Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Ambient temperature control
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 10:34:46 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <k4f58j1r7hr7is2eq1rb4tspurt4ive8fe@4ax.com>
References: <v5svtq$olhq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 16:32:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="019fc8404606f421dc530b71affb2085";
	logging-data="1185969"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18r1vv12rWj8t+ObYAXVCXS"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cNz083fXW/9p1X6voL5f8ES/35A=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
Bytes: 1710

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:14:32 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>Assuming you can keep a device in its "normal operating (temperature)
>range", how advantageous is it (think MTBF) to drive that ambient
>down?  And, is there a sweet spot (as there is a cost to lowering the
>temperature)?
>
If all you're thinking of is MTBF, adding the complexity of an active 
cooling element is a big step in the wrong direction for the system.

Reducing the thermal impedance of the source, to ambient is the 
usual way to go, when addressing a specific aging factor.

https://ve3ute.ca/2000a.html

If you're thinking of performance, It's cheaper and more reliable 
to concentrate on reducing the temperature of the point source, not 
the rest of the planet.

RL