Can anyone rate the primochill Typhoon III?

[Vapor]

Okay, finally did the math with real PQ curves....let's throw out a few fun examples of just what the T3 can do

Let's take a sample loop of the Aqua Computers Double Impact, two MCW-60s, and two HWLabs GTX480s. Two of the most restrictive rads, a very restrictive CPU block, and two standard GPU blocks. Not only that, but I'm quite sure the ACDI is one of the more pump-hungry blocks out there (that doesn't mean most restrictive, that means an increase in flowrate does the most for its performance!).

In a normal serial config, this setup will get .89GPM. With the Typhoon III, splitting the ACDI into its own subloop, Subloop A, and everything else into Subloop B, you get 1.34GPM through A and .98GPM through B!

To put that in perspective, two D5s in serial (with the rest of the setup in serial) only gets 1.30GPM!


Another possible config: Apogee GTZ, 2xMCR320, and a single MCW-60 (yes, an all-Swiftech config). All in serial: 1.39GPM. Split up with just the GTZ in Subloop A: 1.79GPM-A and 1.66GPM-B.

Adding another MCW-60 to Subloop B drops serial flow to 1.30GPM, raises Subloop A to 1.85GPM and lowers (without any drop in performance) Subloop B to 1.49GPM. Again, the GTZ is a block that LOVES flow, so the Typhoon III is helping performance quite a bit here

Not only is the CPU block getting a significant boost in flow with these configs, but the secondary components are also getting a slight increase.

EDIT: bluehaze, it is possible to have different (controlled) flowrates in different parts of the loop. Just use a shared Reservoir with multiple subloops with their own pump(s).

[BoxGods]

Will all this talk over running seprate loops off of this, could you have a loop that is rad only and a loop with your CPU and GPU blocks only. I wouldn't think it would work, but the T3 isn't your standard res will it allow you to do that?

I would think that it WOULD work actually. Keep in mind that the water in the T3 is exchanged almost 16 times a minute. A larger rad would do better as its more restricted likely.

It is cool that people are starting to see the potential here. Even I have no idea what the limits are on the T3 because there are all these new variables. Build people cool tools and they will in turn build things you can't even imagine.

[bluehaze]

Okay, finally did the math with real PQ curves....let's throw out a few fun examples of just what the T3 can do

Let's take a sample loop of the Aqua Computers Double Impact, two MCW-60s, and two HWLabs GTX480s. Two of the most restrictive rads, a very restrictive CPU block, and two standard GPU blocks. Not only that, but I'm quite sure the ACDI is one of the more pump-hungry blocks out there (that doesn't mean most restrictive, that means an increase in flowrate does the most for its performance!).

In a normal serial config, this setup will get .89GPM. With the Typhoon III, splitting the ACDI into its own subloop, Subloop A, and everything else into Subloop B, you get 1.34GPM through A and .98GPM through B!

To put that in perspective, two D5s in serial (with the rest of the setup in serial) only gets 1.30GPM!


Another possible config: Apogee GTZ, 2xMCR320, and a single MCW-60 (yes, an all-Swiftech config). All in serial: 1.39GPM. Split up with just the GTZ in Subloop A: 1.79GPM-A and 1.66GPM-B.

Adding another MCW-60 to Subloop B drops serial flow to 1.30GPM, raises Subloop A to 1.85GPM and lowers (without any drop in performance) Subloop B to 1.49GPM. Again, the GTZ is a block that LOVES flow, so the Typhoon III is helping performance quite a bit here

Not only is the CPU block getting a significant boost in flow with these configs, but the secondary components are also getting a slight increase.

EDIT: bluehaze, it is possible to have different (controlled) flowrates in different parts of the loop. Just use a shared Reservoir with multiple subloops with their own pump(s).

Nice results Vapor, thanks for the test! Wish I had a more complex loop so I could give it a try

With regards different flowrates is it possible with two pumps on a closed loop or would it have to be open? If it works on a closed loop maybe I will give it a try sometime just to see how it all works out for myself. This is all kind of confusing

[Vapor]

Ah crap, my math is off by a factor of 2 somewhere buried....those numbers aren't right

EDIT: those numbers ARE right. Stare at a calculator long enough and you begin to play mindgames with yourself (edit on this edit.....again, not sure if it's right....I think I need sleep, I'll take a look at it again tomorrow)

EDIT2: it works fine with a closed loop.

[Darth_Penguin]

I'm not missing the point LOL I'm the one that was making the point remember? The point was thermostats are used to regulate flow in the automotive industry and via regulating that flow are able to increase or decrease temperatures. Doesn't matter how or why the thermostat works...the point is altering the flow changes the temperatures as you yourself are admitting by trying to explain it to me

Perhaps the same premise is not noticeable with watercooling a computer because the temps are miniscule by comparison but the point remains the same if regulating flow rate through a car radiator changes temps then same can be said for regulating flow through a computer radiator albeit evidently on a much more miniscule scale. <- And that was the answer to the question I was asking, it's not worth it because adjusting flow rates is not going to make much if any difference be it increasing or decreasing flow.

Thanks

Your whole theory only works if you believe more flow ≠ better cooling, but doesn't that go against one of the basic equations in the study of Thermodynamics?

Q=MC(DELTA T)

Q Being rate of heat transfer
M being Mass flow rate
C being Specific heat of water (constant)
Delta T Being the difference between fluid temp out and fluid temp in

Based on this equation if you increase mass flow you will also increase the rate of heat transfer since C (specific heat) is constant.

Doesn't matter how or why the thermostat works...the point is altering the flow changes the temperatures as you yourself are admitting by trying to explain it to me

But it does matter. Yes a thermostat alters flow (that's common sense and not what i was ever arguing). You, however, are making the argument that thermostats are used to increase the systems ability to cool by decreasing flow. This is simply not the case. The thermostat is simply there to Force the system to operate around a predetermined temperature. This is evident in cases where your thermostat gets stuck open. People who have had this happen to them can probably attest to the fact that their car took forever to get to operating temperature or never got there at all.

[bluehaze]

Ah crap, my math is off by a factor of 2 somewhere buried....those numbers aren't right

EDIT: those numbers ARE right. Stare at a calculator long enough and you begin to play mindgames with yourself (edit on this edit.....again, not sure if it's right....I think I need sleep, I'll take a look at it again tomorrow)

EDIT2: it works fine with a closed loop.

LOL Get some sleep man! I don't know wether to buy another ddc and try seperate loops now or just get the T3 and try the seperate loops on that. Seems like you have a rather large differential in flow rates between the 2 loops and it still increases flow on both loops. I wasn't expecting that. Have you tested how much differential there can be before the more restrictive loop loses flow? If it is a significant amount it might help as I think flowrates with a mora 2, my gpu + cpu blocks and only one ddc will be borderline being that hesmelaugh only got 1.19gpm out of the mora2 in his tests. Would be nice to run it on a seperate loop and get more flow through the blocks.

[bluehaze]

Yes a thermostat alters flow (that's common sense and not what i was ever arguing). You, however, are making the argument that thermostats are used to increase the systems ability to cool by decreasing flow.

Nope, I'm saying regulating flow has an effect on temps period and i'm also saying that temps raise when you lower flow because in a closed loop system when you lower flow through the radiator you also lower flow through the blocks. That is all i'm saying because that is all I know for sure. I haven't actually tested flow through radiator seperate from the flow through the blocks and that is what I have been trying to figure out all this time.

Anyways I give up, dont feel like arguing anymore...

Cheers

[Darth_Penguin]

Nope, I'm saying regulating flow has an effect on temps period and i'm also saying that temps raise when you lower flow because in a closed loop system when you lower flow through the radiator you also lower flow through the blocks. That is all i'm saying because that is all I know for sure. I haven't actually tested flow through radiator seperate from the flow through the blocks and that is what I have been trying to figure out all this time.

Anyways I give up, dont feel like arguing anymore...

Cheers

Dont give up!

The "argument" started when you stated that a thermostat keeps an engine from overheating by restricting flow. You are contradicting that argument by now saying that lowering flow causes increased temps. This is what I mean about you missing my point from the earlier post.

[Aielman]

Ok...trying to get my head around this.

I originally planned to put chipset and CPU on a single loop with a PA120.3. So if i'm understanding this discussion correctly, my performance would increase if I split the CPU and Chipset into two subloops, rather than the single loop.

The question I have is can I do that with say the CPU on one subloop and the chipset on another with only the single rad on one of the subloops...or does Ben get another $180 from me for a pedestal so I have a place to put the additional two rads I need for my loops?

