If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Johannes H Andersen wrote:
Rob Stow wrote: The little lost angel wrote: On 24 Sep 2003 08:20:01 -0700, (David Taylor) wrote: Erm, why not get a good quality long video cable, keyboard cable, mouse cable. And stick the box in another room? Or wear earmuffs? :PppP Actually, at one place I lived there was rather conveniently a small storage room/pantry adjacent to the room I wanted my computer in. Being a bachelor, I obviously had no use for a pantry so ... I just drilled a 1" hole through the wall to pass my monitor, keyboard, and mouse cables through - no extensions needed. My intention was cooling - the storage room was unheated - rather than sound muffling , but it obviously worked for both. Eventually I also got an external CD drive for the rather obvious reason :-D And there was obviously a hole in the wall to patch when I moved out. Hmm. I've used cable extensions in the past, but it didn't work very well so I gave it up. In particular it caused problems for the mouse and the monitor. If you have (or are willing to buy) a KVM switch, those often work even where cable extensions don't. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Rob Stow wrote: Johannes H Andersen wrote: Rob Stow wrote: [...] Hmm. I've used cable extensions in the past, but it didn't work very well so I gave it up. In particular it caused problems for the mouse and the monitor. If you have (or are willing to buy) a KVM switch, those often work even where cable extensions don't. I think you're right, the extra plugs for the extensions could have introduced noise; the mouse worked OK, but not as easy to control than without the extension cable. My current internet computer is a silent P1 233MMX, so I'm fine for the moment, but rumours are that the P4 successor will draw 103 Watts. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:37:28 +0000 (UTC), Baffie
wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:49:42 +0100, Rob Morley wrote: Baffie wrote: snip It ain't a problem for me as I've got my power settings shutting down the HD after 10 minutes of inactivity, saves power, saves wear and tear and prevents heat/noise. As long as your HD is adequately cooled it's kinder to leave it spinning than to frequently spin it up and down. that was the case in days of old, thermal shock now isn't so much an issue with 21st century bearings and higher density storage. Untrue, and likely fabricated. Higher density storage has the exact opposite effect, makes it even more likely to lose data when there's slight bearing wear. Even so, it'll depend on usage patterns, whether the bearing fails before another problem arises or the drive is retired. Dave |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:37:28 +0000 (UTC), Baffie wrote: [snip] As long as your HD is adequately cooled it's kinder to leave it spinning than to frequently spin it up and down. that was the case in days of old, thermal shock now isn't so much an issue with 21st century bearings and higher density storage. Untrue, and likely fabricated. Higher density storage has the exact opposite effect, makes it even more likely to lose data when there's slight bearing wear. Unless the transition to higher storage densities nesessitated a move from "blind" positioning systems to ones which tracked the data on the disk (in a similar way to CDs). Tim -- And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a thousand thousand fold. The din of a million keyboards like unto a great storm shall cover the earth, and the followers of Mammon shall tremble. - The Book of Mozilla, 3:31 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:36:50 +0100, Tim Auton
wrote: kony wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:37:28 +0000 (UTC), Baffie wrote: [snip] As long as your HD is adequately cooled it's kinder to leave it spinning than to frequently spin it up and down. that was the case in days of old, thermal shock now isn't so much an issue with 21st century bearings and higher density storage. Untrue, and likely fabricated. Higher density storage has the exact opposite effect, makes it even more likely to lose data when there's slight bearing wear. Unless the transition to higher storage densities nesessitated a move from "blind" positioning systems to ones which tracked the data on the disk (in a similar way to CDs). Any way you want to look at it, there's still the same issue, increased non-repeatable runout will foul head-positioning. There is no "fix" for that. Dave |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:36:50 +0100, Tim Auton wrote: kony wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:37:28 +0000 (UTC), Baffie wrote: [snip] As long as your HD is adequately cooled it's kinder to leave it spinning than to frequently spin it up and down. that was the case in days of old, thermal shock now isn't so much an issue with 21st century bearings and higher density storage. Untrue, and likely fabricated. Higher density storage has the exact opposite effect, makes it even more likely to lose data when there's slight bearing wear. Unless the transition to higher storage densities nesessitated a move from "blind" positioning systems to ones which tracked the data on the disk (in a similar way to CDs). Any way you want to look at it, there's still the same issue, increased non-repeatable runout will foul head-positioning. There is no "fix" for that. No fix? You think a CD head scans x.xxxx mm to the exact part of a track you requested? No, it follows the wobbly tracks on the badly centred CD. Tim -- And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a thousand thousand fold. The din of a million keyboards like unto a great storm shall cover the earth, and the followers of Mammon shall tremble. - The Book of Mozilla, 3:31 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:26:49 +0100, Tim Auton
wrote: kony wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:36:50 +0100, Tim Auton wrote: kony wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:37:28 +0000 (UTC), Baffie wrote: [snip] As long as your HD is adequately cooled it's kinder to leave it spinning than to frequently spin it up and down. that was the case in days of old, thermal shock now isn't so much an issue with 21st century bearings and higher density storage. Untrue, and likely fabricated. Higher density storage has the exact opposite effect, makes it even more likely to lose data when there's slight bearing wear. Unless the transition to higher storage densities nesessitated a move from "blind" positioning systems to ones which tracked the data on the disk (in a similar way to CDs). Any way you want to look at it, there's still the same issue, increased non-repeatable runout will foul head-positioning. There is no "fix" for that. No fix? You think a CD head scans x.xxxx mm to the exact part of a track you requested? No, it follows the wobbly tracks on the badly centred CD. Tim It can follow because that is _repeatable_ runout. Even so, that is moving the opposite direction, not higher density but lower. Dave |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary D." wrote: I've tried building fan baffles using various tubing attached to the rear of the PC fan outlet - it can help but after a few hours of use the top of the PC case gets quite warm - I wouldn't want to risk leaving it on all day, overheating and/or fire risk. Have you thought about just building a 4-sided plywood box around it that had cheap carpeting stapled to the inside surfaces? The box could even have a carpeted floor that didn't extend all the way to the rear wall so that cables could still drop down behind the desk. The front and rear walls could be doors that swung open for access to cables (rear) and to drives (front), and the front door would be open at the bottom (à la bar room door) to allow fresh air intake. Essentially, that would be giving up on quiet fans and relying instead on a sound absorbing partial cabinet around the case. The reason that companies haven't offered them is that they are so low tech (and bulky and heavy) that there would be no profit in them. But that makes them perfect for the homebuilder. *TimDaniels* |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Timothy Daniels wrote: "Gary D." wrote: I've tried building fan baffles using various tubing attached to the rear of the PC fan outlet - it can help but after a few hours of use the top of the PC case gets quite warm - I wouldn't want to risk leaving it on all day, overheating and/or fire risk. Have you thought about just building a 4-sided plywood box around it that had cheap carpeting stapled to the inside surfaces? The box could even have a carpeted floor that didn't extend all the way to the rear wall so that cables could still drop down behind the desk. The front and rear walls could be doors that swung open for access to cables (rear) and to drives (front), and the front door would be open at the bottom (à la bar room door) to allow fresh air intake. Essentially, that would be giving up on quiet fans and relying instead on a sound absorbing partial cabinet around the case. The reason that companies haven't offered them is that they are so low tech (and bulky and heavy) that there would be no profit in them. But that makes them perfect for the homebuilder. A problem though with this solution is that it also keep the heat inside. Sound absorbing material is usually also heat insulating. Secondly, our sound perception follows a logarithmic scale; a small audible reduction of 3 dB require a 50% reduction in sound energy. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to Fix Your Computer | Ben Dellar | Overclocking AMD Processors | 4 | November 12th 03 01:39 AM |
How to Fix Your Computer | Ben Dellar | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | November 11th 03 09:39 AM |
Advice on buying Ergonic chair for computer | Scattershot@@ | General | 7 | October 26th 03 03:07 PM |
Silent Computer - Advice | David Taylor | General | 49 | October 7th 03 11:26 AM |
Computer Buying Advice | [email protected] | General | 5 | September 3rd 03 07:58 AM |