Paper Stacks Download
Kip Veilleux
That being said, I find that I always cut 2 layers. It prevents smoke marks on the bottom of the top layer (which is the one I want). If you have the right kind of paper surface, you could mask it, but I find that a waste piece of cardstock underneath does the job really well. I just finished a cardstock mask, it was essential to prevent smoke marks and char because the bottom surface is the outside of the mask.
For some perspective, this is an example of my work. This particular lasercut was purchased from a company who produces and sells them in bulk. I have requests for custom versions (monograms, etc, etc)
When a bride needs 150 of these, I need to be cost effective, thus the reason I asked about stacks. I was thinking of masking the top layer and securing the stack with 2" mask around the entire bundle at each end.Sabrina-Hall-Photography-216 (1).jpg20481367 863 KB
Paper microfluidic devices have become an important platform for conducting analytical chemistry, especially for applications in point-of-care diagnostics1,2. Paper (or porous membranes in general) is used as a substrate in many types of analytical devices, e.g. lateral flow assays (LFAs), multiplexed colorimetric assays (µPADs)3, two-dimensional paper networks (2DPNs)4, paper ELISA (P-ELISA)5, and paper-based nucleic acid amplification tests (P-NAATs)6, among several others. A critical operation in all these devices is the rehydration of reagents stored dry in a porous membrane, e.g. gold-antibody conjugates are stored dry in LFAs, enzymes are stored dry in µPADs etc. Spatially uniform rehydration and sufficient mixing of the dry-stored reagents with the rehydrating fluid (often the sample used for analysis) is therefore critical for efficient and reproducible performance of the analytical device. For example, it has been shown that non-uniform rehydration leads to variable performance and heterogeneous color development in µPADs, which can lead to poor judgement of signal readout by the user7.
When a fluid is introduced into a paper membrane, the pores within the paper induce a capillary force on it that causes the fluid to wick. If the pores contain dried reagents, they dissolve in this process and move (convect) along the moving fluid front. If the dissolution is rapid, most of the rehydrated reagents get pushed along with the fluid front to regions farther away from the fluid source and get concentrated near the edges, thus reducing the interaction between the dried reagents and the fluid entering the paper. This compaction of reagents is well demonstrated by Lutz et al.8 and is exacerbated as the length of the paper increases. After the reagents are compacted at the fluid front, it is not possible to mix these with the lagging fluid because of low-Reynolds-number laminar flows and the inability to stir. Some methods have been developed to enhance mixing in paper microfluidics. Osborn et al. demonstrated that mixing of two colored dye solutions could be enhanced by stacking two paper membranes9. Rezk et al. demonstrated enhanced mixing using surface acoustic waves10. However, both these techniques were developed to enhance mixing between two liquids. The challenge of enhancing mixing between a dry-stored reagent and a rehydrating fluid is largely unsolved in paper microfluidics.
Characterization of distributor and collector materials. (A) Scanning electron microscopy images of the collector (Whatman filter paper) and distributor (Standard 17 glass fiber) materials. (B) Capillary pressure as a function of saturation (fraction of fluid-filled pores) for the collector and distributor materials.
The paper microfluidic device designs presented here address the largely unsolved problem of non-uniform rehydration of dried reagents in paper analytical and storage devices. Uniformity of rehydration and the ensuing enhancement in interaction between the rehydrating fluid and dried reagents has been enabled by novel paper architectures that have not been presented before. Parallel assemblies of paper materials that differ in flow properties like permeability and capillary pressure can result in interesting and non-obvious flow phenomena, which have been exploited in this work. Parallel paper assemblies have previously been used as tunable delay shunts16. More recently, an assembly of a duct in parallel with a paper channel has been shown to enhance the rate of wicking17,18. However, this is the first report of the use of parallel paper assemblies for uniform rehydration.
Compare to that old reliable citation "personal communication", or, worse, to a paper that is "to appear", and is never written. At the very least, the proof is there to be examined, and indeed the entire proof tree back to elementary material.
Students can play this game in small groups of up to 4 players. All students set up their cups at least 6 feet apart, either across from each other, or in a triangle or square depending on the number of players. When they are ready to play, they stay by their own cups and use either hand gestures or the full body variation to play RPS with one of the other players in their group. The winner stacks and the other player either waits for them to finish, giving them feedback about whether they have stacked the given sequence correctly or plays with another player in the group.
Low-latency network stacks have brought down network latencies within end-hosts to the microsecond-regime. However, end-host profilers have such high overheads that they are useful only to confirm a hypothesis, not to diagnose a problem in the first place. Indeed, every one of twenty low-latency network projects we surveyed rolled their own analysis tools instead of using an existing profiler.
This paper shows how to build a latency diagnosis tool with full-stack coverage and low overhead that can identify, not just confirm, sources of latency in end hosts. The unique measurement methodology reconstructs network-message lifetimes within end hosts with nanosecond precision, by reconciling CPU and NIC hardware profiling traces across multiple time domains (network and CPU). It uncovers unexpected latency sources in both kernel and user-space stacks.
I have published two conference papers at one conference in physics with two other authors and I am the first author in both articles. And I am currently in the second year of my PhD Thesis and these were my first published papers at all.
I have trouble with one of those articles and I am constantly thinking about it. The positive thing about this paper (as well as for the second) is, that it is very interesting for my scientific community and also for the authorities for decision making about a political charged topic. I used a fancy method and the results are good.
Firstly, I was satisfied with this paper. I thought it its "just" a conference paper and spending to much time for writing, wouldn't pay off, because this paper doesn't even count for my PhD-Thesis. So, all in all I was very happy with presenting it at this conference.
The bad thing is, that I was very stressed, when I wrote it. The statistical analysis took a long time and I had not much time, due to caring for my newborn child. I finished writing and correcting this paper (with the other authors) shortly before submitting it. After the reviewer mentioned a very small revision (a more detailed abstract, spelling error or a hint for a better literature reference), I recognized that three sentences within the results had to be changed and also two or three sentences within the discussion. I fixed it, showed it to my supervisor (I don't know how carefully he read it) and now it is published.
After reading it again after some time and very often, I found some mistakes, especially in the parts which I fixed lately after the revision. At first I didn't realized them, but after reading it again and again, I found more and more: A typo as well as at least three grammar mistakes, which are in my opinion not that bad and I only recognized them by reading it a lot (two of them are even in the abstract), but that doesn't makes it better (I don't have an eye for grammar). In the corrected sentences in the discussion I partially used wordings which are more common to say, but uncommon to write in science. Because its my first publication I was more focused on writing things correctly, but after asking other people, I now think, that it is not so handsome and sloppy. There are some other sloppy wordings in other parts of the paper, but I think its not that big of a problem due to the proofreaders didn't complain, but the sum of the mistakes makes me feel very bad about this paper.
All in all I regret publishing this paper and I fear that I am in my scientific community now known for bad writing style. And another problem is, it is forever available by Google Search and it could have a significant negative influence on my career, because everybody who writes my name in Google search, will find it very easily. I think many people don't differentiate between conference papers and journal papers.
That being said, maybe you should work on how much you let small problems get to you if you want to survive in academia. If grammar errors and awkward formulations in a published paper already make you be unable to sleep, I worry that the real setbacks that characterise academic work (experiments that are not working out, unjustly rejected papers, dozens and dozens of faculty applications that you never hear back on, ...) will do to you.
Don't worry about it. Maybe when you are 65, and a world-famous scientist, and you publish your "collected works", you can include a revised version of this paper. But until then, go forward and don't worry about the past.
If you contribute to your community as a reviewer you will quickly gain some needed perspective. The average quality of conference papers is really not very high. This is why they typically don't count as publications. The purpose is to communicate recent/ongoing research results to your community and often time constraints require that these documents be less polished than archival publications. That's perfectly alright.
df19127ead