Joemac, I think you're right in not releasing your numbers. You and I have discussed this to some extent.
FWIW...
I think that the term "engineering" is loosely applied here. None of us are up to par, IMO, in engineering a block design: by today's standards, it would involve CFD tools, and the only few people I know that are knowledgeable enough about it, don't design blocks, with the exception of Roscal.
I'd call it "engineering" if this was 1950 or something, because we're really down to trial and error, when it comes to designs, after figuring out a basic design. Take the Cascade for example: you'd have to make about 30 variations of it, to get it right, and you could easily make another 30, refining it. It's more cost efficient to do this trial and error, then to go to university and get the corresponding degree (something that some people don't seem to get). You do however need a basic understanding of the scientific principles behind it all, but it isn't something that a reasonably intelligent person can't pick up throughout these forums. Case in point: my contribution to the Cascade design.
The original topic of this thread I think, came from BillA's apparent "interference" with JoeC's review of "the kit". For what it's worth, I can vouge for Bill being unbiased in his effort to have the review corrected, in spite of his affiliation with Swiftech. JoeC was at fault, but it isn't something that won't be fixed, and the results still stand clear. I actually have to commend Bill for pointing out the issue: I know it went right above my head!
One thing that still irks me, is reviews that don't state their error margins. As I pointed out in another thread, Player0's latest roundup's got to have an error margin of at least 2 deg C, and given that the spread of measured temps is about 5 deg C, the review's end result really, is seperating the "best" from the "worst". In thespirit of this thread, I'd sure like to see that discussed!
WA_JUK: got a graph for the latest Prescott predictions?
|