Academic literature on the topic 'Or 4-1680'

<p>En y introduisant le concept de l'aube des Lumières, l'auteur propose une périodisation des Lumières dans les pays roumains qui remet en question la périodisation des Lumières chez les Grecs. La <em>Frühaufklärung</em> (1680-1780) s'avère une conjoncture de forces progressistes qui prônent la modernisation de l'appareil étatique, des institutions, de la langue et de l'éducation. L'auteur y distingue quatre périodes: 1. l'Église triomphante (1680-1710); 2. l'Absolutisme raisonné (1710-1730); 3. le Despotisme éclairé (1730-1780) et 4. l'Église militante (1695-1780). L'<em>Aufklärung</em> proprement dite ne commence qu'en 1780: elle aspire à réaliser en plus l'émancipation nationale et l'indépendance politique.</p>

Abstract Purpose To determine the exposure–response (ER) relationships between atezolizumab exposure and efficacy or safety in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or urothelial carcinoma (UC) and to identify alternative dosing regimens. Methods ER analyses were conducted using pooled NSCLC and UC data from phase 1 and 3 studies (PCD4989g, OAK, IMvigor211; ClinicalTrials.gov IDs, NCT01375842, NCT02008227, and NCT02302807, respectively). Objective response rate, overall survival, and adverse events were evaluated vs pharmacokinetic (PK) metrics. Population PK-simulated exposures for regimens of 840 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) and 1680 mg every 4 weeks (q4w) were compared with the approved regimen of 1200 mg every 3 weeks (q3w) and the maximum assessed dose (MAD; 20 mg/kg q3w). Phase 3 IMpassion130 (NCT02425891) data were used to validate the PK simulations for 840 mg q2w. Observed safety data were evaluated by exposure and body weight subgroups. Results No significant ER relationships were observed for safety or efficacy. Predicted exposures for 840 mg q2w and 1680 mg q4w were comparable to 1200 mg q3w and the MAD and consistent with observed PK data from IMpassion130. Observed safety was similar between patients with a Cmax above and below the predicted Cmax for 1680 mg q4w and between patients in the lowest and upper 3 body weight quartiles. Conclusion Atezolizumab regimens of 840 mg q2w and 1680 mg q4w are expected to have comparable efficacy and safety as the approved regimen of 1200 mg q3w, supporting their interchangeable use and offering patients greater flexibility.

Introduction: Bitter tasting of drugs leads to non-compliance especially in the case of pediatric patients due to their inability to swal-low medication.&nbsp; Aim: In this study, we aimed to mask the bitter taste of acetaminophen (APAP) particles through coating.&nbsp; Materials and methods: A pH independent water insoluble ethylcellulose polymer was used to coat the APAP. The coating of water insoluble ethylcellulose on APAP can have a significant impact on the dissolution profile. Various grades of APAP were used for coating; fine grade, Compap L90% having wide particle size distribution (PSD), and a special granular (SG) APAP 1680 having narrow PSD. Coating was performed using top spray (Vector) for Compap L90% and SG APAP 1680 grade of APAP.&nbsp; Results: Bitter taste of SG APAP was masked after spraying dispersion equivalent to a weight gain of 10% compared to 35% used for Compap L90%. Using bottom spray (Wurster coater, GPCP 2.0), coating was performed on SG APAP 1680 grade of APAP by spraying aqueous dispersion of ethylcellulose (Surelease) equivalent to a weight gain of 10%. The scalability of the top spray process was also evaluated in GPCG 30 and bitter taste was masked by using Surelease dispersion equivalent to a weight gain of 6%. Coated APAP was examined for particle size (PS), particle size distribution (PSD), flowability, and drug release profile. Dissolution was performed using USP apparatus 2 and 4 in phosphate buffer and evaluated for mechanism of drug release. Particle size obtained for coated SG APAP 1680 via top and bottom spray process was 404 &micro;m d(90) and 487 &micro;m d(90) respectively.&nbsp; Conclusions: The results of the study demonstrated the potential of Surelease dispersion in taste masking. The use of SG APAP 1680 having narrow PSD allowed taste masking to achieve at low weight gain without greatly affecting the dissolution profile.

The objective of the present work was to study the serological status and epidemiological situation of porcine teschovirus 1 (PTV-1) on swine farms in different Lithuanian regions by using virus neutralization test and virus isolation. Clinical, epidemiological, serological and virological examinations were performed for the diagnosis of Teschen disease (porcine enterovirus encephalomyelitis, TE). Swine blood serum samples (n = 1680) were collected on 28 farms (60 samples per farm) of 8 regions in 2003. For virus isolation 29 samples of pathological material were taken from the brains of pigs (2 - 4 months of age) that died suddenly on seven swine farms in five regions. Epidemiological and clinical examination revealed no signs of porcine enterovirus encephalomyelitis on 32 Lithuanian swine farms. PTV-1 was not isolated and identified in the PK-15 cell culture. Antibodies against PTV-1, detected by using VNT, were found on all investigated farms and in all age groups. Negative serum (2.3%, 39 from 1680) samples were found in 15.5% (16 from 103) of 2-4-month-old pigs and in 4.7% (23 from 494) of 4-6-month-old ones. The positive serological and negative epidemiological, clinical and virological results suggest that less virulent or avirulent PTV-1 strains were spread on Lithuanian swine farms.

AbstractThis study throws new light on the composition of Boyle's Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Receiv'd Notion of Nature (1686); it also draws more general conclusions about Boyle's methods as an author and his links with his context. Its basis is a careful study of the extant manuscript drafts for the work, and their relationship with the published editions. Section 2 describes Boyle's characteristic method of composition from the late 1650s onwards, involving the dictation of discrete sections of text to amanuenses; it also assesses the effect this had on the structure and presentation of Boyle's writings. Section 3 considers the published text section by section and indicates which parts were written when; it also surveys unpublished draft material relating to the work. Section 4 places the work in context, considering the intellectual threats that Boyle sought to confront in it, both when he initially composed it in the 1660s and when he rewrote it c. 1680. It thus anchors him more precisely than hitherto in the intellectual debates of his day.

Field studies were conducted in Kansas and Maryland to compare the safety and efficacy of halosulfuron-methyl (HM) and bentazon for topkill of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.). Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) and creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris Huds.) treated with single (in Kansas) or sequential (in Maryland) HM (35 to 140 g·ha–1) or bentazon (1120 or 1680 g·ha–1) applications exhibited little injury, and treated turf had acceptable quality in all studies. Bentazon caused an unacceptable reduction in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) quality at ≥5 weeks after treatment in four of five tests. Perennial ryegrass quality declined linearly with increasing HM rates (between 35 and 140 g·ha–1). In Maryland, HM (≥70 g·ha–1) elicited unacceptable perennial ryegrass quality for 2 or 3 weeks; however, in Kansas, quality was unacceptable for ≈1 week. In Kansas, yellow nutsedge topkill by HM (70 kg·ha–1) ranged from 52% to 97%. A single HM application (35, 70, or 140 kg·ha–1) provided > 97% topkill in Maryland. Yellow nutsedge topkill by bentazon (1680 g·ha–1) generally was inferior to that by HM (70 g·ha–1). Chemical names used: 3-(1-methylethyl)-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4 (3H)-one 2,2-dioxide (bentazon), methyl 3-chloro-5-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-ylcarbamoylsulfamoyl)-1-methylpyrazole-4-carboxylate (halosulfuron-methyl).

The following are corrections to a paper by Bloomer & Arndt [(1999), Acta Cryst. D55, 1672–1680]. The entry in the second row of the I MAR column of Table 1(b) on page 1674 should read 6.6 and not 16.6. In Table 4 on page 1677 the source diameter should be given as 15 µm and not 15 mm, and the units for the diameter of the sample should be given as µm instead of mm.

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the initial failure rate (≤4 months) for extra-alveolar mandibular buccal shelf (MBS) miniscrews placed in movable mucosa (MM) or attached gingiva (AG). Materials and Methods: A total of 1680 consecutive stainless steel (SS) 2 × 12-mm MBS miniscrews were placed in 840 patients (405 males and 435 females; mean age, 16 ± 5 years). All screws were placed lateral to the alveolar process and buccal to the lower first and second molar roots. The screw heads were at least 5 mm superior to the soft tissue. Loads from 8 oz–14 oz (227 g–397 g, 231–405 cN) were used to retract the mandibular buccal segments for at least 4 months. Results: Overall, 121 miniscrews out of 1680 (7.2%) failed: 7.31% were in MM and 6.85% were in AG (statistically insignificant difference). Failures were unilateral in 89 patients and bilateral in 16. Left side (9.29%) failures was significantly greater (P &lt; .001) compared with those on the right (5.12%). Average age for failure patients was 14 ± 3 years. Conclusion: MBS miniscrews were highly successful (approximately 93%), but there was no significant difference between placement in MM or AG. Failures were more common on the patient's left side and in younger adolescent patients. Having 16 patients with bilateral failures suggests that a small fraction of patients (1.9%) are predisposed to failure with this method.

Die Briefe dieses Bandes führen in die Zeit nach dem ersten intensiven Austausch über Speners Pia Desideria und deren Vorschläge zur Verbesserung der evangelischen Kirche. Dennoch ist die Antwort auf die Fragen, die Spener damit angestoßen hat, nicht abgeschlossen. Dies wird an zwei Beobachtungen deutlich: erstens an dem Streit mit Georg Conrad Dilfeld, Diaconus in Nordhausen, der zunächst als persönlicher Briefwechsel beginnt, in dem Spener, freilich vergeblich, versucht, eine literarische Auseinandersetzung zu vermeiden, die dann aber doch zum ersten öffentlichen Streit über den Pietismus führt. Zweitens beschreibt und verteidigt Spener in dieser Zeit sein Anliegen nach zwei Seiten: Einerseits korrespondiert er mit Vertretern der lutherischen Orthodoxie. Es handelt sich teilweise um die gleichen Personen, die in der zweiten Phase des Pietismus zu scharfen Gegnern der Bewegung werden. Andererseits beschreibt er sein Verhältnis zu Personen, die der Gruppe von Spiritualisten und Kirchenkritikern zuzurechnen sind. Damit wird der von Spener geprägte Pietismus als innerkirchliche Reformbewegung beschrieben und verortet. Durch die in diesem Band vorliegenden Briefe wird die Kenntnis des frühen Frankfurter Pietismus über die bisherigen Veröffentlichungen dazu erkennbar erweitert. Er erlebt eine Phase der Expansion. Eine innere Differenzierung, die wenige Jahre später zu einem Bruch zwischen dem kirchlichen und dem separatistischen Flügel der Bewegung führt, läßt sich zu dieser Zeit noch nicht erkennen. Die Briefe an Johann Wilhelm Petersen, den am häufigsten angeschriebenen Korrespondent in diesem Band, spielen hierbei eine herausragende Rolle. Die große Bedeutung, die Spener in den Pia Desideria dem Theologiestudium beimisst, hatte nicht nur zur Folge, dass sich in der Folgezeit häufig Theologiestudenten, vor allem aus dem benachbarten Gießen, für eine gewisse Zeit bei Spener aufhielten, sondern auch dass sich in seiner Korrespondenz eine reichliche Anzahl von Studienberatungsbriefen befinden. Darin wird deutlich, wie wichtig für Spener ein gründliches Theologiestudium war, aber gleichzeitig wird erkennbar, welche Schwerpunkte gelegt werden: Die Exegese erhält gegenüber der systematischen Theologie einen Vorrang und die Bedeutung des persönlichen Glaubens und Lebens der Theologiestudenten wird herausgehoben. Kontakte nach Mitteldeutschland (zu Leipziger Professoren und Kaufleuten), zu dem in Thüringen lebenden Ahasver Fritsch sind ebenso durch Briefe dokumentiert wie diejenigen nach Schweden.:Inhalt Vorwort Abkürzungen und Siglen Abgekürzt zitierte Literatur und Quellen Briefe des Jahres 1679 Nr. 1 an die Grafen Ludwig Ernst und Gustav Axel von Löwenstein-Wertheim in Wertheim 14.1.1679 Nr. 2 an [Georg Grabov in Cölln a.d. Spree] [Januar 1679] Nr. 3 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 1.2.1679 Nr. 4 an [einen Studenten] 8.2.1679 Nr. 5 an [einen Unbekannten] 11.2.1679 Nr. 6 an [Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin] 14.2.[1679] Nr. 7 an [einen Amtsbruder] 18.2.1679 Nr. 8 an [Johann Philipp Seip in Gießen] 19.2.1679 Nr. 9 an [Michael von Oppenbusch] in Hamburg 19.2.1679 Nr. 10 an Graf Johann Friedrich von Solms-Laubach in Wildenfels 26.2.1679 Nr. 11 an Gräfin Benigna von Solms-Laubach in Wildenfels 27.2.1679 Nr. 12 an [einen Freund] 28.2.1679 Nr. 13 an Johann Matthäus Faber in Heilbronn 6.3.1679 Nr. 14 an Daniel Wilhelm Moller in Altdorf 8.3.1679 Nr. 15 an Georg Conrad Dilfeld in Nordhausen [Mitte] März 1679 Nr. 16 an [einen Studenten in Leipzig] 24.3.1679 Nr. 17 an [Johann Christoph Nungesser in Erbach] März 1679 Nr. 18 an [Ludwig Rothmaler] 3.4.[1679] Nr. 19 an [einen Studenten] 5.4.1679 Nr. 20 an Johann Fabricius in Altdorf 10.4.1679 Nr. 21 an Conrad Samuel Schurzfleisch in Wittenberg 15.4.1679 Nr. 22 an [einen Theologiestudenten] 15.4.1679 Nr. 23 an [einen Anhänger] 15.4.1679 Nr. 24 an [Johann Fischer in Riga] 16.4.1679 Nr. 25 an Elias Veiel in Ulm 16.4.1679 Nr. 26 an [Samuel Benedikt Carpzov in Dresden] 17.4.1679 Nr. 27 an [einen Prediger] 21.4.1679 Nr. 28 an [Caspar Hermann Sandhagen in Lüneburg] 22.4.1679 Nr. 29 an Christian Scriver in Magdeburg [März / April 1679] Nr. 30 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 23.4.1679 Nr. 31 an Johann Heinrich Hoffmann in Hannover 23.4.1679 Nr. 32 an [eine Gönnerin] 24.4.1679 Nr. 33 an [Abraham Hinckelmann in Lübeck] 24.4.1679 Nr. 34 an [Johann Rebhan in Straßburg?] 24.4.1679 Nr. 35 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 24.4.1679 Nr. 36 an [Johann Caspar Malsius?] 25.4.1679 Nr. 37 an [Johann Gottfried Olearius in Halle a.S.?] 25.4.1679 Nr. 38 an [einen Professor in Rostock] 25.4.1679 Nr. 39 an [Gebhard Theodor Meier in Helmstedt] 25.4.1679 Nr. 40 an [Johann Christoph von Dennstädt in Bischdorf] 28.4.1679 Nr. 41 an [Caspar Löscher in Erfurt?] 29.4.1679 Nr. 42 an Johann Caspar Bauhin in Basel 1.5.1679 Nr. 43 an [Margarethe Elisabeth Kotzebue in Hannover] 8.5.1679 Nr. 44 an [Professor Rosteuscher in Danzig] 12.5.1679 Nr. 45 an Samuel Dilger in Danzig 12.5.1679 Nr. 46 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 21.5.1679 Nr. 47 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 10.6.1679 Nr. 48 an Daniel Wilhelm Moller in Altdorf 20.6.1679 Nr. 49 an [Gustav Adolf Jung in Neuenstein] [Frühjahr / Sommer 1679] Nr. 50 an [Balthasar Köpke in Fehrbellin?] 14.7.1679 Nr. 51 an den Rat der Stadt Windsheim 23.7.1679 Nr. 52 an [einen Lutheraner] 26.7.1679 Nr. 53 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 26.7.1679 Nr. 54 an [Johann Georg Stellwag in Windsheim?] 29.7.[?]1679 Nr. 55 an [einen Hofbediensteten] [Juli] 1679 Nr. 56 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 5.8.1679 Nr. 57 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 25.8.1679 Nr. 58 an [einen Bekannten] in [Württemberg?] 27.8.1679 Nr. 59 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 6.9.1679 Nr. 60 an [Caspar Sagittarius in Jena] 15.9.1679 Nr. 61 an [Tobias Wagner in Tübingen] [Jan.–Sept. 1679] Nr. 62 an [Johann Olearius in Halle a.S.] [März–Sept. 1679] Nr. 63 an [einen Theologen] [Aug./Sept. 1679] Nr. 64 an [Abraham Calov in Wittenberg] 19.9.[1679] Nr. 65 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 19.9.1679 Nr. 66 an [Wilhelm Imhof] in Nürnberg 23.9.1679 Nr. 67 an [einen Theologen in Mitteldeutschland] 26.9.1679 Nr. 68 an [Abraham Calov in Wittenberg] 26.9.1679 Nr. 69 an Landgräfin Elisabeth Dorothea von Hessen-Darmstadt in Darmstadt 27.9.1679 Nr. 70 an [einen Theologiestudenten] 27.9.1679 Nr. 71 an [Jacob Thomasius?] in [Leipzig] [Sept. 1679] Nr. 72 an [einen Theologieprofessor] [Sept. 1679] Nr. 73 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 30.9.1679 Nr. 74 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 11.10.1679 Nr. 75 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 11.10.1679 Nr. 76 an Gräfin Benigna von Solms-Laubach in Wildenfels 27.10.1679 Nr. 77 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 28.10.1679 Nr. 78 an [Jacob Thomasius?] in [Leipzig] 29.10.1679 Nr. 79 an [Johann Fischer in Riga] 31.10.1679 Nr. 80 an [Georg Grabov in Cölln a.d. Spree] 8.11.1679 Nr. 81 an [Adam Herold in Kiel] 16.11.[1679] Nr. 82 an Christian Scriver in Magdeburg 2.12.1679 Nr. 83 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 5.12.1679 Nr. 84 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 19.12.1679 Nr. 85 an Johannes Piker in Königsberg [Okt.–Dez.] 1679 Nr. 86 an [Hermann von der Hardt in Jena] [2. Hälfte] 1679 Nr. 87 an [Johann Christoph Nungesser in Erbach] [2. Hälfte 1679] Nr. 88 an [Johann Conrad Schneider in Halberstadt] 1679 Nr. 89 an [einen Geistlichen] 1679 Nr. 90 an [einen Unbekannten] 1679 Nr. 91 an einen vornehmen Katholiken 1679 Briefe des Jahres 1680 Nr. 92 an [Balthasar Friedrich Saltzmann in Straßburg?] 3.1.1680 Nr. 93 an Herzogin Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz in Zeitz 27.1.1680 Nr. 94 an Daniel Wilhelm Moller in Altdorf 13.2.1680 Nr. 95 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 24.2.1680 Nr. 96 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 1.3.1680 Nr. 97 an [einen befreundeten Theologen] 4.3.1680 Nr. 98 an [Christian Scriver in Magdeburg] [Febr./März 1680] Nr. 99 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 23.3.1680 Nr. 100 an [einen Unbekannten] 13.4.1680 Nr. 101 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 21.4.1680 Nr. 102 an [Herzog Rudolf August von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel in Wolfenbüttel] 22.4.1680 Nr. 103 an [Kilian Rudrauff? in Gießen] 27.4.1680 Nr. 104 an [einen befreundeten Amtsbruder] [April / Mai 1680] Nr. 105 an [einen Theologen] 7.5.1680 Nr. 106 an [einen Amtsbruder] 11.5.1680] Nr. 107 an [einen Anhänger in Schlesien] 17.5.1680 Nr. 108 an Gräfin Benigna von Solms-Laubach in Wildenfels 25.5.1680 Nr. 109 an [Samuel Benedikt Carpzov in Dresden] 25.5.1680 Nr. 110 an [Martin Geier in Dresden?] 31.5.1680 Nr. 111 an Johann Christoph Holtzhausen in Hildesheim 2.6.1680 Nr. 112 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 8.6.1680 Nr. 113 an [Johann Heinrich Horb in Windsheim] 9.6.1680 Nr. 114 an Martin Jampert in Zangenberg 10.6.1680 Nr. 115 an [Anton Reiser in Hamburg] 11.6.1680 Nr. 116 an [Herzogin Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz in Zeitz] 11.6.1680 Nr. 117 an [einen Bekannten] 15.6.1680 Nr. 118 an [einen Theologen in der Mark Brandenburg] 16.6.1680 Nr. 119 an [Johann Georg Stellwag in Windsheim?] 18.6.1680 Nr. 120 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 19.6.1680 Nr. 121 an [einen Unbekannten] 23.6.1680 Nr. 122 an [Johann Christoph von Dennstädt in Bischdorf] 23.6.1680 Nr. 123 an [einen befreundeten Amtsbruder] in [Straßburg?] 29.6.1680 Nr. 124 an [Daniel Wilhelm Moller in Altdorf] 30.6.1680 Nr. 125 an [einen befreundeten Juristen] 1.7.1680 Nr. 126 an [Wilhelm Zesch in Jena] 8.7.[?]1680 Nr. 127 an [Johann Christoph Beyer in Worms?] 10.7.1680 Nr. 128 an Samuel Pomarius in Lübeck 10.7.1680 Nr. 129 an [einen Amtsbruder] 14.7.1680 Nr. 130 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 15.7.1680 Nr. 131 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 16.7.1680 Nr. 132 an [Johann Melchior Stenger in Wittstock] [Frühjahr/Sommer 1680] Nr. 133 an [Johann Heinrich Lerche in Hasselfelde] [Frühjahr/Sommer 1680] Nr. 134 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 20.7.1680 Nr. 135 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 24.7.1680 Nr. 136 an [einen Unbekannten] 29.7.1680 Nr. 137 an [Gebhard Theodor Meier? in Helmstedt] 30.7.1680 Nr. 138 an [Johann Vincent Runckel in Gießen] 31.7.1680 Nr. 139 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 3.8.1680 Nr. 140 an einen Unbekannten [Mitte 1680] Nr. 141 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 7.8.1680 Nr. 142 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 14.8.1680 Nr. 143 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 31.8.1680 Nr. 144 an [Daniel Kaspar Jacobi in Nürnberg] 14.9.1680 Nr. 145 an Johann Caspar Bauhin in Basel 21.9.1680 Nr. 146 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen [auf der Reise in die Niederlande] 23.9.1680 Nr. 147 an [Friedrich Breckling in Amsterdam] 24.9.1680 Nr. 148 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 27.9.1680 Nr. 149 an [einen Theologiestudenten in Leipzig] [Mitte 1680] Nr. 150 an [Philipp Ludwig Hanneken in Gießen] 29.9.1680 Nr. 151 an Christian Scriver in Magdeburg 30.9.1680 Nr. 152 an [Johann Fischer in Riga] 30.9.1680 Nr. 153 an [einen Unbekannten in Paris] 2.10.1680 Nr. 154 an [einen Freund] 2.10.1680 Nr. 155 an [einen Unbekannten] 16.10.1680 Nr. 156 an [Valentin Alberti? in Leipzig] 22.10.1680 Nr. 157 an [einen vornehmen Theologen] 23.10.1680 Nr. 158 an [einen Lehrer] 25.10.1680 Nr. 159 an Johann Appel in Mannheim 26.10.1680 Nr. 160 an Herzogin Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz in Zeitz 27./28.10.1680 Nr. 161 an [Samuel Knauer] in Leipzig [Sommer/Herbst 1680] Nr. 162 an [einen befreundeten Theologen] 28.10.1680 Nr. 163 an Christian Kortholt in Kiel 30.10.1680 Nr. 164 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen [in Lübeck] [Ende Okt. 1680] Nr. 165 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 1.11.1680 Nr. 166 an [Johann Olearius in Weißenfels] 2.11.1680 Nr. 167 an [Daniel Klesch in Jena] 4.11.1680 Nr. 168 an Seger von den Berghe in Köln 6.11.1680 Nr. 169 an Herzogin Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz in Zeitz 12.11.1680 Nr. 170 an [Andreas Günther in Naumburg] 13.11.1680 Nr. 171 an [einen Theologen] 1.12.1680 Nr. 172 an [einen Amtsbruder] im [Elsaß?] 2.12.1680 Nr. 173 an [Samuel Baldovius in Bevern] 6.12.1680 Nr. 174 an [einen Amtsbruder] in [Berlin / Cölln?] 14.12.1680 Nr. 175 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 14.12.1680 Nr. 176 an [Samuel Knauer in Leipzig] 16.12.1680 Nr. 177 an [Daniel Kaspar Jacobi in Windsheim] 16.12.1680 Nr. 178 an [Christian?] [Meschmann] in [Amsterdam?] 16.12.[1680] Nr. 179 an [Johann Kunsch von Breitenwald in Cölln?] 16.12.1680 Nr. 180 an [Johann Benedikt Carpzov in Leipzig] 21.12.1680 Nr. 181 an Daniel Wilhelm Moller in Altdorf [Ende] Dez. 1680 Nr. 182 an einen fürstlichen Rat 28.12.1680 Nr. 183 an [Anton Reiser in Hamburg] 30.12.1680 Nr. 184 an [Balthasar Köpke in Fehrbellin] [Ende] 1680 Nr. 185 an [Abraham Hinckelmann in Lübeck] [Ende?] 1680 Nr. 186 an [einen Unbekannten] 1680 Nr. 187 an [einen Unbekannten] 1680 Nr. 188 an [eine Anhängerin] 1680 Nr. 189 an [einen Bekannten] 1680 Nr. 190 an [einen Amtsbruder] 1680 Nr. 191 an [Gregor Cephalius in Paris] 1680 Nr. 192 an [einen Amtsbruder] 1680 Nr. 193 an [einen besorgten lutherischen Vater] 1680 Nr. 194 an [ein Konsistorium] 1680 Nr. 195 an [Stephan II. Pilarik in Neusalza?] [1680] Anhang: Briefe an Ph.J. Spener und Dokumente zur Geschichte des Frankfurter Pietismus Nr. 196 von Johann Scheibler in Lennep 13.4.1679 Nr. 197 Johann Peter Scheffer an Gottlieb Spizel 17.5.1679 Nr. 198 von Johann Peter Klick in Pferdsfeld 12.8.1679 Nr. 199 Christian Fende an Justus Dozem 1680 Verzeichnis der Fundorte Handschriften Drucke Register Personen Orte Bibelstellen Schlüssel zu den zeitgenössischen Sammlungen von Ph. J. Speners Bedenken und Briefen
The letters in this volume transition into the period following the initial intensive exchange concerning Spener’s Pia Desideria and its suggestions for improving the Lutheran church. Nonetheless, the questions, which Spener raised, have not yet been fully answered. This can be seen in two observations: First is the contentious personal correspondence between Spener and Georg Conrad Dilfeld, deacon in Nordhausen, with whom Spener tried, albeit in vain, to avoid a public dispute. Thus began the first literary dispute over Pietism. The second observation: During this time, Spener describes and defends his concerns on two fronts: On the one hand, he corresponds with representatives of Lutheran orthodoxy. These are to some extent the same people who are to become severe opponents of the pietistic movement in the second phase of its development. On the other hand, Spener describes his relationship to people, who belong to the group of spiritualists and church critics. In this case Pietism is defined as the inner-church reform movement shaped by Spener. Our knowledge about early Pietism in Frankfurt is thereby significantly broadened beyond previous publications on the subject. Pietism experienced a period of expansion. An internal differentiation, which led a few years later to a rupture between the church and the separatist wing of the movement, is at this point not yet evident. The letters to Johann Wilhelm Petersen, Spener’s most frequent correspondence partner in this context, play a prominent role here. In his Pia Desideria, Spener places great importance on the study of theology. This led not only to extended visits by theology students with Spener, especially from neighbouring Gießen, but also to a large number of mentoring letters to students. From this it becomes clear just how important a thorough grounding in theology was for Spener. It also becomes evident where Spener sets his priorities: Exegesis is given priority over systematic theology. The importance of personal faith and the life of the students are stressed. Also documented in the correspondence are Spener’s contacts in central Germany (professors and merchants in Leipzig), including Ahasver Fritsch in Thuringia as well as contacts in Sweden.:Inhalt Vorwort Abkürzungen und Siglen Abgekürzt zitierte Literatur und Quellen Briefe des Jahres 1679 Nr. 1 an die Grafen Ludwig Ernst und Gustav Axel von Löwenstein-Wertheim in Wertheim 14.1.1679 Nr. 2 an [Georg Grabov in Cölln a.d. Spree] [Januar 1679] Nr. 3 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 1.2.1679 Nr. 4 an [einen Studenten] 8.2.1679 Nr. 5 an [einen Unbekannten] 11.2.1679 Nr. 6 an [Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin] 14.2.[1679] Nr. 7 an [einen Amtsbruder] 18.2.1679 Nr. 8 an [Johann Philipp Seip in Gießen] 19.2.1679 Nr. 9 an [Michael von Oppenbusch] in Hamburg 19.2.1679 Nr. 10 an Graf Johann Friedrich von Solms-Laubach in Wildenfels 26.2.1679 Nr. 11 an Gräfin Benigna von Solms-Laubach in Wildenfels 27.2.1679 Nr. 12 an [einen Freund] 28.2.1679 Nr. 13 an Johann Matthäus Faber in Heilbronn 6.3.1679 Nr. 14 an Daniel Wilhelm Moller in Altdorf 8.3.1679 Nr. 15 an Georg Conrad Dilfeld in Nordhausen [Mitte] März 1679 Nr. 16 an [einen Studenten in Leipzig] 24.3.1679 Nr. 17 an [Johann Christoph Nungesser in Erbach] März 1679 Nr. 18 an [Ludwig Rothmaler] 3.4.[1679] Nr. 19 an [einen Studenten] 5.4.1679 Nr. 20 an Johann Fabricius in Altdorf 10.4.1679 Nr. 21 an Conrad Samuel Schurzfleisch in Wittenberg 15.4.1679 Nr. 22 an [einen Theologiestudenten] 15.4.1679 Nr. 23 an [einen Anhänger] 15.4.1679 Nr. 24 an [Johann Fischer in Riga] 16.4.1679 Nr. 25 an Elias Veiel in Ulm 16.4.1679 Nr. 26 an [Samuel Benedikt Carpzov in Dresden] 17.4.1679 Nr. 27 an [einen Prediger] 21.4.1679 Nr. 28 an [Caspar Hermann Sandhagen in Lüneburg] 22.4.1679 Nr. 29 an Christian Scriver in Magdeburg [März / April 1679] Nr. 30 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 23.4.1679 Nr. 31 an Johann Heinrich Hoffmann in Hannover 23.4.1679 Nr. 32 an [eine Gönnerin] 24.4.1679 Nr. 33 an [Abraham Hinckelmann in Lübeck] 24.4.1679 Nr. 34 an [Johann Rebhan in Straßburg?] 24.4.1679 Nr. 35 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 24.4.1679 Nr. 36 an [Johann Caspar Malsius?] 25.4.1679 Nr. 37 an [Johann Gottfried Olearius in Halle a.S.?] 25.4.1679 Nr. 38 an [einen Professor in Rostock] 25.4.1679 Nr. 39 an [Gebhard Theodor Meier in Helmstedt] 25.4.1679 Nr. 40 an [Johann Christoph von Dennstädt in Bischdorf] 28.4.1679 Nr. 41 an [Caspar Löscher in Erfurt?] 29.4.1679 Nr. 42 an Johann Caspar Bauhin in Basel 1.5.1679 Nr. 43 an [Margarethe Elisabeth Kotzebue in Hannover] 8.5.1679 Nr. 44 an [Professor Rosteuscher in Danzig] 12.5.1679 Nr. 45 an Samuel Dilger in Danzig 12.5.1679 Nr. 46 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 21.5.1679 Nr. 47 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 10.6.1679 Nr. 48 an Daniel Wilhelm Moller in Altdorf 20.6.1679 Nr. 49 an [Gustav Adolf Jung in Neuenstein] [Frühjahr / Sommer 1679] Nr. 50 an [Balthasar Köpke in Fehrbellin?] 14.7.1679 Nr. 51 an den Rat der Stadt Windsheim 23.7.1679 Nr. 52 an [einen Lutheraner] 26.7.1679 Nr. 53 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 26.7.1679 Nr. 54 an [Johann Georg Stellwag in Windsheim?] 29.7.[?]1679 Nr. 55 an [einen Hofbediensteten] [Juli] 1679 Nr. 56 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 5.8.1679 Nr. 57 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 25.8.1679 Nr. 58 an [einen Bekannten] in [Württemberg?] 27.8.1679 Nr. 59 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 6.9.1679 Nr. 60 an [Caspar Sagittarius in Jena] 15.9.1679 Nr. 61 an [Tobias Wagner in Tübingen] [Jan.–Sept. 1679] Nr. 62 an [Johann Olearius in Halle a.S.] [März–Sept. 1679] Nr. 63 an [einen Theologen] [Aug./Sept. 1679] Nr. 64 an [Abraham Calov in Wittenberg] 19.9.[1679] Nr. 65 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 19.9.1679 Nr. 66 an [Wilhelm Imhof] in Nürnberg 23.9.1679 Nr. 67 an [einen Theologen in Mitteldeutschland] 26.9.1679 Nr. 68 an [Abraham Calov in Wittenberg] 26.9.1679 Nr. 69 an Landgräfin Elisabeth Dorothea von Hessen-Darmstadt in Darmstadt 27.9.1679 Nr. 70 an [einen Theologiestudenten] 27.9.1679 Nr. 71 an [Jacob Thomasius?] in [Leipzig] [Sept. 1679] Nr. 72 an [einen Theologieprofessor] [Sept. 1679] Nr. 73 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 30.9.1679 Nr. 74 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 11.10.1679 Nr. 75 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 11.10.1679 Nr. 76 an Gräfin Benigna von Solms-Laubach in Wildenfels 27.10.1679 Nr. 77 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 28.10.1679 Nr. 78 an [Jacob Thomasius?] in [Leipzig] 29.10.1679 Nr. 79 an [Johann Fischer in Riga] 31.10.1679 Nr. 80 an [Georg Grabov in Cölln a.d. Spree] 8.11.1679 Nr. 81 an [Adam Herold in Kiel] 16.11.[1679] Nr. 82 an Christian Scriver in Magdeburg 2.12.1679 Nr. 83 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 5.12.1679 Nr. 84 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 19.12.1679 Nr. 85 an Johannes Piker in Königsberg [Okt.–Dez.] 1679 Nr. 86 an [Hermann von der Hardt in Jena] [2. Hälfte] 1679 Nr. 87 an [Johann Christoph Nungesser in Erbach] [2. Hälfte 1679] Nr. 88 an [Johann Conrad Schneider in Halberstadt] 1679 Nr. 89 an [einen Geistlichen] 1679 Nr. 90 an [einen Unbekannten] 1679 Nr. 91 an einen vornehmen Katholiken 1679 Briefe des Jahres 1680 Nr. 92 an [Balthasar Friedrich Saltzmann in Straßburg?] 3.1.1680 Nr. 93 an Herzogin Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz in Zeitz 27.1.1680 Nr. 94 an Daniel Wilhelm Moller in Altdorf 13.2.1680 Nr. 95 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 24.2.1680 Nr. 96 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 1.3.1680 Nr. 97 an [einen befreundeten Theologen] 4.3.1680 Nr. 98 an [Christian Scriver in Magdeburg] [Febr./März 1680] Nr. 99 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 23.3.1680 Nr. 100 an [einen Unbekannten] 13.4.1680 Nr. 101 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 21.4.1680 Nr. 102 an [Herzog Rudolf August von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel in Wolfenbüttel] 22.4.1680 Nr. 103 an [Kilian Rudrauff? in Gießen] 27.4.1680 Nr. 104 an [einen befreundeten Amtsbruder] [April / Mai 1680] Nr. 105 an [einen Theologen] 7.5.1680 Nr. 106 an [einen Amtsbruder] 11.5.1680] Nr. 107 an [einen Anhänger in Schlesien] 17.5.1680 Nr. 108 an Gräfin Benigna von Solms-Laubach in Wildenfels 25.5.1680 Nr. 109 an [Samuel Benedikt Carpzov in Dresden] 25.5.1680 Nr. 110 an [Martin Geier in Dresden?] 31.5.1680 Nr. 111 an Johann Christoph Holtzhausen in Hildesheim 2.6.1680 Nr. 112 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 8.6.1680 Nr. 113 an [Johann Heinrich Horb in Windsheim] 9.6.1680 Nr. 114 an Martin Jampert in Zangenberg 10.6.1680 Nr. 115 an [Anton Reiser in Hamburg] 11.6.1680 Nr. 116 an [Herzogin Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz in Zeitz] 11.6.1680 Nr. 117 an [einen Bekannten] 15.6.1680 Nr. 118 an [einen Theologen in der Mark Brandenburg] 16.6.1680 Nr. 119 an [Johann Georg Stellwag in Windsheim?] 18.6.1680 Nr. 120 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 19.6.1680 Nr. 121 an [einen Unbekannten] 23.6.1680 Nr. 122 an [Johann Christoph von Dennstädt in Bischdorf] 23.6.1680 Nr. 123 an [einen befreundeten Amtsbruder] in [Straßburg?] 29.6.1680 Nr. 124 an [Daniel Wilhelm Moller in Altdorf] 30.6.1680 Nr. 125 an [einen befreundeten Juristen] 1.7.1680 Nr. 126 an [Wilhelm Zesch in Jena] 8.7.[?]1680 Nr. 127 an [Johann Christoph Beyer in Worms?] 10.7.1680 Nr. 128 an Samuel Pomarius in Lübeck 10.7.1680 Nr. 129 an [einen Amtsbruder] 14.7.1680 Nr. 130 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 15.7.1680 Nr. 131 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 16.7.1680 Nr. 132 an [Johann Melchior Stenger in Wittstock] [Frühjahr/Sommer 1680] Nr. 133 an [Johann Heinrich Lerche in Hasselfelde] [Frühjahr/Sommer 1680] Nr. 134 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 20.7.1680 Nr. 135 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 24.7.1680 Nr. 136 an [einen Unbekannten] 29.7.1680 Nr. 137 an [Gebhard Theodor Meier? in Helmstedt] 30.7.1680 Nr. 138 an [Johann Vincent Runckel in Gießen] 31.7.1680 Nr. 139 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 3.8.1680 Nr. 140 an einen Unbekannten [Mitte 1680] Nr. 141 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 7.8.1680 Nr. 142 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 14.8.1680 Nr. 143 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 31.8.1680 Nr. 144 an [Daniel Kaspar Jacobi in Nürnberg] 14.9.1680 Nr. 145 an Johann Caspar Bauhin in Basel 21.9.1680 Nr. 146 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen [auf der Reise in die Niederlande] 23.9.1680 Nr. 147 an [Friedrich Breckling in Amsterdam] 24.9.1680 Nr. 148 an Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg 27.9.1680 Nr. 149 an [einen Theologiestudenten in Leipzig] [Mitte 1680] Nr. 150 an [Philipp Ludwig Hanneken in Gießen] 29.9.1680 Nr. 151 an Christian Scriver in Magdeburg 30.9.1680 Nr. 152 an [Johann Fischer in Riga] 30.9.1680 Nr. 153 an [einen Unbekannten in Paris] 2.10.1680 Nr. 154 an [einen Freund] 2.10.1680 Nr. 155 an [einen Unbekannten] 16.10.1680 Nr. 156 an [Valentin Alberti? in Leipzig] 22.10.1680 Nr. 157 an [einen vornehmen Theologen] 23.10.1680 Nr. 158 an [einen Lehrer] 25.10.1680 Nr. 159 an Johann Appel in Mannheim 26.10.1680 Nr. 160 an Herzogin Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz in Zeitz 27./28.10.1680 Nr. 161 an [Samuel Knauer] in Leipzig [Sommer/Herbst 1680] Nr. 162 an [einen befreundeten Theologen] 28.10.1680 Nr. 163 an Christian Kortholt in Kiel 30.10.1680 Nr. 164 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen [in Lübeck] [Ende Okt. 1680] Nr. 165 an Ahasver Fritsch in Rudolstadt 1.11.1680 Nr. 166 an [Johann Olearius in Weißenfels] 2.11.1680 Nr. 167 an [Daniel Klesch in Jena] 4.11.1680 Nr. 168 an Seger von den Berghe in Köln 6.11.1680 Nr. 169 an Herzogin Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz in Zeitz 12.11.1680 Nr. 170 an [Andreas Günther in Naumburg] 13.11.1680 Nr. 171 an [einen Theologen] 1.12.1680 Nr. 172 an [einen Amtsbruder] im [Elsaß?] 2.12.1680 Nr. 173 an [Samuel Baldovius in Bevern] 6.12.1680 Nr. 174 an [einen Amtsbruder] in [Berlin / Cölln?] 14.12.1680 Nr. 175 an Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin 14.12.1680 Nr. 176 an [Samuel Knauer in Leipzig] 16.12.1680 Nr. 177 an [Daniel Kaspar Jacobi in Windsheim] 16.12.1680 Nr. 178 an [Christian?] [Meschmann] in [Amsterdam?] 16.12.[1680] Nr. 179 an [Johann Kunsch von Breitenwald in Cölln?] 16.12.1680 Nr. 180 an [Johann Benedikt Carpzov in Leipzig] 21.12.1680 Nr. 181 an Daniel Wilhelm Moller in Altdorf [Ende] Dez. 1680 Nr. 182 an einen fürstlichen Rat 28.12.1680 Nr. 183 an [Anton Reiser in Hamburg] 30.12.1680 Nr. 184 an [Balthasar Köpke in Fehrbellin] [Ende] 1680 Nr. 185 an [Abraham Hinckelmann in Lübeck] [Ende?] 1680 Nr. 186 an [einen Unbekannten] 1680 Nr. 187 an [einen Unbekannten] 1680 Nr. 188 an [eine Anhängerin] 1680 Nr. 189 an [einen Bekannten] 1680 Nr. 190 an [einen Amtsbruder] 1680 Nr. 191 an [Gregor Cephalius in Paris] 1680 Nr. 192 an [einen Amtsbruder] 1680 Nr. 193 an [einen besorgten lutherischen Vater] 1680 Nr. 194 an [ein Konsistorium] 1680 Nr. 195 an [Stephan II. Pilarik in Neusalza?] [1680] Anhang: Briefe an Ph.J. Spener und Dokumente zur Geschichte des Frankfurter Pietismus Nr. 196 von Johann Scheibler in Lennep 13.4.1679 Nr. 197 Johann Peter Scheffer an Gottlieb Spizel 17.5.1679 Nr. 198 von Johann Peter Klick in Pferdsfeld 12.8.1679 Nr. 199 Christian Fende an Justus Dozem 1680 Verzeichnis der Fundorte Handschriften Drucke Register Personen Orte Bibelstellen Schlüssel zu den zeitgenössischen Sammlungen von Ph. J. Speners Bedenken und Briefen

Chapter 13, ‘Satisfying a mind desirous of truth: Dr Willis’s practice of physick (1679–1684)’ provides a detailed bibliography, using the system described in chapter 4, of eleven copies of Willis’s treatises in English, books nine to twelve, intended as a single work, variously including treatises 1–13: made up as three copies of treatises 12–13, 7 (Pharmaceutice rationalis, 1679); three copies of treatises 1–6, 9–10 (The remaining medical works, 1681); one copy of treatises 1–7, 9–10, 12–13 (Dr Willis’s practice of physick, 1681); one copy of treatise 11 (Two discourses concerning the soul of brutes, 1683); and three copies of treatises 1–7, 9–13 (Dr Willis’s practice of physick, 1684). These descriptions are preceded by a narrative highlighting the main bibliographic issues that characterize the various editions, states, and issues of these copies. Of these, some are already known but others newly identified. {149 words}

Although the purpose of strategic planning is straightforward - to outline where an organization wants to go and how it's going to get there - its nature is complex and dynamic. The, critical success factor (CSF) method, can augment strategic planning efforts by illuminating an organization's present situation and potential future. This chapter explores the value of enhancing typical strategic planning techniques with the CSF method and presents an integrated framework for helping modern organizations to understand the broad range of interrelated elements that influence strategy development for Information Technology (IT). The chapter synthesizes documented theory and research in strategic planning and CSFs. It also provides insights and lessons re the pros and cons of integrated strategic planning framework in the context of IT in modern organizations. Through in-depth literature review and contextual analysis, the chapter incorporates suggestions to modern organizations for IT Strategic Planning with CSF Approach for a holistic and effective strategic planning process.

A gravitational motor interact with the locally gravitational field in order to produce a linear and/or rotational thrust able to move in space a given vehicle. The big advantages of such a motor are the facts that it can be used for nearly any kind of vehicle, even in free space, and may be placed inside the vehicle as the necessary interactions with the environment are realized through gravitational fields but not by direct mechanical interaction as for actual motors used for vehicles. Generally, in mechanics a physical motor may be considered as a ‘transducer' between some input (equivalent) energy existing on a vehicle and the output (equivalent) obtained movement of this vehicle. For space treks, such a motor must be able to ensure the take-off and/or landing of a space vehicle on any given planet and carry the entire load corresponding to this vehicle including also the necessary energy sources and eventually a human crew. By analogy with the Levitron toy the atomic particles, and the maglev such motor may be built. The paper presents some ideas and mathematical models that may help to build such a gravitational motor. It starts by presenting the energy based differential equations that have as solution analytic complex exponential functions, elliptic and ultra-elliptic functions adding also a physical interpretation of their coefficients. Forces and torques in mechanic and electro mechanic are presented and also methods to obtain such forces using only torques. Based on the modified Euler equations of a gyroscope with an added magnet like for the Levitron toy, an electro-mechanical gravitational motor may be built and a mathematical model for the gravitational waves is also deduced. Maybe, by using this kind of waves, a permanent contact between an interplanetary ship and the earth can be kept. Another kind of inertial motor may be based on the direct transfer of the energy of acoustical and/or ultra-acoustical waves that represents the desired ‘inertia' of a vehicle to this vehicle. This kind of transfer may be realized using convenient acoustical and/or ultra-acoustical 3-D sources. This last method has the advantage that uses no mechanical component in movement and then may lead to a better reliability. Associated with a good and convenient technology that may be developed on the presented bases, all these tools are of most strategic importance. Applications may be found in interplanetary telecommunications and treks but also for a new, more sure and versatile, telecommunications systems and terrestrial vehicles. The presented tools may be used for mathematically modeling the fields and ensure also a more comprehensive understanding.

