Why mechanical failure causes HDD being undetectable by bios or OS ?

"andy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:

Nonsense. Once any part of the surface is destroyed then then rest dies
VERY soon thereafter.

It depends what you mean saying that.
When the disk was detectable always the same data was unavailable,
therefore I
assume that if only the disk could be detectable then I could recover 80%
of
the data.

No, the entire surface is covered with pixie dust.

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:00:39 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote:


"andy" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:

It depends what you mean saying that.
When the disk was detectable always the same data was unavailable,
therefore I
assume that if only the disk could be detectable then I could recover 80%
of
the data.

No, the entire surface is covered with pixie dust.

So what. The data could not be recovered not because of bad sectors (there
were none before failure, not sure whether there are any now - not possible to
test it), but because of the bad movements of the heads, and bad spinning of
the plates.

a.

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:11:12 +0100, andy
wrote:

So what. The data could not be recovered not because of bad sectors (there
were none before failure, not sure whether there are any now - not possible to
test it), but because of the bad movements of the heads, and bad spinning of
the plates.

LOL, since you seem to be an expert at it, recover the data and
then you have proof!

Your drive is dead, the data is gone... move on, you're just
wasting time now.

"andy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:59:17 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:

But I could then recover 80% of my data, and now I can recover 0% of my
data.
Does it make sense for you now?

Perfect sense and no you couldn't recover 80% of your data.

Why?


Soot.

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:53:02 GMT, kony wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:11:12 +0100, andy
wrote:

So what. The data could not be recovered not because of bad sectors (there
were none before failure, not sure whether there are any now - not possible to
test it), but because of the bad movements of the heads, and bad spinning of
the plates.

LOL, since you seem to be an expert at it, recover the data and
then you have proof!

I will if you only tell me how to make the disk visible in the system.

Your drive is dead, the data is gone... move on, you're just
wasting time now.

Most of the data (perhaps even all) is not gone - all plates (or most of the
plates) are not damaged, so the data are still on them and just wait to be
recovered. I will recover it if I buy another such disk model.

But in one thing you're right - I'm wasting my time talking to you. :/
Bye.

a.

"andy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:53:02 GMT, kony wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:11:12 +0100, andy
wrote:

So what. The data could not be recovered not because of bad sectors
(there
were none before failure, not sure whether there are any now - not
possible to
test it), but because of the bad movements of the heads, and bad
spinning of
the plates.

LOL, since you seem to be an expert at it, recover the data and
then you have proof!

I will if you only tell me how to make the disk visible in the system.

Your drive is dead, the data is gone... move on, you're just
wasting time now.

Most of the data (perhaps even all) is not gone - all plates (or most of
the
plates) are not damaged,

WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:51:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote:


WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.

How can you be sure?

a.

andy wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:51:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote:



WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.


How can you be sure?

The platters are moving quite fast -- thousands of RPMs. When the heads
crash they will generate generate debris above those rapidly moving
platters. Where else would those particles come to rest?

"Grinder" wrote in message news:16J_c.124791$Fg5.85738@attbi_s53
andy wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:51:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote:

WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.


How can you be sure?

The platters are moving quite fast -- thousands of RPMs. When the heads
crash they will generate generate debris above those rapidly moving platters.

Where else would those particles come to rest?

On those rapidly moving platters, right? Do you ever read your posts back?
Anywhere *except* those rapidly moving platters, of course.
They will be shot right into the casing walls where they may be swept by the
rotating air into a particle filter.

And btw, who cares what happens to the heads when you can worry about par-
ticals that escape the particle filter when they shoot off those platters, right?

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:42:05 GMT, Grinder wrote:

andy wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:51:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote:



WRONG, they're covered with soot and unusable.


How can you be sure?

The platters are moving quite fast -- thousands of RPMs. When the heads
crash they will generate generate debris above those rapidly moving
platters. Where else would those particles come to rest?

But that still may not disable access to most of the data in a short period of
time. According to Ontrack opening a disk in ordinary conditions (which I
assume is even worse than those particles from head crash) usually shortens
life of a disk from 100 to 1000 times - it doesn't kill all data on disk
instantly.

a.