![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Everett M. Greene wrote: Now, if there are any EEs present, perhaps they can explain why aircraft radios tend to fail in this manner whereas nothing much of anything else in the electronic world fails in a manner to produce heat and smoke. Are avionics units designed so close to the components' limits to cause this failure mode? I can understand a transmitter going up in smoke (while transmitting), but a receiver? I'm an EE. In my day job I design guitar amplifiers. Let me tell you, I've made a LOT of unintentional smoke at my workbench. ![]() in school a fellow student explained to me that the smoke contained inside those little electronic components is what makes them work. It's magic smoke. If you let out the magic smoke, the electrons stop doing whatever it is they're designed to do. Seriously though, maybe the propensity of aircraft radios to fail in this manner has to do with the fact that on average they're pretty old, and constructed mostly of discrete components. Modern electronics are more highly integrated into power- and space- miserly "chips", or ICs (integrated circuits). ICs also allow for more circuitry in a smaller space, so thermal protection, over-current protection, and other similar support circuitry can be incorporated into a design without the weight and space penalties that made them impractical for aircraft radios "back in the day". It's a theory, anyway. -R |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GOLD RUSH PROGRAM | GOLD RUSH PROGRAM | Home Built | 1 | March 29th 05 09:33 PM |
Bill Cliton verses Rush Limbaugh | Transition Zone | Military Aviation | 14 | November 20th 03 05:13 PM |