3 Replies Latest reply on Feb 21, 2017 1:03 PM by Intel Corporation

    Intel Edison Temperature Range Revisited

    jam513

      I was wondering if further temperature testing of the Edison Modules or extended temperature versions were ever completed.

       

      I've seen thread discussions such as:

       

      Edison with Extended Temperature Range

      Outdoor Applications

       

      At least one person has experienced wider temperature performance, but I have yet to find any updated specifications from Intel other than the originally quoted 0C-40C.

      Would someone from Intel please consider re-visiting these topics and providing more information.

       

      Thanks in advance.

       

      -J

        • 1. Re: Intel Edison Temperature Range Revisited
          Intel Corporation
          This message was posted on behalf of Intel Corporation

          Hello jam513,

          Thanks for reaching out!

          As you mentioned, and as it can be seen on Edison's product brief (http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/boards-and-kits/intel-edison-boards/000005664.html), Edison's operating temperature is of 32 to 104°F or 0 to 40°C. 

          As we mentioned on some of the threads regarding this topic, we were running some extended temperature tests on Edison. Nevertheless, those tests showed us that in fact Edison is not suited for applications outside of the aforementioned range. So, for example, using Edison on industrial temperatures would indeed be harmful for the device and could even void its warranty.

          If you would like, you could try using heat sinks and thermal paste to try to increase the temperature range. However, Edison's functionality is guaranteed on the temperature range mentioned before and results under this circumstances are up to the user. Anyhow, if you indeed proceed with this, I encourage you to share your results with the community as other users might find them useful.

          I hope this information helps you,
          Pedro M.

          • 2. Re: Intel Edison Temperature Range Revisited
            jam513

            Hi Pedro,

             

            Thank you for your response.  I do recall reading that Intel was looking into extended temperature ranges for the Edison.  However, as far as I can tell, your response is the first official post from Intel which details that the extended temperature tests were unsuccessful. In fact, the links posted above seems to suggest the temperature tests went well (quoted below). 

             

            Thanks again for your assistance,

             

            -J

             

            P.S. It seems a little strange that a platform marketed as a embedded wearable would be incapable to being worn outside for a significant part of the globe.

             

             

             

            //cut and paste of previous post suggesting the temperature range was wider than 0C - 40C

            Edison with Extended Temperature Range

            by Intel_Peter on Jan 7, 2015 11:42 AM

            Hello andcell,

             

            We have been running some extended temperature tests on the Edison Board, and its performance is looking good; but right now, we are not ready to disclose the details of the temperature ranges that the Edison can handle. Please keep monitoring the communities where we will document and announce these ranges when we are done with the testing and validation.

             

            Peter.

            • 3. Re: Intel Edison Temperature Range Revisited
              Intel Corporation
              This message was posted on behalf of Intel Corporation

              Hello jam513,

              We understand what you are saying, the tests we ran were not completely unsuccessful, that's why we mentioned that back then. Nevertheless, after extensive tests it was concluded that the temperature range of Edison must remain of 32 to 104°F or 0 to 40°C.

              We apologize for any inconvenience this might cause and appreciate your comprehension.
              Pedro M.