The truth about DDC's

[Utnorris]

Quick question, is the DDC1 the same thing as a MCP350? There is a guy selling them and he list them as the same as the MCP350.

[Captain H.N.]

Quick question, is the DDC1 the same thing as a MCP350? There is a guy selling them and he list them as the same as the MCP350.

Afaik, yes. DDC 3.1 = MCP350 = DDC 1(R/T); DDC 3.2 = MCP355 = DDC 1+(R/T)

[eth0s]

Nice job on the testing!

[Waterlogged]

Thanks everyone.

thanks for the testing

as for your fuse, see if there's a grainger around you, I've had to replace a few fuses in DMM's and they've always had what I needed

http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/wwg/start.shtml

Already looked. I do know of a few places I can get some but it's really hard for me to break out the CC for a $4-6 internet purchase from I place I've never ordered from before.

woot thats all i was interested in

Cool beans then.

Quick question, is the DDC1 the same thing as a MCP350? There is a guy selling them and he list them as the same as the MCP350.

There are a couple versions of DDC 1's out there as Captain H.N. has partially stated. There is also the original DDC 1 which has a black impeller (which was not tested as I don't have one of those). IIRC, they are the weakest of all DDC's. The complete run down of all DDC's AFAIK is

DDC 1:
Black impeller (original AKA MCP350)
Blue impeller (AKA-3.1, MCP350)

DDC 1+:
red (brown or orange impeller depending on your color perception ) (original AKA DDC 2)
Blue Impeller (DDC 3.2)

DDC 3.25:
Blue (or blue top w/red/brown/orange bottom) impeller (original)

Yes, that's accurate, 3.25 is the only number on these pumps, even on the Laing sticker so it seems they are finally stepping away from the "DDC 1/DDC 1+" naming.
Not sure where the 3.15 version stands in the whole mess because I don't think we've seen any yet.

[Petra]

Actually, it's interesting to compare the old DDC-1's to the DDC-3.1's that replaced 'em... the DDC-1 produces produces more head pressure and has a stronger "first half" curve, whereas the DDC-3.1 lags behind until the second half of its curve (where it has a very slight performance advantage).

Swiftech has some decent curves comparing the two that they put together after I brought the issue to their attention (link, scroll down)

[Waterlogged]

Waterlogged: based on some of my old curves, you're looking at, what, about a 3psi drop across that flowmeter given the "max" flowrate numbers you were able to pull?

Alex, believe it or not, according to my pressure gauge...I only get ~1 ±.2psi with the flow meter @ full flow.

they do make routing much easier

any chance of a retest to get the numbers for the 3.2 with top, as if there is a rev limiter it should perform differently, and mine stays at 4700 rpm with the ek v1 g3/8 top

Pump________Total head pressure (PSI)_______Max Flow (l/m)__________RPM's

3.2______________6.2 ±.2____________________~11.2_____________4470 ±30 (with a very small spike to 4530-4560 when full restriction was applied)

Your higher RPM's may be due to a higher amp rail PSU than what my PSU is. When I did the video I linked earlier in the topic...I had used a 550W Antec NeoHE with a bad 5V rail, I later tested the 3.2 with a much lower watt PSU (220W Shuttle unit) and the RPM's dropped by 1k.




I also tried to test my INS-FM15 (predecessor to the INS-FM16) as well but I was forced to toss all those numbers out. It appears the damn thing is borked as it doesn't want to read flow higher than 9999 mL/m for some reason, it just reverts back to 1000+, and tops out @ something like 1054. The specs I have that came with it show .5-15 LPM (similar to the FM17) so even if I'm supposed to add 1054 to 9999, it still doesn't = 15 LPM.

[millertime359]

i'm going to drag this thread back up as i just stumbled across it.

Nice job Water. It seems that 3.25 really is a hot rod isn't it.

[zanzabar]

Alex, believe it or not, according to my pressure gauge...I only get ~1 ±.2psi with the flow meter @ full flow.


Pump________Total head pressure (PSI)_______Max Flow (l/m)__________RPM's

3.2______________6.2 ±.2____________________~11.2_____________4470 ±30 (with a very small spike to 4530-4560 when full restriction was applied)

Your higher RPM's may be due to a higher amp rail PSU than what my PSU is. When I did the video I linked earlier in the topic...I had used a 550W Antec NeoHE with a bad 5V rail, I later tested the 3.2 with a much lower watt PSU (220W Shuttle unit) and the RPM's dropped by 1k....

i have a 750tx, and when i had just a pa120.1 and a dtekv2 it was up there now with an mcw60 added its a 4050-4100

thx for doing the test, even though i missed it for a month and a half

[Blueking]

(Click for larger images)


As for being able to mod the newer PCB, that's unfortunately still up in the air. Personally, I'm going to say it's not possible as these look to possibly be a simple mod away from being PWM controllable from things floating around in the rumor mill.


:

and chip IC2 are difference numbered
Some of resistors are in difference size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor

component CE1 has diff numbers on bottom 841 and 913

[avddreamr]

Actually, it's interesting to compare the old DDC-1's to the DDC-3.1's that replaced 'em... the DDC-1 produces produces more head pressure and has a stronger "first half" curve, whereas the DDC-3.1 lags behind until the second half of its curve (where it has a very slight performance advantage).

Swiftech has some decent curves comparing the two that they put together after I brought the issue to their attention (link, scroll down)

\
It looks like they are equal at about 225 lph, or 1 gpm... so as long as you manage to keep your loop at 1gpm or more, you'll get better pressure.

A somewhat worthy compromise don't you think?
Or am I misinterpreting that graph.

[Petra]

\
It looks like they are equal at about 225 lph, or 1 gpm... so as long as you manage to keep your loop at 1gpm or more, you'll get better pressure.

A somewhat worthy compromise don't you think?
Or am I misinterpreting that graph.

I've already faceplamed one over pressure-related comments today...

A better way of putting it would be as follows:

If the pressure drop curve of your entire watercooling system were "low enough" to cause a DDC-3.1 to operate at or in excess of 1GPM, then the DDC-3.1 would offer slightly better flow than the DDC-1 due to its performance curve being stronger past that point.

[millertime359]

even though i missed it for a month and a half

Glad I necroed it then, seems i wasn't only one that missed it.

[EvilClocker]

Ive heard there is a new version coming out Very soon that PWR so we can adjust the speed

[century child]

Interestingly, I recently bought one (well two actually Swifty MCP 355) and when changing the top I noticed a label on the PCB that said "PWM". Other than that, there is nothing out of the ordinary about it other than it is not reporting RPM's or my Aquaero is not reading it properly. I've a second in the GPU loop that did not say this on the PCB and it's reporting RPM's just fine. I bought it at the same time and the serial numbers and manufactuer dates are pretty close but they appear to be completely different models.

[avddreamr]

I've already faceplamed one over pressure-related comments today...

A better way of putting it would be as follows:

If the pressure drop curve of your entire watercooling system were "low enough" to cause a DDC-3.1 to operate at or in excess of 1GPM, then the DDC-3.1 would offer slightly better flow than the DDC-1 due to its performance curve being stronger past that point.

Well, am I to interpret that you prefer the older design? Now, I acknowledge that you know far more about the ddc pumps than I will ever know. And in fact I'm quite happy that this might prove an op. to pick your brain.

When lang revised their ddc-1, and ddc 2, into the 3.1, and 3.2 models, they both seem to have lost some psi, the 3.2 significantly. I have two ddc2s, and I'm waiting on a 3.1 that should arrive today or on monday. What do you feel where the design advantages when they elected to do the revisions in such a fashion?

Generally, i think the goal is to keep it at or above 1gpm. Did you feel that you got better performance out of the ddc 1, using your top for instance?
In my case, i noticed that I had to run the ddc2 at maybe 50 percent, to gain an acceptable noise profile. So I am not running my pumps in their optimum range, and the extra pumping power is lost on my low resistance loop. (fuzion v2, xspc rx360, danger den ion g92, ek nforce rev 1.1) So if someone was going to use a ddc 3.1 in a low resistance loop, wouldn't they stand to benefit? Or is that not representative of most of the people who would buy the 3.1, and they would of been better served by the original design? Would any of these conclusion apply to the design shift from the ddc 2-> 3.2 or even the 3.25?

Your thoughts, will be greatly appreciated . I apologize if you experience a face palm moment due to my questions

[nikhsub1]

Well I have had my 2 DDC-2's running 24/7 for almost 4 years now... not 1 issue to report other than no issue

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=101005

[Petra]

Well, am I to interpret that you prefer the older design?

There was no inkling of preference in the statement that I made, it was merely a statement of fact based on the PQ curves provided by Swiftech.

When lang revised their ddc-1, and ddc 2, into the 3.1, and 3.2 models, they both seem to have lost some psi, the 3.2 significantly. I have two ddc2s, and I'm waiting on a 3.1 that should arrive today or on monday. What do you feel where the design advantages when they elected to do the revisions in such a fashion?

Most of the advantage in the redesign was Laing's since they only had to produce one pump instead of two--the original DDC-3.1 and 3.2 are identical, save one solder pad bridge which acts as a toggle between modes. Obviously, this approach would increase the profitability of the pumps by lowering production costs. There were a couple changes which benefited the end-user, though, like a substantially softened startup sequence (no more 4A startup spike) and improved reliability (about 1 in 20 DDC-2's that we sold ended up failing).

Generally, i think the goal is to keep it at or above 1gpm. Did you feel that you got better performance out of the ddc 1, using your top for instance? In my case, i noticed that I had to run the ddc2 at maybe 50 percent, to gain an acceptable noise profile. So I am not running my pumps in their optimum range, and the extra pumping power is lost on my low resistance loop. (fuzion v2, xspc rx360, danger den ion g92, ek nforce rev 1.1) So if someone was going to use a ddc 3.1 in a low resistance loop, wouldn't they stand to benefit? Or is that not representative of most of the people who would buy the 3.1, and they would of been better served by the original design? Would any of these conclusion apply to the design shift from the ddc 2-> 3.2 or even the 3.25?

The overall performance difference between the DDC-1 and DDC-3.1 is pretty small, to the point where I'd say it doesn't matter. The DDC-2, however, offers higher flowrates than the DDC-3.2 across its entire operational range at the expense of some reliability and slightly higher power consumption. Unfortunately, I haven't had an opportunity to experiment with the DDC-3.25 just yet.

Well I have had my 2 DDC-2's running 24/7 for almost 4 years now... not 1 issue to report other than no issue

I still have working DDC-2's as well, Scott... but that doesn't seem to make people feel better about the boxes of DDC-2's I had to RMA back to Swiftech