Typical mains power for mid-range PC?

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:10:21 -0400, kony Gave us:

You are pretending to know more than is possible.

Bull**** chip packaging emissivities have been known for YEARS
(decades even). They are designed specifically for the purpose in
many cases.

FACT- no imager can account for the random variations in
'sinking due to different in chip thickness, epoxy
thickness, chip 'sinking method, etc.

You are lost in your own bull****.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:10:21 -0400, kony Gave us:


I have no doubt this can be achieved with surface temp.
Unfortunately you failed to see why it's not a desirable
goal to reach high precision with a surface temp, just a
waste of time. It does look swell on a web page though, is
this what led you to believe it's accurate?

I already told you, jackass. I worked in IR thermography for years.

Not only is the chip encapsulation viewable, but so too is the
sinking tab included with many devices that are meant to dissipate a
lot of heat.

Got clue? Is that any closer to "die temp" for you, boy?

You need to stop assuming you have some special knowledge that
others do not.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:10:21 -0400, kony Gave us:

The relative precision of the measurement device/method is
not as important as the validity of the test itself.

Infra-red imagery is the most valid test one can utilize. It "sees"
it all.

You obviously do not.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:10:21 -0400, kony Gave us:


This is amusing.

You're a ****ing retard.

You don't have a clue about chip temps

I most certainly do.

and
then think someone else doesn't know the obvious aspects of
IR measurement?

What you don't know is that you continually think that you know more
than everyone else.

I was measuring raw die temps when you were in diapers. I know all
about how heat is dissipated in a discreet device.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:10:21 -0400, kony Gave us:

One last time: You went wrong the moment you though getting
a precision reading of an epoxy surface was a useful end.


One last time. YOU were wrong when you assumed that I would not
know what to do with the readings given in such a circumstance.

You were wrong the moment you assumed that I wasn't examining all
the data or that I didn't know what the data actually referred to.

You have been 100% wrong in your ****ed in the head assumption.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:10:21 -0400, kony Gave us:

It can be assimilated into a more complete set of data, but
by itself is not an end-goal by any stretch.

More like you are not a scientist by any stretch, assumption boy.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:02:02 -0400, kony Gave us:

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 05:04:49 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

Fully programmable as well as settable in real time. They
are accurate to within 0.1 degree C in all cases, minimum.

I have no doubt this can be achieved with surface temp.

And that is ALL that can be measured unless
the ic has internal temperature diodes etc.


Yes, and it is why high precision measurement of the surface
is a pointless exercise by itself. Only in the context of
substantially more data is it useful.

The imager sees the package, as well as the heats sink, and the PCB
that it attached to. It sees the gradient between them.

The die temp you seem to be stuck on is easily extrapolated from a
mere few sets of data.

You are lost. This is how the industry has done this for years.

Add a bit of top posting and

BANG!!!!!!

----------------------

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:07:26 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:51:12 -0400, kony Gave us:

Why are you continuing to supply basic, yet still
non-applicable information?

You are like a broken record. Did you and Rod go out to dinner
together or something?

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.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:01:52 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:32:37 -0400, kony Gave us:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 06:03:38 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:39:44 -0400, kony Gave us:

with any normal quality supply the resulting
ripple is usually better than the spec.

Not always true. Not even close.


Yes, it would necessarily have to be.

Note I wrote "normal quality", not low end overrated crap.

Unless you buy a reputable brand name device, that is likely all you
will get form your normal list is sub par, "low end overrated CRAP".

One only gets what one pays for.


Again I ask why are you repeating the obvious?

Or, did you always use low quality PSU yourself so you have
no context of what normal quality is?

Normal is a word used to contrast.
In contrast, there's "low", and "high".

If you can wrap your head around "medium" more than
"normal", let's use medium but you'll have to remind
everyone that you want to redefine reality every time they
attempt to use normal (oops, medium) terms to describe
something.