text:
Grandfather clock

A grandfather clock (also a longcase clock, tall-case clock, grandfather's clock, hall clock or floor clock) is a tall, freestanding, weight-driven pendulum clock, with the pendulum held inside the tower or waist of the case. Clocks of this style are commonly 1.8–2.4 metres (6–8 feet) tall with an enclosed pendulum and weights, suspended by either cables or chains, which have to be occasionally calibrated to keep the proper time. The case often features elaborately carved ornamentation on the hood (or bonnet), which surrounds and frames the dial, or clock face.

The English clockmaker, William Clement, is credited with developing the form in 1670. Pendulum clocks were the world's most accurate timekeeping technology until the early 20th century, and longcase clocks, due to their superior accuracy, served as time standards for households and businesses. Today, they are kept mainly for their decorative and antique value, having been superseded by analog and digital timekeepers.

Naming

The Oxford English Dictionary states that the popular 1876 song My Grandfather's Clock is responsible for the common name "grandfather clock" being applied to the longcase clock.

The song was composed by the American songwriter Henry Clay Work, who discovered a longcase clock in The George Hotel in Piercebridge, County Durham, England. When he asked about the clock, he was informed that it had had two owners. After the first owner died, the clock became inaccurate, and when the second owner died, the clock stopped working altogether. The story inspired Henry to create the song.

Grandfather clocks are of a certain height, usually at least 1.9 m. There are also so-called "grandmother" and "granddaughter" clocks, which are slightly shorter.

The world's tallest grandfather clock is 35 ft tall and is fully operational, with chimes on each quarter hour. It was made by Svoboda Industries in 1976 as a Bicentennial project and is located in Kewaunee, Wisconsin.

Origin

The advent of the longcase clock was due to the invention of the anchor escapement mechanism by Robert Hooke in about 1658. Before adopting the anchor mechanism, pendulum clock movements used an older verge escapement mechanism, which required very wide pendulum swings of about 80–100 degrees. Long pendulums with such wide swings could not be fitted within a case, so most free-standing clocks had short pendulums.

The anchor mechanism reduced the pendulum's swing to around 4 to 6 degrees, allowing clockmakers to use longer pendulums, which had slower "beats". They consumed less power, allowing clocks to run longer between windings, caused less friction and wear in the movement, and were more accurate. Almost all longcase clocks use a seconds pendulum (also called a "Royal" pendulum ) meaning that each swing (or half-period) takes one second. They are about 1 m  long (to the centre of the bob), requiring a long, narrow case. That case pre-dated the anchor clock by a few decades, appearing in clocks in 1660, to allow a long drop for the powering weights. However, once the seconds pendulum began to be used, the long case proved perfect for housing it as well.

British clockmaker William Clement, who disputed credit for the anchor escapement with Robert Hooke, had made the first longcase clocks by 1680. Later the same year, Thomas Tompion, the most prominent British clockmaker, was making them too. Longcase clocks spread rapidly from England to other European countries and Asia.

The first longcase clocks, like all clocks prior to the anchor escapement, had only one hand; an hour hand. The increased accuracy made possible by the anchor motivated the addition of the minute hand to clock faces in the next few decades.

Between 1680 and 1800, the average price of a grandfather clock in England remained steady at £1 10s. In 1680, that was the amount paid by an average working family for a year's rent, so the purchase of clocks was confined to the wealthy. But by 1800, wages had increased enough to allow many lower middle-class households to own grandfather clocks.

Modern longcase clocks use a more accurate variation of the anchor escapement called the deadbeat escapement.

Description

Traditionally, longcase clocks were made with two types of movement: eight-day and one-day (30-hour) movements. A clock with an eight-day movement required winding only once a week, while generally less-expensive 30-hour clocks had to be wound daily. Eight-day clocks are often driven by two weights – one driving the pendulum and the other the striking mechanism, which usually consisted of a bell or chimes. Such movements usually have two keyholes, one on each side of the dial, to wind each weight.

By contrast, 30-hour clocks often had a single weight to drive the timekeeping and striking mechanisms. Some 30-hour clocks were made with false keyholes for customers who wanted guests to think that the household was able to afford the more expensive eight-day clock. All modern striking longcase clocks have eight-day mechanical quarter chiming and full hour striking movements. Most longcase clocks are cable-driven, meaning that cables suspend the weights. If the cable was attached directly to the weight, the load would cause rotation and untwist the cable strands, so the cable wraps around a pulley mounted to the top of each weight. The mechanical advantage of that arrangement also doubles the running time allowed by a given weight drop.

Cable clocks are wound by inserting a special crank (called a "key") into holes in the clock's face and turning it. Others, however, are chain-driven, meaning that the weights are suspended by chains that wrap around gears in the clock's mechanism, with the other end of the chain hanging down next to the weight. To wind a chain-driven longcase clock, one pulls on the end of each chain, lifting the weights until they are just under the clock's face.

Elaborate striking sequences
In the early 20th century, quarter-hour chime sequences were added to longcase clocks. A full chime sequence sounds at the top of each hour, immediately followed by the hour strike. At 15 minutes after each hour, 1/4 of the chime sequence plays. Proceeding that, at the bottom of each hour, 1/2 of the chime sequence plays. Then finally, at 15 minutes before each hour, 3/4 of the chime sequence plays. The chime tune used in almost all longcase clocks is Westminster Quarters. Many also offer the option of Whittington chimes or St. Michael's chimes, selectable by a switch mounted on the right side of the dial, allowing one to silence the chimes if desired. As a result of adding chime sequences, all modern mechanical longcase clocks have three weights instead of only two. The left weight provides power for the hour strike, the middle-weight provides power for the clock's pendulum and general timekeeping functions, and the right weight provides power for the quarter-hour chime sequences.

Comtoise
Comtoise clocks, also known as Morbier clocks or Morez clocks, are a style of longcase clock made in the French region Franche-Comté (hence their name). Features distinguishing this style are a curving "potbellied" case and a greater use of curved lines. A heavy, elongated, highly ornamented pendulum bob often extends up the case (see photo).

Production of these clocks began in 1680 and continued for about 230 years. During the peak production years (1850–1890) over 60,000 clocks were made each year. These clocks were trendy across the generations; they kept the time on farms throughout France. Many Comtoise clocks can be found in France but they are also frequently found in Spain, Germany, and other parts of Europe, less in the United States. Many Comtoise clocks were also exported to other countries in Europe and even farther, to the Ottoman Empire and as far as Thailand. A wooden sheath usually protected the metal mechanisms during transport.

Bornholm and Mora
Bornholm clocks are Danish longcase clocks and were made on Bornholm from 1745 to 1900. In Sweden a special variety of longcase clocks was made in Mora, called Mora clocks.

Bornholm clock-making began in the 1740s when an English ship, which had longcase clocks in its hold, was stranded. They were sent for repair to a turner named Poul Ottesen Arboe in Rønne and as a result of his repair of them he learned enough about clocks to begin to make his own.

Historical manufacturers
British
 * John Alker or Alker of Wigan, Lancashire
 * Allam & Clements
 * Samuel Ashton, Ashbourne
 * William Barrow, London
 * Bilbie family, Somerset
 * Thomas Birchall Nantwich, Cheshire
 * Peter Bower, Redlynch, Wiltshire
 * Joseph Bowles, Winbourne (i.e.: Wimbourne), Dorset; active 1791
 * Samuel Bowles, Wimbourne, Dorset
 * Robert Bryson, Edinburgh
 * William Bucknall, Burslem (Stoke-on-Trent)
 * Thomas Bullock, Bath, Somerset
 * Samuel Buxton, Diss, Norfolk
 * John Calver, Woodbridge, Suffolk
 * Thomas Cartwright
 * John Clement & Son (Tring, Hertfordshire)
 * Thomas Dobbie, Gorbals, Glasgow
 * Richard Donisthorp (fl. 1797), of Loughborough
 * Matthew & Thomas Dutton
 * Peter Fearnley, Wigan
 * John Fernhill, Wrexham
 * Thomas Hackney, London, c. 1700–1750
 * Edward Harrison, Warrington
 * John Harrison, Wakefield/Barrow upon Humber/London
 * Enoch Hawksey (d. 1799) of Nantwich, Cheshire, active c. 1779 – 1799
 * Nathaniel Hedge, Colchester, Essex
 * Holmes
 * Edward Houlgrave (1739 – 1789), b. Liverpool, active in London c. 1780s
 * Ellis Houlgrave (1759 – 1793), son of Edward Houlgrave, b. Liverpool, active in London c. 1778 – 1789
 * James Howden, Edinburgh
 * Thomas Husband, Hull
 * Thomas Johnson
 * John Knibb, Oxford and London
 * Joseph Knibb, Oxford and London
 * William Lassell (1758–1790), Toxteth Park, Liverpool
 * Timothy Mason Gainsborough, Lincolnshire
 * Alexander Miller, Montrose
 * Peddie, Stirling, Scotland
 * Daniel Quare
 * Thomas Ross, Hull
 * John Snelling, Alton
 * John Trubshaw, London
 * Warry, Bristol
 * James Woolley Codnor
 * Thomas Worswick, Lancaster
 * Thomas Wright
 * Henry Young, Swaffham, Norfolk
 * John Wyld, Nottingham
 * Stephen Harris, Tonbridge
 * Watkin Owen, Llanrwst

