Flight motor set 360L001 (STS-26R). (Reconstructed dynamic loads analysis)

A transient analysis was performed to correlate the predicted versus measured behavior of the Redesigned Solid Rocket Booster (RSRB) during Flight 360L001 (STS-26R) liftoff. Approximately 9 accelerometers, 152 strain gages, and 104 girth gages were bonded to the motors during this event. Prior to Flight 360L001, a finite element model of the RSRB was analyzed to predict the accelerations, strains, and displacements measured by this developmental flight instrumentation (DFI) within an order of magnitude. Subsequently, an analysis has been performed which uses actual Flight 360L001 liftoff loading conditions, and makes more precise predictions for the RSRB structural behavior. Essential information describing the analytical model, analytical techniques used, correlation of the predicted versus measured RSRB behavior, and conclusions, are presented. A detailed model of the RSRB was developed and correlated for use in analyzing the motor behavior during liftoff loading conditions. This finite element model, referred to as the RSRB global model, uses super-element techniques to model all components of the RSRB. The objective of the RSRB global model is to accurately predict deflections and gap openings in the field joints to an accuracy of approximately 0.001 inch. The model of the field joint component was correlated to Referee and Joint Environment Simulation (JES) tests. The accuracy of the assembled RSRB global model was validated by correlation to static-fire tests such DM-8, DM-9, QM-7, and QM-8. This validated RSRB global model was used to predict RSRB structural behavior and joint gap opening during Flight 360L001 liftoff. The results of a transient analysis of the RSRB global model with imposed liftoff loading conditions are presented. Rockwell used many gage measurements to reconstruct the load parameters which were imposed on the RSRB during the Flight 360L001 liftoff. Each load parameter, and its application, is described. Also presented are conclusions and recommendations based on the analysis of this load case and the resulting correlation between predicted and measured RSRB structural behavior

Differences in the Cognitive Skills of Bonobos and Chimpanzees

While bonobos and chimpanzees are both genetically and behaviorally very similar, they also differ in significant ways. Bonobos are more cautious and socially tolerant while chimpanzees are more dependent on extractive foraging, which requires tools. The similarities suggest the two species should be cognitively similar while the behavioral differences predict where the two species should differ cognitively. We compared both species on a wide range of cognitive problems testing their understanding of the physical and social world. Bonobos were more skilled at solving tasks related to theory of mind or an understanding of social causality, while chimpanzees were more skilled at tasks requiring the use of tools and an understanding of physical causality. These species differences support the role of ecological and socio-ecological pressures in shaping cognitive skills over relatively short periods of evolutionary time

Dogs (Canis familiaris), but Not Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), Understand Imperative Pointing

Chimpanzees routinely follow the gaze of humans to outside targets. However, in most studies using object choice they fail to use communicative gestures (e.g. pointing) to find hidden food. Chimpanzees' failure to do this may be due to several difficulties with this paradigm. They may, for example, misinterpret the gesture as referring to the opaque cup instead of the hidden food. Or perhaps they do not understand informative communicative intentions. In contrast, dogs seem to be skilful in using human communicative cues in the context of finding food, but as of yet there is not much data showing whether they also use pointing in the context of finding non-food objects. Here we directly compare chimpanzees' (N = 20) and dogs' (N = 32) skills in using a communicative gesture directed at a visible object out of reach of the human but within reach of the subject. Pairs of objects were placed in view of and behind the subjects. The task was to retrieve the object the experimenter wanted. To indicate which one she desired, the experimenter pointed imperatively to it and directly rewarded the subject for handing over the correct one. While dogs performed well on this task, chimpanzees failed to identify the referent. Implications for great apes' and dogs' understanding of human communicative intentions are discussed

Evidence for Emulation in Chimpanzees in Social Settings Using the Floating Peanut Task

The authors have no support or funding to report.Background: It is still unclear which observational learning mechanisms underlie the transmission of difficult problem-solving skills in chimpanzees. In particular, two different mechanisms have been proposed: imitation and emulation. Previous studies have largely failed to control for social factors when these mechanisms were targeted. Methods: In an attempt to resolve the existing discrepancies, we adopted the 'floating peanut task', in which subjects need to spit water into a tube until it is sufficiently full for floating peanuts to be grasped. In a previous study only a few chimpanzees were able to invent the necessary solution (and they either did so in their first trials or never). Here we compared success levels in baseline tests with two experimental conditions that followed: 1) A full model condition to test whether social demonstrations would be effective, and 2) A social emulation control condition, in which a human experimenter poured water from a bottle into the tube, to test whether results information alone (present in both experimental conditions) would also induce successes. Crucially, we controlled for social factors in both experimental conditions. Both types of demonstrations significantly increased successful spitting, with no differences between demonstration types. We also found that younger subjects were more likely to succeed than older ones. Our analysis showed that mere order effects could not explain our results. Conclusion: The full demonstration condition (which potentially offers additional information to observers, in the form of actions), induced no more successes than the emulation condition. Hence, emulation learning could explain the success in both conditions. This finding has broad implications for the interpretation of chimpanzee traditions, for which emulation learning may perhaps suffice.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Interacting mindreaders

Could interacting mindreaders be in a position to know things which they would be unable to know if they were manifestly passive observers? This paper argues that they could. Mindreading is sometimes reciprocal: the mindreader's target reciprocates by taking the mindreader as a target for mindreading. The paper explains how such reciprocity can significantly narrow the range of possible interpretations of behaviour where mindreaders are, or appear to be, in a position to interact. A consequence is that revisions and extensions are needed to standard theories of the evidential basis of mindreading. The view also has consequences for understanding how abilities to interact combined with comparatively simple forms of mindreading may explain the emergence, in evolution or development, of sophisticated forms of social cognition

Guidance on the assessment of the safety of feed additives for the environment

This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for the authorisation of additives used in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the assessment of the safety for the environment. (Table presented.)

Safety and efficacy of muramidase from Trichoderma reesei DSM 32338 as a feed additive for turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, chickens reared for breeding and other poultry species reared for breeding

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of muramidase produced by Trichoderma reesei DSM 32338. The additive is considered safe for turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, chickens reared for laying/breeding and other poultry species reared for breeding up to the maximum recommended dose of 45,000 LSU(F)/kg feed. The additive is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. No conclusions can be reached on the potential of the additive for skin/eye irritancy and skin sensitisation. The additive should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive in turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding, chickens reared for laying/breeding and other poultry species reared for breeding when added to feed at 25,000 LSU(F)/kg feed

Safety and efficacy of l-tryptophan produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80176 for all animal species

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on l-tryptophan produced by fermentation with a genetically modified strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum (KCCM 80176) when used as a nutritional additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. Viable cells of the production strain and its recombinant DNA were not detected in the additive. l-Tryptophan manufactured by fermentation using C. glutamicum KCCM 80176 does not give rise to any safety concern with regard to the genetic modification of the production strain. The use of l-tryptophan produced using C. glutamicum KCCM 80176 in supplementing feed to compensate for tryptophan deficiency in feedingstuffs is safe for non-ruminant target species and in ruminants when a rumen-protected form is used. The use of l-tryptophan produced by C. glutamicum KCCM 80176 in animal nutrition presents no safety concerns to consumers of animal products. l-Tryptophan produced by C. glutamicum KCCM 80176 is considered not toxic by inhalation, not irritant to skin or eyes and not a dermal sensitiser. l-Tryptophan produced by C. glutamicum KCCM 80176 is safe for the environment. l-Tryptophan produced by C. glutamicum KCCM 80176 is regarded as an effective source of the amino acid l-tryptophan for all non-ruminant species. If l-tryptophan is intended for use in ruminants, it should be protected from ruminal degradation

Safety and efficacy of l-tryptophan produced by fermentation with Escherichia coli KCCM 80152 for all animal species

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on l-tryptophan produced by fermentation using Escherichia coli KCCM 80152 when used as nutritional additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The production strain and its recombinant DNA were not detected in the additive. l-Tryptophan, manufactured by fermentation with E. coli KCCM 80152, does not give rise to any safety concern with regard to the genetic modification of the production strain. The use of l-tryptophan produced using E. coli KCCM 80152 in supplementing feed to compensate for tryptophan deficiency in feedingstuffs is safe for non-ruminant target species. Using unprotected forms of tryptophan in ruminants can be a risk. The use of l-tryptophan produced by fermentation using E. coli KCCM 80152 in animal feed presents no concerns to consumers of animal products. Due to the content of endotoxins, the additive poses a risk for persons handling the additive when exposed by inhalation. The additive is not considered irritant for skin or eyes and is not considered a skin sensitiser. The additive under assessment is safe for the environment. The additive under assessment is regarded as an effective source of the amino acid l-tryptophan for all non-ruminant species. If l-tryptophan is intended for use in ruminants, it should be protected from ruminal degradation

Assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Bactocell® (Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622) as a feed additive for weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, minor porcine species (weaned and for fattening), chickens for fattening, laying hens and minor avian species for fattening and for laying and its extension of use to all growing pigs and all avian species

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Bactocell\uae (Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622) in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, minor porcine species (weaned and for fattening), chickens for fattening, laying hens and minor avian species for fattening and for laying when used as a zootechnical feed additive (gut flora stabiliser) in feed or in water for drinking. In addition, the applicant requested the extension of use for suckling piglets, minor pig species (growing/for fattening), chickens reared for laying, chickens reared for breeding purposes, chickens for breeding purposes, turkeys and minor avian species (including non-food producing/ornamental birds) reared for laying/breeding purposes and for breeding purposes when used as in feed or in water for drinking. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. The additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment as well. The additive is non-irritant to skin and eyes and is not a dermal sensitiser but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Considering the high dusting potential of the formulations, exposure of users by inhalation is very likely. The additive, at the level of 1  7 109 CFU/kg feed (5  7 108 when delivered in water), has the potential to be efficacious in the new species proposed: chickens reared for laying, chickens reared for breeding purposes, chickens for breeding purposes, turkeys and minor avian species reared for laying/breeding purposes and for breeding purposes (including non-food producing/ornamental birds) and in suckling piglets and minor porcine species (growing/for fattening)