Flight Mechanics of the Wright Aircraft 1903-1912

Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Wright Brothers' program to invent and commercialize the airplane is their decision in 1900 to use their novel canard configuration, and to persist with that geometry until 1910 despite the known deficiency that the aircraft were unstable in pitch. The reasons for their initial choice are well-known. Several studies in the part twenty years have proven beyond doubt that the Wrights did not intentionally make their canards unstable. The pitch instability of their machine was an unwitting byproduct of their design chosen partly out of fear of the conventional design and partly (they reasoned) for more positive control. With their great emphasis on control, the Wrights were able to develop a successful aircraft, albeit difficult to fly additionally because the 1903 aircraft also possessed a fast spiral instability. A canard design is not necessarily unstable, but owing chiefly to their airfoil, and an unfortunate fore-and-aft mass distribution, the Wright canards were all unstable. Though easier to fly, their 1909 aircraft was more unstable than the famous 1903 FZper and the Brothers did not have a stable design until they finally adopted a conventional aft horizontal tail in 1910. Successful control of the canard aircraft depended heavily on large damping-in-pitch. The purpose of this paper is to apply modern analysis of flight mechanics to trace the detailed flying characteristics of their powered aircraft from 1903 to 1910 when they finally gave up the canard. Its a story in which technology, stubborness and commercialization are intimately mingled; we are concerned here only with the technology. © by 2003

Toward a 21st-century health care system: Recommendations for health care reform

The coverage, cost, and quality problems of the U.S. health care system are evident. Sustainable health care reform must go beyond financing expanded access to care to substantially changing the organization and delivery of care. The FRESH-Thinking Project (www.fresh-thinking.org) held a series of workshops during which physicians, health policy experts, health insurance executives, business leaders, hospital administrators, economists, and others who represent diverse perspectives came together. This group agreed that the following 8 recommendations are fundamental to successful reform: 1. Replace the current fee-for-service payment system with a payment system that encourages and rewards innovation in the efficient delivery of quality care. The new payment system should invest in the development of outcome measures to guide payment. 2. Establish a securely funded, independent agency to sponsor and evaluate research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other medical interventions. 3. Simplify and rationalize federal and state laws and regulations to facilitate organizational innovation, support care coordination, and streamline financial and administrative functions. 4. Develop a health information technology infrastructure with national standards of interoperability to promote data exchange. 5. Create a national health database with the participation of all payers, delivery systems, and others who own health care data. Agree on methods to make de-identified information from this database on clinical interventions, patient outcomes, and costs available to researchers. 6. Identify revenue sources, including a cap on the tax exclusion of employer-based health insurance, to subsidize health care coverage with the goal of insuring all Americans. 7. Create state or regional insurance exchanges to pool risk, so that Americans without access to employer-based or other group insurance could obtain a standard benefits package through these exchanges. Employers should also be allowed to participate in these exchanges for their employees' coverage. 8. Create a health coverage board with broad stakeholder representation to determine and periodically update the affordable standard benefit package available through state or regional insurance exchanges

Transient negative biochar effects on plant growth are strongest after microbial species loss

Biochar has been explored as an organic amendment to improve soil quality and benefit plant growth. The overall positive effects of biochar on crop yields are generally attributed to abiotic changes, while the alternative causal pathway via changes in soil biota is unexplored. We compared plant growth effects of legumes in sterile soil inoculated with dilutions of soil and soil microbial suspensions to determine the direct effects of biochar-induced changes in soil biota on plant growth. Suspensions and soil were from soil amended with biochar and soil without biochar. By comparing consecutive plant growth phases on the same inoculated soils, we also determined the temporal effects of soil biota from biochar-amended and control soils. Biota from biochar-amended soil was less beneficial for Medicago sativa growth, especially with small amounts of inocula. Flowering was delayed in the presence of biota from biochar plots. Inoculum with either soil or soil suspension gave similar results for plant biomass, indicating that microorganisms play a major role. Vicia villosa growth did not respond to the various inocula, even though the inoculum quantity strongly affected nematode community composition and protozoan abundance. In a later growing phase the negative effect of biochar-associated biota on Medicago growth mostly disappeared, which leads to the conclusion that the benefits of biochar application via abiotic changes may outweigh the negative effects of biochar on soil biota.</p

Transient negative biochar effects on plant growth are strongest after microbial species loss

<p>Biochar has been explored as an organic amendment to improve soil quality and benefit plant growth. The overall positive effects of biochar on crop yields are generally attributed to abiotic changes, while the alternative causal pathway via changes in soil biota is unexplored. We compared plant growth effects of legumes in sterile soil inoculated with dilutions of soil and soil microbial suspensions to determine the direct effects of biochar-induced changes in soil biota on plant growth. Suspensions and soil were from soil amended with biochar and soil without biochar. By comparing consecutive plant growth phases on the same inoculated soils, we also determined the temporal effects of soil biota from biochar-amended and control soils. Biota from biochar-amended soil was less beneficial for Medicago sativa growth, especially with small amounts of inocula. Flowering was delayed in the presence of biota from biochar plots. Inoculum with either soil or soil suspension gave similar results for plant biomass, indicating that microorganisms play a major role. Vicia villosa growth did not respond to the various inocula, even though the inoculum quantity strongly affected nematode community composition and protozoan abundance. In a later growing phase the negative effect of biochar-associated biota on Medicago growth mostly disappeared, which leads to the conclusion that the benefits of biochar application via abiotic changes may outweigh the negative effects of biochar on soil biota.</p