🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2018-01-24, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:

> On 23/01/2018 21:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2018-01-23, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> It also goes down the wrong path of the 'bath tub curve' which has been
>>> shown to only be valid in 14% of failures (mostly mechanical) in the
>>> Nowlan and Heap report that basically kick-started the RCM industry.
>> 
>> What has taken the place of the bathtub curve?  Presumably failure rates
>> still vary over time, but what do you use now?
>
> There are 6 main curves of which the bathtub is one, the vast majority 
> of failure curves are constant (with a rise/fall at the start for 
> early-life failures or break-in that can be bench stressed to remove 
> from deployed kit).
>
> <http://www.maintenance.org/topic/doing-the-right-mix-of-maintenance-work>

Interesting article, thanks.  In a world dominated by Microsoft, it's easy
to forget that there are still some organizations interested in reliability.

> For a population of similar items there is no real sudden rise in 
> probability of failures with time, the point at which the failure starts 
> is generally random which does go against the common belief.

This might be due to the consumer mindset, which eschews maintenance.
Buy a gadget, run it like hell until it breaks, throw it out.  Lather,
rinse, repeat.  Under such conditions I can see a bathtub curve as a
combination of infant mortality and wear out - both of which would be
eliminated by conscientious installation and maintenance.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!