LCD dying? Please help.

I have had a Niko OTP-3211W LCD TV since TigerDirect first put them on sale about 2 years ago. I wasn't in the market for a new TV at the time, but for the price we couldn't pass it up. After 2 years of total satisfaction we are encountering our first issue w/ the unit. Every few seconds/minutes throughout the afternoon the screen would flash/flicker black for a split second then return to normal. At one point the screen went totally black (no effect by change of channels, change of mode, etc.). By time I got home from work, the picture was working again but still flashing. Tonight I fired up the Xbox 360 and after about 5 minutes of playing the flashing increased frequency until the screen finally went black again. Right now I turned it off w/ the remote and the power switch in the back to give it time to cool down.

Is this a typical LCD monitor failure, or are we finally paying for our "great deal"??

Did you purchase an extended warr.?

Unfortunately no, but the extended warranty offered wouldn't have covered it this far out.

Would you mind telling me how to post a message. I have a q re: my new plasma. Thanks

Go to the Forum you want to post in and click on the New Thread icon.

I just bought a new 42" panasonic plasma. It had a great picture with my none HD box. This morning Verizon FIOS installed my new HD box and HDMI cable. My none hd chanels are now not very good. Is it maybe a cheap HDMI cable? Thanks

Thanks for the thread hijack. Try this:

Go to the FORUM you want to post in as opposed to clicking POST REPLY.

When the display is blacked out, do you still have sound? If so, when you change channels, do you hear the sound changing channels?

Without actually seeing your display, it sounds to me like a problem with the backlight.

LCD TV's don't generate light, they filter light coming through them from behind. If the backlight is flickering on and off, the perceived result is the display is turning on and off, even though the image is actually on the display (you just can't see it for lack of light).

Backlights are typically fluorescent bulbs, which have a limited lifetime (though usually much longer than 2 years) and they are driven by high-voltage switching circuits that are often prone to failure and intermittent operation.

Do you know if the backlight bulb is replaceable or servicable on your display?

Yes the sound is still intact as expected. When the channels are changed the sound changes along w/ it, and the same w/ Xbox 360 changes. On another forum someone posted that the light engine has died and the TV should be replaced. Any truth to this assumption?

Only rear-projection displays have a "light engine", which is just a marketing term anyway.

If everything else about the TV is working, then either the display is being electronically blanked, or the backlight is going out.

You may be able to prove it's the backlight by shining a really bright flashlight on the panel when the image has gone black. With the light hitting the display at the correct angle and viewed from the correct angle, you will see picture details dimly if the LCD is working but the backlight is out.

I think it's most likley the backlight or the power suppy to the backlight.

Don't most cheap lcd's not have a replaceable lamp? Anyway, I know nothing about what may be wrong with it, but I just wanted to add that if it's not fixable and you have to buy a new one, make sure you buy a good name brand. If you buy a good brand then it'll be less likely to break and you'll save more money in the long run. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk; just trying to help. ;)

Just about all lamps are replaceable, but not usually by the user.

Then the question is, is the cost to replace it worth it?

Some techs charge a flat fee just to open it up, regardless of whether they can fix it, then there's the parts and labor charge on top of that. By the time you're done, it could be as cheap to buy a new, better display...

The first thing I would do is call customer service and complain that a 2-year old display shouldn't have this problem and if they can't do anything about it, you will certainly never buy their products again and will tell everyone else not to as well. Follow that up with a friendly "but I'd like to give you the opportunity to change my attitude and demonstrate you stand behind your products".

And everyones said to me in another thread that backlights weren't a problem in LCD's. :) Sounds like it could be a backlight problem to me also. Sounds typical of what you see in a domestic fluorscent lighting tube when its failing.

Plasma 1 : LCD 0

I hope whatever it is you manage to get it fixed cheaply Hot.

Well it turns out the power supply to the backlight was dead. A smooth $260 ($245 for the new supply + $15 labor) later and it is back up and running.

