Review on Prevalence of Haemonchus Contort us in Ethiopian

In the 17th century, Robert Hooke invented the microscope and our life understanding and disease increased. Further understanding of the invisible, microscopic world has been occurred after the establishment of modern microbiology in the 19th century by Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch. Thanks to modern technology, there have been nearly 300 species of parasitic helminths known to be human parasite. Additionally, livestock, crops and pets are all victims of parasitic helminths, which cause extreme effects on the human population as well [1].

An Act of Particular Providence - Newcomen’s Speedy Vacuum

Comparison of the only known account of the invention of cold water injection to activate an atmospheric engine with contemporary texts on experimental methodology reveals that Newcomen and Calley’s inventive process corresponds with the design of experiments prescribed by Robert Hooke for the Royal Society. Consequently, when an unexpected outcome occurred, they were able to make full application of the findings. Differences between the steam piston experiments of Newcomen and Denis Papin are explored, suggesting that the inventors may have been working in parallel.

Newton and Knowledge of the Universe

Like Bacon, Descartes, and Galileo, Newton identified method as the key to discovering truths about the world, and like theirs, Newton’s method conflated induction and deduction in making claims about reality. Against Robert Hooke, Newton claimed that data spoke for themselves, as in his claim that his prism experiments directly proved that sunlight really was a combination of colors. In his theory of light, Newton claimed that his data allowed him to “deduce” that light was made up of corpuscles, against Christiaan Huygens’ claim that light was composed of spherical waves. In Newton’s mechanics, which became the cornerstone of modern mathematical physics, neither his definitions of space, time, matter, and motion nor his famous three laws of motion were deduced from experimental data. In his dismissal of Descartes’ method of reasoning and in his battles with Leibniz over the nature of reality, Newton was forced to confront the logical weakness of his ontological claims.

New historical records about the construction of the Arch of Ctesiphon and their impact on the history of structural engineering

A piece of historical research about the construction of the ancient Arch of Taq-iKisra, part of the imperial palace of the Sasanian Empire in the city of Ctesiphon, has been carried out. The information obtained, an analysis using graphic statics, the use of a physical model with hanging chains, and an ad hoc optimization program written in MATLAB have shown that the designer of this sixth century ad arch, a Byzantine named Farghán, was aware of the effects of the uneven distribution of loads and the differential settlements of the foundations on the equilibrium shape of structures working exclusively in compression and was able to control them. This discovery predates the earliest statement about the link between the shape of the catenary and that of an arch, by Robert Hooke, by eleven centuries and makes this building relevant not only because of its historical, archaeological, and architectural importance, but also because of its importance in the history of structural engineering. The building is currently in need of restoration to stop its collapse, and an awareness of the way it was designed could be of practical use for the definition of the intervention needed.

How do crystals grow? Steno’s approach

Steno (1638-1686) operated in a historical context rich of discoveries and observations done by previous scientists such as Vannoccio Biringucci, Georg Bauer (Agricola), Johannes von Kepler, Robert Hooke, Christiaan Huyghens, Erasmus Bartholin, and others. Steno also had to fight against some irreducible dogmatic and “mythological” beliefs, such as the vis formativa and succus lapidescens, supported by e.g. Michele Mercati and Anselmo Boetius de Boot, respectively. In De solido intra solidum naturaliter contento dissertationis prodromus Steno deals with almost all aspects of Earth Sciences and not just "solid inclusions" as it might seem from the full title of the Prodromus. This contribution deals only with aspects related to crystallography and minerals in general. The most famous is highlighted by the sentence “non mutatis angulis” which is a clear reference to the fact that interfacial angles of quartz crystals do not change regardless of the size and the number of the faces. This observation was then generalized as a law for all minerals by Jean-Baptiste Romé de l’Isle a century later. Less well known but of great importance is Steno’s assertion that the crystals grow thanks to the addition of particles that come from an external fluid and are not “fed” from the inside like in vegetables; moreover, the speed of growth is not the same for all faces. For example, the faces of the “pyramid” in quartz can grow more or less rapidly than those of the prism (giving rise to either squat or elongated crystals). It can therefore be argued that Steno has greatly contributed to the concept of anisotropy in the solid state, typical of all crystals. Stenonite, Sr2Al(CO3)F5, is a new mineral dedicated to his memory about sixty years ago.

Neutron tomography of Van Leeuwenhoek’s microscopes

The technique of neutron tomography has, after 350 years, enabled a first look inside the iconic single-lens microscopes of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. Van Leeuwenhoek’s 17th-century discovery of “animalcules” marks the birth of microbiology. His skillfully self-produced microscope lenses remained unsurpassed for over 150 years. Neutron tomography now enabled us to reveal the lens types Van Leeuwenhoek used. We argue that Van Leeuwenhoek’s instruments incorporate some innovations that testify to an awareness of concurrent developments. In particular, our analysis shows that for making his best-performing microscopes, Van Leeuwenhoek deployed a lens-making procedure popularized in 1678 by Robert Hooke. This is notable, as Hooke always wanted to find the secret of Van Leeuwenhoek’s lenses, but never managed to do so. Therefore, Van Leeuwenhoek was far from the isolated scholar he is often claimed to be; rather, his secrecy about his lenses was motivated by an attempt to conceal his indebtedness to Hooke.