text:
Lavochkin La-7

The Lavochkin La-7 (Лавочкин Ла-7; NATO reporting name: Fin) was a piston-engined single-seat Soviet fighter aircraft developed during World War II by the Lavochkin Design Bureau. It was a development and refinement of the Lavochkin La-5, and the last in a family of aircraft that had begun with the LaGG-1 in 1938. Its first flight was in early 1944 and it entered service with the Soviet Air Forces later in the year. A small batch of La-7s was given to the Czechoslovak Air Force the following year, but it was otherwise not exported. Armed with two or three 20 mm cannon, it had a top speed of 661 km/h. The La-7 was felt by its pilots to be at least the equal of any German piston-engined fighter. It was phased out in 1947 by the Soviet Air Force, but served until 1950 with the Czechoslovak Air Force.

Design and development
By 1943, the La-5 had become a mainstay of the Soviet Air Forces, yet both its head designer, Semyon Lavochkin, as well as the engineers at the Central Aerohydrodynamics Institute (TsAGI), felt that it could be improved upon. TsAGI refined earlier studies of aerodynamic improvements to the La-5 airframe in mid-1943 and modified La-5FN c/n 39210206 to evaluate the changes. These included complete sealing of the engine cowling, rearrangement of the wing center section to accommodate the oil cooler and the relocation of the engine air intake from the top of the cowling to the bottom to improve the pilot's view.

The aircraft was evaluated between December 1943 and February 1944 and proved to have exceptional performance. Using the same engine as the standard La-5FN c/n 39210206 had a top speed of 684 km/h at a height of 6150 m, some 64 km/h faster than the production La-5FN. It took 5.2 minutes to climb to 5000 m. It was faster at low to medium altitudes than the La-5 that used the more powerful prototype Shvetsov M-71 engine.

Lavochkin had been monitoring TsAGI's improvements and began construction in January 1944 of an improved version of the La-5 that incorporated them as well as lighter, but stronger, metal wing spars to save weight. The La-5, as well as its predecessors, had been built mostly of wood to conserve strategic materials such as aircraft alloys. With Soviet strategists now confident that supplies of these alloys were unlikely to become a problem, Lavochkin was now able to replace some wooden parts with alloy components. In addition Lavochkin made a number of other changes that differed from c/n 39210206. The engine air intake was moved from the bottom of the engine cowling to the wing roots, the wing/fuselage fillets were streamlined, each engine cylinder was provided with its own exhaust pipe, the engine cowling covers were reduced in number, a rollbar was added to the cockpit, longer shock struts were fitted for the main landing gear while that for the tail wheel was shortened, an improved PB-1B(V) gunsight was installed, and a new VISh-105V-4 propeller was fitted. Three prototype 20 mm Berezin B-20 autocannon were mounted in the engine cowling, firing through the propeller, arming the 1944 standard-setter (etalon), as the modified aircraft was named.

The etalon only made nine test flights in February and March 1944 before testing had to be suspended after two engine failures, but quickly proved itself to be the near-equal of c/n 39210206. It was 180 kg lighter than the earlier aircraft, which allowed the etalon to out-climb the other aircraft (4.45 minutes against 5.2 minutes climb to 5,000 meters). It was 33 km/h slower at sea level, but only 4 km/h slower at 6000 m. The flight tests validated Lavochkin's modifications and it was ordered into production under the designation of La-7, although the B-20 cannon were not yet ready for production and the production La-7 retained the two 20-mm ShVAK cannon armament of the La-5.

Five La-7s were built in March by Factory (Zavod) Nr. 381 in Moscow and three of these were accepted by the Air Force that same month. The Moscow factory was the fastest to complete transition over to La-7 production and the last La-5FN was built there in May 1944. Zavod Nr. 21 in Gorky was considerably slower to make the change as it did not exhaust its stock of wooden La-5 wings until October. The quality of the early production aircraft was significantly less than the etalon due to issues with the engine, incomplete sealing of the cowling and fuselage, and defective propellers. One such aircraft was tested, after these problems had been fixed, by the Flight Research Institute (Lyotno-Issledovatel'skiy Institut) and proved to be only 6 km/h slower than the etalon at altitude. Aircraft from both factories were evaluated in September by the Air Force Scientific Test Institute (NII VVS) and the problems persisted as the aircraft could only reach 658 km/h at a height of 5900 m and had a time to altitude of 5.1 minutes to 5,000 meters.

Combat trials began in mid-September 1944 and were generally very positive. However four aircraft were lost to engine failures and the engines suffered from numerous lesser problems, despite its satisfactory service in the La-5FN. One cause was the lower position of the engine air intakes in the wing roots of the La-7 which caused the engine to ingest sand and dust. One batch of flawed wings was built and caused six accidents, four of them fatal, in October which caused the fighter to be grounded until the cause was determined to be a defect in the wing spar.

Production of the first aircraft fitted with three B-20 cannon began in January 1945 when 74 were delivered. These aircraft were 65 kg heavier than those aircraft with the two ShVAK guns, but the level speed was slightly improved over the original aircraft. However, the time to climb to 5000 meters increased by two-tenths of a second over the older model. More than 2000 aircraft were delivered before the war's end, most by Zavod Nr. 21. A total of 5,753 aircraft had been built by Zavod Nr. 21, Nr. 381, and Nr. 99 in Ulan-Ude, when production ended in early 1946.

Operational history
The 63rd Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment (GIAP) began combat trials of the La-7 in mid-September 1944 in support of the 1st Baltic Front. Thirty aircraft were provided for the trials, which lasted one month. During this time the new fighters made 462 individual sorties and claimed 55 aerial victories while losing four aircraft in combat. Four other La-7s were lost to non-combat causes, mostly related to engine problems. A total of three pilots were killed during the trials to all causes.

63rd GIAP regimental commander Colonel Yevgeny Gorbatyuk, a Hero of the Soviet Union, commented: "The La-7 exhibited unquestionable advantages over German aircraft in multiple air combats. In addition to fighter tasks, photo reconnaissance and bombing were undertaken with success. The aircraft surpasses the La-5FN in speed, manoeuvrability, and, especially, in the landing characteristics. It requires changes in its armament, and urgent fixing of its engine." The twin ShVAK armament inherited from the La-5 was no longer powerful enough to bring down later, more heavily armored German fighters, especially the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, in a single burst, even when Soviet pilots opened fire at ranges of only 50 - 100 m.

The 156th Fighter Aviation Regiment of the 4th Air Army was the next unit to receive the La-7 in October 1944. At one point during the month, they had fourteen aircraft simultaneously unserviceable with engine failures. By 1 January 1945 there were 398 La-7s in front-line service of which 107 were unserviceable. By 9 May 1945 this had increased to 967 aircraft, of which only 169 were unserviceable. For the invasion of Japanese Manchuria, 313 La-7s were assigned and only 28 of these were unserviceable on 9 August 1945.

The La-7 was flown by the top Soviet ace of the war, Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub and was successfully used by him to down an Me 262 jet fighter, one of the few such shoot downs of the war. Kozhedub, a three-time Hero of Soviet Union, scored his last 17 air victories in 1945 in the La-7 numbered 27, which is now preserved in the Central Air Force Museum at Monino on the outskirts of Moscow.

One fighter regiment of the 1st Czechoslovak Composite Aviation Division was later equipped with the La-7 after participating in the Slovak National Uprising of August–October 1944 with La-5FN. A total of 56 aircraft were delivered and equipped the 1st and 2nd Fighter Regiments. The bulk of the aircraft, however, were delivered in 1945 and saw no combat during the war. It remained in service with the Czechoslovaks until 1950 and was designated postwar by them as the S-97. One of these aircraft survives in the Prague Aviation Museum, Kbely. Despite reports to the contrary, no La-7s were ever sold or transferred to the People's Republic of China or North Korea. Such reports arose from misidentification by Western pilots of the La-9s or La-11s that were given to those countries.

The British test pilot, Eric Brown, was given the chance to fly an La-7 at the former Erprobungsstelle Tarnewitz Luftwaffe aircraft test station on the Baltic coast, shortly after the German surrender in May 1945. He described the handling and performance as "quite superb", but the armament and sights were "below par", the "wooden construction would have withstood little combat punishment" and the instrumentation was "appallingly basic".

