<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Predictive Maintenance on Woodhouse LLC</title><link>https://woodhousellc.com/tags/predictive-maintenance/</link><description>Recent content in Predictive Maintenance on Woodhouse LLC</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://woodhousellc.com/tags/predictive-maintenance/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>When should a monitor think? Rules vs. AI for watching machines</title><link>https://woodhousellc.com/insights/monitoring-rules-vs-ai/</link><pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://woodhousellc.com/insights/monitoring-rules-vs-ai/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Every useful machine deserves something watching it. The interesting question is &lt;em&gt;how much&lt;/em&gt;
that watcher needs to think.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We build monitoring for real equipment — a &lt;strong&gt;geothermal system&lt;/strong&gt; (temperatures, on/off cycling,
runtime) and &lt;strong&gt;automated reloading equipment&lt;/strong&gt; (cycle counts, timing, consistency). Both start
from the same simple place: a rule. If the loop temperature crosses a limit, or a machine stops
cycling, raise an alert. Rules are cheap, transparent, and you should always have them. They
catch the failures you already know how to name.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>