The anatomy of a 'bow'.

[Darkatom]

Does 7/16 ID, 5/8 OD tubing work on the stock barbs that come with the fuzion ?

[serialk11r]

Does 7/16 ID, 5/8 OD tubing work on the stock barbs that come with the fuzion ?

Sure, the tubing is plastic and can stretch over.

[p8ntslinger676]

Well i have flow works so it calculates the thermodynamics and fluid dynamics of the blocks for me, its a cool program

[serialk11r]

Well i have flow works so it calculates the thermodynamics and fluid dynamics of the blocks for me, its a cool program

It'll calculate it but you gotta give it a block design first You can't tell it "I want water to flow like THIS" and let it draw a block for you lol.

[nikhsub1]

Well the Apogee are great blocks, but testing proves the Fuzion is better if the apogees arent bowed. I for sure would not feel comfortable doing it.

YOu wouldn't feel comfortable doing what? Swapping the o-ring on an apogee? WTF not? Hmm, let's see, swap to fat o-ring which bows base = 4-5C better than using standard shipping o-ring. Naw, not worth it

[Darkatom]

YOu wouldn't feel comfortable doing what? Swapping the o-ring on an apogee? WTF not? Hmm, let's see, swap to fat o-ring which bows base = 4-5C better than using standard shipping o-ring. Naw, not worth it

Let me see, adding a backplate to my 680i and screwing down the block so tight just to get the full effect of the bow which could potentially crush some important stuff on the back = NOT WORTH IT.

[nikhsub1]

Backplates are over rated.

[drunkenmaster]

isn't the bowing part kinda, errm, irrelevant, and not the best method here.

hey i've been out of watercooling for ages but surely the increased performance is just from increased pressure. pressure = good, better contact. but people seem to be focusing on the wrong way to get that contact. the 4 points you introduce pressure from the hold down, only a certain amount of pressure really the board can safely be used with. so the same mounting pressure but its applied over a smaller area in contact with the cpu, thats all fine and dandy. but with the curve of the base you have just that a curve, only part of the base will be in perfect contact. that should be shown by the review i just read, the CES testing where 2 cores obviously obtained great contact and 2 cores didn't, because the curve was causing great pressure at one point.

if someone knows the actual location of the cores under the IHS, would the best way to get best pressure on ONLY the parts with the cores on, be to lap a tiny amount of the base away in the area's no in contact. hows best to explain it, like with a ram covering gpu stock sink, the memory/gpu contact area's are lower than the rest of the base of the sink. if you can find the exact area you want on the base of the waterblock, and lap away the rest a tiny amount, so that the whole cpu area is in contact, completely flat contact, and the rest of the base is ever so slightly higher, not in contact and none of the pressure is wasted on those areas?

bowing is giving half the effect, but also causing a curve which has to be giving the opposite effect. If someone came up with a good design, and you could buy just a new baseplate designed specifically for a certain cpu, $15 copper baseplate to give perfect contact area for your cpu. also, when you bend a metal you essentially disturb the lattice pattern of the metal so its not perfect anymore. a flat piece of metal curved to induce certain pressure points wouldn't be anywhere near as effective as a flat piece of metal with basically the edges up to where there needs to be contact, being slightly higher. i know the slight damage in the lattice of the metal would be tiny, and probably in reality not have any real effect on end results. but you add them all together and i would think that would be the best way to design it.

idea patented ¬_¬

[serialk11r]

Let me see, adding a backplate to my 680i and screwing down the block so tight just to get the full effect of the bow which could potentially crush some important stuff on the back = NOT WORTH IT.

Uh, if you're not using a backplate as of now without a bow, that's a problem in the first place. The bow won't make your mounting mechanisms clamp the board any tighter.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

isn't the bowing part kinda, errm, irrelevant, and not the best method here.

hey i've been out of watercooling for ages but surely the increased performance is just from increased pressure. pressure = good, better contact. but people seem to be focusing on the wrong way to get that contact. the 4 points you introduce pressure from the hold down, only a certain amount of pressure really the board can safely be used with. so the same mounting pressure but its applied over a smaller area in contact with the cpu, thats all fine and dandy. but with the curve of the base you have just that a curve, only part of the base will be in perfect contact. that should be shown by the review i just read, the CES testing where 2 cores obviously obtained great contact and 2 cores didn't, because the curve was causing great pressure at one point.

if someone knows the actual location of the cores under the IHS, would the best way to get best pressure on ONLY the parts with the cores on, be to lap a tiny amount of the base away in the area's no in contact. hows best to explain it, like with a ram covering gpu stock sink, the memory/gpu contact area's are lower than the rest of the base of the sink. if you can find the exact area you want on the base of the waterblock, and lap away the rest a tiny amount, so that the whole cpu area is in contact, completely flat contact, and the rest of the base is ever so slightly higher, not in contact and none of the pressure is wasted on those areas?

bowing is giving half the effect, but also causing a curve which has to be giving the opposite effect. If someone came up with a good design, and you could buy just a new baseplate designed specifically for a certain cpu, $15 copper baseplate to give perfect contact area for your cpu. also, when you bend a metal you essentially disturb the lattice pattern of the metal so its not perfect anymore. a flat piece of metal curved to induce certain pressure points wouldn't be anywhere near as effective as a flat piece of metal with basically the edges up to where there needs to be contact, being slightly higher. i know the slight damage in the lattice of the metal would be tiny, and probably in reality not have any real effect on end results. but you add them all together and i would think that would be the best way to design it.

idea patented ¬_¬

you kinda don't get it do you.... the cores are fairly small and in the center of the chip. the bowing provides pressure only in a portion of the IHS, this is true, but the IHS is not what your trying to cool. you are cooing the CPU which is right under the center of the IHS.

the only thing the pressure achieves is to flatten the IHS to provide more fluid and complete contact with the actual cpu.

this noted, just because it is bowed doesn't mean there isn't still contact with the whole IHS. the contact is just more complete at the cpu area.

also the flat metal actually becomes concave if it is not bowed... ponder that

[drunkenmaster]

well, as seems to be shown the contact from the bowing doesn't seem to increase the surface pressure at "all" the right points for a kentsfield as the CES show test shows as two cores were significantly hotter than the other two. the bowing will always cause the central area to get the best contact. i was talking about increasing the pressure on the area's of the baseplate that correspond to where the cpu cores are under the IHS. a single core cpu is centered in the middle of the package, but a dual core and quad core aren't centered the same.

[the highlander]

how about creating a C clip that attaches to the middle of the water block and on the same position at the rear of the board??? that would give you all the pressure you need exactly on the middle.

Its sort of like the athlon xp cpus that had no IHS. If you put the "spring" mount the wrong position it would not excerpt the force on the middle of the die but somewhere else and you would loose 3-4C. Maybe that is one of the reasons that the TT kit being so bad in its parts had decent cooling. That H type of affixing itself to the board is very very good.

[drunkenmaster]

how about creating a C clip that attaches to the middle of the water block and on the same position at the rear of the board??? that would give you all the pressure you need exactly on the middle.

Its sort of like the athlon xp cpus that had no IHS. If you put the "spring" mount the wrong position it would not excerpt the force on the middle of the die but somewhere else and you would loose 3-4C. Maybe that is one of the reasons that the TT kit being so bad in its parts had decent cooling. That H type of affixing itself to the board is very very good.

well, the athlon xp mounting without IHS, thats basically the point. if you had a complete, and much larger flat surface than the size of the die, the die is still the only bit in contact and the whole die area has the full force of pressure applied over it(assuming good mount)> with the IHS this pressure is spread out over the IHS because, assuming cpu/ihs lapped, both are flat and the IHS does provide contact with the packaging and not cores so lets pressure be applied elsewhere. if you can remove the contact between baseplate and IHS in area's where the core is not under the IHS, you are wasting less pressure and getting more pressure onto the core area's. this IS whats happening with bowing, its essentially aiming more of the pressure at the centre point, so i would assume the method would(and i think it has) shown best results on a single core where the single core is in the very centre of the packaging, but dual and quad cores aren't quite like that. testing at CES showed that the bowing, while it helped as it no doubt concentrated the pressure in the centre, that worked out great for two cores, and less well for the others. i think my idea would work well for all the cores.

i don't know, also something strikes me as , not unsafe as such, but i don't really like the idea of having a base thats able to be bent.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

for a quad you wouldn't use a bowed GTX, fuzion has the correct pre-bow for that chip

[serialk11r]

for a quad you wouldn't use a bowed GTX, fuzion has the correct pre-bow for that chip

Actually IHSes come in all shapes and sizes (sizes just to make the phrase more complete ) (heat from soldering on the IHS warps them, or not...) They didn't make the kentsfield concave on purpose, and I'm betting there ARE some good intel IHSes out there (my CPU has one for instance...) and there most likely are conVEX kentsfield IHSes as well...If they made IHSes concave on purpose, then there would be a LOT of problems...

[Jedda]

Seems a bodgy fix for slack intell c2d IHS and not much more to me.

Interestingly, almost all the internal combustion engine design ideas had been had by 1918. Very little new ideas after that. Heaps of development, metalurgy improvement etc but you can count the new ideas after that one one hand.

[nealh]

nikhsub1
anymore results to pass along

[IanY]

for a quad you wouldn't use a bowed GTX, fuzion has the correct pre-bow for that chip

You got that absolutely wrong there, buddy. I have both and have tried. The differential is big enough to be material.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

You got that absolutely wrong there, buddy. I have both and have tried. The differential is big enough to be material.

well i was saying that an extreme bow is not useful for the quad because the cores are so spread out, idk the actual results, just logic on my part.

[IanY]

well i was saying that an extreme bow is not useful for the quad because the cores are so spread out, idk the actual results, just logic on my part.

They are really not very spread out, dude.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

DUDE! lol idk this is just a conceptual thing for me at this point, and i do know that the quad distributes its heat load over much more of the IHS than a core2 does. i was just saying that the fuzion probably does better on the quad, but seeing as we are splitting 2 C hairs here just lay off

[NEvolution]

Take a look at this as to how far apart the dies are from each other.

Here's a couple images I sketched up at work today for reference use so anybody else can join in on all the fun. :thumb:


The dotted circle in the center is a 1/2" inlet barb for reference. The outside 4 black dots are the mounting holes on the motherboard.


This is a representation of the
* 62mm square block
* 29mm square IHS
* Both core 2 Duo die's within the QX6700/QX6800

Measurements are approximations but should be within .5mm at the most.

Hope this helps some of you !

http://www.overclock.net/2104912-post78.html

And an actual image:

Actual image of a Quad Core without its IHS

http://www.overclock.net/2101989-post50.html

[AndyM]

I'm wondering if the better center contact patterns shown using the bowed blocks could be duplicated using a flat block and lapping that CPU, along with a corresponding decrease in the amount of paste used. I see a pattern in the paste shown in the photos that suggests the outer edge of the IHS is lifting the water block off of it.

[[XC] DragonOrta]

Alot of guys that bow the base already lap their IHSes. One of the reasons that the bowed base helps is because it puts most of the pressure in the direct center of the IHS.

[bito]

Why not have a raised section machined into the baseplate, like on the GPU waterblocks...aka MCW60's ??