Herbert Haertel, est un patineur artistique allemand, qui concourt dans les années 1920 et 1930 ; il est triple vice-champion d'Allemagne en 1930, 1934 et 1935.

Biographie

Carrière sportive
Herbert Haertel pratique essentiellement le patinage artistique en individuel. Il monte plusieurs fois sur le podium des championnats allemands dans les années 1920 et 1930. Il est triple vice-champion national en 1930, 1934 et 1935.

Il représente son pays à quatre championnats d'Europe (1929 à Davos, 1930 à Berlin, 1935 à Saint-Moritz et 1936 à Berlin) et à trois mondiaux (1927 à Davos, 1931 à Berlin et 1933 à Zurich).

Herbert Haertel pratique le patinage en couple à un haut niveau international, en 1926, avec sa partenaire Ilse Kishauer. Ils sont champions d'Allemagne cette année là et participent aux championnats du monde de 1926 à Berlin.

Il quitte les compétitions sportives en 1936.

Palmarès

Liens externes

Patineur artistique allemand

Herbert Haertel


බහිර්-යානා ක්‍රියාකාරකම (ඊවීඒ්) යනු, අභ්‍යාවකාශගාමියෙක් හෝ ගගනගාමියෙක් හෝ විසින් අභ්‍යාවකාශයානයකින් පිටත සහ පෘථිවියෙහි සැලකිය යුතු වායුගෝලයෙන් ඔබ්බෙහි සිදු කෙරෙන ඕනෑම ක්‍රියාකාරකමකි. පෘථිවිය වටා භ්‍රමණය වන ( අන්තර්ජාතික අභ්‍යාවකාශ මධ්‍යස්ථානය වැනි) යානයකින් පිටත සිදු කෙරෙන අභ්‍යාවකාශ ඇවිදීමක් සඳහා අති බහුල ලෙසින් මෙම පදය භාවිතා කෙරෙයි. 1965, මාර්තු 18 දිනදී,  වොස්කොඩ් 2 මෙහෙයුම තුලදී, විනාඩි12ක් සහ  තත්පර 9ක කාලසීමාවක් තුලදී කැප්සියුලයෙන් පිටතට පැමිණි ඇලෙක්සි ලියනෝෆ්, අභ්‍යාවකාශ ඇවිදීමක් සිදු කල පළමුවන මිනිසා විය. 1969 සිට1972 දක්වා ඇපලෝ වැඩසටහන තුලදී ඇමරිකානු අභ්‍යාවකාශගාමී යුගල හයක් විසින් සිදු කල (සාමාන්‍යයෙන් චන්ද්‍ර සක්මන් ලෙසින්ද හැඳින්වෙන) චන්ද්‍ර පෘෂ්ඨ ගවේෂණය සඳහාද මෙම පදය භාවිතා වෙයි.

ආශ්‍රිත
 ස්වෙට්ලනා සවිට්ස්කායා

අභ්‍යවකාශ ගවේෂණය

බහිර්-යානා ක්‍රියාකාරකම


Norah Jones (Geethali Norah Jones Shankar d. 30 Mart 1979), Hint asıllı Amerikalı piyanist, Grammy Ödüllü söz yazarı ve şarkıcı.

2002'de Türk yapımcı Arif Mardin'in keşifiyle çıkardığı Come Away With Me isimli albümüyle tüm dünyada 20 milyonun üzerinde satış grafiği elde etti ve bu albümden 7 Grammy kazandı.

Müzik yaşamı

Ünlü Hint sitar sanatçısı Ravi Shankar'ın gayrimeşru kızı olarak New York'ta dünyaya gelen Jones, 5 yaşındayken kilise korolarında şarkı söylemeye başladı. Ardından piyano derslerine başlayan Jones,gençlik dönemi boyunca Billie Holiday ve Bill Evans dinledi.

15 yaşına geldiğinde annesi ile birlikte Dallas'ın merkezine taşındı. Burada Booker Washington yüksek okuluna yazıldı. Ve 16. yaşgününde ilk kez mikrofonun başına geçip,  Billie Holiday'in "I'll be seeing you" adlı parçasını seslendirdi.

Okumaya devam ederken 1996 yılında düzenlenen "Down Beat Student Music Awards" adlı yarışmada "En iyi caz vokalisti", "En iyi özgün kompozisyon" ödüllerini elde etti. Aynı yarışmada ertesi sene ise bir kez daha "En iyi caz vokalisti" unvanını kazandı. Daha sonra Laszlo adlı bir grupla şarkı söylemeye başladı.

Okulun ardından Teksas Üniversitesi'ne kaydoldu. İki senelik Jazz piyano eğitiminin ardından, eğitimini yarıda kesip ilk önce Greenwich kasabasına ardından Manhattan'a yerleşti. 1999 yılının Aralık ayından itibaren İlhan Erşahin'in Wax Poetic grubu ile birlikte şarkı söylemeye başladı. Daha sonra Jesse Haris, Lee Alexander ve Dan Rieser gibi müzisyenlerle kendi grubunu kurdu.

Ekim 2000'den itibaren "Blue Note Records" şirketiyle çalışmalara başlayan Jones ve grubu, 2001'de "Blue Note" ailesine katıldı.

İlk başarısını "Come Away With Me" albümle sağlayan Norah Jones, Ray Charles, Dolly Parton gibi usta isimlerle çalıştı. New Orleans Jazz Festivali'nde sahne aldı. Ardından gelen ikinci albümü "Feels Like Home" ve Ray Charles'la yaptığı düetiyle, 2005 yılında Grammy'lerine 3 tane daha ekledi.

Norah Jones, şimdilerde, küçüklüğünde dinlediği Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald gibi isimlerle birlikte dünyanın en iyi caz kadın vokalistlerinden biri olarak anılıyor.

Ayrıca 2008 yılında My Blueberry Nights adlı filmin başrolü ile karşımıza çıkmıştır.

Diskografi

 Come Away with Me (2002)
 Feels Like Home (2004)
 Not Too Late (2007)
 The Fall (2009)
 Little Broken Hearts (2012)
 Day Breaks (2016)
 Begin Again (2019)

Dış bağlantılar
 Resmi Norah Jones sitesi

1979 doğumlular
Brooklyn doğumlu şarkıcılar
2000'lerin şarkıcıları
2010'ların şarkıcıları
2020'lerin şarkıcıları
Amerikalı caz şarkıcıları
Amerikalı kadın country şarkıcıları
Amerikalı söz yazarları
Amerikalı pop gitaristleri
Amerikalı kadın sinema oyuncuları
Hint asıllı Amerikalılar
Grammy Ödülü sahipleri
Dünya Müzik Ödülü sahipleri
BRIT Ödülü sahipleri
Blue Note Records sanatçıları
Yaşayan insanlar
Teksas doğumlu şarkıcılar
21. yüzyılda Amerikalı şarkıcılar
21. yüzyılda Amerikalı piyanistler
Amerikalı pop piyanistleri
Balad müzisyenleri
En İyi Pop Vokal Albüm Grammy Ödülü sahipleri
En İyi Yeni Sanatçı Grammy Ödülü sahipleri
Yılın Kaydı Grammy Ödülü sahipleri
Yılın Albümü Grammy Ödülü sahipleri

Norah Jones


The Serpent & the Sphere peti je i konačni studijski album američkog metal sastava Agalloch. Album je 13. svibnja 2014. godine objavila diskografska kuća Profound Lore Records.

O albumu
Na albumu se nalaze pjesme engleskih i latinskih naslova te sve pjesme latinskih imena u sebi sadrže riječ "zmija".

Popis pjesama

Recenzije
Album je zadobio uglavnom pozitivne kritike. Michael Toland iz The Austin Chroniclea komentirao je kako je album "jednom nogom u nježnom progresivnom folku dok je drugom u hladnom black metalu" te da se na njemu nalaze "najljepše, najukletije akustične teksture i najžešći, najgrublji urlici". Kim Kelly sa stranice Spin izjavila je kako je "blackened zvuk sastava puno više naglašeniji nego ikad", pritom opisujući produkciju kao "besprijekornu: Agalloch nikad nije zvučao tako bogato, tako potpuno".

Osoblje

Agalloch
 John Haughm – vokali, gitara, bubnjevi, dizajn
 Don Anderson – prateći vokali, klavijature, gitara
 Jason William Walton – bas-gitara
 Aesop Dekker – bubnjevi, udaraljke

Dodatni glazbenici
 Nathanaël Larochette – klasična gitara (na pjesmama 2, 6 i 9)
 Billy Anderson – klavir (na pjesmi 8), prateći vokali (na pjesmi 1), produkcija, snimanje, miksanje
Ostalo osoblje
 Justin Weis – mastering
 Veleda Thorsson – fotografija

Izvori

Albumi iz 2014.
Američki glazbeni albumi

The Serpent & the Sphere


A Retirada romana da Grã-Bretanha foi a transição da Grã- Bretanha romana para a Grã-Bretanha pós-romana. O domínio romano terminou em diferentes partes da Grã-Bretanha em diferentes momentos e sob diferentes circunstâncias.

Em 383, o usurpador Magnus Maximus retirou as tropas do norte e oeste da Grã-Bretanha, provavelmente deixando os senhores da guerra locais no comando. Por volta de 410, os romano-britânicos expulsaram os magistrados do usurpador Constantino III . Ele já havia retirado a guarnição romana da Grã-Bretanha e a levado para a Gália em resposta à Travessia do Reno no final de 406, deixando a ilha vítima de ataques bárbaros.

O imperador romano Honório respondeu a um pedido de ajuda com o Rescrito de Honório, dizendo às cidades romanas para cuidarem de sua própria defesa, uma aceitação tácita do autogoverno britânico temporário. Honório estava travando uma guerra em grande escala na Itália contra os visigodos sob seu líder Alarico, com a própria Roma sitiada. Nenhuma força poderia ser poupada para proteger a distante Grã-Bretanha. Embora seja provável que Honório esperasse recuperar o controle sobre as províncias em breve, em meados do século VI Procópio reconheceu que o controle romano da Britânia estava totalmente perdido.

Plano de fundo
No início do século V, o Império Romano não podia mais se defender contra a rebelião interna ou a ameaça externa representada pelas tribos germânicas que se expandiam na Europa Ocidental. Esta situação e suas consequências governaram o eventual destacamento permanente da Grã-Bretanha do resto do Império. Após um período de autogoverno local, os anglo-saxões chegaram ao sul da Inglaterra na década de 440.

No final do século IV, o Império era controlado por membros de uma dinastia que incluía o imperador Teodósio I. Esta família manteve o poder político dentro de si e formou alianças por meio de casamentos com outras dinastias, ao mesmo tempo em que se envolveu em lutas de poder destrutivas e lutou em conflitos externos (chamados de "usurpadores") tentando substituir a dinastia governante por uma de suas próprias. Todos esses conflitos internos retiraram as forças do Império, tanto de seus recursos militares e civis. Muitos milhares de soldados foram perdidos na luta contra tentativas de golpes por figuras como Firmus, Magno Máximo e Eugenius.

A relação histórica do Império com as tribos germânicas foi, em certos momentos hostil, em outros cooperativa, mas no final das contas, foi fatal, pois não conseguiu impedir que essas tribos assumissem um papel dominante na relação. No início do século 5, como resultado de graves perdas e receitas fiscais empobrecidas, as forças militares do Império Romano do Ocidente foram dominadas por tropas germânicas, e os alemães romanizados desempenharam um papel significativo na política interna do império. Várias tribos germânicas e outras além das fronteiras conseguiram tirar vantagem do estado enfraquecido do Império, tanto para se expandir em território romano quanto, em alguns casos, para mover suas populações inteiras para terras outrora consideradas exclusivamente romanas, culminando em várias migrações bem-sucedidas de 406 em diante.causou intenso medo na Britânia, propensa a ser isolada do Império por ataques na principal rota de comunicação da Itália, de Trier à costa do Canal. No caso, isso foi muito mais do que apenas mais um ataque.

Cronologia

383–388
Em 383, o general romano então designado para a Grã-Bretanha, Magno Maximo, lançou sua candidatura bem-sucedida ao poder imperial,  cruzando para a Gália com suas tropas. Ele matou o imperador romano ocidental Graciano e governou a Gália e a Grã-Bretanha como César (ou seja, como um "subimperador" sob Teodósio I). O ano de 383 d.C. é a última data para qualquer evidência de uma presença romana no norte e oeste da Grã-Bretanha,  talvez com exceção das atribuições de tropas na torre na Montanha de Holyhead, em Anglesey e em postos costeiros ocidentais, como Lancaster. Esses postos avançados podem ter durado até a década de 390 d.C., mas eram uma presença muito menor,  destinados principalmente a impedir ataques e assentamentos de grupos da Irlanda.

Moedas datadas depois de 383 foram encontradas ao longo da Muralha de Adriano, sugerindo que as tropas não foram retiradas do local, como se pensava  ou, se foram, foram rapidamente devolvidas assim que Máximo obteve sua vitória na Gália. No texto "De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae" , escrito c. 540, Gildas atribuiu um êxodo de tropas e administradores seniores da Grã-Bretanha a Maximo, dizendo que ele partiu não apenas com todas as suas tropas, mas também com todos os seus bandos armados, governadores e os jovens, para nunca mais voltar.

Incursões de saxões, pictos e escotos da Irlanda ocorreram no final do século IV, mas aumentaram nos anos após 383. Também houve assentamentos irlandeses permanentes em grande escala feitos ao longo da costa do País de Gales em circunstâncias que permanecem obscuras.  Máximo fez campanha na Grã-Bretanha contra os pictos e os escoceses, com historiadores divergentes sobre se isso foi no ano 382 ou 384 (ou seja, se a campanha foi antes ou depois de ele se tornar César). A lenda galesa relata que antes de lançar sua usurpação, Magno Másimo fez preparativos para uma estrutura governamental e de defesa alterada para as províncias sitiadas. Figuras como Coel Hen foram colocadas em posições-chave para proteger a ilha na ausência de Máximo. Como tais reivindicações foram projetadas para reforçar a genealogia galesa e as reivindicações de terras, elas devem ser vistas com algum ceticismo.

Em 388, Máximo liderou seu exército através dos Alpes para a Itália em uma tentativa de reivindicar o trono. O esforço falhou quando ele foi derrotado na Panônia na Batalha de Save (na moderna Croácia ) e na Batalha de Poetovio (em Ptuj na moderna Eslovênia). Ele foi então executado por Teodósio.

389–406
Com a morte de Magno Máximo, a Grã-Bretanha voltou ao domínio do imperador Teodósio I até 392, quando o usurpador Eugênio fez uma oferta pelo poder imperial no Império Romano do Ocidente até 394, quando foi derrotado e morto por Teodósio. Quando Teodósio morreu em 395, seu filho de 10 anos, Honório, o sucedeu como imperador romano ocidental. O verdadeiro poder por trás do trono, no entanto, era Flávio Estilicão, genro do irmão de Teodósio e sogro de Honório.

A Grã-Bretanha estava sofrendo ataques dos escoceses, saxões e pictos e, em algum momento entre 396 e 398, Stilicho supostamente ordenou uma campanha contra os pictos,  provavelmente uma campanha naval destinada a encerrar seus ataques marítimos na costa leste da Grã-Bretanha.  Ele também pode ter ordenado campanhas contra os escotos e saxões ao mesmo tempo,  mas de qualquer forma esta seria a última campanha romana na Grã-Bretanha da qual há algum registro.

Em 401 ou 402 Estilicão enfrentou guerras com o rei visigodo Alarico e o rei ostrogodo Radagaiso . Precisando de mão de obra militar, ele retirou as tropas da Muralha de Adriano pela última vez.  O ano 402 é a última data de qualquer cunhagem romana encontrada em grande número na Grã-Bretanha, sugerindo que Stilicho também retirou as tropas restantes da Grã-Bretanha ou que o Império não podia mais pagar o soldados que ainda estavam lá.  Enquanto isso, os pictos, saxões e escoceses continuaram seus ataques, que podem ter aumentado em alcance. Em 405, por exemplo, o famoso Niall dos Nove Reféns invadiu ao longo da costa sul da Grã-Bretanha.

407–410
No último dia de dezembro de 406 (ou, talvez, 405  ), os alanos, vândalos e suevos que viviam a leste da Gália cruzaram o Reno, possivelmente quando ele estava congelado, e começaram uma devastação generalizada.  Como não houve uma resposta romana efetiva, os militares romanos remanescentes na Grã-Bretanha temiam que uma travessia germânica do Canal da Mancha para a Grã-Bretanha fosse a próxima e dispensaram a autoridade imperial - uma ação talvez facilitada pela alta probabilidade de que as tropas não tivessem sido pagas para isso. às vezes.  A intenção deles era escolher um comandante que os lideraria na garantia de seu futuro, mas suas duas primeiras escolhas, Graciano (usurpador romano) e Graciano (usurpador romano), não atenderam às suas expectativas e foram mortos. A terceira escolha foi o soldado Constantino III.

Em 407, Constantino assumiu o comando das tropas restantes na Grã-Bretanha, conduziu-as através do Canal da Mancha até a Gália, reuniu apoio lá e tentou se estabelecer como imperador romano ocidental.  As forças legalistas de Honório ao sul dos Alpes estavam preocupadas em afastar os visigodos e foram incapazes de reprimir a rebelião rapidamente, dando a Constantino a oportunidade de estender seu novo império para incluir a Hispânia.

Em 409, o controle de Constantino sobre seu império desmoronou. Parte de suas forças militares estava na Hispânia, tornando-as indisponíveis para ação na Gália, e algumas delas na Gália foram influenciadas contra ele por generais romanos leais. Os alemães que viviam a oeste do rio Reno se levantaram contra ele, talvez encorajados por legalistas romanos,  e aqueles que viviam a leste do rio cruzaram para a Gália.  A Grã-Bretanha, agora sem nenhuma tropa para proteção e tendo sofrido ataques saxões particularmente severos em 408 e 409, viu a situação na Gália com alarme renovado. Talvez sentindo que não tinham esperança de alívio sob Constantino, tanto os romano-bretões quanto alguns dos gauleses expulsaram os magistrados de Constantino em 409 ou 410.  O historiador bizantino Zósimo (fl. 490s – 510s) culpou diretamente Constantino pela expulsão, dizendo que ele permitiu que os saxões invadissem e que os bretões e gauleses foram reduzidos a tais dificuldades que se revoltaram contra o Império Romano, "rejeitaram a lei romana, retornaram aos seus costumes nativos e se armaram para garantir sua própria segurança".

Um apelo de ajuda das comunidades britânicas foi, segundo Zósimo, rejeitado pelo imperador Honório em 410 d.C. No texto chamado Rescrito de Honório de 411, o imperador ocidental Honório diz aos cidadãos britânicos para cuidarem de sua própria defesa, pois seu regime ainda lutava contra usurpadores no sul da Gália e tentava lidar com os visigodos que estavam no sul. da Itália. A primeira referência a este rescrito é escrita pelo estudioso bizantino do século VI Zosimo e está localizada aleatoriamente no meio de uma discussão sobre o sul da Itália. Nenhuma menção adicional à Grã-Bretanha é feita, o que levou alguns, embora não todos, acadêmicos modernos a sugerir que o rescrito não se aplica à Grã-Bretanha, mas a cidade de Bruttium na Itália.

O historiador Christopher Snyder escreveu que o protocolo ditava que Honório endereçasse sua correspondência aos oficiais imperiais, e o fato de que ele não o fez implica que as cidades da Grã-Bretanha eram agora a mais alta autoridade romana remanescente na ilha.  A ideia de que pode ter havido formações políticas de maior escala ainda intactas na ilha não foi completamente desacreditada.

Na época em que o "Rescrito de Honório" foi enviado, Honório estava encurralado em Ravena pelos visigodos e não conseguiu impedir o Saque de Roma (410).  Ele certamente não estava em posição de oferecer qualquer alívio a ninguém. Quanto a Constantino III, ele não estava à altura das intrigas da Roma imperial e em 411 sua causa estava esgotada. Seu filho foi morto junto com os principais apoiadores que não se voltaram contra ele, e ele próprio foi assassinado.

Variações interpretativa
Existem várias interpretações que caracterizam os eventos de forma a apoiar uma tese particular sem questionar a cronologia básica.

O historiador Theodor Mommsen ("Great Britain, 1885") disse que "Não foi a Grã-Bretanha que desistiu de Roma, mas Roma que desistiu da Grã-Bretanha...", argumentando que as necessidades e prioridades romanas estavam em outro lugar. Sua posição manteve o apoio acadêmico ao longo do tempo.

Michael Jones ("The End of Roman Britain , 1998") teve a opinião oposta, dizendo que foi a Grã-Bretanha que deixou Roma, argumentando que numerosos usurpadores baseados na Grã-Bretanha, combinados com uma má administração, causaram a revolta dos romano-britânicos. Certos estudiosos, como J.B. Bury ("The Notitia Dignitatum " 1920) e o historiador alemão Ralf Scharf, discordaram inteiramente da cronologia padrão. Eles argumentaram que a evidência de fato apóia o envolvimento romano posterior na Grã-Bretanha, após 410.

Disputas interpretativas
Em relação aos eventos de 409 e 410, quando os romano-bretões expulsaram oficiais romanos e enviaram um pedido de ajuda a Honório, Michael Jones  autor de "The End of Roman Britain, 1998" (O fim da Bretanha-Romana) ofereceu uma cronologia diferente para o mesmo resultado final: ele sugeriu que os bretões primeiro apelaram para Roma e quando nenhuma ajuda veio, eles expulsaram os oficiais romanos e se encarregaram de suas próprias questões.

Uma teoria que ocorre em algumas histórias modernas diz respeito ao Rescrito de Honório, afirmando que se refere às cidades dos Bruttii (na Itália, moderna Calábria), e não às cidades dos bretões.  A sugestão é baseada na suposição de que a fonte (Zósimo) ou um copista cometeu um erro e realmente quis dizer Brettia quando Brettania foi escrita, e observando que a passagem que contém o Rescrito está preocupada com eventos no norte da Itália.

As críticas à sugestão vão desde tratar a passagem da maneira como foi escrita por Zósimo e ignorar a sugestão,  simplesmente observar sua natureza especulativa,  até uma discussão de problemas com a sugestão, por exemplo, por que Honório escreveria para as cidades dos Bruttii em vez de para seu próprio governador provincial daquela região, e, também, não haveria motivo para referir-se ao distante sul da Itália ou a questões que ocorriam no norte da Itália, mas, sim, tratar diretamente da questão da Grã-Bretanha.  A teoria também contradiz o relato de Gildas, que fornece apoio independente de que a referência é à Grã-Bretanha, repetindo a essência do relato de Zósimo e aplicando-o claramente à Grã-Bretanha.

E.A. Thompson ofereceu uma teoria mais provocativa para explicar a expulsão de oficiais e o apelo à ajuda romana. Ele sugeriu que uma revolta consistindo de camponeses dissidentes, não muito diferente dos Bagaudas da Gália, também existindo na Grã-Bretanha, e quando eles se revoltaram e expulsaram os funcionários romanos, a classe proprietária de terras fez um apelo pela ajuda romana.  Não há declaração textual direta disso, embora possa ser plausível se a definição de 'bagaudae' for alterada para se adequar às circunstâncias. Não há necessidade de fazê-lo, pois vários cenários racionais já se ajustam às circunstâncias. Existe a possibilidade de que alguma forma de que um caso similar ao bagaudas existisse na Grã-Bretanha, mas não necessariamente relevante para os eventos de 409 e 410. A alegada onipresença do pelagianismo entre a população britânica pode ter contribuído para tal movimento se tivesse existido, para não mencionar expurgos em larga escala entre a elite britânica nas décadas anteriores. Entre as obras que mencionam, mas contornam a questão, encontra-se "Celtic Culture (2005)", de Koch, que cita a tradução de Zósimus de Thompson e continua dizendo: "A revolta na Grã-Bretanha pode ter envolvido bagaudas ou camponeses rebeldes como foi o caso da Armórica, mas este não tenho certeza."

Referências

Referências complementares
Frere, Sheppard Sunderland (1987), Britannia: A History of Roman Britain (3rd, revised ed.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, ISBN 0-7102-1215-1

Giles, John Allen, ed. (1841), "The Works of Gildas", The Works of Gildas and Nennius, London: James Bohn

Higham, Nicholas (1992), Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, London: B. A. Seaby, ISBN 1-85264-022-7

Jones, Barri; Mattingly, David (1990), An Atlas of Roman Britain, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers (published 2007), ISBN 978-1-84217-067-0

Laing, Lloyd (1975), The Archaeology of Late Celtic Britain and Ireland, c. 400–1200 AD, Frome: Book Club Associates (published 1977)

Mattingly, David (2006), An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, London: Penguin Books (published 2007), ISBN 978-0-14-014822-0

Snyder, Christopher A. (1998), An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons A.D. 400–600, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, ISBN 0-271-01780-5

Snyder, Christopher A. (2003), The Britons, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 978-0-631-22260-6

Gerrard, James (2013). The Ruin of Roman Britain An Archaeological Perspective. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107038639.

Halsall, Guy (2013). Worlds of Arthur Facts & Fictions of the Dark Ages. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199658176.

Speed, Gavin (2014). Towns in the dark? : urban transformations from late Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress Archaeology. ISBN 9781784910044.

Invasões bárbaras
Império Romano
Grã-Bretanha

Retirada romana da Grã-Bretanha


خميس طَلَق خليّف عقاب العازمي المعروف باسم خميس عقاب (1940 في الفنطاس، الكويت - ) سياسي كويتي، سبق له أن أصبح عضوًا في مجلس الأمة الكويتي لفترتين، في مجلس 1985 ومجلس 1999.

عنه
ولد في الفنطاس في الكويت في عام 1940، وحصل على بكالوريس محاسبة من جامعة القاهرة في عام 1964. أصبح عضوًا في مجلس الأمة الكويتي لفترتين، في مجلس 1985 ومجلس 1999. وكانت له نشاطات سياسية واسعة، وقد شارك مع عدد من الناشطين الكويتين بتأسيس التحالف الوطني الديمقراطي. وعمل في مجال الرياضة حيث كان أمينا للسر في الاتحاد الكويتي لكرة القدم. عرف بمعارضته الشديدة لتنقيح الدستور الكويتي. كما انتخب لمنظمة برلمانيون عرب ضد الفساد وجمعية حقوق الإنسان الكويتية وجمعية حماية الأموال العامة. وكان من أشهر نواب المعارضة بعد حل مجلس الامة الكويتي العام 1985.

المراجع

أشخاص يحتمل أن يكونوا أحياء
أعضاء مجلس الأمة الكويتي 1985
أعضاء مجلس الأمة الكويتي 1999
خريجو جامعة القاهرة
مواليد 1940

خميس عقاب


South Benton Township ist der Name folgender Townships in den Vereinigten Staaten:

 South Benton Township (Dallas County, Missouri)
 South Benton Township (Polk County, Missouri)

South Benton Township


في الهندسة الرياضية، السَّبْعَ عَشَرِيّ هو مضلع له سبعة عشر (17) ضلعاً.

المضلع السبع عشري المنتظم هو مضلع قابل للإنشاء باستخدام إنشاءات الفرجار والمسطرة.تحسب مساحة السباعي عشر المنتظم بدلالة طول ضلعه a بالعلاقة

انظر أيضاً
 إنشاءات الفرجار والمسطرة
 مضلع قابل للإنشاء

مراجع

 F. Klein et al. Famous Problems and Other Monographs. - Describes the algebraic aspect, by Gauss.

مضلعات
هندسة إقليدية مستوية

سبع عشري الأضلاع


The CFM International CFM56 (U.S. military designation F108) series is a Franco-American family of high-bypass turbofan aircraft engines made by CFM International (CFMI), with a thrust range of . CFMI is a 50–50 joint-owned company of Safran Aircraft Engines (formerly known as Snecma) of France, and GE Aerospace (GE) of the United States. Both companies are responsible for producing components and each has its own final assembly line. GE produces the high-pressure compressor, combustor, and high-pressure turbine, Safran manufactures the fan, gearbox, exhaust and the low-pressure turbine, and some components are made by Avio of Italy and Honeywell from the US. The engines are assembled by GE in Evendale, Ohio, and by Safran in Villaroche, France. The completed engines are marketed by CFMI. Despite initial export restrictions, it is the most used turbofan aircraft engine in the world, in four major variants.

The CFM56 first ran in 1974. By April 1979, the joint venture had not received a single order in five years and was two weeks away from being dissolved. The program was saved when Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, and Flying Tigers chose the CFM56 to re-engine their DC-8s and shortly thereafter it was chosen to re-engine the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker fleet of the U.S. Air Force. The first engines entered service in 1982. Several fan blade failure incidents were experienced during the CFM56's early service, including one failure that was a cause of the Kegworth air disaster, and some engine variants experienced problems caused by flight through rain and hail. Both of these issues were resolved with engine modifications.

History

Origins
Research into the next generation of commercial jet engines, high-bypass ratio turbofans in the "10-ton" (20,000 lbf; 89 kN) thrust class, began in the late 1960s. Snecma (now Safran), who had mostly built military engines previously, was the first company to seek entrance into the market by searching for a partner with commercial experience to design and build an engine in this class. They considered Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, and GE Aviation as potential partners, and after two company executives, Gerhard Neumann from GE and René Ravaud from Snecma, introduced themselves at the 1971 Paris Air Show a decision was made. The two companies saw mutual benefit in the collaboration and met several more times, fleshing out the basics of the joint project.

At the time, Pratt & Whitney dominated the commercial market. GE needed an engine in this market class, and Snecma had previous experience of working with them, collaborating on the production of the CF6-50 turbofan for the Airbus A300. Pratt & Whitney was considering upgrading their JT8D to compete in the same class as the CFM56 as a sole venture, while Rolls-Royce dealt with financial issues that precluded them from starting new projects; this situation caused GE to gain the title of best partner for the program.

A major reason for GE's interest in the collaboration, rather than building a 10-ton engine on their own, was that the Snecma project was the only source of development funds for an engine in this class at this particular time. GE was initially considering only contributing technology from its CF6 engine rather than its much more advanced F101 engine, developed for the B-1 Lancer supersonic bomber. The company was faced with a dilemma when the United States Air Force (USAF) announced its Advanced Medium STOL Transport (AMST) project in 1972 which included funding for the development of a 10-ton engine – either to build a "limited" technology 10-ton engine with Snecma, or a similar engine with "advanced" technology on their own. Concerned that the company would be left with only the "limited" engine in its portfolio if it did not win the Air Force contract (for which it was competing with Pratt & Whitney and a General Motors division with its "advanced" engine), GE decided to apply for an export license for the F101 core technology.

Export issues
GE applied for the export license in 1972 as their primary contribution to the 10-ton engine project. The United States Department of State's Office of Munitions Control recommended the rejection of the application on national security grounds; specifically because the core technology was an aspect of a strategic national defense system (B-1 bomber), it was built with Department of Defense funding, and that exporting the technology to France would limit the number of American workers on the project. The official decision was made in a National Security Decision Memorandum signed by the National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger on 19 September 1972.

While national security concerns were cited as the grounds for rejection, politics played an important role as well. The project, and the export issue associated with it, was considered so important that French President Georges Pompidou appealed directly to U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1971 to approve the deal, and Henry Kissinger brought the issue up with President Pompidou in a 1972 meeting. GE reportedly argued at the highest levels that having half of the market was better than having none of it, which they believed would happen if Snecma pursued the engine on their own without GE's contribution. Nixon administration officials feared that this project could be the beginning of the end of American aerospace leadership.

There was also speculation that the rejection may have been, in part, retaliation for French involvement in convincing the Swiss not to purchase American-made LTV A-7 Corsair II aircraft that had been competing against a French design, the Dassault Milan. In the end, the Swiss did not purchase either aircraft, opting for the Northrop F-5E Tiger II instead.

1973 Nixon–Pompidou meeting

Despite the export license being rejected, both the French and GE continued to push the Nixon Administration for permission to export the F101 technology. Efforts continued throughout the months following the rejection, culminating in the engine becoming an agenda topic during the 1973 meeting of Presidents Nixon and Pompidou in Reykjavík. Discussions at this meeting resulted in an agreement that allowed the development of the CFM56 to proceed. Contemporary reports state that the agreement was based on assurances that the core of the engine, the part that GE was developing from the military F101, would be built in the U.S. and then transported to France in order to protect the sensitive technologies. The joint venture also agreed to pay the U.S. an $80 million royalty fee (calculated at $20,000 per engine predicted to be built) as repayment for the development money provided by the government for the F101 engine core. Documents declassified in 2007 revealed that a key aspect of the CFM56 export agreement was that the French government agreed not to seek tariffs against American aircraft being imported into Europe.

CFM International
With the export issue settled, GE and Snecma finalized the agreement that formed CFM International (CFMI), a 50–50 joint company that would be responsible for producing and marketing the 10-ton engine, the CFM56. The venture was officially founded in 1974. The "CF" in the engine name stands for GE's designation for commercial turbofan engines, while the "M56" is the name of Snecma's original engine proposal. The two primary roles for CFMI were to manage the program between GE and Snecma, and to market, sell and service the engine at a single point of contact for the customer. CFMI was made responsible for the day-to-day decision making for the project, while major decisions (developing a new variant, for example) required the go-ahead from GE and Snecma management.

The CFMI board of directors is currently split evenly between Snecma and GE (five members each). There are two vice presidents, one from each company, who support the President of CFMI. The president tends to be drawn from Snecma and sits at CFMI's headquarters near GE in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The work split between the two companies gave GE responsibility for the high-pressure compressor (HPC), the combustor, and the high-pressure turbine (HPT); Snecma was responsible for the fan, the low-pressure compressor (LPC), and the low-pressure turbine (LPT). Snecma was also responsible for the initial airframe integration engineering, mostly involving the nacelle design, and was initially responsible for the gearbox, but shifted that work to GE when it became apparent that it would be more efficient for GE to assemble that component along with their other parts.

Development

Overview
Development work on the CFM56 began before CFMI was formally created. While work proceeded smoothly, the international arrangement led to unique working conditions. For example, both companies had assembly lines, some engines were assembled and tested in the U.S. and others in France. Engines assembled in France were subject to the initially strict export agreement, which meant that GE's core was built in the U.S., then shipped to the Snecma plant in France where it was placed in a locked room into which even the President of Snecma was not allowed. The Snecma components (the fore and aft sections of the engine) were brought into the room, GE employees mounted them to the core, and then the assembled engine was taken out to be finished.

The first completed CFM56 engine first ran at GE in June 1974 with the second running in October 1974. The second engine was then shipped to France and first ran there on 13 December 1974. These first engines were considered "production hardware" as opposed to test examples and were designated as the CFM56-2, the first variant of the CFM56.

The engine flew for the first time in February 1977 when it replaced one of the four Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines on the McDonnell Douglas YC-15, an entrant in the Air Force's Advanced Medium STOL Transport (AMST) competition. Soon after, the second CFM56 was mounted on a Sud Aviation Caravelle at the Snecma flight test center in France. This engine had a slightly different configuration with a long bypass duct and mixed exhaust flow, rather than a short bypass duct with unmixed exhaust flow. It was the first to include a "Thrust Management System".

First customers
After testing the engine for several years, both in the air and on the ground, CFMI searched for customers outside of a possible AMST contract. The main targets were re-engine contracts for the Douglas DC-8 and the Boeing 707 airliners, including the related military tanker, the KC-135 Stratotanker. There was little initial interest in the engine, but Boeing realized that the CFM56 might be a solution to upcoming noise regulations. After announcing that a 707 would be configured with the CFM56 engine for flight tests in 1977, Boeing officially offered the 707-320 with the CFM56 engine as an option in 1978. The new variant was listed as the 707-700. Due to limited interest from the airlines in a re-engined 707, Boeing ended the 707-700 program in 1980 without selling any aircraft. Despite the lack of sales, having the commercial 707 available with the CFM56 helped the engine's competitiveness for the KC-135 re-engine contract.

KC-135R

Winning the contract to re-engine the KC-135 tanker fleet for the USAF would be a huge boon to the CFM56 project (with more than 600 aircraft available to re-engine), and CFMI aggressively pursued that goal as soon as the Request For Proposals (RFP) was announced in 1977. Like other aspects of the program, international politics played their part in this contract. In efforts to boost the CFM56's chances versus its competitors, the Pratt & Whitney TF33 and an updated Pratt & Whitney JT8D, the French government announced in 1978 that they would upgrade their 11 KC-135s with the CFM56, providing one of the first orders for the engine.

The USAF announced the CFM56 as the winner of the re-engine contract in January 1980. Officials indicated that they were excited at the prospect of replacing the Pratt & Whitney J57 engines currently flying on the KC-135A aircraft, calling them "...the noisiest, dirtiest, [and] most fuel inefficient powerplant still flying" at the time. The re-engined aircraft was designated the KC-135R. The CFM56 brought many benefits to the KC-135, decreasing takeoff distance by as much as 3,500 ft (1,100 m), decreasing overall fuel usage by 25%, greatly reducing noise (24 dB lower) and lowering total life cycle cost. With those benefits in mind, the United States Navy selected the CFM56-2 to power their variant of the Boeing 707, the E-6 Mercury, in 1982. In 1984 the Royal Saudi Air Force selected the CFM56-2 to power their E-3 Sentry aircraft (also related to the 707 airframe). The CFM56-2-powered E-3 also became the standard configuration for aircraft purchased by the British and French.

DC-8

By the end of the 1970s, airlines were considering upgrading their aging Douglas DC-8 aircraft as an alternative to buying new quieter and more efficient aircraft. Following the French KC-135 order in 1978, the April 1979 decision by United Airlines to upgrade 30 of their DC-8-61 aircraft with the CFM56-2 was important for securing the development of the CFM56; GE and Snecma were two weeks away from freezing development had that order not materialized. This decision marked the first commercial purchase (rather than government/military) of the engine, and Delta Air Lines and Flying Tiger Line soon followed suit, giving the CFM56 a firm footing in both the military and commercial market.

Boeing 737

In the early 1980s Boeing selected the CFM56-3 to exclusively power the Boeing 737-300 variant. The 737 wings were closer to the ground than previous applications for the CFM56, necessitating several modifications to the engine. The fan diameter was reduced, which reduced the bypass ratio, and the engine accessory gearbox was moved from the bottom of the engine (the 6 o'clock position) to the 9 o'clock position, giving the engine nacelle its distinctive flat-bottomed shape. The overall thrust was also reduced, from , mostly due to the reduction in bypass ratio.

Since the small initial launch order for twenty 737-300s split between two airlines, over 5,000 Boeing 737 aircraft had been delivered with CFM56 turbofans by April 2010.

Continued development

Tech56 and Tech Insertion
In 1998, CFMI launched the "Tech56" development and demonstration program to create an engine for the new single-aisle aircraft that were expected to be built by Airbus and Boeing. The program focused on developing a large number of new technologies for the theoretical future engine, not necessarily creating an all-new design. When it became clear that Boeing and Airbus were not going to build all-new aircraft to replace the 737 and A320, CFMI decided to apply some of those Tech56 technologies to the CFM56 in the form of the "Tech Insertion" program which focused on three areas: fuel efficiency, maintenance costs and emissions. Launched in 2004, the package included redesigned high-pressure compressor blades, an improved combustor, and improved high- and low-pressure turbine components which resulted in better fuel efficiency and lower nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. The new components also reduced engine wear, lowering maintenance costs by about 5%. The engines entered service in 2007, and all new CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B engines are being built with the Tech Insertion components. CFMI also offers the components as an upgrade kit for existing engines.

CFM56-7B "Evolution"
In 2009, CFMI announced the latest upgrade to the CFM56 engine, the "CFM56-7B Evolution" or CFM56-7BE. This upgrade, announced with improvements to Boeing's 737 Next Generation, further enhances the high- and low-pressure turbines with better aerodynamics, as well as improving engine cooling, and aims to reduce overall part count. CFMI expected the changes to result in a 4% reduction in maintenance costs and a 1% improvement in fuel consumption (2% improvement including the airframe changes for the new 737); flight and ground tests completed in May 2010 revealed that the fuel burn improvement was better than expected at 1.6%. Following 450 hours of testing, the CFM56-7BE engine was certified by FAA and EASA on 30 July 2010 and delivered from mid-2011.

The CFM56-5B/3 PIP (Performance Improvement Package) engine includes these new technologies and hardware changes to lower fuel burn and lower maintenance cost. Airbus A320s were to use this engine version starting in late 2011.

LEAP

The LEAP is a new engine design based on and designed to replace the CFM56 series, with 16% efficiency savings by using more composite materials and achieving higher bypass ratios of over 10:1. LEAP entered service in 2016.

Operational history
As of June 2016, the CFM56 is the most-used high-bypass turbofan. It has achieved more than 800 million engine flight hours, and at a rate of one million flight hours every eight days it is expected to have achieved one billion flight hours by 2020. It has more than 550 operators and more than 2,400 CFM56-powered jet aircraft are in the air at any given moment. It is known for its dependability: its average time on wing is 30,000 hours before a first shop visit, with the current fleet record at 50,000 hours.

As of July 2016, 30,000 engines have been built: 9,860 CFM56-5 engines for the Airbus A320ceo and A340-200/300 and more than 17,300 CFM56-3/-7B engines for the Boeing 737 Classic and 737NG. In July 2016, CFM had 3,000 engines in backlog. Lufthansa, launch customer for the CFM56-5C-powered A340, have an engine with more than 100,000 flight hours, having entered commercial service on 16 November 1993, overhauled four times since. In 2016 CFM delivered 1,665 CFM56 and booked 876 orders, it plans to produce CFM56 spare parts until 2045.

By October 2017, CFM had delivered more than 31,000 engines and 24,000 were in service with 560 operators, it attained 500 million flight cycles and 900 million flight hours, including over 170 million cycles and 300 million hours since 1998 for the B737NG's -7B and over 100 million cycles and 180 million hours for the A320ceo's -5B since 1996. By June 2018, 32,645 were delivered. Strong demand will extend production to 2020, up from 2019.

Exhaust gas temperature margin erodes with usage. One or two performance restoration shop visits, costing $0.3-$0.6m for a -5 series, can be performed before taking the engine off wing, which can restore 60% to 80% of the original margin. Once restored, the life limited parts must be replaced after: 20,000 cycles for the hot section ($0.5m), 25,000 for the axial compressor, and 30,000 for the fan and booster ($0.5m-$0.7m) for a recent CFM56. The whole engine parts cost more than $3m, $3.5 to $4m with the shop work-hours, around $150 per cycle.

By June 2019, the CFM56 fleet had surpassed one billion engine flight hours (nearly 115,000 years), having carried more than 35 billion people, over eight million times around the world.

The CFM56 production will wind down as the final 737NG engine was delivered in 2019 and the last A320ceo engine will be delivered in May 2020. Production will continue at low levels for military 737s and spare engines and will conclude around 2024.

Unit cost: US$ million (list price)

Design

Summary
The CFM56 is a high-bypass turbofan engine (most of the air accelerated by the fan bypasses the core of the engine and is exhausted out of the fan case) with several variants having bypass ratios ranging from 5:1 to 6:1, generating 18,500 to 34,000 lbf (80 kN to 150 kN) of thrust. The variants share a common design, but the details differ. The CFM56 is a two-shaft (or two-spool) engine, meaning that there are two rotating shafts, one high-pressure and one low-pressure. Each is powered by its own turbine section (the high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, respectively). The fan and booster (low-pressure compressor) evolved over the different iterations of the engine, as did the compressor, combustor and turbine sections.

Combustor

Most variants of the CFM56 feature a single-annular combustor. An annular combustor is a continuous ring where fuel is injected into the airflow and ignited, raising the pressure and temperature of the flow. This contrasts with a can combustor, where each combustion chamber is separate, and a cannular combustor which is a hybrid of the two. Fuel injection is regulated by a Hydromechanical Unit (HMU), built by Honeywell. The HMU regulates the amount of fuel delivered to the engine by means of an electrohydraulic servo valve that, in turn, drives a fuel metering valve, that provides information to the full authority digital engine controller (FADEC).

In 1989, CFMI began work on a new, double-annular combustor. Instead of having just one combustion zone, the double-annular combustor has a second combustion zone that is used at high thrust levels. This design lowers the emissions of both nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The first CFM56 engine with the double-annular combustor entered service in 1995, and the combustor is used on CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B variants with the suffix "/2" on their nameplates.

GE started developing and testing a new type of combustor called the Twin Annular Premixing Swirler combustor, or "TAPS", during the Tech 56 program. This design is similar to the double-annular combustor in that it has two combustion zones; this combustor "swirls" the flow, creating an ideal fuel–air mixture. This difference allows the combustor to generate much less NOx than other combustors. Tests on a CFM56-7B engine demonstrated an improvement of 46% over single-annular combustors and 22% over double-annular combustors. The analytical tools developed for TAPS have also been used to improve other combustors, notably the single-annular combustors in some CFM56-5B and -7B engines.

Compressor

The high-pressure compressor (HPC), that was at the center of the original export controversy, features nine stages in all variants of the CFM56. The compressor stages have been developed from GE's "GE1/9 core" (namely a single-turbine, nine-compressor stage design) which was designed in a compact core rotor. The small span of the compressor radius meant that the entire engine could be lighter and smaller, as the accessory units in the system (bearings, oiling systems) could be merged to the main fueling system running on aviation fuel. As design evolved HPC design improved through better airfoil design. As part of the Tech-56 improvement program CFMI has tested the new CFM-56 model with six-stage high-pressure compressor stages (discs that make up the compressor system) that was designed to deliver same pressure ratios (pressure gain 30) similar to the old nine-stages compressor design. The new one was not fully replacing the old one, but it offered an upgrade in HPC, thanks to improved blade dynamics, as a part of their "Tech Insertion" management plan from 2007.

Exhaust
CFMI tested both a mixed and unmixed exhaust design at the beginning of development; most variants of the engine have an unmixed exhaust nozzle. Only the high-power CFM56-5C, designed for the Airbus A340, has a mixed-flow exhaust nozzle.

GE and Snecma also tested the effectiveness of chevrons on reducing jet noise. After examining configurations in the wind tunnel, CFMI chose to flight-test chevrons built into the core exhaust nozzle. The chevrons reduced jet noise by 1.3 perceived loudness decibels during takeoff conditions, and are now offered as an option with the CFM56 for the Airbus A321.

Fan and booster

The CFM56 features a single-stage fan, and most variants have a three-stage booster on the low-pressure shaft, with four stages in the -5B and -5C variants. The booster is also commonly called the "low-pressure compressor" (LPC) as it is part of the low-pressure spool and continues the air compression done by the inner part of the fan before it reaches the high-pressure compressor. The original CFM56-2 variant featured 44 tip-shrouded fan blades, although the number of fan blades was reduced in later variants as wide-chord blade technology developed, down to 22 blades in the CFM56-7 variant.

The CFM56 fan features dovetailed fan blades which allows them to be replaced without removing the entire engine, and GE/Snecma claim that the CFM56 was the first engine to have that capability. This attachment method is useful for circumstances where only a few fan blades need to be repaired or replaced, such as following bird strikes.

The fan diameter varies with the different models of the CFM56, and that change has a direct impact on the engine performance. For example, the low-pressure shaft rotates at the same speed for both the CFM56-2 and the CFM56-3 models; the fan diameter is smaller on the -3, which lowers the tip speed of the fan blades. The lower speed allows the fan blades to operate more efficiently (5.5% more in this case), which increases the overall fuel efficiency of the engine (improving specific fuel consumption nearly 3%).

Thrust reverser

The CFM56 is designed to support several thrust reverser systems which help slow and stop the aircraft after landing. The variants built for the Boeing 737, the CFM56-3 and the CFM56-7, use a cascade type of thrust reverser. This type of thrust reverse consists of sleeves that slide back to expose mesh-like cascades and blocker doors that block the bypass air flow. The blocked bypass air is forced through the cascades, reducing the thrust of the engine and slowing the aircraft down.

The CFM56 also supports pivoting-door type thrust reversers. This type is used on the CFM56-5 engines that power many Airbus aircraft such as the Airbus A320. They work by actuating a door that pivots down into the bypass duct, both blocking the bypass air and deflecting the flow outward, creating the reverse thrust.

Turbine

All variants of the CFM56 feature a single-stage high-pressure turbine (HPT). In some variants, the HPT blades are "grown" from a single crystal superalloy, giving them high strength and creep resistance. The low-pressure turbine (LPT) features four stages in most variants of the engine, but the CFM56-5C has a five-stage LPT. This change was implemented to drive the larger fan on this variant. Improvements to the turbine section were examined during the Tech56 program, and one development was an aerodynamically optimized low-pressure turbine blade design, which would have used 20% fewer blades for the whole low-pressure turbine, saving weight. Some of those Tech56 improvements made their way into the Tech Insertion package, where the turbine section was updated. The turbine section was updated again in the "Evolution" upgrade.

The high-pressure turbine stages in the CFM56 are internally cooled by air from the high-pressure compressor. The air passes through internal channels in each blade and ejects at the leading and trailing edges.

Variants

CFM56-2 series

The CFM56-2 series is the original variant of the CFM56. It is most widely used in military applications where it is known as the F108; specifically in the KC-135, the E-6 Mercury and some E-3 Sentry aircraft. The CFM56-2 comprises a single-stage fan with 44 blades, with a three-stage LP compressor driven by a four-stage LP turbine, and a nine-stage HP compressor driven by a single-stage HP turbine. The combustor is annular.

CFM56-3 series

The first derivative of the CFM56 series, the CFM56-3 was designed for Boeing 737 Classic series (737-300/-400/-500), with static thrust ratings from . A "cropped fan" derivative of the -2, the -3 engine has a smaller fan diameter at 60 in (1.5 m) but retains the original basic engine layout. The new fan was primarily derived from GE's CF6-80 turbofan rather than the CFM56-2, and the booster was redesigned to match the new fan.

A significant challenge for this series was achieving ground clearance for the wing-mounted engine. This was overcome by reducing the intake fan diameter and relocating the gearbox and other accessories from beneath the engine to the sides. The resulting flattened nacelle bottom and intake lip yielded the distinctive appearance of the Boeing 737 with CFM56 engines.

CFM56-4 series
The CFM56-4 series was a proposed improved version of the CFM56-2 designed for the Airbus A320 family of aircraft. Competing with the RJ500 engine being developed by Rolls-Royce, the -4 series was designed to produce 25,000 lbf (110 kN) and was to feature a new 68 in (1.73 m) fan, a new low-pressure compressor and a full authority digital engine controller (FADEC). Soon after the upgrade project was launched in 1984, International Aero Engines offered their new V2500 engine for the A320. CFMI realized that the CFM56-4 did not compare favorably with the new engine and scrapped the project to begin working on the CFM56-5 series.

CFM56-5 series

The CFM56-5 series is designed for the Airbus aircraft and has a very wide thrust rating of between . It has three distinct sub-variants; the CFM56-5A, CFM56-5B and CFM56-5C, and differs from its Boeing 737 Classic-fitted cousins by featuring a FADEC and incorporating further aerodynamic design improvements.

CFM56-5A series
The CFM56-5A series is the initial CFM56-5 series, designed to power the short-to-medium range Airbus A320 family. Derived from the CFM56-2 and CFM56-3 families, the -5A series produces thrusts between 22,000 and 26,500 lbf (98 kN and 118 kN). Aerodynamic improvements such as an updated fan, low-pressure compressor, high-pressure compressor and combustor make this variant 10–11% more fuel efficient than its predecessors.

CFM56-5B series

An improvement of the CFM56-5A series, it was originally designed to power the A321. With a thrust range between 22,000 and 33,000 lbf (98 kN and 147 kN) it can power every model in the A320 family (A318/A319/A320/A321) and has superseded the CFM56-5A series. Among the changes from the CFM56-5A is the option of a double-annular combustor that reduces emissions (particularly NOx), a new fan in a longer fan case, and a new low-pressure compressor with a fourth stage (up from three in earlier variants). It is the most numerous engine supplied to Airbus.

CFM56-5C series

With a thrust rating of between 31,200 and 34,000 lbf (139 kN and 151 kN), the CFM56-5C series is the most powerful of the CFM56 family. It powers Airbus' long-range A340-200 and -300 airliners, and entered service in 1993. The major changes are a larger fan, a fifth low-pressure turbine stage, and the same four-stage low-pressure compressor found in the -5B variant.

Unlike every other variant of the CFM56, the -5C features a mixed-exhaust nozzle, which offers slightly higher efficiency.

CFM56-7 series

The CFM56-7 first ran on 21 April 1995. Rated with a takeoff thrust range of , it powers the -600/-700/-800/-900 Boeing 737 Next Generation; compared to the CFM56-3, it has greater durability, 8% fuel burn improvement and a 15% reduction in maintenance costs.

Improvements are due to its 61-inch titanium wide chord fan, 3D aerodynamics designed new core and low-pressure turbine with single crystal high-pressure turbine and Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC). Fan blades are reduced from 36 (CFM56-5) to 24 and it incorporates features from the CFM56-5B such as a double-annular combustor as an option.

Less than two years after entry into service, the Next-Generation 737 received 180 minutes Extended range twin engine Operations (ETOPS) certification from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It also powers the Boeing 737 military versions : Airborne Early Warning & Control, C-40 Clipper transport and P-8 Poseidon Maritime Aircraft.

Reliability
The CFM56 has an in-flight shutdown rate of 1 incident per 333,333 hours. Record time on wing before the first shop visit was 30,000 hours in 1996, to 40,729 hours in 2003 and 50,000 hours in 2016.

There have been several engine failures in the early service of the CFM56 family which were serious enough to either ground the fleet or require aspects of the engine to be redesigned. The engines have also suffered, periodically, from thrust instability events tentatively traced to Honeywell's hydromechanical unit.

Rain and hail ingestion
There are several recorded incidents of CFM56 engines flaming out in heavy rain and/or hail conditions, beginning early in the CFM56's career. In 1987, a double flameout occurred in hail conditions (the pilots managed to relight the engines), followed by the TACA Flight 110 incident in 1988. Both CFM56 engines on the TACA 737 flamed out while passing through hail and heavy rain, and the crew was forced to land without engines on a grassy levee near New Orleans, Louisiana. CFMI modified the engines by adding a sensor to force the combustor to continuously ignite under these conditions.

In 2002, Garuda Indonesia Flight 421 had to ditch in a river because of hail-induced engine flameouts, killing a flight attendant and injuring dozens of passengers. Prior to this accident, there were several other incidents of single or dual flameouts due to these weather conditions. After three incidents through 1998, CFMI made modifications to the engine to improve the way in which the engine handled hail ingestion. The major changes included a modification to the fan/booster splitter (making it more difficult for hail to be ingested by the core of the engine) and the use of an elliptical, rather than conical, spinner at the intake. These changes did not prevent the 2002 accident, and the investigation board found that the pilots did not follow the proper procedures for attempting to restart the engine, which contributed to the final result. Recommendations were made to better educate pilots on how to handle these conditions, as well as to revisit FAA rain and hail testing procedures. No further engine modifications were recommended.

Fan blade failure
One issue that led to accidents with the CFM56-3C engine was the failure of fan blades. This mode of failure led to the Kegworth air disaster in 1989, which killed 47 people and injured 74 more. After the fan blade failed, the pilots mistakenly shut down the wrong engine, resulting in the damaged engine failing completely when powered up for the final approach. Following the Kegworth accident, CFM56 engines fitted to a Dan-Air 737-400 and a British Midland 737-400 suffered fan blade failures under similar conditions; neither incident resulted in a crash or injuries. After the second incident, the 737-400 fleet was grounded.

At the time it was not mandatory to flight test new variants of existing engines, and certification testing failed to reveal vibration modes that the fan experienced during the regularly performed power climbs at high altitude. Analysis revealed that the fan was being subjected to high-cycle fatigue stresses worse than expected and also more severe than tested for certification; these higher stresses caused the blade to fracture. Less than a month after grounding, the fleet was allowed to resume operations once the fan blades and fan disc were replaced and the electronic engine controls were modified to reduce maximum engine thrust to 22,000 lbf (98 kN) from 23,500 lbf (105 kN). The redesigned fan blades were installed on all CFM56-3C1 and CFM56-3B2 engines, including over 1,800 engines that had already been delivered to customers.

In August 2016 Southwest Airlines Flight 3472 suffered a fan blade failure, but landed later without further incident. While the aircraft sustained substantial damage, there were no injuries.

On 17 April 2018, Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 suffered from what appears to be a fan blade failure, debris from which punctured a window. The Boeing 737-700 landed safely, but one passenger was killed and several were injured.

Fuel flow problems
Airlines have reported 32 events involving sudden instability of thrust, at various points during flight, including high thrust settings during climb to altitude. The problem has been long-standing. In 1998, two 737 pilots reported that their engine throttles suddenly increased to full thrust during flight. A very recent investigation has led to the tentative conclusion that the problem originates in the Hydromechanical unit, and may involve an unacceptable level of fuel contamination (with water, or particulate matter, including biodegradable material that create solids in the fuel), or overuse of biocides to reduce bacterial growth. Boeing told Aviation Week and Space Technology that CFM International had revised its FADEC software. The new software "...'reduces the duration and degree of thrust-instability events' by cycling the fuel monitoring valve (FMV) and the EHSV (electrohydraulic servo valve) to clean the EHSV spool." This software fix is not intended to be a definitive solution to the problem; CFM claimed that no further reports have reached it after this change was made.

Parts of unknown origin
According to Bloomberg, European aviation regulators have determined that London-based AOG Technics, majority owned by Jose Zamora Yrala, whose nationality is listed as British on some forms and Venezuelan on others, supplied parts of unknown origin and false documents for repairs on CFM56's.

Applications
 Airbus A320 family
Airbus A318
 Airbus A340
 Boeing 707-700 (prototype only)
 Boeing 737 Classic
 Boeing 737 Next Generation
 Boeing 737 AEW&C
 Boeing C-40 Clipper
 Boeing P-8 Poseidon
 Boeing Business Jet
 Boeing E-3D Sentry
 Boeing E-6 Mercury
 Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker
 Boeing RC-135
 Boeing WC-135
 McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Super 70

Specifications

See also

Notes

References

External links

High-bypass turbofan engines
1970s turbofan engines
General Electric aircraft engines
Snecma aircraft engines

CFM International CFM56


Lazari (Lazzari) je bila jedna od istaknutih hrvatskih obitelji iz Prčanja (Crna Gora) koja su obilježila društvenu i gospodarsku povijest svojih matičnih sredina širega područja istočnoga Jadrana i Sredozemlja, uz Đuroviće, Florije, Lukoviće, Sbutege, Verone, Radoničiće i drugi. Poznati pomorci, pomorski trgovci i ratnici, brodovlasnici.

Izvori

Prčanj
Hrvati u Crnoj Gori

Lazari


Horní Počaply () ist eine mittelböhmische Gemeinde mit 1272 Einwohnern (Stand: September 2006) am linken Ufer der Elbe in Tschechien. Sie liegt 18 Kilometer nordwestlich von Melnik und gehört zum gleichnamigen Bezirk. Der tiefste Punkt des Kreises ist die Oberfläche der Elbe beim Dorf Horní Počaply (153 Meter).

Geschichte
Die erste urkundliche Erwähnung stammt aus dem Jahr 1286. Die Gemeinde wird seit dem Jahr 2000 mittels Fernwärmenetz beheizt, welche aus der Müllverbrennung im Kraftwerk Mělník II stammt.

Verwaltungsgeschichte
Die Historie der territorialen Selbstverwaltung reicht bis ins Jahr 1850 zurück. Der chronologische Überblick zeigt die territoriale Zugehörigkeit der Gemeinde:
 1850 Böhmen, Prager Kreis, Politischer Bezirk Melnik, Gerichtsbezirk Raudnitz
 1855 Böhmen, Leitmeritzer Kreis, Gerichtsbezirk Raudnitz
 1868 Böhmen, politischer und Gerichtsbezirk Raudnitz
 1939 Reichsprotektorat Böhmen und Mähren, Oberlandratsbezirk Melnik, politischer und Gerichtsbezirk Raudnitz a.d. Elbe
 1942 Land Böhmen, Oberlandratsbezirk Prag, politischer und Gerichtsbezirk Raudnitz a.d. Elbe
 1945 Land Böhmen, Verwaltungs- und Gerichtsbezirk Roudnice nad Labem
 1949 Ústecký kraj, Okres Roudnice nad Labem
 1960 Středočeský kraj, Okres Mělník
 2003 Středočeský kraj, Okres Mělník, übergeordnete Gemeinde mit erweiterter Zuständigkeit: Mělník

Jahr 1932
In Horní Počáply (721 Einwohner, Gendarmerieposten, Anlegestelle, kath. Kirche) waren 1932 folgende Gewerbe registriert: Biograf Sokol, Ziegelei, Frisör, 4 Gasthäuser, Stellmacher, Schmied, 3 Schneider, 3 Schuster, 2 Bäker, 5 Landwirte, 3 Fleischer, 3 Gemischtwarenhändler, Spar- und Ersatzverein in Horní Počáplý, Baumeister, 3 Näherinnen, 2 Trafiken, 2 Zimmermänner

Sehenswürdigkeiten

 Kirche Mariä Himmelfahrt: errichtet als gotische Kirche (im Inneren der heutigen Kirche erhalten) etwa im 14. Jahrhundert, erste Erwähnung aus dieser Zeit. Erneuert 1869–1871. Es handelt sich um ein Langhaus mit rechtwinkligem Presbyterium und ebenerdigem Anbau. An der Westfassade ein viereckiger Turm, erneuert im 19. Jahrhundert. Im Presbyterium Kreuzgewölbe mit keilförmigen Rippen auf pyramidenförmigen Konsolen und Sanktuarium mit Profilrahmen (hochgotisch, Ende 15. Jahrhundert) Kirchenschiff mit spitzen Fenstern, Eckpilastern und Türmchen. An der linken Ecke der Fassade Tafel mit Jahreszahl 1871.

Gemeindegliederung
Ortsteile sind:
 Horní Počaply
 Křivenice: Selbständige Gemeinde bis 1961, seitdem Ortsteil von Horní Počaply. Das Dorf befindet sich am linken Ufer der Elbe, 7 km nordwestlich von Melnik, in direkter Nachbarschaft zum Kraftwerk Mělník. Seehöhe 161 m n.m. Auf seinen Aufenthalten in Liběchov wanderte der Maler Max Švabinský nach Křivenice und bereitete sich hier auf sein Monumentalwerk Žně vor.

Verkehr
Durch das Gemeindegebiet verläuft die zweigleisige elektrifizierte Hauptbahn, die Bahnstrecke Děčín–Prag (Kursbuchstrecke 090) mit den Stationen (Prag -) Vraňany – Roudnice nad Labem – Ústí nad Labem – Děčín, die 1850 als Nördliche Staatsbahn eröffnet wurde.

Öffentliche Buslinien verbinden die Gemeinde mit Mělník, Prag, Roudnice nad Labem und Štětí. Die Personenzüge der Linien S4 (Prag – Vraňany – Hněvice) und R4 (Prag – Kralupy nad Vltavou – Hněvice) des Schnellbahnnetzes Esko Prag halten an der Bahnstation Horní Počaply (täglich 14 Personenzüge (Os), am Wochenende 10). Expresszüge und Schnellzüge halten hier nicht.

Wirtschaft
Unter anderem betreibt in Horní Počaply die Danzer Bohemia ein Furnierwerk.

Fremdenverkehr
Der Elberadweg (Cyklotrasa č. 2) Kralupy n. Vlt. – Mělník – Litoměřice – Ústí n. L. – Děčín führt durch den Ort.

Literatur
 Emanuel Poche u. a.: Umělecké památky Čech. (Kunstdenkmäler Böhmens). Academia, Praha 1977, S. 413.
 Okolí Prahy západ. (Die Umgebung westlich von Prag). 1. Auflage. Olympia, Praha 1990, S. 273.

Weblinks

 Webseite der Stadt

Einzelnachweise

Ort an der Elbe

Horní Počaply


Paysage avec la Parabole du Bon Samaritain est un tableau de paysage d'Henri Bles peint en 1511 ou plus tard au milieu du . Il représente la parabole du Bon Samaritain, passage biblique de l'Évangile selon Luc, dans un paysage inspiré de la région de Dinant en Belgique. Le tableau est réalisé en 1511 d'après un monogramme sur le tableau mais pourrait en réalité avoir été réalisé entre 1530 et 1560, d'après la naissance du peintre aux environs de 1500.

Le tableau entre dans la collection d'Henry Perpète à Dinant avant de passer dans la collection de la Société archéologique de Namur. Au cours du , il est transféré au TreM.a de Namur et est classé dans la liste des biens classés de la Communauté française en 2010.

Description
Le tableau, une peinture à l'huile sur bois (un panneau de chêne) dont les dimensions sont de 84,1 cm sur 113,4 cm, représente différentes scènes de la parabole du Samaritain. Un monogramme est présent au-dessus du monogramme du peintre, datant le tableau à l'an 1511.

Description de Bequet
Alfred Bequet, publieur de l'ancienne collection Perpète - Henry de Dinant, dans les Annales du Cercle d'Archéologie de Namur, décrit en 1863 le tableau de Bles.

Bequet mentionne un ruisseau, un moulin et un sentier se perdant dans des arbres qu'il décrit comme étant les motifs favoris de Bles. Ces motifs, on les retrouve dans plusieurs autres tableaux du peintre : Paysage avec l'Offrande d'Isaac (les trois motifs), Paysage avec Saint-Christophe (un ruisseau), Paysage avec la Fuite en Égypte (un sentier), Paysage avec la Parabole de la Miséricorde (un ruisseau et un sentier), Paysage avec le Sermon de Jean-Baptiste (un ruisseau et un moulin), pour n'en citer que quelques-uns.

La ville Sainte est la ville de Jérusalem, dans l'actuelle Israël et Palestine. Quand Bequet fait référence au tableau de Florence, il pourrait s'agir du tableau Paysage avec mines conservé à la Galerie des Offices à Florence.

Les rochers représentent le thème le plus récurrent chez Bles ; ils sont similaires à ceux d'autres rochers peints par Bles : Prédication de Jean-Baptiste, Sacrifice d'Abraham, Paysage avec mines, Paysage avec mine et fuite en Égypte et Bon Samaritain. Ce dernier, dont le nom est assez évocateur au tableau Paysage avec la Parabole du Bon Samaritain, avec le même type de rocher en second et troisième plan et la même forêt à la gauche du premier plan, semble être une copie.Bequet décrit en plus les différents épisodes de la parabole du Samaritain qui animent le paysage du tableau. Il raconte que le tableau est divisé en trois images. Il décrit en quelques lignes une ressemblance au tableau Paysage avec mines. Ce sont ces ressemblances qui affirment avec certitude l'appartenance du tableau à Bles.

En ce qui concerne le découpage du paysage, que Bequet coupe en trois, Denis Ribouillault partage un avis selon lequel les principaux défauts des paysages peints par Bles sont ces fameux découpages et donne comme exemple le tableau Paysage avec la Parabole du Bon Samaritain, en disant qu'il n'y a pas de liens entre les découpages.

Définitions et passage biblique
Il est bon de définir quelques notions. Qu'est-ce qu'un paysage? Le dictionnaire Larousse donne différentes définitions à ce mot, dont une se rapportant au thème de la peinture, dans ce cas, un paysage est une « peinture, gravure ou dessin dont le sujet principal est la représentation d'un site naturel, rural ou urbain ». Dans le cas du tableau de Bles, on retrouve les trois formes de paysages. Les trois plans sont majoritairement naturels avec une touche rurale au second plan ainsi qu'une touche urbaine, la ville Sainte, sur le rocher. Les paysages des tableaux reprenant les rochers similaires à ceux du tableau du Bon Samaritain prennent pour origine la vallée mosane, plus particulièrement la région de Dinant, en Belgique, où est né Bles.

Une parabole se réfère ici à un récit allégorique servant à illustrer un propos. Il vient du grec παραϐολή (parabolê) signifiant en français une « juxtaposition, comparaison ». Ici, il s'agit de la parabole du Bon Samaritain présenté dans la Bible par saint Luc, dans le chapitre 10 :

Ce passage de la Bible explique ainsi la description donnée de la parabole du Bon Samaritain par Bequet. On y retrouve les trois épisodes du tableau avec le Lévite, l'homme dépouillé et le Bon Samaritain qui emmène l'homme à l'auberge.

Animaux
Plusieurs animaux sont représentés. On peut compter trois animaux domestiques, un âne (l'âne du Bon Samaritain), un lapin et un chien ainsi que des animaux de la forêt tels que des oiseaux et le hibou (monogramme de Bles). On peut apercevoir un animal imaginaire, la licorne.

Monogrammes et datation
Le tableau contient deux monogrammes, un donnant la date et l'autre l'auteur. Le monogramme qui donne la date 1511 est situé au-dessus du monogramme du peintre. Ce dernier est représenté par une chouette que le peintre représente dans d'autres tableaux. Il est surnommé pour ce monogramme le « maître à la chouette ».

Le monogramme de la date pose cependant un problème. En effet, l'artiste serait né vers 1500 (ou 1510 dans l'ouvrage d'Éric et Lucy Larsen-Roman). Or, il serait impossible que le peintre ait pu peindre le tableau en 1511, date à laquelle il lui est attribué un âge d'une dizaine d'années. Cependant, les Larsen-Roman évoquent une possible naissance en 1490 en envisageant que l'artiste ait eus alors 20 ans lorsqu'il a peint le tableau voire une naissance en 1480. D'après la fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles et la Société archéologique de Namur, le tableau aurait plutôt été peint entre 1530 et 1560.

Conservation

Le tableau est conservé et exposé au TreM.a, le Musée provincial des arts anciens du Namurois. Ce musée comprend deux collections : le Trésor d'Oignies, pour l'orfèvrerie, et des peintures d'Henri Bles, dont le tableau de la Parabole du Bon Samaritain. Avant d'arriver dans la collection du TreM.a, le tableau était conservé dans la collection d'Henry Perpète à Dinant.

Le tableau fait partie de la liste des bien classés de la Communauté française de Belgique depuis le 26 mars 2010 et paru au Moniteur belge le 28 septembre de la même année.

Notes et références

Références

Bibliographie

Tableau d'Henri Bles
Tableau du XVIe siècle
Bible dans l'art et la culture
Parabole (Bible)
Âne dans la peinture
Église dans la peinture
Licorne dans l'art
Créature légendaire dans la peinture
Oiseau dans la peinture
Chien dans la peinture
Arbre dans la peinture
Paysage dans la peinture
Œuvre d'art à Namur


The new Turkish lira () was the currency of Turkey and  the de facto independent state of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2008 which was a transition period for the removal of six zeroes from the currency. The new lira was subdivided into 100 new kuruş (yeni kuruş). The symbol was YTL and the ISO 4217 code was TRY.

History
Because of the chronic inflation experienced in Turkey from the 1970s through to the 1990s, the old lira experienced severe depreciation. Turkey has had high inflation rates compared to developed countries and suffered hyperinflation. From an average of 9 lira per U.S. dollar in the late 1960s, the currency came to trade at approximately 1,650,000 lira per U.S. dollar in late 2001. This represented an average inflation of about 38% per year. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had called this problem a "national shame". With the revaluation of the Turkish old lira, the Romanian leu (also revalued in July 2005) briefly became the world's least valued currency unit.

In late December 2003, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey passed a law that allowed for the removal of six zeroes from the currency, and the creation of the new lira. It was introduced on 1 January 2005, replacing the previous lira (which remained valid in circulation until the end of 2005) at a rate of 1 new lira = 1,000,000 old lira.

Following its introduction, the official name of the currency was the "New Turkish Lira", but according to the Central Bank, the word "new" (yeni) was only a "temporary" measure. A news agency reported that "new" would be removed on January 1, 2009. The same source also indicated that the banknotes would have "different shapes and sizes to prevent forgery". The issuance of a new highest denomination, 200 lira, was contemplated at the same time.

Coins
Coins were introduced in 2005 in denominations of 1, 5, 10, 25 and 50 new (Yeni) kuruş and 1 new (Yeni) lira. The 1 new (Yeni) kuruş was minted in brass and the 5, 10 and 25 new kuruş in cupro-nickel, whilst the 50 new kuruş and 1 new lira are bimetallic. All coins show portraits of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

To the dismay of the European Central Bank, the sizes and compositions of the 50 new kuruş and 1 new lira coins clearly resemble those of the €1 and €2 coins respectively. (See comparison photo in  of YTL 1 coin and €2 coin.) This could cause confusion in the eurozone. It also caused trouble to businesses using vending machines (particularly at airports) in the eurozone since a number of vending machines at the time accepted the 1 new lira coin as a €2 coin. Since €2 is worth roughly four times more, vending machines affected had to be upgraded at the expense of their owners.

Banknotes
Banknotes, referred to by the Central Bank as the "E-8 Emission Group", were introduced in 2005 in denominations of 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 new lira. Whilst the lower four denominations replaced older notes and used very similar designs, the 50 and 100 new lira notes did not have equivalents in the old currency. All notes show portraits of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk from different points of his life and images of various historical and otherwise important buildings and places in Turkey. A new series of banknotes, the "E-9 Emission Group", entered circulation on 1 January 2009, with the E-8 group ceasing to be valid after 31 December 2009 (although still redeemable at branches of the Central Bank until 31 December 2019). The E-9 banknotes refer to the currency as "lira" rather than "new lira", and include a 200 lira denomination.

See also
 Economy of Northern Cyprus
 Economy of Turkey

References

External links
Images of the new banknotes and coins
Coins from Turkey with pictures
 Turkish new lira official changeover Campaign
 YTL information site
 Ottoman Empire coins
 Turkish Republic banknotes
 Turkish Republic coins and banknotes

Economy of Northern Cyprus
Currencies introduced in 2005
2005 in Turkey
Currencies of Turkey

Revaluation of the Turkish lira


Baarle-Nassau () (Brabantsk: Baol) er en kommune og en by i den sydlige provins Noord-Brabant i Nederlandene. Baarle-Nassau og Baarle-Hertog i Belgien udgør tilsammen byen Baarle, hvor de hollandske og belgiske områder ligger mellem hinanden i et kompliceret system af enklaver inden i hinanden.

Steder i Baarle-Nassau
Baarle-Nassau Grens, Boshoven, Castelré, Driehuizen, Eikelenbosch, Gorpeind, Grænse/Ghill, Heesboom, Heikant, Hoogeind, Huisvennen, Keizershoek, Klein-Bedaf, Liefkenshoek, Loveren, Maaijkant, Nieuwe Strumpt, Nijhoven, Oude Strumpt, Reth, Reuth, Tommel, Ulicoten, Veldbraak og Voske.

Galleri

Eksterne henvisninger/kilder

Byer i Nord-Brabant
Kommuner i Nord-Brabant

Baarle-Nassau


Sletači (eng. lander, rus. посадочный модуль, fra. atterrisseur ) su robotske svemirske sonde namijenjena istraživanju površina nebeskih tijela. Ova svemirska letjelica slijeća ka površini nebeskog tijela na kojoj ostaje. Nasuprot udarnoj sondi koja tvrdo slijeće nakon čega je oštećena ili uništena pa prestaje funkcionirati nakon dosezanja površine, sletač meko slijeće nakon čega sonda ostaje funkcionalna.

Izvori

Sletač


Ioan Pop () a fost un deputat în Marea Adunare Națională de la Alba Iulia, organismul legislativ reprezentativ al "tuturor românilor din Transilvania, Banat și Țara Ungurească", cel care a adoptat hotărârea privind Unirea Transilvaniei cu România, la 1 decembrie 1918.

Biografie
Ioan Pop, s-a născut în Bucerdea-Vinoasă,  comuna Ighiu, județul Alba, la 1 februarie 1890. Între anii 1892-1897 a fost elevul Liceului reformat calvin maghiar "Bethlen Gabor" din Aiud, după absolvirea căruia a urmat cursurile Facultății de Drept a Universității din Cluj, la 10 septembrie 1901 obținând diploma de licențiat în științe juridice. Patru ani mai târziu, Ioan Pop obține și titlul de doctor în filosofie.

Ucenicia în practica avocaturii o face la Alba Iulia, în cabinetul avocatului Camil Velican, doctor în științe juridice. La 26 iunie 1909 obține diploma de avocat "deplin" la Tabla regească din Târgu Mureș. Într-un act semnat de Andrei Bârseanu în anul 1911, președintele "Astrei" îl menționează pe Ioan Pop ca membru "fundațional" al societății. Acest act este o dovadă a implicării lui Ioan Pop în activitatea culturală și bisericească a timpului.Ioan pop a profesat ca avocat.

S-a ocupat de organizarea Marii Adunări Naționale din 1 decembrie 1918, membru în Marele Sfat Național, prefect de Alba în 2 rânduri, Inspector General Administrativ, subsecretar de Stat la Interne, deputat în parlamentele 1927, 1933.

În amintirea fiului pierdut prematur, familia Pop a înființat "Fundațiunea Dr. Ioan Pop", cu un capital inițial de 200,000 lei, acest fond bănesc fiind destinat achiziționării unor cărți și rechizite.

A rămas amintirea lui Ioan Pop care și-a pus viața în slujba oamenilor și a locurilor natale, a rămas amintirea lui Ioan Pop ca cel dintâi prefect român al județului Alba. Avocatul Ioan pop s-a stins din viață în închisoarea din Sighet, în anul 1953.

Ioan pop a ctitorit biserica Sfinții Arhangheli Mihail și Gavriil, Parohia Bucerdea Luminoasă, Protopopiatul Alba Iulia.

Activitatea politică

Din data de 14 noiembrie 1918 a fost membru al Consiliului Național Român din Alba Iulia, organism care a avut un important rol în pregătirea și desfășurarea Marii Adunări Naționale de la Alba Iulia, din 1 decembrie 1918.

După actul Marii Uniri, dr. Ioan Pop a fost ales președinte al organizației județene Alba a Partidului Național Român, iar de la 11 ianuarie 1919 și prefect al județului Alba. În anul 1929, dr. Ioan Pop. inspector general administrativ, a fost numit președinte al comitetului local de organizare a Serbărilor Unirii. În noua calitate, Ioan Pop a cerut și a obținut mutarea prefecturii județului Alba de la Aiud la Alba Iulia.

Din cauza prea multelor îndatoriri politice și administrative, la 9 mai 1930 a demisionat din funcția de inspector general administrativ. La 9 iunie 1930, prin decret regal, a fost numit subsecretar de stat pe lângă departamentul internelor. Această funcție a deținut-o și în timpul guvernelor prezidate de Iuliu Maniu și Alexandru Vaida Voedod.

Recunoașteri
Pentru activitatea pe care a desfășurat‑o în slujba cetății, în administrație, în plan cultural și bisericesc, dr. Ioan Pop a primit numeroase decorații. La 17 mai 1929 a primit Ordinul "Coroana României", în grad de Mare Ofițer. La 3 aprilie 1931 a primit Ordinul "Ferdinand I" în grad de comandor. La 20 mai 1933 i s-a acordat brevetul de atribuire a Ordinului "Steaua României", în gradul de comandor. În anul 1933, la 11 noiembrie, a fost decorat cu semnul onorific "Vulturul României", în gradul de Mare Ofițer, destinat a răsplăti pe senatorii și deputații din Parlamentul țării. Pentru activitatea pe care a desfășurat-o pentru înzestrarea armatei țării, la 20 septembrie 1940 a primit medalia "Centenarul Carol I".

Note

Bibliografie
 Ioan I. Șerban, Dorin Giurgiu, Ionela Mircea, Nicolae Josan, Dicționarul personalităților Unirii. Trimișii românilor transilvăneni la Marea Adunare Națională de la Alba Iulia, Muzeul Național al Unirii, Alba Iulia, 2003, ISBN 973-8141-90-7
 Gelu Neamțu, Mircea Vaida-Voevod, 1 decembrie 1918. Mărturii ale participanților, vol. I-II, Editura Academiei Române, București, 2005, ISBN 973-27-1258-9 (vol. I); ISBN 973-27-1264-3 (vol. I)

Lectură suplimentară
 Daniela Comșa, Eugenia Glodariu, Maria M. Jude, Clujenii și Marea Unire, Muzeul Național Transilvania, Cluj-Napoca, 1998
 Florea Marin, Medicii și Marea Unire, Editura Tipomur, Târgu Mureș, 1993
 Silviu Borș, Alexiu Tatu, Bogdan Andriescu, (coord.), Participanți din localități sibiene la Marea Adunare Națională de la Alba Iulia din 1 decembrie 1918, Editura Armanis, Sibiu, 2015

Legături externe
  Membrii de drept ai Marii Adunării Naționale de la Alba-Iulia din 1 decembrie 1918, lista publicată în "Gazeta Oficială", Sibiu, nr. 1, 1/14 decembrie 1918
  1 decembrie 1918, Marea Unire de la Alba Iulia. Mărturii, documente și semnificații

Vezi și
 Lista delegaților la Marea Adunare Națională de la Alba Iulia

Nașteri în 1880
Decese în 1953
Delegați la Marea Adunare Națională de la Alba Iulia
Decorați cu Ordinul Coroana României
Prefecți români

Ioan Pop (avocat)


{{Ficha de sencillo
|nombre             = Stereo Hearts
|carátula           =
|artista            = Gym Class Heroes con Adam Levine
|álbum              = The Papercut Chronicles II
|lado A             =
|lado B             =
|publicación        = 15 de junio de 201117 de octubre de 2011 (RU)
|formato            = Descarga digital
|grabación          = 2011
|catálogo           =
|género             = Alternative hip hop, rap rock, pop rap
|duración           = 3:31
|discográfica       = Fueled by Ramen
|escritor           = Travie McCoy, Adam Levine, Benny Blanco, Brandon Lowry, Ammar Malik, Dan Omelio<ref name="BMI">{{cita web|url = http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&page=1&keyid=13001514&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID|título = BMI Repertoire - Stereo Hearts|editorial = BMI|fechaacceso = 12 de julio de 2011|urlarchivo = https://www.webcitation.org/69w81BGkm?url=http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True|fechaarchivo = 15 de agosto de 2012}}</ref>
|productor          = Benny Blanco, Robopop
|certificación      =
|calificación       =
|listas             =
|cronología         = sencillos de Gym Class Heroes
|sencillo anterior  = Guilty as Charged
|sencillo actual    = Stereo Hearts
|sencillo posterior = Ass Back Home
|añoA               = 2008
|añoAc              = 2011
|añoP               = 2011
|miscelánea         =

}}

«Stereo Hearts» («Corazones Estéreo» en español) es el primer sencillo de la banda estadounidense Gym Class Heroes para su álbum de estudio The Papercut Chronicles II. La canción es interpretada a dueto con Adam Levine, el vocalista de la banda Maroon 5. La canción fue lanzada el 15 de junio de 2011.
En el Reino Unido la fecha de lanzamiento originalmente era el 22 de agosto, sin embargo el video musical no había sido lanzado así que la fecha de lanzamiento se pospuso hasta el 12 de septiembre, en el cual el DJ y productor Dillon Francis utilizó la acapella de ésta para hacer su sencillo IDGAFOS, promovido por Mad Decent en octubre de 2011, un día después de que la canción original fuera publicada en el Reino Unido.

 Composición
Stereo Hearts fue producida por Benny Blanco y Robopop comenzando con el vocalista de Maroon 5, Adam Levine, cantando el coro: "My heart's a stereo / It beats for you, so listen close / Hear my thoughts in every note. / Make me your radio / Turn me up when you feel low / This melody was meant for you / So sing along to my stereo."

 Lista de canciones
Digital download
 "Stereo Hearts (feat. Adam Levine)" - 3:31

German CD Single
 "Stereo Hearts (feat. Adam Levine)" - 3:31
 "Stereo Hearts (feat. Adam Levine)" - Soul Seekers Retronica Extended Mix - 6:17

 Versiones
 Samuel Larsen, Dianna Agron, Chord Overstreet y Amber Riley versionaron la canción en Glee'', en el episodio «Heart» de la tercera temporada.
 Niall Horan de la boyband británica-irlandesa One Direction interpretó la canción durante un concierto del Up All Night Tour de 2011.

Rendimiento en listas

Referencias

Sencillos de 2011
Canciones de Gym Class Heroes
Canciones número uno de LOS40 (España)
Sencillos número uno en Billboard Pop Songs

Stereo Hearts


Mucho Barato var   den mexicanske  hiphop-gruppe Control Machetes debutalbum, der blev udgivet i 1996. For størstedelen rappende svarende til Fermin IV og Pato Machete. Jason Roberts og DJ Toy Selectah producerede. Albummet kan betragtes som en vigtig del i gennembruddet for gangsta rappens dominans på hiphop-scenen i af 1990'erne i Mexico.

Sporliste
 Control Machete
 ¿Comprendes Mendes?
 Las Fabulosas I
 Andamos Armados
 Humanos Mexicanos
 Cheve
 Madrugada Encore
 Así Son Mis Días
 ¿Te Aprovechas del Límite?
 Justo 'N
 La Copa de Dama
 La Lupita
 Grin-Gosano
 Únete Pueblo
 Las Fabulosas II
 El Son Divo
 Marioneta
 Mexican Curious

Album fra 1996

Mucho Barato


La catedral de San Eugenio () es la catedral de la diócesis de Santa Rosa. Está localizada en Santa Rosa, California. Es la sede del obispo de Santa Rosa. La parroquia fue fundada en 1950 y se convirtió en catedral cuando la diócesis de Santa Rosa fue establecida por Juan XXIII el 13 de enero de 1962.

Referencias

Enlaces externos

Sitio oficial

San Eugenio
Eugenio Santa Rosa
San Eugenio
Edificios y estructuras del condado de Sonoma
Arquitectura de Estados Unidos de 1950
Diócesis de Santa Rosa en California
Condado de Sonoma
Santa Rosa
Santa Rosa
Arquitectura moderna en California

Catedral de San Eugenio (Santa Rosa)


Muffendorf, Almanya'nın Kuzey Ren-Vestfalya eyaletinde, Bonn kentine bağlı bölge.

Konum
Bad Godesberg idari merkezine bağlıdır. Heiderhof ile Pennenfeld arasında, Ren Vadisi'nde yer alır. Muffendorf kuzeyinde Alt-Godesberg, güneyinde ise Lannesdorf'a komşudur.

Tarihçe
Arkeolojik kazılarda gün ışığına çıkarılan ilkel aletler, Muffendorf'un Eski Taş Çağı'ndan bu yana yerleşim birimlerine sahne olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Roma İmparatoru Markus Aurelius (161 - 180), komutanlarından Gaius Scribonius'a bölgede avcılığın bakire tanrıçası Diana'ya adanmış bir tapınak yaptırdı. Alman haçlı şövalyeleri, 1254'te bölgede Kommende adı verilen üssü kurdular.

Görülmeye değer yerleri
Muffendorf merkezinde bulunan 17'nci yüzyıldan kalma evler ve yılda bir düzenlenen "Muffenale" ve "Muffensause" festivalleri, bölgenin öne çıkan özellikleri arasındadır. 2005 yılından bu yana "Muffengold" markasıyla bira üretilmektedir. Hâlen Almanya'nın başbakanlığını yapan Angela Merkel, uzun yıllar Muffendorf'ta ikamet etmiştir.

Bonn-Muffendorf'dan görüntüler

Dış bağlantılar
 Semt Rehberi

Muffendorf


The Non-Partisan Association (NPA) is a municipal political party in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. It was established by the city's business leaders in 1937 to challenge the democratic socialist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in that year's municipal election. The party has historically been described as centre-right and drawn its strongest support from Vancouver's business community.

In the years following the 2018 municipal election, seven of the NPA's ten elected officials resigned from the party, claiming that it had become right-wing and undemocratic. Several other prominent members, such as the NPA's 2018 mayoral candidate Ken Sim, also resigned. Most of those departing later joined ABC Vancouver in the run-up to the 2022 municipal election, which saw Sim elected as mayor and the NPA lose all its remaining seats.

History

Early years
The NPA was established by Vancouver's business leaders on November 13, 1937, to counteract the growing influence of the CCF. Fearful of a CCF victory in the Vancouver municipal election on December 8, 1937, provincial politicians from the then-ruling BC Liberal Party launched an initiative to create a pro-business municipal party to challenge the CCF. The NPA's first chairman was Victor Odlum, a prominent member of Vancouver's business and political elite who had served as a Liberal MLA from 1924 to 1928. Other founding members of the NPA include W. C. Woodward of Woodward's department store, Victor Spencer of Spencer's department store, and industrialist Austin Taylor. Despite its party connections, the NPA claimed it was not a party, but rather a "free enterprise coalition" which "oppose[d] the introduction of party politics into Vancouver's civic administration".

The NPA first fielded candidates in the December 9, 1936, municipal election, which saw their mayoral candidate, George Miller, elected to office. Miller later ran in provincial elections for the BC Progressive Conservative Party. Prior to the 1939 election, a member of the NPA's executive, Nelson Spencer, broke away from the party and ran independently after the NPA chose the then-incumbent Miller as its mayoral candidate instead of Spencer. The result was that the right-wing vote was split, and CCF candidate Lyle Telford was elected. Telford would only serve one term before NPA candidate Jack Cornett was elected in the 1940 election, beginning a decades-long period of NPA dominance on Vancouver City Council.

21st century

Jennifer Clarke was chosen to be the NPA's mayoral candidate for the 2002 municipal election, as opposed to the then-incumbent mayor Philip Owen. Owen had been in disagreement with the rest of the party leadership due to his support for harm reduction programs in the Downtown Eastside, although Clarke stated she was also in favour of such programs. The NPA ultimately lost the mayoral race, as well as its majority on city council that it had maintained since 1986.

Long-time city councillor Sam Sullivan was chosen as the NPA's candidate for the 2005 mayoral race, which he later won. The NPA also regained its majority on city council, winning a total of six seats.

Peter Ladner was the NPA's mayoral candidate for the 2008 municipal election but was defeated by Gregor Robertson, the candidate for Vision Vancouver. The NPA's electoral platform during the 2008 election focused on reducing crime, improving housing affordability, leveraging the 2010 Winter Olympics, protecting the environment, advancing the city's arts and culture sector, and working collaboratively with senior levels of government, community groups, and the private sector.

The party, led by Suzanne Anton as the NPA's mayoral candidate, once again lost to Robertson and Vision Vancouver in the 2011 municipal election but elected two members to Vancouver City Council. Two members were also elected to the Park Board, and three members to the Vancouver School Board.

On October 16, 2016, provincial education minister Mike Bernier fired the school trustees elected during the 2014 municipal election for failing to pass a balanced budget. NPA incumbent Fraser Ballantyne was re-elected in the subsequent 2017 municipal by-election, alongside newcomer Lisa Dominato.

City councillor Rebecca Bligh announced on December 6, 2019, that she was leaving the NPA but would continue to serve as an independent. She cited concerns over the NPA's newly elected executive team, which included members publicly opposed to the provincial sexual orientation and gender identification (SOGI) curriculum and former staff of the far-right Rebel Media. Other high profile NPA members, such as city councillor Sarah Kirby-Yung and 2018 mayoral candidate Ken Sim, also voiced concerns over the party's perceived shift to the right.

Three of the NPA's four remaining councillorsLisa Dominato, Colleen Hardwick, and Sarah Kirby-Yungannounced on April 21, 2021, that they would be leaving the NPA to sit as independents, following the decision of the board to appoint Park Board commissioner John Coupar as the 2022 NPA mayoral candidate, the board's refusal to hold an annual general meeting despite a request to do so from all its elected politicians, and broad accusations of a lack of transparency on the board's behalf. Two days later, all three of the NPA's school trustees resigned from the party as well, leaving an elected caucus of one councillor (Melissa De Genova) and two Park Board commissioners (John Coupar and Tricia Barker). On August 5, 2022, Coupar resigned as the NPA's mayoral candidate, with the party indicating it would nominate a new candidate before the ballot deadline. Fred Harding, a retired police officer who ran for mayor with the Vancouver 1st party in the 2018 election, was subsequently announced as the NPA's new mayoral candidate.

Most of the elected officials who resigned from the NPA later joined ABC Vancouver in the run-up to the 2022 municipal election, which saw Ken Sim elected as mayor and the defeat of all NPA incumbents.

Electoral results
The NPA held a majority on Vancouver City Council from 1941 to 1967, 1970 to 1972, 1978 to 1980, 1986 to 2002, and from 2005 to 2008. It held the mayor's office from 1941 to 1958, from 1963 to 1966, from 1986 to 2002, and from 2005 to 2008. However, it has elected only three of the last eight mayors since 1972. Over the years, its opposition has been The Electors' Action Movement (TEAM) in the 1970s, the left-wing Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) in the 1980s and 1990s, and centre-left Vision Vancouver in the 2000s and 2010s.

There have been eleven NPA mayors of Vancouver:
 Jack (Jonathan Webster) Cornett (1941–1946)
 Gerry McGeer (1947)
 Charles E. Jones (1947–1948)
 George Clark Miller (acting) (1948)
 Charles Edwin Thompson (1949–1950)
 Frederick Hume (1951–1958)
 William Rathie (1963–1966)
 Tom Campbell (1967–1972)
 Gordon Campbell (1986–1993)
 Philip Owen (1993–2002)
 Sam Sullivan (2005–2008)

Results since 1970

See also
 List of mayors of Vancouver

Notes

References

Citations

Sources

Further reading

External links

Municipal political parties in Vancouver
Political parties established in 1937
Conservative parties in Canada
1937 establishments in British Columbia

Non-Partisan Association