Production building instruments for physical research
Each year, ICTP organizes more than 60 international conferences, workshops, and numerous seminars and colloquia. Support E-Mail: qls ictp. Address: via Grignano, 9 I - Trieste Italy. Secretary: Pandora Malchose.
Dear readers! Our articles talk about typical ways to resolve Production building instruments for physical research, but each case is unique.
If you want to know, how to solve your particular problem - contact the online consultant form on the right or call the numbers on the website. It is fast and free!
- Looking for other ways to read this?
- Science & Instruments
- Stringed instrument
- Structure of physics laboratory
- Scientific Calendar
- Digitalisation and Energy
- Future Factory: How Technology Is Transforming Manufacturing
- UK announces £220m to design a ‘commercially viable’ fusion power plant
Looking for other ways to read this?
Not a MyNAP member yet? Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks. Until the past decade, scientists, research institutions, and government agencies relied solely on a system of self-regulation based on shared ethical principles and generally accepted research practices to ensure integrity in the research process. Among the very basic principles that guide scientists, as well as many other scholars, are those expressed as respect for the integrity of knowledge, collegiality, honesty, objectivity, and openness.
These principles are at work in the fundamental elements of the scientific method, such as formulating a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, and collecting and interpreting data. In addition, more particular principles characteristic of specific scientific disciplines influence the methods of observation; the acquisition, storage, management, and sharing of data; the communication of scientific knowledge and information; and the training of younger scientists.
The basic and particular principles that guide scientific research practices exist primarily in an unwritten code of ethics. Although some have proposed that these principles should be written down and formalized, 2 the principles and traditions of science are, for the most part, conveyed to successive generations of scientists through example, discussion, and informal education.
As was pointed out in an early Academy report on responsible conduct of research in the. Physicist Richard Feynman invoked the informal approach to communicating the basic principles of science in his commencement address at the California Institute of Technology Feynman, :.
It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it.
If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution, not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
Many scholars have noted the implicit nature and informal character of the processes that often guide scientific research practices and inference. Even in a revolutionary scientific field like molecular biology, students and trainees have learned the basic principles governing judgments made in such standardized procedures as cloning a new gene and determining its sequence. In evaluating practices that guide research endeavors, it is important to consider the individual character of scientific fields.
Research fields that yield highly replicable results, such as ordinary organic chemical structures, are quite different from fields such as cellular immunology, which are in a much earlier stage of development and accumulate much erroneous or uninterpretable material before the pieces fit together coherently.
When a research field is too new or too fragmented to support consensual paradigms or established methods, different scientific practices can emerge. In broadest terms, scientists seek a systematic organization of knowledge about the universe and its parts.
This knowledge is based on explanatory principles whose verifiable consequences can be tested by independent observers. Science encompasses a large body of evidence collected by repeated observations and experiments. Although its goal is to approach true explanations as closely as possible, its investigators claim no final or permanent explanatory truths. Science changes.
It evolves. Verifiable facts always take precedence. Scientists operate within a system designed for continuous testing, where corrections and new findings are announced in refereed scientific publications. The task of systematizing and extending the understanding of the universe is advanced by eliminating disproved ideas and by formulating new tests of others until one emerges as the most probable explanation for any given observed phenomenon.
This is called the scientific method. An idea that has not yet been sufficiently tested is called a hypothesis. Different hypotheses are sometimes advanced to explain the same factual evidence.
Rigor in the testing of hypotheses is the heart of science, if no verifiable tests can be formulated, the idea is called an ad hoc hypothesis—one that is not fruitful; such hypotheses fail to stimulate research and are unlikely to advance scientific knowledge. A fruitful hypothesis may develop into a theory after substantial observational or experimental support has accumulated.
When a hypothesis has survived repeated opportunities for disproof and when competing hypotheses have been eliminated as a result of failure to produce the predicted consequences, that hypothesis may become the accepted theory explaining the original facts. Scientific theories are also predictive. They allow us to anticipate yet unknown phenomena and thus to focus research on more narrowly defined areas.
