Wow, plz don't feed the trolls.
Wow, plz don't feed the trolls.
If only that fan was thinner I would sooo use it!!! :(Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r
Just do a test with it!! Insult them with facts! Unless you don't think you can beat them.. Which honestly is what I think the case is... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by hwlabs
I have a better idea. Since I have the koolance radiator how about you send me yours and someone send me a pa120.3 and I will do the tests. Anyone in the local area would be more then welcome to come view the results here! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
I think that we should take a step back and look at their "intention" in responding- It's not like Koolance has made us want to buy their products any more, at all. They really have achieved positively 0 by getting into this pissing match if you step back and take a look at it- Their objective is to sell (radiators in this case) products, and from the looks of it, I don't see any new Koolance radiator users in the forums. I guess I just don't know why Koolance conducted that test in such unrealistic working conditions, and while they have raked up a bunch of muck, they really haven't achieved much :\
Damn sorry, you're right. Goodbye SDatl404...Quote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
If you want a high-end high-performance radiator, from Thermochill specifically, for high-speed fans you'd choose an HE series radiator, not a PA radiator. The HE is rather dated though, but it does its job like a good workhorse.
Horses for courses. No one enters an F1 car into a noise/fuel-economy race.
BTW. Just in case anyone is confused, I don't work for Thermochill, and I'm not a radiator manufacturer. I just put my hand up to provide input to benefit the greater community and target their needs, and Thermochill/Marci was the only company prepared to listen. I am extremely loyal to TC/Marci though, I won't deny that. I see them as one of the few manufacturers who do actively listen to the community.
Trolls are green right? Kinda like the color of that pc.... :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
I don't under stand either why koolance didn't do any realworld test. Maybe because you can't see a differance in all the radiators until it gets high up!Quote:
Originally Posted by Burn
The reason there isn't many new koolance user in here:
1) Everyone here constantly talks smack and says they are junk 24/7. 99% of them know nothing about radiators and have only used one in their life. Of coarse this would be a thermochill, because every likes them sooo much.
2) Most users here like to build there own custom units. Koolance is more designed around the ready made solutions for people with less time or less knowledge on building things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
Agree 100%...well put!:up:
Not doing that, I'm not disabling my PC for that long (or sending my rad to someone I don't know either for that matter really, no offense). I'm certain the koolance would loose anyway ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SDatl404
CMON man do it for the community!Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
If you really want to compare them then get one yourself. Sorry but I cannot afford to shut my PC down for that long, I need my PC, it is my work system (and play hehe). I do a lot on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SDatl404
Please :rolleyes: Koolance is made in South Korea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
With good reason, we never really expected Koolance to go this far.
No doubt real-world tests will be conducted and side by side comparisons will be made.
I thought it best to return Koolance the favor for buying one of our radiators.
Okay, let's put the fanboyism away for a second.
But before I start I'll make it clear I am neutal. I don't give a crap who makes the best stuff. I have a slight preference that it's British, second to that European, third to that not Amercian. But that aside...
I realise I've aleady posted several pages back on the validity of the Koolance tests, but with a bit more thought I'd like to add some more comments.
Previously I was playing Devils Advocate, i.e. I was not willing to accept that Koolance had completely rigged the tests. My reasons being that if you wanted an independant test of radiators the only place to go would be some place related to the Automotive industry, which in turn would, as we indeed have seen, result in test circumstances far removed to normal PC watercooling.
I am quite willing to accept that if Koolance wanted independant tests this was the only route open to them.
However, after giving it some thought, I absolutely and without any doubt state that Koolance knew these results were not typical to anywhere in the same ball park, PC watercooling. There is zero chance they didn't immediately recognise that the temps and airflow were far, far in excess of what is the absolute outside of what happens.
Given that they A) Did not acknowledge it, and B) Did not offer any kind of comparison to the figures that are commonly quoted in PC watercooling...
Then I deem, and I'll say it in court, that they were deliberately out to deceive. Which in my book is on the same page as lying.
It is not possible to judge if they intended to go out and seek these results, or if they ended up with these results and intended to publish them anyway.
But stuff it. They are attempting to deceive consumers, and that may not be illegal.
Koolance, this is the bit you'll want to take me to court for libel over : Your radiators in any conceivable circumstances are inferior. Your products under perform your competitors. Official Koolance product descriptions are misleading. Finally that Koolance are lying to customers
The statement " At best, we are left with the conclusion our original claim of outperforming the other brass/copper heat exchangers by only 39-49% was conservative." is a lie. It's only applicable outside of any reasonable application, something which Koolance should be well aware of. And by stating it they are saying that their products are superior to other products on the market. Since their products are inferior, then this will cause a negative impact on their competitors sales. This is libelous.
Anyway, Koolance. Sue me if you disagree.
Though in F1, fuel economy may make the difference in terms of holding on to pole position in between pitstops, and the minute gains, even seemingly insignificant, can make the difference between winning or losing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
10KG more = 0.14 sec lag.
The higher air pressure drop against the radiator will slow down the vehicle and/or reduce the necessary airflow needed to be converted to downforce.
The Audi R10 won Le Mans largely on its ability to minimize fuel stops. Now if they can only get the injection system to be more reliable, they would increase that advantage.
Thats what I am talking about. Put all this to rest!Quote:
Originally Posted by hwlabs
LOL it's good to have a sense of humor in all this...
Hearsay!Quote:
Originally Posted by Halk
You have no proof to back anything up. They do. So get mad all you want, but at "XTREME"s the koolance owns!
Not only do I have an in depth study of their results. As supplied by watercooling experts. I have my own study of common radiator types, at various ranges of air flow, ranging from about as silent as it's possible to be with a PC to around as noisy as it's reasonable to tolerate with headphones on.Quote:
Originally Posted by SDatl404
I'll be happy to provide these studies in court.
And I'm not mad - I'm drunk, and calling Koolance's bluff. I'm that confident they can't back up their claims that I'm happy to go to court. Assuming I win the case (which I will) I can afford to drop the legal fees from my savings while the case runs.
