I think we're bundling independent errors here. The lab's 17025
measurement uncertainty is independent of the EUT. That said, you are
certainly correct that measurement _variability_, due to the complexity
of the EUT, generally swamps the lab MU, especially in the case you
mention when multip
Every measurement uncertainty seminar I've ever been to, since the mid
80s, has concentrated on it as a measure of the labs ability to control
uncertainty. In every case, from NIST to NPL, they have been adamant
that uncertainty has _nothing_ to do with the pass/fail criteria. The
ironic thin
Quite right. We don't need to add uncertainty to EMC measurements,
because they are uncertain enough already.😉
==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
I hear, and I
A fun thing to do if you have access to a semi-anechoic chamber is use lots of
duct tape to make sure absolutely nothing changes between measurements other
than a certain design change--one accepted long ago that already went into
production, which cost $$$ (cable ferrites, wrapping cables multi
MU seems like a decent idea but is at best just an added cost for labs. It
seems like magical thinking - as long as this number is 'good' your results are
good. I've been working in labs 20 years. The biggest sources of error are
completely ignored by MU - operator errors and poor methods to ve
Hello Patrick, Deferring to others that have the history, as far as I can
remember
the impetus was good engineering practice.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:03 AM Patrick wrote:
> * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
> conwa...@gmail.com *
> --
> wh
what year did measurement uncertainty become a required component of lab
accreditation?
was there massive radio interference at homes and in offices that suddenly
ceased the year after?
asking for a friend.
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:28 Chas Grasso wrote:
> When the concept of measurement uncert
7 matches
Mail list logo
