New dangerden block

[pHaestus]

No I don't see Dangerden haters. I see people who feel that Dangerden inappropriately copied Cathar's design without giving credit. I am not sure I totally agree as I see the DD design to be more different from the LRWW than some of the competition was from earlier Maze2 designs. It looks like a normal evolution of wb design to me. But Cathar is a regular here and gets much (deserved) props for his contributions to the water cooling community. It's not really too surprising that WW inspired designs are popping up as the design process was essentially open sourced at ocau. A little credit where it's due wouldn't have cost DD anything though and that is why people got sore.

You are just employing spin and marketing to try to put attitudes in the mouths of forum members here that frankly don't exist. Which is probably why your overall credibility is in question. Noone hates DD here; several people will probably pass on the RBX for personal reasons though.

[BillA]

shit, I never was good with imaginary numbers

[Joe]

Its all about the eyes

[Incoherent]

Player0.
Can I just observe that you have shown great restraint in your little exchanges here, which I have skimmed through over the last couple of days. Well done on that score. I think that if more people were as cool headed in the face of blatent provocation this community would be better off.
Anyway keep up the good work. I am looking forward to your review. I am sure that I will take exception to some of your methods, as I do with pretty much all waterblock round-ups or comparisons that I see but those opinions I typically keep to myself.
You see, I wander around in a haze of smug superiority because I know that my methods are far more reliable and accurate, being based on several years of scientific experimentation and testing, all for nothing . Because I will never buy any commercial water-block to test against. So the results of my experiments exist in a world relative only to themselves and are only relevant within themselves.
So you, and a few others, who go to the effort to expand the experiment beyond the limits of itself, at a cost in money and time, by testing these commercially available blocks, in some kind of controlled manner, deserve all the support you can get.
Just keep working smart, not hard.

Cheers

Incoherent

[Joe]

"Anyone can spend $$$ of dollars and hours and hours maticulously testing a waterblock. And they probably won't be able to tell someone any better than me which block to buy for their system. Most of the time, my results jive up with what most other people get as well."
Now I would reply over there but I dont want to waste teh time setting up an accuont so I am going to reply here:

Not a Flame - just cooling talk so dont go freaking out again -

Player, I am curious where you get that assessment that doing testing with less than a controlled environment or less than enough test sets that you get better data? You mean data that has numbers that are less exact but closer to what the mfg or the people get with mobo probes is better in some way?. I personally like to know how good something is in an absolute fashion, not just "well it runs about xx Deg"

The argument about "average joe" stuff has come and gone and has been used for close to the last 2 years of testing evolution. The simple fact is, the "average joe" is wrong. Data that’s more error ridden, uncontrolled, and un validated is never right.

Yes testing takes insane time, insane commitments, and insane costs, and really is the reason I don’t do it much anymore. pH has taken the torch and is producing data that is second to only a few other setups around. But testing takes time, shitloads of time, and as you said, no matter what you do people will bitch.

REAL accurate testing normally will provide a clear ID of which is "better", and which is worse. Not related in a "on your mobo" sense, but in an absolute sense of performance of the product not a test of your mounting skills, thermal paste, etc...

Now I have done a good deal of testing, got burned at the stake for some of it... most of it. While there were lessons to learn with every test I did, they all pointed at the same goal - repeatable and controlled results (which when I got deeper and saw how expensive it was turning, I couldn’t continue). Call us demanding, or "ego driven" folks, but the simple fact is, a good few of us have been though the review ringer, and most of this is talk from experience and previous grillings that we got. Your 'posse" over there will back you too no end, I think that’s very clear. Over here, most back good solid testing, and no bullshit reviews, not a just a person for the sake of it.

Now with that said, how can you tell me which block is the best in the market? just by how hot it runs your CPU on a given day, with a certain coolant, at a certain flow, which are mostly uncontrolled or undocumented errors in the equation.


Ok this maybe a flame - Freakout as needed-

"Im not TRYING to accomplish the most indepth, mathematically perfect review on the planet. Heh, you know, people assume that if you don't do something, you can't. It's a personal choice to use a PC as a test bed, because I want to pretend like I'm just any other guy buying a waterblock and installing it. Those other reviews have a place, its for the waterblock designers and the testing perfectionists. And that accounts for about 1% of the watercooling community."

