2013
DOI: 10.1007/s12647-013-0060-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Uncertainty Estimation for Performance Evaluation of a Confocal Microscope as Metrology Equipment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The critical importance of addressing uncertainty in scientific measurements have been discussed at length by various researchers [31][32][33]. Uncertainties in validation of this model might originate from: (1) Rooms were made airtight by tightly closing doors and windows and blocking visible gaps under doors and windows etc., but engineered leak-proofing techniques was not followed, (2) operation of ceiling/pedestal fans may not guarantee perfect homogeneous mixing of indoor CO 2 , (3) CO 2 detectors have certain accuracy levels and hence have inherent uncertainty in measurements.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The critical importance of addressing uncertainty in scientific measurements have been discussed at length by various researchers [31][32][33]. Uncertainties in validation of this model might originate from: (1) Rooms were made airtight by tightly closing doors and windows and blocking visible gaps under doors and windows etc., but engineered leak-proofing techniques was not followed, (2) operation of ceiling/pedestal fans may not guarantee perfect homogeneous mixing of indoor CO 2 , (3) CO 2 detectors have certain accuracy levels and hence have inherent uncertainty in measurements.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are different metrological models for this calibration [35,57]. This study used the following mathematical model to correct for the roughness parameters:Sparameterc=C(Sparameterm+δSparameternoise+δSparameterlight+δSparametertilt) where Sparameterc represents the corrected roughness parameter, C is the Z-axis calibration coefficient, Sparameterm is the measured roughness parameter taking into account the measurement repeatability, δSparameternoise takes the noise in the measurements into account (from the instrument and environment) and δSparameternoise and δSparametertilt take the measurement reproducibility into account after changing the measurement conditions (different sample illumination and tilt, respectively).…”
Section: Roughness Parameters Calculation Model: Assurance Of Tracmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of this type of standard allows comparison of the measured value with the certified value of a step-height standard, which gives an indication of how well the instrument can make measurements of the difference in height of nominally flat areas. The use of step standards is common in many scientific works [33,34,35]. In particular, the work developed by Seppä et al [36] employs a step standard to determine the scale factor associated with the Z-axis, as well as the linearity thereof, so that a behavior equation of the scale factor calculated through a polynomial of 3 degrees is determined.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the literature, it is possible to find several procedures for this calibration. Following the studies of de Vicente et al [30] and Guarneros et al [31], it is possible to calibrate X and Y scales and estimate their perpendicularity error by making measurements of a stage micrometer in four positions ( Figure 5). For this calibration, the authors recommend using the RMS flatness deviation, because it is more statistically stable than the total flatness deviation.…”
Section: Xy Plane Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%