Sigh... Water Cooling Testing......

[jaydee]

This is a tough subject. I cannot figure out what way to go with this. I do not quite understand what people want to see in a review. Is accuate temps all that important, or is system performance a better test tool? Both have their draw backs. Accurate temp monitoring is a bitch and nearly impossible with a computer system. Performance tests are not solid either because if the irregularity of the components. If I use a XP1600+ to use a a performance test then those tests only apply to that CPU and the parts on that system and that system alone as another person with identical brands of parts may have a totally different outcome because if the irregularity of the yeilds in the parts from the manufacturer! So performance tests maynot be the way to go.

I am planning a Die simulator to use for testing temps, but is this what readers want? Would they rather see results from a actual system to replicate reality more? Will these results be worth the time and effort? Or are people happy enough with the accuracy of the onboard probes on modern comps? :shrug:

My goal here is not directed at manufacturers, but to readers who are looking for imformation. Seems to me BillA's testing is more directed towards manufacturers and not so much for people looking for info on what to buy or whats out there to buy.

I will be doing this for the cooling community, not for manufactuers and with ZERO profitablity. The question is what are the acceptable standards for this? Are people fine with being a few C off? What do YOU want to see in a review?

All opinions welcome.

[Cathar]

Maybe this article will help to provoke some thought:

http://www.overclockers.com/articles699/

[gmat]

Depends on the situation.
If you are to test a rad, in a given setup, comparing it to another rad is easy.
If you are to compare waterblocks it's a more delicate matter...
What i'd like to see, is a max OC freq, defined by the first BSOD in a set of CPU loading programs.
Benchmarks are useless.
Take that same 1600+ (for example) and see how far it goes with one block, then another (well repeat etc., you know the drill).
The ideal would be a set of CPUs, one for each core variant. One TBredA, one TBredB, one P4 Willamette, etc...
And see how far in MHz they go.
Obviously, if a block allows consistent higher overclocks, why bother about temps ?

(edit) ah also i want price, avaibility, ease of maintenance, and mounting options.. oh and pressure drop in mH2O

[Cathar]

Problem with using overclocks is that this can be notoriously unreliable.

Some CPU's will go right to a limit, and then won't budge until you take another 5C off their temps, while others will scale quite gracefully, allowing an extra 10MHz per 1C drop or so.

The way BillA's has tested it is pretty much what we want. About the only thing missing from BillA's test data is a firm statement of the wattage output of various CPU's when over-clocked and over-volted. With that in hand, it's then fairly easy to say block X will cool better by Y degrees.

System thermal probes are difficult to use properly. By that I mean they are never accurate with respect to absolute temperatures, and the linearity of their temperature scaling is not guaranteed either. At best, they give a decent indication of if something is being cooled better by one block over another, but little more.

Better thermal transfer efficiency (characterised by a lower C/W) ALWAYS means a lower CPU temperature, which in turn correlates into the potential of a better overclock. Exactly how much that is is dependent upon a per-CPU basis.

I have people who installed my block over a Maze 3 reporting anything from as good as 100MHz gains on P4's, to as low as just 20MHz gains on AthlonXP's. Of course, who's to say the reasons for each result? Was it really cooling related. If a better overclock resulted, then clearly it is, but the size of the extra overclock may be limited by other factors, such as voltage and FSB stability.

Overclocking potential is just too messy. Further, unless the room temperature and coolant are held at exactly the same temperature all the time, then this may mean that CPU and or motherboard are experiencing inconsistent temperatures which may all affect the end-overclock.

What I think is better here is an article that details the peculiarities of overclocking, the variables involved, how a CPU's overclocking potential is linked to CPU temperature, how motherboards are not accurate within themselves, let alone with respect to each other, and then using BillA's data for some different pumps, radiators, blocks and fans (on the rads) results in a coolant temperature of X and a die temperature of Y, and give some good predictions on what setups will work well.

