Concepts of Emission Reduction in Fluidized Bed Combustion of Biomass

A status report on fluidized bed technology in Austria is under preparation, in response to the Fluidized Bed Conversion multi-lateral technology initiative of the International Energy Agency. This status report focuses on the current operation of fluidized bed combustors. Combustors have been installed in the following industrial sectors: pulp and paper, biomass heat and power plants, waste-to-energy plants, and communal sewage sludge treatment plants. There are also some small demonstration plants. These plants all have in common that they treat renewable fuel types. In many cases, only bio-fuels are treated. Besides the ability to burn a wide range of low-grade and difficult fuels, fluidized bed combustors have the advantages of low NOX emissions and the possibility of in-process capture of SO2. Various emission reduction concepts for fluidized bed combustors that are typical for their industrial sector are discussed. The discussion of these concepts focuses on NOX, SO2 and dust

Vineyard weed flora in the Jastrebarsko area (NW Croatia)

Vineyard weed flora was surveyed over the wider Jastrebarsko area (a part of Ple{ivica Mountain, north-west part of Croatia), a well known wine-growing area. The survey was carried out in the years 2001 and 2002, in ten vineyards at six different localities. Ahundred and nine (109) weed species were noted. The presence of segetal weeds such as Amaranthus retroflexus L., Chenopodium album L., Stellaria media (L.)Vill. was recorded in well cultivated vineyards. In addition, ruderal weed species such as Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. were found in vineyards, coming in from surrounding habitats. The species Arctium lappa L., Artemisia vulgaris L. and the others prevail in neglected and abandoned vineyards. It is interesting to record findings of Amaranthus retroflexus, Artemisia vulgaris, Capsella bursa – pastoris (L.)Med. and Daucus carota L. because these species have result in bad grape and wine quality

What is real in hyperrealism? Pictorial representation and layers of the visible

American hyperrealist painting is one of the most famous phenomena of American culture in general, but also one of the most difficult to fit into the art-historical canon. Hyperrealism causes difficulties in interpretation because it is placed between traditional mimetic painting skills and the imaginary of American popular culture. In this article, we will suggest that hyperrealism may be evaluated as primarily a philosophical problem of the understanding of reality and its transformation into a pictorial surface. We will try to foreground the neglected possibility that the “excess of the real” in a painting can be in some allegorical function: as the opposite of reality, in other words, as an absence rather than a presence. Moreover, we will point out the twofold contingency of the hyperrealist pictures: as a philosophical platform for the study of pictorial representation on the one hand and as an evidence that there is no universal theory of pictorial depiction that would establish a connection between extra-pictorial reality and representation on the other. The article will analyze why hyperrealism as an artistic style is not crucially defined by the problem of mimesis, but rather by the problem of (dis)continuity in regard to reality. Instead of asking why hyperrealist paintings are so close to human perception of the world, we try to unveil consequences of its playing on the edges of complex systems such as representation, depiction, similarity, imagination, simulation and recognition. Referring to the aspects of reality in painting, photography and conceptual art we will consider to what extent theory can influence a seemingly straightforward artistic phenomenon to gain a different kind of relevance, while providing insights into the possibilities of viewing hyperrealist paintings as both part of the cultural imaginary and philosophical objects.American hyperrealist painting is one of the most famous phenomena of American culture in general, but also one of the most difficult to fit into the art-historical canon. Hyperrealism causes difficulties in interpretation because it is placed between traditional mimetic painting skills and the imaginary of American popular culture. In this article, we will suggest that hyperrealism may be evaluated as primarily a philosophical problem of the understanding of reality and its transformation into a pictorial surface. We will try to foreground the neglected possibility that the “excess of the real” in a painting can be in some allegorical function: as the opposite of reality, in other words, as an absence rather than a presence. Moreover, we will point out the twofold contingency of the hyperrealist pictures: as a philosophical platform for the study of pictorial representation on the one hand and as an evidence that there is no universal theory of pictorial depiction that would establish a connection between extra-pictorial reality and representation on the other. The article will analyze why hyperrealism as an artistic style is not crucially defined by the problem of mimesis, but rather by the problem of (dis)continuity in regard to reality. Instead of asking why hyperrealist paintings are so close to human perception of the world, we try to unveil consequences of its playing on the edges of complex systems such as representation, depiction, similarity, imagination, simulation and recognition. Referring to the aspects of reality in painting, photography and conceptual art we will consider to what extent theory can influence a seemingly straightforward artistic phenomenon to gain a different kind of relevance, while providing insights into the possibilities of viewing hyperrealist paintings as both part of the cultural imaginary and philosophical objects

What is real in hyperrealism? Pictorial representation and layers of the visible

American hyperrealist painting is one of the most famous phenomena of American culture in general, but also one of the most difficult to fit into the art-historical canon. Hyperrealism causes difficulties in interpretation because it is placed between traditional mimetic painting skills and the imaginary of American popular culture. In this article, we will suggest that hyperrealism may be evaluated as primarily a philosophical problem of the understanding of reality and its transformation into a pictorial surface. We will try to foreground the neglected possibility that the “excess of the real” in a painting can be in some allegorical function: as the opposite of reality, in other words, as an absence rather than a presence. Moreover, we will point out the twofold contingency of the hyperrealist pictures: as a philosophical platform for the study of pictorial representation on the one hand and as an evidence that there is no universal theory of pictorial depiction that would establish a connection between extra-pictorial reality and representation on the other. The article will analyze why hyperrealism as an artistic style is not crucially defined by the problem of mimesis, but rather by the problem of (dis)continuity in regard to reality. Instead of asking why hyperrealist paintings are so close to human perception of the world, we try to unveil consequences of its playing on the edges of complex systems such as representation, depiction, similarity, imagination, simulation and recognition. Referring to the aspects of reality in painting, photography and conceptual art we will consider to what extent theory can influence a seemingly straightforward artistic phenomenon to gain a different kind of relevance, while providing insights into the possibilities of viewing hyperrealist paintings as both part of the cultural imaginary and philosophical objects.American hyperrealist painting is one of the most famous phenomena of American culture in general, but also one of the most difficult to fit into the art-historical canon. Hyperrealism causes difficulties in interpretation because it is placed between traditional mimetic painting skills and the imaginary of American popular culture. In this article, we will suggest that hyperrealism may be evaluated as primarily a philosophical problem of the understanding of reality and its transformation into a pictorial surface. We will try to foreground the neglected possibility that the “excess of the real” in a painting can be in some allegorical function: as the opposite of reality, in other words, as an absence rather than a presence. Moreover, we will point out the twofold contingency of the hyperrealist pictures: as a philosophical platform for the study of pictorial representation on the one hand and as an evidence that there is no universal theory of pictorial depiction that would establish a connection between extra-pictorial reality and representation on the other. The article will analyze why hyperrealism as an artistic style is not crucially defined by the problem of mimesis, but rather by the problem of (dis)continuity in regard to reality. Instead of asking why hyperrealist paintings are so close to human perception of the world, we try to unveil consequences of its playing on the edges of complex systems such as representation, depiction, similarity, imagination, simulation and recognition. Referring to the aspects of reality in painting, photography and conceptual art we will consider to what extent theory can influence a seemingly straightforward artistic phenomenon to gain a different kind of relevance, while providing insights into the possibilities of viewing hyperrealist paintings as both part of the cultural imaginary and philosophical objects