Another White Water rip off.

[jaydee]

Not sure if this has been covered but it certainly is getting old.

This one is by a pretty major manufacturer to boot.

The Asetek Antartica.... Next will be the Cascade......

[Stooo]

Originally Posted by jaydee116

Not sure if this has been covered but it certainly is getting old.

This one is by a pretty major manufacturer to boot.

The Asetek Antartica.... Next will be the Cascade......

Isnt that like an internal heatsink with water flowing over it? I know it is like the other one but I have plenty of heatsinks that look similar to that. My DD RBX resembles that on the inside also. Dont take offense please but what good is a block that is mass produced that no one can buy, because none are being made? (I originally wanted a White Water block but could not find one anywhere)

[JFettig]

looks pretty origional to me

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by JFettig

looks pretty origional to me

Yeah everything except what makes it work..

Stooo, so your saying copying others designs for profit without the original desingers consent is a good thing as long as you get your product? Thanks for not caring about the time and work people put into designing things.

[AntiBling]

Well Im no pro, but apparently that sort of design works well. At this point its hard to say whos imitating who, if at all. You could only say who came out with the basic idea first.

[winewood]

BAHAHAHAWWAAA! your joking right?

[Pears0]

AntiBling, Read the forums, u might have to go into the archives, but u will soon discover who invented the design first!

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by Pears0

AntiBling, Read the forums, u might have to go into the archives, but u will soon discover who invented the design first!

The micro channel design is one thing but the implementation of the jet is another. At least Danger Den didn't use a center inlet with a jet in the maze 4 and was more creative with the channel design. This one above is nothing more than a WW in disguise. What makes it work is near identical. Micro channels with a jet.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by winewood

BAHAHAHAWWAAA! your joking right?

Joking about what?

[winewood]

At this point its hard to say whos imitating who, if at all. You could only say who came out with the basic idea first

I find it funny that AntiBling doesnt recognise Cathars work in the design.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by winewood

I find it funny that AntiBling doesnt recognise Cathars work in the design.

Ok, wasn't sure there.

[MadHacker]

Originally Posted by jaydee116

Stooo, so your saying copying others designs for profit without the original desingers consent is a good thing as long as you get your product? Thanks for not caring about the time and work people put into designing things.

Not that I endorse it but when it comes to business as long as it is legal…
anything goes…
and if it isn’t legal… find a loophole… and if there isn’t a loophole… hire more lawyers…
Just ask Bill Gates, or any major corporation. If it isn’t patented, it free to use…
And if it is patented… use it anyways… and hope to make more money off it then your going to get sued for…
When it comes to business morals are not a concern… the bottom line is $$$$$$$$$$$

my 2¢ worth

[AntiBling]

Originally Posted by winewood

I find it funny that AntiBling doesnt recognise Cathars work in the design.

Nice try! Like I said, you can only say who came out with it first. It would be kinda tough to post here for several months and not have read about Cathar, WW, etc. And hats off to him! You're free to make assumptions and laugh about them. Enjoy.

[BillA]

Originally Posted by MadHacker

Not that I endorse it but when it comes to business as long as it is legal…
anything goes…
and if it isn’t legal… find a loophole… and if there isn’t a loophole… hire more lawyers…
Just ask Bill Gates, or any major corporation. If it isn’t patented, it free to use…
And if it is patented… use it anyways… and hope to make more money off it then your going to get sued for…
When it comes to business morals are not a concern… the bottom line is $$$$$$$$$$$

my 2¢ worth

come on MH, painting with a rather broad brush there - no ?
while some businesses act amorally, they are not all so by any means
and I know of at least one company which acts strictly on the basis of what is 'right'

if you wish to pan Asetek, don't be bashful - here, I'll even start it
look at their pricing, they are attempting to buy market share (no biggie, std business practice)
and their designs ? well, if one has no knowledge then immitation is the substitute (no biggie, if China can copy - why not Asetec ?)

Asetec is merely demonstrating that their first goal is profitability,
with research, innovation and technical advancement of lesser import - at least in WCing
- but wait, they 'improved' the WW with a plastic top (gimmie a fu*king break)

Geek, think in terms of concepts - not merely details

my axe to grind is quite different: what is this endless stream of products without ANY performance data ?
WCers are a gullible bunch

[Pureh20]

anti-bling, companies will always say "the idea was in the drawing board for centuries" meaning "we had no creativity and didnt give a rats about new boundaries as long as the dosh is rolling in, but then along came someone else idea"

cathar started this way back in 2001

[Stooo]

Originally Posted by jaydee116

Yeah everything except what makes it work..

