Enzotech-LUNA CPU waterblock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElMoIsEviL

So Waterlogged.. where are your results for the Luna that you say you tested and that others are referencing? I asked for them like 2 pages ago. Please, post them.

---

Please show me where I stated that I tested the Luna? I don't not have, nor will I be getting a Luna. Until this post, you have not directed a single question at me, they were all aimed at mcoffey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidzo

Wrong. RPMs on the DDC do fluctuate! Its due to the nature of the ddc, being a microcontroller driven pump with a hallsensor, that rpm vary! Its somewhat comparable to microcontrollers of the better (3-phase) fans. Their rpms fluctuate too depending on the backpressure u have.
Its only eheim pumps with only two phases, that sometimes use a fixed frequency, but usually the more advanced 12V versions of these pumps use a hallsensor too.

The Hallsensor inside the DDC is what drives the microcontroller and the current on each phase, it is perfectly accurate. And this Hallsensor is what is read by the Aquacomputer poweradjust, its as precise as it can be.
So dont tell me a swissflow or other flowmeter is more precise. After all they are just flow measuring tools with a lot of inaccuracy, whereas the poweradjust shows the actual rpm of the pump.

---

Did you see the video in the link at the bottom of page 7? Is there something wrong with my testing methodology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElMoIsEviL

He might not know what a hallsensor is therefore it's best to show it in an image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ensor_tach.gif

This is turning into a pissing match though. All in all Malik's testing methods were perfect. Anyone claiming a flow meter to be more accurate than a hallsensor needs to go back to engineering school.

It is possible though, that since the GTZ seems to be more restrictive, that there was a lack of flow in the loop to allow it to operate properly. This has been mentioned before. The only other possibility is that the Luna is a better block than the GTZ.

Now all I want is to see waterlogged's data everyone keeps talking about but which I can't find anywhere. this would help greatly in concluding this absurd pissing match affair.

---

Thanks for thinking I'm stupid. I know what a Hall Effect sensor is as I had one on an after market GM ignition system I purchased for my Buick V6 back in the early 90's.

Perfect?...How can you say running a DDC3.2 @ 75% of full power is a perfect test? The GTZ needs lots of pressure (second only to the Supreme for current gen blocks) to function properly, you will only get that pressure running at full power. The Luna also has 3 inserts that can choose to use or leave out thereby adjusting the restrictiveness of the block. The fact that the RPM's don't match or are even close in the tests is a clear indicator that something is amiss. Anyone that has seen the results and testing methodology of a valid test will say that this test is far from a valid test, the numbers just don't add up.


Nice doing business with y'all, y'all come back again now, ya hear. :wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

Please show me where I stated that I tested the Luna? I don't not have, nor will I be getting a Luna. Until this post, you have not directed a single question at me, they were all aimed at mcoffey.



Did you see the video in the link at the bottom of page 7? Is there something wrong with my testing methodology?



Thanks for thinking I'm stupid. I know what a Hall Effect sensor is as I had one on an after market GM ignition system I purchased for my Buick V6 back in the early 90's.

Perfect?...How can you say running a DDC3.2 @ 75% of full power is a perfect test? The GTZ needs lots of pressure (second only to the Supreme for current gen blocks) to function properly, you will only get that pressure running at full power. The Luna also has 3 inserts that can choose to use or leave out thereby adjusting the restrictiveness of the block. The fact that the RPM's don't match or are even close in the tests is a clear indicator that something is amiss. Anyone that has seen the results and testing methodology of a valid test will say that this test is far from a valid test, the numbers just don't add up.


Nice doing business with y'all, y'all come back again now, ya hear. :wave:

---

And the pissing match begins.

I'm sorry sir but you are wrong. Not on your observation of the pump power bur rather your inability to comprehend that the lower RPMs are accounted for by the higher restriction. The more restriction the more pressure is applied on the pump. It's quite obvious and even your post above states that the GTZ needs more head pressure in order to perform it's best (only second to the EK Supreme).

Now let's look at this logically. If the RPMs are lower when the GTZ is in use yet the power pushed to the pump is the same than one can conclude that the restriction of the GTZ is likely responsible for the lower RPMs.

One would likely not see this in a single block loop but Malik is using multiple blocks and some of them (Bitspower) tend to be highly restrictive.

MCoffey stated this: "Well around here, if you're good and kind enough to share your results, then you're good and kind enough to answer questions or debate the results. I don't believe anyone called anyone a liar. WL ran his own pump test and came up with a different result than Malik, so he posted his question because the two results differ."

So which one of you two tested this block with a similar pump? He says you did and you say he did.

