need opinions and design gurus....2nd Revision CAD models....

[Albigger]

Here are the 3D CAD models I have been working on this week, as a 2nd revision to my aluminum block (can be seen in the Waterblock Gallery Sticky).

-----I Want To Hear All Your Comments On This------

this one I want to make out of copper, with a thinner base.

base thickness .094" most of the time, down to .060" thinnest.

the thin base part occurs at the bottom of the 'dimples' in the base.

the height of the lower pillars is 1/4", the second tier is an additional 1/4". Any suggestions on changing those?

the orig. block was 1/8" x 1/8" channels/pillars, the new version is 1/16" x 1/16" (.0625" = ~ 1.6mm) Inlet will be 1/2" NPT with 5/8 ID hose barb (for my setup, anyway) and outlets will be 1/4" NPT with 3/8 ID hose barbs. Space is cramped.

Should flow just as good as my current block or better with drilled out NPT barbs

Surface area in the center 20mm x 20mm x 8mm high 'cube' is roughly 22.3 cm^2

Ratio of water to metal over the center (not including the base thickness) is 3:1 What is ideal ratio? I believe it is more metal though?

 

[Albigger]

more pics...............

As a side note I should be getting my 1600 XP chip sometime after monday to test the aluminum block on. Hopefully all goes well and I can get around to making the revision ASAP

 

[Ct. Strangelove]

Wow.... looks like much thought was involved in the design. looks great. lots of surface area, little resistence. I love the comb like innerds. I havent made many blocks but it looks this a topself design. the challenge now is the construction.

 

[Albigger]

the challenge now is the construction.

definately...

 

[#Rotor]

your manufacturing process might allow you to change your pins, from being square, into being concave-square.... makes for sharper corners and improves the surface-area / pin-volume ratio considerably...

the bolts, I only use 4 appropriately spaced, much smaller bolts,



as with this Opteron block...

 

[gone_fishin]

your manufacturing process might allow you to change your pins, from being square, into being concave-square.... makes for sharper corners and improves the surface-area / pin-volume ratio considerably...

the bolts, I only use 4 appropriately spaced, much smaller bolts,



as with this Opteron block...

What's the inside diameter on them ball joints Rotor?

The topic block here looks to be good in my opinion. The first few you make, vary the bp thickness for testing purposes.

 

[#Rotor]

not very big. definitely not for use with any kind of "open-air" blocks, such as the maze and spirals, those blocks need as much flowrate as they can get, to work properly.

for the more restrictive turbulence orientated designs, it would be perfect, Blocks that has a very small internal volume, but large surface area exposed, acts almost like a ventury to the flow of liquid, causing it to speed up, while going through the block, they are more reliant on fluid pressure, than actual volume moved.... and for those this should be just fine...

inside diameter's 7mm and it uses 1/4" NPT thread. very very expensive though.... and not for use by the TARZAN Types.... if you know what I mean... heheheeh

 

[gone_fishin]

The block itself in that case would act as a restriction. You are reducing the volumetric flow before it enters the block by putting a restriction before the block. Wouldn't velocity be increased if the block itself were the first high restriction in the system, such as your design? Have you tested it both ways at all to get a feel for any performance difference? Not trying to be an *** or get any numbers from ya, just interested in your theory.
Hehe, Tarzan-apeman-lord of the jungle-swinging from trees-*** to the wind-known to fiddle with junglejane.

 

[Albigger]

your manufacturing process might allow you to change your pins, from being square, into being concave-square.... makes for sharper corners and improves the surface-area / pin-volume ratio considerably...

I can picture what you mean here, but I really have no clue what manufacturing process you are referring to that would allow this...

 

[#Rotor]

I can picture what you mean here, but I really have no clue what manufacturing process you are referring to that would allow this...

Might this give you some ideas....

 

[Albigger]

Thanks Rotor. I know exactly what you mean now. I saw your page before but I never looked that close at it before.

mind if I ask how deep you went in the block you posted above?

 

[#Rotor]

well both sides are 3/8" thick, and the pins are 4mm in each side, so once the block is assembled it comes to 8mm. But I'm using a technology called VDFC (Variable Depth Flow Control) to actually control the amount of liquid going through certain parts of the block. So it changes, depending on where in the block the particular pin is located....

 

[Albigger]

I see. man you must have put A LOT of work into this.

Do you generally have the water flowing faster at the center (over die) or near the barbs? Or does it completely vary in your designs?

 

[#Rotor]

here is what VDFC is aimed for, I developed it way back, for use with Peltiers. In order to get the best performance from a TEC, one needs to have the complete surface of the TEC at a uniform temp, as low as possible. I.E.. no hotspots.

by having only 2 fittings in the block, it stands to reason that the most liquid will go though the shortest path between the fittings, leaving the outer extremities of the block mostly to there own devices.... not good. So I went forth and came up with this...



obviously this bodes well for use on just a core, as you can see, the base is nice and thick over the Core, which aids in spreading the heat to the outer regions.

 

[Hawk]

There is one minor change that will make the block less costly to manufacture you might want to take into concideration.
The fillets along the inside bottom woud be easier to mill if they were square, which should not effect cooling but will cut costs.
This looks to be a good design, it will be very expencive to mill assuming you are hireing this out. Nice model! Is this mechanical desk top, Inventor, autocad?

 

[Albigger]

its solidworks 2001, and i will be milling myself (hopefully).

I am looking at a slight redesign, considering the square corners there where you pointed out. I think i will do this, good call and thanks for the input...

keep it coming

 

[JFettig]

i dont think its necessary to make those center posts to go that high.... you use a ball end end mill for the center inlet thingy?

 

[Albigger]

i dont think its necessary to make those center posts to go that high....

yeah, in my new revision i'm thinking lower tier = .150" high and upper tier = .300" high. It will be easier to mill the shallower the pillars are.

you use a ball end end mill for the center inlet thingy?

for the dishout in the middle of all the pillars? I did on the alum. block I made. before I milled out the pillars I plunged the ball mill in there.

 

[#Rotor]

The block itself in that case would act as a restriction. You are reducing the volumetric flow before it enters the block by putting a restriction before the block. Wouldn't velocity be increased if the block itself were the first high restriction in the system, such as your design? Have you tested it both ways at all to get a feel for any performance difference? Not trying to be an *** or get any numbers from ya, just interested in your theory.
Hehe, Tarzan-apeman-lord of the jungle-swinging from trees-*** to the wind-known to fiddle with junglejane.

not tested this particular fitting stile yet, but them, combined with the 3/8 OD QR SS fittings, the internal flow-path matches each other perfectly, thus much less turbulence generating obstructions in the actual entry device to the block. IE the inner passage, through the fitting assembly and the tube are much smoother, than with say, the normal 1/2" barb fitting...

 

[Albigger]

well, did some more revising, here's what I think it'll look like:

and

The 3 layer design will allow me to move the barbs slightly more apart (though this is not shown in the pics) and should have more controlled flow rates.

I also changed the pillar heights - bottom tier and top tier each .175" long. This should be more reasonable.

Let me know what you think about the 3 piece design.