text:
James Edward Ignatius Masterson

Major James Edward Ignatius Masterson VC (20 June 1862 – 24 December 1935) was an Irish recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Early career
Masterson entered the Royal Irish Fusiliers in 1881, and served in the 1882 Anglo-Egyptian War, including the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Devonshire Regiment on 15 July 1891, served in Burma from 1891 to 1892, and was promoted to lieutenant on 16 April 1895. From 1897 to 1898 he served with the 1st battalion of his regiment in the Tirah Campaign in the North-West Frontier of India under Sir William Lockhart.

Second Boer War
The Second Boer War broke out in South Africa in October 1899, and the British government soon realized they would need more troops. Masterson arrived in late 1899 with the 1st battalion of his regiment, and were involved in the Relief of Ladysmith.

Victoria Cross
Masterson was 37 years old, and a lieutenant in the 1st Battalion, Devonshire Regiment, when the following deed took place on 6 January 1900, at Wagon Hill, Ladysmith, South Africa for which he was awarded the VC: "During the action at Wagon Hill, on the 6th January, 1900, Lieutenant Masterson commanded, with the greatest gallantry and dash, one of the three companies of his regiment which charged a ridge held by the enemy and captured their position. The companies were then exposed to a most heavy and galling fire from the right and left front. Lieutenant Masterson undertook to give a message to the Imperial Light Horse, who were holding a ridge some hundred yards behind, to fire to the left front and endeavour to check the enemy's fire.

In taking this message he crossed an open space of a hundred yards which was swept by a most heavy cross fire, and although badly wounded in both thighs, managed to crawl in and deliver his message before falling exhausted into the Imperial Light Horse trench. His unselfish heroism was undoubtedly the means of saving several lives."

He was severely wounded during the action, and placed in a field hospital. In February 1900 he was promoted to captain (the appointment was dated back to 1 January 1900). After returning to active service, he received a brevet promotion to major on 29 November 1900 (gazetted in a 1901 South Africa Honours list), and stayed in South Africa until after the war formally ended in June 1902.

His battalion had transferred to British India, and Masterson left Point Natal on the SS Ionian in November 1902 to join it at Ranikhet, Bengal Presidency.

Later career
He transferred to the King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment as a Major in 1911 and retired in 1912. In 1914 he returned to the Army as a deputy director of Railway Transport. He died at Waterlooville, Hampshire, England, on 24 December 1935, aged 73.

His Victoria Cross is displayed at the Military Museum of Devon and Dorset, Dorchester, Dorset, England.

His ancestor, also surnamed Masterson, captured a Napoleonic eagle at Barossa in 1811 and was given a field commission; this is portrayed in Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe's Fury.

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

title: James Edward Ignatius Masterson


text:
Illinois Route 2

Illinois Route 2 (IL 2) is a north–south state highway in northern Illinois. It currently starts at Illinois Route 40 in Sterling and ends at the Wisconsin state line in South Beloit, very near the intersection with U.S. Route 51, Illinois Route 75 and Illinois Route 251. Illinois 2 is 73.91 mi long.

Route description
Illinois 2 used to follow the Rock River from Rock Island to South Beloit. It was used in the 19th century as a primary trading route from Rockford to Rock Island, The Rock River was not used as a trading route for boats as it is only navigable west of Rock Falls.

Illinois 2 has since been superseded by Interstate 39 and Interstate 88 for most ground transportation, but the original route remains.

In Sterling, IL 2 begins as a one-way pair. Near the Sinnissippi Mounds, the two one-way roads merge into a two-way road. From Sterling to Dixon, IL 2 largely follows a portion of Lincoln Highway but with one exception. Lincoln Highway branches off northeast to Palmyra and then back southeast to IL 2 just northwest of Dixon. Just north of Dixon, both routes run concurrently with US 52 and IL 26. They then cross the Rock River to get to downtown. In downtown, IL 2 branches off northeast from the other two routes.

At Grand Detour, IL 2 transitions from following the south/east bank of Rock River to the north/west bank via a bridge. Further north, it passes through Castle Rock State Park, IL 64 at the Ogle County Courthouse in Oregon, and IL 72 in Byron (runs concurrently with IL 2). North of the Chicago Rockford International Airport, IL 2 turns north. At this point, it largely parallels IL 251 for the rest of the route which is east of the river. It then meets US 20 at a diamond interchange (formerly a cloverleaf interchange).

As IL 2 gets closer to downtown Rockford, another split occurs. Northbound traffic continues on Main Street, then east on Chestnut Street (US 20 Business), then north on Wyman Street, then west on Park Avenue near the site of Beattie Park Mound Group, and then back north on Main Street before merging. Southbound traffic has to turn west onto John Street, then south on Church Street, and then east on Cedar Street before merging.

In Rockton, IL 2 transitions from the west side of the river to the east side again. Further north, IL 75 runs concurrently with IL 2 from Rockton to South Beloit. One third of a mile from the Wisconsin state line, IL 75 leaves this concurrency to travel East while IL 2 continues North over a railroad grade crossing and Turtle Creek before reaching its Northern terminus at a junction with WIS 213.

History
SBI Route 2 originally ran from South Beloit to Cairo. It followed a part of current IL 2 from South Beloit to Dixon. It then followed south on (roughly) present-day US 52, IL 251, and US 51. In 1935, US 51 supplanted IL 2 south of Mendota. With the appearance of US 52 in 1936, IL 2 was removed south of Dixon. Then, in 1938, IL 2 was briefly extended to Muscatine, Iowa, replacing IL 84 and IL 86 in the process. It soon got cut back to Rock Island in 1939 after IL 92 was extended to Muscatine. By 1979, IL 2 was removed west of Sterling as Illinois Route 5 (now I-88 east of I-80) was extended to Rock Island. To this day, exit 2 on I-88 is designated as "Old IL 2", referencing the pre-1979 routing of IL 2.

IL 2 was designated a Blue Star Memorial Highway on November 4, 1970. The sign can be found in a wayside just west of the Winnebago County line in Ogle County along the Rock River.

title: Illinois Route 2


text:
File:VCDavidJones.jpg

Photo of Victoria Cross recipient David Jones, migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference site with permission. Photo submitted by Franklyncards.

title: File:VCDavidJones.jpg


text:
David Jones (VC)

David Jones VC (10 January 1892 – 7 October 1916) was an English recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces. A soldier with The King's (Liverpool) Regiment during the First World War, he was awarded the VC for his actions in September 1916, during the Battle of the Somme. He was killed in action several days later.

Early life
David Jones was born in Liverpool on 10 January 1892 to David Jones, a trained ironworker but working as a porter at the time, and Jessie Jones Ginochio. The youngest of six siblings, Jones went to Heyworth Street School in Everton. When he finished his schooling, he was apprenticed to Blake's Motor Company to train as a mechanic. In 1909, he volunteered for the Territorial Force and served in the 9th King's (Liverpool) Regiment for four years.

First World War
On the outbreak of the First World War, Jones enlisted in the British Army, and was posted to the 12th Battalion, The King's (Liverpool) Regiment. After a period of training, he, along with the battalion as part of the 20th (Light) Division, was sent to the Western Front in France in June 1915. Before his departure, he married Elizabeth Doyle. The marital home was in Everton.

Jones was involved in the Battle of Loos in September–October 1915 and later served in the Ypres Salient in Belgium the following year. The 20th Division was among those tasked for the Battle of the Somme, and from 22 August 1916 it served in the Somme sector in France. On 3 September 1916, it was tasked with the capture of the village of Guillemont, which was strongly garrisoned by German forces. Jones was by now a sergeant. His platoon was part of a company ordered forward to strengthen the flank but it became cut off. Its commanding officer killed, for two days, under Jones's command, the trapped platoon resisted German attempts to capture their position. Even when relieved by units of the 16th (Irish) Division, he remained in the line for several hours before withdrawing. For his actions, he was awarded the VC. The VC, instituted in 1856, was the highest award for valour that could be bestowed on a soldier of the British Empire. The citation for his VC read as follows:

"For most conspicuous bravery and devotion to duty, and the ability displayed in the handling of his platoon. The platoon to which he belonged was ordered to a forward position and during the advance came under heavy machine-gun fire, the officer being killed and the platoon suffering heavy losses. Serjeant Jones led forward the remainder, occupied the position, and held it for two days and two nights, without food or water, until relieved. On the second day he drove back three counter-attacks, inflicting heavy losses. His coolness was most praiseworthy. It was due entirely to his resource and example that his men retained confidence and their post."

- The London Gazette, 26 October 1916

After some days' rest, the 20th Division was then involved in the next phase of fighting on the Somme, the Battle of Le Transloy. On the opening day of the battle, 7 October 1916, Jones was killed in action. His battalion had just reached and entered some German trenches. He is buried in Bancourt British Cemetery.

Medals and legacy
King George V presented Jones's VC to his widow on 31 March 1917, in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace. It was owned for several years by his former employer, Blake's Motor Company, which had been gifted it by Jones's widow. It was loaned to the King's Regimental Museum before it was donated in 2009 to the Museum of Liverpool, where it is displayed at its premises in Pierhead, Liverpool.

The year after his death, two separate plaques in his memory were constructed at his former school, Heyworth Street School. One was later moved to Everton Catholic Primary School while the other is in storage. Other memorials exist at St Nathaniel's in Liverpool and Guillemont Church. The latter also commemorates John Holland and Thomas Hughes, two other VC recipients from the Battle of Guillemont.

title: David Jones (VC)


text:
BR Standard Class 6

The BR Standard Class 6, otherwise known as the  Clan Class, was a class of 4-6-2 Pacific tender steam locomotive designed by Robert Riddles for use by British Railways. Ten locomotives were constructed between 1951 and 1952, with a further 15 planned for construction. However, due to acute steel shortages in Britain, the order was continually postponed until it was finally cancelled on the publication of the 1955 Modernisation Plan for the re-equipment of British Railways. All of the original locomotives were scrapped, but a new one is being built.

