muppetry

I would be curious to know how well the 12 inch MacBook drives this monitor.

Unfortuntately (or fortunately perhaps, depending on your point of view), thermal transport in a structure such as a laptop is more complex than the simple consideration of heat generation by the components, surface area, or surface area-to-volume ratio. Apple has spent a lot of time and money on thermal management, which is surprisingly hard to model. 

To state the obvious, at the component level, dissipation occurs by a combination of conductive and convective cooling. Most components have some form of thermal sink, to which the bulk of the heat is conducted, followed by a convective and/or conductive mechanism to remove that heat to the outside world. Radiative cooling is insignificant at these temperatures.

In the classic desktop design, fans blow air through the overall enclosure and over the thermal sinks, heating the air which the exits the enclosure. Conduction through the enclosure is not significant. Enclosure volume only matters to the extent that it affects overall airflow rates - as the enclosure becomes smaller the airflow (air volume per unit time) decreases and so the enclosure runs hotter for a given heat generation rate.

In a laptop with fans the removal of heat is also accomplished by airflow through the enclosure and, for some machines, heat conduction to the enclosure casing followed by convective cooling of the casing. The latter mechanism of heat loss will increase with case surface area provided that the increased area is in the heat conduction pathway.

In a fanless design the movement of air through the enclosure is essentially insignificant, and so all heat generated must be conducted to the casing and then lost by convection. That makes a big difference. Internal volume is not a factor in the steady-state solution (though it is in the unsteady regime) - which is determined by the heat generation rate (which must equal the heat loss rate), the thermal resistivity of the path(s) to the casing, and the rate of convective loss from the casing to the air which is a linear function of both the surface area of the casing and the temperature of the surrounding air. Making the enclosure thinner, per se, has no direct effect since it makes only a small change to the surface area for the form factor of a laptop, but may have indirect effects; it may change the thermal resistance of the thermal paths from the components to the casing. If it brings components closer to the casing then it may reduce the thermal resistivity from component to casing, leading to a lower component temperature for the necessary steady state rate of heat loss or, alternatively, a higher rate of heat loss for the same component temperature. Whether or not the internal design requirements permit that is a quite different question.

jackansi said:

Some jerkweasel was flying one of these over my head just yesterday.  By the time I found where he was flying from he had the drone nearly "home".  When he saw me coming over to give him a piece of my mind he ducked inside with the drone fast.  It was windy enough out that the drone was having trouble staying in stable flight.  You're supposed to stay in visual line of sight (un-aided VLOS) and he was clearly way out with where he was flying it the first time.  He went past my property and the next before I lost sight of it behind a line of trees, he had two lines of trees blocking his line of sight.  Also not supposed to fly over anyone who is not directly involved with the flight.

Later he was at it again and I got video of him flying over my property and pictures of him in control of it.  Local PD later said, frankly, that they didn't know what they could do about it.  So because it's new and rules are pretty loose, there is nothing to protect other private citizens from people like this that get a thrill out of invading other people's privacy.

So here is the jerkweasel trying the land quickly because he noticed me heading over:  
(had to use a 630mm adapted lens and a crop to stay on public property to get him, yes it's still blurry because it's a bear handling that lens without a tripod)

You certainly appear to be invading his privacy with your 600 mm lens, when I doubt that you have any idea whether he even pointed the 20 mm wide-angle lens on his aircraft in your direction. Do you get equally angry when Google imaging vehicles drive by, or news helicopters with long, stabilized telephoto lenses appear above the horizon? Everyone is trying to get photos of you, as you are clearly aware¡

foggyhill said:

muppetry said:

You are incorrect on your assertion and assumptions, at least in the US. You do not own the airspace over your property, and flying over it is not illegal. Interfering with aircraft (including UAS) operations, by jamming or any other means, is illegal. Destruction of a UAS, even if it lands on your property, would constitute criminal damage.

You should actually know what you talk about before yapping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

There is a substantial amount of airspace that you have rights to.
And the fracking first 16 feet above the ground I'm pretty sure is part of it.

If someone flies within 16 feet of the god damn ground, especially repeatedly, they're gone
Once is an accident, many times it is a pattern.
And then they can go to court and argue their point.
I keep good photographic records so they better have all their "i"'s dotted.

There is no point quoting sources if you don't understand what they mean. The air space rights that property owners hold entitle them to development above their land, not to shoot down or interfere with aircraft, manned or otherwise. That would be a Federal crime. The act of flying over property is not illegal per se. If it constitutes a nuisance, by virtue of noise, unreasonable invasion of privacy etc., then local nuisance laws may be invoked to require an aircraft operator to cease such operations. But if instead you prefer to seek remedy by breaking Federal laws (interfering with aircraft operations) and/or local laws (criminal damage) yourself then have at it.

irnchriz said:

sockrolid said:

Hey.  Kickstarter people.
I'd pay up to $100 for a drone signal-jamming transmitter.
Push the button, signal is jammed, drone operator can't get their now-cliché hover shot.
Note: the jamming signal will only cause momentary loss of directional control, not crashing.
Net effect: drone operator thinks there's a defect and wants their money back (again and again.)

No, you want to perma jam it, then it goes into safe mode and lands.  If it lands on your property then it should have never been flying over it legally and I believe you are within your right to jump on it and smash it to smithereens. 

You are incorrect on your assertion and assumptions, at least in the US. You do not own the airspace over your property, and flying over it is not illegal. Interfering with aircraft (including UAS) operations, by jamming or any other means, is illegal. Destruction of a UAS, even if it lands on your property, would constitute criminal damage.