Why do materials fail at different rates?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moon Bee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reasons why individuals choose to leave their computers on continuously versus turning them off. Participants explore various factors including thermal shock, energy consumption, wear and tear, and the functionality of different operating systems. The conversation touches on both theoretical and practical aspects of computer usage.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that leaving computers on can prevent thermal shock, which they define as damage caused by rapid temperature changes.
  • Others argue that thermal shock is not a significant concern for most computer components, citing that many parts are not sensitive to gradual temperature changes.
  • One participant recounts a personal experience of losing a computer due to cold temperatures, suggesting that specific environmental conditions can lead to failures.
  • Several participants mention that modern computers have power-saving features that allow them to remain on without significant energy costs.
  • There is a discussion about the differences in wake-up features between Macs and PCs, with some participants expressing surprise at the capabilities of Macs compared to PCs.
  • Some participants highlight that most wear and tear occurs during the booting process, implying that leaving a computer on may extend its lifespan.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of thermal gradients and stresses in the context of thermal shock, suggesting that the definition of rapid can vary based on materials.
  • Another participant notes that thermal fatigue and the potential for hard drive damage are reasons to keep computers running continuously.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of thermal shock and the best practices for leaving computers on or off. There is no consensus on whether thermal shock is a valid concern, and opinions vary regarding the implications of energy consumption and hardware longevity.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about thermal shock and its effects on computer components depend on specific definitions and assumptions that are not universally agreed upon. The discussion also highlights the variability in user experiences based on different environmental conditions and hardware setups.

  • #31
cyrusabdollahi said:
Would this not then imply that it does not have to be a rapid change?
Certainly, not in all cases, but the term 'shock' usually infers a 'rapid' change in which a system cannot adapt readily, or dissipate the energy before failure occurs.

I could really use some graphics here. And I can't find an appropriate example online - assuming one exists. There are lots of journal articles one has to buy though.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #32
I keep the computers running to prevent hardware failures associated with that shock given to all components when you turn the power on and off.

Does anybody remember that episode of mythbusters where they test whether or not leaving the lights on saves power? They showed that the saving power argument was bunk (obviously), but they also showed that when they turned the lights on and off at regular intervals not a single one of their lights lasted more than 2 months. When you're talking about a 60 cent light bulb, yeah I can see how saving power at the expense of the bulb is a good idea. When you start talking about a 2TB array made from 6 hard drives with a total cost of over $1000, does it really make sense to turn it on and off because you might save $5 over the course of a year?


When Russ said he leaves them on in winter, I think he means that power is never really wasted in winter time. Most of the electricity from the computer and monitor turns into heat. Same with light bulbs, the stove, the oven, etc. You're heating your home anyway, so "wasted" electricity in the form of heat isn't exactly wasteful. In summer it's the exact opposite. You're trying to cool your home, so any electric heat from your computer or stove or whatever is adding to the problem, and you end up using even more electricity to power fans and air conditioners.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Astronuc said:
Certainly, not in all cases, but the term 'shock' usually infers a 'rapid' change in which a system cannot adapt readily, or dissipate the energy before failure occurs.

I could really use some graphics here. And I can't find an appropriate example online - assuming one exists. There are lots of journal articles one has to buy though.

What I am getting at is this: Let's say, for example, that we have a semi-infinite solid. Then the temperature at any location is a function of:

T=T(x,h,a,k,t)

This means that the temperature at a given point x will vary with t only (considering h,a,k to be relatively constant over the temperature change for a given material).

So the 'speed' at which a material reaches failure is determined primarily by T=T(h,a,k) at a given location. One material will 'fail' faster than another material due to its physical properties (h,a,k), because x is held constant and time is allowed to increase the same for both samples. Time is simply telling you which one fails first. It does not say it failed because it was necessarily rapid.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
17K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K