Comments on WD OP1.002 version 05.03.007

The following comments are through paragraph 4.2.3 and footnote 29 only, and I am still thnking about my input on 3.1.4.1.3.
Hopefully I can complete my review of the rest of the document very shortly.


Foreword
We should only have one foreword, the foreword to the Third Edition. It should summarize in two brief paragraphs what the forewords to the first and second editions said.
Second paragraph, “widespread” is the preferred spelling, not “wide-spread.”
Update the Organizations Represented list for the third edition.
1.1 Scope:
Footnote 1: If we consider sleeks to be imperfections and I think we do, then we say the default specification is to ignore them.
Footnote 4: I have no objection to mixed systems. I don’t remember if this was discussed and if so, whether we came to a conclusion in Monterey. Our decision affects 3.1.1.3 and 3.1.1.4 also.
second paragraph and elsewhere: Use of “he” and “she”: Switching back and forth to be “fair and balanced” is affected. Stick with “he/she” throughout.
3.1.1.2: Second paragraph, first sentence: the period goes inside the quotation mark (always). I suggest a global search and replace.
3.1.1.3: I suggest the second clause read “then the visibility tolerancing scheme shall be used to control digs, too.
3.1.1.4: “Traditionally accomplished with a hyphenated pair of numbers” is not exactly accurate. MIL-C-48497 was dated 27 June 1974, and MIL-C-48497A superseded it on 8 September 1980. MIL-F-48616 was dated 29 July 1977 and used letter grades.
3.1.2.1:
End of first paragraph, the period goes inside the quote mark.
Last paragraph, put a period after the parenthesis in the third line and add “It” before “defines a standard….”
3.1.2.1.2: I don’t think it is correct to say that it is an unfortunate coincidence that the dig numbers are derived from the diameter of master dig artifacts. The Army drawing shows the digs are circles, complete with tolerances on their diameters. I understand what you are trying to say, but we need to discuss how to say it. Same goes for the last paragraph in this subsection.
I think we should simply say “The dig numbers were derived from the diameters of master dig artifacts; however, it is the VISIBILITY of a dig under test, rather than its actual dimension, that is to be compared to a visibility dig artifact.” I think we can delete the entire paragraph following Table 2.
Footnote 7: My suggestion: at the end of section 3.1.2.1 add a sentence: “Some commercially available comparison standards have scratch numbers greater than #80.
Footnote 9: No, we can’t.
Footnotes 8 and 10: These read the same, probably a copy and paste error. We don’t need to say anything here about, for example, scratches below 10.
3.1.2.2:
Third paragraph, second sentence: delete the second period.
Suggestion for new third paragraph, third and forth sentences: “When the maximum allowed scratch grade is 10, all scratches less bright than the #10 comparison artifact shall be graded as #10 scratches. When the maximum allowed scratch is grade 20 or greater, all scratches less bright than the #10 comparison artifact shall be ignored. When the maximum allowed dig grade is 5 all digs less bright than the #5 comparison artifact shall be graded as #5 digs. When the maximum allowed dig is grade 10 or greater, all digs less bright than the #5 comparison artifact shall be ignored.”
Footnotes 11 and 12: See above rewrite suggestion for 3.1.2.2, paragraph 3, third and fourth sentences.
Footnote 13: I don’t see what the contradiction is.
Footnote 14: I have never heard of anyone applying a visibility scratch-dig spec. to a ground surface, just a chip spec.
Footnote 15: Suggestion for rewording 3.1.2.3.2: “When the tolerance grades are looser than magnitudes 80 and 50, which may be the case when some commercially available comparison standards are being used, then the same looser specification shall apply to the region outside the clear aperture, unless otherwise specified.”
3.1.3.1.1 and 3.1.3.1.2: Last paragraphs, “A”, should be “A,” that is, the comma goes inside the quote mark.
Footnotes 16 and 17: Yes, the tables show the “disregard” values for both scratches and digs as n/4. Maybe I don’t understand the questions posed by these footnotes.
3.1.3.1.2: First sentence third paragraph: “diameter width” is redundant. Delete the word “width.”
Footnote 18: MIL-PRF-13830B, the “visibility” standard, says “Dig numbers are the actual diameters of defects allowed, specified in units of 1/100mm.” The other MIL standards’ tables of digs show the dig diameters that way also, e.g., an F dig is 0.50 millimeters diameter. We decided to change the table values to microns to be more consistent with SI units of measure. It may seem clever to say a #50 dig is 50 decamicrons, but we will simply confuse 99.9% of the technicians who are inspecting parts.
3.1.3.2, fourth paragraph: Change “Typically, they are used in conjunction with a microscope” to “They may be used in conjunction with a microscope.” Delete the last sentence, the second clause of which that says “they are not required for the measurement or grading of scratches…” makes no sense to me.
Footnote 20: Yes, drop the paragraph.
3.1.4.1.2.1 and Footnote 22: Fourth paragraph. At the June 24, 2012 meeting in Monterey we agreed that the scratch length was its projected or chordal length in the direction of the optical axis and its arc length perpendicular to the optical axis. My description is not quite accurate; we need to improve the wording.
3.1.4.1.2.2: As written, S does not appear in the text or the formula. It just appears in the definitions below the formula. I suggest we add it to the sentence above the formula and delete it from the definitions below the formula. Thus, change the first sentence to “If there are any graded scratches that match the specified tolerance grade, S, then their total length shall not exceed….” Below the word “Where:” delete the definition of S.
3.1.4.1.3 and Footnote 23: Change the last sentence to “Scratches less visible than a grade 10 or narrower than grade B are disregarded for the concentration rule.” (I need to think more about this.)
Footnote 24: Yes, delete the paragraph.
Footnote 25: Yes, we want to avoid setting new rules outside the CA. I don’t believe anyone but academicians use “formulae” instead of “formulas” these days. Is there an ANSI style book we can consult?
3.1.4.2.2.2: Change “he” to “he/she.”
Footnote 27: The actual shape of the aperture is irrelevant. You still apply a 20 mm diameter circle to see if there is a concentration or not. What is the alternative: apply a rectangle for rectangular apertures; apply triangles for triangular apertures; etc.? That leads to absurd scenarios. Keep it simple!
3.3 Area Imperfections: Stains?
4.2.2 and Footnote 28: We cannot address every possible situation. This has to be resolved by the buyer and seller.
Footnote 29: Partly. MIL-PRF-13830B 3.7.9.2 says the reason for stoning a chip larger than 0.5 mm is “to roughen it and lessen the possibility of annoying reflections and additional chipping.”