home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!yvax.byu.edu!physc1.byu.edu!seth
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
- Subject: About IIsi upgrade heat...
- Message-ID: <1992Nov15.190901.202@physc1.byu.edu>
- From: seth@physc1.byu.edu
- Date: 15 Nov 92 19:09:01 -0700
- Distribution: world
- Organization: Brigham Young University
- Lines: 78
-
- Hi. I have been doing some thinking about some of the responses posted here
- about the IIsi myself, and I would like to address the heat problem. In a
- response posted just a few back from this response (I forget the guy's name)
- He asked the question of whether (or why) extra heat is generated. I don't
- understand why it is IF it is. First, let me clarify one thing: I am a physics
- student and not an EE guru, so I don't claim to know all kinds of chip stuff,
- but I do know a bit of physics that is involved.
- Ok, so with the introductions out of the way, here's my opinion...
- When you increase the clock speed to 25 MHz, which is a 25% increase
- in clock speed, you are NOT increasing the current through the chip by 25%,
- as has been stated by several people in regards to the IIsi "upgrade". If it
- did, the power would not go up 25%, as has also been stated by several people.
- Since the formula for power is P=I^2*R, a current that was 1.25% of the
- original current would produce an increase of (1.25)^2=1.563%. I seriously
- doubt that this is happening. Now, why have I said that the current does not
- increase by 25%? Having a clock speed of 20 MHz means that in one second there
- are 20 million cycles of "on-off" or whatever the chip sees as one pulse. This
- means that each cycle lasts 1/2000000 of a second, and with a certain fraction
- of a second where current flows and a certain fraction where it doesn't (or
- whatever a complete clock cycle is composed of). With an increase in clock
- speed from 20 MHz to 25 MHz, you do not see an increase in current of 25%
- because we are NOT looking at an increase of 5 million clock cycles PLUS the
- original 20 million clock cycles EACH OF 1/2000000 of a second duration. We
- are really looking at an increase of 5 million clock cycles AND A REDUCTION
- in the period of each clock cycle. What this means is that we are NOT making
- one second any longer by increasing our clock speed; we are making our clock
- cycles shorter so that we can fit 5 million more of them into every second.
- This means that each clock cycle will produce heat for a SHORTER amount of
- time, and that therefore even though there are 5 million more clock cycles
- you end up with no more heat than before. I am sorry that I am bad at
- explaining this. I hope that some EE freakmo who can explain it better than
- me will write in and do so. Now, there is more. I have no idea what the
- increase in clock speed will do to the impedance of the chip. A circuit
- consisting of capacitors and inductors and such has inductance, which like
- resistance affects how much current flows through a circuit for a given voltage
- drop. I don't know much about this stuff, as my last electronics (read: my
- ONLY electronics class) was quite a while ago, but I do know that how well an
- ac signal passes through a capacitor varies with frequency. I don't know if
- the signal inside a coputer chip is AC or not, but it is possible that some
- inductance value of the chip would change with the increase in clock speed,
- and thus change the power dissipated by the chip. I don't know about the
- validity of the last couple of statements, so I would appreciate it if some
- semicunductor guru would comment on this. I don't care if I get flamed for
- being dead wrong; I would like to know. But, these ideas sound reasonable to
- me, so I posted this note to see what kind of response it generates. Now, as
- for why a heat sink has allowed some peoples' IIsi's to work under the upgrade
- when it did NOT work before, I have a hypothesis. Here goes: In some chips,
- manufacturing defects and abnormalities sometimes might result in some current
- path in the circuit being too close to another circuit path, resulting in
- more interference with each other. Now, an oscillating current will radiate
- radio waves according to physics, so these radio waves might be interfering
- with each other or there could be some capacitance thing or any number of
- types of interference between the two traces. Now, an increase in frequency
- generally means an increase in power broadcast for radio waves and such, and
- it could be that this increase in the radio wave energy pushes the chip over
- the edge, to where the interference between traces finally proves fatal for
- the chip and you get false signals as a result. Now, a semicunductor does NOT
- behave the same as a metal as far as temperature response is concerned. While
- in a metal a decrease in temperature causes a decrease in resistance, and thus
- an increase in current for a given voltage, in a semicunductor a decrease in
- temperature actually results in an INCREASE in resistance, which would result
- in less current for a given voltage. So, by decreasing the temperature in the
- chip you are also decreasing the current inside the chip, which would
- probably result in lesser interference due to radio wave emission and such,
- which would allow your chip to finally be within its operable range again. Now,
- I do NOT know these statements to be true. They are at best educated guesses
- about what could be going on inside the chip. But, they are at least to me
- plausible, and I welcome comment by someone who knows more than I. If they are
- true, and this really is happening, then it would mean that if you ran a IIsi
- pumped up to 25 MHz and HAD to have a heat sink to get it to work, you are
- defintely sitting right on the edge of your tolerances, and it won't take
- much change in your operating environment to get your machine to have all
- sorts of errors. If my machine turns out to be like that when I do the upgrade
- I will put the 40 MHz crystal back in and LEAVE the heat sink on.
- Well, for what it was worth...
- Seth Leigh
- BYU Physics Dept.
-
-