Taylor McRae wrote:I have 1 acre and a bit of a slope and I'm considering swales too. Similar situation where there are times of the year we get a bit of rain, but dry spells in the summer that it would be nice to stretch out the water for.
Did you make up your mind yet?
r ransom wrote:
Calcite as I keep calling it may not be the best word, but easier to spell than calcium carbonate, seems to have several paths to aquire it. Limestone, marble, chalk...and possibly eggs.
Jay Angler wrote:I am seriously considering an e-bike particularly for the range it will give me.
Here are some of my concerns:
1. E-bikes are *much* heavier. If I am in an accident, the weight of the bike alone may increase my injuries.
2. The "carrot" of going "faster", rather than simply "further" is real. An accident at 10 mph is safer than 20 mph is safer than 30 mph. Granted my area has many very serious cyclists who go waaaayyyyy faster than I am capable of going without electric assist, but I'm seeing more people going faster on flats and down grades on electric bikes and am concerned. There have been multiple articles from Emerg Doctors about electric scooters and how dangerous they are.
3. My concern is cubed for people riding with a child on the back such as the picture above. Just because you *can* go fast, doesn't mean that you might not have serious regrets if something goes wrong. I am totally happy with the idea of using electric assist to help me up some of our hills, and to help me go on a 20 km trip when I know my knees are only up to 10 km. Personally though, I'd rather a child be in a bike trailer with it's lower center of gravity, than on the back of a bike as shown above. This, of course, means I need to do some serious upgrades on my old bike trailer before my hoped-for grandchildren become a reality!
For the moment, I an still contemplating the issue. I am *really* happy that Wheaton Labs is doing some serious real life testing for us. One concern is with how long they will last, and which ones are truly repairable. It has gotten to the point with cars, that home repairs are much more difficult if not impossible. I don't want to have to loose my bike to a shop for months because of difficulty getting parts.
Catie George wrote:Pure calcite, as a large crystal with few impurities, is very transparent. "Spar" calcite (very pure, very clear large crystals) is quite interesting, as it's known for double refractions - you see two images side by side if you look through it. I wonder if that would impact the apparent "glow"?
Catie George wrote:
Basically - looking at the optical properties of pure calcite, i am not surpised that fine, pureground calcite would behave with a lot of transparency when added to oil. (And i wonder about silica dust, though likely less safe to work with).
Edit - After musing some more with respect to the transparency of calcium carbonate, i'd anticipate the SOURCE of calcium carbonate to make a big difference for transparency, possibly more than it's exact particle size/distribution, even with the same chemical formula, with a rough opacity scale of chalk (the kind from microscopic creatures) -> llimestone dust-> marble dust (ordered with increasing transparency). Marble is limestone after heat and pressure mushes it together and allows the crystals to rearrange themselves to be bigger and less flawed.
Getting way into the weeds - i wonder if particle size distribution also matters? For example, if the calcite crystals and the pigment crystals are both of consistent particle size, but have a gap between them (so the calcite is consistently smaller or bigger than the pigment) , i'd expect them to behave differently (smearing seperate, or settling from each other) in paint than if they were consistent. I'd also expect if you have a wider range of particle sizes of calcite, smoothly graded between them, your paint will likely be better at holding it's shape.