Can an instrument ever have an accuracy better than its repeatably?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between accuracy and repeatability in instruments, specifically focusing on a dosing pump's specifications. Participants explore the definitions and implications of "steady state accuracy" and "repeatability," questioning whether an instrument can be more accurate than it is repeatable. The conversation includes technical reasoning and conceptual clarifications related to measurement standards and instrument performance.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that accuracy and repeatability are different measures, suggesting that "steady state accuracy" may refer to performance under stable conditions.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the definitions, indicating an assumption that repeatability should limit accuracy.
  • Another participant proposes that steady state accuracy implies consistent performance when the instrument is set to a specific value.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of clear definitions on the manufacturer's spec sheet, leading to speculation about the reliability of the specifications.
  • Some participants discuss the potential for manufacturers to present specifications in a way that may mislead users regarding the instrument's performance.
  • A participant introduces the idea of taking multiple measurements to better understand the instrument's accuracy and precision, particularly under dynamic conditions.
  • There is mention of hysteresis affecting accuracy under varying conditions, suggesting that static measurements may yield different results than dynamic ones.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether an instrument can be more accurate than it is repeatable. There are multiple competing views regarding the definitions and implications of accuracy and repeatability, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clear definitions for "steady state accuracy" and "repeatability" as presented by the manufacturer, which may affect the interpretation of the specifications. The discussion also highlights the dependence on specific measurement conditions and the potential for variability in instrument performance.

rollingstein
Messages
644
Reaction score
16
I have a dosing pump spec. sheet from Milton Roy (a fairly reputable manufacturer) which says:

Steady State Accuracy: +/- 1%
Repeatably: +/- 3%

Is this possible? Can an instrument be more accurate than it is repeatable? Intuitively, this didn't make sense to me.

The spec. sheet doesn't say, but I'm assuming that both are expressed as percent of reading or full scale deflection but not a mix.

http://www.miltonroyindia.com/M-Series.pdf (Look at Page 2)
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
They are different measures.
Check what they mean by "steady state accuracy".
 
I think I now understand it (perhaps).

You mean the "accurate but not precise" case?

accuracy-vs-precision.jpg


I cannot find a definition for "Steady State Accuracy" on their site. I took it to mean the offset measured against some better gold standard callibrating instrument without changing flowrates.

I'm still confused. I was under the impression that repeatablity puts a hard upper bound on how accurate one can be.
 
accurate vs precise - that's right.
but without knowing how the manufacturer is arriving at the values - it's anyone's guess.
 
Simon Bridge said:
accurate vs precise - that's right.
but without knowing how the manufacturer is arriving at the values - it's anyone's guess.

Funnily, I've never seen a spec. sheet of an instrument that defined either of these terms.

So I guess there's a conventionally agreed upon definition?
 
You have presumably googled them to see?
 
Well I would assume that steady state means that if you set the instrument to do X then it will continue to do that with an accuracy +/-1%.
-
If the controls are moved and returned to the original position I would assume you can expect it to be within +/- 3% of where it was before you moved it. In other words, with calibration it can always get results of +/-1% repeatable. I look at as a way the manufacturer made the accuracy look better than it is and still avoid liability issues. I used to work for a test equipment manufacturer and I know the games they like to play when it comes to specs.
 
Averagesupernova said:
Well I would assume that steady state means that if you set the instrument to do X then it will continue to do that with an accuracy +/-1%.
-
If the controls are moved and returned to the original position I would assume you can expect it to be within +/- 3% of where it was before you moved it. In other words, with calibration it can always get results of +/-1% repeatable. I look at as a way the manufacturer made the accuracy look better than it is and still avoid liability issues. I used to work for a test equipment manufacturer and I know the games they like to play when it comes to specs.

Hmm...I interpreted it to mean for a actual flow of say 100 if many readings are taken it may read 101, 102, 103, 99, 98, 97.

The problem with such an interpretation is that unless they specify how many readings they average over, it's meaningless.
 
Specs are always meaningless unless they are defined.
 
  • #10
rollingstein said:
I think I now understand it (perhaps).

You mean the "accurate but not precise" case?

accuracy-vs-precision.jpg


I cannot find a definition for "Steady State Accuracy" on their site. I took it to mean the offset measured against some better gold standard callibrating instrument without changing flowrates.

I'm still confused. I was under the impression that repeatablity puts a hard upper bound on how accurate one can be.

I love the Target example. I'm going to apply my answer in the regard of taking measurements (and not the operation of this pump). It explains the relationship between precision (inherent in the sensor) and accuracy (the true ability to give a correct reading of the condition from the sensor). Accuracy is normally achieved using calibration for the sensor for a known condition.

For static conditions the Target example is correct. However under actual conditions where the measured medium is moving - you have to think of the Target as moving too (and your measurements as the bullets fired at the target).

Taking a measurement is essentially taking a snapshot of a condition in a given time frame. A single reading cannot accurately portray the dynamic condition that may exist at a site. The instrument can be precise, the instrument can be accurate - but without multiple measurements you cannot actually determine the true nature of the condition you are measuring.

Now, on to this Pump. As stated, it is more accurate under static (stable) conditions. Under varying conditions it may have inaccuracies due to hysteresis. That would be my guess for this situation.

My first entry here. Hope it was helpful.

Dave
 

Similar threads

Can Digital Modeling Amplifiers Fully Replicate Classic Analog Gear?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K