text:
Emma of Normandy

Emma of Normandy (referred to as Ælfgifu in royal documents; c. 984 – 6 March 1052) was a Norman-born noblewoman who became the English, Danish, and Norwegian queen through her marriages to the Anglo-Saxon king Æthelred the Unready and the Danish king Cnut the Great. A daughter of the Norman ruler Richard the Fearless and Gunnor, she was Queen of the English during her marriage to King Æthelred from 1002 to 1016, except during a brief interruption in 1013–14 when the Danish king Sweyn Forkbeard occupied the English throne. Æthelred died in 1016, and Emma married Sweyn's son Cnut. As Cnut's wife, she was Queen of England from their marriage in 1017, Queen of Denmark from 1018, and Queen of Norway from 1028 until Cnut died in 1035.

After Cnut's death, Emma continued to participate in politics during the reigns of her sons by each husband, Harthacnut and Edward the Confessor. In 1035 when her second husband Cnut died and was succeeded by their son Harthacnut, who was in Denmark at the time, Emma was designated to act as his regent until his return, which she did in rivalry with Harold Harefoot. Emma is the central figure within the Encomium Emmae Reginae, a critical source for the history of early-11th-century English politics. As Catherine Karkov notes, Emma is one of the most visually represented early medieval queens.

Marriage to Æthelred II
In an attempt to pacify Normandy, King Æthelred of England married Emma in 1002. Similarly Richard II, Duke of Normandy hoped to improve relations with the English in the wake of recent conflict and a failed kidnapping attempt against him by Æthelred. Viking raids on England were often based in Normandy in the late 10th century, and for Æthelred this marriage was intended to unite against the Viking threat. Upon their marriage, Emma was given the Anglo-Saxon name of Ælfgifu, which was used for formal and official matters, and became Queen of England. She received properties of her own in Winchester, Rutland, Devonshire, Suffolk and Oxfordshire, as well as the city of Exeter.

Æthelred and Emma had two sons, Edward the Confessor and Alfred Ætheling, and a daughter, Goda of England (or Godgifu).

When King Sweyn Forkbeard of Denmark invaded and conquered England in 1013, Emma and her children were sent to Normandy, where Æthelred joined them soon after. They returned to England after Sweyn died in 1014.

Emma and Æthelred's marriage ended with Æthelred's death in London in 1016. Æthelred's oldest son from his first marriage, Æthelstan Ætheling, had been heir apparent until his death in June 1014. Emma's sons had been ranked after all of the sons from Æthelred's first wife, the eldest surviving of whom was Edmund Ironside. Emma attempted to get her older son, Edward, recognized as heir. Although this movement was supported by Æthelred's chief advisor, Eadric Streona, it was opposed by Edmund Ironside, Æthelred's third-oldest son, and his allies, who eventually revolted against his father.

In 1015 Cnut the Great, the son of Sweyn Forkbeard, invaded England. He was held out of London until the deaths in 1016 of Æthelred (April) and Edmund (November). Queen Emma attempted to maintain Anglo-Saxon control of London until her marriage to Cnut was arranged. Some scholars believe that the marriage saved her sons' lives, as Cnut tried to rid himself of rival claimants, but spared their lives.

Marriage to Cnut
Cnut gained control of most of England after he defeated Edmund Ironside on 18 October 1016, at the Battle of Assandun, after which they agreed to divide the kingdom, Edmund taking Wessex and Cnut the rest of the country. Edmund died shortly afterwards on 30 November, and Cnut became the king of all England. At the time of their marriage in 1017, Emma's sons from her marriage to Æthelred were sent to live in Normandy under the tutelage of her brother. At this time Emma became Queen of England, and later of Denmark and Norway.

The Encomium Emmae Reginae suggests in its second book that Emma and Cnut's marriage, though begun as a political strategy, became an affectionate marriage. During their marriage, Emma and Cnut had a son, Harthacnut, and a daughter, Gunhilda.

Children
During her two marriages Emma had 5 children:
 * Edward the Confessor c. 1003 – 5 January 1066, died without issue
 * Goda of England c.1004 – c.1049
 * Alfred the Noble c. 1005–1036
 * Harthacnut
 * Gunhilda of Denmark

Conspiracy regarding the death of Alfred
In 1036, Alfred Aetheling and Edward the Confessor, Emma's sons by Æthelred, returned to England from their exile in Normandy in order to visit their mother. During their time in England they were supposed to be protected by Harthacnut. However, Harthacnut was involved with his kingdom in Denmark. Alfred was captured and blinded by holding a hot iron poker to his eyes. He later died from his wounds.

Edward escaped the attack, and returned to Normandy. He returned after his place on the throne had been secured.

Encomium Emmae Reginae places the blame of Alfred's capture, torture and murder completely on Harold Harefoot, thinking he intended to rid himself of two more potential claimants to the English throne by killing Edward and Alfred. Some scholars make the argument that it could have been Godwin, Earl of Wessex, who was traveling with Alfred and Edward as their protector in passage.

Harthacnut's reign
Harthacnut, Emma and Cnut's son, assembled a fleet to invade England in 1039, and when Harold died in March 1040 he was invited to become king. He crossed to England with his fleet and Emma. He was criticised by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for his heavy taxation to pay for the fleet and for having Harold's body disinterred and thrown into a ditch. In 1041 he invited his half-brother Edward the Confessor to England. The Encomium says that Edward was sworn in as king, which probably means that he was recognised as heir as Harthacnut knew that he did not have long to live. He may have been persuaded to make the invitation by Emma, who would have been keen to preserve her position by ensuring that England was still ruled by a son of hers.

Edward's reign
After Harthacnut's death in June 1042, Edward the Confessor succeeded to the throne and was crowned in April 1043. During the same year, Edward rode to Winchester along with Earls Leofric, Godwin, and Siward, accused Emma of treason, and deprived her of her lands and titles. However, Edward soon relented, and Emma's lands and titles were restored.

Death and burial
After her death in 1052, Emma was interred alongside Cnut and Harthacnut in the Old Minster, Winchester, before being transferred to the new cathedral built after the Norman Conquest. During the English Civil War (1642–1651), their remains were disinterred and scattered about the Cathedral floor by parliamentary forces. The jumbled bones were later re-interred.

Queenship
As Pauline Stafford noted, Emma is the "first of the early medieval queens" to be depicted through contemporary portraiture. To that end, Emma is the central figure within the Encomium Emmae Reginae (incorrectly titled Gesta Cnutonis Regis during the later Middle Ages) a critical source for the study of English succession in the 11th century. During the reign of Æthelred, Emma most likely served as little more than a figurehead a physical embodiment of the treaty between the English and her Norman father. However, her influence increased considerably under Cnut. Until 1043, writes Stafford, Emma "was the richest woman in England ... and held extensive lands in the East Midlands and Wessex." Emma's authority was not simply tied to landholdings—which fluctuated greatly from 1036 to 1043—she also wielded significant sway over the ecclesiastical offices of England.

The Encomium Emmæ Reginae or Gesta Cnutonis Regis
The Encomium is divided into three parts, the first of which deals with Sweyn Forkbeard and his conquest of England. The second focuses on Cnut and relates the defeat of "Princes" Æthelred (never named) and Edmund, Cnut's marriage to Emma (again, without mentioning she had been the wife of Æthelred), and Cnut's kingship. The third address the events after Cnut's death; Emma's involvement in the seizing of the royal treasury, and the treachery of Earl Godwin. It begins by addressing Emma, "May our Lord Jesus Christ preserve you, O Queen, who excel all those of your sex in the amiability of your way of life." Emma is "the most distinguished woman of her time for delightful beauty and wisdom."

Scholarly debate
This flattery, writes Elizabeth M. Tyler, is "part of a deliberate attempt to intervene, on Emma's behalf, in the politics of the Anglo-Danish court," a connotation which an 11th-century audience would have understood. This proves to be a direct contrast to earlier evaluations of the text, such as the introduction to the 1998 reprint of Alistair Campbell's 1949 edition in which Simon Keynes remarks: "... While the modern reader who expects the Encomium to provide a portrait of a great and distinguished queen at the height of her power will be disappointed, and might well despair of an author who could suppress, misrepresent, and garble what we know or think to have been the truth." Felice Lifshitz, in her seminal study of the Encomium comments: "... To Alistair Campbell and to see C.N.L. Brooke the omission was explicable as a matter of 'artistic necessity' and of Emma's personal vanity ... both scholars subscribed to the older view, which afforded the Encomium only literary significance as a panegyric to individual or dynasty, but saw no political import."

Manuscripts
Prior to May 2008 only one copy of the Encomium was believed to exist. However, a late-14th-century manuscript, the Courtenay Compendium, was discovered in the Devon Record Office, where it had languished since the 1960s. According to a report by the UK Arts Council, "The most significant item [within the text] for British history is the Encomium Emma Reginae ... It is highly probable that the present manuscript represents the most complete witness to the revised version of the Encomium". The manuscript was put up for auction in December 2008, and purchased for £600,000 (5.2 million Danish kroner) on behalf of the Royal Library, Denmark. Unlike the Liber Vitae, the compendium does not contain any images of Emma. The New Minster ''Liber Vitae, currently housed in the British Library, was completed in 1030, shortly before Cnut's death in 1035. The frontispiece depicts "King Cnut and Queen Emma presenting a cross to the altar of New Minster, Winchester." Stafford in her visual exegesis of the portrait states, "it is not clear whether we should read it as a representation of a powerful woman or a powerless one." In one portrait, each facet of Emma's role as sovereign is displayed; that of a dutiful wife and influential queen.

It has been suggested that the poem Semiramis, possibly written in 1017 by Warner of Rouen at the court of Emma's brother, Richard, Duke of Normandy, and dedicated to her brother, Archbishop Robert, is a contemporary satire ridiculing Emma's relation with Cnut.

