TRUE TEC Module (with pics)

This air cooled TEC module is designed to directly cool a wolfdale E8400 on a DFI UT P35 T2R board.


http://lh4.google.com/kgeronilla/R_l...0/TRUETEC1.jpg
The parts. The TECs are of the 62mm variety available on ebay


http://lh5.google.com/kgeronilla/R_l...0/TRUETEC4.jpg
assembled profile view


http://lh6.google.com/kgeronilla/R_l...0/TRUETEC5.jpg
Power Supply Voltage= 13.73V
Temperature hot plate = 49.4C
Temperature cold plate = -15.7C

http://lh6.google.com/kgeronilla/R_l...0/TRUETEC6.jpg
Power Supply Voltage= 9.2V
Temperature hot plate = 33.8C
Temperature cold plate = -18.0C


more pics to come....

Nice work!
did you fabricate that yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twin_savage

Nice work!
did you fabricate that yourself?

---

nope, local machinist made it for me.

What wattage are the TECs.. 320's?

What sort of delta do you expect to have using the dual-core? That is definitely a cool idea. Can't wait to see some results.

Awesome... I was thinking of doing the same. Im not a big fan of needing to liquid cool the hot side of tecs, regardless of its advantages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

What wattage are the TECs.. 320's?

---

I think the TECs are TEC1-12730

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CL3P20

What sort of delta do you expect to have using the dual-core? That is definitely a cool idea. Can't wait to see some results.

---

@9V and a 150W load from the CPU, I'd like to see -10C idle and 10C load on the cold plate.

anxious to see results with cpu :)

looks very very nice ..

Are you able to get enough clamp pressure on those TEC's with the hardware you have? I do not know the torque specs..but have heard that crushing the TEC is very important for developing proper heat transfer.

*10c will be a very nice load temp indeed for any aircooled TEC setup. Is this going to be for benching use or for 24/7?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CL3P20

Are you able to get enough clamp pressure on those TEC's with the hardware you have? I do not know the torque specs..but have heard that crushing the TEC is very important for developing proper heat transfer.

*10c will be a very nice load temp indeed for any aircooled TEC setup. Is this going to be for benching use or for 24/7?

---

I don't have a torque wrench for this. I just cranked as well as I could with a regular old wrench.

This comp is for gaming. I figure that I 'll be using it 20 or so hours a week.

wow... that looks like a beast. cant wait to see some results.

beautiful :)

but if you don't mind a little nit-picking the cold plate is too thin :/
(well, the parts of it around the edge mostly)
figure 3 on this page http://electronics-cooling.com/artic...v_article2.php shows the result of some experiments done with heat-plates of varying materials and thicknesses
you can see that with an 8x8cm square heat plate (the bottom two lines) the temperature continues to decrease even as the plate thickness increases over 16mm with a 1x2cm heatsource (because the extra thickness is required to allow the heat to transfer 'horizontally' through the plate), and your 62x62mm x2 cold-plate has 20% more surface area and about a 50% greater distance between the centre and the furthest edge from the centre than a 8x8cm plate
(copper has a "k" (thermal conductivity) of 400 W/mK, so the 2nd to bottom line would be a good comparison for the copper cold-plate)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollo

beautiful :)

but if you don't mind a little nit-picking the cold plate is too thin :/
(well, the parts of it around the edge mostly)
figure 3 on this page http://electronics-cooling.com/artic...v_article2.php shows the result of some experiments done with heat-plates of varying materials and thicknesses
you can see that with an 8x8cm square heat plate (the bottom two lines) the temperature continues to decrease even as the plate thickness increases over 16mm with a 1x2cm heatsource (because the extra thickness is required to allow the heat to transfer 'horizontally' through the plate), and your 62x62mm x2 cold-plate has 20% more surface area and about a 50% greater distance between the centre and the furthest edge from the centre than a 8x8cm plate
(copper has a "k" (thermal conductivity) of 400 W/mK, so the 2nd to bottom line would be a good comparison for the copper cold-plate)

---

Thanks, but lets be reasonable. Is it really fair to compare my cold plate to data from that review article? I can see some really important differences between them

1. That data was made with a single heat source but my cold plate has two.
2. The heat transfer coefficients are at least an order of magnitude to high.
3. 300W is too much for an e8400
4. The 8x8cm shape and the cold plate shape are very different

I think heat spreading is just way too complex to to declare that my cold plate is too thin based on that data.

So you saw lower temps with less voltage? Basically showing you can't handle the heat of the TEC's at the higher voltage, your going to end up dropping the voltage even more when a heat load is applied.

Quote:

---

So you saw lower temps with less voltage? Basically showing you can't handle the heat of the TEC's at the higher voltage, your going to end up dropping the voltage even more when a heat load is applied.

