Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Incoherent
Thats exactly what I do have in the Crater. This is precisely the reason I sent the block to pHaestus, to be able to compare a common point of reference.
The die size issue can have several side effects, many/most taken care of by the "compression " multiplier. Although it is a significant point I think it can be normalised away.
|
Am happy with your data manipulation and collateral assessment
However confirmation by pHaestus would reassure
Ramblings :
Correlation of data from the same platform is difficult enough(eg size and TIM)
Correlation of the CPU and "Insulated Die" platforms is a nightmare.
Dimensions,. location of Diode and "Die sensor", Heat-flux character,and of course TIM
Perhaps all "Die Sim" should be normalized to zero(0) offset to "hot-face"
A "compression factor" is an answer
First play looked good.
Applied 0.773 "Multiplier" to Bill's data for LRWW
0.773 because I understand your heat-source(Flux-Block) is 110sq mm(0.85/1.1) and Bill's is 100 sq mm.
Application of 0.773 "Multiplier" to MCW6000 data gave :
Probably incorrect to use the same Compression Multiplier on Bill's old and new data, but.....
The only thing the above suggests(to me) is that any "Compression Multiplier " may be flow(h) dependent.
My candidate for the chief cause is the position of the CPU Diode.
This takes us back to
here and pHaestus's "The calibration's fine but what is the calibrated diode measuring? "