I meant an economy race (>100kms/litre), not designing an F1 car to be economical in the ranges of 1-1.5kms/litre (or whatever it is they do).Quote:
Originally Posted by hwlabs
Oh, something I wanted to ask to Cathar (I believe he had something to do with the design of the PA series rad) and to Marci.
How would an all aluminium PA series radiator compare - a few adjustments can be granted, but essentially the same product.
In other words, is there anything at all in Koolances statements about aluminium. I'm happy to accept - thanks to the studies done - that a combination of their materials, manufacturing process and design do not produce a superior radiator.
True, just mentioning the fact that getting 2km more out of a tank means a lot to these people.
We have some designs here that is intended for such an application.
But yes, calling F1 a green sport is about as sensible as calling Japanese whaling activities scientific. Only that F1 is more fun.
I hope it's not off millerlite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halk
looking forward to the real word testQuote:
Originally Posted by hwlabs
welcome to XS :)
No, it's not. But what's wrong with the lite beers. I really enjoy them. Everything in it's place etc, horses for courses, but in a tropical climate lite beers are incredibly refreshing and crisp.Quote:
Originally Posted by SDatl404
Wow you sound like you have a passion for drinking :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Halk
I figured you for a crown and coke type person....
ocean spray....ew la la
Crown?Quote:
Originally Posted by SDatl404
I'm Scottish, apparently I'm ginger, beat my wife, and have a severe drinking problem. It's in the genes apparently,
click me:DQuote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
I was the primary designer & tester of the PA120 radiators in terms of providing guidance on what to change to make them better. I ran competitive performance tests, ran analysis of prototypes, devised theories for the ideal mechanical attributes for the radiators, researched fan power, noise, back-pressure targets, and through a series of iterative prototype analyses provided the design suggestion feedback that determined the path of the product. Marci handled the manufacturing & engineering side of things. Through his team, he was responsible for doing what had to be done to take the set of design guidelines that I was putting forwards, and determine how to best map them into a physical reality using the highest quality components. Some of what I was suggesting wasn't possible, so Marci and I collaborated until we came to a mutual understanding of how to best combine the physical and theoretical realities into a real item.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halk
This is NOT an easy question to answer. We must always factor the properties of the coolant into the overall performance aspect. While it may be possible to design a superior aluminium radiator for pure water use (I really don't know - I didn't research that) the reality is that copper/silver makes for the best performing affordable waterblocks, and we simply cannot mix aluminium and copper together in a pure water system without incurring devastating corrosion. There must alway be some amount of anti-corrosion protection added, and this will always negatively impact the overall performance of both the radiator and the waterblocks.Quote:
How would an all aluminium PA series radiator compare - a few adjustments can be granted, but essentially the same product.
In other words, is there anything at all in Koolances statements about aluminium. I'm happy to accept - thanks to the studies done - that a combination of their materials, manufacturing process and design do not produce a superior radiator.
Further, since it cannot be guaranteed that users will always take the required steps to provide corrosion protection for their systems, this then automatically invalidated the choice of aluminium as a potential radiator material, and that is why I never researched it.
Without knowing the amount of corrosion protection required, and the level of performance degradation incurred as a result at the waterblocks, it is impossible to state which is the higher performing item. We may conduct short-term tests using pure water, but the reality is that an all copper system can be run pure-water-only, while a mixed-metal system must be run with coolant. This is then another flaw in any testing methodology that does not account for these requirements. If we're testing aluminium against copper, we should also be running 50:50 coolant/water for the aluminium scenario, and pure-water for the copper scenario, because only THAT will reflect real-world use.
So, you see, the question is not easy to answer, and due to the non foolproof nature of the use of aluminium in a non-pre-packaged product, we didn't even consider it as a realistically viable end-user solution.
I'm looking forward to the new designs. I'm also glad you are investing in R & D and are willing to test the competition. I'm often surprised how some if not most of the w/c manufacturers rarely take time to study the competition. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by hwlabs
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDatl404
Ive never considered adding anyone to my ignore list before today. The ignorance in your posts is borderline stupidity :shakes:
As for radiators, I dont choose sides. I run what ever offers the best price/performance. Ive never considered Koolance because their products don't suit my needs. Awkward size radiators, plastic water blocks that aren't aesthetically appealing IMO as well as a higher price tag for the performance that you are getting. Plus I was hooked on the whole 1/2 > 1/4 ID tubing thing... Even with the latest tubing info, I wouldn't switch over to Koolance. Not because of its PR, or the community dislike towards it but because the performance that it offers isn't enough to justify the difference in price between upgrading my current custom water cooling setup VS purchasing their kit.
Which is why I just replaced my dying Mag3 and DD Dual heatercore with an MCR320 and MCP655.
Honestly that reads like a cop out. Which is really strange, because from both your recent and your historical posts you're quite free with your knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
I was under the impression that flow rates (past a certain point) had little or no real world impact. Thus if an additive negatively impacts on the thermal properties of water, then it's going to be along the same lines of a minimal drop in flow rates? (Right? I don't know if I am, I think I am... :P)...
So from that it can be said that if there's a real world difference from using all aluminium in a radiator rather than the brass/copper solution then there must be a superior and inferior way.
So is there any chance that using all aluminium, assuming an optimal design, is better than the current way?
Or, and this could well be the case, I've taken what Koolance said for granted, and it's not the case that ThermoChill/other competitors use a combination of different metals that compromises something.
Edit : As for people who don't know better using aluminium. Well, should the rest of us be subjected to inferior (if indeed they are) products because Joe Public doesn't know to add an anti corrosive? It's like the massively over quoted "Censorship is denying me a steak because a baby can't chew it" (paraphrased because I can't be arsed looking it up).
An aluminum equivalent would need to be larger, unless you believe what Koolance says.
Ok. I don't understand why. But, ok it's larger. What's the performance like. Are there any benefits?Quote:
Originally Posted by hwlabs
To SDatl404: We know, koolance, under those conditions, will perform better. That's not the point though: Answer me this: Who runs their watercooling systems with 300+ CFM fans, with water at 85c + ? The tubing isn't even rated to that high. Crank it down to realistic values: 35c water, <100cfm fans. You'll clearly see that the HWLabs and Thermochill will outperform the koolance.
Prove it, I'm tired of people making bold claims with no first-hand data. I don't like aluminum, but if you are gonna bury them show me some data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bbq
I actually take offense to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halk
I stated that I didn't know the answer. I stated the difficulties with determining the answer if it was considered. I stated the realities of mixing metals in an uncontrolled system environment. I stated that the final decision was not to pursue aluminium based upon the difficulties of ensuring trouble free operation. That is no more of a cop-out than deciding not to make radiators out of a vastly superior full brazed pure-silver construction because it'd cost too much for anyone to buy. Is it now a manufacturer's fault for not offering something which it deems to not be a viable and cost-effective long-term solution? It's a design decision based upon a cost-risk-benefit scenario.
Truly, what you just stated is offensive. I could not be any more transparent with my knowledge and the reasons for the decisions. I can not and will not answer what I don't know, and I won't speculate.
I am sorry that's not good enough for you.
We will need to validate Koolance's claims with testing using their own parameters.
How a similarly sized heat exchanger with a higher pressure drop on both the liquid and air side can perform over 50% better is very very very improbable.
How about you take your own advice and bring proof that koolance is better?Quote:
Originally Posted by SDatl404
1. I guess you're part of the 99% because you've only used koolance.
2. I will openly admit that koolance probably makes it easier for first-timers to use their products, HOWEVER, that is the tradeoff for performance.
Well, I already pointed out that the Koolance stated liquid pressure drops for the PA radiators is not even remotely in alignment with independent tests, nor is it for internal test data. You might like to look at your own in-house data for the GTSealth and determine if their stated pressure drop data is valid. That'll give you a personal inkling as to validity of even these stated values.Quote:
Originally Posted by hwlabs
Actually was going through our numbers earlier and they are just as remote.
Lost in translation?
Strewth you've got to wade through some crud to find the few posts worth reading.
This thread especially would've benefited from active moderation.
bah this is goin on and on and on with you say this he say that.
koolance and fanboi/s, (no offense to KATECH and their testing methodologies for car radiators that is) maybe a change to car radiator manufacturing would be better (or worse for automobile industry's sake) ...
since:
1. testing with that big airflow generator, obviously invalidates it immediately,
no sane pc enthusiast would use that high cfm/db noisemaker inside his bedroom or living room.
2. if you want independent, then sponsor or send one of your radiators to a third party enduser, who'll do the test in real pc environment, not car environment. this goes the same for hwlabs. send it to an independent end user
3. information is ammunition, if you don't want people complaining this and that, then i suggest redoing your test using real computer 120mm fans, not some monster cfm generating car radiator tester.
*halk, a cup of coffee would do you good for that hangover before posting again...
1. Test real world application relevant to a PC radiator. Air flow, Coolant Flow, Temperature. Some parameters like this:
*30C coolant temperature
*120CFM of air flow
*10LPM Coolant flow
*20C ambient air temperature
2. Make absolutely sure we are testing only one variable. This should be the radiator :)
3. Do we want to compare thermal dissipation per cubic unit or do we want to test overall thermal dissipation of each product? Do we want to make an overall comparison based on a 100 point scoring system that includes all performance factors such as: Air flow resistance, Coolant flow resistance, Product size, Temperature differential of coolant supply and discharge?
We need to ask our selves "what data do we need" so we may compare the results ourselves.
We also need not to forget such things as air density, humidity, atmospheric composition, as these things are mostly neglected in most reviews/tests and can have an impact on test results.
well why didn't they do it in the first place...
instead of going through all this and feeding the less informed, you could have used some fans recently tested by Vapor over on air cooling...
This is going in circles. It is getting really quite annoying with all of the Koolance fanboys pointlessly fighting with the people who know just about all there is to know about watercooling.
I say that those fanboys STFU, accept that members such as Cathar, Marci, and hwlabs know what the fu** they're talking about, and stop posting in this thread.
Or, I vote that the mods delete this thread.
If those fanboys really want to argue some more, they can wait for when tests are reproduced under realistic conditions (i.e. a 60-80cfm fan, and 20C or less liquid). Then, if they really want to, they can argue some more, in which case it will be even more pointless.
I have found the technical discussion by the more knowledgeable members who are replying and discussing the topic at hand to be very helpful. Thanks guys it is much appreciated.
Edit: Decided not to be :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:y.
I have nothing to with the test was conducted or who it was conducted with.Quote:
Originally Posted by septim
I do not work for Koolance or any other PC related manufacturer.
I only posted the article.
Here is my opinion of the test:
Koolance consulted with an automotive R&D firm to test the thermal dissipation capacity of 3 radiators made by 3 competing manufactures.
Koolance most likely used an automotive based R&D firm because it might be the only industry that has a lab designed to test Liquid to Air Heat Exchangers and has equipment precise enough to control and measure important factors of the test and provide useful scientific data.
The down side to this is the fact that their equipment is designed for the Automotive industry, meaning such things like air flow and coolant temperature are tuned to simulate the environment which an automotive heat exchanger is used.
KATECH may not have been able to perform the test with lower coolant temperatures and air flow rates because their equipment was simply not designed to operate that low. It is also possible that Koolance did not provide sufficient environmental parameters for the test and relied on normal Automotive testing procedures.
This does not mean the data collected is not valid it simply means further testing is required with parameters to simulate the real world environment associated with that of a PC radiator.
well then my mistake,
why ever did they not do it right the first time around?
simple reason is probably because they wanted more marketing hype for their products...
take advantage of the gullible...
take more profits for themselves...
etc etc...
