Power supply hot to touch

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Hi All,

I just took the side of my case to improve CPU temps and noticed two things:

1) The PSU is very hot. I mean to the point of burning your hand almost (as
is the exhaust air from the back).
2) I think the fan on the bottom is blowing hot air into the case, not out.

Removing the side dropped CPU and both core temps by about 10C. I only have
one 120mm exhaunst fan and the same at the front for intake (I don't think
either of these work very well - I can hardly feel any air move past them).

Now as for the PSU, this worries me because I'm used to it being a little
warm, but not hot like this. It's a Dynex 500W (specs below), my old blew
and this is the only brand Bestbuy carries (nearest place to get a PSU same
day). For the longest time I thought both fans on the PSU were blowing
outwards (bottom one sucking hot air from the case and the rear one blowing
it out).

If the PSU is blowing more hot air into the case, it's likely why my CPU
temps are high - the fan is right over the hsf for the cpu.

PSU specs:
Voltage: +3.3V +5V +12V1 +12V2 -5V -12V +5Vsb
Max Load: 35A 40A 16A 18A 0.5A 0.8A 2.5A
Min load: 0.5A 2.0A 1.0A 1.0A 0A 0A 0A
Regulations: 5% 5% 5% 10% 10% 5%
Ripple: 50mV 50mV 120mV 120mV 100mV 120mV 50mV
Noise & Ripple 100mV 100mV 200mV 200mV 200mV 200mv 100mv
Fan Speed Control Inside

My setup:
CPU: Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2600Mhz, 13 x 200, stock values)
RAM: 2x 512MB Kingston HyperX DDR2 800Mhz
HDD1:  Western Digital WD800JB PATA 7200RPM
HDD2: Western Digital WD2000JB PATA 7200RPM
DVD:  Sony/Optiarc AD5170A DVDRW

Vcore: 1.3v (stock voltage - it won't run below this)
RAM:  1.95v (again, stock voltage)

Given the specs above, is it likely the PSU is cheaply built and being run
to capacity ? (hence the heat)


Re: Power supply hot to touch

One thing I just noticed doing some math - how can you get 724W of power
from a PSU rated for 500W ?

 3.3V x 35A = 116W
 5.0V x 40A = 200W
12.0V x 16A = 192W
12.0V x 18A = 216W
Total: 724W

Am I calculating something wrong ?


Re: Power supply hot to touch

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Those are the maximums each rail can supply.  In the specs it usually
states what specific combinations can supply.  It's very unlikely the
3.3V or 5.0V demands will be anywhere near the PSU capabilities.
The important spec these days is for the 12V rails as they power the CPU
and video card(s).

Re: Power supply hot to touch

The specs are for each voltage when it is running alone. E.g. if you are using
only 3.3 volts it will put out 116 watts and if you are using only 5 volts it
will put out 200 watts, but the combined output of 5 volts and 3.3 volts
together might be only 220 watts. Also the ratings will vary depending on if the
rating is for peak power when cold or continuous power when hot.

Skeleton Man wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

                   Mike Walsh

Re: Power supply hot to touch

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  You are already doing more than most manufacturers intend.  Most
computer assemblers who buy power supplies look only two numbers:
watts and dollars.  So many power supplies are marketed to people who
would not do numbers.

  ATX specs note that one voltage may output a maximum amperage only
when the other voltage load is much smaller.  Charts even exist for
these relationships.

  Did excessive loading cause an old supply to fail?  Maybe if the
supply was defective when purchased.  For any properly designed supply
- no load can damage the supply.  In fact, every supply can have
shorted together all outputs without any supply damage.  Some specs
even define how large that wire must be to short together all outputs
- without damage.  Power supply must provide any load or shutdown.
Damage is not listed among the possibilities - if a supply is properly

  How much was that new supply?  One benchmark; if less than $60 full
retail, then is probably missing essential functions.  Obviously the
reverse is not true: that a $60 power supply is sufficient.

  Did that supply come with a long list of numeric specs that list its
many required functions?  Better supplies will claim to provide those
required functions - in writing. If not, then assume some required
functions are missing. Normal is a computer booting when a supply is
defective. You can identify a bad supply but cannot 'see' a good one.
Latter requires a simple tool.

  One chassis fan should be sufficient cooling for any computer even
operating in a normal 100 degree F environment.  No, that is not
normal for you but must be normal for any computer.  Does not matter
which direction fans blow.  Relevant factor is air flow - the number
of CFMs that move through a chassis.  Obviously if both 120 mm fans
blow in and no other exhaust is available, then number of CFMs can be

  That is chassis temperature - not to be confused with your other
objective - CPU temperatures.  CPU temperature analysis starts with a
spec for that heatsink fan combo - degree C per watt.  What does that
manufacturers state in writing?

 Power supply should typically work without a fan in a 70 degree F
room.  Then we push air through with a fan to make supply even more
robust, so that it will work at room temperatures above 100 degree F,
AND to move sufficient air through the chassis.  Same fan solved two
problems.  Some supplies are not so robust.  But appreciate an old
rule for all semiconductors.  If you touch it and don't leave skin,
then it is not too hot.

  Still, prefer your power supply case to be less than 100 degrees F
when in a 70 degree room because doing that is so easy.  How hot is
that power supply box - in numbers?  How much air is really moving
through the chassis (do fans operate in series or are they 'fighting'
each other)?

Re: Power supply hot to touch

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:34:01 -0500, "Skeleton Man"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

A more reasonable rating for this PSU might be something

3.3V x 25A  { combined, comes out of 25A @ 5V current }
5.0V x 25A
12.0V x 20A
365W (plus other rails = ~ 385W @ 25C)
That's just a ballpark guess.

Dynex being generic is likely rating for peak momentary load
at 25C, so we can fairly well ignore the specs except
possibly to see what they suggest the ratio is of 5V:12V
current to see whether the PSU is more suitable for old 5V
centric CPU power or newer (now several years so not /that/
new anymore) 12V centric.

Often with consumer grade PSU having more than one 12V rail,
the manufacturer is suggesting it can output up to the rated
current on one rail or the other but not both - often some
brands will also list a total 12V current rating.

Unfortunately this PSU has unrealistically high 5V AND 12V
current ratings for a generic 500W PSU.  They probably used
an old design that is not very suitable for powering a
semi-modern system, split the 12V rail to make it look like
almost double it's true capacity.

Even so, it is not uncommon for good PSU to have a
cumulative true wattage below the summed values on the
sticker.  It can be a matter of heat generation, the max
thermal load it can take, or transformer saturation, or
switching transistor current ratings or heatsinking among
other things.  IOW, a fairer test for such a PSU is to load
it based on the ratio of 5V:12V implied by the label to the
point where it is outputting 500W (including some load on
the other rails), and unfortunately probably that at 25C
room temp - then see if it can survive that for a few
power/thermal cycles or if it pops.

If it passes that test it has merely survived long enough
not to disqualify itself (if ripple were within  spec)
_yet_, but for long term use a more careful scrutinization
of the parts would be prudent, or at least buying from a
manufacturer you trust to have conservatively rated the unit
and used higher quality parts.  Often it's a very bad sign
when the manufacturer didn't even put their own name on the
label instead selling relabeled units to some gypsy outfit.
If the gypsy outfit wanted to create high value PSU they
would want the (good) manufacturer reputation on the PSU and
be an importer instead of relabeler.

Re: Power supply hot to touch

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Around 50C/122F


Re: Power supply hot to touch

Skeleton Man wrote:
w_tom wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Did it cool down, or were you exaggerating in your original post?
Because 50C isn't that hot.

Still you should check the fans by comparing the air flow from that
PSU against the flow from a known good PSU.  Also unplug the AC power
cord from the PSU (important!) and try rotating each fan with
something nonmetallic, like a chop stick or plastic straw, to see if
they spin as easily as the fans in a good PSU.

Is it possible that a PSU fan is right next to the CPU fan, causing
each one to get very little intake air?

When PSUs develop bad electrolytic capacitors, the transistors and
diodes connected to them may turn on and off much more slowly and
cause overheating.  See www.badcaps.net.

Re: Power supply hot to touch

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's still burning hot the touch (painful to leave your hand on the front of
the PSU casing for more than a few seconds) so maybe my temp probe is fauly
(I tried the same probe on two different meters and it gives the same
It's only reading 45C at the base of my heatsink too, which again is burning
hot to the touch and the software (lavalys, core temp and every other app I
have tried) reports CPU temp as around 60C.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I checked the fan (turns out there is only one 120MM at the bottom, the back
is just like a mesh with lots of holes) and it's fine. The power supply is
less than 6 months old (but more than 30 days I doubt I could return it
now). It appears I was wrong about it blowing into the case - it just felt
like it (probably from HSF).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The case fan, PSU fan and CPU fan are all in the same area. 120mm case fan
is mounted top rear of the case, with the power supply fan directly above it
at a 90 degree angle (ie. pointing down into the case). The CPU fan is
mounted at the top rear of the board about 6 inches of clearance between it
and the case/psu fans.

