Оптимизация конструкции захвата для детали «Барабан»

Грузозахватные приспособления обычно применяются при производстве работ по подъему и перемещению грузов с применением грузоподъемных машин. Использование приспособлений позволяет реализовать максимальное удобство и безопасность производственного процесса. Грузозахватные приспособления конструируются для определенного этапа технологического процесса, для конкретного изделия. При проектировании таких приспособлений необходимо учитывать основные показатели оптимальности конструкции: прочность, надежность, простота, удобство и безопасность при эксплуатации, эргономичность. Кроме того, нужно стремиться к наименьшей массе и, соответственно, металлоемкости захвата. Конструкция грузозахватного приспособления, в основном, будет зависеть от назначенных технологом поверхностей, за которые можно крепиться и от максимальной высоты подъема крюка крана. В статье описана задача по конструированию захвата для детали «Барабан¬ в новом технологическом процессе. Рассмотрена конструкция существующего захвата, взятого за прототип. Приведен анализ различных вариантов конструктивных решений, созданных в процессе проектирования. Выбран вариант конструкции захвата, который в наибольшей степени соответствует требованиям технического задания. Конструкция этого модернизированного приспособления представляет собой захват с тремя лапами, удерживающими деталь, и подвес в виде траверсы. Разработанная конструкторская документация утверждена производством и отделом промышленной безопасности

Farmland biodiversity and agricultural management on 237 farms in 13 European and two African regions

Farmland is a major land cover type in Europe and Africa and provides habitat for numerous species. The severe decline in farmland biodiversity of the last decades has been attributed to changes in farming practices, and organic and low-input farming are assumed to mitigate detrimental effects of agricultural intensification on biodiversity. Since the farm enterprise is the primary unit of agricultural decision making, management-related effects at the field scale need to be assessed at the farm level. Therefore, in this study, data were collected on habitat characteristics, vascular plant, earthworm, spider, and bee communities and on the corresponding agricultural management in 237 farms in 13 European and two African regions. In 15 environmental and agricultural homogeneous regions, 6–20 farms with the same farm type (e.g., arable crops, grassland, or specific permanent crops) were selected. If available, an equal number of organic and non-organic farms were randomly selected. Alternatively, farms were sampled along a gradient of management intensity. For all selected farms, the entire farmed area was mapped, which resulted in total in the mapping of 11 338 units attributed to 194 standardized habitat types, provided together with additional descriptors. On each farm, one site per available habitat type was randomly selected for species diversity investigations. Species were sampled on 2115 sites and identified to the species level by expert taxonomists. Species lists and abundance estimates are provided for each site and sampling date (one date for plants and earthworms, three dates for spiders and bees). In addition, farmers provided information about their management practices in face-to-face interviews following a standardized questionnaire. Farm management indicators for each farm are available (e.g., nitrogen input, pesticide applications, or energy input). Analyses revealed a positive effect of unproductive areas and a negative effect of intensive management on biodiversity. Communities of the four taxonomic groups strongly differed in their response to habitat characteristics, agricultural management, and regional circumstances. The data has potential for further insights into interactions of farmland biodiversity and agricultural management at site, farm, and regional scale

How private are Europe\u2019s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis

Private forests are widespread in Europe providing a range of ecosystem services of significant value to society, and there are calls for novel policies to enhance their provision and to face the challenges of environmental changes. Such policies need to acknowledge the importance of private forests, and importantly they need to be based on a deep understanding of how property rights held by private forest owners vary across Europe. We collected and analysed data on the content of property rights based on formal legal requirements existing in 31 European jurisdictions. To allow a comparison across jurisdictions, we constructed an original Property Rights Index for Forestry encompassing five rights domains (access, withdrawal, management, exclusion and alienation). We documented substantial variation of the private forest owners\u2019 rights, and notably to i) make decisions in operational management and the formulation of management goals, ii) withdraw timber resources from their forest, and iii) exclude others from the use of forest resources. We identified broad relations between the scope for decision making of private forest owners and jurisdictions\u2019 former socio-political background and geographical distribution. The variation in the content of property rights has implications for the implementation of international environmental policies, and stresses the need for tailored policy instruments, when addressing European society\u2019s rural development, the bioeconomy, climate change mitigation measures and nature protection strategies

Measuring Farmland Biodiversity

About one-third of the world\u2019s land surface is used for farming, a fact that bears important implications for biodiversity. In Europe, for instance, an estimated 50 percent of all wild species are reliant on agricultural habitats, while agricultural productivity often depends on the presence or absence of particular species. Despite this close coupling, surprisingly little is known about the status and evolution of farmland biodiversity. A team of European and African researchers, hoping to fill this gap in information, recently invented and piloted a new toolbox called the BioBio indicator set, which measures 23 different instances of biodiversity across a variety of farm types and scales in Europe. Applications were also tested in Tunisia, Ukraine, and Uganda, where they proved a feasible starting point for adaptation to the agricultural context of different countries