The Feser Company X-Changer 120.3 Pressure Drop Results

[Marci]

Martin PM Marci, he may know what barbs were used in the PA... I would BET they are the plastic BSPT barbs that used to ship with them...

Not a clue I'm afraid - it was a long time ago. IIRC, I sent him our "older" G3/8" metal barbs (the ones that require PTFE) when I shipped the rads to him to test, but whether he used them or not I couldn't say (memory crap these days)... either way, he'd have accounted for the barbs' own pressure drop when he produced the figures... he always does...

thought the plastic barbs was added by DD, not Thermochill ?? BillA is from the UK ?

Correct - plastic barbs were never added by us... DD supplied them with the rads. In the UK, we sold them without barbs and let customer make the choice. Some bought TEFEN's blue 3/8" BSP fittings, some bought our metal 3/8" BSP fittings, some bought the O-ring fittings that are now available from us...

BillA = USA (Texas area to be precise when last I heard from him, but he was off to do something with irrigation systems or summat I think so maybe somewhere else now).

I really admire swiftech and thermochill for posting this sort of good useable data to help us ofigure things out.

That's cos BillA tested independently years ago (when he first reviewed HE Series radiators posted at overclockers.com), then went to work at Swiftech and produced their data, then went to work for Coolingworks (and produced their data), then, once he'd left both companies (thus assuring neutrality of reviews) was commissioned to produce our data once again for the PA series. All credit for those companies releasing that data goes to BillA for actually collecting that data for us to publish.

Now that Bill has retired from the scene, you won't find similar data that can be directly compared to any of his... it HAS to be tested on the same test rig under the same conditions for any of it to be directly comparable - remember that important detail. Swiftech data can't be compared to PA series data or HE series data or Coolingworks data... all 4x sets of data were produced on different testbeds and thus can't be directly compared to each other accurately. If thermal testing is to be done on Feser's new rad, whoever does it should, at the same time, test all others to produce comparable data. I suggest "acquiring" all triple rads for a bulk test session on a single testbed in a controlled environment.

The data used in the Cooling-masters article for the HWLabs series was also produced by BillA. David wrote the review etc, but the thermal and pressure drop data was all provided by BillA.

ALL c/w radiator data that is used as the foundation of most watercooling calcs tends to have been produced by BillA. I don't think anyone else has produced reproduceable accurate c/w data since (Bill's testrig was worth thousands and consisted of VERY good equipment, including a small wind tunnel and enviro chamber, and could produce accuracy to 4 decimal places).

And, yes, 5 deg C improvement is a hell of a lot to pull over the PA Series unless using what we'd consider to be "noisy" fans... in which case yes, it's easily doable. I'm still a firm believer in Cathar's work, and strongly believe any improvement over the PA Series at it's "optimal" airflow range will be in the very small fractions of a degree (ie: a difference of miniscule proportions difficult to measure). As Cathar stated, the brick wall has been hit when it comes to radiator performance, and I stand by his statement fully, until proven otherwise by testing as thoroughly (and appropriately - no 500cfm fans and 30lpm liq flow escapades) as that done by BillA.