Hmm,
Some postings missing on my isp's server.
I asked Joel:
Do you consider the explanation to be correct, and here is his interesting
post/answer, (which IS visible on google):
So you consider it a correct answer ?
It's sort of in the ballpark. A very large ballpark, mind you, but at least
you drove to the appopriate field.
It's not really so much "wave action" that "pounds" on the electrical
components but rather large currents and voltages that bring the device up
to
its quiescent state. The canonical example here is light bulbs -- when
cold,
filaments have a very small resistance relative to that desired when they're
operating "steady state." So, you turn on the wall switch, a huge inrush of
current goes through the filmanet which physically jerks it around and
creates
localized heating at any thin spots (more so than you have at steady state),
thus making it much more likely that, if a light bulb is going to burn out,
it'll do so when it's first turned on.
In things like power supplies the heating caused by the inrush current to
filter capacitors may tend to age them a bit, as it does to, e.g., rectifier
diodes as well (but usually this isn't as big of a deal, and diodes
generally
live much longer than big electrolytic capacitors do to begin with).
If you want to think about "waves" of electricity pounding components,
similar
to a water hammer in your plumbing, you need to get up to high enough
frequencies that your system is a signifcant fraction of a wavelength. This
certainly does happen -- there are plenty of radio transmitters out there
where, if you forget to attach an antenna, the reflected RF from the
open-ended coax creates a high-voltage that'll hammer your final output
transistors to death.
Unlike a water hammer where you can hear each
"hammering," though, even if it takes millions of cycles to kill the
transistors, it still only takes an instant, so usually the radio just quits
working... or perhaps if you're "lucky" you release a bunch of smoke or it
starts on fire.
---Joel
Skybuck again:
I like especially the light bulb analogy, I have seen that happen to real
light bulbs when I power them on... a flash happens and then they are dead.
However I can believe what I want to believe... and I always believed it had
to do with static electricity... and who knows.. maybe static electricty
does place a roll as well.
Here I shall suck a new theory out of my thumb:
The static electricty flowing from my body onto the light bulb together with
the rush of power going into the light bulb creates a powerfull tsunami
destroying the light bulb ! LOL.
Still I like my analogy of TSUNAMI OF POWER much better... even if static
electricity does not play a roll...
Joel's explanation sounds plausible.
A TSUNAMI OF POWER/ELECTRICTY DESTROYS THE ELECTRONICS DURING POWER UP.
HOWEVER.
If this would truely be the cause, then why would the motherboard have died
after many frequent resets in short time ?
Why ? I ask ? Why ?
Why not many days before ?
It doesn't really fit what I saw.
I power on the system once maybe twice a day... usually just once a day.
But only when I power on/off the system in quick succession does it have a
chance to die.
Ofcourse it could be that I simply "quickened" the rate of death.
Or are there are mysterious forces at work.
JOEL does ADMIT that my RESONANCE THEORY does have MERIT =D
HIHIHIHIHIHHIHIHIHHI LOL.
So I still think that the theory might explain it further:
Some "REST" energy is still present in the system... during quick
on/off/on/off succession.
I have seen this "REST" energy before.
For example pulling the bateries from electronics equipment, maybe even a
flash light... or what to think about digital watches ?
Pulling the bateries... and then turning on stuff... shortly gives
operation...
I think I have seen this in TELEVISIONS as well...
It seems there is a small ammount of "rest" energy in the device !
So the theory goes:
This "rest" energy could increase or start resonanting... in quick
on/off/on/off situation.
Leading to an even greater TSUNAMI OF POWER then usual
(Complex shit I know !
)
(Also I do wonder why other kinds of lights fail less regularly but ok...
that's probably worth another topic
I especially wonder about
power-saving-light-bulbs... <- they seem to fail less regularly than
normal/old/classic light bulbs !
)
Bye,
Skybuck.
