Jump to content

Talk:Thermal runaway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LEDs

[edit]

Would it be an idea to add LEDs to this list of things that can experience thermal runaway? Stwalkerster 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or in fact, go through the "what links here" page? Stwalkerster 19:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no. Tabby (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not thermal runaway

[edit]

Deleted this:

"It is seen in satellite TV receivers, portable computers or industrial programmable controllers. When the air temperature that surrounds the equipment is over a threshold level, the temperature starts a heat run, a thermal runaway that makes the electronics fail, and the electronics then need to be cooled down and reset to work properly again. This problem is caused by the high frequency chopped power supplies, where MOSFET transistors are used."

Why? If equipment works when cooled, it has not experienced thermal runaway. Runaway is a destructive phenomenon. If equipment is only temporarily out of action due to overheating, this does not mean runaway has occurred.

And hf smpsus don't in any way cause thermal runaway. Tabby (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CPUs

[edit]

Deleted:

"This problem is predicted to be more common in the future. As devices become smaller, static power dissipation contributes to an increasing portion of overall CPU power consumption. Leakage currents increase by a factor of close to 100 over the temperature range of a CPU. As a result, it is likely that this thermal runaway will be a common problem with future CPUs." (ref.: http://crc.stanford.edu/BAST/slides/Mak_BAST03DSMreliability2.pdf)

Why? Someone may have predicted it, but that doesn't make it accurate or even realistic. To suggest that a high ticket complex IC like a CPU is incapable of including protection against runaway is truly unrealistic.

A lot of people have predicted a lot of things, doesn't make those predictions valid. Tabby (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear thermal runaway

[edit]

Should there be a brief section here on nuclear thermal runaway in nuclear reactors with positive void coefficient such as Chernobyl reactor 4? I may attempt to add one in the next few days if there are no objections, but I am surely no expert. Dfeuer (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a brief one, but start section with a {{Main|Nuclear safety}} - there is a lot more data there. Ronhjones (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bipolar transistors/Digital electronics

[edit]

Should these be merged? Both sections are about leakage current in transistors. The latter focuses on the specific example of CPUs, but doesn't any new type of thermal runaway. The 'Electronics and tropical environments' section also just repeats an example (biased transistors) from the 'Bipolar transistors' section. Kanhef (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?

[edit]

This sentence is unclear to me: "It can be surprising what professional sound equipment does not have thermal feedback and would thus need modification." Sim (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Link to Russian wiki is incorrect. Linked article is 'thermal runaway of rechargeable battery'. Could please someone fix that, I do not know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.151 (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where you can fix it: [1] (to get this, click "edit links" under the language list). I would, but I'm not sure what should be linked to instead. --Nanite (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Light bulbs

[edit]

I was under the impression that the "burning out" of a conventional light bulb was due to thermal runaway started at a flaw in the filament. If this is the case, it would seem to be an appropriate example for the lead. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me?

[edit]

I mean, you've got to be seriously retarded to mess up a 3-element diagram! Or (and?) a wikipedia contributor. For those even more retarded who cannot spot it here's a little show and tell: it's exotermic -> heat -> reaction rate, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Good lulz anyways, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.245.160 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Exothermic" by itself isn't really part of the feedback loop, since it is a fact about the reaction that doesn't change. "Reaction" should only appear once in the loop. Maybe it should be: exothermic reaction rate -> heat release -> temperature -> etc. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helium flashes and solar mass

[edit]

Do not remove accurate info about the mass of stars which undergo helium flashes in order to replace it with the unsourced and removed incorrect assertion that helium flashes occur when the star's mass is the equivalent of one solar mass. This is not so and there is no excuse for mis-informing our readers on this point, and justifying doing so on too much detail is not a sound argument for having inaccurate info here. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a source. Whatever argument there may be for too much detail is not an argument for claiming only stars of one solar mass have helium flashes when the current ref says between 0.8 and 2.0. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand what "solar mass stars" means. It doesn't mean stars with exactly 1.00 or 1.0 solar masses; it means stars of the relevant mass category to which the sun also belongs. That is to say, what it means depends on context. In this example, it means any star less than or equal to 8 solar masses. For this article, it means the mass range over which the helium flash occurs. This is basically common sense.
Also, you probably noticed that we don't go into detail on the mass ranges or other properties of stars that undergo novae or supernovae explosions in the intro, and these are much more important examples of thermal runaway than the helium flash is. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

java applet thingy

[edit]

The link works now, yay! The old link so people don't need to dig through revision history: http://www.ipes.ethz.ch/ipes/2002thermal/runaway/runaway.html CR055H41RZ (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Thermal runaway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short Description

[edit]

Currently, "Loss of control of an exothermal process due to temperature increases". How about, "An exothermal process which is increased by temperature increase causing uncontrolled increase" or something like that. The key factor is that the exothermal process has a rate increase which is caused by temperature increase. IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thermal_runaway&oldid=1197838374"