Mayhems First pics of Rev 1 3 x 120mm Rad quad pass.

[mlwood37]

These are the pics of the Rev 1 quad pass 3 x 120mm rads our testers have had for a while. Rev 2 will be out soon.





Some more pics up on our face book page and more pics to come.

the internals on this rad are what counts. Rev 2 has had lots of modification to improve it more.

[BrokenArrow]

Looks promising. I like the low fin density.

[bundymania]

Looks like a Thermochil Rad

[mlwood37]

Its should do i took the measurements from them and made them better. The internals are totally different and you will feel by the weight of as it much heavier than a TC.

These were test samples (10x) that i had mocked up for testing my theory behind them. Lucky my theory was right hence were now moving to REV 2 to improve it more.

[PiLsY]

Nice . Will any rev 2 rads be going to anyone on here for preview testing?

Bump stops for the fan screws would be a good addition (had to solder another punctured rad for someone yesterday ). Also discovered that ports on both faces make for easy filling/bleeding in top mounted horizontal positions. Set up the guys loop with the repaired rad and it acts like a T-Line/fillport beautifully.

[mlwood37]

The testers are all UK people and companies. They are people we can relay on.

[Senator]

Is one of the testers TTL?

[PiLsY]

The testers are all UK people and companies. They are people we can relay on.

Wasn't doubting your testers, just want to see results you big tease lol.

[AmuseMe]

I dont mean to empose here, but how is that a quad-pas design? The bottom tanks is one solid piece? Unless someone soldered spacers the the radiator header, which is risky enough on its own, but also, those "seperators" wont be 100% watertight. It would still work, but being someone who builds radiators on a daily basis, it just "doesnt look rignt".

Could you post a pic of the top tanks?

[PiLsY]

There's always some bypass in rads - its designed in to reduce flow restriction. Likewise though I'm interested to see how it was achieved. I'm imagining caps within the end tanks, but who knows? I would imagine we wont find out that kind of detail until Mick is safe in terms of intellectual property though.

[mlwood37]

Yeh guys were juts showing you because these are the test rad design ver 2 is a little different and yes TTL was one of the testers. Our testers came back suggestions on what they would like to see and how they performed and were working on them and a few other things we need to iron out.

They are 4 pass and some were on these forums is another post by me with info on temps and the like. Im only releasing pics of these as there old designs that are now irrelevant.

[mlwood37]

yes we do get a increase in pressure drop which was noted how ever the good trade off was the temps we got (which i consider out standing) and in our minds its a performance rad so works really well for low spin fans.

[Scubar]

Looks very promising. Cant wait to see some comparisons.

[Beriphent]

I am not sure if you have finalized this part of the product's design, but is the rad housing/shroud made of steel (like with Thermochill rads)? Sorry to harp on the TC thing, but bundy's words were the first thing I thought when I saw the pics too. Anyway, it's shaping up to be an excellent product.

[OC Maximus]

Lovin' the new rad bud! Can't wait to get my hands on one

[BeepBeep2]

Well, no current quad pass PC cooling radiators exist. (Except your mockup) Neither do triple pass ones, unless someone would like to correct me.
Between flow rate and pressure holding up and cooling efficiency at a moderate level, dual pass is about as good as it gets for a single radiator, am I wrong?

If you end up with 100% more restriction over current designs for 15-20% performance benefit and higher manufacturing cost...

I'd imagine this radiator being restrictive as #%*&...with little benefit over current dual pass designs.

(Why do you think all radiators in this industry right now are single or dual pass?)

[TJ TRICHEESE]

What you need to remember is that this rad is thicker than most radiators so that will reduce the extra restriction slightly.

Also if everyone thought like that then we would never get anywhere.

[defect9]

I'll judge its performance when the numbers come out. honestly I'm just happy to see an idea come together and get tested.

[Waterlogged]

Well, no current quad pass PC cooling radiators exist. (Except your mockup) Neither do triple pass ones, unless someone would like to correct me.
Between flow rate and pressure holding up and cooling efficiency at a moderate level, dual pass is about as good as it gets for a single radiator, am I wrong?

If you end up with 100% more restriction over current designs for 15-20% performance benefit and higher manufacturing cost...

I'd imagine this radiator being restrictive as #%*&...with little benefit over current dual pass designs.

(Why do you think all radiators in this industry right now are single or dual pass?)

Of this size, correct. IIRC, Magicool has a 1080 (currently sold under another company's name) that is 4 pass. It has a rather odd design, both inlet and outlet passes use 10 tubes while the 2 inner passes use 5 tubes each creating a lot of unwanted restriction.

[Martinm210]

I went back to the procooling forums to see if I could find the data on single vs two pass, but came up empty. I know there was testing on it back in the BillA/Cathar days, but I don't remember if it was single or double thickness. I just recall that for more conventional flat tubes (not super thin like the GTX) that two pass was about ideal. I just don't remember which radiators that testing was done on.

Nothing particularly special about quad pass and it will add restriction and the manufactures need to think about those losses as part of it.

I'm running a 3C delta at really high flow rates, so losses in CPU block performance(due to added restriction) in exchange for radiator performance is a BIG question in my mind.

Skinnee published this data on the old 15mm PA120.3 that shows some relative flow rate performance. To evaluate what quad pass would do, you simply can look at the flow rates in this chart. There isn't much gain with higher flow rates especially with lower speed fans.


If you look at the 800RPM curve from 1.5GPM to 2.5GPM there is only about 10 watts or maybe a 5% gain. .75 to 1.5GPM might be as much as 10%, but 10% of a low 3C water delta is only .3C. In my use, gaining .3C in radiator performace would likely be outweighed by the CPU block performance loss. Not sure but it could...

Here is Vapor's awesome flow related work on CPU blocks:


It's very possible under high flow low restriction conditions that switching to quad pass could cause more CPU block harm than RAD good. Needs good testing beyond the scope of just the radiator package or you'll miss that.

[mlwood37]

Im sure the users who will be able to get this will be happy with the results.

Happy new year to ever one from Mayhems it has just tuned new Year here in the UK.

i will be willing to sent 1 x Ver 1 rad to a reliable tester if they are willing to do the tests on it at no cost to us. Personally i think it will be pointless and Rev 2 would be a better candidate for testing.

mick

[Martinm210]

I think Skinnee is still booked up a while, but you might try Bundy..
No operating rad bench on my end just yet. I took half the sensors out of the old bench for pump testing and have yet to rebuild it. Need to finish up the block testing I have on hand, then maybe I'll be doing rads again.

Happy New Year!
Martin