Error in averages

Be is the critical pressure, MPa. Values of Ap from Table 2-383 are summed for each part of the molecule to yield X Ap. Calculation of the Platt number is discussed under Critical Temperature. Errors in average 0.07 MPa and are less reliable for compounds with 12 or more carbon atoms. 

Since for steam turbine operation we may assume Cp > 2000 J/(kg K) and s - Sg < 2000 J/(kg K), squared and higher terms in (16.66) will contribute relatively little to the final figure, and may be neglected for the purpose of estimating the effect of the error in specific heat on the calculation of specific enthalpy. Assuming the error in average specific heat is fractional, we may expand using the binomial expansion ... 

Fitting errors, in average 25% larger, have been obtained with the unweighted linearized model, compared to the weighted fitting [18]. 

Statistical errors in averages can also be calculated by dividing the trajectory into independent blocks, in which case a... 

This situation, despite the fact that reliability is increasing, is very undesirable. A considerable effort will be needed to revise the shape of the potential functions such that transferability is greatly enhanced and the number of atom types can be reduced. After all, there is only one type of carbon it has mass 12 and charge 6 and that is all that matters. What is obviously most needed is to incorporate essential many-body interactions in a proper way. In all present non-polarisable force fields many-body interactions are incorporated in an average way into pair-additive terms. In general, errors in one term are compensated by parameter adjustments in other terms, and the resulting force field is only valid for a limited range of environments. 

If all sources of systematic error can be eliminated, there will still remain statistical errors. These errors are often reported as stcindard deviations. What we would particularly like to estimate is the error in the average value, (A). The standard deviation of the average value is calculated as follows ... 

Another way to improve the error in a simulation, at least for properties such as the energy and the heat capacity that depend on the size of the system (the extensive properties), is to increase the number of atoms or molecules in the calculation. The standard deviation of the average of such a property is proportional to l/ /N. Thus, more accurate values can be obtained by running longer simulations on larger systems. In computer simulation it is unfortunately the case that the more effort that is expended the better the results that are obtained. Such is life ... 

It is important to verify that the simulation describes the chemical system correctly. Any given property of the system should show a normal (Gaussian) distribution around the average value. If a normal distribution is not obtained, then a systematic error in the calculation is indicated. Comparing computed values to the experimental results will indicate the reasonableness of the force field, number of solvent molecules, and other aspects of the model system. 

Propylene is usually transported in the Gulf Coast as compressed hquid at pressures in excess of 6.9 MPa (1000 psi) and ambient temperatures. Compressed hquid propylene densities for metering purposes may be found in the ALPI Technical Tata Took (13). Another method (14—17) predicts densities within 0.25% and has a maximum error on average of only 0.83%. 

Nonetheless, these methods only estimate organ-averaged radiation dose. Any process which results in high concentrations of radioactivity in organs outside the MIRD tables or in very small volumes within an organ can result in significant error. In addition, the kinetic behavior of materials in the body can have a dramatic effect on radiation dose and models of material transport are constandy refined. Thus radiation dosimetry remains an area of significant research activity. 

The method is applicable at reduced temperatures above 0.30 or the freezing point, whichever is higher, and below the critical point. The method is most reliable when 0.5 prediction average 3.5 percent when experimental critical properties are known. Errors are higher for predic ted criticals. The method is useful when solved iteratively with Eq. (2-23) to predict the acentric factor. 

The average error in the pressure correction alone is typically 3 percent. 

In general, the R factor is between 0.15 and 0.20 for a well-determined protein structure. The residual difference rarely is due to large errors in the model of the protein molecule, but rather it is an inevitable consequence of errors and imperfections in the data. These derive from various sources, including slight variations in conformation of the protein molecules and inaccurate corrections both for the presence of solvent and for differences in the orientation of the microcrystals from which the crystal is built. This means that the final model represents an average of molecules that are slightly different both in conformation and orientation, and not surprisingly the model never corresponds precisely to the actual crystal. 

A problem with the overall approach for liquid mixtures is that suitable averages must be used when calculating B, although errors in B are partly offset by the logarithmic term in Eq. (1). It is also necessary to decide at what temperature the properties of air should be evaluated. In [66] it was suggested that Cp a and should be evaluated at the arithmetic mean of the... 

The average error is the difference between the calculated and experimental AHf. In this comiection it should be noted that the average error in the experimental data for the hydrocarbons is 0.40 kcal/mol, i.e, MM2 essentially reproduces the experiments to within the experimental uncertainty. 

Table 3.1 Average heat of formation error in kcaL/mol (number of compounds)...

---