text:
User:NotShift

My original name was [DdB]--Shift-- and I would have used this very gawdy nickname were it allowable, as I see no problems with using the same name all the time. After realizing that this tends to scare people away (even though the tag is meaningless now, it's fun to watch reactions!) I decided to use the base name, arguably uncreative, and found it had already been used. Therefore, my name in the context of wikibooks will be notShift (first letter forcefully capitalized.)

I expect to contribute to a few videogame manuals only for the time being, but may expand further if my interests sway in those directions.

On a more recent note, it seems that I have mistaken the discussion page for the actual user page. The contents of the latter have been pasted here, this used to be blank. I am mistaken thus!

title: User:NotShift


text:
User:Moonta

Sweet! <3 Wikistuff; I signed up so I could correct typos when I see them 'cause I read random articles fairly often and find them but this way I get credit for 'em, cool ey?

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

title: User:Moonta


text:
Jet Propulsion/Performance

Engine Performance describes the most important attributes of the engine for the aircraft. These are primarily the thrust available to propel the aircraft, and fuel consumption.

Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC)
Typically quoted in mg/Ns for engines. Is usually much higher at cruise than at static. A typical high bypass engine will consume about 8mg/Ns at maximum takeoff and 15mg/Ns at maximum cruise thrust. Typical large engines today have TO thrusts approaching 480kN. Typical cruise SFC is around 15mg/Ns. A low bypass military engine will have TO SFC of about 18mg/Ns which rises to 50mg/Ns if afterburner is used.

Available thrust is usually quoted in kN or lbs. Fuel efficiency is usually quoted as a specific fuel consumption

$$SFC = \frac{fuel flow, (g/s)}{ thrust, (kN) } $$

SFC can only be directly compared at a specific flight condition, usually a nominal cruise condition.

Specific impulse
Specific impulse is defined as the thrust (N) divided by the fuel weight flow rate (N/s). The resulting measure is usually quoted in seconds and defines the weight fraction that is necessary to give a particular delta V for a rocket or range for an aircraft with a given lift to drag ratio.

For a jet engine the specific impulse can be determined from the specific fuel consumption. The product of SFC and Specific impulse is one. The conversion factor between SFC (mg/Ns) and Specific impulse (s) is 102,000mg/N (1E6mg kg-1 /9.81N kg-1). A high bypass turbofan engines have cruise SFC around 15mg/Ns, and takeoff SFC of 8mg/Ns.

An air-breathing jet engine typically has a much larger specific impulse than a rocket: a turbofan jet engine may have a specific impulse of 7000 seconds or more at sea level whereas a rocket would be around 200-400 seconds. Air-breathing engines are more propellant efficient because the actual exhaust speed is much lower, since the air provides the oxidizer and because (inert) air is added to the reaction mass. The actual exhaust velocity is lower and the jet engine uses far less energy to generate equal thrust.

We can also see the effect of an airbreathing engine acting on an infinitely large reaction mass in propulsion impulse figure below. In such a case the entire energy goes into accelerating the vehicle rather than the exhaust from the engine. Thus also explains why the space elevator is much more energy efficient to get vehicles into space since the climbers are close to acting on an infinitely large mass. The energy requirements are still very large. What we can also see from the diagram below is that with increasing speeds the reaction engines become progressively more "efficient", getting closer to the infinite mass case.

Range
The Breguet Range Equation gives the range achieved by a vehicle. For a constant L/D ratio of the aircraft

$$Range=u I_{sp}\left(\frac{L}{D}\right) \ln \left(\frac{W_{initial}}{W_{final}}\right)$$

where

R = distance flown (m)

u = velocity (m/s)

Isp = specific impulse (s)

L/D = lift-to-drag ratio (dimensionless)

Winitial = gross aircraft weight at the start of cruise (kg)

Wfinal = gross weight at the end of cruise (kg)

Endurance
The Breguet Range Equation can be modified to give endurance. For a constant L/D ratio of the aircraft

$$Endurance = Range/u = I_{sp}\left(\frac{L}{D}\right) \ln \left(\frac{W_{initial}}{W_{final}}\right)$$

Thrust
The thrust of a jet engine is determined by the difference in momentum of the fluids flowing in and out of the engine. If the mass of fuel added is negligible then the thrust is:

 * $$ T = \dot{m}(u_{exit}-u_{inlet}) $$

Engines are certified to deliver standard thrusts depending upon atmospheric conditions. Thrust is typically measured in kN or lbs.

Engines are certified to deliver standard thrusts depending upon flight conditions. Thrust is typically measured in kN or lbs. A 'rating' is a predefined power setting that the pilot can select which may be appropriate for particular flight conditions. Rating terminology differs between civil and military aircraft, reflecting the different requirements of these types of aviation.

Aircraft Ratings
The following ratings are typical of commercial airliners. The aircraft/engine manufacturer will have to declare two principal ratings to the certifying authorities, since these define the safe limits of operation of the engine/aircraft - these are the Maximum Take-Off (MTO) rating, and the Maximum Continuous Thrust (MCT or MCN) rating.

Maximum Takeoff thrust(MTO)
This is the maximum thrust that the engine can deliver for 5 minutes in the take-off envelope of the aircraft. Peak thrust is usually achieved when the engine is static, however the most demanding condition for a modern turbofan engine is end-of-runway or lift-off conditions, typically at about 0.25Mn. This condition usually generates the highest stresses and temperatures in the engine, hence use of this rating is only permitted for up to 5 minutes of operation.

It is used, as the name suggests, for take-off when the aircraft is at its heaviest and has to be accelerated to take-off speed in a finite runway distance. The higher the thrust available from the engine, the shorter the runway can be, or the greater the aircraft payload can be. This affects which airports an aircraft can be operated from, and the economics of operation. As an alternative to payload, a higher thrust rating allows more fuel load to be carried into the air, so extending range of operation. These trade-offs between available thrust, runway length, aircraft weight and range may need to be assessed for each flight, and is part of a commercial pilots preparation prior to take-off. An aircraft may take-off with less than maximum take-off thrust to reduce wear on the engine and extend its life. This is usually termed a 'reduced thrust' take-off, and is used to reduce engine maintenance costs.

It is a condition of certification that an aircraft should be able to take-off if one engine fails at the most critical point in the take-off run, when it is going too fast to be able to come to a safe stop in the remaining runway. In the case of twin engine aircraft, they have to be capable of taking off on one engine, so that in normal operation 'de-rate' is usually applied as an excess of thrust is available.

If an engine exceeds its 'redline' speeds or temperatures when running at MTO thrust, it is no longer considered airworthy.

Sometimes referred to as 'TOGA' thrust, short for take-off/go-around.

Maximum Continuous thrust (MCT)
Outside the MTO flight envelope, the MCT rating defines the maximum thrust that can be demanded by the pilot from the engine. As such, it has particular significance with respect to engine failure in flight, as the aircraft will have to proceed to its destination or nearest diversion airport at max continuous thrust. If the engine cannot achieve this thrust level whilst staying within it operating limits for engine speed and temperature, (them 'amber line'), it is no longer considered airworthy.

Maximum Climb thrust (MCL)
This is the thrust rating the manufacturer recommends be used during the climb phase of a typical flight. It may be the same as max continuous thrust, and usually is for a three or four engined aircraft. The top of the climb phase is typically the most challenging condition for a turbofan engine outside the take-off regime, and is a critical design requirement. De-rate can be applied to MCL thrust to extend engine life, but at the cost of a slower time to climb and slightly increased trip fuel consumption.

Maximum Cruise thrust (MCR)
Sometimes defined, but not a particularly useful rating since in cruise the pilot/autopilot will use the thrust required to maintain constant altitude and air speed to meet with air traffic control requirements.

Flight Idle
The idle rating is the minimum thrust that can be used whilst the aircraft is in flight. It is largely defined by the requirement to keep the engine running, possibly supplying secondary services to the aircraft such as hydraulic and electrical power, and, especially at high altitude, to supply passenger air at a minimum pressure. The flight idle rating is important in that the lower it is, the quicker the aircraft can descend (without going into a dive). It is often determined by stability considerations such as flutter and surge margin.

High or Approach idle
In the final phases of approach to landing it is important to be able to provide rapid response to throttle movements, this may require the engine to be running at a higher speed than ideal to be able to provide rapid acceleration if required. There may be a maximum response time requirement to achieve 'TOGA' thrust if a landing is aborted.

Ground Idle
Used for maneuvering on the ground. Typically defined by the need to keep the engine running and supplying power and services to the aircraft. Generally, the lower this value the better, since brake wear is a significant factor in aircraft running/maintenance costs.

Example ratings
The figure below shows the typical behavior of a modern turbofan. The orange curves show maximum cruise thrust at altitude. The take-off thrust is about 25% higher than the cruise thrust at sea level since it is permitted for short durations only.

Military Ratings
Combat aircraft have very different requirements to civil aircraft, and different rating terminology is used, especially for aircraft using reheat or afterburning for thrust augmentation.

Military Thrust
Typically used to define the maximum available thrust without use of reheat. Sometime referred to as maximum 'dry' thrust.

Maximum Takeoff thrust
This is the maximum thrust that the engine can deliver for 5 minutes at standard sea level atmosphere. Peak thrust is usually achieved when the engine is static.

Maximum Climb thrust
This is the maximum thrust that the engine can deliver for 5 minutes at standard sea level atmosphere.

Maximum Cruise thrust
The thrust allowable for unlimited flight duration at the design altitude.

Maximum Continuous thrust
Also called the maximum maneuver thrust. Sometimes is same as maximum cruise.

Example: Installed thrust ratings
The figure below shows the typical behavior of a modern turbofan. The orange curves show maximum cruise thrust at altitude. The TO thrust is significantly higher than the cruise thrust at sea level since it is permitted for short durations only..

title: Jet Propulsion/Performance


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. f3/1...e5/2. g4/2...Qh4

2... Qh4#
White has played a very poor and weakening move and allowed Black the quickest possible checkmate (Fool's Mate) in the opening game of chess: Mate in two moves. The mate almost never occurs in practice but is commonly known among chess players, due to it being the fastest possible checkmate. However, Black was already better.

A variation of this mate occurs when White advances the f-pawn two squares: '''1. f4 e6 2. g4?? Qh4#'''. White can also move their g-pawn before the f-pawn.


text:
Talk:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Introduction

Parentage Problems
I believe that parentage means their blood-purity rather than their actual parents. --Roonil Wazlib 02:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed it to use the "family" attribute now. -Matt 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Does anyone know what a nargle is?
 * Only Luna Lovegood, and, one presumes, her father. What little we know is here. Chazz (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Nikola Tesla

Resurrection of the Dead
I'm glad that this Wikibook has been "resurrected" from the dead. I fought to have this put in here, and I guess that I'm going to have to put in some content now. :) Still, I think that this Wikibook does have some merit, although this current state should be considered just a stub, not a complete Wikibook.

title: Talk:Nikola Tesla


text:
User talk:144.136.16.39

What is the difference between circuits and electronics? - Omegatron 03:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:144.136.16.39


text:
Template talk:User

Origins
Copied the idea from uncyclopedia. - Aya T C 03:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Enhancements
Something like this, but needs to cope with spacey names.

Aya T C 03:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem appears to be that the parameter is being passed with an underscore in place of the original space (e.g., Robert Horning is being converted to Robert_Horning). We need some way of stripping the underscore back out again before including it in the URL. The problem is that virtually no processing of the parameters is possible within templates, hopefully that will change in future. Geo.T 04:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well. The best I can do with a single parameter is this (I'm using a new template here, since the other one is 'live'):

The links work fine, but the name looks messy.

With two params you could have a inclusion that looks like this:

Aya T E C 04:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I've added a second parameter to this template. Just use and it should work fine. I use , which produces . This way, Robert can have the template work by doing what Aya suggested above, but no need to use 'user2'. As my signature shows, you can use this to do whatever you want: change a %20 into a space, or change your username into Greek. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Documentation
Will it be better to replace 'Jimbo Wales' and 'Bill Bailey' with 'John Smith'? John Smith appears commonly in Wikipedia guidelines and honestly I've never heard of Bill Bailey. :P Kayau 15:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 * How about Jimbo Wales -> Karl Wick (the founder of Wikibooks) and Bill Bailey -> E=MC^2. The last one is supposed to be an example of a user with an = sign in their name and it actually had been Billbailey=legend before I edited it.  E=MC^2 is actually a user here with a user page. – Adrignola talk 15:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we even need a bunch of practically duplicate templates. Seems like we would be better of with just this one template with some parameters like checkuser=yes, global=yes, admin=yes, etc. to add more links. Getting back on topic though I think John Smith, Test, or Test user would be better than an account in use by a person because whatever name is used might get unwanted attention. --dark lama  16:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 * We had a handful of User* templates already, so I went about cleaning them up, ensuring they had documentation, ensuring they had a consistent look, checking that links still worked, and checking for categorization or protection needs. I only brought in a few that we didn't already have.  I certainly expected an objection from you, Darklama, and am aware of situations like with CompactTOC8 handling all the other variations besides CompactTOC.  I didn't import all the CompactTOC* templates, for instance, because there it makes sense to avoid template duplication.  With these, people don't want to have to throw in a huge number of parameters to a template that's supposed to save time and hassle.  When I import histories, you can't tell what was already here and in use.  All I can say is that you should compare the length of Template:User information templates with w:Template:User information templates to see how I'm not doing a full-fledged pull. – Adrignola talk 16:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 * We had only a few to begin with. I saw that most of the templates did not exist yet when you first began importing. How do you know what people do or don't want? There doesn't seem to be any reasoning to what you decide to import. I guess I'm a bit involved and annoyed because I spent time in the past trying to reduce the number of templates we had because many were going unused and remembering which to use in what cases wasn't easy either. People are trying to find ways to make Wikipedia easier for more users to use, and I think Wikibooks was better off than Wikipedia in that regard, lets not repeat Wikipedia's mistakes. There is also no reason to assume that older templates Wikibooks had were copied from Wikipedia or even based on what Wikipedia had, so by importing you also potentially endanger Wikibooks' own unique history since merges make it harder to follow edit histories.
 * I think there isn't a need to have a whole lot of parameters. I think the first thing is the links provided from User0 through User4 can be the default links shown with just a few additional parameters for the tools that Wikibooks has with global working with the other parameters to provide global logs when checkuser or admin links are wanted for example. --dark lama  16:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit counter
The edit counter used in this template no longer exists, or is in a different location. I fixed this on the  by changing it to this counter, which is the one used on Special:Contributions. I can't do that here because it's protected, so an admin needs to change this.  Liam987 ( talk ) 17:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes_check.svg Done Thanks for pointing this out. I had remembered to fix the box below the listings on user contributions pages but forgot about templates using the same tool. – Adrignola discuss 14:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the counter has changed again for several months now, the current URL is a long redirection. Can an administrator update it to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?lang=en&wiki=wikibooks&name=Example please?

Moreover, the five links of this template should have the class "noprint" because they're meaningless offline (eg: First Aid/Authors in PDF). JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Template talk:User


text:
Cookbook talk:Sriracha

nominate for delete

Who is VFD-ing? I disagree strongly. - Joecool94 4:37 PM Saturday, October 21, 2006 (UTC)

title: Cookbook talk:Sriracha


text:
User:Tlogmer

Wikipedia user page

title: User:Tlogmer


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. a4

1. a4?! · Ware Opening
The Ware Opening, named after the US chess player Preston Ware, is a rare opening starting with the move 1.a4. This opening is nearly useless, as it does nothing to control the center or develop a piece. While it does prepare Ra3, Black can stop this with 1... e5, which is a move that Black probably would have wanted to play anyway. Despite its flaws, the Ware Opening can be used to unsettle the opponent, similarly to other unorthodox openings.

Statistics
This opening has no statistics, as it almost never occurs among serious chess players and is a fundamentally unsound opening.

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. a4


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. Na3

1. Na3?! - Durkin Opening
The Durkin Opening or Sodium Attack ("Sodium" due to the algebraic notation Na3, Na being the chemical symbol for sodium) is rarely played. The move does little to enhance the White position, although some sources consider it to be better than its reputation.

Black's responses
Black's best response is 1... d5, although 1... e5 is sometimes seen. White may continue with 2. b3, preparing to fianchetto with 3. Bb2, or with 2. c4. Alternatively, if Black plays 1... e5, White may choose 2. Nc4 to put pressure on the e5-pawn. 1...Na6!? could lead to a drawish game.

Statistics
No statistics as 1. Na3 is very rarely played.

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. Na3


text:
Cookbook:Soba

| Pasta | Asian Pasta

Soba are Japanese thin buckwheat noodles.

Characteristics
At their most basic and most traditional, soba noodles are made of buckwheat flour and water, then rolled out shaped into thin noodles. The buckwheat gives the noodles a brown color, firm chewy texture, and nutty flavor. Because buckwheat contains no gluten, the noodles are relatively fragile and can clump together during the boiling process. For elasticity and ease of handling, some varieties of soba contain a percentage of wheat flour, but this reduces their characteristic buckwheat flavor and color.

Uses
Soba noodles are typically pre-cooked by a brief boiling before being added to the final dish. They can be served hot, as a soup (kake-soba), or cold, with a dipping sauce (zaru-soba) or chilled broth. The noodles can also be stir-fried with meat and vegetables to make yakisoba. It's important to avoid overcooking soba, as they will become over-soft and mushy.

In Japan, soba noodles may be traditionally eaten when celebrating the New Year.

title: Cookbook:Soba


text:
Cookbook:Acorn Squash

Acorn squash is a variety of winter squash of the same species as zucchini and other summer squashes.

Characteristics
Acorn squash are small and ribbed, shaped like an acorn. They are usually blackish-green with yellow spots, and their flesh is dry. In contrast to other winter squash, these are relatively small at about 2 pounds each. The flavor is mild and "buttery".

Seasonality
Acorn squash is a winter squash; it is grown in the summer like summer squash, but harvested in the late summer and fall. It can be grown in winter as well, making it available all year.

Selection and storage
Choose firm squashes without any soft or discolored spots. They should feel solid and relatively heavy. Acorn squashes will keep for about a month when stored in a cool, dry place. Once cut open, store it in the fridge. If storing in the freezer, cook it beforehand.

Preparation
Because an acorn squash's surface is ribbed, peeling is very challenging; however, the skin can be removed after cooking and is thin enough to be eaten. To prepare for cooking, they simply need to be halved before removal of the pulp and seeds. If baking the squash whole, it is important to pierce the skin several times to prevent explosion.

Use
Like other winter squash, acorn squash is commonly roasted until tender and sometimes puréed. It can also be cooked using wet methods, though these don't complement the flavor as well. Its size and shape make it particularly suitable for stuffing. Although less common, acorn squash can be used in sweet dishes.

title: Cookbook:Acorn Squash


text:
Cookbook:Focaccia I

| Cuisine of Italy | Bread

Focaccia is a flat, leavened bread native to Italy.

Procedure

 * 1) Sprinkle one teaspoon of the yeast over ½ cup of the water in a medium bowl. Stir to mix, and let stand 10 minutes. Stir in ¾ cup flour, cover tightly with plastic and let rise in warm place until doubled, about 45 minutes.
 * 2) In a large bowl, sprinkle the remaining teaspoon of yeast over 1 cup of warm water, mix and let stand 10 minutes. Add the first yeast mixture (now risen) along with 3 tablespoons of olive oil and 2 teaspoons of salt, mix well. Add the remaining flour gradually, mixing well after each addition until well incorporated.
 * 3) On a lightly floured work surface, turn the dough out and knead until soft, about 10 minutes.
 * 4) Place the dough in a lightly oiled bowl, cover tightly and let rise in warm place until doubled, about 1 ½ hours.
 * 5) Oil an 11" x 14" (28 cm x 36 cm) baking pan and turn the risen dough out onto the pan, flattening it out to the edges. If the dough springs back too much to cover the pan, allow it to rest for 10 minutes before resuming. Cover with a clean towel and let rise 45 minutes to an hour.
 * 6) Preheat oven to 425 °F (220 °C). Remove towel and press indentations into the dough with your fingertips, then drizzle with the remaining 2 tablespoons of olive oil, sprinkle with sea salt and place pan in oven. Bake 20 to 25 minutes, or until the top is golden.
 * 7) Remove the focaccia from the pan as soon as it is out of the oven and let cool on a rack before serving.

title: Cookbook:Focaccia I


text:
User talk:Jotomicron

Hey Jotomicron, I noticed that you started to make some improvements to the Portuguese Wikibook a while ago, but haven't seen you around since then. I started writing this book, despite my lack of knowledge, because the best way to learn something is to teach it. But if you want to, please, feel free to come and help out, especially with the more advanced stuff. I have no doubt I have made millions of mistakes as well... Cheers, Serge 08:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jotomicron


text:
Radiation Oncology/Prostate/Adjuvant RT

Clinical and Pathologic Factors predicting recurrence

 * See also: Natural history after RP section at Prostatectomy

The prognostic factors that most consistently predict for disease recurrence and overall survival are:
 * 1 penetration through the prostatic capsule (pT3a),
 * 2 the presence of tumor at the inked surgical margins,
 * 3 high preoperative PSA, and
 * 4 unfavorable surgical Gleason score.
 * 5 invasion of the seminal vesicles
 * 6 Nodal involvement
 * 7 PSADT <=10 mo
 * 8 PSA velocity (Annual PSA velocity of more than 2.0 ng per milliliter and PSADT <= 3 mo)

 * PMID 15247353, 2004 — D'amico AV et al: "Preoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy N Engl J Med." 2004 Jul 8;351(2):125-35.
 * RESULTS: As compared with an annual PSA velocity of 2.0 ng per milliliter or less, an annual PSA velocity of more than 2.0 ng per milliliter was associated with a significantly shorter time to death from prostate cancer (P<0.001) and death from any cause (P=0.01). An increasing PSA level at diagnosis (P=0.01), a Gleason score of 8, 9, or 10 (P=0.02), and a clinical tumor stage of T2 (P<0.001) also predicted the time to death from prostate cancer. For men with an annual PSA velocity of more than 2.0 ng per milliliter, estimates of the risk of death from prostate cancer and death from any cause seven years after radical prostatectomy were also influenced by the PSA level, tumor stage, and Gleason score at diagnosis.
 * CONCLUSIONS: Men whose PSA level increases by more than 2.0 ng per milliliter during the year before the diagnosis of prostate cancer may have a relatively high risk of death from prostate cancer despite undergoing radical prostatectomy.

 * PMID 15535442, 2004 — D'Amico AV et al.: "Prostate specific antigen doubling time as a surrogate end point for prostate cancer specific mortality following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy J Urol." 2004 Nov;172(5 Pt 2):S42-6
 * PURPOSE: A short posttreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA)-doubling time (DT) following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy was evaluated as a surrogate end point for prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM).
 * CONCLUSIONS: Posttreatment PSA-DT appears to be a surrogate end point for PCSM following surgery or radiation therapy. We recommend that consideration should be given to enrollment onto a clinical trial and/or initiating androgen suppression therapy at the time of PSA defined recurrence when PSA-DT is less than 3 months to delay the imminent sequelae of metastatic bone disease.

 * Indiana University, 2001 (1988-2001)
 * PMID 11696735 — "Accuracy of predicting long-term prostate specific antigen outcome based on early prostate specific antigen recurrence results after radical prostatectomy." Soergel TM et al. J Urol. 2001 Dec;166(6):2198-201.
 * 60 pts. Analyzed how PSA doubling time (DT) changes over time -- eventual DT vs early DT.
 * DT did not accelerate. Distant mets developed in 60% of pts with eventual DT < 6 m. For DT of 6-12 mo, DM in 20%.

 * PMID 10737489, 2000 — Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al: Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: Data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol 163:1171-1177, 2000
 * Results and Conclusions: surgical margin status was an important independent predictor of PSA recurrence and secondary treatment (p = 0.06 and 0.0011, respectively). The number of positive margins and positive margin location had little impact on the outcomes measured.

 * PMID 9817331, 1998 — D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al: The combination of preoperative prostate specific antigen and postoperative pathological findings to predict prostate specific antigen outcome in clinically localized prostate cancer. J. Urol 160:2096-2101, 1998.
 * RESULTS: Preoperative PSA, pathological stage, margin status and prostatectomy Gleason score were independent predictors of time to postoperative PSA failure.
 * CONCLUSIONS: Pts who are high risk for early PSA failure can be identified and can be selected for adjuvant therapy trials. Unfortunately, the use of this endpoint does not allow one to identify the source of recurrence with a high degree of accuracy.

 * PMID 9302141, 1997 — Lowe BA, Lieberman SF: Disease recurrence and progression in untreated pathologic stage T3 prostate cancer: Selecting the patient for adjuvant therapy. J Urol 158:1452-1456, 1997.
 * Prospectively followed untreated pT3 pts.
 * Poor prognostic factors were number of surgical margins involved by tumor, pathologic Gleason score and pre-prostatectomy PSA level. PSA recurrence in 20.8% of pts with 1 surgical margin involved, 40.9% with 2 margins, and 50% with 3 or more margins; in 20.3% with Gleason score < 7, 33.9% with Gleason score 7, and 74.2% with > 7; in 17.3% with PSA < 10, 45.4% with PSA > 10.
 * High risk (Gleason 7-10, PSA > 10, 2 or more positive margins) or low risk (the others). Risk of recurrence 8.5% for low risk and 44.8% for high risk.

Radical Prostatectomy +/- Adjuvant RT
Meta-Analysis
 * Loyola Meta-Analysis; 2017 PMID 28225445 -- "Adjuvant Radiotherapy Versus Wait-and-See Strategy for Pathologic T3 or Margin-Positive Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis." (Shaikh MP, Alite F, Wu MJ, Solanki AA, Harkenrider MM, Am J Clin Oncol. 2017 Feb 20. doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000358. [Epub ahead of print])
 * Meta-analysis. 3 RCTs pooled, 1737 patients with pT3 or margin-positive prostate cancer
 * Outcome:
 * ART resulted in improved biochemical PFS (BPFS, HR=0.48, SS) including benefit in all subsets: SM+, ECE, SV invasion, pre-op PSA<=10, pre-op PSA>10, post-op PSA<=0.2,  post-op PSA>0.2, GS<=6 as well as in GS>6.
 * Greater clinical PFS (CPFS, HR=0.73, SS) including benefit in subsets with SM+ or SV invasion.
 * Greater hormone-free survival (HFS, HR=0.64, SS).
 * Improved 10-year metastasis-free survival with ART (10-yr MFS, OR=0.77, SS).
 * There was no OS benefit (HR=0.97, NS).
 * Toxicity: Statistically significant but small absolute increase in moderate/severe toxicity with ART: Grade 2+ GU toxicity (17.1% vs. 10.3%), Grade 2+ GI toxicity (2.5% vs. 1.1%), urinary stricture rates (11.1% vs. 5.7%) and, urinary incontinence (6.9% vs. 2.7%).
 * Conclusion: 10-yr MFS, BPFS, CPFS, and HFS were improved with ART. Small absolute increase in Grade 2+ GI & GU toxicities, urinary strictures and urinary incontinence with ART. Therefore, ART should be offered to patients with these high-risk features.

 * Ontario; 2008 PMID 18501455 -- "Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy for pathologic T3 or margin-positive prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis." (Morgan SC, Radiother Oncol. 2008 May 21. [Epub ahead of print])
 * Meta-analysis. 3 randomized trials, 1743 patients with pT3 or R1
 * Outcome: No benefit for OS. Significant benefit for bPFS (HR 0.47, SS)
 * Toxicity: No significant different in Grade 3+ GI or GU toxicity at 5 years
 * Conclusion: No OS benefit over active surveillance, but significant improvement in bPFS without excess severe late toxicity

 * German ARO 96-02 / AUO AP 09/95 (1997-2004) -- Adjuvant RT vs. observation
 * Randomized. 388 men randomized, radical prostatectomy (open RP and PLND, nerve sparing allowed) pT3-4 pN0, age <76 years. Randomization was prior to determination of post-op PSA. If undetectable PSA was not achieved, pts were removed from protocol and scored as having progressive disease. Pts with undetectable post-op PSA (<0.1) assigned treatment(n=80%). Arm 1) observation vs. Arm 2) RT 60/30 Gy. RT 3D plan prostatic fossa + SV + 1cm. Start 6-12 weeks after RP. Primary endpoint PSA control (PSA relapse defined as undetectable to detectable, followed by another increase). Patients not reaching undetectable PSA (20%) treated with 66.6 Gy. LR not investigated because DRE often false positive
 * Randomization:
 * Eligible (n=385): 192 arm 1(observation), 193 arm 2(RT).
 * 78 pts excluded (20%) -- arm 1:33, arm 2:45 -- for persistent PSA
 * Treatment (n=307): 159 assigned arm 1. 148 assigned arm 2.
 * Per protocol (n=268): Given wait and see: 154. Given RT per protocol: 114.
 * 2005 ASCO Abstract - "Phase III results of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) versus wait and see (WS) in patients with pT3 prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy (RP)(ARO 96-02 / AUO AP 09/95)." (Wiegel T, Proc ASCO 2005; 4513.) Median F/U 3.1 years
 * Outcome: Patients treated per protocol bNED 81% vs. 60% (SS). Greatest benefit SM+, PSA >10, GS <7
 * Late toxicity: GU grade 3 2%, GI no grade 3
 * Conclusion: Adjuvant RT significantly improves risk of PSA progression after RP
 * 2009 PMID 19433689 Full text -- "Phase III Postoperative Adjuvant Radiotherapy After Radical Prostatectomy Compared With Radical Prostatectomy Alone in pT3 Prostate Cancer With Postoperative Undetectable Prostate-Specific Antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95." (Wiegel T, J Clin Oncol. 2009 May 26.) Median F/U 4.5 years
 * Outcome: 5-year bPFS observation 54% vs. RT 72% (HR 0.53, SS). DM 3% vs. 2%. Negative predictors preop PSA >10, stage pT3c
 * Toxicity: No Grade 4, 1 patient with Grade 3 bladder, Grade 2 in 3%
 * Conclusion: Patients with pT3 PCA who achieve undetectable PSA after surgery benefit from adjuvant RT
 * 2013 ASCO Abstract (Genitourinary Cancers Symposium) -- "Phase III results of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) versus wait-and-see (WS) in patients with pT3 prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy (RP)(ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95): Ten years follow-up." (Wiegel T, J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl 6; abstr 4))
 * Median f/u 111 months (9.2 yr).
 * Outcome: bNED at 10-yrs: 35% (no RT) vs 56% (RT); HR=0.51 (SS). No sig difference in DMFS or OS.
 * Toxicity: 2 pts with Grade 2 late rectal toxicity, 4 pts with Grade 2+ bladder toxicity. No grade 4 events.
 * Conclusion: "With only one grade 3 case of late toxicity, ART was safe in pT3 prostate cancer. At 10 years median follow up, it reduced the risk of bNED by 49%. The study was not powered to detect differences in OS."
 * 2014 PMID 24680359 -- "Adjuvant Radiotherapy Versus Wait-and-See After Radical Prostatectomy: 10-year Follow-up of the ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95 Trial."
 * 2015 PMID 25445556 "Prostate-Specific Antigen Persistence After Radical Prostatectomy as a Predictive Factor of Clinical Relapse-Free Survival and Overall Survival: 10-Year Data of the ARO 96-02 Trial" (Wiegel et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Feb 1;91(2):288-94.)
 * Persistent PSA post-prostatectomy poor prognostic indicator with 10 yr metastasis-free survival of 67% vs. 83% (in pT3-4 pts with undetectable PSA) and OS of 68% vs. 84% p=SS
 * Gleason score >= 8, pT >= 3c and ECE >= 2 mm unfavorable risk factors

 * EORTC 22911 (1992-2001) Protocol -- Adjuvant RT vs. observation
 * Randomized. 1005 patients. Radical prostatectomy pT2-3N0, ilio-obturator LND, with extracapsular disease (ECE, SV+, SM+). Arm 1) observation vs. Arm 2) RT 60/30, start within 16 weeks of RP. RT technique conventional (non-3D), 50/25 + 10/5 boost with smaller margins. Borders surgical limits SV to apex. No Gleason scoring (used WHO grade). Biochemical failure increase of 0.2 from postop nadir measured on 3 occasions at least 2 weeks apart and is dated from first day of rise. After biochemical or clinical failure, could get salvage RT. By risk: 43% had one RF only, 43% had two RFs, 12% had all three RFs. Primary endpoint clinical PFS, amended to bNED in 2003
 * QA; 2002 PMID 12208577 - Quality assurance of the EORTC trial 22911. A phase III study of post-operative external radiotherapy in pathological stage T3N0 prostatic carcinoma: the dummy run. Davis JB, Reiner B, Dusserre A, Giraud JY, Bolla M; EORTC.Radiother Oncol. 2002 Jul;64(1):65-73.
 * 5-years; 2005 PMID 16099293, 2005 — "Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911)." (Bolla M, Lancet. 2005 Aug 13-19;366(9485):572-8.) Median F/U 5 years
 * Outcome: 5-year bNED RT 74% vs observation 53% (SS), regardless of risk factors. Most failures loco-regional. Clinical PFS 85% vs. 78% (SS). OS 91-92% (NS).
 * Late toxicity: Grade 3 RT 4% vs. observation 3% (p=0.07)
 * Conclusion: Post-operative radiotherapy results in improved biochemical and clinical PFS, but its benefit should be weighed against the risk of increased toxicity.
 * Subset analysis; 2007 PMID 17878474 -- "Identification of patients with prostate cancer who benefit from immediate postoperative radiotherapy: EORTC 22911." (Van der Kwast TH, J Clin Oncol. 2007 Sep 20;25(27):4178-86.)
 * Pathology data review. 552 patients
 * Surgical margin impact: if SM+, RT prevents 291 events/1000 patients (SS); need to treat 3 patients to prevent 1 recurrence. If SM-, RT prevents 88 events/1000 patients (NS).
 * Conclusion: After careful central path review, RT beneficial only for patients with positive margins (this effect was not seen when using the local pathology data), no benefit if negative margins
 * 10-years; 2012 PMID: 23084481, 2012 - "Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911)." (Bolla M, Lancet 2012 Dec 8;380(9858):2018-27.) Median F/U 10.6 years
 * Outcome: Post-op RT improved 10 yr bPFS 61% vs. 41% (SS). 10 yr LRR 7.3% (RT) vs 16.6% (obs) (SS). No difference in DM, OS or CSS.
 * Conclusion: Postop RT improves bPFS and local control vs. observation, consistent with 5-yr results. However, improvements in clinical PFS were not maintained.

 * SWOG-8794 / RTOG 90-19 / INT-0086 (1988-95) -- Adjuvant RT vs. observation
 * Randomized. 473 patients, radical prostatectomy with extraprostatic disease (ECE, SV+, or SM+). Pelvic LND required until 1995, when very low risk patients (T1a or T2a GS2-6 PSA <10, T1b-c GS2-5 PSA <10, T2b GS2-6 PSA <6, T2c GS2-6 PSA <4) were exempt. Randomized (within 16 weeks of RP) to Arm 1) Prostatic fossa RT 60-64 Gy vs Arm 2) observation. No concurrent hormones . RT field non-3D, 4-field, 9x9 or 10x10 cm. Primary endpoint mets-free survival
 * 2005 ASTRO Abstract Plenary #1 Webcast - "Phase III Randomized Study of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy versus Observation in Patients with Pathologic T3 Prostate Cancer (SWOG 8794)" Swanson GP et al. IJROBP Volume 63, Supplement 1, 1 October 2005, Page S1.
 * Median f/u 9.7 yrs. RT improved bDFS 10-yr 47% vs 23%, metastasis free survival 83% vs 61%, OS 74% v 63%.
 * 10-years; 2006 PMID 17105795 — "Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial." (Thompson IM Jr, JAMA. 2006 Nov 15;296(19):2329-35.) Median F/U 10.6 years
 * Outcome: Mets-free survival RT 65% vs. observation 57% (p=0.06), median 14.7 years vs. 13.2 years. However, 33% of observation group received salvage RT for disease relapse instead of observation alone. Biochemical progression (defined as PSA >=0.4) RT 35% vs. 64% (SS), median TTF 10.3 yrs vs observation 3.1 yrs (SS). Recurrence free survival 61% vs. 47% (SS). Hormones initiated in 10% vs 21%(SS). No difference in OS.
 * Rectal complications 3% vs 0%, urethral strictures 18% vs 9%, total urinary incontinence 6% vs 3%.
 * Conclusion: Adjuvant RT decreases PSA and clinical recurrence by ~50%.  However, while ~ 70% of pts have biochemical relapse, after censoring for death without mets, mets free survival ~ 78% at 13.2 years (rate of events was lower than anticipated).
 * Failure analysis; 2007 PMID 17538167 -- "Predominant treatment failure in postprostatectomy patients is local: analysis of patterns of treatment failure in SWOG 8794." (Swanson GP, J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jun 1;25(16):2225-9.)
 * Biochemical progression defined as PSA >= 0.4
 * 10-year PSA failure:
 * Postsurgical PSA <0.2: Biochemical Progression: Obs 72% vs. RT 42%; local failure 20% vs. 7%; DM 12% vs. 4%
 * Postsurgical PSA 0.2-1.0: Biochemical Progression: Obs 80% vs. RT 72%; local failure 25% vs. 9%; DM 16% vs. 12%
 * Postsurgical PSA >1.0: Biochemical Progression: Obs 100% vs. RT 94%; local failure 28% vs. 9%; DM 44% vs. 18%
 * Conclusion: Failure in high risk patients predominately local; adjuvant RT reduces risk of failure
 * QOL; 2008 PMID 18165645 -- "Health-related quality of life results in pathologic stage C prostate cancer from a Southwest Oncology Group trial comparing radical prostatectomy alone with radical prostatectomy plus radiation therapy." (Moinpour CM, J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jan 1;26(1):112-20.)
 * 217 patients registered on HRQL study. Questionnaire for GI/GU symptoms, and physical/emotional function
 * Outcome: Global QOL initially worse for RP+RT, but improved over time and eventually exceeded RP alone (SS). RP+RT worse bowel function through 2 years, and worse GU function. No difference on ED
 * Conclusion: Adding RT to surgery resulted in more frequent urination, and early bowel dysfunction, but long-term QoL better
 * SVI; 2008 PMID 18930488 -- "The Prognostic Impact of Seminal Vesicle Involvement Found at Prostatectomy and the Effects of Adjuvant Radiation: Data From Southwest Oncology Group 8794." (Swanson GP, J Urol. 2008 Oct 17. [Epub ahead of print])
 * Subset analysis. 139 patients with SVI, regardless of ECE or SM. Compared with SVI-, SVI+ had worse 10-year bFFS (22% vs 33%, SS), mets-free survival (56% vs. 70%, SS), and overall survival (61% vs. 74%, SS)
 * Outcome: Adjuvant RT improved 10-year bFFS (12% to 36%, SS), with trend for mets-free survival (47% to 66%, NS), and overall survival (51% to 71%, p=0.08)
 * Conclusion: SVI involvement is a negative prognostic factor, but long term control possible with adjuvant RT
 * 2008 ASTRO "Update of SWOG 8794: Adjuvant Radiotherapy for pT3 Prostate Cancer Improves Metastasis Free Survival" Swanson GP et al. IJROBP Volume 72, Issue 1, Supplement 1, 1 September 2008, Page S31. Confirmed 15 year metastasis-free survival advantage (46% vs. 38%, p=0.036) and suggested an overall survival advantage (47% vs. 37%, p=0.053) favoring adjuvant RT.
 * 15 year update; 2009 PMID 19167731 Full text -- "Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial." (Thompson, J Urol 2009)
 * RT improved metastasis free survival (HR 0.71, 93/214 vs. 114/211)
 * RT improved overall survival: HR 0.72, 59% vs 48%, p=0.023. # of Deaths 88/214 vs 110/211.
 * Median f/u of ~12.5y in both arms
 * 70 of 211 pts on observation arm ultimately received RT.

Adjuvant RT Retrospective studies

 * PMID 15708249, 2005 — Improved biochemical outcome with adjuvant radiotherapy (EBRT)after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer with poor pathologic features. Vargas C, Kestin LL, Weed DW, Krauss D, Vicini FA, Martinez AA. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Mar 1;61(3):714-24
 * 617 pts, retrospective. Clinical stage T1-T2N0. 34 pts with undetectable post-op PSA and poor pathologic features underwent post-op RT. Median dose 59.4 Gy (range: 50.4-66.6 Gy).
 * Adjuvant RT: Median f/u 8.2 yrs. Despite worse pathologic features for the RT group, 5-year biochemical control rate was 57% for RT group vs 47% for RP alone group (N.S.). For extracapsular extension, 52% vs 30%; for seminal vesicle invasion, 60% vs 18%; for positive margins, 64% vs 27% (All S.S.).
 * Salvage RT: 99 pts (17% of 585 RP alone pts) required RT salvage for palpable or biochemical recurrence. Median dose 59.4 Gy, median interval 1.3 years, median PSA before salvage 0.8. 5-yr and 8-yr BC rate (PSA <0.1), 41% and 35%. 8-yr LR rate after salvage RT was 4%.
 * Conclusion: Adjuvant RT is efficacious for those with poor pathologic factors.

 * Italian - PMID 15183470, 2004 (1986-98) — "Role of postoperative radiotherapy after pelvic lymphadenectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy: a single institute experience of 415 patients." Cozzarini C et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jul 1;59(3):674-83.
 * 415 pts. Retrospective. pT2b-pT4, pN0-pN1. Of the 415 pts, 237 pts underwent early adjuvant RT (within 6 months) and 178 had either no RT or salvage RT.
 * Median f/u 62 months. 8-yr freedom from biochemical failure was 69% vs 31%, freedom from local failure 93% vs 63%, f.f. systemic failure 88% vs 75%, and cause-specific survival 93% vs. 80%. All were S.S. Subgroup analysis showed improvement in CSS for those with positive margins, extracapsular extension, Gleason 7 or above, and positive lymph nodes.

 * Virginia Commonwealth University / University of Florida - PMID 15145145, 2004 — "Comparison Of Adjuvant Versus Salvage Radiotherapy Policies For Postprostatectomy Radiotherapy." Hagan et al. Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 329–340, 2004.
 * The Authors compared the long-term results of postprostatectomy radiotherapy (RT) from two institutions, one adapting a prospective policy of adjuvant RT (69 patients) and the other salvage RT (88 patients). The salvage group underwent RT after longer postoperative intervals (median, 40.3 vs. 2.9 months; S.S.) and had higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values before starting RT (4.5 vs. 0.86 ng/mL; S.S.). Both groups were routinely treated to a minimal total dose of 60 Gy.
 * Results: Of the 69 patients referred for adjuvant RT, 22 (32%) had nonzero PSA values before RT. Multivariable modeling of BRFS found only the PSA value before RT to be statistically significant (p <0.0001). RT after prostatectomy was equally effective in either setting when the pre-RT PSA level was <1 ng/mL. When the PSA value before RT was >1 ng/mL, the 5-year BRFS for each group was inferior.
 * Conclusion: Although the adjuvant treatment policy was associated with significantly improved BRFS, this was attributable to low pre-RT PSA values. When the treatment groups were stratified for pre-RT PSA level, the differences in BRFS were not statistically significant. Patients with a rising PSA level after prostatectomy, regardless of their initial risk, should receive prompt referral for RT.

 * PMID 10737490, 2000 — Leibovich BC, Engen DE, Patterson DE, et al: Benefit of adjuvant radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer with a positive surgical margin. J Urol 163:1178-1182, 2000.
 * PURPOSE: The Authors' study was limited to men with organ confined cancer and a single positive margin.
 * MATERIALS AND METHODS: They retrospectively evaluated the records of a nested matched cohort of 76 patients with pathological stage T2N0 prostate cancer and a single positive margin who underwent adjuvant radiation therapy within 3 months of radical prostatectomy. There was a positive margin at the prostatic apex in 35 cases, prostatic base in 18, posterior prostate in 11, urethra in 7, and prostatic apex and urethra in 5. These patients were matched 1:1 with 76 controls who did not receive adjuvant radiation therapy. Neither group received androgen deprivation therapy. Patients and controls were matched exactly for the margin positive site, age at surgery, preoperative serum prostate specific antigen, Gleason score and DNA ploidy. Biochemical relapse was defined as posttreatment PSA greater than 0.2 ng./ml
 * RESULTS: Overall there was significant estimated improvement plus or minus standard error in 5-year clinical and biochemical progression-free survival in 88% vs 59% (S.S.) of patients treated with adjuvant radiation therapy versus no radiation therapy. No patient who received radiation therapy had local or distant recurrence, while 16% of controls had recurrence (S.S.).
 * CONCLUSIONS: Patients with localized prostate cancer and a single positive surgical margin appear to have a lower rate of biochemical relapse at 5 years when adjuvant radiation therapy is administered. Definitive evidence of the beneficial effect of adjuvant radiation therapy for patients with involved surgical margins awaits conclusion of randomized clinical trials.

 * PMID 10477006, 1999 — Valicenti RK, Gomella LG, Ismail M, et al: The efficacy of early adjuvant radiation therapy for pT3N0 prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:53-58, 1999.
 * 149 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy were found to have pT3N0 prostate cancer, had an undetectable postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and had no immediate hormonal therapy. Fifty-two patients received adjuvant RT within 3 to 6 months of surgery. Ninety-seven underwent radical prostatectomy alone and were observed until PSA failure. From these two cohorts, we matched patients 1:1 according to preoperative PSA (<10 ng/ml vs. >10 ng/ml), Gleason score (<7 vs. > or =7), seminal vesicle invasion, and surgical margin status. Seventy-two patients (36 pairs) were included in the analysis. Median follow-up time was 41 months. We calculated a matched-pairs risk ratio for cumulative risk of PSA relapse (a rise above 0.2 ng/ml).
 * RESULTS: After controlling for the prognostic factors by matching, there was an 88% reduction (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78-93%) in the risk of PSA relapse associated with adjuvant RT. The 5-year freedom from PSA relapse rate was 89% (95% CI: 76-100%) for patients receiving adjuvant RT as compared to 55% (95% CI: 34-79%) for those undergoing radical prostatectomy alone.
 * CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that adjuvant RT for pT3N0 prostate cancer may significantly reduce the risk of PSA failure as compared to radical prostatectomy alone. Its effect on clinical outcome awaits further follow-up.

 * PMID 9587124, 1998 (1989-95) — Valicenti RK, Gomella LG, Ismail M, et al: Pathologic seminal vesicle invasion after radical prostatectomy for patients with prostate carcinoma: Effect of early adjuvant radiation therapy on biochemical control. Cancer 82:1909-1914, 1998
 * 53 pts. RT for pathologic seminal vesicle invasion and negative pelvic lymph node dissection (pT3cN0).
 * 18 men had an elevated PSA immediately after surgery and received salvage RT. For this group, 3-yr bNED rate was 38%. The other 35 men had undetectable PSA at 3 months. 15 received RT and 20 were observed. 3-yr bNED was 86% for immediate adjuvant RT vs 48% for observation group.
 * Conclusion: adjuvant RT reduces risk of biochemical failure for men with pT3b disease and undetectable PSA after surgery.

 * PMID 7543893, 1995 — Anscher MS, Robertson CN, Prosnitz LR: Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologic stage T3/4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Ten-year update. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33:37-43, 1995.
 * Between 1970 and 1983, 159 patients underwent RP for newly diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and were found to have pathologic Stage T3/4. Forty-six received adjuvant RT and 113 did not. Radiotherapy usually consisted of 45-50 Gy to the whole pelvis followed by a boost to the prostate bed of 10-15 Gy, to a total dose of 55-65 Gy.
 * RESULTS:
 * The actuarial survival at 10 and 15 years was 62% and 62% for the RT group compared to 52% and 37%, respectively, for the RP group (N.S.).
 * The disease-free survival for the RT group was 55% and 48% at 10 and 15 years, respectively, compared to 37% and 33% for the RP group (N.S.).
 * Similarly, there was no difference in the rate of distant metastases between the two groups.
 * In contrast, the local relapse rate was significantly reduced by the addition of postoperative radiotherapy. The actuarial local control rate at 10 and 15 years was 92% and 82%, respectively, for the RT group vs 60% and 53% for the RP group (S.S.).
 * CONCLUSIONS: While postoperative pelvic RT significantly improves local control compared to RP alone for pathologic Stage T3/4 prostate cancer, it has no impact on distant metastases and consequently does not improve survival. These data are consistent with the conclusion that many patients with pathologic Stage T3/4 prostate cancer have occult metastases at presentation and will not be cured by local therapies alone. The optimal treatment for this patient population remains to be established.

Timing of RT

 * MRC/NCIC "RADICALS" Protocol (ongoing)
 * Randomized. 2x3 design evaluating timing of RT and duration of ADT. First randomization: Arm 1) Early adjuvant RT vs. Arm 2) Salvage RT with PSA rise. Second randomization: Arm 1) No ADT vs. Arm 2) Short-term (4 months) ADT vs. Arm 3) Long-term (2 years) ADT

RT + Hormones

 * Analysis of RTOG 85-31 (1987-92)
 * PMID 10475361, 1999 — "Does androgen suppression enhance the efficacy of postoperative irradiation? A secondary analysis of RTOG 85-31." Corn BW et al. Urology. 1999 Sep;54(3):495-502.
 * Of the pts treated on 85-31, 139 were s/p prostatectomy, 71 with RT + immediate androgen suppression and 68 with RT alone (and hormones reserved for relapse).
 * At a median f/u of 5 yrs, PFS (failure defined at PSA of > 0.5) was 65% vs 42%; for different endpoints, 71% vs 46% (PSA of 1-3.9) or 76% vs 55% (PSA > 4). No differences in distant failure or overall survival.
 * Conclusion: pts with indications for post-op RT should be considered for RT + hormones. No overall survival difference.

Node Positive
See also: Radiation Oncology/Prostate/Node Positive

Above studies:
 * PMID 15183470, Cozzarini C

CTV

 * Princess Margaret; 2007 PMID 17967303 -- "Anatomic boundaries of the clinical target volume (prostate bed) after radical prostatectomy." (Wiltshire KL, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Nov 15;69(4):1090-9.)
 * Anatomic boundaries described for CTV (prostate bed)
 * Inferior border : penile bulb or 8mm below vesico-urethral anastomosis (whichever is more superior)
 * Anterior border : posterior edge of symphysis pubis, up to top of symphysis pubis. Then 1.5cm anteriorly to posterior bladder wall (to account for bladder deformation)
 * Posterior border : anterior rectal wall and levator ani; superiorly mesorectal fascia
 * Lateral border : medial border of levator ani and obturator internus; superiorly the sacrorectogenitopubic fascia
 * Superior border : surgical clips (excluding high lymphadenectomy clips) or 5mm above inferior edge of vas deferens. Include retained SVs when pathologically involved
 * Borders extended 1 cm beyond gross recurrent disease

Organ motion
See also: Radiation Oncology/Prostate/External Beam RT

 * Italy, 2005 - PMID 15734207 — "Rectal and bladder motion during conformal radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy." Fiorino C et al. Radiother Oncol. 2005 Feb;74(2):187-95.
 * Conclusion: "Rectal motion (and consequent shifts of CTV) was large at the half cranial portion of the rectum while it was very small below the flexure."

Dose

 * Milan, Italy; 2009 PMID 19619960 -- "Need for High Radiation Dose (>/=70 Gy) in Early Postoperative Irradiation After Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-Institution Analysis of 334 High-Risk, Node-Negative Patients." (Cozzarini C, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Jul 18. [Epub ahead of print])
 * Retrospective. 334 high risk patients (pT3-T4 and/or SM+, N0), s/p RP and adjuvant RT. Dose <70.2 Gy (median 66.6 Gy, n=153) vs >=70.2 Gy (median 70.2 Gy, n=181). Median F/U 10 and 7 years
 * Outcome: Median TTF 36 vs 38 months (NS), but 5-year bPFS <70.2 Gy 71% vs. 70.2 Gy 83% (SS), 5-year DFS 88% vs 94% (SS)
 * Conclusion: Strong support for adjuvant EBRT dose >= 70.2 Gy after RP

 * Stanford (1984-2004)
 * Dose Modeling; 2008 PMID 18234451 -- "Radiotherapy After Prostatectomy: Is The Evidence for Dose Escalation Out There?" (King CR, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jan 28 [Epub ahead of print])
 * Salvage RT: TCP consistent with radical RT TCP, suggesting macroscopic disease. Radical RT TD50 65.9 Gy, slope 2.6%/Gy; salvage RT TD50 66.8 Gy, slope 3.8%/Gy
 * Adjuvant RT: TD50 60 Gy
 * Conclusion: Both adjuvant and RT salvage doses still on steep part of dose-response curve.
 * Salvage dose; 2008 PMID 18207668 -- "Improved outcomes with higher doses for salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy." (King CR, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 May 1;71(1):23-7. Epub 2008 Jan 22.)
 * Retrospective. 122 patients, pN0, salvage RT. Median prostate bed 60 Gy (n=38) or 70 Gy (n=84). Median F/U >5 years
 * Outcome: 5-year bNED 60 Gy 25% vs. 70 Gy 58% (SS). Prognostic factors: dose 70 Gy, post RP PSA <=1 ng/ml, no SV+
 * Conclusion: Significant dose response; recommend salvage dose 70 Gy to prostate bed

Hypofractionation

 * Milan; 2008 (Italy)(2005-2006) PMID 18455253 -- "Hypofractionated adjuvant radiotherapy with helical Tomotherapy after radical prostatectomy: Planning data and toxicity results of a Phase I-II study." (Cozzarini C, Radiother Oncol. 2008 Apr 30. [Epub ahead of print])
 * Phase I-II. 50 patients, after RP and PLND with pT2R1/pT3a-bN0. RT 58/20 @ 2.9 Gy/fx. Median F/U 2.1 years
 * Toxicity: Late GI G2+ 0%, GU G2+ 12%
 * Conclusion: Acute toxicity and early late toxicity post-RP excellent

title: Radiation Oncology/Prostate/Adjuvant RT


text:
User:Hgneng~enwikibooks

Hi friends!

I am Chinese living in Guangzhou, a city in Canton near HongKong. I speak Cantonese, Mandarin, English. And now I am learning Deutsch.

I like Linux and the wikis.

title: User:Hgneng~enwikibooks


text:
User:Gakmo

Hi!

/monobook.css

title: User:Gakmo


text:
User:Gakmo/monobook.css

body { background: none; background-color: #eeeeee; }

/* make a few corners round, only supported by moz/firefox/other gecko browsers for now */ -moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-topright: 1em; } -moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 1em; } div.pBody { -moz-border-radius-topright: 1em; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 1em; }
 * 1) p-cactions ul li, #p-cactions ul li a {
 * 1) content {

/* same following the css3 draft specs, any browsers supporting this? */ border-radius-topleft: 1em; border-radius-topright: 1em; } border-radius-topleft: 1em; border-radius-bottomleft: 1em; } div.pBody { border-radius-topright: 1em; border-radius-bottomright: 1em; }
 * 1) p-cactions ul li, #p-cactions ul li a {
 * 1) content {

title: User:Gakmo/monobook.css


text:
Cellular Automata/Glossary

 * lattice
 * cellular automaton
 * neighborhood
 * A neighborhood of a cell $$c$$ is the set formed by all cells in the lattice that will drive the change of the state of $$c$$ when the transition rule $$f$$ acts upon them. See definition and examples.

 * preimage
 * preimage matrix
 * boundary
 * cyclic boundary

 * configuration
 * A configuration of a Cellular Automaton $$A$$ is a collection $$c_t^A$$ of all status of its components cells $$c$$ at instant $$t\in$$$$\mathbb{N}$$. It can be understood as a snapshot of the automaton at a point of its history in a way that at any instant $$t>0$$ we have $$c_t^A=\delta(c_{t-1}^A)$$

 * sequence
 * pattern

 * evolution

 * Quiescent state
 * A cell is in a quiescent state $$a$$, if all cells in its neighborhood are the same quiescent state.
 * $$ f(aaa \dots a) = a $$

 * Nilpotent rule (of order n)
 * Any configuration evolves in at most $$n$$ steps into a configuration with all cells in any quiescent state $$a$$.
 * $$\forall C^t \; \Delta t \geq n \; : \; C^{t+\Delta t} = \dots aaa \dots $$

 * Idempotent configuration (of order n)
 * A configuration that in at most $$n$$ steps evolves into a steady configuration (C^{t+1}=C^t).
 * $$\Delta t \geq n \; : \; C^{t+\Delta t} = C^{t+\Delta t+1} $$

 * Idempotent rule
 * A rule for which all configurations are idempotent.
 * $$\forall C^t \; \Delta t \geq n \; : \; C^{t+\Delta t} = C^{t+\Delta t+1} $$

 * Superluminal configuration
 * A configuration for which the phase speed is greater than the speed of light. The phase speed is the shift of the configuration per time.

 * Glider

 * Eather pattern
 * A background for gliders, somethimes the most common background.

title: Cellular Automata/Glossary


text:
User talk:80.42.91.103

Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks. -- mattrix 11:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:80.42.91.103


text:
Do-It-Yourself/Shoe polish

Neutral Colour Shoe Polish
To make a neutral-colour, home-made shoe polish, you would need:

 * Soap flakes             30 g (1 oz)
 * Potassium carbonate          15 g (0.5 oz) (Obtain from chemist/pharmacist)
 * Beeswax                      150 g (5oz)
 * Gum arabic powder 15 g (0.5 oz)
 * Icing sugar   45 g (1.5 oz)

Slice the beeswax and add to 568 ml (a pint) of water. Stir in the soap flakes and potassium carbonate. Boil until a smooth paste. Whilst the mixture is still hot (turn off the heat, but act quickly), add and stir the gum arabic powder and icing sugar. For a specifically black polish, 280 g (10 oz) of charcoal powder from the chemist may be added at this stage.

In recent history the black colour comes from an aniline dye. The next recipe indicates that nigrosene (generically, a black dye made from oxidised aniline) was domestically procurable in the 1940s.

Note that the above recipe uses potassium carbonate (potash) whereas the following recipe uses potassium bicarbonate, which is not potash. Imperial Measures are in brackets.

Black Shoe Polish
Melt wax in boiling water and stir in the potassium, using a large pot to allow for the mixture foaming up. Dissolve the nigrosene in a little cold water and stir it in thoroughly, bring to the boil, and simmer gently for some minutes, stirring it until it creams. Take mixture off the fire, and stir in the turpentine. Put away in small tins, tightly closed.

[ ... p194: ] N.B.- In following recipes which contain kerosene, methylated spirit, turpentine, petrol, benzine or any other inflammable ingredient, great care must be observed to avoid making preparation near a lighted stove or naked flame of any kind.

[p192,194 The New P.W.M.U. Cookery Book, 1941, Presbyterian Women's Missionary Union of Victoria (Australia)]

Machines to be used

title: Do-It-Yourself/Shoe polish


text:
Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Parachuted Robots

Puzzles | Logic puzzles | Parachuted Robots

Two robots are dropped from an airplane and land on a single line (with discrete positions) using a parachute which is left at the landing point. The robots are both facing north, they are an unknown distance apart, and one has landed directly east of the other.

The robots are now to be programmed such that they meet each other. They can be instructed to move left or right to a neighboring position and to check whether a parachute is present at the current location. If the other robot is met both robots stop there and live happily ever after.

The parachute check might conditionally execute any number of instructions and any block of instructions may be repeated unconditionally. Write down a program that both robots can follow simultaneously and which guarantees that they meet.

Solution

title: Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Parachuted Robots


text: TiddlyWiki/Writing

title: TiddlyWiki/Writing


text:
Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Parachuted Robots/Solution

Puzzles | Logic puzzles | Parachuted Robots | Solution

One possible algorithm is the following, which is executed simultaneously by both robots:

10 Go right 20 Go left 30 Go right 40 If Not Parachute GOTO 10 50 Go right 60 GOTO 50

The idea is that both robots go slowly (10, 20, 30) until one of them hits a parachute, accelerating to catch up with the other robot.


text:
Talk:Korean/Lesson I1

Korean/Conversation lessons plan
Attention contributors: please review or contribute to Korean/Conversation lessons plan before making significant changes to the lessons in conversation lessons. Rodasmith 01:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommended changes
This page needs some changes....
 * 반말 shouldn't be in lesson 1. Most textbooks start with very formal language (eg 안녕하십니까?), but I think 안녕하세요 is probably better to start with. We can make a brief note of the different levels of politeness, but introduce them in more detail in a later level.
 * Lesson 1 should include self-introduction, which is currently in Lesson 2.
 * The grammar note about the infinitive should be in a later lesson, and actually it's a bit mixed up anyway.
 * Joseph might not be the best choice of names, since the Korean form is usually 요셉 (from Latin?), not 조세프.

I'll work on it when I have time. --Chamdarae 17:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

About Chinese characters
I saw unnecessary chinese characters written in dialogue section. It is weird to write both Korean and Chinese for common used words like 안녕. What would it be like if I wrote English sentence like "Hello (Hola), Joseph?". It is only used if it may be confused without it, though it is seldom used even under the circumstances, nowadays. I left them in vocabulary section to help learners, but deleted them in dialog section. I deleted chinese characters of dialogue, vocabulary so on. I left it for preposition 조사(助詞) not to be confused with another such as investigation 조사(調査). --Only2sea 15:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The obvious difference is that "Hola" is not part of the English language. 漢字 are a part of the Korean language. There is no comparison. Just teaching 한글 would be like just teaching かな in Japanese: i.e. useless for the serious learner. If you can't read Chinese characters, you are in a difficult position as a learner. I find that unleass you can read hanja, learning Korean is actually more difficult, simply because there are too many words that sound the same, and can easily be mixed up. The words "Hello" and "Hola" are not interchangable; whereas 안녕 and 安寧 are the same word, written in two ways. I found it extremely annoying as a learner of Korean that there are almost no books that teach Korean and hanja to whitey-type foreigners at the same time, and would like this project to be an exception. Why should you have to trawl though a stupid 한자사전 to find a word that could just as easily be in the bloody textbook? --Ce garcon 11:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, hanja are a part of the Korean language, but they are pretty archaic, and there is much discussion in Korea itself about whether or not they should still be used. North Korea has already gone the whole hog and fully disbanded them. So, a full third of native Korean speakers don't know any hanja anyway. Also, if you've been in Korea lately, you'll probably notice that there is barely any hanja around these days. It is only used sparingly in newspapers, books, and in some brand names.

One can very easily write essays, articles, or even books in Korean; and read/comprehend those written by others without having to know a single hanja. Saying that a serious learner must learn hanja is just stupid. Most young Koreans these days barely even know the 500 that they are supposed to learn. Saying that a serious learner of Korean must learn them is like saying serious learners of English must learn Beowulf; or what about Anglo-Saxon runes?. It just doesn't hold water.

With a bit of extra time spent, it isn't really that difficult to gain a meaning from context anyway, and in spoken form, one has no choice.

Japanese is completely different, where kanji are still used very extensively (and it's necessary to know them). But the case is not the same in modern Korea at all. --Naya2005 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * As a compromise between the needs of hard-core linguistic researchers and casual learners, I've begun to link new hangeul vocabulary items to their corresponding Wiktionary entries. We can leave only the hangeul here and allow the reader to click through to see the various nuances of each new vocabulary word, including its hanja for Sino-Korean words. Rodasmith 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Naya, so far, none of your argument has made any progress as to why Hanja should not be learned. You also attacked your own argument by saying "It is used in newspapers, books, and in some brand names". If it's used, even though not common, why shouldn't they learn it? If you want to gain only basic fluency, then don't learn Hanja. If you want to gain mastery, then learn it. It's as simple as that.

And nowadays, certain universities accept people based on Hanja proficiency certificate. And I don't know if you lived in Korea before but certain students in law or other field have said some professors teach using Hanja and without knowing them, your study becomes intensely harder. Some of those younger generation can stay stupid if they want, there are PLENTY of younger people, which I am of one, that know Hanja.

It is part of our language which is used along with Korean language, Anglo-Saxon and Beowulf evolved to be what forms the current English. They're not quite the same comparison.

"Hanja is not necessary to learn" is merely an excuse made by lazy Korean native who is not as intelligent in our language or lazy non-native Korean learners who think basic fluency is all they need. I made my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.78.200 (discuss • contribs) 2008-06-01T04:58:42

 * On an English website for learners of Korean I can't help but think that the reason for including Chinese characters is because white people think they are cool. I, personally, being a speaker of Japanese and Korean can't help but be in awe and captivated by Chinese characters. However, when I speak to Koreans about them they tend to make a clear distinction (though perhaps a blunt one) between words that are written with hanja and words that are "우리나라말". This frustrates me to no end, and I argue the point with them until all parties are equally frustrated: these people are not scholars of Korean and are in no position to say with authority what IS or IS NOT Korean, but they are the people and they (ultimately and despite the efforts of scholars) decide where the language is going. Very few of my friends under the age of 20 can write as many Hanja as me, and even in University it is not required that students learn hanja unless they are studying 국어 (though as mentioned above, they might be necessary in some field (actually, in science or law I can't imagine how one could get by without them)). I even met a young man who couldn't write the hanja for his name (he thought he could, then tried and failed and was all "oh, I'll get back to you on that" ^.^). Koreans in my experience speak English far better than they write hanja.

 * So I think that calling it "an excuse made by lazy Koreans" is not correct: not learning hanja is what realistic Koreans with no need for hanja in their daily lives do. Learning hanja is something that is done by people who have a special interest in hanja or who have an overly nostalgic regard for what is essentially now a part of Korea's history. If people who do learn hanja want to call people who don't "lazy", this is probably motivated by pride more than anything else. I can imagine a similar scenario in which a young and prideful calligrapher might say "'shodo is not necessary to learn' is an excuse made by lazy Japanese." Similarly, I'm sure, some Korean's might have the balls to say go out and say "'English is not necessary to learn' is an excuse made by lazy Koreans." Ultimately though I think that these kinds of arguments are themselves laze.

 * In the end, and regretably, I agree that hanja hasn't much of a place in a beginner's guide to Korean (and besides, if you don't already know hanja having some Chinese scribbles beside your Korean vocab isn't going to help you: perhaps there should be a second article dedicated to helping learners who want to learn sino-korean characters?).

저도요
Is 저도요 appropriate for lesson 1? My Korean proficiency is poor, but 저도요 seems to be 저 ("I") + 도 ("also") + 요 (sentence ending for 해요체 speech level). So, 저도요 appears to be in the 해요체 speech level but the rest of the lesson uses 합쇼체. Is there a better form (e.g. *저돕니다?) or is 저도요 unrelated to speech level? Rodasmith 03:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 저도요를 굳이 영어로 번역하면 Me too이고 해요체가 맞습니다. 합쇼체는 -해 주십시요. -하십다가 붙은 것을 말합니다. --Pakman (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

는/은 vs 이/가
Are there plans to include a discussion and explanation of this? I find it an extremely challenging topic and even native koreans have difficulty in trying to explain when one should be used over another. If there already is one in here somewhere, I wouldn't mind being pointed towards it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Korean/Particles is a good place to contrast the subject particles 이/가 with the object particles 을/를 and to explain how the topic particles 는/은 are used instead when the noun is the focal point of the sentence (so long as it's clear from context whether it's the verb's subject or object). I know there are more nuances involved (e.g. whether the sentence has multiple topics or whether a contrasting topic was already introduced), but I'm not an expert speaker of Korean, so I expect I don't fully understand the distinction.  Do you have any thoughts about how to explain those particles?  If so, try in Korean/Particles.  Rodasmith (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't, I'm still having two or three koreans try to explain it to me, which is why I was hoping it would be here. The moment I do fully understand it, you can be sure I'll be here to write something about it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

한국어 vs 한국말
since I'm just having a look around, I've noticed a few places where there is a reference being made to korean language and the former is being used, yet everything I've read and the Koreans I've spoken to indicate I you should be using the latter to refer to the Korean language as 말 is the suffix which denotes its a language, is there a reason the former has been used here?--Crossmr (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

 * In the "language" sense, 어 and 말 are synonyms, but 어 is from the Chinese word 語, so 한국어 has a more formal feel to it, whereas the slightly more casual word 한국말 uses the native Korean word 말. Rodasmith (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 * 어는 한자어고, 말은 순우리말... 한국어는 한자어 + 순우리말의 합성어 입니다. 그리고 한국어를 한글이라고도 하는데 세 말은 모두 같습니다. 한국어를 유창하게 작성하시는 분이니 굳이 영어로 쓰지 않았습니다. --Pakman (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Korean/Lesson I1


text:
User:Eclipsed

(There is currently just a little bit of text in this page)

title: User:Eclipsed


text:
User talk:Eclipsed

discuss:

title: User talk:Eclipsed


text:
Korean/Lesson I8

Using the Telephone

 * 여보세요? Yeoboseyo? Hello? (used only in the context of a telephone call)
 * 안녕하십니까? Anyeong hashimnikka? Hello? (literally "Are you at peace?"), used in more formal (i.e. working relationships) situations.
 * 존 계십니까? John gyesimnikka? Is John there?
 * 누구십니까? Nugusipnikka? Who's calling?

title: Korean/Lesson I8


text:
Korean/Lesson VI1

제1과: 마침 제 친구가 전화했기에 망정이지 그렇지 않았으면 비행기를 놓칠 뻔했어요.

