Cater to the masses yes, as there is no point otherwise. :shrug: I sure the hell will not go through all this just to tell the 5 people I know that can do something with good results my results.

If I test 5 blocks, a, b, c, d, e, and on my system d performs the best on my die sim at whatever flow rate I am using then how is that not telling him what the better block is? All he has to do is try and match my flow rate. Even if we used multiple flow rates and made a chart they will STILL have to try and match a flow rate so why give them more options than they know what to do with?

Just weigh them Jaydee. Heaviest waterblock wins :)

I did not express the masses part of my anal ravings very good. I was allluding to giving in to what the masses want as far as a test goes (they do not know what is required so why give in). As you well know, a blocks performance curve is not linear in respect to flow rate. Someone could easily skew a test to the dumb masses by running a really low flow for a block that is designed for a higher water presure. A set of flow rate points establishes a curve that one can see the direction performance is heading on either end. A really well block could be made to look like it is only slightly better than the pack with only one flow comparison.

I agree that after a proper test was done it could be diluted or dumbed down in its presentation but there will always be data to back up conclusions at least.

That's the answer I was looking for on the flow rate issue and agreed. Luckily it is one of the easier and cheaper measurments to get reasonable accurate. Now what about inlet and outlet temp? I find it would be pretty difficult to measure a .5C raise in temp with equipment even .25C inaccuracy curve. So why again is this measurement important and usefull and worth the money to fork out?

Do you want a narrow line for a performance curve(relating to specific data points) or a highway (describing a vast swath of possibilities along the way)?:D

JD: I think you're getting closer...

If you test blocks a, b, c, d, and e, and you get say, 34, 35, 38, 40 and 44 deg C respectively, you'd tend to place them in that order, right?

As GF pointed out, you only measured it for one flow rate, and that's not fair, because one block could outperform another at another flow rate, where it didn't before. Even one or two years back, you'd get an occasional block whose curve would cross another block, but with today's variety of designs, it's more than just a fluke.

Back to the order...

If you use a thermocouple, and some meter that gives you +/- 1 deg C, which would be ok, then you can't really say that block b outperforms block a, because block B's temp could actually be 34, and block A's temp could actually be 35, which would actually reverse the order of those two.

[edit: rambling removed]

Now I don't know if you had all that figured out, but I thought I'd recap it, at least for everyone else's benefit. We have 630 views on this thread alone, as of now, so someone is watching!


[edit: rambling removed]

I understand where your coming from but you nor Ben answered the question. I as with the majority of people are concerned with what temp the block keeps the die, not how much warmer the water is after it exits the block. So again why bother with the measurement when you have a die temp measurement? Is there some other use for it? Or is it taken to backup what your die temp is?

And also whats the point in taking the base temp of the block? I find this to be pretty impossible anyway...

I thought I explained earlier that I use these measurements to verify that my test setup is working properly. This is something I find useful (confidence in my results).

So to recap: what we have here is people with experience and/or expertise telling you something wont work or is really difficult. On the other hand we have those without experience full of enthusiasm and sure it's all straightforward.

[edit: rambling removed]

BTW, I take it back: that DP250 meter isn't going to cut it. With an accuracy of +/- 0.025 deg C, that means a differential of +/- 0.05, which is next to useless.

[edit: rambling removed]

http://thermal-management-testing.com/Hdie1.htm

http://thermal-management-testing.com/Hdie2.htm

http://thermal-management-testing.com/die3.htm

Question still not answered though. How is either the inlet/outlet and/or base plate temp a verification? What makes those temps any better than the other? And how are you taking these temps for only a few hundred $'s accurately? Stuff isn't adding up in this thread. We have Ben saying it will take several 1,000 $'s to make a accurate measurement for this and we have you that says you got a couple hundred $'s and say you can take those measurements accurately enough to be useful.
No, what we have here is some claiming to be experienced (some are some are not) and not sharing their claimed knowledge to inform the less knowledgeable. Instead we have "do it this way or don't do it at all" with no explanation why it needs to be done that way.

