text:
Archive for category: Support
You are here: Home1 / Support
eToolLCD Environmental Indicators
02/03/2019 /1 Comment/in Features, Support /by Pat
Whilst undoubtedly climate change currently remains the greatest environmental challenge of our time and our recommendations will focus on this, there are many other environmental indicators that can be measured in eToolLCD. Interestingly many are also heavily impacted by the burning of fossil fuels therefore, quite often a reduction in CO2e can often also lead to a reduction in many other indicators. A summary of some of those currently measured in eTool can be found below.
Global Warming Potential. Anthropogenic global warming is caused by an increase of greenhouse gasses (GHG) in the earth's atmosphere. These gasses reflect some of the heat radiated from the earth's surface that would normally escape into space back to the surface of the earth. Over time this warms the earth. Common GHGs include CO2, N2O, CH4 and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Global Warming Potential (GWP) is expressed in equivalent GHGs released, usually in kgCO2e.
Embodied Energy. Embodied Energy (EE) is a measure of the primary energy content of non-renewable energy sources including the energy required to extract, process and deliver the non-renewable fuels, or manufacture, transport and install and maintain a renewable generator (hence there is usually and non-renewable energy content associated with renewable energy sources also).
Water Footprint. The pressure on global freshwater resources arises from the demand for everyday goods and services which use water in their production. The interconnected nature of global economic systems means that water abstraction can occur far from where final consumption occurs. Managing water resources is extremely important for the health of the environment and our current and future agricultural, industrial and personal water requirements. Freshwater can be derived from renewable sources (rainwater) and somewhat non-renewable resources (aquifers). The water footprint indicator distinguishes from these sources and provides an understanding of the depletion of fresh water sources, in particular from non-renewable resources.
Land Use Land transformation and use causes biodiversity loss. The main cause of the loss of biodiversity can be attributed to the influence of human beings on the world biosphere. Biological diversity is the resource upon which families, communities, nations and future generations depend. There is a general acceptance that the term biodiversity encompasses diversity numerous levels, for example genetic level, populations/species level, communities/ecosystems level and regional landscapes level). Unfortunately, there are currently no methods which allow for simultaneous measurement of all levels of biodiversity. There have been numerous attempts to integrate direct and indirect land use in LCA and its impact on biodiversity but none of the proposed metrics are fully operational or applied globally.
Ozone Depletion Ozone is formed and depleted naturally in the earth's stratosphere (between 15-40 km above the earth's surface). Halocarbon compounds are persistent synthetic halogen-containing organic molecules that can reach the stratosphere leading to more rapid depletion of the ozone. As the ozone in the stratosphere is reduced more of the ultraviolet rays in sunlight can reach the earth's surface where they can cause skin cancer and reduced crop yields. Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) is expressed in equivalent ozone depleting gasses (normally kgCFC11e).
Acidification Potential. Acidification is a consequence of acids (and other compounds which can be transformed into acids) being emitted to the atmosphere and subsequently deposited in surface soils and water. Increased acidity can result in negative consequences for flora and fauna in addition to increased corrosion of manmade structures (buildings vehicles etc.). Acidification Potential (AP) is an indicator of such damage and is usually measured in kgCO2e.
Human Toxicity Potential Human results from persistent chemicals reaching undesirable concentrations in each of the three elements of the environment (air soil and water). This leads to damage to humans, animals and eco-systems. The modelling of toxicity in LCA is complicated by the complex chemicals involved and their potential interactions. Human Toxicity Potential (HTP) takes account of releases of materials toxic to humans in three distinct media being air, water and soil. The toxicological factors are calculated using scientific estimates for the acceptable daily intake or tolerable daily intake of the toxic substances. The toxicological factors are still at an early stage of development so that HTP can only be taken as an indication and not as an absolute measure of the toxicity potential. In this case, the indicator is measured in Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY).
Eutrophication Potential Over-enrichment of aquatic ecosystems with nutrients leading to increased production of plankton, algae and higher aquatic plants leading to a deterioration of the water quality and a reduction in the value and/or the utilisation of the aquatic ecosystem. Eutrophication is primarily caused by surplus nitrogen and phosphorus. Sources of nutrients include agriculture (fertilisers and manure), aquaculture, municipal wastewater, and nitrogen oxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion. It is measured in terms of kg of phosphate equivalents kg PO4eq.
Abiotic Resource Depletion Minerals And Energy. A combination of both Mineral and Fossil Fuel Abiotic resource depletion. This is a measure of the burden today's society is placing on future generations by depleting available resources.
POCP Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP), commonly known as smog, is toxic to humans in high concentration. Although ozone is protective in the stratosphere at low levels it is problematic from both a health and nuisance perspective. Plant growth is also effected through damaged leaf surfaces and reduced photosynthesis. POCP is formed when sunlight and heat react with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). POCP is measured in kg ethylene.
Ionizing Radiation. Ionizing Radiation (IR) characterises impacts from the release of radioactive species (radionuclides) to air and water. The species most commonly accounted for are the radionuclides of caesium, iodine, radon and uranium etc. Anthropogenic sources are the nuclear fuel cycle, phosphate rock extraction, coal power plants, and oil and gas extraction. When released to the environment, they can impact both human health and ecosystems so the end_point areas of protection they relate to are human health and the ecosystem quality.
Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity. The potential effect of toxic releases and exposure on marine environments.
Terrestrial Aquatic Ecotoxicity The potential effect of toxic releases and exposure on terrestrial (land-based) environments.
Ecotoxicity. The potential effect of toxic releases and exposure on environments.
Particulate Matter. Particulate Matter (PM) or respiratory inorganics cause health issues in high concentrations. PM concentrations vary widely around the world. The main contributors are industrial operations and power generation. However, PM emissions from vehicle exhaust can contribute significantly to health damages because they are emitted in high-density areas and at low elevation. Secondary aerosol precursor emissions in many areas are due to vehicle exhaust and domestic wood heaters. Ammonia emissions from agriculture are also a major contributor to secondary PM. They are measured in kgPM2.5
Water Consumption. The pressure on global freshwater resources arises from the demand for everyday goods and services which use water in their production. The interconnected nature of global economic systems means that water abstraction can occur far from where final consumption occurs. Globally, water use has been increasing at more than twice the rate of population growth, and most withdrawals are in watersheds already experiencing water stress. Managing water resources is extremely important for the health of the environment and our current and future agricultural, industrial and personal water requirements. Freshwater can be derived from renewable sources (rainwater) and somewhat non-renewable resources (aquifers). Consumptive water (H2O C) use is abstracted water that is no longer available for other uses because it has evaporated, transpired, been incorporated into products and crops, or consumed by man or livestock.
Abiotic Resource Depletion Minerals. Abiotic Resource Depletion of energy (ADPM) is a measure of the extraction and consumption of primary resources from the earth. Such exploitation reduces resources available to future generations and as such must be managed.
Human Toxicity Cancer. Life cycle impact assessment of toxicity takes into account the fate, route of exposure and toxicity impact of toxic substances when released to air, water or land. Categories of chemical substances commonly accounted for are pesticides, heavy metals, hormones and organic chemicals. Human toxicity, cancer measures the potential for toxic releases or exposure to cause cancer in humans.
Human Toxicity Non-Cancer. Life cycle impact assessment of toxicity takes into account the fate, route of exposure and toxicity impact of toxic substances when released to air, water or land. Categories of chemical substances commonly accounted for are pesticides, heavy metals, hormones and organic chemicals. Human toxicity, cancer measures the potential for toxic releases or exposure to cause cancer in humans.
Freshwater Ecotoxicity. Life cycle impact assessment of toxicity takes into account the fate, route of exposure and toxicity impact of toxic substances when released to air, water or land. Categories of chemical substances commonly accounted for are pesticides, heavy metals, hormones and organic chemicals. Human toxicity, non-cancer measures the potential for toxic releases or exposure to cause damage to freshwater environments.
Water Scarcity. The pressure on global freshwater resources arises from the demand for everyday goods and services which use water in their production. The interconnected nature of global economic systems means that water abstraction can occur far from where final consumption occurs. Managing water resources is extremely important for the health of the environment and our current and future agricultural, industrial and personal water requirements. Freshwater can be derived from renewable sources (rainwater) and somewhat non-renewable resources (aquifers). The water scarcity indicator (H2O S) expands on the water footprint indicator by not only distinguishing from these sources and providing an understanding of the depletion of fresh water sources but also relating this depletion to scarcity in the freshwater supply in the local region.
Ionizing Radiation. Ionizing radiation characterises impacts from the release of radioactive species (radionuclides) to air and water. The species most commonly accounted for are the radionuclides of caesium, iodine, radon and uranium etc. Anthropogenic sources are the nuclear fuel cycle, phosphate rock extraction, coal power plants, and oil and gas extraction. When released to the environment, they can impact both human health and ecosystems so the end_point areas of protection they relate to are human health and the ecosystem quality.
Abiotic Resource Depletion Energy. Abiotic Resource Depletion of energy (ARDE) is a measure of the extraction and consumption of non-renewable energy sources (primarily fossil fuels, but also inclusive of other energy sources such as uranium). Primary energy content of non-renewable energy sources including the embodied energy to extract, process and deliver the non-renewable fuels, or manufacture, transport and install the renewable generator. Hence there is usually and non-renewable energy content associated with renewable fuels also.
BRE Ecopoints. A single metric score that weights the various environmental indicators covered in Bre IMPACT according to their environmental significance.
The diagram below presents some of the damage pathways (environmental, human, resource) that the indicators impact on.
