From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #5186 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Monday, October 26 2020 Volume 14 : Number 5186 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Your gut has 17lbs of rotting food bloating it ["Poop out fat" Subject: Your gut has 17lbs of rotting food bloating it Your gut has 17lbs of rotting food bloating it http://increasesize.buzz/anDXEWZPx2S7OTonrxK9RANAJAL27iGnCweTsVJUX0Se0MXa http://increasesize.buzz/nKOfnt-8mMO9VlENyiwX_vVKCoc0J3h5wFph6CXKWiEKDdo Not all solids are crystals. For example, when liquid water starts freezing, the phase change begins with small ice crystals that grow until they fuse, forming a polycrystalline structure. In the final block of ice, each of the small crystals (called "crystallites" or "grains") is a true crystal with a periodic arrangement of atoms, but the whole polycrystal does not have a periodic arrangement of atoms, because the periodic pattern is broken at the grain boundaries. Most macroscopic inorganic solids are polycrystalline, including almost all metals, ceramics, ice, rocks, etc. Solids that are neither crystalline nor polycrystalline, such as glass, are called amorphous solids, also called glassy, vitreous, or noncrystalline. These have no periodic order, even microscopically. There are distinct differences between crystalline solids and amorphous solids: most notably, the process of forming a glass does not release the latent heat of fusion, but forming a crystal does. A crystal structure (an arrangement of atoms in a crystal) is characterized by its unit cell, a small imaginary box containing one or more atoms in a specific spatial arrangement. The unit cells are stacked in three-dimensional space to form the crystal. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 07:31:35 -0400 From: "Poor Eyesight" Subject: Is This Eye Bacteria Making You Blind? Is This Eye Bacteria Making You Blind? http://homeproof.buzz/N2sLMKs-G3X-z_jUP7GJsH5bRZ5VZQ5eUuor8BaTzzLu7OMm http://homeproof.buzz/ollIvsiT1cVS14PG_YXOPxQ5cwxEd1rwFTbBTCJp9JpwhRkg One specific type of debitage analysis is mass analysis. Mass analysis is based on analyzing debitage populations based on their size distribution across specified size grades. Ahler (1989) conducted an experimental replication under some technological settings and classified debitage into five groups according to their size, Discriminant analysis (by SPSS DISCRIMINANT function) was applied to compare mass analysis data sets for these five experimental data groups. He then compared the counts and weights of experimental samples with debris from two prehistoric workshop sites in western North Dakota. The result shows the experimental data sets can explain the technological composition of archaeological samples. Samples from several other sites also are applied this method and derive clear discriminant results. Especially in a specific function site, such as Legacy site a Late Woodland age camp in the Missouri breaks, associated with bison kill/butchering, the low frequency of cortex and a specific flake ratio (G4:Gl-3 ) data indicate that a soft hammer small flake tool production, which is similar with experiment result. Although this process has been used in many studies, Andrefsky warns of the potential problems associated with the many assumptions made while employing this analysis. One in particular that he draws attention to is the possibility of differences in debitage populations based on individual variation of the artifact maker; in his example, three different knappers all using bipolar core reduction have different percentages of size grade 3 debitage (5.2%, 13.2%, and 10.2%). These differences indicate that individual variation can be influential in the size distribution of debitage and should be kept in mind if mass analysis is being employed. The reason for which Andrefsky believes mass analysis have become so popular is due to the process's ease of use and speed. Andrefsky even quotes Ahler that between individual specimen analysis and mass analysis, mass analysis has the advantage because ! of four reasons: 1) biases are eliminated because mass analysis looks at the entire assemblage; both completed and fractured. 2) Because mass analysis doesn't require looking at each artifact, it is very rapid and efficient. 3) debitage biases based on the sample's ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #5186 **********************************************