Can anyone rate the primochill Typhoon III?

[BoxGods]

It has to do with the efficiency curve of the D5 pump. It's most efficient between 2 and 3.5GPM...in fact, over that range, it's 50+% more efficient than it is at 1GPM. At face value that doesn't mean much, but it's the underlying key to why the Typhoon III ends up being such a step forward in design

What does that mean for the end user? Well, let's take a sample loop and play with it

Sample loop: a D5, two MCR320s, an HK3.0, and two MCW-60s. With this loop in serial, you get roughly 1.4GPM (at 4.1PSI of pressure drop)....which is good, but maybe a little lower than you want. Because the D5 is only running at 1.4GPM, it's efficiency is under 14%. The overall pumping power the water is being subjected to is 2.5W.

Add in the Typhoon III and you can arrange your loop (by default) in a parallel config....you split the restriction up evenly: an MCR320 and the HK in one portion, and an MCR320 and the two MCW60s in the other. Now you have a few things going on (mathematically) that I may not be describing 100% clearly or accurately, but hopefully I'll get the gist of it across.

1) When you go in parallel, the flowrate through the pump is the sum of the two subloops.
2) When you go in parallel, roughly the average of the pressure drops of the subloops is the pressure drop across the entire loop (or across the pump, depends how you look at it). This means that at any given pumping power, flow increases.
3) Because restriction is down overall (by a lot), flowrate increases. When flowrate increases to the 2.0 to 3.5GPM range (from the <1.5GPM range), efficiency increases noticeably...so you actually have more pumping power at work.

You throw all three of those into an equilibrium (such is fluid dynamics....the three variables have a lot of dependence and codependence) and you actually end up getting higher flowrates in each subloop than you would in one big loop! Back of the napkin math says roughly 1.5GPM through both loops

Loops that are naturally more restrictive (say 1.2GPM or lower in serial) benefit even more!

A 'fun' loop to demo this on could actually be something like the HK 3.0 + a pair of GTX rads + a pair of GPU blocks + a motherboard block. Whereas you'd get maybe 1GPM when arranged all in serial....you can put the HK in its own subloop (it's the only thing that cares about flow) and you'll end up getting really high flowrates through the HK and still get moderate flowrates through the everything-else loop.

Because of the nature of what we do (how everything we do tends toward an equilibrium), you'll see no thermal issues from even the wackiest of the loop divisions....if you want a semi-restrictive CPU block on its own subloop and want to put your radiators and GPU/board blocks into the other subloop, you'll get the same water delta performance, but you'll get higher flow where it matters (at the CPU block).

Where this won't work as well is with a VERY restrictive CPU block and a lack of other components in the loop. You have a good chance of actually lowering the flowrate through the block (where it matters most).

Cliffnotes version: running in parallel allows for a reduced pressure drop of the loop overall, because of the nature of the D5, this reduced pressure drop allows the pump to have increased flowrate through the pump. That increase in flowrate actually allows the pump to run more efficiently, leading to the pump actually being more "powerful" (from the liquid's perspective) and increases flowrates in equilibrium even further. The net result is that a well planned and balanced set of subloops will actually allow you to have HIGHER flowrates through each subloop (or a specific subloop) than you would if you arranged it in one serial loop.

Because the efficiency curve of a DDC peaks at lower GPM (and is narrower), I don't see this working with a DDC as effectively. Also note that this parallelization won't be effective on all loops, but there are certainly cases where it'd work well

You can not imagine how many times I have tried to explain that and not been nearly so eloquent. I am printing PAPER copies of that to hand out lol.

[tenormadness]

So do you think a setup with this reservoir and pump combo with an overclocked q6600 and MCR320 on one subloop and a 4890 and MCR220 on the other would be effective compared to just one big loop? Because that's the kind of setup I'm looking at, and this reservoir would save me lots of space in my antec 900.

[Vapor]

You can not imagine how many times I have tried to explain that and not been nearly so eloquent. I am printing PAPER copies of that to hand out lol.

This is easily the hardest concept I've seen in a long long time

When skinnee showed me some prelim numbers a couple nights ago, I basically scoffed at the results as being "too good" and tried to find some explanation along the lines of "you did something wrong."

Then I dug around looking at the D5 data and it started to click....but it's pretty damn counterintuitive. Split a loop up and you get higher flowrates? That goes against a lot of what we've ingrained into ourselves....but the numbers work with the D5 with even moderate restriction loops.

So do you think a setup with this reservoir and pump combo with an overclocked q6600 and MCR320 on one subloop and a 4890 and MCR220 on the other would be effective compared to just one big loop? Because that's the kind of setup I'm looking at, and this reservoir would save me lots of space in my antec 900.

Really depends on the CPU and GPU blocks....but because of the simplicity of the loop, I'd say the gains from parallelizing your setup are minimal (and if you use a really restrictive CPU block, it'll hurt overall performance). You can just run it in one big loop off the Typhoon III though, if you want to use it as a convenient form factor for the res

[BoxGods]

I got mine for two reasons.
1. It provides a really neat place to mount my pump. My pump won't be all that easy to see. When I get it finished I think I'll have a clean set up.
2. I'll only have to add a radiator and block to cool my video card.

The Typhoon III is an expensive reservoir. Initial investment, that is. I'll save, in the long run, when I expand.
I saw another reservoir that can hold two D5s but it looks like they go on the bottom. That would take up another bay. (at least)

I do have a question about it though. It comes with 4 acrylic(?) washers. Do they go between the pump hold-down plate and the res body?

The only thing I would like better about it. I wish it had a top fill port that matched my HAFs fill port. I've managed to get it to be the top componant in my loop.

There are actually small acrylic washers that go on the rubber mounting washers just to spread out the load.

There are also acrylic SPACERS that are included for the 8 poly carbonate compression fittings that come with the T3. The T3 uses a cavity (for want of a better word) to retain the O ring so it doesn't spread out under compression. The poly compression fittings fit that cavity so no spacer needed for T3 mounting (or on any other part with the O ring captivation on the part) but if users want to mount the compression fittings in any parts that don't have the cavity, the spacer slips right on and your good to go.

As for the front fill ports. They are designed that way for several reasons. The goal was for the easiest to install, fill, bleed, and drain system I could come up with. It had to be that for as many different set ups as possible, and for users from novice to uber. With those ports on the front, with the over flow basins to prevent accidents, with two ports so one fills while the other expels trapped air, and the concave inner face you get ease of use no rez with top mounted fill ports can touch.

Post some pictures of your setup man. I honestly get a huge kick out of seeing how people use and mod this stuff.

[BoxGods]

This is easily the hardest concept I've seen in a long long time

When skinnee showed me some prelim numbers a couple nights ago, I basically scoffed at the results as being "too good" and tried to find some explanation along the lines of "you did something wrong."

Then I dug around looking at the D5 data and it started to click....but it's pretty damn counterintuitive. Split a loop up and you get higher flowrates? That goes against a lot of what we've ingrained into ourselves....but the numbers work with the D5 with even moderate restriction loops.
Really depends on the CPU and GPU blocks....but because of the simplicity of the loop, I'd say the gains from parallelizing your setup are minimal (and if you use a really restrictive CPU block, it'll hurt overall performance). You can just run it in one big loop off the Typhoon III though, if you want to use it as a convenient form factor for the res

You should have heard me trying to explain it (the design) to potential buyers. I felt like the guys pitching Juno must have felt. "It's a movie about a semi hot teen who is pregnant, and kinda weird...and it sort of promotes teen pregnancy...but in a good way".

I sent it to Brian at PrimoChill and got an email back in like 2 hours. "Add some sort of features to the face so it has more personality and maybe make the inner front face concave and I will get a prototype done. Just like that. No laughing...no snickers.

The day he got the prototype in he called me up and said "Your just not going to BELIEVE how much water this thing pushes in dual loop...it's INSANE...what else do you have?".

[BoxGods]

Fillports front and center is putting me off somewhat. I imagine you would have to tilt your case back 90deg to fill and bleed. That said it does look handy and sounds like it has performance to match. Where can I buy one? Seems like it's only available on Primochill's site.

DB can you qualify this please: Nothing will come close at the moment meaning...better than two isolated loops with DDC? Two isolated loops with D5? Two loops with 1 DDC? Two loops with 1 D5? Dual DDC2...? Dual Iwakis.....?

Thanks.

The front makes it a DREAM to use...and there IS a lot of potential for modders. When the face frame is painted it looks awesome for example. For those not wanting to paint their own (even though its very easy to do) There will most likely be versions with chrome plated face, brushed aluminum (think lian li) and colored chrome in several colors. There is also a 1/4" thick machined aluminum face in the works--polished to a mirror finish and black and clear anno.

Lastly, I am a modder so part of my deal when I sold the design was that they keep a few of the T3's in stock un-assembled. That means that the performance portion--the back half--can be merged into or onto anything you want to build. Just shoot Brian at PrimCHill an email and he will be happy to sell you one in its component parts.

If you DO want to paint the face, there is also a very inexpensive Gerber masking set (think special stickers to mask off areas that don't get paint) coming out shortly (as soon as my plotter gets back from the repair shop lol).

Sorry for spamming answer posts in like this...for some reason multi quote is not working for me.

[Utnorris]

Will there be a comparison based on cooling of this versus a dual loop that are completely separate, 2 x res, 2 x pumps and 2 x rads? I like the concept and can deal with the front fillport, like the idea of one pump and one res, but I do not want to take a hit in cooling.
Thanks

[Russ_64]

Do you have to use the compression fittings or can it take 1/2" barbs?

[damunk]

Do you have to use the compression fittings or can it take 1/2" barbs?

Seeing it uses G1/4 threading I don't see why different barbs would be a problem.

[alacheesu]

1) When you go in parallel, the flowrate through the pump is the sum of the two subloops.
2) When you go in parallel, roughly the average of the pressure drops of the subloops is the pressure drop across the entire loop (or across the pump, depends how you look at it). This means that at any given pumping power, flow increases.
3) Because restriction is down overall (by a lot), flowrate increases. When flowrate increases to the 2.0 to 3.5GPM range (from the <1.5GPM range), efficiency increases noticeably...so you actually have more pumping power at work.

You throw all three of those into an equilibrium (such is fluid dynamics....the three variables have a lot of dependence and codependence) and you actually end up getting higher flowrates in each subloop than you would in one big loop! Back of the napkin math says roughly 1.5GPM through both loops

Great explanation!

Did you/skinnee compare the res against running two loops in parallel the "normal" way? If I understood you correctly, we're exploiting the shape of the D5's P/Q curve, but it's not clear to me if or how the res increases performance on top of that.

Anyway, great to have more options!

[Bei Fei]

I take this would not work well with a Koolance AC350 block?

[skinnee]

Will there be a comparison based on cooling of this versus a dual loop that are completely separate, 2 x res, 2 x pumps and 2 x rads? I like the concept and can deal with the front fillport, like the idea of one pump and one res, but I do not want to take a hit in cooling.
Thanks

Great explanation!

Did you/skinnee compare the res against running two loops in parallel the "normal" way? If I understood you correctly, we're exploiting the shape of the D5's P/Q curve, but it's not clear to me if or how the res increases performance on top of that.

I am working on the normal PQ Curves and PQ Curves for the dual loop with the second loop set at specific GPM (2.0, 1.5, 1.0, .5GPM). The best way to measure the performance of any pump component is by isolating the component and eliminating variables to the ones you want to test. Just like radiator testing where you set the flow rate at a specific GPM, specific heat loads and specific fan rpms. I'm not sure how adding in other loop components would be a valid test of performance for this product or for other pump tops. The options are endless and the testing would not show much other than the pressure drop of the blocks and radiators in the loop.

I'm not trying to avoid the tests, but it would be a lot of testing for very little information that we don't already know.

[shazza]

Do you have to use the compression fittings or can it take 1/2" barbs?

I'm running mine with 1/2 in DD fatboys currently ... works just fine.

[DarthBeavis]

I'm running mine with 1/2 in DD fatboys currently ... works just fine.

the term fatboy is very offensive I prefer 'economy-sized male' or 'horizontally challenged'.

[Barso]

I only need to use one inlet and one outlet.
What do I need to do to the remaining inlet and outlet?
Does the kit come with a plug that fills the 2 holes?

[Diverge]

I only need to use one inlet and one outlet.
What do I need to do to the remaining inlet and outlet?
Does the kit come with a plug that fills the 2 holes?

Yeah, it comes with everything you need. IT even comes with leds you can put in the plugs.

[Diverge]

I have a question for you T3 experts. Can I take advantage of the higher flow by running anything in parallel with my setup. It consists of the following:

1 x Apogee GTZ
1 x D-Tek FuZion GFX 2
1 x MCW30
1 x Feser 360 rad
1 x Typhoon 3 w/ D5 variable

Right now i'm only using 1 inlet and 1 outlet port of the T3. Could I split anything up, that would benefit me, without actually running another rad?

[bluehaze]

Is there a way to tune the flow of the seperate loops? Thinking of getting one of these and putting a Mora 2 on one loop and HK 3.0 and 295 block on the other loop but with the Mora being so restrictive and the HK's being so free flowing i'm thinking it's not going to work without some way of tuning the flow?

My premise is that the Mora loop could run slower disappating more heat and the CPU/GPU loop could run faster keeping temps down. Being that they are both drawing from the same res the temps should still equalize. Not sure if there is any advantage to this though...

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

"running slower" doesnt help dissipate any more heat.... these are closed loop systems, you need to think of it in terms of how many times per minute each molecule of water goes through the rad, not how long its in the rad for.

[bluehaze]

"running slower" doesnt help dissipate any more heat.... these are closed loop systems, you need to think of it in terms of how many times per minute each molecule of water goes through the rad, not how long its in the rad for.

Well cars have thermostats to regulate flow of water through engine seperate from the radiator so it might not be so cut and dry. Has anyone ever actually tried it?

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

there is a reason we dont use lower flow so that the water in our systems can get more heat from the block each pass its because there are no "passes" just circulation - it has been tested, maybe not fully formally, but tested nonetheless.

[bluehaze]

there is a reason we dont use lower flow so that the water in our systems can get more heat from the block each pass its because there are no "passes" just circulation - it has been tested, maybe not fully formally, but tested nonetheless.

I don't use lower flow to get more heat from blocks because lower flow = Higher temps with regards to blocks in all my testing. What I am talking about is having high flow accross the blocks and lower flow through the rad while both share the same water pool.

I know people have tested lowering flow with a heat source in the same loop but you are now lowering the flow through the heatsource as well as through the rad. What I am wanting to try is independent flow rates in the same loop which if it has been done before I can't seem to find any info on it.

[Vapor]

I have a question for you T3 experts. Can I take advantage of the higher flow by running anything in parallel with my setup. It consists of the following:

1 x Apogee GTZ
1 x D-Tek FuZion GFX 2
1 x MCW30
1 x Feser 360 rad
1 x Typhoon 3 w/ D5 variable

Right now i'm only using 1 inlet and 1 outlet port of the T3. Could I split anything up, that would benefit me, without actually running another rad?

It's close to being a negligible gain....but putting the GTZ in its own subloop will net slightly higher flowrates (from ~1.33GPM to ~1.4GPM). Desipite how much the GTZ loves flow, that small boost won't mean anything for your temps.

[Vapor]

I don't use lower flow to get more heat from blocks because lower flow = Higher temps with regards to blocks in all my testing. What I am talking about is having high flow accross the blocks and lower flow through the rad while both share the same water pool.

I know people have tested lowering flow with a heat source in the same loop but you are now lowering the flow through the heatsource as well as through the rad. What I am wanting to try is independent flow rates in the same loop which if it has been done before I can't seem to find any info on it.

Both types of components like flow...though most CPU blocks like flow a lot more than a rad does. In general, a rad is a pretty flow-agnostic component.

[bluehaze]

Both types of components like flow...though most CPU blocks like flow a lot more than a rad does. In general, a rad is a pretty flow-agnostic component.

I see, I kind of figured it wasn't worth the time or else there would be alot more info about it. So the only advantage would be essentially removing the restrictive rad from the loop...

Does the typhoon achieve this running two loops one to rad and one through the blocks seperate flow rates through each loop?

Edit: I wouldn't think it would work but the whole efficiency discussion is whats confusing me.