Pro/Forums - View Single Post

BillA · 12-21-2005, 06:57 AM

rather surprised to see the article now, have to wonder why ?

Les
others have had difficulty with my 'conclusions' also (suggestive of being wrong ??)
"However although the conclusion* is supported all could equally well be explained by other variations within the classifications. For example: MCR80-QP vs BI Micro(Graphs 15-19) the difference in thickness and Frontal Area are not considered and could equally explain the superiority ("This superiority of a single row over a dual row is due to the more efficient use of the fan’s output".)."

see Table 1, pg 3; both single and dual row can be compared in 80 and 120mm
I did consider the sizes, they are ordered so in the table
a shame I do not have the data to normalize, but remember that finished units are being compared;
-> not an attempt to define relative core efficiency, rather unit performance (extrapolated to . . . , yea)

care to show how the dimensional data in Table 1 would support your comment ?

bobo
K&L have definitions which may differ from those used by WCers
(row/tube/core, side to side/front to back, all confused wrt automotive nomenclature)
you need to follow our descriptions

the data should be considered primary relative to my previous articles content in terms of accuracy
my present rad testing is 'better' only due to more rigorous system calibration with a quartz thermometer (which HAS revealed differences only now appreciated)

12-21-2005, 06:57 AM	#7
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	Re: Thought you guys would like this.... rather surprised to see the article now, have to wonder why ? Les others have had difficulty with my 'conclusions' also (suggestive of being wrong ??) "However although the conclusion* is supported all could equally well be explained by other variations within the classifications. For example: MCR80-QP vs BI Micro(Graphs 15-19) the difference in thickness and Frontal Area are not considered and could equally explain the superiority ("This superiority of a single row over a dual row is due to the more efficient use of the fan’s output".)." see Table 1, pg 3; both single and dual row can be compared in 80 and 120mm I did consider the sizes, they are ordered so in the table a shame I do not have the data to normalize, but remember that finished units are being compared; -> not an attempt to define relative core efficiency, rather unit performance (extrapolated to . . . , yea) care to show how the dimensional data in Table 1 would support your comment ? bobo K&L have definitions which may differ from those used by WCers (row/tube/core, side to side/front to back, all confused wrt automotive nomenclature) you need to follow our descriptions the data should be considered primary relative to my previous articles content in terms of accuracy my present rad testing is 'better' only due to more rigorous system calibration with a quartz thermometer (which HAS revealed differences only now appreciated)