Perl = interpreted scripting programming language with syntax derived from C, java, awk, sed, and sh. Not great for large-scale programming because it requires discipline from the coder to not create unreadable code. Great for small scale munging of data sets. Incredibly powerful language but with more than enough syntax ugliness to hang oneself very quickly.

flow Storm G4
0.26 13.80666974
0.5 11.26556618
0.75 10.17413799
1.02 9.334698438
1.22 8.977748337
1.5 8.533861092
1.71 8.311434933

I keep 2 decimal places; probably only 1 is significant. I just fired an e-mail off to BaleFire with these numbers too. If you guys want a properly updated spreadsheet I can provide it.

Fascinating indeed.
MCW6000: multiply pumping power by 10 for a 1°C gain !
(but extremely good performance at low flow rates)

For the Nexxos & G4 the gain is roughly 3°C. Who said the Nexxos was better suited to a "low flow" system ?!

//edit: www.Madshrimps.be has made it so all referrals from Proforums get some "death to internet assholes" page instead of their NexXxoS XP review. I wonder why they post reviews if they don't want people reading them or talking about them?

I hope you didn't take that as a stab at you lolito_fr; was not my doing nor my intention.

LOL - Followed the link. Looks like someone is a little touchy.

Thanks for the numbers Ph. I think BalefireX may have gotten something mixed up. The interactive graph clearly ends at 1.85gpm, and not 1.71gpm. Actually in looking it over, it seems to be just the last segment between the last two plot points. Everything else looks okay. Everything up to 1.5gpm is okay.

Would it be possible for you to put a folder somewhere with these sorts of figures for each block tested? I'm very interested in doing performance vs power analysis for at least the top 8 to 10 blocks on the interactive charts (where I have pressure drop information available).

Not understand.
We were having a happy discusion(the odd dig) about Q*dP .
Why stop in it tracks.
A killed serious thread

That is what appears to have happened - don't drink and graph!

I've sent pH a new (and doublechecked) graph overlay

Well it seems to be the time for people finding computational errors. I found one myself, and have re-plotted the graph. I'll add some more blocks as I go. Fairly confident this is correct now. Decided to remove the logarithmic axis. Although interesting, it places a lot of visual impact on the hydrarulic pumping powers that simply don't commonly exist (ie. <0.5W).

Edit: Graph deleted due to errors with best-fit smoothing algorithm

(sigh - I'll get it right one day)

I don't know what to say Les; I can't control what another website does. It wasn't specifically caused by this post though; it was I think in retaliation to the other thread about "what happened to the Nexxos XP review"

That's really neat Cathar. I am still trying to decide whether it's better or worse to try and explain hydraulic power to "avg Joe". Seems reasonable though. The G4 graph on the Pro/Testing page is fixed now; sorry for the error

it was my understanding that C/W per dP graphs were derived from dP per flowrate data

i dunno, just thinking of billa's work

pHaestus,
I apologize ,I was/am wrong.
I should keep out of the kitchen and stick to numbers.

No probs here Ph, it seems to me that only you and Jaydee got redirected :D
(j/k of course)

Raises a smile.
Beermats still soggy here.

I believe I've finally gotten all the bugs worked out of the procedure.

Even if nobody else really believes in this, I am gaining increasing confidence in it. The following graph's patterns mimics near exactly what I see/saw in my own testing with fixed power input fed to the pumps. There would naturally be some variations though between pump input power and hydraulic power depending on where one sits on the efficiency curve of the pump setup, so the correlation is not going to be perfect. I believe that this is the corrections that Since87 was trying to solve with his posts at OC.com.

In my own testing I'm using hydraulic powers from around 1W to 8W being fed to the blocks, although I guess that I really tended to focus on the 1.5-3W range when I look back at the work I've done and correlate it to hydraulic power.

Anyway, here's the updated graph that does contain some extrapolations to arrive at the 4W power figure.

http://www.employees.org/~slf/curves...r/perfpwr3.png

[Edit: New graph - more blocks]

Nice! Hardly surprised to see the G5 is miles ahead ;)

I certainly believe these graphs are much more meaningful than just C/W vs flow.
Flow is always only half the story...Your graphs give a true indication of waterblock efficiency (or is that efficacity?)

Looking back at Since87s' post, as I understand it, the purpose was for the tester to measure the blocks performance at one point - corresponding to a typical system flow rate. Maybe I misread it though...

BTW, I am now very curious as to how the "old-school" blocks would fair with this rating system?

Fits sweetly with any of the old C/W v h plots
eg Fantasy
WW3

Possibly indicating the importance of your attention to non-contributory power in the G series.

I'm going to quote this from the NexXxos XP thread to make sure the info doesn't get missed/lost and keep this discussion in one thread:

Thx pHaestus!

This is less relevant, but I'll include it as a logical conclusion.

http://img33.exs.cx/img33/6618/nexxus-mcw6000-pumps.gif

edit: and this one with added pump heat:

http://img34.exs.cx/img34/5439/nexxus-mcw6000-temps.gif

15W for the MCP650 sounds a little high(?)

You guys are too damn clever. Now I suppose all that you need is pressure drop numbers for all the wbs I've tested right?

You must be telepathic :)

If I was clever (or had a conscience...) I would have written a scipt in Matlab or better still created my own app in Perl ;)
As it is, it feels like I've gone the long way around to produce the last graph - bit of a half-assed way of doing things really. But hey, I may just have learned something on the way :D

Probably the other big thing to do is for me to put together a test loop that contains 2m 1/2" ID tubing, a thermochill 120.2 and the papst fans at 12v, and the blocks/pumps we are modeling. Use it to cool the test system I collected all the data on and we can see how closely the theory matches up with actual performance. Rather unexciting (the results SHOULD match up) but necessary I think. Can I find this radiator and fans in north america?

Not sure about the fans, but I suppose and fan with the same specs should do, the rad can be had at DD: http://dangerden.com/mall/Radiators/thermochill.asp

I don't see any of their canadian distributors stocking the thermochills. I guess I'll need to order direct from DD.