Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WAJ_UK
I liked this statement:
"Cathars 4xID theory isnt proved yet and google cant find anything about it... "
seems like people have forgotten about that form of information printed on a thin white substance called paper. Libraries are a good source of information and usually more reliable than google.
|
Perhaps the most defining paper that I used to launch from for Cascade development:
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/laiche.pdf
The 4xID thing isn't just a theory. There's a good deal of research behind it
if one bothers to look. Things are a little bit different though due to the use of the cups. The paper also focuses on pretty high jet velocities (~45m/s) and using about 80PSI pressures.
It should be noted that I targetted the Cascade's design for 4-10LPM flow rates, or roughly 2.5->6 m/s jet nozzle velocities, and 2-10PSI pressure-drops across the block. The Cascade will continue to show good performance improvements right through that range of pressures.
If I were designing the Cascade to work well on a super low-flow testbed barely mustering 0.5PSI PD across the block, then I would have done a large number of things differently.
The test procedure followed by Phaestus, in the wake of BillA's excellent work, is a shining example of why single point testing is
utterly useless. Had Phaestus decided to focus on just a 0.5GPM flow rate we'd all be left thinking that the Maze4 was a piece of crap, and the RBX is just average, and indeed this is just what the WaterCoolPlanet testbed is doing, and claiming to be able to rank the world's waterblocks. Rather interesting too is the ~2C difference between the RBX and the Cascade for Phaestus at 0.5GPM, yet just a 0.5C difference at WCP. Where'd the other 1.5C go? Oh I'm sure that it had nothing to do with mounting variances and testbed irregularities. Worse, the WCP testbed test load is quite a deal higher, so the differences should've been more like 3C, so where did the other 2.5C go that should've been there? What, though, of the RBX, Maze4 and Cascade's performance when operated within their targetted design parameters? Are such even considered, let alone explored, under such a testbed?
I've ranted enough about the WCP testbed. It just saddens me to think that people would actually choose to use it as a reference when it is such a joke.