text:
Nonimaging optics

Nonimaging optics (also called anidolic optics)  is a branch of optics that is concerned with the optimal transfer of light radiation between a source and a target. Unlike traditional imaging optics, the techniques involved do not attempt to form an image of the source; instead an optimized optical system for optimal radiative transfer from a source to a target is desired.

Applications
The two design problems that nonimaging optics solves better than imaging optics are:
 * solar energy concentration: maximizing the amount of energy applied to a receiver, typically a solar cell or a thermal receiver
 * illumination: controlling the distribution of light, typically so it is "evenly" spread over some areas and completely blocked from other areas

Typical variables to be optimized at the target include the total radiant flux, the angular distribution of optical radiation, and the spatial distribution of optical radiation. These variables on the target side of the optical system often must be optimized while simultaneously considering the collection efficiency of the optical system at the source.

Solar energy concentration
For a given concentration, nonimaging optics provide the widest possible acceptance angles and, therefore, are the most appropriate for use in solar concentration as, for example, in concentrated photovoltaics. When compared to "traditional" imaging optics (such as parabolic reflectors or fresnel lenses), the main advantages of nonimaging optics for concentrating solar energy are:
 * wider acceptance angles resulting in higher tolerances (and therefore higher efficiencies) for:
 * less precise tracking
 * imperfectly manufactured optics
 * imperfectly assembled components
 * movements of the system due to wind
 * finite stiffness of the supporting structure
 * deformation due to aging
 * capture of circumsolar radiation
 * other imperfections in the system
 * higher solar concentrations
 * smaller solar cells (in concentrated photovoltaics)
 * higher temperatures (in concentrated solar thermal)
 * lower thermal losses (in concentrated solar thermal)
 * widen the applications of concentrated solar power, for example to solar lasers
 * possibility of a uniform illumination of the receiver
 * improve reliability and efficiency of the solar cells (in concentrated photovoltaics)
 * improve heat transfer (in concentrated solar thermal)
 * design flexibility: different kinds of optics with different geometries can be tailored for different applications

Also, for low concentrations, the very wide acceptance angles of nonimaging optics can avoid solar tracking altogether or limit it to a few positions a year.

The main disadvantage of nonimaging optics when compared to parabolic reflectors or Fresnel lenses is that, for high concentrations, they typically have one more optical surface, slightly decreasing efficiency. That, however, is only noticeable when the optics are aiming perfectly towards the Sun, which is typically not the case because of imperfections in practical systems.

Illumination optics
Examples of nonimaging optical devices include optical light guides, nonimaging reflectors, nonimaging lenses or a combination of these devices. Common applications of nonimaging optics include many areas of illumination engineering (lighting). Examples of modern implementations of nonimaging optical designs include automotive headlamps, LCD backlights, illuminated instrument panel displays, fiber optic illumination devices, LED lights, projection display systems and luminaires.

When compared to "traditional" design techniques, nonimaging optics has the following advantages for illumination:
 * better handling of extended sources
 * more compact optics
 * color mixing capabilities
 * combination of light sources and light distribution to different places
 * well suited to be used with increasingly popular LED light sources
 * tolerance to variations in the relative position of light source and optic

Examples of nonimaging illumination optics using solar energy are anidolic lighting or solar pipes.

Other applications
Modern portable and wearable optical devices, and systems of small sizes and low weights may require nanotechnology. This issue may be addressed by nonimaging metaoptics, which uses metalenses and metamirrors to deal with the optimal transfer of light energy.

Collecting radiation emitted by high-energy particle collisions using the fewest photomultiplier tubes.

Collecting luminescent radiation in photon upconversion devices with the compound parabolic concentrator being to-date the most promising geometrical optics collector.

Some of the design methods for nonimaging optics are also finding application in imaging devices, for example some with ultra-high numerical aperture.

Theory
Early academic research in nonimaging optical mathematics seeking closed form solutions was first published in textbook form in a 1978 book. A modern textbook illustrating the depth and breadth of research and engineering in this area was published in 2004. A thorough introduction to this field was published in 2008.

Special applications of nonimaging optics such as Fresnel lenses for solar concentration or solar concentration in general have also been published, although this last reference by O'Gallagher describes mostly the work developed some decades ago. Other publications include book chapters.

Imaging optics can concentrate sunlight to, at most, the same flux found at the surface of the Sun. Nonimaging optics have been demonstrated to concentrate sunlight to 84,000 times the ambient intensity of sunlight, exceeding the flux found at the surface of the Sun, and approaching the theoretical (2nd law of thermodynamics) limit of heating objects to the temperature of the Sun's surface.

The simplest way to design nonimaging optics is called "the method of strings", based on the edge ray principle. Other more advanced methods were developed starting in the early 1990s that can better handle extended light sources than the edge-ray method. These were developed primarily to solve the design problems related to solid state automobile headlamps and complex illumination systems. One of these advanced design methods is the simultaneous multiple surface design method (SMS). The 2D SMS design method is described in detail in the aforementioned textbooks. The 3D SMS design method was developed in 2003 by a team of optical scientists at Light Prescriptions Innovators.

Edge ray principle
In simple terms, the edge ray principle states that if the light rays coming from the edges of the source are redirected towards the edges of the receiver, this will ensure that all light rays coming from the inner points in the source will end up on the receiver. There is no condition on image formation, the only goal is to transfer the light from the source to the target.

Figure Edge ray principle on the right illustrates this principle. A lens collects light from a source S1S2 and redirects it towards a receiver R1R2.

The lens has two optical surfaces and, therefore, it is possible to design it (using the SMS design method) so that the light rays coming from the edge S1 of the source are redirected towards edge R1 of the receiver, as indicated by the blue rays. By symmetry, the rays coming from edge S2 of the source are redirected towards edge R2 of the receiver, as indicated by the red rays. The rays coming from an inner point S in the source are redirected towards the target, but they are not concentrated onto a point and, therefore, no image is formed.

Actually, if we consider a point P on the top surface of the lens, a ray coming from S1 through P will be redirected towards R1. Also a ray coming from S2 through P will be redirected towards R2. A ray coming through P from an inner point S in the source will be redirected towards an inner point of the receiver. This lens then guarantees that all light from the source crossing it will be redirected towards the receiver. However, no image of the source is formed on the target. Imposing the condition of image formation on the receiver would imply using more optical surfaces, making the optic more complicated, but would not improve light transfer between source and target (since all light is already transferred). For that reason nonimaging optics are simpler and more efficient than imaging optics in transferring radiation from a source to a target.

Design methods
Nonimaging optics devices are obtained using different methods. The most important are: the flow-line or Winston-Welford design method, the SMS or Miñano-Benitez design method and the Miñano design method using Poisson brackets. The first (flow-line) is probably the most used, although the second (SMS) has proven very versatile, resulting in a wide variety of optics. The third has remained in the realm of theoretical optics and has not found real world application to date. Often optimization is also used.

Typically optics have refractive and reflective surfaces and light travels through media of different refractive indices as it crosses the optic. In those cases a quantity called optical path length (OPL) may be defined as $S = \sum_i n_i d_i$ where index i indicates different ray sections between successive deflections (refractions or reflections), ni is the refractive index and di the distance in each section i of the ray path.

The OPL is constant between wavefronts. This can be seen for refraction in the figure "constant OPL" to the right. It shows a separation c(τ) between two media of refractive indices n1 and n2, where c(τ) is described by a parametric equation with parameter τ. Also shown are a set of rays perpendicular to wavefront w1 and traveling in the medium of refractive index n1. These rays refract at c(τ) into the medium of refractive index n2 in directions perpendicular to wavefront w2. Ray rA crosses c at point c(τA) and, therefore, ray rA is identified by parameter τA on c. Likewise, ray rB is identified by parameter τB on c. Ray rA has optical path length. Also, ray rB has optical path length. The difference in optical path length for rays rA and rB is given by:

$$\begin{align} S(\tau_\mathrm{B}) &- S(\tau_\mathrm{A}) \\ &= \int_\mathrm{A}^\mathrm{B} dS = \int_{\tau_\mathrm{A}}^{\tau_\mathrm{B}} \frac{dS}{d\tau}d\tau \\ &= \int_{\tau_\mathrm{A}}^{\tau_\mathrm{B}} \frac{S(\tau + d \tau) - S(\tau)}{(\tau + d\tau) - \tau}d\tau\,. \end{align}$$

In order to calculate the value of this integral, we evaluate S(τ + dτ) − S(τ), again with the help of the same figure. We have and S(τ + dτ) = n1(d1 + d2) + n2d4. These expressions can be rewritten as and S(τ + dτ) = n1d1 + n1dc sinθ1 + n2d4. From the law of refraction and therefore S(τ + dτ) = S(τ), leading to. Since these may be arbitrary rays crossing c, it may be concluded that the optical path length between w1 and w2 is the same for all rays perpendicular to incoming wavefront w1 and outgoing wavefront w2.

Similar conclusions may be drawn for the case of reflection, only in this case. This relationship between rays and wavefronts is valid in general.

Flow-line design method
The flow-line (or Winston-Welford) design method typically leads to optics which guide the light confining it between two reflective surfaces. The best known of these devices is the CPC (Compound Parabolic Concentrator).

These types of optics may be obtained, for example, by applying the edge ray of nonimaging optics to the design of mirrored optics, as shown in figure "CEC" on the right. It is composed of two elliptical mirrors e1 with foci S1 and R1 and its symmetrical e2 with foci S2 and R2.

Mirror e1 redirects the rays coming from the edge S1 of the source towards the edge R1 of the receiver and, by symmetry, mirror e2 redirects the rays coming from the edge S2 of the source towards the edge R2 of the receiver. This device does not form an image of the source S1S2 on the receiver R1R2 as indicated by the green rays coming from a point S in the source that end up on the receiver but are not focused onto an image point. Mirror e2 starts at the edge R1 of the receiver since leaving a gap between mirror and receiver would allow light to escape between the two. Also, mirror e2 ends at ray r connecting S1 and R2 since cutting it short would prevent it from capturing as much light as possible, but extending it above r would shade light coming from S1 and its neighboring points of the source. The resulting device is called a CEC (Compound Elliptical Concentrator).

A particular case of this design happens when the source S1S2 becomes infinitely large and moves to an infinite distance. Then the rays coming from S1 become parallel rays and the same for those coming from S2 and the elliptical mirrors e1 and e2 converge to parabolic mirrors p1 and p2. The resulting device is called a CPC (Compound Parabolic Concentrator), and shown in the "CPC" figure on the left. CPCs are the most common seen nonimaging optics. They are often used to demonstrate the difference between Imaging optics and nonimaging optics.

When seen from the CPC, the incoming radiation (emitted from the infinite source at an infinite distance) subtends an angle ±θ (total angle 2θ). This is called the acceptance angle of the CPC. The reason for this name can be appreciated in the figure "rays showing the acceptance angle" on the right. An incoming ray r1 at an angle θ to the vertical (coming from the edge of the infinite source) is redirected by the CPC towards the edge R1 of the receiver.

Another ray r2 at an angle α<θ to the vertical (coming from an inner point of the infinite source) is redirected towards an inner point of the receiver. However, a ray r3 at an angle β>θ to the vertical (coming from a point outside the infinite source) bounces around inside the CPC until it is rejected by it. Therefore, only the light inside the acceptance angle ±θ is captured by the optic; light outside it is rejected.

The ellipses of a CEC can be obtained by the (pins and) string method, as shown in the figure "string method" on the left. A string of constant length is attached to edge point S1 of the source and edge point R1 of the receiver.

The string is kept stretched while moving a pencil up and down, drawing the elliptical mirror e1. We can now consider a wavefront w1 as a circle centered at S1. This wavefront is perpendicular to all rays coming out of S1 and the distance from S1 to w1 is constant for all its points. The same is valid for wavefront w2 centered at R1. The distance from w1 to w2 is then constant for all light rays reflected at e1 and these light rays are perpendicular to both, incoming wavefront w1 and outgoing wavefront w2.

Optical path length (OPL) is constant between wavefronts. When applied to nonimaging optics, this result extends the string method to optics with both refractive and reflective surfaces. Figure "DTIRC" (Dielectric Total Internal Reflection Concentrator) on the left shows one such example.

The shape of the top surface s is prescribed, for example, as a circle. Then the lateral wall m1 is calculated by the condition of constant optical path length S=d1+n d2+n d3 where d1 is the distance between incoming wavefront w1 and point P on the top surface s, d2 is the distance between P and Q and d3 the distance between Q and outgoing wavefront w2, which is circular and centered at R1. Lateral wall m2 is symmetrical to m1. The acceptance angle of the device is 2θ.

These optics are called flow-line optics and the reason for that is illustrated in figure "CPC flow-lines" on the right. It shows a CPC with an acceptance angle 2θ, highlighting one of its inner points P.

The light crossing this point is confined to a cone of angular aperture 2α. A line f is also shown whose tangent at point P bisects this cone of light and, therefore, points in the direction of the "light flow" at P. Several other such lines are also shown in the figure. They all bisect the edge rays at each point inside the CPC and, for that reason, their tangent at each point points in the direction of the flow of light. These are called flow-lines and the CPC itself is just a combination of flow line p1 starting at R2 and p2 starting at R1.

Variations to the flow-line design method
There are some variations to the flow-line design method.

A variation are the multichannel or stepped flow-line optics in which light is split into several "channels" and then recombined again into a single output. Aplanatic (a particular case of SMS) versions of these designs have also been developed. The main application of this method is in the design of ultra-compact optics.

Another variation is the confinement of light by caustics. Instead of light being confined by two reflective surfaces, it is confined by a reflective surface and a caustic of the edge rays. This provides the possibility to add lossless non-optical surfaces to the optics.

Simultaneous multiple surface (SMS) design method
This section describes"a nonimaging optics design method known in the field as the simultaneous multiple surface (SMS) or the Miñano-Benitez design method. The abbreviation SMS comes from the fact that it enables the simultaneous design of multiple optical surfaces. The original idea came from Miñano. The design method itself was initially developed in 2-D by Miñano and later also by Benítez. The first generalization to 3-D geometry came from Benítez. It was then much further developed by contributions of Miñano and Benítez. Other people have worked initially with Miñano and later with Miñano and Benítez on programming the method."

The design procedure"is related to the algorithm used by Schulz in the design of aspheric imaging lenses."

The SMS (or Miñano-Benitez) design method is very versatile and many different types of optics have been designed using it. The 2D version allows the design of two (although more are also possible) aspheric surfaces simultaneously. The 3D version allows the design of optics with freeform surfaces (also called anamorphic) surfaces which may not have any kind of symmetry.

SMS optics are also calculated by applying a constant optical path length between wavefronts. Figure "SMS chain" on the right illustrates how these optics are calculated. In general, the rays perpendicular to incoming wavefront w1 will be coupled to outgoing wavefront w4 and the rays perpendicular to incoming wavefront w2 will be coupled to outgoing wavefront w3 and these wavefronts may be any shape. However, for the sake of simplicity, this figure shows a particular case or circular wavefronts. This example shows a lens of a given refractive index n designed for a source S1S2 and a receiver R1R2.

The rays emitted from edge S1 of the source are focused onto edge R1 of the receiver and those emitted from edge S2 of the source are focused onto edge R2 of the receiver. We first choose a point T0 and its normal on the top surface of the lens. We can now take a ray r1 coming from S2 and refract it at T0. Choosing now the optical path length S22 between S2 and R2 we have one condition that allows us to calculate point B1 on the bottom surface of the lens. The normal at B1 can also be calculated from the directions of the incoming and outgoing rays at this point and the refractive index of the lens. Now we can repeat the process taking a ray r2 coming from R1 and refracting it at B1. Choosing now the optical path length S11 between R1 and S1 we have one condition that allows us to calculate point T1 on the top surface of the lens. The normal at T1 can also be calculated from the directions of the incoming and outgoing rays at this point and the refractive index of the lens. Now, refracting at T1 a ray r3 coming from S2 we can calculate a new point B3 and corresponding normal on the bottom surface using the same optical path length S22 between S2 and R2. Refracting at B3 a ray r4 coming from R1 we can calculate a new point T3 and corresponding normal on the top surface using the same optical path length S11 between R1 and S1. The process continues by calculating another point B5 on the bottom surface using another edge ray r5, and so on. The sequence of points T0 B1 T1 B3 T3 B5 is called an SMS chain.

Another SMS chain can be constructed towards the right starting at point T0. A ray from S1 refracted at T0 defines a point and normal B2 on the bottom surface, by using constant optical path length S11 between S1 and R1. Now a ray from R2 refracted at B2 defines a new point and normal T2 on the top surface, by using constant optical path length S22 between S2 and R2. The process continues as more points are added to the SMS chain. In this example shown in the figure, the optic has a left-right symmetry and, therefore, points B2 T2 B4 T4 B6 can also be obtained by symmetry about the vertical axis of the lens.

Now we have a sequence of spaced points on the plane. Figure "SMS skinning" on the left illustrates the process used to fill the gaps between points, completely defining both optical surfaces.

We pick two points, say B1 and B2, with their corresponding normals and interpolate a curve c between them. Now we pick a point B12 and its normal on c. A ray r1 coming from R1 and refracted at B12 defines a new point T01 and its normal between T0 and T1 on the top surface, by applying the same constant optical path length S11 between S1 and R1. Now a ray r2 coming from S2 and refracted at T01 defines a new point and normal on the bottom surface, by applying the same constant optical path length S22 between S2 and R2. The process continues with rays r3 and r4 building a new SMS chain filling the gaps between points. Picking other points and corresponding normals on curve c gives us more points in between the other SMS points calculated originally.

In general, the two SMS optical surfaces do not need to be refractive. Refractive surfaces are noted R (from Refraction) while reflective surfaces are noted X (from the Spanish word refleXión). Total Internal Reflection (TIR) is noted I. Therefore, a lens with two refractive surfaces is an RR optic, while another configuration with a reflective and a refractive surface is an XR optic. Configurations with more optical surfaces are also possible and, for example, if light is first refracted (R), then reflected (X) then reflected again by TIR (I), the optic is called an RXI.

The SMS 3D is similar to the SMS 2D, only now all calculations are done in 3D space. Figure "SMS 3D chain" on the right illustrates the algorithm of an SMS 3D calculation.

The first step is to choose the incoming wavefronts w1 and w2 and outgoing wavefronts w3 and w4 and the optical path length S14 between w1 and w4 and the optical path length S23 between w2 and w3. In this example the optic is a lens (an RR optic) with two refractive surfaces, so its refractive index must also be specified. One difference between the SMS 2D and the SMS 3D is on how to choose initial point T0, which is now on a chosen 3D curve a. The normal chosen for point T0 must be perpendicular to curve a. The process now evolves similarly to the SMS 2D. A ray r1 coming from w1 is refracted at T0 and, with the optical path length S14, a new point B2 and its normal is obtained on the bottom surface. Now ray r2 coming from w3 is refracted at B2 and, with the optical path length S 23, a new point T2 and its normal is obtained on the top surface. With ray r3 a new point B2 and its normal are obtained, with ray r4 a new point T4 and its normal are obtained, and so on. This process is performed in 3D space and the result is a 3D SMS chain. As with the SMS 2D, a set of points and normals to the left of T0 can also be obtained using the same method. Now, choosing another point T0 on curve a the process can be repeated and more points obtained on the top and bottom surfaces of the lens.

The power of the SMS method lies in the fact that the incoming and outgoing wavefronts can themselves be free-form, giving the method great flexibility. Also, by designing optics with reflective surfaces or combinations of reflective and refractive surfaces, different configurations are possible.

Miñano design method using Poisson brackets
This design method was developed by Miñano and is based on Hamiltonian optics, the Hamiltonian formulation of geometrical optics which shares much of the mathematical formulation with Hamiltonian mechanics. It allows the design of optics with variable refractive index, and therefore solves some nonimaging problems that are not solvable using other methods. However, manufacturing of variable refractive index optics is still not possible and this method, although potentially powerful, did not yet find a practical application.

Conservation of etendue
Conservation of etendue is a central concept in nonimaging optics. In concentration optics, it relates the acceptance angle with the maximum concentration possible. Conservation of etendue may be seen as constant a volume moving in phase space.

Köhler integration
In some applications it is important to achieve a given irradiance (or illuminance) pattern on a target, while allowing for movements or inhomogeneities of the source. Figure "Köhler integrator" on the right illustrates this for the particular case of solar concentration. Here the light source is the sun moving in the sky. On the left this figure shows a lens L1 L2 capturing sunlight incident at an angle α to the optical axis and concentrating it onto a receiver L3 L4. As seen, this light is concentrated onto a hotspot on the receiver. This may be a problem in some applications. One way around this is to add a new lens extending from L3 to L4 that captures the light from L1 L2 and redirects it onto a receiver R1 R2, as shown in the middle of the figure.

The situation in the middle of the figure shows a nonimaging lens L1 L2 is designed in such a way that sunlight (here considered as a set of parallel rays) incident at an angle θ to the optical axis will be concentrated to point L3. On the other hand, nonimaging lens L3 L4 is designed in such a way that light rays coming from L1 are focused on R2 and light rays coming from L2 are focused on R1. Therefore, ray r1 incident on the first lens at an angle θ will be redirected towards L3. When it hits the second lens, it is coming from point L1 and it is redirected by the second lens to R2. On the other hand, ray r2 also incident on the first lens at an angle θ will also be redirected towards L3. However, when it hits the second lens, it is coming from point L2 and it is redirected by the second lens to R1. Intermediate rays incident on the first lens at an angle θ will be redirected to points between R1 and R2, fully illuminating the receiver.

Something similar happens in the situation shown in the same figure, on the right. Ray r3 incident on the first lens at an angle α<θ will be redirected towards a point between L3 and L4. When it hits the second lens, it is coming from point L1 and it is redirected by the second lens to R2. Also, Ray r4 incident on the first lens at an angle α<θ will be redirected towards a point between L3 and L4. When it hits the second lens, it is coming from point L2 and it is redirected by the second lens to R1. Intermediate rays incident on the first lens at an angle α<θ will be redirected to points between R1 and R2, also fully illuminating the receiver.

This combination of optical elements is called Köhler illumination. Although the example given here was for solar energy concentration, the same principles apply for illumination in general. In practice, Köhler optics are typically not designed as a combination of nonimaging optics, but they are simplified versions with a lower number of active optical surfaces. This decreases the effectiveness of the method, but allows for simpler optics. Also, Köhler optics are often divided into several sectors, each one of them channeling light separately and then combining all the light on the target.

An example of one of these optics used for solar concentration is the Fresnel-R Köhler.

Compound parabolic concentrator
In the drawing opposite there are two parabolic mirrors CC' (red) and DD' (blue). Both parabolas are cut at B and A respectively. A is the focal point of parabola CC' and B is the focal point of the parabola DD' The area DC is the entrance aperture and the flat absorber is AB. This CPC has an acceptance angle of θ.

The parabolic concentrator has an entrance aperture of DC and a focal point F.

The parabolic concentrator only accepts rays of light that are perpendicular to the entrance aperture DC. The tracking of this type of concentrator must be more exact and requires expensive equipment.

The compound parabolic concentrator accepts a greater amount of light and needs less accurate tracking.

For a 3-dimensional "nonimaging compound parabolic concentrator", the maximum concentration possible in air or in vacuum (equal to the ratio of input and output aperture areas), is:

$$C = \frac{1}{\sin^2 \theta}\,,$$

where $$\theta$$ is the half-angle of the acceptance angle (of the larger aperture).

History
The development started in the mid-1960s at three different locations by V. K. Baranov (USSR) with the study of the focons (focusing cones) Martin Ploke (Germany), and Roland Winston (United States), and led to the independent origin of the first nonimaging concentrators, later applied to solar energy concentration. Among these three earliest works, the one most developed was the American one, resulting in what nonimaging optics is today.

A good introduction was published by - Winston, Roland. “Nonimaging Optics.” Scientific American, vol. 264, no. 3, 1991, pp. 76–81. JSTOR,

There are different commercial companies and universities working on nonimaging optics. Currently the largest research group in this subject is the Advanced Optics group at the CeDInt, part of the Technical University of Madrid (UPM).

title: Nonimaging optics


text:
User:Pretzelogic

Thaks for visiting, please leave messages in my discussion page. :)

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

title: User:Pretzelogic


text:
Dairy, Oregon

Dairy is an unincorporated community in Klamath County, Oregon, United States.

History
According to Oregon Geographic Names, Dairy was named by William Roberts, a pioneer settler, who chose the name after having lived in another community by that name in the eastern United States. Roberts was the first postmaster of the Dairy post office, established in 1876.

Dairy lies in a valley formerly called Alkali Valley but later renamed Yonna Valley, its Klamath name. In 2004, the Klamath County Commissioners changed the name of Squaw Flat Road, which lies in the Yonna Valley slightly east of Dairy, to Bliss Road. Bliss Road runs generally north–south between Oregon Route 140 and the community of Sprague River.

Dairy had a station on the Oregon, California and Eastern Railway, which by 1927 reached from Klamath Falls to Bly. A 1941 timetable lists Hildebrand as the seventh stop east of Klamath Falls between Moyina and Hildebrand. After 1990, the rail line passing near Dairy became part of a rail trail, the OC&E Woods Line State Trail, managed by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department.

Geography
Dairy is along Oregon Route 140 at the west end of Oregon Route 70, and is about 19 mi from Klamath Falls. The city of Bonanza is about 7 mi to the southeast at the other end of Route 70, also known as the Dairy–Bonanza Highway.

Climate
This region experiences warm (but not hot) and dry summers, with no average monthly temperatures above 71.6 F. According to the Köppen Climate Classification system, Dairy has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate, abbreviated "Csb" on climate maps.

title: Dairy, Oregon


text:
File:Nikkihill.JPG

Summary
Book cover of 'the Trials of Nikki Hill'

title: File:Nikkihill.JPG


text:
Michael Bossy Trophy

The Michael Bossy Trophy (French:Trophée Michael Bossy) is awarded annually to the player in the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League judged to be the best professional prospect. The award is named after former New York Islanders forward Mike Bossy, who played in the QMJHL prior to his Hockey Hall of Fame career.

Winners
List of trophy winners:

title: Michael Bossy Trophy


text:
Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 1

Neutrality

 * If you are so sure that damage and fire caused the collapse of 7 WTC then prove it. ''
 * I don't have to, as this is not the forum for debating 9/11. Please take it elsewhere. Thank you. --Durin 03:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Pretty simple, if you are going to claim it, then you need to prove it, otherwise you will be perverting wikipedia, you have an opinion, encylopdias are not editorials. ''
 * As I have noted several times before, this is not the forum for debate. Also, *I* am not the one who made the changes you are contesting. So, not only are you arguing in the wrong place, you are also arguing with the wrong person. And again, as I have stated before, if you find fault with something in the article then by all means change it. Just be prepared to have your edits reverted for failure to have a basis in fact. Please cease this debate. You are getting nowhere. --Durin 20:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This is the discussion page, no? I am not argueing at all, I am debating under the rules of logic,and Socratic method, this is what discussion is. If people want to claim things on the discussion page then they need to back it up with something, not with opinion, or expert opinion, especially not the expert opion of the expert that favors their claim. ''

 * The problem with the damage and fire theory is that its primary supporting claim is founded in nothing, and can't be proven, and is a unique phenomenon that is not supported by history or any other lab expierment, as a matter of fact lab expierments show that fires do not cause ASTM E 119 to melt, or even stress significantly. Steel for building structures are preengineered, lab tested, and fire rated. another unsigned edit by
 * If the steel is incapable of being compromised by fire, then why put fire protective coatings on it? Again, if you're so certain about what caused WTC 7 to collapse, then by all means change the article. Again, be prepared to have your changes reverted. This is not the forum for debate. --Durin 13:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." - Kevin Ryan http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451 ''
 * UL Executive Speaks Out on WTC Study

