product testing today – who is being served ?

[BillA]

yup, a bfh is almost as useful as a heat wrench

[Joe]

Being someone who does work on cars for fun, I never discard a tool... but if a tool proves troublesome (rounding bolts, etc...) it goes back to sears

[bigben2k]

It's not an easy discussion.

Originally Posted by BillA

...but before we try to sell something we need to know if what we would propose:
works
is repeatable
at a tolerable cost...

...and...
http://overclockers.com/articles638/

If we break down the above, we can list the issues:

1) temperature measurement

So we fix the temp measurement issue with pH's solution, but it's "too high end", so we switch to the IHS groove, but not all like it. The IHS issue is bypassed this way.

2) Power

Originally Posted by BillA

...there must be a straight-forward means to verify a baseline, and very stable operation thereafter...

pH has been sucessfull in repeating a steady heatload, using the appropriate program.

It's understood that the power isn't measured, just repeated. The IHS issue does not affect the power applied.

3) need to measure flow

Use a Swissflow flowmeter.


Am I just beating a dead horse here, or did we have something all along?

Who's approval does this need?

[PaulDriver]

Originally Posted by TerraMex

... but his main tool is still a hammer .

I must disagree, the primary tool, in any endeavour, is the mind.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by PaulDriver

I must disagree, the primary tool, in any endeavour, is the mind.

You haven't had to work with the design engineers I have to work with. You might change your "mind" on that.

AS for this test bench I would suggest this to start with:

-Intel Soldered on IHS CPU and compatible mobo with overclocking options.

-Use the onboard probe (bare with me)

-Use a swissflow flowmeter

-ignore all variables

-Forget dP for now

Take a series of tests with 3 known different performing blocks. Like a Maze 4, TDX and MP-05SP.

Compare these results with a more sophisticated test bench at same flow rates and see how the order of blocks are performance wise. If the order at each flow rate is consistent between both benches then you have a bench capable of usable results.

If the order is way off you can start changing things starting with a better temp monitoring system and start to figure out what exactly is needed to be done and work out how to do it.

It would be preferable that the tests were done by the same person at the same place I would imagine.

Anyway that is my simplistic way of looking at it. Start simple and move more complex until you get your desired result.

[bigben2k]

dP can be done the old fashion way; vinyl tubing in a manometer arrangement. Very easy to do (I've done it, ask Thykingdomecome).

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by bigben2k

dP can be done the old fashion way; vinyl tubing in a manometer arrangement. Very easy to do (I've done it, ask Thykingdomecome).

Not really. I tried it once. Don't have high enough wall height for all that tubing. You need like 138" of vertical rise to get 5PSI worth of measurment. That is 11.5 feet. After my bench was setup I only had about 3.5 feet of height for tubing as standard walls are not much higher than 8 feet.

Unless I am doing something wrong.

[bigben2k]

No, you're right, but many block's dP fall "near" 3 feet.

The dP test doesn't have to be run while testing; set it on the ground for a bit more height.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by bigben2k

No, you're right, but many block's dP fall "near" 3 feet.

The dP test doesn't have to be run while testing; set it on the ground for a bit more height.

Do you want to take dP at the same flow rates you tested the block at? If so you would need the flow meter and valve still.

[bigben2k]

Yeah, but you're measuring the dP across the block, right?

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by bigben2k

Yeah, but you're measuring the dP across the block, right?

I would hope so.

[bigben2k]

Right. So you run the benchmarks while measuring flow then when you're done, take the block off, put it on the ground and run a simple loop, and measure both flow and pressure (nothing else).

You only need the flow or the pressure, while benchmarking; not both.

You then need to run the pressure and flow test on the side (off the bench). With the data that you collect, you can translate your benchmark results to dP instead of flow (or vice versa).

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by bigben2k

Right. So you run the benchmarks while measuring flow then when you're done, take the block off, put it on the ground and run a simple loop, and measure both flow and pressure (nothing else).

You only need the flow or the pressure, while benchmarking; not both.

You then need to run the pressure and flow test on the side (off the bench). With the data that you collect, you can translate your benchmark results to dP instead of flow (or vice versa).

To much of a pain in the ass. Now you have to unplumb the flow meter and pump, plumb it into the manometer, unplumb it and plumb it back into the test bench. Or buy another pump an flowmeter that would cost more than a digital manometer like Robo uses.

