Real error

So, we can discard the third eigenvector and, along with it, that portion of the variance in our spectra that displaced the data out of the plane of the noise-free data. We are in fact, discarding a portion of the noise without significantly distorting the spectra The portion of the noise we discard is called the extracted error or the residuals. Remember that the noise we added also displaced the points to some extent within the plane of the noise-free data. This portion of the noise remains in the data because it is spanned by the eigenvectors that we must retain. The noise that remains is called the imbedded error. The total error is sometimes called the real error. The relationship among the real error (RE), the extracted error (XE), and the imbedded error (IE) is... 

If, however, the real error distribution of x is not known (but the variance/covariance structure is), then the RC is represented by the smallest Mahalanobis distance (which is directly related to probability in case of a known error distribution) between point c and a point with p = nig (here from c to d). In this case only differences in variances and covariances of the independent variables are taken into account in the RC value. 

The only real error source for the output voltage are the forward drop characteristics of this diode. Each of the three SPICE simulators has a model for the 1N4002 diode, with all of the simulators within about 100 mV of each other. The question is, which model is correct The answer is they are probably all correct. The forward drop tolerance of a diode varies from lot to lot, from manufacturer to manufacturer, and from device to device. Table 10.1 shows the results of each of the three simulators along with the breadboard results. 

The goodness of fit parameter will approach a minimum which should correspond to the real error in the absorbance data and increase when a noise eigenvalue is added. Another test is the indicator function which also passes through a minimum when the correct number of eigenvectors are used. The indicator function is given by... 

Integral PFR data cannot be used directly in this way, since one has a differential equation that describes the conversion profile along the catalyst bed (eq 2). For simple cases this can be integrated analytically, yielding an implicit expression in the observed variable (eq S). Sometimes the independent variable W/Ff is now used as observed variable and its SSR minimized [9], but this interchange of dependent and independent variable destroys the error properties and the parameter error limits are not correct. Often the parameter estimates correspond well [9] and can be used as starting guesses for more robust minimization to determine the real error bounds. 

Gibbs energy functions, then the drifts in the 3rd law analysis Imply that the Gibbs energy functions for CP-OF should be -1 -1 increased by 3.6 or 7.2 cal K mol. However, the real error In these Gibbs energy functions is probably no larger than 1... 

The term probability for false rejection (p ) is used to describe the first situation, where there are no analytical errors present except for the inherent imprecision or inherent random error of the analytical method. (There is always some random error associated with an analytical method, even when it is working properly. This is the random error that is estimated by the replication experiment during method evaluation studies.) When only this inherent random error is present, without any additional errors, the probability for false rejection should be zero. The frequency of false rejections is critical, because false rejections are like false alarms. Too many false alarms cause the analyst to disregard the alarm system, even when the alarm is occurring as a result of real errors that should be corrected. 

Extensive documentation of the accuracy of molecular mechanics calculations has been reported.For the most part, the discrepancies between experimental and calculated molecular geometries are within experimental error. Many of the systematic discrepancies in MM2, for example, have been documented. Some of the apparent errors can be associated with incorrect comparisons of bond lengths that are defined differently in various experimental and computational methods. The bond lengths have different numerical values because they are different physical quantities, rather than being real errors. Other problems have been attributed to a lack of accurate experimental data when the force field equations and parameters were formulated. 

For FA in its genuine sense, additional criteria are used for rank analysis, that is, for determination of the number of significant factors. Most frequently, an empirical indicator function, IND, introduced by Malinowski [2] is used. It is computed from the real error, RE, or the residual standard deviation, RSD, as follows ... 

A similar approach was followed in the manufacture of Co-Ni nanoparticles which were chemically reduced in a surfactant solution. The spherical particles formed spontaneously and had an average radius of 1.68 0.15nm. Further growth was stopped by the attachment of surfactant molecules to the formed particles. The EXAFS data showed that the coordination number of the metallic atoms in the first shell was lower than in bulk metals. This confirms that a disordered but mainly metallic entity is formed with the atoms on the outside having a higher oxidation degree than those on the inside. It should be remarked here that the error bar on the radius derived from the SAXS data is not necessarily a real error but more likely represents the spread in particle diameter. 

---