The Fanless Spinning Heatsink 380
An anonymous reader writes "There's a fundamental flaw with fan-and-heatsink cooling systems: no matter how hard the fan blows, a boundary layer of motionless, highly-insulating air remains on the heatsink. You can increase the size of the heatsink and you can blow more air, but ultimately the boundary layer prevents the system from being efficient. But what if you did away with the fan? What if the heatsink itself rotated? Well, believe it or not, rotating the heat exchanger obliterates the boundary layer, removes the need for a fan, and it's so efficient that it can operate at low and very quiet speeds. That's exactly what the Air Bearing Heat Exchanger, developed by Jeff Koplow of the Sandia National Laboratories, has developed. It's even intrinsically immune to the build up of dust and detritus!"
Re:Still has a boundary layer. (Score:4, Interesting)
*Man* you read and analysed those 44 pages of maths quickly.
I skimmed them.
It seemed to very carefully avoid the issue of the bearing's heat conduction ability while explaining how spinning a heatsink does reduce its thermal resistance vs merely blowing air upon it. So you decrease the resistance at one end while ignoring the increase at the other. Hmm.
The other mystery is the straw dog of cheap and easy to machine heatsink designs (you've all seen them) have moderately bad boundary layer problems, so rather than a more elaborately modeled and machined heatsink design, or even more simply, a larger heatsink, the solution is a very complicated, hard to model, and hard to machine rotating heatsink. So, why not just put the hydrodynamic engineering hours and CNC machining hours into a GOOD passive sink that might work just as well? Or invest in a couple more dollars of aluminum, or skip it all and go for broke with waterblocks. Who knows?
Is there a middle ground for this design to live in between cheap and easy and inefficient non-moving sinks and much higher performance (and cost) waterblocks? I'm guessing, no. Not in any electronic system I've worked on (not just computers, but high power RF amps, high power audio, high power VFDs, etc)
The other problem is it makes for a more brittle design. Now you can usually shut down a system automatically when the cooling system stops, due to thermal mass, limited natural convection cooling, etc. With this, it'll be smaller and lighter, can you shut down in time to avoid frying the CPU (physically) or crashing the filesystem? Its going to make OTHER parts of the system design more complex, not just the cooling system.
Cool engineering (pun intended) but I'm unimpressed from an economic standpoint. It will probably cost more than the alternatives. Unless you're just trying to avoid a patent or whatever.