DOCSLIB.ORG

28/9 N+Vs Layoutmx

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
28/9 N+Vs Layoutmx news and views Obituary here, despite the fact that the report of the Mark Oliphant (1901–2000) MAUD Committee had been sent to the relevant authorities. He immediately informed a few influential friends about The Australian physicist Sir Marcus the British findings. The outcome of Laurence Elwin Oliphant, who died on Oliphant’s indiscretion was the setting up 14 July 2000, was the last of the of the Manhattan Project. He himself ‘Rutherford Boys’ — the brilliant team worked on the project, on the manufacture who, under the leadership of Lord of uranium-235, in California and BOB COOPER, ANU Rutherford, made the Cavendish Tennessee. Laboratory in Cambridge the Mecca of Oliphant returned to Birmingham for nuclear research during the years between only a few years before taking up, in 1950, the two world wars. A figure larger than permanent residence in his native country. life, Oliphant exuded physical vitality and During his time in Birmingham he self-confidence. A genial extrovert, with a designed the proton-synchrotron, in booming laugh, he spoke his mind bluntly, which particles could be accelerated to never shy of challenging authority. As a gigaelectronvolts (GeV). This work was scientist he was imaginative and creative; based on the ‘phase stability’ principle, as a public figure he had a strong which he conceived before Vladimir commitment to freedom of speech and an Veksler and Edwin McMillan. abhorrence of secrecy in any walk of life. Oliphant was lured to Canberra by a Oliphant joined the Cavendish promise from the Australian government Laboratory in 1927, on an 1851 Exhibition to provide him with sufficient finances Scholarship. He quickly endeared himself to set up a Research School of Physical to Rutherford by his experimental skill. Sciences at the new Australian National Making things with one’s own hands was Enthusiastic builder of University. With his usual enthusiasm he in the Cavendish tradition of ‘sealing-wax particle accelerators threw himself into the project of creating and string’, but Oliphant was also an a school of nuclear research equal to any enthusiast for new technologies, with a and research centres in the world; this included a plan for an penchant for building particle accelerators. accelerator of novel design that would Improving on the Cockcroft–Walton Oliphant’s department, soon developed a produce particles with a higher energy accelerator by designing ion sources of much more efficient device, the resonant than achieved anywhere else. Although much greater intensity, Oliphant’s main cavity magnetron. Within a few months much of his planning came to fruition, contributions were the study of the nuclear it became the tool that helped to win the he failed to build his ambitious 10-Gev reactions that occurred when deuterium Battle of Britain in 1940 and avert Hitler’s ‘cyclosynchrotron’; it was simply beyond was bombarded with deuterons, which led invasion of England. It was largely the capacity of a small country, and his to the discovery of tritium. Considering his Oliphant’s indefatigability that made dream machine remained a “white later anti-nuclear campaigns, it is ironic this possible. Oliphant” (as it was described at the time). that the main practical applications of his Oliphant played a somewhat similar However, this failure did not diminish his work should be in nuclear weapons — role in the development of the atom bomb. high standing in Australia — he had the tritium is a booster for the fission bomb, Research on the bomb began in England in unique distinction, for a scientist, of and the fusion reactions are the basis of the 1939, but the main impetus came from the serving as a governor of South Australia, hydrogen bomb. calculations by Otto Frisch and Rudolf the state of his birth. After moving to Birmingham in 1937, Peierls, early in 1940, which showed that Oliphant was vehemently opposed to Oliphant took on the task of converting a the critical mass for a divergent chain the use of the atom bomb on the Japanese moribund physics department into a reaction, propagated by fast neutrons in cities. He never overcame his feelings of leading nuclear research centre. He saw to uranium-235, was only a few kilograms. guilt about his part in the Manhattan this by building a 60-inch cyclotron, the It was Oliphant who brought the Project, and he frequently expressed his largest at the time in England. However, Frisch–Peierls memorandum to the views to the Australian media. He also the completion of the machine was attention of government authorities. took an active part in international interrupted by the outbreak of the Second As a result, the MAUD Committee was campaigns against nuclear weapons, World War in 1939. Two projects more set up, charged with the development of particularly in the Pugwash Conferences urgent and vital to the war effort — radar the atom bomb. on Science and World Affairs. One of the and the atom bomb — were to occupy his Most of the experimental research 22 participants in the first conference in mind for the next six years. on the physics of the bomb was done in 1957, he fully shared the Pugwash precept To make a radar that would be of Liverpool, where Frisch joined James that scientists have a moral duty to be practical use in the war — for example, Chadwick’s team. By 1941, the scientific concerned about the social impact of their as a means of detecting approaching feasibility of the bomb had been work. Describing himself as a ‘belligerent enemy aircraft — it was necessary to established, but the separation of the pacifist’, he advocated his conviction that increase greatly the power in the radio uranium-235 isotope was too difficult a war itself is evil and must not be tolerated beam and to make it work at much shorter task for Britain under wartime conditions. by humanity. Joseph Rotblat wavelengths. Oliphant adapted the While on a trip to the United States on Joseph Rotblat is at the Pugwash Conferences on klystron (used as a radiofrequency source business connected with radar, in the Science and World Affairs, 63A Great Russell Street, in the cyclotron) for this purpose. But autumn of 1941, Oliphant discovered that London WC1B 3BJ, UK. John Randall and Harry Boot, working in no work on the atom bomb was going on t e-mail: [email protected] © 2000 Macmillan Magazines Ltd 468 NATURE | VOL 407 | 28 SEPTEMBER 2000 | www.nature.com.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 4. CLASSIFICATION UNDER the ATOMIC ENERGY
