G
Hi guys. I'm new to the forum and pretty new to the industry. I am very grateful to have this great resource available and my thanks to all who make it work so well.
I work for an ISO consulting firm but have not been exposed to a lot of 17025 issues other than reading the standard and related publications. My question involves the calculation of uncertainty where repeated measurements are taken at two or more load levels to calculate an expanded uncertainty. Budgets may also include uncertainties for wind, temperature, etc.
The calculations seem straightforward. My question has to do with the scope of the standard. What if someone has 3000 - 5000 pieces of equipment in the field that are calibrated annually or semi-annually? Perhaps only 1000 of these may be for 'quality critical' measurements. You can imagine the additional time and cost required to make the repeatibility studies. Many of the balance owners do not need (read 'will not pay for') any additional precision information these measurements provide so the service company would bear the expense of most of the additional cost.
Does the standard/registrar require a full blown budget for all 5000 instruments or does it require a budget and expanded uncertainty measurement for only the quality critical instruments?
Is is kosher to forego any physical measurements and instead use estimated uncertainties for most of the instruments?
Does the standard dictate what measurements must be made or does the customer (balance owner) dictate what levels of uncertainty, if any, are required.
The few people I've asked thus far seem to have differing opinions on this. Thanks in advance for your comments.
JR
I work for an ISO consulting firm but have not been exposed to a lot of 17025 issues other than reading the standard and related publications. My question involves the calculation of uncertainty where repeated measurements are taken at two or more load levels to calculate an expanded uncertainty. Budgets may also include uncertainties for wind, temperature, etc.
The calculations seem straightforward. My question has to do with the scope of the standard. What if someone has 3000 - 5000 pieces of equipment in the field that are calibrated annually or semi-annually? Perhaps only 1000 of these may be for 'quality critical' measurements. You can imagine the additional time and cost required to make the repeatibility studies. Many of the balance owners do not need (read 'will not pay for') any additional precision information these measurements provide so the service company would bear the expense of most of the additional cost.
Does the standard/registrar require a full blown budget for all 5000 instruments or does it require a budget and expanded uncertainty measurement for only the quality critical instruments?
Is is kosher to forego any physical measurements and instead use estimated uncertainties for most of the instruments?
Does the standard dictate what measurements must be made or does the customer (balance owner) dictate what levels of uncertainty, if any, are required.
The few people I've asked thus far seem to have differing opinions on this. Thanks in advance for your comments.
JR
Last edited by a moderator:
