text:
Mandibular foramen

The mandibular foramen is an opening on the internal surface of the ramus of the mandible. It allows for divisions of the mandibular nerve and blood vessels to pass through.

Structure
The mandibular foramen is an opening on the internal surface of the ramus of the mandible. It allows for divisions of the mandibular nerve and blood vessels to pass through.

Variation
There are two distinct anatomies to its rim. Rarely, a bifid inferior alveolar nerve may be present, in which case a second mandibular foramen, more inferiorly placed, exists and can be detected by noting a doubled mandibular canal on a radiograph.
 * In the common form the rim is V-shaped, with a groove separating the anterior and posterior parts.
 * In the horizontal-oval form there is no groove, and the rim is horizontally oriented and oval in shape, the anterior and posterior parts connected.

Function
The mandibular nerve is one of three branches of the trigeminal nerve, and the only one having motor innervation. One branch of it, the inferior alveolar nerve, as well as the inferior alveolar artery, enter the foramen traveling through the body in the mandibular canal and exit at the mental foramen on the anterior mandible at which point the nerve is known as the mental nerve. These nerves provide sensory innervation to the lower teeth, as well as the lower lip and some skin on the lower face.

Clinical significance
Local anaesthetic can be injected around the mandibular foramen to anaesthetise the mandibular nerve, and thereby the mandible the lower teeth on that side, and some skin on the lower face.

Other animals
The mandibular foramen can be found in other mammals, such as horses.

title: Mandibular foramen


text: File:Morning prayers in the family of Sebastian Bach.jpg

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


text:
Homi J. Bhabha

Homi Jehangir Bhabha, FNI, FASc, FRS (30 October 1909 to 24 January 1966) was an Indian nuclear physicist who is widely credited as the "father of the Indian nuclear programme". He was the founding director and professor of physics at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), as well as the founding director of the Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (AEET) which was renamed the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in his honour. TIFR and AEET served as the cornerstone to the Indian nuclear energy and weapons programme. He was the first chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission and secretary of the Department of Atomic Energy. By supporting space science projects which initially derived their funding from the AEC, he played an important role in the birth of the Indian space programme.

Bhabha was awarded the Adams Prize (1942) and Padma Bhushan (1954), and nominated for the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1951 and 1953–1956. He died in the crash of Air India Flight 101 in 1966, at the age of 56.

Childhood
Homi Jehangir Bhabha was born on 30 October 1909 into a wealthy Parsi family comprising Jehangir Hormusji Bhabha, a well-known lawyer, and Meherbai Framji Panday, granddaughter of Sir Dinshaw Maneckji Petit. He was named Hormusji after his paternal grandfather, Hormusji Bhabha, who was Inspector-General of Education in Mysore. He received his early studies at Mumbai's Cathedral and John Connon School.

Bhabha's upbringing instilled in him an appreciation for music, painting and gardening. He often visited his paternal aunt Meherbai Tata, who owned a Western classical music collection which included the works of Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn and Schubert. Together with his brother and his cousin, it was a ritual for him to listen to records from this collection over the gramophone. Bhabha also received special violin and piano lessons.

His tutor in sketching and painting was the artist Jehangir Lalkala. At seventeen, Bhabha's self-portrait won second place at the prestigious Bombay Art Society's exhibition.

Tending to a terrace garden of exotic plants and cross-bred bougainvillea and roses, Hormusji was an expert on trees, plants and flowers. He kept books on gardening in the house's large private library.

Bhabha showed signs of precocity in the sciences. As a child, he spent hours playing with Meccano sets, and was fond of building his own models rather than following the booklets that accompanied the sets. By fifteen, he had studied general relativity.

Bhabha frequently visited the home of his uncle Dorabji Tata, chairman of the conglomerate Tata Group and then one of the wealthiest men in India. There, he was privy to conversations Dorabji had with national leaders of the independence movement, like Mahatma Gandhi and Motilal Nehru, as well as business dealings in industries like steel, heavy chemicals and hydroelectric power which the Tata Group invested in. John Cockcroft remarked that overhearing these conversations should have inspired Bhabha's career as a scientific organizer.

University studies in India
Though he passed his Senior Cambridge Examination with honours at the age of fifteen, he was too young to join any college abroad. So, he enrolled in Elphinstone College. He then attended the Royal Institute of Science in 1927, where he witnessed a public lecture by Arthur Compton, who would win the Nobel Prize in physics the next year for his 1923 discovery of the Compton effect. Bhabha later said that he first heard of cosmic rays, the subject of his future research, at this lecture.

University studies in Cambridge
The following year, he joined Gonville and Caius College of Cambridge University. This was due to the insistence of his father and his uncle Dorabji, who planned for Bhabha to obtain a degree in mechanical engineering from Cambridge and then return to India, where he would join the Tata Steel mills in Jamshedpur as a metallurgist. Within a year of joining Cambridge University, Bhabha wrote to his father:"I seriously say to you that business or job as an engineer is not the thing for me. It is totally foreign to my nature and radically opposed to my temperament and opinions. Physics is my line. I know I shall do great things here. For, each man can do best and excel in only that thing of which he is passionately fond, in which he believes, as I do, that he has the ability to do it, that he is in fact born and destined to do it … I am burning with a desire to do physics. I will and must do it sometime. It is my only ambition. I have no desire to be a 'successful' man or the head of a big firm. There are intelligent people who like that and let them do it. … It is no use saying to Beethoven 'You must be a scientist for it is great thing' when he did not care two hoots for science; or to Socrates 'Be an engineer; it is work of intelligent man'. It is not in the nature of things. I therefore earnestly implore you to let me do physics."Sympathetic to his son's predicament, Bhabha's father agreed to finance his studies in mathematics provided that he obtain first class on his Mechanical Tripos. Bhabha sat the Mechanical Tripos in June 1930 and the Mathematics Tripos two years later, passing both with first-class honours.

Bhabha coxed for his college in boat races and designed the cover of his college magazine the Caian. He also designed the sets for a student performance of Pedro Calderón de la Barca's play Life is a Dream and Mozart's Idomeneo for the Cambridge Musical Society. Encouraged by the English artist and art critic Roger Fry, who praised his sketches, Bhabha seriously considered becoming an artist. However, exposure to work being done at the Cavendish Laboratory at the time motivated Bhabha to focus on theoretical physics. When he registered as a research student in mathematics, he decided to change his name to Homi Jehangir Bhabha, the name he would keep for the rest of his life.

Early research in nuclear physics
Bhabha worked at the Cavendish Laboratory while working towards his PhD degree in theoretical physics supervised by Ralph Fowler. At the time, the laboratory was the centre of several breakthroughs in experimental physics. James Chadwick had discovered the neutron, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton had transmuted lithium with high-energy protons, Francis Aston had discovered chemical isotopes, and Patrick Blackett and Giuseppe Occhialini had used cloud chambers to demonstrate the production of electron pairs and showers by gamma radiation.

In 1931, Bhabha held the Salomons studentship in engineering. In 1932, on a Rouse Ball travelling studentship, he visited Copenhagen, Zurich and Utretcht. Niels Bohr's institute at Copenhagen was a major hub of theoretical physics research. At Zurich, Bhabha wrote his first paper in July 1933 with Wolfgang Pauli, which was published in the Zeitschrift fur physik in October 1933. During his studentship, Bhabha also visited Hans Kramers, who was then a professor conducting theoretical research in the interaction of electromagnetic waves with matter at Utrecht University. In 1933, Bhabha was selected for the Isaac Newton scholarship, which he held for the next three years and used to fund his time working with Enrico Fermi at the Institute of Physics in Rome. The same year, Bhabha published his first paper on the role of electron showers in absorbing gamma radiation.

The discovery of the positron in 1932 and the formulation of Dirac's hole theory to explain its properties had catalysed the creation of the field of high-energy physics. Bhabha chose to make this field the focus of his career, publishing over fifty papers on the topic during his lifetime. He played a key role in the early development of quantum electrodynamics.

Bhabha received his doctorate in nuclear physics in 1935 for his thesis titled "On cosmic radiation and the creation and annihilation of positrons and electrons".

In 1935, Bhabha published a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society in which he first calculated the cross-section of electron-positron scattering. Electron-positron scattering was later named Bhabha scattering after him.

In 1937, with Walter Heitler, he co-authored a paper, "The passage of fast electrons and the theory of cosmic showers" in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A, in which they used their theory to describe how primary cosmic rays from outer space interact with the upper atmosphere to produce particles observed at the ground level. Bhabha and Heitler then made numerical estimates of the number of electrons in the cascade process at different altitudes for different electron initiation energies. The calculations agreed with the experimental observations of cosmic ray showers made by Bruno Rossi and Pierre Victor Auger a few years before. Bhabha and Heitler postulated that the penetrating component of cosmic radiation comprised "heavy electrons", most of which "must have masses nearer to hundred times the electron mass". The paper was announced in a letter in Nature.

The same year, Seth Neddermeyer and Carl David Anderson, among others, also reached similar conclusions in independently published papers in Physical Review. Before pions were discovered, observers often confused muons with mesons. When Bhabha's collaborator Heitler made him aware of Hideki Yukawa's 1935 paper on the theory of the meson, Bhabha realized that this particle was the postulated "heavy electron". In a 1939 note to Nature, Bhabha argued the particle should be christened the "meson" in line with the word's Greek etymology, not "mesotron" as Anderson had proposed. Bhabha later concluded that observations of the properties of the meson would lead to the straightforward experimental verification of the time dilation phenomenon predicted by Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

So far, Bhabha's work had been supported by the Senior Studentship of the 1851 exhibition, which he had received for three years, starting in 1936, while continuing to be based in Gonville and Caius College. In 1939, Bhabha was awarded a Royal Society grant to work in P. M. S. Blackett's laboratory in Manchester. However, when World War II broke out, Bhabha found himself unable to return to England to take up the assignment.

Indian Institute of Science
Bhabha had returned to India for his annual vacation before the start of World War II in September 1939. War prompted him to remain in India, where he accepted a post of reader in physics at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru headed by Nobel laureate C.V. Raman. In 1940, the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust supported his experimental cosmic ray physics research with a grant.

Bhabha was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1941, and the following year he became the first Indian to receive the Adams Prize. Soon after receiving the Adams Prize, Bhabha was also made a Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences and President of the Physics section of the Indian Sciences Congress. While introducing him at the 1941 Annual Meeting of the Indian Academy of Sciences, C.V. Raman described the 32-year-old Bhabha as "the modern equivalent of Leonardo da Vinci". On 20 January 1942, Bhabha formally accepted professorship and leadership of the Cosmic Ray Research Unit.

As late as 1940, Bhabha was listing his affiliation as "at present at the Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore", suggesting that he viewed his time in India as a temporary period before his return to the UK. In 1941, he wrote to Robert Millikan that he hoped that the war would be over soon, so that "we can all turn again in more favourable conditions to purely scientific activity". Though he had hoped to work in Caltech, it was impossible for Millikan to invite him there. The restrictions on finance imposed by the war also made it impossible for Wolfgang Pauli to invite Bhabha to Princeton.

During his time in Bengaluru, Bhabha met Vikram and Mrinalini Sarabhai as part of a group interested in Indian culture, and developed an appreciation for Indian architectural and artistic heritage on his tours around the country. In a 1944 letter, he expressed a change of mind and a desire to stay in India:"I had the idea that after the war I would accept a job in a good university in Europe or America. … But in the last two years I have come more and more to the view that provided proper appreciation and financial support are forthcoming, it is one's duty to stay in one's own country."

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
In 1943, Bhabha wrote to J. R. D. Tata proposing the establishment of an institute of fundamental research. Tata wrote back:"If you and some of your friends in the scientific world will put up concrete proposals backed by a sound case I think there is a very good chance that the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust will respond. After all, the advancement of science of one of the fundamental objectives with which the Tata Trusts were founded, and they have already rendered useful service in that field. If they are shown that they can give still more valuable help in a new way, I am quite sure that they will give it their most serious consideration." In a letter to the astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Bhabha described that his ambition was to "bring together as many outstanding scientists as possible … so as to build up in time an intellectual atmosphere approaching what we knew in places like Cambridge and Paris." J. R. D. Tata's enthusiasm encouraged Bhabha to send a proposal in March 1944 to Sir Sorab Saklavata, the chairman of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, for establishing a school dedicated to research in fundamental physics. In his proposal he wrote: There is at the moment in India no big school of research in the fundamental problems of physics, both theoretical and experimental. There are, however, scattered all over India competent workers who are not doing as good work as they would do if brought together in one place under proper direction. It is absolutely in the interest of India to have a vigorous school of research in fundamental physics, for such a school forms the spearhead of research not only in less advanced branches of physics but also in problems of immediate practical application in industry. If much of the applied research done in India today is disappointing or of very inferior quality it is entirely due to the absence of a sufficient number of outstanding pure research workers who would set the standard of good research and act on the directing boards in an advisory capacity ... Moreover, when nuclear energy has been successfully applied for power production in say a couple of decades from now, India will not have to look abroad for its experts but will find them ready at hand.The trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust decided to accept Bhabha's proposal and financial responsibility for starting the Institute in April 1944. In June 1945, with a grant from the Trust, he established the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. While TIFR began functioning in the Cosmic Ray Unit of the Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, by October that year, it had moved to Bombay. TIFR initially operated in 6,000 square feet of the bungalow where Bhabha had been born, with Bhabha taking as his office the very room where he had been born. The Institute was moved into the old buildings of the Royal Yacht club in 1948. In 1962, an art gallery designed the Chicago-based firm Holabird & Root architect Helmuth Bartsch was inaugurated at TIFR.

Bombay was chosen as the location as the Government of Bombay showed interest in becoming a joint founder of the proposed institute. Inaugurating the Bombay premises in December 1945, the Governor of Bombay Sir John Colville said:"We are embarking on an enterprise of importance to the country's development, in which great wealth, wisely husbanded and applied, individual initiative and government support are all blended. I do not think there could be a better combination for progress."A former director of TIFR, M. G. K. Menon, said that the Institute's budget "grew at the rate of about 30% per annum over the first ten years, and about 15% per annum over the second decade". By 1954, Bhabha had stopped publishing scientific papers but continued to carry out a range of administrative tasks aimed at growing TIFR.

Some of TIFR's research groups focused on nuclear chemistry and metallurgy; these were later moved to Trombay to provide the basis for a 1958 plan to integrate nuclear energy into the national power grid. By 1954, the Institute contained an in-house electronics production unit. Under Bhabha's leadership, the Institute established a research group under Bernard Peters' supervision to conduct research on cosmic rays, and later geophysics. This group was the first to identify K minus strange particles.

Bhabha remained the Institute's Director till his death in 1966.

Atomic Energy Commission
On 26 April 1948, Bhabha wrote to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru that "the development of atomic energy should be entrusted to a very small and high-powered body composed of say three people with executive power, and answerable directly to the Prime Minister without any intervening link. For brevity, this body may be referred to as the Atomic Energy Commission." Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was established on 10 August 1948. Nehru appointed Bhabha as the Commission's first chairman. The three-member Commission included S. S. Bhatnagar and K. S. Krishnan. Bhabha, Bhatnagar and Krishnan were also named to the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Ministry of Defence created in July 1948. The details of the workings of the AEC were declared state secrets for two reasons according to Nehru: "the advantage of our research would go to others before we even reaped it, and secondly it would become impossible for us to cooperate with any country which is prepared to cooperate with us in this matter, because it will not be prepared for the results of researches to become public."

The scholar George Perkovich argues that due to this secrecy and the AEC's relative freedom from government control, the "Nehru-Bhabha relationship constituted the only potentially real mechanism to check and balance the nuclear programme". Yet, rather than being "watchful and balancing", the relationship was "friendly and symbiotic". Twenty years younger than Nehru, Bhabha addressed him as "Dear Bhai", or "Dear Brother", while Nehru addressed Bhabha as "My dear Homi". Indira Gandhi later recalled that her father always found the time to speak to Bhabha, both because, she claimed, Bhabha brought to him urgent matters that required immediate attention, and because conversations with him afforded Nehru "warm moments of sensitivity that other people take for granted in their everyday life", but which are harder to come by in the life of a politician.

When Bhabha realised that technology development for the atomic energy programme could no longer be carried out within TIFR he proposed to the government to build a new laboratory entirely devoted to this purpose. For this purpose, 1200 acre of land was acquired at Trombay from the Bombay Government. Thus, the Atomic Energy Establishment Trombay (AEET) started functioning in 1954. The same year, Bhabha was appointed the secretary of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) under the direct charge of the Prime Minister. Atomic Energy was established as a separate ministry, where earlier the AEC fell under the umbrella of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Scientific Research.

In a 1957 paper in Nature summarizing the Indian nuclear energy programme's ambitions and work, Bhabha claimed that "[a]lthough the Atomic Energy Commission was established as an advisory body in 1948 in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Scientific Research, no important effort to develop this work was made until a separate department of the Government of India with the full powers of a ministry was established in August 1954." A former chairman of the AEC, H. N. Sethna, said that until the establishment of the DAE in 1954, "the work of the Atomic Energy Commission had been restricted to the survey of radioactive minerals, setting up plants for processing monazite and limited research activity in the area of electronics, methods of chemical analysis of minerals and the recovery of valuable elements from available minerals."

At the DAE, Bhabha maintained relative autonomy over priority-setting, and throughout the 1950s and the early 1960s, nuclear policy remained little-discussed in the Parliament and in public life.

Three-stage plan
Bhabha is credited with formulating a strategy of focusing on extracting power from the country's vast thorium reserves rather than its meagre uranium reserves. He presented this plan to the Conference on the Development of Atomic Energy for Peaceful Purposes in New Delhi in November 1954. This thorium-focused strategy stood in marked contrast to all other countries in the world. It became formally adopted by the Indian government in 1958 as India's three-stage nuclear power programme.

Bhabha paraphrased the three-stage approach as follows: The total reserves of thorium in India amount to over 500,000 tons in the readily extractable form, while the known reserves of uranium are less than a tenth of this. The aim of a long-range atomic power programme in India must therefore be to base the nuclear power generation as soon as possible on thorium rather than uranium... The first generation of atomic power stations based on natural uranium can only be used to start an atomic power programme... The plutonium produced by the first-generation of power stations can be used in a second-generation of power stations designed to produce electric power and convert thorium into U-233, or depleted uranium into more plutonium with breeding gain... The second generation of power stations may be regarded as an intermediate step for the breeder power stations of the third generation all of which would produce more U-238 than they burn in the course of producing power.In 1952, Indian Rare Earths Limited, a Government-owned company, was established to extract rare earths and thorium from Kerala's monazite sands, with Bhabha serving as its director.

In August 1956, the one-megawatt "swimming-pool" research reactor APSARA was commissioned, making India the first Asian country besides the Soviet Union to have a nuclear reactor. Running on enriched natural uranium fuel supplied by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Commission and thorium, APSARA represented the first stage of Bhabha's plan: it would be useful in producing plutonium. It also allowed Indian nuclear scientists to carry out experiments, whereas national research in atomic energy earlier had been largely theoretical. Bhabha was able to secure favourable terms for India partly due to his friendship with Sir John Cockcroft, who had been his colleague at the Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge.

That year, India and Canada signed an agreement for the construction of a natural uranium, heavy water-moderated National Research Experimental (NRX) reactor in Trombay. Bhabha's personal friendship with WB Lewis, who headed the Canadian Atomic Energy Agency at the time, proved useful to securing the deal. The reactor, named the Canada India Reactor Utility Service (CIRUS), went critical on 10 July 1960. At forty megawatts, it was the highest-output reactor in Asia at the time, and India's first plutonium source. CIRUS also served as the prototype of the successful Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactor type. The reactor's low burn produced a large amount of weapons-grade plutonium, some of which was used in India's 1974 peaceful nuclear explosion.

To supply CIRUS with heavy water, a heavy water plant with an output of 14 metric tonnes per year was commissioned in Nangal. It began operation on 2 August 1962.

In July 1958, Bhabha decided to build a plutonium reprocessing plant in Trombay. Construction of the Phoenix plant, based on the Purex (plutonium-uranium extraction) technique for extracting plutonium from spent fuel, began in 1961 and was completed in mid-1964. Paired with CIRUS, Phoenix produced India's first weapons-grade plutonium in 1964.

Even after the establishment of APSARA, CIRUS, Phoenix and the indigenously produced zero-energy critical reactor ZERLINA, India hadn't actually produced nuclear energy. To remedy this, in 1962, General Electric was commissioned to build two light water-moderated nuclear reactors in Tarapur. Because the Tarapur Atomic Power Stations (TAPS) were fueled by enriched uranium, they didn't fit into Bhabha's three-stage plan. The US' terms for the Tarapur deal, an $80 million loan at 0.75% interest, were highly favourable to India. Bhabha also managed to negotiate the limitation of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards to the TAPS facility. M. R. Srinivasan, former chairman of the AEC, remarked that Bhabha's success in the Tarapur negotiation would have been a proud achievement for an experienced professional diplomat.

International Atomic Energy Agency
In the 1950s, Bhabha represented India in International Atomic Energy Agency conferences, and served as President of the United Nations Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy in Geneva, Switzerland in 1955.

According to the IAEA's 10 September 1956 draft statute, plutonium and other special fissionable materials would be deposited with the agency, which would have the discretion to provide states with quantities deemed suitable for nonmilitary use under safeguards. Bhabha successfully lobbied against the agency's broad authority, arguing in a 27 September 1956 conference that it was the "inalienable right of States to produce and hold the fissionable material required for the peaceful power programmes". The IAEA's final statute required only safeguards on fissile materials and reactors to ensure these weren't diverted to military use. Of Bhabha's negotiating skills, the US Atomic Energy Commission chairman Glenn Seaborg said: "He was not easy to argue with. Polite but very sure of himself, he was never at a loss for words, and was most articulate. He was a very imposing presence."

Allegations of developing nuclear explosives capability
Aware that the negotiated IAEA safeguards weren't sufficient to deter a state from developing weapons capability, Bhabha had remarked in his 27 September 1957 speech at the IAEA:"[T]here are many States, technically advanced, which may undertake with Agency aid, fulfilling all the present safeguards, but in addition run their own parallel programmes independently of the Agency in which they could use the experience and know-how obtained in Agency-aided projects, without being subject in any way to the system of safeguards."In December 1959, in light of concerns about a possible Chinese nuclear weapons programme, Bhabha claimed to the Parliamentary Consultative Committee on Atomic Energy that India's nuclear energy research had progressed to the point where it could build nuclear weapons without external aid. In 1960, in a meeting with Nehru and Kenneth Nichols, who was visiting India as a consultant to Westinghouse, Bhabha estimated that it would take India "about a year" to build a nuclear bomb.

A 1964 US State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research report concluded that although there was no "direct evidence" of an Indian nuclear weapons programme and that it was "unlikely" that India had made a decision to pursue weapons capability, it was "probably no accident" that "everything the Indians [had] done so far would be compatible with a weapons programme if at some future date it appeared desirable to start one".

A year after Bhabha's death, at a memorial lecture held in his honour, John Cockcroft stated that "it was a declared policy of the government of India not to develop nuclear weapons, and Homi Bhabha of course in his official pronouncements followed the policy of his government," but that Cockcroft "always thought, from private discussions, that his attitude was somewhat ambivalent. After the Chinese nuclear bomb test, he certainly wished to put India into the position of being able to make plutonium bombs, if the government so desired."

However, M. G. K. Menon, the new director of TIFR, pushed back against Cockcroft's statement, arguing that the motivation behind setting up the Indian plutonium reprocessing plant "has sometimes been misunderstood". He said that because the decision to build the plant was taken before the 1962 Indo-China war, it could not have been built for security reasons and was purely for reprocessing fuel rods. However, Menon conceded that mistrust between the two nations had been public since 1950. India also had knowledge of the Chinese nuclear weapons program before the 1962 war.

In a 2006 interview, P. K. Iyengar, a former chairman of the AEC, was asked whether Bhabha was "keen" on India becoming a nuclear weapons state. In response, Iyengar stated: "Dr Bhabha had in his mind from the very beginning that India should become a Nuclear Weapons State. His emphasis on self-reliance is essentially due to the fact he wanted India to be a nuclear weapons country."

Lobbying to build nuclear explosives
After the Chinese nuclear test on 16 October 1964, Bhabha began to publicly call for building nuclear explosives. On the other hand, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, Nehru's successor, sought security guarantees from the existing nuclear powers, while declaring at the Cairo Conference of Non-aligned Nations that India's nuclear establishment was "under firm orders not to make a single experiment, not to perfect a single device which is not needed for peaceful uses of atomic energy".

On a visit to London on 4 October 1964, anticipating the Chinese test, Bhabha said that India could conduct a nuclear test within a year and a half of a decision to do so, but that he did not "think such a decision will be taken". A 28 October 1964 Indian Express survey found that public opinion leaders across India now took "for granted" Bhabha's claim that India could develop a nuclear bomb within a year and a half. Yet, this figure was likely an overestimate. In 1996, Raja Ramanna, the physicist tasked in 1965 with directing the nuclear weapons project, said: "I don't think it would have been possible to do what Bhabha said—build a device in 18 months. A crash program could have been done, I suppose, but it would have been very expensive." By 1965, Bhabha had updated his estimate from eighteen months to at least five years.

About a week after the Chinese test, Bhabha said in an All India Radio broadcast:"Atomic weapons give a State possessing them in adequate numbers a deterrent power against attack from a much stronger State. … A two megaton explosion, i.e., one equivalent to 2 million tons of TNT, would cost $600,000 or Rs. 30 lakhs. On the other hand, at current prices of TNT, 2 million tons of it would cost some Rs. 150 crores [$300 million]."This cost estimate ignored the expenses on reactors, reprocessing facilities and infrastructure necessary to design and produce weapons. Nevertheless, despite efforts by the US government and other Indian scientists to correct this estimate, Bhabha's arguments supporting the affordability of a nuclear weapons programme continued to be used by the Indian pro-bomb lobby. On 26 October 1964, the Hindu nationalist Jana Sangh editorialized: "We had the chance to do it [detonate a nuclear bomb] before China did it and so we could tell that we meant business and that we were ahead of China. In our criminal folly we missed it."

A 29 October 1964 US Embassy cable cited an informed source from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs as saying that "pressures within GOI [Government of India] for India to develop its own bomb were building up" and that "Bhabha was the leading advocate for this group and he was actively campaigning to go down nuclear the road". A six-hour cabinet discussion of nuclear policy had culminated in the Minister of External Affairs Swaran Singh and the influential Minister of Railways S. K. Patil supporting Bhabha, who was attending as an observer, in his proposal for a nuclear weapon-building program. Only two cabinet ministers were against. Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, Nehru's successor, authorized Bhabha to "come up with estimate of what was involved in India's attempting an underground 'explosion'."

This repudiated Shastri's policy preferences, who, as a Gandhian, showed a strong moral revulsion to building nuclear weapons, and did not wish to increase defence spending during the nation's ongoing food crisis. Shastri sought British assistance in making more objective cost estimates. In a November 1964 All India Congress Committee meeting, he disputed Bhabha's numbers, arguing that the production of a single nuclear bomb would cost Rs 400 to 500 million, more than two hundred times Bhabha's estimate. In a remark likely aimed at Bhabha's All India Radio broadcast, Shastri added that "scientists should realise that it was the responsibility of the Government to defend the country and adopt appropriate measures". Beyond economic considerations, he warned that with the development of an initial weapons capability, India "could not be content with one or two bombs. The spirit of competition was bound to capture her". As "the majority of speakers [had come] out strongly and frankly in favour of India manufacturing atom bombs" at the meeting, the Hindustan Times called Shastri's successful opposing address "nothing short of a miracle". After Shastri's address, Bhabha clarified that his figures came from an American study on "the peaceful uses of atomic explosions" for civil engineering projects, but maintained that nuclear explosive power could be cost-effective.

On 23 and 24 November 1964, when the Lok Sabha met to discuss India's foreign policy, speakers generally assumed that Bhabha's eighteen-month timeline for building a nuclear bomb was accurate, and did not suggest that a Soviet or US nuclear umbrella would extend over India in case of a nuclear attack. Ultimately, in part due to uncertainty around the cost of developing a nuclear bomb and its appropriate delivery platforms, the Parliament deferred a decision for or against nuclear weapons. The parliamentarians moved instead to speed the development of technology and know-how which would enable them to establish a nuclear weapons programme if they later decided to do so. Shastri hedged, though, that this policy was subject to change:"I cannot say that the present policy is deep-rooted, that it cannot be set aside, that it can never be changed. … Here situations alter, changes take place, and we have to mould our policies accordingly. If there is a need to amend what we have said today, then we will say—all right, let us go ahead and do so."Historians have argued that this marked the beginning of India's policy of keeping a "nuclear option".

On 27 November 1964, the Jana Sangh introduced a motion in the Lok Sabha calling for the development of nuclear weapons. Shastri, reiterating his moral stand for nuclear disarmament, won a voice vote against the motion. However, he reminded the Parliament that the manufacture of nuclear weapons could be completed in "two or three years" if necessary. Then, for the first time, he said that India's work on nuclear energy for nonmilitary use would include the development of peaceful nuclear explosives, which he called "nuclear devices":"Dr. Bhabha has made it quite clear to me that as far as we can progress and improve upon nuclear devices, we should do so, as far as development is possible, we should resort to it so that we can reap its peaceful benefits and we can use it for the development of our nation. … Just assume that we have to use big tunnels and we have to clear huge areas, we have to wipe out mountains for development parks, and in this context if it is required to use nuclear devices for the good of the country as well as for the good of the world, so then our Atomic Energy Commission is pursuing these same objectives."Shastri's announcement of a program to develop peaceful nuclear explosives fell short of sanctioning an explicit nuclear weapons programme. However, though intended for different purposes, the two kinds of devices are technically similar. Speaking to the Press Trust of India in 1997, Raja Ramanna said:"The Pokhran test was a bomb, I can tell you now. … An explosion is an explosion, a gun is a gun, whether you shoot at someone or shoot at the ground. … I just want to make clear that the test was not all that peaceful."Ramanna speculated that the Shastri endorsement of peaceful nuclear explosive research "must have come from Bhabha". In an interview with the scholar George Perkovich in 1997, Homi Sethna, a former AEC chairman, agreed that Bhabha had prompted this statement, though he added that "Bhabha was able to obtain approval to do theoretical studies only". Historians have interpreted the shift in Shastri's no-bomb position as a concession to the pro-bomb officials within the Congress party and an attempt to win Bhabha's support, which could shield Shastri against further attacks on nuclear policy in the Parliament. The new nuclear policy of doing theoretical research on peaceful nuclear explosives also avoided the large economic costs and international recriminations that would follow a full-fledged nuclear weapons programme.

The concession apparently did win Bhabha's alignment. After the 1965 Indo-Pakistani war, pressure to build nuclear weapons intensified as the threat from Pakistan introduced new security concerns. Rather than using the renewed political debate to gain additional authorizations, Bhabha denied in an interview that he had received any new instructions from Shastri, saying: "The emergency changed nothing. Why should it?" Historians have interpreted Bhabha's comments as an indication that the constraint to building nuclear explosives was not policy, but unmet technological requirements.

After realizing that the eighteen-month timeline for building nuclear weapons capability was too ambitious, Bhabha held several meetings with US officials in secret between 1964 and 1965. In these, he explored the option of importing nuclear explosive capability, especially fissile plutonium and designs of a nuclear device, from the US Atomic Energy Commission as part of Project Plowshare. However, with the emergence of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, this option eventually closed. After Bhabha's death, dissatisfied with the NPT's refusal to meet India's security concerns, scientists at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and the Defence Research and Development Organization began work on the nuclear device used in the 1974 Pokhran test.

Interest in and patronage of the arts
A classical music and opera enthusiast, Bhabha pushed for Vienna to be the headquarters of the IAEA in part to be able to attend the state opera when attending IAEA meetings. According to his brother Jamshed Bhabha,"For Homi Bhabha, the arts were not just a form of recreation or pleasant relaxation; they were among the most serious pursuits of life and he attached just as much importance to them as to his work in mathematics and physics. For him, the arts were, in his own words, 'what made life worth living'."Bhabha was an avid painter, decorating his house with abstracts he painted during the 1930s in England. He was a key patron of the Progressive Artists’ Group, formed in Bombay in 1947 to establish new ways of expressing India's post-colonial identity. This group produced artists like F. N. Souza, M. F. Husain, Tyeb Mehta, K. H. Ara and S. H. Raza, some of whose early works Bhabha selected for the TIFR collection. Unique among scientific institutions around the world, TIFR still hosts a large collection of contemporary Indian art, which was opened to the public in 2018.

Awards and honours
Bhabha's doctoral thesis won him the Adams Prize in 1942, making him the first Indian to receive the honour. This was followed by a Hopkins Prize by the Cambridge Philosophical Society in 1948.

He gained international prominence after deriving a correct expression for the probability of scattering positrons by electrons, a process now known as Bhabha scattering. His major contributions included work on Compton scattering, R-process, and the advancement of nuclear physics. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1951 and 1953–1956.

He was awarded Padma Bhushan, India's third-highest civilian honour, in 1954. In 1957, he was elected an honorary fellow of Gonville and Caius College and of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He was elected a Foreign Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1958, and appointed the President of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics from 1960 to 1963. Bhabha received several honorary doctoral degrees in science throughout his career: Patna (1944), Lucknow (1949), Banaras (1950), Agra (1952), Perth (1954), Allahabad (1958), Cambridge (1959), London (1960) and Padova (1961).

Death

Bhabha died when Air India Flight 101 crashed near Mont Blanc on 24 January 1966. A misunderstanding between Geneva Airport and the pilot about the aircraft position near the mountain is the official reason of the crash. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi said in a ceremony mourning his death:"To lose Dr Homi Bhabha at this crucial moment in the development of our atomic energy programme is a terrible blow for our nation. He had his most creative years ahead of him. When we take up the unfinished work he has left behind, we will realize in how many fields he served us. For me, it is a personal loss. I shall miss his wide-ranging mind and many talents, his determination to strengthen our country’s science and enthusiastic interest in life’s many facets. We mourn a great son of India."

Assassination claims
Many possible theories have been advanced for the air crash, including a claim that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in paralysing India's nuclear program. An Indian diplomatic bag containing calendars and a personal letter was recovered near the crash site in 2012.

Gregory Douglas, a journalist, conspiracy theorist, forger, and holocaust denier who claimed to have conducted telephone conversations with former CIA operative Robert Crowley in 1993, published a book titled Conversations with the Crow in 2013. According to Douglas, Crowley claimed that the CIA was responsible for assassinating Homi Bhabha and Prime Minister Shastri in 1966, thirteen days apart, to thwart India's nuclear programme. Douglas asserted that Crowley told him a bomb in the cargo section of the plane exploded mid-air, bringing down the commercial Boeing 707 airliner in Alps with few traces. Per Douglas, Crowley said: "We could have blown it up over Vienna but we decided the high mountains were much better for the bits and pieces to come down on". Conspiracy theorists point to the circumstances surrounding the death of Vikram Sarabhai, who showed no signs of illness prior to his death from a heart attack and was cremated without autopsy, as additional evidence of foreign involvement.

Legacy
Bhabha is considered the "father of the Indian nuclear programme" and one of the most prominent scientists in the country's history. After his death, the Atomic Energy Establishment at Mumbai was renamed the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in his honour. In 1967, TIFR showcased an exhibition of Bhabha's life at the Royal Society, which was later moved to TIFR's auditorium foyer. The auditorium was named the Homi Bhabha Auditorium in the late scientist's honour and inaugurated by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 9 November 1968. Bhabha encouraged research in electronics, space science, microbiology and radio astronomy. The radio telescope in Ooty, India, which is one of the world's largest steerable telescopes, was built at Bhabha's initiative in 1970. A number of research institutes received their initial funding from the Department of Atomic Energy under Bhabha's supervision, including the Tata Memorial Hospital, the Indian Cancer Research Centre, the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics and the Physical Research Laboratory in Ahmedabad. As a member of the Indian Cabinet's Scientific Advisory Committee to the Cabinet, Bhabha played a key role in helping Vikram Sarabhai set up the Indian National Committee for Space Research.

The Homi Bhabha Fellowship Council has been giving Homi Bhabha Fellowships since 1967. Other noted institutions in his name are the Homi Bhabha National Institute, an Indian-deemed university and the Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Mumbai, India.

At Bhabha's death, his estate, including Mehrangir, the sprawling colonial bungalow at Malabar Hill where he spent most of his life, was inherited by his brother Jamshed Bhabha. Jamshed, an avid patron of arts and culture, bequeathed the bungalow and its contents to the National Centre for the Performing Arts, which auctioned the property for Rs 372 crores in 2014 to raise funds for upkeep and development of the centre. The bungalow was demolished in June 2016 by the owner, Smita-Crishna Godrej of the Godrej family, despite some efforts to have it preserved as a memorial to Homi Bhabha.

In popular culture
Rocket Boys (2022) is a web series inspired by the lives of Homi J. Bhabha, Vikram Sarabhai and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, in which Bhabha is played by Jim Sarbh. In 2023, the second season was released.

title: Homi J. Bhabha


text: User talk:129.10.245.150

title: User talk:129.10.245.150


text: Category:Fountains

title: Category:Fountains


text:
Taurus Raging Bull

The Raging Bull is a revolver manufactured by the Brazilian Taurus International firearm company.

In its larger calibers it is marketed as a hunter's sidearm because it is a potent weapon with plenty of stopping power. The .454 Casull cartridge has been used to hunt animals as large as Cape Buffalo.

The Raging Bull has a ported barrel and a red rubber strip along the back of its grip (in some variants such as the Raging Hornet, this strip is yellow), which cushions the shooter's hand and lowers perceived recoil. Functionally, the Raging Bull has a manually operated front cylinder latch, whose release can be seen on the crane. Front cylinder latches are required for such high-powered double-action revolvers, and are found on the Ruger Super Redhawk and the S&W Model 500 revolver, but they are actuated by the rear cylinder latch. The manually operated latch on the Raging Bull is simpler (and thus less expensive to produce) yet equally strong, but requires two hands to open the cylinder.

Variants
The Raging Bull comes in several models, classified by caliber. Additionally, each model has its own barrel length and metal finish options.

Current

 * Model 444: .44 Magnum caliber, can also fire the shorter .44 Special.
 * Model 444 Ultralite: Compact .44 with a 4-inch barrel. Blued and titanium finishes only.
 * Model 454: .454 Casull caliber, can also fire the shorter .45 Colt.
 * Model 513 (Raging Judge Magnum): .454 Casull, .45 Colt, .410 shot shell —  six round cylinder

Discontinued

 * Model 218 (Raging Bee): .218 Bee caliber, 10" barrel. Stainless steel only.
 * Model 22H (Raging Hornet): .22 Hornet caliber, 10" barrel. Stainless steel only.
 * Model 30C (Raging Thirty): .30 Carbine caliber, 10" barrel. Stainless steel only.
 * Model 416: .41 Magnum caliber.
 * Model 45: .45 Colt caliber only and featured a six-round cylinder
 * Model 480: .480 Ruger caliber.
 * Model 500: .500 S&W Magnum caliber, can also fire the shorter .500 S&W Special.
 * Model 513 Ultralite (Raging Judge): .45 Colt, .410 shot shell - featured a light weight frame, 3 inch barrel and 7 round cylinder.
 * Model 528 (Raging Judge XXVIII) (Never released): 28 gauge shot shell

Optional finishes include stainless steel, matte stainless steel, nickel-plated and blued. Barrel options include 2", 4", 6", 8", 10". Not all finishes or barrels are available for every model. All models have ported barrels, except for the 22H, 30C, 513, 528 and Ultralite. All models have fixed front sights and adjustable rear sights.

The Raging Hornet, the Raging Bee and the Raging Thirty have yellow rubber insert strips, as opposed to the typical red strip.

Most Raging Bull variants can mount commercial optical sights and lasers with the aid of an optional screw-on Picatinny rail.

Raging Hunter
The Raging Hunter is a series of revolvers developed by Taurus in 2019, chambered for .357 Magnum, .38 Special +P and .44 Magnum. A .454 Casull variant was created in 2020, and another for .460 S&W Magnum in 2021. The Raging Hunter won "handgun of the year in American Hunter's 2019 Golden Bullseye Awards." Raging Hunter revolvers are fitted with a Picatinny rail, and may have a barrel length of 5.12 inch, 6.75 in, or 8.37 in, allowing for an overall length of 11.6 in, 13.2 in, or 14.9 in, respectively. The Raging Hunter weighs 54 oz.

title: Taurus Raging Bull


text:
Retromolar space

The retromolar space or retromolar gap is a space at the rear of the mandible, between the back of the last molar and the anterior edge of the ascending ramus where it crosses the alveolar margin.

This gap is generally small or absent in modern humans, but it was more often present in Neanderthals, and it was common among some prehistoric Amerindians, such as Arikara and Mandan.

Retromolar pad
The retromolar area of a human mandible is covered by the retromolar pad (also known as the piriformis papilla), an elevated triangular area of mucosa. It is composed of non-keratinized loose alveolar tissue covering glandular tissues and muscle fibers. It is important for supporting lower complete and partial dentures as well as landmarking in the fabrication of dentures.

title: Retromolar space


text: User talk:205.206.111.237

title: User talk:205.206.111.237


text:
User talk:Psycho Chicken~enwiki

If you need an answer quickly, use the Geman discussion page.

Goldie & the Gingerbreads
Have tidied up the English on this page. Probably isn't perfect but its as thorough a job as I can manage. Plutonium27 21:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just got your message re the page and have edited it again to tidy up a few bits. Plutonium27 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:Could you help with Genya Ravan once more?
Hi, I would like to help you with this but I actually don't know anything about the subject of the article - I only happened to be editing it because it linked to a disambiguation page I was working on. If you think it is an exact reproduction of a printed biography then it is not fit for Wikipedia and you should remove it right away (as per WP:COPYVIO). Looking at the edit history, it doesn't look like any substantial changes (other than those made by 74.194.148.78) have been made since 74.194.148.78's edits, so I'd suggest the best course of action would be to just revert to the last good version (ie the most recent version before the addition of the copyrighted material). If you do have problems, I'll be here, but there shouldn't be any. You may also consider giving 74.194.148.78 a user warning on his/her talk page (I would suggest ). Happy editing! D 4 g 0 t h u r 19:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Ha nice catch, I must have accidentally copied the wrong IP... well they bnoth started with 74.194 lol... Sorry for the mix-up and thanks for correcting me. D 4 g 0 t h u r  10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gingerbread?
Please see Goldie and the Gingerbreads - reply on Discussion page. And thanks xxx for the candy offer but guess what? I don't like ginger....ah but I'm sorry, it is true! Now, some wurst or some sausage - mmmm. Plutonium27 18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Psycho Chicken. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Psycho Chicken~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Psycho Chicken~enwiki


text:
User talk:Wfgh444

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
If you do not agree with edits on Rennes-le-Chateau, please do not attack the editors. Wikipedia is very clear. Personal attacks are not allowed and can possibly be punished by banning. Instead, go to the talk page and discuss your views and give sources (books or websites) that provide the correct information. Deleting information and vandalizing someone's user page won't help.

