From Wikkipedia

Shenyang Aircraft Corporation – Chinese government owned – civilian and military aircraft manufacturer located in Shenyang. Founded in 1953, it is one of the oldest and the most important aircraft manufacturers in China.

Many aircraft mfg in China such as Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group and Ghizhou Aircraft Industry Company were founded with their help. On 27 November 2007, Cessna announced that the Cessna 162 Light Sport Aircrft will be produced by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation.

Shenyang Airframe Plant
Shenyang Liming Aircraft Engine Company
*** Shenyang Aircraft Design Institute
*** Shenyang Aeroengine Research Institute


ACAC Consortium
Changhe Aircraft Industries Corporation (Szkorsky tail assembly alloys work)
Shanxi Aircraft Company
Shenyang Institute of Aeronautical Engineering

Textron contract (November 2007) – mfg partner – “SkyCatcher”
Defence Companies Group / Peoples’ Republic of China

for dam repair & recond. Project (inva) –> IMMEDIATE
SBIR – STTR programs
NASA Channel – Cable 05-24-08
Current May 27 Conference, Orlando, Florida – please add to info there

Materials Resources International @ Goddard Space Center
for materials science applications – epoxy and polymer based “fit”
please send to (also)

Cm = [Rn}7s25f76d1
and cannot be used in its native form but it probably is in the area (Sichuan province) also.

(The sum of the oxidation numbers of the atoms in a polyatomic ion must equal the charge of the polyatomic ion.)

From: Foundations of College Chemistry, morris hein, 5th edition, page 167, chapt. 7, 1st para.
“What is the oxidation number of phosphorus in the phosphate ion, PO34– ? First of all, note that this is a polyatomic ion with a charge of – 3. The sum of the oxidation numbers of phosphorus and oxygen must equal -3 and not (0) zero. Four oxygen atoms, each with a -2, give a total of -8. The oxidation number of the phosphorus atom must then be +5 (P – 8 = -3) for the charge of the ion to be -3.” . . .(P = +5).

The point of this is that in the plants of the area (factories) there is evidence of an oxidation routine occurring because of an unnatural mix of constituents. This possibly hinders certain reclamation possibilities in the area and in fact, if run-off occurs – which it eventually will, the economic, ecological and population impacts could be extreme. A little bit of foam is not going to cover this and somebody needs to get some help into the area to work with it.

In the areas of concern about the possible release of water from the “69″ dams in the earthquake exposed and encountered arena, these are some ideas that would be worth adding to what is already being considered. It may stimulate new thinking in some avenues that inventiveness might occur along with the other packets coming from the traditional science and engineering concerns around the world. These are listed here as they were written, rather than posting a new set of repeated typewritten elements.

Where they can be found online.

This is the discourse represented by those hand-written pages:

Ammonia Esters – non water absorbing, non water soluble, non water combinant
for polymer (2 pt compound) w/ example catalyst for dams: Benzene compound chains
Y – ch/ hydrogen / carbon?

(New pressure = Original pressure x Ratio of volumes)
Adding physical pressure against dam surface by shearing impact from fault line justification, N –> S, / W – There is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that actual pressures against both earthen dam configs and concrete mass is several times greater than that calculations made in the original studies, plans, drawings, blueprints and engineering scope.

This is to suggest that using the model additionally contributing temperature, local conditions and altitude into the mix, there is an equation / (Charles’ Law – Effect of Temperature on the Volume of a Gas) / theoretical basis for determining that where any dam face lacks a concave face abutment and has also shifted by impact (of earthquakes and aftershocks) – the 1/273 division of volume could be assumed to amplify.

What I mean is that, the sublevel pressures are somewhat greater as the altitude pressures were initially considered at one thing (within a range) and now are something else because of changes in temperature, local air pressure changes (weather systems) and changes in temperature in the volume of water behind the dams. The difference in this justification is in the range of safety only if all things remain constant, which they didn’t. At each motion of the fault line and shear zone, as well as along the subset of secondary fault lines (in almost a perpendicular relationship to the main fault line) – there were pressures exerted far exceeding what any of these dams, their materials or their designs were engineered to withstand.

There is also evidence, in the area, of building materials practices which took standards from the international and US community and cut back on the minimum requirements for safety as they were listed and established for good reason. The “Manual of Standard Practice for Detailing Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 315-74)” – although intended as a “drawing” book does include, on page 161 of Appendix A – some interesting facts about building guidelines for use in earthquake prone areas. The aggregate mix used in the area for buildings that have already collapsed was obviously not on the highest end of safety – it appears brittle and crumbly in the pictures of it broadcast after the quake and building collapses. There is little evidence that the Appendix A “supple elastic / elasticity” details for specifically increased tensile strength were used in practice in the region.

Also, “Most codes specify the minimum concrete protection for the reinforcement depending upon the importance of the member, the type of exposure, and where this is necessary, the fire protect.” in Section 2.9.7 indicates along with some other passages that the guidelines are gauged on a minimum standard and represent the most economical basis at a minimum requirement level for safety ( not an average nor maximum.) Therefore, when local engineering concerns of any kind deplete the associated risks list in combination with degrading the spec. for the sake of economy, ease of construction or time constraints, – they are not taking away from a huge pool of a safety buffer zone, but in fact quite the opposite. They are taking away from what was barely a level of safety in the first place at the greatest economy of construction. There are certainly updated forms of these standards and codes, but many of them have not been reconstructed since the 1930’s when they were first designed and adopted. None of them account for the increased decomposition ratios of structures in general nor in specifically situated geographical references.

Some of the ideas I was brainstorming yesterday are interesting and some are probably not going to work in this lifetime – but please relay at will where they might do some good for saving the lives of the people endangered by these dams. Thankyou, – cricketdiane c. (sparky) phillips, 2008

From yesterday’s notes: