/ NEW ARTICLE: Innovation, Mike Parsons and Alpkit Nick

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Michael Ryan - on 03 Oct 2007
"The session that surprised me the most was the theory put forward by Dr Mark Talyor from Leeds University and Graham Thompson from Trail magazine.

For the past 15 years Graham Thompson has been banging on about membrane lined boots such as Gore-tex, Event, Sympatex and how they where inherently less breathable than a boot without such a lining. We saw the research, it had plenty of graphs and they used all kinds of sensors and stuff and.....it's official, the science has been done. "


Nick Smith reports on Innovation for Extremes conference held at Lancaster University Management School on Wednesday 26 September.


Read the article here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=517
gwilym - on 03 Oct 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: If the breathability of boots refers to the tests in trail while ago then they were actually quite misleading; they weren't really a simple with/without membrane comparison at all. IIRC they used a meindl borneo and burma which are not completely comparable. The borneo is leather lined which is inherently less breathable/wicking and more insulating than the synthetic lining used on the burma. A far more direct comparison would be a boot where the non gore version had a synthetic lining, e.g. rangers
fimm on 03 Oct 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

That's an appallingly badly proof-read article: there are several missing question marks, at least two apostrophes in plurals and what is "indentification"?
I appreciate that you want to get things up quickly, but in an article I don't think such errors are acceptable. They reflect badly on the site as a whole.
Michael Ryan - on 03 Oct 2007
In reply to fimm:

Yip...we could do with a proofer.

I'll have another look whilst negelecting essential advertising, news reports...and and I'm out the door in 2 hrs on other UKC work.
Michael Ryan - on 03 Oct 2007
In reply to fimm:

Got most of them. Ta.

Refresh your browser if checking.
fimm on 03 Oct 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

> I'll have another look whilst negelecting essential advertising, news reports...and and I'm out the door in 2 hrs on other UKC work.

I did say that I know you are busy...
Alpnick - on 03 Oct 2007
In reply to fimm:

In fairness to Mick if it was better to start with. It would of saved him a lot of time.

Cheers

Nick

ads.ukclimbing.com
Martin W on 03 Oct 2007
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: More proofing for you:

'This was definitely an underlying theme of ... rather than what we think you would like?' The question mark at the end should be a full stop.

'...our industry "Pushes, not pull's."' There should not be an apostrophe in "pull's". (I loathe this mis-use of the apostrophe even more than its mis-use in plurals.)

'It would of been nice...' Change "of" to "have". (This is another of the common errors that makes me cringe every time I see it. I note that Nick has used it again in his posting to this thread. Arrggh!)

'Rearearch & Development' I leave that one as an exercise for the reader.

Congratulations, though: this article managed to incorporate two of the mistakes that I hate most, even after you checked it yourself!

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.