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.

This is the kind of thread I love and hate. Everything discussed is related in a complex way to one thing or another, or in this case, a few things.

So here are my comments! Firstly the thread isn't labeled properly: the term "unbiased engineering" implies the existence of "biased engineering" and that's a paradox: there's no such thing.

What's really meant is that there have been some technical comments made, and that some may be biased, or at least appear to be (example: my own preview of the Aquagold, where I use my "bionic eye" to qualify the block as a "good performer"). I also believe that the very first post was to update everyone on what's been done about what's been brought up, which is more related to marketing than the intended topic that this thread has gone into.

When I met with Joemac's partner (ThyKingdomeCome) he asked me if I'd test the block, and when I told him that I wasn't up to it at the moment, he asked me if I'd run a "system test", which I refused to do (even if I had been able). I then explained that I could run a flow test, which I was comfortable doing, while reporting the error margins, which I did, but I wouldn't do any more than that.

Otherwise, having worked over many block designs, including "Radius" (still to be made) and having made a contribution to the design of the "Cascade" block, which is still the best block around, anywhere, I did know that the Aquagold would perform very well, and there's no magic (or bionic implant) behind my suggestion: Bill tested a similar block (Hoot's pin-fin) which turned in excellent numbers, and JayDee116 has had tremendous success with his Lemon block. It really doesn't take a lot of brainpower to figure that one out.

Testing on the other hand, does require some brain power and yes, some background/education definitely helps. In my college science classes, this is one thing that I was best at, surpassing even what the professors expected. It isn't terribly complicated, but you need to be able to look at all the individual parts, and the whole, at the same time, and analyze how each error propagates and affects other components. Then you have to quantify it, and state your margins with your results. That's still something that seems to be missing from most reviews I've seen.

It really needs to be understood that when a number like "0.19" is spurted out, there is an assumption that the accuracy is +/- 0.01, a.k.a one of the least significant digits. I see many people post system CPU temps as "42 deg C", and it really irritates me, because it might as well be 4 * 10E1, which would be more accurate, in technical terms. 4.2 * 10E1 +/- 1 * 10E1 would be perfect (also: 42 deg C, +/- 10 deg C). So everytime I read a temp, I have to translate the meaning, from gibberish, to something meaningful.

In many of my future posts, and probably in at least one of the articles I'll be writing, I'll make the claim that the "Cascade" is the best water block around. Since I've contributed to the design, does that make me biased, or do I know for a fact that it is the best?

I know the design, and I know that it's going to take a long time, before someone beats it, because it's really an optimization of flow and fin on a baseplate. Is that an opinion or is it a fact?


I think that the major difference between Bill and I, aside from Bill's extensive experience and education, is that Bill's out to finger anyone who isn't accurate, where I'll do something about it, either in a "diplomatic" post, a PM, or the WBTA, wherever I can, which isn't anywhere as wide as Bill is able to. I don't try to "take down" a person, and all of his related efforts, when he makes a mistake, I just correct them.

Bill isn't biased, he's really not. Just because he doesn't slam Swiftech products, doesn't mean that he's biased. If you look carefully at Bill's posts, he's only stated facts about Swiftech products. In his position, that's all he can do. think about it: would you slam your employer's product publicly? The only question that's left is: would Bill return an assesment of a Swiftech product (negatives and all) if asked, and the answer would probably be: "I won't go there" or "no comments". That's not bias, that's just plain common sense.

Bill's also been very consistent in comments about Swiftech's competitors, also stating facts. How a competitor's company is run, probably falls outside of what Bill does for Swiftech, so that's free game (right?). ;) I think that that's what BlackEagle is trying to get across.

The only issue here, is that what Bill says, carries a lot of weight, so any negative remark of any kind, has the potential to spread like wildfire, and have the corresponding effect. Then again, Bill's also known to be grumpy, and that also spreads widely.

Joemac opted not to release his test results, but will occasionally make hints that one block is better or worse than another. While I fully support the position, the hints are themselves a breach of the original intent. When I reviewed the Aquagold, I had seen Bill's test results of the BlueBlock (a predecessor of the Aquagold), but because Bill did not get paid for his effort, I made the decision to make no reference to it, and I mean, not even a hint. I also encouraged the AquaJoe team to settle the outstanding debt with Bill, regardless of the where and how it came to be.

This issue with Joemac's hints, have led them to be questioned, because they are unsubstantiated, by choice, but just recently, one of them was proven to be incorect. This is a problem, because it also puts in question the rest of his claims, and the accuracy of the in-house testing.

So Joemac: you stepped into this one, all on your own: sorry! I'd suggest that you determine your error margins, and revisit your results. I'd be more than happy to assist, in any way I can, and I might even consider making the drive to DFW to help you out, ok? ;)

Otherwise, you're free to post your testing methods, for everyone's scrutiny, which might be more helpful.

Please understand that no one is calling you a liar, but we are calling you on the accuracy of your claims.

jeez Ben, the new meds must be good

a lucid post, progress - and congrats

Blackeagle
your point was valid by virtue of the substantial difference between the AquaJoe and the WW
- a difference so large that even the slight correction warranted for the offset between data sets would not affect the conclusion stated

Les, that is almost too idyllic
I would give anything to get out of So Cal, what an effing rat race

Now that this thread seems to be winding down, it seems appropriate to toss in the best marketing/engineering joke I've heard over the years.

A few folks are out for a hot air balloon ride when the wind took them out over the ocean. Lost, they spot a boat and decide to release some air for a closer visit. When within earshot, one guy in the balloon yells to the single person in the boat, "Hey, can you tell me where we are?"

"You're in the gondola of a hot air balloon, approximately fifty feet above the surface of the water", came the reply.

"You must be an engineer", said the balloonist.

"Why yes I am, how did you know?"

"Everything you told me is 100% accurate, but of no use to me whatsoever."

"You must be in marketing", said the engineer.

"Why yes I am, how did you know?"

"You are out in the middle of nowhere with no idea where you are, what you're doing, or where you're going. You are in the same situation now as before we met, yet somehow it is now my fault."

as usual Dave, you've topped us all
truly excellent, Thanks