Thermalright Unveils True Copper Ultra-120 Extreme Coolers

[Calmatory]

sure it does. what do you think a semi conductor is?


bah. nvm.

I don't know what it has to do with this. So please share the facts.

[dan7777]

wonder how much better this is guna be compared to the original TRUE in regards to temps on load exspecially we will see..... 99$ seems alot tho.

[exhausted mule]

I don't know what it has to do with this. So please share the facts.

alot.


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

[Calmatory]

alot.


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

So if the energy does not come out as heat, then where is it stored? I still stand behind the 400 W in, 400 W out claim, until someone can prove me wrong.

[exhausted mule]

So if the energy does not come out as heat, then where is it stored? I still stand behind the 400 W in, 400 W out claim, until someone can prove me wrong.

your 100% right.


but only the inneficiencies of the components turn those watts into heat.

[Calmatory]

your 100% right.


but only the inneficiencies of the components turn those watts into heat.

Yes, but thats how the hardware works. Can't change that even if we wanted to.

[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.

[AuDioFreaK39]

Alright guys, so I'm about to preorder one of these, and I need you guys to recommend me a quality fan that's preferably in the silent range of < 35dBA - I'm not up to date on fan performance at the moment. Thanks in advance.

[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.

[exhausted mule]

actually. you both fail, because converting anything to anything requires energy.

[biohead]

actually. you both fail, because converting anything to anything requires energy.

did i say it doesn't?

[Marvin_The_Martian]

Lol is this wamps/SF or the news section?

Nvm, I'm getting some popcorn

Not sure who is right, or how relevant it is to the HS in question, but the reading is kind of entertaining

[exhausted mule]

did i say it doesn't?

yes. because you said eventually that energy eventually turns into heat... which it doesn't.

it isn't stored either. its used up in the actual switching of the gates which requires energy to polarise the silicon.


cala, your right in saying 400watts in and 400 watts out.


but its not 400 watts in and 400 watts of HEAT out. That would suggest
the computer is 100% efficient in converting eletricity into heat.


which is far from the truth.

[biohead]

that's what i said initially, but they were talking about what eventually happens to the total amount of electrical energy taken from the wall socket. i know the equations and the laws, it's just confusing when no-one seems to be exactly talking about the same thing. imma check my physics professor on this.

[LexDiamonds]

yes. because you said eventually that energy eventually turns into heat... which it doesn't.

it isn't stored either. its used up in the actual switching of the gates which requires energy to polarise the silicon.


cala, your right in saying 400watts in and 400 watts out.


but its not 400 watts in and 400 watts of HEAT out. That would suggest
the computer is 100% efficient in converting eletricity into heat.


which is far from the truth.

+1... this is all I was trying to explain from the beginning....

[leoy]

Guys it isn't just heat...
It is also kinetic energy...
The electrons that move inside the transistor.

[alexio]

actually. you both fail, because converting anything to anything requires energy.

That is true if you consider rest mass = energy. On the other hand, how can it be true if there never was any mass/energy? Hmmm, relativity solves that question

yes. because you said eventually that energy eventually turns into heat... which it doesn't.

Enlighten me. There is no EMF left after the “cycle” has been completed, so I*V = 0W/s = 0J/s. If you measure 400J/s electrical power in a computer then 400J/s is being converted into heat (except for the fans, it takes some more steps). Even impedance characterized by the PWM circuits and actually processing chips can just me considered Ohmic resistors in workable time scales. Mind you, my definition of the 400W measurement may be different than yours (maybe you’re not even talking about a measurement here). What ARE you talking about exactly?

it isn't stored either. its used up in the actual switching of the gates which requires energy to polarize the silicon.

Electron -> photon -> electron ->photon->etc. You just change the energy state of the electrons which results in a changing magnetic field that opposes the magnetic field induced by the current flow. It’s just Ohmic resistance; the result is heat! And yes, looking at extremely short time scales, more or less than 400J/s may be consumed by the transistors (forgetting the rest of the PC here), but it averages out to 400J/s over slightly longer timescales.

explain this then, if heat is the one thing everything turned into what's the cause of heat?

This is an irrelevant question. You could just as well ask how the universe was formed. It was never formed because there was no time. The best answer to your question is the process of electromagnetism, gravity and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Heat though, can turn into other forms of energy if you consider E=MC2, but the point is this isn’t relevant in your computer case.
I think the problem here is not that you don’t understand physics, the problem is that you can’t it make clear to me and some others what it is that you mean. How do you define 400W/s? My definition is I*V measured with a simple meter. And that 400W/s of electrical energy is turned into 400W/s heat energy quite directly with very nearly 100% efficiency.

Guys it isn't just heat...
It is also kinetic energy...
The electrons that move inside the transistor.

That kinetic energy is proportional to charge * EMF (electromotive force, symbol: V). Thus, that kinetic energy is part of that 400W/s. The energy the electrons loose due to Ohmic resistance = heat = practically 400W/s.

[AndrewZorn]

May I request that if an answer to this is ever found, it be posted somewhere? This thread just gets bigger and bigger, and never gets shut down, like the Iwaki thread in Liquid Cooling! Usually this stuff on XS is closed quick.

[exhausted mule]

emf has nothing to do with kinetic energy of atoms. its all in the electrons.


i'm not a physics proffesor. but its pretty obvious your confused by your own understandings of what basics physics are alex.

ohm is the resistance to current. which consequently turns into heat after the work unit is done. so... over a given amount of time. if any work is being done. the system is in equilibrium and not turning into heat.

we dont understand physics 100% and i'm sure every physicist will give you a different explanation. But I can tell you you will not get 400watts of heat coming out of a system where work was done with 400watts of potential power.

[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.

[Calmatory]

So, if some energy IS being stored, how much would it be? 400 W in, 399,99999... W out? Or 90 % out? 99,99 %? 60 %?