After serious thinking T wrote :
trader_4 has brought this to us :
snip quoted Left Wing drivel /snip

On 09/15/2016 12:27 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
It would certainly speed up the process, and marketing would just love
the great looking numbers. No need to test them for *two* hours when you
get such good results from one hour.

Hi Rafters,

I once asked how the military came up with the numbers.
I don't remember exactly what I got back, but the
term "Fudge Factor" had to apply. I do believe they
did things like speed up aging by heating the guys and then
used formulas to extrapolate the numbers back to room
temperature. Different types of parts had different
formulas. Iron versus silicon, for instance.
Or something like that.


Here is a good example of where MTBF means nothing:

https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/da...-530-brief.pdf

"Life Expectancy: 1.2 million hours Mean Time
Between Failures (MTBF)"


Does anyone actually think that the average lifespan is
137 YEARS? Oh brother. The metal would corrode by then.
The silicone in the transistors would start dripping
and turning back into glass.

The real "Life Expectancy" would be the warranty, which
is five years. And five years is good for such drives.
But 137 years does sound a lot better to the marketing
weasels.

-T

Hmmm. I wonder if I made any typos. AAAAAHHHHHHH !!!!

http://www.reliasoft.com/newsletter/...on_methods.htm

https://www.quanterion.com/reliabili...s-and-dormant/

It's about using the right tool for the right job and not confusing
mathematical predictions with actual empirical measurements.

Marketing can use engineering numbers to confuse and confound end users
who think units were actually tested for 274 years on a test bench and
half-life used as a conservative measure of life expectancy.

On 09/16/2016 06:31 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
After serious thinking T wrote :
trader_4 has brought this to us :
snip quoted Left Wing drivel /snip

On 09/15/2016 12:27 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
It would certainly speed up the process, and marketing would just love
the great looking numbers. No need to test them for *two* hours when you
get such good results from one hour.

Hi Rafters,

I once asked how the military came up with the numbers.
I don't remember exactly what I got back, but the
term "Fudge Factor" had to apply. I do believe they
did things like speed up aging by heating the guys and then
used formulas to extrapolate the numbers back to room
temperature. Different types of parts had different
formulas. Iron versus silicon, for instance.
Or something like that.


Here is a good example of where MTBF means nothing:

https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/da...-530-brief.pdf


"Life Expectancy: 1.2 million hours Mean Time
Between Failures (MTBF)"


Does anyone actually think that the average lifespan is
137 YEARS? Oh brother. The metal would corrode by then.
The silicone in the transistors would start dripping
and turning back into glass.

The real "Life Expectancy" would be the warranty, which
is five years. And five years is good for such drives.
But 137 years does sound a lot better to the marketing
weasels.

-T

Hmmm. I wonder if I made any typos. AAAAAHHHHHHH !!!!

http://www.reliasoft.com/newsletter/...on_methods.htm

https://www.quanterion.com/reliabili...s-and-dormant/

Criminy! They even have software for it now! I could have
used that 30 years ago!


It's about using the right tool for the right job and not confusing
mathematical predictions with actual empirical measurements.

Marketing can use engineering numbers to confuse and confound end users
who think units were actually tested for 274 years on a test bench and
half-life used as a conservative measure of life expectancy.

You got that.

My opinion, MTBF is only useful if you are comparing one
MTBF number to another.

Thank you for the links,
-T

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:56:46 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:


Of course it does. If we know that a bulb or an engine has an MTBF
of 20,000 hours, then we know that on average, that's how many hours
they go between failures. The device is very unlikely to fail at
two hours, or two hundred hours, but has a high failure rate at 20,000
hours.


That doesn't make sense either. When a company makes a new product do they test it for 5 years to get a true MTBF before they market it? No,they pick a good sounding one and hope it works that long.

On 09/16/2016 07:26 PM, wrote:
That doesn't make sense either. When a company makes a new product do they test it for 5 years to get a true MTBF before they market it? No,they pick a good sounding one and hope it works that long.

Hi Red,

If I remember correctly when I use to do this for the military,
the numbers we used were from tables where they cooked the
parts to simulate aging. Then they did a formula on it
to come up with an MTBF. Everything was based on one hour.

MTBF is really only useful if comparing one part's
MTBF to another part's MTBF.

The warranty is where you get any real idea of how long
the manufacturer thinks things will last.

-T

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:15:41 -0400, wrote:

I thought LED bulbs were supposed to last for many years. I put on in my
barn about 2 years ago. It's on all the time as a safety light. It only
uses about 5 watts so I'm not concerned about energy usage. (25W
equivlent).

All of a sudden it has gotten real dim, and it flickers. I'm wondering
what caused that? I know it cant be fixed and needs to be replaced, but
I did not think the LED bulbs were supposed to fail for many years.

When I shut it off, it stays lit for a few seconds after the switch is
OFF, so I imagine there is a capacitor in it, but obviously that cap is
working..... But it's less than half as bright as it used to be, and
flickers.

I had another identical bulb in another part of the barn. That one was
installed about the same time and was also left on all the time. That
one is now dead too, except that one is completely dead. I tried it in
another socket, DEAD !!!!

Interesting how both had about the same life span.....

I replaced both today with new LED bulbs (another brand).

On 09/16/2016 08:53 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:15:41 -0400, wrote:

I thought LED bulbs were supposed to last for many years. I put on in my
barn about 2 years ago. It's on all the time as a safety light. It only
uses about 5 watts so I'm not concerned about energy usage. (25W
equivlent).

All of a sudden it has gotten real dim, and it flickers. I'm wondering
what caused that? I know it cant be fixed and needs to be replaced, but
I did not think the LED bulbs were supposed to fail for many years.

When I shut it off, it stays lit for a few seconds after the switch is
OFF, so I imagine there is a capacitor in it, but obviously that cap is
working..... But it's less than half as bright as it used to be, and
flickers.

I had another identical bulb in another part of the barn. That one was
installed about the same time and was also left on all the time. That
one is now dead too, except that one is completely dead. I tried it in
another socket, DEAD !!!!

Interesting how both had about the same life span.....

I replaced both today with new LED bulbs (another brand).




You may not be getting the heat out. Tip: don't install it
hanging down. The heat will go straight up into the cheap
assed circuitry

On 09/17/2016 02:26 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:56:46 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

Of course it does. If we know that a bulb or an engine has an MTBF
of 20,000 hours, then we know that on average, that's how many hours
they go between failures. The device is very unlikely to fail at
two hours, or two hundred hours, but has a high failure rate at 20,000
hours.


That doesn't make sense either. When a company makes a new product do they test it for 5 years to get a true MTBF before they market it? No,they pick a good sounding one and hope it works that long.



Most 'new' products today are made from components that have been life tested for years.

On 9/16/2016 11:53 PM, wrote:


I had another identical bulb in another part of the barn. That one was
installed about the same time and was also left on all the time. That
one is now dead too, except that one is completely dead. I tried it in
another socket, DEAD !!!!

Interesting how both had about the same life span.....

I replaced both today with new LED bulbs (another brand).

It was probably made in an ISO9000 certified plant. It does not mean
they make good products, just that they are consistent.

I hope the other brand does better.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 23:53:47 -0400
wrote:

I replaced both today with new LED bulbs

LOL that is your problem..

On 9/16/2016 8:53 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:15:41 -0400, wrote:

I thought LED bulbs were supposed to last for many years. I put on in my
barn about 2 years ago. It's on all the time as a safety light. It only
uses about 5 watts so I'm not concerned about energy usage. (25W
equivlent).

All of a sudden it has gotten real dim, and it flickers. I'm wondering
what caused that? I know it cant be fixed and needs to be replaced, but
I did not think the LED bulbs were supposed to fail for many years.

When I shut it off, it stays lit for a few seconds after the switch is
OFF, so I imagine there is a capacitor in it, but obviously that cap is
working..... But it's less than half as bright as it used to be, and
flickers.

I had another identical bulb in another part of the barn. That one was
installed about the same time and was also left on all the time. That
one is now dead too, except that one is completely dead. I tried it in
another socket, DEAD !!!!

Interesting how both had about the same life span.....

I replaced both today with new LED bulbs (another brand).



sounds like in 1 year your should replace one even if it hasn't failed,
so you will never be in this situation again.

On 09/17/2016 06:26 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
ISO9000 certified plant.

I worked for a company that did that once. It made zero
difference in product quality. It was just a bunch of
paperwork to get the label.

In article , lid says...

On 09/17/2016 06:26 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
ISO9000 certified plant.

I worked for a company that did that once. It made zero
difference in product quality. It was just a bunch of
paperwork to get the label.

I worked for a large company and every couple of years there would be
some program. None of them made any difference. Like you said, just a
bunch of paperwork to get the label.

