Emergency teletype em-96200

10-4 Sargeant. I'm 10-42. Immediate 10-56 requested. I don't have a zero. Plus come here and 15 me. Over

2024.04.12 16:22 ExitNext8666 10-4 Sargeant. I'm 10-42. Immediate 10-56 requested. I don't have a zero. Plus come here and 15 me. Over

OSCEOLA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE TEN CODES
10-1 Receiving Poorly 10-37 Operator on Duty 10-2 Receiving Well 10-38 Block Road at 10-3 Stop Transmitting 10-39 Message Delivered 10-4 Okay 10-40 Out For Meal 10-5 Relay To 10-41 In Possession of 10-6 Busy 10-42 Home 10-7 Out of Service 10-43 Information 10-8 In Service 10-44 Call Cell Phone 10-9 Repeat 10-45 Call by Phone 10-10 Out of Service Subject To Call 10-46 Urgent 10-11 Dispatching Rapidly 10-47 Request Incident Number & Times 10-12 Visitors Present 10-48 Did you Receive 10-13 WeatheRoad conditions 10-49 Serving Warrant 10-14 Convoy, Escort or Special Detail 10-50 Traffic Stop 10-15 Prisoner or in Custody 10-51 Enroute 10-16 Pick up Prisoner 10-52 Estimated Time of Arrival 10-17 Conduct Investigation 10-54 Negative 10-18 Emergency Lights & Siren 10-55 Clear for message? 10-19 Return to Station 10-56 Meet at 10-20 Your Location 10-58 Go to Channel 10-21 Call Station (phone) 10-59 Send Teletype Message 10-22 Disregard or Cancel 10-60 Out of Service Refuel 10-23 Stand By 10-65 Can you Copy 10-24 Trouble Send Help 10-66 Cancel 10-25 In Contact With 10-67 Serving Civil Papers 10-26 Message Received 10-70 Send Wrecker 10-28 Registration Check 10-71 Send Ambulance 10-29 Stolen Vehicle Check 10-88 Contact Number (OwneManager) 10-29P Wanted Person Check 10-89 On Pager 10-30 Notify Complainant of Arrival 10-90 Scramble 10-31 In Pursuit 10-91 Tactical Frequency 10-32 Breathalyzer Operator 10-94 Request Backup 10-33 Emergency Traffic 10-97 Arrived on Scene 10-34 Jailbreak/Trouble at the Jail 10-98 Completed Assignment 10-35 Confidential Information 10-99 Want Indicated 10-36 Correct Time
submitted by ExitNext8666 to JeremyDewitte [link] [comments]

2023.10.08 19:31 OneCauliflower5243 F-5E/F Flight Manual

F-5E/F Flight Manual submitted by OneCauliflower5243 to aviation [link] [comments]

2023.07.23 17:12 heyimcub Brother is a predator living with multiple children

First post here in reddit, so not sure how this works, sorry for weird format or whatever. I (19f) have a brother (25m). We used to live in el paso, tx when I was 15-16 yrs old. My brother was 22 at the time. I discovered that he was filming me while I was naked in the bathroom showering or changing. This along with other things such as commenting on my genitals, touching me sexually, telling his friends he wants to have sex with me, hiding in my closet to watch me change, etc has given me a lot of trauma. Last year my brother went to jail and was released two weeks ago in el paso tx. I now live in Idaho and have just (today) received a notification that my Instagram account was hacked from somebody in el paso tx. Yesterday and today I was watching movies on my laptop and noticed both times that my laptop camera was enabled while I was watching movies on it. My brother is the only person I know who is in el paso. I know he has the skills to do this as he has flaunted his cyber tech skills for years. I also know that he is planning to live with my mother and my little sister (13f), along with my two nieces who are staying there for the summer (6 and 8f). I have explicit reasons to believe that he has sexually assaulted my two nieces. Behaviors such as being scared to have a male see them naked, not going to the bathroom with the door open, extreme codependency, inability to sleep alone, still wetting the bed severely, talking about sexual things regarding my brother, and imitating sexual acts. However, as I dont know where exactly they are since I cut off contact with my family, I cannot involve local authorities or dcfs. I also don’t have any proof of anything, but am very scared and need advice. Thank you in advance!
Update: My laptop camera is covered, I called cps three times and was on hold each time. I decided to hang up and start filing a report to the police about what happened to me. I have made calls to my local non emergency police line and the el paso one as well, and was told to file a report locally and they can teletype it to el paso. I am now waiting to be contacted by the deputy who is supposed to take my statement. Also, my brother was in jail for resisting arrest/assaulting a police officer, so no he is not a registered sex offender. I tried finding his po officer and could not do it that way so I decided that making a report would be the best way to get the ball rolling for now. Thank you to everyone who has given words of encouragement and advice, you all helped me very much in getting past my anxiety, your advice and kine words are appreciated💜
submitted by heyimcub to CPS [link] [comments]

2023.05.05 21:16 roseinshadows [classic] ed is the standard text editor

[classic] ed is the standard text editor submitted by roseinshadows to ProgrammerHumor [link] [comments]

2023.03.15 18:23 PM_ME_YOUR_ROTES Some compiled old table top Ref musings *CAUTION* May Contain: R.A.B.I.D.s, Altcults, nuts, hyperreality, &/or cause 6D6 humanity loss. Consume responsibly. Remember... only YOU can prevent wildfires

Some compiled old table top Ref musings *CAUTION* May Contain: R.A.B.I.D.s, Altcults, nuts, hyperreality, &/or cause 6D6 humanity loss. Consume responsibly. Remember... only YOU can prevent wildfires
Heya, choombattas!
I’m not exactly a big huge 2077 gonk but I did stay on the 13th Floor of a No-Tell Motel Express™ last night & as a yute ran a bunch of 2020 on my IIGS - which is why I usually haunt the old pen & paper sub - so a few of you might recognize me from such other terrible shitposts such as “I don’t actually hate Netrunning,” "CyberGen was kinda fun," or “Sure, v3 was incredibly green with weird dolls & it ran on some form of Fuzion® but it wasn’t THAT bad... it's got what Plãntz© crave!" Thus, after some soul-searching & a fair bit of navel-gazing, I thought I would share some old lore observations since word on the wire is you punks enjoy a good overly arcane & insanely esoteric paranoid - trust no one! - SAN blasting crackpot ramble. So I put on my robe & wizard hat
First, if IRC, according to everybody's favorite major kitchen appliance dwelling legendary hacker & Han Solo in carbonite cosplaying Net scoundrel Rache Bartmoss in his Guide to the Net, way back in the late teens & early roaring '20s human-based artificial pseudo intelligences - such as those who were victimized by Soulkiller, TRONed, Max Headroomized, or otherwise extracted to diskette - would gather together out in Wilderspace at a place known as Shangri-La - or more colloquially, "The Ghost Town." Ooo, spooky & phantomy. It was supposedly somewhere out on the edge of the Rustbelt or Olympia grids way up north & then when these "human AIs" were out on Ghost Town business they would all adopt the ICONs of "Angels."
By the time of Red - after the 4th Corp War & subsequent DataKrash - these so-called Ghost Towns had grown so large & numerous that Alt had the bulk of them moved out to the bioplagued ruins of Hong Kong where they became known as Ghost World. Which brings us to Trace Santiago 'n friends - or the Bionic Six - & their li'l road trip from the Night City Arasaka tower blast site to the "abandoned" Los Alamos New Mexico nuclear test facilities as they smuggle the 2nd nuke & its intriguing actual flash frozen contents for a somewhat familiar-looking woman with a rather interesting alias who also just so happens to be a massive Samurai stan 🎵 Black dawg in MY head) 🎶
Then, in computing, ^V, Ctrl+V, or Control V not only pastes stuff but it's also the 7-bit ASCII string that generates a synchronous idle, SYN, control character - also known as a non-printable character or NPC - where all the system clocks must match. While in Unix it also means that the next interactive terminal character should be treated literally - the mnemonic here is not only Johnny but also V for verbatim.
Meanwhile, the 8-bit byte extended ASCII - or Unicode - Hex Value of…
  • FF = the diminutive Latin ÿ which is the lowercase letter Y with a diaeresis mark indicating that it should be two separate vowel sounds. It also occurs occasionally in French, Afrikaans, & Dutch - as well as a few other languages - as ï when it follows another vowel, usually in a proper noun, but is still supposed to be pronounced separately, which could make it U & I - which would also be the common abbreviation for User Interface.
  • 06 = the ACK or Acknowledge code to indicate successful receipt between sender & receiver as used by ancient relic telecom equipment like telegraphs, telephones, teletype printers, Xerox® copiers, DataTerms™, fax machines, etc. ⚡⚡ \tap-TAP** *BEEP* *BEEP* *DING-ding\* ⚡⚡
  • B5 = the micro sign µ which means "small," or one millionth, but it also happens to be the Greek letter Mu which also happens to be the Zen concept of the "negative," "not," ”nonexistence," “no thing,” "without," “pure awareness," or "the gateway to enlightenment;” it also happens to be the in-game or in-universe abbreviation for Memory Units, which is where computer programs & virtual realities are stored; plus a whole bunch of other things.
It also looks like a cute little mirrored y :)
I call it the Extended ASCII Table Interpretation Theory or the U n I code
Did y’all know that R. Talsorian Games, publisher of the aforementioned Cyberpunk Red & classic 2020, a copy of which can be found for the PC inside the \BonusContent\sourcebook folder or obtained from GOG's website as a goodie for 2077 on the console, not only also publishes The Witcher tabletop RPG as well as the Nigel D. Findley Memorial Award winning Castle Falkenstein, the victorian fantasy steampunk RPG about a legendary unbuilt Bavarian fairy tale castle, but that they also once upon a time published the Dream Park role-playing game which was a role-playing game based on a series of sci-fi murder mystery novels about an advanced & immersive theme park of role-playing games? The plots take place both inside & outside of the games—entertaining little series.
Fun Fact: The default color of a visited Hyperlink is purple!
Funner Fact: The default color of a computer Data Wall, or "screen," is black!
Funnest Fact: The default Wizard's Book is especially effective (STR 6) against Code Gates!

And Jesus WEPT, for there were no more worlds to conquer.

Other possibly old spoiled tidbits: Moby-Dick is a whale, Rosebud is a sled, Rudolf is Rassendyll, Deckard is Mercer, Tastee Ghoul is Soylent Green, the Deliverator is a Hiro, Nick Haflinger is a phreak, Cobb Anderson is a pheezer, Dexter Douglas is the Freakazoid, Radical Edward is a prodigy, Jerrica Benton is a Jem, India Carless is Trouble, RoboCop is Murphy's law, Aram Fingal's body is missing, Spider Jerusalem is still smokin', Fyodor Ryumin is a wirehead, Zero Cool is Crash Override, Lenny is the main connection to the switchboard of the soul, Rayno's microterm is a Zeilemann Nova 300, the Dixie Flatline is ROM, the Weasel is a cybersnake, Rache is an auto cad, Blackhand is a gun nut, Adriana is a Stage 7 clone, I am Spartacus, Sam is a Lord of Light, Johnny 5 is still alive, They Live, we can rebuild him, moddies & daddies are Budayeen Add-Ons™, who is number 1, the answer is 42, Alpha Arizona is the happiest place on Earth, Simulacron-3 is for marketing research purposes, the time is out of joint, this is my boomstick, there is no place like home, Plato's Cave is an allegory, Theseus's ship is the Ship of Theseus, one must imagine Sisyphus happy, fear the Danaans even when bearing gifts, all your base are belong to us, We Can Remember It For You Wholesale is Total Recall, monkey's brains - though popular in Cantonese cuisine - are not often to be found in Washington DC, the Maltese Falcon is the stuff dreams are made of, nobody can be told what the Matrix is, Matrix is Enzo, Illyrion is something else, Google en Passant, the only winning move is not to play, & the Emergency Self-Construct ^[ESC] is the key to creating an escape character for “AltMode.”
🤯
That's a pun. It seems most Netrunners these days don't get out enough, so I thought I might have to give you a hint.
P.S. Hey, Morgan... Neener neener neener!
Welp, I'll let folk get back to investigating the mysteries of Night City 2077, "The City of Dreams."
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
🎼🎸Black dog in my head, guiding me to the end...the escape & the chase is now one. Run! 🥁🎹
Hunter2
LOAD "*",8,1
C:\DOS
C:\DOS\Run
Run\DOS\Run
TL;DR: $ sudo bash @ \x1B🥕🐰*69%🔽 #SeeYa+ 23 Skidoo! =^D
submitted by PM_ME_YOUR_ROTES to FF06B5 [link] [comments]

2023.03.04 01:35 Justwonderinif Timeline IV

<
Tuesday, January 5, 1999
 Wednesday, January 6, 1999
Thursday, January 7, 1999
Friday, January 8, 1999
Saturday, January 9, 1999
Sunday, January 10, 1999
Monday, January 11, 1999
Tuesday, January 12, 1999
Wednesday, January 13, 1999
Thursday, January 14, 1999
Friday, January 15, 1999
Saturday, January 16, 1999
Next Timeline>>
submitted by Justwonderinif to adnansyed [link] [comments]

2023.02.22 06:30 atpjoker1714 Gaming Facts #1 (What is a Video Game)

A video game, also known as a computer game, is an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface or input device – such as a joystick, controller, keyboard, or motion sensing device – to generate audiovisual feedback. This feedback is most commonly shown on a video display device, such as a TV set, monitor, touchscreen, or virtual reality headset. Some computer games do not always depend on a graphics display; for example, text adventure games and computer chess can be played through teletype printers. Video games are often augmented with audio feedback delivered through speakers or headphones, and sometimes with other types of feedback, including haptic technology.
Video games are defined based on their platform, which include arcade video games, console games, and personal computer (PC) games. More recently, the industry has expanded onto mobile gaming through smartphones and tablet computers, virtual and augmented reality systems, and remote cloud gaming. Video games are classified into a wide range of genres based on their type of gameplay and purpose.
The first video game prototypes in the 1950s and 1960s were simple extensions of electronic games using video-like output from large room-size computers. The first consumer video game was the arcade video game Computer Space in 1971. In 1972 came the iconic hit arcade game Pong, and the first home console, the Magnavox Odyssey. The industry grew quickly during the golden age of arcade video games from the late 1970s to early 1980s, but suffered from the crash of the North American video game market in 1983 due to loss of publishing control and saturation of the market. Following the crash, the industry matured, dominated by Japanese companies such as Nintendo, Sega, and Sony, and established practices and methods around the development and distribution of video games to prevent a similar crash in the future, many of which continue to be followed. Today, video game development requires numerous skills to bring a game to market, including developers, publishers, distributors, retailers, console and other third-party manufacturers, and other roles.
In the 2000s, the core industry centered on "AAA" games, leaving little room for riskier, experimental games. Coupled with the availability of the Internet and digital distribution, this gave room for independent video game development (or indie games) to gain prominence into the 2010s. Since then, the commercial importance of the video game industry has been increasing. The emerging Asian markets and mobile games on smartphones in particular are altering player demographics towards casual gaming and increasing monetization by incorporating games as a service. As of 2020, the global video game market has estimated annual revenues of US$159 billion across hardware, software, and services. This is three times the size of the 2019 global music industry and four times that of the 2019 film industry.
Source
submitted by atpjoker1714 to ATPGamer [link] [comments]

2022.10.18 07:29 stacks144 Knowing the Operating Reactivity Margin

Knowing the Operating Reactivity Margin
The one alleged violation key to the explosion that has sticking power is the removal of too many effective control rods from the core/going under the lower ORM limit. Setting aside the strange facts around the lower ORM limit, there is a big question mark over the operators even knowing the actual ORM values they were working with. Pages 11 and 17 of INSAG-7 introduce us to what information on the ORM values the operators were supplied with:
According to the record, the computer SKALA, which was used to calculate the ORM, became unreliable in the period in which the test took place. In the view of INSAG, it is likely that the operator did not know the value of the ORM during the critical part of the test.
...
If, as has been stated since, there was no effective facility in the control room for informing the operators of this parameter, then again they were ill served by the plant's design, and a judgement different from that made in INSAG-1 is necessary.
These statements go beyond what was on the 01:22:30 printout. Page 6 comments on the calculation of ORM:
2.5. INSTRUMENTATION INDICATING THE REACTIVITY MARGIN
The computer and instrumentation used to determine the reactivity margin for the RBMK-1000 reactor were located approximately 50 m from the control console. The data acquisition system received information from about 4000 data input points. The system was used to calculate periodically the operating reactivity margin (ORM), which is the extra reactivity that would arise if all control and safety rods were withdrawn, expressed as a multiple of the total reactivity controlled by a standard rod. This data system required about 10-15 min to cycle through all measurements and to calculate the ORM. The system was designed to provide guidance to the operator on steady state control of the power density distribution, and was used for this purpose in conjunction with the system for monitoring the spatial power distribution.
Fifty meters from the control console the computer calculated ORM with an apparent lag of 10-15 minutes. Page 52 informs us that a particular PRIZMA program calculates such parameters:
— built-in SKALA computerized centralized control system, comprising the diagnostic parameter recording program (DREG) and PRIZMA program for calculation of reactor parameters which are not measured directly;
Two paragraphs appear almost verbatim in both Annex I and II that seem to describe "the computer SKALA, which was used to calculate the ORM, became unreliable in the period in which the test took place". Page 56:
I-4.3.2. SKALA centralized control system and subsystems
The system was designed to calculate the basic reactor parameters every 5 min, this period being determined by the power of the V-3M type computer. This period is also unsuitable for analysing fast processes.
The DREG program is very comprehensive and has a good time resolution. It samples and records several hundred discrete and analogue signals. The time of input into the computer of information on directly measured parameters is less than 1 s. However, the DREG program does not record important reactor parameters, such as power, reactivity and channel coolant flow rates. It records the position of only nine of the 211 RCPS rods, including one rod from each of the three automatic control groups. These parameters are not measured directly and therefore the sampling interval is much longer (1 min). Notwithstanding the short recording time of some parameters (1 s), the sampling time may be rather uncertain because the DREG program has one of the lowest priorities in the SKALA centralized control system. In addition, during the last hour before the accident there were three interruptions in the operation of the DREG program, associated with restarting of the SKALA system. These caused an additional loss of information. Other subsystems of the SKALA system, including the PRIZMA program and magnetic tape records of reactor conditions (RESTART) have a long cycle (5 min). There were also interruptions in these systems caused by restarting of the system and the software characteristics. Furthermore, the results of the PRIZMA program are recorded only on printouts.
Page 115:
II-2.5.2. SKALA centralized monitoring system and subsystems
This system calculates the main reactor parameters approximately every 5 min (this limitation is due to the capacity of the V-3M type computer). Of course, this cycle is too long for the analysis of fast processes.
The diagnostic parameter recording program (DREG) scans and records several hundred discrete and analogue signals. However, it does not record the main reactor parameters such as the power and reactivity levels, the coolant flow rate in the channels and other mass parameters. The positions of only nine of the 211 RCPS rods are recorded, including one rod in each of the three groups of automatic controllers. These parameters are not directly measurable and their scan cycle is therefore much longer (1 min). Although the recording cycle for some parameters is short (1 s), the length of the scanning interval may be rather uncertain as the DREG program has a very low priority in the SKALA system. Moreover, during the hour preceding the accident there were three interruptions in the running of the DREG program caused by a SKALA system restart. This resulted in additional losses of information. The cycle for other results produced by the SKALA system is longer (5 min), including the PRIZMA program and the recording of reactor status data on magnetic tape (RESTART); and there are interruptions caused by system restarts and certain software features. In addition, the results produced by the PRIZMA program are recorded only on printouts. The process parameter data produced by the DREG program are given.
The Annex I timeline on page 54 provides the timing and duration of these interruptions:
from 00:39:32 until 00:43:35 DREG program did not work
...
from 00:52:35 until 00:59:54 DREG program did not work
...
from 01:12:10 until 01:18:49 DREG program did not work
Three times in the hour before the explosion when the critical loss of ORM was occurring the SKALA computer system was restarted, rather evenly spread out. In addition, "certain software features" and "characteristics" would apparently also disrupt an ORM calculation. What does this mean for when and what operators knew of the ORM? Given the inherent lag were any calculations performed? The 01:22:30 calculation was performed at another nuclear power plant after the Chernobyl explosion, which Soviet experts seem to have failed to clarify in 1986. INSAG-7 makes no mention of any ORM values being available to operators in the hour leading up to the explosion.
Fun fact, if you go to pages 112-113 for the Annex II timeline, it being from the commission chaired by A. A. Abagyan and involving the directors of NIKIET and the Kurchatov Institute as members, you will find no entries for when the DREG program did not work or for when the SKALA system was restarted. Seems notable.
Pages 170-171 of Chernobyl: Past, Present and Future written in part by the person who chaired the Annex I commission convey that the operators did not have supplied ORM values in the hour leading up to the explosion:
The Government Commission noted that the reactor emergency protection system didn't fulfil its functions and the accident occurred due to the reactor design defect, in particular:
...
* absence of a device in the reactor plant design indicating an operative reactivity margin and warning on the approach to a dangerous limit
...
A low value of the operating reactivity margin (ORM) not only worsened conditions of the reactor control that was known to the personnel but also left the reactor without emergency protection that the personnel didn't know. The ORM control device was beyond design basis. The ORM regular system according to the 'Prisma' program didn't provide information to the operator since its operation at a low power level was unstable. The ORM value at the moment of pressing the AZ-5 button was calculated after the accident. [the ORM value corresponded to an earlier state] But the operator could assess ORM on the basis of poisoning curves specified in the reactor control procedure. Such an assessment would have given him at 1 a. m. of April 26 the ORM value of 15 or 16 manual control (MC) rods. We recall that the power unit unloading started at 23 h 10 min of April 25 at ORM of 26 (MC) rods.
I haven't seen anywhere else the claim that the Prisma program ORM calculation was not available due to low power. It makes you wonder. The paragraph claims that the operators would have had to manually calculate the ORM, which would be borderline at 1 am. This brings us back to the way the operators would have understood ORM, being more concerned about the power rise when there was no ORM violation than about a shutdown later as the ORM was reduced further. Incidentally, multiple times in a quote from that post there is a mention of automatic power control after power was stabilized at around 1 am. This relates to the ORM calculation perhaps being affected at low power and what the operators were seeing and doing. Pages 4-5 of INSAG-7:
https://preview.redd.it/e78vplgu1iu91.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=031f02c8563fa55140bdaeba4c1e9e48f683c238
Pages 39-40:
https://preview.redd.it/l0b5dz3w1iu91.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=69d138c9594855f9272b333a3f88129ea9c3dca4
If there were inadequate sensors for the operators how was an automatic power retention system activated after 1 am? If there were inadequate sensors at low power would the Prisma/Prizma program be able to calculate ORM? Why is this not written in INSAG-7 but in a book many years later the preface of which states the memory of the authors may be spotty?
u/ppitm I believe has mentioned before that the operators had some sort of ORM values in the hour leading up to the explosion. u/Nacht_Geheimnis has in the past few days provided me with a couple of quotes as to these claims, sourced to a book by Shcherbak (which apparently is unavailable in English in its full form) and a book by Karpan, both I think referring to testimony at the court trial. These quotes are in conflict with INSAG-7, and seemingly with themselves:
Sometime around 1:00 I asked Toptunov what the reactivity margin was, and received answer of 19 or 18 rods, I don't remember precisely. On the numerical display Tregub saw 17 or 18, that is, Toptunov was checking periodically. But a SIUR cannot pay attention to one parameter, which requires him to enter a code and wait some time for it to appear on the display. A SIUR has over 4,000 parameters, besides controlling the reactor, and can't devote all his attention to one parameter. Toptunov was handling reactor control well; this was visible from the shape of the neutron field and the power printouts on teletype.
This quote is attributed to Dyatlov. According to INSAG-7 the ORM at around 1:00 reached violation territory of 15 or under. Furthermore, there was no numerical display that the senior reactor control engineer was checking periodically. That came after Chernobyl. There could be a Prisma/Prizma program printout but the computer system was disrupted and any value would have reflected a past state. Dyatlov's book has no such quote in it. I have searched for "Toptunov", "17", and "19". His book does have passages related to ORM, some of which we will see, but those passages clearly imply that there was no ORM display.
I also noticed Dyatlov behind my back. And when we raised the reactor power to 200 MW, I returned to the SIUR console. When I looked for the last time before the accident after the distribution, the SIUR extracted about half of the rods close to the end caps, and the rest by about two meters. The last value of the ORR that I saw, there were about 19 rods in the active zone.
This quote is attributed to the supervisor of the previous shift who had stayed to observe, Yuri Tregub. However, the source I have used in other posts has Tregub assisting Toptunov during the power rise to 200 MW and leaving the SIUR console once the reactor power was raised, which is the opposite of this quote.
Nacht_Geheimnis has suggested that perhaps a "non-operational control room" adjacent to the actual control room would have provided some sort of ORM display. He provided a few photos for all you picture freaks:
You can see a control room on the right.
I wonder what the labels are.
The state of the space after the Chernobyl disaster apparently.
However, if we go back to page 6 of INSAG-7:
The computer and instrumentation used to determine the reactivity margin for the RBMK-1000 reactor were located approximately 50 m from the control console. The data acquisition system received information from about 4000 data input points. The system was used to calculate periodically the operating reactivity margin (ORM), which is the extra reactivity that would arise if all control and safety rods were withdrawn, expressed as a multiple of the total reactivity controlled by a standard rod.
Fifty meters from the control console as opposed to next door. It's interesting that the 4000 number reappears, referring to data input points rather than parameters. Page 107 of Dyatlov's book does use the word parameters, but more importantly supports INSAG-7's claims of lacking display:
Therefore what? What violations did L. Toptunov commit? In fact none according to Medvedev. The drop in power? It occurred due to a faulty regulator which he transferred to. We have let power be low for qualifications or even due to mistakes. Did they stir up charges against the operator for a power reduction? Here they did. He raised power after the drop in accordance with Regulations, not contrary to. Had he looked at reactivity margin? Probably. Was he provided the necessary means to monitor the parameter as required by law? No. Not to mention the absence of EPS required by law. The device for measuring this parameter is completely unusable during transient conditions, like it was on April 26, like it is in many other normal routine processes.
There you go. This is by the law.
I’m not even talking about human concepts - they are alien to Medvedev. I will remind others. An operator performs more than a thousand manipulations per hour while controlling the reactor and has more than 4,000 parameters to control. And he’s to blame for monitoring a parameter that has no measuring device or alarm?
What we do find in Dyatlov's book goes back to the foreknowledge of the positive power coefficient that was apparently not shared with operators even by the nuclear power plant's Nuclear Safety Department. According to Dyatlov this not only kept operators in the dark as to the reactor being able to run away but misled operators on their estimations of ORM in the absence of a display. On page 30 is the first mention of a relation between the ORM and the positive power coefficient:
One more thing. In Regulations it is stated that on a decrease of ORM to less than 15 Manual Adjustment rods, the reactor should be tripped. What reactivity margin was at 30 MW, couldn’t be measured, because the measuring device isn’t suitable. It was only possible to make an approximate calculation based on information known at that time on poisoning and the power coefficient of reactivity. According to this, reactivity margin at the time of the failure was more than 15 rods. This means the staff did not allow violations. More on this later.
This passage on page 31 lays out Dyatlov's claims:
I certainly didn’t expect a dirty trick from the station’s Nuclear Safety Department. In accordance with the requirements of the regulatory documents, the Department periodically conducted measurements of reactor characteristics, including such parameters as the Void Coefficient of Reactivity (αφ), and the Fast Power Coefficient of Reactivity (αω). Here is the latest given data obtained by operating staff for work guidance:
αφ = +1.29β
αω= -1.7 x 10⁻⁴ β/MWth
After the accident, the steam void coefficient was measured at the other units of the station and the values obtained were up to 5β. This is a large difference, and therefore so is the difference in impact on reactivity margin with the start of the 7th and 8th MCPs, and the increase in feed water flow in the direction of decreasing reactivity margin.
The Power Coefficient of Reactivity was measured by the Nuclear Safety Department at a power level as close to nominal as possible, and this is what was given to us. After the accident, it was found out that at low powers (from the start and still now, the Scientific Director and Chief Designer haven’t specified their organizations), the reactor had a positive, rather than negative power coefficient, and so far the magnitude is still unknown. And with a decrease in power, what was received was not an increase in reactivity margin, but a decrease of an unknown magnitude. Therefore the prognosis of the change in margin came out wrong.
I have already commented on it in other posts but the focus here is on how the operators having inaccurately low void and power coefficient values could have affected their estimations of ORM. First, when the two additional main circulation pumps were connected the total coolant flow through the reactor increased and hence voiding decreased. With a much higher positive void coefficient this meant that a significantly higher extraction of control rods was necessary to counter-balance the higher neutron absorption of less steam and more water than would be expected. I recall seeing the claim that this difference amounted to as many as five to six control rods. The feedwater changes I find irrelevant as feedwater flow was reduced before the test, but if as I saw at one place the feedwater flow rate was still higher than the average at the power level it would have contributed in reducing voiding too, causing a greater extraction of control rods.
What I don't understand is in the last paragraph. Why does Dyatlov claim that with a decrease in power the ORM would increase with a negative power coefficient, but would decrease with a positive power coefficient? Earlier in the book he explains that rods are inserted to decrease power. I suppose this goes back to the event around 00:28 that no one really seems to understand. Did control rods go into the core during the power drop from ~500 MW to ~30 MW? I'm really not understanding how Dyatlov thinks that a decrease in power with a negative power coefficient results in a higher ORM/insertion of control rods but with a positive power coefficient control rods would have to be pulled out. Why the hell would you be pulling out control rods when the power coefficient amplifies a power drop and inserting them when the power coefficient checks a power drop? Makes no sense.
Can someone check the translation of this paragraph? This google doc translation is much better than the other one I've seen but what Dyatlov is stating makes no sense.
By the way, page 65 of Dyatlov's book supports Tregub's assertion that reactor power was automatically controlled at 200 MW:
The automatic controller maintained reactor power completely fine. The film of the self recorder registered neither power oscillations, nor bursts.
Page 113 has a quote that is very direct:
On April 26, we saw no decrease in reactivity margin “thanks” to the designers, so no one should have been tormented. Not Akimov, Toptunov, nor Dyatlov. I just didn’t expect it until 01:30. And it wouldn’t have been with a negative power coefficient, as determined by the design documents and measurements of the station’s Nuclear Safety Department. How could we have known that they were all lies?
So the operators didn't see the decrease in ORM because of the false value of the power coefficient being given to them, particularly in it being presented as negative rather than positive. How would have a negative power coefficient resulted in the ORM staying above 15? What estimations is Dyatlov referring to? If he had kept this just to the connection of the two extra main circulation pumps and with his claim that the ORM at the time of the pressing of AZ-5 was actually 12-13 then you could see a critical difference, but he doesn't appear to be referring just to the pumps. Clearly Dyatlov is referring to something, but I don't see the logic.
​
In addition to the significance of the Operating Reactivity Margin being mischaracterized to operators in the context of regular violations there was a second glaring deficit - the operators were not provided with accurate information on the value of ORM. A display was lacking and the computer program calculating the parameter was repeatedly caught up in disruptions in the hour preceding the explosion. Even the known printout at 01:22:30 did not have an ORM value. Furthermore, the incorrect values of the void and power coefficients operators were working with affected their manual estimates. This is clear relative to the effect of the connection of extra main circulation pumps introducing more coolant and reducing voiding causing a greater extraction of control rods the higher the positive void coefficient, but Dyatlov suggests the incorrect coefficients had a more general effect that I fail to understand.
submitted by stacks144 to chernobyl [link] [comments]

2022.08.08 20:20 stacks144 Liar's Toolbox - Half-Truths - 01:22:30 Printout

Liar's Toolbox - Half-Truths - 01:22:30 Printout
Liar's Toolbox - Half-Truths - Power Level : chernobyl (reddit.com) Liar's Toolbox - Half-Truths - Main Circulation Pumps (part 1) : chernobyl (reddit.com) Liar's Toolbox - Half-Truths - Main Circulation Pumps (part 2) : chernobyl (reddit.com)
Recall from HBO/Sky's dramamentory a significant moment roughly half a minute before the start of the test:
541 INT. CONTROL ROOM - REACTOR #4 - 1:22:30 541
Toptunov stands by a large DOT-MATRIX PRINTER as it slowly ejects a sheet of data.
LEGASOV (V.O.)
1:22 and 30 seconds. Toptunov sees a report from the reactor's SKALA computer system. Based on the absence of sufficient control rods, the computer is recommending the reactor be shut down.
Toptunov hands the printout to Akimov, who reads it, frets, then hands it to Dyatlov. Dyatlov doesn't take it. Just looks at it. Barely.
DYATLOV
Of course it's saying that. It doesn't know we're running a test.(oddly cheerful)
(oddly laughing)
For the record, I have been giving this script too much credit in reference to how it portrays the power rise. I thought only the TV edit had a major runaway reaction prior to shutdown, in contradiction to every single source I have encountered (even, I believe, Medvedev's Chernobyl Notebook/The Truth About Chernobyl), but apparently I paid insufficiently close attention to notice that the script has power incorrectly hitting 500 MW and counting before rather than after the AZ-5 button was pressed.
Anyway, in this series of posts we focus on Soviet expert funny business, the way they blended truthful information with false implications to divert blame from themselves onto the operators. The 01:22:30 printout that was supposed to show the Operating Reactivity Margin, or the number of effective control rods in the core, was another instance of stretching and ultimately changing the facts. Interestingly, Soviet experts did not include keeping the reactor running past this printout as a separate major violation in the table that highlights the sins of operators, but neither the Soviets documents submitted to the Vienna meeting nor INSAG-1 overlook the printout.
Starting with the Soviet documents, the first significant aspect is what was producing the printout. The first relevant passage we encounter is on page 9:
To determine the power density fields through the core, the plant relies on physical monitorings based on in-core measurement of the vertical and radial neutron flux. In addition to the physical monitoring system readings, the plant computer also receives data characterizing the core composition, the energy output of each fuel channel, position of the control rods, distribution of water flow through the core channels, and readings from the sensors indicating coolant pressure and temperature. The PRIZMA program calculations carried out by the computer periodically give the operator a digital printout of core configurations, indicating the type of core loading, the position of the control rods, the arrangement of in-core sensors, the power distribution, the critical power margins and margins for the maximum permissible thermal loads on the fuel elements for each fuel channel in the reactor. The plant computer also calculates the overall thermal power of the reactor, the distribution of steam-water mixture flow through the separators, the integral power output, the outlet steam quality from each fuel channel and various other parameters needed to monitor and control the reactor plant.
There's a surprisingly subtle conflation here that I'm not sure is intentional or not. If it is, I'm rather impressed. The "plant computer" is best identifiable with the SKALA computerized central control system. Here's a gratuitous diagram of it on page 387 of the Soviet documents to give an impression of its comprehensive nature:
https://preview.redd.it/crs0g235yig91.png?width=1428&format=png&auto=webp&s=ad9abb417d63f0f9e3e9c60012a7502a80060ac2
Page 360 gives a description:
2.9.6. The "Skala" central monitoring system
The "Skala" computerized central monitoring system is designed to carry out monitoring of the processes in the basic equipment of RBMK-1000 nuclear power station units, and to provide calculations and logic analysis of the units' process conditions in finished form for the operating staff. A diagram of the "Skala" system's structure and of its links with external systems (CPS, processed channel integrity monitoring system, physical monitoring system and so on) is shown in Fig. 2.40. The basis of the system is a two-processor computing unit which is designed to be able to capture information from the source and transmit it to the output devices using either of the two processors (functional back-up). Information on the condition of the unit coming from the process monitoring system sensors through the individual signaling channels or through the computer unit and is passed by the operator to the display and digital instruments, the mimic diagram, channel mimic board and the individual error board and is also registered on recorders, teletypes and high-speed printers. The information the operator needs to work is accessed in the "Skala" system by means of a number of input-output devices. The operation of the system as a whole is organized by the system control unit.
On pages 375 and 376 we encounter an important component of the SKALA system:
2.9.8. Special software for operating the reactors of the Chernobyl nuclear power station
  1. Functions to be carried out and structure of calculations
The special software for the reactors of the Chernobyl nuclear power station is intended to perform the following functions:
...
Calculation of the operative reactivity reserve;
...
The remaining functions [another function is excluded] are carried out with the "Skala" station computer in the form of a multifunctional "Prizma" program.
...
2.9.8.1. Periodicity and accuracy of calculations
The periodicity with which the main "Prizma" program calculations are carried out is once in 5-10 minutes.
The Operating Reactivity Margin/number of effective control rods in the core was calculated specifically by the PRIZMA program. Page 306 has an interesting description:
For calculating the distribution of power output over the reactor core, use is made of the readings of a system of physical monitoring based on in-reactor measurements of the neutron flux over the radius and height of the core. In addition to the readings of the system of physical monitoring, data on the core composition, the power output of each fuel channel, the positions of control rods and the distributions over the core channels of water flow and the readings from coolant pressure and temperature sensors are also fed into the plant's computer. After the computer has used the PRIZMA program to perform calculations on a periodic basis, the operator receives information on a digital printer in the form of core diagrams showing the type of fuel load in the core, the positions of control rods, the arrangement of the network of in-reactor sensors and the distributions of power, of water flow and of the margins to critical power and to maximum permissible thermal loads to fuel elements for each fuel channel.
This paragraph ties the positions of control rods being shown subsequently to the PRIZMA program performing calculations on a periodic basis. Once we get to INSAG-7 you'll see how significant this becomes.
Keep in mind that this stuff is buried deep within the Soviet documents in contrast to what is written in the first tens of pages. The report being digitized, enabling the use of ctrl + F, tremendously facilitates being able to tie information together.
We go back to page 17 for the next mention of something pertaining to the printout at 01:22:30 in the main narrative:
At the same time, the reactivity continued to drop slowly. At 1:22:30, the operator saw from a printout of the fast reactivity evaluation program that the available excess reactivity had reached a level requiring immediate shutdown of the reactor. Nevertheless, the staff were not stopped by this and began with the experiments.
That sure sounds like an ORM calculation of the PRIZMA program, right?
On page 18 the section "3. ANALYSIS OF THE ACCIDENT USING A MATHEMATICAL MODEL" begins with SKALA and another aspect of it:
The "Skala" centralized control system of the RBMK-1000 reactor has a program for diagnostic parameter recording (DPRP) under which several hundred analog and discrete parameters are periodically examined and stored in accordance with a specified cycle (minimum cycle time 1 second).
No further mention will be made of PRIZMA in the main narrative. Even a misleading statement like this appears later on the page:
At this moment the DPRP recorded the position of the rods of all three automatic regulators - in other words, the initial conditions of the calculation were very clearly established.
Page 19:
At 1:22:30 the "Skala" centralized control system provided a print-out of the actual power density fields and of all regulatory rod positions.
...
At 1:22:30 the excess reactivity was only 6-8 rods, in other words not more than half of the minimum permissible value laid down in the operating regulations. The reactor was in an unusual and impermissible state, and to assess the subsequent course of events it was extremely important to determine the differential rod worths of the control rods and the scram rods for real neutron fields and real core multiplication characteristics. Numerical analysis showed that the error in determining the control rod worths was extremely sensitive to the error in re-establishing the vertical power density field. Add to this the fact that at such low power levels (approximately 6-7%) the relative error in measuring the field is much greater than in rated power conditions, then it becomes clear that a vast number of calculational variants will have to be analysed before one can be confident of the rightness or wrongness of any given version.
Amusingly, the second paragraph emphasizes the importance of the PRIZMA program doing an ORM calculation. The SKALA centralized control system cannot directly provide the Operating Reactivity Margin as it doesn't take into account the dynamics - it uses PRIZMA for that. Specifying an ORM value of 6-8 control rods requires calculation. There is also a tangential point to make. Page 22 makes this claim:
Among the most important regulations are stipulations referring to the inadmissibility of reducing the operational excess reactivity (reactivity margin) to fewer than 30 rods.
There's a Canadian source that claims the Soviets had stated that not even the Soviet Premier was allowed to operate an RBMK reactor with less than 30 control rods.
The Soviets said that their procedures were very emphatic on that point, and that “not even the Premier of the Soviet Union is authorized to run with less than 30 rods!”
However, the statement on page 19, "at 1:22:30 the excess reactivity was only 6-8 rods, in other words not more than half of the minimum permissible value laid down in the operating regulations," belies that. 6-8 control rods are not only not more than half of the minimum permissible value but not more than a third, and according to Soviet math I would argue not more than a fourth. What the statement on page 19 refers to is the actual lower ORM limit of 15 control rods. The Soviets were sloppy.
Writing of sloppy, the next paragraph on page 19 introduces another factor in addition to what the origin of the printout at 01:22:30 was:
At 1:23 hours the reactor parameters were closer to stable than at any other time in the interval we are considering, and the experiments began. A minute before this the operator had abruptly reduced the flow of make-up water, and this increased the water temperature at the reactor inlet within a time equivalent to that required for the coolant to pass from the drum separators to the reactor.
As we will see in INSAG-1, close to the printout the feedwater flow rate was dramatically reduced, not only increasing the water temperature at the reactor inlet but as a result causing rods to insert into the core.
We move onto INSAG-1 to see how the printout has translated to the international report. Page 16:
https://preview.redd.it/016fevuk1jg91.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=893abcbb4263627c16f6fc3d6ef2910661126bc6
Page 17:
https://preview.redd.it/gwksbvvl1jg91.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3cce6cee7eaf61bc2fc591e0c4eb02767aa742d4
Here we see the ignoring of "the reactivity margin display" (what a choice of words) properly identified as one of the major factors contributing to "the accident" (years ago my driving instructor would say there is no such thing as a car accident, rather there is a car collision as someone was doing something wrong they shouldn't have).
Now we're back to the fun table of sequence of events on pages 20-21:
https://preview.redd.it/jee3lltx1jg91.png?width=1402&format=png&auto=webp&s=a2af1d15ee7635bdb59e2ef5a47a082e356d3d5d
A mere 40 seconds before the printout the feedwater flow is at its highest, abruptly lowered. The reduced feedwater flow needs an origin point (near the steam drum separators or farther out?), has to make its way through the main circulation pumps and the core, control rods need to initiate and complete their compensatory movement, and the printout needs to be late and quick enough to register the insertion of control rods (and calculate their effective worth given core conditions). Insertion of control rods means that the Operating Reactivity Margin was increasing mere seconds before the printout. I question whether the insertion had conveniently ceased and was registered by 01:22:30 given what needed to happen in such a short period of time but I don't know.
Page 24 summarizes the sequence:
https://preview.redd.it/d6j7q34j2jg91.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=04d2376be9b2da5c8bd30bb33a8bc1f741b74de3
Page 70 makes an insightful comment into what the international authors didn't actually know:
https://preview.redd.it/jvibsimo2jg91.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=f618ce5d0c5601e06aef405785bf84c23e60c4db
Pages 77-78 also remark on the importance of a "man-machine interface", which reminds me of a youtube video featuring Legasov that I would need to encounter again:
https://preview.redd.it/2i3otjsw2jg91.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=57ad6f06f3bc0d4756d63bf5b23b56da3f71700a
So after all that we have reached INSAG-7 for the usual reveal. This one doesn't disappoint either. "PRIZMA" features in the main narrative here.
Page 11:
(5) Required operating reactivity margin violated (01:00:00, 26 April)
The recent reports confirm that the minimum ORM was indeed violated by 01:00:00 on 26 April, and in fact claim that this minimum ORM was also violated for several hours on 25 April. According to the record, the computer SKALA, which was used to calculate the ORM, became unreliable in the period in which the test took place. In the view of INSAG, it is likely that the operator did not know the value of the ORM during the critical part of the test. Probably he was aware that continued operation under conditions of increasing xenon content of the reactor was reducing the ORM.
Ey yo! Knowing that the international section of the report can be goofy and explicitly relies on the Soviet annexes let's read further.
Page 52:
— built-in SKALA computerized centralized control system, comprising the diagnostic parameter recording program (DREG) and PRIZMA program for calculation of reactor parameters which are not measured directly;
Page 56:
I-4.3.2. SKALA centralized control system and subsystems
The system was designed to calculate the basic reactor parameters every 5 min, this period being determined by the power of the V-3M type computer. This period is also unsuitable for analysing fast processes.
The DREG program is very comprehensive and has a good time resolution. It samples and records several hundred discrete and analogue signals. The time of input into the computer of information on directly measured parameters is less than 1 s. However, the DREG program does not record important reactor parameters, such as power, reactivity and channel coolant flow rates. It records the position of only nine of the 211 RCPS rods, including one rod from each of the three automatic control groups. These parameters are not measured directly and therefore the sampling interval is much longer (1 min). Notwithstanding the short recording time of some parameters (1 s), the sampling time may be rather uncertain because the DREG program has one of the lowest priorities in the SKALA centralized control system. In addition, during the last hour before the accident there were three interruptions in the operation of the DREG program, associated with restarting of the SKALA system. These caused an additional loss of information. Other subsystems of the SKALA system, including the PRIZMA program and magnetic tape records of reactor conditions (RESTART) have a long cycle (5 min). There were also interruptions in these systems caused by restarting of the system and the software characteristics. Furthermore, the results of the PRIZMA program are recorded only on printouts.
Page 115 has an interesting duplicate:
II-2.5.2. SKALA centralized monitoring system and subsystems
This system calculates the main reactor parameters approximately every 5 min (this limitation is due to the capacity of the V-3M type computer). Of course, this cycle is too long for the analysis of fast processes.
The diagnostic parameter recording program (DREG) scans and records several hundred discrete and analogue signals. However, it does not record the main reactor parameters such as the power and reactivity levels, the coolant flow rate in the channels and other mass parameters. The positions of only nine of the 211 RCPS rods are recorded, including one rod in each of the three groups of automatic controllers. These parameters are not directly measurable and their scan cycle is therefore much longer (1 min). Although the recording cycle for some parameters is short (1 s), the length of the scanning interval may be rather uncertain as the DREG program has a very low priority in the SKALA system. Moreover, during the hour preceding the accident there were three interruptions in the running of the DREG program caused by a SKALA system restart. This resulted in additional losses of information. The cycle for other results produced by the SKALA system is longer (5 min), including the PRIZMA program and the recording of reactor status data on magnetic tape (RESTART); and there are interruptions caused by system restarts and certain software features. In addition, the results produced by the PRIZMA program are recorded only on printouts. The process parameter data produced by the DREG program are given.
Page 64:
At 01:22:30 the reactor parameters were recorded on magnetic tape by the SKALA centralized control system. No operating calculations were performed by the PRIZMA program at this time. These calculations were made after the accident using the magnetic tape from the centralized control system and the PRIZMA-ANALOG code at the Smolensk nuclear power plant. The control room personnel and the SKALA system personnel did not have the operating calculation results and did not know the calculated parameters, including the ORM, at this time.
Page 54:
01:22:30 The parameters were recorded on magnetic tape (calculations were performed at the Smolensk plant after the accident using the PRIZMA program; ORM proved to be equal to 8 manual control rods)
Page 113:
01:22:30 Parameters of the SKALA centralized monitoring system recorded on magnetic tape; non-measurable parameters at the Chernobyl plant were not calculated; after the accident, the ORM was calculated using the standard axial power distribution curve in the PRIZMA program, which yielded a value of 1.9 manual control rods; the calculations using real data on the axial power distribution yielded an ORM value of 6-8 manual control rods
Page 65:
The unit's initial condition immediately before the tests at 01:23 was characterized by the following parameters: power of 200 MW(th), ORM (value obtained using the PRIZMA-ANALOG code for the state at 01:22:30) equal to 8 manual control rods, double peaked axial neutron field with a maximum above, coolant flow rate of 56 000 m^3/h, feedwater flow rate of 200 t/h and thermophysical parameters close to stable values.
Page 71:
During the further power reduction (at about 07:00 on 25 April), when the reactor power was 1500 MW, the ORM fell to 15 manual control rods. In such cases, according to the requirements of Section 9 of the Operating Procedures, the reactor should be shut down. The personnel did not abide by this requirement. The Commission assumes that the personnel deliberately violated this requirement. The PRIZMA calculation code was found to be unreliable at this time, because it did not take into account the position of the rods of automatic regulators Nos 1, 2 and 3 (a total of 12 rods). There is a note to this effect in the senior reactor control engineer's operating log. The Operating Procedures and other operating documentation did not prescribe the actions to be taken by personnel under such circumstances (in the event of unreliable calculation) and similar circumstances (for example, in the event of complete failure of the PRIZMA code to determine the ORM).
Page 72:
Firstly, Section 8.9.1 (a) of the Operating Procedures refers to reactivity as one of the important operating parameters which have to be controlled at all power levels. The ORM is not included in the list of important parameters.
Secondly, there was no provision in the design of the RBMK reactor for a device to measure the ORM in terms of effective manual control rods. The operator either had to determine the depth of insertion of rods in the intermediate position from the measuring instruments, correct for the non-linearity of the graduation scale and sum up the results, or instruct the plant computer to make the calculation and wait a few minutes for the result. In both cases, it seems unreasonable to expect the personnel to treat this parameter as a directly controllable one, particularly since the accuracy with which it can be determined depends on the power density field profile.
Thirdly, the Operating Procedures did not draw the attention of the personnel to the importance of the ORM as an essential parameter for ensuring the effectiveness of the emergency protection system.
In fact, post-accident calculation studies have shown that full withdrawal of the manual control rods from the core, which is not prohibited in other reactors, such as WWER reactors, was unacceptable for the RBMK reactor, owing to the design of the manual control rods. Withdrawal of more than a certain number of RCPS rods from the core resulted in the concentration of too much positive reactivity in the lower part of the core in terms of displaceable water columns.
Page 133:
PRIZMA Steady state operational physics program for calculation of reactor parameters
​
  1. There was no Operating Reactivity Margin value on the 01:22:30 printout. The value of 6-8 control rods was calculated after the explosion at another nuclear power plant.
  2. Were even the positions of the control rods on the printout? What is to be made of the statement on page 306 of the Soviet documents submitted to the Vienna meeting that "after the computer has used the PRIZMA program to perform calculations on a periodic basis, the operator receives information on a digital printer in the form of core diagrams showing the type of fuel load in the core, the positions of control rods..."? What did the 01:22:30 printout actually contain and in what form?
  3. Did the 01:22:30 printout accurately capture the insertion of control rods caused by the abrupt decrease of feedwater flow 40 seconds prior? Not only did the physical process take some time but the recording and output process is also in question. Furthermore, "the PRIZMA calculation code was found to be unreliable" earlier on the 25th as it did not take into account the position of automatic regulator control rods that would have been the same type going into the core at around 01:22:30.
  4. What in the world were the "interruptions caused by system restarts and certain software features" in the hour preceding the explosion affecting the information operators had available?
  5. The Operating Reactivity Margin was not treated as a terribly important parameter by the design of the reactocontrol room and operating procedures. This goes into a broader topic better discussed in another post.
  6. Ultimately the printout was moot. On page 21 of INSAG-1 with respect to the disabling of the two turbine disconnection reactor trip it was claimed, "This trip would have saved the reactor." Page 18 of INSAG-7 begs to differ, "In any event, the occurrence of this trip might well have caused the destruction of the reactor at the time of turbine trip rather than shortly afterwards." Why? Page 11:
In the light of new information regarding positive scram, the statement made under the significance column of Table I in INSAG-1 that "This trip would have saved the reactor" seems not to be valid.
A shutdown after 01:22:30 is similar to a shutdown half a minute later at 01:23:04. The shutdown itself was the problem. Before Soviet experts were forced to disclose the positive scram effect they could argue that shutting down the reactor before the test would have prevented disaster, which they did, repeatedly. In their deceitful narrative the rundown test was the immediate cause of the explosion. Their opportunism, however, could not withstand the more rigorous scientific atmosphere. It is possible that some Soviet experts were pissed at Legasov exactly because he disclosed too much information. Likely with the weakening of the Soviet Union a penetratingly insightful report featured as Annex I of INSAG-7 could deliver the death blow to the false understanding of Chernobyl Soviet experts shaped in 1986.
​
The "masters of weaponized narration" were up to some interesting tricks in their use of half-truths to give a false impression while seemingly being honest. Yes, there was a 700 MW power figure in the test program, but it was not there because the reactor would function with a positive power coefficient of reactivity and susceptibility to runaway below it. Yes, individual main circulation pump flow rates were in instances exceeded, but the relevant issue at Chernobyl was the total flow rate and use of all main circulation pumps. It gets even more complicated than that. Yes, there was a printout at 01:22:30 (...), but that's about it. The Soviets had no shame. All is fair in lies and deception.
submitted by stacks144 to chernobyl [link] [comments]

2022.04.25 19:16 BlancheFromage You know how the Ikeda fanfics all attempt to spin Ikeda's problems and controversies? Here's the concrete.

