Overclock.net banner

OCN Community Water Cooling Test Thread

72K views 668 replies 54 participants last post by  Mikeyks  
#1 ·
Welcome to the

OCN Community

Water Cooling Test Thread

Here the goal is to provide information sharing, encourage questions and chat related to testing of our beloved water cooling components.
Especially welcomed would be results from fellow community members.
All of us have different components, so if you can test it (properly) then post up your results and it'll be added to the information bank.

If quoting, please remember to use a spoiler on all but 1 or 2 pics
smile.gif


The index of tested components
is where you should start your search if looking for info on a particular component.
If not there or need some clarification then ask away - with any luck there will always be a knowledgeable OCN member to help out.
The index from now will be found on post #2

In post number 3 will be a collection of other indexed and linked material, that could be useful or just interesting - up to you

For many of us water cooling has become a hobby and we have en devoured to learn as much about it as we could.
For me personally this was great and I enjoyed the learning experience.
But it was always with info and data from other sources.
Much gratitude goes to the testers and contributors for sharing that info with the community
wink.gif


With my current build Salive8 I decided that I wanted to do some testing of my own.
Looking back at my first attempts, they were almost laughable, even though done with the best of intention - you can see it them the build log.
I just didn't have the right equipment to be able to perform the tests properly.

Well that has changed as I ordered some gear that is made specifically for the purpose.
Restriction tests on the components I intend to use - components subject to change of course.
and pump pressure Vs flow tests.

But I also plan to hook up and do tests on heaps of the gear I've got stashed away and leave the data here for all.
and any requests for specific blocks or rads to get to restriction tested just yell out - I or another member might just have it for testing or at the very least have a link for you.

Enough of the babble, how about some info, and pics, we all love pics
biggrin.gif


  • Much more functional.
  • Much more stream-lined.
  • Much more accurate.
  • Much more professional looking.
=
Much more happy
biggrin.gif




Starting with the reservoir.
This is still a work in progress as I want to black it out after I add a few more ports.
It's an 8.5 liter food grade container with lid and handle.
Currently filled with about 6.5 liters of de-mineralized with a dose of Liquid Utopia
thumb.gif




On the res outlet is the same 1/2" tap used previously, which has brass 1/2" fitting to G1/4 (1/4" BSPP) threads (you reckon those were easy to find)
Connecting the tubing is Bitspower 1/2 x 3/4 compression fittings - The Bitspower 1/2 have the biggest ID of the fittings that I had to choose from (their 3/8 is not the largest ID though)



The Pump Primary inlet also has a Bitspower 1/2 x 3/4 compression fitting.
The Auxiliary inlet port is being used as a system drain and has a 90 rotary compression followed by a tap and 3/8 compression fitting and tube - on the drainage end of the tube is a Quick disconnect just for added safety
The pump top itself is the Bitspower dual D5 as seen previously
wink.gif

and same pumps still, one is an Aqua Computer and the other a Swiftech







On the primary pump outlet port is a series of rotary fittings with the high and low takes offs for the differential pressure meter.
Between the 2 take offs would be the item being tested for pressure drop - in this case the Aqua Computer Flow Sensor.



Another new addition is the Dwyer 490-3 Wet-Wet Digital Manometer.
Which is where the take off lines run up a bit and down to for pressure readings.



Continuing along after the low pressure takes off is another 1/2 x 3/4 line into the bottom of the flow meter.



a King Instruments 75202207C04 Flow Meter to be more precise.
It has a range that will come in most handy - 0.5 - 3.5 gpm
I also ordered (but not arrived yet) a 0 - 5.0 gpm.




I fitted 5/8 barbs onto the flow meter inlet and outlet ports to keep as much flow as possible.
The flow meter would be the most restrictive part of the test set up.
The 1/2 tube goes onto a 5/8 barb without too much effort, taking off needs a little help from the heat-gun
thumb.gif

From the top of flow meter the loop returns to the res, ready to go again
smile.gif






The Primary and secondary Power Plants remain the same - although the Koolance 24v converter now seems a tad redundant
tongue.gif





Fellow testers, please get me some pics of your set-up so I can add them here
thumb.gif
 
#2 ·
OCN Community

Water Cooling Test Thread

Components Tested Index

Here you'll find links to all of the test results completed by OCN members
wink.gif


I'll try to keep this Index updated as the results are posted - but don't be shy in reminding me if I neglect to keep this one up to date
thumb.gif


Pump Flow Vs. Pressure

D5 Pump Variants

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 90 CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 90 CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), default quality CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v80), quality = 95

D5 MCP655-B - Swiftech MCP655-B with Laing stock top fast_fate

D5 USB - Aqua Computer D5 USB with Laing stock top fast_fate

D5 Vario - Koolance PMP-450 with Laing stock top fast_fate
D5 Vario - Laing D5-38/810N with Laing stock top fast_fate
D5 Vario - Swiftech MCP655 with Laing stock top fast_fate

D5 Strong - Koolance PMP-450S 12 Volt Performance with assorted tops and reservoirs Stren ER
D5 Strong - Koolance PMP-450S 24 Volt Performance with assorted tops and reservoirs Stren ER

D5 Pump Tops

Alphacool Eisdecke D5 - Aqua Computer D5 USB fast_fate ER
Bitspower D5 Mod Top V2 - Aqua Computer D5 USB fast_fate
Bitspower D5 Mod Top V2 - Aqua Computer D5 USB - various data when power controlled via Aquasuite fast_fate
EK-D5 X-TOP CSQ - Aqua Computer D5 USB fast_fate
EK X-TOP REVO D5 - Aqua Computer D5 USB fast_fate ER
EK-D5 X-Top Rev.2 - Aqua Computer D5 USB fast_fate
Laing Stock Top - Aqua Computer D5 USB fast_fate

EK-D5 Dual TOP 2-Loops - 2 x Aqua Computer D5 USB Pumps fitted in series.

DDC Pump Variants



DDC 1T - Laing DDC 1T with XSPC Acrylic Top fast_fate

DDC 3.1 - Swiftech MCP350 with XSPC Acrylic Top fast_fate

DDC 3.2 - XSPC DDC-1T Plus 3.2 (18W) with XSPC Acrylic Top fast_fate

DDC Pump Tops



XSPC Dual DDC Acrylic Single Port Top - 2 x XSPC DDC-1T Plus 3.2 (18W) DDC 3.2 fast_fate


MCP50X - Swiftech MCP50X Vs Aqua Computer USB D5 Gabrielzm
Interim Chart and data from Swiftech Specs and our own AC USB D5 data...until we have a pump in hand to test.

CPU Block Restriction Tests



Alphacool XP3 - Full Metal Stren ER
Alphacool XP3 - Light V2 Stren ER
Aqua Computer Cuplex Kryos - Delrin fast_fate
Bitspower Summit EF Stren ER
EK Supremacy - Jet-Plate 2 Stren ER
EK Supremacy MX Stren ER
EK Supremacy EVO fast_fate
EK Supremacy EVO Stren ER
EK Supreme HF fast_fate
Koolance CPU-370 Stren ER
Koolance CPU-380 Stren ER
MIPS IceForce HF fast_fate
Swiftech Apogee XL Stren ER
Watercool HeatKiller 3.0 1366/2011 LT fast_fate
Watercool Heatkiller IV - Acetal Stren ER
Watercool Heatkiller IV Pro - Copper Stren ER
Watercool Heatkiller IV Pro - Nickel Stren ER
XSPC Raystorm - Copper Stren ER

GPU Block Restriction Tests

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), default quality CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), default quality

EK-FC680 GTX+ With Link Fitted fast_fate
EK-FC680 GTX+ Without Link Fitted fast_fate
2 x EK-FC680 GTX+ Parallel - with Links and Parallel Bridge fitted (EK-FC Bridge DUAL Parallel CSQ Plexi) fast_fate
2 x EK-FC680 GTX+ Series - with 90 Degree Rotaries and 10mm ID Acrylic fast_fate
EK-FC Titan fast_fate
EK-FC Titan XXL Edition fast_fate

