Quote:
|
Originally Posted by unregistered
said it before, I'll try it again
you guys are playing with yourselves
you are attempting to characterize "h" as an apparent average value;
this will not yield a useful result
and the experimental technique is insufficiently developed to measure (back-calculate) actual values of h with any effectiveness
-> a value of "h" is always associated with a specific velocity and direction, AT a specific location
noobs
disregard this thread, it is confused
|
Bill, am very much aware of this. I am no way fooled that
h is a consistent value across the surface area. People do keep asking what
h is though, for which I can only guess is for running some ANSYS simulation of some kind....so I do comply with an "average" value.
Had been playing with some singular jet designs and explicitly exploring bp thicknesses required due to variations in h across the impingement region. Very interesting stuff, mostly focused around what to do at a smaller scale.
Incoherent, an average
h of ~120-150K is well within the realms of possibility with "commonly available" pumps with water without requiring the water to boil. Not talking about the Eheim's though, but higher pressure pumps like the Iwaki's and certain 12V pumps. Again, not that h is consistent in any fashion, but it is possible to shape various aspects to achieve such an "effect". As much as it will grate Bill for me to say it (again) I believe I have successfully demonstrated an average
h in the vicinity 110K, but I don't think for a second that I can then whack that atop the thinnest possible bp which that average value would theoretically support - with localised spot values for h theoretically dropping down to ~10K.
Am focusing work now around limiting both the size and the effect of those "low-point" spot values of h, although sometimes I feel like I am attempting to build the space-shuttle with an abacus and a chisel...