?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElMoIsEviL

And the pissing match begins.

I'm sorry sir but you are wrong. Not on your observation of the pump power bur rather your inability to comprehend that the lower RPMs are accounted for by the higher restriction. The more restriction the more pressure is applied on the pump. It's quite obvious and even your post above states that the GTZ needs more head pressure in order to perform it's best (only second to the EK Supreme).

Now let's look at this logically. If the RPMs are lower when the GTZ is in use yet the power pushed to the pump is the same than one can conclude that the restriction of the GTZ is likely responsible for the lower RPMs.

One would likely not see this in a single block loop but Malik is using multiple blocks and some of them (Bitspower) tend to be highly restrictive.

MCoffey stated this: "Well around here, if you're good and kind enough to share your results, then you're good and kind enough to answer questions or debate the results. I don't believe anyone called anyone a liar. WL ran his own pump test and came up with a different result than Malik, so he posted his question because the two results differ."

So which one of you two tested this block with a similar pump than? He says you did and you say he did.

?!

---

Watch the video in the link at the bottom of page 7. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElMoIsEviL

I'm sorry sir but you are wrong. Not on your observation of the pump power bur rather your inability to comprehend that the lower RPMs are accounted for by the higher restriction. The more restriction the more pressure is applied on the pump. It's quite obvious and even your post above states that the GTZ needs more head pressure in order to perform it's best (only second to the EK Supreme).

---

ya'know, EiE, you really should take a serious look at his testing. ;)

edit: I shoulda' known WL would beat me to it :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warriorpoet

ya'know, EiE, you really should take a serious look at his testing. ;)

edit: I shoulda' known WL would beat me to it :D

---

I don't believe his testing..:)

Try this... apply restriction on both ends.

Inlet and Outlet.

Your test only applies it to the outlet. Malik's loop contains a closed loop applying restrictions on both ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElMoIsEviL

I don't believe his testing..:)

Try this... apply restriction on both ends.

Inlet and Outlet.

Your test only applies it to the outlet. Malik's loop contains a closed loop applying restrictions on both ends.

---

You know, Malik uses a res as well ;)...and how is my loop not closed? Actually, I questioned that myself before I ever did the video and got the same results.

I'll be more than happy to do as you request, it's gonna take me some time though as I'm gearing the test loop up to retrieve more data. I'll do it at that time. :up:

When I changed from a FuZion v1 to the GTZ my rpm's increased by about 150-190 rpm with my DDC-2 pump. Same pump, same loop, same 12vdc power, just different CPU blocks.

It is almost like a little "freq drive" sensing "back emf" to increase pump speed under load. :)

How about this test:
http://img1.abload.de/img/cpu-wassera0kh.jpg
http://img1.abload.de/img/durchflussx8mo.jpg
http://74.125.43.102/translate_c?hl=...si8sma9CW2U1Wg

Wow. My DDC 3.2 only runs at 2033 RPM as reported by SpeedFan.
But if I squeeze the tubing, the RPM will go up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

When I changed from a FuZion v1 to the GTZ my rpm's increased by about 150-190 rpm with my DDC-2 pump. Same pump, same loop, same 12vdc power, just different CPU blocks.

It is almost like a little "freq drive" sensing "back emf" to increase pump speed under load. :)

---

Yep, that's exactly how my DDC-2 works as well. The DDC3.x however got a radical circuit re-design that prohibits this from happening to that extent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Migi06

How about this test:
http://img1.abload.de/img/cpu-wassera0kh.jpg
http://img1.abload.de/img/durchflussx8mo.jpg
http://74.125.43.102/translate_c?hl=...si8sma9CW2U1Wg

---

Bundy does not test CPU only loops which you really need for medium to high restriction blocks like the GTZ, Supreme. He has decent testing equipment and gets the most out of it. The only piece of equipment I don't like is the MO-Ra 2, it's a condenser type heat exchanger that is inefficient and it has more turns than Nürburgring which is bad for flow. His tests do show what the end user will roughly get if they decide to use that particular hardware though. Around here, when a test is done for a block, the only block in the loop should be the one being tested, this gives you uncorrupted data on that block. You don't have to worry that some other block has dropped the flow to a point that has possibly affected the results negitively. Most ppl that are worried about every last will degree have 2 separate loops for this very reason and value the single block only reviews greatly. Here's Martin's last test with 16 CPU blocks, note how the temp results are very different for the Supreme and OCZ from Bundy's, the gap between them is much wider in Martin's. This is because he had enough pressure to sustain a proper flow rate for the Supreme whereas the OCZ doesn't benefit as much from pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehnsucht

Wow. My DDC 3.2 only runs at 2033 RPM as reported by SpeedFan.
But if I squeeze the tubing, the RPM will go up.