---

Not really. Lower temps at a lower input voltage, are related to the TEC efficiency. TEC's by nature are very un-efficient and when run at nominal voltage require massive amounts of cooling to run, even at spec.

Running below the TEC's nominal voltage, allows you a greater efficiency ratio..thus improving temps, both on the cold and hot side of the TEC, as well as using less current to run.

Yes you just said a basic truth of TEC's, however that does not apply in this situation as your not moving any heat load ;) Just the heat from the TEC's themselves. Lower voltage with no load giving you better temps means your hot sides too hot. And 50C is too hot.

Quote:

---

Lower voltage with no load giving you better temps means your hot sides too hot. And 50C is too hot.

---

Mmm. I see your point...does make sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

*As for improving temps with that setup.. How about enclosing the sides with something to channel air through the coolers? I will ask around to see what sort of crush needs to be applied to those TEC's too. If my memory serves me correctly its in the neighborhood of ~60lbs..not sure though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b 0f l337

So you saw lower temps with less voltage? Basically showing you can't handle the heat of the TEC's at the higher voltage, your going to end up dropping the voltage even more when a heat load is applied.

---

I don't see any problem running the TECs at 9V. I obviously don't expect to hit -18C on the cold plate but consider this. At 13V, I figure the module is outputing ~150W more heat than at 9V. That is about what the CPU will be putting out so I think the hot plate temperature will increase similarly under a heat load. I figure the cold and hot plates will increase 20C at worst. That corresponds to ~2C on the cold plate and ~54C on the hot plate with the TECs at 9V.

NOL, Why is 50C too hot? That is well within the operating temperature of the TEC and the specs are even givin with the hot side at 50C.

Im intrested to see the clamp device... u just gunna use some nuts n bolts n do em really tight?

It is within the operating perameters but its just a relatively hot temperature, ultimately that heat is passing back through. It means mainly that you are not dissipating all the heat you could be. Id honestly just suggest heatsinks WITHOUT heatpipes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam__

Im intrested to see the clamp device... u just gunna use some nuts n bolts n do em really tight?

---

Thats right. I'm just gonna crank on them till it stops bleeding TIM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b 0f l337

It is within the operating perameters but its just a relatively hot temperature, ultimately that heat is passing back through. It means mainly that you are not dissipating all the heat you could be. Id honestly just suggest heatsinks WITHOUT heatpipes.

---

N0L, Are you saying a heatsink WITHOUT heatpipes can move more heat than the TRUE? It is hard for me to believe this, but if you know a company that makes a heatsink like that I'd like to check them out.

Heatsinks with heatpipes have a ceiling....'old fashioned' heatsinks don't.

This looks really cool. What kind of temps do you think would be possible with a quad? I can't wait to see how this is going to turn out!

yeah im intrested as to how it handles high heat loads. from what iv heard they can get quite bad and in some cases be worse that not having a TEC in the first place... hope this doesnt happen to you. :D gl

As Vapor said, each heatpipe has a load for it, most around here are 35W or 50W. Past that they become quite useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b 0f l337

As Vapor said, each heatpipe has a load for it, most around here are 35W or 50W. Past that they become quite useless.

---

OK, Lets say each heatpipe in the TRUE can move 40W just to be conservative. 40W x 6 = 240W. Can you honestly tell me there is a heatink without heatpipes that can move that much heat?

I'm curious does anyone know how much heat the TRUE can move?

True has 35W I believe.
And any heatsink that has just metal, like the old switch peltier heatsinks, do not have a heat maximum. They will transfer heat through metal up to the fins or pins, and then you can cool those. There is no max.

ahhhh so is that why most of the old production models that are around use large hunkers of metal with fins to cool the tec's. I always wondered why that was all they did and didn't figure out another way..

plus you say the true ceiling is about 35w per heatpipe.

Bingo, exactly, right on, and you got it. Though a thinner hot side plate would definitly have helped those old units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b 0f l337

True has 35W I believe.
And any heatsink that has just metal, like the old switch peltier heatsinks, do not have a heat maximum. They will transfer heat through metal up to the fins or pins, and then you can cool those. There is no max.

---

The problem with that is you can only fit so many fins or pins over a heat source. The great thing about heat pipes is that they have great thermal conductivity. With heatpipes, you can add many more fins or pins and therefore get much better cooling performance. Even though heatpipes have a maximum, TRUE 6x35W=210W, a heatpipe cooler will move way more heat than a heatsink without heatpipes. A heatsink with no heatpipes may have no max, but if it can't move the heat as well as a modern heatpipe heatsink, what is the point?

