text:
FBI Name Check

The objective of this book is to provide a general guide for dealing with FBI name check. It is recommended that all users read the Essential information section, which consists of the first half of the article. Lawsuit steps contains step by step information about how to file a lawsuit by yourself. Also, readers are advised to review The American Immigration Law Foundation page on recent mandamus litigation which provides a comprehensive review of litigation strategy and recent mandamus litigations.

Essential information
FBI Name Check is requested by USCIS for immigration benefit applicants. The FBI NNCP conducts manual and electronic searches of the FBI’s Central Records System (CRS) Universal Index (UNI). The CRS encompasses the centralized records of FBI Headquarters, field offices, and Legal Attache offices. The CRS contains all FBI investigative, administrative, personnel, and general files. After September 11 2001, many immigration applicants have experienced significant delay due to increasing number of cases. FBI published Frequently Asked Questionsrecently regarding the delay which may not tell the whole story as practically the problem with delays is much serious and pervasive as per USCIS Ombudsman annual report for 2007.

This document has detailed information about the name check process associated with application for immigration benefit.

USCIS Ombudsman Report 2007 reported on page 55 that "Name Checks and Other Security Checks FBI name checks, one of several security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reductions efforts, and may not achieve their intended national security objectives. FBI name checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits. The problem of long-pending FBI name check cases worsened during the reporting period"

Recent declaration of Michael Cannon, filed in a civil case in Georgia reinforces the fear that the name check process is not based on first in - first out principle: "Another exception to the first-in, first-served policy is a near-term effort agreed to by USClS and the FBI to reduce the number of pending USCIS name check requests by prioritizing "single hit" name checks". Moreover, if a request is pending a long time, it may be required to go thru the process again multiple times! As Mr. Cannon says: "Please note that additional searches against the FBI's Universal Index, additional manual name searches, and/or additional file review of a name check request, depending on the length of time a name check request is pending in the processing queue, may occur periodically during the name check process to ensure that stale information is updated". Therefore, if you have more than one hit the only recourse to avoid waiting for years and years is to file a lawsuit against the USCIS.

Check also this document obtained as part of discovery in a civil case in Oregon. The document sheds more light on how the decision was made by FBI to search both main and reference files for all name check requests submitted by the USCIS. It also has more details about the name check process. All requests from the USCIS get the Priority Level 3 - requests from major customers without specific deadlines.

See also this court order that reveals that the government was not ready to process required volume of name checks when the USCIS changed policy in 2004. The FBI needs to triple NNCP staff just to keep up with the daily flow of the USCIS requests. No wonder that the backlog is growing.

"The government concedes that the agency within the FBI responsible for name checks, the National Name Check Program Section {"NNCPS"), is understaffed. Approximately 3.3 million name checks are requested each year, resulting in 330,000 checks that proceed past the second stage. As of 2006, NNCPS only employed 103 personnel, 59 of which are dedicated to performing name checks for CIS. To meet its internal goals, the FBI has estimated that it needs 180 employees to process the CIS requests alone."

It's nice to see how the judge rebuffs USCIS arguments that they are trying to address the delay.

"There is no evidence of any efforts by CIS to take responsibility for and help remedy the existing name check process. Rather, CIS forwards the request to the FBI and then disclaims any accountability for a delay. This is the very definition of agency recalcitrance - an inability or unwillingness to fix an obvious problem that it helped to create."

How do I know whether I am still in name check by FBI

 * 1. USCIS infopass/inquiry. Call the USCIS customer service and ask to talk to an immigration officer.
 * 2. Send inquiry to the CIS Ombudsman. Click here for details.
 * 3. Send inquiry to your congressman/senator.
 * 4. Refer to the attached file in the following immigrationportal thread for some common FAQs on namecheck (http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=215932).

Name check expedite criteria
There have been two Memos by USCIS that explain the criteria to expedite name check. The 2005 Memo (click here) indicates a pending writ of mandamus lawsuit as a condition for expedited name check. Later on USCIS had another Memo dated Feb 20, 2007 (click here) which removes the lawsuit as a condition to expedite name check.

Definitions
See US Attorneys' Manual for definitions of common terms (mandamus, service of process, etc.)

 * AUSA = Assistant US Attorney. S/he is the lawyer who is representing the Defendants in cases when you sue the government (and of course, s/he is the counsel of the Plaintiffs when the government sues somebody, but this is irrelevant in such cases)

 * What is a Motion?

 * MTD = Motion to Dismiss A motion to dismiss the complaint argues that there are legal problems with the way the complaint was written, filed, or served. Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lists the following defenses that can be raised in a motion to dismiss the complaint:
 * 1. Motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In this type of motion the defendant argues that the court does not have the legal authority to hear the kind of lawsuit that the plaintiff filed.
 * 2. Motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In this type of motion the defendant argues that he or she has so little connection with the district in which the case was filed that the court has no legal authority to hear the plaintiff’s case against that defendant.
 * 3. Motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue. In this type of motion the defendant argues that the lawsuit was filed in the wrong place.
 * 4. Motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of process, or for insufficiency of service of process. In these types of motions the defendant argues that the plaintiff did not prepare the summons correctly or did not properly serve the summons on the defendant.
 * 5. Motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. In this type of motion the defendant argues that even if everything stated in the complaint is true, the defendant did not violate the law. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is not appropriate if the defendant wants to argue that the facts alleged in the complaint are not true. Instead, in a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim the defendant assumes that the facts alleged in the complaint are true, but argues that those facts do not constitute a violation of any law.
 * MSJ = Motion for Summary Judgment

Lawsuit steps

 * 1. Contact your Federal District Court and ask for a Civil Case Pro Se package. Read it.
 * 2. Prepare a lawsuit on Microsoft word (use appropriate complaint template for naturalization or adjustment of status). Print it and sign it.
 * 3. Fill out a Civil Cover sheet and print it out. Note: some district courts have customized JS-44 and may have an extra page to fill up. Check with your local court before filing.
 * 4. Locate you federal district court using your zip code and this link.
 * 5. You can file the original complaint in person at the district court clerk's office or by mail. You need to have signed complaint (with exhibits if any) + cover sheet + check for $350 payable to "Clerk, US District Court" + summons if you file in person (see the next paragraph).
 * 6. Fill and print the summons for all defendants. Use the summons form. (If you sent the original complaint by mail, the court will send you blank summons with your case number.)
 * 7. Make copies of the summons and your complaint, one for each defendant and an extra copy for the US attorney in your district. You can find the name and address of your district US Attorney here.
 * 8. Put the case # on all copies. Make copies of summons to file a proof of service later on.
 * 9. Serve the complaint + summons + exhibits if any via CERTIFIED MAIL on all defendants and the Local US Attorney’s office with a copy to US Attorney General at Washington D.C. (if US AG is one of the defendants, no need to send two copies to him/her, one is enough). Each defendant should get a copy of complaint and summons with his/her name. Local US Attorney gets a copy of complaint and a copy of summons for each defendant. Some courts require the RETURN RECEIPTS in addition to certified mail. To be on the safe side, pay for the Return Receipts (you can request electronic return receipts as a cheaper option). Some courts accept the receipts for the certified mail and the USPS online delivery tracking as a Proof of Service.
 * 10. Check the delivery of your summons on the USPS website. The 60-day count starts from the date AUSA receives your complaint. Note: some courts require that the summon to the AUSA to be address to "Attn: Civil processing clerk", otherwise your summon will not be considered received. Check the local rules before sending summons out.
 * 11. Use the USPS online tracking record to fill "Return of service" section for all summons (back page or second page of the summons form). Attach return receipts or USPS printouts. File "Return of service" with the court.
 * 12. From here, every time you file something with the court, send a copy to your local US attorney and file a Certificate of service with the court.
 * 13. 2 weeks before the expiration of the 60-day deadline, call the US Attorney, introduce yourself, and ask about your case.
 * 14. Hopefully the name check will be cleared, and you'll get an approval within 2 to 3 months of filing the suit.

If you have any questions, post them on immigrationportal forum: http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=1781629

If the name check is not cleared, then file a request for Discovery (see example), a Motion for Default Judgment, or a Motion for Summary Judgment, depending on your situation:
 * Discovery may not produce anything useful and may just prolong the case.
 * A Motion for Summary Judgment is likely to be more productive than Discovery.
 * A Response to Motion to Dismiss is useful, but is only appropriate if the defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss.

Actual lawsuit cases
Here is an analysis about the case of Danilov v. Aguirre, et al., USDC Danilov Aguirre.
 * Irina Astafieva v. Gonzales (see court order), NO. C 06-04820 JW

Example document for pending Naturalization (N-400)
If you applied for naturalization (N-400) and had an interview, use this document or this one

If you did not have an interview, use the template attached here or here

Example Document for Writ of Mandamus for AOS (I-485) Applicants
Mandamus Suit Actual Document to File is attached here.

Examples of Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Defendants (USCIS, FBI, etc.) usually file motion to dismiss the lawsuit on two main grounds; lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Here are examples of responses to defendants' motion to dismiss:
 * Kassemi vs. DHS Response to MTD (click here)
 * Elkhatib v. Bulger petitioners reply to AUSA MTD (click here)
 * Ibrahim v. Chertoff, plaintiff brief in opposition to motion to dismiss (click here)
 * Wu v. Chertoff, Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed through counsel (click here)
 * He vs. Chertoff (click here)

In order to write your own response to Motion to Dismiss, you may use the following draft and make modification to match your case:
 * Draft template to write response to MTD (click here)

AILF Legal Action Center
MANDAMUS ACTIONS: “HOW TO” AND SUMMARY OF RELEVANT CASE LAW July 18, 2003 by AILF Legal Action Center. Broken link, file possibly removed! MANDAMUS ACTIONS: “HOW TO” AND SUMMARY OF RELEVANT CASE LAW

Example of a Case
(1) On 4/4/2006 Filed in Northern District of CA in San Jose by Pro Se. The Clerk gave me a bunch of documents and asked me to make copies and serve the Defendants with my complaint. I was assigned a judge on the spot, with location and time in San Jose Court building (all printed on a CMC sheet). I also received the case number, the stamped Summon, the Proof of Service sheet. By the way, the clerk even typed my name wrong, and I found it later. I did not bother to go back, so just corrected by hand the served all defendants. For the address and info about the court: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/

(2) On 4/5/2006 US Attorney I served: Kevin Ryan in San Francisco. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/offices/index.html#a

(3) A week later, Filed proof of service in the Court. It's very simple and easy. Just filled in the sheet and showed the Certified Mail Receipt. I did NOT have all the return receipt, as I know it will take forever to get anything back from Washington. I mailed everything with Priority + Certified + Return Receipt. There is an email service from USPS web page -- will email you the status of your mail. I printed all delivery confirmation emails sent from USPS. The clerk was happy about the proof. She was busy at the moment, took all my doc, promised me to file them later (and also correct my name).

(4) Two days later, I received a mail from Court -- the printed confirmation showing the dates that I served all the defendants (which were the dates showed in email delivery confirmation from USPS). On this sheet, the 60-day deadline was also printed (started from those dates I provided).

(5) I mailed the "proof" of "proof of service" -- the above sheet clerk gave me with all the serve dates and deadline dates -- to US Attorney in SF, Kevin Ryan, again.

(6) 4 weeks later, I was thinking about to contact Attorney office about my case.....

(7) then on 5/2/2006, a secretary in Attorney office (SF) called me..... it's all done! She asked me if I know how to dismiss, I said I don't know. She then faxed me the template to dismiss, and agreed to let me dismiss after I received formal letter from CIS.

Favorable Cases in Court
See this spreadsheet for I-130/I-485 (AOS) cases: http://spreadsheets1.google.com/ccc?key=pBQx8tqZHHU2A6Q-Pv9sULw&hl=en

Case where judge denied MTD and ordered specific timeline for name check completion and adjudication
The opinion has in-depth analyses on the jurisdiction-stripping statute of the INA (8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)) and on the applicability of the APA to the processing of AOS applications. Not only did the court deny the defandants' MTD, but also ordered them to complete adjudication of the plaintiffs' I-485 cases by August 6, 2007. The judge wrote: "I cannot accept the argument that, simply because adjustment of status is a form of discretionary relief, there is no limit to the length of time the USCIS may take processing applications. The duty to act is no duty at all if the deadline is eternity." Action No. 07cv10231-NG, District of Massachusetts.
 * Yong Tang v. Chertoff (see court order), 493 F.Supp.2d 148, D.Mass., June 26, 2007

Court ordered Respondents to complete the adjudication of pending I-485 application forthwith (i.e. immediately). Document of Interest: Document #29 “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgement; And Denying Defendant’ Motion For Summary Judgement” The court found mandamus jurisdiction to order adjudication of plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court held that there was unreasonable delay in the adjudication of plaintiff's applications and that plaintiff had no other remedy. At the time the court issued its decision, plaintiff's asylum-based I-485 application had been pending for more than seven years and his marriage-based I-485 application had been pending for almost four years. The court noted that the government itself conceded that it has a mandatory duty to process I-485 applications. Case Number: 06-02458; Filed: April 7, 2006; Court: California Northern District Court; Office: San Francisco Office; Presiding Judge: Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen
 * Singh v. Still (see court order), 470 F. Supp.2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

Court ordered on 10/24/2006 the USCIS complete its adjudication of plaintiff’s I-485 application forthwith (i.e. immediately, at once). Document of Interest: Document #40 “Order Awarding Plaintiff Fees” covers reasons to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action and ordered USCIS to complete adjudication of plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). Plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately eight years when the court issued its decision. Also see judge order to Grant Petitioner Legal Fees Page 8~9 finding FBI delay unreasonable. Case Number: 06-01280; Filed: February 22, 2006; Court: California Northern District Court; Office: San Francisco Office; Presiding Judge: Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman
 * Aboushaban v. Mueller (see court order), No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076 or in WestLaw: 2006 WL 3041086, (N.D. Cal. 2006)

Court on 6/6/2005 denied MTD and ordered defendants to adjuciate within a detailed schedule (longest timeline is about 90 days from order date). Also Plaintiff's Reply to Respondents' Response to WOM.
 * Elkhatib v. Bulter (see court order), Case No: 04-22407, (S. D. Fla., June 2005)

The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action and ordered USCIS to complete its adjudication of plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) within 30 days and to inform the court of its decisions. The court stated that it would maintain jurisdiction over the case to ensure that USCIS complied with its order. Document of Interest: Page 5~14 of Memorandum Opinion and Order discusses court opinion against defendants’ motion to dismiss. At the time the three plaintiffs filed their mandamus suit, two applications had been pending for four years and one had been pending for six years. Case Number: 06-03215; Filed: August 3, 2006; Court: Minnesota District Court; Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Other Statutory Actions;
 * Haidari v. Frazier (see court order), Civil No. 06-3215 (DWF/AJB), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 (D. Minn. December 2006)

(holding a two-and-a-half year delay unreasonable)
 * Yu v. Brown (see court order), 36 F. Supp. 2d 932

Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and remanded to USCIS to complete adjudication of plaintiffs applications within thirty days. Court found that defendants’ failure to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status was not a discretionary decision. What is significant about the Song case is that the plaintiffs did not even file an opposition to the MTD from the defendants. The judge could have chosen to grant the MTD; instead, he went ahead and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered USCIS to adjudicate their AOS applications within 30 days. I485 was filed May 2005; Case Number: 2:2006cv05589; Filed: December 22, 2006; Court: Pennsylvania Eastern District Court; Office: Philadelphia Office; Presiding Judge: HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL
 * Song vs. Klapakas (see court order), Song v. Klapakas, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27203 (April 12, 2007)

Court ruled that a six-month delay in processing application for immigration benefit is unreasonable. Moreover, court ordered to issue visa numbers for plaintiffs from the previous fiscal year. Court ruled that a ten-month delay in processing application for immigration benefit is unreasonable
 * Galvez v. Howerton 503 F. Supp. 35, 39 (C.D. Cal. 1980) (see court order)
 * Paunescu v. INS, 76F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (see court order)

CASE NO.: 07-20334-CIV; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION; Decided June 21, 2007. Court denied Defendats' MTD and orders "reasonably prompt" AOS: "...no agency responsible for resolving matters of public interest should be free to let those matters pend in perpetuity ... REMANDED to the USCIS for reasonably prompt adjudication of Plaintiffs' I-485 Adjustment Applications."
 * Jones v. Gonzales (see court order), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45012 (S.D. Fla 2007)

CASE NO. 06cv2071-L (POR) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; May 24, 2007, Decided. Adjudication ordered "forthwith." Pending seven years. Pro se!
 * Ibrahim v. Chertoff (see court order), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38352, (S.D. Cal. May 24, 2007)

Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement. The order states: "In short, while there is no specific time frame imposed on Defendants to process I-485 applications, delay of more than two-and-a-half years is unreasonable under the specific circumstances because there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the delay is attributable to Plaintiffs nor is there any particularized evidence in the record sufficiently explaining the reasons for the extended delay." Also court refers to 8 U.S.C. 1571(b) and reasons that: "While Congress has not set forth a statutory time limit for adjudication of I-485 applications, the USCIS is required to conclude the matters presented to it within a reasonable time. See 5 U.S.C. SS 555(b), 706(1); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b) [*18] ('It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application . . .')."
 * Liu v. Chertoff (see court order), 2007 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 61772 (E.D. CA. August 22, 2007).

The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered USCIS to complete adjudication of Li's I-485 application within thirty (30) days. The court reasons that "This Court concludes that the better reasoned view is that courts have jurisdiction at a minimum under the APA because defendants have a non-discretionary duty to process the I-485 application within a reasonable time, as distinct from its discretionary authority of whether to grant or deny the applications." Further, the court refers to Haidari's case and states: "This Court agrees with the Haidari court that 'the USCIS does not possess unfettered discretion to relegate aliens to a state of 'limbo,' leaving them to languish there indefinitely.'"
 * Li v. Chertoff (see court order), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53309 (US District Court for the District of Nebraska July 19, 2007)

Court orders that Defendants must adjudicate Plaintiff's AOS by November 30, 2007
 *  Liu v. Novak (see court order), Civil Action No. 07-263 (EGS), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63683, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (August 30, 2007, Decided)

"[T]he defendants' alleged failure to take timely action on the plaintiffs' application is not itself a decision, let alone a discretionary decision, but rather unreasonable inaction, which is the proper subject of mandamus relief."
 * Tang v. Chertoff (see court order), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64022 (E.D. of Ken. 2007), Decided August 29, 2007

MSJ granted to the Plaintiff. It has a very good discussion about a number of arguments, including "cut in line","national security requires the delay","agency burden", etc. "The Court, however, is not in a position to relieve the defendants’ of their obligation to comply with their mandatory duties. Under the APA, a court “shall” “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). In this instance, it is not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff’s clear right to administrative action against the agency’s burdens in complying."
 * Dong v. Chertoff (see court order), 2007 WL 2601107 N.D.Cal. Sep 06, 2007

Case where judge denied MTD, but has not ordered final relief or was jointly dismissed before judge decides on relief
Judge issued ORDER denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on 3/8/2007. Having found jurisdiction over pla's claim, Court declines to remand matter to the US Citizenship and Immigration Service before hearing merits of the case. On 4/30/07, joint MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice as Moot. Name check was completed. Also see Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (click here). Case Number: 06-02608; Filed: November 27, 2006; Court: California Southern District Court; Office: San Diego Office; Presiding Judge: Judge Irma E. Gonzalez; Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes
 * He vs. Chertoff (see court order)

Judge order denied MTD on 1/19/2007. This order did not rule on final relief. Joint motion to dismiss was filed on 3/26/2007 and case was jointly dismissed. Case Number: 06-3477; Filed: November 3, 2006; Court: Texas Southern District Court; Office: Houston Office; Presiding Judge: Judge Sim Lake; Court ordered on January 19, 2007
 * Wang v Chertoff (see court order)

Court denied Motion to Dismiss on 02/23/2007, but has not ruled on relief yet. Case Number: 06-01351; Filed: October 10, 2006; Court: Pennsylvania Western District Court; Office: Pittsburgh Office; Presiding Judge: Donetta W. Ambrose
 * Duan vs. Zamberry (see court order)

Court denied MTD on 7/26/2004. WOM case for I-485 pending for more than 3 years. Court dismisses government claims about lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and denies motion to dismiss.
 * Kim vs. Ashcroft (see court order), Kim v. Ashcroft, 340 F. Supp. 2d 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

Court ordered to grant in part and deny in part MTD. Court finds jurisdiction. The denied part is plaintiff seeks approval instead of adjudication. On 05/02/07 this case was jointly dismissed. Case Number: 3:2006cv06724; Filed: October 30, 2006; Court: California Northern District Court; Office: San Francisco Office; Presiding Judge: Hon. William H. Alsup
 * Gelfer v. Chetoff (see court order), Case No. 06-6724, (N.D. Ca 2006)

This is a WOM case for I-130. Court order denied summary judgement motions from both sides, and court also ordered subsequent court procedures if defendants do not adjudicate within a certain time. Court has some great analysis and favorable to petitioner. The case was jointly dismissed and there is no final judge order on relief technically speaking. Court order Document of Interest: Document #37 “Order And Memorandum Opinion Re Motions For Summary Judgement”. Page 6 to 10 have great points. Case Number: 06-02461; Filed: April 7, 2006; Court: California Northern District Court; Office: Oakland Office; Presiding Judge: Magistrate Judge Wayne D.
 * Razaq v. Poulos (see court order), Case No. 06-2461-WDB, (N.D. Cal 2006)

Court order denied MTD and allowed plaintiff to amend complaint. No final order on relief yet. See also Plaintiff's Opposition to MTD as well as Defendant's MTD. Case Number: 3:2006cv02272; Filed: December 11, 2006; Court: Texas Northern District Court; Office: Dallas Office; Presiding Judge: Judge Jorge A Solis; Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Paul D Stickney
 * Wei v. Chertoff (see court order), Case No. 06-02272, (N.D. TX 2006)

See also Plaintiff's Opposition to MTD. Case number: 5:06-cv-01430-R; Case filed on 12/27/2006 at The Western District of Oklahoma. Court order denied MTD on 4/19/2007. No court order on final relief yet
 * Linville v. Barrows (see court order), Case No. 06-01430, (W.D. OK 2006)

DALLAS DIVISION; Judge ordered March 28th, 2007 Court denied defendants’ MTD on 3/28/2007. No final order on relief yet. Case Number: 3:2006cv02359; Filed: December 21, 2006; Court: Texas Northern District Court; Office: Dallas Office; Presiding Judge: Judge Jane J Boyle; Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Other Statutory Actions; Cause: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
 * Elmalky v. Upchurch (see court order), Case No. 3:06-CV-2359-B (N.D. Texas 2007)

Plaintiff I485 filed in Sept. 05, pending less than 2 years. Plaintiff did not file opposition to MTD, but court rule denied defendants’ MTD on May 2nd, 2007 YING HUANG and YANNING LIU v. ALBERTO GONZALES, et al. WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE; Case number 2:2007cv00096
 * Huang v. Gonzales (see court order), Case No. 07-00096 (W.D. Was 2007)

This is a case from N.D.CA. done by professionals not Pro Se. Court denied MTD, stating: This Court has jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's complaint under both the writ of mandamus and the APA. The order states: "The Court agrees with the many district courts that have held that, taken together, the APA, the INA, and section 245.2(a)(5) of the CFR establish a clear and certain right to have immigration status adjustment applications adjudicated, and to have them adjudicated within a reasonable time frame." Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that defendants have delayed over three years in adjudicating her I-485 application. Defendants have provided a detailed description of the FBI name-check process in an attempt to explain the delay. The Court has reviewed defendants' papers, and finds nothing to compel the conclusion that three years is a "reasonable time" as a matter of law. The amount of time that is reasonable is a fact-specific inquiry, which is premature at this stage. See also Plaintiff's Opposition to MTD, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Answer
 * Wu v. Chertoff (see court order or here in pdf), Case No. 06-07880, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33816 (N.D. Cal), Decided April 25, 2007

Judge adopts the and logic of Linville's case and denies Defendants' MTD
 * Cho v. Jarina (see court order), Case No. 07-629, EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA; Decided May 18, 2007

Case No. SC 06-7881; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; June 6, 2007, Decided. Court denied Defendants' MTD reasoning that: "CIS has a duty to adjudicate Plaintiff's Adjustment Application within a reasonable time, and thus the Court has jurisdiction to hear a mandamus complaint by Plaintiff regarding the pace of that adjudication."
 * QUAN v. CHERTOFF (see court order), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44081 (N.D. Cal 2007)

Case No. C07-122RSL; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON; June 5, 2007, Decided This is a Pro Se case. Court denied Defendants' MTD stating that: "Accordingly, this Court agrees that jurisdiction is proper under the APA and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to compel USCIS to adjudicate an application for adjustment to permanent status."
 * MA and LIU v. GONZALES (see court order), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41103 (W.D. Was 2007)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION I-485 Mandamus Survives Motion to Dismiss. The court states that: "The Court concludes, contrary to the Government’s assertion otherwise, that it may properly exercise jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Mandamus Act and the APA. The Court therefore denies the Government’s motion to dismiss."
 * Alsaleh v. Gonzalez (see court order), Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-2162-N, (N.D. Tx., Dallas Div.), June 6, 2007, Decided

 * Blanco Rosales v. Swacina, May 23, 2007.

I-485 has been pending since Dec, 2004. The judge ordered USCIS to either adjudicate or present a satisfactory reason for the delay.
 * Xu v Chertoff (see court order), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50027 (D.N.J. 2007), Decided July 10, 2007

Court only orders to deny MTD
 * Qui v. Chertoff (see court order), 2007 WL 1831130, (decided July 26, 2007)

Good response to 1252(a)(2)(B)
 * Bondarenko v. Chertoff (see court order), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67143, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, September 8, 2007

Case with good opposition to MTD or good response to defendants’ answer, but then was jointly dismissed before judge deciding on MTD
Judge issued order to show cause on Jan. 22nd, 07. There was no MTD but an answer to judge order to show cause. Plaintiff then provided response to answer and proposed order. On 04/10/2007 case was jointly dismissed. So no final judge order. However, plaintiffs’ reply to defendants response to Judge order to show cause can be useful to study. Also plaintiff’s proposed order to judge is useful to study too. Also see Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Response (click here). Case Number: 5:2006cv07636; Filed: December 13, 2006; Court: California Northern District Court; Office: San Jose Office; Presiding Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel; Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd
 * Wang v Chertoff, Case No. 06-7636, (N.D. Cal 2006)

Plaintiff filed a good Opposition to MTD on 10/20/2006 (see Plaintiff's Response to MTD). Case was jointly dismissed in Jan 07. Case Number: 2:2006cv00217; Filed: August 4, 2006; Court: Washington Eastern District Court; Office: Spokane Office; Presiding Judge: Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley
 * Dang v Gonzalez, Case No. 06-00217, (Was E.D 3006)

