Hey everyone!
So lets say I grind 30 gr of coffee and brew a V60.
second I grind more coffee (40 gr) in a bit finer grind size, and use sieves to reach 30 gr of coffee with smaller standard deviation (by filtering the super fines and super coarse particles), then I brew a v60. (I used smaller grind size to keep the same brew time)
third let's imagine I have a magical grinder that grinds 30gr in the exact same particle size, then I brew a v60.
All three are same in brew time, but different in particle distribution. My question is that how these three brew compare to each other? Is it safe to say that the third brew is the cleanest cup? Can we just say the more consistent the grind size, the better? Or the fines (having a range of particle sizes) could benefit the brew somehow?
Any input would be appreciated!
Title
Hi, I have a deep love for coffee, tinkering and data. Are there any DIY particle size analyzers (for grinder comparisons) or refractometers (for TDS extraction) for coffee? For the the particles, I know about the wonderful app by Coffeeadastra, but is there anything better?
Given my background, I would be willing to try to home-build a laser diffraction particle analyzer and/or a TDS meter for coffee. Not sure how realistic or cost-effective would it be, considering the optics, but I won't know until I start. Would there be interest in the community for such projects or the data wouldn't be so useful?
At what point does the meal become part of you? When it enters your mouth? When it’s in your stomach? When its converted in to energy? How does the Pym tech determine this? Is a tumor a part of you?
It seems like KF94 standard maybe uses a testing requirement that is not as strict compared to what is used in testing in US and Canada. If you notice some KF94 descriptions, they refer to 0.4 microns. It doesn't mean it doesn't filter smaller, it's just that you need outside resources to confirm it.
IF this is true....then don't buy any random KF94 mask, but go by ones confirmed by Aaron Collins or from news articles like this https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mask-filtration-standards-marketplace-1.5974442
And Dr Puri was tested by the CDC - https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/respirators/testing/results/MTT-2020-252.4_International_KMCorp_DrPuriKF94_TestReport_Redacted-508.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ejss.13138
This study references some others I've read (and seen linked here) and adds yet another perspective on ideal particle sizes.
For your consideration...
Background: Previous studies showing that smaller low-density lipoprotein (LDL) size is associated with greater atherosclerotic risk did not adequately control for small and large LDL particle correlation.
Methods and results: We studied the association of lipoproteins measured by proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy with carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in apparently healthy individuals (N = 5538, 38% White, 28% African American, 22% Hispanic, 12% Chinese). Small and large LDL particle concentrations (LDL-p) were inversely correlated (r = /-0.63, P < 0.0001). Controlling for risk factors but not for LDL subclass correlation, LDL size and small LDL-p separately were associated with IMT (-20.9 and 31.7 microm change in IMT per 1-S.D., respectively, both P < 0.001), but large LDL-p was not (4.9 microm, P = 0.27). When LDL subclasses were included in the same model, large and small LDL-p were both associated with IMT (36.6 and 52.2 microm higher IMT per 1-S.D., respectively, both P < 0.001; 17.7 and 11.6 microm per 100 nmol/L, respectively). LDL size was not significant after accounting for LDL subclasses and risk factors (P = 0.10).
Conclusion: Both LDL subclasses were significantly associated with subclinical atherosclerosis, with small LDL confounding the association of large LDL with atherosclerosis. Future studies of LDL size should account for the strong inverse correlation of LDL subclasses.
As we see in Ant-Man & the Wasp, growing too big causes Scott to get tired and faint fairly quickly. What's the deal with that? Does it take proportionally greater energy to move or something?
It's especially bad on the Chimera's AP cannon, where even though it has the ballistics of the titan AP it is noticeably harder to score hits with.
Also while we're at it why are the Chimera and Dervish so huge? The Chimera is almost as big as a Colossus, making most cover ineffective since it towers over it. At least give it a HP boost to match, or remove directional resistances so it can act more like a harasser. And the Dervish is a giant piñata for tank shells, but it can't fly at high altitude to avoid them since its main gun is top mounted.
radio interview on ABC's "the science show":
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/regular-forest-burns-reduce-chances-for-endangered-plants-and-a/13371882?fbclid=IwAR1_8-3cCzObv2VugzsS6KDPa8izmr0r4ibUyqMg1oWKc-F4gWHhRSeqKH8
Robyn Williams: And on the other side of the nation, a group of concerned scientists has been worried about numbats and the continuing use of prescribed fire on the landscape. So they've written to the Premier of Western Australia. This is Professor Kingsley Dixon at Curtin University.
Kingsley Dixon: The letter that we wrote as the Leeuwin Group, which is essentially the Wentworth Group, the western version, it's got a very distinguished people like Professor Fiona Stanley, which we all know, Australian of the Year, was our deep and grave concerns over what happened in March of the deliberate burning, through prescribed burningof one of the two key locations for one of the world's most threatened mammals, the numbat.
Robyn Williams: And what has happened to the numbat?
Kingsley Dixon: Numbats were widespread from Eastern Australia to Western Australia. We were the last bastion,they went extinct 100 years ago in New South Wales, we've just had the first animals repatriated from colonies here. But what has happened to the numbat now is it's hanging on for grim death in these few last areas. Why? We have cleared all but 30% of thesouth-west, we've introduced foxes and cats, we have altered the ecosystem. In 1967 they started a process of intensive burning. By 2017, that has been enhanced to where we now burn more than 200,000 hectares of the remnant vegetation. It's target driven,and our letter to the Premier, it's saying as scientists the protective value of just a target, burning wilderness, burning remote from infrastructure and human lives and property does not make sense. And we were tragically told by the Department there are no extinctions happening as a result of prescribed burning. We don't want to wait for that, but the numbat and the conflagration of that burn, which was an aerial incendiary it, high intensity, so the whole area had to go up within two to three hours, was catastrophic. We have also, through some very detailed spatial work, looked at the intensity, and we now have about two-thirds of the area reduced to bare earth. Numbats rely on fallen old hollows, that's their home, and the wonderful termites that live in them. We are still yet to detect whether there are any numbats, but the local
... keep reading on reddit ➡So I have this particle brush thing for dry brush, but I have to make different ones for different sizes, or always change the density when I change the size.
I don't want that. So can I find something that will help me connect the two, like pen pressure-brush size? But in this case, BrushSize-Particle-Density.
Cuz I often work on different canvas sizes, so It goes worse. I don't want to make sub tools for canvas sizes, cuz I have shortcuts, so it will mess it up.
Thanks guys!
If it's not clear by the title, here's an example:
I have an ability in my "game" called shield bash that affects enemy units in front of my character in the shape of a cone. The angle and length of the cone is not hard locked to certain dimensions, the angle and length can both be increased with equippable items and a skill tree.
I've found its pretty challenging to do something like this and make the particle effects perfectly or almost perfectly represent the area this ability can affect.
Because I can't think of a better way, I've built a monobehavior that updates particle emitters or particle shapes, depending on configuration, in an attempt to match the current dimensions of the ability. Updating the angle of the shape module for example. This solution isn't great because particle effects are not really always easily configurable by code for a number of reasons.
I wish there was maybe a better way to confine particles to within a mesh shape, maybe as a mask or something. Maybe that can be done using shaders?
Has anyone figured out good ways to handle this? Maybe I'm not thinking of something easier or more obvious.