See photo: http://www.guestwho.com/fans.jpg

You can't see the PSU fan in the photo, but it's mounted inside the PSU at
the bottom (not screwed to the outside of the case like some).
You can see the HDD bay at the bottom right of the photo - I have a 120mm
intake fan infront of this.

The case in question is the Silvertone Temjin TJ04 - it didn't come with a
power supply, I was using the 350W supply from my old setup (pentium 4,
single 2.4Ghz) until I blew - that's when I bought the Dynex and apparently
got screwed over large because I paid like $130 before tax and the same
model sells on ebay for $25.

I knew it wasn't a big brand name, but I needed a power supply that day and
all they had was Dynex - no brand name parts (I asked). I live in a small
town so even bestbuy/fs is like a 90 minute drive - the stores here only
carry no-name components.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm well aware of this. I had a previous power supply fail with bad caps but
it didn't overheat and slowly die - one day it was running fine, the next it
stopped (no sparks, no bang, just silently failed and took out the
transistors and god knows what else - I stopped troubleshooting when I found
the transistors were gone).


Re: Power supply hot to touch

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:11:46 -0500, "Skeleton Man"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

From the picture it looks a lot like that rear fan is mostly
blocked by the case wall having only some tiny  holes
stamped out of it.  While it's a lot of work I feel at least
one thing that needs done is the parts pulled out and that
rear fan hole cut out.  

If the front is equally obstructed, it too ought to be cut
out.  As for the bezel in front, I can't see it in that or
another picture I saw but it wouldn't be surprising if it is
also in need of some modification considering they didn't
put too much thought into the rear exhaust area.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Try taking it back, at worst they say no.  Tell them it
might be fraud that a system using less than 500W can't run
from this PSU.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The caps also start becoming lossy from dielectric leakage,
rapidly heating up themselves, the upstream parts too, then

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I suspect it's just a junk PSU plus poor case cooling, but
we are ignoring one other possiblity, that Dynex has some
warranty on the PSU... just doesn't do much good to prevent
downtime while it's being RMA'd if it does.

Re: Power supply hot to touch

  First, ATX standard originally blew air into chassis so that CPU
heatsink required no fan.  When CPU heatsinks got their own fan, then
ATX spec reversed that power supply airflow direction.

  Second, does not matter whether power supply is a big name or no
name.  What matters if it contains essential and required functions.
If it did not come with a long list of numeric specs in writing (major
name or no name), then suspect those functions are missing.  When a
supply is misssing essential functions, the manufacturer forgets to
claim any functions exist - in writing.

  Third, a computer can boot and the power supply is defective.  Many
make this major mistake; assume the power supply is OK because a
computer booted.  Good chance that the other supply was defective when
computer booted.  Then failure got worse so that computer eventually
stopped working. Failure always existed.

 Failures with a bang - rare.  Failures with any visual indication -
extremely rare.  Most all failures require simple tools such a
multimeter to be observed.

  Fourth, if supply is hot, then you have burned skin.  What the hot
feels as hot is perectly ideal temperatures to ICs.   Do you have
second or third degree burns?  If not, then supply was not hot; only
warm.  However, to say more (to provide a useful reply), significant
other design details are necessary.

  Fifth, see that 120mm fan on picture left side?  Remove it.  You
should discover only trivial chassis temperature difference assuming
the power supply fan is working properly.  To work, that left side fan
must blow into chassis; same as power supply.  If blowing out, then
airflow is not across the chassis - bad.  And if blowing in, then
holes on other side of chassis must be large enough for airflow from
both fans.

  Smarter location for that fan is someplace farthest from power
supply so that air incoming from power supply is outgoing via that
other fan; air travels across the entire chassis.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Power supply hot to touch

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Let me guess, by your same logic the ideal speed for your car is 200MPH ?
What next ? You going to tell me the earth is flat ?

Not only is that the single most stupid thing I have heard out of anybody in
a long time, you also wouldn't know useful if it jumped up and bit you on
the ass. A quick read of your responses in other threads sinches that.


Re: Power supply hot to touch

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 23:34:44 -0500, "Skeleton Man"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's often necessary to recognize that w_tom has a unique
posting style.

Remember, we're all just contributing alternate ideas, it's
still up to you to find the fault.

