Hoot said:
This small effort I put forth has spawned some kind of Techno-WitchHunt. If it were not for all the positive emails and PMs I have gotten the past day or so, I'd swear off doing anymore tests. Peter does not deserve any grief either. The poor guy simply designed and manufactured a series of water blocks that happen to work well with my setup. I suspect they will work well with other peoples setups also.
and
Originally posted by Road Warrior
Anyway, lighten up guys, whaddya wanna do, burn Armstrong at the stake for walking on the moon??
Let me jump in here for a moment and see if I can clarify some communication issues.
First, no one disputes that Peter has made a first rate water block. Whether he comes in above or below the Swifty and DD models, here's a guy who on his very first attempt is competing with the leaders of the pack. Peter deserves a lot of praise for bringing in a wb from scratch that gives the big boys a run for their money while being smaller and cheaper.
But there are some issues that do seem to be in dispute. First is the issue of whether Hoot's results can be extended to other systems, and hence whether the Gemini really is better than the swifty. Second is the issue of the theory behind Peter's block. I'll address these in order.
What I hope to acheive it the recognition that we can continue a substantial discussion of the issues in this thread, and even ask some very hard headed technical questions, without engaging in either a witch hunt, or burning Armstrong at the stake.
Hoot's testing
Hoot, being the careful, fair-minded tester that he is, never claims more than anecdotal strength for his results. He acheived those results by careful testing on a single system that he carefully describes. Your mileage may vary. Anyone who thinks that Hoot's testing doesn't provide good anecdotal evidence needs to go take a remedial course in research design.
Of course, we can still discuss just how extendible Hoot's results are. What would happen with different flow rates? WHat would happen with reverse flow? WHat about other blocks? WHat about systems with higher or lower heat outputs than Hoot's? These are all legitimate questions that are left open by Hoot's testing. (I think Hoot recognizes this.) The fact that these questions are left open doesn't mean that Hoot's testing is inadequate or flawed, it just means that it's anecdotal, which is of course all that Hoot ever claimed. Frankly, as anecdotal evidence goes, Hoot's is some of the best. Hopefully he'll consent to doing some more testing.
The distinction between the quality of Hoot's testing and it's extendibility is important. Questions about extendibility are not questions about quality. If this were not so, then almost every experiment done by the best scientists would have to count as poor quality since almost no experiments are perfectly extendible.
Peter's theory
I've already mentioned that Peter deserves Kudos. I believe that the engineers among us are happy to admit that. But in standard academic style they quickly pass on to the question of WHY the block works. Criticisms of Peter's theory do not amount to criticisms of his work. Peter has produced a first rate block. Whether he produced it by math, intuition, a vision from god, or reading chicken entrails, that fact remains. The engineers are trying to understand why the block works, not questioning whether it works.
But the question of why the block works is an open one. Petere can tell us why he thinks the block works, and we can debate whether his theory is correct. Doing so is not in itself a way of giving Peter grief. In fact having your theory questioned in this case should be taken as high compliment. It means you've produced something that deserves discussion. When an idea is just hogwash, it tends to be dismissed, not criticized.
It's important to understand the theory behind Peter's block. I mean the theory that explains why it works, not the theory that he used in building it. If we can understand the theory, that may help us to build even better blocks. If we ignore the theory, then better blocks will be a matter of sheer luck and probably won't happen. If we just take Peter's word for the theory, then if he's wrong we run the risk of not being able to create better blocks.
As good as Peter's block is, we want even better blocks. OUr best chance at getting them is to understand the principles that make Peter's block work. The best way to start on that is to ask Peter what theory he used in creating it, and then critically evaluate that theory to see if we can improve on it.
Academics and engineers can seem harsh when we start to criticize someone's theoretical stance. In part we're just so used to doing it, that we forget that other people aren't accustomed to it. Among ourselves, such criticism is often considered high praise. If I were in Peter's position, I'd be thrilled that people were taking me seriously enough to be highly critical of my ideas. But then, I'm an academic and used to that sort of thing.
So, I hope that the technical discussion can go on. The critics among us can try to remember that our ways can seem harsh to others, and the non-critics can try to remember that for some of us criticism is the highest form of flattery.
I apologize for the length. Some of you know that I am nothing if not long winded. But I hope that this can smooth some ruffled feathers and foster continued discussion of an important block and the theory behind it.
nihili
