Why do materials fail at different rates?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moon Bee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computers
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the reasons people leave multiple computers running simultaneously. Key points include the convenience of not having to wait for boot-up times, especially when downloading or running processes that should not be interrupted. Some users leave computers on 24/7 to avoid wear and tear associated with frequent booting, as most wear occurs during startup. The concept of thermal shock is debated, with some arguing that it is not a significant issue for modern computers, while others highlight that rapid temperature changes can cause damage to sensitive components. The energy consumption of computers is also discussed, with many noting that the cost of leaving them on is minimal, particularly in winter when the heat generated can be beneficial. Power-saving features like standby and hibernate modes are mentioned, with some users expressing frustration over the differences in functionality between Macs and PCs. Overall, the conversation reflects a mix of practical considerations and technical insights regarding computer usage and maintenance.
  • #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
16
Views
13K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · 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
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K