Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
There was a request for a link to Ford's answer's to the NHTSA investigation posted on a previous thread, since closed. Here is the link: Ford's NHTSA Answers to the 6.7 investigation This PDF i...
Forum Discussion
When you do the lit search, and look at the testing protocols, you find out how far we are from laboratory to real life.
What standards bodies try to do is to come up with tests that are:
A) acceptable
More or less, if it pass the test, the "right stuff" should be there
B) convenient
Can't have a test that takes weeks or months to do.
----------------
Example of such a test:
There is no easy way to monitor for "protein" content in things like milk, whey, etc.
So what buyers for decades standardized on is a test for "nitrogen".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kjeldahl_method
Simple, easy to administer, and universally used.
But rather than directly measuing protein, it measured nitrogen.
Next thing, adulterators added stuff to it that spoofed the readings.
Melamine --- a waste plastic that is high in nitrogen, relatively non-toxic unless ingested... was added.
The scam was not discovered until pet food laced with it killed pets, and people got killed or injured.
No telling whether or not such adulteration happened around the world before it became a huge scandal.
The lesson from this... beware of people that are doing what it takes to pass the test... rather than delivering on what the substance the test was suppose to look for.
That is why one should always be leery of hiring straight A students.
They are probably experts at passing the test.
Always probe for the substance -- and ask can something pass the tests, and still be ... bad / wrong / non spec.
One of my standard assays is to do a lot of detailed work on the test assays.
Again -- I reiterate that I do not believe that Bosch went out of their way to screw up or cut costs too far.
This is something totally unexpected. It is novel, interesting, and amazing.
Now if I can only figure out what it is!
What standards bodies try to do is to come up with tests that are:
A) acceptable
More or less, if it pass the test, the "right stuff" should be there
B) convenient
Can't have a test that takes weeks or months to do.
----------------
Example of such a test:
There is no easy way to monitor for "protein" content in things like milk, whey, etc.
So what buyers for decades standardized on is a test for "nitrogen".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kjeldahl_method
Simple, easy to administer, and universally used.
But rather than directly measuing protein, it measured nitrogen.
Next thing, adulterators added stuff to it that spoofed the readings.
Melamine --- a waste plastic that is high in nitrogen, relatively non-toxic unless ingested... was added.
The scam was not discovered until pet food laced with it killed pets, and people got killed or injured.
No telling whether or not such adulteration happened around the world before it became a huge scandal.
The lesson from this... beware of people that are doing what it takes to pass the test... rather than delivering on what the substance the test was suppose to look for.
That is why one should always be leery of hiring straight A students.
They are probably experts at passing the test.
Always probe for the substance -- and ask can something pass the tests, and still be ... bad / wrong / non spec.
One of my standard assays is to do a lot of detailed work on the test assays.
Again -- I reiterate that I do not believe that Bosch went out of their way to screw up or cut costs too far.
This is something totally unexpected. It is novel, interesting, and amazing.
Now if I can only figure out what it is!
