Pro/Forums - View Single Post

BillA · 11-18-2005, 07:48 PM

looks like the same as the MCW55 to me,
less the ridge which dropped the head loss
??
I guess the CFD was to arrive at the 3mm bp thickness, not to assess the pins

for, ahem, the designed flex
what crap (can conduction losses be differentiated from 'compliance' gains ?)

otherwise they know how to test, should be as described

had not thought so thick, 1.4 is a good % of 3 and indeed thicker than several
interesting, compliant bps are NOT part of any sink spec and generally a very bad idea wrt the internal TIM joint

Thanks Lee, a review in the pipeline ?

11-18-2005, 07:48 PM	#78
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	looks like the same as the MCW55 to me, less the ridge which dropped the head loss ?? I guess the CFD was to arrive at the 3mm bp thickness, not to assess the pins for, ahem, the designed flex what crap (can conduction losses be differentiated from 'compliance' gains ?) otherwise they know how to test, should be as described had not thought so thick, 1.4 is a good % of 3 and indeed thicker than several interesting, compliant bps are NOT part of any sink spec and generally a very bad idea wrt the internal TIM joint Thanks Lee, a review in the pipeline ?