Section 1 - Introduction and General Description
1-4
Two Ways to Close the Loop (Contd.)
4950 Resident in the Standards Laboratory (Fig. 1.2)
1. Baseline Comparison Loop:
Stages
2, 3, 5, 6
&
7
This checks the performance of the 4950 against
the same device before and after travelling to
and from the User's Laboratory, using only the
invariant Baseline corrections for the 4950,
which were stored at manufacture.
When the 4950 resides in the standards laboratory
of an organization offering a calibration service, it
will need to be calibrated and certified at the user's
target values, and sent to the user's calibration
laboratory for Certified calibration of calibrator(s).
Then it is sent back to the standards laboratory.
To check whether there has been excessive drift
during transit, or whether it has been damaged, All
functions and ranges of the 4950 are checked
before transportation to the user, then again on its
return. This is done by comparison with stable
standards (check standards) in the standards
laboratory. For the best results, the check standards
should remain switched on in the same environment
while the 4950 is away.
Again, there are two processes (Fig 1.2):
2. Certified Calibration:
Stages
1, 3, 4
&
7
The stored Certified corrections are updated by
calibrating the 4950 at the Standards
Laboratory, then sending the 4950 to calibrate
the owner's calibrator(s).
The only difference between the 4950 configuration
in each process is the type of corrections applied to
the measurements. The 4950 hardware, firmware
and internal processes remain identical.
A one-to-one dependency therefore exists between
the measurements taken in the comparison loop
and in certified calibration, justifying the
complementary use of the two processes to convey
traceability.
User-confidence in the calibration comes from the
confirmation that the baseline loop comparison
was successful. Therefore the communication at
stage 7 is essential in the process. From the user's
point of view, the process is open-loop until this
report has been given.
As for the user-owned case, an integral history can
be built up over a number of calibration cycles, but
if the same 4950 is not used, then the traceable
uncertainty will increase, reducing confidence.
Also, for the previous case of user-ownership, by
dedicating the 4950 to calibrators in the user's
laboratory; extra certified comparisons between
calibrators and the resident 4950 can be interposed.
This will give higher confidence and more detailed
trend data for Statistical Process Control.