Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

righto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 163 posts

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#121

Post by CamperBob2 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #46
fortran77 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only right to clear up a falsehood promoted by Steve Jobs himself. He's not above scrutiny.

Oh you're absolutely correct about that. Jobs in particular needs to be scrutinized. But if that was the point of the article a few paragraphs under the section "History of switching power supplies to 1977" already accomplished that. The article reads like it was written by a power supply enthusiast (who knew?), and the author did a good job of drawing me into the history, technology. It would have still been an inte…

A couple of good examples of (much) earlier switching supplies from Ken's site:

1) 1960s-era tech used in the Apollo Guidance Computer: https://www.righto.com/2019/08/reliable-after-50-years-apoll...

2) Mercury thyratons used in 1930s-era Teletype hardware: https://www.righto.com/2018/09/glowing-mercury-thyratrons-in...

Might be some other candidates as well, but those are a couple of the more interesting ones he's gone over.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#122

Post by Raed667 »

darkteflon wrote: post #79
DoreenMichele wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's just context to help people better understand what they are reading.

Agree - a date is often absolutely essential to placing what you’re reading in context. I always look for one at the top of any article I read, and assume based on past experience that the lack of one is usually indicative of clickbait (although clearly not in this case).

I did a small A/B test long ago, and found that the date, if more than a couple of years old, can discourage a lot of people from even reading the article.

So maybe it should be placed at the end as a compromise?

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#123

Post by mongol »

harperlee wrote: post #119
BugWatch wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say the word "revolutionary" has just become an inflationary term for "evolutionary": really - it's thrown around willy nilly with everyone, PR guys, and their mother to describe any sort of improvement (or, more often, "improvement"). It really dimishes (and mostly eliminates) its value. And yes, it so grinds my gears.

Etymologically, it works (you “give another turn” to the base idea, you take an existing idea and you flip it, you tighten the screw on an existing idea, you adjust course by turning an existing direction, etc.)

According wikipedia, the latin origin means "a turn around", which I parse, going off in another direction. Not just another turn.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#124

Post by pdamoc »

FpUser wrote: post #39

Same story as with hard drive based audio players. I've been using one (if I remember correctly) from Creative long before iPod materialized. All was quiet but suddenly as iPod came it was of course called revolution.

> "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." - CmdrTaco

Apple is very good at maximizing "consumer satisfaction". This means giving consumer the best deal for their money considering as many of the consumer needs as feasible. Other brands ignore a lot of these needs and then they wonder why people don't buy their products when, on some details, they are much better than Apple at a lower price.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#125

Post by darkteflon »

Raed667 wrote: post #122
darkteflon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree - a date is often absolutely essential to placing what you’re reading in context. I always look for one at the top of any article I read, and assume based on past experience that the lack of one is usually indicative of clickbait (although clearly not in this case).

I did a small A/B test long ago, and found that the date, if more than a couple of years old, can discourage a lot of people from even reading the article. So maybe it should be placed at the end as a compromise?

I can definitely appreciate the conundrum - you write a great piece and you want people to see it. My 2c would just be: trust your reader. People tend to have a good sense for whether a particular piece of content is going to have an effective “use-by” date or not.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#126

Post by karlkloss »

In fact, switching power supplies were used long before the transistor, they were using mechanical switches.

Car radios used mechanical switches to generate the anode voltage for the tubes, and in trains there were voltage converters using a rotating stream of liquid mercury.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#127

Post by baybal2 »

dehrmann wrote: post #83
tim333 wrote: post #44

And now power supplies are getting another step smaller and more efficient by switching from silicon transistors to GaN. ( https://www.cui.com/blog/how-gallium-nitride-gan-enables-sma... )

Any advice on buying these? A lot of the GaN bricks look impressive, but they're always made by a sketchy peripheral maker.

> A lot of the GaN bricks look impressive, but they're always made by a sketchy peripheral maker.

90% of them are in fact just exact copies of Navitas reference design, and are made by just a few factories which sell white label.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#128

Post by baybal2 »

byw wrote: post #118
tim333 wrote: post #44

And now power supplies are getting another step smaller and more efficient by switching from silicon transistors to GaN. ( https://www.cui.com/blog/how-gallium-nitride-gan-enables-sma... )

Can this also be used for electric car inverters?

Yes, it can, but that would be pricey with regards to how much current they can handle. GaN switches can't handle as much as silicon, or SiC, despite their higher efficiency.

Stall torque == current.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#129

Post by BitAstronaut »

eyesee wrote: post #70
BitAstronaut wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember exactly when, but maybe around 2007, my cousin sent me a video where a man was essentially interacting with a tablet that was sitting on a table. It had an assistant that was helping him with everyone - he was putting together a presentation about a forest (I believe), I think he asked it the weather, set up meetings, etc. It was an amazing thing to watch unfold. To this day, I can't for the life of…

Sounds like “Knowledge Navigator”, a concept from Apple’s Advanced Technology Group: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Navigator https://youtu.be/umJsITGzXd0

Wow! That’s exactly what it was.

Re: Apple didn't revolutionize power supplies; new transistors did (2012)

#130

Post by BitAstronaut »

diskzero wrote: post #54
BitAstronaut wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember exactly when, but maybe around 2007, my cousin sent me a video where a man was essentially interacting with a tablet that was sitting on a table. It had an assistant that was helping him with everyone - he was putting together a presentation about a forest (I believe), I think he asked it the weather, set up meetings, etc. It was an amazing thing to watch unfold. To this day, I can't for the life of…

It must have been the video for The Knowledge Navigator [1], a conceptual video that came out in 1987. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Navigator

I’m blown away - that’s it!
Post reply on HN