Yeah, that's more or less what I had in mind- use this stuff instead of water cooling- however, in view of the boiling point, it's rather more marginal as regards boiling; it may boil slightly next to the processor, but the fluid around it should recondense it. Actually come to think of it, that might be a bad thing- you may be able to hear it(!)
Anyway, when you use water cooling you have to keep the water below the point that the processor cooks anyway- it doesn't matter that much what fluid you use- this fluid has the advantage that if you leak it everywhere:
a) it evaporates away cleanly
b) it's non toxic
c) it's non conductive
d) it's non corrosive
You pretty much have to keep the fluid below 50C anyway- some sort of radiator would be nice. Of course you could run the coolant open loop, as others have suggested, but I bet it's relatively expensive.
I don't know off-hand whether you could run this with convective cooling or whether you'd need a pump. It depends partly on the layout of the system.
Provided the fluid was allowed to circulate, a boiling point at 49.2C should actually be pretty good- the fluid will give you micronucleation boiling and that will leverage the latent heat of vapourisation to carry away heat.
You're only going to get big problems if the processor reaches about 70C- then the boiling will become film- and you'll get an insulating gas layer- (the density of the gas is almost 100x lower than the liquid- and the thermal coefficient is much the same), so shortly after that your processor will fail (hopefully just the thermal protection kicking in, but don't mess with this stuff if you have an early AMD:-) ).
One good thing about this fluid is that you can refrigerate it down to -100C with it still being a liquid. That's very nice for overclocking purposes.
Thus, such variations in life expectancies could very well be caused by cultural factors like smoking and car use instead of the source of carbohydrates (wheat vs rice).
Smoking maybe- that's seriously dangerous; although about 1/2 the population (irc) have genes that allow their bodies to deal with the smoke and not get cancer; however it probably still reduces lifespan somewhat.
Driving on the other hand; is comparatively safe. If I remember correctly if all diseases were wiped out we'd have a life expectency in the multiple centuries; just death from accidents, including car accidents.
So the other causes of death are somewhat insignificant.
I wonder if it's bleached or brown that they eat; probably makes a difference.
No, not terribly much. The glycemic index of white rice is 58, brown is 55 (lower is better; but this is a relatively modest difference.)
Also, a lot of people/magazines will tell you that brown bread has a lower GI than white. Whilst brown bread is higher in vitamins and minerals, it has substantially has the same GI as white (very slightly lower).
Japanese generally eat a lot of rice- which has a pretty high glycemic index in fact; not dissimilar to bread. The Japanese average life expectancy is only a few year higher than America's.
OTOH, those living in Yokinawa often eat a lot of sweet potato. Sweet potato has a reasonably low glycemic index- the Yokinawian's live a long while; orders of magnitude more over 90.
Unless you expect mail from these sites (and for me atleast, the vast majority do not send me mail); so who cares?
Marking the odd legitimate mail as *not* spam should clue the filter in to those sites, and you only have to do this once per legitimate site.
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work.
on
RIAA's Nasty Easter Egg
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Don't bet on it. I mean, um, actually, that's about the price they tried to put on singles. Guess what? These are singles. Hint: singles aren't selling real well right now...
Of course, if you use the entire 2.4 GHz band, your neighbor can't.
Well, if you use it all the time (which is rare) then thats true with current APs.
However, that's not necessarily true of future APs though. There's no reason why an AP can't use a directional aerial (e.g. phased array) to ignore the other APs and users, and then everyone can use the same frequencies.
Adding weight doesn't help much; and that's not the primary point of this gizmo. To be precise it adds moment of inertia (rotational inertia). The whole point of these steadicam systems is that the direction the camera is pointing is really very critical, so the harder it is to rotate it, the better.
No, I haven't examined all possible systems, but I have bothered to educate myself as to the issues and engineering involved rather than mindlessly repeat anti-Shuttle anti-NASA propaganda. The bone simple fact is that the bulk of that propaganda is utterly wrong. (That's not to say the Shuttle is any bargain, but that many of it's detractors and boosters/fans of other systems haven't really studied the issue and latch onto anything thats Not The Shuttle without understanding the issues.)
Got any more trite platitudes where this one came from? I'd certainly love to hear them.
True, but don't forget that these are GAMES. The moment you start putting even the smallest barrier (like a maximum altitude or a 'no you can't make a spell so powerful you kill half the world in one shot') people start bitching, whether is single-player, multiplayer, or a MMOG game.
I think the best games allow you to do just about anything. But then you have to face the consequences. For example in the game Driver, you can speed. Which is fine, unless the cops see you do it; and then they lay chase.
Now, that's fun. You're getting to break the law. And sometimes you get away with it; sometimes you don't.
I missed that kind of stuff in GTA I-III. It didn't enforce the road laws. It made it *less* fun.
In fact, one of the big marketing points for Roton and Kistler was that their cross range *exceeded* that of the Shuttle.
But we were talking about the Shuttle and what it needed; and it is a very different animal. The point is that the reentry interface it sees is considerably different to either of these two vehicles.
*You* brought up Orbital Sciences as a shining example of corporations who a doing orbital work.
No, I didn't.
It's not my fault that your examples don't prove what you think they do.
No, as you didn't understand my example when I was clear enough; that makes it your fault.
Which doesn't change the fact that metallic TPS is almost as maintenance intensive as the tiles, and far more structurally complex. Nor is it really much stronger than the tiles. The only thing it really is, is lighter than the tiles, and that comes at a price.
Yeah, right. You've looked at all metallic TPS systems, for all possible launch vehicles, and established this I suppose. You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical. Or perhaps you won't. Either way I don't care, and I don't believe you.
The point is that the Shuttle was designed to be big and heavy with huge crossrange. It has never needed the big crossrange;
The Shuttle has used it's cross range capabilities on almost every flight. From as little as 5-10 miles to as much as 750 miles, and pretty well evenly covering the whole range in between.
There's a difference between used, and needed. Sure, if you have it, you're going to use it. But the crossrange of the Apollo capsule was about 250 miles (IRC); and I'd bet anything you like the Shuttle could have kept within that crossrange limit if it had had to.
The suggestion that th X-Prize was linked to orbital flight was yours, not mine. Orbital flight has long been done by businesses, (Lockheed, Boeing, Arianespace....).
Yeah, but the specifications for the launch vehicles generally come from government; not exactly a market place. The biggest market place, the geosat market is perverse too- they don't care about low costs, only high reliability; and even that was heavily distorted by the government regulations until recently.
Orbital Science is an interesting case because they end up costing not much less than the 'big guys' and their reliability isn't much better either.
They fscked up their vehicle design; it's solids with lots of stages. Ugggh. Since when does a single example prove that it can't be done? Fouling something up is easy.
That's how you solve the problem. It isn't necessarily how you write the document about it.
Incidentally, you're usually best off solving the hardest bit first, since that way if it has any implications on the rest of the problem, you don't paint yourself into a corner (quite so often).
Yeah, but the Shuttle is a crappy design. The ceramic tiles are widely recognised to be a big mistake.
Not by professionals in the field. For re-useables the only other option is metallic TPS, which is not without significant problems.
The point is that the Shuttle was designed to be big and heavy with huge crossrange. It has never needed the big crossrange; and the extra weight from the wings and so forth pushed it into a flight regime where the thermals really start to be difficult. What they should have done is make the vehicle light (low ballistic coefficient), and then most of the slowing occurs at high altitude where the air is thin, and the heat load is much reduced. Then metallic TPS starts to really shine.
The X-prize proves little about the expense of orbital flight because it doesn't adress any of the real problems, for the same reason it proves little about the cost of orbital flight.
Of course it doesn't prove anything about orbital flight. But it does strongly suggest that it can be tackled by businesses. Heck, it has already been tackled by businesses. Look at Orbital sciences.
I think the really big point is that the amount of real investigation into spaceflight done by governments is small. They mostly just grabbed whatever seemed to work at the time. There's also the point that has been made, that in any business, the really smart people usually work for someone else. That's going to be the same for Government too. The more businesses address the issues of spaceflight, the more chance there is that the problems and costs will be avoided.
Look, at the end of the day, getting to orbit is easy. You just build a big rocket, with multiple stages, light it, and keep it pointed in the right directions at the right time. It makes orbit all by itself.
Well, normal aircraft can't fly until the mass of paper outweighs the aircraft. What makes you think rockets are any different?:-)
Actually, I think that the FAA regulatory process for suborbitals is very lightweight compared to aircraft. It's not like the general public can just step on board; and they are currently cutting them some slack.
The problem is that if they don't do this, then spaceflight can never, ever get going. Reliability of entirely new classes of vehicles is simply not going to be like a 777. The regulatory authorities (particularly the FAA people who work on suborbitals, and whose jobs depend on it succeeding), know this and are actually on the side of the embryonic industry.
Yeah, but the Shuttle is a crappy design. The ceramic tiles are widely recognised to be a big mistake.
That's how far the X-prize vehicles are from useful and cheap space transports.
I think the X-prize vehicles are about 1/3 of the way to orbit. Not in terms of delta-v; but in terms of sheer mind share. It opens people's eyes to the fact that this rocketry stuff really isn't that hard; that the underlying costs are potentially pretty low, and that businesses really can sensibly tackle it, not just governments.
If you're an American, it doesn't actually matter. The US government claims jurisdiction over you; wherever you launch from; and that means the FAA (unless you are part of a government department.)
The underlying reason is, is that under international law the country that you are a citizen of is responsible for any damage you do; irrespective of your launch site.
Write a mindmap first. That way you can ensure you've got the whole thing laid out sensibly; transferring the mindmap into a document is usually fairly straightforward.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, when you use water cooling you have to keep the water below the point that the processor cooks anyway- it doesn't matter that much what fluid you use- this fluid has the advantage that if you leak it everywhere:
a) it evaporates away cleanly
b) it's non toxic
c) it's non conductive
d) it's non corrosive
You pretty much have to keep the fluid below 50C anyway- some sort of radiator would be nice. Of course you could run the coolant open loop, as others have suggested, but I bet it's relatively expensive.
I don't know off-hand whether you could run this with convective cooling or whether you'd need a pump. It depends partly on the layout of the system.
You're only going to get big problems if the processor reaches about 70C- then the boiling will become film- and you'll get an insulating gas layer- (the density of the gas is almost 100x lower than the liquid- and the thermal coefficient is much the same), so shortly after that your processor will fail (hopefully just the thermal protection kicking in, but don't mess with this stuff if you have an early AMD :-) ).
One good thing about this fluid is that you can refrigerate it down to -100C with it still being a liquid. That's very nice for overclocking purposes.
Rye bread is the best GI I've found in the listings, but it tastes nothing like normal bread; and tends to be high in salt too.
And you're never going to win anything, ever again :-)
Smoking maybe- that's seriously dangerous; although about 1/2 the population (irc) have genes that allow their bodies to deal with the smoke and not get cancer; however it probably still reduces lifespan somewhat.
Driving on the other hand; is comparatively safe. If I remember correctly if all diseases were wiped out we'd have a life expectency in the multiple centuries; just death from accidents, including car accidents.
So the other causes of death are somewhat insignificant.
No, not terribly much. The glycemic index of white rice is 58, brown is 55 (lower is better; but this is a relatively modest difference.)
Also, a lot of people/magazines will tell you that brown bread has a lower GI than white. Whilst brown bread is higher in vitamins and minerals, it has substantially has the same GI as white (very slightly lower).
OTOH, those living in Yokinawa often eat a lot of sweet potato. Sweet potato has a reasonably low glycemic index- the Yokinawian's live a long while; orders of magnitude more over 90.
Marking the odd legitimate mail as *not* spam should clue the filter in to those sites, and you only have to do this once per legitimate site.
Don't bet on it. I mean, um, actually, that's about the price they tried to put on singles. Guess what? These are singles. Hint: singles aren't selling real well right now...
For directionality to work, it requires widely spaced antennas (many meters), and this allows far more discrimination than your aerial.
Well, if you use it all the time (which is rare) then thats true with current APs.
However, that's not necessarily true of future APs though. There's no reason why an AP can't use a directional aerial (e.g. phased array) to ignore the other APs and users, and then everyone can use the same frequencies.
Adding weight doesn't help much; and that's not the primary point of this gizmo. To be precise it adds moment of inertia (rotational inertia). The whole point of these steadicam systems is that the direction the camera is pointing is really very critical, so the harder it is to rotate it, the better.
Got any more trite platitudes where this one came from? I'd certainly love to hear them.
I think the best games allow you to do just about anything. But then you have to face the consequences. For example in the game Driver, you can speed. Which is fine, unless the cops see you do it; and then they lay chase.
Now, that's fun. You're getting to break the law. And sometimes you get away with it; sometimes you don't.
I missed that kind of stuff in GTA I-III. It didn't enforce the road laws. It made it *less* fun.
But we were talking about the Shuttle and what it needed; and it is a very different animal. The point is that the reentry interface it sees is considerably different to either of these two vehicles.
*You* brought up Orbital Sciences as a shining example of corporations who a doing orbital work.
No, I didn't.
It's not my fault that your examples don't prove what you think they do.
No, as you didn't understand my example when I was clear enough; that makes it your fault.
Yeah, right. You've looked at all metallic TPS systems, for all possible launch vehicles, and established this I suppose. You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical. Or perhaps you won't. Either way I don't care, and I don't believe you.
The Shuttle has used it's cross range capabilities on almost every flight. From as little as 5-10 miles to as much as 750 miles, and pretty well evenly covering the whole range in between.
There's a difference between used, and needed. Sure, if you have it, you're going to use it. But the crossrange of the Apollo capsule was about 250 miles (IRC); and I'd bet anything you like the Shuttle could have kept within that crossrange limit if it had had to.
The suggestion that th X-Prize was linked to orbital flight was yours, not mine. Orbital flight has long been done by businesses, (Lockheed, Boeing, Arianespace....).
Yeah, but the specifications for the launch vehicles generally come from government; not exactly a market place. The biggest market place, the geosat market is perverse too- they don't care about low costs, only high reliability; and even that was heavily distorted by the government regulations until recently.
Orbital Science is an interesting case because they end up costing not much less than the 'big guys' and their reliability isn't much better either.
They fscked up their vehicle design; it's solids with lots of stages. Ugggh. Since when does a single example prove that it can't be done? Fouling something up is easy.
Incidentally, you're usually best off solving the hardest bit first, since that way if it has any implications on the rest of the problem, you don't paint yourself into a corner (quite so often).
Not by professionals in the field. For re-useables the only other option is metallic TPS, which is not without significant problems.
The point is that the Shuttle was designed to be big and heavy with huge crossrange. It has never needed the big crossrange; and the extra weight from the wings and so forth pushed it into a flight regime where the thermals really start to be difficult. What they should have done is make the vehicle light (low ballistic coefficient), and then most of the slowing occurs at high altitude where the air is thin, and the heat load is much reduced. Then metallic TPS starts to really shine.
The X-prize proves little about the expense of orbital flight because it doesn't adress any of the real problems, for the same reason it proves little about the cost of orbital flight.
Of course it doesn't prove anything about orbital flight. But it does strongly suggest that it can be tackled by businesses. Heck, it has already been tackled by businesses. Look at Orbital sciences.
I think the really big point is that the amount of real investigation into spaceflight done by governments is small. They mostly just grabbed whatever seemed to work at the time. There's also the point that has been made, that in any business, the really smart people usually work for someone else. That's going to be the same for Government too. The more businesses address the issues of spaceflight, the more chance there is that the problems and costs will be avoided.
Look, at the end of the day, getting to orbit is easy. You just build a big rocket, with multiple stages, light it, and keep it pointed in the right directions at the right time. It makes orbit all by itself.
Actually, I think that the FAA regulatory process for suborbitals is very lightweight compared to aircraft. It's not like the general public can just step on board; and they are currently cutting them some slack.
The problem is that if they don't do this, then spaceflight can never, ever get going. Reliability of entirely new classes of vehicles is simply not going to be like a 777. The regulatory authorities (particularly the FAA people who work on suborbitals, and whose jobs depend on it succeeding), know this and are actually on the side of the embryonic industry.
That's how far the X-prize vehicles are from useful and cheap space transports.
I think the X-prize vehicles are about 1/3 of the way to orbit. Not in terms of delta-v; but in terms of sheer mind share. It opens people's eyes to the fact that this rocketry stuff really isn't that hard; that the underlying costs are potentially pretty low, and that businesses really can sensibly tackle it, not just governments.
Depends what you use for fuel. LOX and petrol can be used; and neither are tightly controlled.
The underlying reason is, is that under international law the country that you are a citizen of is responsible for any damage you do; irrespective of your launch site.
Write a mindmap first. That way you can ensure you've got the whole thing laid out sensibly; transferring the mindmap into a document is usually fairly straightforward.