Liste des Groupes | Revenir à e design |
On 6/7/2024 2:59 PM, legg wrote:On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:45:24 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/7/2024 6:35 AM, legg wrote:Commercial considerations of free enterprise have always pushed
human behaviour towards banditry, so what can I tell you?
But banditry would suggest taking advantage of the customer.
This is the opposite; the customer gets *more* performance
than the stated capabilities.
But, no way to know HOW MUCH more!
What exactly IS your concern?
I want too know how much MORE than the published/unpublished operating
limits one can reasonably expect from a piece of kit -- given that
these limits don't seem to TRULY represent "maxima".
We have a general idea of the types of components used in these
things and realize that their operating limits usually exceed the
published limits for the composite device -- often by a lot!
This suggests (to me) that the published limits aren't backed by
"real" engineering or stress testing. But, rather, likely arise
from marketing specs... someone making a SWAG as to how customers
will LIKELY use the devices and not what their actual design limits
happen to be.
[Given that using ANYTHING beyond its operating limits leaves you
without a leg to stand on, it would be nice to have some idea as to
what a reasonable expectation for those limits might be, despite
the "fluff" on the spec sheet. E.g., I would be really pressing my
luck to use something at 80C in that most components would likely
not be specified at those extremes. But, 55C for a 50C-specified
device? 60C?]
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.