Living in the world of make believe may be nice for some things, "reviews" of cooling products is not one of them. I think its an insult to the general cooling community to say that they don’t want accurate numbers.

[Player0]

Player, I am curious where you get that assessment that doing testing with less than a controlled environment or less than enough test sets that you get better data? You mean data that has numbers that are less exact but closer to what the mfg or the people get with mobo probes is better in some way?. I personally like to know how good something is in an absolute fashion, not just "well it runs about xx Deg"

I never said my data was more accurate or better than someone who invests in a very serious test of the waterblock in a much more controlled manner. You misread my statement. I beleive that in my 'rougher' testing, i can recommend one waterblock over another to someone with a good deal of accuracy. It may not be AS accurate as someone who spent more time and effort testing. But, in my experience, my performance results jive up consistantly to what many other people experience with the same blocks, be it in other reviews, or personal experiences. So if someone had a Maze3, and upgraded to a MCW462, which tested better for me, most of the time they would agree that the Swifty worked better. My contention is that yes, you need rigid testing standards to get accurate numbers. But good testing standards (which I have) is generally good enough to show people which blocks are working better than others. There is nothing in my upcoming review that looks out of the ordinary in terms of dT (dont go quoting my Maze4 numbers here now as being out of the ordinary because no one here has seen my final results yet with water temp taken in to consideration). The only block that surprises me is the SlitEdge, which has been doing poorly for me. I honestly cannot get better temps with it. But I will continue testing it to make sure. It is when things look odd that I spend the extra effort to make sure.

The argument about "average joe" stuff has come and gone and has been used for close to the last 2 years of testing evolution. The simple fact is, the "average joe" is wrong. Data that’s more error ridden, uncontrolled, and un validated is never right.

My data is not error-ridden and uncontrolled. It's simply not fine tuned to the level that some other reviewers go to. Ive never dissed anyone for putting that much time in. I simply justify my not doing that because again, in my experience in testing blocks, my results always resemble what other people get, including the guys who spend much more time reviewing each block.

You should also take in to consideration that this is a round-up. Not a review dedicated to one particular block. In the effort to actually get the review finished, yes, I cant be remounting the block 10 different times. I consider 4-6 times to be enough (3 on the cascade) because I havent seen any bad deviations. I do a very good and consistant job of ensuring a proper mount each time, and I know that its again, not perfect. But, I havent seen any large errors in my data that Im worrying about.

Yes testing takes insane time, insane commitments, and insane costs, and really is the reason I don’t do it much anymore. pH has taken the torch and is producing data that is second to only a few other setups around. But testing takes time, shitloads of time, and as you said, no matter what you do people will bitch.

No matter if you spend $500 or $5000 in testing a block, there will be people who wont beleive it. No matter how good your testing equipment is, nothing stops ANYONE from skewing results. The review is only as good as how much you trust the person. That is why a lot of people dont bother to spend the time, ESPECIALLY manufacturers of the blocks, on doing large reviews. Because no matter how good you do it, people will think you did it wrong, or were swayed by a manufacturer. You guys could spend a year reviewing a block, but does it really do you any good if no one beleives you were honest in doing it? It makes you question the validity of ANY result, be it mine or someone who does it for a living.

Now I have done a good deal of testing, got burned at the stake for some of it... most of it. While there were lessons to learn with every test I did, they all pointed at the same goal - repeatable and controlled results (which when I got deeper and saw how expensive it was turning, I couldn’t continue). Call us demanding, or "ego driven" folks, but the simple fact is, a good few of us have been though the review ringer, and most of this is talk from experience and previous grillings that we got. Your 'posse" over there will back you too no end, I think that’s very clear. Over here, most back good solid testing, and no bullshit reviews, not a just a person for the sake of it.

I have been through this same ringer multiple times. I have gained a lot of experience from those who question my methods. I beleive I have a solid testing foundation and this point, and feel that although my results may not be fine-tuned, that doesnt make them sloppy, or innaccurate, or worthless. I can prove that only by showing in my past revies (published, or on BBSes) that my numbers jive with those who spent much more time reviewing the product. I feel that how I do things is 'good enough' in the sense for people who aren't as expert about this stuff, who dont want to know any numbers other than which block is best for them, and who certainly dont care about design.

Now with that said, how can you tell me which block is the best in the market? just by how hot it runs your CPU on a given day, with a certain coolant, at a certain flow, which are mostly uncontrolled or undocumented errors in the equation.

Because all those factors HAVE been controlled to some level, even on my 'lowly' test rig. My houses temperature remains constant as does humidity. The pump certainly should remain constent, so should flow. I cant picture any factor in my test bed that flucuations too rapidly, and im testnig each block multiple times, and getting REPEATABLE results. I take many other factors in to consideration, other than just CPU temp. As far as Im concerned, if my results can be reproduced, thats really the most important thing.

Living in the world of make believe may be nice for some things, "reviews" of cooling products is not one of them. I think its an insult to the general cooling community to say that they don’t want accurate numbers.

You are the only ones claiming my numbers aren't accurate, and I dont by it. Ive been accused of that for every review, and so havent most people here. Yuo dont know me, you dont trust me, so you wont respect my review. Thats fine, there are others who will. I beleive my numbers are as accurate as they are going to get given my resources, and that my testing methodoly is solid. Theres nothing sloppy about how I did things. It may not be up to some peoples standards, but I dont think thats a difference between right and wrong numbers. I think thats a difference between coarse tuning and fine tuning.

[BillA]

"The pump certainly should remain constent, so should flow."

TILT
one does NOT follow from the other
dig deeper

[Incoherent]

The problem is, even the most accurate, precise, controlled setup is somewhat individual. Even in an identical test bed your numbers will probably be different. Absolute numbers don't exist and can never exist. The only valid measurements are relative. i.e. relative to this block A, block B is 10.0125C cooler for the same load and coolant temp.
Since B was measured against C in someone elses setup and was 6C cooler, it can be assumed that Block C is 4.0125C better than A. But you have doubts already. Was the water temp and load the same for all measurements? Probably not. Were the thermometers calibrated the same. Almost certainly not. The noise in these measurements already mean that the data is in question and the precision i.e. accuracy to so many decimal places, is useless. The only valid data is that B is 10.0125 C cooler than A in that setup. Assuming that this was a perfectly calibrated setup. You can make assumptions which are reasonable, just not accurate. Player0s assumption that the WW was so many degrees above the RBX was reasonable. Not accurate but about as good as anyone will get without including that block in his tests.
So, the only way to compare is to compare blocks tested in the same setup. Not necessarily at the same time, but you have to trust that conditions don't change. Even if that setup is somewhat uncontrolled (ie water temp varying because it hasn't stabilised for 24 hours, on a CPU instead of a super calibrated resistive heat load) it doesn't matter, as long as it's consistant for each block tested and the variables are measured. Variables can be accounted for mathamatically as long as they are known.
The noise in this data comes from the unmeasureable variables (TIM thickness, mounting accuracy etc) and that is exactly what makes absolute, accurate to 6 decimal places, measurements meaningless.
I personally measure things every day. I am measuring and trying to maintain an accuracy of within 10nm 3 x standard deviation on linewidths of 300nm , using a measuring tool that is repeatable only within 5nm, produced by a tool kept at a temperature within 0.001C of 20C which uses a laser with power fluctuations in the order of 6% (3s). We have to account for these fluctuations because the linewidth will vary by up to 3nm per 1% fluctuation. It is done by monitoring the variables. As I said If they are known, they can be accounted for. These linewidths are nominal, they are only valid against linewidths measured in the same tool, or in a tool calibrated against the same reference.
And that will never happen in the measurement of waterblocks, unless some rather large effort is made to make a standard waterblock type the reference. And even then I think the validity will be lost in the noise of unmeasureable variables.
You won't get absolute numbers.

Cheers

[Player0]

Originally posted by unregistered
"The pump certainly should remain constent, so should flow."

TILT
one does NOT follow from the other
dig deeper

I want to know about this Bill. You say that the pump's output will vary?

Now, I know that different waterblocks will change the flow ALOT. And that the pressure differences can affect the pump.

But I assumed that the affect on the pump would be fairly consistant, and that the pump itself, given the same waterblock, won't produce differently on different days, correct? Thats what I was talking about.

