0
RESEARCH PAPERS

“C” Evaluation—Differences Between “Mathematical” and “Physical” Possibilities

[+] Author and Article Information
D. Halmi

BIF, A Unit of General Signal Corp., West Warwick, R.I.

J. Eng. Power 97(4), 540-547 (Oct 01, 1975) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3446056 History: Received July 19, 1974; Online July 14, 2010

Abstract

A review of the pertaining ASME literature shows that so far all ASME efforts to assign “uncalibrated” tolerances to ASME devices (orifice plates, ASME nozzles, PTC-6 throat tap nozzles) failed when tested against a newer set of calibration data. The paper shows that the cause of failure may have been the use of statistical methods and/or mathematical generalizations without physical scrutinization of the calibration data and the device under investigation. The purpose of the paper, therefore, is to help to map out the “physical road” to reliable “C” evaluation work. Another purpose of the paper is to uncover some hidden obstacles that have retarded progress in this area and would assure failure for future investigators, unless recognized and handled properly.

Copyright © 1975 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In