Talk:Nondestructive testing

message: I removed the link to NDT.org.ua - Information Portal of NDT and TD. The website is entirely in Russian. I am also not sure what TD means. User SmArt, please explain the relevance. Perhaps the link would be more useful on Russian Wikipedia.
DavidMack 14:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant websites

message: This is not a statistical debate forum.
To NDT Guru:
Of course, it's not a statistical debate forum. But it is a discussion, so please quit deleting questions and comments. Math (that includes statistics and probability) is the heart of NDT and any science. Do the math and let the banter begin!
--Terrible Swede 01:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrible Swede: Thanks for taking the time to discuss my contribution. From a mathematical perspective, any pair of symbols works. However, the semantics are also important. Nondestructive testing is a measuring process. It seems to me that the property of a part being measured is its all rightness and not its successfulness. Very little of the literature of nondestructive testing deals with its reliability and this results in an absence of terminological norms. In writing my portion of the article, I used as much of the terminology of diagnostic testing in medicine as possible. In medicine, however, the property of the human being tested is healthfulness, but healthfulness isn't a property of a part so I used all rightness (OK is synonymous with all right, not OK with not all right). By the way, the field of defect detection testing has not yet gotten around to defining what is measured. Thus, its understandable that in writing about its reliability one has to invent names for the values of the binary variable that is being measured.Terry Oldberg 00:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Terrible Swede: I'm unclear on the pertinence of the issue of the sample distributions. Please clarify your question.Terry Oldberg 20:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics

message: November 26, 2005
In the past few days, I've revised the text to address issues that I believe to be quite important.
The pre-revision text did not address the fact that probabilities necessary to the computation of a defect detection test's expected utility are unavailable. Also, it did not address the fact that the expected utility of a defect detection test is dependent upon user's utilities, which vary by user. A result of both facts is that it is impossible to state whether individual defect detection tests are useful or not-useful; the prior text implied that they are useful. I've also edited the text of past contributors in an attempt at making them more concise and clearer.
Terry Oldberg
http://www.oldberg.biz
----
03MAR2006
Mr. Oldberg:
Why don't you use the traditional terms of binomial probability distribution: success (S) and failure (F); instead of OK/not_OK?
--Terrible Swede 18:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrible Swede: Thanks for taking the time to discuss my contribution. From a mathematical perspective, any pair of symbols works. However, the semantics are also important. Nondestructive testing is a measuring process. It seems to me that the property of a part being measured is its all rightness and not its successfulness. Very little of the literature of nondestructive testing deals with its reliability and this results in an absence of terminological norms. In writing my portion of the article, I used as much of the terminology of diagnostic testing in medicine as possible. In medicine, however, the property of the human being tested is healthfulness, but healthfulness isn't a property of a part so I used all rightness (OK is synonymous with all right, not OK with not all right). By the way, the field of defect detection testing has not yet gotten around to defining what is measured. Thus, its understandable that in writing about its reliability one has to invent names for the values of the binary variable that is being measured.Terry Oldberg 00:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Terrible Swede: I'm unclear on the pertinence of the issue of the sample distributions. Please clarify your question.Terry Oldberg 20:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability not defined, expected utility varies with user 

message: I am an engineering physicist who has worked in the NDT field for 20 years, and I do not see the relevance of Mr. Oldberg's contribution. It seems to me that the primary purpose of this article and linked articles should be to explain the various methods of nondestructive testing (NDT). Probability of detection (POD) is an important area of study in NDT, but Mr. Oldberg has concentrated on one very esoteric aspect of POD and has not made an effort to clarify the issue or where his ideas fit in to the big scheme of things.
Davidmack 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant debate in article

message: I have mainly removed the section on statistics because it does not represent a neutral point of view: it engages in debate and argument, contrary to Wiki policy that "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." The contributor of that section references his own papers. One subsection begins "Oldberg and Christensen (1995) and Oldberg (2005) report that ...", whereas "report" is listed as a word to avoid because it "bestows a sense of impartiality on a source." Perhaps the original contributor could submit a revised, more neutral version.
DavidMack 23:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Text

