SWIFTECH's new waterblock - Page 4

pHaestus · 02-25-2002, 05:35 PM

that isn't terrbily efficient though in terms of space or heat production. If I can use larger tubing and fittings along with a smaller pump to get the same flow rate as a larger pump and smaller tubing and fittings then I will always go that route.

AL666 · 02-26-2002, 09:26 PM

I heard that actually swiftech is going to manufacture blocks with 1/2" sometime soon... some little birds told me

EMC2 · 02-26-2002, 09:33 PM

pHaetus - I would tend to agree if you are building a new system and the larger tubing doesn't cause any issues. But in this case if someone has an existing system with smaller hose and can't easily upgrade the fittings, then it can be a more viable alternative. ( which was the point

AL666 · 02-27-2002, 12:32 AM

well guys actually i'm kinda tired of this all 1/2" issue... i'm so tired that I decided to try and see the difference myself...
I'm really wondering how many degrees it will differ over the 3/8" setup with same parts?

EMC2 · 02-27-2002, 01:21 AM

There is no "one size fits all" answer Al

It very much depends on the system as a whole. Take 5 different systems with different components and they will react differently. Some blocks perform much better with higher flow. Some don't. One system may have 2x the heat load as another. One pump may hardly be affected by the reduced tubing size, another be affected greatly. Etc, etc, etc.

About the only thing that can be universally said is larger tubing will lower the pressure loss through a system and will extend the life of the pump and increase flow rates as a result.

But the degree of affect and type of affect on the cooling performance of the system depends on many variables.

Brad · 02-27-2002, 02:53 AM

pH did an article on VYW, from memory his temps dropped by a couple of degrees

AL666 · 02-27-2002, 06:53 PM

well here's I what got from cooltechnica... I'll be getting the Xtreme in March...

DD Maze2-1 w 1/2" fittings and 3/8" fittings
Black Ice Xtreme (chrome plated schweet

)
Eheim 1250 (+RC Tank res)

so I'm going to try straight watercooling with 1/2" vs 3/8" with the same parts in the beginning with XP1800+... then I'll try to test with a heat load coming from the 226W pelt and XP1800+...

let's see if there will be a big difference... or any diff. at all...

pHaestus · 02-27-2002, 11:57 PM

Why not just use a valve as a way to put a known restriction on the flow combined with a flowmeter? There is no real reason to replumb everything and test separately.

As mentioned, the results will depend on the radiator, the pump, and the waterblock chosen. The goal should be to optimize everything for a complete system and not to just choose impressive parts. Here is a graph from some of my playing around with my setup:

This is an Eheim 1250, a Maze2, and a 1975 Caprice core cooling a 1600+ XP. Temps were taken with a MAX6657 diode reader.

The GPM is varied with a ball valve and measured with an inline flowmeter from McMaster-carr. What you can see is that there is a fairly substantial change in delta T from 0.4 GPM to 1 GPM. However, above 1.1 GPM, there is no real benefit to increased flow rates with this setup. Now from experience, a 3/8" tubing and fittings loop with a heatercore and a Danner 250 was right around 0.75 GPM, and the same setup with 1/2" fittings and tubing was around 1.1. You can expect for this to be reflected in a performance increase. However, switching from a 1250 to the 1060 might actually worsen performance, as the block seems to already be performing at max efficiency and increasing the flow over 1.2 GPM will only serve to decrease the residence time in the radiator.

I said this earlier and I will say it again. I would prefer to use larger tubing and excessively large/drilled out fittings and a smaller pump to get to 1.1 GPM rather than fighting the resistnace and friction of small tubing and fitting by adding a larger pump. I actually hope to move down to an Eheim 1048 in my project case...

AL666 · 02-28-2002, 01:12 AM

This's great pHaestus... thx...

I'm checking the flowmeter... what type of valve did you use?

pHaestus · 02-28-2002, 01:20 AM

Here's a pic of my setup:

http://phaestus.procooling.com/test_setup.jpg

Just a big ball valve and some 1/2" NPT x 5/8" barbs. The flow meter has the same in it now (at that time it was copper pipe reducers). I think that the ball valves and this flowmeter might not be good enough for real precision work, but for the kind of data I just presented above it works fine.