Plaintiff filed opposition to MTD (see Petitioner Response to MTD). Before judge could decide on MTD, I485 was approved and case was dismissed by plaintiff voluntarily. Case Number: 4:2006cv00177; Filed: April 12, 2006; Court: Florida Northern District Court; Office: Tallahassee Office; Presiding Judge: SENIOR JUDGE WILLIAM STAFFORD; Referring Judge: MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM C SHERRILL JR
 * Faraj v. Chertoff, Case No. 06-00177, (N.D. Fla 2006)

Plaintiff filed opposition to MTD on 1/3/2007 (see Ibrahim's response to MTD). Case was jointly dismissed in Feb. 07. So there is no court order on MTD. EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN; Southern Division; Case No. 02:06cv13219
 * Mohamed Kamel Ibrahim, Case No. 06-13219, (E.D. MI)

The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action and held that defendants must provide an explanation for the delay resulting from security checks or adjudicate plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Applications (Form I-485). The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered plaintiffs to file a motion for summary judgment. The case was dimissed at request of plaintiff in Feb. 07. So no final judge order on relief as petition was approved before judge could issue final order. Plaintiffs' applications had been pending for longer than two years when they filed their mandamus action. Also see Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion To Dismiss and Plaintiff's Exhibit A to the Opposition to MTD. Case Number: 3:2006cv00459; Filed: March 24, 2006; Court: Connecticut District Court; Office: New Haven Office; Presiding Judge: Judge Peter C. Dorsey
 * Salehian v. Novak (see court order), No. 06-459, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77028, (D. Conn. 2006).

Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-05189 Razik, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13818, at *5-8 (denying respondents’ motion to dismiss the petitioners’ case; noting that applications had “languished for two years and yet the INS has done nothing”); Questionable: is this case eventually dismissed by judge after defendants Oral argument to dimiss? The last docket report entry is "12/31/2003 9 MINUTE ORDER of 12/31/03 by Hon. William J. Hibbler : Status hearing held. This order is entered nunc pro tunc 10/22/03. Government's oral motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice as stated in open court. All pending dates and motions are terminated as moot. terminating case Mailed notice (gcy) (Entered: 01/02/2004)" This happened after Judge denied MTD on Aug. 2003
 * Razik v. Perryman (see court order, No 2-CV-05189 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2003)

Other cases
Noting that adjudicating an adjustment of status application is not at the discretion of defendants because defendants are required to do so.
 * Loo v. Ridge (see court order), 2007 U.S. Dist. 17822, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. March 14, 2007)

Plaintiff filed opposition to MTD in April 07 (see Nazzal's Response to MTD). Court has not provide order on MTD yet. Plaintiff: Mohamed Nazzal; Defendant: Michael Chertoff, Robert S. Mueller, III, Emilio T. Gonzales, Jack Bulger and R. Alexander Acosta; Case Number: 1:2007cv20090; Filed: January 11, 2007; Court: Florida Southern District Court; Office: 	Miami Office; County: Broward; Presiding Judge: Judge William M. Hoeveler
 * Nazzal v. Chertoff, Case No. 07-20090 (S.D. Fla 2007)

Even though Plaintiff's motion for MSJ is denied in this case (it was premature), the court acknowledged that USCIS does have a mandatory duty to process AOS. "The Defendants, however, have a nondiscretionary duty to process Liu’s application; they cannot decide not to process an application. Such a decision would not be an exercise of discretion, but a refusal to perform assigned duties. This Court has jurisdiction to review whether the Defendants are refusing to act."
 * Liu v. Chertoff (see court order), Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 1202961 C.D.Ill. Apr 23, 2007

Preparation for Appeal
Check this post to find more about the appeal process.

Other Documents of Interest

 * How to amend your complaint click here
 * Joint Status Report (click here for a sample document)
 * Testimony of Michael Cannon (01/30/2006) the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section (NNCPS)

 * 2008 DOJ report on name check click here

 * Testimony of Michael Cannon (02/09/2006) the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section (NNCPS)

 * USCIS 2007 Ombudsman Report

 * Example of a Motion for Summary Judgment Quan MSJ.pdf

 * Federal Court Litigation to Remedy Agency Delays

 * Litigation to Challenge Agency Delays: Frequently Asked Questions

 * DV winner's account of filing lawsuit and interesting documents obtained in response to FOIA requests

 * On Feb. 04, 2008 USCIS changed its policy and it will not require NC completion for AOS applications

 * On Apr. 02, 2008 USCIS and FBI released joint plan to eliminate backlog of FBI Name Checks for both AOS and Naturalization applications

 * AILA Practice Advisory In the light of USCIS Name Check memo issued on 02/04/2008, AILF has updated their practice advisory regarding responding to MTD in mandamus cases.

 * Waiting in Immigration Limbo: The Federal Court Split over Suits to Compel Action on Stalled Adjustment of Status Applications. It is a 50 pages long document authored by Fordham Law Review providing an extensive discussion of AOS related delays, jurisdiction issues, APA ,USCIS's mandatory duty to adjudicate AOS applications in a reasonable time. It covers the name check policy change [02/04/2008, NC pending > 180 days].

Other Resources

 * http://www.path2usa.com/immigration/greencard/fbi_name_check.htm
 * The American Immigration Law Foundation page on recent mandamus litigation
 * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/namechecktracker
 * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/push_nc
 * http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=194681&page=1
 * http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=174845
 * http://groups.google.com/group/fbinamecheck
 * http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=898
 * Sworn testimony of FBI Deputy Assistant Director on promptness of the name check process
 * Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
 * U.S. Code collection

title: FBI Name Check


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Arts and Crafts/Scrapbooking

1. What is the purpose of Scrapbooking?
There are several reasons for scrapbooking. It may be to record a special event in a Pathfinder's life, or it may be to remember a special person, or to act as a visual journal. At its very core, scrapbooking is a way of archiving photos safely and at the same time telling a story with those photos.

2. Describe how to choose pictures
Pictures are only half the story. When the events happen and we "snap the photo", we remember every detail about what happened, who we were with, and how we felt about the occasion. However, as time passes, these memories fade. Ten years later, we MIGHT be able to explain some of the details of the photograph, but we may have forgotten the names of some of our friends or acquaintances, and we'll probably have forgotten the feelings involved when the event was captured on film. Journaling helps us remember all this by having us put the story with each photo. We need to make sure that as journal for our scrapbook, that we don't just record the who and where of the picture, but also how we felt about that event and why. Some of you may ask - What do I write about? Here's one easy step: Pretend that you're telling a family member or good friend about the picture and why its in your album. Whatever you'd say to them is probably what you should journal for your scrapbook! In summary, journal the five W's: who, what, when, where, why.

Remember, Journaling is everything dealing with words that you do on a scrap booking page. It includes the title, headers, captions, and of course the journal event entries.

Journaling is often done by hand. Most scrapbook papers have tiny faint lines to help us keep our Journaling straight. This may take the jitters out of some who are afraid that the page won't be pretty when they are done. Other people don't feel like their handwriting is preferred for Journaling in their scrapbook. If you're one of these, you might enjoy the sources online to download FREE fonts that will give you lots of choices when using your computer and word-processing software to print journal entries, headers, and captions.

Some creative Journaling ideas:
 * Write around the perimeter of a single photograph.
 * Write around the perimeter of the entire page, framing the grouping of photographs.
 * Use colored pens in inks that will complement or contrast the rest of the page.
 * Sometimes write in complete sentences, Other times, write just the facts in a bulleted list.
 * Draw a shape (such as a fish, a ball, a star) on the page lightly in pencil. Write the Journaling within the shape, filling up all of the shape. Erase the pencil line. The Journaling remains behind in the shape of the original pencil drawing.

NOTE:These ideas and others are available at http://www.scrapbookingcenter.com

3. What is cropping and why is it done?
Cropping is the process of "cutting-down" the photos that you wish to place in your scrapbook. It is done so they can fit in the album, as well as draw attention to the main subject you wish to highlight. There are all kinds of fancy scissors to create perforated edges on your photos and of course "scrapbook frames" that can provide interest for the photos.

CAUTION: Don't over-crop your photos. Once its cut, there's no turning back. Maybe instead, create a "frame" from colored or designed paper to highlight the main subject. If you're using Polaroid photos never-ever cut them. The chemicals in the Polaroid paper will leak and ruin your pictures and potentially your whole album!

4. What are the four (4) main types of scrapbooks used?
There are three types of scrapbooks that should be used for scrapbooking and one type that should never be used.

1. Three ring albums - These albums come with three round rings inside a binder. Sizes vary from ½" to well over three inches. Overall, these are the easiest to use and allow you to rearrange pages readily. The down side is that they often aren’t as pretty on the outside cover as some of the other types of albums, and the pages on the “3-ring side” often bend, or curl if overfilled, sometimes ruining a scrapbook over time. The quick fix: Don’t overfill the album or buy the 3-ring albums with the “flat side ring.” Also, you may not want to use both sides of this kind of album page, since if you rearrange the pages, the events shown on the back of each page may no longer match!

