While following a web lead the other day I found these most interesting measurement publications on sale at the PTB web site in Germany. Here’s some of the text and an image from their pages.
Monograph series of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) Braunschweig, Germany - The monograph series serves to present subjects which ensue from, or are closely related to, the activities of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) The National Metrology Institute for Germany. These subjects relate not only to metrological issues but also to the various aspects of the physical and technical research work undertaken by the PTB and its sister institutes.
The content and form of the volumes – which are published in German or English – allow for the variety of the tasks and subjects.
The following volumes are available in bookshops:
* Herausforderung Metrologie (in German)
Die Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt und die Entwicklung seit 1945
Author: Dieter Kind (NW-Verlag, 2002) Read the rest of this entry »
To get back into the real sharing activity and intent of this blog to share my experiences with visitors, I plan to begin a series of short stories about my measurement experiences in both a small and large organizations over my multiple careers in R& D, Instrument Marketing and web publishing.
In my multifaceted careers I have worked with and in very large, large, small and tiny organizations and seen firsthand some of the activities in the W. E. Deming mode that inspired me. The Dilbert cases were there, too; they were the ones that convinced me some managers were pure idiots, or acted that way, no matter how intelligent they were.
In case you are unfamiliar with the name W. E. Deming, his full name is W. Edwards Deming and his traditions and teaching about a better management (and measurement) world are carried on at the Deming Institute, and elsewhere. His legacy in well known among Quality Assurance people and in Japan the annual prizes for top quality management are given each year in his name. Read the rest of this entry »
NCSL International issues a call to action by the Metrology Community
Boulder CO, USA — According to NCSL International’s Press release dated May 28th: The US Dept. of Labor rejects petition to recognize Metrology job descriptions in its proposed 2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System”
We know that Metrology is the bedrock upon which all U.S. commerce and manufacturing is built and that persons engaged in metrology/calibration activities provide services vital to the U.S. economy and national defense.
It is also widely known that in the United States there is a critical shortage of technical personnel posed to replace retiring baby-boomers.
The U.S. Dept. of Labor’s SOC provides formal recognition of job descriptions which are the basis for its Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) used by educators and counselors to inform students about career opportunities.
If the SOC does not include Metrology job descriptions neither will the OOH.
The following is the reason given by an SOC administrator as to why Metrology job descriptions were rejected; Read the rest of this entry »
Among its answers to the question: “How often must we repeat our measurement system analysis?”, is Dynamic MSA and, “..the key to performing a dynamic MSA is to have SPC properly implemented for the subject measurement system. In practice, this should be done regardless of MSA intent — to guarantee the stability of the measurement system.”
Although many people know Dr. W. Edwards Deming mainly for his work in management, he is better known in the statistical and legal communities for his analytic work, especially sampling theory and practice.
The Deming Institute is co-sponsoring a one-day symposium that will focus only on his statistical work.
Papers for the September 24, 2007 Symposium on Deming’s Analytic Papers are:
#80 A Statistical Test of Significance Applied to a Sociological Problem: variation in accident rates from Motor Vehicles - Eric Steinberg
#108 Some Stratified Sampling Plans in Replicated Design - Omar Dinar
#118 On the Use of Sampling in Management and Research - Blake Browne
#122 Theory of Surveys to Estimate a Roving Population - Caitlin Armistead
#128 A Recursion Formula For the Proportion of Persons Having a First Admission as Schizophrenic - John Choi
#129 A Markovian Analysis of the Life of Newspaper Subscriptions - Mike Connolly
#138 A Further Account of the Idiots Savants, Experts with the Calendar - Rayma Baran
#143 Some Theory on the influence of the inspector and environmental conditions, with an example - Mara Chomsky
#145 On Probability as a Basis For Action - Laura Mestre
#148 The Logic of Evaluation - Robert Serpente
#153 On the Use of Judgment Samples - Borami Lee
#158 On A Rational Relationship For Certain Costs of Handling Motor Freight, Part I. Over the Platform - George Masrouaa
#159 On a Rational Relationship For Certain Costs of Handling Motor Freight, Part II. Stop-time at Pickup and Delivery - Katherine Iwama
Times
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Monday September 24, 2007
8:00am - Registration
9:00am - 5:00pm - Presentations
Location:
Fordham University
113 West 60th Street, Room #309
New York, NY 10023 USA
Fee and Registration: Fee: $95 per registrant
Register online here or fax to 301-294-8406 or telephone 301-294-8405.
The W. Edwards Deming Institute
PO Box 59511
Potomac MD 20859 USA
Back in the good old days (before PCs and hand-held calculators, that is) we used to do calculations the hard way; by hand!
It seemed to give a little more significance to the actual results of a measurement or a series of them. At least I remember those early ones a heckofa lot better than some that were just series of numbers tossed into a spreadsheet and summed, averaged and “staticized”!
Take the simple Physics Lab test we were given on measurement variation, for instance. It is still with me today, more than 40 years later.
The test was a simple one. We were given a simple, short steel rod about 6 mm in diameter along with a 1inch maximum opening micrometer. It had a measurement resolution, stated on the side or 0.001 inch.
We simply had to, as carefully as possible, measure the diameter of the rod to the nearest one-thousandth of an inch and report it.
The second step was to repeat the measurement 10 times and analyze the results, i.e. take the average of the 10 reading and calculate the standard deviation.
Then we could compare our first reading with the average and explain the difference, if any.
Then all 15 or 20 sets of results from each of the lab participants were compared to each other (we ostensibly all had samples of steel rod from the same source). So, we had a new, grand average and a different, larger standard variation to consider.
Of course there was a surprising difference and some people actually got a difference in their initial reading that was well outside the range of averages and the grand average value, even when considering the standard deviations as a reasonable tolerance in expected values.
Why?
There were two or three different factors at work, but mostly the nominal diameter had variations in it larger than 0.001 inches, and the repeatability skills of the observers were also different.
It was was quite clear to me, then and now, that nearly any quantitative measurement will have an error associated with it. The only way to get some idea of the error magnitude is to repeat the measurement and analyze the results.
Then one can get to the work of making and testing hypotheses about the sources of the error. With some logical practices, then one may be able to reduce the error, if it is important to do so.
Here’s another, more contemporary example of a basic calculation on uncertainty. It’s online at the website of the National Physical Laboratory in England. The measurement is: how long is a piece of string? (Not too different to what I experienced a few years ago).
Then it goes into “Analysis of uncertainty” and a “spreadsheet model”.
In the previous post, I talked about measurement uncertainty and gave a few weblinks to, what I think are informative sites.
In case you didn’t have time to look at the EuroChem one on Measurement Uncertainty, here’s both a link and a quick listing of the various sections of their online Guide to the subject. It is very detailed and, I think, informative.
If nothing else, just the list of chapters in the Guide gives a more complete idea of the process involved in quantifying and reporting Measurement Uncertainty. It is not a difficult or very complex subject. It just has more than one step. Yet, each step is clearly identified and covered in this Guide.
Can’t beat the price either!
Note, too, that each chapter is also a seperate weblink. (Also note the extra information here, too, such as a unique, interactive Glossary
For news of new devices or applications visit MeasurementDevices.com where you also may post PR & New Product news at no cost, without need to register!
Braunschweig, Germany - The monograph series serves to present subjects which ensue from, or are closely related to, the activities of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) The National Metrology Institute for Germany. These subjects relate not only to metrological issues but also to the various aspects of the physical and technical research work undertaken by the PTB and its sister institutes. 
Measurement System Analysis (MSA) as a dynamic, rather than static, beastie is discussed in a new online article entitled:
Entries (RSS)