FEKETEHÁZY János életpályája: The Career of János FEKETEHÁZY / Carera lui János FEKETEHÁZY

This paper shows the life and work of engineer János Feketeházy, an outstanding personality of the late 19th century in building rail and road bridges in Hungary. Noted among the railway bridges are the ones on the Tisza at Szolnok and Poroszlo; and on the Danube at Baja. He also designed the road bridge on the Tisza at Szeged, the bridges of Komárom (Erzsébet-híd = Elizabeth Bridge) and the Szabadság-híd (Liberty Bridge) in Budapest over the Danube among others. Some elements of civil construction, such as the roof of the "Keleti pályaudvar" (Eastern Railway Station) also in Budapest shall also be attributed to him. We owe him a series of remarkable technical innovations in the field. Rezumat Lucraea prezintă viața și opera inginerului János Feketeházy, o personalitate de excepție a sfârșitului secolului 19. în domeniul construcției podurilor feroviare și rutiere din Ungaria. Dintre podurile feroviare se remarcă cele de pe Tisa la Szolnok și Poroszló, sau cea de pe Dunărea de la Baja. Tot el a proiectat podul rutier de pe Tisa de la Szeged (Seghedin), podurile de pe Dunărea de la Komárom (Erzsébet-híd = Podul Elisabeta) și Szabadság-híd (Podul Libertății) din Budapesta, dar și altele. I-se atribuie și câteva elemente de construcții civile, cum este acoperișul gării Keleti pțlyaudvar (Gara de Est) tot din Budapesta. Îi datorăm și o serie de inovații tehnice remarcabile în domeniu

Ki volt a Budavári Alagút tervezője? Who was the designer of the Budavár Tunnel? / Cine a proiectat tunelul Budavár?

For the citizens the functionality of engineering constructions is more important than the identity of their designer. But who is the creator of an engineering construction? Is it the designer or the person who makes the plan, the intellectual work transformed into drawings, become reality? In fact, both of them are creators, but the plan is always a pre-condition of the building. The important question is whose name is remembered by the coming generations?Few people know that the designer of the Eiffel Tower (built in 1888-89) was not engineer Alexandre Gustave Eiffel (1832-1923) as many believe, but a young Alsatian-Swiss engineer working in the Eiffel Engineering Office, called Maurice Koechlin (1856-1946). He got his degree at the Zurich technical university, just as János Feketeházy who designed the majority of Hungary's bridges. Feketeházy was the designer of the Szeged downtown bridge as well, which was believed to be an Eiffel-design by the citizens for half a century, but he also designed the huge industrial complex in Budapest-Kőbánya which is known today as Eiffel-Hall, utilized by the Hungarian State Opera.According to many professional books on the topic, the Buda Castle Tunnel was built as the continuation of the Széchenyi Chain Bridge's track to make the Budapest-Déli railway station in Krisztinaváros (in Buda) easily accessible for anyone travelling from the Pest-side of the city. We know that the designer of the Chain Bridge (plans made in 1838-39) was the English engineer William Tierney Clark (1783-1852) and the construction works (cofferdam construction from 1839, bridge construction in 1842-49) were led by the Scottish engineer Adam Clark (1811-1866). We also know that after handing over the bridge to the public, Adam Clark returned to London, then after the construction of a few more bridges (Pirna, Leitmeritz, Wien) he settled down in Hungary. His last big work was the construction of the Buda Castle Tunnel (handed over on 30th April, 1857), to which the construction plans were also made by himself. But can we consider him as the designer of the Buda Castle Tunnel? Both of the above assumptions are incorrect.The plan of the tunnel preceded not just the start of the first Hungarian railway line (test run: 10 November 1845, between Pest-Rákospalota, start of passenger traffic: 17 July 1847 on the Pest-Vác line), but also the construction plans of the Chain Bridge and the start of the passenger traffic on the bridge as well (20 November 1849).But who was the real designer then if not the person who made the construction plans based on the earlier approved plans? The answer is not simple and not unambiguous since the coming generations forgot about the identity of the real designer and gave this tile to Adam Clark. We try to explore the precedents and the names connected to the different plan versions, but in the end, considering that several plan versions became known, we have to admit that the constructor is to be thanked for the final form of the construction, irrespective of the authors of the plan concepts. Rezumat Pentru persoanele care folosesc lucrări de inginerie, relevanța acestora este importantă și mai puțin creatorul. Dar cine este creatorul unei structuri? Este proiectantul sau persoana care implementează planul? De fapt, ambele sunt, dar existența acestuia din urmă este condiționată de existența primului. Dar numele căreia se păstrează pentru posteritate? Puțini oameni știu că proiectantul turnului Eiffel (construit în 1888-89), contrar credinței populare, nu a fost Alexandre Gustave Eiffel (1832–1923), un antreprenor în construcții, ci un tânăr inginer alsacian-elvețian care lucra pentru Eiffel, Maurice Koechlin (1856–1946), care a absolvit aceeași Universitate Tehnică din Zurich ca János Feketeházy, care a proiectat cele mai multe poduri în Ungaria. Știm că a proiectat și podul din centrul orașului Szeged, despre care populația crezuse timp de jumătate de secol că este planul lui Eiffel, precum a construit și imensul complex industrial de hale din Budapesta-Kőbánya, care astăzi este folosit de Opera de Maghiară se Stat ca Sala Eiffel. Conform mai multor cărți tehnice, tunelul Budavár a fost construit ca o continuare a podului Széchenyi pentru a oferi acces rapid din partea Pest la Gara de Sud din Buda. Știm că podul cu lanțuri (1838–1839) a fost proiectat de William Tierney Clark (1783–1852), un inginer englez, și construcția (construcția barajului din 1839, construcția podului 1842–49) de către inginerul scoțian Adam Clark (1811–1866). Știm că Adam Clark s-a întors la Londra după intrarea în funcțiune a  podului, dar după construirea unor poduri (Pirna, Leitmeritz, Viena) s-a instalat în Ungaria, iar ultima sa lucrare importantă a fost construcția tunelului Budavár (inaugurată la 30 aprilie 1857). Dar poate fi considerat cu adevărat drept designerul tunelului Budavár? Ambele ipoteze de mai sus sunt incorecte.Proiectarea tunelului a precedat timp de mai mulți ani prima linie feroviară maghiară (testul între Pest-Rákospalota la 10 noiembrie 1845, începerea traficului de pasageri pe linia Pest-Vác la 17 iulie 1847), dar bineînțeles și planificarea efectivă a podului cu lanțuri și începutul traficului (20 noiembrie 1849). Dar cine a avut concepția, deoarece în mod evident nu a aparținut persoanei care a pregătit mai târziu planurile de realizare pe baza planurilor aprobate anterior? Răspunsul nu este simplu și lipsit de ambiguitate, întrucât posteritatea nu a păstrat niciun nume în calitate de designer și a acordat acest titlu lui Adam Clark. Încercăm să descoperim numele persoanelor care pot fi atribuite variantelor de plan și, în sfârșit, recunoaștem că forma finală, indiferent de autorul conceptelor de plan, se datorează implementatorului. Kivonat A mérnöki alkotásokat használó lakosság számára annak megfelelősége a fontos és kevésbé érdekes az alkotó személye. De ki egy építmény alkotója? A tervező, vagy az, aki a tervet, a rajzokba transzformált szellemi alkotást a gyakorlatban megvalósítja? Valójában mindkettő, de az utóbbi létezésének feltétele az előbbi megléte. De mégis kinek a nevét őrzi meg az utókor?Kevés ember tudja, hogy az Eiffel torony (épült 1888–89-ben) tervezője a közhiedelemmel ellentétben nem Alexandre Gustave Eiffel (1832–1923) mérnök, építési vállalkozó volt, hanem egy, az Eiffel Irodában dolgozó ifjú elzászi-svájci mérnök, Maurice Koechlin (1856–1946), aki ugyanazon a Zürichi Műszaki Egyetemen szerzett diplomát, mint a legtöbb magyarországi hidat tervező Feketeházy János. Róla tudjuk, hogy azt a szegedi belvárosi hidat is ő tervezte, amit fél évszázadon át Eiffel-tervnek gondolt a lakosság és azt a hatalmas Budapest-Kőbányán álló ipari csarnok-komplexumot is, amit ma a Magyar Állami Operaház Eiffel-csarnok néven hasznosít.Több szakkönyvben az olvasható, hogy a Budavári Alagút azért épült a Széchenyi Lánchíd nyomvonalának folytatásaként, hogy a pesti oldalról gyorsan elérhető legyen a budai Krisztina-városban épült Déli pályaudvar. Tudjuk, hogy a Lánchíd tervezője (terv 1838–1839) William Tierney Clark (1783–1852) angol mérnök volt és a kivitelezést (zárógát építése 1839-től, hídépítés 1842–49) Adam Clark (1811–1866) skót mérnök vezette. Tudjuk, hogy a híd használatba vételét követően Adam Clark visszatért Londonba, majd néhány híd (Pirna, Leitmeritz, Bécs) megépítése után Magyarországon telepedett le és utolsó nagy műve a Budavári Alagút kivitelezése (átadva 1857. április 30-án) volt, melyhez maga készített kiviteli (megvalósulási vagy realizációs) tervrajzokat. De valóban ő tekinthető-e (az akkori nevén a budai Váralagút) tervezőjének? Mindkét fentebbi feltételezés téves.Az alagút terve sok évvel megelőzte az első magyarországi vasút megindulását (próbaút 1845. november 10. Pest-Rákospalota között, Pest-Vác vonalon a személyforgalom megindulása 1847. július 17-én), de a megvalósult Lánchíd tényleges tervezését és természetesen a Lánchídon a közúti forgalom kezdetét (1849. november 20.) is.De kié volt a koncepció, mivel nyilván nem azé, aki a korábban jóváhagyott tervek alapján később a kiviteli terveket készítette? A válasz nem egyszerű és nem egyértelmű, mivel az utókor köztudata nem őrzött meg tervezőként egy nevet sem, egyértelműen ezt a címet Adam Clarknak ajándékozta. Megpróbáljuk feltárni az előzményeket, a terv-változatokhoz rendelhető neveket, végül elismerjük, hogy mivel több tervváltozat vált ismertté, a végső forma a tervkoncepciók szerzőségétől függetlenül a megvalósítónak köszönhető.   &nbsp

