Matching optics for Gaussian beams

A system of matching optics for Gaussian beams is described. The matching optics system is positioned between a light beam emitter (such as a laser) and the input optics of a second optics system whereby the output from the light beam emitter is converted into an optimum input for the succeeding parts of the second optical system. The matching optics arrangement includes the combination of a light beam emitter, such as a laser with a movable afocal lens pair (telescope) and a single movable lens placed in the laser's output beam. The single movable lens serves as an input to the telescope. If desired, a second lens, which may be fixed, is positioned in the beam before the adjustable lens to serve as an input processor to the movable lens. The system provides the ability to choose waist diameter and position independently and achieve the desired values with two simple adjustments not requiring iteration

Transcript of Bernie’s Final Tuna Run

This story is an excerpt from a longer interview that was collected as part of the Launching through the Surf: The Dory Fleet of Pacific City project. In this story, Bill Hook recounts the experience of spreading his stepfather’s ashes on the tuna grounds

High office requires high standards

Historical series, 2. Delivered at Yorkminster Baptist Church, Toronto, Ja 6 1994

Political economy, political class, and political system in recivilianized Nigeria

African Studies Center Working Paper No. 4

Causation’s Nuclear Future: Applying Proportional Liability to the Price-Anderson Act

For more than a quarter century, public discourse has pushed the nuclear-power industry in the direction of heavier regulation and greater scrutiny, effectively halting construction of new reactors. By focusing on contemporary fear of significant accidents, such discourse begs the question of what the nation\u27s court system would actually do should a major nuclear incident cause radiation-induced cancers. Congress\u27s attempt to answer that question is the Price-Anderson Act, a broad statute addressing claims by the victims of a major nuclear accident. Lower courts interpreting the Act have repeatedly encountered a major stumbling block: it declares that judges must apply the antediluvian preponderance-of-the-evidence logic of state tort law, even though radiation science insists that the causes of radiation-induced cancers are more complex. After a major nuclear accident, the Act\u27s paradoxically outdated rules for adjudicating causation would make post-incident compensation unworkable. This Note urges that nuclear-power-plant liability should not turn on eighteenth-century tort law. Drawing on modern scientific conclusions regarding the invariably statistical nature of cancer, this Note suggests a unitary federal standard for the Price-Anderson Act—that a defendant be deemed to have caused a plaintiff\u27s injury in direct proportion to the increased risk of harm the defendant has imposed. This proportional liability rule would not only fairly evaluate the costs borne by injured plaintiffs and protect a reawakening nuclear industry from the prospect of bank-breaking litigation, but would prove workable with only minor changes to the Price-Anderson Act\u27s standards of injury and fault

Heroes of Berlin Wall Struggle

When the Berlin Wall fell 25 years ago, on Nov. 9, 1989, symbolically signaling the end of the Cold War, it was no surprise that many credited President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for bringing it down. But the true heroes behind the fall of the Berlin Wall are those Eastern Europeans whose protests and political pressure started chipping away at the wall years before. East German citizens from a variety of political backgrounds and occupations risked their freedom in protests against communist policies and one-party rule in what they called the peaceful revolution. [excerpt

Non-vanishing of Dirichlet series without Euler products

We give a new proof that the Riemann zeta function is nonzero in the half-plane $\{s\in{\mathbb C}:\sigma>1\}$. A novel feature of this proof is that it makes no use of the Euler product for $\zeta(s)$.Comment: 13 pages; some minor edits of the previous versio