On 22/12/2017 20:16, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
news
On 22/12/2017 18:07, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
news
On 22/12/2017 01:24, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 December 2017 17:34:30 UTC, Terry CaseyÂ* wrote:
In article 11d4a51f-9e27-4915-a5bf-53dd39799856
@googlegroups.com, tabbypurr says...
On Thursday, 21 December 2017 11:18:44 UTC, The Other MikeÂ* wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:11:25 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
wattage ratings to avoid permanent damage from over-heating.
Some power resistors are only specified for claimed power
dissipation at minus 100C!
Care to point to a datasheet that shows that?
http://www.resistorsonline.com/wire-wound-resistor.html
But the table on that page is clearly headed "Rating at 70°C"!
There are 3 derating lines shown. How do you make sense of them?
For temps over 70C.
I have to admit I initially thought tabbypurr was a prat to not
understand the 3 lines, then I had a closer look and I can see his
point.
Not on his silly claim that they only have their rated power at
-100C he doesnt.Â* The table clearly shows they have that at 70C.
The claim you replied to was "There are 3 derating lines shown. How do
you make sense of them?"
Thats what they are for, temps other than 70C
I might interpret the second line down on the graph to be potential
increased rating at lower temperatures based on the 70C rating, but
the 3rd graph has me stumped apart from the graph ending at 250C. I
then note 250C is the "Derate to Zero" spec. Why then do the first 2
indicate a zero rating at 300C?
Yes, that graph is a mess, but thats a separate issue to his
original silly claim.
The only silly claim I saw was "For temps over 70C".
You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.
I simply knew you had posted above your paygrade and would resort to abuse.
As usual, when you're too stupid and misunderstand a simple graph, you
have to resort to your typical throwing of your rattle out of a pram.
Go on reply, and remove all my post, with another example of a lost
argument.
Once again, you demonstrate you're not very bright.