WHOA is correct pHaestus, I just got back home from Austin TX. I was checking out some products that I might be interested in selling later on. Anyhow I come back and check and this thread is way out of line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First pHaestus

quote:
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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I figure it was something like this. I must admit at first I was found it odd as to why you would test some blocks and choose not to test mine. It does make sense though your time is that your time and what you do on your time is your choice. That’s why I never asked you to test my block after you refused the first time.

Now Since87
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agreed with almost everything you said with few exceptions. The problem in all this lies in the form of obtaining a measurement. You know that a Volt is = I*R. So? well a C/W is not a C/W. What do I mean? Just because a particular block reads a C/W x when heat is applied at one point it does not mean that it will equal x at another point or test bench. What I am not making sense? Well let me put it this way if semiconductor manufacturer say a product is rated X volts your voltage reading will be very similar to their voltage reading. Meaning your meter, O Scope, etc will not cause the part to burn when it reads the volts as X by providing a different 5v then the manufacturer 5v (see it’s a form of measurement). Sorry if this does not make sense I don’t know how else to explain it. Beside posting results from my block would have brought other attacks from Bill comparative to – You did not use my volt meter so its wrong.

As for
“No problem. I'm biased towards banning you from ProCooling for continously slandering some of the most reputable sources of watercooling information”
Didn’t someone question all the reputable sources that the world was not flat?

And
“in an effort to make them appear to wallow in the same slime that your buddy JoeMac does.”
Thanks for being a buddy I did not think I had any here – What now excommunication? ;)
That slime just nasty :(

Bill
Let me put on my engineers shoes for a minute: Ok done, now I am unbiased no more need for arguments. “the AquaJoe was tested on 11/20, the MCW5002 on 10/8; same setup and conditions”
Well thanks for testing the block (I am making the assumptions that you did the testing). I know that I did not send you one so if you purchased one for personal use or for reverse engineering thanks either way.

Winewood:

What can I say that has not been said? Man you can be hard maybe even an ass sometimes and I don’t agree with some of the things you say. This post is already to long so I won’t get into it but stop trashing reviews (At least before they come out).

Cather

“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.”

So do I. When I send out a block I do just that send it out. I do not “watch” over the tester and make sure that their numbers match my numbers. Sorry everyone but there seems to be a biased here that there is only one way to test a block when in fact there are many e.g. different die/sim size different flow rates etc.

JOE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“dunno, the posts from those two is purely noise by 2 kids who have nothing better to do than try and distract attention from themselves by trying to claim the 2 best testers in the industry are wrong, or evil. its a nice head fake , but you will need to do a little better than that to take the focus of your ass.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This came from the New England journal of medicine. I did not make this up. Its right here the whole point of this thread - not Bill or PH bashing if you think that then you have it wrong now why bash Aquajoe?

Have you listen to this?

Ummm Yeh I tend to base my opinion on reality not mystical streaming audio from the web like you. (and especially anything from NPR Naive & Pretty Retarded)

To say all scientists or testers are evil or biased just cause SOME are out there is like me saying all WB MFG's are scam artist kiddies like you. When its well known most are legit and level businesses.

Excuse me? What have I done to deserve this gang jump? That I dare come in and say I am selling this? So now You are accusing me of being a fraud! What? Because an idol of yours say engineers can’t be biased and I say o really? That makes me a fraud. To who? To say that I am a kid and a scam artist because you make a decision based on emotions and try to justify it logically? :shrug:

Hmmm, reviewers working with manufacturers is the way that testing should be done, IMO.

This is not bias, nor is it an indication of bias. There are things that can go wrong with testing. If there is an issue then it is good to raise this with the manufacturer before publishing (witness the recent RBX review at OC.com).

This is not biasing the review though. A manufacturer will have done testing. They best know what to expect from their product. I had a reviewer recently quiz me about the poor results he was getting in comparison to what he had been hearing from others about the Cascade. We went over all the potential issues together via email exchange. In the end it resulted in a stalemate where whatever I suggested might be wrong, the reviewer said that issue was not the case.

