text:
Talk:Xylene

Untitled
Portions of the theory subsection of Structure were taken from: http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/sltc/methods/mdt/mdt1002/1002.html

Has anyone read anything about the effects of xylene on tissue sections, and DNA? Tristanb 05:24, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone know the history and discovery of xylene? How it came about? When? Where? Etc?

Explanation of the SP2 and sp3 hybridization unnessessary in this context.

There are several mistakes in this article -- the bond angles (109.5), the alternation of single-double bonds, the uniqueness of benzene as the only aromatic compound w/ 6 carbons in the main ring. ---

It looks like a good deal of this page was taken directly from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts71.html. Sorry I don't have time to fix this. --Noii 20:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Needed citations in Health
I think the needed citations can be found on http://www.temarry.com/chemicals/xylene.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.197.168.201 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise to rewrite the health section but the casual reader could easily be mislead into believing that xylene is reasonably safe. Products I have used that contain xylene recommend wearing protective gloves and breathing masks with absorbents. Also try googling 'xylene msds' and reading the procedures for dealing with poisoning. Hedley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfinger (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Xylene is reasonably safe stuff if you know what you are doing. The following comments apply to acute toxicity: the LD50 for rats is 4300 mg/kg, which means that a 100 kg rat (kinda like me) would need to eat half a liter to get to the 50% lethality level.   You are welcome to wear masks and gloves .. we expect our techs to do the same, but a knowledgeable chemist can handle it safely on the bench in beakers or in 5 gal buckets in open air (so long as they can resist the temptation to drink very much of the stuff).  BTW, when you get around to using sodium chloride, here's a tip from that MSDS: "Splash goggles. Full suit. Dust respirator. Boots. Gloves. A self contained breathing apparatus should be used to avoid inhalation of the product. Suggested protective clothing might not be sufficient; consult a specialist BEFORE handling this product."  Enjoy your chemistry, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's nice that xylene isn't acutely toxic, but most people probably don't want to deal with the health effects of prolonged exposure. There's a reason the OSHA permissible exposure limit is 100 ppm. Here's a paper I found with a quick google search: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3822254 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.97.142 (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

error in health effects?
Right now Health Effects reads in part "High levels from exposure for short periods (14 days or less) or long periods (more than 1 year) can cause headaches..."

Does that mean that the headaches go away after 2 weeks only to return after a year?

202.142.214.43 21:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant?
Does anyone else feel that the Background section of Structure isn't really necessary? Perhaps some links to relevant articles instead? --Trlblzr 04:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree, it seems pointless in this article. --cb2292 12:15, 29 June 2006 (EST)

Please don't remove
the edit which i have added, it is not a test, or  a joke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeybun (talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 December 2005

 * As important as it may be to you, it's really not relevant information for an encyclopedia article. Edgar181 16:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Xylene as fixative
Please amend "Xylene is also used as a fixation agent for animal tissues" as this statement is quite incorrect. Water soluble substances such as Formal saline (usually) or Zenkers or Bouins fixatives are used to "fix" the material (denature protein, stiffen the specimen and destroy microorganisms). The fixed material is dehydrated in alcohol, then cleared with xylene (the xylene defats the tissue and makes is permeable to the paraffin wax in which is is embedded for sectioning). For a paper citation, any standard histotechnique text such as Bancroft and Gamble should suffice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek1975 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

xylene as a gasoline additive?
when gas was expensive, everyone was looking for quick fixes and alternatives, well....they're apparantly still out there, from magic pills, to magnets, and then Acetone(2 oz. per 10 gallons)....well, I found a video online (Hey now, I read it on the internet, it must be true? lol) which mentions this Xylene, in addition to Acetone...following is the video. --67.34.188.252 (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The boiling point is actually a physical property
Under the heading chemical properties, it is said that the chemical properties of the three xylenes is slightly different. However, boiling point is a physical property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiennegoosens (talk • contribs) 17:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Formatting
The table for all compounds that usually appears on the right side, is placed in the centre making it look very ugly. I am not very good at this type of formatting. If someone could please re-align the table perfectly. Darshit 23:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darnir redhat (talk • contribs)

Proposed merger from Xylyl
Naphthyl redirects to Naphthylene, Benzyl to Benzene, Indolyl to Indole, and Thienyl to Thiophene. That, in addition to the lack of novel content available on the Xylyl page, leads me to believe that these should be merged. Enix150 (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Minimum Melting Mixture
Of course, the three isomers have one. Would someone please report in this article, the composition and melting point of same, and also same for the pair-wise mixtures. C.s.auaeginal (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)c.s.auaeginal

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Xylene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5043502.PN.&OS=PN/5043502&RS=PN/5043502
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110811152832/http://apps.kemi.se/flodessok/floden/kemamne_eng/xylen_eng.htm to http://apps.kemi.se/flodessok/floden/kemamne_eng/xylen_eng.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110911020151/http://www.bostik-amer.com/upload/download/MSDS%20Blu%20Tack.pdf to http://www.bostik-amer.com/upload/download/MSDS%20Blu%20Tack.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151022131350/http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/acute_rels/pdf/xylenesA.pdf to http://oehha.ca.gov/air/acute_rels/pdf/XylenesA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Safety>Handling
In the handling section, it says use of gloves is recommended. However, I noticed today Xylene seemed to dissolve my latex gloves.

If anybody know of other materials that are resistant, please include it in the safety section.

2607:FEA8:1360:EA2:409:E9BD:9678:4A32 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Xylene


text:
Publican

In antiquity, publicans (Greek τελώνης telōnēs	[singular]; Latin publicanus [singular]; publicani [plural]) were public contractors, in whose official capacity they often supplied the Roman legions and military, managed the collection of port duties, and oversaw public building projects. In addition, they served as tax collectors for the Roman Republic (and later the Roman Empire), farming the taxes of the Roman provinces, and bidding on contracts (from the Senate in Rome) for the collection of various types of taxes. Importantly, this role as tax collectors was not emphasized until late into the history of the Republic (c. 1st century BC). The publicans were usually of the class of equites.

During the republican era, civil service, which was the size of modern middle-sized city governments, dealt with organising public policy for nearly thirty million people. The solution for the day-to-day operation of public administration was the extensive use of private contracting in the implementation of public policies. The earliest accounts of contracting describe contracts for feeding sacred geese, which were honoured for warning the citizens of Rome of approaching enemies, on the hill of Capitolium in Rome in 390 BC.

Private organisations, societas publicanorum, and their managers, the publicani, took care of most public duties, such as constructing public buildings, supplying equipment for the army, operating mines and, most importantly, collecting taxes. The societies participated in tenders for public duties. Those who offered the lowest price won construction deals, and those who guaranteed the highest amount of collected taxes for the Senate succeeded in tax collection tenders. The management structure of the societies represented a core-periphery structure with a relatively small permanent management structure and a large short-term operative work-force, which could be adjusted according to successes and losses in consecutive competitive tenders.

The societas publicanorum were probably the first type of limited liability shareholder-owned companies. A legal structure for limiting liability in purely private business activity did not exist at the time. To limit personal liability, which could lead to slavery and the confiscation of all personal property, early entrepreneurs invented the practice of common slave ownership, in which a jointly owned slave served as chief executive officer of the enterprise. As slaves were 'things' responsible for only their own cost, they liberated the owners of their personal liabilities.

History
At the height of the Republic's era of provincial expansion (roughly 146 BC until the end of the Republic in 27 BC) the Roman tax farming system was very profitable for the publicani. The right to collect taxes for a particular region would be auctioned every few years for a value that (in theory) approximated the tax available for collection in that region. The payment to Rome was treated as a loan and the publicani would receive interest on their payment at the end of the collection period. In addition, any excess (over their bid) tax collected would be pure profit for the publicani. The principal risk to the publicani was that the tax collected would be less than the sum bid.

In the Roman Republic, the distinction between politics and business was clear-cut. Senators could not take part in the management of the societas publicanorum or other business activities, but they could be shareholders of the companies. Likewise, private contractors could not enter seats in the Senate. Consequently, the publicani, as the most influential group in the order of the knights, became part of the power-balancing mechanism of ancient Rome.

Tax farming deals in newly acquired eastern provinces in Asia Minor proved to be a highly lucrative source of income for the companies, which placed publicani in competitive positions with the appointed local governors of the provinces. Also, the exclusion of the publicani from the Senate opened up positions for them in the special courts, allowing them to weigh the limits and practices of government power.

The actions of the publicani were fiercely criticised. They were accused of insurance fraud in delivering goods during the Punic wars, of excessive greed when collecting taxes in the provinces, of exceptionally cruel conduct towards slave labour working in the mines, and of fraudulent practices in trying to get rid of unprofitable public contracts. However, surviving literary sources are mainly based on accounts of senators, who were in a competitive position with the publicani. Still, the overall operation of the private contractors seems to have supplied satisfactory results for the management of the Republic.

The degradation of the role of private contracting coincided with the beginning of the rule of the emperors, during which the oligarchic power of the Senate had to give way for the autocratic rule of the Caesars, and a more centralised public civil service system replaced private contractors in implementing the most important parts of public policy. However, the equestrian order, to which the publicani belonged, formed the backbone of the population from which civil servants were recruited. Throughout history, the publicani, or, more precisely, their local henchmen, were probably best known from their minor local tax collecting duties in Roman provinces during the imperial era

By New Testament times, the provincial people came to see the publicans chiefly as tax collectors. It is in this sense that the term is used in Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. However, their role as public contractors, especially as regards building projects, was still significant. With the rise of a much larger Imperial bureaucracy, this task of the publicans, as well as their overall importance, declined precipitously. Evidence for the existence of publicans extends as far back as the 3rd century BC, although it is generally assumed that they existed at still earlier times in Roman history. Knowledge of a tentative terminus post quem is taken from the histories of the 1st century AD Imperial historian Livy.

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

title: Publican


text:
Jerome Mincy

Jerome Alfred Mincy Clark (born November 10, 1964) is a Puerto Rican former professional basketball player who was born to Shelly and Willie Mincy at Ramey Air Force Base in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico on November 10, 1964. He played in the NCAA with the UAB Blazers and the Baloncesto Superior Nacional (BSN) with Vaqueros de Bayamón. He was a member of the Puerto Rican national team from 1983 to 2002.

Biography
Jerome joined the BSN's Vaqueros De Bayamón when he turned 18, in 1982, while attending College at UAB. Following his senior season he failed to make the roster of the NBA's New York Knicks. He was selected in the fifth round of the 1986 NBA draft by the Knicks, but never made the roster. He completed a solid career playing abroad in France, Spain and Argentina with the Boca Juniors. He also played during the summers in Puerto Rico where he took the Vaqueros to three championships ('88, '95 & '96) and many final appearances. In 2012–2013, he was named an assistant coach for the Mets De Guaynabo in the Puerto Rican league.

He also played for Puerto Rico's national basketball team from 1983 to 2002. He retired from the BSN after the 2002 Finals and from the Puerto Rican National team after the 2002 World Championships in Indianapolis. He participated in 3 Olympic Games competitions representing Puerto Rico. He announced he will stay on the national team, but on an executive position as General Manager he is also the current top assistant with the Vaqueros de Bayamon.

The Vaqueros team retired his jersey, number 17, in 2002. However, Mincy was traded to the Leones de Ponce before the season began.

Career stats
Mincy's NCAA stats are 1473 points with a 10.8 PPG, 933 rebounds, .477 field goal percentage, .638 free-throw percentage.

National team career
Jerome Mincy played at 5 FIBA World Cups: (1986, 1990, 1994, 1998, and 2002). He totaled 36 games played and 383 points scored during those competitions.

title: Jerome Mincy


text:
Max Euwe

Machgielis "Max" Euwe (May 20, 1901 – November 26, 1981) was a Dutch chess player, mathematician, author, and chess administrator. He was the fifth player to become World Chess Champion, a title he held from 1935 until 1937. He served as President of FIDE, the World Chess Federation, from 1970 to 1978.

Early years, education and professional career
Euwe was born in the Watergraafsmeer, in Amsterdam. He studied mathematics at the University of Amsterdam under the founder of intuitionistic logic, L.E.J. Brouwer (who later became his friend and for whom he held a funeral oration), and earned his doctorate in 1926 under Roland Weitzenböck. He taught mathematics, first in Rotterdam, and later at a girls' Lyceum in Amsterdam. After World War II, Euwe became interested in computer programming and was appointed professor in this subject at the universities of Rotterdam and Tilburg, retiring from Tilburg University in 1971. He published a mathematical analysis of the game of chess from an intuitionistic point of view, in which he showed, using the Thue–Morse sequence, that the then-official rules (in 1929) did not exclude the possibility of infinite games.

Early chess career
Euwe played his first tournament at age 10, winning every game. He won every Dutch chess championship that he entered from 1921 until 1952, and won the title in 1955; his 12 titles are still a record. The only other winners during this period were Salo Landau in 1936, when Euwe, then world champion, did not compete; and Jan Hein Donner in 1954. He became the world amateur chess champion in 1928, at The Hague, with a score of 12/15.

Euwe married in 1926, started a family soon afterwards, and could play competitive chess only during school vacations, so his opportunities for top-level international chess competition were limited. But he performed well in the few tournaments and matches for which he could find time, from the early 1920s to mid-1930s. He lost a training match to Alexander Alekhine in the Netherlands in December 1926 / January 1927, with 4½/10 (+2−3=5). The match was played to help Euwe prepare for a future encounter with José Raúl Capablanca, then world champion. Euwe lost both the first and second FIDE Championship matches to Efim Bogoljubow, held in the Netherlands in 1928 and 1928‒29 respectively, scoring 4½/10 in each match ((+2−3=5) in the first match, (+1−2=7) in the second match). He lost a match to Capablanca in Amsterdam in 1931 with 4/10 (+0−2=8). He won a match against Spielmann in Amsterdam in 1932, 3–1, played to help Euwe prepare for his upcoming match with Salo Flohr.

In 1932, Euwe drew a match with Flohr 8–8, and was equal second with Flohr, behind Alekhine, at a major tournament in Bern. According to Reuben Fine, these results established Euwe and Flohr as Alekhine's most credible challengers.

At Zürich 1934, Euwe again finished equal second with Flohr, behind Alekhine, and he defeated Alekhine in their game.

World Champion
In 1933, Max Euwe challenged Alekhine to a championship match. Alekhine accepted the challenge for October 1935. Earlier that year, Dutch radio sports journalist Han Hollander asked Capablanca for his views on the forthcoming match. In the rare archival film footage where Capablanca and Euwe both speak, Capablanca replies: "Dr. Alekhine's game is 20% bluff. Dr. Euwe's game is clear and straightforward. Dr. Euwe's game—not so strong as Alekhine's in some respects—is more evenly balanced." Then Euwe gives his assessment in Dutch, explaining that his feelings alternated from optimism to pessimism, but in the previous ten years, their score had been evenly matched at 7–7.

On December 15, 1935, after 30 games played in 13 different cities around the Netherlands over a period of 80 days, Euwe defeated Alekhine by 15½–14½, becoming the fifth World Chess Champion. Alekhine quickly went three games ahead, but Euwe managed to even out and eventually win the match. His title gave a huge boost to chess in the Netherlands. It was also the first world championship where the players had to help them with analysis during adjournments.

Euwe's win was regarded as a major upset – he reportedly had believed that beating Alekhine was unlikely – and is sometimes attributed to Alekhine's alcoholism. But Salo Flohr, who helped Euwe during the match, thought Alekhine's over-confidence was more of a problem than alcohol; Alekhine himself said he would win easily. Former World Champions Vasily Smyslov, Boris Spassky, Anatoly Karpov, and Garry Kasparov later analysed the match and concluded that Euwe deserved to win and that the standard of play was worthy of a world championship. Former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik has said that Euwe won the 1935 match on merit and that the result was not affected by Alekhine's drinking before or during the match.

Euwe's performance in the great tournament of Nottingham 1936 (equal third, half a point behind Botvinnik and Capablanca, half a point ahead of Alekhine) indicated he was a worthy champion, even if he was not as dominant as the earlier champions. Reuben Fine wrote, "In the two years before the return match, Euwe's strength increased. Although he never enjoyed the supremacy over his rivals that his predecessors had, he had no superiors in this period."

Euwe lost the title to Alekhine in a rematch in 1937, also played in the Netherlands, by the lopsided margin of 15½–9½. Alekhine had given up alcohol and tobacco to prepare for the rematch, although he resumed drinking later. He returned to the sort of form he had shown from 1927 to 1934, when he dominated chess. The match was a real contest initially, but Euwe's play collapsed near the end, and he lost four of the last five games. Fine, who was Euwe's second, attributed the collapse to nervous tension, possibly aggravated by Euwe's attempts to maintain a calm appearance.

The two world title matches against Alekhine represent the heart of Euwe's career. Altogether, they played 86 competitive games, and Alekhine had a +28−20=38 lead. Many of Alekhine's wins came early in their series; he was nine years older, and had more experience during that time. The rematch was also one-sided in Alekhine's favour.

Until American born Bobby Fischer won the title in 1972, Euwe was the last World Chess champion not born in the Soviet Union

Later chess career
Euwe finished equal fourth with Alekhine and Reshevsky in the AVRO tournament of 1938 in the Netherlands, which featured the world's top eight players and was an attempt to decide who should challenge Alekhine for the world championship. Euwe also had a major organizational role in the event.

He played a match with Paul Keres in the Netherlands in 1939–40, losing 6½–7½.

After Alekhine's death in 1946, Euwe was considered by some to have a moral right to the position of world champion, based at least partially on his clear second-place finish in the great tournament at Groningen in 1946, behind Mikhail Botvinnik. But Euwe consented to participate in a five-player tournament to select the new champion, the World Chess Championship 1948. At 47, Euwe was significantly older than the other players, and well past his best. He finished last. In 1950, FIDE granted Euwe the title of international grandmaster on its inaugural list. He took part in the Gijón international tournament in 1951, winning ahead of Pilnik and Rossolimo with a score of (+7 =2).

Euwe's final major tournament was the double round robin Candidates' Tournament in Zürich, 1953, where he finished next to last. He was in the top half of the field after the first half of the tournament, but tired in the second half.

Euwe played for the Netherlands in seven Chess Olympiads from 1927 to 1962, a 35-year span, always on first board. He scored 10½/15 at London 1927, 9½/13 at Stockholm 1937 for a bronze medal, 8/12 at Dubrovnik 1950, 7½/13 at Amsterdam 1954, 8½/11 at Munich 1958 for a silver medal at age 57, 6½/16 at Leipzig 1960, and finally 4/7 at Varna 1962. His aggregate was 54½/87 for 62.6 percent.

In 1957, Euwe played a short match against 14-year-old future world champion Bobby Fischer, winning one game and drawing the other. His lifetime score against Fischer was one win, one loss, and one draw.

Euwe won a total of 102 first prizes in tournaments during his career, many of them local.

He became a computer science professor at Tilburg University in 1964.

FIDE President

From 1970 (at age 69) until 1978, Euwe was president of FIDE. As president, he usually did what he considered morally right rather than what was politically expedient. On several occasions this brought him into conflict with the USSR Chess Federation, which thought it had the right to dominate matters because it contributed a very large share of FIDE's budget and Soviet players dominated the world rankings – in effect, they treated chess as an extension of the Cold War. These conflicts included:
 * The events leading up to Bobby Fischer's participation in the World Chess Championship 1972 match against Boris Spassky, which led to Fischer's becoming the first non-Soviet champion since World War II. Euwe thought it important for the game's health and reputation that Fischer have the opportunity to challenge for the title as soon as possible, and interpreted the rules very flexibly to enable Fischer to play in the 1970 Interzonal Tournament, which he won by a commanding score.
 * The defection of Gennadi Sosonko in 1972. The Soviets demanded that Sosonko should be treated as an "unperson", excluded from competitive chess, television or any other event that might be evidence of his defection. When Euwe refused, Soviet players boycotted the 1974 Wijk aan Zee tournament in the Netherlands because Sosonko competed.
 * In 1976, world championship contender Viktor Korchnoi sought political asylum in the Netherlands. In a discussion a few days earlier, Euwe told Korchnoi: "... of course you will retain all your rights ..." and opposed Soviet efforts to prevent Korchnoi from challenging Anatoly Karpov's title in 1978.
 * Later in 1976, Euwe supported FIDE's decision to hold the 1976 Chess Olympiad in Israel, which the Soviet Union did not recognize as a country, although the Soviets had won the 1964 Olympiad which had also been held in Israel. The Central Committee of Communist Party of the Soviet Union then started plotting to depose Euwe as president of FIDE.

Euwe lost some of his battles with the Soviets. According to Sosonko, in 1973, he accepted the Soviets' demand that Bent Larsen and Robert Hübner, the two strongest non-Soviet contenders (Fischer was now champion), should play in the Leningrad Interzonal tournament rather than the weaker one in Petrópolis. Larsen and Hübner were eliminated from the competition for the World Championship because Korchnoi and Karpov took the first two places at Leningrad.

Some commentators have also questioned whether Euwe did as much as he could have to prevent Fischer from forfeiting his world title in 1975.

It is also notable that in 1976, Rohini Khadilkar became the first female to compete in the Indian Men's Championship. Her involvement in a male competition caused a furore that necessitated a successful appeal to the High Court and caused Euwe to rule that women could not be barred from national or international championships.

Despite the turbulence of the period, most assessments of Euwe's performance as president of FIDE are sympathetic:
 * Spassky, who had nominated Euwe for the job: "He should certainly not have disqualified Fischer, and he should have been a little tougher with the Soviets ... you get a pile of complicated problems. But Euwe, of course, was the man for the job."
 * Karpov said Euwe was a very good FIDE President, although he did commit one very serious error, rapidly extending the membership of FIDE to many small third-world countries. "But neither he nor I could have foreseen what this would lead to. ... This led not only to the inflation of the grandmaster title, but also to the leadership vacuum at the head of the world of chess."
 * Garry Kasparov was blunter: "... unfortunately, he could not foresee the dangers flowing from a FIDE practically under Soviet dominance."
 * Korchnoi regarded Euwe as the last honorable president of FIDE.
 * Yuri Averbakh, who was a Soviet chess official as well as a grandmaster: "... he always sought to understand the opposing point of view ... Such behavior was in sharp contrast to the behavior of the Soviet delegation leaders ... Max Euwe was, without a doubt, the best President FIDE ever had."

He died in 1981, age 80, of a heart attack. Revered around the chess world for his many contributions, he had travelled extensively while FIDE President, bringing many new members into the organization.

Assessment of Euwe's chess
Euwe was noted for his logical approach and for his knowledge of openings, in which he made major contributions to chess theory. Paradoxically his two title matches with Alekhine were displays of tactical ferocity from both sides. But the comments by Kmoch and Alekhine (below) may explain this: Euwe "strode confidently into some extraordinarily complex variations" if he thought logic was on his side; and he was extremely good at calculating these variations. On the other hand, he "often lacked the stamina to pull himself out of bad positions".

Alekhine was allegedly more frank in his Russian-language articles than in those he wrote in English, French or German. In his Russian articles he often described Euwe as lacking in originality and in the mental toughness required of a world champion. Sosonko thought Euwe's modesty was a handicap in top-class chess (although Euwe was well aware of how much stronger he was than "ordinary" grandmasters).

Vladimir Kramnik also says Euwe anticipated Botvinnik's emphasis on technical preparation, and Euwe was usually in good shape physically because he was a keen sportsman.

Chess books by Euwe
Euwe wrote over 70 chess books, far more than any other World Champion; some of the best-known are The Road to Chess Mastery, Judgement and Planning in Chess, The Logical Approach to Chess, and Strategy and Tactics in Chess. Former Soviet grandmaster Sosonko used Euwe and den Hertog's 1927 Practische Schaaklessen as a textbook when teaching in the Leningrad House of Pioneers, and considers it "one of the best chess books ever". Fischer World Champion, an account of the 1972 World Chess Championship match, co-authored by Euwe with Jan Timman, was written in 1972 but not published in English until 2002. Euwe's book From My Games, 1920–1937 was originally published in 1939 by Harcourt, Brace and Company, and was republished by Dover in 1975 (ISBN 0-486-23111-9). He also did not forget children in his published writings. The year he won the world championship Chess he wrote a book named: (Dutch) Oom Jan leert zijn neefje schaken.

