Daily Archives: June 16, 2016

Web Design & Mobile App Developer San Francisco CA | HIGH SEAS

Posted: June 16, 2016 at 5:52 pm

An always evolving San Francisco web design company comprised of a nimble team of creative innovators, we work at the vanguard of digital technology in the Bay Area and far beyond. Our clients come from all over the world and many different sectors, but they all have one thing in common: the need for a better customer experience.

With an unwavering commitment to creating that excellent experience for the client and their audience, we solve complex database challenges with precise technology solutions built behind elegant user interfaces. At a time when more people are getting online through mobile devices than PCs, a large part of our focus is on mobile app development, responsively designed websites, and database architecture that scales with your business.

Our interactive technology services include digital and business strategy consultation, project management, web development, user experience design, brand identity, visual design, responsive front-end engineering and custom CMS development. We take on projects from informational websites and e-commerce sites to custom web and mobile applications to business technology systems.

Unlike other San Francisco mobile app development and web design companies, we dont adhere to one or two types of technology and bend solutions to fit our skills; we stay highly attuned to all the new and different technologies available today and have experts at our disposal who can apply the best solutions to your technology challenges with zero barriers.

See the rest here:

Web Design & Mobile App Developer San Francisco CA | HIGH SEAS

Posted in High Seas | Comments Off on Web Design & Mobile App Developer San Francisco CA | HIGH SEAS

FE Trustnet Offshore: Offshore Top Mutual Funds | Offshore …

Posted: at 5:52 pm

Trustnet Limited (we, our, us and derivatives) are committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. This Privacy Policy, together with our Terms of Use, sets out the basis on which any personal data that we collect from you, or that you provide to us, will be processed by us relating to your use of any of the below websites (sites).

For the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, the data controller is Trustnet Limited of 3rd Floor, Hollywood House, Church Street East, Woking, GU21 6HJ. Our nominated representative for the purpose of this Act is Kirsty Witter.

We collect information about you when you register with us or use any of our websites / services. Part of the registration process may include entering personal details & details of your investments.

We may collect information about your computer, including where available your operating system, browser version, domain name and IP address and details of the website that you came from, in order to improve this site.

You confirm that all information you supply is accurate.

In order to provide personalised services to and analyse site traffic, we may use a cookie file which is stored on your browser or the hard drive of your computer. Some of the cookies we use are essential for the sites to operate and may be used to deliver you different content, depending on the type of investor you are.

You can block cookies by activating the setting on your browser which allows you to refuse the setting of all or some cookies. However, if you use your browser settings to block all cookies (including essential cookies) you may not be able to access all or part of our sites. Unless you have adjusted your browser setting so that it will refuse cookies, our system will issue cookies as soon as you visit our sites.

We store and use information you provide as follows:

We may also send you emails to provide information and keep you up to date with developments on our sites. It is our policy to have instructions on how to unsubscribe so that you will not receive any future e-mails. You can change your e-mail address at any time.

In order to provide support on the usage of our tools, our support team need access to all information provided in relation to the tool.

We will not disclose your name, email address or postal address or any data that could identify you to any third party without first receiving your permission.

However, you agree that we may disclose to any regulatory authority to which we are subject and to any investment exchange on which we may deal or to its related clearing house (or to investigators, inspectors or agents appointed by them), or to any person empowered to require such information by or under any legal enactment, any information they may request or require relating to you, or if relevant, any of your clients.

You agree that we may pass on information obtained under Money Laundering legislation as we consider necessary to comply with reporting requirements under such legislation.

We want to ensure that the personal information we hold about you is accurate and up to date. You may ask us to correct or remove information that is inaccurate.

You have the right under data protection legislation to access information held about you. If you wish to receive a copy of any personal information we hold, please write to us at 3rd Floor, Hollywood House, Church Street East, Woking, GU21 6HJ. Any access request may be subject to a fee of 10 to meet our costs in providing you with details of the information we hold about you.

The data that we collect from you may be transferred to, and stored at, a destination outside the European Economic Area (EEA). It may be processed by staff operating outside the EEA who work for us or for one of our suppliers. Such staff may be engaged in, amongst other things, the provision of support services. By submitting your personal data, you agree to this transfer, storing and processing. We will take all steps reasonably necessary, including the use of encryption, to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this privacy policy.

Unfortunately, the transmission of information via the internet is not completely secure. Although we will do our best to protect your personal data, we cannot guarantee the security of your data transmitted to our sites; any transmission is at your own risk. You will not hold us responsible for any breach of security unless we have been negligent or in wilful default.

Any changes we make to our privacy policy in the future will be posted on this page and, where appropriate, notified to you by e-mail.

Our sites contain links to other websites. If you follow a link to any of these websites, please note that these websites have their own privacy policies and that we do not accept any responsibility or liability for these policies. Please check these policies before you submit any personal data to these websites.

If you want more information or have any questions or comments relating to our privacy policy please email publishing@financialexpress.net in the first instance.

Read more here:

FE Trustnet Offshore: Offshore Top Mutual Funds | Offshore ...

Posted in Offshore | Comments Off on FE Trustnet Offshore: Offshore Top Mutual Funds | Offshore …

High Seas Fleet – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted: at 5:52 pm

The High Seas Fleet (Hochseeflotte) was the battle fleet of the German Imperial Navy and saw action during the First World War. The formation was created in February 1907, when the Home Fleet (Heimatflotte) was renamed as the High Seas Fleet. Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz was the architect of the fleet; he envisioned a force powerful enough to challenge the Royal Navy's predominance. Kaiser Wilhelm II, the German Emperor, championed the fleet as the instrument by which he would seize overseas possessions and make Germany a global power. By concentrating a powerful battle fleet in the North Sea while the Royal Navy was required to disperse its forces around the British Empire, Tirpitz believed Germany could achieve a balance of force that could seriously damage British naval hegemony. This was the heart of Tirpitz's "Risk Theory," which held that Britain would not challenge Germany if the latter's fleet posed such a significant threat to its own.

The primary component of the Fleet was its battleships, typically organized in eight-ship squadrons, though it also contained various other formations, including the I Scouting Group. At its creation in 1907, the High Seas Fleet consisted of two squadrons of battleships, and by 1914, a third squadron had been added. The dreadnought revolution in 1906 greatly affected the composition of the fleet; the twenty-four pre-dreadnoughts in the fleet were rendered obsolete and required replacement. Enough dreadnoughts for two full squadrons were completed by the outbreak of war in mid 1914; the eight most modern pre-dreadnoughts were used to constitute a third squadron. Two additional squadrons of older vessels were mobilized at the onset of hostilities, though by the end of the conflict, these formations were disbanded.

The fleet conducted a series of sorties into the North Sea during the war designed to lure out an isolated portion of the numerically superior British Grand Fleet. These operations frequently used the fast battlecruisers of the I Scouting Group to raid the British coast as the bait for the Royal Navy. These operations culminated in the Battle of Jutland, on 31 May1 June 1916, where the High Seas Fleet confronted the whole of the Grand Fleet. The battle was inconclusive, but the British won strategically, as it convinced Admiral Reinhard Scheer, the German fleet commander, that even a highly favorable outcome to a fleet action would not secure German victory in the war. Scheer and other leading admirals therefore advised the Kaiser to order a resumption of the unrestricted submarine warfare campaign. The primary responsibility of the High Seas Fleet in 1917 and 1918 was to secure the German naval bases in the North Sea for U-boat operations. Nevertheless, the fleet continued to conduct sorties into the North Sea and detached units for special operations in the Baltic Sea against the Russian Baltic Fleet. Following the German defeat in November 1918, the Allies interned the bulk of the High Seas Fleet in Scapa Flow, where it was ultimately scuttled by its crew in June 1919, days before the belligerents signed the Treaty of Versailles.

In 1898, Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz became the State Secretary for the Imperial Navy Office (ReichsmarineamtRMA);[1] Tirpitz was an ardent supporter of naval expansion. During a speech in support of the First Naval Law on 6 December 1897, Tirpitz stated that the navy was "a question of survival" for Germany.[2] He also viewed Great Britain, with its powerful Royal Navy, as the primary threat to Germany. In a discussion with the Kaiser during his first month in his post as State Secretary, he stated that "for Germany the most dangerous naval enemy at present is England."[3] Tirpitz theorized that an attacking fleet would require a 33percent advantage in strength to achieve victory, and so decided that a 2:3 ratio would be required for the German navy. For a final total of 60 German battleships, Britain would be required to build 90 to meet the 2:3 ratio envisioned by Tirpitz.[3]

The Royal Navy had heretofore adhered to the so-called "two-power standard," first formulated in the Naval Defence Act of 1889, which required a larger fleet than those of the next two largest naval powers combined.[4] The crux of Tirpitz's "risk theory" was that by building a fleet to the 2:3 ratio, Germany would be strong enough that even in the event of a British naval victory, the Royal Navy would incur damage so serious as to allow the third-ranked naval power to rise to preeminence. Implicit in Tirpitz's theory was the assumption that the British would adopt an offensive strategy that would allow the Germans to use mines and submarines to even the numerical odds before fighting a decisive battle between Heligoland and the Thames. Tirpitz in fact believed Germany would emerge victorious from a naval struggle with Britain, as he believed Germany to possess superior ships manned by better-trained crews, more effective tactics, and led by more capable officers.[3]

