text:
The Herschel Family:
An Inventory of Their Papers at the Harry Ransom Center
Creator: | Herschel Family | |
Title: | Herschel Family Papers | |
Dates: | 1721-1951 (bulk 1810-1871) | |
Extent: | 44 document boxes, 2 oversize boxes, 1 custom box (20.48 linear feet), 17 oversize folders (osf), and 2 oversize framed items | |
Abstract: | The Herschel Family Papers largely represent the life and work of Sir John F. W. Herschel (1792-1871), the English mathematician, astronomer, chemist, and experimental photographer/inventor. Also present are manuscripts and correspondence by and about John's father Sir William Herschel (1738-1822), discoverer of the planet Uranus and stellar astronomy pioneer; John's aunt, the noted astronomer Caroline Lucretia Herschel (1750-1848); and many other Herschel family members, scientific colleagues, and friends. | |
Call Number: | Manuscript Collection MS-1931 | |
Language: | English, French, German, Italian, and Latin | |
Note: | The Ransom Center gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Center for History of Physics, American Institute of Physics, which provided funds to support the processing and cataloging of this collection. |
Access: | Open for research |
Administrative Information
Acquisition: | Purchases, 1960-1980 (R56, R56a, R56b, R529, R612, R2319, R4548, R4591, R4957, R5077, R8449, R8712, and R11999) | |
Processed by: | Micah Erwin and Joan Sibley, 2011 |
Repository: |
Biographical Sketches
Sir William Herschel, 1738-1822 | ||
The fourth of ten children, Sir William Herschel was born in Hanover, Germany, on 15 November 1738 to Isaac Herschel (1707–1767) and his wife Anna Ilse Moritzen. He was baptized as Friedrich Wilhelm. Herschel's father was an oboist in the Hanoverian Foot Guards and although not wealthy, he encouraged his sons to pursue science and philosophy. William Herschel attended the garrison school, where he proved to be a good student. | ||
At the age of fourteen William followed his father's career and joined the band of the guards, where his salary helped to pay for lessons in French. In 1756 his unit was stationed in England, where he also took the opportunity to learn English. In 1757 the guards were recalled because of the invasion of Hanover during the Seven Years' War, and at his father's advice he fled the scene to avoid being pressed into service as a soldier. After returning to his regiment to find they no longer had any use for a boy bandsman, he returned to England and his father secured his formal discharge in 1762. | ||
Herschel arrived in England almost penniless but soon found success as a member of the band of the Durham militia. He began to perform and teach across northern England and by 1760 he had completed six symphonies–several of which were eventually published. In 1766 Herschel moved to Bath, where his career continued to blossom. His success allowed him to pursue other interests and before long he had learned Italian, Latin, and Greek. Having read Smith's Opticks he learned how to construct telescopes and began observing the planets and the moon. | ||
In 1772 he visited his sister, Caroline Lucretia Herschel, who was unhappily living with her family in Hanover. Concerned for her welfare, he decided to bring her back with him to Bath despite his family's opposition. This move proved to be a happy decision for both, beginning a long and fruitful partnership in both their musical and astronomical work. | ||
Herschel's interests in astronomy quickly began to compete with his musical career. He soon realized that he would need much larger telescopes to meet his observational needs. Beginning in 1773 he spent much of his time grinding and polishing telescopic mirrors in his basement. His reputation as a master craftsman in the construction of reflector telescopes became widely recognized. Having begun observations of the Orion nebula in the 1770s, William decided to familiarize himself with the brightest stars in the night sky. On the night of 13 March 1781, he came across a star in the constellation Gemini whose appearance seemed unusual. After several more nights of observing the object he decided to report his findings to the Astronomer Royal. The object was confirmed to be special–Herschel became the first person ever to discover an unseen planet of the solar system with a telescope. As a reward for his discovery of the planet now called Uranus, the king granted him a pension that allowed him to leave his musical duties to pursue astronomy full time. | ||
In his efforts to explore what he referred to as 'the construction of the heavens,' William continued to build ever-larger telescopes. In 1783 he built a 20-foot reflector and in 1789 he completed a 40-foot reflecting telescope that for the next fifty years would remain the largest ever constructed. Herschel's astronomical achievements were widely recognized: in addition to receiving a pension, he received doctorates from the universities of Edinburgh (1786) and Glasgow (1792), was a member of the American Philosophical Society among many others, and in 1816 was appointed a knight of the Royal Guelphic Order. Although Herschel was most famous for his discovery of Uranus, later generations of scientists would recognize the significance of his findings on nebulas, variable stars, infra-red rays from the sun, and the direction in which the solar system is travelling. | ||
Herschel's life seems to have been devoid of any romantic attachments until 1786. In that year his friend and neighbor John Pitt died, and two years later Herschel married his widow, Mary (1750-1832). Their only child, Sir John Frederick William Herschel, was born in 1792. Mary's pleasant nature combined with the money she brought to the marriage helped to ease some of the pressures in Herschel's life. | ||
Long nights of observing in cold and damp conditions took a toll on Herschel's health, and in 1816, with his ailments worsening, his son John Herschel returned home to care for him and to learn from him so that he could continue his father's astronomical work. Six years later, on 25 August 1822, William Herschel died at the Observatory House, his Slough home. | ||
Caroline Lucretia Herschel, 1750-1848 | ||
Caroline Lucretia Herschel was born on 16 March 1750 in Hanover, Germany, the eighth child of Isaac Herschel (1707-1767) and his wife, Anna Ilse Moritzen. Unlike her brother, William Herschel, Caroline was not encouraged to pursue her intellectual curiosities, but instead received a minimum of education and was pressed into service as the household servant by her illiterate mother. | ||
In 1767 her father Isaac died, leaving her future in the hands of her mother and her brothers. She was begrudgingly given permission to attend a dressmaking school, but this lasted only a few weeks before she returned to her household duties. Her brother William, who had now settled into his career as an accomplished organist at Bath and sympathized with Caroline's plight, requested that she be allowed to join him as a singer in his concerts. His proposal was at first favorably received by the family, but when they became reluctant, he succeeded in bringing Caroline to Hanover in 1772 only after promising to pay their mother an annuity for a substitute servant. | ||
Although Caroline had some difficulty adjusting to life at Bath because of her limited education and knowledge of English, William gave her singing lessons daily and taught her English and arithmetic. She was also given dancing lessons and began singing and leading soprano parts in works such as Messiah, Samson, and Judas Maccabaeus at Bath and Bristol as often as five nights a week. | ||
William's interest in astronomy began to compete with his musical career and Caroline gradually found herself assisting him as he started constructing his own telescopes. In addition to her musical duties, she waited on Herschel hand-and-foot during the long hours he spent polishing and grinding mirrors, eventually learning to grind and polish mirrors herself. In 1781 their lives were transformed when William discovered the planet Uranus. With a royal pension that allowed him to give up his musical career to pursue astronomy full time, William took it for granted that Caroline would also give up her career in music and partner with him. | ||
William and Caroline moved to Datchet, near Windsor Castle, in August 1782. As his assistant astronomer, she was given a telescope to sweep for comets. It was not an easy adjustment for Caroline and she complained of the cold, damp, and lonely nights spent observing. But the following summer William built her a telescope especially designed for finding comets, and using the powerful new instrument she was able to sweep a quarter of the heavens each night. Caroline soon became famous as the discoverer of eight comets along with several comet-like nebulae. In 1783 she also discovered the companion to the Andromeda nebula. Caroline's discoveries and the resulting recognition helped to reconcile her to her new career. In 1787 she received a royal pension of £50 a year, making her the first woman in Britain to receive a pension for scientific work. | ||
Caroline continued to assist William in his observations. In 1783, interested in the study of nebulae, her brother constructed a 20-foot reflector with a stable mounting expressly for this purpose. William would wait at the eyepiece and watch the sky drift past until a nebula came into view. He would then shout out his observations to Caroline who would record them, seated at a desk by a nearby open window. In addition to her work as a scribe, she would perform calculations, create charts, and write up fair copies for publication. | ||
