omniomni/omni-engineering huggingface dataset:
British Rail Class 129. The British Rail Class 129 was a class of single car diesel multiple units (DMU) built in 1955 for British Rail. Only three were built by Cravens and were introduced in 1958. The class was built for parcels traffic like the Class 128. One unit (55997) survived into departmental service being named 'Hydra'. The driving ends of a Class 129 car bore a visible similarity to that of the Class 105, also built by Cravens.

Fleet list

Departmental Usage

One unit, M55997, was converted as a test bed for hydrostatic drive in 1980, was renumbered RDB 975385, and named Laboratory 9 ‘Hydra’.  

It was fitted hydrostatic transmission having the normal Leyland Motors 680 six-cylinder engine driving two Bosch Rexroth Hydramatic axial piston pumps. Each pump supplied fluid to a Volvo fixed displacement compact axle-end motor which drove the axle directly. The maximum system pressure was in the order of .

This arrangement was only fitted to one bogie, the other one retaining its normal drive but with the cardan shaft disconnected.

The unit was finally withdrawn in January 1986 and scrapped in August that year by Vic Berry at Leicester.

References

129
Cravens multiple units
Non-passenger multiple units
Train-related introductions in 1958
British Rail Class 125. The British Rail Class 125 was a design of three car Diesel Multiple Unit built by BR Derby at Derby Works in 1958. They were almost identical in appearance to the Class 116.

History 
The Class 125 was built in 1958 at Derby Works as high capacity suburban railcars specifically for the Lea Valley Lines near Stratford. They were fitted with powerful Rolls-Royce engines, allowing them to have comparable performance to contemporary EMUs.They bore a close resemblance to the similar class 116, which were also built by British Rail at Derby. The Class 125 had a unique multiple working code (orange star), due to their unique pneumatic, rather than electric, engine control system. They also had a non-standard jumper cable arrangement and were therefore incompatible with other British Rail diesel multiple unit classes. They were withdrawn in 1977 and like many other first generation DMUs, never wore their  Class 125 TOPS classifications.

Operational history 
The class 125 entered service in 1958, replacing steam trains on the lines they served.

The Class 125 operated semi-fast suburban services on the Lea valley lines until their electrification in 1969, after which they were replaced by EMUs. They also operated commuter services on the West Anglia Main Line. These services were operated alongside locomotive hauled trainsets until the line was also electrified in 1969, after which class 302 and 308 electric multiple units took over the newly electrified routes. The trains were then transferred onto the East Coast Main Line commuter services out of King's Cross, where they worked for the rest of their operational lifetimes.

Departmental use
Two trailers (59458 + 59466) were taken into departmental (non-revenue earning) service in November 1982 and March 1984 as 975993 + 975964. They were used at the Railway Technical Centre in Derby and used as fire test vehicles. They were both withdrawn and scrapped in February 1986 and August 1988.

Withdrawal and Scrapping 
The Class 125s were withdrawn from ECML commuter routes in 1977, following the electrification of the ECML. They were then scrapped after a brief time in storage. No class 125 units survive to this day, as they were withdrawn before the interest in preserving multiple units began.

Numbering

Liveries
They were delivered in an unlined medium shade of Brunswick green with white cab roofs and yellow speed whiskers. The whiskers were replaced during the early 1960s by split yellow warning panels, one either side of the central character train describer which remained green.

During the mid 1960s rail blue appeared, and white cab roofs were gradually dispensed with and buffer beams became black. Initially the yellow warning panels were expanded to cover the complete lower front of the driving cabs and later the whole cab fronts became yellow.

References
 History of the Class 125s
 Brian Golding (1995). A Pictorial Record of British Railways Diesel Multiple Units. Chinnor: Cheona Publications. .
 Brian Morrison (1995). British Rail DMUs & Diesel Railcars: Origins & First Generation Stock. Ian Allan. .

125
Train-related introductions in 1959
Nanocomputer. Nanocomputer refers to a computer smaller than the microcomputer, which is smaller than the minicomputer.

Microelectronic components that are at the core of all modern electronic devices employ semiconductor transistors.  The term nanocomputer is increasingly used to refer to general computing devices of size comparable to a credit card. Modern single-board computer such as the Raspberry Pi and Gumstix would fall under this classification. Arguably, smartphones and tablets would also be classified as nanocomputers.