---

By how much?

If you can provide some other means to verify this, I'd be happy to hear what you think might be wrong with my test in the video. All the evidence I have, which as also been backed up by twwen, says that there may be a slight jump in RPM's of the DDC 3.x (30 or so RPM's), but not the kind of jump you'll see in a DDC-2 with the same amount of restriction applied.

Probably not helping anything here but in my loop (PA120.3, 2x MCW60, EX58-EXTERME NB block, LUNA-type prototype, MCP655@1, 3/8" Primoflex, 3/8 perfect seals, BP compressions & 1/2" high flows) the "Luna" style block (can't talk about it) outperforms the APOGEE GTZ on my 4GHz Core i7 920 by a degree or two depending on the core under load. Ambients were somewhat controlled, but not entirely, but I'm confident enough to call them competitive with each other within margin of error.

Again a low flow loop though.

The fact that you can't get any high flow dedicated CPU loop testing done might indicate how many people actually do that (in the grand scheme of things... Not just here at XS).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linus@ncix

Probably not helping anything here but in my loop (PA120.3, 2x MCW60, EX58-EXTERME NB block, LUNA-type prototype, MCP655@1, 3/8" Primoflex, 3/8 perfect seals, BP compressions & 1/2" high flows) the "Luna" style block (can't talk about it) outperforms the APOGEE GTZ on my 4GHz Core i7 920 by a degree or two depending on the core under load. Ambients were somewhat controlled, but not entirely, but I'm confident enough to call them competitive with each other within margin of error.

Again a low flow loop though.

The fact that you can't get any high flow dedicated CPU loop testing done might indicate how many people actually do that (in the grand scheme of things... Not just here at XS).

---

You are such a tease. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

By how much?

If you can provide some other means to verify this, I'd be happy to hear what you think might be wrong with my test in the video. All the evidence I have, which as also been backed up by twwen, says that there may be a slight jump in RPM's of the DDC 3.x (30 or so RPM's), but not the kind of jump you'll see in a DDC-2 with the same amount of restriction applied.

---

Ahh nono, don't take it that way, I watched your video and I concur with your findings. I tested another program to read the RPM and it didn't fluctuate as bad as it did with speedfan. It didn't really budge. But I don't understand how you can have 4000 RPM while I only have a little more than 2k...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehnsucht

Ahh nono, don't take it that way, I watched your video and I concur with your findings. I tested another program to read the RPM and it didn't fluctuate as bad as it did with speedfan. It didn't really budge. But I don't understand how you can have 4000 RPM while I only have a little more than 2k...

---

Mine runs around 4300.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehnsucht

Ahh nono, don't take it that way, I watched your video and I concur with your findings. I tested another program to read the RPM and it didn't fluctuate as bad as it did with speedfan. It didn't really budge. But I don't understand how you can have 4000 RPM while I only have a little more than 2k...

---

Ah, sorry.

The only things I can come up with are either your amps are getting hit pretty hard or it's actually a DDC 3.1. After I did the video, I did a couple quick tests with other PSU's before I broke down the test setup. One of those quickies was with an old 220W Shuttle PSU and the RPM's on my 3.2 dropped by 1000.

Final Off-topic:
HAHAHA! I messed up my cable sleeving BIG TIME! I've only been running @ 5V for almost a year :) Wow, it speeded up now, and it seems that there were a lot of air in the radiator left...

Insultiung posts deleted. Pain dished out. Move along.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

Bundy does not test CPU only loops which you really need for medium to high restriction blocks like the GTZ, Supreme. He has decent testing equipment and gets the most out of it. The only piece of equipment I don't like is the MO-Ra 2, it's a condenser type heat exchanger that is inefficient and it has more turns than Nürburgring which is bad for flow. His tests do show what the end user will roughly get if they decide to use that particular hardware though. Around here, when a test is done for a block, the only block in the loop should be the one being tested, this gives you uncorrupted data on that block. You don't have to worry that some other block has dropped the flow to a point that has possibly affected the results negitively. Most ppl that are worried about every last will degree have 2 separate loops for this very reason and value the single block only reviews greatly. Here's Martin's last test with 16 CPU blocks, note how the temp results are very different for the Supreme and OCZ from Bundy's, the gap between them is much wider in Martin's. This is because he had enough pressure to sustain a proper flow rate for the Supreme whereas the OCZ doesn't benefit as much from pressure.

