Proceedings of the

1966

Standards Laboratory

Conference

United States Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Miscellaneous Publication 291
THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Sunda* ^—^^^^^^

research and services: ., . .... iTr,;*^ TM

CrrmTTT? FOP RASTC STANDARDS . . . provides the central basis within the United

3^3SLSS.1i2SrS Nation, scieutific TM^t.2r' ~

theTns^tote for materials Research ^~S'ou Z7o$JoTt

8

associated materials services including mainly reference materials*nd la a r

yields services 5S• JMSS SK^itta^^'S?^ This Ltitute is orga"iZS.icaiy

ogenics*—Office of Standard Reference Materials.

principal elements of this Institute are. iwiiniral Analvsis—Center for Computer Sci- P -Building Research-Electronic ^TM^°^^^^Se of Weights and Measures

ences and Technology-Textile and Apparel Technology Center ^ce ot ^_

office of Vehicle

Evaluation Laboratory-NBS/GSA Testing Laboratory.

^^T„d Laboratories ., Gai.hersbmg, M.ry.snd, unless otherwise noted; filing address Washington, D. C,

20234.

2 Located at Boulder, Colorado, 80302.

3 Located at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Alexander B. Trowbridge, Acting Secreta NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS • A. V. Asiin, Director

Proceedings of the

1966

Standards Laboratory

Conference

Presented by the National Conference of Standards Laboratories

May 9-12, 1966

National Bureau of Standards. Gaithersburg Facility

Washington. D.C.

National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication 291

Issued July 13, 1967

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 20402

Price SI.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE

OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

CHAIRMAN _t JOHN R. VAN DE HOUTEN

Aerojet-General Corporation

VICE-CHAIRMAN

ORVAL L. LINEBRINK

Battelle Institute CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

LLOYD B. WILSON

Sperry Gyroscope Company

RECORDING SECRETARY-TREASURER

DONALD DELAUER

Vandenberg Air Force Base SPONSOR'S DELEGATE

WILLIAM A. WILDHACK

National Bureau of Standards

MEMBERS' DELEGATES

IVAN G. EASTON

General Radio Company

JERRY L. HAYES

Navy Metrology Engineering Center WALTER C. HUNTER

Sandia Corporation

HARVEY W. LANCE

National Bureau of Standards SHELDON C. RICHARDSON

General Electric Company

PAST CHAIRMAN

ANDREW J. WOODINGTON

General Dynamics/Convair

NCSL 66

STANDARDS

LABORATORY CONFERENCE

CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN

R. D. HUNTOON, NBS

PROGRAM CHAIRMAN

ANDREW WOODINGTON, GD/Convair

ARRANGEMENTS CHAIRMAN

W. R. TILLEY, NBS

LADIES PROGRAM CHAIRMAN

MRS. W. A. WILDHACK

EDITOR, PROCEEDINGS

H. L. MASON, NBS

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 63-60068
FOREWORD

The National Conference of Standards Laboratories provides a means by which the country's standards laboratories may cooperate in generating and disseminating useful information relating to calibration techniques and

to the operation of standards laboratories. NBS has therefore encouraged

the organization and activities of the Conference, and will continue to provide

assistance in mutually useful activities, as valuable supplements to the

Bureaus work in disseminating accuracy of measurement throughout

science and industry. The publication of the Proceedings of this Conference, containing papers presented at the national meeting, is one example

ol the Bureau's cooperation.

Most of the papers presented at the meeting are published in this volume

Primary responsibility for their technical content must rest, of course with

the individual authors and their organizations.

A. V. Astin, Director

iii

NCSL 66

Contents

Page Welcoming Address, A. V. Astin Luncheon Address, W. G. Amey ,- Banquet Address, E. G. Hill Session 1. Measurement Comparison, S. C. Richardson 10 Status Report. 1965-66 Comparison, S. C. Richardson 14 Eastern DC-LF Package, R. P. Heckelmann Ty Western DC-LF Package, H. S. Ingraham, Jr High Frequency Package. H. D. Barnhart.... Physical Package. W. B. McCalium !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 57

Session 2. Why Calibrate? J. L. Hayes 65

Session 3. Statistical Procedures. DeWayne B. Sharpe 67 An Approach to the Measurement Process. J. M. Cameron...... ..... '...!.!!"!.!! 68 The Anaheim Survey on EDP Usage 69

Session 4. Information for Standards Laboratories- What?-W here 9 O L Linebrink 71 Information Needs and Their Satisfaction, F". J. Sclacchitano... ' ' i\ Collection and Use of Data. L. Darling -f2 The Laboratory: A Complex Instrument, E. L. Porter 7t Information Now Available, H. L. Mason 1/y Panel Discussion

Session 5. Calibration Procedures, D. DeLauer o, ?.Per^Tc°f N

,C?L

'S Calibration Procedure Librarv.' D.' Brungart !.'.'

! !

«

1 he DCAS and the Calibration Laboratory. R. J. Bedford 00 Manufacturer's Responsibility in Writing Calibration Procedures, R. H. Rupkey 85 Objectives of the NCSL Calibration Procedures Committee, G. Kubicek.... ...

....'.'.'.'.'.!!!!!! 87

Session 6. The Measurement System of the United States. R. D. Huntoon 89

Session 7. National Calibration Requirements, Charles Johnson 99

Session 8. Personnel Development, R. M. Lady

Part

Part I Panel on Evaluation and Selection Test. N. T. Grisamore'and'F! T'Kaikt 05 A

II. Customer Training. The Need for Customer Training, j. Woolridge... 07 Teacher Training Program, L. Julie J"' Training Services on Industrial Instruments, W. Reynolds iin

Installation of Attenuator Calibrators. G. U. Sorger

'.'.".!!!!!!!!!!!! in

Session 9. Traceability and Accuracy Ratios, H. W. Lance 113 va^"^0^

0 Polic

,leS and Pr,oblems Calibration, J. J. RioVdan and C."j.'BKezinski!!!!! 115

IN ASA Calibration Practices. J. E. Condon 119

Industry's View of the 10:1 Ratio-of-Accuracy Requirement, F. C. Russeli 121 Panel Discussion

Session 10. Worldwide Unification of Industrial Standards. C E White 197

Part 1. Introduction

J^g Part 2. 1966 Conference International Session Questionnaire .......!.!!!.!.!.!.!!!.! 135 Session 11. Test Equipment Performance Requirements, D. Antonucci I49 Committee Reports. J. Hadley, D. Antonucci, M. Hoskins. and R. M. Herman 149 Significance of High Frequency Standards to Aerospace Industry, D. Antonucci 152 Session 12. Standards Laboratory Organization and Management, M. Angelo 155 Committee Reports. L. R. Wallace, M. Agnelo. J. D. Ghesquiere. and N. T. Grisamore 155 Panel Discussion: R. G. Rosco, R. L. Schneider, and W. H. McPhee 159 Session 13. Workload Control, E. J. Arsenault 165 Introductory Remarks. E. J. Arsenault 1^5

Recall Methods, Concept, and Workflow Planning. J. R. Myers 169 Data Collection, Utilization, and Analysis Subcommittee Report, J. Vondracek 171 Calibration Subcommittee Report, J. L. Hayes 172 Session 14. Development of Recommended Practices for NCSL, W R Holmes 175 Development of Recommended Practices in ISA, R. E. Clarridge 176 Effect of Installati on on Measurement System Accuracy, J. W Murdock 182 Recommended Standards and Practices, W. R. Holmes 185 Annual Report of the Chairman. J. R. Van de Houten 187

v

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1966 STANDARDS LARORATORY CONFERENCE

ADDRESS OF WELCOME

Allen V. Astin, Director

National Bureau of Standards

It is a real pleasure to me to welcome the National

Conference of Standards Laboratories to the new

facilities of the National Bureau of Standards at Gaithersburg. As Dr. Huntoon indicated, we look on this meeting as the beginning of a series which

will lead up to a formal dedication of the laboratories sometime this fall.

I would like to say a few words about these lab- oratories in order that you can appreciate a little better the facility in which you are meeting. This

site is approximately 20 air miles from the center

of Washington, and 25 to 38 road miles, depending

upon which route you take. It is located on a

tract of 550 acres. The buildings themselves will comprise, when construction now in process is finished, approximately 2,300,000 square feet of

floor space, at a total cost of approximately 115

billion dollars. The general design of these facili- ties provides the central administration and service

activities in the center of the site, the general pur- pose laboratories connected to and surrounding the

central service unit, and the special purpose lab- oratories on the periphery of the site. There are seven of the general purpose laboratories, each of

which is approximately 385 feet long and about 105

feet wide. Some have 4 floors, some only 3, depending upon the nature of the site and the nature

of the activities that go on in them. These general

purpose laboratories are designed for extreme

flexibility, with portable partitions and flexible distribution of services, so that almost any type of

scientific work can be carried on in them.

The special purpose laboratories which surround

the central group are designed around very special

types of equipment. There are three of these

at the moment. There is an engineering mechanics

laboratory designed primarily around a million- pound dead weight machine and a 12-million-pound

compression/tension machine. There is a radiation

physics laboratory designed primarily around particle accelerators, the major one being a 100-

million electron volt linear accelerator with a beam

power of 50 kilowatts. The third of these is a

reactor building. These three special purpose

laboratories were the first ones completed, and the

first ones occupied. We're just beginning the construction of a number of other special purpose

laboratories — a sound laboratory, a chemical en- gineering laboratory, and a fluid dynamics laboratory. We are now in the process of moving into the

general purpose laboratories at the rate of approximately 100 persons a week at the present time.

The latest data I have indicates about 43 percent of our Washington staff are now in these buildings and

by the early fall we will have approximately 90

percent of our staff here. The remaining staff will stay at the old location for at least another two

years. The central service facilities contain, in addition

to the administrative activities, our library, our meeting facilities, eating facilities and the central

instrument shops. We designed this central build- ing to make it possible to hold large meetings here

and to provide for the continuing education of our

staff. In addition to this auditorium, which seats about 800, there is another seating approximately

300. There are three lecture rooms, each of which

seats about 100, and there are smaller conference rooms also. These are all located in the general area between this auditorium and the lobby. We

believe that the acquisition of these facilities will make it possible for the Bureau to carry on its research and service activities much more effec- tively than we were able to carry them on in the old

site. We have brought to the design of these

laboratories all the modern features that we think

will help us in doing the very high precision work

which characterizes so much of the scientific activity of the National Bureau of Standards.

I would like next to say a few words about the

Bureau's mission and some of our immediate objectives. Since I last spoke to this conference a few

years ago out in Boulder, we have had additional

responsibilities assigned to us, and we have made

major reorganizations in our internal structure in order to facilitate our ability to carry out these

additional responsibilities. A little over two years

ago, we established four institutes within the

National Bureau of Standards, each one dealing

with a coherent phase of the Bureau's research and

service responsibility.

First is the Institute for Basic Standards, the

organizational unit most directly involved with the

objectives of your National Conference of Standards

Laboratories. The Institute for Basic Standards,

of which Dr. Huntoon is the Director, is concerned

with the establishment of the central basis of our measurement system in this country and the co- ordination of this measurement system with those

of other nations throughout the world. It deals,

1
first of all, with maintaining the six standards which

comprise the core of the International System of

Units, and also with approximately 40 standards

derived from the central six. It is the Institute

for Basic Standards that is concerned with improving the accuracy with which we can use all of

these, and with extending the ranges and the

environmental conditions under which we can make

measurements. In addition, the Institute for Basic

Standards is very much involved injarecision data

activities — primarily careful measurernents on the

most important physical constants. We are aware

that there is an increasing tendency to use physical constants rather than prototype standards as the

basis of our measurement system, and this is a primary reason for our concern with this type of

activity. In addition to this central measurement

responsibility, IBS operates the National Standard

Reference Data System. This program was as- signed to the National Bureau of Standards approximately three years ago; it involves the setting up

of a central national file for critically evaluated data. In addition to setting up the file, the National Standard Reference Data System seeks to generate

inputs to the file in order that its coverage of all important data will be complete. It seeks also to develop more effective means of disseminating

what is in the file. This precision data activity is one which we feel goes very well with the Bureau's

responsibility for the core of our measurement

system.

Our second institute is the Institute for Materials

Research which focuses upon increasing our understanding of the relationship between the composition and structure of materials and their per- formance characteristics. This organization is involved in utilizing measurement capability toward

the understanding of chemical structure and toward

the development of methods of measuring the bulk

properties of materials. In addition, the Institute

for Materials Research assists in the dissemination

of measurement competence throughout the country

through the operation of a Standards Reference

Materials program.

Our third institute, the Institute for Applied Technology, is concerned mainly with the development

of criteria for the evaluation of technological

products and services. It tries to put evaluation

of technological products and services on a quantitative basis, to develop test methods and materials

data which are essential to the formulation of

engineering standards. This type of activity within

NBS is one which characterized a large part of our program some forty years ago. It had been de- emphasized over the past decade or so, but three

years ago the Secretary of Commerce assigned to the National Bureau of Standards the responsibility to serve as the focal point for the application

of science and technology to the development of

industry and commerce to the United States. It was determined that we had to reactivate, and ex- pand as resources became available, our work on

engineering standards. This is because the

introduction of new and improved products and

services into our economy is critically dependent

upon having reliable means of determining the

performance characteristics of such products

and services. In the Institute of Applied Technology we are also concerned with a number of

specialized information services to make more

readily available to American industry the results of research and development, particularly govern- ment-sponsored research. We operate in Springfield, Virginia, not far from here, a central

Clearinghouse for federally generated research

and development information. The goal here is to collect information from all generating sources and to organize it, index it, abstract it, and make it readily available to industrial users. In addition,

the Institute for Applied Technology serves as the

primary focal point within the Department of Commerce to apply science and technology to govern- ment operations. Here we have two major

activities; one, a central building research program

in which we attempt to speed up the introduction

of new technology into the government's construction activities. The other is the operation of a central service for the utilization of automatic

data processing systems. We were assigned

responsibility by the Congress last summer, and by

the Bureau of the Budget a short time earlier, to serve as the central resource within the government

to improve the government's utilization of the most

modern automatic data processing techniques

available. In addition, we are concerned with

developing performance standards for automatic

data processing systems in order to facilitate the

interchangeability of such systems in Federal

operations.

I mentioned four institutes earlier. The fourth one, no longer a part of the National Bureau of

Standards, was the Central Radio Propagation

Laboratory located in Boulder, Colorado, where our Radio Standards Laboratory is also located. The

Central Radio Propagation Laboratory, as I think

most of you know, is primarily concerned with

providing a radio weather service to the nation's

telecommunications industry. Since this activity

involves understanding the electrical characteristics

of our environment, describing them and predicting

changes in them, it was felt that its work was more

closely allied to other activities also concerned with

describing and predicting the characteristics of our environment. There was established within

the Department of Commerce last summer a new

Environmental Science Services Administration

(ESSA), which combined the Weather Bureau and

the Coast and Geodetic Survey with our Central

Radio Propagation Laboratory. The primary role of the total organization is to provide a central

place where data on any of the characteristics of our physical environment from the depths of the ocean to the exosphere could be established.

Although the loss of the Central Radio Propagation

2
Laboratory made most of us at NBS feel significantly

bereaved, we believe that we made a very important

contribution to a most important new national

agency.

Now I would like to come back for a few minutes

to the mission and objectives of the Institute for Basic Standards, which as I said earlier is the organiation most directly concerned with the National

Conference of Standards Laboratories. We have

been evaluating our objectives oyer the past several years and trying to define more clearly the responsibilities of the National Bureau of Standards in order

that we could carry out more effectively the job that the Congress has assigned us. This has led us to formalize the concept of a National Measurement

System, about which you will hear more later from

Dr. Huntoon. Essentially, it lets us put in perspective the total national activities involved with

measurement and the critical responsibilities of

NBS. It is our concern that there be an effective

operating system for compatible, interchangeable,

reliable measurements to meet the needs of scientists and engineers throughout our industrial set-up

and in our universities. The core of the system is of course the International System of Units and the

standards based upon these units. By taking the

systems approach to our responsibility here, we

think we can simplify greatly the things that really

have to be done by the National Bureau of Standards. Our main concern is that this system operate

smoothly and effectively, and that all essential

activities are provided to bring this about in this country. To this extent we seek to set up standards

for the basic units, improve their accuracy, extend

them to multiples and submultiples, and make

sure that there are adequate services for the dis- semination of these values. As many of you know, we have been seeking to improve measurement competence throughout

the country, and have been relinquishing tasks when

it appeared that it was no longer necessary for the

National Bureau of Standards to do them. This

general approach has been interpreted in some

quarters as indicating that there are certain types of

jobs we don't want to do, and that we take a sort of

high-brow approach to the more routine calibration

services. Actually, as a Federal agency we should

not do what can be done adequately by the private

economy. To the extent that the private economy

has no means of meeting need, and if this need

deals with something to make our measurement

system operate, then we think it is the job of the

National Bureau of Standards to make sure that this task gets done. As a result, we have pushed off some calibration services, and taken on others,

and we may have gone a little far in the former

direction to the impairment of our own efficiency.

We have come to the realization that if we have a

calibration set-up in operation, but used only once

a year, that this is uneconomic. So even though

in general we seek to do only those things that cannot be done adequately elsewhere, it is necessary

for our efficient operation to make full utilization of

calibration set-ups when we must have them in existence. We think by doing this we can lower

the cost of performing these services — lower the

cost significantly — and thus provide a much more

effective service to the industry dependent upon

measurement services.

Many people are concerned about the balance we have in our program between research and

service. We are an organization that must do

both and do them in reasonable balance. The

measurement activities of IBS must in their general

competence be unexcelled, because if they are excelled then the standards become ineffectual. We must have research activities in all the major

frontier areas of science and engineering where

precision is important. To have this competence,

to be alert to needs for extensions in range and

improvements in accuracy, we feel that a very broad

and comprehensive research program is necessary

and this we seek to carry on. In addition, we must

make sure that all of the services which are essential

to the smooth working of our measurement system

are adequately provided for. So we strive to find a reasonable balance between research and service

activities, and essentially the only way we can deter- mine whether the balance is proper is whether or not there are deficiencies in the service program,

or whether or not we are missing important bets

in extending the science of measurement into new

areas. We hope that within our resources we can keep these two programs in reasonable and effec- tive balance. However, both are critically important and we cannot adequately do either without

the other.

Finally, I would like to say that I think you have

a very interesting program planned for the next few days and I think you would do much better

to get ahead with that program than to listen longer

to me. So let me say again that I'm very happy to have this opportunity of welcoming you here and

I wish you every success in the rest of your meeting.

3

NCSL 66

WHY DON'T THEY DO SOMETHING?

LUNCHEON ADDRESS

W. G. Amey

Leeds & Northrup Co. North Wales, Pa.

There have been a lot of questions about the subject of my talk, but the emphasis is in the right

place -that is why the THEY is capitalized. The

topic was chosen because I felt that it represented

somewhat the situation in which the adherents of

this group found themselves at the Boulder Conference six years ago. Many of those here today,

along with Bill Amey, were aware of things that needed doing. The standards laboratories of the

nation needed collation and coordination of ter- minology, definitions, procedures, and preferred

practices. There were problems of finding, selecting, developing and training people, and of using

them effectively. There were problems of improving the available measurement techniques, and of

devising techniques to fill "gaps" in our hierarchy

of measurements. It was argued that top management didn't seem to recognize either the potential

value of proposed standards laboratories, or the

benefits of continuing and possibly increasing the

support of existing ones. Existing technical

societies were said to be uninterested in our plight.

No, most of us recognized that the situation just

couldn't possibly be of OUR own making. It was

simply that THEY (those fellows out there) the

composite of business managements, NBS, technical societies, etc. -hadn't recognized THEIR

responsibilities. They had abandoned us to the waves of problems that threatened to engulf us.

It was true that the Precision Mesasurments Association had launched a program touching on some

of the problem areas, but that lifeboat didn't appear

capable of saving all of us at once — particularly

from some types of problem waves. And then, in that Summer of 1960, the calm voice

of Harvey Lance was heard above the roar of the

surf. He helped us realize that our problems were

after all not one big irresistible wave, but really

only separate smaller ones which could be identified,

and through which the shore could be reached if only WE would decide to coordinate OUR efforts and assist each other. See what WE have achieved! I include myself

in the WE in an editorial fashion -but it is you

fellows who have done it. The presence of this audience today, the nature of the program for the

meetings this week, the Newsletters from Charley

White, speak more eloquently than can I on the

accomplishments since 1960. However, a few

remarks on my part may help to provide the "mood

music" for meeting the future challenges and

responsibilities that I'll try to cite later. As a consequence of Harvey Lance's speech in the Summer of 1960, further discussion ensued at the ISA meeting in New York that Fall, and an Ad Hox Committee was appointed to ponder the

matter. Ponder it did. So much so that the initial reaction to its report at the ISA 1961 meeting in Los Angeles was that there was more evidence of

ponderousness than of pondering. But that committee went on to plan for the advent of NCSL as manifested by the first Standards Laboratories

Conference at Boulder in 1962. That Ad Hoc Committee and its successor, the

General Committee of NCSL, and all of the Offi- cers and the chairmen who have served that group,

have had important decisions to make. Was a new organization really needed? What should

be its mission and its objectives? Who should

be members? Individuals or the laboratories

they represented? Should there be dues or fees?

What functions could clearly be recognized as being uniquely the responsibility of NCSL? Which

functions are best performed by existing outside

organizations? How to establish contact with the

outsiders? How to persuade, cajole or other- wise "con" them into cooperation? And this above

all — how to enlist the aid of individuals and the

support of their corporate managements in meeting

the tasks that NCSL set for itself? These men who have been working on your be- half on this committee are modest and objective.

If you were to press them, especially after the end

of a hard day, they probably would tell you that they wish they had worked smarter rather than

harder. They will probably also share with you

their fears that some of their decisions might bet- ter have been the other way. But I am going to take the liberty today — since I have been some- what detached from the activities of this group for more than a year — to tell you that you should miss no opportunity to thank those men individually

5
and collectively for what they have achieved on

your behalf.

It takes hard work, and the Conference we are now attending is a perfect example. Plans were

formulated many months ago and there has been

much work on the part of many individuals — evi- dencing itself in the program that you have. It is a good example of how much lathering it takes to make a good shave.

But OUR tasks are not complete. That's another

way of saying: enough of sweetness and light in

this talk. If I continue in that vein, those of you

who know me best will think I have lost the fire of my youth. Not so. I'm still a pesky gadfly.

Besides, the post-luncheon lethargy must be

broken. Your blood must be stirred — even if

I tempt you to shed mine. So here it comes!

The trouble is — I guess some of you have heard

this before — most of us are in favor of reform, but

what burns us up is being reformed by somebody

no better that we. I'm not going to try to reform

anyone here. I am just going to try to encourage

you to look in a number of directions for things

yet to be done; and, at the same time to ask each

of you and the members of the General Committee

(or Board of Directors, as you now call them) not

to bite off more than you can chew. The same

kinds of agonizing decisions that were made

four or more years ago have to be made this year —

and next year — and the year after that —if NCSL

is to be a vital and thriving and important factor

in the operations of standards laboratories throughout this country.

NCSL is now of age. It seems to be growing

steadily larger, and its professional responsibilities are growing with it. But, as it grows, there

will be a temptation to take on more and more proj- ects. The question you must face is this: As the

membership grows, is it growing with men who

wish to contribute to the work, or is it growing

with additional members who want to receive

something? I say this quite seriously with no

reflection on anyone. It is an important problem

that you face.

I was almost inclined to apologize for the use

of that word "work." It has only four letters, and

it is used in hard-core management-type communications, but no other word will suffice. Work on

the part of your dedicated associates brought

NCSL to its present state of vital importance in the operations of standards labs. It took work to get underway, it still takes work to maintain the

motion against all of the drag effects, and it is going to take even more work to effect any acceleration. Self-motivated work is the characteristic

of every professional, and it is the only medium

through which directories, recommended practices, standards, definitions, etc. come into being.

I am taking the liberty here — since they gave me

the rostrum today — to ask everyone in the audience

who is not now active in some facet of NCSL work,

"Please contact our Chairman and indicate what

you think you can do to assist." Otherwise, we

will find ourselves in the situation of just getting

things started, with nothing more happening.

Some time back, NCSL initiated activities lead- ing to the formation of the American Standards

Association Sectional Committee C-100 about

which you'll hear more this week. The pur- pose of that Sectional Committee is to provide

meaningful ways of specifying the performance

of electrical laboratory instruments. It will be

a help to both supplier and potential buyer if we

can all reach a common understanding. NCSL

has committees following the progress of this work, but I don't know how many NCSL members

are really active in helping — either by direct par- ticipation on ASA C-100, or through the NCSL

committees. If you are interested, I feel from

what I've heard that your services can be used. If the number of people working on this task is in- deed large, then Committee C—100 needs a new

set of press agents. For the job at hand — the tre- mendous task of trying to deal with the provision of

these specifications — I feel I've seen relatively few names on the roster of task forces. So once again,

if you feel you can do anything, please volunteer

your services.

There has been much discussion at past NCSL

meetings — and at workshops — concerning the

problems of locating and/or training laboratory

personnel. There is a session this week in your

program. I'll have to ask you, and I hope that

this session will ponder such questions — Did we

ever need many people who are broadly trained

in the profession of metrology, or have we mostly

needed technicians? The answer would appear

to be — if the experience of the George Washington

University Center for Measurement Science can be used as a criterion — that we really didn't need

very many broadly trained professional personnel.

The amount of support that the Center has re- ceived—from the broad range of organizations

represented by adherents here in this meeting —

is rather small. So one of the problems — one of

the things that has to be decided is — do we have a problem? If so, can this group provide guidance

for the universities and the training centers to help them move their programs in a direction to

fill the needs which you recognize and identify?

And I might even sneak in one more little plug.

As an organization like this grows a bit more successful, it gets bigger, it holds meetings. Somehow or other these meetings are rarely held at a loss, and the treasury of such nonprofit organizations seems to grow. I'll just leave with your

Board of Directors the question of whether they

might not return some of that money to the people

who produced it by providing a scholarship or fellowship sponsored by NCSL. That is one way of putting it to work, and if that graduate work

could be directed toward some broad and basic

problem of concern to all of NCSL you would be

killing two stones with one bird.

6
Now we all pride ourselves on the quality of the

measurements that we think we know how to make.

In fact, however, if we are honest, we really know

absolutely a lot of things that aren't true at all. Each of us would like our management to appreciate

the value of our operations in our respective organizations, but do any of us really know what a given

kind of measurement is worth? Not what it costs

to make, but what is it worth to the organization

for which we are making it. To date we have been very ready to talk about

management problems where higher levels of management always seem to be the problem. But is

it THEIR responsibility to understand what we

would like them to know? I submit that one of

the differences between managers and the people

who do the work, is that the people who do the work

know how, and the manager — if he is any good —

knows why.

WE as an organization, if we are going to talk about management problems associated with standards laboratories, must face OUR responsibility

to find better means of evaluating not only the

technological competence of our measurements,

but also the value of them.

Jerry Hayes had a Navy film here today called "Why Calibrate?" In the case of the defense

applications of metrology, all of us feel intuitively that we understand. When we see it so clearly as was presented in the film, there is no question in our minds. However, most of the funds supporting

the Bureau of Standards, other than those that are

allocated from DOD, come via the Department of

Commerce's budget. What's it worth to the

economy of this country to be able to make a given

kind of measurement with a given limit of error?

If the measurements are worth while, if we as individuals can provide a composite set of data that

will help the Department of Commerce and our Congress to recognize the need and the justification

for better measurements in support of our economy,

then I feel that budgetary problems will take care of

themselves. But I find it very hard to be critical of anybody who says — "I'm not going to give you

the money until you tell me what it is worth". I ask the same thing of my son; my boss asks me.

Accordingly, I would like to encourage NCSL to consider setting up some kind of a committee struc- ture that would ponder this question: How do we

evaluate the value of the measurements that we

already know how to make? This is important

because Charlie Johnson has a session later this week in which he is going to report some of the

measurement needs that have been cited to him.

These are needs that will be called to the attention

of the Bureau of Standards as gaps that desirably

should be filled. Some of them are readily justified

by the defense effort. Justification of others may

not be so obvious and will require our best management judgment. Let's try to produce the

evidence.

Of course there is one thing we'll have to face. You know what happens to the turtle when he sticks out his neck — sometimes he makes progress and

sometimes he gets it lopped off. If we are going to be professional in our attitude, we have to be pre- pared to be honest in facing the possibility that some of the measurements we are making really aren't worth making.

And now, one more matter. I don't believe that NCSL can totally duck the question of ethics in the making and reporting of measurements, in the

advertising of instrument performance, etc. These

are questions that have been raised by other people,

but I think they are justified questions in many

instances.

How do we provide an answer? We can't, easily. Part of it is related to the work that C-100 is doing.

We can't really consider ethics until we first consider the question of having standards against

which to make judgments. To illustrate my point,

if George Vincent will give me permission. I will steal from him a story that he says originated with

Marion Eppley. I enjoyed it, and I hope you will.

It seems there were two partners who ran a small

retail business. One afternoon the son of one of

the partners came in from high school and said,

"Dad, the teacher told us he is going to talk tomor- row about ethics. What are ethics?" The father

thought for a moment and replied, "Well, let's see

if I can think of an example. Oh, yes, a man comes

into the store and buys a carton of cigarettes. I give him the cigarettes, he gives me $5.00, and I give him change. He takes the cigarettes and the

change, and starts to walk out. Just as he is about

to leave, I notice that the $5.00 bill seems a bit thicker than usual, and as I examine it more carefully, I notice that it is two $5.00 bills stuck together.

Here son, arises the question of ethics. Should I—

or should I not — tell my partner?"

All that I am trying to say here, gentlemen, is that your Board of Directors should not overlook

the question of ethical considerations. They also should recognize, however, that inadvertent damage

to people, organizations, and reputations can be

avoided only by working towards standards of

nomenclature, standards of practice, standards of

common understanding among all.

NCSL 66

THE MANAGEMENT OF STANDARDS AND CALIBRATION LABORATORIES

BANQUET ADDRESS

E. G. Hill

General Dynamics Corp., San Diego, Calif.

I am honored to be with you tonight, particularly

since this is the occasion of a meeting of the National Conference of Standards Laboratories at the new facilities of the National Bureau of Standards. I had the pleasure of seeing those facilities today, and they are indeed impressive. Learning

something about this business of measurement is one of the rewards of being here. I have learned,

for example, that metrologists can measure to Vio

of a microgram, and I'm told that this is approximately Vio of one-millionth of V32 of an ounce. In

the face of an achievement like that, I have no

business to talk about measurement, so I've dis- carded that notion and decided to talk about management: the management of measurement and

standards laboratories. Section II-A of your

Bylaws says: "The National Conference of Standards Laboratories is an organization to promote

cooperative action on common problems of management and operation of measurement standards and

calibration laboratories".

I note that your agenda for this meeting is strongly

oriented to management activities. As managers,

your primary interest is not measurement per se. Your primary interest is assisting in delivery of

satisfactorily high quality products out the door at the least possible cost, so that in combination with

all other activities necessary to success, our companies' reputations and profitability are maximized.

I think we in this room can agree that measurement

to the appropriate degree is necessary, and I know

from personal association that a professional engi- neer with good business acumen can make this possible.

I'd like to approach the subject on the basis of a

checklist of the points which make for successful

management of the measurement function, other

than technical competence. These points are

equally applicable to commercial, government

contracting, or government operations. Further,

they apply to any size or type of business. This

is not a complete list, and I'm sure you could add

to it. After I've given you my checklist, I'll talk a bit about return on investment, then pose an additional challenge to you, and we'll call it a night.

These are the points I consider to be a major

responsibility of the management of a standards and

calibration laboratory:

1. Organization

Definition: The responsibility of the standards

and calibration laboratory is to provide inspection,

test, and measuring equipment in compliance with

company and customer specifications to all departments, as required to support current and future

contracts. The total responsibility for the management of

this function of the business should be assigned

to one group in your plant. If it is splintered, consolidation is the first step to full effectiveness, in my personal opinion.

The concept must be one of service with responsibility—and allow me to emphasize — with particular

attention to cost. You have found from experience

that this gets tricky, because most technical folks

like to have everything they need or may need at their fingertips. It is the job — the responsibility—

of the standards and calibration laboratory to insure that necessary functions are provided at the

least possible cost. We have not yet found a completely satisfactory solution to this problem, have

we? There are still some operators who believe

that the equipment is theirs, not the company's,

and others who don't appreciate the economic facts.

2. Physical Control of Test

Equipment

Record keeping is the tool that makes this possible. The laboratory should have a good deal

of information at its fingertips. Basic are these

things: what kinds of measuring equipment do we have; how many of each kind; where is it lo- cated; how is it being used; to what degree is it being used?

These two points deal with physical control; many of the remaining points bear on the total subject of control.

3. Set Calibration Cycles

Set calibration cycles for each piece of test equipment. It should be the longest possible time

taking into account all of the risks. Only experi9
mentation and acquisition of facts will get the job

done. Take into account the degree of use and

environment. Set a median for each model, and

deviate as appropriate.

4. Recall Procedure

After setting calibration cycles, establish a procedure for pulling the equipment in for maintenance and recalibration. Study carefully to maximize load levelling for greatest efficiency and

best turn-around time.

Maintain careful records of what was required

to get information on possible misuse and to acquire data on cost of maintaining. This latter

will be of significant assistance in determining

who the best manufacturers are. By the way,

this is the efficient way to get physical inventory

data, which is a subsidiary benefit.

5. Recognize Cost

As stated previously, your job is to get the

measuring function performed at the least possible cost to your company. It may be cheaper

for you to buy the service than to possess your own

capability. If it is, go that way. Never ignore

this possibility. You might find a real bargain

down the street. Acquisition cost is only the beginning. Take

into account the maintenance cost in your decisionmaking.

The laboratory must have the responsibility for decision as to whose equipment to buy, as repre- senting the only folks in the business with total analysis capability. As new needs arise, it is important to have qualified personnel search for equipment now on hand that will do the job. You

must certainly recognize that this function is a major element of the cost of doing business today.

6. Maintain Only to the Use

Required

If a given piece of equipment is being used short

of its full capabilities, then maintain it accordingly. An example is a rack of 10 instruments, one of which is a meter with 6 ranges. Suppose

this special test equipment set-up uses only one

range. Calibrate that range only. Place a decal on the mounting rack so that if the meter is removed, it cannot accidentally be used by some- one thinking it is in full calibration.

Decal all equipment which is being used in a

limited way. For example, a meter being used

only to determine if the power is on need not be

accurate as to voltage. We decal these "INFD"

(Indicator-Not for Data).

7. Surplus Any Equipment Not

Required

If this is a temporary situation, one technique is to establish an inactive storeroom and subsequently

calibrate such an item when the need develops, not

before. As we discussed in our first point, on

organization, this is a most difficult task. You

gentlemen need to develop the tenacity of a bulldog on this one. Make it a cardinal rule that an op- erating department holds only the equipment nec- essary to perform current tasks.

If it is a permanent situation, dispose of sur- plus equipment immediately, so that your company

can put those dollars to productive use.

8. Recognize the Cost of a Bad

Measurement

A. J. Woodington (General Dynamics-Convair

Division), has provided me with an illustration of

this point, showing that your responsibility is significant indeed. Recently a composite test of a space booster had to be re-run due to the

failure of an optical recorder. This resulted in an additional 300 man-hours work in the shop, as compared to the 5 hours required by the labora- tory to return the test equipment involved to op- erating specifications.

9. Measure Performance

Measure performance of both the equipment and

the personnel performing the calibration task. Maintain very careful histories on your equipment

as a guide for future acquisition decisions. Buy

the equipment that is going to do the best job for you.Constantly appraise the performance of your technicians. You should be able at all times to ascertain their individual performance. I want to emphasize that point: Know the skill and efficiency

of your people.

10. Written Procedures

You should have written procedures. Donald

De Lauer (IG & C Group, Vandenberg AFB), in his talk this morning made the important point that procedures should provide for doing only what is necessary at calibration.

Procedures should be written in such a way that engineering judgment does not need to be applied anew each time the equipment is presented for re-calibration. Procedures provide the basis for getting accurate performance information on technicians doing the

calibration. They will improve the quality of your

maintenance data.

10
That completes the checklist. Let's turn now to considerations of return on investment, for a few

points.

Return on investment is a fundamental and important measure of the use of capital. It is the

job of management to maximize return on invest- ment to the share owners. A parallel in a govern- ment situation is to provide necessary function at the least possible cost. Keeping it simple, if you deposit $1,000 in a savings bank and the bank pays you 4 percent

interest, your return on investment for a one-year

period is 4 percent, or $40.00. In a business situ- ation, capital requirements are provided for from

the depreciation provision and from earnings.

Testing equipment needs must be appraised along

with other capital equipment needs of the business,

and must meet the test of offering satisfactory

return. The facts count. The measure to be applied then, when considering

a new acquisition, is a comparison of before-andafter cost, equating the cost benefits to the cost

of investment. Consider the purchase of service

possibilities. This test must be a significant part

of the decision-making process. The wisdom of

your actions is going to be reflected on the profit

and loss statement. Remember the basic point — as

managers you're interested in improving your company's performance. Look at aU the alternatives.

The last thing I want to cover with you is a chal- lenge for the future. The formation of this organization is a step in the right direction, as are meetings

of the type you are having here this week.

It occurs to me that there is a need to work out sharing arrangements at the local level, not only

among plants within the same company, but among

several different companies. I believe that several

companies exploring this idea might gain very real competitive advantages in the market place.

One angle to consider is for each of several companies to specialize in one field of measurement,

and then exchange services with the others. Devise a means of getting data on the costs of

calibration to your operating organization. This

may be the real answer to insuring that only needed

equipment will be found in the operating areas. To summarize, gentlemen, we've talked over some points whicfTl think bear in an important way

on proper management of the standards and cali- bration function. I hope you have found this useful. We've examined in a fundamental way the matter

of return on investment. Now, managers — go

manage!

256-1 14 0-67—

2

11

NCSL 66

SESSION 1: MEASUREMENT COMPARISON

Status Report of the NCSL 1965-66 Measurement Comparison

S. C. Richardson

General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York

1. Introduction

The purpose of this presentation is to bring

to you a status report of the present NCSL Measurement Agreement Comparison. This comparison actually originated in the response to the

presentation of the first experimental comparison at the Standards Laboratories and Measurement Standards Symposium during the ISA Conference in October 1964 [Richardson, 1965].

That response left no doubt as to the general widespread interest in such measurement comparisons.

The Measurement Agreement Comparison (M.A.C.)

Committee decided that every NCSL member

should be invited to participate in a full scale

comparison and that several comparison routes would be established.

2. The Survey Questionnaire

The M.A.C. Committee prepared a membership survey questionnaire to more specifically de- termine the comparison interests of the NCSL

members. The questionnaire was sent out to

all member delegates in late February 1965. It so happened that an additional fist of new members was received on March 19 and so the same

questionnaire with a postscripted cover letter was sent to them a few days later. To the best

of our knowledge every NCSL member as of that March 1965 date was invited to participate.

The questionnaire surveyed five specific areas

of interest to the Committee. The first was the

number of participants and specifically who

they were and their mailing address. The second was on the comparison areas of interest; this was divided into three measurement areas on the

questionnaire: d.c — low frequency electrical, high

Frequency electrical and a physical package in- cluding mass, dimension and angle. The third

survey item was the participant preference re- garding the above areas and also his interest in multi-route participation. The fourth item sur- veyed was the participant's specific interest and

suggestions for "comparison package" contents. The fifth surveyed item was the solicitation of

package items for loan to the comparison for its duration, and the availability of such items in pairs.

3. The Survey Results

The results of the survev provided the information the Committee needed to proceed. Fortynine members desired to participate. The participating members are fisted in alphabetical order

below. Their geographic location by State is also given, to indicate the nationwide scope of the

comparison. The participating laboratories are located in 21 different States and the District of

Columbia.

NCSL COMPARISON PARTICIPANTS

PARTICIPANT

Aerojet-General Corporation

Wm. Ainsworth & Sons Inc. Airesearch Mfg. Co. of

Arizona

Autonetics — Div. of NA

Aviation

AVCO Corporation

Battelle Memorial Institute

Bendix Corp. — Scintilla Div.

Bendix Corporation

The Boeing Company

Collins Radio Company

Douglas Aircraft Company

Edgerton, Germeshausen &

Grier

Electrical Testing Labs.

Electro Instruments Inc. G.E. Re-entry Systems Dept.

G.E. Ordnance Department

G.E. Electronics Laboratory

G.E. Research & Development

Center

General Radio Company W & LE Gurley

Holt Instrument Labs.

Honeywell, Inc. Honeywell, Inc. Aeronautics

IBM Corporation, Dept. 311

STATE

California

Colorado

Arizona

California

Massachusetts

Ohio

New York

Missouri

Washington

Iowa

California

Nevada

New York

California

Pennsylvania

Massachusetts

New York

New York

Massachusetts

New York

Wisconsin

Pennsylvania

Minnesota

California

13
PARTICIPANT STATE

Julie Research Labs. Inc. New York

Keithley Instruments Ohio

Leeds & Northrup Company Pennsylvania

Lockheed-California Company California

Lockheed Electronics Company New Jersey

Lockheed-Georgia Company Georgia

Lockheed Missiles & Space California

Company

Lear Siegler, Inc. Michigan

Martin Co. — Aerospace Florida

Division

Melpar, Inc. Virginia

Metrolonics Associates California

RCA-PMEL/E Florida

Radio Corporation of America New Jersey

Sperry Gyroscope Company New York

SSCO Standards Lab- Inc. Michigan

TRW/STL California

Turner, Edward H. P. E. New York

Union Carbide Corp. Nuclear Tennessee

Div. U.S. Army Missile Support Alabama

Command

U.S. Navy Pacific Missile California

Range

U.S. Navy Eastern Stds. Lab. D.C.

Veritek Corporation California

Vitro Laboratories Maryland

Weinschel Engineering Maryland

Company

The dc —low frequency comparison package was the preferred one and consequently two sep- arate routes were established. They were divided

into approximate eastern and western routes and

designated as such. One route was established for the high frequency package and one also for the

mass-dimension package. Every participant was

included in the route of his first choice. Where

multi-route choices were made, all second choices were also accommodated. This accommodation

quite well balanced the routes and it was decided

not to provide for third choices. Such additional

scheduling would have made the routes prohibitively

long. The routes and number of participants are shown in the following table. ROUTE SUMMARY

ROUTE

L.F. — East L.F.-West

High Frequency

Physical

CHOICE

FIRST SECOND

16 3

14 4

7 9

11 9

TOTAL

19

18

16

20

73

4. The Comparison Packages

The items in each of the comparison packages was largely determined by the suggestions made by

the participants. Lists of suggested items were made for each of the types of comparison routes. The lists were quite extensive and preference was

given to those specific items or measurement areas

of greatest interest. The other main consideration was the stability of the prospective items. Other

selection factors were size, weight, availability

and availability in pairs. The list was culled and

reculled with these factors in mind until a package

of appropriate size (about three man-days of measuring effort) was obtained.

The items were accumulated primarily from the

offers of the participants and the Institute for Basic

Standards of the NBS. There were only a few items

desired that were not offered on the questionnaire

response. In each such case a manufacturer was

solicited and in all three cases the requested items were readily loaned to NCSL. The contents of

each of the comparison packages are shown in the

following lists. DC-LF COMPARISON PACKAGE

ITEM

Resistor, Thomas type

Resistor, NBS type

Resistor, NBS type

Resistor, NBS type

Capacitor, 3 term-air

type

Std. cell, saturated

Voltbox

Zener reference

Thermometer, platinum

resistance

QUANTITY

12

2

2

2

RATING

1.0 ohm

10 kilohms

10 kilohms ± 5%

1 megohm

1,000 picofarads

Transportable

type

7.5 to 750 volts

1.0 & 1.01830

volts 25 ohms at OC

(500 C max)

HF COMPARISON PACKAGE

QUANITEM TITY

Attenuator, coax 2 Attenuator, coax 2 Attenuator, X-band 2

Std. mismatch, WR62 1 Wavemeter, X-band 1 Wavemeter, WR90 1 Q-Standards 2 Thermistor Mount, coax 1

RATING

10 dB

50 dB

20 dB

12.4-18 GHz

8.2-11.5 GHz

50-75 GHz

0.5-1. 5MHz

10 MHz-10 GHz

PHYSICAL COMPARISON PACKAGE

QUANITEM TITY RATING

Gage block, steel 2 0.650 inch

Gage block, steel 2 3.0 inches

Gage block, Croblox 2 2.0 inches

Angle block 1 30 degrees

Angle block 1 45 degrees

Ring gage 2 1.8502 in. I.D.

14
PHYSICAL COMPARISON PACKAGE- Continued

ITEM

Weight

Weight

Weight

Weight

Weight

Weight

SS weight

Optical pyrometer

QUANTITY

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

RATING

1 milligram

100 milligrams

1 gram

100 grams

200 grams

2 kilograms

Approx. 97 grams

1400-3200 F

Our previous experimental comparison had

established the general type of container needed

for the packages. We did, however, need several containers, and preferably of less bulk and

weight than the plywood box used in the experimental comparison. Consequently, the expenditure of $500 was authorized and several thermoplastic shipping containers with polyester urethane

foam permanent packing material were purchased

from a commercial supplier. These have proved

to be quite satisfactory and to date the damage to any components due to transportation has been

superficial. Because of the time schedule es- tablished, two weeks per participant including

transportation, all shipments other than local have been by air freight.

5. The Comparison Results

For the purpose of the orally presented status

report, the comparison results were presented

only in graphical form in terms of deviation from

the reference. Measured tests values and coded

identification were purposely omitted. All four

routes have essentially been completed since then

and all available measurement values have now

been tabulated and plotted. No reference is made to the tables or graphs by number but each

one is clearly titled and identified. The tabulated

data shows the actual measured test values ob- tained by each of the participants, as identified

by code number only, and also the NBS reference

values for each of the comparison items.

Tabulated data is also given in terms of the

deviation from the reference versus each of the

coded participants for each of the comparison

items, as an aid to the assimilation of these ex- tensive data. Tn some instances the first NBS

set of values is used as the deviation reference

and in other cases the average NBS test value is used. All NBS values have been plotted in all cases to aid in reterence-time identification and

to present graphical information on test item stability.

Information is also given showing the relation

between the participant's expected accuracy and

the deviation from the reference value. In some

cases this is presented on the individual test items. In other cases it is presented only for groups of

items in a given measurement technology.

6. Acknowledgements

A measurement agreement comparison of this magnitude required the cooperative effort of every

member of the M.A.C. committee and their help

is specifically acknowledged. The route supervisors directed all the comparison effort once the

accumulated comparison packages were delivered

to them. They also prepared all the tabular

data and graphical presentations. The eastern low frequency route was supervised by Robert P. Heckelmann of the Sperry Gyroscope Company,

Great Neck, New York. The western low fre- quency route was supervised by Herbert S. In- graham, Jr., of the Radio Corporation of America,

Camden, New Jersey. The high frequency route was supervised by Herbert D. Barnhart of the General Electric Company, Syracuse, New York.

The mass-dimension route was supervised by

William B. McCallum of the General Electric

Company, Pittsfield, Massachusetts originally,

but who has since transferred to Daytona Beach,

Florida.

All the committee members from the National

Bureau of Standards activity participated and their

help is specifically acknowledged; Forrest K. Harris for his consulting assistance in the design

of the comparison packages, Joseph M. Cameron

for his recommendations on the presentation

of the comparison results, John S. Beers for his service as coordinator of the NBS WashingtonGaithersburg reference activity and as the coding

and clearinghouse agent for test results, and to Wilbert F. Snyder for his service as the coordinator

of the NBS Boulder reference activity and as the

clearinghouse agent for related test results.

7. References

Richardson, S. C, Pathfinding NCSL Experiment: Nation- wide Measurement Comparison, ISA Journal, Vol. 12, No 3 81-86 (Mar. 1965). Youden, W. J^, Graphical Diagnosis of Interlaboratory Test

Results, Indus. Qual. Control, Vol. XV, No. 11 (May 1959).

15

NCSL 66

LOW FREQUENCY COMPARISON-EASTERN ROUTE

R. P. Heckelmann

Sperry Gyroscope Company, Great Neck, N.Y.

1965-66 MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT COMPARISON, DC — LOW FREQUENCY PACKAGE - EASTERN ROUTE

Participant

Thomas r<sistor 10 kiloohm Rosa resistors 10.5 and 9.6 kiloohm Rosa resistors

1 megohm

Rosa resistors Air dielectric capacitors

#1664132 RDG,

ohms

DEV.*

E.A.* #1666858 RDG.

ohms

DEV.*

#1666856 RDG,

ohms

DEV.*

E.A.* #1666862 RDG,

ohms

DEV.*

#1666866 RDG,

ohms

DEV.*

E.A.* #1654408 RDG,

ohms

DEV.*

#1655436 RDG,

ohms

DEV.*

'e.a.*

- 1

#138

RDG,

PF

DEV.*

#567 RDG,

PF

DEV.*

;E.A*

NBS #1

(Sep. 1965) 1.000000400

1 9999.820

9999.90 -2

7 10462.18 + 6

9582.29 + 2

10 1000031 + 1 1000043 -2

15 999.9730 999998

0

20

NBS #2

(Jan. 1966) 1.0000001 -0.3

1 9999.82

0 9999.93 + 1

| 7 10462.10 -2

9582.26 -1

10 1000031 + 1 1000051 + 6

15 999.974 + 1

999 998

0 NBS #3

(Sep. 1966) 1.0000007 + 0.3

1 9999.83 + 1

9999.94 + 2 7 10462.09 -3

9582.25 -2

10 1000029 -1

1000040 -5

15 999.972 -1

999 998

0

90

12K 1.0000002 -0.2

1 9999.81 -1

9999.88 -4

7 10463.81 + 169

9581.70 -57

30 1000024 -6

1000033 -12

20 999.977 +.4

999 999 +

1

c0

13B 1.000004 +3.6 5 9999.85 + 3

9999.97 -5

7 !10462.18 + 6

9582.31 + 4

7 1000040 + 10 1000054 + 9

15

16E .9999998 -0.6

6 9999.80 -2

9999.91 -1

20 10462.05 -7

9582.16 -11

50 1000029 -1

1000040 -5

25 999.981 + 8

10OO 004 + 6

10

17E 1.0000019 + 1.5 5 9999.86 + 4

9999.98 + 6

10 10462.120

9582.29 + 2 20 1000036 + 6 1000052 + 7

15 999.9730

999 999 + 1

90

19K .99774 -2260

100 10000.08 + 26

10000.02 + 10 100 10462.18 + 6

9582.25 -2

100 1000020 -101000090 -25

100 999 990 + 17

AAA AQA -8

20E 1.0000014 + 1 5 9999.85 + 3

9999.96 + 4

10 10462.14 + 2 9582.270 20 1000045 + 15 1000016

, +11

10 QQO Q71 + 2

1 AAA AA1 + 3 20

28K 1.0000007 + 0.3

1 9999.86 + 4

9999.98 + 6

10 10462.20 + 8

9582.29 + 220* 1000032 + 2

1 1 1000016 1 AAA1 1 M f + 11 20 1 AAA AAA L\AJ\J.\JtW

+ 67

lAAA AAA 1UUU.UOU + 62 200

31K 1.0000006 + 0.2 2 10000.017 + 19 10000.137 + 21

10 10464.180 + 205.7 9582.070 -19.7

10 1000032.3 + 2.0

10O0O14. 0 + 9.4 20 QQO 777.7/7 Q7Q + 6

1 AAA AAO + 4

2

35B 1.000000 -0.4

3 9999.83 + 1 9999.94 + 2

9 'l0462.17 + 5 9582.28 + 1 10 1000026 -4

10000450

17 999 977 + 4

1 AAA AAA + 2 25

40B 1.0000004 + 0

2 9999.85 + 3 9999.95 + 3 20 10462.20 + 8

9582.30 + 3 20 1000010 -20

1001(074 + 29

50 999.990 + 17

1 AAA CilA 1UVU.U141 + 16

91

44B 1.000001 + 0.6 3 9999.76 -6

9999.87 -5

9 10462.1-2

9582.20 -7

9 999855 -175

999846 -199

15 999.977 + 4 999 999 + 1 Z4

46B 9999.835 + 1 9999.973 + 5

10 10462.096 -2.7

9582.286 + 1.9 20 1000027.1 -3.2

1000037.2 -7A

50

1

47B 1.00001 + 9.6 20 9999.75 -7

9999.9-2

10 10462.1-2

9582.20 -7

10 1000001 -29

1000018 -27

10 999 9795 + 6.5

1 O.AA AA1 r +3.5 20

50B .999987 -13.4

3 9999.81

11 9999.91 — 1 10 10461.95 — 17 9582.04 — 23 30 1000131.8 + 101.5 1000158.8 + 114.1 50 999.976 + 3

1000.001 + 3 20

51E .9999993 -LI

3 9999.817 -0.6

9999.932 + 0.9 5 10462.231 + 10.81 9583.524 + 125.7 15 1000027.1 -3.2

1000048.8 +4.2 5 999.980 + 7 1000.000 + 2

10

53B 1.000004 + 3.6 20 9999.81 -1

9999.95 + 3 20 10462.14 + 2 9582.270 30 1000013 -17

1000015 -30

50 999.9760 + 3 999.9994 + 1.4 70

54B 1.000004 + 3.6 10 9999.85 + 3

9999.94 + 2

10 10462.15 + 3

9582.28 + 1 25 1000044 + 14 1000057 + 13 30 9999.979 + 6

1000.0034 + 5.4 40

58E 1.000023 + 22.6 20 10000.01 + 19 10000.15 + 23

20 10462.34 + 22

9582.48 + 21 20 1000020 -10

1000020 -25

200 999.978 + 5 999.9980 30

59C .999999 -1.4

9999.82Q

9999.94 + 2

10 10462.23 + 11 9582.35 + 8

10 1000040 + 10 1000054 + 9

10 999.9730

999.999 + 1 5

'DEV. = Deviation from median of all NES and participants' readings, ppm. Table !• Heckelmann 1-12-67 E-A. = Participant's Estimate of Accuracy, ± ppm.

17
1965-66 MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT COMPARISON, DC -LOW FREQUENCY PACKAGE -EASTERN ROUTE

Saturated standard cells No. 3489 Zener reference Volt Box No. 1679746

Participant #24209 RDG,

volts DEV.*

#24210 | RDG,

volts DEV.*

E.A.*

1.0000 V

RDG,

volts DEV.*

E.A.*

1.0183 V

RDG,

volts DEV.*

E.A.* 50X1.00000 RDG,

ratios DEV.*

E.A.* 200X

1.00000 RDG,

ratios DEV.*

E.A.* 1000X

1.00000 RDG,

ratios DEV.*

E.A.* 5000X1.00000 RDG,

ratios DEV.*

E.A.*

NBS #1

(Sep. 1965) 1.0182522 + 1.6 1.0182510 + 2.1

1 .999983 + 3

5 1.0182950 + 3.3

5 .999920 + 10 20 .999930 + 10 20 .999960 + 10 20 .999970

0 20

NBS #2

(Jan. 1966) 1.0182505 -0.1

1.01824890

1 .999984 + 45 1.0182945 + 2.8

5 .999910

0 20 .999920

0 20 .999950

0 20 .999970

0

20

NBS #3

(Sep. 1966) 1.0182492 -1.4

1.0182468 -2.1

1 .999973 -7

5 1.0182856 -6.1

5 .999900 - 10 20 .999910 - 10 20 .9999500

20 .999950 -20

20

12K 1.0182516 + 1.0 1.0182517 + 2.8

2 .999980

0 20 1.018290 -2

20 .999940 + 30

30 .999980 + 60 30 .999960 + 10 30 1.000000 + 30

30

13B 1.0182470 -3.6

1.0182465 -2.47 .999985 + 5

2 1.018298 + 6

2 : .999928 + 18

2 .999935 + 15

2 1.000006 + 56

2 1.000015 + 45

2

16E 1.0182500 -0.6

1.0182480 -0.9

2 .9999836 + 3.6 8 1.0182936 + 1.9

5 .999908 -2

30 .999903 -17

30 .999898 -52

30 .999944 -26

30

17E 1.0182522 + 1.6 1.0182515 + 2.6

5 .999984 + 4

5 1.018293 + 1 5 .999870 -40

20 .999890 -30

20 .999920 -3020 .999943 -2720

19K 1.018286 + 35

1.018285 + 3650 1.0000015 + 22

50 1.0182919 + 0.2 50 .980016 - 19894

100 .99567 -3530

100 1.003811 + 3861

100 1.033390 + 33420

100

20E 1.018247 -3

1.018244

i -5

2 ,1.000025 + 45

15 1.018289 -3

5 .999926 + 16 40 .999930 + 10 40 .999921 -29

40 .999992 + 22 40

28K 1.0182493 -1.3

'1.0182467 -2.2

2 .999983

; +3

3 1.018293

f 1 3 .999890 -20

100 .999890 -30

100 .999890 -60

100 .999940 -30

100

31K 1.0182487 -1.9

1.0182468 -2.1

5 1.0000002 + 20

20 1.0183143 + 22

10 1.000084 + 174

20 1.000065 + 145 20 1.000090 + 140 50 1.000062 + 92

60

35B 1.0182478 -2.8

1.0182458 -3.1

.999994 + 14 50 1.018304 + 12 50 .999820 — 90

50 .999880 -40

50 .999920 -30

50 .999970

0 50

40B 1.018247 -3

il.018245 -4

5 .999981 + 1

10 1.018293 10 .999888 -22

20 ' .999905 -15

20 .999953 + 3 20 .9999932 + 23

20

44B 1.0182383 -12.3

1.0192494 + 1000

2 .999977 -3

3 1.018291 -0.7

3 1.000042 + 132

8.4 1.000040 + 12010.4 1.000030 + 80

12.6 1.000042 + 72

14.8

46B .9999781 -2

5 1.018291

0

5 .999880 -40

60 .999915 -35

60 .999972 + 2 60

47B 1.0182489 -1.7

1.0182492 + 0.3

1 1.000010 + 30

10 1.018320 + 28

10 .999928 + 18 100 .999935 + 15 100 .999950

0 100 1.000040 + 70 100

50B 1.0182485 -2.1

1.0182464 -2.5

10 .9999767 -3

10 1.0182896 -2

10 .999894 -16

50 .999870 -50

50 .999810 -140

50 i .999880 -90

50

51E 1.0182495 -1.1

1.0182480 -0.9

2 1.0000183 + 38

5 1.0183245 -33

5 1.000071 + 161 30 1.0000924 + 172 30 • 1.000063 + 113 30 .999986 + 16 30

53B 1.000028 + 48

70 1.018337 + 46

50 .999906 -4

50 .999925 + 5 50 .999943 -7

50 .999940 -30

50

54B 1.0182467 -3.9

il.0182449 -4

10 .999984 + 4

50 1.018290 -2

50 .99y914 + 4

100 OOOO/IA .yyyy^u + 20

.777you

0 100 1 000004 + 34

100

1.018285 -34

jl. 018284 -36

30 1.000001 + 21 50 1.018310 + 19 50 .999934 + 24

100 .999835 -85

100 .999910 -40

100 .999956 -14

100

59C 1.018262 + 11 1.018262 + 13

7 1.000011 + 31

7 1.018313 + 21

15 .999580

| -330

10 .999800 -120

25 .998601 - 1349 100 .999970

0 560

Table 2, Heckelmann 1-12-67 *DEV. = Deviation from median of all NBS and participants' readings, ppm.

E.A. = Participant's Estimate of Accuracy, ±ppm.

18
ONE OHM THOMAS RESISTOR

COUJoz

UJor

a:u

o

o

u.o

cr

UJ

CD23

ONE AT

(.99774

OHM) i

NCSL 1965-66 MAC

DC-LF PACKAGE

EASTERN ROUTE

.999980 I 1.000000

.999990

J 1.000020 I

[ 1.000010 1.000030 \ OHMS

.999998 1.000000 I 1.000002

.999999 1.000001OHMS

SERIAL NO. 1664132

FIGURE 1. Heckelmann. Deviations from average NBS value, computed by route supervisor for 1-ohm Thomas resistor.

10,000 OHM RESISTOR PAIR

10000.20

10000.10

<o- <r> 10000.00

< 9999.90

9999.80

NCSL 1965-66 MAC

DC-LF PACKAGE EASTERN ROUTE

1

9999.70 9999.90 10000.10 9999.80 10000.00 OHMS

SERIAL NO. 1666858

Figure 2. Heckelmann. Youden diagram for 10,000-ohm resis- tor pair, referenced to average NBS value.

10,000 OHM +5% -5% RESISTOR PAIR

1582.60 r (10462.231,9583.524)

9582.30 -

9582.20

9582.10

NCSL 1965-66 MAC

DC-LF PACKAGE EASTERN ROUTE

(10464.180,9582.070)-

(10463.81, 9581.70)

10462.00 10462.20 10462.40

10462.10 10462.30 OHMS

SERIAL NO. 1666862

FIGURE 3. Heckelmann. Youden diagram for nominal 10,000- ohm resistor pair, referenced to average NBS value.

ONE MEGOHM RESISTOR PAIR

1000080

1000070

1000060 -

Eg

O 1000040

_i<

or

UJ^ 1000030 -

1000020 -

1000010 1000030 1000050

1000020 1000040

OHMS

SERIAL NO. 1654408

FIGURE 4. Heckelmann. Youden diagramfor 1-megohm resistor pair, referenced to average NBS value.

19
999.960 999.980 FIGURE 7. Heckelmann. Youden diagram for a pair of Zener 999.970 999.990 voltages, referenced to average NBS value. PICOFARADS

SERIAL NO. 567

FIGURE 5. Heckelmann. Youden diagramfor 1000 pF capacitor

pair, referenced to average NBS value.

SATURATED STANDARD

CELL PAIR

I 018290

I 018280

1.018270

- t

<n . HO

-IZ o , >< 1.018260

1.018250

1.018240

(10182383,1.0192494)

NCSL 1965-66 MAC

DC-LF PACKAGE EASTERN ROUTE

1.018240 1.018260 1.018280

1.018250 1018270 1018290 VOLTS

SERIAL NO. 24211

+ 200

S + 100

200

VOLT BOX RATIOS

£(+33,420)

£(+3,861)

\\\ #1 #2 #3 NBS

LABORATORY

DEVIATIONS FROM MEDIAN

NCSL 1965-66 MAC

DC-LF PACKAGE EASTERN ROUTE

(-4,250) $

(-19,894) ^

O 50:1 A 200:1 o 1000:1

x 5000:1 (-1,349)

FIGURE 6. Heckelmann. Youden diagramfor a pair ofsaturated standard cells, referenced to average NBS value. Figure 8. Heckelmann. Deviations from average NBS value, computed by route supervisor for 4 volt-box ratios.

20
RATIO OF DEVIATION TO

STATED MEASUREMENT ACCURACY

0,001 01 01

I

i 1 1

1

1 i n1.0 10 100

illinium u

NUMBER

OF OCCURRENCES

|_ P li lil li illl l

J_L 111 II II I NCSL 1965-66 MAC

DC-LF PACKAGE

EASTERN ROUTE

J LL

—T| 1 p-rnrm

|

I ! 1

1

1

1 1

1 | I I II

I OHM THOMAS

RESISTOR

J I

10,000 OHM

RESISTOR PAIR

10,000 OHM± 5%

RESISTOR PAIR _LJ I

I MEGOHM

RESISTOR PAIR

1000 PICO FARAD

CAPACITOR PAIR _LL

SATURATED STANDARD

CELL PAIR

I | (500)—

ZENER

REFERENCE

PAIR VOLT BOX RATIO (334)—

(199)— Ml II II L_

0 001 .01 0.1

-p-my—

10

~\ i r~p rrrj100

Figure 9. Heckelmann. Ratios between actual deviations, com- puted by route supervisor, and the measurement accuracies estimated by participants.

21

NCSL 66

Low Frequency Comparison — Western Route

H. S. Ingraham, Jr. Radio Corporation of America, Camden, N.J.

1.0 OHM & 1.0 MEGOHM RESISTORS NCSL 1965-66 MAC DC-LF WESTERN ROUTE

Lab. No

S/N 151517C

1 ohm

Thomas

resistor

Deviation from NBS #1

Stated accuracy

4050B S/N

1654421

Deviation from NBS #1

4050B S/N

LT4134

Deviation from NBS #1

Stated accuracy

NBS #1

41J 34F

55J 33F

ohms

1.0000036 ppm ppm

±1.0

ohms

1.000,026

1,000.047.0 1,000,030

1,000,017.7 999,790

ppm ohms

1,000,203

1,000,220.5 1,000,205

1.000,190.7 1,000,010

ppm ppm+ 15 ±100

±30

±25

±120

1.0000047

1.0000037

.9999515 1.0000032

+ 1.1 + 0.1 -52.1 -0.4

±20 —+ 3 (1 o . U ±2.0

±2.0

+ 21 + 4.0 -8.3

-236

+ 17.5 + 2.0 -12.3

-193

25C

18F

24J 22F

1.0000014

1.0000027

1.000004

1.0000034 1.0000006

-2.2

-0.9 + 0.4 -0.2

-3.0

±200

±2.0

±3.0

±3.0

±5.0

999,973

1,000,030

1,000.027

1,000,057

1,000,021

-53+ 4.0 + 1.0 + 30 -5.0

1,000,137

1,000,205

1,000.200

1.000,233

1,000,195

-66+ 2.0 -3.0 + 30 -8.0

±250

±20

±10

±35

±20

21J 23J 42C

37F

56F

1.000004 1.0000048

1.000008 1.0000027

1.0000039

+ 0.4 + 1.2 + 4.4 -0.9 + 0.3

±30

±1.4

± 10 ±5.0

±2.0

1,000,025

1,000,032 1,000,040

1,000,015

1.000,033

- 1.0 + 6.0 + 14 -11+ 7.0

1.000,200 1,000,204

1,000,230 1,000,187

1,000,204

-3.0 + 1.0 + 27 -16+ 1.0

±50

±10.2

±50

±50

±20

15J 14C

32F 29C

30C

1.000003 1.0000085 1.0000035

1.0000444

.999970

-0.6 + 4.9 -0.1 + 40.8 -33.6

±5.0

±5.0

±2.5

±100

±30

1,000,028

1,000,041 1,000,040

1,000,033

+ 2.0 + 15 + 14 + 7.0

1,000,201 1,000,219

1.000,207

1,000,212

-2.0 + 16 + 4.0 + 9.0

±13

±20

±22

±100

NBS #2 1.0000037 + 0.1 41

i 1,000,031 + 5 1,000,202 -

1

± 15

Table 1, Ingraham 1-13-67

23
10,000 OHM RESISTORS NCSL 1965-66 MAC DC-LF WESTERN ROUTE

4040B S/N Deviation 4040B S/N Deviation Stated

Lab. No. 1666857 from NBS #1 1666863 from NBS #1 accuracy

ohms ppm ohms ppm ppm

NBS #1 9,999.78 9,999.80 ±7.0

41J 9,999.495 -28.5 9,999.595 -20.5 ±100

3/1 fT Q7,777. QQQ 77*

f

Q QQQ 7Q in -+.X in1U OOJ Q7,777. QQQ 7Qi 7 Q7,777.01 QQQ ft] — 1 -U — 1U

33IT Q7,777. QQQ 77/ i in Q QQQ 7ft on -i- ±77 A

40

27J 9,999.88 + 10 9,999.91 + 11 ±200

25C 9,999.77 -1.0 9,999.79 -1.0 ±10

lor Q QQQ Ifx 7,777. (D Z.VJ OA Q QQQ 7A 7,777. /O A A 4-.U +- ft n

Q QQQ ft^ 7, 777.00 Q7, QQQ 777. 0

J

_1_ C A -+- 991T ZZr Q7,777. QQQ 7^i D OA Q QQQ 77 7,777. / / OA -+- in

21J 9,999.76 -2.0 9,999.78 -2.0 ±30

23J 9,999.79 + 1.0 9,999.80 0 ±10

Q QQQ ftfl 7, 77 7-OU -1-9 0 Q7,777.04 QQQ ft/11 -4- a. a -+- 9n

9.7IT Q QQQ AO 7, 777. 0

7

OA7.U Q QQQ 71 7,777. <

1

Q A 7.U — OU

our 1 Q QQQ 7/1 7,777. (4- A A Q QQQ 77 7,777. ( / OAO.U — ID

15J 9,999.77 -1.0 9,999.79 -1.0 ±9.0

14C 9,999.71 -7.0 9,999.77 -3.0 ±20

32F 9,999.79 + 1.0 9,999.80 0 ±8.0

29C 9,999.796 + 1.6 97,777. 999 826 UAiU + 2.6 ± 100 30C 9^999.77 - 1.0 9,999.80 0 ±20

NBS #2 9,999.74 -4 9,999.80 0 ±7

Table 2, Ingraham 1-13-67

10,000 OHM RESISTORS NCSL 1965-66 MAC DC-LF WESTERN ROUTE

Lab. No. 4040X S/N

1666853

Deviation from NBS #1

4040X S/N

1666851

Deviation from NBS #1

Stated accuracy

NBS #1

41J

ohms

10,462

10,461 07796

ppm ohms

9,583.80 ppm ppm

±10

-21 I 9,583.625 -17 5 ±100

34F 10,462 10 + 3 0 9,583.83 + 3 0 ±20

55J. 10,462 11 + 4 (» 9,583.87 + 7 (» ±50

33F 10,462 05 -2 0 9,583.83 + 3 0 ±20

27J 10,462 33 + 26 9,583.89 + 9 0 ±200

25C 10,462 06 - 1 0 9,583.85 + 5 0 ±20

18F 10,462 06 -1 (1 9,583.81 + 1 0 ±8.0

24J 10,462 21 + 14 9,583.91 + 11 ±50

22F 10,462 10 + 3 0 9,583.83 + 3 0 ±20

21J 10,462 10 + 3 0 9,583.84 + 4 0 ±30

23J 10,462 13 + 6 II 9,565.79 -1950 ±23

42C 10,462 1 + 3 0 9,583.9 + 10 ±30

37F 10,462 04 -3 0 9,583.86 + 6 0 ±30

56F 10,462 06 -1 0 9,583.81 + 1 0 ±15

15J 10,462 08 + 1 0 9,583.84 + 4 0 ±10

14C 10,462 07 0 9,583.85 + 5 0 ±20

32F 10,462 10 + 3 0 9,583.85 + 5 0 ±7.5

29C 10,438 97 -2200 9,583.73 -7 0 ±100

30C 10,462 16 + 9 0 9,583.86 + 6 0 ±30

NBS #2 10,462 01 -6 9,583.81 + I (1 ±10

Table 3, Ingraham 1-13-67

24
NCSL 1965-66 MAC

STANDARD CELL PAIR DC-LF WESTERN ROUTE

Lab. Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Stated No. cell from cell from accuracy #24189 NBS #1 #24217 NBS #1

volts ppm volts ppm ppm

1.018249/ 1.0182493 ±1.0 Al T 41J 1.018375 + 125 1.018369 + 120 ±30 3/1 T 34J 1.0182461 — 3.6 1.0182442 — 5.1 ±3.0

DOj 1.0182604 + 10.7 1.0182584 + 9.1 ±2.0

33F 1.018250* + 0.3 A O V.O -t- ± 1 A10 97 T 2/J 1. 018221 — 28.7 1.018216 — 33.3 ±200

2oC n at oorA 1.018250 + 0.3 1.018248 — 1.3 ±3.0

lor 1 A 1 OO 1 A 1.018249 — 0.7

~\ f\~\ C\C\ A C\ 1.018248 — 1.3 ±5.0

9/1 T 24J 1 Al OO /I AA 1.0182490 — 0.7 1.0182472 — 2.1 ±4.0

22F 1.018251* + 0.4 1.018251* + 1.7 ± 10

91 T 1 A1Q0.1QC — i 9 1.2 1.0182419 — 7.4 ±3.0

93 T 1 mfi9/14ji — O.O l.ulo24iy — 7.4 ±2.2

49r I .U lOZDD + 0.0 1 Al OOC O l.Ulo2oo + 3.7 ± 10

t)/r + O.O 1 A 1 OOC O A l.Ulo2oo4 + 4.1 + 5.0 56F 1.0182481 -1.6 1.0182465 -2.8 ±5.0

15J 1.0182468 -2.9 1.0182455 -3.8 ±3.0

1 fll°.9slQ 1 O O l.Ulo2oU /

1 1 A + 1.4 ±3.0

32F 1.018258 + 8.3 1.018256 + 6.7 ±5.0

29C 1.018248 -1.7 1.018246 -3.3 ±15

30C 1.018257 + 7.3 1.018255 + 5.7 ±10

NBS #2 1.0182477 -2.0 1.0182455 -3.8 ±1,5

*Value corrected to 28 °C from 25 °C data. Table *• Ingram 1-13-67

NCSL 1965-66 MAC

ZENER REFERENCE DC-LF WESTERN ROUTE

Lab. Zener Deviation Zener Deviation Stated No. S/N 3488 from S/N 3488 from accuracy

1.0000 V NBS #1 1.0183 V NBS #1

volts ppm volts ppm ppm

NBS #1 .999958 1.018267 ±5

41J 1.000059 + 101 1.018361 + 94 ±100

34F .999942 -16 1.018251 -16 ±30

55J .999937 -21 1.01825 -17 ±10

33F .999954 -4 1.018263 -4 ±10

27J .999940 -18 1.018251 -16 ±200

25C .99995 -8 1.01825 -17 ±10

18F .999947 -11 1.018255 -12 ±5

24J .999954 -4 1.018263 -4 ±15

22F .999954 -4 1.018269 + 2 ±30

21J .999934 -24 1.018243 -24 ±10

23J .999960 + 2 1.018264 -3 ±51

42C .999942 -16 1.018264 -3 ±15

37F .999956 -2 1.018265 -2 ±10

56F .999949 -9 1.018261 -6 ±10

15J .999956 -2 1.018267 0 ±10; ±8

14C .99995 -8 1.01826 -7 ±20

32F .99994 -18 1.01825 -17 ±15; ±10

29C .999967 + 9 1.018278 + 11 ±20

30C .999936 -22 1.018247 -20 ±30

NBS #2 .999883 -75 1.018188 -79 ±5

Table 5, Ingraham 1-13-67

25
VOLTBOX S/N 1679745 NCSL 1965HS6 MAC DC-LF WESTERN ROUTE

Lab. No. 7.5 V range

Deviation NBS#1

30 V range

Deviation from NBS #1

150 V range

Deviation from NBS #1

750 V range

Deviation from NBS #1

Stated accuracy

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm

NBS #1

41J 34F

55J

1.00006

1.0000 1.00007 1.00184

1.00006

1.0000 1.000045

1.00187

1.00011 i . UUU 1

1

+ 20 -60 + 10 + 1780

-60 - 15 + 1830

.99982 1.00005

1 .00200

-290

-60 + 1890

1.00049 1.00008

.98490

+ 380 -30

-1.5%

±300

±50

±20; ±100; ± 500; ± 2500 33F .99992 -140 .99994 -120 .99991 -200 1.0000 -110 ±20

27J 25C

18F

24J 22F

1.00003 1.00008 1.00008 1.000056

1.000056

-30 + 20 + 20 -4

-4

1.00000 1.000075

1.00006 1.000052

1.00004

-60 + 150 -8

-20

1.000033

1.00009

1.00007 1.000068

1.000065

-77

-20

-40

-42

-45

1.000098

1.00012 1.00008

1.00009 1.000069

-12 + 10 -30

-20

-41

±300

±20

±40

±30

±50

21J 23J 42C

37F

56F

1.00008 1.000073

1.000066 .999994 1.00007

+ 20 + 13 + 6 -66 + 10

1.00007 1.000065

1.000045 .99997 1.000063

+ 10 + 5 -15

-70+ 3

1.00012 1.000098

1.00009

.99999 5 1.000105

+ 10 -12

-20

-115 — 5

1.00014 1.000136 l.OOOlU

1.00002 2 1.00011

4

+ 30 + 26 + 4 -88+ 4

±20

±20

±50

±30

-4- 3fl

15J 14C

1.000087

1.00006 + 270

1.000073 1.000058 + 13 -2

1.000120

1.000072 + 10 -38

1.000143

1.00011 + 330 ±60±10; ±10;

±20; ±50

32F 29C

30C

1.00007

l (\f\f\f\7 i .UUUU

i

1.00013s

+ 10

4-— 101U + 76

1.00005

1 000046

1.000085

-10 — 14 + 25

1.00010

1.00010

1.000121

-10 - 10 + 11

1.00010

1.00017

1.00017

-10 + 60 + 60

±50

±200

±50

NBS #2 1.00009 + 30 1.00008 + 20 1.00014 + 30 1.00013 + 20 ±20

Table 6, Ingraham 1-13-67

lOOOpF CAPACITOR PAIR NCSL 1965-66 MAC DC-LF WESTERN ROUTE

1404 A Deviation 1404 A Deviation Stated Lab. no. S/N 130 from S/N 563 from accuracy NBS #1 NBS #1

PF ppm PF ppm ppm

NBS #1 1000.004 999.959 ±20

41J 999.90 -104 999.85 -109 ±2000

34F 1000.009 + 5 999.968 + 9 ±50

55J 1000.003 -1 999.957 -2 ±21

33F 999.999 -5 999.956 -3 ±100

27J 999.97 -34 999.93 -29 ±600

25C 1000.018 + 14 999.978 + 19 ±20

18F 1000.001 -3 999.959 0 ±30

24J 1000.007 + 3 999.964 + 5 ±22

22F 1000.006 + 2 999.959 0 ±20

21J 999.998 -6 999.954 -5 ±50

42C 999.99 -14 999.95 -9 ±30

37F 1000.006 + 2 999.958 -1 ±50

56F 999.999 -5 999.957 -2 ±25

15J 1000.008 + 4 999.961 + 2 ±22

14C 1000.0064 + 2.4 999.9653 + 6.3 ±25

32F 1000.005 + 1 999.962 + 3 ±30

29C 1000.0006 -3.4 999.9576 -1.4 ±100

NBS #2 1000.005 + 1 999.963 + 4 ±20

Table 7, Ingraham 1-13-67

26
PLATINUM RESISTANCE THERMOMETER NCSL 1965-66 MAC DC-LF WESTERN ROUTE

Lab. No. Ro /?-40

Ro AT

#25 AT

R100 Ro AT

R200 Ro AT

NBS*

34F 25C

18F

21J

23J

55J 56F 37F

32F

ohms

25.5532

25.5533 25.5534

25.5536 25.55350

25.55326 25.55350

25.55272 25.55299

25.55319

.839634 .839640

.839626

.839643

.839628

.8396376 .839623

.839636

.839631 .848973

°C

1.099252 1.099249

1.099239 1.099254

1.099257

1.09925«-> 1.099257

1.099264

1.099250

1.099433

°C

1.392615 1.392604

1.392601 1.392594

1.392628

1.3926080 1.392621 1.392631 1.392620

1.392612

°C

1.773512

1.773495

1.773510

1.773480

1.773532

1.773499 5 1.773492 1.773535

1.773510

1.773507

°C + .0015 -.002 + .0022 -.0015 + .0009 - .0027 + .0005 - .0007 + 2.315

- .0007 - .0033 + .0005 + .001 - .0005 + .0007 + .003 - .0005 + .045

- .0028 --0036 - .0054 + .0034 -.0018 + .0015 + .0041 + .0013 - .0008

- .0045 - .0005 - .0085 + .0053 - .0033 -.0053 + .0061 - .0005 -.0013

Lab. No.

R400 Ro AT #419.505 Ro AT

R444. 600 Ro AT

NBS*

34F 25C

18F

21J

23J

55J 56F

37F

32F

2.500153 °C

2.568510

2.568489

°C

2.655802.

op

1

1

-.006

2.568490

+ .004 - .0057 2.499984 -.048

2.568557 + .0134 2.500100 -.015

Table 8, Ingraham 1-13-67 *At end of route.

IE 1. Ingraham. Deviations from initial NBS value, com- FIGURE 2. Ingraham. Youden diagram for 10,000-ohm resistors pitted by route supervisor for I -ohm Thomas resistor. 4040B, referenced from initial NBS value. 27

256-114 0-67—

3
9-

Y

NCSL 1%5-U HAC

DC-LF PACKAGE WESTERN ROUTE

-, 1 |i i i nn | " 1 1 L " 1

1

I 11 1

I

1 1

RATIO OF DEVIATION TO STATED MEASUREMENT ACCURACY

f 7 RESISTORS

FIGURE 5. Ingraham. Ratio between actual deviations, com- puted by route supervisor, and measurement accuracy stated by participants for 7 resistors.

DEVIATION -PARTS W10"

FIGURE 3. Ingraham. Youden diagram for 10,000-ohm resistors 4040X, referenced from initial NBS value.

DEVIATION -PARTS IN /O 6

FIGURE 4. Ingraham. Youden diagram for I -megohm resistors,

1 -megohm referenced from initial NBS value.

NC5L l%5~-a MAC

DC-LF PACKAGE UESTERN ROUTE

i ' i

' h

1 k

1 *

DEVIATION - PARTS IN 10 6

FIGURE 6. Ingraham. Youden diagram for pair of standard

cells, referenced to NBS initial value.

28
J

NC5L 1%5-U MAC

DC-LF PACKAGE WESTERN ROUTE

RATIO OR DEVIATION TO STATRD ACCURACY FOR STANDARD C£IL PAIR

FIGURE 7. Ingraham. Ratio between actual deviations, com- puted by route supervisor, and measurement accuracy stated by participants for standard cell pair.

VOLT BOX

NCSL MAC

DC-LF PACKAGE

V/ESTFRiV ROUTE

* o

0 o o +

LEGEND: O 7.5 VOLTS 0 30 VOLTS + ISO VOLTS X.300VOITS

DEV/AT/ON-PARTS IN /06

FIGURE 8. Ingraham. Youden diagram for pair of Zener volt- ages, referenced to initial NBS value.

Figure 9. Ingraham. Deviations from initial NBS value, com- puted by route supervisor for 4 volt-box ratios.

10. Ingraham. Youden diagram for pair of 1000 pF

capacitors, referenced to initial NBS value.

29
NCSL IXS-U MAC

DC- LF PACKAGE

W£,STERN ROUTE

1—|—i i

i

1 |" 11 'i i

1—1 1

i

1 1 1

1

1 O .COl .0/ 0.1 I 5 /O RATIO of DeviATioM to STereo /iccueacr, ruo capacitors

Figure 11. Ingraham. Ratio between actual deviations, com- puted by route supervisor, and measurement accuracy stated by participants for 2 capacitors.

J<j .oof- ^ -00Z- It

Cs ,oof.

+O O *

o

o

PLATINUM RESISTANCE THERMOMETER

LEGEND'.O-f0°C

+ -hlOO'C

X +200'C

NCSL 1965-66 MAC

DC- LF PACKAGE WESTERN ROUTE

FIGURE 12. Ingraham. Deviations from initial NbS value, com- puted by route supervisor, for 4 points on platinum resistance thermometer.

30
High Frequency Comparison

H. D. Barnhart

General Electric Company

31
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

1965 - 1966 MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT COMPARISON HIGH FREQUENCY PACKAGE

Participant's Reported Data

•v ^ *> u u $ S3 * s ° II

S s 5 gg gg

•sen * pq -«pq t) (U >cJ OJ &

s s° ^° sg

+3 O -P O -P O -H < 'H <

lis jsss 3 as

£££ £££

10.23 49.87 50.15 20.09 20.08

10.23 ^9.86 50.15 20.09 20.07

10.28 49.87 50.15 20.09 20.08

10.23 49.75 49.91 20.14 20.09

10.29 49.83 50.10 20.08 20.07

10.20 49.82 50.12 20.12 20.10

10.26 49.80 50.06 20.11 20.08

10.29 50.07 50.37 19-99 19.99

10.25 50.04 50.32 20.05 20.06

10.19 — --- 20.09 20.08

10.22 49.58 49.86 20.09 20.20

10.20 49.90 50.23 20.10 20.10

10.21 49.94 50.23 20.06 20.06

10.24 49.80 50.09 20.07 20.08

10.25 49.73 50.02 20.11 20.10

10.41 49.59 49.95 20.075 20.077

10.30 49.81 50.12 20.06 20.08

10.17 49.76 50.07 20.06 20.04

10.18 49.91 50.20 20.14 20.12

* Attenuator appears to have a sensitivity to temperature because

of damage during MAC Program.

FIGURE 1. Barnhart. Participant's reported data on attenuators.

32

X

g0

pq u fi a

ft

„_i

0

p 0

CO H

Partic: Code

Number Attem Fixed Unit

]

NBS Dec. 10.34

NBS Apr. 10.33

NBS June *

16E 10.13

17E 10.34

18F

20E 10.22

22F 10.16

32F 10.17

33F 10.11

^4f 10.20

3TF 10.20

43G 10.15

45A 10.09

48G 10.24

51E 10.24

56F 10.31

57G 10.23

58E 10.19
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

1965 - 1966 MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT COMPARISON HIGH FREQUENCY PACKAGE

Participant's Measurements Uncertainties

Lpant

'

s

9

00

0 t5 p 0 v^-

CO r-4

-

Attenuator,

Coax,

Fixed

10

DB

Unit

II

(db)

X

cS00

0 fd

•p 0

^

Attenuator,

Coax,

Fixed

50

DB

Unit

II

(db)

20

DB

Fixed

Vane

X

Band

Attenuator

Unit

I

(db)

20

DB

Fixed

Vane

X

Band

Attenuator

Unit

II

(db)

Partic: Code

Number Attenu: Fixed

:

Unit

I

Attenu? Fixed

J

Unit

I

NBS Dec. 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.19 ± 0.1 ± 0.1

NBS Apr. 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.19 ± 0.1 ± 0.1

NBS June * 0.09 0.19 0.19 ± 0.1 ± 0.1

16E .21 .25 4.

• 55 .56 .27 .27

17E 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

18P * ± 0.16 4. 0.10 0.10 0.09 ± .09

20E ± 0.15 ± 0.05 + 0.2 + 0.2 ± 0.1 ± 0.1

22F 0.02 0.02 + 0.1 0.1 0.0k O.Ok

32F 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.1

33F .15 • 15 — — .05 .05

3^F ± 0.25 ± 0.25 -f 0.5 T 0.5 ± 0.05 ± 0.05

3TF ± 0.2 ± 0.2 4. 0.5 0.5 ± 0.2 ± 0.2

43G ± 0.16 ± .07 -1- 0.20 0.18 ± 0.07 ± 0.07

45A ± .08 ± .09 .1 .1 ± .058 ± .058

U8G .085 .090 0.110 .10 .071 .071

51E ± 0.06 ± 0.06 0.15 0.3 ± .08 ± .08

56F ± 0.1 ± 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.3 ± 0.05 ± 0.05

5TG ± 0.05 ± 0.05 + 0.1 + 0.1 ± 0.0k ± o.oh

58E ± .06 ± .08 .15 .15 .07 .60

Attenuator appears to have a sensitivity to temperature because

of damage during MAC Program.

Figure 2. Barnhan. Participant's estimates of measurement uncertainties on attenuators. 33
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

1965 - 1966 MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT COMPARISON HIGH FREQUENCY PACKAGE

Participant's Reported Data

Wavemeter

ffl SN 15787

CD H CD H CD H

-P N -P N -P tslCDWD trJCDM W (1) M mac o a a o a c O O 'H O tH O -H

-P O^H-P O^l-P O o -p • o -p • o +3

• rl (U OtHCD H-HCD

On 2 CO H 2 (O HgCQ

8.232 4.372 1.782

8.233 4.372 1.782

8.233 4.372 1.783

8.232 4.371 1.781

8.232 4.372 1.782

8.233 4.382 1.781

8.232 4.371 1.782

8.231 4.371 2.232

8.232 4.371 1.782

33F - - 8.232 4.371 1.782

34f 249 223 8.232 4.371 1.782

37F - 8.232 4.371 2.782

43G - - 8.231 4.371 I.782

45A 243.8 214 8.232 4.372 1.782

48g 244 217 8.2320 4.3720 1.7825

51E 241.2 214.2 8.231 4.371 1.782

56F 251 218 8.232 4.372 1.782

57G - - 8.232 4.371 1.782

58E 249.3 233 8.230 4.370 1.7805

FIGURE 3. Barnhart. Participant's reported data on Q-standards and wavemeter.

34

Participant

Code

Number Q

Standard

Effective

Q

Unit

I

Q

Standard

Effective

Q

Unit

II

T\TRQ flop 251 230

NBS Apr. 250 224

NBS June 252 229

16E 250 224.1

17E 24l 215

18F 249 224

20E 244 216

22F 246 217

32F 244 214
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

1965 - 1966 MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT COMPARISON HIGH FREQUENCY PACKAGE

Participant's Measurements Uncertainties

CO

Participant

1

Code

Number Q

Standard

Effective

Q

Unit

I

Q

Standard

Effective

Q

Unit

II u

CD l>- -P CO

CD C— a u-n

CD H

f> . CO S

CO NBS Dec. ± 2 ± k ± 0.002 MM

NBS Apr. ± 2 ± k ± 0.002 MM

NBS June ± 2 ± k ± 0.001 MM

16E ± 3-5 $ ± 3-5 $ .0048 %

17E ± 2 $ ± 2 $ ± 0.001 MM

18F ± k i ±k io 5 parts in 10

20E ± 2 io ± 2 io + .001 ± 0.0002

22F ± 3 i 0.001 i

32F ± 2 i ± 2 i ± 1 part in 10

33F - - g

± 1 part in 10

3^F ± 3 i ± 3 io ±0.1 dial div.

3TF ± 5 $ ± 5 # 0.001 i

k3G .005 $

k5A ± 5 56 ± 5 $ .001 i

k3G ± 3 # ± 3 # .05 dial

51E ± 1 56 ± 1 56 1 x IO

-6

56F 3 i 3 i Limited "by dial

5TG ± 5 96 ± 5 % ± 1. dial div.

58E ± 2 56 ± 2 i ± .001

FIGURE 4. Barnhart. Participant's estimates of measurement uncertainties on Q-standards and wavemeter.

35
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

1965 - 1966 MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT COMPARISON HIGH FREQUENCY PACKAGE

Participant's Reported Data

CO +>a

COPi

•h Wavemeter

t> u

•H Q) P 0) u

CO - Ph oSia SI GHz (inches) 62 GHz (Inches) 7** GHz (Inches)

3 Sc .1155 Sso %Iu .0665 -1B50 .3035 '.to> .0395 .1320 ^5555 '.3155 .W>0

NBSApr. .1155 .2830 A510 .0665 .1850 -3035 .1*220 .0395 -1320 .221*0 .3160 A075

NBSJune .1155 .2830 A510 .0665 .1850 .3035 A220 .0395 .1320 .2235 .3160 .1*075

16E

17E

18F

20E

22F

32F

33F

3**F

3TF

k3G

U5A

1*8G

51E

56F

5TG

58E

.1157 .2832 .0665 .181*8 -0397 .1318

.0665 -*3M

.1157 .2832 .1*511 .0665 .18U8 .3033 .1*217 .0397 .1317 -2237 .3158 .U077

FIGURE 5. Barnhart. Participant's reported data on 51-62-74 GHz wavemeter.

36
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

1965 - 1966 MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT COMPARISON HIGH FREQUENCY PACKAGE

Participant's Measurements Uncertainties

-p

cdP<o u Wavemeter

•H CD —

-P 0 rQ u t3

~ g g I 51 GHz (Enches) 62 GHz (Enches) jk GHz (Enches)

NBS Dec. ± .001 + .ooi

51E

58E

± .001

NBS Apr. ± .001 Est. Acc. ± .001 Est. Acc. ± .001 Est. Acc.

± .01 ± .003^ of Freq. ± .01 ± .003$ of Freq. ± .01 ± .003$ of Freq.

NBS June ± .001 + ,q01

i6e

17E

18F

20E

22F

32F

33F

3^F

37F

^3G ± .25

± .001

± -25 $ ± .25 <f>

± .05 $ ± .05 #

Limited By Dial Resettability

5TG

FIGURE 6. Barnhart. Participant's estimates of measurement uncertainties on 51-62-74 GHz wavemeter.

37
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

1965 - 1966 MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT COMPARISON HIGH FREQUENCY PACKAGE

Participant's Reported Data

ticipant

'

s

e

ber X MW

Thermistor Mount

10 MW

Standard Mismatch

Reflection

Coefficient MM

. 04964

U 13 s

co 0 3

Ph 0 a

TVTDQ TVrt Wrso Jjec

.

100 MHz

.989

3.5 GHz

• 9^5

' 9.3 GHz 100 MHz

.988

3-5 UHz

.948

9-3 C3Uz —

NBS Apr. .988 • 939 .990 • 9^3 — .04967

.981 .936 .990 .948 ___ .04977

IDE .04920

1JL TV1 Hj —

lor . 04760

.961 .910 • 909 ___ .04900

3" • 99^ .896 .990 .89^

33-t1

.985 .04997

.983 • 971 .859 .980 • 973 .859 .05040

45A .965 • 935 .787 .965 • 935 .787 .04860

48g .980 • 927 .79^ .983 .924 .780 .05020

51E .9913 .9U21 .9853 .9501 .04200

56F 1.00 1.02 1.177 .05040

57G .05010

58E .966 .96k •955 • 945 .05270

Figure 7 Barnhart. Participant's reported data on thermistor mount at 1 mW an d 10 mW.

38
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

1965 - 1966 MEASUREMENT AGREEMENT COMPARISON HIGH FREQUENCY PACKAGE

Participant's Measurements Uncertainties

to -pc

aSfto u Thermistor Mount Standard Mismatch •H (D .—

Part Code

Numbi 1 MV 10 MW Reflection

100 MHz 3.5 GHz 9-3 GHz 100 MHz 3-5 GHz 9-3 GHz Coefficient MM

NBS Dec. 1 i 1-5 *

- 1 i 1.5 *

- ± .0003 **

NBS Apr. 1 i 1.5 i- 1 Jt 1.5 jt ± .0003 **

NBS June 1 i 1.5 - 1.5 Jt ± .0003 ** i6e .012

1TE

18F ± .OO65

20E ± 3 i ±3 jt - - ±3 Jt - ± .004

22F

32F 2.3 $

- 2.1 jt -

5 Jt 33F

34f - - - 2.5 *

- - 1 Jt 37F

k3G 1.5 jt 2.5 jt 3.5 Jt 1.5 * 2.5 Jt 3.5 Jt ± 3 Jt k$A 2.0 <f> 2.0 jt 2.5 36 2.0 jt 2.0 jt 2.5 Jt ± .006

48g 2.1 56 2.7 st 3.6 * 2.2 # 2.7 Jt 3-6 Jt ± .00075

51E 1.3 i 1.3 56 1-3 jt 1-3 Jt ± .002

56F ± .05 ± .05 ± .02 ± .001

5TG 1 Jt 58E ± .043 ± .055 ± .0^3 ± .055 ± .001

Estimated Accuracy

GURE 8. Barnhart. Participant's estimates of measurement uncertainties on thermistor mount at 1 mW and 10 mW

.

39
X<ou

OSC<wH

E-i

O

tu •HH

ft

HO£ -P

COB

CQ •H o -P

CO CD CD Vi

,£) -P <D !h 'H -P Tl

CD

O cO

U

a <d o o fd cd ft .eg

ro-P

O

,3O

O CQ 3 H CD cO S ^ Jh at r—i i—' _, o o -P s O ?H cO -H

-p CP. f-i <D e

hfl (1) Ch CD

fH |^

g +3

•H

H CD -P

i> cO -P

O §

cO !>

H ^ fcf ft ^ CD oa O CD -P CO -a .p cO vH O 0i—1 CD CO 3 H -P H H CD CO # w«, H P CD >3 H CD -p H > Ch XI O • cO •H CD S CQ •2

ID fj

H Jn

CQO -P CD 0 O H <C ,£> g. H CO iHV J_l •v -P 'CD 0 23 CD CO CQ TZi Ch

t> CD

H CD c H CD LPv ,£) -0 -p p • • H -H O CD 13

cq £ CJ

H

u

C cO CD cO 0 K *d 0 1 CQ -P CQ H -p

CD • • CQ fi „ CD O <D •H 8 3 H H CQ O „3 +J O -H ft "3

CO i>>

O

U

U

O -P ,C

CD >ti

V

•H

-H 2 CO CD t! H "g s

-P 2 CO ?H

cd > 0)

CD P g 3 g CD CD O

co .fi

H

C •2

O -P P ?H

B

CD -P 3 0 p C (J -p 1

•H fH -p

CD CO CD

O CD ft

H tf -P U B CQ a

CO CD CD -PH •a 2 •£ ^ "ri CQ E S > ^ & 10 a

CD CD 6 -H 0 QQ ^ 6 Ofl

-p

O

O

X it < CQ 5-( CD •H g o

co+

CM+ + saaaioaa ni NOixviAaa

CMI

00I

40
I •-

o m ofiw

-so • K H Q

<; h eh

i •-

9961 wnr - sen (-

996T iiiHv - saci 1-

£961 aaamoaa - son isi

00+

OJ

+* sraaioaa mi moijlvlasci

OJ on

I

41
X

u

CQ

PQ <

Q IX O _ H Q Q

<c H 1-7 Sag

H g

<;

bfl -P

•H <D > 1) Jl H

cd 43 >d oP W

s • t3 <U

Pi CD 0)

(1) ? Tl

cd P -P o cd

>> O H

r—t >> Cd J3 O G d O H -H 0) -P

CO -P 0 P

COO d

ft 2

cd <D P

a) cd S • 'U

(U o o P H CDO

Ch

cd W CD CD O

a >

CD CQ

cd cq H -H

' <D U

CD CD (D

>• ,£5 42 0 -d

•H P

P O O

C CD S

CQ -H T3

cd cd oo <c

CO • CD O

CD 43 H • b * «

ra p 3J § p | o

[J O h,D

^ «) Ch

S3 CQ

cd P

S3

CD

(D - i> ft O

c 43 u o P x!

O CQ ft nj co 0) -P C

g CD 3 -d -H 3

d) -H i—I 42 +3 H cd H 'H O

ft > A 6

43

(D ft OX U H CD CD

Cd CD

CD CD

ft H P

O U rQ P O 'H

-p CQ

CD cd CQ d

"

f> P

P

-p -H cd CD

cd o >

l g W CD Cd CQ

S3 U -H O O P CD O H P 43 P

-P cd cd P M

CO+

+ H

PQ

i—

i

U

w

Q

o

O

H

>

. Q

5

"3

-a3

B

S

8

CQ

00

+"

CM+ saaeioaa ni NoixviAaa

00

I

42
3

in

I •-

9961 ffllf - sw.

9961 1IHJV - SW

£961 msmosa - sw \-

—

I

1 • 1

52

a

05

43

256-1 14 0-67—

4
a

COm

CO -3

9961 guar - saw H

9961 uhjv - saw IS961 H3aw5oaa - saw (_

o

CVJ -3"

ON

OJ CO

00+CM+

r] 8

+

44

1

3I

1

C5

a

£

a

03
+
I • 1

9961 3M1T - SEN +

9961 HHJV - sau

£961 naeMsoaa - saw

00 OJ+

46

o

-ae

a

s

a

c

a

03
r

i—•-

C/3

9961 amir - saw h

03

9961 TEHdV - 3SK \-

£961 naawaoaa - ^aM i-

+

CM+

47
03 - O

n

, + + +

siaaioaa ni NoixviAaa

48
do aaivA xl hqiwu&q.

49
r

II a

so

"T3

a

9961 awnr - sm t9961 HHdv - sm -ee

In. B

oa

$961 naawaoaa - saM

IT*, H

+

O1—

I

+

I

o

H H

50
on+

m CM H O H CVJ rv^ + + + III

& iO SHIVA NI NQIJVIA2Q

51
996i amr - S9M

9961 naav - saw

ON O

o

£961 aaaMoaa - sw

1

01+

CVJ

oiunas ni NQiiviAaa

52
tO ESI N W K K O O O

H C\J Jtr\ VD t— m • <

o

H

+ + O

I

7TH

B

i

I

:

9961 mnr - ssm

9961 naiv - saw

a

-s£

a

as

£961 aaawaoaa - ssm

w

PSs

o

^_oix saaaswrriiw mi

ottraaias nx woiiviAaa

53
Lf\ +

O

H

Eh<

9961 amc - sau •

9961 iihjv - sw

£961 aaawaoaa - sw

O LT\ o

H on

O <J

4 OJ+ H

+ O OJ on

ft)

ee

S

3

OQ

xomhidims iMaoaad mi noiivimci

54
N Esl s o

O LT\ oH m

I,

H

S3

996l MIT - S8M

9961 mm - sen

Z96T HaaMaoaa - sw.

e

-ce

8

02

+

OJ+

OJ

I

iKHOaad MI MOIiVlAEG

55
O

onH

+

OJ E ^ O

1 6 S o

o

En

CO

9961 amc - san

9961 hhjv - S9M •

£961 aaaMaoaa - son

I

o

OJ

I

+ o

+

OJ+

OJ

I oLf\

I

I

oxx aaiLiiMDVw j^aiDMjiaoo

56

e

E

•26

73

-o13

E

s

I

8

e

05
Mass-Dimension Comparison Physical Package

W. B. McCallum

General Electric Ordnance Dept., Pittsfield, Mass.

WEIGHTS 2kg-100g RECORDED VALUES AND ESTIMATED ACCURACIES NCSL 1965-66 MAC

Participant

2kg (L)

Value ma EA

± ms

2kg (S)

Value mgEA

± mg

200g (L)

Value mg

EA

± mg

200g (S)

Value mg

EA

±mg

lOOg (L)

Value mg

EA

± mg

lOOg (S)

Value mg

+ 96.81 + 104.5 + 98.0 + 32.4 + 9.8 + 70.0

+ 78.0 + 298.0 + 98.7

100.0

102.0

0.7 12.0

1.5 1.0 0.6 50.5

+ 14.72 + 20.7 + 14.6 -44.8 + 18.2 0

0.7 12.0

1.5 1.0 0.6 50.5

10.0 40.0

8.0

+ 1.0 •213.0 + 16.3

10.0 40.0

8.0

+ 39.38 + 38.32 + 39.5 + 28.82 + 39.4 + 40.45 + 39.63 + 39.48 + 39.18 + 51.5 + 39.6 + 39.55

0.25

0.1

1.0 0.03 105.00

0.3 200.0

0.26

1.0 2.0

0.7

+ 14.51 + 14.42 + 14.7 + 3.72 + 14.4 + 14.25 + 14.45 + 14.53 + 14.04 -1.3 + 14.5 + 14.590.25

0.1

1.1 0.3 105.0

0.3 200.0

0.26

1.0 2.0

7.0

10.0 + 17.0 + 23.0 10.0 + 39.5 + 39.47 0.8

14.6 14.49 0.8

+ 19.46 + 19.45 + 19.44 + 19.95 + 19.4 + 18.55 + 19.61 + 19.44 + 19.47 + 19.41 + 19.6 + 19.5 + 20.0 + 19.29 + 19.44

0.25

0.1

0.1 0.2 55.0

0.15 200.0

0.26

0.12

1.0 0.4 0.2

0.11

+ 13.56 + 13.6 + 13.54 + 11.85 + 13.5 + 13.85 + 14.34 + 13.80 + 13.55 + 13.53 + 14.1 + 13.6 + 10.0 + 13.45 + 13.59

Table 1, McCallum 2-16-67

WEIGHTS 1 g-1 mg RECORDED VALUES AND ESTIMATED ACCURACIES NCSL 1965-66 MAC

lg lg' 100 mg(PT) 100 mg(AL) lme

Partici- pant Value EA Value EA Value EA Value EA Value EA

mg ± mg mg ±mg mg ±mg mg ±mg mg ±mg

NBS + .0238 0.004 -.0489 0.004 -.0169 0.003 -.755 0.010 - .0086 0.003

24J + .018 0.01 -.046 0.01 + .011 0.01 -.852 0.01 + .013 0.01 21J + .028 0.015 + .043 0.015 -.008 0.009 -.743 0.009 -.004 0.009 31K -.024 0.01 + .047 0.01 -.755 0.001 -.007 0.0004 57G -.008 15.0 + .003 15.00 -.015 9.0 -.767 9.0 -.006 24.0 11D 0 0.15 0 0.15 + .1 0.15 -.6 0.15 12K + .019 10.0 -.021 10.0 -.012 10.0 -.149 10.0 -.007 6.0 49D + .02 -.03 -.007 -.654 -.007

52D + .022 0.01 -.06 0.01 -.016 0.01 -.75 0.01 -.005 0.01 41J + .018 14.0 -.025 14.0 -.014 14.0 -.742 14.0 + .002 14.0 28K 0 0.1 -.1 0.1 0 0.1 -.8 0.1 + .02 0.1 23J + .028 0.021 -.048 0.021 -.017 0.006 -.754 0.022 -.005 0.009

27J 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 -.5 0.2 0 0.2 43G + .020 0.034 -.048 0.034 -.005 0.006 -.737 0.(107 -.006 0.006

15J + .024 0.02 -.043 0.02 -.002 0.008 -.757 0.009 -.003 0.011

Table 2, McCallum 2-16-67

57
WEIGHTS 2kg- lmg DEVIATIONS FROM NBS VALUES NCSL 1965-66 MAC

Participant 2kg(L) 2kg(S) 200g(L) 200(S) 100g(L) 100g(S) lg lg' lOOmg

(PT) lOOmg(AL)

lmg

(mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)

24J 7.69 5.98 1.06 0.09 0.01 0.04 .0058 .0029 .0279 .097 .0216 21J 1.19 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.02 0.02 .0042 .0919 .0089 .012 .0046 31K 64.41 59.52 10.56 10.79 0.49 1.71 .0478 .0959 0 .0016 57G 85.01 3.48 0.02 0.11 0.06 0.06 .0318 .0519 .0019 .012 .0026 11D 26.81 14.72 1.07 0.26 0.91 0.29 .0238 .0489 .1169 .155 12K 0.25 0.06 0.15 0.78 .0048 .0279 .0049 .606 .0016 49D 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.24 .0038 .0189 .0099 .101 .0016 52D 0.20 0.47 0.01 0.01 .0018 .0111 .0009 .005 .0036 41J 18.81 13.72 12.12 15.81 0.05 0.03 .0058 .0239 .0029 .013 .0106 28K 201.2 198.30 0.22 0.01 0.14 0.54 .0238 .0511 .0169 .045 .0286 23J 1.89 1.58 0.17 0.08 0.04 0.04 .0042 .0009 .0001 .001 .0036 27J 0.54 3.56 .0238 .0489 .0169 .255 .0086 43G 3.19 2.28 0.12 0.09 0.17 0.11 .0038 .0009 .0019 .018 .0026

15J 5.19 8.28 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03 .0002 .0059 .0149 .002 .0056

Table 3, McCallum 2-16-67

GAGE BLOCKS RECORDED DIFFERENCE VALUES AND ESTIMATED ACCURACIES NCSL 1965-66 MAC

Gage Blocks — Steel Gage Blocks — Chrome Carbide

Partici- pant B-682 B-687 B-1035 B-1049

EA

RA12

EA

RA13

EA 0.650 in EA 0.650 in EA 3.000 in EA 3.000 in 2.000 in 2.000 in n" M" M" ±m" ^" m"

NBS + 3.0 2.0 + 2.0 2.0 + 2.0 3.0 + 3.0 3.0 + 3.0 2.0 + 3.0 2.0 55J + 2.6 2.0 + 2.2 2.0 + 0.8 3.0 + 0.5 3.0 + 1.9 2.0 + 2.2 2.0 36D + 0.9 0.2 + 0.9 0.2 + 0.2 0.17 + 0.5 0.27 -0.4 0.2 -0.4 0.2 21J + 2.4 2.9 + 3.6 2.9 + 3.8 5.8 + 3.3 5.8 + 3.6 4.9 + 2.9 4.9 31K + 3.0 2.0 + 2.0 2.0 0 3.0 0 3.0 -5 0 3.0 -6.0 3.0 57G + 2.0 3.0 + 2.0 3.0 -1.0 3.0 + 1.0 3.0 -3.0 3.0 -10.0 3.0 11D + 3.0 1.0 + 3.0 1.0 + 1.0 2.0 + 2.0 2.0 + 6.0 2.0 + 6.0 2.0 27J + 8.0 3.0 + 7.0 3.0 + 5.0 3.0 + 4.0 3.0 + 2.0 3.0 + 2.0 3.0 26D + 2.0 2.0 + 2.0 2.0 - 1.0 3.0 + 3.0 3.0 + 1.0 2.0 + 5.0 2.0 41J -3.0 9.0 -3.0 9.0 -29.0 15.0 -30.0 15.0 -17.0 9.0 -17.0 9.0 23J + 2.6 1.0 + 2.7 1.0 + 1.7 3.0 + 3.2 3.0 + 3.3 2.0 + 3.3 2.0 43G + 0.91 1.3 + 0.67 1.3 -1.93 3.7 -2.42 3.7 + 0.42 2.2 + 0.62 2.2

Table 4, McCallum 2-16-67

58
RECORDED VALUES AND ESTIMATED ACCURACIES

RING GAGES, ANGLE BLOCKS NCSL 1965-66 MAC

Participant

NBS

24J 36P

21J 31K

57G

11D 26D

41J

23J

27J

55J 43G

Ring Gages

TN4-20770

Value

Inches EA

1.850185 1.850195

1.850192

1.850185

1.850168

1.850189 1.850183

1.850184

1.85020 1.850177 1.850198

1.850185

1.850165

SMC 25705 Value

Inches

10

5210

8

7

1010

1020

3

515

1.850171 1.850180

1.850184

1.850172

1.850157

1.850178

1.850173 1.850172

1.85020 1.850163 1.850187

1.850195 1.850150

EA

±fL"

10

5

2

108

710

1(1 Hi 20

3

5

15

Angle Blocks

30° Value

sec

-1.2

-2.6

-0.1

-1.1

-1.2 + 7.0 "-L3

-2.3

-1.4

-4.7

-0.7

-0.39

EA

£ sec

1.0 0.2 0.07

1.0 6.0 0.8

1.0

1.5 0.5 3.0

1.0 0.9

45° Value

sec

+ 0.5 + 1.5 + 0.9 + 0.3 + 0.2 -5.0 + lo"

-0.95 + 0.25 -2.0

-0.8 + 0.37

EA

1.0 0.2 0.09

1.0 0.6

0.8

1.0 2.37

0.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

Table 5. McCallum 2-16-67

OPTICAL PYROMETER RECORDED VALUES AND ESTIMATED ACCURACIES NCSL 1965-66

Low scale High scale

Participant 1,60C °F 1,900 °F 2,200 °F 2,200 °F 2,600 °F 3,000 °F

Value °F EA ±F° Value °F EA ±F° Value °F EA ±F° Value °F EA ±F° Value °F EA ±F° Value °F EA ±F°

NBS

21J 31K

1,605.0

1,603.0

1,606.0

7.0 30.0

4.0

1.904.0

1,895.0

1.906.0

6.0 40.0

4.0

2,210.0

2,204.0

7.0 40.0

2,205.0 2,201.0

2,208.0

2,191.0

2,204.0

2,208.0

2,206.0

2,209.2

7.0 40.0

4.0

5.0 10.0

8.0

10.0

8.0

2,607.0

2,608.0

2,609.0

2,593.0

2,585.0

2,606.0 2,608.0

2,609.1

8.0 45.0

4.0

5.5

12.0

10.0

10.0

9.2

3,015.0

3,018.0 3,015.0

2,986.0 2,999.0

3,011.0

3,021.0

3,013.7

10.0 50.0

4.0

6.0 12.0

10.0 12.0

10.3

57G

41J 28K

23J 43G

1,597.0

1,596.0

1,606.0

1,600.0 1,605.7

4.0 12.0

7.0 9.0

9.5

1,893.0

1,894.0

1,905.0

1,902.0

1,906.5

4.5 10.0

6.0 8.0

7.5

2,187.0 2,208.0

2,209.0

2,209.0

2,211.4

5.0 10.0

7.0 8.0

8.0

Table 6, McCallum 2-16-67

256-114 0-67—

5

59
o

H

-1JHs

aH

a

3HH

>

.03 -,

.02.

.01-

N.B.S.

-0.1-

•0.2'

1 MILLIGRAM WEIGHT

S SI Q rq

N.C.S.L. 1965-66 M.A.C,

PHYSICAL PACKAGE

•0.3 J

FIGURE 1. McCallum. Deviations from NBS value, computed by route supervisor, for 1 milligram weight.

M

3

a

H

I O

Biu

H

S3o

M

H

>

W

6-,

4-

2-

N.B.S.

2.00 INCH GAGE BLOCKS (CROBLOX)

IF TU

6-

N.C.S.L. 1965 - 66 M.A.C.

•20 PHYSICAL PACKAGE

Figure 2. McCallum. Deviations from NBS value, computed by route supervisor, for 2.00-in gage blocks' chrome steel.

•13 W

60
20.

10—

0 _

10—

200 GRAM WEIGHTS

YOUDEN DIAGRAM

20.

10.56

10.79

+12.12

-15.81

N.C.S.L. 1965 - 66 M.A.C.

PHYSICAL PACKAGE

+ 1.07

-0.26 \

I

1 1 1 ' I

1 .20 -.10

"i—i—

|—r—i—i

i j i—i—i

i | 0 .10 .20

DEVIATIONS IN MILLIGRAMS (200g-L)

McCalluni

FIGURE 3. McCallum. Youden diagram for a pair of 200-g weights, referenced to NBS value.

61
1 GRAM WEIGHTS

DEVIATION IN MILLIGRAMS (lg)

McCallum

Figure 4. McCallum. Youden diagram for a pair of l-g weights, referenced to NBS value.

62
N.C.S.L. 1965 - 66 M.A.C. PHYSICAL PACKAGE

to

<-r* M

o6

>

+30

+25

+ 20:

+ 15

+ 10'

+ 5 N.B.S,

-5-10

-15-

-20-

-25-

-30-

FlGURE

DEVIATION FROM N. B. S. VS

,

RING GAGES

ESTIMATED ACCURACY

o

3

° SMC 25705 • TN4-20770

Est. Accuracy

o

f

Ci

(9

5. McCallum. Deviations from NBS value, computed by route supervisor, for a pair of 1 .85-in ring gages.

COaz

o

COa

<

M

2

O

i-l H

+ 1.4-

+ 1.2-

+ 1.0-

+ 0.8-

+ 0.6

+ 0.4,

+ 0.2_

N.B.S

-0.2-

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0-

-1.2-

-1.4-

ANGLE BLOCKS o

8.2

5.5

3.0

1.9

-2.5

v 30^ • 45

C

o

o

Figure

McCallum

6. McCallum. Deviations from NBS value, computed by route supervisor, for a pair of angle blocks. 63

NCSL 66

SESSION 2. WHY CALIBRATE?

Chairman: J. L. Hayes, Metrology Technical Director,

Naval Ordnance Systems Command

Pomona, Calif. 91766

Session 2 consisted of a fifteen-minute animated

(cartoon) color film entitled "Why Calibrate."

The film was produced for the Quality and Reliability group of the Navy's Special Projects Office

where direction of the POLARIS program emanates. The film was under the technical direction of the Navy's Metrology Engineering Center

located at the Naval Plant Representative Office,

Pomona, California.

The purpose of the film was to motivate personnel

who deal with test equipment at all levels of operation (from the bench technician to the head

of the entire organization) toward a better appreciation and understanding of the essentiality of cali- bration. By use of cartoon characters drawn from

naval history circa 1800, the film shows first, the

necessity for test equipment to measure weapon

systems and their components to ensure operational readiness (both in the fleet and at shore production facilities); thence the necessity of controlled measurements at all these sites to ensure

interchangeability, quality, and reliability of products; thence the necessity for calibration, to as- sure that all test equipment is within specifications

by periodically testing it, and to assure that all measurements made by the test equipment relate

to common measurement references or standards.

The importance of calibration to mission success and product quality and reliability are summarized.

The film is presently in the process of being

screened by DOD for release to the general public.

Until official releases are made (and announced

through the NCSL Newsletter and other technical

journals) the film may be obtained by government

contractors on a short-term-loan basis by sending

a request via their cognizant contract administration or inspection agency to the nearest Naval

District Headquarters, Attn: Film Library.

65

NCSL 66

SESSION 3. STATISTICAL PROCEDURES

DeWayne B. Sharpe, Chairman

Introduction

D. B. Sharpe, IBM Corporation, San Jose, California 95114

The Statistical Procedures Committee is a new

one, and its creation symbolizes a new concept

in metrology. Its formation recognizes measure- ment requirements which cannot be met simply

by buying better equipment, but only by emphasizing technique and analysis. This emphasis

has been seen in very few areas in the past.

The committee's first and most important task was to recruit members who have the interest and

background to help with a project of this scope. The goal of the committee as assigned by NCSL

is to: "Develop specific or generalized methods

for compilation and analysis of measurement and

calibration data by statistical or computational

procedures". This means we must develop tools and communication links to bridge the gap be- tween the practical metrologist and the statistician. This committee is not specifically oriented to computer or electronic data processing equipment,

but it is obvious that this work will require some

mechanical or electronic help. To become con- vinced that help will be needed, one has only to look at the vast array of data taken by even a small

standards laboratory or at the calculations required

to reduce this data. We metrologists must learn how and when to use that help to best advantage. To do that we

must learn to communicate between ourselves.

Even more important, we have to communicate

with our computers through the statisticians, mathematicians and programmers. This is where the

NCSL's Statistical Procedures Committee can

help. If we can help provide that communications

link, we will have served our purpose.

Many of you may have seen the article entitled

"New Measurement Communication Under Way" in the April issue of Electronic Procurement. This

article quoted and commented on Dr. Astin's

remarks before the American Standards Association meeting. A special point was made of the

expanded communications made possible by in- creased use of the units of the International System and by the "systems" approach to measure- ment standards.

This discussion made me realize that our committee has a two-fold communications problem in our consideration of statistical procedures. First,

even the practitioners of this art of measurement

(and I think all of you will agree that it is still as much Art as it is Science) do not always mean the same thing when they use the same terms. In fact,

there was a discussion during the session on the cur- rent Measurement Agreement Comparison about

what was meant by "uncertainty". It is going to be

very difficult for us to set up statistical procedures to analyze uncertainty if we are not talking about the same uncertainty. This is the first or verbal

semantics part of our communications barrier. Secondly, our computers and electronic or auto- matic data processing equipment have a language

which has semantic problems too. Computers,

being rather simple-minded animals, tend to have

special languages which only they understand.

Whole groups of people called programmers are

busily employed interpreting what we laymen say

into language the computer can understand. To

compound the problem, the computers manufactured by different companies do not use the same language, and even within the same com- pany programs written for one machine type are

not necessarily usable on another type of machine.

These then are our communications problems —

just a few of the things which keep us from doing

the job we would bke to do. We certainly are not the first people in history to have a semantics

problem, but when we brag about our efforts toward "standardization" it seems to me we ought

to be doing something about standardizing our communications.

We hope this committee can serve you by rec- ommending and disseminating a glossary of terms

to be used in data reduction, and by doing the same

thing for procedures for statistical evaluation

of the measurement processes. Finally, we hope

to be able to recommend standards for computer

programs to facilitate their interchange among

interested laboratories. We have not yet de- vised a system for interchanging these procedures,

but this obviously is a goal we should strive toward.

Some time back, Joe Cameron listed three

major tasks as he saw them:

1. To establish guidelines for statistical evaluation of procedures for the measurement process.

67
2. To develop procedures for review and dis- semination of proposed methods for physical and

statistical analysis for individual measurement

processes.

3. To develop guidelines and review procedures

to insure adequacy of content and interchangeability of computer programs and to serve as a clearinghouse for computer programming efforts by providing a means for disseminating information on existing programs.

I cannot improve upon those goals, but I do

feel we need to add two others to them. They

are:

4. Provide a language of agreed-upon terms to aid this communications problem.

5. To find ways of stating uncertainty, accuracy,

confidence and the host of similar terms which

will be acceptable to the metrologist, to the statis- tician, to the computer and, most important, to the user of the measurement equipment.

An Approach to the Measurement Process

J. M. Cameron, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

In an industrial process where it is important

that the output of the process be within prescribed

limits, certain process parameters have to be

known and maintained within their own control

limits. For a measurement process one must do

likewise if the uncertainty limits, which bear the same role as the tolerance limits on a process,

are to have credibility. It is useful to view the

measurement of a single item as a production

process whose output is a sequence of non-identical numbers. The description of such a process

and the study of the properties of such sequence

of measurements is one of the tasks of metrology.

Note that it is the process that remains as the

principal feature — the equipment, the operators,

the procedures used, and the objects calibrated —

these pass on to other destinations. Fortunately,

many calibration processes, although sited in different laboratories, involve essentially the same equipment, the same procedures, and the same environmental controls. Hence, the defi- nition of what constitutes a single measurement

or what constitutes the calibration of an unknown

is nearly the same at all locations, or hopefully can

be made to be that way. It is this feature of the

measurement system that leads to the compatibility and consistency of measurement in this country and makes possible the viewing of the whole

aggregate as a measurement system. Because

of this conscious attempt to achieve uniformity, one would expect to be able to exploit modern

computers in reporting on these processes. As

a matter of fact, under the usual manpower limitations, computer utilization becomes almost

essential if one is to,, perform the analysis needed

to maintain surveillance on the process and to demonstrate that the present results are usable.

Computer programs to accomplish this would have

a degree of universality and their dissemination

would certainly help to unify our measurement

system. Because one must specify to the computer exactly what it is to do in terms of the basic

arithmetic operations, it is essential that one have an extremely detailed statement of what the proc- ess is, what values are to be measured (and how),

what corrections are to be applied, what tests of

both environmental and measurement parameters

must be passed for acceptability, and what methods

should be used in assessing the errors, both sys- tematic and random.

Another by-product of having a computer proc- ess the data is that one can maintain one's laboratory notebook on the machine. We have made

some attempts in this direction here at the Bureau.

An advantage of this is that the machine can per- form all the numerical checks that one considers

necessary, including the preliminary tests in- volving differences that one ordinarily looks at. This will avoid "conditioning" the data by judgments made prior to getting all the data and thereby,

perhaps, biasing what is going on. The final report should include administrative matters such as the name and address of the

people involved, and so forth. It should include

the actual data and their analysis and also the

report of test. One of the most important out- puts of any program of this kind is related to the

behavior of the process, providing information for updating the process parameters and making

sure they are still in control. This will make

possible studies of process performance and

facilitate the conducting of experiments on the

measurement process as it stands, in much the same way one does with an industrial process. The role of this committee would be to focus

attention on matters relating to the statistical-analysis and data-handling aspects. For example, it is essential that one check on the input data to a computer program; if it is known that all the readings

must be positive, a check on this should be made.

Requirements on data checking ought to be written

into specifications for a computer program for use

in calibration. There should be certain statistical tests for the conformity of today's values with the

process from which it arises, so that when they are within the desired limits, one knows that the process

is in a state of control, a fact upon which the uncertainty statement relies. The role of the statistician and the computer expert is to call attention to the

methodology they have available, to assist the metrologist in using to the fullest the information that may be locked up in his laboratory notebook for lack

of computing manpower. The committee's role should be to launch a collaborative effort to develop

68
standards for the documentation of programs, so

that they serve as a lucid means for communication

and as a positive influence in achieving interlaboratory comparability.

An example of what is possible may be found in the December 1965 issue of the "NBS Technical

News Bulletin", which announced that a computer

program for thermocouple tables had been developed by R. L. Powell and L. L. Sparks of the

Cryogenic Properties of Solids Section of the Boulder laboratories of the Bureau. They will provide a computer program to enable you to compute your

correction tables for the range from 4° Kelvin to about 300 °K (approximately room temperature).

The user can measure the EMF of a thermocouple

at several known temperatures and then utilize the

program to print out an error table for that particular thermocouple.

The Anaheim Survey on EDP Usage

D. B. Sharpe

When this committee was first suggested at the Eleven of the 38 said they were sure they could, NCSL workshop in 1965 in Anaheim, we made a and another 10 said they'd have to check. Only

spontaneously designed survey. There were some 5 were sure they could not share programs, and the

38 people who completed this questionnaire. It rest either said might be able to, or did not respond, was a fair sampling of the people in the industry. So I would look forward to a future program similar

Considering the short time that was spent in getting to our NCSL Procedures Library, by which we could

it out, we got some rather interesting comments. share programming information also. First of all, we asked how many people were using This was a first try at a questionnaire to see what some form of automatic data processing equipment kind of interest there might be. We intend to

at that time. Seventy-nine percent said they were prepare a more comprehensive questionnaire, and

using some kind of EDP equipment for one purpose mail copies to all attendees at this conference,

or another. About 10 percent, 4 people, said they We would like each of you to complete it to the best were using it for parameter and data reduction of your ability. Even more important are your

only. Another 10 percent said they were using it comments, criticisms, and suggestions, which we

for calibration recall data, work accountability, or would certainly appreciate to help guide us in future

manpower controls. Six people, or about 15 per- efforts. cent, said they were using EDP equipment for With the idea of getting some help on this corn- several of those purposes. Another 12 people, or mittee, our survey also asked how many would be

30 percent, said they were using EDP, but didn't able to help develop or coordinate programs. Sur- mention the specific uses. There were 10 percent prisingly enough, a larger percentage said they'd

who said they planned to use EDP equipment for be interested in helping than were actually using one or another use in the very near future. Thus EDP. This is most encouraging, for the committee's

about 80 percent of the respondents either used primary task has been to recruit members who have

or planned to use EDP equipment in conjunction the interest and background to help with a project

with their calibration and standards laboratory of this scope. If you would like to volunteer youractivities. To get an idea of what the future of self or if you have some bright young engineer or exchanging or sharing programs might be, we asked statistician in your group who would like to work on

if they could provide programs for outside use. this please contact me or Mr. Cameron.

69

NCSL 66

Session 4. Information for Standards Laboratories —What? —Where?

Orval L. Linebrink, Chairman

Batelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio

Introduction

I wish to take just a few minutes to give a framework within which we can direct the presentations

and our discussions this afternoon. The Information

Committee, as you oldsters in NCSL may have

noticed, has changed its title in the process of

evolution. Originally it considered an information

center, predicated on the tact that we should have

an Information Center. The current assignment

to the committee drops the word "Center". The

work is directed more toward identifying information of interest to standards laboratories and pro- moting its dissemination. The committee has done

a number of things, perhaps its most productive

effort being a workshop held a year ago at Columbus,

Ohio. At that workshop, a large variety of in- formation questions were discussed, and a number

of projects were suggested, some of which have

been attempted and some of which are still being

considered. One in particular was that of having

each of the member organizations share in the

building of a standards bibliography of reference

sources. Announcements were made in the NCSL

Newsletter, but we haven't had very much response

in the way of contributions. Another interesting

suggestion coming out of that workshop was that one of the things people in standards laboratories

need is a reference list of people who are experts

in the various areas of metrology. You might be

thinking about this, because I want this session

to be largely an audience participation session,

and you will have your opportunity to not only

contribute but to ask questions. In planning for a session here, we found there was considerable

confusion about this so-called information explosion. The fragmentation is considerable when

one looks for standards laboratories type information. We looked around to see what keys to this information existed. In the new Federal Clearinghouse Announcements listing the various

categories of information, we find that about the

closest it comes to measurement standards is the

broad title Instrumentation and Control. Our

committee has been in contact with the management of the Clearinghouse and we have received some consideration in this matter, but I think the

specific action to correct this is still pending. We

hope that a more definitive category can be

developed.

For this particular session, we want to ask ourselves, "What is it we are looking for?" "What

are the information bits that standards laboratory

people need?" We have three of the panel members here. There was to be a fourth, but due to a change in jobs, Charles Stone will not be with

us. The panel that will be presenting ideas to you comprises Frank Sciacchitano from Grumman

Aircraft; Dick Frick, who is not able to be here

but has sent a substitute — Lawrence Darling from

Univac, Utica branch; Eshmal Porter from McDonnell Aircraft, and Dr. H. L. Mason from NBS.

The first three of these gentlemen will be speaking

from the standpoint of what their own laboratories

need, and Dr. Mason will give us some clues as

to where this information might be found. Then we will have a discussion among the panel members

and among members of the audience.

You be thinking about what do you need, and if you need something these gentlemen don't bring

out, by all means bring it to our attention. We are going to have a Committee Meeting this evening

in which we hope to tie up the bits of information

from this session into a program of action for the

future.

Information Needs and Their Satisfaction

Frank J. Sciacchitano, Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation,

Bethpage, Long Island, N.Y.

In order to acquire a variety of opinions on the

information needs of a standards laboratory, I devised a questionnaire for submittal to key per- sonnel in the different elements of Grumman Aircraft's calibration system. It fisted about a dozen

topics thought to be of prime interest in the operation of a standards laboratory. People were asked

if they would indicate their sources of information

71
on these topics, what they thought of these sources

in terms of adequacy, and what they would like

to see to assist them in obtaining better information. Their answers and comments have been

arranged in a composite that we hope will be a meaningful observation on the information habits

of our different laboratory stations. The topics are numbered in an order of satis- faction, the first being considered most satisfac- tory in terms of information available, while the

last were found to have sparse references or ref- erences needing more clarification. TOPICS: 1) Establishing the need and requirements of a Standards Laboratory (scope, size, and

structure); 2) Environmental Design; 3) Administration. SOURCES: a. Attendance at symposia, confer- ences, workshops, seminars of technical societies

and NBS.

b. Proceedings of technical societies such as

(1) 16th Annual ISA Conference, 1961; (2) 1962

NCSL Standards Laboratory Conference, NBS

Misc. Pub. 248.

c. Periodicals such as ISA Journal, IEEE Spectrum, Instruments and Control Systems.

d. Miscellaneous sources like (1) George Washington University Lecture Notes, June 1962; (2) Laboratory Practice notebooks of military calibration agencies; (3) NBS publications, such as Circ.

578, Suggested Practices for Electrical Standardizing Laboratories.

TOPIC 4: Equipping a Laboratory

SOURCES: a. Manufacturers' manuals.

b. Opinions of other users, our own technicians, our sub-contractors, other similar laboratories.

TOPIC 5: State-of-the-art Awareness

SOURCES: a. NBS periodicals such as Technical

News Bulletin and Journal of Research.

b. Technical society publications (mentioned

above).

c. Manufacturers' bulletins re their measurement

studies.

d. Visits with NBS personnel.

TOPIC 6: Personnel Training

SOURCES: a. Proceedings of the 1962 Standards

Laboratory Conference -NBS Misc. Pub. 248.

b. Training course outlines, such as those of ISA.

TOPICS: 7) Work Flow Techniques; 8) Data

Handling Techniques; 9) Recall System Methods;

10) Instrument Performance Analysis.

SOURCES: a. Company EDP and ADP programs.

b. Some information in technical society pro- ceedings and publications.

TOPIC 10: Calibration Procedures

SOURCES: a. I.C.P.'s, T.O.'s, Manufacturers'

manuals, MIL-C-24133.

b. NCSL Calibration Procedures Library.

TOPICS: 12) Traceability Policy; 13) Accuracy

Ratio Policy; 14) Calibration Interval Policy.

SOURCES: a. DOD documents such as MILQ-9858, MIL-C-45662, MIL Handbook 52, SLIM,

BuWeps Instructions, Pomona Metrology Handbook.

b. NASA documents, such as NPC-200-2-3,

SP 89-Q, NHB5300.2, etc.

Summary of Comments Offered

(1) Although there appears to be a relatively large

amount of information available to operators of

standards laboratories, it is the opinion of our people

that some improvement is desirable. First of all, there appears to be too much duplication of the same subject(s) — generated by too many different agencies. The user is faced with forcing a composite and perhaps expensive solution to fulfill the sum of all such specifications. Secondly, the terminology is often unclear, appears evasive in some

cases, and is open to varying degrees of interpretation. Such terms as "error ratio", "approved

laboratories", "reliable equipment shall be used",

"approved environment", etc. are considered to be

equivocal and subject to wide differences of opinion

by customer and contractor alike.

(2) It is hoped that somewhere an impartial,

highly objective body (this might be NCSL and/or

NBS) will be established to act as a clearinghouse

that hopefully could reduce the number of specification documents that the contractor must use in making technical and operational decisions. Also,

that the resulting minimal document(s) will be

written in clear unequivocal language, not only to define the customers' wishes, but also to assist the

laboratory staff and company management in esti- mating and justifying the costs of calibration.

The Collection and Use of Data

Lawrence Darling, Univac Corp., Utica, N.Y,

Since I am substituting here at short notice, I am

due a certain amount of leeway, I think, so I am

going to deviate a bit from the stated program and

concentrate on one specific problem — Standards

Laboratory Data Reduction. Maybe that is a rather

odd thing for a man from Univac to discuss. The

point is that we can collect a lot of data on our

standards, but then to handle this data in an economical manner is really the key problem. It probably takes us about three times as long to process the data as it does to collect it. From an economical viewpoint, this involves a lot of money.

Of course, we do have some of this data on a computer, but it has to get to the computer, and after it gets out of the computer it has to be used.

I have discussed the problem with quite a few

72
people and have found there is very little effort put

forth to devise an economical way of collecting the

data. It is rather expensive to have a technician

be an expert on both the reduction of data and the

instrumentation for collecting data. Let the ex- perts or the computer do the reduction. What the

technician needs is a very simple and straightforward format to follow in recording his results, but I have not found one that did not require a great deal

of effort. In a small standards laboratory such as we are, one doesn't do the same thing every day,

so we cannot trust this to memory. This simply

reinforces the fact that we need a precise way of

collecting the data at our regular calibration facili- ties and at a routine level. How do we really know

that we need to check every little piece? How

effective is our checking if we don't have some way

to pump this information back into the calibration

system? We need a simple system for collecting

data and for utilizing it in a way that is compatible

with the work of a statistical committee. It does

not need as sophisticated a scheme as was discussed

this morning, but a simple procedure, first for col- lection and then for use.

In the small laboratory, the manager has to wear many hats, and he cannot be really expert in all technical aspects, and in economic aspects and

managerial aspects as well. A nice, concise text that contains an outline of the latter two in one cover would be very handy. I have never seen such a publication, but this would be very useful to a manager. It would be food for thought and perhaps give

him some guidelines from which he could operate.

We feel we need in our laboratory separate state- ments of the derivation, the implementation, and

precise examples of calibration information. Most

periodical articles have all three of these aspects

intermixed. However, we are dealing with three

different levels of personnel; we don't need to know

the derivation while we are collecting data, and we

don't need to know what to do with it while we are

collecting it. If there were more examples given on each of the subjects discussed, this would be a

great help. A definition of the terms used would

also be an asset, and could be included at the

beginning of each article. We would then have a

fighting chance of extracting from the article what

the writer has to offer us.

The Laboratory: A Complex Instrument

E. L. Porter, McDonnell Aircraft Co., St. Louis, Mo.

Before purchasing a new instrument, it is common

practice to study, very carefully, all information

available on that instrument, and if possible to evaluate similar instruments under conditions of

use. When the instrument is purchased for use in the laboratory, it comes usually with a manual containing information for its use, care, and maintenance. One might admit, of course, that this information is not absolutely essential, but it is certainly helpful. A standards laboratory might be

considered, from a company point of view, as an

instrument purchased for the purpose of helping to assure product quality through good measurements.

This instrument is quite complicated, even in its simplest form. Purchasers of such an instrument,

however, are seldom provided with the usual con- densed specification which describes in detail how

much floor space is required; what kind of power

and other utilities will be necessary; or what environmental conditions must be provided for proper

instrument performance.

There is no table of performance specifications

which describes range, accuracy, or reliability of this unique instrument — not even a statement or guar- antee of quality. The truth is that this is a do-it- yourself project with as many parts as needed and

few instructions. There is available, however, a

lot of useful information which if used wisely can

save headaches and save the purchaser money.

Perhaps the information available may not apply

directly to the specific problem under consideration,

but it will be useful to have an understanding of

space and environmental requirements, work-flow

planning, recall cycles, automated or manual recordand-recall systems, personnel training, calibration

costs, maintenance programs, and staffing and support requirements. This information is needed not only before purchase but after installation to help

maintain a properly functioning instrument.

The purchaser is, of course, interested in what can

be done with this instrument, how well it performs,

and how much it costs. This is a matter of some

choice, and decisions should be based upon a knowledge of several important factors. Information is needed to make these decisions wisely. Based

upon requirements for the parameters to be measured, their range, accuracy, and the extent to which

the standards laboratory is to operate independently

of such support as NBS calibration; what measure- ment techniques exist and which of these best fit the requirements for range, accuracy, and cost? Do these techniques lend themselves to available

commerical equipment? Can they be upgraded in performance if necessary? Do they offer the degree

of effectiveness required? How can the various

parameters measured be most effectively related

through NBS to the rest of the National Measurement System?

The continued proper functioning of the standards

laboratory will require that its management keep

informed. As changes occur in our National Measurement System the individual laboratory must

relate to them. Management techniques can be

73
improved through the use of up-to-date information

prepared by people who are working with new ideas

and trying to achieve greater effectiveness or

efficiency.

The measurement staff of this standards laboratory also needs information. Technological ad- vances in the instrument field bring new instruments

which require new measurement techniques, greater

accuracy, and the development of new measure- ment capabilities in the laboratory. Through

pioneering activities, not only in NBS, but in the

universities and many industrial organizations, the

state of the art in precision measurement is constantly being advanced in many directions. Unless

the staff maintains awareness of these changes,

substandard performance or needless expenditures

for equipment may result.

If precision measurements are to be practical,

they must in most cases be related to the definite needs of the manufacturing or field activity they

support. A standards laboratory staff worth its salt can assist the test engineer or technician who

is trying to make good measurements under less than ideal conditions. His work requires a knowledge of instrumentation and a thorough grounding

in the theory of measurements and equipment, and

will be helped by explanation of new instrumentation methods.

This brief outline touches only a part of the infor- mation needed by the people involved in the operation of a standards laboratory. Their needs of course will vary, and depend on many factors. What information is needed in the operation of your

standards laboratory?

Information

H. L. Mason, National Bureau

I have only recently learned, from the other members of the panel, just what standards laboratories are seeking in the way of information. As a result,

I have had to take something of a shot-gun approach

in producing the two-part document that follows. Part 1 lists various agencies, mostly Federal, that make a business of supplying information. Part 2

is a list of subjects in which I believe many NCSL

members would be interested.

Returning to Part 1, the agencies, my first section

lists the information centers within the National

Bureau of Standards. There are twenty-three of

them. They begin with the Analytical Chemistry

Division and the Applied Mathematics Division, and

proceed alphabetically through Mechanics, Metallurgy, and Metrology, ending up with Polymers,

Radio Standards Engineering, and Radio Standards

Physics. In most cases, the title of a single typical

publication is included.

The second section of Part 1 deals with the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Infor- mation which is actually part of the National

Bureau of Standards but has its own type of services,

including bibliographies, a fast announcement

service, packaged reviews, technical translations,

abstracts of U.S. Government research and development reports, and a government-wide index of these

reports. The semi-monthly abstract journal has

recently begun to list researches in progress — those on which no published reports are yet available.

ow Available

f Standards, Washington, D.C.

The third section of Part 1 lists several other

federal agencies and professional societies, including the Agency for International Development, the

Business and Defense Services Administration, the

Engineering Index, the Isotopes Information Center

at Oak Ridge, the National Referral Center for Science and Technology (this is a sort of "who

knows what," at the Library of Congress), the

National Science Foundation, and the Patent Office. Under each of these major agencies, I have added a

brief comment as to what is available from them,

and also given a single example of the sort of document that they put out. It would obviously take

too long to detail all of their activities, but I trust you can get an idea from what I have listed here. On precision measurements, one of the best means of getting information is through the seminars

which the Bureau has been offering now for three

years. It proposes to give six more in the fall of

this year and spring of next year. Their arrange- ments are still tentative, but subjects offered will probably include high frequency and microwave

phase shift, high frequency voltage, time and

frequency, precision and accuracy, thermometry,

and length. Some others have been suggested,

and during the question period I am going to ask

for a vote on how many people you are interested in sending to attend one or more of these seminars,

and what additional suggestions of title subjects

you wish to make.

NCSL Panel on Information — Part 1, Agencies

1.1 Information Centers at National Bureau of a. Analytical Chemistry Division, Dr. W. W.

Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234, and Boulder, Meinke, Chief-301-921-2851

Colorado 80302. Standard reference materials for radiochemical,

74
spectrochemical and electrochemical analysis.

NBS Misc. Publ. 260, Standard Reference Materials:

Catalog and Price List (Oct. 1965), U.S. GPO,

45 cents; supplemental quarterly insert sheets.

b. Applied Mathematics Division, Dr. E. W. Cannon, Chief- 301-921-2541

Mathematical tables, statistical and numerical

analysis, mathematical physics, operations research.

Natrella, M. G., Experimental Statistics, NBS

Handbook 91 (Aug. 1963) U.S. GPO, $4.25; reprint

of parts of the Engineering Design Handbook,

Army Materiel Command.

c. Atomic Energy Levels Information Center,

Atomic Physics Division, Dr. K. G. Kessler, Chief—

301-921-2001

Spectroscopic data for all elements, except rare

earths, that concern atomic energy levels, electron

configurations, quantum numbers, magnetic splitting factors, and ionization potentials. NSRDSNBS 3, Selected Tables of Atomic Spectra; Section 1, Si H, Si III, Si IV (June 1965), U.S. GPO,

35 cents.

d. Atomic Transition Probabilities Data Center,

Atomic Physics Division, Dr. K. G. Kessler, Chief—

301-921-2001

Atomic transition probabilities and cross sections

useful for plasma physics and astrophysics. NBS

Misc. Publ. 278 (Apr. 1966). A Bibliography on Atomic Transition Probabilities, U.S. GPO, 55

cents. Chemical Kinetics Information Center, Dr. David

Garvin, Director- 301-921-2271.

Rapid access to research on rates of chemical

reactions; bibliographic information to NSRDS and

the scientific community.

Mass Spectrometry Data Center, Dr. Henry

Rosenstock, Director — 301-921-2792.

Abstracts from 1,000 basic documents since 1955 on the energetics of ionization processes, on appear- ance potentials, and on ion-molecule reaction

mechanisms and rates.

e. Building Research Division, Dr. Allen A. Bates,

Chief- 301-921-3375

Properties and performance of building materials, structures and equipment; methods for testing

materials, mechanisms, and structures; fire resist- ance; building codes and safety standards; structural engineering, air conditioning, heating and

refrigeration; floor, roof and wall coverings; heat

transfer.

f. Technical Information Exchange, Center for Computer Sciences and Technology, Miss Margaret

Fox-301-921-3517

Systems analysis and design, evaluation and

development of circuitry; logical organization of

processing and control systems; automated collection, transmission, and presentation of experimental

data; techniques for machine processing of syntactic and graphic forms of data. NBS Tech. Note

268, Transistorized Building Blocks for Data In- strumentation III (May 1966) U.S. GPO, 60 cents.

g. Cryogenic Data Center (Boulder) V. J. Johnson,

Chief- 303-442-3256

Tables and charts of thermophysical property

data, Mollier diagrams of cyrogenic fluids, thermal

conductivity, and thermal expansion data.

h. Electricity Division, Dr. C. H. Page, Chief -

301-921-2701

Measurement of resistance, capacitance, in- ductance, current, voltage, power and energy,

from dc up to 30 kHz; data on dielectric, magnetic

and electrochemical properties. A list of publications in the field, LP 38 (Aug. 1966), available on

request: Electrical units, instruments and measurements; bibliography covering absolute measurements, precise calibrations, textbooks, standards.

i. Electron Devices Data Service, Electronic

Instrumentation Division, M. G. Domsitz, Chief -

301-921-3357.

Electrical and technical characteristics of re- ceiving tubes, microwave tubes, and semiconductor

devices. Up-to-date information. Data on micro- wave tube characteristics are supplied yearly to the Microwave Engineers Handbook, published by

Horizon House, Dedham, Mass.; pp. 238-250 in the 1966 edition.

j. Heat Division, Dr. R. P. Hudson, Chief301-921-2034

Thermometry from 2 °K to 1700 °C, molecular

spectroscopy, thermal diffusivity, heat capacity,

heat of combustion. NBS Mono 90 (Feb. 1965),

Calibration of Liquid-and-Glass Thermometers'

U.S. GPO, 25 cents; includes good practice for design and use.

k. In organic Materials Division, Dr. E. Ambler

Chief- 301-921-2891

Constants, properties, constitution and microstructure of nonmetallic inorganic substances, in- cluding ceramics, glass, and refractories, at very

high and low temperatures, high pressures, and

great purity. NBS Mono 25, Standard X-ray Dif- fraction Powder Patterns; Sec. 3 (July 1964) U S

GPO, 40 cents.

1. Instrumentation Information Center, Electronic Instrumentation Division, M. G. Domsitz

Chief- 301-921-3357.

Art, science, and technology relating to devices

that extend the perceptual, manipulative, intel- lectual, and communicative capabilities of man.

Information retrieval by NBS-developed "Peek-aBoo" System. m. Information Center of the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics (University of Colorado),

Lee J. Kieffer, Director- 303-447-3121.

Interaction of electromagnetic and corpuscular

radiation with the earth's upper atmosphere and

the interplanetary medium, plasma physics, ionosphere and exosphere scatter, airglow and aurora, ionosphere radioastronomy. JILA Information

Center Report No. 2, A Bibliography of Low-Energy

Electron Collision Cross-Section Data. Electron

Impact Ionization Cross-Section Data for Atoms,

256-1 14 0-67—

6
Atomic Ions, & Diatomic Molecules, Part I, Rev.

Mod. Phys. 38, 1-35, 1966.

n. Mechanics Division, B. L. Wilson, Chief—

301-921-2101

Measurement of sound pressure and intensity,

shock, vibration, force, strain, pressure, vacuum,

viscosity, rate of gas and liquid flow, gravitational

constant, rheological quantities, properties of materials and structural elements. NBS Mono 67

(Dec. 1963), Methods for the Dynamic Calibration of Pressure Transducers, U.S. GPO, 60 cents; mathematical models, mathematical and instrumental

methods of analysis, evaluation. o Metallurgy Division, Dr. M. R. Meyerson,

Acting Chief- 301-921-2811

Fatigue and fracture, creep, corrosion, electro- deposition, phase transformations, crystal growth,

diffusion, surface reactions, crystal imperfections.

Reprints available on request: Gage blocks of

superior stability: I. Initial developments in materials and measurements, J. Res. NBS, 64C, No. 3

(July-Sept! 1960); II. Fully hardened steels, Trans. Am. Soc. Metals 57, Mar. 1964, p. 3; III. Attainment of ultrastability. loc. cit. p. 164.

p. Metrology Division, A. G. McNish, Chief—

301-921-2171

Measurement of length, mass, volume, density,

color, light (visible, ultraviolet, infrared), photographic films, optical components. NBS Misc.

Publ. 256 (1964), Ellipsometry for Frustrated Total

Reflection; reprints on request.

q. Office of Industrial Services, Dr. G. S. Gordon,

Chief- 301-921-2434

Cooperation with private industrial research orga- nizations to stimulate private research competence

and to promote interchange of technical information; coordination of NBS research associates pro- gram. Brochure, An Invitation to Join in Research

(Feb. 1966), available on request.

r. Information Services, Office of Standard Ref- erence Data, Dr. H. M. Weisman — 301-921-2583.

Compilation and critical evaluation of quantitative

information on the physical and chemical properties

of substances; coordination and integration of data

centers nation-wide; critical reviews of the state of

knowledge. NSRDS-NBS 1, National Standard

Reference Data System: Plan of Operation (Dec.

1964), U.S. GPO, 15 cents.

s. Office of Technical Information and Publications, W. R. Tilley, Chief- 301-921-2493

News of NBS research and service activities written for scientists, engineers, and executives.

NBS Technical News Bulletin, monthly, $1.50 per

year in U.S., $2.25 for foreign mailing, U.S. GPO;

includes a regular section on standards and calibration. Journal of Research of the National Bureau

of Standards; Sec. A, Physics and Chemistry, 6 per

year, domestic, $5, foreign $6; Sec. B, Mathematics

and Mathematical Physics, quarterly, domestic

$2.25, foreign $2.75; Sec. C, Engineering and Instru- mentation, quarterly, domestic $2.75, foreign $3.50, U.S. GPO. Technical Highlights: an annual report,

U.S. GPO, $1. R. D. Huntoon, Status of the National Standards of Physical Measurement, Science

(Oct 8, 1965) 150, No. 3693, 169-178, reprint on

request.

NBS Calibration and Test Services, NBS Misc.

Publ. 250 (Oct. 1965), with supplemental insert

sheets, U.S. GPO, $1.

NBS Tech. Note 262, Accuracy in Measurements

and Calibrations, 1965 (June 1965), U.S. GPO, $1.

NBS Misc. Publ. 253, General Physical Constants

Recommended by NAS-NRC (Nov. 1963), U.S. GPO, $2.50 per 100. NBS Misc. Publ. 268, Electrical Engineering Units

and Constants (June 1965), U.S. GPO, $6.25 per 100.

t. Office of Weights and Measures, M. W. Jensen,

Chief- 301-921-2401

History of weights and measures, standards, laws,

and administration, methods for use of officials of the States. NBS Handbook 99 (Apr. 1965), Examination of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices, U.S. GPO, 35 cents.

u. Polymers Division, Dr. J. D. Hoffman, Chief—

301-921-2994

Properties of rubber, textiles, paper, leather,

plastics, and dental materials, as related to molecular size, shape, distribution and flexibility of the

polymer chains. Reprint on request: Utility of the

Tait Equation Relating Volume and Pressure in the

Study of Transitions in Polymers, Polymer Letters 2, p. 703(1964).

v. Radio Standards Engineering Division (Boulder), Dr. H. M. Altschuler, Chief- 303-442-3131

Measurement of voltage, power, field strength,

resistance, capacitance, inductance, noise attenuation, and reflection; all at radio and microwave

frequencies. Reprint available on request: A

Variable Impedance Power Meter and Adjustable

Reflection Coefficient Standard, J. Res. NBS 68C

(Eng. and Instr.), No. 1, 7-24 (Jan.-Mar. 1964). w. Radio Standards Physics Division (Boulder), Dr. Yardley Beers, Chief- 303-442-3455

Measurements of atomic frequencies and time

intervals, radio plasmas, radio and microwave

materials, quantum electronics. Frequency and

time broadcasts. NBS Misc. Publ. 236 (1966 ed.), Standard Frequency and Time Services, U.S. GPO,

15 cents.

x. Photonuclear Data Center, Dr. E. G. Fuller,

301-921-2625

Data on photonuclear reactions; cross sections;

ground state capture reactions; electron scattering.

NBS Misc. Publ. 277, Photonuclear Data Index,

1955-1964, U.S. GPO, 55 cents. 1.2 Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Bureau of Standards, Institute for Applied

Technology, Springfield, Va. 22151.

a. Bibliographies; e.g., SB 475 (Suppl. 1) Infor-

| mation and Storage, SB 488 (Suppl. 2) Masers and

Lasers.

b. Fast Announcement Service; choice of 57

categories, including Automation, Control Systems

76
and Instrumentation, Quality Control Standards

and Specifications, Testing and Analogies, $5 per

year, U.S. GPO.

c. U.S. Government Research and Development

Reports; $30 per year, domestic; $37.50, foreign;

$3.00 single copy, U.S. GPO. Semi-monthly journal

abstracting R&D reports, e.g., SC-DC-66-1118,

Clean Assembly Practices Guide (Oct. 1965, $3);

ORNL-3909. Minimum Significant Number of

Successes in a Binomial Sample (Feb. 1966, $3)-

AD 607 893N, A Study of Manpower Requirements

for Technical Information Support Personnel (Jan.

1964, $3); drafting reproduction, technical writing,

library standards, spare parts provisioning; AD

624 560 (Nov. 1965) President's Committee on

Scientific and Technical Information, Recommendations for National Document Handling Systems

in Science and Technology.

d. Packaged Reviews; resumes, abstracts, and

bibliographies, $3.00, e.g. OTR 132, High Temperature Adhesives above 500 °F; OTR 124, Nondestructive Evaluation of Materials.

e. Technical Translations; $12 per year, plus $4

for foreign mailing, available from the Clearinghouse. Semi-monthly journal listing foreign

technical literature from government and private

services.

f. Government-Wide Index to Federal Research

and Development Reports; monthly, $22 per year, domestic; $27.50, foreign; $3.00 single copy,

available from the Clearinghouse. New reports

available from the Clearinghouse that are announced

by the Department of Defense, NASA, and AEC.

1.3 Other Federal and professional agencies

a. Agency for International Development, U.S. Department of State. Catalog of Investment In- formation and Opportunities e.g. 2/05/02371, Demand for Measuring Tools, Gauges, and Instru- ments in India, $1.00.

b. Business and Defense Services Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Industrial Outlook, annual (U.S. GPO, $1).

Retrospective statistics and forward estimates,

industry by industry, including SIC 3611, 3622

3811,3821,3822,3831.

c. Engineering Index, Inc., 345 E. 47th Street New York, N.Y. 10017.

Exploits 2000 titles, prints 47,000 abstracts

annually; experimenting with machinable copy, using EJC Thesaurus of Engineering Terms (being

revised May 1966) for Plastics and Electrical/

Electronics.

d. USAEC, Division of Technical Information

Extension, P. O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

37830.

Directory of USAEC Specialization and Data

Centers gives addresses of and information about

26 centers, history, scope, services, staff, and

qualified users; free on request. Isotope and

Radiation Technology is a quarterly technical

progress review emphasizing isotope applications.

e. National Referral Center for Science and Technology, Library of Congress.

Identification of all significant information resources in science and technology, acquisition

of data concerning their specialized capabilities,

guidance about their use. Libraries, centralized

information centers, professional societies pro- viding contact with individual specialists, industrial firms extending information service beyond

their own organization, Government agencies able

to provide assistance in specific areas. Directory

of Information Resources in the United States, (Jan

1965) U.S. GPO, $2.25; Vol. I covers physics, biol- ogy, engineering. ^

L National Science Foundation, Washington,

Scientific Information Notes, bi-monthly, U.S. GPO, $1.25 per year, $1.75 foreign; news briefs,

meetings and notes, research and development,

activities abroad, publication notes.

g. Patent Office, U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C.

Patent Gazette, weekly, $50.00 per year; single

copies of patents.

h. Atomic and Molecular Information Processes

Information Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box Y, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 37830.

Physics of particle collisions, ionization, excitation, and dissociation in gas and plasma systems.

Directory of International Workers lists 1400 pro- fessional scientists interested in atomic and molecular activities. NCSL Panel on Information - Part 2, Subjects

2.1 Directories and indexes

a. Goldman, Sylvia -Guide to the Literature of

Engineering, Mathematics, and the Physical

Sciences, edition 2, May 1964, 85 pp., Clearinghouse AD 608 053. Abstracting journals, periodicals,

d books- b. Jenkins, F. B.- Science Reference Sources

- (Feb. 1966), $2.50, IUini Union Bookstore, Chamj3 j Paign, Illinois; includes engineering, agriculture,

medicine as well as pure science; 1300 items.

c. Klein, B., ed. — Guide to American Business

Directories, edition 6, McGraw-Hill, 1965.

d. Kruzas, A. T., ed. -Directory of Special Li- braries and Information Centers, edition 7, Gale

Research Company, 1963, $25.

e. Palmer, A. M., ed.- Research Centers Directory, edition 2. Gale Research Company 1965, $35. Guide to university-sponsored and other non-profit

research organizations established on permanent

basis; with Supplements 1, 2, 3, 4. 77
f. Smith, J. F. and Brombacher, W. G.- Guide to Instrumentation Literature, NBS Misc. Publ. 271,

July 1965, U.S. GPO, $1.25. A source list of

indexes, bibliographies, books, guides, periodicals.

v. Stevens, M. E. — Automatic Indexing: A state- of-the-art report, NBS Mono. 91, Mar. 1965, U.S.

GPO, $1.50. New uses of machines for compilation

and generation of indexes to technical literature.

2.2 Electricity

a. Beatty, R. W. — Microwave Impedance Measurements and Standards, NBS Mono. 82, Aug. 1965, U.S. GPO, 20 cents. Tutorial review covering

fundamental theory, definitions, the conventional

slotted line, reflectometer techniques.

b. Beatty, R. W. — Microwave Standards and

Measurements, a progress review 1960-1963, IEEE

Trans. IM-12, No. 3, 134-138 (Dec. 1963).

c. Blair, B. E.- Control of WWV and WWVH

Standard Frequency Broadcasts by VLF and LF

Signals, Radio Sci. J. Research NBS 69D, No. 7, 915-928 (July 1965).

d. Broadhurst, M. G.-Q-Meter Measurements

up to 260 MHz, NAS-NRC Publ. 1141, pp. 77-80

(1964).

e. Carpenter, R. J. — A Portable Rubidium-Vapor

Frequency Standard, NBS Tech. Note 235 (Apr.

1964) , U.S. GPO, 25 cents.

f. Cutkosky, R. D. — Active and passive direct- reading ratio sets for the comparison of audiofrequency admittances, J. Research NBS 68C

(Eng. and Instr.), No. 4, 227-236 (Oct.-Dec. 1964).

g. Cutkosky, R. D. — Designs for Temperature

and Temperature Gradient Compensated Capacitors Smaller Than 10 pF, J. Research NBS 68C

(Eng. and Instr.), No. 4, 305-307 (Oct.-Dec. 1964).

h. Epstein, W. S. — Digitized Phasemeter, J. Research NBS, 68C (Eng. and Instr.), No. 4, 223-

226 (Oct.-Dec. 1964).

i. Flach, D. and Marzetta, L. A. -Calibration of

Peak a-c to d-c Comparators, ISA Los Angeles,

Conference paper 2-3-65 (Oct. 1965).

j. Hamer, W. J. -Standard Cells: Their Construction, Maintenance, and Characteristics, NBS

Mono. 84, Jan. 1965, U.S. GPO, 35 cents.

k. Harris, F. K. et al. — An International Comparison of Voltage-Transformer Calibrations to 350 kV, IEEE Trans, paper 63-992, No. 70, 13-19

(Jan. 1964).

1. Houghton, J. R. — Voltage Ratio Detector for

Millivolt Signals, NBS Tech. Note 266 (Dec. 13,

1965) , U.S. GPO, 15 cents. m. Hubbs, J. C —The New Pulse; a Glossary of

Proposed Standard Pulse Definitions. E-H Research Lab, Oakland, Calif., rev. Jan. 1966.

n. Huntley, L. E. — A Self-Calibrating Instrument

for Measurement of Conductance at High Fre- quencies, J. Research NBS 69C (Eng. and Instr.), (Apr.-June 1965).

o. Jones, R. N. — Standards for the Calibration of

Q-Meters, 50 kHz to 45 MHz, J. Research NBS

68C (Eng. and Instr.), No. 4, 243-248 (Oct.-Dec.

1964).

p. Marzetta, L. A. — Peak AC-DC Voltage Comparator for Use in a Standards Laboratory, NBS

Tech. Note 280, Jan. 1966, U.S. GPO, 25 cents.

q. Morgan, A. H. et al. — International Comparison of Atomic Frequency Standards Via VLF Radio

Signals, Radio Sci. J. Research NBS 69D, No. 7, 905-914 (July 1965).

r. NBS -Safety Rules for the Installation and

Maintenance of Electrical Supply and Communication Lines, Suppl. 1 to NBS Hbk. 81 (Dec. 15, 1965).

s. Powell, R. C, ed. — Accuracy in Electrical

and Radio Measurements and Calibrations, 1965,

NBS Tech. Note 262-A (June 15, 1965), 50 cents,

U.S. GPO.

t. Sanford, R. L. and Cooter, I. L.- Basic Magnetic Quantities and the Measurement of the Magnetic Properties of Materials, NBS Mono. 47,

May 1962, U.S. GPO, 30 cents. Units, magnetic

induction B, magnetizing force H, magnetic constant rm, methods and apparatus.

u. Silsbee, F. B. —Suggested Practices for Electrical Standardizing Laboratories, NBS Circ. 578,

Aug. 1956, U.S. GPO, 15 cents.

v. Silsbee, F. B. — Systems of Electrical Units,

NBS Mono. 56, Sept. 1962, U.S. GPO, 30 cents. w. Swartzendruber, L. J. — Calculations for Comparing 2-Point and 4-Point Probe Resistivity Measurements on Rectangular, Bar-Shaped Semiconductor Samples, NBS Tech. Note 241, June

1964, U.S. GPO, 25 cents.

x. Thompson, J. R.- Precision Electrical Measurements in Industry, Butterworths, London, 1965. Proc. Symp. Hatfield Coll. Nov. 1963.

y. Wilson, A. C — Precision high frequency CW

Coaxial Power Measurement, ISA preprint, Oct.

1965.

2.3 Heat and Temperature

a. Armstrong, G. T. — Calorimetry, Science 143,

No. 3602, 158-163 (Jan. 1964).

b. Furukawa, G. T. and Reilly, M. L.- Application

of precise heat capacity data to the analysis of the

temperature intervals of the NBS (1955) and the

International Practical temperature scales in the

region of 90 °K, J. Research NBS 69A (Phys. &

Chem.) No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1965.

c. Kostkowski, H. J. and Burns, G. W.- Thermocouple and Radiation Thermometry Above 900 °K, Proc. Symp. NASA SP-31 (1963).

d. Lovejoy, D. R. — Five Methods of Radiation

Pyrometry to Measure Radiation Above the Gold

Point, J. Instr. Soc. Amer. 13, No. 2, 55-59 (Feb.

1966).

e. Olsen, L. O. and Freeze, P. D. — Reference

Tables for the Platinel II Thermocouple, J. Research

NBS 68C, (Eng. & Instr.), No. 4 (Oct.-Dec. 1964).

Three equations — 100 to 1371 °C.

f. Ramaley, D. — Calibration of Potentiometers

by Resistance Bridge Methods, Instr. Control Syst.

37, 106-108 (Jan. 1964).
g. Richmond, J. C. et al.— An Approach to Thermal Emittance Standards, Proc. Symp. NASA SP31 (1963).

h. Riddle, J. L. — Temperature Measurements

Below 1000 °K (abstract), Proc. Symp. NASA SP31(1963).

2.4 Ionizing Radiation

a. Costrell, L. — Standard Nuclear Instrument

Modules, U.S. AEC, TID Rep. 20893 (July 1964).

b. Leiss, J. et al. — On-line Data Handling System

For the NBS LINAC. Trans. IEEE Nuclear Sci. NS-11, No. 3, 331-337 (June 1964).

c. Koch, H. W. et al. — Nuclear and Radiation

Standards of Importance to the National Atomic

Energy Program, NBS Tech. Note 283, Mar. 1966, U.S. GPO, 35 cents. Definitions, requirements,

characteristics and availability, compliled by the

Nuclear Cross-Section Advisory Group.

d. NBS staff— Safe Handling of Radioactive

Material, NBS Hbk. 92, Mar. 1964, U.S. GPO,

40 cents. 2.5 Mechanics

a. Giardini, A. A., and Lloyd, E. C— High Pres- sure Measurement, Butterworths, London, 1963.

b. Mielenz, K. D. — Interferometric Measurement

of Vibration Amplitudes, Note in Appl. Oct. 3,

542 (Apr. 1964).

c. Peiser, H. S. — A Pienkowsky-type Calibration

Scheme for 521 IS 1 Weight Series, Using Two

Knife-edge, Direct-reading Balances, J. Research,

NBS 68C, (Eng. & Instr.), No. 4, 261-262 (Oct -

Dec. 1964).

d. Schweppe, J. L. et al. — Methods for the

Dynamic Calibration of Pressure Transducers,

NBS Mono. 67, Dec. 1963, U.S. GPO, 60 cents. Mathematical models, mathematical and instru- mental methods of analysis, calibration, evaluation.

e. Wexler, A. and Hyland, R. W.-The NBS

Standard Hygrometer, NBS Mono. 73 (May 1964), U.S. GPO, 30 cents. 2.6 Statistical and Computational Procedures

a. Crow, E. L. — Accumulation of Calibration

Errors and Their Optimum Distribution, Trans. Tulsa Conf. Am. Soc. Quality Control, 86-100 (Oct.

1963).

b. Golomb, S. W. — Influence of Data Processing on the Design and Communication of Experiments,

J. Research NBS, Radio Sci. 68D, No. 9 (Aug. 1964).

c. Hersey, M. D. — A Development of the Theory

of Errors With Reference to Economy of Time,

J. Research NBS 69B, (Math. & Math. Phys.),

No. 3, 139-146 (July-Sept. 1965).

d. Hilsenrath, J. et al.-OMNITAB: A Computer

Program for Statistical and Numerical Analysis.

NBS Hbk. 101, Mar. 1966, U.S. GPO, $3. Shows

workers unfamiliar with programming how to communicate with a large computer by simple English

sentences.

e. Lloyd, E. C — Selected papers which deal with

uncertainties associated with calibrations and

measurements (Mar. 1963), available on request.

f. Youden, W. W. — Computer Literature Bibli- ography. 1946 to 1963. NBS Misc. Publ. 266

(Mar. 1965), U.S. GPO, $3.75. A permuted title index of 6100 references.

g. NBS Statistical Engineering Laboratory —

Miscellaneous Studies in Probability and Statistics: Distribution Theory, Small-Sample Problems,

Occasional Tables, NBS Tech. Note 238 (Apr. 1964), U.S. GPO, 20 cents.

h. Steel, M. N. et al.- A FORTRAN Program for Determining an Empirical Expression for a Quantity

Measured at Combinations of Several Levels of

Each of Two Variables. NBS Tech. Note 259, U.S. GPO, 40 cents. General procedure, detailed

instructions, components of variance, significance

tests.

i. Watt, W. C — A Prerequisite to the Utility of

Microgrammars, NBS Tech. Note 258, Apr. 1965, U.S. GPO, 25 cents. Extrapolative symmetry in computer programming, using only certain English

sentences.

j. Wildhack, W. A. et al. — Accuracy in Measurements and Calibrations, 1965, NBS Tech. Note 262,

June 1965, U.S. GPO, $1. Estimates of uncertainty,

state of the art, tentative plans for 30 physical

quantities.

Panel Discussion Period

Linebrink: We have seen some examples of what

the needs are, and we have a thumbnail sketch of some of the Federal agencies that can supply infor- mation. That these sources are functioning may

not be well known. For example, how many here

do not subscribe to the NBS Technical News Bulletin? (Response — about 25 percent were not subscribers.) One of the things that we must recognize

is that each laboratory will have a different need.

There are conditions and requirements that will

differ in kind and in quantity, and therefore you

have to make the best use of what is available and

do it in the most economical fashion.

How many feel that the availability of standards

laboratory information is the big problem — that is, where can what exists be found? We are going to try to get you folks into the discussion. You may

have items of information that other people do not.

If our committee can do anything to bring the needs

and the sources together, this will be a big step

forward.

Question: What is the volume of inquiries that come to the Bureau each year?

Mason: The inquiries are very diverse, and many

come directly to one of the 23 different information

centers in the Bureau, each with its own specialized

79
field. However, Mr. Tilley's office handles something over 5000 inquiries per year. Linebrink: From past conversations with Reeves,

I think that usually when an inquiry comes to his

office it is routed to one of these centers for answering. This should result in your being referred to the Bureau's experts for that particular measurement, and this is frequently the best way to provide

the answers to your problems. The facts required

to solve the problems that we have are what we need

in the way of information.

Question: A couple of years ago at Boulder, a ourse in Electrical Measurements was made avail- able to members of NCSL and the lecture notes went like wildfire. I have one, and everybody I have shown it to since wants a copy. It is one of

the best things I have ever seen. Here is a written source of information on how to make these decisions, presented by real experts in their field. It is needed by private industry and it costs money.

Is it available? C. Johnson: The notes were printed by Boeing, were used by Univac and others, and over 1000

copies have been distributed. Reprints might be

made if there is sufficient demand. Address fur- ther inquiry to me at Boeing, Seattle.

Question: Can members of NCSL assist the committee in getting an acceptable category in the

Clearinghouse index?

Linebrink: We are working on this subject now

and may make use of your offer. Question: Much information on techniques are buried in desk drawers. How can we get it out? Mason: NBS Handbook 77, Precision Measurement and Calibration, is a three-volume compilation

of techniques as of 1961. It is available from the

U.S. Government Printing Office: Vol. I, Electricity

and Electronics, $6.00; Vol. II, Heat and Mechanics,

$6.75; Vol. Ill, Optics, Metrology and Radiation,

$7.00. We are considering the preparation of

another series of publications on techniques, but it may be 8 to 10 months before these become avail- able. Some additional sources of information

available to you are:

1. References in the NCSL Newsletter, C. E. White, Editor.

2. Referral Center, Library of Congress, Phone

202-783-0400.

3. NBS, Gaithersburg, Maryland, Phone 301-

921-1000.

4. NBS, Boulder, Colorado, Phone 303-447-1000.

80
NCSL 66

SESSION 5. CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

Chairman: Donald De Lauer, USAF Calibration & Metrology Div.

Vandenberg AFB, Calif. 93437

OPERATION OF NCSL'S CALIBRATION PROCEDURE LIBRARY

Dean Brungart

Teledyne Systems Co., Hawthorne, Calif. 90252

Due to the increasing national interest in the

NCSL Calibration Procedure Library, the Pro- cedures Committee felt that a paper should be given

at this conference which would describe the operation of the library.

The Library is supported jointly by the Air Force

and NCSL, with the Air Force providing the management, the facility, and one clerk, while NCSL pro- vides one clerk and the texts of procedures. It

is physically located at Vandenberg Air Force Base

in California and occupies a 1500 square foot area. Presently there are 28 filing cabinets filled with

procedures and specifications, and normally, five duplicate procedures for each instrument model

number in the Library.

All of these procedures have been contributed

by NCSL Members who have signed the Library

Agreement. This agreement was prepared by

the Procedures Committee to provide basic operating instructions for the Library and to clear the

legal questions associated with NCSL's distribution

of the procedures. It took months to prepare the

agreement and for the legal departments of many

organizations to pass on its contents. However,

this caution and consideration has proved to be

worthwhile since there has been no problem with

the document thus far. In actual Library operation there are a variety of

actions. First, is the process of receiving a procedure: The submitted procedure is given a Library number for filing purposes and is examined

to determine all of the model numbers for which the

procedure is applicable. The following indexing

information and nomenclature is then extracted

and written on regular key-punch sheets for each

model number covered by the procedure:

a. Library number assigned.

b. Manufacturer's name abbreviated to 10 characters.

c. Manufacturer's code symbol.

d. Model number of the instrument.

e. Date of the procedure.

f. Number of pages in the procedure.

g. Originator of the procedure.

h. Originator's procedure number.

i. Credit code given the Originator.

A folder for the procedure is then established

and is filed by Library number.

The key-punch sheets are sent to the Vandenberg Computer Operations Section on a daily basis

and are key punched, printed, and returned to the

Library for checking. After checking, they are returned to Computer Operations for inclusion in an accumulated change memory bank. Each week

an accumulated index is delivered to the Library

and each month these changes are distributed to the Members. All of the inputs, over 18000

entries, comprise the Master Index.

The Master Index, sorted by instrument manufacturer and then by model number, is distributed

to each Library Member every six months. In

addition to the distributed Master Index, the Library

receives an index sorted by Library number, and

one sorted by instrument model number. From

time to time, special indexes have also been pre- pared, such as the one listing only the Air Force

33K Tech Orders, Navy procedures, etc., but the

Master Index is the workhorse of the system.

To obtain procedures, Members use the NCSL

Procedures Library Request form or telephone their

requests to the Library. This form has provisions

to check alternatives if no procedures are available,

and a place to indicate that Air Force, Navy or Army

procedures are not desired. This latter choice was

put on the form to eliminate duplication, as many

companies already have a complete set of Air Force,

Navy and/or Army procedures. Procedure requests

are filled and mailed on the day they are received.

To date, the Library has received 2702 requests

and has been able to fill 1602 of them, or 59%.

A procedure-writing control system has recently

been inaugurated which provides information as to procedures being prepared by Library Members.

Through this system, the Library will be able to inform a Member that a requested procedure is being written, and has a tentative completion date.

81
If this date is satisfactory, the Member will auto- matically receive the procedure when it is received

by the Library. If the date is not satisfactory and

the requestor can better the date, he will be re- quested to write the procedure. In this manner, we hope to reduce duplication and channel the

writing efforts of our Members.

Lastly, the Library analyzes the effectiveness of

its program through the Evaluation Report. The

top half of this form is completed by the Library, and

the lower part by the requestor, within 30 days

after receipt of a procedure. The useability of the

procedure in indicated by an assigned percentage,

and based on reports received is currently averaging

26.3%.

Much greater usage is expected as procedures

begin to follow a more generalized format and more

standardization is achieved in measurement tech- niques for a given calibration task. As more organizations join and participate in this program, the

Library should be able to fill a larger percentage of

the requests.

Remember, you do not have to have contributed

to the Library to be able to request procedures, but

the success of this program and its value to NCSL

Members depends on more of you joining, and

participating in your Calibration Procedure Library

Program.

82
THE DCAS AND THE CALIBRATION LABORATORY

Richard J. Bedford

Quality Assurance Engineering Division, Defense Supply Agency

Contract Administration Services, Cameron Station, Alexandria, Va.

Since Defense Contract Administration Services

itself is a new development, I would like to spend a few moments discussing this organization. DCAS,

as it is commonly called, consists of 11 basic geo- graphical Regions. Below the Regional level,

23 geographical districts and various geographical

and plant offices have been established.

Each Regional organization, in addition to its staff responsibility for the entire Region, is assigned an operational area of responsibility. This was

done to lessen "ivory tower" outlook which staff personnel without operational responsibilities tend

to develop. Each DCAS component includes the

principal functional elements of quality assurance, production and contract administration. Additional elements such as administrative services are added to the smallest component, the office, on an

as-required basis. The District level is essentially

the same as the Region. The full organization at the Regional level includes the Office of Data and

Financial Management (with the important contractor payment function), an Office of Counsel,

and Office of Industrial Relations (the regional

personnel office) and a Public Affairs Assistant.

The organization for Quality Assurance provides

for three staff units, an operational element, and a

specialized Safety and Flight Operational Component.

Plans and programs responsibilities include,

among others, the important responsibility for developing management and workload data systems

and analyzing the output of these systems as an

aid in making management decisions and manpower adjustments. The commodity specialists are in the Material Quality staff. Typical skills include electronics, general materials, propellants,

petroleum, and medical items. These specialists

provide support to operating personnel, participate

in pre-award surveys involving their specialty, and

conduct audits and investigations into commodity

problem areas. The Quality Assurance engineering element is staffed largely with professional

engineers and statisticians. They provide guidance

in application of analytical and statistical techniques

and in situations where professional engineering

skills are required. They also provide support

in materials and processes, in metrology, and in nondestructive testing.

The Government Quality Assurance Representative is responsible for evaluation of the contractor's

quality program, when MIL-Q-9858A is specified, or quality system, when MIL-I-45208A is specified, or calibration system, when MIL-C-45662A is specified. Today I'll confine my remarks to the

areas concerned with metrology and calibration.

DCAS QA will determine the contractor's achievement of accuracy by reviewing his work standard

capability directly concerned with the range, toler- ance, and accuracy of test equipment. His analysis will determine whether test equipment accuracies required in production can be achieved,

have validity, and can be maintained.

The contractor's achievement and maintenance

of the required accuracies will be assessed by a continuing review of his records of measurements

performed during production, and by random physical verification of such measurements. This

assessment includes actual calibration check of

items of test and measuring equipment as well as measurement of product. When we have satisfied ourselves concerning his methods of achieving the

required accuracies, we will then turn to his methods

of maintaining these accuracies — his calibration

system. His written description of his calibration

system, as required by MIL-C-45662A, will serve

as the basis both for our initial evaluation of his system and for our continuing surveillance of it during production.

Evaluation will be based on the contents of

MIL-HDBK-52, "Evaluation of Contractor's Cali- bration System." Using his written description as

a guide, we will examine:

1. His list of measuring equipment, test equipment, and measurement standards.

2. His environmental controls.

3. His calibration intervals.

4. His calibration procedures.

5. His calibration sources.

6. His records and labels. In examining the contractor's list of measuring

equipment, test equipment and measurement

standards, we will be looking for his coverage of

calibration requirements and the adequacy of his standards. Is there a proper ratio between the

accuracies of his test and measuring equipment

and those of his measurement standards? Is the

calibration of his measurement standards trace- able to specific origins? Do his environmental

controls provide proper conditions for the mainte83
nance of the accuracies required by the need of his particular measurement standards? Has he as- singed a calibration interval to each piece of measuring and test equipment and each of his measurement

standards? How was the interval selected? Will

there be a record maintained for each calibration to provide history of the equipment to more adequately

adjust these intervals? What sort of recall system

is provided? Does it promptly remove equipment

from service and return it for calibration within the

required interval?

Next, has he provided a calibration procedure for each distinct type of measurement standard and

measuring or test equipment requiring calibration?

We will determine that all calibration procedures

contain minimum information such as:

1. Identification of the procedure to a specific

type or group of equipments.

2. Specific information such as calibration points,

environmental requirements, calibration conditions

and accuracy requirements.

3. A brief description of the scope, principle

and/or theory of the calibration method.

4. A list of all standards and accessory equip-

; ment required to perform an effective calibration.

' 5. A complete and accurate step-by-step pro- cedure for calibration.

6. Specific instructions for obtaining and recording the test data including data sheets.

Are the procedures kept current? Is there a revi- sion system? Finally, are these procedures kept

readily available to the calibration personnel?

Now, what about calibration source? Is it carefully selected and identified so that each piece of

equipment is supported by a train of successive

calibrations traceable to NBS or to an independently

reproducible standard? I'd like to point out at this time that the contractor is responsible for assur- ing that any commercial sources used are capable

of performing in accordance with MIL-C-45662A.

He should therefore have on file the qualifications

of such sources, records of traceability for their reference standards, and an agreement that they

will conform to the applicable requirements of

45662A. Finally, and most important, will he maintain adequate records for each item of test and

measuring equipment and each measurement

standard? Also, will he place a label on each cali- brated item for positive visual control? The records

maintained will provide the objective evidence

needed to determine the degree of control achieved

by his system.

To sum up, DCAS QA will review the supplier's

written procedures for adequacy, conduct continu- ous surveillance of his operations for compliance to his procedures, and conduct such verification of

test and measurement equipment, measurement

standards, and product as needed to assure the

validity and accuracy of results.

84
MANUFACTURER'S RESPONSIBILITY IN WRITING CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

Robert H. Rupkey

TRW Systems, Redondo Beach, Calif. 90277

The Calibration Procedures Committee has for the past two years devoted its efforts towards the

establishment and operation of a Procedures

Library in an effort to reduce the tremendous duplication of effort in writing the procedures needed by

calibration laboratories throughout the nation.

During the course of discussion at a recent committee meeting the question was raised, "What is the manufacturer's responsibUity for calibration

procedures?" The committee agreed that the

major responsibibty for calibration procedures

belongs to the manufacturer. Other Metrology

people and some manufacturers have also voiced

this opinion. Who other than the designer of the

instrument should be in a better position to provide

the best calibration procedure? However, manufacturers have been supplying operating and service manuals with their equipment for many years. Why then are we all writing calibration procedures?

Basically, it is because the equipment manuals are

not adequate and do not meet the needs of metrology

and calibration agencies. In years past, and presently in more cases than we like to admit, it was fairly common practice for the calibration supervisor or engineer to train his own personnel in the techniques to be used for each

piece of test equipment. Some of these methods

were written down, while others would be hopefully retained in memory. Altogether, we felt quite capable in performing these measurements.

Yet over the years the varieties of test equipment

have multiplied and become much more complex

and sophisticated. There has been a continuing

lack of calibration personnel. Thus we have experienced higher costs associated with maintaining

this wide range of test equipment. This has placed

greater importance on those calibration and maintenance procedures which are capable of assuring accurate and reliable test equipment at the least possible cost. It has been necessary for most

calibration agencies to supplement the manufacturer's manual in order to achieve the desired

results. The military services have long recognized

the necessity for procedures which would provide

uniform calibration results, and they too have been

forced to supplement the manufacturer's manual.

Many of us work as contractors or sub-contractors

( to Department of Defense or NASA agencies and

are governed to a large degree by the military

standards involved in our contracts. Most of us

are completely familiar with MIL-C-45662-A

which covers contractor calibration system require- ments. Most of us are judged by MIL Handbook

52, titled "Evaluation of Contractor's Calibration

System," and utilized by DoD personnel for guid- ance in interpreting the MIL spec requirements.

One of its statements in the section on calibration

procedures calls for "A complete and accurate procedure for calibration, arranged in a step-bystep manner, clearly and concisely written." This

is where most manufacturer's manuals fail to meet

our present day needs. Each of us has had to duplicate other's efforts, at a tremendous cost to the government, to fulfill the DoD requirements

for uniformity and accuracy of measurements.

Whose fault is it that we are involved in such a dilemma? It involves a problem all of us must face,

must share the blame, and should all share in the

search for a solution. This problem is the lack of

understanding and communication between the

manufacturer and the calibration agencies. The

manufacturer by the nature of his business has been

busy trying to provide instruments with the measure- ment capabilities required by industry to meet its ever-increasing technological requirements for products. He has succeeded in a very admirable

fashion, but the metrology and calibration agencies,

acting as a middle man required to calibrate the

instruments, have not fared so well. A major step was taken when MIL-C-24133 was

adopted. It covered requirements for the preparation of calibration procedures for precision test and

measuring equipment used by DoD agencies. This same specification was adopted by the NCSL Cali- bration Procedures Committee as a model format

,for writing calibration procedures to be placed in the Procedures Library. The cost savings already

effected — and yet to be fully realized — by utilization of the Procedures Library are of tremendous importance to the Department of Defense and the

Nation. Such savings should ease the strain on

budgets within your own company for performing

this task. An even greater saving can be achieved

if the original manufacturer's manual would support the requirements of DoD and the metrology

and calibration agencies.

During the past year notable strides have been

made by some manufacturers. They have provided

procedures and operating and service manuals

which contain the necessary information to satisfy

both the operator of the equipment and the calibra- tion agency. There are many examples of progress

85
but there are many more areas which are deficient.

If the manufacturer is to respond to our needs for adequate calibration procedures, what are the things we require of him?

a. An understanding of the MIL specs under

which we operate, namely MIL-C-45662A and the

interpretative MIL Handbook 52.

b. Recognition of our lack of highly skilled cali- bration and maintenance technicians.

c. The constant emphasis on reducing the high

costs of calibration.

d. A general lack of capital funds to buy every

piece of calibration equipment recommended.

Now, what about the procedures? MIL-C-24133

is suggested as a standard guide. There are many

additional features that have been recommended

by metrology people:

1. Separate the calibration from the repair, but

refer to specific repair paragraphs when calibration

does not meet specifications.

2. Make use of trouble-shooting guides for specific

malfunctions.

3. Prepare calibration set-ups.

4. Perform calibration by use of front-panel

checks.

5. Procedure should be able to check all specifications claimed.

6. Suggested calibration equipment should have

equivalents listed.

7. All test aids, loads, etc., described by schematic with component parameters stated.

8. Use of photographs or drawings to locate check

points and components.

9. Description of parts for substitution — not just

manufacturer's part number.

10. Return mail card for comments on manual,

for feedback.

The Calibration Procedures Committee requests

comments on calibration procedures problems and

possible solutions, also for guidelines in formulating

a program which would benefit NCSL Members and

all metrology and calibration agencies in the Nation.

One calibration technician indicated that he felt the instrument manufacturers might take a lesson

from "Sam's Photo-Facts" and "Heathkit" as examples of a procedure which is simple and easy

to follow. It has been suggested that a series of

seminars or work shops be established in order to foster the communication between manufacturers

and calibration agencies. By one means or another,

effort must be made to achieve meaningful and

honest calibration procedures which can be utilized

to meet the customer's needs.

86
OBJECTIVES OF THE NCSL CALIBRATION PROCEDURES COMMITTEE

Garold Kubicek

Marquardt Corp., 16555 Saticoy, Van Nuys, Calif.

Introduction

Why is there so much discussion on standardization of terminology and procedures? The science

of measurement is supposed to be one of the most

exacting of all sciences. However, it is easy to dispel this illusion simply by comparing similar

documents from two or more different laboratories.

The variations in document format and terminology

frequently create difficulty and mutual misinterpretation of the very facts we are trying to understand. This lack of preciseness in the documentation of a science otherwise founded on precision

has long been recognized and many individuals

have tried to do something about it. These indi- viduals have been handicapped, primarily, by their

inability to reach a large segment of the very in- dustry- which would receive the most benefit and

which could be of greatest assistance.

The NCSL now has solved the problem by pro- viding the necessary access to all organizations

which apply measurement techniques, and implemented a work program which will result in standardization of data presentation format and terminology. A library of documents has also been

established to contain copies of standardized

calibration procedures, techniques, and specifications. A Calibration Procedures Committee

was selected and has been assigned objectives

compatible with the long range NCSL goals. The

objectives, as well as a brief description of the long

range goals, are given in following paragraphs. A

definition of the NCSL goals and the committee

objectives demonstrates the benefits to be derived

by the membership in NCSL and in the Procedures

Library program.

Long Range Goals

Science is defined as a branch of knowledge

dealing with a body of facts systematically arranged

and showing the operation of general laws. The

science of measurement must establish a systematic

arrangement (format) for presenting facts (data)

which can be used universally in the industry.

A standardized terminology must be established

and used universally by those engaged in precision

measurement activity. The best human endeavor

is wasted if the information generated cannot be

accurately transmitted and understood by others.

The long range goals for achieving intelligent

and efficient communication among organizations

involved in the science of measurement are as

follows:

1. Establish and maintain contact with all or- ganizations involved in the science of measure- ment with particular emphasis on measurement

standards.

2. Establish recognition of NCSL as an authoritative source of information on all phases of standards laboratory activity.

3. Develop a universally acceptable format for

all documents pertaining to standards laboratory

activity.

4. Develop a well defined glossary of terms to be

used in all standards laboratory documentation.

5. Develop and maintain a comprehensive library of information pertaining to standards laboratory

operation, equipment calibration, equipment operational techniques, and equipment specification.

Current Objectives

Examination of the NCSL long range goals shows

both immediate and long range benefits to participating members. The objectives of the committee

have been selected to directly support efficient achievement of these goals, but continued progress

is conditional on active NCSL membership participation.

A definition of objectives outlining the program

to be followed by the committee is as follows:

1. A central library of calibration procedures,

techniques, and specifications will be established.

Copies of these documents will be furnished, on

loan, to NCSL library members for inclusion in their organization files or for assistance in the generation of similar documents that are tailored to suit their own organizational needs. Calibration pro- cedures, techniques, and specifications for the

library will be obtained, on a voluntary basis, from

NCSL members. These calibration procedures,

techniques, and specifications will be listed in logical sequence and copies of the fisting will be

furnished to NCSL library members as the fist is developed. When procedures, techniques, and/or

specifications are not available for a particular item

of test equipment, the Calibration Procedures

Committee will provide coordinating efforts among

87
the requestees so that duplicated effort in writing

the required new document does not result. A

method of document evaluation will be included as a library service. Library members will be re- quested to list "use value" of each of several documents they may receive on the same item of test equipment. The library function will then retain

documents known to be useful and will remove

excess material which is demonstrated to have

little or no use.

2. An active promotional campaign will be

initiated to acquaint the membership on the contents and use of the library. Every effort will be

made to provide the maximum benefit to members.

It is expected that the library service will be an

active force in expanding NCSL membership.

3. A standard format for calibration procedures

and techniques will be developed, and its accept- ance and use by all NCSL members will be pro- moted.

4. Equipment manufacturers will be encouraged

to standardize equipment specifications and to participate in the development of a unified glossary

of terms to be used in writing specifications.

5. Equipment manufacturers will be encouraged

to generate calibration procedures and techniques

which would be furnished with each item of test equipment as necessary supporting documentation.

Such documents would be in acceptable format and

copies would be furnished to the NCSL Library.

Through membership participation, the committee

will when requested provide assistance to such

manufacturers for the development of such docu- ments.

Present Status

A calibration procedures, techniques, and specifications library has been established under the

auspices of the U.S. Air Force. This library has

over 18,000 entries to date, and copies of the document fist have been sent to library members. A

library procedure has been established to permit

library members to withdraw copies of desired

documents and a document evaluation program is in operation. MIL-C-24133A is recommended for

use as a standard format, although changes to this document will be suggested at a future date.

Realized Benefits

Many NCSL members have borrowed calibra- tion procedures from the library and have used

them to generate similar documents more suitable

to their organizational requirements. This method

of "writing" procedures results in a considerable

reduction of the man-hours usually spent in this type of effort. In one case, this reduction resulted

in estimated savings of $20,000, including the time

of personnel freed for other jobs. This cost saving was justified in the following manner: It takes at least 100 man-hours on the average to write a good

procedure, including item familiarization, laboratory

check, and editing. An evaluation of NCSL library

documents indicates a use factor of 30%, which means 30 of the 100 hours involved have been saved.

At a burdened engineering man-hour cost of $12.00

this comes to $360.00/procedure or $18,000 for 50

procedures. If the use factor reaches 80% or 90%

(one objective of this committee), the cost savings

for 50 procedures would be $48,000.

Another immediate benefit is the availability of

such documents on short notice. They may be

used as interim procedures, so that standards

laboratory personnel do not have to remain idle while the necessary instructions are generated.

One benefit of a more intangible nature is that standards laboratory personnel can make direct

comparison of several procedures pertaining to one item of test equipment. This self-educational

process can only result in an increased ability to more accurately evaluate the worth of a particular

document. This, in turn, assists the calibration

procedures library personnel in more accurately

evaluating the worth of library calibration procedures and techniques.

It is the opinion of the Calibration Procedures

Committee that the presentation of this information

to the NCSL membership will acquaint them with

the great benefits they can receive by active participation in the NCSL library effort. This participation will' assist the committee in the achievement

of its objectives and will in turn create greater

benefits for the participating membership.

88
NCSL 66

SESSION 6: THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES

R. D. Huntoon

Director, Institute for Basic Standards

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Today I should like to introduce to you a new way

of looking at the measurement activities of the

Nation. In this approach we consider all these

activities as parts of a system. We shall talk about

the National Bureau of Standards as a functional

element of that system, and then we shall look at the

role of the NBS Institute for Basic Standards within

that functional element. Finally, once we have

painted this picture for purpose of understanding, we shall turn to some of the policy questions that the picture raises.

I am sure that when I have finished many of you

will say there is nothing really new in the systems

approach to measurement. And in a sense that is true: the systems concept is simply a way of describing much that is going on, but it does provide a

logical, systematic way of looking at measurement

activities in this country.

A Society of Systems

Let us begin our discussion by considering the nature of the highly complex technological society now existing in the United States. How does life in

this society differ from the life of the frontiersman

200 years ago? The essential difference, I believe,

is that as individuals in our society we interact with

a number of what might be called social systems,

such as the communication system, the education

system, the fiscal-monetary system, the legal-penal

system, and the transportation system. I could go on and name more of these systems, but I shall mention only one more, and that is our National

Measurement System which we shall discuss

shortly. In their interactions with one another through

their interfaces, these systems, it seems to me, are

characteristic of our society. They have a great

influence on the fives and activities of individual

citizens. In fact, one might think of our present

American society as a sort of supersystem composed

of all these systems.

Diverse as these systems are, they do have certain elements in common, and I think this should

be emphasized. You recall that in English we use

the word "standards" for two different concepts —

standards of physical measurement, and standards

of practice. In like manner we find ourselves using

the term "system" to refer to two independent con- cepts involved in each of the systems comprising

our society.

If we look up the term "system" in Webster we

find that among the definitions given there are two

very concise ones that relate to the present discussion. One of the definitions considers a system as "an aggregate of essential principles or facts arranged in a rational dependence to form a coherent whole." The other definition refers to "an

assemblage of interdependent or interacting functional elements working together under guidance

from some central source to accomplish a common

mission." The first type of system, which we shall

call the intellectual system, forms the basis for the

design of the second type, which we may call the

operational system.

If we now look at the social systems we are dis- cussing, we find that in each case they comprise two

interwoven systems. One is an intellectual system

which in a sense does not operate — it consists of the

set of rules and conventions that govern the operation of the system. This type of system is universally applicable, much like the laws of physics and

chemistry. Then, for each intellectual system,

there is an operational system consisting of a set of

functional elements, a set of inputs, a set of outputs,

and a spectrum of activities. An example of an intellectual system is the Inter- national System of Units (abbreviated SI for Systeme International) — an intellectual concept, a

set of rules regarding units. This system in uni- versal; not only is it international, but it could be

used on other planets if we ever succeed in communicating with them.

The operational systems, on the other hand, are

national in scope. But they have interfaces with the

corresponding systems of other nations, and of course they have interfaces with the other systems

that make up our national society.

The National Measurement System

Let us now try to look at our National Measurement System in this way. The first thing we need

to recognize is that we do in fact have such a system

89
even though it may not have been formally recognized. It has grown up in this country and most of us have taken it for granted without really being aware of its existence. But its influence on our

national life is tremendous. Let me give some

figures that will indicate the magnitude of the sys- tem with which we are dealing.

If we stop to think about it, we realize that on the

average every citizen is involved in some 15 to 50

measurements a day — reading his watch or speedometer, or buying gasoline by the gallon. If we

add to these all the measurements that are made in science and industry, we arrive at a rough estimategood perhaps to a factor of 2 in the first significant

figure — of 20 billion measurements being made

every day in this country. To be consistent and

compatible, all such measurements must be trace- able back to a set of national standards.

To get some idea of the amount of money invested

in the Nation's total measurement activity, we esti- mate that we have some $25 billion invested in measuring instruments alone, and we are increasing

this investment by some $4V2 billion a year. We

have some $20 billion invested in research to pro- vide measurement data, and we are adding about

$3 billion a year to this amount. Altogether our investment in the system is about $50 billion. The

payment to personnel to operate the system is roughly $10 billion a year. It is important to note

that the entire National System is 99 percent self- financed through its own internal system of charges

and fees. Table 1 shows the impact of this Measurement

System on our national economy in figures taken

from the 1963 census. Here we are looking at

Final Cost Man yrs. demand of spent on (GNP) measurement measurement

$ billions $ billions thousands Manufacturing 225 7.8 845

Construction Mining 21 1.1 120 and farming

Transportation 39 0.9 98 communications

and utilities Medical and Educa- 28 1.4 103

tional services Government and 83 2.7 139 other services Totals 396 13.9 1305

Table 1

totals for those industries and services that account

for $396 billion of our gross national product. These

industries invest $13.9 billion a year in measure- ment—in using the output of the Measurement

System and working with it — and they devote 1.3 million man-years to measurement; so you can see

that the National Measurement System is a very

sizeable and important system in our economy.

Looking at these figures we see that if we can improve the efficiency of the measurement process

sufficiently to increase the GNP due to these industries by 0.1 percent, then we will have saved about

10 times the annual budget of the National Bureau

of Standards.

AVERAGE 9 8% ©

®

©

AVERAGE 17%

5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 % GROWTH OF FINAL DEMAND 1963-1965 FOR MANUFACTURERS OF

68 FOOD 6 BEVERAGES 10 AEROSPACE

21 CHEMICALS 8 DRUGS

9 MACHINERY

8 MOTOR VEHICLES

7 APPAREL

5 ELECTRICAL MACHINERY

4 MISC DURABLES

2 FABRICATED METALS

II FURNITURE a WOOD PROD

5 LEATHER 8 PAPER

4 OTHER TRANSPORTATION

4 PRINTING a PUBLISHING

3 FERROUS INDUSTRIES

3 RUBBER 8 PLASTICS

2 INSTRUMENTS

I TEXTILE PRODUCTS

I NONFERROUS INDUSTRIES Figure 1 is also of interest here. The ordinate

shows, for a number of industries, the percentages

of the total value of all shipments that were spent on measurement; the abscissa shows the growth of

these industries over the 1963-65 interval. Note

that the fastest growing industries are those that have the greatest need for measurement. I do

not say that measurement makes them grow faster,

but I do say that the fastest growing industries are those that are most closely coupled to the output

of the Measurement System, and that therefore our

industrial growth is in fact tightly coupled to our measurement sophistication and capability.

Now I should like to discuss the functions of our

National Measurement System. The essential

function of the system is to provide a quantitative

measurement basis for interchangeability and

decisions for action in all aspects of our daily life —

public affairs, commerce and industry, science and

engineering.

Interchangeability is of fundamental importance

in modern society. Once we have a measurement

system with a set of agreed-upon units and standards, we have a firm basis for the interchange of

goods and services in the mass markets of modern

commerce, of machine parts and devices in industry,

and of scientific and technical information. Such a system makes it possible for any plant to mass- produce materials, parts, and systems that are interchangeable with those made in plants in other

parts of the country. Without this basis for inter- changeability, our industrial economy as we know it today could not exist. Likewise, if results obtained

in one laboratory are to be useful in another, they

must be expressed in a measurement system com- mon to both laboratories; otherwise, each laboratory would have to operate on its own and confusion

would result when they attempted to exchange

information.

Modern society requires us to make numerous

decisions throughout the day, and many of these

decisions are based on measurement. For example,

90
we are continually looking at a clock or watch to measure time so that we can decide whether to leave, stay, or stop what we are doing. An aircraft

pilot must read a number of measurement output

dials in order to make vital decisions during a flight.

To provide a basis for decisions throughout the

Nation, all measurements must be compatible with

each other. For example, the airplane pilot's

decisions based on his instruments must be compatible with those of others who are making similar

measurements if he is to stay on course, avoid

collisions, and arrive on time. The key words here

are compatibility and consistency: the Measurement System must make all sorts of diverse activity

compatible and, at the interfaces, consistent; other- wise we should have a very chaotic situation. Figure 2 shows the four outputs of the National

Measurement System. First is the central core, consisting of the national standards, about which I

ii NATIONAL «ASUREM£NT

SYSTEM

CENTRAL

CORE

CONSISTENT INSTRUMENTATION

REFERENCE DATA

MEANINGFUL MEASUREMENT

shall say more later. Next there is the provision

of calibrated, consistent instrumentation, traceable

to the national standards, to all the multitude of users whose measuring needs it serves. (Here, of course, I am thinking of the calibration activities of the whole system — not just the work of NBS.)

Another output is a supply of reference data that provides all users with ready-made answers for measurements — these data can be used over and

over again once they have been recorded and published. Finally, we have an important output that

really involves the effective use of the other two —

criteria for meaningful measurement. We might

think of the Measurement System as having three

spigots which the user can turn on. One spigot is labelled "instrumentation" and another is labelled "reference data." If the user does not know which

of the first two spigots to try, he turns on the third

spigot. This third spigot represents a part of the

NMS through which people throughout the system

can be told how to make use of the capability gen- erated in the other two activities — how to measure

what they set out to measure rather than something

else. Our system is made compatible with other national systems of measurement through its interface

with the international system, set up through international agreement. The Convention of the Meter,

established in 1875 through regular diplomatic

channels, is made effectual through various technical agencies, beginning with the general Confer- ence on Weights and Measures, which elects especially competent individuals to an International

Committee. The latter supervises the work of the

International Bureau of Weights and Measures,

through seven committees dealing respectively with

units, length, time, temperature, electricity, photometry, and ionizing radiations. The International

Bureau provides the mechanism for intercompari- son of the more important standards of the National

Laboratories of the industrialized countries. Thus,

compatibiltiy in world technology and trade is assured. The National System feeds back its extensions and comparisons to the international

system, which in turn provides compatibility for the

vast body of users around the world. Users in the

National System establish their measurement capability and generate a pool of unmet needs which

feeds back into other parts of the National System.

The Intellectual System

Figure 3 illustrates the "universe of measurables,"

the intellectual system that provides a basis for

PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS

. OF SIMPLE DEVICES

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA OF SYSTEMS

the operational measurement system. This intel- lectual system is international in scope and every- one involved in modern science or industry is concerned with it. In the figure we start with four

independent, arbitrarily defined units for the base

quantities — length, mass, time, and temperature.*

Adding another decimal place to the defined size of any one of them will have no effect on the size of

any of the other three. From these four "base units," we derive the units

for all other physical quantities in accordance with

the definitions and equations of physics. Take the

quantity force for example; force equals mass times

'The International System of Units includes two additional basic units: the ampere and the candela. The ampere has been given this status as an aid to dimensional

analysis, although it is denned in terms of length, mass, time, and a particular value of the magnetic constant T„, which is taken as 47rl0" 7 henries per meter. The candela. which is used for measurements of visible light, is not purely physical since its defini- tion involves an average human observer.

91

256-1 14 0-67 —

7
acceleration, and acceleration is length over time

squared. So once we have defined units of length, mass, and time, we can define a unit of force in such

a way that the constant of proportionality in the

equation

/= ma

is unity. Our unit of force is then a derived unit,

dependent in size on the size of the units of length, mass, and time. In the same manner, the unit of

density is derived from the units of mass and length.

Continuing in this way, we eventually arrive at what

is called a consistent system of units; that is, a system that is consistent with the equations of physics as we know them today. Once we have this consistent system for physical quantities we can proceed with a set of definitions, functions, and

measurement rules to establish another category of

measurables: the properties of substances (for example, density), relating their units back to the base and derived units. (The properties

of substances are really functional relations among

the physical quantities as these relations are characterized by a particular kind of matter. Density,

for example, is the relationship between mass and

volume that is characteristic of a specific substance,

say lead or mercury.)

Similarly, by means of definitions, relationships,

and test schemes, we can go from the properties of

substances to the performance characteristics of

simple devices — for example the amplification

factor of a vacuum tube. Then proceeding on in the same way, we can go to the performance cri- teria of systems, feeding in test schemes and formulations to form a progressive, coherent set of measurable quantities.

At each stage as we go down the chart, the degree

of knowledge and sophistication involved decreases,

not through want of effort but because we are still developing the system. At the top we are con- cerned primarily with very precise measurement;

the important exact definitions have been agreed

upon. As we go lower we find we are more con- cerned with the meanings of terms and definitions. In the lower stages we want to know what it is meaningful to measure, in order to specify firm understandable performance criteria. The feedback up the chain that is shown in the

figure takes place in two ways. First there is local feedback regarding the needs for refinement of

the various kinds of measurables. Then there is the feedback of capability and knowledge developed

in the rest of the system. For instance, information on properties is essential to the development of

physically realizable standards for the four base

units and to the measurement of the derived units. Likewise, information obtained by use of devices

or systems enables us to improve the part of the

system shown in the upper blocks, which can then

be transmitted down to the lower blocks.

The Operational System

Now let us turn from the intellectual system to the operational system — consisting of people and

organizations — which is national in scope and which

interacts with the other systems of the Nation. One

way of subdividing the system is to split it into three

major networks. First there is the instrument

network, which provides the calibrated instrumentation for making the measurements. Then there is the data network which gives ready-made answers

to measurement problems. Finally, there is the

techniques network which tells the user how to make meaningful measurement. In a very general

way, this illustrates how the National Measurement

System operates in this country.

Figure 4 shows the details of the instrument net- work. At the top we have the development of new

INSTRUMENT NETWORK

OTHER OTHER GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY LABS LABS

PUBLISHERS OF TECHNICAL LITERATURE AND THE PATENT OFFICE

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

ORGANIZATIONS

NBS

INSTRUMENT INDUSTRY

INSTRUMENT INDUSTRY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS LASS

iBRATED MEASURING INSTRUMENTS

instrument ideas and designs by the instrument

industry, research institutes, NBS, and other

Government and industrial laboratories. These

ideas and designs are disseminated by the publishers of technical literature and by the Patent

Office. Ultimately they take the form of measure- ment hardware which must be accurately calibrated.

This may be done by NBS directly, or by other

standards laboratories whose master standards

have been calibrated against the national standards

maintained by NBS.

Figure 5 illustrates the data network. Here we

have various laboratories contributing to a pool of

technical literature which in turn feeds into a number of specialized data centers. The centers in turn funnel evaluated data into the NBS Office of

Standard Reference Data. The users obtain their

ready-made answers from the Office of Standard

Reference Data and the publications of the specialized data centers. Figure 6 shows the techniques network, which

operates in a similar way, telling the user first how

to measure, then what it is meaningful to measure. Many of the physical quantities in the universe of

measureables are now so well defined that it is not

difficult to determine how they should be measured

in practical situations. This is presently true of

the quantities expressed in SI units, although it was

92
DATA NETWORK

not always so. But with performance characteristics and performance criteria, the situation is quite different; here we still want to know how to specify precisely what we want to measure.

TECHNIQUES NETWORK

INSTRUMENT

INDUSTRY

OTHER

INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS NKKtnaa AM

Dis$e»mATH» PUBLISHERS OF TECHNICAL LITERATURE

STANDARDIZATION

ORGANIZATIONS

APPLICATION

AMI USE

The System as a Black Box

Now let us go back and look again at the general

concept of a system. If we consider a system as

a black box characterized by inputs, a statement

of function, and outputs, then any segment within

the black box may be thought of as a subsystem

which we can in turn examine for inputs, function,

anc

j outputs. And we can continue this subdividing process until we get down to the smallest

structural elements of the system. Each subsystem

can be divided into interacting elements, and each

of these elements into interacting components.

Now consider one segment of the system with its inputs and outputs. A satisfactory statement of

function requires that we recognize interface filters on either side of the segment, because these are

the points where policies are set up that characterize

the activity of the segment. An input interface

filter determines which of all possible inputs will be accepted, and an output interface filter deter- mines which of many possible outputs the segment

will deliver. If we know the inputs and outputs

and some of the policies that govern the filters, we

can characterize the system segment in a functional statement.

With that by way of background, let us return to the National Measurement System. This System

has as its main function to provide the central basis

in the United States for a complete, consistent

system for physical measurement. What then is the role of NBS as a functional element in the

National Measurement System? This role is one

of central Federal leadership — to guide the System

as it continues to operate through the voluntary

cooperation of American science and industry.

As we see it, the Bureau must maintain this leader- ship through general acceptance, based on proven

capability — not on laws or regulations. So the

Bureau exerts its leadership through its outputs —

by developing and maintaining the national standards which serve as a central core for the three

networks, by providing calibration services and

standard reference materials for the instrument

network, by generating and evaluating data for the data network, and by developing techniques of

meaningful measurement for the techniques net- work.

Now let us consider the Institute for Basic Standards as a functional subelement of the System.

Its inputs come from the pool of unmet needs, from

the international coordination to which it is tightly

coupled, and from the various activities throughout

the Nation which supply materials information — in particular from our own Institute for Materials

Research. Its ourputs are the central core of

national standards (essentially an in-house output),

calibration services to disseminate this core, readymade answers in the form of key reference data and

a mechanism for disseminating them, a set of standard reference materials, consulting and advisory

services, and publications on meaningful measurement.

The Central Core

Let us begin with the central core, which consists

of six base standards — national standards coordinated internationally — and thirty or forty derived

standards. The six base units of the International

System of Units are specified for the quantities mass, length, frequency or time, temperature, electric current, and luminous intensity. Four of these

have been mentioned earlier. The central core is developed by starting with a knowledge of materials

as a basis for conceiving and defining a unit, then

proceeding to a material realization of this definition,

and finally to the standard.

This process involves a feedback loop that operates continuously. While the units themselves

are static — in that their values are changed only in the last few decimal places — there is a great deal

of dynamics in the process of realizing these units

with increasing accuracy and precision to meet the

needs of science and industry.

A brief discussion of one of these units — the

second — will illustrate the dynamic nature of meas- urement standards (Fig. 7). Before 1956 the second

93
UNIT DEFINITION

BEFORE 1956 1956 1964

1 SECOND = 1 SECOND(ephemeris)-- 1 SECOND V86 ,400 of

1/31,556.925.9747 9,192,631,770

(he rotation of the time taken vibrations

of the earth by the earth to of the cesium

„„ ,(« j,,^ orbit the sun atom

DEVELOPING THE STANDARD

53

COST

H

ACCURACY

30 o

each

,1 .

1sec each

3hrs

30,000 300,000

Ammonia

Resonate*

I 1sec each

30yrs

BtesomaSrar Maser

I

I 1sec each

30.000 30,000yrs centuries

1sec each

was defined as V86,40o of a mean solar day. Thus

its definition was based on the rotating earth as a

clock. Of course, any periodic phenomenon can

be used as a clock, and the more stable its period,

the better clock it makes. We thought we had a pretty good clock in the rotating earth -it had been

used for centuries. But by 1956 it had become

evident that the rotation of the earth was subject

to irregularities, and so the second was redefined

as a fraction of the annual trip of the earth around

the sun. (This redefinition did not change the size of the second, only the way in which it was defined.)

The second thus defined is known as the ephemeris

second, and it is possible to realize this second to about 2 parts in a billion, given some five years of astronomical measurements. But work with

cesium-beam-controlled clocks had already sur- passed this precision, so a new definition was

needed. In October 1964, the 12th General Conference of Weights and Measures authorized an atomic definition of the second. The International

Committee on Weights and Measures, acting for the Conference, temporarily based the definition on

an invariant transition of the cesium-133 atom, in expectation of a more exact definition in the future. The value of 9,192,631,770 hertz was assigned to the cesium transition selected. It now appears

that we can compare the second in terms of this definition to 1 or 2 parts in 1013 (equivalent to 1 sec in 30,000 years). These changes in the defini- tion of the second are a good illustration of the way

in which the units are continually being refined so

that we can better say what it is we are trying to measure.

I might add that each time we replace an older

unit with a new one of lesser uncertainty we are

careful to define the new unit with the zone of confusion of the old. So long as we do it this way, the

results obtained by previous measurements will

still be valid within the range of indeterminacy

associated with the older unit. Figure 8 shows the progression in the development of standards for the second. We begin in ages past with the hour-glass which kept time to about a second in a minute and a half; it probably

cost $3 and was accurate to about a part in 100. Next we have a pendulum clock, which costs about

$30, and keeps time to a second in three hours or one part in 10 4

. Next we have a well-made tuning

fork, accurate to a part in 10 5 and costing perhaps

$300; then the quartz frequency generator, ac- curate to a second in three years or a part in 10 s

; the ammonia molecular clock, good to a second in 30 years, or a part in 109

; then the new cesium reso- nator previously mentioned, accurate to a second

in 30,000 years, or one part in 10 12

; and finally the

hydrogen maser, now under development, which

may go to a part in 10 14 at a cost as yet unknown.

Now note the progression in the cost of the

standards. With each improvement in accuracy,

the cost of research for further improvement

spirals upward. Someone may ask, "Do we really

need a clock that keeps time to a second in 30,000

years?" However, the need for timing accuracy

in such fields as satellite tracking, rocket control,

and astronomical observations is far from being

met. We must remember that there are almost 10 u

microseconds in a day and that a radio signal travels 300 meters in a microsecond. We use radio waves

to measure distances and to track satellites which

incidentally move at the rate of nearly a meter

every microsecond. So we must have clocks that can keep in step to within a few microseconds over an extensive time interval. As a matter of fact, we are now under pressure to improve our present

time-keeping accuracy of 1 part in 1012 by two more

orders of magnitude. Still we must admit that the present accuracy in time measurement is fantastic. If two cesium clocks such as we have now

had been started at the dawn of history, they would

differ by no more than an eyeblink today.

The Instrumentation Network

Once a unit has been selected for a particular

quantity and a national standard for this unit has

been realized, we must establish techniques that

will provide for measuring the entire range of magnitudes that must be dealt with. In mass, for example, the range extends from the mass of the

earth, or even beyond, down to the mass of the

electron, neutron, or subparticle (fig. 9). So we

have a vast spectrum of some 50 orders of magnitude

that must be connected through a measurement
chain to the defined unit, the kilogram. Some of

these magnitudes can be measured directly by

taking multiples or submultiples of the standard,

but as we leave the central part of the range we

find it necessary to use indirect methods, with a corresponding reduction in accuracy.

KILOGRAM

1

10 24 10 18 10" 12 10

I

Figure 10 is a generalized version of the "accuracy

charts" which the Bureau is using to assess its measurement capabilities over typical ranges of

magnitude in various areas. The upper solid line indicates the accuracies presently available in regular NBS cahbration service; the next lower one, what good industrial laboratories can do; the lowest

one, the tolerances generally called for at the

ultimate user's level — at the factory bench or in the finished product. The dots indicate the ac- curacies the factory's customers say they need,

the horizontal dashes show what can be obtained

by special arrangement with NBS, and the dash-dot

fines show where NBS activities now under way will carry us. Finally, the stars represent the occasional

demands expressed by important segments of our

customers.

one

part

in

Standard

I Magnitude -+

We can use this type of chart to show graphically

where we are putting our major efforts, to indicate our goals, and to decide where to concentrate our

further efforts. We need to resolve such questions

as whether it is more important to raise the line representing NBS capability, and thereby bring

up the line representing industrial capability, or whether to try to bring the latter up closer to the

former by tightening up the system, perhaps by

reducing the number of echelons between the NBS

standard and the ultimate user. Figure 11 is an up-to-date accuracy chart for length and diameter measurements, showing the

different devices used in different ranges of magnitude and the accuracies achieved in NBS calibrations. Using recently developed equipment, and

taking special pains^we can measure length to about a part in 108 for magnitudes from 1 to 0.01 meter.

In vacuum n ^ A ;—A i r 1 r £ -ft- A .

standard Krypton 86 ^/

Gage

blocks

'Z I0

6

=> 10

10"' I Length in meters Of course it is seldom possible for a single insti- tution such as NBS to make calibrations over the

complete range which might be needed in the National Measurement System. So we have to make

basic decisions as to how far to go and how much to do. Our policy is to pick calibration points at appropriate intervals so that the measurement

activities of the country can be coupled to NBS at these points by means of ratios, differences, and

interpolations. In this way the national standards

in the central core are disseminated over the cali- bration network.

Calibration of an instrument involves comparing

it directly with a standard so as to obtain corrections to the instrument readings.

Table 2 -NBS CALIBRATION PROGRAM

BUDGET

(In thousands of dollars)

1965 1966 1967 est Electrical 720 770 830

Mechanical 350 370 430

Radiation 750 820 880

Radio 710 770 830

Thermal 260 320 380

2,790 3,100 3,400

95
Table 2 shows the magnitude of the Bureau's

calibration program, which amounts to about $3

million per year. The customer pays the out-of- pocket NBS expense of making his calibrations, but

he does not pay for the research and development

that makes the calibration possible.

Compatibility requires that there must be a chain

of measurement traceable from the base of the

pyramid (Fig. 12) all the way up to a common ref- erence standard. Unless each chain finally reaches

the same apex, the system will lack compatibility.

There is an interesting story about a man who set the town clock by the factory whistle. It turned out

that the factory whistle was always in good agree- ment with the town clock. Upon investigating he

found that the man at the factory was reading the

town clock to find out when to blow the whistle.

So they had set up a small feedback loop between

themselves but they had no means of achieving

compatibility with timekeepers elsewhere.

THE ANDARDj

CALIBRATION < HIERARCHY

.01 NBS 1000 _

.FACTORIES*, Q Q

T

A

C

C

U

R

A

C

Y

i

The standard reference materials program is unique to the United States, although some of the

samples are sold to users in foreign countries.

Standard reference materials are well characterized substances with accurately determined properties. The Bureau certifies them either for chemical composition or with respect to some

specific physical or chemical property. They

obviously provide a basis for equitable interchange

of articles of commerce. Also, samples of these

materials are sold to an individual so that he can

calibrate his own measuring process. A great

advantage of the program is that it enables the user

to do self-calibration "on-site." Thus he ties his measurement to the National System and evaluates

his results in terms of his own capability and his own instruments and procedures. If he sends his instrument to NBS for calibration, he does not obtain any knowledge of his own capability for using the instrument to the accuracy with which it has been calibrated.

We are. now moving into self-calibration in other

areas. Ways are being considered for tying standards laboratories into the National Measurement

System on a self-calibration basis by means of

measurement agreement comparisons, often called

round-robins. The laboratories would do most of the work with their own instruments, their own

staffs, and their own technologies. Having done so, they would have a measure of their own capabilities

and would know how closely their accuracies are

related back to the national standards.

The Data Network

Now let us turn to the data network. Figure 13

is a good illustration of the fundamental impor- tance of this type of activity. Consider an engineer

who has set out to design a new competitive light

bulb. What does he have to know? First of all, he has to be able to make direct measurements; he

must have instruments to measure the diameter

of the bulb, the pitch of the thread, the weight of the

materials, the diameter of the wires, and so on. But even though he has the capability of making

these measurements in production, he is still a long

way from an adequate design. He needs infor- mation on the electrical resistivity and spectral

emissivity of tungsten and other competitive materials, the melting point and thermal expansion

of glass —in fact, maybe some 50 types of data of

this kind -in order to make a competitive design.

If he has to stop and measure all these properties,

he will be investing several million dollars in a research program before he can start his design.

On the other hand, if ready-made answers are already available for the data he needs, because someone else has already measured them, then he can save this vast investment. Once he has found

the numbers, he pan proceed with the design, pro- vided that he .can trust the numbers to be correct.

ENGINEERING DESIGN

LUMINOUS FLUX POWER CONSUMPTION

BUL8 TEMPERATURE

WIRE DIAMETER BULB DIAMETER

THREAD PITCH

RESISTIVITY OF TUNeSTEN SPECTROEMISSIVITtOFTUWSTa

' MELTINS POINT OF CLASS THERMAL EXPANSION OF SUSS

THERMAL EXPANSION OF HIRE

MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF US

Another important point to consider here is that when sufficient data have been obtained to characterize a substance, then that substance can serve as a reference material for the calibration of instru- ments that measure the properties of substances.

These properties are often temperature-dependent,

and the International Practical Temperature Scale

is based on fixed points at 1063, 960.8, 444.6, 100,

0.01, and minus 182.97 degrees Celsius, related to gold, silver, sulfur, steam, water, and oxygen re96
spectively. If the substance is sufficiently well

characterized, the reference sample can be pur- chased from the usual sources of supply and certi- fied standard samples will not be necessary. Today

practically all the instruments that are used to measure properties of substances are calibrated

in-house by manufacturers or users, using standard

data on the measured property. These calibrations are related to the national standards through

the key data on properties which NBS provides.

People outside NBS can work with these data, so the existence of ready-made answers takes a vast

load off the instrument network of the Measurement System.

Figure 14 illustrates, perhaps even more graphically, the need for critical evaluation of such data. When an engineer turns to the scattered literature

in search of design data, he is likely to get a wide

range of values for each property he looks up. Suppose, for example, that he is designing an industrial process that involves the heat of formation of

hydrogen sulfide. In the literature he may find an array of values ranging from 2.0 to 4.9. Uncertainty in such a measurement can have far-reaching

economic effects. If he accepts the value "2.0"

for the heat of formation of hydrogen sulfide, he

might conclude that his planned process will not work, and that hence there is no point in going fur- ther. On the other hand, if he accepts the value

"4.9" he may find that his process will be highly

productive and should be pushed. Which value

should he accept? In the absence of critically

valuated data on the heat of formation of hydrogen

sulfide, he can only do what is usually done in industry today — seek expert advice if he can find

it, make an educated guess, or measure it again

himself, adding another value to the fist. Unless

he is an expert in the measurement of heats of

formation, the value he obtains will probably be no

better tjfcan those already in the literature, and may

be much worse.

NATIONAL MEASUREMENT

SYSTEM NEED FOR CRITICAL DATA

nam

The solution is to get together a group of experts

who know the field and can evaluate the various

measurements from the literature so as to obtain

a "best value" — the most acceptable and trust- worthy value — and will make this value generally

available. This is the process of critical data

evaluation and compilation. To carry out this function on a nationwide basis, the President's

Office of Science and Technology has established

the National Standard Reference Data System

(NSRDS), and NBS has been given the responsibility for planning and coordinating its projects.

A central headquarters, known as the Office of

Standard Reference Data, has been established

at the Bureau under the Institute for Basic Standards, and contracts aimed at establishing coherent

and comprehensive coverage are now being let to various data centers throughout the country.

The NSRDS seeks to pull the best values from the

literature and to get them into the hands of the users of the System through publication and other means of dissemination.

This is an enormous task, for the 10 technical

journals of the year 1699 grew to 100 in 1799, to more than 1000 in 1899, and is expected to reach

10,000 by the year 1999. The papers appearing

in these journals have also increased ten-fold in

each century; there will probably be 1,000,000 by

1999. Data compilation and evaluation activities presently carried on can now take care of only

about a fifth of the annual increment of papers;

IBS activities account for about 7 percent, and the

other data centers of the country handle about 14

percent. So the backlog of unevaluated data is growing, the situation is getting more confused,

and it is becoming increasingly difficult for scientists and engineers to find the data they need.

There is thus a strong economic need to get all these data critically evaluated and then disseminated to users, if we can succeed somehow in getting the resources that will enable the NSRDS

to do this job, we estimate it will pay back into the

economy between $20 and $200 for every dollar invested.

A primary task of NBS in data generation is to put key data into the reservoir. Others can use

these data for extending their work into related

areas. Users who recognize the value of this

effort then feed more raw data into the data centers

scattered throughout the Nation. The data centers evaluate and compile these data, which are then fed back into the data reservoir for further

use. The key definitive data supplied by NBS

permit the National Measurement System to grow

and expand. The Bureau gains competence

through research, and links its findings to the

system so that compatibility will be provided to resolve conflicts. These activities are important

to the proper functioning of the Measurement

System. For example, judicious duplication of

measurements by several users shows whether or not the instrument network is performing in a consistent, compatible way. At the same time, the

research on materials that is part of the data ac- quisition activity provides a firm basis for the

development of measurement standards for the

central core.

97
Inputs, Outputs, and Filters

In the few minutes remaining I should like to say a few words about some of the inputs, outputs,

and policy niters that influence NBS activities. Obviously there are a great many inputs to NBS

from the other social systems of the country as well as from other parts of the Measurement

System; I shall mention only a few of these.

One important input is the research being done

at other laboratories on the frontiers of science.

This work is developing the knowledge needed to improve the measurement process within the Sys- tem. A related important output takes the form

of scientific contributions from NBS scientists who are working in frontier science to provide a base for the measurement activities. A continuing input problem of major dimensions

is our need for trained metrologists. Here there

is tremendous suction in the input pipeline but

very little input to flow through it. Another ^nput to NBS consists of the new meas- urement needs and new measurement problems

with which we are constantly being bombarded.

As our resources are necessarily limited, we are hoping that we can meet some of these needs and

problems by use of what we call the Research

Associate Plan. Under this Plan, which we have

had for years but which we are now extending, an industrial group, a trade association, or even a

private company can send an employee to work

at NBS on a problem which is of special interest

to the sponsor, which also has public significance.

The sponsor pays the employee's salary, while

the Bureau makes available its laboratory facilities and the advice of its specialists. In this way wider

use may be made of NBS instrumentation and of the measurement competence of the NBS staff. When the employee returns to the laboratory from

which he came, he should be a more effective worker

because of the better understanding he will have

of measurement techniques and their use in the

solution of problems.

On the output side, there is always the problem

of deciding what calibration services are required

to feed the System properly. Taking the "systems"

point of view, the Bureau's policy is to undertake

those tasks that will make the Measurement System function most effectively and economically in serving the interests of the country and the economy

as a whole. From time to time we get feedback

which indicates that some people do not understand this policy. Apparently they think that the

Bureau is withdrawing from calibration activity

and retiring into an ivory tower. Nothing could be

further from the truth. Our objective is to ensure

the calibration of every instrument whose calibration has any meaning. If the calibration is within

the Bureau's capabilities and if it can be done more

effectively at the Bureau, then we should do it;

if it can be done more effectively outside the Bureau

in other parts of the System, then it should be done

there. We feel that we should do enough calibration work to keep our existing facilities reasonably

well utilized; at the same time we should not at- tempt to compete with the private standards lab- oratories which have the important role of taking over from NBS and disseminating the standards

throughout the rest of the System.

98
NCSL 66

SESSION 7: NATIONAL CALIBRATION REQUIREMENTS

.Charles Johnson

The Boeing Metrology Laboratory

The NCSL Committee on National Calibration

Requirements was formed to assist the National

Bureau of Standards in determining present and

future calibration support that industry requires.

Questionnaires (Budget Bureau No. 41-65101) were sent to 126 NCSL members. As of April 30,

1966, a total of 112 were returned from 50 of the

recipients.

The information presented here is the result of

the survey. Analysis of this information is in the

preliminary stages and one should be cautioned

against drawing rigid conclusions from the material

presented here.

It should be noted that there is some difficulty in clearly drawing the line between problems re- lating to inadequate standards and those which are measurement problems.

Of equal importance is the difficulty in deter- mining the extent that industry should rely on the

National Bureau of Standards to provide calibration services. At this time, there appear to be

diverse opinions within industry as to the amount of

calibration support that industry should supply

to itself vs. the amount of support that they should

receive from NBS.

The general conclusions drawn from this survey

are:

1. NCSL members are generally aware of the

capabilities of the National Bureau of Standards.

2. There is very little commonality among member laboratories' needs in those areas that are not presently supported by the National Bureau of

Standards.

3. Solid economic justifications are lacking to support the majority of the requested services.

4. There is need for a more clearly defined divid- ing fine between the Bureau's responsibilities and

industry's responsibilities in providing calibration

services.

99
Question 1: WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL QUANTITY TO BE MEASURED?

Question 7: DATE SERVICE IS REQUIRED?

Quantities are ranked by total number of times reported. Note negligible duplication in problem

areas; most-mentioned quantity was listed as present requirement by only 4 NCSL members, as future

requirement by only 5.

REQUIRED

RANK PHYSICAL QUANTITY BEFORE JUNE 1966 AFTER JUNE 1966

1 RF POWER 4 5

2 VACUUM 4 1

3 LEAK RATE 4 0

4 IMPULSE SPECTRAL INTENSITY 3 0

5 VIBRATION 3 0

6 VOLTAGE RATIO (LOW FREQUENCY) 3 0

7 REFLECTION COEFFICIENT 2 4

8 PHASE (LOW FREQUENCY) 2 3

9 VOLTAGE (LOW FREQUENCY) 2 1

10 INDUCTANCE 2 1

11 NOISE (HIGH FREQUENCY) 2 1

12 FLOW RATE (PULSE) 2 1

13 LUMINOUS INTENSITY 2 1

14 MASS 2 0

1 ^ 1 D o

16 FIELD STRENGTH 2 0

17 PULSE RISE TIME 2 0

18 ATTENUATION 1 2

19 POWER (LOW FREQUENCY) 1 1

20 FREQUENCY 1 1

21 ANGULAR POSITIONING 1 22 CURRENT (LOW FREQUENCY) 1 23 RESISTANCE (DC) 1 24 CAPACITANCE 1 25 SPECTRAL TRANSMITTANCE

(OF LENS SYSTEMS)

1 0

2 6 TRANSMITTANCE AT SPECIFIC

WAVE LENGTHS

1 0 y

27 TRANSMITTANCE OF DIFFUSING

SCREENS

1 0

28 SPECTRAL TRANSMITTANCE 1 0

29 DIFFUSE REFLECTANCE 1 0 30 PRESSURE 1 0

100
Questions 1 & 7 (Continued)

REQUIRED

SANK PHYSICAL QUANTITY BEFORE JUNE 1966 AFTER JUNE 1966

31 VISCOSITY 1 0 32 SIZE AND QUANTITY OF DUST IN AIR 1 0 33 IMPULSE NOISE 1 0 34 NOISE (HIGH FREQUENCY) 1 0 35 PEAK VOLTAGE 1 0 36 RESISTANCE (LOW FREQUENCY) 1 0 37 PULSE VOLTAGE 1 0 38 IMMIT TAbtCE 1 0 39 PITCH DIAMETER 1 0 40 CURRENT RATIO 0 1 41 RADIATION EXPOSURE 0 1 42 OPTICAL RESOLUTION 0 1 43 RULED GRIDS 0 1 44 RELATIVE HUMIDITY 0 1 45 TEMPERATURE 0 1 46 RESISTANCE (HIGH FREQUENCY) 0 1 47 LIQUID FLOW 0 2 48 LINEAR ACCELERATION 0 1 49 VOLTAGE (DIRECT) 0 1 50 CURRENT (DIRECT) 0 1 51 RADIATION FLUX INTENSITY 0 1 52 EMISSIVITY 0 1 53 SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL 0 1 54 VOLTAGE (HIGH FREQUENCY) 0 1

101
Question 2 Question 3 Question 5

OVER WHAT RANGES?

WITHIN WHAT UNCERTAINTY? AT WHAT VALUES OF ASSOCIATED PARAMETERS?

Replies are given for only the quantities ranked 1 to 10. The higher uncertainty value would

apply to the limits of the range. The lower uncertainty would generally be for an improved

capability in the center of the range. The associated parameter, when given, would not apply to

the entire range.

QUANTITY RANGE UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED PARAMETER

RF POWER

VACUUM

LEAK RATE IMPULSE SPECTRAL INTENSITY

VIBRATION

VOLTAGE RATIO

REFLECTION COEFFICIENT

PHASE (LOW FREQUENCY)

VOLTAGE (LOW FREQUENCY)

INDUCTANCE

6 3 10" to 10 watt

1 to 10

-12

10" to 10

torr

9

100M to 10G Hz

10" 5 to 100 g

0 to 1 -

0 to 1 -

0 to 360 deg.

fS 3 10 to 10" volts

0.1 to 1 %

0.1 to 20%

cc/sec 1 to 57. 0.5 to 0.25 dB

1 to 2%

- 10 PPM

0.00005 to 17, 0.1 to 0.01 dej

- 0.005%

3M to 10G Hz

10 to 2000 henry 0.01 to 57.

0.001 to 2X10 Hz 50 to 500VF 0.1 to 100 KHz

2.6 to 50 GHz

400 to 10

5 Hz

5 to 5X10

4 Hz

9 0.1 to 10 Hz

Question 4: EQUIPMENT TO BE CALIBRATED?

Replies for quantities ranked 1 to 5

QUANTITY

RF POWER

VACUUM

LEAK RATE IMPULSE SPECTRAL INTENSITY

VIBRATION

ITEM

THERMISTOR MOUNT. NOT KNOWN. COAXIAL BOLOMETER MOUNT.

McLEOD, PIRANI, QUARTZ BOURDON GAUGES. BAYARD-ALPERT

GAUGES. IONIZATION GAUGES. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY GAUGES.

ALL MODELS OF IONIZATION GAUGES. ALL HIGH VACUUM EQUIPMENT.

HALOGEN LEAK STANDARD. LEAK BOTTLES. LEAK RATE STANDARD.

EMPIRE TYPES 1G-115, 1G-120, 1G-118, STODDART TYPE 91263-1,

POLARAD 1C-120.

ACCELEROMETER AND AMPLIFIER. SPACE VEHICLE ACCELERATION.

102
Question 6: NUMBER OF SIMILAR DEVICES NEEDING CALIBRATION?

Replies on quantities ranked 1 to 10

RANK QUANTITY FIRST YEAR THEREAFTER

PER YEAR

1 RF POWER 8 9

2 VACUUM 65 98

3 LEAK RATE 11 9 4 IMPULSE SPECTRAL INTENSITY 5 3

5 VIBRATION 5 4

6 VOLTAGE RATIO 3 3

7 REFLECTION COEFFICIENT 45 24

8 PHASE (LOW FREQUENCY) 7 3

9 VOLTAGE (LOW FREOIENCT) 1 0 10 INDUCTANCE 18 18

Question 9: WHY IS THIS SERVICE NEEDED?

Reasons reported most frequently; more than one reason often given.

TO PROVIDE A STANDARD; TO PROVIDE OR IMPROVE A CAPABILITY. 36

TO PROVIDE TRACEABILITY; TO SATISFY A CONTRACTURAL REQUIREMENT. 36

TO IMPROVE QUALITY AND RELIABILITY. 17

FORECAST REQUIREMENT. 14

TO OBTAIN CORRELATION BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONS. 12

TO INCREASE CONFIDENCE. 7 FOR SECONDARY STANDARD CALIBRATION. 6

TO REDUCE MANUFACTURING EXPENSE. 5 TO REDUCE COST OF STANDARDS CALIBRATION. 4

103
Question 10: WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC OR OTHER IMPACT IF THIS SERVICE

IS NOT AVAILABLE?

Total of all replies on 85 forms showing an entry.

50

25

10

5

Question 11: HAVE YOU TRIED TO OBTAIN THIS SERVICE

BY SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT?

All replies listed; those in ( ) referenced correspondence.

QUANTITY YES NO

RF POWER 2 (1) 4

VACUUM 3 (2) 2

LEAK RATE 4 (2) 0

IMPULSE SPECTRAL INTENSITY 2 (1) 0

VIBRATION 1 1 VOLTAGE RATIO 2 0

REFLECTION COEFFICIENT 2 4

PHASE (LOW FREQUENCY) 0 1 VOLTAGE (LOW FREQUENCY) 0 1 INDUCTANCE _JL _j2_

TOTAL ALL QUESTIONNAIRES 49 49

INTANGIBLE; UNKNOWN

TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION OR

UNCERTAINTY

CERTIFICATION MANDATORY

DEFINITE DOLLAR AMOUNT

104
NCSL 66

SESSION 8. PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT

R. M. Lady, Chairman

Lockheed-Georgia Company, Marietta, Ga.

Introduction

For those attending an NCSL Conference for the first time, it should be pointed out that the

Personnel Development Committee is primarily

interested in the evaluation, selection and training

of standards laboratory personnel. Some previous

activities and workshops stressed the "training"

portion of this interest, but the present project of

this committee is concerned with evaluation and

selection. This session has been divided into two

parts — the first half will deal with our present

project, and the second half will deal with customer

training programs by instrument manufacturers.

One of the items that has been discussed since

1962 has been the problem of not having enough

trained technicians and engineers, or not being

able to hire them. Quite a few people throughout

the organization indicated that they were having

this problem. However, since then at least two

educational institutions have endeavored to assist industry in fulfilling this need. The George Washington University in the District of Columbia now

offers a degree in Metrology at both the undergraduate and the graduate level. However, as indicated by the enrollment, interest has not been

very high. In regard to technicians, this committee

recently received a letter from the Steel Valley

Technical School in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania,

which secured around $100,000 under the Manpower and Training Act for training students as instrument technicians. They offer what appears

to be a fairly complete course of approximately

1400 hours in industrial instrumentation including

procedures, basic trouble shooting, safety, etc. They had 50 students graduate last January, and

I pass this along just as information. We are not endorsing any school, but merely letting you know

that there are organizations tyring to fill the gap

that we said existed several years ago. PART I -PANEL ON EVALUATION AND SELECTION TEST

R. M. Lady

We are going to discuss first an evaluation and

selection test that we have been working on for some time. We know that many of you probably

have the same problem —inherited personnel.

When your lab first started up, your people might

have been picked from inspection or production

departments and told to calibrate instruments at the Standards Lab. Once you had them, in some

companies at least you couldn't get rid of them, so

the only solution was to train them.

The question still exists as to how to determine

who needs what type of training or who would be a good prospect for employment. Our committee

has been attempting to develop some examination

or survey or questionnaire that could be used not only in hiring new people but also in evaluating

the people that you already have. What training

should they have? Do they have hidden characteristics and abilities that you know nothing of? This is a bigger problem than it appeared to the

committee when we first started work, and it's taking more time than expected. You'll hear more

about this a little later, and we will be soliciting

your help. Although this evaluation will help you

mostly in selecting new people, we believe it will also be an aid in determining whether they have

the right attitude as well as the basic knowledge.

N. T. Grisamore

George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Some of you may have picked up this little blurb

that was prepared rather hurriedly to give the

purpose and procedure on the evaluation and selection tests, and Mr. Lady has a few more that he's going to distribute. I think that there really are

two purposes assumed here —two uses of the

results. The first one would be — how do you select particular people for a particular job? Now I know

that everyone who has a responsibility for this does

it in a particular fashion. But how about getting

105
the collective knowledge of everybody who does

this? Secondly, once you select these people,

how do you know at what level they can perform?

They might be completely competent in a particular

job, but at what level of this type of work should

thev be placed?

I think that the first go-round of any questionnaire that we send out would have the primary

purpose of obtaining the collective knowledge and

experience of supervisory personnel in the evaluation of the employees. Now, let's use this term

evaluation a little guardedly; I don't want it to sound

as formal as it does. It means merely that you have some idea of how well a man performs in the job

he has. We're not asking you to determine the causes of why he performs well or poorly. Our

results will be sent back as a guideline for you to use in your selection and evaluation of employees.

There's no sense in merely collecting it and keeping

it hidden someplace. Our job here is to get the

information back to the individuals who can make

use of it. The questionnaire will not be devised

primarily to determine the method by which you

evaluate employees, but to help us in preparing a

test which will allow you to evaluate employees.

We hope to obtain the information which will first of all divide the laboratory employees into specific groups, as listed here. These groups may not be

the ultimate choice, but are the ones that I thought

would be a natural division. In this proposed draft the grouping is by job function and education. The

second purpose of the questionnaire is to define

the characteristics by which employees may be

evaluated, or selected for a particular type of job.

We are not going to try to determine what is a good

method, or a bad method. What we want is infor- mation on the method that you use. We can then

compile the results, get this information back to you, and let you decide whether it is a good method

or a bad method. With these two kinds of results

in hand, we must generate a test on more specific

topics. Again, let's guardedly use that word "test".

I know that a majority of you are going to run into problems as soon as somebody says "test". This questionnaire, whether it's the one you

have in hand or a modified version, will be sent to

all NCSL members. Some of these answers for one reason or another, or for particular laboratories,

might be unsuitable to broadcast, so we will make

every effort at keeping the answers anonymous, by

coding laboratories so that only the committee

knows the code. I would suggest that at the end

of our effort, the individual replies be sent back to the originating laboratories, and they can destroy

them. I think that most laboratories would feel better if the information was returned for their disposition. Later on, Mr. Lady will go over this questionnaire in detail to find out if you have any

suggestions or comments. The results from the

questionnaire will be collated and various employee

characteristics will be noted. Then a second questionnaire will be sent to the participants, in which

they will be asked to characterize their own employees, in specific types of jobs. In other words,

each laboratory will categorize their employees

against the characteristics that have been generated

from all the laboratories.

When the second questionnaire is returned, we

can correlate the answers and define or determine

what might be called universal characteristics for particular jobs. The universality might not be

100 percent, so use the term advisedly, but I would

hope that this information would serve as a guide in the selection of employees.

F. T. Kallet

General Precision Aerospace Corp., Little Falls, N.J. My activity at this session is to discuss the in- tended use and interpretation of the results of this

test. Since we haven't any results as yet, we can't

really discuss them, but we can tell you a little bit about what we are going to do with them. Once

the test is designed and accepted, it is our intent

to include it in the Recommended Practices Handbook for Standards Laboratories. We hope that

this can serve as an industry-wide guide for select- ing personnel for standards work. A secondary

purpose will be to assist educational institutions

in establishing their curricula. NCSL has regularly

advocated that formal training be made available

in our colleges and universities. Some schools

have responded to the call as already mentioned.

The burden is upon us all to assist those schools

who are interested in developing such programs.

By submitting the requirements of our testing pro- gram to those interested schools, perhaps we may

help motivate them to establish a curriculum. If nothing else, we will have made them aware of

industrial and government requirements in the field of standards and calibration.

Next, the testing program is to be itself tested. When the test is submitted to NCSL member

organizations, they will be asked to have their own

personnel take the test, and to submit the results (without names) to the Committee. From this, we

will be able to review the adequacy of the questions

asked in the various classifications. If after analysis, the results show the test to be too demanding or too simple, then it will be amended as ap- propriate to the knowledge presently available in industry. So you see that your inputs to the committee are essential in evaluating the preliminary

results and developing the final test. When the test is complete, we plan to distribute

it to NCSL members, and insert it in the Recommended Practices Handbook under Selection and

Training of Laboratory Personnel, so that it may be

used as a guide for individual companies. These

may change the details if they see fit to do so, to

106
satisfy their own needs. There are many details which have yet to be settled — such questions as: Will the test have the same requirements for per- sonnel servicing military and/or commerical products? To what degree will mechanical and electrical portions be separated? What weight to give each part of the test? Should provision be

made to prevent the test from getting wide distri- bution, to circumvent the few who may be dis- honest? How will the test be up-dated, as new

Now let's take a few minutes to look over the

rough draft of the preliminary questionnaire. We

are depending upon your comments at this time,

in order that we may revise it before we come up

with the final draft. Q: What was the name of the trade school that you mentioned?

A: The Steel Valley Technical School in West

Mifflin, Pennsylvania: if you'll see me after the session, I can give you a bit more information.

Q: I have one question on the psychological

attributes which a good calibration technician

should have. How much thought has been given

to this, and is it possible to test this with the questionnaire? Are you going to cover this in the draft you send out to the companies, to see what their

feeling is on this? A: This test will be a kind of cross between a pseudo-preference test and a knowledgeability

test, to see if we can determine the attributes and

characteristics of a good technician. Yes, sir, we are attempting to do this. Q: My feeling is that the average technician or engineer who works in a Standards Laboratory

must have some rapport with the equipment, but

I don't know any men like that at all. Apparently,

the knowledge and the attitude required should be

half technical and half artistic, if you want to use

that word. Did you say that your tests would in- clude a way of testing on attitude? A: This is correct. On this first preliminary

questionnaire we hope you folks will tell us what

particular clues you look for regarding attitude. What are these characteristics that you want to

and better techniques are developed? These

and other problems have prevented the Committee

from coming up immediately with a full testing

program. We are fortunate in having Dr. Grisa- more to assist us with the general techniques of

testing. As explained, you will be contacted on a number of occasions. The committee will be look- ing to the membership for direct assistance, and we

hope that you will respond enthusiastically to our correspondence.

R. M. Lady

know? There are standard ways of using vocational guidance tests to get this type of information,

using a number oi questions already made up. The profile of an individual is generated by his interest in mathematics, outdoor activities, science,

art, music composition, or what have you. Each

of these interests is arranged in a graph according to how the person answers the questions.

Individuals in particular occupations known to be

well suited to their jobs have been shown to have

particular profiles. We wouldn't have to generate

anything — if what we need is a vocational pref- erence test. There's only one difficulty that worries me about this psychological testing, and that

is that we should make sure that a psychologist is available to interpret the results. Q: To me it would seem rather difficult. I have

seen electronics engineers who are completely

enraptured with electronics in general, and yet in the standards lab they have no appreciation at

all for the equipment sitting on the bench. The

point is, I think a man should have a bit of reverence

for this equipment that is so well made. If he

hasn't and doesn't treat it accordingly, then I don't

want him around the lab. This is rather a difficult thing to test for and yet I think it is necessary. A: The committee has had some discussion on

this and has found that in some companies selection

includes a practical test: the applicant is given a

written procedure and the equipment and told to make a calibration. In some cases the procedure

is intentionally vague in order to induce questions,

and the type of question and handling of the equipment is considered by the person giving the test.

PART II — CUSTOMER TRAINING

The Need for Customer Training

Jack Woolridge

Ideal Aerosmith, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming

I'd like to change my topic to "The Need for Training". As a representative of a manufacturing

firm, I am naturally biased to one side of the picture,

but I do most certainly realize that there is need for education on both sides, both at present and in- creasingly so in the future. This need results from

the necessity of measuring more and more accurately. In fact, there is a definite relationship

between man's ability to measure accurately and

the advancement of our civilization. But the more

accurately a person attempts to measure, the more

complex becomes the problem of measuring, and

the more specialized must be the training and thinking required. This leads to specialization in some

107

256-114 0-67—

8
small area of the art; for instance, the measurement

of temperature, pressure, mass, length, humidity,

and so on. The need for finer and more accurate measurement creates the need for further specialization, perhaps even in a small range within the

categories mentioned.

Knowledge of precision measurement is developed

by years of intensive study in a relatively small

area! Manufacturers of precision measuring in- struments usually have such a background. Users

of instruments are interested primarily in the

results achieved, but not particularly interested in how they are achieved. This is where some of the

problems arise. It has become evident that the

results achieved by measuring instruments are no

better than the ability of the operator. In fact, an

operator in many instances must work with an in- strument for a long period of time, must study

operating techniques and the theory of operation,

and must evaluate the results before he can achieve

the desired accuracy. Users of precise measuring

devices often do not have the time to study, or to test and develop the necessary techniques. The

manufacturers of precision measuring instruments

live with these problems day after day, year in and

year out. To survive, they must attempt to develop

the required instruments and techniques.

Since our firm's work is in precise measuring,

actually using only two basic types of instruments,

mercurial manometers and one type of precision

tilt meter, you will have to forgive me for using for

illustrative purposes some examples of what we

encounter. Not too many years ago, there was very little need for customer training. Manometers which

were acceptable for general industrial use at that time required an accuracy from 0.025 to 0.050 of an inch of mercury per atmosphere. The instru- ment could simply be set up for operation and the

required readings taken. The next few years

required quite a number of refinements to gain the

required accuracy with such devices. A knowledge

of the basic concepts of manometry, as found in any good physics book, were definitely required.

If you wanted to achieve accuracies on the order

of 0.005 to 0.010 inch, you corrected for:

1. The density of mercury due to temperature

changes.

2. Expansion of the scale due to changes in temperature.

3. Variation of gravity due to elevation and

latitude.

4. Capillary depression.

At this time, the need for education became

apparent, for users of this type of instrument

began to have trouble. The most common sources

of error were:

1. Incorrect zeroing of the scale.

2. Poor vacuum above the mercury.

3. Dirty or contaminated mercury.

4. Improper correction for changes in temperature for scale and mercury.

5. Glassware not clean.

6. Misunderstanding of accessories used for correcting or compensating for temperature and

gravity.

7. Failure to level the instrument.

8. Failure to recognize the air head between the

manometer and the instrument tested.

9. Not correcting for capillary depression.

10. Neglecting to use scale or calibration corrections. At the present, manometers are available which

can give accuracies in the neighborhood of 0.0001

to 0.0003 inch of mercury per atmosphere. The

instruments are designed to eliminate the operator

error as far as possible. However, the results achieved with this type of instrument are very

dependent upon control of the environment, and

even more on the knowledge and technique of the

operator. Here, there is a definite need for cus- tomer education, and our approach is as follows:

1. The operation and maintenance manual

furnished with each instrument includes:

(a) Theory of the instrument.

(b) A list of 44 known uncertainties which

limit the performance of the instrument. This is affected by the state of the art in other areas of

measuring; the most important being gravity, temperature, and length. Other uncertainties result from the environment of the installation. These

uncertainties have always existed but the user did

not have to recognize them because they were an

insignificant part of the total error.

2. The initial set-up on the instrument is made by

a trained factory representative at the user's site. At the same time, a short course of instruction is given to the operators, calibrators and any other

personnel that the user wishes.

In addition, our company has two other ap- proaches. We offer to any interested user an

opportunity for a short familiarization and theory course at our home plant, scheduled to fit customer

requirements. Also, a 3 to 5-day course is offered

at the user's plant. These short courses do not turn out fully qualified operators. They do greatly

shorten the training period, and arouse interest

which leads to self-education and enthusiasm for the job at hand. They also aid a user in trouble- shooting, perhaps saving him many hours of down

time and several hundred dollars for a service call. Very seldom do we find an instrument not operating correctly. Erratic results can usually be traced

to environmental conditions or operator technique.

The factory servicemen have faith in what the

instrument tells them, and they look for trouble in odd places elsewhere, such as:

1. An air-conditioning unit blowing directly on

one side of the platform on which the instrument is mounted, causing it to contract enough to put the

instrument out of level.

108
2. Machinery or personnel creating vibration or

tilting the floor in an adjacent room.

3. The sun shining on one side of the building,

the other side being in the shade, which caused a very perceptible tilt in the floor or platform.

4. Failure to recognize the heat of compression

of mercury and mistaking it for a leak in the system

or instability of the instrument.

These are just a few of the possible troubles which

when recognized can be corrected by improving the

installation or applying a mathematical formula.

Pressure measurement and calibration are only

a small portion of the work being done in standards

laboratories. The tolerances in other areas of

measurement are becoming increasingly tight, and

uncertainties which were overlooked because of

their insignificance, become increasingly important.

Specialists who devote their time and thought to these areas must be consulted. There is a definite need for training. Its benefits can be measured in lowered costs and in better performance.

A Teacher Training Program

Loebe Julie

Julie Research Laboratories, Inc.