Future computers with features smaller than 10 nanometers 
Die shrink has been more or less continuous since around 1970. A few years later, the 6 μm process allowed the making of desktop computers, known as microcomputers. Moore's Law in the next 40 years brought features 1/100 the size, or ten thousand times as many transistors per square millimeter, putting smartphones in every pocket. Eventually computers will be developed with fundamental parts that are no bigger than a few nanometers. 

Nanocomputers might be built in several ways, using mechanical, electronic, biochemical, or quantum nanotechnology.  There used to be consensus among hardware developers that it is unlikely that nanocomputers will be made of semiconductor transistors, as they seem to perform significantly less well when shrunk to sizes under 100 nanometers.  Neverthelesss developers reduced microprocessor features to 22 nm in April 2012.  Moreover, Intel's 5 nanometer technology outlook predicts 5 nm feature size by 2022. The International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors in the 2010s gave an industrial consensus on feature scaling following Moore's Law. A silicon-silicon bond length is 235.2 pm, which means that a 5 nm-width transistor would be 21 silicon atoms wide.

See also
 Nanotechnology
 Quantum computer
 Starseed launcher – interstellar nanoprobes proposal

References

External links
 A spray-on computer is way to do IT
 Future Nanocomputer Technologies – diagram of possible technologies (electronic, organic, mechanical, quantum).

Classes of computers
Nanoelectronics
Panama Bay. The Panama Bay () is a large body of water off the coast of southern Panama, at . It is a part of the greater Gulf of Panama.

Pollution Problems 
The Panama Bay is considered to be in an eutrophic state by the World Resources Institute. This is a result of ongoing pollution from agricultural and livestock operations. Urban wastewater from nearby Panama City has also contributed to the eutrophication of Panama Bay.

See also
Matasnillo River

References

Bays of Panama
Gulf of Panama
Geography of Panama City
Panamanian coasts of the Pacific Ocean
Ramsar sites in Panama
Samsonite (mineral). Samsonite is a silver manganese antimony sulfosalt mineral with formula Ag4MnSb2S6. It crystallizes in the monoclinic crystal system with a typical slender radiating prismatic habit. It is metallic black to steel black with no cleavage and a brittle to conchoidal fracture. In thin fragments it appears reddish brown in transmitted light and also leaves a red streak. It is soft, Mohs hardness of 2.5, and has a specific gravity of 5.51.

It was first named in 1910 after an occurrence in the Samson Vein of the Sankt Andreasberg silver mines, Harz Mountains, Germany.

See also

 Classification of minerals
 List of minerals
 Samsonite (luggage brand)

References

Palache, C., H. Berman, and C. Frondel (1944) Dana's system of mineralogy, (7th edition), v. I, pp. 393–395

Antimony minerals
Manganese(II) minerals
Sulfosalt minerals
Silver minerals
Monoclinic minerals
Minerals in space group 14
Microporous material. A microporous material is a material containing pores with diameters less than 2 nm. Examples of microporous materials include zeolites and metal-organic frameworks.

Porous materials are classified into several kinds by their size. The recommendations of a panel convened by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) are:
Microporous materials have pore diameters of less than 2 nm.
Mesoporous materials have pore diameters between 2 nm and 50 nm.
Macroporous materials have pore diameters of greater than 50 nm.

Micropores may be defined differently in other contexts. For example, in the context of porous aggregations such as soil, micropores are defined as cavities with sizes less than 30 μm.

Uses in laboratories

Microporous materials are often used in laboratory environments to facilitate contaminant-free exchange of gases. Mold spores, bacteria, and other airborne contaminants will become trapped, while gases are allowed to pass through the material. This allows for a sterile environment within the contained area.

Other uses

Microporous media are used in large format printing applications, normally with a pigment based ink, to maintain colour balance and life expectancy of the resultant printed image.

Microporous materials are also used as high performance insulation in applications ranging from homes to metal furnaces requiring material that can withstand more than 1000 Celsius.

See also
Characterisation of pore space in soil
Nanoporous materials
Conjugated microporous polymer, a type of microporous material

References

Materials
Porous media
Signaling compression. For data compression, signaling compression, or SigComp, is a compression method designed especially for compression of text-based communication data as SIP or RTSP. SigComp had originally been defined in RFC 3320 and was later updated with RFC 4896. A Negative Acknowledgement Mechanism for Signaling Compression is defined in RFC 4077. The SigComp work is performed in the ROHC working group in the transport area of the IETF.

