Scaling factor, effect

Lame coefficients, metric coefficients, or scale factors effective swept volume rate m /s)... 

The difference in behavior between the Fj(yj) curves for CPRF and CFRF in Figure 2 is due to the scale factor effect of (Mj+1)/... 

Also use constant dielectric Tor MM+aiul OPLS ciilciilatimis. Use the (lislance-flepeiident dielecinc for AMBER and BlO+to mimic the screening effects of solvation when no explicit solvent molecules are present. The scale factor for the dielectric permittivity, n. can vary from 1 to H(l. IlyperChem sets tt to 1. .5 for MM-r. Use 1.0 for AMBER and OPLS. and 1.0-2..5 for BlO-r. 

The second, third, and fourth corrections to [MPd/b-Jl lG(d,p)] are analogous to A (- -). The zero point energy has been discussed in detail (scale factor 0.8929 see Scott and Radom, 1996), leaving only HLC, called the higher level correction, a purely empirical correction added to make up for the practical necessity of basis set and Cl truncation. In effect, thermodynamic variables are calculated by methods described immediately below and HLC is adjusted to give the best fit to a selected group of experimental results presumed to be reliable. 

Most of the data used for compiling such maps have been obtained for the flow of water and air at near atmospheric temperature and pressure, and scaling factors have been introduced to extend their applicability to other systems. However, beating in mind the diffuse nature of the boundaries between the regimes and the relatively minor effect of... 

Factors re.sponsible for the occurrence of scale-up effects can be either material factors or size/shape factors. In addition, differences in the mode of operation (batch or semibatch reactor in the laboratory and continuous reactor on the full scale), or the type of equipment (e.g. stirred-tank reactor in the laboratory and packed- or plate- column reactor in commercial unit) can be causes of unexpected scale-up effects. A simple misuse of available tools and information also can lead to wrong effects. 

Another limitation is that there is no quantitative relationship between active drug transport in the cell culture models and in vivo e.g. [92, 93]. The reason may be that the expression level of the transporter in Caco-2 cells is not comparable to that in vivo or that there is a difference in effective surface area (see Section 4.3.2.2 below). One solution to this problem is to determine the apparent transport constants, Km and Vmax, for each transporter and subsequently, to determine a scaling factor. However, this is not readily done. In addition these studies are further complicated by the lack of specific substrates. For example, there are almost no specific substrates for the drug efflux transporters [18]. Therefore, other epithelial... 

Fitzgerald et al. (1984) measured pressure fluctuations in an atmospheric fluidized bed combustor and a quarter-scale cold model. The full set of scaling parameters was matched between the beds. The autocorrelation function of the pressure fluctuations was similar for the two beds but not within the 95% confidence levels they had anticipated. The amplitude of the autocorrelation function for the hot combustor was significantly lower than that for the cold model. Also, the experimentally determined time-scaling factor differed from the theoretical value by 24%. They suggested that the differences could be due to electrostatic effects. Particle sphericity and size distribution were not discussed failure to match these could also have influenced the hydrodynamic similarity of the two beds. Bed pressure fluctuations were measured using a single pressure point which, as discussed previously, may not accurately represent the local hydrodynamics within the bed. Similar results were... 

---