Assuming, off course that I manage to talk my wife into spending what amounts to the equivalent of yet another case for a computer I already have an expensive case for, heh

[millertime359]

I'm not missing the point LOL I'm the one that was making the point remember? The point was thermostats are used to regulate flow in the automotive industry and via regulating that flow are able to increase or decrease temperatures. Doesn't matter how or why the thermostat works...the point is altering the flow changes the temperatures as you yourself are admitting by trying to explain it to me

Perhaps the same premise is not noticeable with watercooling a computer because the temps are miniscule by comparison but the point remains the same if regulating flow rate through a car radiator changes temps then same can be said for regulating flow through a computer radiator albeit evidently on a much more miniscule scale. <- And that was the answer to the question I was asking, it's not worth it because adjusting flow rates is not going to make much if any difference be it increasing or decreasing flow.

Thanks

The whole problem is that it either allows flow or stops flow. The thermostat in the car is effectively an on/off switch. Engine gets to hot, switch turns on, water flows. Engine too cold, switches off water doesn't flow. You wiki post said everything that DP has been saying you just focused in on the those 5 words or so.

It is worth a test, but I don't think you will see a difference. The water in our loops will be in the rad for the same total amount of time. It will just see the rad more often with a higher flow rate.

I understand what you are wanting to do, but I don't think it will be possible without a pretty complex loop. I also think when it is all said and done, any benefits seen will not be worth the time put into it.

[millertime359]

QUOTE=Aielman;3894052]Ok...trying to get my head around this.

I originally planned to put chipset and CPU on a single loop with a PA120.3. So if i'm understanding this discussion correctly, my performance would increase if I split the CPU and Chipset into two subloops, rather than the single loop.

The question I have is can I do that with say the CPU on one subloop and the chipset on another with only the single rad on one of the subloops...or does Ben get another $180 from me for a pedestal so I have a place to put the additional two rads I need for my loops?

Assuming, off course that I manage to talk my wife into spending what amounts to the equivalent of yet another case for a computer I already have an expensive case for, heh [/QUOTE]

BoxGods seems to think it is possible. I would give it a try. The worst that happens is you are not happy with your temps and get more rads

I would think that it WOULD work actually. Keep in mind that the water in the T3 is exchanged almost 16 times a minute. A larger rad would do better as its more restricted likely.

It is cool that people are starting to see the potential here. Even I have no idea what the limits are on the T3 because there are all these new variables. Build people cool tools and they will in turn build things you can't even imagine.

Hmm, it's not my original thought though, think it was troelsm. I may have to give it a try sometime if i get bored and redo my loop.

[DarthBeavis]

when did this thread denigrate into a n3rd orgy? can you use the calculus to determine the maximum effective bling? I only went as far as soft calculus in college (finite mathematics . . .well, also took a master's level stats class in my MBA stuff, changed majors from MBA to education though)

[skinnee]

DB, with you here...its always a nerd orgy!

[faster3200]

Wow, this is pretty amazing. If that is true, and I have no doubt it isn't, this changes everything.

EDIT: Not a response to the posts immediately above me.

[DarthBeavis]

Wow, this is pretty amazing. If that is true, and I have no doubt it isn't, this changes everything.

EDIT: Not a response to the posts immediately above me.

your eyes say yes but your mouth says no


BTW: Where in WA are you?

[bluehaze]

The whole problem is that it either allows flow or stops flow. The thermostat in the car is effectively an on/off switch. Engine gets to hot, switch turns on, water flows. Engine too cold, switches off water doesn't flow. You wiki post said everything that DP has been saying you just focused in on the those 5 words or so.

It is worth a test, but I don't think you will see a difference. The water in our loops will be in the rad for the same total amount of time. It will just see the rad more often with a higher flow rate.

I understand what you are wanting to do, but I don't think it will be possible without a pretty complex loop. I also think when it is all said and done, any benefits seen will not be worth the time put into it.

Nah bro, some thermostats have holes in them to keep water circulating while they are closed, they also make these to replace the thermostat http://autoparts.thecarconnection.co...or/replacement , they also have 2 way thermostats: "All LT1 engines utilize a special 2-way acting full bypass thermostat. This means that the thermostat regulates coolant flow both in to as well as out of the engine, while the bypass portion of the thermostat circuit supplies the water pump with a full flow of liquid coolant at all times. This is unlike a conventional engine thermostat, which only regulates coolant flow at the engine outlet, and which does not allow full flow through the water pump when the engine is cold and the thermostat is in bypass mode."

Anyways it's a whole different subject...and I still have a headache from talking about this all last night so taking a break

[Darth_Penguin]

when did this thread denigrate into a n3rd orgy? can you use the calculus to determine the maximum effective bling? I only went as far as soft calculus in college (finite mathematics . . .well, also took a master's level stats class in my MBA stuff, changed majors from MBA to education though)

You calling me a n3rd????

Shhh, dont tell the other nerds but I failed every calc course at least once before passing it the 2nd time

[3Z3VH]

People should keep in mind, this whole discussion only applies to Parallel loops using a T3. If you try to do Parallel loops through a Laing D5 by using y-splitters, you will NOT get these results !

The reason is that you are creating these parallel loops inside the pump top. The only way to achieve similar results is with a custom top that draws its input from a non-restrictive source, and has two parallel outputs, much like the T3.

[millertime359]

Nah bro, some thermostats have holes in them to keep water circulating while they are closed, they also make these to replace the thermostat http://autoparts.thecarconnection.co...or/replacement , they also have 2 way thermostats: "All LT1 engines utilize a special 2-way acting full bypass thermostat. This means that the thermostat regulates coolant flow both in to as well as out of the engine, while the bypass portion of the thermostat circuit supplies the water pump with a full flow of liquid coolant at all times. This is unlike a conventional engine thermostat, which only regulates coolant flow at the engine outlet, and which does not allow full flow through the water pump when the engine is cold and the thermostat is in bypass mode."

Anyways it's a whole different subject...and I still have a headache from talking about this all last night so taking a break

Got ya, good call. I was more referring to the old school engines where it basically is a switch LOL. Well at least you got what you were trying to figure out figured out in other thread

[iandh]

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).

I was going to mention that in my previous post, while the design helps move the pump into its peak efficiency point with high flow loops, a single restrictive loop would actually cause it to move away from its peak efficiency.

This is a very innovative design for those with large single loops that could be split, but for those with single block restrictive loops, it will do little to nothing, or even make things worse IMO.

A good way to max the capabilities of the pump, but this is no magic bullet... just good engineering.

[bluehaze]

Got ya, good call. I was more referring to the old school engines where it basically is a switch LOL. Well at least you got what you were trying to figure out figured out in other thread

Took awhile but it all makes sense now Glad that is over

[Vampiyer]

I've neglected to lookup how overvolting the D5 will effect the PQ curve, but if the D5 is receptive to being overdriven then we can eek out some more performance

This is going to save some money over dual-loop designs. I'm liking it.

Edit: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=170217 - Martin's D5 (stock) testing reveals that the D5 gains slight performance going from 12v to 13.1 - 24v (no difference after 13.1v), with about an extra 2-5w power consumption at above 3.0 GPM.
Meh...it's at least some difference...nice power regulation circuitry though

Max current draw and flow rate results:

12v = 4.29 GPM, 33.0" Head, 1.99 amps (combined 2 results here, but close enough)
13.1v = 4.58 GPM @ 37.0" Head, 2.16 amps
24v = 4.58 GPM @ 36.9" Head, 1.20 amps

Not sure if it's worth the extra few watts

[wondergod]

So after reading this post...I guess its safe to assume the T3 is not worth the money

Sucks too I just bought the XSPC Dual DDC BayRes

[troelsm]

I'm pretty sure I understand the whole concept of the increase in flow with dual loops.

If i understand all this correctly it basically means that you will see flow increase by running two loops compared to one and you can pretty much mix and match whatever you want to be on each individual loop. Maybe only one radiator for total on the two loops. Maybe one block on loop 1, and 3 blocks on loop 2. With the one "rule" that the overall restriction of both loops have to be pretty similar.

The example with one radiator for two loops only working if the water temps. equalizes well enough in the reservoir, which I guess we'll have wait for tests to see.

Is this a correct statement?

[rambler358]

So after reading this post...I guess its safe to assume the T3 is not worth the money

Sucks too I just bought the XSPC Dual DDC BayRes

LOL - yeah, I'm in the same boat right now trying to see which may be the better option for me:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=229107