IR is insane
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 20 Mar 2010 13:56 On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:29:37 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:06:13 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>I haven't done the math on this, > > We can tell. > >> but I suspect the source lead would >>vaporize at 195 amps, much less 340. > > > You always seem to have suspicions. We have a few about you. > >> If it were immersed in a boiling >>liquid, it would probably be OK. I think that's how they test them. > > Why would the liquid have to be boiling, Johnny? You *think* that is >how they test them? It is clear that you ASSume, as opposed to thinking. Someone in this thread provided a link to an IR paper that discussed the boiling liquid test procedure. Did you read it? They said in that paper that *some* of their parts are tested this way. I can't tell which parts. Can you? Boiling liquid carries away far more heat than still or even flowing liquid. Since IR cheats as hard as they can, we can assume they used boiling liquid. I fact, they say so. Did you read the IR paper? I posted, to a.b.s.e, a pdf of one sheet of the IR flyer I received in the mail last week. They show a couple of D2PAKs that they rate at 340 amps. Do you believe that? John
From: Archimedes' Lever on 20 Mar 2010 15:12 On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:56:18 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >Boiling liquid carries away far more heat than still or even flowing >liquid. Since IR cheats as hard as they can, we can assume they used >boiling liquid. I fact, they say so. Chilled fluorinert does not need to be boiling to have thermal efficiency.
From: John Fields on 20 Mar 2010 15:35 On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:56:18 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:29:37 -0700, Archimedes' Lever ><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > >>On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:06:13 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>I haven't done the math on this, >> >> We can tell. >> >>> but I suspect the source lead would >>>vaporize at 195 amps, much less 340. >> >> >> You always seem to have suspicions. We have a few about you. >> >>> If it were immersed in a boiling >>>liquid, it would probably be OK. I think that's how they test them. >> >> Why would the liquid have to be boiling, Johnny? You *think* that is >>how they test them? It is clear that you ASSume, as opposed to thinking. > >Someone in this thread provided a link to an IR paper that discussed >the boiling liquid test procedure. Did you read it? > >They said in that paper that *some* of their parts are tested this >way. I can't tell which parts. Can you? > >Boiling liquid carries away far more heat than still or even flowing >liquid. --- Not just boiling liquid, John, _nucleate_ boiling. There is a clear distinction between the two as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleate_boiling JF
From: Joerg on 20 Mar 2010 16:23 John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:56:18 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:29:37 -0700, Archimedes' Lever >> <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:06:13 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I haven't done the math on this, >>> We can tell. >>> >>>> but I suspect the source lead would >>>> vaporize at 195 amps, much less 340. >>> >>> You always seem to have suspicions. We have a few about you. >>> >>>> If it were immersed in a boiling >>>> liquid, it would probably be OK. I think that's how they test them. >>> Why would the liquid have to be boiling, Johnny? You *think* that is >>> how they test them? It is clear that you ASSume, as opposed to thinking. >> Someone in this thread provided a link to an IR paper that discussed >> the boiling liquid test procedure. Did you read it? >> >> They said in that paper that *some* of their parts are tested this >> way. I can't tell which parts. Can you? >> >> Boiling liquid carries away far more heat than still or even flowing >> liquid. > > --- > Not just boiling liquid, John, _nucleate_ boiling. > Ain't that "nuculate"? :-) > There is a clear distinction between the two as described here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleate_boiling > IOW a really realistic method of cooling a D2PAK transistor :-) -- SCNR, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 20 Mar 2010 19:09
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:12:14 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:56:18 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>Boiling liquid carries away far more heat than still or even flowing >>liquid. Since IR cheats as hard as they can, we can assume they used >>boiling liquid. I fact, they say so. > > > Chilled fluorinert does not need to be boiling to have thermal >efficiency. Wrong again, AlwaysWrong. How do you think Fluorinert works? By magic? |