The Evolution

Neomoses · 12-14-2002, 12:17 AM

Many many months ago when I was designing my "Double Barrel" waterblock, now known as the DB-2, the block I came up with in my head was something that I could not machine at the time (but oh did I try) so I settled for making it with 1/4" wide channels. It's now 6 months later, and about $5000 down the road, and the DB-2 has evolved into what I first imagined it to be. Here's a pic of the inside:

Here's a little bit about it. The base is milled from a 1/2" thick piece of solid copper. The fins and channels are 0.045" wide and 0.200" deep. The top is milled from 3/4" aluminum, with a 0.5" deep pocket to encase the fins. The central inlet allows the coolest water to be released directly above the core, just like many other blocks. So what's the big deal? It looks just like a combination of many other blocks that are already out, right?

The 'evolution' lies in what goes in the 0.3" space above the fins. What looks like an empty pocket is actually the housing for an adjustable manifold that both distributes water flow and is able to adjust water velocity throughout the block. It is this adjustable manifold that allows this block to have only 3 hose barbs rather than 6 and still have a flow pattern much like the original DB-2.

By making this manifold adjustable, you can actually "tune" this waterblock to your system, giving the water the maximum velocity:flow ratio that your pump can deliver. I'm keeping the pics of the manifold to myself for a while, but rest assured you'll see them soon.

And, for those of you who have sharp eyes and will have questions, I'll try to answer them:
1. Yes, right now the BasePlate is 0.25" thick. It will be faced down 0.050" at a time and tested for performance until the maximum value can be obtained.

2. Yes, the top is aluminum and the bottom is copper. I do not fear corrosion because the top is anodized.

3. This block is outperforming the original DB-2 by 4C right now with the 0.25" baseplate. I have a TC-4 ordered to test it against so that there will be a Commercial WB standard to compare to.

4. At each baseplate thickness, the block will only be faced, not lapped. This will enable consistent surface finishes at each BP thickness.

Any questions/suggestions?

redleader · 12-14-2002, 12:38 AM

Cathar beat you by about a month.

Neomoses · 12-14-2002, 02:22 AM

Yes, I'm aware that my block and cathar's block both have small fins/channels. Ever seen a CAK38, SLK800, and Millennium Glaciator? They all have small fins, too, yet perform quite differently.

If you aren't familiar with my previous blocks, head over to overclockers.com forums. I spend much of my time there. Here's a brief timeline of what went into this block. (It's not just a copy of Cathar's).

LiquidRulez · 12-14-2002, 10:34 PM

Why is it that everytime someone unveils a block that has thin parallel channels,and seems somewhat simular in appearance, that everyone automatically assumes that they copied cathars block??
I think that people should let cathar ride that high horse all by himself.

You dont hear companies that have been making industrial watercooling systems for machinery for many years, getting upset and ranting that cathar stole their idea of using long thin channels , now do you?

Cathar · 12-14-2002, 11:50 PM

Nice implementation of the basic micro-channel concept.

Looks like you're working your way towards getting your design finalised.

For those that care, micro-channels alone do not make a block design. A block design is a combination of many aspects that fit together such as cooling, structural, machining feasibility, materials, sealing methods, fixed vs adjustable. To claim that micro-channels forms the basis of a copy is just silly. Anyone can use micro-channels. It's how you go about using them to best effect that makes or breaks a design. Micro-channels can be made to perform worse than a Maze 3, or they can be better.

NeoMoses is on the path to forming his own implementation and good on him for being adventurous in doing so.

MadDogMe · 12-16-2002, 04:04 AM

How about a central plate for controling velocity

, I think you're being very picky Cathar, aeseticly it's the same block, only the refinement differs, but if you have no problem who else should?...

Quote:

Why is it that everytime someone unveils a block that has thin parallel channels,and seems somewhat simular in appearance, that everyone automatically assumes that they copied cathars block??
I think that people should let cathar ride that high horse all by himself.

Who sais shit about copying Cathar dude?, I only see "Cathar beat you by a month", is that not true?, why not leave the "why do peeple always , blah, blah, bitch" high~horseshit to Neomoses?, if he wants to, eh dude?...

bigben2k · 12-16-2002, 11:03 AM

NeoMoses: nice work.

How did you achieve the 0.045 wide cuts? Or did you go with 1/4? (btw, you can use saw blades, see the Radius thread, somewhere in the middle...)

Where can one get an Alu piece anodized?

How are you going to reduce the bp thickness?

