text:
Mauser Tankgewehr M1918

The Tankgewehr M1918, also known as the Mauser 13mm anti-tank rifle and T-Gewehr in English, is a German anti-tank rifle —the first rifle designed for the sole purpose of destroying armored targets—and the only anti-tank rifle to see service in World War I. Approximately 16,900 were produced.

History
During the First World War the onset of static, trench warfare saw the rise in the use of armour plate for personal defense, and the development and use of armour-piercing ammunition to counter this. Both Britain and Germany used high-powered rifles, such as elephant guns from their African colonies, for this purpose. The first use of armoured fighting vehicles (tanks) was by the British at the Battle of Flers–Courcelette in September 1916 and were followed by the French. By June 1917, the German Army faced the Mark IV tank, and found that the standard armour-piercing 7.92 mm K bullet was no longer effective. This prompted the development by the Germans of a heavy-calibre and high-velocity rifle as an anti-tank weapon. The makers of the gun were inspired by weapons used to hunt African big game, like the elephant gun. The Mauser Company responded with the 13mm T-gewehr and began mass production at Oberndorf am Neckar in May 1918. The first of these off the production lines were issued to specially raised anti-tank detachments.

14,700 T-Gewehrs were produced before the Armistice, and production ceased in April 1919. Approximately 1,490 were produced after the cessation of hostilities.

Operation
The rifle was a single-shot bolt-action rifle using a modified Mauser action, with rounds manually loaded into the chamber. The weapon had a pistol grip and bipod, but no method of reducing recoil, such as a soft buttpad or muzzle brake. This could cause problems for the shooter with repeated firing. The iron sights were composed of a front blade and tangent rear, graduated in 100-meter increments from 100 to 500 meters. The rifle was operated by a two-man crew of a gunner and ammunition bearer, who were both trained to fire the weapon. Due to the tremendous blunt force of the recoil, it was designed to be shot in a static position, either prone or from inside a trench.

Post-war service
The United States Army tested the T-Gewehr after the war, as did the other Allied Powers. Poland obtained a few T-Gewehrs during border skirmishes at the German border in 1920.

The Reichswehr kept some M1918s in service into the 1930s (805 were in the secret arsenals of the Reichswehr in 1925). Sweden bought a number from Germany, and used them under the designation Pansarvärnsgevär m/21. During the Rif War, the Rifian rebels obtained some smuggled Mauser 1918s to counter the Spanish Renault and Schneider tanks.

In 1939, a Soviet team led by V.N. Shokolov retro-engineered the T-Gewehr, modified to fire the Soviet 12.7×108mm B-32 bullets. Small numbers were hand-produced by the Bauman Institute in the emergency of July 1941. After the Winter War, Finland bought 100 T-Gewehr from Great Britain but they were never used and Finland scrapped them in 1944.

Cartridge

The armour-piercing hardened steel cored 13.2×92mm (.525-inch) semi-rimmed cartridge, often simply called "13 mm", was originally planned for a new, heavy Maxim MG.18 water-cooled machine gun, the Tank und Flieger (TuF) meaning for use against "tank and aircraft", which was under development and to be fielded in 1919. The rounds weighed 51.5 g (795 gn) with an initial velocity of 785 m/s.

Surviving examples
Examples of the Mauser 1918 anti-tank rifle can be found in several museums:

 * Argentina
 * Museo de Armas, Circulo Militar, Buenos Aires
 * Museo de Armas, Colegio Militar de la Nación, El Palomar
 * Museo de la Ciudad, San Carlos de Bariloche
 * Australia
 * Army Museum Bandiana in Wodonga
 * Queensland Museum, Brisbane
 * Mialls Gun Shop, Melbourne
 * Australian War Memorial, Canberra
 * Rocky Hill War Memorial, Goulburn
 * Austria
 * Museum of Military History, Vienna
 * Belgium
 * In Flanders Fields Museum, Ypres
 * In Royal Museum of the Armed Forces and Military History, Brussels
 * Passchendaele Museum, Zonnebeke
 * Canada
 * On display in the lobby of the McGill club, Montreal, being the gift made in 1919 by a Canadian general
 * The Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers Mess of the South Alberta Light Horse in Medicine Hat, Alberta
 * The Officers Mess of the Barrack Green Armories in Saint John, New Brunswick
 * China
 * In Huaihai Campaign Commemoration Hall, Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province
 * France
 * The Musée de l'Armée at the Invalides, Paris
 * The Batterie Todt museum near Cape Gris Nez
 * Germany
 * Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum in Braunschweig
 * Museum im Schwedenbau in Oberndorf am Neckar
 * Italy
 * The National Museum of Artillery in Turin
 * Latvia
 * Latvian War Museum
 * Luxembourg
 * National Museum of Military History in Diekirch
 * United Kingdom
 * Lancashire Infantry Museum, Preston
 * Imperial War Museum, London
 * Canterbury Heritage Museum Canterbury
 * King's Own Royal Border Regiment museum
 * 22nd Cheshire Regiment museum
 * Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds
 * Norwich Castle Museum, Norwich
 * Redoubt Fortress and Museum, Eastbourne
 * King's Shropshire Light Infantry museum, Shrewsbury castle
 * Norris Museum, St Ives, Huntingdonshire
 * Heugh Battery Museum, Hartlepool
 * Worcester Art Gallery And Museum, Worcester.
 * Royal Ulster Rifles Museum, Belfast
 * United States
 * U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection, Fort Benning
 * The National World War I Museum and Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri
 * NRA National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, VA
 * Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library, Staunton, VA
 * Iowa Gold Star Military Museum, Camp Dodge, Iowa
 * Maryland Museum of Military History in Baltimore, Maryland
 * North Dakota Heritage Center in Bismarck, North Dakota
 * Clark Brothers gun store Opal Virginia
 * Klamath County Museums in Klamath Falls, Oregon
 * International Ordnance Museum in St Jo, Texas
 * National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico, VA
 * Virginia War Museum in Newport News, Virginia

title: Mauser Tankgewehr M1918


text:
User talk:Naphtali~enwiki

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. About, Help desk, and Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

13:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Naphtali~enwiki


text:
Talk:Árpád

In De Administrando Imperio, there are no 'Hungarians' or 'Magyars'. Only 'Turks' and 'Turkey'. Western European scholars thought that he referred to Magyars but it is not clear in this article that only the term 'Turk' appears in the text. Also these 'Turks', according to the text, are displaced from their original homeland by Pechenegs and migrated apparently towards modern-day Serbia too (not only Vojvodina, for example he mentions Trajan's bridge which is in Drobeta-Turnu Severin, Romania / Kladovo, Serbia). Now I don't say that the interpretation is incorrect but saying that Constantine VII said that Arpad was 'great prince of Hungary' isn't in reality correct. --Apostolos Papadimitriou, 8:03:09 PM Monday, November 21, 2016 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And he also lists the rivers Tisza, Cris, Mures, Timis as the rivers of the land inhabited by the Hungarians/Turks. When writing about the "Turks", he refers to the Hungarians, consequntly when writing about "Turkey", he refers to their land, that is "Hungary". Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Basically the names of the rivers in the text are Τούτης, Τιμήσης, Μορήσης, Κρίσος, Τίτζα. I just think that ideally we should differentiate between what actually exists in the text and its interpretation. That means, state that the text speaks about 'Turks', the author places them also in parts of modern-day Serbia and Romania but scholars have identified these 'Turks' with Magyars. Arpad isn't a 'great prince of Hungary' in the text, but of 'Turkey' (Also άρχων meant ruler, commander, chief, king, governor etc so translating as 'prince' is questionable). It's not so important overall but important enough for me to state it in the talk page. I won't bother. Apostolos Papadimitriou (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hungarians were known by this name "Turks" for hundreds of years, even in the 1070s ("ΓΕΩΒΙΤZΑC ΠΙΣΤΟC ΚΡΑΛΗC ΤΟΥΡΚΙΑC" (Geōbitzas pistós králēs Tourkías, meaning "Géza I, faithful kralj of the land of the Turks") Fakirbakir (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Byzantine vs Roman
Anon, if the cited reliable sources write about the Byzantine Empire, the Byzantines and the Byzantine Emperors, why do you want to use the terms "Roman Empire", "Romans" and "Roman Emperor"? Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Árpád


