Autoignition test cell Patent

Test chamber for determining decomposition and autoignition of materials used in spacecraft under controlled environmental condition

A Universal Temperature Profile for Galaxy Clusters

We investigate the predicted present-day temperature profiles of the hot, X-ray emitting gas in galaxy clusters for two cosmological models - a current best-guess LCDM model and standard cold dark matter (SCDM). Our numerically-simulated "catalogs" of clusters are derived from high-resolution (15/h kpc) simulations which make use of a sophisticated, Eulerian-based, Adaptive Mesh-Refinement (AMR) code that faithfully captures the shocks which are essential for correctly modelling cluster temperatures. We show that the temperature structure on Mpc-scales is highly complex and non-isothermal. However, the temperature profiles of the simulated LCDM and SCDM clusters are remarkably similar and drop-off as $T +AFw-propto (1+-r/a_x)^{-+AFw-delta}$ where $a_x +AFw-sim r_{vir}/1.5$ and $+AFw-delta +AFw-sim 1.6$. This decrease is in good agreement with the observational results of Markevitch et al.(1998) but diverges, primarily in the innermost regions, from their fit which assumes a polytropic equation of state. Our result is also in good agreement with a recent sample of clusters observed by BeppoSAX though there is some indication of missing physics at small radii ($r<0.2 r_{vir}$). We discuss the interpretation of our results and make predictions for new x-ray observations that will extend to larger radii than previously possible. Finally, we show that, for $r>0.2 r_{vir}$, our universal temperature profile is consistent with our most recent simulations which include both radiative cooling and supernovae feedback.Comment: 8 pages, 6 figures, accepted for publication in ApJ, full-page version of Fig. 2 at http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/+AH4-cloken/PAPERS/UTP/f2.ep

LOX/GOX mechanical impact tester assessment

The performances of three existing high pressure oxygen mechanical impact test systems were tested at two different test sites. The systems from one test site were fabricated from the same design drawing, whereas the system tested at the other site was of different design. Energy delivered to the test sample for each test system was evaluated and compared. Results were compared to the reaction rates obtained