Doping Behaviors and Prevention in Amateur Sport

Doping Behaviors and Prevention in Amateur Sport Abstract Based on previous research, the purpose of this paper is to give an overview on doping behaviors in amateur sport, actual prevention actions, and to propose a new perspective in doping prevention. Doping is not limited to elite athletes and is increasingly important among amateur athletes. To reduce doping in sport, it seems important to influence young athletes in primary prevention. To date, traditional doping prevention campaigns are ineffective. In recent years, a new model of prevention campaigns based on fear, coming from the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, has been used notably in France (e.g., prevention campaigns for road safety, tobacco, alcohol, cancer). This â€Å"fear model† has scientific support and has shown a relatively small but still solid effect on attitudes, intentions and behaviors. The fight against doping would benefit from trying the â€Å"fear model† in prevention campaigns. Keywords: doping behaviors, doping prevention, fear appeals Based on previous research, the purpose of this paper is to give an overview of doping behaviors in amateur sport as well as actual prevention actions, and to propose a new perspective on doping prevention. Widespread Doping Behaviors among Amateur Athletes Doping is not limited to elite athletes but is widespread in society and is increasingly important among amateur athletes (Calfee Fadale, 2006; Laure, 1997; Lentillon-Kaestner Carstairs, 2010; Lentillon-Kaestner Ohl, 2011; Sagoe, Molde, Andreassen, 2014; Yesalis, Barsukiewicz, Kopstein, Bahrke, 1997). It is difficult to assess the extent of doping in amateur sport, nevertheless it exists. In his review on 44 studies, Laure (1997) estimated the prevalence of doping in children and adolescents participating in sport at 3 to 5% and in adults participating in amateur sports at 5 to 15%. In France, 6.7% of 8-18 year-olds approved doping in sport (Laure, 2000). Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs (2010) showed that young amateur cyclists (Under-23 category) were tempted by doping. The meta-analysis of Sagoe, Molde and Andreassen (2014) on 187 studies showed a global lifetime prevalence rate of anabolic-androgenic steroid use of 3.3 %. Doping varies according to various demographic parameters. It increases with age and can start before the age of 15 years (Laure, 1997; Sagoe et al., 2014). Doping is more widespread among boys than girls (Dunn Thomas, 2012; Laure, 2000); however, the gender gap is decreasing from 10 years old (Yesalis et al., 1997). Doping is more widespread among competitors, and it increases with the level of competition (Laure, 2000). Inefficiency of Current Doping Prevention Programs For several years, the fight against doping has mainly focused on the improvement of detection measures (drug tests), leaving aside measures of doping prevention (Backhouse, 2012; Ntoumanis, Ng, Barkoukis, Backhouse, 2014). To date, tested measures of doping prevention are rare, and doping prevention programs lack solid scientific background (Backhouse, 2012; Johnson, 2012; Ntoumanis et al., 2014). Traditional doping prevention campaigns are often ineffective. They describe substances’ side effects, try to persuade users of the ineffectiveness of performance enhancing substances or promote sports ethics (Barkoukis, 2014; Schaps, Bartolo, Moskowitz, al., 1981). The recent meta-analysis of Ntoumakis, Ng, Barkoukis and Backhouse (2014) showed that implemented anti-doping interventions lead to small changes in individuals’ attitudes towards and intention to engage in doping and had no effect on actual doping behaviors. It seems important to build innovative prevention int erventions that are based on solid scientific theory (Backhouse, 2012 ;Johnson, 2012). The Fear Model in Prevention Campaigns In recent years, a new model of prevention campaign based on fear and coming from the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries has been used notably in France (e.g., prevention campaigns for road safety, smoking, alcohol, cancer). Fear is conceptualized as a negative emotional reaction to a perceived threat. The purpose of the fear model is to show the consequences of an undesirable event (illness, accident, etc.) or to give more or less directly a glimpse of the following unhappiness aiming to bring an attitude change. The fear motivates actions to reduce negative emotion (Gallopel, 2006). In contrast to current measures of doping prevention, prevention strategies based on fear have scientific support (Moscato et al., 2001; Tay Watson, 2002; Witte Allen, 2000). Psychologists and researchers in marketing have tried to understand why a prevention campaign based on phobic emotion resulted sometimes in success (action) and sometimes in failure (defensive reactions). Various theories hav e been developed. The latest and most advanced theory about fear from a theoretical and empirical point of view (Witte Allen, 2000) is the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) of Witte (1992) (Witte, 1992). In this model, individuals first assess the threat contained in the message. Perceived threat is a cognitive construct with two dimensions: perceived severity of the threat and one’s perceived susceptibility to the threat (Popova, 2011). In accordance with other meta-analyses, the meta-analysis of Witte and Allen (2000) suggested that the higher the fear level, the higher the persuasive impact of the message. If the threat is perceived as irrelevant or insignificant, the person is no longer motivated to process the message and simply ignores the fear. In contrast, when a threat is described as significant and relevant, people are frightened. The more people believe themselves vulnerable to a serious threat, the more they are motivated to start the second evaluation of t he recommendations’ effectiveness. The fear motivates the change in attitudes, intentions and behaviors, especially fear accompanied with highly effective messages. Perceived effectiveness comprises two dimensions: perceived response effectiveness (beliefs of how effective a response is in averting a threat) and perceived self-effectiveness (beliefs about one’s ability to carry out the recommended response) (Popova, 2011). Effective messages generating a strong fear encourage behavior change (i.e., danger control), while less effective messages generating a strong fear lead to defensive reactions (i.e., fear control) (Popova, 2011). According to Witte (1992), fear in health campaigns is far more useful to promote prevention behavior than to modify an existing behavior. Witte and Allen (2000) concluded, from their meta-analysis on 98 studies on prevention campaigns based on fear (e.g., sexuality, alcohol, road safety, tobacco), that fear would have a relatively small bu t constant effect on attitudes, intentions and behaviors. They also offered a series of recommendations for the implementation of prevention measures (Witte Allen, 2000). In addition, psychology studies on persuasion showed that a simple message was more persuasive in video than in written or audio forms (Girandola, 2003). The theory of self-affirmation (Steele, 1988) appears as a way to increase the effectiveness of prevention campaigns through a re-evaluation of the self-image, which reduces the defensive reactions and increases the acceptance of preventive message’s recommendations. The manipulation of self-affirmation may be achieved in different ways (e.g., values to rank in importance order, to write an essay on their most important value, to describe a very important thing in their lives) (Barkoukis, 2014). Research has shown that to secure the self through self-affirmation manipulation reduced defensive reactions to threatening health information (Sherman, Nelson, Steele, 2000) and positively influenced healthier behaviors (Harris, 2011). Through the self-affirmation process, prevention campaigns do not threaten the self-image of the person, but only the behavior is threatened (Sherman et al., 2000; Steele, 1988). New Perspectives in Doping Prevention Adolescence is a high-risk period for the development of doping behaviors. Performance enhancing drugs have adverse effects on health (Calfee Fadale, 2006; Maravelias, 2005), but young athletes are tempted by doping and are not afraid on the impact on their health (Lentillon-Kaestner, Hagger, Hardcastle, 2012). Young athletes are priority target as their doping attitudes are in formation and primary prevention seems to be a good solution to avoid the appearance of doping behaviors. To date, there do not exist any doping prevention videos based on fear induction. The fight against doping would benefit from trying fear in prevention campaigns for two main reasons. Firstly, although in recent years doping tests have progressed, preventive measures remain lacunar and should be improved. Secondly, doping prevention lacks standardized, effective and easy tools to use in the sport and academic domains. A doping prevention video could be used during sport events and competitions. Doping prevention is also a topic addressed in some school and university courses, particularly among young students following additional sport modules, or in sport universities. Teachers, often not specialists in doping, need help to address this difficult issue. The creation of a video based on fear could be a good preventive tool in the fight against doping in sport.

The Effects of Sir Thomas Malory’s Life and Culture on the Arthurian Le

The Effects of Sir Thomas Malory’s Life and Culture on the Arthurian Legends In many cases, authors write books in order to comment on the culture they live in. In addition, the personal life experiences of the author are also expressed in the work. In the case of the Arthurian Legends, the major contributor was Sir Thomas Malory, who lived from 1405 to 1471 (Abrams, 420). The first section of this paper will examine why Sir Thomas Malory should be considered the greatest contributor to the Arthurian Legends. The second section of this paper will examine many themes expressed in Malory’s work, Morte Darthur, such as courtly love, brotherly love, chivalry, magic, and resolution, showing how the culture and personal life of Sir Thomas Malory helped shape his commitment to translating and writing the legends of King Arthur. The final section of this paper will show how, even in the last century, writers have used personal life experiences and elements of the culture around them to create their works. One of the most taxing aspects of dealing with the Arthurian Legends is identifying the major contributors. Arthurian legends were in existence long before the lifetime of Sir Thomas Malory most notably Geoffry of Monmouth’s Historia Regina Britannia, which was written between 1136-1139. The fact that Arthurian legends were in existence several hundred years before Malory’s life makes it essential to show why the study of his life and culture are important. The major reason why the study of the life and culture of Sir Thomas Malory should be considered important is due to the fact that his work (Morte Darthur) was the first complete version of Arthurian legends ever produced in English. Another reason it is important t... ... that surrounded him. The final section of the paper deals with the idea that, even in our culture, writers are able to take their personal experiences and extend them to represent the culture as a whole. All of these sections are essential for understanding Morte Darthur, Sir Thomas Malory, and the elements he used from his personal experience and the culture around him to translate and write many Arthurian legends. Works Cited Abrams, M.H. Gen. Ed., Greenblatt, Stephen. Ass. Gen. Ed. The Norton Anthology of English Literature 7th Ed. Vol. 1. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 2000. Ackerman, Robert W. â€Å"Sir Thomas Malory†. World Book Encyclopedia Vol. 13. Chicago: World Book Inc., 1989. Mckay, John P. Ed., Hill, Bennett D. Ed., Buckler, John Ed., A History of Western Society Since 1300, 6th Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999.

Introduction to Wind Tunnel

The basic concept and operation of subsonic wind tunnel was demonstrated in this experiment by conducting airfoil drag analysis on a NACA 0015 airfoil. The small subsonic wind tunnel along with apparatus such as, the manometer rake, the inclined manometer and the pitot – static tube were used with different baffle settings to record varying pressure readings. To achieve this objective, some assumptions were made for the lower range of subsonic flow to simplify the overall analysis.From the obtained aerodynamic measurements using a pitot-static tube mounted ahead of the airfoil at the test section, the actual velocity was determined and by relating it to the theoretical velocity, the velocity coefficient was calculated. The velocity coefficient varies for each baffle setting by a factor of decimals, thus the velocity coefficient can be used as a correction factor. Further, the coefficients of drag were calculated for the following angles of attack, 10o, 15o, and 20o and were co mpared with the published values. INTRODUCTIONThe wind tunnel is an absolute necessity to the development of modern aircrafts, as today, no manufacturer delivers the final product, which in this case can be civilian aircrafts, military aircrafts, missiles, spacecraft, and automobiles without measuring its lift and drag properties and its stability and controllability in a wind tunnel. Benjamin Robins (1707-1751), an English mathematician, who first employed a whirling arm to his machine, which had 4 feet long arms and it, spun by falling weight acting on a pulley however, the arm tip reached velocities of only few feet per second. 4] Figure 1: Forces exerted on the airfoil by the flow of air and opposing reaction on the control volume, by Newton’s third law. [1] This experiment will determine drag forces experienced by a NACA 0015 airfoil, subjected to a constant inlet velocity at various baffle settings with varying angles of attack.DATA ANALYSIS, THEORATICAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Apparatus in this experiment as shown in the figure 2, consisted of a small subsonic wind tunnel. The wind tunnel had an inlet cross-section of 2304 in2 and an outlet crosses section of 324 in2. A large compressor forced air from room) into the inlet through the outlet tunnel and back into the room. This creates a steady flow of air and a relative high velocity can be achieved in the test section. Instrumentation on the wind tunnel consisted of an inclined manometer and a pitot-static tube in the test section also a manometer rake behind the tested objet (airfoil NACA 0015). The manometer rake consisted of 36 inclined manometers; number 36 is used as a reference for the static pressure. All other manometer measures the pressure behind the object in the airflow. Figure 2: Wind tunnel set up with instrumentation [5]Before the experiment was performed the laboratory conditions were recorded, the room temperature was measured to be 22. 5 C (295. 65) and the atmospheric pressur e 29. 49 inHg (99853. 14Pa). Theory The setup of this experiment includes a NACA 0015 airfoil placed in the wind tunnel. Considering the cross-sectional area A1, velocity V1, and the density of air p1 at the inlet and similarly the cross-sectional area A2, velocity V2, and the density of air p2 at the outlet and by assuming that no mass is lost between the inlet-outlet section, we get the mass conservation equation, p1 V1 A1 = p2 V2 A2 (1).Further, the airflow can be assumed to be incompressible for this experiment due to low velocity, the equation (1) can be reduced to V1 A1 = V2 A2 (2), moreover, the air is assumed to be inviscid, the Bernoulli’s equation, p1+12? V12=p2+12? V22 (3) and the equation (2) can be reduced to Vth=2(p1-p2)/? 1-A2A12 (4) in order to find the theoretical velocity. The pitot – static tube is used to calculate the actual velocity of the flow by using, Vact= 2(p2-p1)? (5). Furthermore, the velocity coefficient can be calculated using, Cv=VactVth (6).The pressure and shear stress acting on the NACA 0015 airfoil produces a resultant force R, which according to the Newton’s third law produces an equal and opposite reaction force. For this experiment, in the condition of lower range of subsonic velocity, it can be assumed that pressure and density will be constant over the airfoil thus, D=jj+1? (uo2-ui2)dy=-12? uj2+uj+12o-uj2+uj+12iyj+1-yj (7) can be used to calculate the drag and, CD=Drag12(? air*Velocity2*area) (8) can be used for calculating the coefficient of drag. Procedure Part 1, Variation of inlet cross section:In this first part we recorded the pressure behavior in the test section by decreasing the inlet area. After the safety instructions were given by the TA and a chart for the readings