Emma is also depicted in a number of later medieval texts, such as the 13th-century Life of Edward the Confessor (Cambridge University Library MS. Ee.3.59) and a 14th-century roll Genealogy of the English Kings, Genealogical Chronicle of the English Kings.

Emma and her sons Edward and Alfred are characters in the anonymous Elizabethan play Edmund Ironside, sometimes considered an early work by William Shakespeare.

The Ordeal of Queen Emma
The Ordeal of Queen Emma by Fire at Winchester is a legend that seems to have originated in the 13th century. Queen Emma was accused of unchastity with Bishop Ælfwine of Winchester. In order to prove her innocence, she was obliged to undergo the ordeal of walking over nine red-hot ploughshares placed on the pavement of the nave of Winchester Cathedral. Two bishops conducted the barefoot queen to the line of red-hot ploughshares. She walked over the red-hot ploughshares, but, having sought the protection of St Swithun, whose shrine is at Winchester, felt neither the naked iron nor the fire. William Blake did an illustration of the event.

title: Emma of Normandy


text:
Talk:Founding of Rome

Untitled, Sanger
Wow! This is a great article! -- Larry_Sanger (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)
 * I'll second that! I wish there were some External links on this material. Wetman (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2003 (UTC)
 * Article as of 25 February 2002. Ifly6 (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Names of Rome
add 3 name of rome.

pubblic, religious, secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.167.160 (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Archive
This is the most thorough treatment of this topic that I have ever seen anywhere. 1307-100 14:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is fine, but the author is biased. ¶ For he/she, the legend is part of a "propaganda" agenda. ¶ He/she should study a little more about Myths and their role in the rise and fall of nations. Studying Mircea Eliade should help. ¶ Obviously, from time to time, there are "historians" and politicians that pretend to use myths for ideological purposes.  They still do it now when they try to desacre ancient myths and when they explain that "human has always been corrupt". ¶ The roman mythical origin is synctactically correct in its symbolism; and to attribute a dark intention to it is unjust and seemes part of an agenda to wipe out anything which is sacred and to diminish the greatness of Rome. ¶ Is it because we don't want any other Benito Mussolini? Or because we are christians and "rome persecuted christians"? Or are we so contaminated by a dark and dirty vision of our own past?  Rome is not Caligula, nor Nero, but  Numa Pompilius and Marcus Aurelius. ¶ Rome lasted one thousand years, and you still can note the positive influence of Rome in western Europe, and that was because of a strong root this tree had.   --Ccho 16:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Rome is not Caligula, nor Nero, but Numa Pompilius and Marcus Aurelius." - This is incorrect. Rome was both Caligula and Numa Pompilius, Nero as well as Marcus Aurelius. Rome was neither good nor evil, it merely was. -Silence 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

picture
Is the propaganda picture from WWII really the best to head this article? The article is about the founding of Rome, not anything WWII related. Maybe something less blood thirsty would work better? How about She-wolf_suckles_Romulus_and_Remus.jpg at the top of the article? --345Kai 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. 24.202.236.110 03:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree also. Paul August ☎ 03:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the sentence "Its beginning took place at 6:49, its middle at 7:47 and its end at 8:51." from the third paragraph (the one beginning with "According to Lucius Tarrutius of Firmum...") of the part "the date of the founding of rome" for it was an irrelevant information making reading harder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.13.173 (talk) 00::44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Than change it lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.7.23.172 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism Report
Section History & Archeology: On 21 February, 79.97.43.127 erased some paragraphs and wrote: "nope ITS ALL A LIE >:[". I have undone his/her contribution. Best wishes!--Alpinu (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested meaning of "Rome"
In part the article currently reads:
 * "Some have suggested an Etruscan word, "rhome", meaning "hard", cognate with Greek "ῥώμη, rhōmē", strength, vigor."

Since Etruscan was a non-Indo-European language, how can it have had a cognate with Greek, as opposed to a loanword borrowed from one by the other? "Cognate" implies a common descent from a parent language. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The word is Greek, not Etruscan. Dionysios mentions the relationship with a Greek woman named Rhome. The Etruscan word connected with Rome is rumon meaning river (see Bonfante's glossary on line) i.e. the Tiber. The secret name of Rome was perhaps Rumon, however I am presently unable to quote a reference, I just rely on schooltime memories. I shall try and research the topic.Zanzan32 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems
This article states as they were ascertained facts a heap of dubious and problematic points. The most disturbing fact is that nothing is referenced and none of the underlying problems is highlighted. Is this not a blatant case of OR?

The statement that original Romans were Celts or Germans because they were fairhaired is ridicolous (if not racist). Who is this R. Owen?

What is most amazing is that such an article has been rated B by Wikipedia and has been here for almost 5 years! This fact raises questions about the competence of the people involved.Zanzan32 (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

S. B. Platner article Septimontium can give an idea of the complexities. What looks certain is that the hills were settled much earlier than the actual foundation narrated in histories. Mycenean Greeks on the Palaltine Hill, Sabine sacrani from Reate, Etruscnas on the Caelium...: it looks Latins came laterthan others and founded a new settlement where there had already been living people for centuries...

Cf. Varro and Properce on Caelius Vibenna (Tusco duce nobili, galeritus Lycmon, Lycomedius), the name of the 3 original tribes and of Rome itself.Zanzan32 (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked the link provided here to the article Tarrutius. It clearly states the dates were 771 for Romuls and 754 for Rome. Would the editors here be willing to fix this?

The etymology of Roma is from ruma, breast, cf. ficus ruminalis, Porta Rumina.Zanzan32 (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research?
The whole of that lengthy paragraph about eclipse dates looks like OR. Havelock Jones (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

An almost identical section is included in Ab urbe condita, where I have also flagged it as OR. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I don't remember E.J. Bickerman in his Chronology of the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968) discussing the importance of eclipses & the date of the founding of Rome at any significant length, mostly that the ancient Romans disagreed as to the year which is why they rarely used A.U.C. dating, & instead indicated the year by the names of the presiding consuls. Unfortunately I don't have access to that book at the moment, nor Gary Forsythe's A Critical History of Early Rome (Berkeley: University of California, 2005) which also discusses the differing dates & how they are estimates or guesses based on the assumption that Rome was founded by refugees from Troy. (Forsythe's book is at home, & I'm at work.) In any case, the expert consensus is that any date prior to c. 300 BC is unreliable, & moreover any date seriously offered for a precise year Rome was founded comes either from a late Republican tradition, or the industrious efforts of an unreliable source. Notable assertions deserve mention; the rest are not important. -- llywrch (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Day of founding
Well, at least one author seems to differ, as we can see here:
 * "all versions agreed that the city was founded on April 21"
 * "Rome was founded on the ninth day of the month Pharmuthi, which was April 21, as universally agreed."

Nevermind his calculations of the Earth creation at 4004 BC, the point is that it's a considerable source, coupled with the lack on inline citations on this section makes me think this should be better worded ou reworded. ZackTheJack (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure the archbishop is simply in error, or perhaps he was trying to perform some kind of calculations to determine the "real" (astronomical) date, which isn't how the festival dates on the calendar worked: they were established in relation to fixed points of the month, and retained these positions within the month after the Julian reform. The "feast of Pales" is the Parilia, which was observed April 21. Although a day was added to Aprilis in the Julian reform, only dates after the Ides were affected, and then only by one day. I'm not aware of any ancient sources, or any post-1800 scholars, who give the date as April 10; I don't know that such a thing doesn't exist, but in contributing to articles associated with Roman festivals and holidays, I can't recall seeing an alternate date. H.H. Scullard in Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic doesn't mention any date alternate to April 21, and the Calendar of Filocalus from the 4th century indicates that April 21 was still celebrated as the dies natalis of Rome. Of course the correct way to state this is that the Romans celebrated the founding on that day, not that the city was founded on that day, which is a fact not recoverable. Ancient sources do differ on the year, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Archaeology pushes Rome back about a century
See "evidence of infrastructure building had been found, dating from more than 100 years earlier. The daily Il Messagero quoted Patrizia Fortini, the archaeologist responsible for the Forum, as saying that a wall constructed well before the city's traditional founding date had been unearthed.

The wall, made from blocks of volcanic tuff, appeared to have been built to channel water from an aquifer under the Capitoline hill that flows into the river Spino, a tributary of the Tiber. Around the wall, archaeologists found pieces of ceramic pottery and remains of food.

"The examination of the ceramic material was crucial, allowing us today to fix the wall chronologically between the 9th century and the beginning of the 8th century," said Fortini." Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hellanicus of Mytilene
Wasn't the Trojan refugee story firstly written by Greek historian Hellanicus of Mytilene? Virgil just made it beautiful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyferz (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed "back-formation" claim of etymology
For WP:V, WP:SOURCES & WP:UNDUE, Also could have added WP:NPOV. It's a very interesting idea, so I'm all for it being undone, so long as adequate verification can be provided. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 * An interesting challenge. My initial response to the removal was more or less "wtf? everyone knows that's true..." But the only source offered for the claim (see article history) asserts that "Romulus" is a back-formation, without further argument. I've looked for verification of the rest, online; but have found nothing. And even if verified, this would shed no light on the possible etymology of "Rome". Haploidavey (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, the Roman belief that Romulus named the city after himself (Livy 1.7) seems relevant. Haploidavey (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 * That's certainly my impression as well, however, the content's only reference does not appear to pass muster. Also, the content itself asserted that "Romulus" was a back-formation.  It was not at all npov.  Even if it read "according to..." I would probably still have removed it, if that was the only authority cited, for the above reasons.  As for the claim itself, I'll keep on the lookout for something reliable to cite.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Archaeology
Section expanded and improved by including relevant content copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome "Earliest history"" in edit of 16:15, 26 February 2017Rjdeadly (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 * The first sentence in the lead of the section is contradicted by the second. Since the second one has no cite, I removed it.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible the 814 date of Timaes refereed to Aeneas rather then Romulus?
Thus lining up with his Date for Dido and the founding of Carthage?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 * This sentence appears to be in error: "The Greek historian Timaeus, one of the first to write a history to include the Romans, stated that Rome was founded in the 38th year prior to the first Olympiad, or 814/3 BC;"

 * Timaeus dated the founding of Carthage to 38 years before the first Olympic Games. I was surprised to see this article claim Timaeus dated Rome's founding in exactly the same way.  As the claim is not sourced, I suspect that it is an error.  The only sources that preserve the chronology of Timaeus are Popmpeius Trogus (through Justin), Diodorus, and Plutarch. A nice English translation of Justin is available at attalus.org . --Cadwallader (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Timaeus is known to have been the author of the first date of Rome’s foundation – 814/3 BC, placing it at the same time as the founding of Carthage, that is, in the thirty-eighth year before the first Olympiad. As to the original point, Timaeus would not have referred to Aeneas: Already in his earlier writings Timaeus had developed an elaborated scheme of more than 400 years between Troy’s fall and Rome’s foundation... one can suggest that Timaeus initially followed Duris’ canon, in which Troy fell in 1334/3 BC, but that he subsequently accepted the later date of 1254/3 BC. Either way, Timaeus places some ten generations between the fall of Troy and the founding of the city. The synchronism with Carthage was also the point. It was a common practice in early Greek historiography and in part it was because older was better. In general the claims of these early historians cannot be read without criticism. Cf Arcadian claim that they, as a people, predate the Moon. Ifly6 (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking of "Italy" in Introduction
I did not mean to give the impression of edit warring. The intro previously said "... Rome, Italy..." with both Rome and Italy as links. I removed comma-Italy as it disrupted the flow of the sentence, and then made an earlier occurrence of "Italy" a link in deference to whatever previous editor thought a link was appropriate. Later I checked the page and found that "Italy" was not a link. I thought this was some editing error on my part, so made a second edit to put it in. Only then did I check the diffs and discover that Cote d'Azur considers it overlinking. I tried to Revert but got it wrong, so simply did a reverse edit. Got even that description wrong. Too bad. 59.102.43.183 (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Pushed rewrite from User:Ifly6/Founding of Rome
I pushed a rewrite to this article from User:Ifly6/Founding of Rome, emphasising the archaeology then going through the main themes from the myths with sourcing. Ifly6 (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Nilsson, Olympen, 1964, p. 264.
In the citation for Martin P Nilsson's Olympen (Nilsson, Olympen, 1964, p. 264.) what is the publisher and which edition of the book are you citing? I imagine it isn't the Swedish first edition from 1919 because that doesn't seem to have relevant text. Ifly6 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it this (apparently rare) edition? https://worldcat.org/title/1164134613. Ifly6 (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one, the second edition from 1964. Martin P. Nilsson published the first edition in 1919 and the second in 1964 when he was almost 90 years old. It's written in Swedish, I don't know if there's a translation. The chapter is called "Romerska sagor" (Roman sagas) and the spelling used is "Romos".
 * Here's a link to an online book store that used to sell it (currently sold out):
 * https://www.bokus.com/bok/9789172976276/olympen/ FrinkMan (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the specific edition:
 * https://worldcat.org/title/936926807
 * It's been reprinted several times since 1964. FrinkMan (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I've added that it is in Swedish and that the 1964 date reflects a second edition. If there's any more information what would help identify the book as well as possible feel free to add it. Ifly6 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BIAS
Apparently, going back as far as 2006 (above), the article has pushed the bizarrely hard line expressed in the current lead:
 * Contrary to the gradual account given by material evidence, the Romans believed...

 * ...Almost no historians take these myths as historical and there is no evidence of Alba Longa's historicity. The alleged royal line connecting Romulus and Remus to Aeneas is almost certainly an antiquarian fiction from the third century BC.

a) The Romans didn't believe anything in contrast to modern archaeology they had no access to. They did their best with what information and items they had at hand. b) There absolutely is evidence of settlement in the Alban hills. The article may intend to say 'no evidence of a powerful city-state ruled by an exiled Hittite client dynasty' but that isn't what the current (mistaken) overstatement actually means. c) Similarly, of course absolutely all modern historians don't accept the entirety of the Romulus/Remus myths as historical. By the same token, though, archaeology has kept pushing back the date of a fairly powerful settlement to the roughly Romulan era and, depending on the dating of the ancient Palatine walls, there's absolutely no reason not to think the archaeological account is entirely in keeping with a guy building up the initial hillfort there during the mythological timeframe.

I'm just going to trim the worst excesses of the phrasing, but the article would greatly benefit from a rewrite that only clearly expresses what the traditional account said, clearly expresses what modern archaeology has found (with caveats if some dating is meaningfully contested), and drops the massive chip off its shoulder that thinks there's a serious either/or being debated instead of a gradual process of research that might potentially end in some sort of reconciliation. — Llywelyn II   15:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I know what I said
But as tendentious as some of the phrasing here is, I just saw that the even more prominent History of Rome article has things like using Livy—with no other corroboration or discussion whatsoever—for a straightforward claim that Rome's name does in fact derive from a guy named Romulus.

Of course, that's just nuts. Maybe we can get an exchange going where the editors there help tone down the overstatements and bitterness here xD while y'all help them be less credulous and generally silly. — Llywelyn II   11:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly the main reason why I rewrote the article in the way you seemed to have criticised, ie a huge emphasis on the archaeological material and a general playing down of the literary accounts, is because huge portions of Wikipedia relating to early Rome – basically everything prior to maybe the 2nd century – are like that: Livy said Romulus was a guy who founded Rome, Livy and DH say L Junius Brutus founded the republic (when numerous scholars like Wiseman and Richardson doubt his existence), the waters miraculously rose or fell or whatever during the siege of Veii because Livy said so, etc. As to your edits in the main article, I've been rather busy over the holidays so haven't yet been able to comment in depth. Of what I had seen yesterday I have few objections. However, I think some of your interpretations of the language are very tendentious. Eg Contrary to the gradual account given by material evidence, the Romans believed... is merely a statement that the Romans' beliefs are not consistent with the gradual account... not that the Romans had modern archaeological evidence and rejected it that gradual account anyway. (In my opinion, that interpretation is about as tendentiousness as reading the reworked lede from yesterday where it says The Parilia Festival on 21 April was considered to commemorate the anniversary of the city's founding by the late Republic to mean that the late republic founded the city.)

 * I don't think this somewhat accusatory statement of a "massive chip" is at all warranted: drops the massive chip off its shoulder that thinks there's a serious either/or being debated instead of a gradual process of research... There are two stories that need to be covered here: how Rome was actually founded and what the ancients (Romans and Greeks included) thought had happened. The pre-rewrite version covered myths then, rather sparsely, archaeology; I think it helps a layperson's understanding to place actual facts first rather than falsehoods. Someone should not come out of the article thinking Mr Rome, descended from a line of Alban kings from Aeneas, a prince of Troy, actually founded the city in 753 BC and fought the Sabines etc. The structure of the article – this serious either/or which I do not believe is at all serious – is a necessary result of the need to cover both what we actually know about the founding of Rome from archaeology and the fact that what the Romans said about that founding was wrong (except in the eyes, it seems, of Carandini). Ifly6 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Having read through some of the edits you did, I have largely no substantive objections except to a single portion relating to how the ancients fixed the date of the city. It was more mechanical and conjectural than "we have this (presumably true) list of kings just count back"; scholars generally believe they literally just did 7 35. The sheer arbitrariness of the Roman tradition's chronology also belies the notion of anything being placed correctly (emphasis on "correctly"). Ifly6 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * literally just did... No, that was specifically with reference to Varro. Other writers may have placed the dates in those other years because of separate traditions concerning the kings and still others relied on Greek and astronomical dating.

 * If it really was just you, (a) please stop being so sweeping with these edits and phrasing when you seem to be missing some very important nuances and (b) please do take some time to help trim the overstatements in the other (worse) direction at History of Rome when you have a minute. It'd be very helpful. — Llywelyn II   18:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Plutarch
apparently presents a separate tradition from Varro that includes derivation from a Greek equivalent and astronomical claims including an eclipse. provides a secondary source for discussion of the details, although it is worth noting that both Grafton and Swerdlow apparently (badly) misread Plutarch as saying the various astronomical phenomena occurred at Rome when he's clearly talking about Greek and Hellenistic records. (Fwiw, NASA has a 1st millennium BC chart of solar eclipses for Rome but not for Athens, the Aegean, or Egypt. Most likely in context, though, the eclipse is the mystical add-on to the legend rather than the hard date for an actual historical synchronicity.) In any case, the Greek date provided is the 3rd year of the 6th Olympiad which we (slightly mis)place at 754 BC but is actually exactly equivalent to 753 BC given where the Greeks were breaking their years at the time. Worth noting, too, that Plutarch repeats the Parilia date (21 April) but also a separate tradition where the founding occurred on the 30th of the month, making it a new moon and establishing that the 'eclipse' mentioned would've needed to've been a solar one.
 * , Ch. 11–12.

In any case, the separate tradition should eventually be added here with the appropriate context and corrections. I'll add the secondary cite and Plutarch's name to the chart for now, but there's more at both sources above & elsewhere. — Llywelyn II   18:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Plutarch isn't misread. Grafton and Swerdlow (1985) p 456: Plutarch ... also reports a further tradition that Rome was founded by Romulus on the thirtieth of the (lunar) month, at a conjunction of the sun and the moon in which there was an eclipse, thought to be the one seen by Antimachus... of Teos... this would presumably be 21 April 753 BC but in fact no solar eclipse was visible in Rome or in the Mediterranean within several years of this date. Although this is not strictly Varronian, I agree with you that the eclipse is [a] mystical add-on to the legend: the mere (false) assertion of synchronism with a eclipse is of little value. Just in the same way the assertion that the United States declared independence in the shadow of an eclipse on 4 July 1776 that is not meaningful evidence that independence occurred on that day (even if that is the correct date). Ifly6 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but no idea what you're talking about.