*already edited above post*
Amen. Strange that me and halk agree. Very well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halk
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=42
Edited... *yawn*
Back off to bed now, the effects of Jack haven't worn off enough yet...
A lot of posts criticize the coolant temp of the test, I don't quite see why though. Higher coolant temp might not represent typical conditions for our application but how does it change the validity of the results? Afaik it only accentuates the differences thereby minimizing measuring tolerance which appears to be a good thing to me. Maybe someone can enlighten me to the error in my thinking.
Don't have much else to say about the test, if ThermoChill and HWlabs both state the pressure drop figures are completely wrong I have to question the accuracy of the results (not that results are universally valid for pc appliaction in the first place).
And to think it only took bottle of vodka :PQuote:
Originally Posted by ranker
hahahaha
raids the brandy cabinet...
You're actually quite correct, but there are caveats. The rate of thermal dissipation is proportional to the difference between the water and the air. If the water 20C warmer than the air, assuming all else is equal (air-flow, water-flow, air-inlet temp, etc) then the radiator will dissipate heat at twice the rate of if the water was only 10C warmer than the air. All that alters, theoretically, is the scale of the final result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairydust
There is a caveat to that though. The higher the water temperature, the more "runny" water is. At 85C, the flow resistance of water through something like a flat radiator tube is around 35% (!!) of what it is at 25C. This only further brings into question the discrepancies of the liquid pressure drops stated. It also may alter, enough, the flow characteristics of what's going on in each radiator according to their internal design.
Also, the very high temperature of the water will heat up the air enough to actually influence/alter the air-flow resistances by a significant amount (~10%). Once again, this may alter the overall air-flow characteristics.
I don't doubt that the relative results at the same sorts of air-flows, but given smaller air-water deltas, would change too much from what's given. We should be aware though that there are enough effects at play here that would certainly have the potential push the relative results around in a significant fashion.
What the end effect would be, no one could say without testing. It could go either way, or it could have no net influence at all.
Suffice it to say, the air-flows, the pressures required to push those air-flows, and the air-water deltas, really are so significantly outside of the normal range of PC operation, that even general given assumptions about the relative stability of air-water delta relationships and their (linear) impact on radiator performance may no longer be true at such extremes.
[Edit: Been running some simulations with the flow calculator. It seems that the difference between 25C and 85C water is enough at 5LPM flow rates to conceptually alter whether or not the water is flowing in a laminar or turbulent flow fashion, depending on the tubing shape. It is actually quite a real possibility that one design may benefit in a significant fashion from dramatically higher water temperatures while another does not.]
Thank you, broadening my horizon once again.. Considering air and water viscosity and the flattening performance gain profiles of radiators with increased water and air flow, high temperature tests seems to favor restrictive designs more.
Good to know principle goes beyond knee-jerk responses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marci
But according to your numbers, are the Koolance figures accurate or not? Cathar alluded to a lack of accuracy.
We certainly see discrepancies from our end.
First off...I would like to say as an "aspiring Liquid-cooler" I found most of this discussion to be both thought-provoking as well as educational. Notwithstanding the lessons in thermal capacitance and fluid dynamics there was a fair amount of information parsed out throughout the dialogue. (Though the flaming of even the most ignorant statements still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth...though that could be the gin).
The active participation of mfg reps and cathars candid and extremely well researched input is not only welcomed, but comforting in the sense that their are knowledgeable assets merely a few keystrokes away.
The one thing that I have found lacking, however, is the absence of any commitment to "pc suitable" benchmarks and/or trials. I feel that HWlabs, Marci, Cathar are missing an opportunity to eradicate erroneous claims with empirical data. Perhaps something is in the works, I will most certainly be watching this thread with anticipation.
In the end, I would just like to thank all active participants in this lively discussion as it has proved both stimulating and educational (if not entertaining)
All this talk, and so little information...
(Hi Cathar and Marci, long time!)
I think everyone understands that the results are skewed. The problem, as I see it, is that the average Joe could infer that, if the performance at one set of parameters shows one product as being superior, then it must retain its superiority under "slightly" different parameters.
Which we know is false, but only a rare few understand why.
I've done a fair amount of work in water block design (theory) and have been following radiator design, because a lot of the principles are very much the same (just in a different order).
So here's my attempt at an explanation, and hopefully this can be complemented by our other "rare few" members:
First, what we start with:
Testing air flow: 330 cfm
Testing coolant flow: 5 lpm, 10 lpm
Testing air temp: 25 C
Testing water temp: 85 C
Then, what would be ideal:
Desired air flow: 80 cfm
Desired coolant flow: 5 lpm
Desired air temp: 25 C
Desired water temp: 30 C
In short, a quarter of the airflow, and a much lower water temperature.
So first, we break down the radiator function into two components, then focus on the elements that make a difference, for the purposes of identifying the testing flaw.
1) Heat transfer from the coolant, to the radiator.
2) Heat transfer from the radiator, into the airflow.
In 1 and 2, I'll define the variables as:
a) flow rate
b) flow geometry
c) flow turbulence
d) temperature
e) surface area
f) surface area effectiveness
I believe that the core of the flaw in the tests reside in item f, so I'll expand: while it's always desirable in a heatsink to have large and plentiful fins, it does not mean that infinitely long fins add any significant cooling, as the variable I've dubbed "surface area effectiveness" depends on d: temperature, or more specifically, how the temperature differs, between the mass of the fin, and the air flow. In other words, you're not going to transfer a lot of heat from a mass (fin) to the air, when the temperature is just about the same.
To make this clear, I'll exagerate: if you were running a heatsink on a CPU, it would dissipate just about as much heat, as it would if the fins were insanely long, like 1 meter/3 feet (fan aside). Why? Because *most* of the heat will still be dissipated at the bottom of the fins, regardless of how long they actually are, unless of course, the original heatsink is poorly designed, with fins that are too short.
The fins on a heatsink, correspond to the fins in a radiator. In a compact design, like the Black Ice and Thermochill units, the "fin length" is just right for the intended purpose. The Koolance is actually larger than it needs to be, for water cooling (but that's ok, because longer fins won't have much impact, other than ending up with a larger radiator than needed).
Now we put the same water cooling rads through a testing sequence, where the coolant temperature is too high, and what do we have? A huge difference. Why? As I mentionned above, a heatsink is considered poorly designed when the fins are too short. When you test a water cooling radiator under automotive conditions, you end up with the same "poorly designed" heatsink: the Thermochill and Black Ice unit's fins (and fin effectiveness) are too short, and are overwhelmed, as any poor designed heatsink would be.
The "correct" conclusion from Koolance's testing is:
-The Black Ice and Thermochill radiators make poor automotive heatercores.
And that's why Koolance's contracted testing is irrelevant.
I wouldn't even go on to say that Koolance's testing was accurate.
There is simply very little sense when you consider higher air and waterside pressure drops are yielding over 50% more thermal capacity with a heat exhanger of the same size. No heat transfer engineer would stake their reputation here let alone have such results freely released into public domain.
I guess there might be a reason for the notation regarding the limitations of the usage of the said certification.
Koolance radiators are supplied to them by a manufacturer whom they do not control. They also have a track record of mistranslating results and misrepresenting them for the sheer purpose of depracating their competitors.
In theory, the shorter the fins the more efficient the fin, as the temp delta from the tube to the center of the fin, i.e. the conduction of heat is more efficient given the relatively shorter distance the heat has to travel. Having more material in this respect tends to only make a costlier and less efficient unit. The only problem with having shorter fins is that you end up having more tubes that reduce the overall frontal heat transfer surface area and cause higher air pressure drop. So one would need to introduce a more aerodynamic tube geometry.
At best, what we can see here is a clear obfuscation of facts. Koolance's rebuttals are nitpicking at worst and dismissive at best. Previously they claimed that oxidation on brass/copper radiators retarded performance, now they are completely ignoring that assertion but instead maliciously insinuating naturally occurring oxidation is a manufacturing anomaly.
The tests they conducted are in no way shape or form representative of the application they intend to address and their presentation of inapplicable data, pending verification, are just as misleading.
It's really frustrating, I know.
Some of the statements advanced by Koolance are completely wrong (read false), such as the glue (which is more obvious), then the oxidation of copper (not so obvious until properly refuted). In fact, they're so wrong... that it leads me to think that Koolance is not just clueless, but intentionally trying to deceive people, and that's *not* "K"ool. Where's the effort of honesty?
I most appreciated HWLabs reply, in which I learned the practical thickness of copper versus aluminium, when designing a rad; this is the kind of information that shows that you guys *really* know what you're talking about.
I believe that my explanation above (while simplistic) does cover why the results are off: the Koolance can handle a larger heat load, that's what it was originally designed to do, while the other rads tested came up short, because they were overwhelmed by the testing conditions, which had nothing to do with water cooling.
I've been getting ready to do some rad testing myself, but hit a wall with the flow nozzles, used to measure air flow with accuracy, as they cost 300 to 600 USD. Otherwise anyone can put together a test rig, with a couple of 55 gallon drums; it's really not hard. The sensors do have to be configured correctly, and it does look like (at first hand) that Katech is doing an OK job there (but somehow messed up the hydraulic measurements - liquid side): I noted the proper placement of the temperature probes, but also that they appeared to be RTD elements, which have a slow response time; ok under steady temperature testing, but won't be able to track temperature fluctuations in any kind of usefull way. So Katech would be logging the temperature readings, and performing an average. I would have opted for small thermocouples, ones with a low mass, so that temperature fluctuations could be monitored.
There's also no effort to control the inlet air temperature, which would be expected for heatercore testing: the inlet air temperature fluctuations would have a negligeable effect on the deltaT (i.e. coolant to air temperature difference). I.e. a couple of degrees on a difference of 60 degrees is a 3% error margin (negligeable). In water cooling, 2 degrees on a deltaT of 5 degrees, is a 40% error margin (unacceptable, useless). [note that I'm not stating that Katech testing is 3% accurate: their accuracy is a lot lower than that, when the whole testing rig is considered].
In water cooling, the inlet air temp has to be controlled. Since Katech does not have air temperature controlled, they do not have the capability of testing rads for water cooling.
[for the benefit of everyone]
The process of controlling an air temperature is actually a lot more complicated than it seems. When I looked into this, and thanks to much information from Bill Adams, I originally thought that it would be possible to use an ambient air supply of ~20 deg C, and heat it up to 25 deg C, in a steady way, but I turned out to be wrong; no combination of fast-acting temperature sensor, and heating element can actually achieve this.
Instead, the air has to be first cooled, to create a large enough delta T to be registered by a temperature probe, then re-heated to the desired temperature. The cooling portion would ideally cool the air, by a factor of three, over the device being tested. In other words, if I'm testing a radiator that's going to dissipate 200 Watts, I have to apply 600 Watts of cooling power (done through phase change, aka "refrigerator"), then re-heated (proportionally) by, in this particular example, 400 Watts, in a tightly controlled manner (a good temperature controller, or computer).
One then simply has to put a radiator, with the usual combo of fans inside the chamber, and route the coolant hoses out, where the coolant temperature is controlled, in exactly the same way (cooled, then control-heated).
Bill's done it with a modified incubator. I've drafted plans to do it, building my own environmental chamber. I lack the resources to complete it at this time, but I still gnaw at it, when I can. The power usage is just astonishing, and remains a problem that I have yet to get around. What I did resolve, is making sure that the heat that my proposed rig generates, doesn't flood the room: it's going out the window :cool: .
Ben, I'm tending to lean to being in agreement with hwlabs on this one.
I'm in two minds about dismissing results without knowing the full details of the test procedure. As I highlighted with the water temperature and its effect on viscosity, the liquid flow resistance through the radiators at 5LPM, with 85C water, should be around 1/3 of what it is at ~25-30C. Instead we have liquid flow resistance values that are >6x that of measured values from other tests, and that's not even factoring in the decreased liquid resistance from the temperatures. We're talking liquid flow resistances of 15-20x of that which we'd expect.
Now we get to ventilation (air-flow) resistance. The tests would indicate that GTStealth and Thermochill radiators are of similar air-flow resistance. Now, without making any judgement as to the validity of the different design approaches clearly taken between HWLabs/TC, if anyone has ever seen the two radiators side-by-side, it's pretty obvious that the PA rads have focused on the lowest possible ventilation resistance and attempting to scavenge what heat it possible from an increased air-flow, while the GTStealth approach is to scavenge the maximum heat possible from a decreased air-flow. Truly, I am not trying to make a statement here on which is better, just that it's obvious that's the respective approaches taken. One does less with more air, the other does more with less air.
Running through an air-flow resistance calculator, which has proven to be fairly accurate for me in history thus far, if not from an absolutely correct standpoint, then at least from a relative standpoint. Calculating all the parameters for each radiator design, I arrive at the following:
GTS240 @ 320cfm => 335Pa air-flow resistance
PA120.2 @ 320cfm => 84Pa air-flow resistance
Once again, I'm not trying to state which is better. There are pluses/minuses to each approach. What I am trying to point out is the obvious discrepancies between the obvious structural differences, the measured (I know for a fact that the PA120.2 is one of the least air-flow restrictive rads on the market by a long measure), the theoretical, and then ultimately we have Koolance's results, which simply don't make sense.
Ben, I don't even want to begin to speculate on the design reasons for radiators on the basis of Koolance's test results. They are simply too incongruous to even begin to have faith that they truly represent what is going on, much less attempt to draw conclusions on the results.
Right; there are many design variations possible in radiators, each optimized for one variable or another. You know what radiators are about. [I didn't even consider water viscosity, because I never had to, until now].
Koolance is wrong on so many levels, it's not even funny. On one side, there's the marketing PR, and on the other there's the flawed technical info. I'm not a people-person, so I'm not going to venture an opinion on why Koolance is doing this, but I will gladly take on the technical innacuracies.
I just want to make sure that people can understand why the results posted cannot be interpreted as being applicable, under different conditions. In simpler terms, I want it to be known that the test results posted are no indication of how any of the radiators would perform for water cooling.
Of course it's obvious when one can demonstrate the difference under the proper test conditions, but only a few people have the ability to do that.
85 deg C would be the typical coolant temperature for my car. If my PC had an 85 deg C coolant temperature, I'd expect my CPU to suffer terminal heat damage, or throttle to a crawl.
If Koolance can use different testing conditions, then lets see some tests with ridiculous figures: 125 deg C coolant temperature (oil would have to be used), and 600 cfm airflow: that should make Koolance "The Supreme King of the Hill"...
It would be interesting to speculate on the automotive application their rad would match.
It seems small for most engine rads, although possibly not motorcycle. Could it be an ancillary cooler, oil or transmission?
It's a heatercore: the internal radiator of a car, designed to keep the cabin warm, in winter.
hey ben, can I have my swissflow?
Of course! ;) PM me your addy; I'll get it back to you. Sorry I couldn't get my rig together in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer
your rig? I know a long time ago you mentioned that you were going to attempt to calibrate the swissflows with your mag flow meter. Did that ever happen?
I was going to compare it with my turbine flow meter; I don't have a mag flow meter. In fact, I've had a hard time even finding a mag flow meter that works at low flow rates. You have PM.
Ben, just to be clear, the more that I, and it appears HWLabs as well, look into this, the more we're both feeling that the results might not even be valid, even for the testing conditions given.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBen2k
Then we have Marci pointing out the legal disclaimers attached to the results, which basically in a short-term summary says that the results cannot be trusted to be accurate for legal purposes, and perhaps even more telling, should not be used for advertising purposes. Heck, you've got to be asking questions as to the validity of results when the tester is basically saying that they don't want to have their name or reputation publically associated with the results.
Normally when independent people test stuff, they're quite happy to state that they stand by their results and believe them to be accurate within the best of their ability. Quite unusual for an independent tester to put a disclaimer in that effectively invalidates the veracity of the results.
Just a funny obvious thought that we missed out in all this brouhaha...
WIth a 350 cfm fan, why would you even need watercooling? :rofl:
Very true..:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by hwlabs
Testing done in Korea, by The "Korean Automotive Technology Institute". Honestly, I don't even know who they are. For all I know, this is a school, and a bunch of students did this work, dirt cheap.
http://www.katech.re.kr/eng/index.asp
They have a pretty website. :D Note how there is no reference to radiator testing, in their listed testing capabilities; it's all engine related, but they couldn't have this testing facility for nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_U..._and_Education
shows a cooperative agreement with the Korea University of Technology and Education .
Another collaboration, with DFR:
http://www.dfrsolutions.com/newslett...Newsletter.pdf
The disclaimer is unusual.
Granted that the viscosity effect wasn't considered. Granted that the pressure measurements could be off. I'm not convinced that Katech even knew what they were testing. Either way, dissipating 6 to 9 kW isn't anything like dissipating 200 Watts, so we're already passed the point of determining wether or not the data has any value (it doesn't).
I don't have any experience dealing with Asian companies, but I would expect it to be hard to get them to do something, unless you pay them a hefty fee, and I seriously doubt that Koolance forked over a lot of money for this. It's woefully inadequate information, but if it was free/cheap, and Koolance could get it, I wouldn't be surprised to see them making an effort to make it public. I'm leaning towards Koolance coming across this data, as it was volunteered by their supplier: note the name of the "applicant" (Park Jae-Sung) is Korean, not American. Unfortunately, this is the kind of background information that we never find out about, but would be oh so revealing. Why Koolance would go through the effort of defending this information is puzzling.
Just wanted to through in some links. This discussion has been going on for years:
The aluminum bias:
http://www.stockcarproducts.com/rad2.htm (mainly geared towards large radiators)
The copper bias:
http://www.usradiator.com/testing.htm
http://www.copper.org/applications/a...clability.html
And not the only ones who have been arguing over this question:
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=61247&page=7 ( from some years back)
http://forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/247182 ( present argument, even brought koolance into it)
.....
All mighty confusing, but I think I will go with the real world tests. I'll be sticking with the copper until I get some actual (installed in a system) tests done using copper rad vs aluminum rad of the same size.
Dateranoth
If anyone wants to buy the Koolance radiator separately, for testing purposes, it can be done so here:
http://www.koolance.com/shop/product...roducts_id=241
Interesting. Plugged in the Koolance specs into the air-flow resistance calculator, and actually arrive at a value consistent (within 3%) of what is stated for their radiator. For the PA/GTS, the calculated values and the reported values disagree by a huge amount.
OK. Got them now. They're lying, unless they've managed to change the laws of physics.
Their results are impossible.
Air @ 25C has a density of 1.169kg/m³
Air has a specific heat capacity of 1012J/kgC
Air therefore has a thermal capacity of 1.169 x 1012 = 1183 J/m³C
Air-flow through their radiator is 5m/s, with an orifice area of 0.13m x 0.24m
That's 5 x 0.13 x 0.24 = 0.156m³/s
Therefore, the thermal resistance of the air-flow is:
0.156 m³/s x 1183 J/m³C = 184.55 J/sC
A Watt is a Joule/sec
Therefore the thermal resistance of the air is 185.55 W/C, or inverting, a C/W of 0.0054186
i.e. for each watt of heat energy dissipated into the air, the air will warm up by 0.0054186C
Koolance claim a heat dissipation of 9.62kW, or 9620W
9620 x 0.0054186 = 52.13C
i.e. to dissipate that amount of heat, the air MUST have risen by 52.13C above the inlet air temperature.
So the exhaust air MUST be 24.46 + 52.13 = 76.59C
This is basic thermal physics here.
Here's the crunch part. Their results claim that the water discharge temperature is 56.20C
i.e. In a total breakdown of the laws of thermodynamics, the water discharge temperature has somehow managed to exit the radiator at 20C less than the air discharge temperature.
THAT is impossible.
Cathar, are you are basing the reported values indicated on the KATECH documentation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
Looking at their radiator, it appears that the tubes would themselves be obstructing airflow to a certain degree.
http://www.koolance.com/shop/images/hte-nx004p_02.jpg
Nice work Cathar. As an engineering grad, I love it when math/physics is used to prove/disprove a statement of fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
Provided your math is correct, I'd love to see Koolance and their fanboys weasel out of this one. Spin as they may on the testing conditions & the application of those results towards PC watercooling, falsifying data is as unethical as it gets.
It's all irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by hwlabs
Check this post if you haven't seen it already.
Either they're completely lying, or the test is completely invalid. They can choose which, and then decide how they might best like to withdraw their false claims.
I reckon this deserves to be on this page. Bumped up the page count with my reply above.
Let me digest this for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
So, the question is in what regards. Is it a complete lie or just an exaggeration? Guess it doesn't really matter :) .
Using the formula you used. If you bump the air flow up to 10m/sec the exhaust air would have to be 50.5. So, is it possible they posted results from a higher air flow rate? ( that is if I did my math properly.)
Dateranoth
Does anyone see the AirOut tempt or at least the dT of AirIn to AirOut on the KATECH report?
That would be consistent with the results. Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dateranoth
It's not our place to speculate what is really going on, suffice to say that the results as presented are not possible.
Agreed :) Its a shame that it comes to these tactics though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
Dateranoth
Looking through their results in the PDF
@ 3m/s air-flow, & 5LPM flow rate
Water-in = 84.86C
Water-out = 58.55C
Air-in = 24.59C
Dissipation = 8860kW
Munch the maths, and the exhaust air-temperature mus be 105.56C
i.e. the air would have magically heated up to >20C above the water-inlet temperature.
@ 5m/s air-flow, & 10LPM flow rate
Water-in = 84.14C
Water-out = 63.89C
Air-in = 24.28C
Dissipation = 13760kW
Exhaust air-temp must be: 99.73C. i.e. Exhaust air, by all existing physics on the known thermal properties of air, is now magically 15C above the water inlet temperature.
Cathar to the rescue, as always. Awesome stuff. :)
All things aside, I was thinking of another variable that might need to be considered in terms of why the results are impossible: mistranslation. Surely if the test was done in Korea, then test results were published in Korean and then translated. Maybe there was a mix up in the translation.
I don't believe that. That PDF is a scanned document with stated units of measurement on it, which are international engineering standards regardless of what language the operators are, with original signatures. Koolance, in scanning the original document, are no doubt trying to demonstrate that the results are exactly as received in the report from KATECH.Quote:
Originally Posted by DepTi
Edit: I personally think it's far more likely that they're going to try to claim operator error by some junior employee as a result of the fallout on this.
Ooooh I didn't notice that :) (eh I didn't even look through the PDF lol, I just saw that the water was 84C or something and the 9kw and 5kw figures, which brings us to a 50something C water discharge temp)
Hi Willy - (am assuming that's you?) - Monday morning arrives and the blurry goggles of Mr J.Daniels have now worn off... (cor what a weekend... my wallet's lost a HELL of a lot of weight... TT Highlights, then British Superbikes, then F1 forcing me to spend the entire weekend on the sofa with a bottle or three, a glass, and all phones unplugged - the heartburn may take a while to subside - should start drinkin' it with milk!)Quote:
But according to your numbers, are the Koolance figures accurate or not? Cathar alluded to a lack of accuracy.
We certainly see discrepancies from our end.
Yes, discrepancies in abundance without clear definitions of the "how". Have amended my original statement once more... however, were any of OUR figures (ie: Yours and ThermoChills) produced by an identical testrig to Koolance's - or indeed, anything remotely similar? I'm willing to accept that a testrig of such a relatively huge scale will produce unseen data that will conflict with that gained from the methods we employ, so looking ONLY at their data, I have no hard reason to question it's accuracy due to it's irrelevance, and it's internal accuracy is only relevant under those conditions on that specific testrig (if you get what I'm aiming at... the eyes aren't blurry, but the head still may be).
We've always said data produced on different rigs cannot be compared directly for such reasons, altho previously the differences between two rigs have never been exemplified in such a vast manner...
Could really do with BillA making a brief reappearance to add in his thoughts on the matter, as he is our "tester of choice" and would be able to comment on the differences in hardware and methodology that may account for such differences... altho even he may struggle to explain why laws of physics are being mysteriously warped as they pass thru the Katech continuum.
Brass that we use is 151W/m-C (87.23k). That's 85%Cu, 15%Zn - specific heat of 380J/kg-CQuote:
Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer
barometric pressure (mA) and relative humidity are both measured and accounted for in testing done by BillA... just not noted on the published graphs as the relevance of such to the enduser is minimal.Quote:
Originally Posted by V2-V3
David's (Rosco) summation - http://www.google.com/translate?u=ht...&hl=en&ie=UTF8
Okay, I'm going to have to withdraw this statement, as it's false. I had heard it a long time ago, and always believed it. Someone wrote to me an asked me to prove it. I broke it down to first principles and established a logical progression sequence of water molecules travelling top-to-bottom on a 2D plane, and air-molecules travelling from side-to-side acrosss the 2D plane, and then constructed some software to simulate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
It turns out that it's quite possible for the average exhuast air-temperature to asymptote towards the water inlet temperature, while the water discharge temperature is significantly less than the average exhuast air-temperature. The disparate thermal capacities of the two mediums means that the water molecules that the air first strikes (i.e. at the entrance of a radiator) can transfer so much heat that the air warms up to pretty close to the water inlet temperature by the time it reaches the exit of the radiator, and so while the water molecules at the front air-entrance-side of the radiator are being cooled, those at the air-exhaust-side are barely being cooled at all 'cos the air has already heated up. In this way, it's possible for the air exhaust temp to approach the water inlet temp, while the water discharge temp may be less.
It is (of course) impossible for the air-temperature to ever be more than the water-inlet temperature though. So the proof that they are defying the laws of physics still holds true based upon the analysis in this post.
i.e. What they're claiming is still impossible for various of their data points, just that the singular data point that I first pointed out is theoretically possible.
My apologies for the confusion.
I was leaning towards air air leak myself, until some posted that the numbers corrolate with 10m/s.
It's easy to mess up the mount of the core, at the other end of the blower, in a test rig like that. The pictures don't inspire any confidence, for me, on that point.
i think they had too much sangrea and just made it all up to make koolance look like lemons *nods*
Isn't that guy a certain called [FLOW] ? Ten hours ago, he showed me your replies here in commentaries on CM and I explained him exactly what you are talking about because I saw that lack in your explanations. I checked directly their values too into Excel to see if any aberration could be possible because of their results. Calculations are good but a bit too simplistic face to reality, it's only an average energetic equivalence from water to air, but reality is slighty different like on my quick drawing below (I let you imagine the more complex 3D repartition of the exhaust air temperature field for a 2-pass rad). But as you said rightly, the mean calculated T° is enough to make some preliminary assumptions, but for the Koolance rad, these values are effectively strange when we compare them to inlet water T°. The average exhaust air temperature value is already above the max temperature possible (other values for TC & Hwlabs are physically possible, I saw no problem IIRC). Max exhaust air T° can't never be above water T° at inlet, it will be anti thermodynamical, you'll create a blackhole lol :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
OMG koolance can create black holes! wewt!Quote:
Originally Posted by rosco
Don't know a FLOW guy. People use different names all over the place online. Might have been?
Yes, Rosco, the diagram that you just drew is pretty much exactly what I just modelled in software. As air-flow is increased, it's far less likely for the air to get close to the water temperature. It all depends on the relative thermal capacities of the air-flow and liquid-flow, and the shape of the 2D array. It's a very complex arrangement.
The simplified maths are enough, however, to show that the average of the air-discharge temperature is above the water inlet temperature, and that cannot ever be possible.
Agreed. I also computed for HWLabs and Thermochill, and all those results are possible. Also computed for the water temp deltas matched to the flow rate and claimed heat dissipation, and found that for all radiators that the results are in alignment.
It's just once we consider the air-flow aspects is where we find discrepancies.
It is possible, I guess, that the air-speed meter is wrong, and the air-flow is even much higher than what we've calculated. ie. in the order of 600cfm or so, instead of 330cfm, when they're talking about 5m/s air velocities. That 5m/s might be totally wrong, or may be being measured at a different point within a larger chamber?
The problem with that though is that the air-pressure drops across the radiators then make absolutely no sense. It is, as if, the air-flow was a lot ligher (>600cfm) and there were air-flow leaks meaning that a lot of air-flow was bypassing the Thermochill & HWLabs radiators. Then it'd make sense. The only problem with that though is that at 600cfm, the ventilation resistance for the Koolance radiator doesn't make any sense at all.
Then again, that might be explained by a faulty air-pressure sensor, and that, coupled with a faulty air-speed calculation, coupled with faulty/leaky mounts of the radiators, would then explain how the results were arrived at. In which case, there's so many systemic errors that the results are totally invalid anyway.
No matter how you draw the bow, the results are rubbish.
guys why dont we ask petra or billa to make tests about this issue... i liked the way petra did test for all the pumps and alex is a honest guy and im sure their test will be valid and bias free
i see the koolance response as a joke and a stunt to make them look like the best radiators out there.
Yes but which one, is the question?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBen2k
It's just that such a miracle device should instantly be the answer to our energy needs.
It's not a cooler, it's the worlds best heater.
lately you have been the comical relief of everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
just sayin'