One of the damaging accusations against Ikeda was that, after collecting an impossible sum during the 4-day Sho-Hondo Construction Campaign in 1965, Ikeda saw to it that only the interest on that principal was used for the construction and cheap construction materials were used to skimp on the cost. There's never been any financial transparency in the Ikeda cult.
So when reports began emerging that the fine white marble columns outside of the Sho-Hondo were beginning to stain with rust, well, we all know marble doesn't rust, don't we? As you can see here from the Grand Opening ceremonies they started out white-white. No, whatever was rusting was inside that marble façade - the iron rebar in concrete. Some claimed that the concrete had been made with cheap sand that had much too high of a salt content, which was resulting in the premature rusting of the rebar.
Q: People say that Sho Hondo has dangerous construction flaws - is this true?
A: There is ample evidence to suggest this. Not only does Sho Hondo have superficial damage (leaks, rubble falling off the walls etc.) but there are also serious problems such as corrosion and subsidence. Marble pillars are rusting !!!. Of course stone can not rust - but over the space of a few decades the internal metal supports inside the pillars have corroded causing rust to pour from the seams. A building supported by rotting pillars does not make the safest home for the Daigohonzon !!! Source
Nor does it sound safe for the pure-hearted Soka Gakkai and SGI members to be inside, with that ~20,000 ton suspended roof built with the same questionable materials hanging over them!
The roof measured three hundred sixty feet in length and two hundred seventy feet in width. When completed it would weigh twenty thousand tons. (p. 249)
Of course Ikeda didn't scrimp on the finest building materials on the OUTSIDE, but he figured no one was going to see what was hidden inside those thick walls, so he made some deals, cut some corners.
When the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood demolished the Sho-Hondo in 1998, the Soka Gakkai and SGI members were heartbroken and furious. They had given so much to make that "grand ordination platform" a reality (despite Ikeda's statement that the Soka Gakkai would NEVER ask the members for contributions - EVER) and were inordinately attached to that building, to that thing - and the political power it symbolized. Again, it's anti-Buddhism, the way Ikeda encouraged their attachment, but their manipulation served Ikeda well. It became yet another factor to fuel the Soka Gakkai and SGI members' HATRED of the Nichiren Shoshu priests (yeah, Ikeda sure promoted THAT! Imagine, a supposed "Buddhist" leader promoting murderous HATRED!).
So anyhow, you can see the magnitude of a given controversy and how worried Ikeda was about it by how much page space is devoted to spinning the details and insisting that Ikeda is innocent and virtuous and good. The concrete controversy is no different - this comes from "The N-EWWWWW! Human Revolution", vol. 16 (2008):
Everyone participated in the contribution campaign in the true spirit of giving, eagerly donating what they could for the sake of Buddhism. In spite of the harsh economic conditions of the day, Soka Gakkai members contributed a total of 35,064,305,882 yen. This amount was more than ten times the original goal. Combined with 157,878,265 yen donated by the Association of Priests and Their Families and 313,820,162 yen contributed by the National Hokkeko Federation [the other Nichiren Shoshu lay organizations], the grand total of all contributions came to 35,536,004,309 yen. (p. 233)
Notice two details there - that the priests ALSO donated (I've never seen Soka Spirit acknowledge that) and that they've chosen to leave out the detail where Ikeda invited non-members to "invest" in the Sho-Hondo. Don't "investors" expect a return on their investments? What would THAT be for a building supposed to last 10,000 years?? I've got more on those financials for a later post.
It had been decided to use only concrete of the highest quality for the Grand Main Temple's construction. In building an enduring edifice, the quality of the concrete was critical. After much deliberation, the decision was made to manufacture the concrete on-site. Those responsible for this task engaged in technical training for two months, learning how to build a manufacturing facility and about concrete itself, as well as about quality control. (p. 244)
😴
Notice, though, that they did not HIRE EXISTING INDUSTRY EXPERTS AND SPECIALISTS for this all-important job! WHY would they train unqualified people from zero for this task - unless the whole point was to keep all the details in-house where they could be controlled (and hidden if/when necessary)? It's just like when Ikeda went for that supposedly "historic dialogue" with Arnold Toynbee and took along Soka Gakkai members to serve as translators, even though their command of the English language was rudimentary. And when they predictably ran into translation problems, Ikeda STILL did NOT hire a professional translator!
They carefully researched the best sand and gravel to use in the concrete mixture, finally deciding on materials from the nearby Fuji River. (p. 244)
One of the accusations was that they had used cheap ocean sand which had a high salt content.
It has been 26 years since the Shohondo was built. The Shohondo, which Ikeda had requested to be built and had claimed would exist for 10,000 years is considered to be in a condition that requires immediate attention and large scale repairs, or whatever is necessary. Source
Once the manufacturing facilities were set up, they established strict quality-control methods, sampling the product at random intervals and making sure it met their high standards. Any sample that failed to do so even slightly was rejected. They were thoroughgoing and uncompromising in their efforts. (p. 244)
Because of COURSE they were 🙄
WHY are they including this kind of content? Why would ANYONE care about the CONCRETE - unless the "cheap concrete" controversy was enough of a problem for Ikeda that he insisted that his ghostwriters create a fiction that would present an idealized scenario in the most unimpeachable terms? Read on:
Constructing the main hall was the most complex and difficult part of the project.
No shit, Sherlock! Why, certainly SOMEONE might think that the hardest part was the steps or the FOUNTAIN or maybe a footbridge, so you'd better make it BUTT OBVIOUS for the stupids who are going to be reading this rubbish!
One of the most advanced computers in Japan at the time was utilized for the calculations to ascertain the structure's safety.
Remember, a modern cell phone has millions of times the computing capability of computers back then:
In the America of 1968, computers weren’t at all personal. They were refrigerator-sized behemoths that hummed and blinked, calculating everything from consumer habits to missile trajectories, cloistered deep within corporate offices, government agencies and university labs. Their secrets were accessible only via punch card and teletype terminals. Source
Your smartphone is millions of times more powerful than the Apollo 11 guidance computers:
A pocket calculator or even a USB-C charger has more computing power than the best computers used to send astronauts to the moon
...in 1969, the year after the Sho-Hondo start-of-construction ceremony (Oct. 12, 1968).
So this "most advanced computers" were less powerful than a computerized child's toy today.
On October 12, 1969, a year after the ceremony marking the start of construction, the cornerstone-laying ceremony was held. (p. 245)
Back to the construction narrative:
The steel to be used in the framework was also subjected to thorough stress and vibration testing after processing and welding. (p. 244)
Again, WHY is this information being presented?? It's not normal to focus this intensely on the quality of the building materials - these are typically ASSUMED to be of proper components and integrity! This novel is NOT being written for engineers or even educated people, after all - they'd have no background to use as context for this information.
A large laboratory was built in one corner of the construction site, and a model of the hall was assembled in it. Even at a scale of 1:15, the model was 29.5 feet wide and 13 feet high. (p. 245)
I have pictures! There were, in fact, several models:
Wind-tunnel tests model
Structural model
Wiring model?
Tests were conducted repeatedly to assess the effect of both horizontal and vertical earthquake motion on the structure, as well as to evaluate its resistance to strong winds and heavy snows, and the stability of its rafters. Tremendous effort was made to ensure that nothing would go wrong. If even a small part of the design went unchecked, it could result in a terrible accident. (p. 245)
No, this wasn't the case. As I've documented here, at that time in history, there wasn't anything approaching modern snow weight analysis:
As you might imagine, architectural science has come quite a way since then. One of the problematic factors that was NOT taken into account when designing and planning the Sho-Hondo was the effect of snow loading.
Due to climate change, snowfall amounts have increased significantly in parts of Japan, including the Mt. Fuji area. - that's where the Sho-Hondo was.
Scamsei certainly never envisioned THAT! Plus, the bowl-shaped roof shape would have accumulated heavy snowdrifts that could not be removed.
Dr. Aoki, mentioned above, had as his mentor architect Kenzo Tange, who worked on the 1964 Tokyo Olympics Gymnasium project. As you can see, its design bore many similarities to the later-constructed Sho-Hondo. Apparently, Mr. Yoshikatsu Tsuboi and Dr. Aoki pioneered the semi-rigid suspension roof design popular at that time.
Apparently, at that time, engineers and architects conducted wind tunnel and seismic tests, but not snow-loading tests!
"Snow Engineering" apparently only started to become a "thing" within the last 10 years - perhaps in the 1960s, snowfall wasn't as big a deal as it is now.
Here is an example of a paper written about the problems of roofs collapsing due to excess snow accumulation. "Faith" isn't going to keep a roof up, and our good friends the low-level SGI leaders over at their copycat troll site have made it abundantly clear to us that they really don't believe the SGI doctrine of magical "protection" for those who chant the gibberish and whatever they personally happen to care about.
This is terrific - I've got the video cued up to the start of the collapse of the roof of a football stadium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBsUDAh0Kdw#t=2m49s Source
Note that the roof of the football stadium in that video ↑ was the same design and structure as the Sho-Hondo roof.
Any great accomplishment is the sum total of innumerable, well thought-out, tried and tested steps, each executed to perfection. It is only by not cutting corners and through rigorous attention to detail that something truly magnificent can be achieved. (p. 245)
Ikeda's basically admitting there were accusations of "cutting corners" surrounding that construction project!
Some of this material can be seen here; since these previews tend to take out pages, I went off my own printed copy, so you might not be able to see everything I've transcribed above at that site.
Many here have run into the problem of "techno-shima", in which inexperienced and unqualified persons are expected to complete sophisticated projects on the basis of "faith" via repeating a nonsensical magic spell (daimoku) as if that's going to change anything; this attitude was in play during the design and construction of the Sho-Hondo, with Ikeda pressuring everyone to git 'er done - cheaply and quickly. No, Ikeda couldn't just leave the professionals alone to DO THEIR JOBS! Very dangerous, Scamsei. Source
submitted by BlancheFromage to sgiwhistleblowers [link] [comments]

2021.11.03 08:26 Holokyn-kolokyn In 1971, the U.S. Emergency Broadcast System was accidentally activated for 40 minutes. Are there any studies about the public's reactions? Did people commonly believe a nuclear war had started, and how did it feel like?

What I'm referring to is the Feb 20 1971 incident where the teletype operator inadvertently inserted a real Emergency Action Notification tape instead of a test tape. The message ordered radio and TV stations to cease regular programming immediately, and notify the public that regular programming had been interrupted at the request of the U.S. government due to national emergency. The mix-up was not cleared until after 40 minutes.
Here's one recording I was able to find:
http://historyofwowo.com/audio/WOWO-Bob%20SieversEBS_02-20-1971_scoped.mp3
Are there oral histories or the like that have studied how did it feel to hear a message like that during the Cold War, when - I believe - the most likely explanation that would spring into my mind at least would've been that nuclear war had finally started? What did people do upon hearing the announcement?
submitted by Holokyn-kolokyn to AskHistorians [link] [comments]

2021.10.15 02:46 LubbockGuy95 LPT: The N11 numbers. (US)

We all know about 911 for Emergency services (police, fire, EMS) but did you know the other N11 numbers are also designated as certain lines.
211 - Community Assistance and Information. Stuff from food, utilities and health assistance to human trafficking and disaster services.
311 - Municipal Goverment Services. From reporting graffiti to questions about trash collection this can be a line for taking to your local government.
411 - Directory Assistance. You're own personal telephone book, yellow pages, whatever you call it when you know the places location but not their phone number.
511 - Traffic Information Services. Check Up on your local road and weather conditions here.
611 - Local Telephone Company (Usually Comcast)
711 - Telephone Relay Service for the Deaf and others with disabilities. Though be warned you need a teletype device or access through your phone carrier to use it.
811 - Underground Utility Lines. Call this before before you dig that hole in your yard so you don't hit phone, gas, water lines.
911 - Emergency Services. Police, EMS, Fire. This line is for emergencies. If it's not an emergency look up your towns police non emergency number or try 311 for lesser things.
Fair warning these services are available in most of the US but may not be in smaller or more unincorporated areas. Mileage varies.
submitted by LubbockGuy95 to LifeProTips [link] [comments]

2020.11.23 03:27 JFKeveryday Small wound(s) in the front of JFK's head - PART 10.1 - Parkland Drs. Robert McClelland, Marion Jenkins, Malcolm Perry, Kemp Clark, Robert Shaw, David Stewart Gene Akin, Ronald Jones, Lito Porto, and various other media reports

Skip to PART 10.2
Back to PART 9 - Janie Taylor's witness
Back to CONTENTS
After JFK was pronounced dead at Parkland Hospital, Dr. Robert McClelland wrote in his 11/22/1963 hospital report “The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple” (WC Vol. 17, p. 12, CE 392 [text]). Many have taken this to mean a bullet entrance wound in the President’s left temple. McClelland’s report was publicly released on 9/24/1964 with the Warren Commission report appendices, and also on 11/23/1964 in the Commission’s volumes.
On the afternoon of 11/22/1963, Parkland Drs. Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark spoke at a press conference about what they experienced in Trauma Room One. According to transcript, there was no talk of a frontal entry wound in the head. Only two defects were reported – a small one in the front of the throat and a large one on the head. Dr. Perry said he thought the neck wound looked like a bullet entry.
DR. MALCOM PERRY- I was summoned to the Emergency Room shortly after the President was brought in, on an emergency basis, immediately after the President’s arrival. Upon reaching his side, I noted that he was in critical condition from a wound of the neck and of the head. Immediate resuscitative measures—
QUESTION- Would you go slower?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- I noted he was in critical condition from the wound in the neck and the head.
QUESTION- Could that be done by one shot?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- I cannot conjecture. I don’t know.
QUESTION- A wound of the neck and of the—
DR. MALCOM PERRY- —of the head. [...]
[…]
DR. KEMP CLARK- I am Dr. Clark. —because the President had sustained a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any possible—
QUESTION- Could you slow down a little bit, Doctor, please?
DR. KEMP CLARK- —to relieve any possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had stopped.
[…]
QUESTION- Doctor, can you describe the course of the wound through the head?
DR. KEMP CLARK- We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head.
QUESTION- And through the neck?
DR. KEMP CLARK- Principally on his right side, towards the right side.
[…]
QUESTION- Can you describe his neck wound?
DR. KEMP CLARK- I was busy with his head wound. I would like to ask the people took care of that part to describe that to you.
QUESTION- What was the question?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- The neck wound, as visible on the patient, revealed a bullet hole almost in the mid line.
QUESTION- What was that?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- A bullet hole almost in the mid line.
QUESTION- Would you demonstrate?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- In the lower portion of the neck, in front.
QUESTION- Can you demonstrate, Doctor, on your own neck?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- Approximately here (indicating).
QUESTION- Below the Adam’s apple?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- Below the Adam’s apple.
QUESTION- Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- That would be on conjecture on my part. There are two wounds, as Dr. Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the head. Whether they are directly related or related to two bullets, I cannot say.
QUESTION- Where was the entrance wound?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.
QUESTION- Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- It appeared to be coming at him.
QUESTION- And the one behind?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that. Can you, Dr. Clark?
DR. KEMP CLARK- The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue.
[…]
QUESTION- Can’t we clear this up just a little more? In your estimation, was there one or two wounds? Just give us something.
DR. MALCOM PERRY- I don’t know. From the injury, it is conceivable that it could have been caused by one wound, but there could have been two just as well if the second bullet struck the head in addition to striking the neck, and I cannot tell you that due to the nature of the wound. There is no way for me to tell.
QUESTION- Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant.
QUESTION- Would the bullet have to travel up from the neck wound to exit through the back?
DR. MALCOM PERRY- Unless it was deviated from its course by striking bone or some other object.
(ARRB MD 41 [text])
To this date, nobody has found a full audio recording of the Perry/Clark news conference. The transcript has Dr. Clark suggesting the large defect looked like it could have been a “tangential wound”. Tangential wounds are caused by a missile striking the body at a shallow angle, leaving no easily-identifiable entry point. The possibility was also raised that both wounds could have been made by one bullet – perhaps with a bullet entering the neck and exiting the head. This was reflected in news reports at the time. UPI reported “President Kennedy was shot through the throat and head, possibly by the same bullet, the attending surgeon said Friday”, “Two of the 10 physicians in attendance on the President said it was possible that one bullet entered the throat and went through the back of the President's head. It was possible, they said, that he was hit by two bullets, but they doubted it” (Detroit Free Press, 11/23/1963, Doctor Tells Of Fight for JFK's Life). Earl Ubell of the New York Herald Tribune reported “...He said he did not know if two bullets were involved. It is possible, he said, that the neck wound was the entrance and the other the exit of the missile” (WC Vol. 22, p. 832, CE 1415).
At least a couple of news reports claimed that Perry spoke of a frontal head wound. On 11/23/1963 2:43 PM CST, an Associated Press dispatch on the press conference quoted on WOR radio reported that Dr. Perry said “the entrance wound was on the front of the head” (Patspeer.com, A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination, Volume 1: The Kennedy Assassination, Politics, and Propaganda, Chapter 1: The Aftermath). A widely circulated Associated Press story said that when Perry was “asked if possibly the wounds could have been made by two bullets, he said he did not know”, “When asked to specify, Perry said the entrance wound was in the front of the head” (Associated Press, United Press International and Dow Jones teletype reports of the Kennedy assassination, Sheet 10; Lancaster New Era, 11/22/1963; The Hammond Times, 11/22/1963; The Charlotte News, 11/22/1963; Oakland Tribune, 11/22/1963; Albuquerque Tribune, 11/22/1963; Great Falls Tribune, 11/23/1963; Hartford Courant, 11/23/1963). The 11/23/1963 San Francisco Chronicle said “At Parkland Hospital, Dr. Malcolm Perry said Mr. Kennedy suffered a neck wound--a bullet hole in the lower part of the neck--and a second wound in the forehead”. None of Perry’s other recorded statements describe any small wounds in the head (WC Vol. 17, p. 6, 11/22/1963 hospital report [text]; NBC WBAP-TV, 11/23/1963; New York Herald Tribune, 11/24/1963, A Death in Emergency Room One by Jimmy Breslin; WC Vol. 6, p. 7, 3/25/1964 WC testimony [text]; WC Vol. 3, p. 366, 3/30/1964 WC testimony [text]; Harold Weisberg's notes on 11/14/1968 interview with Perry; A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report, Part 2, 6/26/1967 [video, 19:01] [transcript]; 12/1/1971 interview by Harold Weisberg, Post Mortem, 1975 edition, p. 378; HSCA Vol. 7, p. 292, HSCA interview, 1/11/1978 [text] [audio]; 1979 interview by Jeff Price, Baltimore Sun, 11/18/1979, The bullets also destroyed our confidence by Steve Parks; Livingstone, High Treason, 1989, PART II: THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE, Chapter 2: The President’s Head Wounds and the New Evidence of Forgery; 1981 Boston Globe interview report; Livingstone, 8/10/1979 interview and 12/21/1981 letter, High Treason 2, 1992, p. 121, Chapter 4. Parkland Memorial Hospital, 6/14/1991 interview, p. 572, Chapter 28. What Really Happened; 1986 conversation with Dr. Robert Artwohl, 2/14/1992 online post [link] [link 2]; JAMA, 5/27/1992, JFK's death - the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy [text]; 4/2/1992 interview by Gerald Posner, Case Closed, 1993, Chapter 13. “He Had a Death Look”; 5/2/1994 letter to Brad Parker, Dealey Plaza Echo, Vol. 1, Issue 3, p. 26, Dr. Robert McClelland in Trauma Room One; 5/16/1994 letter to Brad Parker [link]; ARRB group interview, 8/27/1998 [text]; 11/6/1996 letter to researcher Russ McLean [link]; 8/26/1998 letter to Vincent Palamara, JFK: From Parkland to Bethesda, 2015 [link]; 1998 interview by Mark Oakes, Eyewitness Video Tape part III [audio]).
There were more early news reports speaking of an entrance wound in the front of Kennedy’s head.
From the Boston Globe, 11/27/1963, President's Neck, Head Hit by Bullets by Herbert Black:
The Globe has got from an unofficial but authoritative source here what is believed to be an accurate description of the course of events.
[…]
When he was struck, he apparently turned his head toward Mrs. Kennedy (to the left) and began to slump. A second bullet then tore into his left temple and emerged from the right top of his head, the mortal wound.
This information did not come from doctors at the hospital here, who have said they were too busy trying to save the President to study the trajectory of the bullets.
It is, however, from a source in position to know the facts, which were ascertained at the Naval Hopital in Bethesda, where Mr. Kennedy was taken.
This information was doubted at first because it reported that the President was hit on the left temple. It did not seem reasonable that a sniper above and to the right behind the car could hit him on the left side, but information from a film taken of the events tends to corroborate this.
The FBI is investigating all aspects of the shooting and that is believed to be the reason why the official medical reports from the naval hospital have not been released.
From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 11/27/1963, Movies Reconstruct Tragedy by Arthur J. Snider, Chicago Daily News Service:
The 6.5 mm bullet-about .25 caliber - pierced the President's neck just below the Adam's apple. It took a downward course.
"If you're wearing a bow tie, the position is just about where the knot is," said a Dallas neurosurgeon who saw the wound.
[...]
Identification of two points of entry, the throat and the skull, was made by Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon, and Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland Hospital.
They said neither bullet was recovered in the hospital emergency room. One bullet was said to have emerged from the left temple.
(Link 2, The Akron Beacon Journal, 11/28/1963, What Was Correct Bullet Sequence? First 2 hit JFK, Film Indicates [link 3] [link 4])
Why would the article say that a point of “entry” in the skull was made by Dr. Clark and Dr. Tom Shires? Dr. Shires wasn’t even there at the time (WC Vol. 21, p. 253, Shires' 11/27/1963 statement; WC Vol. 6, p. 104, Shires’ 3/23/1964 WC testimony [text]), and none of Clark’s direct recorded statements describe a point of entry in the skull. On 3/21/1964, Clark testified to the Warren Commission:
Mr. SPECTER - Were you a part of any press conference which followed on the day of the assassination?
Dr. CLARK - Yes sir; I was.
Mr. SPECTER - And who made the arrangements for the press conference?
Dr. CLARK - Mr. Malcolm Kilduff, the Presidential press secretary.
Mr. SPECTER - At what time did the press conference occur?
Dr. CLARK - Approximately 2:30.
Mr. SPECTER - Where was it held?
Dr. CLARK - It was held in room 101-102, Parkland Hospital.
Mr. SPECTER - What mechanical instruments were used, if any, by the press at the conference?
Dr. CLARK - Tape recorders and television cameras, as well as the usual note pads and pencils, and so forth.
Mr. SPECTER - And who was interviewed during the course of the press conference and photographed?
Dr. CLARK - Dr. Malcolm Perry and myself.
Mr. SPECTER - No one else?
Dr. CLARK - No.
Mr. SPECTER - What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?
Dr. CLARK - I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Which wound did you refer to at this time?
Dr. CLARK - The wound in the head.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you describe at that time what you meant by "tangential"?
Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - What definition of "tangential" did you make at that time?
Dr. CLARK - As I remember, I defined the word "tangential" as being---striking an object obliquely, not squarely or head on.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe at this time in somewhat greater detail the consequences of a tangential wound as contrasted with another type of a striking?
Dr. CLARK - Let me begin by saying that the damage suffered by an organ when struck by a bullet or other missile---
Mr. SPECTER - May the record show that I interrupted the deposition for about 2 minutes to ascertain what our afternoon schedule would be here because the regular administration office ordinarily closes at 12 o'clock, which was just about 15 minutes ago, and then we resumed the deposition of Dr. Clark as he was discussing the concept of tangential and other types of striking. Go ahead, Doctor.
Dr. CLARK - The effects of any missile striking an organ or a function of the energy which is shed by the missile in passing through this organ when a bullet strikes the head, if it is able to pass through rapidly without shedding any energy into the brain, little damage results, other than that part of the brain which is directly penetrated by the missile. However, if it strikes the skull at an angle, it must then penetrate much more bone than normal, therefore, is likely to shed more energy, striking the brain a more powerful blow.
Secondly, in striking the bone in this manner, it may cause pieces of the bone to be blown into the brain and thus act as secondary missiles. Finally, the bullet itself may be deformed and deflected so that it would go through or penetrate parts of the brain, not in the usual direct line it was proceeding.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, referring back to the press conference, did you define a tangential wound at that time?
Dr. CLARK - Yes.
[…]
Mr. SPECTER - At any of the press conferences were you asked about a hole on the left side of the President's head?
Dr. CLARK - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - At which conference or conferences?
Dr. CLARK - I was asked about this at the CBS conference and I stated that I personally saw no such wound.
Mr. SPECTER - And who asked you about it at that time, if you recall?
Dr. CLARK - The man who was conducting the conference. This was brought up by one of the physicians, I think Dr. McClelland, that there was some discussion of such a wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Did Dr. McClelland say that he had seen such a wound?
Dr. CLARK - No.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the origin, if you know, as to the inquiry on the wound, that is, who suggested that there might have been a wound on the left side?
Dr. CLARK - I don't recall--I don't recall.
Mr. SPECTER - Had there been some comment that the priests made a comment that there was a wound on the left side of the head?
Dr. CLARK - I heard this subsequently from one of the reporters who attended the press conference with NBC.
(WC Vol. 6, p. 18 [text])
Maybe the Commission should have asked Dr. Clark about the news article by Arthur Snider. The transcript does show Clark saying that he “assumed” that he had “probably” been hit “on the other side of the head”, but he again said the large defect looked like a tangential wound.
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/30/1963, UNCERTAINTIES REMAIN DESPITE POLICE VIEW OF KENNEDY DEATH – Did Assailant Have an Accomplice? by Richard Dudman:
There have been two other reports of injury to the President’s head. One of the physicians who attended him in Dallas said afterward that he had noticed a small entry wound in the left temple.
Another person, who saw the President’s body a ‘few minutes after he died,’ told the Post-Dispatch he thought he had observed a wound in the President’s forehead. He asked that his name not be used. Reports of the temple and forehead wounds could have referred to the same injury.
By December, Dr. McClelland seemed to express some approval for the lone gunman theory. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12/18/1963, Secret Service Gets Revision On Kennedy Wound by Richard Dudman, A Washington Correspondent of the Post-Dispatch:
Two Secret Service agents called last week on Dallas surgeons who attended President John F. Kennedy and obtained a reversal of their original view that the bullet in his neck entered from the front.
The investigators did so by showing the surgeons a document described as an autopsy report from the United States Naval Hospital at Bethesda. The surgeons changed their original view to conform with the report they were shown.
"There was no coercion at all," Dr. Robert N. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch. "They didn't say anything like, 'This is what you think, isn't it?'"
The Associated Press reported that a source familiar with the autopsy findings said Mr. Kennedy might have survived the first bullet to strike him. He said it was the second bullet which struck his head, that proved fatal.
This source said last night the first bullet struck the President in the back and did not damage any vital organs. He said it was not likely to have caused death. The surgeons' earlier description of a wound in the front of the President's throat as an entry wound had cast doubt on the official belief that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only assassin. It had suggested the possibility that a second sniper had fired simultaneously from somewhere in front of the President's auto-mobile.
The surgeons now support the official view that both bullets that struck the President were fired from behind, from the direction of the sixth story warehouse window where Oswald is believed to have been hiding.
They now believe that the bullet in the neck entered from the neck, where the right shoulder meets the neck, and passed out through the hole in front, about two inches below the Adam's apple.
Dr. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch last night by telephone of the visit by the federal agents and the manner in which the doctors changed their opinion.
He said the investigators called on the doctors about a week ago at the Southwestern Medical School of the University of Texas, adjoining Parkland Memorial Hospital, where the President died a half hour after he was shot.
The visit was after the Federal Bureau of Investigation had completed its report of the assassination and the Justice Department had given it to the special investigating commission headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
"I was wandering down a hall when they snagged me," Dr. McClelland said. He was one of three physicians who worked on the President's throat and per-formed a tracheotomy, cutting a hole in the throat, in an effort to restore satisfactory breathing.
He said the Secret Service agents met with Dr. Malcolm Perry, the first doctor to reach the emergency room after the President had been carried in. and Dr. Tom Shires, who was out of the city at the time but arrived an hour later.
Ask To See Reports
Dr. McClellan said the investigators asked to see reports the doctors had written the day of the President's death about what they had seen and done in the emergency room. He said he recalled saying in his report that the throat wound might have been an entry wound.
Dr. Perry had told reporters the day of the assassination that the wound had the appearance of an entry wound. A few days later. Dr. McClelland had told the Post-Dispatch that he judged it to be an entry wound on the basis of considerable familiarity with gunshot wounds. He had said doctors at the hospital saw one a day and sometimes several a day, continuing that a bullet normally enters through a small hole and tears its way out through a large hole.
In the course of the conversation last week. Dr. McClelland said, the Secret Service men showed them the long autopsy report and pointed out the place where it described the course of the bullet in the President's neck.
Wound in Back of Neck
He said it told of an entry wound, which the Dallas doctors had not seen, in the back of the neck, low on the right side. The bullet passed to the right of the spinal column, not injuring it, but damaging the windpipe, the report stated, he said. The report indicated that the whole bullet or a large fragment of it passed out the front of the throat just above the breastbone.
Dr. McClelland said he did not know whether the autopsy report told of recovering a bullet from the President's body, as told in some accounts.
"I didn't read the entire report." he said. "I was mainly interested in finding out what the wound in the neck was."
Recalling his thinking the day of the assassination, Dr. McClelland pointed out that the Dallas doctors were with the President's body only about 22 minutes and were working to save his life, not to determine the course of the bullets.
Lying on Back
"He was lying on his back on the stretcher," the surgeon said. "It was not necessary or possible to examine him in the back. My first impression was the purest kind of supposition."
He said when he saw a small wound in the front of the neck and a large wound in the back of the head he thought it possible one bullet had caused both, entering at the throat, passing up along the vertebrae and going out the back of the head.
That conclusion was on the basis of "no complete history and no complete examination," he said. By history, he said, he meant the circumstances of where the bullets had come from.
A few days later, he said, the Dallas electors received a third-or fourth-hand report from the Naval Hospital that another wound had been found in the back of the neck and that the throat wound was thought to be an exit wound. That report, along with news of the supposed position of Oswald in the ware-house window, caused them to start reconstructing the shooting in their minds, so that both bullets came from behind.
"This was confirmed by the autopsy report," he said.
Accepting Report
Dr. McClelland said he and Dr. Perry fully accept the Naval Hospital's explanation of the course of the bullets.
"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind," he said. "As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front."
The Associated Press gave this new account of the wounds, as reported by a source fully acquainted with results of the post mortem examination conducted at the Naval Hospital:
The first shot struck Mr. Kennedy in the back, made what was described as a small, neat hole and penetrated two or three inches without damaging vital organs.
The bullet may even have entered Mr. Kennedy's back after first glancing off some part of the presidential limousine, because its penetration was not deep when compared with the damage done by the other shot. The first bullet was said to have been the one that was recovered from the stretcher on which Mr. Kennedy was carried into the hospital.
The Fatal Wound
The second bullet to strike Mr. Kennedy, the third bullet fired, left a large hole in the back of the President's head, destroyed considerable brain tissue and severely damaged the forehead. Unquestionably, this wound was fatal, the source told the AP. In effect, it caused instant death, although a faint spark of life may have remained a few minutes in the heart and lungs. This bullet, the source said, was recovered from the limousine.
The second shot fired by the assassin hit Gov. John B. Connally of Texas in the chest as he turned toward Mr. Kennedy after the first bullet hit the President. The source said Connally's wound was at approximately the same elevation as the one in Mr. Kennedy's back. He was seated in front of Mr. Kennedy on a jump seat.
Because there was an interval of five or six seconds between Mr. Kennedy's first and second wounds, the new account leaves the implication that Mr. Kennedy might have survived, perhaps escaped serious injury, had he quickly thrown himself to the floor of his limousine after the first bullet struck, the AP said.
It seems apparent, however, that Mr. Kennedy was unable to react immediately except to throw his hands in front of him. the AP said. Mr. Kennedy's life might have been saved had some-one shielded him or knocked him to the floor of the car before he was struck in the head, the AP reported.
Secret Service agents are trained to react in such a fashion, but none was close enough to the President to intervene. Mr. Kennedy did not want agents at his elbow except when driving in heavy crowds. The crowd was a thin one at the point where the President was assassinated.
If a witness is exposed to outside information, it can interfere with their ability to accurately recall their own experiences.
Dr. McClelland’s approval may have been half-hearted. In a 12/21/1963 article in The New Republic, Richard Dudman added this detail on his meeting with McClelland: “The throat wound puzzled the surgeons who attended Mr. Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital when they learned how the Dallas police had reconstructed the shooting. Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the three doctors who worked on the throat wound, told me afterward that they still believed it to be an entry wound, even though the shots were said to have been fired almost directly behind the President. He explained that he and his colleagues at Parkland saw bullet wounds every day, sometimes several a day, and recognized easily the characteristically tiny hole of an entering bullet, in contrast to the larger, tearing hole that an exiting bullet would have left”.
The early Parkland reports were condensed in the January 1964 edition of the Texas State Journal of Medicine, in the article Three Patients at Parkland (CD 374 [link 2] [text]), which was partially edited by Dr. Marion Jenkins (JFK: From Parkland to Bethesda by Vincent Palamara, 2015 [link]). Instead of mentioning the “left temple”, the article simply says “The cause of death, according to Dr. McClelland was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head”.
Dr. Robert Shaw was a Parkland Hospital employee who treated Texas Governor John Connally. He was not there to see the body of President Kennedy, but he would have had the opportunity to hear what his fellow employees discussed about the case. According to the British magazine Today, February 1964, Dr. Shaw wrote the following to reporter Larry Ross: “The first bullet struck the President in the back of the neck at the region of the second thoracic vertebrae and emerged from the front of his neck, piercing his trachea. The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head” (Link link 2).
On 3/21/1964, Dr. McClelland testified to the Warren Commission:
Mr. SPECTER - Have you had discussions with the other doctors who attended President Kennedy as to the possible nature of the wound which was inflicted on him?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And what facts did you have available either to you or to the other doctors whom you talked this over with, with respect to the nature of the wound, source of the wounds, and that sort of thing?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Immediately we had essentially no facts. We knew nothing of the number of bullets that had supposedly been fired. We knew nothing of the site from which the bullet had been fired, essentially none of the circumstances in the first few minutes, say, 20 or 30 minutes after the President was brought in, so that our initial impressions were based upon extremely incomplete information.
Mr. SPECTER - What were your initial impressions?
Dr. McCLELLAND - The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the skull itself, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head. However, this required some straining of the imagination to imagine that this would happen, and it was much easier to explain the apparent trajectory by means of two bullets, which we later found out apparently had been fired, than by just one then, on which basis we were originally taking to explain it.
Mr. SPECTER - Through the use of the pronoun "we" in your last answer, to whom do you mean by "we"?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Essentially all of the doctors that have previously been mentioned here.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe the condition of the back of the President's head?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound. Mr. SPECTER - You saw a large opening which you have already described?
Dr. McCLELLAND - I saw the large opening which I have described.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any other wound on the back of the head?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe a small gunshot wound below the large opening on the back of the head?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Based on the experience that you have described for us with gunshot wounds and your general medical experience, would you characterize the description of the wound that Dr. Perry gave you as being a wound of entrance or a wound of exit, or was the description which you got from Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter and Dr. Carrico who were there before, equally consistent with whether or not it was a wound of entrance or a wound of exit, or how would you characterize it in your words?
Dr. McCLELLAND - I would say it would be equally consistent with either type wound, either an entrance or an exit type wound. It would be quite difficult to say--impossible.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. McClelland, I show you now a statement or a report which has been furnished to the Commission by Parkland Hospital and has been identified in a previous Commission hearing as Commission Exhibit No. 392, and I direct your attention specifically to a page, "Third Report", which was made by you, and I would ask you first of all if this is your signature which appears at the bottom of Page 2, and next, whether in fact you did make this report and submit it to the authorities at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And are all the facts set forth true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief?
Dr. McCLELLAND - To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. McClelland, did you and I sit down together for just a few minutes before I started to take your deposition today?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And I discussed this matter with you?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And, during the course of our conversations at that time, we cover the same material in question form here and to which you have responded in answer form with the court reporter here today?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And has the information which you have given me on record been the same as that which you gave me off of the record in advance?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have any interest, Dr. McClelland in reading your testimony over or signing it at the end, or would you be willing to waive such signature of the testimony?
Dr. McCLELLAND - I would be willing to waive my signature.
Mr. SPECTER - Thank you so much for coming and giving us your deposition today.
Dr. McCLELLAND - All right, thank you.
(WC Vol. 6, p. 30 [text])
NEXT - PART 10.2
submitted by JFKeveryday to JFKeveryday [link] [comments]

