What about internal pics of the storm?

[psychofunk]

Originally Posted by davidzo

You are all *** with no idea of sensefull interhuman communication, is that what you wanted to hear? No, i don't want to decrease my level to the same as you. Why are ......

Valid points or not your initial post I read as being a bit offensive towards Cathar. You shouldn't point fingers unless you are willing to point one right back at yourself.

[davidzo]

oh psychofunk
you didn't understand what i wanted to say. It was a joke, not what i meant to anybody, Read the sentence beyound this one, than you will understand my sarkastic saying, i hope.
I deletet this sentence now, not to provocate anymore missunderstanding, because it seems that pHaestus has misunderstood my irony too.
I was just copying the behaviour of BallfireX in an ironically way. I'm sorry when you felt offendet with this, that was naot what i wanted to express (sometimes its difficult to translate sarkastic or ironic Idioms form german into English, especially for me, as i am not really good in english )

[SlaterSpeed]

you need to look deeper then the number of jets to understand why its better tho.

[davidzo]

yes, your're right SlaterSpeed,

but haven't i mentioned that there is more than the jetcountand size?
tht was only one thing which i explained a little bit more than the rest

Originally Posted by davidzo

The actual design looks much more intelligent from the jetarea, the baseplatesurface, the jetsize and length.

[HiProfile]

I think Cathar is cheating us all by posting pictures of defective parts! I think we don't have a clear picture of the base because he just didn't get a bad one in the entire batch...


Less so on topic...

You almost have to read all the forums Cathar posts to to understand it all.

Originally Posted by Cathar@OCauForums

Oh, I'm not explaining it [the function/theory].

I will say though that at the root fluid mechanics level, the way Storm and the Cascade do their job are almost total chalk and cheese, despite superficially looking somewhat similar.

This is why I gave warnings not to get too fussed over the internals appearing much different, and that people might be somewhat disappointed with the mystery.

You can look at two spent .22cal slugs and say they look almost the same, same tech used, but its what you don't see that makes one shoot much farther/faster than the other. I can't personally say much about the funtion of the storm either, but my mind can picture the way the water flows inside fairly well. I also can't defend the machine quality, but AFAIK, the G3 was the "$30" waterblock, the G4 was the best bang for the buck, and the G5 the silver "almost too hard to machine" model. It'd make sense that the non-sensitive parts like camfers on mounting holes that you'll never see weren't given much attention. For the other 'defects', the verticle axis doesn't matter nearly as much as the horizontal axis for the top. Cathar also mentions that the top pictured had other flaws in it, my guess is he's considering it a dud, but still fit for backup duty.

Another thing is that the Cascade XS/XXX and alike are dead, not to be used as contention points when arguing about the storm - Cathar has said repeatedly the storm has gone in a different direction than the Cascade XS/XXX. I also want to point out that you might get more overall friction from more tubes, but at the same pressure, you get more overall flow (think of it as a cookie cutter, how much dough will either design get in the tubes after pressing into the dough). I understand that you get more overall friction, and combat it with more jets, which need smaller holes to keep up velocity...essentially the "chicken and the egg" scenerio. Basicly, Cathar is saying the Cascade & Cascade XS/XXX share little in common with the Storm other than looks with each other. Tests done to confirm changes to the Cascade design won't really do much to explain the Storm from what I'm hearing.


As for the Euro microstructure blocks, the main problem with them is just what you mentioned - low flow; not internally, externally. IMO it'll take [the majority of] Europeans a long time to convert to the mindset of extracting every extra bit of flow from the system where they can. [I just don't get it - our cities may be different densities, but our PC cases are have exactly the same space inside :shrug: Why not use it all and go 1/2" ID?] They also have a hefty pressure drop as well, meaning you can't interpret an incomplete graph of lower flowrates to cover the highflow region. It'll also be hard to compair the two designs, since you surely won't find a review testing both on 3/8" and 1/2" ID systems & representive flows for both. Each were designed around a particular flowrate - micro's low-moderate flowrates, storm/inpingement(sp?) for moderate-high flowrates. Another thought is how will the Storm be moddified by the reviewers this time? The last major review with the cascade featured what Cathar said to be a user-modified block, changed in such to negatively impact performance. Little River WB's aren't made to have their bases simply perpindicular to the sides... One possitive thing I will say about microstructure blocks - they are much cheaper to create and maintain than the Cascade/Storm blocks are. That alone may ensure their future dominance.

*Note: not a rant on Euro trends, I just can remember way back when watercooled systems, with the exception for the WB internals, looked just like most Euro setups do - 3/8" tubing, small pumps, and condenser-style rads. Again, not a rant, just trying for "sensefull interhuman communication". I'm also unprepared to 'put my money where my mouth is' to verify what I say, but in the same sense, very, very few others are able to either.


*I'll admit BalefireX came off a bit strong, but I think the last half that he said summed it up well, though.

*One other last bit regarding your insults against the forum population, I find it fitting for someone with a negative statement against another contry's leader. I dislike him too, but there's being funny and then there's being rude. Say what you want though.

[BillA]

davidzo

EDITed by Bill

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by davidzo

hm, boring design, just what the cascade was but a little mixed up in number size and so. The Storm seems to be different to the cascade in that therms, which i critizised so many times, not a big invention, i am a little diasappointet.

What do you consider not disapointing?
I would continue but I got a bad sinus infection and can barely keep from passing out.

[davidzo]

Originally Posted by HiProfile

It'd make sense that the non-sensitive parts like camfers on mounting holes that you'll never see weren't given much attention.

Yes, but does it make the whole thing easier or somewhat better to machine? I think no

Another thing is that the Cascade XS/XXX and alike are dead, not to be used as contention points when arguing about the storm - Cathar has said repeatedly the storm has gone in a different direction than the Cascade XS/XXX.

You are completely right. Imagine the cascade with its jets is in the middle and there are two extremes, one to the reight, thats the XS/XXX and one to the right thats the Storm. I pointet out that he has gone first to the left, but hasn't found what he was seraching for and then he tried the exactly opposite with the storm and finally he succeded.

I also want to point out that you might get more overall friction from more tubes, but at the same pressure, you get more overall flow (think of it as a cookie cutter, how much dough will either design get in the tubes after pressing into the dough). I understand that you get more overall friction, and combat it with more jets, which need smaller holes to keep up velocity...essentially the "chicken and the egg" scenerio. Basicly, Cathar is saying the Cascade & Cascade XS/XXX share little in common with the Storm other than looks with each other. Tests done to confirm changes to the Cascade design won't really do much to explain the Storm from what I'm hearing.

Thats right again, the Storm goes in the completely opposite Direction. The storm uses bigger cups and injected jets to achieve a good waterdistribution (what the only manko of the cascade was, the distribution). Thats what some firms in Europe and some People already have tried, nothing really spectacular, nothing new. The big goal of the Storm seems to be the wheiging of the different factors against another. And i think cathar is pretty good in improving an design and getting the best out of it, can't wait for the results. Thats a really complicated and high precision work to do, so i fully respect what cathar did here, but the basic design has still been used in some similar looking shape (Excalibur, Murks3.1 etc.)
But thats not completely different. Come on guys, this is cathar, i expectetd a little more than only tweaking with the same jets and in someway similar looking baseplate.

As for the Euro microstructure blocks, the main problem with them is just what you mentioned - low flow; not internally, externally. IMO it'll take [the majority of] Europeans a long time to convert to the mindset of extracting every extra bit of flow from the system where they can. [I just don't get it - our cities may be different densities, but our PC cases are have exactly the same space inside :shrug: Why not use it all and go 1/2" ID?] They also have a hefty pressure drop as well, meaning you can't interpret an incomplete graph of lower flowrates to cover the highflow region. It'll also be hard to compair the two designs, since you surely won't find a review testing both on 3/8" and 1/2" ID systems & representive flows for both. Each were designed around a particular flowrate - micro's low-moderate flowrates, storm/inpingement(sp?) for moderate-high flowrates. Another thought is how will the Storm be moddified by the reviewers this time? The last major review with the cascade featured what Cathar said to be a user-modified block, changed in such to negatively impact performance. Little River WB's aren't made to have their bases simply perpindicular to the sides... One possitive thing I will say about microstructure blocks - they are much cheaper to create and maintain than the Cascade/Storm blocks are. That alone may ensure their future dominance.

Sometimes I can't understand it too. My first Rig was build from a small singleradiator, a mp1200 and a selfdremeld copy of a white water with 16 small channels, alltogether with 10/14mm Tubing (somewhat in the near of 1/2")
It performed ok, but not as good as other lowflow systems because of the small radiator (only single)
Its very interesting to look where the different people give there money:
- There are the highflowpeople. They use very large and powerful pumps with big tubing and less restrictive blocks. The radiator is not of a big importance, a blackice single or a heatercore is enough, if not, they add a second delta and a secon shoreud onto it. Quick connection Hosebarbs are for women here, they only want big hosebarbs like they are known from the garden equipment.The main Point here is the pump- they easily spend a 30 $ more for the pump and don't know that they would only have 1° higher temps with the smaller pump. They think their systems performs really good, because they have a few 100liters per hour more through their block, which can affect a 1-2° decrease of the temps
- There are the lowflowpeople. They use very big triples and also bigger Radiators, somewhat interesting microstructurecoolers and small pumps with small tubing. They think the heart of the watercoolinkgit would be the radiator. They spend much money just to tweak 1-2° out of the temps through a very big Radiator. Most they are also very interested in technics and looks. Normal hosebarbs look too primitive to them, they want something special. Quick connects are perfect for them, they have a high technical standard compared to normal barbs and they look wuite different. Tubing doesn't matter, because flow doesn't matter, there are only 1-2° to get with better flow

I think both thoughts are a bit funny
Imagine what an increase in performance an European could get if he just uses big tubes. Imagine what an increase a highflowguy could get if he just uses more than a single radiator.
there must be a way in the middle. And this way is to be searched for. Cost-effective highend watercooling, a mixture of highflow intentions to get the performance of the block up to date and the bigradiator issue and the practical tubing to get the Usability noobproved.

*Note: not a rant on Euro trends, I just can remember way back when watercooled systems, with the exception for the WB internals, looked just like most Euro setups do - 3/8" tubing, small pumps, and condenser-style rads. Again, not a rant, just trying for "sensefull interhuman communication". I'm also unprepared to 'put my money where my mouth is' to verify what I say, but in the same sense, very, very few others are able to either.

I can imagine back a time, when all Europeans used 10/14mm PVC Tubing and normal hosebarbs and not the special PUR-tube and some nice metalic Quickconnectors. That was the time where simple channeldesigns were on the market. In this time, Europeans testet eheim 1046 and 1048 against another and came to the statement that the 1046 is better at all than a 1048. The funny thing is, that they measured right. Because of the primitive blockdeign there was no advantage of the higher flow blocks, no difference with flow. The only difference was the heat dissipation of the pump. And the eheim 1046 and 1048 are still so similarly in terms of performance because of the same head, that it just sounds logically that there is no difference between the 300l/h pump and the 600l/hone (in real sytems somewhat 80l/h to 90l/h).

Europeans look with the same smile in the face down to the Americans (for example) an their highflowrigs. They laugh about the simple and brutal looking hoseconnectors and holding mechanism, the big tubing from PVC (what is well known as the cheapest tube in Europe) and wonder why they use so big Pumps.
The point where the European gets really nostalgic feelings is when it comes to highflow radiators - mostly heatercores. They are rusty and with the big 38mmfans mounted on the shroud it looks so primitive. Then Europeans think of their own Radiators, with stainless Steelcover, nicely machined and suitable extra for 120mmFans and watercooling issues.
Thats funny i think, but also sad, because both partys forget a much tweaking potential of which they haven't thought the whole time.

being rude

hey, it was meant in a sarkasting way, you understand, it was not menat to you?!

[BillA]

NO condescension involved, davidzo that was an excellent post

[snowwie]

I can imagine back a time, when all Europeans used 10/14mm PVC Tubing and normal hosebarbs and not the special PUR-tube and some nice metalic Quickconnectors. That was the time where simple channeldesigns were on the market. In this time, Europeans testet eheim 1046 and 1048 against another and came to the statement that the 1046 is better at all than a 1048. The funny thing is, that they measured right. Because of the primitive blockdeign there was no advantage of the higher flow blocks, no difference with flow. The only difference was the heat dissipation of the pump. And the eheim 1046 and 1048 are still so similarly in terms of performance because of the same head, that it just sounds logically that there is no difference between the 300l/h pump and the 600l/hone (in real sytems somewhat 80l/h to 90l/h).

i dunno

I was under the impression that simpler, low flow restrictive blocks (maze, etc.) benefited more from increased flow than more modern, restrictive blocks do

[davidzo]

Originally Posted by unregistered

davidzo
note that after crapping on push-in connectors on another thread, you declined to substantiate in any manner your allegations
does your innate superority relieve you from answering ?

Did I? I don't think so, thats how you see it from your point in your corner. You and me too just don't have the Overview to judge this...

many (most ?, all ?) of your observations are valid in a literal sense, and most are probably irrelevant wrt the wb's performance
- I say probably because I do not have data

But I have, look at page one, i posted a link to fluidus measurements there.

all this foolish babble about testing and flow rates, is it difficult to control and measure the flow rate on a test bench ?
-> only if one has a Mickey Mouse setup
so any wb can indeed be tested at any flow rate (if used with the appropriate connectors - as in those provided by its mfgr)

yes its difficult, because some blocks come without any barbs and some come with. and flowrate measurements are difficult because of doifferent restrictions of the blocks. You can ask pHaestus why you can't compare the maze4 and the cascade in the one diagramm, then he'll tell you why its difficult (or just read the articla about the maze4).
Another thing is the overall performance of a watercoolingkit. When you only measure the performance of the block with a highflow, you have forgotten the heat that the pumps dissipates to the water and the radsize...

opinions about wbs w/o data, even if based on good science, are only opinions
opinions about wb performance w/o data are always bullshit

this from someone who does know something about testing

Thats why i included w/o data and based my opinions on that. I know you know something about testing , i do read through international forums and your are a well known person BillA.

NO condescension involved, davidzo that was an excellent post

thx BillaA


@snowwie:
The maze4 indeed is a very different thing, but not the maze1-3 and other spiral/mazelike blocks.
The very interesting and good about the withe water was its exceptional good scaling at that time. That was because the higher flow was directly used against the boundary layer. In a block like a maze1 or even the MCW5000, it don't changes a much because the boundary layer stays still nearly the same, while the flow in the middle of the channels gets more (where we don't wanna have it)
an austrian company, Zern invented somes sort of Polytop back in the days of the mazelike blocks, to press the water against the walls of the channels and not to flow through the middle. That was one simple solution and there where other solutions to lower the boundary layer, but jets actually are much more efficient to make the increased flow usable to combat the boundary layer - and thats what makes a good block today, the thin boundary layer.
@The mcW462B is the type of block, which we germans call "Gleitschichtkühler", which means boundarylayer-cooler. The Innovatek flatflow is another example. Both are exapmples for designs which also scaled nicely like the Zerns from Austria, but not with jets like today.

[BillA]

virtually all wbs will improve with higher flow rates, but the micro channel have an effective upper limit due to the exponentially increasing flow resistance

the statement is not correct
the old MCW462-B was about a simple as a flat plate can be and it benefited from higher flow rates ( http://overclockers.com/articles688/index03.asp )

and the most modern have the same characteristics, look at pH's results

it remains a total mystery how or why the 'Europeans' (except the English and French) attempt to assert something contrary to known physics

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Cathar

Make of this what you will

Thank you.

Omit one alignment pin.

Don't pay to sculpt fragile tubes. Consider forcing very thin-walled straight or flared tube into drilled holes. Use your head and design a jig/simple machine for the operation.

