<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<documents xmlns='http://eprints.org/ep2/data/2.0'>
  <document id='https://researchdata.bath.ac.uk/id/document/17858'>
    <docid>17858</docid>
    <rev_number>3</rev_number>
    <files>
      <file id='https://researchdata.bath.ac.uk/id/file/66277'>
        <fileid>66277</fileid>
        <datasetid>document</datasetid>
        <objectid>17858</objectid>
        <filename>Fig16b_NBO_expt_vs_model_Al4+Al5.agr</filename>
        <mime_type>text/plain</mime_type>
        <hash>b6e7ec4039dd0a68309a6b4f56f70f29</hash>
        <hash_type>MD5</hash_type>
        <filesize>24489</filesize>
        <mtime>2024-04-08 13:18:31</mtime>
        <url>https://researchdata.bath.ac.uk/1387/22/Fig16b_NBO_expt_vs_model_Al4%2BAl5.agr</url>
      </file>
    </files>
    <eprintid>1387</eprintid>
    <pos>22</pos>
    <placement>22</placement>
    <mime_type>text/plain</mime_type>
    <format>other</format>
    <formatdesc>Figure 16(b) shows the measured versus calculated values of f_{NBO} for silicate and aluminosilicate glasses.  The network formers were presumed to be all the Si(j) species and, in the case of the aluminosilicates, only the Al(IV) and Al(V) species.</formatdesc>
    <language>en</language>
    <security>public</security>
    <license>cc_by</license>
    <main>Fig16b_NBO_expt_vs_model_Al4+Al5.agr</main>
    <content>data</content>
  </document>
</documents>
