Help hard drives keep clicking and dying - Storage

This is a discussion on Help hard drives keep clicking and dying - Storage ; w_tom wrote: > The numbers McSpreader (should have) provided from Intel > specs would be fine IF measured were the actual voltage. Any decent meter measures them fine. > But because of how meters work, minimum voltages are 3.23, 4.87, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 83

Thread: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

  1. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    w_tom wrote:

    > The numbers McSpreader (should have) provided from Intel
    > specs would be fine IF measured were the actual voltage.


    Any decent meter measures them fine.

    > But because of how meters work, minimum voltages are 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7.


    Not a ****ing clue, as always.

    > The OP has a failure.


    Must be one of those rocket scientist ****wits.

    > He has provided voltage numbers that explain that failure.


    Like hell they do. In spades with the Seagate that doesnt
    work in an external case where other drives work fine.

    > Those with some experience (those who rather than only read spec sheets)
    > recognize that 11.655 and 5.12 are symptoms of a power supply problem.


    Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

    > A problem that can be observed with more (expensive)
    > equipment or with experience designing power supplies.


    Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

    > McSpreader (and another who proves his manhood with
    > insults and four letter words) don't have any such experience.


    Been doing it for DECADES now thank, ****wit.

    > It shows in the technical supporting facts they have posted.


    You in spades, ****wit.

    > Meter numbers suggest a power supply that
    > cannot provide sufficient power on 12 volts


    Wrong when the ATX spec allows a minimum voltage of 11.4
    and in fact a minimum voltage of 10.8 at peak 12 volt current.

    > and may also have excessive ripple voltage.


    You've just plucked that out of your arse, as always.

    > Also provided is how to confirm disk drive integrity using only
    > one disk on that system, verifying voltages with only one drive,


    No need, the 12V rail is well within specs.

    > and then using manufacturer's hardware
    > diagnostic to confirm disk drive hardware integrity.


    It wont even see the Seagate, ****wit.

    > Strongly recommended is to ignore McSpreader and other
    > firebrands who did not do this stuff for a few decades.


    Guess which stupid pig ignorant prat has just got
    egg all over its pathetic little face, as always.

    > McSpreader does what any Rush Limbaugh fan would
    > do to prove their superiority. Wrong... Wrong... Wrong ..


    He does what anyone with a clue does, point out
    the areas where you are just plain wrong.

    > and not one supporting technical fact.


    You in sapdes.

    > Those minimum numbers 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7
    > are when using the standard 3.5 digit multimeter.


    Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
    never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

    > McSpreader, et al would have known that with sufficient experience.


    Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
    never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.



  2. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    Previously w_tom wrote:
    > The numbers McSpreader (should have) provided from Intel specs would
    > be fine IF measured were the actual voltage. But because of how meters
    > work, minimum voltages are 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7.


    Huh?? I have been doing electrinucs for several decades, an I have
    no idea what you are talking about. Unless you assume a meter
    with 2.5% tolerance in the wrong direction? Given that the error has
    a Gaussian distribution, this is very unlikely. In addition, given
    that the error should affect both measurements in the same
    direction, I see your point even less.

    I think that without looking at the spec of the DMM in question,
    nothing is obvious here...

    > The OP has a failure.
    > He has provided voltage numbers that explain that failure. Those with
    > some experience (those who rather than only read spec sheets) recognize
    > that 11.655 and 5.12 are symptoms of a power supply problem.


    I must have too much experience then, since I cannot recognize
    any problem here. True, they did use either a too small core
    (assuming there is more load on 12V than on 5V) or too little
    copper in the 12V winding. But given that 12V is actually a
    10% tolerance value, it should still work fine.

    > A problem
    > that can be observed with more (expensive) equipment or with experience
    > designing power supplies. McSpreader (and another who proves his
    > manhood with insults and four letter words) don't have any such
    > experience. It shows in the technical supporting facts they have
    > posted.


    Oh, McSpreader sounds a lot like Rod. And he does not post any facts.
    But I did.

    > Meter numbers suggest a power supply that cannot provide sufficient
    > power on 12 volts and may also have excessive ripple voltage. Also
    > provided is how to confirm disk drive integrity using only one disk on
    > that system, verifying voltages with only one drive, and then using
    > manufacturer's hardware diagnostic to confirm disk drive hardware
    > integrity.


    The measurements suggest a cheap PSU, that was not built with
    care. They do not suggest a broken PSU at all.

    > Strongly recommended is to ignore McSpreader and other firebrands who
    > did not do this stuff for a few decades.


    Well, I did.

    > McSpreader does what any Rush
    > Limbaugh fan would do to prove their superiority. Wrong... Wrong...
    > Wrong .. and not one supporting technical fact. Those minimum
    > numbers 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 are when using the standard 3.5 digit
    > multimeter. McSpreader, et al would have known that with sufficient
    > experience.


    Again: What are you talking about?

    Arno

  3. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    "w_tom" wrote in
    news:1167526221.047744.316200@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com:


    > ...minimum numbers 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7...


    Incorrect numbers supported by such 'facts' as: "...because of how
    meters work..." and "...sufficient experience..." and "...using the
    standard 3.5 digit multimeter..." etc, etc.

    Still wrong, no supporting facts, still waffling.

    The correct numbers are 3.14V, 4.75V and 11.4V, as stated in section
    3.2.1 of the ATX PSU Design Guide, which can be found here:

    http://tinyurl.com/a6kfp

    [which points to here:
    http://www.formfactors.org/developer...TX12V_PSDG_2_2
    _public_br2.pdf ]


  4. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    McSpreader writes:
    > > ...minimum numbers 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7...

