Model assumptions and what “wall” means
Straight circular passages. Equal heat and flow sharing. Uniform heat flux around the entire wetted perimeter. Fixed water properties near 25 °C. No solid conduction, manifold losses, hot spots, phase change, or manufacturing CAD. The wall limit is the fluid-contact surface—not the outside of a component.
Layouts: 4 × 1 mm, 2 × 2 mm, 1 × 4 mm. The fixed 1 mm ligament is an assumed spacing, not a verified tolerance.
The coolant rise follows the energy balance. Diameter and channel count determine wall-to-fluid resistance and pumping demand.
Adverse scenarios
Thermal: heat +10%, flow −10%, heat-transfer coefficient −20%. Pressure: viscosity +20%, flow +10%, diameter −2%. These are separate scenario checks, not statistical uncertainty bounds.
Parametric fluid passages. Drag to rotate; scroll to zoom. Diameter and spacing exaggerated ×15 for inspection. No imported CAD or CFD mesh is claimed.
Compute three layouts, check energy closure and the radial heat-transfer reference, then compile the paper.
Runs in the isolated report worker. No CFD solver is launched. Same shared limits as the flow study: two runs per visitor per hour. Evidence retained for 48 hours.
No current result yet.
What remains before thermal CFD or a hardware decision?
Manufactured geometry, heated footprint, wall material and thickness, contact resistance, real fluid properties, flow sharing, manifold and bend losses, absolute pressure, boiling/mixed-convection checks, and a matched experimental or independent thermal reference.
This is a reproducible analytical screen. It does not establish a safe hardware operating point or validated thermal CFD.