Static pressure measurement…
To write that we have something mapped out to the last detail is perhaps too bold, but after proper preparation, few pieces of hardware are as easy to evaluate as fans. Of course, this had to be preceded by long preparations, developing a methodology, but you already know the story. What you don’t know yet is the first fruit, or rather the results of Akasa, SilentiumPC, SilverStone, Xigmatek or more exotic Reeven fans.
Static pressure measurement…
Finally, it is time to move further down the tunnel a bit. Just behind the fan is a static pressure sensing probe. Its position has been chosen with maximum measurement efficiency in mind. In other words, the sensors are placed at the points of highest pressure (although this is virtually the same everywhere in the unconstrained part of the tunnel).
The Fieldpiece ASP2, which is connected to the Fieldpiece SDMN5 manometer, is used to measure the static pressure in the tunnel. The latter also allows measurements in millimetres of water column, but we measure in millibars. This is a more finely resolved base unit for this meter. And only from there we convert the measured values into mm H2O to allow easy comparison with what the manufacturers state.
The difference in cross-section at the intake and exhaust (where the exhaust in this case is considered to be the anemometer) is related to the fact that the pressure increases in the narrowed part and with it the airflow. In order to avoid distortion at this level and to prevent the airflow from being stated as higher than it actually is, the Bernoulli equation must be applied to the measured values to compensate for the difference between the intake and exhaust cross-section (it also takes into account the motor housings). After this, it is again possible to confront our results with the paper parameters.
The greater the difference between the manufacturer’s claimed values and ours, the less the specifications correspond to reality. If the claimed values are significantly higher, it is certainly an intention to artificially give an advantage to the fans on the market. However, if the manufacturer quotes a lower pressure value than we do, it points to something else. Namely, a weaker tightness of the measuring environment. The less tight the tunnel is, the lower the pressure you naturally measure. This is one of the things we tuned for an extremely long time, but in the end we ironed out all the weak spots. Whether it’s the passage for the probe itself, the flanges around the anemometer, even the anemometer frame itself, which is made up of two parts, needed to be sealed in the middle. Finally, the flap at the tunnel outlet must also be perfectly tight. That’s because static pressure has to be measured in zero airflow.
But there is one thing that often lowers the pressure of the fans a bit. And that’s protruding anti-vibration pads in the corners or otherwise protruding corners. In other words, when the fan doesn’t fit perfectly to the mounting frame at the inlet, and there are small gaps around the perimeter, that also affects what you measure. But we have not gone into this because it is already a quality feature of the fan. In the same way, it will “stand out” and perform a bit weaker than it has the potential to do with better workmanship, even after application by the end user.
- Contents
- Cooler Master MasterFan SF120M in detail
- The basis of the methodology, the wind tunnel
- Mounting and vibration measurement
- Initial warm-up and speed recording
- Base 7 equal noise levels…
- .. and sound color (frequency characteristic)
- Static pressure measurement…
- … and airflow
- Everything changes with obstacles
- How we measure power draw and motor power
- Measuring the intensity (and power draw) of lighting
- Results: Speed
- Results: Airlow w/o obstacles
- Results: Airflow through a nylon filter
- Results: Airflow through a plastic filter
- Results: Airflow through a hexagonal grille
- Results: Airflow through a thinner radiator
- Results: Airflow through a thicker radiator
- Results: Static pressure w/o obstacles
- Results: Static pressure through a nylon filter
- Results: Static pressure through a plastic filter
- Results: Static pressure through a hexagonal grille
- Results: Static pressure through a thinner radiator
- Results: Static pressure through a thicker radiator
- Results: Static pressure, efficiency by orientation
- Reality vs. specifications
- Results: Frequency response of sound w/o obstacles
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a dust filter
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a hexagonal grille
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a radiator
- Results: Vibration, in total (3D vector length)
- Results: Vibration, X-axis
- Results: Vibration, Y-axis
- Results: Vibration, Z-axis
- Results: Power draw (and motor power)
- Results: Cooling performance per watt, airflow
- Results: Cooling performance per watt, static pressure
- Airflow per euro
- Static pressure per euro
- Results: Lighting – LED luminance and power draw
- Results: LED to motor power draw ratio
- Evaluation
It looks like the frequency response charts do not show.
Thanks for the heads up, it’s now corrected.
In some of the older articles in English, imperfect processing techniques combined with a lack of focus resulted in incorrect paths to the spectrograms being left in the source code. If you should come across something like that again, the original language version (there are graphs with EN descriptions anyway, you can get to it by clicking the flag in the upper right corner of the page) is always correct. Alternatively, the spectrograms of the individual fans can be accessed by entering the URL according to the format “name-of-the-fan-g***”, where the *** a number from the interval 233 to 244. Of course, this is only a temporary solution until we fix it (after you reporting it). But otherwise it must always work without such complications. 🙂
Thanks, I will keep it in mind if I encounter such an issue in the future and report it so that everyone can have it fixed.
I wanted to see the frequencies because of Noctua NF-A12x25 which has a highly disturbing peak right before 400 Hz. The frequency response of SF120M looks so much better at “33dB” in comparison. That’s why it would be great to have at least 1 sound sample per fan at 33dB, to judge the noise according to personal preference.
This is true, but the reason for this is that the SF120M has an overall “dropped” aerodynamic noise spectrum in this mode due to the higher tonal peaks of the motor and bearings. This is also why it achieves a lower airflow. If the test modes were aligned for equal airflow (i.e., the SF120M would have higher RPM), I expect that the NF-A12x25 might not be noisier even at 380 Hz.