Irish
 * W Egan & Sons, Cork
 * Ezekiel Bullock, Lurgan
 * Alexander Gordon, Dublin

Finnish
 * Masters of Könni Könnin mestarit (1757–1865), Ilmajoki
 * Finnish Museum of Horology is master of Jaakko Könni manufactured table clocks and pocket watches
 * Ilmajoki Museum is Masters of Könni manufactured horse vehicles, clocks, looms, locks, tools, machine of gear "keervärkki"

Americans
 * Ansonia Clock Company (1851–2006), Ansonia, Connecticut and Brooklyn, New York
 * Benjamin Bagnall (1689–1773), Boston
 * Aaron Brokaw (1768–1853), Bridge Town, New Jersey
 * Isaac Brokaw (1746–1826), Bridge Town, New Jersey
 * Silas Merriman (1733–1805), New Haven, Connecticut
 * Aaron Miller ( –1778), Elizabeth Township, New Jersey
 * Luman Watson (1790–1834), Cincinnati
 * Simon Willard (1753–1848), Roxbury, Massachusetts
 * Zachariah Grandfather Clocks (1975–1987), Chicago, Illinois
 * Daniel White Griswold (1767-1844), Harwinton, Connecticut

Australian casemaker
 * Harry Williams – Oxford Cabinet Company Pty Ltd (1946–1961), Granville, New South Wales, Australia

Current manufacturers

 * Hermle Clocks – Amherst VA
 * Howard Miller Clock Company – Zeeland MI
 * Ridgeway Clocks (owned now by Howard Miller Clock Co.)
 * Seth Thomas Clock Company - (reopened under the Colibri Group)

title: Grandfather clock


text:
Richard Gardiner Willis

Richard Gardiner Willis (February 10, 1865 -February 1929 ) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He was the leader of the Manitoba Conservative Party from 1919 to 1922, and served in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba from 1922 until his death.

Born in Lombardy, Canada West, Willis was educated at Smiths Falls High School and the University of Toronto. He later moved to Manitoba, and worked as a farmer. In 1891, he married Ella French. Willis was reeve of the Rural Municipality of Morton and mayor of Boissevain. In 1915, he co-nominated James Albert Manning Aikins to become the new leader of the provincial Conservative Party.

Despite having little political experience, Willis was chosen leader of the Manitoba Conservatives on November 6, 1919, defeating future leader Major Fawcett Taylor. His victory was considered an upset, and can probably be credited to the increasingly strong presence of organized farmers in Manitoba. Some believe Conservative delegates were influenced by the recent election of Ernest Drury's United Farmers in Ontario.

The Conservative Party had governed Manitoba from 1900 to 1915, but was sidelined by the emergence of farmer and labour radicalism in the late 1910s. It emerged as the fourth-largest parliamentary group in the 1920 election, behind the Liberals, Farmer candidates and Labour. Willis sought election in Turtle Mountain, but lost to incumbent Liberal George McDonald by 14 votes.

He technically retained the leadership of the Manitoba Conservative Party until April 1922, but did not play a significant role in the party after his defeat. John Thomas Haig served as the party's leader in the legislature in 1921–22.

Willis ran as the federal Conservative candidate in Souris for the federal election of 1921, but placed a poor second in a two-way race. He stepped down as provincial Conservative leader just before the 1922 provincial election, and was replaced by Taylor.

Ironically, Willis's personal electoral fortunes improved after his resignation as leader. He was elected for Turtle Mountain in the 1922 provincial election, and was re-elected in 1927. Both elections were won by the United Farmers of Manitoba, and Willis sat with the Conservatives in opposition. He was still a member of the legislature when he died in Winnipeg in February 1929.

His son, Errick Willis, served as leader of the Manitoba Conservative Party from 1936 to 1954.

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

title: Richard Gardiner Willis


text:
HMS B1

HMS B1 was the lead boat of the B-class submarines built for the Royal Navy in the first decade of the 20th century. The boat survived the First World War and was sold for scrap in 1921.

Design and description
The B class was an enlarged and improved version of the preceding A class. The submarines had a length of 142 ft overall, a beam of 12 ft and a mean draft of 11 ft. They displaced 287 LT on the surface and 316 LT submerged. The B-class submarines had a crew of two officers and thirteen ratings.

For surface running, the boats were powered by a single 16-cylinder 600 bhp Vickers petrol engine that drove one propeller shaft. When submerged the propeller was driven by a 180 hp electric motor. They could reach 12 kn on the surface and 6.5 kn underwater. On the surface, the B class had a range of 1000 nmi at 8.7 kn.

The boats were armed with two 18-inch (450 mm) torpedo tubes in the bow. They could carry a pair of reload torpedoes, but generally did not as they would have to remove an equal weight of fuel in compensation.

Construction and career
She was originally to have been called A14 but was renamed B1 on completion. The boat was built at the Vickers shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness and launched on 25 October 1904. She was too primitive to be of much use in World War I and was quickly relegated to training duties. B1 was sold for scrap in May 1921.

title: HMS B1


text:
Actuarial notation

[[Image:Actuarial notation.svg|thumb|300px|Example of actuarial symbol. 1. An upper-case $A$ is an assurance paying 1 on the insured event; lower-case $a$ is an annuity paying 1 per annum at the appropriate time.

2. Bar implies continuous – or paid at the moment of death; double dot implies paid at the beginning of the year; no mark implies paid at the end of the year;

3. for $x$-year-old person, for $n$ years;

4. paid if $(x)$ dies within $n$ years;

5. deferred ($m$ years).

6. No fixed meaning, implies the second moment to calculate $E(Z^2) = E\big((v^{k_x+1})^2\big),$ but often $v^{k_x+1} = e^{\delta(k_x+1)}$ implying double force of interest.]] Actuarial notation is a shorthand method to allow actuaries to record mathematical formulas that deal with interest rates and life tables.

Traditional notation uses a halo system, where symbols are placed as superscript or subscript before or after the main letter. Example notation using the halo system can be seen below.

Various proposals have been made to adopt a linear system, where all the notation would be on a single line without the use of superscripts or subscripts. Such a method would be useful for computing where representation of the halo system can be extremely difficult. However, a standard linear system has yet to emerge.

Interest rates
$$\,i$$ is the annual effective interest rate, which is the "true" rate of interest over a year. Thus if the annual interest rate is 12% then $$\,i = 0.12$$.

$$\,i^{(m)}$$ (pronounced "i upper m") is the nominal interest rate convertible $$m$$ times a year, and is numerically equal to $$m$$ times the effective rate of interest over one $$m$$th of a year. For example, $$\,i^{(2)}$$ is the nominal rate of interest convertible semiannually. If the effective annual rate of interest is 12%, then $$\,i^{(2)}/2$$ represents the effective interest rate every six months. Since $$\,(1.0583)^{2}=1.12$$, we have $$\,i^{(2)}/2=0.0583$$ and hence $$\,i^{(2)}=0.1166$$. The "(m)" appearing in the symbol $$\,i^{(m)}$$ is not an "exponent." It merely represents the number of interest conversions, or compounding times, per year. Semi-annual compounding, (or converting interest every six months), is frequently used in valuing bonds (see also fixed income securities) and similar monetary financial liability instruments, whereas home mortgages frequently convert interest monthly. Following the above example again where $$\,i=0.12$$, we have $$\,i^{(12)}=0.1139$$ since $$\,\left(1+\frac{0.1139}{12}\right)^{12}=1.12$$.

Effective and nominal rates of interest are not the same because interest paid in earlier measurement periods "earns" interest in later measurement periods; this is called compound interest. That is, nominal rates of interest credit interest to an investor, (alternatively charge, or debit, interest to a debtor), more frequently than do effective rates. The result is more frequent compounding of interest income to the investor, (or interest expense to the debtor), when nominal rates are used.

The symbol $$\,v$$ represents the present value of 1 to be paid one year from now:
 * $$\,v = {(1+i)}^{-1}\approx 1-i+i^2$$

This present value factor, or discount factor, is used to determine the amount of money that must be invested now in order to have a given amount of money in the future. For example, if you need 1 in one year, then the amount of money you should invest now is: $$\,1 \times v$$. If you need 25 in 5 years the amount of money you should invest now is: $$\,25 \times v^5$$.

$$\,d$$ is the annual effective discount rate:
 * $$d = \frac{i}{1+i}\approx i-i^2$$

The value of $$\,d$$ can also be calculated from the following relationships: $$\,(1-d) = v = {(1+i)}^{-1}$$ The rate of discount equals the amount of interest earned during a one-year period, divided by the balance of money at the end of that period. By contrast, an annual effective rate of interest is calculated by dividing the amount of interest earned during a one-year period by the balance of money at the beginning of the year. The present value (today) of a payment of 1 that is to be made $$\,n$$ years in the future is $$\,{(1-d)}^{n}$$. This is analogous to the formula $$\,{(1+i)}^{n}$$ for the future (or accumulated) value $$\,n$$ years in the future of an amount of 1 invested today.

$$\,d^{(m)}$$, the nominal rate of discount convertible $$\,m$$ times a year, is analogous to $$\,i^{(m)}$$. Discount is converted on an $$m$$th-ly basis.

$$\,\delta$$, the force of interest, is the limiting value of the nominal rate of interest when $$m$$ increases without bound:

 * $$\,\delta = \lim_{m\to\infty}i^{(m)}$$

In this case, interest is convertible continuously.

