The question of unbiased engineers
 

The question of unbiased engineers/scientist seems to come up often lately. I tried to prove my point that while a person can be unbiased it may not always be the case especially when profits are involved. Still some do not understand why I don’t release in house testing numbers for Aquajoe I have even been question on why in the world I would want my product tested against a common pump instead of a water chiller that could run into the hundreds of $$$, Or how dare I have my product tested with a common radiator. Anyway listen to this it may teach a thing or two

Have a listen here:
Listen here

Why do I bring this up?


I am an engineer, and the facts are the facts
I do not misrepresent, twist words, or shade meanings

so let us consider 'the facts'
the title of JoeC's review "Aqua Joe Watercooling Kit"
is this statement true ?
no
first two sentences "Another new face on the watercooling scene, AquaJoe, sent me their system to check out. As this is not yet marketed as a kit, I am calling this a preliminary review (no kit pricing available yet)."
is this true, are you selling these components as a kit ?
no

yet JoeC has ranked you as #1

see how thats done :D


Only if you need to know found at:

And those pesky anchors – FIXED :dome:

Well in this hobby your options are to trust those with technical background and lots of $$ invested in equipment or to trust the high school kids with a compunurse and a spare hour to put together "shootouts". I know who I prefer.

You were asked to post numbers when you made claims relative to competitor's blocks. A reasonable request IMO.

Correct but readers be ware if this person with all this $$$ invested in equipment has an interest in sale. What I am saying is not being pulled out of the air. It’s a very valid point maybe in the future I will post numbers but then they will be from an independent lab for now flame away for me thinking that I have the best versatile block (oh and good customer service). Besides Every time someone post numbers they are tore up. If they don't attack the numbers, you guys go after the setup. Either way the attempts to satisfy the need for technical information end up with an assault on character for attempting to do the right thing.

Flame away?

Ok. Here goes. Questioning motives goes both ways. It seems to me like you are questioning Bill's objectivity as a method of pushing your products. A classic mud smearing campaign. I have never heard him make a statement about the performance of your block (or of any competition since he joined Swiftech). On the other hand, I have heard you make claims that seem rather bold regarding your competitors (see nordic hardware forums) and without any substantiation.

So what do we have from joemac and aquajoe: a history of lauding marketing rather than real numbers (great job on that review Ben) and your slinging of mud at Bill without any proof or supporting information. That's not to even mention the past shenanigans at Bluecooling, which honestly I haven't ever sorted out.

You seem to me like a sleazy snake oil salesman hawking your wares to shills. I don't know if that's the image you are looking for, but that's what is coming across to me. Reminds me a little of a Mr. Eckert from the past.

Of course as a scientist I am probably biased anyway so whatever conclusions I draw are of little merit.

//edit: And what of me? I have big dollars invested in testing as well. Does that make me inherently biased somehow?

Why do you think JoeC is biased?

Never said I did. I have (mostly) been able to reproduce his relative heatsink rankings with tests of my own.

Sorry. The question was to aquajoe.
Never seem to think JoeC was biased, thats why i asked.

Since you are here though Joemac, perhaps deal with this:

from this thread: http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/sho...5&pagenumber=2

Reconcile with your performance claims on nordichardware:
http://www.nordichardware.com/forum/...pic.php?t=1215

I don't know pH. This guys numbers seem to counter everyone elses. Also jumping in on a thread about a block he is reviewing in a defensive tone isn't exactly considered non-biased IMO.

Not sure WTF to think about Joe's block performing worst than the Maze 4. I have a Maze 4 and not at all impressed by it. My own best block beats it by 4C and Joe's block looks better than mine. And the overclockers review counters those numbers.

Whatever....:shrug:

Several user’s of my block have reported the same thing Jaydee. We have beat the maze 4 over and over what happened this time I don’t know – Every time I send a block for testing I pull one from stock and send it over with no requirement for testing in fact I don’t even require a NDA for reviewer when reviewing block.
Again I need to bring up the subject of something like the WBTA. I am not going to argue number here that would be forum suicide. This is a very simple problem with a very complex solution.

I really don't know why the hell you stay around here Joemac. These guys say they don't belive in the numbers of the reviews, yet they base their candid off cuff remarks on one of them. Any difference in types of testing? No. No matter what you do you will get slammed. Take a hint from DD and pre attack dog days Swiftech and give them nothing, let them assume away and live off other peoples reviews. Some people are happier that way anyway. These are the same guys who refused a challenge to test your block saying they were too busy.

My point was:

a) Joemac says he trusts the independent testers (aka hardware reviewers) and not those with expensive equipment and technical training (due to bias).

b) An independent reviewer reports substantially different numbers than Joemac has spouted in forums.

And so what is at fault? The reviewer's numbers/methods? Joemac's statements? Are reviews to only be regarded as good independent testing when the results coincide with your company's marketing strategies? If so then I would just grant Ben exclusive review rights and be done with it.

Headed for bed now; leaving you all with some homework. Provide one example where a technically-educated scientist or engineer has purposely posted misleading data to the water cooling community to sell products. Feel free to look over my review history here at at www.voidyourwarranty.net. Bill's testing is all mirrored at www.thermal-management-testing.com . If you tire of that, then try for the consolation prize. Look for a mfgr who has posted half-true or misleading comments to sell their product. Now look at the original post and consider what to believe.

That's logic at work.

I never said that :confused: I used tester with expensive equipment and technical training with bias toward T.E.C.'s to develop my block. The results well you see them in my avatar.

LOL! Narrowly define the testing to a single SMALL market. Now constrict what we know of your definition of an engineer in this market is to that scenario. Now use that to reason away the entire findings of that NPR program. You wish it could be so easy.
Homework? Try accepting that data on a whole can apply to even small insignifcant markets as well as the larger ones. Since that article was directed to 'engineers' who are selling products and THAT effecting reviews, please tell us what company you work for and profit from pHestus to think yourself included in the brush that joemac paints.
If you don't apply to the conversation as to the scenario, then feel free to exclude yourself from the picture, or explain who you are paid by. Now consider this for ONE moment. Bill is what you call 'picky' and an a$$blaster regarding imperfection. I don't think there is even a word for it on this forum. Maybe if it was printed out it would be represented in **** due to filters. HOWEVER, the single fact that he is not bashing and TEARING up Swiftechs inner workings on this forum and products considering the unrestricted access he has proves it is being held in check. Now tie that to a paycheck. Now admit that ALL data isn't being published regarding the hidden skeletons in that HUGE closet at Swiftech. Balls to bone it isn't ALL pretty. Yet the non-pretty data isnt being focused on in multiple forums and detailed graphs by yours truely. In fact that is not even considered for publishing. NOW you have the bias that is motivated by money.
Who am I to point fingers?? A nobody, because I would do the exact same thing. I am at least honest enough to call it 'bias' linked to financial gain. Hell, offer me a bean burrito to keep quiet on a review from me, and you bought a LOAD of silence. :D

And this ISNT a bill bashing forum. I think its a lesson in waking up to fact, and you can apply it to any company. Don't want to be a part of the broad brush? Stop your paycheck.

There aren't many people out there, that are able to test a water block properly, i.e. with a testbench, not a PC.

I might be able to do this, in 2004, but until I've tested a significant number of them, and demonstrated that I've mastered the errors, I'll be slammed here.

Do you think you shouldn't be? I am finding it rather difficult to belive anyone anymore. This Player0 dude has posted some numbers that make no since what-so-ever. He has the Maze4 beating out blocks that have been proven to be better.

Look at this BS. The Maze 4 does not beat the Slit Edge, it does not beat the MCW5002, it does not beat Joe's block. He has the 2 DD blocks performing better, he jumps in the DD thread and defends the DD block with these numbers, and is now arguing with me in that thread when I question his knowlege and integrity. My Lemon Block Cu destroys the Maze 4 and I know it is not that great of a block. The White Water, Cascade, Joe's Block, Slit Edge, and even the MCW5002 "should" be as good if not better than my block.

It is shit like this that drives me up the wall. It is NOT helping the water cooling community. It is doing just the opposite in fact. Seems to me these guys are just throwing out shit so they will be considered Gods in the future when water cooling becomes more mainstream. I don't know.

You have to understand JayDee that you may see results from system testing (uncontrolled flow) that don't make much sense in comparison with bench testing results (controlled flow and carefully eliminating variables). The most glaring example of that was the hardocp waterblock comparison with the MCW464-UH coming out far on top of the -U. This only happens because flow rates are so much higher in the -UH due to less restriction and that also affects the radiator performance. The same thing could be at work in player0's data. We'll just have to see when the review is posted.

This is my point exactly. What good does this do anyone? Man I am going to have to reconsider setting up the test bench (again). If nothing else just for my own sanity. :D

The latest observation that I made, was in Pimprig's review/comparison of the Cascade vs the AquaJoe. Seems to me that the issue of heat density (core area/Wattage) is becoming something to be considered in the test bench.

So I'm opting to use two heat dies, and run both sets of data. The first is 10 by 10, similar to the AMD thoroughbred, and the second is *probably* going to be 12 x 13 mm, right smack in the middle of an Intel P4 and an AMD Opteron.

The thing is, "Cascade" would perform better with a higher heat density, but if the newer processors have larger cores, then testing with a 10 x 10 mm die may become irrelevant/obsolete.

Then again, the power coming from those processors is bound to ramp up with the new speeds, to where the heat density might catch up to the 10 x 10 mm die...:shrug: If that happens, I might be better off with two heat dies, one the exact size of an Intel P4, and the other the size of an AMD Opteron.:eek:

Gone for a while but it's the same old same old.:D


Am I to understand that he had JoeC do a review and now JoeC is being called biased???

Indeed it is.... :D

No, I think he is trying to claim BillA is biased, maybe not, hard to tell....

The JoeC review was under pressure because of how it was done. it was originally lables as a "kit" review and placed against other tested kits, but come to find out this "kit" doesn't exist, it was just a pump and rad with the block in which you cannot buy them as a "kit". I don't know, all kinds of odd shit happening around here lately.

On this note, what we are seeing happening today is what always happens.

A CPU process matures and we see CPU's that typically size in the 80-140mm^2 sort of area.

CPU makers then move to their next CPU type, but usually this does not co-incide with a new process update. This turns out to be not so bad because the current manufacturing process is so mature that spitting out 150-220mm^2 sized dies, while not ultimately desirable, is still profitable.

This situation doesn't last for long though. Witness the oldser Socket 423 P4's (~220mm^2) which were only around for about 8 months. Once the 0.13u die-shrink came through, the P4 shrunk to 127mm^2. A year later Intel added hyperthreading and the die-size bloated out to 147mm^2.

However, there is one law here that you can always count on, and that is that the most profitability for CPU manufacture sits in the smaller die sizes. We will never see the day where single CPU's are going to be commonly above 160mm^2 except for process transition stages.

The 177mm^2 Opterons will be shrinking down to ~110-120mm^2 (I think that's what I read), when AMD's 0.09u process comes on line early next year. Once that happens, then that's when we'll start seeing cheaper Opterons in more abundant supply.

It's important to view CPU die sizes in its entire history cycle. We are only seeing an emergence of large die sizes now because the 0.13u process is at the end of the line and both CPU makers are introducing CPU's just before their 0.09u processes come on-line. Give it 6 months and we'll all be back to the 100-140mm^2 CPU sizes we've been using for the last 5 years.

I was not at all saying that JoeC is bias. Bill made a comment that went something like - I am an engineer I cannot be bias. I decided to address that comment with this thread. Now for the kit Part. We did send JoeC a kit that we do intend to sell for him to preview and he did just that he previewed it and tested it. We are gearing up to sell that kit some parts have even gone on sale have a look CLICK HERE When pricing and policy is sorted out this will be sold as a kit.

Thanks for the "heads up" Cathar! Indeed, Intel has gambled when they switched to 300mm wafers, when the rest of the fabs were still at 220 (?). I guess Intel thinks that they're on top of their game...:shrug:

Looking forward to 100mm^2 die sizes again, and Cascade remaining solidly on top of the charts.;)

You are not going to get any arguments from me on that. The only thing that I would like to point out is that you are not only shrinking the die but at the same time you are adding more heat in that same area (more transistors in a smaller area). So where you once had X amount of transistor in a 100-140mm^2 area you now have Y.