How do I state uncertainty when calibrating a flowmeter?

robsmith82
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm having a lot of trouble trying to set up a process for calibrating turbine flowmeters for use in fuel rigs.

Basically, I have a calibrated "master" flowmeter in series with the uncalibrated turbine flowmeter. I need a process that will give me the line of best fit across the flowmeters range, and also state its uncertainty to a given confidence level (probably 95%)

At the minute, our process isn't very good. We take 10 points going up the range and 10 points down, then take the line of best fit using the least squares method, which gives you your gain and offset for calibration. Then we say, if any point is more than 0.5% of full scale from the line, the calibration has failed. We take outliers into account by saying you are allowed 2 points between 0.5% and 1%, but not at the top and bottom limits and not consecutive. I think we should be using the grubb outlier method.

What I think I have to do is find the mean and SD for each value up the range, then use the worst case SD to calculate the uncertainty. This needs to be carried out by shop floor personnel, so can't be too complicated. We are using labview to capture the data, plot the line and show "pass" or "fail"

Help me out guys!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Instead of working with absolute magnitudes (0.5% of the true line) you can find the SD of the sample then work with multiples of the SD; e.g. define an outlier as > 2*SD. Or you can work with mean squared error, which takes into account the bias and the SD.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top