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.
This has become a pointless argument, I explain myself, and you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
Quote:
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.
I've been a member of the National Science Foundation since I was on the staff of the Museum of Natural History in the early 1970's. You don't have to be on a board to be a member.
Quote:
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...
The problem here, is that, as usual, you are being very silly.
Quote:
However, the basic tenet is wrong. You know...the part you kept repeating...
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.
No, not conservation of heat. Conservation of energy, which is released as heat when used. That's two different things.
Quote:
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.
Simply put, it's the equivalence principle.
Quote:
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).
This is where we seem to have most of our problems. Yes. What you said is correct. It's also what I said. But, you don't realise that. I just took it one step further which is where the problem seems to be coming from. The only difference is that I pointed out that the energy stored in the battery from the conversion device will be less than the energy taken out originally, therefore, there will be a diminushing cycle, unless more energy is supplied from the outside, i.e. the battery itself.
Quote:
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.
What I've said is that the process in and of itself does not provide cooling, yes. The other circuits in the machine add enough heating to the process that no cooling occurs, except for that the fans eliminate.
I'm saying that in the LONG run, no cooling occurs, because as energy is used, heat is produced.
In the short term as some of that heat is absorbed, and converted to electricity some local cooling will be seen. But it is minor. The electricity that has been produced by this method is now stored back in the battery from whence it came. As that is used, the process repeats. I don't see the problem here. I'm finding that I have to be more specific than I thought I would have to be, because this is implied.
Quote:
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).
I honestly don't know when I have to tell you something. If I don't say something, because I assume that you know it, you say that I was wrong, because I didn't say it. If I do say something to make an issue cleared, just in case I think you might misinterpet what I've otherwise said, you say I didn't have to say it.
What bothers me the most though, is that I have this feeling that we are not really far apart here, except for semantics.
Quote:
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).
Infrared is being produced here.
[/quote]
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]
Those are not actually heat. They are descriptions of little understood actions that produce heat. Friction, for example, is still being debated.
Quote:
All of them. In each one you assert that no cooling can occur.
I'm talking about the long term situation. I've made that clear.
Quote:
Oh for crying out loud. That's not what you said at all:
Yes, I did.
Quote:
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.
I'm not arguing this! It's the same thing I said! You seem to parse my words. I said that it's difficult to make a small, high density, power supply. I also said that the highest density power supply might not contain the highest amount of total power, because they might not be able to make one that would, for a computer.
Of course, the higher density the power supply has, given the same cubic volume, the higher total power it can contain. What I've said, and implied, is that they haven't been able to bring a power supply to market for a computer as yet, using the highest known power density. Though I did mention that Toshiba, or another company, announced that they hoped to have one soon. What's the beef?
Quote:
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.
I simply mentioned that, because it is the highest known energy density system possible, given known physics, and that attempting to make a power source out of it is thought to be impractical.
Quote:
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.
And my original statements are correct as well, even if I seem to have to explain them in more detail to you as time goes on.
Quote:
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
You're wrong there as well. I did read what they said, and some other bits as well. They aren't making the claims for their technology that you are. They are more modest.
as far as I'm concerned, this is it. We are not going anywhere with this.
I'll follow your lead as you did that in another argument with me a while ago.
This has become a pointless argument, I explain myself, and you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
The problem is what you are saying is wrong.
Quote:
I've been a member of the National Science Foundation since I was on the staff of the Museum of Natural History in the early 1970's. You don't have to be on a board to be a member.
Sorry but you're claiming to be a "member" of a Federal Agency. Its not like the AAAS or the IEEE. The only public "members" are those of the prestigious NSB and folks that participate on review boards. Other folks are employees. So you are either a) mistaken, b) a prestigious member of the scientific community or c) lying.
If you are referring to the Museum of Natural History in DC then you could be a member of the Smithsonian Institution. Big deal, so am I.
Quote:
No, not conservation of heat. Conservation of energy, which is released as heat when used. That's two different things.
Yes, it IS two different things. And you persist in getting it wrong...*sigh*
Quote:
Simply put, it's the equivalence principle.
Yes but saying that Chemical Energy is Mechanical Energy is wrong.
Quote:
This is where we seem to have most of our problems. Yes. What you said is correct. It's also what I said. But, you don't realise that. I just took it one step further which is where the problem seems to be coming from. The only difference is that I pointed out that the energy stored in the battery from the conversion device will be less than the energy taken out originally, therefore, there will be a diminushing cycle, unless more energy is supplied from the outside, i.e. the battery itself.
No the problem is that you say that cooling doesn't occur. Its an open system, cooling CAN occur. That whole battery issue is due to your misunderstanding that one end goal for the technology is to provide total power for the system by heading the thermal diode with a burner. That by the way ISN'T a fuel cell as you claim.
Quote:
What I've said is that the process in and of itself does not provide cooling, yes. The other circuits in the machine add enough heating to the process that no cooling occurs, except for that the fans eliminate.
Again...you are saying that you can perform work without reducing the amount of heat in the system resulting in a net energy gain.
Quote:
I'm saying that in the LONG run, no cooling occurs, because as energy is used, heat is produced.
Long run, short run cooling occurs. While SOME heat is produced when the electrical energy is used it is NEVER the same amount of heat that you used to generate that electrical energy. How does that translate into no cooling?
Quote:
In the short term as some of that heat is absorbed, and converted to electricity some local cooling will be seen. But it is minor.
Of course its minor...its 20%.
Quote:
The electricity that has been produced by this method is now stored back in the battery from whence it came. As that is used, the process repeats. I don't see the problem here. I'm finding that I have to be more specific than I thought I would have to be, because this is implied.
I honestly don't know when I have to tell you something. If I don't say something, because I assume that you know it, you say that I was wrong, because I didn't say it. If I do say something to make an issue cleared, just in case I think you might misinterpet what I've otherwise said, you say I didn't have to say it.
Because this part has zero to do with your assertion that no cooling occurs. That the system cannot generate more power than was used is immaterial. Whether its stored in a battery or used directly to drive the fans is immaterial.
Quote:
What bothers me the most though, is that I have this feeling that we are not really far apart here, except for semantics.
We couldn't be more far apart. You say cooling cannot occur. I disagree.
Quote:
Infrared is being produced here.
Radiant energy is being produced. Some in the visible spectrum some in the infrared. Neither is heat.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Those are not actually heat. They are descriptions of little understood actions that produce heat. Friction, for example, is still being debated.
What? I just said they weren't heat. They are energy and they are well enough understood for the purposes of discussions at this level.
Quote:
I'm talking about the long term situation. I've made that clear.
Long term, short term is immaterial. Yes, if you take the total universe (as a closed system) total entropy will always increase. A laptop is not a closed system but an open one.
Quote:
Yes, I did.
Where in that statement do you EVER talk about manufacturing difficulties? You state simply that power density has no bearing on total power and gave a bogus example where a power source with very high density results in very low total power because you reduce the volume/mass to one atom!
Quote:
I'm not arguing this! It's the same thing I said! You seem to parse my words. I said that it's difficult to make a small, high density, power supply. I also said that the highest density power supply might not contain the highest amount of total power, because they might not be able to make one that would, for a computer.
ROFL. You reduced it to ONE atom. Not said, we can't build one.
Quote:
Of course, the higher density the power supply has, given the same cubic volume, the higher total power it can contain. What I've said, and implied, is that they haven't been able to bring a power supply to market for a computer as yet, using the highest known power density. Though I did mention that Toshiba, or another company, announced that they hoped to have one soon. What's the beef?
So you're saying that Toshiba hopes to create a matter/anti-matter power supply for laptops? What crack are you smoking?
Quote:
I simply mentioned that, because it is the highest known energy density system possible, given known physics, and that attempting to make a power source out of it is thought to be impractical.
Didn't you just say in the preceeding paragraph that you believed that Toshiba is coming out with one? I assume that you mean fuel cells but should the thermal diode pan out it should have higher power density than fuel cells.
Quote:
And my original statements are correct as well, even if I seem to have to explain them in more detail to you as time goes on.
More detail doesn't change the fact that your underlying assertion is incorrect.
Quote:
You're wrong there as well. I did read what they said, and some other bits as well. They aren't making the claims for their technology that you are. They are more modest.
Why do you persist in making statements that are easily disproved.
as far as I'm concerned, this is it. We are not going anywhere with this.
I'll follow your lead as you did that in another argument with me a while ago.
Of course. You claim expertise but when shown to be wrong you dodge like crazy for a while trying to change history (which given that we can quote exactly what you say is pretty danged tough) trying to outlast your opponent. Sometimes it works. Sometimes not.
If those balls can last e.g. a 4 meter drop and the pressure that results from a person, weighing 85kg, landing on them, then they must be made to last.
They aren't made of zirconia though. And the fact that those balls are ball shaped makes them little different from the casing of new nano.
Just my 5 cents (there are no 2 cent coins in Finland, so I can't give two. ).
I think Mel is actually the first Google-created Artificial Intelligence that managed to somehow escape from Google's Labs... "Somehow...life finds a way." (y'know I'm just messin' with ya, Mel)
How would such a material handle the RF/radiation that electronic devices create?
Would they have to build in a Faraday Cage?
i don't think most plastic is a great insulator anyway, though it causes enough problems with wireless transmissions to get in the way.
iirc the G4 Cube had 2 ceramic discs in the sides of it that were for the WiFi antenna. that was not zirconia (that i know of), but it might be some insight that Apple has been working with some sort of ceramics in relation to WiFi for more than 6.5 years for sure.
the possibility of strengthening it could relate too the structure inside. as long as it is not brittle (hard but inflexible, think almost like glass) then it could be supported the Powerbooks have been make of relatively thin sheets of aluminum or titanium and were just well supported. maybe they are thinking about a lid for a laptop that will not have antenna issues? a Mac Mini or iMac that should not be subjected to the same abuse as an iPod. who knows. it may turn out to be nothing. these days you have to get patents just in case though.
if nothing else, (iphone rumors aside) phone companies might jump on this as a structural option. that fact that you MAKE this ceramic as opposed to finding a piece of wood is an area where a patent may work. i don't know. i won't pretend to think that whole department has made sense for a long time now.
Many people in the forum misunderstood the deep difference between the traditional ceramics and the functional ceramics. The functional ceramics are advanced materials with high mechanical, electrical... physical capabilities. The functional ceramics is designed in the nanoscale and all the surrounding physics is studied to enhace the material properties. We can consider, for example, the thermal barrier coatings of a turbine palette, which are in columnar zirconia yttria or the allumina-zirconia femoral heads. For more info you can visit the CeramTec site or the Kyocera site.
Sorry but you're claiming to be a "member" of a Federal Agency. Its not like the AAAS or the IEEE. The only public "members" are those of the prestigious NSB and folks that participate on review boards. Other folks are employees. So you are either a) mistaken, b) a prestigious member of the scientific community or c) lying.
If you are referring to the Museum of Natural History in DC then you could be a member of the Smithsonian Institution. Big deal, so am I.
Yes, it IS two different things. And you persist in getting it wrong...*sigh*
Yes but saying that Chemical Energy is Mechanical Energy is wrong.
No the problem is that you say that cooling doesn't occur. Its an open system, cooling CAN occur. That whole battery issue is due to your misunderstanding that one end goal for the technology is to provide total power for the system by heading the thermal diode with a burner. That by the way ISN'T a fuel cell as you claim.
Again...you are saying that you can perform work without reducing the amount of heat in the system resulting in a net energy gain.
Long run, short run cooling occurs. While SOME heat is produced when the electrical energy is used it is NEVER the same amount of heat that you used to generate that electrical energy. How does that translate into no cooling?
Of course its minor...its 20%.
Because this part has zero to do with your assertion that no cooling occurs. That the system cannot generate more power than was used is immaterial. Whether its stored in a battery or used directly to drive the fans is immaterial.
We couldn't be more far apart. You say cooling cannot occur. I disagree.
Radiant energy is being produced. Some in the visible spectrum some in the infrared. Neither is heat.
What? I just said they weren't heat. They are energy and they are well enough understood for the purposes of discussions at this level.
Long term, short term is immaterial. Yes, if you take the total universe (as a closed system) total entropy will always increase. A laptop is not a closed system but an open one.
Where in that statement do you EVER talk about manufacturing difficulties? You state simply that power density has no bearing on total power and gave a bogus example where a power source with very high density results in very low total power because you reduce the volume/mass to one atom!
ROFL. You reduced it to ONE atom. Not said, we can't build one.
So you're saying that Toshiba hopes to create a matter/anti-matter power supply for laptops? What crack are you smoking?
Didn't you just say in the preceeding paragraph that you believed that Toshiba is coming out with one? I assume that you mean fuel cells but should the thermal diode pan out it should have higher power density than fuel cells.
More detail doesn't change the fact that your underlying assertion is incorrect.
Why do you persist in making statements that are easily disproved.
Of course. You claim expertise but when shown to be wrong you dodge like crazy for a while trying to change history (which given that we can quote exactly what you say is pretty danged tough) trying to outlast your opponent. Sometimes it works. Sometimes not.
I think Mel is actually the first Google-created Artificial Intelligence that managed to somehow escape from Google's Labs... "Somehow...life finds a way." (y'know I'm just messin' with ya, Mel)
The only problem is that we have to interact with some non-intelligent intelligences.\
I see a lot of replies of people that don't know the new ceramic materials. Apple wants to apply for a patent for a material called Zirconiumoxide (ZrO2).
I work for a manufacturer of aesthetical ceramics, we produce zirconiumoxide for the high end watch industry and luxury cell phone applications. (www.chanel.com (J12) and www.vertu.com).
Ceramics are stronger than most people think and it has been used in the watch industry for more then 20 years. If it would be very fragile it would never have survived 20 years in the high end watches. We also apply it in dental applications for artificial teeth.
In our processes we use injection moulding and we can make very complex shapes in ceramic. Available colours are : black, white, pink, blue, green, brown and grey. Other colours are under develpoment, if any body knows pigments that survive temperatures upto 1500 degrees C we are interested.
If you want to know more about aestehtical ceramics, you can check out our website www.formatec.nl. Feel free to contact me if you have detailed questions.
Originally Posted by Formatec Aestehtical Ceramics
I see a lot of replies of people that don't know the new ceramic materials. Apple wants to apply for a patent for a material called Zirconiumoxide (ZrO2).
I work for a manufacturer of aesthetical ceramics, we produce zirconiumoxide for the high end watch industry and luxury cell phone applications. (www.chanel.com (J12) and www.vertu.com).
Ceramics are stronger than most people think and it has been used in the watch industry for more then 20 years. If it would be very fragile it would never have survived 20 years in the high end watches. We also apply it in dental applications for artificial teeth.
In our processes we use injection moulding and we can make very complex shapes in ceramic. Available colours are : black, white, pink, blue, green, brown and grey. Other colours are under develpoment, if any body knows pigments that survive temperatures upto 1500 degrees C we are interested.
If you want to know more about aestehtical ceramics, you can check out our website www.formatec.nl. Feel free to contact me if you have detailed questions.
Keep it civil. Or else. I'll have no more personal attacks from either of yo.. I mean any of you. No matter what your opinion of the other person, Ad Hominemseses are right out of the question. Cut it out - Please and Thank You.
Oh, and can someone PM me when we establish the Truth(tm), the Nature of All Things(tm) and whether or not the new iPhone is going to be reinforced with re-bar?
I remembered this patent and ran into AI's article upon searching.
I've seen no mention of it since the Macworld Keynote but there were rumblings of the iPhone having a zirconia screen. Is this it and does it mean we can look forward to significant scratch protection on not only the iPhone but the widescreen video iPod as well?
I remembered this patent and ran into AI's article upon searching.
I've seen no mention of it since the Macworld Keynote but there were rumblings of the iPhone having a zirconia screen. Is this it and does it mean we can look forward to significant scratch protection on not only the iPhone but the widescreen video iPod as well?
I've seen no mention of it since the Macworld Keynote but there were rumblings of the iPhone having a zirconia screen. Is this it and does it mean we can look forward to significant scratch protection on not only the iPhone but the widescreen video iPod as well?
I think David Pogue said that the screen cover is still polycarbonate, but with a new coating for the touch interface, and hopefully that coating greatly improves scratch resistance.
Again...you are saying that you can perform work without reducing the amount of heat in the system resulting in a net energy gain.
Long run, short run cooling occurs. While SOME heat is produced when the electrical energy is used it is NEVER the same amount of heat that you used to generate that electrical energy. How does that translate into no cooling?
Radiant energy is being produced. Some in the visible spectrum some in the infrared. Neither is heat.
What? I just said they weren't heat. They are energy and they are well enough understood for the purposes of discussions at this level.
Long term, short term is immaterial. Yes, if you take the total universe (as a closed system) total entropy will always increase. A laptop is not a closed system but an open one.
You fucken retarded liar! Heat (Q) is the flow or shift of ènèrgy (E). So by definition any process like radiation is heat. What you're loosly a'blathering about is warmth (U, internal ènèrgy), whereas hotness (T, temperature?more like calitud) is one of the states that determin how a heat engin works.
And the twoth law is bunk. Èntròpy cannot grow in a shut sustem because that destroys information. It is in open sustems that èntròpy grows. Equilibrium is never reached because the nouhth law is bunk; when two sustems A and B or B and C interact, they become sustems A' and B' or B' and C'; they no longer can be matched to C or A in another measurement in a well-behavede state function.
There is nothing wrong with caloric. Caloric is the mass-shift in heat.
And flògistòn is the Lewis base.
And the aithèr is the field.
melgross should talk down tom others, who are posers. And one should not be civil. Has the moderator any clue how harmful to the truthe civility is? How shitty the common person's understanding and beliefs are, due to one's "niceness"??where "nice" is Latin and short for "nescient". Ye (vinea, mod, WTFK) are wrong. And WTFK is a educated doof: Sedimentary and mètamòrfic stone (chalk and concrete) are not cèramic, which is igneose. So, yes, what you said was misleading and wrong. However, what melgross said about cèramics was a common mischaracterisation: They are not always crustalline, and it is from their crustal structure that they get their brittelness. As a glass, they would not be shatterprone. (Window glass shatters at crustal defects, not amòrfic defects, which is why their shards come in straiht lines.)
Comments
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.
This has become a pointless argument, I explain myself, and you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
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.
I've been a member of the National Science Foundation since I was on the staff of the Museum of Natural History in the early 1970's. You don't have to be on a board to be a member.
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...
The problem here, is that, as usual, you are being very silly.
However, the basic tenet is wrong. You know...the part you kept repeating...
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.
No, not conservation of heat. Conservation of energy, which is released as heat when used. That's two different things.
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.
Simply put, it's the equivalence principle.
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).
This is where we seem to have most of our problems. Yes. What you said is correct. It's also what I said. But, you don't realise that. I just took it one step further which is where the problem seems to be coming from. The only difference is that I pointed out that the energy stored in the battery from the conversion device will be less than the energy taken out originally, therefore, there will be a diminushing cycle, unless more energy is supplied from the outside, i.e. the battery itself.
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.
What I've said is that the process in and of itself does not provide cooling, yes. The other circuits in the machine add enough heating to the process that no cooling occurs, except for that the fans eliminate.
I'm saying that in the LONG run, no cooling occurs, because as energy is used, heat is produced.
In the short term as some of that heat is absorbed, and converted to electricity some local cooling will be seen. But it is minor. The electricity that has been produced by this method is now stored back in the battery from whence it came. As that is used, the process repeats. I don't see the problem here. I'm finding that I have to be more specific than I thought I would have to be, because this is implied.
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).
I honestly don't know when I have to tell you something. If I don't say something, because I assume that you know it, you say that I was wrong, because I didn't say it. If I do say something to make an issue cleared, just in case I think you might misinterpet what I've otherwise said, you say I didn't have to say it.
What bothers me the most though, is that I have this feeling that we are not really far apart here, except for semantics.
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).
Infrared is being produced here.
[/quote]
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]
Those are not actually heat. They are descriptions of little understood actions that produce heat. Friction, for example, is still being debated.
All of them. In each one you assert that no cooling can occur.
I'm talking about the long term situation. I've made that clear.
Oh for crying out loud. That's not what you said at all:
Yes, I did.
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.
I'm not arguing this! It's the same thing I said! You seem to parse my words. I said that it's difficult to make a small, high density, power supply. I also said that the highest density power supply might not contain the highest amount of total power, because they might not be able to make one that would, for a computer.
Of course, the higher density the power supply has, given the same cubic volume, the higher total power it can contain. What I've said, and implied, is that they haven't been able to bring a power supply to market for a computer as yet, using the highest known power density. Though I did mention that Toshiba, or another company, announced that they hoped to have one soon. What's the beef?
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.
I simply mentioned that, because it is the highest known energy density system possible, given known physics, and that attempting to make a power source out of it is thought to be impractical.
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.
And my original statements are correct as well, even if I seem to have to explain them in more detail to you as time goes on.
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
You're wrong there as well. I did read what they said, and some other bits as well. They aren't making the claims for their technology that you are. They are more modest.
as far as I'm concerned, this is it. We are not going anywhere with this.
I'll follow your lead as you did that in another argument with me a while ago.
This has become a pointless argument, I explain myself, and you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
The problem is what you are saying is wrong.
I've been a member of the National Science Foundation since I was on the staff of the Museum of Natural History in the early 1970's. You don't have to be on a board to be a member.
Sorry but you're claiming to be a "member" of a Federal Agency. Its not like the AAAS or the IEEE. The only public "members" are those of the prestigious NSB and folks that participate on review boards. Other folks are employees. So you are either a) mistaken, b) a prestigious member of the scientific community or c) lying.
If you are referring to the Museum of Natural History in DC then you could be a member of the Smithsonian Institution. Big deal, so am I.
No, not conservation of heat. Conservation of energy, which is released as heat when used. That's two different things.
Yes, it IS two different things. And you persist in getting it wrong...*sigh*
Simply put, it's the equivalence principle.
Yes but saying that Chemical Energy is Mechanical Energy is wrong.
This is where we seem to have most of our problems. Yes. What you said is correct. It's also what I said. But, you don't realise that. I just took it one step further which is where the problem seems to be coming from. The only difference is that I pointed out that the energy stored in the battery from the conversion device will be less than the energy taken out originally, therefore, there will be a diminushing cycle, unless more energy is supplied from the outside, i.e. the battery itself.
No the problem is that you say that cooling doesn't occur. Its an open system, cooling CAN occur. That whole battery issue is due to your misunderstanding that one end goal for the technology is to provide total power for the system by heading the thermal diode with a burner. That by the way ISN'T a fuel cell as you claim.
What I've said is that the process in and of itself does not provide cooling, yes. The other circuits in the machine add enough heating to the process that no cooling occurs, except for that the fans eliminate.
Again...you are saying that you can perform work without reducing the amount of heat in the system resulting in a net energy gain.
I'm saying that in the LONG run, no cooling occurs, because as energy is used, heat is produced.
Long run, short run cooling occurs. While SOME heat is produced when the electrical energy is used it is NEVER the same amount of heat that you used to generate that electrical energy. How does that translate into no cooling?
In the short term as some of that heat is absorbed, and converted to electricity some local cooling will be seen. But it is minor.
Of course its minor...its 20%.
The electricity that has been produced by this method is now stored back in the battery from whence it came. As that is used, the process repeats. I don't see the problem here. I'm finding that I have to be more specific than I thought I would have to be, because this is implied.
I honestly don't know when I have to tell you something. If I don't say something, because I assume that you know it, you say that I was wrong, because I didn't say it. If I do say something to make an issue cleared, just in case I think you might misinterpet what I've otherwise said, you say I didn't have to say it.
Because this part has zero to do with your assertion that no cooling occurs. That the system cannot generate more power than was used is immaterial. Whether its stored in a battery or used directly to drive the fans is immaterial.
What bothers me the most though, is that I have this feeling that we are not really far apart here, except for semantics.
We couldn't be more far apart. You say cooling cannot occur. I disagree.
Infrared is being produced here.
Radiant energy is being produced. Some in the visible spectrum some in the infrared. Neither is heat.
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.
Those are not actually heat. They are descriptions of little understood actions that produce heat. Friction, for example, is still being debated.
What? I just said they weren't heat. They are energy and they are well enough understood for the purposes of discussions at this level.
I'm talking about the long term situation. I've made that clear.
Long term, short term is immaterial. Yes, if you take the total universe (as a closed system) total entropy will always increase. A laptop is not a closed system but an open one.
Yes, I did.
Where in that statement do you EVER talk about manufacturing difficulties? You state simply that power density has no bearing on total power and gave a bogus example where a power source with very high density results in very low total power because you reduce the volume/mass to one atom!
I'm not arguing this! It's the same thing I said! You seem to parse my words. I said that it's difficult to make a small, high density, power supply. I also said that the highest density power supply might not contain the highest amount of total power, because they might not be able to make one that would, for a computer.
ROFL. You reduced it to ONE atom. Not said, we can't build one.
Of course, the higher density the power supply has, given the same cubic volume, the higher total power it can contain. What I've said, and implied, is that they haven't been able to bring a power supply to market for a computer as yet, using the highest known power density. Though I did mention that Toshiba, or another company, announced that they hoped to have one soon. What's the beef?
So you're saying that Toshiba hopes to create a matter/anti-matter power supply for laptops? What crack are you smoking?
I simply mentioned that, because it is the highest known energy density system possible, given known physics, and that attempting to make a power source out of it is thought to be impractical.
Didn't you just say in the preceeding paragraph that you believed that Toshiba is coming out with one? I assume that you mean fuel cells but should the thermal diode pan out it should have higher power density than fuel cells.
And my original statements are correct as well, even if I seem to have to explain them in more detail to you as time goes on.
More detail doesn't change the fact that your underlying assertion is incorrect.
You're wrong there as well. I did read what they said, and some other bits as well. They aren't making the claims for their technology that you are. They are more modest.
Why do you persist in making statements that are easily disproved.
http://www.eneco.com/app_ppc.html
as far as I'm concerned, this is it. We are not going anywhere with this.
I'll follow your lead as you did that in another argument with me a while ago.
Of course. You claim expertise but when shown to be wrong you dodge like crazy for a while trying to change history (which given that we can quote exactly what you say is pretty danged tough) trying to outlast your opponent. Sometimes it works. Sometimes not.
Vinea
Would they have to build in a Faraday Cage?
egregious |??gri?d??s| adjective 1 outstandingly bad; shocking : egregious abuses of copyright. 2 archaic remarkably good.
if you are going to be pedantic and dont wish to be misunderstood, mayhap you try not to use words that have two opposite meanings.
perhaps everyone should step back post a few rolls eyes smilies and say that the zoon is brown LIKE POO!!!11!
Bones Swiss Ceramics (bearings)
If those balls can last e.g. a 4 meter drop and the pressure that results from a person, weighing 85kg, landing on them, then they must be made to last.
They aren't made of zirconia though. And the fact that those balls are ball shaped
Just my 5 cents (there are no 2 cent coins in Finland, so I can't give two.
Thank you. That's exactly the vibe I got.
I think Mel is actually the first Google-created Artificial Intelligence that managed to somehow escape from Google's Labs... "Somehow...life finds a way."
How would such a material handle the RF/radiation that electronic devices create?
Would they have to build in a Faraday Cage?
i don't think most plastic is a great insulator anyway, though it causes enough problems with wireless transmissions to get in the way.
iirc the G4 Cube had 2 ceramic discs in the sides of it that were for the WiFi antenna. that was not zirconia (that i know of), but it might be some insight that Apple has been working with some sort of ceramics in relation to WiFi for more than 6.5 years for sure.
here's a not so great pic of them: http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q...be-airport.jpg
the possibility of strengthening it could relate too the structure inside. as long as it is not brittle (hard but inflexible, think almost like glass) then it could be supported the Powerbooks have been make of relatively thin sheets of aluminum or titanium and were just well supported. maybe they are thinking about a lid for a laptop that will not have antenna issues? a Mac Mini or iMac that should not be subjected to the same abuse as an iPod. who knows. it may turn out to be nothing. these days you have to get patents just in case though.
if nothing else, (iphone rumors aside) phone companies might jump on this as a structural option. that fact that you MAKE this ceramic as opposed to finding a piece of wood is an area where a patent may work. i don't know. i won't pretend to think that whole department has made sense for a long time now.
The problem is what you are saying is wrong.
Sorry but you're claiming to be a "member" of a Federal Agency. Its not like the AAAS or the IEEE. The only public "members" are those of the prestigious NSB and folks that participate on review boards. Other folks are employees. So you are either a) mistaken, b) a prestigious member of the scientific community or c) lying.
If you are referring to the Museum of Natural History in DC then you could be a member of the Smithsonian Institution. Big deal, so am I.
Yes, it IS two different things. And you persist in getting it wrong...*sigh*
Yes but saying that Chemical Energy is Mechanical Energy is wrong.
No the problem is that you say that cooling doesn't occur. Its an open system, cooling CAN occur. That whole battery issue is due to your misunderstanding that one end goal for the technology is to provide total power for the system by heading the thermal diode with a burner. That by the way ISN'T a fuel cell as you claim.
Again...you are saying that you can perform work without reducing the amount of heat in the system resulting in a net energy gain.
Long run, short run cooling occurs. While SOME heat is produced when the electrical energy is used it is NEVER the same amount of heat that you used to generate that electrical energy. How does that translate into no cooling?
Of course its minor...its 20%.
Because this part has zero to do with your assertion that no cooling occurs. That the system cannot generate more power than was used is immaterial. Whether its stored in a battery or used directly to drive the fans is immaterial.
We couldn't be more far apart. You say cooling cannot occur. I disagree.
Radiant energy is being produced. Some in the visible spectrum some in the infrared. Neither is heat.
What? I just said they weren't heat. They are energy and they are well enough understood for the purposes of discussions at this level.
Long term, short term is immaterial. Yes, if you take the total universe (as a closed system) total entropy will always increase. A laptop is not a closed system but an open one.
Where in that statement do you EVER talk about manufacturing difficulties? You state simply that power density has no bearing on total power and gave a bogus example where a power source with very high density results in very low total power because you reduce the volume/mass to one atom!
ROFL. You reduced it to ONE atom. Not said, we can't build one.
So you're saying that Toshiba hopes to create a matter/anti-matter power supply for laptops? What crack are you smoking?
Didn't you just say in the preceeding paragraph that you believed that Toshiba is coming out with one? I assume that you mean fuel cells but should the thermal diode pan out it should have higher power density than fuel cells.
More detail doesn't change the fact that your underlying assertion is incorrect.
Why do you persist in making statements that are easily disproved.
http://www.eneco.com/app_ppc.html
Of course. You claim expertise but when shown to be wrong you dodge like crazy for a while trying to change history (which given that we can quote exactly what you say is pretty danged tough) trying to outlast your opponent. Sometimes it works. Sometimes not.
Vinea
I'm happy if you're happy.
Mel
egregious |??gri?d??s| adjective 1 outstandingly bad; shocking : egregious abuses of copyright. 2 archaic remarkably good.
if you are going to be pedantic and dont wish to be misunderstood, mayhap you try not to use words that have two opposite meanings.
perhaps everyone should step back post a few rolls eyes smilies and say that the zoon is brown LIKE POO!!!11!
That can be a problem. We can choose to either use the currently accepted meaning, or we can find a secondary, or even an archaic one.
I think Mel is actually the first Google-created Artificial Intelligence that managed to somehow escape from Google's Labs... "Somehow...life finds a way."
The only problem is that we have to interact with some non-intelligent intelligences.
I work for a manufacturer of aesthetical ceramics, we produce zirconiumoxide for the high end watch industry and luxury cell phone applications. (www.chanel.com (J12) and www.vertu.com).
Ceramics are stronger than most people think and it has been used in the watch industry for more then 20 years. If it would be very fragile it would never have survived 20 years in the high end watches. We also apply it in dental applications for artificial teeth.
In our processes we use injection moulding and we can make very complex shapes in ceramic. Available colours are : black, white, pink, blue, green, brown and grey. Other colours are under develpoment, if any body knows pigments that survive temperatures upto 1500 degrees C we are interested.
If you want to know more about aestehtical ceramics, you can check out our website www.formatec.nl. Feel free to contact me if you have detailed questions.
Martin van der Veen
I see a lot of replies of people that don't know the new ceramic materials. Apple wants to apply for a patent for a material called Zirconiumoxide (ZrO2).
I work for a manufacturer of aesthetical ceramics, we produce zirconiumoxide for the high end watch industry and luxury cell phone applications. (www.chanel.com (J12) and www.vertu.com).
Ceramics are stronger than most people think and it has been used in the watch industry for more then 20 years. If it would be very fragile it would never have survived 20 years in the high end watches. We also apply it in dental applications for artificial teeth.
In our processes we use injection moulding and we can make very complex shapes in ceramic. Available colours are : black, white, pink, blue, green, brown and grey. Other colours are under develpoment, if any body knows pigments that survive temperatures upto 1500 degrees C we are interested.
If you want to know more about aestehtical ceramics, you can check out our website www.formatec.nl. Feel free to contact me if you have detailed questions.
Martin van der Veen
Good. This corresponds to what I've been saying.
Keep it civil. Or else. I'll have no more personal attacks from either of yo.. I mean any of you. No matter what your opinion of the other person, Ad Hominemseses are right out of the question. Cut it out - Please and Thank You.
Oh, and can someone PM me when we establish the Truth(tm), the Nature of All Things(tm) and whether or not the new iPhone is going to be reinforced with re-bar?
Thank you.
Carry on.
I've seen no mention of it since the Macworld Keynote but there were rumblings of the iPhone having a zirconia screen. Is this it and does it mean we can look forward to significant scratch protection on not only the iPhone but the widescreen video iPod as well?
I remembered this patent and ran into AI's article upon searching.
I've seen no mention of it since the Macworld Keynote but there were rumblings of the iPhone having a zirconia screen. Is this it and does it mean we can look forward to significant scratch protection on not only the iPhone but the widescreen video iPod as well?
Zirconia case, not screen.
I've seen no mention of it since the Macworld Keynote but there were rumblings of the iPhone having a zirconia screen. Is this it and does it mean we can look forward to significant scratch protection on not only the iPhone but the widescreen video iPod as well?
I think David Pogue said that the screen cover is still polycarbonate, but with a new coating for the touch interface, and hopefully that coating greatly improves scratch resistance.
The Zirconia cases Apple is researching is not something for current products.
The problem is what you are saying is wrong.
Again...you are saying that you can perform work without reducing the amount of heat in the system resulting in a net energy gain.
Long run, short run cooling occurs. While SOME heat is produced when the electrical energy is used it is NEVER the same amount of heat that you used to generate that electrical energy. How does that translate into no cooling?
Radiant energy is being produced. Some in the visible spectrum some in the infrared. Neither is heat.
What? I just said they weren't heat. They are energy and they are well enough understood for the purposes of discussions at this level.
Long term, short term is immaterial. Yes, if you take the total universe (as a closed system) total entropy will always increase. A laptop is not a closed system but an open one.
You fucken retarded liar! Heat (Q) is the flow or shift of ènèrgy (E). So by definition any process like radiation is heat. What you're loosly a'blathering about is warmth (U, internal ènèrgy), whereas hotness (T, temperature?more like calitud) is one of the states that determin how a heat engin works.
And the twoth law is bunk. Èntròpy cannot grow in a shut sustem because that destroys information. It is in open sustems that èntròpy grows. Equilibrium is never reached because the nouhth law is bunk; when two sustems A and B or B and C interact, they become sustems A' and B' or B' and C'; they no longer can be matched to C or A in another measurement in a well-behavede state function.
There is nothing wrong with caloric. Caloric is the mass-shift in heat.
And flògistòn is the Lewis base.
And the aithèr is the field.
melgross should talk down tom others, who are posers. And one should not be civil. Has the moderator any clue how harmful to the truthe civility is? How shitty the common person's understanding and beliefs are, due to one's "niceness"??where "nice" is Latin and short for "nescient". Ye (vinea, mod, WTFK) are wrong. And WTFK is a educated doof: Sedimentary and mètamòrfic stone (chalk and concrete) are not cèramic, which is igneose. So, yes, what you said was misleading and wrong. However, what melgross said about cèramics was a common mischaracterisation: They are not always crustalline, and it is from their crustal structure that they get their brittelness. As a glass, they would not be shatterprone. (Window glass shatters at crustal defects, not amòrfic defects, which is why their shards come in straiht lines.)
-Aut