Benchmarks general

Our group has completed several studies of key reactions for some relevant reactive intermediates in benzene oxidation. Barckholtz et al. examined the oxidation pathways of several aromatic species, using benzene as a benchmark. General... 

The new entrant benchmarks generally were designed to award to new entrants the amount of allowances that they would need to cover their expected emissions over the course of Phase 1. In general, the emissions factors were intended to reflect the best available technology. In some cases the benchmarks were differentiated to reflect the emissions... 

The general rule of corporate bonds is that they are priced at a spread to the government yield curve. In absolute terms, the yield spread is the difference between the yield to maturity of a corporate bond and the benchmark, generally a yield to maturity of a govermnent bond with the same maturity. Corporate bonds include a yield spread on a risk-free rate in order to compensate two main factors, liquidity premium and credit spread. The yield of a corporate bond can be assumed as the sum of parts of the elements as shown in Figure 8.1, in which the yield spread relative to a default-free bond is given by the sum of default premium (credit spread) and liquidity premium. 

Competitive benchmarking generally focuses on direct competitors within the same industry and with specific comparable business operations, or on indirect competitors in related industries (perhaps key customers or suppliers) having complementary business operations. There are often practical difficulties with sourcing information, and activities maybe limited to arm s-length comparisons. 

Competitive benchmarking generally focuses on direct competitors within the same industry and with specific comparable business operations. 

We employ the general scheme presented above as a starting point in our discussion of various approaches for handling the R-T effect in triatomic molecules. We And it reasonable to classify these approaches into three categories according to the level of sophistication at which various aspects of the problem are handled. We call them (1) minimal models (2) pragmatic models (3) benchmark treatments. The criterions for such a classification are given in Table I. 

In the past, commodity chemicals were generally priced on the basis of ROl. Capital cost was the most critical item, and those elements that ate related to capital cost were the principal factors in the selling price (excluding taw material cost in some cases). On this basis, a satisfactory ROl resulted in acceptable values for other criteria such as ROS or sales margin. Many analysts favor ROS as a benchmark for comparison because it is up to date and simple and because it is increasingly difficult to determine a tme ROl based on what profits might be on plants built under indation and expensive capital and constmction costs. 

This decreasing efficiency is a general characteristic of shared memory, shared bus computers. This example shows unusually high efficiency compared with many other programs. This may be because LINPACK is such a common benchmark that much effort has been devoted to optimising it for both vector and parallel computers. 

The target level procedure was applied to 16 common air contaminants (Table 6.19). These are common contaminants in the industrial environment, and in many cases are the most critical compounds from the viewpoint of need for control measures. The prevailing concentration data as well as the benchmark levels were taken from Nordic databases, mainly the Finnish sources, and described elsewhere.In addition, a general model for assessing target values for other contaminants is presented in the table. 

Particularly when benchmarking competitors or other third parties, it is generally helpful to offer information on your own programs. Today some companies are being asked almost daily to take part in benchmarking studies and they are questioning the benefits they receive. If you offer to share information from your own company and the others being benchmarked, it can help open the door. 

In comparison to tliese background risks of everyday activities , a lifetime risk of 1 in 100,000 is relatively small. Accordingly, regulatory action will not generally be justifiable unless risks are substantially liighcr tlian this 1 in 100,000 benchmark. ... 

Each MWD company ran a full suite of MWD/LWD logs that were compared to benchmark wireline logs obtained by averaging the wireline logs with the least standard deviation errors. The data have been analyzed in the oil and service companies [128] and at Louisiana State University (LSU) where two master of science theses were completed utilizing this data [129,130]. The general conclusions of the LSU studies are as follows ... 

The solids were used as catalysts in the benchmark cyclopropanation reaction between styrene and ethyl diazoacetate (Scheme 7). As far as the nature of the clay is concerned, laponite was foimd to be the best support for the catalytic complexes. The best enantioselectivity results (Table 7) were obtained with ligand 6b (69% ee in trans cyclopropanes and 64% ee in cis cyclopropanes) but the recovered solid showed a lower activity and enantioselectivity, which was attributed to partial loss of the chiral ligand from the support. In general, the use of the three chiral ligands led to enantioselectivity results that were intermediate between those obtained in homogeneous phase with CuCl2 and Cu(OTf)2 as catalyst precursors. This seemed to indicate that the sohd behaved as a counterion with an intermediate coordinating abihty to the copper centers. 

Schipper, P. R. T., Gritsenko, O. V., Baerends, E. J., 1999, Benchmark Calculations of Chemical Reactions in Density Functional Theory Comparison of the Accurate Kohn-Sham Solution With Generalized Gradient Approximations for the H2+H and H2+H2 Reactions , J. Chem. Phys., Ill, 4056. 

Many chiral diphosphine ligands have been evaluated with regard to inducing enantioselectivity in the course of the hydroformylation reaction [25,26]. However, a real breakthrough occurred in 1993 with the discovery of the BI-NAPHOS ligand by Takaya and Nozaki [65]. This was the first efficient and rather general catalyst for the enantioselective hydroformylation of several classes of alkenes, such as aryl alkenes, 1-heteroatom-functionalized alkenes, and substituted 1,3-dienes, and is still a benchmark in this area [66,67]. But still a major problem in this field is the simultaneous control of enantio-... 

A more general description of the effects of vibronic coupling can be made using the model Hamiltonian developed by Koppel, Domcke and Cederbaum [65], The basic idea is the same as that used in Section III.C, that is to assume a quasidiabatic representation, and to develop a Hamiltonian in this picture. It is a useful model, providing a simple yet accurate analytical expression for the coupled PES manifold, and identifying the modes essential for the non-adiabatic effects. As a result it can be used for comparing how well different dynamics methods perform for non-adiabatic systems. It has, for example, been used to perform benchmark full-dimensional (24-mode) quantum dynamics calculations... 

---