Search Results for light microscope

Fig. 10 Schematic of the light path through a light microscope in polarized light. (The lambda plate, No. 6a, is another term for a sensitive tint plate, an optional accessory.) Courtesy of the Carl Zeiss Co. More

Fig. 1 Comparison of light microscope (top row) and scanning electron microscope (bottom row) fractographs showing the intergranular fracture appearance of an experimental nickel-base precipitation-hardenable alloy rising-load test specimen that was tested in pure water at 95 °C (200 °F). All More

Fig. 7 Comparison of light microscope (top row) and scanning electron microscope (bottom row) fractographs showing the intergranular fracture appearance of an experimental nickel-base precipitation-hardenable alloy rising-load test specimen that was tested in pure water at 95 °C (200 °F). All More

Fig. 1 Light paths in (a) an upright incident-light microscope and (b) an inverted incident-light microscope More

Fig. 1 Schematic of the light path in an upright light microscope. Courtesy of the Carl Zeiss Co. More

Fig. 5 Schematic of the light path through a light microscope in bright-field illumination. Courtesy of the Carl Zeiss Co. More

Fig. 30 Schematic of the light path through a light microscope in dark-field illumination, which detects the scattered light. Courtesy of the Carl Zeiss Co. More

Fig. 34 Schematic of the light path through a light microscope in Nomarski DIC, which uses polarized light (the lambda plate, No. 7a, is another term for a sensitive tint plate, an optional accessory). Courtesy of the Carl Zeiss Co. More

Fig. 1 Comparison of dark-field light microscope fractograph (a) and an SEM secondary electron image (b) of the same area in an iron-chromium-aluminum alloy. Both 50× More

Fig. 2 Comparison of light microscope and SEM fractographs of the same area of an iron-chromium-aluminum alloy. (a) Bright-field light fractograph. (b) Dark-field light fractograph. (c) SEM secondary electron image. All 50× More

Fig. 3 Comparison of light microscope (a and b) and SEM (c and d) fractographs of cleavage of faces in a coarse-grain Fe-2.5Si alloy broken at −195 °C (−320 °F). (a) Bright-field illumination. (b) Dark-field illumination. (c) Secondary electron image. (d) Everhart-Thornley backscattered More

Fig. 4 Comparison of light microscope (a and b) and SEM (c and d) fractographs of cleavage facets in a coarse-grain Fe-2.5Si alloy impact specimen broken at −195 °C (−320 °F). (a) Bright-field illumination. (b) Dark-field illumination. (c) Secondary electron image. (d) Everhart-Thornley More

Fig. 5 Comparison of light microscope (a and b) and SEM (c and d) fractographs of cleavage facets in a coarse-grain Fe-2.5Si alloy impact specimen broken at −195 °C (−320 °F). (a) Bright-field illumination. (b) Dark-filled illumination. (c) Secondary electron image. (d) Secondary electron More

Fig. 6 Comparison of light microscope (a and b) and SEM (c and d) fractographs of the interface between the fatigue-precracked region and the test fracture in an X-750 nickel-base superalloy rising-load test specimen. The test was performed in pure water at 95 °C (200 °F). Note More

Fig. 7 Light microscope fractographs of the fatigue-precracked region of an alloy X-750 rising load test specimen. (a) Bright-field image. (b) Dark-field image. (c) Bright-field image. (d) Dark-field image. (a) and (b) 60×. (c) and (d) 240×. More

Fig. 9 Comparison of light microscope (a and b) and SEM (c and d) fractographs of the test fracture in an alloy X-750 rising-load test specimen. Test was performed in pure water at 95 °C (200 °F). Note the intergranular appearance of the fracture. (a) Bright-field image. (b) Dark-field image More

Fig. 10 Comparison of light microscope (a and b) and SEM (c) images of the interface between the fatigue-precrack area (left) and the test fracture region (right) of an alloy X-750 rising-load test specimen broken in air. The test fracture is ductile. (a) Bright-field image. (b) Dark-field More

Fig. 11 Comparison of light microscope (a and b) and SEM (c) images of a ductile fracture in an alloy X-750 rising-load test specimen broken in air. (a) Bright-field image. (b) Dark-field image. (c) Secondary electron image. All 240× More

Fig. 9 Low-power light microscope view of a “rock candy” fracture in a tensile specimen taken from a cast steel that had aluminum nitrides segregated to the grain boundaries More

Fig. 2 Light microscope fractographs taken with (a) bright-field and (b) dark-field illumination compared to (c) a SEM secondary-electron image fractograph of the same area. Sample is an Fe-Al-Cr alloy. More