoshana:
Ben- Seems to me that he is talking about instead of the inconsistancies of various mounting mechnisims for the block side mount the cooler/waterblock to a fixed static position and set the pressure for the die/heatslug to 'rise' to the block...

I think you have it Yoshana.

Seems like it would equalize the mounting varibilities, but would create a large problem of making an insulated and movable heat die.

I'm not sure it would be that big of a problem -

1. The top is the WB contact area, no insulation needed.

2. The sides would be insulated by the sleeve material. so the block itself doesn't need insulation.

3. The bottom would need some insulation, but it shouldn't be that hard to make an insulated cover for the bottom.

I don't think it would matter that there was a small amount of airspace along the sides and bottom of the slug. It might take a few moments longer to reach equilibrium, but once the airspace temp reaches the same as the block, then you shouldn't have any further secondary losses other than what is allowed to filter past the sleeve insulation.

Gooserider