Softsensors: key component of property control in forming technology

The constantly increasing challenges of production technology for the economic and resource-saving production of metallic workpieces require, among other things, the optimisation of existing processes. Forming technology, which is confronted with new challenges regarding the quality of the workpieces, must also organise the individual processes more efficiently and at the same time more reliably in order to be able to guarantee good workpiece quality and at the same time to be able to produce economically. One way to meet these challenges is to carry out the forming processes in closed-loop control systems using softsensors. Despite the many potential applications of softsensors in the field of forming technology, there is still no definition of the term softsensor. This publication therefore proposes a definition of the softsensor based on the definition of a sensor and the distinction from the observer, which on the one hand is intended to stimulate scientific discourse and on the other hand is also intended to form the basis for further scientific work. Based on this definition, a wide variety of highly topical application examples of various softsensors in the field of forming technology are given

A path forward in the debate over health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Several recent publications reflect debate on the issue of “endocrine disrupting chemicals” (EDCs), indicating that two seemingly mutually exclusive perspectives are being articulated separately and independently. Considering this, a group of scientists with expertise in basic science, medicine and risk assessment reviewed the various aspects of the debate to identify the most significant areas of dispute and to propose a path forward. We identified four areas of debate. The first is about the definitions for terms such as “endocrine disrupting chemical”, “adverse effects”, and “endocrine system”. The second is focused on elements of hormone action including “potency”, “endpoints”, “timing”, “dose” and “thresholds”. The third addresses the information needed to establish sufficient evidence of harm. Finally, the fourth focuses on the need to develop and the characteristics of transparent, systematic methods to review the EDC literature. Herein we identify areas of general consensus and propose resolutions for these four areas that would allow the field to move beyond the current and, in our opinion, ineffective debate