Slashdot Mirror
Design-Your-Own Computer Case Kits
lord black writes "I was walking the aisles of the local Fry's and discovered a nifty computer-case-erector-set-thingy. Made by Aero Cool, the Lubic kit is basically a bunch of aluminum rails, acrylic panels (for mounting hardware to), and misc. screws to connect it all, for constructing a unique computer case. They have a gallery of example cases. BTW, Aero Cool also makes neat CPU coolers."
For some odd reason I read that as a Lubric Kit for mounting hardware and screws :-/
Took me a while to realize that they were talking of the other kind of hardware.
So where can I buy a kit?
Some links that actually work:
The cases.
The coolers.
The company.
Don't thank me; thank Google.
Kid-proof tablet..
From my perspective, I don't know if there's really much difference between blow-blow and blow-suck. (Gawd I love out of context quotes!) ;P
Un-news
Oh, wait, this is Slashdot. Like those spermies are ever going to end up anywhere but a tissue anyway.....
When I tried to view the pics the site had already been ./'ed. Here's the google cache for the
Lubic Gallery of Case Mods
Both are just about equally worthless. Both cost ridiculous sums of money for products eventually become worthless. It looks good, but is mostly a makeup for the user's own inadequacies. These modders just love to tell you about their mods and show it off, as if everybody else should care.
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
Tweaknews.net did a review of the Lubic kit last month. Apparently it's not as easy to use as an erector set, but it's still a cool product for case modders.
eclecti.cc
I rrecently upgraded my case from the POS that I had before. While shopping for the new case, I ran across these kits. While they sound interesting, (and I'd give them props for the concept if it weren't for the legos and erector sets that had it long before them) The finished products from their gallery are rather dissapointing visually.
I am an art major, so that might have something to do with my bias, but as far as I can tell, you'd get much better results visually with a couple sheets of plexi, your saw of choice, a dremel and some acrylic joining compound, (I use IPS Weld-on 3... got it from http://www.tapplastics.com ) In my mind, the latter setup will give you alot more flexibility in your case than a pre-made kit.
of course, i could just have looked at the gallery and gotten dissapointed too quickly to really make a fair critique of the product. *shrug*
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
All these cases are neat. Though I hate to be a killjoy, it's what I do best.
How is RFI suppression handled in these clear plastic cases?
Keeping your computer case closed to RF is generally a good idea.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
If you wanted more flexibility than you get from a kit, you could try 80/20 aluminum extrusion. They have various hardware, plastic panels, etc.
Self-building a system, especially with a creative enclosure, is never a Bad Thing. However, there is one very important -- I would even say 'critical' -- aspect of doing so that no one seems to be paying attention to, and it applies to ANY computer case that is not a full wrap-around all-metal enclosure.
Specifically: Unless you take explicit steps to electrically shield the transparent parts, the enclosure will never meet FCC Part 15 requirements for not radiating RF energy, or being susceptible to outside RFI (Radio Frequency Interference).
Here's the filthy details, and some more info on why this is a Bad Thing. Early computer systems and peripherals were classed as "Unintentional Radiators" under part 15.3(z) of the FCC regs. Later, as processor speeds climbed, an additional category of 'Digital Device' was created under part 15.3(k).
It was under this part that two subclasses were created. You may have heard references to something being a "Class A Computing Device" in the commercial world, or a "Class B Computing Device" in the consumer world. Both of these subclasses have to do with how much RF the device radiates under normal use, and how much potential it has to interfere with other nearby devices, including TV's, stereos, etc. The ARRL's web site has a page that summarizes this, and provides a great explanation on the issue of what 'harmful interference' is, and what the rules say about responsibility for solving issues involving it.
The Reader's Disgust version is this: Sure, you can build your computer into the flashiest Lexan-and-Aluminum enclosure you can find. You can equip it with all kinds of see-through parts, flashing LEDs, and other useless fluff to your heart's content.
HOWEVER -- remember that any material other than metal, solid or mesh, is going to be pretty much transparent to whatever RF energy your system spews into the surrounding environment in the course of its normal operation. If your flashy see-through system causes interference to ANY other RF-using device that is NOT covered by Part 15, to the point where said device cannot operate properly, it is YOUR responsibility to clean it up, electrically speaking.
Transparency to RF is a two-edged sword. You might get incredibly lucky, in that your way-cool see-through system might not be causing any interference at all. But what happens when, just as one example, the ham radio operator next door to you starts transmitting with a 1,000-watt-plus signal? (Yes, we are allowed to use that kind of power, and more).
Another example: What happens if a cop, the paramedics, or anyone else with a portable transceiver happens to transmit with said portable and they happen to be close to your computer at the same time?
Either way, a good chunk of the RF energy from those transmissions are going to go straight into your computer, because all that Lexan is going to let it in like a firehose stream through tissue paper. At best, your system may lock up or reboot unexpectedly. At worst, you could be looking at hard drive corruption.
And guess who's responsible for clearing up the resultant mess? Not the ham radio op. What they're doing is covered very well indeed under FCC Part 97. (That's not to say they'd just tell you to fix it yourself -- most hams are pretty nice about helping you to fix such issues if their transmitters appear to be wreaking havoc, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner of the Part 15 device).
Not the cops, paramedics, or whoever else was using the portable radio either. They're operating perfectly within the limits of their FCC license as well. No, the onus for fixing the problem lands right back on your shoulders, as the computer owner, all because you wanted a
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
As for problems with EMI reception...well, I suppose that if my next door neighbor had a kilowatt transmitter, the antenna in the backyard would be a dead giveaway and I might think twice before building one of these systems. But, apart from an extreme case like that, PCs are really quite immune from RF interference. A great deal of the design work that goes into the actual chips on the boards is devoted to EMI and ESD rejection. Critical signals are routed differentially. Signals on the PCB are (relatively) low frequency and routed with an eye toward reducing EMI transmission and susceptability.
My current work involves designing and simulating high speed digital systems. Part of that design work is to determine both how well the network rejects EMI and how little it radiates. And, as I mentioned before, short an extreme case (like the 1000 watt Ham transmitter), it is virtually impossible to couple enough energy onto the transmission lines to cause any trouble. And the amount of energy radiated beyond a foot or so is almost unmeasurable.
So, from a practical point (electrically speaking), these "cases", such as they are, are probably not the EMI terrors that one might thing. That being said, I sure wouldn't want one around my cat.
-h-