organic-fanatic
Active Member
@SupraSPL ...Did you ever digest this data ?
I was all set to go with 4.9 for passive untill iread this post, the 4.9 @ 7 inch with a thicker base should have advantage over the 5.88 @ 6 inch on paper.
Can you test your 4.9 with no air movement to compare with the 5.88 data without air.?
Also the 10.08 profile with cobs mounted close to the edge is very interesting, what does this data tell us ?
Could it be that since they are so close to the edge that the heat escapes that much faster ? And all that extra metal is unnecessary?
Can you take a measurements of the 10.08 opposite of the cob on the heatsink and move outwards from the center maybe every 1/4 inch or fin toward the center of the heatsink, to find out the point of diminishing return if there is one.
If this theory is proved, for example the 10.08 with its thicker base, could be bought at maybe 4inchs the cut in 3 for 3 cobs at a descent savings.
thank you for all your help and effor
I was all set to go with 4.9 for passive untill iread this post, the 4.9 @ 7 inch with a thicker base should have advantage over the 5.88 @ 6 inch on paper.
Can you test your 4.9 with no air movement to compare with the 5.88 data without air.?
Also the 10.08 profile with cobs mounted close to the edge is very interesting, what does this data tell us ?
Could it be that since they are so close to the edge that the heat escapes that much faster ? And all that extra metal is unnecessary?
Can you take a measurements of the 10.08 opposite of the cob on the heatsink and move outwards from the center maybe every 1/4 inch or fin toward the center of the heatsink, to find out the point of diminishing return if there is one.
If this theory is proved, for example the 10.08 with its thicker base, could be bought at maybe 4inchs the cut in 3 for 3 cobs at a descent savings.
thank you for all your help and effor
Last edited: