text:
Talk:False Doppler

A Suggestion for Resolving this Disputed Article
If anyone can cite a single reputable source for the term "false Doppler", then that source should be listed in the article, and the article content should be based on that source. Wikipedia has rules against original works and essays. If no one can cite such a source, then this article is clearly in violation of the "original research" prohibition, and does not belong in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.24.109.103 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 November 2005.

Any References for "False Doppler"?
The second AfD vote was predicated on statements that can very easily be verified to be false. For example, the original AfD pointed out that the term "false Doppler" was fabircated by Mr. Baird, and that a Google search turns up ZERO relevant hits, provided you don't count the hundreds of mirrors of this Wikipedia article itself, and provided you don't count things like "an airplane reported a false doppler indication of a storm", which obviously is not relevant.

Now, in the recent AfD, a Bairdian says "Fact: There are 314 hits on Google for "False Doppler". Well, if you take 10 seconds to check (which apparently none of the voters took the trouble to do), you will find that the original statements about this were correct... there are ZERO relevant hits. The Bairdian is just counting mirrors of this Wikipedia page itself, plus the weather related hits, all of which he have nothing to do with this subject. Moreover, the Bairdian KNOWS that these hits are not relevant, and yet he made the claim anyway. It's really too bad that Wikipedia has no effective mechanisms for dealing with cranks like Baird.

AfD result
This article was the subject of a second AfD in November, 2005. The result was strong consensus keep after rewrite and nom. withdrawl. Xoloz 17:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see this article has returned to normal. Keep up the good work! Durova 04:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
Article kept after previous AfD. See: Articles for deletion/False Doppler --HappyCamper 21:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't agree with removing Eric Baird's name from this article. This article was created by Eric to express his particular point of view of the Doppler effect, and he created the term "false Doppler" to suggest that the scientific community doesn't understand or is confused about the Doppler effect. It is not a historical term. It is misleading to present the term without stating up front where it came from. Of course, as soon as we state where it came from, it raises the question of why there is a Wikipedia article about it. Good question.

A review of Erk's contributions to Wikipedia shows that he has created a whole batch of articles all trying to smuggle in his own "theory" of the Doppler effect, under various names. All of them are patently POV. None of them contain suitable content for Wikipedia articles. Needless the say, the sensible thing is to simply delete this article, since there is no such thing as "false doppler", but since the motion to delete the article failed, we ought to at least be honest and present it for what it is: an essay by Eric Baird on his own particular POV of science (a POV which happens to be misguided and erroneous according to consensus scientific opinion). Same goes for the Erk articles "Accoustic Doppler", "Doppler Equations", "Spatial Doppler Effect", "Lorentz Term", "Classical Theories and Relativity", and probably others that I haven't noticed.

 * The current version of this article is not bad, but only because it has been completely re-written from the original "Erk" version. The only problem with the current article is that it essentially consists of an explanation of why there is no such thing as "false Doppler". So it's like having an article on "blidgetous moons" and then explaining in the article that there's really no such thing, and we just made up that expression.130.76.32.16 14:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow thats a good idea for an article! --The Minister of War 22:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If you are serious that this article does not represent normal scientific values, then perhaps it and other articles need to be categorised as Pseudoscience ?? Ian Cairns 17:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Why Eric Baird's Articles Violate Wikipedia Policy
I don't think it rises to the level of pseudoscience. All these articles by Eric Baird are just surreptitious attempts to smuggle some of his misunderstandings into Wikipedia. I just think it's a shame that crackpots like Erk are slowly but surely taking over Wikipedia. You have only to look at the volumes of crackpot nonsense he has just written (see below) in "defense" of his articles, to see how pointless it is to try to "reason" with such people.

The only viable way of dealing with physics cranks is by strictly enforcing the Wikipedia policy. Here it is again:

Quote of Official Wikipedia Policy:

Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows: The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history" (WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004).

'''The phrase "original research" in this context refers to ... any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".'''

'''If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ... regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.'''

What counts as a reputable publication?

Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

End quote

response to call for deletion
Well, while I'm touched that some people here seem to want to attribute this effect to me, it was actually mentioned by Oliver Lodge around the turn or the 19/20th Century, where he referred to the shift effect that should be expected from a transverse-aimed detector as " ... a spurious or apparent Doppler effect." (1909)..
 * Oliver Lodge, “Aberration Problems,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (1893) sections 56-57
 * Oliver Lodge, The Ether of Space (Harper & Brothers, London, 1909) chapter X

 * All you have done here is to confirm that you, in fact, made up the term "false Doppler". By the way, no one has attributed "this effect" to you. "This effect" is nothing but the classical Doppler Effect, taking the classical aberration correctly into account. The Doppler effect is attributed to Doppler; aberration was discovered by Bradley. The only thing attributed to Eric Baird is the fictitious name and a muddled pseudo-explanation for these things. 63.24.47.44 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Once you investigate this subject, its actually fairly straightforward:

 * Wikipedia is not the place for Eric Baird's "investigations" .63.24.47.44 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * For emission theory, or for an aether moving with the signal source, the expected redshift is f'/f = 1- v^2/c^2 … in other words, it’s what we would now consider to be a "Lorentz-squared" redshift, stronger than the effect that we predict using special relativity.

 * For a stationary absolute undragged aether, there's no effect.
 * For an absolute aether moving at an intermediate speed between that of the observer and emitter, the redshift should be somewhere between zero and Lorentz-squared.
 * For a fully- or partially-dragged aether, again, the redshift calculation should give an outcome somewhere in this range, between zero and Lorentz-squared.

Hence, according to almost any model that was considered half-credible in the C19th, modern experimental equipment designed to identify the SR transverse redshift effect should indeed report a redshift, but not because of any SR-specific time dilation effects.

 * You seem to completely misunderstand the whole subject, and all the terms involved. For example, the term "transverse Doppler effect" is just the traditional name for the time-dilation component of the Doppler formula. It happens to come from the "transverse" condition when classical theory predicts no frequency shift and special relativity predicts some, but it is understood that "transverseness" is relative, so this condition is not transverse with respect to all frames of reference, and there are other conditions that are transverse with respect to other frames of reference. Regardless of the angle, the relativistic Doppler formula in general differs from the classical formula in the second order of v/c, and this difference can be observed in suitable conditions at any angle, including purely longitudinal arrangements. In fact, one of the most important tests of "transverse Doppler" was purely longitudinal (Ives-Stillwell). Please note that these tests are not just Yes/No tests (frequency shift or no frequency shift), it is understood that in general there is a frequency shift for both classical and relativistic theories (aside from special cases). These predictions differ in the second order, and it is this small difference that is checked to test for the relativistic "transverse Doppler". This is all perfectly trivial to anyone who understands it. Since you clearly don't understand it, maybe you are not the ideal person to be writing encyclopedia articles about it. Just a thought.

