Enzotech-LUNA CPU waterblock

[Malik]

Sorry guys but this is some stupid talk about me. I don't lie with this what i have done - about test. I only show the difference between this two blocks in my loop. I'm not a pro tester like other here.

So for the last time, i use the same voltage for cpu, the same voltage for pump ( ver. 3.2 - info for WL ), the same thermal compound, the same liquid etc. etc. I made all the SAME for this two blocks.

RPM's i watched in aqua-computer poweradjust software which control my pump. I show you on chart max value of rpm each block - i can check this like this:




That is sad...hear something. Maybe next time i just wait for some PRO test.
Now i sitting on laptop so no more test, maybe that is good for me because some here on forum, pro lc people, will not call me a layer.

That's all from me.

[mstrmold]

That is sad...hear something. Maybe next time i just wait for some PRO test.
Now i sitting on laptop so no more test, maybe that is good for me because some here on forum, pro lc people, will not call me a layer.

That's all from me.

No Malik, I don't think anyone is calling you a liar, I just think many people like to look at other's results and see if they can improve the test results data. I personally like seeing "real world" user tests.

The one thing that is tough to understand and gets lost in translation without emotional expressions in forums (and Instant Messenger for that matter) is the intent and context of a user's posting is sometimes misunderstood. Some read the reply and think "hey, never thought of it this way", while others read it and think its a personal attack. Its really tough to convey what the poster meant. I didn't read this like an attack. It just read like statistical data that, while conflicting with your own results, just shows a different point of view. And really, isn't that what we all do? Give our points of view based on our own experimentation and or experience?

Please, don't stop posting your results. I like have multiple data points to compare to. It helps average out of whats expected against only one point of view. Keep it up!

[Waterlogged]

Sorry guys but this is some stupid talk about me. I don't lie with this what i have done - about test. I only show the difference between this two blocks in my loop. I'm not a pro tester like other here.

So for the last time, i use the same voltage for cpu, the same voltage for pump ( ver. 3.2 - info for WL ), the same thermal compound, the same liquid etc. etc. I made all the SAME for this two blocks.

RPM's i watched in aqua-computer poweradjust software which control my pump. I show you on chart max value of rpm each block - i can check this like this:




That is sad...hear something. Maybe next time i just wait for some PRO test.
Now i sitting on laptop so no more test, maybe that is good for me because some here on forum, pro lc people, will not call me a layer.

That's all from me.

Again, I've never said you lied, but we do seem to have one hell of a conundrum here...don't we. You have a test showing a "spike" differential of 236 RPM's between the block (supposedly due to loss of flow/restriction), and I have a test verifying that the DDC 3.x RPM's don't fluctuate due to restriction. Is there any particular reason you chose to run the test with the pump at less than full power? This could be the curve ball that's screwing everything up in your test. I also don't know if I like the way that RPM's oscillates like that, doesn't seem very steady for testing purposes.

Malik, I may not like the way you change your rig more than a woman changes her mind but, I've always acknowledged your skill and keen eye for style.

@ everyone thinking about doing testing:
There are plenty of ppl that have posted tests here that have been kind enough to list how they do it properly, it would be nice if everyone that does testing would learn from them, so things like this don't happen in the future. If a test can't be done right or withstand the slightest scrutiny, it probably shouldn't be posted.

[OdinEidolon]

italian review. the cooler has 4 different midplates. the site is usually a good one for reviews.

flow rate:
http://www.nexthardware.com/recensio...a/142_1179.htm

performance:
http://www.nexthardware.com/recensio...a/142_1180.htm

[twwen2]

Again, I've never said you lied, but we do seem to have one hell of a conundrum here...don't we. You have a test showing a "spike" differential of 236 RPM's between the block (supposedly due to loss of flow/restriction), and I have a test verifying that the DDC 3.x RPM's don't fluctuate due to restriction. ...