---

Also his CPU is Dual core wich can get different results too and I dont know was the CPU lapped or not (If not then stepped base should be better)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehnsucht

Final Off-topic:
HAHAHA! I messed up my cable sleeving BIG TIME! I've only been running @ 5V for almost a year :) Wow, it speeded up now, and it seems that there were a lot of air in the radiator left...

---

:eek:

I'm surprised it ran at all, I didn't think it would start that low. Bet your temps drop a little. :up:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...6&postcount=49

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=206542

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndreaBZ

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...6&postcount=49

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=206542



I considered as Rev.A the enzotech Luna tested by Nexthardware with the best nozzle.

---

What of these three nozzles is the best? for the core i7? The first with it is left, the second or the third?
http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...l_7345ab31.jpg
http://www.nexthardware.com/image/oo..._m7ed617cd.htm
http://www.nexthardware.com/image/oo...l_7345ab31.htm

What's the difference between the Rev A and original? They looked about the same to me :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by headala

What's the difference between the Rev A and original? They looked about the same to me :shrug:

---

http://www.enzotechnology.com/luna.htm

1,5° !

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...una_reva_p.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lexusxxx

What of these three nozzles is the best? for the core i7? The first with it is left, the second or the third?

---

I do not know.......
Next hardware Defines the best nozzle as ..."straight" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndreaBZ

http://www.enzotechnology.com/luna.htm

1,5° !

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...una_reva_p.jpg

---

Yeah, I saw their performance data, but what is the physical difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndreaBZ

http://www.enzotechnology.com/luna.htm

1,5° !

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...una_reva_p.jpg

---

I saw that graph earlier and to me, it's totally worthless. They show nothing more than the hardware cooled and temps/flow rate achieved...where is the data of what equipment was used to do the cooling besides the Luna?...What were ambients for the tests?...Are any of those tests using those nozzles?

Damn it...just when I think I'm done with it, this topic keeps sucking me back in! :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

I saw that graph earlier and to me, it's totally worthless.

---

No data is "worthless", take from it what you will.
I get the feeling no test could satisfy you.
You need to chill and stop bashing every test, its really not cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

I saw that graph earlier and to me, it's totally worthless. They show nothing more than the hardware cooled and temps/flow rate achieved...where is the data of what equipment was used to do the cooling besides the Luna?...What were ambients for the tests?...Are any of those tests using those nozzles?

Damn it...just when I think I'm done with it, this topic keeps sucking me back in! :shakes:

---

I do not know what to say.... The above is a chart published by "Enzotech"
http://www.enzotechnology.com/luna.htm


Instead this is :
Nexthardware test ....
http://www.nexthardware.com/recensio...a/142_1178.htm
http://www.nexthardware.com/recensio...a/142_1179.htm
http://www.nexthardware.com/recensio...a/142_1180.htm

Confirms the chart published by "Enzotech".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragger

No data is "worthless", take from it what you will.
I get the feeling no test could satisfy you.
You need to chill and stop bashing every test, its really not cool.

---

Au contraire, mon frère

Just look through any of Martin's, mcoffey's, skinnee's, nikhsub1's, or Petra's tests/reviews and I'm sure you'll see me ask a question or two but I don't remember ever questioning the results. Heck, I even had 3 posts in Gabe's "informal review" and they were mostly OT. The only tests I question are the ones with questionable results. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndreaBZ

I do not know what to say.... The above is a chart published by "Enzotech"
http://www.enzotechnology.com/luna.htm


Instead this is :
Nexthardware test ....
http://www.nexthardware.com/recensio...a/142_1178.htm
http://www.nexthardware.com/recensio...a/142_1179.htm
http://www.nexthardware.com/recensio...a/142_1180.htm

Confirms the chart published by "Enzotech".

---

Sorry, vkbms's test, in my eyes, does not confirm Enzo's graphs. He posts delta temps, not actual CPU temps. What exactly is the difference between the Luna and Luna rev. A? Is it something internally?....or is it just the addition of some nozzle inserts? If it's just nozzles, that alone makes the block better in most cases and is hardly note worthy in the way Enzo is presenting that information, more of a P.T. Barnum tactic if you ask me.

It would be nice if vkbms would drop in here and help dispel some of the hype/myths/rumors that apparently surround this block.

Naekuh heatkiller version 666.

available in stores soon!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...terwaysrj1.jpg

can we all just along?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

Au contraire, mon frère

Just look through any of Martin's, mcoffey's, skinnee's, nikhsub1's, or Petra's tests/reviews and I'm sure you'll see me ask a question or two but I don't remember ever questioning the results. Heck, I even had 3 posts in Gabe's "informal review" and they were mostly OT. The only tests I question are the ones with questionable results. ;)



Sorry, vkbms's test, in my eyes, does not confirm Enzo's graphs. He posts delta temps, not actual CPU temps. What exactly is the difference between the Luna and Luna rev. A? Is it something internally?....or is it just the addition of some nozzle inserts? If it's just nozzles, that alone makes the block better in most cases and is hardly note worthy in the way Enzo is presenting that information, more of a P.T. Barnum tactic if you ask me.

It would be nice if vkbms would drop in here and help dispel some of the hype/myths/rumors that apparently surround this block.

---

Well I've been running the Luna Rev. A for a few days now and so far it's showing lower temps than my Swiftech GTZ with a Core i7 920.

I don't really need anymore proof than my own eyes. The tests shown here seem to be right in-line with what I, Malik and any other person who bought the block have seen.

Believe what you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElMoIsEviL

Well I've been running the Luna Rev. A for a few days now and so far it's showing lower temps than my Swiftech GTZ with a Core i7 920.

I don't really need anymore proof than my own eyes. The tests shown here seem to be right in-line with what I, Malik and any other person who bought the block have seen.

Believe what you want.

---

I don't believe your testing..:) :p: :ROTF: (sorry, I just felt an urge to return the favor);)

With or w/o nozzles? If with, which 1? Pump, rad? Single or multi block loop? How much is it beating the GTZ in your case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

Sorry, vkbms's test, in my eyes, does not confirm Enzo's graphs. He posts delta temps, not actual CPU temps. What exactly is the difference between the Luna and Luna rev. A? Is it something internally?....or is it just the addition of some nozzle inserts? If it's just nozzles, that alone makes the block better in most cases and is hardly note worthy in the way Enzo is presenting that information, more of a P.T. Barnum tactic if you ask me.

It would be nice if vkbms would drop in here and help dispel some of the hype/myths/rumors that apparently surround this block.

---

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...7_xxxxxxxx.jpg http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/..._xxxxxxxxx.jpg

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg

Of course, the difference is proportional to Watts

Watt Next hardware 126
flow rate l/h 300
Enzotech LUNA Stock C°/W=0,1544
Enzotech LUNA + best nozzle ( rev.A ? ) C°/W=0,1389

Difference C°/W=0,0155------
Difference at 126 watt=1,95°, at 200 watt= 3,10°.

Are you using only three points to extrapolate a polynomial graph?

Looks like it :eek:

It's pictures like that which makes me doubt the self-proclaimed experts.

Anyone who have tried experimentally to determine the gravitational acceleration or a certain spring constant only by sampling in certain time frames realizes that three samples is WAAAY to little to draw any conclusions when dealing with (k*x^n+m) functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehnsucht

Anyone who have tried experimentally to determine the gravitational acceleration or a certain spring constant only by sampling in certain time frames realizes that three samples is WAAAY to little to draw any conclusions when dealing with (k*x^n+m) functions.

---

:rofl:

And only 1% of the readers in this thread will understand what your talking about on this post.

but i agree with ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehnsucht

Are you using only three points to extrapolate a polynomial graph?

---

Three points are sufficient.
For the type of equation (curve) that I use
(Not a polynomial)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndreaBZ

Three points are sufficient.
For the type of equation (curve) that I use
(Not a polynomial)

---

You could be right, it's quite possible it's not a poly function. My bad.
I still believe you need more than three points to describe a system which is not linear.

Out of curiosity, what is the equation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehnsucht

You could be right, it's quite possible it's not a poly function. My bad.
I still believe you need more than three points to describe a system which is not linear.

Out of curiosity, what is the equation?

---

.......... polynomial .......... ??

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg

............ top secret :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndreaBZ

.......... polynomial .......... ??

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg

............ top secret :D

---

Have you calculated error bars for that graph?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndreaBZ

.......... polynomial .......... ??

............ top secret :D

---

You do know that the expression y=x^2+x+m is a polynomial?

EDIT:
Well obviously you didn't. But now you know.

And you really can't let excel generate the curve for you. You must let the measured up points create the curve, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehnsucht

You do know that the expression y=x^2+x+m is a polynomial?

EDIT:
Well obviously you didn't. But now you know.

---

I think he was showing that a polynomial trendline looks like with those three data points (and how it's not the trendline he's using).

Still, I don't think three data points is a very solid basis for creating a trendline with a massive amount of extrapolation. :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

I think he was showing that a polynomial trendline looks like with those three data points (and how it's not the trendline he's using).

