-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Is this an ok waterblock design?
- Thread starter Roger24
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2002
- Location
- Groton, CT
Looks okay. One chanel is quite longer than the other, I wonder if that would help increase turbulance (a good thing)?
- Thread Starter
- #4
I haven't actually built it, it's just on the drawing board. I was thinking maybe a 2 or 3mm base, or whatever is most effective. Would 12mm height be ok, or should I go higher or lower? I'm planning on using 1/2" tubing. Yes, it's centerfeed.
The main reason I split the flow in two with a wall in the middle was to increase surface area.
I read this review http://www.overclockers.com/articles315/ , and the comment in the end "Interesting to see what more surface area does for performance. I'd really like to see some more innovative approaches to increasing surface area in waterblocks - any takers??" made this idea suddenly pop up in my brain
Here's another design I had in mind:
The dimensions on the channels and walls are the same as the last one, and it's centerfeed too
The main reason I split the flow in two with a wall in the middle was to increase surface area.
I read this review http://www.overclockers.com/articles315/ , and the comment in the end "Interesting to see what more surface area does for performance. I'd really like to see some more innovative approaches to increasing surface area in waterblocks - any takers??" made this idea suddenly pop up in my brain
Here's another design I had in mind:
The dimensions on the channels and walls are the same as the last one, and it's centerfeed too
Last edited:
More surface are should help, but I think more turbulence
may be even better. A 3mm base should be fine. Any thinner
and you may get flexing when it is mounted. Your second
design may be OK down to 2mm because it seems to have
more internal structure. 12mm channels should be fine.
The problem will all WB designs to date is that nobody
has done a full 3D theoretical heat transfer study on them.
We do have general guidelines, however. Think of
something to increase turbulence.
may be even better. A 3mm base should be fine. Any thinner
and you may get flexing when it is mounted. Your second
design may be OK down to 2mm because it seems to have
more internal structure. 12mm channels should be fine.
The problem will all WB designs to date is that nobody
has done a full 3D theoretical heat transfer study on them.
We do have general guidelines, however. Think of
something to increase turbulence.
Well, maybe. That depends on what you call a rough
file. You might gain a lot with ribbed walls and an
irregularly varied depth of the channels of +-150 microns.
After you have structures for creating turbulence you
can enhance it by sandblasting the channels.
file. You might gain a lot with ribbed walls and an
irregularly varied depth of the channels of +-150 microns.
After you have structures for creating turbulence you
can enhance it by sandblasting the channels.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
- Location
- Silicon Valley California
I think the thickness of the base will be a big factor.
You can work out how well a design will perform using a fluid dynamics model and finite element analysis for the metal part, but I've never seen anyone do it.
rossd.
You can work out how well a design will perform using a fluid dynamics model and finite element analysis for the metal part, but I've never seen anyone do it.
rossd.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Location
- Stillwater, Oklahoma
i might try out one of those
i have a huge piece of copper just sitting there, so, maybe if i have enough time this weekend so something, ill do it...no promises though...which would you rather be built?
i have a huge piece of copper just sitting there, so, maybe if i have enough time this weekend so something, ill do it...no promises though...which would you rather be built?
- Thread Starter
- #12
Hmm, maybe the second one, since the first one is more like a Maze with a wall in the middle? It's designed to fit on a Slot A (Thunderbird only) and a Socket A if you put a plexiglass fitting or something on it, and I read somewhere that Socket A is 50x50mm and that block is 52x52mm. I'm worried that the hose connectors on that block will be too close together though (which is why I moved the top connector 2mm upwards)
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Location
- tx
Bump for just putting your ideas out there.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2002
- Location
- Slovenia
Hi, your first desing looks similar to something I did, except I didn't used 90° turns and one wall.
and here first Al prototype
It did Ok,
Then I also made Cu version with one wall, and retest all my blocks. You can read my own waterblocks test, here Click here !
And now I'm also doing basicaly the same blosk idea like yours second one, again more rounded aproach, but I didn't finnished milling the bottom of the chanells yet, cos' I need different milling bit that I had to order.
Semi finnished block here:
and here first Al prototype
It did Ok,
Then I also made Cu version with one wall, and retest all my blocks. You can read my own waterblocks test, here Click here !
And now I'm also doing basicaly the same blosk idea like yours second one, again more rounded aproach, but I didn't finnished milling the bottom of the chanells yet, cos' I need different milling bit that I had to order.
Semi finnished block here:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Location
- Baltimore, MD
morph, how did you mill that? heres my idea. some things are different. i desgined a new more efficent water feed and it will be a little wider over the cpu and the find will be a little thinner and closer together. o and roger show us where the inflow and outflow are on the diagram.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Location
- Baltimore, MD
a sideways view
