Howard, (Guys)

In my opinion ten anecdotes does not data make

I find this all ery hard to believe for a numkber of reasons.

1. The numbers do not add up. Pat Buchannan of CSNBC quoted yesterday that !% of GDP is equal to around 105 - 130 billion. Hence this just doesn't work out.

2. Knowing maintenance as I do I doubt seerely that the granularity of data is available to pinpoint exactly how much waqs due to poor lubrication and

3. Nobody has been able to produce anything resembling a reliable and robust study or report.

So without it we are back to opinion, rumour (quotes of quotes etc) and general story telling. None of which equals facts.

Dear Ron,

quote:

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.

Unfortunately this is happening to day.

As long as there are countries in the globe willing to eploit the relative poverty of their own people, then skiill and knowledge become a lowest cost option.

Not really fair.

Daryl:

Actually, as stated earlier, the way that MIT is presenting the material - not as the 'direct cost' (ie: repair costs, etc.) in their tribology course, but the 'indirect and direct costs' - lost business, downtime, etc. etc., at least that is how I interpret the course outline - it is believeable.

The direct cost of maintenance in the USA was extrapolated by several different groups. The numbers that I developed were just above the $200B that was published by Allied Reliability and others. The indirect costs, such as the 14% in the early 1990's, were published by a US Government entity, and the 20% was extrapolated from existing data.

In fact, if the 6-7% was published in the 1990's, it may not be as low as that anymore. I would be interested to see how they got those numbers (the original dissertation or study) myself.

So far as the other issue goes. "The World is Flat" is a great alarmist book.

My feelings on the subject of engineering, etc. are twofold: 1) It is not a 'crisis' yet and the trend is changeable; 2) If we continue our present course, we will signal our own downfall. You cannot support a 'growing service economy' there is no basis for generating new real money. In fact, I had a discussion yesterday with a college student and his dad at our last football game of the season. The father wanted him to drop out of engineering and go into business (there is more money there). The father is an engineer.

At the last two presentations I gave to industry groups on the 'Skilled Workforce in the 21st Century' (SMRP and Utility Field Service), several brought up (in each) that parents and schools should be recommending the trades and engineering to the kids. I asked the group how many (there were over 100 at SMRP and over 200 at UFS) recommended these choices to their kids. No hands went up.

Last night, there was a news story about Indian companies providing tutoring services over the internet (also talked about in 'the world is flat'). Don't we have any tutors here? The reason is actually that it is cheaper. Sad story about our education system.

There is good news, of course. Company universities, industry working with schools, programs such as Project Lead the Way (in the Northeast), etc. are trying to attract the younger generation to our work (engineering and skilled trades). The baby-boomers are transitioning through (aging and retiring) with a smaller group for a few years (2014-2020) as the baby-boom echo (larger than the baby boomers) begins to enter the workforce.

Ah, and so much more. But a little off topic.

Sincerely,
Howard

Howard,

I have not seen the material or the report, nor have I seen how they got to where they got to. Every piece of informationthat I am finding on this is from another source. (So either seconed hand or third hand information) With nobody actually having confirmed that they have seen the report. (So we are in the realm of storytelling)

Second, without having seen the report I doubt, very strongly, wether they can attribute costs to poor lubrication. (Either direct or indirect)

As you would know many organisations cannot even do this internally let alone over an entir4e economy the size of the USA.

- To the second issue -

As you will recall from previous discussions I think we agree on most things except two.

The skills issue is only one aspect of the discussion. There is also a knowledge leakage issue, (for another time) and the issue of global competitiveness.

Regardless of how trained you are, there are others in the world who are as trained and about a third of the price.

As profit margins become more important, and companies via for shrinking market percentages in many industies, this is going to emerge as the number one threat. (If it hasn't already)

There is no end to what can be outsourced, call centres, design shops, drawing and detail design houses, software building and design, the medical industry (many westerners are now taking advantage of the cheap and equally impressive medical services offered by India for example) and so on.

In some nations there is already the practice of importing reduced cost, but skilled, resources as the need requires.

This was the point I was trying to make there.

Daryl:

Actually, I don't disagree with you on any of the points. I think that there is the opportunity to control the direction, but the concepts taught in business school do not give the new managers enough training in long-term goals and cause and effect. As a result, they do not understand what they are doing.

