View allAll Photos Tagged Functions
Church of Cândea princes:
Colt church is situated in Suseni village, Rau de Mori commune.
The church is functioning as a hermitage hosting a community of monks and its patron is “Duminica Tuturor Sfin ilor“ (All Saints Sunday”). It is a unique Romanian architecture monument and this orthodox monastery used to play also the role of a defense unit because of its tower provided with two abutments and being raised above the altar to the East, where the hill slope provides easy access. It was built based on the characteristic elements of the churches of Hateg County: pyramidal stone tower, countertops, arches with stone-lined material.
Built from rough stone, and being provided with walls of 1.20m thick, the church is divided in two rectangular rooms — one is bigger representing the nave and the smaller one forms the altar. Initially being an improvisation, the iconostasis is made of fir tree wood. Above the altar there is the squared pyramid shaped stone roof. The tower was used for defense purposes and inside it there were three rooms, of which two were the monastery monk cells. The entrance was placed on the Northern side as the access on the other sides was difficult. On the inner walls there still are fresco paintings belonging to the valuable mural ensemble carried out around the year 1350 by the painter Tefan, who painted also the churches from Ostrov and Densu.
Although it is situated close to the main road, Colt Monastery is surrounded by the calm which is dominating the area and its external and internal aspect with the rebuilt walls and its almost destroyed paintings seem to tell an impetuous history.
Hello People :)
After all this time I’m back with a new creation . The reason you haven’t seen anything for so long is because I went through a process of rethinking the way I build . I used to mainly recreate models from Star Wars or DC comics , with a sole purpose of making the MOC look as accurate to the original as possible , sacrificing stability , playability and overall good structure most of the time . I was no longer satisfied with that . From now on my goals are to build MOCs that both look good , and also are fun , playable , contain smart play features and generally function well as toys.
The first result of this “new style” is what you see above : my own original Batmobile . While it draws inspiration from a couple of Batmobiles ( mainly Arkham Knight’s and BvS’s) it is my own spin on the classic vehicle , the Predator . It’s packed with action features : a stud shooter turret , a “hook” style spring-loaded shooter, opening trunk with all the gear you’ll need ( batarangs , a new remote batarang made from some old knight helmet feathers , extra ammo and a line launcher ) and the ability to transform between two modes , one ideal for battles and one built for speed. Also, the turret can be swapped out for a winch , which can be attached to the front spring loaded shooter and then shot - you can catch enemies’ vehicles , bring down walls , shoot it towards a roof and then climb , the possibilities are endless. I have also built a display MOC for my Batmobile - which is the first segment of what will eventually become a full Batcave . It has working lights and spins slowly - as a car turntable should (Both using official Power Functions elements only ).
I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions on this . Do you like this new style of building ? Do you like the look of the car ? What about the functions ? Do you want to see a full Batcave ? Your comments are very important to me :)
The train that was powered by an EV3 motor, didn't have enough traction to run smoothly. Therefore, I tried a completely other idea.
The version on the photo is driven by two Lego Power Functions Train Motors (88002) and a rechargeable battery pack 8878. The battery pack power control dial is connected to an EV3 medium motor. By this means, the EV3 is able to control the speed. The traction is now much better and the train runs really smooth.
Video can be seen at Youtube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_-qEFRP0Sg.
The County of Santa Clara Animal Care and Control Department needed to replace their makeshift former residence with several additions and portables into an adequate home for the area’s needy animals.
Dreyfuss + Blackford Architecture — working with animal care designer, The Bacon Group — created the County’s new Animal Services Center campus with state-of-the-art animal care functions in a park-like setting, providing innovative and sustainable building systems and amenities in the 24/7 facility.
The new Animal Services Center has capacity for 54 dogs and 90 cats, with spaces for other types of animals including rabbits, horses, and goats. To house and showcase larger animals, a barn is sited along the main building frontage, increasing visibility.
Taking a distinct departure from traditional shelter design, dog kennels are organized around an outdoor landscaped courtyard named “The Park”. Together with surrounding “Get Acquainted” pods, the experience offers a bright and open area to meet and greet potential pets in a natural park-like environment.
In addition to animal adoption, a primary objective of the Animal Services Center is to educate the public about the benefits of spaying and neutering. The County is taking a proactive approach to overpopulation by educating the public on reducing the number of animals ending up at the Animal Services Center through the use of the public surgery suite, located inside the facility’s clinic.
