|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Session:
|
5A - Uncertainty Analysis IV
|
Date & Time:
|
Tuesday August 8, 2:30 PM - 4:00 PM
|
Paper Title:
|
k=3.9 ? . . . Why Not ??
|
|
|
Speaker:
|
Howard Zion, Director of Technical Operations
|
CoAuthors:
|
|
Speaker Info
|
Company:
|
Transcat, Inc.
|
Address:
|
35 Vantage Point Drive
Rochester, NY, 14624, United States
|
Phone:
|
585-352-9720
|
Email:
|
hzion@transcat.com
|
|
|
Abstract:
|
This paper will begin with an elementary review of the differences between TAR and TUR, underscoring the reasons for ISO-17025 and the GUM. In the discussion on TUR, a demonstration of the application of k=2 will be presented with respect to the UUT's tolerance. Previous NCSLI papers discussing "Indeterminate" calibration results will be addressed and quantified, illustrating the probability that a reading may indeed be out of tolerance (OOT). When attempting to determine this probability using k=2 for the reporting of a TUR, a problem arises if the entire area under the Normal Probability Density Function is not considered: the result is a misrepresentation of the OOT probability. This will lead to the concept that, although k=2 is a good reporting format for the uncertainty of a measurement, TURs should be standardized using k=3.9. It is the author's hope that this will spark discussion that will take the Metrology industry to the next step in tackling this "Indeterminate" area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|