His native language IS English.  He just does not speak American like the 
rest of us.

Doug Pauls



From:   "Whittaker, Dewey (EHCOE)" <[log in to unmask]>
To:     <[log in to unmask]>
Date:   02/17/2012 08:19 AM
Subject:        Re: [TN] Correlation Factors for ROSE Testing
Sent by:        TechNet <[log in to unmask]>



He did correctly avowal, but did not vowel. I think he meant RIRO. You 
have to remember English is not his native language. We all still love him 
anyway.
Dewey 

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Graham Naisbitt
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Correlation Factors for ROSE Testing

Hi Rich

Why?

The whole idea of a correlation factor is nonsense which is why it was 
removed.

Consider: ALL systems SHOULD be capable of detecting a given amount of 
CALIBRATING solution that is CALIBRATED to a given amount of NaCl 
solution. If they can't detect that solution that has been injected into 
the test chamber that has reached and been tared to "zero", then you have 
a system that is RIRU = Rubbish In Rubbish Out.

Keep in mind that every degree of temperature change affects the value, so 
keeping everything under really close control is vital to avoid false 
positives or false negatives.

As said so many times before, this test method is ONLY really suited to 
keep your process under control and every process line will yield a 
different "cleanliness" value.

In closing - anyone who has asked for the "correlation factor" and are 
unable to grasp this method - direct them to the TechNet archives where 
there are almost acres of print on this topic.

I hope this helps but will be happy to answer any questions.

Graham N - Gen3 Systems

 
On 16 Feb 2012, at 19:59, Richard Kraszewski wrote:

> While I realize that IPC specifically and the industry in general, does 
not support the use of ROSE correlation factors for the various testers, I 
have a need to see the official document that at one time quoted these 
specifically allowed factors.
> 
> I took a cursory look though all 230 pages of IPC TR 583 and didn't see 
that table. 
> 
> I seem to recall a military specification that had that table. Was it 
454? 28809, 2000?
> 
> Does anyone recall?
> 
> 
> Rich  Kraszewski / PLEXUS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud 
service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or 
[log in to unmask] 
> ______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________




______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________