Tag: <span>spiral technology</span>

[ad_1]

747-400 Foundation:

Powerplants were the key to commercial aircraft capability, measured by payload, range, and performance, and all were incorporated in the 747-200B when the 63,000 thrust-pound Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7Q became available. First ordered by Northwest Orient, but quickly followed by Braniff, Japan Air Lines, Singapore Airlines, and Avianca, the version, introducing lighter nacelles, offered a two- to three-percent reduction in fuel consumption. Powered by the similarly-rated General Electric CF6-50E and Rolls Royce RB.211-524D turbofans, the aircraft was able to boast a new maximum takeoff weight of 833,000 pounds.

While an increased capacity variant had been considered during the 747 program’s earliest days, these higher-thrust engines paved the way for serious reconsideration now without the former need to sacrifice cargo loads or range for it.

Toward that end, studies completed in 1976 focused on a 23-foot fuselage stretch, attained by means of seven-frame forward and eight-frame aft insertions, along with a 27-foot upper deck increase, for a new mixed class passenger capacity of 570, as opposed to the previous 440. Yet depressed passenger demand during the late-1970s precluded the viability of this admittedly ambitious project and airline customer consensus pointed to a more modest stretch.

This took form as the 747SUD, or “stretched upper deck,” in the spring of 1980. Lengthened by some 23 feet, it incorporated 18 additional windows and two full-size, upward-opening doors with 45-foot-long evacuation slides. Although it carried an 8,000-pound, or two-percent, structural weight increase, the otherwise simplified modification increased its six-abreast accommodation from 32 to 69, reached by a new, straight, internal staircase that replaced the type’s signature spiral one.

Designated 747-300, it was offered as both a new-build version or a conversion of existing 747-200Bs, both of which factored into launch customer Swissair’s June 1980 order for four of the former and one of the latter. Powered by four 64,750 thrust-pound JT9D-7R4G2 engines, it first flew two years later, on October 5, and was type certified a year after that on March 4 at an 833,000-pound gross weight.

While the minimal change version offered a modest capacity increase, it introduced neither increased range nor any type of design enhancement.

747-400 Design and Development:

Several factors caused serious reconsideration of a more ambitious derivative of the 747 in the mid-1980s.

Sales, first and foremost, had been declining. The monthly production rate of seven airframes in 1979 had been reduced to a trickle of only one. Without revitalization, the program was likely to be terminated.

Currency and advancement, secondly, had not been maintained, a strategy that had kept the 727 and 737 programs alive with advanced versions, and the later, particularly, had spawned the Next Generation 737-300, -400, and -500 series.

Competition, thirdly, although not always on an even-keel basis, had begun to appear with step-change technology, as occurred with the DC-10-30 and -40, whose succeeding MD-11 introduced quieter, more fuel efficient engines and two-person digital cockpits. Airbus itself was about to unveil its own twin- and quad-engine A330 and A340 designs. The 747 appeared particularly outdated with its three-man, analogue cockpit, especially when measured against Boeing’s own new-technology narrow and widebody 757 and 767 offerings.

Finally, growth had shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with unprecedented numbers of passengers and amounts of cargo being transported to China, Japan, and Korea.

What was needed was a modernized version of the venerable 747 with significant range to eliminate the intermediate stops in Alaska and Hawaii, yet not sacrifice payload. The remedy was initially envisioned as a version of the 747-300 with either Pratt and Whitney PW4000 or General Electric CF6-80C turbofans, an increased wingspan, and its resultantly greater wing integral fuel tank capacity.

Yet, most of the major, early 747 operators sought far more than these basic power and dimensional increases packaged in the proposed 747-300A, prompting Boeing to embark upon an extensive reassessment project so that the new version would be commensurate with late-20th century technology.

Devising, in fact, a five-point list to generate next-generation sales, it sought to incorporate state-of-the-art technology, considerably enhance the passenger cabin, increase the range by 1,000 miles, reduce fuel consumption by up to 37-percent over that of the original 747-100, and reduce operating costs by ten percent.

Designated 747-400 and announced in May of 1985, it was a significantly improved aircraft.

Although it retained the 231.10-foot overall length of all the previous standard versions and featured the stretched upper deck of the -300, it introduced a considerably modified wing. Built up of the 2000 copper and 7000 zinc series of aluminum alloys developed for the 757 and 767, which formed the torsion box’s upper and lower skins, and incorporating graphite composites, it featured both a six-foot span increase and six-foot winglets that were outwardly canted by 29 degrees and had a 60-degree sweepback. Eliminating the need for a greater span increase, these area-rule designed devices harnessed the vortex created by the upper and lower pressure differential remix at the tip, increasing area and lift, reducing drag, and retaining gate compatibility dimensions a greater stretch would not have achieved.

“Winglets,” according to Boeing, “are a new stabilization feature to compensate for wing and body structural changes.” They facilitated the transport of 40 more passengers 2,500 miles further.

While the ailerons, spoilers, and dual-section, triple slotted trailing edge flaps remained the same as those incorporated on previous 747 versions, an additional variable camber leading edge flap was installed, resulting in three inboard Krueger devices from the root to the inboard engines, five mid-wing ones between the powerplants, and the new total of six between the outboard one and the tip.

The construction materials increased the wing’s strength by between five and 13 percent, yet reduced aircraft weight by up to 5,500 pounds. Compared to the 195.8-foot span of the previous versions, the 747-400 had a 211.5 unfueled one or 213.0 one with full tanks, which caused a downward bend of the airfoil. Aspect ratio was 7.7 and area was 5,825 square feet.

Another 747-400 improvement was its powerplant. Because engine manufacturers had made significant progress in the design and development of advanced turbofans, particularly for long-range, widebody twins which were predicated upon increased reliability and thrust and decreased fuel consumption and noise, the latest 747 version was 40-percent quieter than its -300 series predecessor. As had occurred with the 747-200B, it was offered with poweprlants made by all three engine manufacturers.