I can back that up. I've had a DDC3.2 for about a year now. In my first loop (EK Supreme - CPU only) the rpms read about 4550~4600. Now it's running in a 3-block loop (EK Supreme, NB S-Max, FC-4870) and the rpms are the same as before. I saw no change in rpms between loops of very different restriction. I have the DDC hooked up to my Scythe Kaze meter.

[Waterlogged]

italian review. the cooler has 4 different midplates. the site is usually a good one for reviews.

flow rate:
http://www.nexthardware.com/recensio...a/142_1179.htm

performance:
http://www.nexthardware.com/recensio...a/142_1180.htm

Thanks for the links Odin...performance drops in roughly where it was believed to be. I'm not crazy about the rad they use but that pump is a little beast.

I can back that up. I've had a DDC3.2 for about a year now. In my first loop (EK Supreme - CPU only) the rpms read about 4550~4600. Now it's running in a 3-block loop (EK Supreme, NB S-Max, FC-4870) and the rpms are the same as before. I saw no change in rpms between loops of very different restriction. I have the DDC hooked up to my Scythe Kaze meter.

twwen, looks like you have a pretty high amp PSU for the 3.2 to run @ those RPM's.

First chance I get, I'll be taking the testing of the DDC-2 and DDC 3.2 to the next level with more data. I just need to get my hands on some extra gear first. I'll start a new topic for that so keep an eye open.

[OdinEidolon]

Thanks for the links Odin...performance drops in roughly where it was believed to be. I'm not crazy about the rad they use but that pump is a little beast.

yeah the sanso PDH054 is one of the best pumps around... real 9 meters head pressure!
and its dimensions arent too great, its smaller that a mcp655. It costs around 110€ which isnt too much. and 12V, no need for a meanwell 24V dedicated PSU
i'd really like to see that against an IwakiRD-30

here is a good review on the sanso, from the same site: http://www.nexthardware.com/recensioni/scheda/93.htm

[Waterlogged]

yeah the sanso PDH054 is one of the best pumps around... real 9 meters head pressure!
and its dimensions arent too great, its smaller that a mcp655. It costs around 110€ which isnt too much. and 12V, no need for a meanwell 24V dedicated PSU
i'd really like to see that against an IwakiRD-30

here is a good review on the sanso, from the same site: http://www.nexthardware.com/recensioni/scheda/93.htm

I wouldn't mind surrendering a very small portion of that pressure for a bit more flow...hmm, wonder how hard it'd be to make a new top for that. Hehe...oh Alex....Quoc...any chance of etting some of these pumps?

[G-UNIT91]

yeah the sanso PDH054 is one of the best pumps around... real 9 meters head pressure!
and its dimensions arent too great, its smaller that a mcp655. It costs around 110€ which isnt too much. and 12V, no need for a meanwell 24V dedicated PSU
i'd really like to see that against an IwakiRD-30

here is a good review on the sanso, from the same site: http://www.nexthardware.com/recensioni/scheda/93.htm

Sanso PDH-054 is Iwaki killer!!!

[twwen2]

twwen, looks like you have a pretty high amp PSU for the 3.2 to run @ those RPM's.

HX620 baby!

[davidzo]

Again, I've never said you lied, but we do seem to have one hell of a conundrum here...don't we. You have a test showing a "spike" differential of 236 RPM's between the block (supposedly due to loss of flow/restriction), and I have a test verifying that the DDC 3.x RPM's don't fluctuate due to restriction. Is there any particular reason you chose to run the test with the pump at less than full power? This could be the curve ball that's screwing everything up in your test. I also don't know if I like the way that RPM's oscillates like that, doesn't seem very steady for testing purposes.

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.

[ElMoIsEviL]

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.

He might not know what a hallsensor is therefore it's best to show it in an image:


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.

[Waterlogged]

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.

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?

He might not know what a hallsensor is therefore it's best to show it in an image:


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.

[ElMoIsEviL]

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.

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.

?!

[Waterlogged]

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.

[warriorpoet]

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