I \n 



^v^^^CjXi: 



(b) 



.20 



.15 



^ 10* 

 CO ^ 



.05 — 



AGGREGATE 



IK # - 



* 



,_ \ \ \ \ 



.20 



.25 .30 



8T (»F) 



(a) 



.35 



.40 



FIGURE 9. THE BT PROFILE (a) WAS DIGITIZED TWICE, NOTE PROFILE 

 IRREGULARITY AND POOR READABILITY. THE TWO DATA 

 AGGREGATES WERE PROCESSED FOR LINES OF FIT WITH 

 DIFFERENT VALUES FOR ST AND THE RESULTS WERE COM- 

 PARED (b - dots). THE RESULTS WERE COMPARED EXCLUDING 

 VALUES IN THE INTERVAL OF ERASURE (b - ASTERISKS). THE 

 RESULTS SUGGESTED INCONCLUSIVELY THAT A VALUE FOR 

 ST OF ABOUT .35° WAS MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROFILE, 



16 



