Electric rotating machine standards part II: Magnetic wedge design & monitoring methods

Author(s):  
Stephen Cary ◽  
Jon Hanson ◽  
Chip Evans ◽  
Igor Blokhintsev
2017 ◽  
Vol 137 (11) ◽  
pp. 645-651
Author(s):  
Kotaro Mura ◽  
Toshihiro Tsuda ◽  
Tetsuo Yoshimitsu ◽  
Takuya Onishi ◽  
Shuichiro Hashimoto ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Siegrist ◽  
Ryan Oesterreich ◽  
Leanna Woods ◽  
Michele Crimi

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ty P. A. Ferré ◽  
Gerard J. Kluitenberg
Keyword(s):  

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 443
Author(s):  
Ty P. A. Ferré ◽  
Gerard J. Kluitenberg
Keyword(s):  

2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-30
Author(s):  
K. Connell ◽  
M. Pope ◽  
K. Miller ◽  
J. Scheller ◽  
J. Pulz

Designing and conducting standardized microbiological method interlaboratory validation studies is challenging because most methods are manual, rather than instrument-based, and results from the methods are typically subjective. Determinations of method recovery, in particular, are problematic, due to difficulties in assessing the true spike amount. The standardization and validation process used for the seven most recent USEPA 1600-series pathogen monitoring methods has begun to address these challenges. A staged development process was used to ensure that methods were adequately tested and standardized before resources were dedicated to interlaboratory validation. The interlaboratory validation studies for USEPA Method 1622, for Cryptosporidium, USEPA Method 1601 for coliphage, and USEPA Method 1605 for Aeromonas assessed method performance using different approaches, due the differences in the nature of the target analytes and the data quality needs of each study. However, the use of enumerated spikes in all of the studies allowed method recovery and precision to be assessed, and also provided the data needed to establish quantitative quality control criteria for the methods.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 25-33
Author(s):  
Luciane Agnoletti dos Santos Pedotti ◽  
Ricardo Mazza Zago ◽  
Mateus Giesbrecht ◽  
Fabiano Fruett

2021 ◽  
Vol 193 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heini Hyvärinen ◽  
Annaliina Skyttä ◽  
Susanna Jernberg ◽  
Kristian Meissner ◽  
Harri Kuosa ◽  
...  

AbstractGlobal deterioration of marine ecosystems, together with increasing pressure to use them, has created a demand for new, more efficient and cost-efficient monitoring tools that enable assessing changes in the status of marine ecosystems. However, demonstrating the cost-efficiency of a monitoring method is not straightforward as there are no generally applicable guidelines. Our study provides a systematic literature mapping of methods and criteria that have been proposed or used since the year 2000 to evaluate the cost-efficiency of marine monitoring methods. We aimed to investigate these methods but discovered that examples of actual cost-efficiency assessments in literature were rare, contradicting the prevalent use of the term “cost-efficiency.” We identified five different ways to compare the cost-efficiency of a marine monitoring method: (1) the cost–benefit ratio, (2) comparative studies based on an experiment, (3) comparative studies based on a literature review, (4) comparisons with other methods based on literature, and (5) subjective comparisons with other methods based on experience or intuition. Because of the observed high frequency of insufficient cost–benefit assessments, we strongly advise that more attention is paid to the coverage of both cost and efficiency parameters when evaluating the actual cost-efficiency of novel methods. Our results emphasize the need to improve the reliability and comparability of cost-efficiency assessments. We provide guidelines for future initiatives to develop a cost-efficiency assessment framework and suggestions for more unified cost-efficiency criteria.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document