Legacy

In Amsterdam, there is a Max Euwe Plein (square) (near the Leidseplein) with a large chess set and statue, where the 'Max Euwe Stichting' is located in a former jailhouse. It has a Max Euwe museum and a large collection of chess books.

Honours

 * In 1936, Euwe was appointed Officer of the Order of Orange-Nassau.
 * In 1979, Euwe was promoted to Commander of the Order of Orange-Nassau.

title: Max Euwe


text:
Talk:Tungsten

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024
Additional information for the history:

As early as the 16th century, the Freiberg mineralogist Georgius Agricola described the occurrence of a mineral in Saxon tin ores that made tin extraction considerably more difficult by slagging the tin content. The part of the name Wolf comes from this property, as the mineral “ate” the tin ore like a wolf. Whether this was wolframite is still controversial today, as Agricola spoke of the “lightness” of the mineral. He called the mineral lupi spuma, which translated from Latin means something like “wolf foam”. It was later called Wolfram, from the Middle High German rām “soot, cream, dirt”, as the black-grey mineral can be grounded up very easily and then resembles soot.[13] Its chemical symbol W comes from the name Wolfram.

Common in English, Italian and French, the word tungsten is derived from tung sten (Swedish for “heavy stone”). In Sweden at the time, this did not mean tungsten itself (Swedish volfram), but rather calcium tungstate. In 1781, the German-Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele recognized a previously unknown salt. !!!And then the rest of the history section can be kept!!! 2003:C9:8F0D:E00:E4D3:BD6:4945:BF29 (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 23:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Worldwide resources edit request
This reference below has Australia as having the second largest reserves of tungsten after China. It is published by the Australian Government agency Geoscience Australia and shows 394 kt and 11% of worldwide know reserves. I’d like to update the article to represent this.

https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/minerals/mineral-resources-and-advice/australian-resource-reviews/tungsten cweng50 (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tungsten


text:
The ¡Alarma! Chronicles

'''The ¡Alarma! Chronicles''' is the name of a short story written by Terry Scott Taylor.

The story was originally included in four albums released by the rock band Daniel Amos. Part one was included in their 1981 release, ¡Alarma!, part two was included in their 1983 release, Doppelgänger, part three was included in their 1984 release, Vox Humana and the final part was included in their 1986 release, Fearful Symmetry. Each album musically and conceptually followed the themes of each part of the story.

The entire story was then released in its entirety in the 200 page hardcover book ''The ¡Alarma! Chronicles'' in 1999. That book also included three CDs with all of the music from the four previously mentioned albums, plus interviews with the band members, photos, essays and lyrics.

title: The ¡Alarma! Chronicles


text:
Battle of Navarino

The Battle of Navarino was a naval battle fought on 20 October (O.S. 8 October) 1827, during the Greek War of Independence (1821–1829), in Navarino Bay (modern Pylos), on the west coast of the Peloponnese peninsula, in the Ionian Sea. Allied forces from Britain, France, and Russia decisively defeated Ottoman and Egyptian forces which were trying to suppress the Greeks, thereby making Greek independence much more likely. An Ottoman armada which, in addition to Imperial warships, included squadrons from the eyalets of Egypt and Tunis, was destroyed by an Allied force of British, French and Russian warships. It was the last major naval battle in history to be fought entirely with sailing ships, although most ships fought at anchor. The Allies' victory was achieved through superior firepower and gunnery.

The context of the three Great Powers' intervention in the Greek conflict was the Russian Empire's long-running expansion at the expense of the decaying Ottoman Empire. Russia's ambitions in the region were seen as a major geostrategic threat by the other European powers, which feared the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of Russian hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean. The precipitating factor was support of elements in Orthodox Russia for Greek coreligionists, despite the opposition of Tsar Alexander in 1821 following the Greek rebellion against their Ottoman overlords. Similarly, despite official British interest in maintaining the Ottoman Empire, British public opinion strongly supported the Greeks. Fearing unilateral Russian action, Britain and France bound Russia, by treaty, to a joint intervention which aimed to secure Greek autonomy, whilst still preserving Ottoman territorial integrity as a check on Russia.

The Powers agreed, by the Treaty of London (1827), to force the Ottoman government to grant the Greeks autonomy within the empire and despatched naval squadrons to the Eastern Mediterranean to enforce their policy. The naval battle happened more by accident than by design as a result of a manoeuvre by the Allied commander-in-chief, Admiral Edward Codrington, aimed at coercing the Ottoman commander to obey Allied instructions. The sinking of the Ottomans' Mediterranean fleet saved the fledgling Greek Republic from collapse. But it required two more military interventions, by Russia in the form of the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–29 and a French expeditionary force to the Peloponnese to force the withdrawal of Ottoman forces from central and southern Greece, to finally secure Greek independence.

Background
The Ottoman Turks had conquered the Greek-controlled Byzantine empire during the 15th century, taking over its territory and its capital, Constantinople, and becoming its effective successor-state. In 1821, Greek nationalists revolted against the Ottomans, aiming to liberate ethnic Greeks from four centuries of Ottoman rule. Fighting raged for several years but by 1825, a stalemate had developed, with the Greeks unable to drive the Ottomans out of most of Greece, but the Ottomans were unable to crush the revolt definitively. However, in 1825, the Sultan succeeded in breaking the stalemate. He persuaded his powerful wali (viceroy) of Egypt, Muhammad Ali Pasha, who was technically his vassal but in practice autonomous, to deploy his Western-trained and equipped army and navy against the Greeks. In return, the Sultan promised to grant the rebel heartland, the Peloponnese, as a hereditary fief to Ali's eldest son, Ibrahim. In February 1825, Ibrahim led an expeditionary force of 16,000 into the Peloponnese, and soon overran its western part; he failed, however, to take the eastern section, where the rebel government was based (at Nafplion).

The Greek revolutionaries remained defiant, and appointed experienced philhellenic British officers at the head of the army and fleet: Maj Sir Richard Church (land) and Lord Cochrane (sea). By this time however, the Greek provisional government's land and sea forces were far inferior to those of the Ottomans and Egyptians: in 1827, Greek regular troops numbered less than 5,000, compared to 25,000 Ottomans in central Greece and 15,000 Egyptians in the Peloponnese. Also, the Greek government was virtually bankrupt. Many of the key fortresses on what little territory it controlled were in Ottoman hands. It seemed only a matter of time before the Greeks were forced to capitulate. At this critical juncture, the Greek cause was rescued by the decision of three Great Powers—Great Britain, France and Russia—to intervene jointly in the conflict.

Diplomacy of the Great Powers
From the inception of the Greek revolt until 1826, Anglo-Austrian diplomatic efforts were aimed at ensuring the non-intervention of the other great powers in the conflict. Their objective was to stall Russian military intervention in support of the Greeks, in order to give the Ottomans time to defeat the rebellion. However, the Ottomans proved unable to suppress the revolt during the long period of non-intervention secured by Anglo-Austrian diplomacy. By the time the Ottomans were making serious progress, the situation evolved in ways that would make non-interventionism untenable. In December 1825, the diplomatic landscape changed with the death of Tsar Alexander and the succession of his younger brother Nicholas I to the Russian throne. Nicholas was a more decisive and risk-taking character than his brother, as well as being far more nationalistic. The British government's response to the evolving situation was to move towards joint intervention instead to limit Russian expansionism. Britain, France, and Russia signed the Treaty of London on 6 July 1827. The treaty called for an immediate armistice between the belligerents, in effect demanding a cessation of Ottoman military operations in Greece just when the Ottomans had victory in their grasp. It also offered Allied mediation in the negotiations on a final settlement that were to follow the armistice. The treaty called on the Ottomans to grant Greece a degree of autonomy, but envisaged it ultimately remaining under Ottoman suzerainty.

A secret clause in the agreement provided that if the Ottomans failed to accept the armistice within a month, each signatory Power would despatch a consul to Nafplion, the capital of the Hellenic Republic, thereby granting de facto recognition to the rebel government, something no Power had done hitherto. The same clause authorized the signatories in concert to instruct their naval commanders in the Mediterranean to "take all measures that circumstances may suggest" (i.e. including military action) to enforce the Allied demands, if the Ottomans failed to comply within the specified time limit. However, the clause added that Allied commanders should not take sides in the conflict. On 20 August 1827, the British naval commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean, Vice-Admiral of the Blue Sir Edward Codrington, a veteran of 44 years at sea and a popular hero for his role in the Battle of Trafalgar, received his government's instructions regarding enforcement of the treaty. Codrington could not have been a less suitable person for a task which required great tact. An impetuous fighting sailor, he entirely lacked diplomatic finesse, a quality he despised and derisively ascribed to his French counterpart, Henri de Rigny. He was also a sympathiser with the Greek cause, having subscribed to the London Philhellenic Committee.

Order of battle
Exact figures for the Ottoman/Egyptian fleet are difficult to establish. The figures given above are mainly those enclosed by Codrington in his report. These were obtained by one of his officers from the French secretary of the Ottoman fleet, a M. Letellier. However, another report by Letellier to the British ambassador to the Ottomans gives two more frigates and 20 fewer corvettes/brigs for a total of 60 warships. James assesses the Ottomans' "effective" strength as even lower: three ships of the line, 15 large frigates and 18 corvettes, totaling just 36 ships.

Ottomans
Source: Compiled from information in W. James Naval History of Great Britain (London, 1837) Vol.VI, pp. 476–89 and the French Revue maritime et coloniale de 1883.

** Ottoman Empire/Egypt/Tunisia (Ibrahim Pasha)
 * Capitan Bey Squadron (Alexandria): two ships of the line, five frigates, 12 corvettes
 * Moharram Bey Squadron (Alexandria): four frigates, 11 corvettes, 21 brigs, five schooners, and five or six fireships
 * Tunis Squadron: two frigates, one brig
 * Tahir Pasha Squadron (Admiral commanding) (Constantinople): one ship of the line, six frigates, seven corvettes, six brigs

Preliminary moves
Vice-Admiral Codrington's instructions were to impose and enforce an armistice on both sides and to interdict the flow of reinforcements and supplies from Asia Minor and Egypt to Ottoman forces in Greece. He was to use force only as a last resort.

On 29 August, the Ottomans formally rejected the Treaty of London's stipulations, triggering the dispatch of Allied representatives to Nafplion. On 2 September, the Greek provisional government accepted the armistice. This freed Codrington to concentrate on coercing the Ottoman side.

Navarino Bay is a large natural harbour on the west coast of Messinia in the south-west Peloponnese. It is approximately 5 km long (between the headlands) and 3 km wide. The bay is sheltered from the open sea by a long, narrow islet, Sphacteria. This islet leaves two entrances to the bay. Because of a sandbank, the northern one is very narrow and shallow, 100 m wide and just 1 m deep in places, impassable to large boats. The southern one is much wider, 1,500 m, with an effective passage of 1,000 m width because of rocks. The southern entrance was at that time guarded by the Ottoman-held New Navarino fortress (Pylos). During the Greek insurgency, the bay was used by the Ottoman navy as its main operational base in the Peloponnese.

A large Ottoman–Egyptian fleet, which had been warned by the British and French to stay away from Greece, left Alexandria on 5 August 1827 and joined other Ottoman units at Navarino on 8 September. In response, Codrington arrived with his squadron off Navarino on 12 September. In talks on 25 September with Ibrahim Pasha and the Ottoman admiral, he extracted verbal promises that they would cease offensive operations by land and sea. After these talks, Codrington withdrew to the nearby British-controlled Ionian island of Zante (Zakynthos), leaving a frigate off Navarino to keep watch on the Ottoman fleet.

But the Ottomans soon violated these understandings. Ibrahim was outraged that, while he was expected to observe a ceasefire, Codrington seemingly allowed the Greeks to continue military operations unhindered. The Greeks' British commanders were on the offensive at the entrance of the strategically vital Gulf of Corinth. Church's army laid siege to the Ottoman-held port of Patras, while Cochrane organised a revolt behind Ottoman lines in Epirus. By sea, Frank Abney Hastings, a former British naval officer now serving with the Greeks, used a steam-powered warship, the Karteria, to launch a daring night raid on 29/30 September at Itea on the northern shore of the gulf, sinking nine Ottoman gunboats. The problem for Codrington was that these officers were acting on their own initiative, largely ignoring the often contradictory directives of their employer, the Greek provisional government. Recognising that appeals to the latter were ineffective, Codrington despatched aides directly to the British commanders to demand that they cease operations, but with little result. After a vain protest to Codrington, Ibrahim decided to act. On 1 October, he despatched a naval squadron to reinforce the Patras garrison. It was intercepted by Codrington's squadron at the entrance to the gulf, and forced to return to Navarino, shadowed by Codrington. Ibrahim tried again on the night of 3/4 October, this time leading the squadron in person. Using the darkness, he succeeded in slipping past the British picket ship unobserved, but was prevented from entering the gulf by a strong headwind. His squadron was obliged to anchor in the lee of Cape Pappas and wait out the storm. This gave Codrington time to catch up, and the British squadron, after a whole day of fighting the wind, arrived off Pappas on the evening of 4 October. Codrington fired a series of warning broadsides, and Ibrahim reluctantly decided to turn back.

In the meantime, Ibrahim's scorched-earth policy continued unabated on land. The fires of burning villages and fields were clearly visible from Allied ships standing offshore. A British landing party reported that the population of Messinia was close to mass starvation.

On 13 October, Codrington was joined off Navarino by a French squadron under Rigny and a Russian squadron under L. van Heiden. On 18 October, after futile attempts to contact Ibrahim Pasha, Codrington, in conference with his Allied colleagues, took the fateful decision to enter Navarino Bay and anchor his ships face-to-face with the Ottoman/Egyptian fleet. It was decided that with winter approaching, it was impracticable to maintain an effective blockade of Navarino, and that in any event, the population of the Peloponnese had to be safeguarded. Although this was a highly provocative act, Codrington claimed that there was no intention to engage in battle, but only to make a show of force to induce the Ottomans to respect the armistice and to desist from atrocities against the civilian population.

Allies
The Allied navies at this time were still deploying essentially the same technology as during the Napoleonic Wars: sailing ships, unarmoured wooden hulls and muzzle-loading smoothbore cannon. The navies, especially the British one, had ignored the new technologies that were to transform them by the 1850s: steam propulsion, ironclad hulls, rifled guns and explosive shells. All these had been invented by 1827, but their development for naval warfare, let alone introduction, met dogged resistance from senior naval echelons. In the words of one scholar: "The great admirals of the 18th century would have had no difficulty in taking over Codrington's command at short notice."

However, the Royal Navy's warships had seen some improvements. Ships with triple gun-decks such as Nelson's famous HMS Victory had been phased out. Triple-deckers had been found to be too unstable and difficult to manoeuvre. The standard Canopus-class ship of the line was a double-deck 74–84 ship of the line, based on the successful "74" French design. In addition, gun-calibres had been upgraded. The Napoleonic-era Fame-class ship of the line had been equipped with 32-pounders on the main gun-deck, 18-pounders on the upper deck and 9- and 12-pounders on the super-structures (quarterdeck and forecastle). In contrast, the guns were now all 24- or 32-pounders (plus a couple of massive 68-pounder carronades on the super-structures). Frigates were either double-deckers of 50–60 guns (known as large frigates) or single-deckers with 24–44 guns.

Most of the Allied ships, however, were still veteran Napoleonic-era warhorses (e.g. HMS Albion (1802)). Codrington's only Canopus-class was his flagship, HMS Asia (1824) (launched 1824), although Genoa (an impounded French "74") was also post-Napoleonic (1816). In the French squadron, Rigny was so appalled by the state of the three ships of the line sent to him that he decided to keep his flag on the Sirène, a modern frigate.

Ottomans
Overall at Navarino, the Allies had 22 ships and 1,258 guns against the Ottomans' 78 ships with 2,180 guns (figures exclude smaller boats and fireships). But the numbers masked major Allied advantages in ship-types, gun-calibres and crew quality. As a result of these, Allied gun-crews could fire more powerful, more frequent and more accurate cannonades than their Ottoman counterparts.

The Allies had a substantial superiority in front-line combat vessels: 10 ships of the line to the Ottomans' three. This advantage was only partially offset by the Ottomans' seven double-deck frigates against one Allied vessel of this kind. The great majority of the Ottoman–Egyptian fleet were smaller vessels – 58 corvettes and brigs – which were of little use against the Allied heavyweights: they had much smaller firepower, and, their decks being lower, could easily be dismasted by raking fire. In addition, the Ottoman–Egyptians mainly deployed smaller-calibre guns than the Allies (often the guns discarded by the Allies when they upgraded their own calibres). Most of the Allied crews had gained extensive combat experience in the Napoleonic Wars, which had only ended 12 years previously, and were service professionals. In contrast, the Ottoman crews only had combat experience against the Greek revolutionary naval forces, which although gallant and effective, bore no resemblance to the navies of the Great Powers. In many cases, Ottoman crews practiced impressment to fill their ships' complements. Some Ottoman crew were even found, after the battle, to have been shackled at their posts (convicts, Greek prisoners or other involuntary recruits).

The Egyptian contingent, the largest and best-equipped of the Ottoman fleet at Navarino, had been trained by a team of French officers, under the overall direction of Capt J-M. Letellier. These officers acted as "shadow-captains" of the large Egyptian vessels, each advising the nominal Egyptian captain. The day before the battle, Rigny persuaded these officers to withdraw from the Egyptian fleet so as to avoid the possibility of fighting against their own navy (they moved to an Austrian brig that was in the bay, ostensibly neutral but in reality providing logistical support for Ottoman operations). Letellier himself was sick and also took no part. This deprived the Egyptians of experienced command.

For the Allies, probably the Ottomans' most dangerous weapon were their fireships. These had long been deployed to devastating effect by the Greek revolutionaries against the Ottomans, who had learnt how to use them through hard experience. Fireships were posted on the wings of the Ottoman formation, and could, if effectively deployed, wreak mayhem on Allied boats concentrated in enclosed waters, especially as Allied sailors had no experience of this kind of warfare. The danger was graphically demonstrated in the early phase of the battle, when the French ship of the line Scipion narrowly escaped being destroyed by a fireship.

The Ottomans possessed a shore battery on each side of the main entrance to the bay, in Navarino fort and on the southern tip of Sphacteria island. These could have seriously impeded Allied entry into the bay, but Codrington was clearly confident that the Ottomans would not start a shooting war. (Or, in an alternative interpretation, he hoped that they would, to give him an excuse to destroy the Ottoman fleet.)

Strategies for battle
Following an elaborate defensive plan proposed by Letellier, the Ottoman-Egyptian fleet was anchored in a horseshoe formation, in three lines, extending from Navarino fort to the southern tip of Sphacteria island, where the Ottoman shore battery lay. The front line consisted of the ships of the line and large frigates; the second line contained the remaining frigates and larger corvettes; the third consisted of the remaining smaller vessels. The idea was that the smaller vessels could fire through the gaps in the frontline, whilst being protected by the larger ships from Allied attack. On the ends of the horseshoe were stationed corvettes and fireships. The latter could be towed by boats into position covered by the smaller corvettes and shore batteries.

The Allied plan was to anchor in the free water inside the crescent. Codrington's squadron would take up position facing the centre of the Ottoman line; the French and Russian squadrons would face the Ottoman left and right wings respectively. The French position in the line had been specifically determined so that they would face the Egyptian fleet, which had been trained by the French and might be reluctant to fight against Egypt's closest European ally. In conventional naval doctrine, Codrington's plan would have been regarded as an unacceptable risk, as it would have invited the enemy to try to surround the Allies. Furthermore, with the prevailing wind blowing from the SW, straight up the entrance, Codrington risked becoming trapped, unable to extricate his squadrons quickly if necessary. The adoption of this high-risk plan shows the total confidence of the Allied commanders in the tactical superiority of their vessels.

Engagement
At 1.30 p.m., on 20 October 1827, off the entrance to Navarino Bay, Codrington signalled to the Allied fleet: "PREPARE FOR ACTION" and Allied crews were ordered to stand to their guns. Gun-ports were left half-open, but Allied captains were under strict orders to open fire only if attacked. At 2.00 p.m., Allied warships, with Codrington in the lead in Asia, began filing into the bay through the southern entrance, proceeding in two lines, British followed by French to starboard (SE, closest to Navarino) and Russians to port abreast but slightly behind the French. There was no attempt to prevent their entry by the Ottoman shore batteries or their corvettes posted at the entrance, but Codrington received a launch carrying a message from Ibrahim Pasha. This stated that he had not given permission for the Allies to enter the bay, and demanded that they withdraw. Codrington dismissed Ibrahim's objection, replying that he had come to give orders, not to take them. He warned that if the Ottomans opened fire, their fleet would be destroyed. As his flagship dropped anchor in the middle of the Ottoman line, Codrington ordered a brass band to play on deck to emphasize his peaceful intentions. By 2.15 p.m., the three British ships of the line had dropped anchor in their allotted positions. Meanwhile, as the Allied vessels moved into position, along the Ottoman lines trumpets sounded action stations. Ottoman crews scrambled to meet the unexpected intrusion into their base.

At this point, at the entrance, fighting broke out. Codrington claimed that hostilities were started by the Ottomans. The outbreak, according to Allied sources, occurred in the following manner:

At the entrance to the bay, Capt Thomas Fellowes on the frigate Dartmouth had been detailed, with six smaller vessels (2 brigs and 4 schooners) to keep watch on the group of Ottoman corvettes and fireships on the left flank of the Ottoman line. As the Allied ships continued moving into the bay, Fellowes noticed that an Ottoman crew was preparing a fireship and sent a boat to instruct them to desist. The Ottomans fired on the boat and lighted the fireship. Fellowes sent a cutter to tow the fireship to a safe distance, but the Ottomans fired on the cutter, inflicting casualties. Fellowes opened musket fire on the fireship crew to cover his men. At this point the French flagship Sirène, which was just then entering the bay on the tail of the British-French line, opened fire with muskets to support Dartmouth. An Ottoman corvette then attacked Sirène with its guns. This chain reaction spread along the line, so that within a short time, there was general engagement.

The battle thus began before the Allies could complete their deployment. In fact, this proved to be a tactical advantage, as it meant some Allied ships were not yet at anchor and could therefore manoeuvre more swiftly. Nevertheless, most ships fought at anchor. There was naturally very little scope for manoeuvre, except to change the orientation of the ship by hauling on the springs on the anchor chains. With ships blasting each other at very close range, the encounter was mostly a matter of attrition, in which superior Allied firepower and gunnery were critical.

Combat action may be summarised as follows: By about 4 p.m., all three Ottoman ships of the line and most of the large frigates of the first line had been despatched. This left the mass of smaller vessels in the second and third lines at the mercy of the Allied ships of the line, all of which were still operational. During the ensuing massacre, Codrington tried twice to order a ceasefire, but his signals were either invisible because of the thick smoke or ignored in the heat of the battle. Within the following two hours, virtually the entire Ottoman fleet was destroyed, despite the signal bravery of the Ottoman crews, which was praised by Codrington himself in his despatches. Three quarters were sunk: many of them, dismasted but still afloat and reparable, were blown up or set on fire by their own crews to prevent them falling into Allied hands.
 * 1) The French ship Scipion (80 guns), behind Rigny's Sirène (60), immediately came under intense attack, by a combination of Egyptian frigates on both sides, the shore batteries and a fireship. The latter was nearly fatal. The fireship jammed under Scipion's bowsprit, the fore sails caught fire and the fire spread onto the upper gun-deck. Men flung themselves on the fire to prevent it spreading to the forward powder magazine, with inevitable horrendous burn injuries. Nevertheless, the gunners continued to fire on the attackers. Scipion was saved from destruction by her sister ship Trident (74), which succeeded in attaching a tow-line to the fireship and, with the assistance of Dartmouth and two other British boats, pulling it clear.
 * 2) Rigny's Sirène fought a lengthy duel with the 64-gun frigate Ihsania, which finally blew up. Sirène suffered significant casualties and damage. Sirène, with the support of Trident and Scipion, then bombarded the fort of Navarino and eventually silenced its shore battery.
 * 3) The captain of French Breslaw (84), Captain Botherel de La Bretonnière, seeing that Rigny did not need further support, decided on his own initiative to break away from the French formation and move into the centre of the bay, at the junction of the British and Russian lines, to reinforce British Albion (74) and Russian Azov (80). Both were hard pressed. Albion, which had wrecked an Ottoman frigate as she anchored, was under fire from all three Ottoman ships of the line simultaneously. Fortunately for her, the enemy gunnery was inept. Even so, Breslaw's intervention was later acknowledged by the captain of Albion as having saved his ship from annihilation. Breslaw then proceeded to play a leading role in the destruction of Ottoman admiral Tahir Pasha's flagship, the Ghiuh Rewan (84), and at least four frigates.
 * 4) Codrington's Asia (84) was anchored between Ottoman admiral Capitan Bey's flagship, Fahti Bahri (74), and Egyptian Moharram Bey's frigate Guerrière (60). Capitan Bey opened fire, but Moharram Bey sent word to Codrington that he was not going to attack. This enabled Asia to concentrate its fire on Fahti Bahri, which was in a poor condition and inadequately manned. Asia's deadly fire shortly disabled her. Codrington then sent an interpreter, a Greek, P. Mikelis, to parley with Moharram Bey; but Mikelis was shot dead as he went aboard. Guerrière then opened fire, but was reduced to a burning wreck within 20 minutes by crushing broadsides from Asia and Azov. However, Asia suffered severe casualties and damage due to a concentration of heavy fire from smaller Ottoman boats in the second and third lines of the Ottoman formation: as Letellier had planned, these boats fired through the gaps in the front line. Codrington also believed that Asia had taken serious hits by mistake from sister Genoa. Battle of Navarin (4552424940).jpg
 * 5) The Russians under Van Heiden were the last to take up station, as was planned. Their position, on the right end of the Ottoman crescent, was the most exposed. The fighting in this sector was even more intense than elsewhere. Azov sank or disabled three large frigates and a corvette, but herself took 153 hits, several below the waterline.
 * 6) The British frigates Armide and Talbot initially had to face the frigates on the Ottoman right wing and the island shore battery unsupported, as the other two frigates were away and arrived later. They were saved from annihilation by the arrival of the Russian frigates.
 * 7) The smaller British and French vessels (brigs and the schooners Alcyone and Daphné), under the overall direction of frigate Dartmouth, had been allotted the vital task of preventing fireship attacks. Their success was complete: apart from the initial fireship attack on Scipion, not a single fireship struck a target during the battle. A number of the smaller vessels greatly distinguished themselves, suffering casualties as great, in proportion, as the ships of the line.

This contributed to the horrendous Ottoman and Egyptian casualty figures, as many men were trapped in burning or exploding vessels. Some, as mentioned, were shackled to their posts. Ottoman casualties given to Codrington by Letellier were approx. 3,000 killed, 1,109 wounded, although Codrington claimed the reverse was more likely. Of the entire Ottoman-Egyptian armada of 78 vessels, just eight remained seaworthy: one dismasted ship of the line, two frigates, and five corvettes.

Allied casualties were given by Codrington as 181 killed, 480 wounded (including Codrington's youngest son, midshipman H. Codrington, serving on Asia under his father, who was badly injured but made a full recovery). Several Allied ships were severely damaged: the Russian ships Azov, Gangut and Iezekiil were disabled. The three British ships of the line had to be sent back to the United Kingdom for repairs. According to one source, despite the rough handling all the ships of the line had endured and the danger from exploding Ottoman vessels, not a single Allied vessel was sunk.

As the guns fell silent at dusk in Navarino Bay, news of the outcome raced over the Peloponnese and to the rest of Greece. In village after village, church bells started a continuous peal in the night. People rushed into village squares, to be greeted by the news that the Ottoman Sultan and his hated vassal Ibrahim Pasha no longer possessed a Mediterranean fleet. In a maritime country like Greece, the implication was evident—the fledgling Greek state was saved. Wild rejoicing broke out, and lasted through the night and for days after. Huge bonfires were lit on the mountaintops of the Peloponnese and Mount Parnassos in central Greece. Celebrations swept even the occupied regions, which the demoralised Ottoman garrisons made little effort to prevent.

Aftermath
Despite the celebrations, the Sultan still disposed of a total of around 40,000 troops in central and southern Greece, entrenched in powerful fortresses. The final liberation of Greece was still far off, unless the Ottomans could be induced to accept the Treaty of London.

Russia's long-expected declaration of war on the Ottomans occurred in April 1828, starting the 11th Russo-Turkish War (1828–1829). A Russian army of 100,000 men swept aside the Ottoman forces in the Romanian Principalities, crossed the Danube, and laid siege to Silistra, Varna and Shumla, the key Ottoman-held fortresses in Rumelia (Bulgaria).

In August 1828, Ali agreed to the withdrawal of his forces from the Peloponnese. Ibrahim initially refused to comply with his father's evacuation orders, but gave way shortly after the French troops landed in Navarino Bay at the end of August, to a jubilant reception by the Greeks, to begin their Morea expedition. The Egyptians finally left in October 1828, a year after the naval battle. The French proceeded to clear the remaining Ottoman garrisons in the Peloponnese, which offered only token resistance, by the end of 1828. In the subsequent months, Greek forces regained control of central Greece in a lightning campaign.

In September 1829, with the Russian army camped just 40 miles from his palace, the Ottoman Sultan was forced to capitulate. By the Treaty of Adrianople, he conceded a long list of Russian demands, one of which was acceptance of Greek autonomy as defined in the Treaty of London. However, the Sultan's acceptance came too late to save Ottoman sovereignty over Greece. Buoyed by the Ottoman disasters on land and sea, and their own military successes, the Greeks refused to accept anything less than full independence. Finally, at the London Protocol of 1830, the Allies dropped their policy of Ottoman suzerainty and accepted Greek independence. Later that year, the Sultan was forced by the Allied powers to sign the Treaty of Constantinople (1832), formally recognizing the new Kingdom of Greece as an independent state.

Codrington controversy
In the aftermath of Navarino, Codrington pressed for an Egyptian withdrawal from the Peloponnese, but it took a year to achieve it. The news of Navarino made Codrington a hero twice over in the eyes of the general British public. But in Whitehall, senior naval and diplomatic echelons were appalled by the outcome of his campaign. It was considered that Codrington had grossly exceeded his instructions by provoking a showdown with the Ottoman fleet, and that his actions had gravely compromised the Ottoman ability to resist Russian encroachment. At a social event, King George IV was reported as referring to the battle as "this untoward [i.e., undesirable] event". Codrington's political situation in London became even more precarious in January 1828, when Wellington became Prime Minister. The coincident launch of Tsar Nicholas's war on the Ottomans realised the worst fears of British policy-makers and deepened their anger at Codrington.

Initially, official disapproval of Codrington had to be restrained because of the admiral's huge popularity with the public. The Admiralty's revenge took petty form, such as its refusal, despite repeated requests by Codrington, to pay his crews their traditional prize money from the sale of captured Ottoman treasure and goods. Meanwhile, Wellington was biding his time until he felt it was politically safe to remove Codrington from the Mediterranean theatre. Finally, in June 1828, the Admiralty announced that Codrington was being relieved of his command (although he remained in acting-command until his replacement arrived in August). Although the King felt obliged by public opinion to grant Codrington the high honour of the Grand Cross of the Bath, the Admiralty's failure to give him another operational command in his remaining decade of service was eloquent testimony to his fall from favour.

Codrington spent much time in his later years defending his actions in Greece. His enemies accused him of deliberately plotting the destruction of the Ottoman fleet because of his Hellenophile sympathies, a charge that Codrington vehemently denied. The issue turned on whether he knew that his move into Navarino Bay would result in a battle. The evidence is mixed. On the one hand, there are Codrington's clear orders to his captains to engage only if attacked. On the other, is Codrington's private correspondence, notably to his sister, which suggests that he regarded a military showdown as inevitable.

Commemoration of the battle
There are a number of memorials to the battle around Navarino Bay. The main square of Pylos, Three Admirals' Square (Πλατεία Τριών Ναυάρχων), has as its centrepiece a three-sided marble monument, with profiles of Codrington, Van Heiden, and Rigny on the three sides.

Memorials to the dead of the three allies are to be found on the islands in the bay: Helonaki islet (British), Pylos islet (French), and Sphacteria island (Russian). The Russian memorial is the most impressive, consisting of a small wooden chapel in the Russian Orthodox style. Additionally, there is a memorial to the philhellene Santarosa, who was killed in an earlier battle, on the shore of Sphacteria.

The battle is commemorated each year on 20 October by all-day celebrations in Three Admirals' Square in Pylos, hosted by the Mayor of Pylos. The Russian, French and British governments send representatives to the ceremonies, and in the case of the Russians, a warship and its crew. It was the source of the name for the Russian corvette Navarin, the Russian battleship Navarin, and the French ship of the line Navarin.

Some bronze from the sunken Ottoman ships was bought by Anton Samassa in Trieste and was in 1834 used for the main bell of St. Judoc's Church in Sveti Jošt near Kranj, Carniola (now Slovenia). It bears an inscription by the Slovene Romantic poet France Prešeren: "My bronze was found at the bottom of the sea, when the kingdom of Turkey was ended in Helade by Navarino. It was bought by a pilgrim; cast into a bell by Samassa, now I announce God's honour from St. Jodocus's embrasures."

title: Battle of Navarino


text:
Vernier scale

A vernier scale ), named after Pierre Vernier, is a visual aid to take an accurate measurement reading between two graduation markings on a linear scale by using mechanical interpolation, thereby increasing resolution and reducing measurement uncertainty by using vernier acuity to reduce human estimation error. It may be found on many types of instrument measuring linear or angular quantities, but in particular on a vernier caliper, which measures lengths (including internal and external diameters).

The vernier is a subsidiary scale replacing a single measured-value pointer, and has for instance ten divisions equal in distance to nine divisions on the main scale. The interpolated reading is obtained by observing which of the vernier scale graduations is coincident with a graduation on the main scale, which is easier to perceive than visual estimation between two points. Such an arrangement can go to a higher resolution by using a higher scale ratio, known as the vernier constant. A vernier may be used on circular or straight scales where a simple linear mechanism is adequate. Examples are calipers and micrometers to measure to fine tolerances, on sextants for navigation, on theodolites in surveying, and generally on scientific instruments. The Vernier principle of interpolation is also used for electronic displacement sensors such as absolute encoders to measure linear or rotational movement, as part of an electronic measuring system.

History
The first caliper with a secondary scale, which contributed extra precision, was invented in 1631 by French mathematician Pierre Vernier (1580–1637). Its use was described in detail in English in Navigatio Britannica (1750) by mathematician and historian John Barrow. While calipers are the most typical use of vernier scales today, they were originally developed for angle-measuring instruments such as astronomical quadrants.

In some languages, the vernier scale is called a nonius after Portuguese mathematician and cosmographer Pedro Nunes (Latin Petrus Nonius, 1502–1578). In English, this term was used until the end of the 18th century. Nonius now refers to an earlier instrument that Nunes developed.

The name "vernier" was popularised by the French astronomer Jérôme Lalande (1732–1807) through his Traité d'astronomie (2 vols) (1764).

Functioning

The use of the vernier scale is shown on a vernier caliper which measures the internal and the external diameters of an object.

The vernier scale is constructed so that it is spaced at a constant fraction of the fixed main scale. So for a vernier with a constant of 0.1, each mark on the vernier is spaced 9/10 of those on the main scale. If you put the two scales together with zero points aligned, the first mark on the vernier scale is 1/10 short of the first main scale mark, the second is 2/10 short, and so on up to the ninth mark, which is misaligned by 9/10. Only when a full ten marks are counted, is there alignment, because the tenth mark is 10/10—a whole main scale unit—short, and therefore aligns with the ninth mark on the main scale. (In simple words, each, so each decrement of length 0.1 adds 10 times to make one MSD only in 9 divisions of vernier scale division).

Now if you move the vernier by a small amount, say, 1/10 of its fixed main scale, the only pair of marks that come into alignment are the first pair, since these were the only ones originally misaligned by 1/10. If we move it 2/10, the second pair aligns, since these are the only ones originally misaligned by that amount. If we move it 5/10, the fifth pair aligns—and so on. For any movement, only one pair of marks aligns and that pair shows the value between the marks on the fixed scale.

Least count or vernier constant
The difference between the value of one main scale division and the value of one vernier scale division is known as the least count of the vernier, also known as the vernier constant. Let the measure of the smallest main-scale reading, that is the distance between two consecutive graduations (also called its pitch) be S, and the distance between two consecutive vernier scale graduations be V, such that the length of (n − 1) main-scale divisions is equal to n vernier-scale divisions. Then

 * the length of (n − 1) main-scale divisions = the length of n vernier-scale division, or
 * (n − 1)S = nV, or
 * nS − S = nV.

Vernier acuity
Vernier scales work so well because most people are especially good at detecting which of the lines is aligned and misaligned, and that ability gets better with practice, in fact far exceeding the optical capability of the eye. This ability to detect alignment is called vernier acuity. Historically, none of the alternative technologies exploited this or any other hyperacuity, giving the vernier scale an advantage over its competitors.

Zero error
Zero error is defined as the condition where a measuring instrument registers a reading when there should not be any reading. In case of vernier calipers it occurs when a zero on main scale does not coincide with a zero on vernier scale. The zero error may be of two types: when the scale is towards numbers greater than zero, it is positive; otherwise it is negative. The method to use a vernier scale or caliper with zero error is to use the formula
 * actual reading = main scale + vernier scale − (zero error).

Zero error may arise due to knocks or other damage which causes the 0.00 mm marks to be misaligned when the jaws are perfectly closed or just touching each other.

Positive zero error refers to the case when the jaws of the vernier caliper are just closed and the reading is a positive reading away from the actual reading of 0.00mm. If the reading is 0.10mm, the zero error is referred to as +0.10 mm.

Negative zero error refers to the case when the jaws of the vernier caliper are just closed and the reading is a negative reading away from the actual reading of 0.00mm. If the reading is 0.08mm, the zero error is referred to as −0.08mm.

If positive, the error is subtracted from the mean reading the instrument reads. Thus if the instrument reads 4.39 cm and the error is +0.05, the actual length will be 4.39 − 0.05 = 4.34. If negative, the error is added to the mean reading the instrument reads. Thus if the instrument reads 4.39 cm and as above the error is −0.05 cm, the actual length will be 4.39 + 0.05 = 4.44. (Considering that, the quantity is called zero correction which should always be added algebraically to the observed reading to the correct value.)

 * Zero error (ZE) = ±n × least count (LC)

Direct and retrograde verniers
Direct verniers are the most common. The indicating scale is constructed so that when its zero point coincides with the start of the data scale, its graduations are at a slightly smaller spacing than those on the data scale and so none but the last graduation coincide with any graduations on the data scale. N graduations of the indicating scale cover N − 1 graduations of the data scale.

Retrograde verniers are found on some devices, including surveying instruments. A retrograde vernier is similar to the direct vernier, except its graduations are at a slightly larger spacing than on the main scale. N graduations of the indicating scale cover N + 1 graduations of the data scale. The retrograde vernier also extends backwards along the data scale.

Direct and retrograde verniers are read in the same manner.

Recent uses
This section includes references to techniques which use the Vernier principle to make fine-resolution measurements.

Vernier spectroscopy is a type of cavity-enhanced laser absorption spectroscopy that is especially sensitive to trace gases. The method uses a frequency-comb laser combined with a high-finesse optical cavity to produce an absorption spectrum in a highly parallel manner. The method is also capable of detecting trace gases in very low concentration due to the enhancement effect of the optical resonator on the effective optical path length.

title: Vernier scale