Tests results obtained

Hollow Sprays. Most atomizers that impart swid to the Hquid tend to produce a cone-shaped hoUow spray. Although swid atomizers can produce varying degrees of hoUowness in the spray pattern, they aU seem to exhibit similar spray dynamic features. For example, detailed measurements made with simplex, duplex, dual-orifice, and pure airblast atomizers show similar dynamic stmctures in radial distributions of mean droplet diameter, velocity, and Hquid volume flux. Extensive studies have been made (30,31) on the spray dynamics associated with pressure swid atomizers. Based on these studies, some common features were observed. Test results obtained from a pressure swid atomizer spray could be used to iUustrate typical dynamic stmctures in hoUow sprays. The measurements were made using a phase Doppler spray analyzer. 

Precision The degree of agreement be-tw een independent test results obtained under the same conditions. 

The closeness of agreement between independent test results obtained by applying the experimental procedure under stipulated conditions. The smaller the random part of the experimental errors which affect the results, the more precise the procedure. A measure of precision (or imprecision) is the standard deviation. 

This adverse unheated wall effect on the coolant effectiveness can be reduced by installing a rough liner or a square ring of 0.080-in. (0.20-cm) height with spacing of 0.9-2.6 in. (2.3-6.6 cm) on the unheated surface of the annulus to trip the cold liquid film. The test results obtained at about 1,000 psia by Janssen and Kervinen (1963) are as follows. 

Precision is defined as the closeness of agreement between independent test results obtained under stipulated conditions (Fleming et al. [1996b] Prichard et al. [2001]). Precision characterizes the random component of the measurement error and, therefore, it does not relate to the true value. 

The closeness of agreement between independent test results obtained under stipulated conditions . 

The accuracy of an analytical method is given by the extent by which the value obtained deviates from the true value. One estimation of the accuracy of a method entails analyzing a sample with known concentration and then comparing the results between the measured and the true value. The second approach is to compare test results obtained from the new method to the results obtained from an existing method known to be accurate. Other approaches are based on determinations of the per cent recovery of known analyte spiked into blank matrices or products (i.e., the standard addition method). For samples spiked into blank matrices, it is recommended to prepare the sample at five different concentration levels, ranging over 80-120%, or 75-125%, of the target concentration. These preparations used for accuracy studies usually called synthetic mixtures or laboratory-made preparations . 

The robustness of an analytical method can be defined as a measure of the capability of the method to remain unaffected by small, but deliberate, variations in method parameters. The parameter therefore provides an indication of the method reliability during normal usage. The ruggedness of a method is the degree of reproducibility of test results obtained by the analysis of the same samples under a variety of conditions, such as different laboratories, different analysts, different instruments, different lot of reagents, different days, etc. 

We will address aspects of reproducibility, which has previously been defined as, the precision between laboratories . It has also been defined as total between-laboratory precision . This is a measure of the ability of different laboratories to evaluate each other. Reproducibility includes all the measurement errors or variances, including the within-laboratory error. Other terms include precision, defined as the closeness of agreement between independent test results obtained under stipulated conditions [3] and repeatability, or the precision for the same analyst within the same laboratory, or within-laboratory precision . Note that for none of these definitions do we require the true value for an analytical sample . In practice we do not know the true analyte value unless we have created the sample, and then it is only known to a given certainty (i.e., within a determined uncertainty). 

Translation of National Test Data. A less cumbersome solution could be found if there was the possibility of satisfying a regulatory requirement of one Member State by test results obtained from a fire test procedure of another Member State. 

Repeatability (r) is the value below which the absolute difference between two single test results obtained with the same method on identical test material, under the same conditions (same operator, same apparatus, same laboratory and a short interval of time) may be expected to lie, with a specified probability in the absence of other indications, a probability of 95% is used. 

Precision and bias both influence a result - this is illustrated in Figure 4.4 and discussed below. As mentioned in Section 4.3.2, the precision of a method is a statement of the closeness of agreement between independent test results obtained... 

Precision is the closeness of agreement between independent test results obtained under stipulated conditions. The precision tells us by how much we can expect the results of repeated measurements to vary. The precision of a set of measurement results will depend on the magnitude of the random errors affecting the measurement process. Precision is normally expressed as a standard deviation or relative standard deviation (see Section 6.1.3). 

Precision The closeness of agreement between independent test results obtained under stipulated conditions. NOTES (i) Precision depends only on the distribution of random errors and does not relate to the true value or the specified value, (ii) The measure of precision is usually expressed in terms of imprecision and computed as a standard deviation of the test results. Less precision is reflected by a larger standard deviation, (iii) Independent test results means results obtained in a manner not influenced by any previous results on the same or similar test object, (iv) Quantitative measures of precision depend critically on the stipulated conditions. Repeatability and reproducibility conditions are particular sets of extreme stipulated conditions. 

Repeatability limit The value less than or equal to which the absolute difference between two test results obtained under repeatability conditions may be expected to be with a probability of 95%. 

Locked-cycle test results obtained from the Mrima Hill niobium refractory ore... 

Based on previously cited EDP documentation and EDS II testing results of the AEA SILVER II process, as well as the committee s consideration of test results obtained during Demo II, the following assessment of process component design and operation has been prepared (NRC, 2001b). 

The precision of a test method is the variability between test results obtained on the same material using a specific test method (ASTM, 2004 Patnaik, 2004). The precision of a test is usually unrelated to its accuracy. The results may be precise, but not necessarily accurate. In fact, the precision of an analytical method is the amount of scatter in the results obtained from multiple analyses of a homogeneous sample. To be meaningful, the precision study must be performed using the exact sample and standard preparation procedures that will be used in the final method. Precision is expressed as repeatability and reproducibility. 

Interlaboratory or between-laboratory precision is defined in terms of the variability between test results obtained on the aliquots of the same homogeneous material in different laboratories using the same test method. 

Ruggedness (reproducibility) Degree of reproducibility of test results obtained by the analysis of the same sample under a variety of normal test conditions ... 

Test results obtained for fin-pylons with co-flow injection of barbotated kerosene did not show a noticeable difference in mixing and combustion efficiencies with round and elliptic nozzles. 

Method validation seeks to quantify the likely accuracy of results by assessing both systematic and random effects on results. The properly related to systematic errors is the trueness, i.e. the closeness of agreement between the average value obtained from a large set of test results and an accepted reference value. The properly related to random errors is precision, i.e. the closeness of agreement between independent test results obtained under stipulated conditions. Accnracy is therefore, normally studied as tmeness and precision. 

Fig. 15.18 SFJ test results obtained with a command signal composed of two sine waves, showing that the generated thrust follows the applied command signals through the gas generator pressure and the ramburner pressure.

QC records relating to raw materials, in-process and final product are generated in much the same way — by printing/photocopying originals and filling in the test results obtained. 

An analysis of technology costs for the C-G process was inclnded in a report published by the U. S. (EPA) in 1992. The cost estimate for treating petrolenm-contaminated drilling mud waste is extrapolated from test results obtained in EPA laboratory tests. The estimate assnmes treatment of 23,000 tons (21,000 metric tons) at a rate of 1.4 tons (1.3 metric tons) per honr. The EPA per ton cost estimate is 523. Of this amonnt, C-G process-specific cost was 221 and site-specific cost was 302. Of the site-specific costs, 240 was for incinerating the recovered oil. Costs presented in this analysis were reported as order-of-magnitnde estimates (i.e., —30 to 4-50%). Other assnmptions nsed in this estimate are inclnded in Case Stndy 1 (D105453). 

Repeatability limits pertain to the difference between two test results obtained by the same operator for the same test fuel under constant operating conditions. If test values fall outside of these limits, the repeatability is considered poor. 

---