# SEARCH

** Crystal structure graphical comparison **

B. 5-26-A Graphical comparisons experiments and correlations. [E,S] For spheres. Includes transpiration effects and changing diameters. [78] [146] p.222... [Pg.616]

Stainless steel flat six-blade turbine. Tank had four baffles. Correlation recommended for ( ) < 0.06 [Ref. 156] a = 6( )/<, where d p is Sauter mean diameter when 33% mass transfer has occurred. dp = particle or drop diameter <3 = iuterfacial tension, N/m ( )= volume fraction dispersed phase a = iuterfacial volume, 1/m and k OiDf implies rigid drops. Negligible drop coalescence. Average absolute deviation—19.71%. Graphical comparison given by Ref. 153. ... [Pg.616]

Graphical comparison with data shown by Refs. 141, p. 215, and 163. [Pg.619]

General form fits the graphical comparisons (Refs. 146 and 164). [Pg.623]

A graphical comparison of process performance data to computed control limits drawn as limit lines on the chart. [Pg.555]

The situation differs essentially for correlations between thermodynamic desriptors and H-bond indicators. Graphical comparison of indicator Na and... [Pg.133]

Figure 6.1 is a graphical comparison of several analytical techniques, plotting the depth from the surface from which the analytical information comes versus the lateral resolution. A fuller summary of the characteristics appears in Table 6.1. [Pg.211]

Two issues present themselves when the question of PB-PK model validation is raised. The first issue is the accuracy with which the model predicts actual drug concentrations. The actual concentration-time data have most likely been used to estimate certain total parameters. Quantitative assessment, via goodness-of-fit tests, should be done to assess the accuracy of the model predictions. Too often, model acceptance is based on subjective evaluation of graphical comparisons of observed and predicted concentration values. [Pg.97]

A graphical comparison of the correlation coefficient (r), the coefficient of determi-... [Pg.383]

For a graphical comparison of the correlation [r(Sr)] and the standard deviation of the samples used for calibration (Sr), a value is entered for the SEP (or SEE) for a specified analyte range as indicated through the standard deviation of that range (Sr). The resultant graphic displays the Sr (as the abscissa) versus the r (as the ordinate). From this graphic it can be seen how the correlation coefficient increases with a constant SEP as the standard deviation of the data increases. Thus when comparing correlation results for analytical methods, one must consider carefully the standard deviation of the analyte values for the samples used in order to make a fair comparison. For the example shown, the SEE is set to 0.10, while the correlation is scaled from 0.0 to 1.0 for Sr values from 0.10 to 4.0. [Pg.388]

A graphical comparison of the correlation coefficient (r) versus the standard error of estimate (SEE) is shown in Graphic 59-4. This graphic clearly shows that when the Sr is held constant (Sr = 4) the correlation decreases as the SEE increases. [Pg.390]

The conclusions illustrated in Table 17.1 are (1) for a given order, n, the ratio increases as /a increases, and (2) for a given /A, the ratio increases as order increases. In any case, for normal kinetics, ST > Vpp, since the CSTR operates entirely at the lowest value of CA, the exit value. (Levenspiel, 1972, p. 332, gives a more detailed graphical comparison for five values of n. This can also be obtained from the E-Z Solve software.)... [Pg.406]

Figure 3 Graphical comparison of time profiles, in the original Fit) presentation (left) and a correlation plot (right). |

Calculated relative energies for a small selection of structural isomers are compared with experimental values and with the results of G3 calculations in Table 6-11. These have been drawn from a much more extensive set of comparisons found in Appendix A6 (Tables A6-24 to A6-31). Mean absolute errors from the full set of comparisons are collected in Table 6-12, and a series of graphical comparisons involving Hartree-Fock, EDF1, B3LYP and MP2 models... [Pg.206]

Dipole moments in amines obtained from the same set of models used in previous comparisons are compared with experimental values in Table 10-3. These and further data (on oxygen, silicon, phosphorous and sulfur compounds) are given in Appendix AlO (Tables AlO-9 to AlO-16), and mean absolute errors corresponding to the full set are summarized in Table 10-4. In addition, graphical comparisons of calculated and experimental dipole moments have been provided for selected models (Figures 10-1 to 10-11). Circular markers (o) designate molecules with heteroatoms. [Pg.327]

The metals also present an additional problem in that the product oxide, fluoride, or nitride species may be a solid phase at the combustion temperature or condense during expansion through the rocket nozzle. Figure 2 presents a graphical comparison of the phase properties of the... [Pg.326]

Mellman TA, Nolan B, Hebding J, Kulick-Bell R, Dominguez R (1997) A polysomno-graphic comparison of veterans with combat-related PTSD, depressed men, and non-ill controls. Sleep 20 46-51... [Pg.94]

** Crystal structure graphical comparison **

© 2024 chempedia.info