0Shares0000Valencia’s players celebrate after forward Simone Zaza scored against Real Sociedad on September 24, 2017 © AFP / ANDER GILLENEAMADRID, Spain, Sep 25 – Valencia moved ahead of Real Madrid into fourth in La Liga as Simone Zaza’s winner five minutes from time edged a thrilling 3-2 win at Real Sociedad on Sunday.However, it was all too much for Valencia manager Marcelino who pulled his hamstring in celebrating the winner. Three times Valencia took the lead in San Sebastian, whilst both sides were also reduced to 10 men in the second-half.Rodrigo’s early tap in was cancelled out by Aritz Elustondo’s header before half-time.Nacho Vidal put Valencia back in front but Sociedad, who have now lost three games in a week, battled back through Mikel Oyarzabal’s fine finish.Igor Zubeldia and Geoffrey Kondogbia both then saw red for second bookable offences to set up a grandstand finish.And a game of high quality got the ending it deserved as Goncalo Guedes showed excellent vision to pick out Zaza to smash home his fifth goal of the season.Valencia remain unbeaten in six games since Marcelino took charge after two seasons in the doldrums littered with managerial changes.In total 20 goals were scored in five La Liga games on Sunday as Espanyol, Getafe and Celta Vigo also celebrated big wins.Deportivo la Coruna boss Pepe Mel faced calls to resign as the Galicians lost 4-1 at Espanyol to slip into the relegation zone.Villarreal’s disappointing start to the season also continued as they were blown away after the break in losing 4-0 at Getafe.Celta thrashed Eibar 4-0 to ease the pressure of former Barcelona assistant coach Eusebio Unzue.And Leganes are up to sixth thanks to a 2-0 win at Las Palmas.0Shares0000(Visited 2 times, 1 visits today)
They’re as fun to watch as anybody in the game.And even though some of baseball’s older … For years Major League Baseball has been thinking of ways to make sure that the younger generation of sports fans include baseball in their group of various interests.The World Baseball Classic has provided us with one massive reason why baseball can be so great.You didn’t have to look far to find it, either.The new crop of young talent isn’t just really, really good at the game of baseball.
“The gene is dead… long live the gene,” announced subtitles to an article in Science News this week.1 Geneticists have come to a striking conclusion over the last few years: genes are not the most important things in DNA, if they even exist as a concept. The “central dogma” of genetics, since Watson and Crick determined the structure of DNA, is that genetic information flows one-way – from the gene to the protein. In the textbooks, a gene was supposed to be a finite stretch of DNA that, when read by the translation process, produced a messenger RNA, which recruited transfer RNAs to assemble the amino acids for one protein. As Patrick Barry described in his article “Genome 2.0,”1 the situation in real cells is much messier. “Mountains of new data are challenging old views,” his subtitle announced, including the “modern orthodoxy” that only genes are important.Researchers slowly realized, however, that genes occupy only about 1.5 percent of the genome. The other 98.5 percent, dubbed “junk DNA,“ was regarded as useless scraps left over from billions of years of random genetic mutations. As geneticists’ knowledge progressed, this basic picture remained largely unquestioned…. Closer examination of the full human genome is now causing scientists to return to some questions they thought they had settled. For one, they’re revisiting the very notion of what a gene is.Some of the findings in the genomic era include:The human genome has far fewer genes than expected.Some lower animals have as many genes as humans (e.g., 05/01/2007).Most of the human genome does not code for genes.The code for proteins can be split between distant parts of the genome – even on different chromosomes.2The non-coding DNA, once considered evolutionary junk (06/15/2007), is actually heavily involved in gene regulation (04/24/2007).Genetic information processing acts more like a network than a static library of genes.RNA transcripts vastly outnumber gene transcripts: some 74 to 93% of the genome.RNA is much more than a messenger in the cell. Numerous small and micro RNA transcripts are heavily involved in “fine tuning” the production of protein.Gene regulation appears more important than the genes themselves.Scientists “are finding disease-associated mutations in regions of the genome formerly regarded as junk.”Some genes overlap with codes for micro-RNAs or regulatory elements.Genes can be read in multiple ways that can yield far more than one protein (alternative splicing; see 05/20/2007)).Messenger-RNA transcripts undergo significant modification and regulation in the nucleus.The translation process can even yield transcripts from the opposing strand.3It remains indisputable that DNA codes for proteins via messenger RNA, and that proteins perform the major structural and functional operations of the cell. But as Hui Ge of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts said, “What we thought was important before was really just the tip of the iceberg.” Barry used a homey analogy to illustrate how gene regulation can be more important than genes themselves:Consider the difference between a one-bedroom bungalow and an ornate, three-story McMansion. Both are made from roughly the same materials—lumber, drywall, wiring, plumbing—and are put together with the same tools—hammers, saws, nails, and screws. What makes the mansion more complex is the way that its construction is orchestrated by rules that specify when and where each tool and material must be used. In cells, regulation controls when and where proteins spring into action. If the traditional genome is a set of blueprints for an organism, RNA regulatory networks are the assembly instructions. In fact, some scientists think that these additional layers of complexity in genome regulation could be the answer to a long-standing puzzle……that puzzle being the unexpected low number of genes in the human genome. It might explain the physical differences between humans and roundworms, which both have similar numbers of protein-coding genes. Barry’s article provides a good summary of numerous papers that have been casting serious doubt on the Central Dogma, and even the concept of a gene itself:More fundamentally, it muddies scientists’ conception of just what constitutes a gene. In the established definition, a gene is a discrete region of DNA that produces a single, identifiable protein in a cell. But the functioning of a protein often depends on a host of RNAs that control its activity. If a stretch of DNA known to be a protein-coding gene also produces regulatory RNAs essential for several other genes, is it somehow a part of all those other genes as well?Some scientists are advocating changing our focus from genes to “functional RNA transcripts.” But that seems to just relocate the problem. If DNA is a passive code, what codes for its activity? If gene regulation by a network of transcripts is now more important than genes, what regulates the regulators? Come back for Genome 3.0.Update 09/24/2007: Colin Nickerson wrote an article for the Boston News that captures the drama of these discoveries:The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome – the full sequence of 3 billion DNA “letters” folded within every cell – they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined…. ….the picture now emerging is more complicated, one in which illness, health, and evolutionary change appear to be the work of almost fantastical coordination between genes and swaths of DNA previously written off as junk.Nickerson quotes Isodore Rigoutsos, geneticist, saying “The picture that’s emerging is so immensely more complicated than anyone imagined, it’s almost depressing.”1Patrick Barry, “Genome 2.0,” Science News, Week of Sept. 8, 2007; Vol. 172, No. 10 , p. 154.2“The ENCODE project revealed that about 90 percent of protein-coding genes possessed previously unknown coding fragments that were located far from the main gene, sometimes on other chromosomes.”3“According to the ENCODE project results, up to 72 percent of known genes have transcripts on the facing DNA strand as well as the main strand.”Many previous entries have dealt with these subjects (e.g., 06/15/2007, 12/29/2006 bullet 2, 11/09/2006, 07/06/2006). This is a classic case of a paradigm change in science occurring before our eyes. Even what we mean by an intuitively-obvious word like gene is being questioned: is there such a thing? Does it have physical reality, or is it a mental picture humans have imposed on a much more subtle reality? The new buzzword is network, but is that an accurate characterization? Networking is concerned more with the interactions of entities than with the entities themselves; this means that the rules of the game are more important than the nodes of the network. How could that fit within a materialistic world view? Whatever comes in the days ahead, it appears that there is far more information processing occurring in the cell than even Watson and Crick imagined – and that was startling and elegant enough. Barry states that the raw genetic information transcribed in DNA now appears to be 62 times what genes alone would produce. The fundamental operational unit of life may, therefore, be nonphysical: information, not molecules. These are exciting times for science – troubling times for Darwinists. Don’t expect them to have any remorse over leading mankind into a “modern orthodoxy” that was mistaken.