Slashdot Mirror


New Chip-cooling Technology

BillOfThePecosKind writes "Researchers have demonstrated a new technology using tiny "ionic wind engines" that might dramatically improve computer chip cooling, possibly addressing a looming threat to future advances in computers and electronics. Purdue researchers funded by Intel have improved the "heat-transfer coefficient" by some 250%. I never liked water cooled systems, and this sounds promising. However I wonder how much ozone one of these things produces."

167 comments

  1. Ozone production FTW by SamP2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I wonder how much ozone one of these things produces."

    Produces? Hey, let's make a ton of these and solve the ozone hole problem forever!

    1. Re:Ozone production FTW by SoapBox17 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Welcome to 2004. The o-zone problem is solved. It fixes itself over time, as long as nothing is continually damaging it. Since CFCs were banned a long time ago, the o-zone hole has begun to shrink. It'll be gone in about 50 years.

    2. Re:Ozone production FTW by Carbon016 · · Score: 0

      Ground-level ozone is a pollutant and therefore bad.

    3. Re:Ozone production FTW by E++99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ground-level ozone is a pollutant and therefore bad.

      I think you mean it's bad and therefore a pollutant.
    4. Re:Ozone production FTW by Tatisimo · · Score: 3, Funny

      If we dig down some, the ground level ozone we're making will be above us, therefore, making a new, lower ozone layer. Time to move underground, my fellow human beings!

      --
      Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
    5. Re:Ozone production FTW by scruff323 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually ozone is a problem in the lower atmosphere. Ozone is very harmful to breathe and can be a problem on hot days in cities. You are talking about the ozone holes in the upper atmosphere, which is a different problem. If these things were to produce ozone (which i doubt), they would actually be harmful and not helpful as the ozone would not patch the ozone hole.

    6. Re:Ozone production FTW by DaveWick79 · · Score: 1

      Considering that the trend is toward making chips with smaller transistors that operate at less voltage and thus at lower temperatures, I don't think that having a few of these ozone-emitting devices around will create a pollution problem. In fact, ozone has quite a beneficial property in correct quantities, including cancer therapy, mold or smoke eradication, even water treatment (most high end swimming pools use ozone rather than very harmful chemicals such as chlorine).

    7. Re:Ozone production FTW by kyrio · · Score: 1

      Ozone is poisonous to breath, stop promoting your incorrect and deadly information.

    8. Re:Ozone production FTW by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In fact, ozone has quite a beneficial property in correct quantities, including cancer therapy, mold or smoke eradication, even water treatment (most high end swimming pools use ozone rather than very harmful chemicals such as chlorine). ...All except one of those involve killing living organisms. Rat poison is also damn useful but I wouldn't want it in the air or eating it.
    9. Re:Ozone production FTW by eggnoglatte · · Score: 4, Funny

      What the heck is "o-zone"? Ozone is a molecule, not some kind of atmospheric zone; that would be the ozone layer, i.e. the atmospheric layer with a high natural concentration of ... wait for it ... ozone.

    10. Re:Ozone production FTW by kyrio · · Score: 1

      *breathe

    11. Re:Ozone production FTW by fractalVisionz · · Score: 1

      Actually Ozone is a pollutant: (from Wikipedia)

      "Ground-level ozone is an air pollutant with harmful effects on the respiratory systems of animals. Ozone in the upper atmosphere filters potentially damaging ultraviolet light from reaching the Earth's surface." -- Ozone

      So in reality, these tiny ionic breezes produce Ozone which stays at ground level, harming humans and animals. Thus, this is not exactly the best thing. Now if we could only find a way to take all the produced ground level O3 (Ozone) and put it in the upper atmosphere.

    12. Re:Ozone production FTW by eggnoglatte · · Score: 1

      I never said it wasn't a pollutant. I just pointed out that it is a molecule rather than a spatial region.

    13. Re:Ozone production FTW by BobNET · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Rat poison is also damn useful but I wouldn't want it in the air or eating it.

      You would if you had a reason to prevent your blood from clotting (a stroke, for example). Coumadin is just a drug company's brand-name for warfarin, a chemical used in some rat poisons (although I wouldn't want to take the stuff intended for the rats either)...

    14. Re:Ozone production FTW by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      or eating it.

      several people do eat it on the advise of their doctor. (warfarin). at the proper dosage, it is quite useful for preventing blood clots.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    15. Re:Ozone production FTW by DaveWick79 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And you're just promoting the mostly incorrect nonsense you've heard. Yes, ozone in high quantities can be harmful. Do you even know what ozone is? It's 0^3, which is a highly unstable form of oxygen which quickly breaks down into stable 0^2 and 0^1. The 0^1 has properties which cause it to seek to bond to harmful molecules. This is what makes it useful for water treatment, air treatment, and blood treatment. Unless it is in such high quantities that it starts bonding to good molecules, it is not harmful, but beneficial.

    16. Re:Ozone production FTW by Hucko · · Score: 1
      Dude! You have time traveled and don't even know it! Its 2007! Recreate the steps over the past few days and you may get back. P.S. Take a copy of this back with you. Heck, just take this & this & this. on the understanding you will get us our flying car, buy NVidia and release the code.

      Damn I can't think of any major science/tech developments it would be good to have back in 2004... :s/P

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    17. Re:Ozone production FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fir trees don't like ozone, in any concentration. Ain't too good for people, either. Sure, it has its uses, but it's a pollutant when it's below oh, 30,000 feet.

    18. Re:Ozone production FTW by felipekk · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Now if we could only find a way to take all the produced ground level O3 (Ozone) and put it in the upper atmosphere.
      Maybe the series of tubes we use nowadays for the internet can help. And then we would have an internet link close to the outer space!
    19. Re:Ozone production FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there is an O-Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Zone), but if that's what the parent is referring to, their post is... disturbing.

    20. Re:Ozone production FTW by bigdavesmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Slashdot is not the proper place for a comprehensive discussion of the o-zone.

      Those of you over 18 might want to check out this clip though, if you're not sure exactly what the o-zone is.

    21. Re:Ozone production FTW by Pyrion · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lower-atmosphere ozone is called "smog."

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    22. Re:Ozone production FTW by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      You forgot to tell him to buy Google stock.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    23. Re:Ozone production FTW by Hucko · · Score: 1

      damn me and my memory...

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    24. Re:Ozone production FTW by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Warfarin will kill a human as well by bleeding you to death, if you take enough of it.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    25. Re:Ozone production FTW by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think we'd need a giant space truck, not a series of tubes. Space ain't the place to go waving internets around.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    26. Re:Ozone production FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sweet im with you
      everyone start digging

    27. Re:Ozone production FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, I figured you were talking about this.

      Posted as Anonymous Coward for good reasons :-p

    28. Re:Ozone production FTW by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Warfarin will kill a human as well by bleeding you to death, if you take enough of it.

      Water will kill you as well by disturbing the electrolyte balance in your blood and therefore stopping your heart if you drink too much of it. There is absolutely no substance in existence which won't kill you if misused in sufficient quantities.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    29. Re:Ozone production FTW by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      We now trust Wikipedia to tell us that rat poison is actually suitable for human consumption. In your face Encyclopedia Britannica!

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    30. Re:Ozone production FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's still several steps up from taking advice from Slashdot.

    31. Re:Ozone production FTW by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Oh snap!

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    32. Re:Ozone production FTW by markdavis · · Score: 1

      The tiny amount it would make doesn't matter to the environment. However, when in a confined space, ozone will very effectively attack rubber and flexible plastic. My mom had an ozone generator ON LOW in her kitchen, where the computer is. I had to replace her CDROM/DVD drive in the computer 6 times before she finally believed me and turned the damn thing off. That was a year ago- not a single problem since.

      Now, if it is that effective on cdrom belts, what does it do to human tissues, like your lungs?

    33. Re:Ozone production FTW by Branko · · Score: 1

      If these things were to produce ozone (which i doubt)...

      According to Wikipedia article, ozone can be produced by electromagnetism alone. So, while article only mentions ions (and not ozone), ozone production might actually be a legitimate concern.

    34. Re:Ozone production FTW by chexy · · Score: 1

      Um. I was just in southern Chile in the beginning of this year. The hole is looming over that part of the planet still causing issues. Solved...I doubt it. I have yet to read anything anywhere other than your statement that relates to "Solving the ozone problem". Please add a link to your findings for reference. I am very curious.

    35. Re:Ozone production FTW by Branko · · Score: 1

      Do you even know what ozone is? It's 0^3, which is a highly unstable form of oxygen which quickly breaks down into stable 0^2 and 0^1.

      According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone#Chemistry, the O^1 is not produced from breakdown of O^3.

      The 0^1 has properties which cause it to seek to bond to harmful molecules.

      Would you care to provide any references?

      I suspect that O^1, even if it were produced naturally from O^3, would be damaging to biological systems, due to its high chemical reactivity.

    36. Re:Ozone production FTW by mindwhip · · Score: 1

      Thats true... Space is bad for ping times... Imagine the latency trying to play World of Warcraft from Mars...

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    37. Re:Ozone production FTW by FST777 · · Score: 4, Funny

      everyone start digging
      You must be new here...
      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    38. Re:Ozone production FTW by Wolfger · · Score: 1

      Actually Ozone is a pollutant
      Actually, everything is a pollutant. Air is a pollutant if found in the bloodstream. Water is a pollutant if found in your gas tank. Milk is a pollutant if found in your beer. Light is a pollutant when you're trying to watch a meteor shower.
    39. Re:Ozone production FTW by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

      Milk is a pollutant if found in your beer.
      This statement is mental pollution of the worst kind. You have just ruined my breakfast of beer and oatmeal. Please turn in your badge, laptop, and beer stein at the door.
      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    40. Re:Ozone production FTW by Surt · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. There are way too many posters in this thread who need to understand this.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    41. Re:Ozone production FTW by DaveWick79 · · Score: 1

      See http://www.oxygenmedicine.com/o3laymanview.html

      The Wikipedia article you referenced indicates that two O^3 molecules will stabilize into normal O^2 molecules, this is only in a lab environment with only oxygen. The reality is that the split off oxygen cells bond with other gasses and molecules, not just with other O^1 molecules.

      I guess it's a matter of who you wish to believe when it comes to the effects of ozone. I think everyone agrees that too large of a quantity is bad.

    42. Re:Ozone production FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    43. Re:Ozone production FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now this is REAL Ozone making!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY-AS13fl30

    44. Re:Ozone production FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >>We now trust Wikipedia to tell us that rat poison is actually suitable for human consumption. In your face Encyclopedia Britannica!

      Or, you know, doctors.
    45. Re:Ozone production FTW by kyrio · · Score: 1

      Obviously you need to do some more reading and stop promoting death.

    46. Re:Ozone production FTW by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      Now if we could only find a way to take all the produced ground level O3 (Ozone) and put it in the upper atmosphere. we could always collect all of the ozone at ground level and use a chlorofluorocarbon propellant to pump it back up into the outer atmosphere
    47. Re:Ozone production FTW by Branko · · Score: 1

      ...this is only in a lab environment with only oxygen. The reality is that the split off oxygen cells bond with other gasses and molecules, not just with other O^1 molecules.

      My point was that I didn't think O^1 would occur in "normal" conditions. I didn't say that other molecules are not possible - they are indeed mentioned by chemical equations in said Wikipedia article.

      See http://www.oxygenmedicine.com/o3laymanview.html

      While not being a scientist myself, I do have a cursory interest in science and I always attempt to not just believe what I read, but try to think with my own head and draw my own conclusions. And the article you mention has couple of "red flags" preventing me from taking it on a face value.

      The article basically says that since anaerobic cells do not like oxygen, all we have to do is pump oxygen into our bodies (quote from the article: The basic concept is to "flood the body with oxygen" and ozone.) and we will be purified of many ailments.

      This foregoes that fact that to parts of our own cells, including DNA and many organelles, oxygen is toxic (even O^2, not to mention O^3 and many compounds produced from it). As explained here and (more verbosely) here, our cells are product of evolution of both aerobic and anaerobic life. The life of an average eukaryote cell is a balancing act between metabolic need for oxygen and a need to protect its own DNA and organelles from it. Simply pumping oxygen indiscriminately into our bodies would offset this fine balance.

      Later, the article even goes on to claim that Ozone has been used to "cure" cancer and aids and many other "incurable" diseases in Germany for more than 50 years!. Now to claim for a chemical that damages DNA to cure a disease that results from a damage to DNA is a very strange claim indeed!

      In any case, we agree that "too large of a quantity is bad" :)

  2. Great! by quicks0rt · · Score: 2

    "However I wonder how much ozone one of these things produces."

    Great! We solved the global warming. Let's get cranking.

    1. Re:Great! by mastermemorex · · Score: 1

      Not only ozoone, but also it contributes to the global warming with a 250% of efficiency.

      Great! My room will never be so hot in winter thanks to the new micro toste. I wonder if it is also a multipurpose device and I can make fried eggs on the cpu!

    2. Re:Great! by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      Currently parent is "(Score:0, Redundant)".

      That really isn't fair. If you look at the time stamp it is 1 minute behind the previous (first) post. He probably clicked reply before there were any posts and the previous post was submitted very shortly before his. If 2 or more posts are submitted more or less at the same time, the 2nd shouldn't be penalized for being a few seconds behind. If the posted time showed a 5+ minute difference then "redundant" would be justified.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    3. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has no sense. Global warming is barely or no related with the ozone layer. The extintion of the ozone layer will burn your skin by radiation, and get you a skin cancer, on the other hand the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will cook you by high temperature.

  3. If I don't, someone else will.... by ZeroFactorial · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cool!

    1. Re:If I don't, someone else will.... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Actually this is a way for chips to give off *even more* heat. In fact it might be a good technology for hair dryers.

    2. Re:If I don't, someone else will.... by greenguy · · Score: 1

      I don't know why no one has done this. The ultimate way to make a chip cool:

      Name it "Fonzie."

      --
      What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
  4. ozone by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Informative

    FWIS The "ionic wind" takes place inside a sealed chamber, no ozone would be leaking out.

    1. Re:ozone by ricebowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FWIS The "ionic wind" takes place inside a sealed chamber, no ozone would be leaking out.

      I'm possibly being naive, and I've yet to read the featured article, but if the ionic wind is inside a sealed chamber how does it aid cooling? Surely the sealed chamber would simply grow warmer over time and become a thermal insulator?

      If I'm being dumb please don't hesitate to retort or point out the flaws in my thinking...

    2. Re:ozone by Tyger · · Score: 1

      Where do you see that? The article describes how it works with fans to reduce the effect where the air closest to the chip moves the least. The ionic wind is the "last mile" of cooling, in that description. If you enclose it in something and point a fan at that, you still have the issue that the fan air doesn't move much close to the now enclosed cooling device. Not only that, it would probably make cooling worse by acting as an insulator.

    3. Re:ozone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Simple heat transfer.

      1. Heat is transferred from processor to "sealed chamber" through a contact (most likely metal) with a good heat transfer capability.
      2. Heat is then transferred to the air within the "sealed chamber" to the air current residing within the chamber.
      3. Air is replaced with cool air as hot air is transferred out of the case.

      This creates a heat pipe of sorts (though water or anti-freeze is replaced with the air, which won't harm electronics and should be quieter, since the system has no moving parts), unlike current cooling systems which simply blow hot air away from the CPU but where it inevitably recycles through the case to some degree.

    4. Re:ozone by WallaceAndGromit · · Score: 1

      Normally the bottom of the heat sink and the processor are roughly at equal temperatures (assuming you use a good thermal compound that does not have a large deltaT across it).

      Now if you put something in between the heat sink and the processor that actively forces heat flow from the processor to the heat sink, you can make the bottom of the heat sink hotter than the processor, which makes the processor cooler, and which in turn makes the heat sink more effective since it is running hotter. (Wow, that was a nice run on sentence)

      --
      Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
    5. Re:ozone by radl33t · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are quite right. The AC has no idea what he is talking about. If only his grasp of "simple heat transfer" matched his arrogance. This is not a sealed chamber. The ions impart momentum to a near wall flow and destroy the boundary layer. Good mixing at the wall = good heat transfer! (The article says as much) These Purdue dudes have a lot of neat electronics cooling stuff going on. I had the pleasure of getting the whole delivery at a seminar last Fall.

    6. Re:Ozone by kyrio · · Score: 1

      Those ion air filters are a scam, they work about as well as your monitor does at cleaning the air. Also, the ozone they create is deadly, good thing though, because morons who buy them without doing even a tiny amount of research, and thinking the advetizing point of "produces ozone!!!1111!" is great, deserve to die from the polluted air they are creating.

    7. Re:ozone by Tmack · · Score: 1

      Normally the bottom of the heat sink and the processor are roughly at equal temperatures (assuming you use a good thermal compound that does not have a large deltaT across it).

      Now if you put something in between the heat sink and the processor that actively forces heat flow from the processor to the heat sink, you can make the bottom of the heat sink hotter than the processor, which makes the processor cooler, and which in turn makes the heat sink more effective since it is running hotter. (Wow, that was a nice run on sentence)

      Congrats, you just described a peltier cooler, something completely different than this "sealed chamber" theory. Basically, yes, a sealed chamber would turn into a great insulator since convection is orders of magnitude less efficient than conduction, thus heating its insides until the cpu overheats. Think sealing your case completely and turning off all fans.

      Tm

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    8. Re:ozone by Surt · · Score: 1

      A sealed chamber has an external surface. The external surface dissipates heat if it is exposed to a lower temperature environment. So imagine that the size of this sealed chamber is a cubic meter, extending out of your computer case. It distributes all that heat to a very large surface area, bringing the temperature of your cpu down to near room temperature.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  5. Ozone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the one hand, ground level ozone is a problem. It is one of the prime constituants of smog. The ozone that protects us is much higher in the atmosphere.

    On the other hand, ozone is extremely reactive. Ozone generated in your computer probably won't make it out of your house. Besides that, some people deliberately generate ions to purify the air. I really wouldn't worry about the ozone.

  6. Well, as the article clearly shows by gaffle · · Score: 1

    Red to blue = good!

    1. Re:Well, as the article clearly shows by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1, Troll

      Bah, that picture is so photoshoppped. Can't believe anything you see these days.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Well, as the article clearly shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a shoop. I can tell by the pixels, and by having seen quite a few shoops in my time.

  7. Didn't we already do this one? by John+Sokol · · Score: 4, Informative
    From Sep 17, 2006
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/ 17/2134250

    Ionic Cooling For Your Computer
    master0ne writes, "We (the folks over at InventGeek) have produced the first ionic cooling system for your high-end gaming system. This system produces absolutely no noise and in fact has no moving parts at all. While this is a proof of concept, it demonstrates that you can get the CFM you need to cool a system efficiently with no moving parts and no increase in power consumption." And another post
    From Jan 3, 2007
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/ 03/1951256

    Ionic Winds Chilling Your Computer
    Iddo Genuth writes to mention The Future of Things online magazine is reporting that Kronos Advanced Technologies in cooperation with Intel and the University of Washington claims to have developed a new type of ultra-thin, silent cooling technology for processors. The piece covers many of the cooling technologies currently available, how their new corona discharge cooler works, and a short interview with several of the key team members. And my reply on that one.
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21484 8&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=174537 66

    One was using the Ionic Breeze technique to provide just a slight air flow, but it increases the efficiency of the heat sink but a large amount. Problem that they fail to mention is the heatsink really attracts dust, just like the ionic breaze, so you need to get in there with a brush quite often.

    Below is a link to many of the prototypes I built. I don't have a photo of the ionic version, but it was just the desktop unit with the large aluminum heatsinks with a plastic duct/ shield was added and a set of fine wires was run across the bottom of the large aluminum heat sinks with -6000V DC on it.
    The aluminum heat sinks were grounded. Here is another reply from Jonathan Walther

    Give John Sokol the credit (Score:3, Informative)
    by Jonathan Walther (676089) Alter Relationship on Wednesday January 03, @09:00PM (#17452802)
    Back in 2002 when John Sokol was designing the first, and still the most efficient silent computer, we discussed the ionic air cooling. I think it was Bill Drury who first mentioned it. We put it off as a possible future direction to go. It didn't seem like it would be nearly as productive a direction as the thermal ground technology John developed. Time has proven John right; his thermal plane and thermal ground patents will revolutionize the computer industry fairly soon now. As a director of Nisvara, I can't reveal more than that at this time. But if you want a silent computer with no moving parts and even lower power consumption than these "coronal discharge" guys are claiming, get in touch with John Sokol.
    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:Didn't we already do this one? by Tyger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if you RTFA, you'd see that this has as much in common with those past articles as a desktop fan pointed at a CPU has with a heatsink with a fan attached.

    2. Re:Didn't we already do this one? by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      I did RTFA. It's just a matter of semantics.

      They are talking about a CPU with a heatsink and ionic wind cooling.

      This is more or less the same as a heatsink with an Ionic Breeze pointed at it.
      OR am I missing something?

      As far as I can see, there vague article is more or less the same as those other articles and what I had already developed and tested in 2003 or so.

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    3. Re:Didn't we already do this one? by brunascle · · Score: 1

      also, this one, which points to an article i also submitted a day before.

    4. Re:Didn't we already do this one? by brunascle · · Score: 1

      nope, that's not it. the article it points to is on the same site, but this is the article i was thinking of.

    5. Re:Didn't we already do this one? by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      "Innovative Ion Trap on a Semiconductor"

      Nope, that link was something different. These using Ion's for quantum computing,

      the parent article here and those other ones, were just using the air currents generated by a high voltage electric fields in air.
      It's actually very crude technology.

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    6. Re:Didn't we already do this one? by Repossessed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It looks more like they're using ionic cooling to replace the heatsink instead of replacing the fan. I have to wonder what kind of cooling you could get if you used all three though.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    7. Re:Didn't we already do this one? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 4, Informative
      From my reading of the article, I'd say there's a fundamental difference - the ionic wind in this case is produced at the CPU surface, eliminating the trapped layer of air that is produced by normal (laminar) flow from a fan.

      Pointing an Ionic Breeze at a heatsink will merely produce the same type of airflow as a fan, only quieter.

      Forcing the trapped layer of air at the CPU surface to move should improve the efficiency of the cooling, though a 2 1/2 times improvement seems pretty high - obviously the boundary layer is a significant insulator in this case.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    8. Re:Didn't we already do this one? by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      If they are talking about a CPU acting a Anode with just a flat metal heat spreader and no heatsink
      the heatsink and fan improves cooling 100x

      I was doing a heatsink with Ionic cooling. vs a heatsink with or without a fan.

      The fan wins hand down. The Ionic was better then just a bare heatsink.
      The interest in the Ionic was that it's silent.
      I had my heatsink as the anode, with -6KV on the cathode that was a fine wire tracing the fins about 1 inch away.
      My heatsink was very large 3 inch fins, and 16 inches across. and 17 inches long.
      The fin spacing was about 1/2 between fins.

      In 2 weeks the system would be so clogged with dust it's cooling was failing.

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    9. Re:Didn't we already do this one? by Tyger · · Score: 1

      Again, in the article, they didn't replace the fan with the ionic breeze. The fan is still there. It moves large amounts of air, and the ionic breeze was taking the air being moved and bringing it directly in contact with the hot surface, rather than the thin insulating layer of air you get with just a fan pointed at a heatsink.

      Thus, it is, in fact, a clever new application of the technology and not just a replication of what you have done. Anybody can go to sharper image, and make the connection of "A fan moves air, this moves air silently, so I'll replace a fan with this". It's not exactly rocket science to replace one air mover with another. But that is not what the article was describing at all.

      Here's the important bits from the article.

      Conventional cooling technologies are limited by a principle called the "no-slip" effect - as air flows over an object, the air molecules nearest the surface remain stationary. The molecules farther away from the surface move progressively faster. This phenomenon hinders computer cooling because it restricts airflow where it is most needed, directly on the chip's hot surface.

      The new approach potentially solves this problem by using the ionic wind effect in combination with a conventional fan to create airflow immediately adjacent to the chip's surface, Fisher said.

    10. Re:Didn't we already do this one? by John+Sokol · · Score: 1
      Maybe your right, but I am not ready to concede yet.
      It's hard to say from the article exactly what there doing. I didn't catch the part about ionic and fan together.
      I would really like to see a diagram, patent, photo or anything that would provide more information about what they actually did.

      But there images seem to be a flat surface. This can not be directly against the silicon but something like a Intel's P4 square copper heat spreader.

      I don't see how ionic current could work between the fins of a heatsink. If this technology only work directly on the heat spreader of the CPU's then it's no where's near as effective as a heatsink against the CPU.

      From comments on the bottom of the article.

      On 14-Aug-2007 by LearmSceince
      But the surface of the chip doesn't contact the air. It contacts the metal heat sink! Heatsinks are all about increasing surface area while allowing air flow. Surface area of a thermal interface reduces the thermal resistance. I could see how an ionic current could break up that slow air layer on the surface, but I don't know if it will do better then some corrugation of the heatsink surfaces to add turbulence. Corrugations or grooves will also increase surface area, but I think the patents on that are long expired by now.

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
  8. Sharper Image CPU cooler? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Not unless you cool your CPU with an Ionic Breeze!

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:Sharper Image CPU cooler? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I saw a homemade hack someone did to do this very thing with an "ionic breeze" from Sharper Image to cool a case. It was a near silent cooling system, which makes me wonder how different that hack was from what the Purdue students discovered.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  9. New Technology? by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmm then what is this 'Ionic breeze' thing sitting beside me that is blowing air around my room with no fans or other moving parts? Or the industrial electrostatic cleaners that have been around for decades longer?

    New application of really old technology would be a bit more accurate.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:New Technology? by texsupport958 · · Score: 1

      the "anti-gravity lifter" on a recent mythbusters worked on this concept (makes thrust. no anti-grav)

    2. Re:New Technology? by kyrio · · Score: 1

      lol, "ionic breeze" thing. Enjoy your early death.

    3. Re:New Technology? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Or the ionic flying machine from popular mechanics in the 70's that flopped terribly?

    4. Re:New Technology? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Subject: New Technology
      "Hmm then what is this 'Ionic breeze' thing sitting beside me that is blowing air around my room with no fans or other moving parts?"
      That would be the thing sitting beside you , not the thing integrated into the silicon of your computer.

      To extend your non-sequiter jet planes were not new technology when they were created because paper airplanes already existed.
      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:New Technology? by AngelofDeath-02 · · Score: 1

      The ozone quantity drops dramatically when you are farther away from the unit.

      These things may be harmful if they are 1 foot away from you, and are below limits at 3 feet, but really... who sticks that close to an air purifier? The filter ones are obnoxiously loud, where this unit isn't, but still.. The ozone levels in a ppm sense go way down the farther away you are.

      Even if a unit was at my feet while sitting, I'm a minimum of 3 feet away, closer to 4 or 5 - depending on height.

      I'd normally put it in a clear part of my room and let it do it's thing..

      Also, if your room is well ventilated, the ozone is even less of a problem.

      --
      No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
    6. Re:New Technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "New application of really old technology would be a bit more accurate."

      If you think about it, probably 99.9999% of new inventions are really just "applied technology", technology derived from re-designing one thing to work with something else. I think if you really want to invent something completely new, somebody will have to discover some new elements or re-write the laws of physics. Although I must say, in this case, using ions to cool semiconductors is pretty neat out-of-the-box thinking (if it works).

    7. Re:New Technology? by pla · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm then what is this 'Ionic breeze' thing sitting beside me that is blowing air around my room with no fans or other moving parts?

      Well, according to Consumer reports, according to every independant laboratory test, according to even Sharper Image itself...

      I'd have to answer "A waste of money and electricy".

      Yes, it (slowly) moves air. It just doesn't clean it effectively.

    8. Re:New Technology? by archen · · Score: 1

      And there is something that isn't mentioned here. What about dust? When you move air by charging particles you're going to end up with dust sticking to it like crazy. Eventually this thing will probably not even be able to cool effectively. Most computers sit on the floor and suck up dust all day. So then what? You going to ask people to clean their computers every month? Most people have never opened up their PC. The last thing people want is MORE maintenance on a PC.

    9. Re:New Technology? by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      the industrial electrostatic cleaners that have been around for decades You mean the ones they put into the HVAC ducts to filter out dirt? Those go into the ducts because they can't move air (at least not efficiently). The last house I bought had one of these, it was plumbed right into the cold air return just before it entered the furnace. It definitely wasn't moving moving any air around by itself.
      --
      Just junk food for thought...
  10. Only delaying the inevitable by kylemonger · · Score: 1

    Chips are eventually going to require cryo-like gear to keep it from roasting. We're not going to have that kind of equipment in our homes so it'll be back to time-sharing to run whatever CPU chewing bloatware we're running by then.

    1. Re:Only delaying the inevitable by mrraven · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our google overmind metaverse overlords.

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    2. Re:Only delaying the inevitable by click2005 · · Score: 1

      Or chips will go the other way.. so small you end up putting them in everything. Clothing made of millions of nano-cpus that get power through body movement. Or keep it suspended in a liquid. Drink a glass of Intel PentiYummy (it uses fat cells for energy so it aids dieting) and get a few days of super cpu power.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    3. Re:Only delaying the inevitable by Tatisimo · · Score: 1

      I can only imagine: "I'm not fat, I'm a power house! Now fetch me another King Sized Whopper, I need it for light bulbs."

      --
      Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
    4. Re:Only delaying the inevitable by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually most people are buying these powerful, speedy processors that underclock themselves to cut down on power and heat. Both AMD and Intel have been very mindful of power and heat consumption lately. Literally processors have more power than what we're throwing at them. Clock-speed has not been racing upwards significantly the past few years, but power consumption has been going down and efficiency going up.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  11. Ironic wind? by Omnifarious · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this mean now that our computers may have yet another thing that can go wrong? They might break wind.

    1. Re:Ironic wind? by rdavidson3 · · Score: 0

      Does this mean now that our computers may have yet another thing that can go wrong? They might break wind. As long as it doesn't do a blue angel.
  12. like this bit by snarkh · · Score: 1
    The new cooling technology could be introduced in computers within three years if researchers are able to miniaturize it and make the system rugged enough, Garimella said.


    Which pretty much applies to any other technology.

  13. Power by umberto+unity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem is the power consumption on this thing. If you assume that they want to move all the air in a small region around the wire even once per second, say 10mm x 1mm x 1cm, to use the dimension quoted in TFA and nominal orders of magnitude for chip size and wire thickness, that corresponds to something ~ 10^-5 moles of air. Since Nitrogen has an ionization energy of 1402.3 kJ/mol (Wikipedia), that means if you want to move that quantity of air every second, you need at least something around 15W. That's even assuming you perfectly convert electrical energy into removing electrons from air molecules, and it's just to ionize the air, neglecting the extra energy it then takes to get the ions moving (we'll pretend the fan does all that, even though that would mean that our device isn't doing jack).

    I don't know how much energy my laptop uses, but my power adapter is 65W, so 15 seems non-negligible.

    1. Re:Power by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Your analysis assumes only the ions are moved, so the entire atmosphere being moved must be ionized.

      In fact a single ion carries an enormous number of unionized molecules with it.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, your average desktop usually has a 300-600 W power supply. 15W is negligible when it comes to cooling, really. Heck, if it performs somewhere between a traditional heatsink and liquid cooling and uses up less than 50W, you'll see quite a large market for it among gamers who want to overclock decently but are too wary of liquid cooling to use it.

    3. Re:Power by umberto+unity · · Score: 1

      actually my analysis assumed none of the ions were moved at all, just ionized.

    4. Re:Power by Inverted+Intellect · · Score: 1

      a single ion carries an enormous number of unionized molecules with it.

      Oh. So you need unionized molecules to produce a decent amount of work then? I sure hope this new movement can overcome all the inertia preventing it. Otherwise the situation will become quite heated.

    5. Re:Power by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      It seems to be another solution in search of a need. I expect that this will find a niche somewhere. I just don't see the value. I have a perfectly stable, fan/air cooled, four core, 3GHz computer and I really don't hear it unless I put my ear within a foot of it. There is no "looming threat" to advances in computing technology, at least in the personal computer realm. Not so much in much of the server realm either, because companies are starting to look at their power bills.

      This article suggests thinner notebooks, but I just don't see that there either, notebooks run hot enough, and it's not as if heat sinks are a significant weight or size factor, the batteries are usually far heavier.

    6. Re:Power by billster0808 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Molecules have their own unions now? Next thing you know they'll be asking for health coverage!

    7. Re:Power by llamaxing · · Score: 1

      Or worse yet, dental coverage! I mean, think about it. When was the last time you heard about particulate matter getting routine checkups? The plaque buildup, gingivitis, stained teeth... let's just hope they're not smokers!

    8. Re:Power by Shadyman · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it looks like your tag is sticking. I'll get someone from tech support to fix it right away.

    9. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Molecules are unionizing? and you thought Hoffa had power...

    10. Re:Power by GaryOlson · · Score: 2, Funny

      He used to be a stutterer; and apparently he still has problems with big words. This is not a tech support problem; we have enough other real work to do.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  14. I got something better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  15. Ozone at ground level does not help anyway by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    The ozone is needed at high altitude to provide a shield. At low altitudes ozone is bad stuff to have around and is highly damaging.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  16. ionic wind? is this real... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or are they just blowing hot air?

  17. CFCs and HCFCs by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Informative

    HCFCs still burn a hole into the ozone layer, and the full damage from released CFCs and HCFCs can take up to 50 years as it is a chain reaction. I worked on air conditioners in the military and had to become EPA certified on the stuff. I got the "Universal" license from the EPA. The biggest offender in this area is still the US government. While most civilian vehicles have newer HCFC-based air conditioners, the military does not. And not everyone has banned CFCs fully yet.

    From the Wikipedia:

    "By the year 2010 CFCs should be completely eliminated from developing countries as well."

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by Zonekeeper · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And as a result, air conditioners have to work that much harder in order to cool us off. And don't go spouting nonsense about how they work just as good. B.S. Got in an older Toyota the other day that still had the old refrigerant in it, and the air it throws out of this little 4 banger is WAY colder than any new car I've been in, and that is several makes and models. I mean this thing would put icicles on you, and where I live its 100F out these days. Save the ozone one way (which is such crap...) and drive up energy consumption and create more smog, etc. at the same time. A win-win, wouldn't you say? What crap.

    2. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by got2liv4him · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, they are working on banning hcfc's as well. And all civilian have been required to use hfc's since '95. (you probably just got mixed up). Europe is already talking about banning hfc's. I am interested to know what they plan on using, propane?, co2?, ammonia. How do we know that the ozone layer doesn't naturally? I mean it closed back up, and I highly doubt it was because we stopped using r-12 and r-502. Seriously, how do we know that the hole was caused by cfc's, I would think if it was and the cfc's somehow defied gravity and got up to the ozone layer there would be multiple holes? P. S. I work on a/c's.

      --
      King of kings and Lord of lords
    3. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by got2liv4him · · Score: 1

      Just ask your local car repairman to use r-409a or r-414b (hotshot). It will make it a refrigerator!

      --
      King of kings and Lord of lords
    4. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by evilviper · · Score: 4, Informative

      And don't go spouting nonsense about how they work just as good. B.S. Got in an older Toyota the other day that still had the old refrigerant in it, and the air it throws out of this little 4 banger is WAY colder than any new car I've been in, and that is several makes and models.

      That's completely idiotic.

      The fact that a certain car has a more powerful A/C is because it was designed to be more powerful, NOT because of the refrigerant. No doubt your old Toyota's A/C demands far more power to operate than any of the newer ones you've compared it with.

      There is a difference between refrigerants, but it's a very small one, and couldn't REMOTELY account for your magical little story there. In fact, air conditioners have been getting more and more energy efficient over the years, at the same time that refrigerants have been getting less toxic.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, I can see that the military has quite different requirements for their equipment than Joe Average. You don't want something that gets you 90% of something else when you can get the 100% version if ecological concerns are the only difference. When that thing blows up because of the 10% you lost, the eco damage is quite a bit larger.

      Though in this case I'm not sure whether the alternate coolant wouldn't also be the more interesting option for the military. CFCs and HCFCs are toxic, which means that leaking them into the pilot cell (after, say, a bullet hitting them) is dangerous, while some alternatives would be an inconvenience (loss of AC and an unpleasant smell).

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by yabos · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with the type of refrigerant used. It's due to the size of the cooling system. You can have an under sized cooling system with older refrigerants as much as you can have an over sized system with newer refrigerants.

    7. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seriously, how do we know that the hole was caused by cfc's, I would think if it was and the cfc's somehow defied gravity and got up to the ozone layer there would be multiple holes?

      Because at the North and South poles, the atmosphere does not circulate very well with regards to the rest of the planet. You end up with a large Polar vortex of cold air remaining stationary over the area, which allows the CFC to react with other chemicals in the air:

      The chemistry of the Antarctic polar vortex has created severe ozone depletion. The nitric acid in polar stratospheric clouds reacts with CFCs to form chlorine, which catalyzes the photochemical destruction of ozone. Chlorine concentrations build up during the winter polar night, and the consequent ozone destruction is greatest when the sunlight returns in spring (September/October). These clouds can only form at temperatures below about -80C, so the warmer Arctic region does not have an ozone hole.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    8. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For a given system, R134a refrigerant is less effective than R12, or other replacements. George Goble is the guy that lobbied for and lost the bid to replace R12 with a relatively inexpensive superior performing propane/iso-butane mixture. R134 performs worse, requires larger condensors, and has less heat carrying capacity. Additionally, should the condenser hit 214+F it won't work at all. The summer temps here regularly hit over 100, and in full sun on black asphalt you'll get a nice cozy 140+. Add in engine compartment heat where (surprise!!) the condenser sits....

      If you've never had the pleasure of entering a dark colored car sitting out on asphalt for 8+ hours in full sun on a 115 degree day and turn on the AC and get hit with cold air, and then do the same with any R134 equipped car, you don't know what you're talking about. One last note, R134 did improve on one issue that used to be a problem with R12 systems: R134 systems don't suffer from freeze lock (that'd be where the evaporator in the dash gets so cold that water freezes onto it, blocking air flow and killing your cooling power).

      So yes, R12 performs far better than R134. If you're willing to void your warranty, you can improve the performance of your R134 system by doping it with propane and iso-butane and approach the performance of an R12 system.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? You sound like you've never heard of science.

    10. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Certain car companies do seem to have better AC then others. But it been proven over and over again that the R12 based AC was colder faster then the newer types. Also do the newer ones ever get the so cold they actually freeze and your AC air flow suffers? I have yet to hear of this happening. It is a bad thing. Real easy to fix. Turn off the AC for 5-10 minutes and it is all fixed. The older AC in cars were a lot colder then todays models. If your old enough to even remember the old cars AC you would know this. Anyone know if you can change the AC compressor to a bigger one in todays cars and get better AC? Back in '79 we had a mustang 4 banger with a town car AC compressor in it. Your soda never got warm with the AC running.

      Also anyone notice that cars that are black in stock color seem to have better AC even in todays cars? I have owned/ridden in the same make model and year of 5 different types of cars and the b lack cars all had better AC. I wonder if they are set that way by design since black cars will heat up faster.

    11. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Additionally, should the condenser hit 214+F it won't work at all. The summer temps here regularly hit over 100, and in full sun on black asphalt you'll get a nice cozy 140+. Add in engine compartment heat where (surprise!!) the condenser sits....

      Sorry, but no sale. Condensers sit in FRONT of (or beside) the radiator, so they get the very coolest air coming in the front of the car. The only possible issue is when your car is stopped (eg. in traffic, but only after several minutes of warm-up/run time) and idling to do nothing but run the A/C. Even then, most vehicles turn on the fan to supply the compressor with cool air in such situations (as they should). So, there's very few or no circumstances where the 200F max temp. should be an issue.

      So yes, R12 performs far better than R134.

      Baseless bull.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by Molf · · Score: 1

      CFCs and HCFCs are toxic, which means that leaking them into the pilot cell (after, say, a bullet hitting them) is dangerous, while some alternatives would be an inconvenience (loss of AC and an unpleasant smell).
      No they're not. One of the reasons CFCs were/are so widely used is that they're non-toxic - a big win considering that the most common refrigerant in use when they were invented was ammonia. Wikipedia says:

      American engineer Thomas Midgley developed chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) in 1928 as a replacement for ammonia (NH3), chloromethane (CH3Cl), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), which are toxic but were in common use at the time as refrigerants. The new compound developed had to have a low boiling point and be non-toxic and generally non-reactive. In a demonstration for the American Chemical Society, Midgley flamboyantly demonstrated all these properties by inhaling a breath of the gas and using it to blow out a candle.
      This is one of the reasons that industries were/are so reluctant to stop using them. The discovery that they have unexpected negative consequences was a major blow because otherwise they're insanely great.
    13. Re:CFCs and HCFCs by got2liv4him · · Score: 1

      you may be right... i have heard very little none agenda-based science, therefore I may be a little skeptical, but I am not totally closed-minded. That is why I asked.Notice how some comments before yours were helpful, a lot unlike yours.

      --
      King of kings and Lord of lords
  18. Re:High Altitude Airships FTW by sanman2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Actually, I'd read that ion-wind technology could be used as a propulsion mechanism for large high-altitude airships. Hey, then you could produce ozone while meeting people's transportation needs at the same time.

    Maybe a suped-up version of one of those Aeroscraft thingies could feature this.

  19. ESD issue? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Informative

    This technology looks like it might deposit a large electric charge on the surface of the chip. This will have to be dissipated, before it dissipates itself by creating an electrostatic discharge on (or capacitively coupled to) one of the chips interconnects.

    To avoid this the insulating passivation layer will probably have to be topped by an additional conductive layer. This layer, in turn, will increase the capacitive load on the interconnects and likely require additional chip power to switch them.

    I expect it will still be a big net improvement. But deploying it won't be trivial.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:ESD issue? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Many chips have whole planes dedicated almost entirely to power supply or ground. No new layer required, so no additional capacitance.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:ESD issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An additional conductive layer probably means a copper plating, which wouldn't hurt heat dispersion much

  20. down the road... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    Link this technology with an optical chipset and see how much faster it goes! Insane idea. It could work.

    --
    The game.
  21. Blanket statement isn't true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have had an electrostatic air filter for about thirty years. It does an amazing job of cleaning the air. It definately keeps the old allergies at bay. I get a good night's sleep when I'm at home. If I'm on the road, I tend to puff up. We have a carbon filter right after the es filter. You can easily tell the places where the air bypasses the ES elements because you can see quite a dust buildup on the carbon elements at those points.

    Were you aware that the best way to de-stink a place is to use air ionizers. They're the favorite of disaster clean-up specialists and marijuana grow-ops everywhere.

    Ionized air may or may not be healthy but air ionizers certainly can remove junk from the air and really do improve the smell of a place.

    1. Re:Blanket statement isn't true by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm.... When consumer reports tested the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze air purifiers, it found them nearly useless. They gave them such a bad review that the share price of Sharper Image went down 9%. Sharper Image took them to court for libel and lost. They lost so bad that they were forced to pay Consumer Union's legal fees. http://www.aircleaners.com/sharperimage2.phtml

      BTW, most allergens collect on surfaces, they don't float around in the air. Pet dander is most notorious for this, but other allergens behave the same way. Most doctor's recommend that allergy sufferers don't spend their money on air filters. An excerpt from the web site of the Asthsma and Allergy Foundation of America ( http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=9&sub=18&cont=2 22 ):

      Air filters are worth considering, but not as a solution to your asthma or allergy problems by themselves. In fact, research studies disagree on whether or not filters give much added relief in a clean and well-ventilated home.

    2. Re:Blanket statement isn't true by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      BTW, most allergens collect on surfaces, they don't float around in the air. Pet dander is most notorious for this, but other allergens behave the same way.

      Tell that to all the people who are allergic to what the trees and flowers drop/spit out every year. The stuff will drop out of the air at some point. I'd say that this stuff stays in the air for a while. The air isn't pollen free till about 5-6 miles out on the ocean from what I can tell. I say this cause that is the area that I can finally take a full breath and not sneeze/cough and my sinuses clear out around that area too.

    3. Re:Blanket statement isn't true by kyrio · · Score: 1

      He said most allergens, especially from animals. This is true. The only useful air filters are ones that are equipped with HEPA filters. You can actually seea piece of your hair move from one end of the floor to the filter, 5 feet away, or dust in the air float towards it, from 10 feet away. "ionic air filters" are a scam, as I said before, your monitor works as good as it does at cleaning the air.

  22. Ozone My Arse by Yourself · · Score: 0

    Ozone is triatomic oxygen... O3. Its created when sufficient energy is applied to O2 to split the atom into monoatomic oxygen, and the resulting O1's each combine with an O2. The characteristic smell is caused by ions resulting from the process, not the ozone itself. Ionic generators used for air purification merely add electrons to air molecules and to particles in the air. Negatively charged molecules are then attracted to positive electrodes. The energy required to ionize the air is not sufficient to split O2 molecules. If you think you smell ozone, its just ions. SOME ionic air cleaners also sanitize the air, by flowing it past a UV light. This process Does produce ozone. From engineers whose business is designing sewage treatment plants, I learned that ozone for sanitizing the water is made using intense UV light. Its the same process as occurs in the upper atmosphere.

  23. Fact catches fiction by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny

    Science fiction movies have been showing us for years that future computers spew fountains of sparks at the slightest disturbance. And soon they will.

    1. Re:Fact catches fiction by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Hehe, that always cracks me up...

      Star Trek: Where every console and corridor is apparently lined with C4.

  24. Power consumption, anyone?? by wvmarle · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Now this is all interesting and so, but what about making those chips be a bit more power efficient for starters? I mean save some remaining high-end applications, modern processing power is enough. More than enough for 99% of the applications.

    It'd be nice if the CPUs would become more power efficient, that has so many advantages: lower power bills, saving the environment, longer battery life for laptops, silent computers for less need of cooling, etc. For now it seems every new incarnation of the major CPUs (Intel, AMD) is wasting only more power!

    1. Re:Power consumption, anyone?? by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      " For now it seems every new incarnation of the major CPUs (Intel, AMD) is wasting only more power"

      I really don't think that's the case, there are plenty of applications that CPU power cannot effectively use just yet, i.e. voice recognition, etc. For the most part computers still leave a lot ot be desired in terms of ease of use without the user having to learn anything in terms of user interface, etc. I've been using dragon naturally speaking and I have to 'train it' to teach it words that it messes up, imagine if it could 'fill in the blanks' by itself.

      While it may seem that it is 'wasting more power' there are plenty of applications and new ideas in development that will simply take 10 years or more to develop into something useful that can use all those 'spare' processor cycles. While games and entertainment may seem 'trivial' the truth is they are helping push technology forward. I agree power efficiency is a good goal but it has to be balanced against performance, there are tonnes of projects that need cpu more computational time then is available and I'm glad for one that there are projects like folding@home, etc to use them!

  25. CO2 is the environmentally friendly option by dominux · · Score: 1

    but the car manufacturers are not so keen because it requires some very scary pressures. They tend not to like customers to blow up when they crash (because then the customers can't come back and buy another car)

  26. Re:High Altitude Airships FTW by Jotaigna · · Score: 2, Funny

    that would be like getting a woolen jumper big enough and a comb long enough to power your computer with static electricity.

    --
    "The quality of life is inversely proportional to the number of keys on your keyring."
  27. On BBC by kestasjk · · Score: 1

    This is on the BBC as well, so it actually may not be total "carbon nanotubes water to oil device" nonsense.

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    1. Re:On BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if BBC was a paragon of scientific respectably. Bee killing cell phones, anyone?

  28. More Ozone than those ancient printers? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Many people are subject to large O3 doses on a regular base. In their office, sitting next to an ancient laser printer.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. Green computing by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 0

    The ionic wind turbine.

    --
    "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
  30. Keeping the chip cool is not the problem by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Try running a Core 2 Quad and 8800 Ultra together - your PC will become a space heater. Nice in the winter perhaps but not good for hot summers without air conditioning. All this will do is keep the CPU a bit cooler, but the same amount of heat will be generated.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Keeping the chip cool is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I have a AMD X2 and a 6800GS. A room facing south and its a nightmare. This isn't even a high end system, its your average PC. Add to that the heat produced by the 5.1 surround amp and the LCD screens, it only gets worse.

  31. Don't forget the gentoo users. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of all the -O3 they're exposed to daily. Simply terrible.

  32. Dealing with consequences... by St1086lichnaya · · Score: 1

    Why not make the processors energy efficient in the first place? I don't see why my laptop is heated up to 55C right now, when all that power could go into stopping iTunes from clipping tracks...

  33. A poor answer to a non-problem. by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Let's think a little first:
    • Is there a problem here at all? Heatsinks cost about 50 cents wholesale. Processor heat production is going down. I do't think there's much of a problem here to be solved at all.
    • Is this a good solution for the non-problem? There are lots of cheap and tried-and-true alternatives, such as heat pipes, conduction cooling to the case, and just bigger heatsinks.
    • How well are microscopic pinpoints going to work with your typical dusty air? How much energy does it take to move all that air? A wild-butt-guess suggests not good numbers at all.
  34. It's a "lifter" by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    It is: "The device contained a positively charged wire, or anode, and negatively charged electrodes, called cathodes. The anode was positioned about 10 millimeters above the cathodes. When voltage was passed through the device, the negatively charged electrodes discharged electrons toward the positively charged anode. Along the way, the electrons collided with air molecules, producing positively charged ions, which were then attracted back toward the negatively charged electrodes, creating an "ionic wind."

    Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft

    Even Mythbusters managed to get one to work, so Purdue should have no problem. Not until someone applies "prior art" from T.T. Brown's patents and shoots down their (incl. Intel's) aspirations of ... profit!

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  35. I've seen this before... by egyptiankarim · · Score: 1

    Ionic wind engines not only keep the chips cool, but they promise to leave them smelling fresh and clean. I learned all about this technology on a late-night infomercial :)

    --
    Eek!
  36. O-Zone by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1
    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
  37. Speaking of dust by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    Problem that they fail to mention is the heatsink really attracts dust, just like the ionic breaze, so you need to get in there with a brush quite often.

    Who brushes dust into the room? Surely we vacuum it up. Anyway, this is a huge problem affecting virtually all desktop computers. They start off with an optimal design, the customer runs it for a week or two and at that point they have the equivalent of a two-year old computer that SlowSteps so it won't fry itself. I would love to know the percentage of people who never vacuum the inside of their systems...

    This new type of air cooling may be at least a partial solution to the dust accumulation problem and I am as excited by that as the improved cooling possibilities. In the meantime, we need a way to vacuum the dust without opening the case. Then people would actually do it, and I would do it more often.

    My contribution: a small circular hole in the case and a "straw" (flared to the size of a vacuum on the exterior end). The housing of the straw would allow a range of movement that covered the top area of the processor. To use: hook up your vacuum to the straw, move the straw around, done.

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:Speaking of dust by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      Ionic air flow attract dust much much faster then a heatsink and fan.
      It get as much dust in 2 weeks that a regular PC gets in 2 years!

      It also still needs a heatsink!

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:Speaking of dust by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Attracting more dust and having more stick are not the same thing. Ionic air flow is more effective at cooling due to increased turbulence -- this will also decrease dust accumulation. Perhaps the opposite effects on dust accumulation of overall increase in air flow and increased turbulence cancel out. Perhaps one wins. Or the other. Meanwhile, people don't vacuum inside their desktops. Sigh.

      --
      I come here for the love
    3. Re:Speaking of dust by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      No, the electric charge is put into the air and onto the dust.
      The air releases it ions into the metal, but the dust gets almost glued on there.
      It really take water to get it off, a lot more then a little air flow will be required to remove it.

      Also there really isn't that much airflow, especially when compared to a fan.
      And not much turbulence when compared to a fan also, where did anyone come up with the idea that fans have laminar flow.
      Laminar flow is very difficult to achieve.

      Also turbulence is very easy to add to a heat sink, just add some corrugations or other patterns onto the surface of the fins.

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
  38. RFI? by Foktip · · Score: 1

    Um, wouldnt this create a LOT of RF interference?

  39. O-Zone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    O-Zone is the group that sang Dragostea Din Tei.

  40. Propulsion Applications? by Free_Trial_Thinking · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered, could you use this technology for propulsion? Create an ion wind and push it behind you? Is it possible? Why hasn't it been done?

    1. Re:Propulsion Applications? by asr_br · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered, could you use this technology for propulsion? Create an ion wind and push it behind you? Is it possible? Why hasn't it been done?

      Stop wondering, they've been using such engines in space missions since the 1970's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_engines

      - Ademar
    2. Re:Propulsion Applications? by Free_Trial_Thinking · · Score: 1

      Yes'm but I rather meant ionizing the air around you and using that to propel yourself, instead of carrying your own store of ions as such.

    3. Re:Propulsion Applications? by BaronElectricPhase · · Score: 1

      The amount of thrust needed to be truly useful, is limited by the arcing from the higher voltages needed to produce that thrust. You have to limit the voltage to just below the arcing point, else your efficiency is robbed as you create lightning instead of airflow. You would also risk destroying your power supply as the sparks are basically temporary short circuits. Nor can you simply move the electrodes further apart to reduce arcing, as this will also reduce efficiency.

      There are plans http://www.amazing1.com/grav.htm for a device that that uses ionic wind for levitation. The frame for the "lifter" must be extremely light and is made of balsa wood. Unfortunately the trust is so small, that it can't even lift it's own power supply. The power supply is separate and feeds the lifter via a high voltage wire. This wire also limits the craft's height due to the additional weight load as more wire is supported.

      Theoretically, you could scale up the device such that it could support it's own power source and eventually a pilot. But it would only work on paper... it would quickly out-cost it's usefulness. The power required would make it hugely impractical and the required dimensions would likely be measured in miles! Additionally, you would not be able to control such a beast... you would be at the mercy of even the slightest breeze due to the interaction with the vast surface area of such a craft.

      But... the model that I read about sure looks cool!
      Though it's not very useful beyond that.

  41. Hmm... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... I wonder about potential ESD problems (pun intended).

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.