>This project will consider applications based on hand-held and portable devices including (but not limited to) ion mobility spectrometry (IMS), near infra-red (NIR) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometers and some bench-top laboratory instruments that have become ‘field’ transportable including laser induced breakdown spectrometry (LIBS), laser ablation molecular isotopic spectrometry (LAMIS), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, mass spectrometry (MS) and multi-spectral imaging (MSI). This CRP is conducted jointly with the Nuclear Sciences Instrumentation Laboratory under CRP G42007.
*‘Field Deployable Analytical Methods to Assess the Authenticity, Safety and Quality of Food (D52040/G42007)*
>ion and neutron beam techniques for elemental and molecular analysis is well established and such services are available through a great number of laboratories in the IAEA Member States operating ion beam accelerator or research reactor centers
Noooo. Manuals are on average much more efficient. I drive a 1st generation Honda Insight, and the manual version gets ~10 mpg more than the automatic.
Modern pickups have 8-10 speed transmissions. They do a better job of keeping you in the power band.
In addtion, no heavy duty pickup comes with a manual anymore, but the ones that did years ago, de-tuned the engines in the manuals, so people didn't burn up the clutch. Modern Diesel Heavy Duty pickups only put their full 1000 ft/lbs to the wheels in 3rd gear or higher, something they can't enforce in a manual. Also, in most manuals (granted, its been a few years since I drove one) with turbos, pushing the clutch stats unspooling the turbo, where in most automatics, it does not. (since its knows your shifting, and not just coasting)
Yes, these are all related to driver skill, and a skilled driver will not cause problems. But I wouldn't want to warranty the systems on an 'average' driver..
> Modern pickups have 8-10 speed transmissions. They do a better job of keeping you in the power band.
This is so true. As someone who owns a fairly modern truck (2019 F250) that missed the good transmission by a single year. My truck would dearly love to have at least one more gear between 2nd and 3rd when I'm going up the mountain. I end up having to choose between trying to keep my inertia high (tough with corners) or give up and let it drop down to 35-40 so that 2nd gear isn't trying to tear the engine off the mounts.
I may end up putting in shorter differential gears to work around that. Don't really want to fork out for a new truck.
Automatics have been more efficient (given their additional mass) than manuals, for all but the most skilled drivers (top 1% of manual drivers) for several decades already.
Equity is actually the most expensive form of capital (measured by an investor's required return on capital). If a startup could raise debt financing, that would no doubt be preferable. However that's quasi-impossible with no revenue. I do agree with the other parts of this answer though.
Minimum rate of return is only one measure of cost. If we look at cash flows, the story is much different. Startups are usually cash-constrained, and equity financing is a way to raise cash without negatively impacting future prospects. Debt financing causes a drag on a company's cash flows and reduces flexibility, since now the company must divert a portion of its cash flow to interest payments. For a young company with low revenues and no profits, and thus unable to make tax deductions on interest, debt financing is actually a highly unattractive proposition.
Not true. If a startup could access debt but future uncertainty about its cash flows (say between series A and Series B) combined with the cash pay requirements for such cash flow (likely 18%) make the debt vs equity calculation not as straight forward as it seems.
