scholarly journals Evaluation Method of Non-standard Lightning Impulse Waveform for Oil-filled Transformer

2003 ◽  
Vol 123 (12) ◽  
pp. 1580-1586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shigemitsu Okabe ◽  
Sadayuki Yuasa
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Lightning Impulse

scholarly journals Evaluation Method of Non-Standard Lightning Impulse Waveforms for GIS

2004 ◽  
Vol 124 (1) ◽  
pp. 156-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shigemitsu Okabe ◽  
Sadayuki Yuasa
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Lightning Impulse

Evaluation method for imaging plate resolution by means of phase contrast transfer function

1995 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 662-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Oikawa ◽  
H. Kosugi ◽  
F. Hosokawa ◽  
D. Shindo ◽  
M. Kersker
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Function ◽  
Phase Contrast ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Amorphous Film ◽  
Imaging Plate ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Special Shape ◽  
Contrast Transfer Function ◽  
Contrast Image ◽  
Specimen Shape

Evaluation of the resolution of the Imaging Plate (IP) has been attempted by some methods. An evaluation method for IP resolution, which is not influenced by hard X-rays at higher accelerating voltages, was proposed previously by the present authors. This method, however, requires truoblesome experimental preperations partly because specially synthesized hematite was used as a specimen, and partly because a special shape of the specimen was used as a standard image. In this paper, a convenient evaluation method which is not infuenced by the specimen shape and image direction, is newly proposed. In this method, phase contrast images of thin amorphous film are used.Several diffraction rings are obtained by the Fourier transformation of a phase contrast image of thin amorphous film, taken at a large under focus. The rings show the spatial-frequency spectrum corresponding to the phase contrast transfer function (PCTF). The envelope function is obtained by connecting the peak intensities of the rings. The evelope function is offten used for evaluation of the instrument, because the function shows the performance of the electron microscope (EM).

Combining Values

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Proximal Phalanx ◽  
Common Error ◽  
The Third ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document