Trump has Covid-19 antibodies. What does that mean?...

[server]

It means his Navy doctor is once again a laughing stock. All they\'ve done is detect the mega-dose of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies he was given.

Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, tweeted Wednesday that \"the patient had a whopping (8g) dose of a #SARSCoV2 neutralizing IgG antibody cocktail. Then they detected antibodies. You must be kidding me, Dr. Conley?\"

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/trump-has-covid-19-antibodies-what-does-mean-n1242437

 

[boB]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 16:13:16 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

It means his Navy doctor is once again a laughing stock. All they\'ve done is detect the mega-dose of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies he was given.

Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, tweeted Wednesday that \"the patient had a whopping (8g) dose of a #SARSCoV2 neutralizing IgG antibody cocktail. Then they detected antibodies. You must be kidding me, Dr. Conley?\"

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/trump-has-covid-19-antibodies-what-does-mean-n1242437

I think the president may have cooties

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 16:25:57 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 16:13:16 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

It means his Navy doctor is once again a laughing stock. All they\'ve done is detect the mega-dose of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies he was given.

Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, tweeted Wednesday that \"the patient had a whopping (8g) dose of a #SARSCoV2 neutralizing IgG antibody cocktail. Then they detected antibodies. You must be kidding me, Dr. Conley?\"

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/trump-has-covid-19-antibodies-what-does-mean-n1242437


I think the president may have cooties

You need another o

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 7:26:05 PM UTC-4, boB wrote:

On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 16:13:16 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

It means his Navy doctor is once again a laughing stock. All they\'ve done is detect the mega-dose of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies he was given..

Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, tweeted Wednesday that \"the patient had a whopping (8g) dose of a #SARSCoV2 neutralizing IgG antibody cocktail. Then they detected antibodies. You must be kidding me, Dr. Conley?\"

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/trump-has-covid-19-antibodies-what-does-mean-n1242437
I think the president may have cooties

I\'m sure he has a venereal disease or two floating around in his memory t/b-cells.

 

[John Doe]

Ricketty C wrote:

> Pride goeth before the fall.

Russia ate your homework.

How many comments from you about Michael Avenatti?
Your Crown Prince is in very deep doo-doo.

Are MSNBC and the New York Times doing your polling? Are they doing your math?
Probably not a scientist in the whole bunch.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MSNBC+math

Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. population is 327 million.
He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left
over, I feel like a $1 million check would be life-changing for people.
Yet he wasted it all on ads and STILL LOST.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 11:38:17 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:

The president of my country (America) has a very high risk job (especially
for something like the coronavirus). He meets with hordes of people every
day...

and can (should) require those people to take enough precautions.
The results are not good, I\'m not thinking his \'job\' is in competent hands
in other ways, as well.

Trump is more of a scientist than some people in this group. Takes a LOT
of science to build a skyscraper in Manhattan.

Silly again. The required knowledge is not in the moneybags guy, it\'s in the licensed
professional engineers and city/state officials who provide oversight. No
plans or building permit signed off only by the Donald would ever be honored.

 

[RD]

In article <lgs9of9bf58ol6rpapr4o04n0inl39989c@4ax.com>,
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com says...

[snip]

People who recover from viruses like this are immune. WHETHER YOU
SHOUT OR NOT.

[snip]

But apparently you CAN get reinfected by a related strain
within a very short period of time:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54512034

So I suppose it comes down to your definition of \'immune\'.

 

[server]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 21:33:53 -0600, RD <randy.day@sasktel.netx> wrote:

In article <lgs9of9bf58ol6rpapr4o04n0inl39989c@4ax.com>,
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com says...

[snip]

People who recover from viruses like this are immune. WHETHER YOU
SHOUT OR NOT.

[snip]

But apparently you CAN get reinfected by a related strain
within a very short period of time:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54512034

So I suppose it comes down to your definition of \'immune\'.

I just heard a report about a guy who was truly reinfected, namely got
sick twice. There are five verified cases in the entire world so far.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 5:25:39 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:56:51 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

He\'s acting healthy, but he\'s an actor.
Looks pretty good to me. Even the best actor wouldn\'t impress us if he
was on a ventilator. Even Ricky\'s ventilator.

He seems to be gutsy. Most people are ruled by fear, and a few are
not.

