Unit parabolic function

Contrary to the practical results reviewed above, statistics from correlation work revealed a serious deficiency in the accuracy with which Phase I Equations 3 and 4 predicted -for the Phase II dataset r for Equation 3 predictions for the 103 compound Phase II data was only 0.45 r for Equation 4 predictions for the Phase II dataset was only 0.44. An analysis of the residuals for the Phase II dataset [Potency(observed)-Potency(predicted by Phase I models)] immediately Identified the source of the problem of the 26 Phase II compounds having DICARB >4, 17 had potency for adult observed more than one log unit better than predicted 15 had egg potency observed more than one log unit better than predicted. As schematically shown in Figure 2B, the parabolic functions for DICARB for the Phase I models underpredict at values of DICARB extrapolated beyond those represented in the Phase I dataset. 

For the dependence on R we get a cosh function instead of a parabolic function as is the case for Newtonian liquids. Likewise, it is easy to calculate the volume flowing through the capillary in a unit of time. 

The subscripts have the same meaning as in (12.29), (12.30). Indeed, (12.29), (12.30) show that in the parabolic free energy function, the static free energy is the linear term with respect to Aq, while the relaxation free energy is the quadratic term. Thus,. A/l[A) and /L4[fxc are, respectively, the static and the relaxation free energies to insert a unit charge into the reactant state. 

The rate of lost work as a function of the chemical affinity (in dimensionless units see text). The solid line is Equation 4.37, whereas the dashed-dotted line is the parabolic asymptote for small A/RT0 and the dotted line is the linear asymptote for large A/RT0. 

---