Anybody has done some of the enhancements mentioned in this article? If yes, how do you justify for it?

http://www.l-fp.com/articles/0506_lubricanttransfer.html

I can understand the need for the plastic containers easily but how about the technological enhancements proposed? How to explain and convince the boss that these are for the good of the machines, if we are just ordinary engineers and not machinery specialists?

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

Anybody has done some of these technogical modifications?

"If a reliability professional is wrestling with a population of centrifugal pumps, he/she might want to consider several of the enhancements described below (as well as elsewhere in this and other issues of this publication). For instance, it would be appropriate to look into:

"¢ Hermetically sealing bearing housings with modern non-contacting and, in many instances, dual-faced magnetic bearing housing seals
"¢ Using a high-film-strength synthesized hydrocarbon lubricant of appropriate viscosity, i.e. ISO Grade 32 for pumps
"¢ Applying diester-base synthesized hydrocarbon lubes on reciprocating compressor cylinders
"¢ Applying certain mechanical seals with highly efficient bi-directional internal pumping devices
"¢ Upgrading ASME 73/ANSI/ISO pumps to double-row angular contact bearings with dual inner rings
"¢ Installing pre-grouted (pre-filled with epoxy) pump baseplates
"¢ Using only balanced constant level lubricators
"¢ Replacing vulnerable oil rings with flexible flinger discs
"¢ Selective upgrading of certain medium size pump lube application methods to an inductive pump jet-oil application
"¢ Removal of cooling water from bearing housings equipped with rolling element bearings
"¢ Using proprietary PTA, high-temperature capability, ultra-low thermal expansion performance polymers as a wear ring and throat bushing material"

quote:

Originally posted by Josh:
Anybody has done some of these technogical modifications?

Josh,

We have implemented some of these changes in some situations. Some are working and some need more time to see if they are worth the effort.

Some words of caution before adopting ANY of these.

• Make sure you really need to make the change. Some of these are very expensive, and if your pump is giving you good performance, I would think hard about whether you really need a change.
  
• Also keep in mind that every time you work on a pump, i.e., open it up and change parts, you are running a risk of introducing new defects you didn't have before. This is another reason to only apply these if you are currently having a problem that needs to be addressed. (Aside - we've recently been having several quality issues with a major pump vendor - small things that should not have made it out of the shop, and sometimes things we should have caught in the field before we put it in service)
  
• Make SURE your changes are well-evaluated by a rigorous management of change process before applying them.
  

Kim Williams

That sounds good precautions Kim! Exactly what I want to hear. Hope other will chip in.

Josh, Kim had asked me to comment on this a couple of day ago and I was waiting on some else befor I gave my two cents worth. I agree with everything Kim said.

I have some dual-faced magnetic bearing housing seals in two of our critical pumps and I think sometime we jump into trying new equipment before we understand. Which is a bad thing.

I do like the new closed system oilers such Trico's but you should never think the bearing housing has oil just because there is oil in the bulb. I like a sight glass on the side.

I guess the real question you will have to ask yourself is Am I having problems that need to be addressed, if so some of these suggestions may be the solution.

Why the crowds here are not enthusiatic with these technological reliability enhancements or does it mean not many of these ideas have been tested?

Because they are expensive, unknown, and we have to account for every penny that we spend on companies behalve.

Even a simple management of change process consumes a lot of resources.

If you were the owner of a company, would you blindfolded buy everything that flies around?
Put yourself in the place of the man who is paying the bills and anticipate his/her reaction, think out of the box.

Josh,
Before adopting new technologies, it is usually a good practice to keep a good control on the quality and qauntity of lubrication with existing methods. If existing technologies are insufficient, uneconomic or inefficient, we have to look for alternatives. We have to make a proper business case to make changes. Merely because something is technically appealing does not always mean they are economically justified.

quote:

Why the crowds here are not enthusiatic with these technological reliability enhancements or does it mean not many of these ideas have been tested?

Kim and Alan gave you some excellent advise on how to approach new technologies, which always mean change. This brings new risks along with new opportunities, and we have to manage the downsides properly. All change management needs effort, so it has to be justified, not just on technical grounds but also on economic grounds. We engineers are generally not good at making business cases, so some of these opportunities are 'lost'.
Perhaps you should focus on getting a feedback on those devices/technologies that you feel will help you help improve reliability. Then estimate by how much and what it means in $ terms. this will help you decide whether further work is justified.

Josh,

It would appear that the underlying theme of your post is the same as mine in the ˜Posts About Technologies and Techniques for Condition Monitoring' boardroom (System Costs), namely cost justification programs!

Whether the point is keeping what you have or buying something new to improve an existing project, at the end of the day it is all about configuring the request in terms easily understood by upper echelon management: dollars and cents or numbers.

Gary Forsythe

I'm willing to bet that my company is probably using each and every one of the enhancements at the beginning of this message thread SOMEWHERE, but I'm also willing to argue that there are many more places where they should NOT be used than there are places where they SHOULD be used. I will also bet that we're using some of these in places we shouldn't, usually in the name of STANDARDIZATION.

The point is that you need to understand your problems, understand the potential solutions, evaluate the ones that are BOTH technically feasible and worth doing, and then manage the change if you decide to apply the technology.

Kim Williams

I think our posts have been focused on methodologies to improve reliability but lack of technologies to do so. Yes, I'm gathering info for these technical enhancements especially when they come from a machinery specialist but not really understood by a large crowd of the maintenance people.

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