![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hmmm, maybe they're on to something. When was the last time you had a
"general run-of-the-mill" consumer product start smoking on you?? ;-) Seriously, another question for you EE folks: are more modern components of a better quality in that they don't need a robust surrounding support structure to prevent catastrophic failures? Marco Leon wrote in message ... 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'll take a stab at it... ![]() that because they're older than most electronics. They're used for a longer period of time so they can suffer individual component failures. "Normal" electronics tend to get toss earlier, so their failures are more likely due to construction flaws. They're also packaged very tightly, and cannot afford much overdesign that would cause additional weight. Also, the environment they operate in is extremely harsh... *huge* temperature/humidity swings, ridiculous vibration exposure, etc. That's why I was singularly unimpressed with the internal build quality of the Michel slide-in replacement radios. They're built with standard DIPs, through-hole components, ribbon cables, and general run-of-the-mill consumer components. Minimal strain relief and anti-chafing assembly. Makes for a less expensive unit, but I'm sure they're more likely to wear/chafe than a well-built unit. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message
... Hmmm, maybe they're on to something. When was the last time you had a "general run-of-the-mill" consumer product start smoking on you?? ;-) Oh, I've had a couple recently. My dad bought an electric light that contained a transformer, which did the blue smoke thing, and the CD-ROM drive in my sister's PC did the same the other week (I've had them fail, but never in a combusting kind of way!). And I've lost count of the number of power supplies in computer equipment that have exuded smoke over the years. D. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"David Cartwright" writes:
"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote Hmmm, maybe they're on to something. When was the last time you had a "general run-of-the-mill" consumer product start smoking on you?? ;-) Oh, I've had a couple recently. My dad bought an electric light that contained a transformer, which did the blue smoke thing, and the CD-ROM drive in my sister's PC did the same the other week (I've had them fail, but never in a combusting kind of way!). And I've lost count of the number of power supplies in computer equipment that have exuded smoke over the years. I've had numerous power supply failures in (ground-based) devices over the years and have never had any smoke from any of them. They just quit working... There is a difference between linear and switching power supplies. The latter are most likely going to fail quietly whereas the former can very well smoke something when they fail. A thought occurs to me regarding avionics failures: The confined environment of small airplane cabins and the close proximity to the avionics devices may cause the even a miniscule amount of odor to be noticed whereas on the ground nobody may be close at the time of failure and any odor goes unnoticed. |
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 |