text:
Political risk insurance

Political risk insurance is a type of insurance that can be taken out by businesses, of any size, against political risk—the risk that revolution or other political conditions will result in a loss.

Political risk insurance is available for several different types of political risk, including: Political risk insurance claims can be categorized as inconvertibility of funds, expropriation, and violent conflict. As with any insurance, the precise scope of coverage is governed by the terms of the insurance policy. Providers of political risk insurance include public agencies and private insurance companies.
 * Political violence, such as revolution, insurrection, civil unrest, terrorism or war;
 * Governmental expropriation or confiscation of assets;
 * Governmental frustration or repudiation of contracts;
 * Wrongful calling of letters of credit or similar on-demand guarantees;
 * Business Interruption; and
 * Inconvertibility of foreign currency or the inability to repatriate funds.

The underwriting of political risk insurance is a dynamic, growing business. As globalisation increases, there are more corporations doing more business in more places around the world with each passing year. Some of the changes occurring in the business are high growth, new product offerings, and a greater role for private capital.

While political risk insurance policies are sometimes manuscripted for specific situations, the major political risk insurers have standard forms for the coverages that they issue. For "complex" or larger investments manuscripted policies are the norm and there may be several insurers providing cover in the form of a syndication, through co-insurance, or perhaps with the participation of a reinsurer on a facultative basis.

Political risk insurance claims were shown to increase with changes of political leadership in the country and violent conflict and decrease with political constraints.

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

title: Political risk insurance


text:
SS Richard Montgomery

The SS Richard Montgomery is a wrecked American Liberty cargo ship that was built during World War II. She was named after Richard Montgomery, an Irish officer who fought in the American Revolutionary War.

She was wrecked on the Nore sandbank in the Thames Estuary, near Sheerness, Kent, England, in August 1944, while carrying a cargo of munitions. About 1400 tonnes of explosives remaining on board presents a hazard but the likelihood of explosion is asserted to be remote.

Construction
Richard Montgomery was laid down on 15 March 1943 under a Maritime Commission (MARCOM) contract, MC hull 1199, by the St. Johns River Shipbuilding Company, Jacksonville, Florida. She was sponsored by Mrs. Rockwell, the wife of the director of MARCOM, Production Division, and was launched on 15 June 1943. She was the seventh of the 82 liberty ships built by the yard.

Service history
She was allocated to Agwilines Inc. on 29 July 1943. In August 1944, on what turned out to be her final voyage, the ship left Hog Island, Philadelphia, where she had been loaded with 6,127 tons of munitions.

She travelled from the Delaware River to the Thames Estuary, then anchored while awaiting the formation of a convoy to travel to Cherbourg, France, which had come under Allied control on 27 July 1944, during the Battle of Normandy.

When Richard Montgomery arrived off Southend, she came under the authority of the Thames naval control at HMS Leigh located at the end of Southend Pier. The harbourmaster, responsible for all shipping movements in the estuary, ordered the ship to a berth off the north edge of Sheerness middle sands, an area designated as the Great Nore Anchorage.

On 20 August 1944 she dragged anchor and ran aground on a sandbank around 250 m from the Medway Approach Channel, in a depth of 24 ft of water. The general dry cargo liberty ship had an average draft of 28 ft, but Richard Montgomery was trimmed to a draft of 31 ft. As the tide went down, the ship broke her back on sand banks near the Isle of Sheppey about 1.5 mi from Sheerness and 5 mi from Southend.

A Rochester-based stevedore company was given the job of removing the cargo, which began on 23 August 1944, using the ship's own cargo handling equipment. By the next day, the ship's hull had cracked open, causing several cargo holds at the bow end to flood. The salvage operation continued until 25 September, when the ship was finally abandoned before all the cargo had been recovered. Subsequently, the vessel broke into two separate parts, roughly amidships.

During the inquiry into the shipwreck, it was revealed that several ships moored nearby had noticed Richard Montgomery drifting towards the sandbank. They had attempted to signal an alert by sounding their sirens, but without avail because the ship's chief officer neither reacted nor awoke Captain Wilkie, a failure which he was unable to explain. A board of inquiry concluded that the anchorage the harbour master assigned had placed the ship in jeopardy, and returned the captain of Richard Montgomery to full duty within a week.

Status and risk

According to a 2008 survey, the wreck is at a depth of 15 m, on average, and leaning to starboard. At all states of the tide, her three masts are visible above the water.

Because of the presence of the large quantity of unexploded ordnance, the ship is monitored by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and is clearly marked on the relevant Admiralty charts. In 1973, she became the first wreck designated as dangerous under section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. There is an exclusion zone around her monitored visually and by radar. The exclusion zone around the wreck is defined by the following co-ordinates:

 * 51.46778°N, 0.78667°W
 * 51.46583°N, 0.78944°W
 * 51.46389°N, 0.78639°W
 * 51.46611°N, 0.78361°W

According to a survey conducted in 2000 by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the wreck still held  munitions containing approximately 1400 tonnes of TNT high explosive. This comprises the following items of ordnance:
 * 286 × 2000 lb high explosive bombs
 * 4,439 × 1000 lb bombs of various types
 * 1,925 × 500 lb bombs
 * 2,815 fragmentation bombs and bomb clusters
 * Various explosive booster charges
 * Various smoke bombs, including white phosphorus bombs
 * Various pyrotechnic signals

One of the reasons that the explosives have not been removed was the unfortunate outcome of a similar operation in July 1967, to neutralize the contents of the Polish cargo ship SS Kielce, that sank in 1946, off Folkestone in the English Channel. During preliminary work, Kielce exploded with a force equivalent to an earthquake measuring 4.5 on the Richter scale, digging a 20-foot-deep (6 m) crater in the seabed and bringing "panic and chaos" to Folkestone, although there were no injuries. Kielce was at least 3 or from land, had sunk in deeper water than Richard Montgomery, and had "just a fraction" of the load of explosives. According to a BBC News report in 1970, it was determined that if the wreck of Richard Montgomery exploded, it would throw a 300 m-wide column of water and debris nearly 3,000 m into the air and generate a wave 5 m high. Almost every window in Sheerness (population circa 20,000) would be broken and buildings would be damaged by the blast. However, news reports in May 2012, including one by BBC Kent, stated that the wave could be about 1 m high, which although lower than previous estimates would be enough to cause flooding in some coastal settlements.

When the condition of the munitions was originally assessed there was concern that copper azide, an extremely sensitive explosive, would be produced through reaction between lead azide and copper from fuse components (lead azide would react with water vapour, rather than liquid water, to form hydrazoic acid, which could react with copper in the detonating cap to form copper azide). Critics of government assurances that the likelihood of a major explosion is remote argue that one of the fuses of the 2,600 fused-fragmentation devices could become partially flooded and undergo the reaction producing copper azide. A knock, such as caused by the ship breaking up further, or a collision on the busy shipping lane, could cause the copper azide to explode and trigger an explosive chain reaction detonating the bulk of the munitions. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) said in 1998, "as the fuses will probably all have been flooded for many years and the sensitive compounds referred to are all soluble in water this is no longer considered to be a significant hazard". The UK government's Receiver of Wreck commissioned a risk assessment in 1999, but this risk assessment has not been published. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency convened with local and port authorities to discuss the report in 2001 and concluded that "doing nothing [was] not an option for much longer".

An investigation by New Scientist magazine in 2004, based partly on government documents released in 2004, concluded that the cargo was still deadly, and could be detonated by a collision, an attack, or even shifting of the cargo in the tide. The deterioration of the bombs is so severe that they could explode spontaneously. Documents declassified shortly before revealed that the wreck was not dealt with immediately after it happened, or in the intervening 60 years, due to the expense. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency nevertheless believes that the risk of a major explosion is remote. The wreck site has been surveyed regularly since 1965 to determine the stability of the structure, with a diver survey being completed in 2003. High-resolution multi-beam sonar surveys in 2005 and September 2006 found that there had been no recent significant movement of the wreck.

Surveys undertaken in 2008 and 2009 by the MCA, showed that the ship was continuing to deteriorate structurally, with accelerated deterioration in some areas and new cracks appearing in the bow section of the wreck. The report states that "Whilst significant structural collapse does not appear to be imminent, surveys suggest that this prospect is getting closer." The increasing calls for a new airport in the Thames estuary would mean a solution would have to be found for removing the wreck, or at least making it safe, should the airport be built.

The 2010 survey report, released in May 2012, found that, while there had been little change in 2009–2010, the future was uncertain due to the "dynamic nature" of the surrounding environment. Mayor of London Boris Johnson said that engineers had found the wreck would not prevent construction of an airport, and the wreck area would have to be considered. Julian Huppert, the co-chair of the Liberal Democrats committee on transport, disagreed, saying: "This report shows the ship's slow deterioration is continuing with the lethal cargo still on board", and "This must surely put an end to the bonkers idea of building an airport in the Thames estuary." A 2013 Daily Telegraph article quoting local historian Colin Harvey, agreed the ship would have to be removed before any airport was built and printed a spectrogram showing the ship clearly broken into two pieces. However, a DfT spokesperson said that the ship remained stable, and the likelihood of an explosion was remote; the matter of the ship was unrelated to the ongoing development of the aviation strategy.

In June 2020, the DfT announced it was looking for a contractor to remove the ship's three masts as they were placing undue strain on the rest of the vessel structure. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) warned that the collapse of a mast could detonate ordnance, and Royal Navy specialists would need to remove them safely. In December 2021 it was reported that a contractor supported by the Navy would remove the ship's masts, starting in June 2022. At the end of June 2022 it was reported that the work to remove the masts would be delayed another year. In June of 2023, unidentified objects found on the seabed around the ship caused the original plan to remove the masts to be deemed as too dangerous, and the removal was, again, delayed. In December of 2023, the MCA determined that the masts had degraded more than expected and scheduled their removal for March 2024. In April 2024 18 metallic objects were found around the wreck and work delayed again.

In media
In the second series of the Sky political thriller COBRA, broadcast in 2021, the Montgomery (unnamed in the series) explodes as a consequence of undersea earthquakes, with the consequences predicted in the 1970 BBC report: heavy flooding, property damage and great loss of life (including the local MP) in Sheerness.

In the second season of the National Geographic documentary series, Drain the Oceans, broadcast in 2019, the story of the Montgomery's sinking and the status of the wreck was the third story of an episode.

The SS Richard Montgomery was the subject of a plot line in season three of the BBC drama Waking the Dead from 2003, in the episode titled "Walking on Water".

title: SS Richard Montgomery


text:
User:Jsilence

jsilence my name knowledge seeker time tweaker jack of all trades master of none invisible inaudible in the background pattern

http://www.immerwinter.org/~rolf/

title: User:Jsilence


text:
Talk:Delusion

Types of delusions are misleading
I been into page 89 of DSM V journal, the one from 2013. Not sure where these categories is coming from. They actually have a long list of types, in diagnose F22.

Confusing Formatting
The formatting on the types of delusions seems to split between two different styles: listing general descriptions of delusions and giving specific insight into delusions. I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I am avoiding changing anything that requires a higher levels of understanding to inform the general public. However, if anyone of better qualification sees this, I would recommend deleting the general listings and instead furthering the number of delusions with in-depth research. LightningKing72 (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 * I am also confused about types of delusions, that is mentioned here. When I go into the references, it says something else; it says what is mentioned in DSM V instead, in diagnose F22 2001:2020:305:A8BC:51DF:4A79:4F88:845F (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Transgender
The listed descriptive characteristics of "Delusion" might well reasonably apply to the phenomenon of people experiencing transgender ideation or tendencies. Is there any non-political reason these two conditions should not be linked for cross-reference? Yes, it's a third-rail concept, but intellectual honesty often flies in the face of personal comfort. 71.197.121.170 (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. We have no reliable sources connecting the two. Read WP:OR and do not try to insert your own opinions into Wikipedia articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and before you ask: Right-wing wackjobs such as Republican politicians and the Murdoch Empire do not count as reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

David Graeber
the Criticism section sites critiques from David Graeber and gives his book Bullshit Jobs as a source but delusions are never mentioned in that nor is it even related to the topic of the book. I couldn't find any source of him talking about this topic so I replaced the citation with a [citation needed]. If a citation can't be found I recommend the paragraph be replaced by some else's critiques oh how delusions are understood. I can recommend Mircea Eliade, R. D. Laing, and/or Michel Foucault. LJFIN2 (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Delusion


text:
Leave No Trace

Leave No Trace, sometimes written as LNT, is a set of ethics promoting conservation of the outdoors. Originating in the mid-20th century, the concept started as a movement in the United States in response to ecological damage caused by wilderness recreation. In 1994, the non-profit Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics was formed to create educational resources around LNT, and organized the framework of LNT into seven principles. The idea behind the LNT principles is to leave the wilderness unchanged by human presence.
 * 1) Plan ahead and prepare
 * 2) Travel and camp on durable surfaces
 * 3) Dispose of waste properly
 * 4) Leave what you find
 * 5) Minimize campfire impacts
 * 6) Respect wildlife
 * 7) Be considerate of other visitors

History
By the 1960s and 1970s, outdoor recreation was becoming more popular, following the creation of equipment such as synthetic tents and sleeping pads. A commercial interest in the outdoors increased the number of visitors to national parks, with the National Park Service seeing a five-fold increase between 1950 and 1970, from 33 million to 172 million. Articles were written about the wild being “loved to death,” problems with overcrowding and ecological damage, and the need for management. To solve this, regulations were imposed, including limits on group sizes and where camping was allowed. This was met negatively, with people writing that it took the joy and spontaneity out of wilderness recreation.

The focus was shifted towards education, with the National Park Service (NPS), United States Forest Service (USFS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) training Wilderness Informational Specialists to teach visitors about minimal impact camping. In 1987, the three departments cooperatively developed a pamphlet titled "Leave No Trace Land Ethics".

At the same time, there was a cultural shift in outdoor ethics from woodcraft, where travelers prided themselves on their ability to use available natural resources, to having a minimal impact on the environment by traveling through wilderness as visitors. Groups such as the Sierra Club, the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS), and the Boy Scouts of America were advocating minimum impact camping techniques, and companies like REI and The North Face began sharing the movement.

In 1990, the national education program of Leave No Trace was developed by the USFS in conjunction with NOLS, alongside Smokey Bear, Woodsy Owl, and programs like Tread Lightly! geared towards motorized recreation. The Bureau of Land Management joined the program in 1993 followed by the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1994.

The number of LNT principles varied widely during the 1990s, starting from 75 and dropping to 6 as more people had input and principles were condensed. However, by 1999, the list was finalized as seven principles and has remained unchanged.

Principles

 * 1) Plan Ahead and Prepare
 * 2) * Know the regulations and special concerns for the area you'll visit.
 * 3) * Prepare for extreme weather, hazards, and emergencies.
 * 4) * Schedule your trip to avoid times of high use.
 * 5) * Visit in small groups when possible. Consider splitting larger groups into smaller groups.
 * 6) * Repackage food to minimize waste.
 * 7) * Use a map and compass or GPS to eliminate the use of marking paint, rock cairns or flagging.
 * 8) Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces
 * 9) * Durable surfaces include maintained trails and designated campsites, rock, gravel, sand, dry grasses or snow.
 * 10) * Protect riparian areas by camping at least 61 m from lakes and streams.
 * 11) * Good campsites are found, not made. Altering a site is not necessary.
 * 12) ** In popular areas:
 * 13) *** Concentrate use on existing trails and campsites.
 * 14) *** Walk single file in the middle of the trail, even when wet or muddy.
 * 15) *** Keep campsites small. Focus activity in areas where vegetation is absent.
 * 16) ** In pristine areas:
 * 17) *** Disperse use to prevent the creation of campsites and trails.
 * 18) *** Avoid places where impacts are just beginning.
 * 19) Dispose of Waste Properly
 * 20) * Pack it in, pack it out. Inspect your campsite, food preparation areas, and rest areas for trash or spilled foods. Pack out all trash, leftover food and litter.
 * 21) * Utilize toilet facilities for defecation whenever possible. Otherwise, deposit solid human waste in catholes dug 6 to 8 inches deep, at least 200 feet from water, camp and trails. Cover and disguise the cathole when finished.
 * 22) * Pack out toilet paper and hygiene products.
 * 23) * To wash yourself or your dishes, carry water 200 feet away from streams or lakes and use small amounts of biodegradable soap. Scatter strained dishwater.
 * 24) Leave What You Find
 * 25) * Preserve the past: examine, photograph, but do not touch cultural or historic structures and artifacts.
 * 26) * Leave rocks, plants and other natural objects as you find them.
 * 27) * Avoid introducing or transporting non-native species.
 * 28) * Do not build structures, furniture, or dig trenches.
 * 29) Minimize Campfire Impacts
 * 30) * Campfires can cause lasting impacts to the environment. Use a lightweight stove for cooking and enjoy a candle lantern for light.
 * 31) * Where fires are permitted, use established fire rings, fire pans, or mound fires.
 * 32) * Keep fires small. Only use down and dead wood from the ground that can be broken by hand.
 * 33) * Burn all wood and coals to ash, put out campfires completely, then scatter cool ashes.
 * 34) Respect Wildlife
 * 35) * Observe wildlife from a distance. Do not follow or approach them.
 * 36) * Never feed animals. Feeding wildlife damages their health, alters natural behaviors, [habituates them to humans], and exposes them to predators and other dangers.
 * 37) * Protect wildlife and your food by storing rations and trash securely.
 * 38) * Control pets at all times, or leave them at home.
 * 39) * Avoid wildlife during sensitive times: mating, nesting, raising young, or winter.
 * 40) Be Considerate of Other Visitors
 * 41) * Respect other visitors and protect the quality of their experience.
 * 42) * Be courteous. Yield to other users on the trail.
 * 43) * Step to the downhill side of the trail when encountering pack stock.
 * 44) * Take breaks and camp away from trails and other visitors.
 * 45) * Let nature's sounds prevail. Avoid loud voices and noises.

Organization
Since 1994, the Leave No Trace program has been managed by the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, dedicated to the responsible enjoyment and active stewardship of the outdoors worldwide. Leave No Trace works to build awareness, appreciation and respect for wildlands through education, research, volunteerism and partnerships. The center also has a youth education initiative, Leave No Trace for Every Kid, which emphasizes asset development in youth through the lens of outdoor stewardship.

The center has partnerships with the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, and other partners such as colleges, universities, guide services, small businesses, non-profits and youth-serving organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America and the American Camp Association.

Over 20 percent of the organization's 2019 income went to three members of their board of directors.

There are also formal Leave No Trace organizations in Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand.

Criticism
While Leave No Trace is a widely accepted conservationist ethic, there has been some criticism. In 2002, environmental historian James Morton Turner argued that Leave No Trace focused "largely on protecting wilderness" rather than tackling questions such as the "economy, consumerism, and the environment", and that it "helped ally the modern backpacker with the wilderness recreation industry" by encouraging backpackers to purchase products advertising Leave No Trace, or asking people to bring a petroleum stove instead of building a natural campfire.

In 2009, Gregory Simon and Peter Alagona argued that there should be a move beyond Leave No Trace, and that the ethic "disguises much about human relationships with non-human nature" by making it seem that parks and wilderness areas are "pristine nature" which "erases their human histories, and prevents people from understanding how these landscapes have developed over time through complex human–environment interactions". They posit that there should be a new environmental ethic "that transforms the critical scholarship of social science into a critical practice of wilderness recreation, addresses the global economic system...and reinvents wilderness recreation as a more collaborative, participatory, productive, democratic, and radical form of political action". They also write about how "the LNT logo becomes both a corporate brand and an official stamp of approval" in outdoor recreation stores like REI.

The authors articulate their new environmental ethic as expanding LNT, not rejecting it all together, and share the seven principles of what they call 'Beyond Leave No Trace':
 * 1) Educate yourself and others about the places you visit
 * 2) Purchase only the equipment and clothing you need
 * 3) Take care of the equipment and clothing you have
 * 4) Make conscientious food, equipment, and clothing consumption choices
 * 5) Minimize waste production
 * 6) Reduce energy consumption
 * 7) Get involved by conserving and restoring the places you visit

In 2012, in response to critiques of their 2009 article, Simon and Alagona wrote that they "remain steadfast in our endorsement of LNT’s value and potential" but that they believe that "this simple ethic is not enough in a world of global capital circulation." They write that Leave No Trace "could not exist in its current form without a plethora of consumer products;" that "the use of such products does not erase environmental impacts;" and that LNT "systematically obscures these impacts, displacements, and connections by encouraging the false belief that it is possible to 'leave no trace'".

Other critics of Leave No Trace have argued that it is impractical, displaces environmental impacts to other locations, "obscures connections between the uses of outdoor products and their production and disposal impacts" and have questioned how much the ethic affects everyday environmental behavior.

title: Leave No Trace


text:
User talk:Jsilence

Hello, Jsilence. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editting help, visit How does one edit a page, or for formatting help, visit our Manual of Style. Experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. And by the way, I've moved your user page from Jsilence to User:Jsilence, because user pages here have that prefix to distinguish them from actual articles. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused by doing that! -- Oliver P. 00:36 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jsilence


text:
Talk:CD-R

Needs to be merged:

A CD recorder is a computer peripheral that writes data to a CD disk. There are two main types -- CD-R and CD-RW. CD-R is CD-Recordable. CD-RW is CD-Rewritable.

CD recorders are also known as CD burners. To record a CD is often called burning a CD.

CD-Rs and 'normal' CDs
-How come the normal CDs with things already written on them are all smooth on the "burned surface", when CD-Rs have a sharp mark of where the writing has ended?(Henningklevjer 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC))
 * normal CDs are reflective all over, they just reflect to a slightly different place depending on if a site is pit or non-pit so to the human eye under normal lighting they look even. CD-Rs use a reflective layer into which dark marks are burnt and while the individual marks are still too small to see thier effect on the average color is noticeable. Plugwash 02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

MiB vs. MB
-I thought the 650MB CD-R stored 650MiB, not 650000000B: 333000sectors * 2048bytes/sector / 1024 / 1024 = 650.390625. see http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-6.

-Yeah, me too. CD-Rs seem to be measured in MiB (though they say MB as just about nobody uses the term MiB, while DVD-Rs seem to be measured in GB (not GiB).

- Yep. The reason why it says MB on Dan100's CDs is because the MiB terminology has not been adopted anywhere in the industry, thus the "(though MB is printed on CDs as the binary prefixes haven't caught on in the industry)" I added to the article. (odd that you would change it back to MB but not change that).

So, I suppose it would be possible to refer to it as a 650MB CD (though confusing, and we want to eliminate as much of that as possible in an encyclopedia, right?), but the way it was before I edited it "650MB (not MiB)" was flat out wrong. Psxer 08:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wuh? CDs, like any other storage media, are measured in megabytes. As said, these 'MiBs' have "not caught on in the industry", and they certainly haven't outside it, either. Dan100 19:02, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I mean, I kinda see where you're coming from, but the bottom line is that MB is the accepted and universally-used terminology, for all its faults. Dan100 19:22, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Oh and it's madness to use "650.390625", as that rounds to 650. You would no more say "650.390625" rather than "650" than, when asked by a collegue how far you travel in to work each day, you would say "19.74673 km" instead of "20 km". Dan100 19:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Please read A Plea For Sanity before complaining about the use of MiB. Metamatic 19:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note, this essay has been moved to A plea for Sanity, the link above will not work. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been working in computers since 1980 at the industry level. Kilobytes are KB, Megabytes are MB, Gigabytes are GB, Terabytes are TB, etc. I've never been in any computer firm, be it a game developer, IBM, Apple, a movie company, or a technology company, that uses "MiB" or anything that kooky. In fact, my computer science professors will, in the classes I've taken, outright mark the paper a failure if anything but MB is used. Also, Kilobit, Megabit, Gigabit, etc. are as such- Kb Mb Gb, etc. The only place this "MiB" junk is used in in Wikipedia. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that when I read 700 MB I don't know if Wikipedia means 734003200 or 700000000 bytes. I have to go to other websites to find out this basic information.--RaptorHunter (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Easily resolved. Wikipedia discourages the use of Gibibytes, Mebibytes etc.  (See WP:MOSNUM)

 * Despite the IEC's 1998 guideline creating several new binary prefixes (e.g., mebi-, kibi-) to distinguish the meaning of the decimal SI prefixes (e.g., mega- and kilo-, meaning 220 and 210 respectively) from the binary ones, consensus on Wikipedia currently favours the retention of the binary prefixes in computing-related contexts. Use 256 MB of RAM, not 256 MiB of RAM.

 * 109.145.22.224 (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

burning pits?
it isn't burning pits into the dye; it's changing the color of the dye to make it less reflective, right? - Omegatron 05:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

The dye isn't reflective... the reflective layer (usually silver or a silver alloy) is. You don't burn pits in a CD-R, you burn dark spots in the dye layer. These dark spots absorb the light from the laser in the CD player's pickup more than the unexposed areas of dye, and so the reflected light and the resulting signal goes down whenever the read laser encounters a burned mark. The effect on the returning laser signal is similar to what happens on a replicated CD... similar, but different.

A replicated CD has a track of pits that are molded into the disc. These pits are molded in clear plastic, and they are coated with a reflective layer of aluminum. Although aluminum has lower reflectivity than silver, there is no dye layer on a replicated CD, so very little laser light is absorbed. When the focused laser spot of the CD player's pickup encounters a pit the light is diffracted, and the reflected light is greatly reduced (and the resulting signal voltage goes down).

So, while CD-Rs have burned marks that absorb the light and CDs have pits that diffract the light, the effect is that recorded CD-Rs emulate replicated CDs, which is what they were designed to do.

Actually, a replicated CD has pits molded into it, but it is read from the underside through the 1.2 mm thick polycarbonate disc, so the laser is actually focused on a track of bumps. But the diffraction is the same. Now, some people will tell you that the optical effect is the phase cancellation of the light being reflected from the bottom of the pit (top of the bump), versus the light that is reflected from the land areas around the pit (since the read laser spot is twice as wide as the pits are), but at these geometries the physics can be understood as pure diffraction. Keep in mind that the pit geometries are a fraction of the laser wavelength. Tvaughan1 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin?
Compatibility of CD-R and conventional read-only discs, CD and CD-ROM, is a miraculous achievement which was made possible by the dye materials developed by Taiyo Yuden.

I like Taiyo Yuden, too, but I don't think we should ascribe divine powers to them. Perhaps it was merely a wondrous achievement? Stunning, maybe? Gob-stopping? --68.41.122.213 11:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism
http://tech.msn.com/howto/article.aspx?cp-documentid=23697

From the above article: The problem is material degradation. Optical discs commonly used for burning, such as CD-R and CD-RW, have a recording surface consisting of a layer of dye that can be modified by heat to store data. The degradation process can result in the data "shifting" on the surface and thus becoming unreadable to the laser beam. "Many of the cheap burnable CDs available at discount stores have a life span of around two years," Gerecke says. "Some of the better-quality discs offer a longer life span, of a maximum of five years." Distinguishing high-quality burnable CDs from low-quality discs is difficult, he says, because few vendors use life span as a selling point.

From the Wiki page: Burned CD-Rs suffer from material degradation, just like most writeable media. Optical discs commonly used for burning, such CD-R and CD-RW have a recording surface consisting of a layer of dye that can be modified by heat to store data. The degradation process can result in the data "shifting" on the surface and thus becoming unreadable to the laser beam. Many of the cheap burnable CDs available at discount stores have a life span of around two years. Some of the higher quality discs offer a longer life span, of a maximum of five years. Distinguishing high-quality burnable CDs from low-quality discs is difficult, because few vendors use life span as a selling point. 65.118.253.68 18:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Possible? That's outright plagiarism. Plus, that is an opinion. Listen to the most recent This Week In Tech podcast (#39), where they discuss how some CDs from 1988 still work perfectly. -- worthawholebean talkcontribs 01:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If the quality of CDr is in the top 10 percent you should expect the cd to last ONE HUNDRED years without degradation. Anyone who says the max lifespan is 5 years is talking out their ass. Most of the CDrs I burnt in the 90s still work. However saying the lowest quality ones may only last 2 years or less sounds possible. Avoid bottom of the barrel blank cds. For example getting cdrs at a dollar store may be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.123.123 (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Miraculous?!?!?
calling something a miraculous achievement is certainly POV - a miracle is about as pov as you can get. 65.35.93.97 15:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked in the thesaurus briefly, but I thought it would be best just to drop the adjective and rewrite the sentence. Rhobite 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

CD+R
Does anybody know anything about CD+R? There's no article about it.Rt66lt 01:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It doesn't exist, which is why there is no article about it.

 * No, actually, it does exist. My DVD player supports it, even DVD+RW, but I don't know anything about it. 66.218.46.140 00:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)ninetigerr

 * There's DVD+R but CD+R as far as I know. It might be typo or misunderstanding. Manuals and descriptions on wrappings always contain some mistakes. There's "CD plus" which refers to CDs with a data track and one or more audio tracks. I believe it's the same as "CD extra" but there might be some differences. --82.141.58.211 18:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as CD+R... only CD-R. There is a "CD Plus", which is a multi-session CD with CD-Audio tracks in the first session and a CD-ROM track in the second session. Tvaughan1 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning CDs
I've used simple liquid disk washing detergent for 10 yrs. Cleans off sticky stuff, oils, and dirt. I always pat dry with a clean soft cloth.

. . . regarding "use a circular motion to remove all the toothpaste"; why circular when the previous instructions were to move in a radial direction ? - Sue 08:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting files onto the cd-r
Just a question..... how do you put files onto a cd-r? I tried and all it said was, it is not compatible, it is not formatted..... How.....

 * Using a CD-Recorder (a drive in your computer) in combination with a burning program such as Nero Burning Rom??? 62.238.92.181 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * You can't normally write files to a CD through the filesystem mechanism (the exception is if you use something like directCD or inCD but those tended to be a bit slow and buggy and seem to have fallen out of favour)

 * In winxp explorer will let you drop files onto a CD but they aren't actually written until you press a burn button and the options are very limited. For more control or to use the burner on an earlier version of windows requires third party software (easy CD creater, nero burning rom etc). Plugwash 15:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

CIRC Link
"They use Eight-to-Fourteen Modulation, CIRC error correction plus the third error correction layer defined for CD-ROM. The first CD-Rs were produced in 1988"

CIRC linked to a disambiguation-page, so I changed the target page to the appropriate one, namely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-Interleaved_Reed-Solomon_Coding. 62.238.92.181 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, duh.
Deep scratches on the data side can interfere with the focus of the laser and render a disc unreadable.

spit and a corner of my T shirt
is the above method of cleaning likely to damage a CD? it certainly seems effective at getting the grime off them. Plugwash 11:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not likely to damage a CD as long as your t-shirt is clean (no dirt particles that could scratch the disc). Tvaughan1 21:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

80 minute CD-Rs

 * non-standard CD-Rs are available with capacities of 79 minutes, 59 seconds and 74 frames (marketed as 80 minuites) /736,966,656 bytes (702 MiB), which they achieve by slightly exceeding the tolerances specified in the Orange Book CD-R/CD-RW standards.