If the results of testing agree with predictions from a theory, the theory is provisionally corroborated. If not, it is proved false and must be either abandoned or modified to account for the inconsistency. Scientific theories, therefore, are accepted only provisionally. It is always possible that a theory that has withstood previous testing may eventually be disproved. But as theories survive more tests, they are regarded with higher levels of confidence. In science, then, facts are determined by observation or measurement of natural or experimental phenomena.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of those facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has gained wide acceptance because it has survived rigorous investigation of its predictions. Examples of events changing scientific thought are legion.
Truly scientific understanding cannot be attained or even pursued effectively when explanations not derived from or tested by the scientific method are accepted. A well-established discipline can also experience profound changes during periods of new conceptual insights.
In these moments, when scientists must cope with shifting concepts, the matter of what counts as scientific evidence can be subject to dispute. Historian Jan Sapp has described the complex interplay between theory and observation that characterizes the operation of scientific judgment in the selection of research data during revolutionary periods of paradigmatic shift Sapp, , p.
It is a matter of negotiation. It is learned, acquired socially; scientists make judgments about what fellow scientists might expect in order to be convincing.
What counts as good evidence may be more or less well-defined after a new discipline or specialty is formed; however, at revolutionary stages in science, when new theories and techniques are being put forward, when standards have yet to be negotiated, scientists are less certain as to what others may require of them to be deemed competent and convincing.
Explicit statements of the values and traditions that guide research practice have evolved through the disciplines and have been given in textbooks on scientific methodologies. But the responsibilities of the research community and research institutions in assuring individual compliance with scientific principles, traditions, and codes of ethics are not well defined. In recent. In all of science, but with unequal emphasis in the several disciplines, inquiry proceeds based on observation and experimentation, the exercising of informed judgment, and the development of theory.
Research practices are influenced by a variety of factors, including:. The nature of particular scientific disciplines and the traditions of organizing a specific body of scientific knowledge;. The example of individual scientists, particularly those who hold positions of authority or respect based on scientific achievements;.
The first three factors have been important in the evolution of modern science. The latter two have acquired more importance in recent times. As members of a professional group, scientists share a set of common values, aspirations, training, and work experiences.
A set of general norms are imbedded in the methods and the disciplines of science that guide individual, scientists in the organization and performance of their research efforts and that also provide a basis for nonscientists to understand and evaluate the performance of scientists.
But there is uncertainty about the extent to which individual scientists adhere to such norms. Most social scientists conclude that all behavior is influenced to some degree by norms that reflect socially or morally supported patterns of preference when alternative courses of action are possible. However, perfect conformity with any rele-. The strength of these influences, and the circumstances that may affect them, are not well understood.
In a classic statement of the importance of scientific norms, Robert Merton specified four norms as essential for the effective functioning of science: communism by which Merton meant the communal sharing of ideas and findings , universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism Merton, Neither Merton nor other sociologists of science have provided solid empirical evidence for the degree of influence of these norms in a representative sample of scientists.
And the British physicist and sociologist of science John Ziman, in an article synthesizing critiques of Merton's formulation, has specified a set of structural factors in the bureaucratic and corporate research environment that impede the realization of that particular set of norms: the proprietary nature of research, the local importance and funding of research, the authoritarian role of the research manager, commissioned research, and the required expertise in understanding how to use modern instruments Ziman, It is clear that the specific influence of norms on the development of scientific research practices is simply not known and that further study of key determinants is required, both theoretically and empirically.
Commonsense views, ideologies, and anecdotes will not support a conclusive appraisal. Science comprises individual disciplines that reflect historical developments and the organization of natural and social phenomena for study.
Social scientists may have methods for recording research data that differ from the methods of biologists, and scientists who depend on complex instrumentation may have authorship practices different from those of scientists who work in small groups or carry out field studies. Even within a discipline, experimentalists engage in research practices that differ from the procedures followed by theorists.
The disciplines have traditionally provided the vital connections between scientific knowledge and its social organization. Scientific societies and scientific journals, some of which have tens of thousands of members and readers, and the peer review processes used by journals and research sponsors are visible forms of the social organization of the disciplines. The power of the disciplines to shape research practices and standards is derived from their ability to provide a common frame of reference in evaluating the significance of new discoveries and theories in science.
The disciplines' abilities to influence research standards are affected by the subjective quality of peer review and the extent to which factors other than disciplinary quality may affect judgments about scientific achievements. Disciplinary departments rely primarily on informal social and professional controls to promote responsible behavior and to penalize deviant behavior.
These controls, such as social ostracism, the denial of letters of support for future employment, and the withholding of research resources, can deter and penalize unprofessional behavior within research institutions. Many scientific societies representing individual disciplines have adopted explicit standards in the form of codes of ethics or guidelines governing, for example, the editorial practices of their journals and other publications.
In the past decade, the societies' codes of ethics—which historically have been exhortations to uphold high standards of professional behavior —have incorporated specific guidelines relevant to authorship practices, data management, training and mentoring, conflict of interest, reporting research findings, treatment of confidential or proprietary information, and addressing error or misconduct. The methods by which individual scientists and students are socialized in the principles and traditions of science are poorly understood.
The principles of science and the practices of the disciplines are transmitted by scientists in classroom settings and, perhaps more importantly, in research groups and teams.
The social setting of the research group is a strong and valuable characteristic of American science and education. The dynamics of research groups can foster —or inhibit—innovation, creativity, education, and collaboration. One author of a historical study of research groups in the chemical and biochemical sciences has observed that the laboratory director or group leader is the primary determinant of a group's practices Fruton, Individuals in positions of authority are visible and are also influential in determining funding and other support for the career paths of their associates and students.
Research directors and department chairs, by virtue of personal example, thus can reinforce, or weaken, the power of disciplinary standards and scientific norms to affect research practices. To the extent that the behavior of senior scientists conforms with general expectations for appropriate scientific and disciplinary practice, the research system is coherent and mutually reinforcing.
When the behavior of research directors or department chairs diverges from expectations for good practice, however, the expected norms of science become ambiguous, and their effects are thus weakened. Thus personal example and the perceived behavior of role models and leaders in the research community can be powerful stimuli in shaping the research practices of colleagues, associates, and students.
The role of individuals in influencing research practices can vary by research field, institution, or time. The standards and expectations for behavior exemplified by scientists who are highly regarded for their technical competence or creative insight may have greater influence than the standards of others. Individual and group behaviors may also be more influential in times of uncertainty and change in science, especially when new scientific theories, paradigms, or institutional relationships are being established.
Universities, independent institutes, and government and industrial research organizations create the environment in which research is done.
Science & Instruments
Musical instrument , any device for producing a musical sound. The principal types of such instruments, classified by the method of producing sound, are percussion , stringed , keyboard , wind , and electronic. Musical instruments are almost universal components of human culture: archaeology has revealed pipes and whistles in the Paleolithic Period and clay drums and shell trumpets in the Neolithic Period. It has been firmly established that the ancient city cultures of Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean, India , East Asia, and the Americas all possessed diverse and well-developed assortments of musical instruments, indicating that a long previous development must have existed. As to the origin of musical instruments, however, there can be only conjecture.
Students get knowledge of underlying physical principals and material science aspects of photovoltaics, technology and metrology of solar modules, equipment, design, and maintenance of solar power plants. Program presentation. The main characteristic of human activity at the beginning of the XXI century is a rapid growth of energy consumption. As one of the most promising environment-friendly renewable energy sources should be recognized solar energy which provides direct conversion of the solar energy into electrical energy.
While this may sound like science fiction, these kinds of factories have been a reality for more than 15 years. To imagine a world where robots do all the physical work, one simply needs to look at the most ambitious and technology-laden factories of today. In June , the Chinese e-commerce giant JD. Without robots, it would take as many as workers to fully staff this 40K square foot warehouse — instead, the factory requires only five technicians to service the machines and keep them working. To answer this, we took a deep dive into 8 different steps of the manufacturing process, to see how they are starting to change:. Despite representing The timelines and technologies will vary by sector, but most steps in nearly every vertical will see improvement. From drug production to industrial design, the planning stage is crucial for mass-production.
Structure of physics laboratory
Musical instrument , any device for producing a musical sound. The principal types of such instruments, classified by the method of producing sound, are percussion , stringed , keyboard , wind , and electronic. Musical instruments are almost universal components of human culture: archaeology has revealed pipes and whistles in the Paleolithic Period and clay drums and shell trumpets in the Neolithic Period. It has been firmly established that the ancient city cultures of Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean, India , East Asia, and the Americas all possessed diverse and well-developed assortments of musical instruments, indicating that a long previous development must have existed.
The programme focuses on strengthening indigenous capability for research, design, development and production of instruments in the country leading to fulfillment of the following objectives: Programmes to support and sustain development and production of indigenous and affordable instruments are evolved and supported under the IDP. The following types of activities are evolved and supported under IDP:.
United States. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Tuesday February 7SEE VIDEO BY TOPIC: The Physics of Music: Crash Course Physics #19
AEC Authorizing Legislation, Fiscal Year Biology and medicine; isotopes development; communities; training, education, and information; security; program direction and administration; physical research; Plowshare. United States. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Justification data for the physical research program. Recent achievements in the high energy physics program.
Digitalisation and Energy
The staggering range of science areas that will benefit from ESS is highlighted, with examples of the current science being done with neutrons. The development of the European Spallation Source is driven by the research needs of the European scientific community. Each instrument is unique, optimised for obtaining particular kinds of scientific data. It is based in Copenhagen, Denmark. The Instrument Technologies Division provides the technological tools required for the design, construction and operation of the neutron instruments at ESS.
Biology and medicine; training, education, and information; Plowshare; isotopes development; physical research; communities; and AEC administrative programs. United States. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Subcommittee on Legislation.
Thank you for registering with Physics World If you'd like to change your details at any time, please visit My account. The design effort — led by the CCFE — will involve over people and be complete in Nuclear fusion has the potential to be an unlimited clean, safe and carbon-free energy source and we want the first commercially viable machine to be in the UK. Built in , JET is designed to study the conditions approaching those in a fusion power plant and is the only device that can use a deuterium-tritium fuel mix of the kind that will be used for commercial fusion power.
Future Factory: How Technology Is Transforming Manufacturing
Digital technologies are everywhere, affecting the way we live, work, travel and play. Digitalisation is helping improve the safety, productivity, accessibility and sustainability of energy systems around the world. But it is also raising new security and privacy risks, while disrupting markets, businesses and workers.
Not a MyNAP member yet? Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks. Until the past decade, scientists, research institutions, and government agencies relied solely on a system of self-regulation based on shared ethical principles and generally accepted research practices to ensure integrity in the research process. Among the very basic principles that guide scientists, as well as many other scholars, are those expressed as respect for the integrity of knowledge, collegiality, honesty, objectivity, and openness. These principles are at work in the fundamental elements of the scientific method, such as formulating a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, and collecting and interpreting data.
UK announces £220m to design a ‘commercially viable’ fusion power plant
Physics at ANU represents Australia's largest university based research and teaching activity in the physics discipline. The Research School of Physics performs research at the cutting edge of a wide range of disciplines. Dr Anton Wallner. Associate Professor Stephen Madden. Dr Joshua Machacek.
Два человека…. И вот Халохот уже за спиной жертвы. Как танцор, повторяющий отточенные движения, он взял чуть вправо, положил руку на плечо человеку в пиджаке цвета хаки, прицелился и… выстрелил. Раздались два приглушенных хлопка.