Pro/Forums - View Single Post - My micro-channel concept block

Cathar · 10-14-2002, 09:08 AM

Initially it was 5 x 15.

In subsequent tests I resolved flow rate vs velocity with respect to cutting back the "5", down to 4, then 3, then 2.

Basically 3mm x 15mm (really 8 of 1x3mm openings) was the cross-over point with the qualification that as the orifice was narrowed further, the resultant drop in flow rates outweighed the increase in nozzle velocity. Actually one could use 2.5mm, but now I also want to produce a block that isn't going to kill flow rates for other blocks that a user might have in their system. As it stands, then 3x15 (8 of 1x3 for 24mm^2 of "nozzle" orifices) presented the best trade-off of performance vs pump back-pressure in my mind.

Oh, the actual "un-nozzled" channel area is 80mm^2, not 40mm^2. It's 40mm^2 but the flow splits into two directions from the central inlet so the effective channel orifice area is 80mm^2. Running from side-to-side is indeed 40mm^2.

10-14-2002, 09:08 AM	#133
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	Initially it was 5 x 15. In subsequent tests I resolved flow rate vs velocity with respect to cutting back the "5", down to 4, then 3, then 2. Basically 3mm x 15mm (really 8 of 1x3mm openings) was the cross-over point with the qualification that as the orifice was narrowed further, the resultant drop in flow rates outweighed the increase in nozzle velocity. Actually one could use 2.5mm, but now I also want to produce a block that isn't going to kill flow rates for other blocks that a user might have in their system. As it stands, then 3x15 (8 of 1x3 for 24mm^2 of "nozzle" orifices) presented the best trade-off of performance vs pump back-pressure in my mind. Oh, the actual "un-nozzled" channel area is 80mm^2, not 40mm^2. It's 40mm^2 but the flow splits into two directions from the central inlet so the effective channel orifice area is 80mm^2. Running from side-to-side is indeed 40mm^2.