Pro/Forums - View Single Post

Les · 12-21-2005, 04:15 AM

A brave attempt to rationalise performance with radiators physical characteristics.
The conclusions* are supported by the evidence.
Although I have niggling doubts about the superiority of MCR80-QP over BI Micro being entirely explained by one being single row and the other dual ("This superiority of a single row over a dual row is due to the more efficient use of the fan’s output".).

Think radiator testing and wb testing are at similar crisis points.
Relations between measured data sets and performance are not understood.
The radiator situation is illustrated by the can we agree on the basis of "C" in C/W ? and calibrating' the DUT instrument connections discussions.

The WB situation by the often heated arguments over Testing Method, with particular reference to Apogee versus Storm

Suggest the only way forward is analysis. The interaction between DUT and the Test-Bench has to be analyzed. In particular the relation of Sensor Values to Real Values and Real Values to "Figure of Merit(FOM)"
Jonathan(Incoherent) and I are actively exploring WB /Heat-source/Sensor-Reading/FOM . Bill appears to be alone(with the exception of UNDERBYTE's kind offer) in the radiator labyrinth.
Think, at the moment, any testing can only be used for banking. The difficulty for the tester is that everything has to be recorded.

* "Dual row radiators and heater cores have a greater heat rejection capability than single row, but to utilize the higher capability stronger fans must be used to overcome the airflow resistance."

Edit: Added second radiator link

Edit 2: Replaced truncated and misleading quote of conclusion by full sentence

Edited: In the light of Bill's comments

12-21-2005, 04:15 AM	#3
Les Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Wigan UK Posts: 929	Re: Thought you guys would like this.... A brave attempt to rationalise performance with radiators physical characteristics. The conclusions* are supported by the evidence. Although I have niggling doubts about the superiority of MCR80-QP over BI Micro being entirely explained by one being single row and the other dual ("This superiority of a single row over a dual row is due to the more efficient use of the fan’s output".). Think radiator testing and wb testing are at similar crisis points. Relations between measured data sets and performance are not understood. The radiator situation is illustrated by the can we agree on the basis of "C" in C/W ? and calibrating' the DUT instrument connections discussions. The WB situation by the often heated arguments over Testing Method, with particular reference to Apogee versus Storm Suggest the only way forward is analysis. The interaction between DUT and the Test-Bench has to be analyzed. In particular the relation of Sensor Values to Real Values and Real Values to "Figure of Merit(FOM)" Jonathan(Incoherent) and I are actively exploring WB /Heat-source/Sensor-Reading/FOM . Bill appears to be alone(with the exception of UNDERBYTE's kind offer) in the radiator labyrinth. Think, at the moment, any testing can only be used for banking. The difficulty for the tester is that everything has to be recorded. * "Dual row radiators and heater cores have a greater heat rejection capability than single row, but to utilize the higher capability stronger fans must be used to overcome the airflow resistance." Edit: Added second radiator link Edit 2: Replaced truncated and misleading quote of conclusion by full sentence Edited: In the light of Bill's comments Last edited by Les; 12-21-2005 at 09:25 AM.