New WCing article at Tech ARP

[BGP Spook]

I saw this yesterday.

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...tno=376&pgno=0

At the bottom of page 4, I have to disagree with the author regarding the best placement of fans.

He recommends a pusher setup, claiming that the difference in temperature makes this the most advantageous owing to the ideal gas law, PV=nRT.

I believe he is incorrect because I think he is overestimating the ability of axial fans to create pressure.

Thoughts?

[jaydee]

I think everything on that page is not all that correct.

The other type of radiator that is quickly gaining popularity is the heater core.

Water cooling started with heater cores. If anything it is the other way around. Specifically made for PC water cooling rads are getting more popular and heater cores are on their way out.

Also don't entirely agree with this:

These heater cores are excellent for water cooling since they are highly efficient and will provide the best amount of cooling capacity you can get.

Not sure this is right at all. I was under the impression some of the better new PC WC rads had better cooling capacity.

As for the push/pull argument I don't see a normal case fan producing enough pressure to compress gas. I think that is necessary to make that gas law apply right?

Also over the years I have tried it all and never could accurately measure the temp difference between the two methods. I think pH did a test and summery of his findings at one time. If I remember right there was hardly a difference.

[BGP Spook]

That is what I was thinking, jaydee.

The newest PA.120.x series are without a doubt the best performing rads at airflows below 80 cfm.

Have you read the rest of the article? I have been busy and only got up to page 4.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by BGP Spook

That is what I was thinking, jaydee.

The newest PA.120.x series are without a doubt the best performing rads at airflows below 80 cfm.

Have you read the rest of the article? I have been busy and only got up to page 4.

I skimmed through it. There is some less than accurate info but not to much to be harmful. It really looked to me the guy just read a bunch forums on water cooling and blobbed it all together collecting some of the garbage along the way. I doubt he is much into real water cooling. He obviously does not know a lot about the real history of water cooling.

Overall not to bad I guess. I think someone really interested in water cooling would eventually sort out some of not so accurate stuff in there. The one's not so interested it wouldn't matter much.

One thing that really sticks out though on page 5 (of freaking 16 pages) is this:

There is also a real performance advantage in keeping your tubings short, especially from the pump to the water block. I recorded a temperature reduction of 5°C just by doing so.

It takes a lot of tubing to raise temps 5C. My guess is he shortened the tubing and lessened some pressure of the water block making it seat better or something. I dropped 4 feet of tubing on my test bench once and seen less than 1C difference.

[BGP Spook]

I was wondering about that line and your explanation sounds plausible.

It might be a case of poor writing style, though. He could be referring to redoing an entire loop rather than just the run between the pump and the water block.

It seems as though in the last year or so the quality of the information about water cooling has decreased. Or at least the understanding of water cooling has been reduced.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by BGP Spook

I was wondering about that line and your explanation sounds plausible.

It might be a case of poor writing style, though. He could be referring to redoing an entire loop rather than just the run between the pump and the water block.

It seems as though in the last year or so the quality of the information about water cooling has decreased. Or at least the understanding of water cooling has been reduced.

I don't know. How much extra hose can you possibly have in the system though. Not much fits inside a PC case. Unless the pump is small and over worked I can't see a 5C gain as plausible. It is stuff like that though that really kills the article. A lot of unsubstantiated claims. If I got a 5C drop by removing some hose I would be making sure it was in fact the hose that made the difference before posting it in a article about mastering water cooling. This guy has obviously not mastered water cooling himself so I am not sure how he thinks he can write an article on such.

I think it is inevitable that quality info about a something that started as a hobby will get eroded pretty quickly when things become more commercial and the hobbyist is out of the picture. Less is learned when things become plug 'n' play and the DIY'ers start to wonder off.

[ricecrispi]

yeah he revised and it still has older parts. Focused on fitting way too much. Why> Over ambitious and was combined forum how-to stuff sticky from different places.


The knowledge is getting waterdowned and the users are getting younger as well. They can't drive so they WC their computers. I linked a rad performance chart with heat dissipate capacity for 10C change from ambient and everyone assumed that was the absolute capacity limit of the rad. I was read the f'ing title in bold and the description. companies are still make AL waterblocks and people are still buying mct-50 and fluid xp liquid for $20-35 a pop.

Testing reviews will be sorely missed in the next few years. Everything is purely dT only reviews on computers which i come to realize doesn't offer enough control to compare results.