Ahh just read all that. Good fun. But wheres the making fun of the others penis size? or mother? I mean really this thread needs that as much as it needs more cowbell!

This thread is much better with a few high octane beers in the belly :)

Doc holiday for teh WIN!!!11

Humm.... The same test, the same equipment, same conditions = accuracy? :shrug: Was it not Bill that stated his die sim style is not what should be used anymore? How accurate is his old data that a few around here base their predictions and calculations on?

No need for me to answer for Bill…but are you concerned with the relative accuracy in comparing one radiator to another on the same test bench or are you asking about the absolute accuracy of an individual radiator?

Neither? I am talking about the accuracy of the test bench itself.

jd - technical questions are so much better
yes, proven so - think about the individual who knows first hand the answer
yes; if used it should be configured as a calorimeter - see Inchoerent's work
but better, if using the data to compare to commercial thermal solutions, is to use the same heat source as is prevalent in industry

Swiftech's posted data is all recent, comparable, and utilizes the same heat source; without question the present data is more accurate than the previous set, as the next will be improved yet again

Yeh what he said ;)

That pretty much answered my question. Also is that dP meter I bought off ebay what I should have bought? It says 0-400" H20 which is around 0-14.5 PSI correct? Given the info on the auction it sounded right but I can't find specifics at foxboro.com on the thing. The numbers after 823DP also come up with nothing on google.

If referring to an Intel TTV, I disagree.

The temperature of the heat-die is not known, the size of the heat die is not known, nor is the efficacy of the heat-die to IHS contact as a variable of waterblock base->IHS interaction known either.

IMO, the Intel TTV isn't too far from measuring the internal temperature of an oven by a thermometer on the outside. I know that Intel proposes it as a heatsink validation mechanism, but even Intel states that once a heatsink has been validated on a TTV that it must also be qualified by taking actual CPU temperatures in a real system.

IMO, if one wants to simulate an IHS based scenario in a fixed and repeatable fashion, then the heat die and the IHS need to be a one-piece affair, thereby the die->IHS variable is removed and can be corrected by applying a correction factor based upon observed TIM behavior, but applying such a correction factor would only be for validation purposes.

Pop corn, chips, coke/beer, etc... Hey this "Pibb xtra" stuff isn't too bad!

The allegation here (once one puts aside the irrelevant "communications") comes down to:
Last I checked, Bill went to an "OEM partner" when he moved from Swiftech to Coolingworks:
http://coolingworks.com/order/index.html

From all of the available information from both CoolingWorks and Swiftech, I see a very close association (read: "strategic partnerships"), and I have no reason to suspect that Bill went to Coolingworks without both companies being fully aware.
ref: http://swiftnets.com/aboutus.asp (2003 section).

Otherwise, I see no work done by Bill that didn't disclose a manufacturer affiliation (albeit maybe not directly).

Then there's the China connection, or as it turns out, Willie at HWLabs, whose based in the Philippines, but I see another reference from China... and JSE.

Maybe I just don't see it yet. More Pibb xtra...

jd
buy a manual for $17 or so, what you have is fine - you outbid me on it !

Cathar
the term is 'case to air', where 'case' is the IHS
nothing at all to do with the silicon temp
I was not attempting to make any characterization of the silicon temp
this activity is to characterize thermal resistance where the transfer is between the IHS and the heatsink, and the IHS heating is done by a device designed to do so

I believe the device may be considered to be more representative than a correction factor applied to a different device - speculation on speculation here

your concern would be better placed with the 'size correction factor', how will you determine such ?
what is the baseline ?
Ben's WTBA ?
every time I have the opportunity to follow 'industry practice' I do so, avoids time in discussion and cross-testing (and my ongoing self education)

Ben, you are an idiot; you agree with Bruce that employment precludes objectivity
well, the base of the pyramid needs to be filled also
- be fruitful and multiply (multiple wives in some religions eh ?)

Such does not characterise actual die-temperature cooling efficacy if there are unknown and unquantified variations between the die heater and the IHS with each IHS-cooling device mating.

Representative of what though? What is being measured? I mean we know what is being measured, the IHS surface - air delta. I still fail to see how that helps in allowing for an accurate determination of CPU die cooling efficacy when the CPU die to IHS contact is varying on a per cooling device basis.

