Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 3 Jun 2008 08:26:59 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Paul & All,
It is proper to use different names— Reliability Testing vs. Survivability
Testing, for these tests, because they do not test the same thing, even if the
failure modes observed are the same. The loading conditions and the material
responses to them are not.
To say: " One effect is to increase testing throughput by a factor of ~10:1
if the product is robust and survives to end of test. Weak product fails in
just minutes which in effect increased through put by a factor of ~40:1." is
correct in terms of the through-put but not in terms what is measured.
That is a problem with all those 'highly accelerated' tests, they do
accelerate the time to failure, but they do not typically accelerate the pertinent
damage mechanism.
So, lets keep the two tests, Reliability Testing and Survivability Testing,
separate, because each serves a very useful function.
Werner
**************
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&
NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|