    >
    > Incorrect numbers supported by such 'facts' as: "...because of how
    > meters work..." and "...sufficient experience..." and "...using the
    > standard 3.5 digit multimeter..." etc, etc.
    >
    > Still wrong, no supporting facts, still waffling.


    Have you ever worked on something like this? You might get a nice
    reading on a slow-acting DC multimeter but see total crap if you look
    at that voltage with an oscilloscope. I think w_tom knows what he's
    talking about.

  5. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    Paul Rubin wrote in
    news:7xodpjq154.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com:

    > McSpreader writes:
    >> > ...minimum numbers 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7...

    >>
    >> Incorrect numbers supported by such 'facts' as: "...because of
    >> how meters work..." and "...sufficient experience..." and
    >> "...using the standard 3.5 digit multimeter..." etc, etc.
    >>
    >> Still wrong, no supporting facts, still waffling.

    >
    > Have you ever worked on something like this?

    Yes. A lot.

    > You might get a
    > nice reading on a slow-acting DC multimeter but see total crap
    > if you look at that voltage with an oscilloscope.

    Possibly, but that's not the point; The discussion is about what
    you'd read on a DC voltmeter. Please explain why *you* would expect
    11.7V to be the minimum expected reading for a nominal 12V supply
    with +/- 5% tolerance.

    > I think w_tom knows what he's talking about.
    >

    You have provided no evidence to support that view.


  6. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    Paul Rubin wrote
    > McSpreader wrote


    >>> ...minimum numbers 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7...


    >> Incorrect numbers supported by such 'facts' as: "...
    >> because of how meters work..." and "...sufficient experience..."
    >> and "...using the standard 3.5 digit multimeter..." etc, etc.


    >> Still wrong, no supporting facts, still waffling.


    > Have you ever worked on something like this?


    Yep, and for longer than that w_tom wanker has too.

    > You might get a nice reading on a slow-acting DC multimeter
    > but see total crap if you look at that voltage with an oscilloscope.


    Pity we were discussing 3.5 digit multimeters.

    > I think w_tom knows what he's talking about.


    Nope, if the power supply is within specs ripple wise,
    the reading you get with a 3.5 digit multimeter is fine
    when comparing it with the ATX voltage ranges allowed.

    AND he complete ****ed up with his claim about the 12V rail
    too, its allowed to be within 10% at maximum load on that rail.



  7. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    "w_tom" wrote in
    news:1167526221.047744.316200@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com:

    > Meter numbers suggest a power supply that cannot provide
    > sufficient power on 12 volts and may also have excessive ripple

    voltage.

    How did you deduce potential 'excessive ripple' from a single DC
    voltmeter reading?

  8. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    Arno Wagner did not read what was posted. For example, when 5 volts
    reads 4.87 on the meter, then that voltage may be repeatedly dropping
    below 4.75. But I am only restating what Arno was supposed to have
    read before posting. 11.655 on a meter means the power supply may be
    dropping repeatedly below 11.4 volts. It explains failures seen by the
    OP. Voltage measurements (posting all the numbers) with only one drive
    connected would confirm that problem.

    Arno - learn to read what was posted from decades of experience before
    hyping your speculation. Stop posting your grossly wrong information
    directly traceable to insufficient knowledge and experience. 3.23,
    4.87, and 11.7 are minimum numbers as read by the meter. Those numbers
    are completely in agreement with specs that I probably read long before
    Arno was born.

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > This is nonsense. The voltages are well within the allowed tolerances,
    > fairly typical and are not the cause of the problem.
    >
    > Please read the respective standards before posting such grossly
    > wrong information.



  9. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    We look on an oscilloscope. A defective power supply with 300
    millivolts of ripple voltage meant voltage varied from 4.55 to 4.85.
    What did the volt meter report? That will be obvious to those with
    experience. The volt meter reported 4.85 volts. Meanwhile system was
    failing because voltage was repeatedly below 4.75 volts.

    The Original Poster should take note of many who posted denials and
    yet do not even know how meters so often measure voltage.

    Again, spec numbers of 3.1, 4.75, and 11.4 means the meter must
    report numbers above 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 volts. No mystery here.
    Just many posters in denial and who never did power supply design work.

    At 11.655 and with the 5 volts at 5.12, then those numbers imply a
    power supply problem; reason for intermittent disk drive failure. A
    problem more apparent if same numbers are taken with only one disk
    drive connected.

    Amazed that only a few here have a grasp of how to use a meter. No
    wonder so many shotgun to fix computers.

    Frazer Jolly Goodfellow wrote:
    > Possibly, but that's not the point; The discussion is about what
    > you'd read on a DC voltmeter. Please explain why *you* would expect
    > 11.7V to be the minimum expected reading for a nominal 12V supply
    > with +/- 5% tolerance.



  10. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    w_tom wrote:

    > We look on an oscilloscope. A defective
    > power supply with 300 millivolts of ripple voltage


    You aint established that its a defective power supply at all, wanker.

    You've just plucked that number out of your arse and it doesnt
    substantiate the reading you need to see on a 3.5 digit multimeter
    to indicate that the power supply is not defective.

    > meant voltage varied from 4.55 to 4.85. What did the volt
    > meter report? That will be obvious to those with experience.


    Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

    > The volt meter reported 4.85 volts.


    Which is well within the ATX spec, ****wit.

    > Meanwhile system was failing because
    > voltage was repeatedly below 4.75 volts.


    Nope, because it had excessive ripple, ****wit.

    > The Original Poster should take note of many who posted denials
    > and yet do not even know how meters so often measure voltage.


    Or he might have enough of a clue to realise that everyone has
    noticed you have your head completely up your arse, as always.

    And if that isnt obvious, all he has to do is read more of your drivel
    and the responses to it using groups,google to prove that in spades.

