omniomni/omni-engineering huggingface dataset:
Nucleofection. Nucleofection is an electroporation-based transfection method which enables transfer of nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA into cells by applying a specific voltage and reagents. Nucleofection, also referred to as nucleofector technology, was invented by the biotechnology company Amaxa. "Nucleofector" and "nucleofection" are trademarks owned by Lonza Cologne AG, part of the Lonza Group.

Applications 
Nucleofection is a method to transfer substrates into mammalian cells so far considered difficult or even impossible to transfect. Examples for such substrates are nucleic acids, like the DNA of an isolated gene cloned into a plasmid, or small interfering RNA (siRNA) for knocking down expression of a specific endogenous gene.

Primary cells, for example stem cells, especially fall into this category, although many other cell lines are also difficult to transfect. Primary cells are freshly isolated from body tissue and thus cells are unchanged, closely resembling the in-vivo situation, and are therefore of particular relevance for medical research purposes. In contrast, cell lines have often been cultured for decades and may significantly differ from their origin.

Mechanism 
Based on the physical method of electroporation, nucleofection uses a combination of electrical parameters, generated by a device called Nucleofector, with cell-type specific reagents. The substrate is transferred directly into the cell nucleus and the cytoplasm. In contrast, other commonly used non-viral transfection methods rely on cell division for the transfer of DNA into the nucleus. Thus, nucleofection provides the ability to transfect even non-dividing cells, such as neuron and resting blood cells. Before the introduction of the Nucleofector Technology, efficient gene transfer into primary cells had been restricted to the use of viral vectors, which typically involve disadvantages such as safety risks, lack of reliability, and high cost. The non-viral gene transfer methods available were not suitable for the efficient transfection of primary cells. Non-viral delivery methods may require cell division for completion of transfection, since the DNA enters the nucleus during breakdown of the nuclear envelope upon cell division or by a specific localization sequence.
Optimal nucleofection conditions depend upon the individual cell type, not on the substrate being transfected. This means that identical conditions are used for the nucleofection of DNA, RNA, siRNAs, shRNAs, mRNAs and pre-mRNAs, BACs, peptides, morpholinos, PNA, or other biologically active molecules.

See also 
 Electroporation

References 
 
 
 

Molecular biology
Genetic engineering
Roger Q. Williams. Roger Quincy Williams (April 30, 1894 - August 12, 1976) was an American aviator. He established The Roger Q. Williams School of Aeronautics. He designed the Yankee Aerocoupe.

Biography
He was born in Brooklyn, New York on April 30, 1894.

In July 1929 Williams, with Lewis Yancey, broke the over-water flying record by making a non-stop flight from Old Orchard Beach, Maine to Santander, Spain. The 3,400 mile flight took 31 hours and 30  minutes. After minor repairs in Spain, the Bellanca monoplane continued on to Rome.

In 1937 he filed for bankruptcy.

During World War I, Williams served with the United States Army Air Corps. Between 1942 and 1946 Williams served with the United States Army Air Forces. Williams wrote Flying to the Moon and Halfway Back in 1949.

In 1971, Williams received a National Aviation Hall of Fame award from the OX-5 Club.

Williams died in Alameda, California on August 12, 1976.

References

Further reading
”Flights and Fliers” Time Magazine, June 17, 1929
”Wives of Fliers Happy”, The New York Times, July 11, 1929
Heinmuller, John Paul Virgil. Man's Fight to Fly; Famous World-Record Flights and a Chronology of Aviation. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co, 1944.
Roseberry, Cecil. The Challenging Skies; The Colorful Story of Aviation's Most Exciting Years, 1919-1939. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966.
Scott, Catherine D. Aeronautics and Space Flight Collections. New York: Haworth Press, 1985.
University of Wyoming, D. C. Thompson, and John Hanks. Guide to Transportation History Resources at the American Heritage Center. Laramie: The Center, 1996.

External links
Old Orchard Beach Airfield
OX-5 Aviation Pioneers
Roger Q. Williams papers at the American Heritage Center

1894 births
1976 deaths
American test pilots
United States Army Air Forces officers
United States Army Air Service pilots of World War I
United States Army Air Forces pilots of World War II
American aviation pioneers
American aviation record holders
Dayton-Wright FP.2. 

