No, generally increasing cross-sectional area will increase the air-flow, the fans will be ducted, the inlet and outlet need'nt be. It also allows for a lower air speed, leading to lower noise, and potentially (can't see the whole structure clearly in the pictures) reduced turbulence, also leading to lower noise and greater air-flow.
BTW I have taught postgraduate physics courses.
....</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PDF shows ventilation perforations that are at best only slightly larger than those on shipping Power Macs. The larger openings in the rear of the case cannot contribute to increased air flow because they also increase the solid area.
There are two fans indicated on the front of the power supply right behind the speaker. This power supply seems to occupy the same space as the PCI cards. There is virtually no ventilation for the power supply at the rear of the "case." The processor and heat sink are placed near the rear of the case, where they receive no benefit at all from the fans.
As for the example of the trans-Atlantic cable, you have to distinguish between science and rules of thumb. This was a case where the rules of thumb did not apply, but the fundamental science did.
Good point, but I was thinking of the flow as it enters/exits the case, where noise would be most obtrusive, as opposed to over the heat sink(s) itself, where you would want turbulence.
Michael</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oops my mistake.
I never thought I would be considering the flow patterns developed in my computer but all of a sudden I want to get one of these cases and sit it in a wind tunnel
I go out of town for three weeks, and I miss everything! I made sure I had net access for the Expo, then I went in to black. I come back and apparently pics and pdf's are out there, they got pulled before I could see them, and now I'm pissed. Could some kind soul please furnish me with a copy of the "stuff". Thank you in advance.
Good designers, engineers, and scientists learn from those who went before. Einstein's work was intimately informed by the work of Maxwell, Ampere, Henry, Newton, and others. Had he ignored his predecessors, today he would be just another dead European male rather than the Man of the 20th Century.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course good designers familiarize themselves with the "classics", however that does not imply that they use those as basis for their work. Quite the opposite is often true. Einstein did not utilize Newton's basic assumptions, but he did utilize Lorentz or Maxwell's ideas (I have no idea why you suggested Ampere and Henry). And many breakthrough artists studied the classics only to reject the fundementals in their work as Monet, Picasso and Pollack did.
Now engineers are different. They often ONLY work on the basis of others work. But I'd consider engineers the least creative of the bunch.
No, generally increasing cross-sectional area will increase the air-flow, the fans will be ducted, the inlet and outlet need'nt be. It also allows for a lower air speed, leading to lower noise, and potentially (can't see the whole structure clearly in the pictures) reduced turbulence, also leading to lower noise and greater air-flow.
BTW I have taught postgraduate physics courses.
quote:
----------------------
Good designers, engineers, and scientists learn from those who went before. Einstein's work was intimately informed by the work of Maxwell, Ampere, Henry, Newton, and others. Had he ignored his predecessors, today he would be just another dead European male rather than the Man of the 20th Century.
----------------------------------
Well, of course it was informed by his predecessors, but it wasn't an extension of it, it was entirely new work....
Michael
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whether or not you've taught post-graduate physics courses has no bearing on whether you are correct or not. It's not pyschology we are talking about... there are "right" answers.
Of course good designers familiarize themselves with the "classics", however that does not imply that they use those as basis for their work. Quite the opposite is often true. Einstein did not utilize Newton's basic assumptions, but he did utilize Lorentz or Maxwell's ideas (I have no idea why you suggested Ampere and Henry). And many breakthrough artists studied the classics only to reject the fundementals in their work as Monet, Picasso and Pollack did.
....</strong><hr></blockquote>
The term used was "informed," not "utilized." You have to understand your language as well as your science before you can properly comment.
The term used was "informed," not "utilized." You have to understand your language as well as your science before you can properly comment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. I was responding to your criticism on the comment that "Ive is a good designer who does not base his work on other people's efforts".
Your response was "Good designers, engineers, and scientists learn from those who went before..... Had he ignored his predecessors, today he would be just another dead European male rather than the Man of the 20th Century."
But ignoring or not ignoring other predecessors has nothing to do with basing his current designs on their work. One can come up with totally original ideas. I think this was the original posters point which you seemed to have missed.
I'm no chip engineer, but I have a vague idea that fabs can optimise their processes for low heat/power consumption or they can optimise for higher clockspeeds and pay the penalty in the form of higher heat production and power consumption.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
From a design standpoint this is true. From a fab standpoint when we tune our process to make hotter(as in faster) transistors we usually pay the price in yield and reliability. We can change our processes to enable a chip to run at its full design potential, but we can't make miracles happen. To run a chip much faster than originally designed requires a new design stepping or a process shrink.
I hereby coin this moniker and submit it for digital posterity- the GINO, that is "G5 In Name Only" - hopefully something that Apple/Moto will not try to pull on us with a G4.5 processor. Names alone do not give a processor traction, only DDR, Rapid I/O, and 333FSB. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Here's to the violent loathing of any machine that comes out that is a GINO.
Comments
<strong>
No, generally increasing cross-sectional area will increase the air-flow, the fans will be ducted, the inlet and outlet need'nt be. It also allows for a lower air speed, leading to lower noise, and potentially (can't see the whole structure clearly in the pictures) reduced turbulence, also leading to lower noise and greater air-flow.
BTW I have taught postgraduate physics courses.
....</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PDF shows ventilation perforations that are at best only slightly larger than those on shipping Power Macs. The larger openings in the rear of the case cannot contribute to increased air flow because they also increase the solid area.
There are two fans indicated on the front of the power supply right behind the speaker. This power supply seems to occupy the same space as the PCI cards. There is virtually no ventilation for the power supply at the rear of the "case." The processor and heat sink are placed near the rear of the case, where they receive no benefit at all from the fans.
As for the example of the trans-Atlantic cable, you have to distinguish between science and rules of thumb. This was a case where the rules of thumb did not apply, but the fundamental science did.
<strong>
Good point, but I was thinking of the flow as it enters/exits the case, where noise would be most obtrusive, as opposed to over the heat sink(s) itself, where you would want turbulence.
Michael</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oops my mistake.
I never thought I would be considering the flow patterns developed in my computer but all of a sudden I want to get one of these cases and sit it in a wind tunnel
You're right though you could aim to do both.
<strong>I'll go out on a limb and say no G5 in the Powermac next month.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just don't hurt yourself if the limb breaks and there is a 'new processor' of some kind.
<strong>
Good designers, engineers, and scientists learn from those who went before. Einstein's work was intimately informed by the work of Maxwell, Ampere, Henry, Newton, and others. Had he ignored his predecessors, today he would be just another dead European male rather than the Man of the 20th Century.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course good designers familiarize themselves with the "classics", however that does not imply that they use those as basis for their work. Quite the opposite is often true. Einstein did not utilize Newton's basic assumptions, but he did utilize Lorentz or Maxwell's ideas (I have no idea why you suggested Ampere and Henry). And many breakthrough artists studied the classics only to reject the fundementals in their work as Monet, Picasso and Pollack did.
Now engineers are different. They often ONLY work on the basis of others work. But I'd consider engineers the least creative of the bunch.
<strong>
No, generally increasing cross-sectional area will increase the air-flow, the fans will be ducted, the inlet and outlet need'nt be. It also allows for a lower air speed, leading to lower noise, and potentially (can't see the whole structure clearly in the pictures) reduced turbulence, also leading to lower noise and greater air-flow.
BTW I have taught postgraduate physics courses.
quote:
----------------------
Good designers, engineers, and scientists learn from those who went before. Einstein's work was intimately informed by the work of Maxwell, Ampere, Henry, Newton, and others. Had he ignored his predecessors, today he would be just another dead European male rather than the Man of the 20th Century.
----------------------------------
Well, of course it was informed by his predecessors, but it wasn't an extension of it, it was entirely new work....
Michael
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whether or not you've taught post-graduate physics courses has no bearing on whether you are correct or not. It's not pyschology we are talking about... there are "right" answers.
... but you are right !
The mobo will be new but the processor will be the same just speedbumped. Hopefully, MOT can get 1.4ghz's as the top.
"The new case has cooling issues, on the inside of the case is a lot different and that's why it has vents.
The mobo will be new but the processor will be the same just speedbumped. Hopefully, MOT can get 1.4ghz's as the top."<hr></blockquote>
It sounds like your sure of this. How do you know all of this information?
Just 4 of them <a href="http://www.mosr.com/"; target="_blank">MOSR</a>
:eek: :eek: <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
opps my bad, MOSR did day Quads won't appear in August. But I doubt we will see Quad G4's in a desktop for a long long time if ever.
[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]
[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
<strong>
Of course good designers familiarize themselves with the "classics", however that does not imply that they use those as basis for their work. Quite the opposite is often true. Einstein did not utilize Newton's basic assumptions, but he did utilize Lorentz or Maxwell's ideas (I have no idea why you suggested Ampere and Henry). And many breakthrough artists studied the classics only to reject the fundementals in their work as Monet, Picasso and Pollack did.
....</strong><hr></blockquote>
The term used was "informed," not "utilized." You have to understand your language as well as your science before you can properly comment.
<strong>
The term used was "informed," not "utilized." You have to understand your language as well as your science before you can properly comment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. I was responding to your criticism on the comment that "Ive is a good designer who does not base his work on other people's efforts".
Your response was "Good designers, engineers, and scientists learn from those who went before..... Had he ignored his predecessors, today he would be just another dead European male rather than the Man of the 20th Century."
But ignoring or not ignoring other predecessors has nothing to do with basing his current designs on their work. One can come up with totally original ideas. I think this was the original posters point which you seemed to have missed.
<strong>Maybe Eskimo can help me with this one.
I'm no chip engineer, but I have a vague idea that fabs can optimise their processes for low heat/power consumption or they can optimise for higher clockspeeds and pay the penalty in the form of higher heat production and power consumption.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
From a design standpoint this is true. From a fab standpoint when we tune our process to make hotter(as in faster) transistors we usually pay the price in yield and reliability. We can change our processes to enable a chip to run at its full design potential, but we can't make miracles happen. To run a chip much faster than originally designed requires a new design stepping or a process shrink.
Here's to the violent loathing of any machine that comes out that is a GINO.
Das Frickin Uber