Just for my knowledge, is this a simple replacement for a novice? I'm assuming it would be since there was only a $15 labor charge, but just wanted some insight.

I still have yet to get in touch w/ Niko customer support. Although I don't expect to get any type of reimbursement, it will be interesting to see what they have to say when/if I do actually talk to someone.

And everyones said to me in another thread that backlights weren't a problem in LCD's. :) Sounds like it could be a backlight problem to me also. Sounds typical of what you see in a domestic fluorscent lighting tube when its failing.

Plasma 1 : LCD 0

I hope whatever it is you manage to get it fixed cheaply Hot.Let's even the score then - a post from another fourm: "Just a week ago I purchased a new 50" Samsung Plasma HD TV. Recently, the TV sometimes has an intermittent "dead" pixel line running half way down the screen from top to bottom." http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070911181804AAAjrEb

This plasma failure happened within one week, not after two years.

Plasma 1 : LCD 1

Electronics fail, this is a fact of life. Pdps, lcds, crts, projection sets will all eventually fail.

I don't know how much the OP paid for his set but a $260 repair does not sound that bad. The last time I had a crt repaired - six years ago - it cost nearly that much.

HotBacon-

That's a *lot* of money for the power supply to the backlight, which is a simple high-frequency switching inverter.

It sounds like they replaced the whole power supply to the display. Probably they designed the power supply as a single module, so if any voltage is bad, you replace the whole power supply.

Likely it is a simple swap out with a few screws and one or two cables that need to be unplugged from the old supply and plugged into the new. Sometimes the cases are designed so they can only be opened without damage if you know where the "catches" are or have a specific tool.

Nmlobo-

Actually, failures early on in a products' life aren't as negative as failures after a few years. *All* products have a certain "early mortality" rate that is statistical and unavoidable, based on the fact that all of the components in the product have the same sort of statistical failure rate.

A product that fails within the first several weeks is unfortunate, but not unexpected based on statistics. A product that fails after two years raises the question of whether the design is inadequate or overstressed. Statistically speaking a good product will either fail within the first few weeks, or last the intended lifetime of the product.

Also, failures early on in the product life are covered by the warranty (which is primarily intended to protect you against the statistical early mortality rate) and most stores will just let you swap for a new one if the faiure occurs within a few weeks.

Boby, asbsolutely, all products have a certain early mortality rate. This is what makes early failures more significant than failures later in the component's life. From my experience (more than 40 years in the CE field), early failures often indicate future problems and that the expected/projected MTBCF will not be achieved. Early failures can be indicative of faulty QC during assembly, inexpensive components, poor design, inadequate cooling, etc. etc. Often, these components will be back on the bench over and over again. So, if you are 'blessed' with one of the 'early mortality rate' components, I would be concerned.

BTW "based on the fact that all of the components in the product have the same sort of statistical failure rate." is not necessarily true. At least not in my environment. MTBCF uses the shortest lived critical component. There may be several critical components within a set that have much higher operational rates.

Sure, early failures are covered by warranty and that is fine as long as you only want the component to operate for a year or two. I suspect most people do not buy TVs with the idea they will only last one or two years before needing repair.

Don't most cheap lcd's not have a replaceable lamp? Anyway, I know nothing about what may be wrong with it, but I just wanted to add that if it's not fixable and you have to buy a new one, make sure you buy a good name brand. If you buy a good brand then it'll be less likely to break and you'll save more money in the long run. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk; just trying to help. ;)

Now, that's one helluva statement.
Do you have any data to back it up?
It's a myth.

But, if it's your money, suit yourself.

Boby, asbsolutely, all products have a certain early mortality rate.

Agreed - all products! So without additional data, your following points stand rather moot.

This is what makes early failures more significant than failures later in the component's life.

I certainly don't follow the logic of this conclusion. In what way would an early failure be "more significant"?