Anyway the options are there.

[jaydee]

So how do we setup for these Intel Preslers?

[BillA]

no idea jd (not true)
the only co that was providing such you guys just vilified for so doing
congrats

the die sim folks gonna make dual independant sources ? (not too hard; 2 sizes, 1 big and 1 small)
lol

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by BillA

no idea jd (not true)
the only co that was providing such you guys just vilified for so doing
congrats

the die sim folks gonna make dual independant sources ? (not too hard; 2 sizes, 1 big and 1 small)
lol

You want to separate yourself from "we" now you bunch us as "you guys". If you want to be separate from "us" then please go somewhere else as you are not adding anything to "us guys" that we can use to better what we are trying to do. You consistently let us carry on with what we think is correct (for years) and then come out and shoot us down like we should have known better yet over those years you added nothing to change it.

Yes Bill I am getting rather tired of it. If you know better then quit starting threads like this and just go strait to the answer. I (we) don't have the time to become scientists and I don't care to be or have time for it.

I am no longer searching for a way to test. Will wait for it from someone who knows better. We (as in not you) obviously do not and will not on our own.

[BillA]

jd
Look at the date this thread was started, much has transpired since then.
I rule nothing, share some experience and data, and offer suggestions;
of late my suggestions find little favor for a variety of reasons.

As I find myself repeatedly 'doing battle' with the same group (those with little to no die sim testing experience), do excuse me for failing to identify with them.

Nothing is static in this business, testing is little different; always a search for the best tool for the evolving job. The manner in which procooling 'evaluated' sink testing methodologies was crude and ugly; pH wrote a good summary which should have been the starting point for a discussion, rather than the anticlimactic conclusion to a pissing contest.

this is sad from you jd
"Yes Bill I am getting rather tired of it. If you know better then quit starting threads like this and just go strait to the answer. I (we) don't have the time to become scientists and I don't care to be or have time for it."

Yes, often the answer is known (to me, in my mind) but we both know often rejected here too; I do presume you recall the contents of this thread. Do you recognize jd that very many (most ?) of your very vocal opinions you have morphed into as you started listening and learning a bit ?

If you, and others, do not have the time and/or inclination to 'get technical', it is you jd who need to seek less demanding reading and discussion.
May I suggest the censored forum for a good mix of opinion and fantasy.

Since I began some years back I have been raising the bar for the technical analysis of WCing gear, I intend to continue doing so.
Joe invited me to run a blog here, it is technically driven and will continue to be so; this thread is in that area, no ?

Perhaps you are tired of seeing me post in the 'public' threads ?
that is doable:
-> Do others prefer for me to limit my posting to threads in this section ?

My next project is building a wind tunnel. It will be a procooling version, you will not like it for its theoretical basis.

[bigben2k]

Originally Posted by BillA

...-> Do others prefer for me to limit my posting to threads in this section ?...

No. I have made it my new year's resolution to fire up my testbench and I'm sure that I, along with many others, would benefit greatly from your input.

"Something" is going to be measured by me, this year.

[jaydee]

Bill your input is always welcomed by me. You just leave people hanging to much. This is my main bitch. You jump in a thread and say some stuff but don't elaborate enough for anyone to understand what to do.

I am working 50-60hrs a week and have a 2 hour drive every work day. That leaves me about 3 hrs a day to do whatever (go to store, eat, shower, get gas, whatever). Weekends are booked with the kid and a few other projects. I don't have the time to become an engineer and design a test bed and testing method for water blocks. That is the reality of it. I have been hopeing people with extensively more experience would come up with the design and methods so people like me (which is 95% of people that test blocks) can have something to build on. I thought the die sim was it but now see the last 2 years of my building those has been wasted....

I think people are more bent on you about the TTV thing. I really don't care about it simply because we will never have the cash to build such a device. Especially one to cover all CPU designs.

Also what exactly has changed since this thread started? Seems to me we (including you) are no closer to finding a useful testing method than we were?

And I have lost focus on this Bill. Big time. Don't take anything personal as I do respect you and what you have done. Just finding myself wondering why we even bother testing water blocks anymore. Maybe my goals in testing have disappeared. Seems like it is all about commercial intrests now.

[BillA]

I do answer questions, ?
not all problems have facile answers though

That technical bits are put to commercial use is fine by me, who is to pay the bills ?
The reality is that DIY testing on-the-cheap won't produce 'acceptable' results.
I attempted to define some test beds wrt cost/performance but there was no possible discussion here due to the absolute positions taken. Only with pH's article were the alt approaches reasonably described, time will tell what happens - I think we lost the opportunity to 'shape' the testing scene.

commercial interests ? sure, most do consider the price/performance of products compared
fancy testing benefits product design, not quite so essential for product comparisons

[jaydee]

I have asked many questions that have gone unanswered. I never really expect an answer though but do feel disappointed when I don't get one. Even if it is a "I have no good answer".

When is the line drawn from on-the-cheap to not-on-the-cheap? I have a couple G's worth of test equipment and don't see a logical solution for testing with it. This is the problem.

You know I think I even forgot what the goal was.

1) Cheap testing solution all reviewers can use and get consistent results?
2) Lab quality results from a cheap testing solution all reviewers can use?
3) Expensive testing solution that only a company with a R&D budget can afford and use?
4) ???

1 and 2 seem very unlikely. 3 has been proven to exist but few like TTV results. Is there a 4? Don't think so.

This leaves a endless debate of what is right and wrong that will not end. So I ask what is the point other than commercial interests?

It just seems things have got so complicated for little reason. Cathar had pretty good results from his testing methods. His results were pretty consistant with most end user results. pH's Socket A results seem to also back Cathars and many other end users. The IHS seems to be the main issue and now the double die CPU's with an IHS are coming out and may be standard in the future. The only way I can see testing right now is from an on die temp probe even with it's issues. Call close enough close enough and be done with it. Or just not bother and get a life.

At this point though if block A, B, C, D and E are good blocks then testing them is probably useless anyway. The end users results are all going to be within the performance difference of those blocks. So why should the DIY tester spend so much time and money on a test bench?

We (as in DIY'ers) need to find the "call it good enough" point and be done with it and actually get something done.

[BillA]

"We (as in DIY'ers) need to find the "call it good enough" point and be done with it and actually get something done."
unfortunate you did not see fit to support my effort
it is doable, someone else will have to spearhead it as I lost too much credibility for naught

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by BillA

"We (as in DIY'ers) need to find the "call it good enough" point and be done with it and actually get something done."
unfortunate you did not see fit to support my effort
it is doable, someone else will have to spearhead it as I lost too much credibility for naught

Not sure I didn't support it? Will have to re-read things and get some focus again.

[bigben2k]

Originally Posted by BillA

..."call it good enough" point ...

I still see it as split:

-comparative testing (i.e. being able to tell which one is better, with some certainty)
and
-analytical testing (i.e. being able to characterize the C/W)

If we start with one target, i.e. being able to measure a die/cpu temp accurately and repeatably within 1.0 deg C (which is rough, but it's a start), then I believe that the discussion can proceed.

I see both confused when this topic is brought up; any discussion is messed up with the above. I've even wondered if a Forum format lends itself to such a discussion, and what other format would. A forum by nature allows anyone and everyone to contribute something, anything, wether it's relevant, digressive, an opinion, or a position, but at the end, there is no leadership.

Why would leadership be needed? Because bringing up the topic is for the simple purpose of achieving a consensus. Why do we need consensus? So that we can satisfy our need to have a justified position, and proceed with whatever everyone is doing.

We have no leadership.

We have no consensus.

We have no position.

To be frank, I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated because we bring all these topics up again and again, but in the end, the only thing that we achieve is that someone contributes an additional small piece of data (i.e. IHS thickness, tim joint characterization, uncertainty issue with tim joint, ...), and it's easily lost. I have over 150 thread subscriptions to track it all.

If someone is going to lead such an effort here, then they need to be nominated.

If people are going to be contributing, then we need to know who and why; are they testing, planning to test, or just want to contribute?


Does any of this sound familiar already?


Some have opted to reject the WBTA; fine, I challenge someone else to take leadership, and do it here.

There, I said it.

[BillA]

"If we start with one target, i.e. being able to measure a die/cpu temp accurately and repeatably within 1.0 deg C (which is rough, but it's a start), then I believe that the discussion can proceed."

3 lines of text and you fell off the rails
properly define the goal please

Ben
procooling does not need a position (there is no single CORRECT solution)
those wanting to do something will gather what info they need and proceed
you will have to make your own choices, then do battle with those wanting the temp from a different spot