Ladies and gentlemen. Sorry, I'll be covering this whole thing. Okay.  The second time, y'all messed up. Your questions were absolutely whack. So we're back again with another Q&A. We got Bonchro, Brochro, Bonnie Schroeder in the house, strong chick, smart chick. We're gonna answer some of your questions from the Grams. Let's dig in, my friends. Some of these questions, guys. Did you make Mike do this? He looks scared. No, he asked to pose like that. Now come on. Yeah, you're like Bonnie, let's take a picture. Look, just because there's a camera on doesn't mean you gotta lie now. What'd you say? I said, Mike, let's take a prom pose. Okay, thank you. And I said? Because we are that adorable. And what'd I say? And you said, yes please. Small spoon. I said small spoon. Yeah, of course. An anonymous person said, I have been told that she's 6'2, 220 plus in person based on attitude. Is this confirmed? If she's 6'2, 220, I'm goddamn seven foot, 3'10, 8% body fat, if that's the case. Yeah, well it's not a lie. It's just like a, it's a pretty hard weight cut for me. So it's not something I would recommend for everyone. How do you get so big? How'd you get so big? The out angle master. What are you guys' questions doing make sense, right, dude? Who? He said I out angled you. Yeah, he said out angle to angled master but like I don't take angles. But I don't take angles. Are you sure? Yeah, we'll go through my pictures. That's like something I, like I just don't care. I don't care how I look like that. Sure. You look like a frumpy mess in this picture. Who has the bigger peach? The bigger peach? Yeah. I got to say Mike wins that one. I think if you're going by overall size clearly, if you're going by like ratio to everything else, it might, it's a tie maybe. That might be close. Yeah. Why is my babe so beautiful? I'll take that as, you know, like, I don't know. You got some fans, Mike. I don't know. I've never been called a babe before or your babe. I don't know who you are, but thank you, you know? Let's get some, let's get some actual. How often, look, I'm trying. I'm trying, all right? How often do you bench in the span of a week and what workouts do you recommend to build your bench? The bonds here, bonds show is going to bench 200 pounds real soon at 120, weigh in 125. So dig in. I bench right now. I bench kind of a lot. Normally I bench three times a week. Right now I'm benching for possibly five times a week. And I like a lot of bench variations. So I'll have one day that's like higher volume.  So extra long pauses, maybe board presses. You know, one and a quarter. One and a quarter. One and a quarter. Spotted presses, just I like all sorts of variations. The more I do, the faster I progress, really. And how does that progress through an off-season or a meet? I know it depends on the off-season.  And no one likes to do that or likes to do that, but that's what works. That's just really built it up for me. Yeah, especially ladies can handle a lot of stuff. 10s, 12s, all that. Yeah. Combined total. Oh, god. I don't mind a kilos. I think my best full power is 16.02. My best full power is eight something. Made a math really quick. 15.02 and eight is 24 or something. 24 something. Probably very close to the all-time world record. Yeah, yeah. Together, combined. Probably. Our power is combined. Probably close to it. Yeah, so I would be right at around 8.70. Yeah, you're looking at all-time world records right here.  Oh, that's a good question. Yeah. Vegas. Biggest injury for me is I was dealing with a bulging desk a couple of years ago. And I couldn't even squat the bar for a month. And I couldn't deadlift for, well, I started deadlifting too soon, of course. So I couldn't really seriously deadlift for five months. So that was really, really tough. It would probably be even harder for me to handle now with the level that I'm at. Because that was just starting out injury a couple of years ago. But I had a really good coach at the time. And I was surrounded by a really good group of people that kind of made all the difference for me. They kept my head in the game where it needed to be. Without that, it would have been really hard. It's a little bit of a hard lifting game. If you do this long enough and at a competitive level, something's probably going to give out at some point. And then how you kind of deal with that or maybe come back is a whole other thing. I've had multiple desk issues over the years. As you guys know, I'm just chilling now. Physically, that's definitely it. But light stuff gets in the way a lot more for me. That will determine my training. And I wish I had answers for everybody. I don't have answers. Yeah, I just go to the gym. I just go to the gym. And sometimes, even if it's a half an hour workout, that's kind of like in my least motivated state or in the worst mental state I'm in, I still at least get like half an hour in the gym. I always just try to do something. And that's just- I just have to make sure I'm having fun. If I'm not having fun or if I didn't have any fun that workout, there's a problem. When I was training for the Arnold earlier this year, I was just putting so much stress on myself. And I was like, I'm not having fun in these workouts. And then I just made it a goal for myself.  Yeah, it's hard. It's hard because like you said, you get into a level. Maybe you fall in love with it early and then maybe you have some setbacks or whatever it might be. Maybe you start to get more competitive either with yourself or the game. But the game is very tedious. It's hard on the body. It's hard on the mind. You're doing three movements over and over for a lot of sets and a lot of rest. Years and years and years. Yeah, so I kind of like, yeah, I kind of like the grind of it, but I agree. And I'm in a phase like that. I'm doing some dumbbell work, whatever it might be. You gotta have some fun. Where do you shop for business casual Oxford shirts for Chesty ladies? But I think that's from, oh, Chesty lads. Chesty lads. I don't know dude. Chesty ladies. I don't know. This is about his business casual. Confused with someone else. But then, yeah, but then it was a guy saying it. That's why I was confused. Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, but it says lads. So where do you, where do you get your shirts made? I don't do that. You're pretty casual. You don't do a lot of business casual. You're like gym casual. Yeah, and even that. This is about as fancy as we get unless it's like a wedding or something. I think it's cool that in what I do and in the world when we can dress kind of how we want. And that's why I chose this path. Yeah, I'm not the guy that can sit at a desk in a suit every day. Like it's just not who I am as a person. So I'll go, you know, big business deals just just like this, not even worry about it. How do you regulate explosive cardio in an athlete strength building program without compromising his or her ability to recover? You want to dive in? Bonchro. You start that one. I can see it. So I think it depends. One, I don't know what you mean by explosive cardio. We need to dive in. If you're talking just like higher intensities where you're putting a little bit more power output. I think next we have to dive in and see what the goal of that athlete is. If your goal is pure powerlifting the sad truth is the overall GPP you need general physical preparedness to be a powerlifter is insanely low. If you compare it to other sports like soccer you didn't obviously track it which is kind of a sport of GPP in its own we'll move away from there but soccer where you're kind of jogging sprinting, cutting things of this nature. You're obviously GPP has to be very high. Your conditioning has to be good and your power. So if you're just powerlifting the truth is if you can get through the volume and your training and you don't explode you'll probably be okay. Yeah, with that question it says without compromising his or her ability to recover I think you really just need to look at your levels of volume and intensity because I mean you can handle it. You can work there if you do it the right way. Yeah, 100%. How did you get into weightlifting or lifting? It's not, look, let's just put this out there. Look, people say like Oli or Olympic or whatever like CrossFit made that a turn.  We powerlift. Do we lift weights? We lift weights. But that's weightlifting. That's a sport. Powerlifting is squad mention dead. So technically we don't weight lift. I tried, I was bad at it. How did you get into powerlifting? From CrossFit actually. So my athletic background I ran track in high school and college. After that I kind of hung out in the bodybuilding world for a little bit. Did you know that? No I didn't. Yeah, I never competed or anything but I was training that way and like those are the type of people I was hanging out with. Then I did CrossFit for like a year maybe two and I was trained with a girl who said she was into powerlifting and I signed up for it just for fun. Won my weight class and everything and I was like, oh, this is good. I'm a lot better at this than I was at anything else. And like with CrossFit like anything that required any like rhythm or gymnastic skills I was very horrible at it. It was competing in powerlifting not training in powerlifting that got you addicted. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah.  Let's do that. Cause whenever I was CrossFit I was like, well can't we just like deadlift heavy? And then I always wanted to bench but benching was not a part of it, right? And I was like, oh there's a sport that I can do this, fantastic. Yeah, I give a lot of credit to CrossFit for bringing new people into weightlifting and powerlifting. Yeah, 100%. But powerlifting as a sport never like drove me. Really? No, I just lifted. I just love to compete. Yeah, I feel like. I love the training now of the Grindel of all that but I'm just competitive in nature. Yeah, I'm competitive in nature but I just turn it other ways once I stop playing basketball. Yeah, that's fine. Ladies and gentlemen, before, ladies and gentlemen, be sure to check out the home world, Bontro, Link in the bio, put out tons of lifting, going to be competing soon.  Thank you for hanging out. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, Salamike out of here. New videos Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday. Be sure to subscribe, turn on notifications because we got some new food shit on the way. I appreciate you. I'm out of here.


The Ministry of Health, Wellness and Early Affairs has noted an increase in the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines. This development is welcomed as the inclusion continues to manage the fourth wave of COVID infections. The vaccines have proven effective against the virus, reducing the severity of illness, hospitalization and death. With less than 18% of the island's population inoculated, there is continued risk for high infection rates of death. 98% of the COVID-19 deaths and COVID-19 related deaths at the respiratory hospital were unfaccinated people. On Tuesday, 28 September, nine new COVID-19 deaths were reported. All of these deaths occurred during the period of September 16, 2021 to September 26, 2021. To date, the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the country is 159, and the total number of COVID-19 related deaths is 44. Immunization manager in the Ministry of Health, Wellness and Early Affairs, Siklesha Baptiste, says everyone can protect themselves by vaccinating. As of Monday, 27 September, 2021, a total of 45,245 first doses and 31,522nd doses of the COVID-19 vaccines have been administered. This is inclusive of both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. 17.4% of the population have received the complete regime of the vaccine. Over the last month, there have been a noted increase in the uptake of the vaccines. This response is very encouraging, particularly at a time when we see reports of steady rising of COVID-19 cases and associated deaths. This demonstrates an appreciation for the health benefit of the vaccine by our citizens, as well as the need to take personal responsibility to protect self and loved ones. People with underlying chronic non-communicable diseases are particularly vulnerable to severe and fatal COVID-19 infections. The vaccine vaccinated Ms. Baptiste says will significantly reduce the risk of the severe form of COVID-19 if contracted. The public is also being encouraged to practice a healthy lifestyle. While the vaccine provides protection against the severe complications of the virus, you are reminded of the healthy habits necessary for immune system boosting. This includes a healthy and well-balanced diet, being well-hydrated, adequate exercise, and rest. A healthy immune system is necessary and further helps the vaccine to prime your body to fight the vaccine if you become infected. In addition to being vaccinated, it is essential to keep practicing infection control and prevention protocols. Wear your mask, keep your distance, and wash your hands regularly.


Protočno, koncept je zelo poživljeno.  Tako, tukaj ima tukaj, da je v svoju, da je tudi 3 biljoni ljudi, vzgledaj na vsoftveri. Vzgledaj, da je tudi tudi 30 biljoni, 3 biljoni. Tristim, da je dobra, da smo niske vse predpravili. Znači, da smo prikratili, da smo pravda 200 milijon jezern, prikratili, da nebezerno 100, ste površči, in nebezerno 100, 100 vzgledaj v zelo in je vzgleda. Pobrečo je v zelo, vzgleda, vzgleda. Zelo je zelo tako, da je to vzgleda. Neko je, da smo zelo, da smo zelo. Zelo sem zelo vzgleda v 2004. Vzgleda je vzgleda. There were a few Microsoft Office clones, there was Microsoft Office and there was Open Office. And the market was divided, if you can call it this way, between Microsoft Office and Open Office. Microsoft Office was claiming to have 95% of the market. This has never been true. But they were claiming Microsoft as a gigantic ego problem and therefore they wanted to control the world. In any case, my Open Office at the time had a solid 10% plus market share. Today I don't think that we are in the same position as I said. So let's say that we have around 3-5% market share, which I think is absolutely reasonable in term of numbers. So if you think about the $28 billion, our value is $1 billion, more or less. The value of the market we target, we address. And we are in term of value of the community, the businesses around it, ecosystem companies, people making value added around the Libre Office. We are far, far away from being $1 billion market. So we have an opportunity to grow our size because we already addressed that market. We address a market, we don't get the money from the market. So we should improve the way we get the money from the market that we already addressed. So the market that is already using Libre Office or a form of Libre Office. So the question for the people that have not heard it is about ASAs, that is the value of licenses basically, or the money that is used to purchase a product. This was true in the past, it's not true anymore. So what the analysts are evaluating is the value of the market. So they give a value to each user and then multiply that value for the number of users, because the value of licenses would not be any more significant. It was significant in the past when it was just possible to buy a license and the cost of the license was more or less uniform or the same or similar. Today you have different licenses. If you have a full license of Microsoft Office for the desktop, you will spend probably around 200 euro dollars per year. But that has to be within a corporate license, while if you are an individual you can only buy 365, which is a subscription that costs in the states half of what it costs in Europe and I don't know how it costs in the other markets. So the analysts in front of this mess have started to give a value to users. So it's, of course, an average value is an estimate. They may be wrong, I think that as this is a combination of the value estimated by Gartner and IDC, they are the two largest analysts. I think that at the end we can consider that a very good approximation. The fact is that the reason I'm using data is that because we are there, in any way we are part of that market. So we have to understand that we have, when we started, this little slide has 13 years. I created it in 2010 for the announcement of LibreOffice. And if you think it's still valid in terms of concept, of course a visual is just trying to transmit a visual concept. We are still trying to innovate in a market where there is a number of software that are not innovating. They may do some small innovation, but for instance if you take only Office, WPS Office, they are cloning Microsoft Office more than innovating. Of course we are following Office as well. We are following this kind of reference, but we also develop features that in some cases are not there in Microsoft Office or we develop them in a different way. While if you look at only Office, only Office has an interface that has clearly been developed to mimic Microsoft Office interface almost 100%. Reborn-like interface, if you prefer to call it this way, is not like Microsoft, so people can say it's good or bad, but it's different. So in a market where today you have a lot of cloning and the young people do not remember it, this is exactly what was happening in the 90s. People started to be fed up paying Microsoft licenses and there was a number of clones coming up. They were free, almost free and there were clones. They were just alike Microsoft Office. And I can tell you because I was one of the first to be fed up paying Microsoft Office licenses and I started to test all the clones. And in 2001 I remember I downloaded OpenOffice because I was following the media and I was talking with journalists. I downloaded the first version of OpenOffice and I realized it wasn't a clone. So I said, this is good to test. Of course it was an anthology of bugs at the time, but it was different. It was clearly a different software. Let's say that a software with a soul, I know that software is not a soul, but if you look at software not from the technical point of view and you know that I'm not technical, you figure out the software like something that you know. And I understood that behind OpenOffice at the time, although it was very immature, but became mature with one and one and then with two it was even better. There was something, there was an idea, there was a concept, there was a community. I discovered that later. And the reason I'm here is exactly that difference that OpenOffice had with the rest of the market. Today we are back in that situation. Maybe you don't remember, but we had an office suite by Corel based on WordPerfect and other products. It has disappeared. That was different, but it has disappeared. So during the history we had a time where there were competitors of Microsoft Office which had a soul like OpenOffice and LibreOffice. But the others have disappeared. We are still here. And we have a flag of diversity with the market. And I think this is our flag of diversity that we have to stress with people. And of course in some cases our flag of diversity is not easy to communicate. For instance, if you talk about a community, it's not easy for people to understand what a community is. And if you add to the picture of the community the fact that there are volunteers and companies who are paid and people who are not paid, this adds to the confusion of the person because they don't understand. They don't understand when during the OpenOffice time and for a number of years during the LibreOffice time I was doing my marketing job totally as a volunteer and people was asking me, but why? I said, because I have fun, it's nice. But people on the other side they don't understand why we are contributing to a software. People does not understand what developers are doing. People thinks that maybe they think that the software gets translated by a robot and instead that it gets translated by people. It's funny how people perceive software when they are not into the software business. And so we have different cycles, development cycles. Of course this, if you want, is a marketing representation of what has happened. Developers have never had development cycles to make them easy to understand to the outside world. You have to create a message that is easy to understand. So this is easy to understand. We have cleaned the code, we have refactored the code, we have improved the user interface. Now we get to compatibility, interoperability. We are very good at that. And it's difficult. One of the reasons why the next version will not be 8, but will be 24.2, is because we really, and believe me, I'm trying to crash my head, which is extremely solid against walls, but it's difficult to find a sixth development cycle. So our next cycle is we are the diverse office suite. Do you want to be part of the mass, gets Microsoft Office? Don't look even at clones. Clones are, yeah, if you want to save some money, use a clone, but it will be like having the, for a women, having a false suite on bag. Yes, it gives you a false perception that you are trendy, but the people will look at you and say, oh, she hasn't even the money to buy the real one. And I can tell that my wife can spot a false Louis Vuitton from one kilometer. She has not a real one, but she can spot a false one from one kilometer. By looking at that, that's false, okay. I don't even understand that he's a Louis Vuitton bag, but there is a hidden language of the body that allows you to understand this kind of stuff. This is an incredible effort. I've added desktop because the Wikimedia people got offended by me saying that it was the most translated software in the world. So I added desktop. Yes, Wikimedia is available in more languages, but it's like 50 string to translate. It's not like translating LibreOffice, but I didn't want to get into the number of string. So I said, we are the desktop software available in more languages. And this is something significant in a world where inclusiveness is an issue. In many geographies in Europe, we all know the issue we have with inclusiveness, but if you go to the southern states in the United States, people are trying to build walls and they are doing similar things around the world. In a world where inclusiveness is an issue, we provide a tool to help people feel inclusive. In Italy, we have in Milan, I have suggested to a school that a large number, a majority of students were not native Italians. They were speaking Italian, but they were not native. So I suggested to a teacher to install LibreOffice and start using LibreOffice to each different students in their native language. And with the objective of then switching to the Italian version. And these helped a lot several students and among them several Romanian students, because of course you feel more at ease in using a software if the menus are in your native language that they are in English. Of course if you speak English fluently, that doesn't make a difference, in case it makes a difference. So language is something that we have to stress. And then we have this incredible advantage. Of course you can say that this is a marketing trick, it is, but it's also real. We are not cheating people, if we say that we use the same engine for all platforms. Of course the engine is adapted. You cannot use an engine which is 200 megabytes of executable on a smartphone, of course. So we have to adapt the engine, but the engine is the same. So we have a better consistency. And the reality is that if you use LibreOffice on different platforms, it's easy, because the features are, I would say 99% of feature is there. This doesn't happen. If you use Microsoft Office on a smartphone, the number of feature is probably 10% of the feature of Microsoft Office. And if you use it on the cloud, it's not the same number of feature of the desktop version. Not to mention that they are produced in documents which are visually identical, but in term of XML are completely different. I know that you cannot tell a user to open the XML of the document, but talking with some technical people, consistency of the document is an advantage. So we are now in a situation, and of course the concept of LibreOffice technology is a marketing concept. But the reality is that we have evolved from a desktop-only product to a product that is available on different platforms. And therefore we can say that we are a technology, LibreOffice is a technology, it's not just a product anymore. This makes us different with the others. Of course basic user will not listen to all this rant about technology, but if you talk with people that is in businesses, that has an interest of understanding about the product, the concept that we have a better base than we have incompetent users like me that use the wrong template and have two logos overlapping one with the other, but this is the incompetent user. And the concept of LibreOffice technology is similar to the concept. You remember when Intel had similar problems, they developed the Intel inside concept. So the real computers were those with Intel inside logo to be different from the others with other silicon. Of course today the situation has changed, Intel is not investing anymore on the Intel inside logo because now you have the Apple silicon, ARM processor, so situation has evolved, but we are in that situation. Intel wanted to be different from the others in the market, we want to be different from the others in the market. Thinking that we can address a market of 3 billion users is just wishful thinking. We will never address a market of 3 billion users with a project base on volunteers, but even if everyone was paid, the numbers are so big that the difference in number is so big that there is no way. The Italian subsidiary of Microsoft is 700 people and this is excluding the administration which is all base in Ireland. So basically they have 700 people in sales and marketing and post sales. So if we have 700 people globally, I think we are happy. We cannot fight with a company which is that size as a huge capitalization, as a huge amount of money. So our chance is to say we are different. We want a different product, a different office suite, tri-libre office. It will provide you the same feature, but it's different. It gives you a better ethical background. If you support the software, you will probably contribute to minority languages to be maintained, which is something that doesn't happen when you use Microsoft Office.  They have translated Microsoft Office in the fourth official language of Switzerland, which is the Romance language, because the Swiss government has paid one million French francs to translate it. They got the translation almost for free. For Libre Office, actually it was translated for free. They had a company double checking the translation, but it costed them probably 10,000 French francs. So a difference, which is not even... And we didn't make the translation into the Romance language, because we were looking at a potential business. We did it because there were volunteers in that area that took the time to translate Libre Office, and this is happening in many languages. So we have the opportunity to be different. I've left Red Hat on the desktop. I don't know if they still provide... I think they still provide with the latest version. Probably in the future, Red Hat will not be providing Libre Office on the desktop, but of course we will always provide binary to install on Red Hat or Fedora or distributions. But we have a number of software that are based on the technology and they are consistent. And we have developed this logo. It tells me that there's... Mike, can you check, because it tells me that I have no internet connection, sorry. It's okay, okay. Maybe it was just a hicap in the connection. We have developed this logo. Please use it. Because that is the logo of our diversity. It doesn't say Libre Office suite. It says Libre Office technology. Of course then we have to explain what it is about. But if we get to the point of explaining what is about, we have already won. Because we went beyond the wall of saying, oh gosh, it's an office suite, I don't mind. As long as it's right in document, I can use it. Which is the superficial approach of the majority of users. So if we have to explain, because we call it Libre Office technology, we have just won the attention of the person. We may have not won the person but at least we will inform me that there is something different from an office suite that is thrown in the market without any soul again behind. And of course when I say all this, please consider that we are not, we don't have to communicate to the community. We respect the community, we love the community, we talk with the community, we discuss with the community, we fight with the community. Perfect. We communicate to users. We don't communicate. Communicating with us, it's easy. We have mailing list, telegram groups, metrics groups. We are not the objective of our communication. The objective of our communication are the users. This is the reason why I really invite you warmly if you make a presentation to add that logo somewhere. And try to create some mystery around the logo so that people can ask you but why you talk about technology. All the others will talk about the shiny new features of their software. While we will tell them you can count on our software because it's a technology, it's different, it's independent, it's not made to be similar to any other software. Then of course we provide features which are the same and those features are similar. If you print, you print. We do not do printing in a weird way. But we are different because we have something different to tell people. And of course if you look at the brand Iceberg, we know things that the user doesn't know. For the user, the product is a name and a logo. They launch LibreOffice in the morning, they see the LibreOffice logo and in some cases they even understand that it is a different product. Because I've seen people using LibreOffice, launching LibreOffice and saying, I'm using OpenOffice. OK, where you did see Open in our splash screen. Or in other cases they say this is Microsoft Office. No, where is the Microsoft Office logo on our splash screen? So, users are... In many cases they don't really look at the software. They don't really look at the tool that they use because in many cases and again I will repeat the example of my wife. We have been married for 39 years so you can understand that after 39 years I have... My wife for me is the top person in the world, sorry for all of you, but my wife comes first. OK. And my wife has the user attitude. Two days ago she called me and she said that I've launched Microsoft Office and it doesn't work. The reality is that she launched Office 365 that the company she is working for had installed from remote on her computer and she didn't even realize that the splash screen was different that she was writing a document on a cloud instead of writing on the desktop. And she was complaining because she was trying, of course, to call documents on the desktop but because they wanted her to save everything on the server they had disabled the possibility of saving on her desktop. And of course calling from another country it was difficult, I said call the support and the support told her you can't save on your desktop anymore. And she said oh so it's not the software as before, she said no. It's another software and as I said my wife for me is a very smart person but she is a normal user of software so she doesn't give a damn about software exactly exactly and of course I've not added sovereignty which is another strong point of LibreOffice because I think we have so many messages that we can give we believe we have a relationship with LibreOffice that is not the same relationship of the users so don't expect a user to see LibreOffice how we see it expect a user to ask extremely stupid questions about the software and we have just to appreciate the fact that they are using a software in some cases they hate the software because they would prefer to use a pen and a piece of paper that's the world and I think really help we should help everyone by underlying the fact that we are a diverse project we provide a different software to people that want to be slightly different from the majority you remember you may remember it's a proprietary example but you probably remember when Steve Jobs was back at Apple in mid 90s he made the advertising for the full people so he made an advertising where it was not showing users but it was showing different people there was Einstein in the advertising there was Marie Curie there were people that are different and he said Apple is for different people so do something similar LibreOffice is for people that want to be different and I think that that niche is big enough for us to increase the number of users to increase the number of companies that want to be different of course if you want to be different there is a price on the difference and you have to make some effort otherwise go to the wonderful world this of course is not an invitation for you but for the people outside this building and have fun if possible I don't think they will have fun while with LibreOffice they may have a lot of fun especially if they understand the value of the community behind the product if they understand that when they receive an email is someone that is really caring for the product is not someone that is just providing an answer because it is paid to give the answer we are passionate we try to help the users because we want them to like and love LibreOffice and this makes us different so thank you for listening sorry for going a little bit over in term of time of course thank you again for the people that have supported this conference and now I will just switch presentation because


Gunmen have killed three police men on duty in Onitsha, Anambra State. The incident happened around 9 a.m. on the Ukebu Eze Ikeka Road in Onitsha. Two other cops were injured during the shooting incident at a security post mounted by the police operatives. The operation vehicle of the cops was also set ablaze. A bystander said the gunmen may have been angered by the alleged extortion by the operatives at the security post. When contacted, the state police public relations officer Ikenga Tochiku confirmed the incident.


Hello everyone, my name is Savannah Peterson, coming to you live from the Kim Kahn show floor on theCUBE here in Detroit, Michigan. The energy is pulsing. Big event for the CloudNative Foundation, and I'm joined by John Furrier on my left. John, hello. Great to have you on theCUBE. Thanks for being our new host. You look great. Great segment coming up. I'm looking forward to this, Savannah. This is a great segment. A CUBE alumni, an OG in the CloudNative world, or Clouderati, as I call it. Been there, done that. A lot of respect. A lot of doing some really amazing. I call it the super cloud, all the grail, but we'll see. Your favorite word. We'll see your word. It's a really strong segment. Looking forward to hearing from this guest. Yes, I am very excited, and I'm going to let him tee it up a little bit, but our guest and his project were actually mentioned in the opening keynote this morning, which is very, very exciting. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Bassam Tabara. Bassam, thanks for being here with us. Okay, so good to be back here on the show, and this exciting energy around us, so super awesome to be here. Yeah, it feels great. So let's start with the opening keynote. Did you know you were going to get that shout out? No, not at all. It was really cool to see. I think Cruz was up there talking about how they were building their own platform for autonomous cars and what's running behind it, and they mentioned all these projects, and we were like, wow, that sounds super familiar, and then they said, okay, we're cross-plane, they mentioned cross-plane, they mentioned upbound, they mentioned the work that we're doing here in this space to help folks effectively run their own layer on top of cloud computing, and then- Bassam, we've known each other- We're going to do a bingo super cloud, so how many times is this super cloud, so- Super cloud is super services, super apps around it, so you enable a lot of great things. Brian Grace had a great podcast this week on super services, so it's super exciting. It's a super great time on theCUBE. Wow, that's a super cloud conversation. All seriously now, we've known each other for a long time, you've been to every KubeCon, you've been at OpalSource, you've seen where it's been, where it is now. Super exciting that in mainstream conversations, we're talking about super cloud and distractions and around interoperability, things that were once really hard to do, even back in the OpalStack days, now we're at a prime time spot where the control plane, the data planes are in play as a viable architectural component of all the biggest conversations. You're in the middle of it, what's your take on it? Give some perspective of why this is so important. I mean, look, the key here is to standardize, right? Get to standardization, right? And what we saw like early days of cloud native, it was mostly around Kubernetes, but it was Kubernetes as a, you know, essentially a container orchestrator, the container of wars, Docker, Masos, et cetera, and then Kubernetes emerged as a, the winner in containers, right? But containers is a workload, one kind of workload. It's, I run containers on it, not everything's containers, right? And the, you know, what we're seeing now is the Kubernetes API is emerging as a way to standardize on literally everything in cloud, not just containers, but, you know, VMs, serverless, Lambda, et cetera, storage, databases, all using a common approach, a common API layer, a common way to do access control, a common way to do policy, all built around open source projects and, you know, the cloud data of ecosystem that you were seeing around here. And that's exciting, because for the first time we're arriving at some kind of standardization. Every major inflection point has this de facto standard evolution, then it becomes kind of commonplace, great Agria Kubernetes. The question I wanted to ask you is, what's the impact to the DevOps community? DevSecOps has absolutely dominated the playbook, if you will. Developers, we're saying, will run companies because they'll be running the applications. IT's not a department anymore, it is the business. If you believe the digital transformation finds its final conclusion, which it will, at some point. So more developers doing more apps, more stuff. Look, if you, I'd be hard pressed to find somebody that has a title of DevOps or SRE that can't at least spell Kubernetes if not running in production, right? And so, from that perspective, I think this is a welcome change. Standardize on something that's already familiar to everyone is actually really powerful. They don't have to go, okay, we learned Kubernetes, now you guys are taking us down a different path of standardization or something else has emerged. It's the same thing. It's like, we have eight years now of cloud native, roughly, and people in the DevOps space welcome a change where there are basically standardizing in things that are working, right? They're actually working, right? And that could be used in more use cases, in more scenarios, that they're actually, become versatile, they become ubiquitous as well. Take a minute to just explain what you guys are selling and doing, what's the product? What's the traction? Why are people using you? What's the big, big position? Value statement, you guys. Yeah, so my company's called UpBound and we're the folks behind the Crossplane project. And Crossplane is effective, takes Kubernetes and extends it to beyond containers and to managing everything in cloud, right? So if you think about that, if you love the model where you're like, I go to Kubernetes cluster and I tell it to run a bunch of containers and it does it for me and I walk away, you can do that for the rest of the surface area of cloud, including your VMs and your storage and across cloud vendors, hybrid models, all of it works in a consistent standardized way, you know, using Crossplane, right? And UpBound's- What do you solve in a, what do you solve in a, or eliminate what happens, why does this work?  I think we're layering on top of things that people have, right? So you'll see people are organized differently. We see a common pattern now where they're shared services teams or platform teams as you hear within enterprises that are responsible for basically managing infrastructure and offering a self-service experience to developers, right? Those teams are all about standardization. They're all about creating things that help them reduce the toil, manage things in a common way and then offer self-service abstractions to their developers and customers so they don't have to be in the middle of every request. Things can go faster. We're seeing a pattern now where these teams are standardizing on the Kubernetes API and standardizing on Crossplane and standardizing on things that make their life easier, right? They don't have to replace what they're doing. They just have to layer and use it. And layer is probably an opening for you. That makes it sound more complex, I think, than what you're actually trying to do. I mean, you as a company are all about velocity as an ethos, which I think is great. Do you think that standardization is the key in increasing velocity for teams, leveraging both Crossplane, Kubernetes, anyone here? Look, I mean, everybody's trying to achieve the same thing. Everybody wants to go faster. They want to innovate faster. They don't want tech to be the friction to innovation, right? They want to go from feature to production in minutes, right? And so to that extent, standardization is a way to achieve that. It's not the only way to achieve that. It's means to achieve that. And if you've standardized, that means that less people are involved. You can automate more. You can centralize. And by doing that, that means you can innovate faster. And if you don't innovate these days, you're in trouble. You're out of business. Do you think that, so Kubernetes has a bit of a reputation for complexity. You're obviously creating a tool that makes things easier. As you apply Kubernetes outside just an orchestration and container environment, do you, what do you see those advantages being across the spectrum of tools that people are leveraging you for? Yeah. I mean, look, Kubernetes is a platform, right? To build other things on top of. And as a result, it's something that's used to, kind of on the back end. Like you would never, you should put something in front of Kubernetes as an application model or consumption interface or portals or, right? To give to your teams. But you should still capture all your policies, you know, automation and compliance, governance at the Kubernetes layer, right? At the, or with cross pane at that layer as well, right? And so, if you follow that model, you can get the best of world.  But you can expose something that's a dev-friendly experience on top of it as well. So you get the best of both worlds. So the problem with infrastructure as code you're saying is that it's not this new layer to go cross environments. No, infrastructure as code works slightly differently.  The problem with it is that everybody has to learn a specific language or has to work with understanding the constructs. There's the beauty of the Kubernetes based approach and the cross pane best approach is that it puts APIs first, right? It's basically saying, look, kind of like the API mandate that led to AWS being created, right? Teams should interact with APIs. They're super strong contracts, right? They're versionable. And if you do that, and that's kind of the power of this approach, then you can actually reach a really high level of automation and a really high level of innovation. And this also just to bring in the clouds here, but this might bring up the idea that common services create interoperability, but yet the hyperscale clouds can still differentiate on value. Baster processors of its silicon to better functions if lambda, right? So there's still, it's not killing innovation. It is not. And in fact, I, you know, this idea of building something that looks like a lowest common denominator across clouds, we don't actually see that in practice, right? People want to use the best services available to them because they don't have time to go, you know, build portability layers and everything else, but they still, even in that model, they want to standardize on how to call these services, how to set policy on them, how to set access control, how to actually invoke them. If you can standardize on that, you can still, you get to use these services and you get the benefits of standardization. Well, Savannah, we were talking about this, about the Berkeley paper that came out in May, which is kind of a super cloud version. They call sky computing. Their argument is that if you try to standardize too much, like the old kind of OSI model back in the day, you're actually going to, the work innovation is going to stunt the growth. Do you agree with that? And how do you see it? Because standardization is not so much ASPEC and ITEF thing, it's not an IEEE committee. It's not like that kind of standard. It's more of de facto.  Like, you know, if you look at MySQL, for example, and the Postgres movement, like there are now lots of vendors that offer interfaces that support Postgres, even though they're differentiated completely on how it's implemented, so you see that. If you can, stick to open interfaces and use services that offer them, like tons of differentiation, yet still, you know, some kind of open interface, if you will. But there are also differentiated services that don't have open interfaces, and that's okay too. As long as you're able to kind of find a way to manage them in a consistent way, I think you should, and it makes sense to your business, you should use them. So enterprises like this. And just not to get into the business model side real quick, but like, how are you guys making money? You got the project, you got the cross-plane project, that's community. You guys are charging, what's the business model? We're in the business of helping people adopt and run control plans that do all this manage services, and customer support and services. The plethora of things that people need, we're- While keeping the project. While keeping the project. Correct. That's correct. Yeah, you have to balance both.  I mean, outside of the keynote mention, looking here, you have four events on, where can people find you if they're tuning in? We're just at the beginning, and there's a lot of looks here. Upbound.io is the place to find Upbound, and where I have a lot of talks, you'll see cross-plane mention and lots of talks and a number of talks today. We have a happy hour later today, we've got the booth set up, so. I'll be there, folks, just FYI. Thank you. And everyone will be there now. Quick update, what's new with the cross-plane project? Can you share a little commercial with the most important stories going on there? So cross-plane is growing, obviously, and we're seeing a ton of adoption of cross-plane, especially actually in large enterprise, which is really exciting, because they're usually the slow to move, and cross-plane is so central. So it's now in hundreds and thousands of deployments, which is amazing to see. And so the project itself is adding a ton of features, reducing friction in terms of adoption, how people ride these control planes and all through them, coverage of the space, as you know, controls are only useful when you connect them to things, and the spaces, like the amount of things you can connect control planes to is increasing on a day-to-day basis, and the maturity is increasing. So it's just super exciting to see all of this right now. How would you categorize the landscape? We were just talking earlier in another segment, we're in Detroit, Motor City, it's like, did you see someone had to drive a car? Kubernetes clusters, okay, switch the gears, like, don't hit the other guy, now once they learn how to drive, they want a sports car. How do you keep that progression going? How do you keep people to grow continuously? Where do you see the DevOps and or folks that are doing cross-plane, that are API, hardcore, because that's a good IQ that shows them that they're advancing. Where's the IQ level of advancement relative to the industry? Is the adoption just like, you know, getting going or people advancing? Sounds like your customers are heavily down the road on. The way I describe it is there's a progression happening, right, DevOps was make, initially it was like, how do I keep things running? Right, and a transition to how do I automate things so that I don't have to be involved when things are running, right? Now we're seeing a next turn, which is how do I build what looks like a product that offers shared services or a platform so that people consume it like a product, right? And now I'm, now transition becomes, well, I'm a developer on a product in operations, building something that looks like a product and thinking about it as a user interface. Ops of the new devs. That's correct. Yeah, there we go. Talk about layers. Talk about layers on layers on layers. I'm using it all, John. Well, you know, when they have the architecture lists product that's coming. Yeah, but this is what's, I mean, the devs are got so much DevOps in the front and the CI CD pipeline, the Ops teams are now retrofitting themselves to be data and security, mainly. And that's just guardrails, automation, policy. You're seeing a lot of that kind of network-like function. Yep. And they're composing, not, maybe coding a little bit, but they're not. Very much. They're in the composition, you know, as a daily thing. They're writing compositions, they're building things, they're putting them together and making them work. How new is this in your mind? Because you've watched this progress. You're in the middle of it. You're in the front wave of this. Is it adopting faster now than ever before? I mean, if we talked, five years ago, we were kind of saying this might happen, but it wasn't happening. Today it is. It's kind of amazing. Like everybody's writing these cloud services now. Everybody's authoring things that look like API services that do things on top of a new structure. That move very much has a ton of momentum right now. It's happening, it's becoming mainstream. Speaking of momentum for some, I saw both on your LinkedIn as well as on your badge today that you are hiring. This is your opportunity to shamelessly plug. What are you looking for? What can people expect in terms of your company culture? Yeah, so we're obviously hiring. We're hiring both on the go-to-market side or we're hiring on the product and engineering side. If you want to build a new cloud platform, I won't say the word super cloud again, but if you're excited about building a cloud platform that literally sits on top of the other cloud platforms and offers services on top of this, come talk to us. We're building something amazing. You're creating a super cloud toolkit. I'll say it. On that note, I think John Furrier has now managed to get seven uses of the word super cloud into this broadcast. Thank you so much for joining us today. It's been a pleasure. I can't wait to see more of you throughout the course of KubeCon. My name is Savannah Peterson, everyone, and thank you so much for joining us here on theCUBE where we'll be live from Detroit, Michigan all week.


