On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:27:15 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

> Here are some interesting discussions and comments:

Not as interesting as how clueless you have to be to get
stuck in a continual loop where you ignore every other
variable except for turbulence.

Again Tim, read this carefully:

I have never argued that turbulence ON the hot part should
be avoided.

I have argued that attempts to create turbulence before or
after the part(s) should be avoided.

You keep thinking in simpleton mode as if dwelling on
turbulence or boundary layers as abstract topics, are the
only factors. Until you accept that flow rate matters too,
you haven't any change of seeing why you are wrong.

Since it would seem you are never going to be able to
concede you hadn't considered all the variables, I'd
proposed a test, or any existing system that had already
resolved an overheating problem using your idea.

You have nothing, because you can't follow the scientific
method to test your idea. Repeating it over and over again
as an abstract idea, not applied to anything in particular,
is no proof it will help in particular cases when weighed
against other variables.

This is not rocket science Tim, how is it you can't even
fathom more than one variable?