Well, I for one agree on a standard.
We need to find a way and a testing method to obtain what is a basic way for anyone to get a CW that doesn't scream BS. I'm not talking BillA testing either.. I'm talking REASONABLE for normal people to reduce variables, common techniques, and how to interpret the data.
BillA set a high bar for testing. People don't question his results. However, I can say that very few people in this very forum understand the numbers. I would roll the dice that maybe 10 people can interpret those graphs and tell you real world application and communicate that to a normal person.
What we need is a procedure or accepted test bed from common tools that will guide, restrict, and allow others to double check the information.
I agree that BillA reduces most variables. However, his setup is not practical to even most 3rd world countries much less the average tester. Am I picking on BillA? NO! I think his efforts were exemplary and notable. It's just an impossibility to knock the data down to layman’s terms, replicate to anywhere close to his standards. So, imo I say the standard is overkill. Does this mean more inconsistencies? Of course. Does it mean people can be better educated and participate at home? Sure, providing they are educated as to what isn't acceptable and what is.
Hey, if this were easy, it would already have been done. Frankly, the better part of pure genius is making a complex task simple, obtainable, and replicate able.
(Example: BigBen2k suggested having 5-10 gallon tank with a single temp to deliver a constant coolant temp to the block during testing)
Any genius with ideas? Does this seem worth pursuing?
__________________
-winewood-
|