title: De motu antiquiora

text:
De motu antiquiora ("The Older Writings on Motion"), or simply De Motu, is Galileo Galilei's early written work on motion (not to be confused with Newton's De motu corporum in gyrum, which shares the abbreviated name, De Motu). It was written largely between 1589 and 1592, but was not published in full until 1890. De Motu is known for expressing Galileo's ideas on motion during his Pisan period prior to transferring to Padua.

Galileo left the manuscript unfinished and unpublished in his lifetime due to several uncertainties in his understanding and his mathematics. It is unclear whether this book was initially made out to be a book in the form of a dialogue or a more conventional way of writing.  The reason for this is that Galileo worked on this book for many years, creating multiple copies of each section. In the last parts of his work, the writing style changes from an essay to a dialogue between two people who strongly uphold his views.  Galileo would later incorporate select arguments and examples from his De Motu into his subsequent works Le Meccaniche (On Mechanics), Discorso intorno alle cose che stanno in su l'acqua (Discourse on Floating Bodies), and Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze (Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences).

Throughout De Motu, Galileo rejects Aristotle's views on the physics of motion, often with mocking tones, through various reductio ad absurdum arguments that demonstrate how Aristotle's assumptions on motion logically result in absurd conclusions that were contrary to observation or against his original assumptions, thus proving that the assumptions must be false. However, despite his frequent stinging criticism of Aristotle’s physics, Galileo’s De Motu still clung to the classical elements as a foundational cause for motion in which all matter moves toward its respective natural place in the universe.

He further proposes an alternative theory to motion in which, instead of motion being propagated by the rushing of air (as was taught by the Peripatetics), it is believed that the true weight of a body can only be measured in a void, that the weight of the body in a medium is modified by its buoyancy in the medium (i.e., apparent weight), that the weight resulting from of this buoyancy causes the body's natural motion, that projectile motion (distinct from natural motion) is believed to be the result of an impressed forced that modifies a weight of the projectile, and that the impressed force depletes over time much like how a hot object returns to its natural coldness.

De Motu is notable for containing the earliest reference of Galileo’s interest in pendulums in which he observes that heavier objects would continue to oscillate for a greater amount of time than lighter objects. However, he misattributes this phenomenon as evidence that the impressed force in a moving body self-depletes faster in lighter bodies than in heavier bodies as opposed to air resistance having a greater effect on the lighter body.

It’s questionable how much of Galileo’s ideas in De Motu were original.  Some of the ideas of the De Motu are found in antiquity, others in the Middle Ages and among Galileo’s immediate predecessors in Italy.  The subjects discussed in the essay are largely the subjects that had long been under discussion in academic circles, but while the solutions put forth by Galileo to individual problems are not, in general, original discoveries, the work as a whole gives a distinct impression of originality.  This is due to the underlying unity of conception, the skillful linking of ideas, the constant recourse to mathematics, and the lucidity of the reasoning and the style.

Publication History
De Motu may have been originally intended for publication, but Galileo eventually abandoned it in an incomplete form.  What remains now includes a first draft essay on motion, several reworked portions of the essay, a dialogue, a set of topics and propositions, and a series of fragmentary thoughts, notes, and memoranda.

Portions of the manuscript were first published in 1854 in Volume 11 of Eugenio Albèri’s edition of Galileo’s works, and the remaining portions were published in 1883 by Antonio Favaro.  The manuscript was later published under the title De Motu in volume I of the National Edition of the works of Galileo, edited in 1890 by Favaro, which contained certain manuscripts written in Latin in Galileo’s own hand.  The first and only English translations of both De Motu and Le Meccaniche were published together in 1960 under the title On Motion and On Mechanics, translated by I. E. Drabkin and Stillman Drake.

Influences and Origins of Galileo's Pisan Dynamics
Historians have debated the exact influences and development of Galileo’s early dynamics during his Pisan period and whether his early concepts of impressed forces were directly descended from the medieval impetus theory of the 14th century.

Pierre Duhem proposed that Galileo’s Pisan dynamics was a continuation of the tradition taught by Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme, in which Galileo continued to perfect the impetus theory throughout his career, potentially drawing influence from Giambattista Benedetti whose dynamics are generally described as a partisan of the impetus physics.

Alexandre Koyré also noted Benedetti's potential influence on Galileo but argued, against Duhem, that Galileo’s Pisan dynamics was an attempt to achieve a coherent mathematical formulation of medieval impetus modeled after Archimedes’ statics, but instead of perfecting it, as suggested by Duhem, Galileo ultimately failed, which led him to abandon the medieval tradition and began anew into his Paduan period.

Ernest Moody pointed out that Galileo’s arguments that rejected Aristotle’s explanation for projectile motion were exactly the same as those used by Buridan and Albert of Saxony, and was therefore not original; however, Moody argued against Duhem and Koyré that Galileo’s early dynamics were not modeled after the Buridan impetus, but rather based upon 11th-century Avenpace’s dynamics, which stemmed from the ideas of 6th-century John Philoponus of Alexandria.  Moody suggests that it’s possible Galileo may have learned of Avenpace’s theories through Benedetti, but that it’s also possible that he may have learned of Avenpace through his contemporary, Jerome Borro, who wrote about Averroes’s criticism against Avempace’s arguments against Aristotelean physics.  Further, Galileo was also influenced by his senior colleague at Pisa, Francisco Bonamico, who also discussed the problem of projectile motion in his own De Motu and mentioned that Philoponus is the originator of the theory of impressed forces.  Moody suggests that Bonamico was acquainted with the medieval tradition of impetus physics, but only at a second- or third-hand account, especially in regard to the 14th-century contribution to mechanics, which is what led Koyré to assume that Bonamico’s views were an approximation of Buridan’s impetus and were the same as the impressed force theory of Philoponus, Peter John Olivi, and Francis of Marchia.  Moody also credits the works of Benito Pereira, J. C. Scaliger, and Jacob Zabarella as potential influences.

Distinguishing Galileo's Early Impressed Forces From Buridan Impetus
Moody asserts that there is not only a developmental difference but also in meaning between Galilean impressed forces (virtus impressa) and Buridian impetus: Buridan’s impetus was an “enduring reality” (res permanens) that would remain undiminished forever if left unimpeded by air and gravity, much like the modern treatment of momentum; whereas Galileo’s impressed forces were primarily self-depleting that is supplementally impeded by air resistance.  This meant that the explanations for natural acceleration were radically different from each other since, for an object falling indefinitely in a void, the object’s Buridan impetus and speed would infinitely increase forever, whereas Galilean impressed force would eventually decay asymptotically to nothing as the object approaches a terminal velocity in the void.

Another further distinction is made regarding rotational motion, specifically in explaining the rotation of the celestial spheres.  Prior philosophers, such as Avicenna, al-Ghazali, Moses Maimonides, and most Christian scholastic philosophers, thought that the rotation of the celestial spheres required a constant force to maintain its rotation, and identified Aristotle's “intelligences” that pushed these spheres with the angels of revelation, thereby associating an angel with each of the spheres.  Buridan proposed that impetus wouldn’t need to posit angels or “Intelligences” as movers of the heavens, for if we suppose that God, at the creation of the world, set the heavenly bodies in motion at their present rates of rotation, no further action by a “mover” would be required, because their original impetus would endure undiminished forever, in the absence of resistance or of opposed forces.  Galileo, on the other hand, only partially answers this question by asserting that the rotation of the celestial sphere is not the result of a forced motion since the spheres do not recede from the center of the universe, nor is it natural motion since spheres do not appear to approach a natural place.  This further raised the question if the rotation of the spheres moved perpetually or if they would eventually come to rest in the absence of a force, however, Galileo leaves the question unanswered.

Synopsis of the Essay Portion
Galileo arranged his essay into unnumbered chapters; enumerated chapters were later added by Drabkin to facilitate cross-referencing.
   The reader is cautioned that, although Galileo’s arguments may appear sound throughout, some of his arguments contain errors due to flawed premises or mathematics.

Chapter 1: Heaviness and lightness
Galileo begins by defining heaviness and lightness, which is effectively the equivalent of the modern concept of specific gravity or relative density.  Two substances are considered equally heavy when they are equal in both volume and weight.  A first substance is called “heavier” than a second substance when the first weighs more than the second while both are equal in volume.  In this same arrangement, the second substance is called “lighter” than the first.

Chapter 2: Heavy substances are by nature located in a lower place and light substances in a higher place

Galileo assumes a quasi-Aristotelean arrangement of the universe based on the classical elements where things move according to their proper place: earth rests at the center, water is above earth, air is above water, and fire is above air.  Based on this arrangement, it appears Galileo assumes a Ptolemaic system that places Earth at the center of the universe, despite his later acknowledgment of Nicolaus Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in Chapter 20.

Galileo indicates that Aristotle gave no reason for the arrangement of the classical elements other than that everything must be disposed in some arrangement as provided by divine providence; however, Galileo finds this view unsatisfactory and believes that Aristotle was potentially incorrect in his criticism of the ancient monist and atomist theories.  He argues that, if the monists and atomists were correct, it would provide a logical explanation for the arrangement of the elements: heavier bodies would enclose more particles of that matter in a narrower space and would also occupy narrower places, such as those near the center of the universe (Galileo claims that spaces become narrower as we approach the center of a sphere without further elucidating his meaning).  For example, earth elements occupy a small amount of space, whereas air elements occupy an ample amount of space.  Galileo concludes that the arrangement of the universe isn’t randomly chosen, but is executed with both prudence and justice.

Chapter 3: Natural motion is caused by heaviness or lightness
Bodies (composed of the classical elements) are at rest when at their proper place, but when displaced above a lighter body, they will move down below the lighter body unless the lighter is forced to remain under the heavier.  The converse applies to lighter bodies.  For “natural” motion (as opposed to “violent” upward-projectile motion), both the heaviness/lightness of the body and the heaviness/lightness of the medium are to be compared, for if water were not lighter than stone, a stone would not sink in water.  Galileo reemphasizes that heaviness/lightness (i.e., density) should be observed strictly as previously defined, as it’s not the weight of the entire body of water that is considered, but rather the weight of a portion of the water equal in volume to the body that is passing through the water.  Motion is then correlated to the relative heaviness between two bodies, which Galileo sets out to prove in subsequent chapters.

Chapter 4: Proof that bodies of the same heaviness as the medium move neither upward nor downward
Said proof is provided.

Chapter 5: Proof that bodies lighter than water cannot be completely submerged
After providing said proof, Galileo concludes that it’s obvious that bodies heavier than water are necessarily submerged (for if it weren’t, then it would be lighter than water, and therefore contrary to its assumption) and must continue to move downward (for if they did not, then it must have equal or less weight than water).  Moreover, since bodies that move downwards must be heavier than the medium, it can be said that heavy bodies move downward by reason of their weight.

Chapter 6: An analogy between bodies moving naturally and the weights of a balance
Since natural motion results due to the heaviness/lightness of the medium and the body, and since the respective heaviness/lightness can be compared through respective weights with equal volumes, Galileo recognizes that the same can be said of weights on a balance, and that, in viewing the lever as an analogy for motion, it can be easily understood why solids lighter than water (e.g., wood) are not completely submerged in water – the heavier cannot be raised by the heavy.  Under this assumption, the cause of motion for bodies moving naturally (in the same manner as weights in balance), both up and down, can be referred to weight alone.

Through this lever analogy, a mobile moves by force and by the extruding action of the medium.  For when wood is forcibly submerged, the water thrusts the wood back out when the water moves towards its own proper place.  In the same way, a stone in freefall is thrust from its position and is impelled downward because it is heavier than the medium.  Thus, natural motion may be considered “forced.”

Chapter 7: The cause of speed and slowness of natural motion
Differences in speed of motion occur in two ways: either the same body moves in different media, or different bodies move through the same media; furthermore, the case in which different bodies move in different media can be simplified down to these two ways.  In both cases, the speed of motion depend upon the same cause: the greater or lesser weight of the media and the moving bodies.  In this argument, Galileo focuses on the primary cause of motion rather than any “accidental” (e.g., the shape of the body) or external cause.

Aristotle claimed that the same body moves more swiftly in a rarer medium than in a denser medium, and that therefore the cause of slowness of motion is the density of the medium, and the cause of speed is rareness of the medium; however, Galileo points out that Aristotle asserted this claim on the basis of no other reason than from experience (i.e., we see a moving body move more swiftly in air than in water) and that this explanation of the cause to produce this effect is insufficient since there are many moving bodies that move more swiftly with natural motion in denser media than in rarer ones.  For example, an inflated bladder of air falls slowly in air but rises quickly in water.  Furthermore, Galileo notes that, for downward motion, a heavier substance moves more swiftly than a lighter, and for upward motion, the lighter substance will move more swiftly.

In the case of motion of the same body moving in different media, a body that is heavier than a medium will move more swiftly in the medium than in another medium in which the body is less heavy; moreover, a body that is lighter than a medium will move more swiftly in the medium than in another medium in which the body is less light.  Therefore, if we find in what media a given body is heavier, we shall have found the media in which it will fall more swiftly.  Furthermore, if we can find how much heavier the same body is in one media than another, we will know how much faster it will move.

Chapter 8: Different bodies moving in the same medium maintain a ratio of speeds different from what is said by Aristotle
Galileo states that two bodies may differ in two ways: 1) they are of same material but have different size (i.e., volume), and 2) they are of different material but a) they differ in size and weight, b) differ in weight but not size, or c) differ in size but not weight.  He then refutes Aristotle’s claims for each situation.

Aristotle claims that, in the case of naturally moving bodies that are of the same material, the larger moves more swiftly, such that a large piece of gold would move more swiftly than a small piece, and that the ratio of their speeds is the same as the ratio of their sizes.  Galileo asserts that this is ridiculous because this would imply that, for two lead balls, one ball a hundred times larger than the other, both falling from a great height, then the lighter ball would take a hundred times longer to fall than the heavier ball, but this does not happen.

Instead, Galileo argues that objects made of the same material, though different in size, will fall with the same speed, and that anyone surprised by this will also be surprised to realize that a large piece of wood will float no less than a small piece of wood.  In another example, Galileo proposes that a piece of wax be mixed with sand so that it becomes slightly heavier than water and begins to sink slowly.  When comparing a piece of mixed-wax that is a hundredth part of the first considered wax, Galileo argues that no one would believe that the smaller piece of wax would take a hundred times longer to sink.  The same may be said for the analogy of weights on a balance: for two large and equal weights are balanced, and a minuscule weight is added to one side, the heavier side will fall, but it won’t fall any faster than if the two weights were small weights instead.  Similarly, for water and wood, where one weight on the balance represents the weight of the wood and the other weight represents the weight of a volume of water that is equal in volume of the wood, if the weight of the volume of water is equal to the weight of the wood, the wood will not sink, but if the wood is made a little heavier so that it sinks, it will not sink faster than a small piece of the same wood, which initially weigh the same as an equally small volume of water, and then is made a little heavier.

In another argument, Galileo considers an assumption: if there are two bodies with one body moving with natural motion more swiftly than the other, then a combination of the two bodies will move more slowly than the body that, by itself, moves more swiftly, and also the combination will move faster than the body that, by itself, moved more slowly.  For example, a ball of wax and an inflated bladder are both submerged in water and both move upward in the water, but the flatted bladder moves faster than the wax.  If the two are connected to each other, the combination will rise more slowly than the bladder alone, but more swiftly than the wax alone.  The same may be said for downward-falling bodies: if one is of wood and the other an air bladder, the wood falls faster than the air bladder, but when connected, together they fall with an intermediate speed.  With this assumption, Galileo then returns to Aristotle’s claim that heavier bodies of the same material fall faster: if two bodies of the same material but different sizes (and likewise weights) fall with different speeds, then when connected together, the assumption leads us to believe that the combined bodies will have an intermediate speed; however, the combination of the two bodies will have a total weight that is greater than any of the standalone bodies.  Therefore, according to Aristotle, the combined weight should fall even faster than either of the standalone bodies, which leads to self-contradiction.  The only way to correct the contradiction is to reject Aristotle’s claim and assume that the two bodies of same material but different size (and weight) fall at the same speeds.  This same argument will appear again in Galileo’s Two New Sciences.

A caveat is then recognized: the weights of the bodies of same material cannot be taken to the extremes, for even a thin plate or even a leaf of the same substance can be made to float on water.  Thus, the weight and volume of the smaller must be large enough to not be affected by the viscosity of the medium.  However, this caveat does not justify Aristotle’s original claim since it remains that the assumption that great differences in weight correlate to great differences in times is deeply flawed and must be rejected.

Galileo then considers the ratios of the speeds of bodies of different material moving in the same medium.  Such bodies differ from each other in three ways: either in size but not weight, or in weight but not size, or both in weight and size; however, only the case of those that differ in weight but not in size need be considered since the ratios of the other ways can be reduced to this one.  In the case of bodies differing in size but not in weight, we may take from the larger a part that is equal in size to the smaller, thus, the bodies will then differ in weight, but not in size.  And the larger body will, with the smaller body, maintain the same ratio as will the part taken from the larger, since it was proved that bodies of the same material, though different in size, move with the same speeds.  In the case of bodies differing both in size and weight, if we take from the larger a part equal in size to the smaller, again, we have two bodies differing in weight, but not in size.  And the part will, with the smaller, maintain the same ratio in its motion, as will the whole of the larger – again, in the case of bodies of the same material, the part and whole move with the same speed.

Aristotle claims that, in the case of the same body moving in different media, the ratio of the speeds is equal to the ratio of the rareness of the media.  Galileo proves that this assumption leads to an absurdity and is therefore false.  If the speeds have the same ratio as the rareness of the media, then, conversely, the rareness of the media will have the same ratio as the speeds.  Since wood falls in air but not in water, and since the speed in air has no ratio to the speed in water, then the rareness of air will have no ratio to the rareness of water, which is absurd.

Galileo then investigates the ratio of the speeds of the same body moving in different media during upward motion.  When solids lighter than water are completely submerged in water, they are carried upward with a force measured by the difference between the weight of a volume of water equal to the volume of the submerged body and the weight of the body itself.  In other words, Galileo argues that natural motion is based on an object's apparent weight. He concludes that if we wish to know at once the relative speeds of a same body in two different media, we take an amount of each medium equal to the volume of the body, and subtract from the weights of each medium the weight of the body.  The numbers found as remainders will be to each other as the speeds of the motions.  Similar arguments are then made for the ratios of speeds of two bodies equal in volume but unequal in weight moving the same media in both upward and downward motion.

By the end of the chapter, Galileo provides the ratio of the speeds for natural motion made of the same or different material, in the same medium or in different medium, and in natural motion upward or downwards.  Galileo ends the chapter claiming that lighter bodies will initially move ahead of the heavier – a claim that is revisited in Chapter 22.

Chapter 9: In view of all the above, bodies moving naturally are reduced to the weights of a balance
Galileo investigates the force responsible for the motions explained in Chapter 8, specifically, the amount of force necessary to hold wood underwater, to which he concludes that wood moves upward with a force measured by the amount by which the weight of a volume of water equals to the wood exceeds the weight of the wood.  Similarly, he investigates the force of a lead sphere as it moves downward in water, and he concludes that the sphere moves downward with a force equal to the weight by which it exceeds the weight of an aqueous sphere of the same size.

