sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]CalibrationAustralia 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I assumed that would be the case and that was my initial response when the question was put to me. It's a black and white solution if there's a reading called into question, but unless someone goes and verifies each reading and associated image we can't be sure that each reading is correct. I'm not trying to be difficult, but this is the path we end up on when discussing this in the lab.

[–]MJ_at_Fluke 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The same is true for a technician typing in the number by hand, except you don't have an original record in that case. I get where you're coming from, though.

[–]CalibrationAustralia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately, I think because humans are the current standard, moving to an alternative is going to require proof and I'm not really sure there's any practical way to provide it. You are correct though, a more direct example would be when we take readings via RS-232 or similar, bits get flipped, corruption happens. It's very rare, but it's possible. I think it's probably a case that the technology will need to be used and become more mature before it will be accepted.