text:
Talk:Solar wind

Why and discovery
yow people whay? is there a solar wind..... who has discovered it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.132.42 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2004 (UTC)

This is a difficult question. Observations of cometary tails pointing away from the Sun date back to the first millenium BC. Some sources cite Chinese astronomers to have postulated the existence of a solar life to explain this. Kepler talked about sunlight pressure in the 17th century to explain this. Ludwig Biermann came up in 1951 with the idea of a supersonic wind blowing from the Sun with a speed of the order of 1,000 km s-1, but did not come up with any mechanism for this acceleration. After the realization that Chapman theory of the solar corona in hydrostatic did not work (because it predicts an interstellar pressure orders of magnitude too large), Parker came up with his classical solution in 1958. USferdinand 07:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Earth temp and solar winds
is there any relation between the temperature of the earth and solar winds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.132.42 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2004 (UTC)

''No, for two reasons. Firstly, most of the sun's outputted energy is in the form of photons, not particles. Secondly, the solar wind is almost completely deflected by the Earth's magnetic field. If it wasn't, we'd be bombarded by ultra-high-energy particles, develop cancer, and die. This is why space ships have to be well shielded; even so, there is some risk of excess radiation exposure to astronauts.'' Ckerr 08:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There are relationships between the temperature of the atmosphere and the aurora, but only in specific areas, not in the atmosphere as a whole. The subsolar point of the Earth - the region beneath the sun, receiving the greatest amount of heating - can never cover both poles sufficiently to provide as much energy there as the aurora do. In addition, on the nightside, there's no solar heating, asides from conduction. The aurora occur close enough to the highly conducting thermosphere to allow an effect to be seen there. To really see an aurora creating havoc with a planetary atmosphere, though, you need to go out to Jupiter, where an aurora providing 100x as much energy as that of the earth mixes with a far reduced solar photon flux (about a quarter of that at Earth) and so has a more pronounced effect. At Saturn, an aurora of comparable power input to that of the Earth exists in an even lower solar photon flux. This gives an indication of the relative power inputs of the sun and the aurora. Modeled auroral oval. However, the origin of the various aurora are not necessarily all connected to the solar wind. The solar wind acts as a dynamo, creating currents that drive other sources of high energy particles into the atmosphere. At Jupiter, this is a very weak effect due to a massive magnetospher deflecting particles, whereas at Earth it is the dominant effect. Other planets differ. MilleauRekiir 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wind carrying magnetic field
The idea of the solar wind carrrying the sun's magnetic field with it is wrong. Electric currents create magnetic fields. The solar wind is creating its own magnetic fields and interacting with the existing solar magnetic field.They are locked in a feedback loop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.72.189 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The current is set at the solar surface, when the wind is emitted. The magnetic and electric environment is confined by the fact that the emitted particles are in a plasma, therefore the wind carries out the signature of the solar magnetic field as it is just another part of the outer plasma of the Sun, just an unconfined, radially flowing one. MilleauRekiir 17:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Maxwell's equations do not state that electric fields/currents create magnetic fields/flows (or vice versa), merely that the two ways of describing a plasma are equivalent e.g., The alternative paradigm for magnetospheric physics, Parker, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 101, NO. A5, PAGES 10,587-10,625, MAY 1, 1996. Thus it is completely valid to talk in terms of the solar wind "dragging" the coronal magnetic field out to form the heliospheric magnetic field, HMF (which is the more accurate term given to the interplanetary magnetic field, IMF). While coronal dynamics are dominated by the magnetic field, leading to the formation of coronal loops which channel the coronal plasma, at increasing altitude in the solar atmosphere the acceleration of the solar wind means that the flow momentum becomes comparable to the restraining magnetic tension force and the coronal loops are dragged out by the solar wind to to form the HMF e.g., The heliospheric magnetic field, Owens and Forsyth, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 5, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2013-5, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliophysics (talk • contribs) 18:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Cosmic Magnetic Fields are not bounded such that they are "dragged out" where they were not present before, just dragged to a stronger flux intensity. Its better then to say that the wind and magnetic flux are "superposed", as they are, rather than one "embedded" in the other. Both are embedded in spacetime, together. 2602:304:CFA5:42A0:80C6:BFF1:F5B:A88F (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Plasma is not a gas
Plasma is not a gas. Plasma follows its own rules just as a gas behaves differently than a solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.72.189 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I was under the impression that it is debated whether it should be classified as it's own form of matter. 143.195.150.63 —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass loss
The total amount of mass lost by the Sun due to solar wind is about 600,000 tonnes per second. The figure of 800 kg/s cited above is clearly wrong. The density of the solar wind at 1 A.U. (7 protons per cubic cm, (or 7*10^6 protons/cm^3), the surface of an sphere with such a diameter (2.5 10^22 m^2) and the average solar wind speed of 400 km/s (4*10^5 m/s)lead to an estimate of about 7*10^35 protons per second leaving the Sun, or 1 million tonnes per second. I have a figure of 600,000 tonnes per second coming from a paper which I cannot find right now. J. R. Crespo Lopez-Urrutia 149.217.1.6 10:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You were right, the correct mass loss rate is about 1E9 kg/s according to Wood, B. E.; Müller, H.-R.; Zank, G. P.; and Linsky, J. L.; 2002, Measured Mass-Loss Rates of Solar-like Stars as a Function of Age and Activity, Astrophys. J., 574, 412-425
 * Urhixidur 21:00, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

 * You're off by one magnitude. Using the pressure equation given
 * for 1nP gives (1e-9/400000)*2.5e22=62.5e6 kg/s
 * for 6nP gives 375000000 kg/s Mightyname (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The sun loses mass primarily in two ways. Some of it is the solar wind; the remainder is the mass-energy of emitted light. The present article as it now stands says, "...Thus, the total mass loss each year is about (2–3) × 10^-14 solar masses,[15] or 6.7 billion tons per hour." (I am guessing that the author intended "tonne" rather than "ton".) 6.7 billion tonne per hour is 1.85 x 10^9 kg/s. One might infer that this figure refers only to the mass loss due to the solar wind, but that is not made clear. The wiki article on "sun", in the section on "core", says, "About 9.2 × 10^37 protons (hydrogen nuclei) are converted into helium nuclei every second (out of ~8.9 × 10^56 total amount of free protons in the Sun), or about 4.4 × 10^9 kg per second,[46] releasing energy at the matter–energy conversion rate of 4.26 million metric tons per second, 383 yottawatts (3.83×10^26 W),[46] or 9.15 × 10^10 megatons of TNT per second." 4.26 million metric tons per second = 4.26 x 10^9 kg/s. Clearly, this does not include mass loss due to the solar wind's rest mass, though it presumably does include the mass equivalent of the solar wind's kinetic energy.

I would like to see some clarification of the relative contributions of sunlight and the solar wind to the total mass loss of the sun.

I would also like to see a stricter adherence to SI units. "Metric ton" should be replaced by "Tonne"; better yet use only kg as the unit of mass. Non-SI units, such as hour, day, year, ton, tonne, megatons of TNT, etc. should be included only in parenthetical comments after the correct SI units have been given. --Onerock (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask what the average density of the solar wind is at the radius of Earth's orbit (1 AU), and then saw that this is answered above (7*10^6 protons/m^3). I think it's important enough to appear in the article if a reference can be cited (I would do this myself if I could verify it).Pharmagiles (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The given number of mass loss in the article is certainly wrong in relation to the solar wind. That number is the mass converted into pure energy. M = E/c^2 gives that number 4.289e9 kg/s = 4.289e6 tonnes/s = 1.35257904e+17 kg/yr. However, the actual fusion process involves some 700 million tons/s of that 0.7 percent is actually loss due to energy conversion. There's no means to calculate what part of the process ends up being the wind. Therefore, the measured particles are the only means to determine the solar wind mass. Protons are certainly the main part that matter for most every other use but they are not everything contained in the wind. We need more precise numbers and composition tables to arrive at a more correct mass for the wind. Mightyname (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"formation of distant stars"
Article's intro says that solar wind can explain "formation of distant stars" but I see nothing in article body on the subject. If it's a true statement, should add text about it or at least a link; otherwise delete.FRS 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * My only guess is that it refers to the stellar winds of very massive stars and star clusters, which can significantly influence the nearby ISM. There are now many, fairly clear cases of past generations of stars that have created bubbles in the ISM, compressing the surrounding material enough to trigger star formation. However, in most cases that I can think of, it would be difficult to separate the effect of the stellar winds from that of supernovae in such regions. Both will have a similar influence.

 * After being redirected here from stellar wind and reading this page, I wonder if stellar wind shouldn't be a separate entity that talks more about winds from massive stars and from other stages of stellar evolution. In particular for massive star winds, the mechanism is not due to a corona but to radiation pressure from the incredibly larger luminosities at the surfaces of these stars. mh 04:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: Formation of heavy isotopes of hydrogen in solar wind?
I just thought about this: Could solar wind be a significant source of the formation of heavy isotopes of hydrogen by the fusion of high velocity protons and neutrons? The small proportion of neutrons in solar wind should follow a newtonian trajectory, while the protons follow one that is also influenced by magnetic fields. There is thus the possibility of collisions between these two particles. This might be more likely when the protons are within the influence of the magnetic fields of planets, as this would cause the protons and neutrons to follow quite different paths and thus accelerate relative to each other. If this mode of fusion is exothermic it might account for some of the 'unknown' energy that accelerates the solar wind that the article refers to. Any opinions?--ChrisJMoor 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

They would intially both follow radial paths from the Solar surface. When interacting in a shock boundary, the neutrons would interact at a shock developing in response to the atmosphere, whereas protons are trapped outside the magnetosphere, some distance behind. Although it would be more likely to happen as the neutrons pass through the proton shock, the high energies and low densities involved would both work against the initial combination. The high temperature of the plasma would also threaten to distabilise the produced atom. For heavier isotopes, the entire process would have to happen more than once. If we're considering this to be happening in a proton shock, it would be more likely for more protons rather than more neutrons to join and create helium 3 rather than say deuterium. Its difficult enough for this to happen at the densities represented by the upper atmosphere, never mind the outer magnetosphere, but the massive numbers mean there'll probably be a little... MilleauRekiir 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Deuterium says "Stellar fusion destroys deuterium, and there are no known natural processes (for example, see the rare cluster decay), other than the Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which might have produced deuterium at anything close to the observed natural abundance of deuterium." Helium-3 mentions "helium-3 is thought to exist on the Moon (embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years)".  (SEWilco 04:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

 * proton-proton fusion takes a lot of energy. Solar wind is not really that energetic.  The energy spectrum of the electrons and ions in the solar wind is on the order of 100 - 10,000 eV. DonPMitchell (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion highlights the fact that there's currently no mention of the mean-free path of solar wind particles and that is it essentially collision-free. That probably needs addressing. Heliophysics (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Farts in the martian atmosphere?
Mars's atmospheric pressure makes one's farts more condensed, therefore causing a stronger and more pungent aroma, especially when solar winds blow it around.

Should this section really appear in this article? It sounds like a joke. Init 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, I will remove it if its still in there! GB 04:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

needs quantitative estimate
How many newtons per square meter could solar wind exert on an object at 1 AU from the sun, outside earth's magnetic field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwr42 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I just did some calculations, if I made no major errors: starting from 10^6 t/s mass loss, the earth r=6300 km with area pi*r*r in 149.6*10^6 km distance "catches" about 450 g/s of it. Now most of this is in the kinetic energy of the particles (although it is probably not completely absorbed into acceleration due to reflection and heat, but remember we are doing rough estimates here).. sqrt(400g*c*c*2/m_Earth) seems to yield an effect in the magnitude of 10^-4 .. 10^-5 m/s². This is of course basically nothing, but if I remember correctly, planetary orbits are "stable" (ie. once taken they run forever, they lose micro amounts of energy by coupling effects), thus this small "push" can add up since it is not self-correcting? (For a "real" calculation you would have to compare the potential energies between different orbits of the earth, you cannot simply multiply 10^-5 m/s² with seconds, orbits do not work this way) Yes, I did this calculation to find out whether solar wind could be a candidate for the mystery "growing" [] of the AE. Has no one thought of that ever before? If this is potential explanation, the effect should be non-linear, since other planets have different densities and are farther away from the sun. Should be worst with the inner planets. You can comment to areau.gans at arcor de. --145.253.2.238 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Question About Mercury's Magnetosphere and the Solar Wind
The entry for Mercury states that it has a magnetosphere strong enough to deflect the solar wind, and that while its low gravitational pull prevents it building up a significant atmosphere, it does have detectable amounts of various gases from a variety of sources. This article implies strongly that the solar wind scours all gases from the planet. There appears to be a conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.235.134 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Mercury has a weak magnetosphere that provides some protection for the surface. But it apparently isn't strong enough to have saved most of the atmosphere. The planet is much closer to the Sun than the Earth, so it gets a higher flux of particles. It also has a lower gravity and a higher temperature, which likely didn't help matters.—RJH (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Spacial Distribution
I was disappointed to find no remarks regarding the distribution of the solar wind. It seems likely that it is either highly irregular and unpredictable or focused about the ecliptlic plane. Francis of Hochbergm 8/2/08 --Francis of Hochberg (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes this article is in much need of further development.—RJH (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Heliospheric current sheet says "The solar wind is guided by the Sun's magnetic field and hence largely emanates from the polar regions of the Sun;" but cites no source. Is it true, and how do we know? - Rod57 (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge
I think that interplanetary medium is basically a fork article that doesn't mention anything not in this article. I think this article could safely swallow it.  Serendi pod ous  16:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's a merge, it should go the other way, as the solar wind is really a component of the interplanetary medium (which contains neutral gas and dust, in addition to the solar wind (ionized gas)). (I've had little if anything to do with either article, though.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Interplanetary dust cloud points out that small particles are a major part of the interplanetary medium which is different from the solar wind. I think those two articles should be merged since they are both rather short.  The solar wind is actually somewhat complex, so I think it merits its own article.  But if there were a merge, "interplanetary medium" should be the resulting title. -- Beland (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I think I'd prefer to keep them separate. To me it seems that interplanetary medium is a sub-component of the interstellar medium, and it is already discussed on the latter page. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, what about merging
with Heliosphere?  Serendi pod ous  13:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They are both fairly decent sized articles with room for growth. While the subjects are related, I'm not sure what the benefit would be of merging them. The pair don't quite satisfy Merge.—RJH (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the solar wind?
Ions. So can someone provide a list of ions and their relative abundance/flux in the solar wind? What it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.113.189 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Energy. The 2nd sentence states that the electron energies are on the order of "10-100 eV". That sounds too low, since it goes on to say that that these particles needed "high kinetic energy to escape the sun's gravitation. So I think the energies should at least be into the kilo electron Volt range. maybe 10-200 keV? Jdagius (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Average solar wind speed is around 450km/s, between 400 and 800km/s depending on fast or slow solar wind. Ion temperature is about 20-200 kilokelvins. Cinetic energy is more or less 2keV (for 430km/s), thermal energy is some tens of eV. So the total energy is between 1.5 and 8 keV. I have no idea where 10-200 eV or keV comes from. I'm changing it. There are some evidence of high energy particles, coming from CMEs or something. But it is a minority, and should not be refereed to as "standard solar wind".

--Forcimonie (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree thermal energy--at 1 AU-- is on the order of a few 10's of eV. I found 2 simulations that take the Te to be 40 and 10 eV respectively. These correspond to thermal temperatures of 100,000 to 500,000 K. 72.160.11.165 (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Warren Platts

Comparison with radiative pressure
The article on solar sail says "The force due to light pressure is about 5,000 times as strong as that due to solar wind". In this case, how can solar wind be considered responsible for the tail of comets rather than light pressure ? I understand it may be the case for the gas part of the tail if the cross section of an atom (or generally what this gas is made of) is much smaller with respect to light than with respect to elements of the solar wind (electrons and protons); but for dust particles I guess the radiative pressure dominates. Also, a very approximate calculation from this figure together with a value of solar wind speed of 600 km/s, suggests that the total mass loss of the Sun each year due to sun-light through E=mc2 is about 10 times largerr than the one due to solar wind. This would be worth mentioning together with more exact figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoirier (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Correlation with climate change
I read a scientific paper, published way back in 1991, about the interaction between the solar wind and the geomagnetic field. The author seems to think that the length of the solar cycle is related to variations in earth's temperature. I wonder if anyone else has tried to correlate solar activity and things like cloud formation. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Lots of people have - with varying degrees of success and often contradictory results. One of the more interesting studies concerns the possible effect of cosmic rays (the flux of which is modulated by the solar cycle) on the formation of clouds and thus the ability of the atmosphere to reflect incoming heat. They're not (as far as I am aware) proposing that this can account for global warming but it's an interesting study none the less. [] DanielWent (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

small edit to History
Although I don't have access to the Birkeland paper referenced in [2], I believe (based on comments in "Rethinking the History of Solar Wind Studies: Eddington's Analysis of Comet Morehouse") that the sentence should read:
 * In 1916, Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that, "From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds," suggesting that the solar wind consists of both negative and positive ions.

--Kmote (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Unclear term
"The Sun's corona, or extended outer layer, is a region of plasma that is heated to over a million degrees Celsius. As a result of thermal collisions, the particles within the inner corona have a range and distribution of speeds described by a Maxwellian distribution." What is supposed to be a thermal collision? I guess is that collisions are due to thermal heating, but imho stated like that is quite unclear.--79.20.34.174 (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Solar cycle and sunspots
We need to say more about the solar cycle and sunspots. The solar wind varies--in density, velocity, temperature, and magnetic field properties--with the solar cycle. --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A section on the time scales of variation of the solar wind is required. These would range from seconds/minutes due to turbulent eddies, through days and structures such as corotating interaction regions (CIRs) resulting from solar rotation, to solar cycle variations and centennial/millennial variations. I'm happy to start putting this together if no-one objects? Heliophysics (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for more information in the "Planetary surfaces" section on the main page
Early in the article, it is mentioned that the solar wind is comprised of Protons and Electrons.

In the "Planetary surfaces" section it ends with "enriched in atomic nuclei deposited from the solar wind".

My question is - where did the neutrons come from? I am unclear as to whether there is the assumption that some electrons merge with protons to create neutrons. Or whether the solar wind strips electrons off of ordinary matter, leaving atomic nuclei behind.

Or are neutrons part of the solar wind to begin with? If not, why not - is there something about charge that causes the initial acceleration?

Or possibly there is something understood but not directly presented here.

pcG PcGnome (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, really, what is it made of?
"Ions" is an incomplete answer. Ions are charged particles. What kind of charged particles? Electrons? Protons? Alpha particles? He+? muons? what? 74.82.132.35 (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

""
The usage of is under discussion, see talk:Stellar Wind (code name) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Supersonic"
The usage of the word in the second paragraph seems silly at best, saying a few hundred miles an hour and then immediately after claiming a million. It also has little or even ambiguous relevance in space as "supersonic" on Venus is certainly different than on Earth.

129.130.41.55 (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Solar wind velocities at Earth distance from the Sun range from a few hundred km/sec up to, occasionally 2 or 3 thousand km/sec. This is extremely fast, and it is faster than the speed of "sound" in the solar wind, or the velocity at which waves in the solar wind propagate (sorry, but I don't know that value off the top of my head). Point being, that the solar wind flow velocity is, yes, supersonic, and this description applies to the medium itself, the solar wind, not for Venus or Earth atmosphere. Note, when the solar wind arrives at the Earth, a bow shock is generated. This is due to the fact that the solar wind is passing by the Earth at supersonic velocities. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 * The mention of "supersonic" in this context is still very misleading, as neither this article nor the article about supersonic speed explains the speed of sound in the interstellar medium. --Vektorweg (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I propose adding the following note to the word "supersonic": "The speed of an imaginary object placed at a fixed distance from the Sun is faster in the frame of reference moving with the solar wind than the local ion acoustic speed." Thoughts? --46.242.12.64 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 * "Supersonic" is the correct term used. The speed of sound depends on the density of the medium. The term is not a fixed value. It has nothing to do with down on Earth speed of sound's value. In fact for the same reason the speed of sound on Earth changes with altitude. The vacuum is not empty, hence, it does transmit sound. Mightyname (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Solar wind decrease

 * http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/ - "The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s ..."

 * ftp://space.mit.edu/pub/plasma/publications/jdr_soho/jdr_soho.pdf - "The solar source is at space-age lows both in terms of solar wind plasma flux and magnetic field strength [McComas et al., 2008]"

 * https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries/ - "The current long-term decline in solar activity set in after the last grand solar maximum peaked in 1956, says Lockwood. The decline has accelerated recently, and the absence of sunspots this summer has set alarm bells ringing."

I'm not seeing this covered in the article, at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent advancements ? - should we cite the Poulos article ?
The Poulos article has major advancements in solar wind, solar activity and climate variability. Instead of deleting the references one could critisise if he has any critics. This theory is out since 2005 in earlier texts and has had no refutations yet. It only has strict mathematical proof. Kadefe (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of articles are published every day. We don't need to cite all of them. While new ideas by reputable scientists can get mentioned here, we tend to emphasize general, mainstream ideas and their explanation. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, you might begin by focusing on that. With respect to citing the article that seems to be your fixation, note that mathematical "proofs" usually apply to simple idealized models. They are, occasionally, applicable (e.g. Cowling's antidynamo theorem), but when it comes to messy issues involving inference and "significance" based on data that only partly record the phenomena of interest, such as for the relationships between the Sun, solar wind, and climate, mathematical proofs tend to offer only provide general insight, not specific conclusions. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * * That's what I have been doing. It proves you have not read the above article. Solar wind, solar activity and their relationship with climate is no longer a messy issue since this article. I shall try to reference it once more.Kadefe (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You and I obviously have different ideas of what "prove" means. That article is not what I would call compelling. But it doesn't matter much. Motivation for including a citation to this particular article would revolve around issues like (1) is the author an established expert?, (2) has the article had an impact?, (3) do we need to cite it?, (4) are there other articles by established experts that might be better cited? Is this article the only thing that interests you as an editor at Wikipedia? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * From Google scholar, it looks like the author of the paper, Poulos Dimitris, hasn't been cited even once by other authors. He is not a notable expert. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I thought scientific works where valued by their quality, not by the authority their authors project. Kadefe (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * The work in question is a newly published, uncited primary source, published in a low-quality pay-to-publish journal with dubious editorial oversight. This is strong presumptive evidence against it being widely used as a source in Wikipedia.  --JBL (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. Not notable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Only this article is newly published. It is based in original work of the author dating in 2005. No refutations of this work since. Ten year work with no refutations over unprecedented original assertions is appropriate for reference in Wikipedia. Kadefe (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Kadefe, there are lots of newly published and uncited articles. That is not a reason for us to cite it! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * What I have already told you is that it is not about a newly published article but about a ten year work, check the article references. Anyway I am the one who cited it. Since it is an unrefuted ten year old work making interesting unprecedented original assertions you don't have any reason to delete my citation. Kadefe (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is newly published. If you think there is a citable article from ten years ago, then please tell us what it is. But if its just a poster, or an conference presentation, we'll tell you that it isn't a peer-reviewed paper William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * The original 2005 work is a reviewed MSc Thesis. It's been on the web since. This article adds to it. That's all. It is suitable for citation. Kadefe (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * That won't do. Msc theses are pretty lightweight things, and aren't generally peer reviewed. Plus, you haven't even given us any way of identifying said thesis. If this stuff is any good... why has it taken 11 years to get into a rather non-notable journal? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * That particular one has some interesting unprecedented original assertions. The article has a lot new material. It does the job... neither lightweight nor unreviewed. Kadefe (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Here is how the last few steps of the conversation have gone: Non-K: "this article is lacking in the following ways." K: "It's not about the article, it's about this other thing."  Non-K: "The other thing is lacking in the following ways."  K: "It's not about the other thing, it's about the article."  Do you see the problem? --JBL (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * No I don't see any problem. The article is OK for citation because it stands well on an old fine work. Kadefe (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Problems: (1) you have not refuted in any way any of the objections to using this paper as a reference. (2) Your only defense of it comes by reference to another work, about which you have produced no substantive information whatsoever.
 * To save a lot more nonsense, though: there is zero chance that this article is ever going to be used as a reference in Wikipedia. It's totally unsuitable, for the reasons that I and others have mentioned, and it probably will always be unsuitable.  So I suggest you find some better way to contribute to Wikipedia.  --JBL (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I'll try to clarify things more: 1)this article has no conjectures, it is mathematical proof, so you do not have to wait for time to pass and see what other researchers say about it anyway. 2) this article's body is an older work that has already "matured" wihin scientific community. So it is a mature work overall. Your negation has no basis. Kadefe (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 * ...you make me suspect you didn't bother to even read this article. The described phenomena are solved, they are facts, that's about. Mathematically proved. If you can't check the proof let others who can remove it from Wikipedia. It is not your job. Or add some note "the proof presented has not been thoroughly checked yet", if that would make you happy. That would be enough.Kadefe (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There is zero chance that this article is ever going to be used as a reference in Wikipedia. I suggest you find some better way to contribute to the project. --JBL (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

How's that, I admire your arguments. Kadefe (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Kadefe, here's the thing. Regardless of the question of the publisher here, Wikipedia tends to avoid primary sources such as this. It wouldn't matter if it were the most reputable publisher we could find, we'd still prefer avoiding citing the source directly for the reasons details here. Your edit summary claims that it is breakthrough science, but Wikipedia, for better or worse, is reflective of other sources, not a place for breakthroughs on their own. You've mentioned a few times that the work cited is "unrefuted", but on its own that doesn't mean anything. That's not a criticism of your work, but of any work. Wikipedia does not publish works just because they are "unrefuted". It would be more compelling if you could show where it has been reviewed in some way; where it has been challenged, and either supported or refuted. "Unrefuted" could just as easily mean lack of interest or support of a work, which is the issue. If you could provide third-party sources, ones that have nothing to do with the work in question but are reporting on it, for example, that would go a long way towards showing that this recent advancement warrants mention on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Aoidh, the questioned article is indeed a primary source but its subject is purelly mathematically proven so there is no question for reliablity. This argument stands for the refutation arguments you have put forward too. For example the author has theoretically calculated all solar wind properties (temperature etc) and they are the same as observed. It is not a matter of whether someone will be interested to report about. Such arguments usually stand for other topics, eg. politics, not for mathematics.Kadefe (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If the only person saying it's worth checking out is the author, it's not really suitable for Wikipedia. Articles give weight to what sources show. If the only source is the actual paper, there's no reason to put it into the article. It has nothing to do with the type of article, Wikipedia does not exist to propagate ideas, but to reflect them proportionally as determined by reliable third-party sources. If the only source is the primary topic, it's probably not time to put it on Wikipedia.- Aoidh (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is clearly going no-where, but like all good train-wrecks it is hard to resist. A is entirely correct to say that "If the only person saying it's worth checking out is the author, it's not really suitable for Wikipedia". Also, K's "its subject is purelly mathematically proven" is entirely wrong. The article is no ab-initio pure-maths thing; its just an (uninspired) two-term cosine fit to observations. However, and perhaps ironically, the correctness of the article (it isn't correct; its junk) isn't really the point: the point is whether it has any notability. And it has none William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Aoidh proven facts are not ideas, WMC you have no idea what you are talking aboutKadefe (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is zero chance that this article is ever going to be used as a reference in Wikipedia. I suggest you find some better way to contribute to the project. --JBL (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Composition of the solar wind
Surprised to find nothing about the composition of the solar wind (or can't find it if it is mentioned). It consists of protons largely - and 8% of alpha particles - so hydrogen and helium nuclei. But it also has trace amounts of other elements. See this summary from Stanford university

""The composition of the solar wind is a mixture of materials found in the solar plasma, composed of ionized hydrogen (electrons and protons) with an 8% component of helium (alpha particles) and trace amounts of heavy ions and atomic nuclei: C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe ripped apart by heating of the Sun's outer atmosphere, that is, the corona (Feldman et al., 1998). SOHO also identified traces of some elements for the first time such as P, Ti, Cr and Ni and an assortment of solar wind isotopes identified for the first time: Fe 54 and 56; Ni 58,60,62 (Galvin, 1996)!"

Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article if it's not included, or highlighted? The helium 3 in the solar wind also seems worth mentioning, because of the ideas of helium 3 implanted in the lunar regolith, if anyone knows what they are. Robert Walker (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Robert, I think you should just go ahead and add a new section named "Composition" to the article with this information (rewritten to avoid copyright issues and with proper formatting for the isotopes). If this information is outdated, the experts reading the article will notice it and update the section with the latest data. Perhaps, also amend the second sentence in the article from "electrons, protons and alpha particles" to something like "electrons, protons, helium nuclei (alpha particles) and trace amounts of heavier ions"? --46.242.12.64 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Heavy ion composition needs to be added. But that comment is two and a half years old. I'm not sure if Robert Walker is still following this. I can put it on my list of things to do, but that tends to always get longer rather than shorter. If I do, or if anyone else wants to make the change, charge state and variability (fast versus slow stream composition) are also things worth mentioning. Fcrary (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 * 1) It would be great if you could put it on your to-do list. I'm a complete newbie in astrophysics and do not feel confident making this change as I don't know whether Robert's 1996 and 1998 references are good. You, on the other hand, are a real scientist and you know what you're doing. As a newbie, I assure you that newbies are very interested in what solar wind is composed of. It is the second question that comes to a newbie's mind after "what is it?". I can try searching arXiv for some papers on solar wind composition, but, again, I don't feel confident adding this as I don't even know if the solar wind composition is constant or changing with time / latitude of CME / type of CME. As a newbie, ideally, I would want to know the chemical composition and the range of energies. Hopefully, you will have time to do this. But if you absolutely don't have the time, please tell me, and I'll try to do it myself.
 * 2) What do you think of linking the first instance of the word "supersonic" to Ion acoustic wave? Newbies seem confused about what it means in this context. Or is it more accurate to link it to Magnetosonic wave? --46.242.13.121 (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, but it's going to be at least a week. And, yes, "supersonic" needs some work. Especially since someone might ask how you can have a speed of sound when everyone knows there's no sound in space. Technically it's the fast magnetosonic wave, although ion acoustic and magnetosonic modes are usually pretty much the same in the solar wind. Fcrary (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've replaced this: "At a distance of more than a few solar radii from the Sun, the solar wind is supersonic and reaches speeds of 250 to 750 kilometers per second."

 * with this: "At a distance of more than a few solar radii from the Sun, the solar wind reaches speeds of 250 to 750 kilometers per second and is supersonic, meaning it moves faster than the speed of the fast magnetosonic wave."

 * I wasn't able to find a proper citation, but it's better than what it was. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 * That sounds great. I can think of some references, but they're mostly textbooks or review papers. That's probably too much detail and they aren't on line. I think about it. Fcrary (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

What distribution by latitude ?
Heliospheric current sheet says "The solar wind is guided by the Sun's magnetic field and hence largely emanates from the polar regions of the Sun;" but it does not seem to be mentioned in this article. What is known about the properties of the solar wind away from the ecliptic or the suns equator ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Solar wind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920221334/http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/science/index.html to http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/science/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304072916/http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/news/solar-wind-ripping-chunks-mars/ to http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/news/solar-wind-ripping-chunks-mars/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

density of sunwind on Sun surface...
Sun radius : Earth orbit radius yields around 0.0043 or sth. Surface goes square so we have 50.000 times as much mass density of solar wind on Sun surface. exact values to our knowledge? Wikistallion (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 * You can't extrapolate that far. The 1/r^2 scaling only works if the radial velocity is constant, and it isn't once you get close to the Sun. We don't know the radial velocity profile all the way in, and I'm not even sure exactly what the "surface" of the Sun means. Fcrary (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge with "Stellar wind"
"Solar wind" is just the term we use to refer to stellar wind caused by our star. We don't make independent articles for all terms of this type, so why this one? 199.45.195.249 (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Solar wind


text:
Talk:The Boomer Bible

Comment
I came to this link via the improbable route of someone vandalising England. Read with interest - I've moved this here because it seems to me patently POV in character, but is far too large (aand, to be fair, interesting) just to delete or try to re-write.

Content
The Boomer Bible is a profound, multifaceted work that can be approached on many levels. The central theme of The Boomer Bible is the cynical self-interest of the Baby Boomer generation and their discovery of cocaine. This is only the core, however, and there are layers upon layers. In complexity, it is comparable to the Christian Bible, Greek mythology, or the works of Nietzsche, only funnier. In some ways, it is also similar to the Tarot and the I Ching. Most simplistically, it can be described as the worldview of the Baby Boomers as perceived by Punks itself as interpreted by the author.

Depending on the point of view of the reader, it is in places cynical, idealistic, burlesque, straightforward, satirical, hopeful, wistful, insulting, offensive, bigoted, fair, and vapid, but always scathing and always with more than appears on the surface. What one derives from The Boomer Bible is largely dependent upon what one brings to the experience. It requires an exegesis to explore fully. Historians may dismiss the books of history as inaccurate and reductionistic; sociologists may laugh with recognition at the social commentary; activists may become offended. Some may see Harry as a simple demon or evil man; others will see him as a tragic figure; and yet others may wonder what the problem is. All readers will see parts of themselves in The Boomer Bible, including parts that they do not like. Icundell 12:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page move
(from WP:RM)

Boomer bible → The Boomer Bible
You can see that the entry for 'Moby-Dick' is not 'Moby dick.' The entry for 'War and Peace' is not 'War and peace.'  The entry for 'Charlotte's Web' is not 'Charlotte's web.'  Nor do we find an entry for 'Brothers karamazov,' but, more appropriately, 'The Brothers Karamazov.' And, it should be noted, the entry title is not, 'Brothers Karamazov' either. It just seems that the entry 'Boomer bible' should be 'The Boomer Bible,' as the actual title of the book -- a point made directly regarding the lesser known 'Moby-Dick' title format. Of course, with re-directs from the prior entry name. If there is anything I need to help get this done, please let me know. It seems it is as far as we can push it. . . special thanks to Jonathunder and Icundell. BalowStar 18:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The Boomer Bible is the formal title of this work. Jonathunder 01:16, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
 * Support. If this is indeed the correct title, seems eminently sensible to me. Icundell 11:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. All I would add for consideration is the following from my correspondence with Vsmith:
 * The book's title is The Boomer Bible; it is not an edition of The Bible. —tregoweth 19:54, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Categories: Bible versions and translations - No
Removed from this category. It doesn't fit there. It seems to be more a parody and many would find it offensive. -Vsmith 05:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Novel wikiproject
I've added this to this NovelsWikiproject and moved it to the "1991 novels" category (instead of "1991 books" because at the time of its release it was promoted as a novel of sorts. Granted the form isn't conventional, but since there are references to it as such I think it's fair to include it in the project. 23skidoo 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Boomerbible.jpg
Image:Boomerbible.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement?
I'm having a hard time understanding why this article is flagged as reading like an advertisement. 72.71.236.40 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:The Boomer Bible


text:
Bentwisch

Bentwisch is a municipality in the Rostock district, in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany, to the east of Rostock. Since its merger with Klein Kussewitz in January 2018, the municipality has 3,174 inhabitants and covers 29.19 square kilometres. Due to its proximity to Rostock, the B 105, and the A 19, Bentwisch became a place of industry after German reunification.

Bentwisch has a substation for 220 kV/110kV and the static inverter plant of the HVDC Kontek. Both facilities are a few kilometres away from each other. In 2002 the static inverter plant Bentwisch was enlarged by a substion for 380 kV/110kV and between the static invertor plant and the 220 kV/110 kV-substation, which was built in difference to the static invertor plant at times, East Germany existed, a 110 kV powerline for 3 phase AC was built.

People

 * Emanuel Hirsch

title: Bentwisch


text:
Talk:Mateine

__NOINDEX__ The infomation listed on "mateine" is complete bunk. Mateine was made up by mate vendors to have a selling point for an awful tasting drink. I have a medical background and I have talked to doctors and non of them have heard of the substance.
 * Awful tasting is just your personal POV. I personally think that coffee is awful tasting. That doesn't mean that I'm going to go to its talk page and use it as an argument about the commercialization of coffee. Try making your point while sticking to a neutral point of view.—WAvegetarian• CONTRIBUTIONS TALK • EMAIL • 05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Mateine.
I would like someone to present some concrete evidence on the subject. Everybody cites everybody else. I know one thing for certain: There IS a difference between Mateine and Caffeine. The evidence is there: people that can't drink coffee, or are allergic to caffeine can drink maté. I am a maté drinker and have recommended it to several friends who could not drink coffee. None of them had the adverse reactions that coffee gave them. Evidently there is a difference, and people will have to admit it, be it a different element, or the maté having factors that alter the way your body responds to the Maté. Maybe mateine was invented by the maté industry, but it's hard for me to admit it due to the amount of people I've known that have tried maté.

Issachar
 * There isn't any difference between "mateine" and caffeine. The problem is that people assume that the only stimulant in coffee and black tea is caffeine. There is actually a whole cocktail of various types of stimulants, which is a different mix depending on the plant you are consuming. The mix found in yerba mate is different than that found in coffee. The allergic reaction is not from the caffeine alone but from the mix. It's like having a bad drug interaction. Caffeine (mateine) is a central nervous system stimulant; it is other things in the cocktail that cause jitters from coffee and smooth muscle tissue relaxation from mate. This whole argument is due to oversimplification. Chemistry is complicated. Don't expect everything to make sense when you simplify it. It's like trying to do physics without Calculus; it only half works.—WAvegetarian• CONTRIBUTIONS TALK • EMAIL • 05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mateine


text:
River Avoca

The Avoca (Abhainn Abhóca) is a river in County Wicklow, Ireland. It is contained completely within the county. Its length is 35 miles (56.3 km).

The Avoca starts life as two rivers, the Avonmore and the Avonbeg. These join at a spot called the Meeting of the Waters (Cumar an dá Uisce) in the Vale of Avoca, which is considered a local beauty spot, and was celebrated by Thomas Moore in his song of the same name. ''There is not in the wide world a valley so sweet,

''As the vale in whose bosom the bright waters meet;

''Oh, the last rays of feeling and life must depart,

Ere the bloom of that valley shall fade from my heart.

The village of Avoca is situated on the river.

The Avoca flows into the Irish Sea at Arklow where it widens into a large estuary, giving Arklow its Irish language name an t-Inbhear Mór (the big inlet). The catchment area of the Avoca is 652 km2. The long term average flow rate of the Avoca is 20.2 cubic metres per second (m3/s)

Name
The Avoca was originally called Abhainn Mhór / Abhainn Dé (great river/God's river); the present name was derived from Oboka (Οβοκα), the name of a river in Ptolemy's Geography, which was thought to correspond to the Avoca (Ovoca). However, Oboka more likely refers to the Liffey.

Industry
The valley of the Avoca has a large copper mine, and further downstream was the NET fertiliser factory (closed since 2002). These are said to have contributed greatly to pollution in the lower reaches of the river.

Transport
The railway line from Dublin to Rosslare also passes along the Vale of Avoca, cutting inland from its mainly coastal route and the R752 road tightly follows the west bank of the Avoca from The Meetings to Arklow.

title: River Avoca


text:
Avoca, County Wicklow

Avoca is a small town near Arklow, in County Wicklow, Ireland. It is situated on the River Avoca.

The Avoca area has been associated with its copper mines for many years and the valley has been celebrated by Thomas Moore in the song "The Meeting of the Waters". The name of the song derives from the meeting of the Avonmore and Avonbeg rivers, about 3 kilometres from the village of Avoca. The song is said to have been written under a tree, the stump of which remains by the Meetings. Avoca is also famous for its handweaving, with Avoca Handweavers based there.

Avoca has been used as a filming location for several films and television series. The BBC series Ballykissangel was filmed there. In 1967, Avoca was one of the locations used in the film Jules Verne's Rocket to the Moon, and it was the setting for the comedy film Zonad which had a general Irish release in 2010.

The red kite, recently reintroduced to Ireland, is now commonly seen in and around Avoca.

Toponymy
Avoca was once known as Newbridge. It subsequently became known as Ovoca, and then in Victorian times as Avoca. Ptolemy mentions the river Oboka on his early map of Ireland. The official name of the village is now Avoca in English and Abhóca in Irish. None of the other names are used today.

Mining
Copper mining is reported to have begun in the Avoca River valley around 1720 and it continued, with interruptions, until 1982. Earlier mining, perhaps dating back to the Bronze Age, may have occurred. The East Avoca site, today, is composed mainly of a number of rock waste spoil heaps, abandoned quarries (Cronebane and East Avoca open pits) and disused roads. The largest spoil heap, Mount Platt, was built up from waste rock excavated from Cronebane open pit. There was a mineral tramway built from the West Avoca mines, through the village (on the opposite side of the river) and on to Arklow Harbour. The route of most of this was subsumed into the Dublin-Rosslare railway line, but an arch and a tunnel under the road from Rathdrum to Avoca remains.

Transport
Avoca lies on the R752 regional road linking Rathnew with Woodenbridge. The village is served by Bus Éireann route 133 from Dublin (66 km) and Wicklow (21 km) to Arklow (10 km), with two departures in each direction on Mondays to Saturdays and one each way on Sundays.

There has been some local political pressure to reopen Avoca railway station, from which passenger services were withdrawn on 3 March 1964, almost 101 years after its opening, on the Dublin-Rosslare railway line, on 18 July 1863.

International relations
Avoca has a town twinning agreement with Bromham, Wiltshire in England.

Notable people

 * Noel Andrews (1932–2011), Irish radio and television commentator ran The Avoca Inn from 1970 to 1990
 * George Barret Sr. (c. 1730–1784), Irish landscape artist painted at Avoca
 * Niall Byrne, guitarist in Irish band The Redneck Manifesto
 * Oliver Byrne (1810–1880), civil engineer and author of scientific works was born in the Vale of Avoca
 * Harry Harrison (1925–2012), American science fiction author lived in the area in the 1970s
 * Lawrence Kavenagh (c. 1810–1846), Irish-Australian convict bushranger was born in either Newbridge (now called Avoca) or nearby Rathdrum
 * Pauline Mellon, Irish mathematician was born in the town
 * Abraham Mills (c. 1750–1828), English mining company manager and geologist, one of the earliest advocates of investment in Irish gold mining, spent time mining for copper in Avoca
 * John O'Hagan (1873–1930), Irish priest who served as Rector of the Pontifical Irish College in Rome from 1919 to 1930 was born in Ballykillageer near the town
 * Akihiko Okamura (1929-1985), Japanese photographer
 * Chris Pontius (born 1974), American stunt performer and cast member of reality stunt show Jackass lived in the town from 2004 to 2008
 * Donald Pratt (born 1935), Irish businessman and former first-class cricketer purchased Avoca Handweavers in 1974
 * Günther Schütz (1912–1991), German citizen who worked for German Intelligence (Abwehr) during World War II retired in Avoca
 * Emily Wynne (1872–1958), Irish author and textile artist worked at Avoca Woollen Mills

title: Avoca, County Wicklow


text:
St Lawrence Church, Morden

St Lawrence Church is the Church of England parish church for Morden in the London Borough of Merton. The building is Grade I listed, and located on London Road, at the highest point of Morden, overlooking Morden Park. Morden Parish consists of four churches in total, the other three are Emmanuel (Stonecot Hill), St Martin's (Lower Morden) and St George's (Central Road, Morden).

History
St Lawrence Church was built in 1636. It is probable that it replaced an earlier building. The nearby Merton Abbey was closed by Henry VIII as part of the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the estate sold. Edward Whitchurch and Lionel Dutchet purchased it, but left for Europe when Queen Mary came to the throne. The site then came into the ownership of the Garth family.

Exterior
The building is designed in Gothic style and features stone dressings and a red tiled, steeply pitched roof. The exterior is mainly of red brick. The church features an aisleless, 4-bay nave which has pointed, two-light windows. The nave continues into the short chancel. There is a square, 3 stage west tower and a projecting south west porch with a pointed arched and moulded doorway, later restored in 1887. The north vestry was added in 1805. There is a 'Y' tracery, cusped four-light east window with later perpendicular tracery.

Interior
The interior walls of St Lawrence are plastered and whitewashed. There are exposed tie beams and king posts under the circular shaped roof. The west gallery was added in 1792. There is an original stained and painted glass window to the east which features a design of Moses and Aaron, and various wall monuments. The interior features an inlaid timber pulpit, which originates from 1720 and has sounding-board over it for amplification. The tower houses three bells which, owing to restrictions placed by Historic England in order to preserve the frame, can only be tolled.

Activities
There are services every Sunday at 9:00am, 10:30am, and 6:30pm. The 10:30am service has children's activities - the children join in the first part of the service before leaving for Sunday Club.

Leadership and staff

 * Revd David Heath-Whyte - Team Rector
 * The Rt Revd Precious Omuku — honorary curate. Omuku is an assistant bishop in the Diocese of Southwark, having been consecrated bishop in South Sudan on 3 January 2016.

title: St Lawrence Church, Morden


text:
Monfarracinos

Monfarracinos is a municipality in Zamora, a province in the autonomous community of Castile-Leon, Spain. It is located 5 km. north of the capital in the direction of Villalpando.

title: Monfarracinos


text: Category:Ethiopian cuisine

title: Category:Ethiopian cuisine


text:
Category:British ministries

This category identifies articles on British ministries, in the sense of successive governments.

title: Category:British ministries


text:
1972 Norwegian European Communities membership referendum

A referendum on joining the European Community was held in Norway on 25 September 1972. After a long period of heated debate, the "no" side won with 53.5% of the vote. Prime Minister Trygve Bratteli, who had championed a "yes" vote, resigned as a result. This was Norway's second attempt at becoming a member, after having been vetoed by France in January 1963 and again temporarily in 1967, but the first attempt with a referendum on a set of fully negotiated accession terms.

Endorsement
{{Endorsements box }}
 * title = Vote in favor of EF
 * columns = yes
 * list =
 * Gullsmedfagets Rasjonaliseringsselskap
 * Hotel and Restaurant Workers' Union
 * Norwegian Conservative Party's Women's Association
 * Conservative Party
 * Kortevare- og Leketøygrossitenes Landsforening
 * {{ill|Kosmetikkleverandørenes forening|no}}
 * Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions
 * Libertas
 * Lærvarehandlernes Landsforening
 * Malermestrenes Landsforbund
 * {{{ill|Mineralvannsfabrikkenes Landsforening|no}}
 * Møbelprodusentenes Landsforening
 * Nordic Group
 * Norges Sildesalgslag
 * Norwegian Motor Trade Association
 * Norwegian Export Council
 * Norges Farvehandlerforbund
 * Norges Ferskfiskeomsetnings Landsforening
 * Norges Glass- og Stentøihandleres Forbund
 * Norges Gullsmedforbund
 * Union of Employees in Commerce and Offices
 * {{ill|Norges Handelsstands Forbund|no}}
 * Federation of Norwegian Industries (1919–1989)
 * {{ill|Norges dagligvareforbund|no|Norges Kolonial- og Landhandlerforbund}}
 * Conservative Students' Association (Oslo)
 * Norwegian Shipowners' Association
 * Norges Skibsførerforbund
 * Norges Tekstilkjøpmenns Forbund
 * Norges Treforedlingsråd
 * Norwegian Employers' Confederation
 * Norwegian Union of Building Industry Workers
 * Norwegian Union of Electricians and Power Station Officials
 * Norsk Elektroteknisk Forening
 * Norwegian Prison and Probation Officers' Union
 * Norsk gullsmedarbeiderforbund
 * Norwegian Union of Chemical Industry Workers
 * Norwegian Union of Municipal Employees
 * National Union of Norwegian Locomotivemen
 * Norsk Medisinalindustris Felleskontor
 * Norwegian Union of Food, Beverage and Allied Workers
 * Norwegian Union of Paper Industry Workers
 * Norwegian Union of Postmen
 * Norwegian Seafarers' Union
 * Norsk Skibsmæglerforbund
 * Norwegian Union of Forestry and Land Workers
 * Norwegian Union of Telecommunication Workers
 * Norwegian Civil Service Union
 * Norwegian Union of Wood Industry Workers
 * Norsk Agenters Landsforbund
 * Norske Fiskerprodusenters Forening
 * Norske Forsikringselskerps forbund
 * Norske håndverks- og Industribedrifters Forbund
 * Norske Papirhandlers Landsforbund
 * Norske Svovelkisprodusenters Forening
 * Parfymehandlernes Landsforbund
 * Polyteknisk Forenings Gruppe for Bedriftsledelse
 * Redernes Arbeidsgiverforening
 * Skibsfartens Arbeidsgiverforening
 * {{ill|Skogbruksforeningen av 1950|no|Norskog}}
 * Statstjenestemannskartellet
 * Norwegian Young Conservatives


text:
Luigi Lucioni

Luigi Lucioni (born Giuseppe Luigi Carlo Benevenuto Lucioni; November 4, 1900 – July 22, 1988) was an Italian American painter known for his still lifes, landscapes, and portraits.

Early years and immigration to the United States
Luigi Lucioni was born on November 4, 1900, in Malnate, Italy, which lies in a mountainous region approximately 30 miles north of Milan, in the foothills of the Alps near the border between Italy and Switzerland. Lucioni's parents, Angelo and Maria Beati Lucioni, who were married in 1890, were from the nearby region of Castiglione Olona, as were Lucioni's grandparents. Lucioni had three older sisters: Angela (b. 1891), Alice (b. 1893) and Aurora (b. 1897), and the family lived in a two-room apartment with no gas, running water or a bathtub. As Lucioni's grandmother was upset by the "pagan" names given to his sisters, his parents named him Giuseppe Luigi Carlo Benevenuto Lucioni, naming him after three saints, in order to make amends with her. Lucioni, who was greatly influenced by his strict disciplinarian mother, called her "La Bella Beati", or a beautiful blonde woman. His father Angelo was a coppersmith, but was not a good businessman, and often did not follow through by collecting from his customers. As was customary, Lucioni wore skirts until he was six years old, and clearly remembered wearing pants for the first time during a church holiday in 1906. As a child, Lucioni came to adore the natural beauty of the hills and mountainsides when he explored the region between Malnate and the Swiss border, and showed an early interest in art, in particular drawing, possibly influenced by a cousin of his father's, who also harbored a talent for drawing. Lucioni's first classes were in geometrical drawing, and at age six, his talent caught the attention of his teacher, Miss Gadisco, a woman from Varese who had some artistic training herself, and who encouraged him to pursue drawing and etching as a career.

Members of the Lucionis extended family had emigrated to the Transvaal Colony in Africa and to South America, which was a favored destination of northern Italians at the time, and because of the poor economy of 1900s Italy. 40-year-old Angelo emigrated to New York City in 1906, and after establishing himself as a coppersmith and tinsmith, sent for the rest of the family. Maria, having heard about the "savages and Indians" in the United States, took Lucioni to Milan, his first time in a big city, where he was confirmed in the Duomo in order to protect his soul. On July 15, 1911, the family boarded the ship Duke of Genoa for the U.S. Despite traveling steerage, Lucioni recalled the trip as "really nice". After being quarantined for nine days in the sweltering August heat in New York Harbor with 350 other third class passengers due to a cholera report, the ship landed at 34th Street pier on August 9, and the family was transferred to Ellis Island. While being processed there, they had to have several injections, and the embarrassment of having to expose her derrière in front of strangers caused the very modest and sensitive Angela to nearly have a nervous breakdown. The family then moved in with Angelo in the apartment he rented on Christopher Street in Manhattan.

Maria, who had never lived in a large city, took an immediate dislike to living in New York, and threatened to return to Malnate if the family did not move to a smaller town. On the suggestion of an American that the family had met on the Duke of Genoa, the family moved to North Bergen, New Jersey, and then several more times before settling in 1929 at 403 New York Avenue in Union City, New Jersey. Lucioni spent four years learning English on the streets of his newly adopted country, and was not placed in first grade until age 11. His life as an American was initially difficult for him, as he endured some bigotry from neighborhood children who called him a "guinea wop". He was made to scrub the home's wooden floor on his hands and knees, and not permitted to go out and play until this task was completed, which he credited with instilling in him a sense of discipline that served him well in his artistic life.

Education and early career
Lucioni advanced through his grades and won an academic medal in 1916. After completing the eighth grade, he did not attend school until college. He did take drawing lessons for several years at a drawing school where he worked every night after his studies concluded, copying the plaster heads. He left the school after he refused to acknowledge an instructor's criticism of his perspective. At age 15, Lucioni entered a competition for admission to Cooper Union and was accepted, taking evening classes while working at a Brooklyn engraving company during the day. The school curriculum was divided into four years, in which he would study geometric shapes, then drawing heads, then antiquities and then finally, drawing from life. For painting, he studied under William de Leftwich Dodge. As Lucioni recalls it, Dodge was initially not interested in Lucioni's work, and made his feelings known, but was kind and gentle, and allowed Lucioni to visit his studio on West 9th Street, where Lucioni received sound criticism. Lucioni cites Dodge as an influence in his own realization that one's belief in oneself is the key to fully realize one's own artistic vision, and not the adoption of contemporary trends in art or catering to others' expectations, a theme that Lucioni would express in his career. At age 19, Lucioni entered New York City's National Academy of Design, where he was introduced to the medium of etching through his instructor in that discipline, William Auerbach-Levy. Lucioni attended school in the morning, and worked in the art department at Fairchild Publications, which published Women's Wear Daily. He also took composition classes at Cooper Union.

During this time Lucioni lived at home, where his father's $20 a week salary allowed Lucioni, who never felt poor, to buy a new suit each Easter, though he and Angelo never developed a strong rapport, due to their separation between 1906 and 1911, and the fact that Angelo never learned English. In 1922, Lucioni took his father to his first opera, Aida, but his father was indifferent, and never came to share Lucioni's passion for opera. When Maria died in 1922, a great loss for Lucioni, her domestic duties were taken over by Aurora and Alice. Though Lucioni was devoted to Alice, he never formed a very close relationship with Angela, due to the differences in their ages. Angela joined a convent for some period of time, but left due to poor health, dying in 1926 at the age of 34. Lucioni, Alice and Aurora lived in a town house at 33 West 10th Street in New York during the winters, and at a farmhouse in Manchester, Vermont in the summer. Aurora died in 1981 and Alice in 1983.

Career
Lucioni's work was marketed through Associated American Artists in New York.

Lucioni's portrait of Paul Cadmus was included in the Brooklyn Museum's show "Youth and Beauty: Art of the American Twenties" (winter 2010–2011) and was reproduced for the show's poster.

In 1938, Lucioni met Ethel Waters through their mutual friend, Carl Van Vechten. After several months, Lucioni asked Waters if he could paint her portrait and she readily agreed so a sitting was arranged at his studio on Washington Square. Waters bought the finished portrait from Lucioni in 1939 for $500. Waters was at the height of her career in 1939, at that time, she was the first African American to have a starring role on Broadway and was already a jazz and blues legend. In her portrait, Waters wears a beautifully tailored red dress with an elegant mink coat draped over the back of her chair. Not until one actually views this portrait in person can one feel the human emotion that Lucioni so deftly articulated on canvas. He positioned Waters with her arms tightly wrapped around her waist, a gesture that conveys a sense of vulnerability as if she were trying to protect herself. Intentional or not, this gesture is aptly symbolic of the challenges she faced as an impoverished African American woman growing up in a social climate of racial and gender discrimination.

In 2017, the Huntsville Museum of Art (HMA) acquired the historic Portrait of Ethel Waters. HMA Executive Director, Christopher J. Madkour, and Luigi Lucioni Historian, Dr. Stuart Embury, heard of the painting and were able to track down its whereabouts. The painting was thought to be lost since it had not been viewed by the public since 1942, but the two traced it to a private residence in 2016 and learned the family had plans to auction the painting off in the coming months. The owner graciously allowed the Huntsville Museum of Art to display Portrait of Ethel Waters in the exhibition, American Romantic: The Art of Luigi Lucioni, where it was viewed by the public for the first time in over 70 years. The museum successfully negotiated the purchase of Portrait of Ethel Waters and, thanks in large part to the generosity of the Huntsville community, Lucioni's Portrait of Ethel Waters now has a new home at the Huntsville Museum of Art in Huntsville, Alabama where it will be made accessible for public viewing.

title: Luigi Lucioni


text: Talk:Cianjur

title: Talk:Cianjur


text:
Bad Blood

Bad Blood may refer to:

Films

 * Bad Blood (1981 film), a British-New Zealand thriller by Mike Newell
 * Bad Blood (1986 film) (Mauvais Sang), a French film by Leos Carax
 * Bad Blood, a 1999 British television film written by Tony Marchant
 * Bad Blood (2004 film), a Chilean crime drama action film by León Errázuriz
 * Bad Blood (2010 film), a Hong Kong crime film by Dennis Law
 * Bad Blood: A Cautionary Tale, a 2010 American documentary by Marilyn Ness
 * Bad Blood (2011 film), an American drama by Michael Yebba
 * Bad Blood (2017 film), an Australian thriller film by David Pulbrook
 * Batman: Bad Blood, a 2016 animated superhero film

Television

 * Bad Blood (TV series), a 2017–2018 Canadian TV series
 * WWE Bad Blood, a professional wrestling pay-per-view event

Episodes

 * "Bad Blood" (All Grown Up!)
 * "Bad Blood" (Burn Notice)
 * "Bad Blood" (Degrassi High)
 * "Bad Blood" (Doctor Who Confidential)
 * "Bad Blood" (The Dresden Files)
 * "Bad Blood" (Foyle's War)
 * "Bad Blood" (Grey's Anatomy)
 * "Bad Blood" (Haven)
 * "Bad Blood" (Hit the Floor)
 * "Bad Blood" (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)
 * "Bad Blood" (Legends of Tomorrow)
 * "Bad Blood" (Once Upon a Time in Wonderland)
 * "Bad Blood" (Prison Break)
 * "Bad Blood" (Robin Hood)
 * "Bad Blood" (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles)
 * "Bad Blood" (True Blood)
 * "Bad Blood" (Will & Grace)
 * "Bad Blood" (Wycliffe)
 * "Bad Blood" (The X-Files)

Literature

 * Bad Blood (Buffy comic), a 1999–2000 Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic
 * Bad Blood (Sage book), a 2000 memoir by Lorna Sage
 * Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup, a 2018 nonfiction book about Theranos by John Carreyrou
 * Bad Blood: A Walk Along the Irish Border, a 1987 book by Colm Tóibín
 * Hellblazer Special: Bad Blood, a 2000 Hellblazer comic book limited series
 * Bad Blood, a volume in the Creation Cinema series
 * Bad Blood, a 1981 history of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment by James Jones
 * Bad Blood, a 2007 novel by Rhiannon Lassiter
 * Bad Blood, a 2010 Virgil Flowers novel by John Sandford
 * Bad Blood, a 2010 Being Human novel by James Goss
 * Bad Blood, a chapter of the 1993 novel Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh

Albums

 * Bad Blood (Bastille album) or the title song (see below), 2013
 * Bad Blood (Blood on the Dance Floor album) or the title song, 2013
 * Bad Blood (Gerling album) or the title song, 2003
 * Bad Blood (Ice album), 1998
 * Bad Blood, by Peter Dolving, 2003

Songs

 * "Bad Blood" (Bastille song), 2012
 * "Bad Blood" (Ministry song), 1999
 * "Bad Blood" (Neil Sedaka song), 1975
 * "Bad Blood" (Siobhan Fahey song), 2005
 * "Bad Blood" (Supergrass song), 2008
 * "Bad Blood" (Taylor Swift song), 2014
 * "Bad Blood", by Amorphis from Under the Red Cloud, 2015
 * "Bad Blood", by Asking Alexandria from Where Do We Go from Here?, 2023
 * "Bad Blood", by the Bonzo Dog Band from Let's Make Up and Be Friendly, 1972
 * "Bad Blood", by Boy George and Culture Club from Life, 2018
 * "Bad Blood", by Bright Eyes from Noise Floor (Rarities: 1998–2005), 2006
 * "Bad Blood", by Doro from Angels Never Die, 1993
 * "Bad Blood", by Escape the Fate from This War Is Ours, 2008
 * "Bad Blood", by Europe from Prisoners in Paradise, 1991
 * "Bad Blood", by Jess Glynne from I Cry When I Laugh, 2015
 * "Bad Blood", by Phinehas from Thegodmachine, 2011
 * "Bad Blood", by Radical Face from The Family Tree: The Leaves, 2016
 * "Bad Blood", by Simian Mobile Disco from Temporary Pleasure, 2009
 * "Bad Blood", by Ten Years After from About Time, 1989

Video games

 * Bad Blood (video game), a 1990 action role-playing game
 * Dying Light: Bad Blood, a 2018 multiplayer expansion of Dying Light

Other uses

 * Bad blood, a name in the U.S. South for various illnesses including syphilis, anemia, and fatigue; see Tuskegee syphilis experiment

title: Bad Blood


text:
Morden Park

Morden Park is an area within the district of Morden in the London Borough of Merton, and includes the Park itself, an area of green space in an otherwise dense cluster of 1930s suburban housing.

The present park and sports fields between Hillcross Avenue, London Road/Epsom Road and Lower Morden Lane are owned and managed by the London Borough of Merton parks department and cover land that previously formed the grounds of Morden Park House, a small 18th-century country estate (not to be confused with Morden Hall Park, the National Trust property close to Morden town centre).

History
The estate originally comprised enclosed parkland, a small Georgian country house built at the top of the hill in the 1770s for merchant and distiller John Ewart with attached landscaped gardens and a farm called Morden Park Farm. By the mid-1780s the estate was in the possession of the Polhill family. One member of the family, Edward Polhill, bequeathed £1,000 in 1826 to the parish church for the benefit of the Sunday school.

Between the 1880s and the 1910s the estate was occupied by banker John Wormald.

The entrance to the Park, from London Road is now dominated by South Thames College, Merton Campus. This was built on the site of a Pig Farm which was destroyed by fire at some point in the late 1940s or early 1950s. The derelict sites remained in place for some years until the early 1960s when clearing began for the College. During this period many bones could be found amongst the rubble; these have been assumed by archaeologists to be those of pigs. Children from the Council Estate opposite the entrance at Hatfield Mead used this area as an adventure playground for many years. At this period a Gatehouse (occupied until its demolition in the 1960s) was prominent at the entry.

Bordering the park to the South West, next to The George Inn was the RG Jones Recording Studios where a number of Pop Groups in the 60's (including notably The Rolling Stones) had recording sessions.

Geography
At the bottom of the hill in the direction of Lower Morden runs a small brook.

A large circular mound in the park has been identified as a possible burial mound from the Iron Age, Roman or Saxon periods. Archaeological investigations were carried out in the 1950s although no conclusive proof as to its date or purpose were found. English Heritage believes that the earthwork was remodelled at some time into a belvedere, or viewing platform, with a spiral path to ascend it. Between 1960 and the mid-1990s a cycle speedway track sat alongside the mound, which was home to Morden Cycle Speedway Club. The track has since been demolished but it's still possible to find signs of the track's existence. A local Aero Modelling Club used the area South of the Mound on Sunday Mornings for flying practice.

Amenities
Morden Park House remains and, after many years of neglect and semi-dereliction, has recently been restored and is now the local register office and a venue for wedding ceremonies.

title: Morden Park


text:
Chevelle Hallback

Chevelle Lynvette Hallback (born September 3, 1971) is a female boxer from Plant City, Florida. Hallback, nicknamed "Fist of Steel", has been featured on television many times, usually fighting the biggest names in the sport. Hallback is among the most recognized female boxers in the world.

Career
Hallback began her professional boxing career on February 21, 1997, beating Connie Plosser by a first round knockout in Miami. In just her second fight, Hallback faced Lucia Rijker, who many considered the best pound-for-pound female boxer in the world at the time. Hallback was defeated by Rijker on March 22, losing by a fifth round technical knockout. Although she lost the fight, Hallback gave Rijker some trouble before Rijker's experience and conditioning edge took over.

After two consecutive wins, she fought for her first world title, and, on February 6, 1998, she became the WIBF's world Featherweight champion by knocking out Bonnie Canino in seven rounds.

In 1999, she only had one fight, which resulted in a non-title defense win. She challenged for her second world title, the IFBA world Jr. Lightweight title, when she faced Doris Hackl on April 26, 2000 in Kenner, Louisiana. Hallback failed to win the title by dropping a ten round majority decision to Hackl. Many people who saw that fight, including the TV commentators, thought Hallback did enough to win the fight. Her next fight was also very important, as she faced Laura Serrano on July 8, 2001 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Despite having been out of the ring for fifteen months before this fight, Hallback lost a six round majority decision to the Mexican fighter.

Four months later, on November 16, she fought for the WIBA world Jr. Lightweight title, in Austin, Texas, against Snodene Blakeney but had to settle for a 2nd round technical draw when Blakeney was accidentally cut by a headbutt. This was followed by two back to back wins over Brenda Drexel.

After two more wins, including a fourth round knockout of Drexel in their third bout, she challenged Alicia Ashley for the IBA world Jr. Lightweight title, on August 27, 2002, at Savannah, Georgia. Hallback outpointed Ashley over ten rounds.

Her next three bouts were non title affairs, and Hallback won each of them in two rounds or less.

She would have defended her IBA world Jr. Lightweight title for the first time on December 28, 2002, against Layla McCarter in Savannah. McCarter, however, suffered an injury during training one week prior to the fight. The promoters could not find an opponent, and McCarter decided to go on with the fight as scheduled, but the IBA decided it would be another non-title fight. Hallback won by a ten round unanimous decision.

Next, Hallback faced the ex-welterweight champ Mitzi Jeter twice in a row, beating her each time by six round unanimous decisions. On May 31, 2003, she met Britt Van Buskirk, winning by a six round decision, and Brenda Drexel for a fourth time, defeating Drexel by a six round decision.

Her next fight, against Melissa Del Valle, was a long-awaited match-up. Hallback retained the IBA Jr. Lightweight title with a ten round unanimous decision on August 30, and she followed that victory with a first round knockout win over Michelle Ewing.

Her luck ran out, however, when she moved up 10 pounds and 2 weight classes to meet Mary Jo Sanders on May 20, 2004, for the IBA continental Jr. Welterweight title, when she lost a ten round decision to the much bigger Sanders.

Hallback returned to 130 pounds, and back to her winning ways June 4, when she was rematched with Canino, in Oregon. Hallback won by a fourth round knockout.

Her next fight was another rematch, as she was finally able to defend her IBA Jr. Lightweight title against McCarter, on July 2, at San Diego, California. Hallback retained the title by a ten round unanimous decision.

Hallback then travelled to Tokyo Japan, and on March 13, 2005, she beat Emiko Raika by 10 round unanimous decision to win the WIBA Super Featherweight World Title.

On November 18, 2005, in Edmonton Alberta Canada, Hallback won a 10-round unanimous decision over Belinda Laracuente, defending her WIBA title.

On 7 May 2011, she will face the undefeated Norwegian boxer, Cecilia Brækhus, in Copenhagen.

Professional boxing record

 * style="text-align:center;" colspan="8"|32 Wins (13 knockouts, 20 decisions), 8 Losses, 2 Draws
 * - style="text-align:center; background:#e3e3e3;"
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Res.
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Record
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; width:175px; "|Opponent
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Type
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Rd., Time
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Date
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Location
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Notes
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 32–8–2
 * align=left|🇭🇺 Szilvia Szabados
 * Decision (unanimous) || 6
 * 2019-11-02 || align=left| Sun Dome, Tampa, Florida
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 31–8–2
 * align=left|🇭🇺 Szilvia Szabados
 * Decision (unanimous) || 6
 * 2019-09-21 || align=left| Marriott Clearwater, Saint Petersburg, Florida
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 30–8–2
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Victoria Cisneros
 * TKO || 8 (10)
 * 2014-08-22 || align=left| St. Pete Times Forum, Tampa, Florida
 * vacant WBF World Female Welterweight Title
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 29–8–2
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Dominga Olivo
 * TKO || 2 (6)
 * 2014-06-13 || align=left| St. Pete Times Forum, Tampa, Florida
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * 28–8–2
 * align=left|🇫🇷 Myriam Lamare
 * Decision (unanimous) || 10
 * 2011-11-05 || align=left|🇫🇷 Palais des Sports, Toulon, France
 * vacant IBF World Female Super Lightweight Title
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * 28–7–2
 * align=left|🇳🇴 Cecilia Brækhus
 * Decision (unanimous) || 10
 * 2011-05-07 || align=left| Koncerthuset, Copenhagen, Denmark
 * WBA, WBC & WBO Welterweight Title
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 28–6–2
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Victoria Cisneros
 * Decision (split) || 8
 * 2010–12-03 || align=left| Route 66 Casino, Albuquerque, New Mexico
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * 27–6–2
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Holly Holm
 * Decision (unanimous) || 10
 * 2010-03–26 || align=left| Isleta Casino & Resort, Albuquerque, New Mexico
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 27–5–2
 * align=left|🇨🇦 Jeannine Garside
 * Decision (split) || 10
 * 2008-06–13 || align=left| Isleta Casino & Resort, Albuquerque, New Mexico
 * vacant WBAN World Lightweight & vacant IFBA World Lightweight Titles
 * - align=center
 * Draw
 * 26–5–2
 * align=left| Melissa Hernández
 * Points || 10
 * 2008-02-07 || align=left| Pechanga Resort & Casino, Temecula, California
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 26–5–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Terri Blair
 * Decision (unanimous) || 8
 * 2007-07-02 || align=left| Pechanga Resort & Casino, Temecula, California
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * 25–5–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Holly Holm
 * Decision (unanimous) || 10
 * 2007-05–23 || align=left| Tingley Coliseum, Albuquerque, New Mexico
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 25–4–1
 * align=left| Belinda Laracuente
 * Decision (unanimous) || 10
 * 2005–11–18 || align=left|🇨🇦 Shaw Conference Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
 * WIBA Super Featherweight Title
 * - align=center
 * NC
 * 24–4–1
 * align=left| Melissa Del Valle
 * No decision || 3
 * 2005-10–07 || align=left| A La Carte Event Pavilion, Tampa, Florida
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 24–4–1
 * align=left|🇯🇵 Emiko Raika
 * Decision (unanimous) || 10
 * 2005–03–13 || align=left|🇯🇵 Velfarre, Roppongi, Tokyo, Japan
 * WIBA Super Featherweight Title
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 23–4–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Kim Colbert
 * TKO || 2
 * 2005-01–26 || align=left| A La Carte Event Pavilion, Kansas City, Missouri
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 22–4–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Layla McCarter
 * Decision (unanimous) || 10
 * 2004-07-02 || align=left| Pala Casino, Pala, California
 * WIBA Super Featherweight Title
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 21–4–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Bonnie Canino
 * TKO || 4
 * 2004-06–04 || align=left| Chinook Winds Casino, Lincoln City, Oregon
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * 20–4–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Mary Jo Sanders
 * Points || 10
 * 2004-05–20 || align=left| Kewadin Casino, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 20–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Michelle Ewing
 * TKO || 1
 * 2003-09–20 || align=left| Jarrell's Gym, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 19–3–1
 * align=left| Melissa Del Valle
 * Decision (unanimous) || 10
 * 2003-08–30 || align=left| Civic Center, Savannah, Georgia
 * IBA Super Featherweight Title
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 18–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Brenda Drexel
 * Decision (unanimous) || 6
 * 2003-06–28 || align=left| Jarrell's Gym, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 17–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Britt Van Buskirk
 * Decision (unanimous) || 6
 * 2003-05–31 || align=left| Jarrell's Gym, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 16–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Mitzi Jeter
 * Decision (unanimous) || 6
 * 2003-04–26 || align=left| Jarrell's Gym, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 15–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Mitzi Jeter
 * Decision (unanimous) || 6
 * 2003-03–29 || align=left| Jarrell's Gym, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 14–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Layla McCarter
 * Decision (unanimous) || 10
 * 2002-12–28 || align=left| Johnny Mercer Theater, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 13–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Willicia Moorehead
 * KO || 1
 * 2002-11–22 || align=left| Civic Center, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 12–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Vicky Clardy
 * KO || 1
 * 2002-10–20 || align=left| Civic Center, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 11–3–1
 * align=left| Vanessa Pine
 * KO || 2
 * 2002-09–27 || align=left| Civic Center, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 10–3–1
 * align=left|🇯🇲 Alicia Ashley
 * Decision (unanimous) || 10
 * 2002-08–27 || align=left| Civic Center, Savannah, Georgia
 * IBA Super Featherweight Title
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 9–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Brenda Drexel
 * TKO || 4
 * 2002-06–29 || align=left| Civic Center, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 8–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Carla Witherspoon
 * Decision (unanimous) || 6
 * 2002-06–04 || align=left| Morrell Park, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 7–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Brenda Drexel
 * Decision (unanimous) || 6
 * 2002-04–27 || align=left| Jarrell's Gym, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 6–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Brenda Drexel
 * Decision (unanimous) || 6
 * 2002-03–22 || align=left| Civic Center, Savannah, Georgia
 * - align=center
 * Draw
 * 5–3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Snodene Blakeney
 * Decision (technical) || 3
 * 2001-11–16 || align=left| Convention Center, Austin, Texas
 * WIBA Super Featherweight Title
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * 5–3
 * align=left|🇲🇽 Laura Serrano
 * Decision (majority) || 6
 * 2001-07–08 || align=left| Texas Station Casino, North Las Vegas, Nevada
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * 5–2
 * align=left|🇨🇦 Doris Hackl
 * Decision (majority) || 10
 * 2000-04–26 || align=left| New Orleans, Louisiana
 * IFBA Super Featherweight Title
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 5–1
 * align=left| Hayde Nuñez
 * Decision (unanimous) || 4
 * 1999-06–11 || align=left| Bossier City, Louisiana
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 4–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Bonnie Canino
 * TKO || 7
 * 1998-03–06 || align=left| Memorial Auditorium, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
 * WIBF Featherweight Title
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Bethany Payne
 * TKO || 1
 * 1997-09–20 || align=left| Round 1 Gym, Boca Raton, Florida
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 2–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Judy Mayrand
 * TKO || 1
 * 1997-05–21 || align=left| Tallahassee, Florida
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * 1–1
 * align=left| Lucia Rijker
 * TKO || 5
 * 1997-03–22 || align=left| Memorial Coliseum, Corpus Christi, Texas
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 1-0
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Connie Plosser
 * TKO || 1
 * 1997-02–21 || align=left| Mahi Temple Shrine Auditorium, Miami, Florida
 * TKO || 7
 * 1998-03–06 || align=left| Memorial Auditorium, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
 * WIBF Featherweight Title
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 3–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Bethany Payne
 * TKO || 1
 * 1997-09–20 || align=left| Round 1 Gym, Boca Raton, Florida
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 2–1
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Judy Mayrand
 * TKO || 1
 * 1997-05–21 || align=left| Tallahassee, Florida
 * - align=center
 * Loss
 * 1–1
 * align=left| Lucia Rijker
 * TKO || 5
 * 1997-03–22 || align=left| Memorial Coliseum, Corpus Christi, Texas
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 1-0
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Connie Plosser
 * TKO || 1
 * 1997-02–21 || align=left| Mahi Temple Shrine Auditorium, Miami, Florida
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Connie Plosser
 * TKO || 1
 * 1997-02–21 || align=left| Mahi Temple Shrine Auditorium, Miami, Florida

Mixed martial arts record

 * Loss
 * align=center| 1–1
 * Sarah Wilson
 * Submission (triangle choke)
 * XFC 7
 * February 20 2009
 * align=center|1
 * align=center|3:03
 * Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
 * Win
 * align=center| 1–0
 * Melissa Vasquez
 * TKO (punches)
 * XFC 6
 * December 5 2008
 * align=center|1
 * align=center|0:41
 * Tampa, Florida, United States
 * }
 * align=center|0:41
 * Tampa, Florida, United States
 * }
 * }
 * }

title: Chevelle Hallback


text:
Oswell Blakeston

Oswell Blakeston was the pseudonym of Henry Joseph Hasslacher (1907–1985), a British writer and artist who also worked in the film industry, made some experimental films, and wrote extensively on film theory. He was also a poet and wrote in non-fiction areas including travel, cooking and pets. His pseudonym combined a reference to the writer Osbert Sitwell with his mother's maiden name.

Life
Blakeston was born to a family of Austrian origin. At age 16 he ran away, becoming a conjuror's assistant, a cinema organist and studio clapperboy.

Blakeston joined the staff of Close Up, the magazine of the Pool Group, in August 1927. While at Close Up, he very much became a protégé of Kenneth Macpherson, the publication's editor, and contributed more articles than any other single writer—a total of 84; he contributed to all but four of the journal's issues. While writing for Close Up, he worked in a variety of capacities in the British film industry and was for a time an assistant cameraman at Gaumont Studios.

In 1930, he made the short abstract film Light Rhythms with Francis Bruguière, long thought to be lost but which is now recovered.

He then edited the little magazine Seed with Herbert Jones, and wrote detective fiction with Roger Burford, under the pseudonym 'Simon'. From 1929, he also published novels and stories under the Blakeston name, producing 15 books of fiction, as well as 10 collections of poetry. The novels are wide-ranging, and include a number of works that mix gay themes with suspense and detective plots.

Blakeston was a contributor to John Gawsworth's anthologies, and a collaborator of M. P. Shiel. He also authored a number of travel books. According to the obituary of his partner Max Chapman, Blakeston achieved a number of firsts: his book Magic Aftermath (1932) was "the first fiction to be published in spiral binding" and his 1935 crime story The Cat with the Moustache (a collaboration with Burford) was "one of the first descriptions of trips with mescal". In his 1938 anthology Proems, Blakeston "published the first poems by Lawrence Durrell".

In the 1950s he was a contributor to ArtReview, then titled Art News and Review.

Blakeston's work was produced for small presses and specialty publishers and is no longer in print. The Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin is home to an archive of Blakeston materials available to researchers.

Many of Blakeston's books are dedicated to his longtime partner, the artist Max Chapman, who also provided illustrations or photographs for a number of the volumes.

Art
Blakeston was an artist with a "quick eye for the bizarre and the outrageous” according to Max Chapman. His art mixed abstract and expressionist imagery and tended to be small scale. Blakeston had over 40 solo shows, including in London at New Vision Centre, Drian and Grabowski galleries, and some 100 mixed shows at others such as the Leicester, Madden and Mercury galleries. In 1981 he shared an exhibition at Middlesbrough Art Gallery with Max Chapman and after his death, a memorial show was held in 1986 at Camden Arts Centre. Blakeston's work can be found in public collections including the Victoria & Albert Museum, Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art and the Ulster Museum in Belfast, as well as national galleries in Finland, Poland and Portugal.

Films

 * I Do Like to Be Beside the Seaside (1929)
 * Light Rhythms (1930, with Francis Bruguière)

Under the pseudonym "Simon", in collaboration with Roger Burford

 * Murder Among Friends (1933)
 * Death on the Swim (1934)
 * The Cat with the Moustache (1935)
 * The Mystery of the Hypnotic Room (1949)

Under the name Oswell Blakeston

 * Extra Passenger (1929)
 * Sluice Gates (c. 1930s)
 * The Grim Case of Mrs. John (c. 1930s)
 * Few Are Chosen (1931, with Francis Bruguière)
 * Magic Aftermath (ca. 1932)
 * Jim's Gun (1939, with Max Chapman)
 * Danger in Provence (1946, with Max Chapman)
 * Priests, Peters and Pussens (1947)
 * Boys in Their Ruin (1949)
 * Pink Ribbon, as Told to the Police (1950)
 * Hop Thief (1959)
 * The Night's Moves (1961)
 * The Queen's Mate (1962)
 * Fingers (1964)
 * For Crying Out Shroud (1969)
 * Ever Singing Die, Oh! Die (1970)
 * Pass the Poison Separately (1976)

Poetry

 * Poems, a Single Word! (ca. 1930)
 * Death While Swimming (1932)
 * Oswell Blakeston (1956)
 * What the Dino-saur (1960)
 * The Greatest Romantic Poem in the World (1963)
 * How to Make Your Own Confetti (1965)
 * The Furious Futures Dying (1967)
 * Jeremy & Others (1971)
 * Some Essential Information (1975)
 * Journeys End in Young Man's Meeting (1979)

Cookbooks

 * Edwardian Glamour Cooking Without Tears (1960)
 * A Surprise in Every Dinner (1968)
 * Cooking With Nuts (1979)

Travel

 * Portuguese Panorama (1955)
 * Isle of St. Helena (1957)
 * Sun at Midnight (Finland) (1958)
 * Thank You Now: an Exploration of Ulster (1960)

On Film and Photography

 * Through a Yellow Glass (1928)
 * Cruising with a Camera (1939, with F. W. Frerk)
 * Phototips on Cats and Dogs (1938, with Edwin Smith)
 * Working for the Films (1947) (editor)
 * How to Script Amateur Films (1949)

Miscellaneous

 * Working Cats (1963)
 * Zoo Keeps Who? (1964)

title: Oswell Blakeston