Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.raspberry-pi
Subject: Re: Pi-FAN for RPi4 with 4 (instead of 3) cables?
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:28:41 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <vj6npp$c9s3$2@dont-email.me>
References: <lr6kk0FnendU1@mid.individual.net>
 <nco*Rz70z@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <lrbiqpFh6q1U1@mid.individual.net>
 <virltb$1fqan$1@dont-email.me> <lrgherFb1j1U1@mid.individual.net>
 <vj1d28$31v9g$12@dont-email.me> <45822ecc5b.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>
 <vj6i1l$c6u2$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2024 13:28:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="544e8198c48ff805e7ea66f92e16c3e5";
	logging-data="403331"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qWbm6nrCzG+vROn7AY37n7JxD1X9EAKc="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zPL//UhBR4bnJOeApTwcI7gvaQg=
In-Reply-To: <vj6i1l$c6u2$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2694

On 12/9/24 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/12/2024 19:50, David Higton wrote:
>> In message <vj1d28$31v9g$12@dont-email.me>
>>            The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> 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.