On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:55:19 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"kornnball" verbiates
>> 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.
>
>
> What the hell is a "noise:flow ration"?

It's a typo. Guess which letter doesn't belong.


> And so what if
> bulk flow rate reduces but the increased turbulence
> compensates?

So you now concede that flow rate reduces.

Increased turbulence doesn't compensate for that.

>> I do not suggest taking any measures to try and make the
>> airflow more laminar, either.
>
>
> No, just trying to keep it laminar.
> That means trying to
> keep it non-turbulent, konehead.

I've stated the issues several times, and you only a
half-baked theory without any examples of introducing this
turbulence, helping to cool any overheating parts.

There's no point to your crazy ideas Tim, the industry knows
better and you will be the only one with a louder or hotter
system.

I'm done with the thread since you never do anything but
troll and pretend to cover something new that was already
covered multiple times- but never a test.