Yeah, he seems to be... but he\'s an actor.
I\'ll be repeating that phrase from time to time, if it sinks in, just tell me.

People throughout history seem to admire heroes and daredevils, the
few among us who don\'t have, or can overcome, fear.

So, that\'s a role he might have chosen to ask his script writers to support.
Daredevils (Halliburton, Amelia Earhart, Wiley Post) had a bad habit of dying
on the job in the old days: more recently David Blaine got the engineering done
right for his balloon ascent.

<https://youtu.be/Ir6jjY6IT8k>

I like the engineering-done-right approach.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:19:18 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 21:33:53 -0600, RD <rand...@sasktel.netx> wrote:

In article <lgs9of9bf58ol6rpa...@4ax.com>,
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com says...

[snip]

People who recover from viruses like this are immune. WHETHER YOU
SHOUT OR NOT.

[snip]

But apparently you CAN get reinfected by a related strain
within a very short period of time:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54512034

So I suppose it comes down to your definition of \'immune\'.
I just heard a report about a guy who was truly reinfected, namely got
sick twice. There are five verified cases in the entire world so far.

The reinfection stories are sensationalist drivel for the mentally unstable looking for even more justification for their insecurity.

When you contract an uncontrolled infection, it means just that. It\'s uncontrolled. There is no such thing as THE antibody or THE adaptive immune response. All of that is a hit or miss proposition and differs from individual to individual. The antibodies in these people were obviously formed to bind to a variable protein of the virus, and were therefore susceptible to losing effect with relatively minor mutation. This will not be the case with immunity stimulated by the modern vaccines. The antibody development is being well controlled to bind to a known invariant domain of the virus and nothing else. There will be no reinfection by this method. And there is no scientific reason offered to date as to why this immunity will not be durable. That means it probably will be durable.

All of this really only applies to people under the age of 50. As you get up in years the vaccination is more of a wish than a reality. People of that age just plain lack the cellular energy to mount a strong immune response timely enough to help them. This is when monoclonal antibodies, mAB, come to the rescue. I\'m pretty sure the mABs are preferable to an antiviral as the antivirals are toxic to organs like liver and kidney.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 12:33:31 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:19:18 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 21:33:53 -0600, RD <rand...@sasktel.netx> wrote:

In article <lgs9of9bf58ol6rpa...@4ax.com>,
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com says...

[snip]

People who recover from viruses like this are immune. WHETHER YOU
SHOUT OR NOT.

[snip]

But apparently you CAN get reinfected by a related strain
within a very short period of time:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54512034

So I suppose it comes down to your definition of \'immune\'.
I just heard a report about a guy who was truly reinfected, namely got
sick twice. There are five verified cases in the entire world so far.
The reinfection stories are sensationalist drivel for the mentally unstable looking for even more justification for their insecurity.

When you contract an uncontrolled infection, it means just that. It\'s uncontrolled. There is no such thing as THE antibody or THE adaptive immune response. All of that is a hit or miss proposition and differs from individual to individual. The antibodies in these people were obviously formed to bind to a variable protein of the virus, and were therefore susceptible to losing effect with relatively minor mutation. This will not be the case with immunity stimulated by the modern vaccines.
The antibody development is being well controlled to bind to a known invariant domain of the virus and nothing else.

Some of the vaccines under development are intended to work this way. Some aren\'t. Fred has made this claim before and it certainly doesn\'t apply to all the vaccines under development. Attempts to do this against the flu virus haven\'t worked yet, and they\'ve been going on for a while now.

> There will be no reinfection by this method. And there is no scientific reason offered to date as to why this immunity will not be durable. That means it probably will be durable.

If is works at all.

> All of this really only applies to people under the age of 50. As you get up in years the vaccination is more of a wish than a reality. People of that age just plain lack the cellular energy to mount a strong immune response timely enough to help them. This is when monoclonal antibodies, mAB, come to the rescue. I\'m pretty sure the mABs are preferable to an antiviral as the antivirals are toxic to organs like liver and kidney.

Curious that the flu vaccine is mostly distributed to the elderly. If they can\'t mount an effective immune response that would be wasted effort, and it clearly isn\'t. Vaccination against seasonal flu never gives complete protection because there are always new strains coming into existence and circulating, but it gives enough to be well worth doing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:51:29 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 12:33:31 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:19:18 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 21:33:53 -0600, RD <rand...@sasktel.netx> wrote:

In article <lgs9of9bf58ol6rpa...@4ax.com>,
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com says...

