I think it was Bill that also hammered Bruce for picking parts of other blocks and putting them together for his own block. I don't see that as any different than reverse engineering a rad and improving it for your own product..... Bruce did give credit were it was due aswell.

I agree I don’t think it is much different nor do I think that it is a major foul provided you don’t infringe on any patents

a man sees what he wants to see, . . . . .
my complaint was as described, and that is/was my interest
the subsequent fol de rol, and Bruce's bowel dumps, are not the issue - unless to you or others

maxracer joined the fray by saying that (some part of ?) Bruce's non-objectivity assertion he knew to be true,
and then deleted my post asking him to substantiate his statement
this deletion then "solved the problem" for MR he stated
- how to deal with troublesome test data ? hey, just pretend it does not exist
if this is how he solves problems, I have no interest in his work product (but I am really picky about some things)

if you want to analyze something jd, read Bruce's posts here and list each statement he has made, each single one eh ?
now for each ck probably true or false - and the facts necessary to know to validate each assertion
-> ?? does Bruce have that info/is it true ??
if not, if some of those claims are false . . . Bruce, your friend, has delivered himself into my hands

you want to give odds ?
to see the dots is not to understand their connection, I am hoping Bruce is wealthy

It only persisted for 4 posts or so. My apologies. Consider it a momentary interruption of service before the regular schedule was re-instated, somewhat like a BBC news bulletin in the middle of some WWF "theatre".

As for the rest of the thread, I find it morbidly fascinating in the same vein of flipping through the TV channels and accidentally landing on Jerry Springer during some particularly vituperous tirade. No winners there or here.

Times must be tough. Everyone for whom the food that gets put onto their dinner table at night comes from cooling sales is paid for by sales of cooling products is "in it for the money". That's not a crime. Pretty silly business model to expect of anyone to put hours in for nothing. I only do so because I am very happily funded in my real job. Over the last 4 years waterblocks have accounted for 0.8% of my effective income, and that 0.8% gets fed back into R&D. If it were not for my real job income, I would never have been able to be as involved in cooling as I am. It is rather unfair though to use me as an example to club people involved in the cooling industry with. If the cooling industry puts food on your table, you're in it for the money too, and are in no position to level this accusation at others. It's only natural that people would seek to make money in the industry, otherwise what's the point?

Nobody is truly clean in business, that's the nature of the beast, otherwise you will go out business in fairly short order. True integrity and altruism is a liability when in competition. No company or person is going to publish performance results from their own independent testing if such testing finds that a competing product is superior, or equal but cheaper. They'll just sit on the data instead until they can come up with a superior solution, or they'll omit certain data and present only the angle in which their product is superior.

As for marketing, every business stands on its own two feet. It's more honorable for businesses to acknowledge the derivations and forebears of their products, and market their products as independent items on their own merit. In a conflicted world, this is the best that we can hope for.

Making competitive performance statements for/against competing products of the ilk for which one derives life-style sustaining income from, without presenting a full and open test procedure and published test data is always going to be fraught with peril and will always generate much angst, regardless of the actual intentions, honesty and integrity of the persons involved. In short, almost this entire thread has been one huge bun-fight, causing tremendous amounts of public profile damage for all of the main antagonists.

C'mon lads, lets put the egos and pride away before more damage is done and focus on doing what you guys all do best, which is designing better products for everyone, and cast them into the breeze of public opinion to succeed or fail as the public is wont. Engaging in self-destructive competitive battles in public forums just makes losers of everyone involved. If people are calling people liars, then the best way to answer is with open verifiable proof, rather than open destructive indignation.

Can we get some professionalism here?

regretfully Cathar, I suggest the same exercise I outlined for jd
you and I know each other so I suspect you will see some of Bruce's problems right off

"open destructive indignation", lol - nice
the slur was non-specific, and the specifics of Bruce's plaint (limiting such to his rad comments) are totally outside of that upon which I MAY comment; not my info in any manner so I have no way to substantiate - though none of this was anticipated when the passing comments were made by me months ago

don't be concerned with professionalisim here, everything gets sorted with the tools appropriate

this thread is the pits, restart your new C/W calculating conditions in a new thread
it is a timely topic but I think your testing is implausable outside perhaps of a funded Uni lab or BIG co budget
can't get to the air side mass flow rate easily, can't do a heat balance w/o it

Bill, the above was levelled at everyone and no-one in particular.

I know everyone involved and I think you're all misbehaving badly and equally, to the detriment of yourselves, regardless of who I think may be right or wrong, and regardless of how right or wrong any of you think each other is.

Heck, I know I go off the rails and need a quick reminder of where the ground is at times, so consider the above purely as that service from me. I'm out (of this thread) now.

Brian, I never called BillA a liar, and stated so even in my 1st post.

That was basically all... and I don't think it is right to make vague references, and/or performance statements for/against other products, when you are a competitor of those products.

It was Erick that asked from MR to delete the posts including mine. In case you missed it here it is:

Link to the copy of the thread, which was deleted

well said... and thanks for taking the time to write this

I have better things to focus on, so I'm done here...

