Quote:
Originally posted by JimS
Yup, unless you get very lucky and the bit snaps off leaving enough of it sticking out to be able to grab it with a pliers or something similar, you are basically screwed.
Well this thread is depressing as hell. I now have to reconsider the way I built my chillerblocks as if myv65 is correct, my flow in the top few channels is just about nonexistant. They perform adequately but I am always looking for improvement. Back to the drawing board.
|
Hey JimS,
Don't despair. Theory will take me or anyone else only so far. It's more of a headstart in the right direction; it is by no means the destination. Ultimately nothing will beat real-life data (that is accurately obtained
).
I think it may help to recognize that there are many approaches to designing blocks that will yield satisfactory results. The differences between the best blocks in terms of performance can be minor even though their approaches vary drastically. And as most folks know, some do better than others with low flow yet lose their advantage at higher flows.
Of course, it's also possible to make a horrible block (and pretty darned easy I might add). Blessed are those with CNC machines at their disposal and the right test equipment to match. Us po' folks with drill presses (next on the tool shopping list) or less are really left at the mercy of block manufacturers or friends with better toys, er, tools.
Anyway, don't sweat it. Make your blocks, test them, and try to make them better.
I'd add a note to ECUPirate (and I missed that apparent exchange with BillA). More small holes doesn't mean less flow resistance. For a given total cross sectional area, you'll see the lowest flow restriction from a single round channel. You can approximate the effect of varying hole size and quantity with equations, but with the twists and turns in a typical setup it's generally nothing more than a good estimate. Qualitatively assessing a design is one thing, quantitatively assessing it is a whole 'nother ball game.