What do you think of my sysopt watercooling article?
 

http://www.sysopt.com/articles/WCPGuide/index.html

Comments?

The crack about the barb size was a generalization, and will not always hold true.

The pump's basic description isn't accurate. The "most popular" isn't relevant.

The reason for thick tubing isn't mentionned. What's popular is again irrelevant. A hardware store is also a good source, and much cheaper!

Good tip on mounting a pump.

There seems to be a huge emphasis on the heat that a pump provides, and although it's a factor, it's not accurate enough, and doesn't show the necessary level of understanding of it. By that standard, my Little Giant 2-MDQ-SC would be a very bad choice (180+ Watts), while my Johnson pump would be excellent (26W), even though they have a similar performance.

No mention of a critical component: the TIM joint.

No mention of additives.

No mention of mixing metals.


Ok, sorry to be so rough, but those are my comments, straight up!;)

Keep in mind this is an article for n00bs. I was shooting for a general overview. I had links to the overclockers.com, procooling, overclockers.au and futuremark forums, but the sysopt editor took them out. :D

Those are valid complaints. I used the word "popular" because most people don't trust the experts on these kind of things.

Regarding the tubing, I've had bad luck with local hardware stores, and mcmaster.com is pretty cheap. :)

I doubt I fully understand the variables relating to the pump, but I was trying to shy people away from "700" gph pumps with 3' of head.

If I do another follow up article, I'll stop in here with a rough draft first. :)

I don't know what kind of experience you had at hardware stores, but my frustrations were limited to a lack of availability, otherwise everything was as I expected it.

If people don't trust the experts, such as yourself (and I've seen you on OC), then who are they going to trust? Some guy who recaps what's in the forums? You ought to have written the article the way you wanted to write it. ;)

I'd be more than happy to help out, if you try this again.

I'm a bit of a nit-picker, and I object to the word "bong".

"Bong" refers to what some evaporative cooling tower implementations look like, but some look nothing like a "bong" shape, and the word "bong" is a drug reference, which is hardly suitable for a public article.

It's okay if you talk about Evaporative Cooling based coolers, and then make a mention that some implementations look similar to a "bong" and hence the nick-name, but the word "bong" has nothing at all to do with an Evaporative Cooling Tower, and is a poor descriptive term for one.

Look at Volenti's tube and chamois ECT. I've even seen a milk-crate based ECT that was very small and compact.

I chose a word the masses could relate to. :p

I've seen Volenti's setup. It's pretty nice. :)

You have to understand, sysopt is not procooling or overclockers.com People there haven't seen watercooling other than the prebuilt kits.

All the more reason to refer to the devices as evaporative cooling towers.

Do the masses all toke on bongs with regularity?

Would Mum & Dad appreciate their teenage child wanting to run off to the local hardware store to buy materials to build a "bong"?

Okay okay okay. Next time I write an article, I will refer to them as "evaporative cooling towers."

I just emailed the editor, and he will add "evaporative cooling towers" behind the word "Bongs". :p

Yes, adding that slight explanation will help, but I don't think ECT or its elongated form is a suitable substitute because people still refer to them as "bongs" however inacurate this may be.

Also as Cathar mentioned he's seen smaller more compact Evaporative Cooling Solutions that may not represent a tower (Volenti's certainly does not). I am suggesting this solution would not fit in the category of a 'bong' where the typical PVC Pipe tower with shower head resides. I would categorize 'bongs' as an Evaporative Cooling Solution, along with other forms (non-tower/ECT).

This is a bit of a ridiculous arguement about semantics; however, I feel that not using the word 'bong' would only give rise to the question "What is a bong?" Many people have heard of bongs in WCing, less know what one is. I agree that ECT is a good alternative term for bong, however I don't believe alternative ECSs are necessarily ECTs (which sounds synonymous with bong to me).

With proper explanation the term 'bong' is not inappropriate, although without explanation some may think that a bong in WCing is not only a cooling device but serves the dual purpose of ... smoking.

Neglecting to use the word would just be confusing - using it without explanation is also confusing, as you can see I think the only solution is to add another term such as ECT or ECS, but NOT replace it.

[EDIT:Below]

Addressing your audience is important - but I'm sure some percentage has heard of a WCing bong before (and might wonder what exactly one is), regardless of how inexperienced they are.

Also towards parents, if they fear their child building a WCing bong, then they have also been misinformed - either by the child or by euphemistic substitutions such as ECS or ECT.

I'm not saying bong is the name I would have chosen - just that it's here now, don't confuse people.

Nice article Gib. Yea sysopt is not the same and I understand what you are saying.

It was your first article and I give you props on a job well done. The rest will come with experiance


Peace:cool:

Should of used a picture of Dtek Whitewater, b/c the pic of Cather's original block can not be bought.

I would want that block if I saw it in an article. It looks wonderful.
:)

Nice article for the general public!!
Good Quality Pics.

You show the use of a T which is what I use and like.
A Res is sometimes trouble, for beginners.

All and all not bad. It will help give people an interest in watercooling.