Results: Static pressure through a plastic filter
With the FT12 fans, DeepCool has departed somewhat from the aerodynamic design of the older FK120 models, which is also reflected in their different functioning. In some ways it’s a change for the better, in some ways for the worse, but overall the fans are attractive. One of the reasons is the unconventional design, which allows you to see inside the motor. The housing is in fact clear and you can also light up underneath.
Results: Static pressure through a plastic filter
Note: “Higher is better” (the result of static pressure in the charts) is only valid for comparing fans of the same formats. We have discussed what the quantity “static pressure” means and how to understand it in this article.
Why is there a missing value sometimes? There may be more reasons. Usually it is because the fan could not be adjusted to the target noise level. Some have a higher minimum speed (or the speed is low, but the motor is too noisy) or it is a slower fan that will not reach the higher decibels. But the results in the graphs are also missing if the impeller is brushing against the nylon filter mesh. In that case, we evaluate this combination as incompatible. And zero in the graphs is naturally also in situations where we measure 0.00. This is a common occurrence at extremely low speeds with obstructions or within vibration measurements.
- Contents
- DeepCool FT12 in detail
- Overview of specifications from the manufacturer
- 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
The results seem to indicate that this fan is optimized for RPM-normalized performance instead of noise-normalized performance, and little attention being paid to its behaviour on obstacles. Surprisingly disappointing to me especially vs. the excellent FT14.
In addition to facing significantly less competition, the FT14 has a narrower blade inclination. It’s significantly larger on the FT12 and although the frontal profile of the fan looks great, even for use on obstacles, it does have some weaknesses. Similar in nature to Arctic’s F fans, for example, although in the case of the FT12 they don’t manifest themselves as noticeably. With fans, an overall aerodynamic design is significantly more efficient for all scenarios. 🙂