View Single Post
  #10  
Old 14-03-2016, 01:15 AM
mmalik (Mike)
Registered User

mmalik is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 106
I have a different philosophical perspective... there is something that always gets missed in such technical discussions is that a cooling device in itself that is designed and operates optimally comes first and foremost.


Cooling modules abound, big bulky heavy ones, cold finger ones, boxy ones, etc. This was an effort to design a compact yet efficient cooler that could be effortlessly mounted to the base of any camera. Lot of thought went into the type of power connectivity; RJ45 was selected for easy connection/disconnection after module gets mounted to a camera (so one doesn't have to contend with cables while installing).


Point being, cooling device in itself comes first. Once you have such a device [...which we do now], then comes the camera, dark frames, EXIF temps., etc. [which I did test, will share results soon, and will do more of...]


Idea here wasn't to develop the biggest/bad-est cooler that could freeze the heck out of a DSLR, rather develop a smaller efficient cooler for moderate cooling of a DSLR.


Lastly, when it comes to DSLRs, there are variables in terms of camera design. Some camera designs will conduct heat better than the others. Does that negate the efficiencies achieved in cooling design itself... no. Regards



Note: Efficiencies achieved are numerous... TEC type/design [TEC is USA made], power used (volt/amps), [relatively lower powered design to produce less heat and more cooling], how TEC gets driven (linear vs. pulse modulated), fan used to dampen vibrations, fan power/cfm, heatsink used for heat dissipation, coldplate size/type, coldplate insulation materials/specs, power connectivity (type/ease of use), AC vs. Powertank flexibility, etc. I'll elaborate on in coming posts.

Last edited by mmalik; 14-03-2016 at 04:25 AM.
Reply With Quote