---

Oh yes, you are correct. I didn't catch that. Obviously I need sleep.

:peace:

I still agree with Vapor though.

Another example... with five points

The equation that I use (very similar to a hyperbolic function):

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg

polynomial trendline (Excel):
http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg

The first curve, to me , describe correctly the physical phenomenon.........
follows the points and approaching asymptotically the X axis.
Is very precise for flow rate 100/800 lph........... and also > 800 lph.
Likely for flow rate < 50? lph is less accurate (wrong).

The second curve simply follows the data, right or wrong.

************************************************** **********************************
:confused:

equation that I use :

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg

if k = 1 and n = 1 ...............

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg

which is the equation of hyperbole "equilatera"

During the lunch break I calculated the function used. It may not be accurate outside the interval [100 800]

f(x) = 0.100248 * x^-0.1 + m, where m is 0.0819907 and 0.0975 (the latter I just made an educated guesstimate).

Max deviation I get is between the aX^n numbers and my calculated is 0.00018014, which is good enough in my book.

Can I has a gold starr?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zehnsucht

During the lunch break I calculated the function used. It may not be accurate outside the interval [100 800]

f(x) = 0.100248 * x^-0.1 + m, where m is 0.0819907 and 0.0975 (the latter I just made an educated guesstimate).

Max deviation I get is between the aX^n numbers and my calculated is 0.00018014, which is good enough in my book.

Can I has a gold starr?

---

equation that I use :

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg

if k = < 1 and n = < 0 ...............
The equation becomes

Y = k * X^n :D:D

that is the formula used by Excel :D
The same formula used by Martin........for the radiators
Delta temp. vs RPM (Air rate)

"...........The first curve, to me , describe correctly the physical phenomenon.........
follows the points and approaching asymptotically the X axis.
Is very precise for flow rate 100/800 lph........... and also > 800 lph.
Likely for flow rate < 50? lph is less accurate (wrong).
............. "
See above

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

All I know is, the block works pretty good at keeping the CPU cooler. Just put it on my test bench last night, and I'm quite surprised.

Very nice block,

andyc

---

the block uses cathars pitted design from his storm.

i wouldnt be suprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

All I know is, the block works pretty good at keeping the CPU cooler. Just put it on my test bench last night, and I'm quite surprised.

Very nice block,

andyc

---

Andy, please tell me your doing a proper posted review of this block? It would be nice to actually see how it performs compared to the V2, GTZ and Supreme and not find some kind of egregious error in the results....then maybe I can shut up and this topic can die. :up::ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

I'll be glad to let you and other's know the results direct if you would like. Just received my CF/Dallas Matrix temp monitoring HW/SW via UPS today, so I'll have the new bench set up proper ready for some serious testing tonight.

<img snip>

Should have some prelim stuff by the end of the weekend,

andyc

---

Take your time Andy, and PM me the final results. :up:
Are you planning on testing all the nozzles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

I'll be glad to let you and other's know the results direct if you would like. Just received my CF/Dallas Matrix temp monitoring HW/SW via UPS today, so I'll have the new bench set up proper ready for some serious testing tonight.

Should have some prelim stuff by the end of the weekend,

andyc

---

temperature difference (Core CPU - H2O)
at different flow rate? ......... three or four ? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

What's the major difference between the latest rev, and the original Luna when it was first released?

---

Accommodation and inclusion of nozzles I think :p:

i.e., Rev. A comes with nozzles and works with nozzles while the original can't even fit/take the nozzles.

Looking forward to your results :D

My CF/Dallas probes should be here fairly shortly too :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

What does that mean, please clarify????

andyc

---

I think he wants data in a few varieties, or is wondering if you're going to do it.

1) CPU temps minus water-in temps.

2) #1 as it changes with a decrease/increase in flowrates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Not sure really. As a matter of fact, I'm not even sure what revision of the block I have, or if it take nozzles.

One things for sure though, it's working pretty good just the way it is.:up: Once I see how well this one measures up against a Supreme, I might just buy the latest version.

What's the major difference between the latest rev, and the original Luna when it was first released?

andyc

---

Not sure myself. All the images I've seen of both rev's show them both to be very similar internally. It'd be nice if Enzo-Tech(Dav) could magically re-appear and explain the differences. :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndreaBZ

equation that I use :

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg

if k = < 1 and n = < 0 ...............
The equation becomes

Y = k * X^n :D:D

that is the formula used by Excel :D
The same formula used by Martin........for the radiators
Delta temp. vs RPM (Air rate)

"...........The first curve, to me , describe correctly the physical phenomenon.........
follows the points and approaching asymptotically the X axis.
Is very precise for flow rate 100/800 lph........... and also > 800 lph.
Likely for flow rate < 50? lph is less accurate (wrong).
............. "
See above

---

A trendline with so few datapoints (and tightly packed datapoints in the grand scheme of things) really shouldn't be used for so much extrapolation. What's worse is that the endpoints of the actual data have the largest error compared to the trendline--does not bode well for the accuracy of the extrapolation.

