bthoole's blog

Both articles seem to have well written paragraphs that flow together. The paragraphs begin with a topic sentence and then add detail and end with a closing. The difference is in the blending of the paragraphs when looked at as a whole. The research article seems to be more abrupt at getting directly into the subject matter and the paragraphs flow together so that the topic sentence of one picks up from the end of the preceding paragraph. Taken alone, one paragraph may have less of a standard topic sentence, but the research article is meant to flow from one paragraph to another and when read this way makes sense. The review article takes more liberties in the time it takes to explain something and has paragraphs that can stand independently more often. The review does not have the same limits to cohesively represent something, like an experiment, which is what the research article has to do. The review can therefore take more time in explaining details that can stand as independent paragraphs. The separate details make separate paragraphs and these inform a more layman reader.

In the research article, the headings consist of the experimental steps of the experiment. They include a summary, introduction, materials and methods, results and a discussion. The reviewed article does not have these as markers. Instead, they can change frequently and are descriptive of what is about to be discussed.

The first paragraph of the research article is the summary section. This serves to set up the experiment that was performed and what they set out to accomplish. It lays out the points that the authors say they found evidence to support. The review article begins with an abstract. This is less focused on a experiment and more on Myrmecomorphs and their resemblance to ants. This explains the type of mimicry they say is at play and why it came about. These two sections are a paragraph apiece, but other sections are longer and compose multiple paragraphs. Some also contain data tables and figures.

The research article uses in text citations with the author and year. It then finishes with a reference page at the very end of the article. The review also uses in text citation but usually mentions the author and then puts the year in parentheses. If there is more than one reference, the author names and year will both be listed in parentheses. This also ends with a reference cited section at the very end of the article.

Both articles seem to have well written paragraphs that flow together. The paragraphs begin with a topic sentence and then flow into more detail. The research article seems to be more abrupt at getting directly into the subject matter and the paragraphs flow together so that the topic sentence of one picks up from the end of the preceding paragraph. Taken alone, they may be less of a standard topic sentence to a paragraph, but the research article is meant to flow from one paragraph to another and when read this way makes sense. The review article takes more liberties in the time it takes to explain something and has paragraphs that can stand independently more often. The review does not have something to cohesively represent like the research article and can therefore take more time in explaining detail that can stand as an independent paragraph. The separate details then make separate paragraphs which serve to inform the reader.

It surprised me that the research was shorter than the review because we often think of research as being expansive and gathering a lot of data. This makes sense however given that the research article is meant to encapsulate the whole experiment and convey those ideas while also being brief. This is not to say that the results are written with a sense of levity but rather an exactness to convey the necessary. It solidified the importance of being able to flow from paragraph to paragraph without necessarily using a new topic sentence but one that continued the train of thought but showed progression in the article. The review was able to take more time in doing this and gave more detail than may be necessary in a research article. The research is meant for other experts in the field, where as the review had information that explained the goings on to those who may not poses the same level of expertise.

To understand the impact of hurricane Florence on North Carolina's coast it is important to undertand the formation events of the northern and southern coasts. At the northen coastal plain, one must travel 100km (60miles) before exceeding three meters of elevation. This is drastically different from the southern coastal plain, where only 1-2 miles needss to be traversed to exceed a three meter elevation. All this relates to the slight differences that were at play when they were formed. 200 million years ago when several continents formed a supercontinet, what is now Africa began to pull away. This left some rock to create the North Carolina crystalling rock platform in the southern part of the state. Soft sediment filled around it and the basin has been filling with sediment ever since the Atlantic Ocean was formed. Subsidence of the land and sea level rise means the north coast is sinking faster than the south.

The purpose of this lab was to learn how to accurately determine melting points and to use this technique to then determine the melting points of two unkowns. The melting point is a physical property of a solid which can be used to help identify a substance. Usually, a solid will not melt at a specific temperature but instead will melt over a range. When using a melting point range, a narrow range suggests that the compound is relatively pure, whereas a larger range suggests a relative impurity. For this lab, a range of 2 degrees celsius was considered narrow and pure, with any greater range resulting in a retest with a new sample. 

In this lab, the melting points of two unkowns and the three compounds naphthalene, urea and sulfanilamide were to be determined. By using the melting temperature device it was possible to quickly heat the known compounds to 10 degrees celsius below their given melting point range. From there, the heat could ramp up at about 1 degree celsius per minute so that the melting could be observed when it started and when it finished, thus providing a range. 

The observed melting range for naphthalene was 81-83. The narrow range suggests a level of purity for the sample. The expected range was 79-80. The observed result was slightly higher than the given melting point range , but this could stem from the mel-Temp device thermometer being slightly off, or due to the purity of the sample. The observed melting range for urea was 133-135. Again, the narrow 2 degree range suggests the purity of the substance tested. However, here too the observed melting temperature range was slightly different than the given 132-134 range. Here, the difference is by 1 degree and does not suggest any larger error at play. The temperature range difference was slight and could be applicable to the thermometer device. The last given compound was sulfanilamide and it had an observed melting point range fo 165-167. This is the same range that was given for the known compound and fits within the 2 degree temperature range, suggesting that it is relatively pure.

In the study of mineralogy, it is important to first understand the characteristics of an atom. Atoms are the smallest particles that still retain the characteristics of the elements on the periodic table. The nucleus, composed of protons and neutrons at the center of the atom, has a high mass and is surrounded by a much larger volume filled with electrons, which makes up the electron cloud. 

In early models of the atom, electrons were shown to populate the cloud in orbitals or shells around the nucleus. The shells are defined by the quantum number n, which tells the number of electron shells in the cloud. This is the principal quantum number and describes the energy levels. Other quantum numbers are azimuthal quantum number, l, and the magnetic quantum number, m. The azimuthal number specifies the subshells that make up the orbitals. These subshells, determine the shape of the orbital. These subshells are referred to as s, p, d, f, etc., and are given a number, l, starting at 0 for subshell s. This then pairs with the magnetic quantum number. The number references the orbitaks within a subshell and restricts the orientation of each orbital. The interger values of m range from -l to +l. 

Additionally, atoms of the same element can differ in the amount of neutrons they possess in the nucleus. These are called isotopes and while they do not affect the electrical charge of the atom, they do affect the mass. Different isotopes of elements are more common than others and some isotopes lead to radioactive decay, which can be used to date rocks or organic matter, depending on the element that is being used.

Upon first seeing the spider, it was apparent that the legs were too long to be kept in the container. While the front legs appeard to fit fine, they were smaller in size. It was the large back legs that would buckle and contort back onto the spider. The legs themselves appeard to have two joints where they were capable of bending. This allowed for three separate areas for the leg, an ascending, transverse, and a descending area. Of course, the legs could also straighten and it would appear that the leg was straight. There was no designation that the leg was capable of in fact bending in multiple places. However, in knowing that the legs did bend, it was observed that at each bend there were bands of white and black that did not match the rest of the spider's coloration. While some legs had a black, white, black banding, others consisted of just two bands of black and then white or were solely white.

The legs are too long to be kept in the container. While the front legs appear to be fine, they are smaller in size, the large back legs bundle and contort back on the spider. The legs themselves appear to have two joints where they are able to bend. This allows for three separate areas for the leg, an ascending, transverse, and a descending area. Of course, they could also straighten and you would be none the wiser at where this bending would occur save for the color designation. At each bend there are color bands of white and black that do not match the rest of the spider's coloration. While some legs have black, white, black bands, others consist of two bands of color or are solely white. The longest legs, which support the spider furthest from the head, are connected closest to the front of the spider.

The body of the spider has two clearly discernable segments. The smaller and most anterior of the two is where the eight legs connect. The larger segment shares the black coloration as the bands on the legs in two lines that meet at the end of the segment. The reverse side shows small red dots on the largest side closest to the point that the two segments join.

With the right light and angle, it is possible to observe the hairs on the spider's ;egs. At times the hairs make the legs themselves appear ti be segmented, but upon closer inspection of the larger rear legs it can be noted that this illusion comes from the fineness of the hairs. They are both thin and short, but stand on end.

The spider is relatively stationary when it is undisturbed. Whether this is a behavior due to its size and the confines of the container are unclear. It has been seen in more energetic states of movement where it is capable of both speed and dexterity. Again though, leg placement is hindered and the spider is not able to place/move as it desires (as far as one can tell of a spider's desires based on leg placement).

When holding the container upside down to view underneath the spider, it is possible to see two small protuberances from the head. these are most likely the pincers/fangs/grasping mechanism for the spider. Their movements and functionality remian unobserved.

Returnign to the structure of the legs, it seems that the third jointed segment, furthest from the body, ends in a thinner, curved part of the leg. It is this bowing in the leg that the spider stands upon.