cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
  • Learn how to build custom Python data connectors and further customize JMP’s Data Connector Framework with the Python Data Connector Demo, available now in the JMP Marketplace!
  • See how to create experiments to support product design and ID useful product features. Register for June 12 webinar, 2pm US Eastern Time.

Discussions

Solve problems, and share tips and tricks with other JMP users.
Choose Language Hide Translation Bar
qLienceStats
Level II

Pressure Test Method Results have a significant effect on my sample size and capability, how to avoid?

Hello dear JMP community

 

I will first explain the test method (no need to comment on whether it is right or wrong because this is what I got). The purpose is to detect a leakage.

Measurement process

  1. Part is mounted to a pressure station
  2. Pressure station rotate a vacuum pump x times to create a vacuum (atmospheric pressure is approx. 1000mbar)
  3. Pressure p1 is sampled at time t1
  4. After 15 seconds p2 is sampled at t2

 

Specification

  • 700 mbar ≤ p1 ≤ 750 mbar
  • p2 - p1 ≤ 4 mbar 

 

Situation

If there is a leakage then the result can differ a lot from normal observations.

 

Challenges
This cause two challenges:

  1. This have a very high impact on my Cpk and Ppk, which i have a requirement for.

  2. I hoped I could use the continonus response to model my system but this is just creating to much noise and creating a lot of "outliers". When shifting to a binary response then my Power analysis for one sample proportion require a lot of sample to detect a difference in scrap.

 

Anyone with some good ideas to how I could solve this puzzle?

0 REPLIES 0

Recommended Articles