What can you tell us about this "adjustable manifold"?

LiquidRulez · 12-16-2002, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadDogMe

Who said shit about copying Cathar dude?, I only see "Cathar beat you by a month", is that not true?, why not leave the "why do peeple always , blah, blah, bitch" high~horseshit to Neomoses?, if he wants to, eh dude?...

The statement "Cathar beat you by a month" sounds like he's implying that he copied cathars block.

Oh and we shouldnt count out your recent statement......

"I think you're being very picky Cathar, aeseticly it's the same block" sounds like you're implying the same thing, to me

Either way, It's not like he has a patent on the concept of microchannels anyway, so until he gets one, people can and will continue to "copy"his block characteristics as they see fit. What can he do about it?
As Cathar well knows, its a dog eat dog world, and when it comes to making money nobody's going to give a damn that he's a nice guy, and refrain from using his ideas(with a few exceptions of course).
Instead of pointing fingers to whoever he thinks copied his block without his permission for commercial use, he should have gotten some sort of legal protection on it so he would have a leg to stand on legally ,when someone did.

If he "thinks" that he's made some sort of groundbreaking discovery in watercooling then that is the only sensible thing to do.And if his testing and findings are documented in some way, then that wouldnt be a hard thing to do. A provisional patent application only costs $80 and it protects him for a year while he tests the market out and decides wether or not his design(s) merit the high cost of a full patent application, and whether or not its cost worthy to do so.
HE can do it himself(PPA) and its pretty easy to do. And best of all, a PPA doesnt get reviewed by a patent clerk and you get an earlier filing date for later on when and if you decide to go ahead with a full patent.And it gives him the right to claim his product as patent pending,and the ability to sell it under the same terms for a year from the date of filing, and most importantly, gives him the legal right to dispute claims of someone stealing his idea(s), and using them for a commercial benefit.
Ive done it a few times and it was well worth the 80 bucks a pop.

I dont know about you, but if I designed a "groundbreaking" waterblock, and didnt want people using the design, I surely wouldnt be telling anyone anything about it(even so called friends) or flashing pics of it in forums that are open to the public, until I made damn sure I was protected in some legal aspect against these types of problems. To do otherwise is just asking someone to steal it!

Neomoses · 12-16-2002, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bigben2k
NeoMoses: nice work.

How did you achieve the 0.045 wide cuts? Or did you go with 1/4? (btw, you can use saw blades, see the Radius thread, somewhere in the middle...)

Where can one get an Alu piece anodized?

How are you going to reduce the bp thickness?

What can you tell us about this "adjustable manifold"?

I achieved the 0.045" cuts with a slitting saw. It was still tedious to do by hand, but slightly better than an end mill IMO.

I have an anodizing station and do custom anodizing. If you look in the yellow pages under "electroplating or anodizing" you should be able to find a local anodizer. If you need help finding an anodizer, let me know and I'll help you.

I plan on reducing the BP thickness 0.050" at a time with a facing cutter to determine the optimal BP thickness for this particular block.

All I'll say about the adjustable manifold is that the nozzle opening, height, and the cavity space above the fins are all adjustable. This will allow tuning for pumps that cannot supply enough head, and will allow maximum heat transfer for those pumps that can supply a good deal of pressure. I won't say more until I get some paperwork filled out, but the entire design should be revealed within the next couple of weeks.

I know this is not a "groundbreaking waterblock." In fact, the only thing that is new is me implementing an adjustable manifold into waterblocks. I did not invent the concept of adjustable manifolds, just borrowed it from a couple of textbooks. If you look around, there are many inventions that allow variable flowrates and nozzle sizes.

Cathar · 12-16-2002, 04:26 PM

Guys, do we really need to be trashing NeoMoses's thread? How about we all do him a service and leave the comments to constructive points. I'll be editing my post above and I suggest that if you have any decency then you'll do the same and remove comments that have no place being here.

bigben2k · 12-16-2002, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neomoses
I know this is not a "groundbreaking waterblock." In fact, the only thing that is new is me implementing an adjustable manifold into waterblocks. I did not invent the concept of adjustable manifolds, just borrowed it from a couple of textbooks. If you look around, there are many inventions that allow variable flowrates and nozzle sizes.

I'll have to lookup "adjustable manifold"!

I had a crazy idea about using a "camera style" shutter for a variable opening...

Neomoses · 12-17-2002, 02:27 AM

No worries guys. I'm always open to constructive criticism, and I love it when people ask questions. That's why I'm a forum member. I've asked plenty of questions in my time, feel free to ask me.

MadDogMe · 12-18-2002, 04:15 AM

I'd have no problem with you if you had copied Cathars block neo, it's a good design, I'll be plaugerising it myself if I can't afford one, I'll use a thermaltake 1U skived HS though, should be enough left over to do a 'Radial' style block as well

...

The fact remains it's very like Cathars block, did you draw anything from Cathars ideas or did you come to the end design by yourself?. did you design it with a specific pump in mind?, I know it can be adjusted but??(I'm thinking it'd take abit of pressure to 'jet' over that width?). I'm with the school of thought that you only need the area of the core with a small overlap (10mm core = 14~16mm fins/pins/shenanigins)...

**************************************************

Cathar!, I try not to post anything that'd I'd feel needs deleting at a later date, nothing you said needed deleting either, you were standing up for neo for JC's sake!...

LR, I said 'aeseticly it's the same', if I wanted to say he copied it I would'nt be shy my friend

...

Neomoses · 12-18-2002, 07:44 AM

Actually, the center inlet was not my idea. However, after seeing how almost every block benefits from having the inlet directly above the die due to the much larger local heat transfer coefficients, I decided to change that on my design. However, with my original design and center inlets I had 6 hose barbs on the top! It worked well, but was a huge mess of tubing in the case. Then a buddy said, "Make an intake manifold for it."
So I bought some 3/4" aluminum for the manifold top, and it worked out extremely well.

I did not design the manifold with any pump in mind. I first tried to calculate the best nozzle characteristics, but soon found out that there is not a great deal of knowledge in this area and the equations I was using were on the edge of their valid ranges. I kept getting unstable results. That's when the idea came to me to make the nozzle adjustable so that the block could be tuned for individual blocks.

The equations governing the local heat transfer coefficients are dependent upon the incoming water velocity, and thus will be different for almost every person's system. The individual's selection of pump, radiator, tubing lengths, and many other factors will affect the flowrate and pressure available at the waterblock.

That's when I realized I had an original idea in the watercooling field. Up until that point I had done nothing that was groundbreaking, at least in waterblocks. Implementing the adjustable manifold in waterblocks is my only truly original idea.

nicozeg · 12-18-2002, 09:37 AM

What you say is the main problem with this thread: This is a place to share block design ideas, and you're keeping for yourself the most attractive part. So hurry up with the paper work!

PPL want to see adjustable manifold!

G33k · 01-07-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nicozeg
What you say is the main problem with this thread: This is a place to share block design ideas, and you're keeping for yourself the most attractive part. So hurry up with the paper work!

PPL want to see adjustable manifold!

Seconded

bigben2k · 01-07-2003, 06:15 PM

There's an update in this OC forum thread.

I'd link to the pic, but I think I'll let NeoMoses do that.

Personally, I'm dissapointed: this "adjustable manifold" essentially raises above the fins, in this micro channel block. I would have liked to see an adjustable manifold get down into the channels.

G33k · 01-07-2003, 06:42 PM

Not quite what I'd envisaged, but if it works it works!

How much have you played with it? Found out anything interesting?

chewyboy · 01-07-2003, 08:27 PM

Neomoses or cathar i have a quick question for either of you. as per a previous thread i have an abundance of aluminum to play with and use along with the tooling to play with blocks and (test isn't the right word but the only one i can think of here) test different designs also. I came up with a similar drawing in cad after thinking about the leamonblock design, but believe this might be better. to make the slots i have a great end mill saw that you can setup to slot very fine channels in materials. my question is if someone were to do it similar on a base plate as you had with your copper about what bp thickness would you start with to try it out in al?

Cathar · 01-07-2003, 08:38 PM

With fine channels, 2mm is a very safe value to use for the base-plate thickness, in either aluminium or copper.

Blackeagle · 01-08-2003, 10:33 PM

Looking at the link that BigBen gave I like the change he made to the base, this has to be stronger by a fair margin compared to his earlier design. And I like the adjustible feature he's added and he pointed out in a response to a question about it being higher than the tops of the fins, with some high pressure pumps haveing a small gap gives improved performance, while no gap works best with low flow/pressure pumps. Seems reasonable to me as that would allow a higher flow but one that would be highly turbulant.

I am left with one question though. Will this block work with pelts? The higher number of fins which give a wider cooling area than with the White Water might allow this, but I'm not sure. If so this would be a added plus for those who are into pelts. Anyone know if it can handle pelts? That would be the best reason I can see for the wider flow path.

Be interesting to see how the performance compares with other blocks on the market like the Maze 3 from Danger Den or the TC-4. In one of his posts he mentioned ordering a TC-4 for comparison. I'd be interested to hear how they compared.

Blackeagle · 01-08-2003, 11:55 PM

One other question comes to mind after a bit of time to think about all I'd read both here and at O/C forums.

What have you found in your continued testing of the base thickness? Have you found the thickness you intend to go with? Share it with us and your findings and reasoning in your choice?

Lots of questions I know, but thanks for any ideas and info you care to share.

A very nice block.

Jessfm · 01-09-2003, 04:47 AM

Again, more inovation & less bashing is whats needed.

Neomoses, like the design. one little sugestion, use Acrylic for the top. CAn get better feed speeds, and it will also have the interesting look. At 20mm+ thickness its very strong.

I have a wave type microfin design thats been on the go for quite some time. I was intending to use a single design cap, but now have decided to experiment with a split cap and some internal channeling inside for the returns.

Jessfm · 01-09-2003, 04:51 AM

Doh !

Missed the link, thanks Ben.

Hard to follow on 2 forums

Neomoses · 01-20-2003, 07:42 AM

Sorry for the delay in updating. I spend a lot more time at O/C forums. To answer some questions:

1. I hate plastics and will not put a WB with a plastic top in my rig. I've tried Lexan, Lucite, and Plexi, and none of them met my standards.

2. I've found that the best BP thickness for this block is around 0.10"-0.15" thick.

3. For the TC-4 comparison I can say this: My testing has shown that the evo consistently performs 2C better than a TC-4 rev.2. Temperature measurements were taken using a Vantec Nexus thermal probe and using the on-die temperature diode. Both thermal probes agreed very well. (Take it for what it's worth, as I was the one performing the testing.) The pump used was a Via Aqua 1300.

4. I have not done any Peltier testing, but I believe this is not the best block for a peltier. I have a version designed specifically for the P4 that will be a good peltier block, however.

12-14-2002, 12:17 AM	#1
Neomoses Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Rolla, MO Posts: 51	The Evolution Many many months ago when I was designing my "Double Barrel" waterblock, now known as the DB-2, the block I came up with in my head was something that I could not machine at the time (but oh did I try) so I settled for making it with 1/4" wide channels. It's now 6 months later, and about $5000 down the road, and the DB-2 has evolved into what I first imagined it to be. Here's a pic of the inside: Here's a little bit about it. The base is milled from a 1/2" thick piece of solid copper. The fins and channels are 0.045" wide and 0.200" deep. The top is milled from 3/4" aluminum, with a 0.5" deep pocket to encase the fins. The central inlet allows the coolest water to be released directly above the core, just like many other blocks. So what's the big deal? It looks just like a combination of many other blocks that are already out, right? The 'evolution' lies in what goes in the 0.3" space above the fins. What looks like an empty pocket is actually the housing for an adjustable manifold that both distributes water flow and is able to adjust water velocity throughout the block. It is this adjustable manifold that allows this block to have only 3 hose barbs rather than 6 and still have a flow pattern much like the original DB-2. By making this manifold adjustable, you can actually "tune" this waterblock to your system, giving the water the maximum velocity:flow ratio that your pump can deliver. I'm keeping the pics of the manifold to myself for a while, but rest assured you'll see them soon. And, for those of you who have sharp eyes and will have questions, I'll try to answer them: 1. Yes, right now the BasePlate is 0.25" thick. It will be faced down 0.050" at a time and tested for performance until the maximum value can be obtained. 2. Yes, the top is aluminum and the bottom is copper. I do not fear corrosion because the top is anodized. 3. This block is outperforming the original DB-2 by 4C right now with the 0.25" baseplate. I have a TC-4 ordered to test it against so that there will be a Commercial WB standard to compare to. 4. At each baseplate thickness, the block will only be faced, not lapped. This will enable consistent surface finishes at each BP thickness. Any questions/suggestions?

12-14-2002, 11:50 PM	#5
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	Nice implementation of the basic micro-channel concept. Looks like you're working your way towards getting your design finalised. For those that care, micro-channels alone do not make a block design. A block design is a combination of many aspects that fit together such as cooling, structural, machining feasibility, materials, sealing methods, fixed vs adjustable. To claim that micro-channels forms the basis of a copy is just silly. Anyone can use micro-channels. It's how you go about using them to best effect that makes or breaks a design. Micro-channels can be made to perform worse than a Maze 3, or they can be better. NeoMoses is on the path to forming his own implementation and good on him for being adventurous in doing so. Last edited by Cathar; 12-16-2002 at 04:33 PM.

