Frazer said:
Revealing the factual detail that supports your reasoning and the
mathematics behind your assertions would *very easily* win you the
argument and expose Arno and the rest as the incompetent naysayers
you imply they are.
So, why do you hold back? Go for it, you've nothing to lose!
Why 'win' over those who somehow already know - especially when
the nay-sayer did not know how a meter works? This is first year stuff
that any 'computer expert' should already know. Teaching it to
rude posters is not the objective.
Objective is the OP - not nay-sayers who offer no solutions. 'OP
provided' numbers are classic of a power supply that is failing - 11.65
and 5.14 volts. Sufficient details of why comes from experience,
basic knowledge such as how multivoltage power supplies work, all
numbers from those Intel spec sheets (not just myopically cited DC
voltages), and how meters work. One even misrepresents how better RMS
type multimeters work due to technical ignorance. And still he does
not understand why an RMS voltage is insufficient information. He even
assumes measurements only up to 1 kHz is an RMS meter. He does not
even know ripple frequencies? Again, lack of most basic knowledge.
Even when voltage falls below 11.4 (the previous example), an RMS meter
(inaccurately described by Arno) could still read 11.5 volts. According
to Arno, that reading means supply is OK - when voltage is excessively
below 11.4. Computer failing due to a defective power supply - and
Arno (et al) still attacks and argues an Intel number rather than
comprehend what really exists.
OP's voltages suggest why his disk drive is failing. Using OP's
numbers - which are typical of a failing supply - then two actions were
recommended. First solution was to measure those voltages with all
drives removed. Second was to reestablish drive integrity with
manufacturer diagnostics. Nay-sayers also did not understand relevance
in those paragraphs and why those actions were relevant to the OP's
numbers. Teaching nay-sayers basic electronics is not the objective.
If they wanted to learn, then they would not, instead, attack the
messenger. They even ignored ripple voltage to somehow know more?
Just another reason why they had to 'attack the messenger' to win.
Winner provided the OP with further actions to find and eliminate his
problem. OP provided voltage numbers that explain his failures.
Others with a history of shotgunning somehow know otherwise? Why 'win'
over 'computer experts' who don't even use a multimeter, whose
speculation somehow become fact, and who don't even understand how
better RMS meters operate? Voltage numbers for a failing power supply
are below 3.23, 4.87, and 11.7 volts. These numbers are consistent
with Intel specs, how meters measure voltages, how power supplies fail,
and come from a few decades of professional experience.