Beware Knockoff Waterblocks

[Brians256]

There are some items on sale on EBay (and perhaps other places as well) which are NOT what they purport to be. See Pro/Forums (http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=84427) for specifics.

Basically, buyer beware!

It may look very similar, but channel size, baseplate thickness, and other dimensions make a difference in performance. You won't necessarily be getting what you thought....

Plus, the dude implies that his block is the WhiteWater block. False advertising!

[joemac]

Knock offs are part of life. Ever buy a generic drug instead of the brand name? If the individual or company breaks no patent rights protection then there is not much that can be said or done. I plan to start selling my blocks soon under the brand “aqua Joe”. If a guy in a garage makes one or two copies of my block and sells it for profit on ebay it would not bother me.
It takes too much time to make a block by hand and to sell it on ebay for a couple of dollars it just not worth the time. On the other hand if a guy had 50 blocks made and was selling them on ebay I would defiantly send him a notice to stop. Why? The first reason; I pursued protection on my block before making it public. The second one is the amount of blocks made by him would lead me to think that he hired a manufacturer or is one himself.
In the case of the WW series of blocks Cathar has made no mentions of protection (that I am aware of). The best argument in this case is the links going to web sites that featured Cathar blocks (test, pictures etc). This block was clearly not one of Cathar. Since the WW is public domain the seller was not doing anything illegal to be sued on this issue (my opinion). The seller should have made it very clear that the design was based on the WW and NOT the WW itself. Then provided the numbers to that show similar results with the WW.
JOIN THE CLUB?
There should be an association or club started to help new users to this growing hobby of water-cooling a P.C. We could hold meeting Online if necessary at first. The association would be setup to develop standers for testing etc. Something like I.E.E.E or the N.R.A only smaller and a little less influential in politics. This organization could certify tester settle disputes but best thing of all provide a seal of approval. This seal will assure what the user is buying has been tested, performs as rated and when used as directed safe to be in a P.C. The only way this might work is if web sites out there agree to join this association and get “Certified” in their testing methods.
Back to WW copy issues:
People will always copy successes the WW is no different. As far a I can tell this guy has one block that he made (nothing wrong with that) but then he loses my support by trying to pass it off as a “Cathar White Water” (you know that should be followed by a little “R” in a little circle) ;)

[winewood]

Well, I for one agree on a standard.
We need to find a way and a testing method to obtain what is a basic way for anyone to get a CW that doesn't scream BS. I'm not talking BillA testing either.. I'm talking REASONABLE for normal people to reduce variables, common techniques, and how to interpret the data.
BillA set a high bar for testing. People don't question his results. However, I can say that very few people in this very forum understand the numbers. I would roll the dice that maybe 10 people can interpret those graphs and tell you real world application and communicate that to a normal person.
What we need is a procedure or accepted test bed from common tools that will guide, restrict, and allow others to double check the information.
I agree that BillA reduces most variables. However, his setup is not practical to even most 3rd world countries much less the average tester. Am I picking on BillA? NO! I think his efforts were exemplary and notable. It's just an impossibility to knock the data down to layman’s terms, replicate to anywhere close to his standards. So, imo I say the standard is overkill. Does this mean more inconsistencies? Of course. Does it mean people can be better educated and participate at home? Sure, providing they are educated as to what isn't acceptable and what is.
Hey, if this were easy, it would already have been done. Frankly, the better part of pure genius is making a complex task simple, obtainable, and replicate able.
(Example: BigBen2k suggested having 5-10 gallon tank with a single temp to deliver a constant coolant temp to the block during testing)
Any genius with ideas? Does this seem worth pursuing?

[Brians256]

First, my beef with the ebay dude is that he attempted to pass his work off as equivalent to Cathar's. Not true, and not even fair. Making money off of someone else's idea is slimy, but not always illegal. So, if he had just linked to the review and said that his block was based upon Cathar's.... no big deal. At most, I'd say the fellow is lazy. If he made a business doing it... not good.

Second, the idea of having a standards body for watercooling is .... really quite a stretch for me. We (as a group) have very little success in agreeing on nearly anything. So, any committee based organization would be doomed from the start, imo. I mean, the U.N. can't even agree on stopping people who kill innocents for political gain (my definition of terrorism, which must be said to differentiate from the debased definition currently floating around) even when 99% or more of humans agree that it is bad.

Does anyone really think that we can form a cohesive standards body when we can't even agree on the best method to measure CPU temperature? :D

P.S. If you want to hijack this thread for commenting upon US politics pro OR con, please think again. That belongs in another forum. Thank you.

[jaydee]

Originally posted by winewood
Well, I for one agree on a standard.
We need to find a way and a testing method to obtain what is a basic way for anyone to get a CW that doesn't scream BS. I'm not talking BillA testing either.. I'm talking REASONABLE for normal people to reduce variables, common techniques, and how to interpret the data.
BillA set a high bar for testing. People don't question his results. However, I can say that very few people in this very forum understand the numbers. I would roll the dice that maybe 10 people can interpret those graphs and tell you real world application and communicate that to a normal person.
What we need is a procedure or accepted test bed from common tools that will guide, restrict, and allow others to double check the information.
I agree that BillA reduces most variables. However, his setup is not practical to even most 3rd world countries much less the average tester. Am I picking on BillA? NO! I think his efforts were exemplary and notable. It's just an impossibility to knock the data down to layman’s terms, replicate to anywhere close to his standards. So, imo I say the standard is overkill. Does this mean more inconsistencies? Of course. Does it mean people can be better educated and participate at home? Sure, providing they are educated as to what isn't acceptable and what is.
Hey, if this were easy, it would already have been done. Frankly, the better part of pure genius is making a complex task simple, obtainable, and replicate able.
(Example: BigBen2k suggested having 5-10 gallon tank with a single temp to deliver a constant coolant temp to the block during testing)
Any genius with ideas? Does this seem worth pursuing?
Not possible.

[winewood]

sounds like a rather half hearted response... or your not willing to find a ballpark way to seperate common waterblocks and discern which one does better in the case.

Im not talking super accurate.. just a good round about number than when averaged will be close to the actual cw.

Its either that or find somone on the forum who can test our blocks. Anyone who has a great setup and can shell out numbers?

[jaydee]

Originally posted by winewood
sounds like a rather half hearted response... or your not willing to find a ballpark way to seperate common waterblocks and discern which one does better in the case.

Im not talking super accurate.. just a good round about number than when averaged will be close to the actual cw.

Its either that or find somone on the forum who can test our blocks. Anyone who has a great setup and can shell out numbers?
Dude, we have been battling this out for longer than I have been a member here. The answer is simply "not possible".

[Phant0m51]

There are way too many variables to even consider putting together a 'Committee'. First, you'd have to decide on what kind of water you can use. What kind of Additives you can use. You've have to find out which additives did what, to whom, and for how long...I mean...You'd have to find out which thermister is the best to use. People would have to put thermisters touching their DIE to make sure everybody's CPU Temps were correct. The list goes on and on.

To put something together like that would take ALOT of time and money. Nobody is going to spend THAT much time working out all of the different possibilities of different fluids, thermisters, flow rates, water pressure, water temperature, etc...etc...etc...

I'm not saying it's impossible, because you COULD make a standard, but it would be VERY hard to get anybody to follow the standard unless you had a HUGE backing of every WC website out there.

My $0.02

[Brians256]

That's basically it. Every website has at least one "standard". Some websites have many. :D

That's how bad it is. Basically, I don't want to fight the tide. If anyone is going to do it, it will probably be someone like pHaestus, who has the time, expertise, equipment and inclination. He is working towards doing something more definitive, like BillA did.

[pHaestus]

I think there is a difference between copying Cathar's ideas for a block design and selling something that you halfheartedly copied and saying it is a whitewater.

As far as testing goes, there are baby steps towards standards, right? I have an article somewhere that compares different CPU loading programs and suggests that CPUBurn high priority is the program to use for comparative purposes. It also has some observations that fsb and ram timings can affect CPU temps. These are things worth noting. There is a recent thread where Joe and I suggest that mounting a calibrated thermocouple or thermistor under the center of the CPU core is the best end user way to measure CPU temps for comparative purposes. And I have posted how to calibrate thermistors and diode readers a few times now. We are left with I suppose flow rate measurement, which comes down to $$. And even with that Since87 has suggested a differential pressure measurement across a radiator that has been tested by BillA so you can correlate the pressure drop across the rad with a flow rate. That should work well, be non-restrictive, and has been mostly ignored (it IS a pretty involved project).

Just need some end users to put all those pieces together I guess. (Any takers?)

[Phant0m51]

But that's just it, you can set the standards and do all the testing, but how do you really know if anybody is going to follow the standards? Also, you have to look at other variables like pressure applied from the block to the CPU.

Ram timings and FSB having to do with CPU temperatures? Well it looks like we can only test with a specific brand/type of RAM, so we can keep all of the timings the same. We'll also need to all agree on exact liquid measurements so we can all have the same mixture. Now we need to figure out how we are all going to use the exact same type of metal, that way nobody uses a more malable (sp?) material, so we all have guaranteed even pressure. What brand of Thermister should we use for our temperatures sensing? I mean, Thermisters have anywhere of +/- 5% to +/- 1% difference in temperatures at 100* F. That's a 1 to 5 degree difference. What about radiators? You said that since87 has been working on, and BillA has been testing, a differential pressure drop across a Radiator. Well that works fine and dandy, except for the fact that everyone is going to have to use the same Radiator with the same pressure drop, that way we all use the same everything.

Basically, we'd all have to decide on an exact setup, with the same exact liquids used, same pressure on the block, and everything. Yay, we all wanted to watercool so we could be different, but now for testing we all have to use the exact same thing...

/rant

Sorry, just tense today and I'm also very pesimistic today, so yeah, I don't think I should talk anymore on this subject before I give myself a hernia...

[Brians256]

It's a sad thing, but it's also typical. There is NO simple solution, no matter how much we wish for one. Take two engineers and you'll get three ways of making the same measurement. :D

Having said that, I think that pHaestus has the right goal in mind. It just takes time, unless people want to start forking out dough to help him do it faster. If people start seeing decent and repeatable results from his setup, it might encourage them to follow in suit.

[winewood]

What if we come up with a general setup.

Pump X. Radiator X. Tubing X feet long. Ability to measure water temp, ambient temp, cpu temp via thermistor under cpu. Cpu a 1700+ at default settings. No case. Arrangement, flat out with no component higher than the other. 1/2 OD tubing. Temperature using "cpu burn in" with no error checking measured every 5 minutes for 1 hour.

With these exact setups, anyone using the standard measure will have a comparable CW. If we make the equipment standard, and common, everyone should have access to the system or someone who does. The equipment can be items we already have graphs for. If we change the flow or head, we do it by changing from... eheim 1250 to a 1048 to a 1046.

Is this a start? Even if everyone cant agree on the exact accuracy, we will at least have a reference and know the shared strengths and shared weaknesses. Perhaps if we contributed to one persons setup, they could test for some of us. ;)

[joemac]

I agree with pHaestus. Baby step seems the only way to go. I had hoped that someone had taken the first step into standardized testing. I know Bill A did testing before he went into the private sector. Maybe there are no standers because there is no money to be made in water cooling (P.C). Brings us back to the topic of this post. The guy on ebay made this block no doubt as a copy cat of the WW. He used it for a while and then put it on sale. I like a few others in this group have invested literally thousand of dollars (U.S) into this hobby. Why? Who knows? It takes a lot of time and money to develop a block. It is very sad that people do not give credit where credit is due. So now after all the time, effort and money invested one can’t get their blocked tested with standards as they are none existent.

[jaydee]

Originally posted by winewood
What if we come up with a general setup.

Pump X. Radiator X. Tubing X feet long. Ability to measure water temp, ambient temp, cpu temp via thermistor under cpu. Cpu a 1700+ at default settings. No case. Arrangement, flat out with no component higher than the other. 1/2 OD tubing. Temperature using "cpu burn in" with no error checking measured every 5 minutes for 1 hour.

With these exact setups, anyone using the standard measure will have a comparable CW. If we make the equipment standard, and common, everyone should have access to the system or someone who does. The equipment can be items we already have graphs for. If we change the flow or head, we do it by changing from... eheim 1250 to a 1048 to a 1046.

