text:
Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit

The Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit (GZK limit or GZK cutoff) is a theoretical upper limit on the energy of cosmic ray protons traveling from other galaxies through the intergalactic medium to our galaxy. The limit is $5 eV$ (50 EeV), or about 8 joules (the energy of a proton travelling at ≈ $100$% the speed of light). The limit is set by the slowing effect of interactions of the protons with the microwave background radiation over long distances (≈ 160 million light-years). The limit is at the same order of magnitude as the upper limit for energy at which cosmic rays have experimentally been detected, although indeed some detections appear to have exceeded the limit, as noted below. For example, one extreme-energy cosmic ray, the Oh-My-God Particle, which has been found to possess a record-breaking $3.12 eV$ (50 joules) of energy (about the same as the kinetic energy of a 95 km/h baseball).

The precise GZK limit is derived under the assumption that ultra-high energy cosmic rays are protons. Measurements by the largest cosmic-ray observatory, the Pierre Auger Observatory, suggest that most ultra-high energy cosmic rays are heavier elements known as HZE ions. In this case, the argument behind the GZK limit does not apply in the originally simple form: however, as Greisen noted, the giant dipole resonance also occurs roughly in this energy range (at 10 EeV/nucleon) and similarly restricts very long-distance propagation.

In the past, the apparent violation of the GZK limit has inspired cosmologists and theoretical physicists to suggest other ways that circumvent the limit. These theories propose that ultra-high energy cosmic rays are produced near our galaxy or that Lorentz covariance is violated in such a way that protons do not lose energy on their way to our galaxy.

Computation
The limit was independently computed in 1966 by Kenneth Greisen, Georgy Zatsepin, and Vadim Kuzmin based on interactions between cosmic rays and the photons of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). They predicted that cosmic rays with energies over the threshold energy of $5 eV$ would interact with cosmic microwave background photons $$\gamma_{\rm CMB}\;,$$ relatively blueshifted by the speed of the cosmic rays, to produce pions through the $\Delta$ resonance,

 * $$p + \gamma_\text{CMB} \to \Delta^+ \to p + \pi^0 \;,$$

or

 * $$p + \gamma_\text{CMB} \to \Delta^+ \to n + \pi^+ ~.$$

Pions produced in this manner proceed to decay in the standard pion channels – ultimately to photons for neutral pions, and photons, positrons, and various neutrinos for positive pions. Neutrons also decay to similar products, so that ultimately the energy of any cosmic ray proton is drained off by production of high-energy photons plus (in some cases) high-energy electron–positron pairs and neutrino pairs.

The pion production process begins at a higher energy than ordinary electron-positron pair production (lepton production) from protons impacting the CMB, which starts at cosmic-ray proton energies of only about $eV$. However, pion production events drain 20% of the energy of a cosmic-ray proton, as compared with only 0.1% of its energy for electron–positron pair production.

This factor comes from two causes: The pion has a mass only about ~130 times the leptons, but the extra energy appears as different kinetic energies of the pion or leptons, and results in relatively more kinetic energy transferred to a heavier product pion, in order to conserve momentum. The much larger total energy losses from pion production result in pion production becoming the process limiting high-energy cosmic-ray travel, rather than the lower-energy process of light-lepton production.

The pion production process continues until the cosmic ray energy falls below the threshold for pion production. Due to the mean path associated with this interaction, extragalactic cosmic ray protons traveling over distances larger than $20%⁄0.1%$ ($50 Mpc$) and with energies greater than the threshold should never be observed on Earth. This distance is also known as GZK horizon.

Cosmic-ray paradox
A number of observations have been made by the largest cosmic-ray experiments Akeno Giant Air Shower Array (AGASA), High Resolution Fly's Eye Cosmic Ray Detector, the Pierre Auger Observatory and Telescope Array Project that appeared to show cosmic rays with energies above this limit (called extreme-energy cosmic rays, or EECRs). The observation of these particles was the so-called GZK paradox or cosmic-ray paradox.

These observations appear to contradict the predictions of special relativity and particle physics as they are presently understood. However, there are a number of possible explanations for these observations that may resolve this inconsistency.
 * The observed EECR particles can be heavier nuclei instead of protons
 * The observations could be due to an instrument error or an incorrect interpretation of the experiment, especially wrong energy assignment.
 * The cosmic rays could have local sources within the GZK horizon (although it is unclear what these sources could be).

Weakly interacting particles
Another suggestion involves ultra-high-energy weakly interacting particles (for instance, neutrinos), which might be created at great distances and later react locally to give rise to the particles observed. In the proposed Z-burst model, an ultra-high-energy cosmic neutrino collides with a relic anti-neutrino in our galaxy and annihilates to hadrons. This process proceeds through a (virtual) Z-boson:

 * $$\nu + \bar{\nu} \to Z \to \text{hadrons}.$$

The cross-section for this process becomes large if the center-of-mass energy of the neutrino antineutrino pair is equal to the Z-boson mass (such a peak in the cross-section is called "resonance"). Assuming that the relic anti-neutrino is at rest, the energy of the incident cosmic neutrino has to be

 * $$E = \frac{m_Z^2}{2 m_\nu} = 4.2 \times 10^{21} \left(\frac{\text{eV}}{m_\nu}\right)~\text{eV},$$

where $$m_Z$$ is the mass of the Z-boson, and $$m_\nu$$ the mass of the neutrino.

Other theories
A number of exotic theories have been advanced to explain the AGASA observations, including doubly special relativity. However, it is now established that standard doubly special relativity does not predict any GZK suppression (or GZK cutoff), contrary to models of Lorentz symmetry violation involving an absolute rest frame. Other possible theories involve a relation with dark matter, or decays of exotic super-heavy particles beyond those known in the Standard Model.

Controversy about cosmic rays above the GZK limit
A suppression of the cosmic-ray flux that can be explained with the GZK limit has been confirmed by the latest generation of cosmic-ray observatories. A former claim by the AGASA experiment that there is no suppression was overruled. It remains controversial whether the suppression is due to the GZK effect. The GZK limit only applies if ultra-high-energy cosmic rays are mostly protons.

In July 2007, during the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference in Mérida, Yucatán, México, the High Resolution Fly's Eye Experiment (HiRes) and the Pierre Auger Observatory (Auger) presented their results on ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. HiRes observed a suppression in the UHECR spectrum at just the right energy, observing only 13 events with an energy above the threshold, while expecting 43 with no suppression. This was interpreted as the first observation of the GZK limit. Auger confirmed the flux suppression, but did not claim it to be the GZK limit: instead of the 30 events necessary to confirm the AGASA results, Auger saw only two, which are believed to be heavy-nuclei events. The flux suppression was previously brought into question when the AGASA experiment found no suppression in their spectrum. According to Alan Watson, former spokesperson for the Auger Collaboration, AGASA results have been shown to be incorrect, possibly due to the systematic shift in energy assignment.

In 2010 and the following years, both the Pierre Auger Observatory and HiRes confirmed again a flux suppression, in case of the Pierre Auger Observatory the effect is statistically significant at the level of 20 standard deviations.

After the flux suppression was established, a heated debate ensued whether cosmic rays that violate the GZK limit are protons. The Pierre Auger Observatory, the world's largest observatory, found with high statistical significance that ultra-high-energy cosmic rays are not purely protons, but a mixture of elements, which is getting heavier with increasing energy. The Telescope Array Project, a joint effort from members of the HiRes and AGASA collaborations, agrees with the former HiRes result that these cosmic rays look like protons. The claim is based on data with lower statistical significance, however. The area covered by Telescope Array is about one third of the area covered by the Pierre Auger Observatory, and the latter has been running for a longer time.

The controversy was partially resolved in 2017, when a joint working group formed by members of both experiments presented a report at the 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference. According to the report, the raw experimental results are not in contradiction with each other. The different interpretations are mainly based on the use of different theoretical models and the fact that Telescope Array has not collected enough events yet to distinguish the pure-proton hypothesis from the mixed-nuclei hypothesis.

Extreme Universe Space Observatory on Japanese Experiment Module (JEM-EUSO)
EUSO, which was scheduled to fly on the International Space Station (ISS) in 2009, was designed to use the atmospheric-fluorescence technique to monitor a huge area and boost the statistics of UHECRs considerably. EUSO is to make a deep survey of UHECR-induced extensive air showers (EASs) from space, extending the measured energy spectrum well beyond the GZK cutoff. It is to search for the origin of UHECRs, determine the nature of the origin of UHECRs, make an all-sky survey of the arrival direction of UHECRs, and seek to open the astronomical window on the extreme-energy universe with neutrinos. The fate of the EUSO Observatory is still unclear, since NASA is considering early retirement of the ISS.

The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope
Launched in June 2008, the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope (formerly GLAST) will also provide data that will help resolve these inconsistencies.
 * With the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, one has the possibility of detecting gamma rays from the freshly accelerated cosmic-ray nuclei at their acceleration site (the source of the UHECRs).
 * UHECR protons accelerated (see also Centrifugal mechanism of acceleration) in astrophysical objects produce secondary electromagnetic cascades during propagation in the cosmic microwave and infrared backgrounds, of which the GZK process of pion production is one of the contributors. Such cascades can contribute between about 1% and 50% of the GeV–TeV diffuse photon flux measured by the EGRET experiment. The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope may discover this flux.

Possible sources of UHECRs
In November 2007, researchers at the Pierre Auger Observatory announced that they had evidence that UHECRs appear to come from the active galactic nuclei (AGNs) of energetic galaxies powered by matter swirling onto a supermassive black hole. The cosmic rays were detected and traced back to the AGNs using the Véron–Cetty–Véron catalog. These results are reported in the journal Science. Nevertheless, the strength of the correlation with AGNs from this particular catalog for the Auger data recorded after 2007 has been slowly diminishing.

title: Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit


text:
Sanjuro

Sanjuro (椿三十郎) is a 1962 Japanese jidaigeki film directed by Akira Kurosawa and starring Toshiro Mifune. It is a sequel to Kurosawa's 1961 Yojimbo.

Originally an adaptation of the Shūgorō Yamamoto novel Hibi Heian, the script was altered following the success of the previous year's Yojimbo to incorporate the lead character of that film.

Plot
Nine young samurai believe that the lord chamberlain, Mutsuta, is corrupt after he tore up their petition against fraud at court. One of them tells the superintendent Kikui of this and he agrees to intervene. As the nine meet secretly to discuss this at a shrine, a rōnin overhears and cautions them against trusting the superintendent. While at first they do not believe him, he saves them from an ambush. But as their rescuer is about to leave, he realises that Mutsuta and his family must now be in danger and decides to stay and help.

By the time the samurai get to Mutsuta's house, the chamberlain has been abducted and his wife and daughter are held prisoner there. Following the rōnin's suggestion, a servant from the house gets the guards drunk, allowing the samurai to free the women. Then the group hide in a house next door to the superintendent's compound. When Mutsuta's wife asks the rōnin his name, he looks out of the window at the surrounding camellia trees and says it is Tsubaki Sanjūrō (椿三十郎), literally "thirty-year-old camellia". The lady then criticises "Sanjuro" for killing too frequently and insists that "the best sword is kept in its sheath."

Sanjuro decides to get closer to the corrupt officials and joins their henchman Hanbei, who had previously offered him a job after the ambush at the shrine. Although the samurai distrustfully decide to keep watch on him, Sanjuro realises he is being followed as he walks along with Hanbei, and their shadows are easily captured and bound. Made to believe that a much larger group may be involved, Hanbei leaves to request reinforcements. Sanjuro then frees the four captured samurai, although having to kill all their guards. He tells the four to leave him tied up, then explains to Hanbei on his return that he did not wish to die in a cause in which he had no stake.

The chamberlain's whereabouts are not discovered until the next day, when Mutsuta's wife and daughter find a piece of the torn petition in the small stream that flows from the superintendent's compound past their hideout. Since an attack on the officials is impossible with the compound full of armed men, Sanjuro hatches a plan to get the army away by reporting to Hanbei that he saw the rebels at a temple where he was sleeping. Meanwhile he has told his group of samurai that he will send the signal to attack by floating large numbers of camellias down the stream.

The first part of the plan works, with the superintendent's forces rushing off to the temple; however, Hanbei becomes suspicious after catching Sanjuro trying to drop the camellias into the stream and ties him up. Just as Hanbei is preparing to kill him, the remaining corrupt officials realise that Sanjuro has tricked them—his description of the temple was incorrect. They convince Hanbei not to waste any further time and instead catch up with the superintendent's forces and have them return as soon as possible. However, Sanjuro tricks the officials into giving the signal for the samurai to come to the rescue. Hanbei returns to find he has been made a fool of once again.

Mutsuta is restored to his position and the superintendent commits hara-kiri, much to the chamberlain's regret, as he wished to avoid a public scandal. As his family and the loyal samurai are celebrating, they discover that Sanjuro has slipped away. The samurai race off and find Sanjuro and Hanbei about to duel.

Sanjuro is reluctant to fight and tries to dissuade Hanbei, but Hanbei is furious at his loss of dignity and declares he can only find peace by killing Sanjuro. Hanbei draws his sword, but the faster Sanjuro kills him. When the young samurai cheer his victory, Sanjuro becomes angry and says he will kill them if they follow him. His admirers can only kneel and bow as he walks away.

Production
The story is primarily based on Shūgorō Yamamoto's short story Hibi Heian (日日平安). Originally Sanjuro was to be a straight adaptation of the story. After the success of Yojimbo the studio decided to resurrect its popular antihero, and Kurosawa reimagined the script accordingly. But despite a certain element of continuity, the eventual film turned out to be more than just a sequel to Yojimbo for the hero goes on to develop in character from the swashbuckling original.

He is, as before a masterless samurai who preserves his anonymity by the same means. When asked his name in Yojimbo he looks outside and names himself mulberry (Kuwabatake); in Sanjuro he chooses a camellia (Tsubaki). In both cases he gives Sanjūrō (thirty-year-old) as his given name, although in both films he admits to being closer to forty. Having the ronin take the name of local agricultural products rather than a great house or clan reflects a populist turn in contemporary samurai movies. A crucial difference between Yojimbo and Sanjuro, however, is that there is little connection to the Western genre in the sequel. The original was set in an out-of-the-way border town where the hero deals ruthlessly with local thugs, while in Sanjuro the action centres on a Japanese feudal power struggle in a clan fortress town. There the hero realises that Hanbei, his main opponent, is a man much like himself: a social outsider (an "unsheathed sword" in the words of the chamberlain’s wife) free to pick his own side in a conflict. The difference between them is only in the motives behind their choice.

There is also a greater element of social comedy, with the seasoned fighter constantly hampered by the failure to grasp the true situation by the young men he chooses to help. But while he is their superior in tactics, the lady he has just rescued confounds him by insisting that he restrain himself, since killing people is a bad habit. Although there has to be some killing, largely as result of the inept actions of his young allies, the only truly violent moment comes at the very end in the duel between Sanjuro and Hanbei. From this he walks away in a fury, because his young admirers are still unable to read human nature and understand the significance of what has just happened.

Release
Sanjuro was released on January 1, 1962 in Japan where it was distributed by Toho. The film was also released in the same year in the United States.

Box office
Sanjuro was Toho's highest-grossing film in 1962, coming second place for the highest grossing Japanese productions in 1962. It earned ¥450.1 million in distributor rentals at the Japanese box office in 1962, exceeding King Kong vs. Godzilla, which had sold 11.2 million tickets in Japan that year.

Reception
The film has been positively received by critics. It holds a 100% rating on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes based on 23 reviews, with a weighted average of 8.38/10. The site's consensus reads: "Technically impressive and superbly acted, Sanjuro is a funny, action-packed samurai adventure featuring outstanding cinematography and a charismatic performance from Toshiro Mifune". In 2009 the film was voted at No. 59 on the list of The Greatest Japanese Films of All Time by Japanese film magazine Kinema Junpo.

In popular culture
Mifune's sword fighting in the film was used in an extensive illustrated example of "samurai virtuosity with his sword" in This Is Kendo, a 1989 kendo manual published in English.

Remake
The film was remade as Tsubaki Sanjuro in 2007 by Yoshimitsu Morita and starring Yūji Oda in the title role.

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

title: Sanjuro


text:
Talk:Aeneid

Full version of the book
Is there a link to the full version of the Aeneid on some site like the Gutenburg Project that could be added here? -- User:82.32.96.44

Note the line in the article

 * For external links to text of the Aeneid see Virgil.

The Virgil article contains links to all Virgil's works. -- Derek Ross | Talk

title: Talk:Aeneid


text:
Arena

An arena is a large enclosed platform, often circular or oval-shaped, designed to showcase theatre, musical performances, or sporting events. It is composed of a large open space surrounded on most or all sides by tiered seating for spectators, and may be covered by a roof. The key feature of an arena is that the event space is the lowest point, allowing maximum visibility. Arenas are usually designed to accommodate a multitude of spectators.

Background
The word derives from Latin harena, a particularly fine-grained sand that covered the floor of ancient arenas such as the Colosseum in Rome, Italy, to absorb blood.

The term arena is sometimes used as a synonym for a very large venue such as Pasadena's Rose Bowl, but such a facility is typically called a stadium. The use of one term over the other has mostly to do with the type of event. Football (be it association, rugby, gridiron, Australian rules, or Gaelic) is typically played in a stadium, while basketball, volleyball, handball, and ice hockey are typically played in an arena, although many of the larger arenas hold more spectators than do the stadiums of smaller colleges or high schools. There are exceptions. The home of the Duke University men's and women's basketball teams would qualify as an arena, but the facility is called Cameron Indoor Stadium. Domed stadiums, which, like arenas, are enclosed but have the larger playing surfaces and seating capacities found in stadiums, are generally not referred to as arenas in North America. There is also the sport of indoor American football (one variant of which is explicitly known as arena football), a variant of the outdoor game that is designed for the usual smaller playing surface of most arenas; variants of other traditionally outdoor sports, including box lacrosse as well as futsal and indoor soccer, also exist.

