Hi Bev,
What you say may be true to some extent,
(1) having one reliable source should be good enough;
(2) commercial laboratories have no problems, they simply have learned to properly shield;
(3) would you not rather have a sensitive test method that gives a failure indication when failure occurs;
(4) how to you in any real sense 'calibrate' something that is more or less random?
Hi George,
That is why the proper design of test vehicles is so important. One needs to exclude extraneous failure modes by design to the extent possible. I fully agree that FMA is very important, but you do not want your FMA to be a search for a needle in the haystack.
Werner

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------