The Clan Class was based upon the BR Standard Class 7 Britannia Class design, incorporating a smaller boiler and various weight-saving measures to increase the route availability of a Pacific-type locomotive for its intended area of operations, the west of Scotland. The Clan Class received a mixed reception from crews, with those regularly operating the locomotives giving favourable reports as regards performance. However, trials in other areas of the British Railways network returned negative feedback, a common complaint being that difficulty in steaming the locomotive made it hard to adhere to timetables. Reports exist that suggest a degree of the disappointment with these locomotives was attributable to their being allocated to Class 7 work where they were only a Class 6 in reality; a problem put down to their very similar appearance to the BR Standard Class 7.

Some of the Clan Class locomotives took their names from the Highland Railway Clan Class which was being withdrawn from service at the time, indicating further their intended area of operations. The class was ultimately deemed a failure by British Railways, and the last was withdrawn in 1966. None survived into preservation, although a project to build the next locomotive in line, number 72010 Hengist, is progressing. Assembly of the frames has commenced at CTL Seal, Sheffield.

Background
Under the initial scheme for the creation of a series of British Railways standard locomotives, larger passenger and mixed traffic types were intended to be of the 4-6-2 Pacific wheel arrangement, the main advantage of which was that it could be fitted with a wide firebox capable of burning a range of coal types (and qualities). The Pacifics were originally intended to be produced in four power groups: 8, 7, 6, and 5, according to the system of power ratings inherited from the LMS constituent company. Power groups 7, 6 & 5 were to be for mixed traffic (MT) service. The whole standardisation programme was launched with the building of the 7MT Britannia design in 1951; in the event, the 5MT proposal was dropped in favour of an updated version of the highly successful Stanier mixed traffic 4-6-0.

It was further appreciated that a Pacific of 6MT power could be built with a high enough route availability to fulfil all remaining requirements; this had been amply demonstrated by Oliver Bulleid, Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Southern Railway, who had developed a lighter version of his large 3-cylinder Merchant Navy Class in 1945. H.A.V. Bulleid, Oliver Bulleid's son, advocated that the resultant Light Pacifics had "almost 90%" route availability on the Southern railway network.

The advantages of such a locomotive for use on some of the heavily restricted main lines in Scotland, such as the Dumfries to Stranraer line, had been further demonstrated by the remarkable performance of Light Pacific number 34004 Yeovil on the ex Highland Railway line to Inverness during the British Railways 1948 Locomotive Exchange Trials. During these trials the locomotive showed that a Light Pacific had the potential to revolutionise the timetable over this difficult trunk route. As the general policy of the Railway Executive was to eliminate as far as possible the perceived complication of multi-cylinder locomotives, an equivalent 2-cylinder Pacific was produced by mounting a smaller and lighter boiler on the standard 7MT chassis.

Design details
The arrangement consisted of a modified Standard Class 7 boiler, with smaller steel cylinders and other modifications to save weight and hence increase route availability. The wider firebox, designed for use with cheaper imported coal, was also utilised to spread its weight evenly over the axles, whilst the standard smokebox completed the boiler, which at 225 lbf/in2 was rated at a lower working pressure than that of the Britannias. A single chimney was incorporated into the design, although this was to create problems later on, due to its small diameter, which reduced the choke area that allowed the fierce exhaust blast to escape, reducing the overall efficiency of the locomotive. Similarities with the Britannias rested with the frames, tenders and running gear, allowing easy standardisation of parts common with other classes. The design was fitted with a standard set of two Walschaerts valve gear systems, and all members of the class were equipped with 4,200 gallon BR 1 tenders.

Following experience of occasional cracks appearing in the frame plates near the spring brackets, had the second batch of Class 6 Standard Pacifics been built, the chassis would have been rearranged to be similar to that used on the solitary Class 8 Pacific. This would have resulted in the locomotive riding on three cast steel Combined Frame Stretcher & Spring Brackets carrying the 10 front-most spring brackets and lengthened spring brackets behind the rear driven axle. These Combined Frame Stretcher & Spring Brackets are often referred to as "sub-frames". (Perhaps remarkably, the rearmost spring brackets were not to be integrated into a single cast combined sub-frame/pony truck pivot stretcher. The pony truck pivot stretcher being a separate fabrication).

Unlike the smaller BR Standards the exhaust steam manifold within the smokebox saddle (along with the BR Standard Class 7 engines) was a steel casting that was welded into the saddle. Other original drawings confirm the exhaust steam manifold was a steel fabrication in the smaller BR standards.

Construction history
Designed at the drawing offices of Derby Works, the new class was constructed at British Railways' Crewe Works between 1951 and 1952. The initial order was for 25 locomotives, but such was the immediacy of demand regarding a smaller version of the Britannias that a batch of 10 was rushed through construction before teething problems had been ironed out at the British Railways testing station at Rugby. No more were constructed due to the steel shortages of the 1950s, and onset of the British Railways Modernisation Plan from 1954.

Initial modifications
After initial running-in, E.S.Cox was quoted as discerning a distinct "woolliness" in their steaming, and although they missed their appointment at the Rugby Locomotive Testing Station due to late completion, some modifications were carried out, most notably to the diameter of the blastpipe, resulting in better steaming and increased power. Initially, the return cranks on the main driving wheels were of LNER block-type as seen on Arthur Peppercorn's A1s and A2s, but this was changed to the simpler LMS four-stud fitting. With time, enough information was gathered from operational feedback from crews to allow modifications to be applied to the further 15 locomotives on order in the second batch, had they been built.

Naming the locomotives
The choice of locomotive names came from engineer and future railway historian Ernest Stewart Cox's desire to replicate the extinct Ex-Highland Railway 4-6-0 Clan Class,(the last example being withdrawn in January 1950), thereby representing Scotland in the new organisation. The first of the class, No. 72000 Clan Buchanan, was treated to a special ceremony at Glasgow Central station on 15 January 1952 at which the Lord Provost unveiled its nameplates. Five of these names had previously been used on Highland Railway locomotives. The first five of the planned second batch of 15 locomotives were intended for use on BR's Southern Region; these were allocated names Hengist, Horsa, Canute, Wildfire and Firebrand, which had all been previously used on locomotives in southern England. The following ten were to be allocated to Scotland and were allocated further "Clan" names, all of which were new.

Operational details
The Clan Class had a mixed reception when first introduced to British Railways locomotive crews because there were only 10 locomotives in a class that was mostly confined to the North West of the railway network. This was due to the fact the low number of class members prevented effective training of locomotive crews throughout the nationalised network, and a degree of partisanship amongst crews towards newer locomotives further ensured this. The entire class was also based predominantly at two depots throughout their working lives, these being Glasgow Polmadie and Carlisle Kingmoor, compounding their restricted circulation. However, factors such as these meant that they spent most of their short careers out of the limelight that the Britannias had, resulting in a relatively camera shy class of locomotive. Crews that used them on regular duties displayed their liking for the locomotives, and as such, could produce good work. However, the predominant number of crews who were unfamiliar with the Clans found them difficult to handle, leading to an undeservedly bad reputation.

The poor steaming characteristics of the class had been the result of rushed production, which was another factor that led to the bad reputation of the Clan Class. Furthermore, they suffered from complaints regarding a lack of pulling power, although this can be attributed to indifferent handling and firing techniques, which certainly did not help the situation. However, had the Modernisation Plan been delayed, and the correct amount of investment made for undertaking the relevant modifications, such as streamlining of the steam passages and increased diameter blastpipe in a double-chimney layout, the Clans would have been free-steaming workhorses worthy of complementing the Britannias. Without modification, they were still capable machines when handled properly, as various feats testifying this included regular ascents of Shap and Beattock with 14 carriages without the assistance of a banking locomotive. Other arduous duties that the class frequently undertook were the regular turns on the Settle to Carlisle route, which has some of the steepest gradients and harshest working conditions of any British mainline. The Midland region was always short of top-link motive power and the Clan Class proved to be a very welcome addition to the fleet.

The engines also performed on Glasgow–Crewe, Manchester and Liverpool services, Edinburgh–Leeds services, Carlisle–Bradford services, and finally the Stranraer Boat Train workings. As more crews got used to them, the class could be found far from home territory at destinations as diverse as Aberdeen, Inverness, Port Talbot, Newcastle upon Tyne, Bristol, and even London. Clan number 72001 to this day remains the only Pacific locomotive to have worked over the West Highland Line, the result of a successful trial held in early 1956 to ascertain whether a Pacific type could traverse this steeply graded line. Having passed that test, a tribute to the versatility of the class, Clan Cameron was allowed to work special trains for the Clan Cameron gathering that took place in June of that year.

In August 1958, number 72009 was tested on the Eastern Region, being based at Stratford MPD, though a preference for the Britannias meant that this sojourn was short-lived, lasting only a month. The locomotive was utilised on services from London Liverpool Street to Norwich, Clacton, and Harwich. At first they were mistakenly allocated Class 7 duties, in which the Clans, although capable, were not able to keep to their allotted timings. This was part of the trials for the West Highland Line services mentioned earlier, but the locomotive was rejected for such duties on the grounds that they were "no better than a good B1". The result of these trials was that as both Standard Class 7 and 8 locomotives were moved north in 1961 after dieselisation started in earnest, the Clans were downgraded to secondary work. Maintenance was initially undertaken at Crewe Works, but responsibility was transferred to Cowlairs Works in the spring of 1958. More varied work was allocated to them as their reliability improved, including working portions of the Thames-Clyde Express and the Queen of Scots Pullman. They also deputised for the many failed diesel locomotives that plagued the network at the time, and were extensively used on freight workings.

Most Scottish and Midland region crews that used them regularly took to the class, and found that if used properly, running times were kept with ease. These crews rated them the most sure-footed of any Pacifics available on the Midland Region, though other crews who tested them claimed that the Clans were prone to slipping, though this was the case with most Pacific designs. Despite the various successes of the Clans, the class was generally regarded as a failure, even with overall performance being just short of Riddles' aims. However, the premise of all British Railways Standard designs was for a hard working, easily maintained, economical, highly available, and all-purpose locomotive. In these respects, the Clans were highly successful.

Proposed second batch and withdrawal
Prior to the publishing of the Modernisation Plan advocating the change-over to diesel traction, there was a proposal to construct a second batch of the Clan Class, which was accepted as Crewe Works Order Lot 242. This authorised the construction of a further batch of fifteen Clans that included modifications to the original design. Originally scheduled for 1952 with frames constructed for 72010 Hengist, acute steel shortages meant that the order was continually rescheduled until the publication of the British Railways Modernisation Plan finally halted the project. The initial name allocations for the new batch would seem to suggest several operating the Kent coast trains, hauling the Golden Arrow and other expresses, so that some of this batch would have been allocated to the Southern Region.

The first locomotives to be withdrawn from service were the Polmadie locos 72000-72004 en masse in December 1962, where after being moved first to Glasgow Parkhead and stored, they were eventually moved to Darlington for scrapping in 1964. Of the Kingmoor allocation, the first, number 72005, was withdrawn in April 1965, whilst the final loco was 72008 on 21 May 1966 from Carlisle Kingmoor shed. When No 72008 Clan MacLeod was finally scrapped in August 1966, it rendered the class extinct. Though this locomotive served British Railways for only fourteen years and three months, it was the longest serving Clan.

Livery and numbering
The livery of the Clans was a continuation of the standard British Railways green applied to express passenger locomotives after nationalisation, lined in orange and black. The class was given the power classification 6P. Following on from the Britannias, the Clans were numbered under the British Railways standard numbering system in the 72xxx series. The locomotives were numbered between 72000 and 72009, and featured brass nameplates with a black background, located on the smoke deflectors, though towards the end of their working lives, some nameplates were painted with a red background.

Preservation
None of the original engines survived into preservation, however progress is being made by a Registered Charity (No. 1062320), the Standard Steam Locomotive Company, on constructing the engine that would have been the first of the uncompleted batch of 15, number 72010 Hengist. As 999 BR standard steam locomotives were built in the years up to 1960 the builders consider this is the 1000th locomotive build to be commenced to a British Railways standard design. The Standard Steam Locomotive Company believes that significant costs will be avoided as many of the required cast parts can be made from patterns held by fellow members of the British Railways Standard Locomotive Owners Group (BRSLOG).

title: BR Standard Class 6


text:
Society for Technical Communication

The Society for Technical Communication (STC) is a professional association dedicated to the advancement of the theory and practice of technical communication with more than 4,500 members in the United States, Canada, and the world. The society publishes a quarterly journal and a magazine eight times a year and hosts an annual international conference (STC Technical Communication Summit). STC also provides online education in the form of live Web seminars, multi-week online certificate courses, virtual conferences, recorded seminars, and more.

Overview
Headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, US, STC is the largest organization of its type in the world according to its website. It includes 50 chapters, 12 Special Interest Groups (SIGs), and over 4,500 members worldwide. STC members work in a wide range of roles, including:

 * Technical writing
 * Editing
 * Consulting
 * Content development
 * Education
 * Environmental safety and health communication
 * Graphic arts
 * Human factors
 * Indexing
 * Information architecture
 * Instructional design
 * Management
 * Photography
 * Single source publishing
 * Software development
 * Technical illustration
 * Translation
 * Usability
 * Visual design
 * Web design

Most STC members belong to one or more communities, which are either geographic chapters or special interest groups (SIGs). Most chapters are in the United States, but STC includes members from 14 countries. The largest group outside the U.S. is the chapter in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

STC publishes a quarterly journal, Technical Communication, and a monthly magazine, Intercom.

Certifications
STC offers certification as a Certified Professional Technical Communicator with three tiers: Foundation Level Certification (Level I), Practitioner Level Certification (Level II) Expert Level Certification (Level III). The certification is offered through APMG Internationa and requires bi-annual renewal with 12 CEUs.

History
The organization traces its roots to the Society of Technical Writers (STW) in Boston and the Association of Technical Writers and Editors (ATWE) in New York. Both were founded in the United States in 1953. These organizations merged in 1957 to form the Society of Technical Writers and Editors (STWE). In 1960, this group merged with the Technical Publishing Society (TPS), based in Los Angeles, to become the Society of Technical Writers and Publishers. In 1971, the organization's name was changed to the Society for Technical Communication.

The organization's main journal developed from the TWE Journal to the STWE Review to the STWP Review to Technical Communications to Technical Communication. Editors of this journal have included Douglas E. Knight, Allan H. Lytel, A. Stanley Higgins, Frank R. Smith, George Hayhoe, and Menno de Jong.

Other important leaders in the history of STC include Robert T. Hamlett (first president of ATWE), A. E. Tyler (first president of TPS), Samuel A. Miles (president of the Society of Technical Writers and Editors, which became ATWE's New York chapter in 1955), Vernon R. Root, Robert O. Shockney, and Stello Jordan. In 2011, Alan Houser was elected vice president of the organization; per their by-laws, he became president in 2012, and was succeeded by his own vice president Nicky Bleiel in 2013.

STC's annual publications competition for 2012–2013 was held in Washington, D.C. The organization also has branches internationally. On November 12, 2012, STC's branch in India held its 14th annual conference in Bangalore.

Technical Communication Summit (Annual Conference)
In May or June of each year, STC holds the Technical Communication Summit, the largest conference for technical communicators in the world. The Summit includes over 80 education session broken up into relevant subject areas or tracks; networking events such as the Opening General Session, Welcome Reception, Communities Reception, and Closing Lunch; an Honors Banquet; and an exhibit hall with dozens of companies offering technical communication products or services. The Summit also includes preconference education for an additional price.

Other education
In addition to the Technical Communication Summit, STC offers online education both to its members and nonmembers, with members receiving discounted registration rates. STC offers both live and recorded online education.

STC Honors
STC recognizes outstanding individuals by conferring the titles of Fellow, Associate Fellow, and Honorary Fellow. STC's Honorary Fellow for 2009 was "Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia."

STC also sponsors honorary societies for technical communication students with a grade point average of 3.5 or above:
 * Sigma Tau Chi recognizes students in four-year or graduate programs
 * Alpha Sigma recognizes students in two-year or certificate programs

title: Society for Technical Communication


text:
Talk:Audio crossover

This page redirects to filters but there is no mention whatsoever of crossovers therein.

Although it seems an appropriate redirect, something should at least exist on the subject before redirection is requested.

 * Added contents specific to audio crossovers and filters. This is correct to the best of my knowledge. Please correct if any errors are found, and if possible add more information. Thank you. -- Rohitbd

Thanks Omegatron, for all your efforts in linking and corrections :-) -- Rohitbd

Summed response
summed response is -6 dB? 0 dB + -80 dB is going to be about 0 dB... — Omegatron 19:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The summed response of a Bessel or L-R crossover is -6dB relative to the pass-band maximum or -6dB normalised. Rohitbd 22:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why. 1+0.000001 ≈ 1 — Omegatron 03:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite get your question, but if it helps, its -6db because of (1) the filter characteristic, (2) the phase relationship between the signals in the bands and (3) the crossover point is -6db and not -3db. And the summing is not exactly -6dB, VERY slightly lesser (due to loading of the next stage). See this: http://sound.whsites.net/bi-amp.htm#phase_resp and http://sound.whsites.net/project09.htm. All said, maybe the graph is making things harder...should I remove it? -- Rohitbd 06:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed the related text to make it clearer. Rohitbd 07:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, there are two filters. A lowpass and a highpass.  Right?  Each has unity gain in the passband.  So whatever signal you put in in the passband comes out almost exactly the same level.  Then the two waveforms sum in the air which gives the overall summed response, right?  The passband of one filter corresponds to the stopband of the other, which is a much lower level.  Even if the phases cancel, the magnitude of the stopband is so much smaller that the summed response will be close to unity gain everywhere, not -6 dB.  If the -6 dB comes from loading or something that isn't taken into account in the filter output, then that might make sense.  — Omegatron 22:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Omegatron, most of what you say is true, and perhaps the confusion is because of my implicit assumption - the summing shown is electrical and not acoustic because it is far easier to measure electrical summing and it follows that the acoustic summing must also be a function of the electrical summing. That said, IMHO, we cannot assume that since the stopband of one corresponds to the passband of the other the summing should be closer to unity (0db) - this is more applicable to filters with a very sharp knee and extremely steep slopes. With Bessel or L-R, the slope starts out much shallower than Butterworth - if you compare the (real) graphs of both, you will see that the Bessel or L-R has a softer "knee" than Butterworth. At this point, I must confess that I do not know the mathematics behind it - what I wrote is based on the material provided in the references section, and perhaps it needs re-wording. Further, what I have written is more to explain why a Butterworth is not preferable and not why the summing is at −6dB.
 * Rohitbd 10:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmmm... :-)  — Omegatron 20:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * That's not correct in the electrical world either man.... Electrically, it's the sum of the complex responses.  The only way you add dB values is if you are MULTIPLYING two responses together.  dB = 20log[X] hence 20log[XY] = 20log[X] + 20log[Y] = dB1 + dB2.  20log[X+Y] has no simple formula like that.  Rather you have to compute the complex valued response which is mag*cos(phase) + i*mag*sin(phase)  then add back together.   3:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * PHASE. That's it! Now how could I have overlooked it? It is the phase relationship between the filter sections that results in flat summing with a Bessel or L-R crossover. Rohitbd 16:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * So, after all the mathematical mumbo-jumbo, the summed response of a crossover IS or IS NOT ~6db below the passband level? At least in active crossovers that sum flat, it seems impossible that the summed response could be down 6db in any practical device.  Why? Because the contribution of the high-pass section to the response of the low-pass section at, say, 4 octaves below the crossover point would be so minimal in amplitude that even if it were 180 degrees out of phase with the low -pass signal it would not seem to be able to pull the low-pass signal down 6db at that point.  The same would seem to be true for the effect of the low-pass section with respect to the high-pass response 4 octaves higher than the crossover point.  Also, I've read a lot of literature on the amplitude and phase response of active crossovers and I've never seen a graph showing the summed response to be 6db below the passband level. Is it different with passive crossovers? What am I missing here? Anoneditor 03:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the electrical summing is 6dB lower than the pass-band maxima. An ideal passive crossover (one that is immune to the driver's parameters and doesn't have insertion loss) will exhibit exactly the same electrical summing as an active crossover. However, it should be noted that the crossover's outputs are not meant to be summed electrically for normal use - the electrical summing is done solely to determine or verify that the combined response is flat (the -6dB summing is simply a result of the filters' characteristics and interactions with each other), an active crossover's outputs are connected to individual amplifiers which in turn are connected to speaker drivers; and a passive crossover's outputs are connected to speaker drivers. So as far as the load connected to each output of the crossover goes, each will see the respective input unattenuated if it is within the particular filter's pass-band. That said, the electrical summing is only important as far as the crossover points go - if the electrical summing is not flat (i.e, dips/peaks at crossover points) the acoustic summing to won't be flat either. Rohitbd 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Added clarifications to the article to alleviate any confusion arising out of the way the electrical summing is depicted. Rohitbd 11:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed the confusing portion about electrical summing at -6dB. However, what matters is that the crossover sums flat electrically or acoustically, and the -6dB electrical summing is not of significance as far as the article goes. Rohitbd 16:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Rohitbd. Let me restate what I understanding of what you are saying just to make sure that I am not confused. You are asserting that the summed electrical response of a two-pole Bessel crossover is 6 dB below the amplitude of the passband of both the high and low pass filters that make up that crossover. So, for example, if the crossover frequency is 2 kHz, then the summed response would be 6 dB below the input at 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1 kHz, 4 kHz, 8 kHz and 16 kHz. Is this correct? If so, at the risk of becoming a pest, would you please tell me the mechanism for such a passband amplitude reduction? I’m asking because it seems to me that at 250 Hz, for example, even if a high-pass output were 180 deg. out of phase with the low-pass output at that frequency, the sum could not be 6 dB below the low pass passband because the high pass output at that frequency is 36 dB down (1/8 the amplitude).

Let me add that I’ve never seen your assertion before. Every other graph of summed electrical response for two-pole Bessel crossovers I’ve come across shows no such 6 dB reduction. See, e.g., Vance Dickason, The Loudspeaker Design Cookbook, 5th Ed. (Audio Amateur Press 1997) p. 98, showing the summed response of the vast majority of audio crossover networks; and Figs. 3 and 4 shown in http://www.rane.com/note147.html by the Rane Corporation, a crossover manufacturer in the U.S.

I will greatly appreciate hearing from you. Anoneditor 18:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * If you tie the outputs of a crossover using resistors and measure the summed output it will always show 6dB attenuation - unfortunately I happened to mention this as "summing flat" where it should have been avoided in the first place. The 6dB reduction is always present with passive resistive summing. I should have realised this earlier - my mistake and I have corrected it in the article. However user Ron E has already made some sweeping changes to the article so it shouldn't cause any confusion to readers now. Rohitbd 07:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bessel is not L-R
It seems that there's a little confusion here. AFAIK Bessel filters don't have a -6dB gain at cutoff, and their sum is not flat, it has a little dip instead. The -6dB cutoff freq and flat summed response is the characteristic of Linkwitz-Riley filters. Refer to: http://www.rane.com/note147.html scoofy 10:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (those wishing to explore deeper details of the math can refer tothe personal page of Mr. Linkwitz himself! http://www.linkwitzlab.com )
 * The sallen-key unity gain filter has a Q of 0.5 and this is LR2...however Bessel filters also have a Q of 0.5... Rohitbd 12:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. Bessel filter has a Q of approximately 0.58. References:Active Lowpass Filter Design (look at Table 2.), Another reference Third reference Fourth reference . This page says Bessel filters have a Q factor of 0.5 to 0.7, with a remark that a 'true' Bessel filter has a Q of 0.57. So we might say that a filter with a Q of 0.5 is a Bessel-like filter. You're right in the sense that the LR filter has a character very similar to the Bessel character, which have almost the same gain at and the sum of the outputs is also nearly flat, and both filters are linear phase in the passband. Regards scoofy 12:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did mix up LR2 & Bessel - I have made this change in the article. Rohitbd 08:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think, we should not confuse LR2 with Bessel. A Bessel filter is a filter with a transfer function H(s)=K0/Ben(s/ω0), where Ben is the nth Bessel polynomial, meaning that a 2nd order Bessel filter has a transfer function H(s)=3/((s^2)+3s+3) (reference1) (reference2), which can be realized by a two pole filter with a Q of 0.577. This, and only this is a Bessel filter, anything else is not a Bessel filter, in the strictest sense. Besides this, a common definiton found on the net (which may be the source of confusion) is that a Bessel filter is filter with a linear phase resonse and a constant group delay. However, this is only partially true, Bessel filters are filters which at the same time have the maximally flat amplitude response retaining a linear phase response and a constant group delay. (ref) This is not true of LR2 filters, which have a softer "knee" at the cutoff frequency. I suggest that we don't mix up these two, because this is an encyclopedia, and many people will use it as a reference, so we shouldn't include an information that is not true. (Of course, we can include a remark that in common practice, sometimes all linear phase filters are called Bessel filters, but we shouldn't mix them up in the article.) It is also a very wrong idea to say that a filter with a Q of 0.7 is a Bessel filter, because practically it is a a Butterworth filter (Butterworths have a Q of 0.707), so it doesn't have any of the typical Bessel character (it has a peak in the group delay, it's phase response is non-linear). Regarding the peak/dip question: The summed output of the Bessel filters can have a peak, a dip or a ripple depending on how you mix the two, whether you invert the phase of one output or not, and what kind of frequency normalization you use. Normalisation means you scale the cutoff frequency of the filters by a certain factor, so the cutoff freq of the LP and HP filter gets closer or further from each other. Possible summed outputs can look like: graph1 graph2 graph3 graph4. The last graph shows what happens if you use different normalisation values, which can be shown on a 3d graph: graph5. Probably the "phase match" graph is the most appropriate regarding crossovers, which - truly - has a dip. You should note that none of these graphs look flat, which is another reason not to say this graph depicts a Bessel filter. Regards scoofy 11:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, differentiation should be made between generalised bessel, true bessel & LR types, but going into too much detail may be counter-productive especially since the filters have their own articles and the links in the references section should provide ample material for those who want to delve deeper into it. I would also recommend some simplification/shortening of the article where we just touch on the filters (Butterworth/Bessel/LR and link to the respective articles) and give a brief account of their salient characteristics from the point-of-view of use in audio and leave it at that. Rohitbd 11:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with that. I'll look at it later and think of how could it be reorganized. scoofy 11:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reorganized article. Removed Classification by filter type, put the relevant information into the appropriate sections. Also moved a lot of stuff from the Overview. I think the Overview is still a little bit fuzzy, we could possibly have an overview where first: we discuss what does a crossover network consist of (lowpass & highpass filters) (not going into details about filters and filter characteristics) and then second: get some overall info on filter characteristics and what kind of filters are best as crossovers. I think some info could be moved to the latter sections (eg info on 2nd order Butterworth filters could be moved tho the Second order crossovers section. Probably this would clean up the article a little bit. scoofy 23:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Scoofy for all your efforts, it is highly appreciated !! :-) Rohitbd 08:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