I've played a lot with c/w vs. fan RPM for aircoolers and power trendlines do not extrapolate well at all. They look the nicest and are certainly the lesser of 6 evils, but the power trendlines do not play well with cooling functions when it comes to extrapolation (long story short--they lack accurate vertical asymptotic behavior as flow approaches 0 and also don't give due justice to the diminishing returns behavior of flow in waterblocks).

The interpolative strength of a trendline is viable and great for estimators, but I'd really really be careful with so much extrapolation :-/ You're doing a lot of extrapolation using a trendline that doesn't even really match the few datapoints you have, especially not at the extremes of the data :-/

blah andy i just want to know what performs better and at what flow cost.

thanks please! :up:

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

As I said earlier,

That information means absolutley nothing without the asscociated core temps and ambeint rad air in temp. At least not to me.

Do you have those plots also?

andyc

---

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg


http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=206542

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1...tionbadfk1.jpg

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndreaBZ

http://www.pctunerup.com/up/results/...xxxxxxxxxx.jpg

---

I hate to say this, but what is the purpose of this chart?
It just shows that 2 setups with identical computer and cooling components equal the same results. :shrug:

If D-Tek not soon releases their 1366 mounts for the Fuzion V1 I think I will be going with this one for my 1366 Core i7 setup. :)

The block looks great, but hows the performance? Saw Malik had some numbers, where the Luna performed better comparing to the GTZ. :)

my next build is on the I7 chip and WCing it, so You have yet another set of eyes on ya, tis okay no pressure :D I like the way it looks and yes that goes for the funky little binky light on it. :) So yes seeing some Stats on this puppy will nice.

Anyone who knows if the BP 7/16" ID 5/8" OD will fit the Enzotech Luna without those 45 degree fittings from BP? :)

I just received my 2 samples ( with one brand new block, can't tell the name for NDA) from Enzotech will test them next week on the I7 platform (when my probes get here) against the EK supreme, Swiftech GTZ and co...

Again tests will be kept simple and reproduced in coretemp charts at stock, 3.6-3.8 and 4ghz clocks (like the swiftech review) but also with added in and out watertemps...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

I just received my 2 samples ( with one brand new block, can't tell the name for NDA) from Enzotech will test them next week on the I7 platform (when my probes get here) against the EK supreme, Swiftech GTZ and co...

Again tests will be kept simple and reproduced in coretemp charts at stock, 3.6-3.8 and 4ghz clocks (like the swiftech review) but also with added in and out watertemps...

---

when will this new block be avaiable you know?

I will post some piccies later on...

http://users.telenet.be/OAP2/1366%20...tech%20002.jpg

http://users.telenet.be/OAP2/1366%20...tech%20005.jpg

Exterior looks alike, but inside it's totally different... can't wait to test these blocks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

I will post some piccies later on...

http://users.telenet.be/OAP2/1366%20...tech%20002.jpg

http://users.telenet.be/OAP2/1366%20...tech%20005.jpg

Exterior looks alike, but inside it's totally different... can't wait to test these blocks...

---

Interesting, looks like the Pheonix has more pronounced pins which is a good thing.:up:

I've got a luna here I never completed testing on. I may run a pressure drop test if nothing else, we'll see.

you are our God Martin, the way you tested them things is just awesome man... top notch ! I will do a more simple approach to it all, as I'm not an engineer and not really fascinated by graphs and flow rates... just raw numbers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

you are our God Martin, the way you tested them things is just awesome man... top notch ! I will do a more simple approach to it all, as I'm not an engineer and not really fascinated by graphs and flow rates... just raw numbers...

---

I can't do the thermal testing like I did. My A/C unit is in storage. I also complete redid my test bench, so I have nothing to compare to. The only thing I could really do now is take some pictures and do a pressure drop test for restriction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcoffey

You sure about that:D

andyc

---

Yep..Enzotech was kind enough to send me a production sample a while back. Unfortunately it wasn't until after I finished my Q6600 testing. This is what I have on hand, it's been sitting quietly in the closet with the other goodies.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/760/lunasamplevc1.jpg

Can the led be changed out on the Luna?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GameGuru

Can the led be changed out on the Luna?

