Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Predictive failures Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:56:55 +0100 Organization: Poppy Records Lines: 17 Message-ID: <1qs5i1v.oaam7t1jq8zlmN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> References: X-Trace: individual.net fEulWDHArhqQHx16wV+d1g1TMyh5p+am+b9fx2IIxuxNe4Dfxa X-Orig-Path: liz Cancel-Lock: sha1:WHbnAj94vTMP9cHGHESr2A8hpJE= sha256:wHwg2qpiJWpe+zVqbdrb7Q2Fc6r7iKypZGanlRl9kRg= User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6 Bytes: 1522 Don Y wrote: > ...When I was designing for pharma, my philosophy was > to make it easy/quick to replace the entire control system. Let someone > troubleshoot it on a bench instead of on the factory floor (which is > semi-sterile). That's fine if the failure is clearly in the equipment itself, but what if it is in the way it interacts with something outside it, some unpredictable or unrecognised input codition? It works perfectly on the bench, only to fail when put into service ...again and again. -- ~ Liz Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk