Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hotseat
Ed,
We have never seen a Bio problem with XP, in any of our industrial test set ups.
Now, I'm not an Bio or chemical expert, but will suggest this.
All our set-ups had methanol / water mix run first. Perhaps the methanol removed the bio problem, hopefully other more qualified can answer that?
You should also note, we NEVER use glycol in our industrial app's, just methanol for sound engineering reasons.
|
Good stuff to know!
I'm really not sure how the bio problem occurred, anyway, but the fact of the matter is that it did occur, and I've not had one since switching to airspirit's red glycol mix. Either way, I've not seen any corrosion whatsoever running his red glycol mix, and performance of the cooling system was already better than expected, so I'm not excessively concerned about using Fluid XP again. Another problem with the Fluid XP is the cost; for what I pay for two bottles of Fluid XP, I can make several gallons of the red glycol coolant mix.
Oh and yes, it was straight FluidXP; they don't recommend mixing it with anything else at all, and so I didn't.
Dan, my e-mail address for review-related materials is
edwardng@silentpcreview.com. Any chance you or Dave can let me know when you guys have some samples ready for me to review of your upcoming pump products? Ask Dave about which pump he said he could send me (and a sample to Mike Chin as well, as he would do in-depth sound pressure measurements and actual recordings of the pumps for our readers to listen to!!! I don't want to mention any more about this in here, since this thread is really about the CSP-750 Mark I/II pumps.
Say, speaking of Mark II, is it just me, or are the Mark II pumps heavier than the Mark Is? I noticed, also, that the Mark II aren't quite as square as the Mark I pumps; they're wider and taller, but equal or lesser in depth (going by the shiny badged side as the front). Any chance you could hint us in on how flowrate of head was improved over the Mark I?
-Ed