An Intel TTV is fine for heatsink validation, for providing a cursory and repeatable "pass or fail" assessment of heatsink solutions. It is not representative of actual real-system cooling efficacy, and not even Intel treats it as holding that level of determination. It is merely a validation tool, not a final performance measuring device.

Meaning the size of the heater-die? I find such a statement a little ironic when the size of the heater-die in an Intel TTV is neither known nor documented.

Something to be determined perhaps? Something to be independenly assessed through trial and error and actually measuring the temperature of the heater-die/CPU-die simulator, rather than the outside case/IHS temp.

Please. I was thinking more along the lines of Incoherent's excellent work for much of the above.

...otherwise known as following the path of least resistance through accepting the lowest common denominator, regardless of suitability for the intended purpose.

There are bare-die CPU's from both Intel and AMD aplenty. There are bare-die GPU's almost solely. The variances in CPU die->IHS contact are well known and documented and observed far and wide. How are such catered for with an IHS-only unquantified-variable-laden testing methodology?

It would seem to me that insistance upon adherence to a particular testing solution which is both clearly flawed and even acknowledged by the testing solution's manufacturer as being inadequate for purposes of final performance assessment is purely a matter of convenience and little else.

I would say that everyone absolutely loved your work with your old thermal testing setups, not because they were "standard", but because they challenged people to do things correctly, to know and quantify the variables, and sought to explore and understand the very nature of what it is that we were all concerned about measuring, being the die temperatures and effects of mounting variations and TIM layers. I see using a "standard" TTV where at least 3 variables are not even known, and worse, completely ignored, as turning one's back on the good work and progress laid down before.

I, for one, don't understand it...

Not at all, but I do believe that the affiliation should be stated.

Your record (IMO) stands up very well all on its own. If anything, I think you should have remained a solo outfit, and be an outsourcer to all these people but hey, that's just me. :shrug:


Sounds like we could use another thread for Intel's TTV, but there isn't much info available, even through queries.

I agree that 'validation' testing is different, and uses somewhat different tools of necessity, than testing new ideas and concepts; how could it be otherwise ?

my innovation was based on necessity, but the best available tool should be used - not 'my best'
suggest listing also the limitations of a copper heat die; they are considerable

for me the $64 ? is consistancy and repeatablity, and the IHS is easier to work with in attaining these goals

R&D warrants the relative complexity of a calorimeter setup, but thats all I would use it for

ah Ben, the affliation is known - so then what ?
my record, indeed

Why do I think that Gabe has not released the white paper on radiator performance? How the hell do I know, I have no clue what white paper you're talking about... Besides haven't spoken to Gabe in a very long time... and I also don't know what Gabe has to do with any of this stuff... so I really don't understand why it's important for us what Gabe said or did right now... It's Bill who is said to make vague references giving the impression that single-pass Bi radis would be underperforming... I 'm yet too see any test results supporting this claim - which BTW is the opposite of what he commented regarding single-pass Pro3 radiator before, as can be seen here -

BTW what are you saying Erick, that CoolRad-12T is not a BIX rev.1 clone?

and please keep the marketing crap to yourself, out of this thread

It's funny that you're telling me to be straight here... You are stating things that we all know here... also don't forget the fact that HWlabs is the first company that made radiators specifically for PC liquid cooling, before even anyone was seeing this hobby as a market at all...

It was not me, who posted comments about preventing the Chinese invasion of the US market and what not, and yet designed a radiator for the Chinese...

guess you needed credibility, and BillA needed a job

Erick don't try to BS me... we know each other for how long now?

Questioning the accuracy of Bill's data?
What data are you exactly talking about? There is no data regarding the single-pass BI radiator from BillA or not that I have seen...

When pH received the single-pass Pro3 BillA was talking highly about it...

and when Scott raised this question:
this was his answer:

he stated that he had the data but that's all... we never saw any data...

so what data are you exactly talking about?
he didn't post any data to support his positive comments, and didn't post any data to support his vague references regarding the single-pass Bi radiators either...

all I know is that he made comments regarding the single-pass Pro3 as "pretty clear what it is, a BIP 3 single pass, lots of capacity there !, "I would give Willie credit for his rads, they are in fact 'made for computer cooling' " etc. Link to the thread here

and now he makes vague references to these new line of single-pass BI rads (which BTW are not new at all to us Pro/Coolers), giving the impression that the performance of this line would be underwhelming... and yeah BillA is really good at word play, you gotta give him that...

So why all the flip-flopping now eh?

and oh yeah according to Bill I'm pointing out the facts because I'm dishonest and / or I'm a money chaser... yet i don't sell these single-pass radiators... i'm not a HWlabs forum hitman either... so gimme a f*cking break...

and if you agree with him on this Erick, F*ck you too...

"looks like a match made in heaven" said Jubba The Hut, The Star Inc's chairman

hmm is he standing on a surf board?
hard to tell...

oh yeah you're very transparent ...

and this single post really summarizes it all for us:

So looks like you contacted Willie to get exclusive rights on the single-pass radiator, but Willie refused you... So all of a sudden the performance of the single-pass became not necessarily better, and it all depends eh?

and no data whatsoever...

if you got the exclusive rights on the single-pass radi, then would it become the best sh*t on the market?

and when I pointed out the facts by giving reference to the old ProCooling thread all of a sudden I became dishonest, and a money chaser is that it?

bruce, you are 100% the master of forum quotes!

The internet is your bitch.

Lol that's exactly what i was thinking.


I"ll need to read most of the thread in the morning I don't think I'm compitent right now.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

I'm talking about your general assertion that Bill would not publish accurate/unbiased data.

No denying the resemblance. However, it is not a cheap knock off... that is my point. Cheap knock off implies poor quality poor performance. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Don’t bring up my companies products and I will not bring them up.

Who is designing a radiator for the Chinese? The tail does not wag this dog

Actually, Bill had other opportunities and I am fortunate he joined me. What you have to wonder is why he would leave Swiftech, pass up other offers and join CoolingWorks.

Know each other....Bruce I spent more time talking with Mark and Bucky at Frozen. That was drink beers with them one night …now that is a solid retail operation.

I loved that movie. I still think that was one of his better roles, too.

agreed, the high point of the thread so far

Where are you going with this?

BillA used to chop people's heads off in the forums, when they made similar performance claims without any data to support them... yet he made claims regarding the single-pass radiators without any data... very scientific eh?

so just like you said, let's be straight here...

Well, you posted in the other forum that since I'm a merchant carrying HWlabs radiators, my bias is clear. If your logic applies to me, then it definitely applies to BillA, right? He makes (involved in design / manufacturing) radiators, and made conflicting claims about the performance of competing radiators, with no data to support neither his positive claims, nor "vague references" giving the impression to people that the raditors are underperforming.

Sorry, guess it's not cheap anymore, because HWlabs dropped their radiator pricing substantially as well. and FYI that's not because you released Xtreme Rev.1 knock offs at a cheaper price though. I knew about this 6-7 months prior to the price change...

Your company is in direct competition with HWlabs, and BillA is working with you.

I wonder which part you did not get, but here you go:

[quote]
Bruce:
welcome back Bill

did you design those radis?

I thought those radis are also from China, no?

FYI a company from China contacted me about those radis couple times within the last few months...[quote]


So yeah, BillA said he designed the BS radiators from China, and the Chinese have the right to sell to everyone.

Why do I have to wonder why Bill would leave Swiftech and join CoolingWorks?

I didn't mean we're best buddies, drinking beer, chasing women etc, by knowing each other Erick lol

I meant cut the BS, by posing as a big corporation, and using titles like I'm the President/CEO and Bill is the CTO etc. You don't have hundred employees working for you AFAIK, and you are no Swiftech either...
We are a small company too. Cooltechnica used to be only me when I first started it, CoolingWorks was only you when you started it AFAIK. So is it only Bill and you, now?

Ask Bill or Gabe...humm still no white paper. Marci knows. You accused Bill of having no integrity but in reality Bill has engineering integrity almost to a fault. Some employers may think that does not make him a team player. Personally, I expect and respect honesty and integrity in research. If the product doesn't perform then it doesn't perform revise the design and retest.

Armelin Widget Corporations dba CoolingWorks Incorporated in California 2003 check the public records.

Bruce keep talking Sh#? You’re only motivating Bill and me that much more.