They do not avoid the bearings heat conduction ability:
As shown later in Figure 18, this air-filled thermal interface has very low thermal resistance and is in no way a limiting factor to device performance; its cross sectional area is large relative to its thickness, and because the air that occupies the gap region is violently sheared between the lower surface (stationary) and the upper surface (rotating at several thousand rpm). The convective mixing provided by this 11 shearing effect provides a several-fold increase in thermal conductivity of the air in the gap region.
I see no reason why this should not be subject to cost engineering like any other component. Yes, they machined their prototype our of solid aluminium on a CNC machine. But they are not production engineers. It would seem to me that, as one-moving-part system, this should be subject to manufacturing optimisation over two or three years to be very competitive with equivalent air cooling systems.
Your point about the design being more brittle is relevant: failure of the drive motor will lead to serious overheat in a very short time.
No, the heat is conducted from the CPU to the baseplate, across the 0.03mm airgap, into the baseplate of the "fan", and up into the spiral fan "blades". The heat is actually transferred to the air from the sides of the "blades", ant the warmed air is flung out into the environment.
Nice idea, but I wonder what the drag would be. Part of the idea is that, because of the extreme turbulence in the boundary layer, thermal conductivity is much greater than you would expect for an air gap. They seem to think that the thermal resistance of the gap is negligible compared to other thermal resistances in the system.
But in a conventional system, the air is moving fastest over the cool fan, and much slower over the hot heat sink - in fact, very slowly over the last fraction of a millimetre. In the system, the air is moving fastest over the hot fan.
Airplanes have boundary layers attached in flight.
All you need to do to a heat-sink is rough up the surface enough that the boundary layer is turbulent. It's not like drag is an issue.
The first point in favor of this heat-sink is pure bullshit. Want to bet everything else is also bullshit.
How well do bearings conduct heat?
WTF happened to/.
There are two significant differences between wings and heat sinks. Firstly, wings are moving compared to the ambient air, and heat sinks are not. Secondly, for aircraft the boundary layer is a good thing, and designers try and make is stick as much as possible (though the do put in widgets to ensure that when it breaks off and goes turbulent, it does so progressively, not suddenly). Roughening, on the appropriate scale, is used to increase boundary layer adhesion - the "golf-ball" effect. It is also being tried on ships, especially racing yachts (the "shark-skin" effect). The desired effect is the exact opposite to that here: wings want boundary layers, heat sinks don't.
The main complaint seems to be that the data is not secret from Google. Well, Duh. That is the point: Google wants all your info - for its own internal purposes. It won't intentionally share that data with anyone else, but it will use that data to target ads on you. And the same point is true for any other social network: you cannot offer privacy from the operator of the network.
.cc is the Cocos (Keeling) Islands..co.cc is just a single, corporately owned, address within.cc. Any legitimate Cocos Islands company can get a.cc address for themselves; the islands are small enough that it would appear that they have quite reasonably decided they don't need a.co.cc subdomain. Google's action appears to me a reasonable reaction to a significant ill.
Becoming very, very rich but being locked out from becoming extraordinarily rich is a fate worse than death? Many of us would be very happy to have problems like this.
In the UK, if you are questioned for a major crime, even as a witness, and a DNA sample is taken, you are on the database for life. You don't have to do the crime, you have to live within a few streets of someone might have done the crime.
The human mind was built in pre-contraception days, when sex meant babies. And we are strongly conditioned by evolution to care for our genetic descendants, and not for another man's. Sexual jealousy is built into humans, particularly males, for Darwinian reasons.
it is my view that most religious practice is a rationalization of built-in human motives - ascribing to God motivations we have that we do not understand why we have. Essentially, religion is a coat of paint used to justify what we were going to do anyway. And in this case, "God's law" of monogamy is just the law we would like - for our spouses at least. Men because they don't want to raise another man's child, women because they don'e want to share the man's resources with another woman's child or, even worse, have her run off with him.
