Advanced refractory alloy corrosion loop program Quarterly progress report, 15 Jul. - 15 Oct. 1966
Materials evaluation for refractory alloy corrosion loop program
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Materials evaluation for refractory alloy corrosion loop program
Thermodynamic properties of interstitial elements in refractory metals
Long-time creep data on refractory metal alloys for advanced space power systems
Fibering of oxides in refractory metal matrices
Growth parameters for refractory carbide single crystals
Heat treatment and inspection of refractory alloys, tubing and component fabrication, and lithium purification system for corrosion loop
Chemical and X-ray phase determinations of relationship of microhardness and microbrittleness of powdered refractory compounds with electron structure
Iridium-molybdenum diffusion for protective coatings on refractory metals
Feasibility studies for growing refractory metal carbides single crystals from melts and liquid solutions
Predicted high temperature vapor pressure data for refractory materials with low thermal absorption cross sections
Refractory metal alloys rating on basis of weldability emphasizing metallurgical considerations, taking into account process control and welding as thermal process
Refractory metals and metal alloys analyzed regarding electron work function and threshold temperature for surface ionization in all-metal guard ring diode with directly heated wire
Refractory glass fibers composition, fiber forming characteristics, construction and operation
Refractory metal alloys tested in ultrahigh vacuum, measuring creep extension
Cesium ion emission patterns from rear-fed porous refractory metals studied by thermal emission microscope
Stress-rupture properties of composites containing refractory metal fibers and nickel alloys evaluated at high temperatures
The purpose of this paper was to provide insight into the nature of response selection by reviewing the literature on stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects and the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect individually and jointly. The empirical findings and theoretical explanations of SRC effects that have been studied within a single-task context suggest that there are two response-selection routes-automatic activation and intentional translation. In contrast, all major PRP models reviewed in this paper have treated response selection as a single processing stage. In particular, the response-selection bottleneck (RSB) model assumes that the processing of Task 1 and Task 2 comprises two separate streams and that the PRP effect is due to a bottleneck located at response selection. Yet, considerable evidence from studies of SRC in the PRP paradigm shows that the processing of the two tasks is more interactive than is suggested by the RSB model and by most other models of the PRP effect. The major implication drawn from the studies of SRC effects in the PRP context is that response activation is a distinct process from final response selection. Response activation is based on both long-term and short-term task-defined S-R associations and occurs automatically and in parallel for the two tasks. The final response selection is an intentional act required even for highly compatible and practiced tasks and is restricted to processing one task at a time. Investigations of SRC effects and response-selection variables in dual-task contexts should be conducted more systematically because they provide significant insight into the nature of response-selection mechanisms.
Four experiments examined whether the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect can be eliminated with ideomotor compatible (IM) but not stimulus-response compatible (SR) tasks, as reported by A. G. Greenwald and H. G. Shulman (1973). Their tasks were used: a left or right movement to a left- or right-pointing arrow (IM) or to the word left or right (SR) for Task 1; saying "A" or "B" (IM) or "1" or "2" (SR) to an auditory A or B for Task 2. The stimulus onset asynchronies were 0, 100, 200, 300, 500, and 1,000 ms in Experiment 1, and only 0, 100, 200, and 1,000 ms in Experiments 2-4. The arrow was in the center of the screen in Experiments 1-3 and to the left or right in Experiment 4. As in Greenwald and Shulman's Experiment 2, the instructions stated that most often the 2 stimuli would be presented simultaneously. A PRP effect was obtained in all conditions, most likely because response-selection decisions are required even for IM tasks.