If by "That" you mean the image I posted, it was an extreme example of a Macintosh case mod~er's work ~ sort of a "chopper" of a Pyramac
I think Johnathan Ives could do a better industrial design on a pyramid form factor than the dude that built the design I linked to.
As far as the pyramidal form factor and internal heat dissipation: It's an ideal shape. The heat rises and is densely collected in the top where it can be vented very efficiently. The Venturi Effect It might not even need a fan.
...
Maybe but it's still a hideous shape to put on your desk. It is still space inefficient for its intended use. fitting the things like drives, power supply and such in there would just be ugly. If it was near as big as the one in the picture it would be a joke without a punch line.
I think the goal for the iMac was to remove the computer from the picture so to speak. The current iMac hides the guts in the base and depending on how the monitor is oriented you never see or notice it for the most part. A design as has been suggested with the guts plastered to the back of the screen (inelegant description on my part) goes a step further in that you *only* see a acreen, keyboard and mouse. If Bluetooth mouse/keyboard are used then you don't even see wires. In light of that why on earth would a pyramid shape even be considered? The cube was a great shape and elegantly packed all the guts into a rather small shape which conserved desktop space nicely. I'd prefer some new version of this or the new rumored iMac shape to a King Tut Mac any day.
Bancho, it's base wouldn't be any bigger than a 12" Powerbook. About the same area as the iMac2.
Quote:
"I think the goal for the iMac was to remove the computer from the picture so to speak. The current iMac hides the guts in the base and depending on how the monitor is oriented you never see or notice it for the most part... In light of that why on earth would a pyramid shape even be considered? "
How would any of those things be any different if they hung a 17" LCD off it using the new mounts? (VESA compliant)
Quote:
"The cube was a great shape and elegantly packed all the guts into a rather small shape which conserved desktop space nicely. I'd prefer some new version of this or the new rumored iMac shape to a King Tut Mac any day."
Hey I have a Cube and I love it. It shares a desk with my 15" Powerbook. Neither of them get in the way. I even have room for an 11" pyramid with a 20" screen here. Or maybe I'll get a 23" and hang it on the wall. I just hope the NeXt Mac will drive them both.
Bancho, it's base wouldn't be any bigger than a 12" Powerbook. About the same area as the iMac2.
[/i]
How would any of those things be any different if they hung a 17" LCD off it using the new mounts? (VESA compliant)
[i]
Hey I have a Cube and I love it. It shares a desk with my 15" Powerbook. Neither of them get in the way. I even have room for an 11" pyramid with a 20" screen here. Or maybe I'll get a 23" and hang it on the wall. I just hope the NeXt Mac will drive them both.
My opinion of course ...
I have a 12" powerbook as well but looking at it there seems no way to realistically package all the components necessary inside such a shape with that footprint (considering it will have a G5 in it this time). The cube is lovely *and* efficient at the same time. What value does a pyramid shape offer to make it necessary? If the shape is simply for its own artistic sake then it is unnecessary.
Quite simplty a Pyramid shape would be huge, try a physical mock up and work out where the optical drive and HDD would go and the thing gets enormous, it is a no go.
The new iMac is a G5 we know that. What we also know is that IBM is making 1.8, 2.0 and 2.5ghz processors. Therefore I see no reason for IBM to produce anthing slower than 1.8ghz. Personally I cannot imagine Apple bringing in a new iMac below 2ghz. Everyone discounted the LCD iMac from being a) LCD and b) being a G4. We are now in the same situation, almost everyone is discounting a 2ghz iMac, well I think it's a mistake.
A 2ghz G5 iMac with a siongle processor is going to generate the sort of headlines Apple need to keep on track. It is on a roll right now and it doesn't need a set of bad headlines to upset it. I think the style will take it's clues from the Mini iPod ie pastle colours over aluminium. Colours are in and the first iMac was uber cool and that is what Apple will want.
