View Single Post
Unread 06-26-2002, 03:25 PM   #31
gmat
Thermophile
 
gmat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: France
Posts: 1,221
Default

Yup more flow = the better.

There's no such thing as "good minimal flow". Indeed some rads (not all) have a "sweet spot" obviously produced by a flow/turbulence factor. This sweet spot could be placed quite high on the flow line, BTW.

Now bb2k you still make one major mistake. When considering the whole cooling solution, the only place i see a "time" variable is in flow, and it must be the highest possible.
Just as a waterblock, if your "time" increases (ie your flow drops) the efficiency of heat transfer drops.

Now consider the WHOLE rad and the WHOLE lot of water in a CLOSED LOOP (yes put a pump and a heat source). If you lay down heat tranfer equations you'll see that *absolute time* comes NOWHERE in the equations (if you set apart the transient parts, ie startup / shutdown stages). You'll end up with heat resistance variables, and THATS ALL. Look ma, no time.
And that heat resistance is an *inverse* factor of water flow (fluid dynamics here). Ho ho ho, what would that be, higher flow is better ? .... (note you see 'time' variables in the terms of a /dt like in dQ/dt, if you dont know what that means dont even bother to reply)
If you insist in not believing that i may go frenzy and actually layeth down the math equations but that will require an effort (thus, upsetting me).
Repeat 100x times to yourself: "more flow is better". Thanx.

Quote:
Its like Ohm's law. Two resistors (rads) in parallel equal 1/2 the resistance (flow cut)
Yes yes ! I was only talking about flow in the rads. And i told that could be either good or bad, pressure loss (good in a rad) vs flow drop (bad). On the other hand the 'ohm law' in fluid dynamics is still valid and putting rads in parallel will result in better overall flow.
Some experiences (dont remember the site) proved that was a good idea for that very reason.
gmat is offline   Reply With Quote