EURAMET key comparison between INRiM and UME in Vickers hardness scales (HV1 - HV30) - EURAMET.M.H-K1.b and c

This report describes the method and results of a bilateral EURAMET Key Comparison in Vickers hardness scales of two National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) of Italy and Turkey, INRiM and UME, respectively. The Pilot Laboratory (PL) is INRiM in the comparison in which one set of hardness reference blocks with three hardness levels for the Vickers Hardness scales of both HV1 and HV30 was used. The comparison was realized as planned in the Technical Protocol with some delay. The aim of this comparison is to link the UME measurement results to the CCM.H-K1.b.c through the PL (INRiM) as a participant of the CCM key comparison. The measurement results and uncertainty assessments declared by INRiM and UME are in consistency with each other and UME results are also in consistency with the CCM.H-K1.b.c Key Comparison Reference Values (KCRVs). The CCM.H-K1.b.c was realized during 2001 to 2003 to investigate the metrological equivalence of national standards among national metrology institutes (NMIs) within the CCM

Result analysis of EURAMET Vickers comparison between INRiM and UME (EURAMET.M.H-K1.b.c)

A bilateral key comparison between INRiM (National Metrology Institute of Italy) and TUBITAK UME (National Metrology Institute of Turkey) had been decided to be organized in the field of Hardness Metrology to determine the consistency of the national hardness standards in both countries realizing Vickers Hardness measurements in accordance with ISO 6507–1:2018 [1] and ISO 6507–3:2018 [2] standards. Widely used Vickers Hardness scales such as HV1 and HV30 constitute the scope of the comparison which was piloted by INRiM. In this paper the procedure and measurement results of the bilateral EURAMET key comparison between the two laboratories are explained

Preliminary results of EURAMET Rockwell comparison between INRiM and UME (EURAMET.M.H-S1.A.B.C)

A bilateral supplementary comparison between INRiM (National Metrology Institute of Italy) and UME (National Metrology Institute of Turkey) had been decided to be organized in the field of Hardness Metrology to determine the consistency of the national hardness standards in both countries realizing Rockwell Hardness measurements in accordance with ISO 6508-1:2016 [1] and ISO 6508-3:2015 [2] standards. In this paper the procedure and preliminary measurement results of the bilateral EURAMET supplementary comparison between the two laboratories are explained

Result analysis of EURAMET Brinell comparison between INRiM, UME and PTB (EURAMET.M.H–S2.A.B)

A EURAMET supplementary comparison between INRiM (National Metrology Institute of Italy), UME (National Metrology Institute of Republic of Turkey) and PTB (National Metrology Institute of Germany) had been decided to be organized in the field of Hardness Metrology to determine the consistency of the national hardness standards in these three countries realizing Brinell Hardness measurements in accordance with ISO 6506–1:2014 [1] and ISO 6506–3:2014 [2] standards. Widely used Brinell Hardness scales such as HBW 1/30 and HBW 2.5/187.5 constitute the scope of the comparison. In this paper the procedure and comparison results are explained

Beyond What Meets the Eye: Imaging and Imagining Wood Mechanical–Structural Properties

Abstract: Wood presents a hierarchical structure, containing features at all length scales: from the tracheids or vessels that make up its cellular structure, through to the microfibrils within the cell walls, down to the molecular architecture of the cellulose, lignin, and hemicelluloses that comprise its chemical makeup. This structure renders it with high mechanical (e.g., modulus and strength) and interesting physical (e.g., optical) properties. A better understanding of this structure, and how it plays a role in governing mechanical and other physical parameters, will help to better exploit this sustainable resource. Here, recent developments on the use of advanced imaging techniques for studying the structural properties of wood in relation to its mechanical properties are explored. The focus is on synchrotron nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, X‐ray diffraction, X‐ray tomographical imaging, Raman and infrared spectroscopies, confocal microscopy, electron microscopy, and atomic force microscopy. Critical discussion on the role of imaging techniques and how fields are developing rapidly to incorporate both spatial and temporal ranges of analysis is presented

The effect of postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy on lens opacities and intraocular pressure

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether different postmenopausal hormone replacement therapies (HRT) reduced age-related cataract and influenced intraocular pressure (IOP). Material and Methods: One hundred forty eight women on HRT for at least 4 years were included in this prospective study. Group 1 (n= 34) was on 2 mg of 17 beta estradiol, group 2 (n= 41) was on 2 mg of 17-beta estradiol and 1 mg of norethisterone acetate, and group 3 (n= 35) took 2.5 mg of tibolone. The control group (n= 38) did not take HRT. We investigated the association between postmenopausal HRT, lens opacities and IOP in different groups. Lens status was evaluated through a dilated pupil by means of a standardized grading system. The IOP was measured by a single examiner with standard Goldmann applanation tonometry. The tonometric value was considered the mean of three consecutive measurements. Results: The mean ages in the control group, group 1, group 2, and group 3, were 52.44 ± 5.89, 50.87 ± 3.53, 52.05 ± 4.60, and 51.05 ± 3.07, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding age (p= 0.143) and among the 3 groups regarding HRT years (p= 0.176). We did not observe any significant difference between the groups with respect to the frequency of nuclear opacity (p= 0.361), cortical opacity (p= 0.960), and posterior subcapsular opacity (p= 0.856). In addition, there were no significant differences when we compared the IOP findings between the groups (p= 0.847). Conclusion: These findings suggest that HRT for 4 years is not protective against lens opacity, and does not modify IOP. Copyright © 2007 by Türkiye Klinikleri