The question of unbiased engineers - Page 4

pHaestus · 11-30-2003, 12:09 AM

No. I generate numbers. Take this for instance:

Bill told me today that he had sent me new springs for the MC5000-A. Instead of waiting until I receive the new springs to test, I set up the original block and test it today so that I can compare the old springs to new ones. If there is a detectable performance difference then I will probably HURT swiftech's bottom line by suggesting that all MC5000 owners get replacements from swiftech. Would it be bias for me to only test the new springs? Sure. Have I done this? Again no. Did you know anything about it either way? Not until I comment here.

Swiftech HAS sent me some review items: A MCX462-V heatsink, a MC5000A/2 BI Micro MCP 600 pump/MC-50 gpu block kit, and a MCWChill water chiller. Some were for keeping and some were on loan. Will I sell any of these parts and profit? No. Will the fact I can keep them affect my review? No. Does Aquajoe typically get review items back from reviewers? I doubt it. Am I insulted by your innuendos? You're goddamned right.

winewood · 11-30-2003, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Swiftech HAS sent me some review items: A MCX462-V heatsink, a MC5000A/2 BI Micro MCP 600 pump/MC-50 gpu block kit, and a MCWChill water chiller. Some were for keeping and some were on loan.

IM NOT STATING YOUR REVIEW WILL BE FALSE.... but can you see how this MAY lead to favorable bias? I mean, even if you keep only $100-$200 dollars worth of that stuff if you SLAM them on your "opinion section" of your perceptions, you may not get anymore freebees. Don't you think that could lead to (even unintentional) bias?
I am POSTIVE you will do your best to keep it out. I only challenged you here to start reviewing blocks because I thought you were the best suited one to do it based on what I read. I hope you manage and I wish you luck on producing the best review you can possibly do. You are brave for doing so, as you know anyone who posts numbers will be criticized.

Since87 · 11-30-2003, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by winewood
IM NOT STATING YOUR REVIEW WILL BE FALSE.... but can you see how this MAY lead to favorable bias? I mean, even if you keep only $100-$200 dollars worth of that stuff if you SLAM them on your "opinion section" of your perceptions, you may not get anymore freebees. Don't you think that could lead to (even unintentional) bias?

Whinewood,

You just don't get it. The work involved in doing the testing is so much more than the value of what is being tested, that the "freebies" don't matter. (In the case of thorough testers.)

What is it that you want? An engineer to say he can be biased?

No problem. I'm biased towards banning you from ProCooling for continously slandering some of the most reputable sources of watercooling information, in an effort to make them appear to wallow in the same slime that your buddy JoeMac does.

Is that what you wanted?

pHaestus · 11-30-2003, 12:33 AM

Let's be clear here. I run tests and post results. I do little else. You are saying that my numbers are suspect. Let's not mince words. You have outright said that I am not objective in my testing. As a scientist, I cannot imagine a more serious allegation or insult. This is the equivalent of calling my wife a whore to my face, at least in my mind. I am SEETHING right now. So I challenge you to (a) produce a single example of the bias or lack of objectivity or faked results that you are claiming or (b) retract your statements and apologize.

I reiterate that I couldn't possibly be more offended or angry right at this minute.

winewood · 11-30-2003, 12:38 AM

If having an opinion that differs from your own is threatening... If appologizing on the area in which I was wrong is seen as bad to you... If pH (a staffmember) and Bill need you to protect them from a conversation... then by all means do what you need to do.

at least I can get you to admit you have bias. LOL

winewood · 11-30-2003, 12:44 AM

Quote:

You have outright said that I am not objective in my testing

ohhh pH.. surely you put words in my mouth for some unknown reason. If objective is the exact same thing as bias then I am guilty! It's impossible to be unbias. Its laughable to say you have none. If you can't handle that fact then I can just pity the denial. If you wish to state that I SAID your numbers are wrong, I certainly have NOT done that EVER. I don't think you guys listen to a THING I have been saying. I refuse to appologize for something I DID NOT DO which is say "your review is wrong". I claim that you all have bias of some type. Whether this effects your TESTING I do not know as I have yet to read your latest review. I dont CARE! lol.. and thats the funny thing about it.

pHaestus · 11-30-2003, 12:44 AM

Quote:

If pH (a staffmember) and Bill need you to protect them from a conversation... then by all means do what you need to do.

Since87 is the primary moderator of these forums. He is coming into this thread unsolicited. I would never think of banning or censoring someone in an argument with me in our forums as it would be an abuse of my powers. He is commenting without any discussion between him and me. Despite what you may think, some humans DO have integrity.

winewood · 11-30-2003, 12:47 AM

integrity is not questioned. Some of the most respected people are bias. The POPE is bias toward the Dali Lama. Does recoginition of this fact make him EVIL? no.

pHaestus · 11-30-2003, 12:53 AM

Do I post opinions? No. I post test results. And when test results are inconclusive then I say so. And so comments that products buy access apply directly to the reliability of my numbers.

This is a serious statement and don't try to change the subject. So you have two options: Either sending me products for review affects the results I post or it does not. You certainly are implying that it does, and I am maintaining that it does not. Let's deal with that right now: what proof or basis or even hearsay do you have to support your comments of my bias? That I am friends with Bill? It won't make my C/W vs Q curves shift one iota. If you are saying that it does then I suggest that numbers are needed. Mine are waiting.

Yo-DUH_87 · 11-30-2003, 12:56 AM

I think I can sum this all up in a word: Wow.

pH has been busting his butt off to provide test results to the watercooling community and what are you all doing, questioning his objectivity BEFORE HE HAS EVEN COMPLETED ONE SINGLE REVIEW BASED ON THESE TESTS???????

At least you could give him the benefit of the doubt and wait until he publishes something before you start bashing him to death. It would at least give you something to stand on, unlike the current situation.

winewood · 11-30-2003, 12:59 AM

Im afraid you miss my point. But thats fine. I wish you the best on the posting of your reviews, I'm sure they will be great.

Edit: yo-duh, man.. this is not coming out like anything which I wanted. I'm not trashing reviews here!

Joe · 11-30-2003, 01:11 AM

Umm WTF.

A couple of kids who lie and cheat this industry have the balls to call Bill's and pH's credibiltiy into question?! Rich

I remember back a few months ago when winewood deny'd having any attachment to some Blue Cooling company when there was some hot debate going on with that also. (which was a LIE) But wow... it seems Joemac and Winewood are fighting the good fight still only this time on aquajoe scam products.

I dunno, the posts from those two is purely noise by 2 kids who have nothing better to do than try and distract attention from themselves by trying to claim the 2 best testers in the industry are wrong, or evil. its a nice head fake , but you will need to do a little better than that to take the focus of your ass.

pHaestus · 11-30-2003, 01:12 AM

Quote:

I'm not trashing reviews here!

No trashing reviewers. With no shred of proof.

Since87 · 11-30-2003, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by winewood
If having an opinion that differs from your own is threatening... If appologizing on the area in which I was wrong is seen as bad to you... If pH (a staffmember) and Bill need you to protect them from a conversation... then by all means do what you need to do.

at least I can get you to admit you have bias. LOL

I don't give a **** what your opinion is. You're welcome to have any opinion you like.

You are not welcome to continue insinuating that valuable members of this forum lack integrity, in order to try to bring them down to the level of your buddies who have demonstrated such a lack.

You have not pointed to one number or statement which Bill or pHaestus have made with the intent to deceive. Bill and pH have made mistakes and openly stated that their previous data is incorrect.

On the other hand, as of this minute JoeMac's clearly misleading statement still stands at Nordic Hardware.

Quote:

Only beaten by whitewater? Thats some nice block you made there!

DrErling

Quote:

Originally posted by joemac If so only by a little...

Bill and pH certainly don't need me to protect them. Their work stands on it's own merits.

However, if you continue to suggest that their integrity is questionable. I will ban you.

Joe · 11-30-2003, 01:18 AM

cummon since

its actually fun watching them dig themselves deeper

joemac · 11-30-2003, 01:21 AM

WHOA is correct pHaestus, I just got back home from Austin TX. I was checking out some products that I might be interested in selling later on. Anyhow I come back and check and this thread is way out of line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First pHaestus

quote:
Do I make a penny off the ad revenues of Procooling? NO. Do I make $45 an hour at work with LESS technical effort than my hobby? Yes. Do that math for a minute: if I were at work I would charge $4500 for the same amount of work I put in for free to the readers of this site to test the MCWchill water chiller. Now do you think that I would honestly go to the trouble of that much time and effort in a review just to get $200 worth of free shit?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I figure it was something like this. I must admit at first I was found it odd as to why you would test some blocks and choose not to test mine. It does make sense though your time is that your time and what you do on your time is your choice. That’s why I never asked you to test my block after you refused the first time.

Now Since87
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't assume that the manufacturer is providing me with data that is biased to reflect positively on their product. I assume that the manufacturer is giving me the most accurate data they can. And, if they aren't certain about some aspect, (because they don't do 100% testing for example) that the data they provide is so conservative that I am extremely unlikely to actually see the worst case value for that spec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agreed with almost everything you said with few exceptions. The problem in all this lies in the form of obtaining a measurement. You know that a Volt is = I*R. So? well a C/W is not a C/W. What do I mean? Just because a particular block reads a C/W x when heat is applied at one point it does not mean that it will equal x at another point or test bench. What I am not making sense? Well let me put it this way if semiconductor manufacturer say a product is rated X volts your voltage reading will be very similar to their voltage reading. Meaning your meter, O Scope, etc will not cause the part to burn when it reads the volts as X by providing a different 5v then the manufacturer 5v (see it’s a form of measurement). Sorry if this does not make sense I don’t know how else to explain it. Beside posting results from my block would have brought other attacks from Bill comparative to – You did not use my volt meter so its wrong.

As for
“No problem. I'm biased towards banning you from ProCooling for continously slandering some of the most reputable sources of watercooling information”
Didn’t someone question all the reputable sources that the world was not flat?

And
“in an effort to make them appear to wallow in the same slime that your buddy JoeMac does.”
Thanks for being a buddy I did not think I had any here – What now excommunication?

That slime just nasty

Bill
Let me put on my engineers shoes for a minute: Ok done, now I am unbiased no more need for arguments. “the AquaJoe was tested on 11/20, the MCW5002 on 10/8; same setup and conditions”
Well thanks for testing the block (I am making the assumptions that you did the testing). I know that I did not send you one so if you purchased one for personal use or for reverse engineering thanks either way.

Winewood:

What can I say that has not been said? Man you can be hard maybe even an ass sometimes and I don’t agree with some of the things you say. This post is already to long so I won’t get into it but stop trashing reviews (At least before they come out).

Cather

“Ask yourself, why would any other waterblock maker (like me) pay out of his own pocket to send a block to review to someone who he believed would be biased?

I choose who I send blocks to very carefully. Not based on who will give me a good rap, but based on who will do the job properly.”

So do I. When I send out a block I do just that send it out. I do not “watch” over the tester and make sure that their numbers match my numbers. Sorry everyone but there seems to be a biased here that there is only one way to test a block when in fact there are many e.g. different die/sim size different flow rates etc.

JOE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“dunno, the posts from those two is purely noise by 2 kids who have nothing better to do than try and distract attention from themselves by trying to claim the 2 best testers in the industry are wrong, or evil. its a nice head fake , but you will need to do a little better than that to take the focus of your ass.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This came from the New England journal of medicine. I did not make this up. Its right here the whole point of this thread - not Bill or PH bashing if you think that then you have it wrong now why bash Aquajoe?

Have you listen to this?

Joe · 11-30-2003, 01:29 AM

Ummm Yeh I tend to base my opinion on reality not mystical streaming audio from the web like you. (and especially anything from NPR Naive & Pretty Retarded)

To say all scientists or testers are evil or biased just cause SOME are out there is like me saying all WB MFG's are scam artist kiddies like you. When its well known most are legit and level businesses.

joemac · 11-30-2003, 01:38 AM

Excuse me? What have I done to deserve this gang jump? That I dare come in and say I am selling this? So now You are accusing me of being a fraud! What? Because an idol of yours say engineers can’t be biased and I say o really? That makes me a fraud. To who? To say that I am a kid and a scam artist because you make a decision based on emotions and try to justify it logically? :shrug:

Cathar · 11-30-2003, 01:48 AM

Hmmm, reviewers working with manufacturers is the way that testing should be done, IMO.

This is not bias, nor is it an indication of bias. There are things that can go wrong with testing. If there is an issue then it is good to raise this with the manufacturer before publishing (witness the recent RBX review at OC.com).

This is not biasing the review though. A manufacturer will have done testing. They best know what to expect from their product. I had a reviewer recently quiz me about the poor results he was getting in comparison to what he had been hearing from others about the Cascade. We went over all the potential issues together via email exchange. In the end it resulted in a stalemate where whatever I suggested might be wrong, the reviewer said that issue was not the case.

I gave up and said basically that whatever he was seeing was what he was seeing, and so be it.

Two weeks later the reviewer finds out that it was a mounting issue. This is why mounting for reviews is such a hobby horse of mine. It also didn't help that the reviewer was mounting the block on a P4 without the standard mounting bracket, he had manufacturered up his own. He neglected to tell me about that too.

Now I didn't even know that this reviewer had the block for purposes of review until he had contacted me. He had acquired it from someone else as seems to often be the case with the Cascade reviews.

Where I'm going with this anecdote is that the interaction between mgfr and reviewer was not a form of bias. I knew what the block was capable of, the reviewer didn't get results that remotely matched, but over time the issue was resolved by the reviewer, independently after I had given up, but ultimately through listening to my concerns.

Just because a mfgr wants to work with a reviewer to determine if the rough scale of measure is close to what's expected (no mfgr expects the results to exactly match theirs due to the different test beds - just be within reason), that does not indicate bias. It is just ensuring that no silly mistakes have been made before the review is published and the mfgr suffers the consequences of someone else's mistake.

In the end, it is the reviewer's decision whether or not to listen to the mfgr. It is the reviewer's decision to post data/results.

Bias only occurs if the reviewer's results are modified or omitted at the request of the mfgr. Until a review is published, how can anyone sit back and accuse of bias?

P.S. - I still don't know if the review that I was talking about has been published or not. I don't believe that it has. The reviewer hasn't contacted me again, and I don't seem to see any indication of it via Google.

Since87 · 11-30-2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by joemac
Excuse me? What have I done to deserve this gang jump? That I dare come in and say I am selling this? So now You are accusing me of being a fraud!

The reason I consider you a fraud is right there at nordichardware. If you don't correct misinformation that has been pointed out to you, what do you expect people to think of you?

jaydee · 11-30-2003, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by t00lb0x

And JayDee, sorry if I was one of those ignorant new users who you thought was here to start shit.

Nope, I got a list and your not on it.

Damn this thread sure is interesting, I missed another good weekend at ProCooling it appears.... Bah!

At least I got some new blocks done....

joemac · 11-30-2003, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Since87
The reason I consider you a fraud is right there at nordichardware. If you don't correct misinformation that has been pointed out to you, what do you expect people to think of you?

What because nordichardware I am a fraud? How you figure?

t00lb0x · 11-30-2003, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joemac
What because nordichardware I am a fraud? How you figure?

I think he is refering to how you claimed that the WhiteWater only beat your block by just a little.

Quote:

If so only by a little – Not only that the WW is very application specific the Aquagold is meant to be used a multi purpose block, So it will work on Die CPU, A CPU with an Integrated heat spreaders and T.E.C Cooling. If you want the lowest temps then go with a T.E.C. If you are aiming for lower temps why settle for 1 or 2 degrees less when you could go 10, 15 or more.

@ Nordic's forums. Check Page 3, my only post and thats what they are talking about.

joemac · 11-30-2003, 07:08 PM

I still fail to see that point. I state that the WW did have lower temps then the aquagold. Am I lying to qualify me as a fraud?
Then I mention that the aquagold is a multi purpose block that can be used with a TEC while the WW cannot. Does that make me a fraud?
Have I said anything that is not true? Then I go on to say if you want lower temps why not use a Tec? Am I not the biggest fraud? Why am I being attacked about whats on my website? I did not see anything when DD stated that the maze 4 beat the maze 3. Maybe I do need to pull a stunt of the same kind and then I might even get a - We actually do like Aquajoe.com thread. What do you think? Its very simple I sell good products at a reasonable price. Does not make me a fraud? No but it does make me a target for attacks from my competitors .

