Open... and close... and open...

[Letalis Sonus]

That pens are not only on Galaxy Note

I can say for sure that those are inductive, not capacitive.

 

[oskda]

no

You should look for «computers with touch display and active pen» in Google to actualize your information about actual situation.

There are lot of computers with that, and every day they are more and more.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

You should look for «computers with touch display and active pen» in Google to actualize your information about actual situation.

And you should look for inductive touchscreens. Seriously, it's an entirely different technology that is being integrated side-by-side, those active pens don't work on capacitive touchscreens.

Measuring a current is a PITA and those projective capacitive touchscreens require a capacitor for every single crosspoint - reaching a noteworthy precision easily makes them expensive as fuck.

 

[oskda]

And you should look for inductive touchscreens. Seriously, it's an entirely different technology that is being integrated side-by-side, those active pens don't work on capacitive touchscreens.

Measuring a current is a PITA and those projective capacitive touchscreens require a capacitor for every single crosspoint - reaching a noteworthy precision easily makes them expensive as fuck.

Until I know it is a capacitive screen with inductive pen/digitizer (at least it was so in old Galaxy Note smartphone with pen). If today they can be only inductive (for touch too), it is new for me.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

For a start, those Galaxy Note ones are actually being sold as "Inductive Pen". The German Wikipedia article on touchscreens explicitely lists the Galaxy Note and the Surface Pro as such hybrid devices.

One of the most significant difference between capacitive and inductive touchscreen is the distance to the surface, an inductive touchscreen already detects its pen a few cm above the screen while you only get a few mm at best on a capacitive one.

 

[AnimatedFreak]

So? Where is it?

 

[Xcl4m4t10n]

So? Where is it?

Spoiler

In yo ass

 

[ptitSeb]

Here

 

[spud42]

If it will still work with stylus and fingers, well, I wouldn't be interested in changing. Even when multi-touch would be supported, there is a keyboard full of modifiers to hack substitutes.


I remember also one more touchscreen technology but I think it's historical: Plain glass, thick, heavy and rigid, with some kind of devices in PCB located in line around, I've seen it in PoS systems in late 1990s. Very strange one - works with finger, stylus, gloves... I tried many things and it worked with everything except glass. However, in each of these cases when moving a line it caused a little different movement of cursor. Generally the harder material, the worse sensitivity, except when it was dirty with grease-like substances - then sensitivity drastically increased. I've never seen this technology before and after.

those were a matrix of infra red beams , infra red diodes on 2 sides and receivers on the other 2 sides . your finger interrupted 2 beams minimum giving you a row,column position on screen. was used a lot in early "touch screen" kiosks. by design not very accurate but good enough to tell you pressed inside an on screen "button".

http://baanto.com/infrared-touch-screen-technology-and-ir-phototransistor

 

[Haraldur]

I hate touchscreens, as they offer little tactile feedback, get grease onto the screen etc.. On my Pandora, I have used the touchscreen very rarely as it is redundant with other controls and I prefer to keep my hands near all the others; moving the hand from one position to another feels slow. I do not understand the appeal of touchscreens on a Pyra or often elsewhere (they are good for saving space, I suppose, but that does not apply here).

If it was my choice, we would not have a touchscreen at all, so the image quality may be a little better (not that I care much). I will simply not use the touchscreen, whatever it is. I certainly do not care enough to risk damage to my device by removing the touchscreen nor do I care too much to argue about it. Other than to say that I find arguments about the type of touchscreen annoying because I am profoundly uninterested.

 

[ible]

@Haraldur using the stylus should avoid the grease aspect.

 

[Kippykip]

I hate touchscreens, as they offer little tactile feedback, get grease onto the screen etc.. On my Pandora, I have used the touchscreen very rarely as it is redundant with other controls and I prefer to keep my hands near all the others; moving the hand from one position to another feels slow. I do not understand the appeal of touchscreens on a Pyra or often elsewhere (they are good for saving space, I suppose, but that does not apply here).

If it was my choice, we would not have a touchscreen at all, so the image quality may be a little better (not that I care much). I will simply not use the touchscreen, whatever it is. I certainly do not care enough to risk damage to my device by removing the touchscreen nor do I care too much to argue about it. Other than to say that I find arguments about the type of touchscreen annoying because I am profoundly uninterested.

but muh DS emulation!!!!

 

[Eight Bit]

but muh DS emulation!!!!

And muh Opsu!

 

[PCXT]

@Haraldur
Don't expect high accuracy from touch screen when using normal user interface. With Pyra it will be even more difficult as the resolution is higher. There must be a specific UI for touch screens and typical UI is better usable with stylus when used in touch systems. On the other hand using stylus tempts to try with handwriting recognition and although there are Linux tools for it, don't expect wonders.

those were a matrix of infra red beams , infra red diodes on 2 sides and receivers on the other 2 sides . your finger interrupted 2 beams minimum giving you a row,column position on screen. was used a lot in early "touch screen" kiosks. by design not very accurate but good enough to tell you pressed inside an on screen "button".

Thanks for info!. There are lots of technologies which were tried in touch screens.
This made me remember one more technology, not exactly for touch screen, but similar: It was in a Russian metallurgical lab measurement device from early 1990s. Generally it was important to make it operable through hermetic glass window. The method of fixing this problem (in Russian/Soviet equipment: the most simple solution which as side effects requires solving of very difficult problems) was not to make buttons just stick outside using elastic part or sealed contacts, this was too easy. They used piezoelectric transducers to make the electronics read different places of glass pressed, the glass had prints of "buttons" and it worked on any small touch.

 

[Grench]

Here

That looks like a copper sheet coming up from the SoC board to a copper block radiator...

Does that actually fit inside the case?

 

[ptitSeb]

That looks like a copper sheet coming up from the SoC board to a copper block radiator...

Does that actually fit inside the case?

Yes. It's a coper sheet, autogluing on the coper side, and a coper heatsink. And it all fit perfectly as-is

 

[Grench]

Yes. It's a coper sheet, autogluing on the coper side, and a coper heatsink. And it all fit perfectly as-is

The fins/pins on the top are a bit vestigial when enclosed in a case. I wonder - if all of the available space in that cavity were -filled- with a custom cast block of copper - how large could that heat sink be?

Then there is a thought of eliminating the case plastics in that spot and having a heat sink with some fins/pins to expose to air through it.

Clearly several of us are going to need to order up a few extra sets of case plastics and see who can get the highest sustained clock rates with different thermal solutions.

 

[Binky]

If the aim is to absorb heat, rather than to dissipate it, surely there are better materials than copper available?
Aluminium, for example, is 0.91J/gK, where copper is only 0.39J/gK.
Magnesium is 1.05J/gK, and a few other metals are better, but impractical or too expensive

Water is considerably higher, at 4.2J/gK, although it has other disadvantages (leaks, containment above 100°C, etc)

If the aim is to dissipate heat, then presumably the distance between the heatsink and the inside of the case needs to be minimised. Air is a pretty terrible thermal conductor, and few plastics are much better.

 

[Grench]

If the aim is to absorb heat, rather than to dissipate it, surely there are better materials than copper available?
Aluminium, for example, is 0.91J/gK, where copper is only 0.39J/gK.
Magnesium is 1.05J/gK, and a few other metals are better, but impractical or too expensive

Water is considerably higher, at 4.2J/gK, although it has other disadvantages (leaks, containment above 100°C, etc)

If the aim is to dissipate heat, then presumably the distance between the heatsink and the inside of the case needs to be minimised. Air is a pretty terrible thermal conductor, and few plastics are much better.

Is the limiting factor mass or volume though? The specific gravity of copper (8.96 g/cc) is a lot higher than aluminum (2.7 g/cc).
Aluminum 2.457 J/ccK
Copper 3.49 J/ccK

Also, the thermal conductivity of copper is higher (how fast heat moves through it).
Copper (commercial) ~380 W/mK
Aluminum (alloy) ~180 W/mK

So - copper is likely the right choice for what they're doing without getting into exotic materials or phase changes.

 

[WizardStan]

If the aim is to absorb heat, rather than to dissipate it

It's not. The aim is to take heat from one place and move it to another, spread it out, and eventually it'll just leak right out the case. You want something that can conduct heat quickly in that case, and as Grench points out, copper is twice as good as aluminum at that.