Thermochill cheat? (Who can read portugese)

[coolfris]

Where not the first site with this news Coolfris

checkout http://www.bouweenpc.nl/nieuws/1099 to

But if i'm honest its a bit to negativ and i get your point,
Where redoing the newspost now,

WTF? That site isn't even calling it a cheat but there they say TC is ripping off their customers with their rads.
They should be banned from the internet for those words.



With all respect, but I think the people of both those websites lack suficient knowledge of watercooling to fully understand that this is a non-issue. Maybe thats why it's possible they concieve it as something that matters and start saying those undignified things about a produkt that has made a great contribution to watercooling in general in terms of a step forward in quality and performance. Even when there will come a better succesor as the king off cool, the PA series have made their marks for a long time now and should be respected for that.

I know your website has just started and there is some great enthusiasm among its members for cooling, overclocking and sub zero benching. I higly apriciate that and think there is a potential to become a great website.
But participating in mud throwing and calling it news is imo not the road to become a serious site about anything at all.

[cegras]

Why is it that the idiots are the ones that always managed to get into positions of influence?

Seriously.

As some must have knowledge, the recent radiator of the Thermochill has been in great prominence for this InterNet is... E this reason? Because it reaches resulted as none another one in the flow test. Link for test in the MartinsLiquid: Here! Now the reason of the topic and also of the gotten result: With this enormous hole the water easily passes of the entrance for the exit of the radiator without at least being cooled. Obviously that it has influences in the gotten temperatures... But the improvement in the results of flow rate test is sufficiently great. This is not clean game! E is difficult to discover because I am not to see much people to cut radiators of $100's

a) I'm sorry, I thought TC are the best not because of flow, but because they cool superbly with low CFM fans that only BIX's can achieve with high flow, high pressure fans. Can you tell me you'll get the same results with YL-D12SL on a 120.3 compared to a BIX 3 or a MCR 3?

The fact that TC's cool the best with low RPM fans vs other radiators shows that they actually need less air flowing through it, which means (ergo) they have a high surface area of dissipation which would also mean that there is a high rate of liquid moving through the tubing with the fins, not through your stupid 'ginormous hole'

b) ENORMOUS HOLE? ENORMOUS HOLE?!

Where the HELL did you get "ENORMOUS HOLE" from?


---


Furthermore, it's funny how this antagonist has

a) "FESER COOLING" plastered all over his signature

and

b) Has not responded in ANY way to the all the challenges of the posters here, as well as explanations offered by martin about flow rate and by people about how the bending is probably a engineering limitation, to challenges of crying foul on one sample in thousands and a challenge to buy more to see if this is a consistent cheat.

No, he simply goes to nitpick with someone about posting on this site instead of some other site.

And this is why arguing on the internet gets you nowhere. Soon as the other guy realizes he's losing, he dons his NAZI GRAMMAR hat.

[iandh]

I'm not sure if all of these Feser fanboys realize how much of a disservice they are doing to Feser by going on a Thermochill trashing spree.


Great way to promote a new product!






edit: Also, I have worked in a fabrication shop for over ten years. Anybody with at least 1.5-2 brain cells to rub together, that takes a look at that divider piece, should instantly be able to figure out the reason it has a larger radius than the endcap which it is fitted into.

I'll give a hint, it doesn't have a damned thing to do with flow.

[teko]

Even if it is the feser gang thats on a rampage, what good is it going to do them? they rad has to be really extreme with the price tag they got on it, and if so, why are they complaining about the price on tc's? they're cheaper than feser and are so far still the best performing.. If Feser's is better, they are going to charge even more for the best performing rad..

Just sounds like someone is abit sad that he's own favorite isn't the favor of everyone else.. reminds abit of the time of koolance jet engine test's :p

[Catz]

Why is it that the idiots are the ones that always managed to get into positions of influence?

Seriously.



a) I'm sorry, I thought TC are the best not because of flow, but because they cool superbly with low CFM fans that only BIX's can achieve with high flow, high pressure fans. Can you tell me you'll get the same results with YL-D12SL on a 120.3 compared to a BIX 3 or a MCR 3?

