Brad - not all. And yes, it's possible. There are a few "issues". Good data is needed on the blocks, a fair amount of time is needed to create some of the models, and depending on the design it wouldn't be a validated model so time and $ would have to be spent validating it. There are certain aspects that are very tough to model correctly.
Other things can be done with a fairly high degree of confidence in the results and with lower amounts of time/effort. By putting certain constraints on the desired results and limitting the scope of things I was able to give the gang here doing wbs some hopefully helpful info on one of the aspects of their designs (more or less point them in the right direction so to say) with only a few nights of work. From time to time I may do some other things in that regard. But I have neither the time, $, or inclination to go too far overboard
Morphling - no problem, hope it helps. Just didn't want to see you set that plate thickness and get less out of your block than might be possible. Oh, and when you do the testing to find the best thickness, do it for each material
Copper and aluminum won't necessarily have the same sweet spot.
Which reminds me of another tid bit to ponder for block designs that have channels, fins, etc. embedded in the flow channel. While the lexan/acrylic tops may look cool, a nice top plate of copper/aluminum (depending on the base's material) which makes contact with the tops of the channels/fins is much better for cooling. It does two things, helps to distribute the heat energy better across the block and provides more cooling surface area