On 08/16/2010 02:16 AM, jimlux wrote:
We get into the argument about "still works ok in the circuit" vs
"doesn't meet databook specs" all the time at work. To some folks, "not
meet datasheet" = "failure", while if you have a circuit that needs a
gain of 10, and the part has a gain of 1000, and degrades to 500, it's
hardly failed.
And rarely, do you have the budget or time to do a real "life test" to
prove it experimentally.
In radiation environments, it's more of a continuous aging effect.. more
dose, more leakage. And what drives the conflict between designer and
reliability guys is that the effect isn't particularly predictable,
particularly between lots (because it's not something controlled in the
process)
(which makes life testing all that much more fun)
But armed with the knowledge of what parameters do degrade, you may do
simulations of various grades of degradation and show that with the
current knowledge of degradation and assumptions on its effects and
degrees, it is reasonable to expect functionality.
Right?
Simulation can be off assistance, if used wisely...
(or a tool of self deception if not used wisely)
Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
