4 ms·

Combining two parts into one part when one of them is much more complex than the other does not favor repair. If it was combining two parts that tended to fail

Combining two parts into one part when one of them is much more complex than the other does not favor repair. If it was combining two parts that tended to fail at about the same time together? Sure. But the provided example isn't one of those cases. It favors replacement. Consider it taken to a logical extreme - every item is throwaway. That's not what most people would consider repairable, and yet, under your definition of repairability, it's the most repairable system there is (as anything can be "repaired" with one swap). So I disagree with your definition. I disagree with your assertion that "in terms of the life-cycle of any mechanical system, repairability and reliability asymptotically become synonyms". My parent's current car is a whole lot more reliable than the clunker they used to had - but on the flip side it's a whole lot less repairable. In other words, it takes longer to break, but when it does it's a whole lot harder (and more expensive) to return to a working state. And I agree regarding printer cartridges - the current system is insane. That being said, current printer cartridges are an example of the end result of the same sort of thinking that ends up replacing a separate spring with an integrated one.

brudgers 12y ago
The [Ship of Theseus] is an ancient paradox. Compressing the time scale to a single instant just shows the flexibility of language and the overlap of our concepts. My clothes dryer is reliable in the sense that I can disassemble it and replace the heat coils and bearings and belts. When repairs are finished it is the same clothes dryer. If I had purchased a new white good unit, it would be a different dryer and if it could not be repaired it would be less reliable than which could. Because by reliability we imply use. A Ferrari that is not driven does not thereby become reliable. It becomes a hanger queen. [Ship of Theseus] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus#Ancient_philosophy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus#Ancient_phil...
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  The distinction is: If you take a printer, and replace part A, and a time later replace part B, and a time later replace part A again, you've thrown out three parts - 2 of A and 1 of B. If you take a printer, and A is broken so you replace the printer, and a time later A is broken again, so you replace the printer again, you've thrown out two entire printers. These are not the same.

brudgers 12y ago

The [Ship of Theseus] is an ancient paradox. Compressing the time scale to a single instant just shows the flexibility of language and the overlap of our concepts. My clothes dryer is reliable in the sense that I can disassemble it and replace the heat coils and bearings and belts. When repairs are finished it is the same clothes dryer. If I had purchased a new white good unit, it would be a different dryer and if it could not be repaired it would be less reliable than which could. Because by reliability we imply use. A Ferrari that is not driven does not thereby become reliable. It becomes a hanger queen. [Ship of Theseus] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus#Ancient_philosophy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus#Ancient_phil...

TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
The distinction is: If you take a printer, and replace part A, and a time later replace part B, and a time later replace part A again, you've thrown out three parts - 2 of A and 1 of B. If you take a printer, and A is broken so you replace the printer, and a time later A is broken again, so you replace the printer again, you've thrown out two entire printers. These are not the same.