A new waterblock design

Brad · 01-27-2002, 05:39 AM

some of you in the chat have seen this already, and I've emailed it off to DDen as well.

anyway, here it is

edit: ignore that dimension size, thats where the 4 mounting holes would be

redleader · 01-27-2002, 10:52 AM

That looks pretty cool. I wonder how hard it would be to machine though? There aren't many finned blocks out there.

sloppycoder · 01-27-2002, 10:53 AM

nice, but wouldent it be better if the inlet dident have such a long run in before it gets to the area above the die? ie if it shared the maximum temp gradient method of the nanoblock but also had fins for turbulent flow?

slop

futRtrubL · 01-27-2002, 10:55 AM

The centre grey area is the inet with the 2 outlets at top and bottom.

Edward

Brad · 01-27-2002, 12:09 PM

red, it would be hard to machine, but I'm sure the design could be slightly modified to end up being much simpler

the inlet is 1/2" bore, and the two outlets are 3/8"

mashie · 01-27-2002, 04:43 PM

Has anyone considered to convert a SK-6 to a waterblock? Might work out quite well if a good mounting system is used.

Lonely Raven · 01-27-2002, 05:37 PM

Someone did that with a couple of copper pipes and an
SK-6. I remember reading about it at HardOCP. You might
wanna check the search engine there...if it works...

jaydee · 01-27-2002, 06:35 PM

The only thing I see that should be added is a fin right in the center where the inlet is so the water will split more evenly. Gravity will still want to drag water to the downward side but a fin will help split it better.

This would be a royal bitch to mill in copper. It would take a few hours on my mill. Aluminum would be a lot easier but it would still take about an hour each. You would have to make one and it would have to perfrom much better than current blocks to make it worth the extra cost. I am not sure the fins will actually do anything there though. The heat is mainly in the middle area. I don't see fins on the outside helping to much.

futRtrubL · 01-27-2002, 08:48 PM

Gravity would have no effect on the path of the water here, unless there was air in there too. But that would just be bad anyway. There would be a preferance to go to one side over the other though, it would flow more on the side leading to the outlet. Water takes the path of least resistance in ALL cases.

Edward

Quote:

Originally posted by jaydee116
The only thing I see that should be added is a fin right in the center where the inlet is so the water will split more evenly. Gravity will still want to drag water to the downward side but a fin will help split it better.

This would be a royal bitch to mill in copper. It would take a few hours on my mill. Aluminum would be a lot easier but it would still take about an hour each. You would have to make one and it would have to perfrom much better than current blocks to make it worth the extra cost. I am not sure the fins will actually do anything there though. The heat is mainly in the middle area. I don't see fins on the outside helping to much.

jaydee · 01-27-2002, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by futRtrubL
Gravity would have no effect on the path of the water here, unless there was air in there too. But that would just be bad anyway. There would be a preferance to go to one side over the other though, it would flow more on the side leading to the outlet. Water takes the path of least resistance in ALL cases.

Edward

I disagree. If you are thinking that the syphon(sp?) effect rules out gravity it dosn't when there are 2 outlets and one of the outlets is lower than the other as a syphon effect will not work that way. That only works with one outlet. So the least resistance would be down and gravity will play a role in that.

futRtrubL · 01-27-2002, 11:23 PM

If the two outlets meet again at ANY point they still count as one outlet. The only difference would be if one was longer/thinner (just different flow resistance) but that doesn't mean the lower one would have a lower resistance. Take 2 outlets, one going up the other going down, then joining tagether later. The up one has increased resistance at the start due to gravity, conversely the down one has decreased resistance due to gravity, however, if they are to join they have to end up at the same hight. So the net change in hight is the same for both paths. Thisincludes any change in hight in the block.

Edward

jaydee · 01-27-2002, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by futRtrubL
If the two outlets meet again at ANY point they still count as one outlet. The only difference would be if one was longer/thinner (just different flow resistance) but that doesn't mean the lower one would have a lower resistance. Take 2 outlets, one going up the other going down, then joining tagether later. The up one has increased resistance at the start due to gravity, conversely the down one has decreased resistance due to gravity, however, if they are to join they have to end up at the same hight. So the net change in hight is the same for both paths. Thisincludes any change in hight in the block.

Edward

Hummm, I am slowly picturing this. It makes since right now so I will agree.

Fixittt · 01-27-2002, 11:45 PM

Brad.... I am glad to see that you are doing something with those designs. If nothing comes of them thrue DD, then maybe when I am done with the 2 or 3 projects I have going, Maybe I can see about making one or two of them for U.

