This is a first – a fan with the leading edges of the impeller blades on the opposite side to normal ones. This is primarily done for a better view of “fans without stator struts” in cases with glass side panels. In addition, such an unconventional design also has quite clear and measurable advantages and disadvantages, also in terms of functional characteristics. Let’s take everything in turn.
Measuring the intensity (and power draw) of lighting
Modern fans often include lighting. This is no longer a “cooling” parameter, but for some users the presence of (A)RGB LEDs is important. Therefore, we also measure how intense this lighting is in our tests. These tests are the only ones that take place externally, outside the wind tunnel.
We record the luminosity of the fans in a chamber with reflective walls. This internal arrangement is important to increase the resolution for us to measure anything at all with lower luminosity fans. But also so that the readings do not blend together and it is obvious which fan is emitting more light and which one less.
The illumination intensity is measured in the horizontal position of the fan, above which is the lux meter sensor (UNI-T UT383S). This is centered on the illumination intensity sensing chamber.
The illumination is controlled via an IR controller and the hue is set to RGB level 255, 255, 255 (white). We record the brightness at maximum and minimum intensity. According to this, you can easily see if the brightness is high enough, but conversely also if the lower level is low enough for you.
In addition to the brightness intensity, we also measure the power draw that it requires. This is again through the shunt, which is between the Gophert CPS-3205 power supply and the (A)RGB LED driver. After this we get a reading of the lighting power draw. In the graphs we show it separately, but also in sum with the motor power draw as the total maximum fan power.
Any plans for tests of the non-reverse variant, and also spacers (like Noctua NA-IS1)? To me they would be the logical next steps for topics raised in this test.
We do not plan to test the standard variants of TR120 fans in the near future. In the long run, the basic plan remains the same – we have to compare all the fans that exist, haha. Only time will tell where we will really end up. 🙂
We’ve had the NA-IS1 frames in our editorial office since their introduction. Of course it would be really useful to get to them and one day it will come. I still can’t make space for them – there is always something “more important”.
Always looking forward to your tests, whatever they are🙂
One additional question though, could you further elaborate what’s going on with the hexagonal grille tests for this fan? First time I’ve seen a fan that somehow has parts of the data missing in the middle (33 and 36 missing, but not 31 and 39). You say unstable tonal peaks, so is the RPM unstable at those noise levels, or is it due to something else?
I think it’s happened before. But maybe it was for the quietest or loudest mode of normalised noise and then it can be attributed to another reason? Anyway, I will explain.
It is important to realize how we bring the fans to the “same noise level”. It’s not like we set the fan somehow and it’s stable at, say, 36 dBA. It’s that we set the fan so that the average of 30 samples ends up at 36 dBA. The interval of these samples can be in the range of 35,9–36,1 dBA during the measurements, for example, but possibly also in a much wider range, for example 32–38 dBA, and now I am not exaggerating. This latter case is similar to trying to get the TR120 into the 33 and 36 dBA modes, which failed. With no PWM setting (nor after very fine tuning of the pulse strength with voltage in single digits of mV), we could not set the fan on the grille so that the average of 30 samples corresponds to 33 dBA and 36 dBA, respectively. It was always more or less, i.e. not what was required. This is a topic that certainly makes sense to look at in more detail. Especially after Noctua opened this “Beat frequency theory” topic, which is a good basis for understanding the issue by a wider than very narrow spectrum of users.
–“Beat frequency theory”
…well, already during the 1st world war the company on the bridge had to stop marching in order not to shake the bridge.
Wave interferance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference
In acoustic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics)
Thanks for your detailed explanation. The only other time I have heard the need of averaging noise samples is from ThermalLeft. What’s the sampling rate you’re using?
This phenomenon is definitely worth looking into some day, especially for instances like this where large deviations occur.
The sampling rate of the Reed R8080 is 1s. The settings for the individual modes normalized according to a fixed noise level are based on the arithmetic mean of a 30-second recording. This must always be exactly 31.0; 33.0; 36.0; 39.0; 42.0 or 45.0 dBA after rounding.