omniomni/omni-engineering huggingface dataset:
Edge crush test. The edge crush test is a laboratory test method that is used to measure the cross-direction crushing of a sample of corrugated board. It gives information on the ability of a particular board construction to resist crushing. It provides some relationship with the peak top-to-bottom compression strength of empty singlewall regular slotted containers in laboratory conditions.

The edge crush resistance R, expressed in kilonewtons per meter (kN/m) is calculated by the equation: , where  is the mean value of the maximum force and is measured in newtons. More details are laid down in ISO 3037.

Corrugated fiberboard can be evaluated by many material test methods including an edge crush test. There have been efforts to estimate the compression strength of a box (usually empty, regular singlewall slotted containers, top-to-bottom) based on various board properties. Some have involved finite element analysis. One of the commonly referenced empirical estimations was published by McKee in 1963. This used the board ECT, the MD and CD flexural stiffness, the box perimeter, and the box depth. Simplifications have used a formula involving the board ECT, the board thickness, and the box perimeter. Most estimations do not relate well to other box orientations, box styles, or to filled boxes.

In order to calculate the value of BCT (Box compression test), the formula of McKee would be the easiest but also the least accurate. The ratio of height to the circumference must be greater than 1:7; even then, are many reservations.

Simplified McKee formula:

BCT = Box compression test in Pounds
U = box outline in inch
d = thickness of corrugated board in inch

References

 ISO 3037:2007-03, Corrugated fibreboard - Determination of edgewise crush resistance

Materials testing
Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network. The Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network (MEECN) is a network of systems providing uninterrupted communications throughout the pre-, trans-, and post-nuclear warfare environment. At minimum, MEECN is designed to provide a one-way flow of information to activate nuclear forces during severe jamming and a post-nuclear environment.

Components
As of 1994, MEECN consists of various programs: Miniature Receive Terminals (MRTs) for nuclear bombers, High Power Transmit Sets (HPTS) for E-4B aircraft, Dual Frequency MEECN receivers (DFMRs) for ICBM Launch Control Centers.

Ground Element MEECN System (GEMS)
The GEMS program, short for Ground Element Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network, is intended to replace deprecated communications facilities. This system features improved infrastructure for alerting aircrew, and maintaining communications in the event of nuclear conflict. Notable elements include updated Extremely High Frequency (EHF) communications satellites, and redundant Very Low Frequency (VLF) communication paths for strategic message traffic. The changes will resolve problems associated with aging or ineffective devices such as pagers, klaxons, and Emergency Action Message (EAM) processing systems.

Minuteman MEECN Program (MMP)
The Minuteman MEECN Program (MMP) replaced the aging Survivable Low Frequency Communications System (SLFCS) Launch Control Centers (LCCs) with an Extremely High Frequency (EHF) and Very Low Frequency/Low Frequency (VLF/LF) communications equipment.

MMP consists of EHF Milstar and VLF/LF communications equipment.

The 91st Missile Wing's Oscar-01 at Minot AFB, North Dakota was the last Minuteman Launch Control Center to have updated to the MMP configuration.

See also
 Post-Attack Command and Control System (PACCS)
 Airborne Launch Control System (ALCS)
 Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN)
 Survivable Low Frequency Communications System (SLFCS)

References

Nuclear warfare
Telecommunications equipment of the Cold War
United States nuclear command and control
Slingsby Kite 2. The Slingsby Type 26 Kite 2 was a post World War II development of the Slingsby Kite, a single seat medium performance sailplane.  It sold in small numbers.

Development

At the end of World War II Slingsby Sailplanes built a revised and updated version of their earlier and quite successful Type 6 Kite, designated the Type 23 Kite 1A.  This did not perform well and only one was built.  Instead, Slingsby developed the Type 26 Kite 2, a much more thoroughly redesigned Kite. It had a new wing and a stretched fuselage.

