The Great Primochill Typhoon III tests, an absolute SCAM

[mcoffey]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=230322

There are so many thing's wrong with this test and the way the data was represented I can't even begin to comment on it all.


Basically, they've taken a loop and cut in half for the T3 and measured the flow rate twice then combining it as an actual flow rate of the T3 itself, which is total fucking bullshit.

Then they double the restriction and loop for the other pump/tops and measured it once.

I mean you'd have to be the biggest fucking dipshit on the planet to take this seriously. The concept of combining two loops into one res and pump is nice enough (as long as you don't mind commingling the fluid from one loop to the other thus reducing the performance of the cooler loop), but to skew a test like this and somehow imply that it doubles the flow rate thru the pump and somehow revolutionizes the LC world is the most ridiculous claim in LC history.

As much as I've enjoyed Skinnee's stuff and watching him grow in the LC testing world, this whole review is utter fucking horse shit, and nothing more the a PR announcement for Primochil and Geno at Boxgods.

I've got a T3 coming, and we'll see what's what here in a week or so. But I just had to call out this weak ass bullshit for what it is.

andyc

[Worthy]

What's wrong with that?

When I put my truck on the dyno, I measure the horsepower at one wheel, then the other and I add both of them.

I found out that it actually makes more like 1300 horsepower and not the 650 I thought it did. pffft.

[mcoffey]

Originally Posted by Worthy

What's wrong with that?

When I put my truck on the dyno, I measure the horsepower at one wheel, then the other and I add both of them.

I found out that it actually makes more like 1300 horsepower and not the 650 I thought it did. pffft.

Yeah..then I guess if I hold my cock in both hands, means I got a 14 inch dick

andyc

[Xilikon]

Utter bullshit test and Untorris has shown how dumb he is by commenting positively on a borked up review.

[mcoffey]

And another aspect of it....the guy/vendor that designed that pump/res combo got first look at that review and knew it's a misrepresentation, yet he endorses it all the way,and now defending its validity.

I mean give me a fucking break dude...how desperate for sales can you be.

andyc

[Worthy]

Originally Posted by mcoffey

Yeah..then I guess if I hold my cock in both hands, means I got a 14 inch dick

andyc

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Damn right!!!

[mcoffey]

Well boys, now that I think about it I'm retiring today, so I should have a lot more time to devote to LC testing.

Shit, I just opened two browser windows up to my 401k and online stock account. I got twice as much money as I thought I did...


Hey Boss........I won't be coming back after vacation...

andyc

[trfnj74]

The funny thing is that some of the members replying even noticed and questioned it but were to scared to question him. Shit even Honda mentioned something about the flow....

Oh and congrats Andy and your retirement.....lol

[mcoffey]

Yeah....I'll put it another way just to show how silly the concept is of doubling the flow thru the pump.

The first test I'll run when the T3 get's here, is to measure the flow rate only using one leg of the T3 with the King 7520. Then I'll simply jump the outlet from one leg of the T3 to the inlet on the other leg and I should see twice the flow rate going thru the pump, right

Then after that I can stop by and get me a blow job from Heidi Klum, because that shit happens all the time too

andyc

[EIGHTLUG]

In most flows of liquids, and of gases at low Mach number, the mass density of a fluid parcel can be considered to be constant, regardless of pressure variations in the flow. For this reason the fluid in such flows can be considered to be incompressible and these flows can be described as incompressible flow. Bernoulli performed his experiments on liquids and his equation in its original form is valid only for incompressible flow.

The original form of Bernoulli's equation[5] -- valid at any point along a streamline -- is:

{v^2 \over 2}+\Psi+{p\over\rho}=\text{constant}

where:

v is the fluid flow speed at a point on a streamline,
Ψ is the gravitational potential,
p is the pressure at the point, and
ρ is the density of the fluid at all points in the fluid.

The following assumptions must be met for the equation to apply:

* The fluid must be incompressible - even though pressure varies, the density must remain constant.
* The streamline must not enter a boundary layer. (Bernoulli's equation is not applicable where there are viscous forces, such as in a boundary layer.)

If the acceleration due to gravity (g) does not change over the length scale of the problem (eg the situation occurs at an elevation which is low compared with the radius of the Earth) then Ψ = g z, where z is the elevation of the point above some reference plane (positive z-direction points upward, in the opposite direction to the gravitational acceleration). This will be assumed for the rest of this section.

