scholarly journals Development of composite calibration standard for quantitative NDE by ultrasound and thermography

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinay Dayal ◽  
Zach G. Benedict ◽  
Nishtha Bhatnagar ◽  
Adam G. Harper
Keyword(s):  
Calibration Standard ◽  
Quantitative Nde

New Techniques for Quantitative NDE

JOM ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 29-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. B. Thompson ◽  
D. O. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
New Techniques ◽  
Quantitative Nde

scholarly journals NIST Standard Reference Material 3600: Absolute Intensity Calibration Standard for Small-Angle X-ray Scattering

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 462-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Allen ◽  
Fan Zhang ◽  
R. Joseph Kline ◽  
William F. Guthrie ◽  
Jan Ilavsky
Keyword(s):  
Reference Material ◽  
Small Angle ◽  
Standard Reference Material ◽  
Absolute Intensity ◽  
Calibration Standard ◽  
X Ray ◽  
X Ray Scattering ◽  
Nist Standard Reference Material ◽  
Intensity Calibration ◽  
Ray Scattering

The certification of a new standard reference material for small-angle scattering [NIST Standard Reference Material (SRM) 3600: Absolute Intensity Calibration Standard for Small-Angle X-ray Scattering (SAXS)], based on glassy carbon, is presented. Creation of this SRM relies on the intrinsic primary calibration capabilities of the ultra-small-angle X-ray scattering technique. This article describes how the intensity calibration has been achieved and validated in the certifiedQrange,Q= 0.008–0.25 Å−1, together with the purpose, use and availability of the SRM. The intensity calibration afforded by this robust and stable SRM should be applicable universally to all SAXS instruments that employ a transmission measurement geometry, working with a wide range of X-ray energies or wavelengths. The validation of the SRM SAXS intensity calibration using small-angle neutron scattering (SANS) is discussed, together with the prospects for including SANS in a future renewal certification.

A timing calibration standard for ultrasonic equipment

1974 ◽  
Vol 47 (560) ◽  
pp. 512-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Hall ◽  
J. E. E. Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Calibration Standard ◽  
Ultrasonic Equipment

Impact of air, laser pulse width and fluence on U–Pb dating of zircons by LA-ICPMS

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay M. Thompson ◽  
Sebastien Meffre ◽  
Leonid Danyushevsky
Keyword(s):  
Laser Pulse ◽  
Pulse Width ◽  
Matrix Effects ◽  
Calibration Standard ◽  
Laser Pulse Width ◽  
Pb Fractionation

The accuracy of zircon U–Pb dating by LA-ICPMS is limited by matrix effects related to differences in U–Pb fractionation between an unknown and the calibration standard.

scholarly journals SNR 1E 0102.2-7219 as an X-ray calibration standard in the 0.5−1.0 keV bandpass and its application to the CCD instruments aboardChandra,Suzaku,SwiftandXMM-Newton

2016 ◽  
Vol 597 ◽  
pp. A35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul P. Plucinsky ◽  
Andrew P. Beardmore ◽  
Adam Foster ◽  
Frank Haberl ◽  
Eric D. Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Calibration Standard ◽  
X Ray

Schmidt-Boelter Heat Flux Gage Sensitivity Coefficients in Radiative and Convective Environments

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
James T. Nakos ◽  
Alexander L. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Heat Transfer ◽  
Heat Flux ◽  
Convective Heat ◽  
Radiative Heat ◽  
Sensitivity Coefficient ◽  
Calibration Standard ◽  
Convective Heat Flux ◽  
Sensitivity Coefficients ◽  
Theoretical Sensitivity ◽  
Flux Calibration

Commercial Schmidt-Boelter heat flux gages are always calibrated by using a radiative heat flux source where convection is minimized. This is because one can establish a reliable link to a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) calibration standard. To the authors’ knowledge, no NIST traceable link exists for convective heat flux calibration. When heat flux gages are used in typical applications, convection is often not negligible. It has been common practice to assume that the sensitivity coefficient supplied by the manufacturer also applies for convective environments. This assumption is believed to be incorrect. If incorrect, this would result in uncertainties larger than typically reported (e.g., ±3%). This paper analyzes the heat transfer from an idealized Schmidt-Boelter heat flux gage. The analysis shows that the theoretical sensitivity coefficients in purely radiative and convective environments are not the same and, in fact, differ by the emissivity of the gage surface. The implication of this difference is that the accuracy specification supplied by the manufacturer (typically ± 3%) is not correct for measurement applications where convection is not negligible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document