This is, of course, much less relevant in the days of modern contraception (though less so from the woman's point of view), but our brains are still those of hunter gatherers.
No, we export crops in order to have a market to keep farmers in employment. Just taking the crops and burning them or pouring them down the drain has got too obvious for the public to accept, so we basically pay other people to take them. The problem is that the farming lobby has got a stranglehold over the political system at least as strong as any other industry (defence, banking...).
And a significant number of high-calibre people who could be doing other useful jobs are tied up in the process. Whereas the TSA, or at least its publicly visible part, are composed largely (I am sure there are exceptions) of middle to low calibre people following rulebooks.
Because, at the time, no-one saw box cutters as a risk. The security then was aimed at non-suicide terrorists - either trying to put a bomb on an airliner, then leave it, or with a gun which provides a credible hostage situation. No-one had foreseen a certain-suicide attack in which the intention was not to hold the plane hostage but to use it as a missile.
This was not a public/private problem, but a foresight problem. And what we have now is a hindsight problem. The TSA, and other security agencies, are trying to prevent repeats of every attack that has happened in the past. Shoe bomber? Check shoes. Underwear bomber? Design machine to check underwear.
The trouble is that we have here a situation resembling that by which the US defeated the USSR Essentially, the US outspent the USSR, which simply could not keep up. But that was a level playing field, which the US won by being richer and able to throw more money at defence. This is an asymmetric situation, in which an attack, even a failed attack, by terrorists which costs a few thousand dollars causes a response by the security forces which cost hundreds of millions or billions. How much did it cost the hidden powers of Al Qaeda to set up the shoe bomb attack? How many extra sniffer machines have been bought and how many millions of hours wasted in queues as a result?
Satellites are mostly built of light-weight, non magnetic materials such as aluminium. Magnets suffer from inverse square law problems: the largest magnets on earth have an operating range of inches, maybe a few feet. Because everything in orbit is travelling at high relative speeds, the amount of time any bit of debris spent within the "capture region" of a magnet would be milliseconds at best, not lone enough to match energies.
Re:They've got a point
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 1
Agreed. This is just too elegant to throw away. Did not deserve to be modded down.
According to some of the linked articles, the intent is the exact opposite: to use bandwidth allocated to TV but not locally in use to provide broadband, particularly in rural areas.
SCO was/at one time/ a legitimate company. But it sold its major asset, and the shell was taken over by patent trolls. Since a company is nothing but a piece of paper, unlike humans, they can be converted from one use to a totally different one. WPP, the world largest advertising agency, descends from "Wire and Plastic Packging", a company which manufactured supermarket trollies. Nokia was once a forest products company, then sold rubber boots. 3M started out mining.
This would imply that the absorbing/emitting matter emitted it in exactly the same direction, which seems unlikely. Secondly, neutrinos are notorious for not interacting with matter. Thirdly, this process is believed to happen between sun and earth, which doesn't contain much matter.
Re:I'll wager $723.42 that IBM goes another 100 ye
on
IBM Turns 100
·
· Score: 1
And IBM damned near did die then. But they saw what was happening before they actually stopped breathing, and pulled out with a huge change of direction - and a very large number of layoffs.
IBM has converted itself from a company based on selling boxes, and providing services as a side effect, to a company selling services who may sell you some boxes to run the services. That means that IBM's innovations will no longer (or at least far less) be in the field of hardware and software, which is of interest to Slashdot readers, and much more in the field of packaging and delivering services. It doesn't mean they have stopped innovating at all, it means that they are innovating in an area that is much less visible and interesting to Slashdot.
Of course, the services industry, being much softer, is much much more difficult to get a lock-in. It took twenty years for the world to break the lock-in that IBM had with its mainframe business. But the world did it, eventually, and it nearly killed IBM. Whereas it would only take three or four years of not having their eye on the ball for other companies to steal IBM's services business,
This falls into the common fallacy that something evolves for one purpose only, and is always and only used for that purpose. If I use a long stick to support me wile walking, I can also use it to fight of attackers. The tongue evolved to help me eat also helps me talk. If I develop the ability to reason in order to understand my environment, I can use that same ability to bullshit the rest of the tribe. It is not an either/or, it is both.
And you see it in action often. People try to win an argument by logic. When they realise they are losing, the retreat into bullshit. Or try to change the argument to one they can win. Because coming out top in an argument - showing one's wisdom - is a status thing among humans. And, as always, if you haven't got it, faking it will do as well much of the time.
IOW, the Chinese did it, and everyone is too fucking scared to point the finger.
The Israelis have not been picky about who they spy on provided they have plausible deniability. Iran has been honing its cyber-skills. Others like the Russians have been there before, especially via arms-length "not the government, honestly" approved-of hackers. While I agree that the Chinese would be the lead suspects, there are plenty of others in the frame.
They could make variable rate road charging revenue neutral. Simply take off fuel taxes the total take from the road-use charge. It doesn't have to be purely incremental. In fact, if I were to bring it in, I would require that it were revenue neutral for the first, say, two years to allow its effects to be seen. Then return it to the general pool of taxes that government can vary according to need.
In a negotiation, it seems perfectly reasonable to hide your ultimate fallback position. If there is space between your ultimate fallback and the other guys ultimate fallback (i.e. the negotiations have a chance of succeeding), you want to capture as much of that space as possible. Revealing your stopping point allows the other guy to claim all the space by demanding that.
On medical subjects, the Daily Mail is very far from a trustworthy source. As Ben Goldacre (author of "Bad Science") reports, they appear to be a campaign to classify every substance in the world as either a cure or cause of cancer - sometimes both. And they are a serial abuser of medical statistics, always choosing the interpretation which allows the biggest scare headline regardless of common sense. They will treat a tiny preliminary test with barely significant results with the same respect as a major multi-year trial if they can get a good headline out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
They do not avoid the bearings heat conduction ability:
As shown later in Figure 18, this air-filled
thermal interface has very low thermal resistance and is in no way a limiting factor to device
performance; its cross sectional area is large relative to its thickness, and because the air that
occupies the gap region is violently sheared between the lower surface (stationary) and the
upper surface (rotating at several thousand rpm). The convective mixing provided by this 11
shearing effect provides a several-fold increase in thermal conductivity of the air in the gap
region.
I see no reason why this should not be subject to cost engineering like any other component. Yes, they machined their prototype our of solid aluminium on a CNC machine. But they are not production engineers. It would seem to me that, as one-moving-part system, this should be subject to manufacturing optimisation over two or three years to be very competitive with equivalent air cooling systems.
Your point about the design being more brittle is relevant: failure of the drive motor will lead to serious overheat in a very short time.
No, the heat is conducted from the CPU to the baseplate, across the 0.03mm airgap, into the baseplate of the "fan", and up into the spiral fan "blades". The heat is actually transferred to the air from the sides of the "blades", ant the warmed air is flung out into the environment.
Nice idea, but I wonder what the drag would be. Part of the idea is that, because of the extreme turbulence in the boundary layer, thermal conductivity is much greater than you would expect for an air gap. They seem to think that the thermal resistance of the gap is negligible compared to other thermal resistances in the system.
But in a conventional system, the air is moving fastest over the cool fan, and much slower over the hot heat sink - in fact, very slowly over the last fraction of a millimetre. In the system, the air is moving fastest over the hot fan.
This story is pure bullshit.
Airplanes have boundary layers attached in flight.
All you need to do to a heat-sink is rough up the surface enough that the boundary layer is turbulent. It's not like drag is an issue.
The first point in favor of this heat-sink is pure bullshit. Want to bet everything else is also bullshit.
How well do bearings conduct heat?
WTF happened to /.
There are two significant differences between wings and heat sinks. Firstly, wings are moving compared to the ambient air, and heat sinks are not. Secondly, for aircraft the boundary layer is a good thing, and designers try and make is stick as much as possible (though the do put in widgets to ensure that when it breaks off and goes turbulent, it does so progressively, not suddenly). Roughening, on the appropriate scale, is used to increase boundary layer adhesion - the "golf-ball" effect. It is also being tried on ships, especially racing yachts (the "shark-skin" effect). The desired effect is the exact opposite to that here: wings want boundary layers, heat sinks don't.
The main complaint seems to be that the data is not secret from Google. Well, Duh. That is the point: Google wants all your info - for its own internal purposes. It won't intentionally share that data with anyone else, but it will use that data to target ads on you. And the same point is true for any other social network: you cannot offer privacy from the operator of the network.
.cc is the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. .co.cc is just a single, corporately owned, address within .cc. Any legitimate Cocos Islands company can get a .cc address for themselves; the islands are small enough that it would appear that they have quite reasonably decided they don't need a .co.cc subdomain. Google's action appears to me a reasonable reaction to a significant ill.
Becoming very, very rich but being locked out from becoming extraordinarily rich is a fate worse than death? Many of us would be very happy to have problems like this.
In the UK, if you are questioned for a major crime, even as a witness, and a DNA sample is taken, you are on the database for life. You don't have to do the crime, you have to live within a few streets of someone might have done the crime.
The human mind was built in pre-contraception days, when sex meant babies. And we are strongly conditioned by evolution to care for our genetic descendants, and not for another man's. Sexual jealousy is built into humans, particularly males, for Darwinian reasons.
it is my view that most religious practice is a rationalization of built-in human motives - ascribing to God motivations we have that we do not understand why we have. Essentially, religion is a coat of paint used to justify what we were going to do anyway. And in this case, "God's law" of monogamy is just the law we would like - for our spouses at least. Men because they don't want to raise another man's child, women because they don'e want to share the man's resources with another woman's child or, even worse, have her run off with him.
This is, of course, much less relevant in the days of modern contraception (though less so from the woman's point of view), but our brains are still those of hunter gatherers.
No, we export crops in order to have a market to keep farmers in employment. Just taking the crops and burning them or pouring them down the drain has got too obvious for the public to accept, so we basically pay other people to take them. The problem is that the farming lobby has got a stranglehold over the political system at least as strong as any other industry (defence, banking...).
And a significant number of high-calibre people who could be doing other useful jobs are tied up in the process. Whereas the TSA, or at least its publicly visible part, are composed largely (I am sure there are exceptions) of middle to low calibre people following rulebooks.
Because, at the time, no-one saw box cutters as a risk. The security then was aimed at non-suicide terrorists - either trying to put a bomb on an airliner, then leave it, or with a gun which provides a credible hostage situation. No-one had foreseen a certain-suicide attack in which the intention was not to hold the plane hostage but to use it as a missile.
This was not a public/private problem, but a foresight problem. And what we have now is a hindsight problem. The TSA, and other security agencies, are trying to prevent repeats of every attack that has happened in the past. Shoe bomber? Check shoes. Underwear bomber? Design machine to check underwear.
The trouble is that we have here a situation resembling that by which the US defeated the USSR Essentially, the US outspent the USSR, which simply could not keep up. But that was a level playing field, which the US won by being richer and able to throw more money at defence. This is an asymmetric situation, in which an attack, even a failed attack, by terrorists which costs a few thousand dollars causes a response by the security forces which cost hundreds of millions or billions. How much did it cost the hidden powers of Al Qaeda to set up the shoe bomb attack? How many extra sniffer machines have been bought and how many millions of hours wasted in queues as a result?
Satellites are mostly built of light-weight, non magnetic materials such as aluminium.
Magnets suffer from inverse square law problems: the largest magnets on earth have an operating range of inches, maybe a few feet.
Because everything in orbit is travelling at high relative speeds, the amount of time any bit of debris spent within the "capture region" of a magnet would be milliseconds at best, not lone enough to match energies.
Agreed. This is just too elegant to throw away. Did not deserve to be modded down.
According to some of the linked articles, the intent is the exact opposite: to use bandwidth allocated to TV but not locally in use to provide broadband, particularly in rural areas.
SCO was /at one time/ a legitimate company. But it sold its major asset, and the shell was taken over by patent trolls. Since a company is nothing but a piece of paper, unlike humans, they can be converted from one use to a totally different one. WPP, the world largest advertising agency, descends from "Wire and Plastic Packging", a company which manufactured supermarket trollies. Nokia was once a forest products company, then sold rubber boots. 3M started out mining.
This would imply that the absorbing/emitting matter emitted it in exactly the same direction, which seems unlikely. Secondly, neutrinos are notorious for not interacting with matter. Thirdly, this process is believed to happen between sun and earth, which doesn't contain much matter.
And IBM damned near did die then. But they saw what was happening before they actually stopped breathing, and pulled out with a huge change of direction - and a very large number of layoffs.
IBM has converted itself from a company based on selling boxes, and providing services as a side effect, to a company selling services who may sell you some boxes to run the services. That means that IBM's innovations will no longer (or at least far less) be in the field of hardware and software, which is of interest to Slashdot readers, and much more in the field of packaging and delivering services. It doesn't mean they have stopped innovating at all, it means that they are innovating in an area that is much less visible and interesting to Slashdot.
Of course, the services industry, being much softer, is much much more difficult to get a lock-in. It took twenty years for the world to break the lock-in that IBM had with its mainframe business. But the world did it, eventually, and it nearly killed IBM. Whereas it would only take three or four years of not having their eye on the ball for other companies to steal IBM's services business,
This falls into the common fallacy that something evolves for one purpose only, and is always and only used for that purpose. If I use a long stick to support me wile walking, I can also use it to fight of attackers. The tongue evolved to help me eat also helps me talk. If I develop the ability to reason in order to understand my environment, I can use that same ability to bullshit the rest of the tribe. It is not an either/or, it is both.
And you see it in action often. People try to win an argument by logic. When they realise they are losing, the retreat into bullshit. Or try to change the argument to one they can win. Because coming out top in an argument - showing one's wisdom - is a status thing among humans. And, as always, if you haven't got it, faking it will do as well much of the time.
IOW, the Chinese did it, and everyone is too fucking scared to point the finger.
The Israelis have not been picky about who they spy on provided they have plausible deniability. Iran has been honing its cyber-skills. Others like the Russians have been there before, especially via arms-length "not the government, honestly" approved-of hackers. While I agree that the Chinese would be the lead suspects, there are plenty of others in the frame.
They could make variable rate road charging revenue neutral. Simply take off fuel taxes the total take from the road-use charge. It doesn't have to be purely incremental. In fact, if I were to bring it in, I would require that it were revenue neutral for the first, say, two years to allow its effects to be seen. Then return it to the general pool of taxes that government can vary according to need.
In a negotiation, it seems perfectly reasonable to hide your ultimate fallback position. If there is space between your ultimate fallback and the other guys ultimate fallback (i.e. the negotiations have a chance of succeeding), you want to capture as much of that space as possible. Revealing your stopping point allows the other guy to claim all the space by demanding that.
On medical subjects, the Daily Mail is very far from a trustworthy source. As Ben Goldacre (author of "Bad Science") reports, they appear to be a campaign to classify every substance in the world as either a cure or cause of cancer - sometimes both. And they are a serial abuser of medical statistics, always choosing the interpretation which allows the biggest scare headline regardless of common sense. They will treat a tiny preliminary test with barely significant results with the same respect as a major multi-year trial if they can get a good headline out of it.