[filmscanners] RE: HD failure [was RE: keeping the 16bitscans}

["" <snsok@cox.net>]

Laurie,

Perhaps I should have said that the MTBF must be based on certain
observational data but must be essentially a prediction as a real-time
testing process isn't possible.

How are these values derived?

Stan Schwartz


-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:29 PM
To: snsok@cox.net
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: HD failure [was RE: keeping the 16bitscans}


Julian,
All excellent points.  I would suspect that Frank's response may have been
based on a poor choice of terms.  The MTBF is based on "observation" and
"observational data;" it just is not based on the uncontrolled conditions
and exigencies of everyday practival life as opposed to the controlled
contidions of experimental testing and simulations.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:33 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HD failure [was RE: keeping the 16bitscans}



> > Well, the one thing you can say with absolutely certainty is
> > that the MTBF is not based on observational data.
>
>I can say with relative certainly that you are wrong.
>
>Frank Paris


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body