How does the CM Series accuracy compare to competing ROSE test systems?

Certain well known competitors claim a test accuracy of 499MὨ. Knowing that μS & MὨ are an inverse function of each other, 499MὨ equates to 0.002μS. How does the CM compare?
The CM preferentially employs a 50:50 ratio of alcohol and water, whereas most others work on 75:25 percent, and are therefore half as sensitive as the CM+ and the change of conductivity will be half as great for a given ionic loading (or the resistivity can be twice as great), compared to our instrument.
In addition, and even when comparing 75:25 v 50:50, it is important to verify the baseline value used by other instruments because the higher the resistivity that is chosen, the more inaccurate the reading becomes. This is because the asymptote to the baseline value towards the end of a measurement takes much longer and the solution absorbs much more carbon dioxide (or leaches other ionic matter from within the laminate) giving a very exaggerated value of contamination.

For this reason, the CM has a fixed baseline value of 0.005 μS-cm, to reduce the errors from leaching CO2 from the air or leachates from within the laminate. At the same time, this also ensures that the actual measuring time is shorter. This is the great weakness of "dynamic" test systems as compared to the CM and why, in the soon to be released IEC PICT Test, we refer to Closed Loop (IPC ‘Static’ CM) v Open Loop (IPC ‘Dynamic’).

The risk of errors due to leaching with the CM is very low for several reasons:
• At the end of a test, the conductivity is higher, so that absorption of CO2 is minimised
• As a rule, the test is limited to a maximum of 15 minutes, so that deep free ions in the laminate cannot be extracted to the surface
• The design of the tank with the narrowest possible opening reduces the risk of CO2 absorption
• The software incorporates compensation for CO2 absorption, irrespective of the conductivity