What are the rules for using "Not A Calibrated Device" or "No Calibration Required" stickers? When would you use such a label? Would every tool that exists in your facility that is not calibrated required to be identified with a "Not A Calibrated Device" or "No Calibration Required" sticker?

In our Machine Shop we use wrenches, torque wrenches, pliers, files, screwdrivers, hammers, allen wrenches, socket wrenches, etc. Do these need to be identified with a "Not A Calibrated Device" or "No Calibration Required" sticker?

What are the rules for using "Not A Calibrated Device" or "No Calibration Required" stickers? When would you use such a label? Would every tool that exists in your facility that is not calibrated required to be identified with a "Not A Calibrated Device" or "No Calibration Required" sticker?

In our Machine Shop we use wrenches, torque wrenches, pliers, files, screwdrivers, hammers, allen wrenches, socket wrenches, etc. Do these need to be identified with a "Not A Calibrated Device" or "No Calibration Required" sticker?There are no "rules" but,


Why would you use an uncalibrated Torque Wrench, and
how would you calibrate a hammer?

What are the rules for using "Not A Calibrated Device" or "No Calibration Required" stickers? When would you use such a label? Would every tool that exists in your facility that is not calibrated required to be identified with a "Not A Calibrated Device" or "No Calibration Required" sticker?

In our Machine Shop we use wrenches, torque wrenches, pliers, files, screwdrivers, hammers, allen wrenches, socket wrenches, etc. Do these need to be identified with a "Not A Calibrated Device" or "No Calibration Required" sticker?

No sticker would be required on items like wrenches, pliers, files, screwdrivers, hammers, allen wrenches, socket wrenches. These are not used to perform a measurement.

Calibration is required for torque wrenches, screwdrivers that have an adjustable torque value, feeler gauges, micrometers, calipers, steel scales, thread ring and thread plug gages, etc., if these affect the quality of your product.

For our clocks on the wall, I put a sticker "Calibration Not Required." However if that same clock is used to time a process, such as heat treating, then I would calibrate the clock, or provide a different means of timing for the operator, such as a calibrated stopwatch, calibrated chart recorder, etc.

Be cautious with the "Not Calibrated" and "Calibration Not Required" stickers, however. If you place this on a micrometer, and then it is used to measure a dimension on your product, it creates two problems. 1. It would be an audit deficiency if found, and more importantly, 2. if it is not calibrated, you really have no idea what that dimension actually is.

Wes R.

The use of a torque wrench in this application is not used to measure, verify or record data, is not a customer requirement, does not affect product quality and is not used to accept or reject product. Does any of this matter? Does the fact that I have an "adjustable" tool within the four walls of my facility require that tool be calibrated or identified as not requiring calibration.

In the summary about wall clocks and a sticker "Calibration Not Required." Is every piece of time displaying equipment in your facility labeled with "Calibration Not Required" like the wall clock in the cafeteria or each employees wrist watch or your computer monitor display?

Look at it logically (yeah, I know, that is outside the ISO realm at times).....the late Phil Stein phrased it best.....if the measurement matters, calibrate the equipment.....if the measurement does not matter, why make it?

Put another way, if you are making a measurement that matters to your device or product, calibrate the measuring device. If the measurement does not matter enough to calibrate the instrument, then why make the measurement at all? Now, use some common sense.....wooden rulers are an example of an item that should never be calibrated without some real specific reason.

As for NCR stickers, Wesley is right.....be careful with them.....use them only where you need them, not on things like pliers and hammers.

Hope this helps.

Hershal

Put another way, if you are making a measurement that matters to your device or product, calibrate the measuring device. If the measurement does not matter enough to calibrate the instrument, then why make the measurement at all? Now, use some common sense.....wooden rulers are an example of an item that should never be calibrated without some real specific reason.That was the point I was trying to make in my first post, but my sarcasm was wasted.

We have a Calibration Assessment form that is completed by the person requiring calibration. On this form, the Engineer has to answer some basic questions to help them determine if calibration is truly required or not, such as the logic that Hershal mentioned. If it's determined that calibration is not required, then we issue a Calibration Not Required label. If calibration is required, then we have to complete section B of our form that details the mfg's specs, our calibration ratio and measurement uncertainty, and a calibration procedure that has to be generated.

Regarding items such as the hammers, pliers, etc., those wouldn't fall under calibration requirements as they are not measuring and test equipment, nor are the forces that they apply to products or tooling measurable or adjustable in application.

On the other hand, a torque wrench as mentioned, or for another example an adjustable air hammer might need to be calibrated, depending on the requirements of the process. It's not so much the type of tool, but the application that it's used for that dictates whether calibration is required. If a fastener simply needs to be fastened, use a screwdriver. If it needs to be fastened to a specific torque, use a calibrated torque screwdriver.

In our tooling shop each toolmaker has his own gages. Rather then going to the expense of calibrating every tool, we identified a set of company tools used for accepting product. This way the toolmaker does what he has always done until he is "finished". Then he records the results with the company calibrated gages making note of the gage # used in the inspection. Our QMS states that "only gages with stickers on our master gage list require calibration". Saved a lot of money and kept everyone happy.

In our tooling shop each toolmaker has his own gages. Rather then going to the expense of calibrating every tool, we identified a set of company tools used for accepting product. This way the toolmaker does what he has always done until he is "finished". Then he records the results with the company calibrated gages making note of the gage # used in the inspection. Our QMS states that "only gages with stickers on our master gage list require calibration". Saved a lot of money and kept everyone happy.
So when do the toolmakers' gages get calibrated? Is there a requirement for it? It's certainly possible to skirt the letter of the standard and use loopholes to avoid making good sense, but the fact is that gages need to be calibrated on a regular basis, regardless of who they belong to.

Toolmakers check their gages prior to use. In other words an unofficial, undocumented calibration. Remember you only have to calibrate what you accept product on. For example I ask you to cut me a board 10" +/- 1/4". When you set up you cut you use your uncalibrated tape measure and cut the wood. After the wood is cut, you measure and document with a calibrated tape measure, and record the results from that device.

What happens though when the hypothetical uncalibrated tape measures 10" even, but actually produces a 9" board? If you catch it right away, or it causes an immediate failure in assembly, then you cut another board. (hopefully with a different tape) If you don't catch the error and the board works with part of the assembly, maybe it will cause the next stage to fail, causing higher costs in both lost materials and time, as well as customer dissatisfaction should the error reach them.
You have to use common sense and caution when deciding what should and shouldn't be calibrated. Our toolroom super wanted to take the micrometer standards that they use for calibration and setting of their micrometers out of the calibration cycle to save money on outside costs. My response was, "sure, we can do that. I'll take that box, thank you. You can use the calibrated set that I have at my desk from now on."
The point of this is: while calibration on the gages for the final product will give you confidence in an acceptable result, calibration on devices in key points of the process can help to save you from costly errors throughout the process.

You are correct but there hasn't been an issue in 30 years. The owners are willing to risk the cost of scrap since we woildn't detect something until the end. If the system doesn't work, we will fix it it.

You are correct but there hasn't been an issue in 30 years.

That was 30 years ago, checking at the end of the line. Only if the cost of failure is <<< than the cost of calibrating the **** thing its acceptable imo. [if there are no other mandatory restricting aspects]

You are correct but there hasn't been an issue in 30 years. The owners are willing to risk the cost of scrap since we woildn't detect something until the end. If the system doesn't work, we will fix it it.
Qchas, don't let them gang up on you! I can recall working for an electronics company that used the same kind of program "ONLY GAGES AND METERS USED FOR FINAL ACCEPTANCE" need calibrated. It worked quite well and satisfied several customer audits. No it was not ISO.

I still believe it's worth while controlling the whole proces, after all this is the ISO17025 we're talking about. (traceability, uncertainty budget, etc.?)

But common sense is usefull so it has all been said earlier:
Why would you use an uncalibrated Torque Wrench, and
how would you calibrate a hammer?

When I set up the calibration lab here at work and sent out request for tool lists I gave one simple rule, 'Report the tool if it used to measure or test a part or product.' People would come to me and ask about tape measures, rulers, etc and I would simply ask the question, 'Is it used to test or measure a company part or product?'.

It is better not to use a gage than to use an uncalibrated gage. If you have no gage you will be very careful of all aspects of manufacture. A gage gives the user a since of security that it tells the truth. An uncalibrated worn-out gage is lying. The user thus blissfully makes lots of bad product. The result will be found out in the cost of scrap.
Toolmakers check their gages prior to use. In other words an unofficial, undocumented calibration. Remember you only have to calibrate what you accept product on.
Not all calibration needs to be done by an accredited laboratory. In house calibration is acceptable within specified limits. Instead of calling this "an unofficial, undocumented calibration," call it a shop calibration. Define the limits allowing for less sophisticated calibration techniques and proceduralize it for your operation. This theoretically forces the toolmakers to is what is intended, and to record their results. The tool then is calibrated, there is no additional cost to the company for calibration (they were already doing an unofficial calibration). Yes, there is a small cost for documenting the results, the emphasis on small, which should repay itself in less scrap, or at a minimum peace of mind. This should not be used in exclusion to having the master gages calibrated by an accredited laboratory on a regular basis.

I think the discussion around what to calibrate must include the standard if any we are trying to comply with. I have argued with QA mgrs. and process engineers for years over what devices to calibrate. If we are talking about ISO 9001-1994 element 4.11 the must control list is limited to "imt&e used by the supplier to demonstrate conformance of product to the specified requirements." This is not to say we might not find it useful to calibrate other devices, it just says they don't have to be controlled to the level required by the standard. I just wish ISO would have continued to use this definition instead of the ambiguous "affect product quality" that they use in 4.11.2.b. Even so, I think the intent was to require control of IMT&E that is used to demonstrate conformance to the "specified requirements." I would be very interested to hear what others have to say about this issue.

I think the discussion around what to calibrate must include the standard if any we are trying to comply with. I have argued with QA mgrs. and process engineers for years over what devices to calibrate. If we are talking about ISO 9001-1994 element 4.11 the must control list is limited to "imt&e used by the supplier to demonstrate conformance of product to the specified requirements." This is not to say we might not find it useful to calibrate other devices, it just says they don't have to be controlled to the level required by the standard. I just wish ISO would have continued to use this definition instead of the ambiguous "affect product quality" that they use in 4.11.2.b. Even so, I think the intent was to require control of IMT&E that is used to demonstrate conformance to the "specified requirements." I would be very interested to hear what others have to say about this issue.What about devices used in development to establish specifications?

The short answer is, not required. Do you want your R&D devices calibrated? Of course but, following the strict interpertation of the ISO 9001 standard, you are not demonstrating product conformance with R&D test equipment. It makes sense to still calibrate but not under the constraints of the standard.

The short answer is, not required. Do you want your R&D devices calibrated? Of course but, following the strict interpertation of the ISO 9001 standard, you are not demonstrating product conformance with R&D test equipment. It makes sense to still calibrate but not under the constraints of the standard.

I beg to differ. Clause 7.3.6 defines the steps for design validation to ensure "that the resulting product is capable of meeting the requirements for the specified application or intended use...". This sounds like demonstrating product conformance to me.

The short answer is, not required. Do you want your R&D devices calibrated? Of course but, following the strict interpertation of the ISO 9001 standard, you are not demonstrating product conformance with R&D test equipment. It makes sense to still calibrate but not under the constraints of the standard.What are the constraints of the standard you are referring to? How can you be certain of product conformance if the devices used to establish their performance are questionable?

What are the constraints of the standard you are referring to?
jrcook5 seems to be promoting a pedantic, legalistic interpretation of the standard that narrowly defines "product" conformance as applicable only to finished products, or products being manufactured.
How can you be certain of product conformance if the devices used to establish their performance are questionable?
Exactly. The suggestion seems to be that it's OK to use non-calibrated devices to set the requirements, but calibrated devices must be used to verify them. :confused: Product conformance (fitness for a specific use) and fitness for manufacture are determined (or should be) before any actual manufacturing takes place, so it makes no sense whatsoever that measurement devices used in the development process wouldn't fall under the requirements of the standard.

I think the discussion around what to calibrate must include the standard if any we are trying to comply with. I have argued with QA mgrs. and process engineers for years over what devices to calibrate. If we are talking about ISO 9001-1994 element 4.11 the must control list is limited to "imt&e used by the supplier to demonstrate conformance of product to the specified requirements." This is not to say we might not find it useful to calibrate other devices, it just says they don't have to be controlled to the level required by the standard. I just wish ISO would have continued to use this definition instead of the ambiguous "affect product quality" that they use in 4.11.2.b. Even so, I think the intent was to require control of IMT&E that is used to demonstrate conformance to the "specified requirements." I would be very interested to hear what others have to say about this issue.

Maybe the new ISO standard used the broader term "affect product quality" because they recognized and wanted to infer that other gages ought to be calibrated as well? It makes sense.

[QUOTE=JSW05]jrcook5 seems to be promoting a pedantic, legalistic interpretation of the standard that narrowly defines "product" conformance as applicable only to finished products, or products being manufactured.

PEDANTIC...I had to look that one up. We are talking about conforming to the requirements aren't we? ISO 9001 and 13485 are the standards that apply. The auditors, that come in here including the FDA, are very often "pedantic" in there enforcement of the standards and regulations. By the way, I am in the metrology department where being "pedantic" is actually a huge complement. I am not advocating not calibrating R&D devices, all I'm saying is, do you want to include devices in your calibration system that when found out of tolerance require corrective action per ISO that may be overkill based on the usage of the device. The final products are not affected because they are inspected downstream with the controlled calibrated devices.

do you want to include devices in your calibration system that when found out of tolerance require corrective action per ISO that may be overkill based on the usage of the device.
CA shouldn't be done because ISO requires it; it should be done whenever it has a reasonable chance of fixing a problem or improving a process. I want to include in the calibration system all devices with the potential to affect product quality, and that includes devices used in product development
The final products are not affected because they are inspected downstream with the controlled calibrated devices.
So you believe that use of calibrated inspection equipment in-process somehow prevents defects? Or is your only concern that defectives don't get shipped?

I am not advocating not calibrating R&D devices, all I'm saying is, do you want to include devices in your calibration system that when found out of tolerance require corrective action per ISO that may be overkill based on the usage of the device. The final products are not affected because they are inspected downstream with the controlled calibrated devices.Quality System standards and regulations do not require corrective action when devices are found OOT, only an evaluation to determine whether product was affected and if CA is required.

[QUOTE=JSW05]jrcook5 seems to be promoting a pedantic, legalistic interpretation of the standard that narrowly defines "product" conformance as applicable only to finished products, or products being manufactured.

PEDANTIC...I had to look that one up. We are talking about conforming to the requirements aren't we? ISO 9001 and 13485 are the standards that apply. The auditors, that come in here including the FDA, are very often "pedantic" in there enforcement of the standards and regulations. By the way, I am in the metrology department where being "pedantic" is actually a huge complement. I am not advocating not calibrating R&D devices, all I'm saying is, do you want to include devices in your calibration system that when found out of tolerance require corrective action per ISO that may be overkill based on the usage of the device. The final products are not affected because they are inspected downstream with the controlled calibrated devices.

You might be right, but I think we are missing the greater point. ISO is not here so you can be a slave and be complaint. You are supposed to be compliant because these are GOOD requirements!

Therefore, why do we calibrate gages? Only so final product can be correct? Or, do we do it to ensure that when we go to the trouble of taking a measurement, that we can rely on the results as being accurate? If that is the case, then the only gages that have to be calibrated are those we wish to ensure are accurate. Then they can be calibrated to an accuracy level that is accurate, at a frequency that meets our needs.

If we are going to be pedantic, let's be pedantic to that objective!

We don't do this stuff for ISO or the auditor, we do it for us.

Moderation is all things.

Calibration can be taken too far, application is the key. Is it a gauge that requires ISO 17025 calibration, or does it need to be verified before use?
Here's a couple items that must be taken into consideration: Tolerances & Uncertainty of Measurment. If my tolerances are so great that my UM doesn't matter, why bother calibrating when verification works.
Saves time and money.
Now with that being said, has anyone noticed how old the cal date is on some of the gas pumps? I used one the other day that was over 2 years old, sure had me wondering.:confused:

[QUOTE=jrcook5]



Therefore, why do we calibrate gages? Only so final product can be correct? Or, do we do it to ensure that when we go to the trouble of taking a measurement, that we can rely on the results as being accurate? If that is the case, then the only gages that have to be calibrated are those we wish to ensure are accurate. Then they can be calibrated to an accuracy level that is accurate, at a frequency that meets our needs.

If we are going to be pedantic, let's be pedantic to that objective!

We don't do this stuff for ISO or the auditor, we do it for us.


Calibrating only the devices that we need to be accurate makes a lot of sense. Excellent point! What would be your position on controlling "measuring equipment" as defined by ISO 100012 as "equipment used in the demonstration of compliance with a specification" to the level required by ISO 9001 and ISO 13485 and calibrating and controling other devices under the requirements of an internal P.M. program or other system? The calibration or inspection of the device would still occur but not require the level of control required by ISO. I understand that we comply to the standards because they are good practices,but sometimes they intrude on our other objectives, namely making a profit. Sometimes the ISO standards seem to be like the rules and regulations that govern Nascar racing. The racing teams must comply to the rules or they are punished or disqualified but they must always remember that they are in the business of winning races, not building the safest car on the track.

...why do we calibrate gages? ... [Do] we do it to ensure that when we go to the trouble of taking a measurement, that we can rely on the results as being accurate?That is the point exactly.It is better not to use a gage than to use an uncalibrated gage. ... An uncalibrated worn-out gage is lying. The user thus blissfully makes lots of bad product....If you are going to use a tool, make sure that the tool will do the job. For a measurement device, you must be sure that it works well enough to accomplish the mission, regardless of where in the production process the tool is used. If used in the first operation, and the error is found out at final inspection, and rejected product is not shipped to customer, the system worked. But what about all the time, raw material and additional product that was wasted? That is scrap, which is lost company dollars, that could have been avoided, if that first measurement was accurate?... Is it a gauge that requires ISO 17025 calibration, or does it need to be verified before use? ...I am not saying that all calibration/verification needs to be done by an accredited laboratory. I am saying that all measurement tools need to be evaluated on a regular basis or else they tend to lie to you. Just keep the process simple, don't ignore it.

I agree with all of the above. When in doubt, holding engineering accountable for these determinations is sometimes helpful. Obviously you would want that in writing. I use them when I can. This way I am not making decisions that should be made by someone with more understanding of the purpose of the measurement. I am only ensuring that which is supose to be calibrated, IS.
:whip:

[quote=hjilling]


Calibrating only the devices that we need to be accurate makes a lot of sense. Excellent point! What would be your position on controlling "measuring equipment" as defined by ISO 100012 as "equipment used in the demonstration of compliance with a specification" to the level required by ISO 9001 and ISO 13485 and calibrating and controling other devices under the requirements of an internal P.M. program or other system? The calibration or inspection of the device would still occur but not require the level of control required by ISO. I understand that we comply to the standards because they are good practices,but sometimes they intrude on our other objectives, namely making a profit. Sometimes the ISO standards seem to be like the rules and regulations that govern Nascar racing. The racing teams must comply to the rules or they are punished or disqualified but they must always remember that they are in the business of winning races, not building the safest car on the track.


Actually, I think you may have misunderstood my point. When I said "...the only gages that have to be calibrated are those we wish to ensure are accurate," I was being rhetorical.

Of course only gages that need to be accurate have to be calibrated, but why would we be measuring with any tool if we don't have some sense that it is accurate. There essentially should be some level of calibration or verification to ensure the gage readings are usable.

The extent of the verification/calibration is where the time savings can be achieved. The more critical the gage and measurement, the more comprehensive the gage test must become.

Is there a standard for calibrating tape measures? Does it have to be done every 20, 60, 90 etc. days or can we determine that ourselves?

Marilyn, I'm not aware of any particular requirement for tape measures regarding a particular calibration time period required. A lot is going to depend on how you use the tape measures - unless you're using a type I'm unfamiliar with, there is not a lot that can be done to adjust a tape measure when you find it's out of calibration. You need to pick an interval that is appropriate for your process, because you'll need to go back and analyze process output from the point of out of calibration to the last known in calibration point to determine if nonconforming product could have been produced or shipped.

When faced with the issue of having to "calibrate" tape measures for a mechanical testing lab in a steel mill, I set up a program to verify them against a stainless steel rule that in turn was compared and verified to a master rule that was sent out for calibration. We made the master/secondary rule comparison quarterly and verified the tape measures daily. The tape measures in question were used to make rough in process sample preparation measures to at best +/- 1/8 inch. Tasks, such as how thick is the stack of tensiles I have - can I fit it into the jig, or do I need to split them up and mill two jigs.

Hope the info helps.

Thanks for the info. I am at a new company and they really don't want to have to calibrate tape measures because the service techs are on the road and rarely come into the office. The company I use to work for calibrated them monthly against a certified steel rule but when I suggested that, it wasn't accepted well. They want to say they are calibrated upon purchase and every 5 years after that, figuring they will be replaced many times over so they won't have to recalibrate. I think 5 years is way too long but I do understand the situation is different here.

Sorry, but I had to.....37 posts on calibration!

IMHO cally and doc control are what gave ISO/QS/TS such a bad rap in the view of Management. Who cares? Only us teckie geeks - sure as heck not executive management! And rightly so.

It's a tape measure!

