Part IX - Discussion of "The Thermodynamic Behavior of Oxygen in Liquid Binary-Metallic Solvents--A Simple Solution Model"

In the present paper," as in earlier publications, V1'2"1 the authors present experimentally obtained relations for the free energy of solution of oxygen in various metals as a function of temperature. The relations are linear and given in slope-intercept form. The authors give values for the "probable error" of the slope and intercept, citing Birge's method17 for obtaining these quantities. Birge discussed these methods as early as the period 1929-32.25726 In Ref. 25 the probable error is defined as "the numerical value which the true error is as likely to exceed as not", i.e., 50 pct probability. Ref. 26 is even more detailed and includes a lengthy discussion of the applicability of the Gaussian distribution to experimental data. However, the use of the "probable error" has come under some question. For example, Ezekiel'~ states that "the use of the probable error tends to make the results appear rather more accurate than the standard error". Moroney28 stated (in 1951) that "the term 'probable error' was used in former times to denote 0.67450 (50 pct confidence using the normal distribution)....the term, a poor one, is now very much obsolescent. It has been said that 'it is neither an error nor probable' ". Bennett and Franklin in 1954" in discussing statistical confidence levels mentioned that "the customary use of the 5 and 1 pct levels is not completely a matter of chance; these levels probably represent a balance between the desire to be correct and the desire to be specific. Also in most people's minds the borderline between something that could possibly happen and something that is not likely to happen is somewhere in this region. Certainly 5 or 1 pct confidence limits are to be preferred to limits such as the 'probable error' which has only a 50/50 chance of including the correct value." It may readily be seen that the 95 pct confidence level, which is given by 1.960 (assuming large sample size), thus corresponds to approximately three times the "probable error". Indeed, limits of one standard deviation correspond only to about 68 pct probability. Even if we triple the tolerances given by the authors in the equations of their Table 111, the deviations do not become excessive and would not detract from their excellent results. It could then be said with a high degree of confidence (95%) that the precision of the slope and intercept values is about *3-5 percent of their absolute levels rather than the 1-2 percent implied in Table 111. This is then compatible with an earlier suggestion of Gokcen~' of a probable accuracy of 5 pct in dissolved oxygen measurements by the technique employed. Alternatively, the authors could have