AL666 · 02-28-2002, 01:39 AM

looks nice

thx for the tip man...

ondaedg · 03-01-2002, 05:13 PM

Quote:

as the block seems to already be performing at max efficiency and increasing the flow over 1.2 GPM will only serve to decrease the residence time in the radiator.

The total time a particular water molecule stays in a radiator is always the same no matter what the flowrate is, just as long as there is flow rate of course =].
Now if I can only think of the formula for that....

schoolie · 03-01-2002, 05:30 PM

Doesn't conservation of mass cover that one? I've been puzzled by the changes in radiator performance as a function of flow rate. The argument that the water spends more time in the radiator at low flow rates just makes no sense to me at all since this water is circulated in a loop. Could it be the characteristics of the flow change with flow rate?

Thanks for any information!

Xel · 03-01-2002, 08:09 PM

They mean the water coming from the proc etc. that is hot, not water in general.

schoolie · 03-01-2002, 08:28 PM

But the more you increase the flow rates, the less heat is transferred to the water from the proc. For decent flow rates, the temp difference between inlet and outlet of the water block is practically zero.

Brad · 03-01-2002, 08:36 PM

waterblocks get better with more flow rate
radiators slowly get worse with more flow rate

billa's radiator article showed this

schoolie · 03-02-2002, 01:37 AM

Sorry to take this thread on a tangent. I should re-read billa's article...I don't argue with the data collected, and for some radiators low flow increases heat loss. It's the explanation that low flow is better because the water spends more time in the radiator that I can't understand yet.

Thanks

asd · 03-02-2002, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by schoolie
Sorry to take this thread on a tangent. I should re-read billa's article...I don't argue with the data collected, and for some radiators low flow increases heat loss. It's the explanation that low flow is better because the water spends more time in the radiator that I can't understand yet.

Thanks

More time in rad means that the time the water has to cool off is longer... Just realized that it's kinda hard to explain

AL666 · 03-02-2002, 06:38 PM

No ASD it's just about it, you explained it well

ondaedg · 03-03-2002, 07:03 PM

Quote:

More time in rad means that the time the water has to cool off is longer... Just realized that it's kinda hard to explain

i dunno how to explain this but the total time the water stays in the radiator is the same no MATTER what rate the water is flowing. Think of it this way, if a water molecule takes ten seconds to circle a complete cooling loop and during each loop, it stays in the radiator for two seconds, it would then be in the radiator for 12 seconds per minute.

60 secs / 10 secs/loop = 6 loops per minute.
6 loops/minute * 2 secs (in radiator) / loop = 12 seconds in radiator per minute.

Let's speed up the flow to complete a cooling loop every five seconds, and that same water molecule only spends 1 second in the radiator per each loop. If you calculate the total time it stays in the radiator, guess what? It's still 12 seconds!

60 secs / 5 secs/loop = 12 loops per minute.
12 loops/minute * 1 sec (in radiator) / loop = 12 seconds in radiator per minute.

This formula also applies to residual time of H2O in the waterblock in terms of heat transferred to the coolant. Even if the flow is as little as .10 gpm, the residual time within the radiator would still be the same. So, as you can see, residual time of a liquid coolant within the radiator (or any other heat exchanger) is a constant as long as there is some sort of continuous flow of the coolant in a looped system.

redleader · 03-03-2002, 08:28 PM

Quote:

More time in rad means that the time the water has to cool off is longer... Just realized that it's kinda hard to explain

Thats wrong. As ondaedg stated, time in the rad is constant (duh! Have you ever looked at your rad while the system was running and realized there was no water in it? Of course not!)

The peak probably occurs because you're decreasing the delta T between the coolant and the rad. In low flow situations parts of the loop have "cold" water and others "hot". In high flow the entire system was "warm" water. The lower delta T of course decreases the ability of the rad to move heat.

AL666 · 03-03-2002, 11:55 PM

I guess ASD tried to say, the more time water spends in the radi, the more it gets colder...

Xel · 03-04-2002, 12:21 AM

If the 'hot water' from the 'waterblock' has more time to 'cool off in the radiator', you will water more close to ambient going to the 'waterblock'.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

dacooltech · 03-07-2002, 12:18 AM

Ok guys, here's an update...
Swiftech officially informed us (their wholesalers), stating that a new version of MCW462-U featuring 1/2" ID hose barbs -instead of quick connects- will be in production within 2 weeks.

