[Marci]

Well, back when the ThermoChill data was done, BillA didn't work for Swiftech - but as far as NOW goes, as long as the data published shows Swiftech at the top of the pack, then there's no harm releasing the data. The trick then becomes ensuring Swiftech's product IS at the top of the pack... we all know and would never accuse Bill of falsifying data to ensure one product comes out better than the other... so going on Bill's own ethics and those stood by by more or less everyone else on here, all Swiftech have to do is get a rad that beats all the others by the figures. The review then shows everyone elses products to be worse.

It's only of detriment to Swiftech if the material released shows Swiftech's own product to be worse than those compared to.

But yes, as pointed out, Bill also has to be careful not to basically work for the competition by giving them data which they need but don't have and don't have the ability to acquire for themselves... this makes the whole comparison review idea very tricky when the person writing the review represents one of the manufacturer's contained.

As en example only, the currently-unrated chinese rads would get significant benefit from having testing data to show... whether it shows them to be better than one or another is irrelevant, having the testing data to start with counts for a lot. It's better than an item with NO testing data whatsoever imo.

Next problem - to say one rad is better than another, one must show proof. The only way to prove this is to rate all rads concerned and show how the rating was achieved. Suddenly you're handing over on a plate the one thing the competition lacks.

The simple solution is for an independant party to review ALL the rads in question. However, for that data to be of use, it must meet a certain standard.

Back to the good old problem - plenty of rads, but no-one out there to independantly undertake reviewing them all, whilst still being able to produce work to the standard required.

So, long n' short of it - the data can be shared under certain circumstances. Bill is well aware of what the watercooling community requires to make it's decision, and I have no doubt that he will provide it, but only when the right set of circumstances occurs. This simply becomes a case of, from a tied-to-a-company stance, if you want to write a comparative review of your own products and do so honestly, your product must be the best out of those reviewed, literally. Until it is, don't publish the review. Keep tweaking the product until it is, THEN publish the review. S'always better to have a target to beat when designing something, so comparative reviewing becomes an important and lengthy part of an already lengthy R&D > Fabrication process.

waffling - done!