Calibrating Instruments?
820072
For the first explosion, the times to reach the detectors are\n\nT1A = 700/V\nT1B = 300/V\n\nwhere T1A is the time to detector A, T1B is the time to detector B, V is the speed of the sound, and the 700 and 300 represent the distances between the explosion and the detectors.\n\nFor the second explosion, the times are then\n\nT2A = LA/V\nT2B = LB/V\n\nwhere T2A and T2B are the times to reach the respective detectors, V is the speed of the sound, and LA and LB are the distances to the detectors. LB is due north of detector B, and LA is the hypotenuse of the right triangle formed by LB and 1000 ft (the distance betweeen detector A and detector B). The time differences are\n\nT1A - T1B = 700/V - 300/V = 400/V\nT2A - T2B = LA/V - LB/V = sqrt(LB^2 + (1000)^2)/V - LB/V\n\nSetting the two equal to each other, the V's cancel and you get\n\n400  = sqrt(LB^2 + (1000)^2) - LB\n\nLB + 400 = sqrt(LB^2 + (1000)^2)\n\n(LB + 400)^2 = LB^2 + (1000)^2\n\nLB^2 + 800*LB + 160000 = LB^2 + 1000000\n\n800*LB = 840000\n\nLB = 1050 ft
962172
There isn't anything free, at least that's what I think.\n\n\ngo to  www.nativeinstruments.com\nThey have lots of good programs!!!!
583839
If you are planning to work for a company repairing and calibrating them--shouldn't you already know that stuff?  If not, shouldn't you be able to get that info from them?  Sounds kinda fishy to me actually lol.
638060
Use an equalizer and turn down the midrange.\n(you may have heard the phrase "cut the midrange, drop the bass" it refers to this).\n\nPlay around with it...it's not perfect but it can be done.\nAlso, try audacity\nhttp://audacity.sourceforge.net/
850628
any of several million constants used to get the fixed systems  driving robots to understand what we plug into them. For instance, the Pbasic command POT (used in all Parallax chips)requires a scale calibration depending on the resistance of the potentiometer. \n\nbasically, it's a number used by a robot
1062484
if you are asking an instrument to measure a parameter outside of its design range, then it is not possible to state with accuracy how reliable the measured value is.  Your best bet is to look at the equations for flow through an orifice and see if the pressure drop is linear, or not, or what the relation is.  You might be able to extrapolate a resaonable approximation of the true flow if it is not too far away from the 3000 value.  If the meter was reliable below 3000, the manufacturer would have stated so.
968085
Sorry, I am a novice in these matters but I think there is a site called midi.com. You can try it.
509068
The link shows how to make calculations using an abacus.  Good luck.
196090
I had to take a few of mine to a local recording studio...most of them have the technology to do it! Good luck!
313810
It may depend on the frequency or sampling rate that you want to achieve.  One possibility is to use an oscilloscope on a current sensing shunt or current sensing toroid.  This will give you a visual representation.\n\nIf you are looking for a peak current, you can use a digital multimeter with a peak hold feature, but keep in mind that you will be limited to the maximum response time of that meter.
358092
Check the Omega online catalog. They have an extensive supply of measuring devices for lab, process, and manufacturing uses. Customer service is top notch.\n\nwww.omega.com
188870
a scale or balence that uses grams
767086
a calorometer is like any test equipment and must be caliborated before use.
313072
Can be done what you need ...1- song.....2- 16 band equalizer...3 8 or 16 track recording equipment ( i prefer teac reel to reel)  first set all eq controls to the bottom of the scale then move the first position to the top of scale start the recorder volume to channel one.  and let the song play thru. repeat for all sixteen tracks you want to record moving up one spot on the eq and the reel to reel at the same time just remember to put the prev recorded controls to zero after... anyquestions e-mail me at this addy @ yahoo.com... it takes some time but it can be done have done it for a talent show and yes it is a pain in the butt.
866698
Check out this website. They discuss both direct and reverb loudness. It seems the steady-state reverb level depends on surface area and absorption coefficient while direct is 1/R^2 dependent. Unfortunately the symbols in their equations are not always defined right below the equation but they will be somewhere on the page. If you see a symbol that looks like 2 vertical sides and the top of a square, it's pi. Also they're not too careful about parentheses. One eq. you'll notice says\nWreverb = Wsource * (1 - a / Sa) but I'm betting it should be (1 - a) / Sa. (Otherwise they're using the fraction a/Sa which reduces to 1/S with 'a' irrelevant). Good luck. Maybe you'll find a more readable site.\nP.S. Of course one major effect you'll notice if your program material extends into the deep bass is a falloff of low-frequency response below about 22 Hz. From the ref., Fcutoff = c / 2 * longest dimension, should be c / (2 * longest dimension).
65382
From about 0.4 to 0.75 micrometers
436592
You'll need something which measures the amplitude and frequency of the sound waves to 'see' a difference in the noises.  You can probably calculate a trigonometric function based on one particular wave within the measurement, but it won't hold true as the sounds fluctuate at random.  Possibly, you could even program a computer to calculate a random value between set parameters to account for this fluctuation.\nI'm not a math person.  Can't help you much more than that.