[gmat]

Right, but your arguments against OCing apply to OCing across various systems.
Let's take a *fixed* system, say an AMD one, with *fixed* mobo (say an NForce2 for max potential) and *fixed* CPU. Of course that reference CPU will have to be one that gains extra MHz when the temp drops by 1°C. Do not change anything but the waterblock.
If you cannot get consistent temps, what's the point in measuring temps or C/W anyway ?
So let's admit you manage to get consistent temps (from controlling ambient for example, measuring it precisely is easy). The extra measurement is CPU temp, but on that 'reference' CPU it's correlated to max overclock. What is the easier measurement ? To me it's max overclock. Even if the relation between the two is not linear, who cares.
Remember, that is when *all* other parameters are fixed, otherwise nothing is possible.. but that holds for any benchmark / temp measurement / etc.

Oh and keep a small temp somewhere, just to detect immediately those "piece-of-crap" blocks... if the mobo sensor displays 80°C there's no point going any further

(edit) ah and the variations between OCing runs (with the same system) will be due to mounting and TIM. No need to add temp probe randomness to that...

[BillA]

jd
I know you don't need me raining on your parade, but
do take this article to heart "Bench vs. System Testing of Watercooling Components"
(its the same as the one on OCers)

I have concluded after hundreds of e-mails and forum 'discussions' that the 'problem' is not the appropriateness of the data presented, but rather that readers w/o a technical 'grounding' are unable to interpret the results - and therefore somehow think that something is missing
(are you thinking the same JD ?)

I have begun to assemble an assortment of pumps and rads (got plenty of wbs already), and at some point will present a 'system' analysis with actual temperature and pressure profiles with different combinations

BUT -> such will NEVER be done using a CPU as the 'heat source'
too many unquantified, and uncontrolled, variables

to which you would add the ACTUAL OC ?
jd, you have to be kidding
make a list of EVERY influence on the ACHIEVED OC ?
do listen to what Cathar is saying (each individual CPU is UNIQUE)

and note the present activities of pHaestus as well

the plug and play crowd simply has to learn more about what they are doing

gmat
you are totally missing the crux of the issue
you are going to draw a conclusion which can easily (indeed probably) not be causative from your presumed variables
- need to really work through the 'decision tree' there

[jaydee]

I am going to move forward with the die simulator. I just can't see testing from a system. I agree and always agreed the testing from a CPU is not wise. The OC theory just doesn't quite work with me. Even if you used the same CPU everytime whats to keep the CPU itself from changing its OCability over time? And what about all the other uncontroled variables like the power supply, boards voltage regulators, and what not, ect.. All that can change at anytime which can improve or worsen the OC ability of that CPU.


I will post more on what equipment I have in mind in another thread soon.

[myv65]

I gotta laugh a little about this. Asking what "we" want is nearly hopeless if "we" means anyone presently using or considering the use of watercooling. I also think that BillA's testing is geared toward end users, but only those with the patience and ability to understand what's really happening. Despite Bill's efforts, your efforts, my efforts, and everyone else here, the majority of users will remain blissfully ignorant of what's really happening and why. Believing otherwise is futile.

So you need to make the decision. Do you do your best to create the most accurate information possible recognizing both the extra cost and reduced number of interested/qualified readers? Or do you measure stuff all on a "baseline" system that exists only in your home recognizing this is much cheaper and all that many people care about?

Personally, I doubt that many manufacturers care too much about Bill's testing. It's certainly not because it's no good. Rather the simple fact is that the most money is spent based upon things like looks, ease-of-use (definitely worth considering) and non-fact-based hype instead of hard core scientific evidence.

One thing I will guarantee. You will learn a whole heckuva lot more in the process of trying to do it right than you ever would any other way.

Good luck, JD.

[BillA]

Originally posted by myv65
. . . .
I doubt that many manufacturers care too much about Bill's testing. It's certainly not because it's no good. Rather the simple fact is that the most money is spent based upon things like looks, ease-of-use (definitely worth considering) and non-fact-based hype instead of hard core scientific evidence.
. . . . .

yes but . . .
I am thinking that over time it may change
for the present the 'established' wb mfgrs are quite content with the ignorance level of their customers, as such is the most cost-effective approach
but
new wb mfgrs are QUITE interested in 'proving' the performance capability of their offerings
(and I'm now doing about 50/50 between present and prospective mfgrs)

my suspicion is that WCers will become more sophisticated over time and eventually the loss of sales will compel the 'big boys' to test also

-> rest assured I’m waiting for one of them to put up BS #s, THAT will be a field day for all

[jaydee]

Originally posted by myv65


So you need to make the decision. Do you do your best to create the most accurate information possible recognizing both the extra cost and reduced number of interested/qualified readers? Or do you measure stuff all on a "baseline" system that exists only in your home recognizing this is much cheaper and all that many people care about?


One thing I will guarantee. You will learn a whole heckuva lot more in the process of trying to do it right than you ever would any other way.

Good luck, JD.

This is exactly why I posted this thread. To get opinions on what people would rather see. A bunch of graphs and technical info that they either do not understand, or are not patient enough to care to understand, or simply do not WANT to understand, or simple numbers they can absorb. Most people like convenience. They are not buying a water cooling setup to understand how it works, they are buying it because it works.

I understand BillA/unregistered's point of view (I think). He would like to see people educate themselfs about what makes a water cooling system work and/or how each part works. And then from his testing they can decide better what to buy?.?. The problem with this is (IMO) most people do not want to learn what makes the system work. They just want someone to tell them this block, this pump, this rad, ect will give you good results. They want to be told what works well, not how it works. Which I think I can provide with a certain level of accuracy, but abviously not total accuracy.

There is no way I can provide the quality of results that unregistered puts out. But I do belive I can put out usable results for people the base decent decisions on that are far better than the average review. Which is my over all goal. I am pretty confident with all the articles from unregistered and others that I can put together a pretty solid test bed that is good enough to show the true possibility of the parts being tested, not neccasarily the absolute posibilites but a very good generalization of it. Which I see a total lack of right now in most reviews.

I may totally fail in this, but it is sure going to be worthwhile however it turn out, at least for me.

I have a pretty good idea how I am going to focuse my work. I will go into greater detail once I get it better thought out and then I will post it so get some better input on where I maybe going wrong.

[#Rotor]

hmmm, a lot of truth in the red.

95% of the people with the money, are interested in getting told what to do with that money..... the other 5% are those that are doing the talking....


I for one am a firm believer in the saying " a good picture is worth 1000 words."

and as an example..... (Sorry)



see, already you are thinking..."Where can I get that?"

that puts you in the 95% box..... if not, then you are one of those doing the talking. BillA is one of a select few that talks to those doing the talking..... he is beyond the 100% that represents the general buying population of our civilization.

[gmat]

Well if the difference between two blocks is only 1°C at full load - i don't think anyone would care. All other factors become more relevant, as price, mounting mechanism etc..
And i believe this is the case for most current 'top-dog' waterblocks - TC-4 and so on. Why buying one over another ? Not for the extra 0.5°C you're supposed to get if you mount it perfectly along with the appropriate pump and a fantastic rad.
I care more about being able to clean the waterblock innards, to mount / dismount it easily, to check for corrosion visually, and not to pay too much for it.
So testing, yeah, but to define roughly a group of 'able' waterblocks, vs a group of 'not able' waterblocks - where the expected difference is more than 5°C or 10°C. More precise than this, is not insteresting for the buyer. It is for the manufacturer, to improve and optimize his designs. But mfgers should have testing benches, CFD sims and so on... Or at least they should delegate that work to Bill

[Blackeagle]

Here is my take on this.

I myself do not have the level of math skills that many on this board have. Frankly many of the algabra fomulas offered for the use of the readers in some articles & threads leave me in the dust.

Yet from finding this board I've increased my understanding of what makes a well designed & high performing system. I now know what to look for in grafs in articles showing temps vs. flow, head loss vs. flow rates ect. Now I look for such grafs in testing reports, and I want to see more of them.

