Sniper
01-02-2009, 02:22 PM
FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU's Response to Hardware Labs (June 15, 2007)
FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU created a stir last month when we posted that HWLabs Black IceŽ radiators utilized a lower-performing design to our own. It was not our original intention to point out specific radiator manufacturers. In fact, the Copper Radiator Myths page did not list any company brands or names until later, when customers requested this information. To preface this page, FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU has found nothing wrong with the quality of HWLabs radiators.
However, after submitting samples to an independent laboratory (KATECH), we are maintaining our original argument. We also included a ThermoChill radiator during this lab analysis. The FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU brazed full-aluminum radiator outperformed both tested brass/copper radiators relative to size. Full test results have been posted here.
Copper conducts heat more quickly than aluminum, and FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU has never asserted otherwise. Some individuals have made the argument that this alone means a copper radiator will outperform aluminum, but that reasoning disregards the fabrication of those materials. A hypothetical heat exchanger incorporating carbon nanotubes would not necessary perform better than aluminum or copper simply because of its composition. The design matters equally!
Since HWLab's reponse, some have accused FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU of spreading disinformation, or wrongfully questioning the "industry standard". Notwithstanding the fact we feel we're correct, where would technology be if no individuals or companies were willing to question standards? FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU has posted this information because we felt it beneficial to discuss given the opposing viewpoint (which we feel is a general misconception).
To address HWLab's "Erroneous" assertion points:
1. "Glue is used to bind the fins to the tubes..." FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU originally used the term "glue" improperly due to a language mistranslation. This was intended to indicate the effect of the bonding material, and not the actual material itself since various substances and techniques can be used by different companies. Our original point that a third material is used to bond copper fins to brass tubes still stands-- whether it be solder, metal powder in an adhesive, or another technique.
2. "Brass tubes in copper radiators make for poor performance..." Both radiator designs are valid, we simply stated that brazed aluminum performs better relative to size.
HWLabs here failed to comment on the thermal performance of brass, which is the only radiator material in contact with water. Typical brass has a thermal conductivity 33% lower than aluminum. So taking only relative thermal conductivities into consideration, copper is about 70% faster than aluminum, and aluminum is about 50% faster than brass. HWLabs also mentions materials thickness, and herein emphasizes our very point: these metals are less critical when such thin pieces are used.
Considering these aspects, FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU's argument for higher performance with a 100% aluminum radiator over a brass/copper amalgamation should appear feasible.
3. "Copper is prone to oxidation and ******* performance..." Copper and aluminum both oxidize (as Cu2O and Al2O3, respectively), and each can help protect from corrosion. How significantly this affects performance is subject to debate. However, HWLab's assertion that oxidized copper is "not as dangerous" as a pinhole cavity in aluminum appears incongruous. [In an unrelated note, aluminum better protects some metals like brass from corrosion when alloyed in small amounts.]
The dissected Black IceŽ heat exchanger (WT-Xtreme-BK) was not the identical one tested (WT-GTS240). It was actually purchased new from a U.S. reseller, and water was never run through it. Therefore, contrary to HWLab's implication, FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU did not "accelerate" oxidation, and we would have to assume someone who dissected that particular model of radiator would encounter similar results. It is certainly possible the unit was used before we purchased it, or else attributable to a manufacturing anomaly.
4. "Aluminum is always the best..." What FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU maintains, is that an all-aluminum brazed heat exchanger of identical size as a brass/copper heat exchanger will have a higher heat dissipation potential. The lab's results demonstrate this.
The required initial investment in manufacturing equipment is normally greater for aluminum heat exchangers than brass/copper. Naturally, the per unit cost for either radiator design can be reduced with sufficient production.
HWLabs indicated that [copper] round tube and fins have not been used in automobiles for over 50 years. FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU did not describe the tube and fin heat radiator in detail on the myths page. We linked to a separate page describing the disadvantages of this design because some PC cooling companies still utilize this technology. It is not strictly relevant to FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU's base argument for aluminum versus brass/copper louver fin style heat exchangers.
FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU is not bound by any particular heat exchanger technique. If we decided that aluminum's advantages no longer outweighed an alternative, we would change for the benefit of our customers! We are already in the process of increasing the thickness and flow rate of our heat exchangers to further their performance over brass/copper.
SOURCE:http://www.FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU.com/technical/my..._response.html (http://www.FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU.com/technical/myths/hwlabs_response.html)
AND HW LABS SAID:
FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU: They Still Don't Get It!
Posted on 16 Jun 2007 by hwlabs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU Inc, value-added reseller of alluminum heat exchangers, releases its formal reply after over a month when its assertions against our products were brought to light.
This time though, they spent a substantial sum of time and money to reveal that their radiators work well...under automotive conditions. They further continued to maintain their assertion and muddy the waters a bit more.
The first thing any sensible user would notice is that 5m/sec air velocity is clearly not applicable for PC cooling. The noise levels alone would be unbearable.
Which part of "Aluminum is a very good alternative for this solution provided it is given sufficient frontal surface area and high airflow. Both parameters which are unfortunately luxuries that PC cooling do not have." didn't they understand?
Among so many other things they nitpicked on and never truly addressed, is the lingering fact that in between coolant, brass tube walls, solder, and the copper fins, is a 0.15mm total material thickness. Total thermal resistance is still less than that of the material used in an aluminum-zinc heat exchanger.
Is this is another case of marketing getting lost in translation yet again?
Unless of course they are now offering 350 CFM fans with their radiators and people find "tornado" to be an acceptable level of operating noise from their personal computers, we would find the challenge rather appealing.
It is quite a curious point that their tests, done by the Korean Automotive Technical Institute has a notation that states, "This test analysis report shall not be used on the purpose of any legal issues including lawsuit, advertisement, deed, etc."
Then of course the more obvious technical question is, how does a radiator of the same dimensions with a significantly higher pressure drop characteristic yield over 50% more performance than one that doesn't?
Stay tuned, its our turn now.
Source:
http://www.hwlabs.com/index2.php
FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU created a stir last month when we posted that HWLabs Black IceŽ radiators utilized a lower-performing design to our own. It was not our original intention to point out specific radiator manufacturers. In fact, the Copper Radiator Myths page did not list any company brands or names until later, when customers requested this information. To preface this page, FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU has found nothing wrong with the quality of HWLabs radiators.
However, after submitting samples to an independent laboratory (KATECH), we are maintaining our original argument. We also included a ThermoChill radiator during this lab analysis. The FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU brazed full-aluminum radiator outperformed both tested brass/copper radiators relative to size. Full test results have been posted here.
Copper conducts heat more quickly than aluminum, and FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU has never asserted otherwise. Some individuals have made the argument that this alone means a copper radiator will outperform aluminum, but that reasoning disregards the fabrication of those materials. A hypothetical heat exchanger incorporating carbon nanotubes would not necessary perform better than aluminum or copper simply because of its composition. The design matters equally!
Since HWLab's reponse, some have accused FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU of spreading disinformation, or wrongfully questioning the "industry standard". Notwithstanding the fact we feel we're correct, where would technology be if no individuals or companies were willing to question standards? FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU has posted this information because we felt it beneficial to discuss given the opposing viewpoint (which we feel is a general misconception).
To address HWLab's "Erroneous" assertion points:
1. "Glue is used to bind the fins to the tubes..." FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU originally used the term "glue" improperly due to a language mistranslation. This was intended to indicate the effect of the bonding material, and not the actual material itself since various substances and techniques can be used by different companies. Our original point that a third material is used to bond copper fins to brass tubes still stands-- whether it be solder, metal powder in an adhesive, or another technique.
2. "Brass tubes in copper radiators make for poor performance..." Both radiator designs are valid, we simply stated that brazed aluminum performs better relative to size.