[snip]

People who recover from viruses like this are immune. WHETHER YOU
SHOUT OR NOT.

[snip]

But apparently you CAN get reinfected by a related strain
within a very short period of time:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54512034

So I suppose it comes down to your definition of \'immune\'.
I just heard a report about a guy who was truly reinfected, namely got
sick twice. There are five verified cases in the entire world so far.
The reinfection stories are sensationalist drivel for the mentally unstable looking for even more justification for their insecurity.

When you contract an uncontrolled infection, it means just that. It\'s uncontrolled. There is no such thing as THE antibody or THE adaptive immune response. All of that is a hit or miss proposition and differs from individual to individual. The antibodies in these people were obviously formed to bind to a variable protein of the virus, and were therefore susceptible to losing effect with relatively minor mutation. This will not be the case with immunity stimulated by the modern vaccines.
The antibody development is being well controlled to bind to a known invariant domain of the virus and nothing else.
Some of the vaccines under development are intended to work this way. Some aren\'t. Fred has made this claim before and it certainly doesn\'t apply to all the vaccines under development. Attempts to do this against the flu virus haven\'t worked yet, and they\'ve been going on for a while now.

There you go again with your pretense of expertise. Like you have conducted an informed survey of the 300 and some odd vaccines under development. What a friggin phony!

There will be no reinfection by this method. And there is no scientific reason offered to date as to why this immunity will not be durable. That means it probably will be durable.
If is works at all.

Particularly dumb statement even for you. The animal studies and trials completed thus far are confirming the obvious, the vaccine will in fact work.

All of this really only applies to people under the age of 50. As you get up in years the vaccination is more of a wish than a reality. People of that age just plain lack the cellular energy to mount a strong immune response timely enough to help them. This is when monoclonal antibodies, mAB, come to the rescue. I\'m pretty sure the mABs are preferable to an antiviral as the antivirals are toxic to organs like liver and kidney.
Curious that the flu vaccine is mostly distributed to the elderly. If they can\'t mount an effective immune response that would be wasted effort, and it clearly isn\'t. Vaccination against seasonal flu never gives complete protection because there are always new strains coming into existence and circulating, but it gives enough to be well worth doing.

Uh-huh, the statistic is people in the over 75 year old age range are 100x more likely to die of the flu than people under 50. You stupidly keep harping on the new strains thing when the observational studies are they affect the statistics by only single digit percentiles. If they show serious symptoms and require hospitalization then they obviously didn\'t mount an effective immune response now did they. Having \'some\' immune response clearly assists the hospital therapy and that is what makes it worthwhile.
The emphasis on flu vaccine distribution is mostly on the susceptible and people who work with the susceptible. In the U.S. front line workers are required to be vaccinated and are fired if they refuse.
You don\'t know the first thing about any of this. You continue to pursue your personal little vendetta with all the pretense you can muster. In the process you have suffered the equivalent of two broken kneecaps, punctured rib, shattered jaw, broken eye socket, and a skull fracture, to name a few. Time for you to hang it up.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:07:04 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:34:36 GMT, Steve Wilson <sp...@me.com> wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I just heard a report about a guy who was truly reinfected, namely got
sick twice. There are five verified cases in the entire world so far.

Quote:

\"It\'s difficult to confirm cases in which a person is infected twice.
Scientists must have the nasal swabs from both the first and second
infection in order to compare the genomes of both virus samples.\"
All that happened in the case I heard the report of. The guy really
got sick twice, with the second one really bad, in the hospital.

\"Only the most advanced hospital and laboratory facilities have the
equipment and personnel to do the genome sequencing and analyze the
results. As a result, most cases of reinfection are likely going
undetected.\"
That\'s probably why there are only 5 solid cases.

If you plan your life around fear of parts-per-billion risks, better
stay under the bed.

The risks can only be calculated if you count the NON-solid cases (and
the discussion makes it clear that there certainly are more than are being
captured). The risk in Russian roulette is 1.6E8 parts per billion,
but one ought neither to play that game, nor stay under a bed.

Wear the mask. Even in the car, because handling the mask can be
a breach in your containment.

 

[Ricketty C]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:46:56 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:07:04 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:34:36 GMT, Steve Wilson <sp...@me.com> wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I just heard a report about a guy who was truly reinfected, namely got
sick twice. There are five verified cases in the entire world so far..

Quote:

\"It\'s difficult to confirm cases in which a person is infected twice.
Scientists must have the nasal swabs from both the first and second
infection in order to compare the genomes of both virus samples.\"
All that happened in the case I heard the report of. The guy really
got sick twice, with the second one really bad, in the hospital.

\"Only the most advanced hospital and laboratory facilities have the
equipment and personnel to do the genome sequencing and analyze the
results. As a result, most cases of reinfection are likely going
undetected.\"
That\'s probably why there are only 5 solid cases.

If you plan your life around fear of parts-per-billion risks, better
stay under the bed.

The risks can only be calculated if you count the NON-solid cases (and
the discussion makes it clear that there certainly are more than are being
captured). The risk in Russian roulette is 1.6E8 parts per billion,
but one ought neither to play that game, nor stay under a bed.

Wear the mask. Even in the car, because handling the mask can be
a breach in your containment.

There can be no breach because there is no containment. Masks, distance, crowd avoidance are mitigation techniques, not guarantees. I can remove my mask without handling the part I\'m breathing through. Even if I do touch the contaminated part, I have hand sanitizer and know how to use it.

The whole process of \"self protection\" is about lowering the infection rate, not guarantying anyone\'s personal safety. That\'s why it\'s so silly to talk about letting the virus rage and \"protect the vulnerable\". We can\'t protect the vulnerable forever. All we can do is improve the odds and with time that doesn\'t work. If you keep spinning the barrel and keep pulling the trigger, no matter how many chambers your revolver has, you will bite the bullet sooner or later.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Steve Wilson]

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

The risks can only be calculated if you count the NON-solid cases (and
the discussion makes it clear that there certainly are more than are
being captured). The risk in Russian roulette is 1.6E8 parts per
billion, but one ought neither to play that game, nor stay under a
bed.

Wear the mask. Even in the car, because handling the mask can be
a breach in your containment.

Thanks for the nice reply.

What does 1.6E8 parts per billion mean?

--
Science teaches us to trust. - sw

 

[server]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 02:28:38 GMT, Steve Wilson <spam@me.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 20:46:13 GMT, Steve Wilson <spam@me.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:28:50 GMT, Steve Wilson <spam@me.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:54:10 GMT, Steve Wilson <spam@me.com
wrote:

No copy. I\'m saying the opposite of what you are saying. You have
to have faith that a design is solid before comitting it to
production.

I teach my young engineers to not trust anyone. Especially
themselves. Most especially me.

The result is field MTBFs about 15x better than Belcore or
MIL-HBK-217 predict.

I don\'t think you are using MTBF correctly.

We calculate how many unit-hours are in the field for the last 10
years and compare to known failures.

MIL-HBK-217 is very old. 1991. It bears little resemblance to modern
electronics. FPGAs and current technology far outstrip the technology
available in 1991.

MTBF is Mean Time Between Failures. The answer is in hours.

Of course. That\'s what we calculate.

You can use Bellcore, which is a more modern method. You get MTBF in
hours. This is a prediction of the future.

You are measuring failure rate. This is a measurement of the past
history.

If your failure rate is off by an order and half in magnitude, you are
doing something wrong. Your calculated MTBF is meaningless.

You are calculating failure rate. The answer is a ratio. Not the same
thing.

I thought that \"15x better\" was pretty obvious.

It is highly doubtful that Bellcore and MIL-HBK-217 will give the same
number. So \"15x better\" cannot refer to both methods at the same time.

If your calculated MTBF is off by an order and half in magnitude, then
you are not calculating correctly. Your claim is simple marketing hype,
but your clients are not likely to know the difference.

As long as you keep your actual failure rate a secret, then your clients
have nothing to use to judge your quality. Your claim is meaningless
marketing hype.

Occasionally a customer will ask us to do an MTBF calculation, so we
do it for them. I think they need it as a matter of policy, or maybe
because their customer demands it. We reveal the number only to the
party that asked for it. It\'s not marketing hype.

But sometimes they give us an award anyhow.

I you buy a package of hot dogs, do you complain to the store
management that they are not hot, and not dogs?

