[Les]

Originally Posted by BillA

I would that others paid as much attention to Inco as you
as to the comment about the sink affecting the source, is that not the purpose ?
it is precisely your PCA (Apca ?) that is so difficult with the 6000; semi-impingement, flow bypass, huge swept area, thick bp
anything you select is no more than that, a selection
to have a realistic basis some parametric modeling is needed to establish the sensitivity to source size (uniform flux IS assumed)
you are doing it backwards ? (do I understand ?)

"the sink affecting the source, is that not the purpose ?"
Yes but was referring to sensors not source

"it is precisely your PCA (Apca ?) that is so difficult with the 6000; semi-impingement, flow bypass, huge swept area, thick bp anything you select is no more than that, a selection "
Yes it is a selection, then do beermat iteration with old Swiftech data - pick-and mix.
The plateau is a liberal interpretation of Suresh Garimella's work .The extent and height of plateau and height of descent-from are Flomerics determined(should be fudge factors but..)
Apogee is relatively easy in that plateau taken to extend beyond pin area.
WW and MCW are beasts.
Similarly MP-05-SP the plateau controlled by outer jets.

"(uniform flux IS assumed)"
Yes in die-simulators. Trying parabolic for CPUs

"you are doing it back wards ? (do I understand ?)"
Yes, in so far as am still using modelled parameters in all model extensions.
This seems reasonable with fair agreement between modelled and half analyzed flux-bloc-MCW6000 values of Rvirgin
When and if there are some experimental values for h(eff) will incorporate them.
Think you understand

Edit1:

Originally Posted by Incoherent

FEMLAB session tonight.

Best of luck..
My first attempts at Strand 7 only produced a pretty picture of a beam.
However have been forced into Excel formula - Parabolic W and Bill's radiators
Edit2: Added link to Garimella's work