By multiplying with the mass density ρ, the above equation can be rewritten as:

\tfrac12\, \rho\, v^2\, +\, \rho\, g\, z\, +\, p\, =\, \text{constant}\,

or:

q\, +\, \rho\, g\, h\, =\, p_0\, +\, \rho\, g\, z\, =\, \text{constant}\,

where:

q\, =\, \tfrac12\, \rho\, v^2 is dynamic pressure,

h\, =\, z\, +\, \frac{p}{\rho g} is the piezometric head or hydraulic head (the sum of the elevation z and the pressure head)[6][7] and

p_0\, =\, p\, +\, q\, is the total pressure (the sum of the static pressure p and dynamic pressure q).[8]

The constant in the Bernoulli equation can be normalised. A common approach is in terms of total head or energy head H:

H\, =\, z\, +\, \frac{p}{\rho g}\, +\, \frac{v^2}{2\,g}\, =\, h\, +\, \frac{v^2}{2\,g}, so divide the above constant by ρ and g to get the total head H in terms of metres of fluid column.[7][6]

The above equations suggest there is a flow speed at which pressure is zero, and at even higher speeds the pressure is negative. Most often, gases and liquids are not capable of negative absolute pressure, or even zero pressure, so clearly Bernoulli's equation ceases to be valid before zero pressure is reached. In liquids -- when the pressure becomes too low -- cavitation occurs. The above equations use a linear relationship between flow speed squared and pressure. At higher flow speeds in gases, or for sound waves in liquids, the changes in mass density become significant so that the assumption of constant density is invalid.

[mcoffey]

And that means what exactly? I can copy and paste from a Wiki as good as the next guy, but neither proves or disproves an argument?

Break it down for us simple layman please?

andyc

[EIGHTLUG]

Bernoulli's Principle is often used in my two occupations, aircraft and automobiles. In aircraft it's applies in the hydraulics, obviously, also in the shape of the wing, and in the jet engines. Carbs in automobiles and intake design in general work on B.P. The same works for car exhaust design. It's something I've always been interested in. When I build headers from scratch I mimic the airflow design of a Pratt and Whitney 229 engine. This may be hard to get your head around, but air moving through a jet engine never reaches the speed of sound. Regardless of the speed of the aircraft. Propulsion is derived from the thermal dynamic expansion of exhaust gasses in the combustion section. If not properly checked the regulated a sonic boom could occur and destroy the jet engine.

B.P. has everything to do with the aforementioned review and B.P. scientifically disproves his flow rates. Put his numbers into the equation and solve for F. the numbers don't jive.

[mcoffey]

Originally Posted by EIGHTLUG

Bernoulli's Principle is often used in my two occupations, aircraft and automobiles. In aircraft it's applies in the hydraulics, obviously, also in the shape of the wing, and in the jet engines. Carbs in automobiles and intake design in general work on B.P. The same works for car exhaust design. It's something I've always been interested in. When I build headers from scratch I mimic the airflow design of a Pratt and Whitney 229 engine. This may be hard to get your head around, but air moving through a jet engine never reaches the speed of sound. Regardless of the speed of the aircraft. Propulsion is derived from the thermal dynamic expansion of exhaust gasses in the combustion section. If not properly checked the regulated a sonic boom could occur and destroy the jet engine.

B.P. has everything to do with the aforementioned review and B.P. scientifically disproves his flow rates. Put his numbers into the equation and solve for F. the numbers don't jive.

Fascinating stuff, and makes sense

Now what I'm not saying is, in and of itself the T3 is a weaker pump top design. I'd imagine with the larger inlet and expanded volute, along with the larger outlet, you'd see better performance on a single leg then you would with a normal after market top like the EK V2 as far as straight up flow rate. I do however wonder how those larger or expanded openings might decrease head pressure or the ability to over come restriction on a single leg. Given your experience and knowledge with this type thing, which is far greater than mine, what would you predict??

andyc

[Strafe]

Why dont you post your concerns in the thread on XS? As someone who is interested in watercooling but not fluent in fluid dynamics, I'm at the mercy of those who are. If there's a flaw in Skinnee and BoxGods logic, point it out so improvements can be made. You're doing absolutely nothing constructive in this thread.

[mcoffey]

Originally Posted by Strafe

Why dont you post your concerns in the thread on XS? As someone who is interested in watercooling but not fluent in fluid dynamics, I'm at the mercy of those who are. If there's a flaw in Skinnee and BoxGods logic, point it out so improvements can be made. You're doing absolutely nothing constructive in this thread.

For me.....I wouldn't waste one minute of my time posting there. As far as "You're doing absolutely nothing constructive in this thread.". That's like saying this forum does nothing constructive, and I'm not buying that shit for a second.

If they want to get a clue and learn something about LC, they can come over here and read it If they want to keep drinking that Koolaid and get fed horse shit without thinking for their selves or trying to learn something about the hobby, they can stay right over there and rot

andyc

[RedRaider]

Originally Posted by Strafe

Why dont you post your concerns in the thread on XS? As someone who is interested in watercooling but not fluent in fluid dynamics, I'm at the mercy of those who are. If there's a flaw in Skinnee and BoxGods logic, point it out so improvements can be made. You're doing absolutely nothing constructive in this thread.

QFT and go back to drinking the KoolAid, bitch...

Would you kindly do something constructive, like SHUT THE FUCK UP !!!!

Skinnee is the fucking flaw.... Adding two loops together to magically get flowrates that make the RD-30 look like a toy???

The obvious shilling and complete fucking ignorance of the active members of XS is truly astounding...

[RedRaider]

Hey Skinnee....

TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES...

[CrazyJoe]

OK ... the possibility of the pump being able to produce more flow is possible.

#1 - essentially removing the inlet port restriction ... since there is no inlet barb on the pump ... just a reservoir.