Koolance VID-NX580 fast_fate

Watercool HeatKiller GPU-X3 79X0 fast_fate
2 x Watercool HeatKiller GPU-X3 79X0 - Series fast_fate
2 x Watercool HeatKiller GPU-X3 79X0 - Parallel fast_fate
3 x Watercool HeatKiller GPU-X3 79X0 - Series fast_fate
3 x Watercool HeatKiller GPU-X3 79X0 - Parallel fast_fate
3 x Watercool HeatKiller GPU-X3 79X0 - Hybrid Flow - 1st block series, 2nd & 3rd blocks parallel fast_fate
4 x Watercool HeatKiller GPU-X3 79X0 - Parallel - fast_fate
4 x Watercool HeatKiller GPU-X3 79X0 - Semi - Parallel fast_fate

Radiator Restriction Tests

120mm Radiator Restriction Tests

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 100

Alphacool NexXxos Monsta 120 fast_fate

140mm Radiator Restriction Tests



EK CoolStream CE140 fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs Nemesis 140 GTS fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs Nemesis 140 GTX fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs SR2 140 Multi Port fast_fate ER
Phobya G-Changer 140mm fast_fate ER

240mm Radiator Restriction Tests



EK CoolStream XE240 fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs SR2 Multi-Port 240 fast_fate ER
XSPC AX240 fast_fate ER

280mm Radiator Restriction Tests



Alphacool Monsta 280 fast_fate ER
Alphacool ST30 280 fast_fate ER
Alphacool XT45 280 fast_fate ER
Alphacool UT60 280 fast_fate ER
EK Coolstream CE 280 fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs Nemesis 280 GTS fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs Nemesis 280 GTX fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs Nemesis 280 GTX X-Flow fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs SR2 280 Multi-Port fast_fate ER
XSPC AX280 fast_fate ER

360mm Radiator Restriction Tests

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), default quality

AlphaCool Eisbrecher Pro XT45 360mm fast_fate ER
AlphaCool Monsta 360mm fast_fate ER
AlphaCool ST30 360mm fast_fate ER
AlphaCool ST30 X-Flow 360mm fast_fate ER
AlphaCool UT60 360mm (White) fast_fate ER
AlphaCool XT45 360mm fast_fate ER
Aqua Computer AMS 360mm fast_fate ER
Aqua Computer Radical 2 360mm fast_fate ER
Bitspower Leviathan Slim 360mm fast_fate ER
Coolgate CG 360mm fast_fate ER
Coolgate G2 360mm fast_fate ER
EK CoolStream PE 360 fast_fate ER
EK CoolStream SE 360 fast_fate ER
EK CoolStream XE 360 fast_fate ER
EK CoolStream XTX360 fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs Alpha Black Ice® Xtreme III 360 fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs Black Ice GTX 360 fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs Nemesis 360GTS fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs Nemesis 360 GTS X-Flow fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs Nemesis 360GTS Vs HardwareLabs Nemesis 480GTS Restriction Test Comparison geggeg VSG TB
Hardware Labs Nemesis 360GTX fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs SR1 360 fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs SR2 & SR2 Multi-Port 360 fast_fate ER
Koolance HX-360XC 360 fast_fate ER
Koolance HX-CU1020V 360 fast_fate ER
Magicool 360 G2 Slim fast_fate ER
Mayhems Havoc 360 fast_fate ER
Phobya G-Changer 360 V2 fast_fate ER
Phobya G-Changer HPC 360mm fast_fate ER
Swiftech MCR320-QPK 360mm fast_fate ER
Swiftech MCR320-XP 360mm fast_fate ER
Watercool HTSF2 3x120 LT fast_fate ER
XSPC AX360 fast_fate ER
XSPC EX360 fast_fate ER
XSPC RX360 v2 fast_fate ER
XSPC RX360 V3 fast_fate ER

420mm Radiator Restriction Tests



EK CoolStream CE 420 fast_fate ER
Hardware Labs SR2 420 Multi-Port fast_fate ER

480mm Radiator Restriction Tests

560mm Radiator Restriction Tests

Radiator Thermal Tests



Alphacool UT60 - X-Flow Vs Regular flow fast_fate

HardwareLabs Nemesis 360GTS fast_fate
HardwareLabs Nemesis 360GTX fast_fate ER
HardwareLabs SR-1 360 fast_fate ER

XSPC RX360 V3 fast_fate ER

Miscellaneous Loop Component Restriction Tests

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 95 CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v80), quality = 95 CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 95 CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v80), quality = 95 CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), default quality CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), default quality CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), default quality CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 90

