Search alternatives:
largest decrease » largest decreases (Expand Search), marked decrease (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
increase grid » increase i (Expand Search)
Showing 61 - 80 results of 4,009 for search '(( significant increase grid ) OR ( significant ((largest decrease) OR (larger decrease)) ))', query time: 0.44s Refine Results
  1. 61

    Data_Sheet_1_Root System Scale Models Significantly Overestimate Root Water Uptake at Drying Soil Conditions.PDF by Deepanshu Khare (12083333)

    Published 2022
    “…We analyze this problem using a finite volume scheme and investigate the impact of grid size on the RSS model results. At dry conditions, the cumulative RWU was overestimated by up to 300% for the coarsest soil grid of 4.0 cm and by 30% for the finest soil grid of 0.2 cm, while the computational demand increased from 19 s to 21 h. …”
  2. 62

    Scheme of g-λ model with larger values λ. by Zhanfeng Fan (20390992)

    Published 2024
    “…The findings suggest that when λ is respectively equal to 4.19, 8.57, 10, and 12.15, the peak particle velocity (PPV) of the transmitted waves is significantly close to the incident wave amplitude. Furthermore, when λ is fixed, the energy transmission coefficient increases with the incident wave amplitude but decreases with the incident wave frequency. …”
  3. 63
  4. 64
  5. 65
  6. 66
  7. 67
  8. 68
  9. 69
  10. 70
  11. 71
  12. 72
  13. 73
  14. 74
  15. 75
  16. 76

    Single-Line scheme of Ajinde 62-node grid. by Zuhair Alaas (20868907)

    Published 2025
    “…<div><p>In distribution grids, excessive energy losses not only increase operational costs but also contribute to a larger environmental footprint due to inefficient resource utilization. …”
  17. 77

    Spatial information is significantly decreased in dCA1 and vCA1 in APP/PS1 mice. by Udaysankar Chockanathan (18510288)

    Published 2024
    “…The spatial information in dCA1 was significantly larger than circularly shuffled spike trains with similar mean firing rates for C57BL/6 mice (mean ± std: empirical = 0.132 ± 0.048, shuffled = 0.124 ± 0.035, p < 0.001, two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, n<sub>empirical</sub> = 305 units from 5 recording sessions, n<sub>shuffled</sub> = 30500 simulated units from 5 recording sessions), but not for APP/PS1 mice (mean ± std: empirical = 0.128 ± 0.051, shuffled = 0.123 ± .047, p = 0.39, two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, n<sub>empirical</sub> = 180 units from 4 recording sessions, n<sub>shuffled</sub> = 18000 simulated units from 4 recording sessions). …”
  18. 78
  19. 79
  20. 80