Re: turbulent flow not bad for cooling On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:43:42 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
>"kornball" continues to dodge and equivacate:
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>>Some people believe religiously in smooth laminar flow
>>>of fluid past an object to cool that object.
>>
>> Oh?
>>
>> Who?
>
>
> YOU, kornball konehead.
Apparently you alreay know your thread is nothing but a
trolling attempt, else why start it if you can't accept
disagreement- because you already knew there was some and
your thread was a pathetic attempt to get someone to agree
with you, even when you still did not face facts- when
someone has a cooling problem, the advice and solution is
never "try to create more turbulence upstream of the part",
it's always "increase airflow", unless a particularly unique
problem like very high ambient temps in which case it may
call for other changes too like a better heatsink or climate
control for the room.
>
>
>> I believe in reducing turbulence PRIOR to the part, and
>> AFTER the part. The part itself when properly designed,
>> has sufficient 'sinking for this and the system designer needs
>> only sufficient airflow rate.
>
>
> Riiiight. The ol' cockamammy "Self-Turbulence" concept
> of yours.
Argue with th entire industry Tim, because that's how parts
are designed to be cooled.
> You'd just put on a bigger and bigger and BIGGER
> heatsink until - by brute size alone - enough heat would bleed
> through the boundary layer to cool the part.
Clueless one, I don't decide what heatsink gets put on
products you buy at Newegg, or any other major retailer.
Independant companies make the same conclusions year after
year, and disagree with you.
> Then you'd sit
> back and say "See, all it needed was "proper design".
I'd say, "you're the only one that keeps trying to claim
everything is difficult and only you have a secret solution,
nevermind these systems you claim need help, work fine".
Nobody cares about your silly idea until it is demonstrated
to actually make a difference.
Silly claims without ANY examples of it making that
difference are utter stupidity. |