Anfi-tec PWM046 VRM/Mosfet Block for Rampage 4 Formula fast_fate
Aqua Computer Inline Filter with Stainless Steel Mesh fast_fate
Aqua Computer Flow Sensor "High Flow" fast_fate
Aqua Computer Flow Sensor MPS 100 with unbelievable calibration accuracy - fast_fate
Aqua Computer Flow Sensor MPS 200 fast_fate
Aqua Computer Flow Sensor MPS 200 Calibrating MPS 200 with 1/2" x 3/4 " Bitspower Compression fittings fast_fate
Aqua Computer Flow Sensor MPS 200 Modding an Aqua Computer MPS 200 to become an MPS 400+ fast_fate
Aqua Computer Flow Sensor MPS 400 fast_fate
Aqua Computer Flow Sensor MPS 400 Calibrating MPS 400 with 1/2" x 3/4 " Bitspower Compression fittings fast_fate
Aqua Computer Flow Sensor MPS 400 Calibrating MPS 400 with 1/2" x 3/4 " Bitspower Compression fittings Costa's Guide
Aqua Computer Flow Sensor MPS 400 MPS 400 custom calibration settings for Bitspower C47 fittings and 10mm acrylic Jakusonfire
Aqua Computer Flow Sensor MPS 400 Calibrating MPS 400 with 3/8" x 5/8 " Bitspower Compression fittings fast_fate
Bitspower BP-WBDM6AC-IRD RAM Block X6 fast_fate
EK-FB Kit RE4 CSQ fast_fate
EK-Mosfet ASUS RF4 (same as RIVE Mosfet block from EK-FB KIT RE4) fast_fate
EK-RAM Monarch X2 fast_fate
EK-RAM Monarch X4 fast_fate
Koolance INS-FM18D fast_fate
MIPS RAM Cooler 5 fast_fate

Assorted Components Flow Reduction Tests

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), default quality

Bitspower HDD Acrylic Liquid Cooling Block (BP-HDS350AC-MBK) Gabrielzm

EK Supremacy Clean CSQ block with D5 PWM pump at 60%, with 3/8 x 5/8 compression fittings Gabrielzm

EK Supremacy x MIPS IceForce blocks with D5 PWM pump at 60%, with 3/8 x 5/8 compression fittings Gabrielzm

120mm Fans - PWM vs. RPM
Free Standing readings please - and attached to rad if possible
thumbsupsmiley.png




Gentle Typhoon 1850 PWM - veryrarium
Gentle Typhoon 2150 PWM - WHIMington (attached to Alphacool XT45)
Gentle Typhoon 2150 PWM - Kokin

120mm Fans - Voltage vs. RPM
Free Standing readings please - with as many voltage/rpm readings if possible
thumbsupsmiley.png


140mm Fans - PWM vs. RPM
Free Standing readings please - and attached to rad if possible
thumbsupsmiley.png


CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v80), quality = 95 CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v80), quality = 90

Alpenfohn Wing Boost 140 - fast_fate (free standing and Push Only on EK CE140mm) also with CFM
EK Vardar F3-140ER PWM - fast_fate (free standing and Push Only on EK CE140mm) also with CFM
thumb.gif

Noctua NF-A14 IndustrialPPC-2000 IP67 PWM - fast_fate (free standing and Push Only on EK CE140mm)
NoiseBlocker PK-PS 140mm - fast_fate (free standing and Push Only on EK CE140mm) also with CFM

140mm Fans - Voltage vs. RPM
Free Standing readings please - with as many voltage/rpm readings if possible
thumbsupsmiley.png
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: bond32
#3 ·
Always

Here you will find our collection of other indexes, linked to posts in the thread, other stuff that could be useful or just interesting
tongue.gif


Got not idea what the numbers & charts mean or how the info is gathered, BUT what to know more.
@stren has some great info on this exact topic in the N00b's Corner of Xtreme Rigs.
How to read a Pressure/Flow/Restriction Plot is a must read
thumb.gif


@Unicr0nhunter spotted this vid and shared the link in post # 322
As Unicr0nhunter says "This guy does a pretty good job explaining these stats, how they are compiled, and what their practicality / usefulness is"
So worth a watch, good link Uhunter
thumb.gif

 
  • Rep+
Reactions: bond32
#5 ·
This is great man. The new arrangement looks much better than before. I wish you weren't in the wild west so I could help contribute.
I have a couple of inline flow meters on the way.

If you are interested I could send you one of my MPS 400 flow meters for some testing. I'm mainly interested in the pressure drop as compared to the mechanical models.
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakusonfire View Post

This is great man. The new arrangement looks much better than before. I wish you weren't in the wild west so I could help contribute.
I have a couple of inline flow meters on the way.

If you are interested I could send you one of my MPS 400 flow meters for some testing. I'm mainly interested in the pressure drop as compared to the mechanical models.
I've completed all the tests for the Aqua Computer Flow Sensor "High Flow"
Have to arrange the photos and do a write up - hopefully by tomorrow
rolleyes.gif

As a sneak peak I made up a chart for it earlier


I have an MPS200 that was ordered by mistake - should have got the 400.
I want to put the Koolance meters I have on next for their pressure drop tests, then I'll put the MPS 200 on.

Happy to put your 400 on the test bed - PM me if you want to arrange.

I have another King Flow meter in hand already, it has a 0 - 1 gpm scale which might come in handy for some low flow testing.
and a 0 - 5.0 gpm which has not arrived yet.

What did you end up getting, I knew you were interested in getting something for inline
thumb.gif
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: bond32
#7 ·
Today I tried out some of the new test equipment for the first time.



As the Aqua Computer Flow Sensor "high Flow" was already on the set up, that is what was tested
thumbsupsmiley.png


CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v80), quality = 95

The maximum flow rate was achieved by upping the voltage on both pumps slightly to get as close as possible to the pumps 2.0 amp rating.
The data points collected from 0.35 to 2.0 gpm flow rate were taken with a single pump running after which the second pump was switched on.
Handy that I made the breakout box with switches for each of the 0 - 30 volt, 3 amp channels on the power supply
biggrin.gif




The Aqua Computer was noticeably noisy to me at flow rates above 2.0 gpm - well above what most systems would ever be running at.
With the flow rate at 1 gpm I could not hear the sensor turning over above the sound of the pump.
thumb.gif


So here we have the Pressure Drop test results.

First a table with data points collected, which was transferred into chart format.
I chose to leave the chart with the data points taken rather than exponentiate the curve.
This does show up what are most likely minor interpretation error in reading the flow meter, but I think it keeps it real
tongue.gif


NOTE: the lowest flow rate that the Dwyer 490-3 could detect a difference in pressure was at 0.35 gpm, but it looked odd on the chart so I did not include that data point.
I could get the flow lower, down lower 0.35 gpm which gave a DP reading of 0.
Below 0.30 gpm I think created some kind of vacuum around the pressure tube take offs as I was getting a minus psi reading.



I took pics of the flow meter and manometer readings at each data collection point during the test.
I did adjust the height of tripod for the camera for each shot to get a level picture of the flow meter - but ir is possible that they are slightly off.


























 
  • Rep+
Reactions: bond32
#9 ·
I have a cheap 1-6 LPM model coming because that is the range I was most interested in. I will do some manual testing first to see if it can be accurate enough to use. If not I'll get the real deal.

The first results look great. You know you are doing it right when you can replicate Martins results. Looking forward to the Koolance results. I'm gonna go out on a limb and still bet that they are higher.

I'll contact you about getting an MPS 400 to you. It'll be great to be able to compare the 200 and 400.
 
#13 ·
Thank You all for the encouragement
thumb.gif


The Koolance INS-FM18D results now being sorted through and will be posted shortly.
CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 90

I wonder what it will show us
thinking.gif
 
#14 ·
Today on the Test Bench we saw the Koolance INS-FM18D Flow Meter.

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 90

This was put on to give us some flow restriction data to compare directly against the Aqua Computer Flow Sensor "High Flow" which was on the bench yesterday.

I actually have two of these Koolance units, (which is why this one has a #2 sticker on it) and from my previous (somewhat flawed) testing I thought that this one was the most accurately calibrated.
At some stage I'll put the other one on to give us even more results to compare
wink.gif

I also thought that the Koolance meters were less restrictive than the Aqua Computer version tested.
I'll try to put those previous testing results / theories to the back of my mind and let the new data do the talking.

