From time to time - the customer may be wrong!

ATB - Graham, 
Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Feb 2012, at 19:53, "Richard Kraszewski" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Understood and points all well taken. 
> 
> Unfortunately, occasionally it takes ~forever to get something written
> into a customer specification and then an act of congress to take it
> out. 
> 
> Again, thanks for the good discussion.  
> 
> Rich Kraszewski
> (920)969-6075
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Naisbitt [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:01 PM
> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Richard Kraszewski
> 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] 
______________________________________________________________________