We, Market Research Store, after comprehensive analysis, have introduced a new research study on “Global (United States, China, and European Union) Diamond Lapping Film Market Research Report 2019-2025.” A section of the report serves with in-depth information on Product Types[PSA Backing, Plain Backing], Applications[Glass, Rubber, Ceramics and Plastic, Aerospace Parts, Precision Automotive Parts, Fibre Optic Connectors] and Key Players[3M, Kemet, Advanced Abrasives Corporation, Beijing Grish Hitech, Extec Corp]
Another section of the report particularly focuses on delivering wide-ranging analytical information on regional segmentation, which includes North America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East & Africa, Europe, and Rest of the World. Apart from this, manufacturing protocols, costing, development plans & policies, current trends, dynamics, clear market terminologies, and classifications, are very well described in the report. The researchers’ team presents the analytical data and figures in the report in an effectual way with the help of graphs, diagrams, pie charts, and other pictorial illustrations.
If you are managing a Diamond Lapping Film manufacturing company and handling imports-exports then this published piece of article will surely assist you in understanding the sales volume with impacting trends.
To Get FREE PDF Sample Pages of Diamond Lapping Film Market Report, click @ www.marketresearchstore.com/report/global-diamond-lapping-film-market-report-2019-586762#InquiryForBuying
Important Points Mentioned In The Diamond Lapping Film Market Study
Manufacturing Analysis: The report comprises descriptive information after analyzing multiple segments of Diamond Lapping Film market, which include product type and applications, among others. The Diamond Lapping Film market report includes a separate chapter emphasizing thorough analysis of the manufacturing process authenticated via primary information gathered from key officials of reputed industries and several industry analysts.
Sales and Revenue Estimation: By implementing several top-down and bottom-up approaches on the historical sales & revenue data and the current market status, the researchers have forecasted the market growth and size in key regions. Moreover, the report includes a comprehensive study on classified and prominent types as well as end-use industry. The report even provides significant information related to regulatory policies and macroeconomic factors that determine Diamond Lapping Film industry evolution and predictive analysis.
Demand & Supply Assessment: Diamond Lapping Film report also offers important information on product & service distribution, manufacturing, Consumption, and Export & Import (EXIM) ** if applicable.
Competitiveness: The Diamond Lapping Film report provides key information based on the product portfolio, company profile, product & service cost, potential, and sales & revenue generated by the global and regional leading companies.
Enquire Here For Discount Or Report Customization @ www.marketresearchstore.com/report/global-diamond-lapping-film-market-report-2019-586762#RequestSample
SWOT Analysis of Leading Contenders: 3M, Kemet, Advanced Abrasives Corporation, Beijing Grish Hitech, Extec Corp Market Growth by Types: PSA Backing, Plain Backing Market Growth by Applications: Glass, Rubber, Ceramics and Plastic, Aerospace Parts, Precision Automotive Parts, Fibre Optic Connectors
Introduction about Global (United States, China, and European Union) Diamond Lapping Film Market
Global (United States, China, and European Union) Diamond Lapping Film Market Size (Sales) Market Share in 2018 by Product Type (Categorization)
Global (United States, China, and European Union) Diamond Lapping Film Market Size (Sales) Market Share in 2018 by Application Type (End-Users)
Global (United States, China, and European Union) Diamond Lapping Film Growth Rate and Sales (2013-2023)
Global (United States, China, and European Union) Diamond Lapping Film Market Share and Sales (Volume) Comparison by Applications
Global (United States, China, and European Union) Diamond Lapping Film Suppliers/Players Profiles along with their Sales Data
Diamond Lapping Film Competition by Region, Application, Type, and Suppliers/Players
Defined (Value, Sales Price, and Volume) table for each geographic region under Diamond Lapping Film
A separate table of product value, market sales, gross margin, and revenue (2013-2018) for each product type
Additional Information: List of competitors along with their basic information and manufacturing platform
Essential commodities to generate the final product, supply chain, price trends, industrial chain analysis, sourcing strategy, and downstream buyers, ………..and more in complete table of Contents
To order the research study Global (United States, China, and European Union) Diamond Lapping Film Market Research Report 2019-2025, click here @ www.marketresearchstore.com/report/global-diamond-lapping-film-market-report-2019-586762
W Series organisers have revealed 18 of the 20 drivers who will compete in the 2020 championship, with reigning champion Jamie Chadwick signed up to return to the category.
Williams development driver Chadwick will be joined by her 11 nearest opponents from the inaugural season as the top 12 automatically earned an invitation to return for the following year.
Race winners Beitske Visser, Emma Kimilainen, Marta Garcia and Alica Powell have taken the opportunity to return as did Fabienne Wohlwend, Miki Koyama, Sarah Moore, Vicky Piria, Tasmin Pepper, Jessica Hawkins and Sabre Cook.
Six new drivers will join the series after recently being evaluated at the Almeria circuit in Spain; they include Nerea Marti, who competed in the Spanish Formula 4 championship, and 2014 US F1600 champion Ayla Agren.
One name which could be familiar to many is Abbie Eaton for her time spent as a test driver on Amazon Prime’s series ‘The Grand Tour’.
The other drivers will be Bruna Tomaselli, who has competed in the ‘Road To Indy’ USF2000 championship for the past two seasons, and she will be joined by Spain’s Belen Garcia and Irina Sidorkova, who will be the youngest driver in the series at 16 years of age.
$500k is the prize on offer to the champion with a further $1m set to be spread across the other competitors as the end of the season. The championship will also continue to be a part of the DTM support package with the cars being provided by Hitech Grand Prix.
Dave Ryan, W Series Racing Director said: “I was generally impressed by the 14 drivers whom we tested and appraised at Almeria [southern Spain] last month, and making our selection was correspondingly difficult.
“But we’ve crunched all the data to the best of our ability, and I’m therefore confident that the 18 drivers whom we’ve selected so far represent an excellent line-up.
“But we’ve left two spaces available, to allow us a little more time to select the final two drivers who, together with the 18 drivers we’ve already selected, will make up the 20 drivers who’ll contest the 2020 W Series championship.
“However, all the stars of our 2019 season will race again with us in 2020 – including Jamie [Chadwick], who’ll be defending her crown, as well as Beitske [Visser], Alice [Powell], Marta [Garcia] and Emma [Kimilainen], who all won races with us last year – but some of the new drivers on our 2020 entry list are clearly very good too.
“I’m consequently hoping our 2020 season will be even better than our 2019 season.”
The recent announcement that scientists discovered water on the planet K2-18b, 110 light-years away, prompted a media swoon. News stories, including a piece written by me, billed it as the first detection of water on a “potentially habitable” planet outside our solar system.
The blowback from the astronomy community was swift. A chorus of critics stated on Twitter that, although K2-18b orbits its host star within a distance range astronomers call the habitable zone, the planet is most likely too hot and under too much pressure to support life.
The sentiments expressed in a Scientific American essay by Harvard University astronomer Laura Kreidberg were typical of many in the community. Kreidberg’s piece suggested that news outlets were “crying wolf” and that scientists, press officers, and the press had all contributed to the misreporting of the story.
An illustration of the exoplanet K2-18b. Image: NASA
But in describing K2-18b as a potentially habitable planet, journalists were accurately reporting the views of the scientists who led one of the research studies. Those scientists repeatedly stated to reporters that the planet was “potentially habitable” — and they continued to say so when the specific criticisms of their peers’ were put to them.
The episode highlights a longstanding issue: How should we science journalists cover incremental research advances, especially when the underlying science is unsettled?
Recent history gives us numerous examples of how these so-called single-study stories can go wrong. Among the most notable was the coverage of a 1998 Lancet paper in which Andrew Wakefield and coauthors proposed that a combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine was linked to autism and bowel disease. Another high profile case involved papers published in Science in 2004 and 2005 in which a group led by Hwang Woo-Suk claimed to have cloned human embryonic stem cells for the first time.
Both research efforts were later discredited. In the case of the Wakefield paper, the selection of the sample group was biased, there were undisclosed vested interests, and the authors made several claims that did not stand up to scrutiny. The paper was retracted in 2010. Woo-Suk’s papers were simply fraudulent.
I’d suggest that both of these cases are outliers; the media was duped — as were the journals themselves — by researchers who had an agenda or were simply dishonest about their results. Even when scientists act in good faith, however, things can go wrong. It is legitimate to ask those at the highest level of their profession to give their view on their own work, even if that view is speculative and at odds with what their rivals and colleagues have to say. But there are a few provisos.
First, a journalist should always reflect dissenting views. Sadly, much if not most coverage of the K2-18b story failed to do this, as is all too often the case with other single-study stories. (My own K2-18b coverage came under criticism for initially not including enoughdissenting voices.) Many journalists believe that if research has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it must be credible, and they make the mistake of reporting the research uncritically.
As I suggested in an article for BBC News, it is our job as science journalists to challenge what we are told. This is especially the case now that more of us report on controversial topics such as genetically modified crops, cloning, and climate change, which have complex political, as well as scientific, dimensions.
But even in the case of basic science discoveries — in the realm, say, of anthropology or dark energy — there is often plenty of debate. The standard narrative, “people used to think x and now, because of this discovery they think y,” is not the way science works, and it quite frankly makes for boring copy.
Artist’s concept showing two super-Earth exoplanets, K2-18b and c, orbiting the red dwarf star K2-18. Image credit: Alex Boersma
A second proviso is that all voices are not equal. The views of people who are not qualified in the particular area of research in question carry less weight than those of people who are. Like many serious journalism platforms, BBC News, where I work, has a strict policy of balance and impartiality. In the 1990s and 2000s, that policy led many of our programs to “balance” scientific voices warning of climate change or reassuring people about the safety of vaccines with the voices of people arguing the opposite.
The contrarian views would often come from pressure groups such as climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers or from scientists commenting on a specialty different than their own. The BBC’s science and health correspondents argued strongly against the policy, which had been at the heart of the organization’s journalism. In 2010, this led to a change in editorial guidelines, the new stance being that “due weight” should be given to the scientific consensus on any given subject before reflecting contrary views.
A third and final proviso is to beware of science journalism’s oldest enemy: hype. Journalists should be wary both of researchers’ natural enthusiasm and of their sometimes-deliberate efforts to drum up publicity in order to secure research funding. In academia, cures for cancer, a new understanding of physics, and bottomless sources of clean energy are seemingly always between five and 10 years away.
The most recent example of a new technology being touted as an answer to all our problems is gene editing. In August 2017, Shoukhrat Mitalipov and colleagues reported in the journal Nature that they had successfully repaired a gene associated with a rare heart condition in a human embryo. The research has since been challenged, but in reporting the development, Britain’s bestselling daily newspaper, The Sun, loaded on the hyperbole, writing that “the revolutionary work … could help end 10,000 hereditary illnesses including cancer” and that “scientists say it could signal the end to inherited diseases.”
Seventeen years earlier, British tabloids were saying the same thing about gene therapy. A story in The Daily Express’s Sunday Review in July 2000 asked: “Could we be on the verge of the greatest medical advance ever seen, even greater than the defeat of smallpox or cholera — the defeat of time itself?” Similarly, rosy predictions were made in 2007 about how microbes would provide an “endless” supply of biofuel.
Distances and names of all the known potentially habitable planets. Image: PHL
Such credulous reporting may be becoming more prevalent, ironically, because of scientific institutions’ efforts to be helpful to science journalists. Organizations such as the UK’s Science Media Center have sprouted up to coordinate the dissemination of press releases and other resources to journalists, often with the stated aim of countering misinformation. We science journalists get ideas, our editors get happy, uplifting stories, and the public gets a warm glow in its heart.
But an information pipeline that runs uninterrupted from scientists to press officers to the news media puts us at risk of another kind of misinformation. A great science story counts for nothing if it gives readers a misleading impression or paints a cartoonish, one-dimensional picture of how science works. Such stories are their own brand of fake news. In writing them, we do neither the scientists, their press officers, nor our readers any favors.
When I started as a science journalist in the 1980s, single-study stories were the norm. Our job was to translate complex scientific information and artfully explain its significance to a non-scientific audience.
But many of us saw a responsibility to do more: to challenge, weigh, and assess the tablets of stone we were handed from omniscient researchers and to put them in a societal context. In other words, we became journalists, using our own skills and experience to add value and provide an important civic service.
My sense, though, is that because of staff and budget cuts, the extra time and effort needed to fulfil that role are seen by editors as luxuries, and so single-study stories are on the increase.
Perhaps in 20 years’ time scientists will have confirmed that K2-18b really is habitable. Until then, let’s hope that science journalists will have the time and the self-confidence to listen to a range of views, and to give their own perspectives.
The author is a science correspondent with BBC News.
This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.
The Great Diwali Discount! Unlock 75% more savings this festive season. Get Moneycontrol Pro for a year for Rs 289 only. Coupon code: DIWALI. Offer valid till 10th November, 2019 .
Prior to the official opening ceremony of the ITS World Congress in Singapore (October 21) urban air taxi pioneers Volocopter and Skyports unveiled their first prototype VoloPort – the infrastructure that it plans will turn its revolutionary transport solution into a viable public service for cities around the world.
They used the event to call on global city chiefs and regulators to collaborate on the project that they believe will become a completely new form of transportation, offering fast, affordable, clean, point-to-point travel in the air, thereby one day taking pressure off traditional ground-based transportation.
Duncan Walker (above right), managing director of Skyports, the company Volocopter has partnered with to promote and build its VoloPorts, and Florian Reuter, CEO of Volcopter, faced the world’s press in the mock-up VoloPort building, complete with Volocopter vehicle, on the The Float at Marina Bay, with the backdrop of Singapore’s iconic skyline.
While some excitement surrounded the vehicle itself and the potential for its autonomous operation and even the possibility of one day relieving ground-level congestion, Walker told Traffic Technology Today that the main reason for their presence at the ITSWC 2019 was to build bridges with transportation chiefs from around the world.
“We’re really excited to be here in Singapore launching the world’s first VoloPort, a partnership between Skyports and Volocopter,” said Walker. “But why are we here? It really boils down to a simple thing: political engagement.
“We need buy-in from the top level. And we really encourage that because it allows cities to dictate how they want it to happen. These are their cities. We are bringing in something that we feel will be really exciting and useful to the population. But every city is different.
“If we can get the engagement that we’ve had at a brilliant level in Singapore from all sorts of departments, transportation departments, land authorities, aviation departments, then it’s super joined-up. It’s integrated. And that’s a really great base from which to launch into this exciting world.
“Ultimately, we want to get it to a stage where people don’t think about the technology – when you jump in a taxi today you don’t really think about the underlying technology it takes to move it around. It’s just part of everyday life. If we get to that stage, we’ve done it.”
Reuter, Volocopter’s CEO (above), added, “Testing is very exciting. But we need all elements of the ecosystem to come together. We can’t do it all on our own. One of the most important parts is the infrastructure. The VoloPort enables the turnaround of the vehicle and the passenger. We also need to make sure the vehicle is actively integrated with the traffic management system and we are working with partners to achieve that. One day we think there will be small unmanned eVTOLs (electric vertical take-off and landing vehicles), large unmanned vehicles and air taxis. They all have to coexist, which is why we are working to develop the traffic management system.”
Walker suggested that Singapore may be the first city in the world that will see a commercial Volocopter service. “The VoloPort is an important step towards establishing an entire air taxi solution in Singapore,” he said. “Skyports has identified a number of potential VoloPort locations and air taxi routes across the city state.”
All eyes will be on Singapore’s Marina Bay once again tomorrow (October 22) as Volocopter plans to make its first ever urban test flight, with ITS World Congress attendees watching. It promises to be an exciting moment in transportation history… weather permitting.