 * Plutarch was misread. The quote you provided has absolutely nothing to do with the provided source (even if the authors are apparently the same) and the provided source does in fact limit the area under their consideration to Rome, as stated. If they had it right a year earlier and then bungled it... well... if anything, that's worse than it was before.

 * The note on American independence appears to confuse things in several different ways. I'm aware you think the entire idea of George Washington is a myth created to justify subsequent exploitation by the American ruling class, but it would still be useful information to know that the legends specifically connected him to a specific natural event that could be precisely dated. If and when subsequent archaeology might establish that some form of George Washington had actually existed, then that hard date from the natural event could be used to create a rough timeframe for other elements of the account. In the Roman case, the "hard" date is useless because it's entirely false and a provable later add-on instead of any kind of preserved lore; it's not useless because Romulus—if he ever existed—isn't a heavenly body himself and the founding of Rome—if it ever occurred—wasn't itself an eclipse.

 * In any case, the separate tradition should eventually be added here with the appropriate context and corrections. — Llywelyn II   19:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this response. I'm not saying you should omit mention of an eclipse. I'm saying that it should be at no time used, especially in Wikivoice™, to date the founding of Rome. (This is why I made edits to that effect saying that no solar eclipses occurred c. 753 in the Mediterranean.) As to this portion: If and when subsequent archaeology might establish that some form of George Washington [Romulus?] had actually existed, then that hard date from the natural event [the eclipse] could be used to create a rough timeframe for other elements of the account. The eclipse is fictional. It has nothing to do with when Rome was founded or when "Romulus" existed. Let's say we find archaeological proof that Rome was founded on 21 April 753 with a stone commemorating the founding in Archaic Latin using the Egyptian calendar. The eclipse will still have nothing to do with it... because there wasn't one (ie [the eclipse] is not meaningful evidence that [the founding] occurred on that day (even if that is the correct date)). Ifly6 (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Founding of Rome


text:
Herbert Putnam

George Herbert Putnam (September 20, 1861 – August 14, 1955) was an American librarian. He was the eighth (and also the longest-serving) Librarian of Congress from 1899 to 1939. He implemented his vision of a universal collection with strengths in many languages, especially from Europe and Latin America.

Biography
George Herbert Putnam was born in New York City at 107 East Seventeenth Street, the sixth son and tenth child of Victorine and George Palmer Putnam. The father, one-time collector of internal revenue in New York by appointment of Abraham Lincoln, was the founder of a well-known publishing house, known previously as the Putnam Publishing house, but now known as G. P. Putnam's Sons.

In 1886, Herbert Putnam married Charlotte Elizabeth Munroe of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and together they had two daughters, Shirley and Brenda Putnam. Brenda Putnam grew up to become a celebrated sculptor in the early 20th century, highly known for her "children, cherubs, and garden ornaments." Throughout Herbert Putnam's career, he was described by his colleagues as maintaining "an impenetrable dignity…formal manner, invariable gracious and cordial, covered shyness and a deep reserve. He had few intimates, even among his closest colleagues, but he was fond of good company and good conversation" as well being "painfully modest, a family man who had an unreciprocated view of his staff as family."

He died at his home in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, on August 14, 1955.

Early career
After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1883, Putnam spent the following year at Columbia University Law School. Eventually, however, his interest in administrative work led him to the Minneapolis Athenaeum where he served as librarian in 1887, until it merged into the Minneapolis Public Library in 1888. Putnam was elected city librarian of the Minneapolis Public Library at that time and served while simultaneously being admitted to the Minnesota bar of Law. According to the Honorable Lawrence Lewis of Colorado at a Tribute for Putnam in 1939, Putnam at this time "modernized antiquated methods, revised the charging records of books on loan, inaugurated a new system of cataloging and classification, opened the alcoves to readers, [and] insisted that 'there are two great problems of library management – one to get the books for the readers, the other to get the readers to the books.'" During this time he developed the Putnam Classification System (based in part on work by John Edmands), which would influence his later design of the Library of Congress Classification system.

In 1891, Putnam resigned his Minneapolis post due to his mother-in-law's ill health and promptly returned to Boston to be near her. Putnam "was admitted to the Suffolk bar, and practiced law in Boston until the 18th of February 1895" when he was appointed Librarian of the Boston Public Library. During his tenure at the Boston Public Library "there were 9 branches and 12 delivery stations. At the end of his four years, there were 10 branches, 5 minor branches, called 'reading rooms,' and 56 deposit stations…the library grew from a total of 610,375 volumes at the close of 1894 to 716,050 at the close of 1898." Another contribution made by Putnam towards the Boston Public Library was the addition of a room devoted to juveniles, "believed to have been the first room wholly devoted to the service of children in any of the larger libraries of the country."

Induction
As the ALA's leading witness during the 1896 Congressional Joint Committee on the Library, Putnam was able to successfully lobby Congress to greatly expand the role of the Library of Congress. This restructuring and expansion of the Library became effective on July 1, 1897. Putnam's activities with the American Library Association led him to join with Justin Winsor and Melvil Dewey as official delegates to the International Conference of Librarians in London in 1897. When Winsor died shortly thereafter, Putnam served the remainder of his term as President of the ALA. When John Russell Young died in January 1899, President William McKinley requested Congress to appoint Putnam. He was officially confirmed December 12, 1899.

Systemization of a public institution
Upon the confirmation of Putnam to his appointed duty of Librarian of Congress, one daunting task Putnam faced from the onset was the sheer volume of materials that had to be reorganized for the newly opened Thomas Jefferson Building – the newly appointed library for the Library of Congress. However, Putnam was well aware of what needed to be done. "In October 1899 Putnam requested a $190,000 increase in the budget for fiscal 1901. If Congress consented, the 1899 LC budget would nearly double and that for 1900 would be increased by 60 percent. Declaring that the collections were deficient in many respects, [Putnam] asked for $50,000 to purchase new material, more than twice the 1899 appropriation. In summation, the first task of Putnam's administration was to organize all materials of the Library of Congress so they may be used efficiently by the public."

Putnam's request was granted by the United States Congress, and thus an appropriation bill was passed on April 17, 1900. Although Putnam's administration would need time in order to collect, organize, and disseminate all of the material within the Library of Congress' collection, the task was completed with enormous success. "By 1924 the first objective had been won with – 1) All spaces in the building duly differentiated and equipped for specialized, as well as general, uses. 2) The specialized material installed in appropriate cases. 3) A scheme of classification, systematic and elastic, with an appropriate nomenclature. 4) Adoption of processes of cataloging, including forms of entry, now standardized for American libraries. 5) Actual application of the classification and cataloging to a large portion of the collection of printed books."

Putnam during this time also introduced a new system of classifying books that continues to this day, known as the Library of Congress Classification. He also established an interlibrary loan system, and expanded the Library of Congress's role and relationships with other libraries, through the provision of centralized services. He was elected an Associate Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1902, and elected a member of the American Antiquarian Society in 1907.

War-time service
In July 1916, "former LC staff member Elizabeth West, director of the Carnegie Library of San Antonio, Texas, suggested to Putnam that the Library of Congress cooperate with other libraries to send books to American soldiers."

Initially, Putnam was not interested in the wholesale distribution of books to American troops simply due to the lack of interest. However, when attention arose that the British War Library Service in London were performing similar duties to their troops, measures were quickly devised by Putnam, the ALA, and Congress to enact such a program to the American military branches. "Aided by a grant of $320,000 from the Carnegie Corporation, the War Service built thirty-six libraries, completing the majority by February 1918. But with so much invested in buildings, little money remained for books or administration…Putnam took the matter up directly with the War Department and obtained assurances that the government would provide utilities. He appealed to ALA members to donate books and volunteer for service, and by June 1918 the association had purchased 300,000 books, sent 1,349,000 gift books to camps, and distributed 500,000 magazines." In the time after World War I, the services of the Library of Congress towards the war effort provided a new outlook for the American public on the possibilities of what a successful library could accomplish. In other words, the contributions made by the Library of Congress in that time gave "librarians 'a new conception of what a truly national library could be' and added one more item 'to the long list of benefits for which American libraries have to thank the Library and the Librarian, of Congress."

Retirement
Herbert Putnam's administration as Librarian of Congress lasted for forty years, from 1899 until 1939. It was clear Putnam was not willing to withdraw completely from the world of librarianship, stating: "I would willingly surrender the administration, if that course would serve the interest of the library and I could feel assured as to my successor." Putnam provided the suggestion of "Librarian Emeritus" be developed as his new official title, with an honorarium of one-half of his original salary. On October 1, 1939, Putnam retired as the 8th Librarian of Congress with that title, and he "continued to contribute to the Library, keeping regular office hours for the next 15 years."

Putnam was awarded American Library Association Honorary Membership in 1940.

Herbert Putnam was succeeded in 1939 by Archibald MacLeish, who served from 1939 until 1944.

title: Herbert Putnam


text:
Geosynchronous orbit

A geosynchronous orbit (sometimes abbreviated GSO) is an Earth-centered orbit with an orbital period that matches Earth's rotation on its axis, 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds (one sidereal day). The synchronization of rotation and orbital period means that, for an observer on Earth's surface, an object in geosynchronous orbit returns to exactly the same position in the sky after a period of one sidereal day. Over the course of a day, the object's position in the sky may remain still or trace out a path, typically in a figure-8 form, whose precise characteristics depend on the orbit's inclination and eccentricity. A circular geosynchronous orbit has a constant altitude of 35786 km.

A special case of geosynchronous orbit is the geostationary orbit (often abbreviated GEO), which is a circular geosynchronous orbit in Earth's equatorial plane with both inclination and eccentricity equal to 0. A satellite in a geostationary orbit remains in the same position in the sky to observers on the surface.

Communications satellites are often given geostationary or close-to-geostationary orbits, so that the satellite antennas that communicate with them do not have to move but can be pointed permanently at the fixed location in the sky where the satellite appears.

History
In 1929, Herman Potočnik described both geosynchronous orbits in general and the special case of the geostationary Earth orbit in particular as useful orbits for space stations. The first appearance of a geosynchronous orbit in popular literature was in October 1942, in the first Venus Equilateral story by George O. Smith, but Smith did not go into details. British science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke popularised and expanded the concept in a 1945 paper entitled Extra-Terrestrial Relays – Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?, published in Wireless World magazine. Clarke acknowledged the connection in his introduction to The Complete Venus Equilateral. The orbit, which Clarke first described as useful for broadcast and relay communications satellites, is sometimes called the Clarke Orbit. Similarly, the collection of artificial satellites in this orbit is known as the Clarke Belt.

In technical terminology, the geosynchronous orbits are often referred to as geostationary if they are roughly over the equator, but the terms are used somewhat interchangeably. Specifically, geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) may be a synonym for geosynchronous equatorial orbit, or geostationary Earth orbit.

The first geosynchronous satellite was designed by Harold Rosen while he was working at Hughes Aircraft in 1959. Inspired by Sputnik 1, he wanted to use a geostationary (geosynchronous equatorial) satellite to globalise communications. Telecommunications between the US and Europe was then possible between just 136 people at a time, and reliant on high frequency radios and an undersea cable.

Conventional wisdom at the time was that it would require too much rocket power to place a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit and it would not survive long enough to justify the expense, so early efforts were put towards constellations of satellites in low or medium Earth orbit. The first of these were the passive Echo balloon satellites in 1960, followed by Telstar 1 in 1962. Although these projects had difficulties with signal strength and tracking that could be solved through geosynchronous satellites, the concept was seen as impractical, so Hughes often withheld funds and support.

By 1961, Rosen and his team had produced a cylindrical prototype with a diameter of 76 cm, height of 38 cm, weighing 11.3 kg; it was light, and small, enough to be placed into orbit by then-available rocketry, was spin stabilised and used dipole antennas producing a pancake-shaped waveform. In August 1961, they were contracted to begin building the working satellite. They lost Syncom 1 to electronics failure, but Syncom 2 was successfully placed into a geosynchronous orbit in 1963. Although its inclined orbit still required moving antennas, it was able to relay TV transmissions, and allowed for US President John F. Kennedy to phone Nigerian prime minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa from a ship on August 23, 1963.

Today there are hundreds of geosynchronous satellites providing remote sensing, navigation and communications.

Although most populated land locations on the planet now have terrestrial communications facilities (microwave, fiber-optic), which often have latency and bandwidth advantages, and telephone access covering 96% of the population and internet access 90% as of 2018, some rural and remote areas in developed countries are still reliant on satellite communications.

Geostationary orbit
A geostationary equatorial orbit (GEO) is a circular geosynchronous orbit in the plane of the Earth's equator with a radius of approximately 42164 km (measured from the center of the Earth). A satellite in such an orbit is at an altitude of approximately 35786 km above mean sea level. It maintains the same position relative to the Earth's surface. If one could see a satellite in geostationary orbit, it would appear to hover at the same point in the sky, i.e., not exhibit diurnal motion, while the Sun, Moon, and stars would traverse the skies behind it. Such orbits are useful for telecommunications satellites.

A perfectly stable geostationary orbit is an ideal that can only be approximated. In practice the satellite drifts out of this orbit because of perturbations such as the solar wind, radiation pressure, variations in the Earth's gravitational field, and the gravitational effect of the Moon and Sun, and thrusters are used to maintain the orbit in a process known as station-keeping.

Eventually, without the use of thrusters, the orbit will become inclined, oscillating between 0° and 15° every 55 years. At the end of the satellite's lifetime, when fuel approaches depletion, satellite operators may decide to omit these expensive manoeuvres to correct inclination and only control eccentricity. This prolongs the life-time of the satellite as it consumes less fuel over time, but the satellite can then only be used by ground antennas capable of following the N-S movement.

Geostationary satellites will also tend to drift around one of two stable longitudes of 75° and 255° without station keeping.

Elliptical and inclined geosynchronous orbits

Many objects in geosynchronous orbits have eccentric and/or inclined orbits. Eccentricity makes the orbit elliptical and appear to oscillate E-W in the sky from the viewpoint of a ground station, while inclination tilts the orbit compared to the equator and makes it appear to oscillate N-S from a groundstation. These effects combine to form an analemma (figure-8).

Satellites in elliptical/eccentric orbits must be tracked by steerable ground stations.

Tundra orbit
The Tundra orbit is an eccentric geosynchronous orbit, which allows the satellite to spend most of its time dwelling over one high latitude location. It sits at an inclination of 63.4°, which is a frozen orbit, which reduces the need for stationkeeping. At least two satellites are needed to provide continuous coverage over an area. It was used by the Sirius XM Satellite Radio to improve signal strength in the northern US and Canada.

Quasi-zenith orbit
The Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) is a four-satellite system that operates in a geosynchronous orbit at an inclination of 42° and a 0.075 eccentricity. Each satellite dwells over Japan, allowing signals to reach receivers in urban canyons then passes quickly over Australia.

Launch
Geosynchronous satellites are launched to the east into a prograde orbit that matches the rotation rate of the equator. The smallest inclination that a satellite can be launched into is that of the launch site's latitude, so launching the satellite from close to the equator limits the amount of inclination change needed later. Additionally, launching from close to the equator allows the speed of the Earth's rotation to give the satellite a boost. A launch site should have water or deserts to the east, so any failed rockets do not fall on a populated area.

Most launch vehicles place geosynchronous satellites directly into a geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO), an elliptical orbit with an apogee at GSO height and a low perigee. On-board satellite propulsion is then used to raise the perigee, circularise and reach GSO.

Once in a viable geostationary orbit, spacecraft can change their longitudinal position by adjusting their semi-major axis such that the new period is shorter or longer than a sidereal day, in order to effect an apparent "drift" Eastward or Westward, respectively. Once at the desired longitude, the spacecraft's period is restored to geosynchronous.

Statite proposal
A statite is a hypothetical satellite that uses radiation pressure from the Sun against a solar sail to modify its orbit.

It would hold its location over the dark side of the Earth at a latitude of approximately 30 degrees. It would return to the same spot in the sky every 24 hours from an Earth-based viewer's perspective, so be functionally similar to a geosynchronous orbit.

Space elevator
A further form of geosynchronous orbit is the theoretical space elevator. When one end is attached to the ground, for altitudes below the geostationary belt the elevator maintains a shorter orbital period than by gravity alone.

Retired satellites
Geosynchronous satellites require some station-keeping in order to remain in position, and once they run out of thruster fuel and are no longer useful they are moved into a higher graveyard orbit. It is not feasible to deorbit geosynchronous satellites, for to do so would take far more fuel than would be used by slightly elevating the orbit; and atmospheric drag is negligible, giving GSOs lifetimes of thousands of years.

The retirement process is becoming increasingly regulated and satellites must have a 90% chance of moving over 200 km above the geostationary belt at end of life.

Space debris
Space debris in geosynchronous orbits typically has a lower collision speed than at LEO since most GSO satellites orbit in the same plane, altitude and speed; however, the presence of satellites in eccentric orbits allows for collisions at up to 4 km/s. Although a collision is comparatively unlikely, GSO satellites have a limited ability to avoid any debris.

Debris less than 10 cm in diameter cannot be seen from the Earth, making it difficult to assess their prevalence.

Despite efforts to reduce risk, spacecraft collisions have occurred. The European Space Agency telecom satellite Olympus-1 was struck by a meteoroid on August 11, 1993, and eventually moved to a graveyard orbit, and in 2006 the Russian Express-AM11 communications satellite was struck by an unknown object and rendered inoperable, although its engineers had enough contact time with the satellite to send it into a graveyard orbit. In 2017 both AMC-9 and Telkom-1 broke apart from an unknown cause.

Properties

A geosynchronous orbit has the following properties:

 * Period: 1436 minutes (one sidereal day)
 * Semi-major axis: 42,164 km

Period
All geosynchronous orbits have an orbital period equal to exactly one sidereal day. This means that the satellite will return to the same point above the Earth's surface every (sidereal) day, regardless of other orbital properties. This orbital period, T, is directly related to the semi-major axis of the orbit through the formula:

 * $$T = 2\pi\sqrt{a^3 \over \mu}$$

where:
 * $a$ is the length of the orbit's semi-major axis
 * $$\mu$$ is the standard gravitational parameter of the central body

Inclination
A geosynchronous orbit can have any inclination.

Satellites commonly have an inclination of zero, ensuring that the orbit remains over the equator at all times, making it stationary with respect to latitude from the point of view of a ground observer (and in the ECEF reference frame).

Another popular inclinations is 63.4° for a Tundra orbit, which ensures that the orbit's argument of perigee does not change over time.

Ground track
In the special case of a geostationary orbit, the ground track of a satellite is a single point on the equator. In the general case of a geosynchronous orbit with a non-zero inclination or eccentricity, the ground track is a more or less distorted figure-eight, returning to the same places once per sidereal day.

title: Geosynchronous orbit


text:
Edward the Confessor

Edward the Confessor (c. 1003 – 5 January 1066) was an Anglo-Saxon English king and saint. Usually considered the last king of the House of Wessex, he ruled from 1042 until his death in 1066.

Edward was the son of Æthelred the Unready and Emma of Normandy. He succeeded Cnut the Great's son – and his own half-brother – Harthacnut. He restored the rule of the House of Wessex after the period of Danish rule since Cnut conquered England in 1016. When Edward died in 1066, he was succeeded by his wife's brother Harold Godwinson, who was defeated and killed in the same year at the Battle of Hastings by the Normans under William the Conqueror. Edward's young great-nephew Edgar Ætheling of the House of Wessex was proclaimed king after the Battle of Hastings, but was never crowned and was peacefully deposed after about eight weeks.

Historians disagree about Edward's fairly long 24-year reign. His nickname reflects the traditional image of him as unworldly and pious. Confessor reflects his reputation as a saint who did not suffer martyrdom as opposed to his uncle, King Edward the Martyr. Some portray Edward the Confessor's reign as leading to the disintegration of royal power in England and the advance in power of the House of Godwin, because of the infighting that began after his death with no heirs to the throne. Biographers Frank Barlow and Peter Rex, on the other hand, portray Edward as a successful king, one who was energetic, resourceful and sometimes ruthless; they argue that the Norman conquest shortly after his death tarnished his image. However, Richard Mortimer argues that the return of the Godwins from exile in 1052 "meant the effective end of his exercise of power", citing Edward's reduced activity as implying "a withdrawal from affairs".

About a century after his death, in 1161, Pope Alexander III canonised the king. Edward was one of England's national saints until King Edward III adopted Saint George (George of Lydda) as the national patron saint in about 1350. Saint Edward's feast day is 13 October and is celebrated by both the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

Early years and exile
Edward was the seventh son of Æthelred the Unready, and the first by his second wife, Emma of Normandy. Edward was born between 1003 and 1005 in Islip, Oxfordshire, and is first recorded as a 'witness' to two charters in 1005. He had one full brother, Alfred, and a sister, Godgifu. In charters he was always listed behind his older half-brothers, showing that he ranked beneath them.

During his childhood, England was the target of Viking raids and invasions under Sweyn Forkbeard and his son, Cnut. Following Sweyn's seizure of the throne in 1013, Emma fled to Normandy, followed by Edward and Alfred, and then by Æthelred. Sweyn died in February 1014, and leading Englishmen invited Æthelred back on the condition that he promised to rule 'more justly' than before. Æthelred agreed, sending Edward back with his ambassadors. Æthelred died in April 1016, and he was succeeded by Edward's older half-brother Edmund Ironside, who carried on the fight against Sweyn's son, Cnut. According to Scandinavian tradition, Edward fought alongside Edmund; as Edward was at most thirteen years old at the time, the story is disputed. Edmund died in November 1016, and Cnut became undisputed king. Edward then again went into exile with his brother and sister; in 1017 his mother married Cnut. In the same year, Cnut had Edward's last surviving elder half-brother, Eadwig, executed.

Edward spent a quarter of a century in exile, probably mainly in Normandy, although there is no evidence of his location until the early 1030s. He probably received support from his sister Godgifu, who married Drogo of Mantes, count of Vexin in about 1024. In the early 1030s, Edward witnessed four charters in Normandy, signing two of them as king of England. According to William of Jumièges, the Norman chronicler, Robert I, Duke of Normandy attempted an invasion of England to place Edward on the throne in about 1034 but it was blown off course to Jersey. He also received support for his claim to the throne from several continental abbots, particularly Robert, abbot of the Norman abbey of Jumièges, who later became Edward's Archbishop of Canterbury. Edward was said to have developed an intense personal piety during this period, but modern historians regard this as a product of the later medieval campaign for his canonisation. In Frank Barlow's view "in his lifestyle would seem to have been that of a typical member of the rustic nobility". He appeared to have a slim prospect of acceding to the English throne during this period, and his ambitious mother was more interested in supporting Harthacnut, her son by Cnut.

Cnut died in 1035, and Harthacnut succeeded him as king of Denmark. It is unclear whether he intended to keep England as well, but he was defending his position in Denmark and thus was unable to come to England to assert his claim to the throne. It was therefore decided that his elder half-brother Harold Harefoot should act as regent, while Emma held Wessex on Harthacnut's behalf. In 1036, Edward and his brother Alfred separately came to England. Emma later claimed that they came in response to a letter forged by Harold inviting them to visit her, but historians believe that she probably did invite them in an effort to counter Harold's growing popularity. Alfred was captured by Godwin, Earl of Wessex, who turned him over to Harold Harefoot. He had Alfred blinded by forcing red-hot pokers into his eyes to make him unsuitable for kingship, and Alfred died soon after as a result of his wounds. The murder is thought to be the source of much of Edward's hatred for Godwin and one of the primary reasons for Godwin's banishment in autumn 1051. Edward is said to have fought a successful skirmish near Southampton, and then retreated back to Normandy. He thus showed his prudence, but he had some reputation as a soldier in Normandy and Scandinavia.

In 1037, Harold was accepted as king, and the following year he expelled Emma, who retreated to Bruges. She then summoned Edward and demanded his help for Harthacnut, but he refused as he had no resources to launch an invasion, and disclaimed any interest for himself in the throne. Harthacnut, his position in Denmark now secure, planned an invasion, but Harold died in 1040, and Harthacnut was able to cross unopposed, with his mother, to take the English throne.

In 1041, Harthacnut invited Edward back to England, probably as his heir because he knew he had not long to live. The 12th-century Quadripartitus states that he was recalled by the intervention of Bishop Ælfwine of Winchester and Earl Godwin. Edward met "the thegns of all England" at Hursteshever, likely near modern-day Hurst Spit opposite the Isle of Wight. There, Edward was received as king in return for his oath that he would continue the laws of Cnut. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Edward was sworn in as king alongside Harthacnut, but a diploma issued by Harthacnut in 1042 describes him as the king's brother.

Early reign

Following Harthacnut's death on 8 June 1042, Godwin, the most powerful of the English earls, supported Edward, who succeeded to the throne. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle describes the popularity he enjoyed at his accession – "before he [Harthacnut] was buried, all the people chose Edward as king in London." Edward was crowned at the cathedral of Winchester, the royal seat of the West Saxons, on Easter Sunday, 3 April 1043.

Edward complained that his mother had "done less for him than he wanted before he became king, and also afterwards". In November 1043, he rode to Winchester with his three leading earls, Leofric of Mercia, Godwin, and Siward of Northumbria, to deprive her of her property, possibly because she was holding on to treasure which belonged to the king. Her adviser, Stigand, was deprived of his bishopric of Elmham in East Anglia. However, both were soon restored to favour. Emma died in 1052.

Edward's position when he came to the throne was weak. Effective rule required keeping on terms with the three leading earls, but loyalty to the ancient house of Wessex had been eroded by the period of Danish rule, and only Leofric was descended from a family which had served Æthelred. Siward was probably Danish, and although Godwin was English, he was one of Cnut's new men, married to Cnut's former sister-in-law. However, in his early years, Edward restored the traditional strong monarchy, showing himself, in Frank Barlow's view, "a vigorous and ambitious man, a true son of the impetuous Æthelred and the formidable Emma."

In 1043, Godwin's eldest son Sweyn was appointed to an earldom in the south-west midlands, and on 23 January 1045 Edward married Godwin's daughter Edith. Soon afterwards, her brother Harold and her Danish cousin Beorn Estrithson were also given earldoms in southern England. Godwin and his family now ruled subordinately all of Southern England. However, in 1047 Sweyn was banished for abducting the abbess of Leominster. In 1049, he returned to try to regain his earldom, but this was said to have been opposed by Harold and Beorn, probably because they had been given Sweyn's land in his absence. Sweyn murdered his cousin Beorn and went again into exile. Edward's nephew Ralph was given Beorn's earldom, but the following year Sweyn's father was able to secure his reinstatement.

The wealth of Edward's lands exceeded that of the greatest earls, but they were scattered among the southern earldoms. He had no personal power base, and it seems he did not attempt to build one. In 1050–51 he even paid off the fourteen foreign ships which constituted his standing navy and abolished the tax raised to pay for it. However, in ecclesiastical and foreign affairs he was able to follow his own policy. King Magnus I of Norway aspired to the English throne, and in 1045 and 1046, fearing an invasion, Edward took command of the fleet at Sandwich. Beorn's elder brother, Sweyn II of Denmark "submitted himself to Edward as a son", hoping for his help in his battle with Magnus for control of Denmark, but in 1047 Edward rejected Godwin's demand that he send aid to Sweyn, and it was only Magnus's death in October that saved England from attack and allowed Sweyn to take the Danish throne.

Modern historians reject the traditional view that Edward mainly employed Norman favourites, but he did have foreigners in his household, including a few Normans, who became unpopular. Chief among them was Robert, abbot of the Norman abbey of Jumièges, who had known Edward from the 1030s and came to England with him in 1041, becoming bishop of London in 1043. According to the Vita Edwardi, he became "always the most powerful confidential adviser to the king".

Crisis of 1051–52
In ecclesiastical appointments, Edward and his advisers showed a bias against candidates with local connections, and when the clergy and monks of Canterbury elected a relative of Godwin as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1051, Edward rejected him and appointed Robert of Jumièges, who claimed that Godwin was in illegal possession of some archepiscopal estates. In September 1051, Edward was visited by his brother-in-law, Godgifu's second husband, Eustace II of Boulogne. His men caused an affray in Dover, and Edward ordered Godwin as earl of Kent to punish the town's burgesses, but he took their side and refused. Edward seized the chance to bring his over-mighty earl to heel. Archbishop Robert accused Godwin of plotting to kill the king, just as he had killed his brother Alfred in 1036, while Leofric and Siward supported the king and called up their vassals. Sweyn and Harold called up their own vassals, but neither side wanted a fight, and Godwin and Sweyn appear to have each given a son as hostage, who were sent to Normandy. The Godwins' position disintegrated as their men were not willing to fight the king. When Stigand, who was acting as an intermediary, conveyed the king's jest that Godwin could have his peace if he could restore Alfred and his companions alive and well, Godwin and his sons fled, going to Flanders and Ireland. Edward repudiated Edith and sent her to a nunnery, perhaps because she was childless, and Archbishop Robert urged her divorce.

Sweyn went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (dying on his way back), but Godwin and his other sons returned, with an army following a year later, and received considerable support, while Leofric and Siward failed to support the king. Both sides were concerned that a civil war would leave the country open to foreign invasion. The king was furious, but he was forced to give way and restore Godwin and Harold to their earldoms, while Robert of Jumièges and other Frenchmen fled, fearing Godwin's vengeance. Edith was restored as queen, and Stigand, who had again acted as an intermediary between the two sides in the crisis, was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in Robert's place. Stigand retained his existing bishopric of Winchester, and his pluralism was a continuing source of dispute with the pope.

Later reign
Until the mid-1050s Edward was able to structure his earldoms to prevent the Godwins from becoming dominant. Godwin died in 1053, and although Harold succeeded to his earldom of Wessex, none of his other brothers were earls at this date. His house was then weaker than it had been since Edward's succession, but a succession of deaths from 1055 to 1057 completely changed the control of earldoms. In 1055, Siward died, but his son was considered too young to command Northumbria, and Harold's brother, Tostig, was appointed. In 1057, Leofric and Ralph died, and Leofric's son Ælfgar succeeded as Earl of Mercia, while Harold's brother Gyrth succeeded Ælfgar as Earl of East Anglia. The fourth surviving Godwin brother, Leofwine, was given an earldom in the south-east carved out of Harold's territory, and Harold received Ralph's territory in compensation. Thus by 1057, the Godwin brothers controlled all of England subordinately apart from Mercia. It is not known whether Edward approved of this transformation or whether he had to accept it, but from this time he seems to have begun to withdraw from active politics, devoting himself to hunting, which he pursued each day after attending church.

In the 1050s, Edward pursued an aggressive and generally successful policy in dealing with Scotland and Wales. Malcolm Canmore was an exile at Edward's court after his father, Duncan I, was killed in battle in 1040, against men led by Macbeth who seized the Scottish throne. In 1054, Edward sent Siward to invade Scotland. He defeated Macbeth, and Malcolm, who had accompanied the expedition, gained control of southern Scotland. By 1058, Malcolm had killed Macbeth in battle and had taken the Scottish throne. In 1059, he visited Edward, but in 1061, he started raiding Northumbria with the aim of adding it to his territory.

In 1053, Edward ordered the assassination of the south Welsh prince Rhys ap Rhydderch in reprisal for a raid on England, and Rhys's head was delivered to him. In 1055, Gruffydd ap Llywelyn established himself as the ruler of Wales, and allied himself with Ælfgar of Mercia, who had been outlawed for treason. They defeated Earl Ralph at Hereford, and Harold had to collect forces from nearly all of England to drive the invaders back into Wales. Peace was concluded with the reinstatement of Ælfgar, who was able to succeed as Earl of Mercia on his father's death in 1057. Gruffydd swore an oath to be a faithful under-king of Edward. Ælfgar likely died in 1062, and his young son Edwin was allowed to succeed as Earl of Mercia, but Harold then launched a surprise attack on Gruffydd. He escaped, but when Harold and Tostig attacked again the following year, he retreated and was killed by Welsh enemies. Edward and Harold were then able to impose vassalage on some Welsh princes.

In October 1065, Harold's brother, Tostig, Earl of Northumbria, was hunting with the king when his thegns in Northumbria rebelled against his rule, which they claimed was oppressive, and killed some 200 of his followers. They nominated Morcar, the brother of Edwin of Mercia, as earl and invited the brothers to join them in marching south. They met Harold at Northampton, and Tostig accused Harold before the king of conspiring with the rebels. Tostig seems to have been a favourite with the king and queen, who demanded that the revolt be suppressed, but neither Harold nor anyone else would fight to support Tostig. Edward was forced to submit to his banishment, and the humiliation may have caused a series of strokes which led to his death. He was too weak to attend the consecration of his new church at Westminster, which had been substantially completed in 1065, on 28 December.

Edward probably entrusted the kingdom to Harold and Edith shortly before he died on 5 January 1066. On 6 January he was buried in Westminster Abbey, and Harold was crowned on the same day.

Succession
Starting as early as William of Malmesbury in the early 12th century, historians have puzzled over Edward's intentions for the succession. One school of thought supports the Norman case that Edward always intended William the Conqueror to be his heir, accepting the medieval claim that Edward had already decided to be celibate before he married, but most historians believe that he hoped to have an heir by Edith at least until his quarrel with Godwin in 1051. William the Conqueror's grandfather, Duke Richard II, was the brother of Edward the Confessor's mother, Emma of Normandy, so the two men were first cousins once removed, and there was a blood tie between them. William may have visited Edward during Godwin's exile, and he is thought to have promised William the succession at this time, but historians disagree on how seriously he meant the promise, and whether he later changed his mind.

Edmund Ironside's son, Edward the Exile, had the best claim to be considered Edward's heir. He had been taken as a young child to Hungary, and in 1054 Bishop Ealdred of Worcester visited the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry III to secure his return, probably with a view to becoming Edward's heir. The exile returned to England in 1057 with his family but died almost immediately. His son Edgar, who was then about 6 years old, was brought up at the English court. He was given the designation Ætheling, meaning throne-worthy, which may mean that Edward considered making him his heir, and he was briefly declared king after Harold's death in 1066. However, Edgar was absent from witness lists of Edward's diplomas, and there is no evidence in the Domesday Book that he was a substantial landowner, which suggests that he was marginalised at the end of Edward's reign.

After the mid-1050s, Edward seems to have withdrawn from affairs as he became increasingly dependent on the Godwins, and he may have become reconciled to the idea that one of them would succeed him. The Normans claimed that Edward sent Harold to Normandy in about 1064 to confirm the promise of the succession to William. The strongest evidence comes from a Norman apologist, William of Poitiers. According to his account, shortly before the Battle of Hastings, Harold sent William an envoy who admitted that Edward had promised the throne to William but argued that this was overridden by his deathbed promise to Harold. In reply, William did not dispute the deathbed promise but argued that Edward's prior promise to him took precedence. In Stephen Baxter's view, Edward's "handling of the succession issue was dangerously indecisive, and contributed to one of the greatest catastrophes to which the English have ever succumbed."

Westminster Abbey
Edward's Norman sympathies are most clearly seen in the major building project of his reign, Westminster Abbey, the first Norman Romanesque church in England. This was commenced between 1042 and 1052 as a royal burial church, consecrated on 28 December 1065, completed after his death in about 1090, and demolished in 1245 to make way for Henry III's new building, which still stands. It was very similar to Jumièges Abbey, which was built at the same time. Robert of Jumièges must have been closely involved in both buildings, although it is not clear which is the original and which is the copy. Edward does not appear to have been interested in books and associated arts, but his abbey played a vital role in the development of English Romanesque architecture, showing that he was an innovative and generous patron of the church.

Veneration
Edward the Confessor was the only king of England to be canonized by the pope, but he was part of a tradition of (uncanonised) Anglo-Saxon royal saints, such as Eadburh of Winchester, a daughter of Edward the Elder, Edith of Wilton, a daughter of Edgar the Peaceful, and the boy-king Edward the Martyr. With his proneness to fits of rage and his love of hunting, Edward the Confessor is regarded by most historians as an unlikely saint, and his canonisation as political, although some argue that his cult started so early that it must have had something credible to build on.

Edward displayed a worldly attitude in his church appointments. When he appointed Robert of Jumièges as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1051, he chose the leading craftsman Spearhafoc to replace Robert as Bishop of London. Robert refused to consecrate him, saying that the pope had forbidden it, but Spearhafoc occupied the bishopric for several months with Edward's support. After the Godwins fled the country, Edward expelled Spearhafoc, who fled with a large store of gold and gems which he had been given to make Edward a crown. Stigand was the first archbishop of Canterbury not to be a monk in almost a hundred years, and he was said to have been excommunicated by several popes because he held Canterbury and Winchester in plurality. Several bishops sought consecration abroad because of the irregularity of Stigand's position. Edward usually preferred clerks to monks for the most important and richest bishoprics, and he probably accepted gifts from candidates for bishoprics and abbacies. However, his appointments were generally respectable. When Odda of Deerhurst died without heirs in 1056, Edward seized lands which Odda had granted to Pershore Abbey and gave them to his Westminster foundation; historian Ann Williams observes that "the Confessor did not in the 11th century have the saintly reputation which he later enjoyed, largely through the efforts of the Westminster monks themselves".

After 1066, there was a subdued cult of Edward as a saint, possibly discouraged by the early Norman abbots of Westminster, which gradually increased in the early 12th century. Osbert of Clare, the prior of Westminster Abbey, then started to campaign for Edward's canonisation, aiming to increase the wealth and power of the Abbey. By 1138, he had converted the Vita Ædwardi Regis, the life of Edward commissioned by his widow, into a conventional saint's life. He seized on an ambiguous passage which might have meant that their marriage was chaste, perhaps to give the idea that Edith's childlessness was not her fault, to claim that Edward had been celibate. In 1139, Osbert went to Rome to petition for Edward's canonisation with the support of King Stephen, but he lacked the full support of the English hierarchy and Stephen had quarrelled with the church, so Pope Innocent II postponed a decision, declaring that Osbert lacked sufficient testimonials of Edward's holiness.

In 1159, there was a disputed election to the papacy, and Henry II's support helped to secure the recognition of Pope Alexander III. In 1160, a new abbot of Westminster, Laurence, seized the opportunity to renew Edward's claim. This time, it had the full support of the king and the English hierarchy, and a grateful pope issued the bull of canonisation on 7 February 1161, the result of a conjunction of the interests of Westminster Abbey, King Henry II and Pope Alexander III. He was called 'Confessor' as the name for someone who was believed to have lived a saintly life but was not a martyr. In the 1230s, King Henry III became attached to the cult of Saint Edward, and he commissioned a new life, by Matthew Paris. Henry also constructed a grand new tomb for Edward in a rebuilt Westminster Abbey in 1269. Henry III also named his eldest son after Edward.

Until about 1350, Edmund the Martyr, Gregory the Great, and Edward the Confessor were regarded as English national saints, but Edward III preferred the more war-like figure of Saint George, and in 1348 he established the Order of the Garter with Saint George as its patron. At Windsor Castle, its chapel of Saint Edward the Confessor was re-dedicated to Saint George, who was acclaimed in 1351 as patron of the English race. Edward was a less popular saint for many, but he was important to the Norman dynasty, which claimed to be the successor of Edward as the last legitimate Anglo-Saxon king.

The shrine of Saint Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey remains where it was after the final translation of his body to a chapel east of the sanctuary on 13 October 1269 by Henry III. The day of his translation, 13 October (his first translation had also been on that date in 1163), is an optional memorial in the Catholic dioceses of England only. Saint Edward may also be commemorated on the anniversary of his death, 5 January, the date he is inscribed in the Martyrologium Romanum. The Church of England's calendar of saints designates 13 October as a Lesser Festival. Each October the abbey holds a week of festivities and prayer in his honour. Edward is also regarded as a patron saint of difficult marriages.

Appearance and character
The Vita Ædwardi Regis states "[H]e was a very proper figure of a man – of outstanding height, and distinguished by his milky white hair and beard, full face and rosy cheeks, thin white hands, and long translucent fingers; in all the rest of his body he was an unblemished royal person. Pleasant, but always dignified, he walked with eyes downcast, most graciously affable to one and all. If some cause aroused his temper, he seemed as terrible as a lion, but he never revealed his anger by railing." This, as the historian Richard Mortimer notes, 'contains obvious elements of the ideal king, expressed in flattering terms – tall and distinguished, affable, dignified and just.'

Edward was allegedly not above accepting bribes. According to the Ramsey Liber Benefactorum, the monastery's abbot decided that it would be dangerous to publicly contest a claim brought by "a certain powerful man", but he claimed he was able to procure a favourable judgment by giving Edward twenty marks in gold and his wife five marks.

title: Edward the Confessor


text:
Halotolerance

Halotolerance is the adaptation of living organisms to conditions of high salinity. Halotolerant species tend to live in areas such as hypersaline lakes, coastal dunes, saline deserts, salt marshes, and inland salt seas and springs. Halophiles are organisms that live in highly saline environments, and require the salinity to survive, while halotolerant organisms (belonging to different domains of life) can grow under saline conditions, but do not require elevated concentrations of salt for growth. Halophytes are salt-tolerant higher plants. Halotolerant microorganisms are of considerable biotechnological interest.

Applications
Fields of scientific research relevant to halotolerance include biochemistry, molecular biology, cell biology, physiology, ecology, and genetics.

An understanding of halotolerance can be applicable to areas such as arid-zone agriculture, xeriscaping, aquaculture (of fish or algae), bioproduction of desirable compounds (such as phycobiliproteins or carotenoids) using seawater to support growth, or remediation of salt-affected soils. In addition, many environmental stressors involve or induce osmotic changes, so knowledge gained about halotolerance can also be relevant to understanding tolerance to extremes in moisture or temperature.

Goals of studying halotolerance include increasing the agricultural productivity of lands affected by soil salination or where only saline water is available. Conventional agricultural species could be made more halotolerant by gene transfer from naturally halotolerant species (by conventional breeding or genetic engineering) or by applying treatments developed from an understanding of the mechanisms of halotolerance. In addition, naturally halotolerant plants or microorganisms could be developed into useful agricultural crops or fermentation organisms.

Cellular functions in halophytes
Tolerance of high salt conditions can be obtained through several routes. High levels of salt entering the plant can trigger ionic imbalances which cause complications in respiration and photosynthesis, leading to reduced rates of growth, injury and death in severe cases. To be considered tolerant of saline conditions, the protoplast must show methods of balancing the toxic and osmotic effects of the increased salt concentrations. Halophytic vascular plants can survive on soils with salt concentrations around 6%, or up to 20% in extreme cases. Tolerance of such conditions is reached through the use of stress proteins and compatible cytoplasm osmotic solutes.

To exist in such conditions, halophytes tend to be subject to the uptake of high levels of salt into their cells, and this is often required to maintain an osmotic potential lower than that of the soil to ensure water uptake. High salt concentrations within the cell can be damaging to sensitive organelles such as the chloroplast, so sequestration of salt is seen. Under this action, salt is stored within the vacuole to protect such delicate areas. If high salt concentrations are seen within the vacuole, a high concentration gradient will be established between the vacuole and the cytoplasm, leading to high levels of energy investment to maintain this state. Therefore, the accumulation of compatible cytoplasmic osmotic solutes can be seen to prevent this situation from occurring. Amino acids such as proline accumulate in halophytic Brassica species, quaternary ammonium bases such as Glycine Betaine and sugars have been shown to act in this role within halophytic members of Chenopodiaceae and members of Asteraceae show the buildup of cyclites and soluble sugars. The buildup of these compounds allow for the balancing of the osmotic effect while preventing the establishment of toxic concentrations of salt or requiring the maintenance of high concentration gradients.

Bacterial halotolerance
The extent of halotolerance varies widely amongst different species of bacteria. A number of cyanobacteria are halotolerant; an example location of occurrence for such cyanobacteria is in the Makgadikgadi Pans, a large hypersaline lake in Botswana.

Fungal halotolerance
Fungi from habitats with high concentration of salt are mostly halotolerant (i.e. they do not require salt for growth) and not halophilic. Halophilic fungi are a rare exception. Halotolerant fungi constitute a relatively large and constant part of hypersaline environment communities, such as those in the solar salterns. Well studied examples include the yeast Debaryomyces hansenii and black yeasts Aureobasidium pullulans and Hortaea werneckii. The latter can grow in media without salt, as well as in almost saturated NaCl solutions. To emphasize this unusually wide adaptability, some authors describe H. werneckii as "extremely halotolerant".

title: Halotolerance


text:
Pulsed inductive thruster

A pulsed inductive thruster (PIT) is a form of ion thruster, used in spacecraft propulsion. It is a plasma propulsion engine using perpendicular electric and magnetic fields to accelerate a propellant with no electrode.

Operation
A nozzle releases a puff of gas which spreads across a flat spiraling induction coil of wire about 1 meter across. A bank of capacitors releases a pulse of high voltage electric current of tens of kilovolts lasting 10 microseconds into the coil, generating a radial magnetic field. This induces a circular electrical field in the gas, ionizing it and causing charged particles (free electrons and ions) to revolve in the opposite direction as the original pulse of current. Because the motion of this induced current flow is perpendicular to the magnetic field, the plasma is accelerated out into space by the Lorentz force at a high exhaust velocity (10 to 100 km/s).

Advantages
Unlike an electrostatic ion thruster which uses an electric field to accelerate only one species (positive ions), a PIT uses the Lorentz body force acting upon all charged particles within a quasi-neutral plasma. Unlike most other ion and plasma thrusters, it also requires no electrodes (which are susceptible to erosion) and its power can be scaled up simply by increasing the number of pulses per second. A 1-megawatt system would pulse 200 times per second.

Pulsed inductive thrusters can maintain constant specific impulse and thrust efficiency over a wide range of input power levels by adjusting the pulse rate to maintain a constant discharge energy per pulse. It has demonstrated efficiency greater than 50%.

Pulsed inductive thrusters can use a wide range of gases as a propellant, such as water, hydrazine, ammonia, argon, or xenon, among many others. Due to this ability, it has been suggested to use PITs for Martian missions: an orbiter could refuel by scooping CO2 from the atmosphere of Mars, compressing the gas and liquefying it into storage tanks for the return journey or another interplanetary mission, whilst orbiting the planet.

Developments
Early development began with fundamental proof-of-concept studies performed in the mid-1960s. NASA conducts experiments on this device since the early 1980s.

PIT Mk V, VI and VII
NGST (Northrop Grumman Space Technology), as a contractor for NASA, built several experimental PITs.

Research efforts during the first period (1965–1973) were aimed at understanding the structure of an inductive current sheet and evaluating different concepts for propellant injection and preionization.

In the second period (1979–1988), the focus shifted more towards developing a true propulsion system and increasing the performance of the base design through incremental design changes, with the build of Mk I and Mk IV prototypes.

The third period (1991-today) began with the introduction of a new PIT thruster design known as the Mk V. It evolved into the Mk VI, developed to reproduce Mk V single-shot tests, which completely characterize thruster performance. It uses an improved coil of hollow copper tube construction and an improved propellant valve, but is electrically identical to the Mk V, using the same capacitors and switches. The Mk VII (early 2000s) has the same geometry as Mk VI, but is designed for high pulse frequency and long-duration firing with a liquid-cooled coil, longer-life capacitors, and fast, high-power solid-state switches. The goal for Mk VII is to demonstrate up to 50 pulses per second at the rated efficiency and impulse bit at 200 kW of input power in a single thruster. Mk VII design is the base for the most recent NuPIT (Nuclear-electric PIT).

The PIT has obtained relatively high performance in the laboratory environment, but it still requires additional advancements in switching technology and energy storage before becoming practical for high-power in-space applications, with the need for a nuclear-based onboard power source.

FARAD
FARAD, which stands for Faraday accelerator with radio-frequency assisted discharge, is a lower-power alternative to the PIT that has the potential for space operation using current technologies.

In the PIT, both propellant ionization and acceleration are performed by the HV pulse of current in the induction coil, while FARAD uses a separate inductive RF discharge to preionize the propellant before it is accelerated by the current pulse. This preionization allows FARAD to operate at much lower discharge energies than the PIT (100 joules per pulse vs 4 kilojoules per pulse) and allows for a reduction in the thruster's size.

title: Pulsed inductive thruster