All of this is deterministic mathematics: there's no obvious POV aspect to the math that I can see, these are simply the predictions that these sorts of theories will make in these circumstances. Historically, this seems to have been recognised at the time, by Lodge, and hopefully also by any other physicists at the time working with light-propagation problems – as the worked example shows, it's really only introductory-level physics. I might even be giving Lodge unfair credit here because I was only looking for texts in English, and much of the serious work on light-propagation models around this time had been done on the continent and published in French or German.

Too trivial? Yes, the effect is trivial, in the sense that it doesn't require any new physics or ideas, and the math is straightforward. The working was meant to demonstrate that. However, it only appears to be trivial to some physics people after it's been carefully explained to them. If the argument now looks obvious to you, ask yourself how some of those supplied quotes got into print, and whether they might have seemed reasonable to you before reading this article. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Importance: Overlooking this effect has had unfortunate consequences for some experimental tests of SR, it means that some experiments that probably could have produced convincing evidence for or against SR didn't end up telling us very much about whether SR really was more accurate in this respect than a broad range of older theories. There was a string of announcements from experimenters that the "transverse redshift" effect was real ... of course it was real, the question should have been not so much, "is it there", but "which one is it"? Is it a single Lorentz redshift, or a Lorentz-squared redshift, or something else?

 * Eric, this demonstrates (once again) that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. All the tests of the so-called "transverse Doppler effect" predicted by special relativity have specifically been checking the magnitude of the frequency shift, not just the presence or absence of a shift. It is well known (and totally obvious) that some amount of frequency shift is predicted by both the classical and the relativistic theories. Needless to say, both theories have a "null" condition where the shift changes from red to blue, but this occurs at different conditions for the two theories. In general, the predictions of classical theory and special relativity differ only in the second order in v/c, i.e., the difference between "gamma" and "gamma squared". Even for purely longitudinal condition the classical and relativistic predictions differ in the second order. It is this second order difference that represents the "transverse Doppler effect", and it has been shown with very good precision that the classical prediction is wrong and the relativistic prediction is correct.
 * Eric, if you really fail to understand this, you are not qualified to be authoring encyclopedia articles on the subject. 130.76.32.16 14:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So: a lot of these experiments generally considered to be supporting SR are almost useless as they are now, and can't safely be reanalysed retrospectively for a wider range of possible outcomes, because of the limitations of the test theory that they were performed under, and at some point they are probably going to have to be done again. That's frustrating.

Article name: No, I wasn't really happy with the name "false Doppler" either, but I thought that that's what Lodge had called it and I was trying to stay close to the contemporary usage. I'm guessing that he chose to present it as a "spurious" Doppler effect to avoid kneejerk objections that a transverse-moving object couldn’t possibly show a conventional Doppler redshift, by definition. So the "false Doppler" name was NOT me trying to be "nasty" to physics people or score points, it was me trying to be tactful, following Lodge's example.

 * You are operating under numerous profound misunderstandings, which you are trying to smuggle into Wikipedia under the guise of "tactful" articles presenting your misguided view of the ordinary Doppler and aberration effects. 63.24.47.44 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Myself, I much prefer the term "aberration redshift" as a casual descriptive phrase – it seems to be self-explanatory, but, again, some people would probably see it as an attempt to invent a new technical term, so I stuck with the clumsier "false Doppler". If at some point all those old C19th textbooks end up scanned and OCRed and Googled, perhaps we can sift through them online and find another (better) historic name. But that might be some years off. 'Til then, Googleability isn’t (yet) an ironclad test for historical usage.

We could call it "Redshift effects under pre-SR theory, due to aberration, that are difficult to distinguish from SR's transverse Doppler effect", but that's too long. It could be shortened to "pseudo-transverse Doppler effect", but then someone's probably going to complain that "pseudo-transverse" isn't a generally accepted term, either. Any ideas, anyone?

 * This is one of your misunderstandings. These effects are not difficult to distinguish from the special relativistic effect. If your physics education was so poor that you find these effects surprising, then you should work to improve your physics education. You should not create Wikipedia articles implying that everyone else's physics education is as poor as yours. Wikipedia is not the place for personal essays on physics (yours our anyone else's). 63.24.47.44 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Original research?: No, not unless going to a good physics library and looking up old reference material (or bothering to actually try the calculations instead of taking them on trust) counts as original research. I don't think it does.

 * That's not the kind of "original research" that is at issue here. This article qualifies as original research because it is your own POV on the history of physics and what you believe to be confusion on the part of real scientists. You are free to write essays about this, but you should not post them as Wikipedia articles. 63.24.47.44 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What useful purpose does this article serve? Well, if some fairly recent teaching on a subject has been wrong, then that deserves an article setting things right and explaining. An encyclopedia should try to correct mistakes rather then perpetuate them.

I think that that "normal scientific values" should dictate that when a fairly simple issue turns out to have been misunderstood and misrepresented to the extent that a lot of serious experimental work on the subject gets damaged, one is obliged to mention the issue for the benefit of the next generation of researchers and experimenters so that they don’t go out and make the same mistakes as the last. ErkDemon 07:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

overlap with SR
rewritten by someone else: "'This should not be confused with the transverse Doppler effect in special relativity, which occurs when the distance between the emitter and receiver is actually not changing, i.e., it is a truly transverse effect, due to time dilation. This is a uniquely relativistic effect, which has nothing to do with combined effects of classical Doppler and aberration discussed in this article.'"

No, that might be an understandable assumption to someone brought up with a standard SR syllabus, but its not really true when you look at the math.

Special relativity lets us obtain the same final physical predictions regardless of which frame we treat lightspeed as being constant in, yes?

So, if we assume that lightspeed is fixed in the observer's frame, we say that there's no propagation redshift effect, and the visible trnasverse redshift is 100% due to the time dilation of the moving source.

But it's also legitimate to assume that the speed of light is fixed in the emitter's frame. This gives us a stronger calculated aberration redshift effect of f'/f = 1 - vv/cc We then say that since the observer is now described as "moving", their clocks are time-dilated, and as a result they see everything to be blueshifted due to their relative motion and their reference clocks being slow. Multiplying the two effects togrether then gives a final visible shift of

(1 - vv/cc) * 1/SQRT[1- vv/cc] = SQRT[1 - vv/cc]

, in other words, a single Lorentz redshift, as before.

Under SR these two descriptions are indistinguishable and interchangeable, so, the same redshift that you normally calculate as being due to time dilation in one exercise is actually a stronger redshift due to aberration in the other (partly cancelled by a Lorentz blueshift). With a suitable backward use of a velocity-addition formula, you can even claim that lightspeed is fixed in an intemediate frame, and that the entire effect is a simple propagation effect due to aberration, with time dilation playing no part at all (observer and emitter both nominally moving at the same speeds, and nominally time-dilated by the same amount) - the SR magic still works.

But in order to understand how these different explanations can coexist under SR, one really has to understand the aberration redshift effect, SR's ability to use multiple descriptions in different reference frames and obtain the same physical outcome with each description doesn't work without it.

So, a statement that the two calculations should not be confused, and that one has nothing to do with the other, is not borne out by the structure of special relativity. It's a brave bluff, but under SR, the two effects are deeply intertwined. ErkDemon 08:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Why Eric Baird's Articles on Doppler are Incorrect
For an emitter moving with velocity u and receiver moving with velocity v relative to a system of reference in terms of which the signal velocity C has the same magnitude in all directions (which implies u=0 for an emission theory), the full Doppler effect is

f'/f =  {[1 - C*v/|C|^2]/[1 - C*u/|C|^2]} sqrt([1-u^2]/[1-v^2])

where * denotes the dot product and units are chosen so that the speed of light in vacuum is 1. The part in curly brackets is the classical Doppler effect (including all the things that seem so mysterious to Eric Baird), and the square root factor is the relativistic contribution. This is the difference between classical Doppler and relativistic Doppler. It is clear and simple, and if Eric Baird is confused about it, he should not take it as an ocassion to write a flurry of Wikipedia articles to advertise and perpetuate his confusion.63.24.47.44 16:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You continue to miss the point, Eric. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to discuss your own personal ideas on physics. The Wikipedia policy recognizes that people who are inclined to post POV articles need to be kept out of Wikipedia (as much as possible), and that this cannot be done by arguing, because crackpots LIVE to argue endlessly, and very few Wikipedia editors are qualified to distinguish sense from nonsense in areas of physics and mathematics. So, the Wikipedia policy is simply to reject articles that amount to personal essays - regardless of whether they are correct (because crackpots with argue endlessly that they are correct). This article on "False Doppler" (a term which you made up) is just one of your own personal essays, trying to insinuate that special relativity is wrong and/or is just a misunderstanding of classical emission theory, and you try to disguise these insinuations to an extent that the average Wikipedia editor won't immediately recognize them. The same is true of all the other "Doppler" articles you have originated (proliferated).

 * The content of your essays that is factual is already covered in other, more appropriate, articles. All the content that is just your "investigations" and re-interpretations of history is inappropriate for Wikipedia.63.24.119.167 06:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * No, when you say "The content of your essays that is factual is already covered in other, more appropriate, articles." that might look as if you are talking confidently from a position of personal knowledge ... but a scan of Wikipedia.EN suggests otherwise.

 * Since the "transverse Doppler" page has been mentioned, I did a Wikipedia search this morning for all the other articles containing the term "transverse Doppler" and the total number of pages ... was three. Take away this article, and the "transverse Doppler" and "Doppler equations" articles, and the hit count on Wikipedia for "transverse Doppler" drops to zero. Not only does the term not seem to have been discussed in existing articles before I got to work, it doesn't seem to have existed on Wikipedia at all. So if someone wanted to look up "transverse Doppler" on Wiki, and typed it into a search box, without these pages: zero hits. ErkDemon 08:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Defining New Terms - e.g., "False Doppler"
There is an explicit Wikipedia policy against defining new terms. This entire article is nothing but an attempt to define a new term, namely "false Doppler", which Mr. Baird admits he simply made up. In fact, he even goes on to say that he doesn't really like the expression, and would prefer to define yet another new term ("aberration redshift", or something like that). Clearly this article is not consistent with Wikipedia policy, and clearly Mr. Baird does not understand that policy.

There is already a Wikipedia article on the Doppler Effect, and that's the right place for information on the Doppler effect, if anyone wants to contribute. The entire Doppler effect, including the effects of aberration and special relativistic time dilation can be expressed in a single equation, which is quite well understood, but Mr. Baird has created a whole series of alternate narratives in separate articles, all expressing his own personal point of view, including

 * Doppler Equations
 * Spatial Doppler Effect
 * Accoustic Doppler
 * Lorentz Term
 * Classical Theories and Relativity
 * Transverse Doppler

The article on "Lorentz Term" is a good example of the problem posed by Mr. Baird. There was already an article on the "Lorentz Factor", and Mr. Baird created an alternate article called "Lorentz Term". The only apparent purpose for creating these alternate articles is to provide a venue for Mr. Baird's own personal essays on these subjects. The article on "Spatial Doppler Effect" is another example of Mr. Baird making up new terms. He cites as the source of this term a statement that someone once made that certain optical effects are the spatial analog of the Doppler effect. This isn't sufficient to justify making up a new term and creating a Wikipedia article about it. The essay on "Classical Theories and Relativity" is quite clearly POV. And so it goes. The only one of the bunch that could be acceptable is "Transverse Doppler", but even that would be better covered by the existing article on the Doppler Effect. All the rest should either be merged into a single article on the Doppler Effect (to the extent that the material is factual and verifiable) or deleted.

To merge or not to merge, that is the question== ==

Merge to "Doppler effect"? Nooooo! At least, not yet.
I would suggest that if anyone is thinking of merging all the existing Doppler articles together that they hold off on making that decision until all of the articles in question are mature and thorough and have had all their NPOV disputes thrashed out. Otherwise, imagine what a nightmare of disagreements and edit wars we might get in the merged article! Once all the individual articles have been expanded and polished, you might still want to consider merging them, but if the individual articles have been expanded sufficiently by then, and have lots of references each, then perhaps a merged article would be too big and clumsy, and perhaps at that point, the "Doppler effects" category might do a better job of letting people find the specific information that they want more easily. Part of the joy of hypertext is the ability to cut through rigid hierarchical structures and instead have a series of multipurpose articles that can be organised and arranged according to multiple schemes simultaneously (a single article can be in several overlapping categories at once). That way, someone working on medical Doppler applications and reading a piece on Doppler bloodflow measurement can follow a link to the appropriate equations or principles without finding themselves looking at a page that contains masses of information about special relativity and cosmology: Likewise, with separate articles organised via categories, a special relativity student can look at the "special relativity" category and pick out articles on relativistic Doppler and transverse Doppler without wading through a monster article full of material about acoustics and the precise sound-reflecting properties of red blood cells, when all they want to do is look up a couple of SR equations.

If one is a specialist, it is tempting to decide that a large subject ought to be ordered in a particular way, according to the priorities in one's own research field: A cosmologist might want a merged Doppler page to stress Hubble shift, while a medical technician might consider cosmology to be a useless subject and cite statistics to show that most recent research papers on Doppler effects have been about bloodflow, which actually saves lives (unlike cosmology), another physicist might think that its obvious that transverse Doppler effects and the relativistic Doppler equation ought to be given pride of place, and so on. Smaller specialist articles branching off from one central article makes things more flexible, avoids POV ordering disputes, and also encourages people to add more detail and references to the individual specialist pages.