If the pumps consistancy can change from day to day (independent from the effects of the waterblock) than that is a definite issue I need to look in to.

And I still wish I had gotten a decent flow meter. Need to find a good digital one.

[Blackeagle]

Player0

Do you have flow regulation, not just the ball valve but some means of insuring that the flow (gpm) delivered to block A is the same flow as to blocks B, C ect?

Without accurate flow regulation you can never know whick block is really the better design. You will know which works best in your system and only a man having the exact same components as your system can depend on getting results anywhere close to yours.

If block A creates 4' of head loss vs block B with 7' of head loss when connected to a given pump they most surely will have VERY differant volumes of flow in the system you have.

While in a well controled set up both blocks can be tested at flow rates of say .5 gpm, 1 gpm, 1.5 gpm ect. up to say 3 gpm and then the results compared. Now you will know what these blocks will really do at each flow rate. And you can chart each blocks performance curves for your readers to make thier own comparisons.

If you use your ball valve without any means of messuring the flow to insure it's equal for each block, then all numbers that you are basing your results on are "smoke".

A accurate test not only will give repeatable numbers, and show which block is better, but will also offer the reader the oportunity to choose a pump wisely based on what the best flow rate found for his block of choice is. He can check differant pump makers PQ curve charts to find the one that will give him the performance (flow rate) he wants.

I agree with Joe, give your readership the benifit of the doubt, if asked most would take more accurate numbers over less accurate ones. Very few would choose option C) tell me what to buy with my own money, without accurate data supporting your position regarding my purchase.

[Cathar]

Originally posted by unregistered
shit, I never was good with imaginary numbers

That's because you forgot to apply the internet filter. You need to multiply all numbers by i and then look at the absolute value of the result.

It all comes into sharp focus once this is done.

Of course, any learned person knows what i is a representation for.

[Joe]

Cause that post is so big I am just going to quote small sections to keep this less than dictionary big

"My data is not error-ridden and uncontrolled. It's simply not fine tuned to the level that some other reviewers go to."

I don’t see the difference, if your data isn’t as fine tuned, that means its out of tune, which means the correct data is not what you are getting. Saying "not as accurate" would have been more to the point because that’s what it is. Accuracy is based on the % of error in any given result. So unless a review is PERFECT it has error in it. Hence even BillAs reviews use error bars to define temperature results for a given block. Its the definition and knowledge of what the error actually is, is what makes a review more accurate or clear.


The review is only as good as how much you trust the person. That is why a lot of people don’t bother to spend the time, ESPECIALLY manufacturers of the blocks, on doing large reviews. Because no matter how good you do it, people will think you did it wrong, or were swayed by a manufacturer.

The higher the accuracy, the more detailed the process of testing, the more accountable the result data. The more data you have the more backing results you have the more the output cant be questioned. There’s much that Bill has done that there is a hard time questioning simply due to the data from multiple aspects and multiple steps in any test set. Lots of checks and balance in any one test set.

"Because all those factors HAVE been controlled to some level, even on my 'lowly' test rig. My houses temperature remains constant as does humidity. The pump certainly should remain constant, so should flow. I cant picture any factor in my test bed that fluctuations too rapidly, and im testing each block multiple times, and getting REPEATABLE results."

I don’t buy this. pH, Bill, joeC, myself have all seen how terribly hard it is to control anything with testing. Environment temperature is one aspect thats almost KILLER hard to regulate. Since temperature can change at any height in the room by a number of degree's over an hour or so and really not be noticeable. I have done extended plots of temp reading of ambient temps in what I considered "controlled" env's. A room with no HVAC/no fans/and just on window that was closed with the storm closed outside of that. Temp in the room with no electronics running at the ceiling was 5 DegC warmer than the floor, and total room temp change over a 12 hour period was 4C over the entire height range of the room. With many variances in-between. The funny thing was... I couldn’t feel the temp change myself. But there’s even more changes when running electronics in a room. You get pockets of warmer air, air circulation from the fans going over a radiator, etc..

Really the only way to eliminate room temp changes like that is to have a controlled water temp being delivered to the block at all times, no radiator, just a lab chiller/heater. But then secondary heat loss from the block is still a factor. Do not think that just because its in a room that temp doesn’t move around.. it does. And when temp differences in blocks are 1 - 2C that’s easily within the error margin of a ambient shift in temperature.


"You are the only ones claiming my numbers aren't accurate, and I don’t by it. I’ve been accused of that for every review, and so haven’t most people here. You don’t know me, you don’t trust me, so you wont respect my review. That’s fine, there are others who will. "

I am not claiming anything. I am telling you they aren’t based on the facts you have presented. Your system has an unknown error in all the readings. Figure out, and state what the error is then the readings have some merit and at least are based in reality.

Its TOTALLY not a thing about trust for me... well it is with some people who have shown that they cater to companies... but you are not one of them as far as I can see. Its a think about helping you understand the basics involved with doing any kind of scientific testing. yes this is scientific. To say you know some people who will trust you is = to some spammer saying "well I know no one wants this stuff I am mailing out, but some dude will be stupid enough to click the link!"

Don’t rely on the lowest common denominator of readers to base your writings on, its a low bar to set for anything this technical.

A reply to Incoherent:
"The problem is, even the most accurate, precise, controlled setup is somewhat individual. Even in an identical test bed your numbers will probably be different. Absolute numbers don't exist and can never exist"

That is the holy grail of testing right now. pH and JoeC are getting closer to having almost the same cooling setup. And the ability to control water temps, mounting pressure, and heat input exactly will eliminate setup variables from the equation. As in the matrix "its all about control". Control of the variables being thrown at the setup is what will make different setups results totally relational to one another. But Bill and pH are better to talk about that than I.

[Player0]

Without accurate flow regulation you can never know whick block is really the better design. You will know which works best in your system and only a man having the exact same components as your system can depend on getting results anywhere close to yours.

This has always bothered me. No, I haven't progressed to the point of flow regulation and measurements yet, but I know thats the next logical step.

How a block responds to different flow rates isn't exactly linear. However, generally, more flow seems to be better. If I were to use a 200GPH pump instead of a 600GPH pump, would my results be different? Of course. Would they show different blocks as being better than the others?

I can only answer that with 'I dont know'. How each block responds to differing flow rates is kind of standard, they all do better with more. So, in my review I blindly restricted flow with the valve. Trying to simulate a smaller pump, in the roughest fashion.

Yeah, some of the blocks behave differently. Some work better under the different flow conditions. I wanted to have the tools to further quanitfy the result, but I'm not to that testing point yet. Next time, definitely. I *definitely* want to have controll over flow/pressure.

Im not sure the lack of that completely invalidates my review, but its an excellent point which I had discussed with BillA before even starting my testing.

I agree with Joe, give your readership the benifit of the doubt, if asked most would take more accurate numbers over less accurate ones. Very few would choose option C) tell me what to buy with my own money, without accurate data supporting your position regarding my purchase.

I dont beleive that because they may be less accurate, that it makes them completely innaccurate. As I continue to review products, I hope to address some of the comments you guys have been making. But Im still not sure if its going to solve the issue regarding 'beleivable' numbers. I would feel better for my own personal self with a flow-meter though. Every flow meter I tried just dropped the flow/pressure right down when I installed it. Theres just so little pressure in a watercooled system. Id love to see a high-pressure system one of these days. I bet it would work better.

[BillA]

those upside down fellows have it again
Thanks Cathar

PlayerO
Blackeagle defined the pump issue
and JoeK the accuracy one
I would suggest you be more critical of your results, more specifically wrt their applicability
- define the parameters, a datum is not a curve

do you recall the last item in this article ?
"Tip #12 - waterblock testing -> avoid it like the plague"

not really a jest at all
keep at it

[Player0]

The higher the accuracy, the more detailed the process of testing, the more accountable the result data. The more data you have the more backing results you have the more the output cant be questioned. There’s much that Bill has done that there is a hard time questioning simply due to the data from multiple aspects and multiple steps in any test set. Lots of checks and balance in any one test set.

