Pro/Forums - View Single Post

Incoherent · 08-30-2004, 12:59 AM

OK, I'm stupid

I have pulled the comparison chart above because I don't think it is correct. I don't actually think the other one is correct either but it can stay because it doesn't make bold drunken claims involving other blocks.
I remembered yesterday that I had changed the thermometer power supply from battery to a mains adapter a while ago, after testing the crater block. And did not check the calibration of the thermometers.
I did a sanity check on my thermometry last night, measuring an old cross drilled block. Basically I am seeing an almost 0.01 C/W improvement for the cross drilled block. There a a few variables for this one, it has no mounting holes so it's position on on the die can move and I do not have extensive data on it, being only one flowrate, also it can read differently with water flow direction due to some enhancements done long ago. But it's enough for me to distrust my data at this point. I will wait until I have a more stable test setup before making anymore rash performance claims.
I am very sorry about this. Not to mention disappointed. It means that all the measured performance numbers I have stated should be offset by a not fully established 0.01CW.
The theory discussion is still relevant however.

08-30-2004, 12:59 AM	#55
Incoherent Cooling Savant Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Vallentuna, Sweden Posts: 410	OK, I'm stupid I have pulled the comparison chart above because I don't think it is correct. I don't actually think the other one is correct either but it can stay because it doesn't make bold drunken claims involving other blocks. I remembered yesterday that I had changed the thermometer power supply from battery to a mains adapter a while ago, after testing the crater block. And did not check the calibration of the thermometers. I did a sanity check on my thermometry last night, measuring an old cross drilled block. Basically I am seeing an almost 0.01 C/W improvement for the cross drilled block. There a a few variables for this one, it has no mounting holes so it's position on on the die can move and I do not have extensive data on it, being only one flowrate, also it can read differently with water flow direction due to some enhancements done long ago. But it's enough for me to distrust my data at this point. I will wait until I have a more stable test setup before making anymore rash performance claims. I am very sorry about this. Not to mention disappointed. It means that all the measured performance numbers I have stated should be offset by a not fully established 0.01CW. The theory discussion is still relevant however. Last edited by Incoherent; 08-30-2004 at 04:39 AM.