-
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. :)
-
-
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
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:
-
Enzotech LUNA already old?
-
-
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
Yeah, I saw their performance data, but what is the physical difference?