2. Post-bound albums - Allow adjacent pages to lie relatively flat when opened, with no separation between them. Just like the Three-ring albums, the pages can be arranged, though not as easily. Also, you’re not as limited by the number of pages in an album.

3. Strap-bound albums - This type of album has an expandable strap hinge. A disadvantage of this type of album is that the album must be taken apart to move pages. These albums, when opened, allow adjacent pages to lie flat without the hinge being seen. If you get an album where the page is bound to the strap, then you’ll need to get special page protectors. Some albums have the page protectors bound to the strap and pages can be slipped in and out through the top of the protector.

4. The Magnetic Album - This type of album lets journal entries and photos “stick” to the paper. Its really easy to get a nice looking album together fast. HOWEVER, the acid in the paper will quickly deteriorate your photos and memorabilia. See Caution note below!

CAUTION:Make sure that no matter what type or size of album that you end of using, that you get an album that is archival. That means that it uses acid free materials and that all papers / pages in it are lignin free. Also, never, ever use a magnetic album to store photos in. In just a few years, the photos will STICK to the magnetic stuff, and you’ll never get them free without ruining them.

5. What is the purpose of using acid-free products?
Acid pages such as those used in magnetic albums will cause your pictures to age prematurely. This includes sticking to the page, chemically breaking down, and yellowing. Acid-free products help you PRESERVE your memories for years to come. Acid-free glue, pages, corners, stickers, pens, and much more will help you keep your album safe and pretty for years to come.

6. What are the four (4) different types of acid-free adhesive?

 * Photo Stickers - Small squares of double-sided tape.
 * Photo corners - These come in a variety of colors and are good for mounting square pictures.
 * Double sided tape - Good for mounting lite-weight memorabelia.
 * Glue - This comes in both temporary and permanent varieties.

7. What 'tool' is used to sharpen scissors and punches when they get dull?
To sharpen your scissors or punch, use them to cut fine sandpaper or aluminum foil. To keep them clean, use them to cut wax paper! More tips: http://scrapbook.lifetips.com

8. Name five (5) different types of acid-free paper used in Scrapbooking.

 * Vellum - Really nice fancy paper for special projects. It was once made from animal gut, but is now manufactured from wood fibre which is, beaten until clear, or plastic. It has wonderful translucent quality and is slow to absorb ink.
 * Cardstock - This is the easiest and cheapest scrapbook paper. It's available in lots of colors.
 * Printed Paper - This may be cardstock or other type of paper, but it has designs pre-printed on the paper.
 * Cover Paper - This paper is heavier weight, and is usually reserved for decorating the front-cover of your scrapbook. It comes in a variety of colors and designs.
 * Paper Shapes - Pre-cut paper designs used to decorate themed pages. They can at times be 3-dimensional or artistically rendered.
 * Textured Paper - is a category of paper that covers a wide range of embellished handmade papers. Examples include embossed, wrinkled, flex, thread, art, corrugated, crinkled. The texture could be bumpy, or rigid, or anything that has a feel to it.

9. Make a scrapbook of at least 12 pages (8 1/2 x 11 or larger) on one of the following themes, and incorporating the use of colored paper, stickers, decorative scissors, matting and journaling.

 * School Year
 * Sporting Events
 * Vacations
 * Holidays
 * Building Projects (mission trips, new home, etc.)
 * Wedding
 * Birthday Party
 * All About Me (birth to now)
 * Family Reunions

Some tips for getting started:

1. Get organized. Find one place to put all the stuff you want to put in your album. This includes the photos, but may also include other “relics” or memorabelia that you wish to include. For example, if you’re doing a scrapbook on your school year, you may want to have a report card, a balloon from a special party, and the championship medal you won. These will all go into your scrapbook soon.

2. Choose your Scrapbook type. Is your scrapbook going to be a chronological record of events, or a memory of a special theme or event? Once you’ve decided, start to organize your photos accordingly. 3. Collect, create, or organize your journal entries. See requirement #2 for more details. 4. Collect your scrapbooking supplies. Many stores sell scrapbook kits. Some basic supplies include: a scrapbook album, refill pages, acid-free adhesive, a acid-free pen, cardstock and printed papers (see req. 8), and a sharp set of scissors. Other helpful supplies such as paper cutters, corners, etc. can be purchased/used as necessary and as the budget allows.

Note: Remember that Pathfinders come from many backgrounds, and you need to be sensitive to limited budgets and resources. In this AY Honor, we’re introducing them to the craft, not funding the craft! However, if there is someone in the Pathfinder community that will let the club borrow their scrapbooking supplies, enjoy them and say thank you when you return the well-cared for supplies.

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


text:
Template:See also

 * See also:

title: Template:See also


text:
Talk:Special Relativity/Spacetime

Finally, some clarity!
I finally figured out a way to look at it that makes sense. Let T be the time interval measured by each observer. This will be the dimension that's perpendicular to x. We can make a dimension perpendicular to another by proclaiming it, provided we don't arrange the math to be incompatible with the claim.

Then t is the pythagorean distance from (0,0,0,0) and (T,x,0,0). It is sqrt(T^2 + x^2). It is not normal to x unless v=0 or x=0. But that's OK.

When we change v, we don't rotate in a euclidean circle or a minkowski hyperbola. We merely extend or contract x. t= sqrt((T^2 + x^2)) extends or contracts to fit. The triangle gets longer or shorter, and one short side stays the same. This would be a hyperbolic rotation if t was perpendicular to x, but it's easier to see this way.

I can do lorentz transformations by using my function from T to t, and then continuing as usual with t. I don't need to compute t' because T^2 = t'^2 - x'^2. My Lorentz transforms all stay on a single T plane which I find easier to visualize. T is not changed by a Lorentz transform. No matter what you decide the other guys times and distances should have been based on your relative velocity, the time his clock measures will still be the same.

The light-cone turns into two different mappings. Sometimes you care about when light arrives at (_,0,0,0). If light from (T,x,y,z) arrives precisely at (0,0,0,0) then T=0. If it arrived 2 time-units earlier then T=2. Two time-units later, T=-2. The total distance is the same from (2,x,y,z) to (0,0,0,0) as from (-2,x,y,z). You can't be at (_,x,y,z) and have the distance be less than sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2). So far, I have had no need to consider a distinction between time-like or space-like intervals. Sometimes, light can leave one location and arrive at (0,0,0,0) before time 0. Sometimes, light can leave (0,0,0,0) and arrive at (T,x,y,z) before time T. So far each problem I've worked may require me to know one or the other of those but not both. It is not important to either map or to calculations made from either map. It only matters when you must consider both maps at once.

So far I haven't seen that time t is directly connected to time measured at (_,0,0,0). It is calculated to be the time that would make sense for something else, somewhere else. t makes sense as the total euclidean distance. So v= space-distance/total-distance, rather than space-distance/time. At slow speeds these are almost the same, so Newtonian stuff works.

I am not the first to do this, I have found a number of links using the keywords "euclidean relativity". They tend to start out the same way I did, and then add extra complications. One added a fifth dimension. Another decided that we have four four-dimensional spaces that interact in some ways but not others. But the essentials here are not a crackpot idea, or at least they get a degree of respect.

I think you will need to keep your book on traditional lines even though they are probably harder to comprehend, because Wikibooks must follow the cultural traditions. Thank you for helping me see the problems and how to fix them.

I have removed some comments that I think don't help revision of the book. They are in the history and I won't object if you think any of them should be restored. Jethomas5 (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Minkowski metric

 * The more I consider your comments the more it seems that the book needs to be amended to emphasise that relativistic geometry is different from Euclidean geometry. It is not good enough to just say that the metrics are different and then calculate using the Minkowski metric.  The approach taken in the book is simple but can be misleading.

 * Agreed.

contribs) 18:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC) RobinH (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Jethomas5 (discuss • contribs) 00:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

another confusion
Here is my reasoning -- first, if it works with all the c's explicitly set out, then it will also work when we set c=1 and express velocities in fractions of lightspeed. So I will set c=1 and remove it from all the equations.

Earlier there was the claim that when s^2=0, -T^2 = (vt)^2 - t^2.

 * Strictly when $$s^2 = 0$$ then $$0 = (vt)^2 - t^2$$. The metric is $$s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2$$. ( Although we should really be using $$\Delta$$ notation to indicate that the equations apply to intervals).

 * Delta notation would help, and yet it would make it look more cluttered and harder for someone who's new to it to follow. But if they think they follow it easily but they don't understand that it's intervals, that isn't good either.

 * I say "apparent" because the capitalised symbols are being used for proper lengths and times, not for lengths and times in the moving or stationary reference frames.  Each section is complete in itself.  The section on coordinate times and lengths is correct and the symbols are consistent.  The section on phase is correct and the symbols are consistent within that section.  At first sight it seems that  the symbols have been switched in the phase example but in fact the capitalised X and T apply to proper lengths and times so are being used in the same way as in the previous section. However, as you are pointing out, this is not really good enough and misled us both.

 * Specifically, in the section on proper lengths and times its says:

 * A: John will also observe measuring rods at rest on Bill's planet to be shorter than his own measuring rods, in the direction of motion. This is a prediction known as "relativistic length contraction of a moving rod". If the length of a rod at rest on Bill's planet is $$X$$, then we call this quantity the proper length of the rod. The length $$x$$ of that same rod as measured from John's planet, is called coordinate length, and given by

 * $$x = X \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$$.

 * And in the section on phase it says:

 * B: But Bill's distance, x, is the length that he would obtain for things that John believes to be X metres in length. For Bill it is John who has rods that contract in the direction of motion so Bill's determination "x" of John's distance "X" is given from:

 * $$x = X \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$$.

 * Notice that X in "A" refers to a proper lenth in Bill's inertial frame of reference whereas in "B" X refers to a proper length in John's inerial frame of reference. This is indeed misleading, as you say.

 * I don't think that's the problem, but I'm having trouble saying what the problem is instead. I'm sure the issue is not whether we consider Bill's inertial frame versus John's inertial frame. I got a hint from you saying that proper lengths and times are not lengths and times in stationary reference frames. I had thought that I got a proper time when I considered the frame stationary.

 * I get T^2 = s^2 which for typical homework problems gives me a real s instead of imaginary, which happens with the stationary frame. That means, when Bill's clock measures 4 seconds it will measure 4 seconds regardless of what any other observers think their coordinate time t should be, so T is a relativistic invariant.   X is a proper length regardless whether it's John's or Bill's. John and Bill have symmetry anyway, and given similar circumstances will measure the same proper times and proper lengths. Won't they? (Is the issue that we mustn't compare one of their coordinate times or lengths to their own proper time or length, but only to the other's proper time and length?)

 * I have been pondering how to overcome this problem. We could use a lot of subscripts to clarify which observer is making which measurement but I am not sure that this will improve either the readability of the text or make it clear to the reader what is happening.  Perhaps the simplest change is to explain that the capitalised symbols refer to proper lengths and times.RobinH (discuss •

contribs) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Maybe so. I had thought that it might be enough to just use a different symbol, like perhaps the tau that I used, with a note that it didn't refer to exactly the same thing as the T before. But now I don't in fact see why it isn't the same T.

 * Sticking with the old symbols $$X = x \sqrt{1-v^2}$$. This is the classical length contraction result where moving lengths are measured by the conventionally stationary observer to be less than stationary lengths. With your symbols when v=c:
 * $$c = X/T$$ and $$c = \frac{x/0}{t*0}$$ which is infinity over zero.
 * with the correct symbols:
 * $$c = X/T$$ and $$c = \frac{x*0}{t*0}$$ which is 1.

This is two sides of a triangle congruent with the first. X is the long side, and x is one of the short sides, and the third side is vX. It is argued that vX=T. But (sqrt(1-v^2)/v)x = (1-v^2)/v)X = T. vX is not T. vX is the phase change of T, not T.

 * This problem does not occur if the coordinate symbols are not mixed. Notice in the symbol conventions of the article:
 * $$x = X \sqrt{1-v^2}$$ and $$t = T \sqrt{1-v^2}$$
 * not:
 * $$X = x \sqrt{1-v^2}$$ and $$t = T \sqrt{1-v^2}$$

''I don't understand. The way the article is actually written, it says''
 * $$t = T / \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$$.
 * $$x = X \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$$.

 * mea culpa. I rushed this and got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Having jumped to the conclusion that the problem lay with wrong IFRs I hastily got the wrong ones! The actual problem lies with the symbols used in the section on phase in the article - see above.  I feel slightly chastened by missing the actual error and look forward to your comment on the changed text.  RobinH (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In the section on relativistic phase, we start with x^2 = X^2 - T^2. X^2 = x^2 + T^2. But we already have t^2 = x^2 + T^2. Somehow, the meaning of T has been changed.

As a minor matter, in the figure "How clocks become out of phase along the line of travel" you make T perpendicular to X. Probably people mostly won't look at it closely enough for this to matter, but it makes more sense to make T perpendicular to x, because X^2 = x^2 + T^2.

Jethomas5 (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 * The phase $$xv/c^2$$ is the term that appears in the Lorentz Transformation prior to adjustment by $$\gamma$$.
 * $$T = \frac {t - vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}$$
 * It is a time interval in the frame of reference of the conventionally stationary observer and so orthogonal to their x-axis.RobinH (discuss • contribs) 23:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there is a phase term that is perpendicular to the conventionally moving observer's x-axis, re-writing the transformation for the time of an event:
 * $$T = \frac {t}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} - \frac {vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}$$
 * The phase term $$vx/c^2$$ in the conventionally stationary observer's IFR is $$\frac {vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}$$ in the conventionally moving observer's IFR. This term is indeed orthogonal to the moving observer's x-axis.RobinH (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is my reasoning:

$$w = \sqrt{1 - v^2}$$

$$T = \frac {t - vx}{w}$$

--comment by RobinH (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Consider the Lorentz Transformation for time:

Let $$\tau = t - vx/c^2$$, then, given that the moving observer sees that stationary observer move vT metres in T secs, from the Minkowski metric:

$$(vT)^2 -(cT)^2 = - (c\tau)^2 $$

$$T^2 = \frac {{\tau}^2}{(1-v^2/c^2)}$$

So:

$$T = \frac {\tau}{\sqrt {1-v^2/c^2}}$$

or, substituting back for $$\tau = t - vx/c^2$$:

$$T = \frac {t - vx/c^2}{\sqrt {1-v^2/c^2}}$$

Notice that the Minkowski metric for 4D spacetime is used rather than the Pythagorean metric for 3D space. These metrics are just the relationship between the coordinate axes: Pythagorean 3 space: $$r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2$$, Minkowskian spacetime: $$s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2$$.

When the Minkowski Metric is used then:

1. Time must always be at right angles to space in a given inertial frame of reference (IFR) because it is a coordinate axis like x,y and z.

2. $$s^2 = r^2 - (ct)^2$$ not the Pythagorean "square on hypoteneuse = sum of squares on other two sides" ie: not $$s^2 = r^2 + (ct)^2$$

In Special Relativity it is usually valid to use the Pythagorean form $$s^2 = r^2 + (ict)^2$$ where $$i = \sqrt{-1}$$. Feynman says somewhere that he used ict to simplify calculations in developing QED before expressing them again in terms of real time. (Note however that imaginary time comes unstuck in General Relativity and the real form of the metric is used).

If we use the Pythagorean metric for 3D space to analyse the diagram above then:

$$(vT)^2 +(cT)^2 = (c\tau)^2 $$

$$T^2 (v^2/c^2 + 1) = {\tau}^2$$

$$ T = \frac {t - vx/c^2}{\sqrt {1+v^2/c^2}}$$

Which is not the Lorentz transformation for time. However, if we resort to imaginary time then:

$$(vT)^2 +(icT)^2 = (ic\tau)^2 $$

gives us:

$$(vT)^2 -(cT)^2 = - (c\tau)^2 $$

$$T^2 = \frac {{\tau}^2}{(1-v^2/c^2)}$$

$$T = \frac {t - vx/c^2}{\sqrt {1-v^2/c^2}}$$

which is the correct result, at least as far as SR goes... ---

$$wT + vx = t$$

So when T, x, and t are all real, we have an angle α so that v=sin(α) and w = cos(α). We can arrange T, x, and t in a right triangle so that $$t = sin(\alpha)*x + cos(\alpha)*T = v*x + w*T. $$

 * If we are going to treat time as just another spatial dimension - using a Pythagorean rather than a Minkowskian form of the metric - the complex form is needed. Whichever convention is chosen for time (real or imaginary), time must always be at right angles to space in a given IFR, this means that the right angle should go between x and t.

$$x = v*t$$

$$T=w*t.$$

$$T=\frac{vx}{w} = $$ $$\frac {vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}$$

which makes T perpendicular to x.

Similarly, $$X=\gamma*(x-v*t)$$

$$w*X + v*t = x$$ And by the same reasoning $$x = sin(\alpha)*t + cos(\alpha)*X.$$

$$t = v*x,   X = w*x.$$

If these are both true at the same time, we have t = v*x, x=v*t, t=v*v*t. Somewhere I have jumped to a conclusion.

You can surely see how eager I was to accept the idea that $$x = X \sqrt{1 - v^2}$$ as stated, rather than the other way round. That way it made sense.

 * I think you have made an important contribution to the book. You are obviously very capable of understanding the algebra but the book has failed to make the distinction between Pythagorean and Minkowskian metrics sufficiently clear and so is misleading in its current form.  The question is how to make the use of the different metrics sufficiently clear without losing the reader...RobinH (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Jethomas5 (discuss • contribs) 07:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

confusion
In the example right after Figure 5, it says that phase difference is proportional to v (which is clearly true) while time dilation is related to the square of velocity (which is not clearly true, time dilation is proportional to 1/sqrt(1-v^2)). It then compares (v/c)^2 to (v/c) to show that loss of simultaneity can be a dominant effect compared to time dilation.

 * The binomial expansion of 1/sqrt(1-v^2)) leads to the expression being proportional to (v/c)^2 when v is less than c - of course, v is usually much less than c. This means that phase can become become the dominant effect if x is large.  But this is an unimportant point in the example and only weakly relates phase to the Andromeda paradox in the next section. On balance I would still leave the comment out because it detracts from the worked example.  RobinH (discuss • contribs) 09:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I think I see! When v is small the first term of the binomial expansion dominates, and that's why you used it. Is this an example where classical physics is approximately correct? The larger v gets, the bigger the error in the classical approximation and the more necessary it is to use the relativistic form? It might deserve a longer explanation, somewhere else.

But aren't we actually trying to compare something like T/sqrt(1-v^2) to something like X*v/c^2? It might be simpler to compare (v/c)^2 to (v/c), but it isn't immediately obvious that this is what you want to compare. Jethomas5 (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed offending item pending further consideration. RobinH (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate remark: “more properly, the time of the object as a function of position”
In this sentence,
 * A world line is a plot of the position of some object as a function of time (more properly, the time of the object as a function of position) on a spacetime diagram.

I believe the remark “more properly, the time of the object as a function of position” is inaccurate. Things can only be in one place at a given time, but they may be in a given place multiple times. Hence, one should give the position as a function of time, not the other way around. I’d be bold and change this if I had a tad more self-confidence (relativity is weird!).

Thanks for the great introduction to special relativity, by the way (I’ve only yet read this chapter). This text has done more for me in fifteen minutes than my high school teacher could in months. — Daniel Brockman 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This is an interesting point. In mathematical terminology a graph with time as the ordinate should be describing change in time with x (ie: y is a function of x). A thing can be at any point on its worldline. The issue of whether a thing can travel up and down its own worldline is a different problem. The following discussions are about the hypothetical events due to space-time if it were actually possible to move around in the 4D manifold:

 * 1. In a 4D manifold such as spacetime each point is unique. This means that if you travelled back down your worldline by 10 secs you would be the person who was there 10 secs ago (you would not be the person 20 secs in the future). If time exists then it would not be impossible that we are always jumping around our worldline - we would never know.

 * 3. Travelling back through space-time by 10 secs but off your own past worldline is a bizarre idea. Your brain would reset to its state 10 secs ago but when you looked around the world would be entirely different. Your sudden materialisation would surprise the natives and surprise you because you would have no memory of 10 secs in the future. If such travel were possible you would certainly have travelled to a parallel universe because any description of space and time would need to contain both the place where you arrived without you in it and with you in it.

 * 4. Travel "off world line" has other problems, in SR material objects would become infinitely massive as they negotiated the space-time path from now to the past so could not make the trip without consuming a universe of energy, even if the trip were to a parallel universe. However, this is not impossible in general relativity where, for instance, light cones can lean over in areas of curved space-time to provide circular paths through space-time back in time. Even this form of time travel would probably require the concept of parallel universes because the same volume of space-time, the volume where you arrive, could have two states.

 * So, although visiting the same time coordinate many times is not forbidden by the nature of space-time other considerations make such visits either unknowable, require new theories such as parallel universes or energetically impossible.

 * Notice that I introduced this discussion with the caveat "if it were actually possible to move around in the 4D manifold". Relativity, whether Galilean, Special or General cannot explain change - QM cannot either.

RobinH 09:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Intelligibility
Why is this explanation so much more difficult to follow than Einstein's original 1905 paper? (I refer to the 1923 translation to English). I can understand that modern understanding of the theory would be more complete, but modern explanations are much inferior when it comes to the ability of a newcomer to comprehend.

PAS 02:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 * This book is about Special Relativity. Special Relativity is a theory that evolved between 1905 and 1915. It is the theory that the manifold of events that constitute the universe can be described using a metric with signature (---+). Physical laws and the constant "c" are consequences of the invariants in this metrical structure. Einstein's 1905 paper is not the sole, or even definitive, text in the evolution of Special Relativity, Minkowski's 1908 presentation is probably more definitive. Einstein would probably have been given equal precedence with Poincare and Lorentz had he not produced GR in 1915.

 * Einstein's 1905 paper is not an explanation of SR, it is the mathematical application of a particular assumption about a constant velocity for all observers. The assumption was immediately problematical because "velocity" is a relationship between length and time intervals (esp. in Galilean Relativity). Within 4 years of Einstein's 1905 paper the origin of the assumption about a constant velocity had become understood in terms of metrical geometry and Einstein's proposal was placed fully in a theoretical context.

 * In my experience students fail to understand relativity because the assumption of a constant velocity without any explanation appears absurd to them. If they are told that by making an apparently absurd assumption they can derive the Lorentz transformation many of them will feel that the whole exercise is apparently absurd. On the other hand I have not found any students who find the geometrical approach to be absurd and 100% understand SR having learnt it. RobinH 08:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

87.160.202.247 (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Einstein stated himself: "After my theory of relativity has been dissected by mathematicians I don't understand it anymore". This seems to be a general problem of modern physics - mathematics and particularly mathematical models become more more primary over observation, experiment and conclusive predictions based on them. SR describes a set of laws of nature and as such it can and must be understood in terms of natural effects predicted by the theory, geometrical approach is secondary and cannot balance out lack of imagination or poor logic skills (both are ridiculously often demonstrated by students or even respectable full-size physicists).

title: Talk:Special Relativity/Spacetime


text:
User talk:62.171.194.9

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikibooks. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

-- Herby talk thyme 12:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:62.171.194.9


text:
Nissan 240SX Performance Modification/KA24DE and KA24E/ITB's

Individual Throttle Bodies (ITB's) are used on high-end NA race engines. ITB's have been experimented on with the KA24DE only to have limited success so far. Some Race-built KA/Datsun "frankenstein" motors have made over 200hp N/A. =Custom ITB Setup For KA24DE using GSXR 750 or GSXR 1000 Throttle Bodies=

Required Parts
01' or higher Suzuki GSXR 1000 or 750 Throttle Bodies.

an KA24DE extra intake manifold.

Rubber Plumbing Couplers.

Manifold Assembly
Cut the runners off approximately 5" from the head flange.

Go to Home Depot and get some rubber plumbing couplers. They're about $5 a piece with clamps.

Clamp the Mani and TB's together to yield this...

Now make 2 brackets that brace the TB's to the mani, for extra strength. I used 3/4" by 3/16" steel. You can find this at Home Depot. Bolted one end to the TB's and the other slips under the mounting point for the PCV rail. Make one per side. Should look something like this...

Now make a bracket for the throttle cable to slip into. I used 1 1/2" angle iron. This can also be found at Home Depot. Make it to bolt onto the mounting surface that the EGR used to sit on.

Get a SOHC throttle cable. The DOHC one is wayyyy too long. The SOHC cable is too long too, but better than the DOHC one. The end of the Nissan throttle cable that slips onto the throttle wheel fits in the Suzuki throttle wheel perfectly.

get two air boxes from a 01' and up GSXR 750. These have the shortest velocity stacks. Each airbox has two short stacks, and two long ones. Once you have 2 boxes, you will have two full sets of velocity stacks to help you achieve the best powerband down the road.

That's it for the manifold part of things.

Fuel Management
I chose to use a MegaSquirt (MS) because of price, and because, well, I love DIY stuff as you can probably see. haha

Get your board and bags of components all lined up like so...

Build the stimulator first. This will help you learn how to make proper solder joints befor you start soldering the actual MS together. The stimulator hooks up to Megasquirt and stimulates the MS such that it thinks it is running an engine. What this does is allow you to make sure all of your MS is built and running correctly before trying to start the car with it. It also allows you to download new codes to the CPU chip as you see fit, without having to have the MS in the car. Very trick.

Follow the MegaManual at www.megasquirt.info and you will end up with this...

Now build the pigtail for the wiring harness...

and here's a better pic of how many wires there are. This is the entire engine harness. Stock one gets removed completely.

that's basically it for the MS.

Ignition Setup
Now for the ignition setup.

I chose to run a distributor-less system off of early 90's Ford Escorts. This system uses a trigger wheel that is mounted to the crank pulley to fire the ignition instead of a gear driven distributor. This has many advantages, the first of which being that it is more accurate than the stock distributor. It also gives full control of the ignition timing.

from left to righ in the pic below, we have the EDIS module, the VR sensor (reads the trigger wheel on the crank pulley) and the Coil.

Here is a picture of the spark plug wires modified to fit down the spark plug holes in the valve cover. the boot that connects to the plugs has about a 30 degree bend in them so I bent them back straight, and trimmed the boots until they slid down into the holes in the valve cover.

Next, you have to get a trigger wheel made. I have a friend who is a CNC machinist, so he made one for me, as well as prepping the crank pulley for the wheel.

And the wheel fit onto the pulley looks like so...

Now make a bracket to mount the VR sensor onto. I put mine where the A/C compressor used to be. just some more of the angle Iron used before, long enough to mount the sensor on, facing the crank pulley.

Next, make a block off plate for the hole that the distributor used to occupy. I made mine big enough to mount the new coil to, as that is as far as the plug wires would reach. Just simple 1/8" thick steel. when finished it looks like this bolted to the engine, with the new coil mounted on it.

On a side note, here is the stock KA24DE timing map I scaled down. I have used it and it works great.

Final Assembly
Putting it all together.

Now pull off your stock intake mani, and take out your engine harness. You will no longer need either of these. bolt the new mani onto the engine, it should look something like this...

You can also see in those pics the wiring harness was finished. It's simply following the diagram, running each wire to each sensor.

the only things that were not on the diagrams were the tach signal, water temp gauge and the switched ignition power supply. the Tach signal was cake, run a wire from the Clean Tach Out pin on the EDIS module to the Tach input on the back of the gauge cluster. That's it. Speedo will still work. Run a wire from the second temp sensor in the intake mani to the coolant temp input on the back of the gauge cluster. that's all for that. And the B/R wire coming from the ignition switch on the steering column needs to be tapped into to get switched power to MS, and the ignition components.

However, the wiring diagram for the ignition is slightly off. the polarity of the VR sensor wires is opposite than in the diagrams, so wire that up accordingly.

I used the stock injectors for now, but I have some SR injectors lying around waiting to go in. Stock injectors will be enough for now.

for the brake booster, I used the stock PCV rail, and ran one line from its output to the brake booster. Has worked great. I also Tee'd a 1/4" vacuum line out of this line, on it's way to the booster, for the fuel pressure regulator. Before doing any of this, I measured the vacuum in this line, and in the rest of the intake mani under all braking conditions, and the booster did not affect the vacuum in the engine. This being so, it is safe, and fine to run the vacuum for the FPR from the brake booster vacuum line.

the TB's come from the factory with a vacuum line from each port Tee'd into one. this is used for the map sensor. Simply run a line from this to MS. the MAP sensor is inside the MS box.

Then swap out the throttle cables, and hook the SOHC one up.

Finally, plug the EGR hole in your header.

If I recall correctly, this is about it for what I did on this whole project to get it running. for the specifics of the MS building and whatnot, and the ignition specifics and diagrams, visit www.msefi.com and www.megasquirt.info.

I specifically did not go into extensive detail in these areas because it is covered very well at those two sites.

So finally start it up and get it idling correctly. Do this by adjusting the screw that adjusts how far open the throttle plates are at "closed" so it has an idle speed you like, and adjusting the fuel amount in the MS. You can then get your own wideband to tune it, or take it to someone. Wichever's clever.

After tuning it, GO DRIVE IT! Don't forget to give yourself a pat on the back too!

Please forgive me if I have forgotten anything, it is a very long project, there is so much to do. I may have left a few small details out, but this is the major stuff.


text:
Nissan 240SX Performance Modification/KA24DE and KA24E/Turbocharging

Turbocharging the KA24DE can produce great numbers if the tuning is right. It's easy to attain over 200rwhp with a basic turbo kit like the kind sold on ebay. Advanced tuning and internal engine modification has produced KA24 240SX's with 500+ horsepower.

For a budget turbo build, you can get a t25 turbo and 5-7 psi without having to upgrade the injectors or MAF. You will need a fuel management unit (rising rate fuel pressure regulator). A new fuel pump is recommended. You also need to be careful with the ignition timing. MSD's Boost Timing Master can retard the timing appropriately.

The stock internals have been proven to be quite resilient. There are individuals who have made 350+ rwhp on totally stock internals. Here are a few quick limits on stock KA24DE internals. Keep in mind these are NOT EXACT NUMBERS. True limits can vary signifigantly from motor to motor. Before undergoing any turbocharging project, it is a VERY good idea to do a compression test. The closer to 180 psi you are the better. Anything below 150 and you generally want to start to think twice about a turbo project. So without further adue... Pistons - Good for approx. 275-300 hp Rods - approx. 400 hp Crank - Indestructible Valvetrain - No known issues Head Gasket - approx. 320 hp WITH A GOOD TUNE (see below) Head Studs - approx. 300-320 hp ...Ofcourse, all of this is dependent upon a good tune. As long as your compression, timing, and air/fuel ratios are all within spec, and the motor is not continually beaten upon, you can expect extended performance out of these parts. Many individuals are making 300+ hp on stock blocks with 200k+ miles on them! For a wealth of information on turbochared tuning for KA24DE and KA24E motors, visit the forums at KA-T.org.


text:
Nissan 240SX Performance Modification/KA24DE and KA24E/Exhaust

A free-flowing exhaust has been know to create increases in both horsepower and torque across the RPM range in the KA24-powered 240SX.

Unlike other 4 cylinder engines, the KA24DE responds very well to most of the 3" exhausts on the market. Improvements have been made across the entire powerband, with no loss of torque.

/exhaust reviews/


text:
Nissan 240SX Performance Modification/KA24DE and KA24E/CAI

A Cold Air Intake is a performance system designed to allow for a greater volume of air to enter the engine, at a lower temperature. The system is usually comprised of a replacement filter, an air passage tube, and mounting hardware. The replacement filter generally substitutes a cloth element that uses special oil, applied to the cloth element to collect dust and prevent particles from entering the engine. Although performance filters that work without the need for oiling have been introduced. The cloth elements allow greater volumes of air and easier flow of air providing greater power and faster revving from the engine.

The air passage tube carries the air from the filter to the throttle body. The tube is generally constructed of metal and designed in such a manner to move the physical location of the air filter to an area away from the heat of the engine, such as inside the fender or behind the bumper. resulting in a cooler intake charge. Colder air has a higher density, offering more oxygen for combustion. The tube generally has holes and fittings for attachment of factory fitted electronic sensors, and factory fitted vacuum tubes. Mounting hardware usually consists of brackets to support the tube by bracing it on the body or engine.

Several Cold Air Intakes are available for the 240SX

/CAI reviews/


text:
Nissan 240SX Performance Modification/KA24DE and KA24E/Header

The Header is metal plumbing that directs hot exhaust gases out of the engine to the exhaust. There are two specific design features to the plumbing. The Plumbing is called runner lengths that are designed in what is called the 4-1 header design, or the 4-2-1 header design. The purpose of header design is to manipulate the way power is used in the power band. Power is manipulated through pulses in a process known as scavaging, either for function of low to mid-end power use, or for the function of high-end power use. 4-2-1 is designed to function as a low to mid end power header. The stock header is restrictive and can be upgraded to a less restrictive unit for a slight increase in power, while the 4-1 header was made for high-RPM applications. Stock headers were created for maximum back pressure to regulate smog emissions, and in no way is the stock header a performance enhancer.

/header installation/

/header reviews/


text:
User talk:Erat

Erat

I am working within a school that has about 100 students of the Finnish Language studying at any one time. I am thinking of using WIKIs to develop learning materials. The source material will come from professional teachers and will be translated (and improved upon) by the students into their home language if they so wish.

The logical place is to create this material is in wikibooks but I have seen you have already started one in English. There will be grammars, readers, audio material, and exercises. I can see you have spent a lot of time creating your particular material and I would not want to destroy it! But I'd like to know how you think we can work together so that my objective is met also.

Hauskalainen 13:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hauskalainen, it's nice to see that others also want to take part in this wikibook. This book consists largely of exercises (made by me) and hasn't almost any grammar, readers or other texts, so your material is more than welcome! This book yet lacks main structure (lessons, which things are taught first) and needs working.

If you have exercises that have been developed by professional teachers just put them on the suitable pages. The existing ones mustn't be deleted, but just perhaps edited or moved.

Erat 16:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't delete anything but my knowledge is too far advanced for me to want to start writing any lessons. However, I have introduced the books to the people at the school and also those who subscribe to the Yahoo! Finnish group. We also had a visit last Friday from people teaching at another school at Pori (Western Finland) and they were quite interested in the WIKI work we have done to date, not just in the English Wikibooks but in the Finnish and Russian books too. If they introduce it to their students, the numbers with exposure may rise. But that said, I have not seen much interest from the students in our school using their free time to develop anything. However, if the idea gains ground and I can get sponsorship to write more material, I may end up developing extra material. But at the moment it seems rather unlikely. Hauskalainen 18:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Erat


text:
Statistics/Distributions/Normal

The Normal Probability Distribution is one of the most useful and more important distributions in statistics. It is a continuous variable distribution. Although the mathematics of this distribution can be quite off putting for students of a first course in statistics it can nevertheless be usefully applied with out over complication.

The Normal distribution is used frequently in statistics for many reasons:

1) The Normal distribution has many convenient mathematical properties.

2) Many natural phenomena have distributions which when studied have been shown to be close to that of the Normal Distribution.

3) The Central Limit Theorem shows that the Normal Distribution is a suitable model for large samples regardless of the actual distribution.

Mathematical Characteristics of the Normal Distribution
A continuous random variable, X, is normally distributed with a probability density function:

$$\frac1{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}\; \exp\left(-\frac{\left(x-\mu\right)^2}{2\sigma^2} \right) \!$$

title: Statistics/Distributions/Normal