I guess I am just a fashion freek, I dont really care to much about all the extra hoses. But that is just me, I beleive everyone should have a chance. So let me know. But it will ahve to be in aluminum, copper is just to hard to work with, for the small guys, right Brad?

futRtrubL · 01-27-2002, 11:46 PM

I don't want people to think of me as a critical bastard. It's just that too many people believe that gravity means something in a closed system or even in an open system. Any system that uses a single non-compressible fluid (this can be a mixture as long as the components don't separate) gravity has no effect. It's purely down to flow resistances, which give rise to back pressures.And to pumps which give forward pressures.

Edward

Fixittt · 01-27-2002, 11:51 PM

You critical bastard!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL I couldnt resist!

I understand what you mean, but height maybe not this small, does have an impact on flow. Which is back preassure. right?

jaydee · 01-27-2002, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by futRtrubL
I don't want people to think of me as a critical bastard. It's just that too many people believe that gravity means something in a closed system or even in an open system. Any system that uses a single non-compressible fluid (this can be a mixture as long as the components don't separate) gravity has no effect. It's purely down to flow resistances, which give rise to back pressures.And to pumps which give forward pressures.

Edward

Your input is very good IMO actually. I semi understand they way it works but have a hard time understanding that anything that goes up won't be affected by gravity more than anything that goes down. I never really understood how gravity can't affect something that is going up no matter how it is applied unless in an anti gravity enviroment. Seems supernatural to me.

I am learning though!!! In any event I still think a divider in the inlet would help split the flow both wayd and take out some of the resistance variables. If that made sence.

I am going to sleep now.

futRtrubL · 01-28-2002, 12:02 AM

Going up will cause a back pressure, but what goes up must come down, and that coming down will cause a forward pressure that cancels out any effect gravity had in the first place. Take a loop of tube that starts and ends at about the same place, place it horizontally and pump or blow some water through, now make it vertical and do the same again. You won't notice any difference. Use any length, any shape of loop, as long as its the same both times.

Edward

oc192sonet · 01-28-2002, 04:44 PM

wouldnt it make sense to have the coolant flow through the block as quickly as possible? To inpead the flow like this might be counter productive. I have yet to see a water block with straight through channels. It would also be esier to machine. your thoughts?

futRtrubL · 01-28-2002, 04:57 PM

It does make sence to have the water go through as fast as possible so it doesn't heat up much before it leaves the block so that you get a good T delta all the way through. The nanoblock is exactly what you sugested. Also older cross drlled blocks work like this too. However surface area is also another factor in heat transfer. Get both high and the block rocks. Unfortunately getting both is difficult so you normally get a compromise. Brad's block has good surface area, from the fins mostly, and he should get good flow rates too as he'll have a large effective bore size,from the parallel nature of the block, shorter path length and rounded corners.

Brad, the pic at the top, is that showing layers of a single block or the evolution of the block?

Edward

Brad · 01-28-2002, 05:44 PM

I have thought about using current heatsinks, but none of them would be too easy, unless you went with 2 or 3 inlets and outlets. Also you have to find a way to mount one.

And who said gravity would affect anything, I mount all my mobo's horizontally, so it doesn't matter a damn. Personally, I think this is the best way by far, and I will always make my cases to accept horizontal mobo's

Fashion wise, I think having a plexi top on there would make it look awesome with all those curves in it.

Fut, thats the point behind this block, trying to get a high surface area and high flow rates. The original maze2 had a lot of surface area, but poor flow rates. The current maze2 and spiral don't have too much surface area, but have a huge amount of flow. I'm trying to get as much flow as those blocks, but as much surface area as possible.

Pyrotechnic · 01-29-2002, 07:48 PM

those tiny little fins on one of them would kill flow rates.

Kevin · 01-29-2002, 09:50 PM

Looks okay I guess. Pretty restrictive to flow. I'm sure it would perform like alll the others if done right.
-kev

Brad · 01-30-2002, 10:23 PM

the cross sectional area of the openings through the fins is more than the cross sectional area through a 9.5mm hose barb. So in short it won't be restrictive at all

Kevin · 01-30-2002, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brad
the cross sectional area of the openings through the fins is more than the cross sectional area through a 9.5mm hose barb. So in short it won't be restrictive at all

It doesn't matter, Brad. That is false logic. Everything restricts flow in a system. The turns that a channel makes restrict flow. 90 Degree barbs restrict flow. The fact is that you are cutting up the flow into a bunch of small pieces, kinda like sticking your finger over a hose. Granted, like you said, the width of all the cut up channels added is greater than that of the normal channel width. However, it will still restrict flow. I'm not saying it wouldn't work well... just that it is very flow restrictive.
-Kev

futRtrubL · 01-30-2002, 11:42 PM

Not nescesarily Kevin. Having a 9.5mm tube restricts flow, but the fins may restrict flow LESS. If the cross sectional area of gaps is equal to the csa of a 9.5mm tube then yes, it will restrict flow more. If it's larger then, depending on how much larger, it may restrict less. There are equations out there for this that could tell you exactly how much larger you would need it.

