Electromagnetic Microscope Compared to a Conventional Probe

dc.contributor.author Podney, Walter
dc.date 2018-02-14T09:01:10.000
dc.date.accessioned 2020-06-30T06:50:42Z
dc.date.available 2020-06-30T06:50:42Z
dc.date.copyright Fri Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 1999
dc.date.issued 1999
dc.description.abstract <p>The paper compares performance of conventional, pulsed, eddy current technology [1] to performance of superconductive technology [2], for identifying cracks at rivet holes in a multilayer joint. It compares area of the smallest crack detectable by a conventional, reflection type probe with that detectable by a superconductive, reflection type probe. The smallest crack detectable depends on noise resolution and radius of the pickup loop. A superconductive probe presently can detect a crack at a rivet hole that is two to three times smaller than the smallest crack detectable by a conventional probe.</p>
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.identifier archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/qnde/1999/allcontent/151/
dc.identifier.articleid 4014
dc.identifier.contextkey 5820262
dc.identifier.s3bucket isulib-bepress-aws-west
dc.identifier.submissionpath qnde/1999/allcontent/151
dc.identifier.uri https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/61579
dc.language.iso en
dc.source.uri 10.1007/978-1-4615-4791-4_151
dc.title Electromagnetic Microscope Compared to a Conventional Probe
dc.type event
dc.type.genre article
dspace.entity.type Publication
File