| ??? 01/13/11 07:28 Read: times |
#180542 - I see - and agree! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Richard Erlacher said:
There's a distinction between calculated (sic) MTBF and the statistically acquired MTBF that manufacturers (and only they) can provide. Now I see what you mean! I know the term "calculated" is widely/commonly used, but I think it is inappropriate. It implies (to me, at least) an unwarranted degree of precision/certainty. In my opinion, "estimate" or "predict" are more appropriate. The mechanisms by which MTBF is calculated (sic) are often antiquated, too, being based on parameters no longer in use. Agreed! |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| MTBF | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Min / Max | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thank's all | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Many years are needed or you can't afford the warranty | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, and what's really odd ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Failures cost more than just the cost of repair! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
OK... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Have you ever Googled it? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lots of work to try to get reasonably correct MTBF | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sibling concept MTTR | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It's *always* statistical | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, it's all statistical, but not everyone can do it | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I see - and agree! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Other problems with calculations | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Excel by Example | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Meaningless! | 01/01/70 00:00 |