Fake calibration certificate?

[parovozParticipant @parovoz]

Hello All,

 

Just a note on Cal certificates. These are all manufacturers certificates and have NO provenance what so ever. ANY ONE can produce a cal certificate like this. Firstly, there is no traceability on the instruments / tooling used to make the measurement. There is no measurement uncertainty quoted. There is no pass / fail criteria noted – what is called a ‘decision rule’.

 

So they are not really ‘FAKE’ but carry no proper credibility.

 

So when is a cal certificate worth the paper it’s printed on…..?

 

When ( if in the in the UK ) it is performed by a UKAS accredited lab / cal house (UKAS – United Kingdom Accreditation Service ), and bears the UKAS logo and registration number of the lab. The lab should also ideally be part of ILAC the International Laboratory Cooperation. That allows the acceptance of the lab’s accreditation across borders, so a German lab accredited under DAkkS with ILAC means we can accept their results in the UK or any other country. If a product is Chinese it would need to be done by a CNAS ( https://www.cnas.org.cn/english/ ) accredited lab / Cal House. Dqasqua is I believe Italian so either made in China ( Most likely ) or Italy…. So…. ‘Accredia’ is the accreditation body for Italy….

 

Any cal certificate from an accredited Lab / Cal House will comply with the requirements for traceability. Their processes, equipment and personnel will be audited independently on an annual basis.

 

In terms of Cal standards, CE really means nothing….

 

Hope that adds a little to this debate.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

There are different levels of calibration.
Uncontrolled. Anyone can do this to any standard.
Traceable but uncertified. Anyone can do ths but must use a tracable standard.
Certified. This is a calibration carried out to a recognised standard by a approved entity. Even then there are different levels. In the UK there is UKAS and NAMAS for example.

Certified calibration is driven by either legal requirements such as those related to trade or “quality” standards like ISO9001 (which tend to be self perpetuating).
A private individual or manufacturer and quite correctly carry out a calibration and issue a certificate of conformity as long as they don’t claim anything that wasn’t done.

Fake calibration is where the document purports to record a calibration (of any level) that was not actually carried out.
Invalid calibration is where the process was not carried out correctly.

Robert.

[Dave HalfordParticipant @davehalford22513]

Lets face it would cost a great deal to perform the calibration tests, then set David’s rubber stamp each. David would be a very busy boy.

Common sense says it’s just a piece of printed paper, I have always considered them junk.

Yours

A Cynic

[Robert Atkinson 2]

On Robert Atkinson 2 Said:

No, It’s just a bad representation. They don’t care about copyright or trademark. I’ve seen otherwise compliant “white goods” from a big manufacturer which had a computer printed label, including serial number, that had a non-compliant CE mark because the printer could not handle the non-standard font.
Even these labels for sale https://www.labelsonline.co.uk/ce-labels? are non-compliant as the spacing is too close…

Robert.

LOL. So we end up with genuinely compliant things bearing non-compliant CE marks and non-compliant things bearing fake CE marks that are better executed than the real thing. Which makes the whole CE thing a farce. But when you think of it , it’s even easier to fake a CE mark than it is to fake a calibration certificate. Any graphic artist can “capture” a genuine CE mark and print it as curves rather than as a typeface. Or they can even draw it up from scratch and save it as a graphic, not a typeface. We live in a world of smoke and mirrors and dodgy business practices.

[cedric 1]

On cedric 1 Said:

On Robert Atkinson 2 Said:

No, It’s just a bad representation. They don’t care about copyright or trademark. I’ve seen otherwise compliant “white goods” from a big manufacturer which had a computer printed label, including serial number, that had a non-compliant CE mark because the printer could not handle the non-standard font.
Even these labels for sale https://www.labelsonline.co.uk/ce-labels? are non-compliant as the spacing is too close…

Robert.

LOL. So we end up with genuinely compliant things bearing non-compliant CE marks and non-compliant things bearing fake CE marks that are better executed than the real thing. t But when you think of it , it’s even easier to fake a CE mark than it is to fake a calibration certificate. Any graphic artist can “capture” a genuine CE mark and print it as curves rather than as a typeface. Or they can even draw it up from scratch and save it as a graphic, not a typeface. We live in a world of smoke and mirrors and dodgy business practices.

Christmas challenge:  rather than believe what Cedric and I post on the internet, everyone is invited to go round their house counting CE marked items.  Then tell us the percentage found to be fake.  This provides evidence, not opinion, belief, prejudice, or echo chamber politics.  Engineers want evidence!

I tried this a few years ago and only found a few duds, They were all too cheap electrical items.   Worst was a clip-on sewing lamp that didn’t meet any safety standards – an unearthed metal neck and capacitive dropper, yuk!  However, everything else was genuine.

Unless Forum Members are particularly careless buyers, I’ll be surprised if measuring the problem supports Cedric’s claim that “the whole CE thing a farce.”   Happy to see Cedric’s evidence to the contrary – if any!

The CE System is not intended to prevent counterfeiting, which is a problem.  We do indeed “live in a world of smoke and mirrors and dodgy business practices”.   Unfortunately, always have done – a percentage of the population are dishonest.  Caveat Emptor as the Roman’s said!  There was no rose-tinted past.

On the subject of measuring, Robert introduced us to his suspicious certificate, but no-one has suggested testing the actual instrument, preferring to allege national shortcomings.   Never mind all that, how accurate is the caliper?

Dave

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Well I did say “First of all this not a complaint about the supplier or even really Dasqua.” at the start of the first post.
The micrometer seems to be within limits as far as I can tell from my old but high quality slip gauges (across a couple of sets). The post was more about the trouble taken to make what appears to be a fake certificate.

On CE/UKCA marking apart from significantly non compliant and unsafe items (often low cost items sold online) there are a significant number of items that are technically non-compliant or have not been properly assessed e.g. the micrometer.  If all items were properly tested for EMC all the test houses in the UK would be extreamly busy. Just not having  the correct CE mark or proper instructions renders an item non-compliant.
Then again you get complex components like power supplies and VFDs that are CE marked when they should not be because they are not complete working items.

Robert.

[cedric 1Participant @cedric]

My farce comment was referring to Robert’s information that some approved items bear a CE mark that is not correctly drawn, while other unapproved items bear fake marks that are perfectly drawn. That fits the description of farcical in my book.

[SillyOldDuffer]

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

Christmas challenge:  rather than believe what Cedric and I post on the internet, everyone is invited to go round their house counting CE marked items.  Then tell us the percentage found to be fake.  […]

I fear that you have missed an important point, Dave

A fake, by definition, will deceive all but the expert observer … and therefore the ‘count’ will likely be zero for most of us.

MichaelG.

.

Edit: __ mea culpa : there is actually no simple legal definition of fake in U.K. Law … but The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 covers the spirit of it.

[southernchapParticipant @southernchap]

Exactly this.

Manufacturer supplied calibration certs are all suspect (eh, maybe I’d give Mitutoyo, Mahr and possibly TESA a pass) unless they’re independent calibration from a known and trusted calibration authority.

[southernchap]

On southernchap Said:

Exactly this.

Manufacturer supplied calibration certs are all suspect (eh, maybe I’d give Mitutoyo, Mahr and possibly TESA a pass) unless they’re independent calibration from a known and trusted calibration authority.

That is not true,
If the manufacturer has an acreditited quality system whose scope covers calibration then they can calibrate their own equipment to a recognised standard e.g. UKAS. You have to check the scope document not just the certificate. I’ve seen companies issue douments for work outside their scope.
There is no requirement for calibration to be be independant under normal standards. There might be a contractual reason though. Some qualification testing may have to be independent.

For more complex equipment it is often ONLY the manufacturer who is able to calibrate it. I’m using the term “calibrate” in it’s widest term as it means different thing in different situations.

Robert.

[Author]

Posts