text:
Nissan 240SX Performance Modification/Brakes

There are many brake upgrades for the 240sx. Bellow is a list of them and the process of putting them together.

=Stock brake spec and known compatible replacements= Front options for S-chassis

s13 USDM ('89-'94) rotors are 252x20mm (non ABS) or 257x22mm (with ABS)

180SX/Altima rotors are 280x22mm

Z32 rotors are 280x 26mm or 30mm

rear options for S-chassis

S13 - 10" non-vented rotor, smaller single piston caliper, integral handbrake

S14/S15 - 10" non-vented rotor, larger single piston caliper, integral handbrake

A31 Cefiro - 10.5" vented rotor, smaller single piston caliper, drum handbrake

J30/Q45 - 11" vented rotor, larger single piston caliper, drum handbrake

Z32/R32 - 11.75" vented rotor, 2-piston caliper, drum handbrake

=General notes on brakes= When considering upgrading brakes several factors tie in to the end result. An often overlooked function of a braking configuration is the bias. Brakes should not be upgraded in front or rear only. Rather, the amount of applied braking torque should be increased proportionally front and rear for appropriate feel/bias (e.g. 6 piston front brakes with stainless lines up front and stock pads/lines in the rear can actually decrease overall braking performance).

'''I cannot emphasize enough how important bias is in a braking setup. Just being able to lock-up your front tires easier does NOT mean you are now able to stop quicker!!'''

All the parts need to be considered in a braking setup to determine if its right for you!

Master Cylinder
If you get a larger or smaller master cylinder then for every inch of pedal travel more fluid will be pushed through the lines. Don't just go buying a random larger MC without knowing the specifications, as these have internal valving that determines brake front and rear bias which will severely impact your braking performance.

Pads
There are many aftermarket pad companies that produce sport oriented brake pads. There are many different materials a pad may be comprised of, each having its own individual properties. This will impact dust creation & color, rotor & pad wear rate, and A very important thing: EVERY PAD HAS A HEAT RANGE. This means the pad will ONLY function optimally within a given set of temperatures. OEM brake pads are usually designed to function well in very cold temperatures to moderate braking. When you have had several large hard stops they heat up to a certain point and get out of their range causing the pad to not have the same braking torque and "glaze" the surface. Glazing is a condition in which the properties of the outermost contact layers change and it essentially polishes the mating surface, decreasing the normal grip levels. This is PERMANENT damage to the pads! There is a wide range of compounds from stock all the way up to full race. Note that a pad designed for full race will NOT grab sufficiently during daily street driving and you will be unable to stop normally! Get a pad that suits your driving environment and/or style. If you are going to the track, consider using 2 sets of pads and swap them out at the track.

Rotors
Rotors in a braking system do 2 things. They act as a heatsink so they absorb heat when you brake, and dissipate it normally from air moving over them. The larger the rotor, the more the metal. The more the metal, the more heat can be absorbed during braking and the more fade resistance your car will have. Stock brake rotors are "blanks"; this means that they are just a flat surface. This is the surface your brake pad will mate to and provides the largest total available clamping area per revolution. There are several different variations of the standard brake rotor; some of them are often misunderstood and aren't quite as relevant today as they once were.

Slotting: Doing this to a brake rotor does have benefits, but is more visually appealing than beneficial. Slotting a rotor provides angled slots along the surface that exist to help wipe the pad surface clean on every pass. This ensures a fresh pad surface at all times and it does in fact help protect a pad against fade since it always scrapes off the top layer. It also helps with water and debris evacuation. There are several problems with slots however that outweigh these benefits. One of them is the fact that part of the brake pad is not in contact with the rotor at any given time. This means a lower total square inch area of friction material doing what its there for - applying braking torque. If part of your pad isn't touching, then what's the purpose of it being there? Another issue is with the manufacturing process and physical properties. A slotted rotor is thinner in some areas and although more structurally sound than cross drilling, it still weakens the rotor by providing. This makes the rotor more prone to warping. Another problem depends on if you get a more "economy" production. This means the fresh blank gets churned out in high numbers by a shop that isn't doing it for a quality name but the almighty dollar. In turn, they are cut too hard and too fast by the machine making metals first heat treating an uneven distribution. Its heat treated around and in the cut but the areas nearby don't get hot enough so the isolated spots modified the grain structure of the metal permanently but not all of it. This will also make them more prone to warping. Another problem with slotted rotors is they can tend to create an undesirable pulsating pedal feel by nature. The level is application variant (i.e. larger or more numerous slots translate to more pulsing).

Cross drilling: Cross-drilling a rotor is a practice adopted probably 50 years ago when the materials for a braking pad were mainly a crude organic base. These pads when heated would produce a gas that would get trapped between the pad and the rotor and making a cushion of air between the pad and the rotor. Cross-drilling was created to give the gas an area to escape through. MOST MODERN RACING PADS ARE DESIGNED WITH DIFFERENT METALLIC MATERIALS THAT ALMOST NEVER PRODUCE MORE THAN A FINITE LEVEL OF GAS. This means that cross-drilling a rotor is no longer needed in 99% of applications. Because of the previous need and the stylish benefits these are still widely sold and people are very misinformed on their need. Cross-drilled rotors have a large amount of metal removed and suffer the same problems of slotting. This metal is not in contact with the pad so that is less overall available pad contact surface area for braking torque. This also means less metal available to absorb heat, essentially functioning as if you had a smaller rotor. Also similar to slotted roters, production of cross-drilled rotors can be problematic if they are drilled too fast, causing the initial heat treating to be in isolated spots, and modifying the grain structure of the metal permanently. Another issue is when drilled, a rotor may receive microscopic cracks in the surrounding area. This can cause severe issues, perhaps to the point that a rotor may actually CRACK IN HALF! If you feel you must have cross-drilled rotors for looks, don't get "economy" versions. The best quality cross-drilled rotors have the holes actually CAST or FORGED into the rotor and have a much lower loss in structural integrity.

Brake Lines
Braided stainless steel lines are a great upgrade for any brake system with rubber lines. OEM brake lines tend to be a very soft rubber that expands slightly when pressure is applied. The expansion rate is not linear however so the impact on pedal feel from having them won't be either. Stainless braided lines have the metal reinforcement to deter expansion and result in a stiffer, more linear feel. When purchasing lines, consider those with a plastic or similar outer sleeve protector. This way if rubbing occurs, it wont wear through the stainless braiding, maintaining the integrity of your braking system.

Brake Fluid
Using quality brake fluid is very important for any performance-oriented driver. There are different classifications and rating systems by the department of transportation that determine the minimum dry and wet boiling temperatures. The higher the boiling temperature, the more likely you are able to resist high heat braking without gassing out the lines. Boiling brake fluid introduces air pockets instead of fluid which compress when pressure is applied vs the fluid. This means the pedal might sink to the floor but any line pressure isn't getting to the caliper! That can be very dangerous, and you can tell if your brake fluid is getting to the point where its been boiled by looking at it. fluid appears white if it has ever boiled and should be changed.

Dry / Wet boiling temp

DOT 3 		401ºF  	284º F POLYGLYCOL ETHER BASED FLUID

DOT 4 		446º F 	311º F POLYGLYCOL ETHER BASED FLUID

DOT 5 		500º F 	356º F SILICONE BASED FLUID

DOT 5.1 	518º F 	375º F POLYGLYCOL ETHER BASED FLUID

Dry boiling temp is the fluid in its virgin state. Wet boiling temp is the fluid + 3% water by volume.

Dot 3,4, and 5.1 are all inter-mixable without any negatives. Dot 5 fluid is silicone based and cannot be mixed. Silicone fluid has its ups and down. It is non corrosive to paint unlike normal brake fluid, and it doesn't mix with water so its boiling temps stay the same (actually a negative) Since it doesn't absorb the water the water stays separate. No brake system is completely sealed and will always absorb water. If the system absorbs water but it stays separate you will have 2 fluids, one of them with a very low boiling point (bad) Silicone fluid also has more compressibility by nature and will cause a more "spongy" pedal feel.

Fluid sold in metal cans absorb water far less than plastic cans while on the shelves. A good common practice would be to change your brake fluid once every 6 months when your car sees a lot of "spirited" braking, And bleed them well every change to be sure there is no air in the system. Bleeding before/after track events is a good idea to be sure your brakes are optimal for the event and you didn't boil your fluid during.

Calipers
When upgrading your brake system a larger caliper may be used to provide more braking torque. There are several deciding factors with caliper choice that impact the overall effectiveness. Increasing the overall piston diameter will distribute the braking force over a larger area and generally provide more clamping force whether going to a larger piston than stock in single piston designs, or migrating to a multi piston setup. Bigger and more doesn't always mean better however. Too much braking torque for your setup might mean you can lockup the tires from just tapping the pedal, and making an "on/off" feel impossible to modulate.

Choose a caliper appropriately sized for your tires and application used (just because you can lock all seasons doesn't mean you can stop efficiently on r-compounds) Caliper mounting brackets determine the pad and caliper clamping location on the rotor. Think of it like a torque wrench... The farther out you brake the more torque you can apply to stop the car and the more overall surface area the pad will contact in 1 full revolution. It may be a sufficient enough upgrade to just get larger rotors and relocate your calipers/pads farther out by extending the bracket.

Speed Bleeders
An often overlooked part of the brake system is the installation of speed bleeders. These do nothing for performance, but everything for sanity. They make it so you can bleed the brakes efficiently and by yourself. All you do is crack them a 1/4 turn and pump away. there is a bearing inside the bleeder that every time you let off the pedal is returns in to stop air from coming in as well. Very worth while thing to do, epically if you plan on track racing your car.

=Stock Upgrades= The stock 240sx front brakes are single piston units with 9.8" ventilated rotors. The rear is a 10.2" rotor and a single piston caliper with an integrated e-brake. These brakes are sufficient for most people and with appropriately upgraded pads/fluid/lines. Rule of thumb if you can lockup your brakes then a larger brake caliper is not needed for the speeds and tire compounds your using. These brakes are more than adequate for daily driving and some track use, but once your start doing some serious racing you will need to upgrade parts appropriately to handle the heat and to avoid the dreaded brake fade. The stock brakes will be great for spirited driving and light track, But research your options and decide on an upgrade appropriate to you. Several factors need to be considered. Something with larger rotors is needed for more repetitive stops, and something with a larger amount of clamping force is needed if you are not able to push your current tires to the locking point (while using pads with an appropriate heat range).

=Z32/Skyline Front Brakes= By far the most popular brake upgrade for the 240sx. The stock brakes on the 240sx are fine for autocross and track days on stock power, but as soon as you get more power and start attaining more straight away speeds you are going to want to upgrade to big brakes to handle the heat and to help avoid brake fade. Skyline brakes are almost identical, but do come with some small variations in width. Also some JDM S14's came with 300zx brakes from the factory. Another note about z32 brakes is that they are bigger so wheel clearance can be a problem. Only 7 spoke S13 alloys sometimes clear. S14 stock wheels will clear z32 brakes,  You can shave off the Nissan lettering on the outside of the caliper to gain more clearance, and you can also run wheel spacers to also help with wheel clearance. But remember about your wheel offset when using wheel spacers.

Parts Necessary
You will need the following parts to make the Z32 front brakes work on your 240sx.

Calipers
There are many different versions of the Z32 brake calipers. There are some that are aluminum and some that are cast iron. There are some that accept 26mm wide rotors and some that accept only 30mm rotors. 26mm aluminum calipers were only used on 1990 non turbo model 300zx's. 30mm aluminum calipers were used on 1990 twin turbo and all 1991-1992.5 300zx's (turbo and non turbo). 30mm iron calipers were used on all 1992.5-1996 300zx's. The best way to see if you have aluminum or iron is with a magnet. Obviously if its aluminum a magnet will not stick to it.

Rotors
There are many different rotor designs to choose from, but make sure you get the rotors to match your calipers. You can get slotted, cross-drilled or both on the same rotor. These features help with the heat dispersal by giving you more surface area, although they do eat away at your pad quicker than blanks. The 300zx came with 5 lug wheels as well as 5 lug rotors. This is not a problem for S14 SE's because they all came with 5 lug stock, but for us S13 guys there are 2 options.

Lines
Conversion lines are necessary for doing the conversion. SPL parts sells them for a very reasonable price. The fitting going onto the caliper is different from the stock style. The stock fitting is a banjo style, and can be made to work with an appropriate adapter, otherwise z32 brakes will need 10mm Inverted Female (IF) flare fittings. Also steel braided brake lines are recommended because they help with brake feel and are less likely to fail, unlike the stock rubber lines.

Installation
Installation is very straight forward. Remove and replace everything and bleed the system of air. The only tricky parts is the removal of the dust shields. The stock dust shields are designed for stock rotors, and since the Z32 brakes are so much bigger they must be modified/removed. You can either take the whole set up apart and remove them completely or simply cut them so that they are out of the way, the choice is yours.

=Z32 Rear Brakes= The stock rear brakes on the 240sx are single piston with an integrated e-brake. The Z32 rear brake set up is comprised of a 2 piston caliper, an 11.6" rotor and a separate drum e-brake. The swap can be difficult, but it does help complete a total braking system.

Calipers
The rear calipers from any z32 will do, but once again make sure that they match your rotors.

Rotors
These come in many designs similar to the front rotors, and the same 4-5lug solutions apply.

Other Parts
You can directly bolt on the rear brakes the same as the front if you wish, but you will not have an e-brake. The only part that is not bolt-on is the hydraulic line, which requires a different fitting on the caliper end. Solutions can be had from local shops that make custom brake lines or from online shops that specialize in the 240SX, and stock the necessary lines. To make the e-brake work you will need the Z32 rear drum assembly and the e-brake cables. Some people have used the Z32 aluminum uprights, but it is not necessary and requires the use of different rear lower shock mounts.

For the 240SX you will also need to get e-brake extension cables. If you can find them, R33 cables are long enough without extension.

s13 can use the 300zx ebrake cables no problem.

Installation
You need to remove the stock calipers and remove the spindle from the control arm. Also unbolt the axle so that you can get the spindle free from the car. Remove the hub from the stock assembly and put the new splash shield/ z32 e-brake assembly onto your hub. After this is complete reattach the spindle to the hub assembly. Run the e-brake cable through the sub-frame towards the e-brake handle, and then reattach the spindle assembly. Put the caliper back on, attach the brake lines, attach the e-brake cables, bleed the system and you're done.

=Q45 Front Brakes= Q45 brakes are a cheaper still upgrade to the brakes of your 240sx. They don't have the Nissan logo on the calipers. They are dual piston calipers that, compared to stock, provide about 25% more clamping force with a larger rotor and ~40% more pad surface area. They also have the pistons on the inside of the caliper so the wheel clearance is almost the same as with stock brakes, allowing the ability to continue running many different-sized wheels. Pads have many options as with all the other brake options we have here. The lines are the same fittings as stock so you can reuse your stock lines to save even more money.

You will need the following parts to make the Infiniti Q45 front brakes work on your 240sx: 2003 Sentra SE-R Rotors (Not Spec-V, those won't fit) mean you won't have to do a 5-lug swap. The only stock wheels that fit over Q45 front brakes are "teardrops", and any stock 240sx wheel that is 16" or greater. Stock r32 fit also because they are 16".

Calipers
You will need a set of calipers from a 90-96 Infiniti Q45. These calipers are larger than the stock 240sx calipers. They use two 42.8 mm pistons instead of one 54mm piston to increase clamping force. These calipers will bolt onto the stock location as well as use the stock banjo brake lines.

Rotors
There are many different rotor designs to choose from, but make sure you get the rotors to match your calipers. You can get slotted, cross-drilled or both on the same rotor. These features help your brake pad stay in contact with the rotor by providing a place to contain debris. Another point is that when some pads rub against the rotor, a gas is released, and this layer of gas between the pad and rotor reduces the brake's effectiveness. A slotted or cross-drilled rotor provides a pocket into which the gas can be compressed, leaving more of the pad material in contact with the rotor. It is pointed out above that perhaps modern pad compounds do not release this gas. Regardless, these rotors will wear out brake pads quicker than blanks. The Q45 came with 5 lug wheels as well as 5 lug rotors. This is not a problem for S14 SE's because they all came with 5 lug stock, but for us S13 guys there are 2 options. One is to convert to 5 lug (which is explained elsewhere on this wiki), or you can have the rotors re-drilled for the 4x114.3 lug pattern. Any competent machine shop should be able to do this. The Q45 rotors are approximately the same diameter as the 300z rotors, however the width of the rotor is in between the two thicknesses available from the 300z. The rotors are 28mm thick.---NEW POST---4 lug Nissan Altima rotors are the same diameter as 300zx and Q45. They are not as thick but are centered between the caliper perfectly. I have been using this set up for a few months with some extra shims and it works great. This really saves time and trouble because there is no need to re-drill or convert to 5-lugm and they are around $30 each at any Autozone. !!New Post!! Also Sentra SE-R Spec-V Brembo rotors can be used

Pads
The brake pad options are the same as with stock and they come in a lot of different compounds from mild to wild. Once again make sure you are getting the correct pad for the caliper/rotor set up you have.

Lines
Conversion lines are not necessary for doing the conversion, but make sure your brake lines are in good condition for safety's sake. Steel-braided brake lines are superior because the walls don't flex as much under pressure (more pressure to act directly on the calipers), and they also provide increased durability. The stock 240sx fitting is a banjo-style end and the Q45 calipers use the same connection.

Installation
The installation of the Q45 brakes is simpler than it would sound. The hardest part is cutting away or removing the splash guard from the front wheel hub. This can be done with a set of tin snips or an angle grinder. Once the splash guard has been removed the Q45 rotors and calipers will go on the same way the stock ones came off. Tighten down and bleed the brake system.

Benefits
One of the benefits of the Q45 brake upgrade over many of the other one available is that the calipers and rotors are significantly less expensive than the 300zx and 240sx rotors and calipers. Furthermore, because they use the banjo brake lines the swap is quicker and can be done without having to replace as many parts. The Q45 calipers do not use as large an amount of brake fluid as the 300zx calipers due to the smaller piston sizes. Though not super critical, the brake bias is slightly changed by the q45 caliper upgrade.

=Infiniti M30 Brake Upgrade=

The M30 brake upgrade that is also available for the 240sx. The M30 used a larger rotor and single piston floating caliper which will increase braking power. The M30 was also a 4 lug vehicle, which makes it an ideal upgrade for those looking to increase their braking power without having to replace the 4 lug hubs or re-drill the rotor.

Calipers
The rear M30 brake use an integrated drum design for the parking brake.

Rotors
According to PartsAmerica.com, M30 front rotors are 10.78" in diameter and .865" (approximately 22mm) thick. The rear rotors are solid 10.47" in diameter and .394" (10mm) thick.

=Maxima / 180sx spec Brake Swap= The owners of S14's ('95-'98), can upgrade their brakes using 1995 Nissan Maxima calipers, rotors and pads, and for those with 4 bolt use 1995 Nissan Altima rotors with a 3mm spacer between the caliper and the spindle.

For the owners of S13s ('89-'94) You can upgrade your stock front brakes to JDM 180sx spec using USDM parts. This upgrades main benefit is the additional mass to the rotor for heat dissipation. The caliper pistons are not so large as to impact braking bias more than a trivial amount. The following will be needed for this swap:

('93-'97) 1st generation Nissan Altima rotors. These are 280x22mm and have a 4x114 bolt pattern.

('89-'99) 3rd and 4th generation Nissan Maxima brake calipers

('89-'99) 3rd and 4th generation Nissan Maxima brake caliper mounting brackets

('89-'99) 3rd and 4th generation Nissan Maxima brake caliper mounting bracket hardware kit

('89-'99) 3rd and 4th generation Nissan Maxima brake pads

These parts all directly bolt onto the s13 with no major modifications needed. This swap retains near stock Before and after pictures of swap done on '90 240sx without abs:

Concerns worth noting:

-The brake swap will not fit anything smaller than a 15" alloy wheel. This will not clear a stamped steel wheel and drags on the caliper parallel surface.

- The stock rotor dust shield no longer clears the larger brake rotor. Modifications or removal to this are necessary for fitment. 2" deep slices with shears spaced 1.5" apart should be sufficient to allow the outside edge to be bent flat.

-The pad hangs over the edge from this setup by approximately 5mm. Although it is visually striking, it does not negatively impact braking performance or cause any reliability issues.

=Master Cylinder Upgrade= This only really applies to the Z32 brakes set up.

The stock master cylinder on the 240sx manual transmission is a 7/8" piston. That is fine for stock brakes, but you are now pushing between 10 and 12 pistons.  Stock is just 4, so you can imagine that you will need a bigger master cylinder to help push more fluid and get the brake feel and bias closer to where you want it.  There are many options of master cylinder sizes to go to.  Many people have run all of these on different brake set ups, so its up to preference on which one you prefer.  I have had a 7/8 (stock) 15/16 and a 17/16 and I think the 15/16 is perfect (stock brakes rear Z32 front).  The 17/16 was much too stiff and hard to modulate.

15/16 MC
This came off of either a Z31 300ZX or an S12 200SX. This is the best set up if you plan on running Z32 front brakes with stock rear brakes. The bias is close to stock and the feel is perfect.

1" MC
This came off of Z32 300ZXs made after 2/91. It is bigger than a 15/16", so this is better for a full brake conversion (front and rear Z32).

17/16 MC
This is off of Z32 300ZXs made up to 2/91, and it is the biggest master cylinder you can get. It will give you an even firmer pedal feel.

Installation
On a S13 240sx with ABS these should all be direct bolt on, as the ABS models only have 2 lines running to the master cylinder. For non ABS you have to take out the middle screw (5 sided hex key) and put in a flare fitting to match your brake hard line. This can be attained from your stock master cylinder by cutting it out. As soon as you get this part out lightly tap it into the master cylinder. It is impossible to get it all the way in, so just get it to sit upright and use the brake line to make it square in the master cylinder. For S13 the lines are all in the right place, but for S14 you are going to need to bend the lines around to meet up with the master cylinder. Be careful not to kink them when you are doing this. Unbolt the old master cylinder from the brake lines and the brake booster and reinstall the new one. Done and done.

=Aftermarket Big Brake Kits= There are many aftermarket brake kits out on the market for the 240sx. These kits are usually very big (13"+ rotors) and they require the use of 17" rims. Also they usually come with 2 piece rotors, that is where the hat (the part that the wheel sandwiches between itself and the hub) and the rotor are 2 different pieces like Arizona z cars.


text:
Wikijunior:Languages/Marathi

What writing system(s) does this language use?
Marathi uses the devanagri writing system, which is used in other languages such as Hindi and Sanskrit. Traditionally, the Modi script was used, but it was very difficult to use for printing and therefore the devanagri script was adopted and is now the standard writing system for Marathi.

How many people speak this language?
Approximately 90 million people speak Marathi all over the world. Since it is similar to Hindi and other Indian languages in general, it is possible for many non-Marathi speaking Indians to understand some basic phrases and sentences in Marathi, especially speakers of Gujarati and Konkani.

Where is this language spoken?
Marathi is spoken in the Maharashtra state of India. Marathi is also the official language of the state and is considered as one of the eighteen official languages of India. Now, Marathi is also spoken in Maharashtrian communities all over the world.

What is the history of this language?
The prelude to Marathi Language is 'Maharashtri Prakrit' Language. Maharashtri was the most popular amongst all Prakrit languages. It was spoken from Malwa and Rajputana (north) to the Krishna and Tungabhadra River region (south) including Modern Maharashtra in India. Maharashtri was spoken for 1000 years (500 BC to 500 AD). It was used in numerous works of literature, and its literary use was made famous by the Sanskrit playwright Kālidāsa. The Gāhā Sattasaī, Setubandh and Karpuraman̄jarī (कर्पुरमंजरी) are attributed to King Hāla Satavahana (r. 20-24 CE). Gāhā Sattasaī, an anthology of over 700 love poems, has been established as the most famous work of literature in Maharashtri. Maharashtri Prakrit was commonly spoken until AD 875. Maharashtri apabhraṃśas remained in use until the 13th century and was used widely in Jain literature and formed an important link in the evolution of Marathi. This form of Apabhraṃśa was re-Sanskritised and eventually became Marathi. The early Marathi literature written during the Yadava (850-1312 CE) was mostly religious and philosophical in nature. The earliest known Marathi inscription found at the foot of the statue at Shravanabelgola in Karnataka is dated c. 983. Mukundraj's Vivek Sindhu (around 1188 CE), with its 18 chapters and 1671 verses, is considered as the first major book in the Marathi language. It is clear that Marathi became extensively used in the thirteenth century onwards with patronage from Yadava Kings of Devgiri. Some of the earliest works like Bhavarth-dipika (Dyaneshwari) were written during this period. Bhavarth Deepika is a 9000-couplets long commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. With advent of Muslim rulers, Persian and Arabic words also became part of language. The celebrated Maratha king Shivaji Bhonsale greatly encouraged the spread and use of Marathi, which was the language of his people. It was during Shivaji's time that some of the greatest Marathi works were written, and Marathi literature advanced and developed since his reign.

After the British colonized India, many English words and phrases entered Marathi usage. Even though there are Sanskrit and Marathi replacements, many Marathi-speakers prefer to use English words sometimes, such as "police", "T.V.", "computer", "radio", "fridge (or refrigerator)", etc. This use of English words, however, is significantly lesser in rural dialects and in scholarly contexts.

Who are some famous authors or poets in this language?
Many books have been written in Marathi, on various topics. Tukaram, a Maharashtrian Saint, wrote abhangas, or small poems that discouraged evil practices. Other famous authors include B.B.Borkar, Pralhad Keshav Atre, Hari Apte, Vishnu Khandekar, Balchandra Nemade, P.L. Deshpande, Tarabai Shinde, V.V. Shirwadkar, and Narendra Jadhav.

What are some basic words in this language that I can learn?
Marathi word - Latin version of the word - English translation
 * नमस्कार - namaskaar - hello, good morning, afternoon, etc., and goodbye.
 * तुम्ही कशे आहात? - tumhi kashe aahaat? - How are you?
 * मी ठीक आहे, आणि तुम्ही? - mee theek aahe, aani tumhi? - I am fine, and you?
 * तुमच नाव काय आहे? - tumcha naav kaay aahe? - What is your name?
 * माझ नाव राहुल आहे. - maazha naav Rahul aahe. - My name is Rahul.

The word order in Marathi sentences is different from those in English. In Marathi the verb usually comes last in the sentence. For example in the sentence given above for "What is your name?", the order the words are actually said in Marathi is "your name what is". "tumcha" means your, "naav" means name, "kaay" means what, and "aahe" means is.

Colours
Marathi Word - Latin Version - English Translation
 * पांढरा - paandhraa - White
 * काळा - kaalaa - Black
 * पिवळा - pivlaa - Yellow
 * हिरवा - hirvaa - Green
 * निळा - nilaa - Blue
 * लाल - laal - Red
 * जांभळा - jaambhlaa - Violet/Purple

Numbers
English Number. Marathi Number (Latin Version), Representation
 * 0. शून्य (shoonya) ०
 * 1. एक (ek) १
 * 2. दोन (don) २
 * 3. तीन (teen) ३
 * 4. चार (chaar) ४
 * 5. पाच (paanch) ५
 * 6. सहा (sahaa) ६
 * 7. सात (saath) ७
 * 8. आठ (aatth) ८
 * 9. नऊ (nau) ९
 * 10. दहा (dahaa) १०

येरे येरे पावसा
In Devanagri Script येरे येरे पावसा, तुला देतो पैसा पैसा झाला खोटा, पाऊस आला मोठा ये ग ये ग सरी, माझे मडके भरी सर आली धाउन, मडके गेले वाहुन! In Latin Script Yere yere pavsa, tula deto paisa paisa zhala khota, paoos ala motha ye ga ye ga saree, majhe madke bhari sar ali dhaoon madke gele wahoon Translation Rain rain, come here, i'll give you a coin the coin turned out to be fake, and the rain came down heavily, Shower (of rain), come here, fill my pots for me the shower came running, and my pots were washed away!

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikijunior:Languages/Marathi


text:
Korean/Lesson II6

Vocabulary

 * 도서관(圖書館): library
 * 잡지(雜誌) : magazine
 * 책(冊) : book

title: Korean/Lesson II6


text:
Talk:Nissan 240SX Performance Modification/Differential

[mailto:squiddphoto@yahoo.com TheSquidd]: Added my knowledge and experience to the post about Welded differentials. Many changes. Added punctuation and fixed minor spelling mistakes.

removed this line from welded diff:

It is arguably the best diff for drifting, and not arguably the best diff for the money.

and this line from clutch type:

Its extremely debateable because of the price/effectiveness compared to the welded for strict drifting use. These also need constant attention and rebuilds because the internals ware rather quickly.

I don't think it's "extremely debateably", welded diff's might be fine for the price, however a clutch type would definitley be better if they both cost the same amount. I don't think any D1 drivers use a welded diff.

please leave choosing what is best to the reader, just present the facts and let them decideSean1978 12:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Nissan 240SX Performance Modification/Sway Bars

removed this:

Notes to be considered: Energy suspension TC rod bushings have been known to crack Lower Control Arms on a regular basis and should be avoided.

- last updated by Tastyratz 8:52am EST 4/6/2006

this is the "sway bar" section, not the TC rod section saen1978

I have a 180SX 1991 RPS13 chassis with VLSD + ABS. My rear sway bar diameter is 22mm. reeskm


text:
User:205.188.117.70

you know how I do.

title: User:205.188.117.70


text:
Radiation Oncology/SCLC/Limited Stage

Limited Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer

Treatment Overview

 * Early stage was initially treated with surgery; however, an MRC trial showed that radical RT provides better survival than surgery in operable patients. Meanwhile, systemic chemotherapy was also quite effective
 * Two separate meta-analysis using 2 different techniques, both published in 1992, showed that addition of thoracic RT to systemic chemotherapy improves survival. Reduction in risk of death was 17%, with absolute benefit ~5% at 2 years. Combined modality therapy became the standard of care. However, RT dose, duration, and timing was not settled
 * RT dose evolution:
 * Dose used in most of the historical trials (and those reviewed in the meta-analyses) was 40-50 Gy QD, based on radiobiological data showing small cell radiosensitivity
 * An Intergroup trial (INT-0096) showed a significant benefit to hyperfractionation, comparing standard 45 Gy QD in 5 weeks vs. 45 Gy BID in 3 weeks. There was a 10% survival advantage at 5 years, with improved local control. However, Grade 3 esophagitis was significant (27%)
 * RTOG 97-12 was a hyperfractionated dose-escalation study, which reached MTD at 61.2 Gy in 5 weeks given QD/BID. Its feasibility was confirmed by RTOG 02-39. This protocol serves as one arm of a current Phase III CALGB trial
 * CALGB evaluated QD dose escalation, which didn't reach MTD at 70/35. The feasibility of concurrent 70 Gy QD was confirmed by CALGB 39808. This protocol serves as another arm of a current Phase III CALGB trial
 * Ongoing CALGB 30610 trial is evaluating the control arm of 45 Gy BID (INT-0096) vs. a hyperfractionated 61.2/25 arm (RTOG 97-12) vs. high dose 70/35 arm (CALGB 39808), all concurrent with cisplatin/etoposide

Consensus guidelines

 * '''American Radium Society™ Appropriate Use Criteria: Radiation Therapy for Limited-stage Small Cell Lung Cancer 2020
 * 2020 PMID 33166720 -- Chun SG et al., J Thorac Oncol
 * Evidence-based guidelines for specific limited-stage SCLC variants rated by multidisciplinary expert panel
 * Conclusions:
 * Unresectable LS-SCLC should receive concurrent chemotherapy with radiation delivered either once or twice daily
 * For medically-inoperable T1-T2N0 LS-SCLC, either concurrent chemoradiation or stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy are reasonable treatment options
 * Whole brain prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) remains recommended after response to chemoradiation for LS-SCLC
 * PCI with Hippocampal avoidance and PD-1/PD-L1 directed immune therapy should not be routinely administered outside the context of clinical trials at this time

Surgery vs. RT

 * LCSG 832 -- Induction + surgery + RT vs Induction + RT
 * Randomized. 328 registered, 146 randomized. Small cell lung cancer, limited stage (excluding SCV+ and positive pleural effusion), resectable disease after induction. Induction chemotherapy cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine x5 cycles. If CR/PR (66%), randomized to Arm 1) surgery vs Arm 2) no surgery. All patients subsequently underwent thoracic RT 50/25 and PCI 30/15
 * 1994 PMID 7988254 -- "A prospective randomized trial to determine the benefit of surgical resection of residual disease following response of small cell lung cancer to combination chemotherapy." (Lad T, Chest. 1994 Dec;106(6 Suppl):320S-323S.)
 * Outcome: pCR 19%. 2-year OS 20% vs 20% (NS). Median OS for all patients 12 months, for randomized 16 months
 * Conclusion: Results do not support addition of pulmonary resection to multimodality treatment

 * MRC -- surgery vs. primary RT
 * Randomized. 144 patients with small cell or oat cell carcinoma of the bronchus. Diagnosed on bronchial biopsy and thought to be operable. Arm 1) surgery vs. Arm 2) primary RT. Complete resection in 48%; radical RT in 85%
 * 5-years; 1969 PMID 4184834 -- "Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council comparative trial of surgery and radiotherapy for the primary treatment of small-celled or oat-celled carcinoma of the bronchus." (Miller AB, Lancet. 1969 Sep 6;2(7619):501-5.)
 * Outcome: median OS surgery 6 months vs. RT 9 months (SS); 2-year OS surgery 4% vs. RT 10%, 5-year 1% vs. 4% (the 1 surgical arm survivor didn't have surgery but RT)
 * Conclusion: Radical RT better survival than surgery for operable patients
 * 10-years; 1973 PMID 4123619 -- "Medical Research Council comparative trial of surgery and radiotherapy for primary treatment of small-celled or oat-celled carcinoma of bronchus. Ten-year follow-up." (Fox W, Lancet. 1973 Jul 14;2(7820):63-5.)
 * Outcome: median OS surgery 6 months vs. RT 10 months (SS); 10-year OS 0% vs. 4%
 * Conclusion: Radical RT provides better survival than surgery in operable patients

Meta-analysis

 * Pignon; 1992 PMID 1331787 — "A meta-analysis of thoracic radiotherapy for small-cell lung cancer." (Pignon JP, N Engl J Med. 1992 Dec 3;327(23):1618-24.)
 * 13 trials. 2103 patients with limited stage. Pts with extensive disease were excluded. Compared chemo alone vs chemo + thoracic RT. Median F/U for survivors 3.6 years
 * Outcome: Risk of death for chemo + RT group was 0.86 (SS), corresponding to 14% reduction in mortality. 3-year OS chemo alone 9% vs. chemo-RT 14% (SS), absolute benefit 5.4% . Did not show a difference between early and late thoracic RT.
 * Conclusion: Thoracic RT moderately improves survival in patient with LS-SCLC treated with chemotherapy
 * Comment: chemotherapy was cyclophosphamide-based or doxorubicin-based regimens; did not use cisplatin + etoposide which is the modern standard of care.

 * Warde; 1992 - PMID 1316951 — "Does thoracic irradiation improve survival and local control in limited-stage small-cell carcinoma of the lung? A meta-analysis." Warde P et al. J Clin Oncol. 1992 Jun;10(6):890-5.
 * Does the addition of radiotherapy to chemotherapy improve survival and local control in limited stage SCLC?
 * Meta-analysis. 11 randomized trials. Odds ratio for OS @ 2-years was 1.53 (benefit for RT); improves 2-year survival by 5.4%. OR for LC is 3.02, improved by 25.3%. More treatment related deaths by 1.2%.

Concurrent Chemotherapy +/- RT

 * Chemotherapy alone without RT leads to LF in 75-90% of pts. Addition of XRT reduces LF to 30-60%.
 * Cisplatin + etoposide (PE) is modern standard of care. Introduced in 1970s but emerged as primary therapy in early 1980s. Advantage is that PE can be given concurrently with full doses of thoracic RT with less toxicity than older doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide-based regimens.

 * CALGB, 1987 - PMID 3029592 — "Chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy in limited small-cell carcinoma of the lung." Perry MC et al. N Engl J Med. 1987 Apr 9;316(15):912-8.
 * Randomized. Improved overall survival.

 * SWOG 8269 (1985-1986)
 * Phase II, non-randomized. 114 patients. 3 cycles of induction chemo with PEV (cisplatin, etoposide, VCR). Followed by RT to 45 Gy (1.8 Gy/fx) concomitant with 2 cycles of VCR, MTX, etoposide, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. PCI with 3rd cycle of induction chemo - 30 Gy in 15 fx.
 * 3-years; 1990 PMID 2159055 — "Concurrent chemotherapy/radiotherapy for limited small-cell lung carcinoma: a Southwest Oncology Group Study." (McCracken JD et al. J Clin Oncol. 1990 May;8(5):892-8.)
 * 13-years; 2001 PMID 11551416 — "Ten-year follow-up of Southwest Oncology Group 8269: a phase II trial of concomitant cisplatin-etoposide and daily thoracic radiotherapy in limited small-cell lung cancer." (Thomas CR Jr,Lung Cancer. 2001 Aug-Sep;33(2-3):213-9.). Min F/U 13 years
 * Outcome: 5 pts alive and progression free. Of those who died from disease, LF in 24%, DM in 35%, LF+DM in 25%. LF as any cause of failure in 49%. 5-yr OS 26%, 10-yr 11%
 * Conclusion: Few long term survivors. Continued relapses even after 10 yrs.

 * NCDB Analysis 2018 (2004-2013) PMID 29302695 PMID 30073269 -- "Barriers to Combined-Modality Therapy for Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer." (Pezzi TA et al., JAMA Oncology 2018)
 * Analysis of 70,247 patients in NCDB with IASLC-defined limited-stage SCLC
 * Initial treatment: 55.5% chemotherapy + radiation, 20.5% chemotherapy alone, 3.5% radiation alone, and 20.0% neither chemotherapy/radiation
 * Median Survival: chemotherapy + radiation 18.2 mo, chemotherapy alone 10.5 mo, radiation alone 8.3 mo, neither chemotherapy/radiation therapy 3.7 mo
 * United States Government Insurance (Medicare/Medicaid) associated with worse survival and lower likelihood of radiation delivery
 * Survival better at academic centers than in other practice settings
 * Conclusion: Substantial proportions of patients documented in NCDB did not receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy as part of initial treatment for limited-stage SCLC, which was associated with poor survival

Induction chemo +/- RT

 * SWOG 7924 (1979-1982)
 * Randomized, 2 randomizations. 466 patients with LS-SCLC. Induction chemotherapy (VMV-VAC), then:
 * If CR (33%): randomized to Arm 1) Thoracic RT vs. Arm 2) Cyclophosphamide. RT split course 18/10 large fields (including SCV) + 30/12 reduced fields (2cm margin), to either preinduction or postinduction volume.
 * If PR/SD (58%): randomized to Arm 1) Wide-volume (pre-induction) RT vs. Arm 2) reduced-volume (post-induction) RT. RT split-course 18/10 + 30/12. Planning from CXR
 * 1987 PMID 3031226 -- "Multimodal therapy for limited small-cell lung cancer: a randomized study of induction combination chemotherapy with or without thoracic radiation in complete responders; and with wide-field versus reduced-field radiation in partial responders: a Southwest Oncology Group Study." (Kies MS, J Clin Oncol. 1987 Apr;5(4):592-600.)
 * CR Outcome: OS thoracic RT 17% vs. no RT 24% (NS); LR 56% vs. 90% (SS)
 * PR/SD Outcome: median OS wide-field RT 12 months vs. reduced-field RT 11 months (NS)
 * Toxicity: severe/fatal myelosuppression wide-field 18% vs. reduced-field 8%
 * Conclusion: RT improves local control but has no impact on survival if CR after induction. There is no difference in field size, if PR after induction

Meta-analysis

 * 2007 PMID 17513057 -- "Timing of chest radiotherapy in patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials." (Pijls-Johannesma M, Cancer Treat Rev. 2007 Aug;33(5):461-73. Epub 2007 May 21.)
 * 7 randomized trials: 2-year OS no difference, 5-year OS no difference
 * 5 randomized trials (concurrent cisplatin-based chemo): 2-year OS better if early RT (HR 0.73, SS), 5-year OS also better (HR 0.65, SS). Benefit if RT started within 30 days of chemotherapy. Additional benefit if overall RT time <30 days
 * Conclusion: With platinum-based chemo, RT within 30 days of chemo start better, and RT duration <30 days better

 * 2006 PMID 16344277, 2006 — "Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials of the timing of chest radiotherapy in patients with limited-stage, small-cell lung cancer." (De Ruysscher D et al. Ann Oncol. 2006 Apr;17(4):543-52.) and Cochrane Review; 2005 PMID 15674960 — "Early versus late chest radiotherapy for limited stage small cell lung cancer." Pijls-Johannesma MC et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 25;(1):CD004700.
 * 7 randomized trials: No difference between early and late RT
 * 6 platinum randomized trials: No difference in 2-year survival (OR 0.73, NS), early RT superior at 5-years (OR 0.64, SS). In studies with short RT (<30 days treatment time), 2-year survival no difference, but 5-year OS better (OR 0.56, SS)
 * Conclusion: No significant difference in survival for early vs late chest RT. There may be a trend for improved survival with early RT (<30 days from start of chemo).

 * 2004 PMID 15561810 Full text, 2004 — "A meta-analysis of the timing of chest irradiation in the combined modality treatment of limited-stage small cell lung cancer." Huncharek M et al. Oncologist. 2004;9(6):665-72.
 * 8 randomized trials; 2 were split course, 3 were concurrent cisplatin/etoposide and RT
 * Outcome (1-year): 1-year OS benefit for early RT OR 1.11 (NS), excluding split-course RT 1-year OS benefit OR 1.34 (SS), including only 3 concurrent cisplatin/etoposide-RT OR 1.95 (SS)
 * Outcome (2-year): 2-year OS benefit for early RT OR 1.60 (SS), excluding split-course RT 2-year OS benefit OR 1.78 (SS), concurrent cis/etoposide-RT OR 1.81 (SS)
 * Conclusion: Early RT improves 2-year survival by ~80%

 * 2001 PMID 16505424 2006 — "Time between the first day of chemotherapy and the last day of chest radiation is the most important predictor of survival in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer." De Ruysscher D et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Mar 1;24(7):1057-63.
 * 4 PIII studies (Murray, Jeremic, Turrisi, Takada); evaluation of "start of therapy - end of RT" time interval (SER)
 * SER most important predictor of outcome; 5-year OS +20% if SER < 30 days

Randomized evidence

 * London Lung Cancer Group (1993-1999) -- RT week 3 vs week 15
 * Randomized. 325 patients. Attempted to replicate NCIC study. Cyclophosphamide + Doxorubicin + Vincristine alternating with Cisplatin + Etoposide x 3 cycles each. RT dose was 40 Gy/15 fractions over 3 weeks. Arm 1) thoracic RT 40/15 week 3 vs Arm 2) thoracic RT 40/15 week 15. PCI 25/10 in patients with negative head CT after therapy
 * 2006 PMID 16921033 — "Early compared with late radiotherapy in combined modality treatment for limited disease small-cell lung cancer: a London Lung Cancer Group multicenter randomized clinical trial and meta-analysis." (Spiro SG et al., J Clin Oncol. 2006 Aug 20;24(24):3823-30.)
 * Outcome: Median OS early TRT 14 months vs late TRT 15 months (NS). Completion of all cycles of chemo early RT 69% vs late RT 80% (NS)
 * Conclusion: No survival advantage for early thoracic RT

 * Japanese JCOG 9104 (1991-1995) -- RT week 1 vs. week 10
 * Randomized. 231 pts. All pts received 4 cycles of cisplatin 80 mg/m2 + etoposide 100 mg/m2 chemotherapy. Randomized to: Arm 1) concurrent RT 45/30 BID starting day 2 vs Arm 2) sequential RT 45/30 BID based on pretreatment volumes. PCI 24/16 BID if CR/near CR
 * 2002 PMID 12118018 — "Phase III study of concurrent versus sequential thoracic radiotherapy in combination with cisplatin and etoposide for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: results of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study 9104." (Takada M et al. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jul 15;20(14):3054-60.)
 * Outcome: 3-year OS concurrent 30% vs. sequential 20% (NS); 5-year OS 24% vs 18% (NS). After adjustment, hazard ratio for death in concurrent arm 0.7 (SS). Brain mets concurrent 19% vs sequential 27% (no p)
 * Conclusion: Suggestion for benefit of concurrent vs sequential chemo-RT

 * Kragujevac, Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia)(1988-1992) -- RT week 1 vs week 6
 * Randomized. 107 patients treated by ACC Hfx RT (54 Gy in 1.5 Gy/fx BID) with concurrent carboplatin/etoposide (C/E), randomized to either:
 * (1) Initial ACC Hfx RT: Concurrent chemo-RT (wks 1-4) --> consolidation cisplatin/etoposide (P/E) x 4, vs.
 * (2) Delayed ACC Hfx RT: Induction P/E x 2 --> concurrent chemo-RT (wks 6-9) --> consolidation P/E x 2
 * 1997 PMID 9060525 -- "Initial versus delayed accelerated hyperfractionated radiation therapy and concurrent chemotherapy in limited small-cell lung cancer: a randomized study." (Jeremic B, J Clin Oncol. 1997 Mar;15(3):893-900.)
 * Median survival: 34 months vs. 26 months (p=0.052), 5-year OS 30% vs. 15% (p=0.03). Significantly higher LRFS for group 1. Toxicity comparable
 * Conclusion: Initial thoracic concurrent ACC HFX RT with chemo better LC and survival than delayed RT
 * 2007 PMID 17306936 -- "Influence of interfraction interval on local tumor control in patients with limited-disease small-cell lung cancer treated with radiochemotherapy." (Jeremic B, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jun 1;68(2):426-32.)
 * Not randomized; subset analysis. Comparison of short (4.5-5.0) vs. long (5.5-6.0) interfraction interval
 * No difference. No difference in "early RT" group; trend toward significance in "late RT" group

 * NCI Canada (1985-1988) -- RT week 3 vs week 15
 * Randomized. 308 patients with limited-stage SCLC. All received CAV (cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine) x 3 alternating with EP (etoposide, cisplatin) x 3, every 3 weeks. Arm 1) Early thoracic RT to 40/15 concurrent with 2nd cycle of chemo (first cycle of EP; week 3) vs Arm 2) late thoracic RT concurrent with last cycle of EP (week 15). PCI in patients without progressive disease.
 * 1993 PMID 8381164 — "Importance of timing for thoracic irradiation in the combined modality treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group." (Murray N et al. J Clin Oncol. 1993 Feb;11(2):336-44.) Median F/U 5 years
 * Outcome: 3-year PFS early TRT 26% vs late TRT 19% (SS). 3-year OS 30% vs 21% (SS), 5-year OS 20% vs 11%. Isolated thoracic recurrence 19% vs 15% (NS), thoracic recurrence (isolated + elsewhere) 30% vs 30%.
 * Brain mets: before PCI early TRT 4% vs late RT 9% (NS), after PCI 13% vs 19% (NS), overall brain mets 18% vs 28% (SS)
 * Conclusion: Early administration of thoracic RT is superior to later thoracic RT

 * Denmark (1981-1989) -- RT week 1 vs RT week 18
 * Randomized. 199 patients with limited stage SCLC. Chemotherapy cisplatin/etoposide x3 cycles and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine x6 cycles. Arm 1) Initial thoracic RT week 1 vs Arm 2) Late thoracic RT week 18. RT split course 22.5/11 - 21 days of chemotherapy - 22.5/11. PCI 25/11 added in 1984 for all patients
 * 1997 PMID 9294465 -- "Randomized study of initial versus late chest irradiation combined with chemotherapy in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. Aarhus Lung Cancer Group." (Work E, J Clin Oncol. 1997 Sep;15(9):3030-7.)
 * Outcome: 2-year OS initial TRT 20% vs late TRT 19% (NS). 2-year local control 72% vs. 68% (NS). 2-year brain mets 19% vs 13% (NS)
 * Conclusion: Timing of thoracic radiation didn't influence in-field recurrence, CNS recurrence, or overall survival

 * CALGB 8083 -- RT week 1 vs week 9 vs chemotherapy only
 * Randomized. 399 patients, limited stage SCLC. Chemo cyclophosphamide + etoposide + vincristine (later replacing etoposide with adriamycin. Arm 1) Thoracic RT on day 1 vs Arm 2) Thoracic RT on day 64), or 3) chemotherapy only. RT dose 40 Gy + 10 Gy boost. PCI to 30 Gy.
 * 1998 PMID 9667265 — "Thoracic radiation therapy added to chemotherapy for small-cell lung cancer: an update of Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study 8083." (Perry MC et al. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Jul;16(7):2466-7.)
 * Outcome: Early TRT median OS 13 month vs late TRT 15 months vs chemo only 14 months (NS). Time to clinical failure not different between the two RT arms.
 * Conclusion: There is no difference between early and late thoracic RT
 * 1987 PMID 3029592 -- "Chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy in limited small-cell carcinoma of the lung." (Perry MC, N Engl J Med. 1987 Apr 9;316(15):912-8.)
 * Outcome: Significant benefit for two RT regimens in terms of chest control, PFS, and OS
 * Conclusion: Addition of RT improved survival

Field Design
Fields from INT-0096: Gross tumor, bilateral mediastinal lymph nodes, ipsilateral hilum. No supraclav nodes. Inferiorly extended to at least 5 cm below carina, or to hilum. 1-1.5 cm margin The spinal cord limit was 36 Gy. Oblique off cord fields were used in the afternoon tx during the 2nd and 3rd weeks.

Pre-induction vs. Post-induction Volume

 * NCCTG; 1999 (1990-1996) PMID 10561342 — "Phase III comparison of twice-daily split-course irradiation versus once-daily irradiation for patients with limited stage small-cell lung carcinoma." (Bonner JA, J Clin Oncol. 1999 Sep;17(9):2681-91.)
 * See below for full trial details. Randomized RT 50.4/28 vs. Split-course RT 24/16 BID + 24/16 BID. RT target post-chemo volume
 * Outcome: 92% of chest failures still in-field, despite post-chemo volume

 * Mayo; 1994 (1982-1990) - PMID 8120547 — "Limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: patterns of intrathoracic recurrence and the implications for thoracic radiotherapy." (Liengswangwong V, J Clin Oncol. 1994 Mar;12(3):496-502.)
 * Retrospective. 59 patients. Compared 28 pts (post-induction volume) vs 31 (pre-induction). Same sequence of chemo and RT.
 * No difference in marginal failure or failures outside the treatment field.

 * SWOG 7924 (1979-1982)
 * Randomized, 2 randomizations. 466 patients with LS-SCLC. Induction chemotherapy (VMV-VAC), then:
 * If CR (33%): randomized to Arm 1) Thoracic RT vs. Arm 2) Cyclophosphamide. RT split course 18/10 large fields (including SCV) + 30/12 reduced fields (2cm margin), to either preinduction or postinduction volume.
 * If PR/SD (58%): randomized to Arm 1) Wide-volume (pre-induction) RT vs. Arm 2) reduced-volume (post-induction) RT. RT split-course 18/10 + 30/12. Planning from CXR
 * 1987 PMID 3031226 -- "Multimodal therapy for limited small-cell lung cancer: a randomized study of induction combination chemotherapy with or without thoracic radiation in complete responders; and with wide-field versus reduced-field radiation in partial responders: a Southwest Oncology Group Study." (Kies MS, J Clin Oncol. 1987 Apr;5(4):592-600.)
 * CR Outcome: OS thoracic RT 17% vs. no RT 24% (NS); LR 56% vs. 90% (SS)
 * PR/SD Outcome: median OS wide-field RT 12 months vs. reduced-field RT 11 months (NS)
 * Toxicity: severe/fatal myelosuppression wide-field 18% vs. reduced-field 8%
 * Conclusion: RT improves local control but has no impact on survival if CR after induction. There is no difference in field size, if PR after induction

Elective Nodal Irradiation

 * Maastricht; 2010 (Netherlands)(2004-2006) PMID 19782478 --"Selective nodal irradiation on basis of (18)FDG-PET scans in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer: a prospective study." (van Loon J et al, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Jun 1;77(2):329-36.)
 * Prospective, 60 pts w/ LS-SCLC with treated chemo (carboplatin/etoposide), chest RT (45 Gy BID fx's) & PCI.
 * Primary GTV based on CT findings only; post-chemo volumes used if induction chemo given. Nodal GTV based on pre-chemo PET. No ENI.
 * 30% difference in nodal station staging on PET vs CT-only; 15% w/ more nodal stations ID'd w/ PET and 13% w/ less on PET.
 * Isolated regional failure in 2 pts (3%). Median OS 19 months.
 * Conclusion: PET-based selective nodal RT resulted in low rate of isolated nodal failure (3%), in contrast to this group's experience w/ CT-based selective nodal RT (11%, see below).

 * Masstricht; 2006 (Netherlands)(2002-2004) PMID 16949169 -- "Omission of elective node irradiation on basis of CT-scans in patients with limited disease small cell lung cancer: a phase II trial." (De Ruysscher D, Radiother Oncol. 2006 Sep;80(3):307-12. Epub 2006 Sep 1.)
 * Phase II. 27 patients with LS-SCLC. CT staged. IFRT 45/30 BID (corrected) concurrent with carboplatin AUC 5/etoposide 120 mg/m2 (start during first cycle). Target: primary tumor (PTV = GTV + 1.5 cm) and LN+ (PTV = GTV + 1.0 cm) on pre-treatment CT, no assessment of tumor motion. PCI 25/10 or 26/18. Median F/U 1.5 years
 * Outcome: Median OS 21 months, median PFS 16 months. LR 26%, isolated nodal failure 11% (all ipsilateral SCV)
 * Toxicity: Acute G3 esophagitis 30%
 * Conclusion: Higher than expected rate of isolated nodal failure, comparable acute esophagitis. IFRT should only be used on protocol

 * Dutch NCI; 2006 (Netherlands)(1999-2001) -- "Concurrent chemotherapy (carboplatin, paclitaxel, etoposide) and involved-field radiotherapy in limited stage small cell lung cancer: a Dutch multicenter phase II study." (Baas P, Br J Cancer. 2006 Mar 13;94(5):625-30.)
 * Phase II. Stopped early due to positive experience. 37 patients with LS-SCLS. CT staged. Chemo paclitaxel 200 mg/m2, carboplatin AUC 5, etoposide 100 mg. IFRT 45/25 QD. Target: primary tumor, LN+ short axis >=1 cm on planning scan after 1 cycle of chemo. RT start after 2nd chemo cycle. PCI 30/12 or 20/15
 * Outcome: Median OS 19 months, 5-year OS 27%. In-field recurrence 16%, distant recurrence 51%, regional (elective LN) failure subset not reported
 * Severe Toxicity: hematologic 57%, esophagitis 27%, pneumonitis 6%, dyspnea 19%, lethargy 22%
 * Conclusion: Chemotherapy with concurrent IFRT effective
 * Comment PMID 17595661 (Updated data, 2007): Elective node failure 5% (1 ipsilateral SCV, 1 hilar). In-field failure 24%. Difference from De Ruyscher above (PMID 16949169) less intense RT so it is possible in-field failures occurred before nodal failures. Also unclear why their failures were in SCV region only

Hyperfractionation
Rationale: small cell lung cancers are radiosensitive and have a small shoulder in the dose response curve. Dose-limiting toxicity is 45 Gy BID in 3 weeks, or 61.2 Gy QD/BID in 5 weeks concurrent with cisplatin/etoposide.

 * CONVERT (2008-2013) -- BID 45 Gy or QD RT 66 Gy
 * Acronym: Concurrent ONce-daily VErsus twice-daily RadioTherapy
 * Protocol: PMID 26792218 (Radiation technique and constraints in Supplement 4)
 * 547 pts, LS-SCLC. Chemo RT with either 45 Gy (1.5 BID) or 66 Gy (2 Gy QD). Starting with 2nd cycle of cis/etoposide. No ENI. +PCI. Superiority trial.
 * 2017 PMID 28642008 — "Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial." (Faivre-Finn C, Lancet Oncol. 2017 Aug;18(8):1116-25.)
 * Median f/u 45 mo. Median OS 30 mo (BID) vs 25 mo (QD), NS. 2-yr OS 56% vs 51% (NS).
 * Toxicity: Most toxicities similar. Worse g4 neutropenia in BID. No difference in esophagitis or pneumonitis.
 * Conclusion: "Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy .... Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting."

 * RTOG 97-12 (1998-2002) Protocol PMID 15890573 -- "Phase I study of thoracic radiation dose escalation with concurrent chemotherapy for patients with limited small-cell lung cancer: Report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol 97-12." (Komaki R, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Jun 1;62(2):342-50.)
 * Phase I. 64 patients. Concurrent chemo-RT dose escalation. RT starting Day 1, given QD initially then BID to keep treatment within 5 weeks. Dose 50.4 -> 54.0 -> 57.6 -> 61.2 -> 64.8 Gy. Chemo cisplatin/etoposide
 * Outcome: MTD 61.2 Gy; 3/5 patients on 64.8 Gy developed acute Grade 3 esophagitis. 18 month survival 50.4 Gy 25% vs. 61.2 Gy 82%
 * Conclusion: MTD for this accelerated RT with concurrent PE is 61.2 Gy over 5 weeks

 * NCCTG (1990-96) -- late 50.4 QD vs. 48/32 split-course BID
 * Randomized. 262 patients with LS-SCLC. Induction cisplatin/etoposide x3 cycles, RT start 4th cycle. Arm 1) conventional RT 50.4/28 vs 2) split-course BID 48/32 (Mayo regimen), each given in 5.5 weeks. PCI to 30 Gy/15 fx.
 * 1999 PMID 10561342 — "Phase III comparison of twice-daily split-course irradiation versus once-daily irradiation for patients with limited stage small-cell lung carcinoma." Bonner JA et al. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Sep;17(9):2681-91.
 * No difference in local progression, overall progression, or survival. Higher rate of esophagitis in the BID arm.
 * 2004 PMID 15234027 — "Long-term results of a phase III trial comparing once-daily radiotherapy with twice-daily radiotherapy in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer." (Schild SE, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jul 15;59(4):943-51.) Median F/U 7.4 years
 * Outcome: median OS QD 1.7 years vs. BID split 1.7 years (NS); 3-year OS 29% vs. 34% (NS). No difference in progression, intrathoracic failure, in-field failure (41% vs. 42%), or distant failure.
 * Toxicity: Grade 3+ esophagitis 5% vs. 12%; otherwise comparable
 * Conclusion: When RT given with the 4th cycle of chemotherapy, BID RT does not improve survival.
 * Note: the BID split course (5-1/2 wks) is not the same as the Turrisi BID regimen (3 wks). The media OS & 5-yr OS for the QD/50.4 Gy group was 20.6 m / 21% compared with BID arm in the Turrisi randomized trial (45 Gy, BID in 3 wks) 23 m / 26% -- but these trials cannot be directly compared.

 * ECOG / Intergroup 0096 / RTOG 8815 (1989-1992) -- early 45 Gy QD vs. 45 Gy BID
 * Randomized. 417 patients with LS-SCLC (pleural effusion, contralateral hilar/SCV excluded). Arm 1) RT 45/25 @1.8 Gy QD over 5 weeks vs. Arm 2) RT 45/30 @1.5 Gy BID over 3 weeks. RT started on Day 1 of chemotherapy; 4 cycles of cisplatin 60 mg/m2 and etoposide 120 mg/m2 (EP) Q3W. RT fields included bilateral mediastinum, ipsilateral hilum. Inferior border 5 cm below carina or including hilum. Elective ipsilateral SCV forbidden. PCI 25/10 given after chemotherapy for patients with CR
 * 8-years; 1999 PMID 9920950 Full text — "Twice-daily compared with once-daily thoracic radiotherapy in limited small-cell lung cancer treated concurrently with cisplatin and etoposide." (Turrisi AT et al. N Engl J Med. 1999 Jan 28;340(4):265-71.) Median F/U 8 years
 * Outcome: Median OS QD 1.6 years vs. BID 1.9 years (SS); 2-year OS 41% vs 47%; 5-yr OS 16% vs 26%. Local failure QD 52% vs BID 36% (p=0.06)
 * Toxicity: Grade 3 esophagitis QD 11% vs. 27%, no difference in Grade 4 esophagitis
 * Conclusion: Survival exceeds that of any previous randomized trial. Small difference between QD and BID at 2 years but 10% improvement at 5 years.
 * Comment: Not a comparison of once a day vs twice a day since the biologically effective doses weren't equivalent. 45 Gy BID is closer to about 60 Gy QD, which is the current "standard" dose (60-66 Gy) for once a day RT. However, at the time of the trial, 40-50 Gy QD was the standard dose

 * Mayo; 1996 PMID 8610649 — "Infusion cisplatin chemotherapy and hyperfractionated thoracic radiotherapy for small-cell lung cancer." (Frytak S, Am J Clin Oncol. 1996 Apr;19(2):193-8.)
 * Phase II. 60 patients, 29 LS-SCLC. Infusion cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin (CEPi). Hyperfractionated split-course RT 48/32 given 24/16 @ 1.5 Gy BID with 2 week break, started cycle 4-5 of chemo (modified MGH H&N protocol). RT field post-chemo volume, GTV + 2cm + regional LNs
 * Outcome: median OS 2.2 years, 2-year OS 55%
 * Conclusion: Safe and effective program for treating SCLC

Continuous vs Interdigitated split-course RT

 * EORTC LCCG (1989-1995) -- continuous RT 50/20 vs interdigitated split RT 12.5/5 x4
 * Randomized. 349 patients. Chemotherapy cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE). Arm 1) continuous RT 50/20 started week 13-19 vs Arm 2) interdigitated split course RT 50/20 on weeks 5, 9, 13, and 17 @ 12.5/5
 * 1997 PMID 9256127 -- "Randomized trial of alternating versus sequential radiotherapy/chemotherapy in limited-disease patients with small-cell lung cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Cooperative Group Study." (Gregor A, J Clin Oncol. 1997 Aug;15(8):2840-9.)
 * Outcome: 3-year OS continuous 15% vs interdigitated 12% (SS). No difference in local relapse
 * Toxicity: Grade 3-4 neutropenia continuous 77% vs interdigitated 90% (SS); toxicity compromised treatment dose delivery, such that full RT delivered in continuous 93% vs interdigitated 77% (SS).
 * Conclusion: Interdigitated schedule not superior; hematological toxicity compromised treatment delivery

 * Wake Forest (1987-1992) -- Continuous RT 50/25 vs. Split course RT 25/10 + 25/10
 * Randomized. 114 patients. Arm 1) RT continuous 50/25 during chemo cycle 1-2 vs. Arm 2) RT split-course 25/10 + 25/10 during chemo cycle 1-3. Chemo cisplatin/etoposide cycle 1, 2, and 5 + cyclophosphamide/vincristine/doxorubicin cycle 3, 4, and 6. PCI after CR
 * 2005 PMID 15845179 -- "Split-course versus continuous thoracic radiation therapy for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: final report of a randomized phase III trial." (Blackstock AW, Clin Lung Cancer. 2005 Mar;6(5):287-92.) Median F/U 1.2 years
 * Outcome: 5-year OS continuous 18% vs. split-course 17% (NS); no difference in patterns of failure
 * Toxicity: Grade 3+ esophagitis continuous 9% vs. split-course 4%
 * Conclusion: Interdigitated split-course RT not better than continuous RT

Dose escalation

 * CALGB 39808 (1999-2000) PMID 15145163 -- "70 Gy thoracic radiotherapy is feasible concurrent with chemotherapy for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: analysis of Cancer and Leukemia Group B study 39808." (Bogart JA, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jun 1;59(2):460-8.)
 * Phase II. 63 patients. Induction chemo (paclitaxel + topotecan) x2 cycles, followed by concurrent chemo-RT. RT 70/35 (uncorrected, prescribed to isocenter). Field included Stations 3, 4, 7 and 5, 6 on left to 44 Gy, then PTV = GTV + hilar LNs + 1cm. Chemo carboplatin AUC 5, etoposide. PCI offered for CR/PR
 * Outcome: Median OS 1.9 years
 * Toxicity: 90% patients proceeded to TRT. Grade 3+ dysphagia 16%. 1 treatment-related mortality
 * Conclusion: 70 Gy QD can be delivered safely; initial efficacy encouraging

 * CALGB; 1998 (1989-1994) PMID 9817271 -- "Phase I study to determine the maximum-tolerated dose of radiation in standard daily and hyperfractionated-accelerated twice-daily radiation schedules with concurrent chemotherapy for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer." (Choi NC, J Clin Oncol. 1998 Nov;16(11):3528-36.)
 * Phase I, dose escalation. 50 patients. RT initial volume 40 Gy, increasing boost, delivered QD or BID. Chemotherapy cisplatin/cyclophosphamide/etoposide (PCE) x3 + cisplatin/etoposide x2. RT started at 4th cycle
 * Escalation: MTD for BID RT was 45 Gy in 30 fractions in 3 weeks. MTD for QD RT was >70 Gy in 35 fractions in 7 weeks.
 * Outcome: 2-year OS BID 52%, QD 54%
 * Conclusion: MTD for BID and QD concurrent RT determined

Current trials

 * CALGB 30610 / RTOG 0538 NCI link PROTOCOL
 * Randomized, 3 arms. Arm 1) 45/30 BID vs. Arm 2) 70/35 QD vs. Arm 3) 61.2/34 QD->BID. Concurrent cisplatin/etoposide

 * RTOG 06-23 - Phase II trial. Same schedule as RTOG 02-39 (RT 61.2 Gy/5 weeks + cisplatin/etoposide) with growth factor support. Trial has been terminated after accruing 5/44 targeted patients.

 * RTOG 02-39 (2003-2006) Protocol (PDF) - A phase II study of accelerated high dose thoracic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy for patients with limited small cell lung cancer
 * RT: 61.2 Gy in 5 weeks (concomitant boost). Concurrent chemo: Start on day 1. Cisplatin + etoposide q3week x 2 cycles. 2nd cycle starts the day before BID RT starts. Adjuvant chemo: 2 cycles cisplatin + etoposide. If CR, PCI on RTOG 02-12
 * Preliminary outcomes (from RTOG 0623 protocol): 72 patients. Grade 3 esophagitis 16%, Grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity 90%, 2 deaths. As a result, opened RTOG 06-23 with growth factor support

SVC Syndrome

 * For more information, please see the SVC Syndrome page

 * London, 1983 (UK) PMID 6310812 -- "Treatment of obstruction of the superior vena cava by combination chemotherapy with and without irradiation in small-cell carcinoma of the bronchus. (Spiro SG, Thorax. 1983 Jul;38(7):501-5.)
 * Randomized. 366 patients with SCLC on trial, 37 presented with SVC obstruction. 9 relapsed during chemo and were not randomized Treated with chemo x4 cycles then randomized to +/- RT, followed by 8 cycles of chemo.
 * Outcomes: after chemo x4 cycles, 21/37 (57%) CR of SVC symptoms. Median OS identical
 * Conclusion: Chemo alone effective for SVC; no benefit to RT if given after 12 weeks of chemo

title: Radiation Oncology/SCLC/Limited Stage


text:
Atlas Shrugged/Companies

Companies in Atlas Shrugged, the Ayn Rand novel, generally, are divided into two groups, these that are operated by sympathetic characters are given the name of the owner, while companies operated by evil or incompetent characters are given generic names. In Atlas Shrugged men who give their names to their companies all become Strikers in due time.

Amalgamated Switch and Signal
A company run by Mr. Mowen and located in Connecticut. They have supplied Taggart Transcontinental for generations. Dagny Taggart orders Rearden Metal switches from them.

Amalgamated Switch and Signal appears in section 171.

Associated Steel
Associated Steel is the company owned by Orren Boyle. The company was started with just a few hundred-thousand dollars of Boyle's own money, and hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants. Boyle used this money to buy out his competitors, and now relies on influence peddling and political favors to run his business.

Associated Steel is mentioned in sections 111, 114, 131 and 171.

Ayers Music Publishing Company
Ayers Music Publishing Company is the publisher of the music of Richard Halley. Dagny Taggart contacts Mr. Ayers to inquire as to the existence of Halley's Fifth Concerto.

Ayers Music Publishing Company is mentioned in section 114.

Barton and Jones
The company, located in Denver, that supplies food for the workers rebuilding the Rio Norte Line. They go bankrupt in the middle of the project.

Barton and Jones is mentioned in section 171.

d'Anconia Copper
A copper and mining company founded by Sebastian d'Anconia in Argentina during the time of the Inquisition. Each man who ran the company saw it grow by 10% in his lifetime, so by the time Francisco d'Anconia heads the company it is the largest in the world. His dream, from childhood, is to increase the size of the company by 100%.

d'Anconia Copper is mentioned in sections 152 and 171.

Hammond Motors
A car company in Colorado. They make the best cars on the market until the founder disappears.

Hank Rearden buys a Hammond on his trip to Colorado in section 171.

Incorporated Tool
A company that is contracted to deliver drill heads to Taggart Transcontinental but who fail to do this. It is mentioned in section 171.

Phoenix-Durango
The Phoenix-Durango is an old, small railroad located in the Southwest run by Dan Conway that has been insignificant for most of its existence. However, the Phoenix-Durango grows rapidly when Ellis Wyatt revives the economy of Colorado and Taggart Transcontinental's Rio Norte Line fails to service Wyatt adequately. Later, James Taggart conspires to get the Phoenix-Durango driven out of Colorado with the Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule.

The Phoenix-Durango is mentioned in sections 111, 114, 131 (alluded to), 132, 145, 146, 147 and 152. The Phoenix-Durango is the only company run by a sympathetic character that is not named after the founder.

Rearden Coal
A business founded by Hank Rearden prior to the founding of Rearden Steel. It is mentioned in section 121.

Rearden Limestone
A business founded by Hank Rearden prior to the founding of Rearden Steel. It is mentioned in section 121.

Rearden Ore
The first business founded by Hank Rearden. It is mentioned in section 121.

Rearden Steel
A company founded by Hank Rearden about ten years prior to the start of the story in the novel. Rearden bought an abandoned steel mill in Philadelphia at a time when all the experts thought that such a venture would be hopeless. He turned it into the most reliable and profitable steel company in the country.

As Dagny Taggart struggles to save Taggart Transcontinental, she becomes increasingly dependent on Rearden Steel.

Rearden Steel is mentioned in sections 111, 114, 121, 131 (alluded to), 161 and 162.

Summit Casting
A company in Illinois under contract to deliver rail spikes to Taggart Transcontinental. They go bankrupt before they can deliver, prompting Dagny Taggart to fly to Chicago and buy the company to get it started again.

Summit Casting is mentioned in section 171.

Taggart Transcontinental
The fictional railroad run by Dagny Taggart. Her commitment to the railroad creates one of the book's major conflicts.

Taggart Transcontinental was founded by Nathaniel Taggart who lived three generations (or so) prior to Dagny's generation. It was built without any grants, loans, or favors from the government; it thus differs profoundly from the transcontinental railroads of our history, which financed themselves with their extensive land grants. It was the last railroad that was still owned and controlled by its founder's descendants. Its motto is, From Ocean to Ocean.

The 'flagship' of Taggart Transcontinental is the Taggart Comet which runs from New York to San Francisco, and which has never been late.

United Locomotive Works
An incompetent company that is supposed to deliver Diesel engines to Taggart Transcontinental. The order is delayed in perpetuity, and the president of the company refuses to ever give a straight answer as to why this is so.

The United Locomotive Works is mentioned in sections 133 and 141.

Wyatt Oil
The oil company run by Ellis Wyatt. Wyatt's father had squeezed a living out of the oil fields in Colorado, but when Ellis Wyatt took over the business took off. He discovered a technique for extracting oil from wells that had been abandoned as dried up. The success of Wyatt Oil that followed this discovery suddenly and unexpectedly turned Colorado into the leading economy in the country.

Wyatt Oil traditionally relied on Taggart Transcontinental's Rio Norte Line to ship its oil. But when that company could not grow fast enough to keep up with the booming Colorado economy, Wyatt started using the small but well-managed Phoenix-Durango instead. This prompted James Taggart to make deals with his friends to drive the Phoenix-Durango out of Colorado. Afterwards, Dagny Taggart has to rebuild the Rio Norte Line so it can supply transportation to Wyatt Oil - if she fails, the economy of Colorado, and of the whole country, could collapse.

Wyatt Oil is mentioned in sections 111, 132 and 171.

title: Atlas Shrugged/Companies


text:
Wikijunior:Languages/Greek

What writing system(s) does this language use?
Greece has used the Greek alphabet since the 9th century B.C. The Greek alphabet was the first alphabet to introduce the concept of a vowel. It contains 24 letters, as shown here.

 * Α, Β, Γ, Δ, Ε, Ζ, Η, Θ, Ι, Κ, Λ, Μ, Ν, Ξ, Ο, Π, Ρ, Σ, Τ, Υ, Φ, Χ, Ψ, Ω

How many people speak this language?
About 12 million people speak Greek, making it the 52nd most common language.

Where is this language spoken?
Greek is an official language in Greece, Cyprus, and the European Union, but some people speak Greek in Bulgaria, Albania, Italy, and Turkey. Greek is also spoken by millions of immigrants who live in the United States, Canada, Australia, and various European and African countries, among other places.

What is the history of this language?
Ancient Greek was the language of the Ancient Greek civilization. It was similar to Modern Greek to read, but was pronounced very differently. It gradually evolved into Modern Greek over time — it is one of the only languages to have a continuous history for more than 3000 years!

Some famous authors or poets who speak this language
Greek literature has had a continuous history for about 3000 years.

Homer - wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey. (Ancient Greek)

Vitsentzos Kornaros - wrote Erotokritos. (Modern Greek)

Dionysios Solomos - wrote Ύμνος Στην Ελευθερία (Hymn to Freedom) the poem that became modern Greece's National Anthem: "Απ' τα κόκκαλα βγαλμένη, των Ελλήνων τα ιερά, και σαν πρώτα ανδριωμένη, χαίρε, ω χαίρε λευτεριά"

Andreas Kalvos - Greek poet.

Kostis Palamas - Greek poet.

Constantine Cavafy - famous Greek poet.

Nikos Kazantzakis - Greek writer and philosopher.

Giorgos Seferis - winner of the 1963 Nobel Prize for Literature.

Odysseus Elytis - winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize for Literature.

What is a simple song/poem/story that I can learn in this language?
A children' song:

title: Wikijunior:Languages/Greek


text:
Talk:Travels With Charley: In Search of America

Note, this is a good thing. It means that a new vote to delete this content must overcome the justifications for why this page was kept, which BTW didn't have a single delete vote. It certainly should not be speedy deleted ever again. --Rob Horning 02:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Early page discussion
Just a note: Please don't use Wikibooks as an escape hatch to run from dealing with editorial issues on Wikipedia. This is not the best way to fight these kind of fights, and a good way to get content like this deleted.

You may be the original author of this text, so prove it to Wikipedia editors. Don't go dumping it here on Wikibooks instead. This is clearly an encyclopedia article and not a book, so do the fight on Wikipedia instead. Also, please try to resolve the copyright issues on Wikipedia first, and then review WB:WIN to make sure the content is needed here. Some Wikipedia content has been allowed on Wikibooks under limited situations, or if it is deleted from Wikipedia because it violates some standard that it is not encyclopedic, like a bunch of cookbook recepies or a How-to manual that was started on Wikipedia instead of Wikibooks.

Some literary study guides have been started on Wikibooks, but you should be prepared to make it a substantial book-length work if you really want it to stay here. Please look at Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter for an excellent example of how this has been done. I'm not expecting really elaborate treatment of what you have done here, but it is more than a few extra paragraphs of new content. --Rob Horning 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Wikibooks is for educational "textbooks" and study guides. This is a study guide. The teacher who made this content did so for a class and for classroom study and for class test taking purposes. This is not an encyclopedia article, unless it was radically altered. you should be prepared to make it a substantial book-length work - not really, look at the other study guides on Wikibooks, no one is beholden to create a book length work. Muggle's is an excellent example, but not everyone has the time to personally do that, consider this a "stub" that other people can build on. Frankly the fact that came it from Wikipedia is irrelevant, and it was only on Wikipedia for less than a hour. It was moved here because this is the appropriate project for educational study guides, which is what this was created as, and for, by a teacher, for his/her class. -- Stbalbach 21:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Study guide, not encyclopedia
Most of this was written by a "newbie", a K-12 teacher in NJ, with no experience on Wikipedia or Wikibooks. Rather than delete things, we need to be kind to newbies, and direct them how to conform to the standards.

This is a study guide and not an encyclopedia article.

Rationale:

 * 1) The lead section (2 paragraphs) is copied from Wikipedia because it provides context and background for the book, so ignore that. Delete or rewrite the lead if you want.
 * 2) The "summaries", while they do summarize parts of the book, do so for didactic reasons to educate the reader. It is much too specific and lengthy for Wikipedia, these are specific passages quoted and commented upon for educational reasons, for the reader to ask themselves questions, thematic concerns, focusing on specific issues deemed important.
 * 3) There are "Reading Guide Questions" at the end of each section designed to further educate the reader on the questions focused on in the summaries.

And BTW this could be adapted to Wikipedia standards with some work (I very well might do that), but it would no longer be a study guide, which is what the original author intended and wanted.

If this is not a Study Guide, I don't know what is. While it may not conform to exactly what other study guides look like on Wikibooks, that is a matter of style and further development, which can be changed and worked on. The biggest reason it is a study guide is because it was written to be a study guide by a teacher for a classroom setting for test preparation purposes. --Stbalbach 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Supporting "policies and guidelines"
From Policies and guidelines:

 * Wikibooks is an instructional resource:

 * The site should primarily be used for developing textbooks, textbook-like books, and supporting book-based instructional materials (i.e. annotated texts such as an the Works of Shakespeare with aids for reading and study, for example, or extensive book summaries).

From What is Wikibooks

 * Wikibooks includes books based on Wikipedia articles

 * Note that "based on" does not mean "verbatim copies of". Wikipedia articles sometimes have a tendency to get rather long, and Wikipedia editors have a tendency to trim them down to a limit of around 32k of text. When this happens, it is permitted to fork such content from Wikipedia, provided the content is reformatted as a book, as per Naming policy, and the Wikipedia entry is clearly marked to indicate that this fork now exists on this site, and further content should be added to the book, and not the Wikipedia article. When forking content from Wikipedia, you should correct any links which previously pointed to other Wikipedia articles so that they continue to point to those same articles, and not to non-existent articles on the Wikibooks site.

Considering that I wrote (well, helped establish and worked with the wording of) the above policy, I think I understand it somewhat. This was a verbatim copy of what was on Wikipedia earlier, and that was my motivation for removing this content. Mind you, all I'm asking is for you to defend why you moved it here, and to understand why this content needed to come here. I think the admin that was culling the content on Wikipedia has a very unusual sense of what "original research" is really about, and this isn't it. This is a scholarly review of a book and detailing key points of what is within the book. As such, I think it could be an excellent article on Wikibooks in its current format with a little bit of nip and tuck to clean it up in some areas to make it seem more like a Wikipedia article, and perhaps work a tiny bit on the POV, as such it has. I guess you are not willing to take on that fight. The content wasn't put on Wikibooks until after it had been removed from Wikipedia.

As far as comparing this to other literary study guides, I would call most of those you cite as book stubs. This is something that has been debated here on Wikibooks off and on over the history of the project, but is considered a very low priority item to worry about right now. Often stubs will languish like this for quite some time after the initial creation of the content, which is one reason why we strongly encourage the content to remain on Wikipedia if it is even close to fitting on that project: It will simply get more attention and development by remaining on Wikipedia. The discussion about stubs is to decide if an eternal stub (one with no edits for more than a year and really only one one or two people contributing to them in the first place) should be deleted. I hope this content does not fall into that category. That discussion is not over, so certainly it is an issue for the future.

The copyright issue is something that should be resolved, as a formal disclaimer like "I have obtained copyright permission from the author to publish this on Wikipedia/Wikibooks under the GNU Free Documentation License" or "I grant copyright permission under the GFDL". For me that is sufficient, and I'm going to assume good faith on this issue. The other point raised was that this content "did not fit with WP:NOT where wikipedia is not a critical reviewer." I have no idea what this means, other than to suggest that things like book or movie reviews are not done on Wikipedia. But they are done... well sort of. A NPOV synopsis of movies and books often are given on Wikipedia, and even nominated as brilliant prose or featured articles. To suggest that this content could not be worked into a book synopsis with a NPOV is beyond me.

The point here ultimately is that I think you gave up too quickly on Wikipedia and let another editor get the best of you. Unfortunately, what is an excellent article candidate on Wikipedia, potentially even a featured article eventually, is going to be a book stub instead here and ignored. --Rob Horning 03:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * As I already said, Rob, the text can easily be copied back to Wikipedia (copy-edited for NPOV, length and formatting), we both agree on that. Plus there is currently a "See also" link to this page from the Wikipedia article. But, Wikipedia is not a study guide, with a study guide here, the teacher and students (and anyone else) have greater leeway in expanding the study guide as an educational resource. This is what Wikibooks was made for. The "author" is User talk:Tmchale, a teacher, (and students), at a K-12 in NJ, and they have given default permission by uploading it, but also by direct consent on the talk page(s) on Wikipedia.  -- Stbalbach 05:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Generally if it is a substantial addition of text, we prefer to have explict granting of copyright permission. I do see, however, that some form of granting that permission was obtained, and even the admin on Wikipedia was willing to revert the deletion because of copyright flaws.  Instead, it was violating Wikipedia standards that were mainly cited as justification for deletion.  My concerns that this is going to be a very stubby book that is largely ignored by the Wikibooks community IMHO will prove itself out in a year or two.  I have the patience to wait and see, but it takes a critical mass for some Wikibooks to fully develop.  I don't think this has quite enough material to do that.  --Rob Horning 17:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Given the statistics, your probably right, but are we running low on space, is there a one year grace period and things are purged? I thought this was a "100 year project", this guide could suddenly bloom in 5 years, when another class picks it up; Ive seen stuff languish for that long on Wikipedia, just takes the right person to come along and expand it. Also I'm not sure how big a Study Guide for this book would be, it's a short book with one main character and no plot, mainly a lot of themes. -- Stbalbach 23:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no specific time frame, and this is something that we are trying to deal with right now in terms of what is something we can keep if nobody is working on it, and it is obviously just an initial start but no real meaningful content. Often people will start a "book" with an outline, but it doesn't go anywhere else after that, with some of these book outlines being here for more than two years.  And this project is only three years old.  In terms of running low on server space, that is not really the issue.  Most of the stuff is being removed from Wikibooks because it either violates some basic principles, such as being a copyright violation or a personal essay that preaches a religious or political doctrine, or that it is seriously detracting from our primary mission of being a forum for authoring textbooks.  Books like How to Rape are one of those.  (Yes, a book with that title was started here.)

 * This content about Steinbeck is certainly not going to fall into any of those sorts of content. Occasionally there is some content that is so poorly written from a gramatical viewpoint that it is embaressing to have here, but the usual response is if you are so critical of it, clean it up.  I don't know of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects will last 100 years, but there certainly is some strong motivation for people to be involved and try to maintain the content.  Wikibooks will be a very different place even 5 years from now, and there are some very interesting parallels with Wikipedia in terms of its growth and development.  --Rob Horning 12:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark?
I don't believe they were "french explorers".


text:
Wikibooks talk:Ad hoc administration committee

Are you planning/proposing to implement an effective (auditable) voting system or stick with the one sock puppet one vote "consensus" survey system pioneered by Wikipedia? Lazyquasar 18:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Currently, for WB:BOTM and WB:COTM, any user with 20 edits can vote. Users around here seem to be reluctant to discount votes from those who have 20 edits, even if they appear to be sockpuppets. For an "editorial board" (or an "editorial council", as I prefer to call it), I would suggest approval voting, a system like BOTM and COTM, except that the winners would be the top five, instead of the top one.

 * For the council to be effective, it would need to start with only reserve powers, acting when other mechanisms fail. Also, there must be a mechanism for the community to declare no-confidence and force the council to disband, so that the council does not hijack the wiki from the community. I remain undecided about whether to support the creation of such board or council. --Kernigh 05:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * At the Staff Lounge there seemed to be some reasonable arguments in favour of a "loose" council or board. This is why I have watered down the proposal to the idea of a loose group of administrators who enforce policy as required (ie: only when there is real trouble) rather than any elaborate scheme. This committee would be a backstop rather than a frequently used organ. I would hope that the Editing disputes policy and No personal attacks policy would keep the peace in normal circumstances. RobinH 11:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this should be an enforced policy

 * 1) RobinH 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) German Men92 15:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, this policy should be rejected

 * 1) Jguk 12:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC) First, please note that we should have a well-publicised discussion period before having any policy vote, and then the vote should also be well-publicised, have clearly stated success v fail criteria and a time limit. As far as the proposal is concerned it is bureaucratic and wholly unnecessary. What sort of problems is it meant to resolve? Jguk 12:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If a policy is enforced there must be some form of enforcement process - otherwise it can just be ignored. This proposal is to solve the problem of the absolute absence of any enforcement apparatus in Wikibooks. Without an enforcement mechanism there is no point in having "enforced" policies. Are you are against the idea that any policies should be enforced? RobinH 13:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But there is an enforcement procedure - namely that anyone who sees a policy breach can act sensibly to resolve that knowing that they do so with community support. We are a relatively slow volume wiki, but we have 18 active administrators plus many other users who are not administrators who enforce policy. If you are concerned about a significant breach that does not look like it will be rectified, then you should follow it up on the staff lounge. That should work. If that gets no response, it'll probably because no-one agrees with you that it is worth worrying about, Jguk 17:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But an item in the staff lounge may easily be ignored. This does not mean that "no-one agrees", it just means that people are either too busy or do not want to get involved. Even if an item is not ignored and 3 users suggest enforcement this can just be ignored by the offender! The staff lounge is frequently archived and all the offender need do is enter reams of text to ensure a rapid archive. What you are suggesting is simply putting off any structured response to violation of enforced policies until something truly dire occurs.
 * The simple truth is that "enforced policy" has no more meaning than "proposed policy" if there is no enforcement mechanism. We must at least have a minimal enforcement apparatus. RobinH 11:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Why do we need to include an additional level of bureaucracy in the clean-up process? Any user or administrator, met with a violation of policy, is free to change the page content to match policy, or solve the dispute through acceptable means. What we need perhaps is to finalize the dispute resolution policy, and then we won't need this. I vote no to this policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 17:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think we need this policy in current shape. As Whiteknight has said before, this is another lever of bureaucracy and we are currently able to cope with violating of enforced polices. --Derbeth talk 20:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I looked at the proposed policy, and I think it has good ideas, including the review of policy enforcement decisions by a loose panel of admins, who afterall have recieved some level of community support. I think this less-than-formal structure fits well with the culture here at 'books. However, I have some concerns before I can support such a policy, including what authority and what steps such a panel can use. Are we establishing mini, temporary, Wikipedia-style Arbitration Committees who can ban users for particularly bad actions or behavior? If we are, does this policy require Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors approval before it is enacted? Is there a danger of users engaging in judge shopping by getting three of their admin friends to form a tribunal? Additionally, the policy's requirement of mandatory action after a single user's request could result in abuse of admin time and effort. Frivilious cases should be able to be dismissed without forming a tribunal. What happens if enough of the active admins refuse to participate in a dispute brought to them? Just some random concerns. Gentgeen 08:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) This is unnecessarily bureaucratic. Kellen T 16:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


text:
User:Akashayi~enwikibooks

Akasha Yi

I've had many evolutions, majors and interesting jobs over the years.

My interests: I was a Music Ed/Piano major for many years until I became a Buddhahead and started teaching Martial Arts. I am also interested in Computer Science, Programming, Video Games, Linguistics. I've taught Basic Japanese. I like cookies.

title: User:Akashayi~enwikibooks


text:
Talk:College Survival Guide/Etiquette

How the hell does certification exams fit into this? Eh. I don't like the Buddhist incontation to this article. No offense. I'll change this thing. --Cyberman 00:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Note to self: Talk about the social environment and psychology of peers. --Cyberman 23:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:College Survival Guide/Etiquette


text:
College Survival Guide/Studying

Going to the Library
Going to school and staying away from home is the best possible thing to do if you want to study. Being at home, a person may be tempted to turn on the television or play around on the internet. This is why going to a library is recommended. Make sure you make a meal for yourself so you can study for a few hours there.

Also, unless you really, really have to use it, stay away from the internet and a computer. Sometimes, when a person gets on the internet, they will become distracted in listening to music, reading a blog, etc., instead of doing school work. Staying away from a computer is often a good strategy when studying in a library.

Finding a quiet space
When inside the library, find a quiet place to sit. Make sure this area has ample lighting; lighting has an effect on the circadian system of the human body and keeps the mind awake and active.

Of course, a library is not always the quietest place around, if the surroundings are not controlled. Cell phones are the demons of today's world when one wishes to have silence. Colleges are also not without their chatty individuals. A recommendation is to get the type of ear muffs a person wears when shooting a gun. Don't buy a gun, or use a gun in school; just buy the ear muffs used. The ear muffs, at times, are better than noise-canceling headphones. Ear muffs greatly reduce the sound level of your surroundings.

title: College Survival Guide/Studying


text:
User talk:64.107.201.150

Please do not replace Wikibooks pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikibooks because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If page is no longer useful, insert delete to its top. Thanks for contributing to Wikibooks! --Derbeth talk 19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:64.107.201.150


text:
User talk:207.166.19.32

--Xerol Oplan 21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:207.166.19.32