    Chapter 4 CLASSIFICATION UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT INTRODUCTION The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 was the first and, other than its successor, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to date the only U.S. statute to establish a program to restrict the dissemination of information. This Act transferred control of all aspects of atomic (nuclear) energy from the Army, which had managed the government’s World War II Manhattan Project to produce atomic bombs, to a five-member civilian Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). These new types of bombs, of awesome power, had been developed under stringent secrecy and security conditions. Congress, in enacting the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, continued the Manhattan Project’s comprehensive, rigid controls on U.S. information about atomic bombs and other aspects of atomic energy. That Atomic Energy Act designated the atomic energy information to be protected as “Restricted Data” and defined that data. Two types of atomic energy information were defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Restricted Data (RD) and a type that was subsequently termed Formerly Restricted Data (FRD). Before discussing further the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and its unique requirements for controlling atomic energy information, some of the special information-control activities that accompanied the research, development, and production efforts that led to the first atomic bomb will be mentioned. Realization that an atomic bomb was possible had a profound impact on the scientists who first became aware of that possibility. The implications of such a weapon were so tremendous that the U.S. scientists conducting the initial, basic research related to nuclear fission voluntarily restricted the publication of their scientific work in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • Rutherford's Nuclear World: the Story of the Discovery of the Nuc
    Rutherford's Nuclear World: The Story of the Discovery of the Nuc... http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/rutherford/sections/atop-physic... HOME SECTIONS CREDITS EXHIBIT HALL ABOUT US rutherford's explore the atom learn more more history of learn about aip's nuclear world with rutherford about this site physics exhibits history programs Atop the Physics Wave ShareShareShareShareShareMore 9 RUTHERFORD BACK IN CAMBRIDGE, 1919–1937 Sections ← Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next → In 1962, John Cockcroft (1897–1967) reflected back on the “Miraculous Year” ( Annus mirabilis ) of 1932 in the Cavendish Laboratory: “One month it was the neutron, another month the transmutation of the light elements; in another the creation of radiation of matter in the form of pairs of positive and negative electrons was made visible to us by Professor Blackett's cloud chamber, with its tracks curled some to the left and some to the right by powerful magnetic fields.” Rutherford reigned over the Cavendish Lab from 1919 until his death in 1937. The Cavendish Lab in the 1920s and 30s is often cited as the beginning of modern “big science.” Dozens of researchers worked in teams on interrelated problems. Yet much of the work there used simple, inexpensive devices — the sort of thing Rutherford is famous for. And the lab had many competitors: in Paris, Berlin, and even in the U.S. Rutherford became Cavendish Professor and director of the Cavendish Laboratory in 1919, following the It is tempting to simplify a complicated story. Rutherford directed the Cavendish Lab footsteps of J.J. Thomson. Rutherford died in 1937, having led a first wave of discovery of the atom.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Synchrotrons in Britain, and Early Work for Cern
    EARLY SYNCHROTRONS IN BRITAIN, AND EARLY WORK FOR CERN J. D. Lawson Formerly Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxon, UK Abstract Early work on electron synchrotrons in the UK, including an account of the conversion of a small betatron in 1946 to become the world’s first synchrotron, is described first. This is followed by a description of the design and construction of the 1 GeV synchrotron at the University of Birmingham which was started in the same year. Finally an account is given of the work of the international team during 1952–3, which formed the basis for the design of the CERN PS before the move to Geneva. It was during this year that John Adams showed the outstanding ability that later brought the project to such a successful conclusion. 1 EARLY PLANS IN BRITAIN: THE WORLD’S FIRST SYNCHROTRON During the second world war Britain’s nuclear physicists were deployed in research directed towards winning the war. Many were engaged in developments associated with radar, (or ‘radiolocation’ as it was then called), both at universities and at government laboratories, such as the radar establishments TRE and ADRDE at Malvern. Others contributed to the atomic bomb programme, both in the UK, and in the USA. Towards the end of the war, when victory seemed assured, the nuclear physicists began looking towards the peacetime future. The construction of new particle accelerators to achieve ever higher energies was seen as one of the more important possibilities. Those working at Berkeley on the electromagnetic separator were familiar with the accelerators there, and following the independent invention (or discovery?) there of the principle of phase stability by Edwin McMillan in 1945, exciting possibilities were immediately apparent [4].
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy And
    The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy and Anglo-American Relations, 1939 – 1958 Submitted by: Geoffrey Charles Mallett Skinner to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, July 2018 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Abstract There was no special governmental partnership between Britain and America during the Second World War in atomic affairs. A recalibration is required that updates and amends the existing historiography in this respect. The wartime atomic relations of those countries were cooperative at the level of science and resources, but rarely that of the state. As soon as it became apparent that fission weaponry would be the main basis of future military power, America decided to gain exclusive control over the weapon. Britain could not replicate American resources and no assistance was offered to it by its conventional ally. America then created its own, closed, nuclear system and well before the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, the event which is typically seen by historians as the explanation of the fracturing of wartime atomic relations. Immediately after 1945 there was insufficient systemic force to create change in the consistent American policy of atomic monopoly. As fusion bombs introduced a new magnitude of risk, and as the nuclear world expanded and deepened, the systemic pressures grew.
    [Show full text]
  • A Singing, Dancing Universe Jon Butterworth Enjoys a Celebration of Mathematics-Led Theoretical Physics
    SPRING BOOKS COMMENT under physicist and Nobel laureate William to the intensely scrutinized narrative on the discovery “may turn out to be the greatest Henry Bragg, studying small mol ecules such double helix itself, he clarifies key issues. He development in the field of molecular genet- as tartaric acid. Moving to the University points out that the infamous conflict between ics in recent years”. And, on occasion, the of Leeds, UK, in 1928, Astbury probed the Wilkins and chemist Rosalind Franklin arose scope is too broad. The tragic figure of Nikolai structure of biological fibres such as hair. His from actions of John Randall, head of the Vavilov, the great Soviet plant geneticist of the colleague Florence Bell took the first X-ray biophysics unit at King’s College London. He early twentieth century who perished in the diffraction photographs of DNA, leading to implied to Franklin that she would take over Gulag, features prominently, but I am not sure the “pile of pennies” model (W. T. Astbury Wilkins’ work on DNA, yet gave Wilkins the how relevant his research is here. Yet pulling and F. O. Bell Nature 141, 747–748; 1938). impression she would be his assistant. Wilkins such figures into the limelight is partly what Her photos, plagued by technical limitations, conceded the DNA work to Franklin, and distinguishes Williams’s book from others. were fuzzy. But in 1951, Astbury’s lab pro- PhD student Raymond Gosling became her What of those others? Franklin Portugal duced a gem, by the rarely mentioned Elwyn assistant. It was Gosling who, under Franklin’s and Jack Cohen covered much the same Beighton.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Sir Mark Oliphant International Frontiers of Science and Technology Australian Geothermal Energy Conference Record 2008/18 Gurgenci, H
    GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA Sir Mark Oliphant Conferences – International Frontiers of Science and Technology Proceedings of the Sir Mark Oliphant International Frontiers of Science and Technology Australian Geothermal Energy Conference Record 2008/18 Gurgenci, H. and Budd, A.R. APPLYING GEOSCIENCE TO AUSTRALIA’S MOST IMPORTANT CHALLENGES Proceedings of the Sir Mark Oliphant International Frontiers of Science and Technology Australian Geothermal Energy Conference GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA RECORD 2008/18 Edited by Hal Gurgenci 1 and Anthony Budd 2 1 Queensland Geothermal Energy Centre, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072 2 Geoscience Australia, GPO Box 378, Canberra, ACT 2601 Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism Minister for Resources and Energy: The Hon. Martin Ferguson, AM MP Secretary: Dr Peter Boxall Geoscience Australia Chief Executive Officer: Dr Neil Williams PSM © Commonwealth of Australia, 2008 This work is copyright. Apart from any fair dealings for the purpose of study, research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Copyright is the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer, Geoscience Australia. Requests and enquiries should be directed to the Chief Executive Officer, Geoscience Australia, GPO Box 378 Canberra ACT 2601. Geoscience Australia has tried to make the information in this product as accurate as possible. However, it does not guarantee that the information is totally accurate or complete. Therefore, you should not solely rely on this information when making a commercial decision. ISSN 1448-2177 ISBN 978 1 921498 19 0 GeoCat # 67255 Recommended bibliographic reference: Gurgenci, H. and Budd, A.R. (editors), 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • A Selected Bibliography of Publications By, and About, J
    A Selected Bibliography of Publications by, and about, J. Robert Oppenheimer Nelson H. F. Beebe University of Utah Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB 155 S 1400 E RM 233 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090 USA Tel: +1 801 581 5254 FAX: +1 801 581 4148 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] (Internet) WWW URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ 17 March 2021 Version 1.47 Title word cross-reference $1 [Duf46]. $12.95 [Edg91]. $13.50 [Tho03]. $14.00 [Hug07]. $15.95 [Hen81]. $16.00 [RS06]. $16.95 [RS06]. $17.50 [Hen81]. $2.50 [Opp28g]. $20.00 [Hen81, Jor80]. $24.95 [Fra01]. $25.00 [Ger06]. $26.95 [Wol05]. $27.95 [Ger06]. $29.95 [Goo09]. $30.00 [Kev03, Kle07]. $32.50 [Edg91]. $35 [Wol05]. $35.00 [Bed06]. $37.50 [Hug09, Pol07, Dys13]. $39.50 [Edg91]. $39.95 [Bad95]. $8.95 [Edg91]. α [Opp27a, Rut27]. γ [LO34]. -particles [Opp27a]. -rays [Rut27]. -Teilchen [Opp27a]. 0-226-79845-3 [Guy07, Hug09]. 0-8014-8661-0 [Tho03]. 0-8047-1713-3 [Edg91]. 0-8047-1714-1 [Edg91]. 0-8047-1721-4 [Edg91]. 0-8047-1722-2 [Edg91]. 0-9672617-3-2 [Bro06, Hug07]. 1 [Opp57f]. 109 [Con05, Mur05, Nas07, Sap05a, Wol05, Kru07]. 112 [FW07]. 1 2 14.99/$25.00 [Ber04a]. 16 [GHK+96]. 1890-1960 [McG02]. 1911 [Meh75]. 1945 [GHK+96, Gow81, Haw61, Bad95, Gol95a, Hew66, She82, HBP94]. 1945-47 [Hew66]. 1950 [Ano50]. 1954 [Ano01b, GM54, SZC54]. 1960s [Sch08a]. 1963 [Kuh63]. 1967 [Bet67a, Bet97, Pun67, RB67]. 1976 [Sag79a, Sag79b]. 1981 [Ano81]. 20 [Goe88]. 2005 [Dre07]. 20th [Opp65a, Anoxx, Kai02].
    [Show full text]
  • Physics Today - February 2003
    Physics Today - February 2003 Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix Although she made essential contributions toward elucidating the structure of DNA, Rosalind Franklin is known to many only as seen through the distorting lens of James Watson's book, The Double Helix. by Lynne Osman Elkin - California State University, Hayward In 1962, James Watson, then at Harvard University, and Cambridge University's Francis Crick stood next to Maurice Wilkins from King's College, London, to receive the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their "discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material." Watson and Crick could not have proposed their celebrated structure for DNA as early in 1953 as they did without access to experimental results obtained by King's College scientist Rosalind Franklin. Franklin had died of cancer in 1958 at age 37, and so was ineligible to share the honor. Her conspicuous absence from the awards ceremony--the dramatic culmination of the struggle to determine the structure of DNA--probably contributed to the neglect, for several decades, of Franklin's role in the DNA story. She most likely never knew how significantly her data influenced Watson and Crick's proposal. Franklin was born 25 July 1920 to Muriel Waley Franklin and merchant banker Ellis Franklin, both members of educated and socially conscious Jewish families. They were a close immediate family, prone to lively discussion and vigorous debates at which the politically liberal, logical, and determined Rosalind excelled: She would even argue with her assertive, conservative father. Early in life, Rosalind manifested the creativity and drive characteristic of the Franklin women, and some of the Waley women, who were expected to focus their education, talents, and skills on political, educational, and charitable forms of community service.
    [Show full text]
  • MASTER NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C 1983
    OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN C0NP 830214 RESEARCH WITH TRANSPLUTONIUM ELEMENTS DE85 010852 Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology Committee on Nuclear and Radlochemistry Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources National Research Council DISCLAIMER This iw.oort was prepared as an account of work spcnsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any infonnation, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or scivice by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. MASTER NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C 1983 DISTBIBUHOU OF THIS DOCUMENT IS Workshop Steering Committee Gerhart Friedlander, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Chairman Gregory R. Choppin, Florida State University Richard L. Hoff, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Darleane C. Hoffman, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Ex-Officio James A. Ibers, Northwestern University Robert A. Penneman, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Thomas G. Spiro, Princeton University Henry Taube, Stanford University Joseph Weneser, Brookhaven National Laboratory Raymond G. Wymer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Ex-Officio NRC Staff William Spindel, Executive Secretary Peggy J. Posey, Staff Associate Robert M.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of Microwave Engineering
    A BRIEF HISTORY OF MICROWAVE ENGINEERING S.N. SINHA PROFESSOR DEPT. OF ELECTRONICS & COMPUTER ENGINEERING IIT ROORKEE Multiple Name Symbol Multiple Name Symbol 100 hertz Hz 101 decahertz daHz 10–1 decihertz dHz 102 hectohertz hHz 10–2 centihertz cHz 103 kilohertz kHz 10–3 millihertz mHz 106 megahertz MHz 10–6 microhertz µHz 109 gigahertz GHz 10–9 nanohertz nHz 1012 terahertz THz 10–12 picohertz pHz 1015 petahertz PHz 10–15 femtohertz fHz 1018 exahertz EHz 10–18 attohertz aHz 1021 zettahertz ZHz 10–21 zeptohertz zHz 1024 yottahertz YHz 10–24 yoctohertz yHz • John Napier, born in 1550 • Developed the theory of John Napier logarithms, in order to eliminate the frustration of hand calculations of division, multiplication, squares, etc. • We use logarithms every day in microwaves when we refer to the decibel • The Neper, a unitless quantity for dealing with ratios, is named after John Napier Laurent Cassegrain • Not much is known about Laurent Cassegrain, a Catholic Priest in Chartre, France, who in 1672 reportedly submitted a manuscript on a new type of reflecting telescope that bears his name. • The Cassegrain antenna is an an adaptation of the telescope • Hans Christian Oersted, one of the leading scientists of the Hans Christian Oersted nineteenth century, played a crucial role in understanding electromagnetism • He showed that electricity and magnetism were related phenomena, a finding that laid the foundation for the theory of electromagnetism and for the research that later created such technologies as radio, television and fiber optics • The unit of magnetic field strength was named the Oersted in his honor.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E Nobel Prizes in Nuclear Science
    Nuclear Science—A Guide to the Nuclear Science Wall Chart ©2018 Contemporary Physics Education Project (CPEP) Appendix E Nobel Prizes in Nuclear Science Many Nobel Prizes have been awarded for nuclear research and instrumentation. The field has spun off: particle physics, nuclear astrophysics, nuclear power reactors, nuclear medicine, and nuclear weapons. Understanding how the nucleus works and applying that knowledge to technology has been one of the most significant accomplishments of twentieth century scientific research. Each prize was awarded for physics unless otherwise noted. Name(s) Discovery Year Henri Becquerel, Pierre Discovered spontaneous radioactivity 1903 Curie, and Marie Curie Ernest Rutherford Work on the disintegration of the elements and 1908 chemistry of radioactive elements (chem) Marie Curie Discovery of radium and polonium 1911 (chem) Frederick Soddy Work on chemistry of radioactive substances 1921 including the origin and nature of radioactive (chem) isotopes Francis Aston Discovery of isotopes in many non-radioactive 1922 elements, also enunciated the whole-number rule of (chem) atomic masses Charles Wilson Development of the cloud chamber for detecting 1927 charged particles Harold Urey Discovery of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) 1934 (chem) Frederic Joliot and Synthesis of several new radioactive elements 1935 Irene Joliot-Curie (chem) James Chadwick Discovery of the neutron 1935 Carl David Anderson Discovery of the positron 1936 Enrico Fermi New radioactive elements produced by neutron 1938 irradiation Ernest Lawrence
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Oral History Office University of California the Bancroft Library Berkeley, California
    Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California Program in Bioscience and Biotechnology Studies RONALD E. CAPE, M.B.A., Ph. D. BIOTECH PIONEER AND CO-FOUNDER OF CETUS Interviews Conducted by Sally Smith Hughes in 2003 Copyright © 2006 by The Regents of the University of California Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is indexed, bound with photographs and illustrative materials, and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ************************************ All uses of this manuscript are covered by legal agreements between The Regents of the University of California and Ronald Cape, dated December 18, 2003. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley.
    [Show full text]