• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Two watercooling solution

M

Malikman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,045
Hey i'm new to water cooling and am trying to best sitauation for me. Can anyone tell me which water cooling system here is beter and also which would be easier to set up... i'm using a Cooler Master Centurion 5 case and i'd prefer not to slice and dice my case.

also why does one have copper sinks while the other doesn't? What are they for. and why does another have hose clamps while the other doesn't?


Blocks - Swiftech Apogee Extreme CPU + MCW60 GPU + 8 copper BGA sinks - $89.95 @ Jab-Tech
Pump - Swiftech MCP655 adjustable - $79.95 @ Jab-Tech
Radiator - Swiftech MCR-220 dual 120mm - $36 @ Jab-Tech
Fans - Yate Loon D12SL-12 * 2 - $11.90 @ Jab-Tech
Tubing - 6' of ClearFLEX 60 1/2" ID 5/8" OD - $5.10 @ Jab-Tech
Clamps - 12 mini hose clamps - $4.32 @ Sidewinder
Reservoir - Swiftech MCRES-MICRO - $14.95 @ Sidewinder
Water Treatment - Swiftech HydrX - $3.29 @ Sidewinder


OR


PUMP Eheim 1250 57@petsmart
CPU Apogee CPU waterblock @40-50, depending on where you buy it
GPU Maze4 GPU block @45 DD
TUBING 6Ft. of Clearflex tubing @~7 bucks, wherever
RADIATOR BlackIceII Pro Radiator @35 @ DD

how much of a difference of a WC setup that has 2 120's to 1 120 would it be? cause if i get a radiator for 1 120mm fan i could put it in the back were my 120 fan-mount is or would it just be pointless then?
 
depending on how your block cools the copper, impingent or exposing a large surface area to the cooled water, either setup would be alright.

If you have a block that sprays the surface and transfers heat by striking the surface(like a storm), then optimal flow rate is key. Thus hooking two rads in parallel would constrict flow(I could have this backwards with series anyone wanna double check?). The single rad would offer you easier placement, and probably over all better cooling. I can't see any reason why 2 would ever be better. Should restrict flow more, be more of a pain to place and actually has less surface area than a double radiator.

The only possible advantage is that all that heat isn't in one place inside your case or outside it? Maybe...thats a stretch.
 
so your saying why use a radiator that needs 2 120mm's to cool just use one that needs 1 120mm??
 
XeroHouR said:
If you have a block that sprays the surface and transfers heat by striking the surface(like a storm), then optimal flow rate is key. Thus hooking two rads in parallel would constrict flow(I could have this backwards with series anyone wanna double check?). The single rad would offer you easier placement, and probably over all better cooling. I can't see any reason why 2 would ever be better. Should restrict flow more, be more of a pain to place and actually has less surface area than a double radiator.
Click to expand...
yep you got it somewhat backwards. parallel the flow slows until it gets back to the Y, then it resumes norm speed(slow flow in parallel is good, lets water cool more) but in series, it would be RAD1-RAD2 so the water would have to go through both rads, where the restriction would occur
 
Dark_fire said:
yep you got it somewhat backwards. parallel the flow slows until it gets back to the Y, then it resumes norm speed(slow flow in parallel is good, lets water cool more) but in series, it would be RAD1-RAD2 so the water would have to go through both rads, where the restriction would occur
Click to expand...

Parallel radiators split the flow, essentially, so it would decrease restriction as well as flowrate per radiator. You're off-target with your comment about slower flow letting water cool more, though. Increased flowrates yield increased heat transfer. Which arrangement would work better in a particular loop is anyone's guess, it's practically impossible to predict due to all the other stuff going on in the system.
 
Didn't notice it was a quote . Dark fire I do believe you got that correct. slower water flow threw the rad would infact cool the water more. This is subjective though as there is a balance. On a car if your thermostat goes bad it usually stays open because of this the heater won't work very well as most here can atest to. so the higher flow removes more heat. Because of the very cold winter air flowing threw it. But thats only because the thermostat isn't working opening and closing. In our race cars and almost all race cars we have to resrict flow threw the rad inorder to cool our 650HP motors. I haven't looked at everyones race car but ours is the only one that has no fan . Runs at 210F when racing my target was 212F using a 5/8 restictor. with a 3/4 restictor temps go to 230F . With a 1/2 never gets above 180F way to cool.
 
rad.JPG

Taken from BillA review on Overclockers.com


As the flow decreases the radiator dissipates less heat. There ya go.

The question is however, does the reduced restriction of the two radiators increase the flow enough in the rest of the loop to offset the reduced flow/efficiency through the radiators. There is a lot of stuff to factor in like zer0signal said.
 
Yes there is and I clearly stated that. Now that chart is showing A single Rad with Flow reduced to the entire loop . Since less heat is being conducted away from the water block because flow was reduced. It stands to reason that the rad well dissipate less heat.

Unless I am not reading this chart correctly . I don't see were its 2 Rads in parrellel .

Is that not so . Or am I reading that chart wrong. total reduced flow for the entire loop.

I believe dark was saying in a parrallel set up flow would be brought back to a higher level at the Y block . There fore flow would be increased threw the water blocks to conduct heat back to the inlet Y to the parrallel Rads.. In.that case flow would be reduced only threw the rads. At least thats how I read it. I may have misunderstood.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
Yes there is and I clearly stated that. Now that chart is showing A single Rad with Flow reduced to the entire loop . Since less heat is being conducted away from the water block because flow was reduced. It stands to reason that the rad well dissipate less heat.

Unless I am not reading this chart correctly . I don't see were its 2 Rads in parrellel .

Is that not so . Or am I reading that chart wrong. total reduced flow for the entire loop.

I believe dark was saying in a parrallel set up flow would be brought back to a higher level at the Y block . There fore flow would be increased threw the water blocks to conduct heat back to the inlet Y to the parrallel Rads.. In.that case flow would be reduced only threw the rads. At least thats how I read it. I may have misunderstood.
Click to expand...

There is no waterblock involved in that chart, it only shows effect of flowrate on efficiency of heat removal.

It says nothing about 2 rads in parallel, only suggests that running parallel rads (lower flowrate though each) decreases the efficiency of each single rad.

Yes, 2 rads in parallel will create less restriction (as a pair) than 2 in series. So yes, flowrate through the waterblock should be higher. As I stated above though, this doesn't mean that the loop as a whole will function more efficiently; there are way too many variables to generalize that effect.
 
So if there is no water blocks in that chart . There's no heat to dissipate . Unless its the pump heat.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
So if there is no water blocks in that chart . There's no heat to dissipate . Unless its the pump heat.
Click to expand...

It was a controlled and measured scientific test :rolleyes:

Read the chart, the water going into the radiator was maintained at 5C higher than ambient air temperature. Probably done so with the same type of chiller/heater that is used in high end waterblock testing setups.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
So if there is no water blocks in that chart . There's no heat to dissipate . Unless its the pump heat.
Click to expand...

Heat energy is heat energy, it doesn't matter what the source is. Keep in mind that radiators are used in cooling solutons other than loops having cpu cooling blocks.
 
I am not going to get into a pissing contest with a mod . And I won't say your incorrect but if you guys could post all the info for that chart it would be helpful. I read the 5c but I would like to see a heat source. If there is no heat source It's hard for me to recognize that as a legit test. I will google some university test and see if I can't find a link.
 
What does it matter what the heat source is ?!?

Heat is heat. In this case the water was exactly 5'C over ambient. If you want to work out how much heat was being dumped into the water each second then take the lpm reading, divide it by 60, multiply it by 5 and then multiply it by 4180. There, in watts, will be the amount of heat going into the water for each point on the graph.
 
There is an elementary equation from basic thermodynamics that states that the rate of heat transfer (Q) equals the mass flow rate (M) times a constant (the specific heat of water) times the delta T (fluid temp out minus fluid temp in).

Q=M x c x Delta T

In other words, the rate of heat transfer is directly proportional to mass flow rate. You increase the flow rate, you will then increase the rate of heat transfer. Since you cannot mess with mother nature it is very naive to think it works any other way.

Assume the CPU inserts a constant rate of energy (Q) into the cooling system. Then, from the relationship above, increasing the mass flow rate must result in a smaller delta T because Q remains constant. This smaller Delta T (fluid out - fluid in) also means that the average fluid temperature in the water block is somewhat lower even though the rate of heat transfer has not changed.

Now lets look at the heat transfer from the CPU to the water. The rate of heat transfer between two points is proportional to the temperature difference between those points. In our case this Delta T (not to be confused with the one above) is the temperature of the CPU minus the average water temperature in the water block. Lowering the average water temperature, as we did above by increasing the flow rate, means we have a little better heat transfer from the CPU to the now somewhat cooler water. The result is that the CPU runs a little cooler.

This all says that if you increase the flow rate, and everything else remains constant, you will decrease the CPU temperature. However, everything else will not remain constant if you increase the flow rate by using a larger pump. The pump uses some amount of electrical energy. This energy must end up somewhere. A relatively small amount of it is dissapated as heat from the motor. The overwhelming majority of it is converted from electrical energy to mechanical energy in the form of a rotating shaft that does real work on the water. This energy ends up in the water by increasing its temperature. It is called "pump heat" and can be very significant. An Eheim 1048 is rated at 10 watts, almost all of which ends up in the water. I understand a very overclocked CPU is good for upwards of 75 watts. As you can see a smaller pump like the 1048 contributes about 13% to the total heat load on a system with an energy hungry CPU. With other more common CPUs running at 25 to 50 watts, this percentage is much higher and is therfore much more significant.

As an interesting aside for those non-believers, this is also why excessive use of a blender to mix up frozen orange juice results in the juice not being as cold as expected. Also, nuclear power plants use primarily pump heat (from three or four 6,000 HP pumps) to heat up almost 75,000 gallons of water from 200 degrees F to about 550 degrees in about six hours or less.

The point here is that there is a trade off in how big a pump to use to increase the flow rate. More flow is beneficial. It is best to achieve the desired flow with a small a pump as possible and flow paths with minimum flow resistance. The bigger the pump, the more heat is added to the system. Eheim makes a 50 watts unit that I see talked about every now and then. This guy is probably a bigger heat load on the cooling system than the CPU itself.

Bottom Line: If you increase flow rate with the same pump your temperatures will trend in the direction of goodness. If you increase flow rate by going to a bigger pump you will reach a trade off somewhwere where the pump starts putting too much energy into the system and temperatures will start increasing.

I did not intend this to be so long but I do hope this helps remove some of the confusion from this issue.

As I stated in my earlier post there is a balance and that is why I have recommend this pump

http://www.frozencpu.com/ex-pmp-40.html
 
You've completely changed your point Bangforthe$.

The debate here was about whether cooling performance increases with increased flow or decreased flow, with no respect at all to the pump used. The pump is not in the equation because we are talking about lowering flow by having 2 rads either in series or parallel.

What you're doing here is quoting irrefutable fact about an unrelated topic to make it look like you're right.

With the issue at hand, pump heatdump does not at all come into play.

Your post is informative and true and all that, but just couldn't have anything less to do with what was being discussed imo...

BTW: the Aquaxtreme 50Z is a lot cheaper and also has only like 6watts of heatdump for pretty good performance. That alphacool pump is a beast :D 720 grams too... If I ever build a no holds barred WC system that will be my pump :D
 
No I haven't at all . Its hard for me to express in terms on paper the years of on hands experiance.
If you use two rads in parrallel and there is enough flow threw the rads to do an efficient job of cooling the water when in parllel rads offers less restriction and when they combine at the T flow is increased threw the blocks a good thing. So it really comes down to the pump used in said system . There was no back peddling here at all.

Zero said that there are variables which I also stated. There is a balance. Its not for novices to understand that balance but I believe I have stated it as well as I could in simple terms that even a novice can equate to. Isn't that what forums are for? Keep it simple.
 
If you read every post I have made large bore vs. small bore you will see that I have been consistant and constant on = flow threw the blocks .This parrellel rad thing changed things a bit as it requires greater understanding of the subject at hand. Because the flow charicteristics changes threw the parrallel rads and the blocks so it is a much more difficult subject to grasp. THE PUMP IS THE COMMON DENOMINATOR

Yes I bad .The pump subject was not discussed. In any water cooling set up . Be it Cars / Planes /or Trains. THE pump is 101 in any setup. For me this is basic and I sometimes overlook it because it is so basic . So please excuse my neglect of pointing that out.
 
I find it funny that you think the common wattage for a processor is 25-50 watts.

The single most common processor is a Pentium 4. The prescott puts out well over 100 watts of energy, a far cry from your claimed 25-50 watts. Another comparison, mobile chips generally run in the 25-35 watt range, with the ultra low voltage chips a bit lower. An energy hungry CPU is on the order of 100-125 Watts (or more) ....not 75 Watts.

Also, the heat dump of the pump is nothing new. In fact procooling has performed tests on this, and they found that you can generally go all the way up to an Iwaki MD20 (one beast of a pump) before you start seeing detrimental effects on temperatures. Shoot in some cases you can even use the 30 series pumps and see an improvement. The D5 has a heat dump of around 20W.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
It was an example. I call red herring here
Click to expand...

red herring? It was an integral part of your argument that the pump contributes 13% of the heat in the loop. In fact it probably contributes less than 10% of the heat in most systems, and if you have a GPU in the loop even less of a percentage.
 
