Flowrate...

[GreenmanWD-40]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Answer for Neo86

First, garasaki great post on how much of a jerk Bill is.

BillA

At this point I think you’re a complete idiot. What are you trying to say, other than the obvious that you think I'm wrong? Do you think that the temperature increase is from the "fluid friction factor"? Do you not agree Q=AV? Remember, "The ONLY point I was trying to make to Neo was that the decrease in volume of the water increased his temperatures, not the shortening of hoses (that is MY OPINION)." Do you "think" that was wrong? Or what. State specifically where you think I am wrong.

Anyway, I am wrong in one way for sure. I didn't read all the threads first, if I would have, I wouldn't have posted in the first place. Because, I proved my self right. If you have read all the threads, you will see that Neo said he didn't bleed his system, which will indirectly prove what I have been saying - the volume of water was the cause of the temp increase.

Oh yeah, I've been in the "real world" for a good while now and work for the leading suppler of engine timing components for Chevy, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, and Audi. So what do you drive BillA? Chances are that you are driving something I help make reliable.

Hey,

The hose was full when I started timing. Full hose - different times. The only effect the tube length introduced was due to friction.

Friction is going to change flow rate, yes I know this, but very, very minimal. Not even enough to really argue about. "The ONLY point I was trying to make to Neo was that the decrease in volume of the water increased his temperatures, not the shortening of hoses (that is MY OPINION).

 

[GreenmanWD-40]

Re: Re: gone_fishin

Thanks, here's some specs,
Pump Rainbow Aquatic Quiet One 1140gph max, 80watts
heatercore - chevy g10 van
custom made res 3" X 4" X 5" with 4 1/4" I.D. inlets, one 5/8" I.D. outlet
Custom made waterblock 1/2" ID inlet and four 1/4" ID outlets
100CFM fan suction through heatercore w/fans on custom shroud
Total water volume in loop is half a gallon distilled water

Loop is: pump-1' of 1/2" ID Tygon r1000-rad-16" of 1/2" ID tygon r1000-block-4 16" lengths of 3/8" ID Tygon r1000-res-10" of 5/8" ID vinyl tubing-pump

I have optimized all I can think of by using distilled water, lapping to 1000 grit finnish on my block, fans and shroud on heatercore, and 5/8" ID suction to pump from res. I am recording consistant rise in cpu temp of 3C between idle and load while overclocked.

Hey, any specs on how you made your waterblock. If you don't mind me asking?

GreenmanWD-40

 

[gone_fishin]

I posted the link to my block project a few posts back. It's quite a few pages long but if you read through it you will see how it was made.

 

[gone_fishin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Answer for Neo86

Hey,

The hose was full when I started timing. Full hose - different times. The only effect the tube length introduced was due to friction.

Friction is going to change flow rate, yes I know this, but very, very minimal. Not even enough to really argue about. "The ONLY point I was trying to make to Neo was that the decrease in volume of the water increased his temperatures, not the shortening of hoses (that is MY OPINION).

I think the only amount of volume that if increased would help would be a larger heatercore which would have more volume thereby more surface area along with more time traveling through the rad. Increasing the volume at the resevoir would only increase the time it takes for the system to stabalize at the same temperature as if the resevoir were smaller.

 

[parapapa?]

There seems to be another factor here but maybe I'm wrong. The length of tubing introduces more water volume which the pump is pushing/pulling which means the pump is pushing a heavier weight with longer tubes which means more work is being done with extended tube length. More water volume by means of a resevoir does not introduce this extra work load because the entire mass of the water in the res is not being pushed/pulled at once by the pump. If the total rise in a system is one foot and it goes 90 dgrees for a length of one foot will it have less strain on the pump than if it rose the one foot gradually over ten feet of hose? (This is along with the added friction of more hose)

If I understand what you're saying, you predict that an increased volume in a shorter 1/2" tube will move more slowly than a smaller volume will in a longer 3/8" tube. Easy way to test that idea - repeat my experiment using 1/2" tubing instead of 3/8". If I can find any 1/2" vinyl tonight, I'll give it a shot.

In a sealed system such as yours, I don't think elevation gain makes any difference. The reason I say that is because your rig is sealed, I think the work it takes to lift the water x feet is recaptured by the water dropping back down to the pump. The pump is there simply to overcome the friction induced by the tubing and the turns in the plumbing. Having said, that I think I just realized how the 2nd experiment will turn out.

On a separate subject, do you have any idea as to how much water was flowing through your rig when you pinched the hose?

 

[BillA]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Answer for Neo86

This post deleted by its "derogatory and insulting" author so that it will not be (so) necessary
"to defend the little guys against the tyranny of the know-it-alls."

 

[gone_fishin]

Enough to keep it stabalized at 44C. If it were completely cut off or drastically slow the temps would have continued to rise rapidly.

Also if the system is slowed by going x height it can never gain that back because the pump is now limited to supplying the water at a rate it was slowed at by x height.

Quote:
"If I understand what you're saying, you predict that an increased volume in a shorter 1/2" tube will move more slowly than a smaller volume will in a longer 3/8" tube. Easy way to test that idea - repeat my experiment using 1/2" tubing instead of 3/8". If I can find any 1/2" vinyl tonight, I'll give it a shot"

I'm not sure I follow you here. At some point the added length of the 3/8" tubing is going to surpass the volume of the shorter 1/2" tubing. You will be dealing with minute quantities and limited to the length you can make the 3/8" tube before it has a greater volume, and it would be hard to test without lab equiptment. The point I was trying to make is that the added length introduces more friction which was stated by others but also the added mass by the extra volume of water might increase the load on the pump also. It's like adding extra cars to a train, the added car adds more friction on the rail by the added weight of the extra car it has to pull, If the rail were being greased at where the new car was hooked up so there was zero friction on the rail for the new car would the train engine still see an added load by simply pulling the extra weight uphill?

 

[BIG-O-2]

Are we not talking inches here?

Lets face it, the better the flow the better the cooling.

That is providing that the water is cooler than the processor.

I can see very little change at 30" or 40" of hose.

Take a 5 gallon bucket with a given amount, put your pump on it and time how long it take to empty. Then do the same thing with another length of hose.

I'll bet you see very little change, most of those calculations are for when you have several hundred feet.

 

[parapapa?]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Answer for Neo86

Hey,

The hose was full when I started timing. Full hose - different times. The only effect the tube length introduced was due to friction.

Friction is going to change flow rate, yes I know this, but very, very minimal. Not even enough to really argue about. "The ONLY point I was trying to make to Neo was that the decrease in volume of the water increased his temperatures, not the shortening of hoses (that is MY OPINION).

GreenmanWD-40
What you're failing to grasp is BillA hostility was engendered because you presented your opinion as fact. There have been a lot of posts to this thread that are nonsense and unfortunately, your post was one of them.

For example, take the tail of your first sentence "very,very minimal." You and I have different thresholds for minimal. The difference I measured was 32 seconds for 32" vs 44 seconds for 100" of tubing. The shorter tube beat the longer tube by 27%. Is a rig going to have 100" of tubing. Yep, I'm building one right now.

You're also going to get nailed because you're saying that temperature is a function of a system's water volume. You've been told more than once now that that is wrong. In the situation that you were responding to, the lost volume due to shorter tubing isn't going to make any difference in the rig's equilibrium temperature. It'll affect the time it takes to reache equilibrium but it won't affect the final steady-state temp.

As long as you spout off nonsensical opinions, you're going to get nailed.

 

[BillA]

This post deleted by its "derogatory and insulting" author so that it will not be (so) necessary
"to defend the little guys against the tyranny of the know-it-alls."

 

[gone_fishin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Answer for Neo86

Now,

BillA,
I have already passed the EIT and actually it's called the FE. Do you even have a Degree? You said you have a piece of paper. Have you ever cracked a Heat Transfer or Fluid Mechanics Textbook? Also, we are not talking about pipes. Also the sentence about my technical writing, that's the pot calling the kettle black. Guess what, I agree with garasaki, you are a jerk and a jackass. The ONLY point I was trying to make to Neo was that the decrease in volume of the water increased his temperatures, not the shortening of hoses (that is MY OPINION). Then you spoke up with your nonsense. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with me, you SHOULD have said, "I think you are incorrect and I don't agree" on your first reply. Then I wouldn't be writing this now.

Answer me one question, do you not agree with Q=AV?

Oh yeah, the reason I didn't say anything about wall drag is because I couldn't understand your retarded sentence fragments.


parapapa? and killersushi

Of course the water is going to take longer to transport through longer hose. I said the FLOWRATE, that’s gallons per hour, WON'T CHANGE. Get a flow meter and measure the flow rate. Just because you have a longer hose, doesn’t mean that the flow rate will change. You should get the same times if the hose was filled before timing began. As soon as the water gets all the way through the hose the flow rate will be the same for any hose.

Read what gone_fishin had to say 12 threads down.

"Hi, your the first person I've seen using the same pump as me. If you were to switch to higher diameter barbs for the system, you would get a lot more flow rate. I tested mine with a three foot height and my block hooked up and got 540 gph, 1/2" barbs. I am going to do up another res which will allow 5/8" barbs I.D. I only use a total of a half gallon distilled water in my loop."

That kind of sums up what I said was a fact, Q=AV.

Hi, I just realized you quoted me in a way to show that it proves a point of yours. I do not agree with your logic. I am getting higher flow because I have less resistance in my loop via the block design and high diameter tubing. This is a good discussion for the concepts of flow. I jumped in kind of late and am learning myself. You should take the time to consider your thoughts.

 

[parapapa?]

Lets face it, the better the flow the better the cooling.

That is providing that the water is cooler than the processor.

That's exactly the point BillA and I have been arguing about. I disagree with your statement on the basis that once the heat is removed from a CPU, doubling the water flow isn't going to cool things anymore.

Steve at Gemini Cooling claims you don't have to move a lot of water to achieve that goal when you're talking about 70-80 watts and I happen to think he's right.

But opinions don't count so I'm putting together a testing rig that'll answer how much water you've got to move to dump 72 watts of heat. 72 watts because all I've got is a rickety old 1400 mhz Athlon. Give me a couple of weeks and I'll post my results.

 

[BillA]

This post deleted by its "derogatory and insulting" author so that it will not be (so) necessary
"to defend the little guys against the tyranny of the know-it-alls."

 

[gone_fishin]

I flowtested the entire system now. This is the whole loop with the block still attached. I now have 5/8" ID barbs on the pump intake and res intake with 5/8" ID tubing in that location only.
It only takes 10 seconds to fill the gallon. Thats 6gpm or 360gph
I filled the gallon and timed it six times to make sure.
Here's a pic of the procedure

 

[gone_fishin]

Here you can see the 5 gallon pail with a 5/8" ID barb modded into the side near the bottom.

 

[parapapa?]

Gone-Fishin -
360 gph is your nominal flow? What was the flow when you first saw the the temperature rise? (Pic question dropped - browser error)

BillA -
Interesting graph, but not quite sure which line I should be looking at. Is the magenta wb-raw block the one that shows continued heat transfer from water block to water at higher water flows?

Before I go to the trouble to measure what I'm going to measure, would you be willing to critique my methodolgy?

 

[gone_fishin]

Gone-Fishin -
360 gph is your nominal flow? What was the flow when you first saw the the temperature rise? (Pic question dropped - browser error)

Yes 360gph is my normal everday flow that I am getting with my settup. If I find a heatercore with higher barb capacity or mod one I can then make a new custom top for my block using a 5/8" ID inlet and four 7/16" ID outlets to increase even further because the pump will definately allow it. This would be a future project though not something I could do quickly like the flow test I did today.
When I observed the temp rise the flow was cut considerably by me squeezing the outlet line to the heatercore. I did not have a way to get an accurate figure but it was drastically reduced but there was still flow and the temps did stabalize quickly at 44C ( It is hard to squeeze the tube and you can feel the water surging through. I could also tell by looking in the resevoir that the rate was slower). Perhaps I need a bypass tube with a ball valve for that kind of testing.

 

[BillA]

This post deleted by its "derogatory and insulting" author so that it will not be (so) necessary
"to defend the little guys against the tyranny of the know-it-alls."

 

[vandersl]

BillA,

While most times I agree with what you are saying, I do think you can be a bit heavy-handed with the criticism sometimes. And you don't always do the best job of explaining what you mean in terms people can understand.

And sometimes, you baffle me with statements such as the following:

with the typical WCing system the coolant temp will rise with the flow rate as the radiator will not be able to do as 'good' a job

Exactly what do you mean by this? Are you claiming that the heat dissipation of the radiator decreases with increased flow rate? Or are you just saying that the fluid passing through the radiator will not come as close to ambient in a single pass if you move fluid through more quickly?

For one that insists on use of the correct terms in all cases, you leave things a little ambiguous at times. In this case, if your intent was the first (decreased dissipation) then I would have to argue that you are incorrect. If the latter, then the statement is true, but misleading.

Which one is it? Or is it both?

 

[garasaki]

Very informative chart there BillA...its exactly those kind of things which prove your true value to the OC community. cheers