text:
Talk:Clauser and Horne's 1974 Bell test

My intention is to link to here from several other pages, but first I think the relevant pages all need some changes. Popular myths are in danger of being taken as fact! Caroline Thompson 22:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis suggested a ref to Amir Aczel's popular book "Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics". If this is to be given as a ref, it needs a little qualification. Aczel, according, to Barnes and Noble.com, "cites new experiments that indicate that entanglement does occur and describes how further research may lead to unbreakable codes and even teleportation". I have just added a section on the experimental loopholes that perhaps should have been there from the outset. There is as yet no convincing evidence that quantum entanglement occurs. Caroline Thompson 22:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

>> There is as yet no convincing evidence that quantum entanglement occurs. <<

I am disputing this claim on Talk:Quantum entanglement. -- Beland 02:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll respond there. Caroline Thompson 08:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

POV, "Needing attention" and "Cleanup" warnings
"AnyFile" listed this article as needing attention and cleanup some time ago, but gave no reason in the talk page. DrChinese has now put a POV notice on it, but again giving no reason. Can the people concerned please specify what changes they wish for? My distinct impresion is that they do not want wikipedia readers to be aware of this very important area of research. The inequality introduced in the 1974 is the one used in early Bell test experiments. It is effectively very different from the CHSH, "visibility" and similar tests used in more recent experiments. It is not biased by any failure of "fair sampling". Only the '+' results are analysed, so whether or not the total of '+' and '-' results represents a fair sample is irrelevant.Caroline Thompson 17:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I placed the POV warning on this page for the same reasons as I did on the main "Bell's Theorem" article: a) Violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy by Caroline Thompson; and b) her self-promotion via references to her own articles (unbelievable!) which lack appropriate peer recognition. I will be working with others to correct this and other closely related articles.  My intention is to concentrate on the main Bell article first, and then work out to the other articles such as this one.

 * I believe Caroline should limit her contribution to an article on Bell Test Loopholes. Caroline, this is not a forum for debate and I will not debate the merits of your position.  As I locate and have time I will be working to undo your NPOV violations and self-references from every article except the Loopholes.  However, you will need to place proper perspective even in that page.  Wikipedia is not the place to serve as a pulpit for your unorthodox views.--DrChinese 19:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * As I explained in the Bell's Theorem talk page, I do not consider that my pages infringe the wikipedia NPOV policy. They are fact, not opinion.  Nor are they self-promotion, since the only reason I refer to my own papers is that they make accessible to a wider audience material already published in recognised journals.  Is it really the intention of wikipedia to suppress descriptions of how the experiments work, of the inequalities actually used, or of the known flaws?  Are you in favour of the kind of statement I have been trying to eliminate, for example statements that the evidence for quantum entanglement has become incontrovertible?  If it is agreed that it is not so, then surely it is necessary to explain why? Caroline Thompson 21:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Think of the future a little bit.
Folks, Let's project forward 5 years; Wikipedia is huge. The Version 4.0 Editorial team is working on the next release to DVD. A noticeable number of scholars are attempting to put their work in Wikipedia 4.0. They are using the precedents that we set now. Now return to the present time. If we merely adhere to the current standards, I believe that Thompson is within the rules. What we arrive at by consensus today will affect future Wikipedia. It is time to think hard and not merely turn the crank on procedure. If we maintain standards of fairness and objectivity, we set a precedent for the future.

What we need to think about is how the different POV's play against each other. What we decide now also decides precedent for the future.

Currently, if the publication is on the web, it gets into Wikipedia. Thompson's publications are on paper, with the exception of one that we know of. So from Thompson's side, if another source (not a self-source) accepts that paper, it is acceptable for Wikipedia. All it takes is another web link (which is not under the total control of the contributor).

The rules of publication and the economics of publication are shifting. PLoS currently has a grant to publish many items on the web.

Libraries currently distrust Wikipedia for its lack of authoritative names. How we treat scholars today will determine our future. Some big names are already publishing under PLoS, which Wikipedia should pay attention to.

The universe of scholarly publications is very similar to TV; all it takes is a few stars to make a hit in academic circles. We should consider those factors. Ancheta Wis 22:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * See the Critical theory article for the process which is playing out before us: Critical theory looks at the mechanics of [the] process of privilege and marginalization, and often thinks about the possibility of political action against this process. .

 * Consider also the mechanism of friendster.com where it takes the acceptance of a name by a friend of yours, in order for the name to propagate. If your friend does not accept your name, your circle of friends will not grow. Ancheta Wis 23:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality etc
I've shifted the tag (only) back to article space. This is according to accepted policy.

Meta: As a number of articles are affected, we should better standardize on one talk page for the general problem, and point ccontributors to that talk page.

On this article specifically: IMHO (re-)merging into CHSH inequality seems to be the best fate for this article, IMHO.

On Caroline Thompson's papers as references: It should be rather self-evident, that having a choice of papers, it would be preferable to cite other sources.
 * 1) It will clear Caroline of allegations of self promotion.
 * 2) It will take the (some) odor of quackery off the lhv POV. After all these papers are published in the Galilean Electrodynamics magazine. At least, it isn't the Ptolemean Astronomy magazine, but did you read some of the sample on-line papers?

Pjacobi 11:20, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

 * The reason for making this a separate page was to keep all pages of manageable length, plus it is quite ofen (within this little group of papers) desired to reference the CHSH and CH74 inequalities separately.
 * Re the references, I'd be only too happy to quote papers other than my own if any suitable ones existed! As I have explained a few times, the published papers are too long, too technical, or not readily available.  It would be wonderful if everyone studying the Bell tests were to read all 30-odd pages of the Clauser and Shimony 1978 report, but where are they to get hold of a copy, who has the time, and who would understand them?  So I list such papers, but advise readers in practice to rely on my own.
 * Re Galilean Electrodynamics: I should very much prefer to have published in PRL or PRA but (as you will find from my bibliography) this was not to be.Caroline Thompson 13:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removal of CHT self-references
Dr Chinese, I've reverted but keeping to your policy of removing all refs to my own work. I hope you do not object. I'm afraid I hit a wrong button and my comment on the edit was incomplete.Caroline Thompson 20:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, all, but I don't buy any of the logic about accepting Caroline's work. This isn't about Caroline's stature as a scientist or whether we can consider her work as "published".  It is about the science involved and reasonably describing by today's standards.  The fact is that her POV is not mainstream, her work is not normally cited and her contributions to WP are highly biased.  Please see the Bell's Theorem talk page to see where all of this is at as I have no intention of giving duplication on each of the pages related to Bell, EPR and Aspect etc.

 * Caroline, I will remove all of your references whether you agree or not, the one exception being the Bell Test Loopholes page. I will continue to purge the strange emphasis on experiments and their "loopholes" that has been added to these pages to support your POV.

 * Can expositions of a theory that actively ignore the details of the experiments supposed to support it be termed "scientific"? Since when was my emphasis on experiments "strange"?  I should say, rather, that from a scientific point of view it is the refusal to look at the flaws in the experiments that is "strange" scientific conduct!  But why do I bother arguing?  You are clearly going to back anyone, however ignorant, who can be seen as supporting the quantum mechanical point of view. Caroline Thompson 18:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * EPR, Bell's Theorem and its derivative forumulae is not the place to discuss hypothetical experimental loopholes ...

 * Sorry, but it is! One cannot usefully discuss actual Bell inequalities without mentioning the assumptions behind them and how they are applied in practice. The fact that they do not all involve exactly the same assumptions cannot be avoided.  The later, CH74, inequality was derived in order to correct the perceived possibility of bias in the CHSH one.  We inevitably come up against the fair sampling assumption, i.e. the best known loophole. Caroline Thompson 23:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * ... You have the Loopholes page and I expect it will continue to be referenced from the Bell test experiments page where it belongs and makes some sense. In the meantime, why don't you put references to the Loopholes (and your anti-photon aether theories as well) in the Evolution section of WP?  Or perhaps in French history?  Maybe they will see it as relevant over there, because it is not relevant over here.

Consequences of Dr Chinese' latest edits
Dr Chinese, I had to revert because the page as it stood after your last edits
 * (a) removed the section that explained why C and H had invented their inequality and gave hints as to why different experiments use different ones. It was plain statement of fact, not my POV, and
 * (b) implied falsely that Aspect's experiments had been loophole-free.

And, of course, by removing the link to the Bell test loophole page you helped to ensure that nobody ever managed to navigate to it, thus blatantly taking the QM POV! I thought wikipedia was supposed to be neutral!

Caroline Thompson 19:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * You should be aware by now. that this is not what neutrality means. The examples of policy are clear: Neutrality does not mean that WP is reduced to a sequence of bland statements of the kind "some say the moon is made of green cheese, others say not".CSTAR 20:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm ... Are you trying to say, CSTAR, that my support for local realism is not backed by the facts? To say that the loopholes can cause bias is no "bland statement", but merely the truth.  Are you challenging this?  If so, please tell me on what basis?  Have you studied the actual experiments?  Have you understood how the loopholes work? Caroline Thompson 21:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa, non sequitur. Lethe | Talk

 * Caroline, why are you worried about discussing loopholes in Aspect's experiments in an article on CH74? Oh, I forgot, EVERY article is a forum for your biased POV.--DrChinese 23:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * DrChinese, I don't want to specifically discuss the CH74 inequality here, but I do want to let readers know the truth: that even in experiments where, due to use of CH74 rather than CHSH, there is no obvious involvement of the detection loophole, there is nevertheless room for local realist explanations. In the case of Aspect's experiments, the main loophole is one that is not very well known, namely the subtraction of accidentals.  I can't help it that it is not well known!  It is not totally unknown, though.  Right from the start, experimenters have approached the matter with caution.  The first experiment, in 1972, happened to have low accidental rates ...

 * But I did not mean to go into detail here, only to make it clear that Aspect's experiments were not "squeaky clean". He never claimed that they were. Caroline Thompson 17:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply (for the nth time) to Caroline Thompson
Well, I will resort to explaining this, all over I suppose

Please refer to what I actually said above, specifically about your comment on QM. You referred to it as POV, when as a matter of fact, QM is unquestionably the accepted scientific view of physical reality. Does anybody doubt that this is in fact the status of QM in the scientific community?

Therefore, it is not POV to repeat the assertions of QM as facts.

 * My view of the current position:
 * (a) The local realist POV is concerned with the matter of entanglement, not necessarily with the whole of QM.
 * {b) Within the small group of quantum theorists who would profess to be experts on the matter, none would say that entanglement has been conclusively demonstrated
 * (c) If you want to define the "scientific community" as those who read (and believe!) popular books on quantum theory, I suggest that you are in error. There are a lot of scientists out there who, whilst accepting the basic claims of QM, dispute the evidence for entanglement.  They laugh at any suggestion that local realism could have been proved wrong.
 * Caroline Thompson 10:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The fact is (b), (c) are false, quite simply. The list of counterexamples is quite long.CSTAR 15:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This assertion is distinct from the following:

The basis of your support of local realism
Well of course I don't believe your support of local realism is supported by the facts! If I did why would we be having this argument? I don't care to speculate why you believe such support exists; the most likely reason would be misinterpretation of facts, but none of that is relevant anyway. I have no interest in discussing your beliefs, only in discussing WP policy as it pertains here.

 * Hmmm ... No comment, other than to suggest you read my articles more carefully.Caroline Thompson 10:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question of existence loopholes
To my knowledge, the existence of loopholes in Bell tests is not denied. I certainly don't. But clearly, judgements as to their importance do vary, and the overwhelming view is that they are not significant. See for instance, Shimony's Stanford Encyclopedia article with which you are familiar.

Since loopholes are an important ingredient in understanding Bell tests, it is important to write about them and nobody has requested the deletion of the Bell's test loopholes page.

 * Fair enough, but if you're going to allow the page to exist it would be as well to also allow links to it from all relevant pages. Caroline Thompson 10:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Relevant from your biased POV? Loopholes on Bell tests should be discussed relative to Bell test experiments.  That's all it deserves and that's all it should get.--DrChinese 18:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question of the scientific status of QM
The scientific community accepts quantum mechanics is true, they claim, because it is true. I claim it is true. However. we can expand the list of possible causes of its acceptance.

Any or all of the following could explain the scientific status of QM

 * 1) The empirical facts of QM are actually true (The realist interpretation of the status of of QM)
 * 2) We (e.g. the scientific community) are deluded (mental deficiency cause of QM's acceptance)
 * 3) We are idiots (intellectual deficiency cause of QM's acceptance)
 * 4) We are all part of a conspiracy to suppress local realists or other theories (socio-political cause of QM's acceptance)

Now regardless of which are true, the fact about the status of QM still remains true. It may be sad, unfortunate, evil or whatever, but those are the facts. You have to accept those facts as far as wikipedia is concerned. The same could be said about other theories; phlogiston for example could in some possible world be the way heat propagates. Who knows maybe the power companies in this world are conspiring so that we not discover their source of phlogiston.

Now you are completely free to take out ads in papers or set up websites, endow a University chair or even try to start an armed rebellion to change this state of affairs (the rebellion will probably fail). But you are not going to change WP policy, unless Jimbo Wales keels over and dies and has left you or someone sympathetic to your position in charge. This is not a possibility you should count on.CSTAR 00:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, but I, for one, am unable to compromise my principles. I think the quantum physics community is deluded, having entrusted the Bell test experiments to a small band of people who, by historical accident, did not include any with sufficient imagination to see how local realist explanations could in fact explain what they saw.  As I have mentioned several times, none of this elite band considered the evidence conclusive.  The only reason I can see for belief in entanglement is the supposed universal success of all other areas of QM. Caroline Thompson 10:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Your statements are an insult to the entire scientific community, whose open, collaborative and pricipled style of operation is its hallmark. The scientific method is self correcting, but your approach is not.  You should retract your baseless accusations, which smack of bitterness and jealousy.--DrChinese 12:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * See also: Pathological science. --Pjacobi 13:16, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

PS. Truth of quantum mechanics I mean truth in the minimal instrumentalist interpretation, not necessarily in any extension of this interpretation.CSTAR 00:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Caroline: request for clarification
Caroline, you seem to say two contradictory things

 * 1) the quantum physics community is deluded, having entrusted the Bell test experiments to a small band of people who, by historical accident, did not include any with sufficient imagination to see how local realist explanations could in fact explain what they saw.
 * 2) none of this elite band considered the evidence conclusive.

You mean

 * They actually were aware that their experimental evidence didn't support QM, as you say in (2) above
 * They produced bogus reports supporting QM anyway because they couldn't figure out how to explain the experiments via local realism, as you say in (1) above.

That is quite an accusation don't you think? You should at least produce a document with the evidence and possible motives. This would have more importance to the world than anything you or we could say about QM.CSTAR 15:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * My two statements are not quite as contradictory as might at first appear. The community knew there were loopholes and hence that their experiments were not conclusive.  In their published reports they do not hide this fact.  They seem to have been unable, though, to see how to complete a local realist model that would give as good a fit to the observations as QM did.  [Better computing facilities might have helped!  Simulation programs?] They therefore provisionally accepted the QM model, in line with the current fashion in theoretical physics of accepting the theory that gives the best empirical agreement with results.

 * The idea that the observations gave conclusive support for QM was, as far as I can tell, an invention by the media that became accepted by other quantum theorists who had not themselves been directly involved in the Bell tests.

 * The original reports were thus not "bogus", but the media (and other quantum theorists) did not understand the loopholes and therefore glossed over them, leading to the creation of the myth that entanglement was here to stay. Caroline Thompson 18:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The media?

 * but the media (and other quantum theorists) did not understand the loopholes

The media? Since when is the media reporting on QM? Isn't that just wee bit conspiratorial? I mean, I can see why people say that media might have not been up to snuff (in the US at least and in the UK probably not too much different) on reports of WMD, but entanglement and QM?

Here is a quote from Aspect, who if anybody was involved in experimentation and Bell tests (unless his status has now been diminished and is currently considered a running dog for quantum theorists).

 * "Fort years after Bell's work, the importance of entanglement is clear to all physicists, but it is still difficult to swallow and reading Bell's papers remains the best way to penetrate the difficulties of that question"

That doesn't seem to suggest anything but " that entanglement was here to stay" when he wrote that.CSTAR 18:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I did not mean exactly "the media", but journals such as New Scientist. I did not become interested in the subject until 1993 or so and hence do not know what publicity was given to Aspect's experiments at the time, but can only assume that it was considerable.  After all, many people publish in PRL but few become famous.

 * This intepretation of "the media" is not much better. I doubt the New Scientist has enough clout of any kind to cause any appreciable movement in ideas in science.  I think your assessment of how ideas are determined is much too conspiratorial.CSTAR 23:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * With regards to your quotation, I have written to Aspect many times now re the loopholes -- especially the subtracion of accidentals, which (if its challengers are correct) makes such a large contribution to the test statistics. He has never replied.  I don't know if this is because he thinks our challenge is nonsense or simply that he has a policy of never reading correspondence from people with no academic status.  Either way, it seems likely that he does not quite understand how the loopholes work and has become progressively more convinced of the reality of entanglement.

 * "it seems likely that he does not quite understand how the loopholes work and has become progressively more convinced of the reality of entanglement."
 * And you do?

 * As a project in epistemology it would be more significant, I think, if you could propose a theory of why Aspect and others persist in these misconceptions despite (in your view) the lack of evidence. CSTAR 23:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (a) There are in practice social and economic pressures in force. To dispute QM at this point in history is to endanger ones career and to risk being branded a crank by ones peers.

 * (b) As I pointed out, the current fashion is to accept the theory that has been shown to give the "best agreement with the observations". Whether or not these observations were obtained in an unbiased manner does not enter the public version of the story and has, in the case of quantum entanglement, been conveniently swept under the carpet.

 * (c) In Aspect's case (and, I suspect, others) he has moved on. He did the EPR experiments back in 1980-82 but since then has been doing more "ordinary" physics.  The last I heard it was something quite practical to do with the interaction of light with materials.

 * Is that enough? I have no time to write more now. Caroline Thompson 17:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You're answering the wrong question. (I wasn't asking about psychology or sociology but epistemology). These papers presumably contain results which you claim aren't corroborated by the evidence; in particular, one would like to know what is written down to justify claim C when according to you not C is the conclusion?

 * "In Aspect's case (and, I suspect, others) he has moved on."

 * maybe you should move on to. You aren't going to get anywhere by telling people they haven't understood X or read my papers.CSTAR 04:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll win in the end CSTAR, since there is no experimental reason to think otherwise!

 * I'm sorry about my ignorance of the meaning of the word "epistmology". Anyway, as it happens, the relevant subjects are psychology and sociology.  Put yourself in the place of an experimenter who has, 20-odd years ago, published a scientific paper supporting the status quo.  This paper did contain a few words of doubt, but the public liked your conclusion and you began to get invited to conferences to talk about it, and found that your reputation was generally helping you in your career.  What is your incentive to break off from that career in order to conduct a series of experiments to investigate those doubts?  In the case of the Bell inequalities, it is hard for the human mind to remember their logic, much easier to listen to constant repetition of claims that they have been infringed and to forget the reasons why you ever doubted it. Let someone else take this risky step! Caroline Thompson 14:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Subtraction of accidentals

 * Aspect's paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402001, though giving an excellent description of his experiments, reveals, I think, some confusion about the assumptions needed for the CH74 and CHSH tests. It also possibly shows that the first of the possibilities is correct: he sticks to the argument he gave in his PhD thesis that justifies the subtraction.  He says without any qualification: "the measured coincidence signal is thus the area of the peak [of the time spectrum]". By this he means the area after subtraction of a base ("accidental") rate represented by its shoulders. The truth here, though, is that the matter has never been settled. Caroline Thompson 22:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What page is that quote on?64.168.29.66 23:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It's on page 21 of my copy, though the page might depend on the format. It's from section 9.2. Detection - Coincidence counting.  A more complete quote is:

 * ... This spectrum first shows a flat background due to accidental coincidences (between photons emitted by different atoms). The true coincidences (between photons emitted by the same atom) are displayed in the peak rising at the null-delay, and exponentially decaying with a time constant tau_r = 5 ns (lifetime of the intermediate state of the cascade). The measured coincidence signal is thus the area of the peak. Additionally, a standard coincidence circuit with a 19 ns coincidence window monitored the rate of coincidences around null delay, while a delayed-coincidence channel monitored the accidental rate. It was then possible to check that the true coincidence rate obtained by subtraction was equal to the signal in the peak of the time-delay spectrum ...

 * My own main paper on the subject is:

 * { removed YET ANOTHER self-reference to Caroline's work, which appears to be the primary objective of her involvement with Wikipedia. The talk page of this article has nothing to do with Caroline's papers, and she has made a point of inserting her work and POV into unrelated articles in WP.  She then references herself outside of WP as being cited in WP.  It also gives her personal web pages more search power. She should not be allowed to insert such references using the subterfuge of legitimate debate when such debate has already occurred and been settled elsewhere in WP.  I am sorry to have to take this step.  Caroline, do not attempt to revert this as I will revert back.  You have already littered the talk pages with plenty of your self-references, and you have been called on this point repeatedly over the past 6 months!  Stop abusing the WP system for your own selfish personal objectives. --DrChinese 15:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) }

 * Caroline Thompson 22:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attention tags
I moved the attention tags to the article itself, which is where they are much more commonly placed (and where my cleanup bot is expecting them to be). I added accuracy to the list of concerns, because I find it highly likely that this page is essentially making an argument that quantum mechanics, as understood by the current scientific consensus, is incorrect. This would be a radical view, inappropriate to report as fact. But we need a physics expert to sort out accepted ideas from fringe ones here. -- Beland 03:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Beland: That is the whole point of the Bell tests -- to test whether or not quantum mechanics is correct. I know many people think these days that Bell was arguing that the world was in fact non-local (if you read books such as Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality" you will most certainly get this impression) but try reading his own papers and I think you will find a different story. Bell simply stated that if local reality is true it implies a certain inequality.  QM violates this inequality.  In the absence of a loophole-free Bell test the matter of whether or not QM is correct in this matter remains open.

 * Regarding the need for an expert opinion, yes indeed we could use one, but what we don't need is opinions based only on second and third-hand opinions of convinced quantum theorists. Clauser and Horne were, at least at the time of writing their 1974 paper, open minded on the subject.  What we need is someone with an independent point of view who can spare the time to study carefully both that paper and the related parts of the 1978 physics report by Clauser and Shimony. 62.252.0.6 09:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * [The above was by me, BTW. I can't have been logged in. Caroline Thompson 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)]

Beland: On what grounds did you add the "totally disputed" tag? Are you disputing the fact that Bell's test ought to be able to tell whether QM or local realism is correct? The question does imply the possibility that QM may be incorrect, but nobody is stating this as a fact. It remains to be convincingly tested. Caroline Thompson 09:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Time to move on
Unfortunately Caroline Thompson died of cancer and won't be fighting for her point of view here any more. IMHO her point of view was somewhat crankish, since she strongly believed that quantum theory was not just a bit wrong, but completely wrong. She did not have much success getting her papers published in reputable journals. However she did have a very important point, which is that no single experiment done to date has violated Bell's inequalities under the experimental controls thought essential by John Bell himself (see his beautiful paper on Bertlmann's socks in his wonderful book "thinkable and unthinkable").

It is perfectly consistent to believe that quantum theory is true (or at least a wonderful approximation to truth) and at the same time to state that no convincing experiment has yet been done. A number of reputable physicists (at least, they were reputable till they started to expound this point of view) such as Iain Perceval and Emilio Santos have argued clearly and cogently that quantum physics itself could well prevent one ever to carry out the Bell experiment under Bell's stringent controls AND violate Bell's inequality. Without those stringent controls, the experiments merely confirm quantum theory, but do not disprove local realism. The fact that these eminent scientists are in danger of losing their reputation by expounding these views demonstrates that a large number of physicsts do not quite get the point of Bell's work and moreover have difficulty understanding delicate logical arguments. Recently I was discussing this issue with a sensible and friendly experimental physicist but I could not get my point across. He kept saying "but no one seriously doubts quantum physics any more", and I kept saying that I do not doubt quantum physics either; I am just saying that it is plausible that a succesful ideal Bell experiment can never be done; and he then repeated "but no one seriously doubts quantum physics any more"; ...

Gill110951 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * This article should be immediately redirected to CHSH inequality. The history and content of this article will be available under the redirect for anyone wishing to refer to it to improve that page, and a note to this effect can be included on its talk page. Tim Shuba 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Clauser and Horne's 1974 Bell test


text:
Pekka Pohjola

Jussi Pekka Pohjola (13 January 1952 – 27 November 2008) was a Finnish multi-instrumentalist, composer and producer. Best known as a bass player, Pohjola was also a classically trained pianist and violinist.

Pohjola rose to fame as the bass player of the Finnish progressive rock band Wigwam, but he soon departed on a solo career, initially releasing Frank Zappa–influenced progressive rock albums. As his career progressed Pohjola developed a more novel musical style that could best be described as fusion jazz. In addition to Wigwam and his solo albums, Pohjola played with the band Made in Sweden, The Group (Finnish band) and the bands of Jukka Tolonen and Mike Oldfield.

Pohjola belonged to one of the most prominent musical families in Finland. Conductor Sakari Oramo is Pohjola's cousin.

Early life and career
Pohjola was born in Helsinki, Finland and studied classical piano and violin at the Sibelius Academy in the city. After a stint with The Boys (Finnish band) (the seminal Finnish band led by brothers Eero and Jussi Raittinen), he joined Wigwam in 1970, contributing on two of their albums before leaving the group in 1972 to pursue a solo career (although he contributed again on Wigwam's Being in 1974). Pohjola's first solo album, Pihkasilmä Kaarnakorva (Resin Eye Bark Ear), released in 1972, bears a notable resemblance to the work of Frank Zappa.

After leaving Wigwam, Pohjola played with the Jukka Tolonen Band for a short time. In 1974 his second solo album, Harakka Bialoipokku (Bialoipokku the Magpie), was released in Finland. The album saw Pohjola's sound developing in a more distinctive direction, with heavy use of trumpets, saxophones and piano. The somewhat jazz-influenced album sufficiently piqued the interest of Virgin Records executive Richard Branson for him to release it in the United Kingdom the following year under the name B the Magpie. The album was re-released, in October 2010, by Cherry Red Records.

At the request of Virgin, Pohjola teamed up with Mike Oldfield to record and produce his third solo album, released in 1977 in Finland as Keesojen Lehto (Grove of the Keeso) and in the UK as The Mathematician's Air Display. The album was released, in Germany (1981, album and cassette) and Italy (1987) as simply Mike & Sally Oldfield / Pekka Pohjola. The album was also released in 1981 on the Happy Bird label, in the Netherlands, under the name The Consequences of Indecisions and credited to Oldfield instead of Pohjola. Oldfield asked Pohjola to join him on his 1978 tour and Pohjola can be heard on Oldfield's live album Exposed, released in 1979.

In 1978 Pohjola formed The Group (Finnish band), which released a self-titled album that same year. In 1979 Pohjola released Visitation, his fourth solo album. All of Pohjola's 1970s solo albums exhibited fantasy influences, but these were undoubtedly strongest on his 1979 Visitation.

1980s
In 1980 The Group changed its name to Pekka Pohjola Group and released the album Kätkävaaran Lohikäärme (The Dragon of Kätkävaara), with musicians Pohjola on bass and with Ippe Kätkä (drums), Pekka Tyni (keyboards) and Seppo Tyni (guitars). The group disbanded soon after the release of their second album.

Pohjola's next solo album, Urban Tango, was released in 1982. It was a radical departure from fantasy- and nature-inspired works of the '70s. It was also the first Pekka Pohjola album to feature comprehensible singing, the vocals provided by Kassu Halonen. Urban Tango was also the first of Pohjola's albums to be released on his own Pohjola Records label. His next album was the soundtrack to Hannu Heikinheimo's 1983 movie Jokamies (released in 1984 under the title Everyman in the United States and Germany). The album was notable for an abundant use of synthesizers. Space Waltz, released in 1985, further explored the themes first heard on Urban Tango (1982). 1986's Flight of the Angel was to be Pohjola's last album of the '80s. The following year a compilation of his material was released under the name New Impressionist.

Pohjola's record label in the United States during the 1980s was Breakthru' Records, a pioneering audiophile record company started by Robert Silverstein in 1983. The advent of the compact disc in 1984 made it very difficult for independent American record labels to make CD pressings in the U.S. as the first plants, aside from the Sony plant in Indiana, were in Germany and Japan. As a result, Breakthru' scrambled and forfeited away its rights to unscrupulous distributors in an effort to adapt to the fast changing audio landscape of the music business during 1984 and 1986. With the 1985 release of Space Waltz, Breakthru' Records became the first label ever to release a compact disc by Pohjola. The first Pohjola album to be released on CD, Space Waltz was mastered in New York City by mastering engineer legend Greg Calbi. Pressed on CD in Switzerland, Space Waltz was also released by Breakthru' Records on audiophile vinyl and cassette. Robert Silverstein's 1980 interview with Pohjola can be found on the Music Web Express 3000 (www.mwe3.com) web site.

Later life and death
During the late '80s Pohjola composed Sinfonia No 1 ("Symphony No. 1"), which premiered live in 1989 and was released on CD in 1990, performed by the AVANTI! music group. Returning to the music scene in 1992, Pohjola released his ninth solo album, Changing Waters. The album's sound differed greatly from Pohjola's guitar-driven works of the '80s, offering a softer, more piano-based soundscape. Changing Waters was given in an international release in spring 1993. The album featured Finnish top musicians Seppo Kantonen (keyboards), Markku Kanerva (guitar) and Anssi Nykänen (drums), who became Pohjola's regular band. In May 1995, Pohjola released Live in Japan, a recording from three shows in Tokyo in November 1994. Later that year, Pohjola released a double CD, Heavy Jazz - Live in Helsinki and Tokyo. His next studio album, Pewit, followed in September 1997. In May 2001 Pekka Pohjola released Views, on which he toned down the rock-solid guitar-based sound of Urban Tango (1982) and Space Waltz (1985), instead focusing more on jazz and pop-classical arrangements, leaning heavily on strings and brass arrangements. The only song on Views to feature a guitar is "The Red Porsche", after a poem written by Charles Bukowski.

Pohjola's piece "The Madness Subsides" from B the Magpie (1974) was sampled by DJ Shadow as the main bass line in his song "Midnight in a Perfect World", from the wildly successful debut album Endtroducing..... (1996).

On 27 November 2008 Pohjola, who had alcoholism, died of an epileptic seizure at the age of 56.

Family
Pekka Pohjola was part of the renowned Pohjola musical family. His father was choir director and cellist Ensti Pohjola. Choreographer and music pedagogue Erkki Pohjola and violinist and conductor Paavo Pohjola were his uncles, and pianist Liisa Pohjola was his aunt. His younger brother Jukka Pohjola is a violinist. One of his three sons, Verneri Pohjola, is a trumpeter, and another one, Ilmari Pohjola, is a trombonist. His cousins include conductor Sakari Oramo, cellist Matti Pohjola and composer Seppo Pohjola.

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

title: Pekka Pohjola


text:
Rosemary Prinz

Rosemary Prinz (born January 4, 1931) is an American actress. She performed in a many Broadway and off-Broadway productions. Prinz originated the role of M'Lynn Eatenton in Steel Magnolias during its first production Off-Broadway in 1987. On-screen, she is known for her work in the early era of the soap operas, making her debut in First Love (1954-55). She played Penny Hughes in the long-running CBS soap opera As the World Turns (1956–68, 1985–2001).

Life and career
Prinz was born in The Bronx, New York. Her father, Milton Prinz, was a talented cellist (many years later Prinz taped How to Survive a Marriage in the same studio where her father had performed with Arturo Toscanini) and Prinz herself spent her early years in the theater. After graduating from high school at age sixteen, she made her summer stock debut in a 1947 production of Dream Girl.

In 1952, aged 21, she made her Broadway debut as a girl scout in The Grey-Eyed People and returned to Broadway in 1978 for a production of Tribute with Jack Lemmon. Prinz has continued to work in all forms of theater, including in recent years, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Master Class, Mame, and Annie Get Your Gun, and a 2003 New York appearance in Killing Louise.

Prinz made her television debut in the short-lived 1954 daytime drama First Love, as the wife of aviator Chris (Frankie Thomas). Her most famous role to date has been her portrayal of Penny Hughes on As the World Turns, a role she played from April 2, 1956 to June 14, 1968. Penny had a number of storylines, but her most popular story was her tortured relationship with Jeff Baker (Mark Rydell). They were daytime's first teen romance and one of the show's most popular couples, breaking up and reuniting many times. The couple finally happily married and planned to adopt a child. Their story peaked when Jeff was killed in a car crash and Penny suffered from amnesia. Viewers were outraged; TV Guide called it "the auto accident that shook the nation."

Prinz sparred with Irna Phillips, the creator and writer of World Turns. When Prinz left World Turns in 1968, Prinz said she would never return to soap operas again. Prinz did return and appear on several shows, but signed for a limited engagement each time. In 1970, she returned to daytime to play the role of Amy Tyler on All My Children for that show's debut and for its first six months. Prinz agreed to accept the role on the condition that her character oppose the Vietnam War, which Prinz herself opposed, and on the condition that she be given above-the-title billing. Prinz was the only All My Children performer to ever receive that honor. This role was followed by a nine-month turn as the lead character, Dr. Julie Franklin, in How to Survive a Marriage in 1974. In 1988, she played Sister Mary Joel on Ryan's Hope.

She made several returns to As the World Turns, during events that focused on Penny's family. She returned in 1985 for Bob and Kim's wedding and in 1986 to celebrate her parents' fiftieth wedding anniversary. She returned to As the World Turns again in 1998 so Penny could attend her mother's eightieth birthday party. Her final appearance on the show was in 2000 to visit her family for Christmas (the show ended in 2010). Prinz starred in the national tour of The Apple Tree in 1967. Her co-stars were Tom Ewell and Will MacKenzie. Later she starred in the second national tour of Driving Miss Daisy.

In the late 1970s, Prinz began to make rare prime-time television appearances, including a recurring role on Knots Landing from 1981–82 as Sylvia Warren, who was convinced her husband was having an affair with Laura Avery (Constance McCashin). She appeared in the 1980 Hart to Hart episode "Cruise at Your Own Risk" (as Esther Goldwin). She also appeared on an episode of the ABC situation comedy Laverne and Shirley.

In 2000, aged 69, Prinz made her film debut in the romantic drama A Wedding for Bella, which starred Scott Baio. In 2004 she starred in a short film, Extreme Mom. In 2017, she appeared in the comedy film Humor Me.

Personal life
Prinz was married to actor Michael Thoma from 1951–57. (Thoma died in 1982 at the age of 55.) Her second marriage, to jazz drummer Joseph Patti in 1966,  ended only upon his death from natural causes  in 2014. A lifelong New Yorker, she is a resident of the Upper West Side.

title: Rosemary Prinz


text:
Prentice Cooper

William Prentice Cooper Jr. (September 28, 1895 – May 18, 1969) was an American politician and diplomat who served as the 39th governor of Tennessee from 1939 to 1945. He led the state's mobilization efforts for World War II, when over 300,000 Tennesseans joined the armed forces, and numerous defense-related facilities were established across the state. He later served as United States Ambassador to Peru (1946–1948) and chaired Tennessee's 1953 constitutional convention.

Early life
Cooper was born at the home of his maternal grandparents, River Side Farmhouse, along the Duck River in Bedford County, Tennessee. He was the son of William Prentice Cooper, an attorney and businessman, and Argentine (Shofner) Cooper. He attended private schools in nearby Shelbyville and graduated in 1913 from the Webb School in Bell Buckle, where he was president of the debate team.

In 1914, Cooper enrolled in Vanderbilt University, where he was a member of Phi Delta Theta and vice president of the freshman class. After two years, he transferred to Princeton University, from which he graduated in 1917 with a Bachelor of Arts. Following the U.S. entry into World War I, he enlisted in the Army, initially serving with the 307th Field Artillery before being transferred to Fort Monroe in Virginia. He was discharged in January 1919 with the rank of second lieutenant.

Cooper enrolled in Harvard Law School in February 1919 and graduated with an LL.B in 1921. He was admitted to the bar in 1922 and began practice in Shelbyville. That same year he was elected to the Tennessee House of Representatives, where he secured passage of the state's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Cooper left the house after one term and was elected district attorney of the state's Eighth Judicial District in 1925. He later served as a city attorney for Shelbyville. In the 1930s, he helped organize the Duck River Electric Membership Corporation, an electric cooperative.

Governor
In 1936 Cooper was elected to the Tennessee Senate, representing Bedford, Coffee, and Moore counties. In 1938, he ran for his party's nomination for governor with the support of Memphis political boss E. H. Crump. Crump was at the height of his power in state politics and had had a falling out with the incumbent, Gordon Browning, over state appointments. He spent thousands of dollars on ads to boost Cooper's image and assail Browning, and Cooper won the nomination, 231,852 votes to 158,854. In the general election, he defeated the Republican candidate, Howard Baker, Sr., 210,567 votes to 83,031.

In the 1940 governor's race, Cooper defeated Knoxville inventor George Roby Dempster in the Democratic primary, and he defeated C. Arthur Bruce by a more than 2-to-1 margin in the general election. In the 1942 race, Judge J. Ridley Mitchell, who despised Crump, sought the party's nomination for governor but was defeated by Cooper, 171,259 votes to 124,037. Cooper easily defeated Republican candidate C.N. Frazier in the general election. Constitutional term limits prevented Cooper from seeking reelection in 1944.

Cooper was Tennessee's governor during World War II. In 1940, anticipating the U.S. entry into the war, he organized the Tennessee State Defense Council, which many other states would later imitate. He also coordinated the establishment of draft boards, organized a state guard to replace the National Guard (which had been called up to active service), and established a model Home Food Supply Program. Large defense-related facilities were built throughout the state, including Fort Campbell, most of which is in Tennessee despite its Kentucky address, a naval training base in Millington, and Sewart Air Force Base in Smyrna. Defense-related plants, employing thousands of Tennesseans, were also built, among them a gunpowder plant at Millington, a shell-loading factory in Milan, and an aircraft factory in Nashville.

In 1942, the federal government appropriated land in what is now Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for the top secret Manhattan Project which was developing the world's first atomic bomb. Cooper was not informed of the purpose of the project. When Anderson Countians complained to Cooper of land appropriations, Cooper accused the federal government of stealing the land for a "socialist" project. When officially notified in July 1943 by an Army lieutenant of the presidential proclamation making the area a military district not subject to state control, he angrily ripped it to pieces. The new MED District Engineer Leuitenant Colonel Kenneth Nichols had to placate him.

Along with defense mobilization, Cooper increased funding for state schools and implemented a program that provided free textbooks for children in grades 1 through 3. He increased aid to the elderly, established a system of tuberculosis hospitals, and acquired land for state parks and state forests. He cut the state payroll and placed taxes on alcohol, and he managed to reduce the state debt by $21 million. In January 1941, a Cooper-supported bill calling for a repeal of the state's poll tax was introduced in the state legislature but was defeated. In 1943, the repeal passed but was thrown out by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Later life
Cooper was among 12 nominated at the 1944 Democratic National Convention to serve as Franklin D. Roosevelt's running mate in the presidential election that year, receiving 26 votes. In 1946, Cooper was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Peru by President Harry Truman. He convinced Peru to repay an outstanding loan to the United States and had a reputation as a frugal entertainer. An Argentine newspaper accused Cooper of inciting a rebellion by APRA members in Callao in October 1948 (the rebellion took place several months after Cooper had left office), but Cooper adamantly denied any involvement.

Cooper was chairman of the limited state constitutional convention of 1953 which proposed eight amendments to the Tennessee State Constitution, all of which were subsequently adopted by voters. The most notable of these amendments included the repeal of the poll tax and the extension of the gubernatorial term from two years to four years.

Encouraged by pro-segregation interests, Cooper challenged freshman U.S. Senator Albert Gore Sr., in the 1958 Democratic primary but lost handily, with Gore taking about 60% of the vote. Cooper remained an active participant in Democratic Party events until his death from cancer on May 18, 1969, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Family and legacy
Cooper married Hortense Hayes Powell (1919–2017) in 1950. They had three sons: William Prentice Cooper, III, Jim Cooper, John Cooper. Since Cooper was a bachelor during his tenure as governor, his mother served as the state's first lady. Jim is a former U.S. congressman, while John was mayor of Metro Nashville.

Prentice Cooper State Forest, located west of Chattanooga, is named for Cooper. Most of the land for the forest was acquired during Cooper's tenure as governor. Residence halls at Tennessee Tech and the University of Tennessee at Martin have also been named for Cooper. Cooper's house stands in Shelbyville and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

title: Prentice Cooper


text:
Lake Texoma

Lake Texoma is one of the largest reservoirs in the United States, the 12th-largest US Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) lake, and the largest in USACE Tulsa District. Lake Texoma is formed by Denison Dam on the Red River in Bryan County, Oklahoma, and Grayson County, Texas, about 726 mi upstream from the mouth of the river. It is located at the confluence of the Red and Washita Rivers. The project was completed in 1944. The damsite is about 5 mi northwest of Denison, Texas, and 15 mi southwest of Durant, Oklahoma. Lake Texoma is the most developed and most popular lake within the USACE Tulsa District, attracting around 6 million visitors a year. Oklahoma has more of the lake within its boundaries than Texas.

Tributaries and outlet
Lake Texoma's two main sources are the Red River from the west and Washita River from the north. Other notable sources include Big Mineral Creek, Little Mineral Creek, Buncombe Creek, Rock Creek, and Glasses Creek. Lake Texoma drains into the Red River at the Denison Dam.

Water levels
Normal elevation of the conservation pool varies from 615 to 619 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum depending on the time of year. The flood control pool extends to elevation 645 ft. The lake has crested the dam's spillway at a height of 640 ft five times - once in 1957, 1990, and 2007, and on May 24 and June 18, 2015. (USACE 2003a) The lake's previously highest elevation was recorded on May 6, 1990, at 644.76 feet. This record was broken on May 29, 2015, and the lake crested on June 1, 2015, at a new record elevation of 645.72 feet. The top of Denison Dam is at 670 feet.

Saltwater from the Red River

The Red River that formed Lake Texoma is a saltwater river due to salt deposits left over from a 250-million-year-old former sea that was in the current Texas-Oklahoma border region. As time passed, that sea evaporated, leaving salts deposits — mostly sodium chloride. Rock and silt eventually buried the deposits, but the salts continue to leach through natural seeps in tributaries above Lake Texoma, sending as much as 3,450 tons of salt per day flowing down the Red River. The problem with the water in the Red River is much of it is too salty and requires costly treatment, if it is usable at all. Due to this phenomenon, striped bass, a saltwater fish species, thrives in Lake Texoma. Lake Texoma is home to the only self-sustaining population of striped bass in Texas.

Geography
Lake Texoma is situated on the border between Oklahoma and Texas in the Oklahoma counties of Bryan, Marshall, Johnston, and Love, and the Texas counties of Grayson and Cooke. It has a surface area of 89,000 acres (360 km2), a conservation water volume of 2525568 acre.ft, and a flood-control volume of 5194163 acre.ft.

Cities
Notable cities surrounding the lake in Texas are Denison, Sherman, and Gainesville. In Oklahoma, the most notable city is Durant.

Other towns and cities near the lake in Bryan County, Oklahoma, include Cartwright, Colbert, Calera, Platter, and Mead. In Marshall County, Oklahoma, Madill and Kingston are the nearest cities, with many smaller communities near the lake including Enos, Little City, Cumberland, Kingston, New Woodville, McBride, Willis, and the unsubmerged portion of Aylesworth. Most of Aylesworth was submerged under the water of the lake. Other towns and cities in Texas include Gordonville, Locust, Fink, Pottsboro, and Preston.

Islands
Several small islands on Lake Texoma are accessible only by means of water transportation. Some of the island names include, in order from west to east, West Island, Wood Island, Hog Island, Treasure Island, Little Island, and North Island.

Parks
Lake Texoma features two state parks, being Lake Texoma State Park in Oklahoma and Eisenhower State Park in Texas. It also has 54 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) managed parks. The northern and southern reaches of the lake each terminate within a National Wildlife Refuge.

History
Lake Texoma has grown in importance over the decades from primarily relief from annual flooding and destruction to an employment engine for the area, and finally a recreation mecca for the nation.

Mr. George Moulton who some consider the father of the Denison Dam was a Denison businessman who dreamed of placing a dam on the Red River at Baer’s Ferry as early as 1925. He began lobbying and talking to Chambers of Commerce in Denison and Durant in the late 1920s. Sam Rayburn joined the dream team in the early 1930s and was instrumental in the legislative process of making the great lake a reality.

The Flood Control Act of 1938 (Public Law No. 761, 75th Congress, 3rd Session) authorized funding for the Denison dam, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers set up the Denison District Office in June of that year. The first Commander was Captain Lucius D. Clay.

Lake Texoma was constructed during WWII. German prisoners of war were involved in the construction of the dam and were the first POWs to be used in a labor camp. These prisoners were from Rommel’s Afrika Korps and were housed in camps at Tishomingo and Powell, Oklahoma. Later, the Tishomingo POWs were housed in another camp at the spillway. Only non-war related work could be performed by POWs according to the Geneva Convention – such as clearing trees for the proposed lake and light construction. Construction projects performed by the prisoners included mortared stone lining of the drainage ditches around the damsite, which are still present today.

Construction of the dam was completed in January 1944 at a cost of $54 million ($881 million in 2022 dollars). The installation of the two generators was completed in September 1949. Initially Lake Texoma was authorized for flood control, hydropower and water supply. Recreation was not officially added as a project purpose by Congress until 1988.

The management of the lands around Lake Texoma was turned over to the National Park Service (NPS) in 1946 and they continued until 1949 when both agencies decided that the NPS would move out and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would take over the operations and maintenance responsibilities. The National Park Service was always a reluctant partner in this arrangement and finally removed themselves from Texoma in 1949.

The lake attracted worldwide media attention in June 2015 when water was drained following a flood, causing a vortex with 2.5-m-wide hole to form.

Popularity
Lake Texoma's popularity is largely attributed to its sheer size and proximity to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. The lake is about an hour's drive north from the metropolitan area. The Lake Texoma area, known simply as Texoma or Texomaland, is experiencing rapid economic growth due to heavy tourist use.

Recreation
Diverse recreational opportunities include two wildlife refuges, two state parks, 54 USACE-managed parks, 12 marinas, 26 resorts, hundreds of campgrounds, and a variety of golf courses. Power boating, sailing, personal watercraft, water skiing, and wind surfing are all popular. The lake has become a major sailing center based on its size, depth, and miles of sailing shoreline.

During the spring break and Fourth of July holidays, many college students home for the holidays gather in an area called "Fobb Bottom" on the Oklahoma side.

Lake Texoma is also home to the Lakefest Regatta, widely considered to be the first inland charity regatta in the United States. The event typically attracts up to 100 keelboats and more than 500 sailors each spring. Since its inception, Lakefest has raised more than $2 million in support of various children’s charities in North Texas. The current beneficiary is the Make-A-Wish Foundation® of North Texas.

Former professional funny car race driver "Flash" Gordon Mineo organized many "poker run" events on Lake Texoma. Gordon and his wife, Ann Mineo, along with three others, died September 2, 2006, in a boating accident on Lake Texoma.

Fishing
In 2004, a blue catfish was pulled from the lake that weighed 121.5 lb, temporarily setting a world weight record for rod-and-reel-caught catfish. The fish was moved to a freshwater aquarium in Athens, Texas. More commonly, catfish in Lake Texoma weigh between 5 and 70 lb.

Camping
Many campgrounds, both public and private, exist along the shores of Lake Texoma. Among these are Eisenhower State Park, named for President Dwight Eisenhower, who was born in nearby Denison; Camp All Saints owned by the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas; and James Ray Scout Reservation, owned by the Circle Ten Council of the Boy Scouts of America.

Fees
Because of a need to pay for maintenance and improvements, the State of Oklahoma has imposed a use fee on some Lake Texoma State Park visitors effective June 15, 2020.

Private development initiatives
Recently, several large transfers of public land to private developers have been authorized by the federal government.

The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-53 113 Stat. 359), authorized USACE to sell to the state of Oklahoma about 1580 acre of federally owned land on the north shore of Lake Texoma in Marshall County, Oklahoma, under lease at that time to the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department. The land was part of the Lake Texoma State Park, a conglomerate of state-owned and federally owned lands leased to the state, totaling around 1882 acre. The park was home to numerous state- and concession-operated facilities and activities, including a resort lodge with 106 guest rooms and suites.

Initially, the State of Oklahoma Commissioners of the Land Office purchased only 558 acre from USACE in March 2007. Soon after, the state reached an agreement with Pointe Vista Development, LLC, for the sale of roughly 750 acres (to include the land purchased from USACE and land already owned by the state) for the development of home sites and an upscale resort. Pointe Vista is a partnership between Mark Fischer, president and chief executive of Chaparral Energy, and Aubrey McClendon, chairman and chief executive of Chesapeake Energy. Also in 2007, the Governor of Oklahoma, Brad Henry, indicated that the state would likely purchase all or most of the remaining land at Texoma State Park under lease from USACE to transfer to Pointe Vista for further development. The new development is proposed to include 18–36 holes of championship golf, a club house and practice facility, aquatic center, outdoor recreation center, nature parks, campgrounds, retail shops, and an amphitheater. The new development will cost an estimated $360 million, which will also include housing, as well as a full-service hotel with restaurants, gym, business center, multiple swimming pools, spa, and meeting rooms. The proposed private community will have 250–350 high-end homes, ranging in size from 1500 to 4000 sqft.

The Lake Texoma Lodge, built in 1951, officially closed its doors on December 1, 2006. The lodge was in poor repair, resulting in a steady decline in the facility's use. The lodge has since been demolished.

Section 3182(j) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, authorized USACE to convey approximately 900 acre of land at Lake Texoma to the city of Denison, Texas. The provision was backed by U.S. Congressman Ralph Hall (R) as an economic development initiative. The sale is to be at fair market value and the city of Denison is responsible for all costs associated with the transaction (costs for completing NEPA compliance documentation, surveys, appraisals, USACE administrative costs, etc.). The city in turn intends to sell the property to George Schuler, a local developer, for the creation of a private residential and recreational development on the conveyed land and adjacent land already owned by Mr. Schuler. The eventual development may result in as many as 10,000 residents locating in the Grandpappy Point area.

The city and Mr. Schuler attempted to lease the same land from the Corps of Engineers in 2004, but abandoned those attempts in favor of legislation mandating the transfer, due to the inability to use the land for the intended purposes under a lease without an update of the Corps Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) for Lake Texoma. The majority of the land is currently zoned as Limited Development, Protected Area (suitable for nature hiking, birdwatching, etc.) and Aesthetic or Scenic areas. The Corps has previously stated that any revision of the SMP will require the completion of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the entire Lake Texoma project that will consider the cumulative impacts of the extensive development that has occurred around the Lake since the original EIS was conducted in the 1970s. Completion of a lake-wde SEIS has been estimated by the Corps to take up to 2 years to complete at a cost of approximately $2.5 million. Since Section 3182(j) contained no provisions exempting the sale from the requirements of NEPA, it is expected that completion of the SEIS and revision of the SMP will also be required prior to completion of the sale, and that the city of Denison will be required to bear that as a cost associated with the transaction.

title: Lake Texoma


text:
Stahlhelm

The Stahlhelm (German for "steel helmet") is a term used to refer to a series of German steel combat helmet designs intended to protect the wearer from common battlefield hazards such as shrapnel.

The armies of the great powers began to issue steel helmets during World War I as a result of combat experience and experimentation. The German Army began to replace the boiled leather Pickelhaube with the Stahlhelm in 1916. The Stahlhelm's distinctive coal scuttle shape, was instantly recognizable and became a common element of propaganda on both sides, like the Pickelhaube before it. The name was used by Der Stahlhelm, a German veterans' organization that existed from 1918 to 1935.

After World War II, both East and West German militaries adopted helmets unrelated to the archetypical German helmet designs from the world wars, but continued to refer to the new models as Stahlhelm. The WWII era Stahlhelm continued to be used by police and border guards in West Germany until the 1990s, when they were replaced by modern kevlar helmets.

Historical Context & Origin
Before the Great War, most types of military headdress were not designed for protection. Most militaries had adopted either a cap or helmet, usually made of fabric or leather. Only some types of cavalry retained a metal helmet, albeit these were designed to protect against sabre blows rather than the causes of injury that would become prevalent in the war.

With the growing prevalence of artillery and the widespread adoption of trench warfare, the proportion of casualties on all sides suffering head injuries rose dramatically. Numerous units on both sides independently developed and locally produced their own ad hoc protective helmets starting in 1915. Stationed in the rocky area of the Vosges, Army Detachment Gaede recorded significantly more head injuries caused by stones and shell fragments than other units elsewhere. The artillery workshop of the Army Detachment developed a helmet that consisted of a cloth and leather skullcap with a steel plate (6 mm thickness). The plate protected not only the forehead but also the eyes and nose.

While the Germans were the first to initiate development of a modern combat helmet, they were plagued by red tape and inaction. The French were the first country to adopt and issue their Adrian helmet to units starting in 1915. . The British Empire followed suit later that year with the Brodie helmet.

Development
The design of the Stahlhelm was carried out by Dr Friedrich Schwerd of the Technical Institute of Hanover. In early 1915, Schwerd had carried out a study of head wounds suffered during trench warfare and submitted a recommendation for steel helmets, shortly after which he was ordered to Berlin. Schwerd then undertook the task of designing and producing a suitable helmet, broadly based on the 15th-century sallet, which provided good protection for the head and neck.

After lengthy development work, which included testing a selection of German and Allied headgear, the first stahlhelm were tested in November 1915 at the Kummersdorf Proving Ground and then field-tested by the 1st Assault Battalion. Thirty thousand examples were ordered, but it was not approved for general issue until New Year of 1916, hence it is most usually referred to as the "Model 1916". In February 1916 it was distributed to troops at Verdun, following which the incidence of serious head injuries fell dramatically. The first German troops to use this helmet were the stormtroopers of the ''Sturm-Bataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr)'', commanded by Captain Willy Rohr.

In contrast to the Hadfield steel used in the British Brodie helmet, the Germans used a harder martensitic silicon/nickel steel. As a result, and also due to the helmet's form, the Stahlhelm had to be formed in heated dies at a greater unit cost than the British helmet, which could be formed in one piece.

Like the British and French, German troops identified highly with their helmets. The Stahlhelm became a popular symbol of paramilitary groups after the First World War. Such was the attachment of the World War One generation to the design that it was reportedly the reason that Hitler rejected a modernised, sloping helmet design to replace it.

Stahlhelm use in other countries
Germany exported versions of the M1935 helmet to various countries. Versions of the M1935 Stahlhelm were sent to Republic of China from 1935 to 1936 and the M1935 was the main helmet of the Chinese Nationalist Army (especially the "central" divisions) during World War II. Spain also received shipments of the helmet. During the inter-war years, several military missions were sent to South America under the command of Hans Kundt. After the Chaco War, the Bolivian army adopted the Stahlhelm and continued using it until recently. The exported M1935 helmets were similar to the German issue, except for a different liner.

Some countries manufactured their own helmets using the M1935 design, and this basic design was in use in various nations as late as the 1970s.

The Germans helped the Hungarians copy the M1935 design. The WWII M38 Hungarian steel helmet is nearly identical to the German M1935. Both have almost the same shape, riveted ventilation holes, and the classic rolled edge. Differences include somewhat rougher Hungarian finishing, a different liner and different rivets position – the split pins are situated behind the ventilation holes. A square metal bracket is riveted on the rear, above the back brim, to secure the helmet to the knapsack while marching. It was typically painted in Hungarian brown-green, though blue-grey versions existed. It is sometimes called the "Finnish M35" due to its extensive use by the Finnish Army during the Continuation War 1941–44.

After World War I Poland seized large quantities of M1918 helmets. Most were later sold to various countries, including Spain. However, at the end of the 1930s, it was discovered that the standard Polish wz. 31 helmet was unsuitable for tank troops and motorized units; while offering decent protection, it was too large and heavy. As a stop-gap measure before a new helmet was developed, the General Staff decided to issue M1918 helmets to the 10th Motorized Cavalry Brigade, which used them during the September Campaign.

During the time of the Warsaw Uprising the helmet was also worn by the members of the Polish Home Army and it was during this time that the helmet became the symbol of the resistance, as every Stahlhelm worn by a soldier of the underground army signified a dead German occupier it was taken from.

In November 1926, the Irish Defence Forces adopted the Stahlhelm. As the Treaty of Versailles barred Germany from exporting steel helmets, the Irish turned to London-based Vickers, ordering 5,000 copies of a model closely resembling the M1918 helmet. The helmet remained in use until it was replaced by the British Mark II model in 1940. Following the outbreak of World War II, the helmets became the subject of anti-Irish propaganda in Britain. A large number of the withdrawn helmets were reissued to various emergency services after being painted white.

Switzerland used a helmet, designated the M1918, that was roughly similar to the M1916 but had a shallower, wider and more rounded crown and skirt. This was to protect against the harsh winter winds of the alpine regions.

The Chilean Army was a prolific user of the Vulkanfiber models, bought before the Second World War, along with a few M1935 and Czechoslovak M32 helmets. After the war, local production of lightweight fiber and plastic models started, which are still in ceremonial & garrison use today. Small runs of steel helmets were made by FAMAE in the late 90's, either newly made or by reforming M1 Helmet shells, but ultimately were not adopted due to the ascendance of kevlar and synthetic ballistic fiber helmets by that time. A Stahlhelm with crossed bayonets and the corresponding number is the standard insignia of infantry regiments.

The Imperial Iranian Army used small numbers of the Vulkanfiber model, mostly with the Imperial Guard and a few units around Tehran, acquired prior to the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. During World War II, the Argentine Army adopted a similar model made of pressed fibre. For combat and provincial police use, imported Swiss M1918 Helmets were still in service as late as 1976.

In the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, due to large quantities captured by World War II Partisans, the Stahlhelm was used in Yugoslav People's Army up to 1959, when it was phased out and replaced by the M59/85 steel helmet.

Postwar
After World War II, West Germany's Bundesgrenzschutz border guards and some West German police units kept the Stahlhelm in their inventories (police units can be seen wearing them during footage of the Black September hostage crisis in 1972), and the Fallschirmjäger variant was used for some time by the GSG 9. With the re-armament of West Germany the Bundeswehr introduced the United States Army M1 Helmet which was replaced by a Kevlar helmet (Gefechtshelm), similar to the modern US helmets, in the 1990s. German firefighter units today still use Stahlhelm-shaped helmets in a fluorescent colour.

East Germany's National People's Army M-56 helmet was modelled on an unused 1942 German design with a more conical shape. The Chilean Army still uses the Stahlhelm design for ceremonial purposes, as does the Bolivian Army. There are also some Japanese bicycle helmets (with accompanying goggles) that resemble the Stahlhelm. Many schools and universities in Mexico such as the Autonomous University of Baja California have military bands that use or resemble the M35 Stahlhelm.

The U.S. Army's 1980s and 1990s era Kevlar Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops Helmet was sometimes called the "Fritz helmet" for its resemblance to the Stahlhelm. The U.S. Army and Marines have continued to use a design akin to the PASGT helmet with the MICH TC-2000 Combat Helmet and Lightweight Helmet, respectively.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army soldiers still used M1935 helmets which were captured from the Chinese Nationalist Army during the Chinese Civil War until the 1970s.

Since 2012, El Salvador's Policia Nacional Civil use a navy/indigo blue-coloured helmet that strongly resembles the Stahlhelm; this helmet is used by some members of the riot-control unit and rarely used by the Police's assault teams.

Variants
The different Stahlhelm designs are named for their year of introduction. For example, the Modell 1942 which was introduced in 1942 is commonly known as M1942 or simply M42. Here, they are referred to by their M19XX names.

M1916 and M1917

The Stahlhelm was introduced into regular service during the Verdun campaign in early 1916.

The M1916 design had side-mounted horn-like ventilator lugs which were intended to support an additional steel brow plate or Stirnpanzer, which saw limited use only by snipers and trench raiding parties, as it was too heavy for general use.

The shell came in different sizes, from 60 to 68, with some size 70s reported. Helmet weight varied from 0.98 kg to 1.4 kg, depending on shell size. The suspension, or liner, consisted of a headband with three segmented leather pouches, each holding padding materials, and leather or fabric cords that could be adjusted to provide a comfortable fit. The one-piece leather chin strap was attached to the shell by M1891 chinstrap lugs, the same kind used in the Pickelhaube helmet.

The M1916 design provided excellent protection. Reserve Lieutenant Walter Schulze of 8th Company Reserve Infantry Regiment 76 described his combat introduction to the helmet on the Somme, 29 July 1916:

"... suddenly, with a great clanging thud, I was hit on the forehead and knocked flying onto the floor of the trench... a shrapnel bullet had hit my helmet with great violence, without piercing it, but sufficiently hard to dent it. If I had, as had been usual up until a few days previously, been wearing a cap, then the Regiment would have had one more man killed."

But the helmet had a few flaws. The ventilator horns often let cold air in during the winter, requiring the wearer to block the vents with mud or fabric. The large, flared skirt tended to make it difficult for soldiers to hear, distorting surrounding sounds and creating an echo when the wearer spoke.

Originally painted Feldgrau (field grey), the Stahlhelm was often camouflaged by troops in the field using mud, foliage, cloth covers, and paint. Official issue cloth covers in white and grey appeared in late 1916 and early 1917. Camouflage paint was not formally introduced until July 1918, when German Army Order II, No 91 366, signed by General Erich Ludendorff on 7 July 1918, outlined official standards for helmet camouflage. The order stipulated that helmets should be painted in several colours, separated by a finger-wide black line. The colours should be relevant to the season, such as using green, brown and ochre in summer. In the closing months, some experiments were conducted on the Stahlhelm paint. Wollstaub was one such paint iteration that was infused with crushed felt in hopes of glare reduction.

After the effectiveness of the M1916 design was validated during the 1916 campaigns, incremental improvements were subsequently made. The M1917 version saw improvements to the liner but was otherwise identical to the original design.

M1918

Introduced on February 12, 1918 Extensive redesigns were made for the M1918 model. A new two-piece chin strap was introduced and was attached directly to the helmet liner rather than the shell. Certain examples of the M1918 had cutouts in the rim along the sides of the helmet. This iteration was dubbed the cavalry or telephone talker helmet, despite the fact that it was intended to be utilized by all units. It has incorrectly been said that these cutouts were to accommodate headphones while wearing the helmet. These cutouts were actually done to improve hearing and to reduce echo created by the large, flared skirt. About ten thousand were created in the closing months of the war.

The M1918 Stahlhelm can be distinguished from the M1916, as the M1918 shell lacks the chinstrap rivet on the lower side of the helmet skirt found on earlier models.

A modified variant of the M1918 was also made, referred to as the Armored Warfare Stahlhelm, created in sparing amounts for tank crews. The only difference from previous models was the reduction of the visor extending over the eyes to allow for better visibility.

Austro-Hungarian variants

Austria-Hungary purchased about 416,000 German helmets from November 1916 until the end of the war and also began its own licensed production starting in May 1917. Around a million Stahlhelm of all variants were issued until the end of the war.

Austro-Hungarian M17
The Austrian M17 helmet was similar to the German M16, it was indicated „nach deutschem Muster“ i.e. "German modell". It was coloured golden-brown (known as Isonzo-braun), had a cloth chinstrap and had the chinstrap rivet located higher up on the steel shell. From May 1917 till the end of World War I 534,013 were produced, many of which were manufactured at the Krupp in Berndorf, Lower Austria. Other known production locations were:
 * Adolf Westen factory in Celje, present day Slovenia
 * Brüder Gottlieb u. Brauchbar in Brno, present day Czech Republic
 * Bleckmann & Poldihutte in Kladno, present day Czech Republic
 * C. A. Scholtz in Matejovce, Poprad, present day Slovakia
 * Nădrag, present day Romania
 * Reșița, present day Romania
 * Weiss Manfréd Acél- és Fémművek in Csepel, Budapest, present day Hungary
 * Bruder Lapp in Rottenmann, present day Austria
 * Warchalowski, Eissler & Co in Vienna, present day Austria
 * Gebruder Bohler & Co. in Kapfenberg, present day Austria.

Austro-Hungarian M18
This helmet is known by collectors as Hungarian M18 variant and it was similar to the Austrian M17 design, but the chinstrap rivet was smaller in size and located even higher up than the Austrian version. It was coloured in golden-brown (known as Isonzo-braun). Another difference was in the attachment method of the chinstrap, it was fixed to the same rivet that held the liner metal ring. These were manufactured at the Krupp in Berndorf.

Berndorfer variant
There was also a quite different, domestically developed Berndorfer variant. It was indicated as "österreichisches Muster" i.e. Austrian mode. 139,968 were produced from May till November 1917 at the Krupp in Berndorf.

Ottoman variant
The formation in 1917 by the Ottoman Empire of stormtrooper battalions following the German model prompted the requirement for steel helmets, as these had not previously been adopted. Although German helmets were ordered, Ottoman officers believed that the design impeded the soldiers' ability to hear orders in the field and requested that the visor, ear and neck protectors be removed, which was done using grinding machines. Germany delivered 5,400 visorless versions of the M1918 helmet for the Ottoman Empire. The missing front visor was thought by the Germans to be for religious reasons, and it was claimed that it was to allow Turkish soldiers to touch their foreheads to the ground during prayer, without removing their helmets. However, this story has been disputed. The Turks rejected any more than the 5,400 delivered and an unknown number from the overrun were issued to German armed forces and were used by German Freikorps units after the war.

M1933
In 1932 the Army High Command ordered the testing of a new prototype helmet intended to replace the older models. It was made entirely from a composite plastic material called "Vulkanfiber". The Model 1933 Vulkanfiber helmet kept the basic form of previous helmets but was much lighter. It was put into limited production following favourable field tests in early 1933 and small numbers were issued to Reichswehr infantry, artillery and communications units. It was removed from service following the introduction of the M1935 helmet and most of the remaining stock were reissued to civil organizations such as fire brigades and police forces. Some examples were also retained for parade use by senior officers, who were not generally issued with the Stahlhelm.

M1935
In 1934 tests began on an improved Stahlhelm, whose design was a development of World War I models. The company "Eisenhüttenwerke Thale" (today Thaletec) carried out prototype design and testing, with Dr Friedrich Schwerd once again taking a hand.

The new helmet was pressed from sheets of molybdenum steel in several stages. The size of the flared visor and skirt was reduced, and the large projecting lugs for the obsolete armour shield were eliminated. The ventilator holes were retained but were set in smaller hollow rivets mounted to the helmet's shell. The edges of the shell were rolled over, creating a smooth edge along the helmet. Finally, a completely new leather suspension, or liner, was incorporated that greatly improved the helmet's safety, adjustability, and comfort for each wearer. These improvements made the new M1935 helmet lighter, more compact, and more comfortable to wear than the previous designs.

The Army's Supreme Command within the Third Reich's Wehrmacht or combined armed forces officially accepted the new helmet on June 25, 1935 and it was intended to replace all other helmets in service. More than 1 million M1935 helmets were manufactured in the first two years after its introduction, and millions more were produced until 1940 when the basic design and production methods were changed.

Gladiator civil defense helmet
In 1938, the Germans developed a variant of the Stahlhelm with a wider, flared peak and ventilation holes originally intended for civil defense and Luftschutz personnel. Known as the gladiator pattern, the privately purchased Luftschutz helmet was originally made from three pieces of steel and typically painted black or dark blue. Later in the war these were issued to Volkssturm personnel, and sometimes repainted in Feldgrün. By 1944, the helmets were stamped from a single steel sheet, and the original leather lining replaced with vinyl or cloth to reduce costs. A modified postwar version in fluorescent green, white or yellow continued to be issued to rescue workers in the Bundesrepublik until the early 1990s.

M1940
The M1935 design was slightly modified in 1940 to simplify its construction, the manufacturing process now incorporating more automated stamping methods. The principal change was to stamp the ventilator hole mounts directly onto the shell, rather than utilizing separate fittings. In other respects, the M1940 helmet was identical to the M1935. The Germans still referred to the M1940 as the M1935, while the M1940 designation were given by collectors.

Fallschirmjäger version
A variant of the M1935 helmet with a shell lacking the projecting visor and deep flared rim was issued to Fallschirmjäger (German paratrooper) units. It was so designed in order to lessen the risk of head injury on landing after a parachute jump; also to reduce the significant wind resistance and resulting neck trauma. Early Fallschirmjäger helmets were manufactured from existing M1935 helmets by removing the undesirable projections, which were omitted when the new design entered full production. The modified shell also incorporated a completely different and more substantial liner and chinstrap design that provided far more protection for German airborne troops. The chinstrap featured a four-point retention system that has come into use again by modern combat helmets such as the MICH since the late 1990s.

M1942
The M1942 design was a result of wartime demands, by order of Hitler, to ‘maintain intimidation but reduce cost’. The rolled edge on the shell was eliminated, creating an unfinished edge along the rim. This edge slightly flared out, along the base of the skirt, reducing the protection the helmet gave. The elimination of the rolled edge expedited the manufacturing process and reduced the amount of metal used in each helmet. Shell paint colours were typically matte grey-green (Heer) or grey-blue (Luftwaffe), and the decals were eliminated in 1943 to speed up production and reduce the helmet's combat visibility. Greater manufacturing flaws were also observed in M1942 helmets made late in the war.

M1944
A new variant, designed in 1942 by the Institute for Defence Technical Materials Science in Berlin, was the so called M44. It was stamped out of one piece of metal, but with sloped sides. It was similar in appearance to the British 1944 Type Mk III helmet. They were tested in three variant models B, B/II, and C. The one selected for extensive tests was the B/II. They were produced by the Thale Eisenhuttenwerke. The B/II will inspire the East German M56 in fact they looked very similar. M44 helmet was never approved for service and it remained a prototype.

M1945
There have been reports of a variant manufactured in the last months of the war. The M1945 was reported to have been similar to the M1942 design but did away completely with the ventilator. These helmets are reported to be extremely rare. Many collectors and historians are of the opinion that the M1945 helmet is just a regular M1942 helmet that lacked the vents simply because of machine malfunctions in the factory, or unfinished M1942 helmets that were completed in the post-war era.

M1954
It was an evolution of the prototype M1944 with a modified and more squared line. The appearance of the helmet was a transitional way between the M35 and the M44. It was nicknamed "Kesslerbombe" as a reference to the general Heinz Keßler. It was used by the KVP of the GDR and it was fitted with two different suspension systems during its life in service. The first one fixed with three rivets as in the WW2 models, the second type required further holes in the helmet shell. It was substituted by the helmet M1956.

M1956

The East German M-56 helmet was inspired by the 1942 designed helmet, intended as a replacement for the M1935/M1940 model Stahlhelm. It was initially developed for the Wehrmacht by the Institute for Defense Technical Materials Science in Berlin (see M1944 above). The helmet had seen trials since 1943 but was not adopted during World War II.

The design was not used until the requirement for a distinct German helmet for the Volkspolizei and the National People's Army arose. The East German leadership was motivated in large part by a desire to avoid provoking the offence that using a traditional Stahlhelm design would have caused East Germany's Warsaw Pact allies (especially Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Soviet Union), but a more practical military necessity was also present due to the continued use of surplus Stahlhelmen by West German units, in particular border guards. Moreover, the East Germans suspected the West could re-issue the Stahlhelm on a general basis in the Bundeswehr at any time and therefore needed a helmet that was easily distinguishable from that of their potential enemy. For both reasons, the 1942 design was likely chosen because it was the most similar of all German designs to the most recognizable Soviet helmets, in particular the iconic SSh-40 design. Such a design not only served a political purpose but was one that NATO armies were unlikely to duplicate closely. Indeed, the M-56 was similar enough in appearance to the SSh-40 that some Westerners failed to realize its German origins altogether and assumed the East Germans had adopted a Soviet design.

The M-56 helmet came in three basic versions, Mod 1 or I/56, Mod 2 or I/57 and Mod 3 or I/71, and was widely sold (or given) to Third World armies.

M40/51
When the Bundesgrenzschutz (BGS) (Federal Border Guards of Germany) was formed in 1951, it was supplied with old salvaged and refurbished M35, M40 or M42 helmets. Among the changes made, there was the replacement of the interior and the introduction of new eyelets for the chinstrap, some welded inside the helmet some even fixed to the helmet with rivets. The helmets for the BGS were repainted in dark green RAL 6012.

With the progressive depletion of stocks, starting from 1951 new helmets were produced following the construction rules of the M40 model. Regarding the interior, was used the simplified M31 type, with a chinstrap directly fixed to it, (adopted above all by the police forces of the Länder), and a liner with a chinstrap fixed to the helmet according to the methods described above; this version was adopted by the BGS.

M40/53
Starting in 1953, a further update of the interior was introduced with the type called I53, developed by the company Schuberth Werke Braunschweig.

This interior was no longer fixed with the classic three nails that ran along the helmet shell but by a screw placed inside, in the centre of the upper part of the helmet.

For this reason the helmet is recognizable from the previous versions by the absence of the rivets on the shell. In later versions, the ventilation holes were also removed. As regards to the fastening of the chinstrap, were used the same solutions of the previous model.

M56 & M1A1
The West German M-56 Stahlhelm was a direct copy of the U.S. M1 helmet. It was properly called "zweiteiliger Stahlhelm" (two-piece steel helmet). In 1958 the helmet was made as a one-piece helmet and renamed Stahlhelm M1A1. The M1A1 came in three sizes: 66, 68, and 71. This helmet was used until 1981 when a modified version was released and renamed the Helm1A1. Modifications included a 3-point chin strap with the third point connecting at the nape, extra-large sizes, and a further adjustable liner.

The M1A1 Stahlhelm remained in service until 1992 when the Bundeswehr replaced it with a PASGT-derived kevlar helmet called the Gefechtshelm ("Combat helmet").

Decals and insignia
After Stahlhelm shells were painted, the colours of which varied by organization, small identification or insignia decals usually were affixed to one or both sides of the helmet. Almost every military, naval, and political organization had its own distinctive insignia, which was applied as decals to the sides of helmets. The right side of early M35 helmets bore the tricolored shield of black, white, and red stripes, the traditional national colors of the pre-WWI German Empire (cf. the black, red, and gold of today's Federal Republic of Germany, harking back to the 1848 Revolt). The left side of the shell often received decal insignia denoting the branch of the armed forces, or Wehrmacht, or an organization within the Nazi Party.

The combined Wehrmacht military forces of Nazi Germany consisted of the Heer (army), the Kriegsmarine (navy), and the Luftwaffe (air force). While not technically part of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen-SS ("Armed-SS") tactically operated as such and was considered part of Germany's armed forces during the war. The same was true of some Sturmabteilung (SA) units, along with other subsidiary organizations, which functioned as part of the armed forces particularly towards the end of the war. Wehrmacht branches typically displayed distinctive emblems in the form of decals on their helmets. The Heer, or army, displayed a black shield bearing the frontal view of a silver-coloured German eagle holding a swastika in its talons (known as the Reichsadler), while the navy used the same eagle emblem in gold. Luftwaffe decals displayed the side view of an eagle in flight, also holding a swastika. The SS was both a paramilitary and a political organization, and its black runic initials on a silver-coloured shield (normally applied to the right side of the shell) looked like twin lightning bolts. Other military, political, and civil or defence organizations used similar decal insignia to distinguish their helmets. Such visible identification devices were gradually abandoned as the war progressed, however, so that by war's end most Wehrmacht helmet insignia had been eliminated to reduce the wearer's visibility in combat.

For the Chinese Nationalist Army soldiers, their M35 helmets were stencilled with the Chinese Nationalist Insignia on the left side. Bolivian Army personnel carry the national flag and Wiphala decals on their Stahlhelms when in the full dress.

Fiction

 * The German Stahlhelm, as well as the Japanese Kabuto, served as a template for the fictional character Darth Vader's headgear in the Star Wars franchise.
 * Improved and bulletproof Stahlhelms with integrated gas masks are part of the German-originated "Protect Gear" powered exoskeletons in Mamoru Oshii's Kerberos Saga franchise.
 * Transformers: Animated features Blitzwing owning a helmet similar to a German Stahlhelm.
 * Super Robot Monkey Team Hyper Force Go! features alien troopers conjured by the Wigglenog wearing helmets similar to Stahlhelms in "Meet the Wigglenog".

Users

 * German Empire (M16-18)
 * Austria-Hungary
 * Weimar Republic
 * Nazi Germany (M35~M42)
 * East Germany (M56)
 * West Germany (for Bundesgrenzschutz use, copies of M35)
 * Republic of China (1912–1949) (M35)
 * People's Republic of China (M35, Captured from the Nationalists)
 * Ottoman Empire
 * Imperial State of Iran
 * Kingdom of Afghanistan (M18 Hungarian model, purchased from Czechoslovakia in the 1930s)
 * Irish Free State in 1926-1940
 * 🇩🇴 Dominican Republic
 * Kingdom of Italy
 * Kingdom of Hungary
 * Kingdom of Bulgaria (M36)
 * Kingdom of Cambodia (1953–1970)
 * 🇪🇪 (M16-18)
 * 🇸🇪 Sweden (Försökshjälm Modell B. A variant to the M1926)
 * 🇬🇷 Greece (limited use by ELAS)
 * 🇧🇪 Belgium
 * Czechoslovakia
 * 🇨🇴 Colombia
 * 🇨🇱 Chile
 * 🇧🇴 Bolivia
 * 🇦🇷 Argentina A hardboard local made helmet called M38 was used between 1938 and 1956.
 * 🇲🇽 Mexico (limited use of M1916, replaced by M26 Adrian Helmets in 1938)
 * 🇱🇻 Latvia (M16, M1918)
 * 🇱🇾 Libya
 * 🇱🇹 Lithuania (M1918)
 * 🇳🇴 Norway - used by the Norwegian Armed Forces from 1945 until the introduction of the American M1 helmet in the late 1950's
 * 🇵🇱 Poland – interwar Polish state issued WW1 stahlhelms to Border Protection Corps, 10th Motorized Cavalry Brigade, and state police units. During the World War II helmets captured from the German occupying force were used by Polish underground formations.
 * 🇷🇺 Russian White movement - supplied by Germany to West Russian Volunteer Army troops in the Russian Civil War.
 * 🇹🇳 Tunisia (used by National Guard in 60s and spotted in Battle of Ben Guerdane. Picture of a Tunisian national guard officer wearing a Stahlhelm )
 * 🇭🇷 Croatia M56
 * Independent State of Croatia
 * 🇻🇪 Venezuela
 * Vietnam (The M56 East German helmet was supplied to People's Army of Vietnam and Viet Cong troops in the Vietnam War)
 * 🇭🇷 Croatia M56
 * Independent State of Croatia
 * 🇻🇪 Venezuela
 * Vietnam (The M56 East German helmet was supplied to People's Army of Vietnam and Viet Cong troops in the Vietnam War)
 * Vietnam (The M56 East German helmet was supplied to People's Army of Vietnam and Viet Cong troops in the Vietnam War)

title: Stahlhelm