Resorator 2 and UPS Overall impression is that the device cools adequately both CPU and GPU--and silently. Only one issue: the system to which the Resorator 2 is connected is on an UPS (actually, monitors and other critical peripherals are attached to one UPS; the CPU and Resorator are attached to to their own dedicated UPS (APC XS 1000)). System PS is an Antec Neo 550 HE. When the UPS switches to battery (eg in a system test) CPU continues on withut a hitch; the Resorator 2 pump stops, cannot be reset via the switch goes into alarm mode--shuts down. CPU stays up. Be almost better not to have any UPS at all (I can usually shut the system down b/4 CPU temp exceeds 50 C, but not ideal scenario.) Resorator 2 has been place on several UPS with no change in behaviour; if it's placed n AC power (CPU on the UPS) no issues. Power everything off and back on--evrything OK. Seems like the pump/relay detect the AC shift to battery (waveform change?) and shuts off. Doesn't seem related to the DC from the system PS--only happens when the Respsrator itself switches over to battery. Any ideas?
It's because of the waveform change. The UPS is using a simulated sine wave which is actually square and the motor in the pump doesn't like that so it causes it to stop running. I'd set the UPS to shut the PC down after 30 seconds and call it a day unless you want to lay out the cash for a true sine wave UPS but that's a huge expense. You might also look into running an external pump in the PC off the PSU (Swiftech MCP355 springs to mind) and pulling the internal pump out completely. This is the cheapest alternative to buying a true sine wave UPS and will help improve performance. Just be aware that you'll need to lessen the mix ratio of the coolant, the mix that Zalman recommends is a bit thick and will foul your pump in time. I'd suggest taking out 1/3 of the mix in the Reserator 2 and replacing it with straight distilled water.
Resorator 2 and UPS Madmat--thanks for confirming my suspicions re: the waveform change! I'm now looking at replacing the stock Eheim pump, and--per your suggestion-- have been looking at the Swiftech MCP35X series: Swiftech says the MCP355 is noisy relative to the MCP350, so was considering the latter instead (as reducing noise levels was a goal when I built this machine). Looks like either model would be an improvement over the stock pump. Think there would be any issues with water pressure and the stock Zalman components with either of these models? One other question: I'm quite new to this water cooling thing: any tips for removing the pump from the Resorator? .....Thanks.
Well, I haven't worked with the Reserator 2 so I have no earthly idea how it comes apart. Read your manual is all I can say. The Reserator 1V2 is pretty simple, the base unscrews although you need two full grown men and a small boy to get it loose and god forbid that you over tighten it putting it back in. The MCP3XX series of pumps are very well capable of dealing with the Zalman water blocks. It has 8 times the head of the stock pump. The blocks will be fine, they're pretty decent so don't sweat that. Good luck!
Resorator 2 and UPS From what I have been able to determine from the various forums (the Resorator 2 manual does not--unlike the manuals for earlier product verisons--explain pump removal--just external pump placement) the R2 pump comes out in a manner simlar to the earlier ones. The main difference is the power cable routing. So assuming its like the Reserator 1V2-- would you just pluck it out, no need to plug anything-up, etc.? From the pics I've seen, looks like that would work. Some folks have discussed serial pump placement (keeping the internal pump), but that doesn't seem like a good idea--
Where does the power cord enter the area the pump is in? The R 1V2 came with a plug for the cord pass-thru.
Resorator 2 and UPS It enters in from the top--snakes under the reservoir fill cover, and runs down the inside of the reservoir. So there is no power cord plug in the base-- I'm thinking that one may not even need to remove the base--just use a long phillips to unscrew the bracket that holds the pump in place, and pull it out. What is confusing is the flow path. Per the diagram in the manual: Resorator IN>>>H2O Pump>>>Heat sink>>>Flow Indicator>>>Resorator OUT Not how tis routing is accomplished with the pump gone. Haven't gotten my MCP350 yet, so I haven't begun ripping things apart--this is mainly speulation from the pics I've seen.
Here's a late observation - I think you would've done us a favor by mentioning a few more specifics about the materials used (in the Reserator itself, mainly) and the consequences associated with them. The Reserator appears to be made entirely from aluminum, but you don't specifically say. The GPU block is made from aluminum, the Reserator itself, judging from the outside appearance and the shot of the reservoir, appears to be made from aluminum. Yet the CPU block is copper. Double-you tee eff? Sure, copper is better at transferring heat that aluminum, but if they'd made the CPU block from aluminum, there'd be only one metal present in the entire loop, meaning that corrosion is no longer a worry. Not having to worry about corrosion would have some big advantages: 1) No anti-corrosion goop (or at least a LOT less). This saves money, reduces setup complexity, increases coolant performance and may increase pump/block life (based on Matt's note that it actually gummed up one of his pumps). 2) No gold-plating on the CPU block. Saves money on the gold-plating and the copper. 3) Possibly less frequent maintenance. I don't know what kind of performance hit the system would suffer with an aluminum CPU block vs. a copper CPU block, or how much less the unit would cost using all aluminum components, or what the performance improvement would be with more water and less goo. But I have a feeling it might add up to a better value for the customer.
Yes the Reserator is aluminum but it's anodized inside and out. Also, a bare copper block would be less reactive than gold plated copper. The more noble the metal the higher the reactivity with aluminum. I don't understand why they plate them at all myself.
Resorator 2 and UPS madmat, back to the R2 pump removal: are you of the opinion that (assuming the R2 is like earlier models) the pump can simply be removed, and (provided the new pump is placed on the R2 In side (per the manual)) water flow would be correct? I would have to assume that there is channeling inside the block to direct water thru the radiator (heat sink) once the pump is gone. I's hate to pull this all apart only to find that Zalman did not intend for tihe R2 to operate w/o an internal pump; as noted they do talk about adding an external pump, but not about removing the internal pump (almost implying you keep the internal one). I've compared the R2 and earlier manuals and they differ on this point....
If the pump wiring doesn't route out the base I'd just chop the wire and remove the pump. They have to intend for pump replacement in the event it fails and no, you won't put the new pump in the R2 since it's not designed to be submersed. It has to go inline.
Matt pointed out that unless your new pump is submersible, in should be attached externally, leaving a void where the original pump is (possibly). You seem concerned that this may cause water to flow in the wrong direction, so I wanted to specifically say that you won't have a problem in this regard. Even if you were to hook up your external pump incorrectly, (with the pump outlet going to the 'out' point on the Reserator) there would still be flow through the loop. Even in the worse case, where there is no single, continuous route through the radiator AND you mess up the tubing, you'd still have flow. Applying a pressure difference in a closed loop will always generate flow, so unless Zalman decided to put a one-way valve in there somewhere, (which would be far beyond stupid) you'll be fine.
Resorator 2 and UPS NicePants42--you've addressed my concern alomst exactly: I've ordered an external pump (MCP350), and don't intend to install it internally. This is the orginal flow path: Resorator IN>>>H2O Pump>>>Heat sink>>>Flow Indicator>>>Resorator OUT it will be modified as follows: H2O Pump>>>Resorator IN>>>Heat sink>>>Flow Indicator>>>Resorator OUT My concern is that given this new flow path, it seems like water entering the reservoir will need to build significant pressure in the reservoir b/4 it will be forced thru the radiator, and I'm not certain the chamber was designed for that. Currently, water is forced in the reservoir due to the pressure in the closed loop (as you described)--essentially this is the final 'stage' of the flow process; the submerged pump then draws the water in again, forces in back into the radiator, repeating the cycle. I could be entirely wrong about the pressure issue in the reservoir--have to get a little 'empirical data' to be sure...
Please don't plumb it that way. Water pumps don't pull water well, trying to pull the water all the way through the R2 and your loop will really hurt it. Instead run the R2 output to the inlet on the pump and from there into the loop and back into the input on the R2. The loop will still be closed you'll just have the pump on the outside of it is all.
Looking at the specs of the Reserator pump vs. the MCP350, you're removing a pump with 3' max head pressure and replacing it with a pump with 13' max head pressure. You are going to have zero problems creating enough pressure to create flow. I realize that it seems like there's a lot of water in that reservoir, and moving seems like it'd take a lot of energy, but in a closed loop the water returns to where it started, meaning that for every foot that the pump has to push water up, the pump can 'relax' as gravity pulls that water back down. So even a very small amount of pressure (i.e. the stock pump with only 3' head) is enough to create adequate flow. With 13' of head, you could probably power 3 Reserators. There is no cause for worry as long as you route your tubes in a complete closed loop. Edit: I assume that the internal reservoir is between the IN port on the R2 and stock pump inlet. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. If this is the case, an argument could be made that having the pump pull water OUT from the R2 IN (the reservoir) might keep the pump better fed. The pump outlet would then go to the blocks and then return to the R2 OUT. I don't think it matters that much though since the loop is closed and the impedance is pretty constant.
Resorator 2 and UPS That is the way he manual depicts it: the external pump is between the VGA H2O block and the Resorator 2 IN....I'm assuming they want the output of the pump pushing directly into the R2... Would be somewhat consistent with the current flow: Resorator IN>>>H2O Pump>>>Heat sink What you are suggesting is basically the same as: H2O Pump>>>Resorator IN>>> except the water blocks intervene between the pump and R2: H2O Pump>>>H20 blocks>>>Resorator IN>>>Heat sink>>>Flow Indicator>>>Resorator OUT>>>H2O Pump
If you've got a diagram in the instructions for mounting an external pump, you aren't going to mess anything up by following it. However, that diagram probably assumes that the internal pump is still installed and operational. Since that is not the case, you may get better performance (not necessarily noticeably better) by looking at the loop as individual components (splitting the R2 into reservior and radiator) and re-examining the best way to set it up. In a custom loop, the order of components generally doesn't matter except that it's always best to have the reservoir feeding the pump directly, so that the pump is never choked off - (i.e. you want the pump chamber to be completely filled with coolant on every stroke/rotation). Since the reservoir in this loop is (presumably) attached to the R2 IN, this is what should feed the pump's inlet. Now, since plugging the pump outlet back into the R2 would close the loop, you need need to attach the pump outlet to the blocks first, and then the blocks into the R2 OUT, which is the radiator. This (again, presumably) will channel the water through the radiator and dump it near the top of the reservoir, which feeds the pump, completing the loop. All of this may be overly technical considering that we're dealing with a passive solution - any (small) flow benefit gained by arranging the loop this way will be made even less noticeable because this loop is designed for silence over performance. Any way you set it up will work with an MCP350.
I've read the manual and it says in on both lines coming from the R2 so that's a pointless argument. If you look at the little diagram it shows the line coming from the R2 going to the input on the pump and the output from the pump going to the PC. Don't believe it? The input on every pump but the MCP 350 comes in on the horizontal axis and the output leaves on the vertical axis. The line coming from the R2 goes into the pump's horizontal axis and the line from the vertical axis is going to the PC. And NP42, you'd think it wouldn't make a difference but I've run into it myself and the input to the pump needs to have the least resistance possible.
So the reservoir needs to be feeding the pump - do you know which port on the R2 connects to the reservoir? I'm assuming it's the IN, since I'd think it'd be best to have the coolant fill the reservoir before entering the pump, but I haven't ever seen the internals. Comments on my previous recommendation on the setup?
The in would most likely be straight from the reservoir since the stock setup has the output from the stock pump feeding it's output straight into the flow meter then out to the PC. I once put together a loop with the reservoir feeding into my rads and the rads going into the input on the pump. You'd think it wouldn't make any difference since the pump is pushing water back into the reservoir but oddly enough the pump clattered all to hell and gone and it barely had any flow. I switched it around to where the pump ran straight off the reservoir and it went from loud as hell and barely any flow to nice and quiet and strong flow.
