Is it OK...

That's true Grunterdad I had one fluorescent bulb in our mud room we leave on all the time and it lasted two-three years. I put them in my daughters bathroom vanities and they lasted like two weeks.
On another note I reckon I may di-ode like me Mum who is in her 90s (by now I hope you see a trend-yes the cornier the better).

Not enough data in your study. And it was obviously exaggerated :)

I have incandescent (halogen) in my house. I've been here almost ten years and have not replaced a bulb (or lamp, as the professionals would say).

Turn your stuff off when not in use. All it does is bleed power. The only thing I leave on are my computers. The one I'm using now is so glitchy, I'm afraid it won't start up if I turn it off.
 
This outtake from a product development engineer on Reddit states that the answer varies from product to product. I guess only the manufacturer knows for sure which approach would be best for each device.

Product Development Engineer here - it varies by product. It's a very interesting question, because thermal cycling (on/off) is a very stressful condition for electronics that causes a lot of catastrophic failures. On the other hand most devices are rated in hours useful life, so leaving a device on is generally not the best choice if it will spend a lot of hours without anyone using it.

For lifetime rating, products are generally subjected to three main categories of abuse (others if it will be an outdoor or waterproof product): Elevated temp. operating tests, thermal cycling tests, and vibration testing. Generally the weak point of any given product is due to a particular design choice, and thus could be any one of those tests. If you're trying to decide about how best to use a particular device, you probably need to look up how it tests. I've been looking for test standards for you to read, but none are free. In LED lighting, we adhere to IES LM-80, which describes mostly elevated temperature testing. For UL compliance we'll need to pass some ASTM vibration testing (maybe D3580), and for customer certification we'll need to have data on storage life and cycling.

I know it seems like a cop out, but the best way to ensure long life of your device is to operate it in a cool environment where it won't get any extra thermal stress, and to use it as infrequently as possible. The maximum stress from cycling would be if you turned it on just long enough to get hot, then left it off just long enough to get cool before turning it back on, so if you're turning on a TV 20 times a day, you're probably doing it wrong.
 
I know it seems like a cop out, but the best way to ensure long life of your device is to operate it in a cool environment where it won't get any extra thermal stress, and to use it as infrequently as possible.
Any recommendation without numbers is subjective. Subjective is how junk science gets invented and promoted.

Power cycling destroys a switch - a subjective statement. Then add that 100,000 number. Yes, a switch used three times a day fails after 90 years. That point was ignored again to claim heat as destructive - subjectively.

Transistors also fail due to switching. A transistor was once rated by the number of switch cycles. Transistor still has that failure number. And again, the claim is subjective and therefore bogus. Because that number is so large as to be irrelevant.

If a claim is subjective, then ignore it. What remains are a few recommendations based in reality.

Thermal cycling is very stressful when at hundreds of degrees ie exceeding 300 degrees. Miniscule temperature changes in residential environment will cause failures maybe after 100 or 200 years. That stressful - and irrelevant once we include numbers.

Just so the point is not ignored again - a recommendation not tempered by perspective (ie numbers) is best treated as wild speculation.
 
Numbers posted without authority (e.g., no references to source material) are deemed to be opinion, which is therefore subjective and may be ignored.

If you want some heady reading, search up MIL-HDBK-217F with Change Notice 2, 28 FEB 1995, Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment. You can find the handbook and even more references with lots of numbers here:

http://www.applied-statistics.org/MTBF_Calculation_Services.html

My opinion (which is worth exactly what you paid for it), is that energizing electronic equipment is harder on transistors and microcircuits than continuous operation. There is a tiny surge at each "power on" that isn't regulated as well as a the power monitored by a continually operating feedback circuit. Most electronic equipment is designed to sink the heat generated during operation, so I wouldn't think heat would be the major cause of failure. Equipment with constantly moving parts (e.g., hard disk drives) would likely fail due to continual operation rather than power-on cycles. My two centavos (there's my number). ;-)
 
Any recommendation without numbers is subjective. Subjective is how junk science gets invented and promoted.

Just so the point is not ignored again - a recommendation not tempered by perspective (ie numbers) is best treated as wild speculation.

Yup. That's why I said only the manufacturer (who, if they have tested the devices will know the actual numbers and their significance) can answer the original question in any meaningful way, and it will vary from device to device.

The one other factor that has not been taken into account is that any device that is fan-cooled (like your computer) will continue to draw dust through the case as long as that fan operates, and that accumulation of dust contributes to over-heating. Not an issue if there's no fan though.
 
My opinion (which is worth exactly what you paid for it), is that energizing electronic equipment is harder on transistors and microcircuits than continuous operation.
Worst disk drive I ever saw was an IBM rated for 40,000 power cycles. That means power cycling seven times every day for 15 years. Most drives were rated for about 39 years. Yes power cycling is destructive. And numbers mean nobody cares.

Of far greater concern is the most significant reason for failure - manufacturing defects. We all have witnessed a classic example. Counterfeit electrolyte meant capacitors would fail years later. Manufacturing defects are the most common reason for most failures.

Heat is a superb diagnostic tool to identify defective parts before those parts cause failures.
 
Interesting discussion. Thanks for your input Westom.
 
Back
Top