COMMENTS
ON PREPARATION OF 'STANDARDS' IN ELECTROSTATICS By
John Chubb
John Chubb Instrumentation (jchubb@jci.co.uk)
27 July, 2003
Over
the years I have had some involvement with the drafting of Standards documents
on electrostatic measurements. I have found this quite a frustrating and, mostly,
an apparently fruitless activity. There are several points about the preparation
of Standards that I feel need to be brought into public discussion, and I offer
the following comments for starters:
1. The objectives
for Standards are set and documents prepared solely by people on national committees.
The first most people outside know about a standard is when it is published.
2. Discussions do not involve anyone outside the committee - no expert witnesses
are called.
3. Comments are made to encourage people to 'get involved'
- however, to be other than an observer one has to 'represent' some organisation.
4. Standards documents are not 'peer reviewed' by anyone outside the
committee system.
5. If one has results of studies one feels likely to
be relevant to standards discussions, no notice is taken of these internationally
unless these are made via one's national committee. (Where I have been involved
with particular documents my attempts to encourage discussion and progress by
sending documents to people involved has yielded no response - a blank!).
6. Standards continue in existence well after they have been shown to be
inappropriate and/or inadequate (e.g. FTS 101C Method 4046). There are numerous
methods for measuring 'resistivity', surely not all really relevant? Keeping old
Standards alive seems to serve the main aim of enabling people to say their products
comply to Standard… This sounds good, but may not reflect best present appreciation
of requirements, adds confusion and probably only serves the interests of the
supplier - not the user!
7. Standards usually only include reference
to other Standards. Why should not relevant technical papers be referenced?
8. There is no route of appeal. However strong a technical objection may
be there is no route for anyone outside the committee system to lodge an appeal
or register an objection.
9. There is no funding to promote the investigation
and testing of Standards. It is all done on a voluntary basis. This means that
work is done by people with a vested interest (and relevant equipment/instrumentation)
so results are then viewed with scepticism because 'they would say that wouldn't
they'!
I
suggest that:
a- The objectives of work towards
a new standard should be published before the start of discussions and document
drafting. Publication should be on the standards organisation Website as well
as in relevant professional journals and to relevant professional organisations.
Comments and suggestions should be invited and these should form part of the drafting
brief.
b- When a draft document has been prepared this should be published
for comment in the same way as the 'objectives'.
c- When the Standard
document has been finalised this should be made available for at least professional
peer review within a strict time limit - say 6 months.
d- A Standard
should note or refer to how it was validated. This will be helped by a clear statement
of philosophy in the introductory sections.
e- There needs to be Government
funding support for the development and testing of Standards.
By
opening up the process of Standards preparation there will be greater interest
and involvement in the development of Standards and greater understanding and
acceptance of their purpose.
Click
here for company profile on John Chubb Instrumentation