The test bench set up is identical for this test as it was for the AC test - the beauty of this test set up is the ease with which I can swap things around as needed
wink.gif

While the set up and and testing method is exactly the same I did not take photos of each reading.
I found it to be a bit time consuming and to be honest I thought you guys would find it boring and unnecessary
The same info in the pics is documented in my notebook and then magically turned into a chart - so unless you guys request the pics I won't be doing it from here on in
wink.gif




A few notes before the data....
I found the Koolance much less audible that the AC one, if I leant right up to it I could hear it spinning away, otherwise I could not detect the noise it made.
I knew we had something interesting in the making when I started the pump/s for bleeding air out of the system prior to the test starting.
I let the system run up for at least 5 minutes, but in reality the system is bled within 30 seconds
tongue.gif

Where was I - oh yeah, when I kicked in the second pump the King Flow Meter indicator hit the stopper at the top, it had run out of scale.
What does that tell us I wonder
questionmark.gif


and to the data collected and converted.....





Now while it was not in the scope of the test I just couldn't help but check the Koolance meter's calibration against the King Instrument Flow Meter.

To get the calibration readings I adjusted the flow with the 1/2" tap to match a point on the scale of the King Instruments Flow Meter.
Then I noted what the Koolance flow meter was reading.
The Koolance flow meter only displays lpm readings so I used an online converter to get the US gpm conversion.
The Koolance Flow Meter displays readings only every 0.3 or 0.4 lpm, NOT every decimal place.
On a few readings it wouldn't stabilize so on those data points I split the difference for the conversion to gpm.

This unit seems pretty well calibrated all the way up and down the scale...
It seems as though the units could be calibrated for higher flow than we use though - maybe.
the readings are near on identical for all the data points from 1.5 gpm upwards.
The data points below 1.5 gpm are not too far off and I wouldn't be too concerned about the minor calibration differences that it sems to have in the low flow range.

EDIT - Put my #1 Koolance INS-FM18D flow meter on the test set up to compare the two.
As suspected the restriction was not really effected at least not below the 2 GPM mark - above 2 GPM there was some slight increase in restriction compared to the #2 meter - but not worth charting.
What I have charted and provided info on is how differently calibrated the 2 identical Koolance meters are.
Due to not being able to calibrate these meters (that I know of atm) it is luck of the draw of out the box, with the average user not having a way to check h0ow accurate their meter actually is
redface.gif

Again nothing to worry about in the average water cooling loop - but interesting.





and the point of this test was to compare right ??
so here's the comparison chart
thumb.gif


It's obvious to see the Koolance flow meter is less restrictive, which gets exaggerated the higher the flow rate becomes.
With this data in mind the question we need to ask ourselves is....
will 0.1 or 0.2 psi (at our water cooling flow rates of 0.75 - 1.5 gpm) make a difference to our overall system flow rate ?
Probably not, so choosing one or the other would come down to other things I'm not going to delve into here...
But things to consider would be, availability, cost, accuracy, user calibration

 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Aenra
#15 ·
Nicely done mate
thumb.gif
Totally agree on the choice of the flow meter been based on those considerations. Am I correct to assume that the Aquacomputer can be calibrated to your own loop while the koolance is a out of the box solution with no such capability?

cheers
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabrielzm View Post

Nicely done mate
thumb.gif
Totally agree on the choice of the flow meter been based on those considerations. Am I correct to assume that the Aquacomputer can be calibrated to your own loop while the koolance is a out of the box solution with no such capability?

cheers
Correct
thumb.gif

Koolance is an out of the box calibrated unit, although I think I saw Darlene calibrating hers somewhere in the EK Ascendacy Community test thread - so I guess if software can use it's rpm or pulse data it may yet evolve to be calibratable
As it is right now though I think it's luck of the draw on how accurate it reads, we'll see that in action when I put the other Koolance unit on.
I doubt that any flow change or DP reading difference will be detected, but a think the calibration difference will be shown.

The Aqua Computer flow meters can be user calibrated.
I did experiment a little while it was on the test set up yesterday.
But I still have some more things I want to try out so I didn't post any info about that - yet
tongue.gif

What I found and need to confirm with more tests is contrary to what others have advised - set a PPL calibration to a know value such as a timed flow run and they'll be good to go.
Well I don't think so, and it is what was really confusing me with me older testing (along with identical Koolance flow meters which appear to be calibrated differently)
My initial calibration testing done yesterday with the AC sensor I found the calibration accuracy starts drifting way off as you move further away from the point / flow rate you calibrate at.
The default value appears to be for a very high flow rate - upwards of 3 gpm
Hose sizing should not matter for PPL calibration value as it is the amount of fluid passing through the sensor and turning the paddle wheel that gives a signal.
I think that RPM of the paddle wheel will be the best way of calibrating the AC sensors, as it can be done without any other equipment (just a means of reading a fan rpm - controller or motherboard header and i fan connector)
I'll come back to this later as it is something that annoyed me for weeks.
But as I said the rpm method does work perfectly well, and accurately.
 
#17 ·
#18 ·
Today I added another flow sensor's restriction data into the information vault.
This time up for testing was another Aqua Computer Flow Sensor, this time the....
drum.gif


MPS flow 200

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v80), quality = 95



This sensor is designed for low flow systems with a working range of approximately 40 - 200 liters per hour / 11 - 53 US liquid gallons per hour
OR approximately 0.2 gpm to 0.9 gpm

I had a glance down the inside of the MPS 200 and prior to putting it on for testing.
It narrows down the water flow path quite a bit from the ID of a G1/4 fitting port, so I was kind of suspicious that it might be a bit restrictive - but you never know right
tongue.gif


I can get a "feel" now how something is going to perform as soon as the pumps are turned on for bleeding air from the system prior to testing.
Where the King flow meter indicator jumps to is kind of a give away
biggrin.gif


And my suspicions from the visual inspection wasn't too far wrong.
The comparison chart at the bottom does show the MPS Flow 200 to be the most restrictive flow meter tested so far.
To put a little perspective on it.....remember that it's reading range is supposed to be a maximum of around 0.9 GPM
I would imagine the vast majority of MPS flow meters sold are the MPS 400, becuase of it's more suitable range - 0.35 gpm up to 1.77 GPM.

So - he restriction of the MPS 200 will not be noticed at all in systems which have the low flow levels that this sensor is designed for.

I only hope that the MPS 400 is not as restrictive and with a bit of luck and some help I'll be able to show some data on that unit in the near future
thumb.gif


Here's some numbers from the MPS 200 restriction tests.





and the comparison chart with the 2 other flow meters tested thus far



EDIT - forgot to add the pic of the MPS 200 on the bench
rolleyes.gif
 
#19 ·
Ha...Two things: 1) readings from the two koolance units are inline with previous dirty nails results of time bucket correct? I mean, one seems to be very well calibrated the other is off... Nice to have confirmation coming from proper tools
thumb.gif
2) I would never expect that from the MPS but coming to think of it it might be the case that the MPS 200 have a smaller internal diameter that the mps 400. Is either that or a different board (internally) I would think. Would be definitely be nice to have the data for the mps 400. Have 2 incoming from US and would certainly lend you one but will take a month to get here and who known how much to get to you to Australia.... I can only hope now that restriction in the mps 400 is not like in the mps 200.

good work fast_fate
cheers.gif


edit - on closer inspection it seems the green one is better calibrated at higher flows while the blue one at lower flows...
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabrielzm View Post

Ha...Two things: 1) readings from the two koolance units are inline with previous dirty nails results of time bucket correct? I mean, one seems to be very well calibrated the other is off... Nice to have confirmation coming from proper tools
thumb.gif
2) I would never expect that from the MPS but coming to think of it it might be the case that the MPS 200 have a smaller internal diameter that the mps 400. Is either that or a different board (internally) I would think. Would be definitely be nice to have the data for the mps 400. Have 2 incoming from US and would certainly lend you one but will take a month to get here and who known how much to get to you to Australia.... I can only hope now that restriction in the mps 400 is not like in the mps 200.

good work fast_fate
cheers.gif


edit - on closer inspection it seems the green one is better calibrated at higher flows while the blue one at lower flows...
Yep - Identical units, one seems calibrated at 0.5 gpm while the other at 1.5 gpm.
And yes, it was nice to confirm that I wasn't being a total dumb-ass with my testing before - just not good enough to post results in a thread like this.

