Difference between revisions of "Fault Finding"
(rephrase, clarify) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
This is the most powerful means to find a fault, and is normally the method to use for complex systems. | This is the most powerful means to find a fault, and is normally the method to use for complex systems. | ||
| − | The idea is to narrow the fault down by seeing if its in one area or another of the system, and repeatedly narrowing it down to less and less possible parts, usually down to the one faulty part. | + | The idea is to narrow the fault down by seeing if its in one area or another of the system, and repeatedly narrowing it down to less and less possible parts, usually down to the one faulty part.The bad part can then be repaired or replaced. |
| − | + | This is the only method that can produce a good rate of successful repairs with complex equipment. The problem with the method is it requires skill. | |
| − | |||
| − | The problem with | ||
===Guess & Replace=== | ===Guess & Replace=== | ||
| − | A popular method for people with little idea where to begin | + | A popular method for people with little idea where to begin. |
Success is likely with very simple systems, eg with 2 or 3 parts. Success is very unlikely with complex systems eg electronic goods, which contain 100s of parts. | Success is likely with very simple systems, eg with 2 or 3 parts. Success is very unlikely with complex systems eg electronic goods, which contain 100s of parts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A fair bit of money is wasted through unnecessary replacement of working parts, but not needing to get someone in to do teh job is an important saving too. | ||
===Replace the lot=== | ===Replace the lot=== | ||
| − | + | A fair strategy when: | |
| − | + | * faulty part replacement or repair are not likely to be possible | |
| − | A fair strategy when faulty part replacement or repair are not likely to be possible | + | * when the cost of fault finding is expected to exceed the cost of total replacement |
| − | + | * where the equipment has deteriorated badly. | |
| − | + | * where replacement equipment would deliver desired new features | |
| + | * where replacement equipment would deliver more running cost savings that it cost | ||
| + | A great deal of money is wasted every year by use of this method though, and a huge amount of landfill space taken up by a lot of kit that was often simple to repair, but chucked out anyway. (In many cases the replacement equipment is worse than the kit removed.) | ||
Revision as of 02:43, 31 August 2008
Fault Finding is an important part of DIY work.
Methods
There is more than one way to go about fault finding.
Divide & Conquer
This is the most powerful means to find a fault, and is normally the method to use for complex systems.
The idea is to narrow the fault down by seeing if its in one area or another of the system, and repeatedly narrowing it down to less and less possible parts, usually down to the one faulty part.The bad part can then be repaired or replaced.
This is the only method that can produce a good rate of successful repairs with complex equipment. The problem with the method is it requires skill.
Guess & Replace
A popular method for people with little idea where to begin.
Success is likely with very simple systems, eg with 2 or 3 parts. Success is very unlikely with complex systems eg electronic goods, which contain 100s of parts.
A fair bit of money is wasted through unnecessary replacement of working parts, but not needing to get someone in to do teh job is an important saving too.
Replace the lot
A fair strategy when:
- faulty part replacement or repair are not likely to be possible
- when the cost of fault finding is expected to exceed the cost of total replacement
- where the equipment has deteriorated badly.
- where replacement equipment would deliver desired new features
- where replacement equipment would deliver more running cost savings that it cost
A great deal of money is wasted every year by use of this method though, and a huge amount of landfill space taken up by a lot of kit that was often simple to repair, but chucked out anyway. (In many cases the replacement equipment is worse than the kit removed.)