Just muttering MTBF

Anyone that knows me understands that even muttering MTBF in a conversation or even in passing will generally set me off on a anti MTBF tirade. My better friends tend to avoid the topic altogether. And those that are curious about ‘why’ will ask me. In the process I hope to help you think about MTBF and the many issues around its use, and to make or improve friendships. Continue reading Just muttering MTBF

Value of reliability engineering

Linkedin groups are a continual source of interesting questions. We learn and share with each other to grapple with some of the common and not so common issues we face at work. For example, recently in the Plant Reliabilty & Maintenance Professionals – PRMP Linkedin group the follow in question appeared. Continue reading Value of reliability engineering

Reliability Blogs

Reliability Blogs

One of the venues for learning about reliability is the blogosphere. In some cases purely educational, others are more appropriate for the opinion page. Some comment on interesting facets of reliability and maintenance engineering, while others focus on examples of services provided.

Continue reading Reliability Blogs

Grundfos MTBF Policy

A few months ago at a IEC Dependability standards meeting, I met Thomas Young Olesen of Grundfos and we talked a little about NoMTBF. He said their company has a polity to not use MTBF. YES! So I asked for permission to post some information about the policy.

One interesting part of their internal site was a MTBF Calculator. Continue reading Grundfos MTBF Policy

Lower Confidence

Let’s say we have a population and we are interested in the mean (average) of that population’s life. We select a sample (at random if at all possible) and measure a value, like time to failure, for each selected item in the sample.

We calculate the mean life of the sample by summing the sample values and dividing by the number of items in the sample. Continue reading Lower Confidence

MTBF and preventative maintenance

I find the world of maintenance a very odd place to find MTBF. While it is possible, that a set of equipment or a machine may actually have a constant failure rate it is the exception rather than all that common. Assuming a constant failure rate doesn’t make it so. Continue reading MTBF and preventative maintenance

Designing an ORT

I received a question about setting up an ORT the other day. Below is my response.

There is not a hard and fast rule for how much life to take out of a product during ORT and still be able to sell the unit.

There are two different reasons to run ORT and each may take a different approach. Continue reading Designing an ORT

Electronics Failure Prediction Methodology does not work

Posted 12-11-2012 by Kirk Gray,

Accelerated Reliability Solutions, L.L.C.

“When the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails.  One need only think of the weather, in which case the prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible.” ― Albert Einstein

“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” – Niels Bohr* We have always had a quest to reduce future uncertainties and know what is going to happen to us, how long we will live, and what may impact our lives.  Horoscopes, Tarot

Continue reading Electronics Failure Prediction Methodology does not work

MTBF Logic

The reason so many use MTBF is because so many use MTBF. ‘Our data sheet has to include MTBF since all the other data sheets have MTBF’. Which seems to be primary reason MTBF is so common. It’s because it is so common.

Against this logic is the desire I have to use a measure of reliability that actually is understood. Using reliability (probability of success over a specified duration) as a measure seems some how odd or novel. It is easy to understand and it doesn’t obscure the reliability. Continue reading MTBF Logic