I don't personally see the need for a headless iMac, most people never upgrade their machines post purchase and if there are a choice of screen sizes than that should satisfy most people. A G5 iMac with a 20inch screen will be an awsomne macnine for consumer sales. I really don't buy that people who want 23 or 30" screens wouldn't also want duel processors and buy the full monty.
I expect to see the following:-
2ghz iMac with 17 inch LCD
or
2ghz iMac with 20 inch LCD
Available in four colours Silver, Blue, Pink and green.
All with 256mb ram, 1ghz FSB and user configurable HDD and ALL with superdrives.
There will be no need for a lower end product because these uber machines would be selling to capacity and as soon as G5 production ramps the e-mac will go low end G5. I think there is a lot of life left in the eMac it is robust and ideal for education. A 1.8 ghz eMac with either a combo or superdrive would cover the bottom end.
This profile would give Apple a managable range of products where excessive inventory would not be an issue.
Yes, and of course the general consumer is an idiot who likes to spend way too much for an under-equipped machine? No.
-M
In fact, by the standards of many who post here, plenty such users are idiots. They often do not know or care about their machines' specs.
They sure care about two things, though: many will never leave Windows, - whatever the alternative, and many would never have considered the iMac because it was way too expensive - whatever the specs.
Addison, Hmmnn.... Let's see ... I just pulled the CD burner out of my ThinkPad and laid it on top of my Powerbook... Fits nicely... Now a 3.5" hard drive (I have a drawer full) Fits nicely on top... I don't see a problem here ...
edit: Now I took three 1" x 3.5" hard drives and put them on edge on top of the CD burner... Hey the new iMac can have a RAID!
Addison, Hmmnn.... Let's see ... I just pulled the CD burner out of my ThinkPad and laid it on top of my Powerbook... Fits nicely... Now a 3.5" hard drive (I have a drawer full) Fits nicely on top... I don't see a problem here ...
You still have to have a good sized heat sink in there as well as power supply and then cool everything quietly. Then there is still that hideous shape. I admit part of my prejudice was from that picture but now its burned into my retinas and driving me mad...
I am certain that a pyramid is *not* a possiblity for the new iMac. I think it is a shape best left to modders to play with.
Formfactor: AIO - because if it's not AIO, they will probably give it a new name.
Hope so. And for myself, I'll be sad to see the iMac2 form factor go, if it does, for the simple reason that they give far and away the most comfortable computing experience I've ever had. Those who haven't used one mightn't appreciate how wonderful it is not to have to move a bulky monitor around.
You still have to have a good sized heat sink in there as well as power supply and then cool everything quietly. Then there is still that hideous shape. I admit part of my prejudice was from that picture but now its burned into my retinas and driving me mad...
LOL ~ yep that neon pyramac was ummmn... loud ~ and what I envision is far more elegant than that, still I wanted to give the dude credit for the pyramid shaped Mac concept.
Heat sink? Apple is already well into heat pipes so I would think whatever is released will feature advanced cooling of some sort.
My Cube's power supply would work well for this thing, or one of the new monitor's power supplies.
(Aphelion goes off to stack aquarium pump on top of hard drive...)
LOL ~ yep that neon pyramac was ummmn... loud ~ and what I envision is far more elegant than that, still I wanted to give the dude credit for the pyramid shaped Mac concept.
Heat sink? Apple is already well into heat pipes so I would think whatever is released will feature advanced cooling of some sort.
My Cube's power supply would work well for this thing, or one of the new monitor's power supplies.
(Aphelion goes off to stack aquarium pump on top of hard drive...)
I definitely give the guy credit for doing something unique.
True about the heat sink/heat pipe thing but somewhere there has to be a radiator to expel the heat and that has to go somewhere it can get air (and hopefully plenty).
Did'nt Apple receive a patent for a flexible neck device, sort of like those flexible shower heads that extend about 12" and adjust to any position? Maybe they improved on this concept. Let this flexible neck swivel 180 degrees. It may even adjust to more positions than the G4 imac. And it may be cheaper to produce, and easier to run the monitor cable inside it. You would'nt be able to us this neck as a handle, so maybe they incorporate a contoured hand sized groove (one that looks like a top handle on a G5) just behind where this neck connects to the body. Maybe this groove aids in venting/cooling.
As for the base, it stays roughly the same. Change from white to aluminum. Make the melon base another inch higher, possibly to accomodate some sort of added cooling device, water coils, new style fan, etc.
Maybe they market it as "An even more adjustable imac" I think it could almost have an organic feel to it, with a neck like a swan.
Give it a G5 of course, the usual ports, drives. Redesigned aluminum keyboard, mouse. Maybe some other new feature, built in microphone into the monitor, etc.
The iMac needs to be cheap, that was the problem with the last one it wasn't cheap enough, they need to use old technology like cheaper, slower graphics and cheaper materials to make the cost low, that way Apple can compete with the PC market, iPod users will want a cheap Mac, not necessarily the fastest thing on the planet.
As far as the pyramidal form factor and internal heat dissipation: It's an ideal shape. The heat rises and is densely collected in the top where it can be vented very efficiently. The Venturi Effect It might not even need a fan.
It's funny I recently saw something that relied on a very similar proposition only all the gas just went straight down and you ended up with stagnant gas at the top. Problem with restricting flow is you do do just that you restrict flow and stuff will usually just choose to flow along the path of least resistance.
In other interesting news restricting flow doesn't actually speed stuff up once you hit Mach 1 but that's a whole other story and I doubt that relevant for a computer
Heat rises, the tapering walls constrict the volume, thus increasing the flow through the vent at the top portion. If there were no vent, the hot air would just pool at the top. The increased flow through the top vent lowers the pressure, thus drawing new air in from the vents at the bottom. (see Bernoulli Principle link below)
Compressibility of the air at speeds approaching Mach one are hardly relevant here. The designers of the early fighters in WWII had to redesign the airframes so that this newly discovered compressibility factor would not cause the aircraft to crash due to control lockage preventing them from pulling up. You can Google this up on your own.
Quote:
Bernoulli's Principle states that as the speed of a moving fluid increases, the pressure within the fluid decreases.
Bernoulli Principle Use the interactive controls to simulate the airflow through a pyramid shape by increasing the left control to a large value (the base) and the right control to a small value (the top). You can make the demonstration look very much like a pyramidal shape (lying on it's side) by manipulating the controls.
YYZ,
The attachment for the displays (if any) would use the same hinges as the new LCDs they are cheap and VESA compliant.
MacCrazy,
Using a flat piece of aircraft grade aluminum (for stiffness) wrapped into a pyramid shape would be far cheaper and easy to assemble than anything Apple has yet produced.
The iMac needs to be cheap, that was the problem with the last one it wasn't cheap enough, they need to use old technology like cheaper, slower graphics and cheaper materials to make the cost low, that way Apple can compete with the PC market, iPod users will want a cheap Mac, not necessarily the fastest thing on the planet.
The iMac needs to be cheap, that was the problem with the last one it wasn't cheap enough, they need to use old technology like cheaper, slower graphics and cheaper materials to make the cost low, that way Apple can compete with the PC market, iPod users will want a cheap Mac, not necessarily the fastest thing on the planet.
People hoping for a new iMac that is cheaper than the last line are probably spitting into the wind. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple is having a hard time keeping the price points the same; and we will see slightly higher prices for a while.
I'm all for Apple trying to cut corners wherever possible, but not at the expense of good quality LCD screens, GPUs, CPUs, FSBs, etc. Even good design is worth the extra costs involved.
I don't think that the last iMac was a failure at all. It sold well enough; considering the time period it was sold in. I fully expect that the next iMac will make Apple money and satisfy the people who choose to purchase it.
iPod users are (obviously) willing to pay a little more for excellence. The same holds true for the iMac.
I believe Apple has stated that they were roughly $300 off where they needed to be with the iMac. I'm sure during the design of the iMac FP Apple probably assumed LCD prices would be a bit cheaper over the life of the iMac. This wasn't the case. As Amorph has stated before the arm of the iMac is expensive. Price some arms and you'll see they easily cost $70-100 alone.
Apple will likely give themselves more room for the guts and lose the arm. Those two changes will result in cost and design savings. I'm sure Apple will have a 17" FP system with decent specs for $1499. If it is non-upgradable then I'd prefer they not skimp on the graphics since I plan to upgrade to Tiger immediately.
Has anybody actually bothered to check if the PPC970 and PPC970fx are pin compatible? The only reason I would think not is because of Powertune, which isn't active in the Powermacs anyway. It's quite likely Apple released the initial Powermacs with the PPC970 to get them out the door, since the process was already up and running and they had supply. Then they can just swap in 90 nm parts to new units as supply allows.
Anyway I do wonder what tact Apple will take. I hope they will allow more flexibility in building the new iMacs but I fear probably not. Apple has this tendency to make you upgrade a ton of stuff you don't need to get one thing you may want with anything that isn't a PowerMac. Doesn't much bother me but I don't think it's the smartest sales step.
Quote:
Originally posted by Aphelion
Heat rises, the tapering walls constrict the volume, thus increasing the flow through the vent at the top portion. If there were no vent, the hot air would just pool at the top. The increased flow through the top vent lowers the pressure, thus drawing new air in from the vents at the bottom. (see Bernoulli Principle link below)
In an ideal system. Air has this bad habit of forming convection circuits where what actually happens is it gets hot and rises, in the process cools a bit and drops. Furthermore by creating a low pressure pocket at the top you actually suck air down into the chamber, your hot gas that you're trying to rid yourself of is now being forced in the wrong direction.
As I say things are a little more complex in non-ideal situations and if you can get hold of a decent CFD package I'd suggest taking a look for yourself at how air really behaves, particularly at low velocities.
I'm not saying you can't build a pyramid mac I'm just saying assumptions like what you've made end up eventually being wrong and costing a fair bit to fix.
... In an ideal system. Air has this bad habit of forming convection circuits where what actually happens is it gets hot and rises, in the process cools a bit and drops. Furthermore by creating a low pressure pocket at the top you actually suck air down into the chamber, your hot gas that you're trying to rid yourself of is now being forced in the wrong direction...
I'm not saying you can't build a pyramid mac I'm just saying assumptions like what you've made end up eventually being wrong and costing a fair bit to fix.
I'll have to call BS on that Telomar. As long as heat is produced to drive the process the airflow will be from bottom to top and be expelled through the vent. As long as air is being expelled out the vent, whether through natural convection as in the examples I have given, or by employing a fan at the vent there will be a syphon effect. In the former, driven by the heat produced, in the latter driven by the fan.
My field is Aerodynamics, but all of the principles apply, as the laws of fluid dynamics are the same across all fields. Check out the Thermo-syphon effect at this architecture site, (select "Thermo-syphon" in the interactive display).
You can purchase a book on thermodynamics that will help you understand the principles involved HERE. "Analysis of a Natural Convection/Thermosyphon Mechanism for Heat Rejection from Enclosures"
Now I am NOT claiming that a pyramid with a passive vent at the top WILL be enough to adequately cool a 970FX powered computer. I'm sure that the engineering studies will have been done by Apple or consulting firms like CRM Engineering to fully explore this particular enclosure.
I'll have to call BS on that Telomar. As long as heat is produced to drive the process the airflow will be from bottom to top and be expelled through the vent. As long as air is being expelled out the vent, whether through natural convection as in the examples I have given, or by employing a fan at the vent there will be a syphon effect. In the former, driven by the heat produced, in the latter driven by the fan.
My field is Aerodynamics, but all of the principles apply, as the laws of fluid dynamics are the same across all fields.
My field is heat transfer and fluid dynamics quite specifically As I say you may want to come back to me when you've actually played round with a CFD package and looked at some real systems. If you insert the fan it's easy to move air but don't expect it to work based on the venturi effect because that'll have nothing to do with it.
As I say it depends on the exact design, a house is different to a pyramid filled with components, but if you use simplistic theories without understanding their limitations you'll inevitably hit a case where they fail. It's great you've looked at the principles of fluid mechanics but I don't really think you understand the assumptions behind them and if you oversimplify, like you have been, it'll eventually bite you in the arse. Just a warning for the future since right now I'm guessing you're about 2nd year uni.
Comments
Originally posted by Aphelion
If by "That" you mean the image I posted, it was an extreme example of a Macintosh case mod~er's work ~ sort of a "chopper" of a Pyramac
I think Johnathan Ives could do a better industrial design on a pyramid form factor than the dude that built the design I linked to.
As far as the pyramidal form factor and internal heat dissipation: It's an ideal shape. The heat rises and is densely collected in the top where it can be vented very efficiently. The Venturi Effect It might not even need a fan.
...
Maybe but it's still a hideous shape to put on your desk. It is still space inefficient for its intended use. fitting the things like drives, power supply and such in there would just be ugly. If it was near as big as the one in the picture it would be a joke without a punch line.
I think the goal for the iMac was to remove the computer from the picture so to speak. The current iMac hides the guts in the base and depending on how the monitor is oriented you never see or notice it for the most part. A design as has been suggested with the guts plastered to the back of the screen (inelegant description on my part) goes a step further in that you *only* see a acreen, keyboard and mouse. If Bluetooth mouse/keyboard are used then you don't even see wires. In light of that why on earth would a pyramid shape even be considered? The cube was a great shape and elegantly packed all the guts into a rather small shape which conserved desktop space nicely. I'd prefer some new version of this or the new rumored iMac shape to a King Tut Mac any day.
My opinion of course so take that as you will
"I think the goal for the iMac was to remove the computer from the picture so to speak. The current iMac hides the guts in the base and depending on how the monitor is oriented you never see or notice it for the most part... In light of that why on earth would a pyramid shape even be considered? "
How would any of those things be any different if they hung a 17" LCD off it using the new mounts? (VESA compliant)
Quote:
"The cube was a great shape and elegantly packed all the guts into a rather small shape which conserved desktop space nicely. I'd prefer some new version of this or the new rumored iMac shape to a King Tut Mac any day."
Hey I have a Cube and I love it. It shares a desk with my 15" Powerbook. Neither of them get in the way. I even have room for an 11" pyramid with a 20" screen here. Or maybe I'll get a 23" and hang it on the wall. I just hope the NeXt Mac will drive them both.
My opinion of course ...
Originally posted by Aphelion
Bancho, it's base wouldn't be any bigger than a 12" Powerbook. About the same area as the iMac2.
[/i]
How would any of those things be any different if they hung a 17" LCD off it using the new mounts? (VESA compliant)
[i]
Hey I have a Cube and I love it. It shares a desk with my 15" Powerbook. Neither of them get in the way. I even have room for an 11" pyramid with a 20" screen here. Or maybe I'll get a 23" and hang it on the wall. I just hope the NeXt Mac will drive them both.
My opinion of course ...
I have a 12" powerbook as well but looking at it there seems no way to realistically package all the components necessary inside such a shape with that footprint (considering it will have a G5 in it this time). The cube is lovely *and* efficient at the same time. What value does a pyramid shape offer to make it necessary? If the shape is simply for its own artistic sake then it is unnecessary.
The new iMac is a G5 we know that. What we also know is that IBM is making 1.8, 2.0 and 2.5ghz processors. Therefore I see no reason for IBM to produce anthing slower than 1.8ghz. Personally I cannot imagine Apple bringing in a new iMac below 2ghz. Everyone discounted the LCD iMac from being a) LCD and b) being a G4. We are now in the same situation, almost everyone is discounting a 2ghz iMac, well I think it's a mistake.
A 2ghz G5 iMac with a siongle processor is going to generate the sort of headlines Apple need to keep on track. It is on a roll right now and it doesn't need a set of bad headlines to upset it. I think the style will take it's clues from the Mini iPod ie pastle colours over aluminium. Colours are in and the first iMac was uber cool and that is what Apple will want.
I don't personally see the need for a headless iMac, most people never upgrade their machines post purchase and if there are a choice of screen sizes than that should satisfy most people. A G5 iMac with a 20inch screen will be an awsomne macnine for consumer sales. I really don't buy that people who want 23 or 30" screens wouldn't also want duel processors and buy the full monty.
I expect to see the following:-
2ghz iMac with 17 inch LCD
or
2ghz iMac with 20 inch LCD
Available in four colours Silver, Blue, Pink and green.
All with 256mb ram, 1ghz FSB and user configurable HDD and ALL with superdrives.
There will be no need for a lower end product because these uber machines would be selling to capacity and as soon as G5 production ramps the e-mac will go low end G5. I think there is a lot of life left in the eMac it is robust and ideal for education. A 1.8 ghz eMac with either a combo or superdrive would cover the bottom end.
This profile would give Apple a managable range of products where excessive inventory would not be an issue.
Originally posted by moazam
Yes, and of course the general consumer is an idiot who likes to spend way too much for an under-equipped machine? No.
-M
In fact, by the standards of many who post here, plenty such users are idiots. They often do not know or care about their machines' specs.
They sure care about two things, though: many will never leave Windows, - whatever the alternative, and many would never have considered the iMac because it was way too expensive - whatever the specs.
It was just too expensive, is all.
edit: Now I took three 1" x 3.5" hard drives and put them on edge on top of the CD burner... Hey the new iMac can have a RAID!
Originally posted by Aphelion
Addison, Hmmnn.... Let's see ... I just pulled the CD burner out of my ThinkPad and laid it on top of my Powerbook... Fits nicely... Now a 3.5" hard drive (I have a drawer full) Fits nicely on top... I don't see a problem here ...
You still have to have a good sized heat sink in there as well as power supply and then cool everything quietly. Then there is still that hideous shape. I admit part of my prejudice was from that picture but now its burned into my retinas and driving me mad...
I am certain that a pyramid is *not* a possiblity for the new iMac. I think it is a shape best left to modders to play with.
Originally posted by BeigeUser
Formfactor: AIO - because if it's not AIO, they will probably give it a new name.
Hope so. And for myself, I'll be sad to see the iMac2 form factor go, if it does, for the simple reason that they give far and away the most comfortable computing experience I've ever had. Those who haven't used one mightn't appreciate how wonderful it is not to have to move a bulky monitor around.
Originally posted by Bancho
You still have to have a good sized heat sink in there as well as power supply and then cool everything quietly. Then there is still that hideous shape. I admit part of my prejudice was from that picture but now its burned into my retinas and driving me mad...
LOL ~ yep that neon pyramac was ummmn... loud ~ and what I envision is far more elegant than that, still I wanted to give the dude credit for the pyramid shaped Mac concept.
Heat sink? Apple is already well into heat pipes so I would think whatever is released will feature advanced cooling of some sort.
My Cube's power supply would work well for this thing, or one of the new monitor's power supplies.
(Aphelion goes off to stack aquarium pump on top of hard drive...)
Originally posted by Aphelion
LOL ~ yep that neon pyramac was ummmn... loud ~ and what I envision is far more elegant than that, still I wanted to give the dude credit for the pyramid shaped Mac concept.
Heat sink? Apple is already well into heat pipes so I would think whatever is released will feature advanced cooling of some sort.
My Cube's power supply would work well for this thing, or one of the new monitor's power supplies.
(Aphelion goes off to stack aquarium pump on top of hard drive...)
I definitely give the guy credit for doing something unique.
True about the heat sink/heat pipe thing but somewhere there has to be a radiator to expel the heat and that has to go somewhere it can get air (and hopefully plenty).
Did'nt Apple receive a patent for a flexible neck device, sort of like those flexible shower heads that extend about 12" and adjust to any position? Maybe they improved on this concept. Let this flexible neck swivel 180 degrees. It may even adjust to more positions than the G4 imac. And it may be cheaper to produce, and easier to run the monitor cable inside it. You would'nt be able to us this neck as a handle, so maybe they incorporate a contoured hand sized groove (one that looks like a top handle on a G5) just behind where this neck connects to the body. Maybe this groove aids in venting/cooling.
As for the base, it stays roughly the same. Change from white to aluminum. Make the melon base another inch higher, possibly to accomodate some sort of added cooling device, water coils, new style fan, etc.
Maybe they market it as "An even more adjustable imac" I think it could almost have an organic feel to it, with a neck like a swan.
Give it a G5 of course, the usual ports, drives. Redesigned aluminum keyboard, mouse. Maybe some other new feature, built in microphone into the monitor, etc.
Done right, it think this would work.
Originally posted by Aphelion
As far as the pyramidal form factor and internal heat dissipation: It's an ideal shape. The heat rises and is densely collected in the top where it can be vented very efficiently. The Venturi Effect It might not even need a fan.
It's funny I recently saw something that relied on a very similar proposition only all the gas just went straight down and you ended up with stagnant gas at the top. Problem with restricting flow is you do do just that you restrict flow and stuff will usually just choose to flow along the path of least resistance.
In other interesting news restricting flow doesn't actually speed stuff up once you hit Mach 1 but that's a whole other story and I doubt that relevant for a computer
Heat rises, the tapering walls constrict the volume, thus increasing the flow through the vent at the top portion. If there were no vent, the hot air would just pool at the top. The increased flow through the top vent lowers the pressure, thus drawing new air in from the vents at the bottom. (see Bernoulli Principle link below)
Compressibility of the air at speeds approaching Mach one are hardly relevant here. The designers of the early fighters in WWII had to redesign the airframes so that this newly discovered compressibility factor would not cause the aircraft to crash due to control lockage preventing them from pulling up. You can Google this up on your own.
Bernoulli's Principle states that as the speed of a moving fluid increases, the pressure within the fluid decreases.
Bernoulli Principle Use the interactive controls to simulate the airflow through a pyramid shape by increasing the left control to a large value (the base) and the right control to a small value (the top). You can make the demonstration look very much like a pyramidal shape (lying on it's side) by manipulating the controls.
YYZ,
The attachment for the displays (if any) would use the same hinges as the new LCDs they are cheap and VESA compliant.
MacCrazy,
Using a flat piece of aircraft grade aluminum (for stiffness) wrapped into a pyramid shape would be far cheaper and easy to assemble than anything Apple has yet produced.
...
Originally posted by MacCrazy
The iMac needs to be cheap, that was the problem with the last one it wasn't cheap enough, they need to use old technology like cheaper, slower graphics and cheaper materials to make the cost low, that way Apple can compete with the PC market, iPod users will want a cheap Mac, not necessarily the fastest thing on the planet.
thats simply bullshit
Originally posted by MacCrazy
The iMac needs to be cheap, that was the problem with the last one it wasn't cheap enough, they need to use old technology like cheaper, slower graphics and cheaper materials to make the cost low, that way Apple can compete with the PC market, iPod users will want a cheap Mac, not necessarily the fastest thing on the planet.
People hoping for a new iMac that is cheaper than the last line are probably spitting into the wind. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple is having a hard time keeping the price points the same; and we will see slightly higher prices for a while.
I'm all for Apple trying to cut corners wherever possible, but not at the expense of good quality LCD screens, GPUs, CPUs, FSBs, etc. Even good design is worth the extra costs involved.
I don't think that the last iMac was a failure at all. It sold well enough; considering the time period it was sold in. I fully expect that the next iMac will make Apple money and satisfy the people who choose to purchase it.
iPod users are (obviously) willing to pay a little more for excellence. The same holds true for the iMac.
Apple will likely give themselves more room for the guts and lose the arm. Those two changes will result in cost and design savings. I'm sure Apple will have a 17" FP system with decent specs for $1499. If it is non-upgradable then I'd prefer they not skimp on the graphics since I plan to upgrade to Tiger immediately.
Anyway I do wonder what tact Apple will take. I hope they will allow more flexibility in building the new iMacs but I fear probably not. Apple has this tendency to make you upgrade a ton of stuff you don't need to get one thing you may want with anything that isn't a PowerMac. Doesn't much bother me but I don't think it's the smartest sales step.
Originally posted by Aphelion
Heat rises, the tapering walls constrict the volume, thus increasing the flow through the vent at the top portion. If there were no vent, the hot air would just pool at the top. The increased flow through the top vent lowers the pressure, thus drawing new air in from the vents at the bottom. (see Bernoulli Principle link below)
In an ideal system. Air has this bad habit of forming convection circuits where what actually happens is it gets hot and rises, in the process cools a bit and drops. Furthermore by creating a low pressure pocket at the top you actually suck air down into the chamber, your hot gas that you're trying to rid yourself of is now being forced in the wrong direction.
As I say things are a little more complex in non-ideal situations and if you can get hold of a decent CFD package I'd suggest taking a look for yourself at how air really behaves, particularly at low velocities.
I'm not saying you can't build a pyramid mac I'm just saying assumptions like what you've made end up eventually being wrong and costing a fair bit to fix.
Originally posted by Telomar
... In an ideal system. Air has this bad habit of forming convection circuits where what actually happens is it gets hot and rises, in the process cools a bit and drops. Furthermore by creating a low pressure pocket at the top you actually suck air down into the chamber, your hot gas that you're trying to rid yourself of is now being forced in the wrong direction...
I'm not saying you can't build a pyramid mac I'm just saying assumptions like what you've made end up eventually being wrong and costing a fair bit to fix.
I'll have to call BS on that Telomar. As long as heat is produced to drive the process the airflow will be from bottom to top and be expelled through the vent. As long as air is being expelled out the vent, whether through natural convection as in the examples I have given, or by employing a fan at the vent there will be a syphon effect. In the former, driven by the heat produced, in the latter driven by the fan.
My field is Aerodynamics, but all of the principles apply, as the laws of fluid dynamics are the same across all fields. Check out the Thermo-syphon effect at this architecture site, (select "Thermo-syphon" in the interactive display).
You can purchase a book on thermodynamics that will help you understand the principles involved HERE. "Analysis of a Natural Convection/Thermosyphon Mechanism for Heat Rejection from Enclosures"
Now I am NOT claiming that a pyramid with a passive vent at the top WILL be enough to adequately cool a 970FX powered computer. I'm sure that the engineering studies will have been done by Apple or consulting firms like CRM Engineering to fully explore this particular enclosure.
...
Originally posted by Aphelion
I'll have to call BS on that Telomar. As long as heat is produced to drive the process the airflow will be from bottom to top and be expelled through the vent. As long as air is being expelled out the vent, whether through natural convection as in the examples I have given, or by employing a fan at the vent there will be a syphon effect. In the former, driven by the heat produced, in the latter driven by the fan.
My field is Aerodynamics, but all of the principles apply, as the laws of fluid dynamics are the same across all fields.
My field is heat transfer and fluid dynamics quite specifically
As I say it depends on the exact design, a house is different to a pyramid filled with components, but if you use simplistic theories without understanding their limitations you'll inevitably hit a case where they fail. It's great you've looked at the principles of fluid mechanics but I don't really think you understand the assumptions behind them and if you oversimplify, like you have been, it'll eventually bite you in the arse. Just a warning for the future since right now I'm guessing you're about 2nd year uni.