prepared on the white board the wind tunnel was turned on. Two students were taking readings simultaneously from the inclined manometer in the test section and the static pitot tube, the readings were recorded in table 1. Bet ween each reading the compressor was turned off due to the sound level, it was important to give the compressor some time after each start up to have the same conditions as in the previous measurement.Part 2, recording the wake profile of NACA 0015 For this part of the experiment the inlet area was fully opened and the airfoil first set to an angle of attack of 10, the wind tunnel was turned on and all 36 readings recorded (table 2) from the manometer rake. The measurement was repeated for an angle of attack of 15 and 20. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The linear relationship between the V actual and the V theoretical approves of the theory that the velocity coefficient, Cv can be used as a correction factor for the theoretical velocity. This is further demonstrated in (Graph2). The calculated results are shown in table 1.The approximated literature values of the coefficient of drag for NACA 0015 airfoil were obtained from a NASA published report [3] for the 10o AoA, the percent relative er ror is 3. 1%, for 15o AoA, the percent relative error is 31. 0%, and for the 20o AoA, the percent relative error is 38. 7%. Increases in angle of attack lead to a more disturbed airflow behind the wing section. This disturbed airflow created more drag, these drag forces were clearly observable in table 3, 4. The angle of attack can be increased until the total drag forces become larger than the resultant lift- force; a wing is then no longer effective and stalls.The calculated drag forces are shown in tables 2-4. According to NASA, in their published report of Active flow control at low Reynolds numbers on a NACA 0015 airfoil, its is suggested that, by positioning the wake rake around 4. 5 times chord length behind wing to survey the wake. Further, two pressure orifices on opposite tunnel walls, aligned with the wake rake can be used to determine the average wake static pressure. This type of wake rake enables the wake to be surveyed with only a few moves of the wake rake, hence imp roving the measurements of drag using wake rake. 2] At large angles of attack, the upstream velocity of the airfoil can no longer be considered as the free-stream velocity, largely due to the miniature size of the wind tunnel relative to the NACA 0015 airfoil hence, the assumption that the uo max > ui is valid for this experiment.CONCLUSION Ergo, it is evidently seen in the graphs 1 and 2 that, the averaged velocity coefficient, Cv, 1. 063 can be used as the correction factor for the theoretical velocity. Further, the accurate (4-32) drag forces were calculated to be 2. 72 N, 13. 46 N, and 46. 4 N for the following angles of attack, 10o, 15o, and 20o. Moreover, the drag coefficient were also calculated based on the observed data and than were directly compared with the literature values. For the 10o of angle of attack, the percent relative error was very minimal at 3. 1% however; the drag coefficients for the 150 and the 20o were not very accurate, with the percent relative error of 31. 0% and 38. 7% respectively. This can be improved by implementing a smaller airfoil, so that the proportion of the wind tunnel covered by the airfoil is significantly smaller.Also, the skin friction losses along the edges of the wind tunnel may very well be taken into the account to achieve greater accuracy. Finally, it can be concluded that, as the angle of attack of the airfoil increases, the drag force will also increase due to the effect of flow separation. REFERENCES [1] Walsh, P. , Karpynczyk, J. , â€Å"AER 504 Aerodynamics Laboratory Manual† Department of Aerospace Engineering, 2011 [2] Hannon, J. (n. d. ). Active flow control at low reynolds numbers on a naca 0015 airfoil. Retrieved from http://ntrs. nasa. gov/archive/nasa/casi. ntrs. nasa. gov/20080033674_2008033642. pdf [3] Klimas, P.C. (1981, March). Aerodynamic characteristics of seven symmetrical airfoil section through 180-degree angle of attack for use in aerodynamic analysis of vertical axis wind turbi nes. Retrieved from http://prod. sandia. gov/techlib/access-control. cgi/1980/802114. pdf [4] Baals, D. D. (1981). Wind tunnels of nasa. (1st ed. , pp. 9-88). National Aeronautics And Space Administration. [5]Fig. 1, Wind tunnel set up with instrumentation, created by authors, 2012 APPENDIX Sample Calculations Note: AoA = ANGLE OF ATTACK. Sample calculations part 1, Baffle opening 5/5: Conversion inH2O to Pa (N/m2): 1 inH2O=248. 2 Pa (at 1atm) ?2inH2O ? 248. 82 PainH2O=497. 64 Pa Theoretical velocity: Equation (4): Vth=2(p1-p2)/? 1-A2A12 , where p1-p2=497. 64 Pa, A2=2304 in2, A1=324 in2, ? Density air (ideal gas law) laboratory conditions; 22. 5 C (295. 65K), 29. 49 inHg (99853. 14Pa): ? =pRT=99853. 14Pa287JkgK(295. 65K)? 1. 1768 kgm3 ?Vth=2(497. 64pa)/1. 1768kgm31-2304 in2324 in22=29. 37m/s Actual velocity: Equation (5):Vact= 2(p2-p1)? where p1-p2=522. 52 Pa, ? =1. 1768 kgm3 ? Vact= 2(522. 52Pa)1. 1768 kgm3=29. 80 m/s Velocity coefficient: Equation (6): Cv=VactVth=29. 8029. 37=1. 0 15 Sample Calculations Part 2, Angle of attack 10o, tube 1For dL, tube number 36 served as a reference pressure for all readings: 26. 4cm – 9. 2cm = 17. 2cm or 0. 172m Pressure difference, equation (7): ?p=SG*? H2O*g*L*sin? =1*1000kgm3*9. 81ms2*0. 172m*sin20o=577. 06 Pa Velocity, equation (8) note; pressure difference previously calculated: V1=2*SG*? H2O*g*L*sin air=2*577. 06 Pa1. 1768kgm3=31. 32 m/s Drag force, equation (9), for ui a velocity away from the tunnel wall was chosen to achieve a more realistic drag force: D=jj+1? (uo2-ui2)dy=-12? uj2+uj+12o-uj2+uj+12iyj+1-yj=-121. 1768kgm3(31. 32ms)2+( 31. 5ms)2o-2(31. 5m/s)2i0. 01m=0. 07 N Total drag force, summation lead to:Dtotal = 9. 04 N, however due to the boundary layer along the inner walls of the wind tunnel a more accurate summation is the sum of the values of tubes 4-32 which results in a total drag force of 2. 72 N. Coefficient of Drag Equation (9), for the drag force the more accurate summation of tube 4-32 was used : CD=Drag12(? air*Velocity2*area)=2. 72N12(1. 1768kgm3*31. 50ms2*(0. 1524m*1. 00m)=0. 031 To compare the Cd to a value found in literature the Reynolds number is required: Re=? air*V*cViscosity=1. 1768kgm3*31. 50 m/s*0. 1524m1. 789*10-5kgs*m=315782. 35 Observation and Results for Part 1Table 1, Observations/Results part 1| Baffle Opening| Inclined Manometer (inH2O)| Pa ( x 248. 82 Pa/inH2O)| Pitot Static (inH2O)| Pa ( x 248. 82 Pa/inH2O)| V theoretical (m/s)| V actual (m/s)| Cv| 5;5| 2. 00| 497. 640| 2. 10| 522. 52| 29. 37| 29. 80| 1. 015| 4;5| 1. 80| 447. 876| 1. 90| 472. 75| 27. 87| 28. 35| 1. 017| 3;5| 1. 15| 286. 143| 1. 25| 311. 02| 22. 27| 22. 99| 1. 032| 2;5| 0. 45| 111. 969| 0. 46| 114. 46| 13. 93| 13. 95| 1. 001| 1;5| 0. 05| 12. 441| 0. 08| 19. 905| 4. 64| 5. 82| 1. 252| Table 1: The theoretical velocity was calculated using the eq. (4) and the actual velocity was calculated using the eq. 5) from the obtained pressure data from the hand held pitot tube. The velocity coeffic ient, Cv, was calculated using the eq. (6). Note: The sample calculations are given in the appendix section of this report. Graph 1: The results from Table 1 were used to create the plot of V actual Vs. V theoretical. Graph 2: The plot of the velocity coefficient and the actual velocity. From the plot, it can be clearly seen the very minute difference between the velocity coefficient values. Observation and Results for Part 2 Table 2, Observations/Recordings part 2, Angle of attack 10 | Fluid length in tube ( ±. 1cm), Inclination 20|Tube Nr. | L (cm)| dL (cm)| Pressure (Pa)| u (m/s)| Drag force (N)| 1| 9. 2| 0. 07| 0. 07| 0. 07| 0. 07| 2| 9. 0| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 3| 9. 0| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 4| 9. 0| -0. 07| -0. 07| -0. 07| -0. 07| 5| 8. 8| -0. 13| -0. 13| -0. 13| -0. 13| 6| 8. 8| -0. 13| -0. 13| -0. 13| -0. 13| 7| 8. 8| -0. 07| -0. 07| -0. 07| -0. 07| 8| 9. 0| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 9| 9. 0| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 10| 9. 0| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 0 3| 11| 8. 9| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| 12| 9. 0| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| 13| 8. 9| -0. 07| -0. 07| -0. 07| -0. 07| 14| 8. 9| 0. 64| 0. 64| 0. 64| 0. 64| 5| 11. 0| 1. 68| 1. 68| 1. 68| 1. 68| 16| 12. 0| 1. 01| 1. 01| 1. 01| 1. 01| 17| 9. 0| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| 18| 8. 9| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| 19| 9. 0| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 20| 9. 0| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 21| 9. 0| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| 22| 8. 9| -0. 07| -0. 07| -0. 07| -0. 07| 23| 8. 9| -0. 07| -0. 07| -0. 07| -0. 07| 24| 8. 9| -0. 10| -0. 10| -0. 10| -0. 10| 25| 8. 8| -0. 10| -0. 10| -0. 10| -0. 10| 26| 8. 9| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| -0. 03| 27| 9. 0| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 28| 9. 0| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 29| 9. 0| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| 30| 9. 0| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 0| 0. 00| 31| 9. 0| 0. 07| 0. 07| 0. 07| 0. 07| 32| 9. 2| 0. 34| 0. 34| 0. 34| 0. 34| 33| 9. 8| 0. 34| 0. 34| 0. 34| 0. 34| 34| 9. 2| 0. 07| 0. 07| 0. 07| 0. 07| 35| 9. 0| 5. 84| 5. 84| 5. 84| 5. 84| 36| 26. 4| 0| Reference| 0. 00| 0. 00| Total drag force (1-35)| 9. 04| Total drag force (4-32)| 2. 72| Coefficient of drag calculated| 0. 031| Coefficient of drag literature| 0. 030| Table 3, Observations/Recordings part 2, Angle of attack 15 | Fluid length in tube ( ±. 1cm), Inclination 20| Tube Nr. | L (cm)| dL (cm)| Pressure (Pa)| u (m/s)| Drag force (N)| 1| 8. 2| 0. 06| 0. 06| 0. 06| 0. 06| 2| 8| -0. 01| -0. 01| -0. 1| -0. 01| 3| 8| -0. 01| -0. 01| -0. 01| -0. 01| 4| 8| -0. 04| -0. 04| -0. 04| -0. 04| 5| 7. 9| -0. 08| -0. 08| -0. 08| -0. 08| 6| 7. 9| -0. 04| -0. 04| -0. 04| -0. 04| 7| 8| -0. 01| -0. 01| -0. 01| -0. 01| 8| 8| -0. 01| -0. 01| -0. 01| -0. 01| 9| 8| 0. 19| 0. 19| 0. 19| 0. 19| 10| 8. 6| 0. 49| 0. 49| 0. 49| 0. 49| 11| 8. 9| 0. 49| 0. 49| 0. 49| 0. 49| 12| 8. 6| 0. 39| 0. 39| 0. 39| 0. 39| 13| 8. 6| 0. 56| 0. 56| 0. 56| 0. 56| 14| 9. 1| 1. 40| 1. 40| 1. 40| 1. 40| 15| 11. 1| 2. 51| 2. 51| 2. 51| 2. 51| 16| 12. 4| 2. 74| 2. 74| 2. 74| 2. 74| 17| 11. 8| 2. 40| 2. 40| 2. 40| 2. 40| 18| 11. 4| 2. 00| 2. 00| 2. 00| 2. 00| 9| 10. 6| 1. 47| 1. 47| 1. 47| 1. 47| 20| 9. 8| 1. 06| 1. 06| 1. 06| 1. 06| 21| 9. 4| 0. 79| 0. 79| 0. 79| 0. 79| 22| 9| 0. 63| 0. 63| 0. 63| 0. 63| 23| 8. 9| 0. 49| 0. 49| 0. 49| 0. 49| 24| 8. 6| 0. 39| 0. 39| 0. 39| 0. 39| 25| 8. 6| 0. 32| 0. 32| 0. 32| 0. 32| 26| 8. 4| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 27| 8. 4| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 28| 8. 4| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 29| 8. 4| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 30| 8. 4| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 31| 8. 4| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 0. 26| 32| 8. 4| 0. 32| 0. 32| 0. 32| 0. 32| 33| 8. 6| 0. 56| 0. 56| 0. 56| 0. 56| 34| 9. 1| 0. 56| 0. 56| 0. 56| 0. 56| 35| 8. 6| 6. 30| 6. 0| 6. 30| 6. 30| 36| 26. 2|   0. 00| Reference  | 0. 00  | 0. 00  | Total drag force (1-35)| 19. 55| Total drag force (4-32)| 13. 46| Coefficient of drag calculated| 0. 145| Coefficient of drag literature| 0. 100| Table 4, Observations/Recordings part 2, Angle of attack 20 | Fluid length in tube ( ±. 1cm), Inclination 20| Tube Nr. | L (cm)| dL (cm)| Pressure (Pa)| u (m/s)| Drag force (N)| 1| 8| 0. 16| 0. 16| 0. 16| 0. 16| 2| 7. 6| 0. 03| 0. 03| 0. 03| 0. 03| 3| 7. 6| 0. 03| 0. 03| 0. 03| 0. 03| 4| 7. 6| 0. 03| 0. 03| 0. 03| 0. 03| 5| 7. 6| 0. 03| 0. 03| 0. 03| 0. 03| 6| 7. 6| 0. 03| 0. 03| 0. 03| 0. 03| 7| 7. 6| 0. 03| 0. 3| 0. 03| 0. 03| 8| 7. 6| 0. 09| 0. 09| 0. 09| 0. 09| 9| 7. 8| 0. 16| 0. 16| 0. 16| 0. 16| 10| 7. 8| 0. 23| 0. 23| 0. 23| 0. 23| 11| 8| 0. 50| 0. 50| 0. 50| 0. 50| 12| 8. 6| 1. 17| 1. 17| 1. 17| 1. 17| 13| 10| 2. 37| 2. 37| 2. 37| 2. 37| 14| 12. 2| 3. 58| 3. 58| 3. 58| 3. 58| 15| 13. 6| 5. 39| 5. 39| 5. 39| 5. 39| 16| 17. 6| 7. 21| 7. 21| 7. 21| 7. 21| 17| 19| 7. 88| 7. 88| 7. 88| 7. 88| 18| 19. 6| 7. 88| 7. 88| 7. 88| 7. 88| 19| 19| 7. 04| 7. 04| 7. 04| 7. 04| 20| 17. 1| 5. 73| 5. 73| 5. 73| 5. 73| 21| 15. 1| 4. 09| 4. 09| 4. 09| 4. 09| 22| 12. 2| 2. 44| 2. 44| 2. 44| 2. 44| 23| 10. 2| 1. 37| 1. 37| 1. 37| 1. 37| 4| 9| 0. 66| 0. 66| 0. 66| 0. 66| 25| 8. 1| 0. 29| 0. 29| 0. 29| 0. 29| 26| 7. 9| 0. 23| 0. 23| 0. 23| 0. 23| 27| 7. 9| 0. 23| 0. 23| 0. 23| 0. 23| 28| 7. 9| 0. 19| 0. 19| 0. 19| 0. 19| 29| 7. 8| 0. 19| 0. 19| 0. 19| 0. 19| 30| 7. 9| 0. 19| 0. 19| 0. 19| 0. 19| 31| 7. 8| 0. 19| 0. 19| 0. 19| 0. 19| 32| 7. 9| 0. 46| 0. 46| 0. 46| 0. 46| 33| 8. 6| 0. 50| 0. 50| 0. 50| 0. 50| 34| 8| 0. 29| 0. 29| 0. 29| 0. 29| 35| 8| 6. 40| 6. 40| 6. 40| 6. 40| 36| 26. 2| 0| 0. 00| 0. 00| 0. 00| Total drag force (1-35)| 51. 30| Total drag force (4-32)| 46. 64| Coefficient of drag calculated| 0. 489| Coefficient of drag literature| 0. 300|

The Impact of Lijiaxia Hydro Power Plant to Kanbula National Park Free Essay Example, 2500 words

The present paper has identified that the Lijiaxia dam is located on the upper Yellow River. The reservoir is the largest body of water within Gansu. The dam was built primarily to provide hydroelectric power, but it is also used for flood control and irrigation. The hydro power plant of the dam has five generators with total installed capacity of 1,225MW. When it became operational it was the country s biggest power plant and it remained so until the 1980s. In 1955 the government announced a large-scale program of construction of hydroelectric power plant on Yellow River. It was the first hydropower plant that introduced the concept of bidding and tendering in China. According to the plan, one dam shall be built in each of the Three Gorges of the Yellow River; Lijia Gorge, Yanguo Gorge and Bapan Gorge. In 1958, the construction on first three dams was in progress and the Lijiaxia Dam was completed in 1969. The generators were brought into working between 1969 and 1974 in the Lijia xia Hydroelectric Power Plant. The water reservoirs of the three dams displaced large number of local farmers. We will write a custom essay sample on The Impact of Lijiaxia Hydro Power Plant to Kanbula National Park or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/page The situation has become more aggravated as large water dams cause fragmentation of the habitat of the surrounding areas. The deep ground excavation and filling, construction of dams water reservoirs, spoil pipes and roads have shifted the woodland areas.