Classic calibration & testing Laboratories

21/11/2014

Dear Friends,

We are pleased to inform you that we are organizing a one day workshop and practical training on mass, force and hardness calibration on 6th December 2014 at Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

This is effort from classic calibration and testing lab as to assist our valuable clients in each and every field of calibration with actual procedure including suitable environmental conditions. After attending this workshop you will surely get a beneficial response which always helps you in achieving new goals in your industrial carrier graph.

Last 4th event will be highly appreciated by all the participants and therefore this is the 5th workshop being organized to accomplish the knowledge in mass, force & hardness field.

WHO SHOULD PARTICIPATE?

Managers, engineers and middle management personal involved in the functions of production, Quality assurance, inspection & testing, design & development, R & D, engineering and other related functions from machine tool, automobile & auto ancillaries.
This workshop will benefit especially those personnel involved in the functions of inspection, metrology & laboratory accreditation.

11/11/2014

11/11/2014

Difference between ISO/IEC guide 25 and ISO/IEC 17025 was for 25 the lab had just to obey to accreditation body, because the standard was elaborated for accreditation, with 17025 the standard was done for B to B relations and should be used by AB and labs were requested to be intelligent. One of the best (not written) requirement.

It seems me that the best ways should be to relay the terminology and the concept of ME fit for purpose. This should conduct labs and ME users to know what they are doing (or what they should do).
Terminology + ME concept to be sure that we are speaking VIM to be sure that calibrate is recovering the same technical operation { comparison => correction and Uc =>>> the ME will be used and the correction will be applied to each measurement result or will be classed by the user to be used as fit for purpose.} It is a pity to put a ME in manufacturer specifications each time. Users are loosing very important data. May be a note in 5.2 or 5.5 to explain which competence have to have people using Measuring equipment in a cal lab or in a test lab

11/11/2014

A suggestion for an ISO 17025 improvement? Make ILC's consistent and public and thence competitive. When ILC performance is available for all to view the labs would be a little more concerned with actually being able to do what they say they can do. Why the secrecy anyway? The scope of accreditation is public. The objective evidence that a lab can actually perform at the levels claimed should be, as well.