[filmscanners] RE: keeping the 16bit scans

["Frank Paris" <frankparis@comcast.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:10 AM
> To: frankparis@comcast.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.

Can you think of a reason why it would be different from any other
electrical device?

> 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

What about the energy cost of building a new one when your current one
dies prematurely because you've been turning it on and off too often?
Don't know what the figures would be, but it's not an open and shut
case, that's for sure.

I believe it used to be accepted that running a drive 24/7 would wear
out the bearings faster than turning it on only when it was being used.
But I wonder if the same is true for these liquid bearings? If bearing
wear is not a factor anymore, then running it 24/7 would seem to be a
safer way to go than turning it on and off all the time, because of the
electrical stress that occurs when you do that. The energy savings --
well, as Don Doucette's post pointed out, that's moot.

Frank Paris
frankparis@comcast.net


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