The general relationship between $$\,i$$, $$\,\delta$$ and $$\,d$$ is:

 * $$\,(1+i) = \left(1+\frac{i^{(m)}}{m}\right)^{m} = e^{\delta} = \left(1-\frac{d^{(m)}}{m}\right)^{-m} = (1-d)^{-1}$$

Their numerical value can be compared as follows:

 * $$\, i > i^{(2)} > i^{(3)} > \cdots > \delta > \cdots > d^{(3)} > d^{(2)} > d$$

Life tables
A life table (or a mortality table) is a mathematical construction that shows the number of people alive (based on the assumptions used to build the table) at a given age. In addition to the number of lives remaining at each age, a mortality table typically provides various probabilities associated with the development of these values.

$$\,l_x$$ is the number of people alive, relative to an original cohort, at age $$x$$. As age increases the number of people alive decreases.

$$\,l_0$$ is the starting point for $$\,l_x$$: the number of people alive at age 0. This is known as the radix of the table. Some mortality tables begin at an age greater than 0, in which case the radix is the number of people assumed to be alive at the youngest age in the table.

$$\omega$$ is the limiting age of the mortality tables. $$\,l_n$$ is zero for all $$\,n \geq \omega$$.

$$\,d_x$$ is the number of people who die between age $$x$$ and age $$x + 1$$. $$\,d_x$$ may be calculated using the formula $$\,d_x = l_x - l_{x+1}$$

$$\,q_x$$ is the probability of death between the ages of $$x$$ and age $$x + 1$$.

 * $$\,q_x = d_x / l_x$$

$$\,p_x$$ is the probability that a life age $$x$$ will survive to age $$x + 1$$.

 * $$\,p_x = l_{x+1} / l_x$$

Since the only possible alternatives from one age ($$x$$) to the next ($$x+1$$) are living and dying, the relationship between these two probabilities is:

 * $$\,p_x+q_x=1$$

These symbols may also be extended to multiple years, by inserting the number of years at the bottom left of the basic symbol.

$$\,_nd_x = d_x + d_{x+1} + \cdots + d_{x+n-1} = l_x - l_{x+n}$$ shows the number of people who die between age $$x$$ and age $$x + n$$.

$$\,_nq_x$$ is the probability of death between the ages of $$x$$ and age $$x + n$$.

 * $$\,_nq_x = {}_nd_x / l_x$$

$$\,_np_x$$ is the probability that a life age $$x$$ will survive to age $$x + n$$.

 * $$\,_np_x = l_{x+n} / l_x$$

Another statistic that can be obtained from a life table is life expectancy.

$$\,e_x$$ is the curtate expectation of life for a person alive at age $$x$$. This is the expected number of complete years remaining to live (you may think of it as the expected number of birthdays that the person will celebrate).

 * $$\,e_x = \sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \ _tp_x$$

A life table generally shows the number of people alive at integral ages. If we need information regarding a fraction of a year, we must make assumptions with respect to the table, if not already implied by a mathematical formula underlying the table. A common assumption is that of a Uniform Distribution of Deaths (UDD) at each year of age. Under this assumption, $$\,l_{x+t}$$ is a linear interpolation between $$\,l_x$$ and $$\,l_{x+1}$$. i.e.

 * $$\,l_{x+t} = (1 - t)l_x + tl_{x+1} $$

Annuities
The basic symbol for the present value of an annuity is $$\,a$$. The following notation can then be added:

 * Notation to the top-right indicates the frequency of payment (i.e., the number of annuity payments that will be made during each year). A lack of such notation means that payments are made annually.
 * Notation to the bottom-right indicates the age of the person when the annuity starts and the period for which an annuity is paid.
 * Notation directly above the basic symbol indicates when payments are made. Two dots indicates an annuity whose payments are made at the beginning of each year (an "annuity-due"); a horizontal line above the symbol indicates an annuity payable continuously (a "continuous annuity"); no mark above the basic symbol indicates an annuity whose payments are made at the end of each year (an "annuity-immediate").

If the payments to be made under an annuity are independent of any life event, it is known as an annuity-certain. Otherwise, in particular if payments end upon the beneficiary's death, it is called a life annuity.

$$a_{\overline{n|}i}$$ (read a-angle-n at i) represents the present value of an annuity-immediate, which is a series of unit payments at the end of each year for $$n$$ years (in other words: the value one period before the first of n payments). This value is obtained from:

 * $$\,a_{\overline{n|}i} = v + v^2 + \cdots + v^n = \frac{1-v^n}{i}$$

($$i$$ in the denominator matches with 'i' in immediate)

$$\ddot{a}_{\overline{n|}i}$$ represents the present value of an annuity-due, which is a series of unit payments at the beginning of each year for $$n$$ years (in other words: the value at the time of the first of n payments). This value is obtained from:

 * $$\ddot{a}_{\overline{n|}i} = 1 + v + \cdots + v^{n-1} = \frac{1-v^n}{d}$$

($$d$$ in the denominator matches with 'd' in due)

$$\,s_{\overline{n|}i}$$ is the value at the time of the last payment, $$\ddot{s}_{\overline{n|}i}$$ the value one period later.

If the symbol $$\,(m)$$ is added to the top-right corner, it represents the present value of an annuity whose payments occur each one $$m$$th of a year for a period of $$n$$ years, and each payment is one $$m$$th of a unit.

 * $$a_{\overline{n|}i}^{(m)} = \frac{1-v^n}{i^{(m)}}$$, $$\ddot{a}_{\overline{n|}i}^{(m)} = \frac{1-v^n}{d^{(m)}}$$

$$\overline{a}_{\overline{n|}i}$$ is the limiting value of $$\,a_{\overline{n|}i}^{(m)}$$ when $$m$$ increases without bound. The underlying annuity is known as a continuous annuity.

 * $$\overline{a}_{\overline{n|}i}= \frac{1-v^n}{\delta}$$

The present values of these annuities may be compared as follows:

 * $$a_{\overline{n|}i} < a_{\overline{n|}i}^{(m)} < \overline{a}_{\overline{n|}i} < \ddot{a}_{\overline{n|}i}^{(m)}< \ddot{a}_{\overline{n|}i}$$

To understand the relationships shown above, consider that cash flows paid at a later time have a smaller present value than cash flows of the same total amount that are paid at earlier times.

 * The subscript $$i$$ which represents the rate of interest may be replaced by $$d$$ or $$\delta$$, and is often omitted if the rate is clearly known from the context.
 * When using these symbols, the rate of interest is not necessarily constant throughout the lifetime of the annuities. However, when the rate varies, the above formulas will no longer be valid; particular formulas can be developed for particular movements of the rate.

Life annuities
A life annuity is an annuity whose payments are contingent on the continuing life of the annuitant. The age of the annuitant is an important consideration in calculating the actuarial present value of an annuity.

 * The age of the annuitant is placed at the bottom right of the symbol, without an "angle" mark.

For example:

$$\,a_{65}$$ indicates an annuity of 1 unit per year payable at the end of each year until death to someone currently age 65

$$a_{\overline{10|}}$$ indicates an annuity of 1 unit per year payable for 10 years with payments being made at the end of each year

$$a_{65:\overline{10|}}$$ indicates an annuity of 1 unit per year for 10 years, or until death if earlier, to someone currently age 65

$$a_{65:64}$$ indicates an annuity of 1 unit per year until the earlier death of member or death of spouse, to someone currently age 65 and spouse age 64

$$a_{\overline{65:64}}$$ indicates an annuity of 1 unit per year until the later death of member or death of spouse, to someone currently age 65 and spouse age 64.

$$a_{65}^{(12)}$$ indicates an annuity of 1 unit per year payable 12 times a year (1/12 unit per month) until death to someone currently age 65

$${\ddot{a}}_{65}$$ indicates an annuity of 1 unit per year payable at the start of each year until death to someone currently age 65

or in general:

$$a_{x:\overline{n|}i}^{(m)}$$, where $$x$$ is the age of the annuitant, $$n$$ is the number of years of payments (or until death if earlier), $$m$$ is the number of payments per year, and $$i$$ is the interest rate.

In the interest of simplicity the notation is limited and does not, for example, show whether the annuity is payable to a man or a woman (a fact that would typically be determined from the context, including whether the life table is based on male or female mortality rates). The Actuarial Present Value of life contingent payments can be treated as the mathematical expectation of a present value random variable, or calculated through the current payment form.

Life insurance
The basic symbol for a life insurance is $$\,A$$. The following notation can then be added:

 * Notation to the top-right indicates the timing of the payment of a death benefit. A lack of notation means payments are made at the end of the year of death. A figure in parentheses (for example $$A^{(12)}$$) means the benefit is payable at the end of the period indicated (12 for monthly; 4 for quarterly; 2 for semi-annually; 365 for daily).
 * Notation to the bottom-right indicates the age of the person when the life insurance begins.
 * Notation directly above the basic symbol indicates the "type" of life insurance, whether payable at the end of the period or immediately. A horizontal line indicates life insurance payable immediately, whilst no mark above the symbol indicates payment is to be made at the end of the period indicated.

For example:

$$\,A_x$$ indicates a life insurance benefit of 1 payable at the end of the year of death.

$$\,A_x^{(12)}$$ indicates a life insurance benefit of 1 payable at the end of the month of death.

$$\,\overline{A}_x$$ indicates a life insurance benefit of 1 payable at the (mathematical) instant of death.

Premium
The basic symbol for premium is $$\,P$$ or $$\,\pi $$. $$\,P$$ generally refers to net premiums per annum, $$\,\pi $$ to special premiums, as a unique premium.

Force of mortality
Among actuaries, force of mortality refers to what economists and other social scientists call the hazard rate and is construed as an instantaneous rate of mortality at a certain age measured on an annualized basis.

In a life table, we consider the probability of a person dying between age (x) and age x + 1; this probability is called qx. In the continuous case, we could also consider the conditional probability that a person who has attained age (x) will die between age (x) and age (x + Δx) as:

 * $$P_{\Delta x}(x)=P(xx)=\frac{F_X(x+\Delta\;x)-F_X(x)}{(1-F_X(x))}$$

where FX(x) is the cumulative distribution function of the continuous age-at-death random variable, X. As Δx tends to zero, so does this probability in the continuous case. The approximate force of mortality is this probability divided by Δx. If we let Δx tend to zero, we get the function for force of mortality, denoted as μ(x):

 * $$\mu\,(x)=\frac{F'_X(x)}{1-F_X(x)}$$

title: Actuarial notation


text:
Albert (automobile)

The Albert was a light car built by aircraft parts maker Adam, Grimaldi & Company and named after their Albert Embankment address. It was designed by A. O. Lord, creator of the later Loyd-Lord. It was produced from 1920 to 1924 in Vauxhall and later Chiswick, London. The car with a taxation rating of 12HP was powered by a proprietary four-cylinder 1495 cc ohv engine made by Gwynnes Limited and had four-speed transmission driving the rear wheels. The chassis had quarter elliptic springs and brakes were on the rear wheels only. The cars were expensive and boasted a radiator similar to that of the Rolls-Royce. The body was mainly made of aluminium and most were 4-seat tourers.

Adam, Grimaldi & Co., was taken over by Gwynnes Limited of Chiswick in 1920 after about 250 cars were made. Gwynnes moved production to their factory and then made about 1450 more of the original 12HP design.

In 1923 a new model was announced with the engine enlarged to 1944 cc and the name changed to Gwynne-Albert. A plate clutch replaced the previous cone one and the suspension changed to semi-elliptic leaf springs. From 1925 front wheel brakes were fitted. About 200 of the larger-engined cars were built, with the last ones being sold possibly as late as 1929.

The Gwynne 8 model was also available with an Albert style radiator and sold under the Albert name but only around eight are believed to have been sold.

title: Albert (automobile)


text:
File:Bogus.jpg

Summary
Image from http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowMainServlet/showid-16486/

title: File:Bogus.jpg


text:
Clarks River

The Clarks River, named for William Clark of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, is a 66.7 mi tributary of the Tennessee River in the Jackson Purchase region of western Kentucky. Below the West Fork Clarks River, the river has a mean annual discharge of 368 cubic feet per second. This figure is obtained by combining the average discharge of the Clarks River at Benton, and the average discharge of the West Fork at Brewers.

Two forks
For the greater part of its length, it consists of two parallel forks of approximately equal size, the East Fork and the West Fork. The East Fork, shown on federal maps as the main stem of the river, begins south of Murray near the community of Puryear in Henry County, Tennessee and is paralleled by the Paducah, Tennessee and Alabama Railroad. The West Fork begins about 4 mi west of Murray near the intersection of Jones-Sparkman and Butterworth Roads in Calloway County and flows through Kaler and Symsonia in Graves County before joining with the east fork at Oaks Station in McCracken County.

Artifacts
The Clarks River streams from Murray in Calloway County through Benton in Marshall County and ends in Paducah (McCracken County), where the mouth of the river intersects with the Tennessee River just before the Tennessee River joins the Ohio River. This river is full of wildlife and full of water moccasin. Documented evidence states that many Native American encampments and Indian tribes camped and lived along its banks. To this day artifacts have been found including spearheads, arrowheads and pottery.

The river is the namesake of Clarks River Road in Paducah.

title: Clarks River


text:
Talk:Double-slit experiment

I want to know what year the "collapse" of a particle-wave was first observed in the double-slit experiment using an electronic sensor.
The answer to that question should be near the top of the article. A historical timeline would be helpful. ... near the top of the article for quick reference. 2600:8801:BE31:D300:C0EC:2EB3:6C69:E730 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Ananthaswamy 2018 Through Two Doors at Once, Ch. 3 covers this in detail. Apparently the first double-slit experiment with single electrons was either the one done by Missiroli, Merli, and Pozzi in 1974 or the one done by Tonomura in 1989, there is some controversy. The first experiment with single photons was done by Alain Aspect in 1986 after Feynman suggested it to him.  You could add this to the article.

 * These were apparently the first experiments which were deliberately designed with a low enough source brightness so only one photon or electron was in the apparatus at a time, with the wavefunction passing through both slits and "collapsing" to a single particle at the detector. However, to physicists, previous double slit experiments with many photons in the detector must have offered evidence of wavefunction collapse, since by then it was known that light was always absorbed as individual photons. --ChetvornoTALK 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Electron experiment never actually done
The article says that the experiment works with electrons, and a reference is given to Feynman's book to back this up. However, the book makes clear that such an experiment cannot actually be performed, and Feynman is just using a thought experiment to explain the concept. BruceThomson (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Feynman is saying that an experiment with the equipment he is describing can't be done, not that an experiment with electrons can't be done. You are correct that a better source for the actual experiment is needed, or just left out since the lead doesn't need a source for material that has sources in the body of the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposed experiment was completed and published in 2019:
 * Tavabi, A.H., Boothroyd, C.B., Yücelen, E. et al. The Young-Feynman controlled double-slit electron interference experiment. Sci Rep 9, 10458 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43323-2
 * Many conceptually similar experiments have been done. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Add AB double slit in text?
A nice addition by Jähmefyysikko of an AB effect double-slit. I would consider including it here in more detail, carefully. I could ask the authors for images if needed as I know them. It is tricky, but it does include some deep QM results for non-contact interference etc. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I also think a two-paragraph summary would naturally fit into the main text under Variations of the experiment. Having experimental figures (if that's what you had in mind) might be too much for this page. For main AB article they would be great. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Copenhagen non-interpretation
The section "Copenhagen interpretation" contains a bunch of blather about the plurality of Copenhagens, but nothing about the interpretation of the double slit.

I propose to remove this section completely as redundant with the full page on the topic and to replace it with a section "Conventional interpretation" which simply gives an interpretation of the double slit experiments discussed here. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I disagree. That would be your interpretation of things, and not encyclopedic. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your reply. Any replacement would of course have to be reliably referenced.
 * My claim is that the current section is off topic. It says nothing about double slit experiments. Controversy about Copenhagen belongs elsewhere. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it could be shortened and brought more in line with how the intro of the Copenhagen interpretation article currently goes, and then we could add more about what Copenhagen-type interpretations have said about the double-slit experiment specifically. XOR'easter (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I've taken a stab at doing that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have the same objection to what you have written as to the edit of the many-worlds interpretation. You have changed that section from general to one specific interpretation in terms of complimentarity. Where has probability gone? Why are you limiting it? Why have you only given one connection?
 * What was impressive about this article a week or so ago when I made a redirect suggestion was that it tried to fairly represent all interpretations. Now it seems to be losing this, going downhill. Sorry for being blunt. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Previously, the article said nothing about how any version/variant of Copenhagen applied to the double-slit experiment specifically. It just had a lengthy passage about how "the Copenhagen interpretation" is hard to pin down. Now there's at least a little about how to make the connection. I stuck to the Copenhagen-oriented books that I had close at hand and what they had to say specifically about the double-slit experiment. XOR'easter (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten it so, IMHO, it is balanced. It now includes the 1) complementarity interpretation, 2) the detection-collapse interpretation, and 3) the statistical probability interpretation. Both 2) and 3) are of course "Mermin-type", i.e. they follow directly from the math, they are not philosophical. Feel free to add a 4) and 5) if you feel they are relevant. Inclusivity please. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I just didn't want to go beyond what the sources I had in front of me actually said. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 2 and 3 are not referenced.
 * 2 mixes up decoherence and collapse.
 * These 3 are not different things. #1 Complementarity refers to one aspect: the disappearance of the interference with path distinction. #2 decoherence provides a microscopic explanation for the disappearance within conventional QM. #3 The Born rule is very much a part of every Copenhagen interpretation surely.
 * I want to change this section to a fully referenced, clear conventional explanation, including a paragraph on decoherence. But I don't want to be in an edit war for this. So I think the better solution is to delete 2 and 3 until they are referenced.  The references should include evidence that they differ from 1. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not true. They are all in the previous section. 2. is an undergraduate QM problem -- when you detect you change the state. It does not mix up decoherence and collapse, it is standard inelastic scattering that you can find in any QM book. Unless the detector is entangled with the incoming wave, there is a statistically random phase shift.
 * 3. Is the Born rule.
 * Do you insist that complimentarity is the only explanation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I consider that inappropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not misquote me.
 * Complementarity is simply one of several aspects of the conventional interpretation. These are not 3 different things, but three aspects of the same thing.
 * If the idea that these three things differ is so elementary, adding a reference should be easy. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with what I wrote being expanded. I just think that in this area, it's very easy to wander into synthesis and also very easy to use words in a way that is misinterpreted. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not understand this revert rationale. The old version says A particular experiment can demonstrate particle behavior (passing through a definite slit) or wave behavior (interference), but not both at the same time. So does the new version. The old version invokes the Born rule; so does the new. What "one interpretation" is being insisted upon? XOR'easter (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit removed everything except a complimentarity interpretation. That is not WP:NPOV. The Born & collapse/incoherence approaches are not the same. The Born probability is "Shut up and calculate" -- i.e. it is math and philosophy is not needed. The incoherence is standard Fermi golden rule for non-stimulated inelastic scattering. (Contrast with stimulated in a laser where coherence is preserved. Technically you have an incoherent zero-point term.) To detect you change,so long as you are not entangled. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I undid that revert. The content removed was referenced and on topic: directly about double slit.
 * Point of view is not at issue. These references are about double slit. If you have other references about double slit, add them. No reason to remove the reliable existing content. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I am saying. You are continually removing all reliable, standard content except a single, narrow view. I accept complimentarity as a philosophical concepts, but it is not the math. What I included is. Math rules, not philosophy. Please be inclusive -- that is one of the central principles of Wikipedia, and also science (done right). Ldm1954 (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see Balance Your Perspectives Ldm1954 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add balance. However it must be referenced. Please see Verifiability.
 * I have no idea what "narrow view" you are complaining about. I am simply reporting what sources say as clearly as I can. The sources we have describe double slit experiments in terms of complementarity. If you think we have too much content about complementarity, find some source that gives a different perspective. I would welcome that. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As would I. XOR'easter (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I already said, please see the reference on the Born rule, and also what you deleted.
 * For incoherence of inelastic scattering, please read any text book. If you deny this, you deny all spectroscopies and lasing versus spontaneous. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As one simple source, see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.03.006 and references therein. You will see that Giulio does not cite complimentarity, nobody who really does research with electrons ever does. I may see him tomorrow, and will ask him. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article you link, "Elastic and inelastic electrons in the double-slit experiment: A variant of Feynman's which-way set-up" is a cool electron-which way experiment. They don't choose to cite complementarity for what ever reason, but their conclusions are the same: "Therefore, from this point of view, these experiments may be considered a very close experimental demonstration of the third part of the Feynman thought experiment, which states that interference phenomena disappear when the experimental conditions are set in a way to determine the slit through which the electron passes."
 * The role of inelastic scattering in the experiment is technological: it is their mechanism to determine 'which way': "Whereas the images taken by selecting the elastic electrons showed the presence of interference fringes, these phenomena were absent with inelastic electrons." "...we may conclude that the loss of coherence is related to the localization of the inelastic electrons within the slits."
 * Complementarity is just a name for an almost trivial observation: if you change the experiment to detect paths, interference goes away. It does not explain anything, which is why it is never proven "wrong" or excluded in any example. I do not think anyone can build an "alternative" case to complementarity; it is logically equivalent the lack of observation of particle superposition. You could absolutely say the paper does not mention complementarity, but it does not mention many other things as well. The paper does not make the case against complementarity or "for" and alternative. (Which in my opinion is a strength).
 * The paper would be a great addition to a section on decoherence in double slit experiments in the main body of this article. (All of this interpretation stuff including complementarity is really pointless in my opinion.) Johnjbarton (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I give up, as you persist in misunderstanding, ignoring math. As you state it above complementarity is philosophy not phyiscs. The uncertainty principle is operator commutation; incoherence is density matrix/statistics; loss of coherence is perturbation theory. When you detect a photon/electron/elephant you add an incoherent phase shift. Giulio does not mention complementarit as he is a strong physicist, and knows elastic/inelastic scattering theory.
 * You continue to ignore everything else but one view, turning this article from somewhat inclusive to restricted. I will remove this page from my watch list. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the "Copenhagen" subsection of the "Interpretations" section. It is expressly about philosophy. People who espouse Copenhagen-type views say that the double-slit experiment illustrates complementarity. We attain NPOV not by saying all the things that you or I think are part of explaining the double-slit experiment, but by summarizing what the books written by Copenhagen proponents say about it. If what they emphasize is complementarity, then that's what the subsection should emphasize too. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Many-worlds interpretation
The "Many-worlds interpretation" section has a single sentence. Ok I deleted the second one, an unsourced claim about many scientists.

This sentence provides no value in my opinion. It does not give enough information to inform.

I don't see anyway that many-worlds can differ from conventional interpretations for double slit. The differences in many-worlds does not show up until after the measurement, so all of the bit about probability distributions and which way analysis is identical.

Does anyone have a copy of the book cited in the sentence to clarify? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I think the sentence is wrong, Deutsch is not claiming that double-slit is evidence for MWI, but is just using it as a device to introduce his interpretation. Here's the book: . On p.45 he starts discussing parallel worlds. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you remove the section, you are forcing your interpretation onto the article. While I don't believe in the many worlds model, some do. It should be in for completeness and encyclopedic form. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Instead of simple removal, this misleading sentence should be replaced by many worlds description of the experiment. And we can use Deutsch for that. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt at this, but as a source, I found Deutsch's book quite vague. A better source would be useful to make justice for this interpretation. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/ may be useful. Unfortunately it is all squeezing QM into words and philosophy, which is never going to be great. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Something feels wrong with basing what we say on a pop-science book, like we're sifting through debris at the bottom of a cliff. XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Stanford work seemed strong to me, both unbiased and quoting numerous sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Stanford Encyclopedia article is good, as they typically are, but it doesn't address the double-slit experiment specifically. It covers some speculations about interference experiments on macroscopic bodies, which is probably too esoteric for our purposes here. We ought to explain what an MWI says about electrons and photons before we go haring off to Wigner's Friend. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In terms of WP:NPOV we need to include these interpretations unless it is unconditional that they are fake science. We state them, then if relevant point out their problems. For instance, for the Pilot wave I added, with citations, the issue that it does not work right when relativity is included. The Stanford article does mention some issues for many worlds; I am stuck waiting for a delayed international flight so I can't do more at the moment. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 the book is fluff. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * David Wallace devotes multiple pages to discussing Deutsch's book in The Emergent Multiverse. Here's what he has to say about the double-slit part: Deutsch (1997) used the two-slit experiment—erroneously, I think—to argue for the existence of parallel worlds; however, in subsequent lectures he has shifted to something more like the Michelson setup I give here, and has noted (in conversation) that his point is better made in that context. And here's pretty much all Wallace has to say about double-slit experiment: [In] the two-slit experiment, there is no parallel-Universe description to offer of the interference process: there is just a quantum system in a very nonclassical state. I can't understand this: is there no measurement problem in the double-slit experiment? Then again, I do lack the background knowledge of the Everettian theory. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe useful, Google search on "many worlds double slit". There is at least one criticism. Use that to explain the rationale, then point out the problem. Inclusiveness. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding background for Everett's theory, Wheeler's two page summary of Everett's thesis paper is silliness free, light on math, and very clear.
 * Wheeler, John A. "Assessment of Everett's" relative state" formulation of quantum theory." Reviews of modern physics 29.3 (1957): 463. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Everett's PhD thesis (available here) clearly says on pg 115 that his theory is wave-only. So the sentence "In each universe the particle travels through a specific slit, but its motion is affected by the interference with particles in other universes." is completely inconsistent with Everett's theory because it has no particles. Therefore the paragraph we have represents Deutsch's view as presented in a pop-sci book. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to wrangle the subsection a bit so that it is no longer reliant upon a single source. XOR'easter (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New articles about interpretations
Here is a new Nature article about interpretations, Can the double-slit experiment distinguish between quantum interpretations? I didn't have time to read it yet, but looks interesting. Artem.G (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 * This paper proposes turning the double slit detector 90 degrees such that the axis now measures intensity parallel to the main axis between the source and the slits. With atomic matter waves they claim measurements when compared to quantitative calculations could distinguish between some interpretations. Its not a long paper but it has 115 references!
 * I think the work is interesting but too early for use in Wikipedia. On interesting tidbit: they say photons do not act the same due to the "relativistic localization-causality problem" and cite several papers related to the Hegerfeldt theorem. It might be worth reading those refs for addition here. Johnjbarton (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Double-slit experiment


text:
Talk:Defence minister

Article title
Shouldn't this article be moved to Defence minister, seeing as how the US has no "Defense minister" only a secretary of defense? Earl Andrew 20:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Doesn't the US have a "Secretary of Defense" who is defense minister/secretary of defense? Anyways, it's rarely a good idea to move articles from/to US to/from UK spelling. -- User:Docu

I feel this artical should be moved to Defence minister for the reason that it is a mis-spelling to English speaking countries outside the US, where the US does not have a defence minister, but a Secretary of Defence. -- 203.220.171.223 10:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Why are you using caps on "Secretary of Defence", but not on "defence minister"?
 * Anyways, please check Tutorial_(Keep_in_mind) and Manual_of_Style. -- User:Docu

I agree, this artical should be moved or renamed to Defence minister as America doesn't have a defence minister. There is no such thing as Ministries in the US government. If you agree/disagree just say so. -- 203.220.170.92 01:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Ministers," like a Defence Minister, generally relate to the Commonwealth more than the United States. Consequently, the "-ence" ending is preferable. -- Emsworth 01:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * If the article is titled defence minister (as the function), rather than Defence Minister (as the title), personally, I'd rather leave it were it was (defense minister). If you indeed want to use caps, you might want to move it to Defence Minister.

 * It's highly unusual to link to the ROC one with Minister of National Defence just to suggest what is "preferable". There is at least another cited ministry that appears to be changed to an unusual form. -- User:Docu

!!!!!
CHANE DEFENCE TO DEFENSE!!! you can't let the british have there way. Manic Hispanic 00:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? There is no US defence minister. All other countries spell it with a c, not just the British. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Added "Secretary of Defense" and "Secretary of National Defense" to the article
I redirect Secretary of Defense and Secretary of National Defense to this page because it makes sense to have a single page with links to all the top defense cabinet offiicials in one place, which allows to tease out the differences. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Ministry of Defence
Since the proposed merge with Ministry of Defence has received no support since October 2014, I will remove the merger proposal tag as no consensus for this. Whizz40 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Defence minister


text:
ALC

ALC may refer to:

Places

 * Alicante Airport, by IATA airport code
 * Alliance station, Ohio, US, Amtrak code

Business

 * Atlantic Lottery Corporation
 * A.L.C, US fashion company

Organizations

 * Air Lease Corporation
 * American Lacrosse Conference
 * American Legend Cooperative, North American mink fur marketing cooperative
 * American Lutheran Church (1930), until 1960
 * American Lutheran Church, 1960 - 1987
 * Army Legal Corps
 * Atlantic Lacrosse Conference
 * Australian Lutheran College

Science and technology

 * Acetylcarnitine, an acetylated form of L -carnitine, naturally produced by the human body
 * Air Logistics Center, of the US Air Force
 * ALC (automobile), UK
 * Asynchronous Layered Coding
 * Landing Craft Assault, Britain, WWII
 * ALC201A, ALC202, etc., Avance Logic AC'97 audio chipsets
 * Attributive Concept Language with Complements, a description logic
 * Automatic level control in electronics
 * Aviation Logistics Center, a US Coast Guard logistics base located at Coast Guard Air Station Elizabeth City

title: ALC


text:
John Thomas Haig

John Thomas Haig, (December 15, 1877 – October 23, 1962) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He served as parliamentary leader of the Manitoba Conservative Party in 1921–22.

Born in Colborne, Ontario, Haig received his BA from the University of Manitoba, was called to the Manitoba bar in 1904 and worked as a Barrister-at-law. In 1907, he married Josephine M. Dickie. He was elected to the Winnipeg Public School Board in 1908, and continued to hold this position after entering provincial politics, also serving as board chairman. In 1927, Haig was named King's Counsel. He was president of the Manitoba Curling Association and of the Assiniboia Lawn-Bowling Club.

Haig was first elected to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba for Assiniboia in 1914. He was soundly defeated in the Liberal landslide of 1915, but returned to the legislature in 1920 at the head of the Conservative Party list in Winnipeg. (Winnipeg elections were determined by a form of proportional representation at this time.)

Conservative leader R.G. Willis was unable to win a seat in the 1920 election, and Haig was called to lead the eight-member caucus in parliament. He ran for the party's leadership in April 1922, but was defeated by Major Fawcett Taylor.

Haig was re-elected to the legislature in 1922, 1927 and 1932, and remained an important voice for the party.

In August 1935, he was appointed to the Senate of Canada on the recommendation of Prime Minister R.B. Bennett. From 1945 until 1957, Haig was Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for the Progressive Conservative Party. After the 1957 federal election, Haig joined the Cabinet of John Diefenbaker, serving as Minister without portfolio and Leader of the Government in the Senate until May 11, 1958.

He retired from the Senate on January 17, 1962 due to poor health.

Haig died in Winnipeg at the age of 84.

His son James Campbell Haig also served in the Senate.

title: John Thomas Haig


text:
User talk:Generic Player

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gotpike.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Gotpike.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gotpike.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Gotpike.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Generic Player


text:
Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love

Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love is a 1996 Indian historical erotic romance film co-written, co-produced, and directed by Mira Nair. The first portion of the film is based on "Utran" ("Hand Me Downs"), a short story in Urdu by the Indian writer Wajida Tabassum. The film takes its title from the ancient Indian text, the Kama Sutra. It stars Naveen Andrews, Sarita Choudhury, Ramon Tikaram, Rekha and Indira Varma. The English-language film was produced by Indian, British, German and Japanese studios.

Declan Quinn won the 1998 Independent Spirit Award for Best Cinematography for his work in the film. Kama Sutra was nominated for the Golden Seashell award at the 1996 San Sebastián International Film Festival and was screened at the Cannes Film Festival. The film generated controversy at the time of its release and was banned in India due to its erotic theme and sexual content.

Plot
In 16th-century India, Tara is a princess while Maya is her beautiful servant. They are best friends, but there is an undercurrent of jealousy and resentment, symbolised by the fact that Maya is given Tara's hand-me-down clothes and never anything new to wear. As the girls approach marriageable age, Tara resents that Maya is a better classical dancer than she is and that her parents and hunchback brother, Prince Bikram (a.k.a "Biki") show affection for her servant.

Tara is prepared to marry Prince Raj Singh, but when the prince comes to view his future wife, he is instantly infatuated with Maya instead. Noticing this, Tara spits in Maya's face and sends her from the wedding in tears. Maya takes revenge by seeking out Raj and having sex with him, before he has completed the marriage rites with Tara; Biki, hiding, watches the two of them.

As Tara is leaving home as a newlywed, Maya tells her that just as Maya wore the princess's used clothes all her life, Tara will now have something Maya has used. During her wedding night, Tara is hesitant to consummate their relationship. An angry Raj rapes his horrified bride, even calling her Maya, setting a tone of violence and humiliation for the marriage. Despite this, Tara still yearns for a loving relationship with her indifferent husband.

To save Maya's honour, Biki sends her a marriage proposal. When she refuses, he publicly brands her as a whore, and she is forced to leave her home. Wandering on her own, she meets a young stone sculptor, Jai Kumar, who works for Raj. He reveals that Maya has been the inspiration for his beautiful and highly erotic statues. Jai takes her to an older woman named Rasa Devi, who is a teacher of the Kama Sutra. Maya begins an intense romantic and sexual relationship with Jai that is abruptly halted when he fears he might not be able to work properly with Maya consuming his thoughts. Maya finds comfort with Rasa Devi and decides to learn the courtesan's art.

Raj, now the king, recognises Maya in one of Jai's sculptures. He dispatches his attendants to find Maya; she is delivered to the king as his new courtesan. Soon after, Raj and Jai have a wrestling competition, which Jai wins. Jai receives the king's favour but is warned that there will be dire consequences if he defeats the king again. Jai then learns of Maya's new status as the favoured concubine. Jai understands that his king is a dangerous man and he must keep his former relationship with Maya a secret.

In the meantime, the threat of an invading shah inches closer. Raj becomes increasingly irresponsible, descending into opium addiction and sexual debauchery. After he insults Biki, Biki writes a letter to the shah to rid the kingdom of Raj, who now taxes the poor for his own perverted pleasure. Jai and Maya rekindle their passion and the two begin meeting in secret. As tensions between Jai and Raj grow, Maya and Jai exchange wedding vows in private. Raj later catches the two lovers together and sentences Jai to death.

After finding Tara in the midst of a suicide attempt, Maya reconciles with her childhood friend. Maya then teaches Tara how to seduce the king, while Tara promises to help Maya escape to visit Jai. However, when Tara goes to her husband, he recognises Maya's style of seduction and again tries to humiliate his wife. Tara tells Raj that she doesn't even love him enough to hate him and leaves. Maya visits Jai one last time. Telling Jai she is his forever, Maya hacks off her long hair, symbolising that she will be his widow. Maya then tries her best to persuade Raj to free Jai by promising him her total surrender, but Raj rejects her plea.

Just before the execution, a box arrives from the shah, holding the severed head of Raj's brother, the grand vizier. Jai is executed by elephant while Maya watches from the crowd. As soldiers of the invading Shah take the king's palace, Maya walks away into the distance.

Cast

 * Indira Varma as Maya
 * Sarita Choudhury as Tara, the princess
 * Naveen Andrews as Raj Singh
 * Ramon Tikaram as Jai Kumar
 * Avijit Dutt as Vazir, The King's Prime Minister
 * Rekha as Rasa Devi, teacher of Kama Sutra
 * Harish Patel as Doctor
 * Zoya Akhtar as Rasa Devi's courtesan

Production
Mira Nair had approached A. R. Rahman to compose the score and soundtrack for the film, but he turned down the opportunity citing he was uncomfortable with the film's title. He noted that he did not want international audiences to brand him as "the composer of Kama Sutra fame."

Indira Varma said she did not realize when she read the script there would be explicit scenes in the film. "It wasn't called Kama Sutra when we were filming it," she said. "It was untitled. And then it says in the script, they make love. When you're young and naive and stupid you don't process the idea that it will take one day with your kit off to shoot that sentence".

Critical reception
On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film received 40% positive reviews from 20 professional critics. The website's critical consensus reads: "Kama Sutra refreshingly approaches sensuality from a female perspective, but audiences will be turned off by this romance's silly plotting."

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave it two out of four, and wrote: "The film is lush and voluptuous to regard, but I expected more from Mira Nair, and I was disappointed. She is better than this work."

title: Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love


text:
X-15 Flight 91

X-15 Flight 91 was an August 22, 1963 American crewed sub-orbital spaceflight, and the second and final flight in the program to fly above the Kármán line, which was previously achieved during Flight 90 a month earlier by the same pilot, Joseph A. Walker. It was the highest flight of the X-15 program.

Flight 91 was the first internationally recognized spaceflight of a reused spacecraft, as Walker had also flown plane number three on the previous sub-orbital spaceflight over the Kármán line on July 19. The flight was air-launched from a modified Boeing B-52 Stratofortress support plane over Smith Ranch Dry Lake, Nevada, United States. Walker piloted the X-15 to an altitude of 107.96 km and remained weightless for approximately five minutes. The altitude was the highest crewed flight by a spaceplane to that time, and remained the record until the 1981 flight of Space Shuttle Columbia.

Walker landed the X-15 about 12 minutes after it was launched, at Rogers Dry Lake, Edwards Airforce Base, in California. This was Walker's final X-15 flight.

Mission parameters

 * Mass: 15,195 kg fueled; 6,577 kg burnout; 6,260 kg landed
 * Maximum altitude: 107.96 km
 * Range: 543.4 km
 * Burn time: 85.8 seconds
 * Mach: 5.58
 * Launch vehicle: NB-52A Bomber #003

Mission highlights
On this flight, Joe Walker became the first person to enter space twice. He had a maximum speed of 3,794 mph (6,106 km/h) and a maximum altitude of 354,200 feet. Second and final X-15 flight over 67 miles. Unofficial altitude record set for class. Highest altitude achieved by X-15. Last flight for Walker in X-15 program. Number 1 left RCS nozzle froze up. First flight with altitude predictor instrument (needed calibration).

The mission was flown by X-15 #3, serial 56-6672 on its 22nd flight.

Launched by: NB-52A #003, Pilots Russell Bement & Lewis. Takeoff: 17:09 UTC. Landing: 18:56 UTC.

Chase pilots: Wood, Dana, Gordon and Rogers.

The X-15 engine burned about 85 seconds. Near the end of the burn, acceleration built up to about 4 G (39 m/s²). Weightlessness lasted for 3 to 5 minutes. Re-entry heating warmed the exterior of the X-15 to 650°C in places. During pull-up after re-entry, acceleration built up to 5 G (49 m/s²) for 20 seconds. The entire flight was about 12 minutes from launch to landing.

title: X-15 Flight 91


text:
From a Basement on the Hill

From a Basement on the Hill is the sixth and final studio album by the American singer-songwriter Elliott Smith. Recorded from 2000 to 2003, and faced with multiple delays due to Smith's personal problems that resulted in his death, it was released posthumously in the UK and Europe on Domino on October 18, 2004, and in the US the following day on October 19, 2004, through record label Anti-, almost a year after his death.

The album was initially planned as a double album, and was incomplete at the time of Smith's death. Many of the songs Smith intended for the album remained unfinished, in some cases lacking only vocals. Smith's family hired his former producer Rob Schnapf and ex-girlfriend Joanna Bolme to sort through and finish the batch of over thirty songs that were recorded for the album, although the estate retained final decision on which tracks to include.

Many of the songs reference Smith's struggles with drug addiction and depression. His cause of death is officially unknown, as the coroner's report remarks that some aspects pointed to suicide and some to murder. The official nature of the case and statements from close friends state that his death is still under speculation. It has not been investigated further.

From a Basement on the Hill became Smith's highest-charting album in the US and was praised by critics, with reviewers complimenting the album's attempts to expand Smith's sound, such as the incorporation of instrumental passages, as well as heavier, guitar-based material.

Background
On October 21, 2003, Elliott Smith died of two stab wounds, presumed by many to be self-inflicted. The wounds occurred following a heated argument at the Los Angeles home of his girlfriend, Jennifer Chiba. The coroner's determination was that the mode of death was undetermined and raised the possibility of homicide.

Smith battled heavy drug addiction and severe depression for most of his life, although he was sober in his final days, seeking treatment at the Neurotransmitter Restoration Center in Beverly Hills and even giving up alcohol, caffeine, red meat, refined sugars and most of his prescribed psychiatric medications on his 34th birthday. Smith took to sobriety with the same intensity with which he took to intoxication, and he found himself suddenly face-to-face with a lifetime of depression and unmanaged emotional trauma.

Recording and production
The album was initially planned as a double album, due to contractual obligations with the DreamWorks label (now Interscope). Smith had over fifty songs on tape reel or digital hard drive. He completed mixing on nine of these tracks with several others lacking only minor revisions or final vocals. Smith's estate hired Schnapf and Bolme to complete mixing on these tracks and eventually chose fifteen for inclusion on the album, which was ultimately released on the Anti- label. During the recording period for the album, Smith had recorded with Steven Drozd and Russell Simins, drummers for The Flaming Lips and Jon Spencer Blues Explosion, respectively.

Following Smith's death, Rob Schnapf, producer of Smith's earlier albums Either/Or, XO and Figure 8, was hired to mix and produce the album, along with Smith's former girlfriend Joanna Bolme. David McConnell, although present throughout much of the actual recording process, was not consulted during the mixing, nor was he asked for the extensive three years' worth of notes he and Smith had made while the album was being recorded. When asked why he personally took up the job of finishing the album, Schnapf stated, "I had a paternal, protective feeling. I didn't want anybody mucking it up."

Content
"Coast to Coast" features poetry by Nelson Gary. Smith told Under the Radar in 2003: "I asked this friend of mine to make up something he could say as fast as he could in fifteen minutes about people healing themselves or being unable to heal themselves. While he's saying this thing there is a main vocal that goes over that." The lyric "You're keeping me around, until I finally drag us both down" details a dysfunctional relationship.

"Pretty (Ugly Before)" was previously released as a single in August 2003 on Suicide Squeeze Records, along with a different version of "A Distorted Reality Is Now a Necessity to Be Free". According to McConnell, Smith did not intend to have "Pretty (Ugly Before)" on the album.

In "King's Crossing", where he sings "It's Christmas time and the needle's on the tree, the skinny Santa is bringing something to me", Smith alludes to using heroin, which he had many problems with.

The lyrics also contain references to the practice of a Circuit rider (religious), the Liberty Bell, The Dalles, Oregon and Lite-Brite toys.

Schnapf noted that the track "Ostrich & Chirping", a short instrumental made from sampling and looping the noises made by a toy bird, had nothing to do with Smith and was something that McConnell had recorded by himself. McConnell said "don't ask me how this ended up on the record, I totally forgot I had put that on one of his reels."

Release
From a Basement on the Hill was released on October 19, 2004, almost a year after Smith's death, through record label ANTI-, a sub-label of Epitaph.

It debuted at No. 19 in the US, selling 43,000 copies, giving him his best first week sales, and making it his highest-charting album in the US to date. The album has also been re-released by Kill Rock Stars, alongside a remastered reissue of his 1994 debut, Roman Candle.

When asked what Smith would have thought of the album, McConnell told Benjamin Nugent, "I don't think he would have delivered [that] record. The record he would have delivered would have had more songs, would have had different mixes and [been] a little more in-your-face." Schnapf also expressed that the final result that he and Bolme had produced was not the album that Smith would have made, simply because Elliott was not around to finish the album. Bolme also said that they did not add anything to the songs, and only mixed whatever had been recorded: "I would never presume to add anything. We didn't add anything."

Reception
After his death and the release of From a Basement on the Hill, many critics and fans viewed the album as a suicide note. Sindri Eldon, a journalist for Reykjavík Grapevine wrote, "...the foreshadowing of his suicide is so strong that it's difficult to listen to."

From a Basement on the Hill was well received by critics. On music review aggregator website Metacritic, the album holds an approval rating of 88 out of 100 based on 37 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim". It is one of the site's all-time highest-rated albums. Many reviewers complimented the album's attempts to expand Smith's sound, such as the incorporation of instrumental passages, as well as heavier, guitar-based material.

Pitchfork called it "perfectly coherent and cohesive, without any sense of being slapped together from half-finished parts." E! Online called it "a beautiful swansong to one of this generation's best." Filter called it "large and epic, but tense and claustrophobic as well, and, gratefully, it's as close to Elliott as we've ever been." Billboard stated that "Smith bundles together subtlety and ferocity to create one of his heart-aching best... Consider it a 'fond farewell' to one of this generations most poignant and gifted songwriters." Rolling Stone had some reservations, observing that "this is an album about the seductions of oblivion, and a few of the more densely arranged songs mimic the characters in the lyrics, stumbing around without quite connecting. More often though, Smith teases extraordinary wit and warmth from songs that float lazily toward happiness."

In the UK the album was received even more enthusiastically than in Smith's home country. Q wrote, "Given that its backstory involves one of the grimmest deaths in music history, it's tempting to view this album darkly, but really, there's no denying the new twist here... Without wanting to second-guess his mindset, this music often sounds like the madness surrounding its creator – his heroin troubles, an allegedly turbulent relationship, his struggles against depression. So what dominates are these loud, wayward Los Angeles epics full of gothic grandeur, broken-glass emotions, bizarre soundscapes and heavy, early-'70s guitars." The review concluded, "All posthumous releases receive garlands of praise but this would take your breath away whatever the circumstances".

Other critics, however, were cautious about viewing the album as a suicide note: Mojo felt that "to do so would be to miss the crucial point – that From a Basement on the Hill is of a piece within a body of work that stretches back to the mid-'90s. If Smith's lyrical themes were pretty much constant, the point was only underlined by the survival of his abiding aesthetic. In very crude terms, he took the spirit of such White Album songs as "Long, Long, Long", "Julia" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", and re-rooted them in a lovelorn, druggy demi-monde... Smith, however, was no mere pasticheur. As ever, his chord changes and arrangements betray an inventiveness seemingly borne of brilliant instinct. Moreover, the songs that form this album's spine find him striding away, not only from his own influences, but the approach that had defined his last couple of records. Those who found Figure 8 and parts of XO too in thrall to the musical ways of the West Coast – slightly over-airbrushed, maybe a little too lush – will be cheered by the fractured, frankly grungey likes of "Don't Go Down" and "Coast to Coast": in their own controlled way, as messy and imperfect as the experiences described therein. The contrast between their music and Smith's ever-tender vocals makes for a compelling tension; here, he alights upon an approach that would have gone on to serve him admirably well." NME observed that the opening track "Coast to Coast" "sets out the themes which run through the whole album: chronic self-doubt, poisonous sarcasm, a prevailing sense of having had enough of trying to fulfil other people's expectations", and went on to state that "while this is clearly not the record Smith intended to make, it's still an immensely gripping and cohesive piece of work. For all his experiments with grungier rock and spectral acoustics, From a Basement... holds together convincingly. It sounds like a completely finished album, and one which, remarkably, is a match for the very best in Smith's catalogue."

Personnel

 * Elliott Smith – all instruments not listed below, production, recording, front cover handwriting

Additional personnel

 * Steven Drozd – drums on "Coast to Coast"
 * Aaron Sperske – drums on "Coast to Coast"
 * Nelson Gary – poetry reading on "Coast to Coast"
 * Sam Coomes – bass guitar and backing vocals on "Pretty (Ugly Before)"
 * Aaron Embry – keyboards on "Pretty (Ugly Before)"
 * Scott McPherson – drums on "Pretty (Ugly Before)"
 * Fritz Michaud – drums on "King's Crossing"

Technical

 * Autumn DeWilde – sleeve typography
 * Joanna Bolme – mixing
 * Rob Schnapf – mixing
 * Scott Wiley – engineering assistance
 * Ted Jensen – mastering
 * Andrew Beckman – recording (additional)
 * Chris Chandler – recording (additional)
 * David McConnell – recording (additional)
 * Dee Robb – recording (additional)
 * Fritz Michaud – recording (additional)
 * Jon Brion – recording (additional)
 * Matthew Ellard – recording (additional)
 * Pete Magdaleno – recording (additional)
 * Ryan Castle – recording (additional)
 * Tom Biller – recording (additional)
 * Valente Torres – recording (additional)
 * Nick Pritchard – sleeve design
 * Renaud Monfourny – front cover photograph
 * Ashley Welch – sleeve photography
 * Dominic DiSaia – sleeve photography
 * Paul Heartfield – sleeve photography

title: From a Basement on the Hill


text:
Alcyon

The Alcyon was a French bicycle, automobile and motorcycle manufacturer between 1903 and 1954.

Origins
Alcyon originated from about 1890 when Edmond Gentil started the manufacture of bicycles in Neuilly, Seine. In 1902, this was complemented by motorcycle production and in 1906, the first cars were shown at the "Salon de l'Automobile" in Paris, France. Also in 1906 it founded the professional Alcyon cycling team which was active until 1955, including winning the Tour de France 6 times.

Motorcycle racing
In 1912 Alcyon competed at the Isle of Man TT races with a 348cc single-cylinder engine featuring two inlet valves and two exhaust valves. Both bikes failed to finish the Junior TT race.

Alcyon had local success in France during the 1920s, with riders such as Marc Jolly, Marcel Mourrier, Jean Durand and Lucien Lemasson winning races. During this time too, this bicycle brand got its nickname "l'intrépide Alcyon".

Voiturettes before the World War I
Two models were shown in 1906, one a two-seat light car with single-cylinder 950 cc engine and a larger four seat model with 1.4-litre four-cylinder engine. Both engines were bought in from Gentil. The cars were advanced models with 3-speed gearboxes and shaft drive. However, the single-cylinder models were dropped in 1912 and larger models of up to 2120 cc were added to the range. By then, most of the engines were obtained from Zurcher.

The company moved to Courbevoie, Seine in 1912.

In 1954 Peugeot absorbed Alcyon.

Cyclecars between wars
In 1914, the company's name was changed to Automobiles Alcyon. After the war, the first model was a 1914 cc four-cylinder model, some examples of which were tuned and sold by the Lyons agent as Alycon-GLs and performed quite well in competition. However, the car was not a success and did not sell well, so in 1923, Alcyon moved into the production of cyclecars, using 500 cc two-stroke flat-twin engines in a design bought from SIMA-Violet. Later the company manufactured another cyclecar of similar design, thought this one featured a single-cylinder engine. This proved a complete flop, and the company failed in 1928. Alcyon never sold cars again.

Trophée Gentil (1946-1963)
In 1946, the "Gentil Trophy" was created in memory of the founder of Cycles Alcyon, who died that year. It was awarded for the "achievement of the year", and took the form of a work of art created by Carlo Sarrabezolles. Each National Federation expressed its choice and the winner had to obtain 70% of the votes to obtain this honorary title.

List of winners

 * 1946: 🇧🇪 Émile Masson
 * 1947: 🇮🇹 Fausto Coppi
 * 1948: 🇧🇪 Briek Schotte
 * 1949: 🇬🇧 Reginald Harris
 * 1950: Ferdi Kübler & Hugo Koblet
 * 1951: Prize not awarded
 * 1952: 🇮🇹 Fausto Coppi
 * 1953: 🇫🇷 Jacques Anquetil
 * 1954: 🇫🇷 Louison Bobet
 * 1955: 🇧🇪 Stan Ockers
 * 1956: 🇮🇹 Ercole Baldini
 * 1957: 🇫🇷 Roger Rivière
 * 1958: 🇱🇺 Charly Gaul
 * 1959: 🇧🇪 Rik Van Looy
 * 1960: 🇫🇷 Jacques Anquetil
 * 1961: 🇫🇷 Jean Jourden, Henri Belena & Jacques Gestraut
 * 1962: Jo de Roo
 * 1963: 🇫🇷 Jacques Anquetil

The company also gave its name to a race, the Grand critérium Alcyon, open to independent and aspiring riders under U.V.F. regulations.

title: Alcyon


text:
User talk:Jmwalsh

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

title: User talk:Jmwalsh