...water to momentarily stagnate and fully absorb the heat
 

..What is wrong with the above headline?

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...36&articID=188

That statement goes against everything ive learned here (especially the thread about flow thru the radiator - geez)

Am i just not getting it or what? :shrug:

Someone trying to explain something that he doesnt understand.

Why? To try to look BIG.

The lad didn't even bother to research either. He quotes the silver TDX as being Sterling Silver (92.5%), when really it's pure fine silver (~99.995%). Quite an insult really.

I wouldn't have called the TDX especially malleable either. It's like at some point a shotgun is loaded with impressive-sounding words and fired into that fellow's reviews without regard to their appropriateness.

Methinks they doth need a better editing process.

Ignore the words, look at the pictures - nice macro work there. :)

Well, there is a grain of truth there but the way it is used makes it ridiculous.
It is tru that the longer the time of contact between metal and coolants molecule the more thermal energy it absorbes but this only applies at molecular level. If one considers a system as a whole it is quite the opposite since the higher dT the better results overall :).

I liked the shotgun comparison, afterall a proper reviwe needs to sound very 'techie' and use sophisticated expressions, right?

I need my own little review website so I can create my own little reality.

"I like X waterblock because the water stagnates so long it boils, and everyone knows that phase change is better..."

"all conspire to give us a water-block epitomizing efficiency in its design"
They conspire, and they will be executed for treason.

"ensures heat absorption is thorough"
I'm glad the waterblock knows what it is doing.

" the Black Ice Extreme radiator removed heat from the water by virtue of 2x120mm Sunon 92CFM fans in push/pull"
At least the fans are virtuous and not being conspirators like the fins and cups.

"Danger Den has given us a malleable and highly effective cooling solution in the TDX"
I dont think anyone wants to test its malleability, or they'll be out of a pretty expensive little piece of copper.

I'm also surprised his bay res hasnt leaked on him. I dont think anyone told him that if you put zip ties on a barb, you have to put it under the barb on the flat part... Cause that is what kinda keeps the tube from coming off... right.

I'm not sure how review sites work, but I am under the understanding that reviewers recieve free "gifts" from companies who want their products reviewed. I guess that just screams for a little ass kissing to get more free stuff. I did not see a single positive/negative comparison on any aspect of the block's design, construction, ect. I guarentee that I could find even a single nit-picky problem with anything I have, and I think that even the smallest flaw deserves attention to put the positive things into perspective. Did he even show some pics or test the flatness of the base?

Well, I'm glad he got his waterblock and review.

http://www.madshrimps.be/forums/atta...=&postid=65680

heh - was away for a few hours and 8 comments on it - so im not insane after all :rolleyes:

I was just surprised to see this at Madshrimps - it seems like a pretty sensible review-site overall :shrug:

edit - im sorry, i just had to add this little gem :D

"Another insightful engineering aspect of the block, is its effective use of gravity. The block, once properly mounted, has the outlet at its base. Motherboards with their socket mounted horizontally, will certainly benefit even more from the TDX." :cry: :D

I think Liquid3D is improving -- in this episode of 'Eat a thesaurus, vomit it on the web' he only inflicted four pages upon the world, as opposed to the seven of the RBX article. If the trend continues, the next Danger Den block will be burdened with a single page.

I http://www.monster911.com/bigwords/1.gif think that everyone can http://www.monster911.com/bigwords/2.gif see that the article is written http://www.monster911.com/bigwords/3.gif in good faith, but that the editing is handled http://www.monster911.com/bigwords/4.gif badly -allowing the often http://www.monster911.com/bigwords/5.gif confusing use of http://www.monster911.com/bigwords/6.gif big words. These detract from the review, because they are often http://www.monster911.com/bigwords/7.gif used incorrectly. I don't http://www.monster911.com/bigwords/8.gif think this is jmke's fault, as English is not his http://www.monster911.com/bigwords/9.gif first language, but he should look into getting another editor to read the articles over before they are posted.

There must be an English Major somewhere in your community.

methinks they doth need writers who arent dumb

WHO CARES about the "big words"?
They would be fine if the statements in the review were actually accurate.
Honestly, i find the inaccuracies to be as omnipresent in the review as big words are.
Statements like this:
since you didnt test with both, and see if there was a difference, this statement is nonsense. And thats just one example.

the author is a big fan of this site as you can see :rolleyes:
http://www.truextreme.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32140

I spotted what was wrong with that review so fast... "Author: Liquid3D" He seems to hate the idea of using normal words in a logical review. What site isn't related with the maker of the Cascade? He's on almost every site! Bitching about Bill Adams would be more effective, but equally stupid...

Huh?

Oh - the TrueXtreme thread....

I wasn't even aware I was a member at that forum. The membership must be carried over from another forum's membership base.

yea I think it's a shared db with xtremesystems.

I find it ironic that the watercoolplanet test bench would be held up as the standard I should be working towards.

I also don't understand how a person's history of chemical dependence is relevant to the testing of waterblocks.

My literary tastes (for pleasure reading) run to the obscure and sometimes needlessly wordy. I don't see the need to carry that vocabulary over to a waterblock review for a group of hobbyists though.

I can't seem to find the thread but I am the one that told him to stop reviewing untill he could do it more correctly. His setup is just terrible. The comp sits on the floor by the window from the last pics I seen. You can get a 1-5C temp change in seconds.

Also no flow rate test. A flow rate test is the ONLY way you can varify the performace of the blocks. You have to test each block AT THE SAME FLOWRATE. You can't just put a block in a system and then put a different block in the system and think you can define which block is better. Each block has different restrictions. One block with a VIA2600 may get .5GPM through the loop and another block may get 1GPM through the loop. How on earth can you possible tell that one block is better than the other when there is a .5GPM difference in flow rates?

Well I digress....

P.S. I also think it is ironic pH is being called biased towards the Cascade, yet there is no credible evidence ANYWHERE to prove it. The ironic part is this guy claims to be a reviewer yet can't do the tests to prove pH is biased. :rolleyes:

pH is not biased BTW IMO.

I should send him my own cascade to test. The results probably wouldn't be conclusive, but then he'd have to start kissing my ass since I'd have supplied him w/ a product.


"pHaestus most magnanimously provided the peerless cascade waterblock for this intrepid and loquacious liberator of waterblock performance data to peruse dilligently and steadfast."

What a load of crap.
He calims we are all biased, but he doesnt refute any of the glaring errors that we have pointed out.
PFFFFFFFFT.

easier to claim 'bias' than to get a technical education

I started the thread on reviewing review sites after reading his angst bs,
would send him a MCW6000 but I'm concerned that he will make it fit his expectations
- rather than just reporting the results

Reading the "I h8 Procooling!!!11!" thread I had a thought of something that might help the review process here. I'm referring particularly to Holst's comments where he says that the kind of roundup Procooling does is "fairly pointless" because it is difficult to decipher.

I hadn't noticed that, probably because I have the ability to interpret a graph, but when I went back and looked over a couple procooling reviews, I realized that if you didn't understand some of the watercooling concepts that we consider basic (for example: waterblock A might perform better than waterblock B in system X, but in system Y it might be the other way around) the graphs would be meaningless and someone new to WCing could be confused and therefore turned off. Sites of lesser repute show temperatures, incorrect as they may be, and to the "newbie" those are easier to interpret and apply (again incorrectly) to their own setup as presumed results.

I think that a quick paragraph added into all new reviews explaining how the relationship between DeltaT and Flow rate is important and how to interpret the graphs could help a greater number of people understand and benefit from the reviews.

Balefire on the plane today I started working on a page for the site dedicated to my testing goals, equipment, and methodology. It will explain my rationale for doing things the way I do and will be updated as I change equipment over time. Should hopefully finish it up this week sometime.

I have a lot of work to do at WORK though and so may put Procooling somewhat on back burner as I get a couple of projects written up and sent out for publication (stupid tenure process messing w/ important hobby time).

I'm just a little baffled by the accusations of bias though.

In every review that I've seen posted by the guy, he's made more than casual passing references to the Cascade, and declaring how some block or other is doing something a lot better than the way that the Cascade does it.

To my knowledge he's never owned or used a Cascade, yet somehow it always seems to find its way into his reviews being described in negative terms.

Makes me wonder if he was one of the 30 or so reviewers who asked me for a free review sample of whom I turned down, and now this is some sort of payback.... He certainly seems to go out of his way to single me out in his rant. If there's any bias here, surely it is coming from his side only.