[pHaestus]

Les about the testing methods comment:

I must have somehow managed to lose a few sentences somewhere along the line of revising this article. Here's what is in the article:

"This procedure has been used throughout all testing, but my thoughts on how to best characterize variability and reproducibility have somewhat changed. My initial philosophy was to simply repeat the above tests 10 times and record an average and standard deviation. In principle, this works well enough. I also found it sensible to throw away anomalously bad results (1-2C higher than normal) as being due to user error in mounting. What I found in some cases, though, was that a single test run would give anomalously good results (that PERFECT mount is a bit like the fish that got away). "

Here's what's missing:
"To account for this, I have somewhat modified my testing approach to make the reported results closer to the best performance that I can reproducibly achieve with a given waterblock. As I repeat mounting replicates, I continue to test and mount until I have five successive mountings that are within 0.5C of my BEST performance. This is why newer test results have standard deviations that are smaller than the first waterblock tests. It is also why I rarely report 10 mountings in my test results for newer waterblocks.."

I will add that as soon as I get back home. It doesn't dramatically shift the performance numbers but it does tend to push blocks I have retested down a little closer to the bottom of their error bars.

Sorry for the confusion.