In his first program, Tirpitz envisioned a fleet of nineteen battleships, divided into two eight-ship squadrons, one ship as a flagship, and two in reserve. The squadrons were further divided into four-ship divisions. This would be supported by the eight Siegfried- and Odinclasses of coastal defense ships, six large and eighteen small cruisers, and twelve divisions of torpedo boats, all assigned to the Home Fleet (Heimatflotte).[5] This fleet was secured by the First Naval Law, which passed in the Reichstag on 28 March 1898.[6] Construction of the fleet was to be completed by 1 April 1904. Rising international tensions, particularly as a result of the outbreak of the Boer War in South Africa and the Boxer Rebellion in China, allowed Tirpitz to push through an expanded fleet plan in 1900. The Second Naval Law was passed on 14 June 1900; it doubled the size of the fleet to 38 battleships and 20 large and 38 small cruisers. Tirpitz planned an even larger fleet. As early as September 1899, he had informed the Kaiser that he sought at least 45 battleships, and potentially might secure a third double-squadron, for a total strength of 48 battleships.[7]

During the initial period of German naval expansion, Britain did not feel particularly threatened.[6] The Lords of the Admiralty felt the implications of the Second Naval Law were not a significantly more dangerous threat than the fleet set by the First Naval Law; they believed it was more important to focus on the practical situation rather than speculation on future programs that might easily be reduced or cut entirely. Segments of the British public, however, quickly seized on the perceived threat posed by the German construction programs.[8] Despite their dismissive reaction, the Admiralty resolved to surpass German battleship construction. Admiral John Fisher, who became the First Sea Lord and head of the Admiralty in 1904, introduced sweeping reforms in large part to counter the growing threat posed by the expanding German fleet. Training programs were modernized, old and obsolete vessels were discarded, and the scattered squadrons of battleships were consolidated into four main fleets, three of which were based in Europe. Britain also made a series of diplomatic arrangements, including an alliance with Japan that allowed a greater concentration of British battleships in the North Sea.[9]

Fisher's reforms caused serious problems for Tirpitz's plans; he counted on a dispersal of British naval forces early in a conflict that would allow Germany's smaller but more concentrated fleet to achieve a local superiority. Tirpitz could also no longer depend on the higher level of training in both the German officer corps and the enlisted ranks, nor the superiority of the more modern and homogenized German squadrons over the heterogeneous British fleet. In 1904, Britain signed the Entente cordiale with France, Britain's primary naval rival. The destruction of two Russian fleets during the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 further strengthened Britain's position, as it removed the second of her two traditional naval rivals.[10] These developments allowed Britain to discard the "two power standard" and focus solely on out-building Germany. In October 1906, Admiral Fisher stated "our only probable enemy is Germany. Germany keeps her whole Fleet always concentrated within a few hours of England. We must therefore keep a Fleet twice as powerful concentrated within a few hours of Germany."[11]

The most damaging blow to Tirpitz's plan came with the launch of HMSDreadnought in February 1906. The new battleship, armed with a main battery of ten 12-inch (30cm) guns, was considerably more powerful than any battleship afloat. Ships capable of battle with Dreadnought would need to be significantly larger than the old pre-dreadnoughts, which increased their cost and necessitated expensive dredging of canals and harbors to accommodate them. The German naval budget was already stretched thin; without new funding, Tirpitz would have to abandon his challenge to Britain.[12] As a result, Tirpitz went before the Reichstag in May 1906 with a request for additional funding. The First Amendment to the Second Naval Law was passed on 19 May and appropriated funding for the new battleships, as well as for the dredging required by their increased size.[6]

The Reichstag passed a second amendment to the Naval Law in March 1908 to provide an additional billion marks to cope with the growing cost of the latest battleships. The law also reduced the service life of all battleships from 25 to 20 years, which allowed Tirpitz to push for the replacement of older vessels earlier. A third and final amendment was passed in May 1912 represented a compromise between Tirpitz and moderates in parliament. The amendment authorized three new battleships and two light cruisers. The amendment called for the High Seas Fleet to be equipped with three squadrons of eight battleships each, one squadron of eight battlecruisers, and eighteen light cruisers. Two 8-ship squadrons would be placed in reserve, along with two armored and twelve light cruisers.[13] By the outbreak of war in August 1914, only one eight-ship squadron of dreadnoughtsthe I Battle Squadronhad been assembled with the Nassau and Helgoland-classbattleships. The second squadron of dreadnoughtsthe III Battle Squadronwhich included four of the Kaiser-classbattleships, was only completed when the four Knig-classbattleships entered service by early 1915.[14] As a result, the third squadronthe II Battle Squadronremained composed of pre-dreadnoughts through 1916.[15]

Before the 1912 naval law was passed, Britain and Germany attempted to reach a compromise with the Haldane Mission, led by the British War Minister Richard Haldane. The arms reduction mission ended in failure, however, and the 1912 law was announced shortly thereafter. The Germans were aware at as early as 1911, the Royal Navy had abandoned the idea of a decisive battle with the German fleet, in favor of a distant blockade at the entrances to the North Sea, which the British could easily control due to their geographical position. There emerged the distinct possibility that the German fleet would be unable to force a battle on its own terms, which would render it militarily useless. When the war came in 1914, the British did in fact adopt this strategy. Coupled with the restrictive orders of the Kaiser, who preferred to keep the fleet intact to be used as a bargaining chip in the peace settlements, the ability of the High Seas Fleet to affect the military situation was markedly reduced.[16]

The German Navy's pre-war planning held that the British would be compelled to mount either a direct attack on the German coast to defeat the High Seas Fleet, or to put in place a close blockade. Either course of action would permit the Germans to whittle away at the numerical superiority of the Grand Fleet with submarines and torpedo boats. Once a rough equality of forces could be achieved, the High Seas Fleet would be able to attack and destroy the British fleet.[17] Implicit in Tirpitz's strategy was the assumption that German vessels were better-designed, had better-trained crews, and would be employed with superior tactics. In addition, Tirpitz assumed that Britain would not be able to concentrate its fleet in the North Sea, owing to the demands of its global empire. At the start of a conflict between the two powers, the Germans would therefore be able to attack the Royal Navy with local superiority.[18]

The British, however, did not accommodate Tirpitz's projections; from his appointment as the First Sea Lord in 1904, Fisher began a major reorganization of the Royal Navy. He concentrated British battleship strength in home waters, launched the Dreadnought revolution, and introduced rigorous training for the fleet personnel.[19] In 1912, the British concluded a joint defense agreement with France that allowed the British to concentrate in the North Sea while the French defended the Mediterranean.[20] Worse still, the British began developing the strategy of the distant blockade of Germany starting in 1904;[21] this removed the ability of German light craft to reduce Britain's superiority in numbers and essentially invalidated German naval planning before the start of World War I.[22]

The primary base for the High Seas Fleet in the North Sea was Wilhelmshaven on the western side of the Jade Bight; the port of Cuxhaven, located on the mouth of the Elbe, was also a major base in the North Sea. The island of Heligoland provided a fortified forward position in the German Bight.[23]Kiel was the most important base in the Baltic, which supported the forward bases at Pillau and Danzig.[24] The Kaiser Wilhelm Canal through Schleswig-Holstein connected the Baltic and North Seas and allowed the German Navy to quickly shift naval forces between the two seas.[25] In peacetime, all ships on active duty in the High Seas Fleet were stationed in Wilhelmshaven, Kiel, or Danzig.[26] Germany possessed only one major overseas base, at Kiautschou in China,[27] where the East Asia Squadron was stationed.[28]

Steam ships of the period, which burned coal to fire their boilers, were naturally tied to coaling stations in friendly ports. The German Navy lacked sufficient overseas bases for sustained operations, even for single ships operating as commerce raiders.[29] The Navy experimented with a device to transfer coal from colliers to warships while underway in 1907, though the practice was not put into general use.[30] Nevertheless, German capital ships had a cruising range of at least 4,000nmi (7,400km; 4,600mi),[31] more than enough to operate in the Atlantic Ocean.[Note 1]

In 1897, the year Tirpitz came to his position as State Secretary of the Navy Office, the Imperial Navy consisted of a total of around 26,000 officers, petty officers, and enlisted men of various ranks, branches, and positions. By the outbreak of war in 1914, this had increased significantly to about 80,000 officers, petty officers, and men.[35] Capital ships were typically commanded by a Kapitn zur See (Captain at Sea) or Korvettenkapitn (corvette captain).[26] Each of these ships typically had a total crew in excess of 1,000 officers and men;[31] the light cruisers that screened for the fleet had crew sizes between 300 and 550.[36] The fleet torpedo boats had crews of about 80 to 100 officers and men, though some later classes approached 200.[37]

In early 1907, enough battleshipsof the Braunschweig and Deutschlandclasseshad been constructed to allow for the creation of a second full squadron.[38] On 16 February 1907,[39] Kaiser Wilhelm renamed the Home Fleet the High Seas Fleet. Admiral Prince Heinrich of Prussia, Wilhelm II's brother, became the first commander of the High Seas Fleet; his flagship was SMSDeutschland.[38] While in a peace-time footing, the Fleet conducted a routine pattern of training exercises, with individual ships, with squadrons, and with the combined fleet, throughout the year. The entire fleet conducted several cruises into the Atlantic Ocean and the Baltic Sea.[40] Prince Henry was replaced in late 1909 by Vice Admiral Henning von Holtzendorff, who served until April 1913. Vice Admiral Friedrich von Ingenohl, who would command the High Seas Fleet in the first months of World War I, took command following the departure of Vice Admiral von Holtzendorff.[41]SMSFriedrich der Grosse replaced Deutschland as the fleet flagship on 2 March 1913.[42]