Another key solution the Animal Services Center provides is its large Educational Meeting facility. Not only will animal-specific community events be held there, but other County agencies will also be able to utilize the assembly space for conferences and gatherings up to 150 occupants—a resource they previously lacked.
The County of Santa Clara Animal Services Center is designed to achieve LEED Silver certification.
Photo by Tim Griffith.
GRAFENWOEHR, Germany - Sgt. Christopher Lee, a Patriot Fire Control Enhanced Operator from 10th AAMDC, performs a functions test Aug. 19 during the weapons assembly lane at U.S. Army Europe’s Best Warrior Competition here. The competition is a weeklong event that tests Soldiers’ physical stamina, leadership and technical knowledge and skill. The competitors represent the best in their units and exemplify the USAREUR imperatives of teamwork, comprehensive fitness, leader development, training, discipline and standards. Winners in the Soldier and Noncommissioned Officer categories of the USAREUR competition will go on to compete at the Department of the Army level. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Daniel Cole)
Homebrew Function Generator, .5 Hz to 100 KHz. Uses uA709 OpAmps. Built around 1972, or so, and still used occasionally.
The "supermacro" function is the royal discipline of the XZ-2 - you get great details, and very shallow DOF that can be also used for some other tricks than macro images.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Char B1 was a French heavy tank manufactured before World War II. It was conceived as a specialized offensive vehicle, armed with a 75 mm howitzer in the hull. Later a 47 mm gun in a turret was added, to allow it to function also as a Char de Bataille, a ‘battle tank’ fighting enemy armour, equipping the armoured divisions of the Infantry Arm. Starting in the early twenties, its development and production were repeatedly delayed, resulting in a vehicle that was both technologically complex and expensive, and already obsolescent when real mass-production of a derived version, the Char B1 "bis", started in the late thirties.
The outer appearance of the Char B1 reflected the fact that development started in the twenties: like the very first tank, the British Mark I tank of World War I, it still had large tracks going around the entire hull and large armour plates protecting the suspension—and like all tanks of that decade it had no welded or cast hull armour. The similarity resulted partly from the fact that the Char B1 was a specialized offensive weapon, a break-through tank optimized for punching a hole into strong defensive entrenchments, so it was designed with good trench-crossing capabilities and therefore the hull and the tracks had considerable length. The French Army thought that dislodging the enemy from a key front sector would decide a campaign, and it prided itself on being the only army in the world having a sufficient number of adequately protected heavy tanks. The exploitation phase of a battle was seen as secondary and best carried out by controlled and methodical movement to ensure superiority in numbers, so that the heavy tank’s mobility was of secondary concern. Although the Char B1 had a reasonably good speed for the time of its conception, no serious efforts were made to improve it when much faster tanks appeared.
More important than the tank's limitations in tactical mobility, however, were its limitations in strategic mobility. The low practical range implied the need to refuel very often, limiting its operational capabilities. This again implied that the armoured divisions of the Infantry, the Divisions Cuirassées, were not very effective as a mobile reserve and thus lacked strategic flexibility. They were not created to fulfill such a role in the first place, which was reflected in the small size of the artillery and infantry components of the divisions.
Another explanation of the similarity to the British Mark I lies in the Char B1's original specification to create a self-propelled gun able to destroy enemy infantry and artillery. The main weapon of the tank was its 75 mm howitzer, and the entire design of the vehicle was directed to making this gun as effective as possible. When in the early 1930s it became obvious that the Char B1 also had to defeat counterattacking enemy armour, it was too late for a complete redesign. The solution was to add the standard cast APX-1 turret which also equipped the Char D2 and the Somua S35. Like most French tanks of the period the Char B thus had a small one-man turret. The commander not only had to command the tank, but also to aim and load the anti-tank gun, and if he was a unit leader, he had to command his other tanks as well. This was in contrast with the contemporary German, British and to a lesser extent Soviet policy to use two or three-man turret crews, in which these duties were divided amongst several men, or to use dedicated command vehicles.
Among the most powerfully armed and armoured tanks of its day, the Char B1 was very effective in direct confrontations with early German armour during the Battle of France. The 60 mm (2.36 in) frontal armor was sloped, giving it an effective strength of near 80 mm (3.15 in), and it proved to be almost invulnerable to the 1940 Panzer II and III as well as the early Panzer IV with its short 75mm close-support gun. There were no real weak spots, and this invulnerability helped the B1 to close on targets, then destroy them with the turret 47 mm (1.85 in) or the brute force of the howitzer HE shells. However, its slow speed and high fuel consumption made it ill-adapted to the war of movement then being fought.