[BillA]

ok davidzo

lets deal now with the push-in connectors
I quoted hundreds of thousands of these connectors in successful WCing service for years

I DO have specific experience, and you ?
perhaps I am the one with an Overview, and you are repeating something from another ?
as we say over here, put up or shut up; where is your evidence ?

you are confused about flow rates
when a component is bench tested the flow rate is one of the variables
when a kit is tested it has a single flow rate, generally not known (though I measure such along with the coolant temp)
IF you presume that a wb can ONLY be used with the components of a specific kit, then the indifference to its performance under other conditions may be understood (but the flow rate sensitivity is still existant)

are you famaliar with C/W vs. Pressure Drop curves ?
easily wbs may be compared
and what pH will say is that he needs to complete that part of his test bench !

too many crossed posts, confusion reigns

[miladiou]

Originally Posted by unregistered

(except the English and French)

Who's left ???

[Cathar]

Guys, have to remember here that davidzo is a self-styled waterblock designer with commercial interests in Europe. He has his own motives for being so glib.

I decline to answer to any of his statements. To explain things to him is to help him out with his own commercial plans. I have no intention of doing that.

Reading through his posts here, they have been filled with biased conjecture as suits his model view of the watercooling world. "Troll" is the best word, and I have no problem with saying it, but there's only one thing worse than a troll, and that's a commercial troll.

I deliberately obfuscated bits of what's going on, and then we get the above set of off-the-cuff responses by davidzo. I think the point is well proven.

[BillA]

ah, the thunder of pieces falling into context
davidzo declined to answer that question despite being asked several times

I think he should get a title such as "non-objective disser"
pleeeeeze pH (Joe gave me mine w/o ANY consultation)

[davidzo]

Originally Posted by unregistered

ok davidzo

lets deal now with the push-in connectors
I quoted hundreds of thousands of these connectors in successful WCing service for years

I DO have specific experience, and you ?
perhaps I am the one with an Overview, and you are repeating something from another ?
as we say over here, put up or shut up; where is your evidence ?

Hey man, I sell these Connectors and have over 1000 of them here in my Storage hall. I have a 3cm thick Landefeld Pneumatics Fible here next to me with lots of different pushin connectors explained inside.
Yes, repeating from another. have you invented this conncetors? no? - So don't say you aren't repeating something from another.
But Remember: I have no Commercial interests here at procoolings, because i only sell in germany, so why should I care?
@BillA: Reading is a very complicated activity isn't it? I didn't declined anywhere that i am no commercial player, but i declined, that i have commercial interests anywhere in Australia or the USA or anywhere else. I believe that i am the onliest active german poster here, so don't think i do this for advertisement or other purposes. i have simply another opinion.

you are confused about flow rates
when a component is bench tested the flow rate is one of the variables
when a kit is tested it has a single flow rate, generally not known (though I measure such along with the coolant temp)
IF you presume that a wb can ONLY be used with the components of a specific kit, then the indifference to its performance under other conditions may be understood (but the flow rate sensitivity is still existant)

No i am not confused, i din't say anything about that.
The flow rate is a variable, thats right, but you use it like an constant. And thats not right, because the flowrate differs from block to block and thats because you should have read pHaestus Article about the Maze4. Some Blocks are simply so restrictive, that they need much more pressure to reach the same flowrate than other blocks, and thats the point where comparisn gets unfair.
I like much more the way kaltmacher.de is measuring flowrates (although they use indeed mickey mouse tubing, thats a negative point i agree): http://www.kaltmacher.de/artikel.php?t=34482
Please take a look also at the WPS, a computerconnected Testingdevice specially constructed für Watercooling. The design and The Software has been developed in the kaltmacher Forum as an OpenSourceproject.
This is what i call professional testequipment.

are you famaliar with C/W vs. Pressure Drop curves ?

No never seen anywhere LOL


@Cathar: of course, I am a commercial player and i will ship my blocks aorund the half globus to concurrate to your blocks in australia. dream on!
I have my design for my cooler UCD2 and UCD-V and it will not be based on old technics like the cascade or storm or other jet impigment.
Just to give you a hint of what i am doing atm:
I am trying to bring the Turbulence nearer to the cpudie. I don't not increase the friction or restriction where it isn't definitely needed, as it is inside the jets. My restriction is at another point, but not inside the jets. The "jets" should only direct the water and distribute it to the baseplate. Only now i will try to activate turbulences inside the water.
This is a completely different approach, with less data of its effectiveness, less approved than yours but maybe if i am lucky and made no mistake in my calculations there will be a big potential.

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by davidzo

So there must be a point, where the friction inside the jets is bigger than the advantage of the jetcount (-> better waterdistribution all over the surface)."

I will address this point though, purely because it is unfounded conjecture.

In the Cascade the length of the jet tubes accounts for around 2% of the block's total pressure drop. In the Storm, they account for around 4%.

Oh, but hey, when attempting to discredit work for commercial reasons, why should one stop to make sure that they have their facts straight before engaging the mouth.

The bulk of the pressure drop in any jetted design is that of restricting/accelerating the water into the jets themselves. Once the water is accelerated inside a jet the pressure drop really is fairly minimal unless travelling 5cm or so, at which point it still only becomes significant, but not dominant, in comparison to the cost of getting the water into the jets in the first place.

[Cathar]

...and there we have it guys.

BaleFireX - you had no reason to apologise. You hit the nail square on the head with your first go.

Originally Posted by davidzo

I have my design for my cooler UCD2 and UCD-V and it will not be based on old technics like the cascade or storm or other jet impigment.
Just to give you a hint of what i am doing atm:
I am trying to bring the Turbulence nearer to the cpudie. I don't not increase the friction or restriction where it isn't definitely needed, as it is inside the jets. My restriction is at another point, but not inside the jets. The "jets" should only direct the water and distribute it to the baseplate. Only now i will try to activate turbulences inside the water.
This is a completely different approach, with less data of its effectiveness, less approved than yours but maybe if i am lucky and made no mistake in my calculations there will be a big potential.

[miladiou]

Originally Posted by davidzo

I am trying to bring the Turbulence nearer to the cpudie. I don't not increase the friction or restriction where it isn't definitely needed, as it is inside the jets. My restriction is at another point, but not inside the jets. The "jets" should only direct the water and distribute it to the baseplate. Only now i will try to activate turbulences inside the water.

some pics or shemes of what you're talking about ?

[davidzo]

@cathar: In my tests with a top and 34 jets a 1.2mm, the main pressure drop came through the microstructure of the base and not through the chamfered jetholes. I testet this with a sumbmerged pump (resun sp980) and a basin and watch for flowmeasurement in my bathroom and got completely different values.
So i don't know where you have your data from, but i have different data.
I completely disagree that the jetlegth is responsible for anything under 10% of the pressuredrop inside any jetblock, because of my different results when measuring it with my prototypes.

@Miladou: Yes, but wait till i post the final pics, then i can also post cad drawings and so, but i don't wanna post pics before the production isn't finished and i have photos of the blocks (until now i have only about 20 different prototypes)

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by davidzo

@cathar: In my tests with a top and 34 jets a 1.2mm, the main pressure drop came through the microstructure of the base and not through the chamfered jetholes. I testet this with a sumbmerged pump (resun sp980) and a basin and watch for flowmeasurement in my bathroom and got completely different values.
So i don't know where you have your data from, but i have different data.
I completely disagree that the jetlegth is responsible for anything under 10% of the pressuredrop inside any jetblock, because of my different results when measuring it with my prototypes.

Remember, I'm not here to correct your mistakes. If you want to argue your point - you're talking to the wrong person.

[miladiou]

Originally Posted by davidzo

@Miladou: Yes, but wait till i post the final pics, then i can also post cad drawings and so, but i don't wanna post pics before the production isn't finished and i have photos of the blocks (until now i have only about 20 different prototypes)

I'm ready to look at 20 pictures... or just explain what your new concept is

[davidzo]

hey, why are you subordinating such things to me. I just wanted to share my opinion, i don't need any comment of you cathar, thats ok.
I just want to make sure, that you don't think of me that i make this criticism in commercial interests. Its my opinion and its my understanding of the physics, maybe i am right maybe i am wrong, but its not your turn cathar, to correct me if you don't want, ok?