so that we at least one see each other today. So end of the coffee break, please come back early. And people online, please switch on your camera. So our next speaker is André Benassi, who is coming to us from the real world, where scientific excellence supports economic growth directly, hopefully. And he will talk about powders in pharmaceutical industry. Hopefully. So thank you, Roland. And of course, a great thanks to the organizers for inviting me here and from time to time being able to share my results with you. And yeah, today I want to show you some experimental results we measured recently about a couple of different topics that I can manage. No? Use the pointer. No? OK, so let me use the mouse. So about a couple of topics, both of them related to powder mechanics. And so we're talking about mesoscale sliding and mesoscale dissipation phenomena. We are talking about from few to many hundred micron size particles. And I hope to convince you that in this powder mechanics, we still see some open issue, which is from one side is preventing us from reaching a complete understanding and predictivity and predictive model helping us in our daily activity of designing processes and products. But on the other side, there is still some fun to play because we believe there is still some basic mechanics to be unraveled. And the first topic has to do with the study, the behavior of the shearing behavior of confined powders. Why we're interested in these kind of things in our work, we typically have to design the different, say, geometrical or mechanical objects like uppers, silos, funnels, dosator, steering system, which means objects that are confining a powder in a given geometry and they are supposed to let it flow in a certain way, or objects that are moving inside the powder. And so you have to avoid phenomena like you see in the upper right corner, clogging phenomena, funnels, or you have to prevent this buildup formation in the mobile part that are moving in the powder. And to do this, there are a lot of, let's say, empirical engineering receipts. And the Schünze book, it's quoted up there, is a sort of Bible in this field. But all these techniques start from the bottom line that you are supposed to know or to be able to measure the so-called yield locus of a powder, which is nothing but a friction force versus load plot. Pretty much like you have seen also in many presentations you can obtain with a confined lubricant under shear or even just sliding a solid object on a substrate. So what we do, we confine our powder bed in gray up there with applying a normal sigma stress. And then we let the slider move and we record the tau force, the shear stress, which the powder is exerting to resist the motion. At some point, the powder will no longer able to resist. And so there will be the nucleation of a shear band in the middle of the powder bed and the upper part, which we slide. And so we call this the tau max value, which is the equivalent of the friction force. And if we plot friction force versus sigma, we all know we have to expect this straight line behavior, whose slope you call the friction coefficient in the community of powders. This is called the angle of internal friction. And the complication of powders compared to liquids or solids is that the powders retain memory of the way you have prepared them, of the way you prepare the sample and the way you have treated the powder before making the measurement. So if you just put a powder in a container, you will end up having what we call the weak consolidation state, which is basically a situation where there is no large number of coordination for the particles. There is not such a big packing. The powder incorporates a lot of air. And in this condition, the powder can offer a certain resistance to friction.  Or if you have a powder, typically shaking it's not enough, so you have to apply a vertical compression to condition the powder to a certain consolidation state. And then, of course, you can perform your measurements. And so for a powder, it's not enough to characterize the sliding behavior. It's not enough to measure a single curve, but we have to measure a family of curves, depending on the pre-consolidation state in which we prepare the sample. How this is done in practice, it is not, of course, a one-dimensional slider. But in practice, we have on the left corner, we have this movie showing this shear cell, which is nothing but a cylindrical couvet that we fill with powder. You see it in the bottom of the movie. And then we have a piston, which is pushing the powder vertically. And then we can rotate it at constant velocity. You don't see the rotation because we are talking about few degrees per minute, so I should have accelerated the movie to let you see it by naked eye. And so what we do, we pour the powder in green up there. We then apply vertical load to pre-consolidate the powder to a given state. And then we start rotating at constant velocity. And we measure both the normal load that we are supposed to apply, and also the resistance torque that the powder is exerting to the rotation. Up to the point, of course, where we have the shear band formation. And so we record the tau max value, the frictional force for the powder to slide. It's important to mention that below the piston, the surface is not flat, but we have a few millimeter thick blades. Because when we push the piston, it has to grip the powder so we can make sure that the shear band is generated inside the powder bed and not between the powder bed and the smooth steel piston. We can also do something better. We can keep recording sigma and tau, even after the instrument gave us the value of tau max. And so we can keep recording in time what is going on. And we discovered that in most of our sample, we see a sort of stick slip behavior, a SO2 profile. Because basically, initially, the powder cylinder will deform elastically, like a rigid body, after the creation of the shear band, the upper part will slide forward. But then the energy in the shear band is dissipated. The shear band disappear. And so again, for a moment, the powder bed will deform elastically up to the next shear band formation. So we have this SO2 profile that we will analyze in a couple of slides. One slide about the motivation and the kind of powder we are using and what we want to do. The point is that these real world commercial pharmaceutical powders, they come in a very disordered condition. So they are not ideal monodisperse powder. And at least we can define three main variable to characterize the powder. One is indeed what we call the DV50, so the average, the median particle diameter. And we have many samples tested in this work. We concentrated on a single material, lactose. And all the data are in that paper down there by Giulio Cavalli et al. So we analyzed very different commercially available powder from a few micron in average diameter up to many hundreds, 350, 400 micron particle size. But typically, the average particle size is not enough. All these powder are very polydispersed. And we can measure this polydispersion. You see some curve there. You can regard this log normal distribution really as a probability distribution function to have a certain diameter in your powder. And so you see typically the DV50 coincides with the central peak, but then there is a certain dispersion around this average value. And plus, maybe you can find different powders having roughly the same particle characteristics, but they can have a very different shape. So some lactose powder, they come from crystallization. So they come down in the form of a single crystal with this tomahawk shape that you find in the second row. Then we can fuse together the tomahawk and we can create very irregular particles that you see in the third row. Or you can use spray drying or other particle engineering techniques. You can dry up lactose, which is initially in solution in a droplet. So as a result, the particle will be perfectly spherical, like the initial droplet. It's very spherical, but it could be porous and a little bit rough on the surface. And lastly, you can even mesh this powder particle and create very, very small fragments, a few micron size, so very irregular, very small fragments. So the point is, every time that we try one of these new powders in our plants, we should measure not one, but many different curves. And these experiments are time-consuming, so we ask ourselves, is it possible in principle to measure maybe the characteristics for all these powders, the heat locus for all these powders, but then finding an analytical expression to fit simultaneously all these equations with some fitting parameter inside, which, of course, we expect to depend on the size of the particle, a shape factor, and maybe about the point dispersion factor. So we started and we did it. And we performed many different heat locus plot at different pre-consolidation states. And we found that out of 10 different possible equation more or less found in literature, only two of them are able to fit simultaneously all the data for all the lactoses and for all the different pre-consolidation states. And those are the two shown in the right side. And there are two main fitting coefficients here, C and T. And the first surprise, which is something I'll explain, one of these open issues that I'm discussing with you, hoping to puzzle you and to have some answer or some possible joint collaboration to understand it, is that this coefficient, they don't depend at all on the shape of the particle. They depend mostly on the average particle size distribution, very, very weakly on the amplitude of the dispersion of the particle size distribution. So they depend mainly on the dv50. And this is an open point. In principle, we have our now predictive equation. So if I buy a new lactose and I measure the dv50 with that equation, I can predict the shape of the heat locus plot. And in principle, we could be happy. But we are also curious. And so as a funny game, we also had a look to the stick slip that we record after the first slip event in the shear set. And my first point is, is it really a stick slip? My first concern was, is it really a stick slip? Maybe is it an artifact of the shear set instrument? And so what I did, I compared the characteristics of the SO2 profile with the prescription by Thomas Somm model or Franklin Contrava model. And this model, they basically tell you that the shear force and the normal force in standard condition, they should oscillate perfectly in phase. And this is shown in the first plot for one of our samples in the blue and red curve. You see normal lateral force that are oscillating in phase. The model prescribed that if you unload the sample, the slider, the amplitude of the stick slip should decrease. And this is shown in the bottom left panel where you see moving from blue to pink curve. We are unloading the sample and the amplitude is decreasing. And also another prescription is that if you start sliding faster and faster, basically initially you have a SO2 profile which is very asymmetric, maybe triangular shape. But then it becomes more, let's say, more symmetric, more sinusoidal-like. And this is what we see in the other bottom panel where you see in blue a typical triangular SO2 profile at very low velocity. What is it, 8 degrees per minute. And when we go to 18 degrees per minute, you will see the stick slip becomes more sinusoidal. Now again, another kind of surprise, which is it seems to be a stick slip, but what is the stick length? There is somebody which is not on mute. Is it me? No. And now it's fine. So what is the characteristic slip length? And is there in principle that there should be or not the characteristic length? Because this is not a one-dimensional sliding system. We have a rotating system, and if you think what the particle are doing during rotation, they move along an arch length which is a different length depending on how far you are from the main rotational axis. So in principle, particles are displacing during slip at totally different lengths. So why there should be a characteristic length? This is still not clear to me, but indeed, it is there. Because if you look in the upper right corner, you see one blue cube, which is a stick slip, has a function of the length now, that the arch length that the piston is drawing. In blue is for our courses particles. So for our courses, in powder, we have 350 micron particle size. And in the yellow case, we have the smallest particle size, a few micron particle size. In both cases, stick slip is there. I would have expected to see it more irregular. And instead, it's very, very regular. And there is some characteristic length, which is in principle dependent on the particle size because it's smaller in the yellow case and larger in the blue case. But it's difficult for us to have a predictive, let's say, model which is allowing us to understand and to predict which is this characteristic size. And then we also measured the slip time and the stick time. And again, there is not a surprise. The slip time does not depend at all, neither on the particle size nor on the particle shape. You see the scale, it's very small. So it seems a scattered plot, but it's 0.2 or 0.8. So it's roughly constant, and it does not depend on anything. Whereas the stick time has a linear increase, which is, again, OK, with Tomlinson because you can imagine that if you have a larger particle, the washboard potential in Tomlinson is deeper. And so it takes longer time to the pin from a minimum. But then at some point, it seems to go to a plateau. Here, the data are very scattered. So it's just a suggestion, which is definitely something we have to investigate more. And again, also for this point, we don't have a very deep explanation. So it would be nice maybe to investigate these things with molecular dynamics or with discrete element modeling, where you can also introduce a shape for the particle, which are not pointy object, but they can become, let's say, more irregular particles, or maybe, experimentally, scaling up the problem using a larger particle like silica beads. Which you can buy in very narrow distribution so you can combine them. And you can create your, let's say, model powder, where you can continuously modify the dispersion and particle size and whatever. And this is basically the first topic. Second point I want to discuss with you is a second application is about breaking particles. So for many of our application, we need to smash the particle into smaller fragments. One reason out of many is, for instance, in our product for inhalation, we ask patient to inhale a dry powder and few milligram, and this powder particle are supposed to deliver the active principle into the alveoli, which is the terminal part of the human lungs. But human lungs works as a filter for particle, and so the only way for particle to escape this filtering action is to be in the range between one and three, one and five micron. So typically we buy powder that are coarser or we synthesize our own powder that comes with particle size determined by the thermodynamic of the reaction and we cannot control it specifically. And so we have to break them into smaller fragments. This is done in pharmaceutical application in jet mills, which is the object you see up there, side view and top view, and basically a jet mill is a sort of another chamber, 10 to 30 centimeter in size, depending on the plant. There are some lateral nozzles here, here and here, where you basically inflate a high-speed gas like nitrogen or dry air, and it's a supersonic object because mach inside it's 1.5 up to two. The outlet for the gases in the central part is the central tube you see there. So we create a vortex of supersonic gas, which is rotating, and when you put the powder in, the powder is entrained in this vortex and it starts to rotate, and the centrifugal force is pushing the particle to the peripheral wall chambers of the wall, and here is where the particle is supposed to have a lot of collisions and break into fragments. When the fragments are small enough, the drag force exerted by the gas moving out overcome the centrifugal force and then the particle are able to rotate towards the center via spiral trajectories, and finally they are collected in the outlet pipe. So this is the way we classify only very, very fine fragments. And you see down here the characteristic experiment we can do, we put in the mill a powder which is characterized by the black line, the starting material, so the powder with a very big poly dispersion and 10 to 11 micron in size as an average diameter, and after milling, if we measure it, you see that the particle size distribution is less shifted and now the dv50 is around, so the average particle diameter is around two, three microns, and it's also sharper, so it's less poly dispersed. And so this is a good outcome of the jet wing. You see many curbs here because one of the parameters we can play with this kind of process is the pressure of the gas. So in principle, the stronger the pressure, the faster the gas, more violent the collisions, and you could, in principle, left shift a little bit more the particle size distribution. Now, this material, this movie, by the way, come from some simulation we did that are published in that paper down here. It was a first attempt for us to build up a predictive model for this operation. And we need a predictive model because the powder that we are milling are very expensive from 60 to 80,000 euro per kilogram, and they come from the synthesis reactor in few kilograms. So if you use trial and error procedure to set up this process, we consume alpha kilo, which is, you understand, very, very embarrassing and definitely not convenient, so the idea would be to have a predictive tool. Simulation are too complex because we have supersonic fluid, compressible fluid, all the particle mechanics that you have to put in the equation, it's very messy, so it was a first attempt. Our second attempt was, let's try to make an empirical connection. So let's measure something on the single particle, some mechanical properties of the single particle, doing indentation, classical indentation experiment that people interested in fracture mechanics they know very well. And then let's try to make a connection between the microscopic properties we measure on single particle and the behavior of the powder during milling. So what we do typically, we glue a single powder particle on a glass sample holder and then we put it under a micro-indenter with a tip, which is basically many micro-large insides, much, much bigger than an AFM tip. We control the vertical load Pmax, you see in blue up there, and we push it down, and during the approach and retraction, we measure of course, the force versus penetration fluid. And we can also then we have a tabletop AFM besides and we can image the footprint of the indentation just after the indentation. And you see an example here. So you see it's a very few micro-wide indentation footprint and we can also measure the crack length, which is an important element. There are cracks that are departing from the edges of the footprint. Here there is also one which is crossing the whole footprint, which should not be there, but sometimes it happens. And with all this quantity, basically with the crack length and the information in the hysteresis loop, we can calculate all these quantities. The hardness, which is of course the normal force divided by the area that you create in the footprint, which is of course, if you know the shape of the indenter, it's proportional to the penetration depth simply. And the hardness is an index telling you how prone is a material to undergo a plastic deformation, whatever kind of plastic deformation. The harder and the more difficult is to to plastically deform a particle. Then there is the Young Modulus, which doesn't need an introduction. Here we calculate it as the slope of the hysteresis loop. Then when you have both of them, and if you measure the crack length C, you can calculate the fracture toughness, which is also a stress, dimensionally speaking. And it's basically the maximum stress that you have to overcome before you have the free irreversible propagation of the crack in your material. So when you overcome that stress, crack propagates freely and they propagate through the whole length of the particle, fragmenting the particle into smaller pieces. So the smaller, the better. It means that we have to apply less stress to the particle to generate fragments. And even more instructive is if you plot H over K, which we call the Brittle's index, because this quantity, when it is very big, particles will be very prone to get fragmented by Brittle, fractured by crack propagation, because Kc means it's very small, so B goes up. On the contrary, when B is very small, this could be because Kc is huge, so you need a huge stress in your particle to initiate the crack propagation, so that particle is not prone to break by Brittle fracture, or even because H is still small, so the material is prone to deform, but not by Brittle fracture, which means that it can only deform by ductile deformation. So again, we would like to have large B for our material in our jet means. Final quantity that you can calculate with a bit of modeling and assumption underneath is the so-called critical size, which is basically the smallest size of a sample or a particle that you can obtain before you see the ductile to Brittle transition.  So this is basically a lower limit for us because this is for us the smallest fragment attainable in a jet wheel. If you keep milling a particle with size equal to DC, it will plastically deform on the surface, so it will become like the moon with a lot of craters on top. Maybe some material will amorphize on the surface, but you will never succeed in breaking it into smaller pieces. So we calculated all these quantities for some compound of interest for us, like again lactose, tartaric acid, sodium chloride, and you see compound ABC, that these are compound of our synthesis that don't still have a name, and we table all this parameter and then we put the same sample in a jet mill and we perform some milling trial. You see in black, in every plot you see in black the starting material particle size distribution and correspondingly in colored curve you see the left shifted distribution after milling. And you see for instance for compound B and C it's very, very easy to perform milling. Very easily, no matter what pressure you apply the distribution immediately left shift and you have very narrow and very small particle size but other material like sodium chloride or tartaric acid are much harder and even if you push the pressure up to the maximum value you do not succeed. So we wanted to see is it possible to link the two aspects and basically we found that the quantity which is correlating best with the experiment is the Brittenek's index. And here you see the correlation of Brittenek's index with the DV9. The DV9 is basically the ninth percentile of this distribution. So the diameter below which lie 90% of the area of your when you integrate the distribution. So if you want it's proportional to where the right shoulder of the distribution sits. And you see here when you increase the Brittenek's index it's easier to shift the distribution to the left. So it's easier to obtain smaller fragments. Of course to have fully predicted theory we would like also to predict where the right shoulder of the peak, sorry where the left shoulder of the peak is. So the smallest fragment attainable will lie. So that basically would be nice now when we have a new material we do some indentation test, we measure B and from those fitting black lines that you see there we can predict what to expect in the million properties. And this is a problem because if we want now to look which is the smallest fragment size using the equation I showed you before this DC equation it fails completely. And you see the value of DC calculated for the different material are the colored dots and the experimental finding is the continuous bottom line the dot dashed line. So in all the experimental sample we see particle fragments up to 0.2 microns and this is in agreement with the theory for compound B and C but for all the other compounds the theory would predict one or two orders of magnitude overestimation of the particle size. God knows why. We are not the only one reporting this failure there are some speculation literature and one possibility is that to calculate this equation to calculate DC you do a lot of assumption on which kind of crack mode is propagating and how it propagates beneath the indenter tip which is maybe not so controlled condition when you have this fast particle that are cracking in the jet mill. So it's a very dynamical situation and not a quasi static control crack. And as far as we know, there is no theory which is basically helping us in this task. And yeah, more or less I think this is all we also define the sorry, a grand ability index which is just a way of classifying all the powders in terms of how easy will be to mill them and all the material except Atari cases they are perfectly linearly aligned on the fitting function which is also a nice result. But yeah, that's more or less it, thank you. Indeed, a truly industrial talk where we have compound A, B and C and are not supposed to know what it is. Good for physics, bad for material science. I don't know either. I got them from our chemist and I don't wanna know anything. I just look at the particle under the microscope. Thank you Andrea, I wanted to ask after milling you got this side distribution which becomes left shifted which is intuitive let's say but also I've seen a second peak which maybe is not so intuitive. This is very interesting and the point is why you need some simulation typically because this is a very non-linear phenomena and basically I told you before the moment where the particle are classified out of the mill it depends on the balance between centrifugal force and the drag force, okay? But the drag force depend on how fast is the fluid, okay? And then there is this feedback because if you are not milling efficiently and you are keeping putting powder in you increase the amount of powder you will slow down the fluid so even the drag force and the centrifugal force will change the balance and so you will end up putting more or less particle out. So there is an indirect feedback which makes the thing complicated. And for instance in the upper part there you see PD dispersion or whatever it is that you put powder in and this you can do continuously in a plant you cannot do it stop and go it's a continuous flow in a large industrial plant and put the powder in and the powder is very hard so it accumulates a lot of material inside the mill the mill velocity, the gas velocity is reduced and then all the milled puke out all the powder with the same size it was entering in. Then after puking the mill becomes empty and it becomes again faster and faster so part of the material which was not puk is finally milling in the correct way and this is why we have these alternations sometimes it pukes big material some other cases it works correctly and it's an intermittent behavior. Question here? I have a question about the stick slip which you observed maybe you have actually melting of the system and that happens for example in breaks when you have a break squeal so basically the system heats up or you have probably waves propagating through your system and they act as temperature and they melt this system and then it shears easier and then the energy is dissipated there is no more waves to be generated and propagate and then it freezes back and this would create also such a... It's very very gentle mechanical motion we don't even touch the powder or measure in temperature we don't see any change in temperature It's just waves propagating back and forth when they heat particles they generate waves, oscillations, vibrations which propagate through your system not temperature but... It's difficult to verify anything because if you look at the powder closely it's just white even if we have a fast camera I try for instance to measure the amplitude of the shear band because also literally I found anything concerning how big is the shear band and how does it depend on the particle size as well I try to put some black powder and to use it as a marker and see if I was able to see something I'm sort of... No, no, go ahead but I'm just wondering probably John can talk for two hours about crack propagation and small particles I'm not going to just a quick comment because it's really nice work, thank you the kinetic energy of the particles arriving at the surface or anywhere where the impact is going to be important just a quick question for you the torsion measurements you make of course have different strain rates have you tried varying the radius of the torsion test or is that just too much? You mean in the shear cell experiment? What do you mean? We use the standard cuvette from the instrument but it could be nice to... We can manufacture our own one and the instrument is very easy Good suggestion Okay, let us thank Andrew again for sharing these results with us and the ideas how to move on