Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of Energy expenditure


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jul 28, 2010 12:34:50 PM (15 years ago)
Author:
cedric
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Energy expenditure

    v2 v3  
    1 work as Distance*Elevation makes sense 
     1work as Distance*Elevation Crossin et al. 2004 or something more ? 
    22 
    3 Van Ginneken et al. (2008) estimate a cost of transport (COT)in kj.kg-1.km-1 do the amount of energy will be proportional to the distance covered by silver eel. The additional distance linked to altitude (water current) is relative to 
     3Van Ginneken et al. (2008) estimate a cost of transport (COT)in kj.kg-1.km-1 do the amount of energy will be proportional to the distance covered by silver eel. It makes sense to say that the energy expenditure is relative to the distance covered (E1) 
     4 
     5 The additional distance linked to altitude (water current) is relative to 
    46 Vitesse d'écoulement : 
    57 
    … …  
    1113                                    h : profondeur 
    1214                                    S : pente 
    13 The additional energy due to slope is related to the current 
     15The additional energy (E2)due to slope is related to the current 
    1416distance additional=v*t 
    1517~c(hS)1/2*t 
    1618~alpha t (E/D)1/2 with alpha a multiplying coeff depending on depth, C 
    1719t is proportional to the distance 
    18 so beta(DE)1/2 
     20so E2= beta(DE)1/2 
    1921 
    2022Energy=D+sqrt(DE)