Re: Calibration or Validation?
Those are standards that have authority only when two or more persons agree to abide by them. Anyone can devise a set of rules for calibration and define terms anyway they see fit. It becomes a standard when another person or entity agrees to its terms. If we are talking strictly about VIM and the NIST handbook, we use the definitions and requirements therein.
You realize the stretch that can be made with that argument. Quality of some manufactured product, maritime rules, what kind of deal is made on a house or car, and on and on. Someone can equally say that ISO9001 is an interesting document but not a standard, yet most folks here would likely disagree with that.
However, metrology is a science, and metrology professionals agree that those two requirements I originally stated (the chain of comparisons to SI, and uncertainties at each step) are the two requirements for traceable calibration. Absent either, and it is not considered calibration by metrology professionals. It is simply a verification, or a comparison, or similar, but not calibration.
Nobody got mine about auto rework shops.
Is that like the re- in refrigerator, which (unjustifiably) implies that the contents were at one point previously frigerated ... perhaps unsuccessfully?
