>As soon as a "reference" device goes out into the general lab population, >it's subject to physical and electrical abuse. It may take you quite a while >to notice that some device has just one attenuator range that's damaged (but >not completely blown, just shifted a bit). > >As far as I'm concerned, once a device hits the general lab population, it's >no more reliable than anything else out there. (Although I may put a bit >more faith in the most recently calibrated item, simply since it's likely to >have had the least exposure to trouble.) > >Regards, >Ed
Another P.O.V. : Anecdotal experience: at the last three companies I've worked, the biggest single source of test equipment/instrumentation failure has been directly from the Calibration Process. When a fully functional instrument is submitted for calibration, and a device is returned that has no (or severly decreased functionality), it valid to assume that the calibration process does not always insure measurement integrity, nor add value to the development lab receiving the calibration services. It serves The Process (ISO 9k-speak). Brian O'Connell Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc. ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