Re: Power supply hot to touch

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I noticed..

Yes, and I appreciate all the suggestions - I'll try cutting out the fan
vents because if I remove the fan I can feel it moving plenty of air, but
while it's attached I don't feel much air move at all.  The front fan has
the same vent so I'll do both at once.


Re: Power supply hot to touch

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  Why are you upset about temperatures defined as normal even on
manufacturer datasheets?  Nobidy is running a car at 200 MPH.  Defined
was running a car at 50 MPH.  I also noted previously that the same
car could easily run at 25 MPH.  What you have described as hot (200
MPH) is really only warm (running at 50 MPH).  What is painfully hot
to humans is quite normal for semicondctors. To be too hot,
semiconductors must burn skin. Many mistake 130 degree F as hot when
it is a perfectly normal temperature for ICs.  Also a normal mistake
is to know what is how without first learning manufacturer spec
numbers.  130 degrees is ideal semiconductor temperature.

  I do write blunt with no regard for those who need things phrased
'politically correct'.  I am blunt techical and made no apologies when
someone mistakenly assumes a 'tone'.  Everything I have posted is
technically correct AND sometimes will contradict popular myths.  130
degrees F is a perfectly ideal temperature for semiconductors -
equivalent to running a car at 50 MPH.  Myth purveryors confuse what
is too hot for a human with what is perfectly normal for a

  You have confused the perfectly normal 50 MPH with 200 MPH.  It is a
common mistake by those who did not first learn the numbers.

Re: Power supply hot to touch

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  Are you trying to be funny?  Your advice is about as far
off as you can get.   The PSU should not be exhausting its
hot air into the computer case.   A fan pulls air through
intake "vents", they are not used to push air through
anything that is not directly in front of the fan shroud and
basically coupled to it.


Re: Power supply hot to touch

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  Why did the original ATX spec define blowing air from power supply
into chassis?  I am not being funny,  You should have known this.  I
am being techncially correct AND (unlike Ken's  post) I also provide
numerous 'reasons why'.   Why do you assume otherwise without stating
'reasons why'?  As Kony noted, my style is to put facts up honestly
and bluntly.  And my styule is to also provide 'reasons why'. Why do
you post without also stating 'why'?  Where are your supporting
numbers?  How do you expect to have credibility if your criticism
comes without 'reasons why'?

   If you have a problem with my post, then your reply would include
'reasons' for your conclusion.  And your post would cite problems with
my 'reasons why'.  You did neither.  Why did you not provide
'reasons'why' AND also ignore my 'reasons why'.  Ken, that is two

 Some examples.  'Reason why' number one.  ATX spec originally
required blowing air from power supply into chassis.

  'Reason why' number two.  Make no difference which way air flows
because the important parameter is CFMs and incoming air temperature.
Did you viist those fan manufacturer application notes, or just
somehow know?

  Irrlevent is whether PSU fan blows in or out as long as all fans and
air vents are coordinated; so that air flow is not reduced below the
CFMs of one 80 mm or 120 mm fan.  Or stated simpler, as long as the
airflow from each fan is not restricted.

  Unansnwered is whether both fans are working in parallel or in
series.  But that is irrelevant to current temperatures when chassis
remains open.

  If both fans are blowing in, then sufficient sized vents on other
end of chassis are required so that airflow is across the chassis and
so that sufficient CFMs are maintained.

  Yes, it is poltically incorrect to say a PSU can blow air inside a
chassis.  But I am not trying to be poltically correct.  I am being
technically honest which puts me at odds with many who just know - who
did not first learn the science.  Visit application notes from fan
manufacturers.  Learn what is important for chassic cooling: CFMs,
incoming air temperature, and airflow across the chassis.  Direction
is irrelevant - technically.  Direction is defined as a defacto
standard.  Skeleon Man's PSU conforms to an older ATX standard; not to
the current one.

Re: Power supply hot to touch

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  While that is totally irrelevant to advising anyone working
with reasonably current systems, you don't specifically identify
the "ATX spec" you are referring to.  There are a great many.
There are a number of specs for special environments that
allow for implementing a cooling scheme that could use the
PSU fan as you describe, but only the very original ATX
specification ever required such a thing, and that was quickly
found to be a mistake and corrected.




 It may be sites such as this that gave you that idea, but note that
their references on the subject are the first two I posted above.