---

I'd like to know as well. Red would be my preference. :yepp:

I looked at their tutorial on killing the flashing, and it looks like they are 3mm LED's mounted close to the pcb. If you're handy de-soldering/soldering, you could do it, but it's not a cake walk. It shows them here: http://enzotechnology.com/disableflashing.htm

BTW, any more pics/info/data on the Phoenix?

Question: Is the Enzotech Phoenix = the Enzotech Luna Rev. A by any chance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HESmelaugh

Question: Is the Enzotech Phoenix = the Enzotech Luna Rev. A by any chance?

---

The Luna Rev A seems to just add the nozzles to it. The Phoenix seems to have more changes to it, deeper channels around the pins and a flow directing plate.

Thanks for the info. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by headala

I looked at their tutorial on killing the flashing, and it looks like they are 3mm LED's mounted close to the pcb. If you're handy de-soldering/soldering, you could do it, but it's not a cake walk. It shows them here: http://enzotechnology.com/disableflashing.htm

---

Sweet, a walk in the park, to bad I already ordered the Heatkiller :cool:

The heatkiller is a great block and you'll be very happy with it :up:

Has anyone seen the Phoenix listed anywhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HESmelaugh

Question: Is the Enzotech Phoenix = the Enzotech Luna Rev. A by any chance?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adamantine

The Luna Rev A seems to just add the nozzles to it. The Phoenix seems to have more changes to it, deeper channels around the pins and a flow directing plate.

---

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...76&articID=931

At Madshrimps the newer Phoenix seems to have performed worse than the Luna Rev. A. Strange. I would've thought the longer spikes would've improved cooling. Perhaps some other variable affected their results. Regardless, I want this cooler. They have a nice, inexpensive 1366 socket bracket out, too.

Also, here is a link to how you can disable the flashing very easily, and look at the leds too, in case you want to change them:

http://www.enzotechnology.com/disableflashing.htm

FYI,
I sent my Enzo package of goodies on to Skinnee for his review when he has time. They are very nice blocks, I especially like the solid copper construction, something just feels right about an all copper block:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

FYI,
I sent my Enzo package of goodies on to Skinnee for his review when he has time. They are very nice blocks, I especially like the solid copper construction, something just feels right about an all copper block:up:

---

Tested already, will be part of the big round-up.

One thing I have learned though...more than 5 blocks in a round-up, just kill yourself and avoid situation all together. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skinnee

One thing I have learned though...more than 5 blocks in a round-up, just kill yourself and avoid situation all together. :D

---

:rofl: sigged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skinnee

Tested already, will be part of the big round-up.

One thing I have learned though...more than 5 blocks in a round-up, just kill yourself and avoid situation all together. :D

---

I know...I can't seem to shake that uncontrolled twitch ever since...:eek::rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirKronan

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...76&articID=931

At Madshrimps the newer Phoenix seems to have performed worse than the Luna Rev. A. Strange. I would've thought the longer spikes would've improved cooling. Perhaps some other variable affected their results. Regardless, I want this cooler. They have a nice, inexpensive 1366 socket bracket out, too.

---

There seem to be several versions of the Phoenix. I have crosschecked with eg Skinee and his block looks different on the inside. So this one of the reasons I have not included the Phoenix block in the conclusion. I have retested this block several times and on my setup this version doesn't cut it... New base blocks have been confirmed by Enzotech for the final versions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skinnee

Tested already, will be part of the big round-up.

One thing I have learned though...more than 5 blocks in a round-up, just kill yourself and avoid situation all together. :D

---

The Juice is worth the Squeeze :)

Skinnee I might be retakeing math, but In "Testing: LGA1366 Shootout (14 CPU Blocks, 10 done, 5 to go)" it just dont add up :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

There seem to be several versions of the Phoenix. I have crosschecked with eg Skinee and his block looks different on the inside. So this one of the reasons I have not included the Phoenix block in the conclusion. I have retested this block several times and on my setup this version doesn't cut it... New base blocks have been confirmed by Enzotech for the final versions

---

That makes sense. I'm sure the final, revised production model will be more standardized and have all the "ducks in a row."

I can't wait to see this roundup!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mech0z

Skinnee I might be retakeing math, but In "Testing: LGA1366 Shootout (14 CPU Blocks, 10 done, 5 to go)" it just dont add up :p

---

To be honest, I've lost count of how many blocks are included. There are some that may never have data released and some that may be held until I change chips and perform the retest.

My crazy math does have some logic behind it. :D