Reliability Basics - Mikes Inventions

mikesinvention... Reliability Basics shows you how to calculate the overall reliability of a system if you know the reliabilities of each of the components. You know when they say that a spacecraft is man-rated, and there's a 1/500 chance of loss on ascent and descent? Well hopefully someone has taken all those components and crunched the numbers to come up with a reliability. Based on our record, I doubt we actually achieved the required reliability for man-rating the Shuttle. Anyway, if you have a system, this video shows you how to calculate the overall odds of mission success. Or failure.

[@WiekingderViking]

You use a block holding your pens! Hey, that was my idea. Well done.

[@sedenzespiritu2678]

I like how you get to the point "both items have to fail before you DIE"

[@r1di3169]

Thanks for the help Mike

[@Angiejamk]

This was awesome. Thank you.

[@liamtaylor5523]

Brilliant video , thanks

[@Vathanaization]

Thanks alot Mike

[@mudsp1ash]

Thank you kind sir

[@ahmetardaari]

I love your content!

[@midkort]

Good stuff. Thanks.

[@80expertube]

Fantastic!

[@wailadjali9578]

Can you give an idea about how can we convert PID to reliability block diagram?

[@kengsamnang7225]

What is the structure function of Reliability?

[@wrestlingscience]

What's this for? Computer systems? Engineering?

[@MikesInventions]

Anything really. I suppose you can even apply it to people. We all know a few that aren't reliable don't we?

[@kengsamnang7225]

Hello! Sire

[@warrior_number]

Hello , i need some deep knowledge for the subject reliability and safety theory. İ failed from this subject at the University. İ need to pass. Could you please help me ? İ need some lessons from a knowledgeable person

[@BEFOUND.]

can you refere me to smeone who I can get training to use windchill software for risk and reliability analysis

[@MikesInventions]

Hey! No sadly. I’m not much help there. Thanks for watching though

[@DanielL143]

Your statement that .1 is the inverse of .9 is incorrect - your basic math is unreliable. The inverse of .9 is not .1 it is 1.1 sir. It also seems that you are incorrectly interchanging the 'probability of failure' with actual failure rate (lambda) in your explanation. A more rigorous use of terminology would be appreciated.