this somewhat deep tech talk has forced me to read along out of curiosity. whew, at first i thought this thread was brainstorming the next revolution in thermal systems for NASA. PC cooling is supposed to be fun too, right? i think some ppl are going about their discussions ineffectively.
if we want to accomplish something as PC cooling engineers, we need to agree to iterate over system requirements. focusing on & modifying requirements results in thoughts like: "let's drop the -40C requirement, we could make 100 -37C systems for $1 instead of 1 -40C system for $100". arriving at system requirements is done in the engineering world by discovering the one design parameter that dominates how well it performs. finding design drivers leads to efficient thoughts like: "forget about pressure for now, it's actually pressure^2/power^3 that gives the most leverage for reducing temps. let's focus on maximizing that first").
obviously more extensive sharing & integration of our knowledge resources would be an improvement, as opposed to having "gurus" argue back & forth with one another over potentially irrelevant issues using random data from unrelated & loosesly controlled experiments. don't get me wrong, i can tell many of you do appreciate the value of controlling & repeating your experiments, but it's hard to use data from a shot in the dark experiment that has little correlation to the engineer's design choice.
arguments in this thread are leading nowhere but to rehash what many of us already know & beat the ignorant over their heads with a hammer?
|