scott wrote:
>> We rebooted the laptop, and as soon as the BIOS screen showed up, the 
>> fans started spinning like mad. We waited for them to slow down.
> 
> What software was running then while you were waiting?

The BIOS configuration interface.

> I notice when I boot up my Vista box, that every fan runs at full blast 
> until some point during Vista boot, whereby first the CPU fan virtually 
> turns off, then a few seconds after the desktop appears the GPU fan 
> virtually turns off, all I can hear then is just occasional blips of 
> hard drive head movement - until I fire up a 3D game, then all hell 
> breaks loose again :-)

Interesting. All the fans in my PC just run constantly anyway. The four 
harddrives are just about inaudible.

(I can't believe I have four harddrives...)

Post a reply to this message

>> What software was running then while you were waiting?
>
> The BIOS configuration interface.

So your conclusion is that the BIOS software controls the fan speed, but for 
some reason SUSE manages to disable this fan speed control function of the 
BIOS?  Or that Windows has its own fan speed control software?

>> I notice when I boot up my Vista box, that every fan runs at full blast 
>> until some point during Vista boot, whereby first the CPU fan virtually 
>> turns off, then a few seconds after the desktop appears the GPU fan 
>> virtually turns off, all I can hear then is just occasional blips of hard 
>> drive head movement - until I fire up a 3D game, then all hell breaks 
>> loose again :-)
>
> Interesting. All the fans in my PC just run constantly anyway.

There should be an option in the BIOS to control the CPU fan speed based on 
temperature, it can be disguised under a number of weird names (I think mine 
is "AI Fan Control" or something stupid like that).

As for the GPU fan (which is far louder on my machine than the CPU fan), it 
seems this is built into the OS/driver.  Actually I don't remember XP ever 
reducing the speed, so maybe it's something new for Vista?

> The four harddrives are just about inaudible.

So are mine when the GPU fan is on!

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> What software was running then while you were waiting?
>>
>> The BIOS configuration interface.
> 
> So your conclusion is that the BIOS software controls the fan speed, but 
> for some reason SUSE manages to disable this fan speed control function 
> of the BIOS?  Or that Windows has its own fan speed control software?

My conclusion is that Windows (and SUSE when it's finished installing) 
controls the fan speed, but the SUSE installation program doesn't.

>> Interesting. All the fans in my PC just run constantly anyway.
> 
> There should be an option in the BIOS to control the CPU fan speed based 
> on temperature, it can be disguised under a number of weird names (I 
> think mine is "AI Fan Control" or something stupid like that).

Possibly I need to install AMD's Cool'n'Quiet driver or something, IDK.

(The idea of a "processor driver" is highly amusing to me. Of course, 
it's not actually a driver for the *processor* at all. It's a driver for 
some of the processor's special features, like frequency scaling, fan 
speeds, power management, etc.)

> As for the GPU fan (which is far louder on my machine than the CPU fan), 
> it seems this is built into the OS/driver.  Actually I don't remember XP 
> ever reducing the speed, so maybe it's something new for Vista?

I don't know. But if I ever get the cash for a more powerful 3D card, 
presumably it'll be far louder. ;-)

>> The four harddrives are just about inaudible.
> 
> So are mine when the GPU fan is on!

I'm just glad there's an indicator light on the front! Unfortunately, 
only one, not one for each HD.

It's a pitty nobody has ever had the forethought to put a network 
activity indicator on the front of the case. (Dell came close - their 
OptiPlex cases have a link light.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> OK, so here's a question...
> 
> My sister has an Acer Aspire 5000 laptop. It used to work just fine, but 
> recently it has developed some disturbing symptoms - basically random 
> freezing.
> 

I have an aspire 5100 that did the same thing for about the 1st year 
that I had it.  I tried all sorts of things, but no change.  It would 
freeze with a weird pattern on the screen and nothing would bring it 
back.  I forget if the power button worked or if I had to pull the 
battery to get it to turn off.  It was very annoying as whatever I would 
be working on would be lost.

I tried reinstalling windows, upgrading drivers, the works, no luck.

I gave up on trying to fix it and just saved frequently.

Now it works flawlessly - I don't know what fixed it, and I don't know 
what was wrong, but it doesn't lock up anymore at all.  I can't remember 
the last time it froze.


My guess was the wireless drivers, but I have nothing to substantiate 
it.  Try using it with the wireless turned off and see if that changes 
anything.





Tom

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> On the other hand, I was *also* under the impression that the cooling 
> fan is hardware-controlled. But it turns out to be software-controled. (!!)

Well, keeping it at the selected speed is hardware. Selecting what speed to 
keep it at is software. But I know what you mean.

> No matter how hot the laptop got, no fans.

Most BIOSen I've seen have a flag that says whether you want the OS or the 
BIOS to control the speed.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I notice when I boot up my Vista box, that every fan runs at full blast 
> until some point during Vista boot,

Most times the BIOS (or whatever firmware is on the gfx card) will set the 
fans to full speed on reset, just for safety.

> all I can hear then is just occasional blips of 
> hard drive head movement 

What confuses me is I can turn on a hard drive that has no activity on it, 
and it'll sit there making little chuckling noises, seeking around and such. 
Like, even a USB drive not plugged into a USB cable will click and seek and 
such.  I'm assuming the firmware is testing the drive or something, looking 
for sectors to spare out, but it' kind of weird.

At least if you let Vista sit for a couple hours, all the background crap 
finishes up and the drive stops working.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> On the other hand, I was *also* under the impression that the cooling 
>> fan is hardware-controlled. But it turns out to be software-controled. 
>> (!!)
> 
> Well, keeping it at the selected speed is hardware. Selecting what speed 
> to keep it at is software. But I know what you mean.
> 
>> No matter how hot the laptop got, no fans.
> 
> Most BIOSen I've seen have a flag that says whether you want the OS or 
> the BIOS to control the speed.

I guess I just *assumed* that a safety-critical feature like "don't burn 
down my house" would be hard-wired into the device. You know, like how 
your boiler turns off when the house is warm, without needing any 
software. Apparently not...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:

> I have an aspire 5100 that did the same thing for about the 1st year 
> that I had it.

Oh... good. o_O

Nice to know it's well-designed then. :-/

Seriously, I bought my sister a new laptop because hers was lame. This 
new one is really failing to impress me.

> Now it works flawlessly - I don't know what fixed it, and I don't know 
> what was wrong, but it doesn't lock up anymore at all.  I can't remember 
> the last time it froze.
> 
> 
> My guess was the wireless drivers, but I have nothing to substantiate 
> it.  Try using it with the wireless turned off and see if that changes 
> anything.

Well, initially I didn't even *install* the wireless drivers. (I 
couldn't, because I didn't have them to hand.) Made no difference. Ditto 
for sound and video.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I guess I just *assumed* that a safety-critical feature like "don't burn 
> down my house" would be hard-wired into the device. 

I don't think CPU temperature is safety critical. The CPU basically burns 
out before the heat gets high enough to set anything outside the case on fire.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

>> I guess I just *assumed* that a safety-critical feature like "don't 
>> burn down my house" would be hard-wired into the device. 
> 
> I don't think CPU temperature is safety critical. The CPU basically 
> burns out before the heat gets high enough to set anything outside the 
> case on fire.

Well, perhaps. But CPU temperature is *utterly* critical to being able 
to continue using your laptop. If it gets hot enough, the CPU will burn 
out, and then your laptop is a very expensive paper weight. (!)

I'd be... kind of "upset" if that happened to me. o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I guess I just *assumed* that a safety-critical feature like "don't 
>>> burn down my house" would be hard-wired into the device. 
>>
>> I don't think CPU temperature is safety critical. The CPU basically 
>> burns out before the heat gets high enough to set anything outside the 
>> case on fire.
> 
> Well, perhaps. But CPU temperature is *utterly* critical to being able 
> to continue using your laptop. If it gets hot enough, the CPU will burn 
> out, and then your laptop is a very expensive paper weight. (!)

Yep. But that's not safety critical. :-) Indeed, that's exactly why it 
*isn't* safety critical.  Unlike say batteries blowing up, which *are* 
safety critical and which therefore have hardware in the charger to keep 
from blowing them up.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
> Well, perhaps. But CPU temperature is *utterly* critical to being able
> to continue using your laptop. If it gets hot enough, the CPU will burn
> out, and then your laptop is a very expensive paper weight. (!)

Then they can sell you a new one (naturally you'll buy the same brand as
the one that melted, won't you?).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

> What confuses me is I can turn on a hard drive that has no activity on it, 
> and it'll sit there making little chuckling noises, seeking around and 
> such. Like, even a USB drive not plugged into a USB cable will click and 
> seek and such.  I'm assuming the firmware is testing the drive or 
> something, looking for sectors to spare out, but it' kind of weird.

Probably some sort of continuous calibration system to account for 
temperature changes etc, I guess the head movement mechanisms need to be 
controlled pretty accurately!

Post a reply to this message

> Well, perhaps. But CPU temperature is *utterly* critical to being able to 
> continue using your laptop. If it gets hot enough, the CPU will burn out, 
> and then your laptop is a very expensive paper weight. (!)

Can this actually happen though, or does the CPU just shut down before it 
knows it is going to melt?

When I built my sister's PC the heat sink clip had snapped without me 
knowing, so the heat sink was hanging off one side.  Every time I tried to 
install Windows it just turned off after about 20 seconds.  It wasn't until 
I took the case off that I realised the problem.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> What confuses me is I can turn on a hard drive that has no activity on 
>> it, and it'll sit there making little chuckling noises, seeking around 
>> and such. Like, even a USB drive not plugged into a USB cable will 
>> click and seek and such.  I'm assuming the firmware is testing the 
>> drive or something, looking for sectors to spare out, but it' kind of 
>> weird.
> 
> Probably some sort of continuous calibration system to account for 
> temperature changes etc, I guess the head movement mechanisms need to be 
> controlled pretty accurately!

Yeah, I always thought the sounds a HD makes when turned on was just the 
drive mechanism trying to find track 0 or something like that.

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, perhaps. But CPU temperature is *utterly* critical to being able
>> to continue using your laptop. If it gets hot enough, the CPU will burn
>> out, and then your laptop is a very expensive paper weight. (!)
> 
> Then they can sell you a new one (naturally you'll buy the same brand as
> the one that melted, won't you?).

Yes, I *will* buy the same CPU brand as the melted one. You know why? 
The rival brand uses a different socket. :-P

OTOH, it would probably be both *cheaper* and more beneficial to just 
buy an entire new laptop! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Well, perhaps. But CPU temperature is *utterly* critical to being able 
>> to continue using your laptop. If it gets hot enough, the CPU will 
>> burn out, and then your laptop is a very expensive paper weight. (!)
> 
> Can this actually happen though, or does the CPU just shut down before 
> it knows it is going to melt?

I am unsure. One would hope that powering down the system if a 
hard-limit temperature is reached *is* in hardware rather than software. 
OTOH, here we have a laptop which got sufficiently hot for the CPU to 
malfunction fairly seriously, yet still the power remains on.

Post a reply to this message

> I am unsure. One would hope that powering down the system if a hard-limit 
> temperature is reached *is* in hardware rather than software. OTOH, here 
> we have a laptop which got sufficiently hot for the CPU to malfunction 
> fairly seriously, yet still the power remains on.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hot-spot,365.html

It's quite old, but the basic outcome seems to be that the Intel CPUs are 
impossible to damage by overheating.  With the AMD chip it relies on the 
motherboard, but their demo shows that a motherboard temperature sensor 
cannot react quickly enough to avoid frying the CPU when the HS comes off.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hot-spot,365.html
> 
> It's quite old, but the basic outcome seems to be that the Intel CPUs 
> are impossible to damage by overheating.  With the AMD chip it relies on 
> the motherboard, but their demo shows that a motherboard temperature 
> sensor cannot react quickly enough to avoid frying the CPU when the HS 
> comes off.

Oh wow... 370°C after 1 second? That's pretty special!

Looking at this, it seems that in "the old days" some CPUs didn't have 
any temperature sensors at all. I would imagine given the *huge* amounts 
of heat that newer CPUs generate, this must have changed by now.

I still don't know whether the fan speed is hardware or software 
controlled, but I would think by now the system will at least turn 
itself off in a thermal emergency without software intervention.

As an aside... How much heat does the human brain generate? (By every 
estimate I've seen, it has vastly superior theoretical computational 
power compared to any supercomputer yet built by man.) How come human 
brains don't ignite and burn during normal operation? I don't see any 
really large heat sinks on a human...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:04:54 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

> How come human 
>brains don't ignite and burn during normal operation? I don't see any 
>really large heat sinks on a human...

It is fluid cooled and what about those heatsinks on the side of your head? 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> How come human 
>> brains don't ignite and burn during normal operation? I don't see any 
>> really large heat sinks on a human...
> 
> It is fluid cooled and what about those heatsinks on the side of your head? 

Water cooled? Elite!

But I mean, *damn*, you'd have to have a high-volume fluid pumping 
system, and a very large surface area to dissapate the heat over.



...oh, wait...

Post a reply to this message

> As an aside... How much heat does the human brain generate?

You can do a quick estimation by seeing how much heat is radiated, the skin 
temperature is approximately 32 degrees, room temperature is 20 degrees, and 
the surface area of your head is, umm about 0.08m^2.  Using the 
Stefan-Boltzmann law I make that about 6W of radiated heat.  Given that the 
human body generates about 100W, I think the 6W figure is too low, as some 
of the heat from the brain will be taken into the body by the blood stream 
(liquid cooling!).  I guess around 20W would be a more sensible figure.


> (By every estimate I've seen, it has vastly superior theoretical 
> computational power compared to any supercomputer yet built by man.)

If my computer were as slow as me doing sums it would probably run on solar 
power in the dark!  And if I tried to do 3 billion sums in one second my 
head would surely explode.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> As an aside... How much heat does the human brain generate?
> 
> Given 
> that the human body generates about 100W, I think the 6W figure is too 
> low, as some of the heat from the brain will be taken into the body by 
> the blood stream (liquid cooling!).  I guess around 20W would be a more 
> sensible figure.

http://vadim.oversigma.com/MAS862/Project.html

Suggests that the entire body consumes about 100W, and the brain itself 
uses 20 - 40 W. (So... a pretty significant fraction, considering that 
the human body is *not* a data processing device, primarily.) That's how 
much energy it *uses*, I wonder how much of that ends up as heat?

>> (By every estimate I've seen, it has vastly superior theoretical 
>> computational power compared to any supercomputer yet built by man.)
> 
> If my computer were as slow as me doing sums it would probably run on 
> solar power in the dark!  And if I tried to do 3 billion sums in one 
> second my head would surely explode.

Well, you say that, but how many "sums" does it take to compare a 
snippet of sound to many millions of other recorded examples like it and 
determine that, yes, this is The Beetles singing "All you need is love"?

The human brain doesn't work the same way a computer does. This isn't 
exactly news. Indeed, this is why computers are useful in the first 
place! But based on the number of switching elements in a computer vs 
those in the brain, AFAIK the brain comes out rather favourably.

(The same website above gives the number of transisters in a Pentium IV 
as K * 10^7, while the number of neurons in a brain is K * 10^11. Kind 
of a big difference...)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> http://vadim.oversigma.com/MAS862/Project.html

"The power consumption of the Pentium 4 may exceed that of the human 
brain. That explains why Pentium cooling systems are getting close in 
size to the human head."

I LOLd! :-D

Post a reply to this message

> Suggests that the entire body consumes about 100W, and the brain itself 
> uses 20 - 40 W. (So... a pretty significant fraction, considering that the 
> human body is *not* a data processing device, primarily.) That's how much 
> energy it *uses*, I wonder how much of that ends up as heat?

Well there aren't too many options for "used energy" to be converted to. 
Maybe some is used to increase the kinetic energy of some blood, but I would 
say that almost all is converted to heat.

> The human brain doesn't work the same way a computer does. This isn't 
> exactly news. Indeed, this is why computers are useful in the first place! 
> But based on the number of switching elements in a computer vs those in 
> the brain, AFAIK the brain comes out rather favourably.

I guess the brain also makes even Windows ME look good for uptime records 
:-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Suggests that the entire body consumes about 100W, and the brain 
>> itself uses 20 - 40 W. (So... a pretty significant fraction, 
>> considering that the human body is *not* a data processing device, 
>> primarily.) That's how much energy it *uses*, I wonder how much of 
>> that ends up as heat?
> 
> Well there aren't too many options for "used energy" to be converted to. 
> Maybe some is used to increase the kinetic energy of some blood, but I 
> would say that almost all is converted to heat.

Well, I guess the brain does use *some* of that energy for chemical 
transformations. (It turns raw ingredients into hormones and releases 
them, for example.) But yeah, *most* of it is porbably heat...

FWIW, how much heat does an Intel Core 2 Quad generate?

> I guess the brain also makes even Windows ME look good for uptime 
> records :-)

HAHAHAH! PWN3D! :-D

Post a reply to this message

> FWIW, how much heat does an Intel Core 2 Quad generate?

About 120W under full load.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> FWIW, how much heat does an Intel Core 2 Quad generate?
> 
> About 120W under full load.

...so, more than an entire human being?

Perhaps *this* is why the human brain is in little danger of burning to 
a crisp? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:26:48 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>>> How come human 
>>> brains don't ignite and burn during normal operation? I don't see any 
>>> really large heat sinks on a human...
>> 
>> It is fluid cooled and what about those heatsinks on the side of your head? 
>
>Water cooled? Elite!
>
>But I mean, *damn*, you'd have to have a high-volume fluid pumping 
>system, and a very large surface area to dissapate the heat over.
>
>
>
>...oh, wait...

Yes, the cardiovascular system is an effective heat exchanger working with the
lungs and skin. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> About 120W under full load.
>
> ...so, more than an entire human being?
>
> Perhaps *this* is why the human brain is in little danger of burning to a 
> crisp? ;-)

Maybe not burning to a crisp, but if you raise the temperature of your 
innards by just a few degrees things begin to screw up very rapidly.  You 
have quite a sophisticated temperature control system to keep you at around 
37 degrees inside...

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

>> ...oh, wait...
> 
> Yes, the cardiovascular system is an effective heat exchanger working with the
> lungs and skin. :)

More impressive is the scientific *fact* this this system is somehow 
able to keep the contents of the human body at a temperature drastically 
*lower* than the surrounding ambient, even though the human body itself 
generates heat, in utter defience of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I'd never believe it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Maybe not burning to a crisp, but if you raise the temperature of your 
> innards by just a few degrees things begin to screw up very rapidly.  
> You have quite a sophisticated temperature control system to keep you at 
> around 37 degrees inside...

Or, to put it the correct way round, your life processes are designed to 
work at one specific temperature *because* you have an elaborate system 
designed to keep things at exactly that temperature. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> More impressive is the scientific *fact* this this system is somehow 
> able to keep the contents of the human body at a temperature drastically 
> *lower* than the surrounding ambient, even though the human body itself 
> generates heat, in utter defience of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:48:15 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>>> ...oh, wait...
>> 
>> Yes, the cardiovascular system is an effective heat exchanger working with the
>> lungs and skin. :)
>
>More impressive is the scientific *fact* this this system is somehow 
>able to keep the contents of the human body at a temperature drastically 
>*lower* than the surrounding ambient, even though the human body itself 
>generates heat, in utter defience of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
>I'd never believe it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes...

Sorry, but the ambient temperature is generally lower than body temperature.
When it is higher we use evaporation, as Scott says. 
Although it is amazing the temperatures that we can tolerate. Once I was working
above a gas turbine and the air temperature was 99 °C.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> More impressive is the scientific *fact* this this system is somehow 
>> able to keep the contents of the human body at a temperature drastically 
>> *lower* than the surrounding ambient, even though the human body itself 
>> generates heat, in utter defience of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>>
>> I'd never believe it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes...
> 
> Sorry, but the ambient temperature is generally lower than body temperature.

Yes, _usually_ it is, and this is quite unsurprising.

> When it is higher we use evaporation, as Scott says. 

I watched some people put a guy in a room at 40°C, and yet somehow he 
didn't die. Indeed, although he came out looking half dead, a 
radiothermometer confirms that his *internal* temperature barely moved. 
It went up something like 0.1°C, which is nothing.

> Although it is amazing the temperatures that we can tolerate. Once I was working
> above a gas turbine and the air temperature was 99 °C.

Interesting. I'm told 80°C is the threshold of pain (and also burns 
damage), so I would have expected 99°C to be a fatality without some 
*serious* protective clothing...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:55:19 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>I watched some people put a guy in a room at 40°C, and yet somehow he 
>didn't die. Indeed, although he came out looking half dead, a 
>radiothermometer confirms that his *internal* temperature barely moved. 
>It went up something like 0.1°C, which is nothing.
>

Again several years ago, when I was working offshore, I worked for two days on a
separation train where the ambient temperature was IIRC about 50deg C. There was
a team of us taking turns monitoring the instrumentation as the HVAC system had
failed. We would spend about 30 mins in the heat and 30 mins cooling down then
back into the heat. All of us were able to keep it up foe 12 hours a day. I
can't remember how much water we drank but we were given salt tablets as well.
Remember "Production Rules". :)

>> Although it is amazing the temperatures that we can tolerate. Once I was working
>> above a gas turbine and the air temperature was 99 °C.
>
>Interesting. I'm told 80°C is the threshold of pain (and also burns 
>damage), so I would have expected 99°C to be a fatality without some 
>*serious* protective clothing...

No serious PPE (Personal Protective Equipment). Safety boots, jeans, tee shirt,
overalls, leather/cotton gloves and hard hat. I tried removing my tee shirt but
the metal on the overalls was too hot to touch. I know what the temperature was
because I took a mercury thermometer up to check as I wanted to know what the
temperature was and a bi-metallic strip thermometer was reading over 100C.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> No serious PPE (Personal Protective Equipment). Safety boots, jeans, tee shirt,
> overalls, leather/cotton gloves and hard hat. I tried removing my tee shirt but
> the metal on the overalls was too hot to touch. I know what the temperature was
> because I took a mercury thermometer up to check as I wanted to know what the
> temperature was and a bi-metallic strip thermometer was reading over 100C.

Damn. Well considering that permanent tissue damage occurs at 80°C, I 
can only assume that your drenched clothing somehow kept you a few 
degrees cooler than that or something. (Surely water must evapourate 
stupidly fast at almost boiling point!)

Reminds me of the time I was trapped by a fire. I didn't realise that 
skin could actually excrete water that fast. I'm not kidding, I had 
water *pouring* off me like water flows out of a tap. I have no idea how 
much water there is in the human body, but I'd suggest fatal dehydration 
couldn't take very long at that speed. (I had one *bad* headache 
afterwards!)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:28:51 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Damn. Well considering that permanent tissue damage occurs at 80°C, I 
>can only assume that your drenched clothing somehow kept you a few 
>degrees cooler than that or something. (Surely water must evapourate 
>stupidly fast at almost boiling point!)
>
At those temperatures your clothing is bone dry. If it had been wet then there
is a big chance of being scalded. (Counter intuitive, I know)

>Reminds me of the time I was trapped by a fire. I didn't realise that 
>skin could actually excrete water that fast. I'm not kidding, I had 
>water *pouring* off me like water flows out of a tap. I have no idea how 
>much water there is in the human body, but I'd suggest fatal dehydration 
>couldn't take very long at that speed. (I had one *bad* headache 
>afterwards!)

It is amazing how fast you can sweat once you get started.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Interesting. I'm told 80°C is the threshold of pain (and also burns
> damage), so I would have expected 99°C to be a fatality without some
> *serious* protective clothing...

Ever heard of sauna? ;P

-- Arttu Voutilainen

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Probably some sort of continuous calibration system to account for 
> temperature changes etc, I guess the head movement mechanisms need to be 
> controlled pretty accurately!

Interesting idea. Maybe I'll leave it on for a few minutes, idle, and see if 
it keeps making noises after it has been spinning for a while.

As an aside, it turns out that on CDMA at least, the list of cell phone 
numbers that should start ringing during this 1.25 time fits in one or two 
packets, and is sorted by phone number, so while you're listening, if you 
hear a higher phone number in the list, you can power down. It turns out you 
have to adjust the sleep timer depending on how many phone numbers you 
listened to, because running the receiver heats up the quartz crystal 
differently depending on how long it runs, so the timer runs at a different 
speed, and you'll miss your wake-up window if you don't.  Pretty intensely 
complicated inside there.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Can this actually happen though, or does the CPU just shut down before 
> it knows it is going to melt?

I once came home to a powered-down Windows machine that had been doing a 
render. When I turned it on, I got a pop-up from Windows saying it had been 
shut down due to temperature problems.  (Poorly-ventilated machine inside a 
cabinet.)

I suspect both the OS and MB monitor the heat.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:58:06 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> http://vadim.oversigma.com/MAS862/Project.html
>
> Suggests that the entire body consumes about 100W, and the brain itself  
> uses 20 - 40 W. (So... a pretty significant fraction, considering that  
> the human body is *not* a data processing device, primarily.) That's how  
> much energy it *uses*, I wonder how much of that ends up as heat?

http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2009-01-05/


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> Yes, I *will* buy the same CPU brand as the melted one. You know why?
> The rival brand uses a different socket. :-P

You'd buy that CPU from Acer?

> OTOH, it would probably be both *cheaper* and more beneficial to just
> buy an entire new laptop! ;-)

That's what I ment, they can sell you a new laptop. And if eg. Acer was
fine in other ways but it, hmm, kind of.. melted, you're granted to buy
new Acer. Right?

I just might think about another laptop-brand. I might check Dell or
Lenovo, if my HP melted oslt.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Arttu Voutilainen wrote:
> 
> Ever heard of sauna? ;P

I guess he hasn't. But damn, not only you beat me asking that, but you
also made me think if I should heat one up. Get some nice 70-80C to air
and vaporaze some liters of water to it...

Hmm, naah. It's too warm outside to get best out of it :(.

> -- Arttu Voutilainen

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> I suspect both the OS and MB monitor the heat.
> 

And they should. The OS can do pretty sophisticated things in such
manner, while estimating the overheat - it can shut down or freeze
processes nicely, it can hibernate or power down nicely etc. The MB...
Well, via ACPI it can tell the OS to do (at least most of) these things
also, but it (also) should be able to cruely cut the power, in case of
OS crashing hard (you know, kernel panic, BSOD etc) and not being able
to do anything nicely.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:

> I just might think about another laptop-brand. I might check Dell or
> Lenovo, if my HP melted oslt.

I am constantly baffled at people who think that buying things from Dell 
is a valid thing to do... ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
> I am constantly baffled at people who think that buying things from Dell
> is a valid thing to do... ;-)
> 

We do run them at work, you know. For which brand do you have such an
experience? ;-)

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

> As an aside, it turns out that on CDMA at least, the list of cell phone 
> numbers that should start ringing during this 1.25 time fits in one or two 
> packets, and is sorted by phone number, so while you're listening, if you 
> hear a higher phone number in the list, you can power down. It turns out 
> you have to adjust the sleep timer depending on how many phone numbers you 
> listened to, because running the receiver heats up the quartz crystal 
> differently depending on how long it runs, so the timer runs at a 
> different speed, and you'll miss your wake-up window if you don't.  Pretty 
> intensely complicated inside there.

Yeh I imagine on a lot of systems that are operating right on the limit of 
what's possible there are cool things like this that have to be done.

On a side note, isn't that a pretty bad security design, in that your 
handset could (in theory) be able to display a list of all phone numbers 
called in your cell?  I mean your phone could just store the last few 
seconds worth of called-numbers in your cell, and then when you hear your 
target's phone ring, trial and error through the short-list for to get their 
number.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> On a side note, isn't that a pretty bad security design,

I'll ask.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> On a side note, isn't that a pretty bad security design, in that your 
> handset could (in theory) be able to display a list of all phone numbers 
> called in your cell? 

Yes. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message