Success?

[pHaestus]

Well I spent all day today not actually testing wbs but instead writing up that MCWChill review from long long ago. It's been almost 6 months since I started testing that unit (sorry Bill) but the final review should be posted this week. No other site has had it to play with as far as I know so I guess it's a Procooling exclusive. More like "no one else is dumb enough to try and really evaluate something like this" but hey I'll take what I can get.

I swapped out the PSU in my test rig with a 300W and hte 5V rail still loooks pretty low (but better than with the 350 that was previously in there). Interestingly diode temperatures changed markedly when I would change from one PSU to the other one; there MUST be something funky with the 350. I found a generic 500W psu local that I'll pick up tomorrow.

[BrandonHum]

Just checking out the specs on Swiftech's page, I notice that the 2 x 226w pelts in the Chill draw 17amps each where as the 226w pelt on the 5002 draw 24amps. Anxiously anticipating the review as I am considering using a 226w pelt to chill the loop for my MCW50T.

[BillA]

Originally Posted by BrandonHum

Just checking out the specs on Swiftech's page, I notice that the 2 x 226w pelts in the Chill draw 17amps each where as the 226w pelt on the 5002 draw 24amps. Anxiously anticipating the review as I am considering using a 226w pelt to chill the loop for my MCW50T.

error someplace, probably the site - will ck
at 12V, the 226W TEC will draw 17A (same TECs in both, but 2 in the MCW-CHILL)
if running the MCW5002-T and the MCW50-T, then the total draw for both will be 24A

nice review pHaestus, appreciate the effort
re your voltages, suggest looking into a triple output lab-grade psu if you're going to persist in using the CPU as a heat source

[pHaestus]

I don't really WANT to continue to use CPU as heat source; Socket A is getting long in the tooth and the issues are close to untenable (if I had ever gotten that grothammeter tho...). The real hassle is that some little problem like a PSU in test bench going bad or a stick of RAM dying can lead to a huge amount of extra work and retesting of old blocks "to be sure".

The best solution by far is to just switch to a die simulator. I need 2 DMMs and a decent 12-24V bench PSU for that and I'm (intermittantly) looking.

[BillA]

keep an eye out for Kepco psus, the ATE models and others can be had cheaply and are 'programmable' using a 0-5VDC source

[pHaestus]

It looks to me like I have this sorted out now. Please disregard the earlier graph; bad PSU was ****ing with test system somehow. Need die simulator stat!

Look for this LRWW testing to be done over weekend and Aquajoe wb and Jaydee's blocks to follow. I still owe BillA a review of a complete Swiftech kit too. It's bad when my deadlines for hobbies are more stressful than work...

[BillA]

no pressure form this quarter, just slip this stuff into the non/semi Beer time
lol, seriously though; when its time to do other stuff - do it
(have to say this, else how could I send you another wb)

[pHaestus]

I think it's pretty clear from Procooling's level of activity that I don't spend ALL my time on testing

[pHaestus]

Bill:
I just realized something! I was looking up at the unused pressure gauge and thinking about the need for picking up another one. I have been assuming it was damaged due to some funkiness with output. But I had never seriously used it until I set up the MCW-Chill. The flow rate for that MCW-Chill system was so low (1.2L/min) that maybe the digital pressure gauge just couldn't work properly?

[BillA]

suspect too facile by far
with 2 decimal places of resolution in psi, and lightning fast response; I'd finger the gage itself

get a differential unit (with adjustable dampening)

[Cormacc]

You could do a quick check of the pressure sensor with a static pressure water column test.

Try 1,2,3..etc. feet of water on the sensor via some elevated (water filled) tubing and see what it reads.

P.S. This method also works to see if a differential sensor is "sticky".

[pHaestus]

Still have to retest the Dtek WW but looks encouraging. Note the slope of the curve is difft at higher flow rates; still w/in std deviation except for last point though...

[nikhsub1]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Still have to retest the Dtek WW but looks encouraging. Note the slope of the curve is difft at higher flow rates; still w/in std deviation except for last point though...

pHaestus, are the ID sizes of the barbs on the original and D-Tek blocks the same? Somehow I think Cathar's barbs are a larger ID and am wondering if this would have any effect?

[pHaestus]

Here's a better graph:



Since everything's normalized for flow rate here I don't think the barbs would make a difference. A change in nozzle size would, changes in finish of baseplate would, and potentially the shift from copper pieces to an aluminum top (or worse yet poly) could. The last (all copper construction) is what I am guessing causes 0.5gpm flow rate performance of LRWW to be a bit better than Dtek

The 1.5GPM point is only one where reproducibility between May and Feb testing isn't stellar; even still it's within margin of error and the old point is the one that looks a bit funny to me not the new one. Hooray for reproducible results!