|
We now have a tool to prioritize risk. Maybe not a
perfect tool, but the only one I ever heard of that is used
very successfully in industry.
The only exact sciences are Physics, Chemistry and
Mathematics. All other sciences use components of these disciplines to predict
the outcomes of their ART. Engineering and Medicine are not sciences, they are
ARTS.
Good engineers and researchers know this
instinctively. That's one reason experience is so valuable: It develops the
artist.
Back to the point. If the method is not
particularly sophisticated, that doesn't make it invalid. The point is that all
things are relative, and this is a method to align, order and relate priorities.
I have not seen any other.
I'll use it in my project (Cozy MKIV), hopefully in
consultation with Al Wick.
2c
Jack Ford
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:42 PM
Subject: Message with possible fraud
attempt: [FlyRotary] Re: Apples and Oranges (was: COZY: Rotary risks)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panda
Titanium Antivirus 2005 has detected that this email could be
spoofed
Take maximum precautions, as spoofed emails could be the
sign of a fraud
attempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 6/3/05, Bill
Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
wrote:
>http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/risk.html
This is an
interesting read, but a flawed
analysis.
It looks
like a mathematician's approach, rather than an
engineer's
approach.
He compares
failure rates for auto engine components operating in
an automobile with
aircraft components operating in an aircraft. He then
assumes that the
auto component will have the same mean time between
failures when
installed on an
airplane.
The speed
and load profile for a car component and an airplane
component are
completely
different.
This would
explain how he "doesn't get it" about the inherent MTBF
advantages of a
rotary engine. It is quite likely that he doesn't
understand the drastic
effect fatigue failure has on the MTBF as you
increase the continuous
load.
As a rule of
thumb, if you double the reversing load, you decrease
the the cycle life
by a factor of 100. For a car engine connecting rod in
an airplane, you
are not only (at least) doubling the load (torque) you are
also doubling
the RPM, so the connecting rod will have a MTBF 200 times
shorter in the
airplane than in the
car.
The rotary has
very few moving parts subject to fatigue failure
(unlike piston engines.)
Bill
Dube'
Bill, I agree. This method is neither scientific, professional,
objective or even sophisticated. First year medical students would do a
better job of seeing fallacy (in the research sense) and applying statistical
methods.
Al is right that it is important to examine these issues and his system
can help clarify which issues are more important. But I sure wouldn't
pay $150 to go to any seminars. The point system he uses has no
reference validation, no statistical power analysis, and therefore very little
meaning.
While he is right about the CAS being an issue, he seems very uninformed
on other issues yet comes across as someone who feels that he is well
informed. He even went so far as to presume to know the way Tracy thinks
and approaches problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panda
Titanium Antivirus 2005 has detected that this email could be
spoofed
Take maximum precautions, as spoofed emails could be the
sign of a fraud
attempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|