Live data from Hacker News

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

righto.com

131–140 of 163 posts

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

#131
post #113
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla use silicon carbide which has favorable temp and reliability over Gan for higher voltage operation.

For highest end stuff you use both. They have different properties. SiC matters for reverse recovery of the inverter.

Is there some sort of third quadrant effect, like might be seen for a triac?

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

#132
Any suggestions on a good Macbook pro charger? I try to find a GaN-based one, with all the necessary certifications, but my search hasn't been successful so far. e.g. [0]

[0]: https://www.monoprice.com/Search?keyword=APPLE%20MACBOOK%20P...

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

#133
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like Apple generally. And it wasn't "their" technology - but thank fuck they brought "better than 1080p" screens to the mainstream. Throughout the 90's screen resolutions were getting better and better. Then LCDs came and 1080p stopped mainstream screen resolution improvements for at least 5 years. Thankfully Apple got the screen resolution race going again.

Mainstream 1080p wasn't the worst of it. Just a decade or so ago it was impossible to find a non-17" Windows laptop without a 1366x768 TN screen with awful contrast and viewing angles so bad there was no good angle. Even super premium $3000 "Ultrabooks", it was true insanity.

Plenty of Windows laptops with good quality IPS screens were available 10 years ago, even 13" models.

And I primarily remember pre-Retina Apple for only offering laptops with very low screen resolutions.

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

#134
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.

For chargers, I exclusively buy Anker. They're the best there is.

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

#135
post #82
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... )

I've been using a GaN-based power supply for my MacBook Pro and it's just as good as advertised. Slightly bigger than a deck of cards, yet it runs cooler than the stock unit. Hopefully this tech finds its way into more devices as it gets cheaper. It would be neat to have GaN based inverters for electric cars.

May I ask which model you use?

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

#136
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using a GaN-based power supply for my MacBook Pro and it's just as good as advertised. Slightly bigger than a deck of cards, yet it runs cooler than the stock unit. Hopefully this tech finds its way into more devices as it gets cheaper. It would be neat to have GaN based inverters for electric cars.

I thought this was a new "ML powered" charger of some type until I googled... interesting find.

Those are NaN chargers.

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

#137
This is an old original post, but it still worries me.

Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched-mode_power_supply

To find this requires a combination of a few keystrokes and button pushes plus an "outlook" (rather than "inlook") attitude.

Instead, as with so many discussions in a so-called "CS" community, we find something like adolescents trying to BS each other by presenting their mere opinions as facts.

Come on! Please!

Long ago my research community put in a lot of work to make it easy to deal with many simple questions, but we didn't reckon with the sheer inwardness of so many end-users. A similar problem is that most people in CS have no idea what Doug Engelbart really did, yet just typing his name into Google will provide great info in just the first few hits.

How can the current community repair itself and start trying to become a real field again?

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

#138
I didn't realize it, but my '72 Dodge has a switching power supply to convert the 12 volt system voltage to 5V for the dashboard instruments.

It's a very simple device, relying on current heating a wire to bend it to and from a contact, but it's an engineering marvel of low cost effectiveness.

But it doesn't produce "clean" 5V, there's a jitter to it. Some electronics guys have replaced it with modern circuitry (an op-amp I think) but it turned out there was a problem with clean 5V. The jitter would unstick the the analog dials, so they'd display accurately. The clean 5V didn't do that. So, they had to add more circuitry to add jitter in the supply voltage.

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

#139
post #82
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... )

I've been using a GaN-based power supply for my MacBook Pro and it's just as good as advertised. Slightly bigger than a deck of cards, yet it runs cooler than the stock unit. Hopefully this tech finds its way into more devices as it gets cheaper. It would be neat to have GaN based inverters for electric cars.

They work great to charge my Android. One day MacBook chargers may even charge iPhones!

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

#140
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, those MP3 players were nothing like the iPod. This is a bit like people going on about smart phones before iPhone. I had a couple of those and the iPhone was just so far ahead, that we are not really talking about the same category of products. A product isn’t merely checking some boxes. Checking the “has hard drive” box doesn’t make any it an iPod.

Archos Jukebox was acceptable design back then. Just Google it, provides enough context about the state of portable music players in the year 2000 lol

In the context of the time, those mp3 players were following in the footsteps of portable CD players or walkmen, which were themselves bulky and about 70-90 minutes of music before changing media. There were also a few low capacity compact flash based players borrowing media from the growing digital camera market, and later on some CD players that would play yellow book CDs with mp3 files

Having many gigabytes of audio was a big step.

Post reply on HN