where expertise comes together - since 1996 -

The Largest Open Access Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Conference Proceedings, Articles, News, Exhibition, Forum, Network and more

where expertise comes together
- since 1996 -

331 views
Technical Discussions
Terry Oldberg
Engineering, Mechanical Electrical Nuclear Software
Consultant, USA, Joined Oct 1999, 42

Terry Oldberg

Engineering, Mechanical Electrical Nuclear Software
Consultant,
USA,
Joined Oct 1999
42
08:24 Sep-06-1999
Unit Measure violations in "The TOFD Method..."

The test described by A. Erhard and U.Ewert in "The TOFD Method..." (NDTnet, September 1999) is a flaw detector. Thus, it must violate the Unit Measure axiom of probability theory in relation to theories of its reliability (see "Erratic Measure," http://www.ndt.net/article/v04n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm ) Yet the authors of "The TOFD Method..." present the results of their research as a probabilistic theory of the test's reliability. It follows that this research was doomed before it was undertaken.

The inconsistency of the test with a probabilistic theory of its reliability would be revealed if the authors of "The TOFD Method..." were to provide details about the methodology of the reseach that are omitted from their paper. In particular, the inconsistency between the test and the theory of its reliability that is presented in "The TOFD Method..." would be revealed if the authors were to:
1. Describe the study's statistical population.
2. Describe the partition that divides this population into sampling units.
3. Describe the "frame" or list of sampling units from which the study's sample was drawn.
4. Describe the procedure by which the study's sample was selected from the frame.
5. Describe the rule under which each sampling unit in the sample was judged a positive or negative event by the TOFD test.
6. Describe the rule under which each event under item 5. was judged truly positive falsely positive, truly negative or falsely negative.
7. Describe the relationship between the set of (truly positive, falsely positive, truly negative and falsely negative) events that are generated byh the test and the set of sampling units. Is this relationship one-to-one? If so, Unit Measure is preserved. Otherwise, it is violated.
8. Describe how the probability of detection is computed.
9. Discuss the omission of a probability of false call from the paper's findings.




 
 Reply 
 

Product Spotlight

HARDNESS TESTER TKM-459CE combi

TKM-459CE combi applies 2 methods of hardness control: UCI and Leeb. It provides high-accuracy tes
...
ting of metals and alloys as well as items of different sizes and configurations, their hardened layers and galvanic coatings. Device represents results in HB, HRC, HV and others. Shock-, dust- and water-proof housing with intuitive software make this gauge easy to use in all working conditions.
>

HD-CR 35 NDT Computed Radiography System

Portable high-resolution CR scanner for all radiography applications - weld testing, profile images
...
and aerospace. No matter what type of radiographic testing you are performing, the unique TreFoc Technology of the HD-CR 35 NDT imaging plate scanner always guarantees the highest image quality.
>

GUL Subsea Solutions - Screeening & Monitoring

To inspect new and existing subsea lines, you need proven technology and experience. GUL offers it's
...
technology to solve this challenge: GUL Subsea and gMAT Transducer Rings.
>

Sci Aps Z-Series Portable Handheld Analysers

The world’s only handheld analyzer that measures carbon content in stainless (yes even L-grades),s
...
teels, and cast irons. Also accepted for low Si analysis for sulfidic corrosion analysis, and is widely used in the power industry for Cr analysis, for flow accelerated corrosion applications.
>

Share...
We use technical and analytics cookies to ensure that we will give you the best experience of our website - More Info
Accept
top
this is debug window