Erie, County of and Civil Service Employees Association, Local 815

In the matter of the fact-finding between the County of Erie, employer, and the Civil Service Employees Association, Local 815, union. PERB case no. M2009-089. Before: Howard G. Foster, Fact Finder

Carbon-carbon composites: Emerging materials for hypersonic flight

An emerging class of high temperature materials called carbon-carbon composites are being developed to help make advanced aerospace flight become a reality. Because of the high temperature strength and low density of carbon-carbon composites, aerospace engineers would like to use these materials in even more advanced applications. One application of considerable interest is as the structure of the aerospace vehicle itself rather than simply as a protective heat shield as on Space Shuttle. But suitable forms of these materials have yet to be developed. If this development can be successfully accomplished, advanced aerospace vehicles such as the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) and other hypersonic vehicles will be closer to becoming a reality. A brief definition is given of C-C composites. Fabrication problems and oxidation protection concepts are examined. Applications of C-C composites in the Space Shuttle and in advanced hypersonic vehicles as well as other applications are briefly discussed

Hog Shelters and Equipment

PDF pages:

Reply to Norsen's paper "Are there really two different Bell's theorems?"

Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsen's self-styled "polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper." Less polemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bell's 1964 theorem is different from Bell's 1976 theorem, and that the former does not include Bell's one-paragraph heuristic presentation of the EPR argument --- Norsen has made significant concessions. In his response, Norsen admits that "Bell's recapitulation of the EPR argument in [the relevant] paragraph leaves something to be desired," that it "disappoints" and is "problematic". Moreover, Norsen makes other statements that imply, on the face of it, that he should have no objections to the title of my recent paper ("The Two Bell's Theorems of John Bell"). My principle aim in writing that paper was to try to bridge the gap between two interpretational camps, whom I call 'operationalists' and 'realists', by pointing out that they use the phrase "Bell's theorem" to mean different things: his 1964 theorem (assuming locality and determinism) and his 1976 theorem (assuming local causality), respectively. Thus, it is heartening that at least one person from one side has taken one step on my bridge. That said, there are several issues of contention with Norsen, which we (the two authors) address after discussing the extent of our agreement with Norsen. The most significant issues are: the indefiniteness of the word 'locality' prior to 1964; and the assumptions Einstein made in the paper quoted by Bell in 1964 and their relation to Bell's theorem.Comment: 13 pages (arXiv version) in http://www.ijqf.org/archives/209