BillA · 11-30-2003, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unregistered
from the above linked thread:
by joemac:
"Actually, at very low flows I don't know what can match it."

it is this to which I take exception, subsequently 'corrected' in his next post, but still wildly inaccurate

a more careful reading of the thread would suggest that the comments, other than the above, are more typical of exaggerated marketing bs than overt lying

to the extent that joemac deserves an apology, here it is
- improve your in-house testing, and cease making inaccurate comparisons

did you miss this post ?

11-30-2003, 12:09 AM	#76
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	No. I generate numbers. Take this for instance: Bill told me today that he had sent me new springs for the MC5000-A. Instead of waiting until I receive the new springs to test, I set up the original block and test it today so that I can compare the old springs to new ones. If there is a detectable performance difference then I will probably HURT swiftech's bottom line by suggesting that all MC5000 owners get replacements from swiftech. Would it be bias for me to only test the new springs? Sure. Have I done this? Again no. Did you know anything about it either way? Not until I comment here. Swiftech HAS sent me some review items: A MCX462-V heatsink, a MC5000A/2 BI Micro MCP 600 pump/MC-50 gpu block kit, and a MCWChill water chiller. Some were for keeping and some were on loan. Will I sell any of these parts and profit? No. Will the fact I can keep them affect my review? No. Does Aquajoe typically get review items back from reviewers? I doubt it. Am I insulted by your innuendos? You're goddamned right. __________________ Getting paid like a biker with the best crank... -MF DOOM

11-30-2003, 12:33 AM	#79
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	Let's be clear here. I run tests and post results. I do little else. You are saying that my numbers are suspect. Let's not mince words. You have outright said that I am not objective in my testing. As a scientist, I cannot imagine a more serious allegation or insult. This is the equivalent of calling my wife a whore to my face, at least in my mind. I am SEETHING right now. So I challenge you to (a) produce a single example of the bias or lack of objectivity or faked results that you are claiming or (b) retract your statements and apologize. I reiterate that I couldn't possibly be more offended or angry right at this minute. __________________ Getting paid like a biker with the best crank... -MF DOOM

11-30-2003, 12:38 AM	#80
winewood Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: in my chair Posts: 574	If having an opinion that differs from your own is threatening... If appologizing on the area in which I was wrong is seen as bad to you... If pH (a staffmember) and Bill need you to protect them from a conversation... then by all means do what you need to do. at least I can get you to admit you have bias. LOL __________________ -winewood-

11-30-2003, 12:47 AM	#83
winewood Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: in my chair Posts: 574	integrity is not questioned. Some of the most respected people are bias. The POPE is bias toward the Dali Lama. Does recoginition of this fact make him EVIL? no. __________________ -winewood-

11-30-2003, 12:53 AM	#84
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	Do I post opinions? No. I post test results. And when test results are inconclusive then I say so. And so comments that products buy access apply directly to the reliability of my numbers. This is a serious statement and don't try to change the subject. So you have two options: Either sending me products for review affects the results I post or it does not. You certainly are implying that it does, and I am maintaining that it does not. Let's deal with that right now: what proof or basis or even hearsay do you have to support your comments of my bias? That I am friends with Bill? It won't make my C/W vs Q curves shift one iota. If you are saying that it does then I suggest that numbers are needed. Mine are waiting. __________________ Getting paid like a biker with the best crank... -MF DOOM

11-30-2003, 12:56 AM	#85
Yo-DUH_87 Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 230	I think I can sum this all up in a word: Wow. pH has been busting his butt off to provide test results to the watercooling community and what are you all doing, questioning his objectivity *BEFORE HE HAS EVEN COMPLETED ONE SINGLE REVIEW BASED ON THESE TESTS???????* At least you could give him the benefit of the doubt and wait until he publishes something before you start bashing him to death. It would at least give you something to stand on, unlike the current situation. __________________ Signing out... Yo-DUH_87 If it works, fix it until it's broke! Then, after it's broke, add duct tape! Affordable webhosting!

11-30-2003, 12:59 AM	#86
winewood Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: in my chair Posts: 574	Im afraid you miss my point. But thats fine. I wish you the best on the posting of your reviews, I'm sure they will be great. Edit: yo-duh, man.. this is not coming out like anything which I wanted. I'm not trashing reviews here! __________________ -winewood-

11-30-2003, 01:11 AM	#87
Joe The Pro/Life Support System Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,041	Umm WTF. A couple of kids who lie and cheat this industry have the balls to call Bill's and pH's credibiltiy into question?! Rich I remember back a few months ago when winewood deny'd having any attachment to some Blue Cooling company when there was some hot debate going on with that also. (which was a LIE) But wow... it seems Joemac and Winewood are fighting the good fight still only this time on aquajoe scam products. I dunno, the posts from those two is purely noise by 2 kids who have nothing better to do than try and distract attention from themselves by trying to claim the 2 best testers in the industry are wrong, or evil. its a nice head fake , but you will need to do a little better than that to take the focus of your ass. __________________ Joe - I only take this hat off for one thing... ProCooling archive curator and dusty skeleton.

11-30-2003, 01:18 AM	#90
Joe The Pro/Life Support System Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,041	cummon since its actually fun watching them dig themselves deeper __________________ Joe - I only take this hat off for one thing... ProCooling archive curator and dusty skeleton.

11-30-2003, 01:21 AM	#91
joemac Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Dallas Posts: 339	WHOA is correct pHaestus, I just got back home from Austin TX. I was checking out some products that I might be interested in selling later on. Anyhow I come back and check and this thread is way out of line. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First pHaestus quote: Do I make a penny off the ad revenues of Procooling? NO. Do I make $45 an hour at work with LESS technical effort than my hobby? Yes. Do that math for a minute: if I were at work I would charge $4500 for the same amount of work I put in for free to the readers of this site to test the MCWchill water chiller. Now do you think that I would honestly go to the trouble of that much time and effort in a review just to get $200 worth of free shit? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I figure it was something like this. I must admit at first I was found it odd as to why you would test some blocks and choose not to test mine. It does make sense though your time is that your time and what you do on your time is your choice. That’s why I never asked you to test my block after you refused the first time. Now Since87 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't assume that the manufacturer is providing me with data that is biased to reflect positively on their product. I assume that the manufacturer is giving me the most accurate data they can. And, if they aren't certain about some aspect, (because they don't do 100% testing for example) that the data they provide is so conservative that I am extremely unlikely to actually see the worst case value for that spec. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agreed with almost everything you said with few exceptions. The problem in all this lies in the form of obtaining a measurement. You know that a Volt is = I*R. So? well a C/W is not a C/W. What do I mean? Just because a particular block reads a C/W x when heat is applied at one point it does not mean that it will equal x at another point or test bench. What I am not making sense? Well let me put it this way if semiconductor manufacturer say a product is rated X volts your voltage reading will be very similar to their voltage reading. Meaning your meter, O Scope, etc will not cause the part to burn when it reads the volts as X by providing a different 5v then the manufacturer 5v (see it’s a form of measurement). Sorry if this does not make sense I don’t know how else to explain it. Beside posting results from my block would have brought other attacks from Bill comparative to – You did not use my volt meter so its wrong. As for “No problem. I'm biased towards banning you from ProCooling for continously slandering some of the most reputable sources of watercooling information” Didn’t someone question all the reputable sources that the world was not flat? And “in an effort to make them appear to wallow in the same slime that your buddy JoeMac does.” Thanks for being a buddy I did not think I had any here – What now excommunication? That slime just nasty Bill Let me put on my engineers shoes for a minute: Ok done, now I am unbiased no more need for arguments. “the AquaJoe was tested on 11/20, the MCW5002 on 10/8; same setup and conditions” Well thanks for testing the block (I am making the assumptions that you did the testing). I know that I did not send you one so if you purchased one for personal use or for reverse engineering thanks either way. Winewood: What can I say that has not been said? Man you can be hard maybe even an ass sometimes and I don’t agree with some of the things you say. This post is already to long so I won’t get into it but stop trashing reviews (At least before they come out). Cather “Ask yourself, why would any other waterblock maker (like me) pay out of his own pocket to send a block to review to someone who he believed would be biased? I choose who I send blocks to very carefully. Not based on who will give me a good rap, but based on who will do the job properly.” So do I. When I send out a block I do just that send it out. I do not “watch” over the tester and make sure that their numbers match my numbers. Sorry everyone but there seems to be a biased here that there is only one way to test a block when in fact there are many e.g. different die/sim size different flow rates etc. JOE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “dunno, the posts from those two is purely noise by 2 kids who have nothing better to do than try and distract attention from themselves by trying to claim the 2 best testers in the industry are wrong, or evil. its a nice head fake , but you will need to do a little better than that to take the focus of your ass.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This came from the New England journal of medicine. I did not make this up. Its right here the whole point of this thread - not Bill or PH bashing if you think that then you have it wrong now why bash Aquajoe? Have you listen to this? __________________ www.aquajoe.com

11-30-2003, 01:29 AM	#92
Joe The Pro/Life Support System Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,041	Ummm Yeh I tend to base my opinion on reality not mystical streaming audio from the web like you. (and especially anything from NPR Naive & Pretty Retarded) To say all scientists or testers are evil or biased just cause SOME are out there is like me saying all WB MFG's are scam artist kiddies like you. When its well known most are legit and level businesses. __________________ Joe - I only take this hat off for one thing... ProCooling archive curator and dusty skeleton.

11-30-2003, 01:38 AM	#93
joemac Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Dallas Posts: 339	Excuse me? What have I done to deserve this gang jump? That I dare come in and say I am selling this? So now You are accusing me of being a fraud! What? Because an idol of yours say engineers can’t be biased and I say o really? That makes me a fraud. To who? To say that I am a kid and a scam artist because you make a decision based on emotions and try to justify it logically? :shrug: __________________ www.aquajoe.com

11-30-2003, 01:48 AM	#94
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	Hmmm, reviewers working with manufacturers is the way that testing should be done, IMO. This is not bias, nor is it an indication of bias. There are things that can go wrong with testing. If there is an issue then it is good to raise this with the manufacturer before publishing (witness the recent RBX review at OC.com). This is not biasing the review though. A manufacturer will have done testing. They best know what to expect from their product. I had a reviewer recently quiz me about the poor results he was getting in comparison to what he had been hearing from others about the Cascade. We went over all the potential issues together via email exchange. In the end it resulted in a stalemate where whatever I suggested might be wrong, the reviewer said that issue was not the case. I gave up and said basically that whatever he was seeing was what he was seeing, and so be it. Two weeks later the reviewer finds out that it was a mounting issue. This is why mounting for reviews is such a hobby horse of mine. It also didn't help that the reviewer was mounting the block on a P4 without the standard mounting bracket, he had manufacturered up his own. He neglected to tell me about that too. Now I didn't even know that this reviewer had the block for purposes of review until he had contacted me. He had acquired it from someone else as seems to often be the case with the Cascade reviews. Where I'm going with this anecdote is that the interaction between mgfr and reviewer was not a form of bias. I knew what the block was capable of, the reviewer didn't get results that remotely matched, but over time the issue was resolved by the reviewer, independently after I had given up, but ultimately through listening to my concerns. Just because a mfgr wants to work with a reviewer to determine if the rough scale of measure is close to what's expected (no mfgr expects the results to exactly match theirs due to the different test beds - just be within reason), that does not indicate bias. It is just ensuring that no silly mistakes have been made before the review is published and the mfgr suffers the consequences of someone else's mistake. In the end, it is the reviewer's decision whether or not to listen to the mfgr. It is the reviewer's decision to post data/results. Bias only occurs if the reviewer's results are modified or omitted at the request of the mfgr. Until a review is published, how can anyone sit back and accuse of bias? P.S. - I still don't know if the review that I was talking about has been published or not. I don't believe that it has. The reviewer hasn't contacted me again, and I don't seem to see any indication of it via Google. Last edited by Cathar; 11-30-2003 at 02:00 AM.

11-30-2003, 07:08 PM	#99
joemac Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Dallas Posts: 339	I still fail to see that point. I state that the WW did have lower temps then the aquagold. Am I lying to qualify me as a fraud? Then I mention that the aquagold is a multi purpose block that can be used with a TEC while the WW cannot. Does that make me a fraud? Have I said anything that is not true? Then I go on to say if you want lower temps why not use a Tec? Am I not the biggest fraud? Why am I being attacked about whats on my website? I did not see anything when DD stated that the maze 4 beat the maze 3. Maybe I do need to pull a stunt of the same kind and then I might even get a - We actually do like Aquajoe.com thread. What do you think? Its very simple I sell good products at a reasonable price. Does not make me a fraud? No but it does make me a target for attacks from my competitors . __________________ www.aquajoe.com Last edited by joemac; 11-30-2003 at 07:15 PM.

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