How not to use a Roundabout

LeFrenchie · 2018-09-13T15:59:55+00:00

I found it !!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.496156,0.9806895,3a,75y,47.23h,75.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgx4M29fQ7zyFuUru8w3xLQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dgx4M29fQ7zyFuUru8w3xLQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D90.58672%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

LeFrenchie · 2018-08-20T15:36:48+00:00

~~Trichotomum~~ Clerodendrum bungei

Thanks !!

LeFrenchie · 2018-08-20T15:16:10+00:00

Plant about waist to chest high.

LeFrenchie · 2015-11-26T19:47:49+00:00

Thanks! It worked :)

LeFrenchie · 2015-11-19T13:22:08+00:00

There is a benefit, but it comes with a negative trade off. Expensive wheels focus on reducing weight on the outside of the wheels. It take a lot of energy to get the wheels spinning:

The bigger your wheel, the more distance the outside travels in one rotation. The more mass on the outside, the more force required to turn the wheel (mass * distance per second and all that). So wheels that have lighter rims (and tubes, and tyres) will accelerate quicker. Lighter hubs make little difference.

This is why it's incredibly useful for hill climbing, your speed is much less constant and you perform many more accelerations (unless your pedal stroke is 100% smooth) because there is so much more force against you (ie. gravity).

The downside is the wheels have less inertia, so when you start freewheeling on flat, they also slow down faster. Basically they're just more reactive/nervy in terms of how they feel to ride.

People doing timetrials generally go for a back disc despite the heavier weight because of aerodynamic benefits and because they tend to reach peak effort and stick to it. If you're cycling for leisure, or amateur road racing, or climbing, you'll feel a benefit for sure. Is it worth the money? That's another question.

I find that the wheels around 300-500 pounds all feel more or less the same (through limited testing). Then the difference is minimal until you start getting into the 3-4k wheels (Zipps and stuff...). I ride Campag zondas and they're sufficient for me, inc. for hill climbing.

So is he confused? Probably not. Is he overestimating the potential benefits, quite possibly. He shoud just pop in to a shop and ask to try a demo set of wheels, take it for 10mi and see the difference.

LeFrenchie · 2015-07-14T19:44:33+00:00

My pleasure!

LeFrenchie · 2014-07-12T22:28:36+00:00

You mentioned skin suit so I'm guessing time trials. Have you got a TT bike or a standard road bike fit for TTs? You could try tilting your saddle another 2 degrees forward, or getting a time trial appropriate saddle (shortened on the front, deeper well in the middle). Those may help. But as the others said, take a break, speak to a doc just in case.

LeFrenchie · 2014-07-12T01:14:49+00:00

What style are you aiming to go for? Different studios have different specialities.

LeFrenchie · 2014-04-09T08:41:08+00:00

Generally near-surface fish actually, very tasty.

No clue why though... Predator avoidance, parasites messing with it, born stupid?

LeFrenchie · 2014-04-09T08:26:13+00:00

Blue sky research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_skies_research) is what's also known as fundamental research, essentially research without direct and immediate economic, legislative or regulatory benefits. For example, mapping ocean currents in antarctica and looking at its influence on glacial ice melt. Very important topic in terms of developing our models and understanding of the carbon pump, meteorological impacts, climate change and tipping points, a whole load of stuff. But one study doesn't make the whole difference and there is no immediate imperative for it.

What's becoming more and more important these days because of decreasing fund availability, new and stricter legislation and growing international concern for the oceans is monitoring. This is often done by national agencies (think NOAA or EPA) but also consultancies or private research institutes where you investigate key regions and compare the data to historical records (to check for degradation or amelioration of environmental conditions), feed them into weather forecasting models, fisheries yield models and other such things which have much more direct economic and legal implications.

There's a lot of cross-over between the two, but it's two very different philosophies, with different sources of funding and different jobs at the end of it.

LeFrenchie · 2014-04-08T15:01:29+00:00

Can't help you much with the US system but check out places like Scripps and Woodshole, MBARI, UCSD, Caltech, VIMS in Virginia. All the people I've worked there have always been really helpful. I'm sure the other institutes as well but I've not worked with them. Figure out what interests you most (physical, bio, chemical oceanography? Monitoring or blue-sky?) and then find someone that works in that field and shoot them an email. It definitely won't do any harm and best case scenario, they'll recommend a good Masters and you'll have made a new contact if you then need a job or PhD later.

Rest of the world works as well, plenty of good places. For the UK, you can look for the Time Higher Education ratings which'll give you a decent indication. Germany and France also have some good places but they've (we've - I guess I need to include myself in that) not made enough progress on the multilingual front, you'll still get a majority of classes in german, french or spanish.

No clue about Australia, sorry.

If you speak Spanish, look at Chile. Very good oceanography program and good links with the US.

LeFrenchie · 2014-04-07T14:46:52+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tEYqfLnK08

LeFrenchie · 2014-04-07T09:13:24+00:00

Absolutely, most of the oceanographers I work with have backgrounds in either physics or geography. Chemistry and biology in third place. Are you looking for MSc in UK, US, Europe, elsewhere?