Origami tubes are deployed to realize a compactable and frequency reconfigurable quadrifilar helical antenna (QHA). The specific origami pattern is parametrically analyzed to help with antenna modelling and simulation at reconfigurable states. Two quadrifilars respectively on helical tube and bellow tube are proposed, and the quadrifilar on helical tube is fabricated with 4-mil Kapton substrate. Measured results show that this Kapton QHA can operate with right-handed circularly polarized (RHCP) radiation patterns at 4 reconfigurable states with: ±1dB RHCP gain bandwidth from 1.05 GHz-1.4 GHz at state 1 with total antenna height H = 203 mm; ±1dB RHCP gain bandwidth from 1.4 GHz-1.73 GHz at state 2 with total antenna height H = 168 mm; ±1dB RHCP gain bandwidth from 2.07 GHz-2.7 GHz at state 3 with total antenna height H = 69 mm; ±1dB RHCP gain bandwidth from 2.7 GHz-2.94 GHz and 3.26 GHz-3.66 GHz at state 4 with total antenna height H = 54 mm. Therefore, this antenna can be reconfigured and applied in space and remote communication applications, such as GPS (1.17 GHz-1.58 GHz), radio (2.305 GHz-2.315 GHz) and WiMax (3.5 GHz).

Tetranectin (Mr = 68,000) is a tetrameric blood plasma protein, which binds to plasminogen and also to the lysine-binding site of the isolated kringle 4 from plasminogen. Its four polypeptide chains, which are non-covalently bound, each consists of 181 amino acid residues. We have determined the complete amino acid sequence and the disulfide bonds. Each position corresponds to a single amino acid residue except 34 which contains Ala and Ser and 37 which contains Val and Met in equimolar amounts. The three disulfide bonds connect Cys-50 to Cys-60, Cys-77 to Cys-176 and Cys-152 to Cys-168. The sequence of tetranectin was found to be homologous, to an extent indicating common ancestry, with the extracellular part of the asialoglyco-protein receptors and with the C-terminal globular domain of the cartilage proteoglycan core protein. Conserved residues include the six half-cystines of tetranectin. Therefore, we can now propose disulfide bond patterns for the proteins homologous with tetranectin. Supported by NIH-grant HL-16238 (S.M.), the Danish Science and Medical Research Councils, the Danish Cancer Society and NOVO Foundation.

Thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) degradation due to corrosion is one of the commonly observed failure types in land-based gas turbines due to the usage of low grade fuels. Sulfur in its gaseous form, as SO2, can attack the TBC system and result in the degradation of both the coating and the turbine component. The present study aims to understand the difference in the corrosion induced damage caused by SO2 gas mixture in different coating architectures. Corrosion tests were conducted at 780 °C in a tube furnace for a period of 168h. The inlet test gas had a composition of 1SO2-0.1CO-20CO2-N2 (bal.) in vol. %. The coating architectures consisted of 1) an overlay coating, 2) a single-side bond coat TBC, 3) an all-side bond coat TBC, 4) an all-side bond coat TBC subjected to pre-oxidation prior to the corrosion tests. The results from the corrosion tests showed that the damage was the most severe for the overlay followed by single-side bond coat TBC. Between the other two systems, the TBC subjected to pre-oxidation had relatively lower corrosion damage. The corrosion damage started from the edges for the overlay and single-side bond coat TBC and as well as through the penetration of the gas through the coating. For the coatings with bond coat on all sides, the edge damage appeared to be considerably reduced and the damage is predominantly through the gas infiltration.

This study conducted small-scale trials under various concentration and exposure time (CET) scenarios to determine florpyrauxifen-benzyl activity on dioecious hydrilla and hybrid watermilfoil and determine impact on water stargrass and elodea. Hydrilla treated with 12, 24, or 36 μg active ingredient (a.i.) L⁻¹ florpyrauxifen-benzyl and exposed for 12, 24, or 48 hr under outdoor mesocosm conditions was reduced in biomass by 30-75% at 8 weeks after treatment (WAT). An additional hydrilla trial at the same herbicide concentrations, but under longer exposures (24, 72, or 168 hr), resulted in 33–85% plant control. Under indoor conditions, hybrid watermilfoil dry weight decreased 98–100% with subsurface applications of florpyrauxifen-benzyl under CET scenarios of 3–12 μg a.i. L⁻¹ at 3–24 hr exposure times in a growth chamber trial. Under shorter exposure periods (0.5–4 hr) in a follow-up trial, low doses (3–9 μg a.i. L⁻¹) achieved 50–100% control of hybrid watermilfoil. In the same trial, the nontarget species water stargrass and elodea proved relatively tolerant to the florpyrauxifen-benzyl at doses up to 6 μg a.i. L⁻¹ (4 hr exposure) and 9 μg a.i. L⁻¹ (1 hr exposure). These small-scale trials demonstrate florpyrauxifen-benzyl’s potential to selectively manage invasive species.