A respected professional magazine read by firefighters and engineers is calling the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Towers a farce and a sham. http://www.americanfreepress.net/Conspiracy/Fire_Engineers_Call_WTC_Probe/fire_engineers_call_wtc_probe.html ''
 * Fire Engineers Call WTC Probe ‘Half-Baked Farce’

The problem with the controlled demolition theory is that its primary supporting claim is the history of fires in steel buildings. Let’s start with the Towers themselves. It is often noted that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand airplane impacts. This is true. The Titanic was also designed to withstand iceberg impacts without sinking; most of us are familiar with the fate that particular ship met. The WTC complex experienced a sudden violent impact followed by intense fires. The scale of the fires in the WTC complex sets it aside from the history of any other building. In other words, it was a unique occurrence. This fire did not start slowly; it did not gradually grow into a dangerous threat. This blaze was an immediate raging inferno the second the towers were hit, and it was a continuous raging inferno until their collapse. To suggest that two 110 story buildings collapsing would have no significant impact on the structural integrity of an adjacent 47 story building goes against the normal thought process of what one would expect to happen. We have photos that highlight some of the damage, and that’s only what we can see from the outside. We have first hand personnel that can describe damage to the structure. We also know that fires were spreading without resistance through the building. We have video showing the authorities moving people away because of the fear it might collapse. And finally, we have the collapse itself.

There are errors in the thought processes that are apparent in the controlled demolition theory. For example, one fallacy argues that if you cannot disprove a claim it must be true. In the investigative world, belief comes from positive evidence in support of a claim, not a lack of evidence for or against a claim. Many theorists also rely on what is known as a false positive to make certain claims. For example, strange mountain shapes on Mars offer proof on an underground civilization.

 * The above paragraph is a strwman, noone has made that arguement in this discussion.

For some who believe in the demolition theory, no amount of evidence will ever be enough. The only way to be certain would be to have the luxury of time travel. Regardless of what the preponderance of evidence suggests, there will always be that sinister statement that stands out. There will always be this photograph that “looks” strange or “appears” to do this or “seems” to confirm that. The human brain is trained to look for connections in its observations. This is why Dan Rather said what he said; this is why some firefighters reported explosions. It is the way our mind works.

Encyclopedias have to rely not only on evidence, but the validity of that evidence. A simple solution here might be to point out the existence of a controversy, which is simply the ongoing discussion here and direct the reader to a more appropriate section. The official story is the official story for a reason. It is the most widely believed and most widely accepted scenario by the majority of the public. It is my view that this section of the article not be a forum for a persuasive argument in favor of or against the idea of a controlled demolition.--Doctor9 19:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I know it's very pathetic to argue about one word, but "many" implies that it is a widely accepted theory whereas "some" is more vague, but then again we don't know how many people do think that. And I'd like to see some sources on this Larry Silverstein stuff. - Mirage5000 05:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "Because of the percived unusual nature of its collapse[3], 7 World Trade Center is frequently mentioned in 9/11 conspiracy theories". This sentenece is slanted. No steel skyscrapers had collapsed before or since 9/11, that makes it unusal, the word percived is very biased, as if it is only a perception and not a fact, it is a fact that the collapse of 7 is unusual, with the only examples of like collapse being controlled demolitions, but you are welcome to prove there are other examples if you can! You will not be able to. ''
 * That is because there is no building with its type of structure which has experienced significant structural damage and then endured 7 hours of unchecked fires and survived. I invite you to find another building that has. Fire was not the only factor in its collapse, just as in WTC 1 and 2 fire was not the only factor in their collapse.  --Durin 19:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Prove it! unsigned edit by

 * Some or Many? 50% of the people of NYC believe that 9/11 was an inside job according to a Zogby poll http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855, so that would be many, very many. Silverstein said, "pull it" not them. Do you think he refers to people as it? We need to go by what he said. An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull". Silverstein was the owner at the time of 9/11 as far as I can tell, he was leasee of the rest of the WTC complex. Silverstein's "pull it" statement in mp3 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html unsigned edit by
 * The Zogby poll link referenced above does not come to the conclusion that 50% of New Yorkers believe it was an "inside job." The poll suggests New Yorkers believe US Leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9-11 Attacks and consciously failed to act. --Doctor9 03:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Recomendation, do not use the term "conspiracy theorist", it is associted with the tin foil hat, chubacabras, aliens and the like, and has been demonized in the popular vernacular, despite it's dictionary meaning.
 * Prove that there were firefighters in the building at the time Silverstein said "pull it". Just prove it! unsigned edit by
 * I think it's up the people who believe "it" meant demolishing to show that there were no firefighters in WTC 7 at the time Silverstein said "pull it" and that Silverstein knew there were no firefighters in the building. --Durin 18:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof lies in the court of the person who claimed this "The expression could simply refer to a decision to pull firefighting operations out of the building" because if there were no firefighters in the building at the time Silverstein said, "pull it" his statement could not mean remove the fighterfighters. So the claimer needs to establish, who Silverstein talked to, when he talked to him, and when the firefighters were removed from WTC 7, otherwise it is an unsubtantiated claim. Who is the "we" that "watched the building collapse" and when did they watch? unsigned edit by
 * The government's stance is that pull "it" did not refer to demolition of the building. Based on your assertion, the government should therefore be burdened with proving that there were no missiles on the 767 tanker with no windows, that there was no nuclear bomb that blew up beneath WTC 1&2, that there were no explosive inside WTC 1, 2, and 7, that there was no inside job, etc...etc...etc... Otherwise, their statements to the contrary are nothing but unsubstantiated claims. I guess the moon landings didn't happen either since the government hasn't proven to the satisfaction of the conspiracy theorists that the Van Allen belts won't kill you on contact, or that there isn't a large chem trailing program over the entire country, much less the planet. We can do this ad nauseum. Personally, I'm not up for it. FEMA, NIST and others have teamed with literally hundreds of related field experts to determine the collapse sequences of the various WTC towers. In no case has any part of the investigation led to the possible conclusion that any of the buildings were intentionally demolished. If you want to insist on believing in unknown demolition teams working in total anonymity for weeks prior to 9/11 without anyone seeing them and a building that can be heavily damaged, suffer fires for 7 hours and then underwent intentional demolition, perferctly falling into its own footprint (well, according to conspiracy theorists...though this isn't true), and that Silverstein made the collosal error or stating as much in a publicly aired interview that was allowed to go on the air despite Silverstein's collusion in the purposeful demolition of the building which could blow the cover on the largest conspiracy in history...that's your business. Me, I'll go along with substantiated fact. Substantiated fact is that no evidence of intentional demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7 have been found by FEMA, NIST, FBI, or any other federal agency working on 9/11 investigations. I'm done with this debate. As I've said here repeatedly, this is NOT the proper forum for it. We are writing an encyclopedia here. We work with substianted fact, and all the more so on controversial articles. If you don't like the article because it doesn't support your pet conspiracy theory, then by all means change it to do so. NObody is stopping you from doing so. But, be prepared for others to revert your edits because they will be unsubstianted speculation. Good day. --Durin 16:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have watched this talk page grow in recent days about a statement that seems very inconsequential in the big picture arena. The statement has been clarified more than once as to what the guy meant.  It's easy today, with the benefit of hindsight, to question somebody's verbiage.  We can sit in our comfortable offices or hang out in a library or relax on a sofa examining the semantics of a particular sentence.  On September 11, nobody on the scene had that benefit.  There was a chaos unfolding that morning that is rarely seen on the streets of America.  It is reasonably and rationally conceivable that in the midst of confusion, the smoke, the sirens, the yelling, the constant questioning, that Silverstein could make a statement referring to the pulling out of a fire team whether or not a team was inside the building.  The Fog of War is mentioned often on a battlefield; this same fog exists in times of crisis.  The burden of proof does rest on those making claims of an inside job.  It goes against the grain of society, and as such that burden rest on your shoulders.  Often times, the true answer is the most simple one.  --Doctor9 03:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * There were manual rescue operations in WTC 7 that day. In fact, some conspiracy sites make reference to various logs of FDNY operations in WTC 7 during the day. To support your assertion here, you will need to ascertain a time reference for when Silverstein was in communication with FDNY and said "pull it" ascertain whether the building at the time was entirely empty of fire fighters, and whether Silverstein knew it was already empty. At that point, you will begin to have some basis for undermining the concept that "pull it" meant the FDNY efforts. --Durin 14:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Durin, your term 'conspiracy sites' appears to be designed to produce an emotional reaction, not to provide important facts. Your suggestion that Silverstein's 'pull it' statement referred to people is an unsupported assertion that denies the basic meaning of the pronoun involved.  Here is a two-sided argument:
 * Controversy exists as to the use of the Silverstein's term 'pull it' regarding WTC7. 'It' does not refer to people.  People are usually referred to as 'them' or as other pronouns.  Silverstein went on to say, in the same sentence, 'and we watched the building collapse.'  This indicates a relationship between the pulling of 'it' and the collapse of the building.  From the full statement, a cause and effect relationship is inferred.  'It'--the building--was pulled and then 'it' collapsed.  (Thus, your 'concept' which you suggest must be 'undermined' is merely one of those 'conspiracy' arguments.  To be fair, your unsupported 'concept' must be removed or a factual rebuttal must be permitted.)
 * The September 9, 2005, written statement by Silverstein's representative indicated that the 'Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building.' The statement made no mention of the term 'pull it.'  However, the US Department of Justice website explained, "Mr. McQuillan [the Silverstein representative] has stated that by 'it,' Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building."  http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
 * To date, Silverstein has not been examined on his use of the term 'pull it.'--User:RegularGuy
 * With your notation of the DoJ explanation of "it" any other inferential use of the word to describe demolition of the building is unfounded speculation. --Durin 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * BALANCED DISCUSSION PROVIDED. Above, I posted a balanced discussion of the controversy involving the collapse of WTC7, covering the Silverstein statement.  However, balanced does not mean fair.  The Wikipedia page in question does not present such a balanced discussion and should be replaced with the paragraphs I posted, except for the parenthetical.
 * The current version, "[o]thers interpreted Silverstein's statement to mean 'pull out' — to withdraw firefighters from the building," is a conclusory statement, completely unsupported by fact. After searching on the internet for over an hour, I found some support for that statement at the DoJ website.
 * DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CLAIM. You indicated that the Department of Justice has the final word on Silverstein's statement.  However, Silverstein is not the Department of Justice.  The DoJ does not speak for him.  The reason that the DoJ statement supported the claim in your article was because it qualifies as an 'other.'  The person quoted at the DoJ site is not Silverstein either; thus, he is also an 'other.'  The DoJ's quote of that person was a very short edited quote, and the DoJ did not site either a source or the surrounding circumstances of the discussion.  There was no independent corroboration.
 * The DoJ had a vested interest in promoting the official government position, and provided information that is one-sided. The vested interest was to support the administration's assertions that there was a terror assault on the WTC complex, and to support the ensuing wars which involved areas with vast and desirable resources like oil pipeline routes and oil fields.  Documents at the website for Project For The New American Century (PNAC) make this desire to control these kinds of resources clear.  See http://newamericancentury.org, and Rebuilding America's Defenses, http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.  Founding members of PNAC joined the Bush administration.  None of these officials have distanced themselves from the PNAC agenda.
 * Fair analysis of claims that bombs were planted in the buildings would suggest that someone with access to the buildings may have been involved in the September 11, 2001, event. This could undermine the government's simple story about 19 hijackers and lead to a further investigation.  The investigation could focus on the DoJ itself, and could create questions about the war choices made afterward.  Thus, the DoJ statement amounts to a denial by a subject of interest.  As such, it cannot be trusted.  A similar argument could be made regarding the Silverstein representative.
 * SILVERSTEIN'S SILENCE. Silverstein has remained silent on this issue for more than four years.  His continuing silence in a situation where a reasonable person would protest the interpretation strongly implies that he has no defense.  See http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a159.htm.  Silverstein had strong reasons to protest what has been described herein as an interpretation of the term 'pull it.'  If 'pull it' was to be interpreted as demolishing the building, this would indicate that bombs were planted, and that Silverstein, as the person authorizing the demolition, had knowledge of the bombs.  He then would be viewed as responsible for the collapse of the building.  This disclosure could lead to discussion of issues like insurance fraud, unauthorized detonation of explosives, or strict liability for inherently dangerous activities.  Opening discussions of these issues could only have adverse effects upon Silverstein.
 * Silverstein's First Public "Pull It" Response http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/09/silversteins-first-public-pull-it.html
 * THE WORD 'IT.' Finally, 'any other inferential use of the word' IT than its usual meaning regarding objects not people would be 'unfounded speculation,' to use your own words.
 * WHAT DO WE DO NOW? Having explained in detail the problems with the page, it is time for changes.  I provided a balanced alternative to the discussion on the page.  I worked very hard to come up with something balanced to try to support the assertion that Silverstein meant something other than the usual meaning of the term.  I went out of my way to find support for this concept.  Initially, I even avoided discussing the weaknesses in the argument, thereby, sacrificing fairness for balance.  Changes are needed.  WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL?—RegularGuy
 * First, I'm not going to debate this further here. As I've noted before, there are more appropriate forums for it. A talk page of an article makes a very poor forum. Second, see WP:BOLD. If you want to change the article, then change it. Just remember that once you click "Save page" your edits are no longer your property; don't be upset when someone else has a contrary view, can support it with citable references, and makes changes based on those citable references. My proposal is that you make changes based on known, citable, supportable fact. If you can't make such changes, then do not make changes. This topic is and will remain controversial. Personally, I don't think the "it" controversy should be part of the article. Hanging so much controversy on a single two letter word strikes me as very unencyclopedic. Ultimately, that is what we are doing here; building an encyclopedia. This is not a forum. It is not a place for debate in encyclopedia articles. Also, please note that you can sign your edits by typing ~, or clicking the second button from the right on the series of buttons on the top of the edit window. --Durin 14:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * There are also problems with the physics of the 7 collapse, it falls far too fast, at the rate of free fall, and you can see cutter charges going off on the outside of the building. See Video - http://www.911hoax.com/gwtc7_1.asp?strPage=wtc7_1&intPage=60&PageNum=60 I am sorry about this, but I want the truth, anything less than that just wont do! I understand there are politcal problems with this topic, if the terrorist are not the ones that did it, then who did, and why is it being covered up? Will wikipedia help to cover the truth, or tell it? unsigned edit by
 * Falls far too fast? What is your grounds for stating this? How should it have fallen and how fast? Please demonstrate the physics behind this that would supersede the laws of gravity in this particular instance. Before you can do that, you will have to demonstrate an alternate collapse sequence than those provided by FEMA to show why the building should not have fallen at the rate that it did. As for cutter charges; if your only evidence for this is some video footage and your own conclusions, you have little to go on (unless perhaps you are a demolitions expert?). A building that is collapsing, by its very nature, is going to cause outward progression of air mass that was previously within the intact structure. That movement of air is going to cause a dramatic outward push of all manner of debris. An encyclopedia is not the place for speculation and unfounded assertions. If you can provide referenceable cites to buttress claims of fact, then it will be acceptable. Speculating as to hidden motives, hidden operatives, and coverups is not encyclopedic. There are plenty of forums on the Internet for discussion of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, ranging from UFOs to nuclear bombs blown up underneath WTC 1/2. In every case, the believer(s) of the given conspiracy theory absolutely insist they are right, and everyone else is wrong, despite these conspiracy theories disagreeing with each other. Somebody is wrong. Wikipedia's business isn't being a forum to air such theories; Wikipedia's business is to be an encyclopedia, and as such we ask for and depend upon cites to back up claims of fact. --Durin 14:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not the one speculating here, and I did not title the paragraph "Controversy" and then go on to speculate about what the controversy is. There are facts, and you specualte that these facts are theoretical, which in your context means unfounded. How fast should a building fall? Steel framed buildings do not fall due to fire, never had before 9/11, and have not since. Formula for distance of objects dropping in free fall: 4.9 x seconds squared = distance of fall, learn about Terminal Velocity with variable drag coefficients from NASA, http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html and since we have a video we know how fast 7 is falling, it is falling with virtually no resistance. We can know because there is evidence, the video, and Newtons Laws. Not only that, but FEMA had reported that they did not know what caused the collapse of 7, and then speculated about what may have caused it. Like in the paragraph below, roadrunner is speculating about what people are saying about the collapse, and putting words into their mouths, with an obvious strawman, and I am one these "Others" and that is not quite what I and others are saying, so if you are going to quote "others" quote them accuratly. It is obvious that you wiki people do not know the extent of the controversy. Wiki is misleading the reader based upon unfounded speculation. I did not set up the debate here, wiki did, wiki had made unfounded claims. The reason I am doing this is to try to stop wiki from slanting the story of 7, and to stop the strawmaning of the so called "conspiracy theroist", you opened the can of worms, not me. Wiki is staging an imaginary arguement, the 2 sides are "conspiracy theorist" v official governemnt theorist, and then you end the debate in stalemate, implying that for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert, so we just can not know. I am not sure how to resolve these problems, it is complicated, emotion driven, and has poltical and legal overtones.--User:RegularGuy
 * I know a substantial amount about the controversy. I was party to literally hundreds of discussions revolving around it as a denizen of alt.conspiracy. I'm well aware of the issues at hand. What I have a concern with is someone indicating that the rate of the building's fall was too fast. Too fast for what? How fast is fast? How should it have fallen given X scenario? There are a multitude of questions to be answered before such a statement has any basis in supportable facts. Having supportable facts is crucial to the article; not unfounded speculation. By doing so, we ignore the emotional and politically driven discussion and remain focused on a supportable facts. We can debate on this talk page all we'd like. Personally, I don't wish to. This isn't the forum for it, and such a debate is poorly served here. What I do not want to see is the article itself become a debating ground. --Durin 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: steel framed buildings not collapsing due to fire: As I noted below, there have been no other buildings of WTC 7's unusual construction that have experienced what WTC 7 did and withstood the damage without catastrophic failure. Furthermore, it isn't just the fire; the building was substantially damaged on its south face. There were multiple possible contributing factors to the building's failure, not just fire alone. This is true for WTC 1 and 2 as well. Whether other steel framed buildings withstood fire or not is irrelevant; they are not WTC 7, and they did not experience a nearby collapsing building throwing rubble into them. --Durin 21:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Roadrunner 06:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Others have speculated that the building -- which collapsed neatly into its own 'footprint' in a manner similar to that of a controlled demolition -- was intentionally demolished. In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC7, was interviewed. In the video he says there was a "pulling" at WTC 7, which some people interpret as meaning that it was a controlled explosive demolition:

 * "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know,we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.'"

