"... In PAGE 4: ...rag of 0.4 lb. at 200 knots. The power consumption with de-icing heaters powered off is 10 W, and with heaters on 280 W. Listed in Table3 are the specifications for measured parameters, while Table 4 lists specifications for derived or computed parameters. An airborne system configuration for the TAMDAR sensor is shown in Figure 7.... ..."

"... In PAGE 8: ... We ran these experiments back to back with experi- ments without dynamic leave#2Fjoin. Table4 compares one typical run of the two experiments. In these ex- periments all hosts used a 500 ms playback bu#0Ber.... ..."

"... In PAGE 4: ...06 m/s, 1.9 m/s respectively; Table1 ). These measurements are 3-5 times larger than those found by Swartz (1990) or Willis (1967) for statary colonies.... In PAGE 5: ... However, the usefulness of such a measure is questionable. Direction of travel ( Table1 a): Swartz (1997) reported that previous work (Franks and Fletcher, 1983) found a systematic bias in the daily direction taken by the E. Burchelli foraging column.... ..."

"... In PAGE 11: ... Six SAR wave spectra were processed, at positions selected to sample the spreading of the wave fielcl as well as to be close to the buoys (Figure 1). The wave length and wave direction from these spectra are listed in Table2 and representative spectra from December 29 are shown in Figure 7. In all cases, the wave lenSths are greater than 300 m and the wave directions are eastward or range-traveling with respect to the satellite track.... In PAGE 12: ... For this study, NDBC buoys 46001,46003, and 46042 have been utilized, noting again that 46042 is a directional buoy. From the WHO1-ASREX program, data from the non-directional Endeco buoy was used, since the directional Seatex buoy had already been recovered, Table2 lists the key buoy information. For buoy 46001, the low frequency peak of 0.... In PAGE 13: ...First we consider the arrival times measured by the group velocity derived from the SAR and buoy measurements (Tcg), compared with the total elapsed time (AT) between the observations and the estimated storm source time (December 28, OOZ). It can be seen from Table2 that by and large these measurements result in earlier arrival times, with the exception of the most distance buoy measurements (Endeco and 46042) where the derived arrival times are nearly equal to the elapsed times. The earlier times would indicate that the estimated source region needs updating by being moved further away, but the close times of the distance buoys suggest that the estimated source location and time is actually quite good.... In PAGE 28: ...Table2 Legend SAR ORBIT (Track-Pos) = ERS - 1 (E) orbit number plus track and position of SAR image on Figure 1. BUOY = Buoy identifier.... In PAGE 28: ... 28 00Z) and buoy or SAR wave length measurement. Table2 NTotes... ..."

"... In PAGE 21: ... The Conditional Distribution: Dynamic Dependence, Fractional Integration and Scaling Our analysis of one-day volatilities reinforces earlier findings of strong volatility clustering. The Ljung-Box tests that we report in Table6 indicate that the strong serial dependence is preserved under temporal aggregation. Even at the monthly level, or h = 20 , with only 122 observations, all of the test... In PAGE 22: ... Using numerical techniques, Andersen, Bollerslev and Lange (1998) have recently shown that, given the estimates typically obtained at the daily level, from a theoretical perspective the integrated volatility should remain strongly serially correlated, and highly predictable, under temporal aggregation, even at the monthly level. The Ljung-Box statistics for the realized volatilities presented in Table6 provide empirical confirmation. The results in section 4 indicate that realized daily volatilities appear fractionally integrated.... In PAGE 22: ... The class of fractionally integrated models is self-similar, so that the degree of fractional integration should be invariant to the sampling frequency of the process; see, for example, Beran (1994). This strong prediction is borne out by the estimates for d for the different levels of aggregation, which we report in Table6 . All of the estimates are within two asymptotic standard errors of the average estimate of 0.... ..."

"... In PAGE 3: ... 3. Observations at ACE-2 Stations Here we focus on near-surface measurements of sulfate MRs ( Table1 ). Observations used were from Sagres, Portugal (8.... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ... This will provide representative examples of soil erosion predictive models, and from these examples, the model will be chosen for implementation with GRASS. To that end, a classification scheme in Table2 -1 is presented that seeks to represent the variety of soil erosion prediction models found in the current literature. The table shows four basic levels, with Level 1 being the most simple of the models to understand and implement and Level 4 being the most complex and difficult.... In PAGE 6: ... This research focuses on the most commonly used models because, quot;most models [soil erosion models] are sufficiently modular that component relationships can be changed to meet the specific needs of the user [11]. Models were chosen to cover in detail the four levels of mathematical difficulty and complexity (see Table2 -1). The models analyzed were the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), Meyer and Wischmeier apos;s Simulation of the Process of Soil Erosion By Water, the Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loading Model ... In PAGE 8: ... The methods that constitute Level 4 all attempt to model analytically each of the important steps in the erosion process. TABLE 2-1: Classification Scheme for Soil Erosion Prediction Models The levels of mathematical difficulty and complexity are shown in Table2 -1 [19]. Models will be examined from each of these four levels so that an accurate examination of soil erosion prediction models can be researched.... In PAGE 13: ...37 Waben 0.28 Table2... In PAGE 14: ... The factor seeks to measure the combined effect of all the interrelated cover and management variables. Table2 -3 shows the C factors for current land use and land cover [15]. Although the values for C are available for various farm and land use conditions, this study will focus primarily on those values that pertain to construction areas.... In PAGE 14: ...anagement variables. Table 2-3 shows the C factors for current land use and land cover [15]. Although the values for C are available for various farm and land use conditions, this study will focus primarily on those values that pertain to construction areas. Since part of this study evaluates the amount of soil erosion that takes place after construction modifications are made to the land area, the factor C for mulches in this study is included in the Table2... In PAGE 15: ... 15 mulches are used and construction work has removed all vegetation and the root zone of the soil which removes the residual effects of prior vegetation. Table2 -4 gives the Cover and Management ... In PAGE 16: ...1 Confined Animal Operations 0.15 Table2... In PAGE 18: ...02 100 quot; 25 34-50 0.02 75 Table2... In PAGE 22: ... Thus, once the improved model is finished, it should be relatively easy to use the RUSLE in GRASS and this research. Table2 -5 shows some of the major differences as well as similarities between the RUSLE and the USLE [21] . Table 2-5: USLE vs.... In PAGE 22: ... Table 2-5 shows some of the major differences as well as similarities between the RUSLE and the USLE [21] . Table2 -5: USLE vs. RUSLE: Similarities and Differences Factor Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) R Based on long-term rainfall conditions for specific geographic areas in the U.... In PAGE 23: ... P factor values are based on hydrologic groups, slope, row grade, ridge height, and the 10-year single storm index values. --------------------------------- RUSLE estimates of P factor may be higher or lower than estimates obtained through the USLE Table2 -5 (continued): USLE vs. RUSLE: Similarities and Differences Conclusions In terms of complexity the RUSLE would remain a Level 1 model because no delivery mechanism exits for the movement of sediment and water.... In PAGE 35: ... IRC, KK24 The interflow and groundwater recession parameters. Table2... In PAGE 36: ... 36 The major parameters of the LANDS subroutine are given in Table2 -4 [6]. The flowchart provided in Figure 2-4 shows the subprogram of LANDS.... In PAGE 46: ... 46 Stormwater Models Table2 -7, taken from the Virginia Department of Transportation Manual sums up the basic capabilities of the SWM models in the current literature [39]. Table 2-7: A Comparison of Stormwater Models Capability HSPF STORM SWMM ... In PAGE 61: ... Since GRASS can only store integer numbers in the data layers, these factors were multiplied by a factor of 100 for relative accuracy. The values used for K in this analysis were taken from Table2 -1 which can be found in the Soil Survey For Madison County in the state of Arkansas [28]. As an example, in the soil survey for Huntsville, AR, the K factor for the soil called Allen is 0.... In PAGE 62: ... The C factor is a required primary data layer and the value is between 0 and 1. These values can be found in Table2 -3 and Table 2-4 for the different types of cover and mulches that can be applied. The values for the C factor can be quite small and as a result a factor of 1000 was applied to the various C factors for relative accuracy.... ..."

"... In PAGE 5: ... Therefore, one employ another value, the entropy, to evaluate dynamical complexity. The results are given in Table2 . One can observe that larger value of k leads to larger value of the entropy.... ..."

"... In PAGE 10: ... A better measure is to look at the distribution relative to the homopause. The mean escape altitude for each species is shown in Table3 . This is actually calculated directly by the model and does not use the binned data.... In PAGE 14: ... This allows deeper collisions to potentially create particles capable of escaping. The actual difference in source altitudes for escaping COZ, CO, and C reflects more than this effect (see Table3 ). It is also caused by the energy the particle has after being accelerated and the number of collisions it can undergo and still escape.... In PAGE 34: ... - The mean altitude that each species is lost from as the initial state of the impacting O+ ion changes. The percentage changes are relative to the 1 EUV atmosphere (shown in first column, from Table3 ). In two cases, the initial energy is changed by 25%.... In PAGE 40: ... the indicated cross section is changed by 25%. The per- centage changes are relative to the 1 EUV atmosphere (shown in first column, from Table3... ..."