Crown Ic Hamech 2012 v47 Parts Service Manual
Crown Ic Hamech 2012 v47 Parts Service Manual
Crown Ic Hamech 2012 v47 Parts Service Manual
https://manualpost.com/download/crown-ic-hamech-2012-v47-parts-service-manu
al/
**Crown IC Hamech 2012 - V47 Parts, Service Manual** Size: 148 MB Language:
English Format: PDF Type of Manual: Parts Catalog, Service Manual Type of
Machine: Forklift Truck Model: Crown 2012 - V47 IC Hamech Contents: Service
Manual (23 files) Diesel Engine D_4TNE98 Diesel Engine D_4TNV88_94L Fuel
System L-HMC,juniper Fuel System LP-Tier4 Group 01. Cooling System Group 03.
Intake and Exhaust System Group 13. Electrical System Group 22. Wheels and
Tires Group 23. Brake System TA12A_TA30 Transaxle Group 25. Steering
Column and Gear Group 26. Steer Axle Group 29. Hydraulic Sump, Filters, and
Pump Group 30. Hydraulic Control Valve_Lift Circuit Group 32. Tilt Cylinders
Group 34. Upright Group 38. Counterweight and Chassis Group 40. Specifications
Group PS. Periodic Service Group sa. Safety LPG Engine L-GM LPG Engine
L-HMC Transaxle TA12A1 Transaxle TA30 Parts Catalog (1230 pages) Diesel
Pneumatic Lot 9872 LPG Cushion Lot 9866 LPG Cushion Lot 9895 LPG Cushion
Lot 9948 LPG Cushion Lot 9953 LPG Pneumatic Lot 9867
**[Fanpage](https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063795930641)** **[
**More Product**](https://manualpost.com/product-category/new-updated/)**
Download all on: manualpost.com.
Agricola's education was the most thorough that his times afforded
in the classics, philosophy, medicine, and sciences generally. Further,
his writings disclose a most exhaustive knowledge not only of an
extraordinary range of classical literature, but also of obscure
manuscripts buried in the public libraries of Europe. That his general
learning was held to be of a high order is amply evidenced from the
correspondence of the other scholars of his time—Erasmus,
Melanchthon, Meurer, Fabricius, and others.
Our more immediate concern, however, is with the advances which
were due to him in the sciences of Geology, Mineralogy, and Mining
Engineering. No appreciation of these attainments can be conveyed
to the reader unless he has some understanding of the dearth of
knowledge in these sciences prior to Agricola's time. We have in
Appendix B given a brief review of the literature extant at this period
on these subjects. Furthermore, no appreciation of Agricola's
contribution to science can be gained without a study of De Ortu et
Causis and De Natura Fossilium, for while De Re Metallica is of much
more general interest, it contains but incidental reference to Geology
and Mineralogy. Apart from the book of Genesis, the only attempts
at fundamental explanation of natural phenomena were those of the
Greek Philosophers and the Alchemists. Orthodox beliefs Agricola
scarcely mentions; with the Alchemists he had no patience. There
can be no doubt, however, that his views are greatly coloured by his
deep classical learning. He was in fine to a certain distance a
follower of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Strato, and other leaders of the
Peripatetic school. For that matter, except for the muddy current
which the alchemists had introduced into this already troubled
stream, the whole thought of the learned world still flowed from the
Greeks. Had he not, however, radically departed from the teachings
of the Peripatetic school, his work would have been no contribution
to the development of science. Certain of their teachings he
repudiated with great vigour, and his laboured and detailed
arguments in their refutation form the first battle in science over the
results of observation versus inductive speculation. To use his own
words: "Those things which we see with our eyes and understand by
means of our senses are more clearly to be demonstrated than if
learned by means of reasoning."[15] The bigoted scholasticism of his
times necessitated as much care and detail in refutation of such
deep-rooted beliefs, as would be demanded to-day by an attempt at
a refutation of the theory of evolution, and in consequence his works
are often but dry reading to any but those interested in the
development of fundamental scientific theory.
In giving an appreciation of Agricola's views here and throughout the
footnotes, we do not wish to convey to the reader that he was in all
things free from error and from the spirit of his times, or that his
theories, constructed long before the atomic theory, are of the clear-
cut order which that basic hypothesis has rendered possible to later
scientific speculation in these branches. His statements are
sometimes much confused, but we reiterate that their clarity is as
crystal to mud in comparison with those of his predecessors—and of
most of his successors for over two hundred years. As an indication
of his grasp of some of the wider aspects of geological phenomena
we reproduce, in Appendix A, a passage from De Ortu et Causis,
which we believe to be the first adequate declaration of the part
played by erosion in mountain sculpture. But of all of Agricola's
theoretical views those are of the greatest interest which relate to
the origin of ore deposits, for in these matters he had the greatest
opportunities of observation and the most experience. We have on
page 108 reproduced and discussed his theory at considerable
length, but we may repeat here, that in his propositions as to the
circulation of ground waters, that ore channels are a subsequent
creation to the contained rocks, and that they were filled by
deposition from circulating solutions, he enunciated the foundations
of our modern theory, and in so doing took a step in advance
greater than that of any single subsequent authority. In his
contention that ore channels were created by erosion of
subterranean waters he was wrong, except for special cases, and it
was not until two centuries later that a further step in advance was
taken by the recognition by Van Oppel of the part played by fissuring
in these phenomena. Nor was it until about the same time that the
filling of ore channels in the main by deposition from solutions was
generally accepted. While Werner, two hundred and fifty years after
Agricola, is generally revered as the inspirer of the modern theory by
those whose reading has taken them no farther back, we have no
hesitation in asserting that of the propositions of each author,
Agricola's were very much more nearly in accord with modern views.
Moreover, the main result of the new ideas brought forward by
Werner was to stop the march of progress for half a century, instead
of speeding it forward as did those of Agricola.
In mineralogy Agricola made the first attempt at systematic
treatment of the subject. His system could not be otherwise than
wrongly based, as he could scarcely see forward two or three
centuries to the atomic theory and our vast fund of chemical
knowledge. However, based as it is upon such properties as solubility
and homogeneity, and upon external characteristics such as colour,
hardness, &c., it makes a most creditable advance upon
Theophrastus, Dioscorides, and Albertus Magnus—his only
predecessors. He is the first to assert that bismuth and antimony are
true primary metals; and to some sixty actual mineral species
described previous to his time he added some twenty more, and
laments that there are scores unnamed.
As to Agricola's contribution to the sciences of mining and
metallurgy, De Re Metallica speaks for itself. While he describes, for
the first time, scores of methods and processes, no one would
contend that they were discoveries or inventions of his own. They
represent the accumulation of generations of experience and
knowledge; but by him they were, for the first time, to receive
detailed and intelligent exposition. Until Schlüter's work nearly two
centuries later, it was not excelled. There is no measure by which we
may gauge the value of such a work to the men who followed in this
profession during centuries, nor the benefits enjoyed by humanity
through them.
That Agricola occupied a very considerable place in the great
awakening of learning will be disputed by none except by those who
place the development of science in rank far below religion, politics,
literature, and art. Of wider importance than the details of his
achievements in the mere confines of the particular science to which
he applied himself, is the fact that he was the first to found any of
the natural sciences upon research and observation, as opposed to
previous fruitless speculation. The wider interest of the members of
the medical profession in the development of their science than that
of geologists in theirs, has led to the aggrandizement of Paracelsus,
a contemporary of Agricola, as the first in deductive science. Yet no
comparative study of the unparalleled egotistical ravings of this half-
genius, half-alchemist, with the modest sober logic and real research
and observation of Agricola, can leave a moment's doubt as to the
incomparably greater position which should be attributed to the
latter as the pioneer in building the foundation of science by
deduction from observed phenomena. Science is the base upon
which is reared the civilization of to-day, and while we give daily
credit to all those who toil in the superstructure, let none forget
those men who laid its first foundation stones. One of the greatest
of these was Georgius Agricola.
DE RE METALLICA
FOOTNOTES:
[Pg v][1] For the biographical information here set out we have relied
principally upon the following works:—Petrus Albinus, Meissnische Land
Und Berg Chronica, Dresden, 1590; Adam Daniel Richter, Umständliche
... Chronica der Stadt Chemnitz, Leipzig, 1754; Johann Gottfried Weller,
Altes Aus Allen Theilen Der Geschichte, Chemnitz, 1766; Freidrich August
Schmid, Georg Agrikola's Bermannus, Freiberg, 1806; Georg Heinrich
Jacobi, Der Mineralog Georgius Agricola, Zwickau, 1881; Dr. Reinhold
Hofmann, Dr. Georg Agricola, Gotha, 1905. The last is an exhaustive
biographical sketch, to which we refer those who are interested.
[Pg vi][2] Georgii Agricolae Glaucii Libellus de Prima ac Simplici
Institutione Grammatica, printed by Melchior Lotther, Leipzig, 1520.
Petrus Mosellanus refers to this work (without giving title) in a letter to
Agricola, June, 1520.
FOOTNOTES:
[Pg xxiv][1] For completeness' sake we reproduce in the original Latin
the laudation of Agricola by his friend, Georgius Fabricius, a leading
scholar of his time. It has but little intrinsic value for it is not poetry of a
very high order, and to make it acceptable English would require certain
improvements, for which only poets have licence. A "free" translation of
the last few lines indicates its complimentary character:—
"He doth raise his country's fame with his own
And in the mouths of nations yet unborn
His praises shall be sung; Death comes to all
But great achievements raise a monument
Which shall endure until the sun grows cold."
TO THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS
AND MOST MIGHTY DUKES OF
Saxony, Landgraves of Thuringia,
Margraves of Meissen,
Imperial Overlords of Saxony, Burgraves
of Altenberg
and Magdeburg, Counts of Brena, Lords of
Pleissnerland, To maurice Grand Marshall
and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire
and to his brother augustus,[1]
george agricola s. d.