On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:51:55 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"Al Dykes" wrote:
>> You are picking *one* aspect of the many that affectthe cooling parts
>> in a box. You also freely jump between the macro and micro effects.
>> What is optimal in one is occasionally sub-optimal in the other.
>
>
> I am picking "*one* aspect* to write about that is often denigrated
> by "experts" as being undesirable.


.... and you still think if only you write enough that it
will matter but you are wrong.

It is known that turbulence ON the hot part helps. Nobody
has argued against this. IF we could have increased
turbulence, created prior to reaching the part such that
there was then even more turbulence ON the hot part, that
too would help. The problem is, we cannot get that
increased turbulence prior to the part without a decrease in
airflow.

This much we see all around us in existing products. You'll
have to build something that uses your [lower airflow,
higher turbulence] idea and demonstrate to cools better.
Until you do, you only have the entire world full of
existing equipment against you.