RBX nozzle comparison

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by jmke

foolish comment, everyone is different in what he does and writes.
www.ksbrainstorms.com

A) You are the foolish/blind one. No need to get into it though as I got better things to do than talk to a wall.

B) If the guy wants to talk like a scientist then he 1) Needs to know WTF he is talking about. 2) Have the self respect not to spew garbage with half assed articles and terminolagy. 3) Three have enough respect for the people reading his work to make it somewhat useful. 4) Limited equipment is NO EXCUSE, any self respecting scientist doesn't have the right equipment to get something done, they will not do it until they can get the right equipment. If he wants to make himself look like a scientist then he needs to act like one, not some dick out of no where puilling words from books to make himself sound cool.

In other words don't do it until you can do it right. Spare the readers their time of reading another worthless article and do something "better" than the rest of the thousands of tech sites on the net. And if you don't want criticism don't come to this site and argue. Shut up and listen.

[pHaestus]

Wow JayDee tell us how you really feel! At least no one will bother to get angry at my comments now

If this person is actually a Ph.D student at Brown in neuroscience then I feel for (a) the poor profs that end up on his advisory committee (b) the reviewers of manuscripts he submits (c) his ego when he submits written qualifying exams, thesis proposals, manuscripts, and dissertation drafts.

The truth of the matter is that academic success in scientific disciplines is more about communication skills (technical writing and public speaking) than it is about technical ability. Everyone can do research in the lab given the motivation and interest. If you can't write a cover letter or have journal articles published in high quality journals though you'll never find a job in the ivory towers.

[jmke]

****** *

[pHaestus]

Bill: Ok maybe I was trolling a little bit. I am gonna go make some popcorn I think...

[pHaestus]

ps: my english is not on par with yours, don't speak it on daily basis so don't go shooting me If it's very far from perfect.

Your posts here are far more readable and coherent than the article linked from your website.

[jmke]

****** *

[BillA]

Originally Posted by jmke

. . . . .
keep up the good reviewing work pH , the greatest honour I can think of is: one day receiving a thumbs up after publishing a watercooling related article @ Madshrimps.
. . . . .

no offense jmke, but Madshrimps has a ways to go to achieve the level of pHaestus' present work product here on procooling
nor are pHaestus' efforts unappreciated here, indeed without him I suspect procooling would atrophy quickly

you do Madshrimps no benefit by posting articles such as this one by Liquid3D:
technically ungrounded, no coherent plan, poorly executed, piss-poor documentation, pure BS analysis, and writing so bad it causes alternate cringing and laughter

-> if you have a technical writer, and they have no peers that they can cajole into reviewing their work; then you can conclude that your writer is only a wannabe - and not the real thing
- do understand that there are 2 discreet issues here:
1) the physical testing plan and execution, and the organization and analysis of the data, and
2) the expository writing to present the experiment and describe the results

if you aspire to having a 'good' technical website then you will have to decline posting this kind of "pomposity and unintelligibility"
(thanks Groth, succinctly put)

[pHaestus]

My reviews still have a good ways to go as well. The lack of flow resistance data makes me very unhappy with the current reviews in fact. I wasn't trying to slam the posted review; I suspect the overall finding that "the #5 nozzle does better" is indeed true.

An integral part of the article/review posting process here at Procooling is the review of the article by Brian and Joe for correctness, grammar, and "holes in explanation". People may think that BrianS isn't very active in the site nowadays but in fact I think his review of content prior to posting is even MORE important as any of the projects, reviews, or articles that appear on the site by others.

I recall a quote about the internet from a few years ago (sorry don't recall the source): With the advent of the information superhighway and modern computers, everyone in the world can be a publisher. The problem is that there are very few editors.

[BillA]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

. . . . .
With the advent of the information superhighway and modern computers, everyone in the world can be a publisher. The problem is that there are very few editors.

too true
most of the 'success' that I have had with my articles derives directly from the review/editing process
and it occurs generally in 2 parts;
the organizational/technical construction (does it say what and why), and
the mechanics of English (does it say it correctly and clearly)

not a simple or easy task with complex devices, but absolutely necessary
(and why the Liquid3D article sux)

[pHaestus]

I should add that I remain skeptical of comments that the #5 nozzle produces a true "cascade effect" because as I understand it the secondary impingement (straw in a cup) was really the only reason the Cascade did better than WW type designs. I seem to recall JayDee and Volenti having less than stellar results in blocks that looked similar but that didn't use the straw in a cup design. I have to wonder how the #5 will compare to the other thinner oval inlet nozzles that increase water velocity.

Really the RBX and WW and Cascade are pretty different in function and so the nozzle testing is interesting.*

*maybe only to testers and wb designers though

[Tum-0r]

Originally Posted by unregistered

Madshrimps has a ways to go to achieve the level of pHaestus' present work product here on procooling

No offence but procooling is a site dedicated to cooling as [M] is a all round news/review site runned in free time of Jmke and he gets some help from a few other that also do this in there free time...

Don't think it's fair to look down on [M] in that way as I find it to be one of the best if not the best belgian site.

Therefore I'm sure Liquid3d will alter his review or the next on will be of better quality

No offence intended as I am impressed by pHaestus' review ...
However the had some practice to get where he is now ...

[BillA]

ahhrgh, this is not knocking anything Belgian, of jmke, or Liquid3D (personally)

this IS about the editorial function
and applies to all writing whether for fun or profit

(BTW, procooling is a 'spare time' site also - as is overclockers.com, etc.)

[Zogthetroll]

I'll certainly not say that [M] isn't a good site, and I have a lot of respect for an organization or group that is dedicated to continually improving their results/products, but I do agree with some of the thoughts that have been expressed (some not very well) here. the "we're doing the best that we can with the equipment we've got" idea gets old, almost all the sites out here on the web that actaully care about the quality of their work but don't have the equipment for it use that line. The problem is that this leads to a veritable sea of innacurate (or worse shoddily done) reviews that the newcomer to this area has to plow through in order to find good information. I speak from experience here being a relative newcomer. worse yet, there are sites that don't even put a lot of thought into the accuracy of their review, just post whatever results they get and add to the mess of articles available. as someone just finding their way around this hobby a while ago, I had no idea or reference point as to where to find good reviews or information.
I would rather, when searching for a review of a product, find only one or two well-written ones, as opposed to one or two hundred that are mediocre at best. I'm not saying that madshrimps shouldn't do reviews, but saying that they're a news site and not specialized, so we shouldn't expect as much from them doesn't cut it. no, I wouldn't expect as much of a technical document as I would from say pH or BillA, but If you're going to publish something, then put forth your best effort regardless of topic material. Edit and proofread your work. Write a one page article if you only have one page of useful information. Make it clear, and consise so that the average person who reads it will benefit from having done so. Research your material, your testing practices, your terminology, and get the details right. Madshrimps may be written for by people who view this as a hobby, but since you presume to publish and educate the rest of us, you have a responsibility as well, to get it right.
/end rant.

@Tumor, I agree and I am sure that if [M] will work on these things we will no doubt see better articles from them in the future, and look forward to them. WHEW, well, i'm hungry, time to go find a snack.

[killernoodle]

He could have at least tesed all of the nozzles to see which of the 5 performs the best in certain situations. He has really only tried 2 nozzles with the same pump. This does not prove anything in the least. Lastly, he should have created his own nozzle to see if he could find a better solution than what dangerden gives him. Essentially, he only changed one variable (the nozzle itself) and only tested a limited number of test subjects (2 nozzles out of 5). That is not how you write a scientific or even a "philosophic" review.

[pHaestus]

I dunno if even I will test all nozzles 'noodle; cuts pretty strongly into beer time

[Groth]

Well, One of the The Inquirer's review round-ups has linked the the article. Liquid3D's gonna be famous!

In other goofiness, if you use Bablefish to translate a paragraph of the review to another language, then translate it back to english, it's easier to read. Sadly, Google and Babelfish won't work together to translate/retranslate entire pages.

[killernoodle]

You dont have to test all of them... But that is the only way I will respect you

JK

[pHaestus]

hehe Groth I actually tried the babelfish thing; didn't seem to make much difference

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by jmke

Great attitude, really, no one claims that the article is "scientific" , no one claims that it is on a "tech" site. No one claims that the results are 100% accurate. So chill and "shut up" if all you can do is "flame" away.

You already made "your point" in your first comment in this thread, no need to continue replying if the content of your posts dont have anything substanial in it. Sure this article could go with refinement, could be done with "scientific" material, and be spell-checked by 7 different english profs. But this is a hobby, not a JOB. next time you see anybody writing anything about any hobby, make sure you are there to flame away, which apparently seems to be your hobby.

Jeezus, making an elephant out of a mouse is daily business for you I guess, moehhahaa goed bezig zene! U eigen zo druk maken over 2 nozzeltjes van een waterblok.. amaai men voeten.

and that's that I guess. :shrug:


ps: my english is not on par with yours, don't speak it on daily basis so don't go shooting me If it's very far from perfect.

Like I said, talking to a wall... Hope I pulled a little pressure off you pH.

[Liquid3D]

I won't apologize for my writing style, however; I will think about many of the comments made here, even though some derive from a hostile place. I've learned one can grow from confrontation, no matter the source. I do have trouble with basic grammar. I left School in 8th grade due to alcoholism, and trauma in my family. For these reasons I never concentrated when I was in school, I suffered from emotional problems. Unfortunately I've experienced things most people will not even see in movies. Without going into detail, it is a miracle I'm alive. If I were to say few of you could understand what I've been through, nor would most of you been capable of surviving any of it, I'm sure this would anger you. It would, however; be the truth. You see it's the way we say thinks that's matters as well. That I survived what I did, and came out on the other end a kind, honest, and very caring person, places me in a unique catagory. I went from having no basic education, to taking Graduate level philosophy classes because I was so excited to be in school, after years of pretending to be. Because I completely lacked what most take for granted (grades 4-12), I did better with abstract thinking then the basics such as their, and they're.

When I write, I do try to emulate to a certain extent, many of the Philosophical essay's I've read. Not verbatem, nor to feel "important," but because I found those articles to be entertaining. Even Procooling was influenced by something.

Whom here is perfect? I believe being judgemental is a greater crime then my propensity for grandiose writing. If we never looked at a dictionary, or thesaurus how would we learn? Did those of you criticising me, sit in class and tell every teacher they were being pompous when using a word you didn't understand? No, because you had either respect, or fear. Sometimes talking to a wall is preferable to talking someone insulting you for not thinking as they do. Procooling feeling they're above [M] and that your worthy to judge, that's not humility, it's what you accused me of; feeling "self important." Expanding one's vocabulary, is expanding one's mind. We use language to think, and I won't apologize for my attempting to find terminology which most closely describes what I'm thinking. I try writing in a scientific mannar it's true. I also agree that it would have been better to have the appropriate tools, however; not everyone own's a compunurse, and understands the Delta-T prinicple. What about those readers? Are they not worthy of owning a water-block? It's also YOUR opinion a "true scientist" wouldn't perform the experiment with out the ideal tools. Did we use the ideal tools to land the Rover on Mars? No, but that doesn't mean we shoudln't try, so long as were intelligent enough to understand the nature fo the data, and any special formula's which may be necessary to extrapolate from it (pun intended) the best results.


My review is not perfect, and I will write the next differently, in part because of your criticisms. Not because I'm an insecure person, who "needs to feel important through the use of big words," but because I'm writing to educate first, entertain second, and learn thrid. While some of you made astute observations (criticisms) many were prima facie, and if i know this, I should have edited my own work better. What I've come to enjoy enjoy in most of the Neurophilosophy essay's I've read, is they are not so technicallly sterile they lack any creative thought. I'm sure I could have explained the block in 8th grade terms, even though I missed the entire grade. What accomplishement is that? I'm not writing textbooks for 8-th Grader's so this analogy is moot. Perhaps those of you, thinking knowledge should lack any creative catalyst making it more interesting, are products of a poor educational system. I could have regurgitated, stating; "The RBX is a good block because it borrows several successful concepts...therefore by definition it is successful..." I din't contradict myself stating it borrowed concepts, and that this was a creative thinking on the engineer's part. They could have borrowed all the wrong concepts. They could have left out the channels which direct the heated water to the outlets. They could have made it out of wood.

There are many articles which bother me, many where the results were fabricated. I think long and hard about what I review, and take offense to the accusation my review was "shoddy," because it didn't fit an egocentric mold. Many intelligent thinkers were misunderstood, shunned by society, because they were different. Socrates was forced to consume poision for his transgressions, and Galileo was persecuted because his thinking contradicted the Church's belief the Earth was at the center of the universe, and the planets revolved around it. Do all the hardware sites on the internet revolve around Procooling?

Why didn't I test all the nozzles? Why haven't you criticized every other review that didn't test more then one of the nozzles? Although a few tried several, none compared the facotry installed number-1, and the high-pressure "spray" nozzle number-5. Your criticism of the nozzles tested, is indicative of your, not my misunderstanding the subject. I felt it was important to look at the two extremes. It's time consuming, to change-out nozzles, take photo's, measurements, benchmarks, and form a solid theory from this data. It's true that I do tend to use several words where one may suffice, and beleive it or not, I'm trying to improve this. I'm working to strike a balance, and while some of your criticimss are insultive, and hostile, I'll grow use them. What does bother me, is your attacking JMKE, whom gave an Enthusiast, and budding amateur writer, an outlet for expression. While my writing is grandiloquent (pun intended) I'm enjoying my exploration of the English language, one of the most complicated. The pertinent question is, "why does it bother you so much? Answer that question, be honest, and we'll meet as minds. Not jealous adolesents with little or no life-experience, upset because someone wrote a slightly esoteric article. Does the average person water-cool their PC? No the average person doesn't know what the Hell were talking about, so perhaps my article reminds you of you? It's quite easy to criticize, but to sit down and write an Review is not so easy. We were all beginner's once, I often wonder why those who aquire a little experience become so cruel. Zog mentioned how sites publish material without giving much thought to the results. In my case you couldn't be more mistaken. When someone thinks about a block, long and hard enough to use a statement such as "bi-lateral uptake," that's not the cursory observation of someone rushing through a review. If anything I should be accused of over-analysing.

By the way I didn't say I had a PhD from Brown. I moved to Newport RI after breaking my back in a mountian bike race. I may be re-applying to Brown's RUE program, but in addition to my spinal injury, I have severe Liver disorder from Steroid injections for pain managment. Basically I'm terminally Ill, so I have a few other things to think about, but when I do something, I don't do it half-assed. I don't mind criticism, I mind egotism. I've written countless stores, and manufacturers trying to obtain a Compunurse or other such device. I live in Low Income Housing, and survive on Social Security Disibility which pays only $600 monthly. I not feeling sorry for myself, I'm simply explaining a true Scientist is someone whom loves science, and will forge ahead no matter their "budget." As odd as this may sound I thank some of you for your criticism.

[pHaestus]

Galileo was persecuted because his thinking contradicted the Church's belief the Earth was at the center of the universe, and the planets revolved around it.

Galileo was given free reign to write about Copernicean theory by the Pope as long as he also presented the other side. He chose to write a book that featured 3 people (one a simpleton asking questions who very clearly was a characiture of the Pope) and was placed under house arrest for pulling on Superman's cape basically. BTW the proofs of Copernicus that Galileo espoused to the Pope (just prior to his book that mocked the pope and got him arrested) were bs: he used the tides as proof and said that the oceans couldn't keep up with the motion of the earth. There are two problems with this: Galileo himself had disproved that this could be (he dropped a hammer from a pole on a moving cart and it fell at the base of the pole proving that objects on a moving object are moving at the same rate) and there would have only been 1 tide if his "proof" was true (seems like a kinda obvious thing to miss). DO read "Conversations on the Dark Secrets of Physics" by Ed Teller. It is great for all who are interested in science.

I don't see anyone really attempting to persecute you here (hence the Galileo comment however historically valid is a bit melodramatic); I saw some legitimate comments that the review was damn near unreadable. And just because you can use big words doesn't mean you have to. My honest estimation is that the bulk of madshrimps' readers are taking your opinion at face value just because you are using big words and not based upon the quality of your testing and methods. That isn't the reputation for which I personally would strive.

The goal of science is (imo) to make complicated processes and abstract concepts simple to understand and control. I'll grant that using precise language (which requires a learning curve to pick up) is actually a way we further technical discussions. In contrast, using verbose and unnecessarily complicated language adds nothing to the technical discussion, alienates the readers and bystanders, and makes one look pompous to other participants.

As far as testing equipment goes, I have refrained from comment. My first waterblock review attempts were with typical overclocker stuff and a HORRID bell-type flowmeter. Over time I bought more and more equipment, figured out internal diode calibrations, improved testing methods, read and reread Crane 410 and Bill's overclockers articles, and still have a lot of work to do. The important thing is to know the limitations of what your equipment can do, and to set out a clear question to answer before you start. That's true in my labs at work (I ALWAYS begin any project with an assessment of what is technically feasible) and it is true in my domestic PC cooling testing facility (aka basement corner).

[Liquid3D]

Thank you for your civil comments, their (this time it's correct?) so much easier to ingest. I struggle with this issue of wanting to say so much, and say it concisely. Sometimes the two contradict. Of course it's hurtful when someone says the review is "un-readable." I put a concerted effort into recording temps with each nozzle installed, each nozzle 's ability to maintain a constant temp under overcloked conditions, default conditions, under LOAD and IDLE.

I tried to compare the results, and to theorize based upon them. I endeavored to explain the the designer's intent, and without actually speaking with the designer, this can be as difficult as analysing Art. Anyone can go to the manufacturer's site, and reiterate the marketing info, I try to be more creative. Explaining in detail, what is going on. I wonder if I could have made an effort to discover who designed this block, and speak with that person? Regardless, I'll read through this thread several times, and internalize what I've read.

Yes the Galileo comment was overly dramatic, and I really don't feel that persecuted. One likes attention, but not necessarily this type of attention. I truly put a lot of effort into explaining how the block worked, and why it performed the way it did. I definately need better tools, and will aquire them ASAP. As I honestly stated, without a budget to speak of, I'm at the mercy of donations from stores/manufacturers.

Finally I'd like to apologize for responding with hositility, after accusing others of being hostile. I hope you'll see the improvement in my next article. I will definately take your advice and read through some reviews here, as a beginner, I do want to improve my writing skills. I do know one must be well read, to write well. Hey the latter half of that statement is original, hehe.

[pHaestus]

I don't know if Procooling is a shining example of proper writing style either. My suggestion would be to look for one or two good technical writing/business writing/mass communication books at the library. They will usually tell you to start by surveying your audience and then targetting the style, content, and delivery to the people who will be in the audience. A wide range of age, technical education, and reading level (like an international website such as madshrimps) doesn't mean you have to "dumb things down" at all. What it DOES mean is that if you want everyone to clearly comprehend your points then you'll have to define terms and explain some preliminary concepts. It could be that my goals are somewhat different to yours though. I primarily see my articles and reviews as bringing technical concepts to the average people. See this article for example. I couldn't simply cite Darcy's Law or pump NPSHR without explaining them; no one would know wtf I was talking about. So I write an article explaining the key technical concepts and terms and hopefully many more of our readers are subsequently able to apply them in their own cooling projects. That's my goal when writing and my approach to having a website: shared information and improved understanding. See my earlier comment about the purpose of science and you'll see it falls right in line...

[killernoodle]

Wow, that was pretty powerful, but still you cannot blame writing style on unfortunate life experiences. You are not the only person who has suffered in their life. I used to be an avid MTB racer, play many sports, ect. That was until I was hit by a car, shattering my leg, messing up my face(it hit the mirror, which folded back. If I was 2 inches closer it would have killed me instantly), breaking my hand, and essentially ruining an entire year of my life (hey, got me into computers ). I have also lost parts of two of my fingers in another unfortunate incident involving a mini-blind cord. At one point, I missed three summers due to freak accidents occuring back-to-back. I am still only 18 years old, and that is what I have lived through thus far. I have no regrets, I have no ill feelings about how I have lived.

That being said, I have some useful information for you in writing your next article. When writing an article for the masses to read and learn from, it is important to write in a way that the masses can understand. Personally, I dont mind reading articles that contain vocabulary beyond my comprehension. I actually did not find your article difficult to understand, but I am somewhat concerned about your style because many people in this world are functionally illiterate. They want to look at the pictures, look at the graphs, and see what the writer has to say about the product and make a decision about it themselves. They don't want to crack open a dictionary to decipher the word "extrapolate" when a more widely used term like "determined" could be utilized. Just imagine the disasterous effects of using the word "tarry" on a stop sign. Likewise, you wouldn't want to see a list of things like "Cut the left side with a knife, use the bigges scissors to cut the little red bean thing on the left" on a Surgeon's notepad who is about to do a kidney extraction. You must understand that 90% of the people reading your article cannot understand the level of diction you enjoy using. I could write an article in a mix of German and English, for instance, and only a handful of people would understand it. The rest would probably make fun of it.

Sure, you don't have the proper test equipment to do a scientific analysis of each type of nozzle, but you can still use scientific methodologies to achieve repeatable, accurate, and acceptable results. One thing that could have been done is test all of the nozzles in relation to the #5 nozzle. Another thing would be reseating the waterblock on the core several times and find the lowest temp possible. This is necessary for AMD Blocks because of how small the core is, and because you are using the P4 with the IHS removed, the same should be done. Research could have been done to calculate the C/W of each nozzle, the flow rates of each, and the restriction of each. Important steps must be taken to ensure the believability of a review. I would not trust a review of a heatsink from a 13 year old who just comments on the asthetics of the thing half the time and then determines that it makes his computer run at only 35C. There are always more variables to control, and always others that need to be varied to make the article as complete as possible.

Don't let this negative feedback from many forums deter you from making more reviews, just be sure to consider who will be reading the article and the accuracy of the testing next time.

Good luck!

[pHaestus]

"They don't want to crack open a dictionary to decipher the word "extrapolate" when a more widely used term like "determined" could be utilized."

And did extrapolation truly occur, or is the writer instead making an inference based upon test results? This is what I mean about precision in language, and large words (or technical terms) used incorrectly are never "a good thing".