The fact that TC's cool the best with low RPM fans vs other radiators shows that they actually need less air flowing through it, which means (ergo) they have a high surface area of dissipation which would also mean that there is a high rate of liquid moving through the tubing with the fins, not through your stupid 'ginormous hole'

b) ENORMOUS HOLE? ENORMOUS HOLE?!

Where the HELL did you get "ENORMOUS HOLE" from?


---


Furthermore, it's funny how this antagonist has

a) "FESER COOLING" plastered all over his signature

and

b) Has not responded in ANY way to the all the challenges of the posters here, as well as explanations offered by martin about flow rate and by people about how the bending is probably a engineering limitation, to challenges of crying foul on one sample in thousands and a challenge to buy more to see if this is a consistent cheat.

No, he simply goes to nitpick with someone about posting on this site instead of some other site.

And this is why arguing on the internet gets you nowhere. Soon as the other guy realizes he's losing, he dons his NAZI GRAMMAR hat.

WOW WOW WOW.. i have to sleep at some point mister! I live in Europe so while you are talking i'm sleeping so DUH that i'm not responding.

I've read this whole thread and i have said it before that if i get a normal explanation about why it's not a cheat i would not hessistate and say you are correct.

Now i have read everything and i must say you are right on every part except on the "flow" part since i do not understand why it would be a good test when this hole somehow artificially improves the flow.. or am i wrong? (just tell me instead of getting angry )

Next to that: thank you for calling me a morron... i did not call anyone names and i think it's very disrespectful from your side!

Btw my signature has nothing to do with my judgement! I have a TC rad! I don't have a Feser rad and yes I will receive one in a short time from feser BUT the only reason i have this signature is because i just love the tubing and water... Besides what's wrong with having a favorite brand?

The news article has been removed from my site.

[Durkadurka]

I've read this whole thread and i have said it before that if i get a normal explanation about why it's not a cheat i would not hessistate and say you are correct.

Why do you need a normal explanation?
Your statement of this being "a cheat" means there's no reason to take you seriously.
What, you want design of every piece of equipment made an ISO-standard, so that you can call everyone who doesn't follow the standard "a cheat" ?

[Martinm210]

Considering the Feser radiator I tested was a prototype, there is a good chance things could change for the production model, so I've have removed the Feser curve as a comparison. As far as I'm concerned they were nearly equal in pressure drop and this whole thread is a waste of hot air because that little leak amounts to nothing at all.

The TC PA120.3 I tested was a production model, and they all have that same divider plate. They are all cut and pressed formed on the same machine, so my PD result is a good test, it matches real world production samples, and it matches TC's own testing (Which BTW the fact that they publish that sort of real scientific data on their own website is EXEMPLARY ).

There are only two very simple things that define the performance of a radiator. Pressure drop for how restrictive things are and C/W curves for various fans that defines thermal performance relative to flow rate and different fan types. Every product out there has to make some trades between restriction and thermal performance, but high restriction doesn't mean high performance, there is good and bad restriction. Restriction that improves velocity and turbulence at critical and necessary areas is good restriction, and restriction that causes no performance gain is bad. Post both pressure drop and c/w curves on your website and you've defined performance and the trades between the two.

And here is my suggestion for removing more bad restriction from radiators. If you want to reduce pressure drop, clean up the flow tube ends inside the plenum chambers. Either flare them out as much as possible or cut them off flush and radius the ends. The entrance losses into the tubes probably accounts for half of the total restriciton in a radiator. I think most radiators could reduce restriction there by 30-40%. In fact I may even take my old bonnie heatercore and cut it open to demonstrate my theory.

Now how about some "constructive" improvements and advancements to products

[C'DaleRider]

Well, I've read and re-read this entire thread and it makes me alternately laugh out loud and shake my head in disbelief.

The laughing comes from "the Cheat", as it's called.

The shaking my head comes from it being posted as "news" and in horrifying descriptions and details.....depicting nothing substantive other than rampant speculation and innuendo.

Honestly, I believe Remcokatz is nothing more than a Chicken Little, crying foul about something found but not substantiated to have any positive or negative effect on a TC radiator.

All I've been able to read from his "news" break and other sites is just speculation.....not one whit of testing to prove a damned thing. Instead, we have innuendo and speculation being bandied about as being fact.

But a couple of observations/suggestions........

If "Chicken Little" Remcokatz is so darned sure this is a cheat, take a TC rad, plug one end of the "cheat passage" up, and have the flow rate and pressure drop tested by an impartial party, like Martin. I don't think anyone would recognize any testing done by anyone screaming cheat right now.

Second, most people buy radiators based on thermal performance. I see no way this "cheat" helps in that on a TC.....to me it would, seemingly, hamper performance. So how does the TC rad continually outperform every other radiator on the planet, esp. with low cfm fans? I know I've gotten my Q6600, G0 stepping, to perform at 3.9GHz at 1.50V, on a TC radiator and never broach 58C after an hour of OCCT testing using S-Flex "F" fans. At 3.6GHZ, at 1.35V, I can run my S-Flex fans at 7-9V, utterly silent, and never broach 55C after an hour of OCCT. Cannot say that about any other rad out there....low cfm fans (maybe 50 cfm flow through the TC rad) combined with a TC 120.3 rad equals unparalleled performance.

Maybe closing off that passage will increase its thermal performance.....who knows? Again, it'd take unbiased testing, doen pre- and post-closure of the passage to actually determine this. But its thermal performance has never been matched with low flow fans by any other rad.....period.

So, now you are screaming about flow cheating, Remcokatz? An aspect, while somewhat important, is not as important as the primary function of the rad, thermal rejection?

So get one tested independently. Like I said, close off one end of the passage and have it tested. (You don't have to close off both ends....once it fills with fluid, it'd essentially act just like a solid piece of metal.) But I see no attempt to try unbiased testing, just trying to trash Thermochill for a design choice.....and one you may not understand.

BTW, Remcokatz, have you asked TC why it's there?


For what it's worth, it almost seems to me to be something strange here. Who in their right mind cuts open an expensive TC radiator ot see if it's cheating in flow rates? Perhaps it is someone acting on "suggestions" from a competitor to "investigate" a "cheat" found by that competitor when the TC was being torn down to almost copy its design? After all, if you're going after the top dog in radiators, why not copy what they've already designed? Saves a lot of time, expense, trial-and-error, etc.

This is all a tempest in a teapot unless unbiased testing is done to prove the "claims" and assertions being levied against TC......and all this "cheating" BS almost seems like an underhanded viral attack on TC from unnamed sources just as a new product is introduced to market to compete against the King of Cool.



And since I'm ranting and rambling, I've always wondered why so many accept product samples from manufacturers for testing of a product instead of obtaining one from retail sources? I know there is the expense angle...but taking a sample directly from a manufacturer smacks of being fed a "golden sample" or one that's been "enhanced" beyond what is available via retail.

It'd be too easy to provide a sample of a product that performs just a bit better than one can buy via normal retail outlets.....it's been done time and again by various manufacturers over the decades......Pontiac's GTO test by Car and Driver in the 1960's is a famous example. Pontiac provided a GTO for testing....and amazingly, it was faster in the quarter mile than the top gun Ferrari of the day.

Turned out that from outward appearances, it was a GTO just like any other. Under the hood, so to speak, it'd been massaged like hell....bigger ports in the head, ported intake (and the intake was not the stock production one, either), slightly higher compression, etc., etc. Nothing that could be seen or found via routine road testing but only with tearing the engine apart.

Well, C&D eventually did just that......and found it was a fudged sample.

So, I just wonder if some companies or manufacturers have been doing just this in computer part/component testing? Just a thought......(we all do remember the fudging the previous iteration of OCZ and their memory "testing" proved to be.....right?)

Not saying TC is doing this as their performance numbers match between real world testing of retail samples and what they publish on their website....it's just others out there making unfounded and unsubstantiated claims of besting this or that's performance and only giving samples to be tested........

[iandh]

I've read this whole thread and i have said it before that if i get a normal explanation about why it's not a cheat i would not hessistate and say you are correct.

I posted a bit rude post above, insulting the intelligence of anyone who thought this was a cheat, but I must admit that it really wasn't all that productive. I'll tell you why I think the baffle is constructed like that from the point of view of a person who build things like this for a living.

When they first set up the production line for these rads, dies were made to stamp the end plates and baffle plates, and the divider. It is very typical for a radiused piece such as the divider plate to be purposely designed with a slightly larger radius that the piece it is going into to ensure that it fits snugly and fully into its mating piece. If they were to try and cut it close, they could end up with a worthless die that produces dividers that don't fully insert into the end caps, or it could cause assembly problems later down the line as the end cap stamping dies wear on the corners, causing the radius to reduce slightly.

This still looks like a totally normal loose tolerance part for mass production. It surely is a bit sloppy fitting, but I have no instinct whatsoever that it was purposely made that way for performance reasons. In fact, it is quite possible that the person who designed and produced the dies was working only from very rough specs and had no specific knowledge of this radiators performance characteristics.

[YugenM]

Just put the issue to rest, guys...

[Catz]

Considering the Feser radiator I tested was a prototype, there is a good chance things could change for the production model, so I've have removed the Feser curve as a comparison. As far as I'm concerned they were nearly equal in pressure drop and this whole thread is a waste of hot air because that little leak amounts to nothing at all.

The TC PA120.3 I tested was a production model, and they all have that same divider plate. They are all cut and pressed formed on the same machine, so my PD result is a good test, it matches real world production samples, and it matches TC's own testing (Which BTW the fact that they publish that sort of real scientific data on their own website is EXEMPLARY ).

There are only two very simple things that define the performance of a radiator. Pressure drop for how restrictive things are and C/W curves for various fans that defines thermal performance relative to flow rate and different fan types. Every product out there has to make some trades between restriction and thermal performance, but high restriction doesn't mean high performance, there is good and bad restriction. Restriction that improves velocity and turbulence at critical and necessary areas is good restriction, and restriction that causes no performance gain is bad. Post both pressure drop and c/w curves on your website and you've defined performance and the trades between the two.

And here is my suggestion for removing more bad restriction from radiators. If you want to reduce pressure drop, clean up the flow tube ends inside the plenum chambers. Either flare them out as much as possible or cut them off flush and radius the ends. The entrance losses into the tubes probably accounts for half of the total restriciton in a radiator. I think most radiators could reduce restriction there by 30-40%. In fact I may even take my old bonnie heatercore and cut it open to demonstrate my theory.

Now how about some "constructive" improvements and advancements to products

I posted a bit rude post above, insulting the intelligence of anyone who thought this was a cheat, but I must admit that it really wasn't all that productive. I'll tell you why I think the baffle is constructed like that from the point of view of a person who build things like this for a living.

When they first set up the production line for these rads, dies were made to stamp the end plates and baffle plates, and the divider. It is very typical for a radiused piece such as the divider plate to be purposely designed with a slightly larger radius that the piece it is going into to ensure that it fits snugly and fully into its mating piece. If they were to try and cut it close, they could end up with a worthless die that produces dividers that don't fully insert into the end caps, or it could cause assembly problems later down the line as the end cap stamping dies wear on the corners, causing the radius to reduce slightly.

This still looks like a totally normal loose tolerance part for mass production. It surely is a bit sloppy fitting, but I have no instinct whatsoever that it was purposely made that way for performance reasons. In fact, it is quite possible that the person who designed and produced the dies was working only from very rough specs and had no specific knowledge of this radiators performance characteristics.

Now those are some explanations that sound wise and usefull

To anyone else stating that i'm the one who started this i'll remind you that i did not start this post!

Now please stop using me as an example to show that you are correct because i will let this issue rest since i now know "what and how" as you could have read in my reply before this one.

Thank you all

[cegras]

Yes, but there were also a jillion other explanations like that earlier in the thread.

And I'm pretty sure it's up to the person who makes the claim to research their claim a bit more thoroughly before they make their claim.

Also, whether or not you were the OP is irrelevant, as you did post your news up on your site. So meh.

[Kurz]

To put this website in Perspective...
The Portuguese / Brazilians are quick to cry foul.
Just like they do in Soccer.

I am one so I know how it is.

[Waterlogged]

To be sure, I just rechecked the overclocking section and it seems that there are air cooling setups reaching 4.7 to 4.9 Ghz. Are you beating that on water and if so by how much? People are talking about the Cryo-Z getting a dual core to 5Ghz. So the same argument could really be made for (single stage) phase. But the practicality argument remains pretty good as far as I can see. Of course there are potential noise and longevity arguments as well. But as far as sheer performance per dollar air cooling is absolutely unbeatable.

Link please? I'd like to be sure I'm looking at the same info you were.