The 56,750 thrust-pound Pratt and Whitney PW4056, for example, specified by launch customer Northwest Orient, featured single crystal turbine blades, full authority digital engine control (FADEC), a ten-percent high pressure compressor ratio increase, and a 27-percent greater high pressure rotor speed. It consumed seven percent less fuel than the earlier JT9D upon which it was based.

The 58,000 thrust-pound General Electric CF6-80C2B1F, first specified by KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, offered a four-stage low pressure compressor matched to the fan, a core airflow that increased from 276 to 340 pounds per second, and an overall pressure ratio of 30.4 to 1 produced by the 14-stage high pressure compressor. Like the PW4056, it was FADEC-equipped.

The Rolls Royce RB.211-524, featuring three-shaft, wide-chord blades, was offered in two versions: the 58,000 thrust-pound -524G and the 60,000 thrust-pound 524H. It was first ordered by Cathay Pacific.

All engines, regardless of type, were attached to redesigned, streamlined pylons.

The Pratt and Whitney Canada PW901A auxiliary power unit (APU), replacing the long-standard Allied Signal one for the first time, consumed 40 percent less fuel. It could maintain a 75-degree Fahrenheit cabin temperature while the aircraft was on the ground with a 100-degree external one.

Fuel, whose capacity varied between 53,985 and 57,285 US gallons for Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce engine-powered aircraft, and between 53,711 and 57,011 US gallons for General Electric powered ones, was stored in the fuselage center section and two main tanks per wing, along with reserve and vent surge tanks. Although minor modifications had been made to their plumbing and sensors, the 747-400’s major design feature was a 3,300-US gallon auxiliary tank in the 72-foot, 2.5-inch spanned horizontal tailplane, providing a 350 nautical mile increase. It was not, however, used for in-flight center-of-gravity variation.

Increased rudder authority, amending maximum deflection from a former 25- to a present 30-degrees, facilitated a ten-knot ground speed reduction in which it could maintain the effectiveness.

While the 747-400 retained the same five-truck, 18-wheel configuration of the earlier versions, it replaced the former steel brakes with carbon ones, which offered a 1,800-pound weight reduction, were rated for twice the number of landings, and cooled faster, increasing aircraft turn-around times. Larger tires necessitated a wheel diameter increase from 20 to 22 inches. Ai digital antiskid system was introduced.

Ice and rain protection encompassed total air temperature probes; window wipers, washers, and rain repellent; window heat; pitot-static probes on both sides; angle-of-attack sensors, again on both sides; wing anti-ice; and engine inlet cowl anti-ice.

Aircraft servicing points were many. Those on the fuselage included vacuum cleaning, oxygen, electrical, potable water, hydraulic, oil, air start, and air conditioning. Those on the wing encompassed the fuel vent, the gravity fuel port, the fuel itself, and the fuel control panel on the left wing underside.

Significant enhancements were made to the interior.

The cockpit, first and foremost, was transformed from a three- to a two-person one, with the fight engineer’s functions having been incorporated in an overhead panel and these were now automatically monitored.

Employing digital systems designed for the 757 and 767, it featured six eight-by-eight inch cathode ray tube (CRT) displays, consisting of the primary fight display (PFD) and the navigation display (ND) placed side-by-side in front of the captain and duplicated for the first officer, and two center engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) screens.

The pedestal between the two pilots contained the control display units (CDU’s), the fuel control switches, the parking brake lever, the radio communication panels, the audio control panels, the aileron and rudder control panel, the stabilizer trim indicator, the weather radar control panel, the transponder control panel, the autobrake selector panel, and the public address-interphone handset.

An extensive data base, subdivided into performance and navigation categories, replaced the performance manuals and navigation charts, and facilitated the rapid, extremely accurate calculations of any desired parameter in conjunction with the flight management computer (FMC).

Information was both enterable and retrievable by means of the control display unit keypads.

During cockpit setup, the lower of the two engine indicator and crew alerting system screens displayed the secondary engine data-that is, the N2 and N3 shaft speeds, vibration, fuel flow, and oil temperature, pressure, and quantity-while the upper continuously displayed the primary engine data, such as engine pressure ratio, the N1 fan speed, and the exhaust gas temperature (EGT). Yet enough screen space remained for additional aircraft status indications, including flap and undercarriage positions.

Compared to the 971 lights, gauges, and switches of the first generation 747’s analog cockpit, the current -400’s digital one featured only a third, or 365. The aircraft was certified for Category IIIB landings.

Boeing listed its fight deck avionics baseline capabilities as follows.

“8 x 8 integrated displays: air data, primary flight and navigation instruments; engine, subsystems, caution and warning alerts; systems status and synoptic (heads-down monitoring).

“Multipurpose control display unit (MCDU): primary interfaces – FMCS, standby nav (IRS), standby nav radio tuning; secondary interface – accesses CMCS, ACARS, AIDS, weight and balance.

“Advanced FMC software package: thrust management – autothrottle/thrust limit; altitude/speed flight profile intervention via AFDS MCP; Nav radio tuning – automatic and remote; worldwide nav data base capability; software improvements.

“Central maintenance computer system (CMCS): standardized subsystem bite with English language readout; interactive control of system LRU bite via MCDU; interfaces flight deck//avionic and associated airplane systems.

“Improved dispatch reliability: redundant control of mode functions for EFIS/EICAS/AFDS MCP; display function switching and triple EIFS/EICAS interface units.

“Digital audio control and radio communication systems.”

