Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/09/07

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Electronics vs. mechanics
From: Dennis Painter <dennis@hale-pohaku.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:13:37 -0700
References: <1a3.19c3d2fb.2c8c90e9@aol.com>

Failure of electronic equipment is greatly affected by the environment. Let high humidity
get into electronics and the reliability will take a plunge.

Quality of the electronics is important as I believe Leica found out when they let
******* make integrated circuits for them on the early R.

I am not arguing mechanical or electronic, they both have a place, they both have
limitations.

Dennis


LRZeitlin@aol.com wrote:

>
> The failure curve of electronic equipment is entirely different from that of
> mechanical equipment. There is no reason to suggest that the MTBF of a
> mechanical components will be "orders of magnitude" different from that of electronic
> components. With electronic equipment there is a probablity of failure of a
> few percent at initial turn on or very soon thereafter. If it survives the
> intial burn in, it will generally work perfectly for a very long period of time,
> units failing randomly throughout the total life span. When operated within its
> ratings, the failure rate of electronic equipment is usually independent of
> the number of use cycles. Electronic equipment usually fails abruptly in an all
> or none pattern. It works or it doesen't.


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from LRZeitlin@aol.com ([Leica] Electronics vs. mechanics)