(Courtesy of Simapro)
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg 0 0 Pat https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg Pat2019-03-02 18:44:372022-09-22 04:53:54eToolLCD Environmental Indicators
eToolLCD workflow
21/10/2016 /0 Comments/in Support, Support Site Export, Using eTool LCA /by Henrique
If you're wondering how to complete your LCA models using eToolLCD you have landed on the right place. This is a basic step by step process to start a model from scratch all the way through to certification. There will be variances depending on the project type you're modelling and the purpose of the LCA but we hope this provides a good initial guidance. You can always check the example projects in your account to compare the scope and make sure you've added all required project info.
Inform eTool about your new project and pay the project fee (except for Specialist users who can work on unlimited projects per year).
Create a project, structure and you base design (to be used as reference for comparative LCA process) in eToolLCD.
Insert project information using the "Details" tab. Be sure to use the 'Compare Benchmark' – eTool have created a number of Benchmark buildings; including a Residential and Office type. Comparing your design to those Benchmarks will highlight any major gaps in your Life cycle inventory.
Include templates from library or customise your own templates. Make sure you customise templates in the library first, before you load them into your models.
Compare the scope of your Design with the example projects and the Benchmark designs (which you can see in the eTool Library). You can also use the Construction Scope and Energy and Water Scope which are on the Project details as a checklist of items to consider in the data collection phase of your life cycle assessment.
Run the Top Impacts reports – check that the usual suspects and expected items are on the list.
Compare the total impacts of each building Category (Substructure, Superstructure etc) against the Benchmark – (blue bars versus grey bars)
Submit your Base design for Certification by the eTool team. This is quality assurance service and an LCA mentoring process
Clone your Certified Base design to create a LCA – Scenario, often called your Improved design.
Identify the strategies to reduce the Top Impacts – use the Recommendations tab to document these design improvement strategies.
Implement design improvements using the "Recommendations" tab and other features like bulk swap. Make sure you record the changes so they can be automatically populated in your reports.
Generate the reports automatically from the software and present to your clients:
Target Setting Study (preliminary design advice)
Design Feedback Report (design development stage)
Environmental Infographics (Useful for marketing and communicating to layperson)
Clone the improved design into a final design and implement all confirmed design improvements.
Submit final design for certification with eTool.
Generate reports from Certified Final design
Emissions certificate
Life cycle inventory
Get out there and be proud of achieving a genuinely sustainable design outcome!
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg 0 0 Henrique https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg Henrique2016-10-21 12:34:442019-07-02 03:25:34eToolLCD workflow
Closed Loop Recycling and EN15978 – how does it work?
01/09/2016 /2 Comments/in Building, eBlog, Economy, Environment, Other Resources, Software, Support, Support Site Export /by Pat
I've heard its complicated why is that?
We need to reward recycling but also have to be careful not to double count the benefits (at the start and end of life for example). The approach under EN15978 is as follows:
to reward "design for deconstruction" as the key driver that determines the net results over the whole life of a building
to allocate economically, so if a product is a waste product at the end of the buildings' life (there is no market for it, so it costs money to remove it from site rather than having some sort of scrap value) then any benefits associated with recycling that product are picked up by the next person who uses it. So essentially, recycled timber is all rewarded at the start of the building's life. Recycled aluminium is all rewarded at the end (in net terms)
Allocation of reused products from other industries are also done economically, one example of this is recycled fly ash or blast furnace slag in concrete. Because Blast Furnace has some value, it's not as attractive environmentally as fly ash
The rules for recycling allocation under the EN15978 methodology were initially somewhat mind-boggling for me. To understand them you will likely need to take a number of re-visits and you should try to wipe out any preconceptions you may have on recycling.
So how does it work?.
Lets start with what is included in the scope of En15978 first,
Note that Module D is actually a form of "System Expansion" and one could argue is outside of the life cycle of the building.
Before we look into recycling allocation further we also need to understand a few definitions.
Recycled content is the proportion of recycled material used to create the product, the global industry average recycled content of aluminium today is approximately 35%. This means that in 100kg of aluminium 35kg comes from old recycled aluminium and 65kg comes from new raw material.
Recycling rate is the proportion of useful material that gets sent back into the economy when the product comes to the end of its life. The global industry average recycling rate of aluminium today is approximately 57%. This means that in 100kg of waste aluminium 57kg will be recycled into new aluminium products and 43kg will be sent to landfill.
Closed loop recycling, whereby a product is recycled into the same product (e.g. steel roof panel recycled into steel reinforcement). The loop is closed because when the steel product comes to the end of its life it can be recycled into a new steel product (theoretically this can happen continually forever). Closed loop is more straightforward to calculate as the emissions are directly offset by the new product that would have been required to be made from scratch.
Open loop recycling is when the product is used to create something new (e.g. old plastic bottles recycled into carpet). The loop is open because the plastic now in the carpet required other material inputs to create the carpet and cannot be recycled further (if a process is developed that can continually recycle the plastic carpet then it becomes closed loop). We use economic allocation to understand the impacts that are being offset.
Now lets focus on a closed loop recycling example of a standalone 1000 kg of 'General Aluminium' modeled in eTool. Under EN15978 scope impacts under module D – Benefits and loads outside the system boundary are quantified. This includes closed loop recycling which is not directly related to the actual physical boundary or life cycle of the building.
The life cycle stages for the aluminium are shown below
Kg CO2e by LC stage for 1000kg of general aluminium
Hang on, the impacts are bigger for the 100% recycled content option???
Well, there is an initial saving in the product stage of 18,280 kg CO2e from using 100% recycled content aluminium versus using a 100% raw material. The no recovery option also gets a small advantage for transport of waste (C2) because landfill sites tend to be closer to a building than recycling sites on average. The no recovery option is also (very slightly) penalised for disposal impacts, if the aluminium is recovered it has 0 disposal impacts because it is sent to the recycling plant and these impacts are counted in the A1-A3 stage of the new aluminium product. The interesting result though is in the closed loop recycling. We have a credit applied to the aluminium that is recovered and put back in the economy. This is effectively offsetting the assumed extraction requirement for the new aluminium to be used in the (aluminium) economy – for example in the next building. Likewise aluminium that is not recovered causes a higher net demand for new aluminium. To determine the 'credit' or 'penalty' at the end of the building's life, the net increase in new aluminium required due to the use of the aluminium in the building is calculated. In the 100% recycled content, 0% recovered the material is penalised by the equivalent mass of new aluminium which will need to be extracted to supply the next building.
Yes it may seem counter-intuitive but try to think of the world aluminium economy as a single life cycle entity. If everyone used only 100% recycled aluminium that has 0 end-of-life recycling rate (ie it ends up in landfill) then we would soon run out of recycled aluminium available. We would have to go back to using raw aluminium (maybe even start digging it back out from landfill!). By encouraging recovery of the aluminium EN15978 is trying to discourage the overall extraction of the raw material.
O.K. That wasn't too bad
So far so good but it gets trickier! Lets imagine we have fully recycled content and fully recovered aluminium,
Well you get the best of both worlds – reduced product stage and closed loop credits right?
Wrong! Here is what happens….
The minus CO2e credit at end of life can not be applied in this instance because you are already using 100% recycled aluminium. There is no material extraction in this case to offset and your end-of-life credit is 0. You don't get penalised for the added extraction for the future building but you don't get credit for it because that has already been given in the product stage. Under EN15978 there is actually a very similar amount of carbon associated with a 0% recycled/100% recovered aluminium scenario and a 100% recycled/100% recovered aluminium.
Whoa, that's deep.
Its a tricky one and there is certainly an argument to say this is not encouraging the right behaviour but the emphasis on end-of-life treatment means that the impacts are accounted for and credit is given without double counting.
So what do we take from all of this?
Recycling content and rate is an important consideration in buildings but it is no silver bullet. Every little helps in sustainability though. Focus on the durability and deconstructability of the product over the recycled content which under EN15978 has a relatively small impact on the environmental performance.
*Note figures show are taken from eToolLCD September 2016
References: Recycling Rates of Metals, T E Graedel, 2011
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg 0 0 Pat https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg Pat2016-09-01 01:21:412017-06-02 12:29:28Closed Loop Recycling and EN15978 – how does it work?
Benchmarking Philosophy
06/04/2015 /0 Comments/in Building, Economy, Environment, Other Resources, Release Notes, Research, Software, Support, Support Site Export /by Richard
eTool recently changed from offering numerous fairly localised benchmark options to a single international average benchmark for each building type. The decision making process was interesting so I thought I'd quickly document it.
The purpose of the eToolLCD benchmark is:
To establish a common measuring stick against which all projects are assessed so that any project can be comparable to another (for the same building type);
To create a starting point, or "average, business as usual case" from which to measure improvements.
From the outset we've always understood that a benchmark needs to be function specific. That is, there needs to be a residential benchmark for measuring residential buildings against etc. The first point essentially addresses this.
The second point introduces some complexity. What is, or should be, "average, business as usual"? More specifically, are people interested in understanding how their building performs when compared compared locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally?
When we started trying to answer this question, some scenarios were very helpful. If a designer wants to compare locally, the benchmark needs to reflect the things that are most important to the overall LCA results. The two most critical things are probably electricity grid and climate zone. Localising just these two inputs gets pretty tricky and the number of possible benchmark permutations starts to add up pretty quickly. In Australia there are four main independent electricity grids (NEM, SWIS, NWIS and Darwin). In the Building Code of Australia there's 10 climate zones. Accounting for which climate zones occur within each grid, there's about 20 different benchmarks required. To add to the complexity though, the NEM is split into different states (New South Wales, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia). Generally, because the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting guidance splits the NEM into different states, the NEM is usually considered as six different grids. So there's upwards of 50 different benchmarks we'd need to create and maintain for Australia alone just to localise electricity grids and climate zone.
