Swifty MCP600

Hey Vince, (or of the other wise-ones in this forum who can answer this!), do you think the MCP600 would be strong enough to push through 2 80mm rads, a CPU wb, a GPU wb, and a chipset WB with 3/8" ID tubing while achieving a decent flowrate in a midside case? I'm thinking of getting a new one with more fan intakes so that I can use 2 rads.

Also, is there a Swiftech-type fill/bleed kit that makes use of 1/2" ID tubing? If not, would it be easy to make one on my own? Would using the 3/8" ID tubing fill/bleed kit in a setup that has mostly 1/2" ID tubing cause flow problems? Thanks for your help man!

It would probably do alright, provided you ran your radiators and possibly the GPU/NB in parallel to minimize resistance. If you want to run all that in series...your flow rates would suffer considerably.

johan851 said:

It would probably do alright, provided you ran your radiators and possibly the GPU/NB in parallel to minimize resistance. If you want to run all that in series...your flow rates would suffer considerably.

Click to expand...

I'm running the WW, Maze 4 GPU, Z-Chipset, 2 BIX's and a 3.5 double height resevoir. Getting great flow and right now the CPU is showing 31C and the case is 33C - oops, CPU just jumped up to 34C - Norton's running it's "thang".

My system goes PUMP-RAD-RAD-CPU-NB-GPU-RES-PUMP

I had thought about chaning it around to
PUMP-CPU-NB-GPU-RES-RAD-RAD-PUMP
but I'm perfectly happy with the current temps.

Yeah, I would most definitely run everything in parallel. Better for flow rates and cooling too! Has anyone ever connected two pumps in series? Although it sounds fun to do, would it really do any good?

Also, will turning the MCP600 on and off constantly damage it since it's an inline pump? I don't plan on leaving mine on all the time, so it'll be connected to my system power.

Jason Kim said:

Yeah, I would most definitely run everything in parallel. Better for flow rates and cooling too! Has anyone ever connected two pumps in series? Although it sounds fun to do, would it really do any good?

Click to expand...

LOL Series is the only way to go. I use 2 L20, in series, giving me a better flow then a L30.

Yes jason the pump should be sufficient it's a pretty powerful one it itself. Providing you do not have restrictive flow springs coudl restrict quite a bit of flow.

the 3/8 tubing would be optimal for the pump as well. it's more compact though it restricts a bit it's also morte concentrated as you can see in my pictures i used a barb to connect my 1/2 tubig to my 3/8 tubing.

Don't run two pump ins parallel becasue that would help nothing you pumping to one pump which pumps the same thing so u'll be pumping and it'll stop and jsut pump again the same amoutn of powerNOt double the power. it's best to space them apart among ur lay out.

maybe go from pump >cpu > chipset> pump > rad> gpu >

my reasoning behind this is that it will flow more steadily.

pump pump is pretty much like having two fans on top of another it's not goign to work.

also the wreason i told you to go from cpu chip to rad the gpu is because it's well know a heavy gpu is one of the hottest components in a system.

you can work with whicever formula you like. lots of people like to do rad before chipset and cpu becaese it'll cool the water before it hits the cpu. if you want to really go higher end with lots of routing; dunno if you can make it look good.

go from pump 1>rad1>cpu>chipset>pump2>rad2> gpu>pump1

hope this info helps a bit!

BTW i'm on AIM right now

vincentxqt

Nice, thanks man! You're going to be my encyclopedia for Swifty parts, haha!

encyclopedia lol

vincent_1985 said:

the 3/8 tubing would be optimal for the pump as well

Click to expand...

Optimal?? How can you say something like that?

Haha, maybe he meant 1/2. The pump has 1/2" barbs.

yes the pump is 1/2 but in the swifttech kit you have to run 3/8.

in which i meant 3/8 is optimal because ther eis less water for it to move thus stressing the pump less.

you hvae to add reducers from the pump to the 3/8 tubing

vincent_1985 said:

in which i meant 3/8 is optimal because ther eis less water for it to move thus stressing the pump less.

Click to expand...

hmmm, that doesn't make much sense to me, unless you can proove to me that a pump that works on higher end of the P-Q curve (high head-low flow) suffer less stress than a pump that works on the lower en of the P-Q curves (low head-high flow).
Because using 3/8 tubing over 1/2 will only increasing the restriction of your system, thus making your pump works at a higher head-lower flow (the running *point* will be in the higher end of the pump's P-Q curve).

I don't know about that, is that right? Wouldn't a smaller diameter place a greater load on the pump since the flow resistance is higher? Maybe I'm just confused.

At any rate, I was going to use the Swifty pump in a system that uses 1/2" ID tubing, so I wouldn't need reducers. Is this a bad move?

Jason Kim said:

I don't know about that, is that right? Wouldn't a smaller diameter place a greater load on the pump since the flow resistance is higher? Maybe I'm just confused.

At any rate, I was going to use the Swifty pump in a system that uses 1/2" ID tubing, so I wouldn't need reducers. Is this a bad move?

Click to expand...

iirc the pump uses more power the higher the flow it's pumping.... so max use would be with nothing attached, and minimum where it can only just pump

the mcp600 is a very capeable pump with a lot of head (over 3M). that should be able to cope with the 2 rad 3 w/b system you set up - but (like any pump) it'd perform better with lower resistance (eg 1/2" rather than 3/8" tubing) - how easy that is to get with 80mm rads (unless they're the thermochills) i don't know, as they all seem to have 3/8 barbs

I figure if I set up two rads in parallel, then I can have a 1/2" ID tube leading into the y-splitter which splits and reduces to two 3/8" ID tubes, then converges again after the second rad to the 1/2" ID tubing, does this sound ok? Will I be able to find a y-splitter with two 3/8" barbs and one 1/2" barb?

Jason Kim said:

I figure it I set up two rads in parallel, then I can have a 1/2" ID tube leading into the y-splitter which splits and reduces to two 3/8" ID tubes, then converges again after the second rad to the 1/2" ID tubing, does this sound ok? Will I be able to find a y-splitter with two 3/8" barbs and one 1/2" barb?

Click to expand...

if you can't find one (or rather two), you should be able to use the boiling water trick to get 3/8" tubing over the 1/2" barbs i think....

Assuming I can find one, or just reduce the two barbs for the rad on a 1/2" y-splitter, does it sound like a good plan? Since the water will be split between two rads, I don't think I should suffer too much of a flow penalty.

Jason Kim said:

Assuming I can find one, or just reduce the two barbs for the rad on a 1/2" y-splitter, does it sound like a good plan? Since the water will be split between two rads, I don't think I should suffer too much of a flow penalty.

Click to expand...

it's a good way round the restrictive nature of those rads... in theory the 2 in parallel would be less restrictive than a single rad would be (ignoring the Ys that is...) since it's proportional to the square of the flow iirc. best to keep the resulting 3/8" pipes as short as possible...