Hi,
I am posting an email I sent to Jack addressing Bob's reply. I could not use this forum earlier as I was not a member then. So that being said here is another message for thought.
The following is an attempt to clear up some items are written.
1) Actually table 1 uses both min-min and max-min and labels the screens as such.
2) Table 2 in the heading states "Test..........with Maximum and Minimum Cumulative Percentages .....on corresponding test sieves.
So there is a definite denotation to use max-min.
This is where the confusion lies as I do not think that industry uses max-min as stated.
3) The assumption that table 1 uses min-min may be consider incorrect in a few regards. First, table 1 also states max-min in the heading and has max listed through-out the table itself; Second, just because one table uses a format does not necessarily mean that the following table should use the same format; Thirdly, any Standards or Test Methods, be they SAE, ASTM, etc. should be so clear as to leave no room for assumptions or ambiguities.
Please accept my apologies for being anal about this, but clarity is certainly is very important here at Kennedy Space Center and I hope that it is important enough throughout the industry to have complete clarification.
Recently, someone told me that industry has been using min-min for 30 years and therefore it has to be right. Because I have been down this road before (many times) it is hard for me to accept such a statement. Usage does not necessarily make it correct and have found cases where people have been doing something incorrectly for 20-30 years due to such statements.
Again my apologies for opening this can of worms, Sincerely, Joe