He then revisits the conclusion of the previous chapter: in the case of bodies of different material, provided that they are equal in size, the ratio of the speeds of their natural downward motions is the same as the ratio of their weights–and not their weights as such, but the weights found by weighing them in the medium in which the motion takes place.  From this, Galileo recognizes that, when objects occupy a medium and we weigh the object on a balance, we don’t have the proper weight of the object since buoyancy in the medium will always modify it.  He proposes that, if the objects could be weighed in a void, then hypothetically the proper weight could be found; however, Aristotle claims that motion in a void is impossible and that all things would be equally heavy in the void – a notion that Galileo rejects in the following chapter.

Chapter 10: Proof that, if there were a void, motion in it would not take place instantaneously
Aristotle cited several arguments in his attempt to deny the existence of a void.  In one argument, he assumes that motion cannot take place instantaneously, and then attempts to show that if a void existed, motion in it would take place instantaneously; and, since that is impossible, he concludes that a void is also impossible.  He further deduces that, assuming that motion can occur over time in a void, then the same body will move in the same time in a plenum and in a void, which he claims is impossible.  Galileo argues that Aristotle failed to prove his assumptions, that they were actually false and led to false conclusions.  In particular, Galileo asserts that Aristotle assumes that the ratio of the speeds of the same body moving in different media is equal to the ratio of the rareness of the media, which Galileo proved to be false in Chapter 8.

Aristotle’s proof also states that it is impossible for one number to have the same relation to another number as a number has to zero.  Galileo argues that this is true for geometric ratios (i.e., the ratio of a/b), but is not true for arithmetic relations (i.e., a - b).  Moreover, if the ratio of the speeds were made to depend on the ratio in the arithmetic sense (i.e., a ratio of differences), then no absurd conclusion would follow, and therefore the body will be able to move in a void in the same way as in a plenum.

In a plenum, the speed of motion of a body depends on the difference between its weight and the weight of the medium through which it moves; and likewise, in a void, the speed of its motion will depend on the difference between its own weight and that of the medium, but since the void is zero, then the difference between the weight of the body and the weight of the void will be the whole and proper weight of the body.  Therefore, the speed of its motion in the void will depend on its proper weight, which is undiminished by any weight of the medium.

Galileo then rejects Aristotle’s claim motion in a void would be instantaneous since a void is infinitely lighter than any plenum and that motion in it will be infinitely swifter than any plenum.  Galileo accepts the premise of Aristotle’s argument, but rejects the conclusion of instantaneous motion.  Rather, he argues that the motion takes place in less time than the time of motion in any plenum.

Chapter 11: Disproving Aristotle’s claim that air has weight in its own place
Aristotle claimed that, with the exception of fire, everything, even air itself, has weight in its own region; for an inflated bladder weighs more than a deflated one.

Galileo disagrees: it’s understood that water has weight when in air, and that it moves downward because of its weight, but it’s absurd to believe that water sinks in water, as a first amount of water would need to displace upward a second amount of water.  Moreover, if a portion of water is heavy and must move downward in water, then that would imply that the portion is heavier than another portion of water of equal volume – but this would be absurd since this would make water heavier than water.

In response to the inflated bladder, if a hole of the inflated bladder is opened but air stays in the ball without force (i.e., without compressed air), the bladder retains the same weight.  But when the air is compressed into the bladder by force, the air in the bladder becomes heavier than free and diffused air.  Galileo also argues that the elements, when in their proper place, are neither heavy nor light, for we do not feel the weight of water when we swim, and that it was previously shown that bodies lighter than water rise up, bodies heavier than water sink down, and bodies the same weight as water go neither up nor down.

Chapter 12: Disproving Aristotle’s claim that absolutely light and absolutely heavy exist; and even if they did, it would not be earth and fire

Aristotle defined that the “absolutely heaviest” are things that lay below everything else and always move towards the center of the universe, and he calls the “absolutely lightest” things that rise above everything else and always move up and never down.  Thus, the heaviest is earth, and the lightest is fire.  For if fire had heaviness, it would remain below something, which is not observed.  Galileo rebuts that Aristotle’s argument is not conclusive, for it is sufficient for fire to be less heavy than everything else, and is not necessarily without weight.

Aristotle argues that, if fire had weight, then a large amount of fire would be heavier than a small amount, thus the large amount would rise slower.  Similarly, if earth had lightness, then a large amount of earth would fall slower than a small amount.  But experience shows the opposite.  Galileo rebuts that this is also an invalid argument, for weight of a body is modified by the medium it is in.  In other words, fire does not have weight in air.  Secondly, a larger amount of fire does rise faster than a small amount–this was shown in Chapter 8.  Galileo proposes that the correct way to reason about fire is that a large amount of fire will be heavier than a small amount of air, but not in the medium of air where fire has no weight, but in some other medium lighter than fire or even in a void.  Also, if we assume that fire has no weight, then it is without density, but that which is without density is a void.  Therefore, fire is a void, which is absurd.

Galileo then questions the claim that earth is the heaviest when we are unable to see below the earth.  Moreover, it’s known that quicksilver (i.e., mercury) causes earth to float above it, so clearly there are things that are heavier than earth.

Chapter 13: Proof that differences in weights and motions are determined only in a void
Since in every medium the weights of heavy bodies are diminished by the weight of a portion of that medium equal in size to the solid, it is clear that whole and undiminished weights of solids are obtained in a medium whose weight is zero.  Such medium can only be the void.  Similar considerations hold for the speeds of motions and the ratio of these speeds.

Chapter 14: A discussion regarding the ratio of the speeds of bodies moving along various inclined planes
Galileo investigates the speeds of bodies moving down inclined planes; however, portions of his arguments are unrefined and contain errors.  Galileo would later revisit this discussion (with corrections) in his unpublished lecture notes Le Mecanniche which utilizes his new abstract concept, momento, to roughly describe both modern concepts of moment and angular momentum.  Mathematician Vincenzo Viviani would later insert an amendment to the second edition of Two New Sciences that refers to and incorporates portions of Galileo’s refined discussion of inclined planes from Le Meccaniche.

In this present discussion, Galileo recognizes from Chapter 9 that heavy bodies tend to move downward with as much force as is necessary to lift it up, thus if we can find how much force is needed to draw a body upwards on an incline, we would then know how much force the body would descends on the incline.  To measure this force, Galileo reverts to the lever, but instead of lever arms that are parallel to each other, one lever arm is bent at an angle such that the force exerted at the bent lever arm is weakened.  A weight positioned at the extremity of the bent lever arm would then experience the same force as if the same weight were on an incline that is tangent to the rotation of the bent lever arm.  From there, a ratio of the force of the incline to a force that drives the weight vertically downward can be formed, which is then used to find the ratio of speeds (albeit erroneously).

In his argument, Galileo requires that objects hanging from a balance form perfect right angles with against perfectly straight horizontal lever arms, thus making the strings that hang the objects parallel to each other; an assumption that Galileo recognizes as flawed since the Earth is understood to be spherical, that bodies are drawn to the center of the Earth, and therefore the strings would actually draw lines that converge to the center and not parallel.  In other words, Galileo argues that his assumption relies on a small-angle approximation.  In the defense of his assumption, Galileo states, “To such objectors I would answer that I cover myself with the protecting wings of the superhuman Archimedes, whose name I never mention without a feeling of awe.  For he made this same assumption in his Quadrature of the Parabola…yet we must not suppose, in a moment of doubt, that his conclusion is false, since he had earlier demonstrated the same conclusion by another geometric proof.”

Chapter 15: An argument that rectilinear and circular motions have a ratio to each other
Aristotle asserts that circular motion does not have any ratio to rectilinear motion because a straight line is not in any ratio to or comparable to a curve.  Galileo rejects this stating that this would be like saying a triangle and a square are not comparable because the triangle has only three angles while the square has four.  Even a circle inscribed in a square has some ratio even though the circle has curved edges while the square has straight edges.  He further argues that Aristotle failed to see that the lines have a quantitative relation even if they are qualitatively different.  Galileo further claims that Aristotle was reckless in asserting that there is no straight line equal to the circumference of a circle–Archimedes was able to prove this in his work On Spirals, where a straight line is found equal to the circumference of the circle around the spiral of first revolution.

Chapter 16: The question of whether circular motion is natural or forced
Galileo offers the question: if the center of a rotating marble sphere (and its center of gravity) were located at the center of the universe, would its rotational motion be forced or not?  Galileo argues that since natural motion occurs when bodies move towards their natural place, and forced motion occurs when they recede from their natural place, then it's clear that the sphere rotating about the center of the universe moves with a motion that is neither natural nor forced.  This leads him to argue that, if a single star were added to the heaves, the motion of the heavens would not be slowed since the star would only slow the rotational motion when it is moved away from its natural place, but this never happens for rotations about the center of the universe since there is no upward or downward motion.

Galileo then recognizes that this view raises another question: since the rotating sphere placed at the center of the universe is neither a natural motion nor a forced motion, would the sphere continue to rotate perpetually or eventually come to rest?  For if its motion were natural, then it would seem to move perpetually; but if its motion is forced, then it seems that it would eventually come to rest.  Galileo never directly addresses this question, and instead states that the question is better suited for Chapter 17 (where it is also left unanswered).  However, Galileo does consider the case of a homogeneous spinning sphere that is outside the center of the universe, concluding that such motion is forced since there is resistance at the axis that supports the sphere.  He further argues that if the axis were infinitely small, then no resistance would arise at the axis, and that a rough surface of the sphere would cause air to impede the rotational motion.  For a heterogeneous sphere (i.e., where its center of gravity is different from the geometric center), the rotational motion alternates between natural and forced motion since the center of gravity would be rotating about the geometric center.

Chapter 17: The agency by which projectiles are moved
Aristotle argues that objects move due to contact with a mover, but since projectiles fly without contact from a mover, then it must be that the rushing of air behind the object is propagating its motion.

Galileo raises several objections to this explanation (most of which were recognized much before Galileo): the successive parts of air that push the projectile would always be accelerated, which is contrary to Aristotle’s assumptions; experience shows that arrows fly despite a strong opposing headwind; a ship propelled by oars against a current continues to move forward long after the oars are retracted from the water; iron balls can be flung at a great distance, and yet flaxen fibers fall to the ground sooner than the iron ball; lastly, a marble sphere can spin for a long time without displacing, thus leaving no space for air to push against it, nor is a flame placed underneath the sphere disturbed by any air currents.

Instead, Galileo argues that projectile motion results from an impressed force that gives the projectile a self-depleting impetus for its motion (as a side note, according to Drabkin, medieval philosophy historian E. A. Moody "sharply differentiates the development of Galileo’s theory of impressed force from Jean Buridan’s impetus theory").  Thus, this impressed force or impetus modifies the heaviness of a body when thrown upward, and the lightness of the body when thrown downward.

Galileo analogizes this impressed force to a temperature of a body, such that when a mover acts upon the body, it is much like placing iron in a fire, and once the projectile has left the hand of the mover, the impressed force diminishes much like how iron, once pulled from the fire, loses its heat and returns to its natural coldness.  As to where in the projectile the impressed force is received, Galileo shifts the onus of the question by stating that the impressed force is wherever one believes heat is stored in the projectile.

He then compares the impressed force transferred from a mover to the mobile much like what is transferred from a hammer to a bell: initially both silent, the hammer impacts and imparts a sonorous quality to the bell which is contrary to its natural silence, and over time the sound gradually diminishes, much like an impressed force applied to a projectile.  Moreover, Galileo argues that it’s not the air that continues to strike the bell to produce the sound, but rather the bell continuing to vibrate due to the impressed force received from the hammer.

He then elaborates further regarding the modification of weight due to the impressed force: although the body becomes lighter from the impressed force, the effect is only temporary, and throughout its motion the body still retains its natural weight while the modified heaviness or lightness diminishes over time.  Furthermore, heavy objects tend to retain their impetus for a longer time than lighter objects.

Galileo then discusses how certain opinions, however false they may be, remain persistent because, at first sight, they offer some appearance of truth, but no one bothers to examine whether they are worthy of belief.  He offers an example of a common misconception in which it is believed that water itself causes objects in it to appear larger.  He says that he experimented with the phenomenon and found that a coin deep in water did not appear larger at all, but perhaps instead smaller.  Galileo concludes that the misconception possibly arose due to the decorative tradition of placing fruits in a glass vessel filled with water in the summer, and that it was the curvature of the vessel that caused this largening effect and not directly because of the water.

He then concludes the chapter by emphasizing that it is certain that projectiles are in no way moved by the medium, but only by a motive force impressed by a mover.

Chapter 18: A demonstration that the motive force is gradually diminished in a moving body
Galileo argues that forced motion is not endless, that the force is continuously diminished in the projectile, and that motion with persistent speed and constant motive force “surely is most absurd.” Galileo would later abandon this erroneous idea through his implicit discussions regarding inertia in his Two New Sciences.

Chapter 19: The cause of acceleration of natural motion towards the end of motion
Galileo admits he struggled to find an explanation as to why objects accelerate toward the end of its motion.  Although he states that he was excited to find a solution, the explanation he provides is mostly erroneous.  Galileo would later provide a correct description of natural acceleration in his Two New Sciences: interlocutor Salviati, who represents an older Galileo, explicitly states that he would not provide an explanation as to the cause of such acceleration, but the explanation provided here is expressed by the interlocutor, Sagredo, who represents a younger Galileo.

Aristotle argued against such acceleration, stating that natural motion is not accelerated by extrusion since that would imply forced motion, but later, the Peripatetics would argue that it was the rushing of air behind the projectile that caused the acceleration.  Galileo states that this doesn’t explain why a rhombus-shaped object would accelerate since the rushing air would become split by the edges of the shape and therefore unable to strike the object.

Instead, Galileo argues that, since a heavy falling body moves more slowly at the beginning, it follows that the body is less heavy at the beginning of its motion than in the middle or end and that this is the result of a force.  The question then becomes: why is the body less heavy at the beginning of the motion?

He explains that, when a heavy body is moved upward by force, an impelling force greater than the resisting weight is required, otherwise the resisting weight could not be overcome.  In other words, the body moves upward provided that the impressed motive force is greater than the resisting weight.  But since that force diminishes over time, it will eventually become so weak that it cannot overcome the weight of the body, and then, at its apex, it reverses its course.  However, at the apex, the impressed force is not entirely destroyed, but rather no longer exceeds the weight of the body and is equal to it.  At that moment, the body is neither heavy nor light.  After the apex, the impressed force continues to decrease with the weight of the body being the dominant driver of motion.  However, at the beginning of the descent from the apex, the impressed force still contributes to the lightness of the body, despite being less than the weight, and hence why the motion of its descent is slower at the beginning.

Galileo then acknowledges that this explanation for acceleration was previously put forth by the philosopher Hipparchus as cited by Ptolemy in his Almagest, but Galileo believed Hipparchus’s explanation was imperfect and was rejected by subsequent philosophers as a result.

Chapter 20: A demonstration that, at the apex of projectile motion, an interval of rest does not occur
Aristotle and his followers believed that two contrary motions could not be continuous with each other, and therefore when a stone is thrown upward and falls back down, it must necessarily remain at rest at the apex for an interval of time.  Galileo rejects this through a series of rebuttals, including a reference to the work De Revolutionibus by Nicolaus Copernicus.  Galileo concludes that a state of rest at the apex does not occur over an interval, but instead passes through rest in an instant.  This discussion is revisited in Two New Sciences.

Chapter 21: It is proved that if natural motion could be extended without limit, it would not become swifter without limit
Aristotle believed that if natural motion continued without limit, the weight of the body and the speed of its motion would be increased without limit, but since infinite weight and infinite speed cannot exist, he concludes that such motion would be impossible.

Galileo disagrees but instead argues that speed is not increased continuously, and even if it could, such that the motion could be extended without limit, the body would not attain infinite weight and speed.  He argues that the impressed force of a projectile would eventually be used up, and that acceleration would eventually cease and thus the object would attain some terminal velocity (Galileo would later discuss terminal velocity again in Two New Sciences, but with the explanation that terminal velocity is reached due to air resistance and not because of some depletion of an impressed force).  This argument suggests that Galileo believed that terminal velocity is achieved even in a void.

For example, it is observed that a feather falling from some height moves slowly at the beginning of its motion, but then later maintains a uniform motion.  The reason being, according to Galileo, is that less heavy objects only carry an amount of contrary upward force equal to their own weight, and since they are not very heavy, the contrary impressed force is also small.  Therefore, the impressed force is quickly depleted, thus quickly attaining a uniform motion in its fall.  He also refers to the analogy of heat: a glowing iron eventually becomes cold with all its heat removed; likewise, a stone changes from light to heavy, losing all its received lightness, eventually attaining a uniform speed.  Furthermore, the approach of such terminal velocity would be asymptotic, such as the hyperbola as discussed in the Conics of Apollonius of Perga, or the first conchoid curve of Nicomedes in the commentary of Eutocius of Ascalon regarding Archimedes’ On the Sphere and Cylinder, book 2.

Chapter 22: An explanation as to why, at the beginning of their motion, less heavy bodies move more swiftly than heavier ones
Averroes and his followers had proposed a solution to this question that supposed that elements were heavy in their own region, a proposition that Galileo rejected in Chapter 11.  They also believed that a wooden sphere contains more air in it than a lead sphere, thus making the wooden sphere move more swiftly; further, it was believed that lead is heavier than iron in air because the lead contained more air than in iron – Galileo states that it’s obvious that this argument contains many complications.

Instead, Galileo proposes that, when objects begin their natural motion from rest, it begins with an impressed force that is equal but opposite to their weight (i.e., a hand or some device initially supporting the object provides the impressed force).  As a result, heavier bodies begin their motion with a greater contrary force and thus fall more slowly at the beginning of their motion than lighter bodies, but once the contrary force is depleted, the heavier body then falls faster than lighter bodies, as is seen from experience.

However, he admits that there remains some difficulty with his proposed theory: even though heavier bodies begin with a greater amount of impressed force, they also have more weight that can overcome it, which suggests that the heavy and the light should fall with equal speeds.  However, he responds that it’s not the weight that depletes the contrary force, but rather the contrary force depletes itself, much like how hot iron grows cold.

He then observes that impressed force depletes faster in lighter objects: lead flies further and with more time than wood when shot from a cannon; and when a pendulum made of wood and another made of lead are drawn with the same initial displacement and are permitted to swing, the lead pendulum swings for a longer period of time (this is the earliest reference of Galileo’s interest in pendulums; he refers to this example again in his Two New Sciences).  Lastly, he argues that the impressed force is analogous to heat, such that heavier bodies retain both their heat and impetus for a longer amount of time than lighter bodies.  Galileo then concludes from these examples that this explains why lighter bodies move faster than heavier bodies initially in their fall.

Chapter 23: An explanation why objects shot at a greater angle from the horizon move closer along a straight line than at lesser angles
Galileo recalls the earlier explanation for the inclined plane–that heavy objects are easily pushed when the inclines is at lesser angles, but when shot at an angle from a cannon, it seems the opposite is true.  However, he notes that the difference here is that the object is no longer supported by an incline, but is instead carried by the impressed force.

To explain this phenomenon, he claims that the impressed force is impressed more strongly on that which resists its motion more.  Thus, if we can find situations where an object’s resistance is greater, then so too will the impressed force be more impressed—pressing against an object’s motion offers more resistance than if the object were at rest or moves in the same direction.  In other words, the resistance of the object is increased by the movement of its weight.  For example, when playing stickball, the hitter wants the ball thrown towards them, allowing them to impress more force upon it since its resistance is greater, while it’s more difficult to impress a force when the ball is still, and even more difficult when the ball is moving away from the hitter.  The same may be said when throwing a stone in which we must draw our hand back initially for the throw, and the same is said when a stone is shot by a slinger.

Under these observations, Galileo argues that, when firing a cannon, the iron ball offers more resistance in its motion when the cannon is aimed more vertically than horizontally, and thus fires straighter for a longer distance and time.  Also, when the cannon fired is fired vertically, the ball cannot reverse course until its impressed force is depleted (this contradicts what is said in Chapter 19 where the impressed force is believed to be equal to the weight at the apex), but this does not happen when fired horizontally.

See also
 Two New Sciences (Galileo's first published investigations of the motion of falling bodies)

References

External links
 Collection of Galileo Galilei's Manuscripts and Related Translations

Books by Galileo Galilei
Historical physics publications
17th-century Latin books


title: Open Public Records Act

text:
The New Jersey Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. (P.L. 2001, c. 404), commonly abbreviated OPRA, is a statute that provides a right to the public to access certain public records in the State of New Jersey, as well as the process by which that right may be exercised. In general, OPRA provides that "government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this State, with certain exceptions, for the protection of the public interest." OPRA may be viewed as New Jersey's equivalent to the United States federal Freedom of Information Act.

Law
OPRA has multiple features to it:

 A request for public information must be completed, signed, and given to the keeper of the record that is requested.  For requests to the State of New Jersey, OPRA requests for most information can be submitted online.  A few other public agencies in New Jersey have online OPRA portals.
 Public contracts are considered “immediate access” records
 A request will not be considered as under the OPRA if:
 The request for a record is sent to the wrong person.  However, that person who receives the request must either redirect the request to the appropriate person or advise the requestor regarding who is the appropriate person.
 The request does not state that it is being made pursuant to OPRA.
 The request is not made in writing.
 Fees for requesting information must be paid, unless you are exempt from paying the fee or the fee is unlawful.
 Convicted criminals in New Jersey or anywhere else in the United States will not have access to public records if the records requested relate to the victim.
 A request for information must be responded to within 7 business days after the request is received.
 A request can be denied if the request would disrupt current operations of an agency and if the record keeper cannot reach a solution with the person requesting the documents.
 A record keeper must tell the person requesting information why the record cannot be released.
 Failure of a record keeper to respond to a request within 7 business days is considered a denial of the request.
 If a request is denied, the person requesting the information can appeal the denial to the Government Records Council (GRC) of the Department of Community Affairs, or to New Jersey Superior Court.  While there is no deadline to submit a complaint to the GRC, a complaint submitted to Superior Court must be filed within 45 days (calendar days, not business days) after the denial of access.
 Information provided on a request form can be disclosed under the Open Public Records Act.

Controversies

During the eight years of the Chris Christie administration, his office spent more than $1 million challenging OPRA requests, including court fees for illegally withholding information.

Although the Government Records Council is charged with settling OPRA release disputes, the underfunded and understaffed agency has a backlog of requests dating to 2014. In late March 2018, an estimated 10% remained outstanding, including some assigned to other government entities, but 347 flagged as GRC “work in progress”. One woman's official open records complaint took more than two years to resolve. What was supposed to be a more efficient means of challenging denied requests is characterized as an even more onerous system; one open records advocate described the situation as "justice delayed… justice denied".

In January 2018, outgoing Governor Chris Christie pre-emptively restricted the State Archives' release of his administration's public records, particularly electronic records. This came to light a few months later, in May 2018, when access to records between the Christie administration and the Kushner Companies, previously run by the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was blocked by Christie's lawyer. Concerned open records advocates challenged Christie's action as contrary to the purpose of OPRA, which designates the State Archives as neutral public arbiter of records.

See also
 Freedom of Information Act (United States), approximately equivalent federal legislation
 Freedom of information in the United States

References

External links
 OPRA requests
 OPRAmachine:  Link

New Jersey statutes
Freedom of information legislation in the United States
2001 in law


title: Endeavour II (barque)

text:
Endeavour II was a three-masted auxiliary barque built in Vancouver in 1968 and originally named Monte Cristo. She was built along the lines of the brigantine Albatross as published in Uffa Fox's Second Book of Boats.

In late February 1971 she was embayed during a full gale and, after attempting to beat her way out for several days, on 22 February was driven onto the bar of Parengarenga Harbour, a few miles south of North Cape, New Zealand, and wrecked.

Construction
Her hull was constructed of mahogany planking on heavy fir frames with spars of Sitka spruce. Her three-sectioned mainmast rose  from deck to truck. Her deck measured  which bowsprit and jibboom extended to almost  length overall.

She was rigged as a three-masted barque with square sails on the mainmast and foremast, a gaff rigged fore and aft spanker on the mizzenmast, four jibs and a variety of staysails for a maximum of seventeen sails set totalling . The sails were controlled by around  of running and standing rigging, all of natural manila rope and galvanised wire. There were no mechanical winches, all hauling being by block and tackle and man power.

The auxiliary engine was a GMC Jimmy 6-71 diesel. The only electronic aid to navigation was a marine VHF radio.

Ownership
Originally owned and built by a consortium of business men (Fred Kolowrat, Frank Perner, Alex Brigola) keen to recreate the great days of sail she quickly became the sole property of Ron Craig, a Canadian businessman.

Voyages
Initially, as Monte Cristo, she worked her way down the western seaboard of the United States giving costumed on-board tours to paying visitors at each port of call. On 22 July 1969 she had to be towed into Port Townsend, Washington in thick fog after suffering engine trouble.  She had a number of movie roles and on 9 November was briefly involved in the occupation of Alcatraz.

After being renamed Endeavour II, she sailed across the Pacific to Sydney to take part in the bicentenary re-enactment on 29 April 1970 of James Cook's landing at Botany Bay, Sydney.  She subsequently cruised up the eastern seaboard of Australia to Brisbane, giving costumed on-board tours to paying visitors at each port of call, and then sailed for Auckland, New Zealand, under American skipper Jeff Berry.

This proved to be her final voyage and she encountered a number of delays.  Soon after sailing she was becalmed and carried southwards by a freak seventy-mile-a-day current. In the Tasman Sea the crew sighted distress flares and searched for over twelve hours without success; the consequent depletion of fuel reserves was to prove crucial later. On rounding North Cape she encountered a full gale and failed to make the intended Houhora Harbour.

Wreck
After rounding North Cape, New Zealand, Endeavour II found it impossible to keep position in 40-knot easterly winds when fuel ran out, and she tried to anchor.  Her anchors dragged and she was driven onto the bar of Parengarenga Harbour, a few miles south of North Cape, in the early hours of 22 February 1971. By 1pm she had settled on her side and began to break up. The crew of thirteen men and one woman reached the shore without loss.

She was the first square-rigged sailing vessel wrecked on the New Zealand coast for more than fifty years. Her masts are preserved, fitted to the converted sugar barge Tui in Paihia.

References

Barques
1968 ships
Maritime incidents in 1971
Shipwrecks of the Northland Region
Ships built in Vancouver
Sailing ships of Canada
Tall ships of Canada
1971 in New Zealand
Lost sailing vessels


title: Mantura chrysanthemi

text:
Mantura chrysanthemi is a species of Chrysomelidae family, that is common across the Palearctic realm from Ireland, England, Turkey west to the Carpathians, and also in Algeria and Morocco.

References

Beetles described in 1803
Alticini
Taxa named by Wilhelm Daniel Joseph Koch


title: Lythraria salicariae

text:
Lythraria salicariae (loosestrife flea beetle) is a species of Chrysomelidae family, that is common in the Palaearctic realm east to Korea.

References

Alticini
Beetles described in 1800


title: Mniophila muscorum

text:
Mniophila muscorum is a species of Chrysomelid in the sub-family Galerucinae, that can be found nearly everywhere in Southern Northern Europe , Central Europe and East Europe and also in Italy it is not recorded in Turkey or the Caucasus
and it is doubtfully recorded in Spain

References

Beetles described in 1803
Alticini
Taxa named by Wilhelm Daniel Joseph Koch


title: Mantura obtusata

text:
Mantura obtusata is a species of Chrysomelidae family, that can be found nearly everywhere in Europe.

References

Beetles described in 1813
Alticini


title: Mantura matthewsii

text:
Mantura matthewsii is a species of Chrysomelidae family, that is common in Slovakia, Turkey.

References

Beetles described in 1833
Alticini


title: Mantura rustica

text:
Mantura rustica is a species of Chrysomelidae family.

References

Beetles described in 1767
Alticini
Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus


title: Y.R.N. (Young Rich Niggas)

text:
Y.R.N. (Young Rich Niggas) is the third mixtape by American hip hop group Migos. It was released on June 13, 2013. The album features notable guest appearances from rappers Gucci Mane, Trinidad James, Riff Raff and Soulja Boy. This mixtape is notable for the single "Versace", the single reached number 99 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, number 31 on the US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, number 23 on the US Hot Rap Songs chart and number 11 on the US Top Heatseekers chart. "Versace" was placed in multiple year-end lists of 2013. Diplo included it in his 2013 round-up set on BBC Radio 1. XXL named it one of the top five hip hop songs of 2013. The official music video, directed by Gabriel Hart, was released on September 30, 2013. It shows Migos and Zaytoven at a luxurious mansion, wearing Versace clothes and accessories. The video also features a snippet of Migos second single off the mixtape "Hannah Montana". As of April 2021, it has gained over 36 million views on YouTube. Y.R.N. later reached number 74 on the US Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, their first mixtape to do so on the Billboard charts. The mixtape was premiered on LiveMixtapes.com, on 06/13/2013 and has over 7 million views and 500,000 downloads.  Offset only appears on some of the tracks, he was incarcerated in 2013 when Y.R.N. (Young Rich Niggas) came out.

Critical reception

Y.R.N. received favorable reviews from critics and was ranked as the third best mixtape of 2013 by Rolling Stone.