The Dayton-Wright FP.2 was a forestry patrol aircraft developed in the United States in the early 1920s for use by the Canadian Forest Service. It was a twin-engine two-bay biplane with equal-span, unstaggered wings that were designed to be interchangeable between top and bottom. Initially designed with the props in a pusher position, the engines were remounted in tractor position before the aircraft went into service. The cabin was fully enclosed and seated four, with the single pilot in an extensively glazed nose. The empennage had triple fins, and the landing gear consisted of twin pontoons. Only a single example was built. While in service the aircraft was modified with larger side windows, and controls for a second pilot.

Operators

Canadian Forest Service

Specifications

References

 
 aerofiles.com

1920s United States special-purpose aircraft
FP.2
Floatplanes
Biplanes
Aircraft first flown in 1921
Twin piston-engined tractor aircraft
Dayton-Wright RB-1 Racer. The Dayton-Wright RB-1 (Rinehart Baumann model one), also known simply as the Dayton-Wright Racer was a high wing single-engine monoplane racing aircraft developed in the United States to participate in the 1920 Gordon Bennett Cup air race.

Design and development
The RB-1 was a high-wing monoplane with a monocoque fuselage and cantilever wing built around a solid balsa wood core laminated with plywood and covered in linen that incorporated a mechanism designed by Charles Hampson Grant to vary its camber in flight by adjusting the angles of the leading and trailing edges, with the trailing edge being a plain flap, and the leading edge functioning similarly. The aircraft also featured a retractable undercarriage operated by a hand-crank making it one of the first instances of undercarriage retraction for aerodynamic benefit alone.
The propeller shaft was mounted through a large oval radiator. The pilot had no forward view, but was provided with flexible celluloid side windows. Cockpit access was through a hatch in the top of the fuselage.
A prototype was built using non-retractable gear and strut-braced wings. A shorter tapered "racing wing" was installed afterward with leading and trailing edge flaps interconnected with landing gear deployment. The mechanisms and hinges for the wing flaps were exposed across the top of the solid wing. The racing wing produced directional instability requiring small tail fins to be added.

Operational history

Dismantled and shipped to France, the RB-1 was flown by Howard Rinehart in the 28 September 1920 race, but was forced to withdraw after a cable failure prevented retraction of the gear/flap mechanism, allowing the two Nieuport-Delage NiD.29V racers to make a one-two finish.
After the race it was returned to the United States, and is now preserved at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. Many of the aircraft's advanced features were incorporated into a prototype fighter, the XPS-1.

Variants
 Dayton-Wright XPS-1 - A 1921 Pursuit aircraft using the RB landing gear design.

Specifications

See also

References

Notes

Citations

Bibliography

External links
 aerofiles.com

1920s United States sport aircraft
Racer
High-wing aircraft
Single-engined tractor aircraft
Aircraft first flown in 1920
List of United States technological universities. Institutes of technology and polytechnics have existed at least since the 18th century, but became popular after World War II with the expansion of engineering education and technical education, associated with the new needs created by industrialization. In some cases, polytechnics or institutes of technology are engineering schools or technical.

A handful of American universities include the phrases "Institute of Technology", "Polytechnic Institute", "Polytechnic University", or similar phrasing in their names; these are generally research-intensive universities with a focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The level of academic rigor in these schools may vary from regional state universities to elite schools.

Institutions

Notes

References 

Technological Universities
Code mobility. In distributed computing, code mobility is the ability for running programs, code or objects to be migrated (or moved) from one machine or application to another. This is the process of moving mobile code across the nodes of a network as opposed to distributed computation where the data is moved.

It is common practice in distributed systems to require the movement of code or processes between parts of the system, instead of data.

Examples of code mobility include scripts downloaded over a network (for example JavaScript, VBScript), Java applets, ActiveX controls, Flash animations, Shockwave movies (and Xtras), and macros embedded within Microsoft Office documents.

Overview
The purpose of code mobility is to support sophisticated operations. For example, an application can send an object to another machine, and the object can resume executing inside the application on the remote machine with the same state as it had in the originating application.