Red herring=Websters dictionary red herring something used to take people's attention away from the important thing.

As we really weren't discussing the heat of a pump adding to the system and I used an example only . Thats exactly what it is . I call red herring

Now go back on subject.
 
Bangforthe$, I think you have no idea what this thread is even about.....

We were discussing advantages / disadvantages of arranging the rads in paralled (less resistance, less flow through each rad) or series (more resistance, but more flow through each rad).

I still utterly fail to see where the pump comes into this. The guy isn't going to be changing his pump depending on which way he rigs the rads.

I call red herring on everything you're saying.....
 
I am threw here . We had a good discussion going and you step in with nothing to contribute but a flame.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
There is an elementary equation from basic thermodynamics that states that the rate of heat transfer (Q) equals the mass flow rate (M) times a constant (the specific heat of water) times the delta T (fluid temp out minus fluid temp in).

Q=M x c x Delta T

...

As I stated in my earlier post there is a balance and that is why I have recommend this pump

http://www.frozencpu.com/ex-pmp-40.html
Click to expand...

ROFL, you call that a good discussion ? A massive OT diatribe that you probably pulled from a textbook to make it look like you were an expert on the matter ? Your rant wasn't even anything got to do with the discussion.

Then you turn it into an add for alphacool too, rofl.

I'm going back to the XS WC forums, theres some actual educated discussion there, not jsut you waving some "i've been building WC systems for (insert variable) years so I know everything" e-peen around.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
I am threw here . We had a good discussion going and you step in with nothing to contribute but a flame.
Click to expand...

Interesting, because you came in here and contributed nothing but plagiarizing overclocking.com :rolleyes: I should have noticed it sooner by the utter lack of grammatical or spelling errors.

http://www.overclockers.com/articles599/

Generally when you take something word for word from somewhere you are supposed to use quotations and cite your source.
 
Sorry didn't pull it from there I pulled it from my word and I don't know were it came from but I believe it was pulled from a forum. But it put into perspective what were discussing.


Here is were it came from according to the data in my word catalog


http://www.ocforums.com/archive/index.php/t-78055.html


If you would have pointed to one of the other sources such as this one. which is inline with our discussion. I can Even go further to another author. But this not important .This was in line with our discussin

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78055


This statement right here pointed to the fact that this was not the orginal auther.Because its not consistant with real world facts.

kttdkt, trust me, more flow, more cooling.

If you slow the flow rate rate so the water sticks around longer it will indeed absorb more energy and increase to a higher temperature before it leaves the water block. HOWEVER, the warmer the water. relative to the CPU, the slower the heat transfer rate. Put another way, each hunk of water will leave the water block with more energy but at the expense of a lower heat transfer rate.

By increasing the flow rate, the water does not absorb as much energy but its average temperature in the water block is lower. The lower temperature means heat transfer is happening at a greater rate. The higher flow rate quickly moves water out of the block and allows new cold water to enter, maintaining a colder average fluid temperature and a higher rate of heat transfer.

This concept also applies to the radiator. It is a heat exchanger just like the water block. It only has a different geometric form.

Unfortunately, most people are let down by their intuition when it comes to heat exchangers.

This statement right here

This concept also applies to the radiator. It is a heat exchanger just like the water block. It only has a different geometric form

Contradicts this statement right here
If you slow the flow rate rate so the water sticks around longer it will indeed absorb more energy and increase to a higher temperature before it leaves the water block.

So in a radiator if you slow the water down the air going threw the rad has more time to cool it.

The fact that the author contradicts himself points to the fact. He did understand the very facts he was saying peoples intuition. Let themselfs down on their understanding the principles of how a heat exchanger works. Therefore he was not the orginal author.


THIS IS REAL WORLD

http://www.jegs.com/webapp/wcs/stor...atalogId=10002&storeId=10001&categoryId=13495
 
My head hurts :(

QUOTATIONS ARE YOUR FRIEND!

I can't tell where what your saying ends and where what your apparently trying to quote begins. Makes it kind of hard to point out the blatant errors in whomever originally said what you wrote in that post.

Needless to say where ever you got that from, it is by the same author just reproduced in a different place (look at the author on overclocking.com and the poster on ocforums they are one in the same)
 
Thats what I said the same word for word three places. That have been posted.That you know about. This author copyed three times posted word for word so it is a copy and thats what I said 2002
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top