Sudden shutdown and power off

[Leythos]

That is not dust balls. If dust is so packed heavy after three
years of operation as to stop fans, why is a home computer being used
in an industrial environment? That is why industrial computers are
sold. Why do clone computers have so many (too many) fans causing
massive dust concentrations?

Sadly you believe your limited experience is all there is in the world.
I've seen many instances where a Dell, HP, IBM, clone computer has been
set on the floor in a family room and within 6 months the dust is so
thick that there are no open vents, the CPU heat sink has NO air-flow,
even while the fan continues to spin.

You just don't seem to understand how the REAL WORLD OF HOME COMPUTERS
WORKS.

Even heatsinks coated in dust should have holes permitting airflow.
Heatsinks are also selected so that cooling is sufficient even when
coated with dust.

NOT TRUE - in a home where there is any reasonable amount of dust, a
computer sitting on the floor in a high-traffic area can completely
BLOCK AIRFLOW THROUGH THE HEAT-SINK in 6 months time - completely.

V Green is using Leythos' subjective reasoning to worry about a
problem that must never exist in a properly constructed computer in
typically harsh residential or commercial environment. Another major
reason for dust so heavy as to stop a CPU fan are too many chassis
fans - moving too much air. A hardware design failure often found
where a computer assembler did not learn some simple numbers such as
chassis CFMs.

A naive computer assembler is the butt of a classic Tim Allen joke:
"More Power". Their solution when designing a computer? "More
Fans". Then the computer does not have dust balls. Instead, a
defectively designed computer has packed dust sediment.

And yet a simple task of cleaning dust out of a computer that
intermittently reboots for no software reason can often restore it to
full functionality until the cooling is disrupted again - and not a
single component is defective or out of spec.

 

[Leythos]

Dust balls would never cause hardware to
get that hot - no matter how many times Leythos says otherwise.

See reply in another post you made claiming that Dust can't cause
intermittent problems with computers.

You show your massive arrogance and ignorance each time you post WTOM.

 

[Paul]

Sadly you believe your limited experience is all there is in the world.
I've seen many instances where a Dell, HP, IBM, clone computer has been
set on the floor in a family room and within 6 months the dust is so
thick that there are no open vents, the CPU heat sink has NO air-flow,
even while the fan continues to spin.

You just don't seem to understand how the REAL WORLD OF HOME COMPUTERS
WORKS.

I had a "hair ball" case at work. I cannot remember the reason why,
but I decided to open up a Sparc workstation sitting on the desk surface
of someone who had long hair. Internally, the computer had three fans next
to its intake. There was a hair ball in there, covering the entire area between
fans and vent, and the stuff was *dense*. There was virtually no airflow
inside the computer, although the fans were still turning. The processor
got so hot, I was not able to touch the heatsink for ten minutes after shutdown.
The reason the processor was quite happy with the incandescent conditions,
is it had a Fujitsu upgrade kit, and likely used bipolar technology
rather than CMOS. (This was a long time ago.)

So "dust ball" might more aptly be described as "hair+dust", and
then this is easier to understand.

I got so much hair out of that computer, I could have made a
wig from it

Paul

 

[Leythos]

So "dust ball" might more aptly be described as "hair+dust", and
then this is easier to understand.

I got so much hair out of that computer, I could have made a
wig from it

I've not had "hair", but thick cakes of dust, not dust balls.

WTom's problem is that his very limited scope of experience is all he
knows and he's unable to comprehend that more exists in the world than
what he's experienced.

Dust is a threat to any cooling system.

 

[westom1]

I had a "hair ball" case at work. I cannot remember the reason why,
but I decided to open up a Sparc workstation sitting on the desk surface
of someone who had long hair. Internally, the computer had three fans next
to its intake. There was a hair ball in there, covering the entire area between
fans and vent, and the stuff was *dense*. There was virtually no airflow
inside the computer, although the fans were still turning.

So hair was packed dense - was not a dust ball. We are not
discussing densely packed sediment. We are discussing dust balls.
Any computer must work just fine in a 100 degree F room with large
dust balls. Dust balls do not explain computer failure. Hardware
defects identified by that heat explain the failures.

What was she doing? Using high airflow to dry her hair?

 

[Leythos]

So hair was packed dense - was not a dust ball. We are not
discussing densely packed sediment. We are discussing dust balls.
Any computer must work just fine in a 100 degree F room with large
dust balls. Dust balls do not explain computer failure. Hardware
defects identified by that heat explain the failures.

What was she doing? Using high airflow to dry her hair?

No, you're wrong again, we're talking about DUST Impacting cooling. You
are the ONLY person talking about "Dust Balls" the rest of us are
talking about "Dust" blocking air flow and causing cooling to be less
than spec'd or worse.


Try staying on focus - Dust Balls have never been an issue, but if you
had read what I typed you would know, already, that we're not talking
about fluffy dust that moves around inside the case.

 

[Unknown]

So hair was packed dense - was not a dust ball. We are not
discussing densely packed sediment. We are discussing dust balls.
Any computer must work just fine in a 100 degree F room with large
dust balls. Dust balls do not explain computer failure. Hardware
defects identified by that heat explain the failures.

Wrong---Hardware failures CAUSED by heat explain the failures. You have it
backwards.

 

[westom1]

  Wrong---Hardware failures CAUSED by heat explain the failures. You have it
backwards.

So what has failed. Heat? Of course not. Hardware must work
without failure in that heat. We agree on this. Hardware failures
caused by heat explains the failures ... by identifying defective
hardware. Removing heat to stop failure only cures symptoms. Heat
is a diagnostic tool.

This contradicts many who only know they removed dust and the
computer worked. Curing symptoms does not fix a computer. Curing
symptoms is too common when observation (without necessary training)
results in conclusions. Leythos demonstrates that junk science
reasoning is alive and well. He always knows by only using
observation. He and I are constantly at loggerheads because he
constantly uses junk science reasoning. He would simply remove the
dust and automatically know that defective computer as fixed.

Heat is a powerful diagnostic tool to locate defective hardware.
What was burn-in testing? Not what computer assemblers assume. Burn-
in testing means heating the entire system to maximum temperature -
then testing. Why? Heat is a diagnostic tool that best locates
defects. Burn-in testing means temperature cycling since temperature
extremes are ideal for computer hardware.

This is very unpopular where untrained techs also fear to learn new
diagnostic tools - such as heat. Untrained techs will routinely
resort to shotgunning.

 

[westom1]

No, you're wrong again, we're talking about DUST Impacting cooling. You
are the ONLY person talking about "Dust Balls" the rest of us are
talking about "Dust" blocking air flow and causing cooling to be less
than spec'd or worse.

Leythos foolishly believe that dust packs tight like sediment even
in six months. That packing should have happen even after three
years. What happens in six months? What happens in the described
time periods describied in a normal environment? Dust balls.
Computers must be properly designed to be chock full of dust balls and
still work in a 100 degree F room. Leythos would cure the symptoms -
remove dust balls.

Lyethos is only here to argue. Leythos has been exposed ignorant
about numerous other things that any properly tranined technician
would have known. Now he wants to change what he claimed. Dust does
not completely block airflow in six month if the system is properly
designeL Having been exposed again, Leythos is desperately trying to
change what he claimed..

Massive dust balls in a 70 degree F room causing a computer to crash
means the computer has other hardware defects - no matter how Leythos
would spin it. Heat being a diagnostic tool to find defective
hardware. Heat being the symptom that technically naive always wants
to cure. Leythos finally admits one reality. Heat created by dust
balls does not create temperatures that harm hardware.

 

[Unknown]

That is a ridiculous analysis. All components fail if too much heat is
applied.
I agree heat can be used in some cases to find components that do not meet
temperature specs.
But, those that meet specs and are failing is because it is too much heat.