In the meantime, plans had taken shape to improve the Char B1, and this led to two developments that eventually entered the hardware stage: A further up-armoured version, the Char B1 "ter", was designed with sloped and welded 70 mm armour, weighing 36.6 tonnes and powered by a 350 hp (260 kW) engine. It was meant to replace the B1 bis to accelerate mass production, a change first intended for the summer of 1940 but later postponed to March 1941 and finally abandoned.
In the course of the redesign, space was provided for a fifth crew member, a "mechanic". Cost was reduced by omitting the complex Neader transmission for aiming the howitzer and giving the hull gun a traverse of five degrees to each side instead. The first prototype was shown in 1937, but only three prototypes could be partly finished before the defeat of France. Serial production was rejected due to the need to build totally new production lines for the much-modified Char B1 ter, so that this development was a dead end, even more so because it did not really cure the vehicle’s weakness of the overburdened commander and the split armament.
The latter issues were addressed with another development, a modernized variant of the existing Char B1 bis with a new weapon layout, the Char B1 “tetre”. Work on this variant started in 1936, as an alternative concept to the one-man turret and as an experimental carrier for a new high velocity semi-automatic 75 mm multi-purpose gun with a long barrel. Such a weapon was direly needed, because the biggest caliber of an anti-tank gun was a mere 47 mm, the SA 35 gun. The only recent alternative was the infantry’s 47 mm APX anti-tank gun from 1937, which could pierce 60 mm (2.4 in) at 550 meters (600 yd) or 80 mm (3.1 in) at 180 meters (200 yd), but it had not been adapted to vehicle use yet and was not regarded to be powerful enough to cope with tanks like the Char B1 itself.
This new 75 mm tank gun was already under development at the Atelier de Construction de Rueil (ARL) for a new medium 20-ton-tank, the Char G1 from Renault, that was to replace the Char B1. The gun, called “ARL 37”, would be mounted in a new three-man turret, and ARL was developing prototypes of both a turret that could be taken by the Char B1’s and S35’s limited turret ring, as well as the gun itself, which was based on the 75 mm high velocity gun with hydro-pneumatic recoil compensation from the vintage heavy FCM 2C tank
The ARL 37 had a mass of 750 kg (1,653.5 lb) and a barrel length of 3,281 mm (129.2 in) with a bore of 43 calibers. Maximum muzzle velocity was 740 m/s (2,400 ft/s). The gun was fitted with an electric firing mechanism and the breech operated semi-automatically. Only one-piece ammunition was used, and both HE and AP rounds could be fired – even though the latter had to developed, too, because no such round was available in 1937/38 yet. However, with early experimental Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap (APCBC) rounds, the ARL 37 was able to penetrate 133 mm (5.2 in) of vertical steel plate at 100 m range, 107 mm (4.2 in) at 1.000 m and still 85 mm (3.3 in) at 2.000 m, making it a powerful anti-tank weapon of its era.
Since the new weapon was expected to fire both HE and AP rounds, the Char B1’s howitzer in the hull was omitted, its opening faired over and instead a movable 7.5 mm Reibel machine gun was added in a ball mount, operated by a radio operator who sat next to the driver. Another 7.5mm machine gun was mounted co-axially to the main gun in the turret, which had a cupola and offered space for the rest of the crew: a dedicated commander as well as a gunner and loader team.
The hexagonal turret was cast and had a welded roof as well as a gun mantlet. With its 70 mm frontal armor as well as the tank’s new hull front section, the conversions added a total of four net tons of weight, so that the Char B1 tetre weighed 36 tons. To prevent its performance from deteriorating further, it received the Char B1 ter’s uprated 350 hp (260 kW) engine. The running gear remained unchanged, even though the fully rotating turret made the complex and expensive Neader transmission superfluous, so that it was replaced by a standard heavy-duty piece.
Although promising, the Char B1 tetre’s development was slow, delayed by the lack of resources and many teething troubles with the new 75 mm cannon and the turret. When the war broke out in September 1939, production was cleared and began slowly, but focus remained on existing vehicles and weapons. By the time there were perhaps 180 operational B1 and B1 bis in all. They were used for the Sarre offensive, a short-lived burst without serious opposition, with a massive force of 41 divisions and 2.400 tanks. The Char B1 served with the armoured divisions of the infantry, the Divisions Cuirassées (DCr). The First and Second DCR had 69 Char B1s each, the Third 68. These were highly specialized offensive units, to break through fortified positions. The mobile phase of a battle was to be carried out by the Divisions Légères Mécaniques (mechanised light divisions) of the cavalry, equipped with the SOMUA S35.
After the German invasion several ad hoc units were formed: the 4e DCr with 52 Char B1s and five autonomous companies (347e, 348e, 349e, 352e and 353e Compagnie Autonome de Chars) with in total 56 tanks: 12 B1s and 44 B1 bis; 28e BCC was reconstituted with 34 tanks. By that time, a very limited number of Char B1 tetre had been produced and delivered to operational units, but their tactical value was low since sufficient 75 mm AP rounds were not available – the tanks had to use primarily the same HE rounds that were fired with the Char B1’s howitzer, and these posed only a limited threat to German tanks, esp. the upgraded Panzer III and IVs. The Char B1 tertre’s potential was never fully exploited, even though most of the tanks were used as command vehicles.
The regular French divisions destroyed quite a few German tanks but lacked enough organic infantry and artillery to function as an effective mobile reserve. After the defeat of France, captured Char B1 of all variants would be used by Germany, with some rebuilt as flamethrowers, Munitionspanzer, or mechanized artillery.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (driver, radio operator/machine gunner, commander, gunner, loader)
Weight: 36 tonnes (40 short tons, 35 long tons)
Length: 6.98 m (22 ft 10½ in) overall with gun forward
6.37 m (20 ft 11 in) hull only
Width: 2.46 m (8 ft 1 in)
Height: 2.84 m (9 ft 3¾ in)
Ground clearance: 40 cm (1 ft 3¾ in)
Climbing: 93 cm (3 ft ½ in)
Trench crossing: 2,4 m (7 ft 10½ in)
Suspension: Bogies with a mixture of vertical coil and leaf springs
Steering: Double differential
Fuel capacity: 400 liters
Armour:
14 to 70 mm (0.55 to 2.75 in)
Performance:
28 km/h (17 mph) on road
21 km/h (13 mph) off-road
Operational range: 200 km (124 mi) on road
Power/weight: 9.7 hp/ton
Engine:
1× Renault inline 6 cylinder 16.5 litre petrol engine with 350 hp (260 kW)
Transmission:
5 forward and 1 rear gear
Armament:
1x 75 ARL 37 high-velocity cannon with 94 rounds
2x 7.5 mm (0.295 in) Reibel machine guns with a total of 5,250 rounds
The kit and its assembly:.
This fictional Char B1 variant was based on the question what the tank could have looked like if there had been a suitable 75 mm gun available that could replace both its howitzer in the hull and the rather light anti-tank gun in the turret? No such weapon existed in France, but I tried to extrapolate the concept based on the standard Char B1 hull.
Two big changes were made: the first concerned the hull howitzer, which was deleted, and its recessed opening faired over with 1 mm styrene sheet and putty. This sound easier as it turned out to be because the suspension for the front right idler wheel had to be retained, and the complex shape of the glacis plate and the opening called for patchwork. A fairing for the co-driver was added as well as a ball mount for the new hull machine gun. New shackles were added to the lower front and, finally, new rows of bolt heads (created with white glue).
The turret was completely replaced with a cast turret from a 1943 T-34/76 (Zvezda kit). While its shape and gun mantlet are quite characteristic, I still used it mostly OOB because its size and shape turned out to be a very good match to contemporary French tank turrets. However, the gun barrel was moved and a fairing for a hydro-pneumatic recoil damper was added, as well as a French commander cupola. And an adapter had to be scratched to attach the new turret to the hull, together with small fairings for the wider turret ring.
Painting and markings:
I wanted a rather unusual paint scheme for this Char B1 derivative, and found inspiration in an operational museum tank that depicts vehicle “311/Rhin”: it carries a three-tone livery in two greens and brown, instead of the more common sand, dark green and earth brown tones or just two-tone schemes.
The colors were adapted to an irregular pattern, and the paints I used were Humbrol 120 (FS 34227, a rather pale interpretation of the tone), 10 (Gloss Dark Brown) and ModelMaster 1764 (FS 34092). As a personal twist, the colors were edged in black, enhancing the contrast.
The markings were puzzled together from various sources in an attempt to create suitable tactical codes of the early 1940 era. The “Ace of Spades” emblem on the turret is, for example, are a marking of the 1st section. The dot in front of the “K” probably indicated a command vehicle, but I am not certain.
