To you, this document may appear detailed, authoritative and informative. To someone skilled in the art, it is amateurish and flawed.
NO, there is no consistency from study to study, especially for something like this. That is not at all a justification for no pictures or no equipment list. I get 3rd party test reports all the time to meet customer requirements or to validate results where we are unsure our in-house testing is sufficient or for compliance testing. With every report is a picture of the test setup AND and equipment list. Both items are essential to validate the results and/or to interpret the accuracy of the tests.
Whether I post results or not, and the funny thing is, you have no idea if I have or not, because like you, our names our anonymous here, MATTERS NOT AT ALL to the claims and accuracy of this report.
It is a simple fact, yes fact, by the labs own admission (with their equipment accuracy standards), that they cannot measure to an accuracy that could justify a conclusion that fuses are directional w.r.t. resistance, and, based on pictures of their lab, and the lack of any discussion of temperature control, pulse measurement, etc. it is easy dismiss resistance variations of less than a few percent due to the lack of temperature control. Heck, they didn't even list how many samples they tested, is this the result of one carefully chosen sample against random competitor samples, is this an average of 2, 5, 10? .... what is the standard deviation, max/min? .... you know, REAL test data.
They don't even list the test current for fuses under 3A, AND, list a DC resistance of one competitor of 0.58 ohms, but somehow its AC resistance is closer to 0.068. That would suggest measurement error.
clearthink950 posts10-25-2019 10:30am
roberttcan" GECOM technologies document is not a proper report of a metrology testing lab, this is purely a marketing document and an auspicious one at that. Let’s point out the BS in the document: 1) No listing of equipment is provided, no pictures of test setups,’
"That is very funny you are attacking this detailed, authoritative, informative report because it does not have pictures! The report does not include all of the background information because that is consistent from study to study and is otherwise available there is no need to report it individually for each study what is obvious here is that once someone comes out with actual data you shoot it down but you have no data yourself to supplant it even though you claim to have actual done extensive research and studies to support the millions of electronic devices you claim to have manufactured."