The count represents the thickness of the cotton yarn. The higher the count, the finer the yarn, the more greasy and smooth the woven fabric will be, and the better the gloss.
The main difference between 20 yarns and 40 yarns can be understood in the following ways: Fiber thickness: The diameter of 20 yarns is thicker than that of 40 yarns, which determines some basic characteristics in their texture and use.
1.Fiber thickness: The diameter of 20 yarns is thicker than that of 40 yarns, which determines some basic characteristics of their texture and use.
2.Fabric density: Due to the rugged nature of 20 yarns, it is often used to make canvas or other materials that require strength and durability, such as all-cotton four-piece sets. The 40 yarn is more suitable for making summer tencel sand or silk fabrics and other relatively light and high-end products.
3.Usage scenario: Due to the rugged characteristics of 20 yarns, it is usually used to make canvas or other materials that need strength and durability, while 40 yarns are more suitable for summer tencel sand or silk fabrics and other relatively light and high-end products.
4.Visual effect: When the two yarns are interwoven together, the 40 yarns will form a relatively clearer grain because it is more dense.
5.Air permeability and comfort: The air permeability of 20 yarns is poor, not suitable for summer use; The air permeability of 40 yarn is relatively good, and it is more suitable for spring and autumn season. 2
6.Price: Generally speaking, the higher the number, the softer the fabric, the better the waterproof performance, but the more expensive the price. 3
To sum up, 20 yarn and 40 yarn in the use of the scene, visual effects, air permeability and comfort and price have obvious differences. The choice of yarn mainly depends on the specific use needs and personal preferences.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
There's more to science than these prizes
Every October sees the award of the “scientific Oscars”: Nobel prizes. The science prizes established in Alfred Nobel’s will are for physics, chemistry and “physiology or medicine”. This year the three scientific Nobels went to a total of eight scientists – rewarded for sustained efforts to tackle fundamental challenges. But the prizes nonetheless still exclude huge tracts of science. Famously, mathematics has never been included. The environmental sciences – oceans and ecology – aren’t covered, nor are computing, robotics and artificial intelligence. These exclusions distort the public perception of what sciences are important.
Outsiders might guess that in science, the choice of winners in each field should be as clearcut as in sporting contests, unlike the obviously more subjective prizes for literature and peace. But that’s not the reality. In some years the awards trigger controversy and resentment. Since Nobel scientists generally aren’t well-known personalities, and their achievements are often arcane, debate on their worthiness takes place within the specialist community, and only rarely percolates widely. What the public sees is simply the grandeur of the award announcements each year.
Moreover, no scientist’s achievements are really solo, any more than a goalscorer’s triumph in football is independent of the other players on the field (and the manager off the field too). The Nobel committee’s refusal to make an award to more than three people has led to manifest injustices, and given a misleading impression of how science actually advances, through the cooperation of a large group.
Even if a discovery isn’t explicitly a team effort, several people may have separately researched the same topic. For instance, a particle now called the Higgs boson was postulated in the 1960s: six people were generally cited as having played key roles in predicting its existence. Of these six, the one with the strongest and most sustained lifetime achievement, Tom Kibble, did not receive a share of the Nobel when the particle was discovered 50 years later – nor did the 1,000‐strong team at the Cern lab in Geneva who conducted the vast experiment that actually made the discovery.
The public perceives Nobel winners as “towering intellects”. Some are, but others, even among those who have made undeniably epochal and “prize-worthy” advances, would not be so rated by their peers. Indeed, some of the most important discoveries have been serendipitous: for instance, neutron stars, and the cosmic microwave background – the so-called “afterglow of creation”. Louis Pasteur averred that “fortune favours the prepared mind”; these scientists may claim for themselves greater luck – but not greater talent – than the average professor.
Post time: 1月-09-2024