[BillA]

we are verging into almost philosophical aspects of information utility here,
and of course such cries out for even more words from unregistered

a number of posters have made absolutely valid points regarding what 'most' readers/users wish to see
as well as the influence of non-performance related criteria bearing on a products selection
- and I take no issue with these considerations, absolute performance is but one product attribute

I would observe that there are many enthusiast review sites that expend considerable words on the non-quantified attributes of wbs (and of course other WCing kit as well)
- can anyone here say "[H]ardOCP" ?, and the many others that are able to say "Yes, the pump pumps real good."

but some want more info, and info that can be considered objective AND accurate
I became involved in the testing of WCing components when there was almost no data at all
and now there are a half dozen or so testers whose numbers 'make sense'

JD indicated he wanted to stick his oar in, and I will always try to support addl testers doing serious work
- but the question became immediately apparent - who is the intended audience ?

the non-technical group is already being 'well' served by the shit review sites,
there are a number of practical 'good' testers (Dan, JoeC, pHaestus is coming along, JoeK once in a blue moon, and others no doubt that I choose to ignore 'cause I've not encountered their test results)
and of course yours truly who has fallen completely off the log into the deep end

gmat asks why anyone would care about the last degree ?
well, I think that is just what OCing is ALL about
- if WCing for noise reduction (as I do), don't sweat any of this performance stuff - unless the hardware gives you a buzz

so we return to the enthusiasts who wish to assemble their own 'custom' WCing system
- some are plug-and-play,
- some fewer choose specific components for specific reasons (generally contradictory)
- fewer yet actually learn to understand specifications and test data (engn speak)
- and the VERY few who will attempt a comprehensive (integrated) WCing system design

quite obviously I speak (only) to the last 2 groups
perhaps JD was aiming at the first 2 ?
(but be careful, the third group will ask accuracy questions - and then it can all unravel)

EDIT:
Blackeagle, you are exactly the audience I like to 'hit'
re the heat load:
I test at 70W ACTUAL, this is very much equal to 100W per Radiate or one of those other smoke-and-mirrors 'calculators'
- believe me, you will not be able to apply much more heat than I am doing
AND the "C/W" does NOT change according to the applied heat
(read some of the articles on the site in my sig)