Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cathar
Well the jetted area on the Cascade is larger than any core is presently, and this is to cater for large cores that may be covered by an IHS.
As it stands, the heat of say, a Barton die underneath the shipping Cascade really only engages about 35% of the block's jetted area. The other 65% is basically cooling nothing.
By making the base-plate thicker, the heat will spread to a wider area, engaging more of the jetted area in the act of cooling the heat. By making the base-plate thicker, the thermal resistance inherent in the copper's conduction is also increased.
As I was saying, there is a trade-off point for the base-plate thickness on the basis of the rate of convectional cooling being applied.
|
Thats what I meant exactly
You chaps obviously have to much time on your hands to post so much or are hopless addicts as I am
Discussion about jet sizing and distancing pontificates over 'How to obtain trully turbulent flow' age old cooling dilema.
Reynolds number tells us if liquid flowing over surface (pipes in our cases) is turbulent or laminar. We want truly turbulent. Reynolds number is proprtional to Velocity and specific lenght L (pipe diameter here). We obviously cannot increase pipe diameter as much as coolant's velocity so we go for the latter.
To obtain truly turbulent flow we need Reynolds >4000 (
reference here ).
The whole reason for turbulent flow is to make as many water molcules get in contact with 'sticky' layer as possible and to reduce boundary layer thickness to minimum (Fourier's Law of conduction Q= k*A*dT*time/d, where d here is thickness of boudary layer and Q energy transferred).
Jet impigement system substitutes for larger heat transferr area limited by dimensional constrains here.
Does it make any snense?