Experiment. 93 As in previous studies (3, 14), participants stood barefoot on two laboratory-grade force plates 00 (XXXX-XX0-0-0000, XXXX, Xxxxxxxxx, XX, XXX). The force plates were mounted onto a custom 95 translation platform; however, analyses here considered only periods during which the platform was 96 stationary. Force and moment data were sampled at 1080 Hz and used to calculate the locations of the 97 center of pressure beneath each foot using calibration values supplied with the plates (15-17). Kinematic 98 data were collected at 120 Hz using a Vicon motion capture system (Centennial, CO, USA) and a 25- 99 marker set including reflective markers placed on the left and right heels. Average foot CoP locations and 100 heel marker positions were calculated over the first 250 ms of each trial. 101 Stance width was controlled by requesting participants press an object (typically a book) between the 102 medial surfaces of their feet, which was subsequently removed before data collection (≈87% of trials), or 103 by manipulating participant’s feet so that kinematic markers on the heels were aligned in the mediolateral 104 direction with tape marks on the floor (≈13%). 105 2.3 DATA ANALYSIS 106 Stance width measurements derived from CoP and kinematic data were plotted against each other and 107 examined visually. After visual assessment of outliers, trials were excluded due to: 1) tension in a ceiling- 108 mounted fall arrest tether interfering with CoP calculation (17 trials in one participant), and 2) absent 109 video records preventing trial review (2 trials in one participant). After applying exclusions, 1363 trials 110 (41 – 161 per participant) were available for analysis. Stance widths were expressed in mm and 111 normalized to inter-ASIS distance. 112 Following Xxxxx and Xxxxxx (10), correlation between the two measurements was assessed with the 113 Xxxxxxx product-moment correlation coefficient r. Differences between methods were calculated for each 114 trial and averaged across trials into a single difference value di for each participant. Mean values across 115 methods were calculated for each trial and averaged into a single mean value mi for each participant. Bias 116 between the two methods was quantified as the mean difference d (CoP – kinematic method) and the 117 standard deviation of the differences s. The limits of agreement were calculated as the range d–2s to d+2s. 118 Variation of differences di across groups was assessed with one-way ANOVA. Assoc...
Experiment. The photo-emission data were obtained at the Swedish synchrotron radiation facility MAX-lab using the surface end station of the I511 undulator × beamline49. The samples were prepared in a local molecular beam epitaxy system and were transferred to the photo-emission station in a portable ultrahigh vacuum chamber without being exposed to the atmosphere. The Mn concentrations were determined during growth by means of reflection high-energy electron diffraction oscillations, as described earlier50. Survey spectra recorded after transfer showed contamination-free surfaces, and low-energy electron diffraction showed (1 2) × × surface reconstruction. For very low Mn concentration (0.1%), the fractional spots of GaAs(100) c(4 4) were still present, but clearly stretched along the /100S azimuths, reflecting a transition for (1 2) pattern. All spectra presented here were obtained at room temperature from as-grown samples, that is, samples not subjected to postgrowth annealing. After the photo-emission experiment, the magnetic properties were measured ex situ in a SQUID setup. The sample with 6% Mn showed ferromagnetic behaviour below 55 K, whereas none of the other samples showed long-range order above 5 K. 50–53 scheme was applied to explicitly treat the local Coulomb interaction between the localized Mn-3d electrons. The 4-index rotationally invariant Coulomb interaction matrix was generated from the Xxxxxx parameters F0, F2 and F4. The choice of the average Coulomb repulsion F0, which corresponds to the Xxxxxxx U, is rather problematic, as no calculations based on constrained LDA or random phase approximation (RPA) methods are found in the literature. Therefore, we have considered values between 4 and 7 eV, which are the accepted strengths of the Coulomb repulsion for bulk metallic g-Mn (ref. 48) and MnO (ref. 45). The main results of the paper are presented for the intermediate value U 6 eV, whereas results for smaller and larger values are discussed at the end of the Results section. F2 and F4 are easier to evaluate and therefore were calculated directly from the electronic density as done in the study by Xxxxxxxx¨m et al.45. The calculated values correspond to the average Hund’s exchange parameter JC1 eV. The LDA DMFT results for J 0.8 eV, shown in Fig. 4, were based on F 2 and F4 obtained by means = = + of fixed atomic ratios41,42. + = The effective impurity problem arising in LDA DMFT has been solved through exact diagonalization method, as described in ...
Experiment. 2 Kappa analysis results are presented in Table 4. The ƙ value demonstrated that interobserver agreement for transverse CT images being representative of MCPD was fair between orthopaedic surgeons, board certified orthopaedic surgeons and moderate for board certified radiologists. ƙ value demonstrated that the interobserver agreement for the presence or absence of FMCP was moderate among all observers but was almost perfect for board certified imagers. Interobserver agreement for the presence of osteophyte was moderate within all groups. Sclerosis grading had a poor interobserver agreement in all groups (Table 4). Experiment 3 Assessment of intraobserver agreement for all images was moderate to almost perfect for MCPD, strong to almost perfect for FMCP and moderate to strong for osteophytes. The results for sclerosis grading were observer-dependent, varying between a fair and strong intraobserver agreement. This was independent of the experience of the observer as there was no difference between residents and board certified individuals (Table 4).
Experiment. Our folded optical resonator (Fig. 5.1) consists of three highly reflective mirrors (nominal specification R > 99.995%). The folding angle is 90◦, the radii of curvature of mirror M1 and MF are 1 m, mirror M2 is planar, and all mirrors have a diameter of 2.5 cm. Fig. 5.2 shows the complete experimental setup. The length of arm A2 is 1.2 cm, the length of arm A1 is variable. We probe the transmission of the resonator with a beam at a wavelength of 532 nm, produced ∼ by a frequency-doubled single-mode Nd:YAG laser. The beam is sent to the resonator via lens L1, enters the cavity through mirror M1 (here the beam diameter is 0.5 mm) and excites the Hermite-Gaussian modes of the cavity. The focal length of lens L1 equals distance A3, so that the (dotted) beam is injected parallel to the optical axis, independent of the rotation- angle of mirror M3. This allows us to vary Δr, the off-axis position of injection on mirror M1, ∼ ∼ independent of the angle of injection. We inject in the xz-principal plane or in the y-principal plane in order to excite only 1-dimensional TEMm0 or TEM0m modes. Exciting a limited set of modes makes labelling of the modes easier and allows us to measure closer to degeneracy. The spectrum is obtained from the spatially integrated throughput as a function of the cavity length, by scanning the position of mirror M1 with a piezo-element. Judging from these spectra, we estimate the finesse of the cavity as 5600 for low-order modes and 5000 for high-order modes. This is considerably smaller than the value of the finesse allowed by the mirror reflectivities (> 99.995%). We attribute this discrepancy mainly to scattering due to polishing errors of the mirrors.
Experiment. (a) Determine the water equivalent of the bomb calorimeter with benzoic acid.
Experiment. 4: people, cattle, AND police IN AMERICAN ENGLISH. Because we inten- tionally omitted from experiment 3 any collectives that American speakers reliably treat as plurals, we cannot yet claim with complete confidence that British and American speakers engage in the same basic linguistic operations when implementing agreement. If they do, Americans should also be susceptible to attraction from plural collectives. In experiment 4 we tested this hypothesis on American speakers. For this purpose we called on the miniscule inventory of collectives that most native speakers of American English know and treat categorically as plural. There are in fact only three of them, the collectives people, cattle, and police. These were usedas attrac- tors in the experimental items, along with five types of controls designed to explore other properties potentially relevant to the occurrence of attraction. Among other things, the array of controls helped to ensure that the anticipated few cases of attraction after people, cattle, and police were not chance occurrences.
Experiment. Data analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4/. . . ./. . . . . / . . . REPORT WRITING Report writing and final defence. . . . . 4/. . . ./. . . . . / . . . other activities that can be specified TOTAL 26/36 . ./. .
Experiment. 1 Two lists of 120 experimental word pairs each were generated. In the first list, word pairs were made up of a determiner article followed by a noun, whereas in the second list, word pairs included a noun followed by an adjective. The combination of the different gender and number forms of articles and adjectives resulted in the different experimental conditions: Article–noun word pairs:
Experiment. The experiment was performed at the Institut fu¨r Kernphysik at the University of Frank- furt using a Xxx xx Xxxxxx accelerator and the well established cold target recoil ion momen- tum spectroscopy technique (COLTRIMS) to measure the momentum vectors of all charged fragments created in the reaction [16] in coincidence. A 1 MeV proton beam from the accel- erator (defining the z-direction of the laboratory coordinate frame) was collimated using a set of variable slits with an opening of 0.5 × 1 mm2 (x × y). At 3.8 m downstream a second set of slits with an opening of 0.5 × 1.5 mm2 was placed. An oscillating electric field (≈150 V/cm), applied on a 30 xx xxxx set of deflector plates 1 m behind the first collimation was used to chop the beam (for more details see [17]) into buckets of 1 ns length at a repeti- tion rate of 2 MHz. The projectile beam was crossed at right angle with a supersonic He gas jet (defining the y-direction of the coordinate frame). The jet was created by expand- ing precooled (40 K) He gas with a stagnation pressure of 2 bar through a 30 µm nozzle, resulting in a speed ratio larger than 100, a target density of 2 × 1011 atoms/cm2 and a jet diameter of 1.5 mm at the intersection region. Accordingly, a momentum resolution in expansion direction of ∆Kp,y=0.1 a.u. could be achieved. Ions and electrons created in the intersection volume of the projectile and target beam are accelerated by a weak electric field (in x-direction) of E = 6.8 V/cm towards two position- and time-sensitive detectors. The electron arm of the spectrometer was employed in a time-focusing geometry [18] in order to increase the momentum resolution. To reduce the diminishing influence of the extended intersection volume on the experimental resolution even further, the ion side of the spec- trometer was designed as a time- and space-focusing geometry (see [19–21]). More details on this set-up can be found in [22, 23]. The charged fragments were detected using multi- channel plate (MCP) detectors with delay line anodes for position read out [24]. Hexagonal anodes [25] were used with diameters of 120 mm (electrons) and 40 mm (ions), respectively. The hexagonal approach allows for an automatic correction of nonlinearity effects, resulting in a dramatic improvement of the overall linearity and local position resolution to values of 100 µm (FWHM). A weak magnetic field of 7.5 Xxxxx was superimposed parallelly to the electric field to guide the electrons towards the detector [...
Experiment. 1 If the robot bumps into something, what does it do? When you hold a piece of paper slightly to the right of the robot, what does it do? Approximately how close to the paper does XX get before it does this? TJ Color Action Approximate Distance White Black Xxx Xxxxx Blue Yellow When you hold a piece of paper slightly to the left of the robot, what does it do? Approximately how close to the paper does XX get before it does this? TJ Color Action Approximate Distance White Black Xxx Xxxxx Blue Yellow TJ TJ If you hold paper on both sides of the robot, what happens? If you put two TJs facing each other, how do they react? When XX sees something to the left, it turns . When XX sees something to the right, it turns .
