Endorfy Fluctus 140 PWM ARGB works, looks come second

Endorfy Fluctus 140 PWM ARGB in detail

The first Fluctus 120 PWM fans marked a great qualitative progress in SilentiumPC production (now Endorfy). Nevertheless, they had their flaws, which the developers are gradually eliminating and, based on the measurement results, the newer 140 mm Fluctus can be said to be a clear improvement. The Fluctus 140 PWM ARGB stands out nicely from other fans in its price category.

The Endorfy Fluctus 140 PWM ARGB is one of the two variants of the Fluctus 140 mm fans – the lighted one. The RGB LED setup is placed traditionally on the PCB, around the motor, in the center, from where the light is guided through the entire rotor. The latter has a “milky” structure, so it’s fitting. Towards the tips of the blades the luminosity fades a bit, but the overall luminosity is still high above standard.

The leading edges of the blades feature serrations similar to the smaller Fluctus 120 PWM ARGB model. The difference is that the serrations on this 140mm fan are significantly smaller, although the blades themselves are longer. Thus, after the launch of the 120 mm models, Cooling (owner of the Endorfy brand) in collaboration with Synergy Cooling tuned the acoustic properties at this level.

In what exactly are the benefits of smaller teeth versus larger ones, we do not know. The manufacturer doesn’t want to give too much information about the technical basis for these modifications, which is of course understandable (it is the result of their own development, in which they have invested some money…) this design solution is also the subject of their own patents.

But we did learn something. Namely, that the size of the teeth (waves) is better optimized for longer blades and lower speeds. It certainly has to do with suppressing the resonant frequencies of sound that arise due to air bypassing, even around obstacles, for example. Remember the analysis in which we discussed that removing the serrations on the 120mm Fractal Design Aspect can (compared to similarly designed Dynamic X2 fans, which do have serrations) lead to deterioration due to reaching more intense resonant frequencies. The structure of the blades is important in this respect and can help the fans considerably. Especially when the main evaluation criterion is that the fan should be as quiet as possible at a specified airflow.

Warning: This fan may collide with nylon dust filters that do not have a reinforced mesh in some way. The height difference between the frame and the rotor structure is too small and there is a risk of mutual contact resulting in excessive, extremely unpleasant noise.

   

The blades are otherwise quite flexible and, at least at higher speeds, will certainly not avoid vibration. Compared to the high-speed BeQuiet! Light Wings fans in 140 mm format, however, the blades are slightly shorter with a wider profile. Its curvature was obviously something the designers of the Fluctus 140 also spent some time on. The “belly” of the blades is larger than usual, and the vibration of the fan depends on it as well. Especially when a smaller material thickness is used.

We have encountered imperfections or small indentations on the trailing edges of the blades, which are definitely not intentional. These are caused by imperfections in the injection molds in which the fans are created. Naturally this may not be the case with all pieces, and some (from more precise molds) may have perfectly smooth edges. Either way, it is not a significant defect and will have little to no effect on the performance of the fan.

In terms of rotor geometry, which affects aerodynamic efficiency, it should be noted that the curvature of the leading edges is quite pronounced, which means that the airflow trajectory will be cylindrical (rather than conical), so there will be less interaction in the frame area, which may make the airflow quieter. Additionally, among 140mm fans, the Fluctus 140 PWM ARGB also has the makings of achieving above-average static pressure. In fact, the gaps between the blades are relatively small, so that even under the influence of a larger obstacle resistance, they do not allow for excessive air leakage.

Cables: as far as the rotor power cable is concerned, it is fixed at 27 cm, but can be connected with the included extension cable. The latter is 40 cm in length and after this sum you can reach comfortably from anywhere to anywhere even in a full tower. The advantage of this solution is that you can also connect the extension cable to the second, male connector for serial connection of another fan.

The ARGB LED lighting also has such two connectors (female and male). This is therefore addressable, digital and powered by 5 V via a 3-pin connector, which is on a 58 cm long cable.

* When reading performance values, a certain amount of tolerance must always be taken into account. For maximum speeds, ±10 % is usually quoted, minimum speeds can vary considerably more from piece to piece, sometimes manufacturers will overlap by as much as ±50 %. This must then also be adequately taken into account for air flow, static pressure and noise levels. If only one value is given in a table entry, this means that it always refers to the situation at maximum speed, which is achieved at 12 V or 100 % PWM intensity. The manufacturer does not disclose the lower limit of the performance specifications in its materials in that case. The price in the last column is always approximate.


  •  
  •  
  •  
Flattr this!

Comments (3) Add comment

  1. I have several general questions.

    I see how the exhaust airflow pattern is often commended on. By how much does airflow pattern affect cooling performance? For example, assuming two fans have identical airflow rate on a thin radiator. One fan has cylindrical exhaust while the other has conical exhaust. Alternatively, one has a larger fan hub and the other has a smaller one. Or just different blade design in general. Does cooling performance differ, and if so, by how much? How about for case fans? How about on the intake side, does airflow pattern differ there?

    The wind tunnel is made free of dust before testing. By how much does dust settled on the wind tunnel/fan blades etc affect airflow and noise? Would a thin layer significantly affect the results?

    1. Great questions. We have had the ones from the first paragraph jotted down for a while and we will deal with them later in specialized tests. We just have to work our way through the other topics. 🙂

      As for the effect of fan “dirtiness” on air flow, I wonder how this could be tested. Of course, we keep the wind tunnel as clean as possible (it is even stored in a vacuum chamber) and I don’t think it is a good idea to risk changing the friction or reducing the anemometer speed by some sediments from the tested fan. But we’ll figure something out. For this purpose we could use some of the prototype tunnels that preceded the final one we are using. They have some imperfections, but they should be suitable for this purpose.

  2. I’m in love with these deeply scientific reviews. No other reviewer, ever, anywhere, went to such lengths and details in their reviews, especially about pc fans. Because of them I’m getting now 2x Endrofy Fluctus 140 argb for a top exhaust on case with grill+ dust filter. Having read all other reviews, I do prefer them over Pure Wings 3, they seem to be more efficient and more quiet at similar settings.
    Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *