"... In PAGE 5: ... The rst example is a general type three legged platform in the plane. Table1 shows the given coordinates of the base points A0; B0; C0 in the base coordinate system and the coordinates of the platform in some arbitrary coordinate system E. Furthermore the three leg lengths are given.... ..."

"... In PAGE 17: ...6 After solving the direct kinematics the inverse of that transformation has to be one solution. Table3 shows the coordinates of the given points in base coordinate system (A0; :::F0) and platform coordinate system (A; :::F).... ..."

"... In PAGE 13: ...ncountering the RUM. Total depths ranged between 31.1 m (102 ft) and 32.5 m (106.5 ft) bgs. Table2 -1 summarizes the pertinent drilling information. All drilling activities were documented in accordance with BHI-EE-01, Environmental Investigations Procedures, Procedure 6.... In PAGE 14: ... The well designs meet the minimum standards required by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-160 and/or applicable variances for construction of resource protection wells. Table2 -2 summarizes the well completion data. A summary of well completion materials is provided in the well construction summary reports (see Appendix B).... In PAGE 15: ... All water produced during pumping development was contained in purgewater trucks. Table2 -3 summarizes the final well development data. The well development and testing data sheets and drawdown/recovery charts are included in Appendix C.... In PAGE 15: ... Pump intakes were set approximately 0.3 m (1 ft) above the bottom of the well screen (see Table2 -2). Three ISRM barrier wells had extraction/injection assemblies installed with the pump intakes set approximately at the mid- point of the screens.... In PAGE 16: ...0 mg/kg) of hexavalent chromium. All drill cuttings from above the water table were below the release criterion for radioactivity and hexavalent chromium and were discharged to the ground ( Table2 -4). Water samples were collected when the water table was first encountered during drilling.... In PAGE 16: ... With the exception of wells 199-D4-31 and 199-D4-36, analyses were below the release criterion for hexavalent chromium for fluids of 110 ppb (0.110 mg/L), and the fluids were discharged to the ground ( Table2 -4). The water from drilling wells 199-D4-31 and 199-D4-36 was contained and transferred to the purgewater truck during final well development.... In PAGE 16: ... With a quality control (QC) designation of QC-1, no laboratory control standards or matrix spike samples were required. The well development test results are summarized in Table2 -3, and the hexavalent chromium field screening results are provided in Table 2-4. 2.... In PAGE 17: ... For this evaluation, well 199-D4-21 was selected. Table2 -5 summarizes the results from the adjacent well study. From a distance of 10.... In PAGE 17: ... Appendix D provides graphs of the data summarized in Table 2-5. Table2 -6 summarizes the impacts of air drilling to an established well. Only one set of readings from well 199-D4-21 (taken on April 12, 2000) potentially indicated that the area around an established well was influenced.... In PAGE 18: ... All values shown in the survey data report are expressed in metric units. The results of the survey are summarized in Table2 -1, and the survey data reports are included in Appendix E.... In PAGE 21: ...H I - 01381 Tech n i cal Dat a Re v . 0 ISR M B a r r i e r W e l l Com p l e t i on R e por t f o r t h e 100-H R -3 G r oundw at e r O U , F Y 00 A ugus t 2 000 2- 9 Table2 -2. Well Completion Summary.... In PAGE 22: ...H I - 01381 Tech n i cal Dat a Re v . 0 ISR M B a r r i e r W e l l Com p l e t i on R e por t f o r t h e 100-H R -3 G r oundw at e r O U , F Y 00 A ugus t 2 000 2- 10 Table2 -3. Well Development Data.... In PAGE 23: ...Technical Data Rev. 0 ISRM Barrier Well Completion Report for the 100-HR-3 Groundwater OU, FY 00 August 2000 2-11 Table2 -4. Hexavalent Chromium Field Screening Results.... In PAGE 24: ...Technical Data Rev. 0 ISRM Barrier Well Completion Report for the 100-HR-3 Groundwater OU, FY 00 August 2000 2-12 Table2 -4. Hexavalent Chromium Field Screening Results.... In PAGE 25: ...M B a r r i e r W e l l Com p l e t i on R e por t f o r t h e 100-H R -3 G r oundw at e r O U , F Y 00 A ugus t 2 000 2- 13 B H I - 01381 Tech n i cal Dat a Re v . 0 Table2 -5. ISRM FY 2000 Air Drilling -- Dissolved Oxygen/Water Level Summary (Adjacent Wells).... In PAGE 26: ...Technical Data Rev. 0 ISRM Barrier Well Completion Report for the 100-HR-3 Groundwater OU, FY 00 August 2000 2-14 Table2 -6. ISRM Fiscal Year 2000 Air Drilling -- Dissolved Oxygen Summary (Established Barrier).... ..."

"... In PAGE 8: ... in order to determine the component number. 4 DISCUSSIONS We construct an epilepsy tensor for each seizure shown in Table1 and analyze using the process summarized in Figure 5. When the components extracted by a PARAFAC model are visually inspected, we observe that: (1) In patients with tumors, seizure localization is restricted to a smaller area and the concordance with visual analysis is high.... ..."

"... In PAGE 39: ...removing the local mean before the Wiener filter is applied, and adding it again afterwards, makes the MSE result worse. Table7 shows the MSE results of applying the estimators referred to above to the RGB image in Experiments 4 (interpolation), 5 (smoothing) and 6 (filtering). Again, in the three cases, the probabilistic schemes achieve better MSE results than their deterministic counterparts.... ..."

"... In PAGE 9: ... De ne e(j) m (n) = m X p=1 quot;(j) p (n ? m + p): (28) Then, we can de ne a set of IJL auxiliary coe cients b w(i;j) l (n) whose updates are given by b w(i;j) l (n + 1) = b w(i;j) l (n) ? e(j) M (n)x(i)(n ? M ? l): (29) To compute the controller outputs, the multichannel equivalent of (16) is y(j)(n) = I Xi=1 L?1 Xl=0 b w(i;j) l (n)x(i)(n ? l) ? M?1 X m=1 e(j) m (n ? 1)rm+1(n); (30) where rm(n) in this case is de ned as rm(n) = I Xi=1 L?1 Xl=0 x(i)(n ? l)x(i)(n ? l ? m): (31) In analogy with (17), rm(n) can be recursively computed as rm(n) = rm(n ? 1) + I Xi=1 nx(i)(n)x(i)(n ? m) ? x(i)(n ? L)x(i)(n ? L ? m)o: (32) Similarly, e(j) m (n) has an update similar to that in (18), as given by e(j) m (n) = 8 gt; gt; gt; lt; gt; gt; gt; : K X k=1h(j;k) 1 (k) (n) if m = 1 e(j) m?1(n ? 1) + K X k=1h(j;k) m (k) (n) if 2 m M : (33) Collecting (24), (29), (30), (32), and (33), we obtain an alternative, equivalent implementation of the multichannel ltered{X LMS algorithm. Table1 lists the operations of this implementation,... In PAGE 13: ....2.2 An Alternate Implementation Although useful, the delay-compensation method in (37), (39), and (41) can be prohibitive to implement when the number of channels is large, as its complexity grows as O(IJKM). We now consider an alternate implementation that uses many of the existing quantities within the e cient multichannel ltered{X LMS algorithm in Table1 while avoiding the formation of the ltered input signal values. For this derivation, consider the de nition of (j;k) m (n) in (40).... In PAGE 14: ... Table 5 lists the operations for this alternative form of the LMS algorithm for multichannel active noise control. This algorithm requires JKM + J(M + 1)(M ? 1) more MACs per iteration than does the ltered{X LMS algorithm in Table1 . If M ? 1 M lt; (4I + 1)K; (47) then this implementation is more computationally-e cient than that in (37), (39), and (41).... In PAGE 16: ... Figure 3 shows the unattenuated air compressor noise signal, in which the bursty nature of the compressor noise is clearly evident, along with the average error power envelopes of the original ltered{X LMS and LMS algorithms applied to this data, in which the step sizes for each algorithm were chosen as = 0:1 and = 0:2, respectively. Shown for comparison in Figure 4 are the average error power envelopes of the adjoint LMS/CPFE algorithm, the fast ltered{X LMS algorithm in Table1 , and the new multichannel LMS algorithm in Table 5, in which the step sizes for each algorithm were chosen as = 0:05, = 0:1, and = 0:2, respectively. As can be seen, the fast multichannel ltered{X LMS algorithm outperforms the adjoint LMS/CPFE algorithm in its convergence rate, and the multichannel LMS algorithm performs the best of the three due to the lack of coe cient delay within the parameter updates.... In PAGE 20: ... Table1 : The fast multichannel ltered{X LMS algorithm. Table 2: Complexity comparison, standard and fast multichannel ltered{X LMS algorithms, L = 50, M = 25.... ..."