Some post-shading was done as well as dry-brushing with light earth brown to emphasize edges and details. Then the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and received some dusting with grey-brown artist pigments, simulating dust around the running gear.
Well, not too much was changed, but the new, bigger turret changes the Char B1’s look considerably – it looks somewhat smaller now? Its new silhouette also reminds me of a duck? Weird, but the conversion worked out well – esp. the modified glacis plate without the howitzer’s recessed opening looks very natural.
One of the Harbor Belt's NRE Gen Set things putters past one of Detroit's finest creations languishing in Franklin Park.
Modular Pulmonary Function Testing equipment, Spirometry, FRC, TGV, DLCO and full Cardio Pulmonary Exercise Testing in one single solution www.cosmed.com/en/products/pulmonary-function
Still in progress. The previous design used only a single medium motor to go forwards or to rotate; in this design two motors are used for these functions simultaneously, meaning it's twice as fast.
Brillaint sculpture hanging in the entrance to the Maritime Museum..
Olympus OM-1 w M.Zuiko 40-150/2.8 Pro
ISO1600 f/2.8 55mm
Single frame raw developed in DxO PhotoLab 8, colour graded in Nik 7 Color Efex
File name: 10_03_001096a
Binder label: Medical
Title: Ayer's Sarsaparilla purifies the blood, stimulates the vital functions, restores and preserves health, and infused new life and vigor throughout the whole system. (front)
Date issued: 1870-1900 (approximate)
Physical description: 1 print : chromolithograph ; 7 x 14 cm.
Subject: Women; Children; Sarsaparilla
Notes: Title from item.
Statement of responsibility: Dr. J. C. Ayers & Co.
Collection: 19th Century American Trade Cards
Location: Boston Public Library, Print Department
Rights: No known restrictions.
A cathedral without a bishop: St. Stephan in Vienna
In order to fully fulfill the function of a capital in its medieval understanding, Vienna lacked a decisive factor: Vienna was indeed a major city, but not the seat of a bishopric, but was subordinate to the Prince-Bishop of Passau in ecclesiastical matters. St. Stephen, the most important church in the city, had only the rank of a parish church.
Therefore, the first attempts to found a diocese in Vienna date back to the time of the Babenbergs. Also the under Ottokar II Přemysl after the fire of 1258 begun generous new building of the Saint Stephen's church in the late Romanesque style pursued this goal.
The Habsburgs' representational aspirations also focused on St. Stephen after they had taken control of Austria. Albrecht I began in 1304 with the construction of a new choir. The highlight, however, was reached under Duke Rudolf IV. This ambitious Habsburg wanted to turn Vienna into an important royal residence and St. Stephen as the "Capella regia Austriaca" into the court church of the Austrian sovereign princes, the sacral center of the country.
The background for this lay in the competition with the dynasty of Luxembourg: Emperor Charles IV was just about to expand his residence Prague to a metropolis of European importance. One of his measures was the elevation of Prague to the Archbishopric of 1344, which prompted the great expansion of St. Vitus' Cathedral on Prague's Hradcany.
Rudolf's plan to make St. Stephen the seat of a bishop failed because of the resistance of Passau, because the bishop rightly feared a reduction of his diocese. Nevertheless, Rudolf found a way to give St. Stephan a special rank. In 1359 he obtained the papal confirmation for the founding of a collegiate, an association of 24 dressed in cardinal red robes priests, which was headed by a provost in a bishop-like costume. By subordinating the collegiate directly to the Pope, it was beyond the Passau influence. Thanks to complicated ecclesiastical chess moves he finally succeeded in 1365 to transfer his foundation to St. Stephen, which increased the importance of the church.
This was also reflected in the structural design of the church. In 1359 Rudolf IV began with a large-scale expansion, which was to bear all the symbols of a ruling church: a princely gallery above the west portal was framed by two-storey Duke's chapels, in which the relic treasure was kept. A princely tomb was erected as the tomb of the rulers of the country and finally four towers were planned, which was actually a building prerogative of a bishop's church. By integrating parts of the late Romanesque predecessor building (the main portal and the westwork called "Giant Gate") into his concept, Rudolf gave his building program historical depth.
With the death of Rudolf, the interest of the Habsburgs in St. Stephen palpably came to an end, and the citizens of Vienna took the initiative for the further expansion of the church. Only with Frederick III., who saw his example in Rudolf IV, did a Habsburg take part in the expansion of the church. Friedrich ordered the beginning of the work on the north tower. However, his high tomb in the Apostle Choir of the Dome, which is another notable example of the dynastic program of the Habsburgs in the late Middle Ages, is particularly reminiscent of this Habsburg.
Frederick III. finally managed to bring the prestige matter of his ancestor Rudolf to a successful end: 1469 Frederick III succeeded in to bring about the Pope to elevate Vienna to a diocese. Although the Viennese diocese initially had only a minimal extension - it was smaller than the current urban area - but the Habsburgs had imposed their own will: The Cathedral of St. Stephen had finally a bishop.
Eine Kathedrale ohne Bischof: St. Stephan in Wien
Um im mittelalterlichen Verständnis die Funktion einer Hauptstadt vollends zu erfüllen, fehlte Wien eine entscheidende Sache: Wien war zwar eine bedeutende Großstadt, aber nicht Sitz eines Bistums, sondern unterstand in kirchlichen Belangen dem Fürstbischof von Passau. St. Stephan, die wichtigste Kirche der Stadt, hatte nur den Rang einer Pfarrkirche.
Daher datieren die ersten Versuche einer Bistumsgründung in Wien bereits in die Zeit der Babenberger. Auch der unter Ottokar II. Přemysl nach dem Brand von 1258 begonnene großzügige Neubau der Stephanskirche im spätromanischen Stil verfolgte dieses Ziel.
Auf St. Stephan konzentrierten sich auch die Repräsentationsbestrebungen der Habsburger, nachdem sie die Herrschaft in Österreich übernommen hatten. Albrecht I. begann bereits 1304 mit dem Bau eines neuen Chores. Der Höhepunkt wurde jedoch unter Herzog Rudolf IV. erreicht. Dieser ehrgeizige Habsburger wollte Wien zu einer bedeutenden Residenzstadt und St. Stephan als “Capella regia Austriaca”, als Hofkirche der österreichischen Landesfürsten, zum sakralen Zentrum des Landes machen.
Der Hintergrund dafür lag in der Konkurrenz mit der Dynastie der Luxemburger: Kaiser Karl IV. war gerade dabei, seine Residenz Prag zu einer Metropole europäischer Geltung auszubauen. Eine seiner Maßnahmen war die Erhebung Prags zum Erzbistum 1344, was den Anstoß gab für den großartigen Ausbau des Veitsdomes am Prager Hradschin.
Rudolfs Plan, St. Stephan zum Sitz eines Bischofs zu machen, scheiterte zwar am Widerstand Passaus, denn der Bischof fürchtete zu Recht eine Verkleinerung seiner Diözese. Dennoch fand Rudolf einen Weg, St. Stephan einen besonderen Rang zu verleihen. 1359 erwirkte er die päpstliche Bestätigung für die Gründung eines Kollegiatstiftes, einer Vereinigung von 24 in kardinalsrote Gewänder gekleideten Priestern, denen ein Probst in bischofsähnlicher Tracht vorstand. Indem er das Kollegiat direkt dem Papst unterstellte, war es dem Passauer Einfluss entzogen. Dank komplizierter kirchenrechtlicher Schachzüge gelang es ihm schließlich 1365 seine Stiftung auf St. Stephan zu übertragen, was die Bedeutung des Gotteshauses erhöhte.
Dies schlug sich auch in der baulichen Gestalt der Kirche nieder. 1359 begann Rudolf IV. mit einem groß angelegten Ausbau, der alle Symbole einer Herrscherkirche tragen sollte: Eine Fürstenempore über dem Westportal wurde von doppelstöckigen Herzogskapellen eingerahmt, in denen der Reliquienschatz verwahrt wurde. Eine Fürstengruft als Grablege der Herrscher des Landes wurde angelegt und schließlich waren vier Türme geplant, was eigentlich ein bauliches Vorrecht einer Bischofskirche war. Indem Rudolf Teile des spätromanischen Vorgängerbaues (das als “Riesentor” bezeichnete Hauptportal und das Westwerk) in sein Konzept integrieren ließ, gab er seinem Bauprogramm historische Tiefe.
Mit dem Tod Rudolfs erlosch das Interesse der Habsburger an St. Stephan spürbar, die Wiener Bürgerschaft übernahm die Initiative für den weiteren Ausbau der Kirche. Erst mit Friedrich III., der in Rudolf IV. sein Vorbild sah, beteiligte sich wieder ein Habsburger am Ausbau der Kirche. Friedrich veranlasste den Beginn der Arbeiten am Nordturm. An diesen Habsburger erinnert vor allem jedoch sein Hochgrab im Apostelchor des Domes, ein weiteres bemerkenswertes Beispiel für das dynastische Programm der Habsburger im Spätmittelalter.
Friedrich III. gelang es schließlich auch, die Prestigeangelegenheit seines Ahnen Rudolf zu einem erfolgreichen Ende zu bringen: 1469 erreichte Friedrich III. beim Papst die Erhebung Wiens zum Bistum. Die Wiener Diözese hatte zwar zunächst nur eine minimale Ausdehung – sie war kleiner als das heutige Stadtgebiet – aber die Habsburger hatten ihren Willen durchgesetzt: Der Dom zu St. Stephan hatte endlich einen Bischof.
Martin Mutschlechner
www.habsburger.net/de/kapitel/eine-kathedrale-ohne-bischo...
The Parthenon in Nashville, Tennessee is a full-scale replica of the original Parthenon in Athens. It was built in 1897 as part of the Tennessee Centennial Exposition.
Today the Parthenon, which functions as an art museum, stands as the centerpiece of Centennial Park, a large public park just west of downtown Nashville. Alan LeQuire's 1990 re-creation of the Athena Parthenos statue is the focus of the Parthenon just as it was in ancient Greece. The building is a full-scale replica of the Athenian original; and the statue of Athena Parthenos within is a reconstruction of the long lost original to careful scholarly standards: she is cuirassed and helmeted, carries a shield on her left arm and a small (6 ft) statue of Nike (Victory) in her right palm, and stands 42 feet (13 m) high, gilt with more than eight pounds of gold leaf; an equally colossal serpent rears its head between her and her shield. Since the building is complete and its decorations were polychromed (painted in colors) as close to the presumed original as possible, this replica of the original Parthenon in Athens serves as a monument to what is considered the pinnacle of classical architecture. The plaster replicas of the Parthenon Marbles found in the Naos (the east room of the main hall) are direct casts of the original sculptures which adorned the pediments of the Athenian Parthenon, dating back to 438 BC. Many fragments of the originals are housed in the British Museum in London. Others are at the Acropolis Museum in Athens.
Use red/blue glasses for best effect.
Anaglyph 3D is the name given to the stereoscopic 3D effect achieved by means of encoding each eye's image using filters of different (usually chromatically opposite) colors, typically red and cyan. Anaglyph 3D images contain two differently filtered colored images, one for each eye. When viewed through the "color-coded" "anaglyph glasses", each of the two images reaches one eye, revealing an integrated stereoscopic image.
Images captured with dual canon SD950is Cameras and combined in software.
Of the many birds found in Africa, few have come under the severe criticism that the marabou has suffered. The bird is commonly portrayed as being mean and ugly and as lacking good motive. Clearly, the marabou has a serious public relations problem.
Are you attracted to birds that have elegant looks and melodious voices? Well, the marabou has neither. With a pink head and neck that are bereft of feathers, the bird appears sullen and forlorn. In adults, a reddish inflatable pouch resembling a thick, round necktie hangs on the throat. Most people feel that the pouch does little to adorn the creature. However, Dr. Leon Benun, head of the Ornithology Department at the National Museums of Kenya, reminds us: "Just because the pouch looks ugly to us doesn't mean it's ugly to the marabou." Even so, as yet, no one knows the biological function of this pouch.
The bird's feeding habits likewise do little to endear it to observers. For one thing, it is a carrion eater. When carcasses cannot be found, it has been known to kill other birds to satisfy its healthy appetite. Little wonder that many people seem to hate it with a passion.
Yet, despite its ungainly looks and traits, the marabou has a number of admirable qualities. Join us as we better acquaint ourselves with this much-maligned bird.
A Giant Among Birds
The marabou is arguably the largest of the stork family. A full-grown male can reach a height of five feet [150 cm] and weigh over 15 pounds [8 kg]. Females are slightly smaller. The bird's heavy, wedge-shaped bill can grow to a length of more than ten inches [30 cm]—a powerful asset in extracting pieces of meat from a carcass.
The marabou has a wingspan of more than eight feet
As large as it is, this stork is an accomplished flier. With a wingspan of more than eight feet [2.5 m], the marabou is able to glide with the best. In flight, it is the very picture of elegance with its head slightly retracted to the shoulders and its long legs extended behind the body. It has mastered the use of warm air currents, or thermals, and can fly to such great heights that at times it is nearly invisible from the ground! Why, marabous have been known to soar as high as 13,000 feet [4,000 m]!
Responsible Parents
Particularly admirable, though, is the job the marabou does as a parent. Indeed, parenting is a demanding occupation that starts with the construction of a nest. After selecting a suitable location, the male, to be joined later by a female, initiates the building work. The nest, sometimes constructed 100 feet [30 m] above the ground, is nothing fancy. The three-foot-wide [1 m] structure is little more than a rough, open platform of dry sticks, tree branches, and leaves. In fact, a breeding bird will sometimes inherit an old nest, giving it a new lease on life by adding twigs and other materials. Some colonies of marabous have been known to maintain a nesting site for 50 years.
While a new home is still under construction, the male marabou begins the process of finding a mate. Contrary to the norm among many bird species, the male waits to be approached by the female. Several prospective mates will present themselves with the hope of currying the male's favor. Rejections are common. But persistence pays off, and a female will finally be accepted. During the ensuing courtship, both birds, their neck pouches fully inflated, will utter vocalizations intended to scare away unwanted parties. These have been described as moos, whines, and whistles—the only known sounds of marabous, except for the occasional clattering of their huge bills. A strong bond develops, cemented by a popular "up-down" greeting that is displayed whenever a partner returns to the nest after an absence. This involves throwing the head backward, lowering it, and then making a prolonged clattering of the bill.
Young marabous receive marvelous care
The nest is sometimes constructed 100 feet above the ground
The couple finish the nest together. Egg incubation will also be a shared task. After an incubation period of one month, two or three chalky white eggs will hatch into little pinkish, sparsely feathered chicks that will be objects of interest to both parents. These young marabous receive marvelous care. A vigorous feeding program that includes highly nutritious foods, such as fish, will begin. In swampy areas, where marabous are frequent visitors, the parents are able to obtain a good supply of frogs, another common item on the birds' menu. The hatchlings are able to feed by collecting food fragments that are regurgitated onto the nest by the parents. Growth for the young birds is slow, and it is not until they are four months old—when they are also able to fly away from the nesting site—that they begin surviving on their own.
Sanitation Workers
While the marabou has often been disdained as a carrion eater, it actually performs quite a useful service. Predatory animals leave the African plains littered with rotting carcasses. Left unattended, these carcasses could easily spread disease and be dangerous to both man and beast. However, the marabou performs the useful chore of garbage removal. Together with vultures—also birds of prey with healthy appetites—they survey the plains for an abandoned kill. When one is located, the marabous will wait for the more aggressive vultures to open the carcass with their strong curved beaks. At a convenient moment, a marabou, with its long bill drawn like a surgical knife, will make a quick dash to the carrion, grab a piece of flesh, and return to the sidelines awaiting another opportunity. When the vultures have eaten their fill, it is time for the marabous to fight over any scraps of flesh left. The marabous will consume almost anything that can go down their throats, except for the bones. Pieces of meat weighing as much as 20 ounces [600 g] are swallowed with ease.
In recent years the marabou has extended its sanitation work beyond the wild. The bird has lost most of its fear of man and is now a common visitor at city and village garbage dumps. The result? A cleaner environment. The marabou even sifts through the waste fluids from slaughterhouses, looking for any remaining morsels. Just how tough this bird can be is illustrated by the following example. While rummaging for scraps around a slaughterhouse in western Kenya, a marabou managed to swallow a butcher knife. A few days later, the knife—clean and shiny—was found near the same spot, while the marabou that had regurgitated it carried on its business as usual, having suffered no apparent ill effects!
The Marabou's Future
While its closest relative, the greater adjutant stork of Asia, is diminishing, the African marabou flourishes. It has no known enemies in the wild. In times past, the marabou's most cruel enemy was man. The large stork was shot, and its soft backside feathers were plucked to add beauty to women's headdresses. "It is almost inconceivable," says the book Storks, Ibises and Spoonbills of the World, "that such delicate and beautiful plumes, when adorning a fan or some finery dear to a woman's heart, are the product of this huge, gaunt and repulsive looking scavenger." Fortunately for these birds, such wanton destruction has diminished over the years, and their numbers are again on the rise. No doubt our brief look at the marabou has revealed that it simply does not deserve to be scorned and maligned. Its efficiency and industriousness in cleaning the environment benefit us greatly.