People more experienced say measuring exhaust temperature is not enough to determine if it's cooling better or worse, measurements need to be made internally.
I have actually been repeatedly surprised at how sane the temperature measurement on my car is. It'll be sitting baking in the sun, then I get in and swelter, but the measurement is actually really close to what was forecast. Sometimes, I then drive off, only for the measurement to actually increase by a degree or two as I head into a different microclimate. If it was significantly affected by the greenhouse heat of the car body, it would decrease as I drove away, due to increased airflow. I don't know where they put the sensor, but I think they got it right.
> but google having observed higher error rates suggests different choices.
Alternatively, it suggests better data from a larger, real-er world study.
>Finally, they got data for temperatures from running their actual production system at these temperatures while assuming it would cause even more problems.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. To be able to detect the effect of temp, they ran at both higher and lower temps and compared.
Yup, definitely agree. I've got one of the Seek Thermal units, and while the absolute temperature measurements aren't always that accurate, the relative temperature measurements are fantastic for finding hot/cold spots.
I too am accustomed to weather, although not nearly as dramatic.
My point is that turning things that are unknown unknowns (from the point of view of the company) into known and checked for possibilities takes concerted effort, time, and money. It's easy to look at a problem after it's found and post-facto determine how to find the same problem quicker next time.
I agree that temperature is very basic, low hanging fruit. Especially for a device that seems to be aimed at operation by construction crews. But regardless of where you draw the line on testing environmental factors, you have to draw it somewhere. And so you will still end up with unknown unknowns that escape your QA or debugging process, sending you down the same path of needing to question your assumptions to figure out what's going on.
(Also you're not really giving them the benefit of the doubt here with this assertion that they didn't take temperature into account at all. It seems that they at least looked at the part temperature ranges. And it'd be courteous to assume that they did power dissipation and temperature rise calcs. What they didn't do was component or integration testing at varying temperatures.)
Well car surfaces (or even interior) can get hotter than that for example. Also, 1 test doesn't cover a use case of 5-10 years of daily heating and cooling down ie on a car parked outside, or darker window frame on a sunny side of building.
Thermal design might rely on a laminar air flow inside the cylinder and taking the case off could result in increased tempatures. Of course we will only know if someone tries it and reports the measured temperatures.
Thermal design might rely on a laminar air flow inside the cylinder and taking the case off could result in increased tempatures. Of course we will only know if someone tries it and reports the measured temperatures.
You might be if the difference in an accurate thermal signal is the difference in a jet engine blade expanding too much to self destruct while in flight :)
so why are so many people convinced otherwise? most posts here are from people apparently tired of so. if you're only measuring positives, what are you missing that explains the negatives?
it's understandable being defensive. but maybe that reflex is causing you to miss something?
[edit: also, how do you measure evaporative cooling?]
reply