Edward

01-27-2002, 12:09 PM	#5
Brad Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Nuu Zeeelin Posts: 3,175	red, it would be hard to machine, but I'm sure the design could be slightly modified to end up being much simpler the inlet is 1/2" bore, and the two outlets are 3/8" __________________ 2x P3 1100's at 1400, Abit VP6, 2x Corsair 256mb PC150 sticks, 20gb 'cuda ATA-III, 2x 40gb 'cuda ATA-IV in raid 0. 20" Trinitron. No fans 2x 2400+ at 2288mhz (16.0 x 143), Iwill MPX2, 2x Kingmax PC-3200 256mb sticks, 4x 20gb 60gxp in Raid 5 on a Promise SX6000. Asus Ti4200 320/630. Cooled by Water

01-27-2002, 04:43 PM	#6
mashie Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Reading, UK Posts: 149	Has anyone considered to convert a SK-6 to a waterblock? Might work out quite well if a good mounting system is used. __________________ mashie

01-27-2002, 05:37 PM	#7
Lonely Raven Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 69	Someone did that with a couple of copper pipes and an SK-6. I remember reading about it at HardOCP. You might wanna check the search engine there...if it works... __________________ The Lonely Raven Jack of All Trades, Master of None IT Samurai

01-27-2002, 11:45 PM	#13
Fixittt CNC Beyatch Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Tulsa Spell it backwards Posts: 721	Brad.... I am glad to see that you are doing something with those designs. If nothing comes of them thrue DD, then maybe when I am done with the 2 or 3 projects I have going, Maybe I can see about making one or two of them for U. I guess I am just a fashion freek, I dont really care to much about all the extra hoses. But that is just me, I beleive everyone should have a chance. So let me know. But it will ahve to be in aluminum, copper is just to hard to work with, for the small guys, right Brad? __________________ Creator of the Spir@l Block Longest post ever http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=43808#post43808

01-27-2002, 11:51 PM	#15
Fixittt CNC Beyatch Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Tulsa Spell it backwards Posts: 721	You critical bastard!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL I couldnt resist! I understand what you mean, but height maybe not this small, does have an impact on flow. Which is back preassure. right? __________________ Creator of the Spir@l Block Longest post ever http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=43808#post43808

01-27-2002, 10:52 AM	#2
redleader Thermophile Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: The deserts of Tucson, Az Posts: 1,264	That looks pretty cool. I wonder how hard it would be to machine though? There aren't many finned blocks out there.

01-27-2002, 10:53 AM	#3
sloppycoder Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 31	nice, but wouldent it be better if the inlet dident have such a long run in before it gets to the area above the die? ie if it shared the maximum temp gradient method of the nanoblock but also had fins for turbulent flow? slop

01-27-2002, 10:55 AM	#4
futRtrubL Cooling Savant Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Kingston, Jamaica Posts: 204	The centre grey area is the inet with the 2 outlets at top and bottom. Edward

01-27-2002, 06:35 PM	#8
jaydee Put up or Shut Up Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Spokane WA Posts: 6,506	The only thing I see that should be added is a fin right in the center where the inlet is so the water will split more evenly. Gravity will still want to drag water to the downward side but a fin will help split it better. This would be a royal bitch to mill in copper. It would take a few hours on my mill. Aluminum would be a lot easier but it would still take about an hour each. You would have to make one and it would have to perfrom much better than current blocks to make it worth the extra cost. I am not sure the fins will actually do anything there though. The heat is mainly in the middle area. I don't see fins on the outside helping to much.

01-27-2002, 11:23 PM	#11
futRtrubL Cooling Savant Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Kingston, Jamaica Posts: 204	If the two outlets meet again at ANY point they still count as one outlet. The only difference would be if one was longer/thinner (just different flow resistance) but that doesn't mean the lower one would have a lower resistance. Take 2 outlets, one going up the other going down, then joining tagether later. The up one has increased resistance at the start due to gravity, conversely the down one has decreased resistance due to gravity, however, if they are to join they have to end up at the same hight. So the net change in hight is the same for both paths. Thisincludes any change in hight in the block. Edward

01-27-2002, 11:46 PM	#14
futRtrubL Cooling Savant Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Kingston, Jamaica Posts: 204	I don't want people to think of me as a critical bastard. It's just that too many people believe that gravity means something in a closed system or even in an open system. Any system that uses a single non-compressible fluid (this can be a mixture as long as the components don't separate) gravity has no effect. It's purely down to flow resistances, which give rise to back pressures.And to pumps which give forward pressures. Edward

01-28-2002, 12:02 AM	#17
futRtrubL Cooling Savant Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Kingston, Jamaica Posts: 204	Going up will cause a back pressure, but what goes up must come down, and that coming down will cause a forward pressure that cancels out any effect gravity had in the first place. Take a loop of tube that starts and ends at about the same place, place it horizontally and pump or blow some water through, now make it vertical and do the same again. You won't notice any difference. Use any length, any shape of loop, as long as its the same both times. Edward

01-28-2002, 04:44 PM	#18
oc192sonet Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico Posts: 9	wouldnt it make sense to have the coolant flow through the block as quickly as possible? To inpead the flow like this might be counter productive. I have yet to see a water block with straight through channels. It would also be esier to machine. your thoughts? __________________ Abit vp6 dual 1 ghz Abit BH7 2.4 ghz

01-28-2002, 04:57 PM	#19
futRtrubL Cooling Savant Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Kingston, Jamaica Posts: 204	It does make sence to have the water go through as fast as possible so it doesn't heat up much before it leaves the block so that you get a good T delta all the way through. The nanoblock is exactly what you sugested. Also older cross drlled blocks work like this too. However surface area is also another factor in heat transfer. Get both high and the block rocks. Unfortunately getting both is difficult so you normally get a compromise. Brad's block has good surface area, from the fins mostly, and he should get good flow rates too as he'll have a large effective bore size,from the parallel nature of the block, shorter path length and rounded corners. Brad, the pic at the top, is that showing layers of a single block or the evolution of the block? Edward

01-28-2002, 05:44 PM	#20
Brad Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Nuu Zeeelin Posts: 3,175	I have thought about using current heatsinks, but none of them would be too easy, unless you went with 2 or 3 inlets and outlets. Also you have to find a way to mount one. And who said gravity would affect anything, I mount all my mobo's horizontally, so it doesn't matter a damn. Personally, I think this is the best way by far, and I will always make my cases to accept horizontal mobo's Fashion wise, I think having a plexi top on there would make it look awesome with all those curves in it. Fut, thats the point behind this block, trying to get a high surface area and high flow rates. The original maze2 had a lot of surface area, but poor flow rates. The current maze2 and spiral don't have too much surface area, but have a huge amount of flow. I'm trying to get as much flow as those blocks, but as much surface area as possible. __________________ 2x P3 1100's at 1400, Abit VP6, 2x Corsair 256mb PC150 sticks, 20gb 'cuda ATA-III, 2x 40gb 'cuda ATA-IV in raid 0. 20" Trinitron. No fans 2x 2400+ at 2288mhz (16.0 x 143), Iwill MPX2, 2x Kingmax PC-3200 256mb sticks, 4x 20gb 60gxp in Raid 5 on a Promise SX6000. Asus Ti4200 320/630. Cooled by Water

01-29-2002, 07:48 PM	#21
Pyrotechnic Cooling Savant Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 240	those tiny little fins on one of them would kill flow rates.

01-29-2002, 09:50 PM	#22
Kevin Slacking more than your weird uncle Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: San Diego, CA (UCSD) / Los Angeles, CA (home) Posts: 1,605	Looks okay I guess. Pretty restrictive to flow. I'm sure it would perform like alll the others if done right. -kev __________________ I used to throw hot coffee all over the ass of the horse there, then whip him while he was kickin' at me. Those f***in things are crazy.

01-30-2002, 10:23 PM	#23
Brad Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Nuu Zeeelin Posts: 3,175	the cross sectional area of the openings through the fins is more than the cross sectional area through a 9.5mm hose barb. So in short it won't be restrictive at all __________________ 2x P3 1100's at 1400, Abit VP6, 2x Corsair 256mb PC150 sticks, 20gb 'cuda ATA-III, 2x 40gb 'cuda ATA-IV in raid 0. 20" Trinitron. No fans 2x 2400+ at 2288mhz (16.0 x 143), Iwill MPX2, 2x Kingmax PC-3200 256mb sticks, 4x 20gb 60gxp in Raid 5 on a Promise SX6000. Asus Ti4200 320/630. Cooled by Water

01-30-2002, 11:42 PM	#25
futRtrubL Cooling Savant Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Kingston, Jamaica Posts: 204	Not nescesarily Kevin. Having a 9.5mm tube restricts flow, but the fins may restrict flow LESS. If the cross sectional area of gaps is equal to the csa of a 9.5mm tube then yes, it will restrict flow more. If it's larger then, depending on how much larger, it may restrict less. There are equations out there for this that could tell you exactly how much larger you would need it. Edward

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)