Merge to "Transverse Doppler"?
Having said all that, with this article, I agree that there's a definite "issue" about what on earth to refer to the effect as, and since it seems that significant numbers of people have missed the original article's point, perhaps some sort of detailed discussion about the different meanings of "transverse" used in comparative theory is in order to make it intelligible to a larger number of people. And a discussion of "transverseness under SR" probably belongs on the "transverse Doppler" page, along with the quotes about transverse effects that have already been deleted by someone from this article.

So I tell you what I'll do: Instead of rewriting this page and repairing all the dodgy edits (and there have been some real clunkers!), and renaming it, I'll merge the core of these arguments into the "transverse Doppler" page.  But not yet: The transverse Doppler page needs enlarging first, otherwise these arguments will take up a disproportionate amount of that article, and I'd be accused of "hijacking" the transverse Doppler page for my own supposedly-evil ends and turning into a "vehicle" for something. :( When people are determined to see ulterior motives and bad intent, they tend to do so no matter what one does. :(

And it seems that not everyone here is yet satisfied that the pre-SR lab-transverse redshift result is correct, so perhaps I should wait until we've at least thrashed out a consensus on the mathematical validity of the thing here, before moving the argument to the Transverse Doppler page. Hopefully that won't take long. We don't have to agree about the significance of the result, just that it's right. Then we'll have a nice clean TD discussion page, with a link back to here for the pre-SR theory discusions.

For anyone wondering why I didn’t just append these arguments to the "transverse Doppler" page to begin with, well, there wasn't one, and if I'd written a transverse Doppler article that was just about this pre-SR effect, then I think people would have been justified in being upset. If I'd added information that some would see as not supporting SR to an existing "Doppler effect" page which didn’t yet even mention any SR effects, that could have been argued as making the Doppler article unbalanced. So after writing this page, I wrote a small "transverse Doppler" stub, then waited for someone else to come along and enlarge it, so that the piece on this side of mainstream theory wouldn’t be written by just me. But it didn't grow much. So I guess I'll have to grudgingly enlarge it myself, and then merge the core of this article into it, as some sort of postscript about the comparable physical predictions of pre-SR theories.

So, at this current time, I guess that's the plan. To leave this badly-mangled page "parked" here, uncorrected, until the "transverse Doppler" page has grown large enough to accept it as a small add-on rather than as a dominant section. ErkDemon 06:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

terminology
Shouldn't the term "special relativity" be instead 'spatial relativity'? A Doppler Effect as compared to a False Doppler Effect involves the effects of space placement upon light emisions as measured. [As somewhat of a down-to-earth analogy, there are roasted fowl and then there is the alarming 'spatch-cocked' contrivance] 11/25/2005  19:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)  beadtot

title: Talk:False Doppler


text: User talk:81.159.215.15

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

title: User talk:81.159.215.15


text:
Talk:Elbert Frank Cox

Untitled
This man took classes in "German, English, Latin, history" and... "hygiene"? Can anyone verify that this was actually a university-level class 100 years ago, alongside chemistry and philosophy? Peruvianllama 07:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It says so on page 6 (page 109) of the article in the American Mathematical Monthly. The second sentence of the paragraph continuing from the previous page is:
 * He also studied number theory, German, English, history, hygiene, Latin and physics
 * The other ones are listed elsewhere in the same article. Gerrit CUTEDH 07:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * How wonderfully perculiar - Face Washing 101? I think this fact alone merits interest in this article, although the fascinating story helps too. Thanks, Gerrit. Peruvianllama 17:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"It has been suggested that the refusal of his thesis by English and German universities was because of his race."
Perhaps. But shouldn't statements like this be supported by something, if they are to appear in an encyclopedia? It's possible his thesis just wasn't good enough for the universities that rejected it. Is there a quote on record of someone in authority saying, in so many words, "This thesis is of sufficient quality, but we refuse it because its author is black."? If not, I suggest this statement be deleted from the article. Kerry (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

== Elbert and Beulah Cox had four children: James born 1928, Eugene Kaufman born 1930, Elbert Lucien born 1933, and Kenneth, born 1935 but died at the age of 17 months.[8] Eugene Kaufman Cox became an architect, while Elbert Lucien Cox followed his father and served as Associative Vice President at Howard University ==

Elbert and Beulah Cox had four children: James born 1928, Eugene Kaufman born 1930, Elbert Lucien born 1933, and Kenneth, born 1935 but died at the age of 17 months.[8] Eugene Kaufman Cox became an architect, while Elbert Lucien Cox followed his father and served as Associative Vice President at Howard University 69.255.149.208 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elbert Frank Cox


text:
Bones (soundtrack)

Bones: Original Motion Picture Houndtrack is the original soundtrack to Ernest Dickerson's 2001 horror film Bones. It was released on October 9, 2001 via Doggystyle Records and Priority Records. It peaked at #39 on the Billboard 200, #14 on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart and #4 on the Top Soundtracks chart. The soundtrack mostly features Snoop Dogg songs, but also features tracks by Kurupt, Xzibit, Kokane, Tha Eastsidaz, D12, LaToiya Williams, Cypress Hill and more. "Dogg Named Snoop" was the only single released from the soundtrack.

Personnel

 * Abdul Wahab – musette bagpipes (track 7)
 * Alvin Nathaniel Joiner – performer (track 12)
 * André Benjamin – performer (track 19)
 * Andrew M. Shack – A&R (for Priority Records)
 * Antwan André Patton – performer (track 19)
 * Brian Knapp Gardner – mastering
 * Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. – performer (tracks: 1–2, 5, 10–11, 13, 16, 19), producer (track 1) , executive producer, A&R
 * Chan Gaines – performer (track 10)
 * Dan Osterman – trombone (track 13)
 * Dave Aron – mixing (tracks: 4–6, 8)
 * David Brown – performer (track 7)
 * David Sheats – producer (track 19)
 * DeShaun Dupree Holton – performer (track 9)
 * Domingo Padilla – producer (track 15)
 * Eddie Kedricks – performer (track 6)
 * Eric Dwayne Collins – performer (track 2)
 * Farid Karam Nassar – guitar (track 2), keyboards (tracks: 2, 8, 12–13) , flute (track 7) , percussion (tracks: 7, 13) , moog synthesizer (tracks: 8, 12) , scratches (track 13) , mixing (tracks: 7–8, 12) , producer (tracks: 1–2, 7–8, 12–13, 18) , A&R
 * Francisco Rodriguez – producer (track 10)
 * Jamarr Antonio Stamps – performer (track 10)
 * Jeff Bass – producer (track 9)
 * Jerry B. Long Jr. – performer (tracks: 3, 8)
 * John Frye – recording (track 19)
 * Kareem Denis – mixing (track 15)
 * Keiwan Deshawn Spillman – performer (track 11)
 * Kevin Bell – producer (track 9)
 * Kevin Gilliam – producer (tracks: 3, 6, 16)
 * Kim Proby – performer (track 10)
 * Kola Marion – performer (track 11)
 * LaToiya Renée Williams – performer (track 4)
 * Lawrence Muggerud – producer, arranger & mixing (track 17)
 * Lorenzo Jerald Patterson – performer (track 2)
 * Lost Angels – performers (track 3)
 * Louis Freese – performer (track 17)
 * Maggie Magarian – art direction & design
 * Marshall Mathers – performer, producer & mixing (track 9)
 * Melvin Bradford – producer (track 5)
 * Mitch Rotter – A&R
 * Nathaniel Dwayne Hale – performer (track 16)
 * Ondre Moore – performer (track 9)
 * Priest "Soopafly" Brooks – performer (track 13), producer (track 4)
 * Rashaan "Cus" Stephens – mixing & recording (track 15)
 * Ricardo Emmanuel Brown – performer (tracks: 7, 12)
 * Rufus Johnson – performer (track 9)
 * Sean Cruse – guitar & bass (track 12)
 * Senen Reyes – performer (track 17)
 * Steve King – mixing (track 9)
 * The Velvet Orchestra – strings (tracks: 2, 7)
 * Tracey Brown – mixing (tracks: 2, 10–11, 16)
 * Tracy Lamar Davis – performer (tracks: 5, 11, 12)
 * Troy Hightower – mixing (track 19)
 * Vince Edwards – performer (track 6)
 * Warren Griffin III – producer (track 11)
 * William DeVaughn – performer (track 14)
 * Winston "F.T." Morris – performer (track 15)

title: Bones (soundtrack)


text:
West Virginia Route 331

West Virginia Route 331 (WV 331) is an east–west state highway located entirely in Jackson County, West Virginia. The western terminus of the route is at West Virginia Route 2 and West Virginia Route 62 in Mount Alto. The eastern terminus is at WV 62 near Cottageville.

WV 331 is a former alignment of U.S. Route 33, which was later moved to follow all of present WV 62 between Mason and Ripley.

title: West Virginia Route 331


text:
Admiral-class battlecruiser

The Admiral-class battlecruisers were to have been a class of four British Royal Navy battlecruisers built near the end of World War I. Their design began as an improved version of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, but it was recast as a battlecruiser after Admiral John Jellicoe, commander of the Grand Fleet, pointed out that there was no real need for more battleships, but that a number of German battlecruisers had been laid down that were superior to the bulk of the Grand Fleet's battlecruisers and the design was revised to counter these. The class was to have consisted of HMS Hood (51), Anson, Howe, and Rodney — all names of famous admirals — but the other three ships were suspended as the material and labour required to complete them was needed for higher-priority merchantmen and escort vessels. Their designs were updated to incorporate the lessons from the Battle of Jutland, but the Admiralty eventually decided that it was better to begin again with a clean-slate design so they were cancelled in 1919. No more battlecruisers would be built due to the arms limitations agreements of the interbellum.

Hood, however, was sufficiently advanced in construction that she was completed in 1920 and immediately became flagship of the Battlecruiser Squadron of the Atlantic Fleet. She served as the flagship of the Special Service Squadron during its round-the-world cruise in 1923–1924. Hood was transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet in 1936 and spent much of the next few years on Non-Intervention Patrols during the Spanish Civil War, returning to the United Kingdom before the beginning of World War II and the Battlecruiser Squadron of the Home Fleet.

Hood spent most of the early part of the war patrolling against German commerce raiders and escorting convoys. Flagship of Force H, based at Gibraltar, she bombarded French ships during the attack on Mers-el-Kébir. In May 1941 Hood and the battleship HMS Prince of Wales (53) were ordered to intercept the GERMAN BATTLESHIP Bismarck and the heavy cruiser GERMAN CRUISER Prinz Eugen as they attempted to break out into the North Atlantic. In the subsequent Battle of the Denmark Strait, the aft magazines of Hood exploded, sinking her within five minutes of opening fire.

Design and description
In 1915 the Admiralty was considering the next generation of warship to follow the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. The Director of Naval Construction (DNC), Sir Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt, was given instructions to prepare designs for a new battleship. The design should: "take the armament, armour and engine power of Queen Elizabeth as the standard and build around them a hull which should draw as little water as was considered practicable and safe, and which should embody all the latest protection and improvements against underwater attack." The design ('A') was submitted to the Admiralty on 30 November for consideration. The DNC had been able to reduce the draught in comparison to Queen Elizabeth by 22% by widening the ship to 104 ft and lengthening it to 810 ft; this had the consequence of restricting the ships to use only one dock in Rosyth and two in Portsmouth. Large anti-torpedo bulges were fitted, and the secondary armament of twelve 5 in guns of a new design was mounted on the forecastle deck. The resulting high freeboard gave the design a greater ratio of reserve buoyancy to displacement than in any previous British dreadnought. The design's stretched hull form also gave her an estimated speed of 26.5 kn, about 2.5 kn faster than Queen Elizabeth had been able to reach in service. The First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Henry Jackson, responded on 6 December that such a large ship might start a new arms race with the Americans that Britain could ill afford, and that better deck protection was necessary to defeat plunging shells during long-range engagements.

The Admiralty asked for the design to be reworked ('B') with a maximum beam of 90 ft, but this was deemed unsatisfactory as it compromised the ship's underwater protection. A pair of revised designs was requested with the speed reduced to 22 kn to allow the hull to be shortened to better fit in existing floating docks and the minimum possible draught. The first of the two ('C1') was to have full bulge protection and the second ('C2') to have the best bulge protection possible without exceeding Queen Elizabeth's length. 'C1' was shortened by 100 ft in comparison with 'B' and 'C2' was only 610 ft in length, but draught increased by 1 ft. In both proposals it had been necessary to reduce the number of guns in the secondary armament and reduce the thickness of the armour. The Admiralty was not pleased with either design and asked for a revised version of 'A' of the same draught, beam, armour and armament, but shortened and with the same speed as Queen Elizabeth. In addition the new five-inch gun was rejected in favour of the existing 5.5 in gun.

At least some of the designs were passed to Admiral John Jellicoe, commander of the Grand Fleet, who pointed out that there was no need for new battleships as the British superiority in numbers over the Germans was substantial, but that was not true for battlecruisers. Germany was known to be building three new Mackensen-class battlecruisers with an estimated speed approaching 30 kn and a reported armament of 15.2 in guns. These ships would be superior to all existing British battlecruisers, and those then under construction (the two Renown-class battlecruiser and the three Courageous-class battlecruiser 'large light cruisers') were equally fast, but too thinly armoured to compete with them. He also remarked that his experience with Queen Elizabeth-class had persuaded him that an intermediate speed between the battleships and the battlecruisers was of little use; he suggested that the design should be for either a 21 kn battleship or a 30-knot battlecruiser, preferably the latter.

The DNC prepared two new designs in response to Admiral Jellicoe's comments on 1 February 1916, each for a battlecruiser capable of thirty knots or better and armed with eight 15 in guns. Design '1' displaced 39000 LT with two inches less belt armour and a speed of thirty knots. It used the bulky large-tube boilers traditional in British capital ships, which explains why the design was 9000 LT larger than any of the previous battleship designs. Design '2' was essentially a repeat of the first design except that small-tube boilers were substituted. These were considerably smaller than the older type and saved 3500 LT over Design '1' and had one foot less draught. These savings were substantial enough to overcome the Engineer-in-Chief's objections that they required more frequent and expensive repairs. The DNC was asked to submit four more designs using small-tube boilers which were submitted on 17 February. Design '3' was Design '2' with the machinery power increased to 160000 shp to boost the maximum speed to 32 kn while the other designs had either four, six or eight 18 in guns. Design '3' was selected as Admiral Jellicoe had specified that the minimum number of guns should be no less than eight as fewer caused problems in accurate fire control, and two alternatives were to be provided, one with a dozen 5.5-inch guns and the other with sixteen such guns. The latter proposal was selected on 7 April and orders were placed on 19 April for three ships (Hood, Howe and Rodney). The order for the fourth ship, Anson, was placed on 13 June.

HMS Hood (51) was laid down on 31 May 1916, the same day as the Battle of Jutland. The loss of three British battlecruisers during that battle caused the work on all three ships to be suspended pending an investigation into possible design flaws. Admiral Jellicoe's investigation blamed the loss of the ships on faulty cordite handling procedures that allowed fires in the turrets or hoists to reach the ships' magazines. It recommended anti-flash equipment be installed in magazines and handling rooms and the improvement of deck armour over the magazines to prevent plunging shells or fragments from reaching the magazines. The DNC and the Third Sea Lord opposed the latter, believing that there was no direct evidence that the magazines had been directly penetrated.

On 5 July the DNC submitted two revised designs for the Admiral-class ships. The first was a modification of the previous design with slight increases to the deck, turret, barbette, and funnel uptake armour, one-inch protection for the 5.5-inch ammunition hatches and hoists, and the number of electrical generators increased from four to eight. These changes increased the displacement by 1250 LT and draught by 9 in. The second design drastically improved the protection and converted the ships into fast battleships. The vertical armour was generally increased by 50% and the deck protection was slightly thickened as in the first design. These changes would have added another 4300 LT to the original design and increased the draught by 2 ft, but would have cost half a knot in speed. This design would have been equal to the Queen Elizabeths, but 7 kn faster and with much improved torpedo protection, although it was some 13000 LT larger than the older ships. After the DNC submitted the above designs, he was asked to consider variations with triple fifteen-inch turrets, and these were submitted on 20 July. The Admiralty chose the fast battleship design, and Hood was laid down again on 1 September.

Later that month Hood's armour scheme was slightly revised in light of further analysis of the results of Jutland and the deck armour was modestly increased in order to ensure that a minimum thickness of nine inches of armour would have to be penetrated by shells striking at angles of descent up to 30° from the horizontal. Further alterations were made in 1917 during her construction that increased the thickness of her turret faces and roofs. These changes, plus numerous others, increased her displacement by 600 LT and her draught by 3 in, and reduced her speed to 31 kn. The changes continued during 1918 when the thickness of her magazine crowns was increased from one inch to two; the armour for the funnel uptakes above the forecastle deck was omitted in compensation. In May 1919 her main deck armour at the side abreast the magazines was increased to three inches (76 mm), and four 5.5-inch guns and their ammunition were deleted in consequence. The next month plans were approved to increase the thickness of the main deck over the forward magazines to 5 in and to 6 in over the rear magazines; her four above water torpedo tubes and their protection were to be omitted and the wall of the torpedo control tower were to be reduced to a thickness of 1.5 in to offset the armour's weight. However, the additional deck armour was never fitted and the torpedo tubes (less their protection) were retained.

Earlier in 1917, however, construction of Hood's three sisters had been suspended as the amount of labour and material they required would be better employed in the construction and repair of merchant ships and escorts needed to keep open Britain's lines of communication in the face of the U-boat blockade. Design work continued however, although Hood was too far advanced to incorporate these changes, and ultimately would have been extensive enough for the other three ships to constitute their own class. At the end of 1917 the suspended ships' design was modified to increase the thickness of the turret roofs to six inches (152 mm), and (unspecified) alterations were made to the armoured bulkheads. These cost a total of 267 LT in displacement. Other changes were a redesigned bridge structure and moving the funnels closer together and the exchange in position between the fifteen-inch shellrooms and magazines. This latter change would have caused the hull's form to be filled out somewhat to accommodate the handling room of the rearmost turret at the cost of a slight loss in speed and ammunition storage.

Hood was the closest to completion and her construction was continued in case the Germans managed to complete any of their new battlecruisers. Admiral Beatty continually pressed to have Hood's construction expedited and for her sisters to be restarted, but the War Cabinet refused to approve either measure as nothing could be sacrificed in the shipbuilding programme to this end. After the end of the war the three suspended ships were cancelled as they could not fully incorporate the lessons of the war.

General characteristics
The Admiral-class ships were significantly larger than their predecessors of the Renown-class battlecruiser. They had an overall length of 860 ft, a beam of 104 ft, and a draught of 31 ft at deep load. This was 64 ft longer and 14 ft wider than the smaller ships. They displaced 41200 LT at load and 45620 LT at deep load, over 13000 LT more than the older ships. They had a metacentric height of 4.6 ft at deep load as well as a complete double bottom.

Propulsion
The ships had four Brown-Curtis single-reduction geared steam turbine sets, each of which drove one propeller shaft. They were arranged in three engine rooms. The forward engine room held the two turbines for the wing shafts, the middle compartment housed the turbines for the port inner shaft and the aft engine room contained the turbines for the starboard inner shaft. A cruising turbine was built into the casing of each wing turbine. The turbines were powered by twenty-four Yarrow small-tube boilers equally divided between four boiler rooms. They were designed to produce a total of 144000 shp at a working pressure of 235 psi, but achieved more than 151000 shp during Hood's trials, when she slightly exceeded her designed speed of 31 knots.

They were designed to normally carry 1200 LT of fuel oil, but had a maximum capacity of 4000 LT. At full capacity, Hood could steam at a speed of 14 knots for an estimated 7500 nmi. They had eight 175 kW dynamos, two diesel, two turbo-driven, and four reciprocating.

Armament
The Admiral-class ships mounted eight BL 15-inch Mk I guns in four twin hydraulically powered Mark II turrets, designated 'A', 'B', 'X' and 'Y' from front to rear. The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 30°; they could be loaded at any angle up to 20°, although loading at high angles tended to slow the gun's return to battery. The ships carried 120 shells per gun. They fired 1920 lb projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2467 ft/s; this provided a maximum range of 29000 yd with armour-piercing (AP) shells.

