(16-05-2021, 05:41 PM)DONJCH wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anton, the figures quoted are 2 sigma.
No, it's one sigma (for the uncalibrated figures). For the calibrated curves, they give both one sigma and two sigma. For the normal distribution, one sigma is 68,2% probability, two sigmas is 95,4. Applying the calibration curve makes the calibrated distribution two-modal (quite unfortunately!), so they break the uncalibrated interval into two calibrated intervals (one for each mode). For example, folio 68: uncalibrated it's within one sigma (plus-minus) with 68,2% probability, and within two sigmas with 95,4% probability. However, the uncalibrated one sigma interval maps to two calibrated intervals - one is 1324-1345, the other is 1393-1422. The probability to fall into the former is 26,1%, into the latter - 42,1% (26,1+42,1 = 68,2). Same logic applies for the two-sigma interval.
That's how those results are to be read.
(16-05-2021, 06:05 PM)DONJCH wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Note also there is an error in the section "Averaging the Results to increase Precision"
"the measurement from solvent treated Leaf #68 was excluded from this average."
In fact it was the solvent untreated sample that was excluded.
I don't think so. Would they exclude the untreated sample, the left peak of the weighted curve would have been much more manifested. They just got rid of the "inconvenient" curve which is expressly two-modal.