Yes Bill I saw that, very nice of you to help DD with a blockage problem. Now let me see what would I have done? Maybe you should tell me (us) since you seem to know all my thoughts. I find it very odd that I am accused of not liking you since
1. I don’t know you personally.
2. I don’t want to form an opinion on a person based on what they say online.

No Bill these attacks on me have more to do with the facts that some see you as an idol, someone to look for when they need knowledge on this one particular subject (water cooling a cpu). Can I say I blame them- No. You arguably had one of the best test rigs for CPU water blocks. You shared your knowledge on this subject and people notice that indeed you are very informed on the subject. So what happens when someone who has idealized you see you questioned? They blindly defend you, threatens banning (Not that I have been threaten in this forum with banning :D) ETC.
For all that have missed the point of this thread
–This is not an attack on Bill – I just happen to point out that engineers can be biased. Read it Bill wrote that he was an engineer so he can’t be bias. Let me put in this way
A = Engineers
B = Bias
C = Human
D = Not human
E = Who knows
So
A + C = B
A + D = E

For the rest in here think of me what you may and if you formed your opinion of me by the things said about me here then you most likely think of me in a negative way. Sorry for disagreeing with someone you may look up to but I do have of mind of my own and if I think someone is wrong I will say it. I must also apologize for not being frightened out of posting some theories based on the thought that an elite few might say I am wrong. Heck if I am wrong tell me! If I can prove you wrong I will. If you can prove me wrong then thanks for correcting me. That’s what this forum should be about sharing ideas not intimidating newbee’s. You have to admit that when you went to work for a water block manufacture and I decided to become one things did change refusing to see that may mean the idol glasses are still on and that you need to step away from the mirror.
As for what I would have done With the DD blockage? I really don’t know I did not find that error in assembly Bill you did. Now how are you sure I would have not done the same. Look around I have help others when they could not get their swiftech blocks to work as expected. I did not slam your companies blocks nor did I promote the aquagold block – heck I even recommend your pumps to some- Now what does that say about me?

joemac
it is not at all personal, the basis of the recurring disagreement is intellectual
- it is your pernicious promotion of universal 'bias'

take your 'truth table' as a perfect example:

A = Engineers
B = Bias
C = Human
So
A + C = B

now there are many professions whose very functioning quite depends on their members being able to think and act in a unbiased manner
- yet you propose (and would like to assert as a truth) that if they are human they are also biased

that is a pretty ignorant statement, so what then is the logical conclusion ?

you have already stated what you will do wrt reviews:
take the good with the bad
i.e. figure you'll get as many erring positive as negative, and rely on the ignorance of the reader to be unable to distinguish between the two
- and of course your marketing by false and unsubstantiated innuendo as was shown on the Nordic site
-> so clearly you would apply that same standard to the reviews of your competitors
I know what you would do precisely because you have already said this; these are your words, not mine
(I must add that my boss, Gabe, is rather disturbed by my proactive role in this matter, but to me it is strictly an issue of intellectual honesty)

lets just accept that you, and sycophant winewood, claim all humans to be the whores of their paymaster
- while I assert that some can rise above that level
integrity is a nice word

you are welcome to the last word on this matter, let us hope it reflects better upon human capability than has been shown thus far

I'm sorry, which part was false?

My guess would be the forum posts when he represented the block as "as good as whitewater". I don't have the wording exactly right there as he had some vague terms and caveats to protect his statements "If it's worse then only by a little bit" I think.

crap, forgot to include sycophant Ben
sorry for the oversight there Ben

go to the Nordic site forum and post here the 'superior performance' series of comments by joemac and others
I'll be pleased to identify the false part
(I don't have the links)

Winewood,

You do NOT, have to have a bias or predudices to have a position based on research and testing you've done, nor to offer advice drawing from that same research and testing.

You have failed to show in any way how Bill has done other than to post information that he has ALWAYS supported with verifiable facts. Factual data, truth if you will, does not need anything in the way of distortion or bias of any kind, it stands on it's own.

Joemac,

I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting to see you post more than a opinion, unsupported by any FACTS. You just keep restating/rewording a negative series of innuendos in a shallow attempt to discredit Bill Adams.

You are welcome to think what you like, no arguement there, and enjoy all the theorys you wish as well.

But to post such, without supporting FACTS, is then slanderous. So if you can prove me wrong for defending Bill then produce your proofs, if not, then push on.

And you're right regarding a negative view of you, in my case at least, due solely to your unproven innuendos, posted both here and at other sites.

Frankly you increasingly disgust me.

Ben,

I would be very interested in reading those posts that Bill refered to. Could you please post them.
I would rather see this unpleasant thread continue a bit longer, with the hope of putting to rest this issure of repetative attacks on this and other boards aginst Bill by both Winewood, and Joemac.

Thanks Ben.

BillA:
I believe you are refering to this
If not, this is what pH was refering to.

Where DrErling said:
Joemac replied to this comment with:

I hope this was it. Its at the very bottom of Page1.

And JayDee, sorry if I was one of those ignorant new users who you thought was here to start shit.

from the above linked thread:
by joemac:
"Actually, at very low flows I don't know what can match it."

it is this to which I take exception, subsequently 'corrected' in his next post, but still wildly inaccurate

http://thermal-management-testing.co...oe%20cw-hl.gif

a more careful reading of the thread would suggest that the comments, other than the above, are more typical of exaggerated marketing bs than overt lying

to the extent that joemac deserves an apology, here it is
- improve your in-house testing, and cease making inaccurate comparisons

As joemac stated here. I wonder if stating that he doesn't know what can match his block. Since the 5002 and the modifications were made around the time of that statement, does this mean he was lying? I guess it does if you are attempting to make it look like he his for your own reasons. I thought that new block data was released after his own.

Bill, did you test the AquaJoe yourself? If you didn't and those numbers are from different test benches then I don't think it good policy to put them on the same graph. If you have tested it, please post all block data as you have ZERO bias and I would love to see it personally.

You guys either didn't read the 1st posts radio thing or are daft as to the definition. I think it suits you to be oblivious for your own reasons.

WW was out at time of JoeMac's comments and was specifically mentioned in that thread. Did he not know of that block either?

http://www.overclockers.com/articles876/

Bear with me here, but if the Aquajoe is slightly higher in its C/W vs head loss curve than the MC5002, then I would infer it would be a slightly worse performer than the WW at lowest (2lpm is not a typical wcer flow rate even with a 1048 pump btw) flow rates, and much worse when you get to typical low flow scenarios.

Who other than Bill produces C/W vs. Pressure drop graphs?

While you are pulling up definitions, please try obfuscation. To be clear, that is what I am accusing you of doing.

exactly, so if bill has tested this, lets see ALL the data! Bill accused Joemac of not releasing numbers as an example of being bias.
However I think this must be from Joe Citarella since its a 4 point and Bill gives 6 point for graphs. I think these are from 2 different testers. But only bill can answer that one unless you want to guess again, pH.

pH, I noticed that you were going to test the dden and swiftech blocks in a thread the other day. Why are you not testing the AquaJoe block? If fact I remember me challenging you to test it. You stated you were too busy. I think alot of people are grasping for anything they can in an attempt to prove a point they have previously derived at regardless of data. If pointing out that you guys are brick headed on what bias IS, then my understanding is ... you dont WANT to find out the answers that you find so easy to argue in absence of fact. Seeing you have made your conclusions without your own data shows.... (you guessed it).

You guys are grasping at straws attempting to paint Joemac as something when he says... "a little" or "as far as I know". In order to nail him down you have to be the judge of these abstract statements. Your determination to paint a negative picture of someone is clear as to your goals as you state you are without predudice and bias.. since they basically are one and the same. I notice that DDen said on their front page that the maze4 beat maze 3 by a couple of degrees. Both pH and Bill didn't jump all over that, even though the data we have seen shows that was clearly wrong. Why didn'y you guys bite on that one and attack with the same intensity oh bastions of unbias fervor?

If it walks like a duck...

I hope that Bill DOES post that commercial wb comparison he's been promising on www.swiftnets.com; what would you guys say then?

I will test the block, but I would want to test not only the block from aquajoe directly but also an end user block (not from you or Ben thanks) to verify that the waterblock that I test from mfgr is representative of end user performance. I don't want to have unrepresentative data of mine used to mislead consumers.

Kind of funny you take up Bill's side as you only spit out reviews of swiftech products. Let me guess... you aren't buying these. Let me guess, you keep them after you test them? Yup.. better take Bills side if your ganna get your palm greased. Bill says swiftech doesn't rely on reviews to spout out marketing. However, I see them sending them out to you even when they have the "best?" tester in their employ. Why send out products anywhere else unless Bills data could appear bias or homegrown since he profits and isn't.... un.. bias? Isn't Bill capable of doing these himself?

http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/sho...&threadid=8449

Speak up for him again and you might get the next 3 products as well! Since Bill doesn't need you to produce numbers he already knows, what does sending products to you yield?

edit: spelling

and I understand that EVERY test you have done is from an enduser block? Those swiftech units are used? Hardly! 2 different rules for different people? Why is that?

Hmmm. I just mailed a block off to Phaestus for testing. I asked that once he's done that he either returns it, or sells it and passes the money back to me, or he buys it. He neither asked for a discount nor a free block, and I'm not in a financial position to provide him with any. In the meantime he can keep it indefinitely for his upcoming waterblock roundup.

If you are accusing Phaestus (Derek) of taking "cash for comments", whether cash be actual money or donated blocks which can then be sold for money, then you had better provide some evidence of it, or retract your comments as they are quite libelous.

It is natural for water-block makers to seek independent testing. It is also natural for the water-block makers to seek independent testing based upon the tester showing an acute awareness of the issues that face water-block testing, rather than the pelthora of sloppy reviews we see about the place.

Phaestus is taking a position of independence and throwing his comments in the ring, yet you, Winewood, would seem intent on tarnishing everyone with the bias brush.

Ask yourself, why would any other waterblock maker (like me) pay out of his own pocket to send a block to review to someone who he believed would be biased?

I choose who I send blocks to very carefully. Not based on who will give me a good rap, but based on who will do the job properly.

Correct! why is independence needed? IN HOUSE BIAS!

I will start treating pH as unbias when his actions reflect it. Bias is true of everyone! Even me. To state that I was without it would be the ultimate hypocracy. Bias is a broad brush because its a fact of life.

I wish people would stop answering questions not directed at them. I get more suppostions presented as fact and the original questioned person doesn't answer the question!

Well, no. Not really.

The issue here really is the perception of bias.

Independent testing is needed because people will naturally perceive a manufacturer as providing biased results for their testing, regardless of how accurate that the data may be.

I do agree that if a manufacturer knows that if their product is not very highly performing that they won't push performance in their marketing spiel, but that is different to lying. That's selective marketing. Yes, it's bias, but it's not lying.

What I see as being confused here is "lying", as opposed to "bias".

There seems to me to be a broad number of categories that can be used to describe what's going on here:

1) Independent (unbiased) & accurate - the "ideal" reviewer
2) Independent & inaccurate (without intent to falsify) - large number of web-site reviews fall into this category
3) Independent & inaccurate (with intent to falsify) - this is a strange one, but we see it all the time in certain "independent" paid-for marketing reports. Really they are category 6) below.
4) Not-independent (biased whether perceived or real) & accurate - a manufacturer with good testing equipment
5) Not-independent & inaccurate (without intent to falsify) - a manufacture with faulty testing equipment
6) Not-independent & inaccurate (with intent to falsify) - certain web-site reviews

Seem to me that a lot of the fighting here is really about arguing where some people fit into each of the 6 (actually 5) categories.

winewood - you cannot expect to make accusations without allowing other people the right to reply. It doesn't matter that the comment was not directed towards me. I didn't see any questions directed at you in this thread before you replied, yet you chipped in anyway. Can't have the cake and eat it too.

[Edit - Fix some spelling mistakes and grammatical errors - really must get more sleep]

whinewood
you speak of everything except the numbers
why is that ?
posit your observations as a hypothetical, but speak to the numbers

but no, you attack, attack, and attack some more
its tiresome, say something technical for a change

the AquaJoe was tested on 11/20, the MCW5002 on 10/8; same setup and conditions

you ask for ALL the data, are you referring to the raw data and spreadsheet ?
such raw data has been posted before, if it predates you - too bad
the spreadsheets, no thank you, create your own (all the calcs have been defined)

or are you referring to data on other wbs ?
and would that be from other mfgrs' products, or from the numerous Swiftech R&D prototypes ?
- in the case of other mfgrs' wbs, did you pay for the costs associated with the development of this data ?
why do you think you have a claim to it ?
- in the case of our R&D work, are you as stupid as you seem ?
(rhetorical question)
-> note that Swiftech makes no claims of superiority, if such a point is to be made the data will be presented and the facts will pretty much speak for themselves; did you catch the graph above ?

you said:
"Bill accused Joemac of not releasing numbers as an example of being bias."
really ? - you are incorrect, and/or a LIAR
-> PROVIDE THE QUOTE

"2 different rules for different people? Why is that?"
will be apparent shortly

go back and read my whore analogy, does it fit you ?
you would do well to reflect on Cathar's last post, might clear your head

Whinewood,

What experience do you have in using or generating engineering data?

Over a one year period, I probably look at an average of two technical datasheets per day. (Electronic components.)

I don't assume that the manufacturer is providing me with data that is biased to reflect positively on their product. I assume that the manufacturer is giving me the most accurate data they can. And, if they aren't certain about some aspect, (because they don't do 100% testing for example) that the data they provide is so conservative that I am extremely unlikely to actually see the worst case value for that spec.

This is generally a safe assumption. The reason why is that if a manufacturer is wrong about their spec and doesn't correct the problem quickly and thoroughly I will most likely not even look at a component from that manufacturer for years. I will also pass on my opinion of such a manufacturer to other engineers. No manufacturer selling to engineers can afford to produce products which do not perform as specified. There is no long term profit to be had in doing so.

My employer does not ship equipment (test instruments) unless it has half or less of the actual error of our published spec. And, what we ship will generally stay within our published spec for five times the specified calibration period. (Or much longer.) This is how manufacturer's earn the trust and respect of their customers.

Whinewood, your comments toward Bill and pHaestus WRT to bias in the technical data they produce, just shows how ignorant and/or stupid you are.

Bias is not alway seen in numbers, sometimes its what is left out or marketing in conjunction with numbers can be bias. Testing one manufacturer with their hand in the pot (or yours in theirs) can be seen as bias or yields to it.
Cathar admitts, eloquently as usual, that people percieve bias when dealing with a manufacturer. The question then leads to.. why do they? Apparently Bill leads to the concept of tell people what to think and they will. Not necessarily with his test data but with his own perceptions of "what is". Communicating perceptions or his own judgements in an effort to bring down competition in a manner exhibited much stronger than in a non-commercial block leads to my understanding.

Apparently the golden calf of testing has brought sheep to defend the cause, but ignorance of bias does not dissipate it REGARDLESS. I have the right to my opinion. I have based my reasoning. Apparently someone has hit close to home or this thread would have faded along time ago. I invite EVERYONE to re-listen to the 1st posts radio link.

The answer stems from this post on the nordic review for Aquajoe
You are calling Joemac bias here. Marketer or salesman making his product look good by not posting technical data. If you understand the definition of bias, this is it. Therefore I justify my statement of "Bill accused Joemac of not releasing numbers as an example of being bias." I stand on my statement.
aside: So Bill, why are you using pH to review Swfitech's stuff? Is that an admission of an inferior product? Per your OWN words?

Not that the following happended EXACTLY.. but for arguements sake consider the following.

Bill is giving pH a product to test. He is instructing him on how to test it. What numbers he should get. If he doesn't come to these numbers, he is working with the tester (independent?) to come up with the pre tested (bills) numbers and then pH will submit this review as an unbias, objective review of a product. When you instruct or guide to numbers or or state that your own testing meathods are best (not arguiging that) that regradless of truth of best meathods is bias in itself. The bias is not in the numbers but of how they came about or the way the were presented after the fact.
I am not calling the numbers WRONG I am not saying anyone is lying to their own understanding ON THE NUMBERS. Its the package, presentation or derivation of what is correct, THIS is the bias.

If you guys can't see that bias doesn't have to be intentional or seen by yourself. You don't have to admit it personally but it is there.
You oh engineer.. have twisted Joemac in a light to be an absolute liar of truth, when in practice it wasn't absolute in my understandings. Even a misunderstanding and a statement thereafter is a shading of a meaning. A speaker of absolutes Bill or denier of bias in this case is the decieved.

btw Not acceptable. Even table for all people. You can't explain it away. Perhaps pH can? <- this cathar is the answering of questions by those who were not asked.
Why would the manufacturer feel free to answer for the "independent" reviewer?

WHOA. Please blow me. I take NO instructions from anyone in this world and I take no bs. I get my products by and large from

1) www.cooltechnica.com : Dangerden Maze3, 4. RBX, Swiftech UH, and more to come.
2) FORUM POSTERS: LRWW, LR Cascade, Dtek WW
3) MFGR: MC5000-A (sent as a kit and not as part of a wb for testing), Cascade (sent because there was concern that first run blocks might not be representative of current performance).

Please point me to the Swiftech reviews you feel are biased on this site! Oh there are none? Oh this is more ****ING BULLSHIT you spew? Why would making sure that wbs sent to testers are representative of those consumers get be a problem? I put every number I post in reviews up publicly for modeling (Les) and comment (everyone else) and stand by them 100%. What other reviewer do you see posting RAW DATA? The extreme bias that you possess yourself is made evident by the fact that I demand that only production blocks be tested becomes a stumbling block. Care to explain why that presents a problem to you guys?

And please keep in mind that the Swiftech MCWChill water chiller I tested for a solid 6 weeks from Bill was a LOANER and not a freebie. Let's contemplate that for a minute. I put in 30 hours a week for 4 full weeks and bought about $50 worth of stuff just to be able to evaluate a product that I am shipping right back to Swiftech after the review is done. Why would I put that kind of effort into a review? Because of the readers of this site (esp Les and Bill) who kept pushing me for more and better test results that they could model. Do I make a penny off the ad revenues of Procooling? NO. Do I make $45 an hour at work with LESS technical effort than my hobby? Yes. Do that math for a minute: if I were at work I would charge $4500 for the same amount of work I put in for free to the readers of this site to test the MCWchill water chiller. Now do you think that I would honestly go to the trouble of that much time and effort in a review just to get $200 worth of free shit? Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend 5 extra hours at work than 120 hours of testing? Have I done anything ever (other than saying you were personally full of shit) to call my objectivity into question? Not in my opinion. Please post examples of where data I have produced was not 100% factual, or please shut the **** up.

Sincerely

Derek
www.procooling.com

Plz forgive me if I made an ignorant assumption as to where you got your swiftech stuff. That was uncalled for on my part and I appologize. My goal is not to misrepresent the truth at all, but to just point out how bias fits into many things weather intended or not.
You are correct, I am bias. I have already made conclusions based on previous perceptions. They are not always accurate. However, if I were to study engineering would this therefore remove me from bias at all? :D No.
I think the crux of this entire thread can be summed up. We all have bias. Even engineers and the people who spew falsely that they have no bias whatsoever. Thats like someone saying they have never unintentionally lied. Doesn't happen.

It is interesting to see the interest it has generated. I have enjoyed it immensely.

New edit: Just saw that last post...
pH, I am not dinging your review numbers what so ever. I am just pointing out how bias CAN creap in or be injected. I am not saying that you DID profit from it. It was an arguement to consider, and show how steps along the way influence and persuade. All bias can't be seen in replicateable numbers.. no it comes in when people select the product, and then deliver the numbers. I am only having a HOWLINGLY good time laughing at the people who say they are without bias because that is the largest false statement I have ever seen.