On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:21:46 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"kornball" wrote:
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>
> No part is designed to be cooled by laminar flow or designed
> to be cooled by turbulent flow.

Wrong.



> They are merely designed to
> be cooled.

Yes, WITH the nonsense considerations you're claiming are
needed.

However, you are the one trying to claim I'm the proponent
of "laminar airflow".

That is not what I argued. I argued for not making efforts
to increase turbulence, then you went off half-cocked like
always, trying to suggest I mean a purely, hypothetic
laminar airflow. For a moment or two I did go along with
it, within the context of it being the other alternative to
trying to change the airflow, but all the while recognizing
that it is never purely laminar, and all the while
mentioning the reasons- that creation of this turbulence
will increase noise:flow ration but more importantly,
decrease flow rate.

I do not suggest taking any measures to try and make the
airflow more laminar, either.

It would seem you need to try really HARD to screw your head
on and have intelligent discussions, because your idea of
argument is laughable.


> The system assembler has the job of choosing
> cooling methods. The part designer just designs for the lowest
> common denominator - YOU.

Again you have a basic REQUIREMENT you have not met-

An example

Find someone, one single system that had overheating parts
and it was solved by increasing turbulence without any
additional airflow.

Again I remind you that you are only considering one
variable among many, and ignoring anything detrimental in
your idea. Show your idea works Tim, because so far as real
examples go, they all suggest otherwise.