Quoted text here. Click to load it

  That was my position as well, but does not appear in the
last post of yours, which was the one I quoted and was
replying to.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  It may be that English is not your first language, so I only
point this out to assist you, "Political Correctness" has no
bearing to discussions of inanimate objects (except Stoned
Slackers, perhaps).

  Don't worry, I am well aware of the factors that effect
component cooling, read my other posts in this thread.
The problem the OP stated involved a "Hot" PSU,
which he described as having two fans; both of which
were blowing air out of the PSU enclosure.  There was
no mention of any other venting of the PSU enclosure.
There would be no need for any additional openings in
the enclosure (impacting on its RF shielding), if the fans
were following the current standards and not competing
with each other.  Taking all that into account, it makes
more since that the PSU was made to the current spec,
but that fan on the bottom of the PSU is blowing in the
wrong direction.

  As to your third point in your last post, the first sentence
is logical enough, but the rest I disagree with and view as
potentially misleading.

  Your Forth point is misleading as well.  The OP was
talking about the temp he felt on the PSU enclosure, not
feeling an overheated IC.  I have no idea how hot the ICs
would have to be to make a PSU enclosure, with two fans,
reach the criteria you described; "second or third degree
burns", but I would expect to smell smoke long before that.
Telling people that a hot PSU enclosure would be providing
"perectly ideal temperatures" unless touching it produces
burns, is reckless, at least.

   The fifth point is probably the most counter-productive
(and in part counter to basic physics).  Most cases are
designed to incorporate the airflow I described in my other
post.  Some even put filters over the intake vents at the
bottom front of the case, is it your position that the filters
are there to filter the outgoing air?  Do you think it odd or
just a quirk that most case fan mounting possitions are just
below the PSU on the back wall of the PC case?  Can't
you see that if the 120mm fan is blowing out it will be pulling
the air in from any open vents in the PC case, but mainly
from the intake vents designed into the case?  Why do you
think any fan placement to cool the hdd; has the fans blowing
the cool intake air between the drives and into the rest of
the PC case?  (Your description of the "proper" airflow
would require that they be blowing the air from inside the
PC case across the hdd and out the vent.)

  [Small sidebar:  Fans have a high pressure side and a low
pressure side.  To push air through something you want to
use the high pressure side, the side the air comes out of the
fan.  The thing you are trying to push through needs to be
very close or even coupled to the fan, as unless constrained,
the pressure dissipates rapidly.  You can use the low pressure
side to pull air from a greater distance than you can push air
with the high pressure side.  The speed/acceleration of the air
being pulled is effected by the path it travels as well as the
negative pressure/suction provided by the fan.  So, you need
to put your fans close to, or connected to things with restrictive
spaces like heatsinks, or hdd racks, that you want to cool.  For
creating airflow through the open space of a box, you can use
the low pressure side and have the fan placed away from the
components being cooled by the air flow.]

  Does that provide sufficient reason, for you?


Re: Power supply hot to touch

  Original ATX specs called for power supply to blow air into the
chassis.  At least one of your citations says same.  Don't know which
ATX revisions changed the defacto standard.  It was never a mistake
even though 'a mistake' is the popular myth promoted among and by
computer assemblers.

  One of your citations even bluntly agrees with what I have posted -
but only in subjective terms:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  The point: chassis cooling is defined by intake air temperature and
CFMs.  Direction is not relevant.

 My posts come from learning the engineering, doing the design
numbers, and making things work.  I did not learn from above summary
citations written only for technicians and layman.  None of those
citations are sufficient for engineeing knowledge.  For example, where
are the equations?  No equations because those citations are the
equivalent of an executive summary - for a boss so that he can 'feel'
he knows..  Damning in every citation are no crtical numbers such as
CFMs.  Instead, discussion is subjective - what English or
communication majors do to somehow know a fact.  'Subjective
reasoning' is why some make assumptions and then declare an assumption
as fact.  None of those citations was sufficient to understand thermal

  Most embarrasing is the third citation that says:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

  If the author had basic electrical knowledge, then he would have
never written that.  He has turned popular myth into a technical
fact.  Shame on him.  Anyone with basic electrical knowledge knows
that a properly designed power supply must never send "random jolts
through the rest of the system".  A fact so universal that everything
written by that author is questionable. Ken - my point again.  Some of
those citations are so subjective as to even post myth as fact.

  How did we know Bush was lying about Saddam's WMDs?  The numbers
from engineering source kept contradicting what the president
claimed.  But how many ignored the numbers - instead believed
subjective reasoning?  An example of what we are supposed to have
learned from history.

  I would be embarrassed to have learned technology from these
subjective and sometimes technically inaccurate citations.  But then I
also recommended learning from application notes from fan
manufacturers.  IOW the numbers; not subjective conclusons.

Ken posted:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
     But that is not relevant since (if I recall) he (the OP) was
operating with an open chassis.

Point three was :
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  Where was anything misleading.  One typical failure is for a power
supply to be defective, boot the computer OK, and have the computer
become intermittent or suddenly stops working months later.  What is
misleading about that reality?  The point: misleading is to assume a
power supply is OK only because the computer boots. A booting computer
says little about the integrity of a power supply or the rest of that
power supply 'system'.

  Point four was about what he felt.  The OP called 130 degrees too
hot.  Once we got numbers from him, then we discover it was only
warm.   Too hot means semiconductors are so hot as to leave skin.
This contradicts popular myths where a trivial 130 degrees F get
assumed to be hot.   larry moe 'n curly  also defined 50 degrees C in
proper perspective:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

  He is right.  That power supply box temperature was not hot.  Too
hot is too often when one  assumes rather than first learn the
perspective of numbers.  Again a reference to subjective knowledge
verses knowledge that is accurate and definitive.

  Point five is about removing the second fan that provides near zero
advantages (air filters are not in anyway relevant or mentioned).
Quoted text here. Click to load it

  That second cooling fan does near zero temperture improvement which
would be obvious if your citations provided numbers and equations.
The second fan provides trivial temperature improvement.  Third and
more fans provide exponentially less improvement.  Again, perspective
from numbers not found (as best I saw) in any of your citations.  This
paragraph contradicts popular myth because conclusions are based both
in engineering experience and in the numbers from equations and
manufacturer specs.

  This author learned from engineering; not from subjective sources.
Removing that second fan should result in a trivial temperature
increase.  Of course, if temperature increase is significantly large,
then we have an engineering fact.  A technical problem that must be
discovered and corrected.

  Notice the difference between engineering and subjective reasoning.
In engineering we know what the numbers should be theoretically AND
must obtain same numbers experimentally.  Without both facts, then
only speculation or subjective reasoning exists.  And again, I
complain about those citations that provide no numbers.

  Why do some use filters?  Too many fans create dust problems.
Instead of fixing the problem - excessive airflow - some want to cure
symptom with filters.

  Meanwhile I cannot see if that fan is blowing in or out.  I asked
that question repeatedly in questions that define pro and con of both

 Why do you assume because a fan mount exists, then a fan is
required?  That is not reasoning?  That is akin to wild speculation.
They are selling computer chassis to computer assemblers.  I too would
put a fan mount there even though I know it has no purpose.  Put it
there only because it would sell to the naive who subjectively know
chassis needs more than one fan.  Just because a fan mount exists does
not mean the fan mount is required.  In fact, to increase sales to
these people, I would put fan mounts all over the chassis and sell
them 20 fans.  They would know only from subjective sources?  Good.
They would know its a better computer because they spent more money on
my fans?  Good.   Atfer all, more fans always means more cooling -
even though the numbers say otherwise?  Again, conclusions when
subjective reasoning has no numbers and equations.

  If they want to think subjectively, then I want to reap more

  Is subjective reasoning sufficient for me?  Obvioius?.  Subjective
sources are sometimes a symptom of facts based in wild speculation or
junk science.  Again, my post comes from engineering training - not
from subjective publications.

  I can appreciate why you may have assumed conclusions in those five
points.  But the points themselves are accurate.  Assumptions taken
from those points (due to missing technical knowledge) would explain
your difficulty with them.

  But again, I would be embarrassed to have learned technology from
those subjective citations.  I would give them to the boss so that he
'feels' he understands - and goes away.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Power supply hot to touch

 <Snip semirational rant>

 You complain about the simple citations I provided;
but I find it hard to compare then to those you have
provided - oh yeah you haven't provided anything.

  You speak the need for me to adhere to engineering standards
that require exact numerical measurement; to support anything I say,
BUT I don't see anything to indicate that you have "run the numbers".
( how that is to be accomplished when trying to help a poster, who
knows how far away, is beyond me)

  I find your posting to be that typical of the "Kool Aid Drinkers"
that bleed over from GoogleGroups now and then, to the annoyance
of any familiar with NewsGroups.

  I have developed a limit to the number of replies I will waste
dealing with such as you, I think you have reached that limit.


Site Timeline