25 Years of Self-organized Criticality: Concepts and Controversies

Introduced by the late Per Bak and his colleagues, self-organized criticality (SOC) has been one of the most stimulating concepts to come out of statistical mechanics and condensed matter theory in the last few decades, and has played a significant role in the development of complexity science. SOC, and more generally fractals and power laws, have attracted much comment, ranging from the very positive to the polemical. The other papers (Aschwanden et al. in Space Sci. Rev., 2014, this issue; McAteer et al. in Space Sci. Rev., 2015, this issue; Sharma et al. in Space Sci. Rev. 2015, in preparation) in this special issue showcase the considerable body of observations in solar, magnetospheric and fusion plasma inspired by the SOC idea, and expose the fertile role the new paradigm has played in approaches to modeling and understanding multiscale plasma instabilities. This very broad impact, and the necessary process of adapting a scientific hypothesis to the conditions of a given physical system, has meant that SOC as studied in these fields has sometimes differed significantly from the definition originally given by its creators. In Bak’s own field of theoretical physics there are significant observational and theoretical open questions, even 25 years on (Pruessner 2012). One aim of the present review is to address the dichotomy between the great reception SOC has received in some areas, and its shortcomings, as they became manifest in the controversies it triggered. Our article tries to clear up what we think are misunderstandings of SOC in fields more remote from its origins in statistical mechanics, condensed matter and dynamical systems by revisiting Bak, Tang and Wiesenfeld’s original papers

Komponentensicherheit. T. B: Pruef- und Versuchstechnik Abschlussbericht

Available from TIB Hannover: QN 278(B) / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekSIGLEBundesministerium fuer Forschung und Technologie (BMFT), Bonn (Germany)DEGerman

Caracterização do perfil de deposição e do diâmetro de gotas e otimização do espaçamento entre bicos na barra de pulverização Characterization of deposition pattern, droplet diameter and optimization of nozzles spacing in spray boom

A escolha e o uso adequado de pontas de pulverização são essenciais para a correta aplicação de produtos fitossanitários, sendo, portanto, indispensável o conhecimento de suas características. Este trabalho teve o objetivo de caracterizar o perfil de distribuição e o diâmetro de gotas, oferecendo dados para otimizar o espaçamento entre bicos na barra de pulverização. Foram avaliados os perfis de distribuição da ponta de jato plano Teejet XR 110015 VS, a 0,50 m da altura da mesa de deposição, nas pressões de 200 e 300 kPa, e o diâmetro das gotas pelo método de difração de raios laser. As distâncias máximas foram de 0,85 m, calculadas para um coeficiente de variação (C.V.) aceitável para as pressões de 200 e 300 kPa , com os respectivos valores de 9,52 e 9,58%. A distância ótima foi de aproximadamente 0,70 m, para C.V. em torno de 5%. Comparando as pressões, houve diferença significativa para DV0,1 e DV0,5, não havendo diferença para o DV0,9. Embora o aumento da pressão tenha provocado diminuição do tamanho das gotas, não houve diferença significativa de uniformidade entre as duas pressões de trabalho avaliadas. Concluiu-se que o espaçamento máximo entre bicos na barra não deverá ser maior que 0,85 m e que o DV0,5 diminui com o aumento da pressão de 200 para 300 kPa, porém sem alteração significativa da uniformidade de diâmetro de gota.<br>The choice and correct use of nozzles are essential for the best agrochemical deposition, which is indispensable. The aim of this work was characterize the spray pattern and the droplet diameter offering information to optimize the nozzles spaces in spray boom. Deposition pattern of flat fan nozzles Teejet XR 110015 VS were evaluated, in a patternator, with the nozzle placed 0.50 m above patternator under pressures of 200 and 300 kPa, and the droplet diameter by the laser diffraction method. The maximum distance calculated for an acceptable coefficient of variation (C.V.) was of 0.85 m for the pressures of 200 and 300 kPa, with values of 9.52 and 9.58%, respectively. The optimum distance was around of 0.70 m and to C.V. around 5%. Comparing pressures, it had significant difference for DV0.1 and DV0.5 but not for DV0.9. However the increase on the pressure resulted in a reduction of droplet size there was no significant effect of span due the pressures evaluated. It was concluded that the maximum spacing between nozzles would not be over 0.85 m and the DV0.5 decreased with the increase of pressure from 200 to 300 kPa, but without significance changes of span to droplet sizes