Possible Emission of Cosmic XX-- and γ\gamma--rays by Unstable Particles at Late Times

Not all astrophysical mechanisms of the emission of electromagnetic radiation including $X$-- and $\gamma$-- rays coming from the space are clear. We find that charged unstable particles as well as neutral unstable particles with non--zero magnetic moment which live sufficiently long may emit electromagnetic radiation. This new mechanism is connected with the properties of unstable particles at the post exponential time region. Analyzing the transition time region between exponential and non-exponential form of the survival amplitude it is found that the instantaneous energy of the unstable particle can take very large values, much larger than the energy of this state for times from the exponential time region. Basing on the results obtained for the model considered, it is shown that this purely quantum mechanical effect may be responsible for causing unstable particles to emit electromagnetic--, $X$-- or $\gamma$--rays at some time intervals from the transition time regions.Comment: 15 pages, 5 figure

Retention of title devices: registration with or without recharacterisation?

Retention of title devices such as conditional sale, lease, or hire purchase agreements are functionally similar to secured transactions. One issue in the debate led by the Secured Transactions Law Reform Project is whether a new, best-in-class, regime of secured transactions should include such devices and, if so, to what extent. Many jurisdictions have opted for their inclusion and recharacterisation as secured transactions. Whether this is the best way forward cannot be considered without debating other options, one of which is registration without recharacterisation. This article introduces the key considerations I have set out in more detail in the Project discussion paper: “Asset Finance”, at https://securedtransactionslawreformproject.or

“Security interests in derived assets”

This thesis focuses on the extent of security interests in property. A security interest is a right of a creditor to resort to an asset with priority to at least some other creditors of the grantor of security when debt or defaults on the secured obligation. This works examines to what extent the secured creditor’s right is, or ought to be, affected when the encumbered asset undergoes changes that result in a new derived asset. Three scenarios are looked at: where new assets (“fruits”) are derived from the original collateral; where the original collateral is substituted for another asset or where it is incorporated or mixed with other assets into a new product. The question has attracted little judicial or academic attention. In the key case Buhr v Barclays Bank Plc [2001] EWCA 1223 it was held that that the secured creditor had a right to sale proceeds of collateral by virtue of its property right. This was termed as a “principle of substitutions” encompassing accretions, fruits and proceeds of the original collateral. It is suggested that this “principle” does not exist in current English law. This is so whether the security is fixed or floating. If a security interest is to extend to derived assets, parties ought to bargain for it. If new assets are a result of dispositions unauthorised by the secured creditor the creditor may claim the proceeds by asserting a new right based on unjust enrichment, not by virtue of the original property right. English law contrasts with Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code in the US, where the secured creditor automatically acquires right to proceeds. Law and economics analysis suggests that extending security to proceeds promotes efficiency of secured credit but only if proceeds are understood narrowly and do not include fruits

RECOVERABILITY OF THE BUYER'S LOST RESALE PROFIT UNDER CISG

It is a common conjuncture that the right to claim damages as a result of a breach of contract plays the most pivotal role among the remedies available to an aggrieved party.1 Hence, the importance of taking a better look at damages that can be recovered for a particular type of loss. In this essay an attempt is made to identify some of the problems that arise before the courts when granting damages for buyer’s lost resale profit under the UN Convention on the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.2 The practice in the area seems to be far from clear or consistent and academic literature is not always lending a helping hand. The purpose of the first part of the essay is to sketch the notion of lost resale profit against a broader background of the law of damages. Further and more detailed analysis will oscillate around three issues which in practice appear to be central to the recoverability of the lost resale profit by the buyer, namely the foreseeability, calculation and mitigation of that loss. It is fascinating to see how the concrete and abstract considerations, general principles and their detailed applications are all masterfully interwoven in the colourful fabric of the lost resale profit issue. The author hopes to shed some light on the various patterns embellishing this fine material and, if possible single out the most prominent strands

FUS/TLS contributes to replication-dependent histone gene expression by interaction with U7 snRNPs and histone-specific transcription factors

Replication-dependent histone genes are up-regulated during the G1/S phase transition to meet the requirement for histones to package the newly synthesized DNA. In mammalian cells, this increment is achieved by enhanced transcription and 3′ end processing. The non-polyadenylated histone mRNA 3′ ends are generated by a unique mechanism involving the U7 small ribonucleoprotein (U7 snRNP). By using affinity purification methods to enrich U7 snRNA, we identified FUS/TLS as a novel U7 snRNP interacting protein. Both U7 snRNA and histone transcripts can be precipitated by FUS antibodies predominantly in the S phase of the cell cycle. Moreover, FUS depletion leads to decreased levels of correctly processed histone mRNAs and increased levels of extended transcripts. Interestingly, FUS antibodies also co-immunoprecipitate histone transcriptional activator NPAT and transcriptional repressor hnRNP UL1 in different phases of the cell cycle. We further show that FUS binds to histone genes in S phase, promotes the recruitment of RNA polymerase II and is important for the activity of histone gene promoters. Thus, FUS may serve as a linking factor that positively regulates histone gene transcription and 3′ end processing by interacting with the U7 snRNP and other factors involved in replication-dependent histone gene expressio