Originally Posted by nleksan
As an actual scientist in a field infinitely more complex than basic water-air heat transfer, I find absolutely zero fault with the testing methodology bundy uses. It seems as though you are demanding results, the accuracy of which is unfeasible for anyone without access to a lab worth more than your house probably ten times over. It would be absolutely insane to devote that amount of time and money to testing something so (realistically speaking) completely worthless.
What we have are a miniscule number of devoted enthusiasts who dedicate tremendous time and money not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the community as a whole. The "big 3" all deserve respect, because instead of joining the millions of whiners and occasional indignant and stubborn "enthusiasts" who bicker over hypotheticals with a minimum of actual experience, they ARE the reason for water cooler no longer being seen as a fringe, "magic" phenomenon.
When talking about testing something so simple and with such an incredibly miniscule number of variables, the methodology itself is of little consequence.
The only thing that matters, is that the testing is performed under identical circumstances using identical, controllable setups.
The only thing that is of any importance is the CONSISTENCY of results, and IT DOESN'T MATTER if he's using an Aquasuite or a $30k junior lab setup, so long as the variance (delta) across the compared radiators remains the same consistenly, then tthe data is absolutely accurate for the purpose for which it was gathered.
It's very easy to criticize from the outside looking in, especially when a number of those criticisms are already based in a flawed understanding of the basic nature of the science behind what's being tested..
I don't know how old you are or what you do for a living, but from the posts above, I get a sense of "taken a required physics and Chem class, once"... It's like the first yearpsych sstudentswho tthink they have some incredible understanding of the human mind, and actively fail to realize that they're not the smartest person in the room, and that they have only barely skimmed the subject.
I am not saying that in a mean hearted way, I am simply making an observation.
If you really feel that the testing is useless, and if you have as much experience as you allege, then you need to be conducting a battery of tests with video/photo evidence of the active test procedure, be able to repeat the tests with identical results a month after you do the first round (if they don't match, you can toss the data, or continue to find the ultimate test methodology by putting hundreds more hours minimum into the tests), and do so for each of the rads that bundy has tested. Oh, and you will need an unimpeachable, well respected, and one hundred percent impartial witness, keeping a separate log that you can never under any circumstances see, to ensure that your biases are not influencing results.
Until then, as a heavily specialized Behavioral Psychobiological Neuro chemist (psychopharmacologist), I am willing to say that I after spending the immense time and dedication over the better part of a decade learning, I base my opinion on this experience, and that is that the testing is flawless because it provided exactly the data needed, and was performed in a manner that negates almost all possible inconsistent sets.
This is comparison testing, which is tedious but not difficult; it is not nor is it presented as being an absolute measure of performance, ONLY the performance delta between various models.