View allAll Photos Tagged Assembly
Explore - #467 March 23, 2008
------------------------------------------
The intersection of Assembly Street and Blossom Street, possibly the busiest intersection in downtown Columbia.
Melanne Verveer, United States Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, speaks at the lunch event on Accelerating Progress toward the Economic Empowerment of Rural Women hosted by UN Women, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP) on 27 September 2012.
Photo credit: UN Women/Catianne Tijerina
I came upon what was a small weathered “Y”, of remains. I decided to add a few limbs making it look as natural as possible. I chose black and white because I wanted no color only texture. The black spots in the photo are jackass dung not coal or holes.
Korean Utility Helicopter (KUH-1/ Surion)
/ KUH-1P Final Assembly Line in KAI
/ Photo by KAI (2012)
한국항공우주산업
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armoured divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.
Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.
The Kugelblitz used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement. The MK 103 was a powerful aircraft weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in caliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft). The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed, an innovative feature at that time for AA guns.
In the fully enclosed Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously, and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. The MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, so that fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.
The Kugelblitz turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body was hanging in a ring mount, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s top and kept the profile very low. The turret offered full overhead protection, 360° traverse and space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition – even though it was very cramped. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec.
The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns, and the spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors..
However, the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz SPAAG was ill-fated: A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops.
In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, too, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited - in early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production already ceased in May.
By that time, the Kugelblitz turret had been successfully adapted to the Hetzer chassis, even though this had called for major adaptations of the upper hull due to the relatively wide turret ring, which originally came from the Tiger I. The conversion worked and the unique turret could be successfully shoehorned into the Hetzer basis, making it a very compact and relatively light vehicle – it was 5 tons lighter than the Panzer IV-based “Kugelblitz” SPAAG.
In order to carry the turret, the welded upper hull had to be widened and the glacis plate was reinforced with an extra plate, which also covered the Hetzer’s original opening for its 75 mm gun. The resulting 60 mm (2.36 in) thick front plate was inclined 60 degrees from the vertical, and therefore offered around 120 mm (4.72 in) of effective protection – much better than the Panzer IV’s almost vertical 50 mm (or 80 mm with additional armor on late versions). In this form, the vehicle could withstand direct frontal hits from most medium Allied tanks. The side walls were rather thin, though, only 20 mm, and they became more vertical to make room for the turret mount. The engine cover behind the turret had to be modified, too. Due to the massive changes, the vehicle received a new, separate designation, “Sonderkraftfahrzeug (Sd.Kfz.) 170” and it was officially called “Leichter Flakpanzer 38(t) 3 cm“.
However, there were many drawbacks. The interior was cramped: the self-contained Kugelblitz turret itself already lacked internal space, but the driver – the only crew member in the hull – also had little space in front of the turret’s mount and he could only access his working place through an opening in the turret at the commander’s feet when it was in a level forward position. There was no dedicated hatch for the driver, only an emergency escape scuttle in the floor.
Another issue was the field of view from inside for everyone. As already mentioned, the driver did not have a hatch that could be used for a good view when not driving under fire. He also only had a single panoramic sight, so that he could just see what was going on directly in front of him. There were no side view openings, and especially the right side of the vehicle was literally blind. The crew in the turret also could only rely on forward-facing sights, just the commander had a rotating periscope. But due to its position, the areas directly along the vehicle’s flanks and its rear remained wide blind areas that made it very vulnerable to infantry attacks. This flaw was even worsened by the fact that there were no additional light weapons available (or even deployable from the inside) for close range defense – the Panzer IV-based SPAAGs carried a hull-mounted machine gun. And the crew had, due to the open weapon stations a much better field of view or could directly use their own light weapons.
With the turret’s additional weight (the Sd.Kfz. 170 was 3 tons heavier than the Hetzer), and despite a slightly uprated petrol engine, the tank was rather underpowered, especially off road. Another negative side effect of the turret was a considerably raised center of gravity. The original Hetzer was a nimble vehicle with good handling, but the Sd.Kfz. 170 was hard to control, tended to build up and roll even on the road and its off-road capabilities were markedly hampered by the concentration of weight so high above the ground, making it prone to tip over to the side when the driver did not take care of terrain slope angles. This wobbly handling, as well as the turret’s shape, gave the vehicle the unofficial nickname “Kugelhetzer”.
Nevertheless, all these flaws were accepted, since the Sd.Kfz. 170. was, like its Panzer IV-based predecessors, urgently needed and only regarded as an interim solution until a light E-Series chassis had been adapted to the turret. It was also surmised that the vehicle would not operate independently and rather escort other troops, so that close-range protection was in most cases ensured. Under this premise, about 100 Sd.Kfz. 170s were built until early 1946, when production of the Hetzer and its components were stopped. Operationally, the vehicle was not popular (esp. among drivers), but it was quite successful, not only against aircraft (esp. when used in conjunction with the new mobile radar-based fire direction centers), but also against lightly armored ground targets.
Plans to stretch the hull for more internal space, better field performance and crew comfort as well as replacing the engine with a bigger and more powerful 8 cylinder Tatra engine were never executed, since all resources were allocated to the new E-series tanks.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (commander/gunner, 2 assistants incl. radio operator, driver)
Weight: 18 tons (22.000 lb)
Length: 4.61 m (15 ft 1 in)
Width: 2.63 m (8 ft 8 in)
Height: 2.63 m (8 ft 8 in)
Ground clearance: 40 cm (15 ¾ in)
Suspension: Leaf spring
Fuel capacity: 320 litres (85 US gal)
Armor:
10 – 60 mm (0.39 – 2.36 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 42 km/h (26 mph)
Sustained road speed: 36 km/h (22.3 mph)
Off-road speed: 26 km/h (16 mph)
Operational range: 177 km (110 mi)
Power/weight: 10 PS/t
Engine:
Praga 6-cylinder 7.8 liter petrol engine, delivering 180 PS (178 hp, 130 kW) at 2,800 rpm
Transmission:
Praga-Wilson Typ CV with 5 forwards and 1 reverse gears
Armament:
2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
The so-called “Kugelhetzer” was a real German project in late WWII, but it was rather a vague idea, it never it made to the hardware stage. Even from its predecessor, the Panzer IV-based “Kugelblitz”, only five tanks were actually built. However, I found the idea interesting, since the combination of existing elements would lead to a very compact SPAAG. And since I had a spare Kugelblitz turret from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” SF mecha kits at hand, I decided to build a model of this conceptual tank.
The chassis is a Bergepanzer 38(t), a.k.a. “Bergehetzer”, from UM Models, an unarmed recovery tank based on the Hetzer hull with an open top. For my conversion plan it offered the benefit of a blank glacis plate and lots of spare parts for future builds. However, upon inspection of the parts-not-intended-to-be-mated I became slightly disillusioned: while the Hetzer’s upper original hull offers enough room for the ball turret itself to be inserted into the roof, it could NEVER take the turret bearing and the armored collar ring around it. They already are hard to mount on a Panzer IV hull, but the Hetzer is an even smaller vehicle, despite its casemate layout. I was about to shelf the project again, but then decided to modify and adapt the upper hull to the turret. In real life the engineers would have taken a similar route.
I started to scratch the superstructure from 0.5mm styrene sheet, and work started with the roof that had to be wide enough to carry the turret ring. This was glued into place on top of the hull, and from this benchmark the rest of the “armor plates” was added – starting with the engine bay cover, then adding side walls and finally the more complex corner sections, which actually consist of two triangular plates, but only one of them was actually fitted. The leftover openings were filled with acrylic putty, also in order to fill and stabilize the void between the original hull and the added plates. Later, the necessary space for the ball turret was carved away from the original hull, so that the Kugelblitz turret could be inserted in its new opening. Sounds complicated, but the construction was less complicated than expected, and it looked even better!
Once mated with the lower chassis, some details had to be added to the blank surfaces – e. g. racks with spare barrels for the guns and some tools and stowage boxes. These were taken from the Bergehetzer kit and partly modified to match the different hull.
