Originally Posted by morencyam
I could make the argument that Bundy's testing is a better reference because he is using real world situations. You get an idea how the radiators will perform in a full loop with waterblocks and tubing and everything else that isn't in a Lab testing setup.
Actually, Bundy's tests can only be useable to you if you use the same test bed as he does in the same conditions with the same variables in place.
Bundy's real world scenario is only relevent to you if you have the exact same real world scenario.
Never will anyone have a Lab setting like Martin does to run their loop. Mainly because there are no waterblocks in Martin's testing. Not saying one is more right or better than the other. Just two totally different scenarios.
What Martin does is comparing components in a vacuum. Of course, you and I will never run any of our components in a vacuum as he does.
But if you pick his best performing rad at a given speed, and that rad nets you poir performance, than you know something else is wrong in your loop..
Likely, the rad is not the culprit of the decreased performance, something else is.
It's like having a speaker system in a padded room vs a nonpadded room. You're going to get different results and sound in each setting, but neither is wrong.
A padded sound stage is a great way to discard all other variables and concentrate on the sound quality only.
If your system was the best sounding sysyem in the padded room, and it suddenly sounds crappier than all other systems in your living room, likely your saleman ripped you off or something else is causing the poor sound in your living room.
Same applies to Martin's testing.
Bundy's testing? Not so much.
And you keep saying Bundy is wrong because he results are different that Martin's.
I never said that. I said that very simple logic tells you a XT45 can not possibly be less restrictive than a UT60, or Monsta.
I said that Martin's tests concur with this most simple logic.
And I said that my own tests also concur with this very simple logical conclusion.
I said that Bundy's flow tests not only conflict with Martin's tests . But they also conflict with the most basic common sense. And they also conflict with my own crude testing.
That's because they are two completely different testing scenarios.
Yup. One scenario fits the most simple scientific logic, and the other one goes against it.
Until I see concrete evidence that Bundy is indeed wrong in everything he is doing, I will continue to trust his testing and reviews.
Very well, suite yourself. But I didn't go into his thermal testing yet. I only touched on his flow trsting, which I have proven to be erronious. And I never claimed that he is wrong on everything. Please stop errecting strawman arguemebts to debate against.
Also, this. Of all the posts I have seen of yours, I have never seen pictures of any hardware, let alone a full functioning loop.
"I dare do all that may become a man. Who dares more is none"
I have never seen your hardware, or Bundy's, or Martin's either. Nor do I care to.
This is of little relevence to me. I would rather discuss hard data and science over personnal characterisation and ad hominen attacks.
I have had a few water cooled rigs. But never did a build log, and probably never will.
This present build is by far my most ambitious so far. But it's a slow one, and I 'might' start getting hardware for it this summer....or maybe not.
I also have an engineering background. Civil engineering undergraduate. And a curiosity for science and understanding.
And I love strangling cut puppies and kitten in my spare time with my bare hands. Go ahead, attack that if you want.Edited by PepeLapiu - 4/16/14 at 2:08pm