Also, isn't probable that old heat sinks didn't use heat pipes because nobody was making them to cool electronics back then. I don't think that I saw a heatpipe in a PC till the late 90s

Way before then, heatpipes have been used for a long time. But they have a max and in this case he is exceeding said max.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scifikg

Thanks, but lets be reasonable. Is it really fair to compare my cold plate to data from that review article? I can see some really important differences between them

1. That data was made with a single heat source but my cold plate has two.
2. The heat transfer coefficients are at least an order of magnitude to high.
3. 300W is too much for an e8400
4. The 8x8cm shape and the cold plate shape are very different

I think heat spreading is just way too complex to to declare that my cold plate is too thin based on that data.

---

well, when i looked at it the cold-plate screamed "too thin" (mostly because of the metal taken off the edges, and because copper just isn't such a great material for heat-transfer over long distances), i wasn't gonna say but i remembered that link for comparison so i thought i'd throw it in
but regarding comparison with the link-
1 the cold-plate has one heatsource (i wasn't talking about your hotplate)
2&3 for any given line the graph shows the relative effects of vertical transfer deteriorating with thickness, while horizontal heat transfer improves. i'm pretty sure any constants used for heat-load or transfer coefficient would show the same scaling with plate thickness
4 your cold-plate is narrower but longer than a 8x8cm plate - the linear heat transfer between the CPU and the ends of the peltiers would be sub-par at 12mm thick, and it's not even that thick around the edges

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollo

well, when i looked at it the cold-plate screamed "too thin" (mostly because of the metal taken off the edges, and because copper just isn't such a great material for heat-transfer over long distances), i wasn't gonna say but i remembered that link for comparison so i thought i'd throw it in
but regarding comparison with the link-
1 the cold-plate has one heatsource (i wasn't talking about your hotplate)
2&3 for any given line the graph shows the relative effects of vertical transfer deteriorating with thickness, while horizontal heat transfer improves. i'm pretty sure any constants used for heat-load or transfer coefficient would show the same scaling with plate thickness
4 your cold-plate is narrower but longer than a 8x8cm plate - the linear heat transfer between the CPU and the ends of the peltiers would be sub-par at 12mm thick, and it's not even that thick around the edges

---

hollo, I'm not trying to be mean or insulting because your critical of the design. If anything, I welcome the criticism. Tell me my design is steamy pile of dog sh**. I don't care. Just be prepared to back it up.


That being said. The cold plate does have 2 heat source. 1 from the CPU and 1 from the TECs. Think of TECs as a negative heat load. Your not going to convince me that the cold plate is "too thin" by referencing that article again. In my mind, your just comparing apples to oranges. One way you can prove me wrong is to create a fininte element model of the cold plate with the appropriate heat loads on the boundaries. A 2D model with different thicknesses would be sufficient. However I should tell you, I think a finite element model is overkill for this design, mostly because it was designed to fit the motherboard and case over thermal performance. I only mention it because you clearly have an interest in thermodynamics so it might be a good exercise for you and may even aid you in your own endeavors. I'd recommend the ANSYS program if you were interested.

more eye candy

http://lh6.google.com/kgeronilla/R_s...0/TRUETEC8.jpg
just making sure it fits right


http://lh4.google.com/kgeronilla/R_s...0/TRUETEC7.jpg
Back side insulation and mounting


http://lh3.google.com/kgeronilla/R_s...0/TRUETEC9.jpg
Insulation and thermal probe placement


http://lh3.google.com/kgeronilla/R_s.../TRUETEC11.jpg
Retention plate mounting


http://lh6.google.com/kgeronilla/R_s.../TRUETEC10.jpg
heatsinks installed

well i don't mean to be insulting either, don't think for a second that i don't find the entire setup pretty sexy ;)

copper is a good conductor of heat compared to other metals, but it's still a terrible conductor of heat compared to a heatpipe or a water-loop. so i knew straight away that the cold-plate was too thin but i was hesitant to say anything without the link because a subjective opinion from a random person on a forum isn't necessarily convincing.

i think your point that the TECs need to be modelled as a seperate negative heatload is invalid
in the heat transfer situation the chart describes there is a heat-load on the bottom of a plate, and a heat transfer coefficient on the top of it. the heat transfer coefficient could be provided by TECs, could be provided by water, could be provided by a slab of frozen turd - in the end it's just a heat transfer coefficient. as far as i can tell from the pics you posted the TECs cover the entire top surface of the cold-plate except the fins at the side, so they're basically just providing an even heat transfer coefficient over the plate, the same situation as modelled by the chart. and thus i think the model represented by the chart is a good comparison to your setup except that their plates were square and yours is rectangular + 2 different thicknesses.

