Sampling Gaussian equations

Due to the possible change in retention time and peak profile that may take place during day-to-day operation, it is necessary to measure peak characteristics every day to verify the status of the method validation. A blank sample should be evaluated for an analysis run, where the resolution is determined. For asymmetric peaks, the Gaussian equation cannot be used, so the modified equation, using an exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) method has been proposed [21]. 

The chromatogram of the test sample for plate number determination normally is not a Gaussian-shaped peak, which means that all three equations result in different N values. Therefore, it is important to specify which method is used for the calculation of plate number. If the method used deviates from the normal practice, it must be justified. This is especially true for a column manufacturer. 

The dependence of the in-phase and quadrature lock-in detected signals on the modulation frequency is considerably more complicated than for the case of monomolecular recombination. The steady state solution to this equation is straightforward, dN/dt = 0 Nss — fG/R, but there is not a general solution N(l) to the inhomogeneous differential equation. Furthermore, the generation rate will vary throughout the sample due to the Gaussian distribution of the pump intensity and absorption by the sample... 

A critical difference between the transient and CW measurements is that while the CW probe source uniformly illuminates the sample, both the transient pump and probe beams have Gaussian distributions. Equation (7.7) can be rewritten for the transient case as ... 

In modern TLC the distribution of sample within a spot is essentially Gaussian and the number of theoretical plates (n, ) and the plate height (H,, ) observed can be conveniently expressed ]sy equation (7.7) and (7.8)... 

Fig. 25 Comparison of the predictions of various models for current injection from a metal electrode into a hopping system featuring a Gaussian DOS of variance a = 15 meV as a function of the electric field at different temperatures. The ID continuum and the 3D master equation model have been developed by van der Holst et al. [127]. The calculations based upon the Burin-Ramer and the Arkhipov et al. models are taken from [175] and [170] respectively. Parameters are the sample length L, the intersite separation a and the injection barrierA. From [127] with permission. Copyright (2009) by the American Institute of Physics...

Fig. 6. Proton Tj relaxation data for crosslinked polybutadiene samples with average number of repeat units per network chain 44 (A) and 14 (O), compared with the computed results from the modified BPP equation (assuming Gaussian distribution and the model based bn spin diffusion to locations of rapid spin-lattice relaxation) (reprinted from Ref.541 with permission)...

The distribution of errors of measurement is usually analyzed according to the Gaussian or normal distribution. This applies to sampling a population that is subject to a random distribution. The normal distribution follows the equation... 

Here, T is the observed line width (Av << F), 7d is the peak-to-valley intensity in the difference spectrum, and To is the peak height of the Raman line. Although this equation is for Lorentzian-shaped bands, the results are approximately the same for Gaussian-shaped bands (the constant 0.385 becomes 0.350). In the case of carbon disulfide-benzene mixtures, the smallest shift observed was -0.06 cm-1, and the associated error was 0.02 cm-1 (77). A convenient rotating system that can be used for (1) difference spectroscopy, (2) normal rotating sample techniques (solid and solution), and (3) automatic scanning of the depolarization ratios as a function of the wave number has been designed (45). 

If we consider a sample with shallow Gaussian traps and include PEE, the sample behaves as if there are no traps and the mobility is field dependent given by Eq. (3.56) far as the dependence of J on V is concerned. The zero field mobility and its temperature dependence are different in the two equations. If the traps are at a single energy level, <7t = 0 and the temperature variation of the mobility also becomes the same in the two cases. Eq. (3.58) represents both the models, it reduces to the existing shallow trap model (without PEE) when = 0 and to the existing field dependent mobility model when 6 = exp(-EtfkT). 

---