text:
Tube Alloys

Tube Alloys was the research and development programme authorised by the United Kingdom, with participation from Canada, to develop nuclear weapons during the Second World War. Starting before the Manhattan Project in the United States, the British efforts were kept classified, and as such had to be referred to by code even within the highest circles of government.

The possibility of nuclear weapons was acknowledged early in the war. At the University of Birmingham, Rudolf Peierls and Otto Robert Frisch co-wrote a memorandum explaining that a small mass of pure uranium-235 could be used to produce a chain reaction in a bomb with the power of thousands of tons of TNT. This led to the formation of the MAUD Committee, which called for an all-out effort to develop nuclear weapons. Wallace Akers, who oversaw the project, chose the deliberately misleading code name "Tube Alloys". His Tube Alloys Directorate was part of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

The Tube Alloys programme in Britain and Canada was the first nuclear weapons project. Due to the high costs for Britain while fighting a war within bombing range of its enemies, Tube Alloys was ultimately subsumed into the Manhattan Project by the Quebec Agreement with the United States. Under the agreement, the two nations would share nuclear weapons technology, and refrain from using it against each other, or against other countries without mutual consent. However, the United States did not provide complete details of the results of the Manhattan Project to the United Kingdom. The Soviet Union gained valuable information through its atomic spies, who had infiltrated both the British and American projects.

The United States terminated co-operation after the war ended, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. That prompted the United Kingdom to relaunch its own project, High Explosive Research. Production facilities were established and British scientists continued their work under the auspices of an independent British programme. In 1952, Britain performed a nuclear test under the codename "Operation Hurricane" and became the third nuclear-weapon state. In 1958, in the wake of the Sputnik crisis, and the British demonstration of a two-stage thermonuclear bomb, the United Kingdom and the United States signed the US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, which resulted in a resumption of Britain's nuclear Special Relationship with the United States.

Discovery of fission
The neutron was discovered by James Chadwick at the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge in February 1932. In April 1932, his Cavendish colleagues John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton split lithium atoms with accelerated protons. Enrico Fermi and his team in Rome conducted experiments involving the bombardment of elements by slow neutrons, which produced heavier elements and isotopes. Then, in December 1938, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann at Hahn's laboratory in Berlin-Dahlem bombarded uranium with slowed neutrons, and discovered that barium had been produced, and therefore that the uranium atomic nucleus had been split. Hahn wrote to his colleague Lise Meitner, who, with her nephew Otto Robert Frisch, developed a theoretical justification which they published in Nature in 1939. The phenomenon was a new type of nuclear disintegration, and was more powerful than any seen before. Frisch and Meitner calculated that the energy released by each disintegration was approximately 200,000,000 electron volts. By analogy with the division of biological cells, they named the process "fission".

Paris Group
That was followed up by a group of scientists at the Collège de France in Paris: Frédéric Joliot-Curie, Hans von Halban, Lew Kowarski, and Francis Perrin. In February 1939, the Paris Group showed that when fission occurs in uranium, two or three extra neutrons are given off. That important observation suggested a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction might be possible. The term "atomic bomb" was already familiar to the British public through the writings of H. G. Wells, in his 1913 novel The World Set Free. It was immediately apparent to many scientists that, in theory at least, an extremely powerful explosive could be created, although most still considered an atomic bomb was an impossibility. Perrin defined a critical mass of uranium to be the smallest amount that could sustain a chain reaction. The neutrons used to cause fission in uranium are considered slow neutrons, but when neutrons are released during a fission reaction they are released as fast neutrons which have much more speed and energy. Thus, in order to create a sustained chain reaction, there existed a need for a neutron moderator to contain and slow the fast neutrons until they reached a usable energy level. The Collège de France found that both water and graphite could be used as acceptable moderators.

Early in 1940, the Paris Group decided on theoretical grounds that heavy water would be an ideal moderator. They asked the French Minister of Armaments to obtain as much heavy water as possible from the only source, the large Norsk Hydro hydroelectric station at Vemork in Norway. The French discovered that Germany had already offered to purchase the entire stock of Norwegian heavy water, indicating that Germany might also be researching an atomic bomb. The French told the Norwegian government of the possible military significance of heavy water. Norway gave the entire stock of 187 L to a Deuxième Bureau agent, who secretly brought it to France just before Germany invaded Norway in April 1940. On 19 June 1940, following the German invasion of France, it was shipped to England by the Earl of Suffolk and Major Ardale Vautier Golding aboard the steamer SS Broompark (1939). The heavy water, valued at £22,000, was initially kept at HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs, and was later secretly stored in the library at Windsor Castle. The Paris Group moved to Cambridge, with the exception of Joliot-Curie, who remained in France and became active in the French Resistance.

Frisch–Peierls memorandum

In Britain, a number of scientists considered whether an atomic bomb was practical. At the University of Liverpool, Chadwick and the Polish refugee scientist Joseph Rotblat tackled the problem, but their calculations were inconclusive. At Cambridge, Nobel Prize in Physics laureates George Paget Thomson and William Lawrence Bragg wanted the government to take urgent action to acquire uranium ore. The main source of this was the Belgian Congo, and they were worried that it could fall into German hands. Unsure as to how to go about this, they spoke to Sir William Spens, the master of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. In April 1939, he approached Sir Kenneth Pickthorn, the local Member of Parliament, who took their concerns to the Secretary of the Committee for Imperial Defence, Major General Hastings Ismay. Ismay in turn asked Sir Henry Tizard for an opinion. Like many scientists, Tizard was sceptical of the likelihood of an atomic bomb being developed, reckoning the odds of success at 100,000 to 1.

Even at such long odds, the danger was sufficiently great to be taken seriously. Lord Chartfield, Minister for Coordination of Defence, checked with the Treasury and Foreign Office, and found that the Belgian Congo uranium was owned by the Union Minière du Haut Katanga company, whose British vice president, Lord Stonehaven, arranged a meeting with the president of the company, Edgar Sengier. Since Union Minière management were friendly towards Britain, it was not considered worthwhile to acquire the uranium immediately, but Tizard's Committee on the Scientific Survey of Air Defence was directed to continue the research into the feasibility of atomic bombs. Thomson, at Imperial College London, and Mark Oliphant, an Australian physicist at the University of Birmingham, were each tasked with carrying out a series of experiments on uranium. By February 1940, Thomson's team had failed to create a chain reaction in natural uranium, and he had decided it was not worth pursuing.

At Birmingham, Oliphant's team had reached a different conclusion. Oliphant had delegated the task to two German refugee scientists, Rudolf Peierls and Otto Frisch, who could not work on Oliphant's radar project because they were enemy aliens and therefore lacked the necessary security clearance. Francis Perrin had calculated the critical mass of uranium to be about 40 t. He reckoned that if a neutron reflector were placed around it, this might be reduced to 12 t. Peierls attempted to simplify the problem by using the fast neutrons produced by fission, thus omitting consideration of moderator. He too calculated the critical mass of a sphere of uranium in a theoretical paper written in 1939 to be "of the order of tons".

Peierls knew the importance of the size of the critical mass that would allow a chain reaction to take place and its practical significance. In the interior of a critical mass sphere, neutrons are spontaneously produced by the fissionable material. A very small portion of these neutrons are colliding with other nuclei, while a larger portion of the neutrons are escaping through the surface of the sphere. Peierls calculated the equilibrium of the system, where the number of neutrons being produced equalled the number escaping.

Niels Bohr had theorised that the rare uranium-235 isotope, which makes up only about 0.7% of natural uranium, was primarily responsible for fission with fast neutrons, although this was not yet universally accepted. Frisch and Peierls were thus able to revise their initial estimate of critical mass needed for nuclear fission in uranium to be substantially less than previously assumed. They estimated a metallic sphere of uranium-235 with a radius of 2.1 cm could suffice. This amount represented approximately 1 kg of uranium-235. These results led to the Frisch–Peierls memorandum, which was the initial step in the development of the nuclear arms programme in Britain. This marked the beginning of an aggressive approach towards uranium enrichment and the development of an atomic bomb. They now began to investigate processes by which they could successfully separate the uranium isotope.

Oliphant took their findings to Tizard in his capacity as the chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Survey of Air Warfare (CSSAW). He in turn passed them to Thomson, to whom the CSSAW had delegated responsibility for uranium research. After discussions between Cockcroft, Oliphant and Thomson, CSSAW created the MAUD Committee to investigate further.

MAUD Committee
The MAUD Committee was founded in June 1940. The committee was originally a part of the Committee for the Scientific Survey of Air Defence, but later gained independence with the Ministry of Aircraft Production. The committee was initially named after its chairman, Thomson, but quickly exchanged this for a more unassuming name, the MAUD Committee. The name MAUD came to be in an unusual way. Shortly after Germany invaded Denmark, Bohr had sent a telegram to Frisch. The telegram ended with a strange line: "Tell Cockcroft and Maud Ray Kent". At first it was thought to be code regarding radium or other vital atomic-weapons-related information, hidden in an anagram. One suggestion was to replace the y with an i, producing "radium taken". When Bohr returned to England in 1943, it was discovered that the message was addressed to Bohr's housekeeper Maud Ray and Cockcroft. Maud Ray was from Kent. Thus the committee was named The MAUD Committee, the capitalisation representing a codename and not an acronym. Meetings were normally held in the offices of the Royal Society in London. In addition to Thomson, its original members were Chadwick, Cockcroft, Oliphant and Philip Moon, Patrick Blackett, Charles Ellis and Norman Haworth.

Four universities provided the locations where the experiments were taking place. The laboratory at the University of Birmingham was responsible for all the theoretical work, such as what size of critical mass was needed for an explosion. It was run by Peierls, with the help of fellow German refugee scientist Klaus Fuchs. The laboratories at the University of Liverpool and the University of Oxford experimented with different types of isotope separation. Chadwick's group at Liverpool dealt with thermal diffusion, which worked based on the principle that different isotopes of uranium diffuse at different speeds because of the equipartition theorem. Franz Simon's group at Oxford investigated the gaseous diffusion of isotopes. This method works on the principle that at differing pressures uranium 235 would diffuse through a barrier faster than uranium 238. Eventually, the most promising method of separation was found to be gaseous diffusion. Egon Bretscher and Norman Feather's group at Cambridge investigated whether another element, now called plutonium, could be used as an explosive compound. Because of the French scientists, Oxford also obtained the world's only supply of heavy water, which helped them theorise how uranium could be used for power.

The research from the MAUD committee was compiled in two reports, commonly known as the MAUD reports in July 1941. The first report, "Use of Uranium for a Bomb", discussed the feasibility of creating a super-bomb from uranium, which they now thought to be possible. The second, "Use of Uranium as a Source of Power" discussed the idea of using uranium as a source of power, not just a bomb. The MAUD Committee and report helped bring about the British nuclear programme, the Tube Alloys Project. Not only did it help start a nuclear project in Britain, it helped jump-start the American project. Without the help of the MAUD Committee the American programme, the Manhattan Project, would have started months behind. Instead they were able to begin thinking about how to create a bomb, not whether it was possible. Historian Margaret Gowing noted that "events that change a time scale by only a few months can nevertheless change history."

The MAUD reports were reviewed by the Defence Services Panel of the Scientific Advisory Committee. This was chaired by Lord Hankey, with its other members being Sir Edward Appleton, Sir Henry Dale, Alfred Egerton, Archibald Hill and Edward Mellanby. The panel held seven meetings in September 1941, and submitted its report to the Lord President of the Council, Sir John Anderson. At this point, it was feared that German scientists were attempting to provide their country with an atomic bomb, and thus Britain needed to finish theirs first. The report ultimately stated that if there were even a sliver of a chance that the bomb effort could produce a weapon with such power, then every effort should be made to make sure Britain did not fall behind. It recommended that while a pilot separation plant be built in Britain, the production facility should be built in Canada. The Defence Services Panel submitted its report on 24 September 1941, but by this time the final decision had already been taken. Lord Cherwell had taken the matter to the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who became the first national leader to approve a nuclear weapons programme on 30 August 1941. The Chiefs of Staff Committee supported the decision.

Organisation
A directorate of Tube Alloys was established as part of Appleton's Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and Wallace Akers, the research director of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), was chosen as its head. Anderson and Akers came up with the name Tube Alloys. It was deliberately chosen to be meaningless, "with a specious air of probability about it". An advisory committee known as the Tube Alloys Consultative Council was created to oversee its work, chaired by Anderson, with its other members being Lord Hankey, Lord Cherwell, Sir Edward Appleton and Sir Henry Dale. This handled policy matters. To deal with technical issues, a Technical Committee was created with Akers as chairman, and Chadwick, Simon, Halban, Peierls, and a senior ICI official, Roland Edgar Slade, as its original members, with Michael Perrin as its secretary. It was later joined by Charles Galton Darwin, Cockcroft, Oliphant and Feather.

Isotopic separation
The biggest problem faced by the MAUD Committee was to find a way to separate the 0.7% of uranium-235 from the 99.3% of uranium-238. This is difficult because the two types of uranium are chemically identical. Separation (uranium enrichment) would have to be achieved at a large scale. At Cambridge, Eric Rideal and his team investigated using a gas centrifuge. Frisch chose to perform gaseous thermal diffusion using Clusius tubes because it seemed the simplest method. Frisch's calculations showed there would need to be 100,000 Clusius tubes to extract the desired separation amount. Peierls turned to Franz Simon, who preferred to find a method more suitable for mass production.

When Moon examined the suggestion that gaseous thermal diffusion be the method of choice to the MAUD committee, there was no agreement to move forward with it. The committee consulted with Peierls and Simon over the separation method and concluded that "ordinary" gaseous diffusion was the best method to pursue. This relies on Graham's Law, the fact that the gases diffuse through porous materials at rates determined by their molecular weight. Francis William Aston applied this method in 1913 when he separated two isotopes of neon by diffusing a sample thousands of times through a pipe clay. Thick materials like pipe clay proved too slow to be efficient on an industry scale. Simon proposed using a metal foil punctured with millions of microscopic holes would allow the separation process to move faster. He estimated that a plant that separated 1 kg of uranium-235 from natural uranium per day would cost about £5,000,000 to build, and £1,500,000 per year to run, in which time it would consume £2,000,000 of uranium and other raw materials. The MAUD Committee realised an atomic bomb was not just feasible, but inevitable.

In 1941, Frisch moved to London to work with Chadwick and his cyclotron. Frisch built a Clusius tube there to study the properties of uranium hexafluoride. Frisch and Chadwick discovered it is one of the gases for which the Clusius method will not work. This was only a minor setback because Simon was already in progress of establishing the alternative method of separation through ordinary gaseous diffusion.

The chemical problems of producing gaseous compounds of uranium and pure uranium metal were studied at the University of Birmingham and by ICI. Michael Clapham, who at the time was working on print technology at the Kynoch Works in Aston in Birmingham, carried out early experiments with uranium production processes. Philip Baxter from ICI, where he had experience working with fluorine compounds, made the first small batch of gaseous uranium hexafluoride for Chadwick in 1940. ICI received a formal £5,000 contract in December 1940 to make 3 kg of this vital material for the future work. The prototype gaseous diffusion equipment itself was manufactured by Metropolitan-Vickers (MetroVick) at Trafford Park, Manchester, at a cost of £150,000 for four units. They were installed at the M. S. Factory located in a valley near Rhydymwyn, in Wales; M. S. stood for the Ministry of Supply. The building used was known as P6 and test equipment was installed. These units were tested by a team of about seventy under the guidance of Peierls and Fuchs. The results of the experiments led to the building of the gaseous diffusion factory at Capenhurst, Cheshire. ICI pilot plants for producing 1 long cwt of pure uranium metal and 50 to 100 kg of uranium hexafluoride per day commenced operation in Widnes in mid-1943.

Plutonium
The breakthrough with plutonium was by Bretscher and Norman Feather at the Cavendish Laboratory. They realised that a slow neutron reactor fuelled with uranium would theoretically produce substantial amounts of plutonium-239 as a by-product. This is because uranium-238 absorbs slow neutrons and forms a short-lived new isotope, uranium-239. The new isotope's nucleus rapidly emits an electron through beta decay producing a new element with an atomic mass of 239 and an atomic number of 93. This element's nucleus also emits an electron and becomes a new element with an atomic number 94 and a much greater half-life. Bretscher and Feather showed theoretically feasible grounds that element 94 would be fissile – readily split by both slow and fast neutrons with the added advantage of being chemically different from uranium.

This new development was also confirmed in independent work by Edwin M. McMillan and Philip Abelson at Berkeley Radiation Laboratory also in 1940. Nicholas Kemmer of the Cambridge team proposed the names neptunium for the new element 93 and plutonium for 94 by analogy with the outer planets Neptune and Pluto beyond Uranus (uranium being element 92). The Americans fortuitously suggested the same names. The production and identification of the first sample of plutonium in 1941 is generally credited to Glenn Seaborg, using a cyclotron rather than a reactor at the University of California. In 1941, neither team knew of the existence of the other.

Chadwick voiced concerns about the need for such pure plutonium to make a feasible bomb. He also suspected the gun method of detonation for a plutonium bomb would lead to premature detonations due to impurities. After Chadwick met Robert Oppenheimer at the Los Alamos Laboratory in 1943, he learned of a proposed bomb design which they were calling an implosion. The sub-critical mass of plutonium was supposed to be surrounded by explosives arranged to detonate simultaneously. This would cause the plutonium core to be compressed and become supercritical. The core would be surrounded by a depleted uranium tamper which would reflect the neutrons back into the reaction, and contribute to the explosion by fissioning itself. This design solved Chadwick's worries about purity because it did not require the level needed for the gun-type fission weapon. The biggest problem with this method was creating the explosive lenses. Chadwick took this information with him and described the method to Oliphant who then took it with him to England.

Montreal Laboratory

Halban's heavy water team from France continued its slow neutron research at Cambridge University; but the project was given a low priority since it was not considered relevant to bomb making. It suddenly acquired military significance when it was realised that it provided the route to plutonium. The British Government wanted the Cambridge team to be relocated to North America, in proximity to the raw materials it required, and where the American research was being done. But Sir John Anderson wanted the British team to retain its own identity, and was concerned that since the Americans were working on nuclear reactor designs using nuclear graphite instead of heavy water as a neutron moderator, that team might not receive a fair share of resources. The Americans had their own concerns, particularly about security, since only one of the six senior scientists in the group was British. They also had concerns about patent rights; that the French team would attempt to patent nuclear technology based on the pre-war work. As a compromise, Thomson suggested relocating the team to Canada.

The Canadian government was approached, and Jack Mackenzie, the president of the National Research Council of Canada, immediately welcomed and supported the proposal. The costs and salaries would be divided between the British and Canadian governments, but the British share would come from a billion dollar war gift from Canada. The first eight staff arrived in Montreal at the end of 1942, and occupied a house belonging to McGill University. Three months later they moved into a 200 m2 area in a new building at the University of Montreal. The laboratory grew quickly to over 300 staff; about half were Canadians recruited by George Laurence. A subgroup of theoreticians was recruited and headed by a Czechoslovak physicist, George Placzek. Placzek proved to be a very capable group leader, and was generally regarded as the only member of the staff with the stature of the highest scientific rank and with close personal contacts with many key physicists involved in the Manhattan project. Friedrich Paneth became head of the chemistry division, and Pierre Auger of the experimental physics division. Von Halban was the director of the laboratory, but he proved to be an unfortunate choice as he was a poor administrator, and did not work well with the National Research Council of Canada. The Americans saw him as a security risk, and objected to the French atomic patents claimed by the Paris Group (in association with ICI).

Niels Bohr's contribution

Sir John Anderson was eager to invite Niels Bohr to the Tube Alloys project because he was a world-famous scientist who would not only contribute his expertise to the project, but also help the British government gain leverage in dealings with the Manhattan Project. In September 1943, word reached Bohr in Denmark that the Nazis considered his family to be Jewish, and that they were in danger of being arrested. The Danish resistance helped Bohr and his wife escape by sea to Sweden on 29 September 1943. When the news of Bohr's escape reached Britain, Lord Cherwell sent a telegram asking Bohr to come to Britain. Bohr arrived in Scotland on 6 October in a de Havilland Mosquito operated by the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC).

At the invitation of the director of the Manhattan Project, Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves Jr., Bohr visited the Manhattan Project sites in November 1943. Groves offered Bohr substantial pay, but Bohr initially refused the offer because he wanted to make sure the relationship between the United States and Great Britain remained a real co-operative partnership. In December 1943, after a meeting with Albert Einstein, Bohr and his son Aage committed to working on the Manhattan Project. Bohr made a substantial contribution to the atomic bomb development effort. He also attempted to prevent a post-war atomic arms race with the Soviet Union, which he believed to be a serious threat. In 1944, Bohr presented several key points he believed to be essential concerning international nuclear weapon control. He urged that Britain and the United States should inform the Soviet Union about the Manhattan Project in order to decrease the likelihood of its feeling threatened on the premise that the other nations were building a bomb behind its back. His beliefs stemmed from his conviction that the Russians already knew about the Manhattan Project, leading him to believe there was no point in hiding it from them.

Bohr's evidence came from an interpretation of a letter he received from a Soviet friend and scientist in Russia, which he showed to the British security services. He reasoned that the longer the United States and Britain hid their nuclear advances, the more threatened the Russians would feel and the more inclined to speed up their effort to produce an atomic bomb of their own. With the help of U.S. Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter, Bohr met on 26 August 1944 with the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was initially sympathetic to his ideas about controlling nuclear weapons. But Churchill was adamantly opposed to informing the Soviet Union of such work. At the Second Quebec Conference in September 1944, Roosevelt sided with Churchill, deciding it would be in the nation's best interest to keep the atomic bomb project a secret. Moreover, they decided Bohr was potentially dangerous and that security measures must be taken in order to prevent him from leaking information to the rest of the world, Russia in particular.

Tizard mission
In August 1940, a British mission, led by Tizard and with members including Cockcroft, was sent to America to create relations and help advance the research towards war technology with the Americans. Several military technologies were shared, including advances in radar, anti-submarine warfare, aeronautical engineering and explosives. The American radar programme in particular was reinvigorated with an added impetus to the development of microwave radar and proximity fuzes. This prompted the Americans to create the MIT Radiation Laboratory, which would later serve as a model for the Los Alamos Laboratory. The mission did not spend much time on nuclear fission, with only two meetings of the subject, mainly about uranium enrichment. In particular, Cockcroft did not report Peierls' and Frisch's findings. Nonetheless, there were important repercussions. A barrier had been broken and a pathway to exchange technical information between the two countries was developed. Moreover, the notion of civilian scientists playing an important role in the development of military technologies was strengthened on both sides of the Atlantic.

Oliphant's visit to the United States

The MAUD Committee reports urged the co-operation with the United States should be continued in the research of nuclear fission. Charles C. Lauritsen, a Caltech physicist working at the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC), was in London during this time and was invited to sit in on a MAUD meeting. The committee pushed for rapid development of nuclear weapons using gaseous-diffusion as their isotope separation device. Once he returned to the United States, he was able to brief Vannevar Bush, the director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), concerning the details discussed during the meeting.

In August 1941, Mark Oliphant, the director of the physics department at the University of Birmingham and an original member of the MAUD Committee, was sent to the US to assist the NDRC on radar. During his visit he met with William D. Coolidge. Coolidge was shocked when Oliphant told him the British had predicted that only ten kilograms of uranium-235 would be sufficient to supply a chain reaction effected by fast moving neutrons. While in America, Oliphant discovered that the chairman of the OSRD S-1 Section, Lyman Briggs, had locked away the MAUD reports transferred from Britain entailing the initial discoveries and had not informed the S-1 Committee members of all its findings.

Oliphant took the initiative himself to enlighten the scientific community in the U.S. of the recent groundbreaking discoveries the MAUD Committee had just exposed. Oliphant also travelled to Berkeley to meet with Ernest Lawrence, inventor of the cyclotron. After Oliphant informed Lawrence of his report on uranium, Lawrence met with NDRC chairman James Bryant Conant, George B. Pegram, and Arthur Compton to relay the details which Oliphant had directed to Lawrence. Oliphant was not only able to get in touch with Lawrence, he met with Conant and Bush to inform them of the significant data the MAUD had discovered. Oliphant's ability to inform the Americans led to Oliphant convincing Lawrence, Lawrence convincing Compton, and then George Kistiakowsky convincing Conant to move forward with nuclear weapons. These actions from Oliphant resulted in Bush taking this report directly to the president.

Information sharing ceases
The American effort increased rapidly and soon outstripped the British as the American authorities were reluctant to share details with their British counterparts. However, separate research continued in each country with some exchange of information. Several of the key British scientists visited the United States early in 1942 and were given full access to all of the information available. They were astounded at the momentum the American atomic bomb project had then assumed. The British and American exchange of information and efforts continued but the nations did not combine their efforts, leading their programmes separately. Furthermore, in 1941 the British Government rebuffed and vetoed attempts and proposals by Bush and Conant to strengthen cooperation between Great Britain and America.

In June 1942, the United States Army Corps of Engineers took over the Manhattan Project from OSRD, and Groves became the project's director. He tightened security, which dried up the flow of information to Britain. American officials were particularly concerned that Akers and other people from ICI involved in the Tube Alloys project were trying to exploit American nuclear scientific knowledge to create a profitable post-war industry. In October 1942, Bush and Conant convinced Roosevelt the United States should independently develop the atomic bomb project, despite an agreement of unrestricted scientific interchange between the US and Britain.

This disastrously affected British efforts as they lacked manpower, facilities, equipment and materials. Tube Alloys, therefore, fell behind in the race with the Manhattan Project. On 30 July 1942, Anderson advised Churchill: "We must face the fact that... [our] pioneering work... is a dwindling asset and that, unless we capitalise it quickly, we shall be outstripped. We now have a real contribution to make to a 'merger'. Soon we shall have little or none." By the time Britain realised it, the position had worsened; Bush decided outside help for the Manhattan Project was no longer needed. The Military Policy Committee (MPC) supported Bush's arguments and restricted access to the classified information which Britain could utilise to develop its atomic weapons programme, even if it slowed down the American efforts.

The Americans stopped sharing any information on heavy water production, the method of electromagnetic separation, the physical or chemical properties of plutonium, the details of bomb design, or the facts about fast neutron reactions. This was a major disappointment that hindered the British and the Canadians, who were collaborating on heavy water production and several other aspects of the research programme. By 1943 Britain had stopped sending its scientists to the United States, which slowed down the pace of work there, which had relied on efforts led by British scientists. In March 1943 Conant approached the Military Policy Committee, which decided that Britain's help would benefit some areas of the project. Chadwick, William Penney, Peierls, Oliphant and other British scientists were important enough that the bomb design team at the Los Alamos Laboratory needed them, despite the risk of revealing weapon design secrets.

Quebec Agreement

Churchill sought information about building Britain's own gaseous diffusion plant, a heavy water plant and an atomic reactor in Britain, despite its immense cost. A gaseous diffusion plant to produce a kilogram of weapons-grade uranium per day was estimated to cost up to £3million in research and development, and anything up to £50million to build in wartime Britain. A nuclear reactor to produce that much plutonium per day would have to be built in Canada. It would take up to five years to build and cost £5million. The project would also require facilities for producing the required heavy water (between £5million and £10million) and uranium metal (£1.5million). The project would need overwhelming priority, as it was estimated to require twenty thousand workers – many of them highly skilled – half a million tons of steel, and an unprecedented half gigawatt of electricity. Disruption to other wartime projects would be inevitable, and it was unlikely to be ready in time to affect the outcome of the war in Europe. The unanimous response was that first another effort should be made to secure American co-operation.

In July 1943, in London, American officials cleared up some major misunderstandings about British motives, and after many months of negotiations the Quebec Agreement was signed by Churchill and Roosevelt on 19 August 1943 during the Quebec Conference. The British handed over their material to the Americans and in return received the copies of the American progress reports to the President. Tube Alloys was subsumed into the Manhattan Project. In a section of the Quebec Agreement formally entitled "Articles of Agreement governing collaboration between the authorities of the USA and UK in the matter of Tube Alloys", Britain and the USA agreed to share resources "to bring the Tube Alloys project to fruition at the earliest moment". The leaders further agreed that:
 * "First, we will never use this agency against each other,
 * Secondly, we will not use it against third parties without each other's consent, and
 * Thirdly, we will not either of us communicate any information about Tube Alloys to third parties except by mutual consent."

It was also agreed that "any post-war advantages of an industrial or commercial nature" would be decided at the discretion of the President. The Quebec Agreement established the Combined Policy Committee to control the Manhattan Project, consisting of Henry Stimson, Bush and Conant from the United States; Field Marshal Sir John Dill and Colonel J. J. Llewellin were the British members, and C. D. Howe was the Canadian member. Llewellin returned to the United Kingdom at the end of 1943 and was replaced on the committee by Sir Ronald Ian Campbell, who in turn was replaced by the British Ambassador to the United States, Lord Halifax, in early 1945. Dill died in Washington, D.C., in November 1944 and was replaced both as Chief of the British Joint Staff Mission and as a member of the Combined Policy Committee by Field Marshal Sir Henry Maitland Wilson. The subsequent Hyde Park Agreement on 19 September 1944 extended this cooperation to the post-war period.

British contribution to the Manhattan Project
Akers summoned Chadwick, Oliphant, Simon and Peierls to the United States. They arrived the day the Quebec Agreement was signed, ready to assist the Manhattan Project in any way possible. Akers was generally disliked and the Americans refused to move forward with collaboration unless a top British scientist who was "accepted and sound of judgement" was appointed instead. British officials dug in over Britain's right to make its own appointments to its own government agencies. A compromise was reached, with Chadwick put in charge as Britain's technical advisor for the Combined Policy Committee, and as the head of the British Mission to the Manhattan Project.

With this dispute settled collaboration could once again take place. Chadwick wanted to involve as many British scientists as possible so long as Groves accepted them. Chadwick's first choice, Joseph Rotblat refused to give up his Polish citizenship. Chadwick then turned to Otto Frisch, who to Chadwick's surprise accepted becoming a British citizen right away and began the screening process so he could travel to America. Chadwick spent the first few weeks of November 1943 acquiring a clear picture of the extensive Manhattan Project. He realised the scale of such sites as Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which was the new headquarters of the project, and could safely conclude that without similar industrial site being found in Germany the chances of the Nazi atomic bomb project being successful was very low.

With Chadwick involved the main goal was to show that the Quebec Agreement was a success. It was Britain's duty to co-operate to the fullest and speed along the process. Chadwick used this opportunity to give as many young British scientists experience as possible so they might carry that experience to post-war Britain. He eventually convinced Groves of Rotblat's integrity to the cause, and this led to Rotblat being accepted to the Manhattan Project without renouncing his nationality. Rotblat had been left in charge of the Tube Alloys research, and brought with him the results obtained since Chadwick had left.

The Montreal team in Canada depended on the Americans for heavy water from the US heavy water plant in Trail, British Columbia, which was under American contract, and for technical information about plutonium. The Americans said they would supply heavy water to the Montreal group only if it agreed to direct its research along the limited lines suggested by DuPont, its main contractor for reactor construction. Despite doing much good work, by June 1943 the Montreal Laboratory had come to a complete standstill. Morale was low and the Canadian Government proposed cancelling the project. In April 1944, a Combined Policy Committee meeting in Washington agreed Canada would build a heavy water reactor. The Americans agreed to support the project with information and visits, and to supply materials, including vital uranium and heavy water. The Montreal Laboratory would be given access to data from the Metallurgical Laboratory's research reactors at Argonne and the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge, but not from the production reactors at the Hanford Site; nor was it to be given any information about the chemistry of plutonium, or methods for separating it from other elements. This arrangement was formally approved by the Combined Policy Committee meeting on 19 September 1944. John Cockcroft became the director of the Montreal Laboratory. The Chalk River Laboratories opened in 1944, and in 1946 the Montreal Laboratory was closed. The project developed the ZEEP reactor, which went critical in September 1945.

William Penney, one of the Tube Alloys scientists, was an expert in shock waves. In June 1944, he went to America to work at the Los Alamos Laboratory as part of the British delegation. He worked on the means to assess the effects of a nuclear explosion, and wrote a paper on what height the bombs should be detonated at for maximum effect in attacks on Germany and Japan. He served as a member of the target committee established by Groves to select Japanese cities for atomic bombing, and on Tinian with Project Alberta as a special consultant. Along with Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, sent as a British representative, he watched the bombing of Nagasaki from the observation plane Big Stink. He also formed part of the Manhattan Project's post-war scientific mission to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that assessed the extent of the damage caused by the bombs.

The Smyth Report was issued by the US War Department on 12 August 1945, giving the story of the atomic bomb and including the technical details that could now be made public. It made few references to the British contribution to the bomb, and a White Paper, Statements Relating to the Atomic Bomb, was hurriedly drafted by Michael Perrin. This account was issued just after Clement Attlee had replaced Churchill as Prime Minister, and was the only official statement on the British contribution for fifteen years.

Soviet spies in the Tube Alloys project
The Soviet Union received details of British research from its atomic spies Klaus Fuchs, Engelbert Broda, Melita Norwood and John Cairncross, a member of the notorious Cambridge Five. Alan Nunn May was recruited later in Canada. Lavrenty Beria's report to Stalin of March 1942 included the MAUD reports and other British documents passed by Cairncross.

Fuchs began disclosing information to the Soviet Union about the possible production of a British atomic bomb when he joined the Tube Alloys project, although his contribution towards Soviet espionage was more severe during the Manhattan Project. Fuchs was able to contact a London-based KPD leader, Jürgen Kuczynski, Kuczynski put him in contact with Simon Davidovitch Kremer, the secretary to the military attaché at the Soviet Union's embassy, who worked for the GRU (Russian: Главное Разведывательное Управление), the Red Army's foreign military intelligence directorate. After three meetings, Fuchs was teamed up with a courier so he would not have to find excuses to travel to London. She was Ursula Kuczynski, the sister of Jurgen Kuczynski. She was also a German communist, a major in Soviet Military Intelligence and an experienced agent who had worked with Richard Sorge's spy ring in the Far East.

Post-war

With the end of the war the Special Relationship between Britain and the United States "became very much less special". Roosevelt died on 12 April 1945, and the Hyde Park Agreement was not binding on subsequent administrations. In fact, it was physically lost: when Wilson raised the matter in a Combined Policy Committee meeting in June, the American copy could not be found. The British sent Stimson a photocopy on 18 July 1945. Even then, Groves questioned the document's authenticity until the American copy was located years later in the papers of Vice Admiral Wilson Brown Jr., Roosevelt's naval aide, apparently misfiled by someone unaware of what Tube Alloys was—who thought it had something to do with naval guns.

The British government had trusted that America would share nuclear technology, which the British saw as a joint discovery. On 9 November 1945, Mackenzie King and the Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, went to Washington, D.C., to confer with President Harry Truman about future cooperation in nuclear weapons and nuclear power. The three leaders agreed there would be full and effective cooperation on atomic energy, but British hopes for a full resumption of cooperation on nuclear weapons were disappointed. The Americans soon made it clear that this was restricted to basic scientific research.

The passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act) in August 1946 made it clear that the UK would no longer be allowed access to the United States' atomic research. This partly resulted from the arrest for espionage of Alan Nunn May in February 1946. On 8 January 1947, Attlee formed a secret Gen 163 Cabinet committee, consisting of six cabinet ministers, which decided that Britain required the atomic bomb to maintain its position in world politics. In the words of the Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, "That won't do at all... we've got to have this... I don't mind for myself, but I don't want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked to or at by a Secretary of State in the United States as I have just had in my discussions with Mr Byrnes. We've got to have this thing over here whatever it costs... We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."

Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Portal, was appointed to lead the effort, code-named High Explosive Research. The Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE) near Harwell, Oxfordshire, was created by Cockcroft in 1946 as the main centre for military and civilian atomic energy research and development. Penney led the bomb design effort as Chief Superintendent Armament Research (CSAR, pronounced "Caesar"), in charge of the Ministry Of Supply's Armaments Research Department (ARD) at Fort Halstead in Kent and the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich. In April 1950 an abandoned Second World War airfield, RAF Aldermaston in Berkshire, was selected as the permanent home for what became the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE). Penney assembled a team to initiate the work, firstly preparing a report describing the features, science and idea behind the American Fat Man implosion-type nuclear weapon. He broke down the development tasks required to replicate it, identifying outstanding questions that required further research on nuclear weapons.

On 3 October 1952, under the code-name "Operation Hurricane", the first British nuclear device was successfully detonated in the Monte Bello Islands off the west coast of Australia. The Sputnik crisis and the development of the British hydrogen bomb led to the Atomic Energy Act being amended in 1958, and to a resumption of the nuclear Special Relationship between America and Britain under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement.

title: Tube Alloys


text:
Template talk:Snooker tournaments

Image
What's up with the new image? The box now looks quite ugly due to the rather large border at the bottom. Abigail 15:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * The old png image didn't have a transparent background and displayed with a white square surrounding it, so I replaced it with another image with transparent background, though I agree it's not quite right. I've created a new image [[Image:Snooker reds.gif]] which is smaller. Can we try that one? I can't edit the box now, as I find it's locked. --Auximines 08:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * That's very strange. I created the old image with a transparent background, and it's transparent for me. Furthermore, the transparent colour is the same colour the cell background has. Where the white square is coming from, I don't know, but certainly not from the image. Your latest image still suffers from the problem it has several rows of nothing but transparent pixels at the bottom (and at the top, right and left). This will cause the header box to become larger than necessary. Abigail 09:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Strange indeed. Probably a browser problem - maybe my browser doesn't display PNG's properly. I suggest you revert my change. It would be useful if the page could be unprotected (assuming it was you who protected it), as I may well want to add a few more tournaments soon. Perhaps it could be protected again in a couple of weeks or so, when all my work on the snooker pages is complete. --Auximines 09:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't protect the page. I don't have the powers to do so. Abigail 10:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems like all MediaWiki: messages have been locked in the transition to the new software. Probably to force people to use the new Template: namespace instead. Seems pretty strange to me. A page move to Template:Snooker tournaments might be in order, but can be done by a sysop only, too. The only other alternative would be a copy-paste move to Template:Snooker tournaments, but that'd lose the page history and thus should not be done. Looks like you'll have to get a sysop to help. Lupo 10:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Changed it to photographic image used in other WikiProject Snooker applications; should resolve the above issues. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Snooker Shoot-out
Do you think this belongs in the template? Since it actually has different rules to normal snooker i.e. having to hit a cushion/ball-in-hand for fouls/blue ball decider it is listed as a "variant" format on the tournaments article. At the moment the template is inconsistent i.e. either Shoot-Out should be removed because we don't list variant formats, or Power Snooker should go in because we do list variant formats in the template. If we decide to include variant formats they should perhaps have their own section in the template. I don't mind either way, but I think we should be consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky question. There was in 1990 a snooker tournament called Shoot-Out. This was snooker tournament, but the format today is not snooker anymore. The snooker commentators on Sky Sports called it snooker, but the cause of this might be, that this variant doesn't have a name. I think it should go and on the List of snooker tournaments it should be split. If there is no objection, than Betty should do it. Armbrust public  Talk  Contribs  14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Template name/title
Hi. Maybe this template should be named/titled "Professional snooker tournaments"..? 213.246.123.171 (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, because the Players Tour Championship is pro-am. Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  13:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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

title: Template talk:Snooker tournaments


text: User talk:81.144.191.3

title: User talk:81.144.191.3


text:
Talk:WiMAX

Comparison
Wi-Fi uses the 2.4 GHz, 3 GHz, 5 GHz, and 60 GHz radio frequency bands to provide access to a local network. OK, please also mention what uses. Jidanni (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Comparison - 3 GHz
Can I source be added for Wi-Fi's use of 3 Ghz? I found a reference to Wireless_Gigabit_Alliance which mentions using 60 GHz but I cannot find a reason for 3 GHz to be mentioned as part of Wi-Fi. If one cannot be found I suggest it is removed as an error. 15:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TafThorne (talk • contribs)

Proposed deletion
This article is misleading, failing to mention that this is obsolete technology that ultimately lost a format war to 4G and 5G networks. It's haphazardly structured, reads like an advertisement in places, and more concerningly, has had update templates saying it's overly jargon-heavy since 2010 (14 years!!) and needs update since 2019 (5 years ago). Many of the sources are from the 2000s and it's full of references to future deployments which almost certainly don't exist. It could be a candidate for rewriting rather than deletion, but frankly, I suspect it's so much work it'd be faster to start again from scratch. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've contested the proposed deletion. I know nothing about the subject, but it's not for articles that need a rewrite; I'm here from the notification at User talk:Conversion script, because this page's first edit used to be attributed to that user. Graham87 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:WiMAX


text:
Talk:Furlong

Trivia
I am not convinced that this trivia of furlong per fortnight is often misquoted, as I have, as far as I recall, never heard it quoted at all. It debases Wikipedia to have such a prominent bit of trivia - these silly examples may be accurate, but they are not useful or relevant. The point is made.

I suggest that it be severely trimmed down, leaving silly examples to the reader's imagination.

Spenny

 * Not everything needs to be useful or relevant, Spenny, lighten up! I enjoyed it.

- CharlieTuna

My first exposure to this was around 25 years ago in a Unix fortune cookie (a small program that displays a pithy or witty saying often run as part of the login process on Unix systems). As I recall it stated: "Data will always be expressed in the least useful units. For instance, speed will be expressed in furlongs per fortnight".

SurrealPenguin (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Furlongs per Fortnight - Minute hand speed
I particularly liked the reference to a furlong per fortnight, since that was actually the reason I was looking up the exact distance of a furlong. I've heard this phrase a number of times, being an engineer myself, and wanted to know how to post the speed limit on a highway properly in the appropriately unintelligible units :-D...

Also - I noticed the following section:

"one furlong per fortnight is 0.166 millimetres per second, which would be barely noticeable to the naked eye (the tip of an hour hand on a clock, measuring 3.75 feet in length, travels at about 1 furlong per fortnight — as does the tip of a second hand 1/16 of an inch in length)."

Missed a much more reasonable reference of the tip of a minute hand, 3.75 inches in length!

-KevinM

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.104.245.6 (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

 * I have heard F/F quoted. Never misquoted, though. Does the author have a reason why it is "misquoted"? Irrelevant or useless is fine. Simultaneously prescriptive, though?Still A Student 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

''I have never seen it misquoted, so I'm removing that. --Psm 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)''

I have added back the trivia section on Furlong per Fortnight since it is a part of the information on the Furlong and a part apparently many people have an interest in. I will add, i have never heard it "misquoted." Gingermint (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

F/F silliness
My first, and only, exposure to Furlongs/Fortnight was in a humorous short essay about engineers. It stated that engineers would always provide data in a form conveying the least meaning. E.g. velocity measured in furlongs per fortnight.

I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with including the lighter side of a topic in an encyclopedia. In fact, the term "encyclopedia" almost demands that all aspects be considered.

Knowledge that brings a smile is still knowledge.

Phlogiston Warrior

 * I would like to see two examples add to the F/F entry to add some relevancy to the unit, as the ones described there demonstrate why it's irrelevant now. The two examples I would include would be human march speed and speed of travel by horse, as I'm pretty sure that these speeds figured in F/F would've been handy to merchants, couriers, and military commanders back in the Middle Ages (in fact, I came here from fortnight following a link from the Battle of Stamford Bridge, where King Harold fought a full fortnight before racing to fight the Battle of Hastings.)--YoungFreud 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

 * "F/F" is not a practical unit for expressing marching speeds, or travel speed for horses. It's too small a unit. Snails travel at approximately six furlongs per fortnight, which is basically one millimeter per second, so it's not a rate, it's a punchline. People march at a rate of approximately 24 furlongs (three miles) per hour, or about 8000 furlongs per fortnight. It's pointless to choose these units to express marching rates, because nobody would march continuously for a fortnight. That's why it's a joke. Silarius 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bible References
I removed the following text from the Trivia section:

'' In the biblical book of Revelation (Ch 21:16), the King James version of the New Testament describes the Holy City of New Jerusalem as being 12,000 furlongs cubed. This works out to be almost 23½ cubic miles, 100 km³, or the volume of a single structure over four times the height of the Empire State Building covering the entire island of Manhattan ''

In case y'all think that was wrong, put it back. I'm removing it for several reasons, but primarily because the Bible reference in question is, indeed, from the King James Version where "furlong" replaced the actual unit (the Greek stadion). (Source: New American Bible.) Also because this "trivia" has nothing to do with the concept of furlong (or stadion) at all.

Prime number 11?
I'm totally stumped as to what this parenthetical comment has to do with the furlong. Someone's going to have to patiently explain it and not expect the meaning to immediately jump out at the reader (at least this reader). --209.7.195.158 16:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The prime number 11 comes from the reference to the rod, which is 11/2 yards. The least common multiple of this with the Roman 1000 passus (5 feet each) made it reasonable to redefine a mile to a number that was a multiple of 11 - 5280 feet is 320 rods. -KevinM

 * The question then becomes: why is a rod eleven half-yards? Urhixidur 12:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

 * A rod (unit) is 16.5 feet. This is 5.5 yards. A rod length is not derived from yards but from furlongs and chains, of which it is a convenient submultiple. A rod is also sometimes called a pole, and my Dad told me of actually measuring off land by flipping off a 16.5 foot pole end over end while walking the boundaries of a rented field, to be sure it was the size described. An acre is the equivalent of four poles by 40 poles, or one chain by four chains, if I remember correctly. A farmer might not own a Gunter's chain, but he probably had lots of poles handy. I do not see why any mention of 11 being a prime number belongs in the article because of this. Edison 21:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

 * After inch, foot, and yard, then the chain becomes the next unit of measure. I have a copy of a map of Sydney, New South Wales, made about 1820. The distance reference line is marked off in chain units with the 10 chain and 20 chain marks having the appropriate number above them. It's rather curious why 22 yards was chosen as being a chain (and not 20, or 24, or 25 yards). However, having chosen 10 chains to be a furlong (and they would have had some idea how long this should be, as it was the most economical length for a furrow), and wanting one mile to be eight furlongs, then 80 chains would equal one mile. The Roman mile was 5000 feet and they would want their "new mile" to be close to this. They would also want the chain (in feet) to be divisible by three so that it was an even number of yards. The only possibilities would be 60 feet (with a mile of 4800 feet), 63 feet (with a mile of 5040 feet; but 21 yards is difficult to divide by foru), or 66 feet (with a mile of 5280 feet and a chain of 22 yards; not so hard to divide into four rods). I'm sure the figures of 66 and 22 would have had some appeal in themselves.
 * Queen Elizabeth I decreed this to be the length of the English mile. Also, perhaps we should not forget that the length of a cricket pitch is 22 yards.(DaveNed88 (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Size of an acre?
The image that goes with the article shows that one acre = one rod x one furlong, but that would be 1/4 acre. Is the image wrong?

Autopilot (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I suspect the little mark above the word "rod" is supposed to indicate that the distance between the two little horizontal line in the mark, so it looks as though that edge of the acre might be four rods, which would be right. Also, the overall shape of the acre is about right. The long edge is about 10 times the short edge. But the little mark really is inadequate and the image should be improved. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * You're right that the little mark is showing the length of a rod (compared to a chain). When the full image is viewed, the small grid lines that show the four rods is visible. But when it is scaled down, as it is on the furlong page, the grid lines are blended out of view. Perhaps changing the label to read "4 rods" and underneath it "1 chain" would make it clearer. --Autopilot (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Maybe just "4 rods" because I don't think the chain is nearly as ancient as the other units shown in the diagram. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the tip.Unitfreak (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

International vs. survey foot
The footnote tries to justify the use of the international foot (0.3048 m) in defining the furlong, but the link offered makes no mention of the furlong specifically, and it contains the exception that the foot (and derived units) used for geodetic surveys would continue to be $1200⁄3937$ m.

I've seen more than my share of land deeds and know that customary surveying units that are only still used for surveying land, such as the chain and rod, are emphatically defined by the survey foot of $1200⁄3937$ m, because of the aforementioned exception for geodetic data. This naturally also includes the acre (based on the square survey foot), as well as the Public Land Survey System divisions of sections and townships. While I can't recall seeing a deed mentioning tracts of land measured in furlongs specifically, if we're going to relate the furlong to rods, chains and acres as well as point out their use in meting out city blocks (which would be also be meted in survey feet), I think it'd be more accurate to describe it as $792.000⁄3937$ m exactly.

(Also, it looks like the pages on the rod and the chain need to be changed, too...) Guppy313 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 * First of all, this discussion only applies to the U.S.A., since the American survey foot only exists there. If you look at the foot (length) article, you will find this quote from the National Geodetic Survey:
 * "Within the legislation, the U.S. Survey Foot was specified in 11 states and the International Foot was specified in six states. In all other states the meter is the only referenced unit of measure in the SPCS 83 legislation. The remaining 19 states do not yet have any legislation concerning SPCS 83."
 * True, this does not directly address the meaning of feet, rods, and acres that occur in deeds, but it makes it plain that either might be used, depending on the state. Furthermore, the only customary unit that would still be in use in a precision application is the foot (and maybe the acre). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 * In answer to your first, while it's true this would only apply to the U.S.A., who else still uses the furlong for purposes of government and trade? Granted this is only in the realm of real estate, but it's my understanding that the rest of the world is compelled to use metric in this field.

 * The block quote you provided above was concerned with the adoption of the metric-only North American Datum of 1983 and how the states chose to specify the conversion factor from the meters of the Datum into their own State Plane Coordinate Systems. The high-precision Datum is useful for engineering projects such as laying road, placing building foundations, or determining the location of mineral deposits. However, the Datum is not the only coordinate system used (otherwise there likely wouldn't have been such lackluster adoption according to a document written in 1991, considering that the previous Datum was from 1927), and for purposes such as real estate, where a chain of acquisition for a particular parcel of land needs to be determined based on prior deeds, the coordinate systems used predate the 1959 introduction of the international foot. The PLSS, for example, predates the development of the meter itself.

 * Even urban areas which tend to be independent of such statewide coordinate grids use the survey foot to determine legal property ownership. Every parcel of land that was meted and platted out at some point before 1959 necessarily uses the only foot that was available at the time, what we've come to call the survey foot. This includes all of the American cities that are listed in the "Uses" section with their one-furlong blocks.

 * As to the use of these more archaic units in "precision applications," absent a compelling reason to adopt a different system of measure (e.g. a law requiring meters, or a new subdivision meted in decimal feet), deed descriptions will continue to use the language and units of prior deeds in order to demonstrate that the same parcel of land is being described, maintaining a defensible legal chain of custody. If a rural plot was originally meted in chains and links, or an urban plot in feet, inches and lines, future deeds for that land will continue to use those same units. Consider the arpent, which still turns up in American deeds in spite of American acquisition of the described lands centuries ago.

 * Arbitrarily changing definitions of the foot (and units derived from it) has the effect of changing property lines and, in the United States, even municipal boundaries. Even in midsized states, the point of origin for coordinate systems like the PLSS can be hundreds of kilometers away, creating propagated errors as large as several meters, more than enough for a stream or a well to change owners (and changing the taxable value of the parcels along with it). This was why the survey foot was maintained after 1959 to begin with.

 * Anyway, to sum up my longwindedness (too late!), outside of a horse track, the furlong is only currently encountered in the United States (other jurisdictions using compulsory metric), and the only field of study it would be encountered in is land surveying (other fields using compulsory feet and miles). Again, I don't know if the furlong itself is still used in land surveying (a quarter of a quarter of a quarter of a section can be described as one furlong square), but if it is, as the furlong's sole remaining legal use in the one country where it's still permitted, it's defined as $792000⁄3937$ m. Guppy313 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 * The republication of an announcement in the Federal Register of January 22,1975 (40 FR 3486) on the NIST Web site (and linked in United States customary units) states

 * Metric equivalents of all surveyor’s units, e.g., links, rods, and chains, arc derived from thc survey foot.

 * NIST Special Publication 811 (2008 version), Appendix B, B.6 U.S. survey foot and mile, specifically indicates that the furlong is based on the survey foot. Absent something convincing to the contrary, I think we should revise this article accordingly. JeffConrad (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 * The site of the National Geodetic Survey seems to be down right now, but they have a page, cited at foot (unit), which indicates how many states specify that when surveys are carried out in state plane coordinates, whether the units used should be meters, U.S. survey feet, or international feet (or allow the surveyor to choose). There are some states in each category. Further, NIST may say that furlongs are surveyor's units, but except for a few deeds from decades or centuries ago, that just isn't so. Surveyors use either meters or feet.

 * So yes, the article should be revised, but it shouldn't give undo weight to a definition that applies only in the U.S. and isn't generally understood or applied even there. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Agree with you and Guppy313 that furlongs are generally not used by anyone other than horses (a search for “furlong” on the NGS Web site turns up nothing, and it’s not mentioned in NIST SP 330, either). It seems to me that we err in equating imperial units and U.S. customary units in the first sentence, which is incompatible with what is said in United States customary units. I don’t think there′s much disagreement on the relationships of the furlong, chain, rod, and link, but we need an authoritative definition (or definitions) for this group; I doubt we want to do it on a state-by-state basis, so at least for the U.S., NIST (or another federal agency of equivalent stature) might seem a good starting point. JeffConrad (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I can find nothing in the way of the definition of an “international furlong”. The Weights and Measures Act 1985 (U.K.) gives the furlong in terms of the international yard, equal to 0.9144 metre; as previously noted, NIST Special Publication 811 gives the furlong in terms of the U.S survey mile (or whichever survey unit you prefer). So it would appear that we have two citable (but different) definitions, neither apparently predominant. It seems to me that there is considerable advantage in maintaining the familiar (and simple) relationships among the furlong, chain, rod, link, yard, and foot; the best approach may be similar to that used in Mile:

 * The exact conversion of the mile to SI units depends on which definition of the yard is used.

 * We could then cite the U.S. and U.K. definitions, as well as any others for which reliable sources can be found. JeffConrad (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 * That approach sounds good to me. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit of 2 May 2011
I’ve put the material in a new section at the end because it’s probably far more than most readers will care about—see if this works. I used scare quotes for the “international” value because there really is no such thing, and every alternative definition I could think of was awkwardly verbose.

It appears that we have a similar issue with most of the units that NIST define in terms of the survey foot; although it would be a simple matter to copy and slightly revise the material I’ve added here, doing so would seem needless repetition with the possibility of inconsistencies resulting from subsequent edits. But I’m not sure the topic justifies a separate article. Thoughts, anyone? JeffConrad (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling and metrication
See a discussion under the same heading at WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont know about other pages but per WP:RETAIN the first major edit was in British English on 17:49, 8 June 2004. Not only that I would claim that this article passes MOS:TIES "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation." Because while this is a well-known unit of measure to the general public in the U.K. it is virtually unheard of in the United States. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * In the U.S.A. it is known in the field of horse racing. Is it used for anything else in the U.K.? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * With the exception of horse racing, mostly street names and the length of some city blocks, but living in both countries I can say that it is a known length in the U.K. and an unknown one in the U.S. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I can say the furlong is a known length in the U.S. and it even sees use on the Interstate Highway System since 1/8 mile increments are occasionally signed (although I have never seen 1/8 mile, think they were 3/8 and 5/8 that I saw). I've seen several old British signs that are still in place along roadsigns of public roads in the U.K. that a buddy of mine there showed me. Perhaps if he or the author consents, I could put them up here? Think one was furlongs, and there may or may not have been one that was in miles and eighths.

 * Also, does anyone have some information about the Burmese furlong sign. Some Internet armchair expert was claiming they were all kilometers "now" which I had assumed to be correct, until seeing an even newer post, less than six months old talking about biking there and how "everything was still in miles [and furlongs] there. If we had a more current picture of the signs there, even if it's the same damned toll plaza, that would go a long way. Its government Web site, at least in English, is, shall we say, lacking?

Surveyor792 (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Metricized
"Metricized" is the word, and "metricated" is a nonword that is not found in any dictionaties. The lengths of horse races in Australia were "metricized". It is astonishing that people want to make up and use nonwords in English.98.67.171.238 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Might want to check your facts before you make spurious assertions. Metrication  and it is worth noting there is a subtle difference in meaning between metricate and metricize. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 * O.K. wise guy: Try www.dictionary.com, which draws its vocabulary from numerous dictionaries, and "metricated" is NOT in it. Dummy, accusing me of not checking my facts. You should be ashamed of yourself.98.67.171.238 (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Metricate" is most certainly in the Oxford English Dictionary, even in the concise version that I have here. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Metricate" is also in dictionary.com. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking of dummies, www.dictionary.com does have an entry for 'metricate. older ≠ wiser 15:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It includes "metricate", but not "metricated". People who don't know how to use dictionaries may get confused. DOwenWilliams (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Use the right verb
Five furlongs IS approximately 1.0 kilometre, and not "are". Multiples of units and numbers themselves are treated as singular in English. For example: 5,280 feet is one mile. 13 is the number of original states in the United States. 440 yards is one quarter mile. Plural verbs are not used in these.98.67.171.238 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 13 is a (singular) number. Feet are plural. Singular/plural usage in this context, and in others, is variable. British usage tends to use plural verbs with collective nouns, e.g. "The government are planning to ban baseball". DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Exact conversion factors
Because of the exact conversion factor of one meter = 39.37 inches, the conversion between inches and millimeters works out to be one inch = 25.4000508, with more decimal places. Hence. 25.4 is not an exact conversion, but close enough for all practical purposes. Rather than one furlong = 202.168 meters exactly, one furlong = 201.1684 meters, approximately.98.67.171.238 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 39.37" is a convenient approximation, not internationally accepted as exact. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Area
I've seen square furlongs used as a unit of area when square miles are too large to measure in. On a trip to St Mary's in the Scilly Isles the tourist maps grid is in square furlongs (1/8 sq mi). Might be worth adding to usage. 151.227.229.35 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A square furlong is 1/64 square mile, not 1/8 square mile. 75.84.89.121 (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Either way, this is an unusual concept and I think we need a [{WP:RS]] for this before adding anything on it at all.  Montanabw (talk)  03:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Furlong. 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/20070709160457/http://www.empm.ca/reports/Title%20Searches.pdf to https://www.empm.ca/reports/Title%20Searches.pdf

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) 00:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Furlong. 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/20110629220021/http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/goodwood/course/ to http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/goodwood/course/

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) 14:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Furlong


text:
Franco Mimmi

Franco Mimmi (born 15 August 1942 in Bologna, Italy) is an Italian journalist and novelist.

He has written for some Italian newspapers such as Il Resto del Carlino, La Stampa, Il Corriere della Sera, L'Espresso, Il Sole-24 Ore and L'Unità.

Some of his books have been translated into French, German and Spanish.

Novels and Tales

 * Rivoluzione (1979, "Scanno Opera Prima" prize)
 * Relitti-A Tale of Time (1988)
 * Villaggio Vacanze (1994)
 * Il nostro agente in Giudea (2000, "Scerbanenco-La Stampa" prize)
 * Un cielo così sporco (2001)
 * Amanti latini, la storia di Catullo e Lesbia (con Carlo Frabetti, 2001)
 * La guerra es la madre de todas las cosas (in "Daños colaterales", 2002)
 * Vom Vater und vom Sohn (in "Schwarze Gedanken: Kriminelle Geschichten", 2002)
 * Cavaliere di Grazia (2003, nominated for the "Premio dei Lettori" and "Città di Scalea" prizes)
 * Una vecchiaia normale (2004)
 * I grandi seduttori sono lupi solitari - Racconti di coppia (2005)
 * Holbox (2005) (in "Brivido Nero" with Valerio Massimo Manfredi)
 * Povera spia (2006)
 * Lontano da Itaca (2007)
 * Oracoli & Miracoli (2009)
 * Tra il Dolore e il Nulla (2010)
 * Corso di lettura creativa (2011)
 * Una stupida avventura (2012)
 * Il tango vi aspetta (2013)
 * Majorca, l'isola degli scrittori (2014)
 * Le tre età dell'uomo (2015)
 * L'ultima avventura di Don Giovanni (2015)
 * Le sette vite di Sebastian Nabokov - Secondo corso di lettura creativa (2016)
 * Racconti di coppia (2016)
 * Il Sogno dello Scrittore (2017)
 * Fabrizio D. e la Bellezza - Passioni 1 (ebook-selfpublishing - 2018)
 * Su l'arida schiena del formidabil monte sterminator (2018)
 * Del Padre e del Figlio - Passioni 2 (ebook-selfpublishing - 2019)
 * Ancora Venezia - Passioni 3 (ebook-selfpublishing - 2019)
 * Amanti latini, la storia di Ovidio e Giulia, (2020)
 * Il Topo e il Virus (ebook-selfpublishing - 2020)
 * Il peggior nemico (2022)

Essays
 * Il giornalismo nella letteratura italiana moderna e contemporanea (Slavia, 2010–1)
 * Ulisse: uno, cento, mille viaggi (El tema del viaje - Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha)
 * Imparare a leggere (Slavia, 2010–4)
 * L’Unità d’Italia - Ilusión e delusioni nelle pagine di tre grandi scrittori: Anna Banti, Tomasi di Lampedusa, Federico de Roberto (Università di Cordoba - Convegno su "ITALIA 150 AÑOS DESPUÉS DE LA UNIFICACIÓN")
 * Giorgia Marangon, "La poesía de Ugo Foscolo y su alter ego en francés" (Cuadernos de Filología Italiana, Vol 21–2014)
 * La mejor amiga del COVID-19 (Conferencia Inaugural de la Feria Internacional del Libro en Guatemala, 26-11-2020)
 * Quando Dante inventò Ulisse (Conferenza all'Istituto Italiano di Cultura di Guatemala per l'anno di Dante, 10-06-2021)

Critical Studies on his Works

 * Manuel Gil Rovira, University of Salamanca:"Notas sobre dos periodistas narradores: Manuel Vázquez Montalbán y Franco Mimmi".
 * Marjatta Saksa: review of "Cavaliere di grazia" in “NOBILTÀ - Rivista di Araldica, Genealogia, Ordini Cavallereschi”, 2004.
 * Maria Dolores Castro Jiménez, Complutense University of Madrid:"Ítaca te regaló un hermoso viaje: estudio mitográfico del Ulises de Franco Mimmi".
 * Mercedes Monmany: "El dilema del regreso".
 * Ferdinando Castelli S.I.: "Variazioni sul tema Gesù - Opere di Sebastiano Vassalli e Franco Mimmi.". La Civiltà Cattolica, 21 maggio 2011.
 * Arnaud Dubergier: "Écritures et réécritures: le Nouveau Testament dans les fictions contemporaines - ...Chacune à leur manière les réécritures de Michael Moorcock, « Voici l’homme », Anthony Burgess, « L’homme de Nazareth » et Franco Mimmi, « Notre agent en Judée », portent un regard neuf sur la vie du Nazaréen." (PhD Thesis - 2006)
 * Rosanna Morace:  "E se la letteratura italiana fosse un trittico?"  (La Modernità Letteraria - 8 . 2015)
 * Rosanna Morace: “La partenza: lontano da Itaca” (in “Il ponte Ionio-Adriatico: un confine liquido”, intervento presentato al convegno “Tra Adriatico e Ionio”, Corfù 2020)

title: Franco Mimmi


text:
Royal Order of Kamehameha I

The Royal Order of Kamehameha I (Kamehameha I e Hookanaka) is an order of knighthood established by Kamehameha IV in 1852, to promote and defend the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Established by the 1852 Constitution, the Order of Kamehameha I is the second order of its kind in Hawaii.

Grades
Appointing a member of the Order was determined by the number of living members in each particular grade. At any given time there could only be:
 * Royal Order of Kamehameha I Grand Cross.gif Knight Grand Cross with Collar (CGCOK) – limited to heads of state
 * Royal Order of Kamehameha I Grand Cross.gif Knight Grand Cross (KGCOK) – 10 individuals
 * Royal Order of Kamehameha I Commander and Companion.gif Knights Commander (KCOK) – 30 individuals
 * Royal Order of Kamehameha I Commander and Companion.gif Knights Companion (KOK) – 50 individuals

History
After Lot Kapuāiwa took the throne as King Kamehameha V, he established, by special decree, created by the privy council using Article 35 of the Constitution the Order of Kamehameha I on April 11, 1865, named to honor his grandfather Kamehameha I. Kamehameha I was the founder of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the House of Kamehameha. Both native Hawaiians and foreigners could be appointed to the Order, in each instance for distinguished service to the king and the people of Hawaii. Upon its inception, it became the first order of the Kingdom of Hawaii actually awarded (the Royal Order of the Cross and Crown was established by King Kamehameha III in 1848 but not awarded until much later). Through the decree of Kamehameha V, the Royal Order of Kamehameha was perpetually created. Its purpose to promote and defend the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is chartered in the Kingdom of Hawaii by the decree of 1865. Although called "The Royal Order of Kamehameha I" today by the Public, it is known as the "Order of Kamehameha I" by its members, in private.

The Order was awarded 57 times by King Kamehameha V, and 82 times by King Kalākaua. Number of awards in the history of the Order:
 * Knights Grand Cross – 40 recipients
 * Knight Commander – 56 recipients
 * Knight Companion – 43 recipients

Recipients of the Order who resided in the Hawaiian Islands received a yearly salary depending upon their grade: a Knight Grand Cross was entitled to an annual stipend of $250; a Knight Commander, to $150; and a Knight, to $75.

The former Royal House of Keoua maintains a family order also named the Royal Order of Kamehameha I.

Grand Council
The Grand Council of Order, comprising the members of the Order resident in the Hawaiian islands, convened each year. Members absent from the annual meeting without a written message for a valid reason were penalized $20. Among Royal Hawaiian Orders, only this and the Royal Order of Kalākaua I gathered at regular intervals.

Insignia of the Order
The jewel or badge of the Order is a Maltese cross in gold or silver with white enamel, surmounted by the Hawaiian crown. Rays of gold or silver are placed between the arms of the cross. A white-enamelled disc imposed upon the cross bears an elaborate golden "K" at its center; the blue-enamelled band surrounding the disc is inscribed "KAMEHAMEHA I" in golden letters, together with two golden laurel branches. A comparable disc on the reverse of the badge is inscribed "E HOOKANAKA" ("Order of Fraternity", in Hawaiian).

 * Knight Grand Cross with Collar: Members of this grade wore the badge of the Order dependent from a golden collar, the decorative links of which alternated the monogram "K" (surrounded by a green-enamelled laurel crown) with the royal crown and a small enamelled badge of the Order.  The breast star was identical to that worn by Knights Grands Cross.
 * Knight Grand Cross: Knights Grand Cross wore the badge of the Order dependent from a broad red sash, which was edged by a narrow white stripe on each side; the sash was worn over the bearer's right shoulder, its bow (from which the badge, sometimes decorated with brilliants, depended) resting on his left hip.  The breast star was an octagonal silver star bearing the uncrowned badge of Order in gold and enamels.
 * Knight Commander: Knights Commander wore the badge of the Order dependent from a red neck ribbon, which was edged in white and bore three white stripes.
 * Knight: Knights of the Order wore the badge on the left breast, suspended from a ribbon of red and white stripes.

Recipients
Among those awarded with Knights Grand cross were:
 * Emperor of Russia, Alexander III (1881)
 * Queen of the United Kingdom, Victoria (1881)
 * Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, Abdul Hamid II (1881)
 * German Emperor, King of Prussia, Wilhelm I (1876)
 * Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, Franz Joseph I (1865)
 * Emperor of Japan, Meiji (1881)
 * King of Siam, Chulalongkorn (1881)
 * King of Belgians, Leopold II (1881)
 * King of Spain, Alfonso XII (1881)
 * Kings of Italy, Victor Emmanuel II (1865) and Umberto I (1878)
 * King of Portugal, Luís I (1881)
 * Emperor of Qing, Guangxu (1882)
 * King of Bavaria, Ludwig II (1865)
 * King of Serbia, Milan I (1883)
 * King of Romania, Carol I (1882)
 * Prince of Orange, Alexander (1881)

Recipients of other classes include:

 * Albert I of Belgium
 * Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
 * Prince Arisugawa Taruhito
 * Bernice Pauahi Bishop
 * Charles Reed Bishop
 * Christian IX of Denmark
 * Archibald Scott Cleghorn
 * John Owen Dominis
 * Queen Emma of Hawaii
 * Abraham Fornander
 * Prince Fushimi Sadanaru
 * Charles Hastings Judd
 * Kalākaua
 * Kalama
 * Victoria Kamāmalu
 * Kamehameha V
 * Charles Kanaʻina
 * John Mahiʻai Kāneakua
 * Paul Kanoa
 * Paul P. Kanoa
 * John Mākini Kapena
 * Kapiʻolani
 * Keʻelikōlani
 * Elizabeth Kekaʻaniau
 * Victoria Kinoiki Kekaulike
 * Prince Kitashirakawa Yoshihisa
 * Leleiohoku II
 * Likelike
 * Liliʻuokalani
 * William Luther Moehonua
 * Paul Nahaolelua
 * George Morison Robertson
 * William M. Wherry
 * Wilhelm II, German Emperor

The Knights Grand Cross with Collar was awarded on two occasions, to Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and to Emperor Meiji of Japan.

Today
The purpose of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, as it is known today, is to unite men of Hawaiian descent in fraternal and benevolent work, good moral character, and sound bodily health; to cultivate the cardinal principles of friendship, charity and benevolence; to aid widows and orphans; to improve the social and moral conditions of its members; to provide scholarship assistance; to preserve and perpetuate the ancient culture, customs, and traditions of ancient Hawaii, uplift the Hawaiian people; infuse the spirit of patriotism, loyalty, helpfulness and kindness among its members; advance the interest of its members in every rightful cause, and to encourage and develop leadership.

Today the order has nine Chapters:

 * Moku O Hawaii (Central Oahu)
 * Moku O Mãmalahoa (Hilo, Hawaii)
 * Moku O Kaumualii (Kauai)
 * Moku O Kahekili (Maui)
 * Moku O Kalaniana’ole (Molokai)(Inactive)
 * Moku O Kuhio (Windward Oahu)
 * Moku O Kona (Kona, Hawaii)
 * Moku O Kapuaiwa (Leeward Oahu)
 * Moku O Kohala (Kohala, Hawai'i)
 * Moku O Puna (Puna, Hawai'i)

The last remaining original meeting hall of the order, located at 1162 Kalanianaole Avenue in the Keaukaha community of Hilo, Hawaii, was added to the National Register of Historic Places on May 20, 1993.

The Royal Order of Kamehameha I continues its work in observance and preservation of some native Hawaiian rituals and customs established by the leaders of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is often consulted by the U.S. Government, State of Hawaii and the various county governments of Hawaii in native Hawaiian-sensitive rites performed at state functions.

title: Royal Order of Kamehameha I


text:
Yellow-throated warbler

The yellow-throated warbler (Setophaga dominica) is a small migratory songbird species in the New World warbler family (Parulidae) found in temperate North America.

Description
In summer, male yellow-throated warblers display grey upperparts and wings, with double white wing bars. Their throats are yellow, and the remainder of their underparts are white, and are streaked with black on the flanks. Their heads are strongly patterned in black and white, with a long supercilium; the different subspecies may display yellow and white superciliums. Remiges and rectrices are black. They measure 14 cm long.

Other plumages of these birds – females immatures and non-breeding males – resemble washed-out versions of the summer males; in particular they have a less crisply defined strong head pattern. They also have less bright yellows, and dark grey feathers instead of black ones in the body plumage. Compared to many other New World warblers, sexual dimorphism is slight.

The males' songs are clear, descending whistles. The calls are high sees or sharp chips.

Measurements:

 * Length: 5.1 - 5.5 in
 * Weight: 0.3 - 0.4 oz
 * Wingspan: 8.3 in

Taxonomy
Yellow-throated warblers will occasionally hybridize with northern parulas (Setophaga americana), resulting in a hybrid species known as Sutton's warblers. Sutton's warblers lack the black streaks bordering the breast indicative of yellow-throated warblers, and have a suffused greenish-yellow wash on their back, which is also not indicative of yellow-throated warblers. The Sutton's warbler was first discovered in 1940 in West Virginia.

Distribution and habitat
These birds breed in southeastern North America, and their breeding ranges extend from southern Pennsylvania and northern Missouri, to the Gulf of Mexico. One subspecies, from northwest Florida, is resident all year round. The other populations of this species are migratory, wintering at the Gulf Coast, eastern Central America, and the Caribbean. Vagrant wintering birds are sometimes seen in northernmost South America.

In the United States, the yellow-throated warbler's range differs from typical Setophaga warblers because they have a more expansive resident population in the South than other Setophaga warblers. Moreover, their breeding range is more southerly, and their wintering range more is northerly, than the other warblers in the genus. According to McKay et al., "[t]he near absence of the species from the lower Piedmont of the Carolinas and Georgia ... presents a puzzle."

The yellow-throated warbler is a woodland species with a preference for coniferous or swamp tree species, in which it preferably nests.

Diet
They are insectivorous, but will include a considerable amount of berries and nectar in their diet outside the breeding season. Food is typically picked off tree branches directly, but flying insects may be caught in a brief hover.

Breeding
These birds build cup-shaped nests which are built in trees, and are concealed amongst conifer needles or Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides). Their clutches consist of 3–5 (usually 4) eggs.

Books

 * Hall, G. A. 1996. Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendroica dominica). In The Birds of North America, No. 223 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Thesis

 * Barrow WC Jr. Ph.D. (1990). Ecology of small insectivorous birds in a bottomland hardwood forest. Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College, United States, Louisiana.

Articles
-->
 * Banks RC & Browning MR. (1980). Correct Citations for Some North American Bird Taxa. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. vol 92, no 1. p. 195-203.
 * Brooke M. (1969). Yellow-Throated Warbler in Ledges State Park. Iowa Bird Life. vol 39, no 3.
 * Craig JT. (1972). 2 Fall Yellow-Throated Warblers in California. California Birds. vol 3, no 1. p. 17-18.
 * Easterla DA & George W. (1970). Marbled Godwit and Yellow-Throated Warbler in Colombia South America. Condor. vol 72, no 4.
 * Emlen JT. (1973). Territorial Aggression in Wintering Warblers at Bahama Agave Blossoms. Wilson Bulletin. vol 85, no 1. p. 71-74.
 * Gabbe AP, Robinson SK & Brawn JD. (2002). Tree-species preferences of foraging insectivorous birds: Implications for floodplain forest restoration. Conservation Biology. vol 16, no 2. p. 462-470.
 * Gaddis P. (1980). Mixed Flocks Accipiters and Anti Predator Behavior. Condor. vol 82, no 3. p. 348-349.
 * Haney JC & Lydic J. (1999). Avifauna and vegetation structure in an old-growth oak-pine forest on the Cumberland Plateau, Tennessee (USA). Natural Areas Journal. vol 19, no 3. p. 199-210.
 * Klaus NA, Buehler DA & Saxton AM. (2005). Forest management alternatives and songbird breeding habitat on the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. Journal of Wildlife Management. vol 69, no 1. p. 222-234.
 * Koes RF. (1991). Additions to the Manitoba Bird List 1985-1990. Blue Jay. vol 49, no 4. p. 202-207.
 * Larson B. (1996). The yellow-throated warbler: Soon to breed in Ontario?. Ontario Birds. vol 14, no 1. p. 3-9.
 * Latta SC, Parkes KC & Wunderle JM Jr. (1998). A new intrageneric Dendroica hybrid from Hispaniola. Auk. vol 115, no 2. p. 533-537.
 * McNair DB. (1986). Past Breeding Distribution of Eleven Species in Georgia USA Based on Nest Records from Egg Data Slips. Oriole. vol 51, no 2-3. p. 28-31.
 * Mery SC. (1976). Oklahoma Fall Records for the Yellow-Throated Warbler. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Ornithological Society. vol 9, no 4.
 * Morse DH. (1974 ). Foraging of Pine Warblers Allopatric and Sympatric to Yellow-Throated Warblers. Wilson Bulletin. vol 86, p. 4.
 * Norton RL. (1979). New Records of Birds for the Virgin Islands. American Birds. vol 33, no 2. p. 145-146.
 * Patten MA & Marantz CA. (1996). Implications of vagrant southeastern vireos and warblers in California. Auk. vol 113, no 4. p. 911-923.
 * Paxton RO, Buckley PA & Cutler DA. (1976). Hudson Delaware Region. American Birds. vol 30, no 4. p. 817-823.
 * Stevenson HM. (1977). A Comparison of the Apalachicola River Avi Fauna above and Below Jim Woodruff Dam. Florida Marine Research Publications. vol 26, p. 34-36.
 * Strauch JGJ. (1974). 1st Ontario Specimen of the Yellow-Throated Warbler. Canadian Field Naturalist. vol 88, no 3.
 * Tomlinson DW. (2004). Wintering warblers in Cuba. Ontario Birds. vol 22, no 1. p. 15-19.

title: Yellow-throated warbler


text:
John Brown (North Carolina politician)

John Brown (1738–1812) was a teacher, farmer, and statesman from Wilkes County, North Carolina. He was a Captain in the Wilkes County Regiment of the North Carolina militia during the Revolutionary War, served as one of the state Treasurers (1782–1784), and served in the North Carolina state legislature (1784–1787).

Background and family
John Brown was born in County Londonderry, Ireland in 1738, and about 1750 his family emigrated to Pennsylvania. He matured there and taught school in Lancaster County.

In 1770 he married Jane McDowell (1750–1833), the sister of Joseph McDowell. The couple settled into frontier life near her brothers. They built a farm on the banks of the Yadkin River in Surry County, North Carolina. They would have eleven children: James (1771), William (1774), Elizabeth (1776), John (1780), Ann (1782), Hugh (1784), Hamilton (1786), Thomas (1788), Margaret (1790) and Allen (1793). Elizabeth would marry James Stewart who became a U.S. Congressman. Most of their children would extend the frontier even further, moving to western Virginia and Tennessee.

Public career
The farm prospered as the family grew and John become prominent in his community. He joined the Masons and became a captain of the local militia. In 1777 when Wilkes County was organized, the first meeting of the Court of the new county was held in his home, and he was appointed Justice of the Peace. Throughout the remainder of his life he held a number of county offices, such as recorder.

He was a captain in the Wilkes County Regiment under Colonel Benjamin Cleveland from 1780 to 1781. In 1780, he marched his militia company south with Colonel Cleveland's force. Meeting other patriot forces at the Catawba River, they finally caught up with the British expeditionary force at King's mountain, on the South Carolina border. They were part of the overwhelming victory in the Battle of King's Mountain on October 7, 1780. The company returned with glory. Brown was later promoted to Colonel.

As North Carolina struggled to resolve the debts raised during the revolution, Brown was named as state treasurer for his district in 1782. He served until the districts were consolidated in 1784. That same year he was elected to North Carolina's House of Commons, or the lower branch of the legislature. He was re-elected and served until 1787. In 1788 he was a delegate to the state convention in Hillsborough that ratified the United States Constitution in 1789 after its rejection in 1788.

He died in 1812, at home on his farm in Wilkes County about 4 miles west of Wilkesboro.

title: John Brown (North Carolina politician)