My understanding was that most 80 minute CD-Rs in fact fully complied with the standard. The standard specified large tolerances due to the manufacturing tech at the time but as this improved, it became possible to make 80 minutes CD-Rs which fully complied with the standard but were obviously at the upper end of the tolerances. Perhaps what I've heard is wrong and tolerances and manufacturing tech doesn't actually allow 80 minutes CD-Rs to be produced which fully comply or they're mostly not fully compliant but if there is some truth to this story, e.g. tolerances and tech allow up to 78 minute fully complaint CDRs, we should make it clear this idea clear, that the tolerances were rather loose and better manufacturing tech allowed CD-Rs to be produced which only marginally broke the tolerances... Nil Einne 11:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Nil is correct... 80 minute CD-Rs can be manufactured when all relevant parameters are at the edge of the specification (program start radius, program end radius, track pitch and linear velocity). If the accuracy of the LaserBeam Recorder (LBR) that cuts the glass master is good, pushing a CD-R to the edge of the specification isn't a problem at all.  DVDs use a track pitch that is half of CD.  The theoretical maximum capacity of a CD-ROM or CD-R is about 79 minutes and 58 seconds, or 702 MB (I hate MiB... please don't subject us to it... a Megabyte is 2^20 bytes). Tvaughan1 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I remember one player that would not play 80 minuite CDRs but would play 74 min ones fine, it was years ago though (when burners were arround the £100 mark) and the player was a pretty old one even then (I don't know the exact make or model, it didn't belong to me). Plugwash (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up
The part of this article containing facts about how to keep them clean doesn't sound right. Try to remove the second person (you).

 * I have cleaned it up somewhat, removing 1st and 2nd person and some of the randomly sprinkled apostrophes and corrected some spellings. The whole section seems a bit technically dubious to me - is there any real proof that higher speeds are consistently unreliable on all burners, and mulitasking is dangerous no matter how fast the PC? Still, not being an expert in these matters, I will leave it as is. 82.7.104.138

Lede
The lede ends with this: "The CD-R retains all the abilities of the CD standard but adds the functionality of being able to store either music or data." I have plenty of regular CDs that contain music and data. Isn't the real distinguishing characteristic of CD-Rs that music and data can be recorded onto them? --Rob Kennedy 07:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 * No, that's nonsense. The physical variant of a CD has nothing to do with what can be stored on it. Pressed CDs containing music and data are/were just rather uncommon. Some audio CD players would try to play the data track which can damage the speakers and it sounds awful anyway. Game CDs often contain audio CD tracks especially older consoles used this. --82.141.58.211 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that my question is nonsense, or that the sentence I’m asking about is nonsense and should be removed or reworded? --Rob Kennedy 01:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You are both correct, depending on how you read the above statement. CD-R is a physical format. For the most part, the physical format is independent of the application format (CD-Audio, CD-ROM, CD-Interactive, etc.). I think the original author of the above sentence meant for the focus to be on the words "adds the ability to store", rather than on the words "either music or data". Perhaps if we substituted the word "record" for "store" and the word "content" for "either music or data", the phrase would be more accurate. Or perhaps we could simply say something like "The CD-R is designed to behave identically to a standard CD-Audio or CD-ROM which is mass replicated. However, the CD-R can be recorded by anyone with a CD-R recorder and a blank CD-R disc." Tvaughan1 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

audio CD-R
Could someone add a section describing 'audio CD-R'? In the UK at least, most consumer audio cd writers are restricted to this type of disc so that a levy can be paid to the music publishers. Many users are confused about this.--137.205.146.206 09:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC) roger thorpe

 * What in the world are you talking about? You're the first person I've ever read to bring this up.Coffee5binky (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is true. Those audio CDs were charged at a premium and were only valid in CD recorders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.103.91 (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

max burning limits?
According to a Maxell press release from 2002, burning CDs at or faster than 52X carries with it some risk.

Maxell engineers determined that the minimal speed advantage offered by 52X drives is outweighed by the performance and safety issues of operating CD-R media in excess of 10,000 rpm. Research has shown that naturally occurring minute defects or cracks in the CD-R hub area can quickly expand when exposed to the physical stresses of 52X operations. These small, virtually undetectable defects can easily cause discs to break apart at 52X speed, destroying not only critical data stored on the CD-R media, but potentially damaging or destroying the CD drive.

If this is correct, maybe it should be incorporated into this article, somehow? Looking at Maxell's webpage, I see that the fastest CD-Rs they produce are still 48X ones... TerraFrost 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

taxes
There is nothing in article about any countries taxing CD-R as a way to combat music piracy. Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain all have CD-R taxes and Canada is considering it. Jon513 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to, Canada has been taxing CD-Rs as early as 2002 TerraFrost 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't know about the others, but both Germany and the Netherlands impose a levy on audio recordable media that is used to pay the recording artists. Once you have bought such media, you are entitled to record on it anything you like.  Although Audio-CD-Rs have such a levy (and are coded as such) ordinary CD-Rs do not and are consequently cheaper.  Audio CD recorders will only record to specific Audio-CD-Rs, but computer drives will record audio to pretty well anything, and if Audio CD-Rs are not used for audio, then piracy is the name of the game.  I believe video media is treated the same way, but I have not seen specific 'Video DVD-Rs' only the regular kind, but it may be that the levy is imposed on a blanket basis. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Optimal storage conditions and expected lifespan
"most markers can bleed-through the CD/DVD and destroy your data"

The article on disk care linked in this section contains related product advertisement ("Maxell Disc Writer Pen"). I am not sure if it would be considered indirect advertising. 124.168.184.54 10:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Writing Process
I rewrote the paragraph on the writing process. Got rid of the repetition of the the term "burn"; removed phrase calling the dye layer "magnetic". I intentionally left it vague as to whether heating the dye causes a lowering or a raising of the reflectivity. Does anyone know for certain which it is? Spiel496 04:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
Why is that you can only put 80 minutes worth of music on a CD when the full capacity is 700mb? Seems like a waste. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.32.149 (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

 * Obviously because 700 MB equate to 80 minutes of CD-quality music. EpiVictor 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * oh rly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.109.90 (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

 * Ya rly. CD-audio is measured as time, not filesize. CDs can fit 80 minutes OR 700MB. To burn a collection of MP3s to a CD you can play in a CD player requires software that converts MP3 audio into CDA audio format - thereby limiting you to only 80 minutes.

 * Of course, if you were to burn an MP3-CD (which can be played on PCs as well as newer in-car CD players) then you're limited by file-size, meaning you can fit hundreds of tracks onto one CD. Thepineapplehead 10:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * (sorry if I'm necroing a conversation from 2007) Some of you may have noticed that wav files are 10mb per minute, making 80 minutes equal to 800mb (not 700). In fact CDDA (cd digital audio) is the same. 700mb discs are actually 800mb discs, but if you write data to them instead of CD audio it eats up an extra 100mb for an extra layer of error protection. "80 minutes/700mb" actually means "800mb if burning an audio cd / 700mb if burning a data cd". You can see why they didn't want to burden the consumer with this confusion on the packaging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.123.123 (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

When did CD-Rs become generally available?
In all the incredible techy detail here, everyone's rather overlooked the retail history of the CD-R format. All I can tell from this article is that the spec was published in 1988. Please someone expand the History section before adding even more geeky stuff. (And I say that as someone really interested in the geeky stuff!) 86.143.52.241 02:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally remember recordable CDs of some form (though perhaps not 100% "Orange Book" compliant implementations)to be available to the general public since 1991, at least. The downside was that the recorders were usually external, bulky units with parallel or SCSI or custom interfaces, and their usability was nowhere near close to that offered by modern CD-burning tools: they were meant mostly for traditional data backup, and even the file systems or pit/land encoding methods could differ greatly between manufacturers, rendering these "CD-R" largely incompatible with each other. The mainstream and affordable CD-R with ISO-standard file systems and without weird recording quirks became widely available only after 1994 or so. EpiVictor 21:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 * 1989's License to Kill James Bond movies has Felix using a LaserDisc recorder that also records to CD-Rs, which he hides behind a picture. For consumers, 1987 is a fair estimate, if you wanted to pay like $25,000 (guessing) for the drive and (guessing again) $250 a disc. Despite when if may come onto the market, CD writers may have come about around 1995 or so at prices people were willing to pay. (Again, guessing, but all my old PC World issues don't mention CD writers until 1995.) Coffee5binky (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I doubt that a cinematic entertainment is an adequate citation. The main problem here is that: if a LaserDisc recorder existed (which it didn't), it was a totally different technology to CD (i.e. the former is analogue, the latter is digital - for starters!).  109.145.22.224 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Record Companies receives money from illegally-burned Music CD-Rs
I'd like to add this information to the article, but I'm not sure how to do it. I will leave it up to someone more experienced than I. The following comes from Janis Ian, a former singer from the era of the 60s and 70s:

"Several years ago the music industry reached an agreement with CD manufacturers to receive a royalty on blank, recordable CDs to compensate for the effects of copying music. The recording industry is receiving a royalty for the "Audio" CD so that it can be used for copying music, taking that money, and then turning around and complaining that the CD is being used to make "unauthorized" copies. Now what is up with that?  -  http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html and http://www.janisian.com/articles-perfsong/Fallout%20-%20rev%2011-23-05.pdf   -  Theaveng 17:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 * This is the old story of the CD Audio "for consumer" disks. Read the CDR FAQ for more info on that. Considering how this was as stopgap measure that only seriously affects stand-alone audio CD recorders (not computer CD burners), it's hardly a case of the industry making much money out of illegally copied music. Quite the opposite, a standalone CD Audio recorder is actually the less likely tool for a true music pirate to operate. Surely those "CD Audio" recordables aren't the first choice for music pirates either, due to cost. Pirates just buy the cheapest general purpose CD-R and are perfectly happy with those, the royalty system is hardly paying itself. EpiVictor 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Burn Speed Meme?
"Burn speed can also affect the compatibility due to poorer pit definition on disks burnt at high speed, selecting the slowest supported speed for the burner/media combination is strongly recommended when burning audio CDs, to maximize compatibility."

Is this accurate? Does burn speed really affect readability of the data on CD-R's? Or does it affect audio only? --LKRaider 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Audio on a CDR is data--there's no difference in pits or burns. I have seen no scientific evidence but the way I heard is that there's a limit to how much more definition you can get by slowing down your burn speed. Different burners respond differently to burn speed; choosing a middlin' speed is where a bunch of them should be set. Like 16x or 8x, not 2x or 1x. There's got to be a list of study results out there somewhere... Binksternet 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a popular half-truth being propagated due to the fact that a lot of CD-R users are casual pirates and as a result they tend to be cheap and buy low-quality hardware and/or low-quality media to make copies. When you have a cheap burner, it's not surprising that it may make marginal copies that, even fresh, are on the verge of degradation and the media isn't given a reasonable chance to maintain it. Cheap media on the other hand is probably halfway rotted before you even make the burn, so it's only a short matter of time before it degrades completely. And if you're using cheap stuff on both fronts, then I wouldn't expect copies to work well or last long at all. This is not to say, however, that such superstition needs to be taken into account for every burner and every brand of media. If you have a good quality burner and use decent media (the 40 cents per disc range is fine, no need for fancy stuff unless you are using it for commercial production) you will rarely see this kind of problem. On the other hand, if you have a no-name burner and/or use the super cheap unbranded 20-cent discs I would most certainly take some precautions to ensure a working copy with a reasonable shelf life. I have yet to read an actual report that statistically studies the longevity of CD-Rs produced under different burn conditions and using different hardware/media, but I suspect that it is the quality of the hardware/media that is at issue, rather than the speed of the technology. Basically, whenever there is a large differential in price for items that claim the same performance, people need to stop assuming that everything is going to work the same way. Nobody makes this assumption for a car, why do they do it for computer parts...? Ham Pastrami 08:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually, while the data levels are "digital", the timing can be considered analogue. The higher the speed, the larger the jitter. Some CD players can reclock the signal, some apparently don't. Without a fully reclocked data sream, jitter may get through to the DAC and beyond, where it will be audible. This was a quality issue in Audio CD production when the mastering machines in the factories were sped to 2x speed. It was a Pink Floyd CD where an unexpected drop in quality was first found, and it was finally tracked down to the speed increase at the manufacturing of the master discs. The problem was addressed by Sony, and, as an employee of a CD fab told me, solved by improving the mastering machines to yield perfect results at the higher speeds. --80.134.6.41 (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't burn audio CDs much anymore but my experiance in the past has been that high speed burnt CDs would read fine in modern drives but audio players and OLD (think < 20x) cd rom drives wouldn't read them. I have experianced this with a variety of burners and media brands.
 * Recording quality is more of a concern on audio than data recordings both because they may be played in old audio players and because audio CD has less error correction that data CD. Plugwash (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I imagine that the article will be better served by references to studies and statistical data than by musings about personal experiences. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Using video game piracy as a way to determine this, but a PlayStation or Sega CD is recommended (by me, damnit) to be burned at the lowest possible speed the disc and drive can agree on. However, he's the kicker, if a person takes, say, a CD-R from 1996 and burns it at the highest possible speed, ignoring the disc type, then yes, errors shall occur. It depends on the formulation used on the disc. For instance, if I burn a Pionner RDD-60A disc at anything above 2x, it's blown. If I use a modern CD-R, say a cheapo $2 for fie discs one at Walgreens, I can burn it up to 36x without a errors. Does this help any? Coffee5binky (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * AFAIK, burn speed does affect the quality of the recording in some situations. Although there should be no differences in the burning process, I've observed the quite common gradual increase of ECC errors towards the end of the CD-R in CAV-recorded media. Probably the laser power becomes insufficient to burn the dye so effectively at that speed? So, the safer bet would be to decrease recording speed; however, that what many people do, burning at lowest possible speeds, might also be problematic - modern high speed drives have lasers so powerful that even when set at a low power, they also have the beam too strong. Combined with the fact that modern high-speed CD-s have much more light-sensitive dye then older media, that means that often the laser burns not just the bit it aims for, but a larger area, setting the neighbour bits to a likely wrong state. Ok, the OPC calibration should take care of the proper laser strength for each media and every speed, but it still remains the fact that it might be physically impossible to set it properly - there is an effective power range for the laser, if it is required to give more than full power (at high speed), or less than its possible lowest power (at low speed), then it might have errors as I described above. Perhaps the safest bet is to record at a medium speed, where OPC is practically guaranteed to set the optimal laser power? Also concerning audio-CD players, all modern (for at least the last 10-15 years) units not only do they own clocking, but also at least some data buffering (and do some heavy signal processing (noise shaping etc.) on the signal BTW). So I guess if you have a CD-player where you can hear the jitter, I guess it should get displayed in a museum and you should buy another one ;) Arny (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bogus speed table?
The numbers in the column "Write time for 80 minute/700 MB CD-R" appear to be simply 80 minutes divided by the speed. Is there evidence to support these numbers? It is my understanding that above about 16x the discs are spun at constant angular velocity, and that the read/write speeds then refer to the speed at the outer radii. In other words, 52x is achieved only at the outer edge of the disc; the inner radii will be written at the same RPM, which works out to about 20x. So you're not going to be able to write a whole disc in 80/52 minutes. Does anyone know for sure? Spiel496 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 * You are right, all CD-R wriers I know use Zone-LV beginning at 24x speed. So it's not possible to write 700MB in 1.5 minutes. The time span at which 24x speed recording takes place is much larger than the time span of 52x speed recording. --80.134.6.41 (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

CD Life!
Guys I saw a French news in Sydney, FRANCE 20HR of 03/03/2008 saying that CD only last as much as 10 years! The research was conducted and they concluded from the word of the researcher of Jacques Perdereau that it can only last as much as 5 (30% to 50% damage)!!!

Results seen: FRANCE 20HR of 03/03/2008

I cannot fully understand the research organization... But it is true!

I mean, it is quite shocking... Can we actually upload videos!?

Anyone target other proof will be helpful. If you would like to watch the original broadcast of the news in French, you are more then welcome to visit http://www.ina.fr/video/3571726001/20-heures-emission-du-3-mars-2008.fr.html But of course, it is in French. You may also find the dialogue in text format below the page as of 26 Jul 2010. (D. Lau (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

 * I offer my own experiences, since I've been in computers since 1980 and using CDs and CD-Rs since the late 1980s. I have many discs over a decade to a decade and half old, and I have some really old CD-Rs from the late 1980s that I can still access data from. This "life of the disc" crap is the same stuff I heard about regular CDs in the 1980s, that the plastic would wear off after 8 years. Guess what? IT DOESN'T! So here's the deal: If you use cheapo discs with cheapo burners, expect problems. Some discs will develop bubbles on the burn surface because of cheapo techniques. If you use a good quality drive with good quality discs, then your data will last. That's all. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * If you have nothing friendly to share, then it is best to remain quiet. Beside, I check the source, it was on the French News 20 H. News are news. They can be subjective...or misleading. Flowright138 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

CD caddies
My first CD-R drive in the mid-1990s used a CD caddy. Any idea what the purpose of this was? The article needs a mention of this if it was a mass market idea. -Rolypolyman (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The low importance of CD caddies might be answered in this article simply by adding a link to Caddy (hardware). Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In the early 1980s, the idea behind CD caddies was to protect the disc and look similar to the then-new 3.5 inch floppy disc. However, the caddy drove cost up per disc, so the industry mostly ditched it. It's too bad, as these caddies would've save a good many people from re-buying CDs and now DVDs, and things like CD cleaning units and disc doctors wouldn't exist today. For me, paying a little extra more to preserve my information makes more sense, but this isn't the place to discuss that. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Disc Usage Estimation
If anybody reverts my edit about the dark/light areas of a disc, they are wrong to do so. Every CD-R I have burned always have darkened data areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane91c (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, wrong or not, I rewrote the paragraph, removing claims about whether the writing darkens or lightens the disc. To me, the written area looks darker in specular reflection.  But it also scatters more light, so it can appear brighter depending on the lighting. Spiel496 (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Recycle
Hi People! I am having a lot of used CD-R/DVD-R. any ideal what should do to recycle the plastic to save the world? Thanks and Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelicalchin (talk • contribs) 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Disposal
An additional form of security disposal is to skim the label side of the CD in a lathe. Grip lightly in the 3-jaw chuck and run at high speed. A sharp knife tool will skim the surface and reflecting layer off. The only downside is that the swarf is incredibly light and gets everywhere. I'm afraid this falls foul of WP:NOR unless someone can find a citation somewhere. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Expected lifespan: CD-RW
Since CD-RW technology is mentioned in the section, it might be interesting to also describe the lifespan of RW-s, and that might be an interesting topic. If the RW alloy is less prone to oxidation then the regular reflective layer, and if it is less prone to degradation then dye (which as a metal it should be, there might be some danger of spontaneous recrystallization though), then as strange as it might sound, they might be a better solution for long time data storage, just as some other erasable optical drive types have been... Arny (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, both don't like direct sunlight, though the exact time I don't know. I suspect that recrystallization might occur with in warm (sunny) environments, maybe faster than dye fading from sunlight. In any case, lifetime is environment sensitive, so it is hard to give a time. Gah4 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, both don't like direct sunlight, though the exact time I don't know. I suspect that recrystallization might occur with in warm (sunny) environments, maybe faster than dye fading from sunlight. In any case, lifetime is environment sensitive, so it is hard to give a time. Gah4 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

release
The article says 1988, but Rainbow_Books says 1990 for the orange book. I suppose it depends on the exact meaning of release. Kodak PhotoCD came out, as well as I know, in 1990. Presumably much development was done before the official release. Gah4 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:CD-R


text:
Talk:SS Richard Montgomery

Grr, making an article from web searches only is hard. There seems to be some confusion over whether it's the USS Richard Montgomery, the SS Richard Montgomery, or just the Richard Montgomery.

Um, anyone know about this stuff? :-) Evercat 21:09 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is SS Richard montgomery. you will find links to lots of useful  information, historical,  as well as up to date, Including a chart of the area. alongside link to my my film script!
 * Ron angel The richard montgomery matter  http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com Updated Feb 2008

Note: S.S. should be just S S when searching web otherewise results are limited. there are no dots in ships titles. eg: u.s.s.= U S S

Edit - POV
I have moved the following content, as it appears to be POV (If Foley did not attend the inquiy, this is presumably not the finding of the inquiry, so the source should be explict)

 * However, the ultimate reason for the disaster lies with the harbour master, who was confident that his choice of berth for the ship was safe, despite objections by the assistant harbour master who tried to have it relocated, but was countermanded by his superior. Foley, the assistant, insisted upon a written confirmation of these instructions, which was refused; with this Foley left the office.

 * After the disaster, Foley was posted to another department, which prevented his attendance at the inquiry, and so obscured the fact that the ship was incompetently parked by the harbour master, who then refused to consider otherwise.

Viv Hamilton 12:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

UK/US spellings
I have changed the spelling of harbour master back to the UK version, as in the context of this article it is referring to a UK job title. Given that the article is about a former US ship lying in UK waters, it is not clear whether US or UK spellings should be used in general, althouh the interest in this wreck is predominantly UK. Viv Hamilton 13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't actually chamnge it Viv but I have now. Kevin McE 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - slightly flaky computer crashed mid-edit. I also failed to implement the above POV edit, which I have now done Viv Hamilton 08:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just blow it up?
If the ship is such a danger, why don't they just temporarily evacuate the town, blow it up, and repair whatever gets damaged? --96.255.87.77 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 * This may help explain:

 * ''In 1970 it was determined that if the wreck of the Montgomery were to explode it would throw a 1000-foot wide column of water and debris 10,000 feet in the air and generate a wave 16 feet high.

 * Not only could the explosion bring chaos and destruction to the nearby Sheerness, it could destroy the shipping port and, it has been suggested, cause a Tsunami along the River Thames. Which happens to run through the city of London. While the last ultrasound showed that there were no grounds for increased cause for alarm, a new survey of the munitions on board has been called for and a report in 2001 from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency concluded that "doing nothing was not an option for much longer.'' Hmm, it's only about 30 miles maybe I should move! Lynbarn (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error
Hello everyone just a little note of caution the coordinates for the SS Richard Montgomery are incorrect, the coordinates display a house at the end of a housing estate. I believe the vessel lies at 51 28'04.62"N, 0 47'12.74"E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasy87 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The given co-ordinates don't appear to be all that inaccurate, and do point to the Thames Estuary in approximately the correct location, rather than on land as suggested. The UK Maritime and coastguard agency state that the wreck is designated under section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, which means that there is a no-entry exclusion zone around the wreck. The wreck is clearly marked on the relevant Admiralty Charts. The exclusion zone is defined by the following co-ordinates:

 * 51° 28’ 04” N  00° 47’ 12” E
 * 51° 27’ 57” N  00° 47’ 22” E
 * 51° 27’ 50” N  00° 47’ 11” E
 * 51° 27’ 58” N  00° 47’ 01” E

Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 * 2000 MCA report referenced in article says sandbank (at 51°78'57"N 00°47'12"E). Referenced figure should be given. Pol098 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ordinance Weights Incorrect?
The article states:

 * 286 × 2,000 lb (910 kg) high explosive "Blockbuster" bombs
 * 4,439 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs of various types
 * 1,925 × 500 lb (230 kg) bombs
 * 2,815 fragmentation bombs and bomb clusters

Which, not counting fragmentation bombs, is 2,700 tonnes, not the 1,400 tonnes stated immediately above that.

 * The weights for each bomb type refer to the weight of the whole bomb, rather than just the explosive within them, so the totals won't match. Elder pegasus (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And Sheerness says 3,172 tonnes. They can't all be right. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This Maritime and Coastguard Agency report also states 1400 tons. Chelb (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Some of her cargo was salvaged. This could account for the discrepancy, with the lower amount being that not salvaged. Mjroots (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I have removed the quantity of explosives from the Sheerness article so there is no contradiction any longer. Dormskirk (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read the prior section. WWII Artillery and aircraft ordinance weight was typically average of 50% casing and 50% explosives. They could be 25% to 75% casing. So three tons of ordinance could easily be around 1,500 tons of HE (high explosives) If you look at the chart someone else noted, you can see there is plenty of ordinance that is under 25% explosive. Indeed an AN mark 33 bomb was 1,000 lbs and had about 144lbs of explosives (under 15%) most of the gross weight of bombs on that ship were 1,000 pounders. Explainador (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 * The article states the Kielce had a "similar" amount of ordinance to the Montgomery, then immediately in the next sentence goes on to say that the ordinance Kielce carried was "just a fraction" of that of the Montgomery. So which is it?

Indeed, it would be interesting to make s comparison what awaits if/when the Montgomery blows up. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:65EE:1699:9B95:BBFE (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on SS Richard Montgomery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120206173107/http://www.303rdbg.com/bombs.html to http://www.303rdbg.com/bombs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Why no photo of the actual ship?
There's a photo of the bits sticking out of the water, and a map, but no photo of the ship as it was before it sank, nor a photo of the underwater scan. I think both of those would be good to have on this article, if at all possible to acquire in the open. 194.81.226.175 (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I've just added a link to the archive of the 2008-2009 report. She was one of 2710 liberty ships.  This  picture of the  cargo holds might be useful.

 * JRPG (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Dates: mdy vs dmy
MOS:NUM says the choice between mdy and dmy dates should be made in part due to "strong national ties". This article is about the ship (which is American) and not just its wreck (which is in UK waters), so it seems apparent to me that the article's strongest national tie is to the USA, and therefore it should use mdy dates. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has used dmy dates for years. It has been in UK waters for over 70 years, compared with a couple of years in service. I see no good reason to change the date format. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The history of the article is irrelevant. As for the other argument, would you say the Dalai Lama has stronger ties to India than Tibet because he's lived there much longer? Hairy Dude (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a wreck in UK waters and as far as it being any kind of issue, it is a UK issue. It was wreck caused by an error by a UK harbormaster, and a wreck which is potential hazard to the UK. I agree it should be DMY. The Dali Lama is not a good analogy. The only thing remarkable about this one, of thousands of liberty ships like it, is that it is wreck in the Thames Estuary -- which is in the UK. The article frankly should be "SS Richard Montgomery Wreck," just as there is an article on the Hindenburg disaster.Explainador (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory paragraph
The 6th paragraph in 'Status and risk' contradicts itself with information about how much munitions was aboard 'Kielce', the Polish ship. "... Kielce, which contained a comparable amount of ordnance, ..." "... and had "just a fraction" of the load of explosives." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.31.77 (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on SS Richard Montgomery. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003920/http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/annual_report_2003.pdf to http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/annual_report_2003.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630181209/http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/1997_survey_report_montomery.pdf to http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/1997_survey_report_montomery.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003858/http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/montgomery_report_2003_survey.pdf to http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/montgomery_report_2003_survey.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030621204516/http://www.gnometech.freeserve.co.uk/html/montgomery.html to http://www.gnometech.freeserve.co.uk/html/montgomery.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * RichardMontgomery1943.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thames Estuary airports proposed locations SS Richard Montgomery.png

title: Talk:SS Richard Montgomery


text:
Soap film

Soap films are thin layers of liquid (usually water-based) surrounded by air. For example, if two soap bubbles come into contact, they merge and a thin film is created in between. Thus, foams are composed of a network of films connected by Plateau borders. Soap films can be used as model systems for minimal surfaces, which are widely used in mathematics.

Stability

Daily experience shows that soap bubble formation is not feasible with water or with any pure liquid. Actually, the presence of soap, which is composed at a molecular scale of surfactants, is necessary to stabilize the film. Most of the time, surfactants are amphiphilic, which means they are molecules with both a hydrophobic and a hydrophilic part. Thus, they are arranged preferentially at the air/water interface (see figure 1).

Surfactants stabilize films because they create a repulsion between both surfaces of the film, preventing it from thinning and consequentially bursting. This can be shown quantitatively through calculations relating to disjoining pressure. The main repulsion mechanisms are steric (the surfactants can not interlace) and electrostatic (if surfactants are charged).

Moreover, surfactants make the film more stable toward thickness fluctuations due to the Marangoni effect. This gives some elasticity to the interface: if surface concentrations are not homogeneously dispersed at the surface, Marangoni forces will tend to re-homogenize the surface concentration (see figure 2).

Even in the presence of stabilizing surfactants, a soap film does not last forever. Water evaporates with time depending on the humidity of the atmosphere. Moreover, as soon as a film is not perfectly horizontal, the liquid flows toward the bottom due to gravity and the liquid accumulates at the bottom. At the top, the film thins and bursts.

Importance of surface tension: minimal surfaces
From a mathematical point of view, soap films are minimal surfaces. Surface tension is the energy that is required to produce the surface, per unit area. A film—like any body or structure—prefers to exist in a state of minimum potential energy. In order to minimize its energy, a droplet of liquid in free space naturally assumes a spherical shape, which has the minimum surface area for a given volume. Puddles and films can exist in of the presence of other forces, like gravity and the intermolecular attraction to the atoms of a substrate. The latter phenomenon is called wetting: binding forces between the substrate atoms and the film atoms can cause the total energy to decrease. In that case, the lowest energy configuration for the body would be one where as many film atoms as possible are as close as possible to the substrate. That would result in an infinitely thin film, infinitely widely spread out over the substrate. In reality, the effect of adherent wetting (causing surface maximization) and the effect of surface tension (causing surface minimization) would balance each other out: the stable configuration can be a droplet, a puddle, or a thin film, depending on the forces that work on the body.

Colours

The iridescent colours of a soap film are caused by interfering of (internally and externally) reflected light waves, a process called thin film interference and are determined by the thickness of the film. This phenomenon is not the same as the origin of rainbow colours (caused by the refraction of internally reflected light), but rather is the same as the phenomenon causing the colours in an oil slick on a wet road.

Drainage

If surfactants are well chosen and the atmospheric humidity and air movements are suitably controlled, a horizontal soap film can last from minutes to hours. In contrast, a vertical soap film is affected by gravity and so the liquid tends to drain, causing the soap film to thin at the top. Colour depends on film thickness, which accounts for the coloured interference fringes that can be seen at the top of figure 4.

Black spots
During the late stages of draining, sharp-edged black spots start to form. These spots are significantly thinner (< 100 nm) than the normal soap film, giving rise to their black interference colour. Whether black spots can form depends on the concentration of the soap, and moreover there are two types of black films:
 * Common black films, around 50 nm in thickness, and
 * Newton black films, around 4 nm in thickness, require a higher electrolyte concentration. In these films the outer soap surfaces have effectively snapped together and pinched out most of the inner liquid.

As drainage continues, the black spots eventually take over the entire soap film, and despite its extreme thinness, the final black film can be quite stable and can survive for many minutes.

Bursting
If a soap film is unstable, it ends by bursting. A hole is created somewhere in the film and opens very rapidly. Surface tension indeed leads to surface minimization and, thus, to film disappearance. The hole aperture is not instantaneous and is slowed by the liquid inertia. The balance between the forces of inertia and surface tension leads to the opening velocity: $$V=\sqrt{\frac{2\gamma}{\rho h}}$$ where $$\gamma$$ is the liquid surface tension, $$\rho$$ is the liquid density and $$h$$ is the film thickness.

General sources

קרום סבון

title: Soap film