pHaestus
re the goop application:
I was afforded an informal review of a previous setup wrt the actual system accuracy potential by the NZ national standards people. They indicated a 2^C range, and were impressed that I was well below that at 1.3^C. Their comments were the impetius for the present (and quite last, to many $$) system upgrade.
Sample size is always a problem, bigger being better but being a PITA given app, 'rest' time, and then testing. Another problem with large sample sizes is the recognition of how easily "flyers" (bad apps) can slip in, for a presumed 'high tech' business the goop application is anything but. Any 'good' test will have a sufficient number of trials for at least a crude statistical analysis.
As EMC2 suggested, other materials can provide greater consistancy - for the purpose of testing; but then the correlation bit becomes a factor (of which there are already several). I tried none (air) but did not care for the really high temps, dielectric grease seems best. Don't like foam as it hides any surface problems, which may be an advantage or not - depending on the goal.
Despite my initial despair, I am now able to recognize a bad app before I test it - so some progress is being made (and also skewing the data - which is ok by me, I just want [close to] the same values).
I'm not interested in hsfs, but any review of chip packaging/mounting indicates that the secondary losses can be appreciable, and quite dependant on mobo level air flow.
easy Joe, I showed it being truncated, and my caution was also a joke;
but a noob sprang to your defense 'just-in-case' I guess
(biting my tongue - mouth filling with blood, choking arrrghh . . .
|