12-16-2002, 11:03 AM	#7
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	NeoMoses: nice work. How did you achieve the 0.045 wide cuts? Or did you go with 1/4? (btw, you can use saw blades, see the Radius thread, somewhere in the middle...) Where can one get an Alu piece anodized? How are you going to reduce the bp thickness? What can you tell us about this "adjustable manifold"? __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

12-16-2002, 04:26 PM	#10
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	Guys, do we really need to be trashing NeoMoses's thread? How about we all do him a service and leave the comments to constructive points. I'll be editing my post above and I suggest that if you have any decency then you'll do the same and remove comments that have no place being here. Last edited by Cathar; 12-16-2002 at 04:39 PM.

01-07-2003, 06:15 PM	#17
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	There's an update in this OC forum thread. I'd link to the pic, but I think I'll let NeoMoses do that. Personally, I'm dissapointed: this "adjustable manifold" essentially raises above the fins, in this micro channel block. I would have liked to see an adjustable manifold get down into the channels. __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

12-14-2002, 12:38 AM	#2
redleader Thermophile Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: The deserts of Tucson, Az Posts: 1,264	Cathar beat you by about a month.

12-14-2002, 02:22 AM	#3
Neomoses Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Rolla, MO Posts: 51	Yes, I'm aware that my block and cathar's block both have small fins/channels. Ever seen a CAK38, SLK800, and Millennium Glaciator? They all have small fins, too, yet perform quite differently. If you aren't familiar with my previous blocks, head over to overclockers.com forums. I spend much of my time there. Here's a brief timeline of what went into this block. (It's not just a copy of Cathar's).

12-14-2002, 10:34 PM	#4
LiquidRulez Cooling Savant Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In Hell Posts: 322	Why is it that everytime someone unveils a block that has thin parallel channels,and seems somewhat simular in appearance, that everyone automatically assumes that they copied cathars block?? I think that people should let cathar ride that high horse all by himself. You dont hear companies that have been making industrial watercooling systems for machinery for many years, getting upset and ranting that cathar stole their idea of using long thin channels , now do you?

12-17-2002, 02:27 AM	#12
Neomoses Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Rolla, MO Posts: 51	No worries guys. I'm always open to constructive criticism, and I love it when people ask questions. That's why I'm a forum member. I've asked plenty of questions in my time, feel free to ask me.

12-18-2002, 04:15 AM	#13
MadDogMe Thermophile Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Just shut up ;) ... Posts: 1,068	I'd have no problem with you if you had copied Cathars block neo, it's a good design, I'll be plaugerising it myself if I can't afford one, I'll use a thermaltake 1U skived HS though, should be enough left over to do a 'Radial' style block as well ... The fact remains it's very like Cathars block, did you draw anything from Cathars ideas or did you come to the end design by yourself?. did you design it with a specific pump in mind?, I know it can be adjusted but??(I'm thinking it'd take abit of pressure to 'jet' over that width?). I'm with the school of thought that you only need the area of the core with a small overlap (10mm core = 14~16mm fins/pins/shenanigins)... ************************************************** Cathar!, I try not to post anything that'd I'd feel needs deleting at a later date, nothing you said needed deleting either, you were standing up for neo for JC's sake!... LR, I said 'aeseticly it's the same', if I wanted to say he copied it I would'nt be shy my friend ...

12-18-2002, 07:44 AM	#14
Neomoses Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Rolla, MO Posts: 51	Actually, the center inlet was not my idea. However, after seeing how almost every block benefits from having the inlet directly above the die due to the much larger local heat transfer coefficients, I decided to change that on my design. However, with my original design and center inlets I had 6 hose barbs on the top! It worked well, but was a huge mess of tubing in the case. Then a buddy said, "Make an intake manifold for it." So I bought some 3/4" aluminum for the manifold top, and it worked out extremely well. I did not design the manifold with any pump in mind. I first tried to calculate the best nozzle characteristics, but soon found out that there is not a great deal of knowledge in this area and the equations I was using were on the edge of their valid ranges. I kept getting unstable results. That's when the idea came to me to make the nozzle adjustable so that the block could be tuned for individual blocks. The equations governing the local heat transfer coefficients are dependent upon the incoming water velocity, and thus will be different for almost every person's system. The individual's selection of pump, radiator, tubing lengths, and many other factors will affect the flowrate and pressure available at the waterblock. That's when I realized I had an original idea in the watercooling field. Up until that point I had done nothing that was groundbreaking, at least in waterblocks. Implementing the adjustable manifold in waterblocks is my only truly original idea.

12-18-2002, 09:37 AM	#15
nicozeg Cooling Savant Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 403	What you say is the main problem with this thread: This is a place to share block design ideas, and you're keeping for yourself the most attractive part. So hurry up with the paper work! PPL want to see adjustable manifold!

01-07-2003, 06:42 PM	#18
G33k Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Bristol [UK] Posts: 73	Not quite what I'd envisaged, but if it works it works! How much have you played with it? Found out anything interesting? __________________ "Success is 99% Failure"

01-07-2003, 08:27 PM	#19
chewyboy Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: us Posts: 75	Neomoses or cathar i have a quick question for either of you. as per a previous thread i have an abundance of aluminum to play with and use along with the tooling to play with blocks and (test isn't the right word but the only one i can think of here) test different designs also. I came up with a similar drawing in cad after thinking about the leamonblock design, but believe this might be better. to make the slots i have a great end mill saw that you can setup to slot very fine channels in materials. my question is if someone were to do it similar on a base plate as you had with your copper about what bp thickness would you start with to try it out in al?

01-07-2003, 08:38 PM	#20
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	With fine channels, 2mm is a very safe value to use for the base-plate thickness, in either aluminium or copper.

01-08-2003, 10:33 PM	#21
Blackeagle Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: U.S.A = Michigan Posts: 1,243	Looking at the link that BigBen gave I like the change he made to the base, this has to be stronger by a fair margin compared to his earlier design. And I like the adjustible feature he's added and he pointed out in a response to a question about it being higher than the tops of the fins, with some high pressure pumps haveing a small gap gives improved performance, while no gap works best with low flow/pressure pumps. Seems reasonable to me as that would allow a higher flow but one that would be highly turbulant. I am left with one question though. Will this block work with pelts? The higher number of fins which give a wider cooling area than with the White Water might allow this, but I'm not sure. If so this would be a added plus for those who are into pelts. Anyone know if it can handle pelts? That would be the best reason I can see for the wider flow path. Be interesting to see how the performance compares with other blocks on the market like the Maze 3 from Danger Den or the TC-4. In one of his posts he mentioned ordering a TC-4 for comparison. I'd be interested to hear how they compared. Last edited by Blackeagle; 01-08-2003 at 10:44 PM.

01-08-2003, 11:55 PM	#22
Blackeagle Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: U.S.A = Michigan Posts: 1,243	One other question comes to mind after a bit of time to think about all I'd read both here and at O/C forums. What have you found in your continued testing of the base thickness? Have you found the thickness you intend to go with? Share it with us and your findings and reasoning in your choice? Lots of questions I know, but thanks for any ideas and info you care to share. A very nice block.

01-09-2003, 04:47 AM	#23
Jessfm Cooling Savant Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 110	Again, more inovation & less bashing is whats needed. Neomoses, like the design. one little sugestion, use Acrylic for the top. CAn get better feed speeds, and it will also have the interesting look. At 20mm+ thickness its very strong. I have a wave type microfin design thats been on the go for quite some time. I was intending to use a single design cap, but now have decided to experiment with a split cap and some internal channeling inside for the returns.

01-09-2003, 04:51 AM	#24
Jessfm Cooling Savant Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 110	Doh ! Missed the link, thanks Ben. Hard to follow on 2 forums

01-20-2003, 07:42 AM	#25
Neomoses Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Rolla, MO Posts: 51	Sorry for the delay in updating. I spend a lot more time at O/C forums. To answer some questions: 1. I hate plastics and will not put a WB with a plastic top in my rig. I've tried Lexan, Lucite, and Plexi, and none of them met my standards. 2. I've found that the best BP thickness for this block is around 0.10"-0.15" thick. 3. For the TC-4 comparison I can say this: My testing has shown that the evo consistently performs 2C better than a TC-4 rev.2. Temperature measurements were taken using a Vantec Nexus thermal probe and using the on-die temperature diode. Both thermal probes agreed very well. (Take it for what it's worth, as I was the one performing the testing.) The pump used was a Via Aqua 1300. 4. I have not done any Peltier testing, but I believe this is not the best block for a peltier. I have a version designed specifically for the P4 that will be a good peltier block, however.

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