Production of the La-7 amounted to 5,753 aircraft, plus 584 La-7UTI trainers. Those aircraft still in service after the end of the war were given the NATO reporting name Fin. The follow-up model, the La-9, despite its outward similarity, was a completely new design.

Tactical significance
The La-7 ended the superiority in vertical maneuverability that the Messerschmitt Bf 109G had previously enjoyed over other Soviet fighters. Furthermore, it was fast enough at low altitudes to catch, albeit with some difficulties, Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter-bombers that attacked Soviet units on the front lines and immediately returned to German-controlled airspace at full speed. The Yakovlev Yak-3 and the Yakovlev Yak-9U with the Klimov VK-107 engine lacked a large enough margin of speed to overtake the German raiders. 115 La-7s were lost in air combat, only half the number of Yak-3s. According to VVS-KA records, only 3 La-7s were actually shot down in air combat in all of 1944 and a mere 10 fell victim to anti-aircraft fire with a further 23 due to non-combat cause. Losses to air combat in 1945 stand at 79 in total, with 115 overall. However, aircraft that went missing (not returning) or lost to wear are not included, e.g. 24 additional La-7s went missing in 1944. However, the total VVS-KA record loss may not give a true picture of combat losses, as combat losses were often claimed as non-combat losses either to conceal losses or for propaganda purposes.

La-7TK

 * One aircraft used to evaluate the TK-3 turbosupercharger in July 1944 in the hopes of improving high-altitude performance. It was destroyed when the TK-3 disintegrated in flight.

La-7R

 * Testbed for a tail-mounted liquid-fuelled RD-1KhZ rocket engine. The rocket was rated at 300 kgf of thrust and its fuel (90 L of kerosene and 180 L of red fuming nitric acid) was expected to last between three and three and a half minutes. While the rocket was firing it increased the fighter's speed by 80 km/h, but the aircraft's other flying qualities deteriorated. Fifteen flights were made in the first quarter of 1945, although the rocket exploded on the ground on 12 May. The aircraft was repaired, but later had an explosion in flight although the pilot managed to land it safely. Details of any later flights are unknown, but the La-7R was displayed at the August 1946 Tushino Airshow with the rocket firing.

La-7PVRD

 * Testbed for two underwing ramjet engines. The aircraft was expected to reach a speed of 800 km/h at a height of 6000 m, but could not exceed 670 km/h due to the high drag of the ramjets.

La-7/M-71

 * One aircraft was fitted with the Shvetsov M-71 for trials in 1944. However the engine was not yet ready for service and the program was cancelled.

La-7UTI

 * Two-seat trainer version. Armament reduced to a single 20 mm gun and the oil cooler was relocated underneath the engine cowling. Fitted with a radio compass and gun camera. Considerably heavier than the fighter at 3500 kg, but it retained the flying characteristics of the single-seat aircraft. 584 built, the last two delivered in 1947.

Operators
Czechoslovakia Soviet Union 🇰🇵 North Korea
 * Czechoslovakian Air Force
 * Czechoslovakian National Security Guard
 * Soviet Air Forces
 * North Korean Air Force

Surviving aircraft
Czech Republic
 * 77 – La-7 on static display at the Prague Aviation Museum in Kbely, Prague.

Russia
 * 27 – La-7 on static display at the Central Air Force Museum in Monino, Moscow. It was flown by Ivan Kozhedub.

title: Lavochkin La-7


text:
Talk:Janet Young, Baroness Young

Untitled
Lady Young was simply "Baroness Young", partly because she was the first life peer with the surname "Young". All subsequent life peers with the same surname (Lord Young of Dartington, Lord Young of Graffham and Lady Young of Old Scone) had to have territorial additions in their peerages, but she didn't. "of Farnworth" was part of the territorial designation (a relic of feudalism) at the end of every barony and viscountcy (the full peerage would have been something like "Baroness Young, of Farnworth in the County of Cheshire"), but was not part of her title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proteus (talk • contribs) 11:55, 16 March 2004 (UTC)

 * But since she had died, surely future peers could take the title Young? It can be re-created now as it's extinct.
 * There is also Baroness Young of Hornsey now (I'll add it to the disambiguation, if we still feel it needs to be there). Lord Young of Norwood Green has also been ceated since. Neither took the title without a placename. I recently found a reference to Baroness Young rebuking Baroness Young of Old Scone for calling herself "Baroness Young". Perhaps that could be added to the article. --JRawle 18:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is also Baroness Young of Hornsey now (I'll add it to the disambiguation, if we still feel it needs to be there). Lord Young of Norwood Green has also been ceated since. Neither took the title without a placename. I recently found a reference to Baroness Young rebuking Baroness Young of Old Scone for calling herself "Baroness Young". Perhaps that could be added to the article. --JRawle 18:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Technically it could be recreated, but current practice is not to recreate extinct surname peerages, but always to make new ones "Surname of X". (And I'd like to see the reference — one of the Earls Howe (whose heirs are styled "Viscount Curzon") was similarly annoyed with Lord Curzon of Kedleston for signing "Curzon".) Proteus (Talk) 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Here it is. --JRawle 18:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, does the rule about "surname peerages" only apply to life peers? What about titles such as Earl Nelson, which was created for Nelson's brother after Nelson (who was Viscount Nelson) had died without legitimate children? --JRawle 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It applies to both hereditary and life peers, but is really a twentieth century thing (and is pretty silly, if you ask me — they justify it on grounds of "avoiding confusion", but if we can cope with generations of hereditary peers of the same creation all using the same title without getting confused I think we can cope with a couple of similarly-titled non-concurrent life peers). And Nelson's brother had succeeded to one his Baronies of Nelson under a special remainder anyway, so there would have been no problem there. Thanks for the reference, by the way. Proteus (Talk) 19:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, and I don't think we really need the disambig notice — we have Baroness Young, which should be enough to avoid any confusion. Proteus (Talk) 19:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rugby player
I have heard a story that aged 13 she was excluded from the Dragon School's boys 1st XV rugby team for being too violent. It would be nice to include if true. The BBC certainly has her playing rugby and cricket there, as well as some other details of her life. --Rumping (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janet Young, Baroness Young. 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/20090817073734/http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/archive_html/loose_pages/tributes.htm to http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/archive_html/loose_pages/tributes.htm

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) 14:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Janet Young, Baroness Young


text:
Wrightsboro

Wrightsboro is the name of several towns in the United States, including:

 * Wrightsboro, Georgia
 * Wrightsboro, North Carolina
 * Wrightsboro, Texas

title: Wrightsboro


text:
Talk:Bandwagon fallacy

Example needed
Need a new example. The smoking example doesn't work - it would only be appropriate if lots of people believed that smoking was healthy, which patently they don't. Will try to get round to adding a new example, but I'm just writing this note in case anyone else can get there first! Toby W

 * Indeed it does not work:
 * "an objective criterion, such as the health effects of smoking."
 * No matter what some people may prefer to believe "the health effects of smoking" are not "an objective criterion" but a subjective interpretation. Most likely it's a question of confusing tobacco smoking with tobacco abuse.
 * --Troels Nybo 16:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Invitation
Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. Also currently being worked upon is NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting. :) Barnaby dawson 21:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Distinction from expert witness or consensus
The bandwagon fallacy is not made when appealing to an expert authority or a consensus of credible experts. (I am adding this line to the article.)--Peter Kirby 23:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Renaming and Merging proposal
This logical fallacy is known by many names (reference) and has several redundant Wikipedia articles. I propose the following actions:

1) Rename "Bandwagon fallacy" as "argumentum ad populum". This requires consensus and an administrator's action. 2) Merge "Appeal to belief" and "Argumentum ad numerum" into "argumentum ad populum"

Reason #1: Google test
 * A search using the ("fallacy" + the following terms) returned these hits:
 * argumentum ad populum  10000 (most commonly used term)
 * appeal to belief        1110
 * Argumentum ad numerum   1010
 * appeal to popularity     872
 * appeal to the people     746
 * Bandwagon fallacy        646
 * appeal to the majority   558
 * consensus gentium        213
 * authority of the many    204
 * appeal to the gallery    198
 * argument by consensus    179

Reason #2: Article's length of existance The following article has existed since:
 * Bandwagon fallacy      25 Feb 2002 (oldest article)
 * Appeal to belief       28 May 2003
 * Argumentum ad numerum   3 Sep 2004

Please comment or vote on this proposal. Shawnc 16:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

(off topic: the Google test was strangely reminiscent of the bandwagon effect idea. Of course, the test is not a logical argument but merely done for convenient purposes)

 * Support. Redundancy is a terrible thing. -Silence 01:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. And a much more ambitious goal would be to standardize the naming of all logical fallacy articles. Look at Category:Logical fallacies, it's all over the map. -- Tyler 02:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be possible to make the article names consistent, because in general article names are not based on being consistent with other articles, but rather with what the most commonly-used name is. Hence the Google hits importance. However, you bring up an interesting point that it would be very useful to at least have lists available that are consistently named, and could simply link to the inconsistently named actual pages. That way we'd get the best of every world. In other words, as I see it, we would have three lists: (1) the list of the actual article names on Logical fallacy, based on the subdivisions each one fits into (i.e. types of ad hominem arguments should go under "ad hominem"; only alphabetize once everything's already in its proper part of the page in this way), (2) the list of Latin/Greek names of all the fallacies that have them, in pure alphabetical order, and (3) the list of English names of all the fallacies that have them, in pure alphabetical order. Any interest in this possibility? -Silence 06:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * i took Shawnc's ideas and merged everything into argumnetum ad numerum. tell me what you think.
 * Actually, the proposed target was "argumentum ad populum", based on the Google test. In addition, the merge should ideally be based on renaming the article, as opposed to copying and pasting.  However since this has not yet been done, I did a basic copy to argumentum ad populum. Shawnc 21:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bandwagon fallacy


text:
Bone marrow suppression

Bone marrow suppression also known as myelotoxicity or myelosuppression, is the decrease in production of cells responsible for providing immunity (leukocytes), carrying oxygen (erythrocytes), and/or those responsible for normal blood clotting (thrombocytes). Bone marrow suppression is a serious side effect of chemotherapy and certain drugs affecting the immune system such as azathioprine. The risk is especially high in cytotoxic chemotherapy for leukemia. In the case of non-small-cell lung cancer, myelosuppression predisposition was shown to be modulated by enhancer mutations.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), in some rare instances, may also cause bone marrow suppression. The decrease in blood cell counts does not occur right at the start of chemotherapy because the drugs do not destroy the cells already in the bloodstream (these are not dividing rapidly). Instead, the drugs affect new blood cells that are being made by the bone marrow. When myelosuppression is severe, it is called myeloablation.

Many other drugs including common antibiotics may cause bone marrow suppression. Unlike chemotherapy the effects may not be due to direct destruction of stem cells but the results may be equally serious. The treatment may mirror that of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression or may be to change to an alternate drug or to temporarily suspend treatment.

Because the bone marrow is the manufacturing center of blood cells, the suppression of bone marrow activity causes a deficiency of blood cells. This condition can rapidly lead to life-threatening infection, as the body cannot produce leukocytes in response to invading bacteria and viruses, as well as leading to anaemia due to a lack of red blood cells and spontaneous severe bleeding due to deficiency of platelets.

Parvovirus B19 inhibits erythropoiesis by lytically infecting RBC precursors in the bone marrow and is associated with a number of different diseases ranging from benign to severe. In immunocompromised patients, B19 infection may persist for months, leading to chronic anemia with B19 viremia due to chronic marrow suppression.

Treatment
Bone marrow suppression due to azathioprine can be treated by changing to another medication such as mycophenolate mofetil (for organ transplants) or other disease-modifying drugs in rheumatoid arthritis or Crohn's disease.

Chemotherapy induced myelosuppression
Bone marrow suppression due to anti-cancer chemotherapy is much harder to treat and often involves hospital admission, strict infection control, and aggressive use of intravenous antibiotics at the first sign of infection.

G-CSF is used clinically (see Neutropenia) but tests in mice suggest it may lead to bone loss.

GM-CSF has been compared to G-CSF as a treatment of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression/Neutropenia.

Trilaciclib (COSELA), a CDK4/6 inhibitor, is administered before chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer to control chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression.

Research
In developing new chemotherapeutics, the efficacy of the drug against the disease is often balanced against the likely level of myelotoxicity the drug will cause. In-vitro colony forming cell (CFC) assays using normal human bone marrow grown in appropriate semi-solid media such as ColonyGEL have been shown to be useful in predicting the level of clinical myelotoxicity a certain compound might cause if administered to humans. These predictive in-vitro assays reveal effects the administered compounds have on the bone marrow progenitor cells that produce the various mature cells in the blood and can be used to test the effects of single drugs or the effects of drugs administered in combination with others.

title: Bone marrow suppression


text:
Talk:Arthur Eichengrün

Untitled
Fact check:

 * In 2000, a Dr. Walter Sneader published a paper entitled The discovery of aspirin: a reappraisal in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) 2000;321:1591-1594 (23 December). In this paper, he re-examined claims made by Arthur Eichengrün in a 1949 paper and came to the conclusion, that
 * Eichengrün was Hoffmann's direct superior,
 * Hoffmann worked under Eichengrün's direction,
 * Hoffmann used methods developed by Eichengrün to synthesize ASA and thus
 * that Eisengrün should be credited as the "true" inventor of Aspirin.
 * Online responses to that article:.

 * Sneader apparently had presented that interpretation already in 1999 at the Royal Society of Chemistry in Edinburgh.

 * In Sept. 1999, Bayer denied this theory in a press release. Bayer states that
 * Eichengrün was not Felix Hoffmann's superior, having joined Bayer in 1896 and thus was still in his probation time in 1897. (Felix Hoffmann had joined Bayer 18 months earlier.)
 * Eichengrün, however, became later the head of a group in which a Fritz Hoffmann worked.
 * Eichengrün never laid claims on Aspirin, even long before the Nazi reign in Germany. He only did so in his 1949 paper. Before, he never challenged the attribution of Hoffmann as the inventor (U.S. patent in 1899), which he could have done anytime (I guess that should mean "anytime before the Nazi era" -- Lupo).

 * Sneader's version has been taken up and reported around the world, but so far I have not found a second independent source that would back him up. Nor have I found a second independent source that would debunk his theory and back up the counter-claims of Bayer.

As of March 2004, the jury is still out on this case: Bayer sticks to the mainstream version crediting Hoffmann, and there is only Sneader's paper arguing for Eichengrün. I feel that resolving this question would still need serious original research by some historians. The article in Wikipedia should make clear that there is an as yet unresolved controversy.

The "life dates" given in the article seem to be correct.

Lupo 12:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arthur Eichengrün


text:
Horst Feistel

Horst Feistel (January 30, 1915 – November 14, 1990) was a German-American cryptographer who worked on the design of ciphers at IBM, initiating research that culminated in the development of the Data Encryption Standard (DES) in the 1970s. The structure used in DES, called a Feistel network, is commonly used in many block ciphers.

Life and work
Feistel was born in Berlin, Germany in 1915, and moved to the United States in 1934. During World War II, he was placed under house arrest, but gained US citizenship on 31 January 1944. The following day he was granted a security clearance and began work for the US Air Force Cambridge Research Center (AFCRC) on Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) devices until the 1950s. He was subsequently employed at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, then the MITRE corporation. In 1968, Feistel became a Research Staff Member at the IBM T.J Watson Center. During his time there he received an award for his cryptographic work. In 1971, he patented the block cipher cryptographic system at IBM. His research at IBM led to the development of the Lucifer and Data Encryption Standard (DES) ciphers. Feistel was one of the earliest non-government researchers to study the design and theory of block ciphers.

Feistel lent his name to the Feistel network construction, a common method for constructing block ciphers (for example DES).

Feistel obtained a bachelor's degree at MIT, and his master's at Harvard, both in physics. He married Leona (Gage) in 1945, with whom he had a daughter, Peggy.

title: Horst Feistel