message: In the year and a half since I last participated, the message on the anomalous statistics of NDT has become garbled beyond recognition. The message should be that defect detection tests fail to define statistical populations, thus failing to provide the basis for establishing their reliability. This message is spelled out in several peer reviewed articles, none of them challenged in the peer reviewed literature. If I hear no objections, I'll ungarble the text. If anyone wishes to discuss the technical merits, please contact me at 650-941-0533 or terry_oldberg@yahoo.com. Please be sure to contact me before regarbling the message.
Terry Oldberg, BME, MSE, MSEE, PE
Nuclear Engineer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.222.156 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenumchamber, thanks for explaining your motives, which I understand were not to advertise. And we do need pictures on this article. To me the picture  appears commercial because it only shows an instrument with a blank screen and gives the model name. It does not give any hint as to what the instrument does or how it relates to NDT. Do you have any pictures of data or of a technician using an instrument? That way the emphasis is on NDT. We also don't want companies following suit and putting up their instruments. Wiki is quite an advertising magnet. That said, if you want to put the picture back, I won't remove it, and sorry for the inconvenience. — DavidMack 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the expl. I will not put back the picture back cause I understand and share your resons, I will try to create a better photo while performing a test action. Thank you.--Plenumchamber 09:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the excellent photos. I hope you approve of the editing I did on the captions. — DavidMack 17:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the edits, now it is better--Plenumchamber 07:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Garbling of message on statistics

message: [I have taken the liberty of placing Plenumchamber's message to me on the talk page. DavidMack]
Hi, I see that you have removed my photo that I have taken in my NDT shop indicating that it is a commercial photo. I do not understand your point of view. For example is it a commercial photo if you put an Airbus a/c photo in an article? I have installed the photo in order to give the readers an idea about an test tool. As I have no relations with GE other than being an user, I have no purpose such as doing advertaisement of a company or product. Thanks in advance for your answer back.--Plenumchamber 11:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenumchamber, thanks for explaining your motives, which I understand were not to advertise. And we do need pictures on this article. To me the picture  appears commercial because it only shows an instrument with a blank screen and gives the model name. It does not give any hint as to what the instrument does or how it relates to NDT. Do you have any pictures of data or of a technician using an instrument? That way the emphasis is on NDT. We also don't want companies following suit and putting up their instruments. Wiki is quite an advertising magnet. That said, if you want to put the picture back, I won't remove it, and sorry for the inconvenience. — DavidMack 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the expl. I will not put back the picture back cause I understand and share your resons, I will try to create a better photo while performing a test action. Thank you.--Plenumchamber 09:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the excellent photos. I hope you approve of the editing I did on the captions. — DavidMack 17:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the edits, now it is better--Plenumchamber 07:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the photo from NDT page 

message: We got caught. Too many links. Apparently Wikipedia is  not supposed to be a repository of links. We should link only to 'further reading type material', i.e. "neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail." So I removed most of our little link farm. I hope everyone is agreeable to this. — DavidMack 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link clean-up

message: A lot has happened over the past decade in the domain of microwave based NDT - for applications such as cancer detection (Susan C. Hagness, U. of Wisconsin, et al) and fault detection in concrete. doesn't that merit mention here?
220.225.214.2 (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Microwave based NDT

message: I will be re-writing most of this article for a university project concerning the instruction of NDT. Changes will primarily be grammatical or prose-based edits to improve readability and / or instructive clarity. Since this may be a big process, I will edit one section at a time - beginning with a much-needed article header / abstract. Please limit your discussion of the abstract to this thread.
Thank you!
Tythos Eternal 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite: Abstract 

message: sorry, new to this, thanks.
here is the link to the page with my revision on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nondestructive_testing&oldid=387587288
see also: optical interferometry.
Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumetrics (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  why was my edit tagged possible conflicting information? 

message: Why does this article have a link to the Underwater Diving portal? --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 15:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underwater diving? 

message: Why? 172.12.225.38 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia articles grow by accretion. Trimmed the extra section and merged it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has two "Applications" sections.