text:
The Man Who Stole the Sun

The Man Who Stole the Sun (太陽を盗んだ男) is a 1979 Japanese thriller film, directed by Hasegawa Kazuhiko.

Plot
Makoto Kido, a high school science and chemistry teacher, has decided to build his own atomic bomb. Before stealing plutonium isotopes from Tōkai Nuclear Power Plant, he is involved in the botched hijack of one of his school's buses during a field trip. Along with a police detective, Yamashita, he is able to overcome the hijacker and is publicly hailed as a hero.

Meanwhile, Makoto is able to extract enough plutonium from his stolen isotopes to create two bombs—one genuine, the other containing only enough radioactive material to be detectable, but otherwise a fake. He plants the fake bomb in a public lavatory and phones the police and demands that Yamashita take the case. Since Makoto speaks to the police through a voice scrambler, Yamashita is unaware that Makoto is behind the whole thing.

Makoto manages to extort the government into showing baseball games without cutting away for commercials. Flush with success, he follows a suggestion by a radio personality, nicknamed "Zero", to use the real bomb to extort the government into allowing the Rolling Stones to play in Japan (despite being barred from doing so due to Keith Richards being arrested for narcotics possession). The request is soon granted and the band eventually plays in Tokyo.

As Makoto makes his way to the concert with the bomb, Yamashita follows him. Makoto pulls out a gun and forces Yamashita to a rooftop. Makoto reveals that he was the extortionist, and gets into a fight with Yamashita. Eventually the two fall from the roof whilst Makoto holds on to the bomb. He is saved by grabbing on to a power line as Yamashita falls to his death. Still in possession of the bomb, Makoto decides to leave. As he walks away, a ticking sound, then an explosion is heard.

Cast

 * Kenji Sawada as Makoto Kido
 * Bunta Sugawara as Inspector Yamashita
 * Kimiko Ikegami as Zero Sawai
 * Kazuo Kitamura as Tanaka
 * Shigeru Kôyama as Nakayama
 * Kei Satō as Dr. Ichikawa
 * Yūnosuke Itō as Bus Hijacker

Release
The Man Who Stole the Sun was released by Toho on October 6, 1979. The film was released in the United States by Kitty Enterprises on October 10, 1980.

Reception
On its release, the film won the Reader's Choice Award for Best Japanese Film in Kinema Junpo and Best Director, Reader's Choice Award at the (Mainichi Film Concours) and Best Supporting Actor for Bunta Sugawara at the Japanese Academy Awards.

In the Japanese film magazine July 2018 issue of Kinema Junpo a list was made of the Top 1970s Japanese Films voted by 115 people including film critics and directors with The Man Who Stole the Sun being voted at number one.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: The Man Who Stole the Sun


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/checklist (US Air Force Modern 1))

[back to strategy]

This is another benchmark list for US airforce aircraft taken from [here]. It's a list from the USAF website.

Note: do not add to or subtract from this list. As it then loses its value as a benchmark then ( as with the other benchmarks. Another list can be added in the form of another benchmark page for more aircraft.

Mostly, as I did not know how significant the difference between types are- so many are separated. Some have the name included, others did not, though this could be changed easily enough. Also be sure to run a search for the planes name in case an article has already been written under a different name! Also many variants may be talked about in root article for a given airframe.

 * A-10 Thunderbolt II/OA-10 Thunderbolt II
 * AC-130H,AC-130U Gunship
 * B-1B Lancer
 * B-2 Spirit
 * B-52 Stratofortress
 * C-130 Hercules
 * C-141B Starlifter
 * C-17 Globemaster III
 * C-20 Gulfstream III
 * C-21 Learjet
 * C-22B
 * C-32
 * C-37A
 * C-40B/C
 * C-5 Galaxy
 * E-3 Sentry (AWACS)
 * E-4B
 * E-8C Joint Stars
 * EC-130E/EC-130J Commando Solo
 * EC-130H Compass Call
 * F-117A Nighthawk
 * F-15 Eagle
 * F-15E Strike Eagle
 * F-16 Fighting Falcon
 * Global Hawk
 * HC-130P, HC-130N
 * HH-60G Pave Hawk
 * KC-10 Extender
 * KC-135 Stratotanker
 * MC-130E/H Combat Talon I/II
 * MC-130P Combat Shadow
 * MH-53J/M Pave Low
 * OC-135B Open Skies
 * RC-135V/RC-135W Rivet Joint
 * RQ-1/MQ-1 Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
 * T-1A Jayhawk
 * T-37 Tweet
 * T-38 Talon
 * Boeing T-43
 * T-6 Texan II
 * U-2S/TU-2S
 * UH-1N Huey
 * VC-25 - Air Force One
 * WC-130 Hercules


text:
Battle of the Bands

A Battle of the Bands is a music contest or competition in which a number of bands compete for the title of "best band". The winner is determined by a voice vote of the audience or the band who brings the most people to support them. Traditionally, battles of bands are held at live music events and forums. Popular examples include the yearly Live and Unsigned contest in the United Kingdom and the annual SoundWave Music Competition.

Format
A Battle of the Bands is a contest in which many bands, usually rock or metal bands, but often musical acts from a range of different styles, compete for the title of "best band". Its history though goes back to earlier times, at least the 1930s swing era, when big band battles between famous band leaders like Chick Webb, Casa Loma Orchestra, Benny Goodman and Count Basie were regularly organised in big dancehalls, like the Savoy Ballroom. The winner is determined by a panel of judges, the general response of the audience, or a combination. The winning band usually receives a prize in addition to bragging rights. Prizes usually include cash, free recording time in a local recording studio, support or main slot at a local or large gig, a piece of new equipment, or a gift certificate. For instance, the band Phish won a battle of the bands competition in 1989 in their hometown of Burlington, Vermont, and won recording time at a local studio, which they used to record their second album Lawn Boy.

Battles of bands are sometimes held as part of a live music event; they are also commonly held at high schools and universities. The term "Battle of the Bands" is a trademark in Canada, held since 1998 by the Toronto promotions company Supernova Interactive.

Historical events
In the United States one of the oldest rows of a Battle of the Bands talent show has been hosted by the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles, the first time in 1959. The annual contest was meant to showcase teenage musicians and singers, the participants were either independent or associated with high schools and competed in several divisions like school band, vocal group, vocalist and combo. Auditions were being held early in the year, preliminary contests in spring and the finals in the Bowl in the summer. Two later famous musicians that have performed at the Hollywood Bowl Battle were Karen and Richard Carpenter in 1966 (winner in combo and sweepstake).

One of the best-known battle of the bands competitions in the United States was the Rock 'n' Roll Rumble, held by the Boston rock radio station WBCN. The competition was held by the station from 1979 until its closure in 2009, and was then subsequently operated by an independent group. Several winners and participants became nationally popular after appearing in the competition, including Mission of Burma (1979 participant), 'Til Tuesday (1983 winner), The Lemonheads (1988 participant), Letters to Cleo, Morphine, Powerman 5000 (all 1992 participants), The Amazing Royal Crowns (1997 winner) and The Dresden Dolls (2003 winner).

The simultaneous release of albums and singles in 1995 sparked a media-fuelled "Battle of Britpop" between northern England's working-class Oasis and southern England's middle-class Blur. Also in the United Kingdom, the largest annual music contest in a battle of the bands format is Live and Unsigned, which has been operating since 2007. The contest regularly draws 10,000 participants, with the grand prize of a £50,000 recording deal.

In popular culture
A Battle of the Bands event forms the climax of a number of films, including Up in Smoke (1978), Cotton Candy (1978), Freaky Friday (2003), School of Rock (2003), Metal Lords  (2022), Bandslam (2009), Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey (1991) and Blues Brothers 2000 (1998). In the horror thriller film House at the End of the Street (2011), starring Jennifer Lawrence, there are scenes resembling Battle of the Bands.

In the mid-1960s, Battle of the Bands events became popular in Texas. The Catacombs, a popular Houston rock nightclub in what is now the Uptown area of Houston, hosted many well known groups of the era including Grateful Dead, Jethro Tull, The Jeff Beck Group and The Mothers of Invention. Dallas, Austin and San Antonio were also popular venues.

In 1968, California rock band The Turtles released a concept album, The Turtles Present the Battle of the Bands, with the band playing in different styles from psychedelic to surf music to bluegrass.

In the Take That musical Never Forget, the show centres on a tribute band working to win the "Battle of the Tribute Bands".

Third World Games have produced a Battle of the Bands card game, which takes a tongue-in-cheek look at the music business. The object is to recruit members into your band, equip them with instruments, win "gigs" and "hit singles" and earn enough "Superstar Points" to win. The game is also available for play on GameTable Online. There is also a Battle of the Bands video game and TV movie. In the music video game Guitar Hero World Tour and all games that followed, a "battle of the bands" mode is featured as an online gameplay mode.

The "battle of the bands" concept has had a heavy influence on reality television. Shows such as the Idol series and The X Factor borrow the basic concept of a "battle of the bands" except with individual singers instead of whole bands, combining the concept with a serial elimination format. There was a brief American series in the vein, The Next Great American Band, that did use whole bands. The former South African competition Rockspaaider followed a battle of the bands format, where rock-bands from all over the country are given the chance to compete for the title "Rockspaaider" and a recording contract. Along with the introduction of the Afrikaans music channel MK, the competition resulted in the resurgence of the Afrikaans music industry, especially the rise of Afrikaans Rock.

In the comedy film Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey (1991), Bill and Ted's band Wyld Stallyns competes in and wins Battle of the Bands performing "God Gave Rock 'n' Roll to You II". California rock band Primus makes a cameo appearance as rival contestants performing "Tommy the Cat".

In the comedy film Blues Brothers 2000 (1998), The Blues Brothers Band and The Louisiana Gator Boys compete against each other in Battle of the Bands. The Louisiana Gator Boys wins the Battle, and Elwood Blues suggests that the two bands perform together on stage, which they do.

The comedy-drama film Drumline (2002) features a battle of the bands with several historically black collegiate marching bands.

In the comedy film Freaky Friday (2003), Anna Coleman's band Pink Slip enters Battle of the Bands at the House of Blues before they perform at her parents' wedding.

In the comedy film School of Rock (2003), Dewey Finn enters Battle of the Bands with his students. It happens in the musical and television adaptation of the same name.

In the video game Rhythm Heaven (2008), there is a Battle of the Bands gamemode. It is similar to the Rockers mini-game, but with songs from other mini games, except That One Song, which is the Rockers 2 song. Drummer Duel (also from the DS game) serves a similar purpose. The Live feature from Rhythm Tengoku serves as a predecessor to this, as it is similar in concept.

The 2010 comic book adaptation film Scott Pilgrim vs. the World features several Battles of the Bands that culminate in actual physical fights.

In the Australian thriller film Swerve (2011), a battle of the marching bands serves as background to most of the scenes set in the small country town.

In the animated film My Little Pony: Equestria Girls – Rainbow Rocks (2014), a trio of banished sirens from Equestria arrive at Canterlot High School and quickly transform the school's upcoming musical showcase into a Battle of the Bands in order to feed on the negative energy created by pitting groups against each other.

title: Battle of the Bands


text:
Cola wars

The Cola wars are the long-time rivalry between soft drink producers The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo, who have engaged in mutually-targeted marketing campaigns for the direct competition between each company's product lines, especially their flagship colas, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Beginning in the late 1970s and into the 1980s, the competition escalated until it became known as the cola wars.

History
In 1886, John Stith Pemberton, a pharmacist from Atlanta, Georgia, developed the original recipe for Coca-Cola. By 1888, control of the recipe was acquired by Asa Griggs Candler, who in 1896, founded The Coca-Cola Company. Two years later, in 1898, Caleb Bradham renamed his "Brad's Drink" to "Pepsi-Cola," and formed the Pepsi-Cola Company in 1902, prompting the beginning of the cola wars.

The two companies continued to introduce new and contemporary advertising techniques, such as Coke's first celebrity endorsement and 1915 contour bottle, until market instability following World War I forced Pepsi to declare bankruptcy in 1923. In 1931, Pepsi went bankrupt once more, but recovered and began selling its products at an affordable 5 cents per bottle, reigniting the cola wars through to today. Pepsi offered to sell out to Coca-Cola following both of its bankruptcies during this time, but Coca-Cola declined each time.

Coca-Cola
Coca-Cola advertising has historically focused on wholesomeness and nostalgia. Coca-Cola advertising is often characterized as "family-friendly" and often relies on "cute" characters (e.g., the Coca-Cola polar bears mascot and Santa Claus around Christmas).

"New Coke"
During the peak of the cola wars, as Coca-Cola saw its flagship product losing market share to Pepsi as well as to Diet Coke and competitors' products, the company considered a change to the beverage's formula and flavor. In April 1985, The Coca-Cola Company introduced its new formula for Coca-Cola, which became popularly known as "New Coke". Consumer backlash to the change led to the company making a strategic retreat on July 11, 1985, announcing its plans to bring back the previous formula under the name "Coca-Cola Classic". Some think the decision to replace the original flavor was actually a strategic masterstroke to bolster Coke sales once it came back on the market, which it did; however, the Coca-Cola Company vehemently denies the claim.

Pepsi
Pepsi advertising is heavily supported by strategic sponsorships and online marketing. Pepsi's logo utilizes the red, white and blue colors of the flag of the United States, drawing on a strong sense of patriotism throughout its branding.

Pepsi Challenge
In 1975, Pepsi began showing advertisements based on the Pepsi Challenge, in which ordinary people were asked which product they preferred in blind taste tests. The campaign suggested that, when it came down to taste alone, consumers preferred Pepsi over Coca-Cola. In at least some of these tests, the Coca-Cola was kept at 0 °C, which is too cold for the taste to come out, whereas the Pepsi Cola was kept at regular refrigerator temperature, rigging the test. This prompted Coca-Cola's creation of the successful Diet Coke in 1982, and the unsuccessful New Coke three years later, both of which led to a major shifting point in the cola wars. However, the Pepsi Challenge was a marketing campaign and not a scientific study. Subsequent studies with scientific controls found only modest differences between Pepsi and Coke.

"Pepsi Stuff"
In the mid-1990s, Pepsi launched its most successful long-term strategy of the cola wars, Pepsi Stuff. Using the slogan "Drink Pepsi, Get Stuff", consumers could collect Pepsi Points on packages and cups which could be redeemed for free Pepsi merchandise. After researching and testing the program for over two years to ensure that it resonated with consumers, Pepsi launched Pepsi Stuff, which was an instant success. Due to its success, the program was expanded to include Mountain Dew and Pepsi's international markets worldwide. The company continued to run the program for many years, continually innovating with new features each year. This line of commercials led to the court case Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., which was chronicled in the 2022 Netflix show Pepsi, Where's My Jet?

Super Bowl LIII
Super Bowl LIII was played in Atlanta, which is where Coca-Cola has its head office, in 2019. Pepsi had been a major sponsor of the NFL for years, most recently renewing its sponsorship deal in 2011. Pepsi advertising tied to the game poked fun at the situation with slogans such as "Pepsi in Atlanta. How Refreshing", "Hey Atlanta, Thanks For Hosting. We'll Bring The Drinks", and "Look Who's in Town for Super Bowl LIII". Both companies ran television ads during the Super Bowl, as Coca-Cola aired the commercial "A Coke is a Coke" just before the Super Bowl's National Anthem, while Pepsi ran a series of ads with the tagline "Is Pepsi OK?".

Comparison of products
Many of the brands available from the three largest soda producers, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo and Keurig Dr Pepper, are intended as direct, equivalent competitors. The following chart lists these competitors by type or flavor of drink.

title: Cola wars


text:
Talk:Weismann barrier

Untitled
Comments earlier on Soma-to-germline have now been moved here as the text of the article has been moved here. Barnaby dawson 09:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:Soma-to-germline_feedback. The two articles are closely related, if not redundant, and I'm suggesting an approach that may resolve lots of objections. Dandrake 20:40, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Mr Steele is a son of this time as are his peers who do not know or reject it. Stating that science has progressed is true for both parties when the work based on his theories is considered, it has to be noted that it has not been disproved. GerardM 23:15, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've looked up the references here, and re-read the Weismann Barrier article, which now points here. I think that between them there is room for a useful article; and this is not a grudging "Well, Wikipedia has to cover crackpot theories." So I'll outline what I think ought to be done, and maybe all interested parties can work out a useful text for the WP.

First problem: When I follow the link to Steele's research site, I get a blank TOC page from the Web server. Could someone update this link or something? As it stands, we can't even find out what Steele says in his own words.

Second: In the other page that's linked to, a rather combative piece by a non-scientist, it's not clear that the issue is soma-to-germline feedback at all. I may be misreading the page (but I don't think I am); or the author may be misreading Steele (which is quite possible). The key text: "In the quoted articles no author considers the possibility that vectors targeted at somatic cells could end up in germline cells. The suggestion is that because somatic gene therapy is not inherited by definition, that's how gene therapy behaves in real-life."

Is this about a possibility that gene therapy may hit germline cells as well as somatic cells? Or that once extablished in somatic cells, the genes might contaminate germ cells? The first, as far as I know, could be a legitimate danger that's being overlooked; the second looks more like fringe science, the sort of extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

But with respect to Weissmann's dogma, the first interpretation involves not a breakdown but an end-run around the barrier. On this assumption, there's a highly practical concern here: the gene-therapy business may be overlooking a real danger. Let me repeat that I take no position on how valid that threat is; maybe when Steele's own work is accessible, I'll figure that out. Hence, it would be a good thing to say in the Weismann Barrier article that the barrier may not give the protection that it's claimed to, because it can be circumvented. It might also say that there's a minority contention that the barrier is not so watertight in its own terms as the majority think; if so, there ought to some references to things that give plausibility to the claim.

The claim that the Weissman barrier is not really there is pretty much synonymous with a claim that soma-to-germline feedback exists. It's not clear now why we need or want these two separate articles on it.

I'll leave it at that for the moment, though I'm inclined to ramble further. Any reactions? Dandrake 20:37, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've combined the two articles and substantially rewritten them. Right now quite a few of the links are broken. I will try to find pages to point them to (I'm not sure yet if they exist). This article was quite out of date with current thinking on the issue and I've tried to correct that. Barnaby dawson 10:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the recent work by Anway et al., which demonstrates that acquired epigenetic changes can be inherited, has any relevance to this topic? While it may not support the notion that the body is deliberately altered in a lamarckian fashion, it does indicate a novel method of inheratance. I can't get to the actual article, published in Science in Sept. 2005 as it requires registration.

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/reproduction/sperm/2005/2005-0602anwayetal.htm

--68.104.139.213 21:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Barrier, principle or theory; Weismann barrier or "Weismann barrier"
There is a semantic confusion in this article that needs to be cleaned up. In the article the Weismann barrier is said to be a principle. It is not a principle; it is a barrier. The "Weismann barrier" COULD be the name for the principle, but that is an empirical fact of whether language users in the scientific population and in the population of intelligent, non-expert readers would recognize "Weismann barrier" as the name for a theory. I doubt it, especially for the lay reader. Also using the word principle and the word theory interchangably adds to the confusion. I invite someone knowledgable to clean this up or else I will give it a try. DCDuring 14:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "required qualification in the light of modern understanding of horizontal gene transfer"
It is not horizontal gene transfer, but somatic inheritance that breaks the Weismann barrier. Parents fairly often pass things to their on to their offspring without cellular inheritance being involved. Dietary choices, stress levels, burrows, food, territory, shelter, etc. Had Weismann measured any of those he would have come to the opposite conclusion. --TylerTim (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Confusing
This article is confusing. The second paragraph talks more about what the weismann barrier is NOT.

The theory is very important as it has implications for human gene therapy. If the Weismann barrier is permeable then genetic treatments of somatic cells may actually result in an inheritable change to the genome, possibly resulting in the genetic engineering of the human species rather than just individuals. It also has implications in our understanding of evolution as it would imply that species aren't nearly as separable genetically as we once thought. Furthermore it opens the door to the existence of certain Lamarckian concepts that previously had no supporting mechanism.

wtf? Fokion (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Weismann barrier


text:
Blade element theory

Blade element theory (BET) is a mathematical process originally designed by William Froude (1878), David W. Taylor (1893) and Stefan Drzewiecki (1885) to determine the behavior of propellers. It involves breaking a blade down into several small parts then determining the forces on each of these small blade elements. These forces are then integrated along the entire blade and over one rotor revolution in order to obtain the forces and moments produced by the entire propeller or rotor. One of the key difficulties lies in modelling the induced velocity on the rotor disk. Because of this the blade element theory is often combined with momentum theory to provide additional relationships necessary to describe the induced velocity on the rotor disk, producing blade element momentum theory. At the most basic level of approximation a uniform induced velocity on the disk is assumed:
 * $$v_i = \sqrt{\frac{T}{A} \cdot \frac{1}{2 \rho}}.$$

Alternatively the variation of the induced velocity along the radius can be modeled by breaking the blade down into small annuli and applying the conservation of mass, momentum and energy to every annulus. This approach is sometimes called the Froude–Finsterwalder equation.

If the blade element method is applied to helicopter rotors in forward flight it is necessary to consider the flapping motion of the blades as well as the longitudinal and lateral distribution of the induced velocity on the rotor disk. The most simple forward flight inflow models are first harmonic models.

Simple blade element theory
While the momentum theory is useful for determining ideal efficiency, it gives a very incomplete account of the action of screw propellers, neglecting among other things the torque. In order to investigate propeller action in greater detail, the blades are considered as made up of a number of small elements, and the air forces on each element are calculated. Thus, while the momentum theory deals with the flow of the air, the blade-element theory deals primarily with the forces on the propeller blades. The idea of analyzing the forces on elementary strips of propeller blades was first published by William Froude in 1878. It was also worked out independently by Drzewiecki and given in a book on mechanical flight published in Russia seven years later, in 1885. Again, in 1907, Lanchester published a somewhat more advanced form of the blade-element theory without knowledge of previous work on the subject. The simple blade-element theory is usually referred to, however, as the Drzewiecki theory, for it was Drzewiecki who put it into practical form and brought it into general use. Also, he was the first to sum up the forces on the blade elements to obtain the thrust and torque for a whole propeller and the first to introduce the idea of using airfoil data to find the forces on the blade elements.

In the Drzewiecki blade-element theory the propeller is considered a warped or twisted airfoil, each segment of which follows a helical path and is treated as a segment of an ordinary wing. It is usually assumed in the simple theory that airfoil coefficients obtained from wind tunnel tests of model wings (ordinarily tested with an aspect ratio of 6) apply directly to propeller blade elements of the same cross-sectional shape.

The air flow around each element is considered two-dimensional and therefore unaffected by the adjacent parts of the blade. The independence of the blade elements at any given radius with respect to the neighbouring elements has been established theoretically and has also been shown to be substantially true for the working sections of the blade by special experiments made for the purpose. It is also assumed that the air passes through the propeller with no radial flow (i.e., there is no contraction of the slipstream in passing through the propeller disc) and that there is no blade interference.

Aerodynamic forces on a blade element
Consider the element at radius r, shown in Fig. 1, which has the infinitesimal length dr and the width b. The motion of the element in an aircraft propeller in flight is along a helical path determined by the forward velocity V of the aircraft and the tangential velocity 2πrn of the element in the plane of the propeller disc, where n represents the revolutions per unit time. The velocity of the element with respect to the air Vr is then the resultant of the forward and tangential velocities, as shown in Fig. 2. Call the angle between the direction of motion of the element and the plane of rotation Φ, and the blade angle β. The angle of attack α of the element relative to the air is then $$\alpha=\beta-\phi$$.

Applying ordinary airfoil coefficients, the lift force on the element is:

 * $$dL = \frac{1}{2}V_r^2 C_L b \, dr.$$

Let γ be the angle between the lift component and the resultant force, or $\gamma=\arctan\frac{D}{L}$. Then the total resultant air force on the element is: $$dR=\frac{\frac{1}{2}V_r^2 C_L b \, dr}{\cos\gamma}.$$

The thrust of the element is the component of the resultant force in the direction of the propeller axis (Fig. 2), or $$\begin{align} dT & = dR\cos(\phi+\gamma) \\ & = \frac{\frac{1}{2}V_r^2C_L b\cos(\phi+\gamma)}{\cos\gamma} dr, \end{align}$$ and since $V_r=\frac{V}{\sin\phi}$ $$dT = \frac{\frac{1}{2}V^2 C_L b\cos(\phi+\gamma)}{\sin^2\phi\cos\gamma} dr.$$

For convenience let $$K=\frac{C_Lb}{\sin^2\phi\cos\gamma}$$ and $$T_c=K\cos(\phi+\gamma).$$

Then $$dT = \frac{1}{2}\rho V^2 T_c \, dr,$$ and the total thrust for the propeller (of B blades) is: $$T=\frac{1}{2}\rho V^2B\int_{0}^{R} T_c \, dr.$$

Referring again to Fig. 2, the tangential or torque force is

 * $$dF=dR\sin(\phi+\gamma),$$

and the torque on the element is

 * $$dQ = r \, dR \, \sin(\phi+\gamma),$$

which, if $Q_c=Kr\sin(\phi+\gamma)$, can be written

 * $$dQ=\frac{1}{2}\rho V^2 Q_c dr.$$

The expression for the torque of the whole propeller is therefore

 * $$Q = \frac{1}{2}\rho V^2 B\int_{0}^{R} Q_c dr.$$

The horsepower absorbed by the propeller, or the torque horse-power, is

 * $$QHP=\frac{2\pi nQ}{550}$$

and the efficiency is

 * $$\eta=\frac{THP}{QHP}=\frac{TV}{2\pi nQ}.$$

Efficiency
Because of the variation of the blade width, angle, and airfoil section along the blade, it is not possible to obtain a simple expression for the thrust, torque, and efficiency of propellers in general. A single element at about two-thirds or three-fourths of the tip radius is, however, fairly representative of the whole propeller, and it is therefore interesting to examine the expression for the efficiency of a single element. The efficiency of an element is the ratio of the useful power to the power absorbed, or

 * $$\begin{align} \eta & = \frac{dTV}{dQ2\pi n} \\ & = \frac{dR\cos(\phi+\gamma)V}{dR\sin(\phi+\gamma)2\pi nr} \\ & = \frac{\tan\phi}{\tan(\phi+\gamma)}. \end{align}$$

Now tan Φ is the ratio of the forward to the tangential velocity, and $\tan\gamma=\frac{D}{L}$. According to the simple blade-element theory, therefore, the efficiency of an element of a propeller depends only on the ratio of the forward to the tangential velocity and on the $\frac{D}{L}$ of the airfoil section.

The value of Φ which gives the maximum efficiency for an element, as found by differentiating the efficiency with respect to Φ and equating the result to zero, is $$\phi=45^\circ-\frac{\gamma}{2}$$ The variation of efficiency with 0 is shown in Fig. 3 for two extreme values of γ. The efficiency rises to a maximum at $45^\circ-\frac{\gamma}{2}$ and then falls to zero again at $90^\circ-\gamma$. With an $\frac{L}{D}$ of 28.6 the maximum possible efficiency of an element according to the simple theory is 0.932, while with an $\frac{L}{D}$  of 9.5 it is only 0.812. At the values of Φ at which the most important elements of the majority of propellers work (10° to 15°) the effect of $\frac{L}{D}$ on efficiency is still greater. Within the range of 10° to 15°, the curves in Fig. 3 indicate that it is advantageous to have both the $\frac{L}{D}$ of the airfoil sections and the angle Φ (or the advance per revolution, and consequently the pitch) as high as possible.

Limitations
According to momentum theory, a velocity is imparted to the air passing through the propeller, and half of this velocity is given the air by the time it reaches the propeller plane. This increase of velocity of the air as it passes into the propeller disc is called the inflow velocity. It is always found where there is pressure discontinuity in a fluid. In the case of a wing moving horizontally, the air is given a downward velocity, as shown in Fig. 4., and theoretically half of this velocity is imparted in front of and above the wing, and the other half below and behind.

This induced downflow is present in the model wing tests from which the airfoil coefficients used in the blade-element theory are obtained; the inflow indicated by the momentum theory is therefore automatically taken into account in the simple blade-element theory. However, the induced downflow is widely different for different aspect ratios, being zero for infinite aspect ratio. Most model airfoil tests are made with rectangular wings having an arbitrarily chosen aspect ratio of 6, and there is no reason to suppose that the downflow in such a test corresponds to the inflow for each element of a propeller blade. In fact, the general conclusion drawn from an exhaustive series of tests, in which the pressure distribution was measured over 12 sections of a model propeller running in a wind tunnel, is that the lift coefficient of the propeller blade element differs considerably from that measured at the same angle of attack on an airfoil of aspect ratio 6. This is one of the greatest weaknesses of the simple blade-element theory.

Another weakness is that the interference between the propeller blades is not considered. The elements of the blades at any particular radius form a cascade similar to a multiplane with negative stagger, as shown in Fig. 4. Near the tips where the gap is large the interference is very small, but in toward the blade roots it is quite large.

In actual propellers there is a tip loss which the blade-element theory does not take into consideration. The thrust and torque forces as computed by means of the theory are therefore greater for the elements near the tip than those found by experiment.

In order to eliminate scale effect, the wind tunnel tests on model wings should be run at the same value of Reynolds number (scale) as the corresponding elements in the propeller blades. Airfoil characteristics measured at such a low scale as, for example, an air velocity of 30 m.p.h. with a 3-in. chord airfoil, show peculiarities not found when the tests are run at a scale comparable with that of propeller elements. The standard propeller section characteristics given in Figs. 11, 12, 13, and 14 were obtained from high Reynolds-number tests in the Variable Density Tunnel of the N.A.C.A., and, fortunately, for all excepting the thickest of these sections there is very little difference in characteristics at high and low Reynolds numbers. These values may be used with reasonable accuracy as to scale for propellers operating at tip speeds well below the speed of sound in air, and therefore relatively free from any effects of compressibility.

The poor accuracy of the simple blade-element theory is very well shown in a report by Durand and Lesley, in which they have computed the performance of a large number of model propellers (80) and compared the computed values with the actual performances obtained from tests on the model propellers themselves. In the words of the authors: "The divergencies between the two sets of results, while showing certain elements of consistency, are on the whole too large and too capriciously distributed to justify the use of the theory in this simplest form for other than approximate estimates or for comparative purposes."The airfoils were tested in two different wind tunnels and in one of the tunnels at two different air velocities, and the propeller characteristics computed from the three sets of airfoil data differ by as much as 28%, illustrating quite forcibly the necessity for having the airfoil tests made at the correct scale.

In spite of all its inaccuracies the simple blade-element theory has been a useful tool in the hands of experienced propeller designers. With it a skilful designer having a knowledge of suitable empirical factors can design propellers which usually fit the main conditions imposed upon them fairly well in that they absorb the engine power at very nearly the proper revolution speed. They are not, however, necessarily the most efficient propellers for their purpose, for the simple theory is not sufficiently accurate to show slight differences in efficiency due to changes in pitch distribution, plan forms, etc.

Example
In choosing a propeller to analyze, it is desirable that its aerodynamic characteristics be known so that the accuracy of the calculated results can be checked. It is also desirable that the analysis be made of a propeller operating at a relatively low tip speed in order to be free from any effects of compressibility and that it be running free from body interference. The only propeller tests which satisfy all of these conditions are tests of model propellers in a wind tunnel. We shall therefore take for our example the central or master propeller of a series of model wood propellers of standard Navy form, tested by Dr. W. F. Durand at Stanford University. This is a two-bladed propeller 3 ft. in diameter, with a uniform geometrical pitch of 2.1 ft. (or a pitch-diameter ratio of 0.7). The blades have standard propeller sections based on the R.A.F-6 airfoil (Fig. 6), and the blade widths, thicknesses, and angles are as given in the first part of Table I. In our analysis we shall consider the propeller as advancing with a velocity of 40 m.p.h. and turning at the rate of 1,800 r.p.m.For the section at 75% of the tip radius, the radius is 1.125 ft., the blade width is 0.198 ft., the thickness ratio is 0.107, the lower camber is zero, and the blade angle β is 16.6°.

The forward velocity $$\begin{align} V &= 40\ \mathrm{m.p.h.}\\ & = \frac{40\times88}{60} \\ & = 58.65\ \text{ft./sec.}, \end{align}$$ and $$\begin{align} n & = \frac{1800}{60} \\ & = 30\ \text{r.p.s.} \end{align}$$

The path angle

 * $$\begin{align} \phi& = \arctan\frac{V}{2\pi rn} \\ & = \arctan\frac{58.65}{2\pi\times1.125\times30} \\ & = 15.5^\circ \end{align}$$

The angle of attack is therefore

 * $$\begin{align} \alpha & = \beta-\phi \\ & = 16.6^\circ-15.5^\circ \\ & = 1.1^\circ \\ \end{align}$$

From Fig. 7, for a flat-faced section of thickness ratio 0.107 at an angle of attack of 1.1°, γ = 3.0°, and, from Fig. 9, CL = 0.425. (For sections having lower camber, CL should be corrected in accordance with the relation given in Fig. 8, and γ is given the same value as that for a flat-faced section having the upper camber only.) Then

 * $$\begin{align} K & = \frac{C_Lb}{\sin^2\phi\cos\gamma} \\ & = \frac{0.425\times0.198}{0.2672^2\times0.999} \\ & = 1.180, \end{align}$$

and,

 * $$\begin{align} T_C & = K\cos(\phi+\gamma) \\ & = 1.180\times\cos18.5^\circ \\ & = 1.119. \\ \end{align}$$

Also,

 * $$\begin{align} Q_C & = Kr\sin(\phi+\gamma) \\ & = 1.180\times1.125\times\sin18.5^\circ \\ & = 1.421. \end{align}$$

The computations of Tc and Qc for six representative elements of the propeller are given in convenient tabular form in Table I, and the values of Tc and Qc are plotted against radius in Fig. 9. The curves drawn through these points are sometimes referred to as the torque grading curves. The areas under the curve represent $$\int_{0}^{R} T_c dr$$ and $$\int_{0}^{R} Q_c dr,$$ these being the expressions for the total thrust and torque per blade per unit of dynamic pressure due to the velocity of advance. The areas may be found by means of a planimeter, proper consideration, of course, being given to the scales of values, or the integration may be performed approximately (but with satisfactory accuracy) by means of Simpson's rule.

In using Simpson's rule the radius is divided into an even number of equal parts, such as ten. The ordinate at each division can then be found from the grading curve. If the original blade elements divide the blade into an even number of equal parts it is not necessary to plot the grading curves, but the curves are advantageous in that they show graphically the distribution of thrust and torque along the blade. They also provide a check upon the computations, for incorrect points will not usually form a fair curve. If the abscissas are denoted by r and the ordinates at the various divisions by y1, y2, ..., y11, according to Simpson’s rule the area with ten equal divisions will be $$\int_{0}^{R} F(r) \, dr = \frac{\Delta r}{3}[y_1 + 2 (y_3 + y_5 + y_7 + y_9) + 4 (y_2 + y_4 + y_6 + y_8 + y_{10}) + y_{11}].$$

The area under the thrust-grading curve of our example is therefore
 * $$\begin{align} \int_{0}^{R} T_cdr & = \frac{0.15}{3}[0+2(0.038+0.600+1.050+1.091)+4(0+0.253+0.863+1.120+0912)+0] \\ & = 0.9075, \end{align}$$

and in like manner $$\int_{0}^{R} Q_c \, dr=0.340.$$

The above integrations have also been made by means of a planimeter, and the average results from five trials agree with those obtained by means of Simpson’s rule within one-fourth of one per cent.

The thrust of the propeller in standard air is

 * $$\begin{align} T & = \frac{1}{2}\rho V^2B\int_{0}^{R} T_cdr \\ & = \frac{1}{2}\times0.002378\times58.65^2\times2\times0.9075 \\ & = 7.42\ \mathrm{lb.}, \end{align}$$

and the torque is

 * $$\begin{align} Q & = \frac{1}{2}\rho V^2B\int_{0}^{R} Q_cdr \\ & = \frac{1}{2} \times 0.002378\times58.65^2\times2\times0.340 \\ & = 2.78\ \mathrm{lb.ft.} \end{align}$$

The power absorbed by the propeller is

 * $$\begin{align} P & = 2\pi nQ \\ & = 2\times\pi\times30\times2.78 \\ & = 524\ \mathrm{ft.lb. /\ sec}. \end{align}$$

or

 * $$\begin{align} HP & = \frac{524}{550} \\ & = 0.953, \end{align}$$

and the efficiency is

 * $$\begin{align} \eta & = \frac{TV}{2\pi nQ} \\ & = \frac{7.42\times58.65}{524} \\ & = 0.830. \end{align}$$

The above-calculated performance compares with that measured in the wind tunnel as follows: The power as calculated by the simple blade-element theory is in this case over 11% too low, the thrust is about 5 % low, and the efficiency is about 8% high. Of course, a differently calculated performance would have been obtained if propeller-section characteristics from tests on the same series of airfoils in a different wind tunnel had been used, but the variable-density tunnel tests are probably the most reliable of all.

Some light may be thrown upon the discrepancy between the calculated and observed performance by referring again to the pressure distribution tests on a model propeller. In these tests the pressure distribution over several sections of a propeller blade was measured while the propeller was running in a wind tunnel, and the three following sets of tests were made on corresponding airfoils: 1. Standard force tests on airfoils of aspect ratio 6.

2. Tests of the pressure distribution on the median section of the above airfoils of aspect ratio 6.

3. Tests of the pressure distribution over a special airfoil made in the form of one blade of the propeller, but without twist, the pressure being measured at the same sections as in the propeller blade. The results of these three sets of airfoil tests are shown for the section at three-fourths of the tip radius in Fig. 10, which has been taken from the report. It will be noticed that the coefficients of resultant force CR agree quite well for the median section of the airfoil of aspect ratio 6 and the corresponding section of the special propeller-blade airfoil but that the resultant force coefficient for the entire airfoil of aspect ratio 6 is considerably lower. It is natural, then, that the calculated thrust and power of a propeller should be too low when based on airfoil characteristics for aspect ratio 6.

Modifications
Many modifications to the simple blade-element theory have been suggested in order to make it more complete and to improve its accuracy. Most of these modified theories attempt to take into account the blade interference, and, in some of them, attempts are also made to eliminate the inaccuracy due to the use of airfoil data from tests on wings having a finite aspect ratio, such as 6. The first modification to be made was in the nature of a combination of the simple Drzewiecki theory with the Froude momentum theory.

Diagrams
Attribution

title: Blade element theory


text: Talk:Northrop YF-17

title: Talk:Northrop YF-17


text:
Dvina

Dvina may refer to:

 * Western Dvina, one of the names of Daugava, a river in Russia, Belarus, and Latvia
 * Northern Dvina, a river in northern Russia
 * R-12 Dvina, a theatre ballistic missile from the Soviet Union
 * S-75 Dvina, a surface-to-air guided missile from the Soviet Union

title: Dvina


text:
CarterCopter

The CarterCopter is an experimental compound autogyro developed by Carter Aviation Technologies in the United States to demonstrate slowed rotor technology. On 17 June 2005, the CarterCopter became the first rotorcraft to achieve mu-1 (μ=1), an equal ratio of airspeed to rotor tip speed, but crashed on the next flight and has been inoperable since. It is being replaced by the Carter Personal Air Vehicle.

Design and development
The CarterCopter is a pusher configuration autogyro with wings and a twin boom tail, intended as a prototype and a technology demonstrator. The rotor is a two-bladed design weighted with 55 lb depleted uranium at each tip, and it is mounted on a tilting mast, allowing the wing to stay at optimum wing efficiency at all speeds. It is an all-composite design with a hull pressurized up to 0.69 bar.

The tricycle undercarriage is retractable, and has a large travel to allow for landing at up to 20 ft/sec without bounce. The aircraft had been modified and rebuilt after an accident (a gear-up landing) in 2003. NASA had funded $1 million of the development using three research grants, and the aircraft managed to accomplish at least one of NASA's five goals.

Concept
The CarterCopter concept is a gyrocopter with an unusually stiff, relatively heavy rotor, supplemented with conventional wings. At low speed, the vehicle flies as a gyrocopter, and can pre-spin the rotor for a vertical takeoff and very brief hover (about 5 seconds), and can land more or less vertically. Several technical challenges make flying a slow rotor difficult, but rotor stability is achieved through the combination of the rotor tip weights' location ahead of the blade center line (forward center of gravity) and the center of lift aft of the blade center line. At high speed (above about 100 mph) the aircraft flies mostly using the fixed wings, with the rotor simply windmilling. The rotor spins with a tip speed below airspeed, which means that the retreating blade flies completely stalled. On a helicopter this would cause massive lift dissymmetry and insoluble control issues but the fixed wings keep the aircraft in the air and stable.

The low rotation speed and flat feathering of the rotor means that it causes little drag, and the company claims that the aircraft would be potentially able to leverage the advantages of fixed wings as well as gyrocopters, giving almost all the capabilities of helicopters (except hovering) but with a relatively simple mechanical system. Carter Aviation also claims the system is safer than a typical fixed-wing aircraft, and others have remarked that the design is much safer, much less complex and less expensive than a helicopter, a tilt-rotor or the Boeing X-50 Dragonfly Canard Rotor/Wing. The CarterCopter should be capable of higher airspeeds now only achievable by fixed-wing aircraft, but also able to land like an autogyro in any small area in an emergency.

Takeoff
At takeoff the pilot angles the top rotor flat (zero angle of attack) and spins it to very high speed (between 365 and 425 rpm). The rotor is then disconnected from the engine and the angle of attack of the main rotor blades is increased suddenly so that the vehicle leaps into the air. The aircraft's main rotor has enough momentum due to heavy counterweights in the tips that it can hover for a short time safely. The pilot then applies full power to the rear pusher propeller and the vehicle starts to move forwards. As it does so, air is forced through the main rotor, spinning it faster and generating more lift. The vehicle climbs into the air, flying as an autogyro.

Cruising
Once the CarterCopter gets up to a forward speed of about 90 mph, its stubby, lightweight wings provide most of the lift. The pilot can then flatten the angle of attack of the main rotor so it produces very little lift, dramatically reducing the amount of induced drag created by the rotor. Although the rotor is unused at high speed, the rotor is kept spinning at about 80 RPM as the rotation keeps the rotor stretched, preventing excessive flapping.

Normally a helicopter or gyrocopter cannot fly forward at the same speed as or faster than its rotor tip speed. This is because the low airspeed of the retreating rotor blade would cause retreating blade stall, whilst the advancing rotor blade would be traveling at twice the speed of the aircraft, producing uncontrollable flight due to dissymmetry of lift.

However, with the CarterCopter, the fixed wings provide the lift required to remain aloft. Since the rotor is unloaded, the aerodynamic forces on the rotor are very minor. This means that a CarterCopter can theoretically fly much faster than the tip speed of the rotor. The rotors would still experience flapping as they rotate due to dissymmetry of lift between the two sides of the vehicle, but Carter Aviation claims this is manageable.

The claimed theoretical maximum speed of a CarterCopter type aircraft is around 500 mph (800 km/h), which would be about twice as fast as the helicopter flight airspeed record.

Achievements
The prototype's engine was normally aspirated, and hence limited to just 320 hp (240 kW) and the aircraft went about 173 mph (270 km/h); which is still ~40% faster than a conventional autogyro but slower than gyrodynes of the 1950s. A custom gyroplane can go 168.29 km/h (104.6 mph), and Carter says the Carter Personal Air Vehicle goes 200 mph.

At 4,000 lbs weight, the CCTD can climb 750 fpm.

From 1999 to 2001 there were 4 recorded instances of non-fatal crashes, while Carter claims 10 accidents over 7 years, all non-fatal.

Test pilot Larry Neal claimed that the CarterCopter is a challenge to fly because it is a combination of helicopter, autogyro and fixed-wing aircraft.

The CarterCopter achieved its maximum mu (mu is the ratio of airspeed to rotor tip speed) of 1.0 for a brief moment on June 17, 2005, the first time any rotary aircraft has reached this level. CarterCopter's pilot claimed that there was no great drama, and mu 1 was reached accidentally due to normal variations in rotor RPM (at 107 rpm) and vehicle airspeed; the pilot described it as 'smooth' with no significant vibration. The tests were performed under a US Army contract. Carter says they repeated mu-1 with the PAV in 2013.

However, on the next test flight the same day in 2005, the CarterCopter made a hard landing (crashed), causing significant damage, but the pilots were unhurt. The crash was caused by failing propeller bolts which damaged wires controlling the rotor. The propeller was designed by Carter, and was an 8 ft scimitar controllable-pitch propeller weighing 15 lbs and had a thrust of 1850 lbf. It was initially believed that the CarterCopter was unrepairable; later inspection showed that it could be repaired, but the company chose to work on a small open wingless autogyro demonstrator instead. Also later in 2005 and using lessons learned from the CarterCopter, design began on the subsequent compound aircraft, the Carter PAV, which flew in 2011.

The company claims that the testing indicated that the vehicle architecture could potentially outperform helicopters on every dimension except sustained hover, and should be much cheaper to buy and maintain. The company also claims that it also very nearly matches the L/D of fixed wing General Aviation aeroplanes at cruise speed - but with near-vertical takeoff and landing. However, jump take-off ability using the stored rotor energy has never been shown to more than about 16 feet with the wing attached.

NASA has made computer models of the CarterCopter rotor above mu=1 and up to 400 knots airspeed.

title: CarterCopter


text:
Victor Babeș

Victor Babeș (28 July 1854 in Vienna – 19 October 1926 in Bucharest) was a Romanian physician, bacteriologist, academician and professor. One of the founders of modern microbiology, Victor Babeș is author of one of the first treatises of bacteriology in the world – Bacteria and their role in pathological anatomy and histology of infectious diseases, written in collaboration with French scientist Victor André Cornil in 1885. In 1888, Babeș underlies the principle of passive immunity, and a few years later enunciates the principle of antibiosis. He made early and significant contributions to the study of rabies, leprosy, diphtheria, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases. He also discovered more than 50 unknown germs and foresaw new methods of staining bacteria and fungi. Victor Babeș introduced rabies vaccination and founded serotherapy in Romania.

Babeș-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca and the University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Timișoara bear his name.

Origin and family
Victor Babeș was the son of Vincențiu Babeș and Sophia Goldschneider. His father was a Romanian magistrate, teacher, journalist and politician from the Banat region, founding member of the Romanian Academic Society (22 April 1866) and President of History Section of the Romanian Academy (1898–1899). One of the personalities who have distinguished themselves in the fight for the rights of Romanians in Transylvania, Vincențiu Babeș was repeatedly deputy in the Vienna Award and president of the Romanian National Party. Victor had a sister, Alma, and a brother, Aurel. The younger brother of Victor Babeș, Aurel, was a chemist and worked with Victor at the Institute of Bucharest. The son of Aurel, Aurel A. Babeș, was also a physician, and discovered a screening test for cervical cancer.

Victor Babeș was married to Iosefina Thorma, with whom he had a son, Mircea.

Studies
In childhood, Victor Babeș was always attracted to poetry, music and especially literature, as well as performance sport, natural science and dramatics. He began studying dramatic arts in Budapest. The death of his sister, Alma, caused by tuberculosis, at a young age, led him to abandon started studies and enroll in medicine. He attended the Faculty of Medicine in Budapest and Vienna. Victor received his doctorate in medicine in Vienna, in 1878. In 1881 he received a scholarship and went to Paris and Berlin, where he worked with leading teachers of the time: Cornil, Louis Pasteur, Rudolf Virchow, Robert Koch and others. He continued to study with great teachers from Munich, Heidelberg, and Strasbourg until 1886.

Scientific activity
He began his scientific career as an assistant in the Pathological Anatomy laboratory from Budapest (1874–1881). In 1885 he was appointed professor of histopathology at the Faculty of Medicine in Budapest. The same year, he discovered a parasitic sporozoan of the ticks, named Babesia in his honor (of the family Babesiidae), and which causes a rare and severe disease called babesiosis. Later that year, he publishes the first treatise of bacteriology in the world, Bacteria and their role in pathological anatomy and histology of infectious diseases, which he co-authored with Cornil.

Babeș's scientific endeavours were wide-ranging. He was the first to demonstrate the presence of tuberculous bacilli in the urine of infected patients. He also discovered cellular inclusions in rabies-infected nerve cells. Of diagnostic value, they were to be named after him (Babeș-Negri bodies). Babeș was the promoter of morphopathological conception about the infectious process, medical guidelines based on the synthesis between bacteriology and pathological anatomy. Babeș was credited with inventing the first rationalized model of thermostat and some methods for staining bacteria and fungi in histological preparations and cultures.

In 1887, Babeș is called in the country by Romanian government and appointed professor of pathological anatomy and bacteriology at the Faculty of Medicine in Bucharest. He held this position until 1926. Also in 1887, it was established, by Law no. 1197, the Institute of Bacteriology and Pathology, headed by Babeș and that will bear in the future his name (Victor Babeș Institute). In 1889 he was elected corresponding member of the Romanian Academy, and from 1893 he became titular on this position.

In 1900 he founded the Anatomic Society in Bucharest, dealing with anatomical clinical studies. In 1913, he prepared a cholera vaccine to combat the cholera epidemic that broke out among Romanian Army that was in the campaign of the Second Balkan War in Bulgaria. Between 1916 and 1918 he continued the preparation of biological products, remaining in the area occupied by the Central Powers. In 1919 he is appointed professor at the University of Cluj, newly founded that year.

Victor Babeș introduced rabies vaccination in Romania, only three years after its initiation by Louis Pasteur. He is considered the second rabiologist in the world after Pasteur and the father of serotherapy, precursor to modern immunology. His work also had a strong influence upon veterinary medicine, especially concerning prophylaxis and serum medication. He prepared the anti-diphtheria serum and conducted broad activity in researching pellagra, tuberculosis, typhoid fever and leprosy. He has published over 1,000 scientific papers and 25 monographs in the field of microbiology and pathology.

In recognition of his innovative work in medicine, Victor Babes was elected member of the French Académie nationale de médecine, of the International Committee for Combating Leprosy, received three times the award of the French Academy of Sciences. Likewise, he was awarded the title of Knight of the Legion of Honor.

Philosophical conceptions and militant attitude
Besides scientific work, he was closely concerned with the problems of prophylactic medicine (water supply of towns and villages, scientific organization of the anti-epidemic fight, etc.). As director of the Institute that bears his name, Babeș has addressed some of the health and social problems of the time, such as pellagra problem, and formulated realistic solutions on the medical organization of the country, foreseeing the organization of a Ministry of Health. Closely linked with the people, Victor Babeș fought for applying the discoveries of science to improve people's lives. He studied the causes of diseases with mass spreading (pellagra, tuberculosis), drawing attention to their social roots.

Throughout the scientific and social activities, an important role had his philosophical materialist conception, exposed especially in works like Considerations on the natural science's ratio to philosophy (1879) and Faith and science (1924). Babeș refuted Kant's agnosticism, Descartes' innatism, Schelling's idealist apriorism and fideism. He consistently supported the objective nature of the world, the laws of nature and causation.

Victor Babeș founded the publications Annals of the Institute of Pathology and Bacteriology (Analele Institutului de Patologie și Bacteriologie; 1889), Medical Romania (România medicală; 1893) and Archives of medical sciences (Archives des sciences médicales; 1895).

Death
Victor Babeș died on 19 October 1926 in Bucharest. His grave is at the Cantacuzino Institute of Bucharest.

Eponyms

 * Babeș-Ernst bodies: metachromatic inclusions in the cytoplasm of Gram-positive bacteria such as diphtheria
 * Babeș-Negri bodies: inclusions in rabies-infected nervous cells
 * Babesia: parasites of the family Hemosporidiae
 * Babeș-Bolyai: main university in Cluj-Napoca

Selected published works

 * Über Poliomyelitis anterior, 1877
 * Über die selbständige combinirte Seiten- und Hinterstrangsclerose des Rückenmarks, [Virchows] Archiv für pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für klinische Medicin, Berlin, 1876
 * Über einen im menschlichen Peritoneum gefundenen Nematoden, [Virchows] Archiv für pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für klinische Medicin, Berlin, volume LXXXI
 * Studien über Safraninfärbung, 1881
 * Bakterien des rothen Schweisses, 1881
 * Eine experimentelle Studie über den Einfluss des Nervensystems auf die pathologischen Veränderungen der Haut, with Arthur von Irsay, Vierteljahresschrift für Dermatologie
 * Les bactéries et leur rôle dans l'anatomie et l'histologie pathologiques des maladies infectieuses, Written with Victor André Cornil, 1 volume and Atlas, Paris, F. Alcan, 1885
 * Über isoliert färbbare Antheile von Bakterien, Zeitschrift für Hygiene, Leipzig, 1889, 5: 173–190
 * Observations sur la morve, Archives de médecine experimentale et d'anatomie pathologique, 1891, 3:619–645
 * Atlas der pathologischen Histologie des Nervensystems, with Georges Marinesco and Paul Oscar Blocq, Berlin, Hirschwald, 1892
 * Untersuchungen über Koch's Kommabacillus, [Virchows] Archiv für pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für klinische Medicin, Berlin
 * Untersuchungen über den Leprabazillus und über die Histologie der Lepra, Berlin, 1898
 * Beobachtungen über Riesenzellen, Stuttgart, 1905
 * Über die Notwendigkeit der Abänderung des Pasteur'schen Verfahrens der Wutbehandlung, Zeitschrift für Hygiene und Infektionskrankheiten, Leipzig, 1908, 58:401–412.

title: Victor Babeș


text:
Brane cosmology

Brane cosmology refers to several theories in particle physics and cosmology related to string theory, superstring theory and M-theory.

Brane and bulk
The central idea is that the visible, three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk" (also known as "hyperspace"). If the additional dimensions are compact, then the observed universe contains the extra dimension, and then no reference to the bulk is appropriate. In the bulk model, at least some of the extra dimensions are extensive (possibly infinite), and other branes may be moving through this bulk. Interactions with the bulk, and possibly with other branes, can influence our brane and thus introduce effects not seen in more standard cosmological models.

Why gravity is weak and the cosmological constant is small
Some versions of brane cosmology, based on the large extra dimension idea, can explain the weakness of gravity relative to the other fundamental forces of nature, thus solving the hierarchy problem. In the brane picture, the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear force are localized on the brane, but gravity has no such constraint and propagates on the full spacetime, called the bulk. Much of the gravitational attractive power "leaks" into the bulk. As a consequence, the force of gravity should appear significantly stronger on small (subatomic or at least sub-millimetre) scales, where less gravitational force has "leaked". Various experiments are currently under way to test this. Extensions of the large extra dimension idea with supersymmetry in the bulk appear to be promising in addressing the so-called cosmological constant problem.

Models of brane cosmology
One of the earliest documented attempts to apply brane cosmology as part of a conceptual theory is dated to 1983.

The authors discussed the possibility that the Universe has $$(3+N)+1$$ dimensions, but ordinary particles are confined in a potential well which is narrow along $$N$$ spatial directions and flat along three others, and proposed a particular five-dimensional model.

In 1998/99, Merab Gogberashvili published on arXiv a number of articles where he showed that if the Universe is considered as a thin shell (a mathematical synonym for "brane") expanding in 5-dimensional space then there is a possibility to obtain one scale for particle theory corresponding to the 5-dimensional cosmological constant and Universe thickness, and thus to solve the hierarchy problem. Gogberashvili also showed that the four-dimensionality of the Universe is the result of the stability requirement found in mathematics since the extra component of the Einstein field equations giving the confined solution for matter fields coincides with one of the conditions of stability.

In 1999, there were proposed the closely related Randall–Sundrum scenarios, RS1 and RS2. (See Randall–Sundrum model for a nontechnical explanation of RS1). These particular models of brane cosmology have attracted a considerable amount of attention. For instance, the related Chung-Freese model, which has applications for spacetime metric engineering, followed in 2000.

Later, the ekpyrotic and cyclic proposals appeared. The ekpyrotic theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel branes collided.

Empirical tests
As of now, no experimental or observational evidence of large extra dimensions, as required by the Randall–Sundrum models, has been reported. An analysis of results from the Large Hadron Collider in December 2010 severely constrains the black holes produced in theories with large extra dimensions. The recent multi-messenger gravitational wave event GW170817 has also been used to put weak limits on large extra dimensions.

title: Brane cosmology


text:
Wallace Pratt

Wallace Everette Pratt (1885–1981) was a pioneer American petroleum geologist. He is also notable for helping establish Guadalupe Mountains National Park through his donation of McKittrick Canyon. He is also notable for his marriage to suffragist Iris Calderhead.

Biography
Born in Phillipsburg, Kansas, March 15, 1885, Pratt began his career in geology as an assistant with the Kansas Geological Survey shortly after he graduated from the University of Kansas in 1907 with a bachelor's degree.

Humble Oil
From 1909 to 1914, he worked in Philippines, becoming chief of the Division of Mines there in 1912. He returned to the U.S. in 1916, and in 1918 joined Humble Oil & Refining Co. as the company's first geologist. Prior to that time the company had treated the search for oil as largely a hit or miss operation without scientific exploration. But Pratt, joined by 10 more geologists during 1918–19, proved that geology was an important factor in finding oil. Among the most notable early contributions made by Pratt and his staff were geological studies that led to the correct interpretation of the structure of the huge Mexia field, discovered in October 1920 in East Texas. On the basis of these studies, Humble bought leases on the structure and developed substantial reserves and production. This work and leasing of large amounts of land that proved productive in Powell, Texas, in 1923 firmly established Humble as an oil producer.

By 1920, the exploitation of Goose Creek Oil Field by Humble Oil led to the subsidence of the land over the oil field. Pratt was tasked with the investigation of this novel phenomenon and produced a report in which the subsidence was definitively attributed to the extraction of petroleum. In 1926, together with D. W. Johnson, he published these findings in a scientific paper. By this year, after about ten years of active pumping, most of the productive area of the field had subsided three feet, and the submerging of the facilities had already become obvious to field operators.

Pratt also played a prominent role in the scientific progress of his profession. As early as 1922, others were using geophysical instruments experimentally on the Texas Gulf Coast as a new method for finding salt domes. After studying results from this work, Pratt concluded that Humble should use geophysical instruments and methods. In line with these recommendations, in 1924, Humble set up a geophysics group and established a shop in Houston for geophysics research and development, and the manufacture of a refraction seismograph recording in the field. Pratt served as Humble's chief geologist and later director, and vice president. In 1937 he joined Standard Oil Co. (Humble's parent firm in New Jersey), once again rising to director, executive committee member, and finally, vice president, a position he held until he retired from the company in 1945.

Petroleum geologist
After retirement Pratt served on the National Security Resources Board for two years and began a long career as a consultant geologist. Pratt wrote more than 100 geological papers during his lifetime, including Oil in the Earth, one of the most widely read books in his profession. An often repeated quote from this book is, "Gold is where you find it, according to an old adage, but judging from the record of our experience, oil must be sought first of all in our minds." There was a limited amount to find, though: at the University of Kansas, Pratt gave a lecture "Oil in the Earth", where he speculated that the total amount of oil in the United States was 100 billion barrels.

Legacy and honors
One of the founders of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Pratt was elected fourth president of the association in 1920. He was the first recipient of the AAPG's Sidney Powers Memorial Award, awarded in 1945. In 1972 he received the AAPG's Human Needs Award. He also received the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers' Anthony F. Lucas Medal in 1948, and the American Petroleum Institute's Gold Medal for Distinguished Achievement in 1954. He was director of API for many years. Pratt was inducted into the Permian Basin Petroleum Museum's Hall of Fame in 1969 and was named Grand Old Man of Exploration in 1976 by directors of the International Petroleum Exposition. Since 1982, the AAPG has given the Wallace E. Pratt Memorial Award to the best AAPG Bulletin article published each calendar year.

Wallace E. Pratt donated 5632 acre, which included McKittrick Canyon, to the National Park Service, forming the core of the Guadalupe Mountains National Park. This land includes his former homes: Pratt Cabin, open to the public, and Ship On The Desert, a home built to resemble an oil tanker, now used as a ranger station. Pratt died December 25, 1981, in his Tucson, Arizona, home. He was 96.

title: Wallace Pratt


text:
Threefin blenny

Threefin or triplefin blennies are blenniiforms, small percomorph marine fish of the family Tripterygiidae. Found in tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, the family contains about 150 species in 30 genera. The family name derives from the Greek tripteros meaning "with three wings".

With an elongated, typical blenny form, threefin blennies differ from their relatives by having a dorsal fin separated into three parts (hence the name); the first two are spinous. The small, slender pelvic fins are located underneath the throat and possess a single spine; the large anal fin may have one or two spines. The pectoral fins are greatly enlarged, and the tail fin is rounded. The New Zealand topknot, Notoclinus fenestratus, is the largest species at 20 cm in total length; most other species do not exceed 6 cm.

Many threefin blennies are brightly coloured, often for reasons of camouflage; these species are popular in the aquarium hobby. As demersal fish, threefin blennies spend most of their time on or near the bottom on coral and rocks. The fish are typically found in shallow, clear waters with sun exposure, such as lagoons and seaward reefs; nervous fish, they retreat to rock crevices at any perceived threat.

Threefin blennies are diurnal and territorial; many species exhibit sexual dichromatism, with the females drab compared to the males. The second dorsal fin is also extended in the males of some species. Small invertebrates comprise the bulk of the threefin blenny diet.

Genera
FishBase lists about 150 species in 30 genera:
 * Subfamily Notoclininae Fricke, 2009
 * Brachynectes Scott, 1957
 * Notoclinus Gill, 1893
 * Subfamily Tripterygiinae Whitley, 1931
 * Acanthanectes Holleman & Buxton, 1993
 * Apopterygion Kuiter, 1986
 * Axoclinus Fowler, 1944
 * Bellapiscis Hardy, 1987
 * Blennodon Hardy, 1987
 * Ceratobregma Holleman, 1987
 * Cremnochorites Holleman, 1982
 * Crocodilichthys Allen & Robertson, 1991
 * Cryptichthys Hardy, 1987
 * Enneanectes D.S. Jordan & Evermann, 1895
 * Enneapterygius Rüppell, 1835
 * Forsterygion Whitley & Phillipps, 1939
 * Gilloblennius Whitley & Phillipps, 1939
 * Helcogramma McCulloch & Waite, 1918
 * Helcogrammoides Rosenblatt, 1990
 * Karalepis Hardy, 1984
 * Lepidoblennius Steindachner, 1867
 * Lepidonectes Bussing, 1991
 * Matanui Jawad & Clements, 2004
 * Norfolkia Fowler, 1953
 * Notoclinops Whitley, 1930
 * Ruanoho Hardy, 1986
 * Springerichthys Shen, 1994
 * Trianectes McCulloch & Waite, 1918
 * Trinorfolkia Fricke, 1994
 * Tripterygion Risso, 1827
 * Ucla Holleman, 1993

title: Threefin blenny


text:
Uta-garuta

Uta-garuta (歌ガルタ) is a type of a deck of karuta, Japanese traditional playing cards. A set of uta-garuta contains two sets of 100 cards, with a waka poem written on each. Uta-garuta is also the name of the game in which the deck is used. The standard collection of poems used is the Hyakunin Isshu, chosen by poet Fujiwara no Teika in the Heian period, which is often also used as the name of the game.

Since early 20th century the game is played mostly on Japanese New Year holidays.

Basic rules
The game uses two types of cards.

 * Yomifuda (lit. "Reading Cards"): One hundred cards with a figure of a person, their name, and a complete poem by them on each.
 * Torifuda (lit. "Grabbing Cards"): One hundred cards with only the finishing phrases of the poems on each.

The game is played with the players seated on the floor. At the start of a game, 100 torifuda are neatly arranged on the floor face up between the players. When the reader starts reading out a poem on the yomifuda, the players quickly search for the torifuda on which the corresponding final phrase is written.

There are two ways to play the game based on the rules above.

Chirashi-dori
One reader, three or more players:

 * 1) Mix up the deck of torifuda, and lay them out on the floor. Players sit around the cards.
 * 2) The reader draws a yomifuda and starts reading it out loud. Players attempt to recognize the poem being read as soon as possible, and race to find and take the corresponding torifuda as soon as they do.
 * 3) When a player has taken the corresponding torifuda, the reader moves on to the next yomifuda.
 * 4) When all the cards are taken, the player with the most cards wins the game.

Genpei-gassen
This playing style takes its name from the Genpei war.

One reader, two teams of one or more players each:

 * 1) Divide the players into two groups. The two groups are called Genji and Heike.
 * 2) Mix up the torifuda, and give 50 cards to each side.
 * 3) Genji and Heike sit face to face. Lay out 50 cards in front of each group in three lines facing the group.
 * 4) Gameplay is the same as in Chirashi-dori. Players can take cards from either side.
 * 5) If a player takes a card from the opponent's side, they can move one card from their own side to the opponent's side.
 * 6) If a player takes a wrong card, the opponent can move one card to the player's side as a penalty.
 * 7) The side that has no more torifuda on their side wins the game.

Strategy
The odds of winning increase if one knows the phrases. One even may be able to take a card immediately after hearing the reader read aloud only the first letters of the yomifuda poem. Technique in reading is also very important, having to know how to correctly space out the words and the seconds of the pause.

Competitive karuta
In Japan there are national conventions for the competitive format of the game.

In popular culture
The manga, anime series and live action movie Chihayafuru portrays the story of a group of young people who competitively play Hyakunin Isshu karuta with the aim of becoming best in the world. The series debuted in 2007, and its popularity has boosted the popularity of competitive karuta in Japan and abroad.

In the manga and anime series Nanbaka, uta-garuta is the 3rd Event of the New Year Joint Cooperation tournament.

The 21st movie of the Detective Conan anime series, Crimson Love Letter, features a uta-garuta competition as the main storyline.

title: Uta-garuta


text:
Talk:Hard bop

Question
I don't understand why "Brilliant Corners" is considered to be "hard bop". To my ears, it's essentially a bebop song. Can some one explain to me how it is an important defining hard bop tune?

-Pat M

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.193.55 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My music writing "chops" aren't good enough to handle this task, but I think there should be a section in this article called Musical Style, just as in the Bebop article.

One thing that could be mentioned is that the theme (or "head") that introduces a Hard bop composition is usually played in harmony between two of the lead instruments, which should be contrasted with the heads of Bebop tunes, which are played in unison.

DarknessEnthroned (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be more emphasis on Hard Bop as a continuation of Bebop as a strong contrast to the cool jazz movement, when I read this article I get the impression that it's all gospel and rhythm and blues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.145.41 (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Terminology
"Hard bop is a style of jazz that is an extension of bebop (or "bop") music."

The term "Bop" was indeed first applied to Bebop, but nowadays is used as a general term denoting bebop, hard bop and post bop genres. 82.176.214.123 (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Walkin' marks the beginning of the hard bop movement?
This statement is sprinkled through wp (it is/was also in the Miles Davis page). Supporting evidence, other than a single Ashley Kahn reference which is more the exception than the rule in the jazz literature available to me? --Alien Life Form (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

History
Compare the unsourced first paragraph in the "History" section with recent comments by Michael Cuscuna (whom I would consider to be some kind of authority on the matter). As it is, the entire article lists a couple of website but has no footnote citations. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've re-written a good portion of the section, using references. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Jazz Messenger be Quintet NOT quartet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.195.2 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"Other hard bop musicians" section too long
There are 67 names there. It seems like the list in this article should be more focused, to between 10-25 quintessential players. Can we come to a consensus as to which musicians to include (Blakey, Silver, etc.)?BassHistory (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the musicians mentioned in the prose text, and given the standalone list at List of hard bop musicians, I don't believe that we need this section at all. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree: better to centralise on that one list . (Also makes it easier to monitor and manage vanity intrusions.) AllyD (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are all of the musicians from the list on this page also mentioned there? If so, we could simply delete this list then.BassHistory (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there are a few differences to work through before deleting (Carl Allen for one). AllyD (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've ported across those that I think should be added to the List article (and found a couple of questionable biogs along the way). I've not ported everyone - omitting some where the article doesn't explicitly mention Hard Bop. Maybe others want to have a look first, but I reckon this section could go now. AllyD (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're good. I wondered about LaMont Johnson, but I only know him from Jackie McLean albums like Demon's Dance which I'm not sure is hard bop (but it's not as out as free jazz, either). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved Walter Bishop Jr, Lewis Nash and Larry Ridley, I didn't move Jimmy Garrison, Charles Tolliver, Larry Willis (although he did play on Infinity (Lee Morgan album)), and I don't know enough about Larry Ritchie or Hotep Idris Galeta. I went through every one name by name, I move that we delete the list.BassHistory (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're all agreed on the ones which were of dubious relevance here. I moved across LaMont Johnson and have now deleted the section. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hentoff liner notes
The article currently reads, "According to Nat Hentoff in his 1957 liner notes for the Blakey Columbia LP of the same name...." As written, this suggests there was an album called Blakey in 1957 on Columbia, which does not seem to be the case. I assume the statement refers to the album The Jazz Messengers (aka Art Blakey with the Original Jazz Messengers), but that's from 1956. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a 1957 album called Hard Bop that has liner notes by Hentoff.
 * BassHistory (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Add a few signature rifts of hard bop?
Could you add a few signature rifts of hard bop, particularly that distinguish it from be-bop? Much better than words! I notice that Claude Debussy - gets 28 clips, some quite long. --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:64C7:92A:F58E:B5EC (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

title: Talk:Hard bop