Subtraction error

The simplest and most popular experimental method is the well known one-dimensional (ID) NOE difference procedure [3], which is very easily implemented in any spectrometer and which can be routinely set up even by novice spectrometer operators. However, this difference method is based on subtraction of the unperturbed spectrum from the NOE-containing one, both separately recorded, and therefore the required difference information contributes only a small part of the recorded signal. Furthermore, the difference spectrum is very sensitive to subtraction errors, as well as pulse imperfections or missettings, or other spectrometer instabilities, all of which often result in prominent phase distortions or other subtraction artifacts which prevent the accurate measurement of the desired NOE values. Therefore the reliable measurement (or even detection) of enhancements below 1 % is not generally available using this difference method. 

Negative contamination caused by losses in handling or adsorption, resulting in subtractive errors. 

APECS is used in studies where determining the true shape of the XPS or Auger peaks free from background subtraction errors or overlapping features is important, such as for compihng standard reference spectra, instrument calibration, and verification of theoretical models of photoelectron and Auger emission. 

The host-guest molecular recognition process was also further substantiated by an intermolecular NOE study between 1 and L-Trp. In that study, the line broadening parameter was set to 4 Hz to minimize the subtraction error. When H8 of 1 was irradiated, weak negative intermolecular NOE signals of L-Trp s Ha,... 

Figure 1. Radial CO 2.36 m Profiles. Each point is center of a 1.5 arcsec bin. The formal 1(7 zero point uncertainty is 0.01 mag. The error bars show the photometric errors while the dashed profiles show the effect of a 1

A more useful quantity for comparison with experiment is the heat of formation, which is defined as the enthalpy change when one mole of a compound is formed from its constituent elements in their standard states. The heat of formation can thus be calculated by subtracting the heats of atomisation of the elements and the atomic ionisation energies from the total energy. Unfortunately, ab initio calculations that do not include electron correlation (which we will discuss in Chapter 3) provide uniformly poor estimates of heats of formation w ith errors in bond dissociation energies of 25-40 kcal/mol, even at the Hartree-Fock limit for diatomic molecules. 

Subtracting the slope matrix obtained by the multivariate least squares tieatment from that obtained by univariate least squares slope matiix yields the error mahix... 

If we compare the calculated total ionization potential, IP = 4.00 hartiees, with the experimental value, IP = 2.904 hartiees, the result is quite poor. The magnitude of the disaster is even more obvious if we subtract the known second ionization potential, IP2 = 2.00, from the total IP to find t c first ionization potential, IPi. The calculated value of IP2, the second step in reaction (8-21) is IP2 = Z /2 = 2.00, which is an exact result because the second ionization is a one-election problem. For the first step in reaction (8-21), IPi (calculated) = 2.00 and IPi(experimental) = 2.904 — 2.000 =. 904 hartiees, so the calculation is more than 100% in error. Clearly, we cannot ignore interelectronic repulsion. 

Even within a particular approximation, total energy values relative to the method s zero of energy are often very inaccurate. It is quite common to find that this inaccuracy is almost always the result of systematic error. As such, the most accurate values are often relative energies obtained by subtracting total energies from separate calculations. This is why the difference in energy between conformers and bond dissociation energies can be computed extremely accurately. 

In plotting on WeibuU paper, a downward concave plot implies a non2ero minimum life. Values for S < can be selected by trial and error. When they are subtracted from each /, a relatively straight line is produced. This essentially translates the three-parameter WeibuU distribution back to a two-parameter distribution. 

The titration error will increase with increasing dilution of the solution being titrated and is quite appreciable (ca 0.4 per cent) in dilute, say 0.01 M, solutions when the chromate concentration is of the order 0.003-0.005M. This is most simply allowed for by means of an indicator blank determination, e.g. by measuring the volume of standard silver nitrate solution required to give a perceptible coloration when added to distilled water containing the same quantity of indicator as is employed in the titration. This volume is subtracted from the volume of standard solution used. 

The last column of Table 10-6 shows the combined reset errors to be comparable with the counting error. (The subtraction of variances is justified because long-term drift had been proved absent in the first... 

Fig. 12. Interface width a as a function of annealing time x during initial stages of interdiffusion of PS(D)/PS(H) [95]. Data points are obtained by a fit with error function profiles of neutron reflectivity curves as shown in Fig. 11. Different symbols correspond to different samples. The interface width a0 prior to annealing is also indicated (T) and is subtracted quadratically from the data (a = [

Fig. 3.13. Density-dependence of the Qo, branch line width y of methane (the dashed line is for pure vibrational dephasing, supposed to be Unear in density), (o) experimental data (with error bars) [162] Top part rotational contribution yR and its theoretical estimation in motional narrowing limit [162] (solid line) the points were obtained by subtraction of dephasing contribution y

Answers Concerning the questions posed above, the second one is easily answered by adding to or subtracting from V2 small volumetric errors in line 130. For the bias to remain below about 1%, the volume error must remain below 0.03 ml. 

The variable ERRORmj n represents the error in the position of the mandrel over an increment in TIME, in seconds. ERRORman is calculated by subtracting the actual pulses accumulated, PULSEman, from the desired number of pulses that would be generated under perfect control. The desired number of pulses for perfect control is determined by the set point speed, RPSman, revolutions per second and the mechanical gear reduction. The constant 15630 is the product of encoder counts per revolution and the thirty to one gear reduction of the mandrel. 

Tn addition to the error due to the exposed stem, ordinary chemical thermometers of low cost are subject to errors due to irregularities in the bore and sometimes the scale graduations may not be very accurate. " It is therefore essential to check the thermometer at several temperatures against the melting points of pure solids or the boiling points of pure liquids as described below. The application of an exposed stem correction will of course be unnecessary if the thermometer is calibrated in this way. A calibration curve may then be drawn upon graph " paper from the data thus obtained. Temperatures at intervals of about 20° are marked as abscissae and the corrections to be added or subtracted as ordinates the points thus obtained are then connected by a smooth curve. The thermometer correction at any temperature may be read directly from the curve. 

Figure 5.24(B) shows a line profile extracted from the map of Figure 5.24(A) by averaging over 30 pixels parallel to the boundary direction corresponding to an actual distance of about 20 nm. The analytical resolution was 4 nm, and the error bars (95% confidence) were calculated from the total Cu X-ray peak intensities (after background subtraction) associated with each data point in the profile (the error associated with A1 counting statistics was assumed to be negligible). It is clear that these mapping parameters are not suitable for measurement of large numbers of boundaries, since typically only one boundary can be included in the field of view.

All the algebraic and geometric methods for optimization presented so far work when either there is no experimental error or it is smaller than the usual absolute differences obtained when the objective functions for two neighboring points are subtracted. When this is not the case, the direct search and gradient methods can cause one to go in circles, and the geometric method may cause the region containing the maximum to be eliminated from further consideration. 

---