Discrepant resolution

The main problem in Eas0 vs. correlations is that the two experimental quantities are as a rule measured in different laboratories with different techniques. In view of the sensitivity of both parameters to the surface state of the metal, their uncertainties can in principle result of the same order of magnitude as AX between two metals. On the other hand, it is rare that the same laboratory is equipped for measuring both single-crystal face is not followed by a check of its perfection by means of appropriate spectroscopic techniques. In these cases we actually have nominal single-crystal faces. This is probably the reason for the observation of some discrepancies between differently prepared samples with the same nominal surface structure. Fortunately, there have been a few cases in which both Ea=0 and 0 have been measured in the same laboratory these will be examined later. Such measurements have enabled the resolution of controversies that have long persisted because of the basic criticism of Eazm0 vs. 0 plots. 

Becker DA (1995) Resolution of discrepant analytical data in the certification of platinum in two automobile catalyst SRMs. Fresenius J Anal Chem 352 224-226. 

Thus, the personalized formulation begins by acknowledging the clinician s, the patient s and (whenever appropriate) the family s perspectives on what is unique, important and meaningful about the patient. The formulation sets out these perspectives and identifies any discrepancies, permitting their resolution and integration into a shared understanding of the case at hand. 

A) Compare the number of observed lines with the number expected. If there are more lines than expected, either the model is wrong or there is more than one radical contributing to the spectrum. If the expected and observed numbers are equal, you are in luck - the analysis should be easy. If you see fewer lines than expected (the most common case ), there may be accidental superpositions, small amplitude lines buried under large ones, or just poor resolution. The bigger the discrepancy between expected and observed numbers of lines, the less definitive the analysis will be. 

This paper is concerned with the resolution of a discrepancy between a set of kinetic constants for cationic polymerisations selected by the present author as the most reliable recorded in the literature [1] and the rate constants for ostensibly similar reactions measured by Mayr, who has emphasised the urgent need to resolve the disagreements [2]. No other adequate theoretical attempts to do so are known to this author. 

It is important to note that the derivation of KTS, given above, involves no assumptions about the mechanisms of either the catalysed or uncatalysed reactions. Therefore, it is possible to use values of KT s (and pKrs = —log/fxs) and their variations with substrate or catalyst structure (or some other reaction parameter) as probes of transition state structure (Kurz, 1972 Tee, 1989). Clearly, complications may arise when the mechanisms of the catalysed and uncatalysed reactions are quite different, but under such circumstances one can reasonably hope that trends in Krs and other kinetic parameters may be such as to point to the discrepancy and that they may even suggest a resolution. 

Spin trapping by PBN has also been employed to detect radical formation in a photo-Kolbe reaction in which acetic acid is irradiated (A > 360 nm) in the presence of platinized titanium dioxide powder (Kraeutler et al, 1978). The nitroxide observed was considered to be (PBN—Me ), but the published spectrum clearly shows the presence of a second species spectral overlap might therefore be an alternative to solvent polarity as an explanation of the discrepancy between the observed splitting parameters and those previously reported for this species. Where poor resolution obtains, it is important that... 

There is a slight discrepancy between the 1369 and 1359 cm peak positions since our system resolution is 4 cm. This discrepancy may be due to the difference in residual iron charge... 

The resolution of this latter discrepancy lies in the distinction between kinetic and thermodynamic nucleophilicity. 

A reversible adiabatic expansion of an ideal gas has a zero entropy change, and an irreversible adiabatic expansion of the same gas from the same initial state to the same final volume has a positive entropy change. This statement may seem to be inconsistent with the statement that 5 is a thermodynamic property. The resolution of the discrepancy is that the two changes do not constitute the same change of state the final temperature of the reversible adiabatic expansion is lower than the final temperature of the irreversible adiabatic expansion (as in path 2 in Fig. 6.7). 

Static deformation density maps can be compared directly with theoretical deformation densities. For tetrafluoroterephthalonitrile (l,4-dicyano-2,3,5,6-tetra-fluorobenzene) (Fig. 5.13), a comparison has been made between the results of a density-functional calculation (see chapter 9 for a discussion of the density-functional method), and a model density based on 98 K data with a resolution of (sin 0//)max = 1.15 A -1 (Hirshfeld 1992). The only significant discrepancy is in the region of the lone pairs of the fluorine and nitrogen atoms, where the model functions are clearly inadequate to represent the very sharp features of the density distribution. 

In most cases, except those in earlier comparative studies between the real-photon method and the dipole-simulation method, the absolute cross-section values obtained by both methods agree with each other [27]. Comparison of obtained cross-section values between the two methods were discussed in detail [27, 2, and references therein] and summarized in conclusion [5]. It should be noted, at least briefly, that it is essentially difficult to accurately obtain the absolute values of photoabsorption cross sections (u) in the dipole-simulation experiments, and it is necessary to use indirect ways in obtaining those values as the application of the TKR sum rule, Eq. (3), to the relative values of the cross sections obtained partly with theoretical assumptions. Moreover, in some cases, in relatively earlier dipole-simulation experiments, particularly of corrosive molecules upon their electron optics with poorer energy resolutions, serious discrepancy from the real-photon experiments was clearly pointed out in the obtained absolute values of photoabsorption cross sections [5,20,25-28]. 

We conclude this survey of applications of solid-state Mg NMR to studies of inorganic materials given in Table 2, a compilation of the experimentally derived solid-state Mg NMR parameters (Cq, 7q and iso) reported to date for a large number of non-metallic Mg-containing inorganic compounds. Also mentioned in the table are any points of note such as the special methods used to improve sensitivity or resolution in the performed experiments (e.g. isotopic enrichment, QCPMG, methods based on population transfers, MQMAS, STM AS, etc.) and the eventual discrepancies observed between results achieved by different researchers. 

There are a several explanations for this discrepancy. One resolution would be if the entropic difference between DPC and DPC is larger than / ln3. The polar nature of singlet carbene could result in a more ordered solvent. Any increase in AGst would reduce AHsr- Moreover, st was not measured under the actual conditions used to determine AGst-... 

The logic of the model goes like this. A discrepancy between a desired state and the state you are in sets up a tension which seeks resolution. You are hungry so you want to eat. You are bored so you seek a challenge. You have a problem so you want to solve it. You see how things could be better so you want to change them. Getting a result reduces the tension. 

A better resolution of the peaks was observed on the preparative system than on the analytical system. Thus, using a shorter colurrm, cycle time was reduced and injected volume was increased. This small discrepancy can be explained by the fact that analytical systems are controlled by volume flow rates while preparative systems are controlled by mass flow rates. Thus the co-solvent composition and column internal velocity can be slightly different. Table 12.1 shows the scaled-up operating parameters. 

---