 by 7 January, 2014, 5 pm, Perth (Australia) time: • A letter of recommendation by the nominee’s supervisor not to exceed 2 pages; • A pdf copy of the thesis (preferably in English; if not available, in its original language); • An abstract of the thesis in English (no longer than three pages); • A list of publications. The list should comprise journal articles (including those that have been submitted for publication, whether accepted or not), and conference publications (indicating the form of review; no review, by Abstract, by full paper). Publications in preparation or draft should not be listed; • Pdf preprints or reprints of up to three best papers derived from the nominee’s thesis (conference papers can be included). Only one thesis can be submitted for Award from a given University or Institution. When more than one thesis is of sufficient quality for submission for the Award, a preliminary selection must be carried out locally and the nominee’s supervisor needs to explicitly describe in the letter of recommendation the local selection process. If more than one thesis is submitted by a single institution the nominators will be asked to withdraw the submissions voluntarily and explain the reasoning behind the selection. If more than one thesis remains submitted by 7 January (5.00 pm, Peth time) then none of the submissions from that institution will be considered. All submissions will be confirmed upon reception.
The four criteria used to select the best thesis include Pertinence Is the thesis’ subject matter within the scope of the field of fire science and engineering? Impact Have the results of the thesis been disseminated broadly in top ranked peer-reviewed international journals and conferences? Significance Do the results of the thesis add to our present knowledge? Are there new, accurate, useful and important? Quality Are the methodologies applied in the thesis sound and correct? Is the thesis well written?
The recipients of the IAFSS Best Thesis Award “Excellence in Research” will be selected by the IAFSS Awards Committee that consists of Mr Dieter Brein (Chair, The Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany), Dr Craig Beyler (Hughes Associates, USA), Professor Michael Delichatsios (The University of Ulster, UK), Dr Michael Spearpoint (The University of Canterbury, New Zealand) and Professor Takeyoshi Tanaka (Kyoto University, Japan). For the purpose of this Award, the Committee will be assisted by Professor Bogdan Dlugogorski (Murdoch University, Australia).
The picture taken by Dr Philip Thomas; it captures well Professor Kawagoe’s character.
Kunio Kawagoe Gold Medal is awarded by IAFSS as a prestigious recognition of life-long contributions to and career achievements in fire science and engineering. The Award comprises Bronze Medal of gold appearance and Plaque. It entitles the recipient to free travel to and free registration at the Symposium, where the Award is formally announced and presented.
Please send nominations, including a justification (up to two pages in length), and contact details of the proposer and the seconder, to Dr Craig Beyler, [email protected], by 7 January 2014, 5 pm, Baltimore time. Either the proposer or the seconder must be a member of IAFSS. Self-nominations will not be accepted. A nominee may or may not be a member of IAFSS. Each nomination is confidential and should not be disclosed to a nominee.
The past recipients of the Kunio Kawagoe Gold Medal made significant and lasting contributions to fire science and engineering through innovation and impact of their publications. Their research findings frequently led to paradigm shifts in fire regulations, in fire standards and in practical applications of fire safety science and engineering around the world. Some trained research students and young fire safety engineers, produced important textbooks and monographs and often dedicated themselves to fire safety education. They were active in international fire safety community.
Golfers are looking for the next big thing, and the Foresight GC3 might just be it.
The Personal Launch Monitor space has, shall we say, left plenty to be desired when it comes to accuracy. The entry of the Foresight GC3 may have pushed the cost of ownership above the $500 point that golfers have become accustomed to, but as the saying goes, you get what you pay for.
The GC3 retails for $7,000, which admittedly might be out of reach for most golfers, but with that, not only do you get more data than you get with other personal launch monitors, that data is actually reliable. With the GC3, Foresight provides a robust number of data points, including the most important/relevant data that consumers need.
Most of these metrics aren’t available in personal launch monitors within the $500-$2000 range. It’s also notable that the GC3 offers a Barometric Sensor. For those who don’t know what that means, here it is in a nutshell.
Temperature, humidity, and altitude vary across the world. I’m guessing you knew that. If your launch monitor numbers assume sea level, but you’re playing in the mountains, your actual distance will be significantly longer than what the data suggests because of the altitude and air density. Temperature matters too.
A barometric sensor takes into account the environment and gives you accurate data based on where you are. You just take this unit to the course you’re playing and you are good to go with your real numbers. No more guessing. It’s that simple.
Foresight use is rapidly growing on TOUR and without sponsorship dollars pushing the shift. The majority of PGA TOUR pros inside the Top 25 own GCQuads. Pay attention next time TV cameras scan the range. You’re going to see a significant number of Foresights.
The best players in the world trust the GCQuad, but is there any chance the GC3 can provide the same level of accuracy for average golfers?
How do you set it up to record data? Turn it on, plonk it down parallel to your target line, and hit. It’s that simple. Point and shoot, if you will.
When using the Foresight GC3 outside, you can link the unit up to a tablet or phone to get more data than what’s offered by the screen alone. If can also provide head data with one fiducial (the technical word for a sticker) placed high and in the middle of the face. 
Downloading and installing the software is easy, and setting up the device takes no time at all. I was off and running in a matter of minutes. Trust me, it’s every bit as fast, if not faster, to get rolling with the Foresight GC3 than most of the $500 Personal Launch Monitors we’ve tested.
For the money, I suppose it should be.
Ok, let’s face it. The GCQuad is the holy grail of photometric (camera-based) launch monitors, but, it turns out, the GC3 doesn’t lag much behind. It’s true; the GC3 doesn’t give you Loft/Lie, Face Angle, Impact Location, or Closure Rate. It doesn’t measure putter data either. That might be a letdown for some, but, honestly, the only metrics I’d personally miss are face angle and maybe Loft/Lie. The other metrics aren’t as necessary, and in most cases, can be extrapolated or figured out some other way. Plus, for $7,000, you get a massive amount of data. It gets you a good bit of the way to the $18,000 GCQuad.
The question I have been asked the most is, “how reliable is the new GC3 compared to the GCQuad?” Well… I’ll just leave this data up for you, and you can see how it compares for yourself.
Honestly, I’m not surprised one bit. Both units leverage the same flight algorithms, and both capture data reliable. Even with the challenges of running both units in parallel, The ball was exceptionally close – consistently closer than we’ve seen with any personal launch monitor we’ve tested to date. While I did hit a single shot where the units disagreed by about 300 RPM, a healthy number of shots were bang on, often within 50-100 RPM of the GCQuad.
Unfortunately, while we can capture ball data while running the units side-by-side (well, across from each other), the same method won’t work for head data. What we’ve seen suggests the Foresight GC3 does accurately capture head data, and given the capture methodology is the same as the GCQuad, the expectation is that head data will be consistent and accurate.
The question is, how does the GC3 hold up against other Personal Launch Monitors? It’s a bit of a loaded question given the not entirely insignificant price difference. Apples and oranges, perhaps, but if you’re wondering what you get for the extra cash, here is a comparison between the Garmin R10, Rapsodo, and the GC3 compared to the GC Quad.
As you can see, both of these personal launch monitors don’t even sniff the GC3. While the more inexpensive units do well for a couple of metrics, a 7.64% average difference in carry can amount to more than a club length. And it’s not consistently 7.64%. Sometimes it’s less, sometimes considerably more. So I’m not sure if I would rely on that data to translate to the course.
I’m going to be upfront with you. Unless you absolutely have to have a few more metrics (and are willing to pay another for $11,000 to get them), this