Reliability is Not a Constant
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008Often as a reliability engineer, or anyone responsible for researching the reliability of an item, or calculating it, you will find oversimplified published data giving you the impression that reliability is an unchanging physical property like mass or volume, something intrinsic to the materials included in it. This is actually the common sense approach; we [...]
Often as a reliability engineer, or anyone responsible for researching the reliability of an item, or calculating it, you will find oversimplified published data giving you the impression that reliability is an unchanging physical property like mass or volume, something intrinsic to the materials included in it. This is actually the common sense approach; we know an old thing is less reliable than a new copy of the same thing. But, this common sense gets argued out of us when we are faced with reconciling tables of MTBF (mean time between failures) values, nines (i.e. 0.99999, a measure of reliability), failure rates and other things. Let’s get back to the common sense approach, but with math. Read the rest of this entry »



