SVG image does not appear correcty
I uploaded an SVG of a comparison of Butterworh and L-R crossovers, which does not appear correctly. However, when I download the imageit appears correctly in my browser. Any suggestions? scoofy 11:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Even I cannot see it. Perhaps changing the format to GIF/PNG will work. Rohitbd 12:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I uploaded it in PNG. It is fine now.scoofy 13:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The actual acoustic slope achieved is a combination of the filter slopes of the driver and that of its filter section
User:Ron E wrote: The actual acoustic slope achieved is a combination of the filter slopes of the driver and that of its filter section. AFAIK a driver does not have a filter section (actually, the crossover itself is the filter). Probably he meant that a driver itself has a certain frequency response curve, which interacts with the crossover filter's slope, thus the final slope is steeper than the slope of the filter itself alone. (The combination of both the natural characteristics of the drivers and the electrical filtering produces the acoustic slope. source) Corrected it.scoofy 02:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * look at it rather as: The actual acoustic slope achieved is a combination of the rolloff slopes of the driver and that of its filter section--Ron E 04:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait!! The above condition is not the best way to get a crossover - first of all a crossover built using a 12db/oct electrical filter and the drivers' responses will be too much dependent on driver characteristics to be of any use. This is not to say that it is not used, but generally we try to keep the crossover slope as independent of the drivers as possible. For example, with a 12dB/oct crossover if we want to cross over at 1kHz, then the woofer MUST have a HF response that extends atleast upto 2kHz and the tweeter MUST have a LF response that extends atleast down to 600-700Hz. If the drivers do not satisfy the above requirement then a 24db/oct or higher order crossover is needed. In the above case, if the woofer and tweeter both have a -3db of 1.5kHz (a condition seldom met in practice), a 12db/oct electrical crossover (of 1.5kHz) will give a combined crossover slope of 18db/oct - the woofer/tweeter will cut at approx. 6db/oct. The above method is used ONLY if the drivers have extremely controlled slopes and that at the extremities of their individual freq. responses they can operate with good directivity (esp. the woofer which must not have any "cone-breakup" or lobing at the HF end). Rohitbd 07:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rohitbd, this is the way crossovers are designed. One has to consider driver response as part of the package.  If you investigate well-designed systems on the internet (where much of your information seems to come), you will find essentially none (except those designed by rank beginners) that use an actual L-R or Bessel or Butterworth circuit.  What is generally done is to formulate a target response based on L-R (or Butterworth...) transfer function coefficients, and design a circuit which causes the driver to take on that target response.   This is done with Zoebels and notch or contour filters as well as other response shaping circuits.  Allowance must be given for the noncoincident arrangement of the drivers and their relative phase at the crossover frequency.  While you were quick to add back the information about phase and inverted driver polarity, it is really not correct in the general sense.  It would only apply if the drivers were perfect transducers, having perfectly flat frequency response from DC to (nearly) infinite frequency, such that their phase response matched perfectly and there was no driver response to worry about.--Ron E 18:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a notch filter, a contour circuit, zobel (the correct term for speaker drivers is impedance equaliser), etc are used to make the final acoustic response as flat as possible - BUT these are not part of the crossover. If you see the Linkwitz website you will see that the crossovers are LR and notch, contour, time-alignment ckts are added to bring the acoustic response in line with the crossover summing. The crossover is still independent of the drivers. A notch or peak is usually when a driver is reaching its -3dB point - the crossover doesn't care about it, as its taken care of by the contour circuit. Rohitbd 08:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I notice you have a tendency to attempt to define terms. In that vein, a crossover is merely an audio filter which is used to shape the response of a loudspeaker.  Notches and contour networks and zoebels (zoebels are actually more generally called impedance conjugate networks - can you explain why?) are merely added filter elements and are thus by definition part of the crossover as a whole.  Maybe if you can explain what you mean by: "...bring the acoustic response in line with the crossover summing. The crossover is still independent of the drivers. A notch or peak is usually when a driver is reaching its -3dB point - the crossover doesn't care about it, as its taken care of by the contour circuit.", I can address those misconceptions as well.  If the crossover were independent of the drivers, one would not need to know the driver impedance or frequency response in designing them.  A notch or peak can actually occur anywhere and has nothing to do with "-3dB", etc....Ron E 02:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Ron, I am only using standard terms here - an audio crossover "proper" is an entity separate from the contour networks and it is not a device to shape a speaker's response. The impedance conjugate networks (zobel network) are basically meant as a "sit-in" (so to speak) between the passive crossover and the driver so that the crossover sees a loading that is largely resistive - note that crossovers are designed for a particular load impedance and this impedance is a single value at a given frequency and not the variable impedance of the driver. In fact many crossovers are simply designed by measuring the driver's impedance at the crossover frequency without bothering about the impedance at other frequencies. This is not ideal, but it works. Impedance correction networks will simply act to make the driver appear as a resistive load to the crossover, so that the crossover can work correctly at other frequencies too - the acoustic effect may be debatable though.

 * As for "bringing the acoustic network in line with the crossover" - all it means is that the speaker's acoustic output is corrected for dips/peaks by using extra circuitry - the impedance equaliser is just one such in the scheme of things - the impedance equaliser makes the driver appear resistive to the crossover and the contour network simply corrects for peaks/dips - yes using it will affect the crossover too, but if the final acoustic response if satisfactory then this shouldn't be an issue. You term all these as part of the crossover while I term them as separate - as do many more people, see this, figures 3.3, 3.6 (impedance correction); the article clearly demostrates that the crossover is designed after the impedance has been corrected. For contour networks, you can always refer to any speaker design book (David B. Weems, for example). Rohitbd 09:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with your understanding of this topic is that it is superficial. As clearly demonstrated by your responses to the -6dB comments above, your concept of "proper" terminology is limited. Your statements above about designing crossovers using single frequency impedance measurements and not using the actual driver complex impedance merely underlines your inexperience and lack of understanding on this topic.  Weems writes to such an audience, as do most webpages on the topic.  Since you mention him explicitly, take a look at his crossover designs and see how many of them are determined solely by the kind of cookbook methods you are describing, and which he ironically promotes in his book. BTW, an impedance conjugate network is so named because its impedance (in theory, but not actually) is the complex conjugate of the inductive rise of the woofer.  If you look at conjugate networks used in common loudspeakers designed by professionals, you will find they differ (more often than not) from the values that merely flatten impedance, and not just because the impedance rise of  speakers is not purely inductive.  Imagine a first order lowpass filter with an RC impedance conjugate, then progressively reduce the resistor value in the conjugate - when does it become a 2nd order filter?  Conjugate networks (and notch filters) are used as additional response shaping elements - which places them solidly in the crossover arena.  Neville Thiele has recently published on a "new" type of crossover which an amateur might interpret as a crossover with a "separate" ;-) notch filter. In truth, it is a family of filters with zeroes in the transfer function. Oh, and they sum flat, and not to -6dB.....Ron E 03:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have so much confidence about what you are saying, go ahead and change it instead of wasting your time arguing with an inexperienced, amatuer like me. But be aware that if it goes against what is written in books and web pages (for audiences who lack experience and understanding - according to you), it will be reverted by inexperienced amatuers who happen to see the article. I do agree that I got the -6db summing wrong - that's because passive resistive summing always results in 6db loss, and I had assumed this model to be valid for checking flatness of summing. So, please contribute to the article instead of analysing me or my understanding. Or better still, analyse yourself :-). And oh, you may wish to read these: Etiquette & No_personal_attacks - saying things like "The problem with your understanding of..." or "...merely underlines your inexperience and lack of understanding...", and so on are just at (if not beyond) the boundary of breaking certain wikipedia norms. Rohitbd 13:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ron E: I thought you mean that, but the wording you used (filter slopes of the driver) looked odd to me. Do you call the natural response of the driver filter slope? I'm just asking because I haven't heard it like this before, but well, to an extent, the driver's response is similar to a filter's response (however this may sound misleading, because the driver does not have a filter circuit, that's why I changed it).scoofy 10:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, scoofy, you were correct to change it. I was thinking that way when writing because it is a convenient way of representing driver response - the response of the filtered driver then being the cascade (multiple) of driver response and filter response.  I was making a lot of changes and rearrangements (the article has really needed it for some time) and I didn't read it with a fresh eye before saving.  As to your section on Another use..., I removed it because it really refers to other types of audio filters and signal processors and not specifically to audio crossovers, perhaps it needs its own article?--Ron E 18:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, the article is much better after this rearrangement, we have been talking about the need or reorganisation with Rohitbd. The Another use... section refers to the same types of audio filters, with the only difference that they are used in differnt kinds of signal processors rather than loudspeakers. However, both the theory and the actual realization is roughly the same as in loudspeakers (except that there's no driver response to be considered). For example the Dolby noise reduction system first used Butterworth filters, then they moved to Bessel; multiband signal processing programs sometimes use digital approximations of Linkwitz-Riley filters, etc. So if the Audio crossovers article is not to be about audio crossovers in loudspeakers, but audio crossvers in general, then they are perfectly appropriate to mention. However, I agree that all this topic is worth a separate article, my suggested name for the article is multiband processing. scoofy 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

At the end of "Classification based on the number of filter sections," there is an italicized sentence that says, "Remark: Filter sections mentioned here is not to be confused with the individual 2-pole filter sections that a higher order filter consists of." I guess I understand what it is trying to say, but I don't understand its relevance given the remainder of the text. In any event, it is ungrammitical and if it is still relevant, it probably should be changed to read: "Remark: Filter sections mentioned here are not to be confused with the individual 2-pole filter sections of which higher order filters consist." Anoneditor 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Error in Active Crossover Section?
I'm by no means an expert in this area, but this statement strikes me as incorrect (or at the very least, misleading):

 * This means that an active crossover based system will often cost more than a passive crossover based system, although no one of the amplifiers needs to provide as high an output as a single full-frequency, power amplifier.

Isn't it true that the vast majority of power consumed by a loudspeaker is in the reproduction of low frequencies? If so, it seems to me that this statement is more or less incorrect.

Think about it this way...you have one loudspeaker with a passive crossover powered by a 120W amp. 99% of the power is consumed by the woofers while less than 1% of the power is consumed by the tweeter. If you were to replace the passive crossover with an active crossover containing two amplifiers, the low frequency amp would have to very, very close to 120W...so close it may as well be a 120W amp.

Yes? No? Do I have this totally wrong?

 * I think the statement in the article is technically correct and that you are more or less correct in a practical way, if you restrict the fact situation to your example, which implies a loud bass signal compared to the remainder of the musical program. However, in other situations, there may be no comparatively large bass component in the signal.  In such cases, the ratio of power consumed between the woofer and, say, the mid range speaker will be more equal. Anoneditor 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Passive Crossovers
I deleted the last paragraph of this section (as of April 4) for two reasons:
 * First, it offers a point of view that is highly disputed in audiophile circles, i.e. that passive crossovers are preferred. In fact, the author's recounting of how difficult it is to properly mate a passive crossover to a specific speaker testifies against the practicality of the notion.
 * Second, I think it's wrong in its statement that it is impossible for an active Butterworth filter to be designed without ripple. What's the source for this statement? Also, why does the author believe that in practice it is possible to create a passive Butterworth crossover that hits the theoretical transfer function exactly.  This seems problematical given the inevitable component and measurement tolerances and the problem of mating the crossover to the speaker? Anoneditor 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, odd order Butterworth filters (no matter active or passive) sum flat without any ripple. For this reason, 3rd order Butterworth is used in crossovers. For even orders, flat summing is problematic, so L-R is preferred. scoofy 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Filter Comparsion
I think we should add some more information about the comparsion of different filters (analog or IIR). The short graph at the introduction gives only a view information about the most common L-R and butterworth filters. I think about something like Of course, even more information should be supplied, especially about filter matching (Phase, Amplitude, Power). This part is related to the above discussion about the relation of drivers and crossovers.
 * http://www.maazl.de/electronic/LS/images/lowpass-response.png - Amplitude response of different lowpass-filters and
 * http://www.maazl.de/electronic/LS/images/lowpass-delay.png - normalized group delay of the filters. The real group delay is the value from the graph divided by the crossover frequency (exactly the -3dB frequency).

I think this article is the right place for informations like these. If there is nothing to be said against it, I would start to add some information about different low and high pass filters. If it grows too much it might be separated in it's own page. (Marcel Müller) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcel Müller (talk • contribs) 10:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tweaks
Posting explanations of the tweaks here...

"Networks are not only frequency specific, but also impedance specific."

yes

"Passive crossovers are not generally interchangeable between different speaker systems."

not true. If you want the best possible performance, the whole speaker system will be designed together. However generic crossovers still give good performance, and I've used many of them. Millions of generic crossovers have been made and sold, and plenty of people listen to the results happily enough.

"at high voltage and current levels."

usually high current only, high voltage speakers using crossovers are somewhat the exception, so changed phrasing.

I removed the statement that crossover noise was only amplified in some cases, as it inevitably always is. There is no way to avoid that. As for noise figure (and any other specs) sometimes being unacceptable, surely thats true for all audio system specs, and I would think everyone and their dog knows that, its why there are (consumer) audio systems on the market with widely varying specs and prices.

"Generally, active crossovers require use of tweeter protection (typically a small capacitor) since the tweeter is now directly connected to an amplifier and may be damaged due to DC in that output, or a short thump produced when an amplifier turns on or off."

This one's a bit more complex. Caps are often used but not for the above reasons.

Tweeters require protection against dc no more or less than other speaker drivers. Biamping actually reduces the risk of tweeter frying from a faulty amp, since a 10w tweeter on a 10w amp is less susceptible than the same tweeter on a 50w amp.

Thump is low frequency, and the crossover hf channel will reject it due to its frequency content. There is no more than trivial high frequency content in power-up conditions; if there were, end users would find the experience very unpleasant and consistently reject the equipment as faulty. If you've ever experienced a bad amp design that does hit the tweeter with large amplitude hf during start up you'll know what I mean!

The use of a series cap is primarily a question of amplifier design, many amps use them, many dont. A relatively small cap on the tweeter is a simple way to knock out hum and cut s/n figure by wiping out out of band noise.

"reduction in power amplifier cost and output requirement."

Use of 2 amps, one of which is of nearly as much power as the single amp would be, does not reduce cost, quite the opposite. This is precisely why its not popular. If it reduced costs, all mass market manufacturers would be biamping.

"while the whizzer, which is directly coupled to the voice coil, responds only to the rapid movements of the coil at higher frequencies."

The whizzer is hard coupled to the coil, thus it unavoidably responds to all frequencies the speaker handles. Useful output only occurs at higher frequencies, not because the whizzer doesnt respond, but because its small diameter makes its lf output of relatively low amplitude. (For a given spl a lf requires a much larger diaphragm than hf)

"argue that a single diaphragm that must produce both low and high frequencies does neither justice. "

Since around 99.9% of hifi speaker cabs avoid the inherently cheaper full range unit approach, it seems there are almost no designers that would diagree with this view. IOW its more accepted than POV, those that vote for full range units are a tiny fringe only, and not any part of mainstream design. Tabby (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Components: fact or marketing
I've moved this here for discussion as its not really scientificaly valid, tho some do claim it as fact:

"For instance, use of non inductive resistors and special capacitor components adds significant cost, although they have some sonic benefits."

The inductance of wirewound Rs used in crossovers is truly miniscule:
 * bear in mind such Rs are always counterwound to wipe almost all trace of inductance measurable at audio frequencies
 * compared to the inductance tolerances elsewhere in the crossover, any R inductance is a non-event.

...Yes and no. Non-inductive resistors are usually of the CERMET type and thus offer very low noise and thermal stability. This was very relevant in the era of carbon and carbon film resistors (some of which were meander resistors with carbon film on them). But current SMD resistors are rare metal film types, so, if you don't need the power rating, any SMD resistor will do.

Re special capacitors, again there really is no science that shows any improvement for 'special' cap types. Yes one can go wrong, but small caps across long life electrolytics is about as good as one can get, and neither is a special component.

...yes and no. In the critical parts of any amplifier, a PS (polystyrene capacitor) was specified, as other types at that era had significantly higher dielectric absorption, which lead to hysteresis, and thus higher THD. Today, you can pick up inexpensive (relatively inexpensive, that is!) polypropylene capacitors of several types (metal film, foil film/foil) which have excellent dielectric characteristics and are used in critical parts of A/D samplers, timing, measuring, instrumentation and of course, audio.

Widespread shortage of technical knowledge and marketing spin makes a ready market for components with tall tale marketing spiel. ...yes, there are some unbelieveable stories out there, like folks selling "capacitor" to audiophiles who did not know that capacitor is the same as a condenser (local name). But in the area of precision electronics, precision components are and will be costly. It all depends on what the desired outcome should be and what the limiting components for such design are. But then, if you are looking for expensive components and can't mathematically reason why you need this or that, you are not likely fit to be the one doing the component selection anyway.

The one area in passive crossovers where component quality is significant is with inductors, not Cs or Rs. Tabby (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Capacitor only
I'm going to suggest including discussion of the single capacitor passive speaker filter. Although its not a crossover on its own, when combined with the falling response of the woofer you do end up with a crossover system, part electronic, part mechanical. So it does end up being part of an audio crossover, of a most basic (but popular) sort.

IMHO no discussion of passive LS crossovers is complete if it omits this very popular option. Tabby (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree, but I think it should go further to include the inductor, too. Simple crossovers marketed by Radio Shack and others in the 1970s, and perhaps later, were composed of a capacitor (to increase the impedance to the tweeter as frequencies declined) and a coil (to increase the impedance to the woofer as they rose). Anoneditor (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Filter comparison graph with no reference
The graph comparing filters in the overview has multiple strange errors. It looks more like marketing speak than physics. 1. it incorrectly states that summing a low and a high Butterworth filter has a peak at the crossover frequency. Define -6dB as the cutoff frequency for a Butterworth, and you have a "flat" crossover response. You can get a dip, peak or flat depending on your definition. 2. The crossover freq is strangely given as 1 rad/s, not Hz, and gives an unrealistic crossover freq of 0.16Hz. 3. Neither a Butterworth, nor an LR filter is has a perfectly straight 0dB response as indicated in the graph.

Can anyone help clarify this? Should this graphic be corrected or removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.153.22.143 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 * 1. Cutoffs
 * The graph is correct in its calculations, but it only depicts the case where the cutoff frequencies are the same. While one can spread the frequencies in a 2nd order butterworth crossover to get a flatter sum, it will have some ripple near the crossover.  You cannot arbitrarily call the cutoff for a butterworth as the -6dB point because by definition the cutoff is the point where the L and C in the crossover resonate, which occurs at -3dB in a butterworth filter.
 * 2. Units
 * I never noticed the units before - it appeared to me to be a normalized frequency graph, omega/omega_c (omega_c being the cutoff or resonant frequency) which is by definition unitless. Normalized frequency graphs are a common way to represent filters, as their response shape is the same no matter what frequency they are at.  The graph should be corrected.
 * 3. The response shapes in the graph are correct. Second order, or 2 pole circuits have a 40dB/decade slope and a Butterworth is -3dB at cutoff and an LR is -6dB. The sum of a lowpass and highpass butterworth 2nd order crossover has a peak if their cutoff frequencies are the same. A Linkwitz-Riley 2nd order is -6dB at the cutoff and sums flat.

 * I think the graph is somewhat misleading and would be better replaced with one that shows first through 4th order sums - butterworth for odd order and LR for even, which all sum flat.--Ron E (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fans of the first order
It says, 'First-order filters are considered by many audiophiles to be ideal for crossovers.'

Based on my experience, that opinion about opinions is quite dubious. Maybe I do not hang out in the same net.circles that whoever wrote it does, but I have never once read the opinion that a first order filter is desirable for any reason other than cost. One reason steeper cutoff slopes are preferred in high-pass stages is that if a driver does not "need" to pass a given low frequency, it shouldn't. Low frequencies are to be terminated with extreme prejudice. The "unneeded" low frequencies contribute to Doppler distortion. I do know from experience that Doppler distortion sounds nasty. Based on the net surfing I've done, and I have done a lot of it, both the techies and the golden-ears prefer 4th order Linkwitz-Riley, which has 24db/8va rolloff and polite phase characteristics. Jive Dadson (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 * In practice, I agree that 4th-order filters are often best suited to crossover duties. There are, however, other opinions. People who don't like higher-order filters complain about ringing and about insertion loss (if the crossover is passive loudspeaker level). First-order filters have more amp power delivered and less phase shift according to proponents. Some first-order products include Meadowlark Kestrels, Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus, and (I think) everything from Thiel Audio. Roy Johnson from Green Mountain Audio wrote a white paper about [ better sound results from first-order crossovers.]
 * Of course, idealism with regard to loudspeaker crossovers is a hopeless goal. The loudspeaker drivers have their own innate frequency response which tapers off in the manner of a crossover filter, and the enclosure plays a huge part in how the driver responds. You should not decide what crossover to use without acknowledging the rolloff characteristics of the enclosure/driver combination. The whole system of enclosure/drivers/crossover should be engineered with the goal of suitable sound output. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I did not intend to debate the opinion, although I think I could hold my own. I just wanted to point out that it is an opinion, and does not belong in a Wikipedia article without citation, and expert rebuttal if such exists. The same can be said for the knock on full-range drivers. It reminds me of interviews on certain cable news channels in the US.  The interviewer challenges the interviewee with an assertion like, "Some say your policy is akin to biting the heads off of kittens..."  The technique has been called "some-say" journalism.  (Some say it is "some-say" journalism?)  Audiophiles and DIY'ers can have an irrational and emotional attachment to their chosen methods, akin to devotion to a sports team.  Un-cited criticism here seems unnecessarily provocative.  Okay.  Full disclosure.  I built a system that uses full-range drivers (Jordan Jx92s) augmented by a subwoofer coupled with a fourth order crossover (Linkwitz-Riley).  Some say it is as good as any system they have ever heard in a moderate size room, regardless of cost.  (I am one of them.) Hence, irk.  Root, root, root for the home team. Jive Dadson (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Audio crossover. 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 tag to http://www.rane.com/pdf/ranenotes/Linkwitz%20Riley%20Crossovers%20Primer.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704013822/http://www.ksdigital.de:80/english/index.html to http://ksdigital.de/english/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901190700/http://www.ipl.iit.edu/IPL_papers/SP99.PDF to http://www.ipl.iit.edu/IPL_papers/SP99.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204130232/http://fullrangedriver.com:80/singledriver/theory.html to http://fullrangedriver.com/singledriver/theory.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

More External Links corrected from sound.whsites.net to sound-au.com On 20211211 by W1LL1Ed1T
 * Article about active crossovers
 * Comparison of active and passive crossovers
 * Comparison of series and parallel crossovers
 * Description of a L-R crossover
 * — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned] comment added by W1LL1Ed1T (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Former ELs, potential refs
removed the External links section which may be appropriate. The sources may be useful as additional references. I reproduce the content here in case I or another editor is able to make use of them. ~Kvng (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Lenard Education on crossovers illustrated overview of audio crossovers.
 * diyAudioAndVideo.com – DIY Audio site with information on building crossovers. Includes a crossover calculator for 15 different types of crossovers.
 * KS Digital – makers of several loudspeakers with digital crossovers
 * Article about active crossovers
 * Comparison of active and passive crossovers
 * Comparison of series and parallel crossovers
 * Description of a L-R crossover
 * Passive crossover design article
 * Linkwitz Lab Crossovers
 * Linkwitz-Riley Crossovers: A Primer
 * Design of Digital Linear Phase FIR Crossover Systems
 * Full-range Driver & Loudspeaker Theory
 * Audioholics.com Filter & Crossover Types
 * A Bessel Filter Crossover, and Its Relation to Others
 * Active Low-Pass Filter Design

What is the meaning of digital & analogue
Here please any one know this answer reply for me i didn't know the answer 223.196.168.82 (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Audio crossover


text:
Bede Kenny

Thomas James Bede Kenny, VC (29 September 1896 – April 1953) was an Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

He was 20 years old, and a private in the 2nd Battalion, Australian Imperial Force during the First World War when for his conspicuous bravery he was awarded the VC.

Early life
Bede Kenny was born on 29 September 1896 at Paddington, Sydney, the son of Austin James Kenny, a butcher, from Auckland, New Zealand, and his wife Mary Christina, née Connolly, of New South Wales. He was educated at the Christian Brothers' College, Waverley.

Following matriculation from high school, he began to train as a chemist's assistant at Bondi. After just three months of training, on 23 August 1915, he enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force — a fortnight after the major Australian actions at Lone Pine and The Nek.

First World War
On 20 December he embarked with the 13th Reinforcements, 2nd Battalion and, after arriving in Egypt, served with the 54th Battalion – the 2nd Battalion's daughter battalion – before joining the 2nd on 27 February 1916. In March 1916 he went to France and, in the second phase of the Battle of Pozières, fought in the battalion bombing platoon.

On 9 April 1917, at Hermies, France, Kenny's platoon was held up by an enemy strong point. Despite heavy enemy fire, he ran alone towards the enemy, killing one man who tried to stop him, and soon after bombing the enemy position. Kenny was successful in wounding and capturing the gun crew and seizing the gun. For his actions in Hermies he was awarded the Victoria Cross. His citation read:

For most conspicuous bravery and devotion to duty when his platoon was held up by an enemy strongpoint, and severe casualties prevented progress. Private Kenny, under very heavy fire at close range, dashed alone towards the enemy's position, killed one man in advance of the strongpoint who endeavoured to bar his way. He then bombed the position, captured the gun crew, all of whom he had wounded, killed an officer who showed fight, and seized the gun. Private Kenny's gallant action enabled this platoon to occupy the position, which was of great local importance.

Following this, Kenny was immediately promoted to lance corporal and soon afterwards was evacuated to England with trench-foot. He rejoined the battalion at Hazebrouck and on 26 June 1918 was wounded during fighting in the Merris sector. Despite describing his injuries as "nothing to write home about", he was invalided to Australia in August, arriving in Sydney on 9 October. He had become a corporal earlier that same month. In Sydney, Kenny rejected an offer to join the military police, whom it is said he disliked intensely, and was subsequently discharged on 12 December.

Civilian life
Returning to civilian life in Australia, Kenny began working as a travelling salesman for Clifford Love & Co. (manufacturers, importers and merchants). He then joined the Sunday Times newspaper in Sydney, and shortly after became a traveller for Penfolds Wines.

On 29 September 1927, Kenny married Kathleen Dorothy Buckley, a florist, at St Mary's Cathedral; they had four children. His eldest daughter died in 1943, and his only son in 1948, both from rheumatic fever, from which it is said he never recovered.

Kenny repeatedly suffered the effects of trench-foot; the war had also made him partially deaf. Though he never talked openly of his wartime experiences, Kenny always led the VC awardees in the Sydney Anzac Day march.

Death and legacy
Kenny died in Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, on 15 April 1953 and was buried in Botany cemetery. The pall bearers at his funeral were military policemen. He was survived by his wife and one of his daughters.

In 1957, the Bede Kenny Memorial Ward was opened at Wentworth Private Hospital, Randwick, to provide beds for ex-servicemen ineligible for repatriation hospital treatment.

His Victoria Cross is displayed at the Australian War Memorial.

title: Bede Kenny


text:
Gothia Cup

The Gothia Cup is an international youth association football tournament organized by professional football club BK Häcken, which has been held annually since 1975 in Gothenburg, Sweden. Considered the biggest tournament in the world in terms of participating teams, competing youth teams throughout the world enter the competition. The Gothia Cup is also Sweden's largest annual event. The Jamie Johnson (TV series) in Series 4 displays Phoenix FC, a grassroots football club competing in the Gothia Cup.

Overview
Spanning one week the Gothia Cup is a youth association football tournament held annually in Gothenburg, Sweden, open for both boys and girls of ages 11 to 18. In terms of participants, it is the world's second largest youth football tournament with only the Norway Cup being bigger. In 2017, 1730 teams from 82 nations participated.

The Gothia Cup started in 1975 with 275 participating teams. In July each year, the event becomes the dominant event in Gothenburg, with (as of 2017) 4,349 games played on 110 fields, and 300,000 visitors to the center in Heden. According to the tourist authorities of Gothenburg, the 2006 Gothia Cup generated 282 million Swedish krona in tourist income for Gothenburg city and 118 million krona in tax income for Sweden.

Teams compete from across the world; such as from Brazil, United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh and the Czech Republic.

In 2020, for the first time since the tournament's inaugural season, the tournament was not held, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden.

Gothia Cup China
The concept of Gothia Cup was exported to China in the 2010s. In 2016, the Gothia Cup China, a sister tournament to the Gothia Cup, was established in Shenyang, China. The inaugural Gothia Cup China took place from 13 to 19 August 2016 at the newly built Gothia Cup Football Park. The tournament featured 250 participating teams from 20 nations, although a reliable citation is needed to support this information.

Famous participants
This list includes notable players who played in Gothia Cup in their youth and later had been playing for their national teams.

 * Emmanuel Adebayor (with Les Eperviers)
 * 🇪🇸 Xabi Alonso (with Antiguoko)
 * 🇸🇪 Joel Asoro (won with IF Brommapojkarna 2010)
 * 🇧🇷 Júlio Baptista (with Pequeninos do Jockey)
 * 🇲🇦 Yassine Bounou (with Wydad AC)
 * Gordon Durie (with Hill of Beath Swifts)
 * 🇧🇴 Marco Etcheverry (with AD Tahuichi)
 * 🇸🇪 Tobias Hysén
 * 🇸🇪 Zlatan Ibrahimović
 * 🇨🇮 Odilon Kossounou (with ASEC Mimosas)
 * 🇸🇪 Dejan Kulusevski (won with IF Brommapojkarna 2010)
 * 🇸🇪 Kim Källström won with BK Häcken 1997 (with Partille IF 1996)
 * 🇮🇩 Egy Maulana Vikri (with ASIOP Apacinti)
 * Fabián Orellana (with CSD Colo Colo)
 * 🇮🇹 Andrea Pirlo (won with US Voluntas)
 * 🇧🇴 Erwin Sánchez (with AD Tahuichi)
 * 🇷🇸 Slobodan Savić (with Jugović Kać)
 * 🏴 Alan Shearer (with Wellington Juniors)
 * 🇮🇸 Gylfi Sigurdsson (with Fimleikafelag Hafnarfjarðar F.H.)
 * 🇧🇷 Bruno Viana (with Cruzeiro Esporte Clube)
 * 🇮🇹 Cristian Zaccardo (with FC Spilamberto)
 * 🇧🇷 Zé Roberto (with Pequeninos do Jockey)
 * 🇩🇪 Fiete Arp (with KFV Segeberg)
 * 🇩🇪 Morten Behrens (won with KFV Segeberg 2008)
 * 🇩🇪 Thore Jacobsen (won with KFV Segeberg 2008)

title: Gothia Cup


text: Template:Rivers of Ireland

title: Template:Rivers of Ireland


text:
George Fraser Kerr

George Fraser Kerr VC, MC & Bar, MM, (8 June 1895 – 8 December 1929) was a soldier in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest military award for gallantry in the face of the enemy given to British and Commonwealth forces, during the First World War. He had been awarded the Military Medal and the Military Cross (and bar) for actions earlier in the war.

Early life
George Fraser Kerr was born on 8 June 1895 in Deseronto in Ontario, to John Kerr, a storekeeper, and Isabell (Fraser). The family moved to Toronto when Kerr was eight years old. After completing his education, he began working at a bank.

First World War
In September 1914, following the outbreak of the First World War, Kerr enlisted in the 3rd (Toronto) Battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF). He embarked for Britain the next month and, with his battalion part of 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade, 1st Canadian Division, arrived in France on the Western Front in February 1915 after a period of training. By this stage, he had been promoted to corporal.

Kerr served in the Ypres sector with his battalion for much of 1916, and in June, was awarded the Military Medal (MM) for his actions during the Battle of Mont Sorrel. He was wounded the next month and the severity of his injuries warranted him being sent to England for medical treatment. He did not return to his unit for several months but when he did, it was as a lieutenant; he had been commissioned while serving with a reserve battalion back in England.

On 8 August 1918, the opening day of the Battle of Amiens, Kerr led a platoon of infantry in closing a gap in the Allied line and captured a battery of field guns. Advancing further forward, he and his men destroyed several machine-gun posts before reaching their objective for the day. Wounded, he remained with his platoon for two days before seeking medical treatment. He was later awarded the Military Cross (MC) for his endeavours. Learning of the forthcoming offensive on the Drocourt-Quéant Line, for which his battalion was scheduled to participate on 2 September 1918, he discharged himself from medical care and re-joined his platoon. He was again instrumental in attack, and his leadership was recognised with an award of a bar to his MC.

On 27 September 1918, Kerr was commanding a support company at Bourlon Wood, during the Battle of the Canal du Nord. The advance of the 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the 1st Brigade was affected by heavy machine-gun fire from a nearby railway embankment. Under his command, Kerr's company dealt with the holdup. He later made a solo foray, ahead of his company, during which four machine-guns were destroyed and 31 prisoners taken. For this, Kerr was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC) for his actions. The citation for his VC read:

"For most conspicuous bravery during the Bourlon Wood operations on 27th September 1918, when in command of the left support company in attack. He handled his company with great skill and gave timely support when outflanking a machine-gun which was impeding the advance. Later, near the Arras-Cambrai Road, the advance was again held up by a strong point. Lieut. Kerr, far in advance of his company, he rushed the strong point single-handed and captured four machine-guns and thirty-one prisoners. His valour throughout this engagement was an inspiring example to all."

- London Gazette

Kerr's VC was gazetted on 4 January 1919, which was a month after his MC was announced in the London Gazette. The bar to his MC was gazetted on 1 February 1919. He was presented with his VC, as well as his MC and bar, in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace on 20 May 1919.

Later life
After being discharged from the CEF in July 1919, Kerr returned to Toronto and began working for a company supplying metals. He was involved in the local militia, serving in the Toronto Regiment in which he was a captain. He died on 8 December 1929 at his home in Toronto of carbon monoxide poisoning. Survived by his wife and daughter, he was buried at Toronto's Mount Pleasant Cemetery with military honours.

Medals and legacy
Kerr's VC is displayed at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa, along with his MM, MC and bar, and his campaign medals: the British War Medal, and Victory Medal. There are at least two memorials in his memory; a plaque in Valour Place, Cambridge, in Ontario, and one erected by the Royal Canadian Legion at Centennial Park, in his hometome of Deseronto.

title: George Fraser Kerr


text:
Carlos Gutierrez

Carlos Miguel Gutierrez (originally Gutiérrez; born November 4, 1953) is an American former CEO and former United States Secretary of Commerce. He is currently a Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of EmPath. Gutierrez is a former Chairman of the Board and CEO of the Kellogg Company. He served as the 35th U.S. Secretary of Commerce from 2005 to 2009.

Early life and education
Gutierrez is of Spanish descent. He was born in Havana, Cuba, the son of a pineapple plantation owner. As a successful businessman, his father was deemed an enemy of the state by Fidel Castro's regime. Faced with the expropriation of their property following the Cuban Revolution, Gutierrez's family fled for the United States in 1960, when he was six years old, settling in Miami.

When it became apparent they would not be returning to Cuba, Gutierrez's father accepted a position with the H. J. Heinz Company in Mexico and later started his own business. Gutierrez learned his first words of English from the bellhop at the hotel where they initially stayed and, some years later, he and his family acquired United States citizenship.

Gutierrez studied business administration at the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education campus in Querétaro but never received a degree, making him the most recent U.S. Cabinet member without a college degree.

Kellogg Company
Gutierrez joined Kellogg's in Mexico in 1975, at the age of 22, as a sales representative and management trainee. One of his early assignments was driving a delivery-truck route around local stores.

Gutierrez rose through the management ranks. In January 1990 he was promoted to corporate vice president of product development at the company's headquarters in Battle Creek, Michigan, and in July of that year, he became executive vice president of Kellogg USA. In January 1999, he was elected to the company's board of directors. In April he was appointed president and CEO, succeeding Arnold G. Langbo, becoming the only Latino CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Gutierrez was also the youngest CEO in the company's nearly 100-year history.

In 1999, Kellogg faced a global decline or stagnation in cereal sales. Gutierrez's strategy, known as "Volume to Value," was to increase sales by focusing resources on higher-margin products. Higher-margin products targeted specific markets and included products such as Special K, Kashi, and Nutri-Grain bars. Extra income would fund advertising, promotions, and R&D, which would encourage further high-margin sales growth. "Volume is a means to an end--not an end," he said. "What counts is dollars."

In September 2004, Fortune Magazine dubbed Gutierrez as "The Man Who Fixed Kellogg", and attributed his success to "taking the slick salesmanship, financial discipline, and marketing savvy that he learned in his youth and blending it with disarming charisma, steely resolve, and an utter lack of pretension that you wouldn't expect in one so nattily dressed." The magazine also added that, "He even makes golf shirts look debonair."

Secretary of Commerce
On November 29, 2004, Gutierrez was chosen by President George W. Bush to become Secretary of Commerce, succeeding Donald Evans. On the same day, Kellogg's board of directors accepted Gutierrez's resignation as chairman of the board and CEO, to be effective upon his confirmation by the Senate and swearing-in. On January 24, 2005, Gutierrez was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate; he was sworn in on February 7, 2005.

As Secretary of Commerce, Gutierrez also served as co-chair of the U.S. Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. Secretary Gutierrez was actively involved in U.S.-Cuba policy alongside Co-Chair Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Gutierrez was also one of the President's point men working with Congress to pass comprehensive immigration legislation, an issue he sees as one of the greatest domestic social issues of our time. He believes a successful immigration solution must focus first on securing our borders, but must also address immigrants' contribution to our economy and the importance of American unity.

Gutierrez played a key role in the passage of CAFTA-DR, a landmark trade agreement that expanded opportunities for U.S. exports throughout Latin America. Gutierrez was also instrumental in promoting the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In 2006 Gutierrez called for Congress to “work with us and pass the pending Free Trade Agreements with Colombia, Korea and Panama, so we can have fair, two-way trade with our allies and friends.” He also led the first-ever domestic trade mission to the Gulf region in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

In December 2007, Ken Silverstein, the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine, reported that Gutierrez had Adnan Oktar's Atlas of Creation, a book that advocates Islamic creationism and blames Charles Darwin for modern terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks, for display on a stand at the entrance to his U.S. government office. Gutierrez's office did not respond when asked whether the book had been purchased or mailed unsolicited to his office.

Post-Bush administration
Gutierrez was the founder and chairman of Global Political Strategies, an international strategic consulting service and a division of APCO Worldwide, a Washington-based global communications firm.

In February 2009, Gutierrez was named a Scholar at the University of Miami’s Institute For Cuban And Cuban American Studies. In April 2009, he joined the university's board of trustees. He is also Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Meridian International Center, as well as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Bipartisan Debt Reduction Task Force.

On February 21, 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that Gutierrez remained unemployed, along with a significant majority of George W. Bush's 3,000 political appointees who were seeking full-time employment. According to the article, 25% to 30% of those officials had found new jobs, a statistic notably lower than when Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton left the White House. The article notes that "at least half those presidents' senior staffers landed employment within a month after the administration ended." Gutierrez commented that, "This is not a great time for anyone to be job hunting, including numerous former political appointees." He added that he hopes to run a company like Kellogg again because "I have a lot of energy." However, according to a press release from United Technologies Corporation, Gutierrez joined the company's board of directors on February 9, several days prior to the publication of the Wall Street Journal article.

According to press releases, Gutierrez also serves on the Board of Directors of Occidental Petroleum, GLW Corning, and Intelligent Global Pooling Systems. He is also a television news contributor for the business news television channel CNBC. In March 2010, Gutierrez said he would not like to return to a CEO spot at a foodmaker, because as commerce secretary, he had something different to do each day, whereas, "Business is pretty one-dimensional."

In December 2010, Gutierrez became a vice chairman of Citigroup in the Institutional Clients Group and member of the Senior Strategic Advisory Group. He left the company in February 2013

Gutierrez served as a member of the Debt Reduction Task Force at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

In 2012 Gutierrez lead the creation of the SuperPAC Republicans for Immigration Reform; he said he believed that "the far right of this party has taken the party to a place that it doesn't belong".

In 2013, Gutierrez was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage during the Hollingsworth v. Perry case. On October of that same year, Time Warner elected him to its board of directors.

In August 2016, Gutierrez endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, stating that Donald Trump's economic policies were a "disaster". In 2020, he endorsed Joe Biden for president.

Personal life
Gutierrez and his wife Edilia have one son, Carlos Jr., and two daughters, Erika and Karina.

title: Carlos Gutierrez