The Elsmar Cove Forum and Site Map The Elsmar Cove Wiki More Free Files The Elsmar Cove Forums Discussion Thread Index Post Attachments Listing Failure Modes Services and Solutions to Problems Elsmar cove Forums Main Page Elsmar Cove Home Page

Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Standards > ISO 17025 - Calibration, Measurement Gages and Test Laboratories > Measurement Uncertainty (MU)


The Elsmar Cove Forum SideBar!
Monitor the Forum
Monitor New Forum Posts
New Threads Feeds
RSS FeedRSS Feed
Sponsor Link










$ Contributor Forum Access
Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:


Howard's International Quality Services

Atul's Symphony Technologies

Dave Scott's Scott Quality Solutions

Praxiom Research Group


NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest Portal

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology

ASQ - American Society for Quality


All the Important Standards and Related Web Sites in the World
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  #1  
Old 27th April 2006, 03:57 PM
ahmadfy2003 ahmadfy2003 is offline
Shy Poster (1 to 5 Posts)

Registration Date: Apr 2006
Location: amman-Jordan
 
Posts: 1
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 15
Karma: 10
ahmadfy2003 has less than 100 Karma points so far.
Please Help! Weight Measurement Uncertainty - F1 10 Kg weight comparison with 10 Kg E2 weight

are there any one could help me to know how to calculate the measurement uncertainty for F1 10 Kg weight comparison with 10 Kg E2 weight

Last edited by Marc; 15th May 2006 at 03:05 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 15th May 2006, 03:04 PM
Marc's Avatar
Marc Marc is online now
Your Elsmar Cove Host

Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
 
Posts: 15,860
Thanks Given to Others: 1,896
Thanked 1,569 Times in 1,020 Posts
Blog Entries: 4
Karma Power: 605
Karma: 11574
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Send a message via AIM to Marc Send a message via Skype™ to Marc
Default

Any takers on this?
__________________
A Search is a terrible thing to waste!
One Test is Worth 1000 Expert Opinions - The plural of anecdote is not data.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. - Unknown
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #3  
Old 30th May 2006, 02:03 PM
skappesser skappesser is offline
Registered Visitor

Registration Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maryland, USA
 
Posts: 33
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Karma Power: 22
Karma: 145
skappesser is appreciated, and has over 100 Karma points.skappesser is appreciated, and has over 100 Karma points.
Default Mass Measurement Uncertainty

I learned how to do this at NIST's Weights and Measures Division.
Do you have the measurement uncertainties as stated on the calibration certificates for the standards and check standards you used?
Do you know your standard uncertainty of your process? (Standard deviation)

If you know these 2 key items I will try to explain in this forum, if not - it would be impossible to arrive at an accurate estimate.

BUZZY
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 5th January 2007, 01:50 PM
Benjamin28 Benjamin28 is offline
Tater Salad

Registration Date: Dec 2006
Location: CT
 
Posts: 379
Thanks Given to Others: 89
Thanked 149 Times in 107 Posts
Karma Power: 37
Karma: 922
Benjamin28 is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Benjamin28 is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Benjamin28 is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Benjamin28 is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Benjamin28 is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Benjamin28 is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Benjamin28 is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.Benjamin28 is appreciated, and has over 900 Karma points.
Default Re: Weight Measurement Uncertainty - F1 10 Kg weight comparison with 10 Kg E2 weight

I am going to ressurect this thread as I am working on a similar calculation. We utilize 40, 30, 20, 10, 5, 1, and 0.5lb weights. These weights are utilized in stress rupture, sustained load, and creep testing machines. I need to calculate an uncertainty budget for the weights themselves.

For calibration of these weights we utilize a set of master weights calibrated by an accredited outside laboratory which reports a MU for each weight size.

0.5lb- UNC=3.3 mg k2 coverage
1.0lb - UNC=3.3 mg k2
5.0lb - UNC=8.1 mg k2
20lb - UNC=65 mg k2

Now, if I take 10 measurements on the scale we use for calibration of our working weights against the masters for the 20lb weight I get a std dev of
0.020138lb, I then take this number and divide it by the square root of 10...this should be my type A unc?

So, at this point I would take the unc from our master weight at 20lb and divide it by 2 to return to STD UNC? Then square the type A, B unc values add the squares and take the square root of this number...then multiply this number by 2 to obtain expanded uncertainty.

Does this sound correct for determining the UOM of the 20lb working weights?

There is no way around it, Uncertainty of Measurements is most definately going to give me a headache!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 5th January 2007, 03:30 PM
Hershal's Avatar
Hershal Hershal is offline
Metrologist-Auditor

Registration Date: Mar 2004
Location: So Cal, California, U.S.
Age: 53
 
Posts: 1,621
Thanks Given to Others: 1
Thanked 310 Times in 224 Posts
Karma Power: 186
Karma: 6526
Hershal is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Hershal is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Hershal is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Hershal is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Hershal is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Hershal is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Hershal is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Hershal is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Default Re: Weight Measurement Uncertainty - F1 10 Kg weight comparison with 10 Kg E2 weight

"Now, if I take 10 measurements on the scale we use for calibration of our working weights against the masters for the 20lb weight I get a std dev of
0.020138lb, I then take this number and divide it by the square root of 10...this should be my type A unc?"

That is correct.

"So, at this point I would take the unc from our master weight at 20lb and divide it by 2 to return to STD UNC? Then square the type A, B unc values add the squares and take the square root of this number...then multiply this number by 2 to obtain expanded uncertainty."

That is also correct.

Don't forget the other Type B contributions which generally will be Rectangular distribution, divided by square root of three (1.732). These contributions will likely include essentricity (repeatability of the specific positioning of weights on the device); if the weights are calibrated in another city (basically you have to ship them away) you may need to include the difference in local acceleration of gravity; bouyancy may not be too much of an issue for you, and likely barometric pressure also may not be; however, you need to consider temperature, that is the temp difference between the calibration temp and the actual usage temp.

Tylenol 3 is good for MU calculations.....Jack Daniels is better.....

Hershal
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Standards > ISO 17025 - Calibration, Measurement Gages and Test Laboratories > Measurement Uncertainty (MU)

Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors and 1 Unregistered Guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Weight Calibration Uncertainty Debbie Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 8 1st November 2009 03:35 AM
A little weight on my mind for New Year's - Measurement Uncertainty ScottBP Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 3 12th January 2009 01:47 PM
Weighing (Weight) Scales Verification - Blank weight of material qalsang ISO 17025 - Calibration, Measurement Gages and Test Laboratories 13 5th January 2009 04:45 PM
Weight Calculations - What is 100-600 u/ft2? What are these units of measurement? dbulak Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 12 16th December 2004 04:43 PM
Control and registration of weight measurement results data Anton Ovsianko Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 4 8th September 2001 01:32 PM



The time now is 01:57 PM. All times are GMT -4.
The time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



   

All Y'All Come Back Now, Y' Hear?

Made With A Mac! FreeBSD OS Powered by Apache!
Using php4 Forums provided and maintained by Marc Smith Database by MySQL

FAIR USE and CORRECTNESS NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe herein constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In addition, I do not guarantee the correctness of the content. The risk of using content from the Elsmar Cove web site and forums remains with the user/visitor.

Responsibility Statement: Each person is responsible for anything they post in the Elsmar Cove forum. Neither I, Marc Timothy Smith, nor any of the forum Moderators, are responsible for the content of posts people make. Liability for post content resides with the poster as does interpretation and/or acceptance and/or use of advice by the reader.

Complaints: If you have a complaint with a post in a forum discussion thread, including Content in general, fighting, flaming, copyright infringement, defamation and/or 'slander', please use the 'Report This Post Report This Post Button button which appears at the top of every post in every thread.

Site courtesy of:
Marc Timothy Smith - Cayman Business Systems, 8466 Lesourdsville-West Chester Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069-1929 - USA
(513) 341-6272

To contact me, click the Google Voice link below, enter Your Name and Your Phone Number and Google will ring your phone and connect you for free!

The Elsmar Cove Web Site is *CopyFree*
no new posts