Others interpreted Silverstein's statement to mean "pull out" — to withdraw firefighters from the building in light of the deaths of many trapped within the collapsing twin towers.

CBS news anchor Dan Rather said the collapse of 7 WTC was, "reminiscent of...when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."

The FEMA report on the WTC collapse says:

 * "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

The interesting fact is, Larry Silverstein admitted to "pulling" the building. Dan Rather said it looked like a controlled demolition. The only thing is, controlled demolitions take weeks to set up. Also, 7 WTC is the only steel skyscraper in the history of man to collapse from small fires.
 * For every supposed conspiracy slant to 9/11, there is a non-conspiracy rebuttal. For example, just in the above paragraph the rebuttals are: 1) Silverstein didn't say pull the building. He said pull 'it'. What 'it' he was referring to is assumed by non-conspiracy thought to be the fire team. 2) Dan Rather is not a demolitions expert; that he thought it looked like a controlled demolition is meaningless; he lacks the knowledge. 3) When you can name another steel structure with very similar to design to WTC 7 that experienced like fires, then it becomes relevant that other like buildings haven't collapsed. Simply that a building is made of steel isn't enough. 4) If the fires were so small, then why were their huge columns of smoke rising from it in several phots? This sort of debate can go on and on and on and on ad nauseam, sine fine. Such debates are poorly served in mediums such as this. There are plenty of forums available for discussing the events of 9/11. I suggest you avail yourself of those forums. --Durin 22:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

"For every supposed conspiracy slant to 9/11, there is a non-conspiracy rebuttal." The arguement is not conspiracy v non - conspiracy, it is conspiracy v conspiracy, and stating it in any other way is a slant. The official theory is a conspiracy theory, remember the 19 hijackers? Problem is there is no evidence to support that "official theory", it is full of holes. Explosions in WTC towers too? Yes there were, and more than just eyewitness accounts. http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/FOIAbombsWTC.php, so to use the colapse of the WTC towers as a precident for the collapse of 7 is abusrd. You need to speak accuratly, the governments version of the conspiracy is merely a theory, you need to understand that. The burden of proof is in their court, and it can be proven, they have no proof, and if you are going to defend Silverstein, and the official theory, then prove it! If you can not prove it, then you should not be repeating it as fact in your encyclopedia.

An error in assumption is worth noting...Durin...seems the puffs of "air" come out before building 7 even starts to fall. How could your theory of air from inside being forced out hold water? the building isnt falling while the puffs come out of the building! It doesnt add up to support your claim

title: Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 1


text:
Alfred Hitchcock's unrealized projects

The following is a partial list of unproduced Alfred Hitchcock projects, in roughly chronological order. During a career that spanned more than half a century, Alfred Hitchcock directed over fifty films, and worked on a number of others which never made it beyond the pre-production stage.

Number 13 (1922)
This was to be Hitchcock's directorial debut, after working in the art department on twelve films previously, but budgetary problems canceled the production after only a few scenes were shot. Studio records indicate that its title was to be Mrs. Peabody.

Forbidden Territory (1933–1934)
British thriller writer Dennis Wheatley had been a guest on the set of many of the early Hitchcock movies, and when The Forbidden Territory was published in January 1933, he presented the director with a copy. Hitchcock so enjoyed the book that he wanted to make a film of it, but he was just in the process of moving to Gaumont-British studios to work for Michael Balcon, he asked Wheatley to hold onto the rights until he could persuade his new employer to purchase them. When the time came, however, Balcon wasn't interested and instead insisted that Hitchcock direct the musical Waltzes from Vienna. Hitchcock then approached Richard Wainwright, a distinguished producer who had been head of UFA films in Germany, and had recently relocated to Britain. Wainwright was keen to pick up a promising subject for his first British film, and immediately bought the rights. Although there was a verbal understanding that Hitchcock was to direct, Balcon refused to release him, and instead began production of The Man Who Knew Too Much. Wainwright, committed to studio space, technicians and actors, had no alternative but to proceed without him, and placed the film into the hands of American director Phil Rosen. In 1936, at Hitchcock's instigation, Wheatley wrote a screenplay The Bombing of London, but the controversial project could find no backer and was shelved.

Greenmantle (1939–1942)
Hitchcock very much wanted to direct a follow-up to The 39 Steps, and he felt that Greenmantle by John Buchan was a superior book. He proposed that the film would star Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman, but the rights from the Buchan estate proved too expensive.

Unnamed Titanic project (1939)
Hitchcock remarked in a British film journal interview just before leaving for Hollywood that he hoped to make a film about the tragic loss of RMS Titanic as the inherent drama of the ocean liner's sinking appealed to him. Indeed, it was to be the first production of Hitchcock’s new contract under David O. Selznick, who had long wished to make a lavish telling of the event. Several problems complicated its genesis, including conflicts with legalities, objections from the British shipping industry, and competing plans from other producers. Both Hitchcock and Selznick eventually became disenchanted with the project and they proceeded with Rebecca instead.

Escape (1940)
Hitchcock desperately wanted to direct Norma Shearer, Robert Taylor, and Conrad Veidt in one of the first World War II dramas, Escape. Hitchcock, a long-time admirer of Shearer's acting, had sought for years to find a suitable project for her. However, Hitchcock was shut out of the project when the novel Escape by Ethel Vance (pen name of Grace Zaring Stone) was purchased by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Hitchcock knew he could never work for the notorious MGM studio head Louis B. Mayer, who selected Mervyn LeRoy to produce and direct the film, which indeed starred Shearer and was released in late 1940. Years later, Hitchcock made the statement about the lack of true Hollywood leading ladies with the quote, "Where are the Norma Shearers?"

Unmade Nazi documentary (1945)
In 1945, Hitchcock was brought in as a supervising director for a documentary film about Nazi crimes and Nazi concentration camps. The film was originally to include segments produced by military film units from the United Kingdom, the United States, France, and the Soviet Union. Cold War developments meant that the USSR segment was withdrawn, and the film remained uncompleted, with some footage kept in the collection of the Imperial War Museum.

However, a reconstruction of the film was aired as Memory of the Camps in 1984–1985 in the United Kingdom and the United States. The United States version was shown on the PBS series Frontline on May 7, 1985. In October 2014, a new documentary about the unfinished film, Night Will Fall, premiered at the BFI London Film Festival.

Hamlet (1948)
In the late 1940s, Hitchcock had plans to make a modernized version of the Shakespeare story. Hitchcock's Shakespearean vision was of a "psychological melodrama" (set in contemporary England, and starring Cary Grant in the title role). The project was scrapped when Hitchcock's studio caught wind of a potential lawsuit from a professor who had already written a modern-day version of Hamlet.

The Bramble Bush (1951–1953)
The Bramble Bush would have been an adaptation of a 1948 novel by David Duncan about a disaffected Communist agitator who, on the run from the police, is forced to adopt the identity of a murder suspect. The story would be adapted to take place in Mexico and San Francisco.

The project, originally to come after I Confess (1953) as a Transatlantic Pictures production to be released by Warner Bros., had a high budget which made it a difficult project. Hitchcock did not feel that any of the scripts lifted the movie beyond an ordinary chase story, and Warner Brothers allowed him to kill the project and move on to Dial M for Murder (1954).

The theme of the hero assuming a dangerous new identity would become the kernel of the script for North by Northwest (1959). Michelangelo Antonioni's film The Passenger (1975) tells a similar story, but is not based on Duncan's book. The 1960 film The Bramble Bush, starring Richard Burton and Barbara Rush, and released by Warner Bros., was based on a Charles Mergendahl novel, and had no relation to Duncan's book.

Flamingo Feather (1956)
This was to be a big-budget adaptation of Laurens van der Post's novel of political intrigue in Southern Africa. James Stewart was expected to take the lead role of an adventurer who discovers a concentration camp for Communist agents; Hitchcock wanted Grace Kelly to play the love interest.

After a disappointing research trip to South Africa where he concluded that he would have difficulty filming, especially on a budget – and with confusion of the story's politics and the impracticability of casting Kelly, Hitchcock deferred the project and instead cast Stewart in The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956). Hitchcock travelled to Livingstone near Victoria Falls and was a guest of Harry Sossen, one of the prominent inhabitants of this pioneer town. Hitchcock and Sossen were photographed together at the newly opened Livingstone Airport and the event was recorded in the local papers. Sossen was also in communication with Laurens van der Post who gave him a signed copy of the book Flamingo Feather during a visit to the Falls (staying at the Victoria Falls Hotel). Sossen's daughter Marion is in possession of the book today and a number of letters between her father and van der Post.

No Bail for the Judge (1958–1961)
No Bail for the Judge was to be an adaptation of a thriller novel of the same title by Henry Cecil about a London barrister who, with the assistance of a gentleman thief, has to defend her father, a High Court judge, when he is accused of murdering a prostitute. In a change of pace from his usual blonde actresses, Audrey Hepburn would have played the barrister, with Laurence Harvey as the thief, and John Williams as the Hepburn character's father. Some sources, including Writing with Hitchcock author Steven DeRosa say that Hitchcock's interest in the novel started in the summer of 1954 while filming To Catch a Thief, and that Hitchcock hoped to have John Michael Hayes write the screenplay. Hepburn was an admirer of Hitchcock's work and had long wanted to appear in one of his films.

Samuel A. Taylor, scenarist for Vertigo and Topaz, wrote the screenplay after Ernest Lehman rejected it. The Taylor screenplay included a scene, not in the original novel, where the heroine disguises herself as a prostitute and has to fend off a rapist. Hepburn left the film, partly because of the near-rape scene, but primarily due to a pregnancy. (Hepburn suffered a miscarriage during the filming of the 1960 film The Unforgiven and then gave birth to son Sean Ferrer in July 1960). Laurence Harvey still ended up working with Hitchcock in 1959, however, on an episode that Hitchcock directed of Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

Without Hepburn, the project didn't have the same appeal for Hitchcock. Changes in British law concerning prostitution and entrapment — changes that took place after the novel was published — made some aspects of the screenplay implausible. Hitchcock told Paramount Pictures it was better to write off $200,000 already spent on the film's development than to spend another $3 million for a film he no longer cared for. In the fall of 1959, a Paramount publicity brochure titled "Success in the Sixties!" had touted No Bail for the Judge as an upcoming feature film starring Hepburn, to be filmed in Technicolor and VistaVision.

The Wreck of the Mary Deare (1959)
The Hammond Innes novel was optioned by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer with the intention of having Hitchcock direct the picture, starring Gary Cooper and Burt Lancaster. Hitchcock had long wanted to work with Cooper, who had been asked to star in Foreign Correspondent in 1940, and Lancaster, who had been asked to star in Under Capricorn in 1948. After developing the script with Ernest Lehman for several weeks, they concluded that it couldn't be done without turning the movie into "a boring courtroom drama."

Hitchcock and Lehman made an appearance before MGM executives telling the story of North by Northwest, and said that MGM would get two films out of Hitchcock under his contract with MGM. However, Hitchcock eventually abandoned the idea of The Wreck of the Mary Deare (which MGM proceeded to make with Cooper and director Michael Anderson) and went ahead with North by Northwest instead.

The Blind Man (1960)
Following Psycho, Hitchcock re-united with Ernest Lehman for an original screenplay idea: A blind pianist, Jimmy Shearing (a role for James Stewart), regains his sight after receiving the eyes of a dead man. Watching a Wild West show at Disneyland with his family, Shearing would have visions of being shot and would come to realize that the dead man was in fact murdered and the image of the murderer is still imprinted on the retina of his eyes. The story would end with a chase around the ocean liner RMS Queen Mary. Walt Disney reputedly barred Hitchcock from shooting at Disneyland after seeing Psycho. Stewart left the project, Lehman argued with Hitchcock, and the script was never shot.

Lehman's unfinished script was later completed as a radio drama by Mark Gatiss and presented on BBC Radio 4 in 2015.

Village of Stars (1962)
Hitchcock bought the rights to the 1960 novel Village of Stars by David Beaty (written under the pen name Paul Stanton) after The Blind Man project was canceled. The book follows a Royal Air Force V bomber crew given an order to drop a nuclear bomb, only to have the order aborted. Unfortunately, the bomb is resisting attempts to defuse it and the plane can only stay in flight for a limited time.

Trap for a Solitary Man (1963)
Trap for a Solitary Man was scheduled to be directed by Hitchcock in widescreen by Twentieth Century-Fox. The story, based on the French play Piege Pour un Homme Seul by M. Robert Thomas, follows a young married couple on holiday in the Alps. The wife disappears, and after a prolonged search the police bring back someone they claim to be her, she even says she is the man's wife, but the man has never seen her before. The play was later adapted three times as television films: Honeymoon with a Stranger (ABC, 1969), One of My Wives Is Missing (ABC, 1976) and Vanishing Act (CBS, 1986). It had previously been broadly adapted (without attribution) as the 1958 Associated British-Pathé feature Chase a Crooked Shadow.

Mary Rose (1964)
Hitchcock had long desired to turn J. M. Barrie's 1920 play Mary Rose into a film. In 1964, after working together on Marnie, Hitchcock asked Jay Presson Allen to adapt the play into a screenplay. Hitchcock would later tell interviewers that his contract with Universal Pictures allowed him to make any film, so long as the budget was under $3 million, and so long as it was not Mary Rose. Whether or not this was actually true, Lew Wasserman was not keen on the project, though Hitchcock never gave up hope of one day filming it.

The Three Hostages (1964)
In 1964, Hitchcock re-read another Richard Hannay novel by John Buchan, The Three Hostages, with a mind to adapting it. As with Greenmantle a quarter of a century earlier, the rights were elusive. But also the story was dated, very much rooted in the 1930s, and the plot involved a villain whose blind mother hypnotizes the hero. Hitchcock, in interviews, said that he felt that the portrayal of hypnosis did not work on film, and that films that attempted this portrayal, in Hitchcock's opinion, turned out poorly.

In 1977, the BBC aired an 85-minute adaptation of The Three Hostages starring Barry Foster, directed by Clive Donner.

Frenzy (a.k.a. Kaleidoscope) (1964–1967)
Although Hitchcock made a film called Frenzy in 1972, that film's title and some plot points came from an idea Hitchcock had a few years earlier for a prequel to Shadow of a Doubt. Hitchcock approached many writers including Samuel Taylor, Alec Coppel, and Psycho writer Robert Bloch, but in the end engaged an old friend, Benn Levy to flesh out his sketchy idea.

The story (inspired by English serial killers Neville Heath and John George Haigh) would have revolved around a young, handsome bodybuilder who lures young women to their deaths, a version of the character known as 'Merry Widow Murderer' in Shadow of a Doubt. The New York police set a trap for him, with a policewoman posing as a potential victim. The script was based around three crescendos dictated by Hitchcock: the first was a murder by a waterfall; the second murder would take place on a mothballed warship; and the finale, which would take place at an oil refinery with brightly colored drums.

Hitchcock showed his script to his friend François Truffaut. Though Truffaut admired the script, he felt uneasy about its relentless sex and violence. Unlike Psycho, these elements would not be hidden behind the respectable veneer of murder mystery and psychological suspense, and the killer would be the main character, the hero, the eyes of the audience.

Universal vetoed the film, despite Hitchcock's assurances that he would make the film for under $1 million with a cast of unknowns, although David Hemmings, Robert Redford, and Michael Caine had all been suggested as leads. The film — alternatively known as Frenzy or the more sixties-esque Kaleidoscope — was not made.

Test footage from this project can be viewed here and is included in the 1999 TV documentaries Dial H For Hitchcock: The Genius Behind the Showman (Encore) and Reputations: Alfred Hitchcock (A&E/BBC Two).

R.R.R.R. (1965)
Hitchcock approached Italian comedy-thriller writers Agenore Incrocci and Furio Scarpelli (Age & Scarpelli), writers of Big Deal on Madonna Street, to write a screenplay around an original idea Hitchcock had carried in his head since the late 1930s. A New York City hotel is run by an Italian immigrant who is unaware that his family are using the hotel as cover for crimes, including the theft of a valuable coin from a guest of the hotel. (R.R.R.R. is the highest value of coin.)

The Italian screenwriters struggled with the story, and were not helped by the language barrier. Universal Pictures were not keen on the idea and persuaded Hitchcock to move on to something else.

The Short Night (1976–1979)
Hitchcock's last, unfinished project was The Short Night, an adaptation of the spy thriller of the same name by Ronald Kirkbride. A British double agent (loosely based on George Blake) escapes from prison and flees to Moscow via Finland, where his wife and children are waiting. An American agent – whose brother was one of the traitor's victims – heads to Finland to intercept him but ends up falling for the wife. It was Hitchcock's third attempt – after Torn Curtain and Topaz – to produce a "realistic Bond film." Clint Eastwood, and Sean Connery were possible male leads. Liv Ullmann was asked to play the double agent's wife. Catherine Deneuve was also asked to star. Walter Matthau was considered for the villain role. Ed Lauter was also discussed for a role as one of Matthau's prison mates.

The first writer assigned to the picture, James Costigan, quarreled with the director, who asked for him to be paid off. Then Ernest Lehman agreed to work on the script. Lehman felt the story should focus on the American spy, and left out the double agent's jailbreak. Lehman left the film too, and Hitchcock asked old friend Norman Lloyd to help him write a long treatment. Lloyd, like Universal, was concerned that Hitchcock's failing health meant that the movie might not get made. When Hitchcock suggested moving straight on to the screenplay, Lloyd objected, saying they were unprepared. Hitchcock reacted angrily, fired Lloyd, and worked on the treatment alone.