Despite the rising international tensions following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on 28 June, the High Seas Fleet began its summer cruise to Norway on 13 July. During the last peacetime cruise of the Imperial Navy, the fleet conducted drills off Skagen before proceeding to the Norwegian fjords on 25 July. The following day the fleet began to steam back to Germany, as a result of Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia. On the 27th, the entire fleet assembled off Cape Skudenes before returning to port, where the ships remained at a heightened state of readiness.[42] War between Austria-Hungary and Serbia broke out the following day, and in the span of a week all of the major European powers had joined the conflict.[43]

The High Seas Fleet conducted a number of sweeps and advances into the North Sea. The first occurred on 23 November 1914, though no British forces were encountered. Admiral von Ingenohl, the commander of the High Seas Fleet, adopted a strategy in which the battlecruisers of Rear Admiral Franz von Hipper's I Scouting Group raided British coastal towns to lure out portions of the Grand Fleet where they could be destroyed by the High Seas Fleet.[44] The raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby on 1516 December 1914 was the first such operation.[45] On the evening of 15 December, the German battle fleet of some twelve dreadnoughts and eight pre-dreadnoughts came to within 10nmi (19km; 12mi) of an isolated squadron of six British battleships. However, skirmishes between the rival destroyer screens in the darkness convinced von Ingenohl that he was faced with the entire Grand Fleet. Under orders from the Kaiser to avoid risking the fleet unnecessarily, von Ingenohl broke off the engagement and turned the fleet back toward Germany.[46]

Following the loss of SMSBlcher at the Battle of Dogger Bank in January 1915, the Kaiser removed Admiral von Ingenohl from his post on 2 February. Admiral Hugo von Pohl replaced him as commander of the fleet.[47] Admiral von Pohl conducted a series of fleet advances in 1915; in the first one on 2930 March, the fleet steamed out to the north of Terschelling and returned without incident. Another followed on 1718 April, where the fleet covered a mining operation by the II Scouting Group. Three days later, on 2122 April, the High Seas Fleet advanced towards the Dogger Bank, though again failed to meet any British forces.[48] Another sortie followed on 2930 May, during which the fleet advanced as far as Schiermonnikoog before being forced to turn back by inclement weather. On 10 August, the fleet steamed to the north of Heligoland to cover the return of the auxiliary cruiser Meteor. A month later, on 1112 September, the fleet covered another mine-laying operation off the Swarte Bank. The last operation of the year, conducted on 2324 October, was an advance without result in the direction of Horns Reef.[48]

Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer became Commander in chief of the High Seas Fleet on 18 January 1916 when Admiral von Pohl became too ill to continue in that post.[49] Scheer favored a much more aggressive policy than that of his predecessor, and advocated greater usage of U-boats and zeppelins in coordinated attacks on the Grand Fleet; Scheer received approval from the Kaiser in February 1916 to carry out his intentions.[50] Scheer ordered the fleet on sweeps of the North Sea on 26 March, 23 April, and 2122 April. The battlecruisers conducted another raid on the English coast on 2425 April, during which the fleet provided distant support.[51] Scheer planned another raid for mid-May, but the battlecruiser Seydlitz had struck a mine during the previous raid and the repair work forced the operation to be pushed back until the end of the month.[52]

Admiral Scheer's fleet, composed of 16 dreadnoughts, six pre-dreadnoughts, six light cruisers, and 31 torpedo boats departed the Jade early on the morning of 31 May. The fleet sailed in concert with Hipper's five battlecruisers and supporting cruisers and torpedo boats.[53] The British navy's Room 40 had intercepted and decrypted German radio traffic containing plans of the operation. The Admiralty ordered the Grand Fleet, totaling some 28 dreadnoughts and 9 battlecruisers, to sortie the night before in order to cut off and destroy the High Seas Fleet.[54]

At 16:00 UTC, the two battlecruiser forces encountered each other and began a running gun fight south, back towards Scheer's battle fleet.[55] Upon reaching the High Seas Fleet, Vice Admiral David Beatty's battlecruisers turned back to the north to lure the Germans towards the rapidly approaching Grand Fleet, under the command of Admiral John Jellicoe.[56] During the run to the north, Scheer's leading ships engaged the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships of the 5th Battle Squadron.[57] By 18:30, the Grand Fleet had arrived on the scene, and was deployed into a position that would cross Scheer's "T" from the northeast. To extricate his fleet from this precarious position, Scheer ordered a 16-point turn to the south-west.[58] At 18:55, Scheer decided to conduct another 16-point turn to launch an attack on the British fleet.[59]

This maneuver again put Scheer in a dangerous position; Jellicoe had turned his fleet south and again crossed Scheer's "T."[60] A third 16-point turn followed; Hipper's mauled battlecruisers charged the British line to cover the retreat.[61] Scheer then ordered the fleet to adopt the night cruising formation, which was completed by 23:40.[62] A series of ferocious engagements between Scheer's battleships and Jellicoe's destroyer screen ensued, though the Germans managed to punch their way through the destroyers and make for Horns Reef.[63] The High Seas Fleet reached the Jade between 13:00 and 14:45 on 1 June; Scheer ordered the undamaged battleships of the I Battle Squadron to take up defensive positions in the Jade roadstead while the Kaiser-class battleships were to maintain a state of readiness just outside Wilhelmshaven.[64] The High Seas Fleet had sunk more British vessels than the Grand Fleet had sunk German, though Scheer's leading battleships had taken a terrible hammering. Several capital ships, including SMSKnig, which had been the first vessel in the line, and most of the battlecruisers, were in drydock for extensive repairs for at least two months. On 1 June, the British had twenty-four capital ships in fighting condition, compared to only ten German warships.[65]

By August, enough warships had been repaired to allow Scheer to undertake another fleet operation on 1819 August. Due to the serious damage incurred by Seydlitz and SMSDerfflinger and the loss of SMSLtzow at Jutland, the only battlecruisers available for the operation were SMSVon der Tann and SMSMoltke, which were joined by SMSMarkgraf, SMSGrosser Kurfrst, and the new battleship SMSBayern.[66] Scheer turned north after receiving a false report from a zeppelin about a British unit in the area.[48] As a result, the bombardment was not carried out, and by 14:35, Scheer had been warned of the Grand Fleet's approach and so turned his forces around and retreated to German ports.[67] Another fleet sortie took place on 1819 October 1916 to attack enemy shipping east of Dogger Bank. Despite being forewarned by signal intelligence, the Grand Fleet did not attempt to intercept. The operation was however cancelled due to poor weather after the cruiser Mnchen was torpedoed by the British submarine HMSE38.[68] The fleet was reorganized on 1 December;[48] the four Knig-classbattleships remained in the III Squadron, along with the newly commissioned Bayern, while the five Kaiser-class ships were transferred to the IV Squadron.[69] In March 1917 the new battleship Baden, built to serve as fleet flagship, entered service;[70] on the 17th, Scheer hauled down his flag from Friedrich der Grosse and transferred it to Baden.[48]

The war, now in its fourth year, was by 1917 taking its toll on the crews of the ships of the High Seas Fleet. Acts of passive resistance, such as the posting of anti-war slogans in the battleships SMSOldenburg and SMSPosen in January 1917, began to appear.[71] In June and July, the crews began to conduct more active forms of resistance. These activities included work refusals, hunger strikes, and taking unauthorized leave from their ships.[72] The disruptions came to a head in August, when a series of protests, anti-war speeches, and demonstrations resulted in the arrest of dozens of sailors.[73] Scheer ordered the arrest of over 200 men from the battleship Prinzregent Luitpold, the center of the anti-war activities. A series of courts-martial followed, which resulted in 77 guilty verdicts; nine men were sentenced to death for their roles, though only two men, Albin Kbis and Max Reichpietsch, were executed.[74]

In early September 1917, following the German conquest of the Russian port of Riga, the German navy decided to eliminate the Russian naval forces that still held the Gulf of Riga. The Navy High Command (Admiralstab) planned an operation, codenamed Operation Albion, to seize the Baltic island of sel, and specifically the Russian gun batteries on the Sworbe Peninsula.[75] On 18 September, the order was issued for a joint operation with the army to capture sel and Moon Islands; the primary naval component was to comprise its flagship, Moltke, and the III and IVBattle Squadrons of the High Seas Fleet.[76] The operation began on the morning of 12 October, when Moltke and the IIISquadron ships engaged Russian positions in Tagga Bay while the IVSquadron shelled Russian gun batteries on the Sworbe Peninsula on sel.[77]By 20 October, the fighting on the islands was winding down; Moon, sel, and Dag were in German possession. The previous day, the Admiralstab had ordered the cessation of naval actions and the return of the dreadnoughts to the High Seas Fleet as soon as possible.[78]

Admiral Scheer had used light surface forces to attack British convoys to Norway beginning in late 1917. As a result, the Royal Navy attached a squadron of battleships to protect the convoys, which presented Scheer with the possibility of destroying a detached squadron of the Grand Fleet. The operation called for Hipper's battlecruisers to attack the convoy and its escorts on 23 April while the battleships of the High Seas Fleet stood by in support. On 22 April, the German fleet assembled in the Schillig Roads outside Wilhelmshaven and departed the following morning.[79] Despite the success in reaching the convoy route undetected, the operation failed due to faulty intelligence. Reports from U-boats indicated to Scheer that the convoys sailed at the start and middle of each week, but a west-bound convoy had left Bergen on Tuesday the 22nd and an east-bound group left Methil, Scotland, on the 24th, a Thursday. As a result, there was no convoy for Hipper to attack.[80] Beatty sortied with a force of 31 battleships and four battlecruisers, but was too late to intercept the retreating Germans. The Germans reached their defensive minefields early on 25 April, though approximately 40nmi (74km; 46mi) off Heligoland Moltke was torpedoed by the submarine E42; she successfully returned to port.[81]

A final fleet action was planned for the end of October 1918, days before the Armistice was to take effect. The bulk of the High Seas Fleet was to have sortied from their base in Wilhelmshaven to engage the British Grand Fleet; Scheerby now the Grand Admiral (Grossadmiral) of the fleetintended to inflict as much damage as possible on the British navy, in order to retain a better bargaining position for Germany, despite the expected casualties. However, many of the war-weary sailors felt the operation would disrupt the peace process and prolong the war.[82] On the morning of 29 October 1918, the order was given to sail from Wilhelmshaven the following day. Starting on the night of 29 October, sailors on Thringen and then on several other battleships mutinied.[83] The unrest ultimately forced Hipper and Scheer to cancel the operation.[84] When informed of the situation, the Kaiser stated "I no longer have a navy."[85]

Following the capitulation of Germany on November 1918, most of the High Seas Fleet, under the command of Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter, were interned in the British naval base of Scapa Flow.[84] Prior to the departure of the German fleet, Admiral Adolf von Trotha made clear to von Reuter that he could not allow the Allies to seize the ships, under any conditions.[86] The fleet rendezvoused with the British light cruiser Cardiff, which led the ships to the Allied fleet that was to escort the Germans to Scapa Flow. The massive flotilla consisted of some 370 British, American, and French warships.[87] Once the ships were interned, their guns were disabled through the removal of their breech blocks, and their crews were reduced to 200 officers and enlisted men on each of the capital ships.[88]

The fleet remained in captivity during the negotiations that ultimately produced the Treaty of Versailles. Von Reuter believed that the British intended to seize the German ships on 21 June 1919, which was the deadline for Germany to have signed the peace treaty. Unaware that the deadline had been extended to the 23rd, Reuter ordered the ships to be sunk at the next opportunity. On the morning of 21 June, the British fleet left Scapa Flow to conduct training maneuvers, and at 11:20 Reuter transmitted the order to his ships.[86] Out of the interned fleet, only one battleship, Baden, three light cruisers, and eighteen destroyers were saved from sinking by the British harbor personnel. The Royal Navy, initially opposed to salvage operations, decided to allow private firms to attempt to raise the vessels for scrapping.[89] Cox and Danks, a company founded by Ernest Cox handled most of the salvage operations, including those of the heaviest vessels raised.[90] After Cox's withdrawal due to financial losses in the early 1930s, Metal Industries Group, Inc. took over the salvage operation for the remaining ships. Five more capital ships were raised, though threeSMS Knig, SMSKronprinz, and SMS Markgrafwere too deep to permit raising. They remain on the bottom of Scapa Flow, along with four light cruisers.[91]

The High Seas Fleet, particularly its wartime impotence and ultimate fate, strongly influenced the later German navies, the Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine. Former Imperial Navy officers continued to serve in the subsequent institutions, including Admiral Erich Raeder, Hipper's former chief of staff, who became the commander in chief of the Reichsmarine. Raeder advocated long-range commerce raiding by surface ships, rather than constructing a large surface fleet to challenge the Royal Navy, which he viewed to be a futile endeavor. His initial version of Plan Z, the construction program for the Kriegsmarine in the late 1930s, called for large number of P-classcruisers, long-range light cruisers, and reconnaissance forces for attacking enemy shipping, though he was overruled by Adolf Hitler, who advocated a large fleet of battleships.[92]

See the original post:

High Seas Fleet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in High Seas | Comments Off on High Seas Fleet – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

High Seas Alliance | highseasalliance.org

Posted: at 5:52 pm

The High Seas Alliance (HSA), with its 32 non-government members, as well as the IUCN, has been working towards protecting approximately 50% of the planet that is the high seas, since its founding in 2011.As the region of the global ocean that is beyond national jurisdiction, the high seas includes some of the most biologically important, least protected, and most critically threatened ecosystems in the world.

HSA members work together to inspire, inform and engage the public, decision-makers and experts to support and strengthen high seas governance and conservation, as well as to cooperate toward the establishment of high seas protected areas. As such, our current priority isa new international legally binding treaty under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that will protect biological diversity in the high seas and seabed.

Currently, there is no legal mechanism with which to establish marine protected areas outside of States territorial seas, nor a mechanism to undertake environmental impact assessments. At the same time, increasing impacts from human activity, through overfishing, deep-seabed mining and shipping, as well as climate change, continue to negatively affect biodiversity on the high seas.HSA is working to ensure that current United Nations discussions around the new treaty result in recommendations for robust and effective conservation measures that address gaps in current ocean governance.

Go here to read the rest:

High Seas Alliance | highseasalliance.org

Posted in High Seas | Comments Off on High Seas Alliance | highseasalliance.org

Radiofax Charts – New Orleans

Posted: at 5:52 pm

The latest version of marine weather charts for broadcast by the U.S. Coast Guard are available from the National Weather Service Telecommunication Gateway on this server. The listed charts are in the G4 (T4) format and enveloped in TIFF for viewing, also available in GIF format. Satellite images are in JPEG format.

Reports from mariners of both poor AND good radio reception , as well as any other comments about weather broadcast services and forecast products are always greatly appreciated. Please be specific as possible noting your location, equipment/software used, date(s), time(s), frequency(s), mode (fax, voice, NAVTEX, etc.), signal strength, and problem observed (e.g. interference, noise, sync loss, echoes, etc), product name ( e.g. high seas text forecast for METAREA IV, if internet state link, etc. ). Send your comments to: Questions, Comments?.

Effective Apr 03, 2012 at 1800 UTC the order of charts transmitted via radiofax from New Orleans will be modified to better align workflow with the suite of enhanced text products which are to be implemented at that time. The new broadcast schedule can be found HERE and will be broadcast on-air beginning on or about Mar 28, 2012.

SIZE and UPDATED... refer to .TIF version of files

Condensed version of this page showing only the latest charts Printer Friendly Weather Briefing showing the latest charts Radiofax Information Worldwide Marine Radiofacsimile Broadcast Schedules (PDF) These products also available via E-mail or FTP Graphical Products Legend Missed Charts for the Current Month(if any) Historic Weather and Satellite Data Caution

WIND/WAVE CHARTS

SURFACE CHARTS

* For further forecasts covering the Tropical East Pacific, see Pt. Reyes and Honolulu charts

TROPICAL CYCLONE/HIGH WIND WAVE CHARTS

HIGH SEAS FORECASTS

SATELLITE IMAGERY

SCHEDULE and MISCELLANEOUS

Originally posted here:

Radiofax Charts - New Orleans

Posted in High Seas | Comments Off on Radiofax Charts – New Orleans

micronations! – WIRED

Posted: at 5:52 pm

Skip Article Header. Skip to: Start of Article.

Slide: 1 / of 18 .

Caption: Travis McHenry or Montague Ier, King of Calsahara. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 2 / of 18 .

Caption: With a living area of 5,920 square feet, Sealand boasts multiple bedrooms, a chapel and a prison. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 3 / of 18 .

Caption: Princess Chirley of Sealand. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 4 / of 18 .

Caption: Prince Michael of Sealand. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 5 / of 18 .

Caption: The Consul Philippon de la Boirie of the Consulate of la Boirie. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 6 / of 18 .

Caption: The Consul Pascalux de la Boirie of the Consulate of la Boirie. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 7 / of 18 .

Caption: Frederikke Rose Holm, Julie Holstein, Nanna Gilsgaard, Christine Barnett and Bolette Winnerskjold Gjaldbk, The Butterflies of the Kingdom of Elleore. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 8 / of 18 .

Caption: The people of Elleore waiting for their king. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 9 / of 18 .

Caption: Sir Peter Anderson, Secretary General of the Conch Republic. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 10 / of 18 .

Caption: The airport of the Conch Republic. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 11 / of 18 .

Caption: The border between Molossia and the United States. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 12 / of 18 .

Caption: The post office of Molossia. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 13 / of 18 .

Caption: Kevin Baugh, President of the Republic of Molossia. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 14 / of 18 .

Caption: Georgette Bertin-Pourchet, President of the Republic of Saugeais. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 15 / of 18 .

Caption: Jacques Vuillemin, customs officer of the Republic of Saugeais. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 16 / of 18 .

Caption: Gianni Trucchi, guard of the Principality of Seborga. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 17 / of 18 .

Caption: Emperor George II of the Empire of Atlantium. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 18 / of 18 .

Caption: A television crew interviews the Emperor of Atlantium. Lo Delafontaine

Slide: 1 / of 18

Slide: 2 / of 18

Slide: 3 / of 18

Slide: 4 / of 18

Slide: 5 / of 18

Slide: 6 / of 18

Slide: 7 / of 18

Slide: 8 / of 18

Slide: 9 / of 18

Slide: 10 / of 18

Slide: 11 / of 18

Slide: 12 / of 18

Slide: 13 / of 18

Slide: 14 / of 18

Slide: 15 / of 18

Slide: 16 / of 18

Slide: 17 / of 18

Slide: 18 / of 18

Never heard of the Imperial Kingdom of Calsahara? The Conch Republic? The Principality of Sealand? Youre not alone.Lo Delafontaine hadnt either until 2012, when he visited the Republic of Saugeais, a self-proclaimed micronation in eastern France. Hes since become fascinated with countries unrecognized by world governments and organizations. His bookMicronations documents independent states that are just as varied and interesting as their official counterparts.

Humankind likes discoveries and challenges. One solution is the creation of new countries, but not in order to persecute people or for religious reasons. The idea, rather, is to create new countries and territories for fun, to make people think, to re-enchant the world in a way, he says via email.

French writer and historian Bruno Fuligni, who wrote the introduction to Micronations, estimates there are more than 400 of these self-proclaimed entities.

Delfontaine visited 12 locationsthroughout the US, Europe, and Australia. They included monarchies, republics, funny dictatorships, and some with no government at all. He earned citizenship in threethe Principality of Sealand, the Principality of Seborga, and the Conch Republic.

ThePrincipality ofHutt Riverin Australia draws thousands of visitors annually, which is one reason it exists at all. Others serve as political satire.Conch Republic, for example, was created in 1982 after Key West Mayor Dennis Wardlow symbolically began the Conch Republics Civil Rebellion by breaking a loaf of stale Cuban bread over the head of a man dressed in a U.S. Navy uniform according to the Conch Republics website. Some micronations are easily accessiblewhile others are difficult to get to.In Copenhagen, tourists can enter Christiania on foot, while visitors to thePrincipality of Sealand, a WWII island fortress six miles off the eastern shores of Britain, have to shell out over $2,000 for transport and a visa.

Regardless of their intention, these countries commit: They have national anthems and flags, passports and coins, militaries and laws. The Kingdomof Elleore hosts history classes for kids and created its own national sport.

Most of the people I met were really well educated, curious, ironic and completely aware of what they are doing. They are not crazy or greedy for power. But they like to dress up and make fun of their country of origin, he says.

Most of these micronations declared sovereignty between the 1970s and 1990s. But there have been some newcomers; the Imperial Kingdom of Calsahara in southern California declared its sovereignty in 2009. Delafontaine says most new micronations, like theKingdom of Talossa,exist primarily online.

I think that the golden age of micronations is almost over. The famous ones, like the Principality ofHutt River and the Republic ofSaugeais,are headed by very old people, he says. And after their death, their micronations will disappear with them. Young people interested in micronations dont seem to be interested in claiming a physical territory. They prefer to create new countries online. Its not better or worse, but its different.

Original post:

micronations! - WIRED

Posted in Micronations | Comments Off on micronations! – WIRED

Intentional Communities | Touchstone Mental Health

Posted: at 5:52 pm

Program Offerings

Through the Intentional Communities, individuals (community members) come together as a supportive group, sharing a common purpose, and working cooperatively to create a lifestyle reflecting shared values. Community members are able to maintain housing stability, reduce the risk of hospitalization, gain independent living skills, and build social supports by becoming a contributing member of a community.

There are two Touchstone Intentional Communities for a total of 40 members. The communities gather two to three times per week for socializing, planned activities and communal meals. Both communities develop an integrity contract which frames their shared values and becomes the basis for shared decisions. The communities have monthly business meetings and use a consensus model to guide their decision making process. The communities are self-governing which means they develop and decide policies for the community as a whole, work together to maintain viable participation, and manage their budget.

We offer:

Program success is measured on:

We are a multidisciplinary team of professionals providing a combination of services to promote an individuals pursuit of life goals, independence and a healthy and safe environment. Team members may include:

You can find more information about intentional communities at http://www.ic.org.

Download the Intentional Communities fact sheet here.

The rest is here:

Intentional Communities | Touchstone Mental Health

Posted in Intentional Communities | Comments Off on Intentional Communities | Touchstone Mental Health

How Long Would It Take To Travel To The Nearest Star …

Posted: at 5:51 pm

Weve all asked this question at some point in our lives: How long would it take to travel to the stars? Could it be within a persons own lifetime, and could this kind of travel become the norm someday? There are many possible answers to this question some very simple, others in the realms of science fiction. But coming up with a comprehensive answer means taking a lot of things into consideration.

Unfortunately, any realistic assessment is likely to produce answers that would totally discourage futurists and enthusiasts of interstellar travel. Like it or not, space is very large, and our technology is still very limited. But should we ever contemplate leaving the nest, we will have a range of options for getting to the nearest Solar Systems in our galaxy.

The nearest star to Earth is our Sun, which is a fairly average star in the Hertzsprung Russell Diagrams Main Sequence. This means that it is highly stable, providing Earth with just the right type of sunlight for life to evolve on our planet. We know there are planets orbiting other stars near to our Solar System, and many of these stars are similar to our own.

In the future, should mankind wish to leave the Solar System, well have a huge choice of stars we could travel to, and many could have the right conditions for life to thrive. But where would we go and how long would it take for us to get there? Just remember, this is all speculative and there is currently no benchmark for interstellar trips. That being said, here we go!

Over 2000 exoplanets have been identified, many of which are believed to be habitable. Credit: phl.upl.edu

As already noted, the closest star to our Solar System is Proxima Centauri, which is why it makes the most sense to plot an interstellar mission to this system first. As part of a triple star system called Alpha Centauri, Proxima is about 4.24 light years (or 1.3 parsecs) from Earth. Alpha Centauri is actually the brightest star of the three in the system part of a closely orbiting binary 4.37 light years from Earth whereas Proxima Centauri (the dimmest of the three) is an isolated red dwarf about 0.13 light years from the binary.

And while interstellar travel conjures up all kinds of visions of Faster-Than-Light (FTL) travel, ranging from warp speed and wormholes to jump drives, such theories are either highly speculative (such as the Alcubierre Drive) or entirely the province of science fiction. In all likelihood, any deep space mission will likely take generations to get there, rather than a few days or in an instantaneous flash.

So, starting with one of the slowest forms of space travel, how long will it take to get to Proxima Centauri?

The question of how long would it take to get somewhere in space is somewhat easier when dealing with existing technology and bodies within our Solar System. For instance, using the technology that powered the New Horizons mission which consisted of 16 thrusters fueled with hydrazine monopropellant reaching the Moon would take a mere 8 hours and 35 minutes.

On the other hand, there is the European Space Agencys (ESA) SMART-1 mission, which took its time traveling to the Moon using the method of ionic propulsion. With this revolutionary technology, a variation of which has since been used by the Dawn spacecraft to reach Vesta, the SMART-1 mission took one year, one month and two weeks to reach the Moon.

So, from the speedy rocket-propelled spacecraft to the economical ion drive, we have a few options for getting around local space plus we could use Jupiter or Saturn for a hefty gravitational slingshot. However, if we were to contemplate missions to somewhere a little more out of the way, we would have to scale up our technology and look at whats really possible.

When we say possible methods, we are talking about those that involve existing technology, or those that do not yet exist, but are technically feasible. Some, as you will see, are time-honored and proven, while others are emerging or still on the board. In just about all cases though, they present a possible, but extremely time-consuming or expensive, scenario for getting to even the closest stars

Ionic Propulsion: Currently, the slowest form of propulsion, and the most fuel-efficient, is the ion engine. A few decades ago, ionic propulsion was considered to be the subject of science fiction. However, in recent years, the technology to support ion engines has moved from theory to practice in a big way. The ESAs SMART-1 mission for example successfully completed its mission to the Moon after taking a 13 month spiral path from the Earth.

SMART-1 used solar powered ion thrusters, where electrical energy was harvested from its solar panels and used to power its Hall-effect thrusters. Only 82 kg of xenon propellant was used to propel SMART-1 to the Moon. 1 kg of xenon propellant provided a delta-v of 45 m/s. This is a highly efficient form of propulsion, but it is by no means fast.

Artists concept of Dawn mission above Ceres. Since its arrival, the spacecraft turned around to point the blue glow of its ion engine in the opposite direction. Image credit: NASA/JPL

One of the first missions to use ion drive technology was the Deep Space 1 mission to Comet Borrelly that took place in 1998. DS1 also used a xenon-powered ion drive, consuming 81.5 kg of propellant. Over 20 months of thrusting, DS1 was managed to reach a velocity of 56,000 km/hr (35,000 miles/hr) during its flyby of the comet.

Ion thrusters are therefore more economical than rocket technology, as the thrust per unit mass of propellant (a.k.a. specific impulse) is far higher. But it takes a long time for ion thrusters to accelerate spacecraft to any great speeds, and the maximum velocity it can achieve is dependent on its fuel supply and how much electrical energy it can generate.

So if ionic propulsion were to be used for a mission to Proxima Centauri, the thrusters would need a huge source of energy production (i.e. nuclear power) and a large quantity of propellant (although still less than conventional rockets). But based on the assumption that a supply of 81.5 kg of xenon propellant translates into a maximum velocity of 56,000 km/hr (and that there are no other forms of propulsion available, such as a gravitational slingshot to accelerate it further), some calculations can be made.

In short, at a maximum velocity of 56,000 km/h, Deep Space 1 would take over 81,000 years to traverse the 4.24 light years between Earth and Proxima Centauri. To put that time-scale into perspective, that would be over 2,700 human generations. So it is safe to say that an interplanetary ion engine mission would be far too slow to be considered for a manned interstellar mission.

Ionic propulsion is currently the slowest, but most fuel-efficient, form of space travel. Credit: NASA/JPL

But, should ion thrusters be made larger and more powerful (i.e. ion exhaust velocity would need to be significantly higher), and enough propellant could be hauled to keep the spacecrafts going for the entire 4.243 light-year trip, that travel time could be greatly reduced. Still not enough to happen in someones lifetime though.

Gravity Assist Method:The fastest existing means of space travel is known the Gravity Assist method, which involves a spacecraft using the relative movement (i.e. orbit) and gravity of a planet to alter is path and speed. Gravitational assists are a very useful spaceflight technique, especially when using the Earth or another massive planet (like a gas giant) for a boost in velocity.

The Mariner 10 spacecraft was the first to use this method, using Venus gravitational pull to slingshot it towards Mercury in February of 1974. In the 1980s, the Voyager 1 probe used Saturn and Jupiter for gravitational slingshots to attain its current velocity of 60,000 km/hr (38,000 miles/hr) and make it into interstellar space.

However, it was the Helios 2 mission which was launched in 1976 to study the interplanetary medium from 0.3 AU to 1 AU to the Sun that holds the record for highest speed achieved with a gravity assist. At the time, Helios 1 (which launched in 1974) and Helios 2 held the record for closest approach to the Sun. Helios 2 was launched by a conventional NASA Titan/Centaur launch vehicle and placed in a highly elliptical orbit.

A Helios probe being encapsulated for launch. Credit: Public Domain

Due to the large eccentricity (0.54) of the 190 day solar orbit, at perihelion Helios 2 was able to reach a maximum velocity of over 240,000 km/hr (150,000 miles/hr). This orbital speed was attained by the gravitational pull of the Sun alone. Technically, the Helios 2 perihelion velocity was not a gravitational slingshot, it was a maximum orbital velocity, but it still holds the record for being the fastest man-made object regardless.

So, if Voyager 1 was traveling in the direction of the red dwarf Proxima Centauri at a constant velocity of 60,000 km/hr, it would take 76,000 years (or over 2,500 generations) to travel that distance. But if it could attain the record-breaking speed of Helios 2s close approach of the Sun a constant speed of 240,000 km/hr it would take 19,000 years (or over 600 generations) to travel 4.243 light years. Significantly better, but still not in the ream of practicality.

Electromagnetic (EM) Drive:Another proposed method of interstellar travel comes in the form of the Radio Frequency (RF) Resonant Cavity Thruster, also known as the EM Drive. Originally proposed in 2001 by Roger K. Shawyer, a UK scientist who started Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd (SPR) to bring it to fruition, this drive is built around the idea that electromagnetic microwave cavities can allow for the direct conversion of electrical energy to thrust.

Whereas conventional electromagnetic thrusters are designed to propel a certain type of mass (such as ionized particles), this particular drive system relies on no reaction mass and emits no directional radiation. Such a proposal has met with a great deal of skepticism, mainly because it violates the law of Conservation of Momentum which states that within a system, the amount of momentum remains constant and is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes through the action of forces.

The EM Drive prototype produced by NASA/Eagleworks. Credit: NASA Spaceflight Forum

However, recent experiments with the technology have apparently yielded positive results. In July of 2014, at the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, researchers from NASAs advanced propulsion research claimed that they had successfully tested a new design for an electromagnetic propulsion drive.

This was followed up in April of 2015 when researchers at NASA Eagleworks (part of the Johnson Space Center) claimed that they had successfully tested the drive in a vacuum, an indication that it might actually work in space. In July of that same year, a research team from the Dresden University of Technologys Space System department built their own version of the engine and observed a detectable thrust.

And in 2010, Prof. Juan Yang of the Northwestern Polytechnical University in Xian, China, began publishing a series of papers about her research into EM Drive technology. This culminated in her 2012 paper where she reported higher input power (2.5kW) and tested thrust (720mN) levels. In 2014, she further reported extensive tests involving internal temperature measurements with embedded thermocouples, which seemed to confirm that the system worked.

Artists concept of an interstellar craft equipped with an EM Drive. Credit: NASA Spaceflight Center

According to calculations based on the NASA prototype (which yielded a power estimate of 0.4 N/kilowatt), a spacecraft equipped with the EM drive could make the trip to Pluto in less than 18 months. Thats one-sixth the time it took for the New Horizons probe to get there, which was traveling at speeds of close to 58,000 km/h (36,000 mph).

Sounds impressive. But even at that rate, it would take a ship equipped with EM engines over 13,000 years for the vessel to make it to Proxima Centauri. Getting closer, but not quickly enough! and until such time that technology can be definitively proven to work, it doesnt make much sense to put our eggs into this basket.

Nuclear Thermal and Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NTP/NEP):Another possibility for interstellar space flight is to use spacecraft equipped with nuclear engines, a concept which NASA has been exploring for decades. In a Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) rocket, uranium or deuterium reactions are used to heat liquid hydrogen inside a reactor, turning it into ionized hydrogen gas (plasma), which is then channeled through a rocket nozzle to generate thrust.

A Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) rocket involves the same basic reactor converting its heat and energy into electrical energy, which would then power an electrical engine. In both cases, the rocket would rely on nuclear fission or fusion to generates propulsion rather than chemical propellants, which has been the mainstay of NASA and all other space agencies to date.

Artists impression of a Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV) using its nuclear-thermal rocket engines to slow down and establish orbit around Mars. Credit: NASA

Compared to chemical propulsion, both NTP and NEC offers a number of advantages. The first and most obvious is the virtually unlimited energy density it offers compared to rocket fuel. In addition, a nuclear-powered engine could also provide superior thrust relative to the amount of propellant used. This would cut the total amount of propellant needed, thus cutting launch weight and the cost of individual missions.

Although no nuclear-thermal engines have ever flown, several design concepts have been built and tested over the past few decades, and numerous concepts have been proposed. These have ranged from the traditional solid-core design such as the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) to more advanced and efficient concepts that rely on either a liquid or a gas core.

However, despite these advantages in fuel-efficiency and specific impulse, the most sophisticated NTP concept has a maximum specific impulse of 5000 seconds (50 kNs/kg). Using nuclear engines driven by fission or fusion, NASA scientists estimate it would could take a spaceship only 90 days to get to Mars when the planet was at opposition i.e. as close as 55,000,000 km from Earth.

But adjusted for a one-way journey to Proxima Centauri, a nuclear rocket would still take centuries to accelerate to the point where it was flying a fraction of the speed of light. It would then require several decades of travel time, followed by many more centuries of deceleration before reaching it destination. All told, were still talking about 1000 years before it reaches its destination. Good for interplanetary missions, not so good for interstellar ones.

Using existing technology, the time it would take to send scientists and astronauts on an interstellar mission would be prohibitively slow. If we want to make that journey within a single lifetime, or even a generation, something a bit more radical (aka. highly theoretical) will be needed. And while wormholes and jump engines may still be pure fiction at this point, there are some rather advanced ideas that have been considered over the years.

Nuclear Pulse Propulsion:Nuclear pulse propulsion is a theoretically possible form of fast space travel. The concept was originally proposed in 1946 by Stanislaw Ulam, a Polish-American mathematician who participated in the Manhattan Project, and preliminary calculations were then made by F. Reines and Ulam in 1947. The actual project known as Project Orion was initiated in 1958 and lasted until 1963.

The Project Orion concept for a nuclear-powered spacecraft. Credit: silodrome.co

Led by Ted Taylor at General Atomics and physicist Freeman Dyson from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Orion hoped to harness the power of pulsed nuclear explosions to provide a huge thrust with very high specific impulse (i.e. the amount of thrust compared to weight or the amount of seconds the rocket can continually fire).

In a nutshell, the Orion design involves a large spacecraft with a high supply of thermonuclear warheads achieving propulsion by releasing a bomb behind it and then riding the detonation wave with the help of a rear-mounted pad called a pusher. After each blast, the explosive force would be absorbed by this pusher pad, which then translates the thrust into forward momentum.

Though hardly elegant by modern standards, the advantage of the design is that it achieves a high specific impulse meaning it extracts the maximum amount of energy from its fuel source (in this case, nuclear bombs) at minimal cost. In addition, the concept could theoretically achieve very high speeds, with some estimates suggesting a ballpark figure as high as 5% the speed of light (or 5.4107 km/hr).

But of course, there the inevitable downsides to the design. For one, a ship of this size would be incredibly expensive to build. According to estimates produced by Dyson in 1968, an Orion spacecraft that used hydrogen bombs to generate propulsion would weight 400,000 to 4,000,000 metric tons. And at least three quarters of that weight consists of nuclear bombs, where each warhead weights approximately 1 metric ton.

