DATA TABLE

Part A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
21 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
22 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
30 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
34 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
36 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
49 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A=0 150 Total Readings of A 150

Total Readings of B 150
Total Readings of C 150

B
0 1 Total
Count 44 50
0 Expected Count 50
A Count 3 100
1 Expected Count 100
Count 47 103 150
Total Expected Count 47 103 150

A B C

Total no. of Samples 50 50 50 50

No. of Trails 3 3 3 3
No of good samples 34 34 34 34
No of bad samples 16 16 16 16
No. of Miss 3 3 6
No. of FA 5 2 9
No.of GD 142 145 135

Effectiveness 94.66666666667 96.66667 90

% Miss 2 2 4
%FA 3.333333333333 1.333333 6
C2 C3 Reference
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 1
0 0 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 0 1
1 0 0
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 1
0 1 1
0 0 0
1 1 1
0 0 0
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
1 1 1
1 1 1
 0 0 0
1 1 1
0 0 0

a =0 50
a =1 100

b=0 47
b=1 103

c=0 51
c=1 99