Phaestus article on gaining flow by optimizing your fittings, pipe & tube choices was great & was written for ease of understanding. But he covered the differant ways to increase a systems flow rate without changing pumps or anything other than the properly chosen fittings ect.

In BillA's articles when testing waterblocks he tests with a heat load of 70 watts, which is fine. I do wish he would add a test at somewhere between 110 watts and 125 watts to show the increase in temp rise to be expected with that block at a second and much higher heat load as would be found in a medium high to high O/C. And there are math formulas that I know allow this to be found based on the C/W findings. But I doubt I'm alone in not being able to so find them, yet I'd like to have this info now, and hope to learn the math as I go along.

Beyond that one addition I don't want to see BillA change anything he does. While I get little from the algabric formulas others do gain from them. And with time I may do so as well. I'd much rather read a article that challanges me to improve myself in order to better understand the data offered, than read a [H] "shoot out/round up" type article.

[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)

[pHaestus]

A couple of comments here:

It does seem that the problem is not the quality of Bill's data but instead the ability of the "average" fellow to interpret it. As this is the case, then it is perhaps more useful to look at Bill's data until it makes sense, think about what the implications of some of it are, and then take that knowledge and use it to explain to the "average fellow" how they can improve their homebuilt blocks and better optimize their system. The data is out there already...

[Since87]

Originally posted by unregistered

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)

I think Blackeagle was saying that he doesn't understand the relevance of "C/W" numbers. (It's kind of implicit that "C/W" doesn't change with applied heat.)

Blackeagle

To expand on what Bill was saying:

It doesn't matter whether Bill tests at 1 Watt or 1000 Watts of applied heat. (Actually, for practicality reasons it matters greatly, but that's another issue.) The "C/W" values he determines in testing is a constant value over the entire range of heat loads we could possibly care about.

The "C/W" of a waterblock (Rt [for thermal resistance]) indicates that for any applied heat (H) the temperature difference (dT) between the inlet water and the die will be:

dT = H * Rt

So if the power dissipated in the die is 125 Watts and the "C/W" of the waterblock is 0.2 at the flowrate of the system, then:

dT = 125 * 0.2 = 25C

It's that simple.

If you assume that the temperature of the water is the same everywhere in the loop... (Not true, but the temperature differences are small enough to leave to the masochistic among us.)

Anyway, if you assume the water is at a constant temperature, you can just add the "C/W" of the wateblock and the "C/W" of the radiator and use the same equation to calculate the difference in temperature between radiator intake air and die.
Using a fairly reasonable "C/W" value for a radiator of 0.05:

dT = 125 * (0.2 + 0.05) = 31.25C

So if the ambient air flowing into the radiator is 20C, the die will be at 51.25C.

Now there's a horde of issues I'm not bringing up here, because I wanted to focus on the relevance of "C/W". Most of the math involved in designing a good system is not much more complicated than that though.

Hopefully it's obvious now, that it doesn't much matter what heatload Bill tests at, because the "C/W" numbers he measures are just as useful at 125 Watts as they are at 70 Watts.

[BillA]

I hope my wording was not misunderstood

Blackeagle
I used 'hit' in the sense of target, not beat up on
I suspect you may find this graph helpful (with Since87's words)



the "C/W' is the same at all heat loads

[UnloadeD]

Well JD, I can't help you out of your dilemma, but I will say that I am very encourged to see a webmaster struggling with the issues. Hopefully more will do likewise. One thing does come to mind, I don't know if it's doable or not. Rather than reinventing the wheel (billa's testbed) what if you were to send blocks to him for testing and then incorporate his results along with some real world examples of the block in a system, also some kind of walkthru on reading billa's results and any anomilies found versus realworld conditions. I know the temp readings from the realword setup would have error margins too great to exactly pinpoint any troubles, but I think some interesting info could be gleened. I think a tandem approach like this could be very entertaining and informative. And each review would be hammering home the margins for error in our systems versus BillA's (a much needed job). I think this could help bridge the gap between camps and would love to see something like this done. I realize it might not be feasible due to conflicts of interest or other possible arrangements, but a guy can wish can't he?

peace.
unloaded

[gmat]

I second that.

Bill, i belong to the "engineering" group. I understand fully the formulas and graphs you show in your articles. And yet when buying time comes, i'm an "average" user. Maybe because my first goal is silence, and then OCing...
Lets make a different classification of target audience:
- the buyers
- DIY-ers
- manufacturers
The first category is moderately interested in that "last degree". Other factors are more important
The second category is obviously very interested, provided they understand the theory
The third category *must* be interested in that kind of read (if they don't do the testing themselves).

So Jaydee, what is your target audience ? Highlighting advantages of a channel design or a baseplate thickness is good for makers, but buyers want the whole picture, not engineering details.
Say, if two blocks come at 1°C per 100W difference, you can state that in a real PC they'll produce exactly the same results... When choosing which WB to buy for an actual system, the exact final temp is not the main factor (if WBs are close enough in performance).
Guess what, the only ppl who *really* care about that extra degree, apart from makers, are those who care about those extra 30 points (out of 15000) on the 3D Mark. Guess what kind of [H]yped-up review they usually read...

[pHaestus]

What was the goal again? Things seem to be getting muddled up. I posted an article on changing the way people plumb their systems that would allow for higher flowrates using all the same components (well except throwing away a few elbows). That's (at least in theory) FREE performance. I haven't seen that article linked at any other site which promotes watercooling, and I haven't gotten much feedback at all.

We have a community that is eager to grasp concepts like "buy an expensive iwaki pump" but absolutely not willing to do any thinking about whether the pump upgrade will benefit THEIR system.

I have a project that compares data with Bill's (for the answer to a SPECIFIC question). It has cost me probably about $600US in test equipment and a few months of fiddling. This is probably about as cheap as you are going to get in terms of actually usable correlative data. And when the specific question is answered, it is still unknown whether the testbed I put together will be of much use for "general" testing.

Speaking of "quiet" and low powered systems, has anyone personally taken Bill's test data and done something useful with it? If you combine his radiator testing and waterblock testing, it seems clear that the 5x10 Becooling radiator, a proper shroud, 2 120mm fans on a voltage regulator, the Innovatek block, and a small silent pump (eheim 1048 maybe) would be about the best low airflow, low flow rate, low noise combination that you can put together. And yet I haven't seen that done. THIS is the kind of spinoff material needed from Bill's articles; NOT more well-intentioned reviews and roundups with "typical" equipment and HUGE error bars.

[deeppow]

I'll slip out of my normal stealth mode for just a moment.

Originally posted by jaydee116
... is this what readers want? Would they rather see results from a actual system to replicate reality more? Will these results be worth the time and effort? Or are people happy enough with the accuracy of the onboard probes on modern comps?

One must make an assumption as to what readers you mean. In this case I assume you're referring to the average water cooler, and as best I can tell not many of those in this forum.

What they want I believe is THE ANSWER free but then I'm a skeptic. That is free of effort, they seem willing to spend money. Go buy product XYZ and you'll cooler better. Market studies quite awhile back also suggested that if you are the best (or claim to be), you should charge top dollar otherwise folks think something is wrong.

Maybe you should go post a poll on a few of the non-tech forums (such as Overclockers for one) to see what response you get. Of course posing the right question may be difficult and will directly affect the answers you get.

Originally posted by BillA ... almost philosophical aspects of information utility

I'm not sure there is any "almost" to it. By that I mean the study of power generation and cooling systems (energy transport systems) has existed for a century or more. Thus the technical aspects of the science itself are well understood and really aren't new. Thus how to best communicate to the average reader is a philosophical issue, at least on a nontechical level.

Water cooling does perhaps provide an additional difficulty in terms of scale (size). Meaning the surface to volume ratio is larger making heat loses more significant but the factor is still measurable. Also smaller scale also makes measurements more difficult typically --- a fact already receive significant discussion on the thread.

Originally posted by pHaestus ... has anyone personally taken Bill's test data and done something useful with it?

Seems like that would make an excellent article to help those interested in tech side of the issues but not having the technical capability/understanding. Got to admit that I've been to lazy to do what you suggest.

[BillA]

thanks for the comment gmat, I had not picked up on JD's having a website and looking for content

a suggestion JD:
why don't you take a run at defining 'The Best WCing System(s)', as in best for a defined set of criteria

- best value (but define the reliability carefully/conservatively)
- best noise (lowest obviously)
- best performance

the data to do such is out there, no need to try and duplicate things already done
and I see all around me people who don't have the first clue as to how to even think about a rational assessment of the goals and inherent tradeoffs necessary for systems design

double ck pHaestus' post
lord knows how many times this has been stated - to no effect at all
- and I guarantee you will be amazed at your 'conclusions'

THEN, after defining the best of the best, set up the three systems using the same CPU, mobo, psu, and case
-> and show just how much (or little, lol) difference it makes

AND THEN, -->> define WCing in terms of $/°
- that is an article in which I would have great interest, and I'm sure many others as well
and there will be NO shortage of controversy

more testing is not needed, its applied engn that will yield results

[pHaestus]

Not certain about how to quantify, but to Bill's $/° I would also add some way to quantify space taken up. If an extra case worth of stuff is required for the last little bit of performance, is that justified? The answer to that is different for different people of course.

[Since87]

Originally posted by pHaestus

Speaking of "quiet" and low powered systems, has anyone personally taken Bill's test data and done something useful with it? If you combine his radiator testing and waterblock testing, it seems clear that the 5x10 Becooling radiator, a proper shroud, 2 120mm fans on a voltage regulator, the Innovatek block, and a small silent pump (eheim 1048 maybe) would be about the best low airflow, low flow rate, low noise combination that you can put together. And yet I haven't seen that done. THIS is the kind of spinoff material needed from Bill's articles; NOT more well-intentioned reviews and roundups with "typical" equipment and HUGE error bars.

Yes, understanding of how the parts interact with each other is sorely lacking.

An idea I've considered, is the development of a WC system simulator that would let the user vary the components of a simulated system and get an estimation of the die temp based on the components selected. Perhaps such a simulator could be written as a Java applet and hosted by ProCooling.

For the most part, coming up with with 'reasonably accurate' mathematical models of the components is not too difficult if the necessary test data is there. (Airflow vs back-pressure for fans looks to be one of the ugliest things to model. Considering the enormous variety of fans used in watercooling, the simulator might bypass the fan issue and just take a CFM as input.)

Such a simulator might be doing very well to match actual die temperatures within 2C, but as a basis for comparing performance between hypothetical systems, it could still be useful.

Developing and maintaining such a simulator would be an ambitious undertaking, and would always be a work in progress as more relevant data became available. It's certainly doable though.

I don't have much relevant programming experience, so I wouldn't be interested in developing the front end for such a simulator, but I would be willing to work on the overall simulation architecture, and mathematical models for components, and could write such as C language functions.

If a sufficiently skilled and committed group is interested in developing and maintaining such a simulator, a tool that enabled less technically inclined people to try out different components and observe the interactions could be built fairly quickly.

[jaydee]

Originally posted by unregistered
thanks for the comment gmat, I had not picked up on JD's having a website and looking for content

a suggestion JD:
why don't you take a run at defining 'The Best WCing System(s)', as in best for a defined set of criteria

This is a good idea. Being I just had another financial disaster, this will certainly keep me busy untill I can afford to put together the test system (if I still decide to).

I am constructing a website that is going to be aimed mainly towards water cooling, but will also have air cooling. I am trying to do it as a educational site more than anything. So this kind of article would be perfect for it. Link is in my sig what I have now. Which isn't much.

My vechicle just blew a head gasket and looks like the 2 and 4 cylinder's rings may have went with it. Not looking pretty. It is a Mistubishi Might Max truck with the 2.6L 4cyl. Parts are hard to find and very expensive. Thing still runs ok, but the trail of smoke is not so good. Being I do not have a backup rig, all extra money is going to have to go into this for the next several months. This will certainly give me time to try and put together some stuff for the site.