🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:00:40 -0700, "BobW"
<nimby_GIMME_SOME_SPAM@roadrunner.com> wrote:

>
>"RFI-EMI-GUY" <Rhyolite@NETTALLY.COM> wrote in message 
>news:4a64ac0d$0$5646$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:02:20 +1000, "David L. Jones"
>>> <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:04:25 +1000, "David L. Jones"
>>>>> <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As promised, an expos� of an issue with the Rigol DS1052E
>>>>>> oscilloscope in my latest video blog:
>>>>>> http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave.
>>>>> Do the scopes work?
>>>> Yep, they work. So Rigol are obviously getting away with it by hook or 
>>>> by crook.
>>>> If AD are deliberately under-speccing their normal chips, then it's a 
>>>> clever ploy by Rigol to exploit it.
>>>>
>>>> Dave.
>>>
>>> We overclock/overstress parts when there's a substantial payoff. One
>>> Freescale uP is rated for 16 MHz clock, actually gets wonky at 44, so
>>> we run it at 20. One microwave schottky diode is rated for 2 volts
>>> reverse, leaks a bit at 7, so we use it at 4. Adding a heatsink to an
>>> FPGA can buy some timing margin. Some diodes and cmos parts leak four
>>> or five orders of magnitide less than the datasheet guarantees. An
>>> 0603 resistor can dissipate a quarter of a watt safely. The trick is
>>> to take calibrated risks where there's demonstrated margin and big
>>> paybacks, and take zero risk everywhere else.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't the manufacturer sort of put themselves at risk that the chip 
>> vendor decides to change the process or ship marginal product ("Nobody is 
>> buying our 100 MHz parts anymore, so we will save a few bucks and make and 
>> ship 40 MHz parts (that pass only to 45 MHz)")?
>>
>> -- 
>> Joe Leikhim K4SAT
>
>Yep. That's what I would be extremely concerned about. If I ever decided to 
>run a part over its rated limits (speed wise), I would put in hooks, for 
>production testing, to lower its supplies to their minimum and then run 
>those tests at the maximum rated d.u.t. temperature.
>
>Of course, in Larkin's case, the only person that can fire him for non 
>performance and insubordination is his wife.
>

Hey, nowadays I report to The Brat.

John