[biftek.]

[gojirasan]

Link please? I'd like to be sure I'm looking at the same info you were.

here you go. And just scroll down further there are quite a few more in the range I stated.

I was shocked myself to see 4.9. I figured 4.7 would be the limit on air. Hell, I'm only shooting for around 4.4-4.6 on my new rig with dual PA120.3. I didn't think my statement would be controversial. I've read much of the same here before. These days watercooling is not about significantly higher overclocks. Let's not kid ourselves about that. I guess we all have our own reasons though.

[Waterlogged]

here you go. And just scroll down further there are quite a few more in the range I stated.

I was shocked myself to see 4.9. I figured 4.7 would be the limit on air. Hell, I'm only shooting for around 4.4-4.6 on my new rig with dual PA120.3. I didn't think my statement would be controversial. I've read much of the same here before. These days watercooling is not about significantly higher overclocks. Let's not kid ourselves about that. I guess we all have our own reasons though.

Thanks, it's as I thought. Those were absolute max OC's, they were not claimed as 24/7 stable. I saw only 2 ppl that used P95 in their ss and they were 4.0GHz (53ºC) and 4.4GHz (76ºC). Everyone else that posted a ss was using SuperPi, hardly a stability standard. It also seemed to be a select few combinations of hardware offering that kind of boost.

The thing with water is, most go for max OC that is 24/7 P95 stable while maintaining a quite system as many crunch or fold with their rigs, I'm sure those air boxes were screaming bloody freakin murder. A good water setup would hold those OC's (if not higher), and do it with lower temps.

[Xilikon]

Waterlogged is correct, watercooling will allow those who run 24/7 for crunching (I do myself) to have a high overclock while keeping the temps in check for 24/7

[demisterman]

Sorry, no offence intended but will someone please put an end to this thread as my ribs are beginning to ache from laughing. The thought of reading about another conspiracy theory, genius design idea or downright manufacturing cheat is too much to bear. My knowledge of computer ‘enhancement’ is limited but I have been manufacturing selling and buying copper and brass heat exchangers for over 25 years, which means i have pretty much seen and heard it all….. Until now!
A friend with one of these Thermochill coolers alerted me to this thread and asked my advice. I say a friend but was actually one of his children so that probably makes me too old to post on a forum about xtremesystems!… BUT! Having upgraded his cooler from a double to a triple he has allowed me to dissect his old unit to check for ‘secret tunnels’ and the like. I am not comparing this to other coolers, simply offering an opinion on what I see.
The design is pretty standard for a cooler with mass produced parts. The standard of the materials and matrix used is high. Thinner/cheaper brass, matrix and steel could have been used but to the detriment of the cooler. The standard of soldering and assembly looks high and there are a few nice touches in the manufacture of what is essentially a hand made unit. The baffle is the centre of this discussion so I took time to check this. It was sealed to the core with a rubber strip which did as it should. The baffle is a single pressing with a flanged edge to give a better soldering surface area (all good). The solder in my unit is well done and fully seals the baffle. On removal of the baffle I could see that the radius of the baffle was very slightly larger than that of the inside of the tank. This has the potential to leave a VERY SMALL pinhole when the solder shrinks in the hole during manufacture. This would be rare and the size of hole would be so small that any flow through there would be immeasurable and insignificant. I can’t see why anyone would deliberately put a hole this small in this type of exchanger on purpose. It would be almost impossible to replicate and completely pointless in this or any other application.
The original pictures I saw were of a cooler that had been ‘butchered’ and all the solder and brass torn. Not a very scientific way to make such wide ranging accusations against any product especially when they are misguided. Good job you can’t get sued on these forums because the guys at Thermochill must be a little miffed to say the least.
Judging by the quality of material, design and workmanship the cooler is not bad value for money in the world of exchangers. I think you need to focus on the more important issue of how well it performs in your environment.
STAY COOL!!! Demisterman

[Liquid.]

Bah, thats not cheating!

Cheating is like bugging drivers for extra marks in 3dmark.

This is just a different design method, every company uses different design methods.

Tell me this, have you seen a MCR320 cut open? No i highly doubt it,how about an xspc rad then? No thought so.

This is in now way cheating, It would hardly affect temps like 0.1c....

Thermochill still wins!