Quote:
Originally posted by Les
Bill Adams's: testing is solid .
It is your interpretation with which I disagrree
|
Please explain.
If the testing is solid, then any hypothesis drawn from that testing is potentially solid as well. Yes, any hypothesis can potentially be incorrect, but only until proven to be so. I have yet to see any information that is in stark contrast to the hypothesis, other than what can only be categorised as true speculation based upon ephemeral statements like "AS3 has a thermal condutivity of ~9W/mK, therefore the thermal juction must have a C/W of XX for a 100mm^2 heat die".
I'm not stating that it's fact, I'm stating that it's a working hypothesis. You seem to have a serious objection with me saying that, but have given no real reason as to why it would be otherwise. Les, you were part of the discussions that led to the proposed values too, so are you saying that you have little faith in your conclusions drawn upon the results of "solid testing"?
I'm sorry, but I'm having a little bit of trouble in understanding why you're pursuing this line of reasoning. If you have seen information that rejects the hypothesis then I'll be happy to reconsider my point of view.
If we are not allowed to have some leeway in putting forward some sort of values based on experimental evidence, then what do you propose as an alternative, or at the very least, what do you propose we do with the results of Bill's "solid testing"? Ignore them?