    > Again, spec numbers of 3.1, 4.75, and 11.4 means the meter
    > must report numbers above 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 volts.


    Not a ****ing clue, as always. The ATX spec is the AVERAGE voltage, ****wit.

    > No mystery here.


    Yep, everyone has noticed that you have never
    ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

    > Just many posters in denial and who never did power supply design work.


    Guess which pathetic little pig ignorant ****wit has
    just got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?

    > At 11.655 and with the 5 volts at 5.12, then
    > those numbers imply a power supply problem;


    Like hell they do.

    > reason for intermittent disk drive failure.


    Have fun explaining why the Seagate STILL doesnt
    work in an external housing that runs other drives fine.

    > A problem more apparent if same numbers
    > are taken with only one disk drive connected.


    You dont know that either.

    > Amazed that only a few here have a grasp of how to use a meter.


    Not amazing at all that every single individual has rubbed
    your nose in your complete pig ignorance, as always.

    > No wonder so many shotgun to fix computers.


    You need one applied to your head.


    > Frazer Jolly Goodfellow wrote:


    >> Possibly, but that's not the point; The discussion is about what
    >> you'd read on a DC voltmeter. Please explain why *you* would expect
    >> 11.7V to be the minimum expected reading for a nominal 12V supply
    >> with +/- 5% tolerance.




  11. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    w_tom wrote

    > Arno Wagner did not read what was posted.


    Yes he did.

    > For example, when 5 volts reads 4.87 on the meter, then
    > that voltage may be repeatedly dropping below 4.75.


    Pity that the ATX spec is for the AVERAGE voltage, including ripple.

    > But I am only restating what Arno was supposed to have read before posting.


    You're repeating your pig ignorant drivel.

    > 11.655 on a meter means the power supply
    > may be dropping repeatedly below 11.4 volts.


    Pity that that is still within specs if the ripple is only 100 mv.

    And you've ****ed up the maths even if it wasnt.

    > It explains failures seen by the OP.


    No it doesnt. In spades with the Seagate that doesnt
    work in an external housing that handles other drives fine.

    > Voltage measurements (posting all the numbers) with
    > only one drive connected would confirm that problem.


    No it wouldnt, it would prove you have your
    head completely up your arse, as always.

    > Arno - learn to read what was posted from decades
    > of experience before hyping your speculation.


    Yours is the pig ignorant drivel.

    > Stop posting your grossly wrong information directly
    > traceable to insufficient knowledge and experience.


    You in spades.

    > 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 are minimum numbers as read by the meter.


    Wrong, as always.

    > Those numbers are completely in agreement with
    > specs that I probably read long before Arno was born.


    The ATX specs aint been around that long, ****wit.


    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> This is nonsense. The voltages are well within the allowed
    >> tolerances, fairly typical and are not the cause of the problem.
    >>
    >> Please read the respective standards before posting such grossly
    >> wrong information.




  12. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    Previously Paul Rubin wrote:
    > McSpreader writes:
    >> > ...minimum numbers 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7...

    >>
    >> Incorrect numbers supported by such 'facts' as: "...because of how
    >> meters work..." and "...sufficient experience..." and "...using the
    >> standard 3.5 digit multimeter..." etc, etc.
    >>
    >> Still wrong, no supporting facts, still waffling.


    > Have you ever worked on something like this? You might get a nice
    > reading on a slow-acting DC multimeter but see total crap if you look
    > at that voltage with an oscilloscope. I think w_tom knows what he's
    > talking about.


    I disagree. If he had said "not enough data", I would be willing to
    agree. But not to a "definitely bad PSU" verdict (yes, I have an
    oscilloscope and know how to use it), since the voltages may point to
    a substandard design (fewer windings on the 12V line of the
    transformer than sensivle to save a bit on the copper cost), but they
    do not indicate a bad PSU.

    Arno

  13. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    Previously w_tom wrote:
    > We look on an oscilloscope. A defective power supply with 300
    > millivolts of ripple voltage meant voltage varied from 4.55 to 4.85.


    Aha! An assumption about ripple! And how do you know how much
    ripple the OPs PSU has?

    > What did the volt meter report? That will be obvious to those with
    > experience. The volt meter reported 4.85 volts. Meanwhile system was
    > failing because voltage was repeatedly below 4.75 volts.


    More likely the 300mVpp ripple were too much. BTW, if that is the
    customary Vpp rating, then that would be 4.70V ... 5.00V, since ripple
    is customare stated as peak-to-peak ("Vpp"), unlike an AC rating,
    which is typically measured as rms-value or absolute peak value
    against ground. (RMS-value gives the effective voltage when
    calculation power to an ohmic load. 230V mains has 325V peak and
    650Vpp).

    Ripple and DC voltage ranges are treated separately. If either is not
    met, the drive may fail. The approach to add and subtract the ripple
    is naive and wrong, since ripple causes different/more problems than
    lowering and heightening the voltages.

    Just out of curiosity, I looked up acceptable ripple for ATX.
    Turns out that the maximum is 120mVpp for the +12V line.
    This is consitent with some HDD datasheets I looked into.
    If the PSU has 300mVpp, it is defect.

    > The Original Poster should take note of many who posted denials and
    > yet do not even know how meters so often measure voltage.


    Haha! Of course a DC meter measures an average. And this is
    not a defect as your "so often" seems to imply. This is exactly
    what a DC voltmeter is designed and expected to do. For the
    ripple you use an oscilloscope.

    > Again, spec numbers of 3.1, 4.75, and 11.4 means the meter must
    > report numbers above 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 volts. No mystery here.
    > Just many posters in denial and who never did power supply design work.


