A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://link.springer.com/doi/10.1007/s00016-016-0189-9 below:

From Desire to Data: How JLab’s Experimental Program Evolved

References

  1. CEBAF, “CEBAF Design Report,” May 1986, Jefferson Laboratory Library Archives, Newport News, VA (hereafter JLL)

  2. CEBAF, “Experimental Equipment Conceptual Design Report,” CEBAF R-90-001, JLL

  3. During the fifteen years operation first at 4 GeV, and later at 6 GeV, nearly 200 experiments were conducted. In 2008 a major upgrade of the facility, which is nearing completion in 2016, began. The upgrade will double the beam energy, add a fourth experimental hall, and provide a new suite of major experimental equipment

  4. The betatron is a type of particle accelerator that uses the electric field induced by a varying magnetic field to accelerate electrons in a circular orbit

  5. E. M. Lyman, A. O. Hanson, and M. B. Scott, “Scattering of 15.7-Mev Electrons By Nuclei,” Physical Review 84 (1951), 626–34

  6. Hofstadter won the Nobel Prize in 1961 for his “pioneering studies of electron scattering in atomic nuclei and for his thereby achieved discoveries concerning the structure of the nucleons.” “The Nobel Prize in Physics 1961,” Nobelprize.org, accessed May 23, 2016, https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1961/. The major articles from the Hofstadter era are collected in Robert Hofstadter, Electron Scattering and Nuclear and Nucleon Structure (New York: Benjamin, 1963). Also see: Robert Hofstadter, “A Personal View of Nucleon Structure as Revealed by Electron Scattering,” in Pions to Quarks: Particle Physics in the 1950s, ed. Laurie Brown, Max Dresden, and Lillian Hoddeson (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University, 1989), 126–43. For more information on Hansen's pioneering work on linacs, which began in the 1930s, see John Blewett, “The History of Linear Accelerators,” in Linear Accelerators, ed. Pierre M. Lapostolle and Albert L. Septier (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1970), 1017 and Peter Galison, Bruce Hevly and Rebecca Lowen, “Controlling the Monster: Stanford and the Growth of Physics Research, 1935–1962,” in Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research, ed. Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), 47–77. For a review of the early physics and the outlook of the field in the late 1980s, see C. N. Papanicolas, L. S. Cardman, and R. A. Eisenstein, eds., Electron Scattering in Nuclear and Particle Science: In Commemoration of the 35th Anniversary of the Lyman-Hanson-Scott Experiment, American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 161 (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1987)

  7. G. Baldwin and G. Klaiber, “Photo-Fission in Heavy Elements,” Physical Review 71(1) (1947), 3–10. The giant dipole resonance in nuclei is a highly collective mode of excitation in which the neutrons and protons oscillate relative to each other. Since its discovery a variety of other giant resonances involving different highly collective excitations (in particular, shape oscillations of the entire nucleus) have also been discovered

  8. Duty factor is the ratio of the time the beam is present to the total time. It is particularly important for coincidence experiments (where the goal of the experiment is to measure events in which two particles are detected simultaneously and are associated with the same nuclear interaction; the (e,e′p) reaction is a prime motivating example). “True” coincident events are proportional to the product of the beam current, target thickness, and the cross section for the (e,e′p) events for the particular kinematics and settings of the two detectors involved. It is not affected by the duty factor of the beam; rather, it is simply proportional to the average beam current. However, in a coincidence measurement the “singles” rates in each of the two detector systems are also proportional to the beam current, target thickness, and cross section for the events detected in that detector for its kinematics and settings. The “random” coincidence events are therefore proportional to product of the rates in each detector times the resolving time of the coincidence measurement, hence they are proportional to the square of the beam current times the resolving time. Unfortunately, the random coincidence rate increases in proportion to 1/(duty factor) as it depends on the instantaneous rates in the two detector systems. Putting this all together, we find that the ratio of the true to accidental coincidences (a direct measure of the “cleanliness” of the experimental data) is proportional to 1/(duty factor) for a given average current, so (e,e′p) experiments were one hundred times cleaner using a 1% duty factor beam than they were with the 0.01% beams available from early electron accelerators. By increasing the duty factor to 100%, experimenters would gain another factor of 100 in the signal-to-noise ratio (cleanliness) of the data, facilitating experiments that were not yet feasible

  9. See two HEPL proposals: the first to the Office of Naval Research in 1965 (Informal Proposal to the Office of Naval Research for a High Energy Facility at Stanford University, High Energy Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, August, 1965) and the second in 1969 to the National Science Foundation, which took over HEPL funding from ONR in the interim (Proposal to the National Science Foundation for An Extension of NSF Grant No. GP-9498 in support of a program on High Energy Physics and Cryogenic Research, December 1969). The author thanks Larry Cardman for providing these documents, which he was able to obtain thanks to Alan Schwettman and the Stanford University Library

  10. For more on the ill-fated HEPL project, see Catherine Westfall, “The Prehistory of Jefferson Lab's SRF Accelerating Cavities, 1962 to 1985,” available from JLL, JL.9.3 1977

  11. William Bertozzi and S. Kowalski, eds., Medium Energy Nuclear Physics with Electron Linear Accelerators, MIT 1967 Summer Study, Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.I.T.-2098-No. 470 (Springfield, VA: Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, 1968)

  12. Informal Proposal (ref. 9); Extension of NSF Grant (ref. 9)

  13. Catherine Westfall, interview with William Bertozzi and Larry Cardman, December 10, 2014, JLL

  14. The two main approaches to “model independent” analysis were: Fourier-Bessel (see B. Dreher, J. Friedrich, K. Merle, H. Rothhaas, and G. Luhrs, “The Determination of the Nuclear Ground State and Transition Charge Density from Measured Electron Scattering Data,” Nuclear Physics A 235 (1974), 219–48); and the Sum-of-Gaussians (see I. Sick, “Model-Independent Nuclear Charge Densities from Elastic Electron Scattering,” Nuclear Physics A 218 (1974), 509–41)

  15. An excellent summary of the physics of this era of experiments can be found in T. W. Donnelly and J. D. Walecka, “Electron Scattering and Nuclear Structure,” Annual Review of Nuclear Science 25 (1975), 329–405

  16. The energy given the recoiling mass in elastic scattering is proportional to q 2/2M, where q is the momentum transferred and M is the mass of the struck object; the recoil energy for a proton is roughly A times larger than that of the nucleus, where A is the number of nucleons in the nucleus

  17. See, e.g., E. J. Moniz, I. Sick, R. R. Whitney, J. R. Ficenec, R. D. Kephart, and W. P. Trower, “Nuclear Fermi Momenta from Quasielastic Electron Scattering,” Physical Review Letters 26 (1971), 445–48

  18. See Table 1 in J. Mougey, “The (e,e′p) Reaction,” Nuclear Physics A 335 (1980), 35–53, on 36, for a listing of early work in the field

  19. W. Bertozzi, M. V. Hynes, C. P. Sargent, W. Turchinetz, and C. Williamson, “High Resolution Spectrometers for Electron Scattering,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods 162 (1979), 211–38

  20. C. de Vries, C. W. de Jager, L. Lapikás, G. Luijckx, R. Maas, H. de Vries, and P. K. A. de Witt Huberts, “The 500 MeV Electron-Scattering Facility at NIKHEF-K,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physical Research 223 (1984), 1–25

  21. Westfall, “SRF Accelerating Cavities” (ref. 10)

  22. Catherine Westfall, interview with J. D. Walecka, October 1, 1992, JLL

  23. In addition to Walecka, the panel included George Bertsch, Herman Feshbach, Gerald Garvey, Harry Gove, Arthur Poskanzer, Louis Rosen, John Schiffer, Robert Stokstad, Thomas Tombrello, and Robert Vandenbosch. Their report was published by the National Academy of Sciences: Ad Hoc Panel on the Future of Nuclear Science, G. Friedlander, chair, Committee on Nuclear Science, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Future of Nuclear Science, (Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1977)

  24. Quotes from Friedlander, Future of Nuclear Science (ref. 23), 92, 71

  25. Westfall, interview with Walecka (ref. 22)

  26. Department of Energy/National Science Foundation Study Group, R. S. Livingston, chair, The Role of Electron Accelerators in U.S. Medium Energy Nuclear Science, ORNL/PPA-77/4 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1977), 41

  27. Ibid. In addition to Livingston, the study group included G. E. Brown, P. A. Carruthers, F. W. K. Firk, G. T. Garvey, I. Halpern, L. S. Kisslinger, E. A. Knapp, J. E. Leiss, J. S. McCarthy, and R. E. Welsh

  28. Ibid., 1

  29. Ibid., 29

  30. Ibid., 3

  31. At first, the committee was called “NUSAC.” To avoid confusion, the current name of the committee, NSAC, is used here

  32. The DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, H. Feshbach, chair, “A Long Range Plan for Nuclear Science,” 1979, http://science.energy.gov/~/media/np/nsac/pdf/docs/1979_Long_Range_Plan.pdf. In addition to Feshbach, the committee included F. Ajzenberg-Selove, P. D. Barnes, G. E. Brown, W. A. Fowler, G. T. Garvey, W. Haeberli, I Halpern, B. G Harvey, J. R. Huizenga, E. A. Knapp, R. E. Pollock, D. Robson, and T. T. Sugihara

  33. E. D. Bloom, D. H. Coward, H. DeStaebler, et al., “High-Energy Inelastic e–p Scattering at 6° and 10°,” Physics Review Letters 23 (1969), 930–39. For more on the development of the standard model and quantum chromodynamics, see Lillian Hoddeson, Laurie Brown, Michael Riordan, and Max Dresden, The Rise of the Standard Model: Particle Physics in the 1960s and 1970s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). For more on the history of SLAC, see Galison, Hevly, and Lowen, “Controlling the Monster” (ref. 6). The latter source gives a history of the beginnings of SLAC, as does Stuart Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 181–86 and Rebecca Lowen, Creating the Cold War University: The Transformation of Stanford (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 177–86

  34. Quote from Catherine Westfall, interview with Roy Holt, July 16, 2013, JLL

  35. J. S. McCarthy and R. R. Whitney, eds., Proceedings: Conference on Future Possibilities for Electron Accelerators (Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1979)

  36. For more information on the advent of SURA, the design effort led by McCarthy, and the decision making process that led to the choice of the SURA design and the founding of the laboratory in Virginia, see Catherine Westfall, The Founding of CEBAF, 1979 to 1987 (Newport News, VA: Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, 1994)

  37. Other meetings were held on the subject in addition to those of the Bates Users Group. For example, “New Horizons in Electromagnetic Physics” was held in Charlottesville, VA, in April 1982 and a workshop in Sweden that resulted in the publication of J. O. Adler and B. Schrøder, eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on the Use of Electron Rings for Nuclear Physics Research in the Intermediate Energy Region, Lund, October 5–7, 1982, 2 vols. (Lund, Sweden: Lunds universitet, 1983). Catherine Westfall, interview with Franz Gross, February 16, 1998, JLL; interview with Paul Stoler, September 5, 1997, JLL; “Evolution of Electronuclear Physics to the Present,” in Report of the Workshop on Future Directions in Electromagnetic Nuclear Physics, ed. E. C. Booth, T. W. Donnelly, E. Hadjimichael. C. G. Peterson, and P. Stoler (Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1981), i

  38. Booth et al., Future Directions (ref. 37)

  39. Quotes from interview with Franz Gross, February 16, 1998, JLL. Also: interview with Paul Stoler, September 5, 1997, JLL; and Booth et al., Future Directions (ref. 37)

  40. Booth et al., Future Directions (ref. 37), quoted a preprint of the Lepage/Brodsky article on page 7. The published reference is: G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, “Exclusive Processes in Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics,” Physical Review D 22 (1980), 2157–98

  41. C. Y. Prescott, W. B. Atwood, R. L. A. Cottrell, et al., “Parity Non-Conservation in Inelastic Electron Scattering,” Physics Letters B 77 (1978), 347–53; “Further Measurements of Parity Non-Conservation in Inelastic Electron Scattering,” Physics Letters B 84 (1979), 524–28

  42. Quotes, respectively, from Booth et al., Future Directions (ref. 37), 11, 7–8. Also: J. Dirk Walecka, private communication, February 5, 1999

  43. Quotes, respectively, Booth et al., Future Directions (ref. 37), 8 and 9

  44. Lepage and Brodsky, “Exclusive Processes” (ref. 40)

  45. Southeastern Universities Research Association, “Proposal for a National Electron Accelerator Laboratory,” 1980, II-4, JLL

  46. Southeastern Universities Research Association, “Proposal for a National Electron Accelerator Laboratory,” 1982, I-5, JLL

  47. William Bertozzi remembered that he and some others wanted MIT-Bates to build a 4 GeV accelerator straight away, based on the developing physics interest and the likelihood that any evidence of QCD effects accessible at 2 GeV would be meager and controversial, but they were overruled. Catherine Westfall, interview with William Bertozzi and Larry Cardman, December 10, 2014, JLL

  48. Catherine Westfall, interview with Stanley Kowalski, October 25, 1991, JLL. These arguments are presented in more detail in Catherine Westfall, Founding of CEBAF (ref. 36), 10

  49. Catherine Westfall, interview with James McCarthy, March 25, 1994, JLL

  50. In addition to Barnes and Brodsky, the subcommittee included D. Allen Bromley, Gerald E. Brown, Paul T. Debevec, Ernest M. Henley, Philip Morton, James S. O'Connell, Robert Pollock, Achim Richter, Ingo Sick, Herman Feshbach, and Carl Dover. Their report is DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, P. Barnes, chair, “The Role of Electromagnetic Interactions in Nuclear Science,” JLL

  51. Ibid., 50

  52. Ibid., 43

  53. Ibid., 43

  54. The microtron combines synchronous beam recirculation for many orbits through a linac structure, permitting efficient operation at reduced field strength in the linac which, in turn, permitted CW operation. Due to beam optics constraints an energy gain in a simple microtron is limited to about a factor of ten. Higher energy gains could be achieved by cascading microtron stages, so, for example, one could gain about a factor of 100 in energy from a two-stage microtron

  55. As Larry Cardman, then a leader of the University of Illinois group, has pointed out, although Illinois and NBS proposed machines with energies 1 GeV and below, both groups saw their accelerators as complementary in capability to the 4 GeV machine, which they hoped would be built immediately, alongside their projects. Catherine Westfall, interview with Larry Cardman, March 13, 1991, JLL

  56. Catherine Westfall, interview with R. Roy Whitney, June 3, 2014, JLL

  57. Ibid., and interview with Catherine Westfall, interview Donald Geesaman, July 15, 2013, JLL

  58. In addition to Bromley, the panel members were: S. Austin, J. Cerny, K. Erb, H. Grunder, E. Henley, S. Koonin, A. McDonald, P. Morton, R. Neal, E. Rowe, I. Sick, and A. van Steenbergen

  59. Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, “Report of the Panel on Electron Accelerator Facilities,” April 1983, JLL. The quotation is on page 3 of the report

  60. Ibid., 52–53

  61. For more on the New Big Science, see Robert Crease and Catherine Westfall, “The New Big Science,” Physics Today 69 (2016), 30–36

  62. For more on the new era and the increasing pressure for accountability, see Catherine Westfall, “Introduction to the Special Issue: Surviving the Squeeze: National Laboratories in the 1970s and 1980s,” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 38 (2008), 475–78