Their secondary armament consisted of sixteen BL 5.5-inch Mk I guns, which were mounted on pivot mounts on the forecastle deck, protected by gun shields. They were provided with 200 rounds per gun. The guns on their CPII mounts had a maximum elevation of 30°. They fired 82 lb projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2790 ft/s. Their maximum range was 17700 yd at 30° elevation. Their rate of fire was twelve rounds per minute.

The Admiral-class ships were designed with four QF four-inch Mark V anti-aircraft guns. They had a maximum depression of -5° and a maximum elevation of 80°. They fired a 31 lb high explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2387 ft/s at a rate of ten to fifteen rounds per minute. The guns had a maximum ceiling of 31000 ft, but an effective range of much less.

Two 21 in submerged side-loading torpedo tubes were fitted forward of 'A' turret and eight above-water side-loading Mark V tubes were intended to be mounted abreast the rear funnel on the upper deck, although only four of the latter were carried by Hood. They were loaded and traversed by hydraulic power; the submerged tubes were fired by compressed air while the above-water tubes used cordite charges. Thirty-two warheads could be accommodated in the two magazines in the hold forward of 'A' turret's shellroom. Hood carried Mark IV and IV* torpedoes, each which had a warhead of 515 lb of TNT. They had three speed settings which governed their range; from 8000 yd at 35 kn, 10000 yd at 29 kn, and 13500 yd at 25 kn.

Fire-control
The main guns of the Admiral-class ships were controlled from either of the two fire-control directors. The primary director was mounted above the conning tower in an armoured hood and the other was in the fore-top on the foremast. 'B' turret could also control all the main gun turrets while 'X' turret could control the rear guns. Data from a 30 ft rangefinder in the armoured hood were input into a Mk V Dreyer Fire Control Table located in the Transmitting Station (TS) on the platform deck where they were converted into range and deflection data for use by the guns. The target's data were also graphically recorded on a plotting table to assist the gunnery officer in predicting the movement of the target. The fore-top was equipped with a 15 ft rangefinder. Each turret was provided with a thirty-foot rangefinder in an armoured housing on the turret roof and a Dumaresq analogue computer for local fire-control.

The secondary armament was primarily controlled by the 5.5-inch directors mounted on each side of the bridge. They were supplemented by the two additional control positions in the fore-top, which were provided with 9 ft rangefinders. Each of these positions was equipped with a Dumaresq calculator for local control, but the spotting data were normally sent to the 5.5-inch TS on the lower deck much like the procedure for the fifteen-inch guns, except that the firing data were calculated by two Type F fire-control clocks (analog computers). The anti-aircraft guns were controlled by a simple 2 m rangefinder mounted on the aft superstructure.

The torpedoes initially had a similar system where various rangefinders, especially the fifteen-foot rangefinder above the aft torpedo control tower, and deflection sights provided data to a Dreyer table in the torpedo TS adjacent to the 5.5-inch TS on the lower deck. However the Dreyer table was removed during Hood's 1929–1931 refit and the calculations were made in the torpedo control position in the bridge.

Armour
The waterline belt of the Admiral-class ships was 12 in thick, angled 12° outwards partly to keep the belt inside the bulge structure and allow torpedo hits to vent to the atmosphere. This angle also increased the armor's relative thickness to horizontal, close-range fire, albeit at the cost of reducing its relative height which increased the chance of plunging shellfire going over or under it. This sloped belt made their armor comparable to the 13 in found in the latest British dreadnoughts. It ran some 562 ft, from the forward edge of 'A' barbette to the middle of 'Y' barbette. Forward of this the belt thinned to six inches before further reducing to 5 in and ending in a five-inch (127 mm) bulkhead well short of the bow. Aft of the midships section the belt reduced to six inches (152 mm) ; it did not reach the stern, but terminated at a five-inch bulkhead. This belt had a height of 9 ft, which 4 ft was below the designed waterline. Above it was the seven-inch middle belt, 7 ft high, and the five-inch upper belt, which was 9 ft high. The middle belt stretched between 'A' and 'Y' barbettes, ending in four-inch transverse bulkheads at each end. The upper belt only ran from 'A' barbette to the end of the machinery spaces and ended in another four-inch transverse bulkhead. Five of Hood's decks were armoured with thicknesses varying from .75 to 3 in, with the greatest thicknesses over the magazines and the steering gear. Immediately adjacent to 'A' and 'Y' barbettes the main deck was five inches thick to protect the magazines.

The turret faces were fifteen inches thick while their sides ranged from 11 to 12 in in thickness, and the roof was five inches thick. The barbettes had a maximum of twelve inches of armour, but were reduced in thickness in stages below decks, although the outer faces of 'A' and 'Y' barbettes were considerably thicker below decks than the other barbettes. The conning tower armour was nine to eleven inches thick, and it was the largest yet fitted to a British capital ship as it weighed 600 LT. The primary fire-control director atop the conning tower was protected by an armoured hood. The face of the hood was six inches thick, its sides were two inches thick, and its roof was protected by three inches of armour. A communications tube with six-inch sides ran from the conning tower down to the lower conning position on the main deck. The three torpedo bulkheads were 1.5 in, 1 in and .75 in thick.

The anti-torpedo bulges of the Admiral-class battlecruisers were the first fitted on a British capital ship to fully incorporate the lessons learned from a series of experiments begun before World War I. They consisted of an outer air space, an inner buoyancy space and the 1.5-inch protective bulkhead. The buoyancy space was filled with sealed steel crushing tubes intended to distribute the force of an explosion over as wide an area as possible as well as absorb as much of its force as possible. However, tests conducted after Hood was completed showed that filling the buoyancy space with water was equally effective and considerably cheaper.

Service history

Shortly after commissioning on 15 May 1920 Hood became flagship of the Battlecruiser Squadron of the Atlantic Fleet, under the command of Rear Admiral Sir Roger Keyes. She made a cruise to Scandinavian waters that year. She visited the Mediterranean in 1921 and 1922 to show the flag and to train with the Mediterranean Fleet, before sailing on a cruise to Brazil and the West Indies in company with the Battlecruiser Squadron.

In November 1923 Hood, accompanied by the battlecruiser HMS Repulse (1916) and a number of Danae-class cruisers of the 1st Light Cruiser Squadron, set out on a world cruise from west to east via the Panama Canal. They returned home ten months later in September 1924. The Battlecruiser Squadron visited Lisbon in January 1925 to participate in the Vasco da Gama celebrations before continuing on the Mediterranean for exercises. Hood would continue this pattern of a winter training visit to the Mediterranean for the rest of the decade.

Hood was given a major refit from 1 May 1929 to 10 March 1931 and afterwards resumed her role as flagship of the Battlecruiser Squadron. Later that year her crew participated in the Invergordon Mutiny over pay cuts for the sailors. It ended peacefully and Hood returned to her home port afterwards. The Battlecruiser Squadron made a Caribbean cruise in early 1932. The next year she resumed her previous practice of a winter cruise in the Mediterranean. While en route to Gibraltar for one of these cruises she collided with the battlecruiser HMS Renown (1916) on 23 January 1935, but was only lightly damaged. Hood participated in King George V's Silver Jublilee Fleet Review at Spithead the following August. She was transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet shortly afterward and stationed at Gibraltar at the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War and the Spanish Civil War. On 23 April 1937 she escorted three British merchantmen into Bilbao harbour despite the presence of the Nationalist cruiser SPANISH CRUISER Almirante Cervera that attempted to blockade the port. She returned to Portsmouth in January 1939 for an overhaul that lasted until 12 August.

World War II
In June 1939, Hood was assigned to the Home Fleet's Battlecruiser Squadron while still refitting; when war broke out later that year, she was employed principally in patrolling the vicinity of Iceland and the Faroe Islands to protect convoys and intercept German raiders attempting to break out into the Atlantic. In September 1939, she was hit by a 250 kg (550 lb) aircraft bomb with minor damage. By early 1940 Hood's machinery was in dire shape and limited her best speed to 26.5 kn; she was refitted between 4 April and 12 June.

Hood and the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal (91) were ordered to Gibraltar to join Force H on 18 June where Hood would become the flagship. As such, she took part in the destruction of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir in July 1940. Just eight days after the French surrender, the British Admiralty had issued an ultimatum to the French Fleet at Oran to ensure they would not fall into German or Italian hands. The terms were rejected and the Royal Navy opened fire on the French ships berthed there. The results of Hood's fire are not known exactly, but she damaged the FRENCH BATTLESHIP Dunkerque, which was hit by four fifteen-inch shells and was forced to beach herself. Hood was straddled during the engagement by Dunkerque; shell splinters wounded two men. Dunkerque's sister ship FRENCH BATTLESHIP Strasbourg managed to escape from the harbour and Hood with several light cruisers gave chase, but gave up after two hours after Hood had dodged a salvo of torpedoes from a French sloop and she had stripped a turbine reaching 28 kn.

Hood was relieved as flagship of Force H by Renown on 10 August after returning to Scapa Flow. After a short refit she resumed her previous role in patrolling against German commerce raiders and convoy escort. This lasted until January 1941 when she began a refit that lasted until March. Upon its completion she was ordered to sea in an attempt to intercept the German battleships GERMAN BATTLESHIP Gneisenau and GERMAN BATTLESHIP Scharnhorst. Unsuccessful, she was ordered to patrol the Bay of Biscay against any breakout attempt by the German ships from Brest. Hood was ordered to the Norwegian Sea on 19 April when the Admiralty received a false report that GERMAN BATTLESHIP Bismarck had sailed from Germany. Afterwards she patrolled the North Atlantic before putting into Scapa Flow on 6 May.

Battle of the Denmark Strait
On the evening of 21 May 1941 Hood and the newly completed battleship HMS Prince of Wales (53) sailed from Scapa Flow to join the heavy cruisers HMS Norfolk (78) and HMS Suffolk (55) patrolling the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland on the news that Bismarck and the heavy cruiser GERMAN CRUISER Prinz Eugen had sortied into the North Atlantic. They had not yet reached the Strait when Suffolk spotted the German ships north of Iceland in the early evening on 23 May. Hood and Prince of Wales altered course and increased their speed to intercept. The British squadron spotted the Germans at 05:37 but the Germans were already aware of their presence. The British opened fire at 05:52 with Hood engaging Prinz Eugen, the lead ship in the German formation, and the Germans returned fire 05:55, both ships concentrating on Hood. Prinz Eugen (probably) was the first ship to score when a shell hit Hood's boat deck, between her funnels, and started a large fire among the ready-use ammunition for the anti-aircraft guns and rockets of the Unrotated Projectile mounts. Right before 06:00, while Hood was turning 20° to port to unmask her rear turrets, she was hit again on the boat deck by a shell from Bismarck's fifth salvo. The exact location and sequence of events is unknown, but her aft fifteen-inch magazines exploded. This broke her back and she sank with the loss of all but three of her crew.

title: Admiral-class battlecruiser


text:
List of ministers for finance (Denmark)

This is a list of finance ministers of Denmark since Denmark's first unified finance ministry was established in 1848.

Ministers under Christian X (1912–1947)
! colspan=8| 29 August 1943 – 5 May 1945

title: List of ministers for finance (Denmark)


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Elbert Frank Cox/archive1

Elbert Frank Cox

 * It needs an image to be able to be featured, but what else does it need? More maths, perhaps? I spent all day working on it, it's well sourced, and contains quite a lot of interesting information. What do you think? It somehow does not read like a well-written article (I'm not a native speaker). Perhaps it just needs a minor rewrite by a native speaker who can write very well? Gerrit CUTEDH 21:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting article. It looks like you put in a lot of work and made some impressive improvements. It's very comprehensive on the subject of his education and teaching, a bit less so on the other areas of his life. The writing isn't so bad. It's not gripping, but it's sensible and for the most part clear and grammatically correct. The links feel a bit dense, and the organization isn't the tightest I've seen (it has an "and then... and then... and then..." feel to it, IMHO). A few comments:

 * How about referencing specific facts in the article from specific sources (in particular, the items that are relatively subjective, such as how good a teacher he was or what influence his father had on him)?
 * There are also a few thoughts in there that look like they could be more fully developed -- e.g. "Cox went to a segregated school with inadequate resources. His father was an important inspiration for him."
 * By 1930, it would rank 2nd in the U.S. (after Harvard) for the number of mathematicians getting a bachelor's degree." "It" is Indiana University?
 * I'd be interested in learning more about what impact racism may have had on his career and studies in a time when discrimination was widespread and the KKK was active near the area where he worked.
 * The sentence "He did not publish a paper until 1934." seems a bit out of place in a discussion of events from the mid-1920s
 * Perhaps the article could be organized, or at least the sections titled a bit differently. Instead of organizing it by where he was, it could maybe be organized by life events -- Undergraduate studies, graduate studies, teaching, family, etc....  Since it wouldn't be 100% chronological, the article could begin (after the intro section) with an abbreviated chronology.
 * "Cox started to teach at Howard University in September 1930. It was very different; despite his high credentials, he was outranked by other professors such as William Bauduit and Charles Syphax." What was different from what?
 * "Williams, his supervisor, tried to pursue recognition for Cox from a university from another country" Who is Williams (and does he have a first name)?  I don't recall his being mentioned elsewhere, or certainly not within the past few paragraphs.
 * "Cox had directed more Master's Degree students than any other professor at Howard's University" Is it "Howard University" or "Howard's University"?
 * There's a section marked as a stub. Presumably it should be expanded?

-- Avocado 23:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, I will have a look at it tonight or tomorrow (sorry that I saw it only now). Gerrit CUTEDH 17:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)