On Nov 8, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Nate Duehr wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2007, at 11:20 PM, Paul Plack wrote: > >> Nate, >> >> You'd have fewer thermal cycles, but a wider range of extremes >> between hot and cold, since continuous duty for four hours would get >> the joint to a higher peak temp. >> >> Am I missing something? >> >> 73, Paul AE4KR >> > > Well, the maximum temperature is going to be relatively the same, > either way -- once it's finally been on for a while. > > The big question is... in the "temperature change breaks the > connection" theory -- is the thing rate-of-change dependent more than > it is number-of-changes dependent. > > Since rate-of-change is affected by the ambient temperature in the > room... it's harder to control. > > Rate-of-change is something we can fiddle with... or at least "smooth > out"... it comes on, it stays keyed for a long time, and it goes > off... in the longer tail setup. > ^^^ Oops. Make that "number-of-changes" for that paragraph above.
> Ultimately since it can take two or more years to see the results of > these "tests" we'll have to put different systems into different > configurations and keep one system as a "control" for a really > scientific test, and the other variables will screw this all up, > anyway... but it's "something to try"... if we stumble into something > that works... sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, eh? > > (In the scientific world you're allowed to bumble into surprise > discoveries as long as you're documenting everything along the way, > right? GRIN...) > > -- > Nate Duehr, WY0X > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
