Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marci
See the PA160 page (and scroll down it).... I updated it the other day with links to relevant threads here and at OCAU so that's more or less done already... but yep! no sweat!
How would you like the figures phrased??
eg:
With a flowrate of 7lpm, use of the following fans offer the displayed C/W rating
Tricod @ 5.0v => 0.075 c/w
Tricod @ 12.0v => 0.044 c/w
Panaflo L1A @ 12.0v => 0.031 c/w
Panaflo H1A @ 12.0v => 0.022 c/w
Panaflo H1A @ 16.0v => 0.020 c/w
Do you see the need for a disclaimer on the figures? and if so, what... |
I think that adding the noise/cfm levels per fan would be useful.
Tricod @ 5.0v => (est.) 10dBA / (est.) 23cfm (I actually think the noise level would be less than that - but I doubt that people would swallow such a figure as it is an estimate)
Tricod @ 12.0v => 22dBA / 45 cfm
Panaflo L1A @ 12.0v => 30dBA / 69 cfm
Panaflo H1A @ 12.0v => 41dBA / 104cfm
Panaflo H1A @ 16.0v => (est.) 48dBA / (est.) 130cfm
Disclaimer huh? Procedure and some statements of the levels of error are given in the origin thread. I would say just give the above figures and point to the thread for more info - and people can read about what was done and make the assessment themselves if they so choose. Heck - that sort of transparency is already infinitely better than what most manufacturers provide. It's not a professionally done test, I openly admit that, just as I do a number of times in the origin thread.
Maybe a disclaimer that says "* - preliminary results - see thread
here for further details"