and i don't think the heat transfer coefficient of the top of the plate or the wattage of the heat-source would change the optimum thickness of the plate - i should have mentioned that.
imo the optimum thickness of the plate would be derived from a model of the heat-flow through the plate. the absolute temperature of any point on a 2d cross-sectional model of the plate would be a function of the temperature on the hot side and cold side, but the heat-flow is the derivative function of the absolute temperature function, and the temperatures of the hot-side and cold-side would be removed from the equation as constants.

uh.. i'm not sure if i described that properly, but i'm pretty certain that the heat-flow would determine the heat-spreading power of the plate, and that it wouldn't depend on the temperatures of the hot and cold sides, only on the dimensions of the plate and the thermal conductivity of the material used.
eg between the cold and hot sides of a symmetrical plate the temperature in the middle will always be (Thot + Tcold)/2
so as far as the heat transfer coefficient and heat-load they used being different from those in your setup is concerned, yes it's apples with oranges
but if i'm right they won't affect the "minimum" point of the graph, which is the point showing the best thickness for a heat-spreading plate, and that's what's important.

and fortunately they modelled a material with the thermal conductivity of copper - 400W/mK - at similar dimensions to your cold plate, so it should be a pretty good guide.

that's the basis for my comparison :yepp:
hope it makes sense, and i'm not saying i don't have it badly wrong :ROTF:
i've barely studied thermodynamics or solid state physics except for one paper that i didn't really enjoy

either way i found myself thinking about your setup - copper is just too crap to properly dissipate heat a distance of 6cm with the high temperature deltas of a overclocking cooling mod - it looks like it would really benefit from heatpipes and it fully has room for some. how about getting a couple of heatpipes with low boiling point refrigerant in them and sticking one on each side with thermal epoxy?

maybe this guy could hook you up http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/member.php?u=23113

I feel like I can mediate a little here. :)
Hollo is pointing out there are performance benefits to be made by working on the cold plate. And he is right.
scifikg seems pretty happy with the current setup and it works. So to call the cold plate too thing might be overreaching with the adjectives.
Also regarding what NOL said about TRUEs and heatpipes compared to a regular heatsink. A regular solid heatsink has less bumps in the C/W curve. Which means heatpipe based heatsinks "dry" out when they become to hot, the returning fluid in the evap-condense cycle runs low and thermal transport capacities die. So you are left with the passive capability of the copper tubes to transport surplus energy at that point. Which is useless.
And normal solid HS wont suffer the same fate when loads are increased. It has a almost linear C/W curve and to my knowledge only black-body radiation that comes with really high temperatures throw the curve off. But in a positive way, since C/W becomes lower because of it.

hollo, I do like that heat pipe idea. Maybe when I'm done with the initial testing, I'll give it a shot. I think maybe soldering it the base rather than thermal epoxy


Jorlen, are you saying that if you heat a heat pipe above its maximum wattage it will

1. completely stop transfering heat except for it's outer shell

or

2. keeps transfering its maximum wattage and the excess heat must travel through the outer shell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scifikg

hollo, I do like that heat pipe idea. Maybe when I'm done with the initial testing, I'll give it a shot. I think maybe soldering it the base rather than thermal epoxy


Jorlen, are you saying that if you heat a heat pipe above its maximum wattage it will

1. completely stop transfering heat except for it's outer shell

or

2. keeps transfering its maximum wattage and the excess heat must travel through the outer shell

---

My basic understanding is that once a heatpipe reaches its maximum heat removal power, you essentially cant get any more additional heat through it. So, if its 35w, at 30 youre fine, but once you exceed 35, you start to not get effective heat removal, and whatever youre cooling will exponentially heat up.

none the less i think the design is awesome, and looks great

tho everything i read here appears valid i hope you see great results

good luck :up: 5*s

some loverly eye candy there... cant wait for temps... wanna see what the outcome to this discussion is. I wish i could have an input but sadly my knowledge is very limited when it comes to TECs.

wow, that is great, I love the hardware.

I am thinking about a big hunker with some kind of heat pipe addition to handle the quick temp changes but won't put hte tec into overload when/if the hetpipe gets overloaded...

I'v been trying lots of different types of watercooling but not having ot cool the heatplate with water is the only real way to go,,,,,

I just realized, your TRUE's are mounted to your aluminum hot plate? Why?

the aluminum is what is clamping the TRUEs to the copper hot plate, no?

Yeah, however it is slowing down heat transfer as well. You really want to have as close to ambient hot side as you can, and I think removing that alu plate, or making it much much thinner might give better results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scifikg

I think the TECs are TEC1-12730

---

Is that site legit? Those are some damn fine pelts that i'd like to implement in a future project... Also, any chance you know of a US distributer?

at this power consumption you could easily run a half horsepower compressor which would give way lower temps than tecs, but i'm sure that's not what you were wanting or you would've done it that way ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b 0f l337

Yeah, however it is slowing down heat transfer as well. You really want to have as close to ambient hot side as you can, and I think removing that alu plate, or making it much much thinner might give better results.

