Big Chemical Encyclopedia

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

Articles Figures Tables About

Profile fitting difference plot

Fig. 13. The nuclear magnetic spin-lattice relaxation rate for water protons as a function of magnetic field strength reported as the proton Larmor frequency at 298 K for 5% suspensions of the particulate stabilized in a 0.5% agar gel presented as the difference plot (A) Zeolite 3A (B) Zeolite 13X (C) Zeolite NaY (D) kaolin with 7 s added to each point to offset the data presentation (E) Cancrinite with 9 s added to each point to offset the data presentation and (F) 0.5% agar gel profile with 10 s added to each point. The solid lines are fits to a power law (68). Fig. 13. The nuclear magnetic spin-lattice relaxation rate for water protons as a function of magnetic field strength reported as the proton Larmor frequency at 298 K for 5% suspensions of the particulate stabilized in a 0.5% agar gel presented as the difference plot (A) Zeolite 3A (B) Zeolite 13X (C) Zeolite NaY (D) kaolin with 7 s added to each point to offset the data presentation (E) Cancrinite with 9 s added to each point to offset the data presentation and (F) 0.5% agar gel profile with 10 s added to each point. The solid lines are fits to a power law (68).
As the flow accelerates into the gaps around the cylinder, it possesses a greater relative amount of extension. Ultimately, at distances far downstream from the cylinder, the flow is expected to relax back toward a parabolic profile. In these plots, the symbols represent the measured velocities and the solid curves are the results of a finite element, numerical simulation. The constitutive equation used was a four constant, Phan-Thien-Tanner mod-el[193], which was adjusted to fit steady, simple shear flow shear and first normal stress difference measurements. The fit to the velocity data is very satisfactory. [Pg.227]

The refined values of the parameters are listed under column 2 of Table II, together with the X-ray values. The profile fit, which includes contributions from 176 reflections, is shown in Figure 4, together with the difference plot. The only striking discrepancy between the neutron and X-ray values is in the position of Na(3), which would correspond to a Na-0 near neighbor distance of about 4.7 instead of 2.4A and clearly lacks physical meaning. [Pg.151]

The difference plots in Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12 point to the presence of two broad peaks near 35 and 41° 20. The overall improvement after these peaks were included in the fit is shown in Figure 4.13. We note that absolute differences between the observed and calculated profiles in the vicinities of strong reflections are usually greater when compared to those in the background and weak peaks regions. However, relative variances (AYi/Y,) do not differ substantially. [Pg.366]

Figure 4.15. Observed and calculated intensity in the powder diffraction pattern of NiMn02(0H) after the completion of profile fitting using the DMSNT program. A symmetrical Pearson-VII function was employed and all present Bragg peaks were included in the fit. The box at the bottom shows the difference between the observed and calculated intensities using the same scale as on the plot of both and... Figure 4.15. Observed and calculated intensity in the powder diffraction pattern of NiMn02(0H) after the completion of profile fitting using the DMSNT program. A symmetrical Pearson-VII function was employed and all present Bragg peaks were included in the fit. The box at the bottom shows the difference between the observed and calculated intensities using the same scale as on the plot of both and...
Figure 13.7 XRD pattern of a ceria stabilized zirconia powder mixed with 20 wt.% of standard silicon (asterisks). Experimental data (O) profile fitting result (line) and difference between data and fit (residual, lower line) (a) WH plot for the stabilized zirconia phase, with indication of Miller indices, regression line and 95% confidence range (b). (Reprinted from ref. 38 with the permission of the International Union of Crystallography.)... Figure 13.7 XRD pattern of a ceria stabilized zirconia powder mixed with 20 wt.% of standard silicon (asterisks). Experimental data (O) profile fitting result (line) and difference between data and fit (residual, lower line) (a) WH plot for the stabilized zirconia phase, with indication of Miller indices, regression line and 95% confidence range (b). (Reprinted from ref. 38 with the permission of the International Union of Crystallography.)...
Experimental data (O) profile fitting result (line) and difference between data and fit (residual, lower line). Insets Log scale plots and Miller indices of Bragg peaks. [Pg.398]

Figure 3.3 Rietveld refinement (top) of the structure of the dehydrated sodium form of the gallosilicate TNU-7 against synchrotron X-ray powder diffraction data, together with a view of the final structure, in which the sodium cation positions are indicated (bottom). An initial model for the framework was obtained from a description of the poorly ordered aluminosilicate ECR-1 cation positions were located from difference Fourier analyses and their positions and occupancies refined. The plot shows the observed data, the calculated profile and a difference plot. The final match is an acceptable fit (Rwp = 6.5%). Electron diffraction (middle) along the [001] and [010] zone axes shows that this structure is a strictly alternating intergrowth of MOR and MAZ layers (see Figure 2.11) because no evidence of streaking in the diffraction maxima (characteristic of disorder) is observed. [Reproduced from reference 30 with permission. Copyright 2006 American Chemical Society.]... Figure 3.3 Rietveld refinement (top) of the structure of the dehydrated sodium form of the gallosilicate TNU-7 against synchrotron X-ray powder diffraction data, together with a view of the final structure, in which the sodium cation positions are indicated (bottom). An initial model for the framework was obtained from a description of the poorly ordered aluminosilicate ECR-1 cation positions were located from difference Fourier analyses and their positions and occupancies refined. The plot shows the observed data, the calculated profile and a difference plot. The final match is an acceptable fit (Rwp = 6.5%). Electron diffraction (middle) along the [001] and [010] zone axes shows that this structure is a strictly alternating intergrowth of MOR and MAZ layers (see Figure 2.11) because no evidence of streaking in the diffraction maxima (characteristic of disorder) is observed. [Reproduced from reference 30 with permission. Copyright 2006 American Chemical Society.]...
FIGURE 32. PXRD patterns for the Ni(tame)2(L20), compound 25 phases, (a) Bulk precipitate, 25a. (b) Structure 25b formed by refluxing 25a in water, (c) Structure 25c, formed by dehydrating 25b. (d) Structure 25d, formed by refluxing 25a in water/benzene. (e) Structure 25e, formed by desolvating 25d. (f) Pawley fitting for the indexed unit cell of 25e. (g) Difference plot between the observed (e) and refined (f) profiles. [Pg.166]

The flow cytometer, fitted with both forward and side scatter detectors, generates a 2D plot indicating the distribution of light intensity, forward scatter (FS) versus side scatter (SS), and showing the physical profile of the particle responsible for the scatter. Figure 5.3 is such a plot for a mixture of five rod-shaped bacteria from our laboratory. The different strains appear in partly separated clusters (indicated by square boxes and dot color) along the side-scatter axis in the lower part of the plot. [Pg.99]

On the basis of this description, a relationship between the two lengths 8 and K can be established. Different 5 values are obtained by gradually increasing the amount of micelles and fitting the force profiles. The evolution of 5 as a function of the calculated Debye length is plotted in Fig. 2.8. The thickness 5 increases linearly with The inherent coupling between depletion and doublelayer forces is reflected by this empirical linear relationship which is a consequence of the electrostatic repulsion between droplets and micelles. The thickness 5 may be conceptually defined as a distance of closer approach between droplets and micelles and thus may be empirically obtained by writing ... [Pg.62]

Plots of all available data points in relative units are shown in Figs. 9-11. Average reference profiles of the different species were obtained by means of a spline fit procedure applied to the respective data points. Table 1 contains pertinent information for every individual halocarbon on tropospheric abundances. With the help of these, absolute profiles can be calculated for any of the substances shown. [Pg.214]

In a recent article the satellite profile and its temperature dependence are calculated for various analytical representations of the potential difference between upper and lower states and of the oscillator strength (15). By varying the parameters of these analytical forms we have tried to fit the experimental profile and its temperature dependence. For example, the left hand curve of Figure 4 gives the best fit of the experimental profile (dotted line) obtained for the Cs-Ar pair. The potential of the upper state used for this fit (dotted line) is plotted in Figure 4b and is seen to extrapolate to the one deduced from the quasistatic interpretation (full line). Such agreement is unobtainable (j[5) if other quite different parameters are used, and consequently this method can provide useful information from the satellite region. [Pg.58]

Figure 7.30. The observed and calculated powder diffraction patterns of mazMoyOiz after preferred orientation, individual atomic parameters of the Mo and O atoms were refined together with some profile parameters and correction for porosity effects. The difference (fi" - is shown using the same scale as both the observed and calculated data but the plot is truncated to fit within the range [-3000,3000] for clarity. The inset clarifies the range between 73 and 86 20. Figure 7.30. The observed and calculated powder diffraction patterns of mazMoyOiz after preferred orientation, individual atomic parameters of the Mo and O atoms were refined together with some profile parameters and correction for porosity effects. The difference (fi" - is shown using the same scale as both the observed and calculated data but the plot is truncated to fit within the range [-3000,3000] for clarity. The inset clarifies the range between 73 and 86 20.

See other pages where Profile fitting difference plot is mentioned: [Pg.361]    [Pg.62]    [Pg.108]    [Pg.18]    [Pg.363]    [Pg.364]    [Pg.367]    [Pg.116]    [Pg.226]    [Pg.317]    [Pg.469]    [Pg.194]    [Pg.129]    [Pg.97]    [Pg.107]    [Pg.359]    [Pg.63]    [Pg.107]    [Pg.102]    [Pg.81]    [Pg.193]    [Pg.80]    [Pg.182]    [Pg.66]    [Pg.69]    [Pg.243]    [Pg.862]    [Pg.300]    [Pg.178]    [Pg.6038]    [Pg.348]    [Pg.2154]    [Pg.111]    [Pg.415]   
See also in sourсe #XX -- [ Pg.363 ]




SEARCH



Difference plots

Profile plot

© 2024 chempedia.info