Trihalmethane formation arising from the chlorination of potable waters

Imperial Users onl

Spectroscopy of Four Cataclysmic Variables with Periods above 7 Hours

We present spectroscopy of four cataclysmic variables. Using radial velocity measurements, we find orbital periods for the first time. The stars and their periods are GY Hya, 0.347230(9) d; SDSS J204448-045929, 1.68(1) d; V392 Hya, 0.324952(5) d; and RX J1951.7+3716, 0.492(1) d. We also detect the spectra of the secondary stars, estimate their spectral types, and derive distances based on surface brightness and Roche lobe constraints.Comment: 22 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables, to be published in December 2006 PAS

Optical Studies of Twenty Longer-Period Cataclysmic Binaries

We obtained time-series radial velocity spectroscopy of twenty cataclysmic variable stars, with the aim of determining orbital periods P_orb. All of the stars reported here prove to have P_orb > 3.5 h. For sixteen of the stars, these are the first available period determinations, and for the remaining four (V709 Cas, AF Cam, V1062 Tau, and RX J2133+51) we use new observations to improve the accuracy of previously-published periods. Most of the targets are dwarf novae, without notable idiosyncracies. Of the remainder, three (V709 Cas, V1062 Tau, and RX J2133+51) are intermediate polars (DQ Her stars); one (IPHAS 0345) is a secondary-dominated system without known outbursts, similar to LY UMa; one (V1059 Sgr) is an old nova; and two others (V478 Her and V1082 Sgr) are long-period novalike variables. The stars with new periods are IPHAS 0345 (0.314 d); V344 Ori (0.234 d); VZ Sex (0.149 d); NSVS 1057+09 (0.376 d); V478 Her (0.629 d); V1059 Sgr (0.286 d); V1082 Sgr (0.868 d); FO Aql (0.217 d); V587 Lyr (0.275 d); V792 Cyg (0.297 d); V795 Cyg (0.181 d); V811 Cyg (0.157 d); V542 Cyg (0.182 d); PQ Aql (0.247 d); V516 Cyg (0.171 d); and VZ Aqr(0.161 d). Noteworthy results on individual stars are as follows. We see no indication of the underlying white dwarf star in V709 Cas, as has been previously claimed; based on the non-detection of the secondary star, we argue that the system is farther away that had been thought and the white dwarf contribution is probably negligible. V478 Her had been classified as an SU UMa-type dwarf nova, but this is incompatible with the long orbital period we find. We report the first secondary-star velocity curve for V1062 Tau. In V542 Cyg, we find a late-type contribution that remains stationary in radial velocity, yet the system is unresolved in a direct image, suggesting that it is a hierarchical triple system.Comment: P.A.S.P., in press. 34 pages and 8 figure

A terminal molybdenum carbide prepared by methylidyne deprotonation

The carbide anion [CMo{N(R)Ar}_3]– [R = C(CD_3)_2CH_3, Ar = C_6H_3Me_2-3,5], is obtained by deprotonation of the corresponding methylidyne compound, [HCMo{N(R)Ar}_3], and is characterized by X-ray diffraction as its {K(benzo-15-crown-5)_2}+ salt, thereby providing precedent for the carbon atom as a terminal substituent in transition-metal chemistry

Originalism, Stare Decisis, and Constitutional Authority

This chapter examines the relationship among three normative questions about American constitutional law: How should the Constitution be interpreted? When may (or should) the Supreme Court overrule its own constitutional precedents? And why is the Constitution binding at all? The author begins by de-constructing the “special difficulty” with stare decisis that proponents of originalist interpretation often perceive. That difficulty, the author contends, can be ex-plained only by reference to some underlying normative theory of constitutional authority―of why the Constitution binds us in the first place. The author then as-sesses four extant accounts of constitutional authority to determine whether any of them implies both originalism and a distrust of stare decisis. While three such ac-counts (Values Imposition, Consent, and Moral Guidance) may support original-ism and reject stare decisis, none of these accounts is plausible. A fourth account (Dispute Resolution) is more plausible but implies neither strong originalism nor a rejection of stare decisis. Neither originalism nor distrust of precedent, therefore, appears to be supported by a plausible account of constitutional authority

Theoretical Underpinnings of Jury Decision Making in Excuse Defense Cases

In the typical criminal trial, a defendant is trying to prove he/she is not guilty because they were not the individual that committed the crime. However, another type of defense exists in which the defendant admits they were the culprit, but provides an excuse in an attempt to avoid criminal punishment. These so called excuse defenses include insanity, involuntary intoxication, age, and entrapment. In all cases, juries are required to determine whether the defendant had sufficient mental capacity to form the intent to commit the crime. Although jury decision making is a popular research area in psychology, relatively little has been done to examine excuse defenses. In the following paper, three theoretical areas were discussed in relation to excuse defenses: excuses in interpersonal relationships, the traditional jury decision making Story Model, and Social Attribution Theory. A combined theory designed to specifically explain jury decision making in excuse defense cases was postulated and two experiments were performed to test this theory. In Experiment 1, participants read a trial summary in which the type of excuse defense and aspects of Attribution Theory were varied. Experiment 1 found weak support for the importance of Attribution Theory in jury decision making. The strongest predictor of participants\u27 verdicts was the Crime Control versus Due Process Orientation. Conclusions based on Experiment 1 should be limited however due to a significant number of participant problems. Experiment 2 utilized a card selection task in which participants chose which evidence they wished to view. Experiment 2 found strong support that Attribution Theory plays an important part in jury decision making and that the importance of evidence changes depending on the type of excuse defense used. For Entrapment, Consensus and Distinctiveness are both important, however, for Brain Damage, Distinctiveness evidence takes priority. The proposed theory was discussed with regard to the evidence provided in the current experiments and implications for individuals working in the legal system were suggested