Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Inconsistent results, explanations

The wave interpretation of the interference pattern observed in Young s experiment is inconsistent with the particle or photon concept of light as required by Einstein s explanation of the photoelectric effect. If the monochromatic beam of light consists of a stream of individual photons, then each photon presumably must pass through either slit A or slit B. To test this assertion, detectors are placed directly behind slits A and B and both slits are opened. The light beam used is of such low intensity that only one photon at a time is emitted by S. In this situation each photon is recorded by either one detector or the other, never by both at once. Half of the photons are observed to pass through slit A, half through slit B in random order. This result is consistent with particle behavior. [Pg.24]

The second component is the assumption of two underlying distributions. This implies that if MAXCOV results are inconsistent with the taxonic conjecture, we can only conclude that there are not two underlying distributions (i.e., there can be one or three or four latent groups). In the presence of serious evidence against the taxonic conjecture we normally infer absence of a taxon, but there is also an alternative explanation that is frequently overlooked. It is possible that more than two latent groups reside in the distribu-... [Pg.64]

One problem encountered in the field is the apparent irre-producibility of the results of different workers, even those in the same laboratory. This is particularly the case with molar mass distribution and steric triad composition. The explanation of these apparent inconsistencies comes with the realization that the mechanisms are eneidic and the polymer properties are primarily determined by independent active centres of different reactivities and stereospecificities whose relative proportions are set at the initiation step, which is completed in the first seconds of the polymerization. The irreproducibilities arise from irreproducibilities in the initiation step which had not been thought relevant. Ando, Chfljd and Nishioka (12) noted that these rapid exothermic reactions tend to rise very significantly above bath temperature (we have confirmed this effect) and allowed for this in considering the stereochemistry of the propagation reaction. However our results show that the influence on the initiation reactions can have a more far-reaching effect. [Pg.188]

It has already been pointed out (p. 73) that the postulate of free radical chain reactions provided a reasonable explanation for early results of the radiolyses of gases. It was later suggested10 that the radiation chemistry of aqueous solutions could best be explained by the production of H atoms and OH radicals. Subsequently, the results of a large variety of radiolyses were explained in terms of radical reactions occurring therein. Although such experiments did not provide conclusive evidence for the existence of free radicals in the systems, the results obtained, e.g. product analysis, rate coefficients, were not inconsistent with the occurrence of free radical processes. [Pg.86]

These results appeared to be inconsistent with the general experience in translation of greenhouse application rates to field conditions. One of several possible explanations was that FMC 55626 could be susceptible to microbial degradation. As shown in Table VI, microbial degradation does appear to be a factor. In autoclaved field soil, barnyardgrass and velvetleaf were readily controlled at 0.5 kg/ha whereas, in non-autoclaved soil, there was essentially no control at this rate. [Pg.15]

Although this explanation appears reasonable. It seems to contradict the electron diffraction results for P18N (22). The diffraction analysis, performed on microscopic single crystals, shows that the final crosspolymerlzed product Is as ordered as the Initial macromonomer crystals. It Is possible that this discrepancy Is related to the differences In the samples used In the two studies (l.e. single crystals for the diffraction and solution cast films for the optical spectroscopy). This Inconsistency Is currently being Investigated. [Pg.37]


See other pages where Inconsistent results, explanations is mentioned: [Pg.132]    [Pg.236]    [Pg.169]    [Pg.120]    [Pg.108]    [Pg.83]    [Pg.461]    [Pg.236]    [Pg.915]    [Pg.30]    [Pg.29]    [Pg.357]    [Pg.166]    [Pg.236]    [Pg.22]    [Pg.48]    [Pg.490]    [Pg.169]    [Pg.256]    [Pg.507]    [Pg.21]    [Pg.448]    [Pg.318]    [Pg.151]    [Pg.261]    [Pg.327]    [Pg.1505]    [Pg.38]    [Pg.100]    [Pg.10]    [Pg.65]    [Pg.123]    [Pg.450]    [Pg.448]    [Pg.468]    [Pg.281]    [Pg.236]    [Pg.189]    [Pg.224]    [Pg.246]    [Pg.149]    [Pg.187]   
See also in sourсe #XX -- [ Pg.108 ]




SEARCH



Explanation

© 2024 chempedia.info