I have ten pages of material, prepared some time

ago, on a program for education and teacher train- ing in precision measurements. However, I will restrict myself to the time that's available by going

through the highlights only. I do have a few copies

with me which I'd be glad to give to any of you who

are interested. I'm sure that you are aware of the serious need

for a training and education program. We already

have personnel, and the problem is what to do next. Perhaps because I'm more of an engineer than an

educator, my own definitions for education and

in-plant training are very much the same: an at- tempt to provide efficient transmission and reception of useful information. In the twelfth year of

my company's history, we're trying to train operators, people who will service equipment, and people

who will perhaps design software. I find that it is

first necessary to learn things for ourselves. In the last three years there have been something like 800 people in various lecture-demonstration seminars and something like 800 people in teaching lecture-laboratory courses on D-C instru- mentation. The most effective training was in the

32-day lecture workshops, because the people were exposed to both the software, the design

theory, procedures and techniques — and to the

hardware — manipulating apparatus with reverence,

taking data, and struggling to get scientifically valid answers. The gap in DC measurement that we recognized

in 1953 still exists. As a result, a new program

was formulated. I describe it as a companyoriented precision measurement education and

training program. Precision measurements are now to be found not only in the Standards Laboratory itself, but in calibration echelons, inspection

echelons, and in manufacturing research and de- velopment activities. The gist of the proposed

program is to expand the Standards Laboratory's

mission to include the responsibility of teaching

precision methods and techniques throughout the

entire company. The extra work is more than

compensated for by the extra importance and extra

prestige accruing to the Standards Lab. If you

take on the job of educating other personnel throughout the company, I think you can justify a larger

budget for your own teaching program.

The program is intended to be a very practical one as opposed to a thoroughly academic one. Only those calibrations that are old hat in the

Standards Laboratory would be taught at first, and certainly what ever calibrations are done out- side the Standards Laboratory would be under

Standards Laboratory supervision. Copies of

calibration reports, data sheets, and certifications would be under the cognizance of the Standards

Laboratory, and there would be periodic inspection

audits made by Standards Laboratory personnel.

A final feature of the company-oriented training

program is the feedback, which provides that the

departments involved periodically review the cur- riculum and evaluate course results. We are now

talking about a figure of merit: calibrations per unit

time as a function of the training effort and expense

that is being devoted. In such a program, the

Standards Laboratory personnel have their finger on all the calibration work being done. Thus we

get traceability through an educational hierarchy,

instead of through a standards hierarchy. There

are some companies throughout the country that already function in the way I've described. However, there is no formal program to implement such

a plan, and the purpose of writing it up is to see whether other companies will take advantage of

this approach.

The teacher training program becomes logically

necessary when we decide that the Standards Laboratories will undertake precision measurement

training and education within the company. The

obvious question is, how is the Standards Laboratory going to start teaching such a program. This now requires teaching teachers. I have an outline

of the teacher training course, designed to cover

the problems that the student teachers will have

to cover. We are not trying to award degrees; we

are trying to improve a company's calibration output. It is an attempt to examine the modern applications of precision measurements, but not everyone should get the same level of instruction.

The most elementary material would be offered

to the operators of the instruments, perhaps at a 109
more advanced level of work to those who maintain the equipment. At a still higher level are the

designers of hardware, and the designers of soft- ware, the procedures for calibrating, and finally

the teachers in the training program. Our own

teaching program was developed because, having

fabricated a new tool, it became necessary to teach

people to use it. You should concentrate on modern tools -not light beam galvanometers, but

electronic null detectors, counters, and oscillo- scopes. As to method, the emphasis on both theory

and experiment is extremely important. The best

potential teacher is normally a senior Standards

Laboratory man, but he must have the ability to communicate. You have to motivate him, perhaps

by financial rewards, status in management hier- archy, gratification in becoming associated with

the job, the desire for self-improvement, or a better

professional image.

To sum up, such a teacher training program and

a company-oriented precision measurement pro- gram could achieve higher calibration accuracy,

quality, and traceability. It could permit more

efficient use of personnel, because the Standards

Laboratory could delegate routine calibrations to other people. It could reduce down-time delay

in calibration and standards. It could perhaps

repair the breach that sometimes exists between

the Standards Laboratory and other departments.

Most importantly, it could give the Standards

Laboratory its rightful role as a leader within the

company, deserving both financial and moral support of management.

Training Services on Industrial Instruments

William Reynolds

Director of Training, Industrial Division of Honeywell, Inc., Fort Washington, Pa.

It would be unfair not to point out that most of

the training services offered by Honeywell are also offered by other instrument companies, such as Leeds and Northup, Foxboro, Taylor, Bristol, and

most of the other larger instrument manufacturers.

However, I am here to tell you about the Honeywell training services. The industrial Division

(many of you will remember it as the Brown In- strument Company) gave formal training courses

to customer personnel as early as 1935. The idea

proved beneficial, both to them and to us. Last summer our Industrial Division moved to the outskirts of Philadelphia to a new plant which houses

the new Education Center. This facility comprises

six classrooms capable of handling up to 130 stu- dents, a modern process-instrument laboratory

for up to 65 students, and a smaller lab complete

with its own real-time process computer and

peripheral equipment. An inventory of $400,000

worth of instruments and testing equipment and

tools permits each student to have his own instru- ment to work on in the lab. We have 16 full-time instructors; in their 125 years of teaching experi- ence they have trained over 12,000 people.

Our most popular courses are those on "Instru- ment Service and Maintenance." Four courses

that differ somewhat in the scope of material cov- ered are offered two or three times a year. Each

class is made up of several different sections and

students may register for any or all of the sections,

depending upon their needs and interests, although

all include two weeks of potentiometer training.

The program is about equally divided between

classroom lectures, demonstrations, and laboratory bench work. Liberal use is made of visual

aids such as slides, films, diagrams and models.

Students are encouraged to participate in class discussions. They are supplied with pertinent

printed matter such as catalogs, service manuals,

instruction books, conversion tables, etc. Bench work consists of putting Honeywell

equipment in operation, observing response and

performance, and then completely disassembling it. Reassembly, adjustment, and calibration, and

trouble shooting complete the exercise. This

work is conducted under the close supervision of competent instructors, about one instructor for

five students. There are no fees or charges of

any kind.

A second course is entitled "Fundamentals of

Instrumentation." It is a two-week class for men

with little or no instrumentation experience in measurement and control, or for those who may

wish a review of basic principles of operation and

application. It covers basic measurements and

primary elements; receivers and transmitters in the form of non-indicating, indicating and/or recording instruments; pneumatic and electric controls; and final control elements (valves). Since this is a general course, we charge a fee of $150.

A third course is "Introduction to Process Control Dynamics" -an intensive one-week program

for experienced instrumentation and systems engineers. The aim is to teach non-mathematical

techniques of evaluating process dynamics for the

purpose of applying automatic control. Both

transient-response and frequency-response methods

are studied, including procedures for combining

the frequency response characteristics of the

modes of control with those of the process, to obtain

optimum control performance. Graphical tech- niques of studying both the open and the closed

loop behaviour of systems are employed.

Another course is "Computer Maintenance,

a 12-week session on real-time computers, given

several times a year for the past three years.

110
Regular courses in computer programming are also given to customers who have purchased our process

computers.

In all, we are now training up to 1.000 customers' men each year for a total of 1,500 man-weeks at the Industrial Division Education Center. A point

which should be of interest is that the effectiveness

of instrument technicians is so improved by attend- ance at these courses that customers have esti- mated that the productivity of their men is in- creased three times — certainly a worthwhile result. We can believe this because our own field service

representatives are five times more effective than

the average customer's technician. In the Aeronautical Division, a school has been

in operation since 1941, offering training to 1) Air

Force, Navy, Army, FAA, NASA: 2) All major air- frame companies, e.g., Boeing, Lockheed, North

American. Douglas, etc.: 3) other aircraft manufacturers and dealers, both domestic and foreign,

e.g., Beech, Piper, Aero Commander, Cessna,

DeHavilland; and 4) all major domestic and foreign

airlines. The course aims to meet engineering and technical training requirements on a systems and/or

component level —including operation, maintenance, system interfacing, and overhaul/repair

procedures. Laboratory-lecture/lab facilities are integrated with the classroom area. These in- clude built-in power sources (400 cycle, 28 VDC,

etc.), pneumatic sources, system operating mockups and demonstrators, and such training aids as

color transparencies, charts, and projectors. Approximately 1,100 engineers and technicians are

trained per year by a staff of 12, including on-site

resident instructors.

Most of the Aero Division's major customers,

including the military, require that we provide

adequate factory training in support of our products.

This is usually scheduled under contract. The

costs include course preparation, training aids,

training equipment (where specified) and course

instruction. Classes vary in length from one to forty days, depending on complexity of the system

being covered and the type of training required

(familiarization, field maintenance, detailed mechanization, or overhaul). Both the Aero Division and

its customers benefit directly from these special

training programs. It is difficult to visualize how

our equipment would fare in the hands of our aero- space customers without well-planned courses of instruction for their engineers and key technical

personnel. On the other hand, where our products

are installed, tested, and operated by competent,

skilled personnel, we expect that our equipment will perform to its design capability.

Our Test Instrument Division in Denver provides

customer training courses on request for users of

Honeywell recording oscillographs, magnetic tape

systems, and such precision laboratory instruments

as resistance bridges and potentiometers.

The Honeywell EDP Division in Wellesley, Massachusetts provides extensive training on computers

which process accounting data, as contrasted with

the real-time industrial computers mentioned above.

EDP has a staff of 30 instructors in Wellesley and

in its education center in Los Angeles. This staff will grow to 50 by 1967. Additionally, 80 field- based instructors devote full time to training custo- mers, as part of our support capability offered to users at no cost.

Installation of Attenuator Calibrators

Gunther U. Sorger

Director of Research, Weinschel Engineering, Gaithersburg, Maryland

If one talks about a standard at microwave fre- quencies, one has to describe with it a standard

technique which is used to compare an unknown

device, such as an attenuator, with that standard.

Therefore, when our company offered an attenuator

calibrator (VM—1) to standards laboratories to be

used as a primary standard, we felt that it was

necessary to describe a suitable technique, and to instruct the customer's personnel in the use of

the equipment. Accordingly, we offered to pur- chasers as an option a training course of one week

to train people to the point where they acquire

confidence in the equipment. In addition, summer

courses were given at GWU and UCLA.

An initial letter to the organization provided a

layout of the installation and training course, and

advised them what equipment they should have on

hand. It also asked the nature of their specific

measurement problems and a roster of the professional backgrounds of the technicians, engineers

and supervisors who expected to attend the course.

Introductory material included slides showing

block diagrams of the equipment, photographs of

certain wave shapes, and a history of the instru- ment's development. In demonstrations, use was made of those frequencies, ranges, and transmission

lines where measurements could be made accurately

and effects could be shown impressively.

First day: Set up equipment; simple tests, like d-c measurements on mixers, continuity, insulation,

proper indication for frequency locking, checking

by symptoms at oscillation of phase to show wrong

AFF.

Second day: Review of systems for attenuation

measurements, frequency range, attenuation range,

error analysis, ease of operation. Detailed description of parallel type IF substitution technique:

mixer linearity, accuracy of waveguide-belowcutoff attenuator, error due to noise, erroneous

signals, non-sufficient frequency locking, change

in band center frequency of IF amplifier, RF leakage

(X-band waveguide). Demonstrate these errors on

111
actual set-up (overloading on mixer: crystal current change; non-linearity of piston attenuator, dropout

of AFF; tuning of first IF stage to tune out IF reac- tance of mixer output. Difference in RF leakage

between open flap coarse attenuator in X-band

waveguide and rotary vane attenuator. Error due

to signal frequency shift because RF input imped- ance into mixer to sharply tuned).

Applications of equipment other than attenuation

measurements. General power ratio measurements. Measurement of reflection coefficient

amount, measurement of directivity of directional

couplers. Microwave filter response. Microwave

multiplexer, side lobes of antenna measurements.

Third day: Demonstration of very accurate inser- tion loss measurement: tuning of generator output

impedance and the load input impedance. Actual

demonstration of mismatch uncertainty: Match

load perfect, put slide screw tuner in front. Tune

out for certain VSWR. Change position of probe,

but not depth. VSWR stays same, but reflection

coefficient angle changes. Match out generator: no change. Mismatch generator: show change and

compare with calculations; calibrate item prepared

by organization.

Fourth day: Change set-up for all frequencies

for which equipment is intended and for which

sources and mixers were bought. Verify specs

(conversion loss, linearity, etc.). Perform per- formance test method on complete assembly according to instruction manual (use attenuator calibrated

by NBS, measure at different power levels, show

deviation of measured from nominal value).

Fifth day: Perform measurements suggested by

organization: e.g., calibration of signal generator

output attenuator. Calibration of 30 MHz substi- tution attenuator. Use of VM-1 as stable 30 MHz

source with good output attenuator to calibrate

another 30 MHz receiver. Comparison measure- ments using different systems: actual power measurements, audio substitution measurements.

112
NCSL 66

SESSION 9: TRACEABILITY AND ACCURACY RATIOS

Harvey W. Lance, Chairman

NBS Radio Standards Laboratory, Boulder, Colo. 80302

The concepts of traceability and accuracy ratio and the government contractual regulations per- taining to these subjects continue to be sources of confusion. In this session these topics will be

discussed by a speaker from industry, one from DOD, and one from NASA. Then the speakers and

additional representatives of government and industry will convene for a panel discussion. Our standards and calibration laboratories exist to make possible the measurement accuracy re- quired on the production line, etc. "Traceability" implies that all such measurements are made in terms of the national standards, and that the uncertainty in these measurements is known and is adequate. The measurement accuracy in any echelon must be sufficient to pass the required accuracy

to the next lower echelon, and there are means of determining the prevailing accuracy. One then may

take the accuracy in two different echelons and form a ratio, but this ratio is not fundamental.

Introductory Remarks

This session grew out of discussions last summer

when representatives of the U.S. Air Force, NASA,

and NBS visited several of the large aerospace

companies. At that time the concepts of traceability and accuracy ratio and the government contractual regulations pertaining to these subjects were found to be sources of confusion, and it was

suggested that I inquire whether these subjects were of general concern in the aerospace industry.

If so, it was felt that they should be discussed at this Conference. The almost universal answer to my inquiries was, "Yes, the problems are widespread and they should be discussed at the Conference." That is why we are here today.

The exact title of the session, "U.S. Government

Policy for Traceability and Calibration Echelon

Ration," was chosen by someone else — by the Pro- gram Chairman, I believe. I have interpreted the

title to include not only statements of policy from

government agencies but also statements from

industry. Indeed, I have scheduled the industry

representative as the first speaker. After the three

scheduled speakers have been heard, they and five additional representatives of government and in- dustry will convene as a panel for further discussion.

Before introducing the first speaker, I would like

to offer the following thoughts as a background for the points to be made during the session.

The size of our "measurements community" is now large. It encompasses the entire nation and,

indeed, extends into the international realm.

Measurement agreement, uniformity, and compatibility must be achieved throughout this community. They can be achieved in principle by

reference to commonly accepted prototypes (for

example, to the standards of mass, length, and time).

These may be based on a large aggregate of matter,

as in the case of the standard kilogram, or on atomic

constants as in the case of length and time.

It is obvious that when a single prototype like Kilogram No. 20 serves as the national standard,

compatibility can be achieved only by a series of

measurements originating in a comparison with the

standard kilogram and extending to every grocery

store, every production fine, every launching site. For standards based on atomic processes, in principle anyone can establish his own standards

without reference to a central standards laboratory,

since atomic processes are invariant with time and

location (provided, of course, that environmental

factors such as magnetic fields are absent or are

controlled). However, the realization of a meter or

a second in terms of atomic constants is an experimental process — a measurement process involving

complicated instrumentation and people. Measurement disagreements arise and errors occur even with the best of instrumentation and the best

of measurement personnel. For example, the sec- onds derived from the cesium atom by various top- level laboratories are not all equal. Even if there were no technical problems in deriving such standards independently in each standards laboratory,

the cost of doing so would be prohibitive. Thus,

although an increasing number of practical standards will be based directly on atomic constants,

the economic necessity will remain of obtaining

most standards at most echelons from a central source, through a suitable measurement chain.

The fundamental reason for the existence of a

national standards laboratory and for the other

high- and intermediate-level laboratories in gov- ernment and industry is to achieve the accuracy

required on the production fine, at the launching

site, in the research laboratory, etc. When we make

113
a measurement we wish, for example, to be able to

find the length of a certain part in terms of the

national standard of length and to know that the

uncertainty in our measurement result is within

specific limits. The purpose of our whole system

of standards and calibration laboratories, and

presumably the goal of "traceability," is simply

to enable us to make such statements. Let me comment further on the word "traceability." Some of my colleagues at NBS and else- where did not like the work when it was first coined.

To me, however, the phrase "traceability to NBS"

is a good and meaningful phrase. It implies that the user of the phrase recognizes the National

Bureau of Standards as the source of the highest

level of measurement accuracy available in the

country (or at least as the source from which such

accuracy should be available). It also implies, as

I noted above, that all measurements on the pro- duction line are to be made in terms of the national

standards and that the uncertainty in these meas- urements is to be known and is to be within ac- ceptable limits.

I am concerned, however, because most of the

discussions I have heard on the subject have dealt primarily with the mechanics of traceability and

too little with the measurement accuracy being

achieved.

In a press notice announcing the establishment

of a British Calibration Service (dated 25th April,

1966), the following definition appears, which is pertinent to this discussion:

"Traceability to national standards means:

(a) that each standard used for calibration pur- poses has itself been calibrated against a standard

of higher quality up to the level at which the higher

quality instrument is the national standard itself.

(b) that the frequency of such calibration, which

is dependent on the type, quality, stability, use and

environment of the lower quality standards, is such

as to establish reasonable confidence that between

successive calibrations it will not move outside

the limits of its specification.

(c) that the calibration of any instrument against a standard is valid in exact terms only at the time

of calibration and its performance thereafter must

be inferred from a knowledge of the factors mentioned in (b) above."

Having stated that a fundamental purpose of our measurement system is to achieve the required

measurement accuracy on the production line or in the field, and having recognized that a hierarchy of standards laboratories or measurement echelons is necessary to achieve this, I now would like to com- ment on the accuracy required at the various

echelons. The only requirement in any echelon is that its accuracy must be sufficient to permit it to pass the required accuracy to the next lower echelon. We must allow for some loss of accuracy in going from one echelon to the next lower one, but

this loss can be kept very small (if we are willing

to pay the cost). How can we show that the accuracy of the echelons is adequate? A suitable way is to have a higher

echelon, say, two echelons removed from the pro- duction line, measure the product on a sampling

basis. If the product is within tolerances, then the

echelon calibrates the production test equipment

has adequate accuracy. This process can be ex- tended to check the accuracy of other echelons.

Round-robin interlaboratory comparisons can be

used when different geographical locations are involved. When suitable national standards are not available, round-robins still can be used to find out the extent of measurement agreement and to improve it. The important point is that the accuracy of each

echelon must be sufficient, and there are means of

determining that it is sufficient. Having established

that the accuracy in each echelon is adequate, one may then take the prevailing accuracy in two dif- ferent echelons and form a ratio. But this ratio is an auxiliary concept and not a fundamental one.

114
CURRENT DOD POLICIES AND PROBLEMS IN CALIBRATION

John J. Riordan and Charles J. Brzezinski

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics)

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to review overall Department of Defense policies pertaining to cali- bration requirements in procurement contracts,

with particular reference to the problems of traceability and calibration accuracy ratios. Accurate measurement and test equipment are

essential elements of programs aimed at assuring

product quality. Accordingly, provisions with

respect to the accuracy of measuring and test equipment have been included in quality program re- quirements for material and services procured by

the Department of Defense. Inasmuch as these

provisions are based on what is commonly called

the "contractor responsibility" concept, it may

be well, at the outset, to sketch the essentials of

this concept.

2. The Supplier Responsibility

Concept

The following statements collectively constitute

the substance and logic of the contractor responsibility concept:

1. The quality of manufactured products is de- pendent primarily on the effectiveness of the manufacturer's control over fabrication, inspection,

and testing operations.

2. As a derivative of 1 above, manufacturers are responsible for instituting such controls of quality

as are necessary to insure that manufactured products conform to consumer's quality requirements.

Equally important, manufacturers are obligated to substantiate the quality of their product by objective, verifiable evidence.

3. As a derivative of 2 above, a producer ordi- narily sells to a consumer not only supplies and

services, but also proof that the product offered to the consumer was properly fabricated and tested.

4. Consumers usually cannot protect themselves

against defective products except when those products are of relatively simple design (e.g., paper

products). The reason for this is that many, if not most, characteristics of products cannot be

measured and assessed at the point of purchase and

at the moment of delivery. This is particularly true

of products whose prime characteristic pertains to

life and reliability. For example, the performance

of a television set or an aircraft engine can be determined only by the passage of time or by simulated life and reliability tests.

5. The consumer is obligated to define clearly

his quality requirements. Further, he must communicate these requirements in writing to the

producer. These requirements are of two kinds:

(1) those that pertain to the product itself and (2) those that pertain to the production environment.

Thus two types specifications must be prepared by

the consumer: (1) product specifications — documents that specify particular characteristics to which the product must conform (e.g., hardness)

and the inspection and testing procedures, including sampling plans, by which such conformance

is measured; and (2) systems specifications — documents which identify certain environmental pre- requisites (e.g., adequate calibration capability)

pertaining to inspection, testing, and the control

of quality.

6. As a derivative of 5 above, it is incumbent

on the consumer to exercise surveillance over the

producer's controls, inspection, and testing in order

to assure himself that the producer has, in fact,

maintained effective controls in accordance with

his contractural commitment. The amount (or

severity) of consumer surveillance is appropriately a mathematical function of the effectiveness

of the producer's controls and of the demonstrated

quality and reliability of the producer's products.

Minimum surveillance is adequate when a producer

is demonstrably reliable.

3. Contract Calibration Requirements

The above described concepts are expressed in numerous documents with which the DoD has implemented the supplier responsibility approach to the problem of assuring the quality of purchased

supplies. One example is the following statement

which has been added to the quality assurance

provisions of all material specifications:

"Responsibility for Inspection: Unless other- wise specified in the contract or purchase order,

the supplier is responsible for the performance of

all inspection requirements as specified herein.

Except as otherwise specified, the supplier may

utilize his own facilities or any commercial lab- oratory acceptable to the Government. The Gov115
ernment reserves the right to perform any of the

inspections set forth in the specification where

such inspections are deemed necessary to assure

supplies and services conform to prescribed

requirements."

There is no direct reference to calibration in the above quoted specification provision. It per- mits the supplier to use his own facilities or any

commerical laboratory provided these facilities are acceptable to the Government. For these facil- ities to be acceptable, some provision must be made

for assuring the accuracy of measuring and test equipment used for performing the specified in- spections.

The standard inspection clause in contracts does not include any direct reference to calibration

requirements. Like the above quoted specification provision on responsibility for inspection, the

following statements in standard inspection clauses

invoke, indirectly, the requirement on the contractor

to calibrate his measuring and test equipment:

1. If any inspection or test is made by the Government on the premises of the contractor or a subcontractor, the contractor without additional

charge shall provide reasonable facilities and assist- ance for the safety and convenience of the Government inspectors in the performance of their duties.

2. The contractor shall provide and maintain an inspection system acceptable to the Government

covering the supplies hereunder.

4. Quality Program Calibration

Requirements

As previously indicated, the consumer is obli- gated to define clearly his quality requirements

pertaining to such environmental prerequisites as

control of the accuracy of measuring and testing

equipment. Specific requirements pertaining to calibration were first established by the DoD in specification MIL-Q-9858, "Quality Program

Requirements." 1 This specification identifies quality program requirements in terms of objectives.

Among these requirements are the following controls pertaining to calibration:

Measuring and Testing Equipment. The contractor shall provide and maintain gages and other

measuring and testing devices necessary to assure

that supplies conform to technical requirements.

These devices shall be calibrated against certified measurement standards which have known valid

relationships to national standards at established

periods to assure continued accuracy. The objective is to assure that inspection and test equipment

is adjusted, replaced or repaired before it becomes

inaccurate. The calibration of measuring and

testing equipment shall be in conformity with mil- itary specification MIL-C-45662.2 In addition,

the contractor shall insure the use of only such

subcontractor and vendor sources that depend

upon calibration systems which effectively control

the accuracy of measuring and testing equipment.

Production Tooling Used as Media of Inspection.

When production jigs, fixtures, tooling masters,

templates, patterns and such other devices are used as media of inspection, they shall be proved

for accuracy prior to release for use. These devices

shall be proved again for accuracy at intervals for- mally established in a manner to cause their timely

adjustment, replacement or repair prior to becoming

inaccurate.

Use of Contractor's Inspection Equipment. The

contractor's gages, measuring and testing devices

shall be made available for use by the Government

when required to determine conformance with contract requirements. If conditions warrant, contractor's personnel shall be made available for operation of such devices and for verification of their accuracy and conditions.

Advanced Metrology Requirements. The quality

program shall include timely identification and re- port to the Contracting Officer of any precision

measurement need exceeding the known state of

the art. Control of the accuracy of measuring and testing

equipment is such an important element of the contractor's quality program that the Department of

Defense has considered it advisable to explain in greater detail that part of the above quoted requirement pertaining specifically to calibration. This

additional detail has been provided in a separate

specification, MIL-C-45662, Calibration System

Requirements, which by reference is a part of

MIL-Q-9858.

By referencing specification MIL-Q-9858 in contracts, the Department of Defense specifies

clear and explicit requirements on contractors

to establish calibration systems in accordance with

MIL-C-45662. The requirements of MIL-Q-9858

are made a part of a contract by adding the follow- ing contract clause, as required by the Armed

Services Procurement Regulation, to the standard

inspection clause: "The Contractor shall provide

and maintain a quality program acceptable to the

Government for supplies and services covered by

this contract. The quality program shall be in accordance with Military Specification MIL-Q9858A."

5. Inspection System Calibration

Requirements

Not all items purchased by the DoD are so complex as to warrant a requirement on the contractor

to establish and maintain a quality program con- forming to all requirements in MIL-Q-9858. For

these items it may be sufficient, from the standpoint

of quality assurance, to invoke the requirements of

specification MIL-I-45208,3 Inspection System

Requirements. With respect to calibration, however, the requirement in MIL-I-45208 is similar

116
to the requirement in MIL-Q-9858, as indicated

in the following provision:

Measuring and Test Equipment. The contractor

shall provide and maintain gages and other measuring and testing devices necessary to assure that supplies conform to the technical requirements. In order to assure continued accuracy, these devices

shall be calibrated at established intervals against

certified standards which have known valid relation- ships to national standards. If production tooling

such as jigs, fixtures, templates, and patterns is used as a media of inspection, such devices shall also be proved for accuracy at established intervals. Calibration of inspection equipment shall be in accordance with MIL-C-45662. When required,

the contractor's measuring and testing equipment

shall be made available for use by the Government

Representative to determine conformance of product with contract requirements. In addition, if conditions warrant, contractor's personnel shall be made available for operation of such devices and

for verification of their accuracy and condition.

Like MIL-Q-9858, MIL-I-45208 is made applicable to contracts by adding the following clause

to the standard inspection clause: "The inspection

system shall be in accordance with Military Specification MIL-I-45208."

MIL-Q-9858, MIL-I-45208, and MIL-C-45662

express requirements that apply to a wide variety

of conditions. Understandably, these requirements are not expressed in terms of detailed operating procedures. Quality programs must generally

be tailored to contractors' plants, processes, and

products. Thus the quality program requirements

of MIL—Q-9858A are stated as objectives. This

is also true with respect to calibration systems.

A given gage, for example, may be subject either

to occasional or to continuous intensive use. Thus

the only practical requirement the consumer can

specify is one that provides for the gage to be cali- brated frequently enough to assure that it is accurate each time it is used.

6. Calibration System Requirements

The requirements in MIL-C-45662 are, like MIL-Q-9858A, expressed in terms of objectives

because these requirements apply to a wide variety

of measurements involving numerous accuracy

levels. These requirements specify that the

accuracy of a measuring or testing device used for inspection must be derived from a comparison to some basic standard — namely, a standard established by the National Bureau of Standards. In accordance with the supplier responsibility concept

these requirements are incumbent on the contractor. The provision of MIL-C-45662 pertaining to cal- ibration intervals is a good example of a requirement

stated as an objective: Intervals of calibration. Measuring and test equipment and measurement standards shall be

calibrated at periodic intervals established on the

basis of stability, purpose, and degree of usage.

Intervals shall be shortened as required to assure continued accuracy as evidence by the results of

preceding calibrations and may be lengthened

only when the results of previous calibrations pro- vide definite indications that such action will not adversely affect the accuracy of the system.

The above quoted provision clearly specifies the

required calibration interval without specifying the

length of time between calibrations. It specifies

the calibration interval in terms of those factors

that must be taken into consideration in selecting a suitable time interval. A similar approach is quite practical for specifying accuracy require- ments.

7. Traceability and Accuracy Ratios

As defined in MIL-C-45662, calibration is a comparison of a measurement standard or instrument

of known accuracy with another standard or instru- ment to detect, correlate, report, or eliminate by

adjustment, any variation in the accuracy of the

item being compared. The measurement standard

or instrument is to be "calibrated" against certified measurement standards which have known valid

relationships to national standards. This valid

relationship may be through a series of standards

such as the following, which are defined in MILC-45662:

Measurement standard {reference). Standards

of the highest accuracy order in a calibration system

which establish the basic accuracy values for that system.

Measurement standard (transfer). Designated

measuring equipment used in a calibration system

as a medium for transferring the basic value of

reference standards to lower echelon transfer standards or measuring and test equipment.

Interim standard. An instrument used as a standard until an authorized standard is established.

It is obvious that two instruments with known

valid relationships to a national standard need not be equally accurate. Where the measurement to be made does not involve a high degree of accuracy

there can be several calibration echelons between

the measuring equipment and the national standard. But where the same measurement must be

made with the highest obtainable accuracy, the next calibration echelon for the measuring equipment may have to be at the national standard level. There is no simple approach, then, to the problem

of specifying either the number of calibration echelons or the accuracy ratios between echelons.

Where a consumer purchases a great diversity of

materiel involving a wide variety of measurements

and measurement accuracy requirements, it is impractical to specify either the number of cali- bration echelons that must be used or the accuracy

117
ratio that can be tolerated between calibration

echelons. Accordingly, the Department of Defense

does not specify an accuracy ratio between calibration echelons and does not prescribe the steps by

which "traceability" to a national standard is to be

accomplished. The requirement pertaining to calibration echelons, ratios, and traceability is specified in MIL-C-45662 as follows: Domestic contracts. Measuring and test equipment shall be calibrated by the contractor or a commercial facility utilizing reference standards (or interim standards) whose calibration is certified as being traceable to the National Bureau of Standards, has been derived from accepted values of

natural physical constants, or has been derived by

the ratio type of self-calibration techniques. Ref- erence standards requiring calibration by a higher

level standards laboratory shall be calibrated by a commercial facility capable of providing the re- quired service, a Government Laboratory under

arrangements made by the Contracting Officer, or by the National Bureau of Standards. All refer- ence standards used in the calibration system shall be supported by certificates, reports, or data sheets

attesting to the date, accuracy, and conditions under

which the results furnished were obtained. All subordinate standards and measuring and test equipment shall be supported by like data when

such information is essential to achieving the ac- curacy control required by this specification. In those cases where no data are required, a suitably

annotated calibration label on the item shall be

sufficient to satisfy the support data requirements

of this paragraph. Certificates or reports from

other than the National Bureau of Standards or a Government Laboratory shall attest to the fact that the Standards used in obtaining the results have

been compared at planned intervals with the National Standard either directly or through a controlled system utilizing the methods outlined above.

The contractor shall be responsible for assuring

that the sources providing calibration services,

other than the National Bureau of Standards or a Government Laboratory, are in fact capable of

performing the required service to the satisfaction

of this specification. All certificates and reports

shall be available for inspection by authorized Government representatives.

Foreign contracts. The provisions in 3.2.5.1. shall apply with the exception that the National

Standards Laboratories of countries whose standards are compared with International or U.S. National Standards may be utilized in lieu of the U.S.

National Bureau of Standards.

8. Conclusion

Traceability and calibration echelon accuracy

ratios are elements of a broader problem, namely,

the need for more precise delineation of the respective calibration responsibilities of Government

and industry. Within Government there is also a need for more precise delineation of the roles of

Government agencies in their relations to each

other, particularly the relationship of the National

Bureau of Standards to the Department of Defense.

Requirements pertaining to traceability and cali- bration echelon accuracy ratios are not specifically

covered by Department of Defense policy state- ments or specifications. Such requirements, however, are broadly included in systems specifications

and are ordinarily expressed as objectives rather

than step-by-step procedures.

9. References

(1) MIL-Q-9858A, "Quality Program Requirements," December 16, 1963.

(2) MIL-C-45662A, "Calibration System Requirements," 9 February 1962.

(3) MIL-I-45208A, "Inspection System Requirements," December 16, 1963.

118
NASA CALIBRATION PRACTICES

John E. Condon

Director, Reliability and Quality Assurance, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

NASA policy requires contractors and suppliers

to have and maintain a system for controlling test and inspection equipment in a manner to ensure

that all accepted article parameters are within

specified tolerances. Traceabihty to national

standards is an integral part of this system requirement which is similar to that required by DoD agencies. Both of NASA's quality documents, NPC

200-2, Quality Program Provisions for Space

System Contractors and NPC 200—3, Inspection

System Provisions for Suppliers of Space Materials,

Parts, Components, ana

1 Services require that

". . . inspection, measuring, and test equipment

shall be calibrated against certified standards

which have known, valid relationships to national

standards."

The size, complexity, and large number of parts

required by the Apollo project has led to additional

emphasis in metrology being placed upon Apollo

contractors. This emphasis has resulted in the de- velopment and release of the Apollo Metrology

Requirements Manual (NHB 5300.2). In addition

to requiring that standards used have valid rela- tionships to national reference standards, this manual specifically requires that the traceabihty

be evidenced by valid reports and substantiated

with flow charts. A formal NASA pohcy directive requiring trace- abihty to national reference standards has not been

necessary relative to NASA installations equipment

calibration. In accordance with normal good cali- bration practices, all NASA Installations have

internal policies or directives with requirements,

such as "each laboratory is responsible for assur- ing that all calibration services under its cogniz- ance are traceable to the National Bureau of

Standards."

Thus, generally, NASA is able to show trace- abihty to an acceptable national standard on every

parameter for which it has a requirement. I used

the term "generally" because there are vahd ex- ceptions, which I am sure most of you are aware of. One such exception is in areas where no real standard exists or where the standards used represent

the state-of-the-art, such as with vacuums, leaks,

and light intensity relative to the color spectrum.

Another example is where a physical constant is used as the standard, such as with temperature and

frequency calibration where various melting points

or the resonant frequency of the cesium atom are used as the stable reference.

Judgment sometimes becomes necessary in those

areas where NASA's standards and equipment are comparable to those of the NBS. In such cases,

theoretically, little is to be gained through traceability to the NBS; but, practically, the benefits

of measurement reliability based on the history,

stability, and experience of the NBS is important.

In these cases, traceabihty to the NBS is maintained but usually at long calibration intervals. This leads to another point — NASA does not indiscriminately send everything to the NBS. Cali- bration at the NBS requires expenditures and makes

the equipment unavailable for a period of time.

As NASA's capabihties improved, calibration pro- cedures are revised to eliminate cahbration of some

equipment at the NBS.

An illustration brought to my attention as a cost reduction item is the 0.01 percent Rusko deadweight gage used to calibrate pressure gages. By

developing high-level mass and dimensional standards, Kennedy Space Center is now able to perform

its own cahbration at a substantial savings. Even

more important is the fact that the cahbration time

has been reduced from 3 or 4 months to one week.

Traceabihty to the NBS is still maintained through

the high level mass and dimensional standards

utilized in the cahbration.

As you are all aware, there is a lot more to trace- abihty than just a pohcy requiring that the calibra- tion of a unit be traceable to a national standard.

The fact that such a calibration has been performed

in itself is not totaUy sufficient. It is equally important that there be VALID TRACEABILITY FROM

A NATIONAL STANDARD TO THE ACTUAL

MEASUREMENT. This introduces a scope to traceabihty which I might call valid traceabihty. In essence it is valid traceability that is desired.

However, outside of personnel specifically engaged

in the field of metrology, valid traceability is not

fully recognized and therefore often not achieved.

As a result, the full scope involved with valid traceability is not always considered and thus contributes

to the unreliability of the current systems.

What are the functions that should be considered

in order to determine valid traceability? Generally, they would be anything that could in any

way affect the accuracy of a measuring instrument.

Being more specific, they can be summarized in 119
six major functions, all of which are equally important in achieving the desired goal of valid

traceability.

1. The first function is equipment protection.

This function covers the use, handling, and storage

of inspection and test equipment. In itself this function is very broad. Poor handling, improper

containers for transportation, inadequate protection during storage, and other factors can easily

destroy the value of accuracy obtained through the

calibration to a national standard. Yet how often are these factors fully considered? As an example,

NASA surveys indicate that some suppliers still store and issue frequently used thread, plug, and

other gages thrown together, unprotected, in boxes.

2. The second function is personnel competence.

This ties in somewhat with the function of equipment protection because competent personnel are necessary to preclude poor handling and misuse.

Without competent and thoughtful personnel, there can be no complete assurance of valid traceability.

This must extend beyond mere training to the

motivation of all personnel to maintain the proper

atmosphere within the plant.

3. Motivation is also involved in the third function — maintenance control. A system can establish

checks and procedures to see that inoperative or inaccurate equipment is repaired. Motivation

is necessary throughout the plant to ensure that these system functions are performed timely and

adequately. A dropped mechanical gage that is not promptly submitted for checking and possible

repair precludes valid traceability. This can cause problems before the control aspects of a system

become operative and correct the condition.

4. Environment control is the fourth function

which must be considered both in calibration and

use of the instrument. Often plants have well controlled and air conditioned calibration areas; however, the calibrated equipment is then used in improper environments invalidating traceability.

5. The proper use and control of calibration pro- cedures is the fifth function which requires a great

deal of attention. In order to achieve valid traceability a calibration procedure must be implicitly

followed in detail. An example of this was noted

by a NASA representative following a recent survey

of a calibration laboratory. It was found that a Rusko dead-weight gage was being used which had

not been corrected for the effect of local gravity; this had a .005% effect on a .01% instrument.

To standardize and aid in eliminating the duplication of developing calibration techniques for the

same equipment, NASA has recently established an

inter-installation reference of calibration procedures

for the Apollo program. Some of the NASA instal- lations are also joining the National Conference of

Standards Laboratories in order to participate in the benefits of the calibration procedures library.

6. The last function is calibration interval. The

proper interval is important to prevent out-of- specification situations. Primarily in addition to controlling costs in this area, NASA's NPC 200-2

requires that calibration data be evaluated to note trends and to determine the calibration interval

required to keep the instrument from going out of

tolerance.

In summation valid traceability involves all of these functions, and reduction in the effectiveness

of any one can nullify the benefits of all the rest. NASA's policy on ratio-of-accuracy as stated in NPC 200-2 requires that "Within the-state-of-theart limitations, the standards used for calibration

of inspection, measuring, and test equipment shall have a tolerance no greater than 10% of the allow- able tolerance for the equipment being calibrated."

Unfortunately, there have been some difficulties encountered in the interpretation of this requirement. Generally the difficulties are similar to those

already mentioned by Mr. Russell, in his comments,

namely the interpretation of the term "within-thestate-of-the-art" and how to correctly apply the 10:1

ratio of accuracy requirement. These difficulties in interpretation result in inconsistencies and, to alleviate this, some NASA Installations have issued

interpretive documents clarifying the intent of this requirement.

Use of the term "within-the-state-of-the-art" was

intended to recognize that many measurement

requirements are becoming so sophisticated that they approached the limits of the science of metrology. In such cases, it becomes impossible to maintain the 10 to 1 ratio of accuracy in the calibration

of the instrument.

In this fast moving technology what is the "state- of-the-art" at any given moment? This is sometimes difficult to determine or interpret; especially

at suppliers plants.

I fully appreciate Mr. Russell's comments relative

to the desire for a single Government document on

metrology. Mr. Riordan and I have discussed this matter and currently have the matter under serious

consideration. With mutual cooperation both

within the Government and with industry, we hope

to alleviate many of our current problems and

accomplish our goals in a more effective manner.

120
INDUSTRY'S VIEW OF THE 10:1 RATIO-OF-ACCURACY REQUIREMENT

F. C. Russell

North American Aviation, Inc., Space & Information Systems Division, Downey, California

1. Introduction

It is a pleasure to speak to you on a subject that

is of great concern to all of us who are engaged in some phase of calibrating measurement standards

or test equipment used for the acceptance of

deliverable product. Last June, the NBS/Air Force Working Group,

while conducting a survey of contractor facilities and metrology programs, visited the North American

Aviation Downey Facility, where we had an opportunity to explain our metrology program and to discuss mutual technical problems with the group. One of our discussions centered around the

accuracy ratio of standard to instrument during

measurement and calibration operations. We did

not necessarily arrive at a solution to this dilemma,

but our discussions did point up the need for further exploration of this problem.

Mr. Harvey Lance, a member of the group, and I corresponded following the meeting with regard

to this subject.

Inasmuch as the 1965 NCSL Workshop at Disneyland was almost upon us and the program had long

since been established, it was decided that the 1966

Standards Laboratory Conference would be an

opportune time to present the various views of

industry (the contractors) and the various govern- ment agencies (the customers) and to attempt to arrive at an agreeable and realistic requirement.

Basically, the problem revolves around the actual

or implied requirement that the accuracy of an

instrument or standard used to measure a quantity,

or to calibrate another instrument, shall be 10 times

as accurate as the quantity or the instrument being

calibrated.

There is also the implication that the 10-to-l ratio of accuracy shall exist between every level or echelon in the traceability chain from product to National Standards.

This requirement could create an impossible

situation in spite of the statement included in most

specifications that limits this requirement t|o "within-the-state-of-the-art."

"Within-the-state-of-the-art," in many cases, is difficult to determine at any one point in time, and

it may result in the customer, or his representative,

insisting that the contractor procure and use an

instrument or standard, regardless of cost, because

it is available "within-the-state-of-the-art." In order to prepare myself to better understand

this problem on an industry-wide basis, I developed

a questionnaire and sent copies to most of the major

contractors represented here today. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your

prompt and knowledgeable replies.

2. Development

Of the 24 questionnaires circulated, I received

12 of them back within 2 weeks. I reviewed the

replies in detail and I found the following:

1. Of those who replied, all are engaged in Government contract work.

2. Most indicated that they are major contractors

or a combination of major and subcontractor.

3. Documents or specifications that control or

stipulate the required ratio of accuracy include the

following:

MIL-C-45662A & B MIL-Q-9858A

MIL-HDBK-52 NASA NPC 200-2

BU WEPS SLIM Manual NASA NHB-5300-2

MIL-C-24133

4. Most contractors indicated that the ratio-of- accuracy requirements imposed upon them ranged

from 10:1 to 4:1, or "state-of-the-art."

5. In nearly every case, they stated that the 10-to-l requirement was considered unrealistic from an economic as well as a practical point of view.

I will not go into detail on the answers to other

questions that I asked; however, these answers have greatly influenced the conclusions I have

reached and the recommendations that I will propose.

3. Observations

I am of the opinion that there are too many documents that basically state parallel requirements,

the majority of which are, to a degree, unrealistic.

I an also of the opinion that the statement,

"state-of-the-art," is a convenient but meaningless

loophole that might as well be removed from the

requirements.

You may, or may not, agree with this statement. However, my experience has been that it is a nebulous quantity that is too often used to avoid a

direct answer with regard to the ratio-of-accuracy

problem.

121
If there is any justification for a 10-to-l ratio of accuracy, it should be restricted to product measurement, where in most cases environment is uncontrolled, operating personnel are not necessarily

skilled, and historical data of instrument stability

and accuracy is not available. However, where

standards or calibration laboratory personnel are working in a controlled environment, where proven

procedures are used, where data on variations are maintained to reflect instrument history, and where

the technicians are skilled and dedicated individuals, as is true in nearly every case of my knowledge,

under these circumstances the 10-to-l requirement

is unnecessary. Where 4-to-l is maintained and

adequate variable data are on file for reference and

evaluation, the reliability of the calibrated instru- ment accuracy is assured.

I also believe that much of the confusion that

exists relative to this ratio problem lies in the

interpretation of the specification requirements.

A concerted effort should be made by the contractors and customers alike to arrive at a common

figure or definition of the tolerance or ratio of

accuracy. This figure or definition should be so precise as to preclude any misinterpretation of its intent or purpose.

4. Recommendations

If accuracy of measurement is to be controlled by

ratio, I would recommend that a 10-to-l ratio be

required at product measurement level only, and

that a 4-to-l ratio be required at the level of calibra- tion where the measuring instruments are calibrated.

The accuracy ratio of Reference Standards to Working Standards and higher echelons of calibration should be controlled only to the extent that variable data and analysis cannot support reliability

of measured accuracy.

Standards laboratory engineers should be capable

of proving accuracies down to the 1-to-l ratio when

supported by the environments, skills, methods,

and variable data that typifies an efficient standards

laboratory.

In a number of the questionnaires that were

returned, I noted that some of you feel that there

should not be a specific value of ratio determining

the accuracy of instruments used for measuring

product for acceptance or for measuring instruments

used for calibration. In view of this feeling, I should like to propose an

alternate plan or method of controlling the accuracy

of measurements. This method would not require

any specific ratio of accuracy, but rather would

require a limited band of tolerance determined by

the accuracy of the reference instrument used for the measurement. The absolute tolerance of a measured quantity would be reduced by the amount

of tolerance of the test instrument.

For example: If a Process Specification requires a

voltage measurement of 100 volts ± 10%, the

absolute tolerance or acceptable limits of that

quantity would be established at from 90 to 110 volts.

If we should choose to use a 1% instrument to verify this quantity, then we would reduce our

acceptable limits to from 91 to 109 volts.

If we should choose to use a 5% instrument to measure this quantity, then we would reduce our

acceptable limits to from 95 to 105 volts.

It would be possible to use a 10% instrument,

which in fact on a ratio basis would be 1:1, with the

acceptable limits confined to a reading of exactly

100 volts. In all cases, the voltage is set (or deter- mined to be) within the acceptable limits, with no

ratio requirement left for interpretation or argument.

Granted, this approach appears on the surface to be too simple, but why complicate measurement

matters when it is not necessary?

Economically this approach can be a boon to the

small contractor with limited test equipment or

capital funds, for now he too can produce and

deliver an acceptable product without regard for the mandatory ratio-of-accuracy requirement. His

only restriction will be that his range of acceptable

tolerance is limited by the accuracy of his available

test equipment.

If he wishes to increase that range of acceptable

tolerance, then it behooves him to arrange for the

procurement of more accurate instrumentation.

This approach to controlling accuracy of measure- ment is not new. It is a basic method used throughout industry for years where there has been a definite desire to provide accurate measurements regardless

of any contractual requirements.

I should like to acknowledge a proposed Measurement Standards Instruction bulletin prepared by the

Aerojet General Corporation's Sacramento Plant,

titled, "Accuracy Requirements of Calibration

Standards," and forwarded to me by Mr. Van

deHouten. This document is a discussion of the

various echelons of standards, and although it does

not pertain to test or inspection instruments, the

principles established would certainly lend themselves to this area also. This document is well written; it__considers and

provides for use of both the ratio and limited toler- ance concepts, and I would recommend that its content be studied for consideration by any group

attempting to establish internal controls.

5. Conclusions

I should like to conclude my observations with

the following summation:

We (as contractors) are all engaged in similar

projects, providing products for a customer.

I believe I am safe in saying that we are all in agreement that there are too many different specifications describing the accuracy of instruments

required to control the acceptance of product.

We can leave things the way they are; we can

negotiate for a more realistic ratio-of-accuracy

122
requirement, or we can recommend that a new

approach be taken by our customers in assuring

accurate measurements in the process of producing

and delivering data or product.

On numerous occasions, the National Bureau of

Standards has been asked to establish policy regarding this ratio problem. I do not believe that they

should be asked to take a position on it. This is a problem between the contractor and his customer.

The National Conference of Standards Laboratories is the logical group to resolve this issue. I recommend (1) that a committee be established to determine the most realistic approach to assuring

accuracy of measurements, (2) that a model specification be prepared, and (3) that it be submitted to the various Government agencies (our customers)

for their approval.

256-1 14 0-67—

9

123

PANEL DISCUSSION

Participants:

John E. Condon, NASA Headquarters

George Gastineau, Air Force Contract Management Division

J. L. Hayes, Bureau of Naval Weapons

H. W. Lance, NBS Radio Standards Laboratory (Moderator)

Carl Morrison, Army Metrology and Calibration Center

John J. Riordan, DOD (Installations and Logistics) Forrest C. Russell, North American Aviation, Inc. W. A. Wildhack, NBS Institute for Basic Standards

L. B. Wilson, Sperry Gyroscope Co.

Question: Mr. Condon, there are procedures used

in the NASA laboratories that involve accuracy

ratios of 2:1 or smaller. We would like to use some

of these but cannot because of the requirements

of NPC-200-2. Can't this be worked out somehow?

Mr. Condon: As I understand your question, it is not a matter of conflicting contractual requirements.

You merely want to use the same procedure used

in a NASA laboratory, which does not happen to be

compatible with a 10:1 ratio. Possibly that pro- cedure is not applicable to the type of equipment you

are concerned with. It might be suitable for laboratory developmental work as opposed to the

building of flight-type hardware. The 10:1 again

has to be further clarified as to what you're going

to do on each particular item that you are going to be calibrating. You do have and you are required

to submit a total quality program plan in accordance

with 200—2. And certainly this is negotiable.

Mr. Russell: I have something to add here that might have a bearing on this problem. North

American Space and Information Division has both

Apollo and Saturn contracts and, as Mr. Condon

has pointed out, NPC-200-2 is a guide only. We

have no contractual requirements to live up to 200-2. We have an Apollo quality control plan.

The requirements for calibration and for accuracy

ratios are stated in this, and we have negotiated

these with the customer. For a long time I for one was misled, and was under the belief that we did

adhere strictly to 200-2, and I was the closest one

to it at North American. But contractually, we

were not required to follow it. I don't know whether

you have this problem, but there is the possibility of some misinterpretation.

Question: Mr. Riordan, I was very much interested

in your remarks on contractors' responsibilities in connection with ASPR-14. I wonder whether

this is applicable to all contracts or whether there

are some that do not contain this requirement.

Mr. Riordan: I imagine there are some contracts

that do not contain the requirement, but I would

expect these to be extremely few and probably in the small-purchase area. I also know that the

earlier 9858A (if we use that number as a device for translating ASPR-14 into contractual language) was not applied in certain major areas such as

Polaris. However, it is now being applied there.

I would say that except for Polaris in the past and

except for some small purchases, either 9858A or 45208A does apply. So I believe that, excepting

construction, the contractor responsibility is now

everywhere, even on Polaris. Incidentally, there was a very interesting meeting at the University of

Virginia last week with the construction people,

and I think there is a tendency to move in this direc- tion in construction.

Question: Mr. Condon, you said that emphasis is being placed on Apollo calibrations. Does that mean that the restrictions are tighter?

Mr. Condon: What I meant was that in the Apollo

program, particularly because of the size of the

program and the tremendous number of prime contractors and subcontractors involved, the calibration problem has been of greater concern to that program office. As a result they have placed

greater emphasis on calibration, particularly through

the issuance of an Apollo program calibration handbook. There is no NASA-wide calibration handbook at this time.

Mr. Lance: I should like to break in here for something that I neglected in the hurry to make up lost time, and shall now ask some brief statements from

those people on the Panel who could not be scheduled for a 15 minute talk. Mr. Wildhack: I want to cast a little doubt on the

point of view already expressed that there is nothing

wrong with the terms "traceability" and "accuracy

ratio" that a little explanation won't help. I suggest that the term "traceability," instead of needing

125
amplification, perhaps needs obliteration. I certainly agree with Mr. Russell when he says that NBS should not rule on this matter. Yet NBS does

have a very strong interest in it. When a large

procurement agency tells a large number of contractors, "You shall be 'traceable' to the National

Bureau of Standards," this is bound to generate

correspondence with NBS saying, "How do I get

traceability to you?"' Formally, we can only reply,

"That's your problem. That's a contractual term

for which we find no definition in the dictionary."

I think the situation has come more nearly under

control within the last few years as contractors and

inspectors worked out their own interpretations.

However, it remains a ridiculous situation for the

measurements fraternity, who are avidly pursuing

accuracy and precision, to be at the same time

guilty of imprecise use of an undefined term. I certainly agree that it is high time for the various

government agencies concerned to get together and

write a treatise on the things that are essential for the contractor to do in order to convince the in- spector that he does, in fact, have a good basis for delivering the promised accuracy in the final product. In the past, the government agencies have not worked closely enough together on these matters.

I hope that in the next go-around we'll all do better. Mr. Wilson: The Aerospace Industries Association has a Calibration and Measurements project

with Frank McGinnis as Chairman. We have ten members on the project team, and I think about half of them are here at this conference. We have as one of our major tasks to review three of the cali- bration MIL specs, MIL Handbook 52, MIL C45662A, and MIL C-24133. The last of these

deals with calibration procedures and is of interest

to NCSL and its calibration procedures library.

The members of our project team have contributed

their suggestions for revisions of these three MIL

specs. These are going out now from AIA headquarters to the various AIA companies and divi- sions, and we expect to get comments back by about

the middle of May. I was interested to hear Mr.

Riordan mention the cost-benefit approach. I would like to quote from the preliminary comments

of our project team: "The determination of accuracy

for a reference standard (this pertains to the 4:1 or 10:1 accuracy ratios) should involve a cost-effective- ness approach with realistic trade-offs among such

things as the cost, commercial availability, and ac- curacy of a standard, as well as the cost of using

that standard. The selection of a reference standard based on accuracy-ratio considerations alone

will rarely result in an optimum choice. Each

case must be judged on its individual requirements." We also make some specific recommendations with regard to the wording. Basically these

recommendations include several alternatives from

which the contractor can choose. We feel that a guide such as MIL Handbook 52 should stress the

alternative approaches. This is basic in the cost- effectiveness or systems-effectiveness outlook

which currently is being advocated as a management

concept. Hence we are suggesting the use of more

alternative approaches, instead of merely making

MIL Handbook 52 a direct extension, more or less mandatory, of MIL C-45662A.

Mr. Morrison: Army is the preparing activity for MIL-C-45662, which means that, in the long run, we assemble our opinions and everybody else's into a final draft for approval and comment. I have

been sitting here trying to soak up all of the comments, and I think I soaked up quite a bit, including some lumps. I was most happy to hear Mr.

Russell call for a concerted effort by the contractor and the customer for uniform statements. There

are established channels for getting to me formally,

and telling me the kind of criticism which I hear in meetings like this. Handbook 52 even gives our

address. However, the amount of formal comments

that it has generated has been very minute. I can

recall maybe a half dozen letters, and these are generally of a very pleasing nature. So I am some- what at a loss, having come to this meeting and

heard all of the controversy. I suggest that, since we are about to revise this document, you get my

address or that of Mr. Riordan's office, and for- ward your comments to us. AIA is taking great

steps along these lines. We would like to hear

from the rest of you, too, and not just from the floor

at this meeting.

Mr. Gastineau: I heartily concur in Mr. Morrison's statement about getting to the source. The

Air Force now is in the process of preparing a pro- posed revision of MIL C-45662A. We already

have submitted a copy to NBS for comment, and

have some comments back. We hope to get a re- vision which contains a suitable statement about

accuracy ratios. Mr. Hayes: Just one comment. Mr. Russell

brought up an alternative to accuracy ratios which

sounds appealing, but I would like to oppose it be- cause I think it would increase the erroneous rejec- tion rate of the product and having increased that,

it would increase costs. I think if you really investi- gate it statistically, that's what his second alternative amounts to. Mr. Lance: Gentlemen, time does not permit

further discussion. Some very interesting points

of view have been expressed here today. These,

I believe, point the way toward a reconciliation of the differences of opinion on such subjects as traceability and accuracy ratio. In conclusion I would

like to emphasize the suggestion made earlier for more thorough mutual discussions among the groups

involved.

126
NCSL 66

SESSION 10: WORLDWIDE UNIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS

C. E. White

Avco Missile Systems Division, Wilmington, Mass.

Preface

\^ hy are we concerned with metrology", its problems and short-comings, its lack of appreciation,

its lag behind national economy growth throughout

the world? Let me illustrate the international

aspect of this increased concern with a few extracts from a recent issue of IzmeriteFnaya

Tekhnika.

"Hardly any problem of national economy can

be dealt with successfully without basic information on a multitude of quantities required for its solution, such as the quantity of a given product, the

composition and properties of various materials

and substances, geometrical parameters and the

working characteristics of articles and systems,

time intervals between events, etc. ""The basic criterion to determine whether the

measured information is suitable for solving a

specific problem consists of the precision with

which this information meets the requirements

set by the problem. Take for instance, moisture

content of grain — an important consideration in evaluation, buying, and selling. If, as happened

in 1961. all hygrometers used in a country are

calibrated with an error of 0.3% lower than actual

value, there is a loss of $2500/1000 tons of grain

to the industry.

"A large quantity of undiscovered and fictitious rejects creates great difficulties for coordinating

production. The existence of undiscovered rejects

in the deliveries of manufacturing plants forces

consuming plants to establish a full acceptance

inspection, and to retest all the delivered materials

and component parts, which is a wasteful practice. "In the relationship of quality to measured in- formation, two things are clear: "1. Measurements constitute an important part

of all the work whose quality has a direct effect on the quality of products.

"2. The basic criterion of measuring processes,

which shows their capacity for ensuring production

quality, consists of their RELIABILITY, i.e.. the

probability that measurements will provide infor- mation whose accuracy corresponds to the requirements of the specific problem.

The inevitable conclusion is. the establishment

of conditions which fully eliminate the possibilities

of obtaining measurements which are either in- correct or insufficiently precise for the solution

of specific problems of a national economy, is a task of first-rate national importance.

"The condition of the measuring equipment,

which provides measurements with the precision

required for a reliable solution of specific problems

in a national economy, is said to provide uniform

measurements. Therefore the main task of a unified national system is the provision of uni- formity of all measurements carried out in a national

economy.

"There is a need for continuous statistical control of the measurement quality of measurement

instruments which are used in a national economy.

"'There is a need for development and adoption

of methods and means of testing which simulate

the most important external effects which are

characteristic of the environment to which an

instrument is exposed in practice.

""There is a need for knowledge of the characteristics and conditions of use of measuring instru- ments, and for dissemination of this knowledge

to all activities affected. This knowledge should

include, not only the simplest measuring instru- ments, but all the complex systems, those related

to high-speed quantity measurement, to analyses,

to telemetry, to all types of transducers and converters comprised in automatic controls and proc- essing equipment.

"A national measurement system should 1) sys- tematize and classify typical measurement problems

which arise in a national economy, 2) develop methods for investigating, recording and classifying

the combined effects of environment upon the meas- urement characteristics of the measurement

methods. 3) develop methods for investigating, re- cording and classifying the effect of the nature of

measured quantities upon the methodology of the

measurement efforts and 4) develop methods for investigating, recording and classifying the EFFECT

of the measuring equipment upon the measured

quantity.

"A national system of measurements must do

a number of things:

"1. Raise the precision by which measurement

units are transferred.

127
"2. Encourage new methods and develop highprecision reference equipment in all fields of

measurement.

"3. Automate measurements, and establish a system for providing uniform measurements in automated production.

"4. Develop the theory of measurement sci- ence, paying particular attention to the precision

and 'reliability of results obtained under complicated measuring conditions.

"5. Develop and improve statistical methods for controlling technological processes, and the quality

->f production.

"6. Encourage training of metrology experts.

"7. Encourage participation in international

measurements efforts and standardization."

The United States is, of course, equally con- cerned with the same problems and the survey

which follows is offered to the National Confer- ence of Standards Laboratories, to its delegates,

and to all the standardizing laboratories in this country, as information useful to establish the nonnational characteristics of a problem which faces us all — that of establishing the critical need for

full support of accurate measurements.

r i

INTRODUCTION

The timing of this particular survey would appear

to be extremely fortuitous in view of the massive

efforts being made in Australia, Britain, France,

India, Russia and other countries to stabilize and

to improve the measurement accuracies of their

industries, as a major step toward improving product quality and reliability. Requests for support

in the form of data, and personal appearances of responsible persons representing their countries,

have been most gratifying in the responses accorded

the National Conference of Standards Laboratories.

As a preliminary approach to this study, it is worthwhile in my estimation, to glance at specific

efforts in several countries in order to understand

the increased significance and attention being paid

to the Science of Measurements, and the direct

effect and impact it imparts to product quality and

reliability. The following statements of efforts in each country are based upon replies to inquiries

addressed to responsible sources, or to published

material regarded as highly pertinent. In the latter category, a collection of articles appearing in the

September 1965 translation of the Soviet journal

Izmeritel'naya Tekhnika, was most helpful in pro- viding a multi-faceted approach to the problems

faced by Russian industrial metrology and the pro- posed solutions. Much of the information appearing in this paper is excerpted from the journal.

Occasionally, fortuitous timing also may backfire! In an investigation of the efforts being made

by Britain, to unify its industrial measurements, I became entangled in a problem of timing. A new

systematic approach to the unification of industrial

and scientific measurements had been evolved in Britain but not announced officially. For that reason, no prior information could be prepared for presentation to the International Session at Gaithersburg. However, the presence of British repre- sentatives at the Conference was scheduled, and news pertaining to the new system was divulged

at the Session.

In making a study of the French program, attention was directed to an excellent article by J. B. Quinn in the November 15, 1965 issue of Science,

which represented the culmination of a year's re- search by the author, in France. The article was

quite enlightening in its analysis of the shortcomings to date, of the French effort to update its scientific and technological policies.

The close geographical proximity of Canada and

the United States has exposed Canadian industrial

firms to the standardizing efforts being promoted

by the U.S. Government Procurement Agencies.

This exposure has resulted, in no small degree, to encouragement of the formation of specific activities within the Canadian Government, whose in- terests in production quality parallel those of the U.S. Since measurement accuracy is a fundamental in all reliability and quality programs, it is only natural to discover the existence of measure- ment unifying efforts in Canada, such as those

supervised by the Department of Defence, Quality

Assurance Division.

The establishment of the National Association

of Testing Authorities, Australia several years ago was a most constructive step toward up-grading

of production quality and reliability in that country.

Its concrete support by government and industry

alike, is clear evidence of recognition of a signifi- cant need — unification of measurement and test techniques. The history of the Association indi- cates that Australia is firmly committed to a highlevel program of increased quality of production,

thereby enhancing its competitive position in the

world market.