Artists concept of Orion spacecraft leaving Earth. Credit: bisbos.com/Adrian Mann

All told, Dysons most conservative estimates placed the total cost of building an Orion craft at 367 billion dollars. Adjusted for inflation, that works out to roughly $2.5 trillion dollars which accounts for over two thirds of the US governments current annual revenue. Hence, even at its lightest, the craft would be extremely expensive to manufacture.

Theres also the slight problem of all the radiation it generates, not to mention nuclear waste. In fact, it is for this reason that the Project is believed to have been terminated, owing to the passage of the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 which sought to limit nuclear testing and stop the excessive release of nuclear fallout into the planets atmosphere.

Fusion Rockets:Another possibility within the realm of harnessed nuclear power involves rockets that rely on thermonuclear reactions to generate thrust. For this concept, energy is created when pellets of a deuterium/helium-3 mix are ignited in a reaction chamber by inertial confinement using electron beams (similar to what is done at the National Ignition Facility in California). This fusion reactor would detonate 250 pellets per second to create high-energy plasma, which would then be directed by a magnetic nozzle to create thrust.

Like a rocket that relies on a nuclear reactor, this concept offers advantages as far as fuel efficiency and specific impulse are concerned. Exhaust velocities of up to 10,600km/s are estimated, which is far beyond the speed of conventional rockets. Whats more, the technology has been studied extensively over the past few decades, and many proposals have been made.

Artists concept of the Daedalus spacecraft, a two-stage fusion rocket that would achieve up to 12% he speed of light. Credit: Adrian Mann

For example, between 1973 and 1978, the British Interplanetary Society conducted feasibility study known as Project Daedalus. Relying on current knowledge of fusion technology and existing methods, the study called for the creation of a two-stage unmanned scientific probe making a trip to Barnards Star (5.9 light years from Earth) in a single lifetime.

The first stage, the larger of the two, would operate for 2.05 years and accelerate the spacecraft to 7.1% the speed of light (o.071 c). This stage would then be jettisoned, at which point, the second stage would ignite its engine and accelerate the spacecraft up to about 12% of light speed (0.12 c) over the course of 1.8 years. The second-stage engine would then be shut down and the ship would enter into a 46-year cruise period.

According to the Projects estimates, the mission would take 50 years to reach Barnards Star. Adjusted for Proxima Centauri, the same craft could make the trip in 36 years. But of course, the project also identified numerous stumbling blocks that made it unfeasible using then-current technology most of which are still unresolved.

For instance, there is the fact that helium-3 is scare on Earth, which means it would have to be mined elsewhere (most likely on the Moon). Second, the reaction that drives the spacecraft requires that the energy released vastly exceed the energy used to trigger the reaction. And while experiments here on Earth have surpassed the break-even goal, we are still a long way away from the kinds of energy needed to power an interstellar spaceship.

Artists concept of the Project Daedalus spacecraft, with a Saturn V rocket standing next to it for scale. Credit: Adrian Mann

Third, there is the cost factor of constructing such a ship. Even by the modest standard of Project Daedalus unmanned craft, a fully-fueled craft would weight as much as 60,000 Mt. To put that in perspective, the gross weight of NASAs SLS is just over 30 Mt, and a single launch comes with a price tag of $5 billion (based on estimates made in 2013).

In short, a fusion rocket would not only be prohibitively expensive to build, it would require a level of fusion reactor technology that is currently beyond our means. Icarus Interstellar, an international organization of volunteer citizen scientists (some of whom worked for NASA or the ESA) have since attempted to revitalize the concept with Project Icarus. Founded in 2009, the group hopes to make fusion propulsion (among other things) feasible by the near future.

Fusion Ramjet:Also known as the Bussard Ramjet, this theoretical form of propulsion was first proposed by physicist Robert W. Bussard in 1960. Basically, it is an improvement over the standard nuclear fusion rocket, which uses magnetic fields to compress hydrogen fuel to the point that fusion occurs. But in the Ramjets case, an enormous electromagnetic funnel scoops hydrogen from the interstellar medium and dumps it into the reactor as fuel.

Artists concept of the Bussard Ramjet, which would harness hydrogen from the interstellar medium to power its fusion engines. Credit: futurespacetransportation.weebly.com

As the ship picks up speed, the reactive mass is forced into a progressively constricted magnetic field, compressing it until thermonuclear fusion occurs. The magnetic field then directs the energy as rocket exhaust through an engine nozzle, thereby accelerating the vessel. Without any fuel tanks to weigh it down, a fusion ramjet could achieve speeds approaching 4% of the speed of light and travel anywhere in the galaxy.

However, the potential drawbacks of this design are numerous. For instance, there is the problem of drag. The ship relies on increased speed to accumulate fuel, but as it collides with more and more interstellar hydrogen, it may also lose speed especially in denser regions of the galaxy. Second, deuterium and tritium (used in fusion reactors here on Earth) are rare in space, whereas fusing regular hydrogen (which is plentiful in space) is beyond our current methods.

This concept has been popularized extensively in science fiction. Perhaps the best known example of this is in the franchise of Star Trek, where Bussard collectors are the glowing nacelles on warp engines. But in reality, our knowledge of fusion reactions need to progress considerably before a ramjet is possible. We would also have to figure out that pesky drag problem before we began to consider building such a ship!

Laser Sail:Solar sails have long been considered to be a cost-effective way of exploring the Solar System. In addition to being relatively easy and cheap to manufacture, theres the added bonus of solar sails requiring no fuel. Rather than using rockets that require propellant, the sail uses the radiation pressure from stars to push large ultra-thin mirrors to high speeds.

IKAROS spaceprobe with solar sail in flight (artists depiction) showing a typical square sail configuration. Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Andrzej Mirecki

However, for the sake of interstellar flight, such a sail would need to be driven by focused energy beams (i.e. lasers or microwaves) to push it to a velocity approaching the speed of light. The concept was originally proposed by Robert Forward in 1984, who was a physicist at the Hughes Aircrafts research laboratories at the time.

The concept retains the benefits of a solar sail, in that it requires no on-board fuel, but also from the fact that laser energy does not dissipate with distance nearly as much as solar radiation. So while a laser-driven sail would take some time to accelerate to near-luminous speeds, it would be limited only to the speed of light itself.

According to a 2000 study produced by Robert Frisbee, a director of advanced propulsion concept studies at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a laser sail could be accelerated to half the speed of light in less than a decade. He also calculated that a sail measuring about 320 km (200 miles) in diameter could reach Proxima Centauri in just over 12 years. Meanwhile, a sail measuring about 965 km (600 miles) in diameter would arrive in just under 9 years.

However, such a sail would have to be built from advanced composites to avoid melting. Combined with its size, this would add up to a pretty penny! Even worse is the sheer expense incurred from building a laser large and powerful enough to drive a sail to half the speed of light. According to Frisbees own study, the lasers would require a steady flow of 17,000 terawatts of power close to what the entire world consumes in a single day.

Antimatter Engine:Fans of science fiction are sure to have heard of antimatter. But in case you havent, antimatter is essentially material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass but opposite charge as regular particles. An antimatter engine, meanwhile, is a form of propulsion that uses interactions between matter and antimatter to generate power, or to create thrust.

Artists concept of an antimatter-powered spacecraft for missions to Mars, as part of the Mars Reference Mission. Credit: NASA

In short, an antimatter engine involves particles of hydrogen and antihydrogen being slammed together. This reaction unleashes as much as energy as a thermonuclear bomb, along with a shower of subatomic particles called pions and muons. These particles, which would travel at one-third the speed of light, are then be channeled by a magnetic nozzle to generate thrust.

The advantage to this class of rocket is that a large fraction of the rest mass of a matter/antimatter mixture may be converted to energy, allowing antimatter rockets to have a far higher energy density and specific impulse than any other proposed class of rocket. Whats more, controlling this kind of reaction could conceivably push a rocket up to half the speed of light.

Pound for pound, this class of ship would be the fastest and most fuel-efficient ever conceived. Whereas conventional rockets require tons of chemical fuel to propel a spaceship to its destination, an antimatter engine could do the same job with just a few milligrams of fuel. In fact, the mutual annihilation of a half pound of hydrogen and antihydrogen particles would unleash more energy than a 10-megaton hydrogen bomb.

It is for this exact reason that NASAs Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) has investigated the technology as a possible means for future Mars missions. Unfortunately, when contemplating missions to nearby star systems, the amount if fuel needs to make the trip is multiplied exponentially, and the cost involved in producing it would be astronomical (no pun!).

What matter and antimatter might look like annihilating one another. Credit: NASA/CXC/M. Weiss

According to report prepared for the 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit (also by Robert Frisbee), a two-stage antimatter rocket would need over 815,000 metric tons (900,000 US tons) of fuel to make the journey to Proxima Centauri in approximately 40 years. Thats not bad, as far as timelines go. But again, the cost

Whereas a single gram of antimatter would produce an incredible amount of energy, it is estimated that producing just one gram would require approximately 25 million billion kilowatt-hours of energy and cost over a trillion dollars. At present, the total amount of antimatter that has been created by humans is less 20 nanograms.

And even if we could produce antimatter for cheap, you would need a massive ship to hold the amount of fuel needed. According to a report by Dr. Darrel Smith & Jonathan Webby of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Arizona, an interstellar craft equipped with an antimatter engine could reach 0.5 the speed of light and reach Proxima Centauri in a little over 8 years. However, the ship itself would weigh 400 Mt, and would need 170 MT of antimatter fuel to make the journey.

A possible way around this is to create a vessel that can create antimatter which it could then store as fuel. This concept, known as the Vacuum to Antimatter Rocket Interstellar Explorer System (VARIES), was proposed by Richard Obousy of Icarus Interstellar. Based on the idea of in-situ refueling, a VARIES ship would rely on large lasers (powered by enormous solar arrays) which would create particles of antimatter when fired at empty space.

Artists concept of the Vacuum to Antimatter Rocket Interstellar Explorer System (VARIES), a concept that would use solar arrays to power lasers that create particles of antimatter to be used as fuel. Credit: Adrian Mann

Much like the Ramjet concept, this proposal solves the problem of carrying fuel by harnessing it from space. But once again, the sheer cost of such a ship would be prohibitively expensive using current technology. In addition, the ability to create dark matter in large volumes is not something we currently have the power to do. Theres also the matter of radiation, as matter-antimatter annihilation can produce blasts of high-energy gamma rays.

This not only presents a danger to the crew, requiring significant radiations shielding, but requires the engines be shielded as well to ensure they dont undergo atomic degradation from all the radiation they are exposed to. So bottom line, the antimatter engine is completely impractical with our current technology and in the current budget environment.

Alcubierre Warp Drive:Fans of science fiction are also no doubt familiar with the concept of an Alcubierre (or Warp) Drive. Proposed by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994, this proposed method was an attempt to make FTL travel possible without violating Einsteins theory of Special Relativity. In short, the concept involves stretching the fabric of space-time in a wave, which would theoretically cause the space ahead of an object to contract and the space behind it to expand.

An object inside this wave (i.e. a spaceship) would then be able to ride this wave, known as a warp bubble, beyond relativistic speeds. Since the ship is not moving within this bubble, but is being carried along as it moves, the rules of space-time and relativity would cease to apply. The reason being, this method does not rely on moving faster than light in the local sense.

Artist Mark Rademakers concept for the IXS Enterprise, a theoretical interstellar warp spacecraft. Credit: Mark Rademaker/flickr.com

It is only faster than light in the sense that the ship could reach its destination faster than a beam of light that was traveling outside the warp bubble. So assuming that a spacecraft could be outfitted with an Alcubierre Drive system, it would be able to make the trip to Proxima Centauri in less than 4 years. So when it comes to theoretical interstellar space travel, this is by far the most promising technology, at least in terms of speed.

Naturally, the concept has been received its share of counter-arguments over the years. Chief amongst them are the fact that it does not take quantum mechanics into account, and could be invalidated by a Theory of Everything (such as loop quantum gravity). Calculations on the amount of energy required have also indicated that a warp drive would require a prohibitive amount of power to work. Other uncertainties include the safety of such a system, the effects on space-time at the destination, and violations of causality.

However, in 2012, NASA scientist Harold Sonny White announced that he and his colleagues had begun researching the possibility of an Alcubierre Drive. In a paper titled Warp Field Mechanics 101, White claimed that they had constructed an interferometer that will detect the spatial distortions produced by the expanding and contracting spacetime of the Alcubierre metric.

In 2013, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory published results of a warp field test which was conducted under vacuum conditions. Unfortunately, the results were reported as inconclusive. Long term, we may find that Alcubierres metric may violate one or more fundamental laws of nature. And even if the physics should prove to be sound, there is no guarantee it can be harnessed for the sake of FTL flight.

In conclusion, if you were hoping to travel to the nearest star within your lifetime, the outlook isnt very good. However, if mankind felt the incentive to build an interstellar ark filled with a self-sustaining community of space-faring humans, it might be possible to travel there in a little under a century if we were willing to invest in the requisite technology.

But all the available methods are still very limited when it comes to transit time. And while taking hundreds or thousands of years to reach the nearest star may matter less to us if our very survival was at stake, it is simply not practical as far as space exploration and travel goes. By the time a mission reached even the closest stars in our galaxy, the technology employed would be obsolete and humanity might not even exist back home anymore.

So unless we make a major breakthrough in the realms of fusion, antimatter, or laser technology, we will either have to be content with exploring our own Solar System, or be forced to accept a very long-term transit strategy

We have written many interesting articles about space travel here at Universe Today. Heres Will We Ever Reach Another Star?, Warp Drives May Come With a Killer Downside, The Alcubierre Warp Drive, How Far Is A Light Year?, When Light Just Isnt Fast Enough, When Will We Become Interstellar?, and Can We Travel Faster Than the Speed of Light?

For more information, be sure to consult NASAs pages on Propulsion Systems of the Future, and Is Warp Drive Real?

Read the original:

How Long Would It Take To Travel To The Nearest Star ...

Posted in Space Travel | Comments Off on How Long Would It Take To Travel To The Nearest Star …

Singularity HUB – News and Insights on Technology, Science …

Posted: at 5:51 pm

What You Need to Know About the Future of Money

by Jason Dorrier

by Bonnie Docherty

by Shelly Fan

by Singularity University

by Shelly Fan

by Jason Dorrier

by Sveta McShane

Categories

Latest

Popular

Editor's Picks

What You Need to Know About the Future of Money

Losing Control: The Dangers of Killer Robots

The Netflix of Finance Suggests Stocks Based on Where You Shop

Positively Impacting the World With Tech? Apply for Singularity Universitys GGC Awards

What Happens If Society Is Too Slow to Absorb Technological Change?

How Quantum Computing Can Make Finance More Scientific

Can Growing Human Organs in Pigs Solve the Organ Shortage?

Watch a Robot Show How Much You Suck at Foosball

This Weeks Awesome Stories From Around the Web (Through June 11th)

The World Will Be Continuously Upgradable When Everything Is Connected

Singularity University, Singularity Hub, Singularity University Summits, SU Labs, Singularity Labs, Exponential Medicine and all associated logos and design elements are trademarks and/or service marks of Singularity Education Group. 2014 Singularity Education Group. All Rights Reserved.

Read this article:

Singularity HUB - News and Insights on Technology, Science ...

Posted in Singularity | Comments Off on Singularity HUB – News and Insights on Technology, Science …

What is UNICUM? (Mi van az Unicum?) – Yak

Posted: at 5:51 pm

by strick What is UNICUM? (Mi van az Unicum?) Also called the "Hungarian National Accelerator", Unicum is a bitter herbal liquer drunk mostly in Hungary and by Hungarians, although expats and tourists can (and often do) aquire a taste for it. It's a secret recipe of (i've heard) 23 or maybe (below it says) 40 herbal ingredients.

The "Time Out" guide to Budapest describes it as something like (i'm typing this from memory) smells like a hospital corridor, and as bitter as cold winter's night.

It doesn't go over well in the states, where Jaegermeister is about as adventuresome as people get. (To me, Jaegermeister tastes like green kool-aid with extra sugar.)

Drink it in shots, with a glass of soda water nearby, in case you need it.

One Hungarian T-Shirt calls it "The best stomach-strengthening liquor"! It's also considered a tonic, and it is theraputic for a great many ailments. Personally, I strengthen my stomach with it:)

Here's what some other web pages say about it:

And what is Unicum? Its exact composition cannot be revealed because the recipe is a secret... What may be disclosed, however, is that Unicum is a skilful blend of more than 40 carefully selected herbs and spices. The lengthy ageing process which takes place over 6 months in oak casks gives Unicum its inimitable bitter-sweet flavour and exotic bouquet. Unicum makes a perfect aperitif or dessert drink due to its beneficial and soothing effect on the stomach.

441. What is Conware? [jake/2006-12-22] 412. Interested in using Java in Debian? [jake/2004-08-28] 391. Is E.B. White of Strunk and White fame the same one who wrote Charlotte's Web? [overcode/2003-11-03] 339. R. U. ready to Impeach the Entire Political Mainstream and Dramatically Decrease the Threat of International Terrorism? [strick/2002-12-06] 319. why do i get an error "make: don't know how to make /usr/share/tmac/tmac.andoc. Stop" when building a pkg on netbsd? [jesse/2002-08-10] 314. How can you talk to deaf people on the phone? (Thanks Mr. Jeff Young) [jake/2002-05-11] 244. Does Jeffrey read too many web comics each day? [strick/2001-06-06] 221. Where can I find information about odd places in San Francisco? [rupe/2001-06-04] 184. Just how many people are their, anyway? [les/2001-02-22] 168. What's the Official Fag Razor of the YAK? [strick/2001-01-29] 74. How many roads must a man walk down? [vonguard/2000-04-04] 73. How many Zelda games are there? [vonguard/2001-06-25] ( combee/2001-07-10 mennonite/2001-03-27 ) 64. Where are other sites about YAKS (the animals)? [strick/2000-02-20] 23. What is an extropian? [strick/2000-01-19] 16. Where are the SF Bay Area Cypherpunk physical meetings? [strick/2001-04-08]

Read the original:

What is UNICUM? (Mi van az Unicum?) - Yak

Posted in Extropian | Comments Off on What is UNICUM? (Mi van az Unicum?) – Yak