From my experience (more than 40 years in the CE field), early failures often indicate future problems and that the expected/projected MTBCF will not be achieved. Early failures can be indicative of faulty QC during assembly, inexpensive components, poor design, inadequate cooling, etc. etc. Often, these components will be back on the bench over and over again. So, if you are 'blessed' with one of the 'early mortality rate' components, I would be concerned.

With similar experience in semiconductor industry for consumer, commercial and space applications; as well as communications and transponder equipment for commercial aircraft and military applications, I can't agree with your conclusions and fail to see how to the limited extent that they may have some validity, they could equally apply to any manufacturer of any product.

BTW "based on the fact that all of the components in the product have the same sort of statistical failure rate." is not necessarily true. At least not in my environment. MTBCF uses the shortest lived critical component. There may be several critical components within a set that have much higher operational rates.

True, resistors, pcboards, any passive devices, etc. have such high MTBF that they hardly play into the equation. Certainly, in the case of TVs, all active components, the display and of course the backlight will dominate the total equipment MTBF.

Sure, early failures are covered by warranty and that is fine as long as you only want the component to operate for a year or two. I suspect most people do not buy TVs with the idea they will only last one or two years before needing repair.

Funny conclusion . . . . . every manufacturer has some infant mortality with their products, so if the consumer buys a Sony and it needs repair in 9 months, he should never buy Sony again???

Nmlobo-

Well, I don't argue with people's experience. If that's what you experienced, how can I argue with it?

It doesn't match my experience in CE for nearly 30 years at all. Yes the MTBF for the components should be a long time, but MTBF assumes a normal component, not the odd latent defect that is statistically unavoidable no matter how high the quality of components or how much you inspect and test. There is no such thing as 0% failure.

A large number of early failures is indicative of a problem, but failures within the statistical norm are not. Even a modest number of failures after, say, two years, is indicative of a problem, as all of the statistical infant mortality has been weeded out by that point, so we are talking about real failures as a result of a design flaw, poor quality components or stress.

When we had a problem in a product, it would typically show up in significant numbers within a few weeks. We used to burn them in for 24 hours, then we cut back to 8 hours to see if there was any difference and there wasn't. Statistically speaking, if a product passed burn-in for 8 hours, it would pass for 24 hours and it went on to last for the intended lifetime and beyond. If a product was going to fail within the first few weeks due to infant mortality, it would fail during the 8 hours of burn-in.

There were a lot of people at the factory who were skeptical about cutting down on burn-in time, but over several years the statistical data proved that longer burn-in intervals were not of value--maybe we would have caught a handful of products that later went on to fail early, but that was out of thousands and thousands of units. And there was still no way of knowing whether those products might not have passed a 24-hour burn-in and failed a 25-hour burn-in. You have to set the limit somewhere and you set it where it makes the most sense based on the statistical data.

Nmlobo-

Well, I don't argue with people's experience. If that's what you experienced, how can I argue with it?

It doesn't match my experience in CE for nearly 30 years at all. Yes the MTBF for the components should be a long time, but MTBF assumes a normal component, not the odd latent defect that is statistically unavoidable no matter how high the quality of components or how much you inspect and test. There is no such thing as 0% failure.

A large number of early failures is indicative of a problem, but failures within the statistical norm are not. Even a modest number of failures after, say, two years, is indicative of a problem, as all of the statistical infant mortality has been weeded out by that point, so we are talking about real failures as a result of a design flaw, poor quality components or stress.

When we had a problem in a product, it would typically show up in significant numbers within a few weeks. We used to burn them in for 24 hours, then we cut back to 8 hours to see if there was any difference and there wasn't. Statistically speaking, if a product passed burn-in for 8 hours, it would pass for 24 hours and it went on to last for the intended lifetime and beyond. If a product was going to fail within the first few weeks due to infant mortality, it would fail during the 8 hours of burn-in.

There were a lot of people at the factory who were skeptical about cutting down on burn-in time, but over several years the statistical data proved that longer burn-in intervals were not of value--maybe we would have caught a handful of products that later went on to fail early, but that was out of thousands and thousands of units. And there was still no way of knowing whether those products might not have passed a 24-hour burn-in and failed a 25-hour burn-in. You have to set the limit somewhere and you set it where it makes the most sense based on the statistical data.You are preaching to the choir that there is no such thing as a 0% failure rate. My experience has been/is repair and T&E of military hardware, radios, radars, computers etc. installed in aircraft and ground processing centers, not in a fab shop. We develop MTBCF numbers under actual operational conditions. The numbers are consistantly updated to reflect the actual, MTBCF. IMHO lab tests are useful but what is experienced in the field is more significant. Anyway, my point was not to compare testing methodology. I identified a potential reason for concern if one owned a set that experienced early failures (you missed that I wrote in the plural) a single early failure would not concern me (I'd just be upset), it happens. More than one early failure and I start to pay attention.

You posted "every manufacturer has some infant mortality with their products, so if the consumer buys a Sony and it needs repair in 9 months, he should never buy Sony again???" I don't believe I said anything like that. Again, you failed to notice that I spoke in the plural. The entire point of my post was that you need to be concerned if a product experiences more than one early failure.

You also wrote: "they could equally apply to any manufacturer of any product" ABSOLUTELY! My comments were not aimed at strictly at TV sets. Any product experiencing early failureS causes me concern.

Cheers.

Be careful nmlobo, you're crediting (or should I say discrediting) BobY with things that were said my me, not him.

. . . My experience has been/is repair and T&E of military hardware, radios, radars, computers etc. installed in aircraft and ground processing centers, not in a fab shop. We develop MTBCF numbers under actual operational conditions. The numbers are consistantly updated to reflect the actual, MTBCF. IMHO lab tests are useful but what is experienced in the field is more significant.

Having similar experience, I have never heard of developing MTBF numbers "under actual operational conditions"; ie., "what is experienced in the field". If this means, for example, monitoring all air traffic control tranceivers across the entire installation base, for that would be totally absurd, create meaningless data, and to my knowledge is not a method that is ever used to establish or update MTBF. My experience along these lines has been the controled lab testing of component, board level and equipment level items using a variety of static and dynamic tests such as: extended burn-in (Ks of hours); hi-temp accelerated life tests; on-off cycle life tests; over voltage life tests; test to failure; and etc., followed by failure analysis and design and manufacturing evaluation relative to falures. NEVER have I seen actuall field data used to establish or update MTBF numbers.

Anyway, my point was not to compare testing methodology. I identified a potential reason for concern if one owned a set that experienced early failures (you missed that I wrote in the plural) a single early failure would not concern me (I'd just be upset), it happens. More than one early failure and I start to pay attention.

The "subtle" distinction between "a single failure" and "more than one early failure" is just plain silly. Example: when testing, for example, for a LTPD (Lot Tolerance Percent Defective) of 1.0, a lot sample size of 390 units with a failure of 1 units is acceptable; a lot sample size of 533 units with a failure of 2 unist is also acceptable; and a lot sample size of 798 units with a failure of 4 units is also acceptable. (see MIL-S-19500E).

You may have had 40 years of experience in some industry, but you should really get a few years of quality control and statistical methods under your belt, cuz your pesonal feelings in these matters defy acceptable QC standards and ignore statistical methods.

You posted "every manufacturer has some infant mortality with their products, so if the consumer buys a Sony and it needs repair in 9 months, he should never buy Sony again???" I don't believe I said anything like that. Again, you failed to notice that I spoke in the plural. The entire point of my post was that you need to be concerned if a product experiences more than one early failure.

And again, if two Sonys die at 9 months, then what???

You also wrote: "they could equally apply to any manufacturer of any product" ABSOLUTELY! My comments were not aimed at strictly at TV sets. Any product experiencing early failureS causes me concern.

Any failure indeed, ought to cause the manufacturer concern; whether a single failure (or two failures, if you prefer) should cause a consumer any concern is yet another question.

