Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Suspension losses
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:29:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <vmiuns$278ll$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vlc9u5$kls5$2@dont-email.me>
 <beh2ojhsarrl8p37i446fenvlm4sa4tac8@4ax.com> <vlsfta$a60l$1@dont-email.me>
 <u1e8ojddts9edb9broi62iua1du7b01s8f@4ax.com> <vm1soq$1g6ul$2@dont-email.me>
 <4419oj9p6p9ft33ad1c8p9gv1vt73ogtnp@4ax.com>
 <jvb9ojhp5og9bu3pp4s876h2kh88j8ad24@4ax.com>
 <nkd9ojttriut6osfo3e9as9p7mpg2ff2ih@4ax.com> <vm363v$14sfp$7@dont-email.me>
 <vm3dfo$1rkhv$1@dont-email.me> <vm8tcv$31hsp$3@dont-email.me>
 <vm8u14$3277e$1@dont-email.me> <vm8unt$31hsp$4@dont-email.me>
 <vm8vid$3277e$5@dont-email.me> <vm96k0$31hsp$5@dont-email.me>
 <vm9gum$35ll5$3@dont-email.me> <vmat79$3fvn5$2@dont-email.me>
 <vmbf1u$3iko8$12@dont-email.me> <vmbksj$3jv3f$4@dont-email.me>
 <87frlinzae.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <vmegae$7c27$1@dont-email.me>
 <8734hhhyxe.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 14:29:32 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99cbaabf28cad0dbd593b2aa377302e6";
	logging-data="2335413"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/eo940R/9JEFCKM1MVQSbcDIuhXQathUI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zfBPaFMr9vb/tpIo+lPRKBpcahQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8734hhhyxe.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>
Bytes: 6978

On 1/17/2025 5:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 1/16/2025 5:56 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 1/16/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/16/2025 7:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/15/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should look at the energy used for the controls and think
>>>>>>> about what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic detail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think it all ends up as heat (IR spectrum) you have a gross
>>>>>> misunderstanding of electronics. First off, the indicators
>>>>>> dissipate energy in the visible light spectrum (this is why LEDs
>>>>>> are more efficient lighting than incandescent, very little energy
>>>>>> is used in the IR spectrum).
>>>>> OK, a thought experiment: Take an adiabatic container - that is, a
>>>>> _perfectly_ insulated box (a physical impossibility, but useful for
>>>>> our analysis). Let the box contain whatever you like - just air,
>>>>> some solid objects, whatever.
>>>>> Cut an LED sized hole in it and insert an LED of your choice so it
>>>>> shines into the box. Turn on the LED.
>>>>> What happens to the light entering the box? Obviously, you don't end
>>>>> up with a box full of light, so it isn't stored; it somehow goes
>>>>> away.
>>>>
>>>> lol...no, it doesn't 'go away'. For all intents and purposes it
>>>> suffers the safe fate as Schrödinger's cat.
>>>>
>>>>> And what happens to the temperature inside the box, and why?
>>>>
>>>> It will rise somewhat due to the residual IR energy from the
>>>> system. Visible spectrum LEDs do emit some IR, just not nearly as much
>>>> as incandescents (given the same lux)
>>>>
>>>>> Answer: The temperature of whatever's inside the box will rise. The
>>>>> energy put into _all_ spectra by the LED, including the visible
>>>>> light spectrum, ultimately converts to heat.
>>>>
>>>> So _all_ forms of energy convert to heat? You should write a paper on that.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Secondly, think about your premise that it all turns into heat -
>>>>>> this means no energy is available to do any other form of work.
>>>>> In physics or mechanical engineering, work is defined as force
>>>>> moving through a distance, or torque moving though an angle of
>>>>> rotation. Valid units of measurement are the same as the units for
>>>>> energy: foot*pounds, Newton*meters or Joules, etc. all of which
>>>>> (interestingly) can be converted to BTUs, which are normally units
>>>>> measuring heat.
>>>>> And in general, you're right, energy converted to heat is not
>>>>> normally available to do work.
>>>>
>>>> I used the term 'work' more generically, in this case running a
>>>> program, setting bits in memory, etc. Yes, residual heat from the
>>>> process, but energy is used to perform whatever task, Heat is the
>>>> result of losses in the system (thermal junctions from die bonds, for
>>>> example)
>>> I don't believe that is correct.  All the energy used to run a
>>> program
>>> does eventually get rejected as heat.  I suppose either 1 or 0 bits must
>>> have a slightly higher potential energy, but the net number of each is
>>> not likely to change much, and the energy difference must be small.
>>
>> Hmmm, so you're suggesting that if we consider computers to be heaters
>> that also perform a computing function, that using it as a heater
>> ostensibly gets us computing functions for free as long as we're
>> expecting the heating function to be primary?
>>
>> Sounds suspiciously perpetual-motion-esque.
> 
> There's nothing of perpetual motion about it.  Essentially all of the
> power you put into a computer is dissipated as heat. 

"essentially".....thank you.

'essentially', 'virtually', 'practically', Feel free to you any limiting 
adjverb you like, it's not 100%, this is been my point all along.


  Even mechanical
> work, like driving a computer fan, fairly quickly results in heating the
> room.  A small amount of energy leaves the computer as EM radiation,
> visible if you include the monitor, and intentional and unintentional RF
> transmission and that's about it.
> 
> If you don't believe this, tell me what electrical phenomenon consumes
> energy without producing either radiation, mechanical work, or heat.
> All of the energy used for useful computing is lost by passing currents
> through components with a voltage drop -- resistors, diodes, and
> transistors.  All dissipate the energy used as heat.
> 
>>> There is a field of study called "thermodynamic computing", which
>>> studies the minimum energy that must be dissipated for various logic
>>> operations.  Turns out that reversible computations, ie those that do
>>> not irretrievably lose information, can be more thermodynamically
>>> efficient than those that do lose information.  Eventually this sort of
>>> thinking is hoped to enable more economical computation.
>>
>> RAM vs NVRAM? I think that's been done before.
> 
> I'm afraid you misunderstand, but I don't want to get into a rathole
> that will amuse almost none of our readers.
>