At the risk of being solidly flamed, I'd ask to raise the 
dB Margin discussion one more time and if need be off-line. 
See my email address below.  If you're going to flame me, do it quick 
to the bone and I'll be done with it. 

My discussion is going to: 

     1. Assume an awful lot and may be unacceptable to some, 
     2. Stay somewhat nonrigorous statistically. 

I'll readily admit to these flaws up front for the sake of discussion 
and not so much for actual fact.  The facts are dependent upon your 
own experience, the designers you work with, and your equipment, etc...

It has been my own experience that the difference between a -6dB 
margin and a -10dB margin for a product 'could be' the difference between 
100's of dollars of 'fixes' and 1000's of dollars of 'redesign' respectively 
in manufacturing quantities.  (Remember I say 'could be'.) 

Somewhere in the back of everyone's mind with whatever margin 
you should pick should be a thing called statistical 'variance' of data. 
And dependent upon variance is another thing called 'confidence' margin. 

Let's say also that the 80% of the products made works out to be 10 samples to 
be 
tested (just for ease of discussion).  80% of the samples passing means 8 
pass/2 fail. 

Let me assume that someone picks -6dB as the goal below the standard. 
Let's say the limit of the standard is 50dB. 

For demonstration purposes, 8 samples test 3dB below the limit (now 44dB) 
and 2 test 3dB above the limit. 

     Samples 1 - 8 = 41dB, Samples 9 and 10 = 47dB. 
     Average = 42.2
     Variance = 6.4

The following confidence levels are: 

     % Confidence       Variance     Lower limit     Upper limit
     80% Confidence     +/- 2.59     39.61           44.79
     95% Confidence     +/- 3.97     38.23           46.17
     99% Confidence     +/- 5.21     36.99           47.41

In other words, even at 99% confidence (1% unaccounted for) 
we have less than 3dB 'headroom'. 

Now, let's pick the -10dB below standard and assume 50dB is the standard. 
Our limit is now 40dB.  Assuming 8 samples 3dB below and 2 samples 3db again 
we have the following: 

     Samples 1 - 8 = 37dB, Samples 9 and 10 = 43dB. 
     Average = 38.2
     Variance = 6.4

     % Confidence       Variance     Lower limit     Upper limit
     80% Confidence     +/- 2.59     35.61           40.79
     95% Confidence     +/- 3.97     34.23           42.17
     99% Confidence     +/- 5.21     32.99           43.41

Here, even at 99% confidence (1% unaccounted for) 
we have less than 6dB 'headroom' where before we had less than 3dB. 

For those of us not familiar with all this, first notice how the 
variances didn't change (as long as I was assuming the same type of data 
spread around the limit) and how the upper/lower limits fit 
around the 'average' with respect to the variances. 

Now, I won't conclude which is the better.  It could be argued that 
-6dB is neccessary and -10dB is sufficient.  As I said before, 
this could result in a small amount of money or alot of money 
being used to comply.  That's for you to decide. 

This example has been crudely done I admit, but I thought to 
start somewhere.  There's a high possibility someone out there 
is much smarter than me to shoot holes in this entire discourse. 
I'm open for any suggestions. 

*******************************************************
Doug McKean
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------
The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
and do not reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------
*******************************************************

Reply via email to