Yes, but the checks and balances don't necessarily apply to the human running the test. And Im not saying this is the case. However, say i build the most elaborate and expensive test bed, and then someone secretly offers me money to report different results. Say you trust my methods because you see my test bed, and Im following all the procedures that have been decided proper. But then I go in to Excel and just change a few of the numbers out of some sort of bias. It's simply a possibility you can't controll from an individual, which is why there are testing groups that do this sort of thing. Labs which have people not only double checking the equipment, but double checking each other as well. Until reviews are handled at places like that, theres NO accounting for the accurasy of the review because people can skew results, no matter if they test the block 5 times or 50. And thats why there will always be questions about reviews done by individuals.

I don’t buy this. pH, Bill, joeC, myself have all seen how terribly hard it is to control anything with testing. Environment temperature is one aspect thats almost KILLER hard to regulate. Since temperature can change at any height in the room by a number of degree's over an hour or so and really not be noticeable. I have done extended plots of temp reading of ambient temps in what I considered "controlled" env's. A room with no HVAC/no fans/and just on window that was closed with the storm closed outside of that. Temp in the room with no electronics running at the ceiling was 5 DegC warmer than the floor, and total room temp change over a 12 hour period was 4C over the entire height range of the room. With many variances in-between. The funny thing was... I couldn’t feel the temp change myself. But there’s even more changes when running electronics in a room. You get pockets of warmer air, air circulation from the fans going over a radiator, etc..

Agreed. It's nearly impossible to control ambient outside of a lab. My house actually heats up over time with the computer running, which is why I allow for a lot of time between tests, which is why the review has taken me 3 months. I agree that its still not what I would want exact. Ambient is very important, although by measuring the difference between water temperature and CPU temperature, a factor similar to c/w, ambient shouldnt have too much of an effect, should it? Ambient during my testing was always 25c, as measured by the DDoc, plus or minus a degree or two. I dont think it should skew dT too much?

I am not claiming anything. I am telling you they aren’t based on the facts you have presented. Your system has an unknown error in all the readings. Figure out, and state what the error is then the readings have some merit and at least are based in reality.

Ive known for a long time where the errors can come from, but some of them are well beyond my control as a single reviewer.

[Player0]

Tip #12 - waterblock testing -> avoid it like the plague

Thats good advice if I have ever heard it.

[fhorst]

Originally posted by Player0
Tip #12 - waterblock testing -> avoid it like the plague

Thats good advice if I have ever heard it.

LOL It's the best advice ever given....... It will save you quite some hrs of reading.

No seriously, I love reading this thread, just a but tough to bypass all the flames out there. Can the moderators do some about it? I don't think it's that much for this thread to go about web site traffic.... This one was about the new DD block, right?

Also about knowledge.. As far as I can see, and I'm just a newbee, with a lot of back ground (since 1993) in OC'ing (I was doing my DX4 at 160 Mhz....) You are all right! There is no blaiming possible. The results that you get on your system, are your results. Take a new CPU, a new Mobo, or even a new PSU and your results will differ.

No one is here to bullshit about nothing we are all giving our own 2 cents

Now PLEASE quit the flames e.g and be nice! (best way to get the info out there, ande that's why we are all posting)

[fhorst]

Not sure if this is off topic, but anyway:

I own the WW, and it's nice, but I hate how it restricts my water flow.

I don't have a lot of equipment, but some guts

Would it improve if I would modd the WW?
I was thinking to "drill" some holes like the rbx has into the chanels (using my nice dremel)
To improve the water flow I was thinking about 2 options:
1. make some 1/2 mm holes beside the jet
2. make the jet hole a bit bigger

As I'm still in the re- re- re- designing phase, I'm not sure what pumps I will use. Currently I have 2*L20, but I'm thinking about replacing them with two MCP600 Inline Pump.

What will be best, wait for the new pumps, as the will be serial, the pressure should be enough to beat any restriction, or first start modding my WW?

[nikhsub1]

Originally posted by fhorst
Not sure if this is off topic, but anyway:

I own the WW, and it's nice, but I hate how it restricts my water flow.

I don't have a lot of equipment, but some guts

Would it improve if I would modd the WW?
I was thinking to "drill" some holes like the rbx has into the chanels (using my nice dremel)
To improve the water flow I was thinking about 2 options:
1. make some 1/2 mm holes beside the jet
2. make the jet hole a bit bigger

As I'm still in the re- re- re- designing phase, I'm not sure what pumps I will use. Currently I have 2*L20, but I'm thinking about replacing them with two MCP600 Inline Pump.

What will be best, wait for the new pumps, as the will be serial, the pressure should be enough to beat any restriction, or first start modding my WW?

Hmm, I would venture to say that you should leave the WW alone. Any hand modding that anyone would/could do would more than likely worsen the block. It is designed the way it is for a reason, the restriction is what gives the water velocity which is part of the reason the block performs so well.

[satanicoo]

Of course you could remove the midle place, becoming much less restricted, but loosing ~2 degrees (as cathar stated).

[Cathar]

Originally posted by satanicoo
Of course you could remove the midle place, becoming much less restricted, but loosing ~2 degrees (as cathar stated).

Yes, removing the middle plate will make the block less restrictive than a Maze 3.

I had kinda figured that the ~15% water-flow-rate loss wasn't really that extreme to cause people angst if it gave them better performance.

What do I know though? Higher flow rates equals better performance, so hacking apart a block to raise the flow rates has always got to be better, right?

I wouldn't drill into the White Water unless you want to run the very high risk of putting a hole in it.

Widening the nozzle would be one's best best to improve flow rates without sacrificing too much on performance.

[Blackeagle]

Before paying for 2 Swiftech 600 series pumps, I'd opt for a Iwaki MD20 RLZT.

The MD20 RLZT specs.

2.9 gpm
22 ft. of head, not a mistype

And Iwiki's are very long wearing, about the best in use.

[fhorst]

Originally posted by Cathar
What do I know though? Higher flow rates equals better performance, so hacking apart a block to raise the flow rates has always got to be better, right?

LOL You know a lot!

I guess I'd better ho for a better pump, then killing my WW right?

Can the WW handle the pressure of an iwaki?

And then again....... the jet was made to aid low presure systems. (if I got it correct)
If I would get an Iwaki, it's no longer low pressure. Would the setup gain or lose from removing the jet?

And, where could I get an Iwaki?

[Skulemate]

My (Cathar original) White Water seems to be getting along with my Iwaki 20-RZ just fine. Although the nozzle may be designed to work with low flow systems, it will work even better if you can keep the flow rate up (I've estimated my flow rate at around 7.6 lpm using some of Bill's data and the manufacturer's P-Q curve). So, yeah, I would say that an Iwaki is fine.

[Edit] How did this become a discussion about the WW again? [/Edit]

[Cathar]

Originally posted by fhorst
I guess I'd better ho for a better pump, then killing my WW right?

Can the WW handle the pressure of an iwaki?

And then again....... the jet was made to aid low presure systems. (if I got it correct)
If I would get an Iwaki, it's no longer low pressure. Would the setup gain or lose from removing the jet?

And, where could I get an Iwaki?

The all-copper White Water that I made should theoretically be able to handle in the vicinity of 300PSI before the O-rings start to "give way".

The White Water nozzle was designed around a 6LPM flow point, being that presented by an Eheim 1250 in a low-moderate-restriction setup.

It is my opinion that a block's "optimal" flow point is a bit like a peak on a very shallow up-side-down parabola. Generally speaking one can either halve or double the design point flow rate and still not really see any significant performance difference from a block of the same design than had been optimised around those higher/lower flow rates. As one moves outside of that range then one could benefit from changing the block's design.

So basically that means that the White Water is going to behave very close to its design optimisation point at anything between 3-12LPM, which represents anything between an Eheim 1046, and an Iwaki MD-30RZ. At flow rates lower than 3LPM, the WW would increasingly benefit from a thicker base-plate as flow rates are dropped lower and lower. At flow rates above 12LPM, the WW would (slightly) benefit from a narrower nozzle plate to boost nozzle velocity. The flow rate would drop off as a result, but nozzle velocity would increase, both sustaining the same impingement region size but with a higher rate of themal transfer.

I experimented with a 25% narrower slot nozzle on the WW with the MD-30RZ pump. With the standard nozzle I saw 12LPM (just above 3GPM) flow rates. With the narrower nozzle the flow rates dropped to just over 10LPM, and I saw no significant performance difference, which for me I term as anything that appears to be statistically less than 0.5C.