Spaceclaim 2012 Serial Number
Carey Jangam
Keep Backup files for ^ days: Use the scroll box to select the number of days (0-100) that you want to store your Backup files. By default, Discovery SpaceClaim sets the number of days at 7.
Use the PolygonComplex object composed of three or more straight lines in a closed figure. Use the Polygon tool to sketch a polygon with up to 32 sides. tool to draw a polygon with between 3 and 64 sides. You can dimension the location of the axis, the length of the radius, the orientation angle, and set the number of sides as you sketch the polygon.
This video demonstrates how to smooth out an entire mesh or a local area. It shows how to reduce the number of facets to make a file smaller and easier to work with, and regularize triangles to have a more consistent aspect ratio.
Ansys SpaceClaim Mesh is a comprehensive meshing tool, designed to produce organized hexahedral (brick) mesh for complex geometry. Additionally, free tetrahedral or hex dominating mesh is supported. Hexahedral elements have the benefit of occupying a particular volume with only a small number of nodes and components.
"The fact that that tradition [of the earliest published value] and the empirical analysis and the theoretical analysis all converge convinces me that 80 [km] is a better number than 100," McDowell said.
Comfort aside, the rise of space tourism raises a host of ethical problems ranging from the safety of passengers (for this, one travel insurance company has recently announced space tourism coverage) to the colonial rhetoric many space boosters use. But most of all, the current era represents a significant paradigm shift: the ultra rich, rather than the military or science elite, will soon hold much of the power in the low-Earth orbit, with a growing number of proposed space stations and rocket launches being dominated by billionaire-owned startups in the private sector.
I'm relatively new to the world of Postgres, but I understand VACUUM ANALYZE is recommended. I think there's also a sub-option which just frees up space. I found reindex useful as well when doing batch inserts or deletes. Yes I've been working with tables with a similar number of rows, and the speed increase is very noticeable (UBuntu, Core 2 Quad)
Check your autogrowth settings Opens a new window and set them to a fixed size if that is the case. There's no specific size or formula for determining this as it is all dependent upon workload. Autogrowth causes the transaction that initiated it to pause while the growth is happening, so you want a number that is small enough not to take a long time but large enough they aren't happening all the time.
In the 1960s Frank Drake, Carl Sagan and a number of other scientists began searching for signals indicating the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. As it became increasingly clear that there was no intelligent life on other planets in the solar system, it became possible to detect signals from much further away. The Drake Equation was a way to estimate the number of civilizations out in the galaxy that could be sending out radio signals we could detect.
Companies are selected automatically by the algorithm. A company's rating is calculated using a mathematical algorithm that evaluates the information in your profile. The algorithm parameters are: user's rating, number of resolved issues, number of company's responses etc. The algorithm is subject to change in future.
The patent fails to disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, resulting in objection under Article 100(b) EPC. The patent sets out two aspects of the problem of accommodating a larger number of tubes within a given size of bearing, these being the mutual spacing of the respective upper and lower ends. Solutions to both of these problems are contained in the single embodiment but each of the independent claims contains a solution to only a respective one of the problems. If as a result of an increase in the number of tubes it were to become necessary to provide a solution to one of the problems the result would remain unworkable without a solution also to the other problem. Indeed, the patent proprietor has stated that the embodiment is "the invention". Whilst it is not disputed that the skilled person is able to build the subject-matter as claimed, the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure is satisfied only if the problem is solved over the entire claimed range. This view is supported by decisions T 409/91, T 5/99 and T 632/01.
As regards inventive step of the subject-matter of claim 1 according to the fourth auxiliary request the closest state of the art may be seen as that known from D1 which already discloses inclined risers. The subject-matter of claim 1 differs therefrom in that the imaginary lower circle is of a diameter that is at least 10% greater than the bearing inside diameter. D1 is silent as regards details of the turret but if the skilled person were to reduce the size of the bearing it would fall within his technical competence to choose an appropriate value, thereby arriving at the claimed relationship without inventive activity. Alternatively, D7 discloses in the embodiment of figure 9 a turret through which a plurality of parallel risers pass. The skilled person faced with the problem of increasing the number of risers and finding that this would result in too little space at the lower ends would employ the inclined arrangement according to D1 to provide that additional space.
The invention resides in the various concepts of modifying the arrangement of the inclined tubes to provide sufficient space around both the upper and lower ends, thereby permitting the passage of a larger number of tubes through a bearing of a given diameter. The essential aspect as regards the lower ends is that they extend outside of the bearing inner diameter. The 10% figure contained in claim 1 as originally filed is without technical significance and the original description indicates this by using terms such as "larger" and "much larger". The requirement that the upper ends of the tubes be "at least about as high as the bearing" is still contained in claim 1 according to all requests by virtue of the specification that the tubes extend between the lower and upper portions of the turret. Moreover, the advantage of the greater spacing around the lower ends of the tubes is obtainable independently of the relative heights of the upper ends and of the bearing. Similarly, the inventive spacing of the lower ends of the tubes does not require that the upper ends lie on a circle of any particular size in comparison to the diameter of the bearing. In the original application page 7, lines 13, 14 it was explicitly stated that the upper ends of the lowest tubes could lie on a larger circle. The specification in claim 1 according to the third and fourth auxiliary requests that the imaginary circle on which the upper ends lie be "about" as high as the bearing is sufficiently clear in context for the skilled person to determine the technical significance.
1. The patent relates to equipment to enable a vessel to act effectively as an offshore oil or gas production platform. Production risers extend from wells on the sea bed and are connected to tubes which pass upwards through a turret mounted on the vessel. In order to permit the vessel to turn to face into the wind direction (cf. "weathervaning" in the claims) whilst the risers remain stationary the turret is rotatably mounted on the vessel by means of a bearing. Larger numbers of risers potentially require larger diameter turrets to accommodate the corresponding tubes, which would result in larger bearings and less storage space on the vessel. The present patent aims to permit a larger number of tubes to be accommodated without increasing the size of the bearing. The independent claims relate to two aspects which permit improved access to the respective ends of the tubes by providing more space. Claim 1 concerns the size of the lower imaginary circle on which the lower ends of the tubes lie and claim 10 (as granted) concerns vertical spacing of the upper ends of the tubes. The single disclosed embodiment includes both aspects.
6.1 As set out above, the problem addressed by the patent is to permit an increase in the number of tubes which can be accommodated in a turret without increasing the size of the bearing. Accordingly, present claim 1 specifies that the tubes have upper ends lying at least about as high as the bearing. It is clear to the skilled person that the solution taught by the patent is applicable to tubes which extend not just to the height of the immediate proximity of the bearing but also ones which have their upper ends at a somewhat lower height at which the size of the bearing still acts as a significant restriction. It is this which is reflected in the word "about" which therefore does not cause any lack of clarity.
7.1 The core of the opponents' argument is that there is a single problem which is solved by the present patent and that this requires the presence of the features of both claims 1 and 8. However, this argument implies that in order to accommodate any larger number of tubes within a bearing of a particular size it would be necessary to provide the claimed features at both the upper and lower ends. There is no evidence that this would be the case. An increase in the number of tubes would result in a reduction of the free space around both the upper and lower ends of the tubes and incorporation of the features according to claims 1 and 8 would provide more space at both ends. However, it is entirely plausible that when the number of tubes accommodated in a turret having a bearing of a certain size is increased the features of claim 1 may be employed to provide more space around the lower ends of the tubes whilst the space available around the upper ends would be reduced but nevertheless remain within acceptable limits. A corresponding argument is applicable in respect of the features of claim 8. It would rest with the skilled person to decide whether the restricted access resulting from an increase in the number of tubes would justify employing the claimed solutions at the upper end, the lower end or both.
aa06259810