Quote:
Originally posted by bigben2k
Thanks for the guestimate! I need to be able to calculate that, which shouldn't be complicated at all. Knowing thickness and thermal properties, I should be able to build such a gradient.
About Alchemy's post: I don't know if the numbers are different with the flow reversed, I'm really having a hard time putting together a mental picture (lack of sleep?!?).
|
I tried to ignore the effect of the water jet striking the copper just above the core, so I'd imagine my numbers would be more accurate if you made a design that avoided that effect.
If you do design the flow striking the center of the block from above, you'd get better performance than my k=4 estimate.
The basic problem with the design is that you're forcing the flow into channels so narrow that the fluid can't become turbulent.
By the by, Reynolds number is equal to linear velocity multiplied by channel diameter multiplied by density, all divided by viscosity. So to get turbulent flow by increasing flow only, you'd have to increase flow rate a hundred times.
Re = V * D * rho / mu
Quote:
|
I am working on some changes. The flow in the center is still a problem, so right now I'm looking at solutions where the flow is reversed, where the inner tube is actually an outlet.
|
Well, that would be much easier for me to model mathematically, but will probably worsen performance.
Quote:
|
What I gather from Alchemy is that the high speed route isn't practical, and that turbulator(s) would be more practical, given a common range of flow rates. I may yet pull an ace out of my sleeve: what's clear to me is that as soon as one gets into turbulators, there is a potential for a sweet spot, where the turbulence becomes in tune within the channel, within a very narrow range of flow rates.
|
That's my suggestion.
Alchemy