Madshrimps Forum Madness

Madshrimps Forum Madness (
-   Articles & Howto's (
-   -   Danger Den RBX Acclerator-nozzle Comparison (

jmke 12th February 2004 13:27

Danger Den RBX Acclerator-nozzle Comparison
Liquid3D pushes his P4 3.0 to 37xx with the help of Danger Den's RBX water block!


An in-depth look at Danger Den´s latest water block. The standard nozzle of the RBX can be swapped for a more per formant one; we set out to see what difference it actually makes!

Unregistered 13th February 2004 00:25

This article desperately needs editing - misused words, mangled sentences, paragraphs with no real information, the test description is disorganized, many of the pictures do nothing but interupt reading. Some part simply made no sense at all.

jmke 13th February 2004 00:31

"too many big words right?"

Unregistered 13th February 2004 01:29

Just saw the review and stopped by. I have to say I like the idea but some advice.
The biggest thing is that you left the windows open. Leaving the ambient temperature uncontrolled. I know the two blocks weren't tested at the same time, so especially with how wind chill changes pretty quickly I can't say how reliable the results are. That's the biggest concern really. A revised article done under a different testing strategy would be a wise decision

Unregistered 13th February 2004 01:35

In the tag-line, for example: "The standard nozzles of the RBX can be swapped for a more per formant one"

Per and formant are words acceptable to a spellchecker, but are obviously not what was intended. Is one nozzle being substituted for many? It should be "The standard nozzles of the RBX can be swapped for a more performant ones" or "The standard nozzle of the RBX can be swapped for a more performant one" (emphasis added).

Did anyone read this article before publishing? Your readers who aren't native English speakers deserve better.

Unregistered 13th February 2004 05:09

Interesting sentence "construction". : ) However, if the article means what I think it means, good stuff.

Unregistered 13th February 2004 05:12

I agree. While the research is well-done, there are many variables here... not the least of which are the open windows. Now i'm Canadian, but how many Californians are going to have access to -10C wind blowing through their room to cool. Not to mention, we see five nozzles on the fourth page. I don't see why there's three of one type and two of the other, and I'm pretty sure it's not explained.

Lastly, the phrasing of the article is abominable. No offense to Liquid, it's like he's trying to show off his (perhaps) commendable vocabulary, and in doing so loses almost the entire point of the article to the reader. (Perhaps, because it is so overboard I feel there was great overuse of the thesaurus here. Heheh...) Don't get me wrong, I read it... Up until the third page, then I decided to look at the pictures for the rest of the way, since the overuse of words like "impingement" and "antipodean’s flow" kinda turned me off. I wouldn't even mind Liquid trying to make me feel like an idiot if he provided a small dictionary at the end.

Alas, it was not so.

While this style of writing may be good for legal documents and autopsy reports, you're driving readers away. No good deal. You can be descriptive, detailed and still capture interest without showing off your brain power. I have read some fantastic books by writers that write like Liquid, and while the stories are great, it takes twice as much time to read them, for all the unneccesary archaic text-deciphering.

While I look forward to your next review... I hope you'll heed a few of my words.

Cheers ~Ambientshadow

Xploited Titan 13th February 2004 06:08

Please register, it's free... :rolleyes:

Some details I want to add: ° it's still less good then the LRWW and the Cascade (but cheaper, which compensates)...
° if you open the waterblock, the warranty is void (Dangerden is playing some strange games with it's customers)...
° Where did you see Dangerden was known for it's highest quality fabrication process? They are known for their plexi which breaks after just a few months...

Oh, and to the spelling-correcting unregistered guy, you've done mistakes in your correction... :D

Unregistered 13th February 2004 07:36

Heh, ya that does take the sting out of a complaint. :) Then again, I never claimed to have edited my post...

How's about a technical detail? There is no thermal diode at the CPU's (or IHS's) surface. All the transistors/diodes that make up a chip are on one level, they are the first structures formed on the silicon wafer. The diode used in thermal-throttling may be in a hotter region of the chip and the externally-monitored one in a cooler region, but they are the same distance from the surface.

In other silliness...measuring temps at two processor speeds is a "preponderance of data" ?

By the way, opening a DD block only voids the leakfree portion of the the warranty. All other warranties still apply.

Unregistered 13th February 2004 08:04


To date I've haven’t seen a single review where the number-5 nozzle was tested, and this surprises me given the nozzle's dispersion?
Do the nozzle disperse (as in water) or are they dispersed (as in widely scattered across the land)? And why would either possibility induce reviews?

As long as all parameters remain constant especially the motherboard thermistor reading, the nozzles become the only variables.

This portion of the review was performed on a much cooler morning, so the ambient temps (Temp-1 or motherboard) will differ from the day prior.
Hey, this is kind of fun!

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:04.

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO