Fan Testing Round 6, Potential Fan List/Methods

I wanted to put a list together of the fans I currently have as well as some potential new ones coming, so I could solicit any suggestions about which fans folks are most interested in seeing retested as well as any general testing recommendations before I get started.

But first....a BIG thanks to shazza, Hondacity, Vapor, Gabe(swiftech.com), thefinisher, vhaar, Masika, MagisD, GingerJohn(ocn), XSPC, and NCIX for either sponsoring recently in the past or sponsoring new additions for this next round...:clap::clap:

The Gelid 12 and Silverstone AP121 have both been sacrificed so I can no longer included those...sorry. I was determined to find some ball bearings I could use and had an itch for taking some fans apart..

I'd have nothing but a few yates without all their awesome support.

BIG CHANGES with this round include:

New Extech Hotwire anemometer - I know some folks have questioned the "Reading in Velocity" thing, but have no fear, it's all good. I will convert and probably provide a conversion table to CFM for you all.

American Recording Tech dbA sound level meter - I feel my old unweighted Mastech meter was simply too far off from my own perceived loudness to make it worthwhile, but this A weighted meter is getting pretty close. It's still only measuring loudness, and A-weighting is not at all perfect, but much closer..:up:

Testing Scenarios: I've requested an MCR120 from Gabe at Swiftech.com and he graciously approved. This should more accurately reflect a lower restriction radiator scenario. The MCR120 is wider than the RS120 and should therefore have lower air pressure drop. Also my old RS rad has been tossed around in various bins of parts for a while now, there were a few bent fins I've had to straighten and it's simply seen better days. This new test will be on a brand new MCR..:up:

Possible additional test scenarios: GingerJohn from OCnet has expressed an interest in sponsoring another radiator such as the GTX120. If that works out, I'll be looking to retest on the GT120 as well for a second look at a high density rad. Since I have the flow spreader in place, I think I could also do a third test without a radiator (simulating a case fan condition). Of coarse these will all double and or triple the amount of work, but I'm considering it and going to see how it goes. For sure I plan to test on the MCR120, and also the GTX if that works out.

Anyhow, here is the list of possibilities (not yet received, but at least what some folks were thinking about). If you have favorites from the existing fans list, let me know..still a bit unsure if I want to retest them all or just some of them...:shrug: I will of coarse test all the new fans coming in along with several of the old ones...:up:

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5...nd6fanlist.png

And the Test Rig V3 notes:
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7...wchamberv3.png
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/2...rialsetup2.png

And here you can see the old RS120 test template and a new silver open air template. I plan to make one more for the MCR120 when it rolls in..:up: Not sure if I'll get to the "Open Air" test, but it's ready to go if I decide to go that far with it.
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8372/r6templates.png

And a little better picture of the flow spreaders. Obviously they do create some restriction. A quick GT15 test open air gives me roughly 42CFM (Open air spec is 58CFM) I suppose this is a good reason to include an open air type test though, that way you could compare case type scenario to the MCR120 scenario and split the difference or at least see if there are any differences between the two.
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2...wspreaders.jpg
So generally my test rig setup will be slightly more restrictive than actual, but I feel the flow spreaders and port are worth the restriction to help ensure accurate readings.

Anyhow, that's what I'm looking at for this next round of testing. The new anemometer and sound meter are in place and new fans and the new MCR are on their way... I may start in on this testing as early as next weekend, but I haven't started yet, so I'm open to ideas..:yepp:

UPDATED LIST 10-30-2010

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7...d6fansrev1.png

UPDATE 11-2-2010

Special thanks to Shazza for 6 new fans...she even let me pick them out myself..:clap::clap:

Also Gabe for the brand new MCR120, going to use the Swiftech MCR120 radiator for all the new fan testing..It is wider and should represent the optimal low resistance radiator test..:yepp::clap:
The RS120 is a bit narrow so the edges of the fan get slightly obstructed. The extra width of the MCR provides a cleaner mount and larger area should mean very low air pressure drop.

And for the first two retested fans, I've selected the Yate Loon D12SM12 and GT15.

