Textbook of Facial Rejuvenation 2002
DOI: 10.1201/b14324-26
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rejuvenation of the neck

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 1 publication
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, the production rate in the numerical model was constant with soil depth over a finite thickness layer, while the analytical model did not specify λ (z). The important consideration here was to satisfy the no‐flux boundary condition at the bottom of the soil layer in both models, and a depth‐independent λ fulfills this condition, while an exponentially decaying production function does not 16. Another difference between model designs was that a perfectly mixed chamber headspace CO 2 was obtained by assigning a large value to its diffusion coefficient in the numerical model, while in the analytical model the chamber was represented as a boundary condition.…”
Section: The 3d Numerical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the production rate in the numerical model was constant with soil depth over a finite thickness layer, while the analytical model did not specify λ (z). The important consideration here was to satisfy the no‐flux boundary condition at the bottom of the soil layer in both models, and a depth‐independent λ fulfills this condition, while an exponentially decaying production function does not 16. Another difference between model designs was that a perfectly mixed chamber headspace CO 2 was obtained by assigning a large value to its diffusion coefficient in the numerical model, while in the analytical model the chamber was represented as a boundary condition.…”
Section: The 3d Numerical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%