Joe
re the die simulators
the better they are made, the closer they will read
good = accurate
any simulator uses a source which are all instrumented exactly the same (I use HP and Fluke stuff), and the wb is the sink
as the level of sophistication increases, the differences will decrease; got to be
a 'problem' is the die face, the silicon chips (per the Big Boys) are the std, but out of my league
I'll defer to pHaestus re the CPU stuff, don't do it, don't know it, never have
and the more I learn (from others), the less I like it
but the CPU is what people have so thats what they are going to want to use, no argument
pHaestus
is there some software program that loads ONLY the CPU ?
correlating such would be no problem
have our cake and eat it too
"Doesn't that mean that it ALWAYS took that long to come to equilibrium"
yes, and no
along with the uniform 0.01^C resolution change I also increased the die simulator insulation and added embedded RTDs, so now I'm looking at internal insulation temp trendlines that previously were simply higher losses
the wb stabilizes at 1.5 hrs, the die at 3 hrs (but only a 0.1^C change in the last 1.5 hrs), whew
gonna have lots of time to post with the nightowls
|