Measurement Uncertainty.....stirring up dust - MU variance for any given calibration
- Thread starter Hershal
- Start date
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
Jerry,
Personal view only, this is just me, a Hershalism.......if your numbers are rejected, then there should be some explanation as to why.....whether easy or hard, at least you should have some direction.
Of course, I can only really speak to how I do things.
My personal point of view is that your bench techs should be able to do a measurement, take the $6 calculator from the grocery store (the $6 one because you need square root) with pencil and paper, and calculate the MU.....anything else is at the wrong level. Of course, that is just my opinion.....
Hershal
Personal view only, this is just me, a Hershalism.......if your numbers are rejected, then there should be some explanation as to why.....whether easy or hard, at least you should have some direction.
Of course, I can only really speak to how I do things.
My personal point of view is that your bench techs should be able to do a measurement, take the $6 calculator from the grocery store (the $6 one because you need square root) with pencil and paper, and calculate the MU.....anything else is at the wrong level. Of course, that is just my opinion.....
Hershal
J
JerryStem
Now it's just silly:
Got a reply from A2LA that said another of the 3 member council also failed it! Some of his reasons? He said we're a cal lab, not testing and shouldn't have ASTM specs listed! He said ASTM methods are for testing, they don't mention calibration (?!) and we should remove them from our scope!
d) Remove the reference to the ASTM as these apply to test methods and not calibrations.
So, if I ignore that the ASTM methods DO in fact talk about calibrating the equipment (ASTM B568 for example, measurement by XRay Fluorescence), he wants me to remove reference to known, tested, acceptable methods and go with I guess "laboratory developed methods", which if I remember right goes into quite a bit more problems to validate??
For $7k in costs so far, and our 1 year "paperwork renewal" due any day now for another $1-2k, I love the fact that they answer the phone as a Non Profit organization... (Off topic but I'm sick of this mafia group)
Jerry
Got a reply from A2LA that said another of the 3 member council also failed it! Some of his reasons? He said we're a cal lab, not testing and shouldn't have ASTM specs listed! He said ASTM methods are for testing, they don't mention calibration (?!) and we should remove them from our scope!
d) Remove the reference to the ASTM as these apply to test methods and not calibrations.
So, if I ignore that the ASTM methods DO in fact talk about calibrating the equipment (ASTM B568 for example, measurement by XRay Fluorescence), he wants me to remove reference to known, tested, acceptable methods and go with I guess "laboratory developed methods", which if I remember right goes into quite a bit more problems to validate??
For $7k in costs so far, and our 1 year "paperwork renewal" due any day now for another $1-2k, I love the fact that they answer the phone as a Non Profit organization... (Off topic but I'm sick of this mafia group)
Jerry
Jerry, I revise my offer to buy you a beverage (note I am using PC term here) at NCSLI and instead suggest chatting at the Fluke reception.....more beverage for less cost, and you have spent enough on MU already it seems.....after all, time=money.
Just a side note.....if the ASTM is the appropriate procedure/method for the calibration, then I would say it can be included. An example is ASTM E 18 for Rockwell hardness. That of course is my position, and not binding on colleague organizations.
Hershal
Hershal
J
JerryStem
Well, now my boss and his wife/co-owner (or is it the other way around? 
) has gotten involved, contacting the assessor directly.
Basically, the assessor is going to tell these two council members they don't know what they are talking about, he's been here and seen our work, and the members shouldn't send stupid replies like this without contacting him because it makes them all look bad.
We'll see...... (Gave up big drinking in the Navy but it's getting tempting...)
Jerry
) has gotten involved, contacting the assessor directly.Basically, the assessor is going to tell these two council members they don't know what they are talking about, he's been here and seen our work, and the members shouldn't send stupid replies like this without contacting him because it makes them all look bad.
We'll see...... (Gave up big drinking in the Navy but it's getting tempting...)
Jerry
K
Ken K
Interesting ordeal Jerry :mg:
Guess some of the stories about A2LA I've heard are true
Guess some of the stories about A2LA I've heard are true
Now now guys.....before this gets out of hand, remember, let's keep it professional.
Griping about a specific example is one thing, that is solid.....but general griping about ANY organization can be seen as unprofessional. Well, except maybe comments about Congress......
Hershal
Griping about a specific example is one thing, that is solid.....but general griping about ANY organization can be seen as unprofessional. Well, except maybe comments about Congress......
Hershal
J
JerryStem
I just want to go home
Latest update: Our A2LA rep tried to craft a Scope of Accred to satisfy the council member that complained. Our assessor made a few comments, she re-did it, then the assessor said
"The latest draft of the scope of accreditation is so full of errors that it no longer reflects what the laboratory does and is unacceptable. I will take this weekend to draft a revised scope of accreditation and/or provide a detailed enough description of each calibration so that everyone concerned will know what we are talking about."
So, he re-re-wrote our scope over this weekend & sent it to me. Looks fine to me, I filled in a few blanks, and now we'll see.....Again......
This has been ongoing since early October.
Jerry 
I don't think we'll be using A2LA again...
Latest update: Our A2LA rep tried to craft a Scope of Accred to satisfy the council member that complained. Our assessor made a few comments, she re-did it, then the assessor said
"The latest draft of the scope of accreditation is so full of errors that it no longer reflects what the laboratory does and is unacceptable. I will take this weekend to draft a revised scope of accreditation and/or provide a detailed enough description of each calibration so that everyone concerned will know what we are talking about."
So, he re-re-wrote our scope over this weekend & sent it to me. Looks fine to me, I filled in a few blanks, and now we'll see.....Again......
This has been ongoing since early October.
Jerry
I don't think we'll be using A2LA again...
Similar threads
- Sticky