To use or not to use? That is the question!

[dstebbins]

Other than simply hacking away at an object with a weapon or tossing it off a building, there are two primary ways to have an object damaged. The first is to simply use it in the way it was intended, and the object will become damaged naturally. This process is called wear and tear.

 

The second is to simply let it sit, and the object will become damaged simply by not using it. A good example of this is an old, abandoned house. It will have cobwebs and unstable floors galore, simply due to years of not being lived in. I'm sure this phenomenon has a name, but I don't know what it is. Maybe one of you guys can tell me what it is.

 

My question is: If all else is equal, what will damage an object more: Using it, or not using it?

[swansont]

Generally speaking, using it. Doing work means heat flow and generation of entropy, and that's a measurement of whatever is causing the breakdown. The change in entropy from natural decay (outside forces) is happening anyway. This assumes that you aren't doing maintenance, which shifts the increase in entropy to somewhere else so the local entropy is stable or possibly decreases.

 

Using your example of a house — the house will wear out if you aren't painting and cleaning it, etc., on some regular basis. The difference isn't just between use and disuse, it's between maintenance and no maintenance. Many things not used but well-maintained will stay in pretty good shape.

[dstebbins]

Generally speaking, using it. Doing work means heat flow and generation of entropy, and that's a measurement of whatever is causing the breakdown. The change in entropy from natural decay (outside forces) is happening anyway. This assumes that you aren't doing maintenance, which shifts the increase in entropy to somewhere else so the local entropy is stable or possibly decreases.

 

Using your example of a house — the house will wear out if you aren't painting and cleaning it, etc., on some regular basis. The difference isn't just between use and disuse, it's between maintenance and no maintenance. Many things not used but well-maintained will stay in pretty good shape.

 

So, what you're saying is that decay (that must be the process of damage through disuse) is always happening anyway, and using it merely adds a method with which the damage can accumulate. Is that the gist of it?

[Sisyphus]

I would say that speaking in the most general terms, it's the same method: accumulation of entropy. As swansont says, using it is probably just going to cause more, not something different in kind. Maintenance can't stop entropy, but it can push it elsewhere.

 

But really, you're speaking much too generally. You can't really say anything universal about "using" or "disusing" "something." Your initial premise (that there are two ways of damaging something, etc.) is not a law. It's "not even wrong," really, since it doesn't say something concrete enough to be challenged.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Other than simply hacking away at an object with a weapon or tossing it off a building, there are two primary ways to have an object damaged. The first is to simply use it in the way it was intended, and the object will become damaged naturally. This process is called wear and tear.

 

The second is to simply let it sit, and the object will become damaged simply by not using it. A good example of this is an old, abandoned house. It will have cobwebs and unstable floors galore, simply due to years of not being lived in. I'm sure this phenomenon has a name, but I don't know what it is. Maybe one of you guys can tell me what it is.

 

My question is: If all else is equal, what will damage an object more: Using it, or not using it?

 

1. abuse (hacking etc,)

2. use (wear and tear)

3. neglect (lack of maintenance over time)

 

I think that is a common term you might be looking for. Possibly decay or weathering as well.

[Mr Skeptic]

My question is: If all else is equal, what will damage an object more: Using it, or not using it?

 

It depends on the object. If you are talking about a body part, not using it will cause tremendous damage (atrophy) whereas using it will generally strengthen it. For some objects, using them continuously will cause less damage than using them on and off, due to self-lubrication when running. However, most objects will be damaged more from use than not. If using it comes with maintenance, then using it and maintaining it will cause less damage to some objects (such as a house) but more to others.

[swansont]

1. abuse (hacking etc,)

2. use (wear and tear)

3. neglect (lack of maintenance over time)

 

I think that is a common term you might be looking for. Possibly decay or weathering as well.

 

Good list. And these are more or less additive (or possibly multiplicative). e.g. something used and neglected will wear out faster than something simply neglected. And as Mr Skeptic has stated, if you want compare "use without neglect" to "neglect," it's going to depend on the situation.

[darshanchande]

Well, there can not be an objective answer to this question. But I guess USING IT will damage it more, obviously. Still, I would say it differs from item to item. Like some items as electronics would last long when used and rot if kept unused for long time..