Melgross suggested that it might be stiffer than plastic, but I don't see any other property compared very well. Plastics do cover a very wide range of materials, so a more thoughrough discussion would have to include the type.
Negative. Melgross is a longtime member and despite the rather caustic remark, he has never posted anything that would lead me to think that he doesn't know what he's talking about. For what it's worth, a degree has never been more than a stamp. There are many ways to learn (and no, I don't own a manufacturing company).
Melgross suggested that it might be stiffer than plastic, but I don't see any other property compared very well. Plastics do cover a very wide range of materials, so a more thoughrough discussion would have to include the type.
Sometimes I find that I have to be more selective in the way I state things, because I suppose that everyone understands that I never talk to extremes. I also assume that everyone has common sense.
So when I make a statement that Zirconia ceramics can be made flexible, I don't mean that they can be tied into a knot. I mean that if a piece long enough to be comfortable is bent, it will flex a little bit, not snap. So a 12" piece might bend by a quarter of an inch from flat, if it its thin, perhaps one eighth of an inch thick. There are plastics that don't flex more than that, and some that hardly flex at all.
But, sometimes people take a statement that I make, and distort it out of my meaning. My "flex" becomes supple, and while that is a synonym for flex, among others, it isn't what I meant.
Negative. Melgross is a longtime member and despite the rather caustic remark, he has never posted anything that would lead me to think that he doesn't know what he's talking about. For what it's worth, a degree has never been more than a stamp. There are many ways to learn (and no, I don't own a manufacturing company).
I apologise for sometimes getting out of sorts.
But, you know, there was a good cartoon in the mid '90's about the internet, and the problems that have entered discussions like this.
A dog was standing on a chair with its front paws on a keyboard. The caption read: "On the internet, no one knows you are a dog."
It's very appropriate.
When I see someone giving information about technical matters that is simply so far off the plane of reality, I just feel as though I have to say so. If that person then claims to have a degree in the subject, I'm going to call them on it. Maybe I'm too rough, and some people would then rather take it out on me instead. That's fine, I can take it. It won't be the first time.
Negative. Melgross is a longtime member and despite the rather caustic remark, he has never posted anything that would lead me to think that he doesn't know what he's talking about. For what it's worth, a degree has never been more than a stamp. There are many ways to learn (and no, I don't own a manufacturing company).
Heh, Melgross has been an expert on every topic he's posted in...ranging from physics to all aspects of computing, manufacturing, materials, hollywood, video production, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
When I see someone giving information about technical matters that is simply so far off the plane of reality, I just feel as though I have to say so.
You mean like saying that if you convert 20% of the heat into a system into energy that you don't reduce heat in the system?
Heh, Melgross has been an expert on every topic he's posted in...ranging from physics to all aspects of computing, manufacturing, materials, hollywood, video production, etc.
wellwhat I've done covers a lot of areas. you might not like it, but I've had to study a fair number of topics over the years, and others just because they are interesting.
We can all read.
Quote:
You mean like saying that if you convert 20% of the heat into a system into energy that you don't reduce heat in the system?
I'm saying that the heat is simply being stored as energy, to be released later.
Instead of arguing with someone you don't respect, why don't you read up on thermodynamics instead?
wellwhat I've done covers a lot of areas. you might not like it, but I've had to study a fair number of topics over the years, and others just because they are interesting.
We can all read.
This isn't the first time that someone has said you come off condescending. Whatever your intent I suggest that the problem isn't just with the readers but the writer as well.
In any case, while you have a lot of knowledge in a lot of areas, your condescending tone makes it appear that you claim to be an expert in whatever it is we're talking about.
Quote:
I'm saying that the heat is simply being stored as energy, to be released later.
Instead of arguing with someone you don't respect, why don't you read up on thermodynamics instead?
No, you said that heat is stored as electrical energy but it would always be re-released as the same amount of heat in the system (ie the process produces zero cooling). This is false.
This is the other aspect of your writings that comes off poorly. The inability to admit that you goofed or aren't an expert in thermodynamics and then try to reword things so you are sorta kinda right. The confusion of conservation of energy with consevation of heat is an indicator that it is you that needs to re-read the laws of thermodynamics.
Caloric theory maintained that heat can't be created or destroyed...just moved around. That is what you "corrected" someone about in that other thread. It's too bad that Caloric theory is incorrect.
