Hey, just kinda had random idea in my head:
Would it not be possible to develop ERS system for modern CPU's?
Like instead of cooler we would have some device attached which takes heat from CPU and converts it into energy/electricity.
Energy could be used for performance boost or lower power consumption (PSU draws less power).
So with one device 2 things could be done:
1) Cooling (since devices takes heat away from CPU)
2) Power for less electricity draw or performance boost.
What would the problems with this be?
I mean we all know: Heat = Energy, and eventually Energy = Electricity.
Something in principle of KERS on F1 cars but instead of kinetic energy - use heat?
The biggest problem is the amount of heat a CPU give off. Which isn't much.
It works for F1 cars, because of the massive amount of energy dissipated by braking.
not to mention that we have yet to even create a decent and constantly working thermocoupler generator. We're just not to that age of being able to do it properly and as efficiently as it can be.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/3Q0TIyy.jpg[/img]
Stirling engine CPU cooler.
The problem as listed above is that methods of converting rather low amounts of heat to energy are rather inefficient. Think of how a power station generates power - they usually do it through moving a steam turbine with heat.
The best you're really going to get is a Stirling engine driving a rather low-torque device like a fan (they require very little energy to move but do not have much torque) or a Peltier device (which is inefficient as heck) to move some very, very minor amount of electricity back at the cost of a lot of cooling potential.
Keeping in mind that CPUs generally cannot exceed 95C or so without reducing their lifespan significantly.
[editline]18th July 2014[/editline]
All in all, F1 engines use KERS because getting them going takes all of 540,000W of power and presumably getting them to stop takes about the same amount of energy. An average CPU outputs 95W or so.
But KERS's existence is pretty much [I]only[/I] because engine regulations limit power and other regulations limit weight so if everything was near unlimited like in the 80's you'd be seeing absolutely fucking insanely sanic speed F1 cars with the lightest of frames and the most powerful of engines by now. And those regulations exist for a reason (Ayrton Senna, Roland Ratzenberger, etc)
There's that whole hot water cooling thing some company in northern europe did for their servers, but that isn't applicable in most situations
But what if even small amounts of energy would be stored in some kind of battery and when needed it would lash out? or it would take too long to build up?
If you manage to figure out a device that converts thermal energy into electricity at 100% efficiency, call the patent office instead of posting here.
It's hard to convert the ridiculously small amounts of heat that a computer pushes out.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;45432397][img]https://i.imgur.com/3Q0TIyy.jpg[/img]
Stirling engine CPU cooler.
The problem as listed above is that methods of converting rather low amounts of heat to energy are rather inefficient. Think of how a power station generates power - they usually do it through moving a steam turbine with heat.
The best you're really going to get is a Stirling engine driving a rather low-torque device like a fan (they require very little energy to move but do not have much torque) or a Peltier device (which is inefficient as heck) to move some very, very minor amount of electricity back at the cost of a lot of cooling potential.
Keeping in mind that CPUs generally cannot exceed 95C or so without reducing their lifespan significantly.
[editline]18th July 2014[/editline]
All in all, F1 engines use KERS because getting them going takes all of 540,000W of power and presumably getting them to stop takes about the same amount of energy. An average CPU outputs 95W or so.
But KERS's existence is pretty much [I]only[/I] because engine regulations limit power and other regulations limit weight so if everything was near unlimited like in the 80's you'd be seeing absolutely fucking insanely sanic speed F1 cars with the lightest of frames and the most powerful of engines by now. And those regulations exist for a reason (Ayrton Senna, Roland Ratzenberger, etc)[/QUOTE]
As I recall, that wasn't a CPU cooler, that was for the Northbridge. And the problem with it was it required a high temperature to even get started, and then once the chipset cooled down, well, the fan slowed down, too.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;45447416]As I recall, that wasn't a CPU cooler, that was for the Northbridge. And the problem with it was it required a high temperature to even get started, and then once the chipset cooled down, well, the fan slowed down, too.[/QUOTE]
And we all know how well designing cooling efficiency to output works, don't we [I]Chernobyl.[/I]
[QUOTE=KinderBueno;45441291]But what if even small amounts of energy would be stored in some kind of battery and when needed it would lash out? or it would take too long to build up?[/QUOTE]
Nice idea, but even a 10$ system would not be worth the money with current efficiency's for this kind of stuff.
And the CPU can already get more energy from the motherbord for a "performance boost". Read up on overclocking and v-core.
I have seen systems that can power lights on a road being displayed on my uni once. It used the temperature difference of a warm road next to a cold stream or well to create enough energy to power a few lamp posts. It worked by expanding a fluid due to the heat of the road which then pushed a generator. When the expansion was complete it opened a valve and let in cool water again. A bit like a fluid stirling engine. (Fluidine engine)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
