Cooling Which tube diameter ??

How big a rad can you fit in your case?

And how much are you prepared to spend.

I would probably say that you want at least on of the 120.1 and up or two of the smaller ones.

8-ball

 

Can you clarify this for me? Thanks

 

I can't comment in particular, though this style of radiator tends to be more restrictive, which will affect the performance of the system as a whole.

8-ball

 

I think you mean to get the same volume of water through narrower tubes in a given time, the velocity of thw water must be faster?

Whilst this may be true to some degree, I'd be shocked if you could even measure the amount of heat gained as a result of friction from using smaller diameter tubing!

I don't mean to flame, just thought those points needed clarifying

 

Flow rate is a measure of volume passing a point in a unit of time.

EG gallons per minute.

For a narrower diameter tubing, in order to get the same flow rate, a higher flow "velocity" will be required.

8-ball

 

Granted, this is very small, but there will be a reduction of efficiency of the radiator and waterblock with lower flow rates, within common flow ranges.

Also, a more restrictive system will put more strain on the pump.

8-ball

 

This is exactly why I recommend the 1046 as a low noise, low power consumption solution for 8mm tube.
The increased flow velocity is good for getting the water from the blocks to the radiator fast.
The increase in tube diameter inside the rad itself makes for slower flow velocity of the coolant inside the rad, past the fans, allowing it to be cooled more efficiently instead of it hurtling through up to four times as fast with a bigger pump.


I just added a watercooled PSU to my loop and haven't needed to switch up from the 1046 yet.
I've also got a new board, chip and memory in there - pics when I've modded it a bit more and transferred my HDD contents.

 

Not true. Agreed, the water "velocity" will be greater, but the flow rate will be lower. Besides, the time that it takes to reach the radiator is irrelevant. The important factor is whether the radiator can cope with the heat load iposed on it by the cpu/pump.

Again, this argument is flawed. Having a greater flow rate through the radiator will not reduce the radiators ability to dissipate heat from the coolant. In fact it will increase its cooling capacity (up to a point of dimishing returns, which is well above anything most setups will achieve)

The argument that water needs to spend more time in the radiator is flawed since for a given radiator, this can only be achieved by reducing the flow rate, which in turn reduces the rate at which heat is arriving at the radiator. Neglecting the variations in convective heat transfer, this would not matter, however, there ARE variations, and in the ranges of flow rates we can reasonably achieve in watercooling, increased flow WILL increase the convective heat transfer coefficient. This will reduce the temperature difference required between the surface of the radiator in contact with the water and the water itself. The temperature difference between this surface and the air is completely independant of the the flow rate of the coolant, for a given heat load.

8-ball

 

I wish you wouldn't contradict yourself. A minute ago, you just agreed flow rate would stay the same!

Not necessarily true - with the smaller tubing, this is counteracted to a degree by the fact that there is actually less occurence of stagnant flow at the walls of the tube (compared to larger diameter tubing).

Umm, oookaay... if you say so.

Woohoo! Something we agree on!

Not so. Even BillA finally found this to be so when he retested his radiator shootout with lower flow rates as a starting point like myself and others pointed out that he should do.
There isn't a remarkable difference necessarily but as you imply, there are diminishing returns and that point varies from setup to setup.

I'm not arguing that the water needs to spend more time in the rad. I'm outlining the balance to aim for, as opposed to a theoretical setup whereby you would have smaller tubes in the rad than the rest of the system.
I think you're reading between the lines too much.

It's all a question of balance. Done correctly, for the 5watt powering my pump (1046), I'll lay dollars to doughnuts that I can remove more overall heat from the system per watt than a 20watt pump (1250 for instance) using my same core and fans.

Now that, to me, is still efficient.
Or do you think that a 20Watt pump would remove four times at much heat as my current rig?
Again, it's a case of diminishing returns.

I don't dispute that large bore systems can be tuned efficiently too.
I'd just like to point out that there is room in the world for more than one school of thought.