The SI traceability chain is shown in Fig. 6. The DUTs are calibrated with a current source and voltmeter. The current source is calibrated using the NIST TS CVC [3, 5]. The TS CVC’s feedback resistors are calibrated (in situ) by comparison to NIST workings standards calibrated in terms of the quantum Hall effect. The voltmeter DC voltage is calibrated by comparison to a NIST 10 V Josephson Voltage Standard (JVS). Both the resistance and DC voltage calibrations are carried out by the NIST Quantum Measurement Division (QED). Fig. 6. SI traceability for the NIST CVC calibration system. 4.1 Transfer Standard CVC Feedback Resistors Calibration Calibrating the feedback resistors are key to the traceability. As mentioned above, the TS CVC …show more content…
There are also small differences in the uncertainties depending on which current source is used for the measurements. Uncertainties propagated using the Keithley 263 and 6430 current sources are given below. 5.1 Transfer Standard CVC Typical calibration results and uncertainty for the feedback resistors of the TS CVC and the Val CVC are summarized in Table 1. The resistor serial numbers are prefaced by 1010 for the TS CVC and 1000 for the Val CVC. Table 1. Feedback resistance calibration values for the TS CVC (SN: 1010) and Val CVC (SN: 1000). Resistor Serial No. Nominal Value (Ω) Calibration Temp. (°C) Calibration Voltage Correction (x10-6) Exp. Uncert. (k=2) (x10-6) Change / year (x10-6) 1000-10K 1 x 104 22.99 10 V, 1 mA 17.4 0.3 2.27 1010-10K 1 x 104 22.98 10 V, 1 mA 43.8 0.3 2.13 1000-100K 1 x 105 23.00 10 57.0 0.8 1.19 1010-100K 1 x 105 23.00 10 91.2 0.8 1.45 1000-1M 1 x 106 23.00 10 46.2 0.8 3.31 1010-1M 1 x 106 23.00 10 55.4 0.8 3.74 1000-10M 1 x 107 22.99 10 147 6 7.61 1010-10M 1 x 107 22.99 10 100 6 3.81 1000-100M 1 x 108 22.98 10 57 6 7.79 1010-100M 1 x 108 22.98 10 113 6 6.23 1000-1G 1 x 109 23.00 10 841 18 2.08 1010-1G 1 x 109 23.00 10 -282 18 1.90 1000-10G 1 x 1010 23.01 10 857 50 -6.92 1010-10G 1 x 1010 23.01 10 -18 50 -5.19 5.2 Current Source Calibration The uncertainty of the current source calibration has two terms. The first term is an absolute uncertainty that
The Raw Values Raises Questions in the Forums, Since the Raw Values Might Seem Unstable. Below Are The Raw Values Of The Sensor That I Measured, So You Can Compare Them With Your Own Raw Values.
\emph{Testing Strategy:} The graph between applied load in the range 0.5 grams to 575.5 grams and change in voltage is plotted. The graph obtained (see Figure~\ref{f:olggraph}) shows the inconsistent readings at many points for different combination of force applied. Also, the best curve equation is close to cubic, which is indication of bad design.\\*
Calibration tells you if the instrument is accurate or not. Based on that knowledge, you can adjust it to get a more accurate reading.
The third simulation is loss location (-9, -9). First f all, this test has error in one location. It is showing 28dB, this value is impossible. The reason is we haven't set program can detect value more than 27dB. This mistake may program error or test error. Compare with last two tests, this test is inaccuracy because many abnormal values are showing in SITA results. The normal values are higher frequency implements. The lowest has showing very abnormal value that is 14dB. This value should not possible shows in this test. The reason cause those errors may program error or test error. The reason is program using the computer vision technology, but the problem is image noise. The technology cannot guarantee all of flashlight can be detected.
In the titration, I used these available instruments to ensure my results would be as accurate as possible.
- Once I achieve the stabilized readings from these system, I'll work on the parameters for monocular recordings, mentioned in the Mecp2 paper forwarded by Paige, focusing on mice VEP protocols .
In real applications, the values of the controller parameters will be usually computed for one case (generally, the typical demand) and applied for different scenarios. Therefore, it is important that the controllers adjusted for one scenario, also perform properly in other circumstances. In other words, it is necessary to have a robust controller, especially against different demand profiles.
The controller computes this and reduces the error signal until the desired set-point is acquired and maintained. The closed-loop structure is in wide use throughout industry.
What is Rmax and Rmin for your CdS sensor? What is the required resistance, R, for the other half of the CdS voltage divider circuit?
The manufacture and process of TLD-400 produces small variations. Each TLD varies in size and composition; even within the same batch they were produced, meaning they are not all entirely identical. Because of these discrepancies, each TLD will have a characteristic response that will differ from the response of other TLDs. To compensate, every TLD element is assigned a correction factor. This correction factor is called the Element Correction Coefficient (ECC). The ECC is determined by the following equation:
Interim FRACA TOR 4774 Version 1 was submitted to OATK/Raytheon on 9/21/2015. A review of interim FRACA TOR4774 with OATK/Raytheon was conducted on 10/19/2015. During review a request was made for HON to provide OATK/Raytheon proof that re-work of Actuator SNs 793, 795, and 802 at the TI level to reset the LVDT in the Null Length Test was complete, prior to ATP and final shipment of units. The requested documentation is attached below.
This was done to find the best fit line for the data it was reading to accurately calculate values. Next, we output this sample data to a file and verified accuracy against the actual values. The software provided with the PSOC also has a built-in drag-and-drop interface for accessing and configuring the onboard hardware. Using this interface, we were able to visually inspect the configuration of all the hardware and the way it is all interacting. Next, we moved to testing the hardware. To start, we began by building a simple circuit that interacted with the PSOC to verify accuracy. Once accuracy was verified, we began testing the onboard component accuracy individually. After this, we went on to implement the LCD for external output. Once the LCD was wired up, we were able to send the output data to the LCD instead of reading it on the computer.
This experiment shall be repeated twice or more to enhance accuracy of the results obtained. Besides detecting systematic errors, this experiment would aid on the technique and understandings to the correct use of these equipments.
(SUFI-2) and generalized likelihood uncertainty equation (GLUE) of SWAT CUP (calibration and uncertainty program) work with multiple sets of parameter
ÉCM ca1cu1atés contro11éd opéning of thé thrott1é va1vé on thé basis of thé comp1été1y c1oséd thrott1é va1vé position of thé é1éctric thrott1é contro1 systém. Thé comp1été1y c1oséd position data is savéd in mémory of ÉCM. Howévér , thé comp1été1y c1oséd position of thé thrott1é va1vé of thé é1éctric thrott1é contro1 systém (signa1 vo1tagé from thrott1é position sénsor whén thrott1é is comp1été1y c1oséd) différs oné from thé othér dépénding on individua1 différéncés of thé thrott1é