According to a classification proposed by Fuggetta, Picco and Vigna, code mobility can be either strong or weak:
strong code mobility involves moving both the code, data and the execution state from one host to another, notably via a process image (this is important in cases where the running application needs to maintain its state as it migrates from host to host), while weak code mobility involves moving the code and the data only. Therefore, it may be necessary to restart the execution of the program at the destination host.

Several paradigms, or architectural styles, exist within code mobility:

 Remote evaluation — A client sends code to a remote machine for execution.
 Code on demand — A client downloads code from a remote machine to execute locally.
 Mobile agents — Objects or code with the ability to migrate between machines autonomously.

Viruses
Mobile code can also download and execute in the client workstation via email.  Mobile code may download via an email attachment (e.g., macro in a Word file) or via an HTML email body (e.g., JavaScript).  For example, the ILOVEYOU, TRUELOVE, and AnnaK emails viruses/worms all were implemented as mobile code (VBScript in a .vbs email attachment that executed in Windows Scripting Host). In almost all situations, the user is not aware that mobile code is downloading and executing in their workstation.

Renting code
Mobile code also refers to code "used for rent", a way of making software packages more affordable.  i.e. to use on demand.  This is specially relevant to the mobile devices being developed which are cellular phones, PDAs, etc. all in one.  Instead of installing software packages, they can be "leased" and paid for on a per-usage basis.

See also
 Code on demand
 Mobile agent
 Remote evaluation

References 

Distributed computing architecture
Types of malware
New Getter Robo. is an anime original video animation co-produced by Dynamic Planning and Bandai Visual. The series is a re-imagining of the 1970s manga Getter Robo, created by Go Nagai and Ken Ishikawa, that incorporates aspects of Japanese mythology like the Oni and Abe no Seimei which replaces the Dinosaur and Hyakki Empire present in the original Getter Robo manga.

Plot 
A reimagination of the Getter Robo story, it begins with Dr. Saotome, who seeks extraordinary men to pilot his invention: The Getter Robo. Many who have tried to pilot it have died, and his son, Tatsuhito, was seriously injured during a Getter battle. He finds three men to pilot the Getter Robo: Ryoma Nagare, Hayato Jin, and Benkei Musashibo. Now they must battle and destroy the Oni, mysterious creatures that appeared suddenly which happen to resemble mythological monsters.

Characters

 : The team leader. Strong, and trained in martial arts in his father's footsteps, Ryoma is a powerful martial artist which allows him to effectively pilot the demanding Getter machine. Pilots the Eagle Machine and Getter-1.
 

 : Both a terrorist and a genius, Hayato starts out as an insane and psychopathic terrorist leader. Upon joining the Getter team, Hayato's demeanour switches to a more serious but still cold attitude, wanting to learn more about the origins of Getter energy. Pilots the Jaguar Machine and Getter-2.
 

 : A warrior monk named after the legendary Japanese hero of the same name in addition to Musashi Tomoe and Benkei Kuruma. Benkei Musashibo shares traits of both Musashi Tomoe and Benkei Kurama from the original Getter Robo, including their trademark  attack. Pilots the Bear Machine and Getter-3.
 

 : Inventor of the Getter Robo. Also pilots the Bear Machine during the second and third episodes, up until Benkei is recruited.
 

 : Professor Saotome's daughter. She is more interested in studying the Oni than fighting them. Unlike her appearances in the manga and flashbacks in Getter Robo: Armageddon, this version of Michiru is notably a lot colder and tougher.
 

 : Seimei Abe is the villain of the series. He is responsible for bringing the Oni to attack the world.
 

 Lab Staff

 Man In Black

 Tatshuito Saotome, Master Carlos

 Ruby, Lab Staff

 Lab Staff

 Bonze

 Kirk Thonton

 Additional Voices

 Jamieson Price

 Wendee Lee

 Lex Lang

 Tom Wyner

 Villager

 Hiruda, Soldier

 Debt Collector

Four Heavenly Kings
The Four Heavenly Kings are revealed in episode 11 as the primary antagonists of the series that used Abe no Seimei to destroy Getter Robo.
: The "leader" of the four, attacks with lightning bolts and can grow in size.
 

: Attacks with a sword.
 

: Attacks with a large serpent on his body.
 

: Attacks with scrolls with quickly written incantations.

