Justice David H. Souter, in a dissent from the 2005 decision, cited a study showing "that dogs in artificial testing situations return false positives anywhere from 12.5 to 60 percent of the time".
The suspicion – no one was in a position to prove anything – was that the manufacturers had somehow designed their cars' powertrains to optimise their performance in a series of artificial tests, rather than to yield any particular savings for consumers.
In the artificial test run these parameters were mion = 1/3 × mp, nsw = 3 × 2.7 cm−3 and Tsw = 1/3 × 15 × 104 K.
Additionally, reovirus embedded in an artificial test soil was inactivated by GDA within one minute, whereas a concentration of 0.1% took 12 minutes to inactivate this virus completely [ 29].
The artificial tests were performed in a Weather-O-Meter® instrument equipped with a xenon arc as the light source.
The most important finding in this study is that in using these artificial test materials, both implants produced force displacement curves that had a similar pattern of failure as those produced with the femoral heads.
No obvious circannual rhythm in the controls was observed when earthworms were tested in artificial soil (14 tests were performed within a period of 4 years, with individual tests starting in nearly all months).
The placement of the tests in artificial teeth provided a realistic simulation of the dental setting, including variables such as the illumination source and the reduced contrast in a cavity, which may influence the visual performance during dental work.
One proposal called for the deployment of already existing technology to do emissions testing out on the road, as opposed to in a lab or in some kind of artificial testing station where an automaker can much more easily monkey with the results, as Volkswagen has apparently been doing for years.
To provide an organic challenge that mimicked medical device exposure in the body, an artificial test soil (ATS) was used in all biofilm studies.
