White Water review at oc - Page 2

jaydee · 09-27-2005, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathar

You do a depth pass of 2.0mm with a 1.0mm end-mill in copper? Sounds pretty ambitious to me. Not saying that it can't be done, but typically faster to do 0.5mm depth cuts per pass and feed at a higher rate, or at least that's what my machinists told me. Had problems enough with the end-mills snapping as it was with 0.5mm depth passes. One end-mill bit lasted about 15-20 blocks.

I don't with my little POS mill. If I have a 1mm endmill I will make .5mm passes at 1IPM at 2800RPM. It depends on the mill of course. .5mm passes is the way to go for overall speed. Modern mills running at 15,000RPM can get insane IPM feed rates in copper. I can't see it taking more than 30minutes to make the entire block on a good mill with a tool changer.

I think I left out a channel in my previous calculations. With the block in hand I see 8 channels. They average 1.3125" in lenght and 4mm deep. So 1.3125 x 8 = 10.5". 10.5 x 8 passes is 84". 84" / 5IPM = 16.8 minutes on a average CNC mill. That is not counting the move to the next channel but that should be a rapid move. Still no where near 30 minutes and anything resembling a modern mill should be at least twice a fast.

EDIT: Forgot to mention your right about the .5mm passes at a higher feed rate.

Cathar · 09-27-2005, 10:16 PM

Yeah, my machinists older mill on which the WW was done had a 6000rpm max spindle speed, but they used 5000rpm since they didn't like running the mill at top speed. They don't have a production mill though which can do >10000rpm spindle speeds, and their highest spindle speed on their newer mill is 8000rpm.

In any event, I think it took them around 25mins to do the entire base, which included the drilling of the holes, the O-ring channel, the tapping, and the milling out of the end-cavities, so 5 tool changes included in that. All up, 16.8mins, plus inter-channel moving sounds about right.

jaydee · 09-27-2005, 10:36 PM

5000 to 8000 RPM mills are pretty common. Once you break the 8,000RPM barrier price starts to go up rapidly. You can pretty much do anything with 8,000RPM mill though. I was looking hard at the Hass SMINIMILL with 10,000RPM spindall, 15HP motor, 2.5 second tool changer and 1200IPM rapids.

Still half kicking myself for not buying it when I could. It is only $40,000! Pluse a few G's for extras. Most full size trucks and SUV's are in that price range. I would rather have the mill!

But anyway going a little to off topic.

Eddy_EK · 09-28-2005, 01:00 AM

Yes indeed offtopic...

Anyway we were at manufacturing and measure differences that could make such performance difference.
I am still waiting for bruce to tell us about the differences... if there are any other than machining.
I was making some tests in past about fins and 1mm diffeences in fin height could make a difference about 0,01 to 0,02 C/W and if the chanels width is wider that could mean lower pressure drop, but could mean lower water speer through channels and lower convection (heat transfer from copper to watter).
:shrug:

dacooltech · 09-28-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydee

Which version of the block do I have Bruce?

You got the Zebra striped version Jaydee lol

Guess, the guys at the shop made a mistake and sent JoeC one of my test protos ...
at one time I tried different fin + channel width and different BP thickness variations to figure out the differences, for my own pleasure. I even have 0.5mm fins + channels with 0.5mm, 0.75, 1mm, 1.5mm, and 2mm etc thick BP configs as well.
I had the correct one sent to him (same one that customers get) so all is good now...

dacooltech · 09-28-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cathar

Indeed. The 1.2mm fins vs 0.8mm channels is the incorrect way to implement the design, especially if the channel height hadn't been changed to compensate. I hadn't realised that the designs were different. If Bruce had contacted me I could've told him that such a configuration would've been less than optimal. Still, a ~0.03C/W difference seems a little large to me - may have been some other variations present.

No worries Stew, a BP with 0.8mm channels + 1.2mm fins was never released to the customers. The mistake had been corrected, so all is good now...

dacooltech · 09-28-2005, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddy_EK

There is another rewiew of that block at OC.

I can't believe that such a small difference could make so big difference in preformings. :shrug:

Could dacooltech tell us what was the differences between those bloch to achieve that big difference... :shrug:

Apparently one of the WW BP protos that I made for testing, was sent to JoeC... I'm not sure what exact config he received though... I asked JoeC to check the dimensions of the BP if he could, but haven't received a reply from him yet...

Eddy_EK · 09-28-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacooltech

Apparently one of the WW BP protos that I made for testing, was sent to JoeC... I'm not sure what exact config he received though... I asked JoeC to check the dimensions of the BP if he could, but haven't received a reply from him yet...

I am really looking forward to se what was different to get such a difference

dacooltech · 09-28-2005, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydee

I see what the problem is. I don't think Bruce changed the design. The problem is in the machining and I see why. They are using slit saws to make the channels instead of end mills. I took mine apart and it clearly shows the slit saw marks. My trusty micrometer tells me the fins width on mine is .82mm, .88mm, .88mm, .84mm, .82mm, .84mm and .88mm. Channel width varies from .9mm to 1mm....

The only difference between the WW-LE and the original WW is the slit nozzle. The original WW (AL topped) has a 3.5mm wide slit, and the WW-LE (nickel plated copper mid plate and top) has a 2.5mm wide slit.

All D-Tek and Cooltechnica WW blocks have been made with slitting saws.

dacooltech · 09-28-2005, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddy_EK

I am really looking forward to se what was different to get such a difference

well me too

dacooltech · 09-28-2005, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydee

Main problem with slit saws is any little vibration or imbalance will make the channels wider than the width of the blade. Thay can become out of balance a lot easier than end mills especially if ran hot. Probably not the case here though. That much of a change was probably some other issue. Still shouldn't change the results that much though.

Very true, especially with High-Speed Steel slitting saws. Also number of teeth makes a big difference as well. If number of teeth on the saw is too much (ie above 20 for the saws that we use) then you'll have problems... teeth of HSS saws got easily broken too.
So we use Solid Carbide wheel cutters. The trick with solid carbide is speed should be approximately 50% greater than HSS.

pHaestus · 09-28-2005, 11:06 AM

I have one of the batch of WW-LEs at the house and an older Dtek WW. I'll crack em open tonight and verify that the one JoeC got was just an anomoly. Not that I don't trust ya Bruce but everyone likes pictures

dacooltech · 09-28-2005, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pHaestus

I have one of the batch of WW-LEs at the house and an older Dtek WW. I'll crack em open tonight and verify that the one JoeC got was just an anomoly. Not that I don't trust ya Bruce but everyone likes pictures

Thanks Derek... actually if you test it as well that will be great too

Les · 09-28-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacooltech

The only difference between the WW-LE and the original WW is the slit nozzle. The original WW (AL topped) has a 3.5mm wide slit, and the WW-LE (nickel plated copper mid plate and top) has a 2.5mm wide slit.

All D-Tek and Cooltechnica WW blocks have been made with slitting saws.

My model's predictions for testing on a 10x10mm heat die.

Edit
Updated graph. ref

HaloJones · 09-29-2005, 05:18 AM

How different was the original LRWW? Other than the copper top, were the channels different too?

Cathar · 09-29-2005, 06:58 AM

As documented at OCAU, the original WW had 1.0mm wall and channel widths, and 4mm high channels.

The original had a 3.5mm wide nozzle slit. I had experimented with 2.5mm wide nozzle slits at my end just prior to releasing the WW back all that time ago, and found no noticable performance increase with a given pump, which at that time was either an Eheim 1048 or 1250.

jaydee · 09-29-2005, 08:05 PM

http://www.overclockers.com/articles1264/

Cathar · 09-29-2005, 08:21 PM

Great, all the WW's seem to be in agreement. Nice to see that Joe's happy to entertain such corrections/revisions.

Now I think that Swiftech would probably do well to re-send a Storm waterblock, first verified that its pressure drop is as it should be, ask Joe to retest, and take it from there. Something's wrong, but where? I don't know - but should be addressed in any event.

09-27-2005, 10:16 PM	#27
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	Yeah, my machinists older mill on which the WW was done had a 6000rpm max spindle speed, but they used 5000rpm since they didn't like running the mill at top speed. They don't have a production mill though which can do >10000rpm spindle speeds, and their highest spindle speed on their newer mill is 8000rpm. In any event, I think it took them around 25mins to do the entire base, which included the drilling of the holes, the O-ring channel, the tapping, and the milling out of the end-cavities, so 5 tool changes included in that. All up, 16.8mins, plus inter-channel moving sounds about right. Last edited by Cathar; 09-28-2005 at 01:50 AM.

09-28-2005, 01:00 AM	#29
Eddy_EK Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Slovenia Posts: 94	Yes indeed offtopic... Anyway we were at manufacturing and measure differences that could make such performance difference. I am still waiting for bruce to tell us about the differences... if there are any other than machining. I was making some tests in past about fins and 1mm diffeences in fin height could make a difference about 0,01 to 0,02 C/W and if the chanels width is wider that could mean lower pressure drop, but could mean lower water speer through channels and lower convection (heat transfer from copper to watter). :shrug: __________________ EK Water Blocks

09-28-2005, 11:06 AM	#37
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	I have one of the batch of WW-LEs at the house and an older Dtek WW. I'll crack em open tonight and verify that the one JoeC got was just an anomoly. Not that I don't trust ya Bruce but everyone likes pictures __________________ Getting paid like a biker with the best crank... -MF DOOM

09-29-2005, 05:18 AM	#40
HaloJones Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Moab Posts: 45	How different was the original LRWW? Other than the copper top, were the channels different too? __________________ Epox 8RDA+, XP1700B @2400MHz, SlitEdge, BIX DFI Ultra-D UT, Opteron 146 @2500MHz, 6000, MCP350, MCR120

09-27-2005, 10:36 PM	#28
jaydee Put up or Shut Up Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Spokane WA Posts: 6,506	5000 to 8000 RPM mills are pretty common. Once you break the 8,000RPM barrier price starts to go up rapidly. You can pretty much do anything with 8,000RPM mill though. I was looking hard at the Hass SMINIMILL with 10,000RPM spindall, 15HP motor, 2.5 second tool changer and 1200IPM rapids. Still half kicking myself for not buying it when I could. It is only $40,000! Pluse a few G's for extras. Most full size trucks and SUV's are in that price range. I would rather have the mill! But anyway going a little to off topic.

09-29-2005, 06:58 AM	#41
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	As documented at OCAU, the original WW had 1.0mm wall and channel widths, and 4mm high channels. The original had a 3.5mm wide nozzle slit. I had experimented with 2.5mm wide nozzle slits at my end just prior to releasing the WW back all that time ago, and found no noticable performance increase with a given pump, which at that time was either an Eheim 1048 or 1250.

09-29-2005, 08:05 PM	#42
jaydee Put up or Shut Up Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Spokane WA Posts: 6,506	http://www.overclockers.com/articles1264/

09-29-2005, 08:21 PM	#43
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	Great, all the WW's seem to be in agreement. Nice to see that Joe's happy to entertain such corrections/revisions. Now I think that Swiftech would probably do well to re-send a Storm waterblock, first verified that its pressure drop is as it should be, ask Joe to retest, and take it from there. Something's wrong, but where? I don't know - but should be addressed in any event.

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