Re: Ambient temperature control

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:46:52 -0700, john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 10:34:46 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
>

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:14:32 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>

Assuming you can keep a device in its "normal operating (temperature)
range", how advantageous is it (think MTBF) to drive that ambient
down?  And, is there a sweet spot (as there is a cost to lowering the
temperature)?
>

If all you're thinking of is MTBF, adding the complexity of an active
cooling element is a big step in the wrong direction for the system.
>
Reducing the thermal impedance of the source, to ambient is the
usual way to go, when addressing a specific aging factor.
>
https://ve3ute.ca/2000a.html
>
If you're thinking of performance, It's cheaper and more reliable
to concentrate on reducing the temperature of the point source, not
the rest of the planet.
>
RL

>
Tubes? The cathodes fail eventually. Reduce filament voltage and
suffer the reduced gain. Better yet, don't use tubes.
>
But for most parts that dissipate power, the big win is to have some
air flow. A fan can reduce the theta of your parts by 2:1.
>
Nowadays, parts are very good, with failure rates in the ballpark of
one failure per billion hours, the Bellcore and MIL217 FITS numbers.

This was an example of a demonstrated and documented failure mode
in a specific component (glass electrolysis) that is/was largely
ignored by the general user.

If you know what the specific aging mechanism is that you're
trying to address, your methods of improving mtbf will be more
effective.

RL