Dear All,

I am not sure if anybody can help me with this. I read recently on Dow Cornings website that there is an often quoted MIT study that:

quote:

calculated that six to seven percent of America’s Gross National Product (about $240 billion) is spent repairing wear damage caused by poor lubrication

I am fascinated by this figure, and a little disbelieving, and would like to find the study that they reference here.

Has anybody on the forum ever seen this report, read it, or even knows of its existance?

Any help would be appreciated.

Best regards,

Can search Noria.com for it.

Josh,

Thanks for that. I have just searched Norias website for this document, as well as a range of other places, and I am unable to find it.

Where did you find it and can you post a link to it or upload the document here?

Here is the gest of the study:

http://www.isopurfluid.com/purify.htm

Haven't seen the entire report though but I know about because it quoted by a vednor and read it in one article in Noria.com

Here is the Noria's article:

http://www.noria.com/learning_center/category_article.a...kgroup=Wear%20Debris

Thanks Josh,

I am actually after the report and the analysis that went into it. Cheers,

I think this book contains it (PhD thesis:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0471830844/ref=sib_dp_p...-3096906#reader-link

I think I could more easily believe 15-20% than 6-7%.

Sam,

This is why I am very interested in seeing this report and analysis.

We are talking about billions and billions of dollars here. USA GDP is worth trillions per year.. and they are stating a figure as high as 6-7%??? (And you want to better that???)

If this is true, and I am not doubting just questioning, then it is a significant issue, almost on par with a national crisis!!

I have heard similar figures stated for the percentage of UK GDP spent ontime based replacement of bearings. I can't recall where however.

In the USA, the (corrected 2002-2005) Annual GDP was (less than) $49.8 Trillion. The total direct costs for maintenance was estimated at $200 Billion (in 2005, alone). The indirect costs, associated with lost opportunity for business, etc. due to poor maintenance practices was estimated at 20% of GDP ($9.6 Trillion (from 2002-2005 and $2.5T in 2005)). Actually, up from about 14% in the early 1990's.

What the claim is at 6-7% is ~$3 Trillion (2002-2005) or ~$812B in 2005, which would be more than the direct costs of maintenance.

Interesting.

[above corrected as I had left out '2002-2005' period giving the impression of just 2005.]

Howard

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MotorDoc,

Howard,

Hence my questioning.

Where did you get the figures you quote from?

It is taught in an MIT course
http://web.mit.edu/mitpep/pi/courses/designing_tribological_systems.html

Hope this helps,
Wally

My vote: it's hogwash.

OK, I'm curious...what do you think is Hogwash?

I am skeptical of the statistic quoted in the original post.

My information comes from a number of articles, studies, the US Dept of Energy, US Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc. while developing the "Skilled Workforce in the 21st Century" with Terry O'Hanlon, and the "Maintenance and Management Communication Study." The numbers are there, just hard to find because there is so little focus on our industry. Allied Reliability published similar numbers (on the direct costs) in "PdM Secrets Revealed" one of the latest marketing pieces they have made available.

Sincerely,
Howard

Actually, I can believe:

quote:

This field, recently dubbed "tribology," has received increasing attention as it has become evident that the waste of resources resulting from high friction and wear is very great (more than 6% of the Gross National Product), and that the potential savings offered by improved tribological knowledge are correspondingly great.

(from WallyGator's citation above)

In which they are relating friction failures due to lubrication to a waste of resources, not direct costs. In effect, the 6% would be 3/10 of the 20% that had been pointed out. In the early 1990's, the number was 14% of GDP lost potential in manufacturing and industry that has grown to 20%.

Sincerely,
Howard

My opinion is the same as Daryl's. I don't have the data in front of me but it doesn't sound right. We are primarily a service economy, and by and large service doesn't spend a large percentage of their budget on repair/replacement of mechanical machinery. Same for consumers. The one exception would of course be automobiles. But I don't think a lot of cars are retired due to lub problems, and the ones that are would typically be old and have little value left anyway. That's just my opinion, and I don't claim to be an expert in economics or business. If the report details were available, it would be easier to judge the claim.

By the way Howard, where did you come up with the USA 2005 GDP of $50 trillion?
https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
http://bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2006/gdp306a.pdf
These links put the 2005 US GDP at around 12.5 trillion (annual, not quarterly).

Can't quote any statistics or studies.
But I recall hearing / reading generally similiar sounding claims around roughly 20 to 25 years ago, at which time Tribology was getting a lot of hype. As I vaguely recall from memory, the percentage was lower though.
My take on it a the time was "OK, there's some loss / waste there, but it's so spread out you can't really get at it cost-effectively to save the money."
This kind of thing will be done only when it needs to be, based upon short-term economics considerations. One future driver could be cost competition from emerging economies. Before too long, one Engineer in North America will be competing against many very bright, recently-well-educated, and highly motivated Engineers in other parts of the world.

Whoops, you are right.

The work I did related to the totals from 2002-2005 (from the tables I used, at the time), and the impact over that period (added together). The corrected 2005 totals bring the value down a bit, but the result, in 2005, is still $2.5T for that year, alone, in lost opportunity, and just under $9.5T for 2002-2005.

I appreciate that you pointed out my grammatical error.

Howard