  63. Catherine Westfall, interview with James McCarthy, December 11, 1991, JLL

  64. SURA, “National Electron Accelerator Laboratory” (ref. 45), B-85–B-107

  65. As Harry Holgren explained in “SURA’s First Decade” (JLL), the initial choice of the Newport News site resulted from a competition held by SURA that included five sites: two main contenders were Newport News, which was handy to William and Mary College, and the University of Virginia. In 1981 SURA chose the Newport News site. Due to reservations of the Bromley panel about the Newport News site, the sites in Virginia were re-evaluated by a technical subpanel in May 1983. At this time the advocates of the Newport News site successfully addressed Bromley panel concerns, noting that William and Mary was close enough to provide a good university connection and that the site was not too swampy for accelerator construction. The next month the SURA officials reaffirmed the choice, which was accepted by the technical subpanel and DOE. H. Holmgren, “SURA Chronology,” JLL. Text reference. Franz Gross and R. Roy Whitney, Proceedings, CEBAF/SURA 1984 Summer Workshop (Newport News, VA: CEBAF, 1984), iii

  66. Quotes from Catherine Westfall, interview with Franz Gross, February 16, 1998, JLL. Also: Gross and Whitney, Proceedings (ref. 65), iv

  67. Westfall, interview with Gross (ref. 66)

  68. CEBAF, “CEBAF Key Staff,” August 1986, JLL; Catherine Westfall, interview with Bernhard Mecking, March 29, 1996, JLL; interview with Volker Burkert, June 2, 1999, JLL

  69. N. Isgur and C. H. Llewellyn Smith, “Asymptotic Q 2 for Exclusive Processes in Quantum Chromodynamics,” Physical Review Letters 52 (1984), 1080–83

  70. Catherine Westfall, interview with Nathan Isgur, September 9, 1997, JLL

  71. Quotes, respectively, from Nathan Isgur, “Nucleon Physics with Chromodynamics: From High Q 2 to Baryon Spectroscopy to Nuclear Physics,” in Gross and Whitney, Proceedings (ref. 65), 212, 220

  72. Westfall, interview with Isgur (ref. 70)

  73. As the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider in 1993 shows, even authorization of construction funding does not assure a federal commitment to complete a project. Text reference: telephone conversation with James McCarthy, December 9, 1998

  74. Westfall, interview with Isgur (ref. 70)

  75. Quotes from DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, “A Long Range Plan for Nuclear Science,” December 1983, http://science.energy.gov/~/media/np/nsac/pdf/docs/lrp_1983.pdf, v, vi; John Schiffer, letter to Physics Today, November 4, 1984, Schiffer Files, JLL; telephone conversation with Walter Massey, November 27, 1994. See Jack Holl, Argonne National Laboratory 1946–96 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977), 420–23 for a description of the inception of the Argonne proposal as well as a postmortem the laboratory performed after the loss of the project. For more on the advent of RHIC see Robert Crease, “Recombinant Science: The Birth of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 38(4) (2008), 535–68

  76. In addition to Vogt, Walecka, Bromley, and Schiffer, the subcommittee included G. Baym, G. Farrar, S. Koonin, J. Negele, and I. Sick

  77. DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, “Report of the NSAC Ad Hoc Subcommittee on a 4 GeV CW Electron Accelerator for Nuclear Physics,” September 27, 1984, JLL. The charge quote is from page 2 of the report

  78. For more information about the efforts of Leiss, Keyworth, and the Virginia delegation to secure funding for the SURA machine, see Catherine Westfall, Founding of CEBAF (ref. 36). Text reference: Holgrem, “SURA’s First Decade” (ref. 65)

  79. SURA, “Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees,” April 27, 1984, JLL; SURA, “Minutes of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees,” July 11, 1984, JLL; “SURA, “Minutes of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees,” July 11, 1984, JLL; Holmgren, “SURA Chronology” (ref. 65)

  80. Quotes, respectively, from the report of the NSAC Ad Hoc Subcommittee on a 4 GeV CW Electron Accelerator for Nuclear Physics, 6, 9, JLL

  81. John Schiffer, letter to Jay Keyworth, October 26, 1984, JLL and text quote as quoted in Irwin Goodwin, “Vogt Panel Endorses SURA Accelerator,” Physics Today 37(10) (1984), 59

  82. The laboratory founded by Ernest Lawrence has had many names. I use Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) because that was the name used most of the time considered here

  83. Hermann Grunder, curriculum vitae, January 1985, CEBAF, “CEBAF Key Staff: Biographical Sketches from the SURA Newsletter,” August, 1986, JLL

  84. Quotes from Hermann Grunder, “Meeting at MIT with Kerman, Moniz, and Kowalski,” February 26, 1985, JLL. Also Hermann Grunder, “Meeting with JK,” February 21, 1985, and Hermann Grunder, February 22, 1985, Hermann Grunder log, JLL

  85. Catherine Westfall, interview with Hermann Grunder, March 22, 1994, JLL

  86. For more on Grunder and how his temperament influenced the creation of the laboratory, see Catherine Westfall, “A Tale of Two More Laboratories: Readying for Research at Fermilab and Jefferson Laboratory,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 32 (2002), 369–407

  87. For more on the problems of SRF and their solutions see Catherine Westfall, “The Prehistory of Jefferson Lab’s SRF Accelerating Cavities, 1962 to 1985,” 1995, https://misportal.jlab.org/ul/publications/view_pub.cfm?pub_id=11132

  88. Hall Crannell and Franz Gross, eds., Proceedings, CEBAF/SURA 1985 Summer Workshop: Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, Newport News, Virginia, June 3-7, 1985 (Newport News, VA: CEBAF, 1985). Also: Fiscal Year 1988 Department of Energy Authorization: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development of the Commmittee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, 100th Cong. 176–97 (March 3, 1987) (written testimony of Dr. Hermann A. Grunder)

  89. Quotes from: Crannell and Gross, Proceedings (ref. 88), xii; Catherine Westfall, interview with John Schiffer, May 26, 1998, JLL; interview with Holt (ref. 34)

  90. Text quotes: Crannell and Gross, Proceedings (ref. 88), xi

  91. J. J. Aubert, G. Bassompierre, and K. H. Becks, et al., “The Ratio of the Nucleon Structure Functions F N2 for Iron and Deuterium,” Physics Letters B 123 (1983), 275–78; J. Ashman, B. Badelek, G. Baum, et al., “A Measurement of the Spin Asymmetry and Determination of the Structure Function g 1 in Deep Inelastic Muon-Proton Scattering,” Physics Letters B 206 (1988), 364–70

  92. Larry Cardman, personal communication, June 24, 2013 and Westfall, interview with Geesaman (ref. 57). Although the CERN experiments were done in 1983, the same year as the Bromley panel, Geesaman explains they were not widely known in the nuclear physics community. He remembers first learning of the EMC effect from the preparations for the DOE/NSF “Long Range Plan” (ref. 75), 18. The author thanks Donald Geesaman for this document. Geesaman also noted that the EMC effect remains a puzzle in 2013

  93. CEBAF, “CEBAF Design Report” (ref. 1), 157

  94. Ibid., 157

  95. “CEBAF Preconceptual Design Report,” Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, December 1985, 157, JLL

  96. Westfall, “Two More Laboratories” (ref. 86)

  97. All tables in the appendices are taken from a series of tables presented in Lawrence Cardman, “Background Information for History Articles on the Evolution of the Science Program at Jefferson Lab and the Planning for the Experimental Equipment,” JLab Technical Note, JLL. As the technical note explains, the tables are based on a rigorous examination and comparison of the physics goals mentioned in various planning documents noted in the tables. This document explains the process for establishing common language for physics goals so that a comparison could be made

Download references

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4