Science desk
< July 28	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 29

Orbital tumo(u)r

Do we have an article that covers orbital tumo(u)rs? Orbital tumor and Orbital tumour are both redlinks. I found a reference in the Walter Dandy article, amid a paragraph of anatomical references that were all unlinked, so I linked them and found that this one apparently had no article. Google found me [1], which seems to say that the term indicates any kind of tumor that appears in the vicinity of the eye, but eye tumor and ocular tumor (and the "tumour" variants) are all redlinks. Finally, the article notes that many orbital tumors are cavernous hemangiomata, but our article about them doesn't mention the eye in particular, noting rather that cavernous hemangiomata can appear anywhere in the body. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have eye neoplasm and various articles linked from there. Only a few of those linked articles are specifically about the eye, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably create redirects to the above mentioned eye neoplasms article. Ruslik_Zero 05:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non destructive testing

Hi, Is there any proven method available for measuring case depth ( Range - 6-7.5 mm ) for alloy steels thro Non destructive testing method.

Courtesy link: Case hardening. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt there is a non–destructive method. Dolphin (t) 08:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four-point ACPD (alternating current potential drop) is a promising technique for distinguishing between different depths of case hardening see Assessment of depth of case-hardening in steel rods by electromagnetic methods. DroneB (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot would depend on what you're making, and whether it's the same thing in a production process. There are plenty of techniques to measure this, mostly magnetic (the permeability of the soft and hardened materials will be slightly and measurably different), but can they be calibrated to the accuracy needed? If you're making thousands of them, and a few can be sacrificed for destructive testing afterwards, then you may be able to develop and calibrate a method for doing so, when applied to a particular workpiece. If, however, you were a case-hardening shop looking for a means to measure case depth on any workpiece which someone brought in, that's a lot harder - and likely to be no more accurate than estimating the depth achieved just by knowing the process and its duration. If you're testing the middle of a large sheet, maybe a bit easier. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]