CPU Cooler designs?

K

kony

"korny" kornballed:


No, to propose an "experiment" using unknown ancient
systems, the insides of which only you can see and only
you can arrange and only you can photograph and only
you can modify and only you can measure is useless.
And above all, you know that. And no matter how much
you call pointing out your fallacies "trolling", we all know
that your arguments are no more than fluff in the very
wind that you create..


You are clueless.

The Compaq system is (as you would know if you had even a
fraction as much experience as foolishness) quite typical of
an OEM mATX system, including those sold today except the
front plastic bezel has less intake area. The area behind
that is like any other common Dell, HP, Compaq sold in
recent years.

It has a full ATX PSU in the rear, a fan exhaust below that
just as recommended by AMD & Intel, takes mATX motherboards,
has the hard drives in the bottom front, floppy in the
middle and 5-/4" bays at the top. It is nothing unusual,
quite standard fare from an OEM- AND THE MOST COMMON TYPE OF
SYSTEM THERE IS BECAUSE OEMs SELL HIGHEST VOLUMES OF THESE.

You're still ignoring a vital part of system integration
Tim, that your wild guesses about cooling have to be TESTED.
I DO test mine, and you don't. Anyone can do these tests
and see you are wrong.
 
K

kony

"korny" danced and weaved and weaseled:



Ah! Now the Kornball changes the subject - the last dodge
of Kornball Konehead. Great. QED.

Millions of people run ATX systems fine. You make untested
claims then TROLL when someone disagrees. It's quite
on-topic that you propose something nobody else needs to do
and THEY have working systems. Only Tim with his inadequate
knowledge about system cooling keeps pretending ATX is a
problem and that some extra measure of introducing more
turbulence is necessary.

Meanwhile, all those millions of ATX systems run fine
without care whether Tim can accept it or not.
 
T

Timothy Daniels

korn said:
"Timothy Daniels"
No, to propose an "experiment" using unknown ancient
systems, the insides of which only you can see and only
you can arrange and only you can photograph and only
you can modify and only you can measure is useless.
And above all, you know that. And no matter how much
you call pointing out your fallacies "trolling", we all know
that your arguments are no more than fluff in the very
wind that you create..
[.........]
You're still ignoring a vital part of system integration
Tim, that your wild guesses about cooling have to be TESTED.
I DO test mine, and you don't. Anyone can do these tests
and see you are wrong.


You do not test for the effects of turbulence on cooling.
On that, you haven't a clue.

*TimDaniels*
 
T

Timothy Daniels

kony said:
Millions of people run ATX systems fine. You make untested
claims then TROLL when someone disagrees. It's quite
on-topic that you propose something nobody else needs to do
and THEY have working systems. Only Tim with his inadequate
knowledge about system cooling keeps pretending ATX is a
problem and that some extra measure of introducing more
turbulence is necessary.

Meanwhile, all those millions of ATX systems run fine
without care whether Tim can accept it or not.


I said that turbulence aids cooling. You said smooth laminar
flow is better for cooling. It's as simple as that. Stop faking

*TimDaniels*
 
K

kony

korn said:
"Timothy Daniels"
No, to propose an "experiment" using unknown ancient
systems, the insides of which only you can see and only
you can arrange and only you can photograph and only
you can modify and only you can measure is useless.
And above all, you know that. And no matter how much
you call pointing out your fallacies "trolling", we all know
that your arguments are no more than fluff in the very
wind that you create..
[.........]
You're still ignoring a vital part of system integration
Tim, that your wild guesses about cooling have to be TESTED.
I DO test mine, and you don't. Anyone can do these tests
and see you are wrong.


You do not test for the effects of turbulence on cooling.
On that, you haven't a clue.


Right, instead I test for the effects of REDUCING
turbulence, as that increases airflow and improves cooling.

As I'd already written, any manufacturer that thought you
were right could throw a 5 cent piece of plastic in front of
a device to increase the turbulence if it were of benefit-
but they don't - because they know as I do that increasing
turbulence ON the part is good but prior to the part it
reduces a more important variable- airflow rate.
 
K

kony

I said that turbulence aids cooling.

I never wrote that it didn't, my replies were always within
the context that your suggestion that turbulence should be
created extraneous to the surface being cooled, was in
error.



You said smooth laminar
flow is better for cooling.

Yes, it is- prior to reaching the surface of the part being
cooled. Read back over this thread because I mentioned it
again, that the goal is maximum flow rate _TO_ that hot
part, NOT to reduce turbulence on that part.

The difference is where the turbulence is created. It
cannot occur prior to the part without a corresponding
reduction in airflow, so long as all else remains equal
(which it must for any valid comparison, including the same
exhaust fans, fan voltage, etc).
 
T

Timothy Daniels

kornball said:
any manufacturer that thought you
were right could throw a 5 cent piece of plastic in front of
a device to increase the turbulence if it were of benefit-
but they don't - because they know as I do that increasing
turbulence ON the part is good but prior to the part it
reduces a more important variable- airflow rate.


Any manufacturer could easily increase flow rate by
smoothing the intake holes with rounded lips on the
intake holes - but they leave the holes as sharp edges
in flat plates which generates copious turbulence and
also noise. Why? If flow rate were so important, they'd
make the intake holes aerodynamically cleaner, perhaps
even with rounded plastic lip inserts, to reduce turbulence.
But they leave the turbulence-producing holes in flat plates.
And then they put the hard drives right behind the perfor-
ated plate. Hmmm... do you suppose the effect of the
turbulence might be to aid in cooling the hard drives,
even if it's at the expense of reduced flow rate? Not
according to Kornball. No, he says that the turbulence
produced BY THE PART cools the part better and that
turbulence produced BY THE PART doesn't reduce flow
rate. In other words, there is a difference in thermodynamics
and aerodynamecs that depends on where the turbulence
is produced, and turbulence here is not turbulence there.
Tell it to the air molecules.

*TimDaniels*
 
T

Timothy Daniels

"kornball" tries to re-srite history:
Timothy Daniels said:
I said that turbulence aids cooling.

I never wrote that it didn't, my replies were always within
the context that your suggestion that turbulence SHOULD [sic]
be created extraneous to the surface being cooled, was in
error.


THAT is where you misrepresent. Anyone can review this
and orginial threads, starting in July of 2004, in the NG
alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt, where I contradicted your
claim that turbulence in the PC case was to be avoided
because it cuts down cooling. I said that there was nothing
wrong with turbulent flow within the PC case because
turbulent flow aids cooling. And, as is your personal style,
you defended your position against turbulent flow for
unending weeks

When I pointed out that any increase in drag was evidence
of increased contact with the stationary parts, including the
parts to be cooled, you denied it.

It wasn't until I presented links to heatsink manufacturers
who touted that their heatsinks promoted cooling by
increasing turbulence that you back-pedalled and claimed
that "self-turbulence" produced by the part itself cools the
part, but that turbulence produced anywhere else would
not aid in cooling that part.

THAT is your fallacy and blind-spot. You believe that
turbulence cares where it was produced and that it acts
differently, depending on its origin, and you REFUSE
to believe or acknowledge your error - as usual. Read
on, and you will see that I am correct:
 
K

kony

Any manufacturer could easily increase flow rate by
smoothing the intake holes with rounded lips on the
intake holes - but they leave the holes as sharp edges
in flat plates which generates copious turbulence and
also noise. Why?

Actually, when we first had this argument you claimed the
same about the Dell intake and I showed you they were
rounded holes on the bezel.

As for the holes stamped into the metal, anyone who has seen
stamped metal knows this is how it ends up, with fairly
square edges. It was sharp because that is the most cost
effective way to create minimal size openings without
excessive defacement of the metal surface.

It is not any kind of grand plan to introduce turbulence,
the same exact holes are seen on parts not meant to have air
intake at all.

Where you continually fail is that you pretend to be
scientific by citing something that is not tested, not
proven to apply. That's the worst kind of pseudo-science.

If flow rate were so important, they'd
make the intake holes aerodynamically cleaner,

Nope, that is an extra step in the manufacturing process.
Even on things that would obviously have benefit with smooth
edges, like silverware, the cheaper it is the less machining
it gets to finish, round edges.

In short, you have zero evidence they attempted to create
turbulence, and have never tested let alone shown any
improvement in cooling.

perhaps
even with rounded plastic lip inserts, to reduce turbulence.
But they leave the turbulence-producing holes in flat plates.

