Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(53)
Good agreement is shown between the calculated heat of formation and decomposition of magnesium alanate and the calculations made by Palumbo et al. [34] and the experimental data of Claudy et al. [53].
For the intermediate compositional bin the standard deviations and MAD values for calculated heat contents are 56%and47%7%, respectively.
For the intermediate compositional bin the variation in calculated heat values corresponds to standard deviations and MAD values heat of 8 and 7%.
The present work focuses on the comparison of experimentally obtained and calculated heat transfer coefficients.
The agreement between the calculated heat transfer coefficient and the data was within ±10% for the conditions evaluated.
For the fractional crystallization calculations, using the observed standard deviations and MAD for the SiO2 contents of samples in the silicic compositional bin gives standard deviations and MAD values in calculated heat contents of 15%and11%1%, respectively.
The results have confirmed an agreement neither between distillation and from absorption correlations calculated mass transfer coefficients nor between analogy and from enthalpy balance calculated heat transfer coefficients.
This heat transfer coefficient is compared to numerically calculated heat transfer coefficients for stagnation flows with both reactive and nonreactive boundary layers.
The results indicated that the perfect thermal contact model (PTCM) well matches the calculated heat flux at later stage of spill.
The largest source of uncertainty is the range of SiO2 and FeO*/MgO values shown by samples in each compositional bin, and the sensitivity of calculated heat values to changes in SiO2 and FeO*/MgO also varies between the different compositional bins used.
Specifically, for the cruciform molecular units we calculated heat capacities as a function of temperature and linked the position of the corresponding peak maxima with the structural parameters of the molecules.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com