Jak is also expecting a couple MPS 400 meters, with some luck we'll get some data from one of those.
Very kind of him to offer a loan of one of them so we can get some data
thumb.gif

Waiting for his order to arrive atm I think.

I have no idea on the difference between the MPS 200 and MPS 400.
Pretty sure they are a differential pressure meter though.
So If I had to guess what the difference between the two was. I would say that the ID is different, and has the same DP unit inside.
It will just have a different DP reading because more fluid is allowed to pass through center of the two take off points for DP calculation and conversion in flow rates.

If that turns out to be the case, I can possible do some porting on my MPS 200 and convert them into MPS 400 units.
The possibility of a custom MPS 300 or MPS 350 could even exist as most likely could "tune" them depending on the ID size that is ported to - maybe ??
 
#22 ·
Subbed.

Because, science!
 
#23 ·
I wanted to see how the test rig would adapt to a CPU block
thinking.gif

So this morning I put on a.....

MIPS IceForce HF

for a round of restriction testing



and I would have to say the rig adapted very well indeed
thumbsupsmiley.png


Only difference from previous tests done on the flow meters was on either side of the Differential Pressure take off adaptors
removed the male/male rotatary fittings
and replaced with 1/2" x 3/4" hose and Bitspower fittings .
Easy
biggrin.gif




As with the previous test, I knew we had something going with this test as soon as the pumps were kicked in for bleeding the system before test began.
This time was though I was surprised in a good way.
I knew the IceForce was a low restriction block but I wasn't quite expecting it to have results as low as this.




I was so impressed with the flow reading I decided to take a set of pics at the 1.2 GPM mark to show you
wink.gif




So there you have it, the first in a series of CPU block restriction tests I'm going to be doing.
Until some some tests are done and we have some results to compare this IceForce test may not mean much.
BUT I'm willing to bet that none of the other blocks I have will come close to being as free flowing as the MIPS.
It's such a shame that they are no longer producing, so this piece of data is one for the archives
tongue.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipsofthemud View Post

Amazing thread! Subbed and going to keep an eye on the updates
smile.gif
Thank you very much
thumb.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wihglah View Post

Subbed, Because, science!
Thanks for tuning in fella's - be sure to shout out what's on your mind.
Feedback + or - is always welcomed
thumb.gif
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: bond32
#24 ·
Subbed for sure. Great info!
 
#25 ·
Got a chance to put another CPU block on the rig this morning.
This time an....

EK Supreme HF



I used what I believe to be Jet plate #6 - the one at the bottom in the pic below.
This one came out after the block was released and supposed to best for LGA2011 - if not all sockets.



Set up exactly the same as it was for the previous MIPS Iceforce block.
Nothing different, nothing new.

So straight into it with the data then shall we.
First the data collection points table.
With this pump station and the minimal test equipment in the loop the maximum flow I was able to achieve was 2.84 gpm.
That was with both pumps just under the maximum 2.0 amps for the pumps, unable to go higher so the pumps were at 100% output.
This is further evidence why I believe this dual D5 top from Bitspower doesn't cut the mustard.
To be honest 75% of why I started doing the tests was to see if the pump set-up was going to be sufficient for my Salive8 build - suppose I should really do the flow vs pressure on the top.
The lower flow rate does not effect these test in any way, just limits the maximum flow rate at which I can collect data.
and - If you have a system flow, or cpu only loop above 2.5 gpm then in my opinion the loop is not being run very efficiently
tongue.gif




and now the data converted into a chart for your viewing pleasure
biggrin.gif




And as previously predicted the IceForce is much less restrictive.
Not to say the the Supreme HF is a restrictive block - it's a middle of the range block as far as restriction goes.
Maybe it's not fair to compare the two against each other side by side
smile.gif


 
  • Rep+
Reactions: bond32
#26 ·
that mips blocks is amazing. But the other part of the equation would be real heat dissipation capability. Never saw any review of the mips block perhaps because I am using lga 2011 and the mips does not mount on this plataform. Have you seen any comparison of the mips against other blocks in terms of heat dissipation performance. Nice fast_fate keep it coming
thumb.gif