The strength of fiber is usually measured in bundle form because there is better correlation between fiber bundle strength and \(\underline{\hspace{2cm}}\)
Step 1: Understand the question. It asks why we test the strength of staple fibers (like cotton) in a bundle (e.g., using a Stelometer or HVI) rather than testing single fibers individually. The reason given is that the bundle strength correlates well with another important property.
Step 2: Analyze the structure of a staple yarn. A staple yarn derives its strength from thousands of individual fibers being twisted together. The strength of the yarn depends not just on the strength of the individual fibers, but also on how they are assembled, their length, fineness, and how they grip each other.
Step 3: Compare single fiber vs. bundle strength tests. Testing single fibers is slow and gives highly variable results. A fiber bundle test, on the other hand, averages out the properties of many fibers at once. This test simulates more closely how the fibers act together within a yarn structure. It has been shown through extensive research and practice that the strength measured from a fiber bundle is a very good predictor of the strength of the yarn that can be spun from those fibers.
Conclusion: Fiber bundle strength is measured because it provides a strong and reliable correlation with the final yarn strength.
Match Fibre with Application.\[\begin{array}{|l|l|} \hline \textbf{LIST I} & \textbf{LIST II} \\ \textbf{Fibre} & \textbf{Application} \\ \hline \hline \text{A. Silk fibre} & \text{I. Fire retardant} \\ \hline \text{B. Wool fibre} & \text{II. Directional lustre} \\ \hline \text{C. Nomex fibre} & \text{III. Bulletproof} \\ \hline \text{D. Kevlar fibre} & \text{IV. Thermal insulation} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
Match the LIST-I (Spectroscopy) with LIST-II (Application)
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Visible light spectroscopy | III. Identification on the basis of color |
B. Fluorescence spectroscopy | IV. Identification on the basis of fluorophore present |
C. FTIR spectroscopy | I. Identification on the basis of absorption in infrared region |
D. Mass Spectroscopy | II. Identification on the basis of m/z ion |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Forensic Psychiatry | III. Behavioural pattern of criminal |
B. Forensic Engineering | IV. Origin of metallic fracture |
C. Forensic Odontology | I. Bite marks analysis |
D. Computer Forensics | II. Information derived from digital devices |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Calvin Goddard | II. Forensic Ballistics |
B. Karl Landsteiner | III. Blood Grouping |
C. Albert Osborn | IV. Document examination |
D. Mathieu Orfila | I. Forensic Toxicology |
Match the LIST-I (Evidence, etc.) with LIST-II (Example, Construction etc.)
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Biological evidence | IV. Blood |
B. Latent print evidence | III. Fingerprints |
C. Trace evidence | II. Soil |
D. Digital evidence | I. Cell phone records |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Ridges | III. The raised portion of the friction skin of the fingers |
B. Type Lines | I. Two most inner ridges which start parallel, diverge and surround or tend to surround the pattern area |
C. Delta | IV. The ridge characteristics nearest to the point of divergence of type lines |
D. Enclosure | II. A single ridge bifurcates and reunites to enclose some space |