The term "arena" is also used loosely to refer to any event or type of event which either literally or metaphorically takes place in such a location, often with the specific intent of comparing an idea to a sporting event. Such examples of these would be terms such as "the arena of war", "the arena of love" or "the political arena".

title: Arena


text:
Henry Creamer

Henry Sterling Creamer (June 21, 1879 – October 14, 1930) was a popular song lyricist and theater producer. He was born in Richmond, Virginia, and died in New York. He co-wrote many popular songs in the years from 1900 to 1929, often collaborating with Turner Layton, with whom he also appeared in vaudeville. He was African American.

Career
Creamer was a singer, dancer, songwriter and stage producer/director. He first performed on the vaudeville circuit in the U.S. and in Europe as a duo with pianist Turner Layton, with whom he also co-wrote songs. Two of their most enduring songs, for which Creamer wrote the lyrics, are "After You've Gone" (1918), which was popularized by Sophie Tucker, and "Way Down Yonder in New Orleans" (1922), which was included in the soundtrack for one of the dance numbers in the Fred Astaire / Ginger Rogers 1939 movie The Story of Vernon and Irene Castle. Way Down Yonder in New Orleans became a hit again in 1959 when the rocked up recording by Freddy Cannon sold a million copies.

Success on Broadway arrived in 1922 when Creamer’s Creole Production Company produced the show Strut Miss Lizzie, and in 1923 to seal their success, Bessie Smith recorded their song "Whoa, Tillie, Take Your Time". Creamer's other Broadway stage scores include Three Showers. Creamer and Layton disbanded as a duo in 1924, when Layton relocated to Europe. He moved on to collaborate with other notable composers including J.C. Johnson, Jimmy Johnson, and vaudevillian Bert Williams. In 1924, Creamer joined ASCAP.

In the fall of 1926, Creamer was commissioned to direct the Cotton Club revue, The Creole Cocktail. The show featured Lottie Gee, Loncia Williams. Henry and LaPearl, Louie Parker, White and Sherman, Eddie Burke, Ruby Mason and Albertine Pickens.

Also in 1926, Creamer and James P. Johnson wrote "Alabama Stomp". In 1930, they achieved another hit with "If I Could Be with You", which was recorded by Ruth Etting. The song also became the theme song for McKinney's Cotton Pickers and was also a hit for Louis Armstrong (Okeh 41448).

Creamer was a co-founder with James Reese Europe of the Clef Club, an important early organization for African-American musicians and entertainers in New York City.

He died on October 14, 1930, at Mount Sinai Hospital (Manhattan) and was buried in Woodlawn Cemetery (Bronx, New York).

Some notable works

 * "Alabama Stomp" w. Henry Creamer m. James P. Johnson (1926)
 * "If I Could Be with You (One Hour Tonight)" w. Henry Creamer m. James P. Johnson (1926)
 * "'Way Down Yonder In New Orleans" w. Henry Creamer m. Turner Layton (1922)
 * "Dear Old Southland" w. Henry Creamer m. Turner Layton (1921) (sung to basically the same tune as "Deep River")
 * "Strut Miss Lizzie" w. Henry Creamer m. Turner Layton (1921)
 * "After You've Gone" w. Henry Creamer m. Turner Layton (1918)
 * "Ev'rybody's Crazy 'bout the Doggone Blues, But I'm Happy" w. Henry Creamer m. Turner Layton (1918)
 * "Goodbye Alexander, Goodbye Honey Boy" w. Henry Creamer m. Turner Layton (1918)
 * "My bluebird was caught in the rain" w. Henry Creamer m.  Max Rich (1930)
 * "The Bombo-Shay" by Henry Creamer (1917)
 * "Sweet Emalina My Gal" w. Henry Creamer m. Turner Layton (1917)
 * "That's A Plenty" w. Henry Creamer m. Bert A. Williams (1909)
 * "Clementine (From New Orleans)" w. Henry Creamer m. Harry Warren (1927)
 * "You Can't Shush Katie" (The Gabbiest Gal in Town) w. Henry Creamer m. Harry Warren (1925)

title: Henry Creamer


text:
Black box theater

A black box theater is a simple performance space, typically a square room with black walls and a flat floor. The simplicity of the space allows it to be used to create a variety of configurations of stage and audience interaction. The black box is a relatively recent innovation in theatre.

History
Black box theaters have their roots in the American avant-garde of the early 20th century. The black box theaters became popular and increasingly widespread in the 1960s as rehearsal spaces. Almost any large room can be transformed into a "black box" with the aid of paint or curtains, making black box theaters an easily accessible option for theater artists. Storefronts, church basements, and old trolley barns were some examples of the earliest versions of spaces transformed into black box theaters. Sets are simple and small and costs are lower, appealing to nonprofit and low-income artists or companies. The black box is also considered by many to be a place where more "pure" theatre can be explored, with the most human and least technical elements in focus.

The concept of a building designed for flexible staging techniques can be attributed to Swiss designer Adolphe Appia, circa 1921. The invention of such a stage instigated a half-century of innovations in the relationship between audience and performers. This idea would again be re-visited by Harley Granville Barker, using Appia's design as his basis. Barker would have ideas of directing productions in “a great white box,” which would see success in 1970. As time went on, black boxes were decided on instead as black provided the most neutral setting for productions. Antonin Artaud also had ideas of a stage of this kind. The first flexible stage in America was located in the home living room of actor and manager Gilmor Brown in Pasadena, California. While the domestic decor meant that Brown's stage was not a proper black box, the idea was still a revolutionary one. This venue, and two subsequent permutations, are known as the Playbox Theatre, and functioned as an experimental space for Brown's larger venue, the Pasadena Playhouse.

Use
Such spaces are easily built and maintained. Black box theaters are usually home to plays or other performances requiring very basic technical arrangements, such as limited set construction. Common floor plans include thrust stage, modified thrust stage, and theater in the round.

Universities and other theater training programs employ the black box theater because the space is versatile and easy to change. The black backdrop can encourage the audience to focus on the actors, furthering the benefits. Additionally, as the audience is now closer to the stage due to the lack of a proscenium, a more intimate atmosphere is able to be created. The space within black box theaters may also serve to try and separate the space implied space between the audience and actors, while it technically still remains physically there. Many theater training programs will have both a large proscenium theater, as well as a black box theater. Not only does this allow two productions to be mounted simultaneously, but they can also have a large extravagant production in the main stage while having a small experimental show in the black box.

Black box spaces are also popular at fringe theater festivals; due to their simple design and equipment they can be used for many performances each day. This simplicity also means that a black box theater can be adapted from other spaces, such as hotel conference rooms. This is common at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe where the larger venues will hire entire buildings and divide each room to be rented out to several theater companies. "The Black Box Theatre" in Oslo, Norway, and the Alvina Krause Studio at Northwestern University are theaters of this type.

Black box theaters have also been known to come with a handful of disadvantages. The open space may leave "too many" options that can leave many at a loss for direction or inspiration. Lighting issues arise as the primary lighting is typically above the performance area. During blackout scenes, the close proximity of the audience allows them to still see the transitions happening on stage.

Black box spaces also see success within the music industry. These spaces are known to be used to host vocal and instrumental performances, rehearsals, shows, and competitions.

Technical features
Most older black boxes were built like television studios, with a low pipe grid overhead. Newer black boxes typically feature catwalks or tension grids, the latter combining the flexibility of the pipe grid with the accessibility of a catwalk. They were designed to be able to be spaces that can be molded into different settings easily for multiple performances. Black box theater's accommodate smaller audiences with the goal of having more intimate experiences.

The interiors of most black box theatres are painted black, although that is not exclusive (a black box doesn't have to be black to be considered a black box, though black is most common). The absence of colour not only gives the audience a sense of "anyplace" (and thus allows flexibility from play to play or from scene to scene), it also allows for an innovative lighting design to shine through. The architecture of black box theaters typically allow for easy modifications and decorations, but at the expense of time and monetary cost.

title: Black box theater


text:
Michael Anthony (musician)

Michael Anthony Sobolewski (born June 20, 1954) is an American musician who was the bassist and backing vocalist for the hard rock band Van Halen from 1974 to 2006. He performed on Van Halen's first 11 albums and was their longest-tenured bassist. Following his 2006 departure, Anthony has collaborated with fellow former Van Halen bandmate Sammy Hagar for the supergroups Chickenfoot and Sammy Hagar and the Circle. In addition to his music career, he markets a line of hot sauces named Mad Anthony and related products. Anthony was inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of Van Halen in 2007.

Early years
Anthony got his interest in music from his trumpeter father, and played the same instrument in his youth.

Anthony was partly raised in Chicago. The family moved to California twice in Anthony's early years, settling in 1966 in Arcadia, California (Arcadia being located next to Pasadena, where Alex and Edward Van Halen, with whom Anthony would later play in the band, were raised). Anthony attended Dana Junior High School, in Arcadia, California, from 1967 to 1969. Anthony was in the marching band at the school. He ran track in junior high and also showed promise in baseball, as a catcher, but by the time he started high school he had ceased doing athletics to concentrate on music.

Anthony graduated from Arcadia High in 1972.

(1967–1974) Early musical endeavors
Anthony took an interest in guitar as a teenager, but picked up the bass instead since most of his other friends already played guitar or drums. Anthony's friend Mike Hershey gave him a Fender Mustang electric guitar that Anthony converted by removing the two highest strings and playing it as a bass guitar. Eventually, his father bought him a Victoria copy of a Fender Precision Bass and a Gibson amplifier. Anthony mostly modelled his bass playing after Jack Bruce of Cream, but also admired Led Zeppelin's John Paul Jones and Harvey Brooks of Electric Flag. His first band was called Poverty's Children. Other bands he played in included Black Opal, Balls, and Snake. Although Anthony is naturally left-handed, he plays right-handed.

Snake, a three-piece group featuring Anthony on lead vocals and bass guitar, was the last band in which Anthony played before joining Van Halen. Snake played covers of ZZ Top, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and Foghat, along with some original songs. They played several of the same types of gigs as did the Van Halen brothers' band Mammoth. Snake once opened for Mammoth during a show at Pasadena High School. Mammoth's PA failed that night, so Anthony lent them Snake's PA.

While attending Pasadena City College, majoring in music, Anthony met Eddie Van Halen, who also took classes there. During this time, bass player Mark Stone parted ways with Mammoth and the Van Halens auditioned Anthony as a replacement. Anthony was impressed by their skill during subsequent jam sessions even though he had heard the brothers play before. After the session, the Van Halen brothers asked Anthony to join their band. One story claims that he first consulted Snake guitarist Tony Caggiano, who advised Anthony to join up with the guitar prodigy and his brother. However, according to Anthony's web site, he immediately accepted. This has become the accepted version of events.

Anthony had planned to attend college in Santa Barbara after he graduated from Pasadena City College, but instead he dropped out of PCC just before he earned enough credits for a degree so that he could devote all his time to Van Halen.

(1974–2006) Van Halen
In 1974, Eddie Van Halen, Alex Van Halen, David Lee Roth and Anthony became known as Van Halen, dropping the name Mammoth when they discovered another local band using that moniker. After successfully navigating the Los Angeles and West Hollywood club scene and a 29 track demo produced by Kiss's Gene Simmons, Van Halen was signed to Warner Bros. in 1977 and released their self-titled debut album on February 10, 1978. Anthony was a 20% member (manager Noel Monk being the 5th) of all debts and profits, including merchandise, until midway through the 1984 tour, when tensions rose to the point that Roth and the Van Halen brothers insisted that he sign away all future songwriting credit and royalties, retroactive with the current 1984 LP. Noel Monk later wrote of the event, "If I were Mike, I would have told them to 'fuck off' and not played that night, to show them my worth. Instead Mike didn't say a word and signed away millions of dollars, as the three stood over him, lying on the floor."

The band released a total of eleven studio albums from 1978 through 1998, a live album in 1993, as well as two greatest hits compilations during Anthony's tenure with the band.

Anthony produced a 1988 demo for his brother (Robert Lee Sobolewski) Bobby Leigh's band Asylum Suite, which was formed in 1984 and featured singer Michael Thomas Fiore.

(1996–2003) Diminishing role with Van Halen and side projects
As early as 1996, rumors periodically surfaced that Anthony had been fired from Van Halen, despite claims to the contrary. Anthony continued working with the band although the rumors persisted until his actual departure following the 2004 reunion tour with Hagar.

Anthony's involvement in recording the 1998 album Van Halen III was dramatically less than previous albums. Anthony played bass on three songs, with Eddie playing the bass parts for the six other songs that featured bass. Anthony is credited as a songwriter for the album along with the rest of the band. Anthony performed with the band for the 1998 tour, and was credited on messages from the band thereafter. He participated in the band's three reunion efforts with David Lee Roth in 1996, 2000 and 2001 (with the latter resulting in early versions of A Different Kind of Truth tracks ). Anthony's name was also credited in a few band newsletters and appeared in band interviews during this time. Sometime after this, Anthony disappeared from public view until the 2004 reunion.

Anthony began periodic appearances with Sammy Hagar during his solo tours. He usually played as part of both the Waboritas and Los Tres Gusanos, two of Hagar's bands. During 2002's Roth/Hagar tour (otherwise known as the "Sans Halen" or "Sam and Dave" tour), both Anthony and ex-Van Halen vocalist Gary Cherone made guest appearances at concerts, sometimes together.

In 2002, Anthony, Hagar, Neal Schon, Deen Castronovo, and Joe Satriani formed the supergroup Planet Us and Anthony began making more frequent performances at Hagar concerts. Planet Us recorded two songs, including "Psycho Vertigo", which was intended for the original Spider-Man soundtrack but ultimately did not make the album. That and the other Planet Us song written for the band, "Peephole", were later released on the 2008 Hagar solo album Cosmic Universal Fashion.

(2003–2005) Van Halen reunion
Initially when Eddie and Alex asked Hagar to rejoin at the end of 2003 for a 2004 tour, the plan was to not invite Anthony back. Hagar, however, refused to perform if Anthony did not rejoin, and Anthony agreed to play but on a reduced royalties contract. The contract drawn up was for the duration of the tour only.

In 2004, Van Halen released the compilation album The Best of Both Worlds which included three new songs. Anthony did not participate in the writing of nor did he play bass on the new songs and was not credited on the album for the new material, although he did sing backup vocals on all of them.

Anthony now states in media interviews that he has not spoken to the Van Halen brothers since the 2004 tour, except to Alex at the funeral of Van Halen drum tech Greg Emerson. He has also speculated that since the brothers were not pleased with Hagar's commercial ventures such as the Cabo Wabo product line, their similar displeasure with Anthony's hot sauce brand may have caused the rift that ultimately separated Hagar and Anthony from the band.

(2006–present) Departure from Van Halen and formation of Chickenfoot
Anthony spent the summer of 2006 touring as a member of the Other Half during a segment of the Sammy Hagar and the Waboritas tour. The Other Half featured Anthony and Hagar performing classic Van Halen songs from both the Roth and Hagar periods.

On September 8, 2006, Eddie Van Halen announced that his son Wolfgang was replacing Anthony as Van Halen's bass player. On February 2, 2007, Van Halen announced that they were reuniting for a tour with original vocalist David Lee Roth. Their tour began on September 27, 2007. Anthony commented that he heard about his replacement "on the Internet" and added, "I'm a little miffed that they're calling it a Van Halen reunion. If I was dead and they needed someone to play, that's one thing, but to me this is not a reunion." At the tour press conference David Lee Roth stated, "This is not a reunion, this is a revision."

Anthony joined Hagar on live national television on February 25, 2007, during a pre-race performance for the California NASCAR race on Fox television. Anthony jumped onstage and joined Hagar during a performance of "I Can't Drive 55."

Anthony and Hagar were the only members, former or current, to appear at Van Halen's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame on March 12, 2007. Eddie Van Halen was in rehab at the time, and Alex Van Halen and David Lee Roth declined to appear.

Anthony is a founding member, bassist and backing vocalist for the band Chickenfoot with Sammy Hagar, Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer Chad Smith and guitarist Joe Satriani. The band released their first studio album in Europe on June 5, 2009, followed by the North American release on June 9. Chickenfoot released their sophomore effort, Chickenfoot III, on September 27, 2011.

Anthony is a member of Sammy Hagar and the Circle, a supergroup that formed in 2014 and features Hagar as well as guitarist Vic Johnson and drummer Jason Bonham.

Iconic Jack Daniel's Bass
At the height of Van Halen's 1980's popularity, Anthony coordinated with his bass tech, Kevin "Dugie" Dugan, to create his iconic Jack Daniel's Bass Guitar. The first thing Dugan did was to come to an informal agreement with Jack Daniel's to never produce more than three such basses without the company's permission. The first version of the Jack Daniel's Bass made its initial appearance in the "Panama" video in April of 1984 and is now displayed in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The second version is in Anthony's private storage and the third is still occasionally used by Anthony in live performances.

Personal life
Anthony met Sue Hendry when both attended Arcadia High School. They married in 1981. They have two daughters: Elisha (born 1985) and Taylor (born 1992). Anthony and his family reside in Newport Beach, California. He can be seen during televised car shows, often being interviewed regarding his love and knowledge for classic motorcycles and cars.

Anthony mostly stayed on the sidelines of the rockstar "party hard" lifestyle, though he was often seen and photographed with a cigarette and a Jack Daniel's (whiskey logo) bass guitar.

with Van Halen

 * Van Halen (1978)
 * Van Halen II (1979)
 * Women and Children First (1980)
 * Fair Warning (1981)
 * Diver Down (1982)
 * 1984 (1984)
 * 5150 (1986)
 * OU812 (1988)
 * For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge (1991)
 * Balance (1995)
 * Van Halen III (1998) - bass (tracks 2, 3 and 7)

with Chickenfoot

 * Chickenfoot (2009)
 * Chickenfoot III (2011)

with the Circle

 * At Your Service (2015)
 * Space Between (2019)
 * Lockdown 2020 (2021)
 * Crazy Times (2022)

Commercial ventures
Anthony maintains a personal website titled "Mad Anthony's Cafe" where he markets and sells a number of signature products including hot sauce, BBQ sauce, and hot mustard. His line of commercial foods is the result of a collaboration with a San Diego, California restaurant noted for its hot sauces. His hot sauce brand, "Mad Anthony," has been noted on local news segments and on the Food Network for being "high-end" due to the quality of its ingredients and manufacturing process. The site also provides information on Anthony's Schecter Guitar Research bass guitar series. Chickenfoot bandmate Sammy Hagar carries the bassist's hot sauces at his Sammy's Beach Bar & Grill locations.

title: Michael Anthony (musician)


text:
Talk:Kilowatt-hour

Examples
It might be just me but the third example I missed the "one hour" part the first few times I read it. I only noticed it when I was about to edit it to "correct" the math and checked the footnote. So I left it as is. Perhaps it could be changed to 24h as I read it initially, or just adjusted in a way that may make things more clear? It's also entirely possible that other people don't miss that while scanning through and maybe no change is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.104.178 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2008

Changing kilowatt-hour to kilowatt hour with no hypen
Please have a look at the International Electrotechnical Vocabular of IEC

watt hour non-SI unit of active energy: 1 Wh ≔ 3 600 J

Note 1 to entry: The multiple kilowatt hour, kWh, is commonly used for billing consumers of electric energy and is therefore indicated on electric energy meters.

ISO specifies in ISO 80000-1:2009 "Quantities and units -- Part 1: General": 7.2.4 English names of compound units In the English language, the name of the product of two units is the concatenation of the two names, separated by a space.

ISO and IEC are internationally the most relevant standard setting organisations, do you agree? --Gunnar (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

 * en.wiki is an american/english project, not international. While unit symbols rules are to be followed as international consensus has agreed (but the continentals mostly don't, as stated just above, Note 1), instead, unit language naming, which has nothing to do with the mathematical notations, have to follow the natural and recognizable criteria of currently used language. --Robertiki (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Robert, I can't agree to your message. First, which continent do you mean (Africa, America, Asia, Australia, Europe)? Second, what do you mean with stated in the note? The note only explains the use of the k-factor (k means times 1000) for billing end consumers. Recently I have seen in Asia meters using kWh and not watt hours. Third, en.wiki is a language sign as written on the left hand side of this web page, not a country sign. Therefore, anybody who speaks and writes English can use the en.wiki part. If you prefer Chinese, use are allowed to use zh.wiki https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%83%E7%93%A6%C2%B7%E6%99%82 even if you are born in Japan. --Gunnar (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

 * As per WP:COMMONNAME. And beside the hyphen question was not discussed in 2008, when page was changed fromt watt-hour to kilowatt hour. So also page name should be moved to Kilowatt-hour. --Robertiki (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not give any weight to what ISO and IEC say. I stand by my comment from the last time we discussed this: Use the "name most typically used in reliable sources." At the time I was under the impression this meant no hyphen, but others disagreed. Care to flog this horse again? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Avoid the specialized-style fallacy, outlined in WP:SPECIALSTYLE as "Wikipedia has its own set of guidelines for article layout and naming. Facts on a subject should be drawn from reliable sources, but how content is styled is a matter for the Wikipedia community." We don't have to bend hyphenation to please ISO and IEC. All major dictionaries hyphenate kilowatt-hour, and so should we. Chris the speller   yack  15:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "I would not give any weight to what ISO and IEC say." Ah, really? Did you ever try to change "watt hour" into "watt-hour"? It is rather easy, if you give a simple explanation that your suggestion is right and Electropedia's term is wrong. I did find and report a few spelling mistakes. --Gunnar (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please help us improve Electropedia! If you have any comments or suggestions on Electropedia or specific terms and definitions, we want to hear from you. Please send an e-mail to terminology@iec.ch.

Regarding "name most typically used in reliable sources", if found that in the NIST Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), 2008, page 55 "watt hour" is also written without hyphen. --Gunnar (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The consumption of electric vehicles is expressed in kWh/100 km
I don't think this is always true: "The consumption of electric vehicles is expressed in kWh/100 km". For example, the US EPA several different units, including "kW·hrs per 100 miles", but not kWh/100 km, as can be seen on the window sticker. I would suggest changing "is" to "may be". Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier. I just wanted to write that either 1 kWh/100 km or 1 kWh/100 miles contains kWh. It makes sense to mention the consumption of electric vehicles, here. I performed a small calculation for you. 1 kWh/100 km = 36 N or 1 kWh/100 miles = 22.37 N

Here is a European website:. The consumption is given in kWh/100 km, --JeffMik1 (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does it say "The rate of energy consumption of electric vehicles is often expressed in kWh/100 km" on that web site? I can't find it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Here you have : website Spritmonitor. It is interesting, insn't it? --JeffMik1 (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think this may be a case of WP:OR. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It is difficult to convince you that I'm right. Look here, please: Electric car energy efficiency The efficiency is given in kWh/100 km or in kWh100 miles. Do you agree? Thank you, --JeffMik1 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in your (or my) opinion as to whether you are right. I'm asking for verifiability, which is part of the Five pillars. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the official site of the United States Department of Energy, which is responsible for energy in the US:. Here, efficiency is given in kWh/100 mile. If you prefer this unit, please replace kWh/100 km through kWh/100 mile (with the conversion factor 1 kWh/100 mile = 1.609344 kWh/100 km). Thanks, but I'm sorry. I give up, --JeffMik1 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

kWh versus kW·h
In this edit, kWh was changed to kW·h, among other things. While kW·h might in principle be the most "preferred" way by SI standards, it's not at all consistent with the actual use in almost all reliable sources.

It is also one of the situations where there is no chance of misunderstandings, which is the entire reason for using "·"; metre-second has to be written m·s (or perhaps m s) so it is not mistaken for ms (millisecond). But this is not the case with kWh; there is no risk of misunderstanding.

Also, a search on Google for "kW·h" in quotes gives a meagre 38.000 results, whereas a search for "kWh" in quotes gives 96 million results. So according to Google's index, kWh is used 25,000 times as much as kW·h on the internet.

So being "consistent" with writing kW·h on Wikipedia alone, separated from almost all the rest of the world, seems close to meaningless, even close to ridiculous.

The Manual of Style for Wikipedia, in MOS:UNITNAMES, also states:

 * "Indicate a product of unit symbols with  or  . Examples: ms = millisecond; m⋅s or m s = metre-second.

 * Exception: In some topic areas, such as power engineering, certain products take neither space nor ⋅. Follow the practice of reliable sources in the article's topic area. Examples: Wh, VA, Ah; kWh, MVA, GAh."

So I strongly believe we should consistently use kWh (as well as Wh, Ah, MWh, GAh, GWh, etc.) and not the almost never in real life used kW·h in this article (as well as in general on Wikipedia). And I believe the Manual of Style even states that we must, which makes total sense. We can mention that according to SI, kW·h (etc.) would be more correct (if that is true), but that it is almost never used, so therefore we use kWh (etc.) on Wikipedia to be consistent with the overwhelming use in almost all publications.

--Jhertel (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I was just reading up on this as well. I actually think we should remove the exception in MOS:UNIT, since it makes no sense to have it be different in this case. As you said, if it exists for newton-metre and metre-second, it should exist for everything else. As for consistency with "the rest of the world" a.k.a. reliable sources, we do things "against the grain" so to speak for many other things; e.g., always use spaces to separate unit quantities and symbols, whereas many (if not most) publications don't follow this guidance from the SI. Same thing with using ′ for feet instead of ft and ″ for inches instead of in. So it's a question of where do we put our foot down, and where do we not. I think we should follow the SI in all matters related to the SI, which MOS:UNIT actually suggests in a lot of cases. Regarding my edit, I mainly changed it in a wholesale attempt to the fix the issue of kWh being purported as a symbol, which it is not; it's an abbreviation. Since many of the templates seem to have the word "Symbol" hard-coded into them, and since it would be inconsistent to use kW·h and kWh mixed together, I ended up changing them all for consistency. I can change the instances in the prose where kW·h is used back to kWh, but I'm entirely against claiming that kWh is a symbol. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your reply. I can see that you want to make Wikipedia the best possible source of correct information, and I really appreciate that. I also appreciate that you want consistency and that things should make sense. I myself am like that and always strive for consistency and correctness.

 * In this case, I do not think we should blindly follow the recommendations from SI (which I have not read, but I assume it is true that they recommend always using the dot). I, and clearly most of the world, disagree with parts of those recommendations. I do like consistency, but not at any cost. In this case consistency with the simple rule makes writing kilowatt-hours unnecessarily complicated. The key is here is unnecessarily: There is literally no chance of misunderstanding in the case of kWh and the other similarly mentioned units. kWh could mean nothing else than kilowatt-hours, no matter the context. This is not the case with milliseconds (ms) versus metre-seconds (m·s), so in that case the only rational thing to do is use the dot in metre-seconds (m·s).

 * You said that I said that "if it exists for newton-metre and metre-second, it should exist for everything else". I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly, but I kind of meant the opposite. My view is that if there is a risk of misunderstanding, the dot should be used. But not otherwise. And according to the searches on Google, a huge majority of 99.996% seem to agree with me on this, at least when it comes to kWh.

 * My central point is that there is no risk of misunderstanding of kWh, so there is no point in placing the dot. The same actually goes for newton-metre: Nm cannot be misunderstood (N is not an SI prefix), so there is no reason to use a dot there either. Just like we write xy in maths with no risk of misunderstanding, even though x·y might be the most correct and "consistent" way of writing it. So to me, we can still actually go for full consistency by having a consistent rule that says that in cases where there is risk of misunderstanding (such as a unit starting with m for metre), the dot must be used, but otherwise not. That's still consistency.

 * Regarding your point about whether kWh is a symbol or not, I'm completely with you. We should absolutely not name it something it's not. I don't know about the precise definition of "symbol" in this case, but I believe you. I'm totally fine with not stating kWh as a symbol if it's not, but I would then add "abbreviation" or similar as a field in the infobox template, so it can be stated clearly in the infobox that "kWh" is what is used in almost all practical cases. Maybe even "Symbol" should be changed to "Official symbol" or something that similarly indicates that this is the official recommendation but not necessarily what is used by professionals.

 * The important thing is to be correct about our statements about the world. If something is not a symbol, it must not be mentioned as such. But then we must mention what it is. The fact is that kWh (etc.) is the notation that is used, and if it's not a symbol, we should state what it is, in the infobox. As there are more exceptions than kWh, the infobox should be changed, so we consistently mention how the units are written by professionals in all articles about units.

 * Thank you for proposing to change the instances in the prose where kW·h is used back to kWh. That is the only thing I ask, and I would appreciate a lot if you would do that. I prefer that you do it so I don't mess up, as it's not just a search and replace. Thank you in advance for that. Again, I agree completely when it comes to not calling kWh a symbol if the SI system clearly states it is not. And again (sorry that I tend to repeat myself, it must be some kind of brain malfunction), I think we should make provisions in the infobox template for abbreviations or normally used abbreviations. All provided that what you state about symbols is correct, which my general trust in my fellow human beings bids me to believe. Thanks again for your nice forthcomingness, and for insisting on consistency and correctness!

 * Also thank you for reading all the way to the end of this novel. I hope it made some sort of sense. --Jhertel (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Ah, but see, therein lies the issue. The problem with having a rule about omitting the multiplication dot when there's no risk of ambiguity is that it runs into the problem of unknown unknowns. For that rule to work perfectly, everyone would have to be aware of all possible symbols and opportunities for ambiguity, which is impractical. Take, for example, the symbol kWb. As per SI, it's the kiloweber, a unit of magnetic flux. But if someone were to apply your rule of "consistency in inconsistency", it could also read as a kilowatt-barn (kW⋅b) or even a kilowatt-bit (if one is to follow old guidance about what the symbol for the digital unit "bit" is). Similarly for the symbol ha, which in SI (technically associative non-SI) would be a hectare, but it could also be the hour-are (h⋅a). Now, these units are nonsensical, but the point is that someone whose knowledge only extends to that of watts and bits, for example, would be unaware of the weber and omit the dot making things more complicated than they were. Inevitably, one of these deviations will "win", and you will end up having to spend time and effort disambiguating when it wasn't necessary in the first place. Furthermore, what isn't a prefix or symbol today could be in the future, as the SI is a standard that changes to accommodate larger quantities and newer units.

 * Regarding its utility, the point of the dot is not to disambiguate, but to explicitly indicate that it's a compound unit. It's actually not a cost, but a huge benefit to make it clear that it's a compound unit. Your argument could actually also be used the other way as well: the cost of consistency with the "rest of the world" is that it lacks clarity and deviates from standards; nobody would be baffled by seeing kW⋅h for the kilowatt-hour, but writing kWh would definitely be less clear. This actually has happened: in the US (especially in government), they now write the name of the unit as "kilowatthour", as if it's one word because they've been writing kWh for a long time. Clearly, this abomination is reprehensible and undesirable. The point about having to write the unit is frankly not a concern for WP, as there are templates that do it for you. And if you truly are in a situation where you have to write it without the help of formatting tools or are in an ASCII-only situation, you can use a space as well. Which addresses your point about the analogy with maths: in the SI, multiplication is indicated with either a dot operator (centred dot or half-high dot) or a space; juxtaposition does not mean multiplication. This is precisely the reason writing "10s" to mean "10 seconds" is incorrect in the SI; it has to be written 10 s because it indicates a multiplication between the quantity "10" and the unit symbol "s" (second). It also avoids the issue of grammatical ambiguity in English where "10s" would mean "tens", and not "ten seconds". There's a reason for this: juxtaposition is reserved for scaling pre-existing units (using prefixes; e.g., ms for the millisecond, etc.) and for multi-character unit symbols (e.g., Pa for the pascal, Wb for the weber, etc.).

 * And it's not that the world "disagrees" with the recommendations. (They're actually not recommendations, in fact. They're rules set by the BIPM for using the SI; let's not forget that the SI is a standard that is defined and governed by the BIPM, which all its member countries pay into to have a say in its decisions on matters. So, it's not "the world vs. the BIPM"; the world almost literally defined the SI together.) It's just that everyday people (including news publications) are lazy and/or indifferent. It's because the dot operator is not directly available on (especially English) keyboards, so they take the easy way out, not knowing that the space is also a valid way to write the units. Or, they do use the space because it's easier to type, but it's also easier to misread as the absence of a space, and it ends up collapsing anyway. This gets popularized, so their readership thinks that that's indeed the official way to write those symbols, and then—because it's now "popular"—misguided institutions like the IEEE and ASTM create their own standard that allows for omitting the dots in symbols, and companies inevitably use that as licence to omit them. The deviation from the actual standard then becomes ossified, and we end up in a situation like the very one we're in where outlets like Wikipedia have to change their practices to deviate from standards due to "reliable sources" saying otherwise.

 * As for actually changing it, I agree that some sort of change to the templates would be in order if we want to keep doing that. I'm not privileged enough to be able to change a lot of the templates, so some admin would have to do it. Or, we could just get rid of the senseless rule to blindly "follow reliable sources" and just say that we only follow SI practices, which would solve all of our problems :) Getsnoopy (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia should not be used to set rules. It should follow common use in reliable sources and avoid WP:OR. This is the accepted practice since the establishment of Wikipedia. I will revert to the overwhelmingly more common kWh. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Variety of English, date format
The only instance of a spelling I can find that differs among varieties of English is this edit from 2010, which uses the word "centred". However, that is contained in a quote, and in quotes the spelling of the source is retained regardless of the spelling conventions of the work containing the quote. So I can find no basis rooted in spelling of words to prefer any particular variety of English.

Aside from spelling, the grammar of the article just seems more American than British to me.

Some people, including me, feel dmy dates go better with British and Oxford spelling, and mdy dates go better with American spelling. The earliest introduction of a date, precise to the day, is in this edit from 2008, by Ben MacDui which contains 9 January 2008 (I have removed date linking, which is too painful to reproduce). I do not see any discussion in the talk page or its archives about choosing a date format. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the first date used was dmy, we should use dmy in the article. It also makes sense since the article is clearly of international scope and mdy is widely used only in the US. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I second this opinion. This is also corroborated by words such as "kilometre". I also felt it was an unspoken rule (a "given", even) that all SI and SI-related articles use Oxford conventionally, as this is what the SI and BIPM use. And DMY to naturally follow. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As for "as this is what the SI and BIPM use", the SI is a system, not an organization; it doesn't use anything. Perhaps BIPM does use Oxford English as a secondary language, although their primary language seems to be French. In any case, SI was approved by the CGPM, which is essentially a periodic convention of national representatives; BIPM minds the store in between meetings of the CGPM. I wonder what languages the CGPM uses?
 * All the products of the CGPM and BIPM are aspirational in nature; it actually gets enforced by passage of laws in the member countries, who also empower local officials to enforce the law. Each country writes it's SI-related laws in the local language variant(s). In the US, the laws and rules are written in American English, and enforced by weights and measures inspectors of the several states. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant to write "SI brochure", not "SI"; my mistake. As for the BIPM being merely a "store" of information resulting from the CGPM, this is not strictly true. The member countries of the BIPM are meant to adhere to the rules set out by the BIPM, of which one is to recognize the BIPM as the ultimate authority on all matters relating to the SI and another is to recognize that its French documents are the sources-of-truth for all things SI-related. I've worked directly with the director of the BIPM, and he has already officially stated that using meter in English to refer to the unit of length is "deprecated" and should not be used. Regarding enforcement, what you say is true, as the BIPM is an intergovernmental organization without any national jurisdiction, but that is neither here nor there. The topic is what is correct for the SI, and my point is that there is a correct way, at least in English and French. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * why would the language variety in an article be based on the variety used in a publication of just one specific primary source that covers a subject that is related to the subject of the article? Wiki policy covers language variety choice, and it doesn't say to choose it on that basis. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the BIPM is the canonical source for all matters related to the SI. And again, like I said, it is not a codified rule, but seemed like a convention seeing as I couldn't find any other SI-related article not using Oxford English. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the BIPM might be the source for current SI unit definitions and the like, but don't forget that the etymology of some of the words they use to name those units dates back a century or more before the BIPM even came into existence. They certainly do not control the English language and they do not (and cannot) dictate the language variety or spelling that publications use when describing the units that they develop the definitions for.
 * And when you wrote "I couldn't find any other SI-related article not using Oxford English", did you actually look for any? How about; International System of Units (British English), International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) (British English), Metric system (British English). And of the articles on the seven base units, none specify Oxford English, with Ampere, Candela, Kelvin, Metre and Mole specifying British English, Second specifying American English, and Kilogram not specifying any particular variety. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While the etymology is older, many, if not most, of the words come from older metric systems, all of which ultimately emanate from the first metric system; the SI is merely a modern-day, standardized version of that. They don't control the language variety of publications, but they control the unit names themselves in French and English. It is true, however, that there is no "world police" that is going to punish someone for not using them as outlined, as I said above. But then again, that isn't really the point. I'm merely suggesting that the fact that they control the unit names and use Oxford English in their publications serves as a good model for Wiki articles as well, as it's the most international and mirrors that of the organization itself which is the source on these matters.
 * Not including the articles on BIPM and Metric system, all of the unit ones you mentioned except for Kelvin, Metre, and Mole are not tagged at all and have instances of "-ize" suffixes used. These could pass as Oxford as much as they can as British. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the BIPM don't control English spellings, they have no authority to. Spellings evolve over time and by locality, and the BIPM cannot (and don't claim to, are can you show otherwise?) control that. Do you think they can get the US to change the spellings of words that they have spelt that way since before the BIPM even came about?
 * And the articles you say aren't tagged for Engvar are all tagged, as I said. Some in the article page itself and others in their talkpages, which is the original way of doing it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, authority is a tangential subject. If authority were being considered, then neither does it have the authority to control the French spellings; any French-speaking nation/organization/person could use whatever spelling they like, and the BIPM wouldn't bring in Interpol, for example, to punish them. This is no different to how the Russians, for example, largely ignore the specification and even use their own "transliterated" unit symbols domestically; the BIPM would need a lot of luck if it wanted to fight the Russians. It's about what is prescribed, and the BIPM prescribes the spelling of the units in French primarily and English secondarily.
 * As I've said in the conversation thread with @Jc3s5h above, I've personally spoken to the director who's said that it is deprecated to use the spelling "meter", as "metre" is the canonical spelling. He even agreed to remove the note in the SI brochure that says something to the effect of "metre and litre are also spelled meter and liter in some countries" because he said that that's incorrect, but then "reconsidered" after talking to the representatives of the affected constituent countries of the CGPM; namely, the US. Regarding getting the US to spell things a certain way: the US spelled those words the same way as everyone else even until as recently as the 1970s before fickle politicians decided to "standardize" on something that is diametrically the opposite of what the rest of the world was doing purely based on nationalistic fervour. This power rests in the Secretary of Commerce and by proxy the Director of NIST, and it could be changed with the stroke of a pen; it has nothing to do with "US English" per se. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * what makes you think that the BIPM "prescribe" spellings in either English or French - can you cite any reliable sources that support that view? And why do you think they only prescribe them for two, and not all languages?
 * And do you now accept my findings that British English is the Engvar used in all but a couple of the the SI-related articles that I listed, and that Oxford English wasn't specified for any of them? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The SI brochure, along with the Treaty of the Metre itself are reliable sources for the French case, and all signatories to the Treaty concede that to be the case. For the English case, like I said, I've spoken directly to Dr. Martin Milton, the director, who's confirmed that it is deprecated to use "meter" and "liter" to refer to the units. There's no way I could "cite" this, however, as it's not publicly available information. They prescribe them only for those two because French is the canonical text, and they also officially publish the brochure in English. They leave it to other languages/organizations to spell them however they want in their respective languages.
 * Sure. I didn't know that tagging the talk page was a valid way to tag the article with that EngVar, so when I read through the articles, they could've been Oxford English just the same. Nevertheless, my point was primarily about the spelling of the unit names and generally that we should follow Oxford to match that of the BIPM. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are about twice as many MDY as DMY dates in the article, so I'd say there is a clear leaning to MDY. As for the EngVar, the exclusive use of "iz" rather than "is" (yes, I know they are used in Oxford English too, but...) combined with the use of US-only spellings ("laborer", "centered" and "behavior") and the predominance of MDY dates gives a clear indication to me that this article should commonise on American English combined with MDY dates rather than any other variety. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The first date used was DMY, so according to the MOS:DATEVAR the article format should be DMY. As I mentioned before, it also makes sense from a internationalization point of view, since MDY are only used in the US. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * DATEVAR says "should" continue to be used, not "must", and in this case it wasn't. And as subsequent edits mostly used the MDY format, that, effectiveley, delivered an edit consensus in support of MDY. And DATEVAR's first clause says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." Therefore, DATEVAR supports commonising on the predominant MDY format, unless a consensus for DMY is achieved in this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Getsnoopy wrote above "the BIPM prescribes the spelling of the units in French primarily and English". I disagree. In the preface to the 9th edition of the SI brochure the BIPM states "Small spelling variations occur in the language of the English speaking countries (for instance, "metre" and "meter", "litre" and "liter"). In this respect, the English text presented here follows the ISO/IEC 80000 series Quantities and units. However, the symbols for SI units used in this brochure are the same in all languages."

I take this to mean Jc3s5h (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the spelling conventions are limited to the brochure itself, and not intended as a general prescription about how unit names should be spelled in English
 * there are no spelling recommendations for spelled out unit names (in any language), only for the symbols of units and prefixes.
 * Like I've said above, the BIPM was about to remove that note from the brochure because they agreed that that wasn't true (i.e., spelling variation cannot occur because the official spelling is the one provided in the brochure), but then decided not to for political reasons. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Article changes
Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In this edit, you [DeFacto] claim "say it as it is" and change it to "American English", which it clearly is not. If you don't think my change to "Oxford English" was warranted, then yours isn't in just the same light, and yours should be reverted as well to become neutral. Your behaviour has an air of what you do is always more authoritative than what others do, which is not only untrue, but disruptive.

Also, regarding I'm not going to unpick the very little that wasn't which you cn re-do: please stop your wholesale reverting. You're an editor; if you can't pick the changes that are relevant vs. the ones which are not, then maybe you should reconsider your role. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, say it as it is - it's closer to American English than Oxford English. And if you jumble a couple of minor, but uncontroversial changes into a long jumble of disruptive datever and Engvar changes then you shouldn't be surprised if they get reverted too. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's clearly just your opinion, and is easily contested given the discussion happening above. And no. You even reverted changes before the ones introducing Oxford & DMY; do better. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of adding a reference how to place a recommended symbol as per article
Reference to reverted edit.--Robertiki (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The '·' character is not that common, most don't know how it is named, and maybe neither do not know how to search about it (simply placing it in the search box does work). I think it would do no damage placing a small note about it, if anybody would like to abide to SI rules. --Robertiki (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Another editor that loves to revert without talking. Please refer to expert bias. --Robertiki (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I disagree. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for how-to guides on how to input unusual characters. On a related comment, the fact that the character is not present directly in the keyboard is probably the reason why nobody actually follows the SI recommendation. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 * You just proved me right. The missing keyboard character justifies what is a footnote and no more. I would understand opposition against content in the body of the article, but a simple footnote ? --Robertiki (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The interpunct, or center dot, is a common international symbol for multiplication. The majority of people worldwide probably recognize it as such, perhaps not so much in the US, but this not just a US publication. I agree with the consensus here that we should not markup symbols with explanations of how-to, particularly if that entails referral to a single subjectively selected technology. kbrose (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain the last part of your comment. I agree that '·' is internationally known. I don't agree the assumption that a majority of people (people and educated people are not the same) worldwide recognize it as such. Expert editors (like you) can be very valuable contributors to Wikipedia, but they sometimes have a difficult time realizing that Wikipedia is a different environment from scholarly and scientific publishing. Wikipedia is more a mom's encyclopedia than a scholarly high level publication (and I am referring also to your full rollback of my yesterday edits). I also have a Ph.D., for what it's worth. --Robertiki (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The edit being complained about contained, and discused, "·". The first post in this thread uses the same character. But the article does not use "·", it uses "⋅". So it was completely appropriate that the edit was reverted. (I have not looked at the edit summary for the reversion and express no opinion about the edit summary.) My edit to this thread is the first post that makes any sense and the rest should be ignored. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean 0xC2B7 (mine) and 0xE28B85 (article). But to the naked eye they look the same. And anyway, my note linked to interpunct page section which explains better. If the problem is that I was too "Linux" specific, no problem, I may suggest the following generic note --Robertiki (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I added a link to centred dot in the "Unit representations" section. I think this should be enough for those wondering what that symbol is or how to input it. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Resistance force
The section with the sole statement, "By definition of the units, a consumption of 1 kWh/100 km is exactly equivalent to a resistance force...", is completely out of context with no useful exposition whatsoever. I don't see how it helps the article. There are probably many equivalents that could be drawn from dimensional analysis. kbrose (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of watts per hour, again
Dondervogel 2 added a "citation needed" template to the statement that "other use of terms such as "watts per hour" are likely to be errors. The edit summary was "are you sure?". Yes, I'm sure. I've done a Google search on "watts per hour" and nearly all of the instances I find are errors.

The problem is that reliable sources usually content to using terms correctly themselves. They seldom take the trouble to point out widespread misuse of terms. So I have not been able to find a reliable source that it is a widespread error to write "watts per hour" or similar phrases when "watts" is meant.

This topic was previously discussed in Talk:Kilowatt-hour/Archive 1 in several sections. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 * If we don't have an RS, doesn't that make the claim WP:OR? My point is that there can are other quantities with dimensions power/time, and such use would be legitimate. I would prefer to see a positive statement about the correct meaning of W/s over the unsourced claim about incorrect meanings. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Two sources added for "watts per hour" (usually) being nonsense. --Macrakis (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Watt second should redirect here
I was just searching for the term watt second assuming the SI units would be used rather than kilo-.

I eventually figured you had this under kilowatt hour. But, I was thinking if you had a search for watt second redirect to this page, it would be a lot easier to find the article if the user is unsure of what units to search for. VoidHalo (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 * "Watt-second" redirects to "Joule", as it should. So does "Watt second". What did you type? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

kWh is a typo
"The use of the correct symbols for SI units, and for units in general, as listed in the earlier chapters of this brochure, is mandatory. In this way ambiguities and misunderstandings in the values of quantities are avoided." -- you can't spell "kWh" for kilowatt hour, "Wb" for watt barn, "kat" for kiloannum tonne, "Gy" for gauss year, etc. This never should have had to be a discussion especially when new units and prefixes get added. 2600:4040:208F:2A00:3FA2:818A:B558:F2A4 (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Try reading the archive of the talk page to see if this has been discussed before. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

W h multiples removed from disambig pages
Why are people removing W h multiples from disambig pages and hatnotes? 2600:4040:208F:2A00:D9B0:D4A:879E:D5C8 (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kilowatt-hour


text:
Snub cube

In geometry, the snub cube, or snub cuboctahedron, is an Archimedean solid with 38 faces: 6 squares and 32 equilateral triangles. It has 60 edges and 24 vertices. Kepler first named it in Latin as cubus simus in 1619 in his Harmonices Mundi. H. S. M. Coxeter, noting it could be derived equally from the octahedron as the cube, called it snub cuboctahedron, with a vertical extended Schläfli symbol $$s \scriptstyle\begin{Bmatrix} 4 \\ 3 \end{Bmatrix}$$, and representing an alternation of a truncated cuboctahedron, which has Schläfli symbol $$t \scriptstyle\begin{Bmatrix} 4 \\ 3 \end{Bmatrix}$$.

Construction
The snub cube can be generated by taking the six faces of the cube, pulling them outward so they no longer touch, then giving them each a small rotation on their centers (all clockwise or all counter-clockwise) until the spaces between can be filled with equilateral triangles.

The snub cube may also be constructed from a rhombicuboctahedron. It started by twisting its square face (in blue), allowing its triangles (in red) to be automatically twisted in opposite directions, forming other square faces (in white) to be skewed quadrilaterals that can be filled in two equilateral triangles.

The snub cube can also be derived from the truncated cuboctahedron by the process of alternation. 24 vertices of the truncated cuboctahedron form a polyhedron topologically equivalent to the snub cube; the other 24 form its mirror-image. The resulting polyhedron is vertex-transitive but not uniform.

Cartesian coordinates
Cartesian coordinates for the vertices of a snub cube are all the even permutations of $$ \left(\pm 1, \pm \frac{1}{t}, \pm t \right), $$ with an even number of plus signs, along with all the odd permutations with an odd number of plus signs, where $$ t \approx 1.83929 $$ is the tribonacci constant. Taking the even permutations with an odd number of plus signs, and the odd permutations with an even number of plus signs, gives a different snub cube, the mirror image. Taking them together yields the compound of two snub cubes.

This snub cube has edges of length $$\alpha = \sqrt{2+4t-2t^2}$$, a number which satisfies the equation $$\alpha^6-4\alpha^4+16\alpha^2-32=0, $$ and can be written as $$\begin{align} \alpha &= \sqrt{\frac{4}{3}-\frac{16}{3\beta}+\frac{2\beta}{3}}\approx1.609\,72 \\ \beta &= \sqrt[3]{26+6\sqrt{33}}. \end{align}$$ To get a snub cube with unit edge length, divide all the coordinates above by the value α given above.

Properties
For a snub cube with edge length $$a$$, its surface area and volume are: $$ \begin{align} A &= \left(6+8\sqrt{3}\right)a^2 &\approx 19.856a^2 \\ V &= \frac{8t+6}{3\sqrt{2(t^2-3)}}a^3 &\approx 7.889a^3. \end{align}$$

The snub cube is an Archimedean solid, meaning it is a highly symmetric and semi-regular polyhedron, and two or more different regular polygonal faces meet in a vertex. It is chiral, meaning there are two distinct forms whenever being mirrored. Therefore, the snub cube has the rotational octahedral symmetry $$ \mathrm{O} $$. The polygonal faces that meet for every vertex are four equilateral triangles and one square, and the vertex figure of a snub cube is $$ 3^4 \cdot 4 $$. The dual polyhedron of a snub cube is pentagonal icositetrahedron, a Catalan solid.

Graph
The skeleton of a snub cube can be represented as a graph with 24 vertices and 60 edges, an Archimedean graph.

title: Snub cube


text:
Donald Pederson

Donald Oscar Pederson (September 30, 1925 – December 25, 2004) was an American professor of electrical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the designers of SPICE, a simulator for integrated circuits that has been universally used as a teaching tool and in the everyday work of circuits engineers. The IEEE Donald O. Pederson Award in Solid-State Circuits is named in his honor.

Early life
Pederson was born in Hallock, Minnesota to Oscar Jorgan and Beda Emilia Pederson. He attended Fergus Falls Public Schools in Fergus Falls, Minnesota during which time he built his first crystal radio by using junkyard finds and spare parts which were given by his uncle and cousin. During those years he also saved money, and eventually bought his first soldering iron and a vacuum tube. Don's passion for electronics began in high school during physics class in Fargo, North Dakota where his parents had moved. He graduated high school at age 17 and entered Iowa State College in the autumn of 1943, but then left for the military during World War II. He served as a private in the U.S. Army in Austria, Germany, France and the Philippines from 1943 to 1946.

Upon his return from military service, he continued his undergraduate education at North Dakota Agricultural College (now North Dakota State University) and earned a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering in 1948. He then attended Stanford University for graduate school, where he received a master's degree in electrical engineering in 1949 and a Ph.D. in 1951.

Pederson remained at Stanford as a researcher in the university's electronics research lab. From 1953 to 1955, he worked at Bell Telephone Laboratories, in Murray Hill, New Jersey, and lectured at Newark College of Engineering (now New Jersey Institute of Technology). In 1955, Pederson joined the faculty of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences of the University of California, Berkeley as an assistant professor of electrical engineering. In the early 1970s he began work on SPICE, with his colleagues from the Electronic Research Lab. He retired in 1991, but continued to teach part-time.

Pederson died on December 25, 2004, in Concord, California, of complications from Parkinson's disease.

Awards

 * 1969: IEEE Education Medal
 * 1984: IEEE Centennial Medal
 * 1995: Phil Kaufman Award
 * 1996: Computer & Communication Promotion Prize
 * 1998: IEEE Medal of Honor for "creation of the SPICE Program, universally used for the computer aided design of circuits"

Pederson was a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Sciences. He was also a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Other recognitions
In 1987 the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) named one of its major awards in his honor, the IEEE Donald O. Pederson Award in Solid-State Circuits. It is a Technical Field Award given by the board of directors level of the IEEE. It had previously been simply called the IEEE Solid-State Circuits Award.

Personal life
Don was married to Claire N. Pederson and together they had three daughters (Emily Sanders, Margaret Stanfield, and Katharine Rookard) and a son (John). They also had four grandchildren

After they divorced he married Karen Pederson.

title: Donald Pederson