[webmedic]

Originally posted by bigben2k

All right, let's put aside the question of wether or not you would submit your block for WebMedic's test.

What I'm hearing from you, is that you expect WebMedic to run a short series of test, and declare a winner. So on to WebMedic: Is that what you intend to do?

No It's not as simple as that. On a side not I will rotate the blocks and not just test a single block 5 times and then go on to the nest block. I alrade have a large enough sample to start on this. I want to get the testing procedure down fist which is the reason or at least my reason for being here to take suggestions and work out the testing procedure before I start anything. There are a great many block that will not be here for a few weeks anyway.

Also I will work on clarifying the testing methods page to be more precise. I think stated above I will also use the block as it comes mounting and all. in this way it will be more a test of the block as the manufacturer send it. This in theory should also, how to put this, take into account the margin of error induced by a bad mounting mechanism. That is to say results will be not as good due to the mounting but it will better represent what the actual manufacture is selling and what to expect from such a product. I should think that the 5 test runns will also show a larger margin of error if the mounting system is not good.

I've stated it before, the best that you can do, is give out a performance curve for a block at different flow rates. Since you're only testing 3 flow rates (3 pumps), then I would tend to agree with Gone_Fishin, simply because you didn't make the effort to graph the WB's performance curve. 3 points on a graph won't do anything. 5 points might give us a rough idea, but it is rough.

I do have a few more pumps I can through in. Also to note we will be testing the flow rate of each block with a specific pump but I will not be able to change the flow of the pump to force each block to flow at the exact same flow rates. That is further down the road when a better pump has been collected and a magnetic flow meter.

If you were willing to graph the performance for at least ten (10) points, (i.e. 10 different flow rates), then you would have a serious testbed.

Again I do not have that capacity now but I could get 5 or 6. See the answer above about better equipment

In any case, I happen to know that you are leaning towards a quick user type setup test. As long as you remember that what you're going to test will NOT declare a block a winner over any other, and that you specifically explain why, and that you make no point in stating that one block is best, then you've got yourself a decent test report.

Of course as stated before it will aslo talk about cost, ease of use and setup, mounting, I'm popen to suggestions here.

Here's why: your tests are too specific. It's like trying out 4 different tires on your car, and a few months later report which one performed best, and wore out the least. For any car buff, ya'll know what I'm talking about:
1-you never use different tires on the same car.
2-The different tires will cause a car to pull towards one side or the other, wearing out another tire.
3-Each tire is designed differently, for a specific wear time
4-Each tire has a slightly different diameter.

It's the same thing with waterblocks. Each waterblock is designed differently. You can't use the same waterblock on the same computer, because you're only testing it for one set of variables. (i.e. a Maze 3 might perform better with an Eheim 1048, but a Swifty would beat it with an Eheim 1250).

In short, WebMedic, I'll take in your results, but I'll keep in mind that each block was tested for only a few circumstances. I can interpret the data (where most can't) to figure out what I need to know.

I'll make sure to state what the results are and indeed I spent the whole first page of the testing methods expaining this verry thing.

I will not be using mbm to monitor temps. I'll be using cpucool. It will read to .1 and log to a file up to once every second. This is much better than mbm for temp monitoring. Of course taking into account the margin for error but at leat this is somewhat more precise.

Sorry for spelling if it is off I'm trying to write to fast.