Unless the liquid circulates, a solid metal heat pipe works pretty well. Could this be a patent that came out of research reagrding putting a G5 into a notebook?
I think that Apple wants to reduce the TDP in its notebooks rather than use hotter processors and cool them with fancy, expensive liquid cooling systems.
Speed, low heat, inexpensive to make. Pick any two.
There is no such thing as a solid metal heat pipe. For example, a solid pipe isn't a pipe, it's a rod. The whole idea is to move heat by phase change and fluid flow. This allows the heat to flow quickly to a heat sink away from the heat generator. Just a solid chunk of metal doesn't conduct heat very well.
This page seems to explain what a heat pipe is and how it works:
As the article stated, and also noted on xlr8yourmac.com, Apple replaced the leaking G5's on their own dime, regardless of warranty. They even replaced them with new Mac Pro models after the G5 was discontinued.
Indeed. I have known 3 G5 towers that were replaced including my own. My brother's was out of warranty by over 2 years since he didn't buy Applecare and he received a 4-core Harpertown. My friend and I both received 8-core machines even though he had a dual G5 and I had a quad.
There's a fundamental misunderstanding being shown in this thread of what heat pipes really are. They are not filled with liquid. They have just a little bit of liquid inside, less than a fraction of a drop. The interior of the pipe is microgrooved to wick the liquid down to a pad on the CPU. Heat there evaporates it, drying out the pad and drawing more liquid back. The hot vapor passes to the radiator, where it cools and condenses back to liquid.
And liquid cooling isn't as rare as it was back in the days of the G5 or even as rare as lilgto64 writes. You can find lots of liquid cooling systems for PCs. The big reasons they haven't really caught on are that the aftermarket liquid cooling systems cost a lot more than CPU fan coolers, need some tech knowledge and time to set up, and aren't maintenance-free. But I haven't read about a lot of failures in those systems or motherboards being fried by leaking fluid.
Apostrophes are simple - they are used to indicate either missing letters or possession. Missing letters take precedence. So:
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Non-possessive plurals don't have apostrophes.
NO NO NO. I'm calling Bulls--t on you.
Half the world buys into this nonsense.
According to your own definition your second statement contradicts your first statement. There is either a blanket policy for apostrophes or there is NOT.
Apostrophes are for showing possession.
John's = belonging to John. Steves = more than one Steve.
It's = belonging to it, its = it is, it has, it will, or more than one it.
Stop this madness at once, I say, or I will bench you next inning, so help me God.
John's = belonging to John. Steves = more than one Steve.
It's = belonging to it, its = it is, it has, it will, or more than one it.
Stop this madness at once, I say, or I will bench you next inning, so help me God.
Sorry dude, but you are totally wrong. There's not enough room to explain it in my signature, but originally, the apostrophe was for indicating missing letters, and that was it.
Most possessives (aka genitive noun case) used to be formed by adding "es" on to the end of a word. Over time, people started to leave out the "e", putting in an apostrophe to indicate the missing letter. This continued until no-one used "es" any more and it became a "rule" that apostrophes indicate possession.
The genitive of "it" has always been "its", therefore no apostrophe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic
According to your own definition your second statement contradicts your first statement.
Sorry dude, but you are totally wrong. There's not enough room to explain it in my signature, but originally, the apostrophe was for indicating missing letters, and that was it.
Most possessives (aka genitive noun case) used to be formed by adding "es" on to the end of a word. Over time, people started to leave out the "e", putting in an apostrophe to indicate the missing letter. This continued until no-one used "es" any more and it became a "rule" that apostrophes indicate possession.
The genitive of "it" has always been "its", therefore no apostrophe.
That's a nice history lesson, but languages do evolve, and "it's" meaning "belonging to it" is more consistent than the grammatical way.
IMO the only reason that this hasn't become acceptable yet, is that it makes the current proper usage wrong.
Most language evolution involves a new form that is at first considered a novelty and a mistake, later gaining popularity, finally becoming acceptable, while the old form is at first preferred, later old-fashioned, then obscure and finally historical. Consider why and wherefore.
With "its" and "it's" you can't have a transition, because if "it's" is redefined as "belonging to it" and its is redefined as "it is", the old usage is instantly wrong, and that can't be allowed.
Unfortunately, as a natural language (no "academy" like the French have), English does not tend to move in the direction of more consistency.
Sorry dude, but you are totally wrong. There's not enough room to explain it in my signature, but originally, the apostrophe was for indicating missing letters, and that was it.
Most possessives (aka genitive noun case) used to be formed by adding "es" on to the end of a word. Over time, people started to leave out the "e", putting in an apostrophe to indicate the missing letter. This continued until no-one used "es" any more and it became a "rule" that apostrophes indicate possession.
The genitive of "it" has always been "its", therefore no apostrophe.
That's a nice history lesson, but languages do evolve, and "it's" meaning "belonging to it" is more consistent than the grammatical way.
IMO the only reason that this hasn't become acceptable yet, is that it makes the current proper usage wrong.
Most language evolution involves a new form that is at first considered a novelty and a mistake, later gaining popularity, finally becoming acceptable, while the old form is at first preferred, later old-fashioned, then obscure and finally historical. Consider why and wherefore.
With "its" and "it's" you can't have a transition, because if "it's" is redefined as "belonging to it" and its is redefined as "it is", the old usage is instantly wrong, and that can't be allowed.
Unfortunately, as a natural language (no "academy" like the French have), English does not tend to move in the direction of more consistency.
Indeed. I don't have a problem with language evolving as long as that evolution doesn't make the language worse. In this case, no-one ever uses "its" to mean "it is", people just use "it's" all the time, whether they mean "it is", "it has" or "belonging to it". Granted, most of the time you can work out what was meant, but sometimes it can lead to confusion which would be avoided if the correct word were employed.
The key is the process, by going two-phase you increase the thermal transfer by a factor of at least 6x over single phase water. Also R134a is a dielectric so if it should leak there's no damage to the electronics, a thermal problem to be sure but the system is safe.
The problem with this patents is that it's already being done by Thermal Form & Function out of Boston. Another attempt by Apple to patents someone else's patented process and fight the battle in court. The patent office should NOT allow this to go through.
It's = belonging to it, its = it is, it has, it will, or more than one it.
.
You are wrong, my aspiring writer of English. My English grammar teacher memorably used to say, "The possessive of 'its' doesn't possess one," (an apostrophe).
If you look up 'its' in the dictionary that Apple gives you, it says:
Its is the possessive form of: it ( | the dog licked its paw), while it?s is the contraction of | it is ( | look, it?s a dog licking its paw) or | it has ( | It?s been too long). The apostrophe in it?s never denotes a possessive. The confusion is at least partly understandable since other possessive forms (singular nouns) do take an apostrophe + s, as in | the girl's bike or | the president's smile.
Why is it "the Mac maker" rather than "the Cupertino-based Mac maker" ?
It's more poetic:
We are the Mac makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;—
World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.
Cupertino-based Mac maker doesn't quite fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarbon
What I don't understand is why no one is trying to rescue that heat with thermo-electric materials?
I think that's a good idea and it works with Apple's desire to pander to green-peace image. It's a sensible way to improve battery life and should help keep the laptop cooler.
There's clearly technical limitations to overcome though or they would have done it. Lack of room is one issue. Perhaps they could reduce the battery size and the heat conversion would make up for the reduction. Get rid if the optical drive and there's no problem. You could probably fit the entire contents of the power supply brick in that space. It would sure make replacing those magsafes with dodgy plugs a lot more cost-effective.
I like the idea of liquid cooling. This is how our refrigerators work every day without leaking. The cooler the better so whatever techniques can be used are worth experimenting with. The conversion methods have the added benefit of helping the laptop run for longer though.
What they need to start making is waterproof circuitry so the whole thing can be submerged in water. It has the added benefit of making computers safe from accidental spillages.
Somewhat back on topic... I've always heard that liquid cooling is somehow noisier than regular heat sinks and whatnot.
Can someone confirm or deny this?
Hmm, let me see... if the liquid is completely boiled and you get a hole in the heat pipe, then yes, the poor laptopt will sound like a locomotive. Well, joking aside, I don't really know if it is true or not.
What I don't understand is why no one is trying to rescue that heat with thermo-electric materials? they're working with them on cars for the x-prize...
it would seem like a great way to decrease heat and increase battery life at the same time
The question here is which is the rate of the energy conversion process. In principle it is very small, so with the amounts of heat you are going to see in a notebook, it makes probably little sense to implement.
Comments
Unless the liquid circulates, a solid metal heat pipe works pretty well. Could this be a patent that came out of research reagrding putting a G5 into a notebook?
I think that Apple wants to reduce the TDP in its notebooks rather than use hotter processors and cool them with fancy, expensive liquid cooling systems.
Speed, low heat, inexpensive to make. Pick any two.
There is no such thing as a solid metal heat pipe. For example, a solid pipe isn't a pipe, it's a rod. The whole idea is to move heat by phase change and fluid flow. This allows the heat to flow quickly to a heat sink away from the heat generator. Just a solid chunk of metal doesn't conduct heat very well.
This page seems to explain what a heat pipe is and how it works:
http://www.cheresources.com/htpipes.shtml
In 2020 we'll look back on noisy desktops and laptops in a little way to how we look now on a single "computer" that used to take up a whole room.
As the article stated, and also noted on xlr8yourmac.com, Apple replaced the leaking G5's on their own dime, regardless of warranty. They even replaced them with new Mac Pro models after the G5 was discontinued.
Indeed. I have known 3 G5 towers that were replaced including my own. My brother's was out of warranty by over 2 years since he didn't buy Applecare and he received a 4-core Harpertown. My friend and I both received 8-core machines even though he had a dual G5 and I had a quad.
And liquid cooling isn't as rare as it was back in the days of the G5 or even as rare as lilgto64 writes. You can find lots of liquid cooling systems for PCs. The big reasons they haven't really caught on are that the aftermarket liquid cooling systems cost a lot more than CPU fan coolers, need some tech knowledge and time to set up, and aren't maintenance-free. But I haven't read about a lot of failures in those systems or motherboards being fried by leaking fluid.
Apostrophes are simple - they are used to indicate either missing letters or possession. Missing letters take precedence. So:
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Non-possessive plurals don't have apostrophes.
NO NO NO. I'm calling Bulls--t on you.
Half the world buys into this nonsense.
According to your own definition your second statement contradicts your first statement. There is either a blanket policy for apostrophes or there is NOT.
Apostrophes are for showing possession.
John's = belonging to John. Steves = more than one Steve.
It's = belonging to it, its = it is, it has, it will, or more than one it.
Stop this madness at once, I say, or I will bench you next inning, so help me God.
NO NO NO. I'm calling Bulls--t on you.
Half the world buys into this nonsense.
...
Apostrophes are for showing possession.
John's = belonging to John. Steves = more than one Steve.
It's = belonging to it, its = it is, it has, it will, or more than one it.
Stop this madness at once, I say, or I will bench you next inning, so help me God.
Sorry dude, but you are totally wrong. There's not enough room to explain it in my signature, but originally, the apostrophe was for indicating missing letters, and that was it.
Most possessives (aka genitive noun case) used to be formed by adding "es" on to the end of a word. Over time, people started to leave out the "e", putting in an apostrophe to indicate the missing letter. This continued until no-one used "es" any more and it became a "rule" that apostrophes indicate possession.
The genitive of "it" has always been "its", therefore no apostrophe.
According to your own definition your second statement contradicts your first statement.
No, it doesn't.
Sorry dude, but you are totally wrong. There's not enough room to explain it in my signature, but originally, the apostrophe was for indicating missing letters, and that was it.
Most possessives (aka genitive noun case) used to be formed by adding "es" on to the end of a word. Over time, people started to leave out the "e", putting in an apostrophe to indicate the missing letter. This continued until no-one used "es" any more and it became a "rule" that apostrophes indicate possession.
The genitive of "it" has always been "its", therefore no apostrophe.
That's a nice history lesson, but languages do evolve, and "it's" meaning "belonging to it" is more consistent than the grammatical way.
IMO the only reason that this hasn't become acceptable yet, is that it makes the current proper usage wrong.
Most language evolution involves a new form that is at first considered a novelty and a mistake, later gaining popularity, finally becoming acceptable, while the old form is at first preferred, later old-fashioned, then obscure and finally historical. Consider why and wherefore.
With "its" and "it's" you can't have a transition, because if "it's" is redefined as "belonging to it" and its is redefined as "it is", the old usage is instantly wrong, and that can't be allowed.
Unfortunately, as a natural language (no "academy" like the French have), English does not tend to move in the direction of more consistency.
Sorry dude, but you are totally wrong. There's not enough room to explain it in my signature, but originally, the apostrophe was for indicating missing letters, and that was it.
Most possessives (aka genitive noun case) used to be formed by adding "es" on to the end of a word. Over time, people started to leave out the "e", putting in an apostrophe to indicate the missing letter. This continued until no-one used "es" any more and it became a "rule" that apostrophes indicate possession.
The genitive of "it" has always been "its", therefore no apostrophe.
Mr. H is entirely correct.
That's a nice history lesson, but languages do evolve, and "it's" meaning "belonging to it" is more consistent than the grammatical way.
IMO the only reason that this hasn't become acceptable yet, is that it makes the current proper usage wrong.
Most language evolution involves a new form that is at first considered a novelty and a mistake, later gaining popularity, finally becoming acceptable, while the old form is at first preferred, later old-fashioned, then obscure and finally historical. Consider why and wherefore.
With "its" and "it's" you can't have a transition, because if "it's" is redefined as "belonging to it" and its is redefined as "it is", the old usage is instantly wrong, and that can't be allowed.
Unfortunately, as a natural language (no "academy" like the French have), English does not tend to move in the direction of more consistency.
Indeed. I don't have a problem with language evolving as long as that evolution doesn't make the language worse. In this case, no-one ever uses "its" to mean "it is", people just use "it's" all the time, whether they mean "it is", "it has" or "belonging to it". Granted, most of the time you can work out what was meant, but sometimes it can lead to confusion which would be avoided if the correct word were employed.
The problem with this patents is that it's already being done by Thermal Form & Function out of Boston. Another attempt by Apple to patents someone else's patented process and fight the battle in court. The patent office should NOT allow this to go through.
It's = belonging to it, its = it is, it has, it will, or more than one it.
.
You are wrong, my aspiring writer of English. My English grammar teacher memorably used to say, "The possessive of 'its' doesn't possess one," (an apostrophe).
If you look up 'its' in the dictionary that Apple gives you, it says:
Its is the possessive form of: it ( | the dog licked its paw), while it?s is the contraction of | it is ( | look, it?s a dog licking its paw) or | it has ( | It?s been too long). The apostrophe in it?s never denotes a possessive. The confusion is at least partly understandable since other possessive forms (singular nouns) do take an apostrophe + s, as in | the girl's bike or | the president's smile.
Why is it "the Mac maker" rather than "the Cupertino-based Mac maker" ?
It's more poetic:
We are the Mac makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;—
World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.
Cupertino-based Mac maker doesn't quite fit.
What I don't understand is why no one is trying to rescue that heat with thermo-electric materials?
I think that's a good idea and it works with Apple's desire to pander to green-peace image. It's a sensible way to improve battery life and should help keep the laptop cooler.
There's clearly technical limitations to overcome though or they would have done it. Lack of room is one issue. Perhaps they could reduce the battery size and the heat conversion would make up for the reduction. Get rid if the optical drive and there's no problem. You could probably fit the entire contents of the power supply brick in that space. It would sure make replacing those magsafes with dodgy plugs a lot more cost-effective.
I like the idea of liquid cooling. This is how our refrigerators work every day without leaking. The cooler the better so whatever techniques can be used are worth experimenting with. The conversion methods have the added benefit of helping the laptop run for longer though.
What they need to start making is waterproof circuitry so the whole thing can be submerged in water. It has the added benefit of making computers safe from accidental spillages.
Write less code.
Can someone confirm or deny this?
The only real-life example of a liquid cooled device I've owned was a Dreamcast, and it was a noisy little bugger alright!
Somewhat back on topic... I've always heard that liquid cooling is somehow noisier than regular heat sinks and whatnot.
Can someone confirm or deny this?
Hmm, let me see... if the liquid is completely boiled and you get a hole in the heat pipe, then yes, the poor laptopt will sound like a locomotive.
What I don't understand is why no one is trying to rescue that heat with thermo-electric materials? they're working with them on cars for the x-prize...
http://www.happynews.com/news/121200...efficiency.htm
it would seem like a great way to decrease heat and increase battery life at the same time
The question here is which is the rate of the energy conversion process. In principle it is very small, so with the amounts of heat you are going to see in a notebook, it makes probably little sense to implement.