It's absolutely not. Median is a value in the middle of a sorted set and average is, well, average. In the set of 1, 7, 10: 7 is median and 6 is average.
plandeka
joined 1 year ago
That is only sort of true - this image is not made of electrons reflected by the nuclei. These are results from TEM imaging, so Transmission Electron Microscopy. The electron detector is placed behind the sample.
What you are describing is SEM - Scanning Electron Microscopy - in that case, the detector can be placed above the sample, for example (but not limited to) circularly around the beam to measure the backscattered electrons
In TEM the samples are cut into very thin slices (in the picture you posted it is said to be between 0.8nm - 30nm) and the crystal lattice acts as a diffraction grating for the electron beam. The diffraction pattern can be then used to reconstruct the crystal lattice structure.
Bridge from which the photo was taken used to be my daily commute. A lot can be said about Frankfurt, but Main is really nice around there.
They look like air bubbles to me, but it is weird they only come out after the bath. Could be they were already inside, but only covered by a thin wall of resin.
I usually use Isopropanol for bath not Ethanol, so I am not sure how your resin reacts with that. The bath should also be rather short, like 1min or something.
A few things to try:
- If you are shaking your resin before print, then give it like 10 minutes after you pour it into the vat, so all bubbles come out and pop
- lower the print speed
- add wait times between the end of lowering the plate and light on
- try to hollow out the model if possible, so there is less printing volume
Very interesting that they say it is peaking at 520nm, which is some shade of green.
Wonder if this might have played a role in plants being green. It is also surprisingly close to peak of sun spectrum. Maybe those two factors, combined with the existence of liquid water are favourable conditions for plants to develop the way they did.
Climate Town tackled carbon capture very well in this video. In short, hardcore greenwashing.
Considering the two studies which claim that no effect was observed, I believe the original authors observed the effect but they don't fully understand the origin.
The original paper is so naively unprofessional in some places that it is really hard for me to think it is not genuine.
say whaaaat. I wanna see it reproduced, but if true this is huge.
As always depends where you live. I live in Frankfurt am Main and travel to my parents in Poland who live in a 3k village with a train. One change in Berlin, one in Poland in a smaller city to a very local train which takes me to 4km from their home, where they finally do pick me up with a car.
With a car it would take at least 12h (been there, done that when I moved), similar amount of money for gas and I would have to take a day off from work, which I don't have to do on the train, because I work remotely on the way. I can also shit without stopping or eat on the train if I have a fancy. How is this inconvenient?
I made trips to Italy, France, Austria, Romania and ofc Poland with trains. And at least half of them were to not urbanized areas at all (for example France was to Port-en-Royans, population 817 people, when I got off around 5km from destination) and the only inconvenience is that you need some effort with planning.
Wow, so many bullshit points there it is hard to even start discussing them.
And this guy does not even touch the actual problems the wind turbines legitimately have.
Impressively ignorant.