Watercoolplanet.de
 

In this thread at procooling (here) My only experience with watercoolplanet (WCP) was to have found a spreadsheet of pump performance (simple flow rates for various pumps through the same length and ID tubing - done for several IDs, 6, 8, and 10mm, I think).
Someone responded that their WB ratings were questionable, they looked way off to me, and so I thought I'd found an "off brand" watercooling site and gave it no more thought.
However, from Cathar's (and others') comments, it looks as though their WB testing methodologies are important to how WBs in Europe are being designed.
Has anyone actually figured out what their methodology is? Any chance of pointing me to where they state what it is (if they do)? I tried to find this for a while, but my German language skills are basically nonexistant.
My guess is that they are simply testing as some absurdly low flow (like less than what a 1046 will deliver through 3/8" ID lines and a heater core style radiator) and this is biasing their results.

Apologies for having put this question into a separate thread, but if WCP really is that important to Euro-watercoolers' world-view, I thought that maybe it'd be appropriate to have the info in a thread by itself where at least a few of these folks might stumble into it - leading to either their enlightenment, or to their posting something that will help my enlightenment :)

Thanks!
Bob

We're talking 1046, 3/8" OD lines, a winding tube radiator and the block. The estimate lies at 1-2LPM, I believe. I think our biggest issue with them is the amount of times they mount (once) the statement that they've changed the heat source at one time, and their lack of flow rate regulation.

Hehe... I wouldn't have answered as I'm not the most qualified, but even on their test bed the Koolance sucks hard Koolance repeatedly claims that their product does better than standard ones under low flow conditions...

details of the test setup here (in german)
http://watercoolplanet.de/index.php?open=17&show=52

AngryAlpaca covers most of the glaring anomalies.

The testbed can be seen here.

Another issue of note is the uninsulated heater area which can be seen here:

http://www.watercoolplanet.de/gfx/teststand/tsd8.jpg

There is basically as much surface area open to be passively cooled by air as a small heatsink. Smaller sized waterblocks that don't block off the socket as much will allow for greater secondary cooling of the heat die.

As AA points out, the testbed chokes flow quite dramatically. I've been trying to get a hard figure on it from browsing various European forums, with language being the biggest barrier for me. The figures I found bandied about were around 1.0-1.4LPM (0.25-0.35GPM) for many blocks, but this was just "heresay".

The one-mount-only thing is a fairly dramatic methodology error. I'm sure that even Phaestus who is getting more confident with his mountings would be extremely reticent to claim that he gets it right first-time every-time. For my own testing I get the same sort of repeatability/variation that Phaestus gets, but every now and then I do get a bad mount that's 1-2C worse than anything else. I would not like to claim to rank waterblocks on a first-time-only basis.


Edit: On a more personal level, I was rather upset that the Cascade that was tested was a user-modified and user-lapped version with non-standard fittings. In my own tests and in independent tests, the Cascade performs significantly better at very even at low flow rates than any number of other blocks that WCP showed to outperform or match the Cascade. Aside from the testing anomalies mentioned above, I must also conclude that the user-level modifications and lapping were largely responsible for that. Am fairly positive that most manufacturers would not readily agree to random people randomly modifying their blocks outside of the manufacturer's control prior to a block being sent for review, nor do I think would people looking to buy a block accept that such was done prior to a block being reviewed, but this is exactly what happened.

I'm surprised that none of the German block manufacturers complain about the single mount issue (or do they?)

Was there any internal modifications done to the cascade? I would also wager that the cascade would do significantly better (~1C) on wcp's simulator with the jet blocking plate installed, considering the die size.

ADDED: I think the uninsulated die area is even a bigger issue on JoeC's simulator where the entire top is exposed to open air

This is just my speculation, but not so much specific internal modifications, but in terms of damaging changes in how it works through installation of the non-standard barbs. The barbs that get fitted to the Cascade by me have to be cut down to allow for adequate clearance into the plenum chamber that feeds the jets. Someone installing barbs without cutting them down could easily miss the importance of this. The outlet of the barb will sit too close to the jet entrances, and primarily feed only the jets under the barb outlet. With a small ID barb and at lower flow rates where there isn't a lot of back-pressure from the jets, this problem would be further compounded, and basically the block would only be running with a very small percentage of its jets actually doing anything at all, with the rest perhaps receiving the barest of trickles in terms of flow.

I had no control over the block in terms of how it was modified, but I was always acutely aware of the importance of the middle barb's clearance from the jet intakes.

I do remember who bought the block. They asked for it without its barbs installed because they wanted to install custom barbs for their setup, or so it was explained to me. About a month later and I'm contacted by the same guy about his sending of the block to WCP after he had modified it. To make matters a little more involved, I'm aware that said person also has close dealings with the HydroCool engineer for the Hydro-Stream, for which they managed to produce this performance graph for the Cascade (taken from HydroCool's website).

http://www.hydrocool.com/Images/hstreamCG.gif

which somewhat quite co-incidentally would appear to match up with WCP's perception of RBX vs Cascade performance at very, very low flow rates. I strongly suspect that the block tested by HydroCool and WCP are the one and the same modified block. Compare that to anywhere else and it's clear that something's very wrong with that particular block.

