Log Off VS Restart

[xrees]

another case of the pot calling the tea kettle black...

Seems we can agree to disagree on this one.
Your logic is simple.

All malfunctions are due to "manufacturing defects".
Heat is irrelevant.
Power cycling does nothing except bring to light something that died
during normal operation.

I say most malfunctions that I've come across happen on powerup.
Your "inrush current" limiters, even IF incorporated, MUST have a
useable life span.
After which I would imagine they are useless. If some "inrush current"
limiters are built substandard we never know. Until the next powerup.
But you attribute it to some OTHER problem. Talk about spin. Yeesh.

Heat is not irrelevant. Electronic equipment prefers a cooler
environment, to a hotter one. Things melt at the upper end.
Instability is just a symptom of an imminent death due to heat.

Numbers are great. They represent a manufacturer's best attempts at
trying to simulate (note that word means "pretend") a real world
condition. You cannot tell me in a straight face, that a manufacturer
can possibly think of EVERY condition their hard drive is going to come
across out there, in the real world. They slap their hard drives onto
perfectly new power supplies, in a nice environment and give you "best
case" numbers. Thats it. They're not going to tell you, that on a
substandard power supply that had its "inrush current limiter fry, in a
neighborhood that has a power go up and down all the time because
"brownouts" are happening due to summer power spikes, that their hard
drives will fail after 50 restarts. That ain't gonna happen. No
different than my Toyota is supposed to get 40mpg city and 60mpg hwy.
We get top end numbers only.

Numbers are great. For people who play with them. For the rest of us,
its real world experience.

And as for your light bulbs, most of mine die on power up. Tho I'm not
too concerned about a 90cent replacement taking 5 years of data with
it.

Thanks for the input tho
Its been fun

Luke

 

[w_tom]

And as for your light bulbs, most of mine die on power up. Tho I'm not
too concerned about a 90cent replacement taking 5 years of data with
it.

A classic example of people making false conclusions based only upon
observation: light bulbs. We were taught in junior high science what
is required to have a fact - grasp of the underlying theory (the
hypothesis) AND experimental evidence. Your light bulbs always fail on
startup when you don't learn about damage created in normal operation.
IOW your observations are biased due to 1) insufficient technical grasp
and 2) incomplete observations.

If light bulbs are damaged in normal operation, then flashing orange
traffic lights always fail first. Reality: the orange bulb lasts long
after the red and green bulbs have died - because again, power cycling
is not destructive. Light bulb failure is due to hours of operation -
once we first learn underlying facts.

Light bulb manufacturers specifically define what causes failure -
even with numerical formulas. Reason for failure is so well understood
that they even have formulas for it. Excessive hours of operation. A
light bulb is damaged by hours of operation (as also indicated by
blackness inside bulb long before filament breaks). With severe
damage, then even a so gentle power on will cause that already damaged
filament to break. Notice how much longer and more complex reality is.

Some manufacturers even provide another number. Generally a bulb so
damaged as to be in its last 10 hours of operation may then fail when
powered on. Power cycling did not cause the damage.

Tungsten deposits inside the bulb are not from the filament
exploding. That blackness and a seriously damaged filament are due to
too many hours of operation. Those who wildly speculate would never
know; would instead blame power cycling. Power cycling causing light
bulb damage is a classic example of junk science reasoning. Junk
science is common among those who violate principles (from junior high
school) on how to grasp a fact. You have no ideas how light bulbs
degrade and fail. Therefore speculate it was power cycling - and then
declared your speculation as fact.

We disagree because I first learned 'hows, whys, and made full
observations' before declaring speculation as fact. You only saw the
light bulb fail during power on, and then used junk science reasoning.
I analyzed a failed power supply to determine normal operation damaged
its pullup resistor. You would immediately conclude that power cycling
destroyed that power supply - and not even know about that pullup
resistor. Yes, we do come from different worlds. I don't use
speculation to proclaim reality. First I learn the facts and numbers.

Light bulbs are damaged by hours of operation. Manufactures even
provide formulas for that damage. Lawyer logic does not define
realities - the underlying concepts and the numbers. Light bulbs fail
due to too many hours of operation. That too is a fact from the light
bulb industry bible - IES Lightning Handbook. But again I am doing
what is necessary to grasp facts. I even consulted (and cited) a
technical source. Why? Because I first learn before proclaiming
'speculation as if fact'.

Power cycling so destructive to computers? This from a person who
also speculated how light bulbs fail - and then declared that
speculation as fact. There are things called numbers and citations.
There is this procedure called first learning why. There is this
concept called credibility.

 

[xrees]

Can you say "troll" ?

TomAyto.
Tomahto.

You even say it yourself.

"Some manufacturers even provide another number. Generally a bulb so
damaged as to be in its last 10 hours of operation may then fail when
powered on. Power cycling did not cause the damage."

No it didn't do the damage.
You're absolutely right. Many hours of use did.
The power cycle finished the light bulb off.

This from "The Great Internet Light Bulb" website,

http://members.misty.com/don/bulb1.html

"Many people wonder what goes on when you turn on a light. It is often
annoying that a weak, aging light bulb will not burn out until the next
time you turn it on. The answer here is with those thin spots in the
filament. Since they have less mass than the less-evaporated parts of
the filament, they heat up more quickly. Part of the problem is the
fact that tungsten, like most metals, has less resistance when it is
cool and more resistance when it is hot. This explains the current
surge that light bulbs draw when they are first turned on. When the
thin spots have reached the temperature that they would be running at,
the thicker, heavier parts of the filament have not yet reached their
final temperature. This means that the filament's resistance is still a
bit low and excessive current is still flowing. This causes the thinner
parts of the filament to get even hotter while the rest of the filament
is still warming up. This means that the thin spots, which run too hot
anyway, get even hotter when the thicker parts of the filament have not
yet fully warmed up. This is why weak, aging bulbs can't survive being
turned on."

....with apologies to the author for dragging him and his website into
this discussion.

The light bulb WOULD have lasted longer had it NOT been powered off and
then on.

Ditto for the hard drive.
Likewise for the power supply.
My argument from the start.
Thanks for the verification.

Yeesh.

And by the way, nice side step on the "inrush current" topic.

Luke

 

[w_tom]

No it didn't do the damage.
You're absolutely right. Many hours of use did.
The power cycle finished the light bulb off.

This from "The Great Internet Light Bulb" website, ...
.... This is why weak, aging bulbs can't survive being
turned on."

xrees confirms the myth about 'destructive' power cycling to light
bulbs. Previously posted was another example of non-destrutive light
bulb power cycling:

If light bulbs are damaged in normal operation, then flashing
orange traffic lights always fail first. Reality: the orange bulb
lasts long after the red and green bulbs have died - because
again, power cycling is not destructive. Light bulb failure is
due to hours of operation - once we first learn underlying facts.

But again, many promote this myth only upon limited observations.
Myths due to no underlying facts and no manufacturer's numbers. This
'junk science' reasoning results in a myth about 'destructive' power
cycling to electronics. Power off when done. Leaving power applied to
extend life - of light bulbs or electronics - is a myth. When one
fails to first do as taught in junior high school sceince - learning
the numbers and other underlying theories - then 'junk science'
reasoning results.