Be careful nmlobo, you're crediting (or should I say discrediting) BobY with things that were said my me, not him. Yes, I did combine my answer to Boby and to you. Sorry Boby.

Having similar experience, I have never heard of developing MTBF numbers "under actual operational conditions"; ie., "what is experienced in the field". If this means, for example, monitoring all air traffic control tranceivers across the entire installation base, for that would be totally absurd, create meaningless data, and to my knowledge is not a method that is ever used to establish or update MTBF. My experience along these lines has been the controled lab testing of component, board level and equipment level items using a variety of static and dynamic tests such as: extended burn-in (Ks of hours); hi-temp accelerated life tests; on-off cycle life tests; over voltage life tests; test to failure; and etc., followed by failure analysis and design and manufacturing evaluation relative to falures. NEVER have I seen actuall field data used to establish or update MTBF numbers. You have a similar experience as whom? Certainly not in the field. Failure data IS captured in the field. It is entered in a database and MTBCFs are updated. The data is extremely useful. It allows the USAF to track which systems need replacement, modification, etc. based upon ACTUAL suitability and performance data. It helps identify potential DMS (Diminishing Manufacturing Sources) before that becomes a problem. Because you have never seen something does not mean it does not exist or is not accomplished in another way. Your experience in a "controled lab", and not in the field maintaining and tracking the systems, does not equate to similar experience.

The "subtle" distinction between "a single failure" and "more than one early failure" is just plain silly. Example: when testing, for example, for a LTPD (Lot Tolerance Percent Defective) of 1.0, a lot sample size of 390 units with a failure of 1 units is acceptable; a lot sample size of 533 units with a failure of 2 unist is also acceptable; and a lot sample size of 798 units with a failure of 4 units is also acceptable. (see MIL-S-19500E).

You may have had 40 years of experience in some industry, but you should really get a few years of quality control and statistical methods under your belt, cuz your pesonal feelings in these matters defy acceptable QC standards and ignore statistical methods. If you had any real field experience, not lab, you might understand. You are talking manufacturing - I am discussing real world suitability issues. Two different creatures.

And again, if two Sonys die at 9 months, then what??? That is a silly question and you know it. You failed to read, or comprehend what I wrote, "The entire point of my post was that you need to be concerned if a product experiences more than one early failure." A - meaning one, a singular entity - has more than one - not a single event but 1+1 or more - early failures, you should be concerned.


Any failure indeed, ought to cause the manufacturer concern; whether a single failure (or two failures, if you prefer) should cause a consumer any concern is yet another question.

You have a similar experience as whom? Certainly not in the field. Failure data IS captured in the field. It is entered in a database and MTBCFs are updated. The data is extremely useful. It allows the USAF to track which systems need replacement, modification, etc. based upon ACTUAL suitability and performance data. It helps identify potential DMS (Diminishing Manufacturing Sources) before that becomes a problem. Because you have never seen something does not mean it does not exist or is not accomplished in another way. Your experience in a "controled lab", and not in the field maintaining and tracking the systems, does not equate to similar experience.

Well, I "meant" similar experience as you "claimed" to have, but that is obviously not the case. While indeed, I am well aware that the USAF, the RAF, the IAF, and others with whom I have dealt do collect failure data in the field, this data, as you point out is used to "track which systems need replacement, modification, etc. based on ACTUAL suitability and performance data." AND "It helps identify potential DMS before that becomes a problem", however, this data is NEVER used to calculate or update MTBF in any manner whatsoever. Primarily because the sample size it much too small and the operating conditions are, for the most part, unknown or too varied to provide meaningful data. The field data is only used for "tacitical" purposes; the quality issue (for major equipment; say, aircraft, tanks, radar systems, transcievers, GPS units, and etc., the MTBF will ALWAYS and ONLY be calculated from lower level component and subassembly content which has been lab tested to establish the required data). MTBF calculations NEVER include field failure rates. And since MTBCF is derived from MTBF . . . ditto!

It should also be noted that there is a BIG difference between MTBCF and MTBF and that applying MTBCF "thinking" to things like consumer televisions is completely ludicrous. For a nice discussion you may wish to see http://reu.eng.usf.edu/DeliverablesS2004/Dougna,Elike/ElikeDougnaS2004Rep.doc

If you had any real field experience, not lab, you might understand. You are talking manufacturing - I am discussing real world suitability issues. Two different creatures.

Again, this time non-military, I also have considerable experience delivering hardware to the cable television industry (trunk amps, bridger amps, and line extender amplifiers). Field failure was important and critical, but never used to "back into" equipment MTBF, which was and is ALWAYS calculated from demonstrated lower level component data.

. . . You failed to read, or comprehend what I wrote, "The entire point of my post was that you need to be concerned if a product experiences more than one early failure." A - meaning one, a singular entity - has more than one - not a single event but 1+1 or more - early failures, you should be concerned.

Huh? Perhaps by "a product" you mean "my TV"; and if my TV experiences more than one failure I should be concerned . . . yea, I'm the consumer, I'm gonna be concerned; should Sony be concerned if MY TV experiences more than one failure . . . most likely not.

billinprinceto There absolutely is a difference between MTBCF and MTBF, if you notice my answers have been consistant with MTBCF. Since the military often uses 'consumer grade' products, this may be appropriate measure.

You are correct. Your field experience is no where near as indepth as mine.

Let's even the score then - a post from another fourm: "Just a week ago I purchased a new 50" Samsung Plasma HD TV. Recently, the TV sometimes has an intermittent "dead" pixel line running half way down the screen from top to bottom." http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070911181804AAAjrEb

This plasma failure happened within one week, not after two years.

Plasma 1 : LCD 1

Electronics fail, this is a fact of life. Pdps, lcds, crts, projection sets will all eventually fail.

I don't know how much the OP paid for his set but a $260 repair does not sound that bad. The last time I had a crt repaired - six years ago - it cost nearly that much.

Well yes it does happen but at least it was after 1 week so under guarantee.

Point I was trying to make is that technically a backlight is a consumable as they do wear out and have to be replaced although here it turned out to be the PSU after all.

billinprinceto There absolutely is a difference between MTBCF and MTBF, if you notice my answers have been consistant with MTBCF. Since the military often uses 'consumer grade' products, this may be appropriate measure.

ummm, seems to me that I did, in fact, say that "It should also be noted that there is a BIG difference between MTBCF and MTBF". And I went on to say that "applying MTBCF "thinking" to things like consumer televisions is completely ludicrous." I can't for the life of me imagine how applying MTBCF thinking to consumer televisions "may be appropriate" - and to whatever extent the military may or may not use "consumer grade" products, I rather doubt that they insist on MTBCF ratings for televisions bound for the officer's club, or even the ready room for that matter. You have brought a nonsensical viewpoint to bear on the OP's concerns.

You are correct. Your field experience is no where near as indepth as mine.

Yes, I realize that I am correct. And further realize that my experience is much more extensive in quality issues relating to military, commercial AND consumer products. I do not doubt that there may be some obscure area where you may indeed have greater "indepth" experience than me, but for the life of me I can't imagine what it might be.

ummm, seems to me that I did, in fact, say that "It should also be noted that there is a BIG difference between MTBCF and MTBF". And I went on to say that "applying MTBCF "thinking" to things like consumer televisions is completely ludicrous." I can't for the life of me imagine how applying MTBCF thinking to consumer televisions "may be appropriate" - and to whatever extent the military may or may not use "consumer grade" products, I rather doubt that they insist on MTBCF ratings for televisions bound for the officer's club, or even the ready room for that matter. You have brought a nonsensical viewpoint to bear on the OP's concerns.