Cite your sources-- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:45, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wfgh444


text:
Talk:Baco

Cleanup
This disambiguation page has been cleaned up by the disambiguation wikiproject. De se rt A ng el   03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Baco


text:
Talk:Sächsische Schweiz (district)

Special hint for foreign visitors
Can anyone verify this information? It was added by an anonymous user, in poor English and feels very POV; I'm tempted to revert it… — OwenBlacker 19:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I live in the Saxon Switzerland and although the nationalist party NPD has quite some popularity in the Saxon Switzerland, I would definitely disapprove the oppinion that "non-white" guests should expect harrassment or discrimination here. My family hosted guests from africa, asia and north america and they nothing of the above-mentioned harrassment happened to them. In the past a turkish restaurant was harrassed by neonazis and an illegal skinhead organization, the SSS (Skinheads Sächsische Schweiz) is said to be still alive. Nevertheless I would approve the reversion of this section. -- Götz Fabian

Requested move 25 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sächsische Schweiz → Sächsische Schweiz (district) – "Sächsische Schweiz" is the original German name of Saxon Switzerland, a geographical region in Saxony, which clearly constitutes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even more so as the district is defunct now. The very least we should do is adding a disambiguator, pending further discussion on a new, consistent naming scheme. -- PanchoS (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as per given reasons. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:Sächsische Schweiz (district)


text:
Talk:Dilution refrigerator

Fritz vs. Heinz
I'm reverting the edit by 132.77.4.43 that changes Heinz London to Fritz London. As far as I can tell, dilution refrigeration was first suggested by Heinz London, although Fritz London also worked on it. See for instance. If anybody wants to change this to Fritz, please cite a source for it. Reuben 19:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Formatting problem?
There seems to be a formatting problem at the end of section Limitations. --Mortense (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference section was nonexistent & the references were in the wrong place; I fixed it up, so that's taken care of. Wingman4l7 (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dilution refrigerator


text:
Ziauddin Sardar

Ziauddin Sardar (ضیاء الدین سردار; born 31 October 1951) is a British-Pakistani scholar, award-winning writer, cultural critic and public intellectual who specialises in Muslim thought, the future of Islam, futurology and science and cultural relations. He wrote or edited more than 50 books Prospect magazine named him as one of Britain's top 100 public intellectuals and The Independent newspaper called him: 'Britain's own Muslim polymath'.

Brief biography
Ziauddin Sardar was born in Dipalpur, Punjab, Pakistan. However, he was both educated and brought up in Britain. His family belonged to the Durrani warrior clan that founded the state that ultimately became Afghanistan after the break-up of Persia following the assassination of Nader Shah in 1747. Under the Raj, it was official policy to recruit the so-called "martial races" from what is now modern northern India, Pakistan and Nepal into the military. His grandfather served in the Indian Army under the Raj, was decorated for bravery during the Boxer Rebellion in China, and the family's surname was changed from Durrani to Sardar, Urdu for Leader, in recognition of his courage in leading men under fire. Sardar's grandfather also served under William Birdwood when he was a junior officer in the Indian Army, and when his son immigrated to Britain, he sought out the company of Birdwood's son, Christopher and his daughter-in-law, Lady Birdwood.

Ziauddin Sardar, when growing up in 1960s London, was lectured by Lady Birdwood on his English. In 1968, she tried to recruit him into her anti-immigration crusade, arguing that having a Muslim Pakistani immigrant writing for her magazine, New Times, would dispel the charges of racism being made against her. Sardar recalled speaking with fury as he rejected her offer, causing her to storm out of his family's house, never to return. Sardar was bullied as a teenager by "Paki-bashing" white youths, and he imagined Lady Birdwood as a churail, the seductive, but ferocious female demons of Urdu folklore. Sardar argued that Lady Birdwood with her thesis that to be British was to be white was not "aberration" in British life, but rather was she was the "quintessence" of Britishness. Referring to Lady Birdwood's convictions in the 1990s for writing, printing and handing out anti-Semitic literature, Sarder wrote: "Racism as overt as that preached by all her hate literature is merely the flip side of the Great Tradition, the underlying, but unstated message of the 'Great Books of Mankind' that I read in my childhood. It is the notion of civilization as a one-way street, an inexorable path of progress that must take all peoples towards the same pinnacle, by the same route".

He read physics and then information science at the City University, London. After a five-year stint at King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia – where he became a leading authority on the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca —– he returned to work as Middle East correspondent of the science magazines Nature and New Scientist. In 1982, he joined London Weekend Television as a reporter and helped launch the trend-setting Asian programme Eastern Eye. In the early 1980s, he was among the founders of Inquiry, a magazine of ideas and policy focusing on Muslim countries, which played a major part in promoting reformist thought in Islam. While editing Inquiry, he established the Center for Policy and Futures Studies at East-West University in Chicago.

In 1987 Sardar moved to Kuala Lumpur as an advisor to Anwar Ibrahim, the Education Minister. Ibrahim went on to become Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia and following his imprisonment on abuse of power charges, the leader of the Opposition. He came back to London in the late 1990s to work as Visiting Professor of Science Studies at Middlesex University, and write for the New Statesman, where he later became a columnist. In 1999, he was appointed editor of Futures, the monthly journal of policy, planning and futurology, and became involved in Third Text, the prestigious journal of arts and visual culture, which he co-edited till 2005. Also in 1999, he moved to the City University London, London, as Visiting Professor of Postcolonial Studies. From 2001 to 2013, he was Professor of Law and Society in the School of Law at Middlesex University.

After leaving London Weekend Television, Sardar wrote and presented a number of programmes for the BBC and Channel 4. He conceived and presented Encounters With Islam for the BBC in 1983, and two years later his 13-half-hour interview series Faces of Islam was broadcast on TV3 (Malaysia) and other channels in Asia. In 1990, he wrote and presented a programme on Islamic science for BBC's Antenna and his six-part Islamic Conversations was broadcast on Channel 4 early in 1995. He wrote and presented the highly acclaimed Battle for Islam, a 90-minute film for BBC2 in 2005. And followed that with Between the Mullahs and the Military, a 50-minute documentary on Pakistan for Channel 4's Dispatches series. Most recently he wrote the three-part one-hour documentary The Life of Muhammad for BBC2, broadcast in July 2011. He has appeared on numerous television programmes, including the Andrew Marr Show and Hard Talk, and was a regular member of the 'Friday Panel' on Sky News World News Tonight during 2006 and 2007. He appears in various filmed philosophical debates at the Institute of Art and Ideas.

Sardar was amongst the first Commissioners of the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission (March 2005 – December 2009); and served as a Member of the Interim National Security Forum at the Cabinet Office, London, during 2009 and 2010. His journalism and reviews have appeared in The Guardian, The Independent, The Times, the UK weekly magazine, New Statesman and the monthly magazine New Internationalist. Sardar's online work includes a year-long project for the Guardian, 'Blogging the Qur'an', published in 2008.

In 2009, Sardar re-launched the defunct Muslim Institute as a learned society that supports and promotes the growth of thought, knowledge, research, creativity and open debate; and became the Chair of the reorganized Muslim Institute Trust. He conceived and launched, in 2011, the quarterly Critical Muslim, a ground-breaking journal of freethinking that seeks new readings of Islam and Muslim culture, jointly published by the Muslim Institute and Hurst & Co.

In 2014, Sardar re-launched the Center for Policy and Futures Studies at East-West University as The Center for Postnormal Policy and Futures Studies, which focuses more acutely on his recent work on Postnormal Times.

National Life Stories conducted an oral history interview (C1672/32) with Ziauddin Sardar in 2016 for its Science and Religion collection held by the British Library.

Life and thought
Sardar has lived the life of a scholar-adventurer and has travelled extensively throughout the world. From 1974 to 1979, he lived in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he worked for the Hajj Research Centre at the King Abdul Aziz University. During this period he travelled throughout the Islamic world researching his first book, Science, Technology and Development in the Muslim World (Croom Helm, 1977). In the early 1980s, he edited the pioneering Muslim magazine 'Inquiry', before establishing the Centre for Policy and Futures Studies at East-West University in Chicago. During the 1990s, he lived in Kuala Lumpur. He has also lived in Chicago and The Hague and for short periods in Cairo and Fez.

Sardar describes himself as a 'critical polymath'. His thought is characterised by a strong accent on diversity, pluralism and dissenting perspectives. Science journalist Ehsan Masood suggests that Sardar 'deliberately cultivates a carefully calculated ambiguity projecting several things at once, yet none of them on their own'. Futurist Tony Stevenson points out that his 'intellectual aggression' hides a 'sincere and deep humanity': 'while his cultural analysis is surgically incisive, it is largely free of the theoretical correctness of academic thought', while he 'draws on a depth of academic thought', he 'always remains accessible'.

The fundamental principle of Sardar's thought is that 'there is more than one way to be human'. 'I do not regard "the human" either as "the" or as a priori given', he has said. 'The western way of being human is one amongst many. Similarly, the Islamic way of being human is also one amongst many. The Australian aboriginal way of being human is also another way of being human. I see each culture as a complete universe with its own way of knowing, being and doing – and hence, its own way of being human'. The corollary is that there are also different ways of knowing. The question that Sardar has always asked is: 'how do you know? The answer depends a great deal on who 'you' are: 'how you look at the world, how you shape your inquiry, the period and culture that shapes your outlook and the values that frame how you think'.

He has produced some fifty books over a period of 30 years, some with his long-time co-author Merryl Wyn Davies. These books include the classic studies The Future of Muslim Civilisation (1979) and Islamic Futures: The Shape of Ideas to Come (1985), a vigorous intellectual assault on postmodern thought, Postmodernism and the Other (1998) and Orientalism (1999), and the international bestseller Why Do People Hate America? (2002). He has published two books on cities: The Consumption of Kuala Lumpur (2000) and Mecca: The Sacred City, which won the first prize at the Lahore Literature Festival in 2014 and the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism for a non-fiction book. Two collections of his essays and critical writings are available as readers: Islam, Postmodernism and Other Futures: A Ziauddin Sardar Reader (2003) and ''How Do You Know? Reading Ziauddin Sardar on Islam, Science and Cultural Relations'' (2006). His two volumes of autobiography, Desperately Seeking Paradise: Journeys of a Sceptical Muslim and Balti Britain: A Provocative Journey Through Asian Britain, have been highly praised. He wrote Reading the Qur’an.

Sardar was the editor of the journal Futures from 1999 to 2012.

Books

 * A Person of Pakistani Origins, Hurst, London, 2018
 * Editor, The Postnormal Times Reader, CPPFS/IIIT, London, 2017
 * (with Jeremy Henzell-Thomas), Rethinking Reform in Higher Education, IIIT, London, 2017
 * Islam Beyond the Violent Jihadis, Biteback, London, 2016
 * Mecca: The Sacred City, Bloomsbury, London, 2014
 * Future: All That Matters, Hodder Education, London, 2013
 * Muhammad: All That Matters, Hodder Education, London, 2012
 * Muslims In Britain: Making Social and Political Space, Routledge, London, 2012 (edited with Waqar Ahmad)
 * Reading the Qur’an, Hurst & Co, London; Oxford University Press, New York, 2011
 * Breaking the Monolith: Essays, Articles and Columns on Islam, India, Terror and Other Things That Annoy Me, ImprintOne, Delhi, 2008
 * Balti Britain: A Journey Through the British Asian Experience, Granta, London, 2008
 * How Do You Know? Reading Ziauddin Sardar on Islam, Science and Cultural Relations , Pluto Press 2006 (Introduced and edited by Ehsan Masood). ISBN 978-07453-2515-6.
 * What Do Muslims Believe? Granta, London, 2006.
 * Desperately Seeking Paradise: Journeys of a Sceptical Muslim, Granta, London, 2005
 * Islam, Postmodernism and Other Futures: a Ziauddin Sardar reader, Pluto Press, London 2004 (introduced and edited by Sohail Inayatullah and Gail Boxwell).
 * The A to Z of Postmodern Life: Essays on Global Culture in the Noughties, Vision, 2002
 * Aliens R Us: The Other in Science Fiction Cinema, Pluto Press, London, 2002 (Edited with Sean Cubitt)
 * The Third Text Reader on Art, Culture & Theory, Continuum, London, 2002 (Edited with Rasheed Araeen and Sean Cubitt)
 * The Consumption of Kuala Lumpur, Reaktion Books, London, 2000.
 * Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars, Icon Books, Cambridge, 2000
 * Orientalism (Concepts in the Social Sciences Series), Open University Press, 1999
 * Rescuing All Our Futures: The Future of Future Studies, Adamantine Press, London
 * Postmodernism and the Other: New Imperialism of Western Culture, Pluto Press, London, 1997
 * Explorations in Islamic Science, Mansell, London, 1989; Centre for the Studies on Science, Aligarh, 1996
 * Muslim Minorities in The West, Grey Seal, London, 1995 (edited with S. Z. Abedin)
 * How We Know: Ilm and the Revival of Knowledge, Grey Seal, London, 1991
 * An Early Crescent: The Future of Knowledge and Environment in Islam, Mansell, London, 1989
 * The Revenge of Athena: Science, Exploitation and the Third World, Mansell, London, 1988
 * Science and Technology in the Middle East: A Guide to Issues, Organisations and Institutions, Longman, Harlow, 1982
 * The Touch of Midas: Science, Values and the Environment in Islam and the West, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1982
 * Information and the Muslim World: A Strategy for the Twenty-first Century, Islamic Futures and Policy Studies, Mansell Publishing Limited, London and New York 1988
 * Shaping Information Systems of the Islamic World, Mansell, London, in 1988
 * Islamic Futures: The Shape of Ideas to Come, Mansell, London, 1986
 * The Future of Muslim Civilisation, Mansell, London, 1979
 * Hajj Studies, Crown Helm, London, 1979
 * Islam: Outline of a classification scheme, Clive Bingley, London, 1979
 * Muhammad: Aspects of a Biography, Islamic Foundation, Leicester, 1978
 * Science, Technology and Development in the Muslim World, Croom Helm, London; Humanities Press, New Jersey; 1977
 * Sardar has also contributed a number of books to the Introducing... series published by Icon Books, including Introducing Islam, Introducing Chaos, Introducing Cultural Studies, Introducing Media Studies, Introducing Mathematics and Introducing Postmodernism.

With Merryl Wyn Davies

 * Will America Change? Icon Books, Cambridge, 2008
 * American Dream, Global Nightmare, Icon Books, Cambridge, 2004
 * The No Nonsense Guide to Islam, Verso, London, 2004
 * Why Do People Hate America?, Icon Books, London, 2003
 * Barbaric Others: A Manifesto on Western Racism, Pluto Press, London, 1993 (also with Ashis Nandy)
 * Distorted Imagination: Lessons from the Rushdie Affair, Grey Seal/Berita Publishing, London/Kuala Lumpur, 1990
 * Faces of Islam: Conversations on Contemporary Issues, Barita Books, Kuala Lumpur, 1989

Selected journalism and essays

 * Ziauddin Sardar, 'What do we mean by Islamic Futures?' in Ibrahim M Abu-Rabi, editor, The Blackwell Companion to Contemporary Islamic Thought, Blackwell, Oxford, 2006, 5562–586.
 * Ziauddin Sardar, 'The problem of futures studies', in Ziauddin Sardar, editor, Rescuing All Our Futures: The Future of Future Studies, Adamantine Press, London; Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT; 1998, pages 9–18
 * Ziauddin Sardar, 'Listening to Islam', in Listening to Islam: Praise, Reason and Reflection, ed. John Watson (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2005).
 * Ziauddin Sardar, New Statesman 11 December 2006, "Welcome to Planet Blitcon"
 * Ziauddin Sardar, New Statesman, 18 July 2005, "The struggle for Islam's soul"
 * Ziauddin Sardar, New Statesman, 14 June 2004, 'Is Muslim civilisation set on a fixed course to decline?' Wahhabism, the Saudis' brand of Islam, negates the very idea of evolution in human thought and morality
 * Ziauddin Sardar, New Statesman, 9 August 2004, Lost in translation: most English-language editions of the Qur'an have contained numerous errors, omissions and distortions. Hardly surprising, writes Ziauddin Sardar, when one of their purposes was to denigrate not just the Holy Book, but the entire Islamic faith
 * Ziauddin Sardar, June 2002, "Rethinking Islam"
 * Ziauddin Sardar, "Medicine and Multiculturalism", New Renaissance, Vol. 11, No. 2, issue 37, Summer 2002
 * Audio of Ziauddin Sardar's lecture "Islam and Modernity: The Problem with Paradise" delivered at the Walter Chapin Simpson Center for the Humanities on 5 May 2005.
 * Ziauddin Sardar, The Royal Society,"Islam and science: lecture transcript"
 * 'Same again ...' The Ideas Book edited by Linda Carroli, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, 2005.
 * 'Foreword', Black Skin, White Masks by Frantz Fanon, Pluto Press, London
 * The Erasure of Islam' tpm: The Philosopher's Magazine Issue 42 Third Quarter 2008 77–79
 * ‘Touched by Wonder: Art and Religion in the 21st Century’ in Touched edited by Paul Domela, Liverpool Biennial, Liverpool, and Editore Silvana, Milan, 2011.
 * ‘Transmodern Journeys: Futures Studies and Higher Education’ in Adrian Curaj et al., editors, European Higher Education at the Crossroads, Volume 2: Governance, Financing, Mission Diversification and Futures of Higher Education, Heidelberg: Springer, pp1038–1055
 * ‘The Future of the Arab Spring in Postnormal Times’ American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30 (4) 125-136 Fall
 * ‘Islam: Introduction’ in Emma Mason, editor, Reading the Abrahamic Faiths: Rethinking Religion and Literature, Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2015, pp171–181

title: Ziauddin Sardar


text:
Janet Cardiff

Janet Cardiff (born March 15, 1957) is a Canadian artist who works chiefly with sound and sound installations, often in collaboration with her husband and partner George Bures Miller. Cardiff first gained international recognition in the art world for her audio walks in 1995. She lives and works in British Columbia, Canada.

Early life and education
Janet Cardiff was born in 1957 in Brussels, Ontario, Canada, and grew up on a farm outside of a small village. In 1980, she earned her BFA from Queens University, Kingston, Ontario. In 1983 she earned an MVA from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. While studying in Edmonton, she met George Bures Miller who would become her husband and collaborator. Cardiff's training is in photography and printmaking and her early works were large-scale silkscreens. Her first artistic collaboration with Bures Miller, in 1983, was a Super-8 film called The Guardian Angel. After this filmmaking experience, Cardiff's work began to include elements of narrative sequencing, experiments with sound, and movement.

Solo works
Her first major work based on recorded sound was called The Whispering Room, a minimal work consisting of a dark space with 16 small round speakers mounted on stands that play the voice of individual characters. As visitors move through the space and the voices, a film projector is triggered playing a slightly slow-motion film.

Some of Cardiff's most well-known solo works are her audio walks. Her first was created somewhat serendipitously during a residency at the Banff Centre in 1991. In 1996, she was asked to create a site-specific piece for the museum grounds at Louisiana Museum in Denmark. Since then, she has created notable walks such as Her Long Black Hair (2004), in and around Central Park, and Words Drawn in Water (2005) for the Hirshhorn Museum.

Cardiff has been included in exhibitions such as Present Tense, Nine Artists in the Nineties, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, NowHere, Louisiana Museum, Denmark, The Museum as Muse, Museum of Modern Art, the Carnegie International '99/00, the Tate Modern Opening Exhibition as well as a project commissioned by Artangel in London. This project ("The Missing Voice (Case Study B)") was commissioned in 1999 and continues to run. It is an audio tour that leaves from the Whitechapel Library, next to the Whitechapel tube stop and snakes its way through London's East End, weaving fictional narrative with descriptions about the actual landscape. Cardiff represented Canada at the São Paulo Art Biennial in 1998, and at the 6th Istanbul Biennial in 1999 with her partner George Bures Miller. In her Forty Part Motet (2001) she placed 40 speakers in 8 groups, each speaker playing a recording of one voice singing Thomas Tallis' Spem in alium, enabling the audience to walk through the space and "sample" individual voices of the polyphonic vocal music. This work is now part of the permanent collection of the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada., the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, and of Inhotim in Brumadinho, Brazil. This work was presented at The Cloisters, September to December 2013, that museum's first presentation of contemporary art. The work was installed in the Fuentidueña Chapel, which features the late twelfth-century apse from the church of San Martín at Fuentidueña, near Segovia, Spain, providing a transformed acoustic experience.

A mid-career retrospective, Janet Cardiff: A Survey of Works, Including Collaborations with George Bures Miller, opened at P.S. 1 Contemporary Art Center, Long Island City, Queens, in 2001 and has travelled to Montréal, Oslo, and Turin. Exhibitions in 2006 include Good Vibrations–Le arti visive e il Rock, Palazzo delle Papesse, Centro Arte Contemporanea, Siena; Anticipation, The Museum of Contemporary Photography, Chicago; and Sonic Presence, Bergen Kunsthall, Bergen, Norway.

In Real Time (1999) was the very first video walk that Cardiff created. It took place in the library of the Carnegie Museum of Art and begins with the participant donning a pair of headphones attached to a small video camera. Upon playback Cardiff says to watch the screen and follow along with what we see and hear for approximately 18 minutes. This piece relies on the discrepancies between what is seen on the video monitor and what is occurring in the library.

Work with George Bures Miller
"The Dark Pool" was the first multimedia installation collaboration Cardiff and Miller created and showed in 1995 in Vancouver. The work consists of a dimly lit room, furnished with cardboard, carpets, and collected ephemera and artifacts, through which visitors move, triggering sounds such as musical segments, portions of conversations, and bits of stories. Cardiff and Miller consider the work very personal and, despite offers, have not sold it. Cardiff and Bures Miller represented Canada at the 49th Venice Biennale with Paradise Institute (2001), a 16-seat movie theatre where viewers watched a film, becoming entangled as witnesses to a possible crime played out in the real world audience and on the screen. Cardiff and Bures Miller have recently had exhibitions at Fraenkel Gallery, San Francisco (2018), the Art Gallery of Alberta (2010), Fruitmarket Gallery, Edinburgh, Scotland (2008) the Miami Art Museum (2007) Vancouver Art Gallery (2005), Luhring Augustine, New York (2004), Contemporary Arts Center, Cincinnati (2003), Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) (2002), National Gallery of Canada (2002) and Oakville Galleries, Oakville, Ontario (2000). In 2012, she took part along with her husband in the Kassel’s Documenta. They proposed two installations: the first one is an audio installation in the forest called Forest (for a thousand years…) of a 28 minute audio loop. The second one is a 26-minute video walk specially produced for Documenta and called Alter Bahnhof video walk. In 2013, the Art Gallery of Ontario and Vancouver Art Gallery organized Lost in the Memory Palace: Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller, a selected survey, which took as its focus Cardiff and Miller's work from the mid-1990s to 2013. Recent projects include Thought Experiments in F♯ Minor (2019), a site-specific, immersive, video installation at the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles; and Cardiff & Miller (2019), a solo exhibition at Museo de Arte Contemporaneo de Monterrey in Mexico.

Awards given jointly to Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller

 * National Gallery of Canada Millennium Prize (2001);
 * La Biennale di Venezia Special Award at Venice, presented to Canadian artists for the first time (2001);
 * the Benesse Prize, recognizing artists who break new artistic ground with an experimental and pioneering spirit (2001);
 * the Käthe Kollwitz Prize, Germany (2011);
 * the Wilhelm Lehmbruck Prize in honor of their life’s work, which has "opened up new perspectives for sculpture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries" (2020)

title: Janet Cardiff


text:
Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus

Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus was a Roman senator, who held several offices, including acting governor of Roman Britain in the late second century AD, and as one of the quindecimviri sacris faciundis present at the Secular Games of 204.

An approximate chronology of his career can be established. Two inscriptions found in Ostia attest to Calpurnianus present in that city as pontifex Volcani in the years 194 and 195. A fragmentary inscription from Rome attests that after serving as praetor he officially served as juridicus in Britain when he had to replace an unnamed consular, then after his election to the quindecimviri sacris faciundis the sortition awarded him the office of proconsular governor of Macedonia. Birley notes that most experts date Calpurnianus' tenure as acting governor to about 200 "on the death or sudden disappearance of Virius Lupus." However, there is no firm basis to presume he was elected to the quindecimviri in 204, nor that the two offices of juridicus and proconsul fell close to that year; the duty of acting governor may have fallen on his shoulders when a governor of the province was killed in battle in the far north of the province. Birley lists two or three other incidents around 185 when the legions in Britain attempted to make different legionary commanders emperor. "Further evidence will be needed before this dating of Calpurnianus' acting governorship can be regarded as definite," Birley concludes

Little more is known of Calpurnianus. Birley speculates that he "preferred to devote himself to his private or local concerns, for example at Ostia, which was presumably his home." Birley also notes the existence of Marcus Antius Gratillianus, quaestor of Sicily in 213, and suggests Gratillianus could be Calpurnianus' son.

title: Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus