<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gage R&#038;R For IR Thermometers?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://measurementblog.com/archives/47/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://measurementblog.com/archives/47</link>
	<description>Measurement devices, measurement education &#38; measuring</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:52:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: admin2</title>
		<link>http://measurementblog.com/archives/47#comment-267</link>
		<dc:creator>admin2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:48:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://measurementblog.com/archives/47#comment-267</guid>
		<description>Mr, Abrams:

Thanks for your comment. I'll have a look at your email later today and perhaps respond directly. 

You have illustrated part of the problem of setting up a meaningful Gage R&#038;R test; one needs multiple repeats with multiple operators to measure results from multiple objects that are different in the parameter you wish to measure. 

The questions about how much of each and how repeatable each is will be answered by the measurement results, correctly analyzed. Minitab should do the analysis "with its eyes closed"..

The purpose of the Gage R&#038;R test, as I understand it, is to separate and quantify the two major sources of measurement variation, the equipment and the operators. 

But the measurements need to also be under conditions that are highly repeatable and stable to begin with. Sounds like something is changing and you are not fully aware of it. Maybe, maybe not; I'll check your email for details.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr, Abrams:</p>
<p>Thanks for your comment. I&#8217;ll have a look at your email later today and perhaps respond directly. </p>
<p>You have illustrated part of the problem of setting up a meaningful Gage R&#038;R test; one needs multiple repeats with multiple operators to measure results from multiple objects that are different in the parameter you wish to measure. </p>
<p>The questions about how much of each and how repeatable each is will be answered by the measurement results, correctly analyzed. Minitab should do the analysis &#8220;with its eyes closed&#8221;..</p>
<p>The purpose of the Gage R&#038;R test, as I understand it, is to separate and quantify the two major sources of measurement variation, the equipment and the operators. </p>
<p>But the measurements need to also be under conditions that are highly repeatable and stable to begin with. Sounds like something is changing and you are not fully aware of it. Maybe, maybe not; I&#8217;ll check your email for details.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Abrams</title>
		<link>http://measurementblog.com/archives/47#comment-266</link>
		<dc:creator>James Abrams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:52:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://measurementblog.com/archives/47#comment-266</guid>
		<description>I sent you an email and I am very interested as to how you commence a gauge r&#38;r with a IR camera. Lets say a flir a A20M, with an accuracy of +/- 2%. I have performed repeated tests with the camera to find the % process using minitab at a passing level when our samples are kept in the same spot. When we remove our samples and replace them, our process fails dramaitcally.

-James Abrams</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I sent you an email and I am very interested as to how you commence a gauge r&amp;r with a IR camera. Lets say a flir a A20M, with an accuracy of +/- 2%. I have performed repeated tests with the camera to find the % process using minitab at a passing level when our samples are kept in the same spot. When we remove our samples and replace them, our process fails dramaitcally.</p>
<p>-James Abrams</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin2</title>
		<link>http://measurementblog.com/archives/47#comment-236</link>
		<dc:creator>admin2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:41:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://measurementblog.com/archives/47#comment-236</guid>
		<description>I also said I would spend the time to do it if there was enough interest by September 20, 2007.

After two months, yours is the only comment that even hints at an interest. 

Anyone else? There's less than a month left!

GRP</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also said I would spend the time to do it if there was enough interest by September 20, 2007.</p>
<p>After two months, yours is the only comment that even hints at an interest. </p>
<p>Anyone else? There&#8217;s less than a month left!</p>
<p>GRP</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IRWeb INFO &#187; Archives &#187; How Accurate Are Infrared (IR) Thermometers in Users&#8217; Hands?</title>
		<link>http://measurementblog.com/archives/47#comment-235</link>
		<dc:creator>IRWeb INFO &#187; Archives &#187; How Accurate Are Infrared (IR) Thermometers in Users&#8217; Hands?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://measurementblog.com/archives/47#comment-235</guid>
		<description>[...] fact, the recent post asks the rhetorical question Gage R&#38;R For IR Thermometers?. The author promises to delve deeper into developing a procedure needed to do a sensible R&#38;R [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] fact, the recent post asks the rhetorical question Gage R&amp;R For IR Thermometers?. The author promises to delve deeper into developing a procedure needed to do a sensible R&amp;R [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