Aside from two observer seats, a windowless crew rest compartment, featuring one or two full-length bunks, reading lights, and fresh air vents, enabled extra pilots to attain legal rest periods on fights that could span up to 18 hours. A comparable, although much larger, cabin crew rest area, installed in the formerly unutilized rear roof from the last row of passenger seats to the rear pressure bulkhead and replacing the 747-300’s “Portakabin” one that had taken the place of up to 20 revenue-generating passenger ones, was accessible by a locked door, three-step, and vertical ladder entryway. Incorporating additional insulation and ceiling lighting to simulate day and night cycles, it was configured with varying numbers of bunks and sleeper seats.

The redesigned interior, which introduced an advanced widebody look, featured recontoured ceilings and sidewalls; concealed lighting; self-supporting ceiling panels; larger overhead side and center storage compartments; outboard, seat track lockable modular galleys; modular, vacuum flushable toilets, whose waste was stored in four rear tanks; and a digital in-flight entertainment system with seat-back monitors; and five main deck air conditioning zones with higher ventilation.

Inter-deck access, as had been provided on the 747-300, was via a straight stairway.

Class division, density, capacity, color, fabric, and decoration varied according to customer specification. A 416 tri-class configuration, for instance, entailed 23 first class seats at a 61-inch pitch, 80 business class ones at a 39-inch pitch, and 313 coach class ones at a 32-inch pitch. A dual-class cabin accommodating 497 entailed 42 first class and 455 coach seats. Five hundred twenty-four could be subdivided into 42 business class seats at a 42-inch pitch and 406 coach ones at a 32-inch pitch, with another 76 on the stretched upper deck, provisioned with its own galleys and lavatories.

Maximum main deck abreast seating in the four cabins behind the nose was ten, with two aisles, and six on the upper deck with a single aisle. Maximum, exit-limited passenger capacity was 624.

The 747-400’s lower deck hold volume of 6,035 cubic feet was subdivided into 5,190 cubic feet of unit loading device (ULD) space and 845 of bulk or loose-load space, facilitating the loading of 16 forward and 14 aft LD-3 containers or five forward and four aft 96-by-125-inch pallets.

As powered by the CF6-80C2 engine, it had a 390,700-pound operating weight, 144,300-pound payload capability, 535,000-pound zero-fuel weight, 384,824-pound fuel weight, a maximum takeoff weight that varied from 800,000 to 870,000 pounds, and a maximum landing weight that varied from 574,000 to 630,000 pounds. Range, at a long-range cruise speed with 412 passengers and reserves, was 7,300 nautical miles.

Construction of the first 747-400, registered N401PW, began in mid-1986 in Everett, by which time 49 aircraft had been ordered by Singapore, KLM, Lufthansa, Cathay Pacific, and British Airways. Northwest’s launch order, for ten, called for aircraft configured for 420 passengers. Major assembly occurred a little over a year later, in September, and the first roll-out, on January 26, 1988, entailed a dual-ceremony, dual-location event, since it marked the occasion of the first 737-400 rollout in Renton. Another 58 aircraft, by United and Air France, had been intermittently ordered.

The expected system glitches, along with the unexpected part and powerplant delivery delays, postponed the first flight of the PW4056-powered aircraft from March to April 29, 1988, followed by first General Electric and Rolls Royce examples in, respectively, June and August. The GE airframe set a new world gross weight record, leaving the runway at 892,450 pounds.

Certification, following a four-aircraft flight test program, was achieved on January 9, 1989. Delivered to Northwest 17 days later and entering domestic service between Phoenix and Minneapolis on February 9 for crew familiarization purposes, the first 747-400, powered by PW4056 turbofans, was placed in the Pacific-spanning skies it was intended for, from New York to Tokyo, on June 1.

Other first deliveries included those to KLM and Lufthansa, on, respectively, May 18 and May 23 with General Electric engines, and to Cathay Pacific on June 8 with Rolls Royce powerplants. On the August 17 delivery flight to Qantas, the type set a world distance record from London to Sydney, covering the 9,688 miles in 20 hours, eight minutes.

By May 25, 1990, the 747-400 had attracted 279 firm orders.

747-400 Versions:

As had occurred with the basic 747, and particularly with its -200B series, Boeing offered several variants of the 747-400.

The first of these was the 747-400 Combi Featuring mixtures of main deck passenger and cargo loads, the latter in two aft zones, it incorporated a 120- by 130-inch aft, port, upward-opening door, strengthened floor, and freight loading system, facilitating several load combinations, including 268 passengers and seven pallets, 290 passengers and dix pallets, or up to 13 pallets. The type was first delivered to KLM on September 1, 1989.

Another variant was the 747-400D for “domestic.” Considered an advanced counterpart to the earlier 747SR for short, high-density Japanese sectors, it omitted the six-foot wing extensions and winglets, was powered by lower thrust engines, and offered a 600,000-pound maximum takeoff weight, although it was certifiable up to 870,000 pounds.

The first 747-400D, which was the 844th 747 airframe of all versions, first flew in March of 1991 and was delivered to Japan Air Lines in October. All-Nippon Airlines, another operator, configured the aircraft for 27 business and 542 economy class passengers.

The 747-400F, yet another version, replaced the 747-200F, whose production was discontinued after Air France placed a launch order for five on September 13, 1989. Devoid of passenger windows and facilities, and employing the standard-length upper deck of the 747-100, -200, and -SP, it featured both upward-opening nose and side cargo doors, a flight deck-reaching foldable ladder, and a two-person crew rest area. It could carry 26 more tons of cargo 1,200 miles further than its earlier -200F counterpart.

Volume totaled 27,467 cubic feet, including 21,347 on the main deck, 5,600 in the lower deck holds, and 520 in the bulk. Two ten-foot high pallets could also be accommodated on the upper deck.

The first 747-400F, the 968th 747 built, was first rolled out on February 25, 1993, and first took to the skies three months later, on May 4. The type’s maximum gross weight was 875,000 pounds. Because Air France had since canceled its order, Cargolux inaugurated the type into service instead.

The last version was the 747-400ER, intended, as its designation indicates, for “extended range” operations. Initially offered to Qantas as the 747-400IGW “increased gross weight,” it featured one or two 3,064-US gallon auxiliary tanks installed in the hold, increasing fuel capacity to 63,403 gallons and range to 7,500 nautical miles with one tank and 7,700 miles with two.

Powered by 63,300 thrust-pound PW4062 engines, the -400ER had a 535,000-pound zero-fuel weight, a 910,000-pound maximum takeoff weight, and a 652,000-pound landing weight. Design range with 416 passengers was 7,585 miles.

On September 10, 1993, the 1,000th 747, a -400 series for Singapore Airlines, was rolled out, making it the fifth Boeing type to achieve this production milestone after the 707, 727, 737, and (originally McDonnell-Douglas) MD-80. By January 1, 2002, 41 operators had ordered 630 747-400s of all versions. Production ultimately totaled 694.

[ad_2]

Source by Robert Waldvogel

[ad_1]

Just when you’ve finally saved up enough to build your own home, looking for the best person to design and build it, while staying within your budget, is a tricky one. Enter NATMO Asia, an architectural firm that has been in the design and construction business for 20 years now. Architect Neil T. Monzones, a graduate of Mapua Institute of Technology’s College of Architecture and currently serving as Vice President for the United Architects of the Philippines, has been consistently designing and building structures that are well-planned and fit any budget requirement.

Arch. Monzones’ own home in Batangas is proof of how the contemporary 3-storey structure suits the trapezoidal shape of its lot. The house rises at an interesting angle, easily making it an outstanding feature in the community. With his signature round “holes” on the exterior and extensive use of glass both in and out of the house, the Monzones home never looks dated. One of the exciting features inside is a bridge that overlooks the living area and connects the bedrooms on the second level, as well as a loft perched on the third level of the house. A guest bedroom, currently being used as a multiple-purpose room, is built above the office space and separate from the main house, ensuring privacy for both homeowners and guests. The circular wall of one bedroom with its generous use of glass plates adds a thoroughly modern touch to the front part of the house.

Arch. Monzones’ genius came to full play with the renovation of a very small house in Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Originally a bungalow with two bedrooms of Lilliputian proportions, it is now a marvel of architectural creativity. Transformed into a spacious home good for a family of four, a roomy bedroom was created in the loft area with its own toilet and bath. A glass-encased balcony off the spiral staircase allows stargazing and enough space for a garden. The whole lower part of the house was extended but doesn’t go right smack to the maximum allowable space, a common mistake of builders who expand right up to the edge of the property and give a tight feeling on the exterior views. With this extension, kitchen and laundry areas are relocated at the back to give ample room for the living and dining spaces. Restraint and ingenuity, as well as a clever mix of materials, give this house just the right combination of efficient floor plan and style savvy. Now, this modern Asian house is the very model of what happens when you build a beautiful home (with a carport and pocket gardens on 3 sides to boot!) without breaking the bank.

Read more of NATMO at activephilippines.com

[ad_2]

Source by Rose Reyes

[ad_1]

For decades companies have been struggling with the real costs,

benefits and return-on-investment of training costs. With

increasing online learning opportunities, organizations are finding their focus shifting from providing costly onsite training programs to the use of new tools and technology now available. Companies need to understand and apply the business analytics in order to fully appreciate the effectiveness and impact that e-learning and training offers.

Companies invest large amounts of money, resources and time in

training. According to a 2002 ASTD State of the Industry Report

where over 375 major corporations were surveyed, companies spent

between one (1) and three (3) percent of their total payroll on

training. This translated to a per-person basis of more than

US $700 per employee per year. In cutting-edge companies that

significantly increases to US $1400 or more per person per year.

If training expenses are viewed as a percentage of the company’s

profits, then the training budget could represent as much as

5 – 20% of the total profit margin. With increasing costs

associated with travel and lodging, as well as increasing costs

and expenses to register and attend meetings or to develop in-house training programs, training budget costs are undboutedly going to increase, which only underscores the need to justify its cost.

In order to effectively measure training programs, companies

are faced with three critical issues: efficiency, effectiveness, and compliance. Every major decision made regarding training falls into one of these three areas. Fortunately, each of these three areas can be benchmarked and measured.

The ASTD 2002 study reported that only one-third of companies

measured the effectiveness of learning and that 12% or less attempted to measure job and business impact of their training programs. Why? Interestingly enough the top reason why companies fail to measure training is that they lack the experience, tools and infrastructure to do so.

It is impossible to improve or effectively optimize the training

program if it is not benchmarked or measured. Training should be measured and evaluated just as companies measure productivity, profit or quality. There have been many scorecards, dashboards, algorithms or metrics developed for this purpose.

If one considers the total training investment per person in the

company (see above), the question is how much should they spend

on measurement and evaluation? One, five or ten percent? Looking back at the ASTD 2002 study of best practices, we find that most companies spend 40-50% of their total training dollars on content development, 8-10% on infrastructure and the remaining resources on salaries and facilities costs.

For many development of measurement and evaluation tools sounds like additional costs and expense to the organization. Companies who allocate a small, but fixed percentage of the training budget to this purpose will find themselves able to effectively measure the effectiveness for their overall investment in training. One study found that organizations who adopt this model, and who spend US $2-10 per employee on learning analytics reported noticeable improvements in the measurability and return on investment.

Companies will need to justify the costs associated with measuring learning by identifying the business impact and risk of not training its employees. This could be quantified by fines, or profit loss as a result of being out of compliance with laws or standards. Often times this can result in fines levied against the company or even lawsuits or other forms of profit loss.

In healthcare, for example, lack of compliance with correctly

collecting, coding and reporting cancer incidence could have far-reaching impact on budget dollars spent not only in the training and operational costs associated with the Cancer Registry department, but could also negate the costs associated with cancer program development and community outreach programs. Although program development and outreach programs have the ability to compete with the consumer’s dollars, all this could be for naught if the required reporting is not done accurately and in compliance with the State or accreditation program standards. Training programs for the Cancer Registry can ensure that the data management processes are appropriately managed.

So, in summary, companies should be focusing on the development

and measurement of their learning programs. The investment in

learning analytics will outweigh the risks of inadequate training. Success for any organization will directly depend on their employee’s understanding of their products, services, operations and policies. Employees must be thoroughly trained in compliance, standards, confidentiality, non-disclosure and other legally sensitive areas of the company. And, companies must be able to track and measure this using effective learning analytics.

PUBLISHING RIGHTS:

You have permission to publish this article electronically, in print, in your ebook or on your website, free of charge, as long as the author’s information and web link are included at the bottom of the article and the article is not changed, modified or altered in any way. The web link should be active when the article is reprinted on a web site or in an email. The author would appreciate an email indicating you wish to post

this article to a website, and the link to where it is posted.

Copyright 2005, M. A. Webb. All Rights Reserved

[ad_2]

Source by Michele Webb

[ad_1]

Today, the modern workplace has gone through a lot of positive changes. Due to the changing demographics and dispersed workforce across the planet, the definition of workplace collaboration has also been changed. These days, face-to-face meetings have now been replaced by internet-enabled video conferencing and real-time messaging. In this article, we are going to talk about the hyper-collaborated modern workplace. Read on to find out more.

Nowadays, there is a lot of competition between organizations. Therefore, they must provide their workforce with a collaborative environment to stay ahead of the competition and keep talented employees. Aside from organizational culture, there should be necessary communication devices and collaborator software to create a hyper-collaborator workplace.

Opting for the best solutions based on your usage model

Since there is a lot of communication tools, such as cloud-based file sharing, video as a service (VaaS), and conventional telephone, it is difficult for organizations to opt for the best solution. If you are in this situation, we have some tips for you to go for the most appropriate solution. Given below are some of the tips.

For large groups, whiteboards can be an ideal solution. With these solutions, participants can edit and view content at the same time. Apart from this, they can distribute, and transcribe content to touch mobile PCs.

Small teams can use wireless solutions that allow them to connect to conference room projectors. Therefore, mobile computers can create a small network for sharing work.

One-on-one collaboration can come up with virtual meeting rooms for quality audio and video conferences. They can do so with the help of touch mobile devices. Therefore, they can edit and share documents without any problem.

Successful transformation

In the United States, many institutions have created student-teacher collaboration tools to cover the needs of online and overseas students. If there is no collaborative strategy, the heads of University departments can go for the technology gap and buy collaboration tools.

Try your desired systems before implementation

Technological tools and solutions can help you enjoy a lot of benefits. Apart from this, you need to make sure that these technologies are compatible with each other. On the other hand, if they don’t sync properly, they can create a lot of problems for it professionals. As a result, there can be a lot of organizational inefficiencies and cyber security loopholes.

In other words, organizations need to test these tools before implementing them. By trying out different solutions, we can go for the best one. Besides, they also need to compare the user-friendliness of these solutions.

The idea is to make sure that these systems make it easier for the entire team or students to collaborate with each other without any problem. This is how they can get the most out of their efforts. And this can also so make the organization more efficient in more ways than one.

Long story short, this was a brief introduction to the hyper collaborated modern workplace. If you have never tried this system, we suggest that you consider them today.

[ad_2]

Source by Shalini M

[ad_1]

Characteristics.

* New BMW X1 xDrive28i as a pioneer of an innovative combination of driving pleasure typical of the brand and efficiency.

* First four-cylinder gasoline engine with BMW twin turbo power, significant increase in performance while significantly improving the efficiency, maximum output: 180 kW/245 hp, maximum torque: 350 Newton meters.

# Completely newly developed 2.0 liter engine with all-aluminum crankcase, design principle, closely based on the technology of the inline six-cylinder engine with TwinPower turbo technology, consisting of the highly effective charging system for the twin-scroll principle, more precise fuel injection High Precision Injection with innovative solenoid valve injectors and again further developed version of BMW’s patented Valvetronic variable valve timing.

# New generation of engines as the current innovation highlight of BMW EfficientDynamics, 2.0 liter engine with increased torque over the previous engine, and outstanding fuel economy and low emissions.

# Six-speed manual transmission as standard, optional eight-speed automatic transmission, extensive BMW EfficientDynamics technology including Auto Start Stop function (manual transmission).

# New BMW X1 xDrive28i further optimized with agility at the same time significantly reducing fuel consumption and emissions, average fuel consumption in the EU test cycle of 7.9 litres/100 km (down 1.5 liters), CO2 rating: 183 g / km (down 38 g ), acceleration from zero to 100 km / h in 6.1 seconds (manual transmission) and 6.5 seconds (automatic minus 0.3 seconds).

# Intelligent BMW xDrive all-wheel drive as standard with optimized dynamics vote Performance Control as an option.

# M Sport package as a new option for all model variants of the BMW X1.

# Unique vehicle concept in the premium compact segment, typical design characteristics and features of a BMW X model, a high variability in the interior, uncompromising premium characteristics through outstanding quality workmanship and material selection, high quality fittings and innovative options of BMW ConnectedDrive, including apps for web radio reception and use of Facebook and Twitter.

Driving pleasure and efficiency in a new dimension: the new BMW X1 xDrive28i BMW twin turbo power

His expressive, sporty and elegant design, superior agility, high functionality and innovative features have made the BMW X1 to the forefront of driving pleasure in the premium compact segment. Once again, the premium car manufacturer BMW, the vehicle concept of the BMW X models are successfully transferred to a new class of vehicle, creating a unique offering. Now make the BMW X1 in implementing the development strategy BMW EfficientDynamics pioneering work. The new BMW X1 xDrive28i is the first model of the brand, from a four-cylinder gasoline engine with TwinPower turbo technology, consisting of High Precision Injection, charging after the twin-scroll principle, variable camshaft control Double VANOS and variable valve timing, Valvetronic, is driven.

The introduction of this technology package features the new BMW X1 xDrive28i with the heralded new generation at the 2.0-liter gasoline engine from BMW. The new, combined 180 kW/245 hp power unit which compared to the previous engine again increased performance and torque characteristics with significantly reduced fuel consumption and emissions. The new BMW X1 xDrive28i brings this dual progress in an impressive way to advantage.

It can accelerate from zero to 100 km / h, it takes 6.1 seconds (automatic: 6.5 seconds) or 0.7 seconds (0.3 seconds) is less than that offered only with automatic transmission predecessor. Its average fuel consumption in the EU test cycle is reduced by 16 percent to 7.9 liters per 100 kilometers. The CO2 level is 183 grams per kilometer.

The engine: A new standard for efficiency and dynamics

BMW X models feature a specific expression of the brand’s typical driving pleasure. The BMW X1 xDrive28i combines this experience with a competitive environment in its class unsurpassed efficiency. Sporty power delivery at a level that has been achieved only by six-cylinder engines, goes with this new engine variant of the BMW X1 along with outstanding fuel economy and emissions.

This is made possible by the use of a 2.0-liter four-cylinder gasoline engine, the latest generation, distinguished by its pioneering use of innovative technology components. The drive of the BMW X1 xDrive28i meets in a special way the objectives of the development strategy BMW EfficientDynamics, which is consistently focused on continuous improvement of driving pleasure with falling between consumption and emission levels. With a displacement of 1997 cm3 and with the unique BMW TwinPower turbo technology, which includes a charging system for the twin-scroll principle, High Precision Injection, double-VANOS and Valvetronic, created the new engine a maximum power of 180 kW / 245 hp at an engine speed of 5000 min-1. This exceeds the power unit of the new BMW X1 xDrive28i the value of the hitherto strongest 2.0-liter gasoline engine from BMW by 55 kW.

Premiere: BMW twin turbo power now available in four-cylinder.

The new BMW four-cylinder with twin turbo power that comes from power in regions that are accessible only by naturally aspirated engines with a higher number of combustion chambers and a much larger displacement. Compared to a similarly powerful six-cylinder engine is equipped with the all-aluminum crankcase, including derived from motorsport bedplate design of compact and easier to drive. This directly affects the efficiency and thanks to the lower front axle load on the agility of the BMW X1 xDrive28i.

BMW X1 xDrive28i (Modell E84, ab 2011)

The pulling power of the new drive exceeds the level of the previously used normally aspirated engines. Its maximum torque is 350 Nm and is available at an engine speed of 1250 min-1 are available. This a very spontaneous response is guaranteed. The new engine already provides just above idle speed for a fascinating and spirited force development, which continues until uniform in higher load ranges. The new BMW X1 xDrive28i accelerates in 6.1 seconds from zero to 100 km / h (6.5 seconds with automatic transmission). He completed the standard sprint by 0.7 or 0.3 seconds faster than with a six-speed automatic transmission-equipped predecessor. The maximum speed of the new BMW X1 xDrive28i is 240 km / h.

The charging system of the new drive corresponds to the twin scroll principle in which both the exhaust manifold and the turbocharger, the channels of two cylinders are separated from each other. The flow rates will be lead to a spiral turbine wheel. The result is a particularly low exhaust back pressure results at low speeds. Thus, the dynamics of the pulsating gas streams is ideally used to delay the supercharger blades and powerful to put in motion. This leads to spontaneous reactions to any pedal movement and the early developing revving, which is characteristic of BMW engines

[ad_2]

Source by Zain Ahmad

[ad_1]

Thomas Edison in 1879 invented the incandescent light bulb to replace the candle. This light bulb is the one that we normally see but in 2012 we will have to use a new type of light bulb. This new light bulb that some of us may have seen or use is called the compact fluorescent or CFL. It has the same type of base but a spiral bulb on top. On Wednesday December 19, 2007, the U.S. Congress in Washington D.C. approved a new energy law to stop the manufacturing of the old fashion light bulb to a new less energy using light bulb.

Question: Why are they taking the old fashion light bulb away?

Answer: It is a low cost way to reduce electricity use and greenhouse gases from power plants.

Question: CFL’s cost more, about six times as much, why buy them?

Answer: CFL’s use about 75% less energy, so you save money on your energy bill.

Question: How long do they last?

Answer: CFL’s last for five years instead of for a few months just don’t turn them on and off all the time.

Question: Are the CFL’s bad for the environment?

Answer: There is some mercury in them, 100 times less than a thermometer, but they should be recycled without any problems.

Question: Is this it for any new lighting for another 100 years?

Answer: Manufactures are working on better CFL’s and LED lighting, which are used in some holiday lighting.

In conclusion, President Bush should sign this new energy law. Our Congress is doing a good job of protecting our environment and trying to save us money. Almost anyone can afford to change to these new bulbs. It is less money than installing a new home heating system or new windows throughout a home. My home already has CFL lighting in almost all of our fixtures and lamps. I think this is an enlightening idea!

[ad_2]

Source by D DeAngelis

[ad_1]

Now when you have designed your new interior scheme and picked the lighting you do not want to go and ruin it all by selecting ugly light bulbs. There are definitely different alternatives that are available for energy saving light bulbs with different technologies, energy consumptions and aesthetics. So you need to select your light bulb for both energy saving efficiency and aesthetics. Lets look at some of the alternative bulbs that strike the balance between aesthetics and efficiency.

Halogen Light Bulbs

Halogen Bulbs are definitely aesthetically pleasing and they will save around 30% in electricity costs against the traditional incandescent bulb. As an example if you choose a clear candle halogen bulb for your chandelier then the clear light will really make the most of the sparkle from the crystals. Then if you really want that aesthetic design edge go for the candle flame tip halogen bulb which will enhance the look of your chandelier considerably and the light bulbs will really contribute to the overall looks. Clearly the bulbs will never look like real candles with a glowing flame but the simple clean design of the flame tip candle bulb is the best choice for an electric light bulb.

Compact Fluorescent Lamps- CFL’s

The energy saving bulbs which use the compact fluorescent lamp technology are certainly good from an energy efficiency perspective saving around 80% against a traditional incandescent bulb, but the aesthetics can be far from pleasing. This is just fine if the light bulb is tucked away inside a lamp and is not visible, but if the light bulb is seen under the shade or there is no sconce at all then be sure to pick the right choice. The original linear CFL’s look awful and now at least the full spiral energy saving light bulbs have improves aesthetics, but the visual appearance is still far from ideal. The best choice is to go for the globe design CFL and if you pick one with a nice spherical shaped energy saving globe light bulb, then the look can be highly desirable. This way you can get the best of both worlds with a beautiful looking bulb that will pay for itself in electricity savings in a matter of months. That has got to be a win-win situation on the light bulb front!

LED Bulbs

If you want the ultimate in energy efficiency then the best choice is the LED bulb which will save you around 90% in electricity although the initial outlay for the light bulbs is considerably higher. However, be aware of the appearance to be sure that they are right for your lighting application. Now if you have simple halogen downlighter then there are some very elegant LED MR16 bulbs available that will produce the equivalent of say 25W halogen output from a 3W LED. That is a great energy saving bulb and the aesthetics are good too.

If you have a chandelier with say 20 bulbs then if you use 40 watt traditional bulbs then you will be consuming a massive 800 watts which is enough to heat the room if it is not mod winter! This means then you really need an energy efficient bulb scheme. You can go for the halogen bulbs as mentioned above but alternatively you could fit say 3W LED candle flame bulbs which will give you a light output per bulb of around 25 watts. The aesthetics are not as pleasing as the halogen bulbs as the multiple LED lights can look rather high tech, but if you build that into your interior design scheme then the result can be quite pleasing.

[ad_2]

Source by Paul Nigel Towers

[ad_1]

Jabulani is the Official Ball of the World Cup 2010 in South Africa and it is already one of the most sought after soccer balls in the history of the game. Maybe, this is because more interest has been generated for the 2010 World Cup Match than any other FIFA World Cup in history, but I think it’s because the Jabulani looks so exotic, so African and also, it is a new kind of soccer ball for fans and players alike. The Adidas Company designed this 2010 World Cup ball, as they do for every World Cup and they have really raised the bar for football technology and style with this latest new soccer ball.

The 2010 World Cup Official Match Ball from Adidas is being sold all over the world, mostly online, though some soccer shops carry one or two. You can buy an official or replica Jabulani ball at online World Cup Souvenir Shops where you can have your ball shipped to you anywhere you are. The best deal on an official size 5 Jabulani can be found at online World Cup Football Shops right now for as low as $59.00 US! This is a way lower price than the official Adidas Site which is selling the ball for $150.00! Shipping costs will depend on where you want your ball sent. If you want to spend less money, consider buying a replica Jabulani, available in size 5, 4 & 3 for practicing, teams, & kids collections. The replica Jabulani sells for as low as $18.99 and looks virtually identical to the official ball.

Jabulani means “to party on or celebrate” in the Zulu language, which represents one of the many tribal cultures of South Africa. The design contains 11 different colors in an African styled woven elliptical pattern that spiral around the ball on a shiny white background. The 11 colors used on the weave grpahic are symbolic of the 11 players on each team, the 11 official & tribal languages spoken in South Africa, and the fact that the Jabulani is the 11th Adidas World Cup Match Ball. For a sports ball, this one is total eye candy and sometimes I find myself enjoying watching the ball as much as the players! So gorgeous, so cool; only to be kicked around the world by hundreds of the strongest football players and possibly millions of aspiring fans and future soccer stars. You would think that it would not even matter WHAT the soccer ball looked like; It’s who wins the match that counts, right? Well maybe not entirely! The Jabulani soccer ball, designed for the 2010 FIFA World Cup Soccer event is just so beautiful to look at, that everyone wants one, even non-soccer fans. Adidas designs a different official ball for every World Cup and many fans around the world collect them, keep them in special display cases or original packaging to retain the ball’s mint condition. This fan behavior can finally be comprehended now that such a looker of a ball has been released.

The new technology that makes the Jabulani ball different are; the air and traction grooves that are moulded into the surface are designed to provide increased grip & control, but they may be responsible for the extra flightiness and trajectory spin as well. The jabulani apparently has a more perfectly spherical overall shape that was supposed to have provide greater shot accuracy but we do not see that playing out on the pitch just yet. I wonder if all the players had enough time to practice with the new ball? The other new technology used to create the Jabulani is that it is put together with only 8 panels that are seamlessly molded and thermally bonded. NO stitches to interfere with the balls spinning motion. The Jabulani really does spin like a dervish, you can actually see the difference when you watch it flying across the stadium on those long long passes.

