Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
08-09-2020 -- 20:30:45

Login with username, password and session length

Top 10 Posters

flew-da-coup (1303)
Hawaii596 (1015)
USMCPMEL (850)
griff61 (580)
Hoopty (548)
docbyers (544)
MIRCS (535)
CalLabSolutions (519)
PMEL_DEVIL-DOG (509)
Thraxas (498)
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 19229
  • Total Topics: 3640
  • Online Today: 69
  • Online Ever: 242
  • (04-19-2014 -- 19:20:34)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 46
Total: 46


Author Topic: Uncertainty vs. TAR/TUR  (Read 11478 times)

Offline Bryan

  • 5-level
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Action Taken: +10/-4
    • Email
Uncertainty vs. TAR/TUR
« on: 01-14-2009 -- 00:24:59 »
I'd like some thoughts on when I can disregard calculating uncertainty.
As an arbitrary limit I have decided that if I am meeting 4:1 accuracy ratio I leave it at that, lesser amounts then I will state an uncertainty.
Is this consistent with the intent of 17025?  Granted specific customer requirements may dictate otherwise but for my own equipment it seems acceptable to me.

Offline RFCAL

  • 5-level
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Action Taken: +4/-1
    • Email
Re: Uncertainty vs. TAR/TUR
« Reply #1 on: 08-24-2009 -- 20:40:33 »
Unfortunately, to comply with 17025, you must do Uncertainty Calculations for EVERYTHING.An inspector will not accept TUR.

Offline Wilk

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Action Taken: +1/-1
Re: Uncertainty vs. TAR/TUR
« Reply #2 on: 08-25-2009 -- 22:24:06 »
Quote
Unfortunately, to comply with 17025, you must do Uncertainty Calculations for EVERYTHING.An inspector will not accept TUR.

Thats not a completly accurate statement.  "TUR" being defined as "Test Uncertainty Ratio" would mean there are uncertainties available as they would be needed to get a ratio.  This is acceptable by some, but not all of the accrediting bodies I believe.  "TAR" or "Test Accuracy Ratio" on the other hand is not accepted by any of the AB's.  Not sure who is your AB, but most of them have additional policies on top of 17025 that you must also comply with.  A further defined tracebility requirement is usually one of these documents.  The answer to your question will probably be in that document.


Offline RFCAL

  • 5-level
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Action Taken: +4/-1
    • Email
Re: Uncertainty vs. TAR/TUR
« Reply #3 on: 08-26-2009 -- 19:12:53 »
A2LA will not accept TUR/TAR or 4:1 / 10:1 for us older guys.At least they wouldn't accept them 2 years ago.

skidaddle skaduski

  • Guest
Re: Uncertainty vs. TAR/TUR
« Reply #4 on: 08-30-2012 -- 18:48:37 »
lol.. yeah, and check out some of those "TUR's"  lmao.  Or, for a better laugh.

Offline CalDude

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Action Taken: +1/-4
    • Email
Re: Uncertainty vs. TAR/TUR
« Reply #5 on: 09-06-2012 -- 18:37:33 »
I always enjoyed finding a calibration certificate with full uncertainty analysis on a parameter that was not on the scope of accreditation from  A2LA, but they still use the logo for that cert. Should that test show a tar our can they just list their uncertainties and not care?
"Surely it is the better part of thought that relies on measurement and calculation."  Plato, The Republic

Offline djshepp21

  • Pinger
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Action Taken: +0/-0
    • Email
Re: Uncertainty vs. TAR/TUR
« Reply #6 on: 09-06-2012 -- 18:44:01 »
 :-o  I'm pretty sure A2LA's logo policy is very clear about this...as should that cal house's quality manual.  If memory serves me right, if they are calibrating to ISO 17025 and using A2LA's logo, any parameters under test that isn't within their scope of accredidation should be identified as such.  There's nothing wrong with doing the additional uncertainty analysis for those test, but they cannot claim that parameter as being within their scope on the certificate.

Anyone have anything else to add to that?  Or did I sum it up correctly? :?

Offline HarryBee

  • 3-level
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Action Taken: +0/-1
Re: Uncertainty vs. TAR/TUR
« Reply #7 on: 09-06-2012 -- 18:49:40 »
.. .. . . ... . bwahahahahahah.  No.. no.. I have a better one.  How about when the standards listed on the certificate are no where close to 4:1 and sometimes 1:1.  I love seeing those certs.

To the OP, if your quality manuals don't state you need to do uncertainties then you don't have to, I don't think, unless your accreditation requires it.


 

DISCLAIMER:  This site is not an official US Air Force site, it is intended for private use only.  It is not endorsed, in any way, by the US Air Force, the DoD, or any other governmental agency.  Additionally, all information found within this site is just that, it is NOT meant to be used in place of authorized publications.


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.

All forum content is the property of the respective poster, all the rest 2004-2017 by PMEL Forum.