---

The Al retention plate might have a small affect on heat transfer. I could attach a thermal probe to it and see how temperature changes if you would like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bloody_Sorcerer

Is that site legit? Those are some damn fine pelts that i'd like to implement in a future project... Also, any chance you know of a US distributer?

---

I got them on ebay from thermal enterprises. It is the ones they claim are 545W. I asked them if they were the same TECs, but they just ignored my email so I don't know with 100% certainty that they are the same but the specs are almost identical.

How much would having an ALU coldplate effect it all as opposed to copper? im intrested as im having real trouble finding copper cold plates in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam__

How much would having an ALU coldplate effect it all as opposed to copper? im intrested as im having real trouble finding copper cold plates in the UK.

---

For heat conduction, aluminum has a k value (heat conduction) of 250 W/m*K whereas copper has a k value of 400W/m*K so copper is almost twice as good as aluminum.

Did you contact a local machine shop? Tell them your interested in copper 110. They might not have it in stock but I bet they can get it pretty easy. Most shops always have some aluminum 6061 in stock if you go in that direction.

Quote:

---

thermal enterprises

---

seems to be the biggest seller on ebay for TEC's and makes the best claims. I personally have a bunch of them, i can't wait for some results to determine if they are bunk or good quality and close to their claims.

regards
steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scifikg

For heat conduction, aluminum has a k value (heat conduction) of 250 W/m*K whereas copper has a k value of 400W/m*K so copper is almost twice as good as aluminum.

Did you contact a local machine shop? Tell them your interested in copper 110. They might not have it in stock but I bet they can get it pretty easy. Most shops always have some aluminum 6061 in stock if you go in that direction.

---

thanks a lot for the advice :up: .. ill be sure to ask around a bit more now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b 0f l337

Yeah, however it is slowing down heat transfer as well. You really want to have as close to ambient hot side as you can, and I think removing that alu plate, or making it much much thinner might give better results.

---

Have you noticed what is holding the aluminum to the copper? Steel.

Only way to do this better is using very tough plastic really. 1 degree difference if that probably.

Also as has been known and shown time and time again thicker cold plates only help to stabilize temperatures when used in this type of application. Search around for examples back in the P3/P4/K7 days.. and earlier.

http://www.overclockers.com/articles305/
still totally legit for cold plates.

Well some results could be nice..

Short answer: 2.

I am not an expert. But I do recognize two limiting factor of the heatpipes. Hotter pipes means increased pressure which means more of the substrate in the pipe is in gas form all the time. Which lowers the amount of working fluid. I dont know what temperature you will end up with, but its not likely this will have any impact.
The other limiting factor is the rate at which fluid returns to the evaporation end of the pipe. Think about it like this. The more energy that goes into the pipe the faster the evaporation occurs. Thats a linear relationship. Twice the energy, twice the flow of evaporated liquid (gas). The speed at which liquid returns to the hot end of the pipe does not increase in this manner at all. Gravity will help increase flow somewhat, providing the pipes are mounted vertically.
So at a certain point the capillary liquid transport in the wick-structure to the hot end will be less then the gas-transport to the cold end. At this point heat transfer via evaporation stagnates. At this point increasing the load further will raise pipe temperature and if run out of control the problem mentioned above might become noticable.



(edit spelling)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scifikg

Jorlen, are you saying that if you heat a heat pipe above its maximum wattage it will

1. completely stop transfering heat except for it's outer shell

or

2. keeps transfering its maximum wattage and the excess heat must travel through the outer shell

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jorlen

Gravity will help increase flow somewhat, providing the pipes are mounted vertically.

---

I've read that the affect of gravity is highly dependent on the type of heatpipe used. I'm not sure what type is in the TRUE, but it will definitely be mounted horizontally.

The TRUE uses chemical filled pure copper 8mm OD DOM tubing w/o internal channeling. The only better heatpipe is a powerdered metal tubing instead of DOM but, the powdered metal heatpipes can make a pretty notably difference, especially in longer heatpipes. I don't know what they use inside the pipes though. TRUE's heapipes are rated at 37W each at their production length, initial numbers had them rated at 35W but, they were shortened slightly for production, I happen to think thats why they're having isses with their bases not being flat, the tubing bender was designed around the pre-production pipes that were slightly longer, thats also why there is a gap at the edges of the base on the heatpipes with a tighter curve to them. It's unfortunate they didn't tool a mandrel bender instead. Also, the heatpipes will become less efficient when they're overloaded. Up to the 37W heatload they'll be fine but, when you cross the 37W barrier they slowly start dropping efficiency because the chemical doesn't re-condense as quickly or completely at the top of the pipe so when overloaded to say 40W they will drop back and only transfer about 34.5-35W instead of the rated 37W. Much beyond 40 and it's going to drop off more quickly. I would move your fans up about 1.5cm so you get some flow across the tips of the heatpipes, that'll be where they're going to do most of their condensing if you're overloading them.