Thanks to this thread here

You guys are great!

Bruce
www.cooltechnica.com

Brad · 03-07-2002, 03:14 AM

Xel, thats what I think too, less water at a cooler temp, or more water at a higher temp, there is obviously the perfect point somewhere (and every setup is going to be differant

02-27-2002, 02:53 AM	#81
Brad Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Nuu Zeeelin Posts: 3,175	pH did an article on VYW, from memory his temps dropped by a couple of degrees __________________ 2x P3 1100's at 1400, Abit VP6, 2x Corsair 256mb PC150 sticks, 20gb 'cuda ATA-III, 2x 40gb 'cuda ATA-IV in raid 0. 20" Trinitron. No fans 2x 2400+ at 2288mhz (16.0 x 143), Iwill MPX2, 2x Kingmax PC-3200 256mb sticks, 4x 20gb 60gxp in Raid 5 on a Promise SX6000. Asus Ti4200 320/630. Cooled by Water

02-27-2002, 06:53 PM	#82
AL666 Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The City Posts: 104	well here's I what got from cooltechnica... I'll be getting the Xtreme in March... DD Maze2-1 w 1/2" fittings and 3/8" fittings Black Ice Xtreme (chrome plated schweet ) Eheim 1250 (+RC Tank res) so I'm going to try straight watercooling with 1/2" vs 3/8" with the same parts in the beginning with XP1800+... then I'll try to test with a heat load coming from the 226W pelt and XP1800+... let's see if there will be a big difference... or any diff. at all... Last edited by AL666; 02-27-2002 at 11:13 PM.

03-01-2002, 08:36 PM	#91
Brad Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Nuu Zeeelin Posts: 3,175	waterblocks get better with more flow rate radiators slowly get worse with more flow rate billa's radiator article showed this __________________ 2x P3 1100's at 1400, Abit VP6, 2x Corsair 256mb PC150 sticks, 20gb 'cuda ATA-III, 2x 40gb 'cuda ATA-IV in raid 0. 20" Trinitron. No fans 2x 2400+ at 2288mhz (16.0 x 143), Iwill MPX2, 2x Kingmax PC-3200 256mb sticks, 4x 20gb 60gxp in Raid 5 on a Promise SX6000. Asus Ti4200 320/630. Cooled by Water

03-07-2002, 03:14 AM	#100
Brad Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Nuu Zeeelin Posts: 3,175	Xel, thats what I think too, less water at a cooler temp, or more water at a higher temp, there is obviously the perfect point somewhere (and every setup is going to be differant __________________ 2x P3 1100's at 1400, Abit VP6, 2x Corsair 256mb PC150 sticks, 20gb 'cuda ATA-III, 2x 40gb 'cuda ATA-IV in raid 0. 20" Trinitron. No fans 2x 2400+ at 2288mhz (16.0 x 143), Iwill MPX2, 2x Kingmax PC-3200 256mb sticks, 4x 20gb 60gxp in Raid 5 on a Promise SX6000. Asus Ti4200 320/630. Cooled by Water

02-25-2002, 05:35 PM	#76
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	that isn't terrbily efficient though in terms of space or heat production. If I can use larger tubing and fittings along with a smaller pump to get the same flow rate as a larger pump and smaller tubing and fittings then I will always go that route.

02-26-2002, 09:26 PM	#77
AL666 Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The City Posts: 104	I heard that actually swiftech is going to manufacture blocks with 1/2" sometime soon... some little birds told me

02-26-2002, 09:33 PM	#78
EMC2 Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Dark Side of the Moon Posts: 365	pHaetus - I would tend to agree if you are building a new system and the larger tubing doesn't cause any issues. But in this case if someone has an existing system with smaller hose and can't easily upgrade the fittings, then it can be a more viable alternative. ( which was the point

02-27-2002, 12:32 AM	#79
AL666 Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The City Posts: 104	well guys actually i'm kinda tired of this all 1/2" issue... i'm so tired that I decided to try and see the difference myself... I'm really wondering how many degrees it will differ over the 3/8" setup with same parts?

02-27-2002, 01:21 AM	#80
EMC2 Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Dark Side of the Moon Posts: 365	There is no "one size fits all" answer Al It very much depends on the system as a whole. Take 5 different systems with different components and they will react differently. Some blocks perform much better with higher flow. Some don't. One system may have 2x the heat load as another. One pump may hardly be affected by the reduced tubing size, another be affected greatly. Etc, etc, etc. About the only thing that can be universally said is larger tubing will lower the pressure loss through a system and will extend the life of the pump and increase flow rates as a result. But the degree of affect and type of affect on the cooling performance of the system depends on many variables.

02-27-2002, 11:57 PM	#83
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	Why not just use a valve as a way to put a known restriction on the flow combined with a flowmeter? There is no real reason to replumb everything and test separately. As mentioned, the results will depend on the radiator, the pump, and the waterblock chosen. The goal should be to optimize everything for a complete system and not to just choose impressive parts. Here is a graph from some of my playing around with my setup: This is an Eheim 1250, a Maze2, and a 1975 Caprice core cooling a 1600+ XP. Temps were taken with a MAX6657 diode reader. The GPM is varied with a ball valve and measured with an inline flowmeter from McMaster-carr. What you can see is that there is a fairly substantial change in delta T from 0.4 GPM to 1 GPM. However, above 1.1 GPM, there is no real benefit to increased flow rates with this setup. Now from experience, a 3/8" tubing and fittings loop with a heatercore and a Danner 250 was right around 0.75 GPM, and the same setup with 1/2" fittings and tubing was around 1.1. You can expect for this to be reflected in a performance increase. However, switching from a 1250 to the 1060 might actually worsen performance, as the block seems to already be performing at max efficiency and increasing the flow over 1.2 GPM will only serve to decrease the residence time in the radiator. I said this earlier and I will say it again. I would prefer to use larger tubing and excessively large/drilled out fittings and a smaller pump to get to 1.1 GPM rather than fighting the resistnace and friction of small tubing and fitting by adding a larger pump. I actually hope to move down to an Eheim 1048 in my project case...

02-28-2002, 01:12 AM	#84
AL666 Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The City Posts: 104	This's great pHaestus... thx... I'm checking the flowmeter... what type of valve did you use?

02-28-2002, 01:20 AM	#85
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	Here's a pic of my setup: http://phaestus.procooling.com/test_setup.jpg Just a big ball valve and some 1/2" NPT x 5/8" barbs. The flow meter has the same in it now (at that time it was copper pipe reducers). I think that the ball valves and this flowmeter might not be good enough for real precision work, but for the kind of data I just presented above it works fine.

02-28-2002, 01:39 AM	#86
AL666 Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The City Posts: 104	looks nice thx for the tip man...

03-01-2002, 05:30 PM	#88
schoolie Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 120	Doesn't conservation of mass cover that one? I've been puzzled by the changes in radiator performance as a function of flow rate. The argument that the water spends more time in the radiator at low flow rates just makes no sense to me at all since this water is circulated in a loop. Could it be the characteristics of the flow change with flow rate? Thanks for any information!

03-01-2002, 08:09 PM	#89
Xel Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 46	They mean the water coming from the proc etc. that is hot, not water in general.

03-01-2002, 08:28 PM	#90
schoolie Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 120	But the more you increase the flow rates, the less heat is transferred to the water from the proc. For decent flow rates, the temp difference between inlet and outlet of the water block is practically zero.

03-02-2002, 01:37 AM	#92
schoolie Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 120	Sorry to take this thread on a tangent. I should re-read billa's article...I don't argue with the data collected, and for some radiators low flow increases heat loss. It's the explanation that low flow is better because the water spends more time in the radiator that I can't understand yet. Thanks

03-02-2002, 06:38 PM	#94
AL666 Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The City Posts: 104	No ASD it's just about it, you explained it well

03-03-2002, 11:55 PM	#97
AL666 Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The City Posts: 104	I guess ASD tried to say, the more time water spends in the radi, the more it gets colder...

03-04-2002, 12:21 AM	#98
Xel Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 46	If the 'hot water' from the 'waterblock' has more time to 'cool off in the radiator', you will water more close to ambient going to the 'waterblock'. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

03-07-2002, 12:18 AM	#99
dacooltech Pro/Vendor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 267	Ok guys, here's an update... Swiftech officially informed us (their wholesalers), stating that a new version of MCW462-U featuring 1/2" ID hose barbs -instead of quick connects- will be in production within 2 weeks. Thanks to this thread here You guys are great! Bruce www.cooltechnica.com

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