In Figure 5, the results of heat transfer simulations of two different heater spacings are shown. The heater width for both geometries is 0.3 mm, while the heater spacing in Figure 5b,c are 0.3 mm and 2.0 mm, respectively. In Figure 6a–d, tables with the results of the full parametric sweep for different heater widths and heater spacings are shown. Figure 6a shows the temperature deviation between the highest and lowest temperature at the top of the chamber, i.e., the second H2O and COC interface (ΔTtopofchamber=Ttop,max−Ttop,min). Figure 6b shows the deviation between the highest and lowest temperature inside the chamber, i.e., between the two COC and H2O interfaces (ΔTacrosschamber=Tbottom,max−Ttop,min). Figure 6c shows the temperature deviation between the highest and lowest temperature at the bottom of the chamber, i.e., the first COC and H2O interface (ΔTbottomofchamber=Tbot,max−Tbot,min). Figure 6d shows the deviation between the set heater temperature of 30 °C and the lowest temperature at the top of the chamber, i.e., the second H2O and COC interface (ΔTdeviationfromsetT=Theater−Ttop,min). As can be seen from the results in Figure 6, a combination of small heater widths and heater spacings will result in smaller temperature differences inside the reaction mixture. This is evident as smaller heater spacings will result in a better coverage of the heated area by heater material. The smaller heater widths will result in a smaller heater cross-sectional area, and thus can be operated at lower powers, as is evident from Equation (1). Resulting in the fact that a densely packed meander structure with small heater widths and small heater spacings can dissipate more heat into the system.