Going to start testing these this weekend, but in the mean time I'll work on some unboxing pics..:up:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7...und6a1fans.jpg

I like all the details of testbed/methodics. What i'd love more - as much fans as possible, including 140mm ones (as such rads lately are not so uncommon in LC builds), so that resulting test results can be used as THE reference for LC fan purchase :)
Afterall, all we need to find out - what is the best performing/purchase choice at few preset noise levels, and maybe less important - how good/bad compared to leaders some particular fan model does.
To ease deciding which fans should be tested i suggest at very least include all leaders of performance/noise from previous tests, +some of top ones from other fan tests out there, eg. those of Jordan's (#1, #2), as for 140mm fans, +imho it's worth to at very least test models whose 120mm analogues shown good results (eek, damn, how i want 140mm GT to be made :( ). Maybe some advertising overhyped fans should be included aswell, just to show their objective performance compared to leaders (i mean fans like NB/Triebwerks or others pushed as agressively or priced as high).
As most probably test will take a LONG time to complete even with current list of fans, it makes sense to release interim results by eg. continuously updating initial opening post with newer version charts and tables including additional tested fans each time. If testbed/methodics won't change, extra fan info addition can be done for long time period extending info database to covering most actual fans out there in market.

Yeah, I'm thinking I will use a single fan as sort of a check-in/out tool. The yate medium did pretty well in my single round check in/out, so I could very well use that fan or any fan that's reasonably consistent and check/adjust subsequent tests. I just need to measure out all the details and make sure everything remains the same.

If I decide to do all 30+ fans over all three scenarios, that alone would probably take me a good month to get through.

I'm thinking I will focus on the MCR120 based tests first with the Zalman, Yate Medium, GT15, and NB PL-2 as the baseline, then the new fans as they come in, then go back to existing fans. Then.... look into the other test scenarios...

I might look at doing some sort of CFM/dBA ratio bar chart comparison as well. A big complaint of Round 2 was having too many fans on the same chart. Only so many colors and symbols you can use before all those lines start blending together, plus bar charts are easier to read for most people. We'll see, I'll at least look at breaking it down into smaller groups of some sort.

:) ya gotta include the Triebwerks Martinm... one thing I did find, when using them in a push* there seemed to be a tad more noise and actually less cooling.

with them running in pull* less noise and roughly ( I say roughly because I dont have the test setups you do) :) a drop based on avg's of about 2c...seems to relate to the design of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flashnc

:) ya gotta include the Triebwerks Martinm... one thing I did find, when using them in a push* there seemed to be a tad more noise and actually less cooling.

with them running in pull* less noise and roughly ( I say roughly because I dont have the test setups you do) :) a drop based on avg's of about 2c...seems to relate to the design of them.

---

I don't have any, I gave away all my round 2 fans thankfully or I'd be here testing all year...:D

Actually, I'd throw one in there if someone wants to send me one, but I'm not really interested in buying one for testing.

My next personal purchase will be a 140mm rad if this round doesn't burn me out. I have a sneaking suspicion if I spend a month in the closet, I'm going to be looking at another bit of a vacation when this round is done..:D

LOL well we certianly dont want that to happen Martinm, gotta keep ya outta the closet ;)... If I had a spare* id send it to ya..

Martinm210: I actually thought that with unchanged methodics and testbed (even more so if you include baseline fan as round check in/out) you can add one by one fan even in a year or two, not just everything in month. As somebody sends in new fan later on, another result added. = resulting in roundup covering very wide selection. As for too many results .. why not split let's say 50 fans in 5-10 charts by their CFM@33db with graph of some baseline fan included in every one of them?

Sounds really good. The bigger variety of different fans you have, the better =)

Good ideas, I just need to figure out which fan will be my check in/out. I think that'll be a good check anyhow:up:

My suggestion as baseline fan using high speed yates. - Should be usuable for comparing noise/performance with monster fans like ultrakazes/sanaces/deltas and with quiet/slow fans aswell without line in graph wandering too far from lines of both of these groups +it's cheap&common enough.
EDIT
Hmm, and i'm guessing that it's enough to test baseline fan just once from those three tests of unrestricted/high fpi rad/low fpi rad. If one test shows line not drifted too much from previous tests (eg. by lubrication going bad by long time of unusing/storing since last tests), i doubt there is any sense in redoing all of them. Should cut down overall time/work spent on tests.

I would be interested in seeing one of the bigger Deltas (140-150cfm) tested...for two reasons 1. to see how it performs at lower volts (cfm) on your setup and 2. to show graphically whether such an animal would be worth considering from an audible point of view for anyone on a rig which is used in both quiet mode and for full on gaming/testing

I can send you one if you want....3pin or molex?

Are some of the other AP-15's that are headed your way from the new batch?
I remember reading that there are some changes made in how they are manufactured.

Just saw I was on the list for an AP-15, didn't know that but I know where to get a new one so I'll send one out :up:

Also including a couple mystery fans though I don't expect them to dethrone a Gentle Typhoon. Interested in Hondacity's mystery fan.

BTW, Martin: have you decided in general lines how are you going to represent results?
How about:

to not overcumber with textual info results -
Testing revision/update date;
URL to testbed description and testing methodics posted elsewhere;
URL to excel spreadsheet with all the results;
List of fans with URLs to description web pages or forum posts with desc & pics with at most just bearing type mentioned on this 'front page';

Then grouped by 3 in row (unrestricted/low FPI rad/high FPI rad) line charts of cfm/db with two dotted lines of 33&36db levels with pics linking to higher-res charts, would be nice if fans were grouped and these rows were sorted by cfm@33db on lowFPI rad*, so that performance/noise leaders could be seen in first charts/first lines;

thumbnail+URL to one veeery big & high res line chart with graphs for all fans tested;

Big bar chart of all fans tested sorted sorted by cfm@33db on lowFPI rad*
+URLs to less important bar charts, eg. same as above, but at no restriction and at high FPI rad, then all of that but at 36db, then sorted by maximum cfm|sorted by maximum noise level.

* as imho most commonly used rad type and most interesting noise range for those seeking quietest/best performance fans for LC money can buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldChap

I would be interested in seeing one of the bigger Deltas (140-150cfm) tested...for two reasons 1. to see how it performs at lower volts (cfm) on your setup and 2. to show graphically whether such an animal would be worth considering from an audible point of view for anyone on a rig which is used in both quiet mode and for full on gaming/testing

I can send you one if you want....3pin or molex?

---

Either way would be fine, I've got an adapter made to test molex, but my preferred is 3pin. I'll send you a PM with my Addy..:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avddreamr

Are some of the other AP-15's that are headed your way from the new batch?
I remember reading that there are some changes made in how they are manufactured.

---

Not sure, I'll take whatever I can get..:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

Just saw I was on the list for an AP-15, didn't know that but I know where to get a new one so I'll send one out :up:

Also including a couple mystery fans though I don't expect them to dethrone a Gentle Typhoon. Interested in Hondacity's mystery fan.

---

Oh don't worry about it, I quickly went through my PMs and emails trying to sort out the tentative list. No problem at all if you can't send the AP or any of them for that matter. Anything is much appreciated so don't feel like you have to send anything..:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by churchy

BTW, Martin: have you decided in general lines how are you going to represent results?
How about:

to not overcumber with textual info results -
Testing revision/update date;
URL to testbed description and testing methodics posted elsewhere;
URL to excel spreadsheet with all the results;
List of fans with URLs to description web pages or forum posts with desc & pics with at most just bearing type mentioned on this 'front page';

Then grouped by 3 in row (unrestricted/low FPI rad/high FPI rad) line charts of cfm/db with two dotted lines of 33&36db levels with pics linking to higher-res charts, would be nice if fans were grouped and these rows were sorted by cfm@33db on lowFPI rad*, so that performance/noise leaders could be seen in first charts/first lines;

thumbnail+URL to one veeery big & high res line chart with graphs for all fans tested;

Big bar chart of all fans tested sorted sorted by cfm@33db on lowFPI rad*
+URLs to less important bar charts, eg. same as above, but at no restriction and at high FPI rad, then all of that but at 36db, then sorted by maximum cfm|sorted by maximum noise level.

