Check this homemade WB out

[BeepBeep2]

TECs have two major, major issues.

First, reliability.

Second, power consumption increase vs. performance gain is just awful. Take what your CPU consumes, multiply it by 2.5x, and you get maybe 5-10% more performance. Just an awful performance/watt ratio.

What about low power (20w) air-cooled TEC's used in series used as water chillers?

ie. Rad > TEC > CPU > Pump > Rad

[Vapor]

That would be a decent way to do it, but even then the watts/MHz is really inefficient.

[Manicdan]

That would be a decent way to do it, but even then the watts/MHz is really inefficient.

and the initial cost for TECs is still very high, and those things are stupidly fragile. i think a all in one phase change is easier and produces better cheaper results then TECs could for a novice

[JASSAF]

Its a good idea.... but the design isnt the best one:

1- it is a block with a lot of mass (I disagree with NaeKuh)
2- the 3 plates (base, top, fin) mess up the convection of heat
3- when welding plates of the fin to the top it may have not enough contact with the whole surface
4. fins way too thick and too close to each other

What you can do is (chek design):
1- craft a high performance base: no more than 5°C compared with EK Supreme HF
2- fins and top just 1 plate
3- thin fins and with more space between them
4- use copper tube as shown in the desing to place the fitting inlet and outlet.




.

[nateman_doo]

least of all me

i appreciate hearing that from you.

I am not a fan of tec's as others might be. i only breifly messed around with them. i am shifting focus on the internals. The new tools i aquired after i built this block will aid in the work.

reggie was right - this was built with a drill press & a cross vise.

[nikhsub1]

reggie was right - this was built with a drill press & a cross vise.

This was done with hand tools as well... started out as an aircooler - This block is what Bill Adams copied to make the MCW6002... anyway at the time, this was a VERY good block.

http://www.overclockers.com/waterblock-roundup/

[nateman_doo]

I have a few things ordered in the main to begin the ACB v1.1

[nateman_doo]

Its a good idea.... but the design isnt the best one:

1- it is a block with a lot of mass (I disagree with NaeKuh)
2- the 3 plates (base, top, fin) mess up the convection of heat
3- when welding plates of the fin to the top it may have not enough contact with the whole surface
4. fins way too thick and too close to each other

What you can do is (chek design):
1- craft a high performance base: no more than 5°C compared with EK Supreme HF
2- fins and top just 1 plate
3- thin fins and with more space between them
4- use copper tube as shown in the desing to place the fitting inlet and outlet.




.

When you say craft a high performance base, what do you mean craft it withing 5°C? Do you mean the same thickness?

[johnksss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnksss
nate, will you quit posting here till the test are done?
this nonesense seems never ending.
So I said what the outcome would be and I was proven right, is it still nonsense? Or are you nonsense?


no, i was pointing at you and your way of bringing it across as nonsense. ain't no one your kid up in here, regardless of whether you like the idea or not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by johnksss
really? correct about what?
did no one ask for anyones approval. so im not sure what your going on about.
I wasn't going on about anything - I was stating facts and most of you were basically telling me to get lost.


refer to upper post.
i never went on about the performance of the block..only about how you went about presenting your "facts"
nothing more nothing less.

[Vapor]

Why the fighting?

If you have a grudge, which I hope you don't, at least keep it off the threads

[JASSAF]

When you say craft a high performance base, what do you mean craft it withing 5°C? Do you mean the same thickness?

make a base plate similar to HEATKILLER or KOOLANCE 360 (a flat base with microchannels), the sides and top of the fins will make contact with the top cover. A greater area of contact: BEST heat conductivity
high performance?: without the fan, the waterblock performance must be competitive with the EK Supreme HF.

I recommend copper plate: 5 / 32 thick (H 57 x W 57 mm). fins: 2.5mm and microchannel of .014 "Thickness


microchannels ..VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-LZAdpPeo


.

[johnksss]

Why the fighting?

If you have a grudge, which I hope you don't, at least keep it off the threads

not fighting, sir.
just answer his question.
and why am i the one with a grudge?

[nateman_doo]

make a base plate similar to HEATKILLER or KOOLANCE 360 (a flat base with microchannels), the sides and top of the fins will make contact with the top cover. A greater area of contact: BEST heat conductivity
high performance?: without the fan, the waterblock performance must be competitive with the EK Supreme HF.

I recommend copper plate: 5 / 32 thick (H 57 x W 57 mm). fins: 2.5mm and microchannel of .014 "Thickness


microchannels ..VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-LZAdpPeo


.

I get what your saying now and its along the lines of what I was thinking to do. Before I start with micro channels, I am going to try my luck with 1/16". Once I get a feel for the micro milling I will find some smaller taps.

Now, back to thermal conductivity... If copper has a much higher thermal conductivity then water, why do larger amounts of copper do so crappy at pulling heat from a cpu base?

[wez]

Now, back to thermal conductivity... If copper has a much higher thermal conductivity then water, why do larger amounts of copper do so crappy at pulling heat from a cpu base?

You still need to disperse the heat from the copper itself

[nateman_doo]

You still need to disperse the heat from the copper itself

Fair enough. There is lots of internal surface area in the block, just not as much directly above the CPU.

[Manicdan]

i think vapor said it best, more copper is not going to hurt results, it just takes longer for everything to reach the balanced point.

for best temps you want to have the water as close as possible to the source
for best removal of heat, you want to have as much surface area as possible, and as much water flow as possible. the reason small blocks do well is from the accelerated water flow.

dumb question, whats your guys opinion of heatpipe direct touch, then have the water block above that? as long as the contact is very good, i cant see this causing to much of a problem with removing heat from the water, while it can have a very good heat removal from the air

[TJ TRICHEESE]

because Naekuh is just looking for someone to start playing with TEC's so he can drop his ever lasting TEC project that has been static for 3yrs on them.

TEC's are an interesting proposition I agree, but I am still hesitant to go down that road...

hmm TEC project sounds interesting...

[PiLsY]

I reckon it did pretty well for what it is. If you dropped a rad off the test bed the results would close up - the test bed itself is magnifying the difference by reducing the effect the active fan cooling would have in the average system.

Its never going to beat a high performance block in a system with minimal deltaT, but if you were adding a gpu to a single radiator loop it could well make a difference and even end up in favour of Nate's block depending how silly you were being with your heatdump. As you increase the load on the rads this block should start to pull back towards the others and may at some point overtake them.

Certainly not the block for my systems, or most for people on here (and raging in this thread), but don't dismiss this flat out as it certainly has its place. If you can't add to radiator cooling for whatever reason this block could certainly help you out. Well done on the first revision - I reckon with some hard work refining you could knock 10c off those temps.

Those internals could really be worked on a lot. Check the OCZ Hydroflow internals and see whether you reckon you could solder the top cleanly to the pins. Thats the best way I can think of to get both good contact to the top for cooling and acceptable heat transfer to the water. God knows how you'd direct flow though. Keep it simple to make for now as if you are really serious about doing this youll be on revision 10 before revision 2 is completed . The base is where you're going to get most of your improvements, but for god sake keep it original, everyone uses micro pins or micro fins these days. Besides youll pretty much junk youre heatsink if you do it that way. Ever felt the top of a copper HK3 with a 4.6ghz i7 under it? Its under 30c when the cpu is in the high 80s. That type of base wont shunt you enough heat to the heatsink (unless you intend on it being merely a failsafe).

Keep the heatsink style, the fan downdraft directly on the block top will be far more beneficial to you than switching to any tower/heatpipe type of design. Maybe look at a heatsink more like the old Alpha PAL8045 or the swiftech MCX462 instead of the skived copper style? Pins and a large base are the way to go when you are cooling a huge contact area. Fins are good at transferring heat along their length from a small central heat source.

I think you can work on it, but aiming for the top blocks is out of reach with a hybrid block design - but you can make that design useful in most average joe loops. A have a mate who can only fit 1x220 rad for his Q6600 and wants to add a GTX260 to the loop. I said no way, with a refined version of this that could be possible. It'd certainly be a cheaper and easier route than new case extra rad and fans anyway, even if not ultimately as good at cooling.

Glad you're not easily discouraged, it's gonna be really hard work if you take it on .

[Martinm210]

I get what your saying now and its along the lines of what I was thinking to do. Before I start with micro channels, I am going to try my luck with 1/16". Once I get a feel for the micro milling I will find some smaller taps.

Now, back to thermal conductivity... If copper has a much higher thermal conductivity then water, why do larger amounts of copper do so crappy at pulling heat from a cpu base?

Its because the copper is a solid so the heat must travel through the mass of copper, when water has the fluid speed advantage. At 1.5GPM, the water is moving a lot faster in those tiny block channels (v=q/a) than copper can move it as a solid.

Think about holding a 1 ft piece of copper pipe in your bare hand and heating one end with a torch. It would still take a good 10 seconds or so for the heat to make its way to your hand before you have to let go. Now think about the speed of water in that pipe...its much faster...now think about the tiny cross sectional area in the block at the nozzle inlet...its even higher...

In essence the waters thermal conductivity is increased by its flow rate.

There is more going on there, but that helps me make sence of it a little.

[nateman_doo]

There is more going on there, but that helps me make sense of it a little.

excellent analogy. I like it. Shooting for 1/16th channels at the moment. See if I have the steady hand.

[Martinm210]

Nice!
I've been thinking about slitting saws. I wonder if you can make a custom arbor to hold a series of slittings saws together spaced apart?.
I had trouble with the commercial arbors before and made my own butb it was only for a single blade and took a long time. Seems like a bigger mill and large diameter arbor should be capable of running multiple saws together. Might be a good way to speed up the otherwise painfully slow prcocess. Not sure but you might think about it..

[Waterlogged]

Most efficient way to mill slots like that is a horizontal milling machine with all the cutters ganged on the spindle.

[Martinm210]

Most efficient way to mill slots like that is a horizontal milling machine with all the cutters ganged on the spindle.

Ahh...never saw one until you said that and I did a search.

Sure would be nice..

Until I win that lottery round, I'll try making my own arbor sometime. These slittling saws are getting pretty small for the type of cutting we're talking about. Seems like if you could find some with a large arbor, you should be able to gang a few together on a vertical mill?? Even if it was just a few at a time, sure would be faster than one cut at a time...probably more precise too because the saws would be pushing the microchannels against each other which should cut down on fin distortion

[Manicdan]

theres alot of ways to make it once you get the right cutting tool, not sure if you can make your own very easily, would make it one quick cut

[JASSAF]

Ahh...never saw one until you said that and I did a search.

Sure would be nice..

Until I win that lottery round, I'll try making my own arbor sometime. These slittling saws are getting pretty small for the type of cutting we're talking about. Seems like if you could find some with a large arbor, you should be able to gang a few together on a vertical mill?? Even if it was just a few at a time, sure would be faster than one cut at a time ..probably more precise too because the saws would be pushing the microchannels against each other which should cut down on fin distortion

. .Martinm210 . :
that's crazy .... or just for heroes

microchannels ..VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-LZAdpPeo





.