Wrong---Hardware failures CAUSED by heat explain the failures. You have it
backwards.

So what has failed. Heat? Of course not. Hardware must work
without failure in that heat. We agree on this. Hardware failures
caused by heat explains the failures ... by identifying defective
hardware. Removing heat to stop failure only cures symptoms. Heat
is a diagnostic tool.

This contradicts many who only know they removed dust and the
computer worked. Curing symptoms does not fix a computer. Curing
symptoms is too common when observation (without necessary training)
results in conclusions. Leythos demonstrates that junk science
reasoning is alive and well. He always knows by only using
observation. He and I are constantly at loggerheads because he
constantly uses junk science reasoning. He would simply remove the
dust and automatically know that defective computer as fixed.

Heat is a powerful diagnostic tool to locate defective hardware.
What was burn-in testing? Not what computer assemblers assume. Burn-
in testing means heating the entire system to maximum temperature -
then testing. Why? Heat is a diagnostic tool that best locates
defects. Burn-in testing means temperature cycling since temperature
extremes are ideal for computer hardware.

This is very unpopular where untrained techs also fear to learn new
diagnostic tools - such as heat. Untrained techs will routinely
resort to shotgunning.

 

[Leythos]

So what has failed. Heat? Of course not. Hardware must work
without failure in that heat. We agree on this. Hardware failures
caused by heat explains the failures ... by identifying defective
hardware. Removing heat to stop failure only cures symptoms. Heat
is a diagnostic tool.

We don't agree, that's the point WTom.

Excessive HEAT can cause "Intermittent" failures without
breaking/destroying the device. Excessive heat can cause thermal
shutdown of protected devices in a PC.

Removing the cause of the Excessive Heat fixes the problem - PERIOD.

 

[Leythos]

Leythos foolishly believe that dust packs tight like sediment even
in six months. That packing should have happen even after three
years. What happens in six months? What happens in the described
time periods describied in a normal environment? Dust balls.
Computers must be properly designed to be chock full of dust balls and
still work in a 100 degree F room. Leythos would cure the symptoms -
remove dust balls.

WTom thinks the only think called dust is loose balls that float around
and don't block airflow.

A SOLID wall of dust blocking airflow is a good cause of intermittent
faults in a PC.

All experienced PC technicians and engineers know that blocking air-flow
increases temperatures of devices that require circulation for cooling.

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/1524/dell2sz1.jpg

Something like the above is hardly a "Dust Bunny" issue, and while the
computer above could work for a long time with that much dust, it's also
likely that the computer with that much dust has intermittent faults
caused by excessive heat.

Face it WTom, it's already accepted and proven by MANY people that a
dust coated Heat-Sink provides less cooling effect than a clean one.
It's also proven that CPU faults as well as other devices can fault
intermittently caused by excessive heat due to improper cooling ability,
without destroying the device that faults.

 

[westom1]

That is a ridiculous analysis. All components fail if too much heat is
applied.

Fail how? Fail as in a software execution error? Or fail as in
permanent damage? How generous by using the word 'fail' that you
don't even define? But then those with insufficient technical
knowledge don't know the difference.

Reduced air flow does not cause hardware damage. But those with
near zero technical knowledge immediately _know_ those temperatures
must be hardware destructive because that is the popular myth. Higher
temperatures cause software execution errors - also called burn-in
testing or using heat as a diagnostic.

Defined elsewhere are other numbers for hardware damage -
temperatures that are not discussed here.

Restrictive airflow can cause software execution errors if a
hardware defect exists. Temperature did not cause that damage.
Computers must work just fine with restricted air flow while in a 100
degree F room. Where is this permanent hardware damage you imply? No
numbers provided? Then your claims are classic junk science. No
numbers is always necessary to make junk science assumptions.

Long before posting anything, where are your numbers? You said 'too
much heat' but provided no numbers. So we use my numbers and then
nothing is damaged.

Others are warned of the destructive heat myths routinely assumed by
the technically uneducated. Computers must work just fine in a 100
degree F room even with restricted airflow from dust balls. Or
increase temperatures to perform 'pig’s happy hardware' burn-in
testing which is also not destructive to any properly constructed
computer.

That 'too much heat' (only I provided numbers) is not destructive to
computer hardware. But those temperatures may cause defective
hardware to fail diagnostics. Then that defective hardware again
works OK at 70 degree F. (How can that be if heat only destroys
semiconductors?) Leythos would then claim he fixed it because he
removed dust balls. Too many computer assemblers don't even have
basic technician experience. _Knowing_ without numbers is necessary
to become a junk scientist.

 

[Leythos]

Reduced air flow does not cause hardware damage. But those with
near zero technical knowledge immediately _know_ those temperatures
must be hardware destructive because that is the popular myth. Higher
temperatures cause software execution errors - also called burn-in
testing or using heat as a diagnostic.

Wtom would have all of us believe that "Thermal Shutdown" doesn't exist
in any computer, that vendors didn't build "Thermal Shutdown" into CPU's
to protect them against overheating.

WTom would have us believe that the BIOS message "Your computer has been
shutdown to prevent damage" doesn't exist and indicates that the CPU is
not being properly cooled - in some PC's.

Following WTom's advice, as proven in many threads, is a goose chance of
BS that can't be resolved in a LOT less steps by following the
directions of those that have actually worked with/on computers.

 

[westom1]

Wtom would have all of us believe that "Thermal Shutdown" doesn't exist
in any computer, that vendors didn't build "Thermal Shutdown" into CPU's
to protect them against overheating.

Thermal shutdown was just another example of how dust balls cannot
cause hardware damage. Untrained techs such as Leythos assumed too
much heat can physically harm an Intel CPU. Then reality strikes.
Even the Intel 486 - 1980s technology - had protection circuits so
that overheating does not damage the CPU. What Leythos confuses is a
messages that says even hard packed dust sediment is not destructive
to that CPU. But nobody is discussing hard packed dust sediment.
Leythos must discuss hard packed sediment to avoid being exposed lying
again.

Heating numbers that are relevant and discussed here are far
lower. Nobody (except Leythos) is talking about semiconductors so hot
as to leave skin when touched. Heat is a diagnostic to find
defective hardware. Heat is a symptom that Leythous would cure due to
insufficient technician training. Leythos would remove dust balls,
cure symptoms, and declare a computer fixed.

Heat is a diagnostic tool the OP could have used to find and fix his
computer. Fixing a computer by removing dust balls means the
defective remains - that only symptoms were cured.

 

[Unknown]

Did you ever hear of a solid state device such as a diode or transistor
conducting when it shouldn't
as a result of heat?

That is a ridiculous analysis. All components fail if too much heat is
applied.

Fail how? Fail as in a software execution error? Or fail as in
permanent damage? How generous by using the word 'fail' that you
don't even define? But then those with insufficient technical
knowledge don't know the difference.

Reduced air flow does not cause hardware damage. But those with
near zero technical knowledge immediately _know_ those temperatures
must be hardware destructive because that is the popular myth. Higher
temperatures cause software execution errors - also called burn-in
testing or using heat as a diagnostic.

Defined elsewhere are other numbers for hardware damage -
temperatures that are not discussed here.

Restrictive airflow can cause software execution errors if a
hardware defect exists. Temperature did not cause that damage.
Computers must work just fine with restricted air flow while in a 100
degree F room. Where is this permanent hardware damage you imply? No
numbers provided? Then your claims are classic junk science. No
numbers is always necessary to make junk science assumptions.

Long before posting anything, where are your numbers? You said 'too
much heat' but provided no numbers. So we use my numbers and then
nothing is damaged.

Others are warned of the destructive heat myths routinely assumed by
the technically uneducated. Computers must work just fine in a 100
degree F room even with restricted airflow from dust balls. Or
increase temperatures to perform 'pig’s happy hardware' burn-in
testing which is also not destructive to any properly constructed
computer.

That 'too much heat' (only I provided numbers) is not destructive to
computer hardware. But those temperatures may cause defective
hardware to fail diagnostics. Then that defective hardware again
works OK at 70 degree F. (How can that be if heat only destroys
semiconductors?) Leythos would then claim he fixed it because he
removed dust balls. Too many computer assemblers don't even have
basic technician experience. _Knowing_ without numbers is necessary
to become a junk scientist.

 

[Leythos]

Thermal shutdown was just another example of how dust balls cannot
cause hardware damage. Untrained techs such as Leythos assumed too
much heat can physically harm an Intel CPU. Then reality strikes.

There you go again telling lies - you're the only one suggesting
"Damage", not one other person has suggested "Damage".

It's common for circuits to have "Thermal Protection" which appear as
intermittent faults to the users. The "Thermal Protection" will shut-
down a device BEFORE DAMAGE happens and the cause is often bad cooling -
bad cooling comes from dust caked heat-sinks.

Even the Intel 486 - 1980s technology - had protection circuits so
that overheating does not damage the CPU. What Leythos confuses is a
messages that says even hard packed dust sediment is not destructive
to that CPU. But nobody is discussing hard packed dust sediment.
Leythos must discuss hard packed sediment to avoid being exposed lying
again.

Yes, we are discussing DUST, not Dust Balls, not Dust Bunnies, not minor
coatings of dust - we're discussing "Intermittent faults" that are often
caused by "Dust" - and any person with half a brain knows that it means
caked vents and heat-sink fins - as has been stated MANY times in this
thread.

[snipped more drivel]

The fact remains that improper cooling, caused by DUST, can cause a
computer to over-heat and shutdown without actually causing damage to
the devices.

 

[westom1]

The fact remains that improper cooling, caused by DUST, can cause a
computer to over-heat and shutdown without actually causing damage to
the devices.

Finally even Leythos admits to reality. Heat is not the hardware
destructive even that he and others have posted previously.

Heat is a diagnostic tool that would have found the OPs actual
hardware defects quickly. Heat is also an essential part of burn-in
testing. Burn-in testing without heat does not perform effective
testing. Heat is a diagnostic tool which is why removing dust balls
only cures symtpoms; does not solve the problem.

 

[Leythos]

Finally even Leythos admits to reality. Heat is not the hardware
destructive even that he and others have posted previously.

You never understood my posts to begin with WTom. I have never suggested
that HEAT WAS DESTRUCTIVE in this thread, I said, clearly, that HEAT
CAUSES INTERMITTENT FAULTS like those described by the OP and that
you've BS'ed about.

While Heat CAN and IS destructive in the case of non-thermally protected
devices, such as the old AMD CPU's and some video cards, the most common
issue caused by HEAT is thermal instability or thermal shutdown, that
the user sees as a FAULT or Error in their computer, without actually
damaging the device.

DUST causes thermal changes, dust blocking cooling can and does cause
computer to have hardware non-destructive faults - which is clearly what
I've said in every reply in this thread.

Dust covered heat-sinks and vents are a common cause of computer
problems.

 

[westom1]

Did you ever hear of a solid state device such as a diode or transistor
conducting when it shouldn't as a result of heat"?

Did you design with solid state devices (ie Op amps) in the 1960s?
It is obvious you did not. Your wild speculations about heat are
common among computer assemblers who often cannot even point out the
transistors on any PC board. Meanwhile, from the poster who actually
designs stuff and who actually must do the thermal resistance
equations, heat is a diagnostic tool to locate defective hardware.
Heat is a diagnostic tool to fix things AND is a diagnostic tool when
designing them. Oh. Only one here has experience from both
perspectives. Same person is the only one who backs up technical
claims with numbers. Only junk scientists like Unknown would convert
wild speculations into knowledge ... and without any numbers.