## 3 Results (A Comparison of the Theoretical and Experimental Results)
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Energy Activation U\({}_{\text{o}}\), eV**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Balanced Concentration \(n_{\text{o}}\), 10\({}^{16}\) m\({}^{-3}\)**} \\ \cline{3-8}
**Temperature of Experimental Maximum of TSDC** & **Type of Relaxer & \begin{tabular}{c} **Theoretical (Calculated Based on** \\ **Equation (24)**)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Theoretical (Calculated Based on** \\ **Equation (24)**)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Theoretical (Calculated Based on** \\ **Equation (24)**), 10\({}^{16}\)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \cline{3-8}
**Temperature of Experimental Maximum of TSDC** & **Type of Relaxer & \begin{tabular}{c} **Experimental** \\ **(Calculation in** \\ **This Paper)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Without** \\ **Considering the** \\ **Quanti** \\ **Tunneling** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Considering the** \\ **Quanti** \\ **Tunneling** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Experimental** \\ **This Paper)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Without** \\ **Considering the** \\ **Quanti** \\ **Tunneling** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
105 & \(\text{HSO}_{\text{i}}^{\text{-}}\) & \(0.04\pm 0.01\) & \(0.08\) & \(0.05\) & \(1.2\) & \(1.4\) & \(1.2\) \\ \hline
153 & \(\text{H}_{\text{j}}\text{O}^{\text{+}}\) & \(0.08\pm 0.02\) & \(0.12\) & \(0.09\) & \(1.5\) & \(1.45\) & \(1.52\) \\ \hline  & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\text{H}_{\text{j}}\text{O}\) water molecules of crystallization \\ **(structural water)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(0.17\pm 0.02\) & \(0.19\) & \(0.19\) & \(240\) & \(241\) & \(240\) \\ \hline  & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\text{H}_{\text{j}}\text{O}\)-adsorbed water molecules \\ **(on bundles)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(0.23\pm 0.03\) & \(0.25\) & \(0.25\) & \(0.25\) & \(34\) & \(34\) & \(34\) & \(34\) \\ \hline  & \
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\text{H}_{\text{j}}\text{O}\)-adsorbed water molecules \\ **(on bundles)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(0.30\pm 0.04\) & \(0.34\) & \(0.34\) & \(0.34\) & \(127\) & \(123\) & \(127\) \\ \hline  &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\text{H}_{\text{j}}\text{O}\)-adsorbed water molecules \\ **(on bundles)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(0.30\pm 0.04\) & \(0.34\pm 0.04\) & \(0.44\) & \(0.44\) & \(230\) & \(228\) & \(231\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Relaxer parameters in natural mineral of muscovite \(\text{KAl}_{2}(\text{AlSi}_{3}\text{O}_{10})(\text{OH})_{2}\), calculated using the phenomenological theory of thermally stimulated depolarization currents (TSDC) for the parabolic potential barrier model (Graph 4 in Figure 3). monorelaxation TSDC density maximums were found due to the silicate-like physical mechanisms of relaxation polarization [1; 3]. Figure 1: Phlogopite TSDC density spectrum for E\({}_{\rm pol\lambda}\) = 10\({}^{6}\) V \(\times\) m\({}^{-1}\), T\({}_{\rm pol}\) = 373 K, d = 30 mkm: 1\({}^{+}\), 1\({}^{--}\)natural phlogopite; 2\({}^{+}\), 2\({}^{-}\), 3\({}^{+}\), 4\({}^{+}\)—calciined at temperatures T\({}_{\rm an,2}\) = 873 K, 3\({}^{+}\)—T\({}_{\rm an,3}\) = 1073 K, 4\({}^{+}\)—T\({}_{\rm an,4}\) = 1373 K; 5\({}^{+}\)—density spectrum of thermally stimulated polarization current (TSPC). The sign next to the number indicates the polarity of the sample [1; 4]. Figure 4: Thermally stimulated depolarization current density spectrum of copper sulfate. 1—CuSO\({}_{4}\cdot\)5H\({}_{2}\)O (chemically pure chalcanthite), 2—CuSO\({}_{4}\cdot\)3H\({}_{2}\)O, 3—CuSO\({}_{4}\cdot\)H\({}_{2}\)O, 4—CuSO\({}_{4}\) (300 \({}^{\circ}\)C), 5—CuSO\({}_{4}\cdot\)5H\({}_{2}\)O, doped in hydrochloric acid solution (\(n_{\rm HCl}=10^{-5}\) mol/m\({}^{3}\)). The measurements were carried out at E\({}_{\rm pol,0}\) = 2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) V \(\times\) m\({}^{-1}\), T\({}_{\rm pol}\) = 300 K, \(c\) = 5.5 K/min.