AOA Forums AOA Forums AOA Forums Folding For Team 45 AOA Files Home Front Page Become an AOA Subscriber! UserCP Calendar Memberlist FAQ Search Forum Home


Go Back   AOA Forums > Hardware > Cooling & Temperature Monitoring


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 27th July, 2002, 03:17 PM
Holst's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Leics UK
Posts: 4,528

Quote:
Originally posted by Bruno Facca
@dimmreaper: Yes, your link describes it exactly, I'm using a blast furnace. I never did any chrome stuff, maybe I'll learn it.

@everyone: I made sketches of the block and of 2 retention mechanism ideas I had today, some detail is lacking in the block because I had no time for doing a better model in 3dsmax. Please give me some feedback.

If the image doesn't load go here http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/bjfacca/

Thanks
Bruno Facca
I dont think that design takes full advantage of your ability to cast, with a basic slot design you might as well just mill it out.

With casting you should be able to get a much more intricate design made.Hopefully with high surface area and flowrate without having to mill out allot of intricate channels (or height variations)

You may also want to have the water enter the block directly over the core as this should give better temperatures in a slot type design.

I dont like that mounting very much, it dosent look very rigid, and limits placememt of barbs. Also using the socket lugs limits the size of your block, the 4 mounting holes around the socket are the way to go.
I think something along the P4 mounting method with a cage and levered mounts is a much easyer and reliable system, although difficult to implement. Failing that the maze-2 style nylon bolt method is ok, although it could do with being more rigid as its very hard to get equal pressure on the springs giving unequal pressure and a bad contact. Hard mounting is better although more dangerous.

I wouldnt bother silver plating, it will add to costs and wont give any design benefit.

I do like the idea of a cast copper block, it has great potential to give a more interesting desing, good luck with the project Bruno.
__________________
No longer Epox Tech.

Best of luck in the future all my friends.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 27th July, 2002, 04:02 PM
Member
 
Join Date: July 2002
Posts: 69

@maskedgeek: I never tried anything like that myself so I don't know, It might me a good idea but right now I'm focusing on another kind of design as you can see, if your block has a good performance as you say we might work something out but that would be in the future, since now I'm developing something kind of different.

Quote:
actually with smooth channels and high pressure flow you get massive turblience! thats why they dont make blocks like that one...
I don't think that is correct, smooth surfaces tend to form laminar flow as the flow goes around the surface in a smooth and organized way, an that is not good, now with some artifacts indide the block the water hits the copper surface and gets thrown all around, causing turbulence, also not everyone can have a big pump getting a high pressure flow.
Of course I'm no engineer but that is what I read/learned so far.

@Holst:
Quote:
With casting you should be able to get a much more intricate design made.Hopefully with high surface area and flowrate without having to mill out allot of intricate channels (or height variations).
You have any thoughts on how would I do that? I haven't figured a way myself yet.

About the retention mechanism, the springs would be very hard ones to distribute even pressure, but it's just an idea it's hard to figure out a way to ensure that the block is getting even pressure, if you have any ideas I would like to hear them.

@everyone:

I will be making a retention mechanism using holes too, I will make 2 tops available for the block, so you can choose when you buy: one for socket lugs and one for mounting holes, I'm just working on the socket one first and the one with the holes sounds easier.

I would like some feedback on retention mechanisms too.

I'm thinking of increasing the overall size of the block to 55x65mm, what you think?

Thank you
Bruno Facca
__________________

Last edited by Bruno Facca; 27th July, 2002 at 04:15 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 28th July, 2002, 03:56 AM
JFettig's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: June 2002
Posts: 132

from my experience making waterblocks(iv made 6 or 7) i would highly suggest that you would integrate the mounting system rite into the block, like make the top or the whole block 2x3inches and have the mounting holes rite into the block itself... it makes it much easier!
__________________
AGOIA 1600+@anywere between 1.4-1.9
EP-8k3a
watercooled
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 28th July, 2002, 04:40 AM
Member
 
Join Date: July 2002
Posts: 69

I personally think an integrated mounting system would be a good thing, some people says it would be bad because they wouldn't be able to use another retention mechanism if they want to, I'm looking into it.

Here are some news I postred in another forum, I don't have the time to rewrite it so I will just paste it, sorry about that.

I will make 2 tops available for the block, one for the mobo holes, wich will be compatible with AMD socket A processors (T-Bird, Duron and XP), intel 423, 478 (P4), 603 (XEON) and probably 604. The other top will be using the socket lugs and so far it's only compatible with socket A processors but I'm still working on it. Both tops are going to be "hard mounting", where you tighten stuff yourself, that was my idea in the beginning and I think it will be better for me to stick with it, if you are afraid of breaking your processor you should know it's not very easy to break a processor's core (I did a lot of testing on this using a XP processor that was not working, the core didn't get "crushed" until I screwed the bolt with *a lot* of force using pliers, I really think no one is capable of applying this kind of pressure on a bolt by hand. Also the contact boint between the block and the bolt will be larger than the bolt itself, maybe it will have a thin hard rubber sheet to prevent the block from sliding, it will also be right on top of the core. Some people told me that springs would help on distributing even pressure but thinking about it, springs may decrease pressure, as they probably can't put as much pressure as a large bolt, making the heat exchange a lot worst.

Also a guy at procooling's forum gave me this simple yet effective idea: you can also post into bios and use the temp monitor to adjust the pressure on each corner of the block untill you get the lowest temp.

Thanks
Bruno Facca
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 28th July, 2002, 06:51 AM
webmedic's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheney, Wa
Posts: 122

If your interested I could test you block in a review i'm doing. I'll have two swfitech blocks that have been fixed to flow correctly( pic below), dangerden maze2, dangerden maze3, one of #rotor's blocks, one of my own designs, and I may be able to get a spir@l to throw into the mix.

check my profile for my site address.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 28th July, 2002, 08:01 AM
dimmreaper's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: road to insanity
Posts: 5,347
Send a message via ICQ to dimmreaper Send a message via AIM to dimmreaper

That is a very nice design Bruno, and I think it would work very well.

My suggestions:

Make the block larger, 60x80mm is my recommendation.
Be sure to make the base and channel walls 4.5-5mm thick.
Sand blast the inside of the block to give it a micro-texture.
The mounting method in the lower right works very well without springs.
__________________
¤ Jeffery ¤

Wishing you were someone else is a waste of the person you are. - Kurt Cobain

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 29th July, 2002, 09:12 PM
kplonk's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 101
Send a message via ICQ to kplonk

That casting sounds the bit..
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 30th July, 2002, 02:27 AM
Member
 
Join Date: July 2002
Posts: 69

I've made some significant changes in the block design, they will probably increase performance by a lot, I'll post them as soon as I can make some drawings.

@dimmreaper: I have some nice expectations for this too, I hope it all goes well.
About the size i'm still looking into it, some boards (like mine) have small space around the socket, another thing that has to be considered is: the block may not be too big for using both retention methods, it cannot be bigger than the distance between the mounting holes or the distance of the socket lugs.
I read some stuff saying that a 3mm is the ideal thickness for the bottom according to some tests, the channel walls are actually 6mm as they will be exchanging heat with water on both sides.

Thanks
Bruno Facca
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 30th July, 2002, 05:19 AM
dimmreaper's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: road to insanity
Posts: 5,347
Send a message via ICQ to dimmreaper Send a message via AIM to dimmreaper

My own tests indicate that 0.180 inches or just over 4.5mm is ideal for base thickness when using C110 copper. I haven't experimented much with wall thickness, but I assume it is probably somewere in that range as well.

A 60x80mm waterblock should fit fine, those are the base dimensions of many SocketA heatsinks, and they comply fully with the SocketA mechanical specifications. Socket370 boards usually have less space to spare so a 60x60mm base is more typical in those applications, but S370 is fading away, not much interest in cooling those old CPUs.
__________________
¤ Jeffery ¤

Wishing you were someone else is a waste of the person you are. - Kurt Cobain

AOA Team fah
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 31st July, 2002, 02:53 AM
Member
 
Join Date: July 2002
Posts: 69

I'm getting pretty confused with all this different info on base thickness, I will have to test them myself for a third opinion

The problem with a 60x80mm is that I wouldn't be able to mount them in the mobo mounting holes without passing the bolts trought the inside of the block, and I wouldn't want to do that, unless you mount the block in a different position for each retention mechanism, you get what I'm saying (I think I sound a little confusing)?

Thanks
Bruno Facca
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 31st July, 2002, 02:32 PM
Holst's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Leics UK
Posts: 4,528

Quote:
Originally posted by Bruno Facca
I'm getting pretty confused with all this different info on base thickness, I will have to test them myself for a third opinion

The problem with a 60x80mm is that I wouldn't be able to mount them in the mobo mounting holes without passing the bolts trought the inside of the block, and I wouldn't want to do that, unless you mount the block in a different position for each retention mechanism, you get what I'm saying (I think I sound a little confusing)?

Thanks
Bruno Facca
Iunderstand, you want to makeone block that wil fit many sockets.

I think Jess at OCPC has a nice solution by using a perspex top thats interchangable for differnt sockets.

http://www.overclockedpc.co.uk/
__________________
No longer Epox Tech.

Best of luck in the future all my friends.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 1st August, 2002, 06:55 PM
Member
 
Join Date: July 2002
Posts: 69

Quote:
I think Jess at OCPC has a nice solution by using a perspex top thats interchangable for differnt sockets.
I looked for it in the URL you gave me and I couldn't find it. I'm not familiar with the word pesrspex, what does it mean?