예문 1
민수: 엄마? 나 민수야. 방금 베를린에 도착했어.

어머니: 그래? 힘들었겠구나.

민수: 아니, 괜찮아.

어머니: 그나저나, 너 비행기 놓칠 뻔했다면서?

민수: 네, 늦잠을 잤거든. 마침 내 친구가 전화했기에 망정이지 그렇지 않았으면 비행기를 놓칠 뻔했어.

번역 1
Min-su: Mom? It's Min-su. I've just arrived in Berlin.

Mother: Is that so? You must be tired.

Min-su: No. I'm OK.

Mother: Anyway, you mentioned that you nearly missed your flight?

Min-su: Yes, I overslept. It was fortunate that my friend called me, otherwise I would have missed my flight.

예문 2
슬기: 지난주 무슨 일이었요?

강태: 슬기씨 못 들었나봐요?

슬기: 예, 저에게 알려 주세요.

강태: 제가 납치를 당했는데 구조대가 저를 때마침 찾아냈기에 망정이지 하마터면 죽을 뻔했어요.

번역 2
Seul-gi: Did something happen last week?

Kang-tae: I guess you did not hear about it?

Seul-gi: Yes, please tell me.

Kang-tae: I was kidnapped, but luckily the rescue team found me just in time, otherwise I might have died.

어휘

 * 망정 - a bound noun that is used to show that one is relieved by the occurrence of some event.

문법
1.-기에 망정이지
 * 때마침 구조대가 저를 찾아냈기에 망정이지 하마터면 죽을 뻔했어요.

title: Korean/Lesson VI1


text:
User talk:Leptictidium

Hey there. Can you please not add redirects in the main namespace like you are. See WB:NP for details - Aya T E C 19:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leptictidium


text:
User talk:58.69.55.172

Serial Programming:MAX232 Driver Receiver
Please refrain from adding yourself as the author of this document, else you will be blocked. - Aya T E C 20:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:58.69.55.172


text:
User:Rmky87~enwikibooks

This user also made some edits as 70.246.252.241

title: User:Rmky87~enwikibooks


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. c4

1. c4 · English Opening
The English Opening, which starts with 1.c4, is the fourth most commonly played opening move in chess. By playing this move, White allows the queen to move freely and also discourages Black from responding with 1...d5. Additionally, White ensures that the c-pawn will not be blocked behind a knight on c3. The resulting positions often resemble those that arise from 1.d4 openings rather than 1.e4 openings, and the move d4 is frequently played later on.

While this opening is not as sharp as 1.e4 or 1.d4, it is still effective in controlling the d5 square and is highly flexible, allowing for easy transpositions into other openings.

Black's responses

 * /1...Nf6/ or /1...g6/ are likely to transpose into an Indian Defence.
 * /1...e5/ is a "reversed" Sicilian Defence.
 * /1...e6/ will probably end up in a Queen's Gambit Declined. This is known as the Agincourt Defense. However, if White plays 2.d4 then Black plays 2...Nf6, it is a typical Indian game (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 is the normal order.)
 * /1...c5/ – most pure English lines come from the Symmetrical Variation and are quite hard to play and to understand.
 * /1...c6/ will usually either transpose into the Caro-Kann Defence or the Slav Defence.
 * /1...f5/, the Anglo-Dutch Defence, leads to sharp tactical lines for Black, but can open a powerful kingside attack. This is likely to transpose into the regular Dutch Defense after 2.d4.
 * /1...b6/ will in all likelihood transpose into the English Defence.
 * /1...d5/ is seldom played but may transpose into the Queen's Gambit or the Réti Opening.
 * /1...b5/ normally gives good chances for Black, even though the Halibut Gambit is considered unsound at the professional level.
 * /1...g5/, the Myers Defence, gives White a small advantage.

Statistics

 * Approximately chances
 * White win 37%, Draw 34%, Black win 29%.

 * Estimated next move popularity
 * Nf6 28%, e5 23%, e6 13%, c5 12%, g6 8%, c6 7%, f5 3%. Other moves less than 2%.

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. c4


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. g3

1. g3 · Hungarian Opening
1. g3, the Hungarian Opening (also known as the Benko's Opening and the King's Fianchetto Opening) is the 5th most popular initial move. It is highly transpositional, and can lead to many other mainstream openings. This move doesn't immediately influence the center, but White prepares to fianchetto the Bishop to g2, which does. The hypermodern school of opening theory, most influential in the 1920s and 1930s, was all about controlling the center from a distance with pieces rather than occupying it with pawns. Hypermodernists claimed that while a large center could very well be a boon, it could also end up being a target that would need the rest of White’s forces to babysit it. The move 1. g3 has many long term prospects of applying pressure on the center and Black's queenside. The ease with which White can castle Kingside often aids White's position. When playing this opening, White will often adopt the King’s Indian Attack (or Barcza System), with a Bishop on g2, a Knight on f3, and kingside castling. Black can mirror White's move with 1…g6, thus entering the hypermodern Fianchetto. Analysis shows that, as with most openings, the positions arising from the Hungarian Opening are equal, or perhaps just a little bit more comfortable for White. Black has plenty of responses, the most popular of which being moves like 1…d5 or 1…e5, which place a pawn in the center and gain space. Nevertheless, even responses such as the bizarre 1…h5?! (known as the Lasker Simul Special) have been tried before, surprisingly only giving White a slight edge.

Statistics

 * Approximate chances
 * White win 38%, Draw 36%, Black win 28%

 * Estimated next move popularity
 * d5 34%, e5 17%, Nf6 16%, g6 15%, c5 9%, e6 3%, f5 2%, c6 2%, d6 1%, other moves less than 1%.

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. g3


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. b3

1. b3 · Larsen Attack
Also known as Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack or just Queen's Fianchetto Opening, it is named after Aron Nimzowitsch and Bent Larsen.

1.b3 prepares to fianchetto the queen's bishop to b2, where it will fight for the central squares and point towards Black's kingside.

This is an example of a hypermodern opening, as it prepares to control the center with a bishop rather than a pawn (the classical style). Black can accept the invitation to cover the center with pawns (following classical principles) or fianchetto their own bishop.

Black's responses

 * 1... e5 (Modern Variation) - This move is the most common, as it not only grabs the center but also limits the scope of the white bishop after 2. Bb2 Nc6.

 * 1... d5 (Classical Variation) - Another common response, as it also grabs the center. This also preserves the option to fianchetto the black bishop to g7 to oppose the white one. White can play 2. Bb2 or 2. Nf3.

 * 1...Nf6 (Indian Variation) - Prepares to fianchetto the bishop to g7 immediately to oppose the white bishop on b2. However, if Black does play g6 after 2. Bb2, White can play 3. e4!, threatening to kick the knight on f6. 3... Nxe4?? loses to 4. Bxh8.

 * 1... c5 (English Variation) - Retains option of 1... d5 while also being a good transpositional tool. 2. e4 transposes into the Sicilian Defense, and 2. c4 transposes into the Symmetrical English. 2. Nf3 is also playable.

 * 1... f5 (Dutch Variation) - This is a rather unexplored alternative. 2. d4 and 2. Nf3 are most commonly played after this, though 2. e3 and even 2. e4!? (borrowing ideas from the Staunton Gambit) are both possible.

 * 1... e6 - Sets up a variation of the French Defense. 2. e4 d5 3. Bb2 is the most common and recommended line.

 * 1... c6 - Sets up a variation of the Caro-Kann Defense. 2. e4 d5 3. Bb2 is the most common and recommended line.

 * 1... Nc6 - Supports the advance of the e-pawn but allows 2. d4, pressuring the knight.

 * 1... b6 (Symmetrical Variation) - Black copies White's idea. This is perfectly fine for Black.

 * 1...b5!? (Polish Variation) - A fun alternative to the other moves. Transpositions are now impossible.

 * 1...a5!? - Somewhat playable, trying to ruin White's fianchetto, but seeing that White will likely castle on the kingside, this is not that useful.

Statistics

 * Estimated next move popularity
 * e5 43%, d5 27%, Nf6 15%, c5 6%, b5 2%.

Theory table
1.b3

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. b3


text:
User talk:203.87.155.72

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikibooks. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Geo.T 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:203.87.155.72


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. f4

1. f4 · Bird's Opening
Bird’s Opening is an aggressive and less common opening, named after the chess player Henry Bird. This opening weakens the h4-to-e1 diagonal, and weakens White’s kingside, but helps control the centre and is good for players who don’t want to study openings. Black can respond with 1...d5 (Dutch variation) or 1...e5 (From’s Gambit); if White accepts the gambit, it creates more kingside weakness, and White must play carefully as a mate is easily seen with 2…d6 3. exd6 Bxd6 4. Nc3 Qh4+ 5. g3 Qxg3+ 6. hxg3 Bxg3#. Overall, this opening can be fun for club players and can usually lead to a tactical and aggressive game.

Statistics

 * Approximate chances
 * White win 35%, Draw 25%, Black win 39%

 * Estimated next move popularity
 * d5 49%, Nf6 15%, e5 11%, c5 9%, g6 8%, d6 2%. Other moves less than 0.5%.

Theory table
1. f4

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. f4


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. b4

1. b4 · Polish Opening
The Polish Opening is a flank and rather uncommon opening starting with the move 1. b4. The purpose of this move is to fight for a spatial advantage on the queenside instead of immediately taking control of the centre. White will claim their share of the centre after getting the queen’s bishop fianchettoed and an eventual pawn advance in the centre. The move b4 can always be played later in the game which is the reason why this opening is seldom seen nowadays, however, Tartakower and Magnus Carlsen have tried it in tournaments and won successfully. The Polish opening is classified under the code (A00) as an irregular opening.
 * Fianchettoing is often a good idea. Why not grab a little space?
 * At some point a quick b4-b5 might dislodge a knight on c6.
 * Trading the b-pawn for the c-pawn may give white central power.
 * If Black responds with 1...e5 or 1...e6, usual play either continues with 2. a3, defending the pawn, or 2. Bb2, fianchettoing the bishop on the powerful a1-h8 diagonal. The idea after Bb2 is that the black can't play Bxb4 right away. For example, after 1. b4 e6 2. Bb2 Bxb4??, White responds with 3. Bxg7, at which point Black loses a rook. However, 1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 Bxb4!? 3. Bxe5 is actually viable for Black, in spite of the fact that Black cedes White a central pawn majority. The second player will usually obtain some form of compensation with a slight lead in development. Chances for both sides in these lines are around equal, with perhaps a very slight edge for White.
 * Another possibility is for White to advance their b-pawn with b5, so as to evade attack. This has been shown to be a good option in several lines, and White now has a clear spatial advantage on the queenside. On the other hand, White’s pawn is now overextended and difficult to protect. Once again, the positions resulting from these lines are generally equal.

Statistics
www.chess.com's Game Explorer Master Games DB shows 1704 games with 1. b4:

 * White wins 37%, 41% are drawn and Black wins 22% of all games.

www.365chess.com's Big Database shows 6360 games with 1. b4:

 * White wins 33%, 26% are drawn and Black wins 41%.

ChessBase's Big Database 2010 has 14,389 games with 1. b4 giving White a 47.6% winning percentage - which is very bad when compared to White's winning percentages with 1. e4 (53%) 1. d4 and 1. c4 (+54%) and 1. Nf3 (55%).

The Big Database has 291 games (out of almost 5.5 million) played with at least one player having a FIDE rating of 2400 or higher. The winning percentages for these games are: White 46%, Drawn 30%, Black 24%.

The average FIDE rating of all players is 1926, the average performance rating is 1942 which again compares unfavorably with the average ratings of all players employing 1. d4, 1. Nf3, 1. c4 and the average performance ratings of these openings (both categories are +2200).

The average rating of all players employing 1. e4 in the DB is 2135 with an average performance rating of 2161.

Few Grandmasters (GMs) employ this opening in serious games. GMs Ivanchuk and Fischer played it three times – in simultaneous exhibitions. GMs Hort, Ljubojevic, Miles, Petrosian and Smyslov played it at least once against fellow GMs or IMs (International Masters); Larsen played it in at least 4 serious games.

Surprisingly enough, there are a few fairly recent books on this opening. None are by GMs (although two are by IMs).

''Play 1.b4! Shock your Opponents with the Sokolsky'' Language: English by IM Yury Lapshun, Nick Conticello Everyman Chess, 2008, PB

1.b4: Theory & Practice of the Sokolsky Opening Full of Fresh Analysis by Jerzy Konikowski, Marek Soszynski Russell Enterprises, 2009, PB - English

The Sokolsky 1.b4 (Orangutan) Foxy 106 by IM Andrew Martin ChessOnDVD, 2010, DVD Language: English

In theory and practice, Black usually responds by playing in the center with 1...d5, or by exploiting the weak position of the pawn by playing 1...e5 or 1...e6. The flexible 1...Nf6 has been played as well. A great many other less common replies are known, ranging from the sensible but slightly eccentric Outflank Variation (1. b4 c6), to the stupid Tuebingen Variation (1. b4 Nh6?!), even this being shown to give White no more than a slight advantage.

Further reading: http://www.chess.com/article/view/openings-for-tactical-players-sokolsky-opening IM Tim Harding "Significant Games in the Sokolsky Opening" http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz86.pdf http://www.chesscafe.com/text/lane140.pdf

Theory table
1. b4

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. b4


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. d3

1. d3 · Mieses Opening
This move is playable but not played much as it does little to claim the center and potentially locks in the light squared bishop. It would normally transpose into the King's Indian Attack, or with colours reversed, a Modern, Pirc, or King's Indian defence.

Statistics
Not enough data, as 1. d3 is infrequently played.

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. d3


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. e3

1. e3 · Van't Kruijs Opening
An irregular opening, considered somewhat passive. Play may transpose to lines of the English Opening (c2–c4), Queen's Pawn Game (d2–d4), or reversed French Defence (delayed d2–d4), reversed Dutch Defence (f2–f4) positions or the modern variation of Larsen's Opening (b2–b3),or King's Isa Reverse Opening (e4–e5)

Statistics
White Wins 47% Draw 5% Black Wins 49%

Theory table
1. e3

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. e3


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. c3

1. c3 · Saragossa Opening
A rarely played move as it takes away the Knight's developing square c3. It is likely to transpose into a London System, Torre attack, Colle system, or Macleod Attack where the pawn structure is generally c3, d4, e3, or e5 depending on black's moves. Another possible idea, following the response 1.c3 c5, is to transpose into the Alapin.

Chess.com master database
The Saragossa Opening was played 494 times in games in the Chess.com master database

Approximate chances

 * White win 30%, Draw 26%, Black win 44%.

Next move popularity

 * Nf6 28%, d5 19%, e5 11%, c5 10%, f5 6%, g6 4%, b6 3%, d6 2%, e6 2%, other moves 2%

Lichess master database
The Saragossa Opening was played 289 times in games in the Lichess master database

Approximate chances

 * White win 31%, Draw 34%, Black win 34%.

Next move popularity

 * Nf6 34%, d5 24%, e5 12%, c5 10%, g6 6%, b6 5%, f5 5%, d6 2%, other moves 2%

Theory table
1.c3

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. c3


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. h3

1. h3 · Clemenz Opening
This opening move achieves nothing in terms of development or control of the center. However, this can actually be used as an effective waiting move, though 1. Nf3 is clearly better. Also, if White knows a lot of theory for both sides, this can be useful. 1. h3 also blocks a possible …Bg4 by Black. This may be quite a playable opening despite being inferior to many other openings (like 1. e4, 1. d4, etc). Because it is inferior, and most players want to exploit their first move advantage, however small it may be, as White, this is rarely played. Transpositions are possible, albeit not usual. Black can now exploit the fact that White has wasted time by playing in the centre, or by gaining a slight lead in development.

Black's responses

 * 1... e5 is a solid, sensible move, which places pressure on d4 and f4. Now the strange 2. a3?! is the Global Variation, and if 2... d5 is played after that, it transposes to the creepy-crawly formation of the Anderssen Opening (1. a3). However, the best follow-up for White after 1... e5 is 2. c4, transposing into the King's English Variation of the English Opening. 2. d4 can be tried too, transposing into a "reversed" Scandinavian Defense, also playable.
 * 1... d5 is another fine move, with similar ideas to the previous one. This is best followed by 2. d4, 2. f4, or 2. c4, all moves that give White a portion of the centre. 2. b4 is unusual but interesting. Another interesting (though very likely inferior) option is 2. g4 transposing to the Killer Grob Attack.
 * 1... f5 is not recommended, as White can play 2. d4, transposing into the Korchnoi Attack of the Dutch Defense (another way to try to exploit kingside weaknesses created by Black, but Black has enough resources to withstand it after 3. g4 [the original plan after h3, especially after 3... d5. Black gets at least their fair share of the chances, so White has to exploit the weaknesses later on in the game]). Nevertheless, it is playable as long as Black is careful.
 * 1... c5 is an unexplored option. It would lead to uncharted territory in the Sicilian Defense after 2. e4.
 * 1... Nf6 is a good response. If White plays 2. d4 or 2. c4, the game could take upon a character typical of the King's Indian Defense.
 * 1... Nc6 is an interesting option, simply developing a piece. This is probably playable as well.

Statistics
No stats as 1. h3 occurs rarely among serious chess players.

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. h3


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. g4

1. g4? · Grob's Attack
Grob's Attack is generally considered to be one of the worst starting moves, and likely is the single worst starting move, for White. However, if White knows some theory and Black is caught by surprise, this opening can be playable even at relatively high levels. An unprepared player with Black can be led into dangerous territory, especially if they fixate on attacking the g4-pawn early.

With decent play, Black can easily establish a large, or even decisive advantage. White’s move severely compromises their kingside, and overextends the g-pawn. Some players argue that as compensation, White takes kingside space and can fianchetto the king’s bishop, but kingside space is usually completely ignored, and the move does not contribute to development other than said bishop. Black can take control of the centre, and barrage the weak pawn with attacks.

There are no big lines in Grob’s Attack. To illustrate this, there is an opening called the Coca-Cola Gambit.

Statistics
No stats as 1. g4? occurs extremely rarely among serious chess players.

Stockfish Line
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 c6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Qb3 e6 7. h3 Bh5 8. Qxb7 Nbd7 9. Nb5 Rc8 10. Nf3 Bc5 11. Qa6 O-O 12. O-O Bb6 13. d4 Nb8 14. Qa4 Rc4 15. Qb3 Nc6 16. Qa3 Bxf3 17. Qxf3 Rb4 18. a4 a6 19. Bd2 Rxb2 20. Bc1 Rb4 21. Ba3 axb5 22. Bxb4 Nxb4 23. Qc3 Qd6 24. axb5 Ne4 25. Qb2 Bc7 -2.4

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. g4


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. h4

1. h4?! · Desprez Opening
The Desprez Opening (or Kádas Opening) is a rare kingside flank opening. It does little for development, does not fight for control of the center, and weakens White's kingside. It frees the rook, but the rook normally does not go to h3. It could be said that White has made their position worse, as castling kingside is now less attractive. Due to the near-uselessness of this opening, it is rarely seen among serious chess players. However, it could be used to throw off the opponent.

No top masters have ever used this opening in professional play, although some, most notably Magnus Carlsen and Hikaru Nakamura, play it during blitz. Magnus Carlsen played it in the November 2023 "Titled Tuesday" online tournament, where he successfully defeated strong grandmasters, including Alireza Firouzja.

Black's responses
Black has many decent replies.
 *  1...d5, staking a claim to the centre and simultaneously making 2. Rh3?? impossible.
 * 1... e5, also staking a claim in the center and freeing Black's queen and dark-squared bishop.
 * 1... g6 is rarely played, as it justifies the move 1. h4. White can play 2. h5 to attack Black's kingside.

Statistics
No statistics as 1. h4 is rarely played.

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. h4


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. Nh3

1. Nh3?! · Ammonia Opening
The Ammonia opening is based on the chemical formula of ammonia (NH3) and the fact that ammonia, like this opening, 'stinks'. Other titles for this opening include; the Amar Opening, the Paris Opening, and Drunken Knight Opening. Chess author Tim Harding has jokingly suggested that "Amar" is an acronym for "Absolutely mad and ridiculous"; that sums up this move!

Jokes aside, this move isn’t actually bad, it just does not improve White's position. White has made an odd decision to develop the knight to a square where it has very little influence on the game (knights generally hate the edge of the board, and love the centre). As such, Black can fairly easily get an edge.

Black's responses
White’s choice has effectively surrendered the first move to Black. Any one of White's opening moves may be employed by Black (except, of course, 1... g5??, which loses a pawn and weakens the kingside).

 * 1... e5
 * 1... d5

Statistics
No statistics as 1. Nh3 occurs rarely among serious chess players.

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. Nh3


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. f3

1. f3? · Barnes Opening
The Barnes Opening is a rarely-played and passive first move that gives Black a slight advantage. In fact, it is arguably White's worst possible first move. It deprives the white king's knight of the f3 square. It opens the e1–h4 diagonal, exposing the white king. While it controls e4, White could have done that by playing 1. e4 right away.

This move is usually a way for White to taunt Black, especially if White's rating is much higher, by giving Black an immediate edge. Due to this, White often follows with 2.Kf2.

Black's best response to 1. f3? is 1... e5, controlling the center and preparing to take advantage of the weaknesses along the e1–h4 diagonal. Black has an advantage. This opening can also lead to the fool's mate after 2. g4?? Qh4#!.

If Black replies with the slightly inferior 1... d5, play could go into a Dutch Defence with colors reversed after 2. f4. Another possibility for White is to transpose into a Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: 1. f3 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 exf3 4. Nxf3 Nf6.

Statistics
No stats as 1. f3 occurs rarely among serious chess players.

title: Chess Opening Theory/1. f3