Yes, I realize that I am correct. And further realize that my experience is much more extensive in quality issues relating to military, commercial AND consumer products. I do not doubt that there may be some obscure area where you may indeed have greater "indepth" experience than me, but for the life of me I can't imagine what it might be. How recent was your military experience (if you had any) - 10 or 15 years ago? It must be at least that long because you are way out of date. Do you really think the military accepts a manufacturer's failure data at face value? You can't be that naive.

Do you really think the military accepts a manufacturer's failure data at face value? You can't be that naive.

Yes, upon rigorous evaluation and scrutiny of that data.
They examine test records, data, and even witness certain tests.

I am not aware of any case in which the military have generated their own MTBF data.

I am familiar with many cases in which the military have included MTBCF requirements (including system and subassembly spares staging, etc.) in their specifications and requirements, and as a vendor I/we were required to provide MTBF data, methods of calculation, and undergo scrupulous review of all data presented. Based on this, contracts are awarded.

We have drifted way off topic - Anyway, It goes beyond that. After contracts are awarded, and production items arrive, the military conducts operational tests. Data is collected (effectiveness, suitability etc). Numbers are crunched, MTTR, MTBF, MTBCF, etc. etc. rates are computed.

The document contained at http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/FY06/06-100.PDF is one documenting where the military generated their own MTBCF during a military conducted field test.

You will find this on page 5.

Measure FMC Cargo Loader
MTBCF/Rating 49.0 hours Not Acceptable
MCSP/Rating 29% Not Acceptable

Now we should now allow this thread to return to its original topic.

cheers.

I don't think we need to argue about this. Different fields require different approaches and achieve different goals.

If consumer methodologies were applied to military gear, personnel would be injured or killed constantly as a result of equipment failure.

If military (or medical equipment) methodologies were applied to consumer electronics, nobody would be able to afford any consumer electronics.

That's why component manufacturers have "Consumer Grade" and "Mil. Spec." versions of components and require sign-off by high-level management for use of their parts "as critical components in life support applications wherein a failure or malfunction of the products may result in injury or threat to life".

We have drifted way off topic -


Anyway, It goes beyond that. After contracts are awarded, and production items arrive, the military conducts operational tests. Data is collected (effectiveness, suitability etc). Numbers are crunched, MTTR, MTBF, MTBCF, etc. etc. rates are computed.

The document contained at http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/FY06/06-100.PDF is one documenting where the military generated their own MTBCF during a military conducted field test.

Well, it certainly appears that the USAF does indeed generate field level MTBF and MTBCF on substantial pieces of critical and high cost equipment - to this point, I certainly stand better informed and corrected. It might be noted however that this is the type of equipment (due to cost, quantity and operational environment) where actual field data may, in fact, be more beneficial than the more accurate lab testing - or perhaps to put it another way; from the statistical point of view, the field becomes the lab for these tests.

Now we should now allow this thread to return to its original topic.

Excellent idea; as I recall the point of divergence occured with your statement that "Electronics fail, this is a fact of life. Pdps, lcds, crts, projection sets will all eventually fail." (your post #15). It then was further redirected by you into "my invironment" and yet a further redirection to include MTBCF (your post #17); and so it became more and more redirected AWAY from consumer electronics and into the area of military procurement, military critical failures, and finally, in your post #30 brought into "evidence" a USAF problem with a $500,000 cargo loader that the USAF has purchased and fielded approximately 345 - 400 units, only to discover during operational evaluation that these items only have a MTBF of 24 hours and a MTBCF of 50 hours (or in another evaluation; MTBF of 4 hours and MTBCF of 11 hours). How in the world any of this can have any implication for consumer TVs escapes me completely.

Unless you are suggesting that we would all be better off paying $5,000 - $10,000, for our TVs and accepting that they will fail (on average) about once a week, it is difficult to see what import any of your inputs have contributed to the original issue.

Wow, another thread that has been pirated by Billy and has spiraled completely out of control into a bitch session. And what's this, it has nothing to do with the original poster. We need to change the forum name to Billy's Bitch Session.. I will argue with anything that moves...;)

HotBacon, you are the latest to get the "Wet Willie"

Wow, another thread that has been pirated by Billy and has spiraled completely out of control into a bitch session. And what's this, it has nothing to do with the original poster. We need to change the forum name to Billy's Bitch Session.. I will argue with anything that moves...;)
HotBacon, you are the latest to get the "Wet Willie"

Well, some people contribute; some people open discussions; some people debate issues; some people even read the posts to see what's going on.

Then there's Ward, none of the above, just likes to post nasties that are neither correct nor accurate cuz he never took the time to follow the discussion. Here's a bone for you Ward, now roll over.

All that and I still add more to this forum then you. That is if a complete derailing of threads don't count, or being an old crank bag..

Common, give me some of that Wet Willie lovin....:banana:

All that and I still add more to this forum then you.

Yes, the forum can always use something to laugh at Ward.
And you certainly do provide that.

Well, it certainly appears that the USAF does indeed generate field level MTBF and MTBCF on substantial pieces of critical and high cost equipment - to this point, I certainly stand better informed and corrected. It might be noted however that this is the type of equipment (due to cost, quantity and operational environment) where actual field data may, in fact, be more beneficial than the more accurate lab testing - or perhaps to put it another way; from the statistical point of view, the field becomes the lab for these tests.



Excellent idea; as I recall the point of divergence occured with your statement that "Electronics fail, this is a fact of life. Pdps, lcds, crts, projection sets will all eventually fail." (your post #15). It then was further redirected by you into "my invironment" and yet a further redirection to include MTBCF (your post #17); and so it became more and more redirected AWAY from consumer electronics and into the area of military procurement, military critical failures, and finally, in your post #30 brought into "evidence" a USAF problem with a $500,000 cargo loader that the USAF has purchased and fielded approximately 345 - 400 units, only to discover during operational evaluation that these items only have a MTBF of 24 hours and a MTBCF of 50 hours (or in another evaluation; MTBF of 4 hours and MTBCF of 11 hours). How in the world any of this can have any implication for consumer TVs escapes me completely.

Unless you are suggesting that we would all be better off paying $5,000 - $10,000, for our TVs and accepting that they will fail (on average) about once a week, it is difficult to see what import any of your inputs have contributed to the original issue.Nor have many of your inputs. We could have returned to the original issue much earlier if you had not insisted that you KNEW the military never computed failure rates in the field.

Now back to our regular scheduled program. ;)

Uhm, I hope I'm not going off-topic too much, but my point was I'd rather have a product fail in the first few weeks than after two years.

If it fails in the first two weeks, it's probably statistical infant mortality (personally, as a parent, I hate to use that term, but it's an industry expression) and it's under warranty.

After two years, it's probably a design issue and I'm the one who is going to have to pay for it. And maybe pay for it on a periodic basis.

Just to post this for the record
My Westinghouse 32" packed it 5 days before 1 yr warrenty expired.
Best Buy said the "mother board" is fried.

A friend (former) said I am unlucky since it is still under warrenty, otherwise I can buy myself a 42" 1080P. Sick.

Now, LG's 2 yr warrenty is starting to be an attractive feature I will be looking for.

Cheers

If military (or medical equipment) methodologies were applied to consumer electronics, nobody would be able to afford any consumer electronics.

So should I go with the 47" Northrup Grumman 720p PDP or the Lockheed Martin 47" 1080p LCD? :)

I'd go with the one that can pull the most G's.

Remember the $7600 coffee maker on the C5 transport that was spec'd to brew coffee during inverted flight and withstand more G-forces than the pilots would be able to tolerate?

Nice to know the rescue crews would be able to get a hot cup of coffee while cleaning up the crash site.

I'd go with the Raptor, you'll get your coffee quicker and you won't see it coming!

Nice to know the rescue crews would be able to get a hot cup of coffee while cleaning up the crash site.


Classic.

Wow