The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA; ) is a regulatory agency of the United States Department of Labor that originally had federal visitorial powers to inspect and examine workplaces. The United States Congress established the agency under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), which President Richard M. Nixon signed into law on December 29, 1970. OSHA's mission is to "assure safe and healthy working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance." The agency is also charged with enforcing a variety of whistleblower statutes and regulations. OSHA's workplace safety inspections have been shown to reduce injury rates and injury costs without adverse effects on employment, sales, credit ratings, or firm survival.

History
The Bureau of Labor Standards of the Department of Labor has worked on some work safety issues since its creation in 1922. Economic boom and associated labor turnover during World War II worsened work safety in nearly all areas of the United States economy, but after 1945 accidents again declined as long-term forces reasserted themselves. Additionally, new and powerful labor unions played an increasingly important role in worker safety post-World War II. In the 1960s, increasing economic expansion again led to rising injury rates, and the resulting political pressures led Congress to establish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on April 28, 1971, the date that the Occupational Health and Safety Act became effective. The new agency incorporated much of what had been the original Bureau of Labor Standards. George Guenther was appointed by Labor Secretary James D. Hodgson as the agency's first director.

OSHA has run a number of training, compliance assistance, and health and safety recognition programs throughout its history. The OSHA Training Institute, which trains government and private sector health and safety personnel, began in 1972. In 1978, the agency began a grant-making program, now called the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, to train workers and employers in reducing workplace hazards. OSHA started the Voluntary Protection Programs in 1982, which allow employers to apply as "model workplaces" to achieve special designation if they meet certain requirements.

OSH Act coverage
The OSH Act covers most private-sector employers and their workers, in addition to some public-sector employers and workers in the 50 states and certain territories and jurisdictions under federal authority. Those jurisdictions include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, Johnston Island, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands as defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

Private sector employers

The OSH Act covers most private sector employers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and other U.S. jurisdictions—either directly through federal OSHA or through an OSHA-approved state plan.

State plans are OSHA-approved job safety and health programs operated by individual states instead of federal OSHA. Federal OSHA approves and monitors all state plans and provides as much as fifty percent of the funding for each program. State-run safety and health programs are required to be at least as effective as the federal OSHA program.

The following 22 states or territories have OSHA-approved state programs: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

Federal OSHA provides coverage to certain workplaces specifically excluded from a state's plan, such as work in maritime industries or on military bases.

State and local governments

Workers at state and local government agencies are not covered by federal OSHA but have OSH Act protections if they work in those states that have an OSHA-approved state program. OSH Act rules also permit states and territories to develop plans that cover only public sector (state and local government) workers. In these cases, private sector workers and employers remain under federal OSHA jurisdiction. Five additional states and one U.S. territory have OSHA-approved state plans that cover public sector workers only: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands.

Federal government agencies

OSHA's protection applies to all federal agencies. Section 19 of the OSH Act makes federal agency heads responsible for providing safe and healthful working conditions for their workers. OSHA conducts inspections of federal facilities in response to workers' reports of hazards and under programs that target high-hazard federal workplaces.

Federal agencies must have a safety and health program that meets the same standards as private employers. OSHA issues "virtual fines" to federal agencies – following an inspection where violations are found, OSHA issues a press release stating the size of the fine would be if the federal agency were a private sector employer. Under a 1998 amendment, the OSH Act covers the U.S. Postal Service the same as any private sector employer.

Not covered under the OSH Act

The OSH Act does not cover the self-employed, immediate family members of farm employers, or workplace hazards regulated by another federal agency (for example, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the Department of Energy, or Coast Guard).

Rights and responsibilities under OSH Act law

Employers have the responsibility to provide a safe workplace.

By law, employers must provide their workers with a workplace that does not have serious hazards, and they must follow all OSH Act safety and health standards. Employers are obligated to identify and rectify safety and health problems. The OSH Act further requires that employers must first attempt to eliminate or reduce hazards by making feasible changes in working conditions, rather than relying solely on personal protective equipment such as masks, gloves, or earplugs. Examples of effective ways to eliminate or reduce risks include switching to safer chemicals, enclosing processes to trap harmful fumes, or using ventilation systems to clean the air.

Employers must also:
 Inform workers about chemical hazards through training, labels, alarms, color-coded systems, chemical information sheets, and other relevant methods..
 Provide safety training to workers in a language and vocabulary they can understand.
 Keep accurate records of work-related injuries and illnesses.
 Perform tests in the workplace, such as air sampling, required by some OSH Act standards.
 Provide the required personal protective equipment at no cost to workers, as employers must pay for most types of required personal protective equipment.
 Provide hearing exams or other medical tests when required by OSH Act standards.
 Post OSHA citations and annually post injury and illness summary data where workers can see them.
 Notify OSHA within eight hours of a workplace fatality and within 24 hours of all work-related inpatient hospitalizations.
 Prominently display the official OSHA Job Safety and Health – It's the Law poster that describes rights and responsibilities under the OSH Act.
 Not retaliate or discriminate against workers for using their rights under the law, including their right to report a work-related injury or illness.
Workers have the right to:
 Working conditions that do not pose a risk of serious harm.
 File a confidential complaint with OSHA to have their workplace inspected.
 Receive information and training about hazards, methods to prevent harm, and the OSH Act standards that apply to their workplace. The training must be conducted in a language and vocabulary that workers can understand.
 Receive copies of records of work-related injuries and illnesses that occur in their workplace.
 Receive copies of the results from tests and monitoring conducted to identify and measure hazards in their workplace.
 Receive copies of their workplace medical records.
 Participate in an OSHA inspection and speak in private with the inspector.
 File a complaint with OSHA if they have faced retaliation or discrimination from their employer as a result of requesting an inspection or exercising any of their other rights under the OSH Act.
 File a complaint if punished or retaliated against for acting as a 'whistleblower' under the 21 additional federal laws for which OSHA has jurisdiction.

Temporary workers must be treated like permanent employees. Staffing agencies and host employers share joint accountability for temporary workers. Both entities are therefore obligated to comply with workplace health and safety requirements and ensure worker safety and health. OSHA could hold both the host and temporary employers responsible for any violations.

Health and safety standards
The Occupational Safety and Health Act grants OSHA the authority to issue workplace health and safety regulations. These regulations include limits on hazardous chemical exposure, employee access to hazard information, requirements for the use of personal protective equipment, and requirements to prevent falls and hazards from operating dangerous equipment.

The OSH Act's current Construction, General Industry, Maritime, and Agriculture standards are designed to protect workers from a wide range of serious hazards. Examples of OSHA standards include requirements for employers to provide fall protection such as a safety harness/line or guardrails; prevent trenching cave-ins; prevent exposure to some infectious diseases; ensure the safety of workers who enter confined spaces; prevent exposure to harmful chemicals; put guards on dangerous machines; provide respirators or other safety equipment, and provide training for certain dangerous jobs in a language and vocabulary workers can understand.

OSHA sets enforceable permissible exposure limits (PELs) to protect workers against the health effects of exposure to hazardous substances, including limits on the airborne concentrations of hazardous chemicals in the air. Most of OSHA's PELs were issued shortly after the adoption of the OSH Act in 1970. Attempts to issue more stringent PELs have been blocked by litigation from the industry; thus, the vast majority of PELs have not been updated since 1971. The agency has issued non-binding, alternate occupational exposure limits that may better protect workers.

Employers must also comply with the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act. This clause requires employers to keep their workplaces free of serious recognized hazards and is generally cited when no specific OSHA standard applies to the hazard.

In its first year of operation, OSHA was permitted to adopt regulations based on guidelines set by certain standards organizations, such as the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, without going through all of the requirements of a typical rule-making.
OSHA is granted the authority to promulgate standards that prescribe the methods employers are legally required to follow to protect their workers from hazards. Before OSHA can issue a standard, it must go through a very extensive and lengthy process that includes substantial public engagement, notice, and comment. The agency must show that a significant risk to workers exists and that there are feasible measures employers can take to protect their workers.

In 2000, OSHA issued an ergonomics standard. In March 2001, Congress voted to repeal the standard through the Congressional Review Act. The repeal, one of the first major pieces of legislation signed by President George W. Bush, is the first instance that Congress has successfully used the Congressional Review Act to block regulation.

Since 2001, OSHA has issued the following standards:
 2002: Exit Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans
 2004: Commercial Diving Operations
 2004: Fire Protection in Shipyards
 2006: Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium
 2006: Assigned Protection Factors for Respiratory Protection Equipment
 2007: Electrical Installation Standard
 2007: Personal Protective Equipment Payment (Clarification)
 2008: Vertical Tandem Lifts
 2010: Cranes and Derricks in Construction
 2010: General Working Conditions in Shipyards
 2012: GHS Update to the Hazard Communication Standard
 2014: New Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Employers
 2014: Revision to Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution; Electrical Protective Equipment
 2016: Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica
 2016: Update General Industry Walking-Working Surfaces and Fall Protection Standards

Enforcement

OSHA is responsible for enforcing its standards on regulated entities. Compliance Safety and Health Officers carry out inspections and assess fines for regulatory violations. Inspections are planned for worksites in particularly hazardous industries. Inspections can also be triggered by a workplace fatality, multiple hospitalizations, worker complaints, or referrals.

OSHA is a small agency, given the size of its mission: with its state partners, OSHA has approximately 2,400 inspectors covering more than 8 million workplaces where 130 million workers are employed. In Fiscal Year 2012 (ending Sept. 30), OSHA and its state partners conducted more than 83,000 inspections of workplaces across the United States — just a fraction of the nation's worksites. According to a report by AFL–CIO, it would take OSHA 129 years to inspect all workplaces under its jurisdiction.

Enforcement plays an important part in OSHA's efforts to reduce workplace injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Inspections are initiated without advance notice, conducted using on-site or telephone and facsimile investigations, performed by trained compliance officers and scheduled based on the following priorities [highest to lowest]: imminent danger; catastrophes – fatalities or hospitalizations; worker complaints and referrals; targeted inspections – particular hazards, high injury rates; and follow-up inspections.

Current workers or their representatives may file a complaint and ask OSHA to inspect their workplace if they believe that there is a serious hazard or that their employer is not following OSHA standards. Workers and their representatives have the right to ask for an inspection without OSHA telling their employer who filed the complaint. It is a violation of the OSH Act for an employer to fire, demote, transfer or in any way discriminate against a worker for filing a complaint or using other OSHA rights.

When an inspector finds violations of OSHA standards or serious hazards, OSHA may issue citations and fines. A citation includes methods an employer may use to fix a problem and the date by which the corrective actions must be completed.

OSHA's fines are very low compared with other government agencies. They were raised for the first time since 1990 on August 2, 2016, to comply with the 2015 Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act passed by Congress to advance the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The new law directs agencies to adjust their penalties for inflation each year. The maximum OSHA fine for a serious violation is $13,653 (which can be assessed daily after a failure to "abate" the violation) and the maximum fine for a repeat or willful violation is $136,532. In determining the amount of the proposed penalty, OSHA must take into account the gravity of the alleged violation and the employer's size of business, good faith, and history of previous violations. Employers have the right to contest any part of the citation, including whether a violation actually exists. Workers only have the right to challenge the deadline by which a problem must be resolved. Appeals of citations are heard by the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC).

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic caused about 1,300 workers and their families to contract the virus, with four deaths, at the Smithfield Foods packing plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The governor, Kristi Noem, resisted initiating and enforcing measures to protect workers and the community. The plant was fined $13,494 – the maximum allowed at the time – by OSHA for what was considered a single violation.

OSHA carries out its enforcement activities through its 10 regional offices and 90 area offices. OSHA's regional offices are located in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle.

Record keeping requirements
Tracking and investigating workplace injuries and illnesses play an important role in preventing future injuries and illnesses. Under OSHA's Recordkeeping regulation, certain covered employers in high-hazard industries are required to prepare and maintain records of serious occupational injuries and illnesses. This information is important for employers, workers, and OSHA in evaluating the safety of a workplace, understanding industry hazards, and implementing worker protections to reduce and eliminate hazards.

Employers with more than ten employees and whose establishments are not classified as a partially exempt industry must record serious work-related injuries and illnesses using OSHA Forms 300, 300A and 301. Recordkeeping forms, requirements, and exemption information are on OSHA's website.

Whistleblower Protection Program
OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP) enforces the whistleblower provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and 24 other statutes protecting workers who report violations of various airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, food safety, health care reform, nuclear, pipeline, public transportation agency, maritime and securities laws. Unlike OSHA's Safety Enforcement complaints (or referrals) being completely anonymous, OSHA's whistleblower investigations can not be anonymous as a Respondent is required to address all allegations of adverse actions taken against Complainant's employment. Additionally, these whistleblower investigations follow the McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting framework. WPP's Investigators conduct complex investigations pertaining to complaints of retaliation by an employer (Respondent) against an employee (Complainant) who reported a violation(s) covered under one of the 25 statutes. WPP Investigators act as neutral fact-finders; they do not work for either the Complainant or Respondent. A WPP Investigator's job is to impartially gather and analyze all relevant evidence to determine whether unlawful whistleblower retaliation has occurred. Over the years, OSHA's WPP has been responsible for enforcing these laws that protect the rights of workers to speak up without fear of retaliation, regardless of the relationship of these laws to occupational safety and health matters.

Compliance assistance

OSHA has developed several training, compliance assistance, and health and safety recognition programs throughout its history.

The OSHA Training Institute, which trains government and private sector health and safety personnel, began in 1972. In 1978, the agency began a grant-making program, now called the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, to train workers and employers in identifying and reducing workplace hazards.

The Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) recognizes employers and workers in private industry and federal agencies who have implemented effective safety and health management programs and maintain injury and illness rates below the national average for their respective industries. In VPP, management, labor, and OSHA work cooperatively and proactively to prevent fatalities, injuries, and illnesses through a system focused on: hazard prevention and control, worksite analysis, training, and management commitment and worker involvement.

OSHA's On-site Consultation Program offers free and confidential advice to small and medium-sized businesses in all states across the country, with priority given to high-hazard worksites. Each year, responding to requests from small employers looking to create or improve their safety and health management programs, OSHA's On-site Consultation Program conducts over 29,000 visits to small business worksites covering over 1.5 million workers across the nation. On-site consultation services are separate from enforcement and do not result in penalties or citations. Consultants from state agencies or universities work with employers to identify workplace hazards, provide advice on compliance with OSHA standards, and assist in establishing safety and health management programs.

Under the consultation program, certain exemplary employers may request participation in OSHA's Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP). Eligibility for participation includes, but is not limited to, receiving a full-service, comprehensive consultation visit, correcting all identified hazards, and developing an effective safety and health management program. Worksites that receive SHARP recognition are exempt from programmed inspections during the period that the SHARP certification is valid.

OSHA also provides compliance assistance through its national and area offices.  Through hundreds of publications in a variety of languages, website safety, and health topics pages, and through compliance assistance staff, OSHA provides information to employers and workers on specific hazards and OSHA rights and responsibilities.

Efficacy
A 2012 study in Science found that OSHA's random workplace safety inspections caused a "9.4% decline in injury rates" and a "26% reduction in injury cost" for the inspected firms. The study found "no evidence that these improvements came at the expense of employment, sales, credit ratings, or firm survival." A 2020 study in the American Economic Review found that the decision by the Obama administration to issue press releases that named and shamed facilities that violated OSHA safety and health regulations led other facilities to increase their compliance and to experience fewer workplace injuries. The study estimated that each press release had the same effect on compliance as 210 inspections.

Much of the debate about OSHA regulations and enforcement policies revolve around the cost of regulations and enforcement, versus the actual benefit in reduced worker injury, illness, and death. A 1995 study of several OSHA standards by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found that OSHA relies "generally on methods that provide a credible basis for the determinations essential to rulemaking." Though it found that OSHA's findings and estimates are "subject to vigorous review and challenge", it stated that this is natural because "interested parties and experts involved in rulemakings have differing visions."

OSHA has come under considerable criticism for the ineffectiveness of its penalties, particularly its criminal penalties. The maximum penalty is a misdemeanor with a maximum of 6 months in jail. In response to the criticism, OSHA, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, has pursued several high-profile criminal prosecutions for violations under the Act and has announced a joint enforcement initiative between OSHA and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which has the ability to issue much higher fines than OSHA.  Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats, labor unions, and community safety and health advocates are attempting to revise the OSH Act to make it a felony with much higher penalties to commit a willful violation that results in the death of a worker. Some local prosecutors are charging company executives with manslaughter and other felonies when criminal negligence leads to the death of a worker.

A New York Times investigation in 2003 showed that over the 20-year period from 1982 to 2002, 2,197 workers died in 1,242 incidents in which OSHA investigators concluded that employers had willfully violated workplace safety laws. In 93% of these fatality cases arising from wilful violation, OSHA made no referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. The Times investigation found that OSHA had failed to pursue prosecution "even when employers had been cited before for the very same safety violation" and even in cases where multiple workers died. In interviews, current and former OSHA officials said that the low rates of criminal enforcement were the result of "a bureaucracy that works at every level to thwart criminal referrals. ... that fails to reward, and sometimes penalizes, those who push too hard for prosecution" and that " aggressive enforcement [was] suffocated by endless layers of review.

OSHA has also been criticized for taking too long to develop new regulations. For instance, speaking about OSHA under the George W. Bush presidency on the specific issue of combustible dust explosions, Chemical Safety Board appointee Carolyn Merritt said: "The basic disappointment has been this attitude of no new regulation. They don't want the industry to be pestered. In some instances, the industry has to be pestered in order to comply."

Directors
The director of OSHA is the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 George Guenther (April 1971 – January 1973)
 M. Chain Robbins (Acting, January 1973 – April 1973)
 John Stender (April 1973 – July 1975)
 Bert Concklin & Marshall Miller (Acting, July 1975 – December 1975)
 Morton Corn, (December 1975 – January 1977)
 Bert Concklin (Acting, January 1977 - April 1977)
 Eula Bingham, (April 1977 – January 1981)
 David Zeigler (Acting, January 1981 – March 1981)
 Thorne G. Auchter, (March 1981 – April 1984)
 Patrick Tyson (Acting, April 1984 – July 1984)
 Robert A. Rowland (Recess appointment; never confirmed, July 1984 – July 1985)
 Patrick Tyson (Acting, July 1985 – May 1986)
 John A. Pendergrass (May 1986 – March 1989)
 Alan C. McMillan (Acting, April 1989 – October 1989)
 Gerard F. Scannell (October 1989 – January 1992)
 Dorothy L. Strunk (Acting, January 1992 – January 1993)
 David Zeigler (Acting, January 1993 – November 1993)
 Joseph A. Dear (November 1993 – January 1997)
 Gregory R. Watchman (Acting, January 1997 – November 1997)
 Charles N. Jeffress (November 1997 – January 2001)
 R. Davis Layne (Acting, January 2001 – August 2001)
 John L. Henshaw (August 2001 – December 2004)
 Jonathan L. Snare (Acting, January 2005 – April 3, 2006)
 Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. (April 3, 2006 – November 7, 2008)
 Thomas M. Stohler (Acting, November 7, 2008 – January 20, 2009)
 Donald Shalhoub (Acting, January 20, 2009 – April 2009)
 Jordan Barab (Acting, April 2009 – December 8, 2009)
 David Michaels (December 8, 2009 – January 10, 2017)
 Loren Sweatt (Acting, September 2017 – November 2017; February 2018 – May 2019)
 James Frederick (Acting, April 2021 – 3, November 2021)
 Douglas L. Parker (November 3, 2021 – present)

See also

 Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations
 American Society of Safety Engineers
 Construction site safety
 Ergonomics
 Voluntary Protection Programs Participants' Association
 Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
 MIOSHA
 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
 National Safety Council
 Occupational safety and health
 Occupational fatality
 Oregon OSHA
 Regulatory Flexibility Act
 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

References

 Department of Labor Budget in Brief, FY2013

External links

 OSHA - Current 29 CFR Books in Digital Format
 OSHA - List of Highly Hazardous Chemicals
 OSHA in the Federal Register
 OSHA account on USAspending.gov
 Occupational Safety and Health Act (PDF/details) as amended in the GPO Statute Compilations collection
 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

1970 establishments in the United States
Government agencies established in 1970
Safety codes
United States Department of Labor agencies
Occupational safety and health organizations
Industrial and organizational psychology


is a party video game developed by Hudson Soft and A.I and published by Nintendo for the Game Boy Advance. Released in 2005, it is the first handheld game in the Mario Party series, and differs from other titles in that the game is mostly single-player. Mario Party Advance was followed by Mario Party DS for the Nintendo DS in 2007, and was re-released on the Wii U Virtual Console in 2014.

Gameplay

The player can choose from four different Mario characters: Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, and Yoshi. The player drives a car around a party board, similar to those seen in the previous Mario Party games. Depending on the character chosen, the player will start at a different area on the board. The player starts with four Mushrooms. Additional Mushrooms are earned by winning minigames that are played every three turns. The game is over when there are no Mushrooms left. The multiplayer Party Mode that was present in all of the previous Mario Party games is no longer available, and it has been replaced by a new mode called "Shroom City". The aim of the game is to collect all the minigames and "Gaddgets" that were scattered around Shroom City by Bowser, by completing quests assigned to the player by the various inhabitants of Shroom City.

Gaddgets, invented by Professor E. Gadd, are interactive items such as a Morse code generator and a love meter. The game includes over 120 minigames, including Gaddgets. Approximately 12 of the minigames can be played in multiplayer mode, with the use of a Game Link Cable. Certain Gaddgets can also be played in multiplayer mode if players control different buttons on a single Game Boy Advance system. The game also included a paper game board for multiple players that could be played in conjunction with the game cartridge, used by players to roll the dice and to play minigames.

Reception

Mario Party Advance received "mixed" reviews according to the review aggregation website Metacritic.  In Japan, Famitsu gave it a score of three sevens and one six for a total of 27 out of 40.

While the game contains a large number of minigames and unlockables, reviewers criticized the game's tendency to punish players based on random chance, rebuked the game for lack of innovation in the minigames, and expressed concerns about the game's limited multiplayer modes. Craig Harris of IGN criticized the game's "incredibly basic and rudimentary graphic and sound presentation", as well as its "slowpaced" single-player mode, its large amount of dialogue, and wrote that most of its minigames "are actually on the bland side, featuring some rudimentary platform challenges or memory games that have been done a billion times before in other games. The 2D environment must have restricted the team's creativity in providing some challenges that are imaginative and fun." Frank Provo of GameSpot called the game's multiplayer modes "fairly limited and poorly organized", but said the single-player mode "is very nicely organized and offers a great deal of variety". Provo praised the "colorful" character sprites, but criticized the game's "bland" backgrounds and some of its minigames.

Kristan Reed of Eurogamer wrote that it was "practically the dictionary definition of awful", noting that "most - if not all - of its hundred odd mini games are among some of the most insultingly undemanding and badly-designed efforts you'll ever see associated with the beloved franchise". Reed said "a typical game within Mario Party Advance is often tedious, badly designed and completely lacking in any endearing qualities at all. [...] Animation is virtually non existent, the tedious chatty exchanges that take place between characters lacks any imagination at all and the whole project just smells like something thrown together to meet a contractual obligation". Karen Chu of 1UP.com wrote, "Though I'm open to new possibilities and reinterpretations of Mario Party, playing this game made me want to just jump on my Gamecube and play the original console versions -- even if I have to play against 3 CPU players because frankly, being the only player on a board game that's advertised as a party is just disheartening."

In 2015, IGN listed the game at the bottom of its list of "Best Mario Party Games", writing, "Mario Party Advance is the black sheep of the Mario Party series. This handheld version forwent the classic style of four players collecting stars and coins in favor of a single player focused mode. The heart of the Mario Party series lies in its multiplayer, so while this new approach brought a few interesting ideas, it never achieved what made all the other games so enticing."

In 2023, TheGamer listed the game just above Mario Party-e in its "Every Mario Party Game, Ranked" list, mentioning that "Mario Party Advance isn't a bad game. Most of the minigames are fun, but it's tailored to a single-player experience" and that "Though it is admirable that Nintendo put a lot of work into making a portable Party experience, the game falters in one critical area: it isn't much of a party".

Notes

References

External links

2005 video games
Game Boy Advance games
Game Boy Advance-only games
Advance
Multiplayer and single-player video games
Party video games
Video games developed in Japan
Virtual Console games for Wii U
Virtual Console games

Mario Party Advance


David Christopher Aranda (born September 29, 1976) is an American football coach. he is the head football coach at Baylor University, a position he has held since 2020. He previously served as the defensive coordinator at LSU, Wisconsin, Utah State, Hawaii, Delta State, and Cal Lutheran.

Early life
Born in Southern California to Mexican immigrant parents from Guadalajara, Aranda graduated from Redlands High School in Redlands, California in 1994, where he was a linebacker.

Coaching career

Early coaching career
After high school, Aranda retired from playing football due to injuries, so he became an assistant coach at Redlands High in 1995. He tried to join the U.S. Navy, but his football injuries—specifically the aftereffects of a shoulder fracture he had suffered in high school—caused him to fail the physical. While coaching at his old high school, he also worked night shifts as a security guard. During this time, Aranda visited a friend who was attending California Lutheran University, and soon enrolled there in an attempt to return to play. While his injuries made it impossible for him to play, he got an opportunity to become a student assistant while an undergraduate, serving as linebackers coach for the Kingsmen from 1996 to 1999. Aranda was also the roommate of Tom Herman. Aranda graduated from Cal Lutheran in 1999 with a bachelor's degree in philosophy. He also sought out coaches to talk about the profession, and became enamored with the book Thinking Body, Dancing Mind by sports psychologist Jerry Lynch, who has consulted with numerous championship teams in several sports and whose thinking has influenced coaches such as Phil Jackson and Steve Kerr.

In 2000, Aranda enrolled in graduate school at Texas Tech University and served as a graduate assistant for Texas Tech Red Raiders football from 2000 to 2002 under Mike Leach. While back in Southern California during an offseason break in 2001, Aranda cold-called Lynch and asked for a face-to-face meeting with him in Santa Cruz, about 300 miles from Redlands. In a 2022 ESPN story, Lynch, who normally works with teams instead of individuals, recalled, "There was something about Dave when he contacted me. I felt, through his words, a sense of being genuine, authentic and vulnerable. Those are the three keys that attract me to people. It's almost like, OK, I don't want to let this opportunity go by so I saw it as an opportunity for me to learn about this young man." Aranda spent three days with Lynch, and they have maintained their relationship ever since, with Aranda having written the foreword to Lynch's 13th book, Everyday Champion Wisdom.

From 2003 to 2004, Aranda was linebackers coach at Houston. He then returned to Cal Lutheran as defensive coordinator and linebackers coach, positions he held for the 2005 and 2006 seasons. In 2007, Aranda was defensive coordinator and secondary coach for Delta State.

Hawaii
Following stints at California Lutheran and Delta State University, in 2008 he was tapped by his coaching mentor, Greg McMackin, to serve as the defensive line coach for the University of Hawaii Warriors.  In Aranda's first season, he cultivated a talented unit that included David Veikune, Joshua Leonard and Keala Watson.  In 2009, Aranda was credited with developing a creative defensive scheme that stymied Navy's vaunted rushing attack and allowed the Warriors to earn a 24–17 victory over a Midshipmen squad that defeated Notre Dame two weeks earlier. The following year he was elevated to defensive coordinator.  He helped lead the Warriors to victory in nine of their last ten regular season games.  In those wins, Aranda's opportunistic defense limited the opposition to 16.1 points per game, only allowed 2.4 yards per rush  and held Colin Kaepernick in check en route to handing the Nevada Wolf Pack its only loss of the season. Under Aranda's guidance the Warriors led the nation in turnovers caused (38) and tied a school record for most defensive touchdowns (5).

Although the Warriors struggled to a 6–7 record in 2011, Aranda's defense was particularly impressive in a 34–17 drubbing of Colorado.  Leading up to the game, Colorado coach Jon Embree boasted that as to Hawaii's defense, the Buffaloes were going to "run the ball down their throat." Aranda, who later acknowledged that he took Embree's comment personally, met the challenge head on and limited the boastful Buffaloes to just 17 net rushing yards on the night.  For the year, Aranda's defense led the Western Athletic Conference and was tied for 15th in the FBS in sacks (35).  At the conclusion of the season, he found himself on the wrong-side of the ledger and was fired after head coach Greg McMackin resigned. Despite the circumstances, Aranda said later "I miss the family atmosphere there. I miss the people."

Utah State

In 2012, Aranda was the defensive coordinator for one year for the Utah State Aggies under Gary Andersen. That same year he was a nominee for the Broyles Award as the Aggies defense finished in the top 15 of all FBS schools in all four major defensive categories; seventh in scoring defense (15.4 points per game), 13th in rushing defense (113.8 yards per game), eighth in pass-efficiency defense (14 interceptions, 12 touchdowns, 54.1% completion rate, 5.7 yards per attempt) and 14th in total defense (322.1 ypg).

Wisconsin
When Gary Andersen was hired as the new Wisconsin Badgers head coach, following the 2012 football season, Aranda followed him to Wisconsin. Aranda turned down  offers from Texas Tech and California. Aranda changed the Badgers' base defense from a 4–3 to a 3–4 and developed a more aggressive defense, putting pressure on the quarterback. His first year as defensive coordinator the Badgers defense ranked in the top 20 in all four major defensive categories; scoring defense (6th), total defense (7th), rushing defense (5th) and passing defense (17th).

Week 10 of the 2014 football season Aranda was named Coordinator of the Week by Athlon Sports after his Wisconsin Badgers defense shutout Rutgers Scarlet Knights 37–0. It was Wisconsin's first road shutout since 1998. The Badgers took 1st place in the West Division with a 10–2 record, going 7–1 in the conference. Wisconsin played Ohio State for the conference title in the 2014 Big Ten Championship Game where the Badgers lost to Ohio State 59–0. It was the first time since 1997 that the Badgers were shutout and the worst loss since 1979 when Ohio State also defeated the Badgers 59–0.

Four days after the Badgers lost to Ohio State, Gary Andersen departed Wisconsin for Oregon State. Former Badgers offensive coordinator (2005–2011) and Pitt head coach (2012–2014), Paul Chryst, was hired as the next head coach of the Badgers. Aranda was the only assistant coach to remain on the coaching staff after Andersen's departure.

Two of Aranda's three years at Wisconsin one of his linebackers won the Big Ten Linebacker of the Year, Chris Borland in 2013 and Joe Schobert in 2015. Borland also won Big Ten Defensive Player of the Year in 2013. Aranda alongside his OLB coach Tim Tibesar were named Linebacker Coaches of the Year for 2015 by FootballScoop. Over Aranda's three-year span as defensive coordinator at Wisconsin his defense ranked first nationally in total defense, second in scoring defense, third in pass defense and fourth in run defense. His final season with the Badgers his defense came in first in scoring defense, allowing just 13.1 points per game.

LSU

On January 1, 2016, it was announced that Aranda was hired to replace Kevin Steele as defensive coordinator for the LSU Tigers. The move to LSU saw his starting salary more than double from $520,000 to $1.3 million. His contract was guaranteed for three years and was not tied to the contract of LSU head coach Ed Orgeron. On January 5, 2018, it was announced that Aranda received a new four-year contract that will pay him $2.5 million annually and the entire $10 million deal is guaranteed. Aranda was also given the title Associate head coach. This was in response to several attempts by Texas A&M to hire Aranda. In 2019 season, he won a championship with LSU.

Baylor
On January 16, 2020, Aranda was named the head coach at Baylor University, replacing Matt Rhule, who left to become the head coach of the Carolina Panthers.

2020–present

In the spring of 2020, Aranda was tasked with navigating the 2020 Baylor Bears football team through the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bears' spring practices as well as the Baylor football spring "Green and Gold game" were canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving first time head coach Aranda and his new team without practice prior to entering the 2020 football season. Aranda finished the 2020 season 2–7 overall, and 2–7 in Big 12 play. After the season concluded, Aranda and Baylor parted ways with the Bears' first year offensive coordinator, Larry Fedora, and then later hired Jeff Grimes from Brigham Young University for the same role.

In 2021, Aranda led the Bears to their best season in school history. The Bears were ranked in the top 25 for the majority of the 2021 football season and finished with a 12–2 record (7–2 in Big 12 play), the most wins in program history. In the 2021 Big 12 Championship Game, Aranda and the Bears beat Oklahoma State 21–16 on an iconic goal line stand to win Baylor's 3rd Big 12 football championship. The season ended with a historic Sugar Bowl win where they beat Ole Miss 21-7. Aranda won the AP Big 12 Coach of the Year (2021), the Paul "Bear" Bryant Awards program's Big 12 Coach of the Year, and was the first Baylor football coach to win the George Munger Award.  Aranda was also a finalist for many other national awards, including the 2021 Eddie Robinson Award, Bobby Dodd Coach of the Year Award, Associated Press College Football Coach of the Year Award, and Paul "Bear" Bryant Award for National Coach of the Year.

Statistics
Team defensive statistics where Aranda was defensive coordinator.

Head coaching record

Personal life
Aranda is a Christian. He is married to Dione Aranda. They have two daughters and one son.

References

External links

 Baylor profile

1976 births
Living people
American football linebackers
Baylor Bears football coaches
Cal Lutheran Kingsmen football coaches
Delta State Statesmen football coaches
Hawaii Rainbow Warriors football coaches
Houston Cougars football coaches
LSU Tigers football coaches
Southern Utah Thunderbirds football coaches
Texas Tech Red Raiders football coaches
Utah State Aggies football coaches
Wisconsin Badgers football coaches
High school football coaches in California
California Lutheran University alumni
Texas Tech University alumni
People from Redlands, California
Coaches of American football from California
Players of American football from San Bernardino County, California
American sportspeople of Mexican descent

Dave Aranda


Az Alaska's Flag Alaszka állam himnusza. Szövegét Marie Drake írta, 1935-ben jelent meg; a vershez Elinor Dusenbury komponált zenét. 1955-ben emelkedett az állami jelképek sorába. Szövege a következő:
Eight stars of gold on a field of blue -
Alaska's flag. May it mean to you
The blue of the sea, the evening sky,
The mountain lakes, and the flow'rs nearby;
The gold of the early sourdough dreams,
The precious gold of the hills and streams;
The brilliant stars in the northern sky,
The Bear – the Dipper – and,
shining high, the great North Star with its steady light,
Over land and sea a beacon bright.
Alaska's flag – to Alaskans dear,
The simple flag of a last frontier.

A Native lad chose the Dipper's stars
For Alaska's flag that there be no bars
Among our culture. Let it be known
Through years the Native's past has grown
To share life's treasures, hand in hand,
to keep Alaska our Great-Land;
We love the northern midnight sky,
the mountains, lakes and streams nearby.
The great North Star with its steady light
will guide all cultures, clear and bright,
with nature's flag to Alaskan's dear,
the simple flag of the last frontier.

További információk
 A himnusz kottája

Alaszka

Alaska’s Flag


(, ) is the highlight of the German  (carnival), and takes place on the Shrove Monday before Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. Mardi Gras, though celebrated on Fat Tuesday, is a similar event.  is celebrated in German-speaking countries, including Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Belgium (Eupen, Kelmis), but most heavily in the carnival strongholds which include the Rhineland, especially in Cologne, Bonn, Düsseldorf, Aachen and Mainz. In contrast to Germany, in Austria, the highlight of the carnival is not , but Shrove Tuesday.

The name for the carnival comes from the German dialect word  meaning "frolic" and  meaning Monday.

Overview
The  begins at 11 minutes past the eleventh hour on 11 November and the "street carnival" starts on the Thursday before , which is known as  ("women's carnival", Fat Thursday).  is prevalent in Roman Catholic areas and is a continuation of the old Roman traditions of slaves and servants being master for a day.  derives from the Latin  ("taking leave of meat") marking the beginning of Lent.

Carnival is not a national holiday in Germany, but schools are closed on  and the following Tuesday in the strongholds and many other areas. Many schools as well as companies tend to give teachers, pupils and employees the Thursday before  off as well and have celebrations in school or in the working place on , although every now and then there are efforts to cut these free holidays in some companies.

Celebrations usually include dressing up in fancy costumes, dancing, parades, heavy drinking and general public displays with floats. Every town in the  areas boasts at least one parade with floats making fun of the themes of the day. Usually sweets () are thrown into the crowds lining the streets among cries of  or , whereby the cry  is only applied in the Cologne Carnival and Oche Alaaf is only applied in Aachen Carnival–  stems from or , Ripuarian for "all [others] away". Sweets and tulips are thrown into the crowd.

The celebrations become quieter the next day, known as  ("Violet Tuesday", Shrove Tuesday), and end with Ash Wednesday.

See also

Clean Monday
Nickanan Night

References

External links

Monday
February observances
March observances
Carnivals in Germany

Rosenmontag


"The Dramaturg" is the eighteenth episode of the American television series Smash. It was written by Bryan Goluboff and directed by Larry Shaw. The episode premiered on NBC on February 19, 2013, the third episode of Season 2. Eileen introduces Tom and Julia to a new writing partner in order to fix Bombshell's script; Karen confers with Derek about Jimmy and Kyle's musical that they are working on; Derek tries to get reinstated as the director for The Wiz revival with Veronica Moore.

Plot
Eileen Rand (Anjelica Huston) sets up Bombshell songwriters Julia Houston (Debra Messing) and Tom Levitt (Christian Borle) with a new writing partner, Peter (Daniel Sunjata), who is known as a dramaturg or a "script doctor", in order to fix the script of Bombshell. Julia is very resistant to the idea and has a difficult time warming up to him and his ideas about how to fix the musical. He suggests that there was a lot about Joe DiMaggio in the script because she was in love with the actor who played him. He also suggests there isn't enough steam in the show, giving Julia the idea to write a scene about JFK.

The beginning of the episode shows Karen Cartwright (Katharine McPhee) singing a song called "Good for You" at a concert and body-surfing through the audience. It turns out that she's just imagining it as she has Derek Wills (Jack Davenport) listen to the song she recorded as a demo to help the two younger songwriters who wrote it, Jimmy Collins (Jeremy Jordan) and Kyle Bishop (Andy Mientus).

Ivy Lynn (Megan Hilty) auditions for a part in the ensemble of a new musical Liaisons. She talks the producer into letting her also audition for Cecile, the lead female. She starts doubting herself while preparing for the audition and goes to talk to Derek about it, interrupting a Bombshell work session with Karen and the ensemble for "They Just Keep Moving the Line". As she ponders things, she fantasizes herself singing "Dancing On My Own" while Karen and the ensemble work out an arrangement to the Bombshell song. She tells Derek he's having trouble with the choreography because he's doubting himself. She also confers with Tom about her anxiety and he manages to make her feel better. She later tells Tom that she got the part of Cecile.

Derek is trying to get back his job as director for the upcoming The Wiz revival with Veronica Moore (Jennifer Hudson). He invites Veronica and a Wiz producer to watch a new number for Bombshell that they're staging, about the first time that JFK and Marilyn met, which Julia wrote after her conversations with Peter. We see a fantasy version of an actor named Simon (Julian Ovenden) and Karen as JFK and Marilyn meeting for the first time at a party. He sings "Our Little Secret" to her as a seduction while she acts demur and then they sleep together. Later, Julia feels really good about the scene, but Peter tells her that the problem with it is that she wrote it as JFK is the seducer and the Marilyn is being seduced, and that it should be the other way around.

Jimmy and Kyle are trying to put their Hit List musical into a coherent order so that they can show it to Derek. A notebook with some important information is missing from their pile, so Jimmy goes back to where he left it, an apparently not-nice place where he used to live. He runs into the homeowner, a man who appears to have a rocky relationship with Jimmy. When we see Jimmy later, he appears to have been in a fight, but he did retrieve the notebook. They meet with Derek and Karen and pitch their story of Hit List. Kyle says Act Two needs some work, but Derek says it sounds good overall and he's willing to help them.

Derek runs into Veronica, who tells him she dropped out of The Wiz revival. She wants to do a one night only concert to show that she's more than a goody two shoes and wants to make an impact on the world. She asks him to help her with it and he agrees.

Production
Jennifer Hudson guest stars as Veronica Moore, in her second of a three episode arc.

Five songs are featured in this episode, three originals (one a reprise) and two covers (Robyn's "Dancing On My Own" and "Soon As I Get Home" from The Wiz musical, which is sung by Veronica rehearsing for The Wiz musical). For the three originals, the show's in-house songwriters Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman wrote "Our Little Secret" and the reprised "They Just Keep Moving the Line", while Drew Gasparini wrote "Good For You".

"Dancing On My Own" and "Good For You" were released as singles for sale from iTunes and Amazon.com's MP3 store, while "Our Little Secret" and "They Just Keep Moving the Line" are available on the cast album Bombshell.

Critical reception
The A.V. Club gave the episode a C− rating.

Reception
In its original broadcast, the episode was watched by 3.29 million American viewers and attaining a 0.9/2 share in the key adults 18-49 demographic.

References

External links
 "The Dramaturg" at the Internet Movie Database

2013 American television episodes
Smash (TV series) episodes

The Dramaturg


The Boulton & Paul Bugle was a heavy bomber designed and produced by the British manufacturing group Boulton & Paul.

There were two variants; the Bugle I with 400 hp (298 kW) Bristol Jupiter II radial engines (five built) and the Napier Lion W-block Bugle II (two built)

Development
Work on what would become the Bugle effectively commenced at Boulton & Paul following the Air Ministry's release of Specification 30/22, which sought a new twin-engined heavy bomber to equip the Royal Air Force (RAF). However, this effort was not a clean-sheet design, as it drew extensively on the company's existing experiences with aircraft such as the Boulton Paul Bolton and Boulton & Paul Bourges. The new design actually shared its basic configuration with the preceding Bourges, which had been developed during the final months of the First World War with positive results, but had been terminated prior to procurement as a part of the rapidly implemented military cutbacks made after the conflict's end.

The Air Ministry was suitably interested in the proposal that a pair of prototypes, J6984 and J6985, were ordered for evaluation purposes. In response to an Air Ministry directive which forbid the placement of fuel tanks within the fuselage, fuel was instead accommodated within semi-circular tanks hung beneath the upper wing's inner bay area. The engines, which were initially a pair of Bristol Jupiter II air-cooled radial engines, each capable of producing up to 400 hp (298 kW), were housed within streamlined nacelles that had a patented hinged mounting, which was designed so that the engines could be swung out of situ while on the ground for ease of maintenance.

The structural elements of the Bugle were primarily composed of steel, with some portions being corrugated for additional strength, while the exterior had a fabric covering. The interplane strut design, which was a patented feature at that time, used a combination of steel inner struts and duralumin outer ones, while the removable fairings were made of wood. This use of light alloys in some of the secondary structural members represented a loosening of formerly negative attitudes on the part of the Air Ministry towards the use of such materials.

The fuselage was rectangular in shape, its frame formed from four longerons and built in two sections. Struts and bracing wires alike attached to an angle plane, which was attached to the fuselage via bearings. The dorsal fuselage featured a single gun turret, to the rear of which the fuselage tapered inwards in a triangular fashion as to maximise the gunner's downwards field of fire. The position of the gunners were deliberately lower than that of the pilot's cockpit, giving the latter a favourable level of visibility. The aircraft's nose gunner also acted as the bomb-aimer, and was provided with separate rudder controls to the pilot to make minor adjustments during bombing runs; all of the bombs were stored externally on four bomb rails, two attached to the lower longerons and two fitted underneath the lower wings.

The undercarriage and tailskid both were furnished with oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers, while main wheels akin to that of the Bourges were fitted. Additional dampening was provided via a pair of tubes fitted with coil springs attached to the main landing gear. During the type's taxiing trials, the aircraft proved to be more stable than its immediate preceding designs. The rudder was equipped with a locking device as to better handle asymmetric flight conditions, such as single-engine operations. Unlike the company's earlier designs, the aircraft's four ailerons were actuated via struts rather than cables.

On 30 June 1923, the first prototype performed the type's maiden flight, piloted by Frank Courtney. The second prototype conducted its own maiden flight later that same year. During 1924, a third aircraft equipped with more powerful Bristol Jupiter IV engines, appeared; other changes on this aircraft included a four-seat configuration, a slightly reduced wingspan, and increased fuel capacity. In 1925, service trials commenced with the third aircraft, facing off against the competing Vickers Virginia, during which the former exhibited its considerably greater manoeuvrability and higher top speed in comparison to the latter.

It was during 1925 that the first of the improved Bugle IIs appeared, which was powered by a pair of Napier Lion engines, each capable of 450 hp, in place of the Jupiter engines. It also featured numerous refinements to the design, including a greater degree of streamlining and a slightly elevated all-up weight. Despite the type having demonstrated exceptional maneuverability and good performance in general, aviation historian Alec Brew observed that constrained budgets had prevented a production order from being placed for the Bugle. Instead, the Air Ministry pursued a policy of continuing to order increasingly advanced prototypes across a range of manufacturers as to foster innovation and advancement in industry, as well as readiness to put such designs into quantity production should a military need arise.

Variants

Bugle I
Initial model, powered by a pair of 400 hp (298 kW) Bristol Jupiter II radial engines. Five built.
Bugle II
Improved model, powered by a pair of 450 hp Napier Lion W-block engines. Two built.

Specifications (Bugle II)

References

Citations

Bibliography
 "The Boulton and Paul Bugle". Flight. 23 April 1925. pp. 235–238.
 Brew, Alec. Boulton Paul Aircraft since 1915. London: Putnam Aeronautical Books, 1993. .
 Mason, Francis K. The British Bomber since 1912. London:Putnam, 1994. .

External links

 picture at historicaircraft.org

Boulton Paul aircraft
1920s British bomber aircraft
Biplanes
Aircraft first flown in 1923
Twin piston-engined tractor aircraft

Boulton Paul Bugle


Elisha Cooke (September 16, 1637 – October 31, 1715) was a wealthy Massachusetts physician, politician, and businessman who was elected Speaker of the Massachusetts Bay Assembly in 1683. He was the leader of the "popular party", a faction in the Massachusetts House that resisted encroachment by royal officials on colonial rights embodied in the Massachusetts Charter. This role was taken up by his son, Elisha Cooke Jr.

Life

Cooke was born in Boston, the son of Richard and Elizabeth Cook, from Gloucestershire, England. He graduated from Harvard College in 1657 at age 20, in a class of seven students. Cooke was trained and practiced as a physician, but he also became a politician. He was made freeman in 1673. He was elected to the colonial assembly representing Boston in 1681, serving until 1683. Cooke was elected to the commission of counsellors in May 1693; however, Governor Sir William Phips refused to ratify the choice, to exact revenge on Cooke's having opposed his appointment as chief magistrate. In 1695 Cooke was appointed Judge of the Superior Court, taking the place of John Richards, who had died, and in 1701 he became Judge of Probate.

Cooke was a confidential adviser of Lord Bellomont, who became Governor of Massachusetts in 1699. He lost his judicial appointments in 1702 when Joseph Dudley became governor; Dudley took revenge on Cooke for being a member of the council which had committed him to prison in 1689.  This had occurred after the 1689 Boston revolt, which deposed Sir Edmund Andros, governor of the Dominion of New England, and other officials (including Dudley).  Cooke served on the rebel council that took power after the dominion's overthrow.

Cooke married Elizabeth Leverett, the daughter of Governor John Leverett in June 1668. They had one son, Elisha Jr., who was born on December 20, 1678. Elizabeth died on July 21, 1715, and Cooke died shortly thereafter on October 31, 1715.

References

1637 births
1715 deaths
Harvard College alumni
Members of the colonial Massachusetts House of Representatives
Members of the colonial Massachusetts Governor's Council
Justices of the Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature
People from colonial Boston
18th-century American physicians
17th-century English medical doctors
Speakers of the Massachusetts House of Representatives (colonial period)

Elisha Cooke


Powder metallurgy (PM) is a term covering a wide range of ways in which materials or components are made from metal powders. PM processes can reduce or eliminate the need for subtractive processes in manufacturing, lowering material losses and reducing the cost of the final product.

Powder metallurgy is also used to make unique materials impossible to get from melting or forming in other ways. A very important product of this type is tungsten carbide. Tungsten carbide is used to cut and form other metals and is made from tungsten carbide particles bonded with cobalt. It is very widely used in industry for tools of many types and globally ~50,000 tonnes per year is made with powder metallurgy. Other products include sintered filters, porous oil-impregnated bearings, electrical contacts and diamond tools.

Since the advent of industrial production-scale metal powder-based additive manufacturing in the 2010s, selective laser sintering and other metal additive manufacturing processes are a new category of commercially important powder metallurgy applications.

Overview
The powder metallurgy "press and sinter" process generally consists of three basic steps: powder blending (or pulverisation), die compaction, and sintering. Compaction of the powder in the die is generally performed at room temperature. Sintering is the process of binding a material together with heat without liquefying it. It is usually conducted at atmospheric pressure, and under carefully controlled atmosphere composition. To obtain special properties or enhanced precision, secondary processing like coining or heat treatment often follows.

One of the older such methods is the process of blending fine (<180 microns) metal powders with additives, pressing them into a die of the desired shape, and then sintering the compressed material together, under a controlled atmosphere. The metal powder is usually iron, and additives include a lubricant wax, carbon, copper, and/or nickel. This produces precise parts, normally very close to the die dimensions, but with 5–15% porosity, and thus sub-wrought steel properties. This method is still used to make around 1 Mt/y of structural components of iron-based alloys.

There are several other PM processes which have been developed over the last fifty years. These include:
 Powder forging: A "preform" made by the conventional "press and sinter" method is heated and then hot forged to full density, resulting in practically as-wrought properties.
 Hot isostatic pressing (HIP): Here the powder, normally gas atomized and spherical, is filled into a mould, usually a metallic "can". The can is vibrated, then evacuated and sealed. To sinter the powder, it is placed in a hot "isostatic press" for several hours, where it is heated to around 0.7 times the melting point, and subjected to an external gas pressure of ~100 MPa. This results in a shaped part of full density with as-wrought or better properties. HIP was invented in the 1950-60s and entered tonnage production in the 1970-80s. In 2015, it was used to produce ~25,000 t/y of stainless and tool steels, as well as important parts of superalloys for jet engines.
 Metal injection moulding (MIM):  Here the powder, normally very fine (<25 microns) and spherical, is mixed with plastic or wax binder to near the maximum solid loading, typically around 65% volume, and injection moulded into a mould to form a "green" (with binder) part of complex geometry. This part is then heated or otherwise treated to remove the binder to give a "brown" (without binder) part. This part is then sintered, and shrinks by ~18% to give a complex and 95–99% dense finished part (surface roughness ~3 microns). Invented in the 1970s, production has increased since 2000 with an estimated global volume in 2014 of 12,000 t worth €1265 million.
 Electric current assisted sintering (ECAS) technologies use electric currents to sinter powders. This reduces production time dramatically (it can take from 15 minutes to a few microseconds), does not require a long furnace heat, and allows near-theoretical densities, but it also has the drawback of simple shapes. Powders used in ECAS do not require binders because they can be directly sintered, without needing to be pre-pressed and compacted with binders. Moulds are designed for the final part shape since the powders sinter while filling the cavity under an applied pressure. This avoids the problem of shape variations caused by non-isotropic sintering, as well as distortions caused by gravity at high temperatures. The most common of these technologies is hot pressing, which has been used to make diamond tools for the construction industry. Spark plasma sintering and electro sinter forging are two modern, industrial, and commercial ECAS technologies.
 Additive manufacturing (AM) is a relatively novel family of techniques which use metal powders (among other materials, such as plastics) to make parts by laser sintering or melting. This is a process under rapid development , and whether to classify it as a PM process is perhaps uncertain at this stage. Processes include 3D printing, selective laser sintering (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), and electron beam melting (EBM).

History and capabilities
The history of powder metallurgy and the art of metal and ceramic sintering are intimately related to each other. Sintering involves the production of a hard solid metal or ceramic piece from a starting powder. The ancient Incas made jewelry and other artifacts from precious metal powders, though mass manufacturing of PM products did not begin until the mid or late 19th century. In these early manufacturing operations, iron was extracted by hand from metal sponge following reduction and was then reintroduced as a powder for final melting or sintering.

A much wider range of products can be obtained from powder processes than from direct alloying of fused materials. In melting operations the "phase rule" applies to all pure and combined elements and strictly dictates the distribution of liquid and solid phases which can exist for specific compositions. In addition, whole body melting of starting materials is required for alloying, thus imposing unwelcome chemical, thermal, and containment constraints on manufacturing. Unfortunately, the handling of aluminium/iron powders poses major problems. Other substances that are especially reactive with atmospheric oxygen, such as titanium, are sinterable in special atmospheres or with temporary coatings.

In powder metallurgy or ceramics it is possible to fabricate components which otherwise would decompose or disintegrate. All considerations of solid-liquid phase changes can be ignored, so powder processes are more flexible than casting, extrusion, or forging techniques. Controllable characteristics of products prepared using various powder technologies include mechanical, magnetic, and other unconventional properties of such materials as porous solids, aggregates, and intermetallic compounds. Competitive characteristics of manufacturing processing (e.g. tool wear, complexity, or vendor options) also may be closely controlled.

Powder production techniques
Any fusible material can be atomized. Several techniques have been developed which permit large production rates of powdered particles, often with considerable control over the size ranges of the final grain population. Powders may be prepared by crushing, grinding, chemical reactions, or electrolytic deposition. The most commonly used powders are copper-base and iron-base materials.

Powders of the elements titanium, vanadium, thorium, niobium, tantalum, calcium, and uranium have been produced by high-temperature reduction of the corresponding nitrides and carbides. Iron, nickel, uranium, and beryllium submicrometre powders are obtained by reducing metallic oxalates and formates. Exceedingly fine particles also have been prepared by directing a stream of molten metal through a high-temperature plasma jet or flame,  atomizing the material. Various chemical and flame associated powdering processes are adopted in part to prevent serious degradation of particle surfaces by atmospheric oxygen.

In tonnage terms, the production of iron powders for PM structural part production dwarfs the production of all of the non-ferrous metal powders combined. Virtually all iron powders are produced by one of two processes: the sponge iron process or water atomization.

Sponge iron process
The longest established of these processes is the sponge iron process, the leading example of a family of processes involving solid state reduction of an oxide. In the process, selected magnetite (Fe3O4) ore is mixed with coke and lime and placed in a silicon carbide retort. The filled retort is then heated in a kiln, where the reduction process leaves an iron "cake" and a slag. In subsequent steps, the retort is emptied, the reduced iron sponge is separated from the slag and is crushed and annealed.

The resultant powder is highly irregular in particle shape, therefore ensuring good "green strength" so that die-pressed compacts can be readily handled prior to sintering, and each particle contains internal pores (hence the term "sponge") so that the good green strength is available at low compacted density levels.

Sponge iron provides the
feedstock for all iron-based self-lubricating bearings, and still accounts for around 30% of iron powder usage in PM structural parts.

Atomization
Atomization is accomplished by forcing a molten metal stream through an orifice at moderate pressures. A gas is introduced into the metal stream just before it leaves the nozzle, serving to create turbulence as the entrained gas expands (due to heating) and exits into a large collection volume exterior to the orifice. The collection volume is filled with gas to promote further turbulence of the molten metal jet. Air and powder streams are segregated using gravity or cyclonic separation. Most atomized powders are annealed, which helps reduce the oxide and carbon content. The water atomized particles are smaller, cleaner, and nonporous and have a greater breadth of size, which allows better compacting. The particles produced through this method are normally of spherical or pear shape. Usually, they also carry a layer of oxide over them.

There are three types of atomization:
 Liquid atomization
 Gas atomization
 Centrifugal atomization

Simple atomization techniques are available in which liquid metal is forced through an orifice at a sufficiently high velocity to ensure turbulent flow. The usual performance index used is the Reynolds number:

where  is the fluid density,  is the velocity of the exit stream,  is the diameter of the opening, and  is the absolute viscosity. At low Re the liquid jet oscillates, but at higher velocities the stream becomes turbulent and breaks into droplets. Pumping energy is applied to droplet formation with very low efficiency (on the order of ) and control over the size distribution of the metal particles produced is rather poor. Other techniques such as nozzle vibration, nozzle asymmetry, multiple impinging streams, or molten-metal injection into ambient gas are all available to increase atomization efficiency, produce finer grains, and to narrow the particle size distribution. Unfortunately, it is difficult to eject metals through orifices smaller than a few millimeters in diameter, which in practice limits the minimum size of powder grains to approximately . Atomization also produces a wide spectrum of particle sizes, necessitating downstream classification by screening and remelting a significant fraction of the grain boundary.

Centrifugal disintegration
Centrifugal disintegration of molten particles offers one way around these problems. Extensive experience is available with iron, steel, and aluminium. Metal to be powdered is formed into a rod which is introduced into a chamber through a rapidly rotating spindle. Opposite the spindle tip is an electrode from which an arc is established which heats the metal rod. As the tip material fuses, the rapid rod rotation throws off tiny melt droplets which solidify before hitting the chamber walls. A circulating gas sweeps particles from the chamber.  Similar techniques could be employed in space or on the Moon. The chamber wall could be rotated to force new powders into remote collection vessels, and the electrode could be replaced by a solar mirror focused at the end of the rod.

An alternative approach capable of producing a very narrow distribution of grain sizes but with low throughput consists of a rapidly spinning bowl heated to well above the melting point of the material to be powdered. Liquid metal, introduced onto the surface of the basin near the center at flow rates adjusted to permit a thin metal film to skim evenly up the walls and over the edge, breaks into droplets, each approximately the thickness of the film.

Other techniques
Another powder-production technique involves a thin jet of liquid metal intersected by high-speed streams of atomized water which break the jet into drops and cool the powder before it reaches the bottom of the bin. In subsequent operations the powder is dried. This is called water atomization.  The advantage of water atomization is that metal solidifies faster than by gas atomization since the heat capacity of water is some magnitudes higher than gases. Since the solidification rate is inversely proportional to the particle size, smaller particles can be made using water atomization. The smaller the particles, the more homogeneous the micro structure will be. Notice that particles will have a more irregular shape and the particle size distribution will be wider. In addition, some surface contamination can occur by oxidation skin formation. Powder can be reduced by some kind of pre-consolidation treatment, such as annealing used for the manufacture of ceramic tools.

Powder compaction

Powder compaction is the process of compacting metal powder in a die through the application of high pressures. Typically the tools are held in the vertical orientation with the punch tool forming the bottom of the cavity. The powder is then compacted into a shape and then ejected from the die cavity. In a number of these applications the parts may require very little additional work for their intended use; making for very cost efficient manufacturing.

The density of the compacted powder increases with the amount of pressure applied. Typical pressures range from 80 psi to 1000 psi (0.5 MPa to 7 MPa), pressures from 1000 psi to 1,000,000 psi have been obtained. Pressure of 10 t/in² to 50 t/in² (150 MPa to 700 MPa) are commonly used for metal powder compaction. To attain the same compression ratio across a component with more than one level or height, it is necessary to work with multiple lower punches. A cylindrical workpiece is made by single-level tooling. A more complex shape can be made by the common multiple-level tooling.

Production rates of 15 to 30 parts per minute are common.

There are four major classes of tool styles: single-action compaction, used for thin, flat components; opposed double-action with two punch motions, which accommodates thicker components; double-action with floating die; and double action withdrawal die. Double action classes give much better density distribution than single action. Tooling must be designed so that it will withstand the extreme pressure without deforming or bending. Tools must be made from materials that are polished and wear-resistant.

Better workpiece materials can be obtained by repressing and re-sintering.

Die pressing

The dominant technology for the forming of products from powder materials, in terms of both tonnage quantities and numbers of parts produced, is die pressing. There are mechanical, servo-electrical and hydraulic presses available in the market, whereby the biggest powder throughput is processed by hydraulic presses.
This forming technology involves a production cycle comprising:

 Filling a die cavity with a known volume of the powder feedstock, delivered from a fill shoe.
 Compaction of the powder within the die with punches to form the compact. Generally, compaction pressure is applied through punches from both ends of the toolset in order to reduce the level of density gradient within the compact.
 Ejection of the compact from the die, using the lower punch(es) withdrawal from the die.
 Removal of the compact from the upper face of the die using the fill shoe in the fill stage of the next cycle, or an automation system or robot.

This cycle offers a readily automated and high production rate process.

Design considerations
Probably the most basic consideration is being able to remove the part from the die after it is pressed, along with avoiding sharp corners in the design. Keeping the maximum surface area below  and the height-to-diameter ratio below 7-to-1 is recommended. Along with having walls thicker than  and keeping the adjacent wall thickness ratios below 2.5-to-1.

One of the major advantages of this process is its ability to produce complex geometries. Parts with undercuts and threads require a secondary machining operation. Typical part sizes range from  to . in area and from  in length. However, it is possible to produce parts that are less than  and larger than . in area and from a fraction of an inch (2.54 cm) to approximately  in length.

Isostatic pressing
In some pressing operations, such as hot isostatic pressing (HIP) compact formation and sintering occur simultaneously. This procedure, together with explosion-driven compressive techniques is used extensively in the production of high-temperature and high-strength parts such as turbine disks for jet engines. In most applications of powder metallurgy the compact is hot-pressed, heated to a temperature above which the materials cannot remain work-hardened. Hot pressing lowers the pressures required to reduce porosity and speeds welding and grain deformation processes. It also permits better dimensional control of the product, lessens sensitivity to physical characteristics of starting materials, and allows powder to be compressed to higher densities than with cold pressing, resulting in higher strength. Negative aspects of hot pressing include shorter die life, slower throughput because of powder heating, and the frequent necessity for protective atmospheres during forming and cooling stages.

Isostatic powder compacting
Isostatic powder compacting is a mass-conserving shaping process. Fine metal particles are placed into a flexible mould and then high fluid pressure is applied to the mold, in contrast to the direct pressure applied by the die faces of a die pressing process.  The resulting article is then sintered in a furnace which increases the strength of the part by bonding the metal particles. This manufacturing process produces very little scrap metal and can be used to make many different shapes. The tolerances that this process can achieve are very precise, ranging from +/- 0.008 inches (0.2 mm) for axial dimensions and +/- 0.020 inches (0.5 mm) for radial dimensions.  This is the most efficient type of powder compacting (the following subcategories are also from this reference).  This operation is generally only applicable on small production quantities, although the cost of a mold much lower than that of pressing dies it is generally not reusable and the production time is much longer.

Compacting pressures range from  to  for most metals and approximately  to  for non-metals.  The density of isostatic compacted parts is 5% to 10% higher than with other powder metallurgy processes.

Equipment
There are many types of equipment used in isostatic powder compacting.  There is the mold containing the part, which is flexible, a flexible outer pressure mold that contains and seals the mold, and the machine delivering the pressure.  There are also devices to control the amount of pressure and how long the pressure is held. The machines need to apply pressures from  for metals.

Geometrical possibilities
Typical workpiece sizes range from  to  thick and  to  long. It is possible to compact workpieces that are between  and  thick and  to  long.

Tool style
Isostatic tools are available in three styles, free mold (wet-bag), coarse mold (damp-bag) and fixed mold (dry-bag).  The free mold style is the traditional style of isostatic compaction and is not generally used for high production work. In free mold tooling the mold is removed and filled outside the canister. Damp bag is where the mold is located in the canister, yet filled outside. In fixed mold tooling, the mold is contained within the canister, which facilitates automation of the process.

Hot isostatic pressing

Hot isostatic pressing (HIP) compresses and sinters the part simultaneously by applying heat ranging from 900 °F (480 °C) to 2250 °F (1230 °C). Argon gas is the most common gas used in HIP because it is an inert gas, thus prevents chemical reactions during the operation.

Cold isostatic pressing
Cold isostatic pressing (CIP) uses fluid as a means of applying pressure to the mold at room temperature. After removal the part still needs to be sintered.
It is helpful in distributing pressure uniformly over the compaction material contained in a rubber bag.

Design considerations
Advantages over standard powder compaction are the possibility of thinner walls and larger workpieces. Height to diameter ratio has no limitation. No specific limitations exist in wall thickness variations, undercuts, reliefs, threads, and cross holes. No lubricants are need for isostatic powder compaction. The minimum wall thickness is 0.05 inches (1.27 mm) and the product can have a weight between 40 and 300 pounds (18 and 136 kg). There is 25 to 45% shrinkage of the powder after compacting.