Overview
SigComp specifications describe a compression schema that is located in between the application layer and the transport layer (e.g. between SIP and UDP). It is implemented upon a virtual machine configuration which executes a specific set of commands that are optimized for decompression purposes (namely UDVM, Universal Decompressor Virtual Machine).

One strong point for SigComp is that the bytecode to decode messages can be sent over SigComp itself, so this allows to use any kind of compression schema given that it is expressed as bytecode for the UDVM. Thus any SigComp compatible device may use compression mechanisms that did not exist when it was released without any firmware change. Additionally, some decoders may be already been standardised, so SigComp may recall that code so it is not needed to be sent over the connection. To assure that a message is decodable the only requirement is that the UDVM code is available, so the compression of messages is executed off the virtual machine, and native code can be used.

As an independent system a mechanism to signal the application conversation (e.g. a given SIP session), a compartment mechanism is used, so a given application may have any given number of different, independent conversations, while persisting all the session status (as needed/specified per compression schema and UDVM code).

General architecture

References

Related standards documents
  – Signaling Compression (SigComp)
  – Signaling Compression (SigComp) – Extended Operations
  – The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Session Description Protocol (SDP) Static Dictionary for Signaling Compression (SigComp)
  – Compressing the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
  – A Negative Acknowledgement Mechanism for Signaling Compression
  – Signaling Compression (SigComp) Users' Guide
  – Signaling Compression (SigComp) Torture Tests
  – Signaling Compression (SigComp) Corrections and Clarifications
  – Applying Signaling Compression (SigComp) to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
  – The Presence-Specific Static Dictionary for Signaling Compression (Sigcomp)
 3GPP TR23.979 Annex C – Required SigComp performance

Data compression
Multimedia
Signal processing
VoIP protocols
Presentation layer protocols
Boeing XP-7. The Boeing XP-7 was a prototype United States biplane fighter of the 1920s.

Development and design

The XP-7 started life as the last Boeing Model 15 (PW-9D), serial 28-41. It was then adapted to mount the 600 hp Curtiss V-1570 Conqueror engine. Labelled by Boeing as their Model 93, the XP-7's nose was shorter and deeper than that of the standard PW-9, and the craft was 75 pounds lighter overall.

It first flew in September 1928 and did well, with a 17 mph speed increase over the PW-9. However, despite a proposal to build an additional four P-7s, the design was at the very limits of its capabilities and somewhat outdated even by the time of its first flight. At the end of testing, the Conqueror engine was removed and the aircraft converted back into a PW-9D.

Operators

United States Army Air Corps

Specifications

References

Bibliography
 
 Lloyd S. Jones, U.S. Fighters (Aero Publishers, Inc., 1975) pp. 32–33 

Boeing P-07
P-07
Single-engined tractor aircraft
Biplanes
Aircraft with fixed conventional landing gear
Boeing XP-8. The Boeing XP-8 (Boeing Model 66) was a prototype American biplane fighter of the 1920s, notable for its unusual design incorporating the engine radiator into the lower wing.

Design and development
Boeing developed the prototype in 1926 as a private venture, with the goal of winning the Army Air Corps competition announced in 1925. Designated by Boeing as its Model 66, the airframe was basically a PW-9 with an experimental 600 hp Packard 2A-1500 engine. In order to streamline around the engine, the radiator was moved back so that the opening coincided with the front edge of the lower wing, resulting in an unusually narrow profile around the engine.

Testing
Army testing of the aircraft began in January 1928, and it handled well, but performance was lacking, achieving only a maximum speed of 173.2 mph. Even so, the prototype continued in Air Corps service until June 1929, after which it was scrapped. The airframe design lived on in the Navy's Boeing F2B.

Operators

United States Army Air Corps

Specifications (XP-8)

See also

References

Notes

Bibliography

 Boeing Company. Pedigree of Champions: Boeing Since 1916, Third Edition. Seattle, Washington: The Boeing Company, 1969.
 Dorr, Robert F. and Donald, David. Fighters of the United States Air Force. London: Temple, 1990. .
 Jones, Lloyd S. U.S. Fighters: Army-Air Force 1925 to 1980s. Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers, Inc., 1975. .

External links

 Boeing XP-8

Boeing P-08
P-08
Single-engined tractor aircraft
Biplanes
Aircraft first flown in 1928
Aircraft with fixed conventional landing gear
Schleicher ASW 22. The ASW 22 is an Open Class glider built by Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co which first flew in 1981. The 'W' in the designation indicates that this is a product of the German designer Gerhard Waibel. An ASW 22 broke the world 750 km triangle speed record in 1985 and ASW 22s have won first place in six World Gliding Championships.

Design
The ASW 22 is the successor to the ASW 17. It first flew as a 22-metre glider. The span was later increased to 25 metres for the ASW 22B with a modified inner wing section and flaperons similar to the ASW 20. It uses a Horstmann and Quast wing profile on the inner section with underwing tubes to collect high-pressure air which is then expelled through turbulator holes in the bottom wing skin ahead of the flap and aileron hinge line to prevent the separation of the laminar flow. The ASW 22 has a two-wheel retractable undercarriage.

Variants

ASW 22Open Class high-performance sailplane; 22 or 24 metre span
ASW 22MFirst motorized self-launching version with 22/24 m span, Rotax 505A engine
AS 22-2The prototype of the ASH 25, which combined the wing of the ASW 22 with a two-seat fuselage
ASW 22BSpan increased to 25 m
ASW 22BLFitted with 26.4 m tips
ASW 22BE, BLE self-launching versions with 49 hp Rotax 505A engine
ASW 22BLE 50Rself-launching version with 50 hp rotary engine
ASW 22DB ETA biter A response to the Eta, from Gerhard Waibel and Dick Butler, derived from the ASW 22BL.

Specifications (ASW 22BL)

See also

References

Further reading

External links

Schleicher website
Photograph
Sailplane Directory

1980s German sailplanes
Schleicher aircraft
T-tail aircraft
Aircraft first flown in 1981
Shoulder-wing aircraft
UEM Group. UEM Group Berhad (UEM Group) is an investment holding company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Khazanah Nasional Berhad.

Its core businesses are Expressways (PLUS Malaysia Berhad), Township & Property Development (UEM Sunrise Berhad), Engineering & Construction (UEM Builders Berhad and Cement Industries of Malaysia Berhad or CIMA), Asset & Facility Management (UEM Edgenta Berhad) and Green Industries (UEM Lestra Berhad).

UEM Group has assets of more than US$5 billion (RM22.1 billion), with shareholders' funds standing in excess of US$2.1 billion (RM9.2 billion) as at end of December 2022.

History 
The company was incorporated in 1966 as United Engineers (M) Bhd.

In 2001, it became a wholly owned subsidiary of Khazanah Nasional Berhad, the sovereign wealth fund of Malaysia.

UEM Group of companies

Mercu UEM

Mercu UEM, a 29-storey commercial office building is the main headquarters of the UEM Group. It is located at KL Sentral, Kuala Lumpur.

References

  UEM Group Berhad corporate website, 16 Oct 2023

 
1966 establishments in Malaysia
Conglomerate companies of Malaysia
Construction and civil engineering companies of Malaysia
Government-owned companies of Malaysia
Malaysian companies established in 1966
Construction and civil engineering companies established in 1966
Privately held companies of Malaysia
Zelzal-1. Zelzal-1 (, meaning "Earthquake-1") is an Iranian-made heavy artillery rocket with an estimated range of 160 km. It is believed to be owned by the Iranian Armed Forces and Hezbollah. The rocket received relatively little use but was the basis for the more successful Zelzal-2 artillery rocket.

Users

See also
Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Defense industry of Iran
Equipment of the Iranian Army
Fateh-110
Zelzal-2
Zelzal-3

References 

Weapons of Iran
Ballistic missiles of Iran
Military equipment introduced in the 1990s

he:זלזאל
Zelzal-3. Zelzal-3 (, meaning "earthquake") is an Iranian-made solid propellant guided artillery rocket with a range of 200 km. It is an upgrade of the Zelzal-2 rocket with slightly improved range and was first shown to the public in 2007. A variant, the Zelzal-3B, has a smaller warhead and a range of 250 km. The shape and dimensions of the Zelzal-3 are nearly identical with previous versions except that the nosecone is cone shaped rather than the dome shaped Zelzal-1 and Zelzal-2. The Zelzal-3 has received little use as the much more accurate Fateh-110 missile was also developed from the Zelzal-2.

Background

Zelzal series rockets, along with Naze'at series rockets, are Iranian rockets that were designed and built during the Iran-Iraq war. According to Iranian sources, later on, Fateh-110 generation missiles were designed and built from the Zelzal system. Also, this system has been used to build some space probe rockets in Iran.

Technical specifications
Zelzal 3 has a length of 9.6 meters and a diameter of 616 mm. The weight of this missile is 3870 kg, of which 900 kg is the warhead and 1980 kg is the fuel. The error rate of this missile has been reported below 5%. This rocket has the power to have a maximum range of 200 kilometers. These rockets can be launched from mobile and fixed launchers and are installed on triple and single launchers.

The appearance of this rocket includes a cylindrical body, four trapezoidal wings at the end of the body and rotating rocket engines in front of the nose section. The nose of this missile, unlike its two previous generations, is a simple cone. In the third generation, while the length and diameter of the rocket has increased, its mass has also increased. The use of this missile has been considered to attack wide targets such as airport runways.

Zelzal-3B variant 
 
For the Zelzal 3 rocket, two initial models and an unreleased version have been reported. The two examples introduced in this generation have two different approaches, one with a 50% increase in warhead mass to achieve greater destructive power (with a slight reduction in range) and the other with an increase in range. In version B, the length of the missile is 9 meters and its width is 616 mm. The range of this missile has increased to 250 km and its weight is 3,600 kg.

Operators

 
 
Houthis have a rocket they call the Zelzal-3, which they claim it is locally-made and not imported from Iran.

See also
 Zelzal-1
 Zelzal-2
 Fateh-110
 Military of Iran
 Iran's missile forces
 Iranian military industry
 Current Equipment of the Iranian Army

References

Weapons of Iran
Ballistic missiles of Iran
Military equipment introduced in the 2000s
Open-source software assessment methodologies. Several methods have been created to define an assessment process for free/open-source software. Some focus on some aspects like the maturity, the durability and the strategy of the organisation around the open-source project itself. Other methodologies add functional aspects to the assessment process.

Existing methodologies 
There are more than 20 different OSS evaluation methods.
 Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) from Capgemini
 Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) from Navica
 Open Source Maturity Model (OSSMM) by Woods and Guliani
 Methodology of Qualification and Selection of Open Source software (QSOS)
 Open Business Readiness Rating (OpenBRR)
 Open Business Quality Rating (OpenBQR)
 QualiPSo
 QualiPSo Model for Open Source Software Trustworthiness (MOSST)
 Towards A Trustworthiness Model For Open Source Software: How to evaluate Open Source Software
 QualOSS – Quality of Open Source
 Evaluation Framework for Open Source Software
 A Quality Model for OSS Selection
 Atos Origin Method for Qualification and Selection of Open Source Software (QSOS)
 Observatory for Innovation and Technological transfer on Open Source software (OITOS)
 Framework for OS Critical Systems Evaluation (FOCSE)

Comparison

Comparison criteria 
Stol and Babar have proposed a comparison framework for OSS evaluation methods. Their framework lists criteria in four categories: criteria related to the context in which the method is to be used, the user of the method, the process of the method, and the evaluation of the method (e.g., its validity and maturity stage).

The comparison presented below is based on the following (alternative set of) criteria:
 Seniority : the methodology birth date.
 Original authors/sponsors : original methodology authors and sponsoring entity (if any)
 License : Distribution and usage license for the methodology and the resulting assessments
 Assessment model :
 Detail levels : several levels of details or assessment granularity
 Predefined criteria : the methodology provides some predefined criteria
 Technical/functional criteria : the methodology permits the use of domain specific criteria based on technical information or features
 Scoring model :
 Scoring scale by criterion
 Iterative process : the assessment can be performed and refined using several steps improving the level of details
 Criteria weighting : it is possible to apply weighting on the assessed criteria as part of the methodology scoring model
 Comparison : the comparison process is defined by the methodology

Comparison chart

See also 

Free software
 Open source

References

External links
 OSMM from Capgemini
 OSMM from Navica
 QSOS
 OpenBRR
 Master thesis on open source selection (In danish)
 Enterprise Maturity Assessment Model (freeware) 
 Enterprise Architecture Maturity Assessment Model Software – freeware
 Official QualiPSo OMM webpages

Free computer programming tools