new revision of Laing/DD D4? - Page 2

BillA · 07-22-2004, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldenton

do you (or jeremy) mean that the new one at 11V will match the original at 12V, or that the new one at 12V will match the original at 11V?

the latter

nikhsub1 · 07-22-2004, 02:00 PM

Oh, great, so if I understand correctly there will be THREE versions now? This reminds me of a certain OZ mfgr... how the heck are we supposed to keep track? I mean, I have 2 already and I'm not entirely sure which ones I have, although they are very quiet. I am now after a 3rd, but I want a matching pump! Oh joy...

firtol88 · 07-22-2004, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Oh, great, so if I understand correctly there will be THREE versions now? This reminds me of a certain OZ mfgr... how the heck are we supposed to keep track? I mean, I have 2 already and I'm not entirely sure which ones I have, although they are very quiet. I am now after a 3rd, but I want a matching pump! Oh joy...

No doubt what the hell do they think they are pulling, improving a product

just like Intel and those new fangled Pentium 4s, as if the Pentium Pros weren't good enough... dishonest business I tell ya.

Razor6 · 07-22-2004, 03:22 PM

Bill could you please post the x-y values for that graph, I'd like to add them to a comparison graph.

BalefireX · 07-22-2004, 03:31 PM

Clarification please: MCP650 is a "revision 3" reduced noise/reduced performance model?

Senater_Cache · 07-22-2004, 03:43 PM

Quote:

He said, in essence, that the latest batch they recieved was the muffled version of the original D4, and that they had the same characteristics as the original, albeit less noisy

hmm. you wouldnt happen to know when the new batch comes in or if they still have oldest ones left, would you?
I want to buy one of them but dont want the noisy nor the weaker one!!
I want rev2 !!lol
DD hasnt responded to my mail yet so if anyone knows the stock-situation regarding D4s over at DD please speak up.

SenC.

BillA · 07-22-2004, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BalefireX

Clarification please: MCP650 is a "revision 3" reduced noise/reduced performance model?

the performance of the MCP650 is as shown above,
it is the 'reduced noise' current production model, dated 7/04

ask the affected vendor(s) about differences, no ?

note that this rev 1, 2 , 3 etc. is something you guys are making up

nikhsub1 · 07-22-2004, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unregistered

note that this rev 1, 2 , 3 etc. is something you guys are making up

Bill I came to the '3 rev.' conclusion after reading what mikoto said a few posts earlier in the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikoto

He said, in essence, that the latest batch they recieved was the muffled version of the original D4, and that they had the same characteristics as the original, albeit less noisy. The next batch is to be muffled and have a modified motor.

Cathar · 07-22-2004, 04:45 PM

Here was my own take upon the D4's performance curve with the original "noisy whining bastard" pumps I have here. I rang up one of the Laing engineers by phone, forwarded him my results and confirmed with him that my results were accurate to within about 5% of what Laing were seeing. My pump did seem a little more powerful than theirs. Upon testing my second pump I found its results to far more closely match Laing's own testing, so I guess the first pump I got which is measured in the graph below was a bit of a "gem".

BillA · 07-22-2004, 04:50 PM

much better to never start the (false) rev thing, as it will never go away

specifications subject to change, this is how improvements happen

mikoto · 07-22-2004, 05:54 PM

Yeah, wish I had considered word choice a little before posting that. I can see how the rev. thing could be a little testy for resellers. Sorry, tasting a little foot over that. Then again, kinda tough to fool an astute crowd. Revision is hardly an uncommon designation for a product that undergoes multiple changes in design.
Certainly the product has evolved, presumably in response to consumer demand. Let's leave it at that. Don't want to give Bill headaches.

BillA · 07-22-2004, 06:14 PM

there are more players than are apparent, coordination is important
it is the mfgr that sets the nomenclature, not resellers unless private labeling
just trying to keep the oars in sync

AngryAlpaca · 07-22-2004, 07:16 PM

I like this new pump (specs, size, DC). Price, though? Less than the MCP600, correct? You don't know how much less, do you? Hmm...

facboy · 07-25-2004, 03:29 AM

am i missing something or does the graph BillA posted look a *lot* weaker than the one cathar posted? i mean, eg at 2 mH20, Bill's is flowing 6lpm, while cathar's is flowing 12!!!

jlrii · 07-25-2004, 01:53 PM

Guessing that modifying the original square wave to whatever it is now causes that...waiting for more testing here.

facboy · 07-26-2004, 12:35 AM

surely there's a mistake or something. i'm a bit of a n00b, but wouldn't u just go the mcp600 instead then? at least it's a known quantity etc.

nikhsub1 · 07-26-2004, 12:57 AM

Umm, Cathar's chart shows a pump which is what he calls "a gem" in terms of it's ouput at 12v. There will be variance from pump to pump and, Cathar's test is not 100% accurate, he has said such himself. From Laing's charts I calculated the muffled pump to have approx. 1.5 feet (less than 1/2 meter) less max head. NOt something that is gonna really change the temp in your loop.

jlrii · 07-26-2004, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Umm, Cathar's chart shows a pump which is what he calls "a gem" in terms of it's ouput at 12v. There will be variance from pump to pump and, Cathar's test is not 100% accurate, he has said such himself. From Laing's charts I calculated the muffled pump to have approx. 1.5 feet (less than 1/2 meter) less max head. NOt something that is gonna really change the temp in your loop.