Totally irrelevant.

OK, you do.

Not a bit irrelevant. Some people here (I could name names) take
everything as literally as possible, argue over words, and then
complain.

I just design stuff that works.

This afternoon I got the first built board of a 2 Gbps duplex optical
data link, to be used for testing missiles or something.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f1ll13ip9b5tcl6/K420_500_MHz.jpg?dl=0

Things usually work first try, if you\'re careful.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 2:01:16 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 02:28:38 GMT, Steve Wilson <sp...@me.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 20:46:13 GMT, Steve Wilson <sp...@me.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:28:50 GMT, Steve Wilson <sp...@me.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:54:10 GMT, Steve Wilson <sp...@me.com
wrote:

No copy. I\'m saying the opposite of what you are saying. You have
to have faith that a design is solid before comitting it to
production.

I teach my young engineers to not trust anyone. Especially
themselves. Most especially me.

The result is field MTBFs about 15x better than Belcore or
MIL-HBK-217 predict.

I don\'t think you are using MTBF correctly.

We calculate how many unit-hours are in the field for the last 10
years and compare to known failures.

MIL-HBK-217 is very old. 1991. It bears little resemblance to modern
electronics. FPGAs and current technology far outstrip the technology
available in 1991.

MTBF is Mean Time Between Failures. The answer is in hours.

Of course. That\'s what we calculate.

You can use Bellcore, which is a more modern method. You get MTBF in
hours. This is a prediction of the future.

You are measuring failure rate. This is a measurement of the past
history.

If your failure rate is off by an order and half in magnitude, you are
doing something wrong. Your calculated MTBF is meaningless.

You are calculating failure rate. The answer is a ratio. Not the same
thing.

I thought that \"15x better\" was pretty obvious.

It is highly doubtful that Bellcore and MIL-HBK-217 will give the same
number. So \"15x better\" cannot refer to both methods at the same time.

If your calculated MTBF is off by an order and half in magnitude, then
you are not calculating correctly. Your claim is simple marketing hype,
but your clients are not likely to know the difference.

As long as you keep your actual failure rate a secret, then your clients
have nothing to use to judge your quality. Your claim is meaningless
marketing hype.

Occasionally a customer will ask us to do an MTBF calculation, so we
do it for them. I think they need it as a matter of policy, or maybe
because their customer demands it. We reveal the number only to the
party that asked for it. It\'s not marketing hype.

But sometimes they give us an award anyhow.

Flattery works, at least on people silly enough to fall for it.

I you buy a package of hot dogs, do you complain to the store
management that they are not hot, and not dogs?

Totally irrelevant.

OK, you do.

Not a bit irrelevant. Some people here (I could name names) take
everything as literally as possible, argue over words, and then
complain.

John Larkin expresses himself sloppily, and doesn\'t like it when he gets called on it.

> I just design stuff that works.

His design process - such as it is - seems to involve making small changes to existing products so that they more or less work in a slightly different application.

This afternoon I got the first built board of a 2 Gbps duplex optical
data link, to be used for testing missiles or something.

Not exactly state of the art.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f1ll13ip9b5tcl6/K420_500_MHz.jpg?dl=0

Things usually work first try, if you\'re careful.

It helps if you are making small incremental changes to existing products. The thing about evolution is that every intermediate state has to survive in its own right. Innovation is trickier, but can go further between steps.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Steve Wilson]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 02:28:38 GMT, Steve Wilson <spam@me.com> wrote:
I thought that \"15x better\" was pretty obvious.

It is highly doubtful that Bellcore and MIL-HBK-217 will give the same
number. So \"15x better\" cannot refer to both methods at the same time.

If your calculated MTBF is off by an order and half in magnitude, then
you are not calculating correctly. Your claim is simple marketing
hype, but your clients are not likely to know the difference.

As long as you keep your actual failure rate a secret, then your
clients have nothing to use to judge your quality. Your claim is
meaningless marketing hype.

Occasionally a customer will ask us to do an MTBF calculation, so we
do it for them. I think they need it as a matter of policy, or maybe
because their customer demands it. We reveal the number only to the
party that asked for it. It\'s not marketing hype.

You claim \"15x better\" than MTBF. That is marketing.