(Visited 72 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Narrower frames can lose less heatWhen comparing heat loss through window frames (unlike when making many comparative heat loss calculations), area is a variable, not a constant. Despite insulating more poorly, a narrower frame may lose less heat.For example, to have the same heat loss as a 4-inch-wide R-10 frame, a 2-inch-wide frame would only need to be R-5. So narrower frames have several interesting advantages. Modeling a house with PHPPSo I ran PHPP. I compared the performance of windows with different frames at the same house in Lancaster, New Hampshire, that I used when I ran glazing comparisons. (More information about the house can be found here.)I took the PHPP spreadsheet for the house and kept everything constant except for the characteristics of the window frames.I compared three frames that I thought might be representative: two European Passivhaus frames and a North American insulated fiberglass frame (see Images #2 and #3, below). The first European frame is based on a common PVC frame geometry. It is a time-tested design, updated with multiple insulating chambers. The second European frame is based on a newer, more advanced PHI-listed “A”-rated (slimmer) frame. Not as widely available, this ‘masked’ sash approach, while tough to screen, is designed to be energy-efficient. The North American insulated fiberglass frame is based on a Passivhaus version of a 20-year-old insulated fiberglass window. While the operable frame is “stock,” the fixed frame is modified to accommodate a 1 7/8 inch thick (48 mm) IGU.The results are in the table below. Window frames do not contribute solar gainsA window frame, no matter how well insulated, will never be as energy-efficient as the triple glazing that it surrounds. That’s because, unlike the glass which contributes solar gain during the heating season, the frame cannot gain energy; it can only lose energy. So, while windows with bulky frames typically have frames with a lower U-factor than windows with a slimmer frame, they also always contribute less solar gain than windows with slimmer frames.Some common European Passivhaus window frames are almost 5 inches (125 mm) wide, but most are more like 4 inches (100 mm) wide. Even A-rated European frames frames are still typically 3 1/4 inches (85 mm) wide. And they are often that wide for both operable and fixed windows. You need to know more than the U-factor of the windowThe Passivhaus system for rating windows emphasizes insulating ability over solar gains. But the Passivhaus approach — choosing windows based on a lower U-factor, as long as solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) of the glass is greater than 0.5 — does not always result in the lowest energy bills.Recognizing the flaw, the Passivhaus Institut introduced a letter rating scheme that rewards slimmer frames. (For an explanation, see page 3 of this document.) Slimmer frames allow greater solar gain than bulkier frames, which reduces heating loads, making it easier to achieve the Passivhaus heating load target. While the letter rating scheme does help, it still doesn’t always lead to the lowest energy bills. Typically, European Passivhaus window frames, even those with an “A” rating, are bulkier than North America’s most energy-efficient windows. The Problem With Software In a comment responding to my glass-focused guest blog, Jin Kazama quite correctly wrote, “The problem with using software is the involved labor and complexity to get accurate results, and the number of iterations required to measure possibilities. Most regular folks do not possess the required knowledge and the interest for the simulations, nor the budget to have someone else do it.”I think he was responding to my repeated advice to use PHPP to compare windows. I thought that my response to his comment was best placed here because the rate at which I advise the use of PHPP is even higher in this blog than the previous one.For Canadians and others in similar heating climates, there is a simple/crude tool to rank residential windows by their effect on heating bills. It’s the ER (or the Energy Rating). The ER (a value displayed on window labels) is calculated by estimating heating season solar gains through a window, and then subtracting the estimated heating season losses. With few exceptions, simulations like PHPP or HOT2000 show that houses with higher ER windows will have lower heating bills. Like the similar systems in the UK and Denmark, the ER rating is intended for houses in heating climates. Most Canadian firms report the ER for their windows. If you’d like to calculate the ER for yourself, or recalculate it with CEN data, the formula is as follows:ER = (Gains – Losses ) + 40 = (72.2* 0.8 * SHGCwindow – 21.9 * Uwindow – 0.54 AL) + 40 where:72.2 is the average Canadian heating season solar gain on a vertical surface (average means average of the four orientations, and averaged over a 5064 hour / 211 day heating season for an average location in Canada (based on where people live, not geographical geometry) in W/m^2.0.8 is a reduction factor for shading.SHGCwindow is the SHGCglass, reduced by the light-blocking effect of the frame (some grade school math may be required)21.9 is the average heating season indoor/outdoor temperature difference for an average Canadian location in degrees Kelvin/Celsius.0.54 is an air leakage constant to convert test results into an annualized loss.AL is the tested air leakage in m^3/h/m^2 of window.40 is the marketer’s fudge factor (MFF) so even double-glazed windows can have a positive ER. For new hinged or fixed windows you can easily simplify the equation by making the air leakage term zero. You’ll lose maybe 0.5 ER of accuracy, which is an error of about 1-2% for most triple-glazed windows. (For reference, the average “weather coefficients” correspond fairly closely to the weather in Ottawa, Ontario.)People too horrified at the simplifications of the ER to touch it with a 10-foot (3.3 m) pole might consider the ERS, or Energy Rating – Specific. Specific means a specific orientation in a specific city. There is off-the-shelf ERS data for about a dozen Canadian cities. As an example: for a south-facing window in Montreal, Quebec:ERSsouth = (112 * 0.8 * SHGCwindow – 22.7 * Uwindow – 0.54 AL) + 40Other Montreal orientations use other values for the solar gain; E/W = 60 W/m^2; N = 34 W/m^2.If you were so inclined you could compare your weather to Montreal’s and create your own version of ERS to rank window choices for your location. If you were so inclined.For more accuracy, without the input effort of PHPP or HOT2000, there’s always LBNL’s RESFEN or NRCan’s HOT2XP.So there are ways to compare windows that do not involve complex software. Narrower frames let in more sunlightNorth American outswing windows usually have frames that are about 2 3/4 inches (70 mm) wide. This is an advantage over European Passivhaus windows. On smaller windows it can be a significant advantage. For a 24″x35″ window, a 4-inch-wide frame leaves you with a window that is only 50% glass. A slimmer 2 3/4-inch-wide frame results in a window that is 63% glass for the same size of window.More significantly, North American fixed frames are about 2 inches (50 mm) wide – providing noticeably more glass area than their more bulkily framed European counterparts. For a 48″ x 48″ fixed window, a European “A” rated window with a 3 1/4 inch (85 mm) wide frame is 77% glass. The same window with a 2-inch (50 mm) wide frame is 84% glass. Presumptive European Superiority Syndrome applies not just to a window’s glass but its frame as well. After all, many European Passivhaus window frames have lots of insulation in them — so they must be better than North American frames, which are at best less well insulated, but more likely not insulated at all — right?I may be biased, but I’m not so sure. Let’s take a closer look. [Editor’s note: In this article, the word “width” is used to describe one of the measurements of a window frame, as shown in the illustration at left. Readers should be aware that some writers use the word “height” to describe the same dimension.] Narrower frames are not the whole storyTo be very clear, just as there is more to energy-efficient cars than tire pressure, there is more to energy-efficient windows than frame width.It certainly possible to have a long and tortured discussion about the about the many and often conflicting factors that affect window energy performance. But once again, the best way to assess “better” is not to argue over more beer, but to run PHPP. RELATED ARTICLES Presumptive European Superiority SyndromeAll About U-FactorPassivhaus WindowsAll About Glazing OptionsHigh-Solar-Gain GlazingChoosing Triple-Glazed Windows The best bet to compare windows is to run PHPP for your building.PHPP predicts that this house, as built, will use 4.5 kBTU/ft^2/yr (14.2 kWh/m^2/yr). Note that the common European PVC frame’s bulk would have increased the heating requirements of the house by 9%. This increase is enough to put the house over the 4.75 kBTU/ft^2/yr (15.0 kWh/m^2/yr) qualification threshold for the Passivhaus standard.For this house, the Passivhaus version of the North American insulated fiberglass frames produce a 14% lower specific heat demand than a common European PVC window.The results also show the advantage of slimmer frames. Although the “A”-rated PHI-listed window frame insulates much better than the Passivhaus version of the insulated fiberglass frames, its extra bulk results in a nearly identical heating bill.All three frames that we looked at in the example would be good choices from an energy point of view. According to PHPP, the spread between them for the Lancaster house is only about 450 kWh/year. For some people this may be the difference between qualifying for the Passivhaus standard and not qualifying for the Passivhaus standard. For others it is inconsequential.Again, results like this are project-specific. Your mileage may vary; but in this case, a North American offering held its own when compared with windows that most people would assume were much more energy-efficient choices.Again, the best bet to compare windows is to run PHPP for your building.While European windows are terrific, until you’ve run PHPP for your building, there should be no automatic presumption of their thermal superiority. [Editor’s note: The author of this article, Stephen Thwaites, is a window manufacturer. His company, Thermotech Fiberglass Fenestration, is located in Ottawa, Ontario.] There are lots of variablesKeep in mind that your mileage may vary. Your mileage will especially vary, sometimes wildly, depending on building design, climate, proportion of fixed windows, and of course a specific window’s characteristics. Stephen Thwaites is a professional engineer and the technical director of Thermotech Fiberglass Fenestration in Ottawa, Ontario.