Changes between Version 7 and Version 8 of Energy expenditure

Timestamp:

Sep 1, 2010 11:44:39 AM (15 years ago)

Author:

cedric

Comment:

--

Energy expenditure

@@ -3 +3 @@
 
 = Some explanation = 
+______________________
 
 work as Distance*Elevation Crossin et al. 2004 or something more ?
@@ -8 +9 @@
 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. It makes sense to say that the energy expenditure is relative to the distance covered (E1)
 
+______________________
+Après avoir regardé la publi indiquée par Laurent, il semble que l'hypothèse que l'énergie soit relative à la distance est juste
+
+WHeis, 1978
+Work for constant speed energy
+Thrust equal to hydrodynamic resistance R
+R=a/2*Af*Cd*V 
+a density of the water
+With Af=frontal area
+Cd=drag coefficient
+V relative velocity between the water and the fish
+Total work=R*D where D is the distance covered
+The total energy requirement inclusdes in addition to the energy expenditure the maintenance of bodily functions
+=standard resting metabolic rate
+Esm=M*t
+where M is the standard resting metabolic rate
+ and 
+t is time
+
+total work=propulsive eneregy + standard metabolic rate energy=
+Epe+ Esm=R*D +Mt=R*D+M*D/V
+=a/2*Af*Cd*V*D+M*D/V on retrouve bien pour une vitesse relative constante une grandeur relative à la distance parcourue
+___________________________________
  The additional distance linked to altitude (water current) is relative to
  Vitesse d'écoulement :