Characteristics of colliding density currents: a numerical and theoretical study

This paper presents a new set of numerical simulations of two colliding density currents in a idealized framework, integrating the Boussinesq vorticity equation in a rectangular bounded domain. These simulations are used to examine the dynamical features of the collision, in the light of recent laboratory experiments. The collision dynamics present various interesting features. Here we have focused on the interface slope at the front of the two unequal density currents and on the maximum height reached by the fluid after the collision. For the secondary triggering of atmospheric convection by colliding cold pools from previous convective events, these may affect the positioning and the momentum of the collision uplift, respectively. The interface slope has been shown to be dependent on the currents’ buoyancy ratio (i.e. the ratio between the density differences of the two fluids with the ambient fluid) , whereas the maximum height has no strong dependence, for a given initial current depth. A theoretical model, based on an analogy with a vortex pair, has been proposed for the interface-slope dependence, taking as input the buoyancy ratio or the propagating speeds. This model agrees reasonably well with the observed numerical values

Coupling the 1-D lake model FLake to the community land-surface model JULES

Results are presented from the merging of the lake model FLake into the community land-surface model JULES. It is shown, by comparison with observational data, that the combined JULES-FLake model performs more realistically than JULES with its original or upgraded parametrizations for inland water. Tests against observations from lakes in the UK and Sweden show that JULES-FLake gives results for both midlatitude and arctic lakes which are comparable to the original lake model, FLake. The accuracy of JULES-FLake as a general model of the land surface is therefore enhanced. Differences in sign of the model errors in the prediction of lake-ice thickness indicate possible future directions for development and testing of these models

William Howard Taft, the Origin of the Rule of Reason, and the Actavis Challenge

The origin of the Rule of Reason can be traced to the notable decision of United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. (1898), which was written by William Howard Taft during his tenure on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. There, Judge Taft distinguished between restraints that were mainly or entirely designed to restrain trade and those that are ancillary to a procompetitive main purpose. That fundamental distinction, drawn at the dawn of Sherman Act jurisprudence, forms the basis of the Rule of Reason that currently informs antitrust case law. This Article describes the context in which the Rule of Reason was debated and defended both in public discourse by President and Professor Taft and in the landmark Supreme Court decisions of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911) and United States v. American Tobacco Co.(1911). This Article then follows the development of the Rule of Reason through Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States (1918) to the modern era of antitrust jurisprudence. Finally, this Article describes the application of the Rule of Reason to reverse-payment settlements in the pharmaceutical sector, one of the most challenging contemporary antitrust issues. It does so through a discussion of the Supreme Court case FTC v. Actavis (2013) and the Third Circuit’s application of Actavis in In re Wellbutrin Xl Antitrust Litig. Indirect Purchaser Class (2017). This Article provided the foundation for, and introduction to, the remarks of Professor Michael A. Carrier and Mr. Saul Morgenstern that were delivered at the New York State Bar Association Antitrust Law Section’s William Howard Taft Lecture on September 28, 2017. Those remarks are reprinted in article form in this volume of the Columbia Business Law Review

Amex in Context: Tracing the Application of the Rule of Reason to Vertical Restraints

In his 1911 State of the Union address, President William Howard Taft, the former and future jurist, discussed the development of antitrust law since the Sherman Act’s passage: “Slowly the mills of the courts ground, and only gradually did the majesty of the law assert itself.” While Taft allowed for the possibility that some changes to the law may be beneficial, he also argued that the “object” of the Act was “near achievement,” and spoke against those calling to “abandon this work of twenty years and try another experiment[.]” Ultimately, the experiment was not abandoned, and the Sherman Act remains at the center of antitrust law in the United States. Meanwhile, the “mills of the courts” have continued to grind away. Various judges, justices—including the eventual Chief Justice Taft himself—and scholars have shaped the contours of antitrust law. One area of ongoing development is the organic rule of reason, which Taft played no small role in originating. The rule of reason was first articulated in United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.5 in 1898 and played an important role, not long after, in the titanic cases of Standard Oil of New Jersey v. United States6 and United States v. American Tobacco Co. During Taft’s presidency, however, the Supreme Court held that vertically imposed price restraints were per se illegal, and, over the decades that followed, the rule of reason began to wither and was gradually replaced, in significant part, by a series of per se rules

モダニズムとメカニズム（承前） : 田村善之助とその周辺

著作権保護のため、すべての掲載図版に墨消し処理を施しています

Thermal Studies on Rubidium Dinitramide

The present study has been carried out to investigate conflicting reports in the literature on the nature of the thermal decomposition of the energetic oxidant rubidium dinitramide in the liquid state. The techniques employed included DSC, simultaneous TG-DTA, simultaneous TG-mass spectrometry and thermomicroscopy. The measurements were supplemented by quantitative chemical analysis of the reaction products. The results showed that, following fusion at 106 °C, the overall decomposition proceeded in a single exothermic reaction stage forming a mixture of rubidium nitrate and rubidium nitrite in the molar ratio 1.2 : 1