* as imho most commonly used rad type and most interesting noise range for those seeking quietest/best performance fans for LC money can buy.

---

I like the CFM vs dBA charts the best, but I've been also thinking about some alternate ways to display.

Basically I'm going to collect the following information for each fan:

Warm Up for 5 minutes, then:

For Each of the following Voltage Steps:
4V, 5V, 6V, 7V, 8V, 9V, 10V, 11V, 12V
Run each step for at least 10 seconds and step upward, then back down to 0 and check ambient noise for 10.

Velocity of Air, CFM conversion, dBA Art Meter in background, Amperage, Voltage, RPM.

I will also be recording each test via the T2I and Zoom H1 from 12". Not sure what if any software based noise analysis I will do. I could do dBA or I could even try extracting an ISO226 based weighting using a custom made curve. May also include a frequency spectrum in the background, but a bit unsure right now. My software is about to expire and I'm not sure if it's worth the $80 it would cost me to purchase. My previous experiment had the ART meter and the software based dBA painting an almost identical picture, so there's not much need I don't think.

That much I know, I don't know about the the narrative portion. I'm the type that likes visuals and graphs and charts and feel perfectly fine about not saying one word. Also with fans, I kind of like leaving it up to the end user to make a decision, too much personal preference that I'd almost prefer not giving any opinion.

I could at least create a link to the fan, but I'm not really interested in selling my results to any vendors if they didn't help with the sponsorship. I'll just try to create a good description so you can cross reference. The hard part is, some vendor websites use part numbers that in no way match the fan sticker number...not sure what you do with that. My idea is to simply include a close up front and back picture of the actual fan tested.

We'll see, it's going to take gathering a bunch of the data before I figure out the graphics presentation piece, but I'd be happy to provide the original excel file for anyones use too.:up:

I do like the CFM bar chart at fixed dbA idea though, that seems like a good way to do it..:)

You could probably do something like every 3 dbA or some sort of interval to sort out between low to high speeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

I don't have any, I gave away all my round 2 fans thankfully or I'd be here testing all year...:D

Actually, I'd throw one in there if someone wants to send me one, but I'm not really interested in buying one for testing.

My next personal purchase will be a 140mm rad if this round doesn't burn me out. I have a sneaking suspicion if I spend a month in the closet, I'm going to be looking at another bit of a vacation when this round is done..:D

---

I have 1 for you.. TFC Triebwerk TK-122 - 1800RPM - 120MMx55MM

PM me your details and ill send it to you for the sake of science :)

Very interesting Martin

Im waiting for more !

when is there going to be a pump noise test? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiacid

when is there going to be a pump noise test? :D

---

Lol pumps are skinnee not martin.

Huh the shipping on all of skinnee's pumps to martin for sound testing might be excessive.

Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk

Hello Martin,
To make it very scientific, why not go for a differential pressure setup, i.e. flow across an orifice - either use a dp transmitter, or better still, incline manometers? That way you don't really have to worry to much about air straighteners et al? I a sure we could find a nice, small dp transmitter somewhere, and design an orifice for your pipe-dia?

Would you be interested in something like this, or......?

Have a good one, and look forward to your tests though :)

Thanx for your efforts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AceBaran

I have 1 for you.. TFC Triebwerk TK-122 - 1800RPM - 120MMx55MM

PM me your details and ill send it to you for the sake of science :)

---

You have PM...:clap::up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiacid

when is there going to be a pump noise test? :D

---

I've thought about that, but I'm not touching the pump noise thing until I'm completely satisfied with my fan testing which I've still got a pile of work I want to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrBean

Hello Martin,
To make it very scientific, why not go for a differential pressure setup, i.e. flow across an orifice - either use a dp transmitter, or better still, incline manometers? That way you don't really have to worry to much about air straighteners et al? I a sure we could find a nice, small dp transmitter somewhere, and design an orifice for your pipe-dia?

Would you be interested in something like this, or......?

Have a good one, and look forward to your tests though :)

Thanx for your efforts!

---

I've thought about that, but decided to go the anemometer route. I'm unsure if I can find something sensitive enough to read down to the 40FPM range this hotwire is giving me. Actually, I'm getting readings below that to the point where the air flow range is lower than sound level capabilities. I also don't want to introduce a computer into the test if I don't have to. Right now everything is running off completely silent passive power supplies. I think with pressure, you'd still have some issues with flow straightening as it would affect where you're measuring pressure differential at...unless you made a really large flow chamber.

The Hotwire is much more impressive than I had hoped, I'm now able to measure air flows with fans down to about 300RPM on a radiator, that's extremely good.:up:

I also got this meter for a heck of a price, it had an issue with the screen that I fixed and basically bought a $400 meter for next to nothing.:up:

FYI, got a few more folks interested in some fans, I also ordered one more myself.

Here is the latest fans only list of possible fans.

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7...d6fansrev1.png

I'm glad ap-121 not on the list other was a brave sacrifice for the cause !!!!!!

I have 2 spare new gts 15's coming..... incase one of the 29 I'm useing in my case is a dud. If i have one left over I'll send it along so ypu can compare.

Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagisD

I'm glad ap-121 not on the list other was a brave sacrifice for the cause !!!!!!

I have 2 spare new gts 15's coming..... incase one of the 29 I'm useing in my case is a dud. If i have one left over I'll send it along so ypu can compare.

Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk

---

Cool!

Yeah, the more I play with this AP15 I have the more I question it. I was doing some repeatability type testing this weekend.

First I ran the AP-15, just a simple open air type test. It's very inconsistent, the AP-15 has something like 5-7% variability in 12V air flow, where the Yate Loon Medium is a nice tight 1% or less.

I'm going to use the D12SM12 @ 12V as my calibration check, although I don't think I'll need it now that I have the meter's zero routine down. To get really tight like this you have to let each fan and the hot wire probe get up to normal temp for 5 minutes, then quickly shut down, zero out the meter, and run the test. So far that seems to be giving very good consistent results.., this is what I got with the yate zeroing up each time per that method...:up:

I also think I figured out my stepping routine. Going to start at zero and increase voltage in 1V increments until I get to 12V and each increment will get a steady 10 seconds, then step down in 50FPM increments.

I'll use the increasing Voltage increments for charting and the decreasing 50FPM increments for video/audio like performance level comparisons. That should capture both needs pretty well I think.

Hmm, how about doing what skinneelab guys do - several readings, dropping best and worst, averaging rest?

BTW, what different causes might cause different fan performance? If we theoretise/analise about it, maybe we can come up with better ideas how to counter those causes for more objective results?
Eg. how about ambient temp or humidity impact on fan rpm-s, storage circumstances (eg. storing time, vertical or horizontal) impact on bearing, bearing type specifics (eg. how do result repeatability looks for other ball bearing fans, do they fluctuate same as GTs?) and many other possible causes i forgot to imagine/think about ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by churchy

Hmm, how about doing what skinneelab guys do - several readings, dropping best and worst, averaging rest?

BTW, what different causes might cause different fan performance? If we theoretise/analise about it, maybe we can come up with better ideas how to counter those causes for more objective results?
Eg. how about ambient temp or humidity impact on fan rpm-s, storage circumstances (eg. storing time, vertical or horizontal) impact on bearing, bearing type specifics (eg. how do result repeatability looks for other ball bearing fans, do they fluctuate same as GTs?) and many other possible causes i forgot to imagine/think about ..

