Dr. Max Fomitchev-Zamilov

Because they never do. And in the case of metrology, there are metrological standards. And that was the first thing that I did when we started this. I said, Matt, we need this metrological standard, because I don't care what instrument it is and what the lab is telling about themselves. I want to see a scan of a metrological standard.

because that skin tells us two things, that the instrument is working, that's one thing, and it's also like a golden case to validate the analysis technique. Because if I take that scan, and this metrological standard is a bead, it was a ruby bead, I think two millimeters diameter or something like that, so rather small, but it was scanned and I was given, you know, this STL file.

because that skin tells us two things, that the instrument is working, that's one thing, and it's also like a golden case to validate the analysis technique. Because if I take that scan, and this metrological standard is a bead, it was a ruby bead, I think two millimeters diameter or something like that, so rather small, but it was scanned and I was given, you know, this STL file.

because that skin tells us two things, that the instrument is working, that's one thing, and it's also like a golden case to validate the analysis technique. Because if I take that scan, and this metrological standard is a bead, it was a ruby bead, I think two millimeters diameter or something like that, so rather small, but it was scanned and I was given, you know, this STL file.

So I crunched that file through the same algorithm, I crunched the vases, and I wanted to see, you know, am I going to recover the stated diameter of the bead? you know, which I did. And when I recover it, you know, what will be, you know, the difference between what I get and what was on the calibration certificate, and what was the actual measurement.

So I crunched that file through the same algorithm, I crunched the vases, and I wanted to see, you know, am I going to recover the stated diameter of the bead? you know, which I did. And when I recover it, you know, what will be, you know, the difference between what I get and what was on the calibration certificate, and what was the actual measurement.

So I crunched that file through the same algorithm, I crunched the vases, and I wanted to see, you know, am I going to recover the stated diameter of the bead? you know, which I did. And when I recover it, you know, what will be, you know, the difference between what I get and what was on the calibration certificate, and what was the actual measurement.

And all of that, you know, matched within the declared tolerances. And I, you know, disclosed that in the paper. You know, there was some deviation, and I used that deviation, saying, okay, well, this is the limit of the resolving ability, which was worse than what the instrument could do, but That's the algorithm.

And all of that, you know, matched within the declared tolerances. And I, you know, disclosed that in the paper. You know, there was some deviation, and I used that deviation, saying, okay, well, this is the limit of the resolving ability, which was worse than what the instrument could do, but That's the algorithm.

And all of that, you know, matched within the declared tolerances. And I, you know, disclosed that in the paper. You know, there was some deviation, and I used that deviation, saying, okay, well, this is the limit of the resolving ability, which was worse than what the instrument could do, but That's the algorithm.

You crunch numbers, and there are rounding errors, and all of that adds up, and you lose some precision. But without that standard, I didn't know if the instrument worked, and I didn't know if my method worked. Because at the end of the day, you crunch your numbers long enough, all of those rounding errors add up, and you entirely lose definition. You entirely lose resolution.

You crunch numbers, and there are rounding errors, and all of that adds up, and you lose some precision. But without that standard, I didn't know if the instrument worked, and I didn't know if my method worked. Because at the end of the day, you crunch your numbers long enough, all of those rounding errors add up, and you entirely lose definition. You entirely lose resolution.

You crunch numbers, and there are rounding errors, and all of that adds up, and you lose some precision. But without that standard, I didn't know if the instrument worked, and I didn't know if my method worked. Because at the end of the day, you crunch your numbers long enough, all of those rounding errors add up, and you entirely lose definition. You entirely lose resolution.

So you take a vase, you scan it, So I don't know how precise it is. So what you need to do, you need to scan a metrological standard, you know, then scan the VAs, and then scan metrological standards periodically, you know, to make sure that, you know, your thing stays in calibration. And that was, you know, one of the things I discovered in some of the scans.

So you take a vase, you scan it, So I don't know how precise it is. So what you need to do, you need to scan a metrological standard, you know, then scan the VAs, and then scan metrological standards periodically, you know, to make sure that, you know, your thing stays in calibration. And that was, you know, one of the things I discovered in some of the scans.

So you take a vase, you scan it, So I don't know how precise it is. So what you need to do, you need to scan a metrological standard, you know, then scan the VAs, and then scan metrological standards periodically, you know, to make sure that, you know, your thing stays in calibration. And that was, you know, one of the things I discovered in some of the scans.

Some of the CAT scans had artifacts in them, looked like ripples. And, you know, when I look at it, I don't know whether it's like a genuine feature of the object, or whether it's like aliasing. You know, we're all familiar with aliasing. You know, when you watch a video, it becomes grainy, so that's aliasing. So was it aliasing, or was it something else?

Some of the CAT scans had artifacts in them, looked like ripples. And, you know, when I look at it, I don't know whether it's like a genuine feature of the object, or whether it's like aliasing. You know, we're all familiar with aliasing. You know, when you watch a video, it becomes grainy, so that's aliasing. So was it aliasing, or was it something else?

Some of the CAT scans had artifacts in them, looked like ripples. And, you know, when I look at it, I don't know whether it's like a genuine feature of the object, or whether it's like aliasing. You know, we're all familiar with aliasing. You know, when you watch a video, it becomes grainy, so that's aliasing. So was it aliasing, or was it something else?

So I talked to the technician, and yeah, sure enough, it was, you know, one of those things. It wasn't a genuine feature, it was an artifact. But, you know, because the... It was.