Any news on the cascade xxx?

[Les]

Point taken, but this an average within a cup.
There being 50+ cups per device, it may be a starting point.
Only this guy's opinion.

[BillA]

perhaps, but this touches on my heartburn with CFD for wbs
sure, one can sim a cup, test, correct, and validate
but this does not address the cups' interconnection necessary for any device calc;
nor, more importantly, does it enable 'looking' at the effects of cup changes (of any sort I suspect)

yea, perhaps better than nothing - but for me not worth my time if not predictive
Flotherm is very capable for many things, but I have reservations about its abitity to model mbs w/o extensive parametric validation
if I have to pay $28K pa per seat for Flotherm, plus a pHD to run it; and then STILL have to test 'till hell freezes over to validate, . . . its cheaper to build and test

[myv65]

Cathar,

No material expert here, either. In going through my book I find that the electrode potential differential from copper to silver is ~0.5V, copper to chromium (stainless surface chromium dioxide) is ~1V, and copper to aluminum is ~2V. All this is at 25°C.

From what you described of that pump, I'm reasonably confident it was a matter of contamination. Nonetheless, if contamination is likely in a typical system then I'd agree stainless ought to be avoided, especially in extremely narrow passageways.

[|kbn|]

Originally Posted by myv65

Cathar,

No material expert here, either. In going through my book I find that the electrode potential differential from copper to silver is ~0.5V, copper to chromium (stainless surface chromium dioxide) is ~1V, and copper to aluminum is ~2V. All this is at 25°C.

From what you described of that pump, I'm reasonably confident it was a matter of contamination. Nonetheless, if contamination is likely in a typical system then I'd agree stainless ought to be avoided, especially in extremely narrow passageways.

Would this affect my system much? Metals in contact with water = brass, copper, silver. Ive not noticed any corrosion yet but I dont want 0.5v coming from the waterblocks. Also note the silver is not touching any other metal in contact with water.
Maybe this would be god for a new thread, on corrosion testing? If someone could deisgn a test for corrosion, that could be done accuratly, I do have silver, brass, copper, steel, and alu I can test with.

Cathar your xxx block pics look like they will be great performers. Could I have a XXX-SS block once you start making them (Ill supply the silver, got plenty here )
Also how much more jets do you think will be possible to add into that small an area?
Any plans to make GPU versions?

Will you continue making blocks once youve desiged something better for non-reseach purposes (if you ever did?) or will the old designs either get discontinued or licenced to other companys for manufacture? (like D.Tec/WW).

[Cathar]

|kbn|. In a standard water-loop copper/brass/silver are basically galvanically unreactive with each other. The silver->brass difference is pushing it somewhat, but it is basically safe for long periods (many months -> years). At least that's what I've been able to ascertain on-line, and having run a copper/silver/brass loop totally unprotected in terms of corrosion inhibitor for about 6 months now the silver has only just started to develop a mild discoloring, which is about the sort of reaction level I would have expected.

The XXX blocks I only intend to make in silver for the bases. Am giving very serious thought to putting copper tops on them though just for strength as I don't really want to risk another repeat of a bad polycarb batch resulting in cracking tops. This would also allow the block to be thinner, as in 16mm high instead of the current 20mm.

Am giving serious thought to calling such blocks "Cascade XS", and dropping the XXX code-name moniker.

[gruntledweasel]

Originally Posted by Cathar

Am giving serious thought to calling such blocks "Cascade XS", and dropping the XXX code-name moniker.

Damn, now the "I'd hit that" joke when you post pics of the finished product isn't going to be nearly as funny.

[|kbn|]

When I took out my silver gpu block it had no noticable change in colour. I had been using it for a month or two.

Cathar as silver is a lot more expensive than copper, and that the acctual cooling area in your block is ~30mm2 at most? You could do what I intend to reduce the cost some what.
My dad has made the silver into 20mm squares 8mm thick and they are accuratly made. We intend of fitting the silver into accuratly made copper blocks so that we get the advantage of silver, but without the cost. If this could be accuratly done on the scale you intend without problems of the jets/ cups not lining up, I think it would be a good idea and make silver blocks more affordable. They just wont look as shiny - silver is very easy to get a very nice shine.
Silver will perform better but would depend a lot on the deisgn to take advantage of it, I look forward to any test results from this new block in both materials.
some people might still want 100% silver bases though.
Copper tops would be nice, (none of this annodised alu crap ), but plastic may be best for your design. I recommend non brittle plastics like polyethelene instead of accrylic, never used poly carb though.

XS is a nicer name than XXX-SS

[freeloadingbum]

It will be interesting to see how this new block compares to the original with half the jets blocked off, when used on an athlon xp. Any estimate on how the pressure drop will compare to the original?

[talcum]

Originally Posted by Cathar

|kbn|. In a standard water-loop copper/brass/silver are basically galvanically unreactive with each other. The silver->brass difference is pushing it somewhat, but it is basically safe for long periods (many months -> years). At least that's what I've been able to ascertain on-line, and having run a copper/silver/brass loop totally unprotected in terms of corrosion inhibitor for about 6 months now the silver has only just started to develop a mild discoloring, which is about the sort of reaction level I would have expected.

The XXX blocks I only intend to make in silver for the bases. Am giving very serious thought to putting copper tops on them though just for strength as I don't really want to risk another repeat of a bad polycarb batch resulting in cracking tops. This would also allow the block to be thinner, as in 16mm high instead of the current 20mm.

Am giving serious thought to calling such blocks "Cascade XS", and dropping the XXX code-name moniker.

Which finite element code are you running? ANSYS? or NASTRAN? OR ? and have you considered using self assembled or lithographically etched tubes?

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by talcum

Which finite element code are you running? ANSYS? or NASTRAN? OR ? and have you considered using self assembled or lithographically etched tubes?

I am using a concoction of my own writing. I suppose it could be classified as a finite-element analysis tool, but it's horribly primitive by modern day professional standards and has no fancy visualisation tools. Best bit though is that it is free, apart from me spending some time to code it up.

Self-assembled?

Have discussed lithographically etched tubes with someone. Biggest issue appears to be that everything needs to be squarish.

[talcum]

Originally Posted by Cathar

I am using a concoction of my own writing. I suppose it could be classified as a finite-element analysis tool, but it's horribly primitive by modern day professional standards and has no fancy visualisation tools. Best bit though is that it is free, apart from me spending some time to code it up.

Self-assembled?

Have discussed lithographically etched tubes with someone. Biggest issue appears to be that everything needs to be squarish.

No - I mean self assembled nanotubes using a mask and PMMA like the big boys.

My issue seems to be that we're talking 10-50 nanometers for the tube using self assembly and more for a mask like that used for the wafer.

Maybe I can try something at this end.

-talc

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by talcum

No - I mean self assembled nanotubes using a mask and PMMA like the big boys.

My issue seems to be that we're talking 10-50 nanometers for the tube using self assembly and more for a mask like that used for the wafer.

Maybe I can try something at this end.

-talc

Nanometers? We're still dealing with hundreds of microns here.

Big boys? Sorry, doing what I can on a budget that amounts to around $1500 US max.

Happy to know if there's some way to do things better though.

[Incoherent]

Test 2) Thicker bp Cascade (essentially a copper Cascade SS without jet mods) => Overall CPU temperatures slightly higher and overclock stability was about the same at higher flow rates. Better overclock stability and better temperatures at lower flow rates than regular Cascade. Hypothesis: thicker bp provides a better "smoothing" effect.

Cather, at the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious. The "smoothing" effect of a given volume of copper must be related to it's heat capacity. Coppers heat capacity is less than that of water but not by a huge amount when stated relative to volume (4.2ish vs 3.5ish J/cm^3.°K).
That said, water IS better, by 15-20% so the more water in the vicinity the better the dampening must be. i.e. the thinner the baseplate the better. The dirty big fly in the ointment is the TIM-BP-H2O thermal resistance, which might nullify any benefit, leading to, thicker BP must be better, above a certain thickness.What that thickness is I don't know, it might be near zero. A direct die cascade would be interesting. ie no cup bases, the base of the "cup" being the surface of the CPU die.
What I am say is that I am concerned that all the tests showing that direct die cooling gives higher temperatures may be missing the point. The, lets call it "Maximum Attainable Stable Frequency/°C", might in fact be higher, thanks to the high specific heat capacity of water, even though the actual cpu temp could be higher. What the WW and than Cascade showed for me was that mass of copper (or silver) is not important for maintaining good temperatures. What is important is the way the water is delivered to the hot area. Deliver it in the same way direct to die and I can not see how it could be worse.
I am not a direct die advocate, actually I've thought it inferior because of the necessarily smaller surface area, but with impingement in the equation and your observations of overclock stability, I am beginning to wonder.

Cheers

Incoherent

[gruntledweasel]

I happen to have page 5 of this thread from before the crash still open. I'll repost. I hope no one minds. Unfortunately, those spiffy diagrams of cup bases and discussions of such were on page 4.

Originally Posted by Cathar

Yes, the challenge is truly in the machining. Can think up of whatever, it's making it that's the hard thing. The real challenge is in making machinable reality meet with superior performance design.

The jets are 0.95mm OD and 0.55mm ID.

Originally Posted by Stang Man

what kind of machine are you using, an EDM??!

Originally Posted by Blackeagle

Cathar,

I really like the idea of a modified Cascade with cup bases along the lines of what Murray 13 posted. But why not a cup that is a cross between Murray's fig. #1 and #3, a raised peak in the center, but with squared off base to wall like in the basic Cascade cups. It would seem to me that this would offer a greater surface area, but also a better impingement aginst the walls of the cup than what a curved base offers. I will grant the fully curved base of the cup may well offer lower flow resistence however.

Even a 1-1.5c gain over the SS Cascade would be a nice bit of work when considering how far you've pushed designs already.

I think you have little to feel humble for, without your White Water & Cascade designs I suspect we'd still be looking to the TC-4 as a top performer. The new Cascade XS should be very interesting. Congrats to you once again for pushing the boundrys ever farther, as I have full faith that the new base configuration is going to be another winning design for you.

I can forsee buying a Cascade XS from you if you offer them for sale. Please do offer them for sale, pleeease. And if offered only in Ag you shouldn't be as overwhelmed with orders for this design like with the Cu White Water and Cascade blocks. So the XS won't cut into your time for your familly.

Congrats once again, and I look forward very much to seeing the results of the alternative design.

Originally Posted by Les

Do not forget Volenti.
Would be perilous to overlook his min-channeled work.

Originally Posted by Cathar

A CNC mill

Originally Posted by Cathar

Now you are getting close to what I've drawn up for the second prototype.

The #2 proto block can be machined almost entirely with a 2.0mm mill bit for both the base and middle plates. If it works then total machine time will be cut roughly in half in comparison to a regular Cascade, for slightly better performance. Time will tell....

Originally Posted by Les

Yes and yes.

Originally Posted by Stang Man

how are you managing cutting that lexan without snapping the jets, what kind of endmill you using?

Originally Posted by Blackeagle

Didn't mean to slight anyone Les.

But I find the ideas being discussed regarding modifications to the base of the cups very interesting. Cathar has been working with the jet side of the Cascade design a good deal already, now he's starting to rethink the cups base design as well. A combination of the larger surface area in the cup bases and a optimised number of jets should prove to be of real interest as to how much more Cathar manages to squeeze out of ambient temp cooling. And I think that there may well be more to be found in the Cascades base, rather than to try to find ways to make the jets smaller, at the cost of machinability of the design.

I don't see how he can gain much more in actural temp improvements, but along with a extra 1-1.5c, the gains to O/Cs will be a better messure.

And if Cathar finds a new cup & jet balance that both improves performance even beyond the SS Cascade's while still being reasonablly machineable then Cathar will again be pushing the industry as a whole to improve it's product lines again, as thiers will be held up for comparrison with the top block known, the Cascade XS.

I just hope this time around the industry actually innovates, rather than just copy Cathar's work.

Originally Posted by Blackeagle

This last portion of this post may be hope'n for a lot I know!

[Blackeagle]

Thank God someone managed to save page 5 at least! Sad we lost page four, but perhaps we can resume the thread from here.

Great job guntledweasel! !

Man!, I can hardly wait to see the results of the next prototype comparisson of the two alturnatives for advancing the Cascade XS design.

Now I have to admit I'm sort of glad I missed on the last order of SS Cascades. Now I'll be able to afford a Casscade XS instead.

[TerraMex]

According to Cathar, he wont make them for sale.

Originally Posted by Cathar

Before you guys all start jumping on the "me too" bandwagon, I need to stress that the XS is a bit of a special prototype. I don't really intend to sell it in any quantity. I may never make more than 7 or so. The XS is an R&D block that will go towards helping me decide whether I have things right for a Cascade II. I'm just letting you guys in on some early R&D that's all. The machining time for it is pretty high and it's not really something that I think many people would want to pay that much for. Rough guess for an XS - approaching $230-250 (Australian) even if it were to be made in copper. The lessons learned here will fold back into a design I've drawn up for a far easier to machine Cascade II, which will sacrifice some of the bleeding-edge machining tolerances of the XS in order to create a balanced block that should be very near as good. What I'm saying is - still a long way to go from here. Think of how car companies make hard-edged prototypes that go like the clappers but cost a silly amount, and then soften it up a bit to make in into something that actually can be justifiably made, but still retain 90% of its origins.

Originally Posted by Cathar

Well I've suffered a setback. Picked up the completed block today. The tubes are a little clogged up which is due to the way that polycarbonate machines, which is basically not very well. I went to clean out the tubes and some of the tubes just bent away and fell apart. I attribute this mostly to the "too deep" machining of the tubes, with them being bent sideways while rubbing and vibrating against the cutter as it was cutting down. Overall the tube walls are about as thick as on the Cascade and it never had such issues, so I can only guess that the bending while being machined did something bad. The bases of the tubes also look to be "stressed". So basically this middle plate is a no-go. Will have to do two things. One - ensure that the next plate is done properly. Two - head down to the plastic merchant and find something appropriate. As it stands, perhaps 15% of the jets are damaged, including right over where the CPU would go, so I can't really test the block for overclock stability if the jets aren't doing their thing.

Originally Posted by Cathar

Well I've declared this middle plate attempt a failure due to the issues raised above. I've had a chat to the machinists about fixing the issues and we'll be making up two more middle plates - one in polycarb with focus on getting the jets nice and clear, and one in Delrin. The Delrin one will probably get made first, however due to the machinist's work schedule and Easter, we're probably looking at 2 weeks away before I get a replacement middle plate.

Messy, some from OCAU. But the core is here.

[Les]

Adams,Foster,and Round sometimes talk crap.
However we all think.

[Blackeagle]

Well Cascade II is what I'm refering to TerraMax. These proto type blocks are plainly that. I'd rather get the silver version of the Cascade II or XS or whatever Cathar decides to call it.

And with optimisation of the cup bases as well as tube numbers and sizing, it should work very well.

Note that my interest in this Cascade XS only came about when talk shifted to the base alterations. While shrinking tht tubes and making them more numerous also means they will be even easier to have them clog. With fewer tubes than the XXX Cascade the Cascade with altered bases interests me far more. It's greater machinablity combined with higher performance should be nothing short of great.

And I'd no illusions TerraMax that these were ready for the market at this time, or even soon. But the base alterations IMO will be the key to finding the optimised design for the next version of the Casscade.

[BillA]

Originally Posted by Les

Adams,Foster,and Round sometimes talk crap.
However we all think.

Les
it is easier to ignore the statements of the uninformed

Blackeagle
fanboyism is cool, but your enthusiasm exceeds your accuracy

the TC4

others


so the TC4, a good block in its day, was subsequently exceeded handily by the MCW5002, among others (AquaJoe, etc)
if you describe history, get it right
and your ability to forecast the future is questionable as you are outside the 'group' that is making it happen

there is a truly large amount of research/data on jet impingement (in a confined area), and the ability to model such is 'easy' (with $$$$$$ of course)
- Cathar's activities should be appreciated for what they are, the balls out search for the highest performance possible

sure there are a few who will pay big bucks for 'the best' (me too, eh ?)
but do not confuse such with mainstream WCing
- stay tuned, you will see the manifestation of just exactly this point in several weeks

[Blackeagle]

Bill,

Bad day? :shrug:

Fanboyism? I'll gladly plead guilty where Cathar is concerned. The blocks he's brought to market have moved the boundrys back a good bit in water cooling. And if he comes up with a Cascade II or whatever name he might give it, it'll help to keep the other block makers at work to improve.

Love the little hints you like to drop. I'm always interested in new stuff coming out.

Have a nice day!