Ice protection systems (IPS) are critical components for many aerospace flight vehicles, including commercial transports and unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and can include antiicing, de-icing, ice sensing, etc.. Here, an IPS is created using nanomaterials to create a surface-modified external layer on an aerosurface based on observations that polymer nanocomposites have tailorable and attractive heating properties. The IPS uses Joule heating of aligned carbon nanotube (CNT) arrays to create highly efficient de-icing and anti-icing of aerosurfaces. An ice wind tunnel test of a CNT enhanced aerosurface is performed to demonstrate the system under a range of operating regimes (temperature, wind speed, water content in air) including operation down to -20.6°C (-5°F) at 55.9 m/s (125 mph) under heavy icing. Manufacturing, design considerations, and further improvements to the materials and systems are discussed.
Primary care settings are ideal for initiating advance care planning (ACP) conversations and assessing palliative and supportive care needs. However, time constraints and a lack of confidence to sensitively and efficiently initiate such discussions are noted barriers. The Advance Project implemented a national multicomponent training package to support Australian general practice nurses (GPNs) to work with GPs to initiate ACP and palliative care conversations in their practice. This paper reports on semistructured interviews conducted with 20 GPNs to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing the Advance Project model. Participants identified a range of factors that affected implementation, including lack of time, limited support from colleagues, lack of knowledge about systems and funding processes in general practice and a need for better alignment of the Advance Project resources and practices with general practice information management platforms. Barriers related to professional roles, particularly the lack of clarity and/or limitations in the scope of practice of GPNs, highlighted the importance of defining and supporting the roles that different primary health practice staff could play to support implementation of the model. The findings underline the need for complementary training in the Advance Project model for GPs and practice managers to enable a team-based approach to implementation.
Killen and Jacobs (2017) propose a new four-term operant contingency, in which an O (physiological/dispositional/motivational state of the organism) is added to the traditional three-term S-R-S r contingency. This fourth term is added in an attempt to explain changes in responding that may depend on the state of the organism responding for that reinforcer. We propose, instead, that an older model, the disequilibrium model (Timberlake & Farmer-Dougan, 1991), may already account for changes in such changes in responding. Further, the disequilibrium model may also predict the magnitude and direction of changes in responding across changing contexts.While reinforcement theorists ponder the function of the environment, discriminative stimuli, and the reinforcing event itself on the rate, magnitude, and probability of response, applied researchers struggle with finding a parsimonious explanation of reinforcement theory that is both experimentally and ecologically valid. Given the differing theoretical explanations and daunting terminology used to describe reinforcement, discerning an appropriate reinforcement model for an applied setting has become confusing. In our canine research, as well as previous work with humans, we see behaviorists in applied settings struggle with Bsimple^concepts such as the traditional four-square contingency, the Premack principle, and schedules of reinforcement. Indeed, a brief review of talks for the Karen Pryor Clicker Expo 2017, the online Association for Professional Dog Trainers discussion group, or even the BcBA Behavior Analyst Facebook group yields discussions on when to Buse Premack^versus positive reinforcement; how to distinguish
The tunnel-wall effects on drag and stall, given by the usual simple corrections, are not adequate when the span-diameter ratio is high or when the spanwise lift distribution varies considerably from elliptical. In order to determine more exact interference corrections, especially for elliptic throat tunnels of closed section, the up wash induced by the tunnel walls on the major axis, due first to the presence of lifting lines of different span lengths and then to the presence of typical wing distributions built up from these lifting lines to simulate actual wings, is computed for a number of wing distributions and spans. All the calculations are for wings whose aspect ratio is eight, and all are based on the constants of the Wright Brothers elliptic throat wind tunnel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.The magnitude of these corrections is found to vary inversely with the taper ratio of the wing, the corrections being less for a highly tapered wing and more for a rectangular wing of the same span and aspect ratio. For those cases where the wing tips lie outside the foci of the throat section, the variation of the induced angle of attack along the span is no longer negligible at high lift coefficients. Its geometric effect is to cause an apparent washin angle toward the wing tip. The induced drag corrections have minimum values when the wing tips are at or near the foci of the tunnel for all usual lift distributions along the span. As the wing tips approach the tunnel wall, both the induced drag corrections and the angles of apparent washin or of apparent twist increase rapidly. SYMBOLS A = semimajor axis of tunnel cross section B = semiminor axis of tunnel cross section b = model wing span c -focal distance of tunnel cross section CL = lift coefficient ACDi -induced drag coefficient correction due to tunnel walls L = lift (local force along span) A.R. = aspect ratio ST = tunnel cross-sectional area S w = model wing area chord at wing root T.R. = taper ratio = U = W = y Vo = fictitious tip chord undisturbed stream velocity induced upwash due to tunnel walls distance from center of tunnel cross section along A hyperbolic component in hyperbolic, ellipsoidal coordinate system £, corresponding to a given wing tip position (tip inside c) ellipsoidal component in hyperbolic, ellipsoidal coordinate system constant rj giving ellipse representing tunnel wall a = T]/r]Q for rj between 0 and rj Q a' = a, corresponding to a given wing tip position (tip beyond c) P = y/(b/2) a = angle of attack Aa = induced angle of attack due to tunnel walls T = local circulation around wing To = circulation at wing root K -r segment/r 0 5o = upwash correction factor 8 m = mean upwash correction factor for a given loading and span TUNNEL CONSTANTS B/A = 0.732 c = 0.684 k = 1.584 S T = kirc 2 THE CASE OF THE LIFTING LINE IN THE ELLIPTIC TUNNELT HE FIRST STEP is to determine the tunnel-wall interference on a lifting line that lies symmetrically on the semimajor axis of the tunnel. Following customary procedure, the wall of the tunne...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.