Relative gait speed coefficients of variation ranged from 40 to 308% between patients, consistent with some degree of gait disturbance, despite the stun effect.
According to our calculation, the adiabatic approximation error is not linearly proportional to the average speed of the variation of the system Hamiltonian and the inverse of the energy gaps in many cases.
As we calculated, the adiabatic approximation error is not proportional to the average speed of the variation of the system Hamiltonian and the inverse of the energy gaps in many cases.
(25) Therefore, when the inverse of the energy gaps (frac{1}{lambda_{i}}) are fixed values, the approximation error ϵ is estimated to be proportional to the square of the average speed of the variation of the Hamiltonian, which is ((frac{lambda}{T})^{2}), as (lambdarightarrow0).
Since (sin^{2}(landda_{i}T/2)) and ΔH are bounded, this error term is primarily determined by (frac{lambda}{T}) which is the average speed of the variation of the system Hamiltonian, and (frac{1}{lambda_{i}}) which is the inverse of the energy gap between the ground and ith eigenstates of (H_{1}), as (lambdarightarrow0).
Infectious diseases have certain characteristic features that lead themselves to modeling, such as: speed of pathogen variation, accumulation of susceptible hosts, and environmental indices [ 9].
Open image in new window Fig. 7 The effect of speed of collector variations on nanofiber diameter and prediction of GMDH and ANN models (concentration 10%%, flow rate 0.4 cc/h, voltage 20 kV and collection distance 12 cm).
The results show that the critical parameters are affected by the configurations of the constituent materials, compositional profile variations, loading speed variations and the variation of the shell geometry.
Gait speed and coefficient of variation of gait cycle time (CVGCT) were selected as primary outcomes because they have been shown to be related to increased risk of falls [ 22, 26] (slow gait speed and high CVGCT indicate increased fall risk).
Line-following performance and disturbance rejection were excellent, with the cross-track error standard deviations of approximately 0.30 m, in spite of wind speed variations of over 50% of nominal value.