---

The big difference I see that I do have control over is warm up time (I noticed that back when I was testing rads on the crystalfontz, it's darn near impossible to hold a fixed RPM). There is a pretty dramatic change in the first few minutes where RPM increases with temperature, this is why I've been doing the whole 5 minute warm up thing. But I'm sure there are all sorts of variables that affect the result such as humidity, temperature, ambient noise level, altitude, and sample variance. Overall it seems noise levels are fairly controllable and repeatable, it's the air flow and fan RPM variances that's hard to pin down...but I've seen that by using the crystalfontz. Probably has alot to do with the temperature and run time and viscosity of the grease/oils used to lubricate the fans. In general I'm seeing more consistency is the sleeve or FDB sleeve like bearing systems that float on fluids. The fans like the GT with actual ball bearings and/or fans that have harmonic issues are the trouble makers for repeatability. I may try retesting some of the top fans, but I have no plan to retest them all many times...that would simply become "Work"..;)

I'm probably just being overly anal about repeatability, but I'm looking for some way of checking my setup as opposed to the actual fan. I want to make sure I'm comfortable with testing over multiple days that I'm getting the same thing. My anemometer is actually specified to read within 3% accuracy, so 1% repeatability (relative) is really good.

If you read fan specs, they all say +-10% on just about everything, that's probably about right if you started testing for sample variance.

I think we just need to accept the 10% spec and understand the limitations of testing one sample in a less than perfect environment. I could retest every fan 5 times, but then what have we done to test sample variance? You'd probably have to test 5 samples, 5 times, at sea level, in a fix ambient, fixed humidity, 0dBA anechoic chamber over 5 mounts to remove all the variables, but we have to be realistic at hobby/recreational level. This will be more than good enough I think and no I'm not retesting each fan 5 times...:eek:..I am going to use my fan check process though at least once per day run the D12SM12 to ensure nothing on the test rig has changed. This is also why I wanted to keep the fan testing rounds small, then they all get tested at relatively the same baseline, it's when you try to create a big database that all these little variables become very important. We'll see how it goes..I may have to break it up into several smaller rounds if I start seeing some check in variances I can't pin down...

Most of the fan testing/reviews I'm seeing on youtube is someone plugging in the fan sitting on a table feeling the air with the palm of their hand and subjectively saying "Wow, it's completely silent, and moving A LOT of air".:ROTF:

I'm not doing vertical though, I'm just not setup for that right now, but I might consider it later and run a few of the top picks after this round is complete.

I'm happy with the new anemometer, even with the GT +- 10 FPM is really not that bad, that's only about 1 CFM either way. With the old anemometer I had seen some variances as high as 4CFM, so this is a huge step in the right direction.:up:

BTW, with storing i meant exactly that - storing it on shelve, not mounting :) - afterall, unused fan for half a year might have some issues with lubricant gone bad, no? (i'm just recalling reading somewhere that for sleeve bearing fans it's bad not only run it horizontally mounted, but also storing, which many big shops ignore though, just piling them on shelves however it seems simplier to them, so even bought new sleeve bearing fan might have issues with flown out or dried out lubricant oil after months on shelves).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by churchy

BTW, with storing i meant exactly that - storing it on shelve, not mounting :) - afterall, unused fan for half a year might have some issues with lubricant gone bad, no? (i'm just recalling reading somewhere that for sleeve bearing fans it's bad not only run it horizontally mounted, but also storing, which many big shops ignore though, just piling them on shelves however it seems simplier to them, so even bought new sleeve bearing fan might have issues with flown out or dried out lubricant oil after months on shelves).

---

Yeah I suppose...just not sure how you would know or determine that. Could be the same thing happening in the warehouse prior to the vendors or during shipping..etc.

I've also heard routinely that running sleeve bearing fans in horizontal is bad. That seems to make sense, but I'm finding that most of the fancy FDB and other named bearings are also basically a sleeve type bearing. Very few fans actually use ball bearings....most are sleeve types with various modifications to that...but still a sleeve bearing.

Also most sleeve bearing fans have some sort of o-ring on the shaft which I assume is to help prevent lubricants from leaving?

Anyhow, I'm a bit lost when it comes to bearing naming convention. It seems fluid dynamic bearings and Nano bearings are all basically sleeve bearing fans with a twist. The Gelid Wing 12 and the Silverstone AP121 both had what I would call a sleeve bearing, neither one had any sort of conventional ball bearings inside.

