F2 Extreme Radiators for Extreme watercooling

[copyman]

Originally posted by Blackeagle
Cathar,

I note that Copyman said he would be sending you a rad to test.

What will your testing set up & methods be?

Copyman,

Thank you for providing some hard info, and I'm glad to see that the rad is smaller than I thought it might be.

I'm afraid I didn't understand which of the fans you've spec'd were used when you obtained the results you posted early in this thread. Could you please restate that info?

Did you do testing on the ideal distance for the shrouds stand off from the fins? What stand off distance did you decide on?

Are the flat tubes you used in your rad dimpled on the sides to increase turbulence in the tubes, or did you find the smooth walled ones to be better performers due to higher flow rates?



A interesting thread & rad.

with relationship to the rad that I sent to the cathar, to him prove the right of doing the use that to want

in those tests I was using 4 addas of 89cfm 25mm, soon later I changed for two tt of 79cfm 25mm without losses, today I use adda 105 cfm 38mm that are more silent, I already tested also with global win 130 cfm, they snore as ferrary, but not of the low differentiates in performance for the tt of 79cfm

as i said, today I use more two peltiers of 70w for my radeon 9800 for having enclosed to the system, and I don't still get a temperature elevation of liquid that it gets to measure, he is never larger than 1c above the temperature of room

with the fans of 105 cfm 38mm...

with relationship to the tests, of that model they were 13 prototypes of it blushes, one more 15 of cameras, the tests were made using a reservoir of 1,5 liters of fluid with a heater of 600w, with a bomb mag drive 700 in a circuit going by a tc4, but without him to be in activity, to approach of the real flow of the system, always using fans of 89cfm adda


The turbulence is in relation to the air, because they are 3 arrays of flat tubes opposed , look at the pictures of the it core open

[BillA]

copyman

radiators are pretty well understood here
you might want to look at this article on the ThermoChill rads

when you speak of testing, and test results, note that you should define the methods

-> all of your statements regarding the effects of different fans are incorrect
what you are describing is the inability of your test setup to measure the difference

BTW, they are attractive

[copyman]

Originally posted by unregistered
copyman

radiators are pretty well understood here
you might want to look at this article on the ThermoChill rads

when you speak of testing, and test results, note that you should define the methods

-> all of your statements regarding the effects of different fans are incorrect
what you are describing is the inability of your test setup to measure the difference

BTW, they are attractive

for here they are also very well understood, I assure it

the only thing that I spoke to relationship my f2, was that using 4 fans of 79cfm or using 4 fans of 130 cfm, my temperatures in the processor were the same, logical that he/she hears increase in the temperature of the fluid, it was not only enough so that I could measure with my thermometers of 1c of margin of error. I don't simply get to generate enough heat for the fluid for the differences among the fans they appear.
same tends a xp1700+ @ 2744mhz to 2,125v + two peltiers of 70w reviewing heat to the fluid

What the one wrong in that?

Good I will leave more some results for you, it would only like that showed me the levels of efficiency of other systems that are the same ones or at least they approximate close to mine, if you tell me that the one that I have is something common and trivial.

you this confused my expression difficulty in your language with my knowledge in liquid refrigeration and overclock.

Two pictures one of my modest one supported of tests with my mobo and the last prototype, another of the screen of my computer

excuse the pictures of the screen, but you should get to see something as 3850mhz 1,8v to 34c 21c room temperature






lire beter

[copyman]

CPU: p4 2.8c
Cooling:Watercooler F2 Extreme ( no petier , chiller or vapos)
Voltage: 1.8v
Motherboard:abit ic7g
System Memory: geil 3500 premiun platinum
Overclock: 3844mhz

Watercooler Setup

Pump : Quietone 1100 gph
Radiator : F2 Extreme
Block: LRWW

[copyman]

Here you can see as it reviewst of the variation of room temperature it is symmetrical the temperature of the processor

[copyman]

Motherboard:abit nf7-2 rev 2.0 Bios 1.4 (-10c)

Watercooler Setup

Pump : Quietone 1100 gph
Radiator : F2 Extreme
Block: LRWW


OBS : nf7-s bio1.4


in the images I simulate something below as the cpu die simulator to 70w, my delta the times it accuses 1c, the times not to delta, or better, the mobo doesn't have a scale to measure it











would I like to know where has more wc systems making that?

[copyman]

but how is all this worth very a little for some, are we going to the simulator ok?

[redleader]

Bill, I had never noticed that test before. I don't suppose you ever produced any numbers at all for heatercores?

[BillA]

put it up today, should be on OCers in a week or two
heater core data in the simulator section
here
the threads have become invisible as they have no new posts
- when we lost gmat the simulator ran out of gas

[copyman]

Originally posted by unregistered
put it up today, should be on OCers in a week or two
heater core data in the simulator section
here
the threads have become invisible as they have no new posts
- when we lost gmat the simulator ran out of gas

in the overclockers Joe did speak to me in two months to be capable to evaluate only the radiators, because him this in trip, and here we do have as only evaluating the radiators?

How do I proceed in case it is possible?

If it doesn't go, is it possible to evaluate my complete system?

thanks

[BillA]

guessing this question was to me ??

copyman
on my site you will find a great deal of testing and related bits
the ThermoChill report was my last 'public' article
I now work at Swiftech and am not doing 'outside' testing
(but you can bet I'm doing a BUNCH of in-house testing, much in the works)

I am helping JoeC select the equip for his lab, but not sure just how far he is going to get involved (for example a lab chiller is needed to control the coolant temp)

who else does testing ?

well, today Cathar brought this waterblock review to my attention
done by Marilyn Maple P.Eng, PhD Mechanical Engineering, University of Calgary
(there may be a pressure problem, or not - I have not checked it out yet)
- details on equip and procedures lacking yet, but a possibility

[Since87]

Originally posted by unregistered

well, today Cathar brought this waterblock review to my attention
done by Marilyn Maple P.Eng, PhD Mechanical Engineering, University of Calgary
(there may be a pressure problem, or not - I have not checked it out yet)
- details on equip and procedures lacking yet, but a possibility

Interesting.

Definitely aberrant results on the head loss vs flowrate curve. Much too flat for me to believe it is accurate.

The C/W vs flowrate curve is a bit hard to swallow as well.

[Cathar]

Originally posted by unregistered
copyman

radiators are pretty well understood here
you might want to look at this article on the ThermoChill rads

Wow, I missed that article too.

That is pure gold.

Good work as always Bill.

My only concern lies with the "rating" chart at the end. I'm sure that some people will then run off and say that a Black Ice Xtreme is rated for 919W, therefore it's almost twice as good as the HE120.3, and firmly believe it.

[Les]

Originally posted by Since87
Interesting.

Definitely aberrant results on the head loss vs flowrate curve. Much too flat for me to believe it is accurate.

The C/W vs flowrate curve is a bit hard to swallow as well.

My guess is all ok, but c/w is for an 128sq mm Die.
P/Q similar to Slit Edge http://thermal-management-testing.com/slitedge.htm

[Cathar]

Originally posted by Les
My guess is all ok, but c/w is for an 128sq mm Die.
P/Q similar to Slit Edge http://thermal-management-testing.com/slitedge.htm

Les, I have an EvoS here.

An Eheim 1048 pushes 3.9lpm through the EvoS and 2 x 30cm long pieces of 1/2" ID tubing

The Iwaki MD-30RZ (50Hz model) pushes 9.4lpm through the EvoS and 2 x 30cm long pieces of 1/2" ID tubing, and a 20cm x 5/8" ID tubing on the pump inlet.

The inlet slot is 9mm long x 4mm wide, for which it flows into 5 x 0.8mm wide channels with 1mm wide fins (think White Water style design), leaving a total orifice area of around 20mm² for the jet nozzle into the channels. The inlet and outlet barbs are 9mm ID. The ends of the channels that lead to the outlet barb are 2.5mm high, and there is about 18mm² of orifice area leading to the outlet.

Such a design will not have ~1m H2O pressure drop at 10lpm, and looking at the PQ curves for the Eheim 1048 and MD-30RZ and the flow rates seen for each, they indicate a level of restriction that more correctly resembles what one would expect (~7m of pressure drop at 10lpm). It's quite clear the impact that such differences would have on the pressure vs C/W graph, and correspondingly pump selection criteria.

I've tested the EvoS and have a fair idea of its performance potential, but it would be pointless for me to state any of my data as it could never be classed as being independent.

[copyman]

Originally posted by Cathar
Wow, I missed that article too.

That is pure gold.

Good work as always Bill.

My only concern lies with the "rating" chart at the end. I'm sure that some people will then run off and say that a Black Ice Xtreme is rated for 919W, therefore it's almost twice as good as the HE120.3, and firmly believe it.

A widespread confusion still exists on that, and the people will really get confused

Another factor that worries me, but now in the tests of the bill, they are the cooland flow rate used , a variation from 2 to 12 liters per minute generates a very calm situation of entrance in the cameras, generating very little turbulence and checking a homogeneous feeding of the flat tubes, very different situation when it is used above 20 or 30 liters per minute, in my opinion demanded for systems of high efficiency.

I spent a long time working the cameras of entrance of F2 for not losing efficiency due to turbulence generated in the feeding of the flats the on higher flow rates

If I lower to the flow rate of my closed system going by the rlww and for the f2 of 38 liters for minute for 12, the delta differences and of the temperature of the processor they will be very different than he suggests in your plane curves as approaches of 12 liters hour in the tests of the lrww



With relationship to the thermochill

Same type of construction of my old F1, they need fans with a lot of pressure to work appropriately, because they are very dense, among other more things.

Making a rude comparison, I have with two F1 in parallel, more area than the model 120,2 and much less restriction to the flow

using 4 fans of 120 x 38 mm 130 cfm, two in each rad and with 23 liters for minute of flow rate going by a mcw462-ut, I never got to dissipate the heat reviewed to the fluid so that he came back close the room temperature, using a tec of 226w generating heat, it is almost incredible that the model 120,2 gets to dissipate 400w using any fan

Only some differences....


thanks

[BillA]

Originally posted by Cathar
. . . . My only concern lies with the "rating" chart at the end. I'm sure that some people will then run off and say that a Black Ice Xtreme is rated for 919W, therefore it's almost twice as good as the HE120.3, and firmly believe it.

few understand the magnitude of a 900W load; last week I ran a device putting out a measured 520W - and it overwhermed my chiller !!

yes, a dilemma for Karl Smith for sure
but I have found it always better to take the high road, and leave the misrepresentation to others

[Since87]

Originally posted by Les
My guess is all ok, but c/w is for an 128sq mm Die.
P/Q similar to Slit Edge http://thermal-management-testing.com/slitedge.htm

Perhaps the die simulator is larger than Bill's. I may be blind, but I didn't find dimensions for it. I was assuming from the following quote that the test results were intended to be comparable.

The format follows that presented by "Bill Adams".

Hopefully we'll see more testing detail soon.

[Roscal]

Tests done by BillA are only valid for his die simulator.. You can't compare directly the 2 graphs between 2 different die simulator.

First, the die area could be changed (so C/W TIM changed too but just a linear offset) and there is a thermal resistance in the C/W graphs from BillA which it is due to the T° probes location (copper volume between baseplate and probe), there is an C/W offset from all the bloc tested, but are they linear for each wattage and flowrate, that is the question?? It's not really the C/W waterbloc we have but the C/W of waterbloc+a part of the BillA die (probe location), we can't have the temperature on the die/bloc contact (temperature in base is not really the same). This little part is the same for all bloc so it's good.

His die simulator isn't the same than BillA, it's impossible. The test could be valid for him because with the same reference point on a same die simulator, after we can see how measures are taken, precision, etc to have a better view of the testing methodology.

Let him the time to explain his test rig, his methodology, etc..


Billa > there are some little mistakes in your nice article, you say "This is the same data as in Graph 3" but it's "This is the same data as in Graph 2" and the graph 11 is untitled "Thermochill 120.2" but it's "Thermochill 120.1"

[BillA]

Originally posted by unregistered
. . . .
done by Marilyn Maple P.Eng, PhD Mechanical Engineering, University of Calgary
. . .

ahh, Roscal
from a French man, I am dissapointed
you missed the most interesting aspect
apart from all the degrees, Marilyn is of the other species
amazing in our little world (can only think of Amy doing similar stuff)

Edit
thanks for the corrections, will address

[Roscal]

Arf oki sorry , I didn't pay attention to her name

[Les]

Cathar
Would concur that your observations are inconsistent with the data.
Would further agree that your cbservations are more akin to the behaviour I would expect from the block you describe. The 2.4mm Slot,19sq mm guess on this old graph shows the behaviour I would predict.



First posted on OC Aus (Search on OC Aus is disabled so cannot find link)

Since87
Judging by the discrepancies with Cathar's findings I,perhaps, was a litlle hasty saying ok.

Roscal
All ponts valid.

Yes more testing details are required

[Since87]

Originally posted by Roscal
Tests done by BillA are only valid for his die simulator.. You can't compare directly the 2 graphs between 2 different die simulator.

True, regardless of differences in the die face area, other issues impact the measurement. Not fair on my part, to criticize C/W results when the details of the die simulator are unknown. We can hope the author will do testing on a block Bill has also tested, in order to characterize her test setup.

[redleader]

Another factor that worries me, but now in the tests of the bill, they are the cooland flow rate used , a variation from 2 to 12 liters per minute generates a very calm situation of entrance in the cameras, generating very little turbulence and checking a homogeneous feeding of the flat tubes, very different situation when it is used above 20 or 30 liters per minute, in my opinion demanded for systems of high efficiency.

20 or 30 lpm is many times greater then the highest flow system I have ever heard of. AFAIK no such systems exist. You'd need hundreds of watts of pump to push that through a 1/2 inch system.

12lpm was included as an extreme upper limit. Even pushing that through a system is very impressive.

[copyman]

Originally posted by redleader
20 or 30 lpm is many times greater then the highest flow system I have ever heard of. AFAIK no such systems exist. You'd need hundreds of watts of pump to push that through a 1/2 inch system

12lpm was included as an extreme upper limit. Even pushing that through a system is very impressive.

I HAVE USING A QUIETONE 1100GPH => RAD F2 => LRWW = 34 LITERS PER MINUTE WITH 2,5 METERS OF TUBES OF 1\2 INCH .

MY BOMB CONSUMES 80W, AND IT REVIEWS A TINY PART OF THAT HEAT FOR THE FLUID, YOUR ROTOR IS STAMPED AND LUBRICATED WITH DISTILLED WATER.

YOUR PRICE IS 60-70 DOLLARS


REVIEW YOUR CONCEPTS....

IT IS POSSIBLE TO REACH EASILY MORE THAN 20 LITERS PER MINUTE WITH BOMBS OF 500GPH, CLOSE TO 30 LITERS PER MINUTE WITH BOMBS OF 700 GPH, SAME USING VERY RESTRICTIVE BLOCKS, AND FOR THAT YOU DOESN'T NEED HUNDREDS OF WATS

[]'S

Ivo Guilhon (COPYMAN)