I gave up and said basically that whatever he was seeing was what he was seeing, and so be it.

Two weeks later the reviewer finds out that it was a mounting issue. This is why mounting for reviews is such a hobby horse of mine. It also didn't help that the reviewer was mounting the block on a P4 without the standard mounting bracket, he had manufacturered up his own. He neglected to tell me about that too.

Now I didn't even know that this reviewer had the block for purposes of review until he had contacted me. He had acquired it from someone else as seems to often be the case with the Cascade reviews.

Where I'm going with this anecdote is that the interaction between mgfr and reviewer was not a form of bias. I knew what the block was capable of, the reviewer didn't get results that remotely matched, but over time the issue was resolved by the reviewer, independently after I had given up, but ultimately through listening to my concerns.

Just because a mfgr wants to work with a reviewer to determine if the rough scale of measure is close to what's expected (no mfgr expects the results to exactly match theirs due to the different test beds - just be within reason), that does not indicate bias. It is just ensuring that no silly mistakes have been made before the review is published and the mfgr suffers the consequences of someone else's mistake.

In the end, it is the reviewer's decision whether or not to listen to the mfgr. It is the reviewer's decision to post data/results.

Bias only occurs if the reviewer's results are modified or omitted at the request of the mfgr. Until a review is published, how can anyone sit back and accuse of bias?

P.S. - I still don't know if the review that I was talking about has been published or not. I don't believe that it has. The reviewer hasn't contacted me again, and I don't seem to see any indication of it via Google.

The reason I consider you a fraud is right there at nordichardware. If you don't correct misinformation that has been pointed out to you, what do you expect people to think of you?

Nope, I got a list and your not on it. :)

Damn this thread sure is interesting, I missed another good weekend at ProCooling it appears.... Bah! :p At least I got some new blocks done....

What because nordichardware I am a fraud? How you figure?

I think he is refering to how you claimed that the WhiteWater only beat your block by just a little.

@ Nordic's forums. Check Page 3, my only post and thats what they are talking about.

I still fail to see that point. I state that the WW did have lower temps then the aquagold. Am I lying to qualify me as a fraud?
Then I mention that the aquagold is a multi purpose block that can be used with a TEC while the WW cannot. Does that make me a fraud?
Have I said anything that is not true? Then I go on to say if you want lower temps why not use a Tec? Am I not the biggest fraud? Why am I being attacked about whats on my website? I did not see anything when DD stated that the maze 4 beat the maze 3. Maybe I do need to pull a stunt of the same kind and then I might even get a - We actually do like Aquajoe.com thread. What do you think? Its very simple I sell good products at a reasonable price. Does not make me a fraud? No but it does make me a target for attacks from my competitors .

did you miss this post ?

Bill,

Could you post a graf with the WW's data (C/W vs headloss) included as well.

May be instructive to see just how little better the WW is vs the Aquagold.

Wasn’t the top lowered and stronger springs used to make the MCW5002? For that matter when was the MCW5002 released to the public (Sorry I don’t keep track of other products)? I believe my statement was made before any of this data was out. So would it be fair if I changed my block and said see I told you my block is better? Would I then be a fraud for changing and improving my design? Or would it be just natural in a competitive environment to do so.

Blackeagle define Little.

BE was being sarcastic to my knowledge.

And, FFS, do you and winewood mean that everione is biased?
Yes.
In this forum i see everione biased to Cascade. In fact in (almoust) every forums.

Why? Because it is the best.

But... they where once Biased to WW!

Why not now? Because it got beated.

SO:
To me, these guys are BIASED, yes. BIASED to the BEST block.
Right now is the cascade.

Whats next?


EDIT:
LOL went to NH and found this...
http://www.nordichardware.com/forum/...pic.php?t=1215

FFS aquajoe, you give the idea that your block is something of the other world... Even without knowing that... THATS marketing to me.

NH is all about advertisements, but thats another thread ;)

I disagree:D : there are a few good articles. Otherwise, the one and only sponsor (banner) is pretty useless: it's swedish only (and no, Babelfish still doesn't translate it!).

There's news, lots of good/relevant news: that's one part I enjoy a lot.;)

thats more like it

an unbiased opinion from Ben

O.K. Drawing from the graf.

Aquagold @1.5 mH2O shows a C/W of approx. .21
C/W of .21 multiplied by a 90 watt output from a pretty high O/Ced CPU. So, .21 X 90 = 18.9c

MCW5002 @ 1.5 mH2O shows a C/W of approx .209
.209 X 90 = 18.81c

To me, that is a "little" differance of .1c.

Now let's try that again. I did some digging at OverClockers and found the WW test, and it's C/w @ 1.5 mH2O. C/W of .18

.18 X 90 = 16.2c

So now we see that the differance in heat rise allowed by the Aquagold is 2.7c higher than that of the WW. A pretty
LARGE differance!

Glad you asked, helped me to better understand why Bill called you on saying the WW is only a "little" better than your blocks. And also why it's P.O.ed you so bad to have it pointed out to people that you'd hope to lead into beleiving that the differance wasn't worth considering.

And with the price cut at D-Tek you no longer have a price point advantage. So if people take the time to consider the performance of each block, they'll be buying a WW, unless they run a TEC. And if they run a TEC, they may opt for the Swifty as it's a better known company, who's products have been repeatedly tested & shown to perform well. And with the higher heat loads a TEC operates at, every "little" bit helps.:eek:

Have a nice day! !:D

ROTFLMAO! :D

have to be careful mixing C/Ws Blackeagle
but your general point is valid

"To me, that is a "little" differance of .1c"
yes, but . . . .
when one says "best", that little difference is now quite significant
- for it bears on the question of honesty

joemac
if you cannot keep up with your competitors' products, then you should stop stating that they are inferior

more of such stuff here
mid-page

Bill a valid point of course.

But as Joemac only wishes to use posted results of others, I used the best data I could find.

Still not wise, those are HIS methods, and those numbers are no doubt off.

And perhaps it will help him to gain a grasp of what a "little'' differance is, and isn't.

Suppose he was on B. Clinton's team during the Monica sex scandle?:eek:

Nah, he's not good enough.;)

EDIT:

Bill, I was tempted to use JoeC's C/W numbers for the MCW5002 block, which was a C/W of .15, but then what would I have had for a description of "little"?:evilaugh:

His general point is valid?
Taking two C/W from two different test bed and calling it a valid comparison?
I was under the impression that at this point in time comparing results from two different test bed would yield an invalid comparison but for this particular debate it does proves BE point? Bill you would have rolled over him or any one else if it was a swiftch product or has the standers of testing gone down some?

Joemac,

Would you have rathered I use JoeC's numbers for the MCW5002?

I wouldn't have had a set of numbers then as a example of "little".

But would have had one for VERY Large, instead.

JoeC's numbers for your block = .21

JoeC's numbers for the MCW5002 = .15

Those numbers would then give a temp differance of 6.4c! !:evilaugh: :eek: :evilaugh:

Now 6.4c is a huge differance, but both sets of numbers come from JoeC. Most of all when the numbers I DID use shrank that HUGE differance down to .1c which is within the testing error of even Bills equipment.

Seems to me, those numbers would really trash your blocks performance. I used the more conservative numbers to be fair. So you can bitch, but it rings hollow.

Look closely they are on different test beds. :rolleyes:

A little off topic, but this is where I have issues with JoeC's tests. The AquaJoe should have been tested ALONE without that kit deal.

I find it hard to belive the Maze 4 bitch slaps the AquaJoe block at .18 C/W. http://www.overclockers.com/articles889/

Errrr, then again where are you getting .21 C/W for the Aqua joe block? All I can find is the kit test at .19C/W? http://www.overclockers.com/articles850/

Jaydee, you're right, I jumbled my test numbers with the testers. The .21 is from Bill's posted graf earlier in this thread. But the point remains that JoeC's numbers show a greater spread in performance than do Bill's, yet Bill is supposed to be biased? Don't think so.

And I very much agree with you Jaydee, JoeC should have tested the block alone, and on his ususal testing bed. Then we'd have some numbers that could be compared with some hope of honest results from the comparison made.

But then, I think, that's the point Bill has been making all along.

The FACT is that there are no really dependable numbers on this Aquagold block anywhere. Just smoke and mirrors with no factual numbers whatsoever to support his (Joemac's) marketting BS. And calling it marketing BS is kind, after looking at his claims at NH.

The more I see, the more I hope that pH runs a series of tests on the Aquagold block vs WW, Cascade, MCW5002, Slitedge, RBX...........

But also hope he gets it, as he (pH) said, from a retail outlet.

I wasn't trying to argue your points against joemac. Just wasn't sure where all the numbers where coming from.

I have been trying to stay out of this thread as much as possible. Here is my view on all of this.

I don't think joemac is a scam artist so much. He does have a working product after all and it should work pretty well considering the success of similar pin based block. Where I see the problems coming from is some bold statements from joemac and some less than honest remarks on his website about this block. He says he has done his own testing to back his statements up yet refuses to post this information. Makes one believe he hasn't done any testing or is a flat out lier. Neither of which I believe but couldn't back him up even if I wanted to.

I think it is an insult to call an engineer biased though. A true engineer didn't spend all that time and money going to school just to wave a piece of paper around and say "look at me, I am an engineer, so my product must be leet". A true engineer is about making a better product or doing the best they can to design something they are assigned to design. Money comes second to truth. Thats where I see people like Bill A and pH. They are about getting to the bottom of things and finding the truth to the best of their abilities.

Bill A is not biased IMO. He works for Swiftech and yet showed JoeC a significant flaw in the test of the RBX in which gave Switech products a better "score". Now that Bill A pointed out the problem there is a good chance that RBX will beat out the current Swiftech products.

I ask you jomac, if you found such a flaw in a competitors block tests would you have pointed it out even if it meant that block would beat your own product out? Clearly not judging from the info on your website.

This is ProCooling after all. Salesmen are not usually welcomed here as BS is not tolerated much. That is the issue these people have with you joemac. You act more like a salesman pimping your block than a fellow member trying to cut the shit and figure out what works and what doesn't.

There are two ways to be a block seller. Either completely stay out of the forums and let reviews/users do the talking like D-Tek and Danger Den do, or go all out with extensive information about the product like Cathar does and Bill A will do if asked. Making bold statements with nothing to back it up isn't going to get you anywhere on this site. Might work fine at that place called nordic, but not here.

But what do I know, there are a couple threads on other sites dedicated to slagging my ass for my statements on this site. :D

I am a chemist; not an engineer :P

I'd be happy to test a block from aquajoe but I am feeling a bit trepidicious about taking blocks from mfgrs direct after hearing that sometimes they are not representative of typical end user performance. I HAVE had a double standard by starting with a Swiftech block then; that did come out of a complete kit that was sent by them. I'll try and get a retail Swiftech block eventually to test for comparison. I was interested in starting with tests of the MC5000-A because I knew Bill had good data with which I could compare.

Fine line pH. Same concept different application. :)

For a chemical-engineer try "The Falcon"* - Robin is a chemical-engineering graduate from Leeds university.
I studied Metallurgy.

* http://www.yorkshirenet.co.uk/stayat/falcon/

This is the most sensible finding to come from this thread. Will file away in the event I am in the area.