There are definite pro's and con's to outsourcing. For instance, Dell will not receive any future business from me after the experiences I have had with their internal problems with billing and customer service departments. 3am phone calls threatening my credit rating for a purchase that I had already paid for!! Their accounting department does not communicate real well and the ability of their customer service department does not exist (hell, they don't even try for the fake accents anymore).

An interesting one was Comcast high speed internet (cable/internet). I called for tech support because of problems with the pole outside. I ended up talking to one of my old neighbors from St. John's, Newfoundland! So, some of the competition is still going to North America, just areas where labor costs are down.

The US BLS also sees business moving away from the East Coast and Midwest to the South and West, for many of the same reasons. The transition should be interesting.

As far as the importing skilled resources (engineers and skilled workers) there is an effort going on in the USA. The main reason is that our unemployment rate is rediculously low (4.5%), and has been for some time, and consumer confidence is high. So, it is an employee's world here. So, organizations such as the US Chamber of Commerce (a not for profit), have published materials stating that our population is decreasing, etc. in an effort to open up working visa's. The problem is that the information that is being used is mis-represented, but it is being presented to Congress. I am part of the IEEE effort to control this issue (IEEE-USAB) as the proposed changes would allow a company to bring a group in to learn from existing employees, then would allow the existing employees to be laid off and the other workers to return to their country and work from there.

Outsourcing has its place, but for some reason, business and business consultants seem to see it as a cookie-cutter solution. In the meantime, I am making plenty helping companies that have been through the disasters of outsourcing (or are still in them) recover.

Howard

Per Wikipedia, the losses are $500 billion in the U.S. alone. Wowza!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribology

Took a look at the Wikipedia item. I notice the $500 Billion figure is marked "[citation needed]". In other words, we still don't know where it came from.
As a general point, it seems to me that something like Wikipedia could be dangerous. That is, someone decides he's an expert and, for free, contributes an entry. It could be wrong. How good is the process / flagging of items that are not substantiated?
The point about the unverified $500 billion was picked up. That's good. But what isn't picked up?
Sort of like unrefereed "trade journal", articles. Sometimes they'll print just about anything. I've seen some that were absolute rubbish.

Here's an interview with Peter Jost. In the interview, he talks about the initial "Jost Report" as well as subsequent reports that reference "percent of GNP" figures. I really enjoyed this interview.

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/article_detail.asp?...ookgroup=Lubrication

Interesting articles and links above. The one part I tend to forget is that tribology extends far beyond rotating equipment (hair conditioners ?!?). Nevertheless, a healthy skepticism of statistics like this is worthwhile until the assumptions and methodology used to reach the conclusion are clearly identified.

Here is some related info excerpted from "Engineering Tribology" (Stakowiak and Batchelor)

============= BEGINNING OF EXCERPT============
1.3 COST OF FRICTION AND WEAR
The enormous cost of tribological deficiencies to any national economy is mostly caused by the large amount of energy and material losses occurring simultaneously on virtually every mechanical device in operation. When reviewed on the basis of a single machine, the losses are small. However, when the same loss is repeated on perhaps a million machines of a similar type, then the costs become very large. For example, about two hundred years ago, it was suggested by Jacobs Rowe that by the application of the rolling element bearing to the carriages the number of horses required for all the carriages and carts in the United Kingdom could be halved. Since the estimated national total number of horses involved in this form of transportation was at that time about 40,000, the potential saving in horse-care costs was about one million pounds per annum at early 18th century prices [1,4].

In more contemporary times the simple analysis reveals that supplying all the worm gear drives in the United States with a lubricant that allows a relative increase of 5% in the mechanical efficiency compared to a conventional mineral oil would result in savings of about US$ 0.6 billion per annum [5]. The reasoning is that there are 3 million worm gears operating in the U.S.A. with an average power rating of about 7.5 [KW]. The annual national savings of energy would be 9.8 billion kilowatt-hours and the corresponding value of this energy is 0.6 billion US$ at an electricity cost of 0.06 US$ per kilowatt-hour. These examples suggest that a form of ‘tribology equation’ can be used to obtain a simple estimate of either costs or benefits from existing or improved tribological practice. Such equation can be summarized as:
Total Tribological Cost/Saving = Sum of Individual Machine Cost/Saving×Number of Machines

This equation can be applied to any other problem in order to roughly estimate the relevance of tribology to a particular situation.
It was estimated by Peter Jost in 1966 that by the application of the basic principles of tribology, the economy of U.K. could save approximately L515 million per annum at 1965 values [6]. A similar report published in West Germany in 1976 revealed that the economic losses caused by friction and wear cost about 10 billion DM per annum, at 1975 values, which is equivalent to 1% of the Gross National Product [7]. About 50% of these losses were due to abrasive wear.
In the U.S.A. it has been estimated that about 11% of total annual energy can be saved in the four major areas of transportation, turbo machinery, power generation and industrial
processes through progress in tribology [8]. For example, tribological improvements in cars alone can save about 18.6% of total annual energy consumed by cars in the U.S.A., which is equivalent to about 14.3 billion US$ per annum [9]. In the U.K. the possible national energy savings achieved by the application of tribological principles and practices have been estimated to be between £468 to £700 million per annum [10]. The economics of tribology are of such gigantic proportions that tribological programmes have been established by industry and governments in many countries throughout the world/

The problems of tribology economics are of extreme importance to an engineer. For example, in pneumatic transportation of material through pipes, the erosive wear at bends can be up to 50 times more than in straight sections [11]. Apparently non-abrasive materials such as sugar cane [12] and wood chips can actually cause abrasive wear. Many tribological failures are associated with bearings. Simple bearing failures on modern generator sets in the U.S.A. cost about US$25,000 per day while to replace a £200,000 bearing in a single point mooring on a North Sea Oil Rig a contingency budget of about £1 million is necessary [13]. In addition there are some production losses which are very costly. The total cost of wear for a single US naval aircraft has been estimated to be US$243 per flight hour [14]. About 1000 megatonnes of material is excavated in Australia. Much of this is material waste which must be handled in order to retrieve metalliferous ores or coal. The cost of wear is around 2% of the saleable product. The annual production by a large iron ore mining company might be as high as 40 megatonnes involving a direct cost through the replacement of wearing parts of A$6 million per annum at 1977 values [15,16].

As soon as the extent of economic losses due to friction and wear became clear, researchers and engineers rejected many of the traditional limitations to mechanical performance and have found or are looking for new materials and lubricants to overcome these limits. Some of these improvements are so radical that the whole technology and economics of the product may change. A classic example is the adiabatic engine. The principle behind this development is to remove the oil and the lubricating system and use a dry, high temperature self lubricating material. If the engine can operate adiabatically at high temperatures, heat previously removed by the now obsolete radiator can be turned to mechanical work. As a result, a fuel efficient, light weight engine might be built which will lead to considerable savings in fuels, oils and vehicle production costs. A fuel efficient engine is vital in reducing transportation and agricultural costs and therefore is a very important research and development task.

Other examples of such innovations include surface treated cutters for sheep shearing, surface hardened soil engaging tools, polyethylene pipes for coal slurries and ion implanted titanium alloys for orthopaedic endoprostheses. Whenever wear and friction limit the function or durability of a device or appliance, there is a scope for tribology to offer some improvement.
1 D. Dowson, History of Tribology, Longman Group Limited, 1979.
2 S. Adelman, C.R. Taylor and N.C. Heglund, Sweating on Paws and Palms: What is Its Function, American Journal of Physiology, Vol. 29, 1975, pp. 1400-1402.
3 N.H. Sleep and M.L. Blanpied, Creep, Compaction and the Weak Rheology of Major Faults, Nature, Vol. 359, 1992, pp. 687-692.
4 B.W. Kelley, Lubrication of Concentrated Contacts, Interdisciplinary Approach to the Lubrication of Concentrated Contacts, Troy, New York, NASA SP-237, 1969, pp. 1-26.
5 P.A. Pacholke and K.M. Marshek, Improved Worm Gear Performance With Colloidal Molybdenum Disulfide Containing Lubricants, Lubrication Engineering, Vol. 43, 1986, pp. 623-628.
6 Lubrication (Tribology) - Education and Research. A Report on the Present Position and Industry Needs, (Jost Report), Department of Education and Science, HM Stationary Office, London, 1966.
7 Research Report (T76-38) Tribologie (Code BMFT-FBT76-38), Bundesministerium Fur Forschung und Technologie (Federal Ministry for Research and Technology), West Germany, 1976.
8 Strategy for Energy Conservation Through Tribology, ASME, New York, November, 1977.
9 L.S. Dake, J.A. Russell and D.C. Debrodt, A Review of DOE ECT Tribology Surveys, Transactions ASME,Journal of Tribology, Vol. 108, 1986, pp. 497-501.
10 H.P. Jost and J. Schofield, Energy Savings Through Tribology: A Techno-Economic Study, Proc. Inst. Mech.Engrs., London, Vol. 195, No. 16, 1981, pp. 151-173.
11 M.H. Jones and D. Scott (editors), Industrial Tribology, The Practical Aspects of Friction, Lubrication andWear, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1983.
12 K.F. Dolman, Alloy Development: Shredder Hammer Tips, Proc. 5th Conference of Australian Society ofSugar Cane Technologists, 1983, pp. 281-287.
13 E.W. Hemingway, Preface, Proc. Int. Tribology Conference, Melbourne, The Institution of Engineers,Australia, National Conference Publication No. 87/18, December, 1987.
14 M.J. Devine (editor), Proceedings of a Workshop on Wear Control to Achieve Product Durability, sponsoredby the Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress, Naval Air Development Centre,
Warminster, 1977.
15 C.M. Perrott, Ten Years of Tribology in Australia, Tribology International, Vol. 11, 1978, pp. 35-36.
16 P.F. Booth, Metals in Mining-Wear in the Mining Industry, Metals Austr., Vol. 9, 1977, pp. 7-9.
============= END OF EXCERPT============

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

Howard,

Thanks for the quote. I am doing some similar work here in the UK with regard to Skills management and resource management in the rail and water sectors specifically.

Just to clarify any potential misunderstandings regarding your quote here.

quote:

Outsourcing has its place, but for some reason, business and business consultants seem to see it as a cookie-cutter solution. In the meantime, I am making plenty helping companies that have been through the disasters of outsourcing (or are still in them) recover.

I don't advocate for or against outsourcing as Every business case I see is different and requires different solutions. I have written on the dangers of outsorcing and have a chapter in my new book on some mechanisms to manage it better. (Learning from history)

I think the discussion surrounding outsourcing is a little further advanced than that generally speaking. (But not always I concede)

Ron,

I used to work with a guy who used to say "the problem with the discipline of physical asset management is that anyone can write anything".

quote:

Sort of like unrefereed "trade journal", articles. Sometimes they'll print just about anything. I've seen some that were absolute rubbish.

As I stated earlier, ten anecdotes do not data make.

I cannot count hte number of times I have had to step into a presentation, paper or course and start asking where this information was coming from.

And quite often they are unsubstantiated claims, poorly researched statistics, and a mix of rumour and legend...

Pete,

THats a facsinating article. Is there any links to it electronically?

Interesting discussion.

Whatever the actual number is, it is likely to be large. I have another view on this issue, though.

Since it is possible for a manager to count the actual tribologically related costs at his/her specific manufacturing site, and since it is possible to draw up a plan for improvements at an single site, or a single multi-site company, why not just limit the scope of the question to the individual site.

I have conducted many benchmark comparisions at pulp and paper, cement and food handling sites, and am ABSOLUTELY SURE that there is money to be made by the equipment owner through improvements in machine lubrication practices, and that the return is MUCH Larger than the actual cost of improvements Reasonably, lubricated mechanical component repair costs alone could be cut by 1/4 if the lubication practice was fixed.

I am attaching the distribution of the savings a projected by Jost in his (the origional) Tribology for Industry study on behalf of the British Ministry for Education and Science. I beleive the numbers he projected 40 years ago are valid today. I also beleive that the Chinese study suggesting 1-1.5% GDP savings (which includes a lot of services for lawyers and writers) is likely to be good.

What really matters, though, is what can be measured. For that, we have to go in-plant with tools and a pencil

Cheers

Mike Johnson, CMRP
mjohnson@amrri.com

Role_of_Lubrication_in_Maintenance.pdf (114 Kb, 22 downloads)

I would like to clarify on the qoute :

______________________________________________
Calculated that 6 to 7% of America's Gross National Product (About $ 240 billion is spent repairing wear damage caused by poor lubrication)______________________________________________

First the part or component will not reach its wear out life if poor lubrication is being applied or practice, I think the author was refering to premature wear or random failures and not a wear out failure since if we speak about a wear out failure the part had actually reach its specific life and if it did so (achieve a wear out life) then maintenance have done its share in maintaining the life of the part. I think the major issue here will be that the life of a component or part had something to do with the number of contaminants present in the oil itself, keeping the oil clean and maintaining ISO cleanliness standards will definitely prolong the lifespan of the part,

Rolly Angeles