3 ms·

Sorry to nitpick, but it's not about "simplicity". It's mostly about lubrication and temperature gradients. Wear and fatigue have nothing to do with out brains

by vlehto 11y ago

Sorry to nitpick, but it's not about "simplicity". It's mostly about lubrication and temperature gradients. Wear and fatigue have nothing to do with out brains ability to comprehend the system. But it's usually easier to design reliable machine that is somehow simple. So it appears to layman as if "reliability = low number of moving parts". But it's bit like saying "lots of megahertz makes good computer".

chongli 11y ago
All other things being equal, a CPU that runs at a higher clock rate is faster. We're also talking about machines that are maintained by human mechanics throughout their lifespans, not Mars rovers. If a machine is simpler in design, it ought to be easier for a mechanic to replace a part, no?
- vlehto 11y ago
  In real life all things are seldom equal. In many cases less moving parts is more reliable. Thats if the parts we're there to give you more features. But sometimes they are there to give you more reliability. My favorite counter example is car timing belt. Replace it with chain and you add about 200 moving parts, while increasing reliability and maintainability. Now add roller sleeves around the pins of the chain, you doubled the amount of moving parts and again increased the reliability and reduced friction. The thing with chains is that they typically start to make noise long before failure, saving you from complete engine overhaul. Belt might just snap. (Though for noncritical applications opposite is true. Belt drive requires no lubrication and they are silent and light weight. Id love to replace messy bike chains with belt drive.)
  - chongli 11y ago
    In real life all things are seldom equal. In many cases less moving parts is more reliable. Thats if the parts we're there to give you more features. But sometimes they are there to give you more reliability. You state this as if it were a dichotomy: that parts only provide features or reliability. That's not true. In many cases, parts exist only because they are essential to a particular design. A fundamentally different design may have fewer parts, better features, and better reliability all at once.

by vlehto 11y ago

chongli 11y ago

All other things being equal, a CPU that runs at a higher clock rate is faster. We're also talking about machines that are maintained by human mechanics throughout their lifespans, not Mars rovers. If a machine is simpler in design, it ought to be easier for a mechanic to replace a part, no?

vlehto 11y ago
In real life all things are seldom equal. In many cases less moving parts is more reliable. Thats if the parts we're there to give you more features. But sometimes they are there to give you more reliability. My favorite counter example is car timing belt. Replace it with chain and you add about 200 moving parts, while increasing reliability and maintainability. Now add roller sleeves around the pins of the chain, you doubled the amount of moving parts and again increased the reliability and reduced friction. The thing with chains is that they typically start to make noise long before failure, saving you from complete engine overhaul. Belt might just snap. (Though for noncritical applications opposite is true. Belt drive requires no lubrication and they are silent and light weight. Id love to replace messy bike chains with belt drive.)
- chongli 11y ago
  In real life all things are seldom equal. In many cases less moving parts is more reliable. Thats if the parts we're there to give you more features. But sometimes they are there to give you more reliability. You state this as if it were a dichotomy: that parts only provide features or reliability. That's not true. In many cases, parts exist only because they are essential to a particular design. A fundamentally different design may have fewer parts, better features, and better reliability all at once.