[filmscanners] RE: keeping the 16bit scans

["LAURIE SOLOMON" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

>It would seem logically, that the more time that lapses where the drive
>is not in use, the less effect the single on/off cycle has.

Yes, I agree; but many people turn their computers on/off multiple times
during the day - like whenever they leave the room to do something else.  I
know several friends who treat their computer systems as if they were light
switches in that they check their email four or five times a day in which
case they engage in turning the computer on and off for each occasion.

My point was not to compare wear and tear caused by turning HDs or systems
on and off versus that caused by different lengths of use time. It was
merely to state that turning an electrical device on and off produces such
things as power surges as well as spin up and spin down impacts which can be
a cause of wear and tear on an electrical and mechanical device just as
continuously being keept on and spinning can be a cause of wear and tear on
an electrical and/ormechanical device.  Thus, in absolute and general terms,
it is a trade off as to which causes more or less wear and tear; therefore
one cannot say that one source of wear and tear is worse than another or
that one exists while the other is not a factor.  In relative terms, of
course, one's work habits enter into the equation in determining which could
be a greater source of wear and tear for the particular user.

I also question if the energy savings or reduction in energy bill costs of
one versus the other is all that great as to be a major significant factor.
Unlike the old tube electronics, solid state electronics do not use great
amounts of power to run; and I doubt if the newer high tech mechanical
devices in computer systems such as fans and hard drives, scanner motors,
and many types of printers do either ( although printers may use more since
both inkjet and laser printers make use of heating elements which might be a
higher power user).


>Perhaps someone has documented how turning a hard drive on and off
>alters its failure rate, relative to keeping it one continually...  but
>I haven't seen it.

As for talking out of our hats as opposed to presenting mathematical
empirical data or statistics, we are all inclined to do that in general
discussions where we rely on logic and reasoning rather than precise
numbers. :-)  Most computers and electronics today are solid state which
takes relatively little power to run: most mechanical devices and
peripherals these days also take relatively little power to run.  Thus,
except for those which require heating elements, the amount of power wasted
in surges by turning on the electrical system or device or to start up the
mechanical device may (DEPENDENG ON ONE"S WORK HABITS) logically be equal to
that which is wasted by just leaving the syetem/device on and running.
Furthermore, logically speaking, the surges caused by turning a drive on and
off, having it spin up and spin down, cannot be said to have no effect on
its wear and tear which eventually could lead to failure just as leaving it
on continually cannot be said to have no effect on its wear and tear whcih
eventually could lead to failure.  They both can have the same effect and
outcomes, all things being equal.  The relative to failure rate of one to
the other is an empirical question not a logical one and is contingent on
use patterns of individual users rather than all things being equal.  I only
note this to make my point that all kinds of ecological fallacies are
generated when one mixes general logical arguments with individual concrete
case arguments in a debate.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:10 AM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: keeping the 16bit scans


Sorry to bring this to the forefront of this discussion, but we are all
talking through our hats.

Perhaps someone has documented how turning a hard drive on and off
alters its failure rate, relative to keeping it one continually...  but
I haven't seen it.  I'm sure each drive is different, dependent upon its
size, mass, design, the constancy of the electrical current, the power
supply, the temperature of the drive, ventilation, plane it is used in,
bearing type, balance specs, etc, etc.

It would seem logically, that the more time that lapses where the drive
is not in use, the less effect the single on/off cycle has.  As an
example, if I only use the drive once a month, I suspect the wear on the
drive from running it for that month versus using it for a few hours
once a month, would be different that if I was turning it on 4 times a
day for 30 minutes at a time.

I am convinced that spin down on a regular "energy saving" basis using a
"time without use" basis while the computer is on is detrimental to most
hard drives, and I have stopped this function on my system.

I even wonder how much energy is saved under those conditions.

However, I do turn my system off when it is going to be left unused for
several hours, and whether it saves the hard drive or not, it certainly
saves energy.

Art


LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:

> As I have said, much of this is basically personal choices and trade-offs.
> The key problem with discussions like this is that it is often the case -
as
> it is now - that one party is talking at a general level while the other
is
> talking on a very specific personal level.  There is an ecological fallacy
> that takes place when one attempts to generalize based on individual cases
> or very small samples such as a few people's personal experiences just as
> there is when one attempts to refute a generalization by citing individual
> counter-examples.  When I say that turning a HD on and off has a negative
> effect in terms of wear and tear similar to that which might take place if
> one left the HD on all the time, I am speaking on the average and not to
any
> particular individual case.  Unless, you are prepared to say that turning
a
> HD on and off does not contribute to its wear and tear, the fact that you
> personally only do so once a week is sort of irrelevant as a refutation of
> my point. If you backed up or archived once a day every day, woulod you
> still be able to clain that the wear and tear of turning the drive on and
> off is less than keeping it on all the time during that week?
>
> I think that the electricity use and savings as well as differences in
> electric bills is probably not really that significant in most cases for
> most people; but that is a different argument than the wear and tear
> argument.  That you trun your system off every night is probably the
> governing factor which would justify turning off the HD since there is no
> point to leaving the HD running if the system it is connected to is turned
> off.
>
> In short, your work patterns and beliefs make you confortable with turning
> on or unplugging your external hard drive when you want to use it and
> turning it off or unplugging it when you are done.  I cannot argue with
> that,  I cannot convince you that the justifications you offer may not be
> true, or if they are they may not be significant, or they may be true but
> result in generating things which may have an equally negative effect.
All
> I can do is point out that in general there are equally valid
justifications
> for other forms of behavior that others offer and believe in which suggest
> that alternative work patterns may be equally effective.
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body