Technology Foundation STW

The Novosibirsk region is one of the most industrialized in Siberia. In 1957 the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (now Siberian Branch of the RAS (SBRAS)) was set up to stimulate a rapid development of the Siberian and Far East research forces. The goal of this mainly bibliometric, empirical study is to obtain insight into R&D performance in the Novosibirsk region, domestic and international collaborations and the impact of new government science policies focused on boosting the research and innovation activities of regional universities. Key drivers of research performance are institutions of the SBRAS. Second place in terms of research output belongs to Novosibirsk State University. Its research focuses on hard sciences. 75% of its papers were published in collaboration with SBRAS institutions. Research output is growing. Novosibirsk area's share of RFBR grants was stable around 8%. Publications from RFBR grantees in 34 subject categories had a level-aggregated indicator value of one or higher. In these hard-science areas Russian research develops in accordance with global trends. We observed a concentration of domestic collaboration in the Novosibirsk area as well as a strong international collaboration with advanced economies, in particular in the Asia---Pacific region.

It was in the years around 1970 that during site-test campaigns for JOSO masts were erected up till 30 m height with sensors at several heights for the measurement of temperature fluctuations. Cornelis (Kees) Zwaan discovered that the fluctuations decrease drastically at heights from about 15 m and upward when there is some wind. The conclusion from this experience was the open telescope principle: the telescope should be completely free in the air 15 m or more above the ground. The Dutch Open Telescope (DOT) was the pioneering demonstrator of the open-telescope technology. Now that larger high-resolution telescopes come in view, it is time to analyze again the principle: (i) the essentials for proper working of the open principle; (ii) the differences with nighttime observations particularly concerning the seeing; (iii) the design consequences for the new generation of high-resolution solar telescopes.

History is a respected branch of learning, as is archaeology. However, although both deal with the past, they approach it from different angles and, thus, see different things. Unfortunately, the interaction between the two disciplines is weak. One of the most famous historians of our times, Lynn White, observed this phenomenon and won renown by integrating archaeological knowledge of mediaeval artefacts with academic knowledge'. Following White other historians rewrote parts of the economic and political history of the Middle Ages. The picture that emerged was quite different from the one that existed before2. Not only did the 'dark ages' become less dark, in some aspects they even seemed to be more enlightened than the early Renaissance. It became apparent that, in these so-called dark ages consistent use was made of ancient knowledge. Gimpel showed, for example, that mediaeval engineers had a fairly good knowledge of the works and writings of their counterparts in ancient Rome. The scholarly writers of the period, who are the main sources for students of history, were not aware of this. The fate of Vitruvius' work illustrates this point. The Ten books on Architecture by this Roman engineer who lived at the time of Emperor Augustus were 'rediscovered' in 1414 by the humanist Poggio. Renaissance scholars believed them to have been lost during the Middle Ages. They were wrong, however, for 55 examples of the book still exist today, which were copied between the 10th and 15th century. In other words, mediaeval engineers knew and used Vitruvius' work, but their scholarly contemporaries were unaware of its existence.