The Kite 2 was a fabric covered wooden aircraft.  The original Kite (and the Kite 1A) had gull wings of curved planform, but the Kite 2's wings had constant 2.5o dihedral over the whole span and a straight tapered planform.  The old Göttingen aerofoil was replaced with a newer NACA pair.  There were no flaps, but spoilers were fitted to the upper wing surface. The wing was pylon mounted and, as on the earlier Kite, a single lift strut on each side linked wing and lower fuselage. The pilot sat immediately in front of the pylon under a canopy which blended into it.  The canopy and surrounding fuselage fairing lifted off in one piece for access. The cockpit revision slightly increased the length of the nose, but most of the 1030 mm (40.6 in) fuselage extension was behind the wings.  The tail unit of the Kite 2 was the same as that of its predecessors, with an aerodynamically balanced rudder with a deep and rounded trailing edge mounted on a fin that was little more than a rudder-post.  The tailplane, braced from below and on the top of the fuselage was far enough forward that the elevator hinges were ahead of the rudder post.   There was strong taper on the horizontal surfaces and a large cut out in the elevators to allow rudder movement.  A monowheel was added aft of the nose skid.

The Kite 2 first flew in 1948.  Including the prototype, three Kite 2s were built by Slingsby, the last two with altered washout at the wingtips and designated Kite 2A.  One of these later had its spoilers replaced with airbrakes, becoming a Kite 2B.  After that production was taken over by Martin Hearn Ltd., where eleven more Kite 2s were built.  One Kite 2B was built with a Skylark 2 tail unit.  The unmodified Kite 2A flew with the Royal Air Force Gliding and Soaring Association.  Some Kites flew with open cockpits.

Specifications (Kite 2)

Notes

References

1940s British sailplanes
Kite 2
High-wing aircraft
Aircraft first flown in 1948
British United Airways Flight 1030X. British United Airways Flight 1030X crashed on 14 April 1965 on Jersey in the Channel Islands. Poor visibility and low cloud cover resulted in an aborted landing attempt, leading to a second attempt which ended with the Douglas C-47B hitting the outermost pole of the approach lighting system before crashing into a field and catching fire. The crash killed all 23 passengers and three of the crew on board; a flight attendant was the only survivor of the accident.

The aircraft
The aircraft was a Douglas C-47B-20-DK (registration: G-ANTB), converted to a DC-3 for civil use, that had its first flight in 1945, with a total of 18,544 flying hours before the accident. It was being operated by British United (C.I.) Airways, an affiliate of British United Airways.

Accident
British United Airways' extra scheduled passenger flight 1030X took off from Paris-Orly Airport in France to Jersey Airport, Channel Islands, with 27 passengers and crew on board. Low cloud cover at Jersey likely made it hard for the pilots to see the runway, leading to an aborted first landing attempt. On the second landing attempt, the aircraft's starboard wing hit the outermost pole of the approach lighting system at a height of ,  short of the runway threshold. The impact severed the starboard wing; the aircraft then rolled upside-down and crashed. The flight deck of the aircraft was crushed, and the cabin engulfed in flames. All 23 passengers, most of whom were believed to be French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese migrant farm workers, along with three of the four crew members, were killed. The only survivor was a French flight attendant who was sitting in the rear of the cabin, which had separated from the remainder of the fuselage following the impact. She was badly injured, with two broken legs.

Cause
The accident investigation concluded that the accident was the result of the pilot attempting to land in visibility that was far below that laid down by the airline's procedures. The weather in the Channel Islands had been poor all day, with many flights cancelled. Despite being informed during the flight of the poor and deteriorating conditions, the pilot elected not to divert to another airport. The accident report recommended considering mounting approach lights on frangible masts to avoid a similar catastrophe, and further recommended a re-consideration of regulations for operating in poor weather.

References

 "Emergencies – 26 Killed As Plane Crashes". Daytona Beach Morning Journal, News-Journal Corp, Daytona Beach, FL, 15 April 1965.
 "Air Crash In Jersey Kills 26". The Gazette, Postmedia Network Inc, Montreal, 15 April 1965. 
 "Report on the Jersey Accident". Flight, 5 May 1966, p. 755.

External links
 "Air Transport ... Jersey Accident". Flight International, 22 April 1965, p. 629.

Aviation accidents and incidents in 1965
Aviation accidents and incidents in the Channel Islands
Aviation in Jersey
British United Airways accidents and incidents
Jersey Airlines accidents and incidents
1965 in Jersey
Disasters in Jersey
April 1965 in Europe
Accidents and incidents involving the Douglas C-47 Skytrain
Masaru Kitsuregawa. is a Japanese computer scientist. Currently he is a professor at the University of Tokyo.

Biography

Education 
 1978: Graduated from the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Tokyo
 1983: Received the degree of Ph.D. from the Department of Computer Science, University of Tokyo

Work 
 1983: Lecturer at the University of Tokyo
 1984: Associate professor

Awards and honours
 2009: SIGMOD Edgar F. Codd Innovations Award
 2013: Medal with Purple Ribbon
 2015: C&C Prize
 2020: IEEE Innovation in Societal Infrastructure Award

References

External links 
 http://www.tkl.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/Kilab/Members/memo/kitsure_j.html

Living people
1955 births
Japanese computer scientists
Academic staff of the University of Tokyo
University of Tokyo alumni
2012 fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery
Fellows of the IEEE
Recipients of the Medal with Purple Ribbon
Natural resource protection zoning. In recent years, communities in Massachusetts have adopted resource protection zoning (RPZ) as a tool to protect natural resources and open space. RPZ, which was originally passed in Shutesbury, Massachusetts in spring 2008, includes elements of conservation subdivision regulations and cluster development bylaws, to regulate new subdivisions of land in a manner that maximizes the protection of natural resources (wetlands, forests, agriculture lands, open space).

Purpose
The primary objective of this tool is to allow towns to make natural resource protection and open space preservation an important component of any subdivision of land. Because this is a relatively new tool, there have been no applications of the regulations in practice, so it remains to be seen whether it will actually achieve its goals.

Differences from traditional conservation subdivisions
Resource Protection zoning differs from traditional conservation subdivisions and cluster bylaws in many ways, including:
 RPZ is allowed by right, meaning that developers are not subject to a more onerous permitting process than traditional subdivisions.
 A conservation analysis is performed in accordance with subdivision regulations to ensure that critical resources on the site remain undeveloped. A minimum of 65% of the site must be left as open space, not including wetlands, steep slopes and other unbuildable areas.
 A development formula, which combines the results of the conservation analysis, is done to assess the amount of units that can be built in a development. Instead of using minimum lot size requirements (which can encourage sprawl) minimum density requirements are used to determine how many units can go into a development.
 Density bonuses are granted to developers that preserve additional open space, provide affordable housing or implement innovative wastewater management.
 Within the area of the site that is developable, there are no setback or frontage requirements or minimum lot sizes. This allows the developer flexibility in developing the site, and when it is combined with the other tools and regulations used in the bylaw, the overall impact is maximizing development potential in the most suitable areas of the site, while protecting critically important resources.

References

Environment of Massachusetts
4-Methyl-2-pentanol. 4-Methyl-2-pentanol (IUPAC name: 4-methylpentan-2-ol) or methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC) is an organic chemical compound used primarily as a frother in mineral flotation and in the production of lubricant oil additives such as Zinc dithiophosphate. It is also used as a solvent, in organic synthesis, and in the manufacture of brake fluid and as a precursor to some plasticizers. It is an acetone derivative in liquid state, with limited solubility in water but generally miscible with most organic solvents.

References 

Hexanols
General Aircraft GAL.55. The General Aircraft GAL.55 was a 1940s British military training glider designed and built by General Aircraft Limited.

Development
The GAL.55 was a two-seat training glider to meet Air Ministry Specification TX.3/43, and was selected ahead of the Airspeed AS.54, with the British Air Ministry ordering three prototypes. The requirement called for a glider for basic and advanced training transport of glider pilots.  The GAL.55 was a mid-wing monoplane of mixed construction, with a plywood-covered steel tube fuselage and spruce and plywood wings. Pilot and instructor sat side-by-side under an enclosed canopy, and were provided with full dual controls. The aircraft was fitted with a fixed tricycle landing gear and had split trailing edge flaps and dive brakes. 

Two gliders were built, with the first prototype making its maiden flight late in 1943 from Hanworth. Formal handling and performance trials at the Airborne Forces Experimental Establishment (AAEE) at RAF Beaulieu did not begin until November 1945. The type had light and sensitive controls, but had poor stability when being towed, and had much steeper gliding angles than the Horsa that the GAL.55 would train pilots for. The AAEE concluded that the GAL.55 was unsuitable as a trainer for contemporary troop- and cargo-carrying gliders. By the time these tests had been completed, in July 1946, there was no longer a requirement to train large numbers of glider pilots, so no effort was made to resolve the GAL.55's problems, and no production followed.

Specifications

See also

References

Notes

Bibliography

 

1940s British military trainer aircraft
Glider aircraft
GAL.55
Aircraft first flown in 1943
Piaggio P.16. The Piaggio P.16 was an Italian heavy bomber designed and built by Piaggio for the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force).

Design and development
The P.16 was a three-engine shoulder-wing monoplane of mostly metal construction, with inverted gull wings. Its wing was thick and semi-elliptical, and its tail was mounted high on the fuselage. It had retractable main landing gear and a spatted, non-retractable tailwheel. In addition to bombs, its armament consisted of four 7.62-millimeter (0.3-inch) machine guns, of which two were mounted in the leading edge of the wing, one in a retractable dorsal turret, and one in the rear of the fuselage beneath the tail. The bombardier (bomb-aimer) manned a compartment set behind the nose engine on the underside of the fuselage.

Operational history
The P.16 first flew in November 1934, and an order for 12 aircraft was placed and then cancelled, with preference given to the Piaggio P.32, which was produced from 1936 to 1939.

Operators

Regia Aeronautica

Specifications

References

External links

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1936/1936%20-%200073.html

P.016
1930s Italian bomber aircraft
Trimotors
Shoulder-wing aircraft
Aircraft first flown in 1934
Inverted gull-wing aircraft
AForge.NET. AForge.NET is a computer vision and artificial intelligence library originally developed by Andrew Kirillov for the .NET Framework.

The source code and binaries of the project are available under the terms of the Lesser GPL and the GPL (GNU General Public License).

Another (unaffiliated) project called Accord.NET was created to extend the features of the original AForge.NET library.

Discontinuation of free public support and future development 

On April 1, 2012, Andrew Kirillov announced the end of the public support for the library, temporarily closing the discussion forums. The last release of the AForge.NET Framework was made available on July 17, 2013. However, since its release 3.0 in 2015, the Accord.NET project started to incorporate most of the original AForge.NET source code in its codebase, continuing its support and development under the Accord.NET name.

Features

The framework's API includes support for:
 Computer vision, image processing and video processing
 Including a comprehensive image filter library
 Artificial Neural networks library implements some common network architectures (multi-layer feed forward and distance networks) and learning algorithms (back propagation, delta rule, simple perceptron, evolutionary learning).
 Genetic algorithms, genetic programming and gene expression programming
 Fuzzy logic
 Machine learning
 and libraries for a select set of robotics kits
 Lego Mindstorms NXT and RCX kits

The framework is provided not only with different libraries and their sources, but with many sample applications, which demonstrate the use of this framework, and with documentation help files, which are provided in HTML Help format. A number of software applications and research works utilized the framework.

See also

List of free and open source software packages
List of numerical libraries for .NET framework
 Accord.NET - Computer vision and artificial intelligence library that extends AForge.NET.
 OpenCV - A popular C++ computer vision library.
 VXL - Another C++ computer vision library.
 CVIPtools - A complete GUI based computer vision and image processing software environment.
 OpenNN - An open source C++ neural networks library.

References

External links 

 

.NET software
Computer vision software
RC3. RC3, or variants may refer to:

RC3: River City Cycling Classic, an cycling omnium in Eastern Washington, United States.
RC3: precision running fits, a class of engineering fit used in the United States
Republic RC-3 Seabee, an amphibious sports aircraft
SJ Rc3, a model of SJ Rc class electric locomotive used in Sweden
State Highway RC-3 (Puducherry), a state highway in Puducherry, India; see List of state highways in Puducherry
RC3, one of six RC algorithms, symmetric-key encryption algorithms invented by Ron Rivesta
rC3 (Remote Chaos Experience), remote events of the Chaos Communication Congress in 2020 and 2021
RC3 or Reginald Cornelius III, a fictional character in Knight Rider (season 4)
Roberto Carlos, Brazilian former professional footballer

See also
Release candidate, a software release version with potential to be a stable product
RC (disambiguation)
R3 (disambiguation)
C3 (disambiguation)
Primary Alert System. The Primary Alerting System (PAS), was a network of land-line connections used by the Strategic Air Command (SAC) for command and control of its nuclear forces. PAS provided immediate and simultaneous voice communications to all (SAC) unit command posts and missile launch control facilities.

 

PAS reached each Command Post by two geographically diversified circuits; one circuit, commonly called the "front-door" circuit tied the unit directly to Headquarters (SAC); the other, or "back-door" circuit provided a link to the parent Numbered Air Force.

See also
Post Attack Command and Control System (PACCS)
Airborne Launch Control System (ALCS)
Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN)
Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network (MEECN)
Survivable Low Frequency Communications System (SLFCS)

References

Telecommunications equipment of the Cold War
United States nuclear command and control
Equipment of Strategic Air Command
Piaggio P.23M. The Piaggio P.23M was an Italian commercial transport aircraft prototype designed and built by Piaggio.

Design and development
Piaggio designed the P.23M specifically for flights across the North Atlantic Ocean, intending it to have potential for development as a commercial transport. It was a four-engine shoulder-wing monoplane with inverted gull wings and twin tail fins and rudders. To allow an easier landing if the aircraft had to ditch at sea, its fuselage was designed like a boat hull, which Piaggio termed an avion marin ("marine aviation") design, although the aircraft was not a flying boat. The main landing gear was retractable. The P.23Ms four  Isotta-Fraschini Asso XI R. V-12 engines were mounted on the wings in two tandem pairs, each engine driving a two-bladed propeller; two of the propellers were mounted as pushers and the other two in a tractor configuration.

Piaggio claimed a top speed of 400 kilometers per hour (249 miles per hour) for the P.23 and projected its maximum range at a cruising speed of 300 km/h (186 mph) as 5,100 kilometers (3,169 statute miles).

Operational history
The P.23 first flew in 1935. No attempt to fly the Atlantic Ocean ever took place, and its predicted maximum range capabilities never were tested. The aircraft soon was disassembled and never flew again.

Variants
No variants of the P.23 were produced. The Piaggio P.23R of 1936, although also a commercial transport prototype and confusingly numbered as if it were a variant of the P.23, was an entirely new design.

Operators

Specifications (P.23M)

References

External links

AR Aircraft Manuals Blueprints Video Publications: Piaggio P.23

P.023
1930s Italian airliners
1930s Italian cargo aircraft
Four-engined push-pull aircraft
Shoulder-wing aircraft
Aircraft first flown in 1935
List of steepest gradients on adhesion railways. The inclusion of steep gradients on railways avoids the expensive engineering work required to produce more gentle gradients. However the maximum feasible gradient is limited by how much of a load the locomotive(s) can haul upwards. Braking when travelling downhill is also a limiting factor. There have been various solutions to hauling rail mounted vehicles up or down inclines. These include simple rail adhesion, rack railways and cable inclines (including rail mounted water tanks to carry barges). To help with braking on the descent, a non-load-bearing "brake rail" located between the running rails can be used, similar to the rail used in the Fell system, e.g. by the Snaefell Mountain Railway on the Isle of Man.

Tramways and light railways often have steeper gradients than heavier railways. This is because all wheels are usually connected to engine power in order to give better acceleration. Grades of 5% are not uncommon on them. Metros and pure commuter railways often also allow steeper gradients, over 4%, for the same reason. High-speed railways commonly allow 2.5% to 4% because the trains must be strong and have many wheels with power to reach very high speeds. For freight trains, gradients should be as gentle as possible, preferably below 1.5%.

Examples 
The list below is of some of the steepest gradients on adhesion railways, in order of decreasing steepness:

See also 

 Grade (slope)
 Hillclimbing (railway)
 Lickey Incline, steepest British main-line gradient
 Longest trains
 Mountain railway
 Rack railways
 Ruling gradient
 Spiral (railway)
 Zig zag (railway)

Further reading

References

External links 
 Sample Curve & Gradient Diagram, Page 5

Adhesion railways, gradients
Steepest gradients