Using machining force feedback to quantify grain size in beta titanium

The fluctuating forces on the cutting tool generated during machining of β processed Ti-17 alloy are shown to contain sufficient information to enable measurement of β grain size to an equivalent accuracy of standard etching methods. Three orthogonal forces were gathered, cutting force tangential to the rotation, the force in the feed (radial) direction, and the normal force in the longitudinal axis. Each individual force produced a microstructure image with a high level of contrast but in some cases did not fully highlight all features as shown in the optical image of the equivalent area. By normalising and combining the three forces into a vector, followed by noise reduction, a high-resolution image with sufficient detail to undertake grain size measurements using the linear intercept was produced. The measured grain size differed by no more than 5% with respect the grain size measured in the etched micrograph. It is believed that the forces which have a higher proportion of elastic response in their total values, i.e., the feed and normal forces, produced the higher contrast images, indicating that elastic stresses produce the highest contrast between grains and plastic strains smear out the grain to grain variation

The effect of forging texture and machining parameters on the fatigue performance of titanium alloy disc components

The Mechanisms of fatigue failure in Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-6Mo forged discs are investigated: the effects of forging and machining operations on fatigue are decoupled. A four-point bend fatigue testing approach enabled the crack initiation and propagation characteristics to be studied at multiple locations around the disc periphery. Fatigue performance variation (of ~60%) at different positions, and crack initiation and propagation behaviour were linked to the heterogeneous crystallographic texture - developed during upstream forging. Downstream machining processes were found to increase fatigue life, regardless of the cutting speed. However, circumferential fatigue heterogeneity, inherent from the forging stage was still evident even after machining

Inside out and outside in: The river Thames in William Shakespeare’s <i>The Merry Wives of Windsor</i>

The revels accounts for November 1604 record a performance of “Merry Wiuesof Winsor” on the “Sunday” after “Hallamas Day” by his “Matis Plaiers” in theBanqueting House at Whitehall. This paper asks what The Merry Wives ofWindsor might have sounded like to an audience at that site. By resituating MerryWives in that cultural moment as part of an “aqueous” Christmas season it ispossible to reexamine the places “inside” and “outside” of the play as well as thesites “inside” and “outside” of the Banqueting House. This paper offers the firstsustained reading of the significance of the Thames for Merry Wives. Thegeographically informed structure of the paper takes the reader on a journeythrough the site of Whitehall and the working landscape beyond it. It begins bytracing a “thick description” of the palace architecture before exploringperformances, journeys, and labour on the river. It puts the play performance indialogue with the journeys that brought the actors and audience to Whitehall. Thepaper argues that the increased liquidity of the Folio is especially attuned to thewider geography of this “event” both “inside” and “outside” the palace in 1604.The paper concludes by turning to the threat Falstaff’s wet permeable body posesto the space of the court. Through an examination of the working world of theriver it is possible to see how a threatening potentially subversive Thamesintruded upon courtly space in 1604

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation &lt;92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p&lt;0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p&lt;0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research