I guess the only indicator we have is the lubricant itself, and I can't say I've ever had a fan that "Leaked" at the shafts. I would think if there was some sort of storage/leakage problem it would show up under the stickers or something along those lines.

Nano bearings imho are plain sleeve bearings with fancy name, kind of like Feser Admiral rad nano surface threatment :).
FDB, while technically one of sleeve bearing types, differs from it, that it's not just lubricant put between tension surfaces at assembling of bearing, but due to bearing design lubricant gets artifcially 'pumped/forced' between those surfaces by bearing rotation, and it's more so then in sleeve 'floating' upon layer/film of fluid lubricant, then sliding between surfaces. Hydrodynamic bearings might be more effective and with potentially much longer life at always on usage scenarios, but with extra wear on starting up/stopping, also usually have a little bit higher minimum startup current (because of extra still friction). Friction is way smaller then that of sleeve bearing, but there is energy loss on 'pumping' fluid lubricant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by churchy

Nano bearings imho are plain sleeve bearings with fancy name, kind of like Feser Admiral rad nano surface threatment :).
FDB, while technically one of sleeve bearing types, differs from it, that it's not just lubricant put between tension surfaces at assembling of bearing, but due to bearing design lubricant gets artifcially 'pumped/forced' between those surfaces by bearing rotation, and it's more so then in sleeve 'floating' upon layer/film of fluid lubricant, then sliding between surfaces. Hydrodynamic bearings might be more effective and with potentially much longer life at always on usage scenarios, but with extra wear on starting up/stopping, also usually have a little bit higher minimum startup current (because of extra still friction). Friction is way smaller then that of sleeve bearing, but there is energy loss on 'pumping' fluid lubricant.

---

Ok, I'll look for that. The few fans I have completely taken apart just didn't seem like they had any way to really pump a fluid, some had a notch in the sleeve where lubricants can be stored, but it seemed like they all had roughly the same ability at retaining the lubricant.

I'm really happy with sleeve bearing, I guess I just assumed anything that wasn't called a sleeve bearing would be a lot more different. To me they all look like sleeve bearing with a fancy name with the exception of the few with ball type bearings. I'm also really not seeing any noise differences..seems like noise comes down to the blades and motor...all the bearing types seem to do just fine although you can hear ball bearings a bit.

Simpliest type of FDB looks Very much like sleeve (Fig.25.1). Rotating shaft + specificly to working temps selected viscosity-wise fit lubricant .. shaft kind of climbs/lifts up on that lubricant film resulting in not touching bearing at all. But such seems to work only in vertical position, in horizontal it will work like normal sleeve bearing? Big pile of theory. Mention of complex selection of lubricant.

Of course there are other types of fluid bearings like in hard disks or other devices with other means of pumping lubricant between surfaces, but that seems not the case for fans (2nd pic in this article)?

Hmmm. Hmmm? I wonder then why i've heard many times that FDB bearing fans are as good as ball bearing in horizontal position aswell, unlike sleeve bearing fans?

EDIT
I'm kind of lost. I'd love to hear comments from some engineer with more in depth knowledge to describe main principles/differences of sleeve vs FDB into simple words. And especially i'm interested in practical results of FDB fans in horizontal mount position. I wonder also if many spec-ed fans as 'sleeve bearing' ones are in reality with hydrodinamic bearings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by churchy

Simpliest type of FDB looks Very much like sleeve (Fig.25.1). Rotating shaft + specificly to working temps selected viscosity-wise fit lubricant .. shaft kind of climbs/lifts up on that lubricant film resulting in not touching bearing at all. But such seems to work only in vertical position, in horizontal it will work like normal sleeve bearing? Big pile of theory. Mention of complex selection of lubricant.

Of course there are other types of fluid bearings like in hard disks or other devices with other means of pumping lubricant between surfaces, but that seems not the case for fans (2nd pic in this article)?

Hmmm. Hmmm? I wonder then why i've heard many times that FDB bearing fans are as good as ball bearing in horizontal position aswell, unlike sleeve bearing fans?

EDIT
I'm kind of lost. I'd love to hear comments from some engineer with more in depth knowledge to describe main principles/differences of sleeve vs FDB into simple words. And especially i'm interested in practical results of FDB fans in horizontal mount position. I wonder also if many spec-ed fans as 'sleeve bearing' ones are in reality with hydrodinamic bearings?

---

Interesting, sounds like Hydrodynamic and Sleeve are used synonymously. Sort of what I figured...

Regardless, I'm going to give the assumed horizontal + sleeve bearing = fail myth a try myself. I've run Yates for 2+ years in vertical without any problem, and I just installed 3 horizontally in my kids budget build pushing up through an MCR320 mounted in the top of the case. Not a huge sample, but I do plan to run them this way for as long as they last...

One week down, two years to go.

Anyhow, I guess I'm not generally too concerned with sleeve bearings, they seem to work just fine at least vertically, although some fans with ball bearings do seem to have lower resistance as indicated by their lower power consumption.

It almost seems like power consumption per CFM is actually a pretty good indicator of noise. If it's not energy is not lost through heat, it must be noise or vibration.

I think I'm going to look at power consumption more closely this next round.....thinking CFM per Watt is more important than we've been giving it credit.

Anyhow, looking forward to starting in on some testing. I'm going to probably do this in mini groups of 6-8 fans at a time (depending on how smooth/quickly the tests go), each of which will include the D12SM12 as a calibration check.:up:

Not sure which ones will show up first, but the first at the door get tested..:D and I'll retest the old fans as I have time or gaps in new fans coming in. I'm also going to do the MCR 120 scenario first, then the others depending on how it's going.

FYI, received two shipments in today...felt like Christmas...:D

Special thanks to Shazza for 6 new fans...she even let me pick them out myself..:clap::clap:

Also Gabe for the brand new MCR120, going to use the Swiftech MCR120 radiator for all the new fan testing..It is wider and should represent the optimal low resistance radiator test..:yepp::clap:
The RS120 is a bit narrow so the edges of the fan get slightly obstructed. The extra width of the MCR provides a cleaner mount and larger area should mean very low air pressure drop.

And for the first two retested fans, I've selected the Yate Loon D12SM12 and GT15.

Going to start testing these this weekend, but in the mean time I'll work on some unboxing pics..:up:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7...und6a1fans.jpg

Got the MCR120 all unboxed and ready for testing. This should provide some good improvements to lowering the air pressure drop and minimizes the shroud conflicts with the air flow path.

It's been a while since I had a new MCR, and I like the new changes. The packaging is very performance/business style. Everything is there for a performance purpose with no waste in fancy packaging printing...I like that. Also like the logo imprint on the sides and more satin black paint finish.

Got it all mounted up...ready to roll..:up:

Great stuff Martin!

Really looking forward to the new testing with this equipment!

I never understood why manufacturers could not shift the screw hole locations over just 1/8" more in either direction to avoid puncturing. :shrug:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1288824807

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrokenArrow

I never understood why manufacturers could not shift the screw hole locations over just 1/8" more in either direction to avoid puncturing. :shrug:

---

I think it's because the copper folds are standardized and meant to fit between flat tubes that are spaced at 1CM increments, and if you want the same number of pass 1 channels as the return pass 2 channels, you get a nearly perfect alignment with screw holes.

So it's a trade off, balanced channels vs potential water channel conflict and most choose to make the rad evenly balanced and centered on the fan as would I. About the only practical option is to include some sort of protector like Koolance does, but then again that's blocking a little air flow so it's trading a little bit of performance for protection. Then you have the added cost.

I'd leave them as is, and provide the right screw lengths...which most do.

After making the mistake once, I am very careful anytime I'm using custom screw lengths..:D

Just got home:)
San Aces shipped tomorrow:up:

No rush, take your time...very much appreciate all the support...:yepp::up:

I'll start a new working thread on this, this thread was more of a fan list thread and I'm sure now that I'll go ahead and retest everything I have on hand.

Glad the fans made it safely, Martin!