define the relevant topics
 

a suggestion, define the sub-catagories as separate topics/threads
else confusion will reign

the heat 'die'
the power source and measurement
temperature measurement
flow measurement
pressure measurement
mounting considerations
and overall, accuracy and repeatability

go to it

BillA, did you mean to reply to a thread, instead of make a new one?

If you didn't mean to make a new one, I'm confused as hell...

all this in relation to testing only
my suggestion was merely to start threads for each of the above listed topics (or others ?) so as to hold a bit of focus
- each of those topics is rather distinct

worth noting is that the testing of hsfs is not covered
- some VERY interesting 'things' lie there

I am pondering makint this its own category

Covering all aspects of cooling not just water. HSF's and such would be very good to see that worked on.

If ya'll want to get into some preliminary discussions, that's fine, but I still have some administrative "stuff" to take care of, to get the WTA (Waterblock Testing Alliance) going.

I didn't intend on covering HSF: it's a waterblock testing alliance... Yes, there's something there, so let's take a look.

Bill's right on: we need to address these topics, individually:
-the heat 'die'
-the power source and measurement
-temperature measurement
-flow measurement
-pressure measurement
-mounting considerations
-and overall, accuracy and repeatability

Let's hear from everyone, as to what other topics should be included, then I'll open up the threads.


We also have to keep in mind that this is for the purpose of setting a testing standard, not for dictating how a rig should be constructed. What I mean is that I don't want this to end up with: "you must use Fluke meter #xxxx", but rather, "you must use a meter with X features and capabilities". (Am I making sense?)

yea, the decoder rings
Ben, why do you grasp so for control ?

pHaestus is the preeminently qualified individual in your club
let HIM decide the what and how, to whom and by whom

I'm not grasping for control at all! I said that ya'll can go ahead and talk about anything you want, didn't I?

I was just trying to say that the WTA isn't ready to vote on anything, because I haven't got the administrative part down yet, plus, I'm still recruiting.

I also stated that I'd open up the threads. This is a free Forum, if you want to open up all those threads, go right ahead: I'm not stopping you!:rolleyes:

Re: define the relevant topics
 

AS you stated, you made a "suggestion". So maybe I wasn't clear: I suggest that we go over the topics, to see if there's anything else that anyone wants to discuss.

Personally, I'd like to start a discussion on how all of the cross-testing is going to work, because I'm really fuzzy on it.

So the question here is more: "Why do you want to dictate which topics that are going to be discussed?"

Well, that other thread has seemed to have roll over effect to the new forum here. I like the heading for this new topic btw. Testing can encompass a whole spectrum of individual parts such as pumps for example. There should be a thread the clearly describes how to translate test data or specs over to a real world application. The info is already scattered about on this site but all in one place would be nice for people.
Benchmarking also covers a wide scope and overclockers just love them benchies.:)

Suggestion, Ben the best moderation is done in moderation.

Re: Re: define the relevant topics
 

Bill gave you a succinct list of the fundamental technical issues that MUST be addressed if this testing is to amount to anything.

Adding to that list does nothing to further understanding of the fundamental issues.

What point is there to discussing the administrative details of a cross-checking scheme for mythical test benches. Until baseline criteria are decided for the test bench itself, such discussion is just noise.

Re: Re: Re: define the relevant topics
 

I definitely want to get some work done in that area. It might fall outside of the Alliance, I don't know yet.

For all of Bill's test results on OC, the reality is that there's always been a gap between that testing, and how the end user is going to apply it, to build a water-cooled PC.

So all that data about the pressure drop of various heatercores, is really going to come in handy.


I agree, but the cross-testing is a very important part too.

The "cross-testing" as a topic isn't meant to be administrative, I meant it to be about how all the data is going to tie together. Similar to the example I gave, if tester A tests a block and gets results Xa with error margin Ea, and tester B runs the same tests, and gets result Xb within error Eb, and so on with testers C, D, E... How do the results tie in together, and how can we use the results to make an adjustment to the results of each of our test benches, if that's possible?

So there, that's what I meant.:p

Otherwise, although Bill's list is fundamental, does it really emcompass everything?

This is one of the problems that I've seen lately: in what I do, I don't consider anything as fact, unless it's been verified by two other independant sources.

So as much as I appreciate Bill's input here, I don't know if he wrote that up quickly with his right hand, while eating a sandwich with his left, or what. I take nothing for granted here, no matter from who it comes.

Re: Re: Re: define the relevant topics
 

I have to agree with Since87 on this one.

Until a design of some sort is ironed out for the benches themselves there is not really any point in discussing the how part of the testing.

First thing we need to iron out is the basic requirements for a test bench for this group of testers so that we are all on the same page.

IMO I think the order that things should be focused on is thus.

The testbench itself.

The tests to be run/Accuracy level of such

The format which data is to be presented.

and I have to agree there, that the first step is going to be to define the test bench "bar", but it doesn't prevent us from including another topic.

The reaon that I bring it up, is because I see it as something important, and it worries me that I don't have the details of it, because it's a really important part of what the Alliance is going to be doing.

Heck, maybe I'm just jumping the gun, or being paranoid, I don't know... I'm not twisting anyone's arm here, am I?:shrug:

Well BB2K, I hate to say it but lately the pissing contest between you and BillA has been rather annoying to say the least.

The idea is a sound one though the logistics are a nightmare.

My suggestion is to take things one step at a time and iron them at as you go.

It isnt like we are going to be producing any test results next week after all. Take your time (all of us that is not just you) and do it right the first time.

As for BillA. Lay of the cutthroat remarks will ya.

This was started as a project to develop a replacement for your testing methods to be honest. And I have to agree in some aspects that it certainly seems you are dead set on trying to prevent being replaced in that role.

Since the onset of this discussion you have berated, bad mouthed, and from my point of view tryed to kill this idea.

If you are so worried about someone's qualifications for "leading" a group of independent testers why dont you get down off your high horse and do it yourself. Otherwise stick to staying something helpful instead of berating every post you read.

(dons asbestos flame suit and waits for BillA's response)

Ok, I'll drop it, for now.


To try to get back on topic...

So far we have:
-the heat 'die'
-the power source and measurement
-temperature measurement
-flow measurement
-pressure measurement
-mounting considerations
-and overall, accuracy and repeatability

(and many thanks to Bill for it!)

Does anyone else think that anything should be added / changed / removed?

If not, I'll go ahead and start a thread for each one.

Re: Re: Re: Re: define the relevant topics
 

nah this doesn't make sence. You cannot define a test bench untill you know what the test bench is going to be used for. You need to:

1) Figure out what measurements are going to be "expected".

2) What kind of form those measurments need to be "formatted" in.

3) A proceedure for taking those measurments.

4) Find the equipment that is capable of doing 1-3.


If you pick your equipment first then your limited to what that equipment can do.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: define the relevant topics
 

This is true. So I need to reverse the top two on my list I guess to be.

The tests to be run/Accuracy level of such

The testbench itself.

The format which data is to be presented.

I'm going to try to write up a little intro, and open up those topics as seperate threads.

By day's end.

Done.

The intro is meant as some kind of guide, and perhaps an intro of the topic. Please feel free to discuss anything you want, any way you see fit.

If need be, we may add/remove or split a thread (as soon as I get mod rights on this particular Forum).


Here's a sample of a soon-to-be-proposed "logo" I drafted up quickly: (It's been a slow day :( )

I really don't see what there is to discuss? It's been done and all you have to do is copy it as close as you can financialy afford. The only question you really need to ask is 'how good is good enough?' (if it's any lower than has already been achieved you need to ask yourself if it's going to do H2o cooling any good). How many of these 'setups' are you planning on making BB? If only one, then why not just donate to Ph like was previously suggested? (if Ph is even interested?). If lot's, then it's going to be like asking 20 people to build a clock each, and then expect them all to keep the same time!...

I don't consider myself a neigh sayer but I don't think this is ever going to happen. An alliance suggests 'lots' of different testers, and I just don't see people pumping money(the kind that's needed!!) into testing waterblocks for the fun of it. This smacks of 'Flogging a dead horse' :shrug: (that's whipping, not trying to sell :p )...

What BillA started at OC'ers makes sense too me, but it has to be paid for because of the huge amount of man~hours involved (which is why I wonder/doubt that Ph would be interested)...

Trying to develope the best sytem would be a better,achievable idea to me. an 'X block with Xrad with Xfan/s with Xamount of tubing with Xpump is the best setup possible today' kindof idea. Something that every new user could benifit from, rather than forming a 'pointless' elite club, it's not as though it's going to improve H2o cooling is it?...

Maybe it's time people expanded into other hobbies as well as watercooling? I just don't see that it warrants this much attention without financial gain involved. If people have so much free time why not start up a 'Pro Users against Kidy porn/Exploits' web policing force, or something?...

MadDogMe: I'm going to take a minute here, and try to reply to your concerns, which are valid!

First off, on the money aspect. Yes, I did have a choice to either try to round up people around pHaestus, but if you keep in mind that Bill's test rig costs ~$20'000, even if I was able to get 20 people, there is no way that I could reasonably expect each member to fork out $1'000, for testing gear that's going to end up in Canada, and it's not clear that pHaestus may want to do what everyone else might expect him to do, with that test bench.

So the only viable alternative, from my prespective, is to get a bunch of people together, that would be willing to spend $1'000 on their own rigs, and work off of each other to try to get to some level of accuracy, as cross-testing may allow.

The first step of course, is recognizing that yes, there has been some efforts made by various individuals towards building a test bench, and yes, there have been many discussions. But it's not my position to dictate what is acceptable or not: I'm neither interested nor qualified, single-handedly, to do that. It would be much much more efficient and productive to use those past bits of information, and get a few good heads together, to set a bar.

Each member may (or may not) have an interest in building a test rig of their own. Some members may simply want to voice their opinion, from their perspective (aka manufacturer). So they're welcome to join, even though they may not be able to vote on the more technical issues. There's room for anyone that's interested, that can see the benefit, and that can make a contribution.

Just PM or e-mail me your e-mail address. Try to include your motives for joining.

I hope that I've made that clear, but feel free to ask me any other questions!

WBTA hehehe first thing I thought of was "Why Bother Testing Anything" when you can just give it a 9/10 Editors choice and be leet! :)

hehe

sorry yet another non productive post by yours truly :)

Hey Ben,

As I suggested in my e-mail to you yesterday, I would like to see some clarification of goals and objectives - maybe that desrves to be a topic?

Just exactly what are you (we) trying to accomplish here?

Thanks... :)

Correct me if I am wrong but:

1) Round up people interested in quality WB testing.

2) Putting together a list of procedures and equipment needed to do this.

3) Calibrating all the test benches with each other. (probably the most impossible part)

4) Making this the standard for WB testing so readers can see the WBTA logo on a review and know it was done decently. Kind of like seeing ASE on oil and what not.

What Robotech is referring to, is wether the testing that we're trying to discuss is "analytical" or "comparative".

The first is about measuring with as much precision as possible, the actual level of performance of a block. The second, is more simply about being able to compare two or more blocks, and determining, with certainty, which one perform better, and to some limited extent, by how much.

Obviously, the primary purpose of the WBTA is about analytical testing, but I believe that we will be covering comparative testing, one way or the other.