After a while, Hitchcock accepted that he needed another writer to work with him, and Universal suggested David Freeman. Freeman helped Hitchcock complete the treatment and wrote the screenplay. He wrote about his experiences in the 1999 book The Last Days of Alfred Hitchcock, which includes his completed screenplay. The circumstances surrounding Hitchcock's retirement were given by producer Hilton A. Green during the documentary Plotting "Family Plot." According to Green, during pre-production for The Short Night Hitchcock met Green to tell him that his poor health would prevent him from making the film that was to be the follow-up to Family Plot. After trying to talk Hitchcock out of his decision, Green agreed to Hitchcock's request to bring the news of his decision to retire to studio head Lew Wasserman, a long-time friend of Hitchcock.

title: Alfred Hitchcock's unrealized projects


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domestic virtue

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T 05:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Domestic virtue
Meaningless cant that has no context, source or justifiable premise. Delete. Eddie.willers 20:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism that has been tagged for cleanup the last 6 months with no action.--Isotope23 20:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Google shows it to have a fair amount of currency among academicians, and it is a term I've heard before. While the article needs expansion, it is comprehensible. And since when does any article have to satisfy "justifiable premise" (and what the heck is that anyway?) Denni ☯ 05:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe if it was cleaned up and sourced, but it's been on cleanup for too long to be given the benefit of the doubt. "AfD is not cleanup" works both ways. --Last Malthusian 08:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "first seen around the time of the American Revolution"? I don't think so. "Ug go hunt, woman stay in cave and clean loincloth" is as old as man, surely. --Last Malthusian 08:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * N.B. I'm not basing my vote on the fact that I disagree with the article; perhaps the author meant that the American revolution was the first time that for a woman to stay at home was seen as a virtue and not just a role assigned to them by nature (though I disagree with that as much as my first reading). But it appears to be Americentrism, which is one of many possible symptoms of POV posts masquerading as encyclopaedia articles, as here. --Last Malthusian 15:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This article has been significantly expanded. Please take a look at it. Denni ☯ 05:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the effort, it's certainly a significant improvement, but I'm afraid I'm still unconvinced as to the article's worth. There may be sources now, but it still looks like original research in the form of an essay - a sequence of quotes with alternating viewpoints. My vote stands, though I'll be watching for further improvements with interest. --Last Malthusian 08:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what else you expect. It's not original research, as I'm not proposing anything myself. It is all taken from credible sources, and demonstrates that the term is not a neologism (original concern). Denni ☯ 08:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't believe that your quotes do any such thing. Only two of them use the term 'domestic virtue' in the quote itself, and neither of them use it in the sense defined in the first paragraph. They appear to mean "a family's virtue", rather than anything specifically to do with the virtue of women staying at home. And even if they did use the article's meaning, evidence that one or two people used the term doesn't really lift the word above neologism status: we regularly delete neologisms used by one or two blog authors. I don't believe the fact that the sources are old makes the term any more noteworthy. --Last Malthusian 12:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Last Malthusian... the usage isn't really clear from these examples; it appears the authors are using the term to mean different things.--Isotope23 13:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Last Malthusian... the usage isn't really clear from these examples; it appears the authors are using the term to mean different things.--Isotope23 13:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Operating surplus

Operating surplus is an accounting concept used in national accounts statistics (such as United Nations System of National Accounts (UNSNA)) and in corporate and government accounts. It is the balancing item of the Generation of Income Account in the UNSNA. It may be used in macro-economics as a proxy for total pre-tax profit income, although entrepreneurial income may provide a better measure of business profits. According to the 2008 SNA, it is the measure of the surplus accruing from production before deducting property income, e.g., land rent and interest.

Operating surplus is a component of value added and GDP. The term "mixed income" is used when operating surplus cannot be distinguished from wage income, for example, in the case of sole proprietorships. Most of operating surplus will normally consist of gross profit income. In principle, it includes the (separately itemised) increase in the value of output inventories held, with or without a valuation adjustment reflecting average prices during the accounting period.

Operating surplus therefore does not necessarily refer to all gross profit income realized in an economy. Profits are also realized from all kinds of property transactions which do not involve new production, such as capital gains, and net profits are often also received from foreign countries or paid to foreign countries. In addition, many profits arising from the use of natural resources, land, and financial assets (in the form of interest income) will not be included.

Derivation of operating surplus in UNSNA
A simple definition of business profit would be "sales less costs", and the accounting derivation of operating surplus is similar (although the SNA concept of entrepreneurial income better matches what is thought of as business profits ). Starting off with Gross Output, expenditure on intermediate goods and services are deducted, to arrive at gross value added.

Value added may be stated gross (equal to the net output value, including consumption of fixed capital, i.e. depreciation charges) or net (excluding consumption of fixed capital). The net operating surplus (NOS) is thus the residual balancing item in the product account, obtained as follows:

 * Gross value added (GV)
 * less consumption of fixed capital. (CFC)
 * equals net value added (NV)
 * less Compensation of employees (CE)
 * less indirect taxes paid by producers, reduced by producer subsidies received (IT-SU)
 * equals net operating surplus (NOS)

In simple equations,

NOS=GV - (CE + (IT-SU) + CFC)

or

NOS=NV - (CE + (IT-SU)

Operating surplus can of course also be stated gross (GOS):

GOS=NOS + CFC

In this case, depreciation charges are included.

Exclusions
In UNSNA, "implicit (imputed) rents" on land owned by the enterprise and the "implicit (imputed) interest" chargeable on the use of the enterprise's own funds are excluded from operating surplus.

Operating surplus also excludes property incomes considered to be unrelated to value-adding production.

Mixed income
The category of operating surplus is applied to the whole economy, and therefore may include more than gross corporate profit income. For example, profit income by self-employed operators.

In UNSNA, "Mixed Income" refers to the balancing item of accounts for unincorporated enterprises owned by members of households, either individually or in partnership with others, in which the self-employed owners, or other members of their households, work and obtain income other than wages or salaries, which is included in operating surplus.

In practice, all unincorporated enterprises owned by households that are not quasi-corporations fall in this category, except for the "imputed rental value of owner-occupied housing" and paid domestic staff employed by households, an activity that is considered to generate no surplus.

Some countries separately itemise this mixed income in their accounts, other do not.

The effect of ownership relations on operating surplus in UNSNA
The size of total operating surplus is in theory not affected by whether the assets used in production are owned or rented by the enterprise, or whether assets owned by the enterprise and used in production are financed out of its own funds (or equity capital) or out of borrowed funds (or loan capital).

But if buildings, other structures, machinery or equipment are rented by an enterprise, the payments of rentals under an operating lease or similar lease are recorded as purchases of services (Intermediate consumption). Thus, the payment of a rental on a fixed asset reduces its gross value added, below what it would be, if the producer owned the asset.

The impact of this on net value added is offset to some extent by the fact that a tenant, or lessee, incurs no asset depreciation, whereas an owner would. But net value added will be lower when a fixed asset is rented, because the rental has to cover the lessor's operating and interest costs as well as asset depreciation. Thus, the size of net operating surplus will vary according to whether fixed assets are rented, or purchased.

Enterprises may furthermore invest surplus capital in financial assets or real estate assets, especially in times of uncertainty or high interest rates. Considerable property income may be received from such investments. In UNSNA, this property income does not constitute part of value added in production, and is therefore excluded from operating surplus (except for what is called the services of the financial, insurance and real estate industry).

If therefore an increasing amount of business income consists of property income rather than income from production, this will lower value added, and lower operating surplus.

Criticism of UNSNA concept
As stated, operating surplus is a residual item in national accounts of gross product. It is "analogous" to what is "left over" when a business deducts its costs from sales revenue in order to arrive at its profit total. However, the analogy is somewhat deceptive, insofar as the operating surplus in national accounts, as a component of value added, is not truly equal to real generic pre-tax profit receipts.

The main reason for that is simply that, in calculating this aggregate, various items are added and deducted from an initial surveyed (or tax-declared) gross profit figure in a way that is consistent with the concept of value added.

Or, to put it a different way, the definition of operating surplus is dependent on the general definition of Gross Output from production. To obtain a measure of value added in production, all those income flows considered to be unrelated to production (mainly, property income and transfer income) are excluded from the valuation of Gross Output. Therefore, this is one reason why the operating surplus cited in national accounts is likely to be lower than real generic pre-tax profit income. An additional problem is the practice of shifting the declaration of profit income to another country where taxes are lower, by means of various financial manipulations. Again that leads to an understatement of domestic profits.

The trend in operating surplus over time will normally be similar to the general trend in gross business profits, but in Marxian economics operating surplus is rejected as an adequate proxy for total gross profit or surplus value.

The main reason is that in Marxian economics the official concepts of Gross Output and value added are not accepted as an adequate definition of the value of production. Among other things, a fraction of profit, interest and rent income which is payable from the gross income of producing enterprises is excluded from value added in the official accounts, on the ground that it is unrelated to production. Marxian economists however argue that fraction is part of the value of production and the value product, insofar it has to be paid out of current revenues of producing enterprises.

This Marxian interpretation implies a somewhat different view of the real cost structure of production, and the real composition of product values, and to obtain alternative measures, the official accounts must be substantially reaggregated to make explicit the sources and receipts of income from salaries, profits, interest, rent, taxes and social insurance levies, subsidies, royalties and fees, and their contribution to the valuation of gross product (see also value product).

In the Marxian view, obtaining generic profit income from sales is precisely the prime motivator of capitalist business activity, and therefore to present this income as a "generic residual balancing item" in national accounts without making its components explicit does no justice to the real economic relations involved.

title: Operating surplus


text:
User:Hiall:)

Hi all my name is Janet from Texas. Im a 22 year old cocktail waitress. Im going to try this site a try.

title: User:Hiall:)