Thermalright Unveils True Copper Ultra-120 Extreme Coolers

[Xope_Poquar]

alot.


my point is... heat is not the only form of energy present in a system at any given time.

As far as a computer heat sink is concerned, it is. The heat is generated from the friction of electrons moving through the silicon. The thermal energy is transferred through the IHS to the heat sink where it is absorbed by the air.

The heat sink does not do any energy conversions. There is no energy in the form of sound, light (radioactivity), mechanical, magnetic, nuclear, chemical, spring, electric, or dark (that I know of lol) that leaves the heat sink that was in the form of thermal energy when it left the IHS.

Technically heat is a form of kinetic energy as atomically the atoms are vibrating together (technically of which their fields are causing each other to vibrate).

I have to go to work so I'm going to stop there.

[exhausted mule]

As far as a computer heat sink is concerned, it is. The heat is generated from the friction of electrons moving through the silicon. The thermal energy is transferred through the IHS to the heat sink where it is absorbed by the air.

The heat sink does not do any energy conversions. There is no energy in the form of sound, light (radioactivity), mechanical, magnetic, nuclear, chemical, spring, electric, or dark (that I know of lol) that leaves the heat sink that was in the form of thermal energy when it left the IHS.

Technically heat is a form of kinetic energy as atomically the atoms are vibrating together (technically of which their fields are causing each other to vibrate).

I have to go to work so I'm going to stop there.

not entirely. alot of those watts are turned into mechanical. (although small, processors are a form of machine)

watts are just a measurment of potential work. watts is not heat.

[Calmatory]

not entirely. alot of those watts are turned into mechanical. (although small, processors are a form of machine)

watts are just a measurment of potential work. watts is not heat.

Here we go again...

What kind of machines? Their efficiency is zero. 0. Yes, they are able to convert set bits to another set of bits, but thats it. When they do that, they generate heat with all the power they draw.

[biohead]

Here we go again...

What kind of machines? Their efficiency is zero. 0. Yes, they are able to convert set bits to another set of bits, but thats it. When they do that, they generate heat with all the power they draw.

fail. indeed the eventual energy output will be in the form of heat because energy isn't stored in the system (the computer). but you should expand your thesaurus to be able to be more explanatory, because "sets of bits" doesn't quite cut it.

[Calmatory]

fail. indeed the eventual energy output will be in the form of heat because energy isn't stored in the system (the computer). but you should expand your thesaurus to be able to be more explanatory, because "sets of bits" doesn't quite cut it.

So I should start writing about how the signals from the FPU to L2 cache generate heat and as the FPU is busy, the TLB is idling and drawing no power etc? To put it short, CPU gets set of bits and translates it to another set of bits. Sure, it doesn't work exactly like that in practise but thats how to simplify it.

And who was saying that converting something to something else takes no energy? Excactly, no one. Bringing those arguments to the debate have no value other than trying to confuse others. If that is the last resort, then someone should lock the thread.

And still, the question remains: If it does not come out as heat, then what does it come out as? And no energy is being stored, right?

[Marvin_The_Martian]

So I should start writing about how the signals from the FPU to L2 cache generate heat and as the FPU is busy, the TLB is idling and drawing no power etc? To put it short, CPU gets set of bits and translates it to another set of bits. Sure, it doesn't work exactly like that in practise but thats how to simplify it.

And who was saying that converting something to something else takes no energy? Excactly, no one. Bringing those arguments to the debate have no value other than trying to confuse others. If that is the last resort, then someone should lock the thread.

And still, the question remains: If it does not come out as heat, then what does it come out as? And no energy is being stored, right?

Lol I'm following this discussion with abit of lulz but that much was clear already.

I'm not sure who is right, and I didn't quote you for any particular reason but I do have a question I think you will be able to answer.

When you say, no energy is stored I agree, and in that sence the energy pulled from the wall should all be converted into heat, but what about the electrons having a corrosive effect on the chanels they go through. The friction generated is a cause of heat, but some energy is lost due to the same friction as well ( the paths widen over time, which is why our equipment has a MTBF afaik ). I'm wondering, this corrosive effect generates heat, but some of the energy I'm guessing isn't removed as heat or else the pathways would not corrode.

Idk if anyone can follow me, but doesn't this indicate that a part of the energy isn't turned into heat. I'm not sure how to visualize the corroding of electronic pathways on a chip, but some of the corroding material has end up somewhere and the fact that the electrons cause this corrosion would also mean their energy is used to move the corroded particles.

Meh probably not making much sence, am I?

[NotFred]

Actually that’s a relatively good point.

The answer, I think, also answers the point about energy being used to switch the state of the transistors. Energy is, indeed, used to move particles in the channels to different places, or to switch the state of the electronics. However, this energy is not used up in doing so; it is then re-emitted as heat once the new state is reached.

The example about switching transistor states:
There will be two states of the system that are energetically stable. These two states will have an energy barrier in between them, otherwise switching could occur spontaneously. To switch the system from one state to another requires energy to be put into the semiconductor, allowing electrons to pass over the energy barrier. However this energy is then lost again (as heat) as the state falls into the other state.

The example about corroding the channel:
Here the electrons moving thought the channel are high enough in energy that when they collide with the particles making up the channels they give them enough kinetic energy to knock them out of the potential well they are sitting in. The particles then start moving; however resistance forces will damp this motion and bring them to a stop again a small distance away. Here the electrons have not produced heat initially, but the kinetic energy they transferred is turned into heat by the friction.

It could be argued that the two different states in each of these systems could have different energy levels, so the amount of energy re-emitted as heat is not the same as the energy put in to change the state, instead the excess energy would be stored as potential energy within the system. This is true, however in the first case the system will be switching back and forward between the states, so any extra potential energy in one state would be re-emitted when the system reverts to the initial state. The second example has no mechanism for releasing this potential energy, however the amount stored in this way is going to be small, as if the potential differences between the two states were large the particles would easily move back to the original positions, and the processor would in effect repair itself.