Is this a start? Even if everyone cant agree on the exact accuracy, we will at least have a reference and know the shared strengths and shared weaknesses. Perhaps if we contributed to one persons setup, they could test for some of us. ;)
Not really. What your not picking up on is you cannot measure a (usable) C/W with onboard testing of any kind even with decent hardware that pH is putting together. Why? Because you need a consistent watt output that you know. We do not know the true watt output of a CPU. Therefor you cannot measure the C/W as watts are half the equation. Another problem arises in the fact that every board (even the same model) varies the output with it's different tolerances in voltage control AND each CPU will yield a little different than another (one reason why some CPU's overclock much better than others).
So what this leaves us is just temps. Which then again is still unreliable because of the above. One system may not be even close to an identical system sitting next to it!

We have two problems here. #1 the average Joe spamming useless temps around thinking he is leet when he is not. #2 the block tester representing a site such as pH does here. These are two different problems that need two different standards.

As for #2 it is not such a big deal (well it is but..) being everything is isolated to one setup.

As for #1 we have all the problems that have been mentioned above and the simple fact people are generally lazy and cheap and un-whiling to do any of this but have no problem being a spam whore of ignorance (as pH and unregistered knows I was once one of these).

I doubt that to many people with the exception of a few care to take measures to back themselfs up with either #1 or the #2 problems. Evidence is the recent thing that I got banned over. A whole site devoted to ignorance and they are spamming it onto their readers and they are proud of it!!!! Seriously!!! They think decent testing is a joke and not worthy of their readers time. :rolleyes:

[winewood]

So the question is this now...

who exactly out there would/could review a block and be credible in your eyes???

I think the only accurate measurement is to have a block A's temp and using the same system showing block B's temp. This way you can run the exact same everything and say, block X was better on my setup by X degrees.

Perhaps CW is really not a useable measurement for anyone as it can't be applied to anything else but the reference system.

[jaydee]

Originally posted by winewood
So the question is this now...

who exactly out there would/could review a block and be credible in your eyes???

I think the only accurate measurement is to have a block A's temp and using the same system showing block B's temp. This way you can run the exact same everything and say, block X was better on my setup by X degrees.

Perhaps CW is really not a useable measurement for anyone as it can't be applied to anything else but the reference system.
Well there is a level a relativity. As long as you use something more accurate than the onboard probes, like the TC mounted under the CPU, and you can have a level of repeatability and consistancy then what you get should hold true to others.

If I get 40C on a Maze 4, 38C on a Maze 3, and 36C on a White Water then the next guy should have consistant "relative" temps. In other words if he has 50C On the Maze 4 he should get 48C on the Maze 3, and 46C on the White Water. All depending on ambient temps. This providing he uses identical parts I do which is simply not going ot happen.

I said not possible and I was refering to the average Joe. It is possible to set a standard for people like pH. The problem is there are to many renegade site's that don't care enough or are simply not capable of doing what pH is doing or anything even close for that matter. His results will only apply to us as we are the readers of his work. The countless number of other techs sites will be on their own and this is how all this ignorance continues to spread as you have people in charge of a website that many people read and they don't think that they need to worry about decent testing. Times that by 100(s) and you have the mess we have now. One or two sites above the rest and 100's of wannabe's saying the two sites are just full of shit and arrogant assholes, simply because they are incapable of doing it right so they have to make everyone else think they are not wrong and these 2 sites are full of it so they keep their "cattle" they call readers/members clicking their ads and ramping up their daily hits.

They are just not up to doing right. That is how it has always been and after a recent thread in which I got banned I do not see that changing.

[joemac]

I was going to suggest a CPU heat simulator but there would probably be variances in them too. :shrug:

[jaydee]

Originally posted by joemac
I was going to suggest a CPU heat simulator but there would probably be variances in them too. :shrug:
Thats the best way to do it but not to many people are capable of doing it or going to pay for it. If done right the C/W values should be much closer per each tester if they all used a well controlled heat sourch like BillA used. You MUST be able to read actual wattage and be able to monitor it. This you cannot do on a computer. Groth was working on a circuit to do this but havn't heard much on it lately.

Without an actual wattage value your C/W value is just a guess at reality. Lets look at it a little closer.


Delta = CPU temp - Ambient Temp
C/W = Delta / CPU Watts

Interpreting C/W: For every watt (CPUw) that the CPU consumes, the HSF will limit the CPU's temperature rise to (C/W x CPUw) plus the temperature at the HSF's fan inlet. For example, at an ambient temp of 25 C, a C/W of 0.25 with a CPU radiating 50 watts means that CPU temp will increase 50 x 0.25 = 12.5 C over ambient temp, or 37.5 C. The lower the C/W, the better.

To get your Delta you need to subtract the Ambient temp from the CPU temp.

Lets use 25C for Ambient and 40C for CPU temp. 40 - 25 = 15C Now say we have an 80watt load. Divide the delta (15C) by the Watts (80) and you get a C/W of .1875

Now say your going off the CPU specs by amd or intel. The best you can do is guess as there is no way currently to record the actual watts the CPU is using. So we use a full load program and hope it uses close to the specs AMD/INTEL provides. Now say your guessing it is 80watts but in reality it is 70watts. 15 / 70 = .214 for the C/W. Your water block just became shit in a hurry just because of the 10watt error.


This is why BillA's C/W's are higher than most because he can record the actual wattage with his setup. There is no guessing because he is controling the variables, as to were a CPU and mobo are controling the variables the other way.

[pHaestus]

Dear all:

I am on the case.

We knew about the problem with "W" and CPUs for a while, right? If you look for posts by groth he is working on an ammeter. With dumping that (current) and voltage into some of the inputs of my Maxim setup, you could in theory know C/W by simultaneously measuring A,V, and deltaT with a reasonable accuracy. In practice there are still some issues with the circuit, and the motherboard modifications are not for the faint of heart.

I have a die simulator and a heater cartridge and just need to drill a couple of holes in it. It is identical to Joe Citrella's at overclockers.

JoeC, BillA, and I have discussed cross testing our simulators (same block on all systems). We can then adjust using Bill's setup as the reference. In theory (damn there it is again) we can cross correlate somewhere down the road.

Basically this is way out there and more for sites not end users. Hey you don't go crash your car to test out the airbags and safety features do you? You let people whose job it is do that. My job here at procooling is to test waterblocks and rank them comparatively (and I am doing a shitty job of it so far).

For end users, we JUST posted a thread about putting a thermocouple under core. Thermistors work too and are much cheaper. Make sure to calibrate whatever you use before you epoxy it down. Good enough for you to tell whether cooling changes are for the better or for the worse. As far as comparing with one another, well that's just a big dick contest to start with; post wCPUID screens or pictures of blue/UV lighting action instead. :)

[Blackeagle]

Thermistors of good accuracy.

1) What do you consider "good" accuracy? 1%, 2% or...ect.?

2) Where do you purchase them, and what is the cost per unit?

3) Do you then also need to purchase a differant meter to read these thermistors, or will those now used such as DigiDoc's or Comp-u-nurse's work to read these higher accuracy thermistors?

While I've no intention at this time to attempt accurate testing myself, I found myself wondering about these things while reading through this thread. I think it would be helpfull to anyone who IS interested in improved readings for thier own use, or simple testing/reviews if anyone who knows these details could post them.

And if the cost isn't to high for them I'd enjoy having the satisfaction of having temp readings that are more than a total fantasy. Even if only valid for my system.

Thanks to anyone who can help with this.

[joemac]

Even if standers are agreed upon by ones in here, what’s to stop a tester from favoring a particular manufacture or person?

[winewood]

ebay suprise! (click me) (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3427478448&category=3666)

lol... hehe... ok.
HEY are we the only forum that knows the maze 4 cant beat the maze 3 and others or what??

[jaydee]

Originally posted by winewood
ebay suprise! (click me) (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3427478448&category=3666)

lol... hehe... ok.
HEY are we the only forum that knows the maze 4 cant beat the maze 3 and others or what??
What can ya do.....:shrug:


BRAND NEW Danger Den Maze 4 water block for Intel CPU. This Maze 4 waterblocks is the newest water block from Danger Den company and also the best performance water block available on the market today.