Andrew comments included into CH4

submission_thesis/CH4_FMMD/copy.tex

@@ -598,11 +598,11 @@ This is represented in the DAG in figure \ref{fig:fg1adag}.
  \end{figure}
  
 
-We can now formulate a `derived component' to represent this potential divider.
+We can now formulate a `derived component' to represent this potential divider:
-This can be named \textbf{PD}.
+we name this \textbf{PD}.
 This {\dc} will have two failure modes.
-We can use the symbol $\derivec$ to represent the process of taking the analysed 
+We use the symbol $\derivec$ to represent the process of taking the analysed 
-{\fg} and creating from it, a {\dc}. The creation of the {\dc} \textbf{PD} is
+{\fg} and creating from it a {\dc}. The creation of the {\dc} \textbf{PD} is
 represented in figure~\ref{fig:dc1}.
 We then represent the {\dc} as a DAG in figure  \ref{fig:dc1dag}.
 
@@ -694,7 +694,7 @@ We can represent these failure modes on a DAG (see figure~\ref{fig:op1dag}).
 %}
 %\clearpage
 %\paragraph{Modelling the OP amp with the potential divider.}
-We now merge the OP amp and the {\dc} {\em PD}, to
+We now collect the OP amp and the {\dc} {\em PD}, to
 form a {\fg} to represent the non-inverting amplifier.
 %
 %We have the failure modes of the {\dc} for the potential divider, 
@@ -703,6 +703,7 @@ form a {\fg} to represent the non-inverting amplifier.
 %We can now create a  {\fg} for the non-inverting amplifier
 %by bringing together the failure modes from \textbf{opamp} and \textbf{PD}.
 %
+The two components in this new {\fg} have failure modes.
 Each of these failure modes will be given a {\fc} for analysis,
 and this is represented in table \ref{tbl:ampfmea1}.
  
@@ -884,11 +885,15 @@ represents the failure mode behaviour of the non-inverting amplifier.
  \label{fig:dc2}
 \end{figure}
 
-We can now examine the {\dc} {\em INVAMP} by drawing it as a DAG.
+We can now examine the failure mode relationships in the {\dc} {\em INVAMP} by drawing it as a DAG.
 %expand the {\em PD} {\dc} and  have a full FMMD failure %mode 
 %model
-We can traverse this DAG, and thus determine all possible causes for
+We can traverse this DAG, tracing the top level symptoms down to the leaves of the tree (the leaves being {\bc} failure modes),
+and thus determine all possible causes for
 the three high level symptoms, i.e. the failure~modes of the non-inverting amplifier {\em INVAMP}.
+Knowing all possible causes for a top level event/failure~mode
+is extremely useful. Were the top level event to be classified as catastrophic for instance, we could use this information
+to strengthen components that could cause the top level event/failure.
 %
 Figure \ref{fig:noninvdag1} shows a fully expanded DAG, from which we can derive information
 to assist in building models for FTA, FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA failure mode analysis methodologies.
@@ -999,7 +1004,7 @@ It could be something %quite complicated
 like an %integrated 
 micro-controller, or quite simple like the resistor.
 %
-We can define a 
+We can identify a 
 component by its name, a manufacturer's part number and perhaps
 a vendor's reference number.
 
@@ -1017,8 +1022,8 @@ We, in fact, need to go a little further than the above definition of a part,
 and say that we want to define an atomic entity. % used as a building block.
 %The term component, in American English, can mean a building block or a part.
 %In British-English a component generally is given to mean the definition for part above.
-We define {\bc} to be the lowest level of component that we use as a building block.
+We define {\bc} to be the lowest level---or entities we begin with in our analysis---of component that we use as a building block.
-This is a choice made by the analyst. 
+This is a choice made by the analyst, often guided by the standards to which the analysis is being performed to. 
 %
 Both op-amps and transistors have published statistical failure rates and yet an op-amp is constructed from transistors.
 %
@@ -1036,7 +1041,7 @@ to which we are approving/analysing a system.
 
 %%  FUCKING STEREO SUB_SYSTEM EXAMPLE, THE FUCKING CHILDRENS SECTION
 
-\subsection{Systems, functional groupings, components and failure modes: sound system example}
+\subsection{definition of terms: sound system example.}
 
 %000000elpful here to define the terms, `system', `functional~group', `component', `base~component', `symptom' and `derived~component/sub-system'.
 %These are listed in table~\ref{tab:symexdef}.
@@ -1051,7 +1056,7 @@ This is now used as an example to describe terms used in FMMD.
 %
 For instance a stereo amplifier separate/slave is a component.
 %The 
-whole sound system consists perhaps of the following `components': 
+A whole sound system consists perhaps of the following components: 
 CD-player, tuner, amplifier~separate, loudspeakers and ipod~interface.
  
 %Thinking like this is a top~down analysis approach
@@ -1084,9 +1089,10 @@ These collections are termed `{\fgs}'.
 %
 For instance, the  circuitry that powers the laser diode
 to illuminate the CD might contain a handful of components, and as such would make a good candidate
-as one of the base level {\fgs}.
+as one of the base level {\fgs}. It is a good candidate because
+it performs a well defined function and it could be considered a design module.
 
-\paragraph{Functional group to {\dc} process outline.}
+\paragraph{Functional grouping to {\dc} process outline.}
 %In choosing the lowest level (base component) sub-systems we would look 
 %for the smallest `functional~groups' of components within a system. 
 We can define a {\fg} as a set of components that interact
@@ -1151,7 +1157,7 @@ Currently, failure mode information is generally only  available for generic com
 % number of well defined ways. 
 For common {\bcs}
 there is established literature for the failure modes for the system designer to consider (often with accompanying statistical
-failure rates)~\cite{mil1991}~\cite{en298}~\cite{fmd91}.
+failure rates)~\cite{mil1991,en298,fmd91}.
 %
 For instance, a simple resistor is generally considered 
 to fail in two ways, it can go open circuit or it can short.
@@ -1318,13 +1324,13 @@ A flat set is a set containing just failure modes and not sets of failure modes~
 %for the {\fg}.
 %
 Each of these failure modes, and optionally combinations of them, are
-formed into `test~cases' which are
+formed into failure~scenarios which are
 analysed for their effect on the failure mode behaviour of the `{\fg}'.
 %
 Once we have the failure mode behaviour of the {\fg}, we can determine its symptoms of failure.
 %for the {\fg}.
 %
-We could term these symptoms the derived failure modes of the `{\fg}'.
+We view these symptoms as  derived failure modes of the {\fg}.
 % 
 Or in other words we can determine how the `{\fg}' can fail.
 We can now consider the {\fg} as a {\dc} % sort of super component
@@ -1337,8 +1343,7 @@ The process for taking a {\fg}, analysing its failure mode behaviour, considerin
 all the failure modes of all the components in the group
 and collecting symptoms of failure,  is termed `symptom abstraction'.
 %
-This 
+This is dealt with in detail using an algorithmic description, in appendix \ref{sec:algorithmfmmd}.
-is dealt with in detail using an algorithmic description, in appendix \ref{sec:algorithmfmmd}.
 
 
 % % define difference between a \fg and a \dc