Episodes

References

External links
Official Bandai Visual New Getter Robo site 

2004 anime OVAs
Bandai Visual
Brain's Base
Cultural depictions of Abe no Seimei
Geneon USA
Getter Robo
Japanese mythology in anime and manga
Super robot anime and manga
Nadir Nadirov. Nadir Nadirov (, Nádir Kárimuly Nádirov; ; 6 January 1932 – 24 August 2021) was a Kurdish engineer from Kazakhstan. He was born in the Nakhichevan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and his family was deported to Kazakhstan in 1933. He was the president of association of Kurds in Kazakhstan (Berbang) and the first vice-president of the Engineering Academy of Kazakhstan. He was also director of the Neft scientific center. In 1992, he went public with the accounts of mass deportation of Kurds in the former Soviet Union during the 1930s and 1940s.

Books
N.K. Nadirov, A.P. Popov, Protein from Petroleum, U.S. Joint Publications Research Service, Springfield, Virginia, 1974.
N.K. Nadirov, N. S. Nametkin, Podsolevye nefti Prikaspiĭskoĭ vpadiny, 302 pp., Izdvo Nauka Kazakhskoi SSR, 1983.(in Russian)
N.K. Nadirov, N. Markovich, Токоферолы и их использование в медицине и сельском хозяйстве, 334 pp., 1991.
N.K. Nadirov, Kurds of Kazakhstan, 556 pp., 2003 (in Russian).
N.K. Nadirov, Tengiz: more nefti, more problem, 2003, .

References

External links
Interview with Academician Nadir Nadirov , Kazakh Pravda, 2002.
Family background of Nadir K. Nadirov

1932 births
2021 deaths
People from the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic
Recipients of the Order of Kurmet
Recipients of the Order of Parasat
Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour
Kazakhstani engineers
Kazakhstani people of Kurdish descent
Kurdish scholars
Kurdish scientists
Soviet engineers
Arthur Middleton-class attack transport. The Arthur Middleton-class attack transport was a class of three US Navy attack transport that saw most of its service in World War II. Ships of the class were named after signatories of the American Declaration of Independence.

Like all attack transports, the purpose of the Arthur Middleton class was to transport troops and their equipment to hostile shores in order to execute amphibious invasions. To perform this task, attack transports were equipped with a substantial number of integral landing craft, and heavily armed with antiaircraft weaponry to protect themselves and their vulnerable cargo of troops from air attack in the battle zone.

Background

The Arthur Middleton class was based on the Maritime Commission's ubitiquous Type C3 hull - specifically the C3-P&C (Passenger & Cargo) type. This hull type had been designed with both merchant cargo service and naval auxiliary service in mind.

All three ships were laid down by the Ingalls Shipbuilding Company of Pascagoula, Mississippi between July and October 1940. Time between initial laying of the keel to commission for each vessel varied from 20 to 26 months - an unusually long time, which suggests the shipyard may have experienced delays or had other priorities. The first to be commissioned was Samuel Chase on 13 June 1942, followed by the George Clymer two days later. Arthur Middleton, the lead ship of the class, was laid down first but not commissioned until 7 September 1942, about three months later.

The ships were initially classified as transports (AP) but were redesignated attack transports (APA) on 1 February 1943, the date on which several other classes of transport ship were redesignated.

In service

During World War II, two of the ships, Arthur Middleton and George Clymer, served almost exclusively in the Pacific Theatre, taking part in many of the Navy's island hopping campaigns. Samuel Chase, however, was assigned to the European Theatre, where she participated in the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Normandy, before transferring to the Pacific to take part in the final Battle of Okinawa.

Immediately after the war the three ships of the class were assigned to transporting troops to occupation duties in newly conquered Japan. They were then assigned to Operation Magic Carpet, the huge sealift organized to return demobilizing servicemen to the United States.

Following the Magic Carpet operation, two of the ships were decommissioned in late 1946 - early 1947, after which they saw no further service. George Clymer however, remained in commission, eventually seeing service in the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. She was finally retired on 31 October 1967, having provided the Navy with 26 years of continuous service and accumulated an impressive fifteen battle stars. She was sold for scrap on 31 July 1968. Her two sister ships, decommissioned more than twenty years earlier, followed her to the scrap yard on 9 May 1973.

References
Samuel Chase.
George Clymer.
Amphibious transport index

Notes
De Havilland Biplane No. 1. 

De Havilland Biplane No. 1 is a name applied retrospectively to the first aircraft constructed by Geoffrey de Havilland, who built and flew it once in December 1909. De Havilland undertook the project with the assistance of his friend, and soon to be brother-in-law, Frank Hearle, and financed the project with £1,000 borrowed from his maternal grandfather as an advance on his inheritance.

The resulting design was a three-bay biplane with an open-truss fuselage, equal-span unstaggered wings, and a four-wheeled undercarriage. Power was provided by a 45 hp (30 kW) de Havilland Iris flat-four engine (custom-built by the Iris Car Company for £220) driving two pusher propellers mounted behind the wings. A fin and stabiliser were carried to the rear, with a large elevator at the front of the aircraft. Lateral control was provided by ailerons attached to the upper wing, de Havilland's wife, Louise, sewed the linen surfaces of the wings.

With construction continuing at Fulham, de Havilland and Hearle looked for a site to test the aircraft. During a visit to Crux Easton in the summer, they discovered unused sheds that had been built on Lord Carnarvon's estate at Seven Barrows by John Moore-Brabazon. De Havilland purchased them in August for £150 and secured Lord Carnarvon's permission to fly from his land.

By December, de Havilland and Hearle relocated the aircraft to the sheds and took rooms at a nearby inn. After ground tests, they sent the aircraft rolling down Beacon Hill with de Havilland at the controls. It became airborne briefly, covering some 100 ft (35 m) before the left wing failed, and the aircraft crashed. De Havilland's most serious injury was a blow to the wrist from one of the still-spinning propellers, received after extricating himself from the wreckage. The engine was salvaged and powered the team's next aircraft, the de Havilland Biplane No. 2, which first flew in September 1910, also at Beacon Hill.

Specifications

References

Bibliography
 Taylor M.J.H. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation London: Studio Editions, 1989 p. 308
 Jackson, A. J. de Havilland Aircraft since 1915. London: Putnam, 1962
 Jackson, A. J. de Havilland Aircraft since 1909. London: Putnam, 1987. .
 Munson - Pioneer Aircraft 1969

External links
 Details of the De Havilland machineFlight magazine 9 April 1910

1900s British experimental aircraft
Biplane No. 1
Single-engined twin-prop pusher aircraft
Aircraft first flown in 1909
Biplanes
Three-surface aircraft
Aircraft flown once
Mining feasibility study. A mining feasibility study is an evaluation of a proposed mining project to determine whether the mineral resource can be mined economically.  There are three types of feasibility study used in mining, order of magnitude, preliminary feasibility and detailed feasibility.

Order of magnitude
Order of magnitude feasibility studies (sometimes referred to as "scoping studies") are an initial financial appraisal of an inferred mineral resource. Depending on the size of the project, an order of magnitude study may be carried out by a single individual. It will involve a preliminary mine plan, and is the basis for determining whether to proceed with an exploration program, and more detailed engineering work. Order-of-magnitude studies are developed by copying plans and factoring known costs from existing projects completed elsewhere and are accurate to within 40–50%.

Preliminary feasibility
Preliminary feasibility studies or "pre-feasibility studies" are more detailed than order of magnitude studies.  A preliminary feasibility study is used in due diligence work, determining whether to proceed with a detailed feasibility study and as a "reality check" to determine areas within the project that require more attention.  Preliminary feasibility studies are done by factoring known unit costs and by estimating gross dimensions or quantities once conceptual or preliminary engineering and mine design has  been completed.  Preliminary feasibility studies are completed by a small group of multi-disciplined technical individuals and have an accuracy within 20-30%.

Detailed feasibility
Detailed feasibility studies are the most detailed and will determine definitively whether to proceed with the project.  A detailed feasibility study will be the basis for capital appropriation, and will provide the budget figures for the project.  Detailed feasibility studies require a significant amount of formal engineering work, are accurate to within 10-15% and can cost between ½-1½% of the total estimated project cost.

Footnotes

Mining engineering
Feasibility study