I had a brain fart...in a goodway...maybe.

[Canoas]

The reason this idea has potential, I think, is that computers don't really do physichal work right? The electricity is used to control 1/0 values but in the end every watt is being translated to heat. So even with a decent efficiency you would get quite a lot of the energy that is being consumed back. Please correct me, I'm probably wrong.

That is true, but to properly transform heat you'd need a turbine. That means putting the computer underwater and having it be hot enough to create steam and move the turbine. It's not viable. Kinectic energy is easily transformed back into electricity and they're doing exactly that in cars, but for a computer you to channel heat and maintain a high enough constant temperature. It goes against everything it's being done. Right now you're trying to keep the components cool and dissipate as much heat as possible and unless suddenly someone figures out how to make  computers run at 100+ ºC with no problem then it'll be impossible.

And even if that is possible then it'll still utilize much more energy then it is currently using, because if the heat comes from the electricity being used then more heat means more power used which means less efficient parts. And then if you're not using your computer very much and the temperature drops below 100 ºC no more steam is generated which means you're wasting a ton of electricity and getting nothing back.

It's just not viable. You can't make components much less efficient in order to to then convert the heat back, it's much better to make efficient components from the beggining.

[Nertballs]

i think people have been taking this a little literally, I mean obviously this was never going to be a 100% efficient system, as that'd break the laws of thermodynamics!

 

But think of it this way, heat is a form of energy, while it is of course difficult to convert back to something useful. But if you were able to regain 10-20% of what you are outputting in heat, it's still something! This will be difficult of course, but if you were able to make a PC 5% more efficient over all, then that is something, yes?

[Puppet]

i think people have been taking this a little literally, I mean obviously this was never going to be a 100% efficient system, as that'd break the laws of thermodynamics!

 

But think of it this way, heat is a form of energy, while it is of course difficult to convert back to something useful. But if you were able to regain 10-20% of what you are outputting in heat, it's still something! This will be difficult of course, but if you were able to make a PC 5% more efficient over all, then that is something, yes?

 

Possibly worthwhile but would probably not be cost effective, also take up a lot of space and possibly make some noise which incidentally is one of the points where energy would be lost.

 

I definitely think it has an application though, maybe as a UPS for medical equipment in developing countries, although I'm sure they already have something more efficient for this.

[1funnygame]

i dont get it why not just get it to be more energy efficient?

[Puppet]

Just plug it into your neighbors supply.

 

*Achievement unlocked 100% free energy*

[Levis95l]

That is true, but to properly transform heat you'd need a turbine. That means putting the computer underwater and having it be hot enough to create steam and move the turbine. It's not viable. Kinectic energy is easily transformed back into electricity and they're doing exactly that in cars, but for a computer you to channel heat and maintain a high enough constant temperature. It goes against everything it's being done. Right now you're trying to keep the components cool and dissipate as much heat as possible and unless suddenly someone figures out how to make  computers run at 100+ ºC with no problem then it'll be impossible.

And even if that is possible then it'll still utilize much more energy then it is currently using, because if the heat comes from the electricity being used then more heat means more power used which means less efficient parts. And then if you're not using your computer very much and the temperature drops below 100 ºC no more steam is generated which means you're wasting a ton of electricity and getting nothing back.

It's just not viable. You can't make components much less efficient in order to to then convert the heat back, it's much better to make efficient components from the beggining.

 

I know, a turbine in a computer would be insane. :D We would need some other way for transforming that heat to electricity and I guess a Peltier element, like the one in this flas light, isn't efficient enough.

 

Anyway this is interesting idea, because cars for example need energy for moving, so cars are just transforming fuel/electricity into kinetic energy. Computers are not using the energy for anything, all of it is being wasted in heat. Or so I have understood at least. I don't really know how processors work...yet.

[Nertballs]

i dont get it why not just get it to be more energy efficient?

why not just make the PC run by itself then? :P 

It's not that simple really, even the most efficient of power plants are at most 60% efficient at creating energy. The heat from a PC would be hard to collect, and it'd also be tough to reintegrate it into the system. it'd also be a noisy, space consuming operation, and probably not cheap either!

 

Like i said, in principle, it's a great idea! But in practice, difficult!

[Canoas]

i think people have been taking this a little literally, I mean obviously this was never going to be a 100% efficient system, as that'd break the laws of thermodynamics!

 

But think of it this way, heat is a form of energy, while it is of course difficult to convert back to something useful. But if you were able to regain 10-20% of what you are outputting in heat, it's still something! This will be difficult of course, but if you were able to make a PC 5% more efficient over all, then that is something, yes?

 

But you can already make your PC 10% more efficient just by getting a gold class PSU instead of bronze. The cost of transforming heat back into energy will not be economically viable.

[MrSuperb]

One of the best ways to stop wasting energy would be to stop overclocking your CPUs and GPUs, and buy a efficient PSU :P

[qwertywarrior]

So you know that thing from a while back where "15-YEAR-OLD INVENTS FLASHLIGHT POWERED BY BODY HEAT". It got me thinking, if the heat from your body can power a couple of LEDs in a torch, how much heat can the combination of a GPU, CPU etc produce to power maybe a PSU.

 

Of course the CPU and GPU would burn out from having no cooling but what if they could sustain themselves without cooling of any kind. Imagine what we could do. Recycled heat from CPU and GPU powering PSU in a continuous loop; therefore no need to plug into the wall; therefore less energy used; therefore less on the electricity bill; therefore more environmentally friendly?

 

I know there are probably a million things that are wrong with this but in the future, who knows? I just had to get it out there...

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/29/msi-ecolution-motherboard-transforms-chip-heat-into-fan-power/

 

check this out

[_wky]

Because you'd need to spend quite some time in the sun for it to be worth it.

Fair point.

[_wky]

Cost may be a factor for not having solar panels on notebooks.

Yeah

[_wky]

I guess the problem is the price and size of solar panels. But that kind of things are being developed, I'm pretty sure I have seen a picture of a phone with solar panel back somewhere...

If we can get paint that works as a solar panel this kind of tech would really help extend battery life

[1funnygame]

why not just make the PC run by itself then? :P

It's not that simple really, even the most efficient of power plants are at most 60% efficient at creating energy. The heat from a PC would be hard to collect, and it'd also be tough to reintegrate it into the system. it'd also be a noisy, space consuming operation, and probably not cheap either!

 

Like i said, in principle, it's a great idea! But in practice, difficult!

 

i dont get it why not just get it to be more energy efficient?

maybe you should re read that

i never said "make it power efficient"

[Nertballs]

maybe you should re read that

i never said "make it power efficient"

no i know you didn't, just the way i read it! :P But i was just saying the way you said 'make it be more energy efficient', millions per year already go into this, it's not as easy as just dialing in more efficiency!