Cooling My Athlon64 Waterblock!

Seems like it worked out quite well for you. although without proper testing i wont make up my mind yet.

It looks aluminium again in the pic?

 

Yeah I used my Al toped test block with Cu bottom. I don’t have a sealed polycarbonate one with mounting holes but I don’t think it will make a difference for cooling. The block supports 1/2" ID pipe and is mounted with 2 springs into standoffs which screw into the motherboard.

 

Cost, and location they're being shipped from?

 

My god I find the some of the comments on the science involved would be laughed at by your average school boy. Anyway I think that has already been covered off mostly by other people so I'll leave it be.

To my mind it looks a reasonably well made block and deserves a place in the market. To my mind the use of a sealing agent over a gasket or sealing ring is wrong as it doesn't allow for cleaning, ok if you run a perfect mix in your system then really it should never actually require it but, this is a market that runs as much on marketing hype, myths and rumours as it does on cold hard facts and as such you need to pamper to the current fads as much as making a ruthlessly efficient product unless you have the marketing power to uphold the facts.

Lets face it everyone who is buying an athlon 64 at present is going to go for a top end solution if they choose watercooling. In terms of the current market that implies, and rightly so, a copper design.

When I saw your initial designs in AL I thought well of course it's easier and cheaper to prototype in AL, I know thats what I would have done, then when it's opimised transer to a copper solution.

From a comercial point of view, and I have no Idea of the scale of your buisness, but I'm sensing very small scale would it not be better for you to make a block that is more adaptable in terms of what CPU's it can fit ? This would increase market size without significantly increasing production cost, and for all those Athlon or P4 owners out there thinking of going watercooled now and 64 bit later doesn't that give them a better option. This being especially true, as previously mentioned heat transfer is controlled by 3 factors flow rate, surface area and material thermal gradient, the thing providing the heat is effectively irrelavant.

 

Here's a point you probably sorted at the drawing board stage but nevertheless worth mentioning as it could save you time and money in the long run if you haven't.

If AMD specification of 75lbs of hold down force for the 64's I would strongly recommend you do some testing on those poly lugs to make sure they will be strong enough to withstand that amount of pressure.

Personally I wouldn't feel to comfortable releasing a block to the public with what would seem only limited testing like I mentioned previously and I just hope you haven't rushed things too much for the sake of necessary testing.

Time will tell..........but it would be a shame to see its demise due to something that could be prevented!

 

I was just about to mention the same point. The poly lugs look a bit weak to withstand the pressure. I'm sure they could be made thicker though it would require different springs.

 

The polycarbonate block in the pictures is just a final beta test block that was milled out of 1/2" thick polycarbonate (much thinner then the regular 3/4" think material the Al blocks were milled out of). They are this way because my manufacture didn’t have any 3/4" polycarbonate on hand. The block was made as a show piece to work out any problems that may arise from changing the material to polycarbonate from Al. All production blocks will have the thicker tabs (same thickness as the Al ones pictured on previous pages). That’s 1cm thick of high grade polycarbonate. I can assure you it wont break under the 79-90lb of pressure that AMD recommends in its thermal reference guide.

 

Nice Waterblock, hoping for some results. I cbf reading through thsi thread, ur posts are huge.

 

I see you have taken the criticism quite well, and the block HAS improved. The price has also been lowered to a level where it is more likely to be competitive.

The method of sealing is still the only worry I have. It is much harder to get a consisitent seal over a batch of mass produced blocks with any kind of goop/epoxy. A few questions.

Is any part of the sealant likely to react with commonly used additives, such as white water, antifreeze, and various other potions?



How long is the sealant supposed to last?

Why do you not want to use an o-ring? Will it up the manufacturing cost, so you don't make as much profit per block.

Are you going to thoroughly leak test all of the blocks before they leave your shop, given the disclaimer offering no support over what would most probably be a manufacturing defect?



Apologies for criticising your pricing strategy, but you have still taken the easy/cheap route, yet are charging considerably more for a block that no-one really knows how it performs.

Given the choice, I would definitely still go with a cascade, even though it is slightly more expensive (SLIGHTLY!). But at least you can see where the money has been spent. And he doesn't make much on these blocks, so you really are getting what you pay for. The machining time required to mill the nozzle assembly on each cascade is rediculous, combined with dual o-rings, so it can be taken apart and cleaned and happily resealed with the turn of an allen key.

Just a few more things that need thinking about.

8-ball

 

Hi guys! I have been away for a while sorry for the wait. www.r0x0rblock.com has been updated to showcase the new, finalized r0x0rblock.
I’m looking into offering a block with a DiaCu-II base. I Emailed the company and have yet to receive a reply .
For 8-ball, the sealant used to lock the r0x0rblock together is loctite mainly used to seal car transmissions, thus it is extremely tough and non-reactive. I contacted loctite and they suggested this product specifically for this application. One question though, do the whitewatter and cascade use round gaskets just stretched into the oval shape or custom made oval ones?

 

Ferrari,

Sealing in both the cascade and the white water is carried out using rubber o-rings. These are circular, but flexible, and provided the length of the channel cut for the o-ring is the same length as the o-ring itself, and doesn't involve too many sharp bends or deviations from a roughly circular/oval/square shape, then there is no problem.

If you are interested, I can dig up some information on requirements for the channel depth and width relative to the thickness of the o-ring, as they are quite fussy. It doesn't matter whether the o-ring channel is cut into the copper base or the poly top, the same effect will be achieved.

Though with your design, you may have to think about the clamping technique, since it looks like the base is too thin to screw into. It could be bolted from the underside, screwing into the oply with little trouble. It is suggested that a minimum of four fixing bolts be used though with such a thin base, I would suggest at least 6, (one at each end and two on either side, spaced out evenly).

This brings me onto my final criticism, that being the thickness of the base and I'm not sure why I didn't think of this earlier. If you are not careful, particularly with the high clamping pressure required of the athlon64, the base may flex, resulting in the mating surface warping away from flat. This will have a lrage effect on the contact between the IHS and the base, since it is quite possible that most of the pressure will be distributed around the edge of the IHS, with a lower pressure in the middle, increasing the thermal resistance in this vital area. If you don't belive me, try placing a 12inch ruler over a cd case and pressing down on the two ends, it should lift up in the middle. The reason for this is using a thin base with the clamping pressure being applied through the poly top, which makes contact with the base outside of the area of the IHS.

Please don't think I'm being awkward, it's just that these are things which you should really consider before releasing a block to market, though you do seem a little more receptive to suggestions these days.

Please keep us updated.

8-ball

 

The Cu bottom is actually thicker then it appears in the photos because there is a lip that helps seal the block. The base is 1/8" thick over a surface that is around 2.5" x 1.5". With this thickness to area ratio there is no chance of the bottom bending under the 90lb's that AMD recommends as the very Maximum pressure the cooling device should exert. Valid concern without knowing the numbers.

 

I will waiting to see how the reviews go as I'm very interesting but unsure on the build and design. Call me old fashion Good luck with the launch

 

I’m currently working on getting some more final polycarbonate blocks and new back mounting bracket to send out for review. This shouldn’t be as hard as before because the block now supports P4 CPU’s. on

 

polycarbonate may still be to thin

I thought I would post a few pictures etc to give a better idea as to what sort of pressure each of the mounting lugs is going to be under as I'm still not convinced you got this right.

The Danger Den Athlon64 block is a good comparison to the RoXor in its fundamental design and they have really gone to town when it comes to the thickness of the Lucite which becomes apparent once you see the size of springs used to clamp the thing down.

You can see a direct comparison of the Athlon64 beside a Lucite Maze3 P4 top. I reckon its fair to say the Maze3's 9mm Lucite top has been tried and tested and is more than adequate for the job but DD decided an extra 4mm was needed to cope with the pressure and have gone for 13mm Lucite for the Athlon64.

Its not till you actually see the springs that come with the Athlon64 that you realize why the extra 4mm is for...............this is the bit I think you might be under calculating!

Take a look at the last pic of the 2 springs.........on the right is the normal hold down springs for a Maze3 or 4 but on the left are the springs for the Athlon64.

I can physically just about compress a Maze3 spring between my fingers but no kidding I can hardy even move the Athlon64

Anyway I just thought this might show a little better the sort of pressure these lugs will be under with the correct springs remembering the DD block has a much more substantial lug when compared to the much smaller RoXor lug

............any chance you could post a pic against a ruler of the springs you been putting out with your blocks Ferrari??

/...........definitely something to consider if you ask me!

a Maze3 P4 Lucite top left and and Athlon64 on the right


Maze3 Lucite top is 9mm thick


and Athlon64 Lucite top is 13mm thick


and the springs needed to hold the Athlon64 down

 

The thing with the A64 is that it only uses 2 mounting holes to mount the cooling device. This means that there is twice as much pressure on the mounting mechanism as there would be for say a P4 block. This does call for extra mounting strength. The mounting tabs on the r0x0rblock are 7mm thick polycarbonate. I’m not sure what the difference in strength is between Lucite and Polycarbonate mind you but I guarantee these tabs won’t break off. If the tabs were much longer I would be concerned but at only 1.3cm long there is plenty of thickness to securely hold the block in place. Here is a picture for reference.



Yes this block is aluminum; I do not have a polycarbonate one that is the full thickness. I should have a final copy of the block in about a week but the dimensions are the same as this Al one. I also took some pictures of the springs I will be using to mount the r0x0rblock. They are .5" in diameter and an inch long, REALLY BEEFY! I have had no problems mounting even my thin polycarbonate block with these springs at there full compression of 50lb x2 =100lb of total force (This pressure will never be achieved with the supplied mounting hardware due to the fact that AMD only recommends up to 90lb). Here is there spec sheet.
Lee Spring





With all the concern I am considering using the slightly thinner 1/2" polycarbonate (as apposed to the 3/4") and just not mill any of the material under the tabs off. I don’t think it will look as good and if any motherboard manufactures place any circuitry near the mounting holes it may be a tight fit. If you fall in love with this idea persuade me to use it. If not they will stay about the same.

Finally I would like to ask, if anyone knows, how maze achieved the perfectly clear tops? Is it the Lucite? The r0x0rblock has a light frosted look where it is milled I thought it would be cool to test out this process if anyone knows how it is done.

 

The only way I know of is to polish the surface, but this is rather time consuming. I would assume that Danger Den have some other way of doing it.

8-ball

 

Bit of a grey area there. I used to think that as well. Some people believe that the copper bases are used with alu fins to quickly transfer heat from the cpu to the fins and if there is a less conductive material attached (but more conductive than air), the heat will be transferred to that before dissipating to the air. I'm still reading up on this to decide which is technically correct.

 

It will be a process of polishing, but the finish will be applied by machine, rather than by hand.

 

As a very quick answer, when talking about water cooling, the "majority" of thermal energy is dissipated into the water by convective heat transfer.

To cut a long story short, convective heat transfer is INDEPENDENT of the material from which the thermal energy is being dissipated, but is DEPENDENT on the geometry of the dissipating surface, the properties of the coolant and the flow regime.

The only time where aluminium should be considered over copper is when radiation is a significant mode of heat dissipation. (This is because aluminium DOES radiate heat more efficiently than copper.) BUT, unless the heat source is in a vacuum or there is no forced airflow over the dissipating surface, this isn't the case.

Hope this clears this up.

8-ball