Imagine you paid tens or hundreds of thouands of dollars to a registrar only to hear that 3 gages were missing a sticker and a document in a locker was the wrong rev. Yeah baby, that was worth it. Made us world class!

It's always open season on the cal teck, and doc clerk, but the top dawg is untouchable? Cause he writes the check?

More damage $ is done by poor contract review, inadequate design, and failure to provide adequate human and capital resources than any gage without those Expressions of Uncertainty ever could.

I live for the day when Quality System Requirements are replaced with Business Excellence Models. I can't wait for my CEO to tell me I have to get on board and support his system, instead of me having to try to get MSAs done....

Whoa...I feel better now, I had to get that off my chest or explode!

[QUOTE=Caster]Sorry, but I had to.....37 posts on calibration!

More damage $ is done by poor contract review, inadequate design, and failure to provide adequate human and capital resources than any gage without those Expressions of Uncertainty ever could.

QUOTE]

Amen Brother !!!

It's always open season on the cal teck, and doc clerk, but the top dawg is untouchable? Cause he writes the check?

More damage $ is done by poor contract review, inadequate design, and failure to provide adequate human and capital resources than any gage without those Expressions of Uncertainty ever could.

I live for the day when Quality System Requirements are replaced with Business Excellence Models. I can't wait for my CEO to tell me I have to get on board and support his system, instead of me having to try to get MSAs done....

Whoa...I feel better now, I had to get that off my chest or explode!

It may give you a small measure of satisfaction to know that as an auditor, I agree with yuor premise. I say similar things many times. I spend at least as much time beating up, ...er...auditing managers as I do rank and file because they are the ones who can make the big mistakes. Unfortuanately, it is slow progress.

Years ago I was working in a company that was designing and manufacturing some state-of-the-art microwave communications equipment. The design engineers released the design for production, at which point we spent 6 months attempting to "tweak" the first article unit to working order. Finally, after falling 3 months behind schedule it was decided that we should get the "engineering" models out and review the differences. Guess what, the engineering models didn't work either. Then both units were taken back to the Engineering Lab where it was found that both the FA and the engineering model worked well in the lab.

Root cause: Uncalibrated equipment in the lab.

This one project was enough to cause management to re-evaluate Design Engineering's former stand that their equipment did not require calibration.

Sorry, but I had to.....37 posts on calibration!

IMHO cally and doc control are what gave ISO/QS/TS such a bad rap in the view of Management. Who cares? Only us teckie geeks - sure as heck not executive management! And rightly so.

It's a tape measure!

Imagine you paid tens or hundreds of thouands of dollars to a registrar only to hear that 3 gages were missing a sticker and a document in a locker was the wrong rev. Yeah baby, that was worth it. Made us world class!

It's always open season on the cal teck, and doc clerk, but the top dawg is untouchable? Cause he writes the check?

More damage $ is done by poor contract review, inadequate design, and failure to provide adequate human and capital resources than any gage without those Expressions of Uncertainty ever could.

I live for the day when Quality System Requirements are replaced with Business Excellence Models. I can't wait for my CEO to tell me I have to get on board and support his system, instead of me having to try to get MSAs done....

Whoa...I feel better now, I had to get that off my chest or explode!

How did you know how I feel??? Thisa is totally uncanny!!!!:applause:
I go through the exact same thing and the upper management doesn't know squat about quality procedures or customer requirements! MSA studies?:mg: Why are we wasting our time when we have to get product out the door? Who cares if it's right?-I just want it out the door so I can get my big fat juicy bonus for the month!!!! Thats managements attitude all right!

Look at it logically (yeah, I know, that is outside the ISO realm at times).....the late Phil Stein phrased it best.....if the measurement matters, calibrate the equipment.....if the measurement does not matter, why make it?

Put another way, if you are making a measurement that matters to your device or product, calibrate the measuring device. If the measurement does not matter enough to calibrate the instrument, then why make the measurement at all? Now, use some common sense.....wooden rulers are an example of an item that should never be calibrated without some real specific reason.

As for NCR stickers, Wesley is right.....be careful with them.....use them only where you need them, not on things like pliers and hammers.



Just trying to get the thread back to the original point.....

Just as a follow up, we completed our ISO9001:2000 audit last week with no findings and have been recomended for registration. My original post was to get people to think outside the box. We are a small company so laying out an additional $10,000 for calibration is a huge expense. We put a system in place that meets the standard and was benificial to the company. We will only do things that make sense for the company!