Owning is, like, a human construct man. If you can slaughter a herd of animals without facing any human imposed consequences, it's probably fair within the bounds of language and meaning to say that you own them.
I'm very open to the possibility that I am missing your point, but my point was that you are playing word games.
Do I own this T-shirt if it can burn? Do I own this stick or am I just carrying it for a while? Is this my banana, or does everything belong to the universe?
I wonder if you could cost effectively store heat during the summer, running a system strictly to do that vs doing it as a side effect of conditioning.
Maybe it is just my limited production knowledge, but wouldn't it be possible to injection mold a bigger part and then mechanically shave off the last few fractions of a millimeter using any number of ways? Tooling costs too high. But in the simplest form you could essentially spin the fan against some adjustable abbrasive to shave off the final bits.
Granted, there may be other places in which the molding precision may matter, which would make this an impractical solution.
The fan blades deform & vibrate under rotation & airflow. Controlling that deformation is the point of the use of materials like Noctua's Sterrox LCP or other flglass-fiber reinforced LCP materials in other premium fans. So lower clearance isn't just a matter of manufacturing tolerance
Okay. Seems like low noise is another big customer draw. So what's the difference for those measures between this difficult to manufacture fan and one with clearances that are easier to manufacture? If either is particularly significant, it's quite a bit more interesting than the measurement of the clearance.
Even if it is the case, and not simple an omission to focus the narrative, does it matter? Case fans pull what 4 watts? 5 watts? Who cares if it pulls 200 milliwatts more than a competitor when it's cooling a GPU and CPU that consume more than a hundred times what it can consume
That's really high. Like usually they are 100-150mA (so sub 2W) Lots of controllers would be 1A max.
The tolerances are for noise mostly. I'd consider the noise (and longevity) the single most important part of fans (else most fans can spin close to 3k rpm and cool)
Transcoding multiple video streams, running a VM and running various other tasks, mine rarely passes 10, and is currently sitting at 7 (only 2 transcodes at this time).
The question is not about saving milliwatts-hours on your electricity bill, it is about where these milliwatts are going.
One is heat, heat is not great, it puts more stress on components, mechanical and electrical, reducing longevity.
Another, maybe more important is noise. The power that goes into making noise is power that is wasted, noise is inefficiency, and reducing noise is an efficiency problem.
Tighter tolerance isn't universally a good thing. It might make the fan more susceptible to damage due to mishandling or dust. They might be selling a fan that has a shorter useful life for no real benefit.
As a physicist, it's not at all clear to me that tighter tolerances would lead to higher efficiency or less noise. I assume it shakes out in the CFD simulations, but I would be curious to know the explanation.
I thought the primary gain in efficiency came from the large blades, with the blade shape the next most important factor. Gaps between the blade and housing feels like a single-digit percent effect.
For the same reason a winglet is used on an airplane, or a ducted fan is more efficient than a propeller: there is a large pressure difference on the end of a wing or propeller, and the high pressure side will jump around to the low pressure side and cause a tip vortex. This causes an induced drag, which moves the lift vector backwards (as drag, but not skin friction drag). Higher aspect (think wind turbine blades or glider wings) minimise this, as do winglets or ducting.
You are talking about velocities 100x faster than the air in your chassis is moving. You might be right about the effect, but it seems so tiny in this application.
The specific fan in question has a rated max power draw of 1.8 W. In actual deployments it's going to be a lot less since ~nobody is running a noctua fan at 100% speed unconditionally
"In actual deployments it's going to be a lot less since ~nobody is running a noctua fan at 100% speed unconditionally"
I run dual 36w Delta fans at 100% in my computer case. I use the outflow as positive pressure forced exhaust for my enclosed CO2 laser, which itself has an ultra-weak venting fan.
It isn't that loud. A simple no box does the trick.
Yeah, but those aren't noctua fans. Noctua's claim to fame is being lower noise, not moving the most air. I'm sure somebody is buying a premium low noise-focused fan and then pinning it to max, but that's definitely not going to be typical.
which is why you went with Delta and not Nocturna I would think? Deltas are fine in an otherwise noisy environment but they’re misery in say a bedroom at night.
Case fans pull what 4 watts? 5 watts? Who cares if it pulls 200 milliwatts more than a competitor when it's cooling a GPU and CPU that consume more than a hundred times what it can consume
Yes, exactly. The high precision is marketing, not something needed in the product.
My understanding is that the precision is supposed to help with noise. Less turbulence, etc.
FWIW, in my setup (10th gen i5, RTX 5070 Ti in an old Define R3 case), the 12 cm Noctua G2 fans run quieter and have a much less obnoxious noise than the old P/F series, which wipe the floor with the Arctic fan I bought for a computer that lives in the basement and sounds like it's about to take off.
You lead me to believe that they are targeting a niche "audiophile" market and probably not a commercial market. The concern in the commercial market would be energy savings vs. capital expenditure. Some commercial spaces actually introduce white noise into spaces to increase occupant density.
They are targeting people who want nearly-silent fans for computing devices and will pay considerably higher than average prices for them. I have several of them, and they are vastly quieter than the competition. Wouldn't be worth it in a commercial space, but I want my house to be quiet.
In my experience fans from manufacturers like Arctic can be almost as quiet similar Noctua, but cost 50% less. The difference definitely isn't vast for most models, although admittedly there's more QC issues and variation than with Noctua.
A lot of Noctua sales come from their brand value. People put Noctua fans into their gaming PC's, use headphones while gaming on them, and then turn off the PC. You don't really need the most silent fan for that, but people buy them anyway for the looks & premium quality.
I do love Noctua's coolers though, I appreciate the well thought design, manuals and free upgrade kits when you upgrade your system to a new socket type. But for case fans I'll jut buy Arctic and save money, except for things like server systems that run 24/7 in my bedroom where noise and durability are top priority.
I want the quitest fans and whether they are 10 or 20 bucks is irrelevant. We are talking about tiny amounts of money here for something thats gonna run for 5y+
> except for things like server systems that run 24/7 in my bedroom where noise and durability are top priority
... which is why I only have a few of them, rather than replacing the fans in everything I own. But for the things that need them, there's just nothing else as good.
They target people that want quiet/silent cases, obviously not commerical, unless you're going after the long life/warranty service. Or you go for their industrial line.
About 15 years ago there was some interest in putting in some wind towers in the township I lived in. People were talking about stray electricity killing their livestock. Never mind the several dozen towers already installed 3 miles away.
>People were talking about stray electricity killing their livestock.
That's why I think voting shouldn't be a universal right to everyone, but a privilege you gain after clearing certain bars, one of them being basic education and an IQ test.
Giving every dumbass the same voting power as an academic, to grind national development to a halt and make life shit for everyone else just because they don't understand 5th grade physics, is a recipe for disaster and we're living proof of it.
If you ever worked in public rations and interacted with the gen-pop off the street on a regular basis, you'd see my point eye-to-eye. The masses are too stupid to be entrusted with national decisions, and the only reason they are allowed to, is because they are easily manipulated into voting the way the elites want them to, because they're stupid.
It's exactly why Plato opposed democracy arguing the same faults.
>Plato argued that democracy gives power to the masses (the demos), who are often ignorant, emotional, and easily manipulated by skilled speakers (rhetoricians and demagogues).
Indisputable fact.
>Plato believed that ruling is a skill that requires deep knowledge, wisdom, and training in philosophy — not something that should be decided by majority vote or popularity.
Indisputable fact.
>He famously compared democracy to a ship where the sailors (citizens) vote on navigation, instead of letting the trained captain (philosopher) steer. The result, according to him, is chaos.
IDK, I'm not from a country that did stuff like that, so don't try to pin some original sin from the US history on me. I'm from a pretty homogenous country with no racial issues.
Now are you saying only whites will be able to understand 5th grade physics and nobody else? Or that whites can't be stupid too?
Personally I don't care about your skin color, or other factors, if you're THAT stupid, I don't want you deciding the future of our country, period, since you're putting everyone in danger.
If you can't pass 5th grade physics, you're not fit to be voting on the country's nuclear energy policy, simple.
You could replace skin color with any attribute and it will probably happen. You can see it play out across the world time and time again, in any type of downturn or bad luck people on average find it easier to blame another group than themself. Take this a step forward and you get momentum to carve requirements that would exclude that group. Oh you want to participate in voting? You need to be able to list the Qur’anic commandments to be able to vote or whatever your flavor of restriction is.
No, they are saying that your so-called idea has already been tried, but what actually happened was that <insert majority> who already had control set it up so <insert majority> could vote easily while <insert minority> could not. Could be race, could be something else. There is no such thing as an "objective test" for your case, because someone somewhere would need to determine it is objective. Who verifies that person, and who verifies the people who verify them?
>No, they are saying that your so-called idea has already been tried, but what actually happened was that <insert majority> who already had control set it up so <insert majority> could vote easily while <insert minority> could not.
That already exists in our current system. Whoever's parents reproduced the most, now has majority of votes. Home owners are majority and decide housing policies for those who don't owe property.
Are these more fair, or just another form of mob rule we got accustomed to out of centuries of inertia, like fish in the water? When did we decided that rules from 300 years ago shouldn't be touched to be updated to reflect current challenges?
>There is no such thing as an "objective test" for your case, because someone somewhere would need to determine it is objective.
Currently it's our legal system that decides what is fair and objective, that's how it works today in most countries. And that's not set in stone, but can always be changed on a dime if the majority of the population decides to, or in case of national catastrophes like war, since all laws are made up and only enforceable as long as the majority of the society with support of the military agree with them.
>Who verifies that person, and who verifies the people who verify them?
Who verifies the judge is fair? Who verifies that person who verifies the judge? And so on. Same principles here.
The concern isn't that only whites will be smart enough.
The concern is that the current power structure will use this as a convenient way to bias the voter pool in its favor through strategic selection of questions.
> IDK, I'm not from a country that did stuff like that, so don't try to pin some original sin from the US history on me. I'm from a pretty homogenous country with no racial issues.
Also going back on this comment. What country are you from? I have always found that the US gets the short stick when in reality these problems have happened everywhere. Usually the countries that think they have no problems are because they are homogenous.
Not sure why this is an unpopular opinion. It is one of the most ridiculous statements to say you are from a homogenous country and have no racial issues. I guarantee they exist but you live in a homogenous country.
I agree with the complaint but have yet to see a mechanism that is free of abuse and disenfranchisement.
People are stupid and vote with their emotions or what the pastor told them to.
It would be lovely to ensure that votes came from well informed voters.
It’s like communism or anarchocapitlism, it works on paper but hard in practice. Preventing voting is a nice idea but really hard to get right because humans are messy animals.
The world is messy and one of the reasons I am such a believer in markets on average is because they help align outcomes in the world we live in.
The argument is only fair if they provide some valid information to back up their claims. There's a project to put in a BESS near my rural hometown and every anti argument is based on non-LiFEpo cells and self-inflicted confused overlap with the data center water use arguments. This is while completely supporting "beautiful farmlands" that leech pesticides and phosphates into the water table
Is the general public in the USA is supposedly entitled to know whether a given vehicle contains ICE agents? By what legal theory?
This is an inversion of the problem. The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area.
Is there a similar nationwide prohibition on, say, plainclothes police officers?
This is not a valid comparison.
Is there no concern for what would happen in case of mistaken identity?
What does this mean? Why do you think the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict drone operations?
Knowing that a vehicle contains ICE agents, is there a reason that someone should be able to pursue it with a drone? Does this accomplish a legitimate purpose other than tracking the vehicle's position (again, presumably to disseminate the information "this is an ICE vehicle")? Is there a reason why this would not reasonably be seen as harassment from the agents' perspective?
Again, this is an inversion of the problem. If the general public is allowed to operate drones in certain areas, that use should not be subject to widespread, unjustified restrictions.
re ICE agents American citizens, entitled to the same rights as other American citizens?
Most of them probably are citizens.
Do people here believe that the purpose of enacting such no-fly zones is something other than preventing drones from following the vehicles for surveillance and information-sharing purposes? Especially given the idea that the zone moves with the vehicle?
The motivation isn't the problem, the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens.
Is there a reason why the government of the USA should not be permitted to enforce its own immigration law? In particular, is there a reason why people who have illegally entered the country per that law, and who have what I'm told is called a "final order of removal", should be permitted to remain within the country?
People opposing the current immigration enforcement regime are not protesting the existence of law, they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws. Is it your position that questioning the formulation or implementation of a law should not be allowed?
> The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area.
I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the government has any intention of punishing someone for incidentally flying a drone that happened to be in that wrong airspace, when it's clear that the flight had no purpose related to the ICE vehicle.
If and when that happens, we can talk about this.
> What does this mean?
It means that the clear intent of many of these drone operators is to harass or surveil people whom they believe to be ICE; that I disagree that they have any moral justification for doing so (of course it is moral to record actual arrest etc. actions, in a way that doesn't interfere with them; that is clearly not the same thing as tailing their cars and trying to figure out where they're going). And it means they could be wrong about their targets being ICE, which would mean they were doing these things to an ordinary citizen.
> Most of them probably are citizens.
I think it would be rather hard for a non-citizen to get hired for the job. More importantly, though: the point is that they, too, have certain rights to privacy.
> the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens.
I agree that the implementation is bad. I made the post because it came across to me from other top-level comments, very strongly, that a proper implementation would not be any more satisfactory to people here.
> the current immigration enforcement regime
This use of language is poisoning the well.
> they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws.
Can you concretely explain at least one situation in which the US government currently does not allow people to legally reside in the country, where you believe they should; and why you think they should?
When I read the arguments of people opposed to ICE, I am never given the impression that there are any particular restrictions on immigration that they'd actually accept. In particular, when there is discussion of people who were apprehended by ICE and extradited, there never seems to be any particular consideration of the individual circumstances or actions of those extradited.
reply