Track listing

Charts

References

2013 mixtape albums
Albums produced by Zaytoven
Migos albums
Quality Control Music mixtape albums


title: Batophila aerata

text:
Batophila aerata is a species of Chrysomelidae family, that is common in South England, France, Corsica, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Greece, Spain, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia. That can be found in islands such as Sardinia and Sicily.

References

Beetles described in 1802
Alticini
Beetles of Europe
Taxa named by Thomas Marsham


title: Dibolia cynoglossi

text:
Dibolia cynoglossi is a species of leaf beetle (Chrysomelidae family) that can be found nearly everywhere in Europe.

References

Beetles described in 1803
Alticini
Beetles of Europe
Taxa named by Wilhelm Daniel Joseph Koch


title: Hippuriphila modeeri

text:
Hippuriphila modeeri is a species of flea beetle in the family Chrysomelidae, found in both the Nearctic and Palearctic.

References

Beetles described in 1761
Alticini
Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus


title: Altica ericeti

text:
Altica ericeti (Altica sandini) is a species of leaf beetles in the family Chrysomelidae. It can be found in the Iberian Peninsula, France, England, West Germany, Netherlands, Morocco.

References

Beetles described in 1859
Alticini
Beetles of Europe


title: Hans Hateboer

text:
Hans Hateboer (born 9 January 1994) is a Dutch professional footballer who plays as a right-back for  club Atalanta and the Netherlands national team.

A Groningen youth product, Hateboer spent three-and-a-half Eredivisie seasons with the club before joining Italian club Atalanta in 2017. In February 2020, he scored the first goal in a UEFA Champions League knockout-phase match for the club.

Club career

Groningen
A product of the Groningen academy, Hateboer made his professional debut on 18 January 2014 in a match against RKC Waalwijk. During the match, which ended in a 1–1 draw, he made an assist and was later sent off. On 19 February 2014, Hateboer signed a three-year contract extension, which entered into force retroactively on 1 February 2014. In the final of the play-offs for European football, he scored a decisive goal against AZ. During the 2013–14 season, he had developed from an amateur player from the youth teams to a starting caliber player in the Groningen team. The following season, 2014–15, Hateboer was part of the team that won its first major trophy, the KNVB Cup which qualified the team for the UEFA Europa League.

In the final year of his deal, Hateboer made it clear that his intention was to leave on a Bosman at the end of the season, which meant that Groningen sold him to Atalanta in the January transfer window rather than lose him for nothing in the summer. When he left Groningen in January 2017 Hateboer had been credited with the most assists for a defender in the Eredivisie that season.

Atalanta
Having arrived in the middle of an unusually successful season for Atalanta, Hateboer was initially a substitute for Andrea Conti, a starting line-up player in the right wingback position of a 3–4–3 formation. Hateboer made his debut for Atalanta on 19 March 2017, during a 3–0 league win at home over Pescara in which he made an assist. In the 2017–18 season, after Conti transferred to Milan in the summer, he established himself as a regular starter for the team, and also played in the Europa League for the second time in his career. The following season was even more successful season for Hateboer, as he appeared in all matches in the Serie A and scored five goals in the competition. It was also a strong season for Atalanta, as the club finished third in the league and qualified for the UEFA Champions League for the first time in club history.

In 2019–20, Hateboer made his debut in the Champions League in a 4–0 loss to Dinamo Zagreb. On 19 February 2020, he scored his first goal in the competition, which was followed by his second, in a 4–1 win over Valencia in the round of 16. His first goal of the match was also the first goal of Atalanta in the knock-out phase of the Champions League.

In August 2021, Hateboer suffered a foot injury during practice, ruling him out for several months. He made his return to the pitch on 30 November as a starter in a 4–0 win in the domestic league over Venezia.

International career
In March 2018, Hateboer earned his first call up to the Netherlands national team for friendlies against England and Portugal. It was the first squad chosen by newly appointed manager Ronald Koeman.

Hateboer made his full international debut starting the international friendly against England on 23 March 2018 at the Amsterdam
arena. He then made his first appearance for the Netherlands in almost three years against Poland in a home 1–0 win in the UEFA Nations League on 4 September 2020. He delivered an impressive performance, including an assist for Bergwijn's winning goal.

Style of play
A right-back with a remarkable physique and pace, Hateboer has also occasionally been employed as a centre-back. While in Italy, he gained the nickname cavallo pazzo meaning "mad horse", due to his work rate and untiring runs.

Career statistics

Club

International

Honours
Groningen
KNVB Cup: 2014–15

References

External links

Profile at the Atalanta B.C. website
Netherlands Profile at OnsOranje

1994 births
Living people
People from Oldambt (municipality)
Dutch men's footballers
Men's association football fullbacks
Netherlands men's international footballers
Netherlands men's under-21 international footballers
Netherlands men's youth international footballers
Eredivisie players
Serie A players
SC Veendam players
FC Groningen players
Atalanta BC players
Dutch expatriate men's footballers
Dutch expatriate sportspeople in Italy
Expatriate men's footballers in Italy
Footballers from Groningen (province)


title: 2013 Asian Junior Badminton Championships – Mixed doubles

text:
The Mixed Doubles tournament of the 2013 Asian Junior Badminton Championships was held from July 10–14 in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. The defending champion of in this event were Choi Sol-kyu and Chae Yoo-jung of South Korea. Choi and Chae successfully claim the title back to back after beating Chinese pair, the second seeded Liu Yuchen and Huang Dongping in the finals with the score 21–11, 19–21, 21–13.

Seeded

  Choi Sol-kyu / Chae Yoo-jung (champion)
  Liu Yuchen / Huang Dongping (final)
  Huang Kaixiang / Chen Qingchen (semi-final)
  Tang Chun Man / Ng Wing Yung (quarter-final)
  Dechapol Puavaranukroh / Puttita Supajirakul (quarter-final)
  Kim Jung-ho / Kim Ji-won (semi-final)
  Chua Khek Wei / Yap Cheng Wen (quarter-final)
  Darren Isaac Devadass / Joyce Choong Wai Chi (second round)

Draw

Finals

Top Half

Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

Section 4

Bottom Half

Section 5

Section 6

Section 7

Section 8

References

External links
Main Draw (Archived 2013-07-13)

Mixed
Asia Junior


title: Tachys micros

text:
Tachys micros is a species of ground beetle in the Trechinae subfamily.

References

Beetles described in 1828
Trechinae


title: Tachys bistriatus

text:
Tachys bistriatus is a species of ground beetle in the Trechinae subfamily.

References

Beetles described in 1812
Trechinae


title: Trechus subnotatus

text:
Trechus subnotatus is a species of ground beetle in the Trechinae subfamily.

Description
Beetle in length from .

References

Beetles described in 1831
subnotatus


title: Trechus fulvus

text:
Trechus fulvus is a species of ground beetle in the Trechinae subfamily.

Description
Beetle in length from . The upper body is yellowish-black. That is common from southwest Norway to British Isles. That can be found in Ireland's Carnlough, Antrim area.

Ecology
Trechus fulvus lives under stones in rocky seaside environment.

References

Beetles described in 1831
fulvus


title: Epaphius rubens

text:
Epaphius rubens is a species of beetle in the family Carabidae.

Description
Beetle in length from . The upper body is reddish brown. That is common from eastern North America to Europe, Siberia.

Ecology
Epaphius rubens lives under stones in rocky seaside environment.

References

Beetles described in 1792


title: Tachys obtusiusculus

text:
Tachys obtusiusculus is a species of ground beetle in the Trechinae subfamily.

References

Beetles described in 1828
Trechinae


title: Wolfhurst, Ohio

text:
Wolfhurst is a census-designated place (CDP) in Belmont County, Ohio, United States. It is part of the Wheeling, West Virginia Metropolitan Statistical Area. The population was 1,119 at the 2020 census.

Geography
Wolfhurst is located in eastern Belmont County at  (40.028736, -80.815811), in the valley of Wheeling Creek. It is bordered to the northwest by Lansing, and the village of Brookside is  to the east. U.S. Route 40, the National Road, passes through the center of Wolfhurst, leading east  to downtown Wheeling, West Virginia.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the Wolfhurst CDP has a total area of , of which , or 3.38%, is water.

Demographics

References

Census-designated places in Belmont County, Ohio


title: Trechoblemus micros

text:
Trechoblemus micros is a species of ground beetle in the Trechinae subfamily from insecta class .

Description
Beetle in length 4 mm. The upper body is reddish brown.

References

Beetles described in 1784
micros


title: Drypta dentata

text:
Drypta dentata is a species of ground beetle in the genus Drypta.

References

Beetles described in 1790
Dryptinae


title: Asllan Curri

text:
Asllan Curri (?-1925) was a member of the kachak movement in early 20th century in Kosovo and North Albania.

Asllan Curri was the nephew of Bajram Curri, a prominent kachak leader from the Highlands of Djakovica, part of the Krasniqi tribe. Curri was sent by Bajram Curri to the Normal School of Elbasan (today's Aleksandër Xhuvani University) together with other 50 Kosovar fellows.
He was member and main activist of the Committee for the National Defence of Kosovo with headquarters in Shkoder. He would serve as Bajram Curri's right hand.
In late April 1925, he was captured by the gendarmes of Ceno Kryeziu, brother-in-law and trusted man of Ahmet Zogu, who from his side was a sworn enemy of the Kosovar irredentist and the Committee of Kosovo. During his transfer to the prison, Kryeziu's man executed him with the pretext of having tried to escape, as it was a common practice for him. This was confirmed by the La Feeration Balkanique, published by the Balkan Federation of 30 April 1925.

See also
Hysni Curri
Azem Galica

References

1925 deaths
20th-century Albanian military personnel
Albanian rebels
University of Elbasan alumni
Kosovo Albanians
Military personnel from Gjakova
Year of birth missing


title: Kibunea minuta

text:
Kibunea minuta is a species of beetle in the family Elateridae and the genus Kibunea.

References

External links
Information and Images of Kibunea minuta

Beetles described in 1758
Elateridae
Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus


title: Athous vittatus

text:
Athous vittatus is a species of beetle in the family Elateridae and the genus Athous.

Description
Athous vittatus can reach a length of about . The body is slightly hairy. Pronotum is generally dark brown, while elytra are usually chestnut or reddish brown with dark brown longitudinal stripes in the middle and in the outer edges. Also the legs have a light brown colour.

This species is closely related and similar to Athous haemorrhoidalis.

Biology
Larvae develop in the soil feeding on the roots of various herbaceous plants. They pupate from late May until early June. Adults are associated with a wide range of broadleaved trees, especially Beech (Fagus sylvatica), Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), Oak (Quercus spp.), Walnut (Juglans regia) and Alder trees (Alnus glutinosa).

Distribution and habitat
This species is present in most of Europe and in the Near East.  It is widespread and common in England.

 It especially occurs in mixed and broadleaved woodlands. It can be found in plain and lowlands and in highlands, at an elevation of  above sea level, but in the Alps it can reach above 1200 m.

References

Beetles described in 1793
Dendrometrinae


title: Athous subfuscus

text:
Athous subfuscus is a species of beetles in the family Elateridae and the genus Athous.

Description
Beetle in length .

References

External links
Information and Images of Athous subfuscus

Beetles described in 1764
Dendrometrinae
Taxa named by Otto Friedrich Müller


title: Athous campyloides

text:
Athous campyloides is a species of beetle in the family Elateridae and the genus Athous.

Description
Length: .

References

External links
Information and Images of Athous campyloides

Beetles described in 1833
Taxa named by Edward Newman
Dendrometrinae


title: Ampedus balteatus

text:
Ampedus balteatus is a species of beetle from the family Elateridae and the genus Ampedus.

Description
Beetle in length 7-10mm.

References

Beetles described in 1758
Elateridae
Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus


title: Agriotes sordidus

text:
Agriotes sordidus is a species of beetle in the family Elateridae and the genus Agriotes.

Description
Beetle in length 8-9mm.

References

External links
Information and Images of Agriotes sordidus

Beetles described in 1807
Elateridae


title: Osborne PC prototype

text:
The Osborne PC prototype was a failed prototype personal computer developed in 1983 by Osborne Computer Corporation.

History
In the early summer of 1983 an effort was launched to produce a version of the Osborne Executive that would be compatible with the IBM PC. Although venture partners had contributed $9 million of funding in April and another $11 million in June, Osborne was unable to raise an additional $20 million considered necessary to get the IBM-compatible product to market. A "tiger team" was formed, primarily to create a prototype DOS compatible printed circuit board and front bezel to accommodate the changes in connectors. The design used many of the parts of the Executive, including the disc drives, display, chassis, power supply and keyboard. It was completed in six weeks and shown to a number of potential investors, but was unable to generate sufficient interest to save the company from bankruptcy.

Production shutdown
On 2 August, the New Jersey plant was shut down and 89 workers were laid off. A few days later 200 workers were let go from the Hayward, CA, facility. In early September, banks seized the company's accounts receivable. On 9 September an additional 270 more workers were fired and all production ceased, leaving 80 employees on the California payroll. Three days later, on 12 September, Porter Hurt filed suit for $4.5 million owed his firms for PC boards. On 13 September 1983, OCC filed for Chapter 11 protection in Oakland, CA, federal bankruptcy court, listing assets of $40 million, liabilities of $45 million, and 600 creditors.

References

Portable computers
IBM PC compatibles
Prototypes


title: Damaso Munoz

text:
Damaso Munoz (born July 10, 1986) is a retired American gridiron football linebacker. He played college football for Rutgers. After spending 2010 training camp with the Chicago Bears,he played for the Edmonton Eskimos of the Canadian Football League from 2011 to 2013. He signed with the Buccaneers on February 19, 2014. He signed with the Ottawa Redblacks  on September 15, 2014.

Playing career
After his college career at Rutgers, Muñoz had a tryout with the Chicago Bears as an undrafted free agent in 2010. He never got a contract, so he went north to the CFL. He played six seasons in the Canadian Football League, playing with the Edmonton Eskimos and Ottawa Redblacks. In between his time with the Eskimos and the Redblacks, he went back to the NFL playing for Tampa Bay in training camp, however once again he didn’t make the roster. He served a captain for the Redblacks in 2016 and in 2015 earned the team’s defensive player of the year.

References

External links
Tampa Bay Buccaneers bio
Ottawa Redblacks bio

1986 births
Living people
American football linebackers
Canadian football linebackers
Edmonton Elks players
Ottawa Redblacks players
Players of American football from Miami
Rutgers Scarlet Knights football players
Rutgers Scarlet Knights football coaches
Tampa Bay Buccaneers players
Players of American football from New York (state)
Sports coaches from Miami
Players of Canadian football from Miami


title: Adrastus rachifer

text:
Adrastus rachifer is a species of beetle in the family Elateridae and the genus Adrastus.

Description
The beetle is typically 3 – 4 mm in length and is in darker color with oranges or yellow highlights, especially along their legs and antennae. They feed on tree foliage and their imago stage typically emerges in June or July. While generally found in mainland Europe they have been observed living in the coastal regions of Kent.

References

External links
Information and Images of Adrastus rachifer

Beetles described in 1785
Elateridae


title: Agriotes lineatus

text:
Agriotes lineatus is a species of beetle in the genus of Agriotes from the family of Elateridae. It is commonly known as the lined click beetle.

Description
Beetle in length . Agriotes lineatus upperbody is mid-brown color. Not so frequent in Scotland, that is more common in England, Wales.
This species pronotum and elytra look rounded. Mostly the insect's parts lighter than its legs and antennae. The insect's head and pronotum are much shorter than its antennae.

References

External links
Information and Images of Agriotes lineatus

Elateridae
Beetles of Europe
Beetles described in 1767
Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus


title: Agriotes pallidulus

text:
Agriotes pallidulus is a species of beetle in the family Elateridae and the genus Agriotes.

Description
Beetle in length 4-6mm. That has yellow/orange – dark orange colors. That has dark head, sometimes its pronotum color is orange. The species legs and antennaes are yellow, orange.

References

External links
Information and Images of Agriotes pallidulus

Beetles described in 1807
Elateridae


title: J. F. Besseling

text:
Johannes Ferdinand "Hans" Besseling (10 March 1928 – 9 May 2015) was professor emeritus of Engineering Mechanics at the Delft University of Technology, worked in the field of the application of solid mechanics to the analysis of structures; constitutive equations for the mathematical description of material behaviour. His specialities are finite element methods, continuum thermodynamics, creep and plasticity of metals.

Research
Research field:
Finite element methods for the analysis of linear and nonlinear mechanical systems, static as well as dynamic behaviour.
Development of thermo mechanical constitutive equations for the mathematical description of the deformation  behaviour of metals and rubber (theory and experiments).

Professional results:
1953: Constitutive equations for creep and plasticity on the basis of a "fraction model".
1957: Two reaction theory for induction motors.
1964: Discretization method with dual vector spaces for forces velocities and for stresses deformations.
1966: Natural reference state theory for large inelastic deformation.
1975: Finite beamelements for arbitrarily large displacements and rotations.
1979: Structural analysis in terms of linear algebra.
1986: "Work" continuation method for problems with limit points.
1990: Axially symmetric shellelement for arbitrarily large rotations.

Honors and awards
1974: Doctor Honoris Causa of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
1993: Festschrift on the occasion of the 65th birthday of Johannes Ferdinand Besseling, Edited by J.Argyris and E.van der Giessen, Special Issue of Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Volume 103, Nos. 1–2, pp. 1–346.
1994: Honorary member of the General Council of the International Association for Computational Mechanics since August 1994.

Publications
Characteristic publications with J. F.Besseling as single author:
1956: Application of matrix calculus in adjusting stiffness and vibration properties of redundant structures, Proc. of the 9th Int. Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Brussel.
1957: Sterkte- en trillingsberekeningen voor de transsone windtunnel van het NLL met behulp van elektronische rekenmachines, De Ingenieur, Jaarg. 69,No.42, Oct. 1957, pp L17–L23.
1957: An Investigation on the damping of the torsional vibrations in synchronous alternators and induction motors, Rep. ST-14, NLL, 1957.
1958: A theory of elastic, plastic and creep deformations of an initially isotropic material, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 25, No.4, Dec. 1958.
1960: Thermodynamic foundations of the theory of deformation, Proc. Durand Centennial Conference on Aeronautics and Astronautics, Pergamon Press Ltd., 1960.
1963: The complete analogy between the matrix equations and the continuous field equations of structural analysis,Proc.Int.Symposium on Analogue and Digital Techniques applied to Aeronautics, Luik, September 1963.
1965: Matrix Analysis of Creep and Plasticity Problems, Proc. Conf. on Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics, Dayton Ohio, AFFDL-TR-66-80, okt. 1965.
1966: A Thermodynamic Approach to Rheology, IUTAM Symp. on Irreversible Aspects in Continuum Mechanics, Springer, June 1966, pp. 16–53.
1974: Plasticity and creep theory in engineering mechanics, Topics in applied continuum mechanics, pp. 28–63, Ed. by J.L.Zeman and F.Ziegler,Springer Verlag.

International activities
J. F. Besseling's international activities:
1966: Founding member of "Euromech" Committee (with G.K.Batchelor(UK), D. Kuchemann (UK), K.Wille (W-Germany).
1966–1992: "Euromech" correspondent.
1967–1968: Chair "Henri Speciael", Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Faculte des Sciences Applique.
1968–1993: Advisory Editor of the International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering.
1970–1993: Advisory Editor of the Journal Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.
1980–1992: Representative of the Netherlands in the General Assembly of the International Union for Theoretical and Applied Mechanics.
1976: Member of the Local Organizing Committee of the 14th Int. Congress of Theor. and Appl. Mechanics in Delft.
1981–2000: Member of the Editorial Board of the Journal "Archive of Appl. Mech., Ingenieur-Archiv".
1987: Co chairman of the 7th Symposium on Trends in Applications of Mathematics to Mechanics of the International Society for the Interaction of Mechanics and Mathematics.

Memberships
Membership professional societies and offices held:
1960–2000: Member of the Royal Institute for Engineers
1962–1968:  Chairman sub section for Engineering Mechanics of the Applied Scientific Research Section TWO
1959–2013: Member of the Sigma Xi Society (The Scientific Research Society)
1978–today: Member of the International Society for the Interaction of Mechanics and Mathematics
1982–today: Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
1985–today: Member of the Koninklijke Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen
1985: Founding member of the Council of the International Association for Computational Mechanics

References

External links
 www.thermomechanics.info J. F. Besseling’s concise summary of mechanics and continuum thermodynamics

1928 births
2015 deaths
20th-century Dutch mathematicians
Delft University of Technology alumni
Academic staff of the Delft University of Technology
Dutch aerospace engineers
Members of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
People from Enschede
Stanford University alumni


title: Derek Famulare

text:
Derek Famulare (born December 22, 1989) is a Canadian professional ice hockey player. He most recently played for Laval Prédateurs of the LNAH. He previously played for HC TPS of the Liiga. Famulare was born to a Finnish mother and a Canadian father, and also holds a Finnish citizenship.

Famulare played junior hockey for the Chicoutimi Saguenéens, Val-d'Or Foreurs, Acadie-Bathurst Titan and Prince Edward Island Rocket from 2006 until 2010. Famulare attended Concordia University for one year, then turned professional in Europe with TUTO Hockey of the Mestis league in Finland. Famulare made his Liiga debut playing with HC TPS during the 2013–14 Liiga season. He returned to Canada to join the Cornwall River Kings of the LNAH in 2014. He signed with the Laval Prédateurs in 2015, but only played one game.

References

External links

1989 births
Living people
Acadie–Bathurst Titan players
Canadian ice hockey forwards
Chicoutimi Saguenéens (QMJHL) players
HC TPS players
Val-d'Or Foreurs players
P.E.I. Rocket players
Ice hockey people from Montreal
Canadian people of Finnish descent
Canadian expatriate ice hockey players in Finland
Finnish people of Canadian descent


title: Anthony Morris Storer

text:
Anthony Morris Storer (1746–1799) was an English man of fashion, politician and collector.

Life
Born on 12 March 1746, Anthony Morris Storer was elder son of Thomas Storer of Westmoreland, Jamaica (d. Golden Square, London, on 21 July 1793, aged 76), who married Helen, daughter of Colonel Guthrie. He was at Eton College from about 1760 to 1764 with Charles James Fox and Earl Fitzwilliam. He was admitted a fellow-commoner of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge in December 1764, but left without taking a degree.

Storer became a prominent figure of London's social world. Through patronage, he was both a man of fashion, and a Whig politician. During 1778 and 1779 he was in America with Frederick Howard, 5th Earl of Carlisle and William Eden. He visited Carlisle in Ireland in 1781, and, through his interest, succeeded Benjamin L'Anglois as a commissioner of the Board of Trade on 26 July 1781. Meanwhile, he sat in the House of Commons as Member for  from 1774 to 1780, and subsequently—from 1780 to 1784—for .

Much of Storer's time was passed with the family of Lord North, and in August 1782 he was a channel of communication between North and Fox. He enlisted in the Fox–North Coalition; and in September 1783, to the indignation of Edward Gibbon, who also aspired to the post, he was sent by Fox to Paris as secretary of the legation. On 13 December 1783, when the ambassador, the Duke of Manchester, came home, Storer was nominated as minister plenipotentiary. Six days later his friends were ejected from office. Storer's connection with politics then ceased. He had by that time quarrelled with Carlisle, and so did not seek re-election for Carlisle's borough of Morpeth after the dissolution of 1784.

In 1786 he was reading the Latin and Greek writers with Edward Harwood, who used Storer's library. He was desirous in December 1787 of entering the diplomatic service, and in April 1793 he languished for employment; but his father's death in the same year brought him a fortune. He purchased Purley Park, between Pangbourne and Reading and, with the advice of Humphrey Repton, improved and ornamented the grounds. His health was bad, however; he had been very ill in the winter of 1787–8, and he did not live to complete the house for the estate. But the mansion was erected after his death from the designs of Wyatt.  Repton left a rather unflattering description of his dealings with Storer in his personal journal  published in Project Purley Vol 45 September 1997

Collection and Extra-illustration

According to Horace Walpole, Storer began collecting books and prints in 1781, acerbically adding that Storer, as a man of fashion, was "a macaroni turned antiquary." Although Storer complained of the "burden of having nothing to do" in 1787, having been three years out of Parliament, he was busy developing his library and print collection. In addition to early bindings, Storer collected Caxtons and other black-letter books, Greek and Latin classics, Italian literature and early English plays including the first three folios of Shakespeare. His interest in topography and extra-illustration is shown by a letter from Thomas Pennant who wrote to Storer in 1782 saying that he wished "to contribute to his [Storer's] amusements in his private hours."

Storer left his complete library to Eton College in 1799. His collection of prints and extra-illustrated books also went to Eton, the extra-illustrated works being stored in a specially designed press brought from his Devonshire Street residence and installed in the College library to house the bequest. Despite the riches of Storer's library – 87 books extra-illustrated by Storer in 143 volumes – the only title named in his will is James Granger's Biographical History of England.

Death and legacy
Storer died at Bristol Hotwells on 28 June 1799, and was buried at Purley, a monument by Nollekens, with a Latin inscription, being erected to his memory in Purley church. Storer was elected Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London on 11 December 1777, and became a member of the Dilettanti Society on 18 April 1790.

Storer's fortune was left to his nephew, Anthony Gilbert Storer, the only son of his brother Thomas James Storer, who had married the Hon. Elizabeth Proby, daughter of John Proby, 1st Baron Carysfort. The only other legacy was the sum of £1,000 to James Hare.

Letters by Storer are printed in John Heneage Jesse's George Selwyn and his Contemporaries, vols. iii. and iv., and in the Correspondence of William Eden, Lord Auckland.

Notes

Attribution

1746 births
1799 deaths
People educated at Eton College
Alumni of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
British diplomats
Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies
British MPs 1774–1780
British MPs 1780–1784
Deputy Lieutenants of Berkshire
Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries of London
Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Carlisle


title: Bavarian Autosport

text:
Bavarian Autosport was the trade name of Bavarian Auto Service, Inc., an award-winning mail-order and internet retailer of replacement parts, upgrades and accessories for BMW and MINI automobiles. It had one retail store at its headquarters in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Bavarian Auto Service was founded in 1973 as an automotive service center specializing in the repair and modification of BMW automobiles. Its first location was in Stratham, New Hampshire. In 1977 it moved to Newmarket, New Hampshire. In addition to repair services, the company began to offer an inventory of new and used parts that BMW enthusiasts in the northeastern United States could purchase to do their own repairs and modifications. In the late 1970s, it began to advertise its BMW parts and accessories throughout North America. In 1983 it produced its first catalog. In 1996 the company moved to Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where it had built a three-story warehouse. That same year it began operating under the name Bavarian Autosport.

The company's website was launched in 1996. It became an e-commerce site in 2001. When BMW launched the new MINI in 2002, the company began offering parts and accessories for MINIs as well. In 2003, the company launched a quarterly newsletter that contains step-by-step do-it-yourself repairs, in-depth product features and a technical Q&A with “Bavarian Otto”, a cartoon character developed to make automotive repairs and maintenance seem less intimidating. In 2008, the company started posting many of these Q&A online at blog.BavAuto.com, a searchable, online knowledgebase that now contains more than 1,000 Q&A and dozens of D.I.Y. videos.
As of 2016, Bavarian Autosport was still owned and operated by the three friends who founded the company.

Closure
On March 8, 2019, Bavarian Autosport announced via its Facebook page that after 45 years in business, they would be closing their doors.

References

External links
 Europeancarweb.com

Auto parts suppliers of the United States
Companies based in New Hampshire


title: James Madalena

text:
James Roger Madalena, Sr. (Jemez Pueblo, born October 31, 1948) is an American politician who served as a Democratic member of the New Mexico House of Representatives, representing District 65, from January 1985 to January 2017.

Education
Madalena earned his BA from Eastern New Mexico University.

Career
After serving in the New Mexico House of Representatives for over 30 years, Madelena was succeeded in 2016 by attorney and businessman Derrick J. Lente. Madelena ran for his old seat in the 2020 election  but he lost in the primary 69% to 31%.

References

External links
Official page at the New Mexico Legislature

James Roger Madalena, Jr., Ballotpedia
James Roger Madalena at OpenSecrets

1948 births
Living people
Eastern New Mexico University alumni
Democratic Party members of the New Mexico House of Representatives
Native American state legislators in New Mexico
People from Sandoval County, New Mexico
21st-century American politicians


title: Sijiu

text:
Sijiu is a town in the southwest Guangdong Province in Southern China. It is under the administration of Taishan County in Jiangmen Prefecture. As of 2014, the population included about 50,000 "foreigners", mainly from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. About 50 "foreign" businesses are established here, including 20 Taiwanese enterprises involved in light manufacturing located along what is known locally as the "Taiwanese Merchant Street".

Name
Sijiu is the atonal pinyin romanization of the Standard Mandarin pronunciation Sījiù of the Chinese name , meaning "4-9" or "4th-&-9th", from locals' previous custom of gathering for trade in the town on the 4th and 9th days of the months of the traditional lunisolar calendar. The same name was previously written Ssu-chiu in Wade-Giles romanization and is written as Sei³ Gau² in the Jyutping romanization of its Cantonese pronunciation.

References

Citations

Bibliography
 .

Taishan, Guangdong
Towns in Guangdong