User:TheLarry/Notebook/Larrys Notebook/2009/10/05

{| width="800"
 * style="background-color: #EEE"|[[Image:owwnotebook_icon.png|128px]] Fixing Rate Constants
 * style="background-color: #F2F2F2" align="center"|  |Main project page
 * style="background-color: #F2F2F2" align="center"|  |Main project page


 * colspan="2"|
 * colspan="2"|

Have no intuition to predict anything
So every time i try to increase the processivity this thing goes a shorter distance before falling off. It is a good thing there is a simulation because it really is impossible to predict what is going to happen.

Koch is right i need a way to save the constants and what they are because i keep getting farther away from my goal. At least i need a way to efficiently change these numbers

I have a question: with the exponential decay graph like i've been looking at. Is it the idea that the expectation value of this graph is ~100 steps so about 800 nm? It must be right. So that gives me a better bench mark to shoot for while changing these constants. (Steve Koch 22:47, 5 October 2009 (EDT): Yeah, I think that's right. So, it sounds like you have it 2.5 times more processive and also 5 times faster with whatever parameters now?)

If that is the case i have an expectation value of ~250 steps and a expected time of .5 seconds. So i am a bit off. But i am on the right path...possibly.

TheLarry 00:12, 6 October 2009 (EDT): no i wrote it wrong. I have an expectation value of 250 nm not steps sorry. so it is 1/4 what it should be


 * }