" Whitelist the sites that actually need it and leave Javascript disabled for all other sites."
Until, you know, some idiot bank goes lax in their security, and suddenly everyone visiting the bank not only gets their accounts hijacked and drained, but they become part of a botnet, all without their knowledge. And because people trust the bank (stupid) they don't even bother to think about it until it's too late.
"Of course that would require a few minutes of work on your part and you seem to be too busy whining to do it."
Seems like you're too short-sighted to even be participating in this conversation.
I understand very well, and quite honestly, all of what's being done today could've been done ten years ago if people knew how to efficiently program and we didn't have shit like software patents.
Wrong. You can use a potentiometer two ways, and the simpler way regulates current (since diodes have a fixed voltage drop, therefore regulating current does EXACTLY THAT, dim the LED.)
"I thought the main problem with getting decent LED light bulbs (for example) popular was the cost and that increasing the light produced too much heat."
The only issue with cost comes from name-brand companies that foolishly spent a lot of money patenting something OBVIOUS. In the meanwhile, China pumps out obvious, unpatentable designs, and sells them for cheap. And they're quality. Out of thousands of bought and used LED panels, light bulbs, laser diodes, only a couple total have failed on me, and the ones that did fail were EASILY repairable by the end-user. Increasing power always means increasing heat, that's just thermodynamics.
"I for one would rather not see a fan-assisted bulb because of noise pollution"
Given the requirement to fit certain form factors, we're not left with much of a choice. 12w passive LED has a heat sink roughly the size of a PAR30 floodlight. With a fan actively cooling, you can fit it inside a standard ceiling fan socket. I prefer active cooling anyways, as if you have bad airflow in your house, you're going to likely kill the LEDs with heat since the passive radiator isn't getting proper airflow.
"Do you think this discovery will help reduce heat to any degree for a given amount of lumens?"
At higher drive currents, yes. At our typical lower drive currents, likely not, as the efficiency there lies mostly in the composition and physical structure of the wafer/substrate.
This has little to do with efficiency. This has to deal with output versus input, and a barrier that's present whenever current gets too high, causing drastic loss of light and lifespan of the LED.
This might push higher efficiency but the issue we're solving RIGHT NOW is why we suddenly lose a ton of light output once we hit a certain threshold.
That still doesn't change the fact these LEDs get very hot locally (and in high-power packages, like the MK-R or XP-G) without that thermal consideration, your diodes are dead in a couple of days. The thermal cooling required will increase as power levels increase.
Ummm.... the 7990 is already a crossfire GPU. In case you weren't paying attention, this is a DUAL-GPU card, which means while its single-GPU counterparts might use ~270w (7970 GPU) this one ends up being more efficient since everything is on the same board, whereas you could just CrossFire two 7970 cards and end up with over 500w max load power consumption.
Gee, if only 3Dfx were still around, since their multi-GPU configs didn't give a fuck which game you ran, as long as the engine supported 3Dfx GLide, you were golden to use multiple GPUs.
And no microstutter.
And an actual 100% increase in frame rates if you added another card.
"The only issue I have with Radeon drivers is their inability to deal with unusual monitor situations, especially HDTVs."
In my experience, both nVidia and AMD suck at their HDMI output to HDTVs. Even after you disable overscan and adjust other crap, the image is still off by a couple of pixels.
Pay very close attention to LEDs. Now that we've identified the root cause of one of our biggest problems, in a few years, we'll find ways to work around those problems and extend the lifespan of an LED (and output at higher drive currents) with a minimal loss of light.
This is EXCITING news, as the uses for this across the entire electronics industry are MASSIVE. Higher-efficiency, longer-lasting LEDs means better optical devices and such, as this same tech can be applied down into solid-state laser diodes.
I'm literally about to piss myself from this news. The sheer implications of this knowledge are astounding.
I hope thermal pad and PCB makers are paying attention and prepare, because very soon we'll be pushing a LOT more power through these tiny LEDs, and we'll need the local cooling to compensate.
I only wonder just how far they can defeat or mitigate this effect, and how. Thicker well walls might be an idea, or perhaps a nano-wire-like growth pattern, like we've seen with the recent development of microwires on graphite sheets, can increase the surface area and reduce the available recombination area, thus forcing electron transport.
Something to either attract, guide, or force more electrons across the gap seems to be what is needed.
PWM is less efficient and stressful on the LEDs. It's simpler and easier to just use a potentiometer on the DC side of a constant-current driver to regulate current.
Uh, step out of your house and go look at the nearest freeway.
See those vehicles that are much, MUCH larger than the other vehicles on the road? You know, the ones usually carrying trailers?
Yea, those can do it, with a full load or cargo AND a full load of fuel, and that's not including the contents of a half-a-house I've seen installed in most of the ones I've climbed inside.
You do realize that every time your dumb ass posts we can use the laws of physics to narrow down where you live/post from to within a 2km radius, right?
I suggest you stop shitting up the board before I show you other neat things physics can do. Like what high-velocity flying metal can do to soft tissue.
One guy comes right in with an answer that pretty much blows CC's false BS claims out of the water.
That's why the DMCA was invoked, to hide their criminal lying. That's why the images were removed, because all it took was a look at the images to figure out their bullshit.
"First you forgot to acknowledge that a backlight doesn't need to outshine the infrared component of the solar spectrum."
First, you forgot to acknowledge that any light source is emitting IR, and thus that factors into power usage and visible-light availability, thus using 445 w of light, even with our most efficient light sources, might only net you overall 110 w in the visible range.........
You also forget that most places that might use this are ABOVE SEA LEVEL. That means the solar irradiance will be HIGHER. Remember, your typical solar irradiance figure of 1,004 w/m^2 is at SEA LEVEL. A huge chunk of the population is well above that. My numbers are not off. They've been checked and re-checked with quantum meters, light/power meters, and in most places about 3,000-4,000 feet above sea level, (remember your typical solar irradiance figure of 1,004 w/m^2 is at SEA LEVEL) you're getting my figures which are quoted in Wikipedia. Less atmospheric distortion + higher altitude (meaning closer to the sun) = higher photon flux density/power per square meter.
I even do light testing for the more prominent LED companies, when they have new modules and chips. They come right to me, I don't even have to inquire.
Feel free to come back when you can grow crops without light at all - that takes a true understanding of energy systems. I got on the BBC for that. H2OFarm on CountryFile. Enjoy.
In space, and on several high locations on the planet that have less atmosphere to cause interference, actually.
And even then, that's actually more like on Earth, because as soon as you get out of the atmosphere, you have other things, like UVC (which doesn't penetrate our water-laden atmosphere), to add into the equation, which gets us around 1.8kWh/m^2.
From that exact point, you go half the way towards the sun, you're suddenly dealing with about 3.6kWh/m^2
Slashdot Mirror
" Whitelist the sites that actually need it and leave Javascript disabled for all other sites."
Until, you know, some idiot bank goes lax in their security, and suddenly everyone visiting the bank not only gets their accounts hijacked and drained, but they become part of a botnet, all without their knowledge. And because people trust the bank (stupid) they don't even bother to think about it until it's too late.
"Of course that would require a few minutes of work on your part and you seem to be too busy whining to do it."
Seems like you're too short-sighted to even be participating in this conversation.
I understand very well, and quite honestly, all of what's being done today could've been done ten years ago if people knew how to efficiently program and we didn't have shit like software patents.
"I think the old nVidia Geforce 500TI started at 500$ and that was like 13 years ago or something."
Back in 2000, nVidia was on GeForce 2 (right after the GeForce 256.)
You'll still get flickering and ghosting issues. Plants won't care, humans will.
Wrong. You can use a potentiometer two ways, and the simpler way regulates current (since diodes have a fixed voltage drop, therefore regulating current does EXACTLY THAT, dim the LED.)
"I thought the main problem with getting decent LED light bulbs (for example) popular was the cost and that increasing the light produced too much heat."
The only issue with cost comes from name-brand companies that foolishly spent a lot of money patenting something OBVIOUS. In the meanwhile, China pumps out obvious, unpatentable designs, and sells them for cheap. And they're quality. Out of thousands of bought and used LED panels, light bulbs, laser diodes, only a couple total have failed on me, and the ones that did fail were EASILY repairable by the end-user. Increasing power always means increasing heat, that's just thermodynamics.
"I for one would rather not see a fan-assisted bulb because of noise pollution"
Given the requirement to fit certain form factors, we're not left with much of a choice. 12w passive LED has a heat sink roughly the size of a PAR30 floodlight. With a fan actively cooling, you can fit it inside a standard ceiling fan socket. I prefer active cooling anyways, as if you have bad airflow in your house, you're going to likely kill the LEDs with heat since the passive radiator isn't getting proper airflow.
"Do you think this discovery will help reduce heat to any degree for a given amount of lumens?"
At higher drive currents, yes. At our typical lower drive currents, likely not, as the efficiency there lies mostly in the composition and physical structure of the wafer/substrate.
Spoken like a true ignorant AC.
Best CCFL is ~80 lumens per watt, 6500K CCT.
Best LED is 200+ lumens per watt, and it cost me NOTHING to get several of them, with mounting boards, in my hands.
Or, I just buy them from China, where a 4w GU-10 using Epistar 130+ lumen per watt LEDs costs me 4 bucks and has lasted me several years already.
Go home with your ignorant tripe.
This has little to do with efficiency. This has to deal with output versus input, and a barrier that's present whenever current gets too high, causing drastic loss of light and lifespan of the LED.
This might push higher efficiency but the issue we're solving RIGHT NOW is why we suddenly lose a ton of light output once we hit a certain threshold.
That still doesn't change the fact these LEDs get very hot locally (and in high-power packages, like the MK-R or XP-G) without that thermal consideration, your diodes are dead in a couple of days. The thermal cooling required will increase as power levels increase.
Ummm.... the 7990 is already a crossfire GPU. In case you weren't paying attention, this is a DUAL-GPU card, which means while its single-GPU counterparts might use ~270w (7970 GPU) this one ends up being more efficient since everything is on the same board, whereas you could just CrossFire two 7970 cards and end up with over 500w max load power consumption.
Gee, if only 3Dfx were still around, since their multi-GPU configs didn't give a fuck which game you ran, as long as the engine supported 3Dfx GLide, you were golden to use multiple GPUs.
And no microstutter.
And an actual 100% increase in frame rates if you added another card.
"The only issue I have with Radeon drivers is their inability to deal with unusual monitor situations, especially HDTVs."
In my experience, both nVidia and AMD suck at their HDMI output to HDTVs. Even after you disable overscan and adjust other crap, the image is still off by a couple of pixels.
Never a problem with VGA, though.
ESPECIALLY when it's only barely raining and they act as if it's acid rain (well, to be fair....)
Have you seen Los Angeles or Memphis drivers?
That 'ceramic' is still aluminum. Aluminum nitride and alumina mix, to be more precise
I had plenty of time working in a sex store, thank you. I probably know more about it than you ever will - just ask my husband.
Pay very close attention to LEDs. Now that we've identified the root cause of one of our biggest problems, in a few years, we'll find ways to work around those problems and extend the lifespan of an LED (and output at higher drive currents) with a minimal loss of light.
This is EXCITING news, as the uses for this across the entire electronics industry are MASSIVE. Higher-efficiency, longer-lasting LEDs means better optical devices and such, as this same tech can be applied down into solid-state laser diodes.
I'm literally about to piss myself from this news. The sheer implications of this knowledge are astounding.
I hope thermal pad and PCB makers are paying attention and prepare, because very soon we'll be pushing a LOT more power through these tiny LEDs, and we'll need the local cooling to compensate.
I only wonder just how far they can defeat or mitigate this effect, and how. Thicker well walls might be an idea, or perhaps a nano-wire-like growth pattern, like we've seen with the recent development of microwires on graphite sheets, can increase the surface area and reduce the available recombination area, thus forcing electron transport.
Something to either attract, guide, or force more electrons across the gap seems to be what is needed.
PWM is less efficient and stressful on the LEDs. It's simpler and easier to just use a potentiometer on the DC side of a constant-current driver to regulate current.
Shit, here in the USA we have waveguides installed on many street lights so you can't see the actual light color until you're almost on top of it.
Uh, step out of your house and go look at the nearest freeway.
See those vehicles that are much, MUCH larger than the other vehicles on the road? You know, the ones usually carrying trailers?
Yea, those can do it, with a full load or cargo AND a full load of fuel, and that's not including the contents of a half-a-house I've seen installed in most of the ones I've climbed inside.
"Tesla drivers are going to want name brand water with pictures of mountains on the label."
Uhh, Arrowhead, $1.29 for two gallons of distilled water.
You do realize that every time your dumb ass posts we can use the laws of physics to narrow down where you live/post from to within a 2km radius, right?
I suggest you stop shitting up the board before I show you other neat things physics can do. Like what high-velocity flying metal can do to soft tissue.
Both you and the MyCleanPC people are targets.
One guy comes right in with an answer that pretty much blows CC's false BS claims out of the water.
That's why the DMCA was invoked, to hide their criminal lying. That's why the images were removed, because all it took was a look at the images to figure out their bullshit.
"First you forgot to acknowledge that a backlight doesn't need to outshine the infrared component of the solar spectrum."
First, you forgot to acknowledge that any light source is emitting IR, and thus that factors into power usage and visible-light availability, thus using 445 w of light, even with our most efficient light sources, might only net you overall 110 w in the visible range.........
You also forget that most places that might use this are ABOVE SEA LEVEL. That means the solar irradiance will be HIGHER. Remember, your typical solar irradiance figure of 1,004 w/m^2 is at SEA LEVEL. A huge chunk of the population is well above that. My numbers are not off. They've been checked and re-checked with quantum meters, light/power meters, and in most places about 3,000-4,000 feet above sea level, (remember your typical solar irradiance figure of 1,004 w/m^2 is at SEA LEVEL) you're getting my figures which are quoted in Wikipedia. Less atmospheric distortion + higher altitude (meaning closer to the sun) = higher photon flux density/power per square meter.
I even do light testing for the more prominent LED companies, when they have new modules and chips. They come right to me, I don't even have to inquire.
Feel free to come back when you can grow crops without light at all - that takes a true understanding of energy systems. I got on the BBC for that. H2OFarm on CountryFile. Enjoy.
In space, and on several high locations on the planet that have less atmosphere to cause interference, actually.
And even then, that's actually more like on Earth, because as soon as you get out of the atmosphere, you have other things, like UVC (which doesn't penetrate our water-laden atmosphere), to add into the equation, which gets us around 1.8kWh/m^2.
From that exact point, you go half the way towards the sun, you're suddenly dealing with about 3.6kWh/m^2
You might want to go back to school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Intensity_in_the_Solar_System
Maximum, 1400+ w/m^2
minimum, 1300.
Half of that is infrared, then you're looking at 650 w/m^2 MINIMUM, more than 50% extra on top of that which EmperorArthur said.
Guys, I work with light and solar irradiance/insolation all day long. You won't win this argument.