The bolts holding the aluminum retention bracket are standard steel not stainless right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scifikg

I've read that the affect of gravity is highly dependent on the type of heatpipe used. I'm not sure what type is in the TRUE, but it will definitely be mounted horizontally.

---

you mean the motherboard will be horizontal and the heatpipes themselves vertical right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArtosDracon

I would move your fans up about 1.5cm so you get some flow across the tips of the heatpipes, that'll be where they're going to do most of their condensing if you're overloading them.

The bolts holding the aluminum retention bracket are standard steel not stainless right?

---

I'll move the fans too see if that helps. The bolts are stainless steel.


The TRUEs are mounted like this with the motherboard perpendicular to the ground.
http://lh6.google.com/kgeronilla/R_s.../TRUETEC10.jpg

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=370139

Similar to the other OC link, but also a good link on plate thickness discussion.

It would be interesting to see how your 2-True setup performs without the TEC's compared to a single TRUE ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

It would be interesting to see how your 2-True setup performs without the TEC's compared to a single TRUE ;)

---

that would be a very intresting test,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

It would be interesting to see how your 2-True setup performs without the TEC's compared to a single TRUE ;)

---

Wow, that is a good idea. I wish that I had thought of that before installing all that insulation. It would have been a cool comparison. I'll put it on the list and give it shot later. This is about the time of year that I spend most of my free time outdoors. Plus, I'm anxious start using my gaming machine for games again. Probably won't get around to it till this summer.

INITIAL TESTING OF TRUE TEC MODULE

Both probes read 23.5C before I turned the PC on.
Both TEC power supplies are set to 9.2V.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/kgeronilla/R_2h.../TRUETEC13.jpg
The core temperature in the bios is obviously wrong, but at least I know it is getting cold.
Temperature cold plate = -8.5C
Temperature hot plate = 42.0C


http://lh5.ggpht.com/kgeronilla/R_2i.../TRUETEC12.jpg
In vista, both core temperatures are stuck. This is the stable overclock I had with just air cooling.


http://lh6.ggpht.com/kgeronilla/R_2i.../TRUETEC14.jpg
Here is an idle shot. You can see where I put the 2 TEC power supplies.
Temperature cold plate = -11.8C
Temperature hot plate = 40.7C


http://lh6.ggpht.com/kgeronilla/R_2i.../TRUETEC15.jpg
Here is a full load shot. I ran superpi 32M. This is a 11.5 minute test. These are the highest temperature that I saw during the test. The temps rose to this level after a minutes or so into the test and stayed around there for the remainder of the test.
Temperature cold plate = -7.0C
Temperature hot plate = 42.6C


http://lh4.ggpht.com/kgeronilla/R_2i.../TRUETEC16.jpg
Front view of case with Mr. T.


http://lh3.ggpht.com/kgeronilla/R_2i.../TRUETEC18.jpg
PC power is on the left and TEC power is on the right. You can even see the blue relay that turns the TEC power supplies on with the PC.


CONCLUSIONS:
The cold plate temps are lower than I expected at -11.8C idle and -7C load. It's hard to say for sure what the core temperatures are but they must be pretty damn cold! Next step is to push the overclock higher, but I'm gonna take a little time to do some gaming before continuing.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scifikg

INITIAL TESTING OF TRUE TEC MODULE

Both probes read 23.5C before I turned the PC on.
Both TEC power supplies are set to 9.2V.

The core temperature in the bios is obviously wrong, but at least I know it is getting cold.
Temperature cold plate = -8.5C
Temperature hot plate = 42.0C

In vista, both core temperatures are stuck. This is the stable overclock I had with just air cooling.

Here is an idle shot. You can see where I put the 2 TEC power supplies.
Temperature cold plate = -11.8C
Temperature hot plate = 40.7C

Here is a full load shot. I ran superpi 32M. This is a 11.5 minute test. These are the highest temperature that I saw during the test. The temps rose to this level after a minutes or so into the test and stayed around there for the remainder of the test.
Temperature cold plate = -7.0C
Temperature hot plate = 42.6C

Front view of case with Mr. T.

PC power is on the left and TEC power is on the right. You can even see the blue relay that turns the TEC power supplies on with the PC.


CONCLUSIONS:
The cold plate temps are lower than I expected at -11.8C idle and -7C load. It's hard to say for sure what the core temperatures are but they must be pretty damn cold! Next step is to push the overclock higher, but I'm gonna take a little time to do some gaming before continuing.:D

---

Impressive! I was really quite doubtfull about how it would perform but you have proven me wrong. good on you. :up:

You ran two 32M, one for each core, or you just did a one core test?

wow thats amazing! very impressed with the results. looks like you might be getting some business

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evil-98

wow thats amazing! very impressed with the results. looks like you might be getting some business

---

agreed. if you sell the plates & TECs as a kit, put me down for one. :up:


....sorry if this has been answered b4, but what results would you expect on a quad core q6600 ?

also, what powersupply is it your using to power the tecs? can i get a link ?

finally; how do you think a (1) Thermalright IFX-14 would fair in this test as opposed to (2) 120 ultras ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

You ran two 32M, one for each core, or you just did a one core test?

---

I just started the program and ran a 32M test. I just figured it used both cores. Does it not? I'm certainly up for running other kinds of tests if you guys don't think 32M superpi is enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scifikg

I just started the program and ran a 32M test. I just figured it used both cores. Does it not? I'm certainly up for running other kinds of tests if you guys don't think 32M superpi is enough.

---

Try a 30min run on OCCT, or even a 15min run :)

OR prime95

They will stress your cpu and the cooling ability of your TRUE tec. I really like what you have done here. :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ericab

agreed. if you sell the plates & TECs as a kit, put me down for one. :up:


....sorry if this has been answered b4, but what results would you expect on a quad core q6600 ?

also, what powersupply is it your using to power the tecs? can i get a link ?

finally; how do you think a (1) Thermalright IFX-14 would fair in this test as opposed to (2) 120 ultras ???

---

I haven't really thought about selling it. I'll have to give it some thought and talk to my machinist.

It is hard to say how a quad will perform over a dual. I figure my cpu wattage output for that test was about 120W and from your sig I'd say your quad is outputing at least 190W. I'm using a cpu calculator. I plan to push my dual to about 200W so maybe that will give you some idea, but I've read that quads can output as much as 300W.

The power supply is a S-320. The 12V version.

One IFX-14 is only slightly better than one TRUE, so cooling these 2 TECs with an IFX-14 isn't enough cooling power.

ok thanks scifikg;

based on that calculator,
a q6600 g0 with an OC voltage of 1.38, and a speed of 3720Mhz outputs about 180 watts... probably wouldn't achieve sub temps at load, but it probably would be better then my idle temps of 27C...

Idle temps of 27C are awesome in my opinion.

scifikg, check post#70, that'll be a real cooling test for you and us :)
Yep, 32M only loads one core.

Is the Cu you used Alloy 11000?

ericab, 1.38v 3720MHz TDP.. what was your starting Vcore?
I don't think it'll be that much, maybe 160W but if you give me the correct starting voltage, I'll let you know.

Wow...

Thats actually what i initially thought you would get, but i started to get a little iffy after everyone was commenting. I wanted to do something like this for a while. But a quad is a whole lot of heat... Maybie...

I dont know if i would want to do this, or just get the $300 OCZ phase setup...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

scifikg, check post#70, that'll be a real cooling test for you and us :)
Yep, 32M only loads one core.

Is the Cu you used Alloy 11000?

---

It is Cu alloy 110.


I ran the OCCT v2.0.0.0a auto test for 1 hour.

The highest temperature I saw is below. It occurred about half way through the test.

Temperature cold plate = -0.2C
Temperautre hot plate = 46.4C


This is closer to what I was expecting to see and a pretty big difference between the superpi test.

Use Real Temp, Coretemp does not work very well with 45nm cpu's.

Pretty good temps those, it did work to some degree of decent efficiency there - it can be improved though. Thanks for the tests :)
110 has a conductance of 388 W/m-C at 20C BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b 0f l337

As Vapor said, each heatpipe has a load for it, most around here are 35W or 50W. Past that they become quite useless.

---

Useless to say the least, overloading the heatpipe might make the heat exchanger go into error, you might burn a thing or two. This has not been an issue yet, but I do remember seeing a chart which proves this.

Excellent performance!

you really should think bout manufacturing on a commercial basis if you can produce them for a reasonable price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam__

you really should think bout manufacturing on a commercial basis if you can produce them for a reasonable price.

