| General > General Technical Chat |
| Kiss Analog butthurt over Dave getting free stuff |
| << < (13/17) > >> |
| AVGresponding:
Dont forget the cane toads! |
| HalFET:
--- Quote from: Someone on November 23, 2023, 11:30:25 pm --- --- Quote from: HalFET on November 23, 2023, 11:03:32 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on November 22, 2023, 11:19:40 pm --- --- Quote from: HalFET on November 22, 2023, 10:50:37 pm ---In SMEs I saw it get bypassed, in large corporations with a working quality management system that demands paperwork, and fat chance you're getting an actual calibration certificate or traceable safety test paperwork from these cheaper manufacturers. --- End quote --- Sure, but how much of the test equipment in a large organisation is inside the calibration/quality system? When that sort of system is in place the equipment I would use day to day (from "A" brands) had big stickers reminding the user it was not known to be accurate and outside the calibration chain. Does a firmware engineer really care about the voltage accuracy of a I2C bus? or just wants to check its roughly correct and the timing between bytes/messages is what was expected? Neither would that have any safety implications on the choice of instrument. Having ready access to sufficient test equipment is better than waiting for something more than sufficient. --- End quote --- In our case, everything is tracked and calibration is kept up to date, even on the office multimeters that get used maybe five times a year. They don't want to run the risk of someone using an uncalibrated instrument for something critical. The liability cost of having uncalibrated instruments far exceeds the cost of calibration. --- End quote --- I can believe there are some businesses taking that approach to avoid people using uncalibrated equipment for a task which requires it, and the need varies wildly depending on market/regulations. Your situation seems to be the minority, if they provide sufficient equipment and its all calibrated that sounds very well supported and a nice place to work. --- End quote --- Actually, we're volume manufacturing consumer products and penny pinching left and right. But you're not seeing the financial side of this, when you're moving billions of EUR/USD in products each year you want to minimize your liability at the process level. Say there's a fire at a customer premise due to a product, now you have external parties going through your documentation in legal proceedings, the cost of ownership of those uncalibrated instruments is suddenly a whole lot higher in those scenarios because your internal engineering documentation is now at question. Meanwhile, getting a contract in place with the manufacturer to handle the calibration on an on-going basis, having good inventory management, ensuring no uncalibrated instruments can enter the facility through strict procurement processes, and everything that comes along with it becomes pretty cheap in those instances. Meanwhile, when I was working in a highly specialized field with high budgets, they were penny pinching on calibrations - even though the customer explicitly demanded them. |
| lezginka_kabardinka:
Who on earth says “butt hurt”, apart from adolescent Americans? If you want people to take something seriously, refine your articulation. |
| Someone:
--- Quote from: HalFET on November 30, 2023, 11:57:19 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on November 23, 2023, 11:30:25 pm --- --- Quote from: HalFET on November 23, 2023, 11:03:32 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on November 22, 2023, 11:19:40 pm --- --- Quote from: HalFET on November 22, 2023, 10:50:37 pm ---In SMEs I saw it get bypassed, in large corporations with a working quality management system that demands paperwork, and fat chance you're getting an actual calibration certificate or traceable safety test paperwork from these cheaper manufacturers. --- End quote --- Sure, but how much of the test equipment in a large organisation is inside the calibration/quality system? When that sort of system is in place the equipment I would use day to day (from "A" brands) had big stickers reminding the user it was not known to be accurate and outside the calibration chain. Does a firmware engineer really care about the voltage accuracy of a I2C bus? or just wants to check its roughly correct and the timing between bytes/messages is what was expected? Neither would that have any safety implications on the choice of instrument. Having ready access to sufficient test equipment is better than waiting for something more than sufficient. --- End quote --- In our case, everything is tracked and calibration is kept up to date, even on the office multimeters that get used maybe five times a year. They don't want to run the risk of someone using an uncalibrated instrument for something critical. The liability cost of having uncalibrated instruments far exceeds the cost of calibration. --- End quote --- I can believe there are some businesses taking that approach to avoid people using uncalibrated equipment for a task which requires it, and the need varies wildly depending on market/regulations. Your situation seems to be the minority, if they provide sufficient equipment and its all calibrated that sounds very well supported and a nice place to work. --- End quote --- Actually, we're volume manufacturing consumer products and penny pinching left and right. But you're not seeing the financial side of this, when you're moving billions of EUR/USD in products each year you want to minimize your liability at the process level. Say there's a fire at a customer premise due to a product, now you have external parties going through your documentation in legal proceedings, the cost of ownership of those uncalibrated instruments is suddenly a whole lot higher in those scenarios because your internal engineering documentation is now at question. Meanwhile, getting a contract in place with the manufacturer to handle the calibration on an on-going basis, having good inventory management, ensuring no uncalibrated instruments can enter the facility through strict procurement processes, and everything that comes along with it becomes pretty cheap in those instances. --- End quote --- Thats jumping to an extreme, all the compliance and product safety work should/needs to be done with calibrated equipment. That work can even be the majority use (in hours of operation) of test equipment with things left on in production and continually used. But as the example above, there are day to day uses in R&D (as separate from manufacturing or compliance/safety) which have no need for any calibration or traceability, just some guidance/informational. The thread has also discussed how calibration does not mean every measurement is covered, there is significant judgement/consideration required by the person using the equipment to be sure that the calibration covers their particular use. Calibration is needed in context, not just a blanket (and blind) "must calibrate all instruments that can be calibrated".... which you can have done for almost any meter/instrument even the low rent brands such. I've seen measurement tools calibrated for a single parameter within a narrow range, because that was all that was required, rather than the expense of a comprehensive calibration. |
| AVGresponding:
--- Quote from: lezginka_kabardinka on December 01, 2023, 12:58:48 am ---Who on earth says “butt hurt”, apart from adolescent Americans? If you want people to take something seriously, refine your articulation. --- End quote --- Slang mainly stays with the generation it evolved in, though it does diffuse out a bit, and those adolescent Americans are now adults. In context the expresssion is clearly meant to indicate an immature attitude on the part of the subject of the post; a subtle distinction that perhaps escapes a non-native speaker. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |