Overclock.net › Forums › Cooling › Specialized Cooling › Peltiers / TEC › 340 Watt TEC better than 360/437 ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

340 Watt TEC better than 360/437 ?

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 
I found this on the web last night and i found it VERY interesting ! It's interesting that a less powerful TEC can cool better than a more powerful one, though there isn't much difference in TEC Qmax.. I assume the gain has come from the cooling being more concentrated on the less powerful TEC and therefore making it more efficient at cooling a small CPU Less heat spreading required. I also find the results to be surprisingly good!



They did power the 340 watt TEC @ 48 volts not the rated 32. Which is strange, in saying that it's unlikely the PSU would be putting out 48 volts as 48 volts would have FAR exceeded the 600 watts of the PSU leading to lower voltages.

----------------------------------

The new 340 watt 50mm x 50mm peltier module has been received and tested by the Arctic Spider staff. The new peltier was tested on a Danger Den Maze-4 block and a Wintsch Labs Arctic Web, and the results were eye-opening.


(Click image for full-sized graph)

The graph above shows the results of the test. The test rig was a Intel QX6700 running at stock speeds on an EVGA 680i motherboard with 2 gigabytes of Corsair PC-6400 RAM, an EVGA 8800GTS video card, Thermaltake Toughpower 850W power supply and standard peripherals. The Meanwell PSP-600-48 power supply was used with the 340W peltier, and the Meanwell SE-600-24 power supply was used with the 437W peltier.

The water loop consisted of 2 Black Ice GTX 120.3 radiators with 3 Panaflow high-speed fans each, Danger Den DD12V-D5 Variable Speed pump set on "5", EK Water Blocks reservoir, and 1/2" tubing throughout.

Two tests were run with the new 50mm 340W peltier module. One test was run on a dirty Danger Den Maze-4 water block we had lying around, and another was done on an Arctic Web. For comparison, a third test using the same setup was performed using the Arctic Web and a 437W (360W, really) 62mm peltier.

All three tests were performed using Prime95 to stress all four cores. All three lines in the graph represent the temperatures achieved during the 24 hour duration the test was run. The top line represents the temperatures achieved by the 340W peltier on the Maze-4, the middle line represents the 437W peltier on the Arctic Web, and the lowest line represents the 340W peltier on the Arctic Web. For this test, lower temperatures are best.

As you can see, the results are quite suprising. The new peltier allows users to use older style TEC water blocks that support 50mm x 50mm peltiers to cool quad-core processors. This used to only be achieveable by the 437W peltier on an Arctic Web. Putting the new peltier on the Arctic Web will outperform the current Arctic Web set ups.

Both peltiers and both power supplies are available for purchase on arcticspider.com
post #2 of 6
Link to the original source please?
Main Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel C2D E6700 Asus P5KPL-AM mATX Palit GTS250 2 x 2GB OCZ PC2-8500 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital 500GB Pioneer DVD-RW Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Viewsonic VA2213w 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Media Keyboard Deluxe 750W Thermaltake Toughpower Antec NSW4400 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Reply
Main Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel C2D E6700 Asus P5KPL-AM mATX Palit GTS250 2 x 2GB OCZ PC2-8500 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital 500GB Pioneer DVD-RW Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Viewsonic VA2213w 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Media Keyboard Deluxe 750W Thermaltake Toughpower Antec NSW4400 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Reply
post #3 of 6
Thread Starter 
post #4 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrasonic2 (muffy) View Post
I am really concerned about the data arcticspider is putting up. The operating parameters of bismuth tellurium TECs are well known, and it's not hard for an engineer who is familiar with TEC curves to figure out what's what.

'Standard' curves are done at hot side (Th) of 300K (27C), and many manufacturers also publish 50C numbers. The Qc is determined by the amperage and Th, nothing else. It is pretty easy to figure the performance if you know the element dimensions and the doping, and any curve for the TEC will let you determine those numbers.

As a rough cut, the voltage drop is about .125 volt per element at 27C. So a 127 element TEC with the hot side at 27C has a nominal full power voltage of 15.8V, and a 199 element TEC has 24.8V. You can also go backwards - a 'mystery' TEC with a nominal voltage of 30.5V at 27C has (30.5/.125) or 241. It helps to know that because of geometry, most TECs have 'standard' numbers of elemets, which are 17, 23, 31, 35, 63, 71, 111, 127, 131, 161, 199, 241, 263, 288, 337, 391 elements. You may see ones that have slightly odd numbers like 128 or 240. You can get custom modules made with any number of elements.

The .new' TEC would therefore be something like a 287 element module. Huimao makes a 287 rated at 345W Qcmax at 300K, 16A, with 67C max dT, which seems like a match - ArcticSpider manufacturer specs seem to match specs from Huimao exactly.

They claim to run the 19924 at 33A are hard to believe. This is 1.35 Imax. CoP at 1.35 Imax is 50% of CoP at Imax, which is already low - .4 at Th of 50C. So that says you move 20% of power in. The voltage needed to drive 33A on that unit at Th of 27C is 32V, and at 50C is 36.5V. That is 1200W just in power in. That would move 250W, but with a 1500W heat load. Hard to believe any block in the world can move that, and it certainly won't maintain the hot side at 50C. If it did, the cold side would still be 20C, and they claim 0C. Just doesn't add up.

Also, running the TEC at that voltage reduces the lifetime pretty dramatically. TECs operated at or below max ratings have lifetimes over 200,000 hours. At 1.1 of Imax, that is reduced to 60,000 hours. At 1.2, 24,000 hours. At 1.3, 9600 hours, and at 1.4, 3800 hours. That's about 8 months...

For the new '345', if they are really operating it at 48V, they are at 1.41 Imax or 23A, and burning about 1100W power in. Again, the claim of -10C is just not credible at those power levels.

Basically, the numbers they give, with the CPU load and core temps they show, are for Th at 35C. That says that for a 25C ambient, the block to ambient Tr with the 437 is 10C/1500W or .0067C/W. About the same with the 345. That's 3 times better than the best rads alone, and about 10 times better than the best rad / block combos out there.

If they really want a 50mm TEC with that kind of performance, they should use a 19930 and run it at 12V. With a heat load of 150W and heat moved of 220W at dT 30C, they have a prayer of actually cooling the thing.

In a 62mm, the TEC to use is a 24130. Running that at 15V moves 240W for 190W in.

for reference on the TEC values, ArcticSpider put up the following data (smileys and bold are mine, and note they say 36V at one place for the 345 and 34V at another):

Although this is a 36 volt TEC, it was tested with the Meanwell PSP-600-48 power supply and found to work great.

In all reality, the 437W TEC is a 360W TEC that can handle a higher voltage and amperage so that it can move a calculated 437W of heat. It is still manufactured as a 360W product.

Here are the specifications of the 437W TEC from the manufacturer:

Umax : 25
Imax : 24
Delta-T Max : 66C
Qmax : 360
Measurements : 62x62x3.55
Resistance : .75

Here are the specifications for the new 50x50mm 345W TEC :
Umax : 34
Imax : 16
Delta-T Max : 67C
Qmax : 345
Measurements : 50x50x3.95
Resistance : 1.40-1.50
post #5 of 6
Thread Starter 
yeah i find the results very impressive .. i would have said they were unlikely myself.

until someone else tests these TEC's against the 437 from frozen CPU the jury is still out
Edited by Ultrasonic2 (muffy) - 6/15/08 at 4:01pm
post #6 of 6
Now that, Uncle Jimbo, is what I call a post.

Rep+
Main Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel C2D E6700 Asus P5KPL-AM mATX Palit GTS250 2 x 2GB OCZ PC2-8500 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital 500GB Pioneer DVD-RW Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Viewsonic VA2213w 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Media Keyboard Deluxe 750W Thermaltake Toughpower Antec NSW4400 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Reply
Main Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel C2D E6700 Asus P5KPL-AM mATX Palit GTS250 2 x 2GB OCZ PC2-8500 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital 500GB Pioneer DVD-RW Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Viewsonic VA2213w 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Media Keyboard Deluxe 750W Thermaltake Toughpower Antec NSW4400 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Peltiers / TEC
Overclock.net › Forums › Cooling › Specialized Cooling › Peltiers / TEC › 340 Watt TEC better than 360/437 ?