---

i see to many complications.. i see it being a cool custom thing but if your going to try and mass produce your going to face too many issues.

most obvious issue is it wont fit on all boards.. every layout is different

none the less still think the design is brilliant

What about getting some huge copper sinks, say 3 of them. Then put 3 300w pelts on 1 layer, and then a copper coldplate, and then 2 more 300w pelts into another copper coldplate, wich then cools the cpu. I have bunch of 150w pelts, i could mess around with those and see what i can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evil-98

i see to many complications.. i see it being a cool custom thing but if your going to try and mass produce your going to face too many issues.

most obvious issue is it wont fit on all boards.. every layout is different

none the less still think the design is brilliant

---

This is very true. There is another big problem. It won't fit in most cases. It just barely fits in my coolermaster case. As it is right now, it will only fit on some Intel DFI boards and only in some coolermaster or Lian-Li cases.

Love the work with the TEC's, It's nice to see some real world application and numbers.

I have always been excited by TEC's but i haven't been around here to see much about them but warnings and negative comments.
And I know that most people are speaking from direct expierience, but it's cool to see something from concept to Trialz...

Great job!

What capacity does you fans run at to get the current temps?
And where on the coldside and hotside are your temperature probes attached?

Your results are really good, and the heatpipes seem to be working just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jorlen

What capacity does you fans run at to get the current temps?
And where on the coldside and hotside are your temperature probes attached?

Your results are really good, and the heatpipes seem to be working just fine.

---

The fans are at 12V, but I'll be dropping them all to 7V when everything is said and done. When I was testing the module with no load, the hotplate temerature went up 3C as I dropped the fan voltage to 7V.

You can see the cold plate probe in the insulation picture. The hot plate probe is in the middle of the plate just between the corner edges of the TRUEs

http://lh3.ggpht.com/kgeronilla/R_sk...0/TRUETEC9.jpg

I am glad it performed so good.. the usual negative comments seem to be vanishing after your results :D

I say but the probe on the CPU heatspreader, on the side not sandwiched of course. I imagine thats the hottest place you can measure without modding to much.
I just think your results are to good to be true. ;)

his numbers are right where they should be. He has done his homework and knows a lot!

Nicely done, glad it worked out. And congrats on a very nice, clean build.

Only last word of caution, when dropping the fans down to 7v be careful to keep hot side @ or under 50C. Going above that is going to start affecting your peltiers efficiency pretty quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleowl

his numbers are right where they should be. He has done his homework and knows a lot!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArtosDracon

Nicely done, glad it worked out. And congrats on a very nice, clean build.

Only last word of caution, when dropping the fans down to 7v be careful to keep hot side @ or under 50C. Going above that is going to start affecting your peltiers efficiency pretty quickly.

---

:yepp:

I think you need to move your probe on the cold side, but otherwise turned out pretty good ;)

I must have missed the answer, but how much power is required for that TEC?
Thanks,
Utnorris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scifikg

The fans are at 12V, but I'll be dropping them all to 7V when everything is said and done. When I was testing the module with no load, the hotplate temerature went up 3C as I dropped the fan voltage to 7V.

You can see the cold plate probe in the insulation picture. The hot plate probe is in the middle of the plate just between the corner edges of the TRUEs

http://lh3.ggpht.com/kgeronilla/R_sk...0/TRUETEC9.jpg

---

Using 12730 TECs at 9.2V, you should be pulling about 18A with a 50C hot side and 50C differential. That's a heat load of about 160W from the TEC itself. The other data you provided suggests you are pumping about 50W with each TEC, for a total heat load of 210W per TEC.

Based on what I can see from other performance reviews, the TRUE has a thermal resistance of about .1C/W with a good fan, so with 210W load, I would expect a 21C rise above ambient. You indicated the probes were at 23.5C with no power, so if we take that as ambient, we would expect the hot side at 45C, so your second test seems about right.

But if the comments by the other posters about the capacity of the heat pipes are correct, then you may be approaching the max for those coolers. I think that you might not be able to put much more heat load on - but I don't have that cooler so I really can't verify experimentally.

This data also suggests the CPU heat load is only 100W - otherwise you would see a bigger heat rise. Your first test had a 60C differential, and with your voltage, you could only have been moving 70W or so and achieve that differential.

All in all your work is impressive, and certainly very pretty. Getting close to 0C is an achievement, and you can play with TEC size and voltage if it turns out you need more cooling with different CPU settings. That would also give you a way to see how close to the edge you are with the coolers - if you increase the voltage and the heat runs way up or the differential does not increase, you may be at the limit.

That's the best TRUE setup I've ever seen! Great work, Sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utnorris

I must have missed the answer, but how much power is required for that TEC?
Thanks,
Utnorris

---

Power Consumption ~= 2 x 9.2V x 18A = 331.2W

im going to do something like this with a 168W TEC.

One small suggestion. I would try to eliminate as much heat transfer as possible to the cold plate. One way to achieve this is to insulate the clamping bolts. Why not try some plastic transistor insulating mounts and some slightly smaller diameter bolts. The plastic mounts could insulate both plates.