Quote:
Originally posted by gone_fishin
It's shameful that people will base performance on such unscrupulous methods.
Changing the testbench midway through testing just does not cut it.
|
As funktional stated, the heating element was the same for cascade an murks3 REV1.1. So the results should be comparable. But I have to agree that changing the testbench (or atleast the heating element) during testing makes the results questionable.
Quote:
Perhaps it does perform great, but we sure don't know it by that review.
I do not see the offset inlet not being directly over the jets as a good thing. Is it just so you can see the middle better or what? This adds a restriction before the jets.
|
Do you know what "Murks" means in english?
http://dict.leo.org/?p=tLMk.&search=Murks
So don't take everything too seriously.
The offset inlet was chosen to be able to mount the block by a central pressure screw, I think.
The block in its first revision was quite far away from being mass-produceable.
Actually, it was meant to be easily reproduceable even for people who don't have expensive equipment. If I remember correctly, the Murks2 & Murks3 were made only by using a drill press.
Tommy has since changed quite a few things as far as I could tell from the pictures and what he states in the thread at kaltmacher.de.
Quote:
http://www.kaltmacher.de/viewtopic/t...c/start-0.html
That link shows the murk3 having 25 cups in a non honeycomb pattern and they do not appear to be precisely lined up. That would be important for jet and cup allignment. Also a gasket material is shown, this would cause each assembly of the unit not to yield the same jet height.
|
Yes, this is the first version of this block.
The version tested at watercoolplanet.de is REV1.1.
The block is now sealed by an o-ring, much like the Cascade.
If I remember correctly, the rubber gasket was chosen because you don't need to make a groove in the block for it to seal properly.
Regards,
some stranger