Reality vs. specifications
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.
Reality vs. specifications
Explanatory note: For a quick overview of how manufacturers “spice up” specifications, we have a sort of “truthfulness” coefficient. We calculate this by putting our measured values in proportion to those given in the specifications by the fan manufacturers. A result of “1.00” means that the claimed parameters match the values we have recorded. After such a finding, we can conclude that the manufacturer has done his job honestly and the way he presents the fan agrees. The more the coefficient number is different from 1.00, the less accurate the claimed specifications are. Of course, the better case for the user is if the coefficient is higher than 1.00 (and it is, for example, 1.20), then the real parameters exceed the paper ones. Conversely, if the coefficient starts with zero, then the fan does not reach the parameters on paper. For example, a value of 0.80 means that the real airflow or static pressure is 20 % lower than the manufacturer claims. If a value is missing from the chart, it is because the fan manufacturer does not specify the airflow or static pressure.
- Contents
- Endorfy Fluctus 140 PWM ARGB in detail
- Basis of the methodology, the wind tunnel
- Mounting and vibration measurement
- Initial warm-up and speed recording
- Base 6 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
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?
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.
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!