Mine...

Block: Danger Den Maze 4
Radiator: Black ICE Pro paired with a Evercool 120 mm LED fan (approx 80 cfm); Pull configuration
Pump: Nirox P2800
Reservoir: replica Danger Den CD Bay reservoir
Tubing: Danger Den tygon clear type
Fluid: Battery Water

Room temp: 31C
Processor idle/load: 42 / 45C
Case idle/load: 39 / 40C
(at 10 x 250; VCore 1.725v)
Status: Online


The setup


The reservoir


Danger Den Maze 4


Fired Up

This post has been edited by almostthere: Dec 19 2004, 01:32 PM

what brand please? Using cyber aqua.....3m HMax and 2650 lph...roflmao...D5 performance anyone?

Owh to qualify to post, included this



This post has been edited by almostthere: Jul 11 2007, 12:53 AM

I wouldn't recommend it as it may cause some damage to the seals and moving parts of the WC component. I always use good old gravity and a bathroom to drain my waterout

If you work out the price, I won't be surprised that, with a bit of DIY and elbow grease, you can get a better setup for around the same price

not a good idea due to Storm's inherent restrictiveness. Tested it before. At least a loss of 3-4C due to the HMax deficit.

@liechytan: how did you mount your MCRes? Can't seem to figure it out yet on mine. And yes, using good old stacker too

Damnit.....3 years I keep quiet about WC 1337-ness and you all sneak up behind my back...cis

You want my ghetto old school bay res? LOL

Right mates, I has question, anyone in LYN here is bringing in the Apogee GTZ? Looks interesting as I can downscale my pump pressure requirements

pictars?



This post has been edited by almostthere: Aug 28 2008, 01:27 AM

The first three rules of WC

Leak Test, Leak Test and Leak Test

Own and standby silicon sealant and/or epoxy glue

A loop unless fully closed loop will have reduced flowrate but at a certain rate depending on flow restrictions, true. However, splitting into two way does not solve that issue since you'd be roughly halving the head pressure effectively available per branch and that hurts even more. D-Tek is comparatively not a flow restrictive block as you might think of it to be. TBH, if you want a really flow restrictive block, you should see how much flow a Storm robs, hence recommendation of 3m HMax minimum specifications. Flow path resistance on the Fuzion is rather minimal by water block designs standards as it tries to work on the principles of guided freeflow of water. Fluid Dynamics will teach you on that later. Rather, to fix you're issue, you should minimise the loss of head pressure from pump to first block by keeping as short as possible the loop. Mine from pump to block is about 15cm hence reducing potential head pressure loss to a minimal level. And for cases of complex loop, you should consider instead a higher pressur pump to overcome flow resistance instead. And beyond that is to pair your fans suitably to your rad. In fact can you relist your WC setup components?

Owh, BTW, that T-line of your pump is seriously killing pressure rates

Actually if one is to go for dual loop, might as well in the first place use an inline dual pump setup and make sure the rad is dissipating sufficient heat


much better solution as head loss pressure reduced and thermal dumps is reduced TBH since GPU >> CPU in terms of TDP

This post has been edited by almostthere: Sep 2 2008, 09:37 PM

No offense, but since you're runnign a parrallel loop, it's no surprise that you're facing that issue but question is do you realise how much pressure loss is there by going through the rad first? Succesful multistage setups I've seen used a inline setup to sustain the head pressure and relied on ONE good radiator to do the dissipation duties. Which is why I'm curious as to the need for two rads. The only time a you'd wanna use your current setup is when you want to TOTALLY isolate the two loops. IF you're combining the loops together, it's a pretty wasteful cause. Why not try my suggestion and see the difference? I remembered aleck doing a dual inline pump setup and managed to produce darn good temps even with a A64 and SLI setup WC'ed

Simply because the caveat for using a double pump setup is for complex loops which will slow down the flowrates and drop the pressure rates down by the time the water returns to res. The reasoning behind becomes clearer as I explain:

A pump like all devices is a device that requires energy to perform work. In this context, work is done to not ONLY pump the water, but ALSO to draw water from source. The more difficult it is to draw water from source, the more work required for pump to do that task and reducing available work to pump the water. This is based on the understanding of Newton's Law which is as follows

energy supplied (electrical) = total work done + energy loss (noise, heat, kinetic)

where total work done = work done to draw water + work done to push water

Once that is understood, we can begin to see why a dual inline pump setup gains from. The primary pump's purpose is to draw the water out of the res and supply water to secondary pump. Since there's ready available pressure at secondary pump's inlet, less energy is wasted on drawing and more available to supply head pressure at maximum quoted specs which is vital once you start going berserk and fit a CPU, NB, Dual PEG water blocks, plus a hewg rad to dissipate the heat dump effectively.

And as for fans, the thumbrule that higher cfm is better is not really applicable here. I once posted an article from XS which does state there are TWO type of rads. It be too long to explain here but if you're using a low restriction airflow rad, a lower end fan will still do the job nicely. Trust me, I've tested that theory out on a BIP and MCR220 and came to that conclusion. In fact I'm using some dumb TT SMartLED running at low rpm and yet still get good temps about 42C max on load

and BTW, if you SRYSLY want flow restriction, try a Storm's Jet Impingement nozzle. A Nirox P2800 would be pissing rat's piss on it. Or ask uzairi and his old cascade style waterblock

This post has been edited by almostthere: Sep 3 2008, 07:09 PM

Offer me one of your rads and pumps ler....ekekeke

No offense but still abit overkill. But temps how? Smiliar to last time or worse? Both CPU and GPU. And btw, for such a short loop (it is short), I think you can stick to one D5 since the gravitational flow of the water from res would ensure constant supply and reduced suction power loss (which is almost negligible in your case)

And have your tried mounting the rad externally?

This post has been edited by almostthere: Sep 4 2008, 07:05 PM

Neh, I'd doubt you'd gain much more by adding the other rad back in TBH. What I'd suggest is exposing it in the open so that it's able to thermally dissipate into free air easier and pair it with the optimal set of fans for it. Thermally you can only dissipate that much heat so as long as heat absorbed from surroundings isn't of considerable amount. Just do a simple feel test of the end tanks. If you can hardly feel any warmth at the outlet end tank, it's already doing a good job

And in terms of restrictiveness, rest assured, with that short a length from pump to block, you'd won't notice the difference between a single and dual pump setup. I'd say for your case the losses in terms of available head pressure is at most about 2-3% (There's always the overvolt option but bear in mind beyond 12.4v AFAIK is rather pointless). Like I said, a dual inline setup is for total WC solutions (e.g CPU+NB+SLI/X-Fire)

Reply to addon: There lies the possible tweak. Fix the heat dump still stuck at rad. Your scenario indicates that there's a certain amount of retained heat in water.

This post has been edited by almostthere: Sep 4 2008, 07:38 PM

liechy, PM that martin's flow chart calculator. Something's not right here

UPDATE: Checked the chart out, the assumptions using that excel sheet are abit wild and inconclusive. But answer me a few questions

1. Why your D5 is running at setting 4 instead of 5? Difference is by about 0.15GPM

2. Do you understand what the flow rate calculation is for? It's an average BTW

This is because alot of the test data is not yet concluded based on my checks. So to say it's a good measure is quite iffy. And I haven't checked that test data for the nozzle kit yet (XS seems to be down ATM)


I'm not disputing your theories on your setup but if I were you, I'd retest personally all parameters to decide on an optimal point. In fact since I'm of the simplicity sort of person, I'd ditch the two pumps and get a DDC 3.2 with Petra's Top (or whichever good un you can obtain) installed. That alone is worth 1.20GPM at the very least. That's 0.1GPM less then a dual inline D4 setting 4 setup. Play around again with the chart and PM me if you don't understand anything

This post has been edited by almostthere: Sep 4 2008, 09:47 PM

It's getting late and I still work tomorrow but here we go

The overall flow rate calculation is an average, not displaying effective flow rate at entry of waterblock and post block.. What I'd rather do is to use the use the chart to calculate what's the flow rate post block. That's how I worked out your flow rate. That's the figure post outlet of your fuzion and if that's good enough for your MCP60, then it should be fine. That's how I view the table's usefulness.

As for the nozzle kit, you have to ask yourself how much your willing to give up just for that extra squeeze. I'd say for such a short and very low pipe restriction due to minimal bend, you might be better off without the nozzle. At such length, it's likely you're still getting laminar flow so you're having jet effect at inlet. That nozzle might worsen things since at such length, it might be just causing back pressure, hence reducing effective flow and effective head pressure at inlet. that nozzle imho would suit best for normal nearly 1ft length arcing tubing in ATX casings since by about 8-9", the flow would be experiencing turbulent flow internally hence slow down of flow rate thanks to turbulence resistance and wall friction combined. That's where the nozzle's purpose kicks in as it accelerates the slowed down water flow. Because remember, the Fuzion still utilises a flow thru method where flow rate is more important then flow thru pressure. Flow thru pressure only applies for jetting based blocks

I agree with the MCW60's mounting method being a pain but it's not much different then mounting any normal waterblock if you asked me. In the end, you have to really ask yourself, at what cost are you going to pay to get the best? Would it be the cash spent experimenting the various blocks or the time and effort to tweak and tweak to get that edge?

Dual pump not necessary safer to be honest. You want safe? Go AC based instead, the ultimate in safety (Japan made Iwaki's anyone? LOL). At least you know the bugger works or not before you power up. And the DDC 3.2's problem you wanna know why? Very simple really. It's a finely engineered pump which utilises the 3 pin connection for mobo's. The problem with that is that these motors bloody hate variating voltage rates which mobo outputs are notorious for. Feed it with clean current at a fixed rate and it'll work for quite sometime.

IF you wanna really learn liechy, I'd suggest you'd take some time and get your hands dirty in experimenting various setups until you get your best setup. And you have to try every variable down to mounting technique and thermal paste application. Trust me, the biggest tweaks lie in the least likely places

and BTW, I know how your rigs looks like because of this



and I was away ahead of you guys

This was back when Athlon XP ruled









This post has been edited by almostthere: Sep 5 2008, 12:38 AM

as per requested

that was from a long time ago when I was still in uni. And now running some cheap ass pump which does 2650 lph QMax, and 3m HMax but has a 70W power consumption...LOL

nice setup but sure would deserve a much better pump though. The gravitational resistance is making that puny P2800 work pretty hard