Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(60)
Average errors of less than 12% on thermal power are obtained for the entire cycle.
The diffraction efficiencies for the elements approach 90% with uniformity errors of less than 5%.
Analysis of a sample typically takes ~10 seconds and produces measurements with errors of less than ±1%.
For continuum sources, only points with errors of less than 1e-5 degrees (about 1/4 pixel) are plotted.
Real time experiments on various manipulating tasks, such as trajectory/contour tracking, demonstrate precision errors of less than 1%.
These models explained more than 83% of the observed variability, with mean errors of less than 2.5 m.
These three methods present errors of less than 5%, involve low to medium cost, and the maintenance operations are simple.
The model prediction accuracy relative to FEM simulations is found to be satisfactory, with errors of less than 10%.
The actual values of the three process parameters and, thus, the causes of the deviations were estimated with errors of less than 4.4%.
The output of the FEM and traditional calculation resulted in small errors of less than 3% for draught and 5% for vertical forces for small pulling angles ⩽30°.
The model was able to simulate outflow concentrations of total phosphorus from all four plant communities with average relative errors of less than 35%.
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