Results 1 - 10 of 1268
Results 1 - 10 of 1268. Search took: 0.024 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] Described is the proposal of application of the GUM uncertainty type A evaluation to measurements with auto-correlated observations. The first step to it is the identification and cleaning of the raw sample data from the regularly variable components. Then formulas for standard deviation of the sample and of the mean value are expressed with the use correction coefficients or the so-called 'effective number' of observations. These quantities depend on number of observations and on the sample autocorrelation function and allow to calculate the expanded uncertainty due to the GUM recommendations. The method of estimation of autocorrelation function for the sample data is also given. Considerations are illustrated by examples
[en] This book gives descriptions of practical guide on contract of technology, which deals with basic of contract like meaning, function term, singing and sealing, contract and stamp tax, common things on contract of research like keeping secret and prevention and treat of dispute, compensation for damages, notice, expiration date of contract and measurement at end of contract, contract of joint research such as meaning and necessity, note at contract, check list at contract, and return of the research product.
[en] We establish an exact analytical treatment for the determination of the strengths of the Rashba and Dresselhaus spin–orbit interactions in a single sample by measuring persistent spin current. A hidden symmetry is exploited in the Hamiltonian to show that the spin current vanishes when the strength of the Dresselhaus interaction becomes equal to the strength of the Rashba term. The results are sustained even in the presence of disorder and thus an experiment in this regard will be challenging. -- Highlights: ► An exact analytical treatment is given for the measurement of spin–orbit interaction strengths in a single sample. ► Persistent spin current is calculated. ► Our present analysis gives us confidence to propose an experiment in this line.
[en] The following observations are offered by one who has served on national and international standards-writing committees and standards review committees. Service on working groups consists of either updating previous standards or developing new standards. The process of writing either type of document proceeds along similar lines. The first order of business is to recognise the need for developing or updating a standard and to identify the potential user community. It is also necessary to ensure that there is a required number of members willing to do the writing. A justification is required as to why a new standard should be developed, and this is written as a new work item proposal or a project initiation notification system form. This document must be filed officially and approved, and a search is then undertaken to ensure that the proposed new standard will not duplicate a standard that has already been published or is underway in another standards organisation. (author)
[en] This report establishes proposed upper temperature limits for the ASME BP&V Code Section III, Division 5, Nonmandatory Appendix HBB-T design by elastic analysis provisions for bounding ratcheting strain and creep-fatigue damage in Class A high temperature nuclear reactor components. Limitations on the use of these design options are required because the design by elastic analysis methods rely on bounding theories that assume a non-unified, decoupled model of creep-plasticity. However, at high temperatures creep and plastic deformation become coupled and bounding theorems relying a decoupled material response may fail. The report describes a method for selecting appropriate upper temperature limits, demonstrates directly through a comparison to full inelastic simulations that the existing Code provisions can be nonconservative at high temperatures, and develops the requisite Code language required to implement the temperature limits in Section III, Division 5.
[en] The comment by Lundeen et al. contains two criticisms of our proposal. While we agree that the state-preparation procedure could be replaced by a simpler setup as proposed by the authors of the comment, we do not agree with the authors on their second, and more important point regarding two-particle weak measurements. We believe this to be the result of a misunderstanding of our original paper [S. E. Ahnert and M. C. Payne, Phys. Rev. A 70, 042102 (2004)]
[en] Experimental progress with meso- and macroscopic quantum states (i.e. general Schrödinger-cat states) was recently accompanied by theoretical proposals on how to measure the merit of these efforts. So far, experiment and theory have been disconnected as theoretical analysis of actual experimental data was missing. Here, we consider a proposal for macroscopic quantum states that measures the extent of quantum coherence present in the system. For this, the quantum Fisher information is used. We calculate lower bounds from real experimental data. The results are expressed as an ‘effective size’, that is, relative to ‘classical’ reference states. We find remarkable numbers of up to 70 in photonic and atomic systems. (paper)