[In Backpages 18.1] The culture of new writing

The influence of writing workshops on the content of plays is discussed.

Comparisons between “sand blast” and “centripetal effect accelerator” type erosion testers

There are two major types of erosion testing devices that are used throughout the world for quantifying particle impact erosion against a solid surface. The first of these uses pressurised air to accelerate abrasive particles through a nozzle so that they impinge upon a target specimen. The second adopts a rotating disc to accelerate abrasive particles using the centripetal effect so that they impinge upon a series of targets arranged around the periphery of the disc. This paper reports the findings of a collaborative project that was designed to compare the performance and results obtained from a rig of each of the two types mentioned above. The sand blast type rig was provided by The Department of Powder Science Technology (POSTEC) at The Telemark Technological Research and Development Centre (TEL-TEK), Porsgrunn, Norway while the centripetal effect accelerator was provided by The Wolfson Centre for Bulk Solids Handling Technology, University of Greenwich, London, UK. The test programme included tests against a wide range of materials that are commonly used in pneumatic handling facilities. (Pneumatic handling is a means of conveying and transporting powders and granular solid materials in bulk in industrial process plant, through pipelines using a gas as the carrier medium.) Olivine sand was used as the abrasive and it was projected against the test specimens at velocities and concentrations commensurate with those seen in pneumatic conveyors. In all instances the materials used in the test programme were taken from the same batch so that scatter of experimental results due to specimen variation was minimised. The paper contains a series of recommendations for erosion testing equipment. A discussion based on the results and their applicability to the prediction of wear in pneumatic conveyors concludes the paper.

Elemental analysis of soil samples for forensic purposes by inductively coupled plasma spectrometry - precision considerations

Major and trace elemental composition provides a powerful basis for forensic comparison of soils, sediments and rocks. However, it is important that the potential 'errors' associated with the procedures are fully understood and quantified, and that standard protocols are applied for sample preparation and analysis. This paper describes such a standard procedure and reports results both for instrumental measurement precision (repeatability) and overall 'method' precision (reproducibility). Results obtained both for certified reference materials and example soils show that the instrumental measurement precision (defined by the coefficient of variation, CV) for most elements is better than 2-3%. When different solutions were prepared from the same sample powder, and from different sub-sample powders prepared from the same parent sample, the CV increased to c. 5-6% for many elements. The largest variation was found in results for certified reference materials generated from 23 instrument runs over an 18 month period (mean CV=c. 11%). Some elements were more variable than others. W was found to be the most variable and the elements V, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni and Pb also showed higher than average variability. SiO2, CaO, Al2O3 and Fe2O3, Rb, Sr, La, Ce, Nd and Sm generally showed lower than average variability, and therefore provided the most reliable basis for inter-sample comparison. It is recommended that, whenever possible, samples relating to the same investigation should be analysed in the same sample run, or at least sequential runs.