Linear pressure coefficient

Here 8q is the chemical shift at atmospheric pressure p — OA MPa, the linear pressure coefficient, and and d 2p f e first- and second-order pressure coefficients. The chemical shifts do at atmospheric pressure and the linear pressure coefficients d obtained from a regression analysis are listed in Tables 2 and 3 for all proton resonances of the 20 common amino acids X. In addition, the first- and second-order coefficients defined in Eqs. (3) and (4) are summarized for the backbone amide resonances in Table 2. 

In general, the largest pressure-dependent shift changes are observed for the backbone amide protons (see Table 2). The mean linear pressure coefficient (d ) for the backbone amide resonances is 0.38ppm/GPa with a root mean square deviation of 0.20ppm/GPa. The mean value is close to the values observed in proteins. The spread in pressure coefficients is clearly larger in proteins than in the... 

With the linear pressure coefficient = 0.34cm kbar andB = 750.2... 

Lemington H.26X., made by the General Electric Co., is a very hard borosilicate glass of high softening temperature. Tte Mg point is 780°C. It is used in high pressure mercury vapour lamps. The linear expansion coefficient is 4-6 x 10 from 20 to 580°C. Sodium and potassiiun are absent and alumina is present in quantity in this glass. 

Experimental conditions and initial rates of oxidation are summarized in Table V. For comparison, initial rates of dry oxidation at the same temperature and pressure of oxygen predicted by Equation 9 are included in parentheses. The predicted dry rate, measured dry rate, and measured wet rates are compared in Figure 2. The logarithms of the initial rates of heat production during wet oxidation increase approximately linearly (correlation coefficient = 0.92) with the logarithm of the partial pressure of oxygen and lead to values of In k = 2.5 and r = 0.9, as compared with values of In k = 4.8 and r = 0.6 for dry oxidation at this temperature. 

We now introduce two new parameters that describe the changes in interionic distances and volume with pressure isothermal linear compression coefficient ft, and isothermal volumetric compression coefficient jiy ... 

Fig. 6. Pure water flux (y) as a function of the transmembrane pressure (x) (AP) for NF membranes (NF270, NF90) and low-pressure RO membrane (BW30) at T — 25 °C, R being the linear regression coefficient.

A dependence close to a linear law is observed down to 100 K. At low temperature, both the thermal expansion and the pressure coefficient are small. Therefore, the constant-volume temperature dependence of the resistivity does not deviate from the quadratic law observed under constant pressure. At this stage it is interesting to stress that the theory of the resistivity in a half-filled band conductor [63], including the strength of the coulombic repulsions as derived from NMR data (Section III.B), should lead to a more localized behavior than that observed experimentally in Fig. 14. 

Since the pressures in the experiments are in the region of the second-order limit, the observed first-order rate coefficients show a nearly linear pressure dependence and a strong temperature dependence in the Arrhenius activation energy. Using the classical Rice et al. model for unimolecular decomposition, s = 12 which is a surprisingly large value. 

Our results for water are given (Figure 4) for sorbed concentration F, linearized in the form of Equation 3. Least-squares analyses of our isotherms in this form show an excellent linearity typical coefficients of determination are 0.937 (N2), 0.973 (CO2), and 0.997 (H2O). Such a relationship allows us to reproduce the adsorption branch of the isotherms with respect to various coordinates (i.e, Figures 1, 2, 3) well within the experimental accuracy over the entire range of the experiment (0.001 Fq to 1.0 Pq). This result is a boon in several respects (1) interpolation to intermediate concentrations is accurate and straightforward (2) interlaboratory comparisons can be obtained easily at virtually any pressure and (3) further insight into the sorption process is available. 

Values for most of the coefficients in Equation (23) were extracted from experimental data. Values were assigned to 4 and ke arbitrarily in the absence of the relevant experimental observations. The bare elastic constants were given a linear pressure dependence based on the variations calculated by Karki et al. (1997a). When experimental data become available, a comparison between observed and predicted elastic constant variations will provide a stringent test for the model of this phase transition as represented by Equation (23). 

A new model was compared to known compaction equations, including Kawakita and Heckel, for some mineral salts. Panelli and Filho (2001) concluded that Equation 12 best represents the density-pressure relationship for powders, obtaining a linear correlation coefficient close to the unity. 

The structure factors of InP were determined using samples compacted by pressures of 2500 kfg/cm but the intensities of the 220 and 440 reflections were corrected for the preferential orientation. These corrections were found by comparing the relative intensities obtained for samples which were not compressed with the intensities found for the compacted samples. Corrections were also made for the thermal diffuse scattering [4]. The extinction effects were slight because we used very fine powders. The linear absorption coefficient jtt was assumed to be 993 cm [5]. The polarization factor was foimd from the expression [6]... 

Figure 4. (above, right) Arrhenius plots [In k vs. 10 /T] for P HMX decomposition at four different pressures (least-squares fits). The fits for the 3.6 GPa and 4.6 GPa data both have linear correlation coefficients of 0.996. The 5.5 GPa and 6.5 GPa data are less well-fitted to a straight line with correlation coefficients of 0.91 and 0.96, respectively. 

In case of a Reynolds number of very high value, the linear pressure drop coefficient becomes independent of the Reynolds number. Its value is determined by the relative roughness, which means that turbulence is driven by unevetmess on the wall. 

This alternative formulation enables us to calculate the linear pressure drop coefficient exphdtly and to derive therefiom the value of the mean streamwise velocity. 

---