You're right. PPCs get used for different things (things which I don't find useful) and that's going to change their battery performance. I'm also very leery of these new PalmOS 5 machines with the fast processors and the big color screens...I'm not sure that they're going to be able to run for long enough to be useful to me.
I want my PDA to be an organizer. Sure, it's great if it can pull stunts like playing movies, but I don't really care about those gee-whiz features. For me, my Palm is a tool, not a toy. There aren't a heck of a lot of features I want in my pocket that my Handspring Visor doesn't already have. I'd like a higher resolution screen, and an onboard battery pack (that still lasts forever), and the ability to talk to my phone (not to do mobile Internet, but to keep my phone directory up-to-date), but apart from that I'm totally happy with the old slow processor.
Outrun, outgun, and turn the batteries into little Smokie-Links in less than eight hours.
If I can't use my PDA for at least a week without batteries, fuhgeddaboutit. I don't need to watch movies on the damn thing...I need it to WORK FOR A LONG TIME.
If I can get long battery life and all that other crap, well and good. But I won't buy a device that needs to be in its cradle every night before I go to bed.
The internal antenna for Bluetooth is, for me, a killer idea.
Mobile device companies take note: If your antenna can't survive getting stuffed into my pocket with my keys and my pocketknife, it's going to break and I'm going to be grumpy. Same goes for laptops with wireless connectivity and my bookbag. Internal antenna GOOD.
Hmm. And can I use one? No. So what are you arguing again?
I can imagine people thumbing messages on the train. I just can't imagine ME doing it.
You wanted to know who would buy such a thing...I answered you. Yes, I know the state of the art in Japan wrt mobile technology is most impressive...but I still prefer a large screen and a digitizer, along with a LARGE library of applications and databases, to a cellphone that nobody but the phone company can write apps for.
A tiny screen is great, until I want to read a (cached) web site on it. You can have your phone. I have my Palm. We're both happy. Right?
Because they want a useful PDA, with usable text input and a large screen?
Or maybe because they don't want to pay the cell phone company for downloading new applications to them.
Oh, wait, your phone can't use new applications? I'm sure that somebody thinks that the phone's built in games and utilities are worth a damn, but I'm sure not one.
A PDA is more than just an address book. The killer feature of my Palm is the desktop sync. That way, even if my PDA dies, ALL that important information is ready for me to download into a new device. No hassle, no incompatibilities...it just works.
Phones are great, when you want to call people. For doing anything else, they're a user interface nightmare..3 megapixel camera? Don't make me laugh. I do better with a box of Crayolas.
But, according to the statistic somebody pulled out of their butt a little up no this page, 7 million guns exist in 10 million Canadian households...so it doesn't look like the existence of guns turns people into homicidal maniacs.
What does? Well, the evening news really pisses me off...so I don't watch it. How many people do?
That implies that any given politician is anything other than a replaceable part in the machine.
Replace a politician, get exactly the same function performed by a different flack. The SYSTEM is malfunctioning (if you contend that government and corporations exist to serve The People, rather than the other way around). The problem must be addressed on a systemic level.
But they DON'T have MS's monopoly, and so therefore they actually innovate and improve their products. Linux, on the other hand, does a good job of scratching other people's itches. I'm not a programmer, nor do I wish to become one, and the slapdash nature of the Linux/FreeBSD/whatever UI is not appealing to me. No dis, mind you, it's just not for me.
The MS monopoly is the critical distinction. Me, I'm not a zealous open-source advocate. I think it's a good system and a good philosophy, but I am willing to pay for good quality, well designed software and hardware. Apple gives me that. Microsoft does not. Linux sure doesn't, either.
You know, I talk to a LOT of people who hate Macs because the System 6 toaster Macs they used in college touched them inappropriately or ate their homework one time ten years ago.
Please explain why we "have" to get used to it, particularly in light of the usurious rates of mobile phones here in the States relative to Europe and Japan?
No, I don't "have" to get used to it. Why the hell are we tolerating this telephone cartel? Didn't we have a big antitrust lawsuit about this crap?
Minimize risk. Okay. No more CD player for you. That laser might experience a freakish power spike and burn a hole through the top of the airplane. Or there might be sparks if the batteries malfunction, that will magically transport that spark into the gas tank and somehow make the fuel blow up (which, since it's not atomized at the time, would be quite an impressive thing to see happen).
RF energy in the amount that comes out of a cell phone can not cause gases to explode. Yes, I'd bet my life, and my family's life, on that conjecture.
Who are YOU to say that my right to do whatever I damn well please in some trivial, unmeasurable way increases your "risk"? If we were to apply your notion of minimizing risks, nobody could drive.
Your argument doesn't hold up, because you're trying to stake out a point on a very slippery slope since cell phones annoy you. Sorry to say, but you're out of luck.
I really believe that the Founders didn't envision the sorts of multinational conglomerates and media empires that we're seeing today.
In other words, I'm coming to believe that censorship of the press, be it from government or from corporations, is equally odious and exactly as dangerous to liberty.
Aye, you're right. In practice, it's easier to machine rectangular cross sections, but a cone with a curved surface would be optimal. When you design a heat sink, you apply boundary condition assumptions to your problem, which drive the aspect ratio and separation distance and such.
One way to get really good heat transfer with reasonably easy fabrication is to use an array of cylindrical pins. That gives you the largest surface area density (that is, surface area of pins vs. surface area of base) for a given separation distance between pins (which you can optimize depending on what the airflow in the region looks like).
Heat sink design is interesting, but usually it becomes easier to just make it a little bigger and not spend the time (and money!) to get it super-optimized.
If you want forever, inalienable, do-whatever-you-want-with-it rights to your work, you are welcome to keep it to yourself.
When a work is released or performed publically, the author trades some measure of control of his work for profit. For instance, unlike what the RIAA would like, if you write a song, and I hear it, and I hum it to myself later, I shouldn't have to pay you. Further, if you write a story, and I like the story and write a sequel, I should have no obligation whatsoever to you.
Who should be getting paid for Mozart's compositions? (Note: Of course the artists who PERFORM Mozart should be paid, according to the price the market will bear) Creation does not entitle you to a perpetual monopoly on an idea. Period.
Yes, they used a different inlet for the STOVL tests. They had a VG inlet that would have worked, but accoring to the rules of the competition the replaceable one was sufficient for the prototype.
However, it did many many many more transitions than the X-35 did, demonstrating the reliability of their system. Yes, the hot exhaust gases are a problem, and yes the inlet face is more exposed from some aspects than the -35. Note that the -32 had a stealthy exhaust nozzle, while the -35 does not. Boeing alluded to some clever shenanigans they were going to play in the inlet to decrease the RCS.
And as soon as you start talking about battle damage, your RCS goes out the window anyhow. I don't believe the -35 shows a substantially better resistance to FOD.
I believe that either plane would have served the Navy and the Air Force well. I believe the Marines and the Royal Navy, being the smallest of the purchasing powers, did not get the system that will serve them best.
I have zero involvement with the programmes, of course...just armchair engineering. : )
You're right, and if my heat transfer book was close to hand I could tell you what the optimum aspect ratio is for a given ambient temp and processor temp. However, I know that copper is a very good heat conductor and the fins weren't all THAT catastrophically thin, so I believe that the heat sink will be pretty effective.
And, according to the tests, Zalman knows what they're doing. Proof's in the pudding.
Well, if you can invent a massless heat sink, you can sell me the patent and I'll buy you lunch forever. Promise. Won't be a very good heat sink, but I bet I can find some other uses for it.
OF COURSE you need mass. But the MASS doesn't MOVE the heat. It only STORES it. The reason to use copper is because it has excellent thermal conduction properties, moving the heat away from the processor towards the fins. Just having a big ol' block o' copper at the bottom of the heat sink isn't going to improve its effectiveness.
Fair enough, but since I bothered to actually go to my Heat Transfer class, I thought I'd share my useless knowledge. : )
Incidentally, free convection (convection in a non-moving airflow, which is likely what you have on the outside of your case) is not very effective. Apple uses a chimney effect to improve the effectiveness of their heat transfer, but that's across a finned sink. The flat outsides of your case are a) painted and b) not very warm, both of which decrease the heat transfer.
Re:I can think of one idea to get even cooler
on
Building a Dead Silent PC
·
· Score: 5, Informative
No.
Heat exchangers want to maximize surface area, not mass. You are trying to present the maximum surface to the surrounding airflow, cooling by convection. More mass would simply be a thermal battery, storing heat on the processor. The thin heat sink fins actually remove heat from the processor by transferring it to the surrounding air.
Radiant heat transfer is on the order of 10-100x less effective than convective cooling (like with a moving airflow). Radiant transfer varies as the fourth power of temperature, and does not turn significant until you get to temperatures that would a) fry any component you can name and b) give you a really good burn when you accidentally brush it with your leg.
So the window, apart from looking stupid, doesn't really hurt anything. : ) 'Cept the faraday cage.
Because the public (domain) is the font from which the artist's work springs. And if we don't feed it, it will die. Everything will be locked up in Disney's vault, and every idea you come up with will be slapped with a C&D order from a corporate lawyer.
It doesn't promote publishing, it RESTRICTS publishing. You might argue that it rewards CREATION, but I believe those rewards are sufficient without granting a perpetual monopoly over the IP.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. PPCs get used for different things (things which I don't find useful) and that's going to change their battery performance. I'm also very leery of these new PalmOS 5 machines with the fast processors and the big color screens...I'm not sure that they're going to be able to run for long enough to be useful to me.
I want my PDA to be an organizer. Sure, it's great if it can pull stunts like playing movies, but I don't really care about those gee-whiz features. For me, my Palm is a tool, not a toy. There aren't a heck of a lot of features I want in my pocket that my Handspring Visor doesn't already have. I'd like a higher resolution screen, and an onboard battery pack (that still lasts forever), and the ability to talk to my phone (not to do mobile Internet, but to keep my phone directory up-to-date), but apart from that I'm totally happy with the old slow processor.
Outrun, outgun, and turn the batteries into little Smokie-Links in less than eight hours.
If I can't use my PDA for at least a week without batteries, fuhgeddaboutit. I don't need to watch movies on the damn thing...I need it to WORK FOR A LONG TIME.
If I can get long battery life and all that other crap, well and good. But I won't buy a device that needs to be in its cradle every night before I go to bed.
The internal antenna for Bluetooth is, for me, a killer idea.
Mobile device companies take note: If your antenna can't survive getting stuffed into my pocket with my keys and my pocketknife, it's going to break and I'm going to be grumpy. Same goes for laptops with wireless connectivity and my bookbag. Internal antenna GOOD.
Hmm. And can I use one? No. So what are you arguing again?
I can imagine people thumbing messages on the train. I just can't imagine ME doing it.
You wanted to know who would buy such a thing...I answered you. Yes, I know the state of the art in Japan wrt mobile technology is most impressive...but I still prefer a large screen and a digitizer, along with a LARGE library of applications and databases, to a cellphone that nobody but the phone company can write apps for.
A tiny screen is great, until I want to read a (cached) web site on it. You can have your phone. I have my Palm. We're both happy. Right?
Because they want a useful PDA, with usable text input and a large screen?
.3 megapixel camera? Don't make me laugh. I do better with a box of Crayolas.
Or maybe because they don't want to pay the cell phone company for downloading new applications to them.
Oh, wait, your phone can't use new applications? I'm sure that somebody thinks that the phone's built in games and utilities are worth a damn, but I'm sure not one.
A PDA is more than just an address book. The killer feature of my Palm is the desktop sync. That way, even if my PDA dies, ALL that important information is ready for me to download into a new device. No hassle, no incompatibilities...it just works.
Phones are great, when you want to call people. For doing anything else, they're a user interface nightmare.
But, according to the statistic somebody pulled out of their butt a little up no this page, 7 million guns exist in 10 million Canadian households...so it doesn't look like the existence of guns turns people into homicidal maniacs.
What does? Well, the evening news really pisses me off...so I don't watch it. How many people do?
That implies that any given politician is anything other than a replaceable part in the machine.
Replace a politician, get exactly the same function performed by a different flack. The SYSTEM is malfunctioning (if you contend that government and corporations exist to serve The People, rather than the other way around). The problem must be addressed on a systemic level.
How? Dunno. I'll get back to you.
But they DON'T have MS's monopoly, and so therefore they actually innovate and improve their products. Linux, on the other hand, does a good job of scratching other people's itches. I'm not a programmer, nor do I wish to become one, and the slapdash nature of the Linux/FreeBSD/whatever UI is not appealing to me. No dis, mind you, it's just not for me.
The MS monopoly is the critical distinction. Me, I'm not a zealous open-source advocate. I think it's a good system and a good philosophy, but I am willing to pay for good quality, well designed software and hardware. Apple gives me that. Microsoft does not. Linux sure doesn't, either.
You know, I talk to a LOT of people who hate Macs because the System 6 toaster Macs they used in college touched them inappropriately or ate their homework one time ten years ago.
"Real" Windows computer? Define.
How about "to all intensive purposes"?
*shudder*
If people can say that "begging the question" means "makes me want to ask the question", I get to misuse usurious.
Call it a foible.
Please explain why we "have" to get used to it, particularly in light of the usurious rates of mobile phones here in the States relative to Europe and Japan?
No, I don't "have" to get used to it. Why the hell are we tolerating this telephone cartel? Didn't we have a big antitrust lawsuit about this crap?
And, like, the spark plugs in your car would NEVER generate sparks that would ignite fuel.
Oh, wait. I don't think that's right.
There are LOTS more dangerous things at the gas station than the "sparks" coming out of your cell phone. Like the attendants.
Minimize risk. Okay. No more CD player for you. That laser might experience a freakish power spike and burn a hole through the top of the airplane. Or there might be sparks if the batteries malfunction, that will magically transport that spark into the gas tank and somehow make the fuel blow up (which, since it's not atomized at the time, would be quite an impressive thing to see happen).
RF energy in the amount that comes out of a cell phone can not cause gases to explode. Yes, I'd bet my life, and my family's life, on that conjecture.
Who are YOU to say that my right to do whatever I damn well please in some trivial, unmeasurable way increases your "risk"? If we were to apply your notion of minimizing risks, nobody could drive.
Your argument doesn't hold up, because you're trying to stake out a point on a very slippery slope since cell phones annoy you. Sorry to say, but you're out of luck.
I really believe that the Founders didn't envision the sorts of multinational conglomerates and media empires that we're seeing today.
In other words, I'm coming to believe that censorship of the press, be it from government or from corporations, is equally odious and exactly as dangerous to liberty.
Aye, you're right. In practice, it's easier to machine rectangular cross sections, but a cone with a curved surface would be optimal. When you design a heat sink, you apply boundary condition assumptions to your problem, which drive the aspect ratio and separation distance and such.
One way to get really good heat transfer with reasonably easy fabrication is to use an array of cylindrical pins. That gives you the largest surface area density (that is, surface area of pins vs. surface area of base) for a given separation distance between pins (which you can optimize depending on what the airflow in the region looks like).
Heat sink design is interesting, but usually it becomes easier to just make it a little bigger and not spend the time (and money!) to get it super-optimized.
If you want forever, inalienable, do-whatever-you-want-with-it rights to your work, you are welcome to keep it to yourself.
When a work is released or performed publically, the author trades some measure of control of his work for profit. For instance, unlike what the RIAA would like, if you write a song, and I hear it, and I hum it to myself later, I shouldn't have to pay you. Further, if you write a story, and I like the story and write a sequel, I should have no obligation whatsoever to you.
Who should be getting paid for Mozart's compositions? (Note: Of course the artists who PERFORM Mozart should be paid, according to the price the market will bear) Creation does not entitle you to a perpetual monopoly on an idea. Period.
Yes, they used a different inlet for the STOVL tests. They had a VG inlet that would have worked, but accoring to the rules of the competition the replaceable one was sufficient for the prototype.
However, it did many many many more transitions than the X-35 did, demonstrating the reliability of their system. Yes, the hot exhaust gases are a problem, and yes the inlet face is more exposed from some aspects than the -35. Note that the -32 had a stealthy exhaust nozzle, while the -35 does not. Boeing alluded to some clever shenanigans they were going to play in the inlet to decrease the RCS.
And as soon as you start talking about battle damage, your RCS goes out the window anyhow. I don't believe the -35 shows a substantially better resistance to FOD.
I believe that either plane would have served the Navy and the Air Force well. I believe the Marines and the Royal Navy, being the smallest of the purchasing powers, did not get the system that will serve them best.
I have zero involvement with the programmes, of course...just armchair engineering. : )
You're right, and if my heat transfer book was close to hand I could tell you what the optimum aspect ratio is for a given ambient temp and processor temp. However, I know that copper is a very good heat conductor and the fins weren't all THAT catastrophically thin, so I believe that the heat sink will be pretty effective.
And, according to the tests, Zalman knows what they're doing. Proof's in the pudding.
Well, if you can invent a massless heat sink, you can sell me the patent and I'll buy you lunch forever. Promise. Won't be a very good heat sink, but I bet I can find some other uses for it.
OF COURSE you need mass. But the MASS doesn't MOVE the heat. It only STORES it. The reason to use copper is because it has excellent thermal conduction properties, moving the heat away from the processor towards the fins. Just having a big ol' block o' copper at the bottom of the heat sink isn't going to improve its effectiveness.
Fair enough, but since I bothered to actually go to my Heat Transfer class, I thought I'd share my useless knowledge. : )
Incidentally, free convection (convection in a non-moving airflow, which is likely what you have on the outside of your case) is not very effective. Apple uses a chimney effect to improve the effectiveness of their heat transfer, but that's across a finned sink. The flat outsides of your case are a) painted and b) not very warm, both of which decrease the heat transfer.
No.
Heat exchangers want to maximize surface area, not mass. You are trying to present the maximum surface to the surrounding airflow, cooling by convection. More mass would simply be a thermal battery, storing heat on the processor. The thin heat sink fins actually remove heat from the processor by transferring it to the surrounding air.
Radiant heat transfer is on the order of 10-100x less effective than convective cooling (like with a moving airflow). Radiant transfer varies as the fourth power of temperature, and does not turn significant until you get to temperatures that would a) fry any component you can name and b) give you a really good burn when you accidentally brush it with your leg.
So the window, apart from looking stupid, doesn't really hurt anything. : ) 'Cept the faraday cage.
Because the public (domain) is the font from which the artist's work springs. And if we don't feed it, it will die. Everything will be locked up in Disney's vault, and every idea you come up with will be slapped with a C&D order from a corporate lawyer.
That'd be bad.
It doesn't promote publishing, it RESTRICTS publishing. You might argue that it rewards CREATION, but I believe those rewards are sufficient without granting a perpetual monopoly over the IP.