There is way to much conflicting input here to be useful IMO.

Maybe better off in one of the other sections?

I have two YSI thermistors for my digitec 5810s that, when placed in a container of water, read the same temperature exactly (they are 0.01C res) over the 25-35C water temperature range. Since this is the case, I find the delta T across the waterblock to be useful to me when setting up the loop and playing around with my gear. I like to watch the change in delta T with flow rate; they are bright red LEDs and it's something to do for the testing period (which takes a long time). I don't buy my stuff retail because I don't have a closet full of money. I don't see why the private checks I do to get a feel for how the testing is going has become such a big deal.

The CPU die and the wb baseplate I both take with a small diameter type T thermistor. The difference between CPU die temp and the baseplate temp gives me an idea of the "goodness" of waterblock mounting. I don't see why measuring temperatures at both sides of all the junctions would be a bad thing? It isn't any extra work on my part and is sometimes useful.

This being the temp. measurement topic area I thought they would be of help here.

I have not read all the differant topics however JayDee so if there is another topic you feel it would help in then please post it. I'll gladly post them there as well.

pH,

I like the way you have a redundant set of readings to cross check your results. Not only does it give you something to do, as you put it, it must also give you the oportunity to spot something going wrong more quickly.

Still Googling...

I found an article of interest, on the topic of "Data Acquisition". It's from the August issue of "Test & Measurement World" (another mag I read often), under the "Automotive & Aerospace section. Go down to the article entitled "Avoid data-acquisition mistakes". Here's the link:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/cont.../80103aatr.pdf
(PDF, 4.86 MB)

big file for small article.

Yes being digital literate but not analog literate is my problem. I have a nonworking Digitec with ADC and 3 working ones without. If I were clever I could build the ADC for all the working ones and then use a data logger to pull all of their data to a PC serial port. Alas I am not well versed in such.

I think there is a level of mis communication here. I am not questioning your capabilities or your testing methods. What I want to know is if this is all really needed for "other" testers just getting into it. Ben mentioned a minimum, well what is it?

What are the minimum measurements needed to make a decent review of a block?

Just trying to get something acomplished here. Once that question is answered we can move on to the equipment needed to do it. We spent two weeks so far and I see nothing in the form of progress here.....

Jaydee, I will try to sum up my take on a hypothetical test regime, someone kick me if I'm wrong.:)

You asked, "What are the minimum measurements needed to make a decent review of a block?"


Mount - remount 10 times (more?)

(10) quantify mounting presure for each

describe tim application

(40) 4 flow rates each mount

(40) 1 water presure measurement per flow rate run

(10) voltage and current measurements to quantify applied heat (steady state)

(80) inlet temp, outlet temp to verify steady state water temp (use as mounting indicator also)

(40) die temp reading (.01C res, +-.05C accuracy)per mount per flowrate (that's 40 more temps if you're counting along)

(40) bp reading (see above)

--------
260 total readings per block



Take the results and present them the way you want. Block A vs B or get anal with presure vs flow rate charts, mounting variance charts and all that. Now you have reproducable data to back up your claims assuming you have the equiptment calibrated correctly.

The multiple mounting verifies the comparability of tim joint application (error bars) and allows the calculation of an average bp temp measurement of the ten mounts. This is also where cross test platform comparability would suck ass. YOU could reproduce the results (get the same average) but your technique in applying the tim and mount presure will never be the same as anyone elses no matter how many words you use to describe it.

Thanks GF, anyone else have a different opinion?

I don't think I meet the stated requirements of G_F: My 2190C setup is 0.01C res but no better than 0.3C absolute accuracy. That's what I read die temp and wb baseplate temp from btw.

I don't think the raw accuracy numbers are as important as moving your error along in your calcs and being careful to reproduce each test as close as possible. If I find a rare block that I can get a reproducible mount upon and the std deviation for the first 3 or 4 mounts is extremely small then I probably will stop there. If I have trouble getting a good mount I might do more. Be honest! I can't distinguish 0.1C differences in a block's performance. I can't control flowrate batter than 0.05 GPM. I am not confident that these sets of numbers are statistically different. It's ok! Everyone who has tried to run wb tests will understand :)

I have seen testing very carefully done by people with a minimum of expense (look at Hoot's stuff at overclockers and Cathar's block testing for examples. Probably wrong numbers in absolute terms but very useful and as controlled as they could make them with their stuff). There was a guy at a British website who did some nice testing on flowrate restriction using nothing more than a bucket and a stopwatch :) The key is to be honest about the confidence in the results and to repeat tests and become experienced. For all Ben's talk of analytical testing, it is extremely unlikely you'll all come up with a "true" number for a waterblock's performance even if everyone uses exactly the same testing gear. Practice is really the best teacher on this stuff.

I've seen no absolute proof that Cathar ever quantified a difference in performance (other than a rough .5C, well within his margin of error) with his new block over his ww block. If there is a performance increase the source of the increase has not been pinpointed (witness Les's argument on bp flatness from machining differences recently). Cathar's two blocks are a perfect example of why resolution and accuracy are needed for any answers. I seriously doubt he could quantify a difference with his homestyle test equiptment. I believe that a difference has been noted through higher overclocks, but chips sometimes do overclock differently over time (not diffinitive). His block has so many variables to it that I do not see how he could have optimized them all together without SEEING a changed variables effect. That being said there is nothing wrong with applying ones theories through invention but even trial and error has its limits when you cannot identify an error.

He said the Cascade is 2.5C better than the White Water last I heard.

So your basically saying give up on testing? As from everything I have read from you there is no right way to do things no matter what equipment is used....

I was referring to the original design process of the whitewater block. The absolute numbers were irrelevant but the changes that he made through that process were validated through testing and could be seen in the final product.

No, I'm saying doing testing right could give some answers that are helpful in designing a block. I stand corrected if it is 2.5C (is this verifiable?). Do it right not halfassed is all I was ever saying in these discussions.

I believe that his main decisions came through the use of a mathematical simulator that he put together. I was of the belief that this influenced his design decisions not the testing. His testing showed promise but true validation came when BillA slapped it on his test die.

[edit: rambling removed]

But doing it right, by what you have stated to be right, is not going to be possible by anyone here, not even pH. So we should just all give up? or do our best to eliminate as many errors as possible and move forward?

Also I guess it was 2C, was sure I seen 2.5C somewhere but stand corrected:
http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/sho...5&pagenumber=6

I never state that my testing is accurate. It is true that until BillA tested the White Water, then my results weren't really validated.

My Cascade results ranged from 1.5-2.0C better than my reference White Water block here in my testing. That's of course with the disclaimer about the (gross) inaccuracies of my testbed.

The Cascade results have been partially independently validated by the German water-cooling site who tested the Cascade against the DTek White Water, and found the Cascade to be 1.5C in front. The aluinium topped DTek White Water is an exact copy of the original White Water for the cooling specific bits (middle and base plates).

The German site used an Eheim 1046 with a large number of added restrictions, so admittedly this was an extremely low flow test. In my testing the Cascade does pick up a bit of performance separation over the White Water as the pumping pressure is increased.

Now what that all tells me is that despite the inaccuracies of my testbed, I can still get a somewhat decent indication of what's going on. It's not accurate in any way, but it's at least good enough for me to develop the block designs and pick a difference and really that's all that I was after.

True validation comes from independent testing, because let's face it, it is perhaps never wise to take a block maker's word on how their product performs?

I wasn't trying to put you on the spot Cathar or hold your testing methods up as the ideal. I merely meant that it was a good example of you you can get good results from "typical" equipment with being careful and with a bit of thought. You can throw thousands of dollars at the problem as well, but without attention to detail and careful experiment design it still wont be reliable. That was my point.