Standardized Tests

There is no 9th grade SAT. You can buy a practice book at any bookstore or order it online.

Flange Face Surface FinishThe American National Standards Institute (ANSI) code for flanges and flanged fittings (ANSI B16.5) requires that the flange face has a specific roughness to ensure that this surface be compatible with the gasket and provide a high quality seal. A serrated finish, either concentric or spiral, is required with 30 to 55 grooves per inch and a resultant roughness between 125 and 500 microinches.

This allows for various grades of surface finish to be made available by flange manufactures for the gasket contact surface of metal flanges. These grades are often referred to by name e.g. stock finish. The exact definition of each grade may differ between manufacturers, but can be generalised as follows;

The gasket contact surface is typically formed by a continuous (sometimes called phonographic) spiral groove generated by a 1.6mm radius round-nosed tool at a feed rate of 0.8mm per revolution with a depth of 0.15mm. This will result in a roughness between Ra 3.2 and 12.5 micrometers (125 - 500 microinch).

No definite tool marking should be apparent to the naked eye. This is typically achieved by having the gasket contact surface formed by a continuous (sometimes called phonographic) spiral groove generated by a 0.8mm radius round-nosed tool at a feed rate of 0.3mm per revolution with a depth of 0.05mm. This will result in a roughness between Ra 3.2 and 6.3 micrometers (125 - 250 microinch).

The finish for flanges in hydrogen service is very smooth, typically between Ra 2 and 3.2 micrometers (79 - 125 microinch).

The flange face appears as mirror like. This flange finish is usually expected to be used with metal to metal contact, i.e. without a gasket. It is seldom used in the oil, petrochem and related industries.

Flange finish is generally measured by visual and tactile means. Comparing the feel of the machined face with that of a surface finish comparator gauge, occasionally referred to as a Rupert gauge, is considered adequate.

There are two common methods of expressing roughness. They are the Arithmetic Average Roughness Height (AARH) and the Root Mean Square (RMS) Average.

Arithmetic Average Roughness Height- Calculation of the Arithmetic Average Roughness Height involves measuring the distance of the peaks and valleys and performing an arithmetic average of the measurements.

Root Mean Square Average - Calculation of the Root Mean Square Average involves measuring the distance of peaks and valleys, adding the square of these measurements and calculating the square root of the total.

The RMS value is approximately 11% higher than the AARH value.

For example, in children aged let's say 7:8 to 7:11 years, the Verbal Intelligence Index of the RIAS has a top that is way higher than the conservative figure of 160, but in adults, although the verbal part is supposed to measure ability up to about 140, as per my own psychometric researches, the RIAS appears to have a noticeable ceiling effect and shouldn't be use in persons above 120 - 125.

You can see this effect in this article: .cogn-iq.org/?p=22

Previous answer: "I am not sure but as per my research it is telling me the it is 160 score. My child is tested for rias and she got 99.9% = score 145. This might help!"

The best way to cheat on a test is:

C-come to all classes

H-hand in all homework

E-eagerly take part in class

A- assist others and answer questions

T-think twice about all you've learned and take the test without cheating!

Don't bother cheating. You'll waste more time cheating than you will studying. It's actually easier to just remember the stuff than it is to work to make up tiny writing and watching to see if the teacher is looking while you read it and eating it when they get too close them not knowing the rest of the answers anyways.

I'm year 12 full IB student this year, and if you really need help... this isn't really cheating but it helps SOOO much... look up past exam papers! I've found out that over the past ten years there are certain topics that are focussed on, so I should learn them most, and there are some topics almost completely ignored or barely touched base upon! It's excellent!

Cheating might seem like an easy way to get a good grade, but in the long run, it will hurt you. You will not actually know the material, and when you need that material in a later test or class (or job), then you will not be able to do it.

Plus, most teachers are aware of all the ways students try to cheat - they know about the tiny writing and rubber bands and cellphones! - so you will most likely be caught and punished. Some schools will expel you for cheating, then you have to repeat the grade.

In short, possibly.

Here's the problem: Gene Abel, the designer and chief proprietor of the Diana Screen claims to have developed the test by examining and studying over 100 subjects, yet none of his work on the test has been peer reviewed or published. On the surface, the test and the claims made about it are those of the solicitor of the testing material and seem to be based upon emotionality and sex-abuse fears generated and stoked by zealous media outlets.

There are no returns on academic searches for the Diana Screen. There are a number of returns on internet searches, but all seem to be clones of each other and those published by Gene Abel.

You have to ask yourself, "Should I trust the snake oil sold to me by the snake oil salesman based solely on the words of that salesman?"

If you answer yes, well then Caveat Emptor. If you answered no, then keep reading.

There has been at least one apparently objective analysis of the claims of Gene Abel (linked below). The results of that analysis were not glowing.

• "Pedophilia" is a psychological term for a very specific condition suffered by a very small group of people, between 3% and 9% of offenders (between 22,500 and 87,500, or roughly 0.006428% to 0.0001928% of the US population). Not a significantly great number.
• The term "pedophile" is colloquially (and incorrectly) used to refer to anyone convicted of a crime with a sexual component. In the US and her territories, that means roughly 750,000 registered offenders (slightly over a million for those whose crimes predated the registry and for juveniles and others who have been removed from the public registry). This compiles approximately %2 of the population of the US alone (not counting territories--so the percentage is actually lower).

• Standardized tests are largely ineffective for determining behavioral patterns for groups that share few common behavioral traits such as those convicted of crimes with sexual components. (It isn't that those so convicted do not share common traits, more that no conclusive or comprehensive studies have ever been published).
• Any standardized test can be circumvented or "foiled."
• Psychological testing is only as effective as the information gathered, and regardless of how complete the gathering process is reliant upon the interpretation and biases of the evaluator. No evaluator is competent enough to be able to take in ALL potential variants.

Education is the key to prevention, if not early detection. Children need to be taught to speak up, and be given an environment where doing so is not fraught with taboo and condescension. Crimes with a sexual component have been present in the human population for as long as there have been humans. Their prevalence or rate of commission is not on the rise. Rather, the phenomenon society is currently experiencing is more the result of heightened reporting. While this can be a good thing, it is more commonly negative (understanding of the statistics reported below will help the reader accept the facts). Can sexual assaults and other crimes be eliminated from human behavior? Not likely. But, they can be better understood, and more efficaciously addressed than is being done so now. The most important step in effectively dealing with the problem is to avoid knee-jerk, emotionally driven actions such as using a supposed, alleged psychological test to weed out those "most likely" of criminal sexual offenses.

• The average time served for conviction of a sexually based crime is 6.7 to 8 years (times vary due to federal or state convictions and incarcerations).
• 98% of those convicted of sex crimes will be released from prison.
• Less than 3% of those released will ever reoffend, and those who do will do so within 5 years of release. After five years from release, recidivism (the incidence of reoffence) is statistically nil (0).
• The only class of felon who reoffends less often than those convicted of sex crimes are murderers, and 98% of them will never be released from prison.
• Of those who reoffend, roughly 85% of those who do are those who have committed the most violent past offenses (and oddly, those convicted of public exposure, "flashers," who tend to reoffend nearly 100% of the time).
• Fully 95% of those convicted of sex crimes are first time offenders. That is they have NO past criminal history or give indications of any criminal behavior.
• Again, 80% of sex crimes involve a close relative (father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, uncle, aunt, or cousin), or a close family associate (friend or neighbor). This is a hard statistic, that is it remains constant, and has for more than 30 years.
• Homosexual offenses are no more common than heterosexual offenses, potentially even slightly less so. However, those who have committed an offense against a victim of the same gender are 20% more likely to have offended more often, and more often with multiple victims; and, are %15 more likely to reoffend than their heterosexual peers. Although this does not affect the overall less than 3% recidivism of sexual offenders.
• Crimes with a sexual component are not the exclusive venue of the under-educated, lower economic strata. The majority of offenders are college educated, many performing in professional positions.

*The link for DOJBOS is provided below, but it requires a great deal of digging to find the specific points, and may require some math skills, as percentages are not always provided. Percentages given are most commonly figured against a national population of 350 million Americans, with the exception of those figures specific to conviction, recidivism, and offense rates.

If you answered "yes" to the snake oil question above, and you have read this far, AND still choose to rely on the allegations of the salesman, well, good luck. If this got your intention and you continue to dig deeper to form your own opinions, then the answer has done its job.

One last thought: consider that those who fall victim to being pigeon-holed with no other evidence than that given by an unproven assessment purchased from an internet sight are slowly being pressed against a wall. Think about what happens when such is done with any form of life. If you offer a scared dog no avenue for escape and he bites you, whose fault is it?

Again, Caveat Emptor in all its metaphorical meanings.