Search alternatives:
latest decrease » largest decrease (Expand Search), greatest decrease (Expand Search), largest decreases (Expand Search)
values decrease » values increased (Expand Search), largest decrease (Expand Search)
sizes decrease » scores decreased (Expand Search), rivers decreased (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search)
a latest » a latent (Expand Search), _ latest (Expand Search), _ latent (Expand Search)
i values » _ values (Expand Search)
latest decrease » largest decrease (Expand Search), greatest decrease (Expand Search), largest decreases (Expand Search)
values decrease » values increased (Expand Search), largest decrease (Expand Search)
sizes decrease » scores decreased (Expand Search), rivers decreased (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search)
a latest » a latent (Expand Search), _ latest (Expand Search), _ latent (Expand Search)
i values » _ values (Expand Search)
-
1
-
2
-
3
Schematic diagram of experimental injector size.
Published 2025“…The main findings of this study are as follows: (1) As the temperature of the hot surface increases, the ignition delay time generally shows a decreasing trend, with 450°C being a critical turning point; (2) There is an overlap between ignition and non-ignition cases within a specific range, forming a possible ignition zone, and the <i>R</i>² values of the fitting equations for the upper and lower boundaries are both above 95%, indicating a good fit. (3) The fractal dimension can effectively quantify the geometric complexity of the flame’s outer contour, thereby characterizing the stability of the flame’s combustion. …”
-
4
Characteristic size values.
Published 2024“…The research results indicate that: (1) As the rock bridge angle increases, the secant modulus gradually decreases, following a power function relationship. (2) As the rock size increases, the secant modulus shows a trend of first decreasing and then stabilizing, following a power function relationship. (3) As the rock bridge angle increases, the characteristic tangent modulus and characteristic size gradually decrease, following a power function relationship. …”
-
5
-
6
E<sub>50</sub> values of size.
Published 2024“…The research results indicate that: (1) As the rock bridge angle increases, the secant modulus gradually decreases, following a power function relationship. (2) As the rock size increases, the secant modulus shows a trend of first decreasing and then stabilizing, following a power function relationship. (3) As the rock bridge angle increases, the characteristic tangent modulus and characteristic size gradually decrease, following a power function relationship. …”
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
Critical pore size values of each coal sample.
Published 2025“…The variations in the maximum and minimum values of vertical principal stress at each peak level are 1.04, 1.04, and 1.05 times, respectively. …”
-
12
-
13
-
14
Study 1_CFA1.
Published 2025“…Findings from Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) in Study II indicate that in Experiment I, positive electronic word of mouth does not help improve value co-creation among spectators while negative electronic word of mouth does decrease value co-creation among spectators. …”
-
15
-
16
-
17
Study 1_EFA.
Published 2025“…Findings from Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) in Study II indicate that in Experiment I, positive electronic word of mouth does not help improve value co-creation among spectators while negative electronic word of mouth does decrease value co-creation among spectators. …”
-
18
Study 2_Experiment 1.
Published 2025“…Findings from Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) in Study II indicate that in Experiment I, positive electronic word of mouth does not help improve value co-creation among spectators while negative electronic word of mouth does decrease value co-creation among spectators. …”
-
19
Study 1_CFA2.
Published 2025“…Findings from Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) in Study II indicate that in Experiment I, positive electronic word of mouth does not help improve value co-creation among spectators while negative electronic word of mouth does decrease value co-creation among spectators. …”
-
20