Confusion limit

Nor is the confusion limited to botanical terms. The multitude of trivial chemical names in this field is again testimony to the conservatism of scientists. The classic example of how meaningless a term can become is perhaps that of the camphors, of which there must once have been at least 15— bergamot camphor, thyme camphor, cardamom camphor, and so on. Berzelius protested against this indiscriminate use in the 182O s Otto Wallach, 70 years later, persuaded his coworkers to drop the term. (It persists, however, in the trade.) The continued use of such words as limonene and citral, when more descriptive and comprehensible terms are at hand, is justified only because tradition is behind it. 

It is also essential to reach arcsecond to sub-arcsecond resolution because it will break free the confusion limit that marred the Herschel survey. Moreover, such spatial resolution would sample sub-kpc structure at any redshift ( 0.8 arcsecond at z = 1 to z = 3, and even better at z < 1). 

An example of this achievable spatial resolution is portrayed in Fig. 1.6 where a comparison with Herschel and Spitzerbeam footprints is made on a simulated JWST deep field. Here the study of single galaxies would be possible beating the current confusion limit. 

Here h(x) is the Heaviside step function with h(x > 0) = 1 and h(x > 0) = 0 (not to be confused with Planck s constant). The limit a(J.. . ) indicates that the sunnnation is restricted to channel potentials witir a given set of good quantum numbers (J.. . ). 

It was reahzed quite some decades ago that the amount of information accumulated by chemists can, in the long run, be made accessible to the scientific community only in electronic form in other words, it has to be stored in databases. This new field, which deals with the storage, the manipulation, and the processing of chemical information, was emerging without a proper name. In most cases, the scientists active in the field said they were working in "Chemical Information . However, as this term did not make a distinction between librarianship and the development of computer methods, some scientists said they were working in "Computer Chemistry to stress the importance they attributed to the use of the computer for processing chemical information. However, the latter term could easily be confused with Computational Chemistry, which is perceived by others to be more limited to theoretical quantum mechanical calculations. 

The detection limits in the table correspond generally to the concentration of an element required to give a net signal equal to three times the standard deviation of the noise (background) in accordance with lUPAC recommendations. Detection limits can be confusing when steady-state techniques such as flame atomic emission or absorption, and plasma atomic emission or fluorescence, which... 

The ability to demonstrate that two samples have different amounts of analyte is an essential part of many analyses. A method s sensitivity is a measure of its ability to establish that such differences are significant. Sensitivity is often confused with a method s detection limit. The detection limit is the smallest amount of analyte that can be determined with confidence. The detection limit, therefore, is a statistical parameter and is discussed in Chapter 4. 

The OSHA limits, regulations, and recommendations apply to in-plant air quaUty. Improperly filtered exhaust air may cause a plant to be in violation of the EPA standard, therefore these data should not be confused with the EPA limit for airborne lead, 1.5 fig lead/m, measured over a calendar quarter, which pertains to the exterior plant environment and emissions. The installation and proper maintenance of exhaust filtration systems enables most plants to comply with the EPA limits for airborne lead (see Lead compounds, industrial toxicology). 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Of aU the federal laws placing environmental controls on industiy (and, in particular, on new plants), perhaps the most confusing and restrictive are the limits imposed for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air quahty. These limits apply to areas of the countiy that are already cleaner than required by ambient air-quality standards. This regula-toiy framework evolved from judicial and administrative ac tion under the 1970 Clean Air Act and subsequently was given full statutoiy foundation by the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. 

The normality conditions (5.56) and (5.57) have essentially the same forms as those derived by Casey and Naghdi [1], [2], [3], but the interpretation is very different. In the present theory, it is clear that the inelastic strain rate e is always normal to the elastic limit surface in stress space. When applied to plasticity, e is the plastic strain rate, which may now be denoted e", and this is always normal to the elastic limit surface, which may now be called the yield surface. Naghdi et al. by contrast, took the internal state variables k to be comprised of the plastic strain e and a scalar hardening parameter k. In their theory, consequently, the plastic strain rate e , being contained in k in (5.57), is not itself normal to the yield surface. This confusion produces quite different results. 

There is some confusion in using Bayes rule on what are sometimes called explanatory variables. As an example, we can try to use Bayesian statistics to derive the probabilities of each secondary structure type for each amino acid type, that is p( x r), where J. is a, P, or Y (for coil) secondary strucmres and r is one of the 20 amino acids. It is tempting to writep( x r) = p(r x)p( x)lp(r) using Bayes rule. This expression is, of course, correct and can be used on PDB data to relate these probabilities. But this is not Bayesian statistics, which relate parameters that represent underlying properties with (limited) data that are manifestations of those parameters in some way. In this case, the parameters we are after are 0 i(r) = p( x r). The data from the PDB are in the form of counts for y i(r), the number of amino acids of type r in the PDB that have secondary structure J.. There are 60 such numbers (20 amino acid types X 3 secondary structure types). We then have for each amino acid type a Bayesian expression for the posterior distribution for the values of xiiry. 

The temperature limits inside a building are mostly within the variations of the temperature outside, and the heat resistance requirements on the building materials inside are the same as the requirements on materials used outside. There could be some additional requirements on outside materials depending on rain, snow, wind, sunshine, etc. When the temperatures inside, whether higher or lower than outside, will be used because of the process, the building materials must be chosen with these requirements taken into account, especially when heat radiation is a factor. This should not be confused with demands on temperature and humidity insulation. 

The definition of nonconformity in ISO 8402 states that it is the nonfulfillment of specified requirements therefore a nonconforming product is one that does not conform to the specified requirements. Specified requirements are either requirements prescribed by the customer and agreed by the supplier in a contract for products or services, or are requirements prescribed by the supplier which are perceived as satisfying a market need. This limits the term nonconformity to situations where you have failed to meet customer requirements. However, ISO 8402 1987 suggests that nonconformity also applies to the absence of one or more quality system elements, but clearly the requirements of clause 4.13 cannot be applied to nonconformity with quality s /stem requirements. Both ISO 9001 and ISO 9004 only address nonconformity in the context of products, processes, and services and when addressing quality system elements the term deficiencies is used. Some auditors use the term nonconformity to describe a departure from the requirements of ISO 9001 but it would be preferable if they chose the term noncompliance to avoid any confusion. The requirements of clause 4.13 therefore only apply to products, processes, and services and not to activities, quality system elements, or procedures. 

The FMECA table should be concise, complete, and well organized. This table should identify equipment and relate it to a system drawing or location. This is to prevent confusion when similar equipment is used in different locations. One of tlie limitations of FMECA is tliat the table must include ALL failure modes for each piece of equipment and effects of each failure along witli tlie associated criticality ranking. Table 17.5.3 shows a sample chart tliat can be completed for tlie FMECA table. 

---