Slashdot Mirror


MSI Develops a Heat-Driven Cooler

V!NCENT tips us to a write-up about an addition to MSI's Ecolution motherboard which harvests heat from the chipset to power a fan. The device is based on a Stirling engine. The heat from the chipset expands a trapped gas, which pushes against a piston to generate power. The article contains a YouTube video of how the device works. According to MSI, the device has 70% efficiency.

18 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Good thing it is 70% efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    otherwise all that waste heat would be wasted.

  2. Pff by illegibledotorg · · Score: 5, Funny

    MSI just threw this together so that their lead engineer could finish his bitchin' Steampunk case mod.

  3. So ... by LordKaT · · Score: 5, Funny

    It has to heat itself to ... cool ... itself? Goddamnit, I hate recursion.

  4. Please define efficiency for me by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because I thought to get 70% efficiency there would have to be a couple of thousand degrees C difference between the hot and cold sides. Or have AMD decided laptops are not their core market for the next generation of chips?

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Please define efficiency for me by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 5, Informative

      That being said I'd be surprised if they were as high as 70%
      Prepare to keep those eyebrows exactly where they are- The 70% refers to the transfer of heat energy to air pressure 'power' within the piston. It's still impressive, but the +70% claim relates only to one step of the process.
      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    2. Re:Please define efficiency for me by BoChen456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suspect 70% efficiency means they can reach 70% of the theoretical limit maximum at these temperatures. The theoretical limit for heat reservoirs of 55C and 25C is about 10% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine#Carnot.27s_theorem.

      So really this fan can convert up to 7% of the waste heat. This doesn't sound very impressive, but as long as it provides a little bit of convection it'll be better than passive cooling.

  5. Why? by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A fan can't draw much more than a few watts. What's the point? It seems like a complicated array of technology just to save a few watts of power. You'd be better off buying a more efficient power supply if you wanted to be "green".

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Why? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A fan can't draw much more than a few watts. What's the point? It seems like a complicated array of technology just to save a few watts of power. You'd be better off buying a more efficient power supply if you wanted to be "green".

      That makes the assumption that you can't do both. Why wouldn't you be able to do both?
      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    2. Re:Why? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That mechanism looks like a lot of complexity and cost to save what probably amounts to a single watt. How much more energy would it take to make that over a one watt fan? Not only that, a large passive heat sink would probably do even better, nothing to break and it would just use existing air flow. I've yet to own a computer that has or needs a fan just for the chipset, not necessarily through trying, it's not really that necessary to have.

    3. Re:Why? by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That makes the assumption that you can't do both. Why wouldn't you be able to do both? You can do both, but his point is that if you're looking at the efficiency of your dollar, you'd be better buying something else that'll save you more power than this fan will. Buy a better power supply, new monitor, more power efficient CPU, better light bulbs, etc. For the amount of energy saved, it's likely that there's quite a long list of things that could save more energy for your dollar, and since you (presumably) have a finite amount of money, it'd be better to buy one of those things than this fan.
    4. Re:Why? by mickwd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "What's the point?"

      Maybe just because it's cool - in more ways than one.

  6. But the winner is... by whit3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The moving part is cute, of course, and gives a bit of visual
    tension to the apparatus you see through your peekaboo case.

    Still, it's a bit of a clunker compared to the old-tech way of
    making a no-moving-parts air pump powered by waste
    heat. I refer, of course, to the 'chimney'.

  7. Are we going to get religious about the subject? by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The idea of using a Stirling engine is actually not bad, but you may also be able to run peltier elements backwards, in which case you wouldn't get any mechanical problems related to moving parts.

    But even better would be if the energy loss could be decreased in the first place. Heat produced by a computer is actually only annoying.

    The Stirling engine was invented by Reverend Dr. Robert Stirling.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  8. Re:Hmm... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, it works best when the temperature difference between the CPU and the surrounding ist highest. Which usually is the case due to the CPU getting hotter.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  9. Re:Headline misleading by slackergod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In a physics sense, no, that's not a cooler.

    Typical "air conditioner" situation: you want to make the inside of a room cooler than the outside temperature.
    Since the room starts out similar in temp to the outside, you have to spend energy pushing heat "uphill" to
    an increasingly warmer outside. Making heat flow against the direction it would normally flow,
    that's a cooler in the thermodynamic sense.

    In the CPU situation, you want to make the inside of the cpu EQUAL to the outside temperature.
    Since the running CPU starts out way warmer than the outside temp, the heat will flow naturally on it's
    own "downhill" to the outside. Any sort of cooling system merely hastens the flow.

    In this situation, any device like a fan, etc is merely a more efficient radiator...
    as the temp of cpu gets closer to the outside, this device loses efficiency... and in no case
    could it get the cpu any _colder_ than the outside.

    Being able to do that is what makes something a "cooler" in the physics sense.

  10. Re:Buh? by billcopc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Large scale practical sterling engines use a source of coolness

    That's why every MSI board will be sold with a life-size poster of The Fonz.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  11. Re:Headline misleading by value_added · · Score: 4, Funny

    It reduces the temperature of the chip. I would call that a cooler.

    Using a general term when a more specific one would be more appropriate and more meaningful is ... well, do I really need to spell it out? Or does referring to the common house fly as an anthropod, and your coworkers as invertebrates have any value?

    The OP was correct. They're plastic fans. No more, no less. And if Wikipedia is any indication of common or appropriate usage, a cooler is most likely where you'll find fermented malted barley refreshments.

    Hell, while I'm at it, there's no such thing as soy milk. it's SOY JUICE! Soybeans don't have and will never have teats.

    Ok, I feel better.

  12. Re:Headline misleading by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a physics sense I'll have to stop you right there.

    The rest of what you say is mostly true[*], but just because a term has a specific meaning in a specific context does not mean it's wrong when it has a different meaning in a different context. In both cases, the chip is cooled, making them a cooler, i.e., something that cools.

    [*] I say "mostly true" because even in an air conditioner, the heat is "flowing downhill", as it were. The difference is that is the "bottom of the hill" is being manipulated through changes in pressure (or more generally, through work)--essentially by also raising the "top of the hill". In both cases, the net temperature is being raised (in compliance with the laws of thermodynamics).

    Additionally, I wonder if you are confusing the terms "cooler" and "heat pump". Is a "cooler" something distinct from a "heat pump" in a "physics or thermodynamics" sense? I'm thinking the former is merely an informal term for the latter.