Yeah, the only problem with flow rate performance relations is as Cathar pointed out
here that it ignores pressure drop.
If you compared two C/W curves of a restrictive block to one that's not restrictive it would "Appear" the more restrictive block is better. When it's entirely possible that the lower restriction block nets much higher flow rates and actually performs better.
In the end Cathar's solution was a dT curve relative to pumping power, but that still requires alot of work.
Scott has brought to light the importance of multiple mounting and I can't thank him enough for setting the example there, it really helps tighten up the results.
I'm just afraid it all get way too complex and time consuming to also capture flow rate effects and I'm not entirely sure it would come across as something that easy to understand.
I think ideally a test would capture 5 mounts minimum and two pumping systems. Perhaps one "Average" pumping system like a D5/DDC etc, then one "High Performance" pumping system like an RD-30 or dual D5/DDC's etc.
The only non-commercial thermal test that incorporated flow rate effects was vkbms on his fuzion nozzle testing here.
http://www.nexthardware.com/focus/scheda/80_701.htm
I thought it was a great example. The only problem I'm having is measuring that level of accuracy. With 5 mounts I'm still at best only accurate to .2C, and it makes me wonder if part of that error is TAT itself or the internal diodes measureing core temperatures. He measured good gains clear down to the smallest nozzle, yet when I tried to measure gains on the 4.5mm nozzles vs stock on V2...I couldn't do it..
So either actual core temperatures can't be simulated using exterior probes, or the internals sensors just arn't that good..
I don't know. I think using and actual processor and heat signature from that processor is probably the best thing to do, but I'm really tempted to build a die simulator for another means to compare.