INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3
REPLYADDR Pancho.Jones@proton.me
REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP
MSGID:  e9a19d92
REPLY:  e2aa93ba
PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
On 12/9/24 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/12/2024 19:50, David Higton wrote:
>> In message 
>>            The Natural Philosopher  wrote:
>>
>>> It's an interesting thought as to why one would use a fan at all. If its
>>> such a high compute task that you need one, maybe a bigger Pi or an
>>> Intel based machine is indicated.
>>>
>>> I dislike fans. They fail.
>>
>> PC fans run pretty much all the time.  A fan on a RasPi is likely to
>> run less of the time, and could well last longer overall.
>>
>> Fans fail.  Disc drives fail.  SSDs fail.  Batteries fail.  Reservoir
>> capacitors fail.  But before they do, they are very useful.
>>
>
> Such an ArtStudent™ view of life.
>
> Do you know what MTBF means?
>

I was surprised you'd use MTBF for a component which is expected to
steadily deteriorate due to wear and tear.

I though MTBF was more a random failure thing.

For some relatively reliable components, such as people, you initially
see a relatively low failure rate, but come 80 or 90 years they start
dropping like flies, due to wear and tear.

For some things like atomic an atomic nucleus, the failure does seem
random, so MTBF seems applicable.

I don't know which it is for PC fans, but would assume it is more wear
and tear than random.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
SEEN-BY: 4/0 19/10 88/0 90/0 105/81 106/201 128/187 129/305 153/757
SEEN-BY: 153/7715 218/700 840 220/70 221/1 6 360 226/17 30 100 227/114
SEEN-BY: 229/110 111 114 200 206 300 317 400 426 428 550 616 664 700
SEEN-BY: 229/705 266/512 267/800 282/1038 291/111 292/854 301/1 310/31
SEEN-BY: 320/219 322/757 335/364 341/66 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280
SEEN-BY: 712/848 770/1 3 100 330 340 772/210 220 230 880/1 900/0 102
SEEN-BY: 900/106 902/0 6 19 26 905/0 930/1 5020/400 5075/35
PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 341/66 902/26 229/426