During a visit to Sweden in 1965, it was readily

apparent that government and industry alike were

concerned with a more rigid control of a wider field of measurements standards. For many years, the establishment of mechanical or dimensional

standards has been accomplished satisfactorily by

the existence of excellent measurement facilities at several industrial firms coordinated through the

National Institute for Materials Testing. The

growing importance of electronics focused attention

upon the need to establish controls in this area. As a consequence, Standards Laboratories estab- lished at the Research Institute of National Defence,

128
Chalmers Institute of Technology, and the ASEA

Electrical Company supply precision measure- ments recognized as being reference-level accuracy

for dc voltage, power, resistance, ac voltage to 30

MHz. ac and rf power to 75 GHz, capacitance, in- ductance, rf attenuation to 12 GHz, frequency to 12 GHz, noise to 40 GHz.

Work is done for Swedish customers upon re- quest. In order to improve services and to extend

measurement capabilities, a coordination committee of six prominent scientists/engineers has been

established by the Royal Academy of Engineering

Sciences to study the problems. The Secretary

for this Swedish Committee for Measurement Techniques, Mr. Lars Frank will be present at the Inter- national Session to discuss the status of measure- ments and unification in Sweden.

In a country such as Norway, unification of in- dustrial standards although desirable, is handicapped by lack of an instrumentation production

industry. Since most specialized products are obtained from abroad, the Norwegians rely to a great extent on the integrity of foreign manufacturers

and the warranties supplied with the products. For

control of purchase specifications reliance for ex- ample is placed upon the ITU specifications for instrumentation in the telecommunications field, upon industrial handbooks for mechanical equipment, upon prototype standards specifications

issued by the BIPM (International Bureau of Weights and Measures) or representative national

standards activities such as the US National Bureau

of Standards or the British National Physics

Laboratory.

The Norwegians at the present time wisely try

to strike a balance between national efforts to es- tablish standardization practices and those already

in effect in supplier-countries. To some extent,

it is felt that sufficient emphasis still has not been

placed upon the establishment of national control

organizations, and that steps should be taken to provide internal controls for reliability and quality,

to supplement the elementary legal concern which

exists for the fundamental aspects of commerce.

Australia

Australia took a major step toward unification of

measurements standards practices in industry

about 6 years ago, when the National Association

of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA) was

formed. NATA is the organization "for coordination of testing facilities through registration of

testing laboratories operated by individuals, or organizations such as partnerships, companies,

councils, shires, commissions and governments."

It is a nonprofit organization governed by a Council

consisting of:

1. Eight members elected directly by members

of the Association.

2. Six members (the Chairman of each State

Committee of the Association) elected indirectly

by members of the Association.

3. Three members representing the Associated

Chambers of Manufacturers of Australia.

4. Six members representing the Commonwealth,

nominated by the Commonwealth Government.

5. Six members representing the States, one be- ing nominated by each of the State Governments.

6. One member representing the Standards

Association of Australia.

7. Three members representing professional

interests, one being nominated by each of the

Royal Australian Chemical Institute, the Institu- tion of Engineers, Australia, and the Australian

Institute of Physics.

8. Up to six members nominated by the other

members of the Council.

This control by a widely representative Council

assures a sound, commonsense approach to the

requirements of industry, commerce, and govern- ment. Annual cost of administration of NATA is approximately $45,000, of which approximately

85% is provided by the Commonwealth and State Governments and the balance by laboratory registration fees. Slightly more than 300 laboratories are registered, thereby expediting acceptance of

data by governmental agencies, and other industrial and commercial purchasers.

Membership in the Association enables labora- tory management to determine the capabilities of

the laboratories, and also provides a source of

professional advice and competence. A unique

advantage to management is the ability to deter- mine from the Association, the extent of under- or

over-staffing and implementation which may be in existence, thereby providing a useful economic

control. The Association, through cooperation with the

Standards Association of Australia and similar

organizations, is able to provide registrants with

improved test methods and other related matters. Laboratories may be qualified in any, or all of, seven

categories — 1) Metrology, 2) Mechanical Testing,

3) Electrical Testing, 4) Photometry, 5) Heat and

Temperature, 6) Industrial Radiography, 7) Chemical Testing. Qualification is performed by special

examination teams of experts who assess the capabilities and experience of the laboratory personnel, and the laboratory facilities. After qualification, a laboratory is checked at regular intervals

to assure continuing compliance with good practices.

France

The French nation during the past eight years

has come to the realization that national policy

is highly dependent upon science and technology.

Accordingly, measures are being devised to bring

science into the national policy, and to use and to guide scientific efforts for the betterment of the

nation.

129
To head up the effort, three bodies were legally

created in 1958 to formulate and direct scientific policy. These were the Secretary of State for Scientific Research, the Interministerial Committee for Scientific and Technical Research, and

the General Planning Commissariat.

There has been a serious lack of training in ap- plied research and management which hampers

progress of the national program. There exists a wide gap between basic research and its application to technology. Insufficient data exist on R&D

activities, technical education capabilities, and

future technical requirements; on the effect of technology upon the economic well being of the

state; on the equality of distribution of resources among R&D projects. The almost non-existence

of large French industrial complexes capable of

competing in R&D with German, British, or American corporative giants is a distinct handicap in establishing technological breakthrough and

prestige.

Viewed from overseas, there appears to be an- other important gap in the national effort, judging

from the complement of the quasi-legal bodies

which are steering the new course. Although the

Interministerial Committee for Scientific and Technical Research comprises many diversified efforts including Education, Agriculture, Industry, etc.,

it is interesting to note that the Industry associates

do not include product reliability and quality assur- ance activities and do not emphasize or relate di- rectly to unified measurements programs.

The Central Planning Commissariat, consisting

of approximately 23 commissions, is responsible

for planning each 4-year National Plan, to implement

the long range National program. Each commission

represents a segment of the economy and includes

Building and Public Works, Chemistry, Commerce,

Energy, etc., but again the overall body appears

to be lacking in emphasis upon the need for productive quality and reliability, established by a unified

measurement program.

India

Shortly after independence from Britain, the In- dian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

(CSIR) established the National Physical Laboratory (1950). This Laboratory was given several

responsibilities, among them

a) Establishment and maintenance of the Indian

primary standards of mass, length, time, temperature, and electromagnetism.

b) Testing and certification of industrial products.

c) Basic and applied research in Physics.

d) Coordination of the change of Indian measure- ments systems to the Metric System in collaboration with the Commerce & Industry Ministry.

Dr. S. H. Zaheer, Director General of the CSIR,

in 1965 stated ". . . it is important that the developing countries gradually build up their own knowhow so as not to be completely dependent on knowledge from abroad".

Scientific research in the Laboratory has been

conducted in 19 Divisions which include the fol-

| lowing fields (1) Acoustics, (2) Analytical Chemistry,

(3) Applied Mechanics, (4) Electricity, (5) Electronics, (6) Glass Technology, (7) Heat and Power, [ (8) Industrial Physics, (9) Infrared Spectroscopy,

(10) Low Temperature Physics, (11) Optics, (12) Radio Components, (13) Radio Propagation, (14) Rain & Cloud Physics, (15) Solid State Physics,

(16) Theoretical Physics, (17) Time and Frequency,

(18) Weights & Measures, (19) X-Ray Crystallography.

The existence of the Laboratory has permitted

large savings of foreign exchange to be realized

through the making and supplying of carbon prod- ucts and electronic components to industry, and

complicated glass apparatus to scientific institu- tions. Because of advice and assistance from i NPL a number of Indian firms have been encour- aged to produce scientific and analytical balances

and weights, and railway signal glasses. Development testing of industrial products has encouraged

production in quantity (NPL does not do routine

testing normally). New industries have been cre- ated by development at NPL of industrial processes

which have been licensed to industrial firms for

j productive development.

NPL has a strong group working in the field of

ultrasonics and has made significant contributions

in this field at the international level. Exhaustive

work on the hydro-carbon flame bands has received

international recognition. Much work is being

done on the physics of the upper atmosphere and

ionosphere. A regular transmission service of time

and frequency standards is maintained continuously.

Divisions of NPL participate in the work of the

Indian Standards Institute in the work of prescribing suitable standards for products and in carrying

out experimental investigations where necessary

in the drafting of such standards. As an aid to industrial quality control, test methods have been

developed to assist industry in conducting more f] basic (but less time-consuming) tests during pro- duction. Such tests investigate material properties for example, rather than dimensional tolerances,

and the relationship to ultimate reliability. The

effect of tropical climate environment upon elec- tronic and radio components is a primary concern ? in India and much work has been conducted by , NPL to establish suitable standard criteria for materials and packaging.

During the life of the Weights & Measures Divi-

| | sion of NPL more than 300 technical personnel,

selected by the several Indian State Governments, I have received training in the techniques of measure- ,

j ment, and methods of enforcing the provisions of f

| the Weight & Measures Act. In addition over 100 \

] representatives from industrial, scientific, and edu- , cational institutions have received specialized train- [i

, ing in precision measurements.

130
The NPL Library operates as the primary litera- ture center for the Laboratory and for the Indian

National Scientific Documentation Center. It holds a complete set of Indian patents and has been

declared by the Indian Government to be the In- spection Center for the public. In addition the

Library has complete files of the Indian Standard

and the British Standard specifications.

The Indian Standards Institution (ISI) is charged

with responsibility for drawing up specifications

for materials, performance criteria for machine

and small tools, chemical, electrical or engineering

products, consumer goods, etc. At the State level is established a Legal Metrology Department (Weights and Measures Enforcement Department). The head laboratory in each

Department maintains the various secondary standards, certified by NPL. The head of the Department (controller of Weights and Measures) is re- sponsible for a network of laboratories which verify

the accuracy of commercial weights and measures, and weighing and measuring instruments employed

within the State. In order to ensure uniform practices in the State Departments, the Indian Ministry of Commerce has set up a Directorate of

Weights and Measures. Periodically, the Ministry

arranges to hold Conferences of Controllers of

Weights and Measures, which are attended by

representatives of the NPL and the ISI. These

Conferences bring out the troubles encountered by

the various Controllers, and assistance in solving

the problems is given by the experts assembled.

Russia

On January 21-22. 1965, members of the State Committee of Standards, Measures and Measuring

Instruments of the USSR held a conference to deal

with the improvement of standardization and the

development of work in the field of metrology and

precision measurement techniques. At this meeting V. V. Boitsov, Chairman of the Committee, noted

the need to raise the quality of production in Russia.

V. V. Tkachenko, Deputy Chairman, stressed that standardization plans are a vital part of the USSR

economic plan. Radical changes in the trends,

scale and content of standardization are noted and

high quality production requires higher-quality

components and materiel. Within the next three

years existing specifications and standards must

be raised to the level of the best world standards.

I. I. Novikov, first Vice Chairman of the Committee, stated that modern conditions of successful scientific research require instrumentation

equal to the world's best, noting that standardization is not possible without exceptional efforts in metrology and precision measurement techniques.

He then specified a number of tasks in these fields. These would be implemented by the establishment

of large measurements standards laboratories in the capitals of the Republics and in the large in- dustrial centers, controlling enforcement of standards of measurement and quality of production.

In addition, the All-Union Scientific Research In- stitute of Standardization would be established as the principal organization in the USSR for enforcement of standards and inspection of measuring

equipment.

Previously, laboratories established in the industrial plants looked to the State Inspection Laboratories for certification of measuring instruments.

The State Laboratories in turn, must utilize the

services of laboratories under the jurisdiction of

the All-Union Scientific-Research Institute for certification of precision standards instrumentation and the standard units, which may have been

allotted the State Laboratories. Typical examples

are the All-Union Scientific-Research Institute of

Physicotechnical and Radio-Technical Measurements (VNIIFTRI), which has responsibility for research and development of standards at the micro- wave and higher frequency ranges, and the All- Union Mendeleev Metrology Research Institute (VNIIMM), having responsibility for electrical standards to 1 GHz and also for other fields of measurement.

The State Inspection Laboratories for measuring equipment presently:

a. Do not in most cases, possess their own working reference standards and therefore

b. Cannot provide verification, calibration, or technical assistance services.

The duties of the Laboratories would be:

1. Enforcement of standards and technical

specifications.

2. Storing and maintenance of working reference

standards/measures.

3. Transfer of measuring unit values from working standards to basic reference measuring instru- ments.

4. Certification of reference materials.

5. Supervision of the work, and condition of

measuring instrumentation of the State Inspection

Laboratories assigned to their control.

6. Self-establishment as centers of organizational

and methodology standardization in the assigned

geographical areas.

7. Encouraging use of State standards by the

Councils of National Economy.

8. To conduct research and experiments in order

to organize scientifically-oriented and proven methods for testing machines, equipment, and materials

for reliability, and methods for evaluating quality;

promote adoption and use of such methods by

industry.

9. To disseminate technical information related

to standards and specifications.

10. To collect and process information pertaining to the quality of measuring equipment employed by industry.

Provision would be made to supply the Republican

Laboratories with working reference standards

131
for measuring lengths and angles, mass, resistance,

voltage, capacitance, inductance, temperature,

pressure, density and concentration of solutions,

viscosity, pH values, surface roughness, hardness,

force, time and frequency, optical properties, il- lumination, gas composition and quality, and motion.

Distribution of the standards to each Laboratory

would be made in accordance with the needs de- rived from the local economy.

Standardized designs for the Laboratories have

been developed which take into account the recent planning of similar laboratories throughout the

world. Each laboratory would contain spaces for specialized measurements, general measurements,

repair shops, and provision would be made to supply numerous mobile reference assemblies for economy of instrumentation.

The proposed echelon of responsibilities is illus- trated in the figure following. It should be noted

that the definite responsibilities for operation of

the System for State Inspection of Measuring

Equipment are coded within the functional blocks

for the sake of brevity, and the accompanying table translates the code numbers.

ALL-UNION SCIENTIFIC-RESEARCH

INSTITUTE OF STANDARDIZATION

Technical & Administrative Control

(Primary Standards)

a,b,c,g,h,i,

j

OTHER METROLOGICAL INSTITUTES OF THE

STATE COMMITTEE OF STANDARDS,

MEASURES . AND MEASURING INSTRUMENTS

Standardization & Specifications

a,b,c,g,h,i

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTES &

DESIGN OFFICES OF TRADE COMMITTEES,

MINISTRIES. AND ADMINISTRATION

Developing & Standardizing Equipment

c,d,h,i

I

COUNCILS OF NATIONAL ECONOMY

INSPECTION AGENCIES _

Utilization & Testing

(Working Standards & Instruments)

b,e,f,g

r

REPUBLICAN AND INTER-REGIONAL

LABORATORIES OF THE STATE

Laboratory Operation & Management

(Local Reference Standards)

a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i

STATE INSPECTION LABORATORIES

Surveillance, testing, and guidance

(Secondary Standards & Instruments)

a,b,d,e,f,g

REGIONAL/STATE INDUSTRIAL LABORATORIES

Testing

(Working Standards & Instruments)

f

PROPOSED SYSTEM FOR STATE INSPECTION OF MEASURING EQUIPMENT

132
Coding for Functional Duties

a. Study and appraisal of methods of measure- ment utilized for quality inspection, derivation of

Standard Reference Data, economic accounting,

design engineering, scientific, research, and electrical surveillance systems.

b. Control over utilization of USSR measuring

equipment.

c. Acceptance testing prerequisites for measuring equipment.

d. Initial testing requirements for measuring

equipment.

e. Periodic-control-testing requirements for measuring equipment.

f. Calibration of measuring equipment.

g. Maintenance and storage of reference standards, units, and measuring instruments.

h. Develop standard measurement techniques,

and performance characteristics and criteria for measurement equipment.

i. Recommending discontinuance of production

of obsolete equipment, develop new measuring

equipment.

j. Exercise surveillance and control for the USSR

in the measurement field as related to the activities of the International Organization for Legal Metrology (MOZM) and the Council for Mutual Eco- nomic Aid (Comecon).

United Kingdom

On April 25, 1966 the establishment of the British

Calibration Service was announced to Parliament

by Mr. Frank Cousins, Minister of Technology.

He indicated that the service was felt to be essentiaDy necessary in order to supply national standards in a number of important fields, and to rationalize and augment the British calibration facilities.

It was felt that such actions were necessary in order

to (1) expand the range of exports, (2) increase ex- ports of types of industrial equipment which depend

upon precise measurements, (3) speed up technological advance throughout the entire domestic

industry.

Planning and regulation of the Service remains

with the Ministry of Technology; actual calibration

would be carried out by existing laboratories which

would be certified for such work by an investigating committee. The National Physical Laboratory

would remain as the custodian of the national standards. An Advisory Council on Calibration and

Measurement, headed by Mr. M. Banks, was formed

to establish operational procedures and performance

criteria for participating laboratories. A fee charge

for each participating laboratory was expected to make the System self-supporting to a large extent. Mr. Cousins announced plans to encourage universities and colleges to emphasize measurements

science in the curricula. He intends to encourage

revision of many British standards, bringing them

into fine with international metric practices. The

British Standards Institution was to receive in- creased support to further this aim. Industry is to be encouraged to employ the higher standards of

performance which will be monitored by the Electrical Inspection Directorate of the Ministry of

Aviation.

During the first year of the new Service it is ex- pected that some 50 laboratories will be certified. Headquarters staff in the Ministry of Technology

will undertake the duties of (1) inspection of laboratories, (2) provision of a central information service, (3) promotion of development of new methods

of measurement, (4) technical advice to approved

laboratories, (5) promotion of education and train- ing in measurement science. Certified laboratories

will be required to have best standards checked

against those of the National Physical Laboratory.

NPL remains responsible for the basic international standards of length, mass, time, electrical current, temperature, and luminous intensity, as

well as approximately 50 other derived standards.

General organization of the Service is shown in the

following diagram.

NATIONAL

PHYSICAL LABORATORY

MINISTRY

OF TECHNOLOGY

BRITISH CALIBRATION

SERVICE

Specialist __e.fi' . Committees —

BRITISH STANDARDS

INSTITUTION

APPROVED CALIBRATION LABORATORIES

* .

I Certificate ol Calibration |

| for an identified tingle |

I Instrument |

INDUSTRY

kNutACtUellS «• uslisl Annei A

INITIAL ORGANISATION OF

CALIBRATION SERVICE

Director of the British Calibration Service is H. E. Barnett, formerly Assistant Director of the

Electrical Inspection Directorate of the Ministry

of Aviation. Among Mr. Barnett's tasks for the

immediate future will be the necessity to strengthen

and expand the measurement capabilities at the

National Physical Laboratory, to encourage a rise in the status of measurements science at the technical college level, and to develop national measure- ments facilities and capabilities to become more

self-sufficient.

Acknowledgements

It will be noted that this revised report is limited

to a comparatively few countries. Contact was

attempted with Columbia, Egypt, Mexico, but no

replies were forth-coming. At a later date, it is hoped that these nations will be represented in an addendum to the survey.

133
With respect to the nations which did reply, I wish to acknowledge with deepest sincerity the

work of the following individuals, who so graciously

participated in the collection of these data:

H. F. Monaghan, Registrar NATA, Sydney, Australia. K. N. Stanton, Dep. Registrar NATA, Melbourne, Australia. W. M. Thomson, Dept. of National Defence, Ottawa, Canada.

C. H. Sager, Dept. of' National Defence, Ottawa, Canada.

G. Cameron, Dept. of National Defence, Ottawa, Canada. W. J. Wiener, Mgr. QC-Electronics, CAE Industries Ltd., Montreal, Canada.

J. Millar R., Empresa Nacional de Telecommunicaciones

S.A. Santiago, Chile. H. E. Barnett, Ministry of Technology, London, England.

G. H. Dawes, Ministry of Technology, London, England.

D. Woods, Ministry of Aviation, London, England.

L. Essen, National Physical Lab., Teddington, Middlesex,

England. N. R. Lock, Ministry of Aviation, Bromley, Kent, England.

Ph. Olmer. Laboratoire Central des Industries Electriques,

Fontenay-Aux-Roses, France.

P. K. Mital, National Physical Lab., New Delhi, India. P. Prakash, National Physical Lab., New Delhi, India. M. Tomota, Yokagawa Electric Works, Tokyo, Japan.

Y. Nakagi, Electrotechnical Lab., Chiyodaku, Tokyo, Japan.

Y. Inoue, Electrotechnical Lab., Tanashi, Tokyo, Japan.

A. M. Schmidt, Tachikawa AFB. Tokyo, Japan. N. M. Brady, Aksesselskapet NERA, Oslo, Norway.

S. Koch, Bureau of Weights & Measures, Oslo, Norway.

Major H. Slungaard, RNAF-AMC, Kjeller, Norway.

H. Dahl, Chr. Michelsens Inst., Bergen, Norway.

P-0 Lundbom, Research Institute National Defence, Stock- holm, Sweden.

L. Frank, Research Institute National Defence, Stockholm, Sweden.

134
PART 2

1966 CONFERENCE

INTERNATIONAL SESSION QUESTIONNAIRE

A. Within the United States, the only legal source

of measurement accuracy is established by the U.S. Congress as the responsibility of the National Bureau of Standards. Does your country

have such a program, namely, a single legal source of measurement accuracy?

Answers

AUSTRALIA -Yes -A National Standards Commission, established by the National Standards

Weights and Measures Act of the Federal Government, is responsible for establishment and

administration of sources of all measurements, at appropriate levels of accuracy. CANADA— National Research Council of Canada

is the legal source for the establishment and maintenance of basic units of measurement — length, mass, electrical and luminous intensity. Although

there is no legal prescription for the establishment

of a temperature scale, the National Research Council adheres to the Thermodynamic Scale and utilizes the International Practical Temperature Scale.

Time is legally the responsibility of the Department

of Mines and Technical Surveys viz. Dominion

Observatory. However, National Research Council has established the atomic resonators which

establish atomic time for the Dominion Observatory

and National Research Council.

To discharge their responsibility, certain Canadian Government Departments, Public Corporations, Boards and Commissions operate or establish

measurement laboratories. Cooperation between

these bodies and the National Research Council

has been excellent.

All measurements used for "Billing" purposes

are the responsibility of the Canadian Department

of Trade and Commerce. This is a Federal

responsibility. In general, the National Research Council has

exercised the powers provided by "The Research

Council Act (RSC 239)" Section 13 (c) (iv)-"For

the investigation and determination of standards

and methods of measurements, including length,

volume, weight, mass, capacity, time, heat, light,

electricity, magnetism and other forms of energy, and the determination of physical constants and

the fundamental properties of matter."

In comparisons between National Laboratories,

which are carried out by the International Bureau

of Weights and Measures at Sevres, France, the

National Research Council represents Canada

for primary quantities.

CHILE — There is no legal source of measurement

accuracy.

FRANCE —The legal system of measurements in France is established by the government. It is actually the Metric System based on six units,

established by the General Conference of Weights

and Measures, as the International System of Units

(decreed on May 3, 1961).

By agreement with the National Conservatory

(Association) of Arts and Trades the Central

Laboratory of Electrical Industries (LCIE) is in charge of the French electrical measurements; it preserves the standards which represent the units

of resistance, inductance, and electromotive force

and carry out all the work of comparison measurements, including those based upon the international

system of the International Bureau of Weights and

Measures (BIPM). It extends, in this way, its activity in classical measurements as well as in the

high or microwave frequencies, and the measure- ments of ionizing radiation which require, as a

basis, the putting to work of highly precise electrical measurements.

Taking into account of the situation defined below,

the information given further on, in answer to the

questionnaire, applies only to the electrical domain.

GERMANY ^Legislation passed by the German

Bundesregierung has noted the PhysikalischTechnische Bundesanstalt (PTB) as the legal source of physical and technical units of measure- ment in Germany. The PTB has technical jurisdiction over the state calibration or verification boards which operate as independent entities within their own geographical area. INDIA — Yes — the National Physical Laboratory

(NPL) at Delhi was established as the custodian

of the primary standards of India. Standards

belonging to the Legal Metrology Departments

(Weights and Measures Enforcement Departments)

of the various Indian States, have been established

and certified by the NPL. These standards are

periodically checked in accordance with the national Enforcement Rules.

ISRAEL — Yes, the Israel Standards Institute (ISI).

135
ITALY — In Italy the C.N.R. (National Research

Council) has been given, at the present time, the

task of preparing specifications for standards,

units of measurement, and symbols by the Ministry

of Industry and Commerce, and the appropriate

channel for this is the CNR-UNI Commission

known as CGUS.

This Commission has prepared a specific standard, containing among other things, the fundamental

definitions of quantities and units. As far as the preservation of the national standards is concerned, this responsibility has been given

to a different Bureau.

The traditional standards of length and mass are

respectively, copy No. 9 of the Standards Meter

and copy No. 5 of the Standard Kilogram at Sevres,

and are in the custody of the Central Metric Bureau

and of the Assayer of Precious Metals, in Rome.

The standards for the interval of time, the intensity of electrical current, the luminous intensity are maintained at the IENGF (Galileo Ferraris

National Electrotechnical Institute) of Turin; this Institute does not depend directly upon the CNR,

but maintains close working relationships.

Finally, the preservation of the temperature

scale is the responsibility of the ITI (Italian Thermometric Institute) at Turin. These last two Insti- tutes, namely the IENGF and the ITI have appropriate laboratories for the maintenance and comparison of the standards entrusted to them, with

the maximum of precision attainable.

JAPAN — Yes, there is a legal source of measure- ment standards. The Japanese Law of Metrology

assigns responsibility for the standards to several

government research laboratories. Standards of

weight, length, and temperature are the responsibility of the National Research Laboratory of

Metrology (NRLM) located in Itabashi-ku, Tokyo.

Standards of time are the responsibility of the Tokyo

Astronomical Laboratory (TAL). Standards of

electrical quantities, electromagnetic propagation,

light, color, sound, radioactivity, and radiation are the responsibility of the Electrotechnical Laboratory (ETL) at Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo.

NETHERLANDS — Legal measurement accuracy

in the Netherlands is covered by the "IJkwet 1937"

(Calibration Act 1937), which deals solely with

the accuracy of equipment for measuring length, mass, area and volume used in trade and commerce. The Calibration Act 1937 can be seen as a law for the benefit of an orderly economic intercourse and

as such is an instrument of economic policy. The

"Dienst van het IJkwezen" (Service of Weights and

Measures), which is in charge of the activities resulting from the legal regulations, is under the

competency of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Thus far the only basic units legally defined are the meter and the kilogram. A revision of the

Calibration Act 1937 is in course of preparation in order to make it fit the modern social intercourse.

This revision will probably result in an expansion

of the activities of the Service of Weights and

Measures. An important modification will be the

introduction of the six basic units of the SI in the

revised law.

NORWAY — Legal measurement accuracy is cov- ered in Norway by the law of Weights and Measures.

Thus far the law deals solely with the accuracy of

equipment for measuring weight, length, area and

volume used in commerce and trade. The law

provides for the amendment of other quantities —

for instance electrical quantities — by a resolution

from the king. Thus far, no such amendment has

been made. The obligatory verification of weight,

length, area, and volume measuring equipment —

and subsidiary equipment such as flow meters —is the responsibility of Det norske Justervesen (Norwegian Bureau of Weights and Measures) which

also maintains the Norwegian prototypes for the

Meter and the Kilogram. Det norske Justervesen

is the only institution having legal power, but other

organizations may be certified by Justervesenet

for making calibrations.

RUSSIA — Yes, the All-Union Scientific-Research

Institute of Standardization in coordination with the

republic and interregional laboratories.

SWEDEN—The Royal Mint controls some commercial standards related to length, mass, and

density.

U.K. -Within the U.K. the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) is in general the custodian of standards of measurement to which other measurements

are referred. The day-by-day administration of

weights and measures for trade is currently the

responsibility of the Board of Trade.

B. In the procurement of supplies for the govern- ment agencies in the United States, the requirement is established that the accuracy of all measurements and measuring equipment be

verified by the National Bureau of Standards, or

that the accuracy of the measurements agency

performing calibration services for the supplier,

be traceable or verified by the Bureau. Does a

similar program exist in your country, to require

certification of the source of measurement

accuracy within your organization?

Answers

AUSTRALIA — The requirement "certification of

measurement accuracy by the legally-established

source" does not specify exactly the situation in Australia, as applied to procurement of materiel

by government agencies. However, it is a fairly

common practice for government agencies to re- quire endorsement of supplier's measurement test documents, by the National Association of Testing

Authorities, Australia (NATA). Refer to Part 1 of

this report for a description of NATA.

136
CANADA—In Canada, various Government Departments, Public Corporations, Boards and Agencies

have certain responsibilities for the acceptance of

material and equipment being supplied to the

Federal Government. All the Departments and

Agencies have not been contacted to determine

policy or practice concerning traceability to or

verification by the National Research Council,

however those contacted do relate their measure- ments to the National Laboratory. The National

Research Council will perform basic measurements

upon request. In the Department of National Defence various

quality-programme and inspection-system requirements for contractors require traceability to National Standards. Traceability to other National

Laboratories such as the National Bureau of Standards or the National Physical Laboratory is also acceptable to the Department.

Several documents issued by governmental agencies determine the significance of, and the degree

of compliance with, controls established for meas- urement accuracies concerned with the veri- fication of quality of delivered products to the

government. These are:

1. "Specifications For Quality Requirements For

Standards Laboratories" Proc. 101-13, Department

of National Defence, Royal Canadian Air Force.

(Similar in content to US MIL-C-45662A "Military

Specification — Calibration System Requirements").

2. "Quality Program Requirements For Contractors" Specification DND 1015, Department of

National Defence. (Similar in content and intent

to US MIL-Q-9858A "Military Specification

Quality Program Requirements").

3. Policies, Implementation Responsibilities, and

Calibration Supervision of Military Calibration

Facilities — CFP129, Canadian Forces. (Similar

in intent to USAF Technical Order Manual T.O.

33.1.14 "Repair, Calibration And Certification Of

Precision Measurement Equipment", and to the

USN Bureau of Ordnance Program Manual "Standards Laboratories Information Manual — Calibration

Program").

Defense contracts placed in Canada by other

Countries are subject to that Country's contractual

quality programme objectives and requirements.

The contractor is responsible for demonstrating

that all contractual conditions have been fulfilled. There has been in the past and still exists, various

contractual conditions for materiel consigned for use within Canada or by Canadian Forces which do

not specifically call up traceability to National

Standards. Utilization of standard materials

offered by the National Bureau of Standards is fairly common in operations within the Quality

Assurance Branch of the Materiel Command, DND.

CHILE — No such program exists. Compliance

with specifications contained in contracts with

foreign suppliers normally is established at the

supplier's plant location.

FRANCE — Industrial firms, furnishing materiel

to the military administration, must produce proof

at the time of delivery of these items, that the

electrical measuring equipment, used for quality

control, have been first of all:

a. either calibrated by the LCIE,

b. or compared with secondary standards which

belong to the contractor and are verified periodically by the LCIE.

This control does not apply, as yet, to items fur- nished to the civilian agencies.

GERMANY — Strictly speaking, this program re- quirement does not exist. INDIA —The Government Purchasing Agency

makes use of certified weights, measures, and

weighing and measuring instruments in the in- spection of materiel supplied under contract to the

government. The Supplier, in turn, is under legal

obligation to observe the Weights and Measures

Act. This law requires all vendors employing

weights, measures, or weighing and measuring in- strumentation, to have such units certified for accuracy if employed in "Trade". This term

applies not only to normal commercial business but

also transactions with the Posts and Telegraph

Departments, the Railways, and in the payment of

wages to workers based on quantity of output.

An example of the last-mentioned category is the

tests of accuracy of the volume of coal tubs used in coal mines — utilized by coal miners in delivering

output.

ISRAEL -No

ITALY —This requirement is not absolutely en- forced but usually in most important instances, the

Government requires certification from the National

Institute or the Universities, or else the supplier

must produce verification from a Ministry Laboratory. In Italy the numerous faculties of en- gineering form part of the University, together

with the other scientific and humanistic faculties. There is an exception in Milan and Turin; the

faculties of engineering and architecture are sep- arated from the others and together form an

engineering institute which is considered as a separate .University. However, by an old tradition

they have their own President, Administrative

Council, and organizing mechanism.

JAPAN — Legal verification of measurement ac- curacy is not a requirement for vendors. However,

government agencies often require factual evidence

of inspection measurement data related to the items

being supplied by a vendor. It is presumed that government inspection may involve an investigation

of the vendor's source of measurement accuracy. NETHERLANDS — No such program exists on a mandatory basis. However, on a voluntary basis

there is quite an activity of "Het Meetinstituut

BEMETEL-TNO" in the field of industrial metrology and pressure measurements. This is a

137
combined activity of BEMETEL (Organization of

Employers in the Mechanical and Electrical In- dustries) and TNO (Organization for Applied

Scientific Research).

As to the procurement of supplies for the

army, the navy and the airforce in some cases the

requirement is established that the vendor's

measuring equipment be traceable to primary

standards.

NORWAY — When the quantity involved is weight,

length, area, or volume, Det norske Justervesen can assume responsibility. When other measure- ments than of these four quantities are involved,

acceptance tests are usually made by the agency in question, often in cooperation with the delivering

firm. The instruments used normally have certificates from foreign establishments like NBS,

NPL etc. The Norwegian Air Force maintains a "traceable" electronic standards laboratory at their Air Material Command base near Oslo.

Traceability is to NPL in England. A few measure- ments are traced to Laboratoire Nationale des

Electronique in France. The Air Force maintains

traceable standards for all the conventional electric quantities plus power and frequency. Plans have

been made to establish a system of traceable

meterological standards.

RUSSIA — The State Committee of Standards,

Measures, and Measuring Instruments of the

USSR revealed a national movement to establish an orderly national system for ensuring high quality

of production, at a meeting held in Moscow January

21-22, 1965, at the Exhibition of National Eco- nomic Achievements of the USSR. During the dis- cussions, much attention was directed to the need

for assuring the reliability, quality, and useful life of products. It was agreed that establishment of a unified State System for supervising the adoption

and enforcement of measurement standards would

be a necessity. Under modern production conditions, it was pointed out, reliable measurements are obtained only through standard methods and

techniques.

SWEDEN -No

UK — Supplies for defence agencies are controlled

by Government Inspectorates which, as part of

their function, supervise measurements and base

these on national standards mostly held by NPL.

C. If there is no single source of measurement

accuracy legally established in your country,

how are questions of measurement accuracy

arbitrated or resolved?

Answers

AUSTRALIA — There is no federal agency which

performs this service. However, NATA was

established to educate test and management

groups relative to the supply of products having

highest quality and reliability, to civilian con- sumers. Because of this effort, many industrial,

commercial, and government procurement activities

insist upon NATA-endorsed test documents, as a confirmation of adherence to minimum requirements of good practices.

CANADA — In keeping with our reply to question

A, questions of measurement accuracy are generally resolved within the responsible Government

Department or Agency. Inter-laboratory correlation tests are used to resolve measurement disputes

in some cases. CHILE — Questions involving disagreements in measurements, concerning supplier and customer,

are resolved through arbitration. Each contract

specifies, as deemed necessary, the terms of

arbitration. FRANCE — This question does not apply to France

GERMANY -Not applicable.

INDIA — Questions of measurement accuracy in commercial transactions are relegated to and are the responsibility of the State in which the con- troversy arises. Each State has sovereignty over

its own cases, but it must be remembered that all State standards are certified by the NPL.

ISRAEL -Not applicable.

ITALY — In line with the principle of limitation in primary metrology the question is not of interest in

Italy, inasmuch as there is usually only one fundamental institute legally recognized for each quantity.

However, for measurements of non-primary char- acter (Lower accuracy) in particular instances,

pilot laboratories have been designated to whom the

other laboratories were obliged to refer their measurements.

JAPAN -Not applicable

NETHERLANDS — Questions of measurement

accuracy in transactions which are not covered by

the Calibration Act are arbitrated incidentally. In most cases the judge asks for a report of TNO

(Organization for Applied Scientific Research).

The greater number of questions of measure- ment accuracy between customer and supplier are

arbitrated by scientific institutes as the institute mentioned under B, the organization TNO or, in some cases, technical universities, without the

interference of judicial power.

NOKWAY — Covered by answers to A and B

RUSSIA -Not applicable

SWEDEN -The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences has formed the Swedish Committee for Measurement Techniques. At the

present time the Committee is making an inquiry

138
of universities, research institutions, and industries in Sweden to investigate the requirements

for and resources of standards and calibration

facilities. In addition, the Swedish government has ap- pointed a committee to investigate metrological

units and standards. The two committees have

cooperated in recommendations, and in consideration of the adoption of the International

System (SI) of units. As a practical approach, four standards laboratories in Sweden provide services for special measurements problems. The standards laboratory

at the Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg has leading capabilities for dc volt- age measurements to 1000 volts, and ac voltage,

capacitance, and resistance measurements. The

laboratory located at the ASEA Electrical Company in Stockholm is a leader in dc and ac highvoltage measurements.

The Swedish defence organizations and the

defence industry has recognized the need for cali- brating facilities and standards laboratories, particularly in the field of radio frequency measurements. To implement the recognized need, the

Research Institute for National Defence in Stockholm organized a standards laboratory group about

ten years ago. This group acts as the Swedish

Defence Ministry's primary standards laboratories,

serving both military and industry needs. The lab- oratories also take part in international inter- comparisons of radio frequency quantities, working

closely with the International Scientific Radio

Union (URSI).

The National Institute for Materials Testing has

established leading capabilities in ac-dc transfer

measurements, and in some of the physical standards areas, including acoustics.

From sources such as these could come heavy

support for a national standards center, if the

Swedish government should take such a step.

Meanwhile, industrial centers requiring certified measurements are able to make use of commercial

services offered by these laboratories.

UK — For Government defence procurement the

verdict of the responsible Inspectorate is usually

accepted.

D. Within industrial plants in the United States, a

close working relationship exists between the

organization which establishes the measure- ments accuracy of the company's test, research,

and inspection programs, and the activity which

is responsible for the assurance of quality in the

final product. Does your country's government

have any agencies which enforce minimum re- quirements of good operation upon either or both the measurements standards and the

quality organizations of an industry which supplies goods solely to civilian consumers, or

solely to government consumers?

Answers

AUSTRALIA -Not applicable

CANADA — Various Federal and Provincial Governmental Departments and Agencies enforce to varying degrees, requirements for good operation.

The Department of National Defence performs this function in keeping with its own responsibilities,

and other Departments such as Trade and Commerce carry out this function by direct or indirect

controlling action. The Canadian Department of

Trade and Commerce has responsibilities for commercial measurements used for "billing" purposes.

In Canada, this is a Federal responsibility; De- partmental standards are certified by the National

Research Council to validate these standards.

Controlled measurements apply to Government con- sumers and to a certain extent for civilian con- sumers. Civilian consumers have courses of

action available through the responsible Government Department or Agency for the investigation

of complaints they may have which could be related

to "requirements of good operation".

CHILE -There are no recognized agencies with

such powers. However, the larger industries in Chile have general understandings concerning good

industrial practices and usually impose these

practices upon national or foreign vendors.

FRANCE — In addition to the specifications or regulations established for their own needs by some agencies or nationalized enterprises, the

characteristics and the performance of electrical equipment are defined by criteria (or norms) which

are prepared by organizations whose standardizing

function is officially recognized (AFNOR, Electrical Technical Union, Telecommunication Coordination Committee, National Center for Telecommunication Studies).

Compliance with the requirements of the documents prepared by these organizations is mandatory only in certain cases such as:

(1) In the case of certified quality brands which

are utilized in house-hold electrical appliances,

electrical equipment for buildings and homes,

electrical conduits and electrical cables (Similar

to US Underwriters Laboratory coding).

(2) In the case of industrial grade electronic

components intended for supply to the armed

forces and other governmental civilian agencies

for which certain characteristics are specified

(Similar to US JAN specs).

The technical control (inspection supervision)

necessary to provide for this quality certification or branding — from receiving of materials through

the manufacturing processes — is a function of

LCIE.

GERMANY -No formal program is known to exist. INDIA — There is no activity or agency which is re- sponsible for such procedures. Also, no industry is

256-114 0-67— 10
compelled to have inspection or research equipment certified for accuracy. However a purchasing

agency (industrial or governmental) often inserts

into the purchase contract, the requirement/s

that the delivered materiel shall conform to particular Indian Standard Specification/s, and that conformance shall be established by the NPL.

ISRAEL -The ISI has industrial technical lab- oratories which are attached to the factories. These laboratories may draw upon the local industrial technologists or scientists for assistance,

as required.

ITALY —There is no specific government agency

which performs this service, however civilian and

military administrations and certain major industries

have a certain number of specialists who are as- signed the specific task of following production

and assuring proper calibration.

Furthermore there are some very active committees of the CEI (Italian Electrotechnical Committee, a section of the IEC) that in collaboration

with the CNR, draw up official Italian Standards

specifications for all electrical, electronic, and

radio instrumentation.

As for the civilian production, there exist in- stitutes, such as the IIMQ (Italian Institute for Quality Brands), non-government but legally recognized, who participate on a voluntary basis in establishing voluntary quality standards, which

verify the quality of the final product and various

components such as cables, and issue appropriate

certificates. JAPAN -There is no single agency which has been

established for such a purpose. In the field of

electrical standards, a semi-governmental orga- nization-Japan Electric Meters Inspection Corporation (JEMIC) was established in January 1965. This

is a specialized activity which performs inspection

and type approval of electrical meters, calibration

of working standards, and special tests upon general electrical meters and other measurement in- struments which depend upon transfer standards

rotated between JEMIC and the Electrotechnical

Lab.

The Japan Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, a number of measurement instrument manufacturers, and other related industries are establishing unified quality programs through technicalcooperation programs with the JEMIC and ETL.

Government agencies procuring certain types of

equipment such as basic standards, optical lenses,

airplanes, and radio and radar instrumentation,

provide legal regulations in the purchase contracts

specifying good operation practices.

NETHERLANDS -Our government has no agencies for this purpose. There is however an or- ganization called "Stichting Kwaliteitsdienst voor de Industrie" (Foundation Quality Service

to the Industry) subsidized by the Ministry of

Economic Affairs and by subscription of industry.

NORWAY — Rudiments of such an organization

exist, but it is not yet built up. There is no "agency

which enforces minimum requirements", but the

larger firms have their own test departments or

laboratories. Accuracy is ensured by instru- ments usually calibrated abroad. The legal aspect

is taken care of by an underwriters guarantee.

For electrical equipment, Norsk Elektrisk Materiellkontroll (NEMKO) establishes safety standards.

RUSSIA — All industry is nationalized. Within

each plant is stationed one or more representatives of the State Inspection Laboratories who serve

as inspectors of the end products. Presently, there

are no uniform procedures for quality assurance but

the proposed national system sponsored, in part by

the State Committee of Standards, is expected to establish improved methods for testing and controlling production.

SWEDEN -No.

UNITED KINGDOM -For Government defence consumers the official Inspectorates discharge this function. For civilian consumers there is no en- forcement but increasing use is being made of the

British Standard Specifications, and in respect of some of these a form of quality supervision is operated by the British Standards Institution under

its "Kite-mark" scheme.

E. In the United States, the National Conference

of Standards Laboratories conducts a measure- ments accuracy survey of Standards Laboratories who voluntarily participate, but in a manner which prohibits revealing of the results

to any participant other than the original lab- oratory. In other words, each participating

laboratory is able to perform a self-evaluation

without the possibility of embarrassment.

The National Bureau of Standards monitors the

program and correlates the results of the pro- gram. A written, tabulated report at the

completion of each survey enables all participating laboratories to determine their own

capabilities in the measurement of the test standards which comprise the package inter- changed between the laboratories and the

Bureau. Does your country have any organization which offers such a means of establishing

the measurements capabilities of any measure- ments laboratory? If so, how does it perform

the function?

Answers

AUSTRALIA -In Australia the laboratory-evaluation scheme is extended to cover all aspects of laboratory organization and operation. Participation is completely voluntary, and results of evaluations are completely confidential. Assessment is carried out by small teams of specialists, familiar

with the type of work performed in the laboratory.

140
Assessment covers qualification and experience of

each member of the laboratory staff, adequacy of

laboratory equipment for the work performed,

adequacy of techniques used, adequacy of laboratory administration and procedures. Practical

tests are used as assessment techniques, but to supplement rather than to substitute for other

procedures.

CANADA — Within the Department of National

Defence a series of Inter-Laboratory Comparison

Measurements has been conducted under the

auspices of the Canadian Military Electronic

Standards Agency Correlation Panel. Both Government and Defence Industrial Laboratories

participated in this project which followed the

principles of NCSL's "Experimental Measurement

Agreement Comparison on a Nation Wide Basis".

It was conducted on a voluntary basis and in a manner whereby numbers were assigned to par- ticipants and known only to the coordinator of the

tests and the individual laboratory.

The tests undertaken in Canada were carried out

in the Testing Laboratories by Test Personnel

rather than by Laboratory Personnel in Standards

Laboratories. This approach was taken to assure:

a) Correlation or repeatability of Test Measurements.

b) Provide some indication of the confidence in the Individual Participant's Standards and Transfer

Capabilities.

The Canadian Military Electronic Standards

Agency has been most effective in promoting eval- uation tests employing electrical parameters such

as resistance and capacitance and deserves much

credit for its work. The Quality Assurance Divi-

• sion of Materiel Command participates in a number

of other Inter-Laboratory comparison measurement

' or round-robins and exchanges on Petroleum prod-

^ ucts and organic protective coatings, and in Canadian Government Specification Board exchanges

on petroleum products, paints, textiles and many

other commodities. Informal exchanges with

Government Departments and various segments of

Canadian Industry have taken place. Other

{ Government Departments, Agencies and Commercial Establishments may have undertaken such

tests, however we are only aware of the projects

] outlined. We are aware of several Canadian In- dustrial Laboratories which have participated in 'Laboratory-Inter-comparison Tests" with their

parent companies in other countries. It is hoped

that NCSL will not overlook parameters in certain

fields, particularly in Chemistry where many sig- nificant determinations are being made.

* j CHILE — Several Universities are capable of per- forming this function, but there is no recognized

. formal procedure to encourage such interchange

of standards.

FRANCE — In France there is not available any

system, at the national level, for making intercomparisons of measurement abilities on a specific

parameter (round-robin intercomparisons). Compatibility of measurement accuracy capabilities is effected only through the services of LCIE, by comparison with the national standards.

However, France periodically intercompares

standards of equal accuracies, or has standards

calibrated against higher internationally-recognized standards maintained by the International

Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM). As

indicated in the reply to question "A", LCIE

represents France at the BIPM.

GERMANY— No formal program of inter-compari- sons is known at this time. However PTB has

established a verification system which coordinates

with the twelve verification boards established in the eleven states of the Federal Republic, and in West Berlin. Each board is administratively

subordinate to each local government, and is under the technical supervision of the PTB.

INDIA -No such program exists for intercompari- son of measurement capabilities of industrial

laboratories. However, installation of such a program applied to civilian laboratories would

immediately involve the NPL as the official arbiter. In the meantime, there does exist a continuing

requirement for the State Legal Metrology Departments to have their legal standards periodically

checked by the NPL, which permits the conscientious laboratories to perform a self-eval- uation.

ISRAEL — Such a program is not specified as being

in existence.

ITALY -In Italy, the AEI (Italian Electrical and

Electronic Association*) was the sponsor for many

years before the war, of circular measurement

intercomparisons between laboratories but only in the electrical field. The intercomparison has been

extended to many Italian measurement laboratories. The final results are usually published in the AEI Journals ("Electrical Techniques" and

"High Frequencies"), replacing in the appropriate

tables, the names of laboratories with symbols

known only to the participating parties, thereby

assuring anonymity.

*This Association has changed its name in the last few years, adding Electronic but has kept its original

initials AEI, standing for Italian Electrical Association. JAPAN — There is no formal organization or activity for intercomparison of measurement accuracy

capabilities. However, it is evident that some

manufacturers perform intra-laboratory comparisons within their own corporations for self-eval- uation purposes.

NETHERLANDS -Such an organization exists in the field of length measurement. The institute mentioned under B can appoint agencies on the

basis of minimum capabilities as shown in the

141
measurement of a package of test standards inter- changed between the institute and the agency.

These agencies, approved and certified by the

institute sub B, are combined in "De Meetkern",

which can be seen as a Conference of Metrology

Laboratories. Members of "De Meetkern" are

also the Technical Universities in Holland.

NORWAY -For commerce, control exists as an- swered in "A". Some electronic control is done on

a voluntary basis between industry and the Air

Force lab described in "B". Otherwise, nothing

exists. RUSSIA -No formal program including industrial

laboratories is in existence.

SWEDEN -Such measurement capability inter- comparisons are conducted at fairly regular inter- vals among the laboratories previously described,

and to a limited extent, with several industrial

plants. There is no formal handling of the inter- comparisons which are probably limited to standard

cells and resistors, ac-dc transfer units, bolometers,

and gage blocks.

UNITED KINGDOM -Government inspectorates

in general monitor the measurement capabilities

of supplying organizations, mainly by the use of

test pieces, the checking of measuring equipment

against Inspectorate standards, and the use of the

"audit package" system of circulating items for measurement through a succession of suppliers'

standards laboratories.

F. In your country does any organization evaluate

the claims made by manufacturers, concerning

the accuracy and/or the performance of instru- mentation produced by civilian manufacturers?

If so, are these reports available only to the

government? only to the manufacturer? to the general public?

Answers

AUSTRALIA — There is no such organization.

CANADA — Upon request by Governmental or

Industrial Bodies the National Research Council

tests, on a fee basis, certain instruments for per- formance against specification requirements. The

reports become the property of the requestor. To

further disseminate this information, written au- thorization must be obtained from the National

Research Council. Several Government Departments and Agencies carry out this function, however the reports are only available to the Government Department or Agency concerned and usually

the manufacturer, and the public, in general, does

not have access to the reports.

A number of industrial firms conduct their own

vendor quality assurance programs, similar to practices in the U.S.

CHILE -No such formal program exists. An or- ganization known as "Industry and Business

Direction" is interested in this phase of industrial

activity, but apparently its activities are limited

to industries forming the organization's membership.

FRANCE -LCIE conducts tests of materials and

electrical apparatus upon requests by agencies,

industries, or private individuals. Certificates

issued by LCIE are official and are the property

of the requestor. With the permission of LCIE, the

results of the tests may be publicized, provided

that the entire report is made available to the

public. . It is of interest to point out, in addition, the

particular case of electrical and electronic measure- ment equipment, which is the concern of the Inter- departmental Commission of Electrical Measuring

Apparatus. This is the activity which acts as

liaison between manufacturers of measuring in- struments, analyzes the needs of users and promotes

the future development of measuring instruments.

It also registers all comments or criticisms on manufactured equipment.

In certain cases, it has had comparison tests performed -by LCIE -on instruments of the same

nature, in order to compare their respective qualities. To avoid abusive use or errors of interpretation, test results have been reported only to the

cognizant technical personnel of the agencies, large

civilian users and the manufacturers of the measuring equipment.

GERMANY -Impartial tests are conducted by the State Testing Boards. No mention is made of the

disposition of test results. INDIA -Yes -the Indian Standards Institution

(ISI). Any manufacturer may request verification

j of performance to specifications by this organization, in order to receive the IS Certification Mark.

If the ISI is satisfied that performance is in accord- ance with claims by the manufacturer, he may

mark his product as conforming to the Indian

Standard Specification. Such tests are conducted on a fee basis and periodic checks are made of

,| the product to establish continuing conformance to ij specifications, under penalty of withdrawal of the

official approval if discrepancies in performance ij are found.

ISRAEL —The ISI has cognizance over production : claims and performance. Reports are distributed

between government and factory.

ITALY -Such evaluations are not made by any

particular institute, but on occasion, upon requestby interested parties, necessary verifications are made by referring to appropriate institutes or or- ganizations designated for this purpose.

JAPAN — There is no formal organization. How-.j ever there exist, apparently, several trade organizations, which encourage examination of claims by'

142
members of the organization, and agreement on

disposition of dubious or disputable claims of

performance. Disputes usually are resolved by

referring to special tests performed by ETL,

NLRM, or TAL.

1 NETHERLANDS -Yes. This is an organization

called "Werkgroep Instrument Beoordeling"

(WIB; Working Party on Instrument Behaviour).

Members are manufacturers as well as users. The

WIB evaluates the instruments. The reports,

written in English, are available to the members

only.

NORWAY— Norway has no instrument industry.

RUSSIA — There are no "civilian" manufacturers

since all industry is nationalized. Specifications

mentioned for a product's performance are in co- ordination with specifications established by a governmental agency prior to production toohngup. SWEDEN-Not publicly.

UK— This is done to some extent by Government

organizations and also by the Scientific Instrument

Research Association. The reports of Government

bodies are usually restricted to the departments

and manufacturers immediately concerned while

in the case of SIRA, the reports are confined to those members who contribute to the cost of the

evaluation.

Does any organization in your country establish

Standards of Practice in Operation of Measurements Standards Laboratories? Are any

Standards available to you?

Answers

AUSTRALIA —Yes, the National Association of

Testing Authorities, Australia.

CANADA -Specification PROC 101-13 has been

developed by the Department of National Defence

to "define the general requirements for a lab- oratory quality control system to assure that cali- bration and calibration services meet the quality

standards stipulated by the Government contract. The requirements shall be met by procedures

established by the contractor to the satisfaction of

the Department of National Defence, Royal Canadian Air Force, or its authorized representative,

herein referred to as the RCAF and the Inspector".

This standard was developed by the R.C.A.F.,

however with the integration process now underway

in the Department, this document may be modified

in certain respects. At the present time the Environmental Requirements, particularly for Dust

Control and Temperature, are under study.

CHILE -No such organization exists. FRANCE —This action is presently under development. LCIE, at the request of certain military

agencies, establishes calibration procedures.

General publication of these procedures is not being

considered presently.

It should also be noted that LCIE publishes

papers in the technical press on the techniques of

measurements it has developed. Such publication is not systematic, however.

GERMANY— The PTB, acting as supreme technical

authority in the national calibration service,

establishes or advises on any Standards of Practice required by the State Laboratories.

INDIA — Standards of Practice involving highprecision measurements are established by the

NPL and conform in general, with those practiced

by other National Laboratories. Industrial Standards of Practice are prescribed by the ISI, but

are voluntary.

ISRAEL — This is the responsibility of the ISI. The Institute maintains liaison with other national

laboratories, e.g. the National Physical Laboratory in England.

ITALY — Generally, each Measurement Laboratory

establishes and uses appropriate internal pro- cedures, but frequently there are exchanges of

information among the various laboratories either

directly or via the CEI and the AEI.

JAPAN —There is no specific organization per- forming such a function. Instrumentation manufacturers draw up individual, practical standards

of operation.

NETHERLANDS -Yes. In the field of length

measurement "De Meetkern" is active. This

work is still in the infancy but results will be

available in the course of next year. Contact

will be established with the American committee

B-89.

NORWAY — To some extent material is available

through a Norwegian Industrial Quality Control

Association affiliated with the European Organization for Quality Control. Foreign publications are most used. The Air Force follows US practice

through an established Technical Order system

from the US Air Force. RUSSIA — It is expected that the new All-Union

Scientific-Research Institute of Standardization

will deal with standards of practice and operation.

SWEDEN -Not within Sweden.

UNITED KINGDOM -A start has been made on

preparing standards of practice but none is yet

available.

143
H. Does any organization in your country promote

dissemination of information pertaining to measurements standards, or techniques of

precision and accurate measurements?

Answers

AUSTRALIA -There is no one-particular organization. Professional institutes such as the In- stitution of Engineers, Australia or the Institution of Production Engineers publish journals, bulletins,

and the like. National Standards Laboratory,

Defence Standards Laboratories, and some others

publish bulletins and monographs. There is a steady flow of technical literature, in all languages,

from Europe, America, and Japan.

CANADA — Several Federal and Provincial Governmental Departments and Agencies, as well as other associations and societies produce papers,

technical notes and sponsor Seminars, however

there is no single organization presently undertaking the dissemination of all information pertaining to measurement standards, techniques of precision and accurate measurements. The Canadian Standards Association has produced some

material in this field, in particular a written standard

covering "Gauging Threaded Products (B36)'\

Various Canadian technical periodicals and the

commercial press inform readers of published

papers and other technical developments in this

field. Interested parties can write to the Department or Agency concerned to obtain a particular

document or information on the particular subject.

CHILE — No such organization exists. FRANCE -This action is presently under development. LCIE, at the request of certain military

agencies, establishes calibration procedures.

General publication of these procedures is not being considered presently.

It should also be noted that LCIE publishes

papers in the technical press on the techniques of

measurements it has developed. Such publication is not systematic, however.

GERMANY -This function is performed by the

PTB.

INDIA -Such information is obtainable from the

NPL when requested. NPL also undertakes to give practical and theoretical training in precision

measurements to selected personnel of scientific institutions, industry, and the various State Legal

Metrology Departments. During the past few

years, over 400 people have received such training.

ISRAEL -Only through the ISI. ITALY — In addition to specific information con- tained in scientific publications, there are periodic bulletins or monographs from the various

Institutes which maintain the standards.

JAPAN — There does not exist any formal, continuing program for information dissemination.

Such information is obtained at technical con- . ferences, and symposiums, from coordinating

committees representing Universities, Laboratories, Manufacturers, and ETL, and from liaison conferences held with ETL and industrial associations. NETHERLANDS -Some industries have their own organization, but generally speaking there is an incidental dissemination of information through

the medium of periodicals published by the or- ganizations already mentioned.

NORWAY -The Norwegian Quality Control Association and national branches of organizations

like the ISO distribute information. The military

have their own organization which is influenced

by NATA and/or US military specifications.

RUSSIA -It is expected that the new All-Union

Scientific-Research Institute of Standardization

will deal with standards of practice and operation.

SWEDEN- Yes -in radio frequency measure- ments the Swedish Commission I of URSI is quite

active. Also active is the Committee for Measurement Techniques of the Royal Swedish Academy

of Engineering Sciences, in the wider approach to !| metrological problems. The National Institute

for Materials Testing has compiled many reports

of test methods, which are available to industry.

UNITED KINGDOM -Limited dissemination of

such information has gone on for many years but

it is not systematized, and needs expansion.

I. How is your country made aware of the needs

of industry for measurements standards to pro- ] mote improved quality in products?

Answers

: AUSTRALIA — There is no formal assessment of

needs by any organization.

i; CANADA — The benefits of improved measurement ^ standards to create improved products would be

fl realized by individual companies or persons. \\ The Canadian Standards Association, as the National Standards body for Canada, endeavours

to incorporate quality requirements in their written

standards to an increasing extent. The CSAf i participates in work undertaken by:

The International Electro Technica Commission • The International Standards Organization, and ' 1 The International Committee for Approval of' Electrical Equipment (CEE).

Note — Industrial firms remark upon the impact of|

j the US military program needs and the difficulties encountered by Canadian firms in obtaining pro- J

j 144
duction-sharing contracts under NORAD agree- ments. Aggressive steps are being taken to promote information dissemination by participation

in the National Conference of Standards Laboratories and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.

CHILE — There is no formal method of approaching

this problem.

FRANCE — By participation in the study of the gov- ernment's Equipment Plan*, industry and user- agencies are able to make known their needs

(for measuring equipment not existing).

Incidentally, participation by LCIE engineers in many committees wherein they meet representatives of the electrical industry and agency heads

concerned with electrical or electronic technology —

Armed Forces, Broadcasting, Telecommunications, etc. — results in contacts which have constituted for many years, one of the principal means

of making known the needs of industry in metrology.

*Part of a national civil science and technology

S&T plan now underway.

GERMANY-By feedback to PTB via the State

laboratories or through the efforts of the industrial

technical associations, such as the Verband

Deutscher Elektrotechniker (VDE, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) and the Deutscher Nor- menausschuss (DNA).

INDIA — No formal means exist for establishing

measurements standards needs.

ISRAEL — By feedback to the central ISI organization via the local factory laboratories.

ITALY — The knowledge of industrial needs arises

mostly from direct contact between the industries

and the Institutes or Laboratories during joint

meetings sponsored by the regulatory agencies,

both national and international. Among the typical

agencies active in the electrical field in general,

CEI and IEC and other well-known organizations

could be mentioned.

The CNR has furthermore established a "Consultative Commission on the activities and types

of interfaces between the CNR and the various

interested industries for the solution of research

problems."

JAPAN —There does not exist any formal, continuing program for information dissemination.

Such information is obtained at technical confer- ences, and symposiums, from coordinating committees representing Universities, Laboratories,

Manufacturers, and ETL, and from liaison con- ferences held with ETL and industrial associations.

NETHERLANDS -In the Netherlands a "Kwaliteitsdienst voor de Industrie" (Foundation Quality Service to Industry) exists. In the field of

length measurement "De Meetkern" is active.

NORWAY— Articles in technical press and the

Norwegian Quality Control Association and national branches of organizations like the ISO

distribute information. The military have their own organization which is influenced by NATA

and/or US military specifications.

RUSSIA — By coordinated committee work in- volving the institutes of the USSR Academy of

Sciences, the State trade committees and ministries having cognizance over such matters, and

the new Ail-Union Scientific-Research Institute of

Standardization.

SWEDEN — By studies conducted by the Swedish

Commission I of URSI, the Royal Academy Committee for Measurement Techniques, and the

government committee on measurement standards and units. UNITED KINGDOM -It is anticipated that an

orderly feedback of information relevant to industrial needs for measurement standards will be ac- complished via the Specialist Committees and

Advisory Council to British Calibration Services

headquarters.

J. Does any organization in your country develop

and/or disseminate methods for the compilation

and analysis of measurements and calibration

data by statistical methods?

Answers

AUSTRALIA — No organization or activity is en- gaged in this activity.

CANADA -No Canadian organization appears to be disseminating such methods, although some may

be under development. Existing methods such as those of ASTM are utilized to some extent in Canada. However, the National Research Council

will assist, upon request, in the solution of particular problems.

CHILE — Several Universities are interested in the problem but are dealing with it only in a rudi- mentary manner. FRANCE -No.

GERMANY -Same as answer to I. INDIA —The Indian Statistical Institute handles

research statistical problems, and the ISI has a

Division which is engaged in a study of statistical methods for quality control. Such information

however, normally is not being disseminated to industry at the present time.

ISRAEL — Such a program is not specified as being

in existence.

ITALY — There exists within the CEI an appropriate subcommittee No. 109 named "Statistical

145
Quality Control", which publishes procedures or methods of this type (see "Rules for Sampling in the Testing of Quality" 1st Edition 109-2, edition VIII 1963).

JAPAN -No formal organization performs this task. NETHERLANDS -This is one of the aims of the

"Kwaliteitsdienst voor de Industrie" (Foundation

Quality Service to Industry) and "De Nederlandse

Verenizing voor Statistiek" (The Dutch Society

for Statistics).

