BreakPoint

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

This is Hooovahh


wiebe@CARYA wrote:

@RavensFan wrote:

wiebe@CARYA wrote:


Obviously, you need to change the software so it doesn't reject all those parts.


Here you go!

 

 


Thanks! I think I've seen that before... Customers seem to want this all over the globe.

 

Sometimes they get suspicious though... No fails at all? Is this software doing anything? That's where fails can be filtered with a random function.

 

Software can fix everything!


🤣

0 Kudos
Message 231 of 283
(594 Views)

I just make sure the random function returns a value less than their tolerance limits and add it to the nominal.  Randomized passing.  Don't ship without it.

--
Tim Elsey
Certified LabVIEW Architect
0 Kudos
Message 232 of 283
(566 Views)

@elset191 wrote:

I just make sure the random function returns a value less than their tolerance limits and add it to the nominal.  Randomized passing.  Don't ship without it.


Don't forget to place a tiny slider on the PRNG!  You have to show that each modification that THEY request has an impact on yield in order for them to keep paying!(and requesting future improvements!)

 

Seriously though,  I HAVE had the opportunity to speak candidly with a client...

 

Me: your DFx has problems....

 

A Client: we anticipate a 95percent yield.

 

Me: that seems "Optimistic "

 

A Client: we can adjust the test limits later....to meet the requirement for 95% yield 

 

Perhaps that is  one reason I prefer travel by Airplane!

 

EDIT  OTOH,  the result would have been that NO data would be available after installing the tested device....  EXACTLY the same condition that would have been... had the device not been deployed ...no FALSE data could have been delivered to the human decision makers. 

"Should be" isn't "Is" -Jay
0 Kudos
Message 233 of 283
(561 Views)

Okay another that you reminded me of.  We made devices that had some wireless properties and so every product that was made on the production line, would be placed inside this faraday cage after being built and was tested.  I'm not exactly sure what this test was, but the idea was that outside interference could effect the test, and so an operator had to take the product, place it in this cage and close it, then hit the go button, and the result was a red or green light telling them if it passed.

 

We started getting lots of returns from the customer saying they were bad parts, and so a coworker of mine who was an expert on EMC testing went over to the Asian country where the production line was to see why these weren't being caught.  He watched the line and everything seemed to work as expected.  So while watching it he asked the operator to not place the part in the cage and hit the go button.  After a minute the light turned green saying the part passed.  This was a big issue, because it was passing every part tested no matter what.  So he talked to the tester developer and worked out the issue, and went back home. 

 

After some time we started getting many returns again for the same issue.  So he flew back over to the production line, to check on the tester.  This time the tester was working fine.  A worker on the line noticed that some parts failed, which they thought was bad.  So they just took one part that passed, and left it in the tester at all times.  The same single DUT was running the test for every part tested.  They would bring in the new part, scan it, leave the known good DUT in the tester, it would test it again, pass, and the new part would be shipped out.  Checkers were added to make sure the barcode that was scanned, matched data written in EEPROM.

Message 234 of 283
(553 Views)

This (humans, I guess) gets really ugly when pneumatics or other dangerous stuff (high voltages, high speed, high pressure) is involved.

 

We make software for a machine factory. Their machines often involve hydraulics. Your limb (of choice) won't survive a few hundred bars of mechanical pressure. So they come up with all sorts of safety measurements. The operators always find ways to work around them. Guess who's responsible when someone looses his hand (no his\her, females are usually smarter 😊). Their creativity is almost unlimited.

0 Kudos
Message 235 of 283
(521 Views)

No problem, you just have to adjust the tolerances for acceptable number of hands.

Nominal = 1

Tolerance = +/- 1

 

 

--
Tim Elsey
Certified LabVIEW Architect
Message 236 of 283
(518 Views)

@elset191 wrote:

No problem, you just have to adjust the tolerances for acceptable number of hands.

Nominal = 1

Tolerance = +/- 1


How about heads?

0 Kudos
Message 237 of 283
(509 Views)

wiebe@CARYA wrote:

@elset191 wrote:

No problem, you just have to adjust the tolerances for acceptable number of hands.

Nominal = 1

Tolerance = +/- 1


How about heads?


0 + 3 (have to count the previous 2 severed ones)


GCentral
There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions
Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines
"Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God" - 2 Corinthians 3:5
0 Kudos
Message 238 of 283
(502 Views)

@elset191 wrote:

No problem, you just have to adjust the tolerances for acceptable number of hands.

Nominal = 1

Tolerance = +/- 1

 

 


A DIGITAL LIMIT!  I love it.

 

<this little piggy went to market... >

 

Hey, crossrulz! Does that trigger a memory?

 

In all fairness.. . I did once author an "ATP" for a newborn... Tim may actually still have the link

"Should be" isn't "Is" -Jay
0 Kudos
Message 239 of 283
(496 Views)

AND you triggered another one.  We had a new production line that was making parts, and we were forced to use a supplier from another country for some of the stations.  As far as I know they had never done any production line equipment in the US and weren't super familiar with how things work, and their English skills were also a bit lacking making communication difficult.  But someone thought we could save some money by having them make some stations.  We were ultimately responsible for the line and were doing our own audit of their work.  One station involved robots and had several light curtains to protect operators.  The idea is that if someone walks past a certain area, the robots would stop moving and not hurt the operator.  This was part of the requirements document that was specified.  So as a test, when the robot was moving we pushed a chair into the light curtain.  And watched in horror as the robot continued moving and eventually finished its move operation.

 

Turns out this supplier wired the light curtain output into a PLC, that would only read the input at the start of the move, and at the end of the move.  So if an operator walked into the danger zone during the move the robot would continue.  Our local production guys were furious and pointed to this as a sign that they were inexperienced as every other line has these light curtains wired to mechanical stops, and not into software.

 

This same supplier provided a HMI for displaying and controlling the station.  While testing it, we started going into the menus and all the sudden a giant red screen came up with skull and crossbones, and words in a language that wasn't English.  Me and my boss both look at each other in horror and asked what the screen said.  They translated it to saying the configuration wasn't right.  And we told them that kind of skull and crossbones should only be used when peoples lives are in danger.  I then pointed out that the screen needs to be in English.  One of the supplier guys chimed in and said the station has two language options and was only in non-English for them.  So he steps over to the station, shows us the menu for changing the language and then realizes...it is already in English.  Needless to say I wasn't thrilled with the decision to use these guys.

0 Kudos
Message 240 of 283
(430 Views)