Yes, "leave" being the key to it- if it were cheaper to
stamp out smooth edged holes they wouldn't introduce an
addtional machining step to square them off, this is an
internal portion of the case not so visible from the
outside, there is no consumer demand for the esthetics of
stamped out hole edges to be changed.

And then they put the hard drives right behind the perfor-
ated plate. Hmmm... do you suppose the effect of the
turbulence might be to aid in cooling the hard drives,

Tim, it's not about "SUPPOSING". Science is about
scientific method, of demonstrating it matters when NO ONE
has proposed they tried to create turbulence, and everyone
who stamps out holes ends up with similar edges.

even if it's at the expense of reduced flow rate? Not
according to Kornball.

So it seems you already know you have no valid argument, you
always make pathetic attempts at child-like name calling.

No, he says that the turbulence
produced BY THE PART cools the part better and that
turbulence produced BY THE PART doesn't reduce flow
rate.

You fail to consider the other important variable, that it's
not only flow rate local to the surface of the part that
matters, it's also the rate of removing that pre-heated air,
which is effected by intake and exhaust rate.

Further, increasing this rate, increases the turbulence on
the part.

In other words, there is a difference in thermodynamics
and aerodynamecs that depends on where the turbulence
is produced, and turbulence here is not turbulence there.
Tell it to the air molecules.

So you're basically ignoring that introducing clooler air is
better than recirculating pre-heated air. The higher the
flow rate, the cooler that air. Anyone and everyone knows
this except Tim. When a system has a cooling problem, what
is the user going to do? Will they either seek to increase
the intake and/or exhaust rate, or will they try to create
more turbulence?

Everyone else knows the answer to this last question- only
Tim is stuck trying to figure out the obvious.
 
K

kony

"kornball" tries to re-srite history:
Timothy Daniels said:
I said that turbulence aids cooling.

I never wrote that it didn't, my replies were always within
the context that your suggestion that turbulence SHOULD [sic]
be created extraneous to the surface being cooled, was in
error.


THAT is where you misrepresent. Anyone can review this
and orginial threads, starting in July of 2004, in the NG
alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt, where I contradicted your
claim that turbulence in the PC case was to be avoided
because it cuts down cooling. I said that there was nothing
wrong with turbulent flow within the PC case because
turbulent flow aids cooling. And, as is your personal style,
you defended your position against turbulent flow for
unending weeks

I have never claimed turbulence on the surface of the cooled
part should be avoided. Always my argument was to avoid it
at expense of chassis airflow rate.
 
T

Timothy Daniels

"kornball" b.s.'d:
So you're basically ignoring that introducing clooler air is
better than recirculating pre-heated air. The higher the
flow rate, the cooler that air. Anyone and everyone knows
this except Tim. When a system has a cooling problem, what
is the user going to do? Will they either seek to increase
the intake and/or exhaust rate, or will they try to create
more turbulence?


Smooth, laminar flow, that you espouse - flow without
turbulence - just gets the air through the case at a higher rate.
It does not get that air into close contact with the parts, parts
which are coated with a boundary layer of air as all solid
objects are. It is only turbulence that will scrub down through
this boundary layer to make closer contact with the part. That is
why some heatsink manufacturers have designed the shapes
of their heatsinks to increase turbulence. Now you're calling
turbulence "pre-heated air" to denigrate the concept. The
truth is that air that makes closest contact with a heated part
can transfer heat to or from that part best. And naturally, the
air that draws away the most heat will be raised in temperature
the most. To denigrate success by calling it "pre-heated" is
only using meaningless labels to hide the real thermodynamics
of fluid cooling. If one, such as Kornball, wants to increase the
turbulence by increasing the flow rate, fine. But understand that
it's the flow that contacts the part THROUGH the boundary layer
that cools, not the air flowing past it that doesn't scrub down
through that boundary layer.

*TimDaniels*
 
K

kony

"kornball" b.s.'d:


Smooth, laminar flow, that you espouse - flow without
turbulence - just gets the air through the case at a higher rate.


1) No airflow is entirely laminar in a case, but yes,
getting the air through the case most efficiently will
achieve any given parts temp with lower noise.

It does not get that air into close contact with the parts,

Another grand theory you have not tested, and systems do run
fine without attempts to create unnecessary turbulence
extraneous to the parts.

parts
which are coated with a boundary layer of air as all solid
objects are.

To a limited extent it is true, but then progressively less
so because of several significant factors:

1) A layer composed of air does not oppose other air.
Laminar flow past a boundary layer will not leave that
boundary layer undisturbed even if #2 isn't true.

2) The surface being cooled is radiating heat even without
ANY airflow, your boundary layer is no layer at all, it is
already moving air with no addt'l chassis airflow added.

3) The surface of the part being cooled is intended to
maximize contact with laminar airflow. This is fact! Look
at heatsinks- rows and columns of fins or pins, in an
attempt to allow air to flow through without excessive
impedance, rather than trying to maximize turbulence at the
expense of airflow.

Read the above again because you didn't grasp the basics and
now have been introduced to another issue you won't be able
to resolve. Even ON the surface being cooled, while
creation of turbulence is of benefit, it can't be done
without consideration of the reduction in airflow rate.
It is only turbulence that will scrub down through
this boundary layer to make closer contact with the part.

Sounds nice, if you ignore everything else- and that's what
you do Tim, take one simplified concept and try to argue
that it's the only thing that matters instead of weighing
ALL the factors.


That is
why some heatsink manufacturers have designed the shapes
of their heatsinks to increase turbulence.

Which ones?
If you're going to link heatsinks that merely have sharp
edges because they were stamped out of metal sheeting, I
refer back to your prior lesson about "cheapest way to do
it".


Now you're calling
turbulence "pre-heated air" to denigrate the concept.

I'm calling air that has mixed with this heated boundary
layer, HEATED UP, and if you don't remove that air from the
vicinity of the boundary layer, replacing it with cooler
air, the heat exchange rate suffers.

The
truth is that air that makes closest contact with a heated part
can transfer heat to or from that part best.

Nope, two words: thermal gradient.
You have to get the heated air away from the part,
efficiently if you don't want a high noise:airflow ratio.

And naturally, the
air that draws away the most heat will be raised in temperature
the most.

.... and subsequently, not so useful to cool anything else in
the system, so you add more fans, more noise, just to get
the same airflow rate. Thermal rise in a chassis where
there is a lot of turbulence is, more than any other time,
directly effected by the chassis I/O airflow rate. This is
indisputable.

To denigrate success by calling it "pre-heated" is
only using meaningless labels to hide the real thermodynamics
of fluid cooling.

Only you could seriously try to claim HEATED AIR is a
meaningless label in the context of cooling.

Did you ever consider that you don't have even the tiniest
clue?

Did you ever consider that when someone has an overheating
system, that they don't try to create more turbulence, they
try to increase airflow?

Next time someone posts that their CPU, or whatever, is
overheating, I'll laugh my ass off if you suggest they not
focus on increasing airflow rate, instead trying to only
cause the airflow they have to be more turbulent prior to
reaching the overheating part. If your silly half-baked
ideas were true, that should result in a cooler part. We'll
see...
 
T

Timothy Daniels

Some people believe religiously in smooth laminar flow
of fluid past an object to cool that object. But turbulence
actually acts to scrub away the boundary layer of air (or
other fluid) that surrounds the object to make closer contact
between the object and the passing fluid. It is the blind
belief of many with non-technical educations that flow should
be laminar (i.e. "smooth") because fluid flows fastest and
unimpeded by the drag that turbulent flow suffers. But it is
the very nature of the contact between the flowing fluid and
an object that causes both the drag and the transfer of heat.
In other words, drag goes hand in hand with heat transfer,
and drag against a surface to be cooled is a measure of
the success one will have in cooling that surface.

Below are random FALLACIOUS arguments for laminar flow:

1) A layer composed of air does not oppose other air.
Laminar flow past a boundary layer will not leave that
boundary layer undisturbed even if #2 isn't true.


Laminar flow is by definition flow over and past a
boundary layer. If a fluid were to flow normal (i.e. in a
"perpendicular" direction) to the surface, it wouldn't
be laminar flow

2) The surface being cooled is radiating heat even without
ANY airflow, your boundary layer is no layer at all, it is
already moving air with no addt'l chassis airflow added.


Well, it's hard to argue with nonsense grammar,
but in a PC case, almost ALL the heat removed is
by forced convection, e.g. air moved by a fan, not
by radiation.

Even ON the surface being cooled, while creation of
turbulence is of benefit, it can't be done without consider-
ation of the reduction in airflow rate.


Reduction in flow rate as fluid flows across a surface
is one measure of the contact between the fluid and the
part. If the fluid does not slow down, it is because it didn't
actually contact the part.

Which ones?

Here are some interesting discussions and comments:

http://www.thermaflo.com/crosscut.shtml

"Turbulent air breaks the stagnant air boundary layers
around the pins and, as a result, enhances the heat sink's
thermal performance."

http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2001

"To induce turbulence within the fins and improve thermal
transmission between the air and metal, Thermalright have
modified the aluminum fins by adding 'proprietary bent winglets'."

http://sound.westhost.com/heatsinks.htm

"Simple convection is not as effective (even for the same rate
of flow of air), because of the "laminar" flow of air (where the
air at the surface of the heatsink moves slower than that further
away). This effect can be easily seen on a windy day. If you stay
close to a wall or other large area (lying on the ground works too),
it will be noticed that it is less windy than out in the open. Exactly
the same thing happens with heatsinks (but on a somewhat
reduced scale). Creating turbulence is an excellent way to defeat
this process, but this requires fans, and fans are noisy."

http://www.fischerelektronik.de/fischer2002/fischer/Fachb-Act_Rep/kuehlkonzepte/KKoneng_e.htm

"The heat transfer towards the flowing air that can be achieved
with plain fins is relatively restricted. The laminar air flow that
emerges is not sufficient to carry off the heat. Therefore, attempts
are being made to improve heat transfer (fins to air) by producing
more turbulent flow using an appropriate fin geometry."

http://www.hilltech.com/products/uv_components/UV_irradiators.html

"Optimizing cooling efficiency in an LIA is achieved by using
a heatsink-based aluminum reflector, where the material has
a high thermal conductivity and the design maximizes the effects
of surface area and turbulence. Within reason, the more surface
area the better the lamp cooling. Also important is turbulence,
because of the skin effect in cooling. A thin layer of air surrounding
a cooling surface acts as a thermal insulator impeding the effect
of forced air-cooling. This layer needs to be disrupted by turbulent
airflow, which can be created by providing irregular fins and fin
geometries."

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6729383.html

"at least some said protrusions affect said streaming of said
fluid so as to enhance the turbulence of said streaming of said
fluid, thereby enhancing convective heat transfer from said
object to said fluid."

two words: thermal gradient.
You have to get the heated air away from the part,
efficiently if you don't want a high noise:airflow ratio.


"Thermal gradient" is a measure of the change in
temperature per unit of length. The closer that a
passing fluid gets to an object of a differing temperature,
i.e. the thinner the boundary layer, the greater the gradient
in the direction normal (i.e. "perpendicular") to the surface.
That means that the more turbulence, and the resulting
thinning of the boundary layer, results in a higher temperature
gradient and a faster transfer of heat. That's what a high
temperature gradient does.

... and subsequently, not so useful to cool anything else in
the system,....


The goal of cooling an object is to transfer its heat to
something else. If the cooling fluid gets hot, it's because
it drew away heat - just what you want.

In short, the goal of PC component cooling is not to just get the
largest volume of air into and out of the case per unit time, it's
to get the largest volume of air IN CONTACT WITH THE HEATED
PARTS per unit time, the turbulent flow in the vicinity of those
parts, regardless of how that turbulence is generated, is most
important.

*TimDaniels*...
 
K

kony

Some people believe ...

<snip>

No Tim, you're the one with these "beliefs", ideas that are
UNTESTED.

You propose something that has not considered all the
factors in cooling, that even causes detriment to more than
one other factor, and have no examples of your proposed
concept actually helping cool any computer parts.

In short, if you can't put what you read in context, you'd
be better off doing less reading and more testing.
 
T

Timothy Daniels

konehead said:
You propose something that has not considered all the
factors in cooling, that even causes detriment to more than
one other factor, and have no examples of your proposed
concept actually helping cool any computer parts.

Here are some interesting discussions and comments:

http://www.thermaflo.com/crosscut.shtml

"Turbulent air breaks the stagnant air boundary layers
around the pins and, as a result, enhances the heat sink's
thermal performance."

http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2001

"To induce turbulence within the fins and improve thermal
transmission between the air and metal, Thermalright have
modified the aluminum fins by adding 'proprietary bent winglets'."

http://sound.westhost.com/heatsinks.htm

"Simple convection is not as effective (even for the same rate
of flow of air), because of the "laminar" flow of air (where the
air at the surface of the heatsink moves slower than that further
away). This effect can be easily seen on a windy day. If you stay
close to a wall or other large area (lying on the ground works too),
it will be noticed that it is less windy than out in the open. Exactly
the same thing happens with heatsinks (but on a somewhat
reduced scale). Creating turbulence is an excellent way to defeat
this process, but this requires fans, and fans are noisy."

http://www.fischerelektronik.de/fischer2002/fischer/Fachb-Act_Rep/kuehlkonzepte/KKoneng_e.htm

"The heat transfer towards the flowing air that can be achieved
with plain fins is relatively restricted. The laminar air flow that
emerges is not sufficient to carry off the heat. Therefore, attempts
are being made to improve heat transfer (fins to air) by producing
more turbulent flow using an appropriate fin geometry."

http://www.hilltech.com/products/uv_components/UV_irradiators.html

"Optimizing cooling efficiency in an LIA is achieved by using
a heatsink-based aluminum reflector, where the material has
a high thermal conductivity and the design maximizes the effects
of surface area and turbulence. Within reason, the more surface
area the better the lamp cooling. Also important is turbulence,
because of the skin effect in cooling. A thin layer of air surrounding
a cooling surface acts as a thermal insulator impeding the effect
of forced air-cooling. This layer needs to be disrupted by turbulent
airflow, which can be created by providing irregular fins and fin
geometries."

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6729383.html

"at least some said protrusions affect said streaming of said
fluid so as to enhance the turbulence of said streaming of said
fluid, thereby enhancing convective heat transfer from said
object to said fluid."



The goal of cooling an object is to transfer its heat to something else.
If the cooling fluid gets hot, it's because it drew away heat - just what
you want.

In short, the goal of PC component cooling is not to just get the
largest volume of air into and out of the case per unit time, it's
to get the largest volume of air IN CONTACT WITH THE HEATED
PARTS per unit time, the turbulent flow in the vicinity of those
parts, regardless of how that turbulence is generated, is more
important.

*TimDaniels*
 
K

kony

Here are some interesting discussions and comments:

What's interesting is you can't understand that a
generalized concept only applies against other variables and
that you have to test with all the variables in the scenario
you want to demonstrate has any benefit.

Thus far, no examples of it helping to cool what you suggest
it would, only examples were others have chosen NOT to do
it.
 
T

Timothy Daniels

"kornball" peers out of his dyslexic fog:
What's interesting is you can't understand that a
generalized concept only applies against other
variables and that you have to test with all the
variables in the scenario you want to demonstrate
has any benefit.

Thus far, no examples of it helping to cool what
you suggest it would, only examples were others
have chosen NOT to do it.


Only kornball could have written that.
Chew on this, kornball konehead:

http://www.thermaflo.com/crosscut.shtml

"Turbulent air breaks the stagnant air boundary layers
around the pins and, as a result, enhances the heat sink's
thermal performance."

http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2001

"To induce turbulence within the fins and improve thermal
transmission between the air and metal, Thermalright have
modified the aluminum fins by adding 'proprietary bent winglets'."

http://sound.westhost.com/heatsinks.htm

"Simple convection is not as effective (even for the same rate
of flow of air), because of the "laminar" flow of air (where the
air at the surface of the heatsink moves slower than that further
away). This effect can be easily seen on a windy day. If you stay
close to a wall or other large area (lying on the ground works too),
it will be noticed that it is less windy than out in the open. Exactly
the same thing happens with heatsinks (but on a somewhat
reduced scale). Creating turbulence is an excellent way to defeat
this process, but this requires fans, and fans are noisy."

http://www.fischerelektronik.de/fischer2002/fischer/Fachb-Act_Rep/kuehlkonzepte/KKoneng_e.htm

"The heat transfer towards the flowing air that can be achieved
with plain fins is relatively restricted. The laminar air flow that
emerges is not sufficient to carry off the heat. Therefore, attempts
are being made to improve heat transfer (fins to air) by producing
more turbulent flow using an appropriate fin geometry."

http://www.hilltech.com/products/uv_components/UV_irradiators.html

"Optimizing cooling efficiency in an LIA is achieved by using
a heatsink-based aluminum reflector, where the material has
a high thermal conductivity and the design maximizes the effects
of surface area and turbulence. Within reason, the more surface
area the better the lamp cooling. Also important is turbulence,
because of the skin effect in cooling. A thin layer of air surrounding
a cooling surface acts as a thermal insulator impeding the effect
of forced air-cooling. This layer needs to be disrupted by turbulent
airflow, which can be created by providing irregular fins and fin
geometries."

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6729383.html

"at least some said protrusions affect said streaming of said
fluid so as to enhance the turbulence of said streaming of said
fluid, thereby enhancing convective heat transfer from said
object to said fluid."

http://www.overclockers.com/tips90/ -

"Turbulent air cools better. Say, for sake of argument,
you have a simple tube with a fan in the middle. The fan pulls
air from one side of the tube, and blows into the other. If you
have a hot component on the exhaust side of the fan, it will
be more efficiently cooled than on the intake side.

"This is because the air on the exhaust side of the fan
is more turbulent. For lack of a better explanation, the loops
and whorls of turbulent air moving across the surface pick
up more heat. The effective surface area of the object is
increased. (Actually, it was explained to me by saying the
effective surface area of the air is increased.) The total
volume of airflow remains the same, but turbulent air just
cools better."

http://www.begellhouse.com/books/497d60632054f587,6ddfe1a32b58c789.html -

"Turbulent flow is the most common form of motion of liquids
and gases playing the role of the heat-transfer medium in thermal
systems. The complexity of turbulent flow and the importance of
hydrodynamics and heat transfer in practice inspired continuing
research for methods of efficient heat augmentation by the
Lithuanian Energy Institute. The solution of this problem was directly
linked with the determination of the reaction of flow in the boundary
layer to the effect of various factors and heat transfer rate under
given conditions. The investigated factors included elevated degree
of turbulence of the external flow as well as strong acceleration and
turbulization of flow near the wall by surface roughness. The material
in this volume shows that it is possible to control the efficiency of
turbulent transfer when the vortical structure of the turbulent flow is
known."

http://www.cougarlabs.com/cool2.html -

"For convective heat transfer to work well, we need to get the
heat energy out into the flowing coolant. Turbulence will do this
for us."

http://www.ceere.org/beep/docs/FY2002/Turbulent_Flow_in_Enclosure.pdf -

"Comparatively speaking, turbulent flows often lead to higher
transport rate of momentum, energy and mass than laminar flows.
These features are widely made use of in energy systems in industry.
For example, turbulence enhancers such as ribs are added to
cooling systems of turbine blades and microelectronic devices
to create more turbulent motions so that the overall heat transfer
efficiency can be improved."

*TimDaniels*
 
T

Timothy Daniels

"kornball" dances and weaves to get out:
Turbulence ON THE HOT PART is exactly what I wrote all
along.


Wrong!! What you have said ALL ALONG started on July 10,
2004 in alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt where you said:

"Those links were examples of what we've been saying all
along, that turbulence should be created on the surface being,
needing cooled."

You said "CREATED ON THE SURFACE", not impinging on
the surface, not brought to the surface, not directed at the surface.
That was the start of your "Self-Generated Turbulence" theory,
which was a way then to weasel out of your position that turbulence
was just plain bad. Now you're claiming that you meant all along
that the turbulence must be ON the hot part, not necessarily generated
AT the hot part. What a weasel! Dance Bo Jangles, dance!

The fact is that it doesn't matter a whit WHERE the turbulence
is generated, but that it impinges on the part to be cooled or
heated. And that is because the air molecules don't care where
they had their kinetic energy increased and randomized. What's
important for the heat exchange is that those molecules have
enough kinetic energy in a direction vertical to the solid surface
to penetrate the boundary layer that surrounds and blankets that
surface.

*TimDaniels*
 
K

kony

"kornball" dances and weaves to get out:


Wrong!! What you have said ALL ALONG started on July 10,
2004 in alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt where you said:

"Those links were examples of what we've been saying all
along, that turbulence should be created on the surface being,
needing cooled."

You said "CREATED ON THE SURFACE", not impinging on
the surface, not brought to the surface, not directed at the surface.


Tim, you can't cool an ATX system like everyone else.

You have no point to make.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top