Hybridized polymer matrix composite

Under certain conditions of combined fire and impact, graphite fibers are released to the atmosphere by graphite fiber composites. The retention of graphite fibers in these situations is investigated. Hybrid combinations of graphite tape and cloth, glass cloth, and resin additives are studied with resin systems. Polyimide resins form the most resistant composites and resins based on simple novolac epoxies the least resistant of those tested. Great improvement in the containment of the fibers is obtained in using graphite/glass hybrids, and nearly complete prevention of individual fiber release is made possible by the use of resin additives

Is There a Free-Market Economist in the House? The Policy Views of American Economic Association Members

People often suppose or imply that free-market economists constitute a significant portion of all economists. We surveyed American Economic Association members and asked their views on 18 specific forms of government activism. We find that about 8 percent of AEA members can be considered supporters of free-market principles, and that less than 3 percent may be called strong supporters. The data is broken down by voting behavior (Democratic or Republican). Even the average Republican AEA member is “middle-of-the-road,” not free-market. We offer several possible explanations of the apparent difference between actual and attributed views.-

Narrow-Tent Democrats and Fringe Others: The Policy Views of Social Science Professors

This paper provides copious results from a 2003 survey of academics. We analyze the responses of 1208 academics from six scholarly associations (in anthropology, economics, history, legal and political philosophy, political science, and sociology) with regard to their views on 18 policy issues. The issues include economic regulations, personal-choice restrictions, and military action abroad. We find that the academics overwhelmingly vote Democratic and that the Democratic dominance has increased significantly since 1970. A multivariate analysis shows strongly that Republican scholars are more likely to land outside of academia. On the 18 policy questions, the Democratic-voter responses have much less variation than do the Republicans. The left has a narrow tent. The Democratic and Republican policy views of academics are somewhat in line with the ideal types, except that across the board both groups are simply more statist than the ideal types might suggest. Regarding disciplinary consensus, we find that the discipline with least consensus is economics. We do a cluster analysis, and the mathematical technique sorts the respondents into groups that nicely correspond to familiar ideological categories: establishment left, progressive, conservative, and libertarian. The conservative group and the libertarian group are equal in size (35 individuals, each), suggesting that academics who depart from the leftist ranks are as likely to be libertarian as conservative. We also find that conservatives are closer to the establishment left than they are to the libertarians.-

How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities? Survey Evidence from Six Fields

In Spring 2003, a large-scale survey of American academics was conducted using academic association membership lists from six fields: Anthropology, Economics, History, Philosophy (political and legal), Political Science, and Sociology. This paper focuses on one question: To which political party have the candidates you’ve voted for in the past ten years mostly belonged? The question was answered by 96.4 percent of academic respondents. The results show that the faculty is heavily skewed towards voting Democratic. The most lopsided fields surveyed are Anthropology with a D to R ratio of 30.2 to 1, and Sociology with 28.0 to 1. The least lopsided is Economics with 3.0 to 1. After Economics, the least lopsided is Political Science with 6.7 to 1. The average of the six ratios by field is about 15 to 1. Our analysis and related research suggest that for the the social sciences and humanities overall, a “one-big-pool” ratio of 7 to 1 is a safe lower-bound estimate, and 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 are reasonable point estimates. Thus, the social sciences and humanities are dominated by Democrats. There is little ideological diversity. We discuss Stephen Balch’s “property rights” proposal to help remedy the situation.academia; diversity; Democratic; Republican; voting; political parties

Learned multi-stability in mechanical networks

We contrast the distinct frameworks of materials design and physical learning in creating elastic networks with desired stable states. In design, the desired states are specified in advance and material parameters can be optimized on a computer with this knowledge. In learning, the material physically experiences the desired stable states in sequence, changing the material so as to stabilize each additional state. We show that while designed states are stable in networks of linear Hookean springs, sequential learning requires specific non-linear elasticity. We find that such non-linearity stabilizes states in which strain is zero in some springs and large in others, thus playing the role of Bayesian priors used in sparse statistical regression. Our model shows how specific material properties allow continuous learning of new functions through deployment of the material itself

The Ideological Profile of Faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A Reply to Zipp and Fenwick

ABSTRACT: In a recent Public Opinion Quarterly article “Is the Academy a Liberal Hegemony?,” John Zipp and Rudy Fenwick pit themselves against “right-wing activists and scholars,” citing our scholarship (Klein and Stern 2005a; Klein and Western 2005). Here we analyze Zipp and Fenwick’s characterization of our research and find it faulty in three important respects. We then turn to their “liberal v. conservative” findings and show they concord with our analysis. If one feels that it is a problem that humanities and social science faculty at four-year colleges and universities are vastly predominantly Democratic voters, mostly with what may called establishment-left or progressive views, then such concerns should not be allayed by Zipp and Fenwick’s article. This Reply was submitted to Public Opinion Quarterly on October 16, 2006, except that the submission did not include the Summary and without Appendix 1 that appear here at the end of the paper.-