Sintering

After compaction, powdered materials are heated in a controlled atmosphere in a process known as sintering. During this process, the surfaces of the particles are bonded and desirable properties are achieved.

Sintering of powder metals is a process in which particles under pressure chemically bond to themselves in order to form a coherent shape when exposed to a high temperature. The temperature in which the particles are sintered is most commonly below the melting point of the main component in the powder. If the temperature is above the melting point of a component in the powder metal part, the liquid of the melted particles fills the pores. This type of sintering is known as liquid-state sintering. A major challenge with sintering in general is knowing the effect of the process on the dimensions of the compact particles. This is especially difficult for tooling purposes in which specific dimensions may be needed. It is most common for the sintered part to shrink and become denser, but it can also expand or experience no net change.

The main driving force for solid state sintering is an excess of surface free energy. The process of solid-state sintering is complex and dependent on the material and furnace (temperature and gas) conditions. There are six main stages that sintering processes can be grouped in which may overlap with one another: 1 initial bonding among particles, 2) neck growth, 3) pore channel closure, 4) pore rounding, 5) densification or pore shrinkage, and 6) pore coarsening. The main mechanisms present in these stages are evaporation, condensation, grain boundaries, volume diffusion, and plastic deformation.

Most sintering furnaces contain three zones with three different properties that help to carry out the six steps above. The first zone, commonly coined the burn-off or purge stage, is designed to combust air, burn any contaminants such as lubricant or binders, and slowly raise the temperature of the compact materials. If the temperature of the compact parts is raised too quickly, the air in the pores will be at a very high internal pressure which could lead to expansion or fracture of the part. The second zone, known as the high-temperature stage, is used to produce solid-state diffusion and particle bonding. The material is seeking to lower its surface energy and does so by moving toward the points of contact between particles. The contact points become larger and eventually a solid mass with small pores is created. The third zone, also called the cooling period, is used to cool down the parts while still in a controlled atmosphere. This is an important zone as it prevents oxidation from immediate contact with the air or a phenomenon known as rapid cooling. All of the three stages must be carried out in a controlled atmosphere containing no oxygen. Hydrogen, nitrogen, dissociated ammonia, and cracked hydrocarbons are common gases pumped into the furnace zones providing a reducing atmosphere, preventing oxide formation.

During this process, a number of characteristics are increased including the strength, ductility, toughness, and electrical and thermal conductivity of the material. If different elemental powders are compact and sintered, the material would form into alloys and intermetallic phases.

As the pore sizes decrease, the density of the material will increase. As stated above, this shrinkage is a huge problem in making parts or tooling in which particular dimensions are required. The shrinkage of test materials is monitored and used to manipulate the furnace conditions or to oversize the compact materials in order to achieve the desired dimensions. Although, sintering does not deplete the compact part of porosity. In general, powder metal parts contain five to twenty-five percent porosity after sintering.

To allow efficient stacking of product in the furnace during sintering and prevent parts sticking together, many manufacturers separate ware using ceramic powder separator sheets. These sheets are available in various materials such as alumina, zirconia, and magnesia. They are also available in fine, medium, and coarse particle sizes. By matching the material and particle size to the wares being sintered, surface damage and contamination can be reduced, while maximizing furnace loading per batch.

One recently developed technique for high-speed sintering involves passing high electric current through a powder to preferentially heat the asperities. Most of the energy serves to melt that portion of the compact where migration is desirable for densification; comparatively little energy is absorbed by the bulk materials and forming machinery. Naturally, this technique is not applicable to electrically insulating powders.

Continuous powder processing
The phrase "continuous process" should be used only to describe modes of manufacturing which could be extended indefinitely in time. Normally, however, the term refers to processes whose products are much longer in one physical dimension than in the other two. Compression, rolling, and extrusion are the most common examples.

In a simple compression process, powder flows from a bin onto a two-walled channel and is repeatedly compressed vertically by a horizontally stationary punch. After stripping the compress from the conveyor, the compacted mass is introduced into a sintering furnace. An even easier approach is to spray powder onto a moving belt and sinter it without compression. However, good methods for stripping cold-pressed materials from moving belts are hard to find. One alternative that avoids the belt-stripping difficulty altogether is the manufacture of metal sheets using opposed hydraulic rams, although weakness lines across the sheet may arise during successive press operations.

Powders can also be rolled to produce sheets.  The powdered metal is fed into a two-high rolling mill, and is compacted into strip form at up to .  The strip is then sintered and subjected to another rolling and further sintering.  Rolling is commonly used to produce sheet metal for electrical and electronic components, as well as coins. Considerable work also has been done on rolling multiple layers of different materials simultaneously into sheets.

Extrusion processes are of two general types. In one type, the powder is mixed with a binder or plasticizer at room temperature; in the other, the powder is extruded at elevated temperatures without fortification. Extrusions with binders are used extensively in the preparation of tungsten-carbide composites. Tubes, complex sections, and spiral drill shapes are manufactured in extended lengths and diameters varying in the range . Hard metal wires of  diameter have been drawn from powder stock. At the opposite extreme, large extrusions on a tonnage basis may be feasible.

For softer, easier to form metals such as aluminium and copper alloys continuous extrusion may also be performed using processes such as conform or continuous rotary extrusion. These processes use a rotating wheel with a groove around its circumference to drive the loose powder through a forming die. Through a combination of high pressure and a complex strain path the powder particles deform, generate a large amount of frictional heat and bond together to form a bulk solid. Theoretically fully continuous operation is possible as long as the powder can be fed into the process.

There appears to be no limitation to the variety of metals and alloys that can be extruded, provided the temperatures and pressures involved are within the capabilities of die materials. Extrusion lengths may range from 3 to 30 m and diameters from 0.2 to 1 m. Modern presses are largely automatic and operate at high speeds (on the order of m/s).

Shock (dynamic) consolidation
Shock consolidation, or dynamic consolidation, is an experimental technique of consolidating powders using high pressure shock waves.  These are commonly produced by impacting the workpiece with an explosively accelerated plate.  Despite being researched for a long time, the technique still has some problems in controlability and uniformity. However, it offers some valuable potential advantages.  As an example, consolidation occurs so rapidly that metastable microstructures may be retained.

Electric current assisted sintering
These techniques employ electric currents to drive or enhance sintering. Through a combination of electric currents and mechanical pressure powders sinter more rapidly thereby reducing the sintering time compared to conventional thermal solutions. The techniques can be divided into two main categories: resistance sintering, which incorporates spark plasma sintering and hot pressing; and electric discharge sintering, such as capacitor discharge sintering or its derivative, electro sinter forging. Resistance sintering techniques are consolidation methods based on temperature, where heating of the mold and of the powders is accomplished through electric currents, usually with a characteristic processing time of 15 to 30 minutes.  On the other hand, electric discharge sintering methods rely on high-density currents (from 0.1 to 1 kA/mm^2) to directly sinter electrically conductive powders, with a characteristic time between tens of microseconds to hundreds of milliseconds.

Special products
Many special products are possible with powder metallurgy technology. A nonexhaustive list includes Al2O3 whiskers coated with very thin oxide layers for improved refraction; iron compacts with Al2O3 coatings for improved high-temperature creep strength; light bulb filaments made with powder technology; linings for friction brakes; metal glasses for high-strength films and ribbons; heat shields for spacecraft reentry into Earth's atmosphere; electrical contacts for handling large current flows; magnets; microwave ferrites; filters for gases; and bearings which can be infiltrated with lubricants.

Extremely thin films and tiny spheres exhibit high strength. One application of this observation is to coat brittle materials in whisker form with a submicrometre film of much softer metal (e.g. cobalt-coated tungsten). The surface strain of the thin layer places the harder metal under compression, so that when the entire composite is sintered the rupture strength increases markedly. With this method, strengths on the order of 2.8 GPa versus 550 MPa have been observed for, respectively, coated (25% cobalt) and uncoated tungsten carbides.

Hazards

The special materials and processes used in powder metallurgy can pose hazards to life and property. The high surface-area-to-volume ratio of the powders can increase their chemical reactivity in biological exposures (for example, inhalation or ingestion), and increases the risk of dust explosions. Materials considered relatively benign in bulk can pose special toxicological risks when in a finely divided form. Inhalation of heavy metals can result in many health issues. Lead and cadmium are generally toxic, and cobalt can cause asthma and fibrosis in sensitive individuals.

See also
Electro sinter forging
Global Powder Metallurgy Property Database
Mechanical powder press
Selective laser melting
Selective laser sintering
Sintering
Spark plasma sintering
Spray forming

References

Cited sources

Further reading
An earlier version of this article was copied from Appendix 4C of Advanced Automation for Space Missions, a NASA report in the public domain.
 R. M. German, "Powder Metallurgy and Particulate Materials Processing," Metal Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, New Jersey, 2005.
 F. Thummler and R.Oberacker "An Introduction to Powder Metallurgy" The institute of Materials, London 1993
 G. S. Upadhyaya, "Sintered Metallic and Ceramic Materials" John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex, England, 2000

External links
Rapid manufacturing technique developed at the KU Leuven, Belgium
Slow motion video images of metal atomization at the Ames Laboratory
APMI International "The Global Professional Society for Powder Metallurgy", a non-profit organization

Metalworking
Ceramic engineering
Metallurgy

Powder metallurgy