Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
tec #1062 12/19/13 01:07 PM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 110
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 110
We disagree!

tec #1063 12/19/13 02:12 PM
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 55
T
tec Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 55
you disagree but you used a percentage of a predetermined sample to explain yourself in your last post I,e 0.1% in a sample of 2000

The point i am trying to make is that there is no predetermined amount to be inspected and there is a numerical figure dictating how many fails should not be exceed. you proved my point by using it,

There is no meaning to the test with out parameters.

what if you find two fails in a sample of 2400

is that a fail? no

because the figure is based on 2 fails in 2000 but the spec does not state that!

tec #1064 12/19/13 02:23 PM
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 55
T
tec Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 55
I have thank you i have very much enjoyed are debate on the issue

tec #1065 12/19/13 03:25 PM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 110
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 110
Thank you too. Just one final comment before I must withdraw from this topic. I agree that two unacceptable particles in 2400 would not constititute a fail. On the other hand, three in 2400 would constitute a fail. Three in 2400 is more than an assumed 0.1% -the authors of the specification not having declared that assumption.

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Sponsored by Electronics Inc. © 2024 Electronics Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5