Reality vs. specifications
The culmination of our trilogy of tests of Arctic’s 140mm fans is here. With the P14 Max, the designers have worked on improvements that change both the acoustic properties and performance of the fan. The main new feature, the hoop, allows for, among other things, a significant speed increase, due to which this fan can have a really high airflow. On the other hand, fans of extra low speeds will not be too pleased.
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
- Arctic P14 Max in detail
- Overview of manufacturer specifications
- 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)
- Measurement of static pressure…
- … and of 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 depending on 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
Really, really interesting results.
I have heard that the P14 max suffers from motor noises, but it’s clear now that it’s only at <900 RPM where it's unstable.
The outer ring having almost no impact on noise profile is very surprising. Well, at least in the no obstacles environment. The huge impact of the ring on noise profile on radiators, despite having no effect otherwise, is even more surprising. Perhaps the back pressure cause deformation of the blades or something like that?
P.S. The links to radiator frequency plots are broken in the English version.
Thanks, fixed! 🙂
From the measurements on the fan frame, we know that the P14 Max is not a source of significant vibrations even at medium speeds, and yet the tonal peaks at low sound frequencies are quite high. We can assume that the vibrations on the blades will also be very weak and in a situation on a radiator, due to its resistance, the character of the vibrations may change. And they may move out of the unpleasant resonant frequencies. I guess it could be like this, that is, unless someone comes up with a more realistic theory. 🙂
Anyway, the fact is that the color of the sound on radiators is quite pleasant. That is, on our testing ones. Of course, you can’t generalise this.
The unpleasant tones that occur at certain RPMs are primarily from blade and frame spar resonance, and the source of their excitation is essentially unrelated to aerodynamic factors, and is primarily from the torque ripple of the motor. You can test the frequency of the anomalous tone at a particular RPM, and the RPM at which it occurs and the frequency of the sound wave will form some sort of mathematical relationship to the number of poles/coils in the motor (i.e., the frequency of the motor’s torque ripple) and the RPM at which the anomalous tone occurs won’t change, regardless of whether you increase the impedance or create a pressure pulsation that interferes with the blade’s aero-dynamics work.
Distinguishing a resonant noise from a blade or frame can be accomplished by observing a significant increase in frame vibration at the onset of the anomalous tone, and by observing a diminution of the anomalous tone when the frame tabs are pressed down.
However, note that in high speed (e.g., 4000+ rpm for 120mm fans) plastic impeller fans, the frequency of blade resonance rises slightly at high rpm due to pre-stress from blade deformation. The intrinsic frequency depends mainly on mass distribution and rigidity, and it is not easy to balance mechanical reliability and aerodynamic performance.
https://noctua.at/en/custom-designed-pwm-ic-with-scd
It would seem like this technology is a (partial) solution to this problem. Are there other ways of mitigation?
That wind tunnel looks great!