Bruce it is this simple, you call in to question Bill's integrity there by implying that he would lie about performance and or data. Now you are trying to soft peddle and say I did not call him a liar. It’s like saying “the guy sometimes takes things that don’t belong to him, but I’m not saying he is a thief”

Yes, I did ask MR to delete ALL OF US from the thread. I thought it was best given that the thread was getting jacked. Again, I am trying to turn over a new leaf and be more tactful and professional. As it stands CoolingWorks has everything to loose and nothing to gain from a flame war with an online merchant. So if you have an issue with this company, one of its officers or employees I suggest you give me a call or email me. If you want to make a professional intelligent critique on testing procedure (as Cathar did) then I welcome it.

Erick i'm not sure if you're trying to turn over a new leaf, or add more fuel to the fire...
I suggest you to re-read my posts starting with the first one...

and like i said i'm done here, and this is my last post in this thread

hey this is america, isnt about time someone threatened to sue someone else? This thread is pointless without legal action! ;) hehe

Okay, I can't find where Bill called the X-flow BIP3 bad. Can anyone quote it, as something other than "you will see that single pass is not necessairly better, it all depends . . . ." (which doesn't say anything - HWLabs' info showed that it isn't better)

AA, some guy in the other forum said that billa said that its performance was worse

it has neither been confirmed nor refuted

edit: but in general, I've been getting the impression from other posters that while it depends on setup, in most cases there is no performance gain

Not having seen the x-flow firsthand, it's advantage and disadvantages were summarised suitably by Cathar on [H] not so long ago...

And thus the same applies to most dual rads out on the PC Watercooling market. Pop it's caps off and swap for singlepass tanks and there's a tradeoff. The spec of the rest of the system determines the worth of moving from one to the other. Other changes need to be made to make singlepass worth it in current scenarios imo. AFAIK, those changes are in the pipeline already at HWLabs anyways. Performance of current x-flow is a m00t point.

So logic dictates BiPro dual vs BiProX-Flow dual with a flow rate reflective of today's avg watercooling system, the original should beat the x-flow. Are the public aware? In the minority.

I have no data to prove or disprove. Bill's data is not his to share. Data collected whilst contracted by Swiftech, the data remains Swiftech's to release not bills. His hands are tied. He spills, he's legally liable for theft of data.

We're at a point where from a quick glance, no-one is impartial. Problems ahead...
Now trust and ethics become a major factor before decisions can be made and data believed. Some of us trust each other whole-heartedly. Some of us don't.

The fallout was inevitable. Unavoidable perhaps.

Whilst Bill's personal ethic is shown as against the "Chinese invasion", manufacturing decisions by Swiftech aren't necessarily Bill's preference or choice. That again is down to Swiftech. Attribute choices to the correct places. A companies economics and an individual's opinion are two different things.

Dirty laundry back in the closet. Public don't wanna see the stains on display.

*sprays some rosey air freshener about and hands out the chocolate biscuits*

play nice...

I think it's a special situation that no one else but Bill has performed any kind of significant radiator testing. I'm not forgetting anyone, am I?

you're getting good at irony Ben

I was pretty careful not to attribute "BillA is a liar" to your comments, Bruce, because I don't believe you said those words. What you implied is another matter. That's all a matter of interpretation, and I'm not even going there. You can come to 1001 conclusions from even one sentence, and there was a heck of a lot more than 1001.

Marci, unless I'm missing something, that was a dang good post. Thank you.

Sounds like I may need to break out some of my own Pine-fresh scent. Too much fecal matter being flung for things to smell good. Might not help, but at least a sh*tty christmas tree smells better than just sh*t. Pardon my crudity, please. :(

Does this forum block the word shit now?

//edit guess not

Nope, just some of us like to self-censor for our own conscience's sake... :D

:D Joe-you're killing me! I started laughing so hard I almost spit all over my laptop. Thanks-I needed a good laugh.

MaxxxRacer did some comparative testing between a 12T and a BIX, but nothing beyond that AFAIK.

Are the "Mark and Bucky from frozen" referenced from page 2 or so the Mark (dunno about the bucky) of frozenCPU? Assuming that they are, do they happen to ever visit any of these forums? Just wondering and frozenCPU's HQ is spitting distance from me.

We(Incoherent and I) are exploring the possibility of obtaining numbers which may be closely related to TTV and Overall(die or IHS) "C/W" from Incoherent's method.(link)
My current view is that Femlabs Centreline(FC) solution is closely related to TTV values
The Average(mean, median or whatever) is the Overall solution.
The problem is that I believe that FC solution requires modeling of the wb.
Hence my continual probing(link) for Cathar's model for Cascade/Storm.

From RoboTech's work(link) I infer a value for the Storm G4( @ 4.5w Hydraulic Power Loss(HPL))of h(eff)=170,000 if 0.1mm thick bp under a ~20x20mm cupped area, and a more likely h(eff)=240,000 if 1mm bp under a ~20x20mm cupped area. Inference based on my model(link and link) for the MP-05-SP where h=~215,000 ( 1.8gpm, 4.5w) over 14.4x14.4mm area.
This range(170,000-240,000) is incompatible with Cathars inferred value of < 77,000(Cathar infers 77,000 -83,000(link) over unknown area @ 6w HPL)
With his access to unpublished data(eg link) , it is difficult to not place some credence on his value.
This leaves me completely stalled in "Incoherent Data Analysis"(link)
Maybe Incoherent has made some progress but........

Edit1: Corrected mis-quoted Cathar value for h(eff) and provided link
Edit2: Fixed non-working linkand spelling.