From 5732b47ad7163c35dbd8c5f0a817e7dce5ce49b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Robin Clark Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:54:09 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sneaky snoopy --- submission_thesis/CH5_Examples/software.tex | 19 ++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/submission_thesis/CH5_Examples/software.tex b/submission_thesis/CH5_Examples/software.tex index e0afc80..a53cc99 100644 --- a/submission_thesis/CH5_Examples/software.tex +++ b/submission_thesis/CH5_Examples/software.tex @@ -33,7 +33,8 @@ When we have analysed a software function---using failure conditions of its inputs as failure modes---we can determine its symptoms of failure (i.e. how calling functions will see its failure mode behaviour). -We can thus apply the $\derivec$ process to software functions, by viewing them in terms of their failure +We can thus apply the FMMD % $\derivec$ +process to software functions, by viewing them in terms of their failure mode behaviour. To simplify things as well, software already fits into a hierarchy. For Electronics and Mechanical systems, although we may be guided by the original designers concepts of modularity and sub-systems in design, applying FMMD means deciding on the members for {\fgs} @@ -410,8 +411,8 @@ With these failure modes, we can analyse our first functional group, see table~\ We now collect the symptoms for the hardware functional group, $\{ HIGH , LOW, V\_ERR \} $. We now create a {\dc} to represent this called $CMATV$. -We can express this using the `$\derivec$' function thus: -$$ CMATV = \; \derivec (G_1) .$$ +%We can express this using the `$\derivec$' function thus: +%$$ CMATV = \; \derivec (G_1) .$$ As its failure modes, are the symptoms of failure from the functional group we can now state: $$fm ( CMATV ) = \{ HIGH , LOW, V\_ERR \} .$$ @@ -502,9 +503,9 @@ for the function. This postcondition, {\em /* ensure: value is voltage input to within 0.1\% */ }, corresponds to $VV\_ERR$, and is already in the {\fm} set for this {\fg}. -We can now create a {\dc} called $RADC$ thus: $$RADC = \; \derivec(G_2)$$ which has the following -{\fms}: - +%We can now create a {\dc} called $RADC$ thus: $$RADC = \; \derivec(G_2)$$ which has the following +%{\fms}: +We can now create a {\dc} called $RADC$ thus: $$ fm(RADC) = \{ VV\_ERR, HIGH, LOW \} .$$ @@ -575,9 +576,9 @@ For single failures these are the two ways in which this function can fail. An $OUT\_OF\_RANGE$ will be flagged by the error flag variable. The $VAL\_ERR$ will simply mean that the value read is incorrect. -We can finally make a {\dc} to represent a failure mode model for our function $read\_4\_20\_input$ thus: +We can finally make a {\dc} to represent a failure mode model for our function $read\_4\_20\_input$. %thus: -$$ R420I = \; \derivec(G_3) .$$ +% $$ R420I = \; \derivec(G_3) .$$ This new {\dc} has the following {\fms}: $$fm(R420I) = \{OUT\_OF\_RANGE, VAL\_ERR\} .$$ @@ -612,7 +613,7 @@ as a hierarchical diagram, see figure~\ref{fig:eulerswhw}. % see figure~\ref{fig \end{figure} - +% HTR == HATE TO REMOVE %HTR 18NOV2012 We can represent %the hierarchy in figure~\ref{fig:hd} algebraically, %HTR 18NOV2012 the analysis hierarchy algebraically using the `$\derivec$' function: %HTR 18NOV2012 %using the groups as intermediate stages: From 69d94bfca64c3c402006c018bd51dcc10cf6c20e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Robin Clark Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:24:05 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] . --- submission_thesis/CH2_FMEA/copy.tex | 10 +++++++++- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/submission_thesis/CH2_FMEA/copy.tex b/submission_thesis/CH2_FMEA/copy.tex index f454af6..7f23e56 100644 --- a/submission_thesis/CH2_FMEA/copy.tex +++ b/submission_thesis/CH2_FMEA/copy.tex @@ -149,8 +149,16 @@ FMEA, due to its inductive bottom-up approach, is good at mapping potential single component failures to system level faults/events. Used in the design phase of a project FMEA is an invaluable tool for unearthing potential failure scenarios. +% +% Subject Object Wiki answers : Best Answer +%It is not grammar or vocabulary. It is a philosophical reference. +%The dichotomy is the surrounding view of self that we act out of. It is often learned with language and not taught [like the alphabet and numbers are taught] in early life through language and the forming of distinctions. +%The Subject/Object dichotomy is related mostly to the Cartesian model of a 'self'. We can be both the subject that we observe, and the object doing the observing.But it goes beyond that into how we view the world we are in. In balanced thinking, we are both subjective and objective about situations and interactions in daily life, internally and externally. In unbalanced thinking, there is a tilt towards one side or the other. That is, either too subjective; as relating everything to how it affects you personally, [temperamental and self center] or, too objective; not having a sense of who you are in regards to what is occurring, [aloof, distant and apathetic]. It is related in Western philosophy as the basic nature of dualism. How do you know that you learned to live in a subject/object dichotomy? +%The core of Cartesianism is that you have a mind: a separate function of your'self'. If you have an invisible self called a mind - you are in the subject/object dichotomy. Non-dualism is mostly learned in Eastern philosophies and will refer to the mind as an integer of the self - not separate from it. +%You can not jump from one to the other. And, they both must be learned as referential contexts to who 'you' are in the world you live in. +% FMEA is always performed in the context of the use of the equipment. -This, put in terms of philosophy, is the subjective and the objective. +In terms of philosophy this is in the domain of the subjective and the objective. We can using objective reasoning trace a component level failure to a system level event, but only in the subjective sense can we determine its severity.