This is different from the concept of conservation of energy where heat and mechanical work is interchangable (both forms of energy)...ie the First Law. "The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings". If you use the electricity to run a motor then you've converted it to mechanical work and waste heat but that waste heat will ALWAYS be lower than input heat in that original conversion process.
If you could create work AND generate the same amount of heat then you've just violated the first law with a net energy gain. For whatever reason you refuse to admit that is exactly what you claiming when correcting another poster, you were VERY adamant and appealed to whatever expertise on the subject that you claim to possess (and against the poster that claimed to teach thermodynamics to boot).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
What has to be understood, in these conversations, is that eventually ALL of the energy expended is turned back into heat. The heat is merely moved about, and/or released at different times.
...
'm not violating the second law. That's what is happening. It just doesn't RESULT in cooling the unit, because it turns back into heat somewhere else inside.
First, the heat turns into power, which then turns back into heat. Nothing lost, nothing gained in the long run from those particular quanta.
...
It's ticklish. The reason is that all energy ends up as heat, which then has to be removed, or radiated away.
Those comments are based on the concept of conservation of heat not an understanding of the equivalence of mechanical work and heat in conservation of energy.
I pretty much gave up when you claimed that power density doesn't drive the total power available in a system. At some point you simply get snooty and retire in poor grace when it becomes impossible to hide that you were wrong. Why bother getting to that point again?
It was pretty obvious in that thread that you were wrong. I left it at that. You have some understanding of thermodynamics but misremembered what you knew to the point of blowing the fundamental aspect of the first law.
Wish I had the time to formulate these unending comebacks and displays of technical brinksmanship... then again, I don't have an engineering background either...
maybe this was answered before--why ceramic doesn't the standard stuff cell phones made of work well enough, all the expense must mean that this is pretty awesome stuff. most cell phones have internal antenae don't they. so why bother (don't throw things at me ok)
This isn't the first time that someone has said you come off condescending. Whatever your intent I suggest that the problem isn't just with the readers but the writer as well.
I'm pedantic, not condescending. It's a style of writing I get into when conveying information, or responding to particularly egregious "facts". It comes from writing research reports, and manuals for complex equipment that I designed. No one complains in those areas, because everyone there writes that way.
If I write the way some might want me to, I'll sound flippant, and I don't want that.
Quote:
In any case, while you have a lot of knowledge in a lot of areas, your condescending tone makes it appear that you claim to be an expert in whatever it is we're talking about.
I'm an expert in some, and in others, I'll research before I answer. Isn't that what one is supposed to do?
Quote:
No, you said that heat is stored as electrical energy but it would always be re-released as the same amount of heat in the system (ie the process produces zero cooling). This is false.
Then explain it! If you say I'm wrong, then you must show why. I try to explain why what I'm saying is correct, and that's what you don't like, because it then comes off as though I'm in lecture mode, which I suppose can't be helped. Now, it's your turn.
Quote:
This is the other aspect of your writings that comes off poorly. The inability to admit that you goofed or aren't an expert in thermodynamics and then try to reword things so you are sorta kinda right. The confusion of conservation of energy with consevation of heat is an indicator that it is you that needs to re-read the laws of thermodynamics.
I'm not a physics major, but I did minor in it. I'm a member of the AAAS, and the NSF, if that helps. I receive the journals every week, and read as much as I have time for. I try to keep up. My real fields are bio, and psych, but I took a number of various engineering courses. I've been involved in any number of things over the past 35 years. You can learn a lot in that time, if you are interested, meet people, and go to conferences.
Quote:
Caloric theory maintained that heat can't be created or destroyed...just moved around. That is what you "corrected" someone about in that other thread. It's too bad that Caloric theory is incorrect.
It's interesting that you mentioned that. Caloric is considered to be one of the most successful incorrect theories in the field of physics. By that, I mean that it does explain the effects very well, even though it's wrong.
It's not what I described. Caloric assumes that the heat itself is a force, which it isn't. It assumed that everything had a specific amount of caloric energy, when that ran out, heat would no longer be produced, or rather, leech, out of the object. They simply didn't understand friction. Drilling holes in the barrels of cannons killed the theory.
Quote:
This is different from the concept of conservation of energy where heat and mechanical work is interchangable (both forms of energy)...ie the First Law. "The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings". If you use the electricity to run a motor then you've converted it to mechanical work and waste heat but that waste heat will ALWAYS be lower than input heat in that original conversion process.
I'm aware of that. Chemical activity is considered to be mechanical energy. You've just said what I've been saying all along. The heat from the cpu, or a small part of it, is turned into chemical potential energy, which is later released as electrical energy, which in order to do work is given off as heat, and it goes round, and round, in ever shrinking cycles.
Quote:
If you could create work AND generate the same amount of heat then you've just violated the first law with a net energy gain. For whatever reason you refuse to admit that is exactly what you claiming when correcting another poster, you were VERY adamant and appealed to whatever expertise on the subject that you claim to possess (and against the poster that claimed to teach thermodynamics to boot).
But, I never said that. You are saying I said that. What I said, is that in the end, the laws of thermodynamics require that entropy ensures that all devices be less than 100% efficient.
Is that stated more clearly? It means that every time work is performed, the inefficiencies required, cause heat to be radiated. No system is 100% efficient, The inefficiency results in heat. Any surplus energy that is stored will be later used. When it is, it is subject to the laws again, with less energy available, and the rest being given off as heat. Eventually, all of the energy is lost as heat. It's inevitable.
Those comments are based on the concept of conservation of heat not an understanding of the equivalence of mechanical work and heat in conservation of energy.
I'm not sure which of those statements you are referring to.
Quote:
I pretty much gave up when you claimed that power density doesn't drive the total power available in a system. At some point you simply get snooty and retire in poor grace when it becomes impossible to hide that you were wrong. Why bother getting to that point again?
Again, I didn't say that. I don't even know what that statement you just made is supposed to mean.
What I said, is that high power density in a laboratory device doesn't mean that they can easily build a device that can produce a good amount of power, which is entirely different. I then described some methods.
Quote:
It was pretty obvious in that thread that you were wrong. I left it at that. You have some understanding of thermodynamics but misremembered what you knew to the point of blowing the fundamental aspect of the first law.
Vinea
Obvious to you maybe, but not to those who understand it. I said nothing wrong. Your statements are simply incorrect.
From his first post bringing up Fiberglas, "IF anyone wanted to use ceramics as structural materials, they'd have to put some kind of a mesh (maybe like a fiberglass matrix) in it. A metal mesh--of course--would defeat the purpose of the material choice." Sounds to me like he was writing exactly that.
Heh, Melgross has been an expert on every topic he's posted in...ranging from physics to all aspects of computing, manufacturing, materials, hollywood, video production, etc.
Then explain it! If you say I'm wrong, then you must show why. I try to explain why what I'm saying is correct, and that's what you don't like, because it then comes off as though I'm in lecture mode, which I suppose can't be helped. Now, it's your turn.
I just did. Your argument that you can convert heat into electricity which is then used to perform work results in the same amount of heat in the system (i.e. no cooling) violates the first law.
I specifically quoted those lines where you clearly say no cooling occurs and heat cannot be lost.
Quote:
I'm not a physics major, but I did minor in it. I'm a member of the AAAS, and the NSF, if that helps.
You're a member of the NSF? A federal agency? Are you claiming to be on the National Science Board? Or a member of a review panel? As far as the AAAS, anyone can join and Science magazine is a great magazine.
Want to claim Mensa and NASA as well? Claiming NASA makes almost as much sense as the NSF. Mensa at least has some entry requirements...
Quote:
It's interesting that you mentioned that. Caloric is considered to be one of the most successful incorrect theories in the field of physics. By that, I mean that it does explain the effects very well, even though it's wrong.
However, the basic tenet is wrong. You know...the part you kept repeating...
Quote:
It's not what I described. Caloric assumes that the heat itself is a force, which it isn't. It assumed that everything had a specific amount of caloric energy, when that ran out, heat would no longer be produced, or rather, leech, out of the object. They simply didn't understand friction. Drilling holes in the barrels of cannons killed the theory.
An underpinning of the Caloric theory was the conservation of heat, which is what you described. This basic foundation of the theory was shown false and evolved into the theory of conservation of energy.
Quote:
I'm aware of that. Chemical activity is considered to be mechanical energy. You've just said what I've been saying all along. The heat from the cpu, or a small part of it, is turned into chemical potential energy, which is later released as electrical energy, which in order to do work is given off as heat, and it goes round, and round, in ever shrinking cycles.
Mechanical energy and work are two related but different concepts. A system has mechanical energy. Mechanical work is the amount of mechanical energy gained or lost. Chemical energy (not sure exactly what you mean by activity) is not mechanical energy. Chemical reactions can transform chemical energy into other forms...like electrical, mechanical or even heat.
Going back to the original equation the energy in the system is equal to the heat minus the work performed on the environment. In the discussion 20% of the heat is captured by the thermal diode and converted to electrical energy which is then used to perform mechanical work which is NOT the same as heat. They are two different variables in the equation. The inefficiency of the electric motor produces waste heat along with the mechanical work. However the mechanical work is the amount of mechanical energy that departs the system (i.e. the fan imparts kinetic energy to the air).
Quote:
But, I never said that. You are saying I said that. What I said, is that in the end, the laws of thermodynamics require that entropy ensures that all devices be less than 100% efficient.
Of course you just said that. It's in the QUOTED TEXT. You simply choose not to understand the implications of your original statement because then it is obvious that you are wrong. You state the conversion of heat to electrical energy cannot cause cooling because whatever work you perform results in the same amount of heat in the system.
The point about 100% efficiency is meaningless in this context...the efficiency determines how much waste heat you end up with in addition to the work. Not that you end up with the same amount of heat in the system (i.e. no cooling which is your assertion).
Quote:
Is that stated more clearly? It means that every time work is performed, the inefficiencies required, cause heat to be radiated. No system is 100% efficient, The inefficiency results in heat. Any surplus energy that is stored will be later used. When it is, it is subject to the laws again, with less energy available, and the rest being given off as heat. Eventually, all of the energy is lost as heat. It's inevitable.
And yet it is not inevitable in the laptop which is an open system. Energy can be transformed into mechanical work that imparts kinetic energy on air molecules (ie the fan). Likewise it can generate light (radiant energy) which is NOT heat but can be converted to heat via absorbtion but might not in its entirety (like in solar cells).
These other forms of energy are NOT heat even if they can be converted into heat (friction, absorbtion, etc). And it doesn't matter that the transfer of this energy is not 100% and some waste heat is generated. It is still less than the original heat (20% of the total heat) that was converted into electricity.
Quote:
I'm not sure which of those statements you are referring to.
All of them. In each one you assert that no cooling can occur.
Quote:
Again, I didn't say that. I don't even know what that statement you just made is supposed to mean.
What I said, is that high power density in a laboratory device doesn't mean that they can easily build a device that can produce a good amount of power, which is entirely different. I then described some methods.
Oh for crying out loud. That's not what you said at all:
Quote:
Power density is not the same as total power. One atom of anti-matter, plus one atom of matter, has the highest known power density in the universe, but one atom of that, plus one atom of matter brought together, still makes for a very small amount of power.
For a given volume/mass the power density determines the upper limit of the total power. Low power density storage mechanisms means lower total power. Lithium power cells do have higher power densities than other batteries but are still lower in power density than either (some) fuel cells OR the thermal diode based power packs (in theory). This is why the interest in high power density fuel cells and this potential energy system which both have higher possible total power capability than Li-Ion or LiPo.
Does that mean that they will be successful? No, but your example of matter/anti-matter clearly shows that you aren't talking about the difficulties of translating potential capability into a mass produced power source but a misunderstanding of the subject.
If you have a matter-antimatter power source the same size as a laptop battery you damn well betcha it has an assload of total power as a consequence of the power density.
Quote:
Obvious to you maybe, but not to those who understand it. I said nothing wrong. Your statements are simply incorrect.
Riiight. You can reword here all you like but your original statements still exist in the other thread. It's simply bizzare that you wish to convert what was a simple mis-remembered concept that is easily forgotten when you admit "Gee, I guess I mis-remembered that" into this huge debacle on your reputation as the Authority on Everything.
The really funny thing was you spent all that time "talking about" (poo-pooing) a technology that you didn't even bother to go to the original source (i.e. the company) to see what they claimed and why. They had numerous papers (some in peer reviewed journals) describing what they had discovered and what their intentions were. But hey, your personal vast experience and expertise must be far more relevant than what the inventors say...
Comments
edit: my grammer is atrocious
OK! The iMug:
Priceless.
We are going to see one sexy phone. hopefully i don't shatter mine...
So zirconia bends almost as much as plastic?
Who said this?
Melgross suggested that it might be stiffer than plastic, but I don't see any other property compared very well. Plastics do cover a very wide range of materials, so a more thoughrough discussion would have to include the type.
And you're an idiot troll.
Negative. Melgross is a longtime member and despite the rather caustic remark, he has never posted anything that would lead me to think that he doesn't know what he's talking about. For what it's worth, a degree has never been more than a stamp. There are many ways to learn (and no, I don't own a manufacturing company).
I just like to add a piece to the party; I respect melgross, but don't know this new guy.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Your velcum.
Who said this?
Melgross suggested that it might be stiffer than plastic, but I don't see any other property compared very well. Plastics do cover a very wide range of materials, so a more thoughrough discussion would have to include the type.
Sometimes I find that I have to be more selective in the way I state things, because I suppose that everyone understands that I never talk to extremes. I also assume that everyone has common sense.
So when I make a statement that Zirconia ceramics can be made flexible, I don't mean that they can be tied into a knot. I mean that if a piece long enough to be comfortable is bent, it will flex a little bit, not snap. So a 12" piece might bend by a quarter of an inch from flat, if it its thin, perhaps one eighth of an inch thick. There are plastics that don't flex more than that, and some that hardly flex at all.
But, sometimes people take a statement that I make, and distort it out of my meaning. My "flex" becomes supple, and while that is a synonym for flex, among others, it isn't what I meant.
Negative. Melgross is a longtime member and despite the rather caustic remark, he has never posted anything that would lead me to think that he doesn't know what he's talking about. For what it's worth, a degree has never been more than a stamp. There are many ways to learn (and no, I don't own a manufacturing company).
I apologise for sometimes getting out of sorts.
But, you know, there was a good cartoon in the mid '90's about the internet, and the problems that have entered discussions like this.
A dog was standing on a chair with its front paws on a keyboard. The caption read: "On the internet, no one knows you are a dog."
It's very appropriate.
When I see someone giving information about technical matters that is simply so far off the plane of reality, I just feel as though I have to say so. If that person then claims to have a degree in the subject, I'm going to call them on it. Maybe I'm too rough, and some people would then rather take it out on me instead. That's fine, I can take it. It won't be the first time.
But, thanks for your support.
Negative. Melgross is a longtime member and despite the rather caustic remark, he has never posted anything that would lead me to think that he doesn't know what he's talking about. For what it's worth, a degree has never been more than a stamp. There are many ways to learn (and no, I don't own a manufacturing company).
Heh, Melgross has been an expert on every topic he's posted in...ranging from physics to all aspects of computing, manufacturing, materials, hollywood, video production, etc.
When I see someone giving information about technical matters that is simply so far off the plane of reality, I just feel as though I have to say so.
You mean like saying that if you convert 20% of the heat into a system into energy that you don't reduce heat in the system?
Vinea
Heh, Melgross has been an expert on every topic he's posted in...ranging from physics to all aspects of computing, manufacturing, materials, hollywood, video production, etc.
wellwhat I've done covers a lot of areas. you might not like it, but I've had to study a fair number of topics over the years, and others just because they are interesting.
We can all read.
You mean like saying that if you convert 20% of the heat into a system into energy that you don't reduce heat in the system?
I'm saying that the heat is simply being stored as energy, to be released later.
Instead of arguing with someone you don't respect, why don't you read up on thermodynamics instead?
wellwhat I've done covers a lot of areas. you might not like it, but I've had to study a fair number of topics over the years, and others just because they are interesting.
We can all read.
This isn't the first time that someone has said you come off condescending. Whatever your intent I suggest that the problem isn't just with the readers but the writer as well.
In any case, while you have a lot of knowledge in a lot of areas, your condescending tone makes it appear that you claim to be an expert in whatever it is we're talking about.
I'm saying that the heat is simply being stored as energy, to be released later.
Instead of arguing with someone you don't respect, why don't you read up on thermodynamics instead?
No, you said that heat is stored as electrical energy but it would always be re-released as the same amount of heat in the system (ie the process produces zero cooling). This is false.
This is the other aspect of your writings that comes off poorly. The inability to admit that you goofed or aren't an expert in thermodynamics and then try to reword things so you are sorta kinda right. The confusion of conservation of energy with consevation of heat is an indicator that it is you that needs to re-read the laws of thermodynamics.
Caloric theory maintained that heat can't be created or destroyed...just moved around. That is what you "corrected" someone about in that other thread. It's too bad that Caloric theory is incorrect.
This is different from the concept of conservation of energy where heat and mechanical work is interchangable (both forms of energy)...ie the First Law. "The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings". If you use the electricity to run a motor then you've converted it to mechanical work and waste heat but that waste heat will ALWAYS be lower than input heat in that original conversion process.
If you could create work AND generate the same amount of heat then you've just violated the first law with a net energy gain. For whatever reason you refuse to admit that is exactly what you claiming when correcting another poster, you were VERY adamant and appealed to whatever expertise on the subject that you claim to possess (and against the poster that claimed to teach thermodynamics to boot).
What has to be understood, in these conversations, is that eventually ALL of the energy expended is turned back into heat. The heat is merely moved about, and/or released at different times.
...
'm not violating the second law. That's what is happening. It just doesn't RESULT in cooling the unit, because it turns back into heat somewhere else inside.
First, the heat turns into power, which then turns back into heat. Nothing lost, nothing gained in the long run from those particular quanta.
...
It's ticklish. The reason is that all energy ends up as heat, which then has to be removed, or radiated away.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...t=68680&page=2
Those comments are based on the concept of conservation of heat not an understanding of the equivalence of mechanical work and heat in conservation of energy.
I pretty much gave up when you claimed that power density doesn't drive the total power available in a system. At some point you simply get snooty and retire in poor grace when it becomes impossible to hide that you were wrong. Why bother getting to that point again?
It was pretty obvious in that thread that you were wrong. I left it at that. You have some understanding of thermodynamics but misremembered what you knew to the point of blowing the fundamental aspect of the first law.
Vinea
This isn't the first time that someone has said you come off condescending. Whatever your intent I suggest that the problem isn't just with the readers but the writer as well.
I'm pedantic, not condescending. It's a style of writing I get into when conveying information, or responding to particularly egregious "facts". It comes from writing research reports, and manuals for complex equipment that I designed. No one complains in those areas, because everyone there writes that way.
If I write the way some might want me to, I'll sound flippant, and I don't want that.
In any case, while you have a lot of knowledge in a lot of areas, your condescending tone makes it appear that you claim to be an expert in whatever it is we're talking about.
I'm an expert in some, and in others, I'll research before I answer. Isn't that what one is supposed to do?
No, you said that heat is stored as electrical energy but it would always be re-released as the same amount of heat in the system (ie the process produces zero cooling). This is false.
Then explain it! If you say I'm wrong, then you must show why. I try to explain why what I'm saying is correct, and that's what you don't like, because it then comes off as though I'm in lecture mode, which I suppose can't be helped. Now, it's your turn.
This is the other aspect of your writings that comes off poorly. The inability to admit that you goofed or aren't an expert in thermodynamics and then try to reword things so you are sorta kinda right. The confusion of conservation of energy with consevation of heat is an indicator that it is you that needs to re-read the laws of thermodynamics.
I'm not a physics major, but I did minor in it. I'm a member of the AAAS, and the NSF, if that helps. I receive the journals every week, and read as much as I have time for. I try to keep up. My real fields are bio, and psych, but I took a number of various engineering courses. I've been involved in any number of things over the past 35 years. You can learn a lot in that time, if you are interested, meet people, and go to conferences.
Caloric theory maintained that heat can't be created or destroyed...just moved around. That is what you "corrected" someone about in that other thread. It's too bad that Caloric theory is incorrect.
It's interesting that you mentioned that. Caloric is considered to be one of the most successful incorrect theories in the field of physics. By that, I mean that it does explain the effects very well, even though it's wrong.
It's not what I described. Caloric assumes that the heat itself is a force, which it isn't. It assumed that everything had a specific amount of caloric energy, when that ran out, heat would no longer be produced, or rather, leech, out of the object. They simply didn't understand friction. Drilling holes in the barrels of cannons killed the theory.
This is different from the concept of conservation of energy where heat and mechanical work is interchangable (both forms of energy)...ie the First Law. "The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings". If you use the electricity to run a motor then you've converted it to mechanical work and waste heat but that waste heat will ALWAYS be lower than input heat in that original conversion process.
I'm aware of that. Chemical activity is considered to be mechanical energy. You've just said what I've been saying all along. The heat from the cpu, or a small part of it, is turned into chemical potential energy, which is later released as electrical energy, which in order to do work is given off as heat, and it goes round, and round, in ever shrinking cycles.
If you could create work AND generate the same amount of heat then you've just violated the first law with a net energy gain. For whatever reason you refuse to admit that is exactly what you claiming when correcting another poster, you were VERY adamant and appealed to whatever expertise on the subject that you claim to possess (and against the poster that claimed to teach thermodynamics to boot).
But, I never said that. You are saying I said that. What I said, is that in the end, the laws of thermodynamics require that entropy ensures that all devices be less than 100% efficient.
Is that stated more clearly? It means that every time work is performed, the inefficiencies required, cause heat to be radiated. No system is 100% efficient, The inefficiency results in heat. Any surplus energy that is stored will be later used. When it is, it is subject to the laws again, with less energy available, and the rest being given off as heat. Eventually, all of the energy is lost as heat. It's inevitable.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...t=68680&page=2
Those comments are based on the concept of conservation of heat not an understanding of the equivalence of mechanical work and heat in conservation of energy.
I'm not sure which of those statements you are referring to.
I pretty much gave up when you claimed that power density doesn't drive the total power available in a system. At some point you simply get snooty and retire in poor grace when it becomes impossible to hide that you were wrong. Why bother getting to that point again?
Again, I didn't say that. I don't even know what that statement you just made is supposed to mean.
What I said, is that high power density in a laboratory device doesn't mean that they can easily build a device that can produce a good amount of power, which is entirely different. I then described some methods.
It was pretty obvious in that thread that you were wrong. I left it at that. You have some understanding of thermodynamics but misremembered what you knew to the point of blowing the fundamental aspect of the first law.
Vinea
Obvious to you maybe, but not to those who understand it. I said nothing wrong. Your statements are simply incorrect.
But, you know, there was a good cartoon in the mid '90's about the internet, and the problems that have entered discussions like this.
A dog was standing on a chair with its front paws on a keyboard. The caption read: "On the internet, no one knows you are a dog."
It's very appropriate.
Just an aside, but there was a Dilbert strip like that. For all I know, there may be others.
From his first post bringing up Fiberglas, "IF anyone wanted to use ceramics as structural materials, they'd have to put some kind of a mesh (maybe like a fiberglass matrix) in it. A metal mesh--of course--would defeat the purpose of the material choice." Sounds to me like he was writing exactly that.
You are correct.
Heh, Melgross has been an expert on every topic he's posted in...ranging from physics to all aspects of computing, manufacturing, materials, hollywood, video production, etc.
Vinea
Thank you. That's exactly the vibe I got.
Just an aside, but there was a Dilbert strip like that. For all I know, there may be others.
Probably, it was so iconic.
You are correct.
But, not the time I commented on it.
Then explain it! If you say I'm wrong, then you must show why. I try to explain why what I'm saying is correct, and that's what you don't like, because it then comes off as though I'm in lecture mode, which I suppose can't be helped. Now, it's your turn.
I just did. Your argument that you can convert heat into electricity which is then used to perform work results in the same amount of heat in the system (i.e. no cooling) violates the first law.
I specifically quoted those lines where you clearly say no cooling occurs and heat cannot be lost.
I'm not a physics major, but I did minor in it. I'm a member of the AAAS, and the NSF, if that helps.
You're a member of the NSF? A federal agency? Are you claiming to be on the National Science Board? Or a member of a review panel? As far as the AAAS, anyone can join and Science magazine is a great magazine.
Want to claim Mensa and NASA as well? Claiming NASA makes almost as much sense as the NSF. Mensa at least has some entry requirements...
It's interesting that you mentioned that. Caloric is considered to be one of the most successful incorrect theories in the field of physics. By that, I mean that it does explain the effects very well, even though it's wrong.
However, the basic tenet is wrong. You know...the part you kept repeating...
It's not what I described. Caloric assumes that the heat itself is a force, which it isn't. It assumed that everything had a specific amount of caloric energy, when that ran out, heat would no longer be produced, or rather, leech, out of the object. They simply didn't understand friction. Drilling holes in the barrels of cannons killed the theory.
An underpinning of the Caloric theory was the conservation of heat, which is what you described. This basic foundation of the theory was shown false and evolved into the theory of conservation of energy.
I'm aware of that. Chemical activity is considered to be mechanical energy. You've just said what I've been saying all along. The heat from the cpu, or a small part of it, is turned into chemical potential energy, which is later released as electrical energy, which in order to do work is given off as heat, and it goes round, and round, in ever shrinking cycles.
Mechanical energy and work are two related but different concepts. A system has mechanical energy. Mechanical work is the amount of mechanical energy gained or lost. Chemical energy (not sure exactly what you mean by activity) is not mechanical energy. Chemical reactions can transform chemical energy into other forms...like electrical, mechanical or even heat.
Going back to the original equation the energy in the system is equal to the heat minus the work performed on the environment. In the discussion 20% of the heat is captured by the thermal diode and converted to electrical energy which is then used to perform mechanical work which is NOT the same as heat. They are two different variables in the equation. The inefficiency of the electric motor produces waste heat along with the mechanical work. However the mechanical work is the amount of mechanical energy that departs the system (i.e. the fan imparts kinetic energy to the air).
But, I never said that. You are saying I said that. What I said, is that in the end, the laws of thermodynamics require that entropy ensures that all devices be less than 100% efficient.
Of course you just said that. It's in the QUOTED TEXT. You simply choose not to understand the implications of your original statement because then it is obvious that you are wrong. You state the conversion of heat to electrical energy cannot cause cooling because whatever work you perform results in the same amount of heat in the system.
The point about 100% efficiency is meaningless in this context...the efficiency determines how much waste heat you end up with in addition to the work. Not that you end up with the same amount of heat in the system (i.e. no cooling which is your assertion).
Is that stated more clearly? It means that every time work is performed, the inefficiencies required, cause heat to be radiated. No system is 100% efficient, The inefficiency results in heat. Any surplus energy that is stored will be later used. When it is, it is subject to the laws again, with less energy available, and the rest being given off as heat. Eventually, all of the energy is lost as heat. It's inevitable.
And yet it is not inevitable in the laptop which is an open system. Energy can be transformed into mechanical work that imparts kinetic energy on air molecules (ie the fan). Likewise it can generate light (radiant energy) which is NOT heat but can be converted to heat via absorbtion but might not in its entirety (like in solar cells).
These other forms of energy are NOT heat even if they can be converted into heat (friction, absorbtion, etc). And it doesn't matter that the transfer of this energy is not 100% and some waste heat is generated. It is still less than the original heat (20% of the total heat) that was converted into electricity.
I'm not sure which of those statements you are referring to.
All of them. In each one you assert that no cooling can occur.
Again, I didn't say that. I don't even know what that statement you just made is supposed to mean.
What I said, is that high power density in a laboratory device doesn't mean that they can easily build a device that can produce a good amount of power, which is entirely different. I then described some methods.
Oh for crying out loud. That's not what you said at all:
Power density is not the same as total power. One atom of anti-matter, plus one atom of matter, has the highest known power density in the universe, but one atom of that, plus one atom of matter brought together, still makes for a very small amount of power.
For a given volume/mass the power density determines the upper limit of the total power. Low power density storage mechanisms means lower total power. Lithium power cells do have higher power densities than other batteries but are still lower in power density than either (some) fuel cells OR the thermal diode based power packs (in theory). This is why the interest in high power density fuel cells and this potential energy system which both have higher possible total power capability than Li-Ion or LiPo.
Does that mean that they will be successful? No, but your example of matter/anti-matter clearly shows that you aren't talking about the difficulties of translating potential capability into a mass produced power source but a misunderstanding of the subject.
If you have a matter-antimatter power source the same size as a laptop battery you damn well betcha it has an assload of total power as a consequence of the power density.
Obvious to you maybe, but not to those who understand it. I said nothing wrong. Your statements are simply incorrect.
Riiight. You can reword here all you like but your original statements still exist in the other thread. It's simply bizzare that you wish to convert what was a simple mis-remembered concept that is easily forgotten when you admit "Gee, I guess I mis-remembered that" into this huge debacle on your reputation as the Authority on Everything.
The really funny thing was you spent all that time "talking about" (poo-pooing) a technology that you didn't even bother to go to the original source (i.e. the company) to see what they claimed and why. They had numerous papers (some in peer reviewed journals) describing what they had discovered and what their intentions were. But hey, your personal vast experience and expertise must be far more relevant than what the inventors say...
Vinea