Though there has been lots of the usual grousing & complaining about the Jabulani from some players, it really is the coolest soccer ball ever. It goes faster and has trajectory differences that are creating a little leeway in the game that means that the players need to perfect some twisted new spinning skills. Scoring has been on the low side so far in the World Cup tournament and perhaps the Jabulani is making it more challenging for the scorers to control the ball at longer distances. Obviously, the ball presents challenges for the goal keepers as well as it is more difficult to get an exact read on where the heck the Jabulani is going next on a long shot. Just wait until there’s wind! Some players have noted that it is too light and moves like a beach ball! Ouch!

After the first few days of matches, it looks like the players are getting a grip on the new type of ball; there has been improvement already as the matches roll out and the ball is in play more. There is no changing the official ball once the World Cup has started so players will just have to adjust. Every player will have the same adjustment to make, so the playing field is level even it it does present a few new twists in how to play the ball. These are the very best soccer players on earth and they are quite capable of understanding and acting on any small changes in the ball. Weather always has a fairly profound effect on the ball anyway and players have had to adapt to these differences in ball motion due to temperature and altitude since the game began.

The Jabulani is now the most well known ball by name in the history of World Cup Match Balls; most soccer fans cannot even name any other ball. This one is very special and will long be remembered for its beauty, street cool and controversy much like the African continent itself. Congrats to the Adidas company for a great design and interesting interpretation of African culture.

[ad_2]

Source by Dee Lennox

[ad_1]

Large amounts of heat and air are incorporated in the juice extracted by a fast centrifugal juicing machine. This is due to a high-speeds of these kind of machines.

While the fast juice machine extracts the liquids quickly, it leads to some loss of nutrition which does not happen in a cold press machine.

Which juicing machine is better?

Should you buy a cold press that extracts maximum nutrition or go for the convenience of a fast juicing machine?

What is a better choice?

It depends on you, the user.

As juicing took off in a big way in response to living healthy trends, manufacturers have come up with more and improved appliances using latest technology to help you extract maximum liquid with minimal loss of nutrition and wastage of produce.

These machines replace the mechanical devices like citrus press and even our hands which was the traditional method of getting at the fluid part of the produce. When people fell sick or children needed extra nutrition juice was the go-to choose.

If you plan on drinking freshly squeezed liquids without any processing for nutritional benefits go for a cold press slow juicing machine as it preserves and extracts maximum nutrition from the fresh produce.

In centrifugal juicing machines the rapid spinning of the disc causes heating of juice and the oxidation due to the air entering the juice due to the turbulence generated. The cold press slow juicing machines on the other hand rotate very slowly with hardly any agitation of juice.

Due to these factors juice extracted by this process has maximum minerals, vitamins and antioxidants which means your body gets the best possible nutrition from every glass.”

Most masticating juicing machines have a reverse button which can be used to unclog the appliances it gets clogged or stops working. There’s no need to open up everything.

This button is also useful to clean the slow juicing appliance. The 7-spiral auger rotating at 80 rpm squeezes every bit of juice from the produce leaving behind a dry pulp.

The slow juice appliance has a powerful motor that drives the auger to extract juice from any produce you feed into it.

The Breville machine is a juicing machine of sizeable capacity as it can juice large quantities of fresh produce to make several cups of juice.

Fast machines often do well with hard fruits and vegetables as well as citrus fruits. The design and looks are stylish and sleek evoking admiration from all.

More important than looks are the very user-friendly features of the centrifugal juice appliance. For instance, it has safety locking arm which prevents any accidental operation of the gadget by either kids or unprepared adults.

[ad_2]

Source by Cumba Gowri

[ad_1]

The early software development methodologies were limited to “code and fix” with little long-term planning, that worked fine for a small set of systems, but as the systems grew they became susceptible to bugs and were harder to run efficiently. Newer methodologies brought planning and discipline in the software development process, with the aim of making software development more efficient and flexible. The advancement of technology and greater market competition added different sets of approaches to software development methodologies. Some companies over the years have introduced their own set of customized methodology for developing their software, but the majority of the worldwide companies follow two kinds of methodologies: heavyweights and lightweight.

The traditional “heavyweight” methodologies are more structured – are process and tool oriented, and follow a predictable path, requiring comprehensive and detailed documentation. Some of the popular traditional methodologies are Waterfall, Unified Process and Spiral. These methodologies are based on a sequential series of steps in which work begins with the elicitation and detailed documentation of an overall requirements, followed by architectural and high level design development and with checkpoints & deliverables at each phase. Due to a long set of processes and relatively inflexible approach, this methodology got the name as heavyweight.

The newer “lightweight” methodology also known as “agile” modeling is a set of values or philosophy. Agile exposes organizational dysfunction. Unlike traditional methods, agile methodologies embrace iterations rather than phases. Agile employ short iterative cycles, small/short releases, simple design, refactoring continuous integration and rely on tacit knowledge within a team as opposed to documentation. Some of the popular agile methods are Extreme Programming, Scrum, Lean, Kanban, Dynamic System Development Method, Feature Driven Development and Adaptive Software Development.

The key difference between heavyweight and agile methodologies is the adaptability factor. In an agile methodology if any major change is required, the team doesn’t freeze its work process; rather it determines how to better handle changes that occur throughout the project. The verification process in agile method occurs much earlier in the development process. On the other hand heavyweight methods freeze product requirements and disallow change. It implements a predictive process and relies on defining and documenting a stable set of requirements at the beginning of a project.

Agile model delivers a working version of the product and direct user involvement in the development process is very early compared to traditional methodologies. The testing cycle for Agile is continuous and comparatively short to traditional methods, because testing is done parallel with development. Most traditional models are very rigid and doesn’t entertain changes and are relatively less flexible than the Agile model. Because of all these advantages, Agile has a comprehensive response to the most of the challenges organizations’ face in a rapidly changing, competitive global market.

[ad_2]

Source by Vishwajyoti Bhattacharjee