Thanks
Bruno Facca
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 1st August, 2002, 07:00 PM
kplonk's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 101
Send a message via ICQ to kplonk

Quote:
Originally posted by Bruno Facca


I looked for it in the URL you gave me and I couldn't find it. I'm not familiar with the word pesrspex, what does it mean?

Thanks
Bruno Facca
pesrspex is a trade name for clear plastic,
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 2nd August, 2002, 07:42 PM
Member
 
Join Date: July 2002
Posts: 69

Thanks kplonk.

Everyone, please keep posting your suggestions. right now I'm working on the model's last details, by the beggining of next week I will have a web site up with some pics.

Thank you
Bruno Facca
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 3rd August, 2002, 12:31 PM
kplonk's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 101
Send a message via ICQ to kplonk

Haveto say am looking forward to that, what will the site address be so i can book mark now..
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 4th August, 2002, 05:33 AM
Member
 
Join Date: July 2002
Posts: 69

I'm between a couple of hosting companies but the site itself is almost ready here in my HD. I will let you know.

Thanks
Bruno Facca
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 8th August, 2002, 12:32 AM
Member
 
Join Date: July 2002
Posts: 69

I'm sorry gfor not being able to post these news yesterday as I told you I would,I had some problems with my ADSL connection, so here are the news:

I had a problem casting the block, I couldn't make a mold that is good enough because of some technical problems (about the form of the block), the model ill have to be rebuilt from scratch, I already started and it sould take a few days. So again I'm really sorry for those of you who are waiting.

Now to the good things, the new design has been improved in many aspects, those little waves side by side would probably cause some "dead spots" in the lower part between them so they are now square, a little bigger and there is some more distance between each one. The artifacts in the bottom are now different, they are like "fat" cones, like the heads from the movie Coneheads (now that was a stupid comment , that should improve heat transfer a lot. I'm thinking about adding a big hole, as in the size of the core but round on top of the core so the copper would be thinner in there, it's 4mm now. The new blast furnace is working perfectly and I got access to a 478 pin P4 for testing the block, of course it will be extensively tested on my XP as well.

That I'm not sure but the top should be a very dark shade of gray with the letters ACS extruded and painted in white.
__________________

Last edited by Bruno Facca; 8th August, 2002 at 12:35 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 13th August, 2002, 12:12 AM
Member
 
Join Date: July 2002
Posts: 69

I don't know if you lost interest, if the thread got too far away or you are just waiting for more news, anyway I'll post the news, it would be good if you tell me if you're still interested.

The new model took lots of time because I had to follow some hard specifications for it to cast perfectly, looks very nice and it's only missing some final details so it will be ready tomorrow morning. I will cast it on wed.

I'm glad it took so long because I had time to improve the design by a lot, probably twice as good as the original. It will perform better and look better. Thank you everyone for all your great ideas!

The web site is also being re-designed as we tought it wasn't good enough, but as soon as I cast the first block I will post pics.

Thanks
Bruno Facca
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 13th August, 2002, 12:20 AM
webmedic's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheney, Wa
Posts: 122

I am still verry interested in seeing it.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 13th August, 2002, 10:20 AM
Random Nonsense's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: USS Great Britain, aircraft carrier, moored off the northwest coast of Europe
Posts: 3,340
Send a message via ICQ to Random Nonsense Send a message via Yahoo to Random Nonsense

Sounds good! thinning the material at the core is a double edged sword i think. Yes there will be less thermal resistance at that point, but the heat will not spread out as far on the base of the block, so the outer portions on the block may be less efficient. Best bet would be test it, one with the thinner centre, one without, and one with the hole, but the depth of the base still the same. This will let you find the best compromise.
__________________
Dual XP1600+ AGOIA "Y" @ 1875mhz WATERCOOLED 33C LOAD

Undergoing overhaul. Hard Locking to 13.5X multiplier for theoretical clockrate of 1944mhz 144mhz FSB

1X Duron 1.3 AHCLA "9" @ 1430mhz

1X Celeron 1000mhz

1X Pentium3 450 DECEASED

Folding Under AOA-UK for team 45!



"Mothers should love their babies, because then they grow up, everyone might hate them."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"AMD: Bringing "Torrenza" and "Fusion" Together" Daniel ~ AMD Motherboards & CPUs 1 20th March, 2007 02:59 AM
Latest ATI "R600," "R610" and "R630" details danrok Graphics and Sound cards; Speakers and other Peripherals 0 9th January, 2007 10:44 AM
Fun Photo Assignment 3 "Water" - POLL dod Digital Image, Photo, Video and Audio Editing. 42 23rd July, 2005 06:49 PM
Fun Photo Assignment #3. "Water" danrok Digital Image, Photo, Video and Audio Editing. 33 7th July, 2005 09:12 PM
My micro-channel jet-impingement "White Water" block Cathar Cooling & Temperature Monitoring 13 14th December, 2002 07:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Copyright ©2001 - 2010, AOA Forums
Don't Click Here Don't Click Here Either

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0