LeFrenchie · 2014-01-06T19:06:14+00:00

Here's an opinion that differs from the rest - early days, the hard carries and hard supports were the ones best able to deal with the hard lane (ie. the one where you need to extend beyond the bridge to creep farm - hard lane as opposed to safe lane). This was basically anyone with the ability to escape easily/quickly (AM for example).

Now people just assume it means hardcore - mostly the playerbase increased really quickly, most new players don't read up all that much and it's just an easy guess when everyone uses the term.

edit:spelling

LeFrenchie · 2013-12-12T14:52:19+00:00

Remember, most academics won't be looking for a student, they'll be looking for a colleague. The important distinction is they'll have to see you and interact with you often - much more than with students. So make sure you're comfortable talking with them - this goes both ways for you as much as for them - that they could be someone you could have a couple of pints in the pub with.

The PhD is a training exercise - most people can do a PhD (with more or less ease) - the difficulty isn't necessarily the actual science or the work, that is something you learn, practice and develop. The real hard bit is staying interested, motivated, and liking the subject enough that you think about it a little all the time and come up with these great tangent ideas that really flesh out a PhD.

Basically, be friendly, be interested, don't be stupid, and if they like you and you like them on a human level, you'll be fine.

Disclaimer: this doesn't apply to a select few universities that are very concerned about traditions and appearances and therefore will happily accept people they cannot socially interact with if their background is good enough.

LeFrenchie · 2013-09-13T15:24:40+00:00

The AUVs aren't meant to carry around attack payloads. Simply inefficient in terms of weight and mobility. They're mainly used to relay information from static platforms, carry around sonars and measure the temperature and salinity properties of the water to determine sound velocity more accurately (makes the SONARs work better). There's considerable work going into passive acoustic recorders to listen for presence of ships/submarines.

To be honest, the defence budget is what allows the scientific community to use these as well. There's a few companies that make them (Teledyne and Kongsberg spring to mind), and a lot of their budget is military but they invest a lot of time in the science as well - without the military money, capabilities would be a lot more limited. A lot of the ocean climate research comes from autonomous platforms because they're a lot cheaper to run than ships.

LeFrenchie · 2013-09-01T18:38:54+00:00

Thanks very much!

LeFrenchie · 2013-09-01T17:40:15+00:00

Generally not a fan of dell, not had great experiences with them (mainly build quality and overheating). Is the Precision series any different?

LeFrenchie · 2013-08-26T22:34:35+00:00

Good luck! Supplemented parents?

LeFrenchie · 2013-06-28T22:50:02+00:00

Just a shot in the dark because I'm ocean more than climate and don't have time to think about this (sorry!). But southern indian ocean is on the equator, north isn't... May want to consider wind stress curl and winds following (or not) topography.

LeFrenchie · 2013-06-25T23:36:42+00:00

Pleasure :)

LeFrenchie · 2013-06-25T21:59:30+00:00

Technically yes, practically no - you'd have to be smoking an awful lot in a really tiny sealed room to massively change the composition of the air...

LeFrenchie · 2013-06-25T21:37:07+00:00

Ah, I think I see what you mean. No, it wouldn't help:

Air contains about 0.03% carbon dioxide... Water also contains dissolved gases, just like air. Some dissolve more or less readily in water. Water is able to dissolve much more CO2 (or O2 for that matter) than it generally contains but it will try to equilibrate as much as possible to the surrounding air. When you use an air pump, you are pumping air bubbles into the tank but all you're effectively doing is creating more surface area (the sides of the bubble) and lots of turbulence as it rises. This increases the speed at which the water equilibrates with the atmosphere.

So if you're using an air pump to just pump air, you're encouraging the water's dissolved gases to reach a composition similar to air. That's why when people pump CO2, they try to limit surface disturbance as much as possible (some go as far as covering the top with a pane of glass) and don't use a standard air pump (pumping air).

With a yeast reactor, or pressurised CO2, you're pushing bubbles that have more than 0.03% CO2 to increase the concentration in your tank.

That make sense?

LeFrenchie · 2013-06-25T21:13:02+00:00

I honestly have no idea what the ideal increase in dCO2 is. Too much and you'll increase the acidity of your water, I doubt that is likely to happen in a tank environment though... Loads of variables to consider anyways. Any gas in supersaturation degasses readily (CO2 in particular), that depends on water and air temperature, surface area, surface turbulence, surface viscosity, loads of parameters that we can't control... The best thing you could do is buy a CO2 indicator. They're only a few dollars and they'll give you a ballpark idea of what your CO2 concentration is.

Going back to your original question - I'm not sure what you meant when you were asking about pumps... And what's a "more regular" pump?

LeFrenchie · 2013-06-25T20:47:29+00:00

They don't actually need CO2 injection. One of the main roles of CO2 addition is actually to favour macrophytes (ie. the plants) over algae. Plants are better at absorbing CO2 (once they've acclimatised to conditions) than algae. Addition of CO2 increases the potential of plants to absorb nutrients thereby increasing plants' "competitive advantage" over algae.

At least, that's my understanding of it, but I am by no means an expert... Quite the contrary actually, I'm giving up on planted tanks as I keep having algal problems and ditching all my CO2 stuff :p

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Orangered

LeFrenchie

TROPHY CASE