2020.11.16 22:07 ruthbuzzi4prez Garrett Wyland sees what's behind the screen in this sample from Devils Demons and Dead Men: A LitRPG Thriller

The following is a sample from Devils Demons and Dead Men: A LitRPG Thriller. You can read the first five chapters free in my bookstore.
“It’s a troll.”
“How do you know?”
“Because it makes the sword glow.” Garrett Wyland spoke as if his words were plainly obvious to anyone with even novice-level experience in an underground cavern adventure. His best friend Brace and two other boys looked on as green letters appeared on the flickering CRT screen one by one. It was a balmy Southern California afternoon. Most kids Garrett’s age were out riding bikes or playing street football. He and his friends were on a more epic quest.
$ ATTACK TROLL
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO ATTACK THE TROLL WITH?
$ ATTACK TROLL WITH
The cursor blinked.
“What are you waiting for?” Dwayne asked.
“Yeah,” Brace added. “Use the sword!”
“What if it breaks?” Garrett wondered aloud.
“How can it break? It’s glowing! It’s a magic sword!”
$ ATTACK TROLL WITH TORCH
I DON’T THINK THAT’S A VERY GOOD IDEA
“Yeah, see? Listen to the computer! Use the sword!” Brace ordered.
$ ATTACK TROLL WITH SWORD
THE SWORD CUTS THROUGH THE TROLL’S BODY. BEFORE IT CAN REGENERATE, THE CREATURE DISAPPEARS IN A CLOUD OF BLACK SMOKE. THERE IS AN EXIT TO THE NORTH.
The boys cheered and celebrated with handfuls of corn chips and newly opened sodas.
“Ok, me next,” Brace said. He took over the keyboard from Garrett. Every move took several minutes of discussion and every attempt to navigate the dungeon followed a protracted hunt and peck session with plenty of misspelled words, sarcastic jokes about the misspelled words and a careful reading of the next block of descriptive text.
Garrett looked over all the equipment he and his friends had gathered since they discovered the adventure game. The phone coupler and eight-inch floppy drives were both gifts from his uncle, who had just celebrated his five-year anniversary at one of the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturers. The integrated CRT terminal was a ninth-grade rescue and restoration project. Everything worked except the right-handed control key, which was missing both the key and the underlying mechanism. There was also a large patch of white paint on one side of the smooth yellowish plastic composite outer shell. It was better than the teletype. Despite their enthusiasm for the game, the boys were weary of spending all their refreshment money on fanfold paper. Garrett’s mom also wasn’t a fan of the entire upstairs story of her house sounding like the Los Angeles Times newsroom.
“Hey look! There’s the tree! If we climb inside we can get the golden acorn!” The boys leaned closer, one or two of them straightening their glasses as they waited for each word to type itself at 300 baud.
The only piece of equipment Garrett didn’t actually own was the computer itself. The text-based adventure game he and his friends had been trying to win for months was actually running on a PDP-11 at his uncle’s office. The game was called “The Conquests of the King,” and purported to allow a peasant boy to claim the throne and the hand of the princess by recovering a dozen treasures of the Realm.
“How many treasures left?” Jimmy asked.
“Sixteen! Now we have to climb down to the river cave,” Brace announced as he tapped out the commands and made liberal use of the backspace key to erase his mistakes.
After a tour of the office, Garrett’s uncle saw how his nephew reacted to Conquests of the King, so he asked one of the engineers to set up an account so Garrett and his friends could play. What started out as a fun diversion quickly turned into a request for a real account. It wasn’t long before Garrett was writing FORTRAN code that actually compiled. Then he was writing C. He hadn’t told his friends he beat Conquests of the King weeks ago. He was busy drawing maps and making up backstories for the new tabletop dungeon-crawling games he had discovered. And the spy games. And the car racing, space battle and superhero games.
Brace and Dwayne and the others were along for the ride because they liked to play the games Garrett discovered. But as the young man who was tacitly considered the leader of the geeks watched his friends, his mind was elsewhere. Of all the kids, Garrett could see beyond what was on the green-tinted screen.
He saw the possibilities. The game didn’t have to be limited to just twelve treasures. And it didn’t have to limit the player to just one objective. What if the player wants to be a thief? What if they want to study the arcane and go deeper into the catacombs to find magical secrets known only to the most powerful sorcerers?
“No, no, you have to dig under the sand to find the pirate’s lantern! Go east! East! No, the other east!” Brace preferred to do the typing. He had a habit of getting impatient if Dwayne was in charge, since the older boy was fond of going off and experimenting to see what the game’s limits were.
I can do this Garrett thought. He was certain of it. Only moments after he wrote his first program and made the computer do something all his own idea he knew. This machine would carry out his instructions, like the faithful familiars in stories about witches. It would help him just like it helped the three programmers who wrote Conquests of the King.
He thought about his English teacher and the twinkle in her eye as she explained the mysteries of first, second and third person point of view. Garrett never could figure out why it always jumped from first to third. What about second?
It wasn’t until he and his friends discovered Conquests of the King that he realized computers had unlocked second-person literature. The stories being told here were not about the narrator, nor were they about figments of the author’s imagination. In Conquests of the King, the story was being told by the reader. The authors didn’t make the decisions. They just set the boundaries. The readers composed the plot.
The day that realization dawned on Garrett was one of the most sobering days of his young life so far. He felt as if he had emerged from a Toltec pyramid clutching ancient secrets. He had tried to explain it to the others, but they were far more interested in just playing the game, not analyzing it like it was a book report.
Maybe I’m the wizard delving into the catacombs to learn the secrets of this machine. All I have to do is write the codes in the right order and I can make any kind of adventure.
Garrett watched his friends play.
Now I can tell any story I want.
submitted by ruthbuzzi4prez to litrpg [link] [comments]

2020.08.11 22:15 jayfeather31 Will the false alarm of 1971 be included as an event in TNO?

For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, the false alarm of 1971 was an incident on February 20th, 1971 where, at the time an EAN test was supposed to take place, a NORAD teletype operator accidentally put in an attack warning message tape ordering all stations to cease transmissions immediately in instead of a test message.
The end result was an erroneous alert transmission that took forty minutes to cancel, and it demonstrated the problems within the current EAN system.
Given that there are many historical and pop culture events that still happen in this timeline, but are portrayed in a different context, I thought it would be interesting to see how this incident was portrayed in a Cold War far more intense than our own.
As such, is this planned to be added, or is it not?
For more information on the false alarm of 1971, click here.
submitted by jayfeather31 to TNOmod [link] [comments]

2020.05.12 17:57 Stellar__wallet Stellar’s potential is all about the fundamentals

Stellar’s potential is all about the fundamentals
Whatever happens in the crypto market in these coming weeks, our advice remains the same: hold on to your lumens. Stellar’s fundamentals are very strong, and with several new partnerships in the pipeline we expect a surge later this year.
If you have some lumens in your XLMwallet, you are probably wondering what to do with them right now. Should you wait for a price rally after the Bitcoin halving and then sell? Or HODL for some time longer? Or perhaps use lumens to pay for goods and services online, given that it’s so easy with the fast and user-friendly XLMwallet?
Our advice would be to hold on to your XLM. We’ve been following the Stellar Foundation, and some of the recent news are extremely optimistic. After all, the long-term price isn’t about speculation — it’s about adoption. And Stellar was created as a currency for payments, especially cross-border. So any new partnership or project aimed at using Stellar improves its price outlook.
Branching out into investments with Abra
The first project we should talk about is Abra — a company in which the Stellar Foundation has just invested $5 million. It’s the largest sum of money that Stellar ever gave to another startup.
Abra is a financial services & investment app founded in 2014. Among other things, it allows users to invest in ETFs, send remittances and even perform fiat-crypto transactions in some countries, like the Philippines. In total, it operates in 155 countries. Before the current round, Abra already raised $40m, so it’s a well-established company.
Under the terms of the partnership, Abra will soon transfer to the Stellar blockchain. For Stellar, this means a huge new user base and access to new markets, as well as great use cases. Just think about it: you’ll be able to send your lumens from the XLMwallet to Abra in an instant and buy a share in an ETF investment fund, for example. We are excited!
Launching security tokens with DSTOQ
About 3 months ago, SDF made another investment — this time in the security token platform DSTOQ. The startup received $700k from Stellar. DSTOQ is a trading platform targeting emerging markets.
The Liechtenstein-based DSTOQ already uses the Stellar blockchain to create tokenized securities. For example, it offers assets pegged to the stocks of major corporations, like Amazon and Google, These assets are available to traders from all over the world, including countries where they would have trouble buying the actual stocks.
By the way, Stellar’s investment department was created very recently, in September 2019. So far it hasn’t made many investments, but these two show that Stellar means business. This initiative will surely lead to increased adoption of Stellar, including in the real economy.
We are sure that these and other upcoming investment projects will be far more important for the price of lumens than the halving of Bitcoin. So, if you are ok with long-term investment, we recommend that you don’t sell your XLM just yet. In fact, it may be better to wait until 2021!
For now, your Stellar coins are 100% safe in the XLMwallet. And if you decide to send them to someone, you’ll appreciate how intuitive and fast our wallet is. You can even link someone’s Stellar address to their email and make one-click payments!
We’ll keep monitoring the market for you, bringing you all the news about using and investing in Stellar. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter!
https://xlmwallet.co/
Website — https://xlmwallet.co/
Medium — https://medium.com/@XLMwalletCo
Teletype — https://teletype.in/@XLMwalletCo
Twitter — https://twitter.com/XLMwalletCo
Reddit — https://www.reddit.com/XLM_wallet/
submitted by Stellar__wallet to XLM_wallet [link] [comments]

2020.04.17 14:27 kalyanivishwakarma Marijuana Cigarette Market Size 2020 Analysis By Worldwide COVID-19 Impact, Progression Status, Emerging Demands, Recent Trends, Business Opportunity, Share and Forecast To 2026 Says Industry Research Biz

Marijuana Cigarette Market Size 2020 Analysis By Worldwide COVID-19 Impact, Progression Status, Emerging Demands, Recent Trends, Business Opportunity, Share and Forecast To 2026 Says Industry Research Biz
​
https://preview.redd.it/1glcxeh2gdt41.png?width=270&format=png&auto=webp&s=3ed61c58b7bbeea14dae6568fc158b7372c952b3
Global “Marijuana Cigarette Market” Research Report 2015-2026 is a historical overview and in-depth study on the current & future market of the Marijuana Cigarette industry. The report represents a basic overview of the Marijuana Cigarette market share, status, competitor segment with a basic introduction of key vendors, top regions, product types and end industries. This report gives a historical overview of the Marijuana Cigarette market trends, growth, revenue, capacity, cost structure, and key drivers analysis.
"Final Report will add the analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on this industry."
Request a sample copy of the report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/request-sample/15067332
The report offers detailed coverage of the Global Marijuana Cigarette market which includes industry chain structure, definitions, applications, and classifications. The global Marijuana Cigarette market analysis is provided for the international markets including development trends, competitive landscape analysis, investment plan, business strategy, opportunity, and key regions development status. Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and cost structures are also analyzed. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, industry share, policy, price, revenue and gross margins.
Global Marijuana Cigarette market competition by TOP MANUFACTURERS, with production, price, revenue (value) and each manufacturer including:
  • Manitoba Harvest
  • CW Hemp/CW Botanicals
  • Aphria
  • Canopy Growth Corporation
  • Nutiva
  • Agropro
  • CV Sciences
  • Isodiol
  • ENDOCA
  • Jinzhou Qiaopai Biotech
  • North American Hemp & Grain Co
  • Yunnan Industrial Hemp
  • GFR Ingredients Inc
  • Hempco
  • Yishutang
  • Naturally Splendid
  • BAFA neu GmbH
  • Aos Products
  • Suyash Herbs
Enquire before purchasing this report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/15067332
Marijuana Cigarette Market Segment by Type:
  • Blunt Marijuana Cigarette
  • Spliff Marijuana Cigarette
  • Joint Marijuana Cigarette
  • Others
On the basis of the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, consumption (sales), market share and growth rate for each application, including:
  • Supermarkets
  • Convenience Stores
  • Others
Global Marijuana Cigarette Market forecast to 2026 providing information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, capacity, production, price, cost, revenue and contact information. Upstream raw materials and equipment and downstream demand analysis is also carried out. The Global Marijuana Cigarette market size, development trends and marketing channels are analyzed. Finally, the feasibility of new investment projects is assessed and overall research conclusions offered.
With tables and figures helping analyze worldwide Global Marijuana Cigarette market growth, this research provides key statistics on the state of the industry and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the market.
Purchase this report (Price 2900 USD for a single-user license) - https://www.industryresearch.biz/purchase/15067332
Marijuana Cigarette Market Report Contains Following Points in TOC:
Chapter 1: Marijuana Cigarette Market Product Overview, Market Segment, Size, Sales, Growth Rate, Price by Type
Chapter 2: Global Marijuana Cigarette Market Competition, Sales, Price, Base Distribution, Sales Area, Product Types, and Trends by Company
Chapter 3: Marijuana Cigarette Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors, Product Category, Applications and Specifications, Price and Gross Margin (2015-2019)
Chapter 4: Marijuana Cigarette Market Status, Size, CAGR, Revenue, Price, Gross Margin and Outlook by Regions
Chapter 5: Marijuana Cigarette Market Sales, and Share Segment by Application/End Users
Chapter 6: Global Marijuana Cigarette Market Sales, Revenue, Growth Rate Forecast (2020-2025)
Chapter 7: Marijuana Cigarette Upstream Raw Materials, Price, Key Suppliers, Cost Structure, Manufacturing Expenses, Industrial Chain Analysis
Chapter 8: Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors
Chapter 9: Research Findings and Conclusion
Detailed TOC of Global Marijuana Cigarette Market @ https://www.industryresearch.biz/TOC/15067332
About Us:
Market is changing rapidly with the ongoing expansion of the industry. Advancement in the technology has provided today’s businesses with multifaceted advantages resulting in daily economic shifts. Thus, it is very important for a company to comprehend the patterns of the market movements in order to strategize better. An efficient strategy offers the companies with a head start in planning and an edge over the competitors.Industry Research is the credible source for gaining the market reports that will provide you with the lead your business needs.
Contact Info:
Name: Mr. Ajay More
E-mail: [sales@industryresearch.biz](mailto:sales@industryresearch.biz)
Organization: Industry Research Biz
Phone: US +1424 253 0807 / UK +44 203 239 8187
Our Other Reports:
Global Pharmaceutical Contract Packaging Market Size, Share Insights 2020-2025 Comprehensive Study, Revenue, Outlook, Massive Growth and Forecast, Development Status, Competitive Landscape and Growth
Global Hospital Nursing Bed Market 2026 Outlook By Industry Size & Share, Demand, Worldwide Research, Prominent Players, Emerging Trends, Investment Opportunities and Revenue Expectation
Business Travel Luggage Market Size, Share 2020 By Worldwide Industry Demand, Regional Overview, Trends Evaluation, Top Manufacture, Business Growth Strategies and Forecast to 2026 Says Industry Research Biz
Global Glass Fibre Noise Barrier Market 2020 Industry Overview, Shares, Growing Demand, Market Size, Growth, Production, Types, Applications and 2026 Forecast Report
Global Luxury Tourism Market 2020 Industry Size and Share, Growth, Business Challenges, Investment Opportunities, Demand, Key Manufacturers and 2026 Forecast Research Report
Ferro Nickel Market Size 2020 By Global Business Trends, Share, Future Demand, Progress Insight, Modest Analysis, Statistics, Regional Growth, and Forecast to 2025
Motive Gear Ring Market 2020 With Top Countries Data, Industry Analysis by Regions, Size, Share, Revenue, Prominent Players, Developing Technologies, Tendencies and Forecast to 2026
Flexo Post-printing Machine Market Size Analysis 2020 Trends Analysis, Industry Outlook, Global Opportunities, Market Share, Present Scenario of Manufacturers, Forecast to 2026
Smartphone Sensors Market 2020 Industry Recent Developments, Size, Latest Trends, Global Growth, Recent Developments and Latest Technology, Forecast Research Report 2024
Global Drip Bag Coffee Market Report Forecast By Industry Size & Share, Future Demand, Worldwide Research, Top Leading Players, Emerging Trends, Region by Forecast to 2024
Reteplase Market 2020: Global Size, Industry Share, Outlook, Trends Evaluation, Geographical Segmentation, Business Challenges and Opportunity Analysis till 2024
submitted by kalyanivishwakarma to u/kalyanivishwakarma [link] [comments]

2020.04.17 14:27 kalyanivishwakarma Solid Wood Interior Doors Market Size 2020 By Worldwide COVID-19 Impact on Industry, Regional Overview, Trends Evaluation, Top Manufacture, Business Growth Strategies and Forecast to 2026 Says Industry Research Biz

Solid Wood Interior Doors Market Size 2020 By Worldwide COVID-19 Impact on Industry, Regional Overview, Trends Evaluation, Top Manufacture, Business Growth Strategies and Forecast to 2026 Says Industry Research Biz
​
https://preview.redd.it/w3bpi322gdt41.png?width=270&format=png&auto=webp&s=be89059de2ec991c9dcd521989ca1f7752f5109b
Global “Solid Wood Interior Doors Market” Research Report 2015-2026 is a historical overview and in-depth study on the current & future market of the Solid Wood Interior Doors industry. The report represents a basic overview of the Solid Wood Interior Doors market share, status, competitor segment with a basic introduction of key vendors, top regions, product types and end industries. This report gives a historical overview of the Solid Wood Interior Doors market trends, growth, revenue, capacity, cost structure, and key drivers analysis.
"Final Report will add the analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on this industry."
Request a sample copy of the report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/request-sample/15067349
The report offers detailed coverage of the Global Solid Wood Interior Doors market which includes industry chain structure, definitions, applications, and classifications. The global Solid Wood Interior Doors market analysis is provided for the international markets including development trends, competitive landscape analysis, investment plan, business strategy, opportunity, and key regions development status. Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and cost structures are also analyzed. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, industry share, policy, price, revenue and gross margins.
Global Solid Wood Interior Doors market competition by TOP MANUFACTURERS, with production, price, revenue (value) and each manufacturer including:
  • Jeld-Wen
  • Masonite
  • ASSA ABLOY(Maiman)
  • STEVES DOOR
  • Simpson Door
  • Sun Mountain
  • TruStile Doors
  • Lynden Doors
  • Sierra Doors
  • Stallion
  • Appalachian
  • USA Wood Door
  • Woodgrain Doors
  • Arazzinni
Enquire before purchasing this report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/15067349
Solid Wood Interior Doors Market Segment by Type:
  • Hardwood
  • Softwood
On the basis of the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, consumption (sales), market share and growth rate for each application, including:
  • Residential Building
  • Commercial Building
Global Solid Wood Interior Doors Market forecast to 2026 providing information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, capacity, production, price, cost, revenue and contact information. Upstream raw materials and equipment and downstream demand analysis is also carried out. The Global Solid Wood Interior Doors market size, development trends and marketing channels are analyzed. Finally, the feasibility of new investment projects is assessed and overall research conclusions offered.
With tables and figures helping analyze worldwide Global Solid Wood Interior Doors market growth, this research provides key statistics on the state of the industry and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the market.
Purchase this report (Price 2900 USD for a single-user license) - https://www.industryresearch.biz/purchase/15067349
Solid Wood Interior Doors Market Report Contains Following Points in TOC:
Chapter 1: Solid Wood Interior Doors Market Product Overview, Market Segment, Size, Sales, Growth Rate, Price by Type
Chapter 2: Global Solid Wood Interior Doors Market Competition, Sales, Price, Base Distribution, Sales Area, Product Types, and Trends by Company
Chapter 3: Solid Wood Interior Doors Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors, Product Category, Applications and Specifications, Price and Gross Margin (2015-2019)
Chapter 4: Solid Wood Interior Doors Market Status, Size, CAGR, Revenue, Price, Gross Margin and Outlook by Regions
Chapter 5: Solid Wood Interior Doors Market Sales, and Share Segment by Application/End Users
Chapter 6: Global Solid Wood Interior Doors Market Sales, Revenue, Growth Rate Forecast (2020-2025)
Chapter 7: Solid Wood Interior Doors Upstream Raw Materials, Price, Key Suppliers, Cost Structure, Manufacturing Expenses, Industrial Chain Analysis
Chapter 8: Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors
Chapter 9: Research Findings and Conclusion
Detailed TOC of Global Solid Wood Interior Doors Market @ https://www.industryresearch.biz/TOC/15067349
About Us:
Market is changing rapidly with the ongoing expansion of the industry. Advancement in the technology has provided today’s businesses with multifaceted advantages resulting in daily economic shifts. Thus, it is very important for a company to comprehend the patterns of the market movements in order to strategize better. An efficient strategy offers the companies with a head start in planning and an edge over the competitors.Industry Research is the credible source for gaining the market reports that will provide you with the lead your business needs.
Contact Info:
Name: Mr. Ajay More
E-mail: [sales@industryresearch.biz](mailto:sales@industryresearch.biz)
Organization: Industry Research Biz
Phone: US +1424 253 0807 / UK +44 203 239 8187
Our Other Reports:
Weight Loss Diet Market Size, share 2020-Global Business Trends, Share, Progress Insight, Modest Analysis, Statistics, Regional, And Forecast to 2025
Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Market 2020 Size & Share, Key Findings, Company Profiles, Growth Strategy, Developing Technologies, Demand, Investment Opportunities and Forecast by Regions till 2026
Fragrance Diffuser Market Size 2020 Analysis By Industry Statistics, Progression Status, Emerging Demands, Recent Trends, Business Opportunity, Share and Forecast To 2026 Says Industry Research Biz
Stainless Steel Tube Market 2020 Global Size, Industry Share, Outlook, Trends Evaluation, Geographical Segmentation, Business Challenges and Opportunity Analysis till 2026
Global Sports Cycling Glasses Market Share, Size 2020 Movements by Development Analysis, Progression Status, Revenue Expectation to 2026, Research Report by Industry Research Biz
HDPE Fittings Market 2020 Industry Size, Trends Evaluation, Global Growth, Recent Developments, Latest Technology, and 2025 Future Forecast Research Report
Autonomous Driving System Market Size 2020 By Global Business Trends, Share, Future Demand, Progress Insight, Statistics, Key Regions, Prominent Players and Forecast to 2026
Active Noise And Vibration Control System Market Growing Worldwide Report 2020 Includes Industry News and Policies by Regions and Forecast till 2026
Commercial Playground Equipment Market 2019 Report Forecast By Global Industry Trends, Future Growth, Regional Overview, Market Share, Size, Revenue, and Forecast Outlook till 2024
Global Corsets Market Size & Share 2020 Report By Sales Revenue, Future Demands, Growth Factors, Emerging Trends, Competitive Landscape and Forecast to 2025
Global Chest Sensor Market Size & Share 2020 Report By Sales Revenue, Future Demands, Growth Factors, Emerging Trends, Competitive Landscape and Forecast to 2024
submitted by kalyanivishwakarma to u/kalyanivishwakarma [link] [comments]

2020.04.17 14:27 kalyanivishwakarma Smoke-Free Products Market Size 2020 by COVID-19 Impact on Industry, Sales Revenue, Future Demands, Growth Factors and Drivers, Emerging Trends, Competitive Landscape and Forecast to 2026

Smoke-Free Products Market Size 2020 by COVID-19 Impact on Industry, Sales Revenue, Future Demands, Growth Factors and Drivers, Emerging Trends, Competitive Landscape and Forecast to 2026
https://preview.redd.it/d8enjsm1gdt41.png?width=270&format=png&auto=webp&s=7713bae26bb2d73ab431a0d32b3f20617720f25e
Global “Smoke-Free Products Market” Research Report 2015-2026 is a historical overview and in-depth study on the current & future market of the Smoke-Free Products industry. The report represents a basic overview of the Smoke-Free Products market share, status, competitor segment with a basic introduction of key vendors, top regions, product types and end industries. This report gives a historical overview of the Smoke-Free Products market trends, growth, revenue, capacity, cost structure, and key drivers analysis.
"Final Report will add the analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on this industry."
Request a sample copy of the report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/request-sample/15067350
The report offers detailed coverage of the Global Smoke-Free Products market which includes industry chain structure, definitions, applications, and classifications. The global Smoke-Free Products market analysis is provided for the international markets including development trends, competitive landscape analysis, investment plan, business strategy, opportunity, and key regions development status. Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and cost structures are also analyzed. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, industry share, policy, price, revenue and gross margins.
Global Smoke-Free Products market competition by TOP MANUFACTURERS, with production, price, revenue (value) and each manufacturer including:
  • Philip Morris International
  • British American Tobacco
  • Japan Tobacco
  • Imperial Brands
  • Altria
  • China tobacco
  • Korea Tobacco & Ginseng Corporation
  • American electronic cigarette company
  • VMR Products
Enquire before purchasing this report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/15067350
Smoke-Free Products Market Segment by Type:
  • Heat-not-burn Tobacco Product (HNB)
  • E-cigarette
On the basis of the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, consumption (sales), market share and growth rate for each application, including:
  • Male
  • Female
Global Smoke-Free Products Market forecast to 2026 providing information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, capacity, production, price, cost, revenue and contact information. Upstream raw materials and equipment and downstream demand analysis is also carried out. The Global Smoke-Free Products market size, development trends and marketing channels are analyzed. Finally, the feasibility of new investment projects is assessed and overall research conclusions offered.
With tables and figures helping analyze worldwide Global Smoke-Free Products market growth, this research provides key statistics on the state of the industry and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the market.
Purchase this report (Price 2900 USD for a single-user license) - https://www.industryresearch.biz/purchase/15067350
Smoke-Free Products Market Report Contains Following Points in TOC:
Chapter 1: Smoke-Free Products Market Product Overview, Market Segment, Size, Sales, Growth Rate, Price by Type
Chapter 2: Global Smoke-Free Products Market Competition, Sales, Price, Base Distribution, Sales Area, Product Types, and Trends by Company
Chapter 3: Smoke-Free Products Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors, Product Category, Applications and Specifications, Price and Gross Margin (2015-2019)
Chapter 4: Smoke-Free Products Market Status, Size, CAGR, Revenue, Price, Gross Margin and Outlook by Regions
Chapter 5: Smoke-Free Products Market Sales, and Share Segment by Application/End Users
Chapter 6: Global Smoke-Free Products Market Sales, Revenue, Growth Rate Forecast (2020-2025)
Chapter 7: Smoke-Free Products Upstream Raw Materials, Price, Key Suppliers, Cost Structure, Manufacturing Expenses, Industrial Chain Analysis
Chapter 8: Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors
Chapter 9: Research Findings and Conclusion
Detailed TOC of Global Smoke-Free Products Market @ https://www.industryresearch.biz/TOC/15067350
About Us:
Market is changing rapidly with the ongoing expansion of the industry. Advancement in the technology has provided today’s businesses with multifaceted advantages resulting in daily economic shifts. Thus, it is very important for a company to comprehend the patterns of the market movements in order to strategize better. An efficient strategy offers the companies with a head start in planning and an edge over the competitors.Industry Research is the credible source for gaining the market reports that will provide you with the lead your business needs.
Contact Info:
Name: Mr. Ajay More
E-mail: [sales@industryresearch.biz](mailto:sales@industryresearch.biz)
Organization: Industry Research Biz
Phone: US +1424 253 0807 / UK +44 203 239 8187
Our Other Reports:
Global Lubricant Packaging Market 2020: Industry Overview, Shares, Growing Demand, Market Size, Growth, Production, Types, Applications and Forecast Report 2025
Polymer Fillers Market Size and Share 2020 Global Industry Analysis By Trends, Key Findings, Future Demands, Growth Factors, Emerging Technologies, Prominent Players and Forecast Till 2026
Global Combustion Testing Equipment Market 2020 Growing Rapidly with Recent Developments, Industry Size, Share, Trends, Demand, Revenue, Key Findings and Latest Technology, Forecast Research Report 2026
Global Crates Market Size 2020 Emerging Trends, Industry Share, Future Demands, Market Potential, Traders, Regional Overview and SWOT Analysis till 2026
Tank Trailers Market 2020 Global Industry Trends, Future Growth, Regional Overview, Market Share, Size, Revenue, and Forecast Outlook till 2026
Global BOPA Film Market 2020 Industry Recent Developments, Size, Emerging Trends, Growth, Progression Status, Latest Technology, and Forecast Research Report 2025
Rotary Valve Market Forecast 2020-2026 By Global Industry Trends, Future Growth, Regional Overview, Size, Share Estimation, Revenue, and Outlook, Says Industry Research Biz
Blood Pressure (Bp) Monitoring Testing Market Size Forecast Report 2020 Global Analysis by Competitive Landscape, Types, Applications, Industry Segmentation, and Worldwide Growth Insights 2026
Outdoor Gym Equipment Market 2019: Global Size, Industry Share, Outlook, Trends Evaluation, Geographical Segmentation, Business Challenges and Opportunity Analysis till 2024
Global Medical Pressure Controllers Market 2020: Industry Size & Share, Business Strategies, Growth Analysis, Regional Demand, Revenue, Key Manufacturers and 2025 Forecast Research Report
Valve Cover Gasket Market 2020: Global Size, Industry Share, Outlook, Trends Evaluation, Geographical Segmentation, Business Challenges and Opportunity Analysis till 2024
submitted by kalyanivishwakarma to u/kalyanivishwakarma [link] [comments]

2020.04.17 14:27 kalyanivishwakarma 3D Home Theater Projectors Market 2020 By COVID-19 Impact on Industry, Trends Evaluation, Global Growth, Consumer-Demand, Consumption, Recent Developments, Strategies, Market Impact and Forecast till 2026, Says Industry Research Biz

3D Home Theater Projectors Market 2020 By COVID-19 Impact on Industry, Trends Evaluation, Global Growth, Consumer-Demand, Consumption, Recent Developments, Strategies, Market Impact and Forecast till 2026, Says Industry Research Biz
https://preview.redd.it/2f2tkia1gdt41.png?width=270&format=png&auto=webp&s=e947356df25d6ddc61bb00f657249608dd39bc35
Global “3D Home Theater Projectors Market” Research Report 2015-2026 is a historical overview and in-depth study on the current & future market of the 3D Home Theater Projectors industry. The report represents a basic overview of the 3D Home Theater Projectors market share, status, competitor segment with a basic introduction of key vendors, top regions, product types and end industries. This report gives a historical overview of the 3D Home Theater Projectors market trends, growth, revenue, capacity, cost structure, and key drivers analysis.
"Final Report will add the analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on this industry."
Request a sample copy of the report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/request-sample/15067399
The report offers detailed coverage of the Global 3D Home Theater Projectors market which includes industry chain structure, definitions, applications, and classifications. The global 3D Home Theater Projectors market analysis is provided for the international markets including development trends, competitive landscape analysis, investment plan, business strategy, opportunity, and key regions development status. Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and cost structures are also analyzed. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, industry share, policy, price, revenue and gross margins.
Global 3D Home Theater Projectors market competition by TOP MANUFACTURERS, with production, price, revenue (value) and each manufacturer including:
  • Sony
  • Optoma
  • Epson
  • NEC
  • Panasonic
  • Acer
  • Hitachi
  • Sharp
  • Vivitek
Enquire before purchasing this report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/15067399
3D Home Theater Projectors Market Segment by Type:
  • DLP Projector
  • LCD Projector
  • Other
On the basis of the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, consumption (sales), market share and growth rate for each application, including:
  • Household Use
  • Educational Use
  • Business Use
  • Engineering Use
Global 3D Home Theater Projectors Market forecast to 2026 providing information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, capacity, production, price, cost, revenue and contact information. Upstream raw materials and equipment and downstream demand analysis is also carried out. The Global 3D Home Theater Projectors market size, development trends and marketing channels are analyzed. Finally, the feasibility of new investment projects is assessed and overall research conclusions offered.
With tables and figures helping analyze worldwide Global 3D Home Theater Projectors market growth, this research provides key statistics on the state of the industry and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the market.
Purchase this report (Price 2900 USD for a single-user license) - https://www.industryresearch.biz/purchase/15067399
3D Home Theater Projectors Market Report Contains Following Points in TOC:
Chapter 1: 3D Home Theater Projectors Market Product Overview, Market Segment, Size, Sales, Growth Rate, Price by Type
Chapter 2: Global 3D Home Theater Projectors Market Competition, Sales, Price, Base Distribution, Sales Area, Product Types, and Trends by Company
Chapter 3: 3D Home Theater Projectors Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors, Product Category, Applications and Specifications, Price and Gross Margin (2015-2019)
Chapter 4: 3D Home Theater Projectors Market Status, Size, CAGR, Revenue, Price, Gross Margin and Outlook by Regions
Chapter 5: 3D Home Theater Projectors Market Sales, and Share Segment by Application/End Users
Chapter 6: Global 3D Home Theater Projectors Market Sales, Revenue, Growth Rate Forecast (2020-2025)
Chapter 7: 3D Home Theater Projectors Upstream Raw Materials, Price, Key Suppliers, Cost Structure, Manufacturing Expenses, Industrial Chain Analysis
Chapter 8: Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors
Chapter 9: Research Findings and Conclusion
Detailed TOC of Global 3D Home Theater Projectors Market @ https://www.industryresearch.biz/TOC/15067399
About Us:
Market is changing rapidly with the ongoing expansion of the industry. Advancement in the technology has provided today’s businesses with multifaceted advantages resulting in daily economic shifts. Thus, it is very important for a company to comprehend the patterns of the market movements in order to strategize better. An efficient strategy offers the companies with a head start in planning and an edge over the competitors.Industry Research is the credible source for gaining the market reports that will provide you with the lead your business needs.
Contact Info:
Name: Mr. Ajay More
E-mail: [sales@industryresearch.biz](mailto:sales@industryresearch.biz)
Organization: Industry Research Biz
Phone: US +1424 253 0807 / UK +44 203 239 8187
Our Other Reports:
Global Pasteurizers Market Size 2020 Emerging Trends, Industry Share, Future Demands, Market Potential, Traders, Regional Overview and SWOT Analysis till 2025
Air Cargo & Freight Logistics Market 2020 Size & Share, Key Findings, Company Profiles, Growth Strategy, Developing Technologies, Demand, Investment Opportunities and Forecast by Regions till 2026
Plastic Tank Market 2020 With Top Countries Data, Industry Analysis by Regions, Size, Share, Revenue, Prominent Players, Developing Technologies, Tendencies and Forecast to 2026
Global Led Chip And Module Market 2020 Industry Overview, Shares, Growing Demand, Market Size, Growth, Production, Types, Applications and 2026 Forecast Report
Molecular Biology Reagents Market 2020 Global Size, Industry Share, Outlook, Trends Evaluation, Geographical Segmentation, Business Challenges and Opportunity Analysis till 2026
Global Automotive Seat Climate Systems Market Share, Size 2020 Movements by Latest Trend Analysis, Progression Status, Revenue Expectation to 2025, Research Report by Industry Research Biz
Dental Instrument Trays Market 2020 Analysis By Business Size, Share, Strategies, Investment Opportunities, Revenue Expectation, Future Trends, Prominent Players, Industry Impact and Global Forecast till 2026,
Vector Control Market Size 2020 By Global Business Trends, Share, Future Demand, Progress Insight, Modest Analysis, Statistics, Regional Growth, and Forecast to 2026
Global Led Drivers Market 2020: Industry Size, Share, Production, Consumption, Export and Import by Regions: Forecast Report 2026
Spring Bottled Water Market 2020 - Business Size, Share, Opportunities, Future Trends, Top Key Players, Market Share and Global Analysis by Forecast to 2024
Rotating Water Slide Market Size 2020 Analysis By Industry Share, Emerging Demands, Growth Rate, Recent Trends, Opportunity, and Forecast To 2024
submitted by kalyanivishwakarma to u/kalyanivishwakarma [link] [comments]

2020.04.17 14:27 kalyanivishwakarma Global Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market Size 2020 By COVID-19 Impact on Industry Share, Growth, Business Challenges, Investment Opportunities, Demand, Key Manufacturers and 2026 Forecast Research Report

Global Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market Size 2020 By COVID-19 Impact on Industry Share, Growth, Business Challenges, Investment Opportunities, Demand, Key Manufacturers and 2026 Forecast Research Report
https://preview.redd.it/qkh6ial0gdt41.png?width=270&format=png&auto=webp&s=112b50539b43439302393ed2bcd4aa23774ec98d
Global “Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market” Research Report 2015-2026 is a historical overview and in-depth study on the current & future market of the Herbal/Fruit Extracts industry. The report represents a basic overview of the Herbal/Fruit Extracts market share, status, competitor segment with a basic introduction of key vendors, top regions, product types and end industries. This report gives a historical overview of the Herbal/Fruit Extracts market trends, growth, revenue, capacity, cost structure, and key drivers analysis.
"Final Report will add the analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on this industry."
Request a sample copy of the report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/request-sample/15067412
The report offers detailed coverage of the Global Herbal/Fruit Extracts market which includes industry chain structure, definitions, applications, and classifications. The global Herbal/Fruit Extracts market analysis is provided for the international markets including development trends, competitive landscape analysis, investment plan, business strategy, opportunity, and key regions development status. Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and cost structures are also analyzed. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, industry share, policy, price, revenue and gross margins.
Global Herbal/Fruit Extracts market competition by TOP MANUFACTURERS, with production, price, revenue (value) and each manufacturer including:
  • Martin Bauer
  • Indena
  • Euromed
  • Naturex
  • Bio-Botanica
  • Maypro
  • Sabinsa
  • Pharmchem (Avocal Inc.)
  • Natural
  • Xi'an Shengtian
Enquire before purchasing this report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/15067412
Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market Segment by Type:
  • Herbal Extract
  • Fruit Extracts
On the basis of the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, consumption (sales), market share and growth rate for each application, including:
  • Health Care Industry
  • Pharmaceutical Industry
  • Others
Global Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market forecast to 2026 providing information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, capacity, production, price, cost, revenue and contact information. Upstream raw materials and equipment and downstream demand analysis is also carried out. The Global Herbal/Fruit Extracts market size, development trends and marketing channels are analyzed. Finally, the feasibility of new investment projects is assessed and overall research conclusions offered.
With tables and figures helping analyze worldwide Global Herbal/Fruit Extracts market growth, this research provides key statistics on the state of the industry and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the market.
Purchase this report (Price 2900 USD for a single-user license) - https://www.industryresearch.biz/purchase/15067412
Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market Report Contains Following Points in TOC:
Chapter 1: Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market Product Overview, Market Segment, Size, Sales, Growth Rate, Price by Type
Chapter 2: Global Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market Competition, Sales, Price, Base Distribution, Sales Area, Product Types, and Trends by Company
Chapter 3: Herbal/Fruit Extracts Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors, Product Category, Applications and Specifications, Price and Gross Margin (2015-2019)
Chapter 4: Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market Status, Size, CAGR, Revenue, Price, Gross Margin and Outlook by Regions
Chapter 5: Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market Sales, and Share Segment by Application/End Users
Chapter 6: Global Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market Sales, Revenue, Growth Rate Forecast (2020-2025)
Chapter 7: Herbal/Fruit Extracts Upstream Raw Materials, Price, Key Suppliers, Cost Structure, Manufacturing Expenses, Industrial Chain Analysis
Chapter 8: Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors
Chapter 9: Research Findings and Conclusion
Detailed TOC of Global Herbal/Fruit Extracts Market @ https://www.industryresearch.biz/TOC/15067412
About Us:
Market is changing rapidly with the ongoing expansion of the industry. Advancement in the technology has provided today’s businesses with multifaceted advantages resulting in daily economic shifts. Thus, it is very important for a company to comprehend the patterns of the market movements in order to strategize better. An efficient strategy offers the companies with a head start in planning and an edge over the competitors.Industry Research is the credible source for gaining the market reports that will provide you with the lead your business needs.
Contact Info:
Name: Mr. Ajay More
E-mail: [sales@industryresearch.biz](mailto:sales@industryresearch.biz)
Organization: Industry Research Biz
Phone: US +1424 253 0807 / UK +44 203 239 8187
Our Other Reports:
Ion Beam Technology Market 2020 Growing Rapidly with Modern Trends, Development, Investment Opportunities, Size, Share, Revenue, Demand and Forecast to 2024 Says Industry Research Biz
Global Prebiotics Market Size 2019 Emerging Trends, Industry Share, Future Demands, Market Potential, Traders, Regional Overview and SWOT Analysis till 2024
Netted Fabrics Market 2020 Global Manufacturing Size, Share, Opportunities, Future Trends, Top Key Players, Market Share and Global Analysis by Forecast to 2025
Current Sensor Market 2020 Industry Size, Trends Evaluation, Global Growth, Recent Developments and Latest Technology, Future Forecast Research Report 2026
Heavy Duty Bags and Sacks Market 2020 Global Manufacturing Size, Share, Opportunities, Future Trends, Top Key Players, Market Share and Global Analysis by Forecast to 2025
GERD Market Size and Share 2020 Global Industry Analysis By Trends, Future Demands, Growth Factors, Emerging Technologies, Prominent Players and Forecast Till 2023
Cosmetics & Personal Care Emulsifiers Market 2020 Regional Trend, Share, Size ,Future Growth, Leading Players Updates, Industry Demand, Current and Future Plans by Forecast to 2026
Bunkering Service Market 2020 In-Depth Analysis of the Segmentation Which Comprises Product Type, Business Strategies, Development Factors and Forecast 2024
Metabolism Drugs Market 2020 Worldwide Industry Trends, Share, Gross Margin, Size, Future Demand, Analysis by Top Leading Player and Forecast till 2026
Polymer Plastic Plain Bearings Market 2020 Business Size, Strategies, Opportunities, Future Trends, Top Key Players, Market Share and Global Analysis by Forecast to 2026
submitted by kalyanivishwakarma to u/kalyanivishwakarma [link] [comments]

2020.04.17 14:27 kalyanivishwakarma Bacteriological Agar Market Size 2020 By COVID-19 Impact on Industry Share, Industry Statistics, Global Trends Evaluation, Geographical Segmentation, Business Challenges and Investment Opportunities Analysis till 2026

Bacteriological Agar Market Size 2020 By COVID-19 Impact on Industry Share, Industry Statistics, Global Trends Evaluation, Geographical Segmentation, Business Challenges and Investment Opportunities Analysis till 2026
https://preview.redd.it/lh6bz7gzfdt41.png?width=270&format=png&auto=webp&s=63a92c4a564709f25982dc404652667b9f829794
Global “Bacteriological Agar Market” Research Report 2015-2026 is a historical overview and in-depth study on the current & future market of the Bacteriological Agar industry. The report represents a basic overview of the Bacteriological Agar market share, status, competitor segment with a basic introduction of key vendors, top regions, product types and end industries. This report gives a historical overview of the Bacteriological Agar market trends, growth, revenue, capacity, cost structure, and key drivers analysis.
"Final Report will add the analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on this industry."
Request a sample copy of the report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/request-sample/15067391
The report offers detailed coverage of the Global Bacteriological Agar market which includes industry chain structure, definitions, applications, and classifications. The global Bacteriological Agar market analysis is provided for the international markets including development trends, competitive landscape analysis, investment plan, business strategy, opportunity, and key regions development status. Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and cost structures are also analyzed. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, industry share, policy, price, revenue and gross margins.
Global Bacteriological Agar market competition by TOP MANUFACTURERS, with production, price, revenue (value) and each manufacturer including:
  • Green Fresh Group
  • Kingyen
  • Shantou Chenghai District Agar Glue Factory
  • Huey shyang
  • Fuli Agar Factory
  • Mingfu Fujian Agar Co.
  • Marine Hydrocolloids
  • ROKO
  • Agarmex
  • Hispanagar
  • Sobigel
  • B&V Agar
  • Iberagar
  • Global BioIngredients
  • Fujian Global Ocean Biotechnology
  • Taike Biotechnology
  • Agar Brasileiro
  • Fujian Wuyi Feiyan Agar
Enquire before purchasing this report - https://www.industryresearch.biz/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/15067391
Bacteriological Agar Market Segment by Type:
  • Wild Harvest Gelidium Agar
  • Aquafarm Gelidium Agar
  • Other
On the basis of the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, consumption (sales), market share and growth rate for each application, including:
  • Food Industry
  • Pharmaceutic
  • Cosmetics
  • Daily Chemical
  • Scientific Research
Global Bacteriological Agar Market forecast to 2026 providing information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, capacity, production, price, cost, revenue and contact information. Upstream raw materials and equipment and downstream demand analysis is also carried out. The Global Bacteriological Agar market size, development trends and marketing channels are analyzed. Finally, the feasibility of new investment projects is assessed and overall research conclusions offered.
With tables and figures helping analyze worldwide Global Bacteriological Agar market growth, this research provides key statistics on the state of the industry and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the market.
Purchase this report (Price 2900 USD for a single-user license) - https://www.industryresearch.biz/purchase/15067391
Bacteriological Agar Market Report Contains Following Points in TOC:
Chapter 1: Bacteriological Agar Market Product Overview, Market Segment, Size, Sales, Growth Rate, Price by Type
Chapter 2: Global Bacteriological Agar Market Competition, Sales, Price, Base Distribution, Sales Area, Product Types, and Trends by Company
Chapter 3: Bacteriological Agar Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors, Product Category, Applications and Specifications, Price and Gross Margin (2015-2019)
Chapter 4: Bacteriological Agar Market Status, Size, CAGR, Revenue, Price, Gross Margin and Outlook by Regions
Chapter 5: Bacteriological Agar Market Sales, and Share Segment by Application/End Users
Chapter 6: Global Bacteriological Agar Market Sales, Revenue, Growth Rate Forecast (2020-2025)
Chapter 7: Bacteriological Agar Upstream Raw Materials, Price, Key Suppliers, Cost Structure, Manufacturing Expenses, Industrial Chain Analysis
Chapter 8: Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors
Chapter 9: Research Findings and Conclusion
Detailed TOC of Global Bacteriological Agar Market @ https://www.industryresearch.biz/TOC/15067391
About Us:
Market is changing rapidly with the ongoing expansion of the industry. Advancement in the technology has provided today’s businesses with multifaceted advantages resulting in daily economic shifts. Thus, it is very important for a company to comprehend the patterns of the market movements in order to strategize better. An efficient strategy offers the companies with a head start in planning and an edge over the competitors.Industry Research is the credible source for gaining the market reports that will provide you with the lead your business needs.
Contact Info:
Name: Mr. Ajay More
E-mail: [sales@industryresearch.biz](mailto:sales@industryresearch.biz)
Organization: Industry Research Biz
Phone: US +1424 253 0807 / UK +44 203 239 8187
Our Other Reports:
Flannel Industry Growth, Shares, Opportunities and Forecast to 2020-2025
Global Automatic Coffee Machines Market 2020 Growing Rapidly with Recent Developments, Industry Size, Share, Trends, Demand, Revenue, Key Findings and Latest Technology, Forecast Research Report 2026
Global Hemp Milk Market Size 2020 Emerging Trends, Industry Share, Future Demands, Market Potential, Traders, Regional Overview and SWOT Analysis till 2026
Sparking Plug Market Size, Share 2020 Globally Industry Demand, Trends, Regional Overview, Top Manufacture, Leading Company Analysis, Business Growth and Forecast to 2026, Says Industry Research Biz
UV Filter Market Size, Share 2020 Globally Industry Demand, Trends, Regional Overview, Top Manufacture, Business Growth and Forecast to 2026, Says Industry Research Biz
Global Catheters Market Share, Size 2020 Movements by Latest Trend Analysis, Progression Status, Revenue Expectation to 2025, Research Report by Industry Research Biz
D-Dimer Market Forecast 2020–2026 By Global Industry Trends, Future Growth, Regional Overview, Size, Share Estimation, Revenue, and Outlook, Says Industry Research Biz,
Automotive Crash Sensor Market 2020 By Size and Share, Key Findings, Company Profiles, Growth Strategy, Developing Technologies, Demand, Investment Opportunities and Forecast by Regions till 2026
Tracheostomy Equipment Package Market Size Analysis with Growth Rate 2020 Major Drivers, Global Industry Insights by Global Players, Regional Segmentation, Applications, Value and Forecasts till 2026
Structural Steel Plate Market 2020 Industry Recent Developments, Size, Latest Trends, Global Growth, Recent Developments and Latest Technology, Forecast Research Report 2024
WIFI Smart Plugs Market Size and Share 2020 Global Industry Analysis By Trends, Future Demands, Growth Factors, Emerging Technologies, Prominent Players and Forecast Till 2024
submitted by kalyanivishwakarma to u/kalyanivishwakarma [link] [comments]

http://rodzice.org/