2

Currently reading a scientific paper, I have trouble understanding the use of 保証.

An example of its use is the following:

最低保証密度として75%を乗じる (remarks about the percentage of a certain element in a mixture, the usual percentage is around 10%)

I know the kanji should mean "guarantee" so I was thinking about "found in the literature", "peer validated" or something along those lines.

What is 保証 used for in this context?

Improve this question
7
  • 最低保証密度 the least guaranteed density....? Perhaps you could quote more from the paper. Or provide a larger context. Are higher densities more unstable?
    – A.Ellett
    Feb 8, 2016 at 5:00
  • 相当品のレジンを使用する場合は、H に最低保証密度（H：70％). Its difficult to give more context as it is taken from remarks in tables. The subject is about particle physics if it can help. There should not be a major change in stability.
    – Bougret
    Feb 8, 2016 at 5:16
  • I was thinking of something, is it possible, considering the sentence, that the minimum density that should be considered in this case is obtained from the usual percentage multiplied by 75%?
    – Bougret
    Feb 8, 2016 at 5:36
  • 1
    ^ つまり通常が密度10%なら、×75%(×¾)して、最低でも7.5％以上の密度を保証します、ってこと？
    – Chocolate ♦
    Feb 8, 2016 at 6:36
  • そうそう、「最低でも7.5％以上の密度を保証します」、それは可能ですか？
    – Bougret
    Feb 8, 2016 at 6:54

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

保証 usually is a guarantee/warranty made by a manufacturer, government, etc. Scientific knowledge from previous research is rarely considered as 保証 if there is no further context.

The literal translation of 最低保証密度 is "lowest guaranteed density." It seems to say that if the density is below 75%, something (e.g., chemical reaction) is not guaranteed (usually by the manufacturer, etc.) to happen.

I don't know why something is multiplied by 75%, because there's no context.

Improve this answer
1
  • Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately, there is little to no context. It is on an appendix, in a table with no element concerning a guarantor. Thus I will validate the answer tomorrow if there is not a better one, as it seems to fit. I also found some element that might corroborate this answer: link, unrelated company but same vocabulary is used (first line).
    – Bougret
    Feb 8, 2016 at 7:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .