CITY (4-2-3-1)CABALLERO,ZABALETA, OTAMENDI, MANGALA, CLICHY,FERNANDO, FERNANDINHO, NAVAS, DE BRUYNE, SILVA,AGUERORONDON,BERAHINO, FLETCHER, GARDNER, YACOB, SANDRO, CHESTER, EVANS, McAULEY,DAWSON, FOSTERWBA (4-2-3-1)On Wednesday, Manchester City recorded an impressive result in the Champions League, holding Paris St-Germain to a 2-2 draw in the French capital, their eyes now firmly fixed on a semi-final place.City now return to the Barclays Premier League where they sit in fourth place, a point behind third-placed Arsenal and 15 points behind leaders Leicester City.Though City have won only 10 of their 16 home games, they have scored a massive 39 goals, the most in the league.Interestingly they have drawn just once at home, again the lowest in the division. City won 4-0 at Bournemouth last Saturday, one of only two league wins in their last seven games. In that seven-game spell, they have also lost four and drawn one.West Bromwich Albion are 11th in the Premier League but goals are rare when the Baggies are on the road. Albion have scored just 11 away – only Newcastle have fewer, with nine – while the 16 conceded means their away games have produced just 17, the fewest in the Premier League.Albion drew 0-0 at Sunderland last weekend, their second stalemate in four league outings.On the opening day of the season City won 3-0 at Albion, their eighth straight Premier League win over the Baggies. Indeed, Albion last beat City in December 2008 at The Hawthorns; since then they have lost 11 and drawn one of 12 subsequent meetings.Albion last won at City in February 2003, at the old Maine Road. Since then, they have drawn two and lost on their last six visits.City are still without Vincent Kompany and Raheem Sterling while there are tests for Fabian Delph, Joe Hart and Yaya Toure. Albion, meanwhile, test James Morrison and miss Chris Brunt and Callum McManaman.
Archer fish, the sharpshooters of the underwater world, have another trick in their blowguns: energy efficiency. Three German scientists were curious how they knew how hard to shoot at targets of differing mass. Publishing in Current Biology,1 the team first determined that the prey’s ability to cling to its leaf or stem is proportional to its body mass. Without a calculator, the predatory fish seem to figure out how hard to shoot:Hence, the maximum adhesive forces an archerfish’s shot must overcome in order to actually dislodge prey increase linearly with prey’s size…. Archerfish force-scaling closely matches this prediction, ensuring a reasonable safety margin: for any given size of prey, the fish apply about ten times the forces the adhesive organs of prey of that size could maximally sustain.Prior to this study, scientists thought the fish had a one-size-fits-all water bullet. By weighing the mass of water spit out, the scientists determined that the fish don’t waste big bullets on smaller targets. Also, they hit hard enough to win on the first shot: “Moreover, because the first shot hits prey unprepared in an average posture, the fish needed not to adjust to the probably much larger forces some prey might exert by clawing to the substrate.” In non-scientese, this means the bug or lizard is going to grab on harder if the fish fails to dislodge it on the first shot. The scientists attempted an evolutionary explanation for this prey-matching marksmanship. Since spitting is costly in energy terms, “Fitting with the costs of shooting, archerfish use the most economic way of tuning their shots,” they said. The fish seem to know that kinetic energy varies with 1/2 m v2, so the fish vary the mass instead of the velocity: “As the kinetic energy of their shot varies with the square of speed but only linearly with mass, this simple trick enables archerfish to scale their forces in the least costly way and to double force transfer at doubled instead of quadrupled energetic costs.” But wait a minute; how does all this physics talk count as an evolutionary explanation? After all, their article was entitled, “Archerfish shots are evolutionarily matched to prey adhesion.” They explain: “The evolutionary pressures for adjusting the shots at all, instead of firing an all-or-none shot of sufficient maximum force, became evident when we analyzed the mass, speed and kinetic energy of the shots.” In other words, all they needed to observe was an “evolutionary pressure” related to the phenomenon. Natural selection, in their view, did the math. See also the summaries of this paper on EurekAlert and Live Science, and our 09/07/2004 entry about the archer fish’s optical wizardry.1Schlegel, Schmid and Schuster, “Archerfish shots are evolutionarily matched to prey adhesion,” Current Biology, Volume 16, Issue 19, 10 October 2006, pages R836-R837, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.08.082.We have a different math based on observation and intelligent design. The vacuousness of the evolutionary explanation is proportional to the cube of the observed adaptation. We also have a natural law to back this up (see Darwin’s Law with Bloch’s Extension, right sidebar).(Visited 26 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest The Ohio Ag Net podcast, brought to you by AgriGold, brings you interviews with Senator Sherrod Brown on the Senate Farm Bill. We hear from Jeff Neal of Kalmbach Feeds on the company’s brand new feed mill near Upper Sandusky. Brady Campbell of the OSU Sheep Team gives us an update on parasites in livestock. And the first week of Feeding Farmers in 2018 has come and gone, where Joel visited with Roger Yocom on their farm’s unique history and more.
Homeowners can now receive a federal tax credit for 30% of the cost of new energy-efficient windows. The credit was authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) signed by President Obama in February.There’s just one problem with the new tax credit: the specifications for eligible windows were crafted by politicians, not window experts. The ARRA stipulates that eligible windows must have a maximum U-factor of 0.30 and a maximum solar heat-gain coefficient (SHGC) of 0.30 — requirements that have been dubbed “the 30-30 provision.”There’s nothing wrong with the U-factor specification — except, perhaps, that it isn’t particularly stringent. The problematic provision is the SHGC spec.By setting a maximum SHGC of 0.30, the ARRA actually excludes the best windows for cold climates. Cold-climate homes need windows with a SHGC in the range of 0.39 to 0.65; so if they comply with the tax-credit provisions, they’ll end up with windows that contribute to higher-than-necessary energy bills.In Florida, solar heat gain from windows increases a home’s air conditioning load, so low-solar-gain windows are usually the best choice. Even in hot climates, however, high-solar-gain windows usually save energy during the winter.Although some high-solar-gain windows — especially those facing east or west — can cause summer overheating, south-facing windows rarely cause overheating problems, especially if the windows are protected by a well designed roof overhang.Since the average American family spends far more on space heating than on air conditioning, installing high-solar-gain windows on south walls makes sense for much of the country. Yet most U.S. window manufacturers have all but abandoned the market for high-solar-gain windows.During the 1980s, glazing manufacturers perfected spectrally selective coatings that made it possible to produce low-solar-gain insulated glazing. During the 1990s, as builders in hot climates learned how these coatings reduced cooling loads, low-solar-gain glazing… This article is only available to GBA Prime Members Start Free Trial Already a member? Log in Sign up for a free trial and get instant access to this article as well as GBA’s complete library of premium articles and construction details.
South Africa’s Kevin Anderson beat USA’s John Isner to reach the Wimbledon men’s singles final on Saturday in what was the longest semi-final in the history of the tournament.It took eighth seed Anderson six hours and 35 minutes to get past ninth seed Isner 7-6(8), 6-7(5), 6-7(9), 6-4, 26-24 at the Centre Court of All England Club.This was the second longest match in the history of Wimbledon. The longest one also involved Isner, where he beat Nicolas Mahut 6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 70-68 in 11 hours across three days in the first round of 2010.This is the first time in 98 years that a South African player has reached the final of Wimbledon.Anderson’s quarter-final against Roger Federer also went for a little over four hours while on Friday, Anderson and Isner produced one of the tennis classics with their skills on the court.”Anderson vs Isner, a Wimbledon classic – you better believe it”A Centre Court epic ends with @KAndersonATP going through to the #Wimbledon final, beating John Isner 7-6(6), 6-7(5), 6-7(9), 6-4, 26-24 pic.twitter.com/Fv4ww2cEzKWimbledon (@Wimbledon) July 13, 2018Anderson struck a total of 49 aces in the match while Isner hit 53. While the winner struck by Isner were more than Anderson, it were the latter’s total unforced errors (24) which were far lesser than Isner’s 59.Anderson had taken the first set but Isner hit right back to take the next two. It required immense mental strength from the South African to come back in the fourth set and take it by breaking Isner.advertisementAlso read – Wimbledon 2018: Serena Williams sets up title clash vs Angelique KerberHowever, the final set was absolute class from the two as they gave each other nothing at all when serving. The way the two fired up aces to get themselves out of tricky situations was the power mental tennis at its best.At 14-14, Anderson was about to break Isner after going 40-15 up but the American hit back with two straight aces to make it 40-40 and then won the next two points to take a 15-14 lead. John Isner was also involved in the longest match in the history of tennis. (Reuters Photo)Thereafter, both showed their strength while serving but Anderson clearly looked the better one when it came to rallies.At 24-24, Isner was serving and Anderson was 15-0 up. Isner served and while picking the serve Anderson fell but the way he got up immediately and played the next couple of strokes to eventually win the point was remarkable. It forced the commentators to say that Anderson should be awarded another point just for getting up and playing the next stroke like that.However, Anderson did not really need to be awarded a point. The South African won the next point to go up 40-0 and even though Isner got a point back, Anderson was eventually able to break Isner.While serving for the match, nerves were into play. Anderson while trying to serve and volley misplaced and easy shot to go 0-15 down. But from there the South African showed the steely nerves he had against Federer to win the match.After the match, Anderson said that he and Isner both deserved to win this one. He said it almost feels like it’s a draw.”At the end you feel like it’s a draw, but someone has to win. John is a great guy and I really feel for him,” Anderson said.”At the end you feel like its a draw, but someone has to win. John is a great guy and I really feel for him”- @KAndersonATP #Wimbledon pic.twitter.com/SHU5fVNUc9Wimbledon (@Wimbledon) July 13, 2018He did not celebrate widly, just a nod, eyes welled up with emotions and went and hugged Isner at the net. Funnily, he even apologised for that.”I’m sorry for not celebrating but I am happy. Just tired.”After two back-to-back marathons, Anderson said he would follow up the same process to recover and will have to be ready for the final.”I try to follow the same protocols to recover and I will have to be ready. Against guys like Nadal and Djokovic, I mean they don’t need any intoduction.”In the final, Anderson will be up against Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic, who were yet to play.