I thought I'd raise some issues which jump at me in this question series. I am going to make minor forays into te issues which, for me, arise from what I have read here in the mixed replies. A big thing generated from a little thing if you like.
I am looking at a bigger picure without at all ignoring the fix-now problem. This initial fix should be a proper clean and thorough inspection and testing by the manufacturer's enginering staff, or one of their competent sales-engineers educating the company maintenance person at the same time and writing a full report on past present and future of the situation and suggestions for rectification, to the senior management.
This report should include production risk factors, possibilities and likelihoods....and rectification suggestions and costs.
The background problem, as I deduce it,may well in practical "in my square metre" terms be a dirty drive scenario, already four time damaged but it is also a management problem possibly through board (or equivalent) ignorence or being kept ignorent.
The technical solution isn't massive, it's straight forward but is being blocked by what is purported by someone to be management policy or criteria.
The management solution only looks massive because the company people sound as though they are walking on eggshells...Reluctance to spend money or some person defending their fear of being in the limelight recommending money be spent, doesn't mean it isn't there to spend.
A corporation is a living entity. It requires sustinence and being kept in good health. Profit is largely intended for that....not for diversion elsewhere. merely requires comprehension,unbiassed technical options, clarifying choices, engaging commitment,providing funds, enactment.
I add that it seems odd to me that the group/ company will not properly protect essential motor drives (from dust) and spend to do so. Drives are, initially, a large investment, no doubt about that. This environment, however was an installation where day-one protection of equipment was obvious.
Perhaps the company doesn't care about risk management, don't have the business integrity to understand that maintenance tax deductions and depreciation write-offs are for a purpose...to maintain and replace (or re-house) equipment.
Perhaps it is a tin-pot organisation run by self protective personnel, all too busy worrying about their image rather than proper running of the company. Perhaps maintenance staff want to keep their heads down rather than be forthright. Perhaps no one is doing the task comparison pricing...looking at the "what if's"
Tax allowance...depreciation for capital costs , deductions for maintenance, money allowed by Government to hold more money in business coffers is a most pertinent issue here.It may be affected by some expansionary vision, but right now we have to deal with short and the medium terms.
These allowances should be organisationally viewed as having the purpose it was designed to have. It's not windfall money for a new boat or a new house for a director or higher management salaries or a new advertising campaign nor corporate networking dinners or a big fully maintained Kompressor Benz car for the boss or the coupe version for his mistress.
It is there to serve a purpose of maintaining viable production. Depreciation and maintenance sums ought to be account protected for that purpose only and properly itemised, not lumped.
Integrity-based, intelligent, management-planning uses all leger-heading funds solely for the purpose intended and leaves accounts to hold unused elements of any particular account sums in the account for that , say "depreciation, crusher equipment" to continue to grow, suitably invested to follow appreciating costs.
On reading the 'ins and outs' here, I also wonder about the corporation personnel...how well they receive OH and S protection from this invasive material.It doesn't sound likely they spend money there either. Perhaps that's an issue worth addressing as well, the situation with the VFD merely being symtomatic. Sadly Boards of Companies are often held in the dark and /or then too lacadasical or too network, rather than expertise, based to make dilligent inquiries after the health of the company.
The three wise monkey approcah hasn't disappeared from management, rather has ameliorated through fear in the tragedy of "Economic Rationalisation" and "learn by rote" management. Good managers are born to it,immediately adaptable. Few make it into top management but spend their lives in inferior postions someties as tradesmen or stay in "lesser" posts in the 'globalisation' theme park stuck there through the resume iconised processes of lazy minded HR policies. The result is simply whet we see here...poor management. Good management engages on 'reflective' maintenance,listening, adjusting, reviewing, enacting.
For a good manager by inheritance, management study fits them into the network and a predictable and uniform process. It isn't the deciding factor of management excellence but looks good on the paperwork. A good manager knows that spending money wisely is actually investing money in profitable return.
It seems odd to me that an enginer, whenever it happened, would have these installed drives in a vulnerable location. Perhaps ignorence was rampant, perhaps the drives bought-in from elsewhere and installed "on the cheap"....to make it look like a real installation now and pay the price later. Perhaps some maintenance type handled the installation with limited outlook, or decided their job was just to install the drives and say nothing, or was told to mind his own business and just get on with it when raising the issue of the hazardous environment
Heat producing equipment is generally designed presuming free air transfer in a known ambient range, unless purpose built. The proper solution is, therefor, to remove the adverse environment from the drives or the drives into a suitable environment... not to be doing high risk , moist finger in the air clean up jobs. You can clean the dust out to some degree but the environment is still hazardous and corrosive. The solution is a one step solution. It is to rectify the environment issue.
It might take only one weekend of building,or be done in shut-down maintenance occurring each year to rehouse the drives... I can't say on evidence. Firstly as I said at the outset, contract the manufacturer to clean and inspect drives then seal them until the environment is replaced in that same time period....if not replace them with environmentally suited ones unless building new room/s or moving the drives to a clean air environment elsewhere.
In general terms the matter at hand requires it seems a proper solution soon and not a continuing finger in the dyke approach.
That the technician has to, or has chosen to, write to a forum rather than have proper engineering solutions readily sought commercially by the maintenance management suggests several scenarios.....however...to replace the drives with environmentally suitable ones still invites the contamination during service or someone storing opening the doors to their lunch or tools inside the cabinet....This invites periodic ingress of invasive and damaging dust.
Looking at it all together ...I'd say management needs to act...spend to invest and profit. House or re-house the drives and feed their own environment with multi-stage redundant filters to maintain air integrity whilst cleanng from outside in.
Humidity to be devised to prevent dry air static but also to not create more than design parameter condensation. Temperature to be controlled by air space size or by air conditioning operating into the multi-stage redundant filters which have a cleaning facility which prevents cement and other material entering the drive area during cleaning. It's money well spent.
The present situation, on slim evidence but my experience with cement dust, is a "from day one stuff-up".
Replace or repair the drives as you will...but whatever route is taken prevent recurrence and allow for the future. The "finger in the dyke" approach, required from maintenance staff through the "seat of your pants management flying", is most unprofessional on one hand but also an literally and unarguably improper use of maintenance and depreciation allowances.As I said, the actual clean up is a minimal issue which I resolved in transit but the ongoing problem is a different story. Cheers,