NORWAY -Norsk forening for kvalitetskontroll

(Norwegian Quality Control Association).

RUSSIA -The State Committee of Standards,

Measures, and Measuring Instruments of the

USSR is aware of the need to develop theoretical

metrology, particularly in developing criteria for evaluating the reliability and precision of data obtained from complex measuring systems. Through

the working of the new All-Union Institute, it is hoped progress in establishing and disseminating

such statistical information will be accelerated.

SWEDEN - Not formally.

UNITED KINGDOM -The Specialist Committees

are a natural source for encouraging development

and dissemination of statistical controls of data. Formal procedures could be assimilated and dis- tributed through the British Standards Institution

with the technical assistance of the Services

Electrical Standards Centre, for example.

K. Does any organization in your country coordi- nate and encourage methods for control of

measurements standards laboratory work loads,

storage of data, training of measurements

personnel, interchange of calibration pro- cedures?

Answers

AUSTRALIA -The National Standards Laboratory

in Sydney, and the Defence Standards Laboratories in Melbourne cooperate closely in storage of

data, training of personnel, and standardization

of calibration procedures. However, these activities are internal, and information distribution per- taining to the activities is minimized externally

unless specific requests are directed to the

laboratories.

CANADA — Various organizations are responsible

for planning and controlling these aspects of their own operations. Beyond this, we are not aware of

any organization attempting to perform these functions on an independent basis. Commercial standards laboratories are required to meet certain

criteria for storage of data and capability of per- sonnel.

CHILE —There is no formal organization concerned

with these problems — each activity meets its problems independently.

FRANCE -Two scientific societies (SFE and SFER)

have, among others, initiated actions which improve precision measurement procedures.

LCIE has, under its direction, the function of training technicians who, after being employed at LCIE, go into industry and apply the methods

they were taught at LCIE.

GERMANY -Except through the normal technical

supervisory activities of PTB, there is no formal

program.

INDIA -In general, no. The ISI does train some

personnel in measurements techniques and theory,

but the other factors are in general handled by the

respective laboratories independently.

ISRAEL -Only as an incidental matter related to the work loads at each factory laboratory.

ITALY -Some of the responsibilities indicated in the question are performed by the AEI which as an example, sponsors the above-mentioned circular

inter-comparisons.

JAPAN — No formal organization performs this task. NETHERLANDS -In general, no. However,

an inquiry set up by the Dutch Service for Weights

and Measures has revealed the desirability of coordination in our country. The matter is under

investigation. In the field of length measurement

"De Meetkern" stimulates and coordinates the

above mentioned activities. There is close contact with educational bodies on different levels. NORWAY-No.

RUSSIA -There is no specific single control or- ganization at present. Again, the new All-Union

Institute is expected to cope with such problems as: The development and assimilation of measuring

methods based on new principles, and of automatic

devices for obtaining and analyzing, by means of electronic computers, the information on the course

of production and technological processes, and combining measuring and control functions.

Developing the basis and means for automation

of measurements, and the establishment of a system

for providing uniform measurements in automated I [ processes. _ j

/ Developing methods and equipment for precision

measurements of radio technical quantities, for testing and controlling radio technical, quantum- j [ mechanical and acoustical systems and their components, for measuring high and low temperatures

j and the properties of materials under these condi- „

, tions, for measuring ionizing radiations of all i types and for evaluating the characteristics of nuclear processes. Further development and improvement of staj ^ tistical methods for controlling technological

146
processes and the quality of production, and de- velopment of a rational organization for testing

control instruments according to their production

conditions.

Encouraging highly-qualified personnel to join

metrological institutes. Meeting the requirements of the metrological

service in personnel of most varied qualifications

by providing the required training in the higher educational and technical institutions of the USSR.

Also the providing of standardization and measuring-equipment facilities to the institutions, and

encouragement of correspondence courses. The need for production of portable installa- tions and instruments for testing commercial

measuring instruments on the spot, for pubbcation

of catalogues of measuring instruments, and for incorporation in the new standards of the requirement for an aesthetic finish of articles. SWEDEN -No.

UNITED KINGDOM -It is anticipated that British

Calibration Services headquarters will become

deeply involved in questions related to operationalmanagement problems of certified laboratories.

L. Does any organization in your country establish

definitions, classifications, test methods, and

performance requirements for reference (high- est level of accuracy) standards which are sold

commercially?

Answers

AUSTRALIA — No organization has been established for this purpose. Most measurement

reference standards are custom built or purchased

abroad to customer specifications.

CANADA — Through participation in various

International, National, Interdepartmental and

Departmental committees many individuals in Governmental and Industrial positions assist in estabbshing these definitions. There is no single, identifiable organization which coordinates such

actions. CHILE — There is no such organization.

I FRANCE -No

GERMANY— No answer — presumably this responsibibty rests with each manufacturer.

INDIA — The Indian Government has established

the National Physical Laboratory as the Prototype

Approving Authority for measurement standard

units at the reference standard level. NPL, in turn, bases its actions upon international practices.

ISRAEL — This is under the jurisdiction of the ISI. ITALY — Inasmuch as there is limited production

of high precision standards, when such a case

occurs each Institute or Laboratory which acquires

the standards, provides the necessary specifications

in each case, and the final inspection.

JAPAN — Some work of this sort is provided by the

association known as Japanese Industrial Standards

(JIS). NORWAY-No, apart from participation in inter- national organizations.

RUSSIA — The Ail-Union Institute is expected to coordinate problems related to instrumentation

and highest-level standards by attention to the

following:

The development and production of new, improved reference standards for measuring units

and their maintenance in a condition meeting the

requirements of modern science and technology.

The establishment of reference standards on

the basis of interatomic processes, which are characterized by strictly defined patterns, are not

affected by external conditions and are relatively

easy to reproduce.

The development of objective methods for eval- uating measurement errors under complex

conditions in order to obtain precise and reliable measurement results, and the development of

mathematical statistics and of the theory of probabihty with respect to the problems of measure- ments and statistical control of production, including

the statistical control and testing of the measuring

equipment proper. The establishment of a state service for providing

the USSR national economy with reliable data

concerning the physiochemical properties of

materials and substances used in production, as

well as numerical data on fundamental physical

constants. The establishment of a State service for providing

the USSR national economy with reference materials and substances required for controlling

technological processes, testing measuring equipment and evaluating the quality of indexes of all types of products.

Raising the precision in transferring measuring

units by producing and improving reference

standards and reference equipment.

Search for new methods and the development of new high-precision reference equipment in various

fields of measurement.

Substantially improving the precision of chemicalanalytical measurements and developing new

methods and equipment to meet the requirements

of the chemical industry.

Developing the precise-measurement techniques

in the fields of biology, medicine and biophysics.

Developing theoretical metrology, in particular

the working out of criteria for evaluating the pre- cision and reliability of results obtained under

complicated measuring conditions.

147
The improvement of information available in the

field of metrology and high-precision instruments.

For this purpose, it is necessary to establish closer contacts between the metrological institutes and all the scientific organizations of the USSR, and to raise the level of the State Committee of Standards'

journal to that of exceedingly well-informed and

authoritative scientific and technical publications.

The organization of compulsory State testing of

all the newly-developed measuring, control and

testing equipment, and the inspection of similar

equipment imported from abroad.

The penetration into the national economy of the

State-Controlled System of Instruments whose

main task is to modularize and unitize instruments

and devices, encourage common operation and

interchangeability on the basis of uniform input

and output signals, supply parameters and means of interconnection.

Speeding up the development of technical specifications for manufacturing and testing reference

substances.

SWEDEN -No

UNITED KINGDOM -The Standards Instrument

Manufacturers Association, in close collaboration

with the Standards Instrument Research Association, is interested in this phase of work.

148

J

i
NCSL 66

SESSION 11: TEST EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Chairman: Dario Antonucci

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., Bethpage, L.I., New York

Committee Reports

CI, ELECTRICAL STANDARDS

Chairman: Jim Hadley

Bendix Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri

The following objectives were listed for CI:

1. To establish a list of terms, definitions and

classifications for reference standards for dc and

frequencies up to 1.0 MHz.

2. To establish test methods and performance

requirements for reference standards from dc to frequencies up to 1.0 MHz.

3. To establish a list of persons, including representatives of organizations, who can provide technical information and advice relating to electrical reference standards.

4. To participate in the activities of other committees which have interests similar to our own,

such as the ASA Committee C-100.

The membership status of the C-l Committee

as of the time of this report stands at three members.

Additional members are desired, and any NCSL-66

attendees and/or members wishing to become members of this Committee should contact Jim Hadley or

the NCSL Recording Secretary.

Planned activities of the C61 Committee, besides

the already stated objectives:

1. Preparation of a list of standards and specifications which have been provided by other organizations that are directly applicable to the field of the committee's activities.

2. To prepare a list of terms and definitions perti- nent to dc and low frequency reference standards.

These terms will be coordinated with other NCSL

committees.

3. To continue the work which has been started

through the C-100 committee, and to make the

results of this work available to the NCSL membership.

Ken Koep of Weston Instruments, Newark, N.J. reported for CI on the C-100 Committee of the ASA:

1. The C-100 Committee is sponsored by SAMA.

2. Scope of C-100 Committee: Definitions, classi- fications, ratings, methods of test, performance re- quirements, and constructional details where

necessary, for various types of the electrical refer- ence and measuring devices covering the dc range

and up to frequency range of 1.0 MHz, as used in electrical standardizing laboratories.

3. There was an investigation whether or not overlapping existed with other ASA committees,

and this indicated that there was no overlapping.

4. C-100 is comprised of 4 subcommittees: acratios, dc-ratio devices, ac-dc transfer devices, and

definitions.

5. Organizations represented in the ASA C-100

Committee include: NCSL, NBS, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, American Ordnance Ass'n., U.S. Army,

NASA, SAMA, American Council of Independent

Laboratories, ISA, Precision Measurement Association, Liaison Representative of the Canadian Standards Association, ASA B-88 and B-89, Telephone

Industries.

C2, HIGH FREQUENCY STANDARDS

Chairman: Dario Antonucci

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.

OBJECTIVE 1: To establish a reliable and realistic standards and measurement instruments in the

list of definitions and classifications applicable to frequency range of 1.0 MHz and above.

149
a. Definitions:

1. As to application: standards, interlaboratory

standards, transfer standards, working standards,

etc.

2. As to purpose of standards: reference standards, measurement instruments, etc.

b. Classification of standards and instruments:

1. Classify standards and instruments by cate- gory, function, application, etc.

2. By type — such as R.F. Coaxial, Microwave

Coaxial, Waveguide — what makes each a standard

or test instrument, etc.

3. By levels of quality and echelons, etc. OBJECTIVE 2: To define, as to application and

function, test methods, and performance requirements, for electrical and electronic reference standards and measurement instruments,

a. Define test methods for:

1. Determining and measuring characteristics of

high frequency and microwave standards as to function to which they will be utilized.

2. Determine test methods for determining quality

characteristics as to function which the standards

will be performing, such as reference standards,

interlaboratory standards, permanently used as a system standard (built-in-standard), or component

level reference.

3. Determining test methods and function characteristics of instruments used for general precision

measurements other than as standards.

OBJECTIVE 3: To develop a list of reliable laboratory standards and measurement instruments by

classification, name and function, excluding manufacturer's names and model numbers.

a. Listing standards according to frequency

bands, type (coaxial or waveguide), minimum accu- racy and precision, workmanship, special considerations.

b. Listing measurement instruments (besides

standards):

1. By minimum desired characteristics.

2. By frequency bands (coaxial or WR sizes).

3. By measurement flexibility and adaptability.

4. By reliability (workmanship, stability, etc.).

5. By commercial or non-commercial availability.

OBJECTIVE 4: Develop a bibliography of standards

publications and information sources.

a. Coaxial area:

1. Professional magazines and publications

(speeches, reports, professional papers, etc.) in the

coaxial field of high frequency standards.

2. List of references of institutions and/or industries where information on standards instruments is available or can be found. (Examples: IEEE, ISA,

NBS, etc.)

3. Reference handbooks, texts, experiments,

NBS publications, etc.

b. Waveguide and special areas:

1. NBS, military, professional or industrial publications on standards and standards measurements.

2. Commercial, government or military facilities where standards and measurements information can be found, and/or is available.

C3, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS

Chairman: Mrs. Mary Hoskins

Honeywell, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota

The following comments were reported:

1. Regarding the performance criteria of test instruments and standards, who is responsible for what? It will be noted that the ASA B-89 Committee on Dimension Standards has been working for some time on defining and classifying dimensional

standards.

2. A guide list of terms should be established

which the user and the manufacturer will recognize. These criteria to be followed when buying

or using the test equipment under consideration.

3. The criteria of test instruments and standards

should be applied in two ways:

a. Through formal or universal definitions, as per

the ASA B-89 classification

b. Through method of test, as recommended by

Standards Committee.

4. The C-3 Committee member representation

includes the Navy, the Sheffield Corporation, General Electric and Sandia Corporation. Additional

members for this committee are desirable.

5. The proposed criteria of the C-3 Committee

are based on three considerations:

a. Design Considerations

b. Functional Capabilities

c. Economics of Operation

C4, PHYSICAL STANDARDS

Chairman: Richard M. Herman

Hercules Powder Company, Magna, Utah

I. OBJECTIVES

1. Develop a list of important instrument characteristics for instruments in the physical field

(accuracy, stability, precision, environmental coeffi- cients, etc.) and a method of rating instruments

using those characteristics.

150
2. Develop a directory of people who are knowledgeable in the various areas of the physical field and who may be called upon to provide technical

information and advice in their various disciplines.

3. Develop a listing of standardized nomenclature, terms, and definitions to be used in the physical

field. This listing is to be coordinated with the

ISA, ASA, ASME, and other technical societies.

n. ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE

1. Objective (2): A directory of people

Accomplished: There were 87 inquiries sent out, 34 answers received (40 percent response). Of

those 87, 52 inquiries were sent to NCSL members,

20 answers received (38 percent response). As a

result of the above action, 76 names are now

categorized.

2. Objective (3): Standardized nomenclature,

terms, and definitions. Accomplished for Vibration Acceleration:

Recommend ASA Standard SI. 1-1960, Acoustical

Terminology, be adopted.

Accomplished for Viscosity: Mr. Jacox had to resign due to pressing business. We need someone

to take his place. Volunteers will be received; no reasonable offer refused.

Accomplished for Mass: Mr. White has compiled

a bibliography of books, reports, articles, etc. from

the U.S., Germany, and England. These will be

cross-read and a brief synopsis written.

Accomplished for Force: The list of terms and

definitions will include several definitions of each

term and the source. This will allow some choice

of the definition to be adopted. Sources will include NASA SP—7, "Dictionary of Technical

Terms for Aerospace", "American Institute of

Physics Handbook", and "The International

Dictionary of Physics and Electronics".

Accomplished for Temperature: A partial list has been accumulated. Close liaison with the

ASTM E-8 Committee will be maintained. They

are preparing the same type of list.

III. THINGS YET TO BE DONE

All Objectives: Continue on the present course

in all areas. The end result will be a committee

report showing total accomplishments. That

report, plus the efforts of the Ad Hoc Committee

to be mentioned below, will eventually be published

in accordance with the recommendations of the

Recommended Practices Committee. Suggestions

and recommendations from the Conference are

solicited.

IV. AD HOC COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE

1. At the request of J. Van de Houten, an Ad

Hoc Committee, consisting of the chairmen of the

four Test Equipment Performance Committees,

has been established to compile a list of terms

pertinent to the test equipment field, especially

equipment normally found in standards laboratories.

This list would be compatible with those issued by

other technical societies, and would ultimately be

issued as an NCSL Standard Practice, Committee

Report, or Monograph.

151
SIGNIFICANCE OF HIGH FREQUENCY STANDARDS TO AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

Dario Antonucci

To an aerospace company, reliability is its most important product. This reliability can be theoretically represented by figures, but practically it can be achieved only through proven facts. Figures do not always result in facts, but facts always result in realistic figures. These facts in reliability can

only be achieved by applying the science of measurements correctly. For achieving the desired re- sults in measurements, the services of a well-established standards laboratory becomes of paramount

significance. The quality of 'the aerospace product can be demonstrated only to the extent it can be measured.

I suspect that the reason for all of us being here

today is the desire to achieve success in our en- deavors in the scientific exploration of aerospace.

In the old days many people had many ideas on how to achieve success. Some looked at the stars, others carried lucky charms, and still others waited

for the right dream to come along to spur them into success-achieving action. Today, we who work

in the industrial and aerospace sciences, being of a scientifically logical bent, are looking upon

NCSL and NBS and similar organizations as our lucky talisman to success. Before we do that,

however, we should know what to look for to achieve

success; and that is reliability! Yet the word has

hardly been mentioned at this conference.

Now, then what is the true significance of this word reliability? Speaking logically and realisti- cally, if we have reliability we will have a successful

mission; if we don't have it we will have failure. To

achieve this reliability in any scientific undertaking, we must establish a dependable measurement

program, because we can be sure of the reliability

of our product only to the extent that it can be

measured. A product can be designed, calculated

and analyzed to be better, but it cannot be proven

to be any better than the established references

to which it can be compared. Hence, the application of this measurement program to achieve

reliability is its most important function.

First however, we must differentiate between the

figures and the facts which demonstrate reliability.

Reliability is a fact when success in the perform- ance of a mission has been achieved. If the calculated figures of statistical analysis and analytical

research have failed to give us a successful mission, we have only a fiction. In searching for success we must evaluate figures in terms of facts. Statistical analysis and design-figure analysis supply

guidelines toward reliability, but not reliability

itself. Figures, then, do not always result in facts,

but facts most certainly always result in figures.

One method towards achieving reliability is the

coordination of measurement programs through

national channels, such as the National Bureau of

Standards, the NCSL, and the many national pro- fessional societies. This method encourages in- dustry, individually and in aggregate efforts, to work together with NBS and NCSL to propagating

a more reliable, more uniform, and more exact standards measurement program. The effect should be to turn figures into positive facts, which

can then be used by industry to obtain the highest

degree of reliability in the national product.

To establish dependable measurement programs,

the rules of uniformity must be faithfully observed.

This can be accomplished by referencing measure- ments to the national references of NBS. The

reference standards which exist within NBS can

be used as a means to achieve reliability and uni- formity of all measurement units and parameters,

and should not be limited to any one particular in- dustrial measurand.

In utilizing this national reference effectively,

industry-oriented measurements programs and

standards measurements systems must be efficiently

established within corporations, and compared

directly to the national reference. Because of the

rapid increase in the volume of test instruments,

the variety and sophistication of them, and the lack

of adequate external resources, many aerospace,

scientific and educational institutions are developing their own measurement capability, with ac- curacies which can be traced to the National Ref- erence Standards.

The coordinated effort of the whole aerospace and

scientific population must be effectively developed

in cooperation with NBS, in order that competence

and consistence throughout industry be realized. This means that individual corporations must put

additional effort in establishing standards systems

and/or programs with a high degree of reliability

and integrity. The emphasis on measurement

systems which can be referenced to the National

Reference Standards with precision and confidence

and precision is essential to the reliability of a corporation's standards effort. The chain of responsibility for performing re- liable evaluations, component tests and systems

152
checkouts must be proven to be competent in such

aspects as verified rehabihty, adequate and competent manpower with integrity, loyalty and interest,

and continuous referencing to standards which

are standards throughout the National Aerospace

Program. Some indication effort expanded by

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation will be evident from Fig. 1*. There are many important programs in an aero- space company that are dependent on traceable,

precise, and reliable measurements for their success: Advanced Development, Research and Development, Vendor-Contractor Evaluation and

Verification, Field Test and Evaluation, and New

Product Development, to name just a few.

Metrologists in the last decade have made considerable advances, and broken through many

barriers in propagating the importance of measure- ment science, but there still exists a very frustrat- ing situation which those of us stumbling along at the working engineering level have not been able

to improve. Industry's top management has not

*Editor's note: Space does not permit reproduction of the

other excellent photos of the Grumman standards facilities and

applications, as shown by the author at NCSL 66.

FIGURE 1. Partial view of Grumman s primary microwave standards facility. In the foreground is the frequency meter calibration system, employing an NBS design of harmonic generator for the 12.4 to 18.0 GHz band.

placed sufficient emphasis on adequate measure- ment programs, as needed to keep up with the

rapid technological advance in the aerospace in- dustry. Many managements have not yet come to realize the important role that a reliable measure- ments and standards program plays in the final determination of success or failure of a mission.

Therefore, we still have a problem, and with the

rapid increase in test equipment sophistication and more stringent requirements for higher accuracy

and precision, this problem is getting worse. What

is then the solution? If more top management

personnel were to attend conferences and meetings

like this one, perhaps they would understand the

situation more clearly and thus give greater support to both the in-house and the national measure- ments programs.

In conclusion, let me quote a few words from the

banquet speech of Mr. E. G. Hill of GD/Convair.

He said that one of the most important points that we must consider in a good measurement program

is "the return on the investment". What better return on an aerospace investment can we have

than success of the mission?

153
:

»
NCSL 66

SESSION 12: STANDARDS LABORATORY ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Chairman:

Mort Angelo

Lockheed-California Company

Burbank, California

Committee Chairmen:

Corporate Standards Laboratories

L. R. Wallace

International Business Machines

Kingston, New York

Large Production Facility Laboratories

Mort Angelo

Lockheed-California Company

Burbank, California

Commercial Standards Laboratories

J. D. Ghesquiere

SSCO Standards Laboratory, Inc. Southfield, Michigan

Universities and R&D Facilities Laboratories

W. H. McPhee

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Panel Members:

R. G. Rosco

General Dynamics — Convair Division

San Diego, California

R. L. Schneider

Sandia Corporation

Albuquerque, New Mexico

N. A. Grisamore

George Washington University

Washington, D.C.

Mort Angelo, Committee Chairman: Our presentation is made up of reports from the four Standing

Committee Chairmen concerning the organization

and operation of a Standards Laboratory, each in

its own environment. These gentlemen will present

a brief resume of their committee activities. The

other participating members will be introduced

later when the panel session opens. Now, Lew

Wallace will report on the activities of his committee, "Organization and Operation of a Corporate

Standards Laboratory".

Mr. Wallace: Your program indicates that I should talk about the organization and operation

of a Corporate Standards Laboratory and, as many

of you know, it doesn't take much to get me started on that particular subject. However, my purpose

here this morning is to give a status report of the

operation of this committee. What we have been

hoping to do is to hear about your ideas and ex- perience, and to compile and analyze these things

in order that they may be put into a report to you

saying, "these are the things we think constitute

good organization and good operation". Herein

lies the problem. There have been a number of

surveys of NCSL participants and these surveys

invariably tell us several things. Most of you are under the administration of a Quality Assurance

Division or Operation. Most laboratories work to a Laboratory Manager, and are more technical than

professional. Instrument repair is a part of the

Standards Laboratory function. Automatic equipment accountability is not a part of the Standards

Laboratory function. Automatic recall systems

are utilized and these recall systems are not combined with other recall systems. Further analysis

of these various surveys does not indicate much

more than that we have a high degree of together- ness, but this isn't really helping us. Our real concern in making this study is to dis- cover whether Standards Laboratories are merely

lending a higher degree of sophistication to existing

measurements techniques, and perhaps automating some of these techniques, or if they are truly con- cerned with development of new measuring tech- niques and the development of new standards.

Sometimes one gets the feeling that, as the man

says, we're so busy mopping up the floor that we

can't reach up to turn off the faucet. Now here is what this committee is doing and has done. We

found that most of the surveys we were exposed to, or had conducted, were considerably biased be- cause we were dealing with NCSL participants and,

naturally, we are all influenced by what this organization is doing. So, we used Standard and Poor's Register of Corporations and took a random sample

of about 30 percent of the corporations listed under

six separate standard industrial classifications. This sample resulted in selecting 183 corporations

from these six SIC's. Very briefly, the classi- fications were as follows: engineering, laboratory,

scientific research instruments and associated

equipment; automatic temperature controls;

optical instruments and lenses; electrical measuring instruments and test equipment; industrial

controls; mechanical measuring and controlling

instruments. These six SIC's were chosen because

155

256-114 0-67— 11
together they seemed to cover most of the manufacturers of instruments or scientific apparatus. To

find out something about these organizations, we

resorted to surveys. The results are too incomplete

to render at a session at this time; however, we dis- covered a few things. We found that of the corporations surveyed, about 60 percent of them had

between 100 and 1,000 employees; the range goes

up to about 10,000, I believe. About 60 percent

had an annual dollar value of business between one

million and ten million dollars and about 6 percent

are in the Eastern part of the nation.

Our next task will be to categorize the laboratories of the responding corporations. Let me

emphasize that we are not evaluating laboratories; we shall categorize for the purpose of the study, in terms of the dependence upon, or independence

from National standardizing service, primarily

rendered by NBS. Having established this cor- respondence, we will then plot these categorizations

against other variables, and determine which fac- tors seem conducive to the development of an atti- tude of self-sufficiency and which factors might

mitigate against achieving such self-sufficiency.

By "self-sufficiency" we do not mean that people

are going to go out and be completely independent

of the National Bureau of Standards. We must

recognize that we bear distinctive relationships

to the National Bureau of Standards. What we

are trying to find out is: what is the degree of self- sufficiency that the laboratories are developing

to take them out of the category of "just doing well"

what NBS has already been doing? What are we

doing to help ourselves advance above the level of

what we are doing now? What are we doing to reduce obsolescence of our own operations? This

is what I mean by self-sufficiency.

We anticipate at least a preliminary report by

August 1st of this year. To assist us in this venture, we will immediately begin reviewing applications for one management-type person and one

statistical-type person to work with us on this committee. Now, if you plan to apply and happen not

to recognize me in this august assemblage, I am

sure that you will indicate your wish to work with

us to either John Van de Houten or Andy Woodington. They will be very glad to pass the information on to me.

In summation, what this committee intends to do

will be to report on and make recommendations

concerning those functions and organizational struc- tures which are pertinent to the organization and

operation of corporate standards laboratories. We

will determine to what degree self-sufficiency exists or is sought after by the respondents. We will analyze in depth those factors which mitigate

against such self-sufficiency and will give you at least a preliminary report by August of this year.

Mort Angelo: Wes McPhee of the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology heads the committee covering universities and R&D operations. In true

chairmanlike manner, he has asked Dean Grisamore

of George Washington University to give the committee report.

N. A. Grisamore: I am something of an interloper

in this program, since the charge to the committee

doesn't actually include laboratories for academic

purposes. If you will look, it says Research Laboratories and then out of context I read, "which serve Research and Development Operations in Universities". Well R&D is only half the story. As for the organization and operation, the academic

laboratory obviously reports to parents of students,

so that settles those questions right then and there. In a calibration laboratory in a university, there

really are two types of laboratories. The first type

of calibration laboratory in a university is one asso- ciated with a university having large R&D hardware

contracts. They can afford an installation such as

this as an overhead cost if nothing else. It is nice

if you can get the funds from somewhere else, but

you can always charge at least part of the lab costs

to the government, just as you can charge a library

to the government. Now if this is a facility whose

primary use is to support contract work, with a secondary use as an academic laboratory, there are a considerable number of hazards in this. I don't

know that I would want to take the responsibility

for such an operation unless almost unlimited sums

were available. I have seen what students can do

in a laboratory, either by their own design or by the

design of some poor instructor who just doesn't

bother to tell them what to do. The second type of laboratory — there aren't many

of them; in fact, I don't know of any — falls into the

category of schools without hardware contracts. Our university has a respectable amount of R&D

funds, but this is mainly for paper work. This

involves very little hardware other than pencils,

paper, and some calculating machines. It always

includes a computer; of course, you can't operate

without a computer. Such a calibration laboratory,

then, is primarily for academic purposes and its funds come out of the academic budget. Needless

to say, the academic budget is like anybody else's,

the ends never meet. In our case, we have been

getting away with "grand larceny" because we

have been able to send students to the NBS laboratories, to work under direct supervision of Bureau

personnel, of course. Now, with NBS moving to these sumptuous quarters, we have to equip our own laboratory and this

is a serious problem. We consider the cost of

equipping a laboratory from scratch which might

be a little more than adequate, but less than desirable. This is only for a mechanical measure- ments laboratory and an electrical measurements

laboratory, including some environmental controls

for temperature and humidity. We would need a gage and an interferometer, a gage-block comparator and collimator, surface plates, facilities for internal measurements, a tool makers microscope,

156
with an electrical standards laboratory, but without

any microwave measuring equipment it will cost $40,000 to $110,000. This sum is just barely adequate. The lower figure is the amount we would

need if we had only demonstration equipment.

Students could not get their hands on it, and it would need supplementing by field trips out here

to the Bureau of Standards. The figures I gave

you cover only equipment, and not depreciation,

replacement (which I would figure approximately

20 percent a year), or wages or salaries of technicians, custodians, etc. It doesn't include the

recruiting of faculty, or more important, the re- cruiting of students.

Now, this might not sound like much to you

people, but we have different kinds of money problems. These requests are competing with requests

from other branches of the university. For example,

how can you tell an English department that teaches more than 150 students that they can't have the

money, because we need $100,000 or so to run a

laboratory for 20 students over here. This doesn't

set very well, I can assure you, and these people

who produce tuition income for universities are

quite vocal about the fact that they do it. These

problems are not peculiar to our school alone, but

to all schools having programs which necessitate

expensive laboratories. How do we propose to overcome these problems? First of all, cooperation with Government laboratories and agencies

within their statutory limitations is an obvious

partial out. We can't say enough in appreciation

for what the Bureau of Standards has done for us. We have also had some considerable help from

portions of DOD. We need support from the in- dustries that employ our graduates. We have considerable help from the manufacturers of precision

measuring equipment, but we do not have it from

the users. The users, I would say, are more vocal

in demanding students than the manufacturers,

perhaps because there are more of them.

Another way that things can be done to solve

these problems is to support schools which want

to undertake a program such as ours, in their appeals to Government agencies who have grant

funds for laboratory equipment. There are a

large number of these: NSF, HEW, DOD, NASA,

Department of Commerce, etc. The next thing is a touchy subject; it has been

proposed, and one school is considering it, although we are not — and that is the operation of a commercial calibration laboratory by a school. This is fraught with all sorts of dangers because universities are non-profit organizations. It can be done,

but the headaches that come along with it are not

to be trifled with. Certainly this type of operation

should not be in competition with local facilities. There is a possibility of cooperative effort between

a commercial laboratory and a school in some sort of an educational program. We shy away from the

operation of commercial calibration laboratories

because there is one in this area. What, then, can

the individuals in this meeting do? I would suspect

that you people here are not the ones who make the

decisions to offer funds, etc. You probably can make recommendations. We are really all brothers

under the skin inviting funds and facilities, so I am

sympathetic with your problems and I hope you

are sympathetic with mine. I would say that one

of the important things that you can do is to communicate to the pertinent committees of NCSL

information concerning academic programs or courses in instrumentation or measurement sci- ence in schools in your local areas. This is one

of the things that this committee specifically does

not have information on. We pick it up here and

there that someone offers a course, and we hear of

this or that, but you people can save us a tremendous amount of time. We could always go through

all the catalogs but going through that number of

catalogs is no easy task. The second thing that you could do is offer to help academic programs in your local area in what- ever manner you deem it advisable. I know every- one has more work to do than there is time to do it, but I throw this out as something you can weigh

against your other activities. The third thing to do is to communicate to these

schools the needs of employers and the opportunities for employment in measurement science.

Schools depend upon outside sources for this sort of information. Everybody says, "that's fine and

good", but when students are graduated in a particular area, you don't really know whether these

students are going to have jobs. This employment situation certainly is important to the students,

there is no question about it. In closing, I remind you that all of us here are somewhat of the same opinion about the importance

of measurement science, and even about the needs

of government and industry for schools in this area

of technology. We don't need to convince each

other, but we must convince others of the importance of these matters. Mort Angelo: Jim Ghesquiere is unique in our

present day society — he believes that there is a place for the small, private enterprise. As such,

he heads a committee which covers the Commercial

Standards Laboratory.

J. D. Ghesquiere: This is a report of the Commercial Laboratory Committee. Mort says this is unique, and actually there are a number of cali- bration and standards laboratories across the

country without any commercial activities. There

will probably be many more, particularly because

of the encouragement given by NBS to turn to a commercial laboratory for routine calibration work.

Our committee consists of Bill Herrington with

Veritek Corporation-West Coast, and Don MacFadgen with Sheffield Corporation. We are al- ways looking for additional members for our committee so our work can be more comprehensive.

157
We first reported two years ago in New York on

the problem of where to start and stop this recom- mended organization and practices for Commercial

Laboratories. We did decide, after review, that there was no use trying to re-invent the wheel, that many of the practices and procedures are common

to the Corporate, Production and Military Laboratories, and that we would stay out of these areas and use the work of the other committees. This

reduced the workload to the point that we could

select only those items that are unique to Commercial Standards Laboratory operations and try

to develop a list of problems. Then, those of you

who may decide to go into "business for yourself' can see what you are going to have to consider —

consider strongly, perhaps even generate unique

solutions of a proprietary nature. This effort may

never offer solutions, but it will give you more of a

picture of what you may be up against. Mr. Hill

last night hit on several of our items, such as the

cost of investment for the type of things over and

above the requirements of your own in-house

laboratories.

We have at this point developed a list of seven- teen items. I am not going to go into detail, I would

just like to read the titles very rapidly. First, we

have Military Acceptance, second is Cost of Service, then Traceability to NBS, Ethics and Integrity,

Quality Control, Quality Control Workmanship,

Workload in Sennets Service, Calibration Pro- cedures, Calibration Procedures for Customer's

Equipment, Calibration Certification versus Test

Work, Turn-Around Time, Employee Training,

Record Management, Financing, Marketing, and

Transportation.

These will sound like the problems other laboratories have, but if there are special considerations,

it is possible that the solution may be quite different. We have listed this as an important item to be considered. For example, the first one on the list, Military Acceptance, sounds like everyone else's problem, but if you try to obtain military approval on a laboratory without having the direct military contract in the house, you are in for a lot of fun

in a hurry. First, the Military will advise you that

if you are being considered for a secondary contract,

your prime contractor can request that they review

your facilities. Of course, when you go back to the potential customer, he says, "I'm not even going

to talk to you unless you're approved by the Mili- tary", and you run into an impasse. This is the

type of thing you can run into and I cite it because

it happened to be first on the list. In addition to this list of problem areas for which we may or may not be able to publish solutions, we would also hope to set up, in conjunction with

the other committee, some means of reference for those of you wishing to utilize an outside commercial

laboratory; some means by which you can evaluate

the laboratory short of having to take the whole

organization apart piece by piece. We feel that many of the normal Standards Laboratory practices

that you are familiar with will be a very important

guideline in this type of evaluation. Our committee would like to know if such a check list would

be desirable for the membership at large.

Mort Angelo: As Chairman for the Committee on

Production Laboratories, I would like to report

that we had a real whing-ding workshop at Disneyland last Fall. It was probably one of the best

workshops that NCSL has had so far. On inputs

obtained from that meeting, our committee is de- veloping a new survey which will be mailed this summer. We are still hoping that we can put to- gether a single plan or recommendation on how to organize and operate a large production facility

laboratory. There seem to be many different ways

to arrive at the same objective. After we have obtained the results of the newest survey, we will decide whether we have sufficient information to come up with a single plan, or to report the results of the survey and let you decide which course is best for you. In regard to surveys, may I, on

behalf of all the Committee Chairmen of NCSL,

ask you to please answer all NCSL business in- quiries promptly? We are all dependent upon the

mails for our committee work to get the job done.

Some of the worst offenders, in this regard, operate

the largest and most successful laboratories in the

country. We need this information; yours may be

the one bit of information that will help all the rest of us. Please answer NCSL correspondence!

The second part of our presentation will be a panel session. Our panel is to be made up of

people from all of the environments in which laboratories are to be found: R&D, Universities, Commercial, Corporate and large Production facili- ties. The gentlemen you will see at the table met

for the first time Monday night to formalize this presentation. The one thing we did was to agree

to disagree, and so we are going to bring the disa- greements to this floor. With your help, we may

arrive at some commonalities in the five environments represented. There does not seem to be a

single pat set of operation plans which can be used

across the board. We want your inputs too. In addition to the men you have already met, we have asked Bob Roscoe of General Dynamics

to represent the view of a large production facility; in this case, aerospace. Rollin Schneider of the

Sandia Corporation will field for the Research and

Development type of operation, and Wes McPhee

of M.I.T. Instrumentation Lab will present the

University side of the picture. We will try to keep

the discussions within the program, within the

boundaries of the Geneva Convention, and away

from those subjects covered in detail by other committees. I will start by making a comment and

ask each gentleman to give a statement as to his position. We will then ask for comments or questions from the floor before going on to another subject. We will not try to summarize at this time;

conclusions, if any, will be put into the proceed158
ings. Please feel free to address any one of the

gentlemen and see if we can't give a good answer. Mort Angelo: We will start out by saying that in setting up a laboratory the subject of cost will pop

up. A decision will have to be made as to what

will be calibrated. I think it should be mandatory

that all measuring devices and instruments having

a direct bearing on the quality of the product

should be part of the mandatory recall system.

This applies also to R&D reports when instruments

are used to gather data. Lew Wallace: I can't subscribe to it. If mandatory recall means bringing the equipment in on a

periodic basis, then we can certify and calibrate

this equipment only to a very limited extent. For

instance, you are calibrating a piece of equipment

for me and I say I am only going to use it under

this condition and at this particular point. What

you don't know is that someone else will come in

later and use this equipment under a different set of conditions within the intent of the designed

equipment. They do not get the benefit of the "not for data" program, and slip into complacency.

I think if you are going to use mandatory recall,

you have to do a complete calibration.

Rollin Schneider: I would like to propose a substitute for mandatory recall for R&D work. When

you start sending out recall cards to scientists in the R&D area, the first thing they probably do is to throw the card in the wastebasket, and don't

send their instruments in. You must have professional people in your Standards Laboratory that speak the language of the scientist and can go to him and discuss his measurement problems; de- termine with him which instruments should be

sent into the Standards Laboratory and which do

not need it. Some of the instruments the scientist

is using are for indication only, or maybe for ball- park measurements; these do not need mandatory

recall or rigorous calibration. Those instruments

he is using for data-taking as he develops his project

should be in a recall system, but you must convince

him that they should be calibrated and jointly agree. He will then send them in; this has been our ex- perience at Sandia.

Lew Wallace: We have a similar case of this "not-for-data" situation. Our customer, the Air

Force, insists that we call it in once a year just so they know that you are aware. Just recently, we

changed our policy with the idea that our business

is calibration; therefore, we are going to calibrate

it. However, if the man is using it for indication

only, we will put on another label which tells him

just how we calibrated it. In this particular case,

it is probably plus or minus 10%, which means we

can do the job quite cheaply. It will have to be

pretty bad before we do any adjustment or repair on it and the man still has a useable piece of equip- ment. You mentioned that these people have a

tendency to ignore a card when you call the item

in. We don't send a card, we send a man to pick

up the item, and we do pretty well. Wes McPhee: You may have a fight on your hands

with some of the PhD's who think they know more

about equipment than we do. Lew Wallace: We have had that same experience.

I think that one point you made should be emphasized in all of our dealings. It is very important

to sit down with these people, their measurements

problems and measurements needs, and show them

how you can help them. Many of us are involved

in situations where we must use complex mathematical equations, or find that we have voluminous

data on which the various computing machines

available can greatly relieve our workload. We

don't go out and take a short course in differential equations so that we can solve our own mathematical problems; we turn it over to someone who has

already had the short course. We do not go out

to learn to program a computer, because there are programmers who can do this for us. I believe

you can look upon the personnel of the Standards

Laboratory as experts who have already taken the

short course. This is the thing we have to sell and, having sold this, I think we will find both the

PhD and production line worker very pleased to have someone help them do their work. If we

can emphasize this, we will minimize the struggle

to physically remove the equipment from one loca- tion to another so that we can calibrate it.

Rollin Schneider: Can we muddy the water a

little bit, Mort? We talked earlier this morning

about responsibility. Of course, some of the Mili- tary contracts flatly require that things be periodically calibrated. One of our customers, an industrial customer, developed the idea — this is non-military—that the man running the test is responsible

for the quality of his measurements. He had an

in-house standards laboratory and he might take

it an instrument once an hour or once a year, de- pending upon what his faith in the instrument was. At the AOA meeting at Cocoa Beach, the electri- cal workshop portion was devoted to advancing

metrology. We got into the use of computers in standards work and suddenly this industrial cus- tomer found that his standards laboratory, which was standing by for the engineer, was suddenly

thrown in the middle of the whole complex. The

man in the laboratory read the transducer, plugged

the numbers into a cable in the wall and said, "I don't even know where the information is going, I'm getting a typed card back." Suddenly the

standards laboratory man became responsible in- stead of the man running the test. He now had to deal not only with familiar instruments, but also had to become a programmer and a computer man. Wes McPhee: We are familiar with R&D even

though we are connected with M.I.T. as an educa159
tional institution. We have direct responsibility

to Jerry Hayes and the boys at Pomona. We have

NASA contracts and find that we have to put our- selves in the middle between the user and the contract officer. We have tried the cooperative ap- proach over a good number of years. I agree with

Schneider that if you go out and physically impound

these instruments, you are going to arouse greater

antagonism to your program, but you do have a contractual obligation. We find that sometimes we get these instruments in and find they are out

of specification. We notify the user that this was

the case, and advise him that he should re-examine

his data. That has helped in some cases. Dean Grisamore, George Washington University:

We don't have trouble with mandatory recall periods

because the technician merely goes through the

laboratory at the end of the class period and picks

up those instruments in bad shape. We have a

sort of built-in inspection system because the in- structor designs the experiments and has some idea

of what the answer should be. If the student can't

get the answer with the piece of equipment he is using, you jump on the student, and if that doesn't

produce results, then you look at the equipment.

The problem of mandatory recall just doesn't come

up for a technician. We have more work than he can possibly do and I think we keep ahead of it. We obviously don't have the degree of responsibility as to calibration that other laboratories have,

but I would like to make one comment or so. Is this mandatory recall system really mandatory? If you are going to make a lot of exceptions on recall,

then obviously it is not mandatory.

The second comment is directed toward the

people who have trouble with their R&D scientists and PhD's. If a mandatory recall system is de- vised on some logical basis, even as illogical as

cost to a PhD, you explain to him why you have it. He certainly is going to have his opinion as to how

important it is that his instruments be calibrated

to an ant's eyebrow, but he is part of the system

and realizes that some things have to be done even

though he doesn't like them. Of course, when it becomes inconvenient, he is going to say something.

I think the point is to explain to him, on a rational

basis, why you have the recall system.

Wes McPhee: I would like to invite you up to M.I.T. sometime and perhaps you can see our problem. The very fact that Jerry Hayes has developed

this cartoon on "Why Calibrate" points this up.

It hits every operation we have in greater or lesser degree. I know of some of the^ndustrial companies

in our area where people are actually sent home if they are caught using an instrument out of date.

It is very hard to come up with a fair and equitable

solution to this problem, but I think that we have

got to make a realistic approach.

Mort Angelo: We may be a little more fortunate

than some of the other companies. Our Engineering Department has agreed that calibration is necessary. I am talking about our research people;

it was proven to them that research dollars are hard

to come by and that the results must be correct

the first time.

From the floor— Ed Quane, Bendix Systems Division: We have been talking here in previous ses- sions about meaningful measurements. I think

it applies to this R&D thing that we have just dis- cussed. I run into the same problem of whether

or not R&D people require calibrations, and in my

installation they come up with the excuse that all they are doing is making comparative readings.

The point I am making here is that before a measure- ment can be made meaningful, it must be reduced

to number and magnitude and unit. I have found

this to be most effective in jogging the people who

say they don't need calibrated equipment. You

have got to reduce their results to numbers and

magnitudes before somebody else can put it to j work.

Lew Wallace: Among the comments made last evening, Ed's remarks are particularly pertinent.

Explain to your R&D friend that the results of his work, unless he is in pure research, are going into a product to be manufactured. He is most con- cerned, or he should be, with the profit and loss ( relation in the corporation that employs him. Make

him aware that by using not just relative data, but

"absolute data", it will be much easier to move

his project out of R&D into production. Although

it is quite frequently true that R&D people are f interested only in comparative data, you might

point out to them that calibration includes a thing

known as precision. An instrument can have a change in precision which might affect his comparative data. Harry Shore, U.S. Army Electronics Command,

Fort Monmouth, N.J.: I strongly disagree with believers in a voluntary recall calibration program for R&D. It never works. Regulations require that we periodically recall for calibration, and it isn't a matter of choice for the scientist as to whether he

will relinquish the instruments — he must. I agree

with Wallace and Grisamore that it is most helpful c 1 to put on an educational program to make the ! ! scientist realize the importance of releasing his equipment, in order that it can be calibrated and

returned to him to make meaningful measurements.

f

1 Paul Long, Western Electric: In regard to this

recall, I think we are really looking at how it is working in particular organizations. Probably, « is all of us will agree that we must have some sort of

recall. The research people realize what correc- < » tions might be necessary in their data in order to i give it true meaning to anyone else who might use > il these data. I think we should concentrate on a way of educating the people we are going to recall

this equipment from. After all, what good are any

160
measurements if they have no foundation, no ref- erence. We are shirking our job if we worry about

complaints we might get from R&D people. I think we should put through an educational program to explain the importance of this recall program.

Wes McPhee: This is the approach we have taken.

I personally have spoken at several project seminars

and brought up the examples which you suggested

and I think this has been helpful. If you can

personally acquaint a group of competent engi- neers with the situation, I believe they do become

a little more aware. We found that this approach

does work. Memos are not the answer, as they are

too easily put aside, and little consideration is given

to them.

Lew Wallace: I would like to comment on that

also. We have found that research scientists are very reluctant to read memos. We found that when our measurement engineer sits down with the

research scientist and discusses instrument problems and the instruments he is using, we have much

greater success than with memos.

Earl Gard, Army Primary Lab, Philadelphia:

We are presently operating successfully the mili- tary type of recall in which a sticker affixed to the

instrument shows the date of expiration of the cali- bration; this is a great help in getting it back on

time. It gives the user an opportunity to antici- pate when the next calibration is due. It has been

my experience that it is almost impossible to control the use of a portable piece of equipment. If we insist on a 100% calibration, the interval can

be adjusted according to the history of that particular type of equipment. In industrial applications,

in order to save money, the sticker could be left off a piece of equipment used just to make indications. However, one might ask why the equipment

was bought in the first place.

From the floor: One point that hasn't been mentioned I think is quite important. Most of these

R&D programs have limited budgets, and in our

case, each program pays for its calibration time.

If we go in and tell them it is going to take eight

hours to re-certify the oscilloscope they are using,

they scream and you can hear them from one end

of this country to the other. I think it is quite

important to bring forward the fact that calibration can actually produce savings to their program.

When I have been able to show them this, I have no more squawk when pulling the equipment of the

laboratory and calibrating it for them. Also, we

have a difference in classification. If equipment

is used as an indicator, it is classified as an unvalued

instrument, and the user can have it for six months

without its being touched. If it is used for direct

data, it gets another classification and is called in

at certain recall intervals. Tom Rollins: I suggest that perhaps we are look- ing at the wrong problem. I believe it is not

mandatory recall, but what the management atti- tude is towards the accuracy of the data the scientist takes. If the management insists that correct data be taken, there will be no problem. There

are very good ways of assuring that the data will be correct; there are proven design and review

techniques that will do just this sort of thing. I would suggest also that when it comes to persuading scientists and engineers, the standards people

are probably out-voted. Their time could be spent

in learning more about the business, not in wasting

public relations efforts. If management and

scientific personnel establish the policy, every- thing else will work out very easily. There are means to accomplish this — one is the use of a

library for calibrated gear. If you inventory your

equipment, you may find a scientist has ten or more

pieces of gear which he cannot possibly use at one

time. By taking this surplus equipment, putting

it into a library, and keeping it in good shape, it is possible to have adequate equipment without

spending any more money for it. Wes McPhee: I heartily agree with Rollins' concept, but I have been trying for six or eight

years to sell an Air Force man on the same thing.

Although I have made some in-roads. I feel that I am so far from the ultimate it is pathetic. We

work strictly through some projects which have

mandatory recall and some which do not. If you

ask for equipment to go into an equipment pool,

you can get one of the greatest collections of an- tiques you have ever seen. I think some may have

seen it at an IEEE show of 50 years ago. Those are the ones given to the pool; not the usual equipment

that we know is sitting on the shelves within some

of these projects.

George Gastineau: As to the point of establishing

instrument pools, you might acquaint management

with the cost reduction program the government is trying to get established. I am pretty sure Mort and

others are acquainted with this program. I would

like to get top management to look at one consolidated instrument pool which would be a centralized

effort, and force the agency to make sure the plan

is set up right.

I hope that the committee as a whole has agreed

that R&D equipment should be calibrated or at least controlled. Even though your policy state- ment states that scientists will have their equipment controlled, you still have to have some area where these pieces of equipment will be returned

to the laboratory. Again, your top management is going to be the ones. It is a shame at this NCSL

Conference, we get all our calibration people here

but we don't see top management attending. Sometimes I think your top management are the people

who should attend this conference with you to get across some of these ideas.

Frank Dyce, Martin Company, Orlando, Florida:

We had quite a problem on our recall system until 161
we changed our structure. AD our equipment is handled and controlled by the Facilities Division

and is used by the Engineering Division and cali- brated by the Quality Division. From the records

being kept, we know who has equipment with cali- bration past due and this can be used as a sort of

black list. Engineering was given the responsibility for recalling the equipment by actually having

a man go by and pick up the equipment from the

person using it, and the responsibility was given to a manager who could put a little pressure on. In Martin's R&D group, they are using, in some

cases, much higher caliber equipment than we

have in our laboratory and we actually could not

calibrate it. However, there are quite a few instru- ments between this area down to the monitoring

instruments, and I think somebody is trying to fool us, Can you assume that these people, just

because they have a Ph.D. and know all about

silicon carbide crystals, know all about how to calibrate Leeds & Northrup potentiometers, etc.? Bob Roscoe, General DynamicsI Convair: We

started out with this idea of a limited calibration

where we had certain systems, composed of a lot of commercial items, and some Convair built items;

these were used to check out a product for the

government. We used a procedure written by an

Engineering group and in these particular cases, we found that certain instruments were used only

at certain points. For example, a voltmeter used

to check 115 volts was calibrated only right around

115 volts. A vacuum tube voltmeter in the system was used because of its high impedance. Here

again, we put a limited calibration on it; it paid off in the time we saved in adjustments and repairs,

because we didn't bother to change capacitors and

resistors (which could drift) because they were not using them at these high frequencies.

From the floor: What piece of test equipment is being used by more than one person at various

points along the line?

Bob Roscoe: Single, individual items of portable

test equipment, multimeters, should be calibrated

because a man can make a measurement with

them. However, we know that most of the time

they use it as a continuity checker and it is cheaper

to buy one than to have a technician assemble a battery and a bulb. They wonder if that power

pack is turned on; they will slap a multimeter on and if the needle moves, O.K. Most of the time,

if a technician or an engineer wants an accurate measurement, he's going to get a different meter. We will put a tag on the limited calibration item,

and mark it as ± 10%.

From the floor: On the sticker you indicate the

limited range in which it has been calibrated. In case anyone else should borrow that meter, are they necessarily expecting calibration assurance?

Bob Roscoe: That is right. When we put a decal

on, we show the date due and a huge red stamp

"Limited". In some cases, we tell them what we

did or did not do. Wes McPhee: We follow the same procedure in our case. Anyone picking up a unit can see if it was completely calibrated or to what extent it is limited.

From the floor: I would like to ask those operators of equipment pools or libraries what consideration they have given to standby calibration of shelf life. Mort Angelo: One of the largest equipment pool

operators keeps a small bank of currently cali- brated pieces of equipment. Say they have one hundred scopes but their flow is five; they keep a backup of five fully calibrated scopes. When the

card comes up through the IBM recall system, the

equipment gets a sticker, "Must be Calibrated

Prior to Use", and is placed on the shelf uncalibrated until needed.

Jim Mallison, Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.: What

about the other ten thousand items in the inventory

of which you have only one or two? You can't stand the damage to schedule waiting to get them

calibrated immediately for someone that needs

them. Can you give it consideration for shelf life of perhaps double the regular calibration?

Mort Angelo: I don't see why not, we do it with

dimensional tools. When you have equipment

sitting on the shelf that is not being used, it is better that you put it on inactive status until someone

asks for it. You should always use your recall system to plan your work load, but never let your

work load be so planned that you cannot take care

of emergencies.

C. R. Harris: The whole purpose of calibration

and recall is meaningful measurements with units

and numbers that are properly assignable. To

me, this means consistency, and inevitably this brings us back to this word "traceability", as de- fined yesterday by Mr. Barnett. From the floor: I am from General Electric Company-Spacecraft, Philadelphia. We found that most of these R&D people actually modify the equipment in many cases, and this is the main reason

they don't want it calibrated. They send it in to you and your technician says, "Look at that, the

whole section has been removed; you'd better send

it back to the manufacturers." Two weeks later, an engineer comes up and says, "Where is my special counter?" We have really not done too much

with this problem. We have had a mandatory re- call system only within the last year. We have

about 20,000 instruments on inventory, 18,000 elec- tronic and 2,000 mechanical, and we will always

average 30 to 40% of these out of calibration date. Our Quality Control Operating Procedure says that one week after the calibration period has expired,

the first level of management will be notified.

162
After the second week it goes to the second level with copies to the third level. Believe it or not, we get action right away.

We had a three year experiment on shop life of

instruments, and we find it excellent for mechanical gages, but it is not of much value on electronic

instruments, especially on things such as recorders,

whose ink dries up. Late Friday afternoon some- body comes down and needs something calibrated.

We may have several pieces of calibrated equipment ready, and this is really very nice, although it hasn't really reduced our over-all costs. Lew Wallace: I do not believe that we can afford

to put fear into a person as a reason for wanting

an instrument to come back. I believe we must put

education foremost in the minds of these people,

and the awareness of the need for meaningful measurement. Then we do not have to be too concerned

about the specific methods for recall, mandatory

or otherwise.

Dean Grisamore: A bit of information that I happen to remember from the meeting at Disneyland:

there was considerable discussion about leaving

power on electronic equipment while it was not being used. This reduced the maintenance considerably and kept the instrument in calibration.

163

NCSL 66

SESSION 13: WORKLOAD CONTROL

The following report was prepared and presented

by the NCSL Workload Control Committee:

E. J. Arsenault (Chmn.)

General Electric Company

Re-Entry Systems Dept.

Philadelphia, Pa.

J. L. Hayes

Metrology Engineering Center

Pomona, Calif.

D. I. Hervig

U.S. Army Missile Support Command

Redstone Arsenal, Ala.

J. R. Myers

National Astro Laboratories

Pasadena, Calif.

C. Rudd

Lockheed Missile Space Company

Sunnyvale, Calif. W. F. Snyder

National Bureau of Standards

Boulder, Colorado

W. L. Vandel

McDonnell Aircraft Corporation

St. Louis, Mo.

J. E. Vondracek

General Dynamics/Convair

San Diego, Calif.

1. Introductory Remarks

E. J. Arsenault

After listening to the reports from many of the

other NCSL committees, you are probably wondering what is left for the Workload Control Committee

to do? What is our mission? Simply stated, it is studying the product of the calibration program.

What is the product? Calibration service? Technology? After processing all the equipment and

having performed a complete service, the evidence

of this effort is calibration data on some form of

record. This is the product. Let us look at it through the eyes of management with the intent

to review and analyze the operation and techniques

of managing the calibration program as a business.

This may shock some of you; however, anything

that requires money to operate and produces a product, has to be considered a business. For

every dollar spent, there must be some justification for value received. Keep this in mind. A busi- ness analysis of the Calibration Program begins with

the acquisition of the raw material: such things as

recall methods, inventory control, operation of

instrument loan pools, workload planning, identification, etc. bring the raw material into the

organization.

As data is recorded, we begin the manufacture of our product. What type of data is produced? It varies depending on each organization's require- ments. The data is processed in some form,

evaluated, filed, stored, or programmed on E.D.P.

or A.D.P. Most important, but forgotten in many

cases, is: What do you do with this product once

you have manufactured it? The calibration pro- gram shows a profit if you can apply this data to improving the calibration system.

I want to pause at this point to emphasize the

fact that our organizations produce an abundance

of data. What is of great concern is the amount

of data actually applied to improving the operation

of a calibration program. Someday, laboratories are going to have to stand up to justify the cost of

all this elaborate processing and storage of infor- mation, and be able to point out the cost of its service vs. the value received. We may be sur- prised to find out that it costs us ten dollars to save

every dollar. Not very good business.

Our study has shown that calibration interval is the factor in the calibration program that stands

out by itself as an influence on manpower, capability, facilities, cost of operation, even the extent

of your organization's inventory. The whole cali- bration program revolves around this cycle; it controls the level of quality and the total cost. Open up the average calibration interval by 10

percent, and manpower, operating costs, facilities, etc. (assuming the inventory constant) will drop

accordingly. Close the calibration cycle by the same degree, and costs will go up. This single

important parameter in the calibration program is the least well managed, and is given the least atten- tion by engineering-type personnel. This may

shock you, but think how often top-notch technical

people are assigned to resolve a particular technical problem, for example, in data processing and

evaluation. How many are assigned full-time to

165
follow a Calibration Cycle Program in an effort to develop an intelligent approach? We have

already realized it's the heart of the program as

far as cost is concerned.

The contributions of this Committee will be to provide some of the techniques which have proven

themselves, through experience, to produce good

management of the calibration program. The re- port issued may not contain material that can be

applied directly in practice to your own particular

organization. There is no such thing as one technique being applicable to everyone. The committee will present good operating techniques - not

the only ones -not the best -but some of those

which have been shown to achieve some degree of success. It will be up to each organization to use

creative imagination to develop the calibration

program required to carry out its responsibilities.

There is no desire to standardize, because standardization in this area of management will tend to deflate a good calibration program. We must keep

this program dynamic. With business changing

so rapidly today, it is most important to identify

the level of quality that your program will have to maintain. Ideally, we would like to see a calibration program in which the level of quality could be

raised or lowered to meet the requirements of the

product.

The Committee obtains data by conducting sur- veys, based on the experience of its members.

Over the past few years, we have been fortunate

to have members who not only were experienced,

but most willing to work in this area. Workshops

provide the best and fastest way to exchange infor- mation that any committee can use, as evidenced

by the success obtained at the one held in Anaheim last year. To date, the Committee has gathered sufficient information to begin identifying

operating techniques to be drafted into procedures

for submission to the Recommended Practices

Committee for evaluation, and hopefully, final publication in a handbook.

2. Background

The Committee's activities over the past two

years have been directed towards gathering data

and techniques presently employed throughout the

country in their respective areas of responsibility. In 1965, the Committee identified three major areas

of responsibility as follows: Data Collection, Utilization, and Analysis.

Recall Methods and Concepts, and Workflow

Planning.

Calibration Intervals. Subcommittees were established for each of these responsibilities with the intent that through

specialization, the Committee could make more

significant contributions. To obtain as much information as possible within a short period of time,

the Committee decided to conduct a series of workshops which were held in August of 1965 in Anaheim, California. Six individual workshops were

conducted, and the results are part of this committee report. In 1966, the Committee established two objectives for the coming year. First, they were to pre- pare a report for presentation at this Conference.

The second objective was to review all the information that had been accumulated over the past year

with the intention of identifying laboratory practices which have been employed and have achieved

a reasonable amount of success. These practices,

in turn, are to be submitted to NCSL to be con- sidered for inclusion in the RECOMMENDED

PRACTICES FOR STANDARDS LABORATORIES MANUAL.

3. Summary of Report Content

This report includes a de-briefing of the workshops that were held in 1965. Each subcommittee

is including their findings as to the present "state

of art" that exists in the areas that they have evaluated. These reports will also identify some of the

laboratory practices which have been proven sueJ cessful and could be employed by other organizations. The Committee recognizes that its report is not complete in all respects, nor does it represent the

only practices that should be employed in the areas

that have been evaluated.

II

'

4. Summary of Workshop Sessions

4.1 Data Collection, Utilization and

Analysis

The workshops were held on August 19, 1965. Six individual workshops on the subject of data

collection were held, two such workshops being

held simultaneously. Each workshop worked to

( an outline which was presented at the beginning

and, in most cases, the entire outline was covered. j It appears that everyone records some of data in their laboratories. The type and amount of data J

j depends on both the interest and the accuracy ,| , level at which the individual laboratories operate, i

j, For instance, most standards laboratories record

all variable data, while calibration laboratories, es- pecially those dealing with dimensional measure-

^ ments, maintain only a check list and date as to

(

(

. when an instrument was calibrated. Most particif

j pants indicated that they stored and filed their data ^ ^ in the usual manner, but kept this data for different , :

. periods of time. Some maintain data for a year, .

(( others keep data only from the last two or three

^ calibration records, while some maintain data on

]

j instruments for their entire active life.

166
No one expressed any concern over the cost of

obtaining and filing calibration data. As to the

various methods employed in recording data, this was primarily affected by the size of the operation

concerned. Small operations, those usually having

less than five thousand items, had a complete manual system of recording data such as the Visicard

system or Kardex system. With the larger operations, the data is recorded manually and then is processed through an E.D.P. or A.D.P. system

from which they extract the key information re- corded on the original calibration record. This is keypunched and filed for future reference. These

cards are usually sorted in various manners and

then presented in a tabulated run-off to allow postanalysis of the calibration data. In some instances,

the information keypunched on the cards is for- warded to a computer for storage on magnetic

tape. In general, we found no one in great opposition

to recording some type of data, and most participants agreed that the requirements in MIL Specs

made it mandatory in most cases. Although some

people record variable data, none of the participants indicated that this variable data was processed

to an E.D.P. system and stored permanently on

magnetic tape. There was a strong feeling that only those data for which there was a predetermined

need and application should be recorded.

In the area of application of data, everyone indi- cated that they employed calibration data to de- termine and adjust calibration intervals. Some

members indicated that they supplied calibration curves with every instrument, while others only

provided this information upon request. There ap- peared to be some interest in gathering reliability

information to evaluate various types of instru- ments for both costs and dependability. One of

the most common applications for calibration data

is the updating of an automatic recall system.

Every one of the participants indicated that they

used this information in some form to establish

when an instrument is to be recalled for the next

calibration interval. As far as the costs that are encountered by the various laboratories in evaluat- ing calibration data, there appeared to be no problem. Most members indicated that they absorbed

this cost in the normal operating expenses, and

very few were able to break out this cost separately

in order to properly evaluate its contribution.

On measuring tools that are employed in aiding

management, most members indicated that either the number of instruments processed by an indi- vidual on a weekly basis, or the number of hours

per instrument are the standard criteria used to measure the efficiency, effectiveness and productivity of a laboratory. One member employs a complexity rating based on the number of data

points as the means to measure efficiency and pro- ductivity of their operation. This more equitable

basis aided the measurement of individuals who

calibrate simple instruments as compared to those

working on a complex system.

Some members expressed concern over the es- tablishment by some laboratory operations of a quota per man over a specific time. They indi- cate that such a measurement causes a technician

to cut corners in an effort to meet his quota, which

in turn causes degradation of the quality of the

calibration service.

Many laboratories review their data to determine

the economical life of an instrument. The cri- terias and techniques employed vary with each

operation, but there appears to be concentrated

effort to eliminate high cost items from the active

listing. Aside from the variable data, such things

as calibration and maintenance hours, material

costs, initial costs, age of the equipment and orga- nization owning equipment are included in the

calibration data form. Some of the participants

indicated that when technicians were requested

to sign calibration data sheets, the quality of the

data was vastly improved. They felt that when an

individual was given full responsibility for the re- cording of such information, that he was more

conscientious in providing a more accurate cali- bration report.

Generally speaking, the workshop conferences were unable to uncover any operation which actually employed the computer facility to perform any

analysis of the calibration data, except in highly

specialized applications. The major application was for storing and filing of data on magnetic tape

and then through various sorts and presentations,

the data was tabulated for the purpose of performing manual analysis. There were very few in- stances in which sound criteria had been established to determine such things as calibration inter- vals, economical life, reliability, utilization, and

quality level for a calibration system.

4.2 Workflow Planning and Recall Methods

4.2.1 Calibration Organization Public Relations

The general approach of selling management

on the value, advantage, and necessity for a cali- bration program has been to stress goodness of

measurement, potential cost savings resulting from

reduced errors and reduced rework, and the re- quirements of military specifications. The exist- ing problem appears to be how management is to be convinced of the need for the program. A

major solution appeared to be the use of the Company's own motivation people. One participant

contributed the information that his organization

had used them to make a study on how to sell management a calibration program. This included

listing the calibration costs to show management

the situation in the past and developing an ap- proach to the problem from a very positive direction. The general recommendation as the result

167
of the discussion came to the point that management must be sold in terms of dollars and cents,

because this is the prime area of interest.

4.2.2 Standardization Committee on Procurement

The problems of instrument procurement are handled in one company by a committee which

standardizes instrument procurement for the entire company. This committee is made up of rep- resentatives from the procurement group, the

Facilities Planning Group, the Quality Control or- ganization, representative users, and a member

of the Standards Laboratory. This committee

reviews all instrumentation requirements and then

determines the types (by manufacturer/model number) which are to be purchased, based upon re- quirements, reliability histories, general vendor

service history, and any other qualities which may

be important. The decision of the committee,

as far as the corporation is concerned, constitutes

the sole justification of a purchasing source, and

removes such requirements from competitive

bidding.

4.2.3 Instrument Cost Analysis

This discussion primarily centered in the problem of equating numbers and units in calibration costs so that comparison may be made between

various companies. It was decided that the Workload Committee of NCSL should attempt to deter- mine such units so that various inputs, anonymous

or otherwise, may be compared by laboratory managers to develop accurate information on the rela- tive costs of operating calibration facilities.

4.2.4 Calibration Justification Guide

This subject matter involves a universal checklist to be used by calibration people for the justification of equipment, engineer training, labor for the laboratories, travel budgets, etc. The con- sensus indicated that this would certainly be helpful to provide a reminder of all the elements that should be considered when developing additional

requirements and accordingly additional costs.

4.2.5 Limited Calibration

Discussion of various techniques to provide cali- bration services for only those parameters which

are used resulted in the general conclusion that

this practice is advantageous under certain conditions. The major requirement for proper conditions is that there be considerable stability in the

usage of the instruments in question. Such applications as Systems Calibration, involving the cali- bration of the instruments as they are actually used

in a measurement system, result in a considerable

saving and a reduction of calibration costs. It also has the advantage of giving additional surety

to the measurements since the calibration includes

the inter-connecting wiring and other potential sources of measurement error.

i 4.3 Calibration Intervals

Discussions concerned the criteria by which

calibration intervals should be established to as- sure that instruments remain within proper per- formance tolerances. While it was agreed that

interest related to all categories of equipment and

standards, prime interest centered about proper

intervals for test and measuring equipment sup- ported by calibration laboratories rather than on

standards themselves.

It was agreed that calibration intervals should

be based upon criteria connected with the out-of- tolerance condition of instruments. This re- quired defining what was meant by out-of-tolerance; how many parameters had to be out-of-tolerance

before an instrument was to be considered out-of- tolerance, etc. The majority felt that any parameter that was out-of-tolerance meant the whole

instrument was out-of-tolerance, if that parameter

had, in fact, some subsequent importance in the

instrument usage. They believed that once ac- cepted for use, instruments should not be tested

beyond their usage characteristics (if this can be

determined).

Next came the problem of deciding just how high an out-of-tolerance level could exist. The out-of- tolerance allowed ranged from 30% to 1%; however,

the broad majority had an actual practice figure of 20% to 10%, striving for an improvement to 10%

to 5%. The 5% figure in Military Handbook 52 was frequently referred to as the guide in this matter. Next ensued a spirited debate about how to ap- ply changes to calibration intervals. Some advocated applying these changes to instruments by

model number; others reported some success in their particular organization by applying interval

changes to individual instruments. They felt that the latter method provided much more accurate \ means to compensate for usage environment, use

parameters, and more definable and meaningful

reliability figures. No one questioned the techni- ] cal wisdom of this approach but did question its / practicability in view of ensuing difficulties in sched- ij uling and balancing workload.

A short time was spent concerning how to express ^ calibration intervals. The majority concluded

that the old method of calendar days or months was the best compromise between precision and

scheduling practicality. The use of running time j

| meters, elapsed time devices, on-off counters, etc. I [ was discussed and it was generally concluded that while these had specific applications, they have

yet to be proven as a significant means of prescribing calibration intervals. Other matters were covered, such as proper data j

j to collect. Many felt that over-all go-no-go infor168
mation was adequate enough. Others felt that indications of individual parameter out-of-tolerance

conditions were a necessity: others felt that var- iable data was essential to assure lab quality. It was noted by many that much could be learned

about reliability, maintainability costs and proper

support for test equipment through properly analyzed calibration interval data.

5. Recall Methods, Concept, and

Workflow Planning: A Comprehensive Instrument Control System

J. R. Myers

5.1 Introduction

It is very easy to recall an instrument for cali- bration, we need only to know the calibration due

date and, of course, how to locate the instrument:

but, you may ask, how did this instrument get into the laboratory for its initial calibration? What

happens if an instrument is transferred to another

facility? How many instruments are uncalibrated

because we have not yet learned of their existence?

It is not enough just to recall instruments. The

so-called recall system has to become a complete

and comprehensive instrument control system

before an effective calibration program can exist.

5.2 The System Requirement

To operate an adequate instrument control

system, we must be able to obtain up-to-date infor- mation on the description and location of every

instrument under our jurisdiction. This information is best obtained by teaming up with the company's inventory control department. To use any

other method results in redundant effort, thus

wasted time and money. We must also identify

each instrument in a manner that will give easy

and positive identification of the instrument.

Once again, it is best to join forces with the inventory control department. This information as to

identity, description and location can be made ac- cessible to both entities. We can add our own in- puts, giving the calibration status, calibration

interval, date last calibrated and the date due for recalibration. Sorting of the information stored

in our integrated record system facilities preparation of instrument service requests, workload

forecasts, work completed reports, calibration due

lists, etc.

The forms we use to input the record center become a very important part of the instrument

control system. Much effort can be saved if the

form that the inventory control people use to input

the inventory control records has a portion that can

be used by the calibration laboratory to input the

instrument control records. The forms that are used by the shipping and receiving department

personnel to move instruments in and out of the

facility should also be designed to input the in- tegrated record system. The form that is used to recall an instrument for calibration should have

portions to assist the department responsible for the instrument in keeping their internal records.

5.3 The System In Operation

When a new instrument is received (or fabricated),

the inventory control department assigns a control

number to the instrument and initiates a receiving

notice (or fabrication notice). One copy of this notice is sent directly to the records center to input

the inventory records. A second copy is sent to the calibration laboratory so that calibration status may be determined and a calibration interval as- signed. If the item requires calibration, it is con- sidered due for calibration and is moved directly

from the receiving department (or assembly area)

to the calibration laboratory. The calibration

date and recalibration due date are entered on the

second copy of the notice at time of calibration. The completed second copy is then sent to the

record center to input the instrument control portion of the system. A third copy of the notice is turned over to the department owning the instru- ment so that they may use it as property record

card. Once an instrument has received its initial input to the system, the information stored in the

integrated record system is sorted by department

and recalibration due date to obtain recall infor- mation. A service request form is then printed for each instrument due. This service request is sent

to a responsible person in the department possessing the instrument, so that the instrument can be

located and moved to the calibration laboratory.

One copy of service request is retained by the using

department so that they have a record of instru- ments "in calibration". A second is sent to the

record center when the instrument is received by

the calibration laboratory to notify the record

center that the instrument has arrived for calibration. (If this second copy is not received by the

record center, the instrument is listed on a delin- quent list that can be distributed to management.)

A third copy of the service request is completed

at time of calibration, then sent to the record center

to update the recall information. The fourth and

final copy of the service request is a traveler: this copy is returned to the department responsible

for the instrument to be matched with the first copy so the "in calibration" file may be cleared.

Should an instrument be transferred or otherwise

169
disposed of, a copy of the shipping document or disposition form is sent to the record center to change the location information, remove the item

from the recall schedule, or update the inventory

records as required.

Many additions can be made to our system. We

can add calibration history information, standards

used, performing lab, hours required, etc., thus

enabling the system's use for many analysis re- quirements. If the program is carefully set up, it becomes very easy to operate. Give consideration

to having the inventory control department assign a separate series of control numbers to furniture,

fixtures, etc. This will eliminate the need for reviewing calibration status on desks, chairs, etc. Nomenclature and manufacturer information should

be coded to eliminate sorting errors caused by

abbreviations, transposed letters, etc. Model

numbers should be carefully entered to eliminate

possible segregation of instruments because their

model numbers have a prefix or suffix that indicated

rack mounted, special paint or the like.

It is well to remember that an integrated inventory control/instrument control system saves money

for the company by eliminating duplication of effort; in addition, this type of program can increase

management support of a mandatory periodic

recall system.

6. Data Collection, Utilization, and

Analysis Subcommittee Report

J. Vondracek

6.1 Data collection and utilization requirements

are to be found in most of our contracts for hard- ware and study reports. The military specifications

state: "Records shall be maintained on the recali- bration status, condition, and corrections or repairs

for each inspection, measuring and test equipment."

Also stated is the requirement for "variables data"*

to be used to determine the adequacy of maintenance. Our non-military customers are usually

interested in whether their instrument was good

or bad, and what the data showed.

6.2 The establishing of any data system requires

the identification of data elements common to all instruments and satisfying our own and our custo- mers needs.

6.2.1 General instrument control data should

consider:

Name of Manufacturer

Model Number

Serial Number

Property Identification or Control Number

Location

Date Calibrated

Date Due For Calibration

Other desirable control data could include:

Original Cost

Annual Maintenance Cost

Standards Required

Date of Acquisition

Procedure Number

Technician's Name

6.2.2 Variables Data should consider:

Actual Data Points

Out-of-Tolerance Data

Initial and Final Calibration Data

Adjustments

Repair Parts Used

Maintenance Actions Accomplished

Repair Parts Costs

Calibration Costs

Usage Environment

Utilization

The control data and the variables data that are

collected determine to a large extent the management techniques utilized in the performance of the calibration program.

6.3 Data Systems must be well defined and the

needs for each individual data element and data

report evaluated.

6.3.1 Selection of the types of information de- sired and the frequency of reports have a major

effect on system costs.

a. Daily work load control reports may appear

to be expensive but may save the work of several

clerks.

b. Instrument failure rates and reliability factor

ratings of individual instruments or groups of instru- ments assist the planning of any instrument re- placement program.

c. Calibration interval evaluation or calculation can be done automatically by a computer.

d. Reports showing location at the last calibra- tion simplify the process of annual property inventories. 6.3.2 There are three basic types of data systems

currently in use:

a. Manual Systems — All control and variables

data must be accumulated, filed and retrieved by

hand. Reports easily modified to meet individual

needs. Manual systems are normally limited to 3000 to 5000 instruments.

b. Electronic Data Processing Systems are maintained on IBM cards. These systems are in use

primarily in the range of 2000 to as high as 90,000

instruments. Data reports are limited as to those

that can be obtained from sorting, tabulating, and

counting operations. Data accumulation is simplified but computations other than addition or subtraction must be performed manually.

c. Magnetic Tape systems represent the most

sophisticated systems available for control, man- agement reports, and data manipulation. Tape

records may be used on any size data system but

programming set-up and machine time usually

restrict the use of magnetic tape systems to 10,000

or more individual instruments.

170
6.3.3 A brief review of the data system costs at General Electric Co., Redstone Arsenal, General

Dynamics Corp., and McDonnell Aircraft Corp.

shows that the data collection, utilization and analysis operations vary in cost from $1.20 to $1.92 per

instrument processed. Over 50% of this cost is in the data collection portion of the task. Putting

the data into useable formats and reports is the

smallest part of the cost. 6.4 The true product of the Standards and Cali- bration Laboratory is data. From it we get:

1. Product quality assurance.

2. Control of our calibration system.

3. A measure of the efficiency and effectiveness

of the calibration process.

7. Calibration Subcommittee Report

Methods of Establishing Calibration Intervals

J. L. Hayes

The establishment of calibration intervals has

long been the weak technical link in the calibration chain. At the present time, there appears to be no definite single solution to this problem. One

of the reasons for this is that calibration is concerned

with so many different types of equipment — electrical, electronic, microwave, physical, optical,

etc. Secondly, every organization requiring cali- bration has different minimum reliability levels,

failure definitions, cost limitations, and testing

procedures, each having a direct bearing on the

setting of optimum calibration intervals. The

broad guide lines used by many are found in the

Calibration Intervals section of Military Specification MIL-C-45662B, entitled, "Calibration System Requirements."

"Calibration Intervals. Measurement and Test Equipment and Standards shall be calibrated at intervals established on the basis of stability, pur- pose, degree of usage, precision, accuracy, and skills of personnel utilizing the equipment. Intervals

shall be shortened as required, to assure continued

accuracy, as evidenced by the results of preceding calibrations, and may be lengthened only when

the results of previous calibrations provide definite indications that such action will not adversely af- fect the accuracy of the system. To support decisions relative to lengthening of calibration intervals, the contractor shall perform a statistical analysis of quantitative data generated from past

calibrations. Frequent checks shall be made to prevent continued use of devices which may be out

of calibration."

There are five general methods in use today for the establishment of calibration intervals; these

are broadly outlined in following sections. It is emphasized that these techniques are given in the

simplest form and that with certain modification

many of the disadvantages listed might be overcome.

It should also be noted that there is considerable

crossover in these techniques and portions of each

may be used in constructing a satisfactory program.

7.1 Fixed Interval Through Engineering

Intuition

This is by far the most prevalent method in use

today. It requires that individuals with experi- ence in the general subject equipment area generate an educated guess as to how long an item might

be expected to remain in tolerance. This method

of determination usually treats the model and manufacturer as a group. It is less often treated as a generic classification (e.g. signal generators, at- tenuators, pressure gages, etc.). This also serves

as the starting point for all other existing methods.

7.1.1 Advantages

(1) Lowest initial expense.

(2) Offers short-term flexibility.

(3) Serves small number of items well.

7.1.2 Disadvantages

(1) Ultimate expense may be extremely high

through unsupported decisions.

(2) Requires the same individuals who made the

initial decision (or others equally qualified) to monitor and adjust periods.

(3) Does not yield useful substantiative data.

(4) Does not establish reliability level.

(5) Does not finally conform to MIL-C-45662B.

7.2 Fixed Interval Through Data

Using attributes data from calibration reports,

decisions may be made on the magnitude of lengthening or shortening periodic intervals. There

are various forms of evaluation using statistical techniques and decision criteria. An example of an 85% reliability decision table is shown below.

Percent of Instru- ments Out of Tol- erance Incoming to Lab

25% or more 3 1 15 to 25% 3 2

10 to 15% 3 3

5 to 10% 3 4 5% or less 3 6

12

1824

In order to utilize a table such as the one shown,

the following areas must be investigated:

Use of data which represents only drift through

normal use; elimination of data on repaired and

damaged items.

256-1 14 0-67— 12 171
The calibration procedure and test equipment

are correct and compatible.

The out of tolerance or failure definition is sound.

The data sample is sufficiently large to warrant

meaningful decisions.

The use of collected variables data might be of

great assistance in the above investigations. This

method of determination usually treats the model

and manufacturer as a group. It may also be used

by serial number or generic group.

7.2.1 Advantages

(1) Establishes definite reliability level.

(2) Yields useful substantiative data.

(3) May be programmed for ADP.

(4) Conforms to MIL-C-45662B.

(5) Ultimate expense will be low through sup- ported decisions.

(6) Serves large calibration workloads well.

7.2.2 Disadvantages

(1) Initial expense is high.

(2) Inefficient for small samples.

(3) Chronic failing instruments are overlooked.

(4) Requires sophisticated data acquisition and

handling.

(5) Requires detailed management.

7.3 Variable or Floating Intervals

This method treats each individual item or instrument separately, by serial number, in one of

several ways, for example:

Using ADP or manual history records based on

established reliability criteria, an evaluation is made on the individual item each time it is processed

and the date of next calibration is assigned.

or

Without regard to history records and specific

reliability criteria, each time an individual item is processed and found to be within tolerance, the

technician expands the next interval by a certain

amount (e.g., increase by one month). If an out of

tolerance condition is found, the subsequent period

is shortened (e.g., decrease by three months).

7.3.1 Advantages

(1) Highly responsive to needed interval adjust- ments.

(2) Using history records, it conforms to MIL-C45662B.

(3) By not using history records, it costs little to operate.

7.3.2 Disadvantages

(1) Overlooks need for immediate technical

investigation.

(2) A smoothly controlled calibration workload

is difficult to achieve.

(3) By not using the history/reliability method,

a definite reliability level would not be known.

(4) Susceptible to subjectivity of individual tech- nician unless carefully monitored.

7.4 Interval By Use Time

This method requires that an elapsed-time indi- cator or usage tag be installed on the item to be

calibrated. After a predetermined "on" time has

been reached, the instrument is submitted for calibration. This method of determination usually

treats the model and manufacturer as a group. It may also be used either by serial number or by

generic group.

7.4.1 Advantages

(1) Frequently used equipment received pro- portionately more attention than rarely used instu- mentation.

(2) Permits a constant evaluation of equipment

utilization.

(3) Conforms to MIL-C^15662B.

(4) Ultimate expense will be low if average equipment usage is low.

7.4.2 Disadvantages

(1) Usable only when the following conditions are met:

A. Application limited because of need to properly activate elapsed-time indicator. B. Proof of data on usage rather than on deteri- oration. C. Free from "off' time drift. D. Deterioration to be free from number of "on-off ' sequences, loading, handling, etc.

(2) High initial cost.

(3) Easy for user to disconnect timer or run it backwards.

(4) A smoothly controlled calibration workload

is difficult to achieve.

(5) High cost of monitoring timers and policing

program.

7.5 Interval By In-Use Testing

Critical parameters within instruments are checked frequently (daily, weekly, or monthly) in their use environment using portable calibration

equipment. From this, data is collected and

statistical analysis made to determine need for a complete calibration of instrument parameters.

This method integrates calibration into a quality

control function. The in-use testing technique

may treat items individually, either by serial number, or by model-manufacturer.

172
7.5.1 Advantages

(1) Provides any attainable.

1 2) Provides useful peripheral data, both attribute.

(3) Conforms to MIL-C-45662B.

(4) Provides maximum availability for user.

7.5.2 Disadvantages

(1) Not practical for calibration workloads geographically separated.

(2) Requires sophisticated data acquisition and

handling.

(3) Requires detailed management.

(4) Requires close inventory control to find instru- ment to be monitored.

(5) Present calibration equipment not completely

suitable for portable use.

173

NCSL 66

SESSION 14: DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR NCSL

W. R. Holmes, Chairman

General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division, Groton, Connecticut 06340

The session on Recommended Practices was set up in the following manner to illustrate several

points. First, to illustrate how another society

handled Recommended Practices, we have a pres- entation by Ralph Clarridge entitled, "The Development of Recommended Practices in the

ISA." Second, to illustrate various technical

points to be considered when writing a Recommended Practice, Jim Murdock of the Philadelphia

Naval Shipyard will accomplish this with his talk,

"Effect of Installation on Measurement System

Accuracy." Third, I would like to tell you what

NCSL is planning* in the area of Recommended

Practices.

*Editor's Note: The 6-page "Proposed Procedure for Generation and Publication

of NCSL Recommended Practices" may be obtained from Mr. Holmes.

175

THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN THE ISA

Ralph Clarridge

Vice President Elect, ISA Standards and Practices Dept., 1MB Fed. Syst. Div. Huntsville, Ala.

Recommended Practices and Standards have been a major activity within the ISA for twenty

years. ISA work in this area has been difficult, time-consuming and sometimes boring to the many

participants, but the results are now being recognized as a major ISA contribution to the instrument

industry, to manufacturers as well as users. The method of originating and producing these standards

will be reviewed along with some of the problems which have been encountered.

I. Introduction

Speaking for the Instrument Society of America, we are happy to participate officially in the Third

National Conference of Standards Laboratories.

In turn, I am delighted with your interest in the

activities of the ISA Standards and Practices Department. Our modest success in this area should

encourage NCSL in similar activities, for certainly

there are many common procedures which could

be documented in the form of Recommended Practices for the benefit of all laboratories. In this particular connection, I wish to call your

attention to two rather active divisions in the Technical Department which might be most useful to * the NCSL. These are the Measurement Standards

Instrumentation Division under Douglas Strain

and the Physical and Mechanical Measurement

Instrumentation Division under T. M. Mathison.

If either of these groups can serve the NCSL in the field of instrumentation, do not hesitate to call on them.

II. History of the Standards and

Practices Activities in the ISA

Let us look back on the instrument industry in the early 1940's. It was composed of many small

suppliers, each of whom had certain unique designs which were applicable to limited segments

of the instrument market. In addition, even in supplying the same market segment, each manufacturer searched for features which would in- crease his share of the market. This is a good

and sound practice in a competitive market. However, as any market matures, the search for novelty

often results in pseudo-advantages which may be

grist for the mills of sales promotion but which, in turn, restricts the flexibility and interchangeability of the product. Specifically, in 1940, the

instrumentation of any one manufacturer could

be interconnected to create a system, but instru- ments of another manufacturer could not be inserted into that system without modification. At

this same time, the large industrial instrument users,

particularly those in the oil refining and chemical

processing industries moved further toward the

large integrated plant. No one manufacturer

could supply all of the sensors, transmitters, re- corders, controllers and valves that were required

for any one plant. Instruments of different manufacturers had to be interconnected. A reasonable

degree of interchangeability was highly desired.

Concurrently, throughout the country, local groups were forming to discuss these new problems

of instrumentation. This local exchange of infor- mation helped solve some installation, maintenance,

and technician education problems, but it also served to emphasize the need to work with the

various manufacturers toward reasonable standards—and with each other — in documenting certain

procedures of mutual interest.

It was in this climate that these local groups

gathered together to form the Instrument Society

of America. It brought together not only a plethora

of instrument problems, but also a group of competent technical people with a burning desire to solve

the.. This is the reason the ISA has been so active

in the standards and practices area and also the reason a good share of our present recommended

practices is most useful in the petroleum and chemical processing fields. In 1946, the ISA Standards and Practices Committee was established with the purpose of preparing and publishing carefully written standards and

practices to be available to instrument manufacturers and users in all industries. ISA Recommended Practices were to be prepared only

after a thorough industry survey indicated that there was a wide agreement among both users and

manufacturers on the need for unified procedures

for the use of measurement and control devices,

standard terminology, uniform dimensions, conversion constants or safety procedures. If no widespread common agreement or practice could

be found in industry, no document would be generated. The ISA has not and does not intend to

177
issue standards and practices which reflect the

opinions of only a small portion of the industry, or

to attempt to dictate procedures by means of mandatory standards. The formal statement of the goals

of the ISA Standards and Practices Department

follows

:

Purpose

Enhance the instrumentation technology through

the preparation of standards and practices which

are developed on the consensus principle, are unbiased, widely applicable, and authoritative.

Function

Compile and publish consensuses of technical

practices. Provide organizational structure for other related activities: bibliographies, abstracting,

referrals, and short courses. Let us look at some of the Recommended Practices which have been developed through the years. The work on 8D-RP1 — "Thermocouple and Extension Wire Practices," was started in 1948 but it was not until 1959 that its tentative status was

removed. Almost immediately work was started on converting this to an American Standard but

it was not until 1964, 16 years from the origin of

the work, that this became a reality. It is now

known as American Standard C96-1-1 964, "Temperature Measurement Thermocouples."

Work on 8D-RP2 - "Manometer Tables," started

in 1947; the first version was published in 1949

and tentative status was removed in 1952. New

information became available from the National

Bureau of Standards which was incorporated in a

revision issued in 1962. It is interesting to note

that Dr. Brombacher of NBS led this committee

throughout its life. In the early forties control valves of the same

size from different manufacturers had different face-to-face dimensions. Of course, each manufacturer claimed certain advantages for his particular design. Under the priority and limited

supply situation that existed during World War II, valves from one manufacturer were frequently

assigned to a site prepared for those of another

manufacturer. The situation was most unsatisfactory. In 1947, Committee 8D-RP4- "Control

Valve and ByPass Manifold Installations," was

formed and subsequently issued RP4.1, "Uniform

Face-to-Face Dimensions for Flanged Control

Valve Bodies," in 1950, with the help and cooperation of the Fluid Controls Institute, consisting of

the major manufacturers of control valves in the

U.S.A. The second RP issued by this committee

RP4.2 "Standard Control Valve Manifold Designs

for Carbon Steel Valves," was published in 1956

and still retains its tentative status. Now, with

improved reliability in control valves and with

higher piping and installation costs, this subject

is being reviewed again with the probability that a new RP will be issued covering a less costly bypass manifold system.

Another commit-.ee 8D-RP12 — "Instruments

for Hazardous Locations" has been active since

1950 under the leadership of F. L. Maltby. This

committee has six subcommittees which have pro- gressed as follows: RP12.1, "Electrical Instruments in Hazardous

Atmospheres," with a tentative practice published

in 1960;

RP12.2, "Instrinsic Safety for Electrical Instru- ments," with a tentative practice published in 1965;

RP12.3, "Explosion-Proof Electrical Instruments"

which has not yet progressed to the point of

publication;

RP12.4, "Instrument Purging for Reduction of

Hazardous Area Classification," with a tentative

practice published in 1960;

RP12.5, "Sealing and Immersion Standards for Electrical Instruments" which has not yet been

published;

RP12.6, "Wiring Practices for Hazardous Area

Instrumentation," which is not yet ready for publication;

RP12.7, "Electrical Safety in Dusty Atmospheres" (new);

RP12.8, "Area Classifications" (new);

RP12.9, "Flame Arrestors" (new).

In 1958, this committee prepared a source book

entitled, "Electrical Safety Abstracts;" the volume was revised and expanded in 1960. Over the

years, RP12 has been one of the most active and

best documented committees in the history of the

standards and practices program.

Committee 8D-RP16 — "Variable Area Meters"

formed in 1954 had the same problem experienced

by 8DRP4. There were (and are) three major

manufacturers of rotameters in the USA, and each

had his own terminology and dimensions. Eventually, by a rather unusual technique, a method

was found for resolving their differences and the

following were published between 1958 and 1961.

RP16.1, 16.2, 16.3, "Terminology, Dimension, and

Safety Practices for Indicating Variable Area

Meters (Glass Tube, Metal Tube, and Extension

Glass Tube Types),"

RP16.4, "Nomenclature and Terminology for Extension Type Variable Area Meters (Rotameters),"

RP16.5, "Installation, Operation, and Mainte- nance Instructions for Glass Tube Variable Area

Meters (Rotameters),"

RP16.6, "Methods and Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters)."

All of these RP's are still in tentative status. Other areas in which the I.S.A Standards and

Practices Department has made major contributions to both the instrument user as well as the

manufacturer is in Dynamic Response Testing,

178
Turbine-Type Flow Transducers and Transducers

for Aerospace Testing.

There are several reasons for detailing the older

recommended practices which have been developed

by the I.S.A. Note first, that they are quite di- verse, varying from rather precise physical constants (e.g., thermocouple and manometer tables)

to dimensions of selected hardware (control valves

and rotameters) and on to guidelines used in dynamic response testing. Note also that with few

exceptions there has been no attempt to duplicate

or incorporate standards developed by other recog- nized authorities even though these are rather

closely related to instrumentation. For example,

A.S.M.E.'s Power Test Code has several sections

devoted to measuring instruments, and the A.S.T.M.

specifications cover many laboratory instruments.

Another point that should be observed is that the

development of recommended practices (and

standards) is long and tedious. Sixteen years were

required to get an American Standard on thermocouples, and even then, the committee did not

start from ground zero. It took fifteen years for 8DRP12 to produce an I.S.A. recommended practice on intrinsic safety and there is more work to be done on this particular item. It is also true that some committees were able to complete their

work in two or three years but it appears that these

are exceptions.

At this time it might be emphasized that all committees of the ISA Standards and Practices

Department have not been successful in their work.

Referring to Figure 1, ISA Recommended Practices Projects, only 50% of the committees formed

through the years have produced or are working

actively on recommended practices. Note the

cancellations and consolidations. Here are the reasons for the situation as I see it: 1) some subjects

selected were of passing interest to the instrument

industry or were trivial from the long range viewpoint; 2) some subjects were so involved that the

committee was overwhelmed by the job to be done

and abandoned all hope; 3) in several cases work

in other societies led to the abandonment of a

project; and 4) on occasion, the death or reassignment of a dynamic committee chairman has ter- minated a project.

Here are some of the milestones in the Department's history:

First ISA RP Committee Formed 1946

First ISA RP Published 1948

Organized ISA Standards and Practices

Department 1956

First ISA Standards Bibliography Published

(Electrical Safety) 1959

First Compilation of ISA RP's Published... 1963

First ISA Short Course Related to Standards

Held (Electrical Safety) 1964

III. Source Material for ISA

Recommended Practices

Ideas come from individuals and ideas are usually

generated "where the shoe pinches." Each of us

follow certain practices in our daily lives both at home and at work. However, it is only when life becomes a bit uncomfortable and is beyond one's personal control to change, that one thinks of

"standards." In any event, "when the shoe

pinches" we usually speak out, and if the pinch is in instrumentation and control, the proper place

to speak out is within the ISA. Sometimes this

is in the form of a paper in which an individual

fists the problems which would have been avoided

or time which would have been saved if a standard or practice had been available to guide him.

In other cases, he has pointed out the merit of ac- cumulating and presenting data in a standard format

to make comparisons by subsequent investigators

easy and meaningful.

Other sources are the working committees of

the ISA Technical and Industry Departments who

find that in order to communicate reasonably and

to move ahead responsively in their respective

fields, an accepted framework of terms and standardized dimensions are necessary. I suspect that

I would not be here talking to you today if MESTIND

and the NCSL did not recognize the desirability

of certain standards or accepted practices which

will make progress a little easier. A final source is the panel discussion in which

selected individuals, usually eminent in their re- spective fields, present their ideas hoping to stimulate a creative response from the audience.

Frankly, with few exceptions, I believe this is a barren activity first because it is hard to get more

than a handful of individuals to attend a standards

and practices meeting (if there is anything else

to do) and second, few of those who attend really

have a "shoe that pinches."

IV. The Development of an ISA

Recommended Practice

When an idea for a standard or a recommended

practice is proposed to the Standards and Practices Board, it is tested. The testing is quite flex- ible and depends, of course, on the competence

and experience of the source. For example, a working technical committee could be expected to know

of existing or related standards or standards activities in other societies, while this probably would

not be true of an individual. In any event, here

are the questions which must be properly answered

before work is authorized by the Standards and

Practices Board.

1. Is there an existing or closely related standard?

2. Is another society or group actively working

in this technical area?
PERFORMANCE OF ISA RECOMMENDED PRACTICES COMMITTEES

RP47

RP46

RP45

RP44

RP43

RP42

RP4I

RP40

RP39

RP38

RP37

RP36

RP35

RP34

RP33

RP32

RP3I

RP30

RP29

RP28

RP27

RP26

RP25

RP24

RP23

RP22

RP2!

RP20

RPI9

RPI8

RPI7

RPI6

RPI5

RPI4

RPI3

RPI2

RPII RPIO

RP 9

RP 8

RP 7

RP 6

RP 5

RP 4

RP 3

RP 2

RP I

CANCELLED

CANCELLED

CANCELLED

42.

CANCELLED

TABLED

TABLED

37.1, .2, .3, .6 CANCELLED

CANCELLED

CANCELLED

(CANCELLED 1H—II .2,-3

i cancelled

[cancelled

VITH RP8

^ CANCELLED

26.1 .2,.

< 3,.4i^HHHALL REV.

25.1 bhi^h |cancelled

1 transferred to sama

23.1 | cancelled

| transferred to sama

[cancelled

CANCELLED WSm REACTIVATED

CANCELLED

1 16.1 - 16.6 MERGED INTO RP3

MERGED INTO RP3

^CANCELLED

ABS.12.1,.4 HHI2.2I

CANCELLED

CANCELLED

LEGEND

REF. MEANS REAFFIRM

REV MEANS REVISED

XX.X MEANS RP NUMBER

[INACTIVE 7.1, .21 TRANSFERRED TO SAMA

1946

180
3. Does the ISA have competence in this particular area or is another society or group better

equipped to do this work?

4. Is the idea suitable for an I.S.A. Recommended

Practice? (e.g., Is it well enough defined? Is the

timing right? Will it be of permanent value? Is

it in the field of measurement and control?)

5. Is a competent committee chairman available?

6. Can the committee be staffed with competent

people?

When the answers to these questions are affirmative, a survey committee is formed and individuals

in various industries throughout the country are queried on the possible value of such a recom- mended practice and the scope it should cover. Every effort is made to get opinions from an adequate sample of knowledgeable people. The sur- vey chairman is assisted not only by the I.S.A. headquarters staff, but also by the Section Standards Representatives who are located throughout

the country. Not infrequently the scope of the

activity is broadened or altered by the response.

When the consensus of the response is favorable,

a Standards and Practices Committee is formed.

Usually the chairman of the survey committee be- comes the RP Chairman and the working committee members are selected on the bases of enthusi- asm, competence and geographic location. Committees are expected to meet each month during

the organizing and working period and at least once

each quarter as the Recommended Practice is being assembled. Corresponding memberships

are available for those who can contribute to the

effort yet cannot attend every meeting. A Review

Board, consisting of those who cannot work on the

Recommended Practice and yet are knowledgeable

in the field, is used to pick up errors and oversights

when the first acceptable copy of the work is avail- able. With this procedure, the final approval of a Recommended Practice by the Standards and

Practices Board is little more than a formality.

When this has been given, the RP is published in a "tentative" status, and periodically thereafter is reaffirmed or revised. Past experience shows that three man-years are needed for RP development.

This period is equivalent to 12 men working 1-1/2

days per month for 5 years. The structure of the

Standards and Practices Department in the national

organization is indicated below:

ISA STANDARDS AND PRACTICES

National Organization

Department Vice President

Department Vice-President-elect

Standards and Practices Directors

Board Secretary

Standards

and

Practices

Board

Recommended Practices Committees and

Liaison Representatives with

ISA Districts and Sections,

ISA Divisions,

Other Technical Societies,

Trade Associations,

American Standards Association.

Committee Chairmen

Subcommittee Chairmen

Local Members

Corresponding Members

Boards of Review

RP Committee

Structure

181
V. Problems Encountered

Possibly you will be interested in some of the

problems which have been encountered through the

years. Some will be with us always; others have

been solved by written guidelines stimulated by some unexpected experience.

Of course, the major problem is the RP Committee Chairman! The usual response to one of these

situations where the "shoe pinches" is the burning

desire to get a document or guideline now, not six months or a year from now. The novice cannot

conceive of it taking one, two or even five years to create a good acceptable recommended practice.

So this problem has been one of keeping his interest

and enthusiasm through the seemingly interminable

delays which are associated with a voluntary

project.

The second problem was one of providing proper

instructions for the chairman and the committee

as a whole on procedures. The I.S.A. is, after all, a young society and there were no rules or guidefines in 1945. While procedures are never static in a growing organization, it is our opinion that this problem has been substantially solved.

I.S.A. meetings are open to the public and all interested individuals are urged to attend. For

a long while this also applied to meetings of the

various Recommended Practices Committees and

the S & P Board. We were not concerned if members of the technical press were present and we

did not request that the material not be released.

This proved to be a bad practice, however, for the

headquarters staff and the I.S.A. Executive Board

did not like to see committee work summarized

weeks and even months before the edited and cor- rected documents could be made available from

Pittsburgh.

Occasionally, when a Recommended Practice is badly needed, a committeeman has accepted an

invitation from a section or a division to talk on the

subject material related to the Practice being de- veloped. Of course, the I.S.A. does not wish to

restrict such activity as long as the individual covers

only his own work and contributions. But since it

is almost impossible for an individual who has actively worked on a committee to restrict his re- marks to his own work, in the discussion period if not in the paper, this practice is discouraged. The

Standards and Practices Board strongly urges all committee members to defer such presentations

until the Recommended Practice is published so

that each contributor can be properly recognized.

Another problem which we have faced is the desire of enthusiastic I.S.A. members to "take over"

or lead every project involving instrumentation.

This is a natural urge in view of the name of the

society and its relative youth. We, of course, have

found that it is best to restrict our efforts to those

projects which, through our membership, we are equipped to do well. In areas in which we believe

the I.S.A. has an interest and can make a contri- bution, we provide liaison members to other technical groups and societies. In addition, I am

pleased to say that in areas which were well de- veloped before the I.S.A. existed or in areas in which a competent contributor cannot be found in the I.S.A. membership, we have declined participation even though some phase of measurement or instrumentation was involved.

VI. Conclusion

It is my hope that this review of the I.S.A. Standards and Practices activity will be encouraging to the N.C.S.L., and lead to a similar documentation

of accepted practices which will be useful to all standards laboratories. Furthermore, if the I.S.A., or any of its committees can assist with this work, we will do our best to help.

182
EFFECT OF INSTALLATION ON MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ACCURACY

J. W. Murdock*

The two basic sources of measurement system error are (a) those inherent in the system itself and (b) those resulting from the use of the system. This paper discusses the latter, and concerns

itself with the output of a measuring system that is error-free with respect to what its primary element

actually senses. The necessity for an individual installation analysis to minimize errors is discussed. The following sources of errors stemming from use are illustrated — (a) installation of primary element,

(b) location of primary element, (c) sampling, (d) effects of other variables, and (e) fluctuations of the

variable being measured.

Introduction Measurement Errors

What is an instrument?

In 1963, the Instrument Society of America published its Transducer Compendium listing 1,227

model series covering 37,700 individual transducers.

This was based on the response of 230 manufacturers out of the 5,500 known manufacturers of

instruments. Many of these transducers cannot,

without additional components, make a measurement. To avoid, as much as possible, the confused

state of today's instrument terminology, let's consider what is necessary to make a measurement.

First, the variable must be "sensed," second, the

effect produced by this sensing must be trans- mitted in some kind of device that communicates

the results, i.e., indicates, transmits, records,

controls, signals, or automates. Thus, in order to make a measurement, a system such as that shown

in figure 1 must be used.

The primary element is that part of the system

that first senses the variable to be measured.

The energy change produced by this sensing must

be transmitted to the communicating unit where

it may be used directly or may be changed (transduced) to some other form in order to indicate,

record, or signal. The energy signal may also be sent on to other components of a control or automation system. In some systems, the communicating unit may be very complex and consist

of many parts, but all measuring systems must

contain at least the 3 shown in figure 1. A simple and well known measuring system is the

liquid-in-glass thermometer as shown in Figure 2.

'Head Applied Physics Division, Naval Boiler and Turbine Laboratory, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia. Pa. 19112: Adjunct Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Drexel Institute of Technology, Philadelphia, Pa. 19104. The opinions and assertions of this paper are the private ones of the author and are

not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Navy Department or the Naval Establishment at large.

Measurement of a variable never gives a result which is correct in the absolute sense. The nu- merical value determined also differs by some

amount from the true value of the variable being

measured. The amount of the deviation depends

on the type of measuring system employed and upon

the application on which it is used. This fact imposes upon instrument application engineers the

duty of studying measuring systems and their applications to the extent that they can demonstrate, for a given case, that they have provided instrumentation to meet the degree of accuracy required for the

purpose of the apphcation.

The accuracy containable for a given measure- ment is dependent upon the following:

a. The method of applying the measurement

system

b. The accuracy of the system itself

c. The accuracy of the observer and/or the readability of the scale or record

d. The characteristics of the variable being

measured.

The above breaks down into two radically different considerations, both of which are of equal importance. These may be designated as:

a. Intrinsic accuracy of the measuring system

b. The accuracy resulting from conditions of use.

The former is generally well treated by most engi- neers and data should be available for prediction.

The latter is the most neglected, least understood

and may be responsible for measurement errors of

several orders of magnitude of that of the intrinsic accuracy of the measurement system. The reason

for the neglection of the latter is that an individual

analysis must be made for each apphcation and

installation.

183
Accuracy in Use

This paper is concerned with the output of a measuring system that is error free with respect to what its primary element actually senses. In other

words, neither the primary element, the transmitting

apparatus, or the communicating unit contribute to any errors. This idealized condition can be ap- proached in practice by the calibration of the

measurement system. While errors can result from the method of installation of the transmitting

apparatus in some cases, these will not be considered in this paper. With the error-free assumptions discussed above,

the following sources of errors stemming from use must be considered:

a. Installation of the primary element

b. Location of the primary element

c. Sampling

d. Effects of other variables

e. Fluctuations of the variable being measured.

Figure 4 illustrates the effect of placing a flow

primary element too close to an elbow. The primary element now receives a different velocity

profile than the one it received when calibrated and

consequently an error is produced.

c. Sampling

Figure 5 illustrates a very poor method of sampling a steam water mixture flowing in a pipe. This

does, however, show very clearly the basic problem.

d. Effects of other Variables

Consider a conductivity apparatus used as a carbon-dioxide indicator for boiler flue gas. This

device is not selective and can indicate CO2 cor- rectly only if the right amounts of nitrogen, oxygen,

etc. are present. If such a device were used to indicate CO2 content of air CO2 mixture, very large errors would result because the primary element

senses only thermal conductivity, not composition.

e. Fluctuations of the Variable Being Measured

Measuring systems are calibrated under steady

conditions. When the variable measured is not under a steady condition, as illustrated in Figure 6,

dynamic error will result. Examples

The following examples were chosen to illustrate some of the basic problems involved in the application and use of measurement systems. They are

far from all inclusive and each installation must be

analyzed as a separate problem.

a. Installation of the Primary Element

When the temperature of a fluid flowing in a pipe

under pressure is to be measured, it is often necessary to encase the primary element in a protection

tube or socket as shown in Figure 3. The following

temperatures must then be considered:

1. The temperature of the gas

2. The temperature of the wall of the pipe

3. The socket temperatures

4. Ambient temperature

The indicated temperature of the measuring system

is none of these temperatures. A heat transfer

study is necessary to estimate the true temperature:

the factors involved are:

1. The physical properties of the fluid and

materials

2. The net heat transfer by radiation, conduction

and convection from the well to the fluid, and to the

pipe wall and to the primary element.

3. The velocity of the fluid. When the fluid is a

gas, the difference between static and stagnation

temperature may be appreciable at velocities above

300 feet per second.

b. Location of Primary Element

Summary

It is important to note that all errors discussed

are uni-directional, they do not affect the precision

(Figure 7) of the system.

Most of the errors cited above cannot be avoided

but their effects can be minimized by intelligent

selection and analysis.

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

PRIMARY ELEMENT

OBTAINS ENERGY

CHANGE

MEASURED

VARIABLE

TRANSMITTING APPARATUS

TRANSMITS ENERGY

COMMUNICATING

UNIT

USES OR CHANGES

ENERGY

TO

TRANSMIT -

CONTROL

AUTOMATE —

- INDICATE - RECORD - SIGNAL

FIGURE 1. Measurement system.

184
LIQUID-IN-GLASS THERMOMETER SAMPLING

SCALE -COMMUNICATING UNIT BULB- PRIMARY ELEMENT

LIQUID COLUMN -TRANSMITTING APPARATUS

FIGURE 2. Mercury-in-glass thermometer.

INSTALLATION OF PRI MARY ELEMENT

Tsi v Tw||

dx-H h

•Tb

STEAM- WATER

MIX

WATER ON BOTTOM

B

2^

:0

z

Q

SAMPLING

TUBE

Figure 5. Sampling.

FLUCTATIONS OF VARIABLE

BEING MEASURED

ACTUA

INDICATED

FIGURE 3. Installation of primary element.

Tl ME

Figure 6. Fluctuations of variable being measured.

LOCATION OF PRIMARY ELEMENT

ELBOW

or BEND

ACTUAL

VELOCITY

PROFILE

\

CALIBRATION

VELOCITY

PROFILE

\ FLOW

PRIMARY

ELEMENT

PRECISION VS ACCURACY

PRECISION

HIGH HIGH LOW

HIGH LOW

ACCURACY

HIGH

FIGURE 4. Location of primary element. FIGURE 7. Precision versus accuracy.

185

RECOMMENDED STANDARDS AND PRACTICES

W. R. Holmes

The aim of the NCSL Committee on Recommended Standards and Practices for NCSL is to compile a manual which will be a guide book on

operational management for those interested in Standard Laboratories — whether they be novices,

operational laboratory personnel, or only interested

in understanding or dealing with Standard Laboratories. The object of a Manual of Recommended

Standards and Practices is to: "Enhance the instrumentation technology by

preparing and promoting recommended standards

and practices which are competent, unbiased,

widely applicable, and authoritative."

The program, when reduced to its least common

denominator, is one of attaining general agreement.

Its objectives, the development of Recommended

Standards and Practices, are those which reflect common areas of agreement among Standard Laboratories and throughout the instrumentation in- dustries. The establishment of recommended

standards and practices for operation is the "mark

of maturity" in a professional society. Once established it is necessary to assess and re-establish

goals and examine procedures periodically.

Paradoxically, we in the standards business have

not yet formulated a generally agreed upon set of

standard practices for our own work. Practices

are necessary for a Standards Laboratory: to provide

a guide for those who w

r ant to start a Standards

Laboratory, or for those who want to improve the

operation of an existing Standards Laboratory.

Moreover, individual Standards Laboratories, no

matter how good they are, cannot be isolated from

the general technical community of which they are a

part. A Standards Laboratory must strive to achieve a uniformly accurate and compatible sys- tem of measurements not only in its own organization but with the organization's customers, vendors,

and subcontractors. Accomplishing this involves

having a nationally compatible system of measure- ments and standards.

Recommended Practices serve the very definite

role of informing NCSL members, instrument users and manufacturers and Standards Laboratories

about the present consensus in the areas of terminology, calibration, test and approved procedures,

dimension, fabrication, installation and maintenance

methods. During the development of Recommended Practices, communication is a vital necessity in order that all requirements for their validity

will be met. After the need for a given Practice is established, it is necessary to define the scope of the

Practice, obtain qualified technical people to develop it. and find still others capable of reviewing

the work before publication. Publicity and circulation of the published practice are necessary in order to obtain the continuing review and comments which are the basis for further improvement.

Exchange of information and opinions is vital to

all group activities. If these activities are to accomplish the goals set before them, their communication

must be effective. The task of creating new channels of communication, maintaining clarity within

them, and assuring that all parties are kept as informed as they should is ever present.

Recommended Practices represents a particularly important contribution of the long-term growth

of NCSL and is one of the project areas which will provide lasting contributions. It should be remembered, as I will stress again, a high level technical

background, painstaking attention to detail, and

patient reconciliation of many conflicting viewpoints

are needed in this work. The contents of Recommended Practices will reflect the work of many

people and will constitute a substantial cross-section

of persons active in Standards Laboratories work.

We hope that this handbook will be one of a series

of steps which will eventually transform a variety

of material from a variety of sources into a manual

of approved recommended practices for standards

laboratories.

256-114 0-67— 13 187
j

i

I
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN

OCTOBER 1965 TO OCTOBER 1966

J. R. Van de Houten

Membership

The membership continued to increase during

1966. As of September 30, 1966 there were 146

paid members (153 as of January 10, 1967). Only

two organizations declared they would not continue

their membership. A current list of members and

member delegates is included as Appendix B.*

Finances

At the end of the year the treasury had a surplus

of $21,057.59, an increase of $5,652.38 over the

previous year end total. As a carry over from the

previous year's operation, the books were closed on

the August, 1965 Disneyland Workshop with a surplus of $707.18 and the May 1965 Columbus

Workshop with a deficit of $37.21. The Gaithersburg Conference added $2,724.82; income from

membership and interest on savings exceeded

operating expenses by $2,257.59.

Financial statements summarizing the income

and expenses during the year and a detailed sum- mary of the Gaithersburg Conference expenses are included in Appendices C and D. During the year the Board of Directors officially

established NCSL's fiscal year as July 1 through

June 30 to coincide with the membership year.

Liaison Delegates

Liaison has been established with a number of

organizations whose interests are closely allied with

those of NCSL. It is NCSL's intent to cooperate

as closely as possible with all such organizations

and to avoid duplication of effort. The liaison dele- gate is NCSL's primary means of communication

with these groups.

Official liaison was established with two additional technical societies during the year and liaison delegates were appointed. These were the Insti- tute of Environmental Sciences and the Precision

Measurement Association.

*Edilor's Note: The appendices cited were included in the original distribution of

the annual report to NCSL Member Delegates, 10 Jan. 1967. Members may obtain

additional copies from The National Conference of Standards Laboratories, c/o National Bureau of Standards (200.00), Washington, D.C. 20234.

A significant extension of the liaison concept

resulted in the invitation and subsequent designation of two liaison delegates representing other countries: the British Calibration Service and Canada's

Department of National Defence. It was recog- nized that a close relationship exists among standards laboratories throughout the world and that improved communication is essential. The com- mon interests were apparent to those who attended

the Gaithersburg meeting. All were captivated by

the interest and friendliness of the representatives

from other countries and the session on the "Unification of Industrial Measurements in Other Countries" was a highlight. Preliminary discussions were held by the Board of Directors and the Organization Committee on establishing an even more

appropriate and active relationship by establishing

a category of membership for foreign affiliates. A complete list of liaison affiliations is included

as Appendix E.

Committee Functions

Based on recommendations made by the Organization Committee the Board of Directors approved

the establishment of 24 committees at the beginning

of the elective year. Subsequently, a committee on "Procurement Regulations" was established in March 1966. A complete list of these committees

and their functions is included as Appendix F. Committee Membership

The committee chairmen and those committee

members officially appointed by the NCSL Chairman are listed in Appendix G. In some cases persons not listed acted as unofficial members of

the committee upon request of the committee chair- man and materially contributed to the effectiveness

of the committees.

It is noted that the By-Laws limit the chairmanship of committees under normal conditions to Members, Sponsors, or. Liaison Delegates. However, any person, regardless or organizational

membership, who can materially contribute to committee activities can be appointed to serve as a committee member.

189
Changes to By-Laws

During the year, the most significant change to the

NCSL By-Laws was an increase in the number and

length of term of the Vice Chairmen. Beginning

with the newly elected officers for 1967 there will be four Vice Chairmen who will bis elected for two- year terms. Initially, two will be elected for a one-year term to permit staggered terms of office. The Board of Directors will elect one of the Vice

Chairmen to serve as First Vice Chairman. Besides

providing active experience to more member dele- gates, this will assist the Chairman in long-range

planning and in coordinating the work of the various

NCSL committees.

The By-Laws had been amended earlier in the

year to allow the Chairman to delegate certain

coordination responsibilities to the various NCSL

Directors.

National Measurement Standards

Week

The greatest personal disappointment during the

year was the failure to have Congress designate a National Measurement Standards Week to coincide

with the dedication of NBS's new Gaithersburg

facilities. Congressman George P. Miller intro- duced a joint resolution into Congress, however the

House Committee on the Judiciary failed to act on

H.J. Res 1247. Nevertheless, considerable interest

and publicity were achieved. Most important, the

groundwork has been laid for a future effort. The

idea is an excellent one which would greatly benefit

all persons involved with measurement standards.

I sincerely hope another effort will be made by

NCSL in the near future and that a campaign to take advantage of such a week can be planned by

all standards laboratories and manufacturers of

measurement equipment.

NCSL Secretariat

Based on a request from the NCSL Chairman,

NBS has agreed to provide administrative assistance

to NCSL. Specific items covered in the Memorandum of Agreement signed by Dr. A. V. Astin for NBS and J. R. Van de Houten for NCSL were:

1. Permit NCSL to use as a mailing address the

following: "National Conference of Standards Laboratories, c/o National Bureau of Standards (200.00),

Washington. D.C. 20234."

2. Accept and forward, or handle as requested,

correspondence and communications received for NCSL.

3. Accept and deposit checks payable to NCSL

and provide the Treasurer with periodic reports on checks received and deposited.

4. Maintain a list of NCSL member organizations, member's delegates, officers and committees,

on the basis of information provided by NCSL

officers.

5. Assist in preparation and mailing of NCSL

literature or correspondence at the request of NCSL officers or committee chairmen, within such

limits as may be agreed upon from time to time with

the NCSL Chairman or Board of Directors.

6. Maintain the archival records of NCSL and

store stocks of active documents for NCSL distri- bution.

Printing and mailing costs will be borne by

NCSL for these items.

It is indeed fortunate that the services of an orga- nization such as NBS are available. Thus, a gradual

transition is possible towards the day when the

establishment of an official full-time NCSL office and staff is required. In the meantime it will simplify means for all interested persons to obtain

information.

NCSL and the National Measurement

System

The concept of a National Measurement System

being developed by Dr. R. D. Huntoon and the

National Bureau of Standards is not only a fascinating but an extremely important one. Anyone in the measurement field should not only read Dr. Huntoon's presentations (see the Conference Proceedings) but should also study them several times, so

that he may be able to intuitively apply portions of

this concept to day-to-day activities. The scope of the National Measurement System

and the difficulties in any one group evaluating its many elements was recognized. In a memo to the NCSL Chairman, dated May 6, 1966, Dr. Huntoon and Mr. W. A. Wildhack of NBS suggested

that NCSL examine the "Role of an NCSL Laboratory in the National Measurement System." The

first response to this request was coordinated by

Lloyd Wilson of Sperry Gyroscope and NCSL Corre- sponding Secretary. Copies of Dr. Huntoon's

memo were submitted to a number of the committee

chairmen who in turn responded for their committees. These were collected in a preliminary report

to the Board of Directors by Mr. Wilson.

A full report on this activity is scheduled for presentation during the American Ordnance Association, Standards and Metrology Division, Annual

Meeting scheduled for April 12 and 13, 1967 at the

NBS Gaithersburg Laboratories.

Recommended Practices

It is my firm belief that the field of Measurement

Standards needs improved methods for establishing

and agreeing on the best administrative and technical methods to be used. By the preparation of

Recommended Practices, together with Tentative

Recommended Practices and preliminary reports, i

190
NCSL can be of great assistance to all members.

Recommended Practices, methods, etc. already

prepared by other organizations must be utilized to the greatest extent possible. This coincidentally

provides a long-range program and measure of goal attainment for the NCSL committees.

The Conference Proceedings contain a report by

Bill Holmes, General Dynamics/Electric Boat Division. Chairman of the Recommended Practices

Committee. Most notable of his accomplishments

has been the establishment of a definitive step-bystep program, including format requirements, for the preparation and publication of NCSL Recommended Practices. The program outline is in- cluded as Appendix H.

Significantly, the first two drafts of Recommended

Practices were submitted to the Recommended

Practices Committee during October by the

Workload Control Committee. These cover the

establishment and adjustment of calibration

interval and operation of an instrument control

system.

Long-Range Planning

In May, the Vice-Chairman, Orval Linebrink of

Battelle Memorial Institute, was requested to evaluate the assets of NCSL and develop a longrange planning program. In the few months avail- able, several interesting suggestions were submitted. The interim report submitted to the

Chairman recommended that NCSL should consider

future action to:

1. Better acquaint the general public with the

general role and importance of measurements on

our present and future technology.

2. Promote, through all levels of the schools,

interest and understanding of the challenges and

rewards in the field of metrology and standards.

3. Analyze the potential need and the steps necessary for establishing a permanent NCSL office staffed by an Executive Secretary.

This long-range planning is continuing and for years should be a major contributing factor in establishing those long-range goals and programs

needed for NCSL's greatest effectiveness.

Future Meetings

The Board of Directors endorsed the general rec- ommendations submitted by A. J. Woodington,

Chairman of the NCSL Program Committee:

1. To continue sponsoring a Standards Laboratory Conference every two years. The next one is to be held in 1968.

2. During the alternate years, at least two smaller

meetings, such as past workshops, would be held. The locations of these would be selected on a

geographic basis so that extensive travel would

be minimized.

3. NCSL will continue to cooperate with other

organizations in programming meetings, such as has been done with ISA. In particular, the various

committees will be encouraged to participate in such meetings.

4. Other organizations will be requested to participate and assist NCSL in the alternate-year

meetings.

Calibration Procedures Library

The Calibration Procedures Library, with Don

DeLauer of Vandenberg AFB as chairman, continues to be one of the most beneficial services

offered by NCSL. A detailed report on this operation is included in the Conference Proceedings,

but since the CPL is our principal expenditure, it warrants more than casual mention.

Most of the present 72 members have been actively taking advantage of the 22,648 line entries in the library. Although there are redundant and in- adequate procedures, collectively they represent an abundance of pooled knowledge. Newly developed

calibration techniques (and even some old ones),

instead of being proprietary to a few individuals, are made available for the benefit of all members — they should prove invaluable to any organization

preparing calibration procedures for its own use. At Aerojet, for example, we have found many

uses for these documents, and their use has re- sulted in an approved and validated cost reduction

of $20,686 for 1966. And we now have more and

better procedures than would have been possible

otherwise. Other organizations have realized

comparable savings, which more than offsets the

cost of NCSL of $5,205.68 and to the Air Force

for their generous assistance and use of their facilities. Improvements are still necessary, of course, and are continually being made in several

areas. To help offset the expense of the library to the

NCSL, and in recognition of the cost savings to them resulting therefrom, the Navy is providing

financial assistance through NBS. At the same

time, NCSL has agreed to evaluate ways of improving the services provided and to take steps to make the library self-sustaining. The final report

of this evaluation is due in June 1967.

ISA MESTIND

The close ties between NCSL and the Measurement Standards Instrumentation Division

(MESTIND) of the Instrument Society of America

were again apparent during the 21st Annual ISA

Conference and Exhibit in New York last October.

NCSL accepted MESTIND's invitation to assist

in the programming of two sessions. One session,

191
"Audit Package Results," was jointly programmed

with MESTIND and the other, "NCSL Activities

Report," was programmed by NCSL. Shel Richardson, General Electric, Schenectady, and an NCSL Director, acted as program chairman for NCSL. And as Chairman of NCSL's Measurement Comparison Committee he was also active

in the presentation.

As has been our custom, a Board of Director's

Meeting was scheduled for that week and was, in

fact, selected as the time to officially turn over the

reins to the new Board of Directors.

The new NCSL officers and Board of Directors

for 1967 officially assumed office on Oct. 25, 1966. Their names, mailing addresses, and telephone

numbers are listed below:

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STANDARDS LABORATORIES

NCSL BOARD OF DIRECTORS- 1966-67

CHAIRMAN:

Charles E. White, Chief

Laboratory Measurements Section AVCO Research & Advanced Development Division 201 Lowell Street Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887

(617) OL 8-8911 Ext 2604

VICE CHAIRMEN:

E. J. Arsenault General Electric Company

Standards & Calibration Laboratory 3198 Chestnut Street, Room 1251

Philadelphia, Pa. 19100

(215) 823-3601

Jerry L. Hayes

Navy Metrology Engineering Center

1675 West 5th Street Pomona, California 91766

(714) NA 9-5111 Ext. 7210

Orval L. Linebrink

Battelle Memorial Institute 505 W. King Avenue

Columbus, Ohio 43201

(614) 299-3191 Ext. 894

William L. Vandal

Instrumentation and Standards Laboratory

McDonnell Aircraft Corporation

St. Louis, Missouri 63166

(314) 731-2161 Ext. 5004

Corresponding Secretary: James F. Hadley

Metrology Laboratory

The Bendix Corporation P.O. Box 1159 Kansas City, Missouri 64141

(816) 363-3211 Ext. 3159

Recording Secretary-Treasurer: Donald DeLauer

Chief, Del. No. 2, 2802d IG&C Group

P.O. Box 1525 Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 93437

(805) 866-3733

Sponsor's Delegate: William A. Wildhack

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234

(301) 921-2805

Delegate Members:

Donald I. Hervig

U.S. Army Missile Support Command

Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 35809

(205) 877-1100 Mary E. Hoskins

Aeronautical Division Honeywell, Inc. 2600 Ridgeway Road

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55113

(612) 331-4141 Ext. 5355

C. E. Johnson, Manager

Metrology Services The Boeing Company

Aero-Space Division P.O. Box 3707

Seattle, Washington 98124 (206) 655-3041

(206) 655-3041 Wesley H. McPhee

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

68 Albany Street Cambridge, Mass. 02139

(617) 864-6900

Sheldon C. Richardson

General Electric Company

Building 5. Room 167

1 River Road

Schenectady, New York 12305

(518) FR 4-2211 Ext. 54101

Past Chairman: John R. Van de Houten

Aerojet General

P.O. Box 15847, Dept. 1770 Sacramento, California 95813

(916) 355-3207

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ! 1967 OL —256-114

192