Stooo, so your saying copying others designs for profit without the original desingers consent is a good thing as long as you get your product? Thanks for not caring about the time and work people put into designing things.

No I am not saying that but, it is not smart to have a product and compare it to others and have your product exceed in performance of the other products. Then not be able to make any for awhile... That is just leaving the door open for other people to market their Items and make money.... That is not good business

There is something called supply and demand.....

[Stooo]

Why not pick up one of those blocks and do a head to head comparison? Let people see which is more efficient.

You could call it White Water rip-off showdown... It ould be a good way show the WW's superiority

[Cathar]

Overclockers.com has tested most of the WW'a'likes. The only WW block it hasn't tested is the White Water itself.

I must admit to being fairly puzzled by the recent MCW5000A test vs their MCW5002 test. Bill's a pretty thorough guy but OC.com put the two blocks at equal performance for flow rate. Unsure what went on there, but that certainly doesn't gel with test data from Bill and Phaestus.

However, getting back to OC.com, they've tested the RBX, the Antarctica, and the various Silverprops, and the RBX came out on top vs that lot at 1GPM. Refer to Phaestus's tests and we see what the WW does vs the RBX at 1GPM. Of course, cross-comparison tests are frought with issues, an immediate one being the fairly large die-size difference between the OC.com and Phaestus's test-bed.

Still, only at really high flow rates does the RBX catch the White Water. This is primarily due to its added dips and wall bumps helping it out, but it really places the focus on the pump. Good for the serious WC'er, not so good for the mass market.

Companies will copy to remain in business when they lack the ability to innovate. What is annoying is when they pass off such as actual innovation. That has about as much truth to it as banks in Australia sacking thousands of workers, shutting hundreds of branches, and then tell us that they're improving customer service. You know they're lying and it's really all about the profit/bottom-line, but you can't help but be amazed that they honestly expect people to swallow their marketing bull-shit.

Really, that's what it comes down to. Marketing bull-shit. The art of not exactly outright lying, but leading the uninformed customer to believe that something means something else. This is why companies don't supply performance data as Bill points out. To do so strips away the crap and converts marketing bullshit subjectiveness into hard-edged factual reality.

Like the blood sucking vampires they are, they will twist and turn in every way to escape the cold harsh sunlight of truth, typically cloaked by swathes of lawyers. No one should be surprised about this though. These are the business principles that some of the most successful companies in the world are based on.

[Les]

Originally Posted by Cathar

.....
I must admit to being fairly puzzled by the recent MCW5000A test vs their MCW5002 test. Bill's a pretty thorough guy but OC.com put the two blocks at equal performance for flow rate. Unsure what went on there, but that certainly doesn't gel with test data from Bill and Phaestus......

Maybe you have the same confusion I had here

[Stooo]

Originally Posted by Cathar

Overclockers.com has tested most of the WW'a'likes. The only WW block it hasn't tested is the White Water itself.

I must admit to being fairly puzzled by the recent MCW5000A test vs their MCW5002 test. Bill's a pretty thorough guy but OC.com put the two blocks at equal performance for flow rate. Unsure what went on there, but that certainly doesn't gel with test data from Bill and Phaestus.

However, getting back to OC.com, they've tested the RBX, the Antarctica, and the various Silverprops, and the RBX came out on top vs that lot at 1GPM. Refer to Phaestus's tests and we see what the WW does vs the RBX at 1GPM. Of course, cross-comparison tests are frought with issues, an immediate one being the fairly large die-size difference between the OC.com and Phaestus's test-bed.

Still, only at really high flow rates does the RBX catch the White Water. This is primarily due to its added dips and wall bumps helping it out, but it really places the focus on the pump. Good for the serious WC'er, not so good for the mass market.

Companies will copy to remain in business when they lack the ability to innovate. What is annoying is when they pass off such as actual innovation. That has about as much truth to it as banks in Australia sacking thousands of workers, shutting hundreds of branches, and then tell us that they're improving customer service. You know they're lying and it's really all about the profit/bottom-line, but you can't help but be amazed that they honestly expect people to swallow their marketing bull-shit.

Really, that's what it comes down to. Marketing bull-shit. The art of not exactly outright lying, but leading the uninformed customer to believe that something means something else. This is why companies don't supply performance data as Bill points out. To do so strips away the crap and converts marketing bullshit subjectiveness into hard-edged factual reality.

Like the blood sucking vampires they are, they will twist and turn in every way to escape the cold harsh sunlight of truth, typically cloaked by swathes of lawyers. No one should be surprised about this though. These are the business principles that some of the most successful companies in the world are based on.

So true are your words... I purchased the RBX based on reviews from this site and that is only after I could find no cascade or WW in stock anywhere, I looked for at least two weeks and waited till I could wait no more. I will still purchase a WW or cascade when they are more available but until then this will do....

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by Stooo

So true are your words... I purchased the RBX based on reviews from this site and that is only after I could find no cascade or WW in stock anywhere, I looked for at least two weeks and waited till I could wait no more. I will still purchase a WW or cascade when they are more available but until then this will do....

Seems to me you have some other agenda or think a product is a RIGHT to have. Just because someone spends a lot of time making something doesn't mean someone else should take the design and make it them selfs because the other isn't makeing a lot of them. If these other companies want a good block they need to make one them selfs. Not take to low road and rip others work off. Patented or not Cathar has intellectual and copy rights on the design not to mention the MORALS of it. I give a rats ass about business. It is about doing what is right. People these days are in WANT IT NOW AT ANY COST mode. People think business are evil and don't seem to care how the product came about as long as it is available. They don't think about all the work someone has put into the product. Nope, they just want "their" product NOW! Pathetic.... Ignorant people are the cause of more BS in bussiness than anything else. People need to grow a thought process and FORCE these companies to prove their product is worth its advertizing. What is the motivation for a company to prove their product works when people buy their product just on the word of the advertizing? Can't make a good product? Screw it, just say it is good! That's all that is required these days as people can't be bothered to do a little research.... Anyway my point is made.

[Stooo]

Originally Posted by jaydee116

Seems to me you have some other agenda or think a product is a RIGHT to have.

Yes, my agenda was that I wanted to water cool my system... It seems as though somewhere in the porocess things get really complicated for you... So let me re-state what I meant. I wanted to water cool my system..... I wanted a block that was not available so I bought it elsewhere... Just like a person drives up to a gas station and wants gas.. Attendant says we have none... Would you be that person that sits therte and waits? and waits and waits? It's a pretty simple statement.......

[|kbn|]

jaydee116 have you considered the limits of manufacturing blocks.
There are only so many ways a block can be made and Cathar seems to have discovered them first and then perfected them.
The ww design uses fins, so do air cooling heatsinks - for example the slk800 im using now. Therefore Cathar did not invent that idea but insead converted it from air cooling to watercooling and perfected it.
I do respect copyrights etc.. but I do not think of manufacturing techniques as copyright'able etc.. you can only copyright a product, not a idea.
I would agree if the block was acctually copied, but if they took the route of "We will make a channel/fin based block. Lets make 100 different desisns and find the best, then we well sell that" then there is nothing wrong with that.
If they were to acctually get a WW block and copy the dimensions from it or other ways of clearly copying the design then I would definatly be against it. Have you any evidence of this, have you acctually got one of those blocks and compared it or is this all based around one picure? However I do think this pictured block does look too much like the ww block and they shouldnt have made it so similar as that wont benifit anyone.

I thought this forum was about improving waterblocks. This forum is like a reference book, any one that reads it can learn from it. People that post good designs here should expect others to use them as a reference for making there own blocks. Manufacturers would see it the same way and use it to learn, but not to copy.

I agree with Cathars post above.

[freeloadingbum]

Originally Posted by Cathar

Overclockers.com has tested most of the WW'a'likes. The only WW block it hasn't tested is the White Water itself.

I don't understand why Joe is waiting so long to test the WW. I can't imagine how his curiosity can be any less than everyone else's. Does anybody know if he even has a WW to test?

[BillA]

Originally Posted by Cathar

. . . . .
I must admit to being fairly puzzled by the recent MCW5000A test vs their MCW5002 test. Bill's a pretty thorough guy but OC.com put the two blocks at equal performance for flow rate. Unsure what went on there, but that certainly doesn't gel with test data from Bill and Phaestus.
. . . . .

I will attempt a clarification:
the MCW5000 and MCW5002 are the same except for the connectors, which cause a slight difference in the head loss
(the MCW5000-A is merely the 5000 with the Athlon mounting hardware, there was no revision # for the 'dropped deck' change)
what JoeC posted was the C/W vs. Head Loss, so his showing the 2 wbs with the same C/W was correct, as well as the higher head loss of the 5000 - within experimental error, etc.

and the graph Les showed was an older (poorly titled by me !!!) graph showing the effect of the 'dropped deck' change

note that pHaestus did not test the high deck version