EK Water Blocks calls for the return of its Predator 240 and 360 liquid coolers

[Espinetenbolas]

Link to the official manufacturer's announcement: Important notice from EKWB: EK-XLC Predator 240 and 360 (R1.0) Product recall

EK Water Blocks (EKWB) has announced through an official statement on its website that customers who have purchased a Predator 240 or Predator 360 liquid should disassemble the kit from their equipment and proceed to return it, as all these units would be suffering from coolant leaks, which is why they have also withdrawn these liquids from the market.

“EK Water Blocks, very much to their regret, informs the public and their customers that their EK-XLC Predator 240 and 360 water cooling systems, in any of their variants (already assembled or by parts), must be completely withdrawn from the market due to the potential risk of suffering coolant leaks from the unit.”

EK Water Blocks EK-Predator 360

The company announced that “What was initially estimated as a situation of limited risk with a small percentage of units in development with a leak over time that can be resolved with direct contact with customers, turned out to be a more generalized problem.” To get rid of the problem at the root, it is being withdrawn from the market, and all Predator 340 and Predator 360 liquids manufactured between October 2015 and December 2015 (revision 1.0) must be returned. The company has already made the necessary changes to solve the problem and has begun selling the leak-free revision 1.1.

Read more at EK Water Blocks calls to return their Predator 240 and 360 liquids - El Chapuzas Informático

---

Personal Opinion: Wow :facepalm:

[Fassou]

It can happen in the best families, but this will irreparably damage their image <:(

Salu2!

[Kernel1.0]

Well, a company that reacts like this gives me confidence to buy

[Espinetenbolas]

I think like Fassou that it will harm them.

It is true that withdrawing the product honors them but nothing ensures that their design procedures are the same for all their products.

What I mean is that this type of failure should be tested, detected and resolved in the prototype phase… and it seems like they rushed too much to put their product on the market.

It is very nice to design in CAD, generate some plans, manufacture a prototype, test how it cools and launch it into production but there are other aspects of deformation and durability to take into account.

The disaster of the space shuttle Challenger was due to a poorly designed O-ring (understand the gap and the ring itself):

The Challenger was destroyed 73 seconds into the launch of mission STS-51-L, the tenth mission of the orbiter, on January 28, 1986, when an O-ring of its right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed in its sealing function. At the moment of takeoff, the right booster escapes black smoke nine times in a period of 2.5 s and stops when the ship propels itself. At the moment of ignition the shuttle nods 1 m from side to side before propelling itself, with each nod the black smoke escapes.

The rocket fuel was enriched with aluminum shavings that provided it with greater thrust, probably the aluminum slag temporarily sealed the O-ring crack delaying the catastrophe.

The O-rings failed mainly due to repeated over-pressurization during assembly and that low temperatures exacerbated even more. This anomaly was warned by the engineers of Morton Thiokol, the manufacturers of the booster parts, it was warned to NASA, but under pressure from NASA itself the engineers of Morton Thiokol yielded and authorized the takeoff.

At 58 s, the shuttle went into Q moment (instability) when it crossed a strong wind current, this opened the O-ring again. Similarly, it caused a column of fire to escape from the SRB and burn the external fuel tank (ET). The liquid hydrogen from the external tank spilled began to burn, cutting the clamps that held the SRB. The SRB swayed and hit the right wing of the Challenger. This caused the entire assembly to turn sharply and the Shuttle was exposed to uncontrolled aerodynamic forces.

The shuttle was then enveloped in a gigantic fireball at 73 s of takeoff, disintegrating almost entirely, emerging the cabin intact from the conflagration.

The 7 crew members died when the cabin of the ship impacted the ocean, after a long fall of almost three minutes. The final circumstances of their death are unknown, the accident investigation commission determined as "unlikely" the fact that any of them was conscious at the moment of impact, although later evidence came to light that at least four of the crew members could have activated their auxiliary oxygen supply systems, and that they tried to help each other.

The cabin was the only section of the ship that managed to survive the terrible destruction of the explosion, but it could not withstand the final impact against the ocean, disintegrating along with its occupants. The cabin module fell from a height of 15,240 meters, thus producing the fatal outcome.

It is just one example but this type of thing should be simulated using multiphysics before being tested and then it should be tested with a prototype to be 100% sure that the design is correct.

Now this leaves EK in disrepute and on top of that it will generate important losses for them.

In short, as I said, it will harm them.

[whoololon]

Well, yes and no.
There is no doubt that no one who is aware of this will buy the subsequent revisions of those products (or maybe they will, who knows), but in the corporate aspect, due to their track record and reputation, I don't think it will go beyond an anecdote.
Following the analogy, neither the Challenger nor the Columbia have stopped the space program, nor the launches of shuttles, nor the research into their improvements, nor have they caused the closure of NASA.

[Sylver]

It is true that when "the infallible" fails, confidence falls and sighs begin... But it is also true that Intel "stumbled" with the SATA controllers of the P67 and H67 and it seems that they remain there up there without falling from the throne. Everything depends on the magnitude of the stumble and the capacity for reaction to solve it, with which these of EK seem to be on a good path.

Greetings