This is the kind of thread I love and hate. Everything discussed is related in a complex way to one thing or another, or in this case, a few things.
So here are my comments! Firstly the thread isn't labeled properly: the term "unbiased engineering" implies the existence of "biased engineering" and that's a paradox: there's no such thing.
What's really meant is that there have been some technical comments made, and that some may be biased, or at least appear to be (example: my own preview of the Aquagold, where I use my "bionic eye" to qualify the block as a "good performer"). I also believe that the very first post was to update everyone on what's been done about what's been brought up, which is more related to marketing than the intended topic that this thread has gone into.
When I met with Joemac's partner (ThyKingdomeCome) he asked me if I'd test the block, and when I told him that I wasn't up to it at the moment, he asked me if I'd run a "system test", which I refused to do (even if I had been able). I then explained that I could run a flow test, which I was comfortable doing, while reporting the error margins, which I did, but I wouldn't do any more than that.
Otherwise, having worked over many block designs, including "Radius" (still to be made) and having made a contribution to the design of the "Cascade" block, which is still the best block around, anywhere, I did know that the Aquagold would perform very well, and there's no magic (or bionic implant) behind my suggestion: Bill tested a similar block (Hoot's pin-fin) which turned in excellent numbers, and JayDee116 has had tremendous success with his Lemon block. It really doesn't take a lot of brainpower to figure that one out.
Testing on the other hand, does require some brain power and yes, some background/education definitely helps. In my college science classes, this is one thing that I was best at, surpassing even what the professors expected. It isn't terribly complicated, but you need to be able to look at all the individual parts, and the whole, at the same time, and analyze how each error propagates and affects other components. Then you have to quantify it, and state your margins with your results. That's still something that seems to be missing from most reviews I've seen.
It really needs to be understood that when a number like "0.19" is spurted out, there is an assumption that the accuracy is +/- 0.01, a.k.a one of the least significant digits. I see many people post system CPU temps as "42 deg C", and it really irritates me, because it might as well be 4 * 10E1, which would be more accurate, in technical terms. 4.2 * 10E1 +/- 1 * 10E1 would be perfect (also: 42 deg C, +/- 10 deg C). So everytime I read a temp, I have to translate the meaning, from gibberish, to something meaningful.
In many of my future posts, and probably in at least one of the articles I'll be writing, I'll make the claim that the "Cascade" is the best water block around. Since I've contributed to the design, does that make me biased, or do I know for a fact that it is the best?
I know the design, and I know that it's going to take a long time, before someone beats it, because it's really an optimization of flow and fin on a baseplate. Is that an opinion or is it a fact?
I think that the major difference between Bill and I, aside from Bill's extensive experience and education, is that Bill's out to finger anyone who isn't accurate, where I'll do something about it, either in a "diplomatic" post, a PM, or the WBTA, wherever I can, which isn't anywhere as wide as Bill is able to. I don't try to "take down" a person, and all of his related efforts, when he makes a mistake, I just correct them.
Bill isn't biased, he's really not. Just because he doesn't slam Swiftech products, doesn't mean that he's biased. If you look carefully at Bill's posts, he's only stated facts about Swiftech products. In his position, that's all he can do. think about it: would you slam your employer's product publicly? The only question that's left is: would Bill return an assesment of a Swiftech product (negatives and all) if asked, and the answer would probably be: "I won't go there" or "no comments". That's not bias, that's just plain common sense.
Bill's also been very consistent in comments about Swiftech's competitors, also stating facts. How a competitor's company is run, probably falls outside of what Bill does for Swiftech, so that's free game (right?).
I think that that's what BlackEagle is trying to get across.
The only issue here, is that what Bill says, carries a lot of weight, so any negative remark of any kind, has the potential to spread like wildfire, and have the corresponding effect. Then again, Bill's also known to be grumpy, and that also spreads widely.
Joemac opted not to release his test results, but will occasionally make hints that one block is better or worse than another. While I fully support the position, the hints are themselves a breach of the original intent. When I reviewed the Aquagold, I had seen Bill's test results of the BlueBlock (a predecessor of the Aquagold), but because Bill did not get paid for his effort, I made the decision to make no reference to it, and I mean, not even a hint. I also encouraged the AquaJoe team to settle the outstanding debt with Bill, regardless of the where and how it came to be.
This issue with Joemac's hints, have led them to be questioned, because they are unsubstantiated, by choice, but just recently, one of them was proven to be incorect. This is a problem, because it also puts in question the rest of his claims, and the accuracy of the in-house testing.
So Joemac: you stepped into this one, all on your own: sorry! I'd suggest that you determine your error margins, and revisit your results. I'd be more than happy to assist, in any way I can, and I might even consider making the drive to DFW to help you out, ok?
Otherwise, you're free to post your testing methods, for everyone's scrutiny, which might be more helpful.
Please understand that no one is calling you a liar, but we are calling you on the accuracy of your claims.