Új lehetőségek és elképzelések a vidékfejlesztésben és a fejlesztéspolitikában

A vidékfejlesztési szakpolitika egyre inkább felértékelődik. Úgy gondoljuk, a vidékfejlesztést nem csak agrár-megközelítésből kell szemlélni. Az EU komolyan veszi a vidéken élők problémáit, és az életszínvonal növelésére törekszik. A KAP reformok segítenek a vidéki fejlesztéspolitika térnyerésében és a vidék fejlődésének gyors és pozitív változásában. Napjainkban globális versenyről beszélhetünk. Ennek jellemzői a következők: - a kereskedelem nemzetközivé válása, - a termelés és a tőkeáramlás világméretű növekedése, - az innovációs folyamatok globalizációja. Lengyel (2003) szerint ezek a fő jellemzők, mely ismeretekkel helytállhatunk a globális versenyben. Úgy gondoljuk, csak a tudásalapú társadalom fejlődési pályáján lehetünk sikeresek. Magyarország fejlődése a természeti erőforrások használatára épül. A falusi termelés mellett az energetikai célú termelés, valamint az integrált és az ökológiai gazdálkodás is elképzelhető. Indokolt a zöldség-gyümölcs termelés és az állattenyésztés fejlesztése. Nagyon fontos a foglalkoztatás növelése és a népességmegtartás. A vidékfejlesztés szerepe térben és időben változó. A változások áttekintése fontos, hogy az ismeretek birtokában a vidéki területek fejlődése nagyobb lendülettel folytatódjon. A versenyképességre ható tényezőket sok szerző elemezte. Említhető Csath (2019), Szűcs – Marselek (2019), Chikán A. (2017), Holló – Marselek (2016) munkássága. A falvak fejlesztése során fontos szempontokat kell figyelembe venni. Rövid áttekintésünkben csak néhány, a kutatással összefüggő területre utalunk. Ilyenek pl.: a földhasználat kérdése, a mező- és vidékgazdaság helyzete, az agrár-versenyképesség, a környezetvédelem, az öntözés és vízvédelem, a zöld gazdaság és a körforgásos gazdaság

Synthesis, physico-chemical characterization and bacteriostatic study of Pt complexes with substituted amine ligands

Three complexes of general formula PtCl2R2 were synthesized, where R is the amine ligand with aromatic substituents. Coordination compounds [Pt(an)2Cl2] (1), [Pt(pa)2Cl2] (2) and [Pt(aph)2Cl2] (3), where an = 2-aminonaphthalene, pa = 2-aminopyrimidine, aph = 4-anilinophenol, were characterized by on-line coupled TG/DTA-MS, powder XRD and spectroscopic techniques (FTIR, ESI–MS and NMR), and tested against selected Gram(+) and Gram(–) bacteria. The thermal data show that all three compounds contain lattice or absorbed water, and the stability of the anhydrous compounds in nitrogen decreases in the order 2 > 1 > 3. Above 200 °C, the complexes loose characteristic fragments of their ligands. The spectroscopic data are in accordance with the thermal properties of the samples and prove their composition. The compounds are more effective inhibitors of Gram(+) than Gram(−) bacteria. © 2016 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungar

Significant improvement in melanoma survival over the last decade: A Hungarian nationwide study between 2011 and 2019

Recent real-world studies have reported significant improvements in the survival of malignant melanoma in the past few years, mainly as a result of modern therapies. However, long-term survival data from Central Eastern European countries such as Hungary are currently lacking.This nationwide, retrospective study examined melanoma survival in Hungary between 2011-2019 using the databases of the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) and Central Statistical Office (CSO) of Hungary. Crude overall survival and age-standardized 5-year net survival as well as the association between age, sex, and survival were calculated.Between 2011 and 2019, 22,948 newly diagnosed malignant melanoma cases were recorded in the NHIF database (47.89% male, mean age: 60.75 years (SD: ±16.39)). 5-year overall survival was 75.40% (women: 80.78%; men: 69.52%). Patients diagnosed between 2017-2019 had a 20% lower risk of mortality compared to patients diagnosed between 2011-2012 (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.89; p<0.0001). Age-standardized 5-year net survival rates in 2011-2014 and 2015-2019 were 90.6% and 95.8%, respectively (women: 93.1% and 98.4%, men: 87.8% and 92.7%, respectively). The highest age-standardized 5-year net survival rates were found in the 0-39 age cohort (94.6% in the 2015-2019 period).Hungary has similar melanoma survival rates to Western European countries. Based on net survival, the risk of dying of melanoma within 5 years was cut by more than half (55%) during the study period, which coincides with the successful implementation of awareness campaigns and the wide availability of modern therapies