Your claim of calculated MTBF is rediculous. You are constantly shipping
new products. These have different MTBFs. The MTBFs are constantly
changing with time, so there is no single value you can use to compare
with the actual measured failure rate. Your claim is pure marketing
hype.

If you only do a MTBF calculation when your customer requests it, where
do you get the \"15x better\"?

We calculate how many unit-hours are in the field for the last 10
years and compare to known failures.

Where do you get the \"15x better\" number?

[snip irrelevant shipping info]

--
Science teaches us to trust. - sw

 

[Ricketty C]

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 11:01:16 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 02:28:38 GMT, Steve Wilson <spam@me.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 20:46:13 GMT, Steve Wilson <spam@me.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:28:50 GMT, Steve Wilson <spam@me.com> wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:54:10 GMT, Steve Wilson <spam@me.com
wrote:

No copy. I\'m saying the opposite of what you are saying. You have
to have faith that a design is solid before comitting it to
production.

I teach my young engineers to not trust anyone. Especially
themselves. Most especially me.

The result is field MTBFs about 15x better than Belcore or
MIL-HBK-217 predict.

I don\'t think you are using MTBF correctly.

We calculate how many unit-hours are in the field for the last 10
years and compare to known failures.

MIL-HBK-217 is very old. 1991. It bears little resemblance to modern
electronics. FPGAs and current technology far outstrip the technology
available in 1991.

MTBF is Mean Time Between Failures. The answer is in hours.

Of course. That\'s what we calculate.

You can use Bellcore, which is a more modern method. You get MTBF in
hours. This is a prediction of the future.

You are measuring failure rate. This is a measurement of the past
history.

If your failure rate is off by an order and half in magnitude, you are
doing something wrong. Your calculated MTBF is meaningless.

You are calculating failure rate. The answer is a ratio. Not the same
thing.

I thought that \"15x better\" was pretty obvious.

It is highly doubtful that Bellcore and MIL-HBK-217 will give the same
number. So \"15x better\" cannot refer to both methods at the same time.

If your calculated MTBF is off by an order and half in magnitude, then
you are not calculating correctly. Your claim is simple marketing hype,
but your clients are not likely to know the difference.

As long as you keep your actual failure rate a secret, then your clients
have nothing to use to judge your quality. Your claim is meaningless
marketing hype.

Occasionally a customer will ask us to do an MTBF calculation, so we
do it for them. I think they need it as a matter of policy, or maybe
because their customer demands it. We reveal the number only to the
party that asked for it. It\'s not marketing hype.

But sometimes they give us an award anyhow.


I you buy a package of hot dogs, do you complain to the store
management that they are not hot, and not dogs?

Totally irrelevant.

OK, you do.

Not a bit irrelevant. Some people here (I could name names) take
everything as literally as possible, argue over words, and then
complain.

I just design stuff that works.

LOL!!! You are the single biggest drama queen in this entire group. You post some technical stuff, then spend the rest of your day in off topic threads complaining about others either not posting electronics or not respecting you.

What a piece of work you are. A nasty one at that.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 1:47:17 AM UTC+11, none albert wrote:

In article <1889307e-d039-4cc8...@googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 5:38:17 AM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:

--
Ricketty C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a37:9e8e:: with SMTP id
h136mr9810263qke.205.1602180398424; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 11:06:38 -0700
(PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1d:: with SMTP id
j29mr1446753qki.461.1602180398271; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 11:06:38 -0700 (PDT)

Path:
eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design

<snip>

John Doe doesn\'t know enough science to appreciate that nuclear energy
isn\'t all that safe in the long term. Nuclear waste stays dangerous for
hundreds of thousands of years, and while people have come up with
schemes that ought to be able to keep it safe for that long, nobody
trusts them enough to let them get set up in their backyard.

That is true for fission. The prospects for fusion have improved
recently caused by progress in supercooled magnets.

There hasn\'t been any recent significant progress in super-conducting magnets. There has been some progress in getting a hot-enough plasma confined for long enough for useful fusion to take place, but we still seem to be quite some way away from a practical fusion reactor.

I was one of the protesters at Kalkar, and we managed to stop the
breeder reactor. My motivation was mainly the risk of fission knowledge
propagation and nuclear weapons. Remember the Pakistan bomb started
in the Netherlands and peaceful cooperation.

The genie was out of that particular bottle rather earlier than that.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney