Typical mains power for mid-range PC?

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:29:39 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:53:05 -0400, kony Gave us:

It is not the full, steady load ripple
that mattered, it is easily eclipsed.

Your understanding of electronics has been eclipsed.

That is all.

Is it all or are you going to post a dozen more fragmented,
troll-like mindless replies instead of anything both
on-topic and comprehensive as it should have been in the
first place?

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:30:37 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:53:05 -0400, kony Gave us:

Seems a bit more likely you know someone or some company
that makes these units if they exist at all.

Seems that you are back to making jack-jawed retarded peanut gallery
comments again.

**** off, boy.


What could we think? You demonstrate lack of understanding
about designing for the load. This is basic stuff, yet you
go into a cursing frenzy as if our ears will melt.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 06:00:04 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:52:44 -0400, kony Gave us:

Tell that to anyone who has had a heat induced failure. Bet
they'll be glad to know you pretended to know better.


All failures are heat induced in electronics. Even if that happens
in the micro realm, and is not readily observable externally.

In general no, but if you want to take some kind of abstract
idea about overvoltage burning through things, "maybe" more
are, but it doesn't consider manufacturing defects, more
blatant design problems, use/abuse problems, environmental
damage, and in these bold new days of Pb-free components and
solder, even tin whisker growth. "Some" of these might lead
back to a resultant overheating, but the overheating itself
wasn't really what we'd tend to call the failure, just the
result of a prior failure.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:32:53 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:06:21 -0400, kony Gave us:


There is no heat sink. You are not on the same page here,
we're talking about HDD PCBs.


You lie. The SMD components that drive the spindle motor have heat
sink tabs integrated directly to the die, you stupid ****.


This is pointless, anyone can look on the bottom of their
drive and a large percentage will see there is no tab. They
aren't even sunk on the underside to the copper either, at
least none that I've aware of and I ALWAYS examine drives.

Typically on modern parts you may have some SMT transistors
with tabs but the rest are sunk by their leads only.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:33:14 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:06:21 -0400, kony Gave us:


Go ahead and extrapolate it then, surely you will be able to
do this "easy" thing...

You're an idiot.

So you conveniently snipped out THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD
VALIDATE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

So, you have nothing.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:35:08 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:38:56 -0400, kony Gave us:

Known by the fab, yes. Also known by whoever has access to
this data.

You conveniently failed to mention this (more important)
consideration, and yet still allude to someone knowing it,
but not that the data is availabe to the person taking the
reading.


Wrong. The packaging material is declared,

Where?
Show us.

You were done already when you couldn't do that simple test
you implied was the way to do it.


and the emissivity for
said material is known,

By whom?
The person suggesting the test?
I already asked him.
You just squirmed around the issue.

and the cross sectional thickness of the
packaging media before the die is encountered is known.

Of course this is true, to "someone". There is a big
difference between data existing, and having having access
to it, let alone finding it.


VERY ****ing straightforward, you clueless *******.


My interest is in actually getting the job done. You seem
taken to only one liners claiming to know it all.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:39:32 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:44:33 -0400, kony Gave us:

Random suggestions are only as useful as they are
applicable. Anyone can make vague comments about using the
most precise method known, but recognizing that you need
that other data to tie it all together is something you
(suspiciously?) overlooked.

You are the only idiot claiming I overlooked something. I KNOW how to
characterize an operating circuit using IR thermography.

It would appear as if you are the one that does not.

It appears you don't even remember what this thread was
about and how the chip readings related to it.

The test has to be applicable towards the goal. The data
accumulated has to be applicable in the REAL WORLD, not only
in your hypothetical "somebody knows something" world.

You could have changed my mind about you a litte, if you had
made the effort to at least dig up the epoxy packaging specs
for that prior "test" I posed, even if you couldn't find the
applicable specs, but so far you have only made a very
simplistic claim, and I'd already agreed that it would come
closer to an accurate temp of the surface of the chip.

From there, things went downhill.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:41:43 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:51:30 -0400, kony Gave us:

It will be closer to the core temp, but this much I wrote
before you went off half-cocked.

**** you, cocked boy.

Closer is only usful if we
know the remaining package specs.

You are an idiot. You spew the same blather over and over. Are you
a broken record? Your needle is skipping. little boy.


They should make a little troll doll that repeats all this
when you pull the string.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:58:13 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:55:34 -0400, kony Gave us:

It's kinda like using usenet, you start out being able to
do one part of it ok, but you fail to get the job done
acceptably.

Good thing I don't have to measure up to your E-1 grade, unqualified
assessments of how one is to use Usenet. You can't even write the
word correctly.


Ok, that concludes today's nonsense.
If you want to feel like you win by getting the last word
in, go right ahead, there's nothing on-topic you want to
intelligently discuss so I'm done.

kony wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:12:24 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:07:14 -0400, kony Gave us:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:57:56 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:29:57 -0400, kony Gave us:

and that when it
happens rapidly it is another way to describe ripple, though
at a larger magnitude.

Bull****.

Ripple has a very specific definition, and that ain't it.

So sorry but ripple is ripple, including all causes... not
just the ones that suit your blind argument.


Ripple and noise are defined as periodic or random signals over a
frequency band of 10 Hz
to 20 MHz.

Your transient current draw CRAP is NOT ripple.

What did you expect to be this transient when it comes from
multi-MHz if not GHz chips, at least dozens of KHz switching?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

The transient current has nothing to do with those frequencys, child.

This is not like some motor that is a one-shot turn on.
These are constant variable loads that induce more
rail ripple than put out by the PSU itself.

Taint RIPPLE, child.