One disadvantage of this method is it's still not all-accommodating. It doesn't account for remote grids of which there are many in Australia. An example is Kunnanurra which is 100% hydro power. So even in this scenario where we had 50 or so benchmarks for Australia, there's still big potential for a designer patting themselves on the back for a great comparison to the benchmark when really it's just a local condition, and vice versa. The same can be said about an off grid scenario (effectively just a micro grid of it's own).
The other disadvantage is maintenance of all these benchmarks. Expanding the above scenario internationally there could easily be 1000's of possible benchmarks. There's so many that it would be hard for eTool to initially create them, and even harder to subsequently maintain them. Clearly the localised benchmark option had some big challenges.
At the other end of the benchmarking philosophy we considered just having generic benchmarks, or even one global benchmark. This is perhaps a more user-centric, or building occupant sensitive system. That is, the building occupants are probably more interested in this measure as it's more about how they live compared to the global community. So a building may be "average" compared to the local context, but actually be very low impact compared to the broader average (due to favourable local conditions). Conceivably, the local conditions contributing to the ease with which a building can perform may be part of people's motivation for living in a particular area.
The disadvantage of the generic benchmarking approach is that it isn't as useful for a designer to compare their building's performance against this as the local conditions (which may create a significant advantage of disadvantage) aren't considered. This was a big consideration for us, eToolLCD is a design tool, it has to be relevant to designers. Interestingly though, the way eToolLCD is generally used is the base design is modelled, and then improvements are identified against this base design. The benchmark is usually only used towards the end of the process as a communication and marketing tool.
Also, there's no reason why the designer can't model their own local benchmark, for example, a code compliant version of their own design.
This topic spurred some serious debate at eTool. In the end, the deciding factors were:
A local approach couldn't really be adopted without localising at least the grid and climate zone for each benchmark option. That is, it would have been too difficult to go half way with localisation (for example, only localising climate zone and not grid), as this really just revoked the whole advantage of localising the benchmarks.
Taking the very localised approach was going to put a huge benchmark creation and maintenance burden on eTool which wasn't necessarily productive
The choice of a generic benchmark didn't detract from the function of eToolLCD as a design tool.
Greenhouse Gas pollution is a global problem not a local problem, we feel people probably need to measure and improve their performance against a global benchmark rather than a local one.
So the single global benchmark was the direction we choose. Once this decision was made, we needed to determine how to statistically represent global averages. We decided to choose an aspirational mix of countries to make up the global benchmark, that is, select the standard of living that we felt most people in the world aspire to and determine the average environmental impacts of buildings in these demographic locations. This does mean the global benchmarks are generally higher than the actual global average building stock for a given function. That doesn't stop us from estimating what the sustainable level of GHG savings is against this aspirational benchmark (90%+). It also enables us to strive for this level of savings without adversely effecting our standard of living aspirations (globally). The global benchmark created using this approach is the residential benchmark. More information about how this was conducted can be found here.
For those people or organisations that would like a customised benchmark, eTool can provide this service. Please get in touch.
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg 0 0 Richard https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg Richard2015-04-06 10:26:232017-06-02 12:29:29Benchmarking Philosophy
eTool International Residential Benchmark (Methodology Summary)
26/02/2015 /0 Comments/in eBlog, Energy, Engineering, Features, Release Notes, Research, Software, Support, Support Site Export /by Pat
Below is a summary of our approach to the International residential benchmark. A full EN15978 report on the benchmark model can be found here. International Residential Benchmark Weighted x10 dwellings v28
In light of eTool's recent exploration into global markets, we thought it prudent to create a "global" benchmark for housing developments. eTool will be using this benchmark for all future housing projects. The reasons an international statistically mixed use benchmark is the most robust model to compare designs against are as follows:
The planet does not care what kind of house you build only how close it is to zero carbon. A mixed use benchmark provides a fair comparison of performance across different house types be it apartments, detached, maisonettes etc.
The planet does not care where you build your building, only how close it gets to zero carbon. Climate change is a global problem, whilst regional benchmarks can be useful for comparing similar buildings in the same area they can produce unfair results. For example, a house built in a low carbon grid area (e.g. Brazil) may have emissions of 2 ton/person/year. This may only be a small improvement against the average Brazil house as they both have the benefit of a low carbon grid. Conversely a building in WA may have higher emissions (say 3 ton/person/year) but despite having higher emissions than the Brazil case could show a larger improvement against the average WA house. A single benchmark is the only way to give correct credit for the true sustainability performance of a building.
Before getting into the nitty gritty, it's important to understand the purpose of the eTool benchmark, which is:
To establish a common measuring stick against which all projects are assessed so that any project can be comparable to another.
Benchmark Form and Structure
The benchmark has been created to represent an average dwelling built in a developed country, the statistics for a range of developed countries have been population weighted and combined into a single theoretical average dwelling.
The statistics used in the benchmark are based on data obtained for each country. The construction type and dwelling size statistics take new build data wherever available, as this data is generally reliable and represents a picture of the way buildings are currently being built across the developed world. For residential buildings there is a mix of houses and apartments. This is the latest breakdown of the new dwellings density mix across the countries considered in 2010:
The occupancy is calculated by dividing teh countries population by the number of dwellings to give an average. This is weighted by population to give a global average of 2.52.
For the single dwelling element (59% of our average dwelling) a building structure has been modelled taking a cross section of commonly used construction techniques. In this instance, the data was obtained for U.S.A. The U.S.A makes up the largest proportion of new housing in the developed world and is considered to represent a fair "average house." Construction techniques are unlikely to differ significantly enough to impact on the overall modelling, whilst brick houses may be more common in the U.K. and Germany, timber framing is far more prevalent in Japan and Sweden.
A similar approach was taken with windows, internal walls, floors and roofs. The vast majority of those installed in new builds across America and Europe are double glazed and allowances have also been made for the smaller proportions of other window framing options currently in common use.
For the multi-family dwellings, a standard concrete frame structure has been taken with one level of car parking and typical auxiliary and common layouts, such that the apartment living area represents approximately 50% of the total floor area of the building. The total impacts of this building have been weighted on a per m2 basis and 56 m2 has been added to the model to represent the apartment element.
Benchmark Operational
Existing data has been used for operational energy, and arguably new build data would be preferable, but total existing data is generally a lot more robust (and readily available). Whilst new build energy figures were available for some countries, the figures tend to be from modelling completed for regulatory purposes and are therefore theoretical. In many countries there is a perceived "performance gap" between modelling results and actual consumption mainly due to differences in occupant behaviour, but also because of limitations in software and methodologies used for the modelling. The hope is that there will be continued industry effort towards monitoring of new build housing performances. Until further data in this area is available, we have a robust snapshot of how average buildings are currently performing by taking existing housing data.
The data for total residential fuel consumption was divided by the total number of dwellings in each country analysed. This was then weighted according to population to give a final figure for the average energy consumption of a developed country dwelling.
End-use percentage estimates were then used to determine where this energy is being used in the dwellings. Again, U.S. data[ix] has been used to represent the average.
Other impacts such as appliances and cabinetry and finishes have also been included by the estimated proportion of dwellings estimated to include these.
The global average water consumption is considered fairly consistent across most developed countries with America and Australia having higher water consumption due to larger garden sizes. A conservative nominal 169l/person/day has been assumed for water supply and treatment.
[i] Populations by country 2010 http://countrymeters.info/en/United_States_of_America_(USA)
[ii] Characteristics of New Housing U.S.A http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/highlights.html
[iii] Statistics Bureau Japan http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/nenkan/1431-09.htm
[iv] EU Odysee Data 2008 downloaded on 11.7.2014
[v] Australian Bureau of Statistics Average floor area of new residential dwellings 2012 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbytitle/E9AC8D4A1A3D8D20CA257C61000CE8D7?OpenDocument
[vi] U.S. Energy Information Administration – Annual Energy Outlook 2014 – Energy Consumption by Sector and Source http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2014&subject=0-AEO2014&table=2-AEO2014&region=1-0&cases=full2013full-d102312a,ref2014-d102413a
[vii] Odysee energy database for EU and Norway (2008) downloaded from http://www.odyssee-mure.eu/ in July 2014
[viii] Statistics Bureau Japan Chapter 10 Energy and Water http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/nenkan/1431-10.htm
[ix] U.S. Energy Information Administration Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2014&subject=0-AEO2014&table=4-AEO2014&region=0-0&cases=full2013full-d102312a,ref2014-d102413a
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Brown-Paper-Background.jpg 350 1884 Pat https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg Pat2015-02-26 17:20:462020-04-17 04:14:17eTool International Residential Benchmark (Methodology Summary)
Impact Category Definitions
27/01/2015 /0 Comments/in Other Resources, Software, Support, Support Site Export /by Pat
What are all these new impact categories eTool can now measure? Below are some definitions:
Climate Change impacts result in a warming effect of the earth's surface due to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, measured in mass of carbon dioxide equivalents.
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion is caused by the release of gaseous chemicals that react with and destroy stratospheric ozone. Although the Montreal treaty has significantly reduced the use of the most damaging substances and there is evidence that the abundance of ozone depleting gases is reducing in the atmosphere, some releases of ozone depleting chemicals still occur.
Acidification Potential provides a measure of the decrease in the pH-value of rainwater and fog, which has the effect of ecosystem damage due to, for example, nutrients being washed out of soils and increased solubility of metals into soils. Acidification potential is generally a regional impact and is measured in mass of sulphur dioxide equivalents. The mechanism dominating the acidification impacts is the combustion of fossil fuels, release of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide which dissolves with condensed water in the atmosphere and falls as rain. The term acid rain describes severe incidents of this mechanism.
In general terms, Eutrophication Potential provides a measure of nutrient enrichment in aquatic or terrestrial environments, which leads to ecosystem damage to those locations from over enrichment and is measured in mass of phosphate equivalents.
Tropospheric Ozone Formation Potential is the creation of lower atmospheric ozone (commonly known as smog) due to the mechanism of VOCs reacting with sunlight. In particular, the release of carbon monoxide from steel production is predominant; however other releases such as nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and methane also contribute significantly to POCP.
Mineral & Fossil Fuel Depletion (Abiotic Depletion) provides an indication of the potential depletion (or scarcity) of non-energetic natural resources (or elements) in the earth's crust, such as iron ores, aluminium or precious metals, and it accounts for the ultimate geological reserves (not the economically feasible reserves) and the anticipated depletion rates. It is measured in mass of antimony equivalents.
Human Toxicity, in general terms, refers to the impact on humans, as a result of emissions of toxic substances to air, water and soil, and is expressed in terms of damage to human health by the index mDALY (1/1000th of a disability adjusted life year)
Land Use is measured in years of use of arable land (m2.year). This describes the area and time land is occupied by production systems both natural and industrial for the production of the building materials but not the occupation of the building itself. While not strictly an impact category it is linked to general land use pressure and is therefore a proxy for biodiversity and other land competition impacts.
Resource Depletion (Water) provides an indication of the total net input of water used throughout the life cycle of the building.
Ionising Radiation covers the impacts arising from the release of radioactive substances as well as direct exposure to radiation. The impact is expressed in terms of damage to human health by the index uDALY (1/1,000,000th) of a disability adjusted life year.
Ecotoxicity refers to effects of chemical outputs on nonhuman living organisms. Expressed in comparative toxic units (CTUe) it provides an estimate of the potentially affected fraction of species integrated over time and volume per unit mass of a chemical emitted.
Particulate Matter is defined as a mixture of solid and liquid particles of organic and inorganic substances resulting from human activities and suspended in the atmosphere. Several studies show that PM causes serious adverse health effects, including reduced life expectancy, heart disease, lung cancer, asthma, low birth weight, and premature birth. Precursors involved in PM formation include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ammonia (NH3), and volatile and semivolatile organic compounds. Measured as either PM2.5 (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers) or PM10 (particulate matter between 2.5 to 10 micrometers). Finer particles can travel deeper into the lungs and are usually made up of materials that are more toxic therefore PM2.5 can have worse health effects than the coarser PM10.
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg 0 0 Pat https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg Pat2015-01-27 17:58:052017-06-02 12:29:41Impact Category Definitions
eTool LCA Software Updates – Autumn 2014
14/05/2014 /0 Comments/in eBlog, Features, Release Notes, Software, Support Site Export /by Richard
eTool LCA for Any Project
We conducted a retrospective LCA on the harbour bridge a while back, which highlighted how versatile eTool LCA was. It was clunky though. Whilst setting up the harbour bridge project we had to answer questions in the eTool LCA interface like "Number of bedrooms". We weren't quite sure how we were going to solve this little quandary once and for all. There seemed to be an unmanageably large number of different types of structures with potentially unique functional attributes. For example, in the OmniClass classification there's 748 different "Facility Types". When you also add all the possible iterations of mixed type facilities we really started scratching our heads. Why? Here's a few reasons:
The result was bigger than the biggest number that excel could calculate (1.79 x 10308)
If we provided the software uses with a drop down to choose from this list, the drop down would extend past he bottom of your screen, through the Earth, out of our solar system, out of the milky way and through a bunch of other galaxies.
If you could navigate through that list of different functions at the speed of light, and the one you wanted happened to be half way down the list, it would take you longer than the time between the big bang and now
The amount of data stored in that list would take your computer about the same length of time to retrieve the list from the internet
Anyway, we knew we needed another method. We needed an ability to not only choose from the list of facility types, but enable custom combinations of these facility types in the one design. For example, a mixed development with residential, retail and commercial space.
This feature also started us on our journey of BIM integration. Thus far we've drawn on COBIE as our categorisation standard, but in the future we hope to map this to other standards so users can report however they see fit. The flexibility of eTool LCA just exploded (without the clunkiness, or waiting until the next big bang for your list of facility types to download).
eTool LCA for Infrastructure
In our new list of possible design functions we have infrastructure elements such as roads, rail, air ports, bridges, stadiums etc. We even have applicable functional attributes that users can choose for the appropriate infrastructure. For example, a road designer may choose to measure their impacts per:
passenger transported
tonne of freight transported
workload unit (one passenger or 100kg of freight)
unit area of pavement
unit length of the road
Hopefully this drives some serious though about what the function of that infrastructure is, and how the movement of passengers or freight may be better done with lower carbon alternatives such as rail! After all this is one of the beauties of LCA.
eTool LCA for Energy Generators
Another neat example of facilities that can now be assessed with eTool LCA is electricity generators. Fancy running an environmental life cycle assessment of a wind turbine verse solar PV verses coal fired plant? Knock your socks off! The functional unit you'll probably be choosing here is impacts per life cycle kWh generated.
eTool LCA for Data Centres
A little left field, but how to you compare the sustainability of data centres? Have a go in eTool LCA! You can choose from the below functional units to ensure you're making fair comparisons between different options:
Annual data stored
Life cycle data stored
Annual data transmitted
Life cycle data transmitted
Net usable area
What next for eTool LCA?
For those who are rushing to check out the above functionality, bare in mind this is hot off the press and we're yet to develop a library of templates that support these new types of construction entities. This will come though, especially with the template validation functionality that is already helping our library grow.
In the mean time, software features continue to roll on. The two big projects we're working on at the moment is BRE IMPACT compliance. We're excited about this as it's a third party verification system specifically designed for what eTool LCA does – LCA of Construction Projects. Not only is this a big indication of the mainstreaming of LCA, it'll also be really nice to have an official seal of approval on the accuracy of eTool LCA.
The other big project is a push on reporting. We're introducing a whole heap of cool new reports aimed at users to generate promotional and marketing ideas for their improved buildings. Is this core to LCA, absolutely now. Is it important to ensure that environmentally sustainable buildings proliferate? Absolutely. We don't have our pulse on this globally but we hazard to guess the biggest impediment to truly sustainable buildings in Australia is a total disinterest within the real estate industry. And eTool LCA is will hopefully spark this interest a little more by providing agents with really useful info to help them sell better buildings.
Past that, refer to our product roadmap which (although partially implemented) gives a good idea of where we're heading longer term.
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Software_Features_Banner.jpg 177 618 Richard https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg Richard2014-05-14 15:31:092017-06-02 12:29:50eTool LCA Software Updates – Autumn 2014
eTool LCA Software Updates – Summer 2014
15/03/2014 /0 Comments/in eBlog, Features, Release Notes, Software, Support Site Export /by eTool
EN15978 Compliance
The last few months have been hectic for our software development team. We brought the software into line with the European standard EN15978 – Sustainability of construction works – Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – Calculation method. We undertook so eTool could be used to gain innovation credits in Green Star projects. For out international audience, this is a environmental rating scheme managed by the Green Building Council of Australia.
Technically the update was a big challenge, EN15978 a very comprehensive standard with quite strict rules regarding how the LCA calculations should be conducted. It's a piece of work we planned back in 2012, we did need that little commercial push to undertake the change, and the opportunity to utilise eTool LCA for Green Star projects provided this. We are really happy that we managed to complete this piece of work. We really think the planet has a lot to benefit from through this standard, and hopefully through the use of eTool LCA. Here's some reasons:
EN15978 was written by CEN technical committee 350 who are also developing other standards to meet there overall mandate of delivering standards to holistically assess the sustainability of construction works. This is really exciting. It effectively draws a line in the sand and gives really solid guidance on how we should be assessing the buildings. It includes social, economic and environmental considerations for sustainability.
A good Life Cycle Assessment is without doubt the best way to measure and improve the environmental performance of something. This has been recognised by CEN TC 350 who have relied on it nearly exclusively for the environmental assessment of buildings.
CEN TC 350 also developed a standard for the assessment of building products. These will be used by the new ECO EPD framework being developed in Europe which will align most of the major EPD Program operators. Now this is exciting. Finally, we have an international system that reports truly comparable data for construction products. It's equivalent to nutrition labelling for building products (substituting health info with environmental info).
All this means the stars are nicely aligning for low impact buildings. There's a huge opportunity to cut through the greenwash if industry uptakes this approach. One of the things we love about this approach is it actually enables policy makers to set budgets in order to ensure we hit sustainability goals. I've written about this concept and how it might be approached here.
Software Speed Improvements
Users during the last 12 months would have noticed that at times, particularly for very big designs, the software laboured. It was getting pretty frustrating for our ops team who were working more and more on complex LCA models for large projects. We'd delayed tackling this problem because it required a massive re-write of the back end. There's nothing worse than spending two months labouring on a software improvement project, then delivering the result which looks exactly the same! It was a very nice change though, to give you an idea of the performance improvement, we had a large test design that was taking the best part of four minutes to save, now it's taking just two seconds. The big driver for this was actually to enable more features to be introduced to eTool LCA that would have otherwise slowed it down further. There's more coming!
Record Recommendations
This is probably my favourite new feature. It makes the job if modelling and tracking improvement ideas very easy. I can honestly say this has enabled our operations team to significantly increase the research time we can allocate to identifying more improvement ideas. Less time doing little admin tasks like copying and pasting data between eTool and spreadsheets, and more time focusing on reducing the impacts of the design. All users need to do now is hit record, model the improvements, hit stop and every change to an impact due to that improvement will be recorded at different life cycle stages of the building. And it's recorded for every indicator too, so you can see how much carbon you saved verses how much money you saved. I love using this feature. Check it out.
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Software_Features_Banner.jpg 177 618 eTool https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg eTool2014-03-15 14:35:212017-06-02 12:29:52eTool LCA Software Updates – Summer 2014
30/10/2013 /4 Comments/in Environment, Release Notes, Research, Software, Sustainability /by Richard
In 2011 the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) released a new standard for measuring the environmental sustainability of buildings. We grabbed a copy of this standard, EN 15978 soon after it was published to understand how eTool stacked up against the requirements. We breathed a sigh of relief, although we had a few things to tidy up, what we were happy with was that we actually needed to reduce the scope and system boundary of a normal eToolLCA to report to EN15978.
Background to EN15978
This standard was one of the first to be released by CEN Technical Committee 350. It was part of a much broader project to fully define how to measure the sustainability of buildings. Within TC 350 there were working groups determining how to measure a building's:
Environmental Performance,
Social Performance, and
Economic Performance.
Impressive. The full suite of sustainability covered under one set group of standards. And it doesn't stop there, there are also working groups covering civil works and construction products. Incredibly, they are making very good headway through this arduous scope with 8 standards already published and another four under development. EN15978 is the key to measuring the environmental pillar of sustainability.
Well, it's kind of complex you have to read the detail of the standard, and a good number of the standards referenced. That said, we will summarise as best we can. The basic philosophy is to rely 100% on LCA as the method of measuring environmental performance. So there is hence a heavy reliance on ISO 14040, 14044 and 14025 which eTool LCA software also heavily draws on. The standard gives guidance on how to apply LCA to buildings. It effectively defines the goal, scope and method for LCA practitioners working on buildings.
The System Boundary
The diagram below shows the system boundary of EN 15978 is shown below. For existing users of eTool LCA, or those who rely on eTool ratings, our standard system boundary is also shown. We think the EN 15978 have essentially done a fantastic job putting this together (with a few exceptions we discuss below).
EN 15978 and eTool LCA Normal System Boundary
The largest omission from the system boundary is what EN15978 calls "non building related energy use". They essentially include HVAC, domestic hot water and lighting but exclude all other energy used within the building. This makes sense at first glance, after all, these areas are certainly the most heavily influenced by the building designers, and other energy use is very heavily occupant driven. There are however some strong arguments for including all energy used within the building, a few of which are listed below:
A building designer can influence occupant behaviour, and as such these aspects should be considered by architects and engineers, for example:
Energy monitoring has been proven to influence occupant behaviour in both commercial and residential buildings and should be considered by the design team
In residential buildings, energy use per occupant generally drops off with higher occupants per dwellings due to the base loads (refrigeration, living area entertainment, standby loads, lighting and heat losses from hot water systems) being spread between more occupants. Buildings that allow and encourage more occupants per dwelling will (all else being equal) use less energy per occupant, and hence should be differentiated.
In commercial buildings, an integrated fit out of work stations can have huge positive impacts on energy use through the use of central servers for data storage and processing and mini computers at work stations drawing very little power. A seamless implementation of such systems may require architectural and engineering consideration during the design of the building so should be factored.
Building integrated renewable energy systems should if possible be sized to meet the entire load of the building, not just the base building loads, so designers should be aware of the entire loads.
Developers can have a large influence on the building performance (at least initially) through the final fit out of appliances (residential) and work stations (commercial) so this should be within scope so we don't drop the ball on this opportunity.
Vertical transport (elevators, escalators etc) for medium rise buildings can be heavily influenced by design:
The building envelope needs to cater for the most efficient plant geometrically
The use of stairs or ramps should be encouraged through design to reduce reliance on plant
The building electrical systems should be designed to cater for regenerative drives etc
Communicating the total impact of buildings without accounting for occupant energy use is very misleading. Imagine moving into a building marketed as 'energy neutral' building only to find your power bill only drops 25%
Environmental Indicators
The suggested list of reported indicators is quite comprehensive for EN15978 and is shown in the below summary table:
EN15978 does state that not all indicators need to be reported, but the documentation must specify the reasons for omission. Interestingly toxicity, land use, biodiversity are missing from the above list. The standard states that this is due to there being no scientifically agreed calculation method within the context of LCA for these indicators. We'll watch this space as we know some of these missing indicators are of great interest to many users of eTool.
EN 15978 and eTool LCA
After we read EN15978, we documented the required changes, pushed them into our product roadmap we got back to other work. It wasn't for another year though before it hit us how important this standard was. All of a sudden, we weren't "those guys from Western Australia who think they've nutted out how to truly improve the environmental performance of buildings", EN15978 established that LCA was indeed the most appropriate tool for profiling green buildings. Standards such as this one lend huge credibility to solutions like eTool that were released prior to the standard. We were definitely barking up the right tree when we naively stood in front of the cameras on the ABC's New Inventors and demonstrated the humble beginnings of eTool!
The recent uptake of LCA by the Green Building Council of Australia in their Greenstar tool heavily references EN15978. This has prompted us to build a suite of reports that are compliant with the standard, and those it references. Importantly, we're not going to remove any functionality form eTool, or contract the scope or system boundary. Users will simply have the opportunity to report to either the EN15978 scope or the more expansive eTool LCA scope. Similarly we'll continue to upload more indicators into eTool LCA, our focus for the next 12 months will be plugging the gaps for EN15978 reporting. There's likely to be a lot of low hanging fruit here, and some trickier ones that may take some additional programming so we're not entirely sure when we'll be reporting on all 22 indicators just yet. Our reports will be compliant with EN15978 though by still listing these additional indicators with "INA" (Indicator Not Assessed) in place of the calculated values which is accepted in the standard. We'll also allow users to report indicators currently available in eTool that aren't required by EN15978. Our general position on indicators is that global warming is our biggest environmental problem and hence our main efforts will continue to focus on solving this.
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/EN-15978-Diagram.jpg 1194 1735 Richard https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg Richard2013-10-30 21:12:312013-11-01 23:33:41EN 15978
eTool and Internet Explorer
25/10/2013 /0 Comments/in Release Notes, Software, Support Site Export /by Richard
We're pushing the envelope a little with what's possible for web based software and Microsoft Internet Explorer has been a pretty challenging for us, it seems that we fix it up to work in one version, and those fixes break something in another version. Needless to say, if you're happy using safari, chrome, firefox or basically any other browser by MS Internet Explorer you shouldn't have any issues. If you're stuck with MS IE, or love using it, here's the work around for using the eTool app…
https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/LCA_Alex-home_basic-design.jpg 925 1183 Richard https://etoolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/etool_logo_R_1.jpg Richard2013-10-25 14:49:192017-06-02 12:30:01eTool and Internet Explorer


It's the start of a brand new year and we are already kicking off with the completion of a project by one of our incredible artists, Claire McElfatrick. We were able to speak to her about her process of starting this book as an idea, to seeing it finalised on the page.
The Magic and Mystery of Trees is published by DK in association with The Royal Horticultural Society. It was illustrated by Claire and written by Jen Green and is set to be launched in Spring 2019, receiving 5 star reviews on Amazon already!
All of the agents at Advocate couldn't be more proud!
This book is a brightly illustrated children's book which explores the wonderful natural science of trees and has served as wonderful way to educate children! Claire's contemporary, mixed media style and vibrant colours have truly brought this book to life! For a sneak of the book, enjoy scrolling the images above, but if you would like to see more work by Claire, just click through to her online Advocate portfolio. Now that Claire has wrapped up another wonderful project, she is up for a new challenge. If you think Claire would be perfect for an upcoming project you have, get in touch with one of our agents.
Claire McElfatrick was founded by our team of illustration agents, based at our UK and USA agencies. If you think any of our artists are suitable for an upcoming project you have, be sure to reach out to an agent!


Get trip cancellation insurance in New Brunswick today!
Trip cancellation insurance in New Brunswick is an investment in protecting what you value most! So invest the time in exploring your options to make sure you find a solution that's not only perfectly suited to your requirements but also available at a very reasonable price. You can always count on The Co-operators to provide trip cancellation insurance in New Brunswick with the right amount of protection, and professional customer care that's attentive and reliable.
When it comes to complete trip cancellation insurance in New Brunswick that caters to your needs, put your trust in The Co-operators. Our rates remain competitive, while the quality of both our protection AND customer care is unmatched by any other provider in New Brunswick. Choose your city from the list to discuss your specific needs with your local Co-operators Insurance Advisor today.
Second only to the caliber of our insurance products, The Co-operators consider the quality of our customer care to be a top priority. That means that you can feel at ease knowing that no matter what type of coverage you choose, it will always be designed to your needs. Every person and every situation is different, and your trip cancellation insurance quotes should be too.


text:
"use strict";
var __decorate = (this && this.__decorate) || function (decorators, target, key, desc) {
    var c = arguments.length, r = c < 3 ? target : desc === null ? desc = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(target, key) : desc, d;
    if (typeof Reflect === "object" && typeof Reflect.decorate === "function") r = Reflect.decorate(decorators, target, key, desc);
    else for (var i = decorators.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) if (d = decorators[i]) r = (c < 3 ? d(r) : c > 3 ? d(target, key, r) : d(target, key)) || r;
    return c > 3 && r && Object.defineProperty(target, key, r), r;
};
var __metadata = (this && this.__metadata) || function (k, v) {
    if (typeof Reflect === "object" && typeof Reflect.metadata === "function") return Reflect.metadata(k, v);
};
/// <reference path="../../solsof.d.ts" />
var router_deprecated_1 = require('@angular/router-deprecated');
var helper_service_1 = require('../../services/helper/helper.service');
var GetEntity_service_1 = require('../../services/GetEntity/GetEntity.service');
var core_1 = require('@angular/core');
var LedgerAccounts_service_1 = require('../../services/LedgerAccounts/LedgerAccounts.service');
var ledgerAccount_service_1 = require('../../services/ledgerAccount/ledgerAccount.service');
var LedgerAccount_component_1 = require('../LedgerAccount/LedgerAccount.component');
var main_1 = require('ag-grid-ng2/main');
require('ag-grid-enterprise/main');
var LedgerAccountsComponent = (function () {
    //editledgerAccount: boolean;
    function LedgerAccountsComponent(ledgerAccountComponent, ledgerAccountsService, router) {
        var _this = this;
        this.ledgerAccountComponent = ledgerAccountComponent;
        this.ledgerAccountsService = ledgerAccountsService;
        this.router = router;
        this.LedgerAccounts = [];
        this.excludeInactive = true;
        this.getLedgerAccountsSuccess = true;
        this.chkExcludeInactiveClicked = function (chkExcludeInactive) {
            _this.excludeInactive = chkExcludeInactive.checked;
            _this.loadLedgerAccounts();
        };
        //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
        //get data
        this.loadLedgerAccounts = function () {
            var loadLedgerAccountsThis = _this;
            if (helper_service_1.HelperService.tokenIsValid()) {
                var EntityId = GetEntity_service_1.GetEntityService.getInstance().getEntityId();
                if (EntityId === -1) {
                    _this.router.navigate(['Entities']);
                }
                else {
                    _this.ledgerAccountsService.getLedgerAccounts(_this.excludeInactive, EntityId).subscribe(onGetLedgerAccountsSuccess, logError, complete);
                }
            }
            else {
                _this.router.navigate(['Login']);
            }
            function logError(e) {
                helper_service_1.HelperService.log('getLedgerAccounts Error');
                loadLedgerAccountsThis.getLedgerAccountsSuccess = false;
            }
            function complete() {
                helper_service_1.HelperService.log('getLedgerAccounts complete');
            }
            function onGetLedgerAccountsSuccess(data) {
                loadLedgerAccountsThis.getLedgerAccountsSuccess = true;
                loadLedgerAccountsThis.LedgerAccounts = data;
                loadLedgerAccountsThis.gridOptions.api.setRowData(data);
                loadLedgerAccountsThis.gridOptions.api.sizeColumnsToFit();
            }
        };
        //addLedgerAccount = () => {
        //    this.ledgerAccountComponent.newLedgerAccount();
        //    this.editledgerAccount = false;
        //}
        /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
        //grid
        this.columnDefs = [
            { headerName: "Id", field: "LedgerAccountID", hide: true },
            { headerName: "Name", field: "name", minWidth: 100 },
            {
                headerName: "Bal.",
                field: "balance",
                cellClass: 'rightJustify',
                cellRenderer: function (params) {
                    return helper_service_1.HelperService.formatMoney(params.value);
                },
                minWidth: 80
            },
            { headerName: "Type", field: "ledgerAccountType" },
            { headerName: "Active", field: "active" },
        ];
        this.onRowClicked = function (params) {
            _this.selectedLedgerAccount = params.data;
            helper_service_1.HelperService.log('LedgerAccount onRowClicked');
        };
        this.onRowDoubleClicked = function (params) {
            _this.onRowClicked(params);
            _this.router.navigate(['Transactions', { ledgerAccountID: _this.selectedLedgerAccount.ledgerAccountID }]);
        };
        this.gridOptions = helper_service_1.HelperService.getGridOptions(this.columnDefs, this.onRowClicked, this.onRowDoubleClicked);
        helper_service_1.HelperService.log('constructor LedgerAccountsComponent');
        this.getLedgerAccountsSuccess = true;
        window.onresize = function () {
            //this.gridOptions.api.sizeColumnsToFit();
        };
    }
    LedgerAccountsComponent.prototype.ngOnInit = function () {
        this.loadLedgerAccounts();
    };
    LedgerAccountsComponent = __decorate([
        core_1.Component({
            selector: 'ledger-accounts',
            templateUrl: 'app/components/LedgerAccounts/LedgerAccounts.component.html',
            pipes: [],
            providers: [LedgerAccounts_service_1.LedgerAccountsService, ledgerAccount_service_1.LedgerAccountService, LedgerAccount_component_1.LedgerAccountComponent],
            directives: [LedgerAccount_component_1.LedgerAccountComponent, main_1.AgGridNg2]
        }),
        __metadata('design:paramtypes', [LedgerAccount_component_1.LedgerAccountComponent, LedgerAccounts_service_1.LedgerAccountsService, router_deprecated_1.Router])
    ], LedgerAccountsComponent);
    return LedgerAccountsComponent;
}());
exports.LedgerAccountsComponent = LedgerAccountsComponent;
//# sourceMappingURL=ledgerAccounts.component.js.map

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Seen here is a French Racing Blue '52 J2-X, which carries its spare tire on the passenger's side of the car. Note the minimalist roadster bodywork and the twin racing screens. See more classic car pictures.
The Allards most remembered by racing fans, particularly American sports car racing spectators, were the cycle-fendered J2 and J2-X. Who can forget one of those bellowing monsters accelerating out of a turn with hunkered-down rear end and uplifted prow, a stance brought on by the brute torque of the big American V-8 that muscled the J2 ahead of its competition. Allards weren't the most sophisticated cars on the track, and they weren't the best built, either, but they did what racing cars are supposed to do -- win races.
Not only did the Allards win, they were also relatively inexpensive to buy and to maintain. The first was due to the many proprietary parts being used, the second because the Allards were relatively simple as race cars go. Any California hot rodder in the early Fifties would have recognized most of the components, and could easily have maintained or repaired one-indeed some did. Said California hot rodder would also have found a kindred soul in Sydney Allard, creator of the cars that bore his name.
It all started in 1929, when 19-year-old Allard was racing a three-wheeled Morgan Super Sports at Brooklands, with little success. Allard added a second wheel to the rear to create the first 'Allard Special" (though it wasn't called that). Some time after that came Allard's first connection with Ford. In 1932, he bought a new four-cylinder Model B and installed a highly modified Ford truck BB engine into its chassis. That car went so well that Allard began thinking of what he might be able to do with one of the new Ford V-8 engines, particularly if it were mounted in a strong, lightweight frame.
Allard was just getting underway with the J2 in 1949. As the racing numbers attest, the J2 was intended for serious competition.
As if by magic, Allard's attendance at the 1934 Tourist Trophy, in Ards, Ireland, brought him just the vehicle he'd been looking for. The Ards area Ford distributor, it turned out, had arrived at the race with two shiny new specials -- complete with the Ford flathead V-8. Allard bought one without a second thought. For two seasons he campaigned that car in races, rallies, hillclimbs, and even at that great British institution, the mud trials. Success in somebody else's car wasn't enough for Allard, however, for he wanted to build one of his own.
The opportunity presented itself in 1936, when Allard discovered a wrecked 1935 Ford V-8 coupe not too far from his shop in the London suburb of Putney. He towed the wreck home on a Friday, started dismantling and rebuilding it on Monday, and by the following Saturday had the first Allard Special (to carry the name) running. The frame had been shortened, significantly lightened, and fitted with a 1932 Ford front end, which weighed less than the 1935 assembly. For a body Allard used the ex-Lord Howe Type 51 Bugatti body, complete with its pointed tail!
Cynics winced at this sacrilege, but the Allard Special came up a winner. During the winter hiatus between racing seasons, suspension engineer Leslie Bellamy designed the now infamous split I-beam front axle, thereby creating an independent front suspension that was to become an Allard trademark. As one observer put it, "Allard's five-day marvel appeared for its second season with a predisposition for flapping its front wheels on a rough surface like a duck with loose wings."
For more information on the 1949-1954 Allard continue on to the next page.
The J2 cockpit was spartan, with the speedometer on this early right-hand-drive model placed on the passenger's side.
Here we consider the design of the 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954 Allard J2. Pre-World War II Allard Specials (none were called simply Allard then) were primarily built for "mud plugging," as the British call that peculiar sport, but other uses were obviously on Allard's mind. The ultimate version featured a Lincoln-Zephyr V-12 engine. Only three were built, and sold for 570 pounds sterling, or $2850 at the prewar exchange rate.
By 1938, serious production was considered, particularly in light of the success of the Hudson-powered Railton in England. Allard therefore readied a V-12 roadster and a four-place V-8 for the 1939 London Auto Show. But war was imminent, and the show was cancelled-along with Allard's' production plans. In all, 11 Specials, mostly with Ford V-8s, were reportedly built before the war.
During the war, Allard made an attempt to sell the British War Office a modified version of his Special as a sort of jeep-type vehicle. When that approach was rejected, he kept his shop busy repairing Ford trucks for the military. After the war in Europe finally ended, Allard quickly got back to building his Specials, now in a new factory in Clapham, another London suburb. Though the world was ready for new cars again, England -- along with most of the rest of the world-faced shortages of steel and aluminum. Needless to say, both were badly needed by Allard. Like other manufacturers, Allard used what he could get, and he did somehow manage to get models into production.
In an age where longer, lower, and wider were becoming the norm, the Allard J2, here a 1951 model, was a styling anachronism with its free-standing headlights and cycle-style fenders.
The first postwar models were the K, L, and M. The first, with a 106-inch wheel-base, was just like Allard's prewar J1, but six inches longer overall. The L and M were another six inches longer, due to their four-seater bodies. All three models had what we would call convertible coupe bodywork, English-made flathead Ford V-8 engines, and Ford running gear with the Allard split front axle. Springs at both ends were transverse leaf, as on Henry Ford's cars. The three models were built through 1950. Since these cars were heavy, the stock Ford V-8 left them with anemic performance, at best. Alas, the next Allard -- the P-type, a luxury sedan first introduced in 1949 -- was even slower. In spite of its lackluster performance, however, Sydney Allard piloted one in the 1952 Monte Carlo Rally, and he surprised everyone by taking first place. His trials experience obviously helped a great deal on the last stage of the "Monte," which was virtually all glare ice, for it was reported that Allard covered most of the distance motoring sideways!
For more information on the design of the 1949-1954 Allard continue on to the next page.
This J2 was equipped with a Cadillac V-8 fitted with dual carburetors and is shifted via a 1937 LaSalle transmission.
Now let's consider the design of the 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954 Allard J2 and J2-X.
From 1950 on, Allards were available with either a Ford or Mercury V-8, the difference being displacement (3622 cc compared to 4375 cc, respectively) and horsepower (85 to 110). Many of the engines were army surplus units, rebuilt and modified at the Allard Clapham works. The Allard Mercury engine eventually received dual carburetors and high-compression cylinder heads, both copied from American speed-equipment manufacturers: the manifold from Eddie Meyer, the heads from Eddie Edmunds. Interestingly, a friend of the author bought a K3 Allard, and wanted to install Edelbrock equipment on the engine. The dual manifold was no problem, but the Edelbrock Mercury 24-stud heads wouldn't fit because the cylinder block was set up for 21-stud heads. The only U.S. Fords to use this type of block were the 1937 and early 1938 Fords -- no Mercury ever had 21-stud heads.
All of these automotive activities by Allard were taking place at a time when the British auto industry was still trying to get over the effects of war. Steel remained in short supply, and the car companies seemed to be seeking the most profit from a pound of steel rather than trying to develop new cars. How else can one explain the hapless Ford Pilot or Austin Sheerline?
As bad as this situation was for the general car-buying public, it was good for Allard's business. Fortunately, Allard was smart enough to realize that the seller's market wouldn't last forever, and he knew that he had better produce a new and better car before the existing conditions changed. Allard thus went to the United States on a research trip, returning to England having learned two things he hadn't known before: Americans wouldn't buy his existing models, but they might buy an updated version of his original model J.
The Allard J2 seen here was a successful racer, winning its first eight outings, including Pebble Beach in 1951 and 1952.
The result of this was the J2: the car that put the Allard name in the winner's circle in sports car racing, and on the map as far as racing fans were concerned. Retaining the 100-inch wheelbase of the original J, as well as the split I-beam front axle used on all models since the war, Allard replaced the transverse leaf springs with coil springs front and rear. In addition, a de Dion axle with a quick-change center section and inboard 12-inch Alfin brake drums were featured at the rear. The radius rods that had previously located the live rear axle now served as locating members for the de Dion dead axle beam.
Dry weight of the J2 could be as low as 2000 pounds, but never went over 2600, even when equipped with one of the big American overhead-valve V-8s.Production of the Allard J2 and J2-X never amounted to much, but their reputation over the years has been such that they're now very expensive collectibles.
To read more about the engine of the 1949-1954 Allard continue on to the next page.
Though details often vary from one J2 or J2-X to another, the grille was always an Allard trademark.
Now let's discuss the Allard J2 engine and the 1951 Allard J2-X.
In addition to improving the chassis, Allard knew he had to do something to dramatically increase the power. The flathead Ford V-8 was by then 18 years old and -- in spite of the enormous amount of available speed equipment -- was no longer suitable to power a serious competition car. By coincidence, an overhead-valve conversion for the flathead Ford/Mercury V-8 was being created in New York City by Zorro Arkus-Duntov, later of Corvette fame, in a loft he shared with Luigi Chinetti, who would soon become the Ferrari distributor for the U.S.
Duntov's design, which he called the Ardun conversion, was a pushrod and rocker-arm system working off the Ford camshaft in its stock location. The push-rods for the intake valves utilized short rocker arms located toward the inside of the engine's "V," while the exhaust valves were worked by long rocker arms (one of the few weak spots in the design) toward the outside of the engine. The result was inclined valves, 90 degrees apart, in hemispherical combustion chambers. If that sounds like the Chrysler Hemi V-8, you're right, but this was in 1950 -- before the Hemi's 1951 model year debut.
This Allard runs with a Caddy V-8, but with dual carbs.
No one in England, it seems, could make the Ardun engine perform reliably or well, so Allard wrote to Duntov to complain, with the result that Zora went to Clapham to take charge of the engine's development. Even so, Allard ultimately dropped the Ardun as an engine option after selling around 75 of them.
In 1950, Allard and American Tom Cole shared an Allard-Cadillac J2, driving it to third place overall in the prestigious Le Mans 24-hour race, behind two Grand Prix Talbots fitted with two-seat sports car bodies. This victory was a primary reason for the survival of both the model, and of Allard Motor Car Company, although a new version, the J2-X was due to be announced in 1951.
The tachometer is placed directly in front of the driver, but it's a long sideways glance to the speedometer, which is located in front of the passenger.
The "X" at the end of the name meant "extended." But it wasn't the wheelbase that had changed-it remained at 100 inches as on the J2. Rather, the alterations were found mainly in the chassis components. For example, the engine was moved forward 7.5 inches because legroom had been a sore point with J2 buyers. This helped cockpit space, but caused a problem of relocating the front suspension mounts. The mounting structure for the inner ends of the split front axle had to be moved in front of the axle, which necessitated a six-inch frame extension up front. In back, enlarging the fuel tank in the rear body section made it necessary to mount the spare tire on the side of the body rather than in the lower section at the rear of the body. Track, however, remained the same as on the J2: 56 inches front, 52 inches rear.
Somehow, all this shifting of components made the J2-X handle better than the 12, so the combination of handling plus improved driver comfort made the J2-X a more frequent race winner.
Meanwhile, the lack of a four-speed transmission was still a bother to many owners, so Allard tried to compensate for this by switching from a 3.54:1 to 3.27:1 axle ratio (both standard Ford gearsets). This was unsuccessful, however, so Allard engineers next attempted to make a suitable four-speed out of a Thames truck transmission produced by Ford of England. Four of these gearboxes were made in the shop for the streamlined J2-X team cars in early 1952, but these units were plagued by a major design flaw. Though they obtained a close ratio between first and second, and between third and fourth, it proved impossible to close the overly wide gap between second and third because the necessary gear size couldn't be squeezed into the available space. Another problem was that the truck gearbox was made of cast iron, and therefore heavier than desirable.
To find out more about the 1949-1954 Allard continue on to the next page.
The J2-X differed little from the J2 externally. This 1951 model doesn't sport the exterior spare tire, although it does have a large 50-gallon fuel tank.
Now we consider the introduction of the Allard J2-R, the finest Allard.
During 1952 and 1953, Allard built both smaller and larger cars: the M2-X five-passenger cabriolet and the P2 five/six-passenger sedan, with a choice of Ford/Mercury or Cadillac V-8 engines, and the smaller 21-C Palm Beach with the inline four-cylinder ohv Consul engine or the 21-Z with the inline six-cylinder Zephyr powerplant (both Ford engines). And, finally, there was the K3, with a choice of Ford, Mercury, or Chrysler V-8s -- or the more exotic Jaguar inline dual-overhead-cam six. Whatever the engine, all of these models retained the coil springs, split front axle, and de Dion rear setup.
The final J model, the J2-R -- probably the best Allard ever made -- came in 1953. Its frame consisted of the four-tube assembly used for the Palm Beach model, but with a new de Dion layout at the rear that positioned the de Dion tube with twin A-brackets and parallel trailing arms on each side. The front axle assembly remained as before, with the split-I-beam Ford front axle and coil springs.
The Cadillac engine was modified to accommodate four twin-choke Solex carburetors, a high-lift cam with solid tappets, 9.0:1 compression ratio, and a special exhaust system, all of which combined to produce 270 horsepower at 4600 rpm. The mechanicals were complemented by an envelope body and a dry weight of 2200 pounds.
The J2-R was built solely as a sports/racing car, and Sydney Allard proved its performance potential when he led the first lap of the 1953 Le Mans race by a wide margin. He continued to lead for three laps before a broken brake line put the Allard out of the race. Only seven of these J2-R Allards were built, most of them going to the U.S. or Canada.
Note the racing-style fuel filler cap and mirrors, the "louvers" on the backside of the front fenders, and the row of small gauges on the passenger's side of the dash.
Unfortunately, the J2-R was too much too late. By the time this relatively heavy machine got into competition, the Ferraris, Jaguars, Maseratis, and Aston Martins were becoming lighter, riding more sophisticated suspensions, and -- in some cases -- running with more power. The Jaguars also featured better brakes: Dunlop disc units from the C-Type model.
To read about the end of the Allards continue on to the next page.
An Allard with a streamlined envelope body? Yes, it's the 1953 Le Mans racer. This one was first raced at Bridgehampton in May 1953.
The end of the Allards: during the 13 model years (1946-1959) Allards were produced, sales brought modest success to the company, but the firm never was a great moneymaker. In the end, the need for lighter and more sophisticated racing machinery was at odds with both Allard's financial condition and Sydney's philosophical attitude about car design and construction.
When the production of Allard cars for sale to the public ceased, the company turned to producing its de Dion rear axle (minus the quick-change gear feature) for London County Council ambulances. The poor citizens who needed ambulance travel probably didn't know or care that the vehicle had an Allard-built de Dion axle, but if they were in pain they may well have appreciated the improved ride.
However, race fans everywhere can all thank Sydney Allard for some of the great racing excitement he helped provide in the 1950s. For example, well-known race drivers such as Bill Pollack, Erwin Goldschmidt, Fred Wacker, Mike Graham, Sam Weiss, John Gordon Bennet, and John Fitch all drove Allards at one time or another.
Perhaps Jeff Allison, writing in Vintage Motorsport magazine in 1990, summed it up best: "No matter what has been said about the Allard in the past, it is undeniable that the Allard J-Series cars were the right cars at the right time. They moved American racing from crude hot rods and specials to production-based sports cars. Not bad for a cycle-fendered ugly duckling with raw power, fierce acceleration, negligible braking, and sometimes very suspect handling-a mixed bag but still one of the most exciting cars on four wheels in its time."
Sydney Herbert Allard died in April 1966, shortly before his 56th birthday. And just as he died before his time, it can also be said of some geniuses that they were born before their time. In Allard's case, however, he may simply have been misplaced by 6,000 miles, an ocean, and a continent. With his knowledge and ability to extract performance from what was essentially a hot rod, and a not very sophisticated one at that, he should have been practicing his art in southern California. He would have felt right at home -- and very welcome as well.


Joseph Brostek thanks Janet McCreesh for serving as President of the BFHA Executive Board.
Anthony Iuliano, Department of Buildings, Intergovernmental Affairs Liason, updates our membership about issues in our community.
Martha Pirone reads letter to Maria sent by past presidents Sandi and Art Viviani.
Susan LaCerte, Executive Director of the Queens Botanical Garden presents Maria Becce with her retirement gift from the Executive Board.
Janet McCreesh and Fran Varon present Best Garden Awards to Larry Arfsten, Diane Arfsten, Maria Becce, Willi Becce and Matthew Becce.
Don Capalbi (Representing Congresswoman Grace Meng), Janet McCreesh, Maria Becce, Susan LaCerte (Executive Director, Queens Botanical Gardens) and Councilman Paul Vallone honoring Maria Becce After 36 years of service to BFHA.


I was in a mood for something soothing tonight and the thought of pale purples came to mind, so I lit a few lavender candles. Maybe when you smell lavender or lilacs those calming colors begin to float through your mind, too. So I took a look around some of my favorite online design sites and found some inspirational photos to share and threw in a few photos of mine own. Here's what I found, compliments of these lovely flickr pages, websites and blogs: Domino, Pink Loves Brown, Bluecockatoo, Desire to Inspire, The 10 Cent Designer, and Julies517.
Now, don't you feel nice and calm?
it's quite a calming post. it reminds me of lavendar. i also love the photo of the door frame. great picks!
I've put some lavender aromatherapy oil in the burner. Calm, peaceful. Thanks for post.
I also love the pale purples..so pretty. Great pics! My daughters bedroom is that color too, very calming!
I'm a great fan of flaking paint images. My next door neighbour has some 300 year old stables in his garden and their doors are just like that picture you have featured. He is in the throws of changing them which I am not at all happy about. He thinks I am mad.
The purple walls are very soothing.
These are great pics! I'm feeling quite lavendar myself now!
Do you think I could get away with painting my living room walls a pale lavender?


and is "not wholly good nor wholly evil".
Happy Saint Patricks Day – Roy would suggest that you go take a hike in the woods because theres magic there. Or at the beach, theres a lot of magic there too.
Or go find some sheep because really thats the only thing that matters in life, sheep.
Roy wants to know when Sheep Day is because he's the Saint of Sheep, if Sheep Saints were also twisted rulers of all movement and thought and fair but firm yet unrelenting.


Programming is one of the most demanding jobs available. It is very technical. A person needs to have years of formal studies in order to be an effective programmer. Aside from the fact that they receive a fair share of compensation, they also need to update their knowledge from time to time most especially when it comes to programming languages.
Programming language defines as the formal language that specifies a set of instructions that can be used to produce various kinds of output. It generally consists of instructions for a computer and can be used to create programs that implement specific algorithms. Below are the top 5 programming languages for web development.
Python is a high-level programming language for general-purpose programming which is created by Guido van Rossum and first released in 1991, Python, as a programming language, designs philosophy that emphasizes code readability, notably using significant whitespace. Moreover, it provides constructs that enable clear programming on both small and large scales.
Python is an open-source, interpreted language that places an emphasis on highly readable code which is the general purpose programming language. As a competitive edge, Python has a large standard library loaded with pre-coded functions for every occasion—which allows programmers to do more with fewer lines of code.
In addition to that, the easy-to-learn code has earned the affection of many within the scientific community, where it can be used to process large datasets. Django, on the other hand, is a framework that excels at rapid prototyping and development, making it a favorite among startups like Pinterest and Instagram.
Thus, a PHP code may be embedded into HTML code, or it can be used in combination with various web template systems, web content management systems, and web frameworks. This code is usually processed by a PHP interpreter and is implemented as a module in the web server or as a Common Gateway Interface (CGI) executable. The web server combines the results of the interpreted and executed PHP code, which may be any type of data, including images, with the generated web page. Moreover, PHP code may also be executed with a command-line interface and can be used to implement standalone graphical applications.
Website using site builders like WordPress or Joomla relied on the power of PHP. It is a proven server-side technology and can be found in the back-end stacks of sites like Facebook, Baidu, and Wikipedia.
Ruby is a dynamic, reflective, object-oriented, general-purpose programming language that was designed and developed in the 1990s by Yukihiro "Matz" Matsumoto in Japan. According to Matsumoto, Ruby was influenced by Perl, Smalltalk, Eiffel, Ada, and Lisp thus supports multiple programming paradigms, including functional, object-oriented, and imperative. It also has a dynamic type system and automatic memory management.
Ruby is an open-source MVC framework that focuses on convention over configuration that allows developers to quickly bootstrap projects based on proven best practices. It helped Twitter spring to life in 2006, although they've since migrated to Blender and Java to fit the unique needs of their app. Websites like Hulu, Basecamp, Shopify, and Groupon all still use Ruby to this day.
Go, often referred to as golang, is a programming language created at Google in 2009 by Robert Griesemer, Rob Pike, and Ken Thompson. Go is a compiled, statically typed language in the tradition of Algol and C, with garbage collection, limited structural typing, memory safety features and CSP-style concurrent programming features added. The compiler and other language tools originally developed by Google are all free and open source.
Hey bro pls write a blog on MEAN STACK DEVELOPMENT as soon as possible. I am waiting for it. Pls write all details for beginners such as how to start and best sources to learn. Thanks.


Therapeutic stem cells exit the bloodstream in a different manner than was previously thought, new research shows. This process, dubbed angiopellosis by the researchers, has implications for improving our understanding of not only intravenous stem cell therapies, but also metastatic cancers.
Researchers at North Carolina State University have discovered that therapeutic stem cells exit the bloodstream in a different manner than was previously thought. This process, dubbed angiopellosis by the researchers, has implications for improving our understanding of not only intravenous stem cell therapies, but also metastatic cancers.
When white blood cells need to get to the site of an infection, they can exit the bloodstream via a process called diapedesis. In diapedesis, the white blood cell changes its shape in order to squeeze between or through the epithelial cells that form the walls of the blood vessel. Diapedesis is a well-understood process, and researchers believed that other types of cells, like therapeutic stem cells or even metastatic cancer cells, exited blood vessels in a similar way -- with the cells pushing or squeezing themselves out.
But a group of researchers led by Ke Cheng, associate professor of molecular biomedical sciences at NC State with a joint appointment in the NC State/UNC-Chapel Hill Department of Biomedical Engineering, found that these stem cells behaved differently.
Therapeutic stem cells share the same ability to exit the bloodstream and target particular tissues that white blood cells do. But the precise way that they did so was not well understood, so Cheng and his team utilized a zebrafish model to study the process. The genetically modified zebrafish embryos were transparent and had fluorescently marked green blood vessels. Researchers injected the embryos with white blood cells and cardiac stem cells from humans, rats and dogs. These cells had all been marked with a red fluorescent protein.
Through time-lapse three-dimensional light sheet microscopic imaging, Cheng and his team could trace the progress of these cells as they left the blood vessel. The white blood cells exited via diapedesis, as expected. When stem cells exited the blood vessel, however, the endothelial cells lining the vessel actively expelled them. Membranes surrounding the endothelial cells on either side of the stem cell stretched themselves around the stem cell, then met in the middle to push the stem cell out of the vessel.
"When you're talking about diapedesis, the white blood cell is active because it changes its shape in order to exit. The endothelial cells in the blood vessel are passive," Cheng says. "But when we looked at therapeutic stem cells, we found the opposite was true -- the stem cells were passive, and the endothelial cells not only changed their shape in order to surround the stem cell, they actually pushed the stem cells out of the blood vessel. We've named this process angiopellosis, and it represents an alternative way for cells to leave blood vessels."
The researchers found two other key differences between angiopellosis and diapedesis: one, that angiopellosis takes hours, rather than minutes, to occur; and two, that angiopellosis allows more than one cell to exit at a time.
"Angiopellosis is really a group ticket for cells to get out of blood vessels," Cheng says. "We observed clusters of cells passing through in this way. Obviously, this leads us to questions about whether other types of cells, like metastatic cancer cells, may be using this more effective way to exit the bloodstream, and what we may need to do to stop them."