    Unfortunately this is not even true with your assumption about the
    ripple. And you still have not addressed that +12V has an acceptable
    tolerance of 10%. The ATX standard uses some flowery language here
    (... under high load ...), but the fact is that it used to be 10%
    tolerance (unconditionally) and most (all?) disks are only expecting
    10% tolerance.

    So with your assumptions, taking 300mVpp ripple, you need to have a
    lowwe voltage of 12V * 0.9 = 10.8V. Subtract 150mV negative ripple
    component and this is 10.95V. Add 1% meter tolerance, and you get
    11.06V minimal measurement. Still significantly below what the
    PS measured!

    Even assuming you do not know how ripple is stated and actually
    mean 600mVpp (a value at which the output filter capacitor may start
    to smoke...), and a 3% meter tolerance for an analog meter,
    you get 11.44V, which is lower than the measurements of the OP.

    > At 11.655 and with the 5 volts at 5.12, then those numbers imply a
    > power supply problem; reason for intermittent disk drive failure.


    Not at all. See above.

    > A problem more apparent if same numbers are taken with only one disk
    > drive connected.


    > Amazed that only a few here have a grasp of how to use a meter. No
    > wonder so many shotgun to fix computers.


    I think you have not established that you know what you are talking
    about. Quite to the contrary in fact. So far I see dangerous
    semi-knowledge....

    I agree that most people, educated or otherwise, do not know how to
    use a meter because they do not usually need to know. Not really their
    fault. But at the moment you are accusing the wrong people...

    Note that I bever said there could not be an other problem with the
    voltages. But the DC averages are fine and do only point to a
    lower-quality PSU, not a broken one.

    I do however completely agree that the observed failure mode
    of the OP strongly points to a problem with the PSU.

    Arno




  14. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    Previously w_tom wrote:
    > Arno Wagner did not read what was posted. For example, when 5 volts
    > reads 4.87 on the meter, then that voltage may be repeatedly dropping
    > below 4.75. But I am only restating what Arno was supposed to have
    > read before posting. 11.655 on a meter means the power supply may be
    > dropping repeatedly below 11.4 volts. It explains failures seen by the
    > OP. Voltage measurements (posting all the numbers) with only one drive
    > connected would confirm that problem.


    > Arno - learn to read what was posted from decades of experience before
    > hyping your speculation. Stop posting your grossly wrong information
    > directly traceable to insufficient knowledge and experience. 3.23,
    > 4.87, and 11.7 are minimum numbers as read by the meter. Those numbers
    > are completely in agreement with specs that I probably read long before
    > Arno was born.


    So, now I get the "you cannot read, you have no experience, you
    are speculating and I am much older and experienced" treatment?
    Sorry, not getting into a "my credentials are better than yours,
    so I _must_ be right" contest.

    Side note: You do know that the original PC PSU specifications are
    not valid anymore?

    Arno

  15. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    Arno looked up acceptable ripple voltage having finally grasped what
    was posted so many times previously. Numbers he should have know when
    this discussion first started. Ripple voltage should not exceed 120
    mv. Therefore when power supply is failing (even overloaded), then
    ripple voltage increases. Arno tells us that ripple voltage was not
    excessive when meter reading suggests otherwise. Well that 'exampled'
    power supply now with 300 mv of ripple measures 4.8 volts. Why 300 mv?
    Because power supply is failing. According to Arno, that reading is
    completely normal when he cites 4.75 volts as acceptable. Arno ignores
    how meters operate and why ripple voltage increases - becomes too
    great. Meanwhile, a voltage below 4.87 suggested a defective power
    supply.

    In the OP's case, 11.655 also suggests a defective supply for same
    reasons. A conclusion that is confirmed by a voltage measurement when
    disk drives are removed. Also suggesting a failure is excessively low
    12 volts while 5 volts is unusually high - 5.12.

    Arno now says the OP must use an oscilloscope. Bull. Arno again
    displays lack of experience. Yes, we often used an oscilloscope when
    it was available. Therefore we learned how meters work. Many here
    clearly don't have that experience and therefore deny acceptable
    numbers. An oscilloscope does nothing for the OP. Numbers such as
    3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 take into account both excessive ripple voltage
    AND how meters work. The OP does not need a scope. Taking the same
    measurements of all voltages (purple, red, yellow, and orange wire)
    with disk drives removed will confirm the problem. OP was informed by
    one who did this stuff for a few decades - at the design level. Number
    of contrary replies demonstrates how many just know - did not first
    obtain experience - or even use an Oscope.

    Arno confused the reader by claiming the power supply is working
    normally - assumes that ripple voltages are normal in a failing supply.
    Meter suggests otherwise. Arno makes ripple voltage assumptions so as
    to not admit to 'measured limits' - 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 volts. Meter
    is suggesting a power supply so overloaded as to be defective - and to
    output excessive ripple voltage.

    Arno agrees the power supply is suspect. One voltage apparently
    cannot provide sufficient power and/or has excessive ripple voltage.
    Either way, that would explain disk drive problems. Meter in but a
    minute can quickly identify failures if correct spec numbers are used -
    as I have provided. Just because a meter reports the Intel spec number
    does not say a power supply is functioning properly. And that
    unusually high 5 volts in combination with excessively low 12 volts
    further suggest a problem.

    Two factors define why a disk drive is failing intermittently (and
    therefore now must be tested with a disk drive hardware diagnostic).
    One: 11.655 volts is too low. Two: 5 volts is unusually high when the
    12 volts is so low. That is what my original post stated when but a
    few others also warned the majority of their technical errors. Notice
    we had a classic example of the large majority being so wrong. In
    computer newsgroups, a clear majority don't even have basic electrical
    knowledge. 11.655 volts suggests the power supply is failing - in
    direct contradiction to what a majority without sufficient experience
    so voraciously denied.

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > ...
    > Aha! An assumption about ripple! And how do you know how much
    > ripple the OPs PSU has?
    > ...
    >
    > More likely the 300mVpp ripple were too much. BTW, if that is the
    > customary Vpp rating, then that would be 4.70V ... 5.00V, since ripple
    > is customare stated as peak-to-peak ("Vpp"), unlike an AC rating,
    > which is typically measured as rms-value or absolute peak value
    > against ground. (RMS-value gives the effective voltage when
    > calculation power to an ohmic load. 230V mains has 325V peak and
    > 650Vpp).
    >
    > Ripple and DC voltage ranges are treated separately. If either is not
    > met, the drive may fail. The approach to add and subtract the ripple
    > is naive and wrong, since ripple causes different/more problems than
    > lowering and heightening the voltages.
    >
    > Just out of curiosity, I looked up acceptable ripple for ATX.
    > Turns out that the maximum is 120mVpp for the +12V line.
    > This is consitent with some HDD datasheets I looked into.
    > If the PSU has 300mVpp, it is defect.
    > ...
    >
    > Haha! Of course a DC meter measures an average. And this is
    > not a defect as your "so often" seems to imply. This is exactly
    > what a DC voltmeter is designed and expected to do. For the
    > ripple you use an oscilloscope.
    > ...
    >
    > Unfortunately this is not even true with your assumption about the
    > ripple. And you still have not addressed that +12V has an acceptable
    > tolerance of 10%. The ATX standard uses some flowery language here
    > (... under high load ...), but the fact is that it used to be 10%
    > tolerance (unconditionally) and most (all?) disks are only expecting
    > 10% tolerance.
    >
    > So with your assumptions, taking 300mVpp ripple, you need to have a
    > lowwe voltage of 12V * 0.9 = 10.8V. Subtract 150mV negative ripple
    > component and this is 10.95V. Add 1% meter tolerance, and you get
    > 11.06V minimal measurement. Still significantly below what the
    > PS measured!
    >
    > Even assuming you do not know how ripple is stated and actually
    > mean 600mVpp (a value at which the output filter capacitor may start
    > to smoke...), and a 3% meter tolerance for an analog meter,
    > you get 11.44V, which is lower than the measurements of the OP.
    > ...
    >
    > Not at all. See above.
    > ...
    >
    > I think you have not established that you know what you are talking
    > about. Quite to the contrary in fact. So far I see dangerous
    > semi-knowledge....
    >
    > I agree that most people, educated or otherwise, do not know how to
    > use a meter because they do not usually need to know. Not really their
    > fault. But at the moment you are accusing the wrong people...
    >
    > Note that I bever said there could not be an other problem with the
    > voltages. But the DC averages are fine and do only point to a
    > lower-quality PSU, not a broken one.
    >
    > I do however completely agree that the observed failure mode
    > of the OP strongly points to a problem with the PSU.
    >
    > Arno



  16. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > I disagree. If he had said "not enough data", I would be willing to
    > agree. ...


    What was posted repeatedly? The next step was to remove all but maybe
    one drive and take voltage numbers again. Also the unusually high five
    volts was another fact that suggested defective supply. There was
    plenty of data in the OP's original posts to say a power supply is not
    functioning correctly - in direct contradiction to what most posted -
    AND that a failing supply would cause disk drive problems.

    Measure voltage with only one drive connected. If that voltage is
    sufficient, then execute comprehensive disk drive diagnostic to find
    any defects created by that low voltage. That was also posted
    repeatedly. Provided was where to look for the failure AND how to
    solve the failure. 11.655 volts is too low in direct contradiction to
    a majority who obviously have insufficient experience and knowledge.

    But again, did you first read with care? "not enough data" and how
    to get that additional data was included in those earlier posts. Those
    earlier posts were accurate then and stand uncorrected now. 11.655
    volts is too low for the 12 volts and would explain Chris Milne's
    intermittent disk drive problems.


  17. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    w_tom wrote:

    > Arno looked up acceptable ripple voltage


    You did get that bit right.

    > having finally grasped what was posted so many times previously.


    Pity YOU ****ed up completely on that ripple. The multimeter
    measures the average voltage and its the average voltage that
    the ATX specs state, NOT the minimum voltage with ripple added.

    > Numbers he should have know when this discussion first started.


    It aint relevant to the voltage measured with a multimeter, cretin.

    > Ripple voltage should not exceed 120 mv.


    Pity that the ripple isnt measured with the multimeter, cretin.

    > Therefore when power supply is failing (even
    > overloaded), then ripple voltage increases.


    Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim
    about what the multimeter reading should be.

    > Arno tells us that ripple voltage was not excessive
    > when meter reading suggests otherwise.


    Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
    never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

    ALL you know is that the DC reading is WITHIN THE ATX SPECS.

    > Well that 'exampled' power supply now with 300 mv of ripple measures 4.8 volts.


    No it doesnt. You dont know what the ripple is from the multimeter
    reading. You have to use an oscilloscope to see what the ripple is,
    as the ATX specs state very unambiguously indeed.

    > Why 300 mv? Because power supply is failing.


    You dont know that.

    > According to Arno, that reading is completely
    > normal when he cites 4.75 volts as acceptable.


    So does the ATX spec, ****wit.

    > Arno ignores how meters operate


    The multimeter reading does NOT change when the ripple goes to 300mV, cretin.

    > and why ripple voltage increases - becomes too great.


    You dont know that the ripple voltage has increased, cretin.

    > Meanwhile, a voltage below 4.87 suggested a defective power supply.


    Wrong, as always.

    > In the OP's case, 11.655 also suggests a defective supply for same reasons.


    Wrong, as always.

    > A conclusion that is confirmed by a voltage
    > measurement when disk drives are removed.


    The only way to decide if the ripple voltage is out of specs
    is to measure the ripple voltage with an oscilloscope, cretin.

    And hard drives arent that sensitive to ripple on the 12V rail ANYWAY.
    Because that rail is used to drive the rotation motor and they dont
    care about even 300mV of ripple. The ATX spec specifys 150mV
    of ripple because of what else the 12V rail is used for in PCs.

    > Also suggesting a failure is excessively low
    > 12 volts while 5 volts is unusually high - 5.12.


    Wrong, as always. Plenty of power supplys regulate them separately.

    > Arno now says the OP must use an oscilloscope.


    So does the ATX spec, funny that.

    > Bull. Arno again displays lack of experience.


    You do in spades.

    > Yes, we often used an oscilloscope when it was
    > available. Therefore we learned how meters work.


    You clearly never did. Even if the ripple has increased to 300mV
    that would NOT produce the voltage you claim BECAUSE THE
    METER READS THE AVERAGE VOLTAGE AND THAT WONT
    CHANGE WHEN JUST THE RIPPLE VOLTAGE DOUBLES.

    > Many here clearly don't have that experience
    > and therefore deny acceptable numbers.


    We all realise that JUST changing the ripple
    will NOT affect the multimeter reading.

    > An oscilloscope does nothing for the OP.


    Neither does a multimeter measuring the DC voltage, ****wit.

    > Numbers such as 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 take into account
    > both excessive ripple voltage AND how meters work.


    Nope, you dont have a ****ing clue about how multimeters work.

    > The OP does not need a scope.


    Its the only way to see what the ripple level is.

    > Taking the same measurements of all voltages (purple, red, yellow,
    > and orange wire) with disk drives removed will confirm the problem.


    Wrong, as always.

    > OP was informed by one who did this stuff for a few decades - at the design level.


    We all appear to have done that too, ****wit.

    And actually have enough of a clue to realise what a multimeter reads too.

    > Number of contrary replies demonstrates how many just know
    > - did not first obtain experience - or even use an Oscope.


    You in spades.

    > Arno confused the reader by claiming the power supply is working
    > normally - assumes that ripple voltages are normal in a failing supply.


    You dont even know that it is a failing supply.

    > Meter suggests otherwise.


    Wrong, as always.

    > Arno makes ripple voltage assumptions


    YOU made the assumption of a 300mV ripple for
    which you dont actually have a shred of evidence.

    > so as to not admit to 'measured limits' - 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 volts.


    Nothing to 'admit' to, you've never had a clue about how meters work.

    > Meter is suggesting a power supply so overloaded as
    > to be defective - and to output excessive ripple voltage.


    You can keep chanting that drivel till the cows come
    home if you like, changes absolutely nothing at all.

    > Arno agrees the power supply is suspect.


    Lying, as always.

    > One voltage apparently> cannot provide sufficient
    > power and/or has excessive ripple voltage.


    You dont know that either, and hard drives dont
    care much about ripple on the 12V rail ANYWAY.

    > Either way, that would explain disk drive problems.


    Nope, hard drives dont care about a that
    purported 300mV ripple on the 12V rail.

    > Meter in but a minute can quickly identify failures if
    > correct spec numbers are used - as I have provided.


    Wrong, as always. And you STILL havent explained how
    come the Seagate doesnt work in an external enclosure.
    Its clearly dead, ****wit.

    > Just because a meter reports the Intel spec number
    > does not say a power supply is functioning properly.


    Yes, but your stupid pig ignorant claim that you can work out
    what the ripple is from the DC meter reading is just plain wrong.
    BECAUSE IT MEASURES THE AVERAGE VOLTAGE, ****WIT.

    > And that unusually high 5 volts in combination with
    > excessively low 12 volts further suggest a problem.


    Wrong again. And the FACT that the Seagate doesnt work in
    an external enclosure shows that it isnt a power supply problem.

    > Two factors define why a disk drive is failing intermittently (and
    > therefore now must be tested with a disk drive hardware diagnostic).
    > One: 11.655 volts is too low. Two: 5 volts is unusually high when the
    > 12 volts is so low. That is what my original post stated


    Pity it was always pure drivel and STILL DOESNT EXPLAIN WHY
    THE SEAGATE DOESNT WORK IN AN EXTERNAL ENCLOSURE.

    > when but a few others also warned the majority of their technical errors.
    > Notice we had a classic example of the large majority being so wrong.


    It you that has proven that you dont have a ****ing clue
    about how multimeters work. Or anything else at all either.

    > In computer newsgroups, a clear majority
    > don't even have basic electrical knowledge.


    You clearly dont.

    > 11.655 volts suggests the power supply is failing


    Like hell it does when JUST an increase in
    the ripple wont change the DC reading, ****wit.

    > - in direct contradiction to what a majority without
    > sufficient experience so voraciously denied.


    Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
    never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.


    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> ...
    >> Aha! An assumption about ripple! And how do you know how much
    >> ripple the OPs PSU has?
    >> ...
    >>
    >> More likely the 300mVpp ripple were too much. BTW, if that is the
    >> customary Vpp rating, then that would be 4.70V ... 5.00V, since
    >> ripple is customare stated as peak-to-peak ("Vpp"), unlike an AC
    >> rating, which is typically measured as rms-value or absolute peak
    >> value against ground. (RMS-value gives the effective voltage when
    >> calculation power to an ohmic load. 230V mains has 325V peak and
    >> 650Vpp).
    >>
    >> Ripple and DC voltage ranges are treated separately. If either is not
    >> met, the drive may fail. The approach to add and subtract the ripple
    >> is naive and wrong, since ripple causes different/more problems than
    >> lowering and heightening the voltages.
    >>
    >> Just out of curiosity, I looked up acceptable ripple for ATX.
    >> Turns out that the maximum is 120mVpp for the +12V line.
    >> This is consitent with some HDD datasheets I looked into.
    >> If the PSU has 300mVpp, it is defect.
    >> ...
    >>
    >> Haha! Of course a DC meter measures an average. And this is
    >> not a defect as your "so often" seems to imply. This is exactly
    >> what a DC voltmeter is designed and expected to do. For the
    >> ripple you use an oscilloscope.
    >> ...
    >>
    >> Unfortunately this is not even true with your assumption about the
    >> ripple. And you still have not addressed that +12V has an acceptable
    >> tolerance of 10%. The ATX standard uses some flowery language here
    >> (... under high load ...), but the fact is that it used to be 10%
    >> tolerance (unconditionally) and most (all?) disks are only expecting
    >> 10% tolerance.
    >>
    >> So with your assumptions, taking 300mVpp ripple, you need to have a
    >> lowwe voltage of 12V * 0.9 = 10.8V. Subtract 150mV negative ripple
    >> component and this is 10.95V. Add 1% meter tolerance, and you get
    >> 11.06V minimal measurement. Still significantly below what the
    >> PS measured!
    >>
    >> Even assuming you do not know how ripple is stated and actually
    >> mean 600mVpp (a value at which the output filter capacitor may start
    >> to smoke...), and a 3% meter tolerance for an analog meter,
    >> you get 11.44V, which is lower than the measurements of the OP.
    >> ...
    >>
    >> Not at all. See above.
    >> ...
    >>
    >> I think you have not established that you know what you are talking
    >> about. Quite to the contrary in fact. So far I see dangerous
    >> semi-knowledge....
    >>
    >> I agree that most people, educated or otherwise, do not know how to
    >> use a meter because they do not usually need to know. Not really
    >> their fault. But at the moment you are accusing the wrong people...
    >>
    >> Note that I bever said there could not be an other problem with the
    >> voltages. But the DC averages are fine and do only point to a
    >> lower-quality PSU, not a broken one.
    >>
    >> I do however completely agree that the observed failure mode
    >> of the OP strongly points to a problem with the PSU.
    >>
    >> Arno




  18. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    w_tom wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:


    >> I disagree. If he had said "not enough data", I would be willing to agree. ...


    > What was posted repeatedly?


    You pig ignorant drivel that proves in spades that you have
    never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

    > The next step was to remove all but maybe
    > one drive and take voltage numbers again.


    No need when the Seagate wont even work in an external enclosure.

    > Also the unusually high five volts was another fact that suggested
    > defective supply. There was plenty of data in the OP's original
    > posts to say a power supply is not functioning correctly -


    Another pig ignorant lie.

    > in direct contradiction to what most posted - AND
    > that a failing supply would cause disk drive problems.


    Wrong when hard drives dont care about 300mV of ripple on the 12V line,
    even if that ripple is there, and there isnt a shred of evidence that it is.

    > Measure voltage with only one drive connected. If that
    > voltage is sufficient, then execute comprehensive disk drive
    > diagnostic to find any defects created by that low voltage.


    Not even possible when the drive is invisible even in an external enclosure.

    > That was also posted repeatedly.


    Yep, you're actually so stupid that you havent even noticed that
    the Seagate doesnt even work in an external enclosure, SO THE
    PROBLEM CANT BE THE RIPPLE ON THE POWER SUPPLY.





  19. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    Previously w_tom wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> I disagree. If he had said "not enough data", I would be willing to
    >> agree. ...


    > What was posted repeatedly? The next step was to remove all but maybe
    > one drive and take voltage numbers again. Also the unusually high five
    > volts was another fact that suggested defective supply.


    What unusually high +5V?

    > There was
    > plenty of data in the OP's original posts to say a power supply is not
    > functioning correctly - in direct contradiction to what most posted -
    > AND that a failing supply would cause disk drive problems.


    > Measure voltage with only one drive connected. If that voltage is
    > sufficient, then execute comprehensive disk drive diagnostic to find
    > any defects created by that low voltage. That was also posted
    > repeatedly. Provided was where to look for the failure AND how to
    > solve the failure. 11.655 volts is too low in direct contradiction to
    > a majority who obviously have insufficient experience and knowledge.


    > But again, did you first read with care? "not enough data" and how
    > to get that additional data was included in those earlier posts. Those
    > earlier posts were accurate then and stand uncorrected now. 11.655
    > volts is too low for the 12 volts and would explain Chris Milne's
    > intermittent disk drive problems.


    And it seems you have still not understood why you are wrong on
    this. 11.65V is not too low. Stop claiming this and finally
    have a look into the ATX standard and then get your damn math
    right!

    Arno





  20. Re: Help hard drives keep clicking and dying

    Previously w_tom wrote:
    > Arno looked up acceptable ripple voltage having finally grasped what
    > was posted so many times previously.


    Wrong. As anybody with reasonable experience with electronics knows,
    ripple and DC average have to be considerd separately. I just did
    not make your beginners mistake...

    > Numbers he should have know when this discussion first started.


    See above.

    > Ripple voltage should not exceed 120
    > mv. Therefore when power supply is failing (even overloaded), then
    > ripple voltage increases.


    Hahaha! This is completely dependent on the failure mode. There
    is no need at all for the ripple to increase when a PSU fails.
    You are reading the implication wrong.

    Correct: Ripple > 120mVpp ==> PSU broken
    Your wrong statement: PSU broken ==> Ripple > 120mVpp

    > Arno tells us that ripple voltage was not
    > excessive when meter reading suggests otherwise.


    Huh? I just said the ripple was completely unknown given the data
    at hand. And I maintain that this is the case.

    > Well that 'exampled'
    > power supply now with 300 mv of ripple measures 4.8 volts. Why 300 mv?


    With 300mVpp, the voltage oscillates between 4.95 and 5.25V with a DC
    average of 5.1V. That assumes symmetric ripple, of course, which
    you usually do not have with switching mode PSUs.

    It also seems that you still do not understand what peak-to-peak
    means...

    > Because power supply is failing. According to Arno, that reading is
    > completely normal when he cites 4.75 volts as acceptable. Arno ignores
    > how meters operate and why ripple voltage increases - becomes too
    > great.


    Why would the ripple increase? It is not clear that the PSU is defect.
    Even if it were, that would not necessary imply increased ripple.

    > Meanwhile, a voltage below 4.87 suggested a defective power
    > supply.


    No. Not at all.

    > In the OP's case, 11.655 also suggests a defective supply for same
    > reasons. A conclusion that is confirmed by a voltage measurement when
    > disk drives are removed. Also suggesting a failure is excessively low
    > 12 volts while 5 volts is unusually high - 5.12.


    > Arno now says the OP must use an oscilloscope. Bull.


    And wrong. I did not say that. I just said that measuning the
    ripple requires one. My advice to the OP is to try with a
    different PSU. An oscilloscope is not only expensive, but
    requires experience and understanding to interpret the
    measurements taken with it.

    > Arno again
    > displays lack of experience. Yes, we often used an oscilloscope when
    > it was available. Therefore we learned how meters work. Many here
    > clearly don't have that experience and therefore deny acceptable
    > numbers. An oscilloscope does nothing for the OP. Numbers such as
    > 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 take into account both excessive ripple voltage
    > AND how meters work.


    They don't, except one follows your completely arbitrary assumption
    of 600mVpp ripple. What if the output filter capacitor is broken
    and the ripple is higher, e.g. 5Vpp? Then your "obvious" approch
    goes right out the window.

    > The OP does not need a scope. Taking the same
    > measurements of all voltages (purple, red, yellow, and orange wire)
    > with disk drives removed will confirm the problem. OP was informed by
    > one who did this stuff for a few decades - at the design level.


    Well, now I understand why we have all these problems with PSUs.

    > Number
    > of contrary replies demonstrates how many just know - did not first
    > obtain experience - or even use an Oscope.


    This is more voodoo than elecrical enginnering. Of course you can specify
    extreme health conditions and throw anything away that does not match
    them. Sometimes this will work. It will also be pretty good if you
    sell replacement PSUs to non-expert customers. But in th latter
    case it is higly inethical and borderline criminal. Unfortunately
    this type of business practice is still widespread in the PC
    industry.

    > Arno confused the reader by claiming the power supply is working
    > normally -


    Wrong. I said it is not possible to tell with the available data...

    > assumes that ripple voltages are normal in a failing supply.
    > Meter suggests otherwise. Arno makes ripple voltage assumptions so as
    > to not admit to 'measured limits' - 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 volts. Meter
    > is suggesting a power supply so overloaded as to be defective - and to
    > output excessive ripple voltage.


    Well, seems to me you do not have much experience with PC PSUs.
    The transformers are frequently not wound precisely.

    > Arno agrees the power supply is suspect. One voltage apparently
    > cannot provide sufficient power and/or has excessive ripple voltage.
    > Either way, that would explain disk drive problems. Meter in but a
    > minute can quickly identify failures if correct spec numbers are used -
    > as I have provided. Just because a meter reports the Intel spec number
    > does not say a power supply is functioning properly. And that
    > unusually high 5 volts in combination with excessively low 12 volts
    > further suggest a problem.


    Or too few windings on the 12V path. Have seen that several times in
    PC PSUs that worked fine.

    > Two factors define why a disk drive is failing intermittently (and
    > therefore now must be tested with a disk drive hardware diagnostic).
    > One: 11.655 volts is too low. Two: 5 volts is unusually high when the
    > 12 volts is so low. That is what my original post stated when but a
    > few others also warned the majority of their technical errors. Notice
    > we had a classic example of the large majority being so wrong. In
    > computer newsgroups, a clear majority don't even have basic electrical
    > knowledge. 11.655 volts suggests the power supply is failing - in
    > direct contradiction to what a majority without sufficient experience
    > so voraciously denied.


    Ok, I have enough of this.

    I have sufficient experience. I say you have no real clue and are using
    some black magic rules-of thumb you do not really understand yourself.

    The claim that you can determine PSU health with a meter alone is
    completely ridiculous. You continue to ignore that the +12V line
    has 10% acceptable tolerance, most likely because it blows your
    argument away. You have not understood what Vpp (peak-to-peak
    Voltage) means, since you continue to use it wrongly in examples.
    Then you claim that a failing PSU will have increased ripple, while
    this is only one potential failure mode and one that cannot be
    detected with a DC meter.

    I don't know why you insist on your wrong calculationw and statements.
    Possibly because you would need to find out that you did it wrong all
    those "decades of experience". I also do not really care. Don't get me
    wrong, your approach has some chance of working. But your reasoning is
    wrong and you will miss some serious problems with it. Also you will
    jump to conclusions that the facts do not support, as you have done
    in this "discussion" here.

    I don't really need to be a "better engineer" than you, but I
    resent when people post wrong information, prying on those that
    do not have the expertise that allows them to see what is
    valid and what is not. Stop doing so.

    Arno





+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast