text:
Talk:Michael Woroniecki

Associated Content
Re this edit: This material was not properly cited, but there are far bigger issues. This article is a biography of a living person, subject to our stringent sourcing policy for such material. The source cited (such as it was) "according to the article  Woroniecki Family in Times Square on Associated Content.com", later quoting "the author". Associated Content did not "have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". The content was generated entirely by site users. The website had some editorial control over content, but did not in any way vet submission or fact check. This is not a reliable source. If you disagree, please take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard for determination before restoring the material. Woroniecki is a controversial figure. Unsourced and poorly sourced material will be removed on sight. Per WP:BLP, editors restoring the material are responsible for the material's compliance with our policies. Edit warring guidelines apply to those restoring the material, but do not apply to good faith efforts to enforce our WP:BLP policy. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello SummerPhD,
 * Hello SummerPhD,
 * Hello SummerPhD,

 * Thank you for the detailed explanation. I did go and read all the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines on the issue of reliable sources and I understand now where you are coming from. I agree that the material was not properly cited and needs fixing. I did some basic research and discovered that Associated Content was acquired by Yahoo in 2010 and launched in 2011 as Yahoo! Voices. Yahoo introduced new Submission Guidelines (for some reason, I can't get the link to work from that page here but you can search it in Yahoo for reference), retired 75,000 articles that were outdated and retired older content that did not meet the new guidelines. One of the new guidelines is to "Be accurate and cite your sources", requiring contributors to list and submit authoritative sources in a way that can be accessed easily by readers. It also accepts the firsthand, personal experience of the contributor as a reliable source, when the material or content published allows for such.

 * I searched on Yahoo!Voices for the article that was supposedly the source for those sentences and here it is: | Woroniecki Family in Times Square. Since the article was written after AC was acquired by Yahoo and the new rules were put into place, it is a relatively reliable source, given that the material that it is supporting does not make any "extraordinary claims", is not "damaging" to the subject, is not "contentious", per WP:RS and keeps the article current and relevant. All the Wikipedia guidelines on sources allow for their common sense application, depending on the material they are purported to verify. Obviously, this type of source could not be used to support a statement such as "Woroniecki has a doctorate in Theology" or "Woroniecki was present during the Yates trial".  But, according to all the Wiki rules I have read, it is sufficient, under "Currently",  to place Woroniecki in New York in 2010 and a third party perspective of the gist of Woroniecki's current, then, message.

 * I did as you suggested and posted the source in question on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Since then, I did the research on my own and managed to answer our question :-). Since Wikipedia encourages us to try and find sources for un-cited material that we believe is verifiable, per WP:V, as opposed to just removing it, it makes sense to me to restore that content, now having an appropriate cite. So, I will rewrite that part of the article to bring it into compliance and make sure it's sourced correctly. Thank you for helping sort it all out!

 * JesHelpin (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Associated Content was -- and Yahoo Voices is -- not a reliable source, it is a self-published source. Per our policy on biographies of living persons: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person." The "third party perspective" is the perspective of one non-notable individual on a living person. In addition to being unacceptably sourced, it is trivial. Heck, I could go to Yahoo Voices right now and give my "perspective" on the subject, as could anyone who loves or hates the guy enough to bother. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my discussion here and similar findings at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, the Associated Content material has to go. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I apologize if I seem dense, but why are you still saying that Yahoo! Voices is a "self-published" source? It is not. Articles must be submitted for review before they will be published. Articles that carried over were submitted to the same review and edited into compliance. Not just "anyone" could go on there and write about another person, either a promotion or a rant. It is specifically prohibited. As far as the author of the Voices article not being "notable", I don't believe that is a requirement to write that you saw someone at a certain place and time and what you heard them say. Yes, a certain degree of notability would be required for a legal, medical or psychological statement or opinion. But this content is not that. Again, according to Wiki, WP:RS, context and content can determine whether or not a source is "reliable". JesHelpin (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am saying, as the noticeboard found, that the site does NOT have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" and is essentially an SPS. This is a WP:BLP, such sources are not acceptable. If the material is fundamental to a notable subject, it will be available in reliable sources. If it is not, either the material is not a significant aspect of the subject or the subject is not notable. This subject is on the cusp of being a WP:BLP1E: Were it not for his connection to the killings, this article likely would not exist. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Woroniecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/67zO5Xee2?url=http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djglp/downloads/gen10p61.pdf to http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djglp/downloads/gen10p61.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Michael Woroniecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040617152615/http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/37644 to http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/37644
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019215059/http://www.reverbnation.com/michaelanddavidworoniecki to http://www.reverbnation.com/michaelanddavidworoniecki
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019215059/http://www.reverbnation.com/michaelanddavidworoniecki to http://www.reverbnation.com/michaelanddavidworoniecki
 * Added tag to http://www.thevistaonline.com/2.8883/god-s-warriors-come-to-uco-1.1154838
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djglp/downloads/gen10p61.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140518061214/http://voices.yahoo.com/woroniecki-family-times-square-7122832.html?cat=34 to http://voices.yahoo.com/woroniecki-family-times-square-7122832.html?cat=34
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20041009220954/http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/09/09-23-04tdc/09-23-04dnews-07.asp to http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/09/09-23-04tdc/09-23-04dnews-07.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.thepenn.org/news/2004/09/27/News/Zealots.Preach.In.Oak.Grove-2229921.shtml
 * Added tag to http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/09/09-30-04tdc/09-30-04dnews-17.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060405133935/http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/1/ARTICLE/3980/2004-10-05.html to http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/1/ARTICLE/3980/2004-10-05.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927104314/http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/3996/2004-10-06.html to http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/3996/2004-10-06.html
 * Added tag to http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/10/10-18-05tdc/10-18-05dnews-03.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524060819/http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/09/09-22-06tdc/09-22-06dnews-09.asp to http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/09/09-22-06tdc/09-22-06dnews-09.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Michael Woroniecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304041118/http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/30/2744045/VictoryinDefeat.pdf to http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/30/2744045/VictoryinDefeat.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924012734/http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/30/2744045/Xplosion.pdf to http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/30/2744045/Xplosion.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924012731/http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/30/2744045/Fact%20or%20Fiction.pdf to http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/30/2744045/Fact%20or%20Fiction.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924012733/http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/30/2744045/What%20About%20YOU.pdf to http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/30/2744045/What%20About%20YOU.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924012732/http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/30/2744045/Slammed.pdf to http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/1/30/2744045/Slammed.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Casco de futbol americano con una cruz.JPG

title: Talk:Michael Woroniecki


text: Talk:Solarized (album)

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

title: Talk:Solarized (album)


text: File:GBA Mario Kart.png

title: File:GBA Mario Kart.png


text:
Solarized (album)

Solarized is the fourth solo album released by Ian Brown, the former lead singer of the Stone Roses. The album was first released in the United Kingdom on 13 September 2004.

Background
The album was the first album release on the revived Polydor imprint Fiction Records.

Canadian and Australian releases did not feature "Happy Ever After". The North American edition of Solarized contains an exclusive U.S. bonus track called "Lovebug".

The song "Happy Ever After" was used in an episode of Top Gear during the review of the 2007 Jaguar XK. It has also been used in the series Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares and for the adverts of Law & Order: UK.

Unlike his previous, and subsequent albums, Solarized was not originally released on vinyl, but in April 2016, it was finally released on a limited run of 2000 vinyl copies as part of Record Store Day.

Track listing

 * 1) "Longsight M13" (Ian Brown & Aziz Ibrahim) – 3:12
 * 2) "Time Is My Everything" (Brown & Tim Hutton) – 3:52
 * 3) "Destiny or Circumstance" (Brown) – 2:35
 * 4) "Upside Down" (Brown) – 3:12
 * 5) "Solarized" (Brown & Ibrahim) – 3:47
 * 6) "The Sweet Fantastic" (Brown, Charlie Waddington & Dan Bierton) – 3:52
 * 7) "Keep What Ya Got" (feat. Noel Gallagher) (Brown & Noel Gallagher) – 4:28
 * 8) "Home Is Where the Heart Is" (Brown) – 3:06
 * 9) "One Way Ticket to Paradise" (Brown & Ibrahim) – 4:15
 * 10) "Kiss Ya Lips (No I.D.)" (Brown & Darren Moss) – 3:56
 * 11) "Happy Ever After"  (Brown, Ibrahim & Inder "Goldfinger" Matharu) – 2:46
 * 12) "Lovebug" [US and Japan bonus track] (Brown & Ibrahim) – 3:03

title: Solarized (album)


text:
Pedley

Pedley may refer to:

People

 * Arthur Pedley (1859–1943), British civil servant
 * Byron Pedley (1844–1910), British stage comedian and actor
 * Eric Leader Pedley (1896–1986), American polo player
 * Ethel Pedley (1859–1898), Australian author and musician
 * Jack Pedley (1882–1952), English footballer
 * Leslie Pedley (1930–2018), Australian botanist
 * Nicholas Pedley (1615–1685), English politician
 * Philip Pedley, British Conservative activist politician
 * Robin Pedley (1914–1988), English educationist and comprehensive school pioneer
 * Stephen Pedley (born 1940), British Anglican bishop
 * Sue Pedley (born 1954), Australian multimedia artist
 * Tim Pedley (born 1942), British mathematician
 * William Pedley (1858–1920), British civil engineer and cricketer

Places

 * Pedley, Alberta, a location in Yellowhead County, Canada
 * Pedley, California
 * Pedley station
 * Pedley Hills, California

title: Pedley


text:
Fort Borstal

Fort Borstal was built as an afterthought from the 1859 Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom, by convict labour. Construction started in 1875 but was suspended in 1885. The fort was completed around 1895. it was one of a series of four forts that ringed Chatham.

Fort Borstal was designed to hold the high ground southwest of Rochester, South East England. It is of polygonal design and was not originally armed. An anti-aircraft battery was based there in the Second World War.

A gauge railway was built connecting the four Chatham ring forts of Borstal, Bridgewoods, Horstead and Luton. A rope-worked incline led west from Fort Borstal down to a gravel pit and wharf on the River Medway. About 600 yds of track remains intact at Fort Borstal.

After many years' use as a pig farm and store for the nearby Young Offenders Institution it was sold in 1991 to a company hoping to make it a museum, but that proved unsuccessful and the fort has been converted into living accommodation. There is no public access to the site.

title: Fort Borstal


text:
KCJJ

KCJJ (1630 AM, "The Mighty 1630") is a radio station licensed to Iowa City, Iowa, United States. The station is owned by Stephen Soboroff's (Steve Bridges) River City Radio, Inc.

KCJJ broadcasts with 10,000 watts during the day and 1,000 watts at night. It can be heard throughout Eastern Iowa during the day and in many states in the central and eastern United States at night. KCJJ streams on its website and through TuneIn and the KCJJ app. In studio shows are streamed on YouTube.

Programming
KCJJ has a full service format with hot adult contemporary music. The Morning Show is hosted by "Captain" Steve Bridges, Jim Hunter, Tom Suter, and Pat Harty. Middays are handled by Tommy Lang, and Nights by Molly Suter. Weekends include Tom and Liam Heath. Local News is aired hourly and High School Sports are featured nightly. KCJJ is affiliated with CBS and CNN. The station airs weathercasts from Severestudios.com, the syndicated Lex and Terry Show, The Mike O'Meara Show, and NASCAR auto racing.

History
KCJJ originated as an application for a new station on 1560 kHz in Iowa City, which was filed in 1971 but was not issued a construction permit until 1976. The station began regular broadcasting on January 15, 1977.

Expanded Band assignment
On March 17, 1997, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that 88 stations had been given permission to move to newly available "Expanded Band" transmitting frequencies, ranging from 1610 to 1700 kHz, with KCJJ authorized to move from 1560 kHz to 1630 kHz. A construction permit for the expanded band station was assigned the call sign KCJK on November 10, 1997. On October 23, 1998, the two stations swapped callsigns, with AM 1560 changing from KCJJ to KCJK, and AM 1630 changing from KCJK to KCJJ.

FCC policy provided that original stations and their expanded band twins could operate simultaneously for up to five years, after which owners would have to turn in one of the two licenses, depending on whether they preferred the new assignment or elected to remain on the original frequency. It was decided to transfer full operations to the expanded band station, and on May 7, 2002, the license for the original station on 1560 kHz (KCJK), was cancelled, with AM 1630 continuing as KCJJ.

99 Plus KFMH
An Internet-only revival of the original 99.7 KFMH began streaming in March 2013 and is the sister station of KCJJ. 99pluskfmh.com has an Adult Alternative Album format, as it did originally from 1973-1994. Many of the original DJs have returned as has the program Off The Beaten Track, hosted by Roberto Nache. The station streams at https://99pluskfmh.com/ and on devices through TuneIn and the KCJJ app.

title: KCJJ


text:
ArmaLite AR-18

The ArmaLite AR-18 is a gas-operated assault rifle chambered for 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition. The AR-18 was designed at ArmaLite in California by Arthur Miller, Eugene Stoner, George Sullivan, and Charles Dorchester in 1963 as an alternative to the Colt AR-15 design, a variant of which had just been selected by the U.S. military as the M16. A semi-automatic version known as the AR-180 was later produced for the civilian market. While the AR-18 was never adopted as the standard service rifle of any nation, its production license was sold to companies in Japan and the United Kingdom, and it is said to have influenced many later weapons such as the British SA80, the Singaporean SAR-80 and SR-88, the Belgian FN F2000, the Japanese Howa Type 89 and the German Heckler and Koch G36.

Background
Soon after the adoption of the 7.62×51mm NATO M14 rifle in 1957, the U.S. Army's Continental Army Command (CONARC) began an investigation of small-caliber, high-velocity (SCHV) rifles as an offshoot of the military's existing research program, Project SALVO. ArmaLite and Winchester Arms were solicited by CONARC to provide prototype automatic rifles chambered for high-velocity centerfire .22 rounds. The ArmaLite AR-15 was a scaled-down version of the 7.62mm AR-10, which had appeared too late to be a serious contender against the M14 for adoption by the US Army. Its competitor was the Winchester .224 Light Rifle, a "Carbine" Williams prototype carbine design in a .22 high velocity round which was similar to, but not interchangeable with, the .223 Remington (5.56×45mm). During the protracted U.S. military trials of the AR-15, ArmaLite's corporate owners Fairchild essentially gave up on the design, and sold the AR-15 production rights to Colt. Fairchild also spun off ArmaLite as an independent company, allowing the new owners to buy all of the company's designs except for the AR-10 and AR-15. When the U.S. military ultimately selected the AR-15 as the M16, ArmaLite could no longer profit from its adoption.

The ArmaLite AR-16 appeared in the later 1950s. The AR-16, a 7.62mm NATO selective-fire rifle, was Eugene Stoner's final design for ArmaLite. The AR-16 and its predecessor, the AR-12 were designed by Stoner in response to demands by the military forces of smaller, less developed nations for a less expensive, yet state-of-the-art selective-fire military rifle that unlike the AR-10 and AR-15, could be produced inexpensively of heavy-gauge sheet metal using automatic screw machines, lathes, and presses. The AR-12 originally featured a direct-impingement (DI) gas operation system, but this was changed to a more conventional short-stroke gas piston in the AR-16 after ArmaLite sold the production rights to the DI system to Colt Firearms. The AR-16 had a short, 15-inch barrel, hinged wooden butt, and weighed 8.75 pounds empty; only three examples were built. Eugene Stoner left ArmaLite in 1961, shortly before Fairchild divested itself of ownership.

The U.S. military's later adoption of the AR-15 gave legitimacy to its 5.56mm cartridge, and ArmaLite sought to develop a competing design chambered in 5.56mm that did not infringe on the Colt license agreement. With Stoner gone, it was decided to scale down the AR-16, and ArmaLite's new chief designer, Arthur Miller, embarked on the project. The resulting 5.56mm design appeared in 1963 and was named the AR-18. Miller later received for the rifle in 1969.

Construction and design
Overall, the new AR-18 rifle is much more conventional than previous ArmaLite designs, although it uses the relatively new stamped steel construction from its predecessor, the AR-16. Despite being pioneered by the Germans during WW2 in weapons such as the MP 44, and later adopted for the Soviet AKM, the use of stamped and welded sheet metal components was still uncommon in the manufacture of military rifles in the West in the early 1960s, which had, until then, largely retained the use of traditional machined forgings. Compared to the smooth lines of the AR-15, which had demonstrably finer tolerances in parts fit, the AR-18 faced criticism over its stamped and welded construction. However, the rifle proved to be both reliable and very accurate at all ranges up to 460 m. Its simple construction promised significantly reduced production costs, and allowed it to be license-produced locally on less advanced machinery, potentially reducing dependence on foreign manufacturers.

The AR-18's action is powered by a short-stroke gas piston above the barrel. The gas piston is of three-piece design to facilitate disassembly, with a hollow forward section with four radial gas vent holes fitting around a stainless steel gas block projecting rearwards from the foresight housing. The gas is vented from the barrel and travelled via a vent through the foresight housing into the hollow front section of the piston, which causes it to move rearwards a short distance. The rear end of the piston emerges through the barrel extension to contact the forward face of the bolt carrier, causing it in turn to move rearwards. The bolt itself is of similar configuration to the AR-15 with seven radial locking lugs engaging corresponding recesses in the barrel extension, and the extractor in place of the eighth lug. The bolt is moved into and out of the locked position via a cam pin that engaged a helical slot in the bolt carrier, which rides on two metal guide rods (each with its own return spring) instead of contacting the receiver walls, providing additional clearance for foreign matter entering the receiver. Unlike the AR-15, the cocking handle fits directly into a recess in the bolt carrier and reciprocates with it during firing, allowing the firer to force the breech closed or open if necessary. The cocking handle slot has a spring-loaded cover that can be closed by the user to prevent debris entering the receiver, and it will open automatically as the bolt carrier moves rearwards after the first shot. The recoil springs are housed within the receiver, differing from the AR-15 which houses its more elaborate buffer mechanism in the buttstock. The AR-18's compact design enables the use of a side-folding stock with a hinging mechanism (which proved to be less than adequately rigid).

The sights are of similar design and sight picture to those of the AR-15 - a 2-position flip aperture rear sight and post foresight - but the rear sight is made of stampings. A notable change is the use of a more conventional lower sight line closer to the axis of the bore, in contrast to the elevated sights of the AR-15. A dovetail is spot welded to the receiver in front of the rear sight for a proprietary ArmaLite quick-detachable scope mount.

The magazines were of a brand new proprietary design and were different than those of the AR-15. The original magazines made by ArmaLite and Howa were of gray anodized aluminum alloy with black plastic followers and came in 5- and 20-round capacities. (The 5-round magazine, like that of the Colt AR-15 Sporter, was just a full-size 20-round magazine blocked to only hold 5 rounds.) They lacked the magazine catch cutouts of the AR-15 magazines, making them incompatible. Sterling Armaments Company later produced black-enameled steel magazines in 20- 30- and 40-round capacities that did have cutouts and were able to feed from an AR-15. However, the AR-18/AR-180 was never capable of using the Colt AR-15/M16's stock 20- or 30-round STANAG magazines. Gunsmiths have been able to convert AR-15/M16 magazines to feed in the AR-18, though they require modified followers or they will put strain on the bolt catch.

The AR-18 was also designed to use the same standard accessories as the M16. It used a three-pronged flash hider that was similar to that used on the early M16. This was usually replaced by an aftermarket enclosed M16A1 "birdcage"-type model. It could mount the standard M7 bayonet, although it was not available for sale through ArmaLite. "Sporterized" late-production Howa-made AR-180 rifles had extended metal tabs through the mounting lugs to prevent this. A plastic copy of the fixed folding metal bipod issued with the early M-16 was available and came in a similar protective case. AR-180 users were leery of buying a non-adjustable bipod made of thermoset plastic so few were sold, making it a rare accessory today. A padded rifle case that could carry the rifle with the scope mounted was available. It could hold two spare 20-round magazines and the bipod or bayonet in pouches.

Overall, the design is simple and effective with some clever touches; for example the bolt guide rod assembly guides the bolt in the receiver, retains the recoil springs and the rear end of the top handguard, as well as serving as the latch holding the upper and lower receivers together in the closed position. Disassembly is somewhat similar to the AR-15, with the working parts accessed by the rifle pivoting open on a hinge pin immediately forward of the magazine well.

Production

The AR-18 was put into limited production at ArmaLite's machine shop and offices in Costa Mesa, California. A semi-automatic version of the AR-18 known as the AR-180 was later produced for the civilian market between 1969 and 1972. ArmaLite was never equipped to build small arms on a production basis, and the Costa Mesa AR-18 and AR-180 rifles frequently show evidence of hand-fitting. A production license was granted to Nederlandsche Wapen-en Munitiefabriek (NWM) of Den Bosch, the Netherlands, but it is doubtful that any AR-18 rifles were actually produced there. A license to produce the AR-18/180 was then sold to Howa of Japan, and the rifle was produced from 1970 until 1974, when new controls on export of military arms by the Japanese government forced the company to cease all small arms production. Between 1975 and 1978, there was a brief pause in production as ArmaLite was finalizing an agreement with Sterling Armaments Company, United Kingdom to produce the rifle under license. From 1979 until 1985, Sterling produced the AR-18 and AR-180. In 1983, ArmaLite was sold to Elisco Tool & Manufacturing of the Philippines, which planned to pitch the AR-18 as a replacement for the license-produced M16A1 then in service with the Armed Forces of the Philippines. As a result, production stopped in 1985 as the tooling was sent to the Philippines. Under Elisco several modifications to the design were implemented and twenty (20) prototypes of four designated types (AR 101, AR 102, AR 103, AR 104) were built and underwent testing and evaluation. About 3,500 of these rifles, collectively designated the AR Series 100 were approved for production. Production plans for the AR Series 100 would fail to push through as Elisco would be dissolved and its assets liquidated in the late 1980s. In mid-1968 ArmaLite set up pilot production in its Costa Mesa plant producing 1,171 AR-18s and 4,018 AR-180s between 1969 and 1972. Howa produced 3,927 AR-180s between 1970 and 1974. Sterling manufactured 12,362 AR-180s between 1979 and 1985. In all, just 21,478 AR-180s were manufactured over 16 years of production between 1969 and 1985.

Operational use
Unlike the AR-15/M16, the AR-18 did not see substantial sales success, and was never officially adopted by any country as its standard service rifle. The reasons for this are unclear, but may have had something to do with the existing sales popularity of the AR-15/M16, as well as the need for additional field testing and evaluation of the Costa Mesa-produced rifles, which were still in the advanced prototype stage. The AR-18 was purchased for evaluation trials by various armed forces, including the United States (1964) and the United Kingdom (1966). These suffered various malfunctions during evaluation trials by various nations. During the US trials at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1964, the AR-18's functioning was found to vary from lot to lot of ammunition. The evaluating board concluded that while the basic design of the AR-18 was sound, it required additional minor revisions and changes to improve safety and reliability before it could be considered for adoption as a service rifle. The British Ministry of Defence (MOD) tested the AR-18 in March 1966, and found the design unsatisfactory in performance during mud and sand trials. ArmaLite made several minor production modifications to the design commencing in 1965, and the U.S. Army was directed to re-evaluate the AR-18 at the end of 1969. Testing was conducted at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, conducted by arsenal employees and the Infantry Board at Fort Benning, Georgia. However, American procurement officials were not interested in acquiring yet another 5.56 mm service rifle. A number of deficiencies were listed and the testing authority stated that, although the AR-18 had military potential, it needed further development. In 1968, dissatisfied with efforts to market the AR-18, Arthur Miller left ArmaLite.

Instead, the AR-180 was sold on the civilian market, while the AR-18 sold in small quantities to police and law enforcement organizations, as well as armies and security forces of nations such as Botswana, Haiti, Malaysia and Swaziland. Still others found their way into the hands of paramilitary groups, such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Northern Ireland, (see also Provisional IRA arms importation). The ArmaLite rifle was for many years the most lethal weapon available to the IRA. For this reason, it became an iconic symbol within that movement. An Irish rebel song, "Little Armalite", focuses on the role played by the AR-18 in the Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. The Armalite company reportedly bought 1000 copies of a recording for its salesmen to distribute. The 1980s Republican political strategy of parallel political and paramilitary campaigns was also christened the "Armalite and ballot box strategy".

Variants

The standard AR-18 versions manufactured by ArmaLite, Howa and Sterling differ only in minor details. ArmaLite and Howa rifles have a satin grey phosphate finish, while Sterling rifles sported two finishes; Serial numbers S15001 through S20000 had a black, glossy enamel painted finish. Starting with serial number S20001, a blued finish was used for the remainder of production. Rifles were normally equipped with a sling, cleaning kit (bore/brush), and a knife-type bayonet with scabbard. An optional bipod with a case was available.

The AR-180 is capable of semi-automatic fire only and was externally identical in appearance to the AR-18 with one exception; the selector has only two positions, omitting the third "AUTO" position found on the AR-18. There are minor differences between the variants; to select "FIRE" on the Howa rifles the selector lever must be pivoted 180 degrees from "SAFE" so it is pointing forward towards the muzzle (where "AUTO" would be on a selective-fire rifle), while on the Sterling rifles, the "SEMI" position is the same as the "SEMI" position on a selective-fire rifle; 90 degrees from "SAFE" with the selector lever pointing down. Towards the end of AR-180 production at ArmaLite's Costa Mesa shop in 1972, some unused AR-18 lowers were used to assemble AR-180s. The "SEMI" and "AUTO" positions were scrubbed and the "AUTO" position was relabeled "FIRE". The selector lever on these particular rifles would have to be pivoted 180 degrees from "SAFE" to "FIRE" the same way as Howa manufactured rifles.

Sterling made an AR-180 sporter variant called the "Sharpshooter". It was identical to the regular AR-180 except it came with black neoprene covers for the forend and buttstock. The forend cover gave the shooter a positive gripping surface and the buttstock cover contained a cheekpiece pad to help gain a full cheekweld when shooting.

Sterling manufactured a small number of sporter variants called the AR-180 SCS, of which only 385 were reputed to have been made. It has a large single-piece wooden thumbhole stock that replaces the butt, pistol grip and handguard of conventional versions. The metal parts differ in the lack of the ejection port cover, a PH prefix to the serial number and adapted safety and magazine release controls.

Sterling also manufactured small numbers of a short version, the AR-18S. This version uses the same basic mechanism and folding butt, but has a 257 mm barrel and a length of 765 mm with the butt extended. The shortened barrel is fitted with a cone-shaped flash suppressor to address the additional muzzle flash resulting from the short barrel. Some examples have an additional pistol grip fitted to the underside of the handguard.

Sterling had also planned to market a pistol version of the AR-18S to complement the standard AR-180, known as the AR-180SP. A single prototype AR-180SP was completed and submitted to the ATF in 1982 to determine if it was suitable for importation, but it is not known if it was ever approved for import or if any more examples were imported beyond the lone prototype sent to ATF.

A 2.75 × 20 mm telescopic sight was available but few were sold. Early-production models are marked in meters rather than yards and have a different reticle. It is marked "ArmaLite", and has a quick-detachable, see-through mount that attaches to an integral dovetail spot-welded to the top of the receiver. The mount could also feasibly be used with other scopes if they had a 1-inch diameter tube.

 * AR-18 - Assault rifle
 * AR-180 - Semi-automatic sporting rifle
 * AR-180 SCS - Semi-automatic sporting rifle with wooden thumbhole stock
 * AR-18S - Semi-automatic short-barrel carbine
 * AR-180SP - semi-automatic pistol
 * AR-18 LSW - Light Support Weapon (LSW) prototype with a quick barrel change capability and completed a calibre conversion to 7.62×39mm

A delayed-blowback upper was also developed by Ross Rudd using a hesitation lock but not manufactured due to financial backing reasons.

Later developments
The ArmaLite brand was purchased in 1996 by Eagle Arms, a U.S. small arms manufacturer, which adopted the ArmaLite brand for its company. An updated model of the AR-180 was introduced in 2001 as the AR-180B, with a molded polymer lower receiver replacing the stamped steel original. The new lower receiver is combined with the buttstock, which is fixed on the AR-180B, instead of the side-folding butt on the original AR-18 and AR-180. Other AR-180B changes include the use of standard AR-15 trigger group and rear sight parts, a straight cocking handle replacing the earlier cranked style and the deletion of the original AR-18/180 spring-loaded dust cover for the cocking handle slot. The AR-15 magazine release is also used, in contrast to the original AR-18 which had a different magazine release and corresponding slot in the body of the magazine, meaning AR-15 magazines needed a new slot cut to fit properly in the AR-18. As a result, the AR-180B uses standard AR-15/M16 magazines. An AR-180B version with a Picatinny rail was planned for production. In 2007 the AR-180B was discontinued due to poor sales.

There are aftermarket parts to improve the AR-180B. NoDak Spud made a replacement black-anodized aluminum-alloy lower-receiver. StormWerkz made a series of stock adapters compatible with this model of lower receiver to allow the use of fixed or folding AR-180B or AR-15 stocks. StormWerkz also made an adapter that allowed the use of a Picatinny rail that comes in four variants and installs over the dovetail on the top of the receiver.

The Canadian company Wolverine Supplies teamed up with Canadian gunmaker Kodiak Defence to commission the creation of a new AR-180 variant, the WK180-C. The WK180-C does away with the stamped steel and polymer construction of the AR-18, AR-180, and AR-180B, instead, it uses 6061-T6 aluminium to form the upper and lower receivers. This rifle ships with an adaptor to mount AR-15 style stocks (and comes with a collapsible AR15 stock). As Length of pull (LOP) is long with many AR15 stocks, some users have retrofit Cz Vz58 folding stocks to these rifles. While this option works well, it requires the use of lower iron sights and optics.

In 2019 Brownells, Inc. released BRN-180 complete upper assembly, a new take on the AR-180 design built around the AR-18 short-stroke piston system. The BRN-180 is designed to be fitted to mil-spec AR-15 lower receivers and unlike standard AR-15s the BRN-180 can be fired with the stock folded. The BRN-180 comes with an adjustable gas block and a free-floating modular handguard and is available in 18.5, barrel lengths.

Influence
When the AR-18 was designed, a plethora of different methods of gas and recoil operation existed in self-loading intermediate caliber rifles. Since then, self-loading intermediate caliber rifles have converged toward three methods of gas operation. These are: AR-15 style direct impingement, the AK-style long stroke gas piston and the short-stroke gas system found in the AR-18 rifle. While the AK and AR-15 are the first and second most produced intermediate caliber rifles of all time, the AR-18 gas system is the ancestor for the majority of short stroke gas systems found in selective fire military rifles. The AR-18 mechanism is the basis for many rifles in major military service. Rifles which use a copy or derivative of the AR-18 gas system include: HK G36, HK416, FN F2000, FN-SCAR, Steyr AUG, CZ 805 BREN, Chinese QBZ-95, HOWA Type 89, SAR-88, T65, T86, T91, T112 and British SA80 family of weapon systems.

In some cases, designs borrow more than just the AR-18's gas system. Successive rifle designs borrow other components such as the bolt carrier group or upper receiver. The HOWA Type 89 is an AR-18, modernized to fit the needs of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The Singapore SAR-88 and Taiwanese T-91 utilize a complete AR-18 upper receiver. Early British SA80 prototypes featured ArmaLite produced AR-18 upper receivers mated to a prototype stamped metal bullpup lower receiver. The finalized SA80 weapon systems use the AR-18 gas system and bolt carrier group. The Remington Adaptive Combat Rifle derives its bolt carrier group from the AR-18.

Users

 * 🇧🇼 Botswana Cited as part of their National Inventory by Jane's as of 1986.
 * Eswatini
 * 🇭🇹 Haiti
 * 🇲🇾 Malaysia: Used by the Royal Malaysian Air Force.

For trials

 * Pahlavi Iran: Tested at least two AR-18s for consideration to the Imperial Iranian Army, but was never adopted.

Non-state users

 * Lebanese Forces militia – Used in small numbers by Commando units.
 * Moro National Liberation Front
 * Provisional Irish Republican Army

title: ArmaLite AR-18


text:
Peeksville

Peeksville may refer to:

United States

 * Peeksville, Georgia
 * Peeksville, Wisconsin
 * Peeksville (community), Wisconsin

title: Peeksville


text:
Talk:Impulse (physics)

Old posts

 * I've moved the existing disambiguation information (small compared to the physics description) to a disambiguation line at the front of the article. I think this ought to be enough. However, it's always possible to create an impulse (disambiguation) article to deal with the alternative uses. Ian Cairns 18:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article does not mention Ns (Newton Seconds), which I believe is the more commonly used unit for impulse to distinguish between Momentum and impulse. It may be wise to state that Ns= kg m/s²x s = kg m/s, so while they are the same unit, Ns is used more frequently. Wheatleya 19:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed Terminology
First of all, impulse is not defined as change in momentum. (It's equal to the change in momentum of an object, but that's not the definition.) I put the definition first. Also, you don't say "an impulse..." any more than you say "a momentum". Impulse is a quantity. To say "an impulse is a change in momentum" makes it sound like impulse is an event, which is not correct, at least not in this context. Pfalstad 05:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think its perfectly fine to say "an impulse". It seems natural to say "apply an impulse". However, saying something to the effect of "apply a momentum" seems unnatural. I don't think that differentiating "an impulse" (in electronics) from "the impulse" or something (in physics) is a good way to differentiate them. Fresheneesz 07:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's fine to say "an impulse", it's just not how the word is used in physics. Saying "apply an impulse" is using the word in a nontechnical sense. Unless you can provide a source (physics text) that uses the term in that way. Pfalstad 03:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambig
I think this page should be a disambig page, and be moved to Impulse (physics). There are a bunch of other definitions of impulse, and impulse in physics isn't even a decently large concept. Any takers? Fresheneesz 07:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

removed outdated merge tag
I removed the merge tag, its old. And on the talk page for momentum - we are comming to the conclusion that we should move all that info here for good. Fresheneesz 08:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Impulse (physics)
An article of this name was created today with a definition of impulse = rate of change of acceleration, instead of impulse = change in momentum. A merge was proposed, which I've boldy edited into a redirect to this article. I've saved the ext refs which confirmed the correct definition of impulse - as in this article as of now. Ian Cairns 00:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Impulse is J or I?
I know this is really trivial, but shouldn't J be used to stand for impulse? that's what's used in my textbook Physics for scientists and Engineers with modern Physics, Douglas C Giancoli, Prentice Hall, Third edition (in case someone wants to look it up). 'I' stands for electric current, not impulse. (ever heard p=iv? that means power=current times voltage, not impulse times voltage). I think you are right when you say I stands for electric current but you can also use 'Imp' to mean impulse if you don't mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaamuli vitus (talk • contribs) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

are you sure?
are you sure that "dt is an infinitesimal amount of time"?

that is an integration statement, and "dt" would usually mean "with respect to t"

 * You are correct that dt is an integration statement of time, but the application of dt mean "the limit of time as it approaches zero", which means an infinitesimally small amount of time. Wizard191 16:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What's a Hy unit?
Right now it claims that a N-m = Hy (Huygens), which is a unit name I have never heard of. Upon research I haven't found it used anywhere else on the internet or wikipedia. Moreover, the SI system doesn't reference it at all. If this is a real name of a unit please cite it, otherwise I propose that we remove it, as it is quite confusing. Wizard191 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked everywhere for a unit of Hy. It sounds like a neat addition to physics, and one that the people who head up the SI units should add, unfortunately it is by no means official or correct. I'll continue to look out for it, but I'm removing it until it can be verified. 10 months of an unvalidated claim is quite long enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.18.156 (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding to my comment above, the Hy is in fact a fictitious unit of momentum/impulse. It does not appear on the BIPM's website of offical SI units, and therefore it is false and should not appear on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.147.117 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

 * it's so seldom to actually compute a momentum of a moving body that there's no need for an extra unit, it's useless (if you need to just write Ns). though i've heard of the unit before (seen it pre 2006 in a german school book). given that it is a school book, there might be justification for a momentum-unit, since school books mostly don't go into real depth but do more of the "we get familiar with the quantities we use" stuff. so that might be a reason why someone made up the unit Hy. 92.196.80.110 (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Force of Impact?
Often one hears the term "Force of Impact". Say you can calculate/estimate the impulse of an impact but you want to estimate (perhaps) the maximum force of collision, or possibly the average force of the collision, or maybe even the average force for the top 25% of the most forceful moments of the collision. Is any of that information relevant? I'm interested in the relationship between the fracture strength of materials and "how forceful" an impact an object of said material can take. It would seem that Impulse is a desired quantity to know, but what else should I know? IIRC to get average force, I just divide divide the impulse over the time it takes for the the impact to take place. But how would one estimate this time? How would I estimate the average force imparted by one billiard ball on another over the lifespan of the impact, which I cannot estimate with the unaided eye. How high could I drop a billiard ball in a frictionless environment from a building before cracks of a certain size develop on its surface (I.E. the force imparted exceeds locally the fracture strength of the material the billiard ball is made from but it does not fracture the ball). How do I estimate how much effect the ground chosen for the ball to impact has on this? If the fracture strength of the ground is quite low, energy from the impact will be dissipated by "flakes" of the ground being thrown outward, and it would seem that also needs to be taken into consideration.

It seems methods to estimate information is relevant and related to the article, but no description or references are included in the article. What quantities are these and how are they measured or estimated?

I'm not a physicist and I wouldn't even know where to begin to look (other than, say, research into stuff like bicycle helmets).

Root4(one) 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 * This is now a question on Reference desk/Science. Root4(one) 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Tough question. Many people will confuse you by saying double the static load. That's a bit weird, it makes lots of assumptions that are unsafe. The best way for many problems is to work out a stiffness function for the target, and an effective mass for the impactor, and to do a simulation of it. Greglocock 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Answered on that page.Greglocock 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite
This article received several major revisions:

The general definition of impulse was moved to the beginning of the article, and the special case which once appeared there was moved lower down.

Reference to the "Theorem of Impulse and Momentum" was removed, since it is trivial (a three-line derivation appears in the very article) and does not even appear by that name in any of the mechanics textbooks I have: Kleppner & Kolenkow, Tipler, Young & Freedman, and Marion & Thornton. Mention of Newton's Second Law now precedes the derivation.

I added the fact that the special case given relies on both force and mass being constant; previously, only force was mentioned as constant. A common example in which the mass of a system is not constant is the problem of a rail car from which sand is leaking.

Finally, there were minor stylistic changes.

Anarchic Fox 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Math?!
Who decided that Impulse defaults to the mechanical definition? Perhaps most people would be looking for the psychological definition? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * It appears most likely that the mechanical definition of Impulse was the first application of the word to be given an article in Wikipedia. The other applications, including Impulse (psychology) came after that.  When you select Impulse the top line in the article is a link to the Impulse (disambiguation) page.  This is a common solution found in Wikipedia for many concepts that have two or more applications.  If a Wiki User wants an alternative application to be the subject of the default article, or wants the disambiguation article to be the default, this is a legitimate topic to raise for discussion on the pertinent Talk page.  Dolphin51 (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Context Tag: Introduction Needed
I have tagged this article as having insufficient context for readers with less understanding of the underlying physics and math involved in impulse, momentum and velocity. I'm not suggesting that the article needs to be "dumbed down", but if there's someone out there with good knowledge on this subject, I think this article could really use a well-written Introduction that explains Impulse in reasonably understandable prose, which could then lead in to the more technical explanation already contained within the article. Good examples of this would be the pages for Momentum and Velocity, which are both related to this article, and explain their concepts a bit better before jumping right in to the mathematical and theoretical explanations. TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Greglocock for putting together a well-written intro. I have removed the context tag; if anyone disagrees, please feel free to bring it up here! TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move
Moving this page is a drastic action that I don't necessarily agree with. Can we please get this reverted and discuss this first? I don't see how this isn't the most prominent target. Wizard191 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've never heard the term Mechanical Impulse. Greglocock (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of Notation
After the "therefore" statement in the "Mathematical derivation in the case of an object of constant mass" section, a misuse of notation is used to seemingly "cancel out" the 'dt's in the integration expression,. This should instead be a statement of the Second Fundamental Theorem of Calculus to derive the impulse-momentum theorem. While the "cancelling" is a subtlety that provides the correct results, it could mislead readers. A change could look like
 * $$\begin{align}

\mathbf{I} &= \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \frac{d\mathbf{p}}{dt}\, dt \\ &= \mathbf{p_2} - \mathbf{p_1} \\ &= \Delta \mathbf{p}, \end{align} $$ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.23.168 (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Example section
The "Examples of impulse" section does not appear to add any useful information to the article, and is completely original research. I suggest that it be removed or reworked into something more concrete. - HectorAE (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Even worse, it's a collection of unconnected statements, half of which are wrong. —  H HHIPPO  21:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

impulse, momentum, superfluous.
it's confusing to distinguish. for example, in german you don't distinguish between the two at all. it's the same (both are called "Impuls"). a moving body has a momentum. if you apply a force to it over a certain amount of time, you change its momentum (thus momentum has unit Ns = Hy, force times time). it's such a basic thing that it's unnecessary to make a big fuss about distinguishing between this. it doesn't help. the unit Ns = Hy is useless / never needed, unless it's the first lecture of mechanic and you want to work a bit with those basic expressions. you never actually calculate a momentum of a moving body and compare "oh look, this body has impulse 3 Ns", rather the velocity or relations between the momenta of two colliding bodies. put the stuff in this article in the momentum-article and delete this one, it's nonsense. 92.196.80.110 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

and if you read the article carefully, you see that there is no content other than stating over and over that impulse and momentum are the same thing. it's artificial inflation of a trivial fact to article size. 92.196.80.110 (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I am afraid you are wrong. Impulse is a change of momentum, not momentum itself. In English we find it useful to differentiate between the two, for instance with rockets. This is an English encyclopedia.Greglocock (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

 * "momentum" and "impulse" are also distinguished in german: momentum (en) = Impuls (ge) ≡ m v (to put it simple), impulse (en) = Kraftstoss (ge) ≡ F Δt (to put it simple), as stated in the article. Greglocock, impulse EQUALS a change of momentum (because of Newton 3) but impulse IS NOT change in momentum (the former is not defined ≡ to be the latter). Can we agree on that? By the way, it is the same with work and energy: work W equals a change in energy E, but it is defined as W ≡ F Δs. Herbmuell (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Again: Impulse is J or I
Dear main authors; I believe the IUPAP is the authorative reference for notation in physics, not textbooks. In their RED BOOK (or SUNAMCO RED BOOK, it can be found with google), 1987 revision, 2010 reprint, they give only "I" for impulse (p. 28). The german Wikipedia accordingly uses "I". I suggest to change the "J" to "I" in the article. Regards: Herbmuell (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy and sad balls
"Happy" and "sad" balls, as referenced in the video, are not standard terminology, and should instead be phrased in terms of elasticity. Or, since elasticity is not discussed elsewhere in the article, nor fundamentally relevant to impulse, this could be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:482:8003:3468:811B:2E0B:C0BA:89DB (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

 * The terms happy/sad are defined in the reference, and the link still works. The names are a commercial gimmick used in the catalog that sells the balls, but they are of low cost and wonderful things to have in the classroom. It is plausible that WP would prefer that the terms happy/sad be omitted from the caption. Collisions have twice the delta-v, and hence deliver twice the momentum.  That makes the demonstration a direct (but qualitative) confirmation of the equation.  No other such demonstrations are readily available, so I believe the video should remain.   Disclosure: I worked with user:13hartc, the contributor of the video, on this project.  --Guy vandegrift (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Since this is not backed by an explanation that makes it carry the desired message (it is a pedagogical example that fails to be pedagogical because it needs so much more context to interpret, such as elasticity, masses, etc., and WP is not meant to be pedagogical anyway), I have deleted this "sad" example. 172.82.47.242 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings about whether the Happy/Sad ball video belongs here. But the decision to remove was made by a single editor who has far less experience as a WP editor than I.  I will return the video and let this article's community decide whether it should be re-deleted. Guy vandegrift (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a bloody awful explanation of what is going on and since I have no interest in happy and sad ball sales I'd be inclined to delete it. I could of course rewrite their pathetic explanation for use in their marketing material, but I won't. Greglocock (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, a "vote" of 2-1 is enough to declare a consensus to delete. Give me a couple of days to write something on Wikiversity that will be sister-linked out of this article.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Newton meter sec
First paragraph says Impulse is Newton meter sec is NM/sec. What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Not so. It says N.s or kg.m/s both are dimensionally equal. Dger (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Make technical articles understandable
This article on Impulse is a technical article so it should be consistent with the guidelines at WP:Make technical articles understandable. Unfortunately, the article lead, in particular, does not fare well when assessed alongside the guidelines. I propose to write an improved lead.

My major objection in the lead is the first sentence which says In classical mechanics, Impulse is the integral of a force, F, over the time interval, t for which it acts. This sentence falsely implies that an understanding of the concept of impulse is only available to readers who already have an understanding of vector calculus! The only pre-requisite for understanding impulse is that the reader has a rudimentary understanding of momentum. Impulse in its basic form is simply the difference between the initial momentum of an object, and its momentum at some later time. (In the case of rectilinear motion, both momentum and impulse can be treated as scalar quantities. It is that simple.)

Wikipedia guidelines show that this first sentence in the lead is unnecessarily complicated. For example:
 * 1) At MOS:FIRST it says The first sentence ... should be in plain English.
 * 2) At MOS:INTRO it says Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. In general, ... but avoid difficult-to-understand ... mathematical equations and formulas.
 * 3) At WP:EXPLAINLEAD it says Terminology in the lead section should be understandable on sight to general readers ...

I intend to amend the article so that impulse is explained in three steps:
 * first step: impulse is the difference between initial momentum, and momentum at a later time. Momentum and impulse are both vector quantities.
 * second step: impulse given by a force F acting for a time interval Δt is the product FΔt. The direction of the impulse is the same as the direction of the force F.
 * third step: impulse given by a varying force F(t) in the time between t1 and t2 is the integral of F with respect to time, between the time interval t1 to t2.

Any comments will be welcome. Dolphin ( t ) 12:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Two weeks have passed without objection to my proposal above. I have amended the lead - see my diff. Dolphin ( t ) 12:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Impulse (physics)


text:
Fort Luton

Fort Luton was built between 1876 and 1892 south of Chatham, Medway, South East England. It is one of the five late Victorian land front forts built to defend the overland approaches to Chatham. It is the smallest of the Chatham forts and was built near to the village of Luton.

Construction and purpose
The fort was ordered under the auspices of the 1859/60 Royal Commission on the Defences of the United Kingdom, but it was deleted by Parliament in an attempt to save money and divert funds to the construction of the sea forts, and the Land Front Forts of Milford Haven, Plymouth, Cork and Portsmouth/ Isle of Wight Fortresses. The 1869 'Report on the Construction Condition and Costs of Fortification' criticised the lack of landward protection for Chatham, yet it was not until 1872 that the Treasury relented and the land was purchased. Even so, it was not until 1876 that the order was given by the War Office, after approval by Parliament for construction to commence. The original design was by William Jervois, but as by 1876 he had been promoted to major general he had no further part in its planning. The work was surveyed and "pegged out" on the ground that same year. In 1877 work on the building started, using convict labour and an gauge light railway to bring up the materials from Borstal Creek jetty.

The method adopted was to build all structures directly on to the land surface, and no form of preparation tunnelling was attempted. The work was slow due to lack of funds and the insistence of using convict labour, which meant that the labour force was constantly changing due to release or transfers to other prisons. In 1882 the work stopped for a re-think and once again restarted in 1886 when the decision was taken to delete from the plan one quarter of the design. This meant the loss of the Main Magazine (which was to have been in the western corner) and one quarter of this structure survived, much modified to become the above ground water tank. The well was also removed from the plan so the 4 in water main had to be laid from Fort Horsted and the proposed under-bridge caponier was never even started. From 1886 to 1892, when the fort was finally completed, the ditch was dug and the spoil was used to cover the exposed buildings, some of which had been standing for over ten years, and to form the ramparts, the six very basic gun emplacements, two to each flank and a pair overlooking Luton Valley. Even so no armament is on record as ever having been issued to Fort Luton other than that brought in by units participating in the Annual Militia and Volunteer camps. The final act of engineering was the installation of the drawbridge in 1892 which is a rare type of rolling bridge and possibly the only one still left in the UK

Siege trials
For the next thirteen years the fort was used for summer camps and, on alternate years, the Chatham Siege Trials. The final one in 1907 was the largest in both scope and number of men employed, and was in effect a rehearsal for a major war. Three breaches were made in the counterscarp wall and three "camoflets" were exploded in the moat bottom. The "defenders" dug a large counter-mine shaft outwards from the base of the moat. The breaches were repaired in 1908 by infilling with flint rubble, but the main counter-mine shaft was left. As a result of all this, in 1914, the north scarp wall shifted slightly and had to be braced by a steel joist from off the top of the counterscarp wall. The damage to the moat and the subsequent repair are still visible.

Layout of the fort
The Fort consists of a D-shaped rampart with prepared earthen gun positions for movable armament, two to each flank. The front parapet was prepared for infantry defence. Beneath the rampart are four ammunition stores with vertical lifts to handling rooms on the rampart above. To the rear of the main rampart at the gorge of the fort is a series of eight casemated barrack rooms serving as accommodation for the garrison, ammunition stores and general stores. All are constructed of concrete with an earth covering. At each end of the casemates is a tunnel to the ammunition stores. The casemates formed a longitudinal parados protecting the ramparts from reverse fire. The main entrance to the fort was over the rolling bridge at the centre of the casemates. The ditch surrounding the fort was intended to be dry.

The ditch
The ditch is lined with concrete on both the scarp and counterscarp faces. It has on both faces a slight batter of three degrees from the vertical. The depth varies from 25 ft. to 30 ft. maximum and the width at the base also varies, being wider on the rear (long north east to south west) face and at its narrowest on the southern and northern flanks. It is 15 ft. wide. There are no caponiers or counterscarp galleries in the ditch, the only known major British Defence work to adopt a purely passive defence posture.

There is much evidence of the 1907 siege works in this ditch, three of the counter-mine shafts still survive, now mostly covered up with debris and rubbish (post 1962). Near the RSJ which spans the moat are seen five massive cracks and more repair work, again from the siege trials of 1907, but this time, the hole in the base of the ditch was not dug by the defenders but was the result of a failed "camoflet" or "petard". Accounts vary as to the title of the device used, but it was a type of tunnel driven from the attacker's side along the length of the moat to here and exploded. The first left the now mostly back-filled crater but at the second attempt blew a section of the wall outwards causing the damage still to be seen.

After the sale of Fort Luton to Kent County Council the ditch fell into rapid disuse and became an illegal dump for all manner of refuse. A great pile of debris has been allowed to build up beneath and to either side of the drawbridge and beneath the RSJ. The disuse of the ditch has also caused much growth of vegetation.

The fort in use
From 1914 to 1919 the fort was used as a Transit Barracks for troops en route to Europe. From 1920 till 1933 it was used as a store. In 1938 conversion of the fort to a Gun Operations Room (GOR) began. In August 1939 it opened as GOR for the 27th. AA Brigade (Thames and Medway South) Gun Defended Area. Brigadier C.W. Bayne-Jardin D.S.C. M.C. was in command until relieved circa 1942, after which other officers of the same rank continued in command until December 1945.

From 1945/6 to 1961 the fort was used by Army Cadet Force and T.A. Summer camps. In 1961 or 1962 it was sold to Kent County Council (D100 procedure) for educational uses, but the KCC just wanted the land to build the nearby Fort Luton Boys Secondary School, and the fort was abandoned. In 1990 it was bought by a private individual who ran the site as a model museum and visitor attraction with tea shop. In 2001 the fort closed and has since been taken into private ownership and is being restored. The fort has statutory Scheduled monument status.

Fort Luton has been under new ownership since 2012; after 3 years it was decided that it should become a community interest company.

title: Fort Luton