Laing has a new chart out already, I'll have to look, I think I have the old one around somewhere.

facboy · 07-26-2004, 09:49 AM

well fair enough that it might not make that much difference, but it's not exactly mild variation is it? iirc it was only about 5% off laing's figures at the time...6 vs 12lpm at 2 mH2O is not what i'd call a small difference. max head is not really that relevant, as stated. to match the 'old' version at 12lpm and 2 mH2O, the 'new' revision would have to drop to 1.2mH2O. that's quite a difference.

btw, i am just quoting numbers at you. as i said, w/c n00b, so clueless as to the practical effect of the above

.

Tempus · 07-26-2004, 10:29 AM

Also, I think Bill mentioned that is a prototype of the 650. Its possible that the production model has differetn characteristics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill A

and the only MCP650 I have is a prototype, regular units here this week; then I will need to hear a number of them to get a 'feel' for the variation between units

07-22-2004, 02:00 PM	#27
nikhsub1 c00ling p00n Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: L.A. Posts: 758	Oh, great, so if I understand correctly there will be THREE versions now? This reminds me of a certain OZ mfgr... how the heck are we supposed to keep track? I mean, I have 2 already and I'm not entirely sure which ones I have, although they are very quiet. I am now after a 3rd, but I want a matching pump! Oh joy... __________________ :-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-: E6700 @ 3.65Ghz / P5W DH Deluxe / 2GB 667 TeamGroup / 1900XTX PC Power & Cooling Turbo 510 Deluxe Mountain Mods U2-UFO Cube Storm G5 --> MP-01 --> PA 120.3 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." 1,223,460+ Ghz Folding@Home aNonForums :-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:

07-22-2004, 03:31 PM	#30
BalefireX Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Isle of Man Posts: 269	Clarification please: MCP650 is a "revision 3" reduced noise/reduced performance model? __________________ If not, why not?

07-26-2004, 12:57 AM	#42
nikhsub1 c00ling p00n Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: L.A. Posts: 758	Umm, Cathar's chart shows a pump which is what he calls "a gem" in terms of it's ouput at 12v. There will be variance from pump to pump and, Cathar's test is not 100% accurate, he has said such himself. From Laing's charts I calculated the muffled pump to have approx. 1.5 feet (less than 1/2 meter) less max head. NOt something that is gonna really change the temp in your loop. __________________ :-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-: E6700 @ 3.65Ghz / P5W DH Deluxe / 2GB 667 TeamGroup / 1900XTX PC Power & Cooling Turbo 510 Deluxe Mountain Mods U2-UFO Cube Storm G5 --> MP-01 --> PA 120.3 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." 1,223,460+ Ghz Folding@Home aNonForums :-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:'``':-.,_,.-:

07-22-2004, 03:22 PM	#29
Razor6 Cooling Savant Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 192	Bill could you please post the x-y values for that graph, I'd like to add them to a comparison graph.

07-22-2004, 04:45 PM	#34
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	Here was my own take upon the D4's performance curve with the original "noisy whining bastard" pumps I have here. I rang up one of the Laing engineers by phone, forwarded him my results and confirmed with him that my results were accurate to within about 5% of what Laing were seeing. My pump did seem a little more powerful than theirs. Upon testing my second pump I found its results to far more closely match Laing's own testing, so I guess the first pump I got which is measured in the graph below was a bit of a "gem".

07-22-2004, 04:50 PM	#35
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	much better to never start the (false) rev thing, as it will never go away specifications subject to change, this is how improvements happen

07-22-2004, 05:54 PM	#36
mikoto Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: smog Posts: 47	Yeah, wish I had considered word choice a little before posting that. I can see how the rev. thing could be a little testy for resellers. Sorry, tasting a little foot over that. Then again, kinda tough to fool an astute crowd. Revision is hardly an uncommon designation for a product that undergoes multiple changes in design. Certainly the product has evolved, presumably in response to consumer demand. Let's leave it at that. Don't want to give Bill headaches.

07-22-2004, 06:14 PM	#37
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	there are more players than are apparent, coordination is important it is the mfgr that sets the nomenclature, not resellers unless private labeling just trying to keep the oars in sync

07-22-2004, 07:16 PM	#38
AngryAlpaca Cooling Savant Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 631	I like this new pump (specs, size, DC). Price, though? Less than the MCP600, correct? You don't know how much less, do you? Hmm...

07-25-2004, 03:29 AM	#39
facboy Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 3	am i missing something or does the graph BillA posted look a lot weaker than the one cathar posted? i mean, eg at 2 mH20, Bill's is flowing 6lpm, while cathar's is flowing 12!!!

07-25-2004, 01:53 PM	#40
jlrii Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 158	Guessing that modifying the original square wave to whatever it is now causes that...waiting for more testing here.

07-26-2004, 12:35 AM	#41
facboy Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 3	surely there's a mistake or something. i'm a bit of a n00b, but wouldn't u just go the mcp600 instead then? at least it's a known quantity etc.

07-26-2004, 09:49 AM	#44
facboy Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 3	well fair enough that it might not make that much difference, but it's not exactly mild variation is it? iirc it was only about 5% off laing's figures at the time...6 vs 12lpm at 2 mH2O is not what i'd call a small difference. max head is not really that relevant, as stated. to match the 'old' version at 12lpm and 2 mH2O, the 'new' revision would have to drop to 1.2mH2O. that's quite a difference. btw, i am just quoting numbers at you. as i said, w/c n00b, so clueless as to the practical effect of the above .

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)