HWLabs here failed to comment on the thermal performance of brass, which is the only radiator material in contact with water. Typical brass has a thermal conductivity 33% lower than aluminum. So taking only relative thermal conductivities into consideration, copper is about 70% faster than aluminum, and aluminum is about 50% faster than brass. HWLabs also mentions materials thickness, and herein emphasizes our very point: these metals are less critical when such thin pieces are used.
Considering these aspects, FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU's argument for higher performance with a 100% aluminum radiator over a brass/copper amalgamation should appear feasible.
3. "Copper is prone to oxidation and ******* performance..." Copper and aluminum both oxidize (as Cu2O and Al2O3, respectively), and each can help protect from corrosion. How significantly this affects performance is subject to debate. However, HWLab's assertion that oxidized copper is "not as dangerous" as a pinhole cavity in aluminum appears incongruous. [In an unrelated note, aluminum better protects some metals like brass from corrosion when alloyed in small amounts.]
The dissected Black IceŽ heat exchanger (WT-Xtreme-BK) was not the identical one tested (WT-GTS240). It was actually purchased new from a U.S. reseller, and water was never run through it. Therefore, contrary to HWLab's implication, FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU did not "accelerate" oxidation, and we would have to assume someone who dissected that particular model of radiator would encounter similar results. It is certainly possible the unit was used before we purchased it, or else attributable to a manufacturing anomaly.
4. "Aluminum is always the best..." What FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU maintains, is that an all-aluminum brazed heat exchanger of identical size as a brass/copper heat exchanger will have a higher heat dissipation potential. The lab's results demonstrate this.
The required initial investment in manufacturing equipment is normally greater for aluminum heat exchangers than brass/copper. Naturally, the per unit cost for either radiator design can be reduced with sufficient production.
HWLabs indicated that [copper] round tube and fins have not been used in automobiles for over 50 years. FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU did not describe the tube and fin heat radiator in detail on the myths page. We linked to a separate page describing the disadvantages of this design because some PC cooling companies still utilize this technology. It is not strictly relevant to FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU's base argument for aluminum versus brass/copper louver fin style heat exchangers.
FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU is not bound by any particular heat exchanger technique. If we decided that aluminum's advantages no longer outweighed an alternative, we would change for the benefit of our customers! We are already in the process of increasing the thickness and flow rate of our heat exchangers to further their performance over brass/copper.
SOURCE:http://www.FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU.com/technical/my..._response.html (http://www.FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU.com/technical/myths/hwlabs_response.html)
AND HW LABS SAID:
FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU: They Still Don't Get It!
Posted on 16 Jun 2007 by hwlabs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUFUFUFUFUFUFUFU Inc, value-added reseller of alluminum heat exchangers, releases its formal reply after over a month when its assertions against our products were brought to light.
This time though, they spent a substantial sum of time and money to reveal that their radiators work well...under automotive conditions. They further continued to maintain their assertion and muddy the waters a bit more.
The first thing any sensible user would notice is that 5m/sec air velocity is clearly not applicable for PC cooling. The noise levels alone would be unbearable.
Which part of "Aluminum is a very good alternative for this solution provided it is given sufficient frontal surface area and high airflow. Both parameters which are unfortunately luxuries that PC cooling do not have." didn't they understand?
Among so many other things they nitpicked on and never truly addressed, is the lingering fact that in between coolant, brass tube walls, solder, and the copper fins, is a 0.15mm total material thickness. Total thermal resistance is still less than that of the material used in an aluminum-zinc heat exchanger.
Is this is another case of marketing getting lost in translation yet again?
Unless of course they are now offering 350 CFM fans with their radiators and people find "tornado" to be an acceptable level of operating noise from their personal computers, we would find the challenge rather appealing.
It is quite a curious point that their tests, done by the Korean Automotive Technical Institute has a notation that states, "This test analysis report shall not be used on the purpose of any legal issues including lawsuit, advertisement, deed, etc."
Then of course the more obvious technical question is, how does a radiator of the same dimensions with a significantly higher pressure drop characteristic yield over 50% more performance than one that doesn't?
Stay tuned, its our turn now.
Source:
http://www.hwlabs.com/index2.php