What really became a challenge was the assembly of the tracks upon the model’s completion. Unfortunately, they consist of single elements and even links that have to be glued to the wheels, and since they were not crisply molded (just like the sprocket drive wheels) their installation was a rather tedious affair.
Painting and markings:
This is another variation of the “Hinterhalt” concept, using the three basic tones of Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). In this case – as an autumn scheme with fading light and more red and brown leaves - I used a late-war Panther as reference and gave the vehicle a rather dark basic livery consisting of green and the brown, and on top of that I added counter-colored (green on brown and brown on green) mottles, plus contrast mottles in Dunkelgelb. The tones I used were Humbrol 83, 86 and 113 - the latter is not the standard tone for the Hinterhalt scheme (180 would be appropriate), but it comes close to the typical German red Oxidrot (RAL 3009) primer, which was not only used on bare tank hulls during production but was also integrated into camouflage schemes, frequently stretched and lightened through additives. Effectively the livery is very standard, and since this Kugelhetzer model would depict a standard production vehicle and not a conversion, I extended the camouflage to the turret, too, for a consistent look.
The wheels remained in a single color (just the basic red brown and green), since camouflage was prohibited to be extended onto moving parts of the vehicle: a swirling pattern would have been very obvious and eye-catching when the vehicle was on the move.
A washing with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint followed. The decals – mostly taken from the small OOB sheet – came next, and I settled upon simplified national markings and just white outlines for the tactical code, due to the rather murky camouflage underneath.
The model’s main components were sealed with matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can before their final assembly, and I did some dry-brushing with light grey to emphasize details and edges. Finally, a coat of pigment dust was applied to the model’s lower areas and used to hide some flaws along the fiddly tracks.
A conclusive outcome, and a more complex build than obvious at first sight. The re-built upper hull was easier to realize than expected, the true horror came with the assembly of the tracks which consist of tiny, not really crisply molded elements. Why the return track section has to be constructed of five(!) segments - even though it's a straight line - is beyond my comprehension, too.
However, the outcome looks quite good, even though the use of the original Hetzer hull would have created several problems, if the original Kugelblitz turret had had to be integrated. Esp. the lack of space for the driver (and a suitable access hatch!) make this design idea rather unpractical, so that a stretched hull (AFAIK there’s a model of such a modified vehicle available) would have made sense.
On Friday, October 24, Miss Orioli, School Counselor at Utica Academy of Science Charter School, gave a presentation to the entire school (staff and students) in the gymnasium during 1st and 2nd periods. The importance of the presentation was how to prevent bullying and spreading awareness. She spoke about how bullying hurts others physically, mentally, and emotionally. It is very important to spread awareness of how students are hurting others with their firsts, their words, and their various methods of intimidation so that everyone is informed and will not continue the behavior. She also focused on turning bystanders into upstanders. The more upstanders in the school, the less bullying because those students who bully will not feel as powerful if other students are standing up to them and helping out the victim. She then led an activity with students called the line activity. This activity asked a series of questions in which students stepped forward if the question was true for them. This allowed students to see what they had in common, where other students may be coming from with different perspectives and to see who has ever seen or experienced bullying themselves.
The Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Mr. Kitack Lim, has urged Member States to seize the opportunity to set bold and set ambitious goals, when they adopt an initial strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping in 2018.
Speaking at the opening of the Organization’s 30th Assembly session, Secretary-General Lim told delegates the whole world would be watching IMO in 2018, looking for something of real substance.
“Next year really will be a time when the world will expect IMO Member States to deliver a clear vision as the first stage of the approved roadmap. I urge you, be bold; set ambitious goals that really will make a difference. You have a real opportunity here to do something of lasting significance. Make the most of it,” he told the packed plenary hall at IMO Headquarters in London. IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) is set to adopt an initial GHG strategy in April 2018.
More than 1,500 delegates from IMO Member States, international governmental and non-governmental organizations have registered to attend the 30th session of the IMO Assembly meets from 27 November to 6 December.
Mr. Lim outlined the key elements of the new “Strategic Plan for the Organization” for 2018 to 2023, which is expected to be adopted by the Assembly.
“The seven strategic directions point us now towards more effective rule-making and implementation processes by integrating new and advancing technology to respond to our challenges, among others, to increase ship safety, including addressing new emerging technologies such as autonomous vessels, our contribution to combat climate change, engagement in ocean governance, mitigation of cyber-crimes, and facilitation of international trade, whilst continuing to take due consideration on the human element factor,” Mr. Lim said.
He outlined his ambition to transform IMO into a “knowledge based Organization”, with appropriate analysis to support and improve the already effective rule making process and enhance implementation.
The rapidly increasing pace of change in every sphere raised a fundamental issue, since technology will move far quicker than the regulatory process, he said.
“Digital disruption will arrive in the shipping world very soon; and, when it does, IMO must be ready,” Mr. Lim said. “For me, this means the regulatory framework for shipping must be based firmly around goals and functions rather than prescriptive solutions. This is the only way to ensure that measures adopted by IMO are not rendered obsolete by the time-lag between adoption and entry-into-force. I know we have already made good steps in that direction but we must go further and faster in the coming years.”
The Organization as a whole needed to become more effective, more nimble and more adaptive, Mr. Lim said, drawing attention to his determination to push forward a "Knowledge based Organization" concept, embracing data in the Secretariat’s work and in the decision-making processes.
“We are in the era of digitalization and at the United Nations level we are already looking at frontier issues that include emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, and the benefits they could have in society as a whole, and to remain relevant,” Mr. Lim said.
“For IMO, we need to have more detailed and deeper analysis of statistics and data so that we can really understand underlying trends and causal factors behind shipping casualties; and we must make sure that additions and amendments to the regulatory framework are also based, wherever possible, on relevant statistics, studies and analysis. This would pave the way for better regulation, one that not only takes into account the work carried out to reduce administrative burdens, but to avoid disproportionate requirements, as well as addressing obsolete and unnecessary ones.”
IMO’s work to support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the associated Sustainable Development Goals was also stressed. “Because most of the elements of the 2030 Agenda will only be realized with a sustainable transport sector supporting world trade and facilitating the global economy, aspects of IMO’s work can be linked to almost all of the individual SDGs,” Mr. Lim said.
Mr. Lim concluded by referring to the forthcoming anniversary in 2018, marking 70 years since the Convention establishing IMO was adopted in March 1948. “The theme we have selected for next year – “Our heritage – better shipping for a better future” – looks both at the past and into the next 70 years that lie ahead. It provides an opportunity to reflect and showcase how IMO has adapted over the years as a crucial player to the global supply chain,” he said.
The Rt Hon Mr. John Hayes CBE MP, Minister of State for Transport Legislation and Maritime of the United Kingdom Government, also welcomed delegates to the Assembly, as the representative of the Host State.
The outgoing President of the Assembly, Mr. Federico Trillo-Figueroa y Martínez-Conde, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Spain to the United Kingdom and Permanent Representative of Spain to IMO, and the incoming President, His Excellency Mr. Rolando Drago Rodríguez, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and Permanent Representative of Chile to IMO, also addressed the Assembly.
Election of Officers
The Assembly elected the following officers:
Assembly President
His Excellency Mr. Rolando Drago Rodríguez, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and Permanent Representative of Chile to IMO.
Vice-Presidents
1st Vice-President: His Excellency Mr. Euripides L. Evriviades, High Commissioner and Permanent Representative of Cyprus to IMO; and
2nd Vice-President: Her Excellency Ms. Tamar Beruchashvili, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and Permanent Representative of Georgia to IMO.
IMO Assembly
The 30th Assembly of IMO is meeting in London at IMO Headquarters from 27 November to 6 December 2017. More than 1,500 delegates from IMO Member States, international governmental and non-governmental organizations have registered to attend the Assembly, IMO’s highest governing body.
All 172 Member States and three Associate Members are entitled to attend, as are the intergovernmental organizations with which agreements of co-operation have been concluded, and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with IMO.
The Assembly normally meets once every two years in regular session. It is responsible for approving the work programme, voting the budget and determining the financial arrangements of the Organization. It also elects the Council.
Imaging the magnetic assembly of iron nanoparticles. The room lights are diffracted by the nanoparticles as they assemble on the surface.
By: Ray Belliveau, Hydrogen Isotope Processing Science, Savannah River National Laboratory, and Dr. Simona Hunyadi Murph, Environmental, Materials & Energy Sciences Directorate, Savannah River National Laboratory
UNDP Associate Administrator Rebeca Grynspan and other UNDP officials with Yemen's Minister of Planning and International Co-operation H.E. Dr. Mohammed Al-Sa’adi, and other Yemeni officials
Photo: Dylan Lowthian/UNDP
ArtsLink Assembly 2022: Greener Grass? Cultivating Transborder Connections Between Ukrainian Cultural Communities is a platform for Ukrainian artists, curators, and cultural leaders to share perspectives and ideas for the future of the cultural life of the country.
Curators of this Assembly
Lia Dostlieva, Donetsk, Ukraine, currently in Poznan, Poland
Andrii Dostliev, Donetsk, Ukraine, currently in Poznan, Poland
Anna Gaidai, Lviv, Ukraine, currently in Vienna, Austria
Yulia Kostereva, Yuriy Kruchak, Open Place, Kyiv, Ukraine; Yulia currently in Warszawa, Poland, Yuriy in Kyiv
Mariia Volchonok, Anastasiia Manuliak, Ukrainian Institute, Kyiv, Ukraine
Curatorial statement in Ukrainian and English
With commissioned work, dialogues, presentations, and panel discussions, the ArtsLink Assembly brought together over forty key Ukrainian artists and cultural leaders to reflect on what needs to happen now, and what strategic decisions are needed for the future.
Acknowledgements
ArtsLink Assembly 2022 was hosted by Ujazdowski Castle Center for Contemporary Art, Warszawa, Poland.
ArtsLink Assembly 2022 was made possible by support from the Culture of Solidarity-EUNIC Ukraine Fund, in partnership with the European Cultural Foundation and EUNIC with core financing led by the Goethe Institut; the Trust for Mutual Understanding; and the Kirby Family Foundation.
ArtsLink Assembly 2022 is produced by CEC ArtsLink (New York, USA) and Ukrainian Institute (Kyiv, Ukraine), in partnership with Open Place (Kyiv, Ukraine).
Warsaw, Poland
Ujazdowski Castle Centre for Contemporary Art, 2022
Photo by Dominika Jaruga
Courtesy of CEC ArtsLink
Join us
www.facebook.com/OpenPlacePlatform
www.youtube.com/OpenPlaceComUa
www.youtube.com/OpenPlaceChannel
_DSC2676
The Fifty-Third Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO took place in Geneva, Switzerland from May 8-9, 2014. The General Assembly reappointed Francis Gurry for a second term as Director General of WIPO.
Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Emmanuel Berrod. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.
Australia.
The Mk II Ford Consul/ Zephyr/ Zodiac was built in the UK from 1956-62.
Before 1959 was the ‘highline’ model. In 1959, the ‘lowline’ had a lower roofline, the Zephyr now had a horizontal bar grille and a new instrument cluster.
Consul; base model 4 cyl, mesh grille
Zephyr; mid spec 6cyl, more elaborate grill.
Zodiac, luxury model; 6cyl, 2 tone paint, elaborate rear fascia and gold badges.
In the UK, most Mk II Zephyrs were 4 door Sedans, (independent coach builders Carbodies built some convertibles and Abbott, some Estates).
The Mk II was also built in Australia. Sedans, Station Wagons and Coupe Utilities were produced, their station wagons differed from the Abbott estates by having a wind-up rear window and a straight C pillar.
New Zealand assembly of the Mark II, from CKD kits, now included the Zodiac.
Engine; 86 or 90hp 156 cu in 6 cyl