[conradev]

> If the mechanical timer ever broke the repairperson would have replacements in their van

> That digital timer has no advantage to the user over a mechanical timer. But it has disadvantages.

The mechanical timer is known to degrade over time, which is why the repair person has spares in their van. Does the digital timer really have no advantages? Will it ever fail and need to be replaced? How much more does it cost?

Yes, engineers are tempted to use shiny tools all of the time. Evaluating whether or not the tool is right for the job is _hard_. But it feels wrong to say that novelty is the only motivation behind upgrading tools?

The digital timer was made by an engineer, too, who designed it to be a more reliable replacement for faulty mechanical timers. It has both advantages and disadvantages compared to mechanical timers, which is why the engineer made it in the first place?

[JadeNB]

> The mechanical timer is known to degrade over time, which is why the repair person has spares in their van. Does the digital timer really have no advantages? Will it ever fail and need to be replaced? How much more does it cost?

Surely the expected lifetime of a digital timer is shorter than that of a mechanical timer.

[error503]

Surely is a very strong statement here. I see no reason that a properly designed electronic timer wouldn't have effectively infinite lifetime, which is not possible with a practical mechanical timer. It has no moving parts (other than switches, which can be substituted for capacitive touch). A mechanical timer has many small mechanical parts and wear points, and can get gummed up over time if it doesn't outright stop functioning.

In practice, cost engineering is going to mean neither is completely reliable, but it should be cheaper to make an electronic timer reliable enough. Especially today, where the cost of a functioning mechanical timer is probably an order of magnitude more than an equivalent electronic timer.

[JadeNB]

I'm willing to believe that the best electronic switches can last longer than the best mechanical switches, but there's so many more ways for an electronic switch to fail that it's a lot easier for me to trust an off-the-shelf mechanical switch than an off-the-shelf electronic one, especially if the cost of failure of the mechanical switch is just an easy swap in of another one.

[error503]

In what ways can a purely electronic, no moving parts, switch fail?

There are so many different mechanical things that can break, jam, get gummed up...

[shard]

Capacitors can die, for example. Anything with a battery backup, the battery can leak and damage components. Electronics are more prone to ESD and water damage than mechanical parts.

Going into the realm of unlikely scenarios, electronics are more susceptible to EMPs.

[heisenbit]

The thing is: It is moving as there are vibrations. There is a fair amount of acceleration and a high frequency. Then there are temperature cycles as the machinery is not perfectly isolated. There is migration of atoms at contact boundaries. Plenty things move.