I do not believe that there was any malice involved here at all, but more likely just a lack of understanding of the effect of the changes that were made to the block by the people involved, and the problem was further compounded by sending the damaged block off for review...

Excuse my insolence, but whats stopping pH testing these german blocks?

I take it that its the price?

I for one would be really interested to see some more of them from his test bed...

Is there anything that can be done about this testbed? to me, it doesn't seem like they're going to 'change their ways' very much...

Hey I posted a German wb review TODAY

I think BillA's sending a newer Innovatek wb by way of JoeC as well. If you send them I will test them...

Easier to get blocks from the US to Germany then it is from Germany to the US. I would chip in a good chunk of change to get one of those NexXxoS XP's to pH.

lol, i saw that afterwards, i had a giggle about it :)

I'd be happy to DC some funds too.

How much are they over there? I could probably get one from our local Alphacool supplier...

I thought Phaestus was getting a NeXXoS XP by way of Pug and the "German vs USA" kit test?

I'm wondering what results pH might get if he tested at those same rates - or at least those blocks that WCP thinks are the best.
IMHO as long as there are no directly comparable tests (similar flow) they'll be able to hide all their other problems.

Oh, and if they're focused on "watercooling for silence", why use a "120/40 Pabst(230V)" fan? Hmmm...

PS - pHaestus - saw the Rev3 review and thanks! I see you found the Eldon James 1/4BPP to 1/2 tubing adapters (seems to be the only solution to running Innovatek gear with reasonable sized tubing)...

Hell, I don't know.... I can't even find this block for sale anywhere yet.

Hi all. I'm brand new to the forums and this looks like as good a place as any to start. I live in Germany and would be glad to help in this matter any way I can.

In regards to watercoolplanet.de, any credibility I may have given them went right out the window when I read a pump review they posted apparently without even using the pump :rolleyes:

Damn, and I thought most of that activity went the way of the dot-com advertising revenue debacle. I guess if you can afford the bandwith, then post crap.

lol

pH
you will have to test at lower flow rates

flaky graph, I do test at 0.3gpm (68 lpm) so I know what those curves should look like, these must be off

I'd rather not turn this into some pissing match between this site and WCP please. I can certainly appreciate the reasoning behind "picking a test setup and method and sticking with it" if you have a lot of data over a long time.

I can go lower but I think that 0.5GPM is the bottom of the 1% accuracy range of my GPI flowmeter. I should check up on the Swissflow anyway (I am probably going to use that as a stopgap until I get a magnetic flowmeter because it can be logged)

I believe its a Hydrocool graph

Like this no it's still alive and well. :mad:

Certainly not my intention - just trying to understand what they're up to as this might be the "key" to what is often called "German-style" watercooling. Of course, if it turns out that they're doing something questionable, IMHO, it wouldn't hurt to shine some "light of day" on it for everyone. They might even "fix" it, which would be of real benefit to those of us without access to, for instance, nexXxos blocks.

But it looks like their original rationale for using that particular setup (E1046, 6 or 8mm ID tubing, very restrictive radiator) is being "overtaken by events", as the newspaper folks say. If their target market is moving to 10mm ID tubing, and much less restrictive radiators, and possibly more powerful pumps (the HPPS, for instance, is quieter than the 1046, but still has more pressure), then, at least eventually, they're going to need to change that rig. It may even make sense to control coolant temperature and use a more powerful pump throttled down to whatever pressure/flow (or set of pressure/flows) so they have numbers to satisfy both readers using the old (restrictive system) and those using the newer (less restrictive) ones. .
Hmmm.... sounds.... sort'a familiar... ? :)

Oh - sorry to have been asking for something difficult. Does it go to 5%, 10% or all-to-h*ll? Even at 10% it would be somewhat interesting - not to put on a graph, but as a side-note kind of thing.

Bob

ditto
I would be less concerned about accuracy than having no data point at all
believe me, the difference between wbs at 0.3 gpm is large - and the rankings change as well

pH
you will not avoid the comparison with WCP

Where the hell does one get a pump that acheives such a metric flow rate, but such a poor US flow rate, simultaneously? Seriously, is that supposed to be 0.68LPM?

Would it be possible to split the flow to two identical blocks and put the flow meter where they meet up or split? That way the flow at the flow meter would be 0.5GPM but only 0.25GPM at the block being tested...

I think Bill meant 68 liters per hour

0.3gpm = 1.135lpm
1.135 * 60 = 68lph

with the GPI it'll report numbers all the way down to 0.01GPM; with the Swissflow I am not certain (let me dig). I'll include some lower point (0.3 gpm seems likely) whenever I switch testbeds

is this a better test bed?
http://www.caseumbau.de/index.php?page=test150/test150