We had iso 9000, six sigma, team concept, tpm, deversity training, some
kind of exercising before starting work, and probably some more that I
have forgotten. Usually after the training part of the program ended ,
it was back to the old way about 6 months or less later.
We started one or two programs but they faded out before everyone in the
plant had gone through it. That was when we had close to 3000 people in
the plant.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:48:55 -0400, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article , lid says...

On 09/17/2016 06:26 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
ISO9000 certified plant.

I worked for a company that did that once. It made zero
difference in product quality. It was just a bunch of
paperwork to get the label.

I worked for a large company and every couple of years there would be
some program. None of them made any difference. Like you said, just a
bunch of paperwork to get the label.

We had iso 9000, six sigma, team concept, tpm, deversity training, some
kind of exercising before starting work, and probably some more that I
have forgotten. Usually after the training part of the program ended ,
it was back to the old way about 6 months or less later.
We started one or two programs but they faded out before everyone in the
plant had gone through it. That was when we had close to 3000 people in
the plant.


ISO9000 just means you are producing well documented junk

That is what business school graduates claim as they subvert well proven concepts. And then blame employees for resulting failures. What Ralph Mowery posted is routine when a boss is the enemy. Subverts what he cannot understand. That says business school concepts are the reason for so many failures.

They could not find even one engineer who said it was safe to launch the Challenger. Engineers were not even permitted to participate in a vote. Those business school graduates knew only they - trained managers - could make that decision. So they killed seven astronauts. Just another example of what happens when business school training denies and subverts well proven methods and solutions.

On 09/17/2016 07:17 PM, westom wrote:
;3625462 Wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:48:55 -0400,
ISO9000 just means you are producing well documented junk
That is what business school graduates claim as they subvert well proven
concepts. And then blame employees for resulting failures. What Ralph
Mowery posted is routine when a boss is the enemy. Subverts what he
cannot understand. That says business school concepts are the reason
for so many failures.

They could not find even one engineer who said it was safe to launch the
Challenger. Engineers were not even permitted to participate in a vote.
Those business school graduates knew only they - trained managers -
could make that decision. So they killed seven astronauts. Just
another example of what happens when business school training denies and
subverts well proven methods and solutions.




That is an absolutely sad statement. And, absolutely nothing
I can disagree with. Been there, done that. Tears.

On 09/17/2016 05:23 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:48:55 -0400, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article , lid says...

On 09/17/2016 06:26 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
ISO9000 certified plant.

I worked for a company that did that once. It made zero
difference in product quality. It was just a bunch of
paperwork to get the label.

I worked for a large company and every couple of years there would be
some program. None of them made any difference. Like you said, just a
bunch of paperwork to get the label.

We had iso 9000, six sigma, team concept, tpm, deversity training, some
kind of exercising before starting work, and probably some more that I
have forgotten. Usually after the training part of the program ended ,
it was back to the old way about 6 months or less later.
We started one or two programs but they faded out before everyone in the
plant had gone through it. That was when we had close to 3000 people in
the plant.


ISO9000 just means you are producing well documented junk

Hi Ralph and Clare,

Both are well stated.
-T

On 09/17/2016 07:17 PM, westom wrote:
;3625462 Wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:48:55 -0400,
ISO9000 just means you are producing well documented junk
That is what business school graduates claim as they subvert well proven
concepts. And then blame employees for resulting failures. What Ralph
Mowery posted is routine when a boss is the enemy. Subverts what he
cannot understand. That says business school concepts are the reason
for so many failures.

They could not find even one engineer who said it was safe to launch the
Challenger. Engineers were not even permitted to participate in a vote.
Those business school graduates knew only they - trained managers -
could make that decision. So they killed seven astronauts. Just
another example of what happens when business school training denies and
subverts well proven methods and solutions.

I once took a weeks seminar a company threw on quality circles
and Deming's quality controls. And after that if your even
tried to follow one millimeter of what was taught, you
almost got fired. The middle level manager saw to it that NOTHING
changed.

-T

Oh ya, we made a lot of crap.

On 09/17/2016 10:48 PM, T wrote:
On 09/17/2016 07:17 PM, westom wrote:
;3625462 Wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:48:55 -0400,
ISO9000 just means you are producing well documented junk
That is what business school graduates claim as they subvert well proven
concepts. And then blame employees for resulting failures. What Ralph
Mowery posted is routine when a boss is the enemy. Subverts what he
cannot understand. That says business school concepts are the reason
for so many failures.

They could not find even one engineer who said it was safe to launch the
Challenger. Engineers were not even permitted to participate in a vote.
Those business school graduates knew only they - trained managers -
could make that decision. So they killed seven astronauts. Just
another example of what happens when business school training denies and
subverts well proven methods and solutions.

I once took a weeks seminar a company threw on quality circles
and Deming's quality controls. And after that if your even
tried to follow one millimeter of what was taught, you
almost got fired. The middle level manager saw to it that NOTHING
changed.

-T

Oh ya, we made a lot of crap.


Sorry, I misstated that. We made a lot of ISO9000 crap.

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 12:44:09 AM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 09/17/2016 07:17 PM, westom wrote:
;3625462 Wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:48:55 -0400,
ISO9000 just means you are producing well documented junk
That is what business school graduates claim as they subvert well proven
concepts. And then blame employees for resulting failures. What Ralph
Mowery posted is routine when a boss is the enemy. Subverts what he
cannot understand. That says business school concepts are the reason
for so many failures.

They could not find even one engineer who said it was safe to launch the
Challenger. Engineers were not even permitted to participate in a vote..
Those business school graduates knew only they - trained managers -
could make that decision. So they killed seven astronauts. Just
another example of what happens when business school training denies and
subverts well proven methods and solutions.

That is an absolutely sad statement. And, absolutely nothing
I can disagree with. Been there, done that. Tears.


Me and my brother both gave up on the corporate world years ago when AAM's ,"Affirmative Action Morons" were being put in charge of everything by other AAM's with business school degrees. The companies we once worked for no longer exist because the AAM's ran them into the ground after all the White male American citizens left those companies after being passed over for promotions which favored women and minorities. It's my understanding that government agencies are even worse. ヽ(à²*_à²*)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Negative Monster

On 09/18/2016 12:57 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Me and my brother both gave up on the corporate world years ago when AAM's ,"Affirmative Action Morons" were being put in charge of everything by other AAM's with business school degrees. The companies we once worked for no longer exist because the AAM's ran them into the ground after all the White male American citizens left those companies after being passed over for promotions which favored women and minorities. It's my understanding that government agencies are even worse. ヽ(à²*_à²*)ノ
Hi Uncle,

It is sad but true that the most successful corporations are
run by those that love what they make (cars, for instance).
Bean counter and business majors are the death of you.

I was rejected for a job at an aerospace company once because I
was white. I worked for a Sergeant in the Air Force that
now worked at the company and did everything short of throwing
a fit to get me in. He knew my work first hand. But he couldn't
and finally gave up and told me what was going on. I really
liked the guy and would have loved to work for him. And I had
now doubt that he was telling me the truth as he was
black himself.

-T

On 9/17/2016 7:48 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
I worked for a large company and every couple of years there would be
some program. None of them made any difference. Like you said, just a
bunch of paperwork to get the label.

We had iso 9000, six sigma, team concept, tpm, deversity training, some
kind of exercising before starting work, and probably some more that I
have forgotten. Usually after the training part of the program ended ,
it was back to the old way about 6 months or less later.
We started one or two programs but they faded out before everyone in the
plant had gone through it. That was when we had close to 3000 people in
the plant.

LOL, corporations are the same everywhere. The most damage I've ever seen
from a program-of-the-month is the lingering 5S crap.

In article ,
says...



They could not find even one engineer who said it was safe to launch the
Challenger. Engineers were not even permitted to participate in a vote.
Those business school graduates knew only they - trained managers -
could make that decision. So they killed seven astronauts. Just
another example of what happens when business school training denies and
subverts well proven methods and solutions.



Things like that hapend a lot. Years ago when the Three Mile Island
power plant melted down was caused by management that did not know how
things worked. I have a cousin in the power business. He talked to
some that were involved in that. Seems there was a problem but the
actual operators were getting things under control by doing things that
are not 'in the book'. Management stepped in and started telling them
how to do things and that was when the melt down started.

Same as what I saw where I work. We made polyester. Mixed a powder and
liquid at 300 deg C. One of the process lines started having problems
and some supervisor that did not know the process started giving orders.
The operators tried to tell him he was wrong,but they had to do what he
said. Really made a mess of things. Saw that happen several times.
Those were not small mistakes, but cost the company over $ 100,000 each
time. Bad thing about it is the supervisors and engineers that were
calling the shots did not get fired over it.

Found out one day why the management was so bad. There was an opeartor
that was no good at all. His supervisor said he either had to fire the
fat SOB or make him a supervisor. It was just easier to make him a
supervisor than to fire him. At that period of time all the company
seemed to require was that you showed up each day for work and did not
falsify the company recored or time card.

A supervisor tried to fire someone and when he took that person to the
plant manager, the manager looked at all the paper work and said I can
not fire that man,he has been her 4 years and never missed a day.
Did not even look at the reasons for firing the man.

If you operate a ssd in a reasonable environment and dont expose it to surges, no reason to think 137 years is unrealistic. Silicon doesnt turn back to sand in 5 years, if ever. Semiconductor devices are well understood, extensively studied and i would trust intel numbers before bs from a guy that posted about "mbtf".

Its true they wont test a new product for 5 or 10 years to get an mtbf number before selling it. In the case of an led or ssd drive, its not the first one ever made. Manufacturers understand the devices, the physics, the failure modes, and have similar devices that have undergone testing for tens of thousands of hours. That data allows estimates for the next similar device.

Three Mile Island is the classic example of how management, who does not know how the work gets done, then proclaim ridiculous denials about systems that make management redundant. That means employees - people who know how the work gets done - make decisions. Business school graduates fear that.

Only guy in GPU management who knew anything about how a nuke worked was off on National Guard duty. On Three Mile Island, they could not even make outgoing phone calls. GPU management could not ask Bell of PA for guaranteed service let alone more phone lines. It took Jimmy Carter to fix even that problem. He had all Three Mile Island phones connected directly to the White House switch board. Because 85% of all problems were directly attributed to top management. Who then blame others because they do not come from where the work gets done. Because they come from business schools, only they are trained (entrenched) to make decisions. Concepts such as ISO9000 expose business school graduates as a big reason even for bankruptcy - and crappy products.

Does he come from where the work gets done? One only need view how Steve Balmer did so much damage to Microsoft. Appreciate why business school graduates only see ISO9000 and other functions that target better products as paperwork.

Name a GM product designed by an engineer in the last 40 years. Even the engine in a Chevy Volt cannot recharge its battery. Another example of what happens when business school graduates - not the informed people - make decisions.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:48:55 -0400, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article , lid says...

On 09/17/2016 06:26 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
ISO9000 certified plant.

I worked for a company that did that once. It made zero
difference in product quality. It was just a bunch of
paperwork to get the label.

I worked for a large company and every couple of years there would be
some program. None of them made any difference. Like you said, just a
bunch of paperwork to get the label.

We had iso 9000, six sigma, team concept, tpm, deversity training, some
kind of exercising before starting work, and probably some more that I
have forgotten. Usually after the training part of the program ended ,
it was back to the old way about 6 months or less later.
We started one or two programs but they faded out before everyone in the
plant had gone through it. That was when we had close to 3000 people in
the plant.



In the 70's I briefly worked for a company that went to large stores and
factories and replaced ALL the lightbulbs. Mostly florescent tubes.
Whether they worked or not, ALL bulbs were replaced every few years.
I always thought that was wasteful, but I suppose it eliminated downtime
for the companies when lights burned out.

Several times I took th working bulbs, put them in a box, and brought
them home. I had a few of the work lights that used the 4ft bulbs and
the bulbs still worked. I actually still have at least one box of
them...

In article ,
says...


In the 70's I briefly worked for a company that went to large stores and
factories and replaced ALL the lightbulbs. Mostly florescent tubes.
Whether they worked or not, ALL bulbs were replaced every few years.
I always thought that was wasteful, but I suppose it eliminated downtime
for the companies when lights burned out.

Several times I took th working bulbs, put them in a box, and brought
them home. I had a few of the work lights that used the 4ft bulbs and
the bulbs still worked. I actually still have at least one box of
them...

I have always had mixed feelings about replacing all of them at one
time. If the bulbs are made at the same place and time they all should
be about the same quality. If the companies would wait for about 20 % or
so of the bulbs to go bad, then replace them all it should be ok.

The main reason is labor. Some companies do not have the equipment to
reach high places and not skilled labor to replace the bulbs and
ballasts if needed. When hiring people they only want to do it once in a
long time as just getting the equipment and people there is a large part
of the cost.

If In a plant like I worked we had lots of people that were qualified
and equipment to do the work. We replaced the bad lamps in our
'spare' time when other work was not pushing or there was not much to be
done. By doing that the company saved lots of money because the labor
was bsically not costing anything extra and only the bad bulbs were
changed out. It was nothing for us to change 200 to 300 bulbs in a day
as large as the plant was. That many could be bad and there was still
plenty of light.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:17:31 +0200, westom
wrote:


;3625462 Wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 19:48:55 -0400,
ISO9000 just means you are producing well documented junk
That is what business school graduates claim as they subvert well proven
concepts. And then blame employees for resulting failures. What Ralph
Mowery posted is routine when a boss is the enemy. Subverts what he
cannot understand. That says business school concepts are the reason
for so many failures.

They could not find even one engineer who said it was safe to launch the
Challenger. Engineers were not even permitted to participate in a vote.
Those business school graduates knew only they - trained managers -
could make that decision. So they killed seven astronauts. Just
another example of what happens when business school training denies and
subverts well proven methods and solutions.
I've gone through the ISO certification system - and there is NOTHING
in the system that produces a better product. It just means if you
build junk it will be more or less consistent junk - and well
documented. It DOES allow you to trace back and find out where the
problem came from if you can isolate what the problem is..

When management is trying to reduce costs it is usually not hard to
tell where the problem came from - it came from buying the cheapest
part somewhere to save $0.05

It doesn't necessarily change the mind of the accountant responsible
for the decision.

You can source all your parts from iso9000 registered suppliers, but
as long as their supplier is willing and anxious to provide them with
parts with "fudged" certification stickers, it doesn't help anything.
The accountants try to save $0.05 per unit to recouip the hundred
thousand dollars plus they spent on the ISO certification so they can
sell to government accounts.

At leastthat's how it worked in the computer business.

After getting ISO certification the quality actually DROPPED - for
the above stated reasons. It's not "business school graduates" saying
this - it's business school "graduates" doing it. The manager/CEO
calined to be a "Harvard MBA" and the controller/CFO was an anally
retentive old-school CMA - two worse pains in the ass could not
possibly have been thrown into contact with each other in your worst
nightmares.

On 9/18/2016 8:17 PM, wrote:

I've gone through the ISO certification system - and there is NOTHING
in the system that produces a better product. It just means if you
build junk it will be more or less consistent junk - and well
documented. It DOES allow you to trace back and find out where the
problem came from if you can isolate what the problem is..


Exactly. I had a good supplier that went through the ISO certification.
They made nothing but crap after that and I dropped them.

From Wikipedia on ISO9000: If one thinks like a business school graduate, then he needs certificates and other paper to 'prove' his accomplishments. Spread sheets are somehow proof. If one comes from where the work gets done, then most of the paper work already exists in a form that addresses the many aspects of actual operations.

Business school graduates focus on paper work (ie spread sheets) that are only reporting on things that really happened four to ten years ago. Product people focus paper necessary to better support the customer, innovate a product, and maintain standards that defined a quality product.

I cannot say how many times I have seen business school graduates use cost controls as if that makes a better product. In reality, cost controls typically result in higher costs. But you cannot tell that to someone enthrall by the certification rather than learn how the work gets done.

When ISO9000 does not work, then search for and eliminate a reason for failure - a business school graduate who never learned how the work gets done. Worst company president is a guy who was previously a CFO. His existence explains why ISO9000 fails.

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 10:17:17 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
Ed Pawlowski;3625863 Wrote:
On 9/18/2016 8:17 PM,
Exactly. I had a good supplier that went through the ISO certification.

They made nothing but crap after that and I dropped them.
From Wikipedia on ISO9000: The standard is seen as especially prone to failure when a company is
interested in certification before quality. Certifications are in fact
often based on customer contractual requirements rather than a desire to
actually improve quality.

What you need to understand is that what Clare posted is correct.
The definition of "quality" most people think of is not what ISO
and similar define quality as. For example, we say, "that's a quality
wrench", meaning that it's well built, nice and shiny, solid, close
tolerances. But for quality measurement and monitoring purposes, the
definition of quality is a product that meets the specification.
You can be making cheap wrenches, that rust easily, that have
wide tolerances, that have rough edges, but if that is what is spec'd
for the product, then the product that meets it coming off the line is
good and counted as such when monitoring whether the product meets
the quality standard or not.




"If you just want the certificate on the wall,
chances are you will create a paper system that doesn't have much to do
with the way you actually run your business",
If one thinks like a business school graduate, then he needs
certificates and other paper to 'prove' his accomplishments. Spread
sheets are somehow proof. If one comes from where the work gets done,
then most of the paper work already exists in a form that addresses the
many aspects of actual operations.

Business school graduates focus on paper work (ie spread sheets) that
are only reporting on things that really happened four to ten years
ago. Product people focus paper necessary to better support the
customer, innovate a product, and maintain standards that defined a
quality product.

I cannot say how many times I have seen business school graduates use
cost controls as if that makes a better product. In reality, cost
controls typically result in higher costs. But you cannot tell that to
someone enthrall by the certification rather than learn how the work
gets done.

When ISO9000 does not work, then search for an eliminate the reason for
failure - a business school graduate who never learned how the work gets
done. Worst company president is the guy who was previously a CFO. His
existence explains why ISO9000 does not work.




--
westom

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:44:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
...snip...

It was bad enough when a "lifetime warranteed" memory module for my
laptop failed and one way shipping to return it to the "manufacturer"
in California cost me $18, it took over 3 weeks to get it replaced,
and I could buy another "lifetime guaranteed" module locally for $22..

I returned it "just on principal" and couldn't wate for it to be
returned so bought one locally anyway. Now I have an obvsolete brand
new memory module sitting in stock that I'll likely never use, that
effectively cost me $40.

Jumping in late here as I hadn't been following this thread.

Please explain your math. You spent $18 to replace the module that is
now on the shelf. You spend $22 on the module that is in the laptop.

If the one of the shelf effectively cost you $40, then wasn't the one
in the laptop effectively free?

It seems like it was going to cost you *something* to get your laptop
up and running (either $18 or $22), so why do feel that the total
amount that you spent is sitting on the shelf?

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:06:35 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:44:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
..snip...

It was bad enough when a "lifetime warranteed" memory module for my
laptop failed and one way shipping to return it to the "manufacturer"
in California cost me $18, it took over 3 weeks to get it replaced,
and I could buy another "lifetime guaranteed" module locally for $22..

I returned it "just on principal" and couldn't wate for it to be
returned so bought one locally anyway. Now I have an obvsolete brand
new memory module sitting in stock that I'll likely never use, that
effectively cost me $40.

Jumping in late here as I hadn't been following this thread.

Please explain your math. You spent $18 to replace the module that is
now on the shelf. You spend $22 on the module that is in the laptop.

If the one of the shelf effectively cost you $40, then wasn't the one
in the laptop effectively free?

It seems like it was going to cost you *something* to get your laptop
up and running (either $18 or $22), so why do feel that the total
amount that you spent is sitting on the shelf?

Inquiring minds have to wonder how it could cost $18 to ship a memory
module for a laptop? I just shipped a box that's 26x9x8 that weighs
6 lbs from NJ to CA via Fed Ex economy ground for $13. A memory
module should cost less than $5 to ship.

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 5:24:43 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:06:35 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:44:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
..snip...

It was bad enough when a "lifetime warranteed" memory module for my
laptop failed and one way shipping to return it to the "manufacturer"
in California cost me $18, it took over 3 weeks to get it replaced,
and I could buy another "lifetime guaranteed" module locally for $22..

I returned it "just on principal" and couldn't wate for it to be
returned so bought one locally anyway. Now I have an obvsolete brand
new memory module sitting in stock that I'll likely never use, that
effectively cost me $40.

Jumping in late here as I hadn't been following this thread.

Please explain your math. You spent $18 to replace the module that is
now on the shelf. You spend $22 on the module that is in the laptop.

If the one of the shelf effectively cost you $40, then wasn't the one
in the laptop effectively free?

It seems like it was going to cost you *something* to get your laptop
up and running (either $18 or $22), so why do feel that the total
amount that you spent is sitting on the shelf?

Inquiring minds have to wonder how it could cost $18 to ship a memory
module for a laptop? I just shipped a box that's 26x9x8 that weighs
6 lbs from NJ to CA via Fed Ex economy ground for $13. A memory
module should cost less than $5 to ship.

I'm thinking Canada to California, electronics, customs, etc.

I could be wrong, just my thoughts.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:06:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:44:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
..snip...

It was bad enough when a "lifetime warranteed" memory module for my
laptop failed and one way shipping to return it to the "manufacturer"
in California cost me $18, it took over 3 weeks to get it replaced,
and I could buy another "lifetime guaranteed" module locally for $22..

I returned it "just on principal" and couldn't wate for it to be
returned so bought one locally anyway. Now I have an obvsolete brand
new memory module sitting in stock that I'll likely never use, that
effectively cost me $40.

Jumping in late here as I hadn't been following this thread.

Please explain your math. You spent $18 to replace the module that is
now on the shelf. You spend $22 on the module that is in the laptop.

If the one of the shelf effectively cost you $40, then wasn't the one
in the laptop effectively free?

It seems like it was going to cost you *something* to get your laptop
up and running (either $18 or $22), so why do feel that the total
amount that you spent is sitting on the shelf?
What part of "lifetime warrantee" did you miss???

If I had a "better brand" lifetime warranted module it would not have
cost me anything to get it replaced - just take it back to the
supplier and walk out with a new one.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:31:55 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 5:24:43 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:06:35 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:44:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
..snip...

It was bad enough when a "lifetime warranteed" memory module for my
laptop failed and one way shipping to return it to the "manufacturer"
in California cost me $18, it took over 3 weeks to get it replaced,
and I could buy another "lifetime guaranteed" module locally for $22..

I returned it "just on principal" and couldn't wate for it to be
returned so bought one locally anyway. Now I have an obvsolete brand
new memory module sitting in stock that I'll likely never use, that
effectively cost me $40.

Jumping in late here as I hadn't been following this thread.

Please explain your math. You spent $18 to replace the module that is
now on the shelf. You spend $22 on the module that is in the laptop.

If the one of the shelf effectively cost you $40, then wasn't the one
in the laptop effectively free?

It seems like it was going to cost you *something* to get your laptop
up and running (either $18 or $22), so why do feel that the total
amount that you spent is sitting on the shelf?

Inquiring minds have to wonder how it could cost $18 to ship a memory
module for a laptop? I just shipped a box that's 26x9x8 that weighs
6 lbs from NJ to CA via Fed Ex economy ground for $13. A memory
module should cost less than $5 to ship.

I'm thinking Canada to California, electronics, customs, etc.

I could be wrong, just my thoughts.
Traceable from Canada to Cali - $18 for "slow donkey express" -
almost double that for 2 day, and even more for "next day"

Define quality.

In the early days of Ford Taurus, half of transmissions were made by Ford. Another half by Mazda. Ford transmissions failed often. Mazda's did not. So executives demanded to know why.

A tech disassembled a Ford transmission All part were within spec numbers. He disassembled Mazda transmissions that met same spec numbers on same blueprints. Why were Fords failing so often and Mazda were not? All part were in spec.

Those educated by concepts taught to engineers and product people will tend to say what is obvious. Others only trained in finance, business schools, and 'hearsay' will not figure it out. Answer is not be provided in this post.

Many who want to learn will not fear to post an answer - right or wrong. Those are the fewer among us who want to learn. Everyone with a college degree was taught an answer - right or wrong - even a Communication major.

If you have a college degree and do not answer based upon your education, then only fear exists. Is that blunt enough? An example of people who fear to learn.

Why do same transmissions from two difference companies, with all parts meeting same blueprint specifications, have a massive reliability difference? What defines that difference? Everyone should have an answer based upon their education. To learn what is or is not relevant means answering the question also with reasons why.

Best warranties are often found on least reliable products. With numerous fine print exemptions. There is no replacement for spec numbers that actually claim it does what it is suppose to do.

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 9:34:45 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:06:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:44:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
..snip...

It was bad enough when a "lifetime warranteed" memory module for my
laptop failed and one way shipping to return it to the "manufacturer"
in California cost me $18, it took over 3 weeks to get it replaced,
and I could buy another "lifetime guaranteed" module locally for $22..

I returned it "just on principal" and couldn't wate for it to be
returned so bought one locally anyway. Now I have an obvsolete brand
new memory module sitting in stock that I'll likely never use, that
effectively cost me $40.

Jumping in late here as I hadn't been following this thread.

Please explain your math. You spent $18 to replace the module that is
now on the shelf. You spend $22 on the module that is in the laptop.

If the one of the shelf effectively cost you $40, then wasn't the one
in the laptop effectively free?

It seems like it was going to cost you *something* to get your laptop
up and running (either $18 or $22), so why do feel that the total
amount that you spent is sitting on the shelf?
What part of "lifetime warrantee" did you miss???

If I had a "better brand" lifetime warranted module it would not have
cost me anything to get it replaced - just take it back to the
supplier and walk out with a new one.

But you didn't have a ""better brand" lifetime warranted module". You had
what you had. Why bring hypotheticals into this?

The module on the shelf cost you $18, not $40. The one in the laptop cost
you $22.

Regardless of how *you* want to do the math, you either wasted $22 by being
impatient or you wasted $18 "just on principal". Either way, the one on the
shelf did *not* cost you $40.