Pro/Forums - View Single Post

Cathar · 09-23-2003, 08:46 AM

We have a few conflicting reports here. One thread talks about the heating element being changed and labels the tests conducted as invalid, another says it wasn't.

The pictures of the Rev 3, and 3.1 show the same amount of nozzles.

What makes me question this, is that I tried a great number of combinations of base-plate thickness, tube depths, hole widths, hole geometry, etc, etc. I would hazard a very good guess that whatever geometry you used on the 3.1, I had already tried, or had been very close to.

In all my testing I found variances of around 4C from best to worst, and what was chosen for the final Cascade was the best result of those tests.

Apart from the WCP tests, has there been a different testbed without the shadow of a changed testing environment, confirmed the difference between the Rev 3.1 and Rev 3.0? Even if it was a regular system?

I only ask because I am in a fair amount of disbelief that I could have overlooked a combination that would give the results indicated.

The other possibility I can think of, and it is a vague one, is that the test flow rate is so incredibly low that a certain combination of a thicker base-plate and closer proximity of jet nozzle to cup-base would indeed provide slightly better performance than final Cascade implementation. It is true that there is no one best design for all possible flow rate regimes, and for critically low flow rates (<1lpm) the Cascade will suffer as this is outside of its design parameters.

The second possibility it this. The Cascade was tested using different, more restrictive, barbs to those which it ships with. I was unaware of the test of the Cascade, and had absolutely no control over ensuring that the block tested was configured in the way that I would ship it - that being with its standard large-bore barbs standing off correctly from the manifold chamber, and ensuring that the jets were aligned properly in the cups.

09-23-2003, 08:46 AM	#12
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	We have a few conflicting reports here. One thread talks about the heating element being changed and labels the tests conducted as invalid, another says it wasn't. The pictures of the Rev 3, and 3.1 show the same amount of nozzles. What makes me question this, is that I tried a great number of combinations of base-plate thickness, tube depths, hole widths, hole geometry, etc, etc. I would hazard a very good guess that whatever geometry you used on the 3.1, I had already tried, or had been very close to. In all my testing I found variances of around 4C from best to worst, and what was chosen for the final Cascade was the best result of those tests. Apart from the WCP tests, has there been a different testbed without the shadow of a changed testing environment, confirmed the difference between the Rev 3.1 and Rev 3.0? Even if it was a regular system? I only ask because I am in a fair amount of disbelief that I could have overlooked a combination that would give the results indicated. The other possibility I can think of, and it is a vague one, is that the test flow rate is so incredibly low that a certain combination of a thicker base-plate and closer proximity of jet nozzle to cup-base would indeed provide slightly better performance than final Cascade implementation. It is true that there is no one best design for all possible flow rate regimes, and for critically low flow rates (<1lpm) the Cascade will suffer as this is outside of its design parameters. The second possibility it this. The Cascade was tested using different, more restrictive, barbs to those which it ships with. I was unaware of the test of the Cascade, and had absolutely no control over ensuring that the block tested was configured in the way that I would ship it - that being with its standard large-bore barbs standing off correctly from the manifold chamber, and ensuring that the jets were aligned properly in the cups. Last edited by Cathar; 09-23-2003 at 08:56 AM.