#2 - The outlet port has less restriction due to having dual outlets, from what is essentially a small pressurized reservoir.

#3 - When in a single loop setup, the only advantage the T3 has is its reservoir inlets ... since the single outlet port would still give the same restriction as a standard fitting.

#4 - As with our processes at work ( but on a much smaller scale ) when suction pressure is increased at one end of the loop, the work for the pump is lessened and the pump is able to provide more flow with less work/energy required.
The T3 is using the extra loop as a sort of "booster" that relieves back pressure on the discharge thus allowing for more flow to be achieved with the same power involved.

On mcoffey's point ... with two loops sharing the same reservoir/pump/etc ... any gains by the cooler loop will be lost by the warmer loop.
Also, the "path of least resistance" will still hold true. The more restrictive loop will receive less flow no matter how much better the pump is delivering flow.

[mcoffey]

It's the methodology and representation of the data that's bullshit Joe. To cut the loop in half and measure the flow rate twice, and then go on about the revolutionary performance gain is pure horse shit.

And Skinnee/Boxgods should have known better than to get caught up in it, believe and post that lame shit. Not to mention that the XS management is right in there as usual supporting bullshit.

As I said earlier, I'm not doubting that the T3 isn't a superior pump/top, but I still reserve the right to change that opinion after I get the top next week. But all the 3.47 GPM and the way it's presented is pure unadulterated horse shit, pure and simple.

If after I get the top I find out I'm the one full of horse shit, I'll be the first to post a retraction and apology.

andyc

[frieten]

Originally Posted by Strafe

Why dont you post your concerns in the thread on XS? As someone who is interested in watercooling but not fluent in fluid dynamics, I'm at the mercy of those who are. If there's a flaw in Skinnee and BoxGods logic, point it out so improvements can be made. You're doing absolutely nothing constructive in this thread.

the problem is you do this and would be banned. thats how fcked up they are over there, fcking shills.

thanks for the info andyc and i can't wait to see your review on it.

im so glad i found this forum.

[bluehaze]

Originally Posted by Strafe

Why dont you post your concerns in the thread on XS? As someone who is interested in watercooling but not fluent in fluid dynamics, I'm at the mercy of those who are. If there's a flaw in Skinnee and BoxGods logic, point it out so improvements can be made. You're doing absolutely nothing constructive in this thread.

Would be nice if more people posted differing points of view, I feel as if it is me vs the world in that thread I don't neccesarily think it's a shill so to speak I think it's just a very confusing subject as to the how and why's of it all. The methodology of the testing is definitely flawed though I am starting to understand why they chose to test that way. It's just disappointing to me that all the noobs that come along are going to think they have to have this res and pump because its 2x as good as anything else when that is absolutely not the case. Performance gains as far as temps are concerned I think will be marginal at best which is not conveyed in the review :/

But as with everything on the internet majority rules and people will always buy stuff blindly without actually understanding how or if it even works simply because everyone says it's great.

Personally I am looking forward to Mccoffey's review as I am really curious about the results and will be doing some testing myself with a DDC and multiple loops to help satisfy my own curiousity.

[Warfarin88]

It seems to me that easiest way to debunk the most misleading elements of that review (for a layman) would be to simply set up an honest apples to apples comparison. The ooh shiny "test loop" graphs compare a parallel loop off the T3 to serial loops on the "competition".

Show me those graphs with the simplest of fair comparisons. Set up the EK and Detroit tops with a Y after the outlet, and run a parallel loop off of them. Add those two loops' flow together and graph THAT with the T3.

Geno's design of the inlet and outlet on the T3 appear to be beneficial *SEE EDIT; but with that suspect inclusion of the parallel loop in the mix and then touting it as the second coming... It just throws the whole review's objectivity down the toilet.

Need. More. Data.

*EDIT

Oh Christ. The single top and bottom port results are just the halves of the loops. Yeah. That review is ... creative.

[Baleful]

Well, the tests seem Xtremely skewed.

Yah know, Skinnee is human, and human error is always possible, but for the manufacturer to back up those results, is absolutely ridiculous. Boxgods knows that the fucking T3 does NOT produce the results that Skinnee is showing, but since the results show favor to his product, he ain't sayin shit.

Andy, can't wait to see your UNBIASED results

[frieten]

Originally Posted by Baleful

Well, the tests seem Xtremely skewed.

Yah know, Skinnee is human, and human error is always possible, but for the manufacturer to back up those results, is absolutely ridiculous. Boxgods knows that the fucking T3 does NOT produce the results that Skinnee is showing, but since the results show favor to his product, he ain't sayin shit.

Andy, can't wait to see your UNBIASED results

yeah thats the main problem with the fcking thing.

the product itself seems like it could be very good but with this review its just amazing to see so many people jump in and give praise to what is obviously a fcked up testing method.

[trfnj74]

The even more fucked up thing is that people are going to buy the T3 based on his review....

Originally Posted by frieten

yeah thats the main problem with the fcking thing.

the product itself seems like it could be very good but with this review its just amazing to see so many people jump in and give praise to what is obviously a fcked up testing method.