text:
A House Divided (board game)

A House Divided is a strategic level board wargame set in the American Civil War for two players, featuring point-to-point movement, low-complexity rules, and relatively few counters to maneuver. It was designed by Frank Chadwick and published in 1981 by Game Designers Workshop (GDW).

Gameplay
A House Divided owes much of its popularity to its relatively simple rules, with more advanced rules for experienced players, and features a playing board covering most of the United States mainland. Play is turnbased, and the players play the Union and Confederacy armies respectively. The game is played over a series of up to 40 game turns, each game turn being divided in two player turns. The Union player has the first player turn every turn. The first game turn is July 1861, and the game culminates in June 1865.

The pieces represent infantry and cavalry units, each unit containing from 10,000 to 15,000 infantry or from 7,000 to 10,000 cavalry. Each game turn represents one or two months, depending on the time of year. In all versions, the pieces are represented with three ranks; Militia, Veteran and Crack. All new units are Militia units, and promotions happen at the end of victorious battle, as well as during the promotion phase of a players turn. No unit may be promoted twice in any single player turn, i.e.; if a unit has gotten a battlefield (post-combat) promotion, it may not receive a regular promotion in the same player turn.

The map comprises the eastern United States, and contains boxes for each city, as well as roads, railroads and rivers.

The turns comprise four phases, conducted in this exact order:
 * 1) Movement
 * 2) Combat
 * 3) Promotions
 * 4) Recruitment

There is no stacking limit, and players are free to inspect their opponent's forces at any time. In the advanced game, there is a combat limit in each combat round of 8 units. The original game included a short-game, in addition to the full game, where only the first two rounds are played. In later versions, rules are included for shorter campaigns starting in 1862, 1863 and 1864.

Victory
In the long-game, the Union player wins when and if he controls all Confederacy cities with a recruitment value of 2 and 3, these being New Orleans, Charleston, Mobile, Wilmington, Richmond, Atlanta and Memphis. When the last of these cities has been captured, play stops immediately, and the Union player has won. The Confederacy player wins if he does one out of three:
 * 1) Captures Washington (immediate victory)
 * 2) Captures enough recruitment cities to make the Confederacy Army Maximum greater than the Union Army Maximum (immediate victory)
 * 3) Avoids a Union victory (victory at the end of the game)

History
There have been four editions, the first and second published by GDW in 1981 and 1989, a third edition by Phalanx Games B.V in 2001, and a fourth edition in 2012, published by Mayfair Games.

The changes between the first and second edition were few, notably, some rules were changed, some new optional rules were added, and also the map came as four puzzle-like pieces, instead of as one large, foldable map, as in the first edition. In addition, some piece designs wer altered and enlarged.

The second edition was edited by Alan Emrich. At his website there is more about his thoughts on the game, as well as his "living" version of rules edition 3.1, which is based on changes he'd like to see.

The third edition adopted a foldable cardboard plate as seen in other games, such as Axis & Allies, and also featured a brand new design for the pieces. The rules, however, remain virtually unchanged from the second edition.

Background
The name of the game refers to Lincoln's "A House Divided" speech, where Lincoln said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand.

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it to cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, until it shall become alike lawful in all states, old as well as new, North as well as South."

Reception
In the September 1981 edition of Dragon (Issue 53), Bill Fawcett lauded the innovative movement system that eschewed the traditional hex-grid. He also admired the combat system, which he found "moves quickly, and reality is enhanced by the addition of modifiers for such factors as entrenchments and river crossings." However, he was not impressed by the South's victory condition of simply capturing Washington, pointing out "This can mean victory to the South when it is losing on all other fronts, and it encourages a last-minute lunge at the Union capital." However, Fawcett concluded on an upbeat note, saying, "A House Divided is fast moving, especially for a strategic-level simulation. All the necessary elements are accounted for in only four pages of rules, and even a game lasting the 40-turn maximum takes less than a full evening of gaming. Though there is less 'color' than in a tactical game, A House Divided does an excellent job of recreating the problems and decisions that the top commanders of both sides constantly faced."

In the January 1990 edition of Games International (Issue 12), Lee Brimmicombe-Wood complimented the second edition, saying, "GDW have produced a second edition which has refined an excellent game yet further." He concluded by giving the game an excellent rating of 4.5 out of 5, noting that players who owned the first edition as well as new players "might well consider buying a copy of this edition [...] there is something for everyone in this game and I can wholeheartedly recommend it."

A House Divided was chosen for inclusion in the 2007 book Hobby Games: The 100 Best. S. Craig Taylor, Jr. commented, "For my money, a great game is one that allows the player to make a series of important or key decisions that directly and understandably reflect on victory or defeat. Games that imitate reality on the game's own selected level without bogging down in details are often referred to as elegant, and that, in one word, sums up the appeal of A House Divided, the little game that could, and places it unmistakably onto any list of the very best wargames."

Awards

 * At the 1982 Origins Awards, A House Divided won the Charles S. Roberts for Best Pre-20th Century Boardgame of 1981
 * At the 1990 Origins Awards, it won Best Pre-20th Century Boardgame of 1989.

title: A House Divided (board game)


text:
Baconsthorpe Castle

Baconsthorpe Castle, historically known as Baconsthorpe Hall, is a ruined, fortified manor house near the village of Baconsthorpe, Norfolk, England. It was established in the 15th century on the site of a former manor hall, probably by John Heydon I and his father, William. John was an ambitious lawyer with many enemies and built a tall, fortified house, but his descendants became wealthy sheep farmers, and being less worried about attack, developed the property into a more elegant, courtyard house, complete with a nearby deer park.

Remains
By the end of the 16th century, the Heydons were spending beyond their means and the castle had to be mortgaged. Nonetheless, new formal gardens and a decorative mere were constructed alongside the house. Sir John Heydon III fought alongside the Royalists in the English Civil War and in retaliation was declared delinquent by Parliament in 1646. His fortunes did not recover and he began to demolish Baconsthorpe in 1650 in order to sell off its stonework. The outer gatehouse was turned into a private home and continued to be occupied until 1920, when one of its turrets collapsed. In the 21st century, the ruins of the castle are managed by English Heritage and open to visitors.

The remains of the castle consist of a moated inner court with mere to the north and an outer court and an outermost court to the south. The main surviving buildings are the inner, fortified gatehouse, dating from the 15th century, the long building used for wool manufacture, and the outer gatehouse, first built in the 16th century but much altered in later years. The outermost court holds part of the original barn, a large building that would have symbolised the Heydons' lordship of the manor.

15th century
Baconsthorpe Castle was established by the Heydon family in the 15th century. The village of Baconsthorpe lay between Holt and Norwich, and was named after the local Bacon family. The village had two manor houses, the first in the main village and the other, called Wood Hall, on the outskirts. William Baxton had come from a relatively humble background, but by around 1400 he had bought the Bacon family's lands in the area, including half of the Wood Hall estate. William probably began the construction of the castle, then termed Baconsthorpe Hall, starting to construct the moated platform and the inner gatehouse around 1460.

William's son, John Heydon I, continued to develop the property and acquire more land around the area, changing his family name in the process to disguise his lower social origin. John was initially the political client of the William de la Pole, the Duke of Suffolk; after the duke's death, John Dudley, the Earl of Warwick became his next patron. John was an ambitious lawyer, and came to be hated and feared across the region as his power increased. By the time of his death in 1479, the inner gatehouse was completed and work on the courtyard house begun, creating the basis of a tall, fortified house. The castle demonstrated John's political aspirations and was intended to impress his peers in the region.

Sir Henry Heydon continued his father's work on the castle. Henry married into London money and became a wealthy sheep farmer, being knighted in 1485. He completed the castle's main house, service court and north-east tower. In the process, perhaps being less worried than his father about any attack on his property, he altered the character of Baconthorpe to produce what the historians Jacky Hall and Paul Drury term an "upmarket, courtyard house".

16th century
Over the course of the 16th century, the Heydons became one of the leading families in Norfolk, marrying well, practising law and enjoying the profits from their sheep and the wool trade – their products were sold in England and exported to the Netherlands. Sir John Heydon II inherited Baconsthorpe in 1504 but primarily lived at Saxlingham; after a pause in construction, he finished the construction of Baconsthorpe's north court and turned the east range of the castle into a wool factory before his death in 1550. His son, Sir Christopher I, then built the outer gatehouse and barn around 1560, and in 1561 was formally given a licence to crenellate the castle and create a 300 acre deer park alongside it.

The Heydons by then lived in lavish style, Sir Christopher maintaining a household of 80 servants and a coach drawn by two horses.

The castle was inherited by Sir William Heydon II in 1579, but by then the wool trade was in decline and the family was building up debts. Sir William sold off parts of the estate to cover his father's debts, but his business projects in London failed and he was forced to sell off further lands. Baconsthorpe was mortgaged, and under pressure from his creditors, William attempted to sell part of the estate in 1590. His son, Sir Christopher II, disagreed with this plan to dispose of what he regarded as his inheritance, and the father and son fell out. William threatened to demolish the castle, Christopher appealed to the Privy Council, and the matter went to court in 1593, a few months before William's death the same year.

Once Christopher II had inherited Baconsthorpe, he renovated the inner gatehouse and created a large mere and a formal garden around the south-east side of the castle, although he mainly resided at Saxlingham, west of Cromer. Christopher had little interest in business, preferring to engage in military pursuits and to study astrology – he hosted the mathematician Henry Briggs and the astronomer John Bainbridge at Baconsthorpe. Christopher had inherited debts of £11,000 from his father, in addition to his own debts of £3,000, and was fined £2,000 for his part in Essex's Rebellion of 1601. His financial situation did not improve. First Baconsthorpe and then his other estates had to be mortgaged.

17th – 21st centuries
Baconsthorpe passed to Christopher's eldest son Sir William in 1623, but William died four years later during the Île de Ré expedition, leaving it to his younger brother, Sir John III. John became the Lieutenant General of the Ordnance and when civil war broke out in 1642, he fought on the side of King Charles I. In response, Parliament seized his lands and he was declared delinquent in 1646. He bought his estates back, but began to demolish Baconsthorpe around 1650 in order to sell off the stonework.

John III died in debt in 1653, leaving the castle to his son, Charles Heydon, who continued to dispose of the stone: 29 cartloads were sold the following year for £30, for reuse at Felbrigg Hall. Charles' brother, William Heydon III, sold the estate to a Mr Bridges, and then onward to a doctor called Zurishaddai Lang, who lived in the outer gatehouse. The Norfolk landowner John Thruston Mott bought the estate in 1801, and the gatehouse continued to be occupied until 1920, when one of the turrets collapsed. Although the mere was still water-filled in 1839, it was subsequently drained.

In 1940, the castle's owner, the politician Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe, placed the site into the care of the Ministry of Public Works. In the 1950s and 1960s, the site was cleared of ivy and other vegetation, the stonework consolidated and archaeologically surveyed, before being opened to the public. The mere was dredged and refilled in 1972 and further archaeological excavations were carried out. In the 21st century, Baconsthorpe Castle is managed by English Heritage and protected under UK law as Grade I and Grade II listed buildings and as a scheduled monument.

Architecture
Baconsthorpe Castle, located north of Baconthorpe village in a valley formed by the River Glaven, is approached on the remains of a raised causeway from the south. The site consists of a moated inner court and a mere to the north, with an outer and an outermost court to the south.

During the 16th century, the surrounding area formed pasture for sheep, although it is now used mainly for arable farming.

Outer and outermost courts
The outer and outermost courts lie progressively to the south of the outer court of the castle. The outermost court currently forms part of a farmyard and is subdivided by a low wall. A 16th-century barn lines its western edge. The barn is now 32 by in size, but may originally have been up to 69 m long, with three sets of large cart doors. The barn was intended both to impress visitors and to symbolize the Heydons' lordship of the manor – the exterior facings of the barn are superior on the south and east sides, where they would have been seen by those entering the castle. A row of cottages originally faced the barn on the other side of the court.

The ruined outer gatehouse that forms the entrance to the outer court was built from expensive knapped flint in a Perpendicular Gothic style. It consisted of a gate-passage, with rooms and octagonal turrets on either side and a large chamber on the first floor. When the gatehouse was converted into a residence in the 17th century, it was heavily altered: a three-storey porch was added to the front with wings on either side and additional rooms at the back of the building, but the porch was removed in the early 19th century, when crenellations were added. A wall originally ran round the outside of the outer court, which was used as a walled garden after the conversion of the gatehouse.

Inner court
The inner court rests on a square earth platform 65 m across, surrounded by a water-filled moat up to 15 m wide. The eastern edge of the moat meets with the 16th-century mere, about 90 by across, which is fed by two streams and dammed on the eastern side. Beyond the mere lie the remains of a large, dammed pond, 30 m across, which may have been designed as a decorative water feature to be viewed from the castle. A bridge on the south side links the inner and outer courts; originally the second part of the bridge formed a protective drawbridge.

The inner court is 55 by, surrounded by an external curtain wall up to 5 m tall in places, protected by seven square and circular mural towers. The main entrance was through the southern bridge and the inner gatehouse, but the central north tower originally held a postern gate leading to another bridge over the northern edge of the moat, of which only the brick pier foundations survive. The castle was protected with gun loops: six double embrasures to the west of the gatehouse, a gun loop in the north-west square tower, and several larger gun loops in the northern section of the curtain wall. Inside the court, gun loops in the cellar beneath the hall covered the entrance itself. The militarily inspired design of the inner court drew on earlier medieval architectural traditions and was intended to reinforce the Heydons' status and symbolise their aspirations to nobility.

The inner gatehouse is three storeys high, and like the rest of the inner court, built of flint rubble and brick faced with knapped flint. It has a gate passage with a two-storey vaulted porch. Two sets of chambers lay on either side of the passage, probably providing living space for the steward and the porter. The rooms above were fitted with fireplaces, garderobes and a small chapel to form a set of high quality, luxurious living space, possibly for the Heydons or their relations. The building could have been defended in case of attack. The south-west corner of the inner court held a courtyard house that was attached to the gatehouse and would have incorporated the castle's great hall. The northern part of the court probably formed a separate, private garden in the later period.

The north-east side of the inner court formed a service court, with kitchens and similar facilities, including a well. The eastern side of the inner court was adapted for the wool industry in the 16th century. This included the construction of a long, two-storey building along the curtain wall, 38 by. This was used for processing wool, with a turnstile at the north end for shearing sheep, and space on the first floor for weavers and finishers; the southern end may have held a wooden sink for washing wool, or alternatively been a drying floor and granary for the castle brewhouse and bakehouse. The three-storey north-east tower was also later used for processing wool, including fulling.

Garden
To the south-east, off the inner court, are the remaining earthworks of a formal garden on a raised platform, 80 by across. The garden had a raised walkway round a square pond, 35 by in size.

title: Baconsthorpe Castle


text:
Electrophoretic deposition

Electrophoretic deposition (EPD), is a term for a broad range of industrial processes which includes electrocoating, cathodic electrodeposition, anodic electrodeposition, and electrophoretic coating, or electrophoretic painting. A characteristic feature of this process is that colloidal particles suspended in a liquid medium migrate under the influence of an electric field (electrophoresis) and are deposited onto an electrode. All colloidal particles that can be used to form stable suspensions and that can carry a charge can be used in electrophoretic deposition. This includes materials such as polymers, pigments, dyes, ceramics and metals.

The process is useful for applying materials to any electrically conductive surface. The materials which are being deposited are the major determining factor in the actual processing conditions and equipment which may be used.

Due to the wide utilization of electrophoretic painting processes in many industries, aqueous EPD is the most common commercially used EPD process. However, non-aqueous electrophoretic deposition applications are known. Applications of non-aqueous EPD are currently being explored for use in the fabrication of electronic components and the production of ceramic coatings. Non-aqueous processes have the advantage of avoiding the electrolysis of water and the oxygen evolution which accompanies electrolysis.

Uses
This process is industrially used for applying coatings to metal fabricated products. It has been widely used to coat automobile bodies and parts, tractors and heavy equipment, electrical switch gear, appliances, metal furniture, beverage containers, fasteners, and many other industrial products.

EPD processes are often applied for the fabrication of supported titanium dioxide (TiO2) photocatalysts for water purification applications, using precursor powders which can be immobilised using EPD methods onto various support materials. Thick films produced this way allow cheaper and more rapid synthesis relative to sol-gel thin-films, along with higher levels of photocatalyst surface area.

In the fabrication of solid oxide fuel cells EPD techniques are widely employed for the fabrication of porous ZrO2 anodes from powder precursors onto conductive substrates.

EPD processes have a number of advantages which have made such methods widely used
 * 1) The process applies coatings which generally have a very uniform coating thickness without porosity.
 * 2) Complex fabricated objects can easily be coated, both inside cavities as well as on the outside surfaces.
 * 3) Relatively high speed of coating.
 * 4) Relatively high purity.
 * 5) Applicability to wide range of materials (metals, ceramics, polymers, )
 * 6) Easy control of the coating composition.
 * 7) The process is normally automated and requires less human labor than other coating processes.
 * 8) Highly efficient utilization of the coating materials result in lower costs relative to other processes.
 * 9) The aqueous process which is commonly used has less risk of fire relative to the solvent-borne coatings that they have replaced.
 * 10) Modern electrophoretic paint products are significantly more environmentally friendly than many other painting technologies.

Thick, complex ceramic pieces have been made in several research laboratories. Furthermore, EPD has been used to produce customized microstructures, such as functional gradients and laminates, through suspension control during processing.

History
The first patent for the use of electrophoretic painting was awarded in 1917 to Davey and General Electric. Since the 1920s, the process has been used for the deposition of rubber latex. In the 1930s the first patents were issued which described base neutralized, water dispersible resins specifically designed for EPD.

Electrophoretic coating began to take its current shape in the late 1950s, when Dr. George E. F. Brewer and the Ford Motor Company team began working on developing the process for the coating of automobiles. The first commercial anodic automotive system began operations in 1963.

The first patent for a cathodic EPD product was issued in 1965 and assigned to BASF AG. PPG Industries, Inc. was the first to introduce commercially cathodic EPD in 1970. The first cathodic EPD use in the automotive industry was in 1975. Today, around 70% of the volume of EPD in use in the world today is the cathodic EPD type, largely due to the high usage of the technology in the automotive industry. It is probably the best system ever developed and has resulted in great extension of body life in the automotive industry

There are thousands of patents which have been issued relating to various EPD compositions, EPD processes, and articles coated with EPD. Although patents have been issued by various government patent offices, virtually all of the significant developments can be followed by reviewing the patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Process
The overall industrial process of electrophoretic deposition consists of several sub-processes:

 * 1) Preparation – this usually consists of some kind of cleaning process and may include the application of a conversion coating, typically an inorganic phosphate coating.
 * 2) The coating process itself – this usually involves submerging the part into a container or vessel which holds the coating bath or solution and applying direct current electricity through the EPD bath using electrodes. Typically voltages of 25 – 400 volts DC are used in electrocoating or electrophoretic painting applications. The object to be coated is one of the electrodes, and a set of "counter-electrodes" are used to complete the circuit.
 * 3) After deposition, the object is normally rinsed to remove the undeposited bath. The rinsing process may utilize an ultrafilter to dewater a portion of the bath from the coating vessel to be used as rinse material. If an ultrafilter is used, all of the rinsed off materials can be returned to the coating vessel, allowing for high utilization efficiency of the coating materials, as well as reducing the amount of waste discharged into the environment.
 * 4) A baking or curing process is normally used following the rinse. This will crosslink the polymer and allows the coating, which will be porous due to the evolution of gas during the deposition process, to flow out and become smooth and continuous.

During the EPD process itself, direct current is applied to a solution of polymers with ionizable groups or a colloidal suspension of polymers with ionizable groups which may also incorporate solid materials such as pigments and fillers. The ionizable groups incorporated into the polymer are formed by the reaction of an acid and a base to form a salt. The particular charge, positive or negative, which is imparted to the polymer depends on the chemical nature of the ionizable group. If the ionizable groups on the polymer are acids, the polymer will carry a negative charge when salted with a base. If the ionizable groups on the polymer are bases, the polymer will carry a positive charge when salted with an acid.

There are two types of EPD processes, anodic and cathodic. In the anodic process, negatively charged material is deposited on the positively charged electrode, or anode. In the cathodic process, positively charged material is deposited on the negatively charged electrode, or cathode.

When an electric field is applied, all of the charged species migrate by the process of electrophoresis towards the electrode with the opposite charge. There are several mechanisms by which material can be deposited on the electrode:

 * 1) Charge destruction and the resultant decrease in solubility.
 * 2) Concentration coagulation.
 * 3) Salting out.

The primary electrochemical process which occurs during aqueous electrodeposition is the electrolysis of water. This can be shown by the following two half reactions which occur at the two electrodes:

 * Anode: 2H2O → O2(gas) + 4H(+) + 4e(-)
 * Cathode: 4H2O + 4e(-) → 4OH(-) + 2H2(gas)

In anodic deposition, the material being deposited will have salts of an acid as the charge bearing group. These negatively charged anions react with the positively charged hydrogen ions (protons) which are being produced at the anode by the electrolysis of water to reform the original acid. The fully protonated acid carries no charge (charge destruction) and is less soluble in water, and may precipitate out of the water onto the anode.

The analogous situation occurs in cathodic deposition except that the material being deposited will have salts of a base as the charge bearing group. If the salt of the base has been formed by protonation of the base, the protonated base will react with the hydroxyl ions being formed by electrolysis of water to yield the neutral charged base (again charge destruction) and water. The uncharged polymer is less soluble in water than it was when was charged, and precipitation onto the cathode occurs.

Onium salts, which have been used in the cathodic process, are not protonated bases and do not deposit by the mechanism of charge destruction. These type of materials can be deposited on the cathode by concentration coagulation and salting out. As the colloidal particles reach the solid object to be coated, they become squeezed together, and the water in the interstices is forced out. As the individual micelles are squeezed, they collapse to form increasingly larger micelles. Colloidal stability is inversely proportional to the size of the micelle, so as the micelles get bigger, they become less and less stable until they precipitate from solution onto the object to be coated. As more and more charged groups are concentrated into a smaller volume, this increases the ionic strength of the medium, which also assists in precipitating the materials out of solution. Both of these processes are occurring simultaneously and both contribute to the deposition of material.

Factors affecting electrophoretic painting
During the aqueous deposition process, gas is being formed at both electrodes. Hydrogen gas is being formed at the cathode, and oxygen gas at the anode. For a given amount of charge transfer, exactly twice as much hydrogen is generated compared to oxygen on a molecular basis.

This has some significant effects on the coating process. The most obvious is in the appearance of the deposited film prior to the baking process. The cathodic process results in considerably more gas being trapped within the film than the anodic process. Since the gas has a higher electrical resistance than either depositing film or the bath itself, the amount of gas has a significant effect on the current at a given applied voltage. This is why cathodic processes are often able to be operated at significantly higher voltages than the corresponding anodic processes.

The deposited coating has significantly higher resistance than the object which is being coated. As the deposited film precipitates, the resistance increases. The increase in resistance is proportional to the thickness of the deposited film, and thus, at a given voltage, the electric current decreases as the film gets thicker until it finally reaches a point where deposition has slowed or stopped occurring (self-limiting). Thus the applied voltage is the primary control for the amount of film applied.

The ability for the EPD coating to coat interior recesses of a part is called the "throwpower". In many applications, it is desirable to use coating materials with a high throwpower. The throwpower of a coating is dependent on a number of variables, but generally, it can be stated that the higher the coating voltage, the further a given coating will "throw" into recesses. High throwpower electrophoretic paints typically use application voltages in excess of 300 volts DC.

The coating temperature is also an important variable affecting the EPD process. The coating temperature has an effect on the bath conductivity and deposited film conductivity, which increases as temperature increases. Temperature also has an effect on the viscosity of the deposited film, which in turn affects the ability of the deposited film to release the gas bubbles being formed.

The coalescence temperature of the coating system is also an important variable for the coating designer. It can be determined by plotting the film build of a given system versus coating temperature keeping the coating time and voltage application profile constant. At temperatures below the coalescence temperature, film growth behavior and rupturing behavior is quite different from the usual practice as a result of porous deposition.

The coating time also is an important variable in determining the film thickness, the quality of the deposited film, and the throwpower. Depending on the type of object being coated, coating times of several seconds up to several minutes may be appropriate.

The maximum voltage which can be utilized depends on the type of coating system and a number of other factors. As already stated, film thickness and throwpower are dependent on the application voltage. However, at excessively high voltages, a phenomenon called "rupture" can occur. The voltage where this phenomenon occurs is called the "rupture voltage". The result of rupture is a film that is usually very thick and porous. Normally this is not an acceptable film cosmetically or functionally. The causes and mechanisms for rupturing are not completely understood, however, the following is known:

 * 1) Commercially available anodic EPD coating chemistries typically exhibit rupturing at voltages significantly lower than their commercially available cathodic counterparts.
 * 2) For a given EPD chemistry, the higher the bath conductivity, the lower the rupture voltage.
 * 3) For a given EPD chemistry, the rupture voltages normally decrease as the temperature is increased (for temperatures above the coalescence temperature).
 * 4) Additions to a given bath composition of organic solvents and plasticizers which reduce the deposited film's viscosity will often produce higher film thicknesses at a given voltage, but will generally also reduce the throwpower and the rupture voltage.
 * 5) The type and preparation of the substrate (material used to make the object being coated) can also have a significant effect on rupturing phenomenon.

Types of EPD chemistries
There are two major categories of EPD chemistries: anodic and cathodic. Both continue to be used commercially, although the anodic process has been in use industrially for a longer period of time and is thus considered to be the older of the two processes. There are advantages and disadvantages for both types of processes, and different experts may have different perspectives on some of the pros and cons of each.

The major advantages that are normally touted for the anodic process are:

The major advantages that are normally touted for the cathodic processes are:
 * 1) Lower costs compared to cathodic process.
 * 2) Simpler and less complex control requirements.
 * 3) Fewer problems with inhibition of cure of subsequent topcoating layers.
 * 4) Less sensitivity to variations in substrate quality.
 * 5) The substrate is not subjected to highly alkaline conditions, which may dissolve phosphate and other conversion coatings.
 * 6) Certain metals, such as zinc, may become embrittled from the hydrogen gas which is evolved at the cathode. The anodic process avoids this effect since oxygen is being generated at the anode.

 * 1) Higher levels of corrosion protection are possible. (While many people believe that cathodic technologies have higher corrosion protection capability, other experts argue that this probably has more to do with the coating polymer and crosslinking chemistry rather than on which electrode the film is deposited.)
 * 2) Higher throwpower can be designed into the product. (While this may be true with the currently commercially available technologies today, high throwpower anodic systems are known and have been used commercially in the past.)
 * 3) Oxidation only occurs at the anode, and thus staining and other problems which may result from the oxidation of the electrode substrate itself is avoided in the cathodic process.

A significant and real difference which is not often mentioned is the fact that acid catalyzed crosslinking technologies are more appropriate to the anodic process. Such crosslinkers are widely used in all types of coating applications. These include such popular and relatively inexpensive crosslinkers such as melamine-formaldehyde, phenol-formaldehyde, urea-formaldehyde, and acrylamide-formaldehyde crosslinkers.

Melamine-formaldehyde type crosslinkers in particular are widely used in anodic electrocoatings. These types crosslinkers are relatively inexpensive and provide a wide range of cure and performance characteristics which allow the coating designer to tailor the product for the desired end use. Coatings formulated with this type of crosslinker can have acceptable UV light resistance. Many of them are relatively low viscosity materials and can act as a reactive plasticizer, replacing some of the organic solvent that otherwise might be necessary. The amount of free formaldehyde, as well as formaldehyde which may be released during the baking process is of concern as these are considered to be hazardous air pollutants.

The deposited film in cathodic systems is quite alkaline, and acid catalyzed crosslinking technologies have not been preferred in cathodic products in general, although there have been some exceptions. The most common type of crosslinking chemistry in use today with cathodic products are based on urethane and urea chemistries.

The aromatic polyurethane and urea type crosslinker is one of the significant reasons why many cathodic electrocoats show high levels of protection against corrosion. Of course it is not the only reason, but if one compares electrocoating compositions with aromatic urethane crosslinkers to analogous systems containing aliphatic urethane crosslinkers, consistently systems with aromatic urethane crosslinkers perform significantly better. However, coatings containing aromatic urethane crosslinkers generally do not perform well in terms of UV light resistance. If the resulting coating contains aromatic urea crosslinks, the UV resistance will be considerably worse than if only urethane crosslinks can occur. A disadvantage of aromatic urethanes is that they can also cause yellowing of the coating itself as well as cause yellowing in subsequent topcoat layers. A significant undesired side reaction which occurs during the baking process produces aromatic polyamines. Urethane crosslinkers based on toluene diisocyanate (TDI) can be expected to produce toluene diamine as a side reaction, whereas those based on methylene diphenyl diisocyanate produce diaminodiphenylmethane and higher order aromatic polyamines. The undesired aromatic polyamines can inhibit the cure of subsequent acid catalysed topcoat layers, and can cause delamination of the subsequent topcoat layers after exposure to sunlight. Although the industry has never acknowledged this problem, many of these undesired aromatic polyamines are known or suspected carcinogens.

Besides the two major categories of anodic and cathodic, EPD products can also be described by the base polymer chemistry which is utilized. There are several polymer types that have been used commercially. Many of the earlier anodic types were based on maleinized oils of various types, tall oil and linseed oil being two of the more common. Today, epoxy and the acrylic types predominate. The description and the generally touted advantages are as follows:

 * 1) Epoxy: Although aliphatic epoxy materials have been used, the majority of EPD epoxy types are based on aromatic epoxy polymers, most commonly based on polymerization of diglycidal ethers of bis phenol A. The polymer backbone may be modified with other types of chemistries to achieve the desired performance characteristics.  Generally, this type of chemistry is used in primer applications where the coating will receive a topcoat, particularly if the coated object needs to withstand sunlight.  This chemistry generally does not have good resistance to UV light.  However, this chemistry is often used where high corrosion resistance is required.
 * 2) Acrylic: These polymers are based on free radical initiated polymers containing monomers based on acrylic acid and methacrylic acid and their many esters which are available. Generally, this type of chemistry is utilized when UV-resistance is desirable.  These polymers also have the advantage of allowing a wider color palette since the polymer is less prone to yellowing when compared to epoxies.

Kinetics
The rate of electrophoretic deposition (EPD) is dependent on multiple different kinetic processes acting in concert. One of the primary kinetic processes involved in EPD is electrophoresis, the movement of charged particles in response to an electric field. But as the local concentration of particles decreases near the electrodes, particle diffusion from areas of high concentration to low concentration, driven by a difference in chemical potential, will also influence the rate of deposition. This section will discuss the conditions that determine the rates of each of these processes and how those variables are incorporated into different models used to evaluate EPD.

For either process to occur the molecules must form a stable aqueous suspension. There are four common processes by which the particle can obtain surface charge needed to form a stable dispersion: 1. Dissociation or ionization of a surface group 2. Reabsorption of ions 3. Adsorption of ionized surfactants 4. Isomorphic substitution. The molecule's surface chemistry and its local environment will determine how it obtains a surface charge. Without sufficient surface charge to balance the van der Waals attractive forces between particles, they will aggregate. A charged surface is not the only parameter that influences colloidal stability. Particle size, zeta potential, and the solvent's conductivity, viscosity, and dielectric constant also determine the dispersion's stability. So long as the dispersion is stable, the initial rate of deposition will be primarily determined by the electric field strength. Solution resistance can dissipate the applied voltage, so the actual surface charge on each electrode may be lower than intended. The charged particles will attach to a substrate located on the oppositely charged electrode. As a simplification, under low voltages and short deposition times, Hamaker's law describes a linear relationship between the field strength, deposited thickness, and time.

$$m=\mu \times C_s \times S\times E \times t$$

This equation gives the electrophoretically deposited mass m in grams, as function of electrophoretic mobility μ (in units of cm2s−1), solids loading Cs (in g cm −3), covered surface area S (cm2), electric field strength E (V cm−1) and time t (s). This equation is useful to evaluate the efficiency of applied EPD processes relative to theoretical values.

The simple linear approximation applied by Hamaker's law degrades under higher voltages and longer deposition times. Under higher voltage, chemical reactions, such as reduction, driven by the influence of the applied field can obscure the kinetics. So, solvents with high reduction-oxidation potentials should be used to avoid electrolysis and the gas evolution. And if the deposited particles are insulating, then as the deposited layer grows thicker the effective electric field will decrease. In addition, the area surrounding the electroactive region near the electrodes will be depleted of particles. Particle diffusion from the bulk to the electroactive region may limit the rate of growth. The diffusion of particles from high to low concentration can be approximated by Fick's laws and its rate will be determined by the difference in particle concentration as well as solvent viscosity, particle mass, and colloidal stability. Eventually, as deposition thickness increases and field strength decreases, the growth will saturate. The change in thickness that occurs at the onset of saturation is described by the following equation.

$${dw(t) \over dt}=w_of\exp(-kt)$$   where     $$k={A \over V}{\epsilon\xi \over 4\pi\eta}(E-\Delta E)$$

w is the weight of solid particles deposited on the electrode, k the kinetic constant, t the deposition time, A the area of the electrode, V the slurry volume, $$w_o$$ the starting weight of the solid particles in the slurry, ε the dielectric constant of the liquid, ξ the zeta-potential of the particle in the solvent, n the viscosity of the solvent, E the applied direct-current voltage, and $$\Delta$$E the voltage drop across the deposited layer.

Before saturation there is a linear relationship between deposition thickness and time. The onset of saturation leads to a decrease in the rate of deposition that is modelled as parabolic behavior. The critical transition time between linear and parabolic behavior is approximated by the following equation.

$$t^{\operatorname{1}\over\operatorname{2}}e^{\operatorname{-k}t}={S_2 \over 2S_1}$$

t is the critical transition time, $$S_2$$ is the slope of the parabolic regime, and $$S_1$$ is the slope of the rate of deposition layer growth in the linear regime.

In determining the applicability of EPD to a system it is necessary to ensure the colloidal stability, and the combination of applied voltage and reaction time that will yield the intended deposited thickness.

Non-aqueous electrophoretic deposition
In certain applications, such as the deposition of ceramic materials, voltages above 3–4V cannot be applied in aqueous EPD if it is necessary to avoid the electrolysis of water. However, higher application voltages may be desirable in order to achieve higher coating thicknesses or to increase the rate of deposition. In such applications, organic solvents are used instead of water as the liquid medium. The organic solvents used are generally polar solvents such as alcohols and ketones. Ethanol, acetone, and methyl ethyl ketone are examples of solvents which have been reported as suitable candidates for use in electrophoretic deposition.

title: Electrophoretic deposition


text:
Golden Globe Cecil B. DeMille Award

The Cecil B. DeMille Award is an honorary Golden Globe Award bestowed by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) for "outstanding contributions to the world of entertainment". The HFPA board of directors selects the honorees from a variety of actors, directors, writers and producers who have made a significant mark in the film industry. It was first presented at the 9th Golden Globe Awards ceremony in February 1952 and is named in honor of its first recipient, director Cecil B. DeMille. The HFPA chose DeMille due to his prestige in the industry and his "internationally recognized and respected name". DeMille received the award the year his penultimate film, The Greatest Show on Earth, premiered. A year later in 1953, the award was presented to producer Walt Disney.

The award has been presented annually since 1952, with exceptions being 1976, 2008, 2022, and 2024. The second incident was due to the 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike's cancellation of that year's ceremony. The award that year was meant to honor director Steven Spielberg, but due to the cancellation of the ceremony, the award was presented to him the following year. The third occurrence resulted from various media companies, actors, and other creatives boycotting the awards in protest over its lack of action to increase the membership diversity of the HFPA. In 2024, the award was shelved to make way for additional categories at that year's ceremony.

The youngest honoree was actress Judy Garland, at age 39 in 1962. Garland was also the first female honoree. The oldest honoree was producer Samuel Goldwyn, at age 93 in 1973. In 1982, Sidney Poitier became the first African-American recipient. In 2018, Oprah Winfrey became the first African-American woman to receive the honor. , 69 honorees have received the Cecil B. DeMille Award: 16 women and 53 men. The award has notably been presented to two members of the same family: with Jane Fonda receiving the award in 2021, 41 years after it was presented to her father Henry Fonda.

title: Golden Globe Cecil B. DeMille Award


text:
User:Bijee~enwiki/Letter on Knanaya Christians

reply expected at My Talk Page

Links Dear father,
 * http://www.indianchristianity.org/
 * http://www.indianchristianity.org/knanaya.html
 * Knanaya Christians
 * Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

I am very happy to see the site you maintain at http://www.indianchristianity.org/

I am writing to you in regards to dispute on content of an article at http://wikipedia.org (a free encyclopedia). At Wikipedia anybody can contribute to articles or add new ones.

It was nice see new articles about Indian Christianity at Wikipedia. But upon investigation on one of the article named "Knanaya Christians" (url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knanaya_Christians ) contributed by user named Poozhikunnel was found an exact copy of your article at http://www.indianchristianity.org/knanaya.html

So we would like to know, 1. whether it is done by your authorization 2. If not, whether it is ok to add your site content at wikipedia.

If we need to keep this article or any other at Wikipedia, we need have a copy right license which will allow us to freely copy, modify, publish this article, ie GNU Free Documentation License

Details of this License is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License

So please let me know your decision immediately 1. The copied content should be removed immediately 2. License granted to keep this article under GNU Free Documentation License 3. License granted under GNU Free Documentation License to add any article from http://www.indianchristianity.org/ to http://Wikipedia.org

Thanks in advance Bijee

PS: Please note, I am not an employee or owner of Wikipedia, I am only voluntary contributor to Wikipedia

My talk page at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bijee


text:
File:Rembrandt Conspiracy of Julius Civilis.jpg

Rembrandt van Rijn - Conspiracy of Claudius (Julius) Civilis


text:
Abbadie

The French surname Abbadie or d'Abbadie, meaning "(of the) abbey", may refer to:

 * Antoine-Thomson d'Abbadie (1810–1897), French explorer of notably Ethiopia
 * Arnaud-Michel d'Abbadie (1815–1893), Antoine-Thomson d'Abbadie's brother, also an explorer
 * Jakob Abbadie (c.1654–1727), Swiss theologian
 * Jean-Jacques Blaise d'Abbadie (1726–1765), governor of French Louisiana
 * Julio Abbadie (1930–2014), Uruguayan footballer
 * Luis G. Abbadie (born 1968), Mexican writer
 * Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast (1897–1968), Argentinean born French screenwriter

title: Abbadie


text:
ShmooCon

ShmooCon is an American hacker convention organized by The Shmoo Group. There are typically 40 different talks and presentations on a variety of subjects related to computer security and cyberculture. Multiple events are held at the convention related to cryptography and computer security such as Shmooganography, Hack Fortress, a locksport village hosted by TOOOL DC, and Ghost in the Shellcode. ShmooCon 2021 was not held in January due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

History
From 2005 to 2010, ShmooCon was held at the Marriott Wardman Park in Washington, D.C.

ShmooCon VII and VII (2011–2012) were held at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C.

ShmooCon IX was held at the Hyatt Regency Washington in Washington, D.C.

ShmooCon X and later returned to the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C.

 * ShmooCon I: February 4–6, 2005: ≈ 400 attendees
 * ShmooCon II: January 13–15, 2006: ≈ 700 attendees
 * ShmooCon III: March 23–25, 2007: Sold out; > 900 attendees
 * ShmooCon IV: February 15–17, 2008: Sold out; > 1200 attendees
 * ShmooCon V: February 6–8, 2009: Sold out; > 1600 attendees
 * ShmooCon VI: February 5–7, 2010: Sold out; around 1600 attendees
 * ShmooCon VII: January 28–30, 2011: Sold out; > 1600 attendees
 * ShmooCon VIII: January 27–29, 2012: Sold out; > 1800 attendees
 * ShmooCon IX: February 15–17, 2013: Sold out; > 1600 attendees
 * ShmooCon X: January 17–19, 2014: Sold out; > 1900 attendees
 * ShmooCon XI: January 16–18, 2015: Sold out; > 1900 attendees
 * ShmooCon XII: January 19–21, 2016: Sold out; > 1500 attendees
 * ShmooCon XIII: January 13–15, 2017: Sold out; ≈ 2200 attendees
 * ShmooCon XIV: January 19–21, 2018: Sold out; ≈ 2200 attendees
 * ShmooCon XV: January 18–20, 2019: Sold out; ≈ 2200 attendees
 * ShmooCon XVI: January 31–February 2, 2020; ≈ 2175 attendees
 * ShmooCon XVII: March 24–26, 2022; ≈ 2000 attendees
 * ShmooCon XVIII: January 20–22, 2023; ≈ 2200 attendees
 * ShmooCon XIX: January 12-14, 2024; attendees TBA

Research presented at ShmooCon
ShmooCon seeks to select talks that are original research and have not been presented at other conventions.

Charitable efforts
Every year ShmooCon supports multiple charities, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Hackers for Charity, by sponsoring T-shirt sales. Attendees are provided the opportunity to donate a fixed amount of money for a charity in exchange for a T-shirt.

ShmooCon also has a long-standing program, Shmooze-A-Student, where attendees can opt to cover an undergraduate college student's ticket fee and stipend when purchasing their own ticket.

title: ShmooCon


text:
Talk:2002 FIFA World Cup squads

On 1 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Votes for deletion/Football World Cup 2002 (squads). Rossami (talk) 03:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
Football World Cup 2002 (squads) → 2002 FIFA World Cup (squads) – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments.

Discuss here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions. --Pkchan 10:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 14:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Franck Ribéry should be listed as number 22 for France. Franck Ribéry -- Stephen.andrew.lynch 23:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the Chinese characters for the China PR squad should be removed? The Japanese and Koreans don't have their native script next to their English ones, nor do the Saudi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.97.117 (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect listings of teams participating in 2002 FIFA World Cup
There are some errors in this listing. For one, Paraguay and Belgium are in the wrong groups (Paraguay should be listed in Group B, and Belgium should be listed in Group H). For another, Iran did not participate in the 2002 FIFA World Cup. And finally, Republic of Ireland did participate (Group E).

72.71.137.46 (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Yep its waas udone and then vandalised again, thanks for pointing it out. Murry1975 (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2002 FIFA World Cup squads. 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://archive.is/20120912005020/http://www.scoreshelf.com/dhcb/en/World_Cup/2002 to http://www.scoreshelf.com/dhcb/en/World_Cup/2002

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) 00:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:2002 FIFA World Cup squads


text:
Conqueror (tank)

The FV 214 Conqueror, also known as Tank, Heavy No. 1, 120 mm Gun, Conqueror was a British heavy tank of the post-World War II era. It was developed as a response to the Soviet IS-3 heavy tank. The Conqueror's main armament, an L1 120 mm gun, was larger than the 20-pounder (83.4 mm) gun carried by its peer, the Centurion. The Conqueror's role was to provide long range anti-tank support for the Centurion. Nine Conquerors were issued for each regiment in Germany, usually grouped in three tank troops. In the British Army both the Conqueror and the Centurion were replaced by the Chieftain.

Design and development
The chassis was from the A 45 Infantry Support Tank, a project started in 1944 shortly after that of the A 41 Centurion. After the war, the project was relocated to that of the "Universal Tank" design of the FV 200 series. The 200 series was to have used a common hull for all uses (self-propelled artillery, armoured personnel carrier, three varieties of tank, etc.). One tank type was to be the heavy FV 201 of 55 tonnes, armed with an 83.8 mm gun.

In 1949, it was decided to bring the armament up to 120 mm. As this delayed the project, in 1952 the FV 201 hull was combined with a 17 pounder-armed Centurion Mk 2 turret to give the FV 221 Caernarvon Mark I. Twenty-one were built with the Mk III 20 pounder turret as the Caernarvon Mk II. The FV 221 may originally have been intended to be the "Main Battle Tank" member of the FV 201 series but with the success of the A 41 Centurion such a vehicle was no longer required. In either event, the Caernarvon was only used for chassis development work serving in troop trials. In 1955, the first Conqueror was produced. Twenty Mark 1 and 165 Mark 2 Conquerors were built, including conversions of Caernarvon Mk IIs. Production continued until 1959. It lost much tactical relevance once the Centurion was upgraded to an L7 105 mm gun.

The new, larger-calibre gun design was American, the same as used on the US M103 heavy tank; with separate charge and projectile, as would also be the case in the Chieftain that followed. The charge was not bagged but in a brass cartridge, which offered some safety advantages, but reduced shell capacity to 35.

The armour was very heavy for the time, especially in the front, where it could be up to either 18.8 or 26.7 inches (480 – 680 mm) thick in the horizontal plane, depending on the source. Unfortunately, this, along with the weight of the huge turret required to house the large gun and the very large hull volume, made the vehicle very heavy, giving it a relatively low top speed and making it unreliable. Also, few bridges could support its weight. However, rather like the Second World War Churchill tank, the Conqueror had exceptional terrain handling characteristics.

One feature of particular note was the rotating commander's cupola, which was at the heart of the Conqueror's fire control system and was advanced for its time. The commander could align the cupola on a target independently of the turret, measure the range with a coincidence rangefinder, and then direct the gunner on to the new lay mechanically indicated to him by the cupola. In theory, when the gunner traversed to the new lay, he would find the target already under his sights, ready to be engaged. Meanwhile, the commander was free to search for the next target. The Soviet bloc also used similar devices, such as the TPKU-2 and TKN-3, on all of their post–World War II tanks, though theirs did not include a rangefinder.

Reliability
The Conqueror was notoriously unreliable "all broke down at every conceivable opportunity" and never saw active service.

It was the largest and heaviest tank used by the British Army at that time.

Variants
The variants of the Conqueror tank and developments directly related to its development are:
 * FV 214 Conqueror
 * Mk I (had three periscopes for the driver)
 * Mk II (included better join of frontal armour plates, a single periscope for the driver, and an improved exhaust system)
 * Mk II/I/H – rebuilt Caernarvons.
 * Tank, Heavy No. 2, 183 mm Gun, FV 215
 * Design study of Conqueror chassis with limited traverse turret mounting 183 mm gun. Wooden mockup produced.

 * FV 221 Caernarvon
 * Mk I – prototype
 * Mk II – experimental series, 21 built
 * FV 222 Conqueror Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV)
 * Mk I – 8 produced
 * Mk II – 20 produced. Weight: 57 tons. Winch capacity: 45 tons (direct pull).

Operators

 * 🇬🇧: 1955–1966. Deployed with BAOR in West Germany only.

Surviving vehicles
In the United Kingdom, Conqueror tanks are displayed at The Tank Museum, Bovington, at the Land Warfare Hall of the Imperial War Museum Duxford and at the Defence Capability Centre in Shrivenham. Other tanks are in the collections of the Musée des Blindés in France, the Gunfire Museum in Brasschaat, Belgium (a Mark 2), the Kubinka Tank Museum, Russia, and the Royal Tank Museum, Amman, Jordan. One is privately owned in the United States as part of the Littlefield Collection and another is in use as a gate guardian outside the Royal Tank Regiment Officers' Mess, which was restored by 2nd Royal Tank Regiment Light Aid Detachment (REME) in 2009, having previously been in a deteriorating state at Castlemartin Ranges (where it had previously been the guardian "Romulus" before being replaced by a German Leopard MBT).

There are also two MkII ARVs at the Military History Museum on the Isle of Wight in an unrestored condition. A MkII ARV is held by the REME Museum of Technology, although it is not on display. There was formerly a Conqueror gate guardian at Base Vehicle Depot Ludgershall – informally known as "William". It is now part of the Isle of Wight Military Museum.

A Conqueror ARV remained in service at the Amphibious Experimental Establishment AXE, at Instow in North Devon, UK. It was used for beach tank recovery practice. At least one Conqueror exists in poor condition on the grounds of Kirkcudbright Training Area in Scotland, where it was used as a gunnery target. A number of Conquerors remain on the Haltern Training area in Germany.

title: Conqueror (tank)


text:
User talk:Dvdstelt

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. About, Help desk, and Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

13:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dvdstelt