Caroline's well-established routine of managing domestic affairs was disrupted in 1788 when William decided to marry the widow of a neighbor. Caroline, long accustomed to being both his household companion and career-partner, had to move into new lodgings. Although this was a difficult time for Caroline (she destroyed her diary for the period), she eventually adjusted to the change and became especially attached to her nephew John, who was born in 1792. | ||
In 1796, at the request of William, Caroline assembled a list of errors in John Flamsteed's star catalogue, the standard work of the day, and published the list in 1798 after working on it for twenty months. This work earned her the profound respect of the professional astronomers of her day. | ||
When William died in 1822, Caroline returned to Hanover and although her days of observing were over, she managed to make one more contribution to astronomy. John Herschel enlisted her help to undertake the massive task of rearranging William's great catalogues of nebulae. Eager to see her brother's work completed, she was able to finish the enormous undertaking at the age of seventy-five. The Astronomical Society awarded her a gold medal for her work. | ||
Caroline enjoyed good health, showing signs of energy and vitality late into life. A respected astronomer in her own right, she died peacefully at the age of ninety-seven in Hanover on 9 January 1848. | ||
Sir John Frederick William Herschel, 1792-1871 | ||
Sir John Frederick William Herschel was born on 7 March 1792 in Slough, England, the only son of astronomer William Herschel (1738-1822) and the widow Mary Baldwin Pitt (1750-1832). John's father had already set aside a musical career by the time his son was born, having become internationally prominent as the discoverer of Uranus in 1781. John attended Mr. Bull's school at Newbury, and for a short period of time, Eton College, before enrolling at Dr. Gretton's private school at Hitcham, Buckinghamshire. He also received private instruction, especially in mathematics, from Alexander Rogers. | ||
John Herschel entered St John's College, Cambridge in 1809, where he received a fellowship. By the time he graduated in 1813 as the Senior Wrangler, he was widely recognized as an exceptionally talented scholar. In the year of his graduation, John was elected a member of the Royal Society, primarily for his accomplishments in mathematics. | ||
Herschel's gift for mathematics was manifest not only in his success in Cambridge mathematical competitions, but also as one of the instigators of the Analytical Society along with his long-time friends Charles Babbage and George Peacock. The Society was to have a significant impact on British mathematics, with its promotion of Leibnizian techniques over Newtonian fluxional methods of mathematical analysis. | ||
Discouraged by the difficulties of finding employment as a mathematician, John began preparing for the bar in 1814 but returned to Cambridge as a sub-lector in 1815. Teaching proved to be a dissatisfying experience and within a year he resigned in order to take up his father's unfinished astronomical observations. He continued to make contributions to mathematics and chemistry during this time; in 1819 he began publishing on his significant discoveries in the prehistory of photography. | ||
John Herschel played a key role in the founding of the Astronomical Society (later known as the Royal Astronomical Society). From its founding in 1820 until 1827, he served as its foreign secretary. The society's members went on to elect him three times as president (1827, 1839, and 1847), reflecting his continued importance within the organization. | ||
John's decision to pursue astronomy under the direction of his father proved fruitful. In 1820, they collaborated on the construction of a 20-foot telescope which he used as his main telescope between 1820 and 1838. John also took up his father's research interests in stellar astronomy, publishing two great catalogues–one on nebulae and star clusters and one on double stars. In 1833 he also published his Treatise on Astronomy, which became the authoritative English work on astronomical science for nearly two decades. | ||
Not only did John continue William Herschel's pioneering work, he also made significant contributions in meteorology and barometry, actinometry, and physics during this period as well. Beginning in the 1820s, he emerged as Britain's first modern physical scientist. His articles on light and sound were received enthusiastically by continental scientists and published in French and German. One of his most lasting contributions during this period was his publication in 1830 of the Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy. Now recognized as a classic of the philosophy of science, it promoted the importance of scientific inquiry. A number of major scientists and philosophers were strongly influenced and inspired by it, including the young Charles Darwin. | ||
Despite all of Herschel's success, his friend James Grahame noticed the lack of a healthy balance in John's intensely academic life. In an attempt to remedy the situation, Grahame introduced John to Margaret Brodie Stewart, the daughter of Scottish Presbyterian minister Alexander Stewart and his wife. The two immediately took a liking to one other and not long after were married on March 3, 1829. The marriage proved to be a happy one, and over the course of the next twenty-six years, the couple produced twelve children. | ||
On 13 November 1833 John Herschel, his wife, and their three small children left England for the Cape of Good Hope on the southern tip of South Africa so that John could carry out a complete survey of all the celestial objects in the Southern Hemisphere. The period from 1833 until their return to England in 1838 proved to be one of the most productive and happy times in John's life. Herschel set up his telescope at their home, Feldhausen, an old estate on Table Mountain, and began his observations. When the Herschel family returned to London on 15 May 1838, John was immediately hailed by his scientific contemporaries as the foremost scientist of his day and awarded a baronetcy by the Queen. The enormous mass of observations that he returned with took nearly a decade to reduce and analyze. The great work of Herschel's career appeared in 1847: Results of Astronomical Observations Made during the Years 1834, 5, 6, 7, 8 at the Cape of Good Hope; Being the Completion of a Telescopic Survey of the Whole Surface of the Visible Heavens, Commenced in 1825 by Sir J. F. W. Herschel. The publication was received with the highest praise and the Royal Society awarded him a second Copley Medal. | ||
From the years 1838 to 1850, Herschel enjoyed his status as Britain's most preeminent scientist, while continuing to make contributions to many fields. He was especially involved in photochemistry; seeking new ways to improve photographic science he conducted hundreds of experiments and proved that his sodium thiosulphate was the most powerful fixer for silver-based photographic images. His efforts yielded three major papers (1839, 1840, and 1842) published by the Royal Society. He also made important contributions through his extensive experimentation on the light sensitivity of various metals and vegetable dyes and coined many standard terms in photography, namely, 'positive,' 'negative,' 'snap-shot,' and 'photographer.' Herschel published another major work in 1849, his Outlines of Astronomy, which was hailed as the definitive presentation of astronomy available in English. | ||
For reasons that are not entirely clear, late in 1850 Herschel accepted the mastership of the Royal Mint, a position once held by Isaac Newton. Likely, a combination of pressing financial burdens and the desire to see financial reform in the Mint led him to accept the position. Regardless, Herschel's short tenure as Master of the Mint was not good for his health. The stresses of his involvement in the planned reform compounded by the need to expand production of coinage, to explore its decimalization, and to establish an Australian branch of the Mint at Sydney turned out to be too heavy a burden. John also deeply disliked being separated from his family in Collingwood. Late in 1854, with Herschel already in frail health, the tensions and stresses of the position led to a nervous breakdown. He submitted his resignation in early 1855. In April of that year he returned to his family in Collingwood, hoping to restore his health. | ||
John continued to suffer from poor health, but managed to publish several more books and articles, receive visitors regularly, and correspond with his colleagues. Herschel died at Collingwood on 11 May 1871, likely as a result of chronic bronchial problems. His funeral in London was attended by most of the leading British scientists of his day. Herschel was buried in Westminster Abbey next to Sir Isaac Newton. |
Buttmann, Günther. The Shadow of the Telescope: A Biography of John Herschel. New York: Scribner, 1970. | ||
Crowe, Michael J. "Herschel, Sir John Frederick William, first baronet (1792–1871)." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. | ||
Evans, David S., ed. Herschel at the Cape; Diaries and Correspondence of Sir John Herschel, 1834-1838. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1969. | ||
Hoskin, Michael A.: | ||
The Herschel Partnership: As Viewed by Caroline. Cambridge: Science History Publications, 2003. | ||
"Herschel, Caroline Lucretia (1750–1848)." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. | ||
"Herschel, William (1738–1822)." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. |
Scope and Contents
Scope and Contents |
The Herschel Family Papers largely represent the life and work of Sir John F. W. Herschel (1792-1871), the English mathematician, astronomer, chemist, and experimental photographer/inventor. Also present are manuscripts and correspondence by and about John's father Sir William Herschel (1738-1822), discoverer of the planet Uranus and stellar astronomy pioneer; John's aunt, the noted astronomer Caroline Lucretia Herschel (1750-1848); and many other Herschel family members, scientific colleagues, and friends. The papers are arranged in five series: I. Sir John Frederick William Herschel, 1809-1871; II. Sir William Herschel, 1753-1822; III. Caroline Lucretia Herschel, 1783-1849; IV. Other Herschel Family Members, 1721-1951; and V. Third-Party Works and Correspondence, 1808-1868. Manuscripts and correspondence are primarily written in English, although some items are written in other languages, including French, German, Italian, and Latin. | ||
Papers for Sir John F. W. Herschel span 1809-1871 and comprise correspondence, essays, drawings, notes, calculations, reports, observations, notebooks, charts, documents, memoranda books, diaries, and travel journals. Manuscript works include his writings on actinometry, astronomy, botany, chemistry, geology, mathematics, meteorology and barometry, music, photography, physical optics, physics, and other subjects. Early works include drafts of his publication "Memoir on a Remarkable Application of Cote's Theorems" and mathematical notebooks from his student years. His diaries span 1820-1871 and his travel journals contain observations from tours in Italy, France, Germany, and England, 1809-1850. Herschel's observations at the Cape of Good Hope (1834-1838) are documented by reports, notes, star charts, financial accounts, and diaries. Reports, essays, and documents represent organizations with which Sir John was associated, such as the Analytic Society, the Royal Mint, the English Committee for the Terrestrial Magnetism Survey, the Greenwich Observatory, the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Standards Commission. Correspondence is extensive and includes letters from Sir John to nearly 300 correspondents and almost 1200 incoming letters. Among the correspondents represented are George Biddle Airy, Charles Babbage, Francis Baily, Francis Beaufort, David Brewster, William Rutter Dawes, Charles Darwin, Michael Faraday, James David Forbes, William Rowan Hamilton, John Russell Hind, Humphrey Lloyd, John William Lubbock, Charles Lyell, Thomas Maclear, Roderick Impey Murchison, George Peacock, Benedetto Pistrucci, Edward Sabine, Richard Sheepshanks, William Henry Smyth, George Gabriel Stokes, William Henry Fox Talbot, Charles Edward Trevelyan, William Whewell, and Thomas Young. | ||
Materials representing Sir William Herschel date from 1753 to 1822 and include correspondence, essays, notes, and tables. Within his correspondence are letters from his father and other relatives in Germany. "Concerning the Central Powers of the Particles of Matter," "My Idea of Matter," "Remarks on Dr. Priestley's Disquisition on Matter and Spirit," "Interference of Light," notes on astronomy, notes on optics, and various mathematical tables are represented in the collection. A list of the telescopes Sir William constructed and documents relating to his early musical career are also present. | ||
Holdings for Caroline Lucretia Herschel span 1783-1849 and consist of correspondence, biographical memoranda, documents, tables, and diaries. In her correspondence are letters from Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Haygarth, Alexander von Humboldt, and Joseph Lalande. Her manuscripts include diaries for 1833-1845, biographical memoranda, drafts of her autobiography, her astronomical tables, and a commonplace book of astronomical memoranda that records her education as an astronomer. | ||
Materials for Other Herschel Family Members date from 1721 to 1951 and include the correspondence, notes, documents, drawings, biographical memoranda, extracts, notebooks and housekeeping books of Sir John's family, including his mother, wife, and several of his children. Notable items include Isabella Herschel's biographical memoranda and extracts from diaries and letters of her father; extensive correspondence between Lady Margaret Herschel and other Herschel family members and friends; and the housekeeping book of John's mother, Mary Pitt Herschel. | ||
The holdings for Third-Party Works and Correspondence span 1808-1868 and comprise notes, extracts, observations, documents, diaries, reports and correspondence of colleagues including George Biddell Airy, Giuseppe Bianchi, William Thomas Brande, Ernst Wilhelm von Brücke, Richard Christopher Carrington, James Russell Hind, Joseph Johann Littrow, Francis Lunn, Thomas Maclear, Gilbert Elliot Minto, George Peacock, Edward Sabine, and William Samuel Stratford. The bulk of the items relate to astronomical topics, but other subjects include actinometry, meteorology, terrestrial magnetism, and the Standards Commission. Other notable items include selections written in King George III's hand for a concert of chamber music and documents relating to the Royal Observatory, Greenwich. | ||
Notes on Arrangement and Description: | ||
Arrangement: During the 1960s, a sizeable portion of the Herschel Family Papers at the Ransom Center was cataloged in a manual card file. The arrangement of the papers appears to have been derived in part from the 1958 Sotheby & Co. Catalogue of Valuable Printed Books Autograph Letters Historical Documents, etc., in which a portion of the Herschel Papers were originally offered for sale. | ||
Identification numbers: The papers were organized into four categories and individual items were assigned an alpha-numeric identification number. The four categories included: | ||
W0001-W1039: For Sir John Herschel's works; | ||
L0001-L0769: For Sir John Herschel's outgoing letters; | ||
M0001-M1227: For Sir John Herschel's incoming correspondence, works and letters of Sir William Hershel and Caroline Herschel, other Herschel family members, and other third-parties; | ||
MW0001-MW0151: For miscellaneous items and later acquisitions. | ||
These alpha-numeric identifications were used as designations when the collection was microfilmed. They were also used to reference the Ransom Center's holdings of Sir John Herschel's correspondence that are described in A Calendar of the Correspondence of Sir John Herschel (edited by Michael J. Crowe, et. al., 1998). This work is now available online at http://historydb.adlerplanetarium.org/herschel/. | ||
Because researchers may wish to identify or locate items using these identification numbers, they have been included with descriptions in the finding aid. Additionally, a separate Identification Number Index listing all of the former identification numbers in alpha-numeric sequence plus their current location is available at the end of the finding aid. Items received in later acquisitions were not assigned identification numbers. | ||
Index of Correspondents: All of the correspondence in the Herschel Family Papers is listed in an Index of Correspondents at the end of this finding aid. It includes correspondence located through all five series for Sir John Herschel, Sir William Herschel, Caroline Herschel, other Herschel family members, and some correspondence between third-parties. | ||
Description of manuscripts: All materials described in the finding aid can be assumed to be handwritten works, letters, and documents unless otherwise stated, i.e. typed or printed items. | ||
Copies: A number of items in the collection are handwritten copies, drafts, or excerpts of other people's work. In many cases these are from published works. Such items are usually filed under the name of the individual in whose hand it was written (in most cases, Sir John Herschel) and not under the original author. | ||
Recycled items: Because Sir John Herschel had a tendency to reuse paper, many of his notes or calculations were written on the backs of incoming correspondence. In other cases he wrote draft letters on the backs of old documents. Such works and letters are described in this finding aid as being "on verso" of a particular item. The majority of Herschel's recycled incoming letters or drafts of letters written on other items do not appear in the above-referenced correspondence calendar or database. | ||
Original folders: The collection also includes three boxes that contain the original envelopes, binders, and paper or pasteboard folders in which many of the materials were housed at one time. Folders or envelopes that could be matched to the items they originally held have been placed with those items. The remainder is housed in boxes 42-44 at the end of the collection. Box 43 holds original containers bearing Sir John Herschel's handwriting and box 44 holds pasteboard covers originally used to protect some of John's work. Many of the items in box 44 can be matched generally with materials in the collection, but are too large to fit into a standard document box. Box 42 holds containers bearing unidentified handwriting, probably labeled by various Herschel family members or Sotheby & Co. | ||
Series Descriptions |
Series I. Sir John Frederick William Herschel, 1809-1871 | ||
This series includes materials representing Sir John F. W. Herschel's scientific activities and tenure at the Royal Mint, his personal records, and his correspondence. The series is arranged in three subseries: A. Works, 1811-1871; B. Personal Records, 1809-1871; and C. Correspondence, 1811-1871. | ||
Subseries A. Works is arranged alphabetically by topic: actinometry, astronomy, botany, Cambridge University Commission, chemistry, chronometry, linguistics and sound, mathematics, meteorology and barometry, music, philosophy, photography, physical optics, physics, poetry, Royal Mint, spectral analysis, Standards Commission, terrestrial magnetism, universities and education, and miscellaneous writings, notes, and drawings. Items within these topics are arranged alphabetically by title. Astronomical observations, mathematical works, and documents related to his tenure as Master of the Mint make up a significant portion of this subseries. Other large portions include test papers and notes recording his experiments in chemistry, photography, and physical optics. | ||
Subseries B. Personal Records is arranged alphabetically by format: account books, diaries, lists, memoranda, memorandum books, travel journals, travel papers, and miscellaneous family papers. Items filed under account books, diaries, memorandum books and travel journals are arranged chronologically and items filed under lists, memoranda, travel papers and miscellaneous family papers are arranged alphabetically by title. Many items from this subseries originally comprised Lot 489 of Sotheby & Co.'s 1958 Catalogue of Valuable Printed Books Autograph Letters Historical Documents, etc. Most of John's diary entries from 13 November 1833 to 23 December 1838 have been transcribed and published in Herschel at the Cape: Diaries and Correspondence of Sir John Herschel, 1834-1838, edited by David Evans (1969). | ||
Subseries C. Correspondence contains letters to family, friends, and associates and is arranged alphabetically by recipient (outgoing) and sender (incoming). The most significant and voluminous letters in this series are between Herschel and George Biddell Airy, centering primarily on the Royal Observatory at Greenwich and the Standards Commission. Other lengthy exchanges with notable correspondents include Edward Sabine (terrestrial magnetism) and Charles Edward Trevelyan (Royal Mint). | ||
Series II. Sir William Herschel, 1753-1822 | ||
This series includes materials associated with Sir William Herschel's activities as an astronomer and musician and is arranged in three subseries: A. Works, 1763-1816; B. Personal Records, 1753-1822; and C. Correspondence, 1764-1822. | ||
Subseries A. Works is arranged alphabetically by title. Items include astronomical tables, notes on optics, astronomy, linguistics, and philosophy. The subseries also contains an astronomical calculator scroll and descriptions of astronomical instruments, especially micrometers. | ||
Subseries B. Personal Records is arranged alphabetically by title. A number of documents relate to William's activities as a telescope maker. The subseries also includes a substantial number of obituary notices for William Herschel with John or Caroline's notes in the margins. | ||
Subseries C. Correspondence is fairly limited in scope, comprising roughly fifteen correspondents, four of whom are relatives of William. The subseries is arranged alphabetically by recipient (outgoing) and sender (incoming). Notable correspondents include Charles Blagden, Prince Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent, Henry Englefield, and astronomer José de Mendoza y Riós. | ||
Series III. Caroline Lucretia Herschel, 1783-1849 | ||
This series comprises materials related to Caroline Herschel and includes significant amounts of biographical information on both William and Caroline. It is arranged in three subseries: A. Works, 1783-1840; B. Personal Records, 1792-1849; and C. Correspondence, 1800-1847. | ||
Three bound volumes--Caroline's autobiography--comprise the bulk of subseries A. Works, which is arranged alphabetically by title. A work on the eclipse of the sun and "Tables for the Variation of Stars for One Year" make up the remainder of this subseries. | ||
Daybooks, extracts, and additional biographical memoranda comprise the majority of subseries B. Personal Records, which is arranged alphabetically by title. Legal documents, indices, diplomas, inventories, and documentation of Caroline's pension from King George IV of Great Britain complete this subseries. | ||
Subseries C. Correspondence is arranged alphabetically by recipient (outgoing) and sender (incoming). Correspondents include friends, associates, and family members. Letters from Lady Margaret Herschel comprise a large portion of Caroline's incoming correspondence. Other notable correspondents include scientists Johann Franz Encke, Carl Friedrich Gauss, and Alexander von Humboldt. | ||
Series IV. Other Herschel Family Members, 1721-1951 | ||
Arranged alphabetically by name, this series includes manuscripts, correspondence, personal records and other documents for Alexander Stewart Herschel, Isabella Herschel, John Herschel (son of Sir John), Julia Mary Herschel, Lady Margaret Herschel, Margaret Louisa Herschel, Mary Pitt Herschel, Sir William James Herschel, and other or unidentified Herschels. | ||
Series V. Third-Party Works and Correspondence, 1808-1868 | ||
Series V. is arranged in two subseries: A. Works, 1827-1868; and B. Correspondence, 1808-1860s. This series comprises materials not ascribable to the principal authors of the first four series. The bulk of the material is scientific in nature and likely was given to, or acquired by, John F. W. Herschel. | ||
Subseries A. Works includes abstracts, memoranda, notes, reports, observations, and calculations, and is arranged alphabetically by creator name. In cases where two or more works are associated with one creator, those works have been arranged alphabetically by title under the creator's name. Notable persons include George Biddell Airy, James Russell Hind, Thomas Maclear, Edward Sabine, and William Samuel Stratford. Also present are some unidentified works, the majority of which are scientific in nature. | ||
Subseries B. Correspondence is arranged alphabetically by creator name. This subseries includes letters between non-Herschels. Notable correspondents include George Biddell Airy, Robert Fulton, Henry Drury Harness, and Charles E. Trevelyan. Some letters from unidentified authors to either non-Herschel or unidentified recipients is also present. |
Related Material
For additional Herschel correspondence at the Ransom Center, see manuscript holdings for John Benjamin Dancer, Charles Darwin, Helmut and Alison Gernsheim, and Times (London, England). | ||
Other large holdings of Herschel Family Papers are located at The Royal Society, London; Royal Observatory Archive, Greenwich; and The Royal Astronomical Society, London. | ||
Links to publicly available sources of documents produced by or relating to the Herschel family are available on the William Herschel Society website at http://herschelsociety.org.uk/herschel-resources/. |
Separated Material
The research potential of the Herschel Family Papers is further enriched by closely-related holdings at the Ransom Center: the Library holds fifty books and scientific offprints owned by the Herschels; the Photography Collection has forty-six photographs by Sir John, including a series of early color photograms called "flower paintings" made with flower pigments; Herschel clippings, printed documents, and pamphlets are located in the Vertical File Collection; Sir John's leather wallet, a lock of Sir William's hair, and a wooden chest and a metal file box both stenciled with "Herschel Papers" are included in the Personal Effects Collection. |
Index Terms
People |
Herschel, Caroline Lucretia, 1750-1848 | ||
Herschel, John F. W. (John Frederick William), Sir, 1792-1871 | ||
Herschel, William, Sir, 1738-1822 | ||
Subjects |
Astronomy | ||
Chemistry | ||
Great Britain. Royal Mint | ||
Mathematics | ||
Photography | ||
Physics | ||
Document Types |
Astronomical charts | ||
Diaries | ||
Research notes |


text:
Life's Better with a Little Romance: Candace Havens
I've been reading Harlequin romances since I was eight years old. I spent my summers with my grandma and she had boxes of them. I started out with the Harlequin Presents and I was so enthralled by the relationships and the adventure that I went through several books a week even at a young age. These people lived all over the world and they had such exciting lives while I, the ultimate city girl, was stuck on a farm all summer. (I ended up loving that farm years later, but at the time it seemed like a prison far away from all my friends at home.) Around the age of twelve, I started reading the slightly racier Harlequins, and honestly, like a lot of girls, this was one of my first lessons in the birds and the bees. (Man, I was so disappointed in those first kisses with boys. They just didn't measure up to the heroes in my romances.)
When I decided about seven years ago to write a book I knew there had to be a romance in it. I love a happy ending. I also enjoy watching a couple fight for true love. I still give a happy sigh when I finish reading or writing a romance. The great thing about a fictional romance hero is that we can make him a little more enlightened and, perhaps, a little sexier than most of the guys we know. (Please don't tell my husband I said that.) And my heroines often say things I never could. They are bold creatures who go after what they want in life.
I'm always surprised when I hear someone say they don't read romance. What's wrong with them? I mean, everyone deserves a little romance in their life.
Candace "Candy" Havens (@candacehavens) is a bestselling and award-winning author. She is a two-time RITA® Award winner, Write Touch Reader and Holt Medallion finalist. She is also the winner of the Barbara Wilson Award. Candy is a nationally syndicated entertainment columnist for FYI Television. A veteran journalist, she has interviewed just about everyone in Hollywood, from George Clooney and Orlando Bloom to Nicole Kidman and Kate Beckinsale. You can also hear Candy weekly on Big 96.3 (KSCS) in the Dallas/Fort Worth Area. Her popular online Writer's Workshop has more than 1,000 students and provides free classes to professional and aspiring writers.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Family businesses are an often overlooked form of ownership. Yet they are all around us—from neighborhood mom-and-pop stores and the millions of small and midsize companies that underpin many economies to household names such as BMW, Samsung, and Wal-Mart Stores. One-third of all companies in the S&P 500 index and 40 percent of the 250 largest companies in France and Germany are defined as family businesses, meaning that a family owns a significant share and can influence important decisions, particularly the election of the chairman and CEO.
As family businesses expand from their entrepreneurial beginnings, they face unique performance and governance challenges. The generations that follow the founder, for example, may insist on running the company even though they are not suited for the job. And as the number of family shareholders increases exponentially generation by generation, with few actually working in the business, the commitment to carry on as owners can't be taken for granted. Indeed, less than 30 percent of family businesses survive into the third generation of family ownership. Those that do, however, tend to perform well over time compared with their corporate peers, according to recent McKinsey research. Their performance suggests that they have a story of interest not only to family businesses around the world, of various sizes and in various stages of development, but also to companies with other forms of ownership.
To be successful as both the company and the family grow, a family business must meet two intertwined challenges: achieving strong business performance and keeping the family committed to and capable of carrying on as the owner. Five dimensions of activity must work well and in synchrony: harmonious relations within the family and an understanding of how it should be involved with the business, an ownership structure that provides sufficient capital for growth while allowing the family to control key parts of the business, strong governance of the company and a dynamic business portfolio, professional management of the family's wealth, and charitable foundations to promote family values across generations (Exhibit 1).
Five dimensions
Family businesses can go under for many reasons, including family conflicts over money, nepotism leading to poor management, and infighting over the succession of power from one generation to the next. Regulating the family's roles as shareholders, board members, and managers is essential because it can help avoid these pitfalls.
Large family businesses that survive for many generations make sure to permeate their ethos of ownership with a strong sense of purpose. Over decades, they develop oral and written agreements that address issues such as the composition and election of the company's board, the key board decisions that require a consensus or a qualified majority, the appointment of the CEO, the conditions in which family members can (and can't) work in the business, and some of the boundaries for corporate and financial strategy. The continual development and interpretation of these agreements, and the governance decisions guided by them, may involve several kinds of family forums. A family council representing different branches and generations of the family, for instance, may be responsible to a larger family assembly used to build consensus on major issues.
Long-term survivors usually share a meritocratic approach to management. There's no single rule for all, however—policies depend partly on the size of the family, its values, the education of its members, and the industries in which the business competes. For example, the Australia-based investment business ROI Group, which now spans four generations of the Owens family, encourages family members to work outside the business first and gain relevant experience before seeking senior-management positions at ROI. Any appointment to them must be approved both by the owners' board, which represents the family, and the advisory council, a group of independent business advisers who provide strategic guidance to the board.
As families grow and ownership fragments, family institutions play an important role in making continued ownership meaningful by nurturing family values and giving new generations a sense of pride in the company's contribution to society. Family offices, some employing less than a handful of professionals, others as many as 40, can bring together family members who want to pursue common interests, such as social work, often through large charity organizations linked to the family. The office may help organize regular gatherings that offer large families a chance to bond, to teach young members how to be knowledgeable and productive shareholders, and to vote formally or informally on important matters. It can also keep the family happy by providing investment, tax, and even concierge services to its members.
Maintaining family control or influence while raising fresh capital for the business and satisfying the family's cash needs is an equation that must be addressed, since it's a major source of potential conflict, particularly in the transition of power from one generation to the next. Enduring family businesses regulate ownership issues—for example, how shares can (and cannot) be traded inside and outside the family—through carefully designed shareholders' agreements that usually last for 15 to 20 years.
Many of these family businesses are privately held holding companies with reasonably independent subsidiaries that might be publicly owned, though in general the family holding company fully controls the more important ones. By keeping the holding private, the family avoids conflicts of interest with more diversified institutional investors looking for higher short-term returns. Financial policies often aim to keep the family in control. Many family businesses pay relatively low dividends because reinvesting profits is a good way to expand without diluting ownership by issuing new stock or assuming big debts.
In fact, some families decide to shut external investors out of the entire business and to fuel growth by reinvesting most of the profits, which requires good profitability and relatively low dividends. Others decide to bring in private equity as a way to inject capital and introduce a more effective corporate governance culture. In 2000, for example, the private-equity investor Kohlberg Kravis Roberts gave Zumtobel, the Austria-based European market leader for professional lighting, a capital infusion (KKR exited in 2006). Such deals can add value, but the downside is that they dilute family control. Others take the IPO route and float a portion of the shares. An IPO can also be a way to provide liquidity at a fair market price for family members wanting to exit as shareholders.
To keep control, many family businesses restrict the trading of shares. Family shareholders who want to sell must offer their siblings and then their cousins the right of first refusal. In addition, the holding often buys back shares from exiting family members. Payout policies are usually long term to avoid decapitalizing the business.
Because exit is restricted and dividends are comparatively low, some family businesses have resorted to "generational liquidity events" to satisfy the family's cash needs. These may take the form of sales of publicly traded businesses in the holding or of sales of family shares to employees or to the company itself, with the proceeds going to the family. One chairman said of his company, "Every generation has a major liquidity event, and then we can go on with the business."
Governance and the business portfolio
With clear rules and guidelines as an anchor, family enterprises can get on with their business strategies. Two success factors show up frequently: strong boards and a long-term view coupled with a prudent but dynamic portfolio strategy.
Strong boards
Large and durable family businesses tend to have strong governance. Members of these families avoid the principal–agent issue by participating actively in the work of company boards, where they monitor performance diligently and draw on deep industry knowledge gained through a long history. On average, 39 percent of the board members of family businesses are inside directors (including 20 percent who belong to the family), compared with 23 percent in nonfamily companies, according to an analysis of the S&P 500.1 "The family is a true asset to the management team, since they have been around the industry for decades," said the CEO of a family business. "Still, they separate ownership and management in a good way."
Of course, it's important to complement the family's knowledge with the fresh strategic perspectives of qualified outsiders. Even when a family holds all of the equity in a company, its board will most likely include a significant proportion of outside directors. One family has a rule that half of the seats on the board should be occupied by outside CEOs who run businesses at least three times larger than the family one.
Procedures for all nominations to the board—insiders as well as outsiders—differ from company to company. Some boards select new members and then seek consent by an inner family committee and formal approval by a shareholder assembly. Formal mechanisms differ; what counts most is for the family to understand the importance of a strong board, which should be deeply involved in top-executive matters and manage the business portfolio actively. Many have meetings that stretch over several days to discuss corporate strategy in detail.
Family businesses, like their nonfamily peers, face the challenge of attracting and retaining world-class talent to the board and to key executive positions. In this respect, they have a handicap because nonfamily executives might fear that family members make important decisions informally and that a glass ceiling limits the career opportunities of outsiders. Still, family businesses often emphasize caring and loyalty, which some talented people may see as values above and beyond what nonfamily corporations offer.
A long-term portfolio view
Successful family companies usually seek steady long-term growth and performance to avoid risking the family's wealth and control of the business. This approach tends to shield them from the temptation—which has recently brought many corporations to their knees—of pursuing maximum short-term performance at the expense of long-term company health. A longer-term planning horizon and more moderate risk taking serve the interests of debt holders too, so family businesses tend to have not only lower levels of financial leverage but also a lower cost of debt than their corporate peers do (Exhibit 2).
Taking the long view
The longer perspective may make family businesses less successful during booms but increases their chances of staying alive in periods of crisis and of achieving healthy returns over time. In fact, despite the unique challenges facing family-influenced businesses, from 1997 to 2009 a broad index of publicly traded ones in the United States and Western Europe achieved total returns to shareholders two to three percentage points higher than those of the MSCI World, the S&P 500, and the MSCI Europe indexes (Exhibit 3). It is difficult to provide statistical proof that the family influence was the main driver. The results were surprisingly stable across geographies and industries, however, and indicate that family businesses have performed at least in line with the market—a finding corroborated by academic research.2
Healthy returns over time
This long-term focus implies relatively conservative portfolio strategies based on competencies built over time, coupled with moderate diversification around the core businesses and, in many cases, a natural preference for organic growth. Family-influenced businesses tend to be prudent when they do M&A, making smaller but more value-creating deals than their corporate counterparts do, according to our analysis of M&A deals worth over $500 million in the United States and Western Europe from 2005 to late 2009. The average deal of family businesses was 15 percent smaller, but the total value added through it—measured by market capitalization after the announcement—was 10.5 percentage points, compared with 6.3 points for their nonfamily counterparts.3
Nonetheless, too much prudence can be dangerous. Family owners, who usually have a significant part of their wealth associated with the business, face the challenge of preventing an excessive aversion to risk from influencing company decisions. Excessive risk aversion might, for example, unduly limit investments to maintain and build competitive advantage and to diversify the family's wealth. Diversification is important not only for overall long-term performance but also for control because it helps make it unnecessary for family members to take money out of the business and diversify their assets themselves.
That's why most large, successful family-influenced survivors are multibusiness companies that renew their portfolios over time. While some have a wide array of unconnected businesses, most focus on two to four main sectors. In general, family businesses seek a mix: companies with stable cash flows and others with higher risk and returns. Many complement a group of core enterprises with venture capital and private-equity arms in which they invest 10 to 20 percent of their equity. The idea is to renew the portfolio constantly so that the family holding can preserve a good mix of investments by shifting gradually from mature to growth sectors.
Wealth management
Beyond the core holdings, families need strong capabilities for managing their wealth, usually held in liquid assets, semiliquid ones (such as investments in hedge funds or private-equity funds), and stakes in other companies. By diversifying risk and providing a source of cash to the family in conjunction with liquidity events, successful wealth management helps preserve harmony.
Success is not a sure thing. Many wealthy families around the world lost a lot of money in the financial crisis—losses that vary by geography but averaged 30 to 60 percent from the second quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009. One European family investor with a portfolio mainly in the money market and in prime income-generating real estate lost less than 5 percent. At the other extreme, a family investor in the same country, with 80 percent of his assets in real-estate developments and hedge funds, both with 50 to 70 percent leverage, lost 30 to 50 percent of the value in these asset classes at the peak of the crisis.
These different outcomes highlight the importance of a professional organization with strong, consolidated, and rigorous risk management to oversee the wealth family businesses generate. For large fortunes, the best solution is a wealth-management office serving a single family—either a separate entity or part of a family office providing a range of family services (described earlier in this article). A wealth-management office that serves a group of unconnected families is an option when individual ones don't have the scale to justify the cost of a single-family office.
Our work with family wealth-management offices has helped us identify five key factors that increase the chances of success: a high level of professionalism, with institutionalized processes and procedures; rigorous investment and divestment criteria; strict performance management; a strong risk-management culture, with aggregated risk measurement and monitoring; and thoughtful talent management.
Charity is an important element in keeping families committed to the business, by providing meaningful jobs for family members who don't work in it and by promoting family values as the generations come and go. Sharing wealth in an act of social responsibility also generates good will toward the business. Foundations set up by entrepreneurial families represent a huge share of philanthropic giving around the world. In the United States, they include 13 of the 20 largest players, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Money alone does not guarantee a high social impact. In addition to the financial and operational issues facing any charitable activity, families must cope with the critical challenge of nurturing a consensus on the direction of their philanthropic activities from one generation to the next. Some family foundations have tackled the issue by creating a discretionary spending budget allowing family members to finance projects that interest them. Others give them opportunities to serve on the board or staff of the foundation or to participate directly in philanthropic projects through onsite visits and volunteering schemes. This approach is an especially powerful way to engage the next generation early on.
Family foundations also face organizational and operational choices about how best to use their funds. Several have concluded that in today's complex environment, partnerships—for example, with nonprofits or nongovernmental organizations—can promote the family's social goals. These foundations build on the experience and local presence of other organizations, particularly when implementing projects in unfamiliar geographies.
To ensure high performance and continual improvement, family foundations must combine passion with professionalism and a strict assessment of their impact. Despite the difficulties of assessing it, this is vital to make progress and allocate resources effectively. In our experience, family foundations should focus their monitoring and evaluation efforts around learning and improved decision making. They must also approach operations with the mind-set of an investor—minimizing operating costs and making prudent investments in strategy, planning, and evaluation as well as in highly qualified staff.
Almost all companies start out as family businesses, but only those that master the challenges intrinsic to this form of ownership endure and prosper over the generations. The work involved is complex, extensive, and never-ending, but the evidence suggests that it is worth the effort for the family, the business, and society at large.


text:
Home Top Ad
Wednesday 26 May 2010
Buy Indian: DRDO chief to military
24 comments:
- Anonymous26 May 2010 at 21:14
Buy Indian even if it doesnt work? Like the phantom Trishul SAM, P 16a went to sea with. Product design is a function of market requirements. Govt labs that are not part of the industry have no understanding of market dynamics and should stay clear of product development. Sadly DRDO having denied the industry any incentive or even permission to develop defense tech now finds the industry not ...
ReplyDelete - Anonymous26 May 2010 at 21:32
...ready. This while tiny states like Singapore are selling us guns. How come their industry is ready? Nothing will change unless the govt starts sponsering R&D projects in the industry, be it PSUs like HAL instead of squandering on DRDO where success or failure is inconsequental as failures are simply renegated to successful 'technology demonstrators'.
ReplyDelete @ajai sir
while its true that DRDO has has let down the armed forces several times but as a matter of fact the armed forces are also equally responsible.
The armed forces keep changing requirements continuously, most of the time it happens just when the DRDO sometimes sarcastically called 'Delayed Research Derailed Organization' is ready with the solution.
Case in point, sometime back a DRDO lab was almost ready to deliver a new type of artillery fuse (possibly for indigenous artillery for Bofors guns)as per the requirement of armed forces.
But suddenly they refused to take it and instead went for a imported fuse. May be they did this as doing this allowed them to earn kickbacks (no pun intended) from foreign companies. Most of the times this is the case.
I remember in the 90s there were reports of a scandal, where a 'Flange' (I DONT REMEMBER THE NAME OF INSTRUMENT CORRECTLY BUT POSSIBLY IT WAS)for Indian Navy ships built by Indian cos costing Rs 3.50 were rejected and even the best once available from South African priced at Rs 35.+ or Korean one priced at around Rs 125 were rejected and the army instead
went for the same one from Bulgaria/Poland for Rs 1.06 lakh plus. A clear case of corruption.
If this is the case then why blame the DRDO for the delays. It may be known that DRDO came out with Arjun, Tank Ex, a 22+ tone tank, missles (Agni, Prithvi, Nag, Akash, PAD/AAD, Astra), INS Arihant as and when needed.
That is why VK Saraswat blurted out his frustration http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/DRDO-lets-loose-missiles-at-armed-forces/articleshow/5979028.cms
come on, lets give the DRDO their due recognition and help them deliver better systems by accepting the systems developed by them.
After all the DRDO developed several of these systems despite being denied by US, and other major companies from developed countries who conspicuously turned a blind eye when countries like Pakistan, North Korea, China formed a axis for sharing defense tech between them showing these very countries/companies the middle finger.
Once again lets salute our DRDO boys and promote indigenous weapons to the maximum. Case in point Arjun tank (more then 50% components are of foreign origin).
Lets keep our finger crossed and hope that better sense prevails in the armed forces and DOD and DRDO.- Sachin Khandelwal26 May 2010 at 22:28
DRDO is a reflection of Indian talent which is a mix of those working for national honour or because it did not get a job elsewhere. A huge chunk of the brightest migrates abroad. Why? Because the DRDO salaries and perks pale as compared to oppurtunities available even in the Indian private sector. Is the govt not aware of this? Of course it is. Cannot this be corrected? Easily. When the PM in the name of "strategic interests" can procur billions of dollars to the US for systems, why cant he give due allowance to retain at least the semi-brightest in DRDO? This will give DRDO much needed quality and also continuum of services on a project. Also the renumeration package of Armed forces should be improved and a dedicated bunch attached to each strategic project to have the customer buy-in. All this states is simple common sense stuff. Our politicians are only interested in vote bank politics. They seem to think that mere bhashan will inspire armed forces to lay down their lives. This stupid approach is alone responsible for the poor indeginsation.
ReplyDelete - Anonymous27 May 2010 at 01:10
The DRDO bashers repeatedly harp on the Trishul, by the same standards then should we Indians harp on the stellar leadership shown by the IA brass in 1962, when India was handed its worst military defeat? The services seem to think they can curse DRDO in public non stop, with the servant DRDO supposed to accept it, but if the latter says a word forthrightly, oh my...
ReplyDelete - Anonymous27 May 2010 at 01:29
Those who blame the armed forces of changing requirements midway must understand that requirements always change with time. Market requirements define what features a product should have at a given time. companys often spend 5 years developing a product they know will have a shelf life of just 6 months. If they fail to hit the market in that window nobody would buy their product.
ReplyDelete Anyone who has worked on any engineering project will know that the customers change their requirements every other day. No point crying hoarse over it.
However, the customer has to pay the extra price for every change that they make. In India's case military is not involved in the continuous design and integration effort. Nothing goes from their pockets or budget. They just sit on the armchairs and expect the weapons to fall from the sky. Also, there is definitely an angle of corruption for every foreign arms deal. It is much better for the babus, netas and generals to import the stuff that can be made in India. They will make a hue and cry for everything that DRDO fails in but keep mum on useless duds that we buy from foreign suppliers.- Anonymous27 May 2010 at 07:18
An aspect rarely understood is the underlining human psychology is such disputes. Humans are broadly classified into 16 psychology types based on 4 different parameters. Since the Army doesnt want its soldiers to be absent minded their selection process makes sure that they are Sensors 'S' who have little imagination. 'S' types see the world as it is and are very alert. They will not except a new idea unless they see it work.
Scientist on the other hand are always 'N' or imaginative intutive types. They tend to loose contact with the present reality and live in the world of future possibilities. Another common distinction among soilders and scientist is of Judgment 'J' and Perception 'P'. 'J' types are fast decision makers who follow laid rules and want closure quickly. 'P' types on the other hand enjoy the process of thinking and avoid closure. They will dwell on an idea over and over again, refining the idea in the process but never reach an end(they keep all possibilities open). They have no sense of deadline which must be inforced on them them by 'J' managers. All famous scientist including Newton and Einstein were 'P' types.
There is no type which is better than another. Rather they are all interdependent. furthermore modern psychology accepts that these distinctions among humans are hardwired at birth and cannot be changed. Their understanding is the key to resolving disputes among different professionals. - Vivek Narendran27 May 2010 at 14:17
Changing requirements when done logically is one thing, but changing requirements on a whim is what the services do. It is a delaying tactic practised to perfection by the services, which ends up in the product going through endless trials and costing the nation a pretty packet. The humiliation is borne by the DRDO out of whose budget the product is usually funded, and which gets the bad rep as being the developer of another delayed project.
When the LCA specs were drawn, the IAF did not even inform DRDO it wanted the R-73E missile and kept silent while full scale engineering development proceeded with the R-60 missile. Once the design was done, they came up with R-73E, which missile had been inducted in the service a decade back. If the DRDO had designed the wing for the same on its own, with associated weight penalty, the IAF would have been amongst the first to cut them to size. Such examples are legion. Furthermore, what I have seen with total disgust, is the manner in which service officers run down DRDO people,even in public, just to prove a point and often out of spite. The DRDO people in contrast keep silent and are not even permitted to issue rebuttals by paranoid directors who are afraid of offending their "valued customers" in the services. Here is a note to the Indian Army, AF and Navy. A civilians patriotism for the country which they inhabit is NOT any less than yours. They respect your service, but dont insult them, mock civilians for virtue of being in the military! The Services cant hit back at the IAS etc who they feel discriminate against them, that loathing is taken out on the hapless DRDO. Which then, like the punkahwallah who would flap the fan for his colonial masters, is supposed to take the occasional kick from his betters to make his sahib return to a fair mood. You think this is excessive? Clearly, you have not observed how some service officers treat DRDO scientists. I have several times seen senior Army officials mock and disparage DRDO scientist to their face. Anyone in the private sector would have shown the middle finger to these pompous characters and walked off. The DRDO guys stick on in such an abusive enviroment and continue to try and develop their products. When the services kick the dog that is loyal to them, and run behind foreigners for weapons that never work - Gorshkov, Op Vijay procurement, Krasnopol shells, the list is endless, what does that tell us about the mentality of our brass?
In bravery, the Indian Army is second to none. But they are still colonized and retain the patronizing attitude the British inculcated in the Indian military deliberately, as a matter of policy to keep them aloof from the potentially disloyal civilians. That attitude has meant the services behave in an extremely parochial manner and with absolute crass attitude towards those whom they regard as their social and intellectual inferiors in the DRDO.
This sort of shameful behaviour just has to go.
I applaud Shri Saraswat for speaking his mind.
This is after years and years of the services and countless officials attacking the DRDO in the most brazen manner, often for fiscal gain by supporting competing products, in media and public affairs.
And see the absolute insecurity of the services to freedom of expression, when a mere couple of lines from Saraswat has made them outraged. They can call his organization whatever they want, no matter what he has made and delivered, but the reverse simply is unacceptable.
For shame, gentlemen - Anonymous27 May 2010 at 16:35
What % of LCH/LCA is really Indian? What does "Buy Indian" really mean?
ReplyDelete - Anonymous27 May 2010 at 22:48
To Vivek Narandran: LCA was specified to carry R-60 when IAF didnt had R-73. LCA was supposed to join the IAF in the early 90s then. Because of the way DRDO was running the show IAF decided to keep its distance from the project. By the time IAF started taking interest again....cont
ReplyDelete - Anonymous27 May 2010 at 23:07
Cont... a decade had gone by, IAF was retiring R-60 and ADA was still working in their hollow universe. IAF had to wake them up 'guys, what are you doing?'. Requirements and specs are defined for a specific period. This is why it is important to adhere to deadlines. DRDO cant expect Forces to stick to original specs if they dont stick to the original schedule.
ReplyDelete - Sumeet29 May 2010 at 03:50
Vivek Narendran you have written a superb post.
It's time we started shedding the demi-god status accorded to the armed forces, and start pulling them up their collars for their obvious shortcomings. - Vivek Narendran29 May 2010 at 07:18
Dear anon,
Your post typifies the problem with the IAF and IA. They did not involve themselves in anything critical, sad from the sidelines and sniped. "Because of the way the DRDO was running the show" - then why didnt they get involved and run part of the show themselves? Like the Navy does with some of its projects. The Navy makes its design even for ships and has many contributions to own acquisition.
The answer is simple, the IAF was not interested in the LCA. They would rather it failed, got the scientist egg on their face (so they would know their place and not attempt something so "foolish" again) and they could get "proven" imports. This is the issue which does not gets picked up. Even AM Rajkumar mentions how the IAF Chief was instructed by his coterie of advisors not to express open support for the LCA. This is the level of understanding and support for a so called national project!
Even today, when parliamentary committee reccommended that following international standards, the services put part of the budget up for such programs, including a tiny 10%, with some 20-30% coming from production partner and rest from DRDO, navy was ok, but Army and AF made objection. It was not about the limited budget, India surrenders crores annually as unspent, but the issue that why should they get "hands dirty" by working with these programs! Much easier to sit at sidelines and comment. Compare and contrast to the way folks work in Israel where Army chief personally gave focus to the development of Merkava tank.
Second, about your claims of the R-60, kindly educate yourself about my point. The point was the IAF setting guidelines and not even bothering about keeping them upto requirements in a timely manner. Did anyone stop the IAF from informing ADA about this in the 1990's when they had ample stocks of R-73E already and it was now the standard AAM. The IAF did not even bother! But when the basic LCA was developed with great effort, the IAF goes to the developer with a laundry list of changes, and again watches from the sidelines! This is called development creep and well understood and guarded against by developers in most nations which make items for the military. The Arjun also is case in point, where officers who would visit prototype in tests would come up with ingenious things to be added at last moment, and sometimes for no logical reason.
If the user stands far away from all local programs with a disinterested look on the face, and only contribution is to do an occasional visit and then claim things need to be changed, this is the end result. The cost burden and development delay is then ingeniously assigned only to the developer.
In US, the developers hire huge numbers of rtd military people to give their input. In India, the DRDO does the same, interesting part is Army even calls these people names because by joining the DRDO or pointing out the unrealistic requirements they are seen as disloyal to parent organization. End result is asking for the moon in Mark 1 itself, and DRDO told if it does not meet this, then imports will be done. Never mind, the requirements will end up resulting in delays and problems and are often unecessary.
Like it or not, there is a huge problem with service attitude towards civilian establishments and also the service disinterest towards Indian programs.
There is an amazing amount of contempt also for civilian "babus" who are supposed to be the reason for all the service ills, and which these civilian organizations get the flak for. The end result is the Army et al continue to blunder around and do not even rectify their own shortcomings while loudly attacking everyone else. - Anonymous29 May 2010 at 22:13
@ Vivek "Anyone in the private sector would have shown the middle finger to these pompous characters and walked off. The DRDO guys stick on in such an abusive enviroment and continue to try and develop their products."
Yes, because the private sector has products to sell. DRDO has none that work as advertised, so they have to 'stick on' to renew project funding for another year. - Anonymous29 May 2010 at 22:16
DRDO - precious little R&D being done in the organization, I'm afraid. Take any project, the director wants 'co-develop' the desired subsystem at the drop of a hat with a foreign vendor - such codevelopment being limited to - 'you give us the system, we give you the money'. Saraswat, on taking over, has made two long trips to Israel and Russia in search of technologies to hook on to. Come on guys, if your own boss is desperately looking for solutions from abroad, might as well wind up the shop.
ReplyDelete - Anonymous29 May 2010 at 22:20
@ Narendran - I totally take your point about a civilian;s patriotism being no less than an armed forces personnel. The issue, however, I have with DRDO is its management structure. There is absolute lack of accountability, and the relatively easy promotion structure means everyone who is halfway competent is sitting as a Scientist G with 18 years of service, leading to an inverted pyramid with everybody playing politics for Directorships. There are outstanding people in DRDO, you need to overhaul the process to make sure that the best get to positions where they can effectively run things, and the rest get weeded out. Accountability and responsibility should be the order of the day.
ReplyDelete - Anonymous30 May 2010 at 07:28
To Vivek Narendran:
The answer is simple, the IAF was not interested in the LCA.
Then why was LCA being developed? This is typical of DRDO doing what they want and not what the customer requires.
Did anyone stop the IAF from informing ADA about this in the 1990's when they had ample stocks of R-73E already and it was now the standard AAM
Why is IAF required to do that? As i have said before product design is a function of market requirements. Industries involved in development keep constant track of market changes and even future trends. This is an example of blind functioning of DRDO. - Anonymous30 May 2010 at 08:58
Here is another view of the issue:
http://indiasecuritymonitor.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/the-drdo-debate/#more-6 - Anonymous31 May 2010 at 07:58
anon@ 21:28 Well written blog, and highlighted the key issues. I particularly liked the bit about
"buy our products although they're crap, because by doing so you will support my ability to provide 10 rupee rasam rice in my canteens"
Okay, probably I paraphrased a bit, and in hindsight that was a bit unfair, but the point is that the services put their lives on the line day in and day out, and it is our duty as a nation to provide them the best kit there is, period! Social justice a.k.a. PSU raj should not be allowed to compromise security, EVER ! - Anonymous2 June 2010 at 02:09
The DRDO should be closed down immediately. If they feel their "Knowledge" will be lost, all DRDO employees should be absorbed by large Indian firms liek Tatas, L&T etc. The DRDO budget should then be given to these companies.
Once their asses are kicked by the private sector boot, the product performance and efficiency will automatically go up.
Does Mr.Saraswat think that only DRDO guys are patriotic?
Every Indian company working for the defence is patriotic. Is it wrong to ask for money to deliver a product that actually works? DRDO products are always concepts and technology demonstrators.
The budget is spent in buying PCs and colour laserprinters for every "Scientist".
Cartoons can't take decisions for months together and blame the forces for changing requirements.
The salary being paid to these jokers from our tax money is a national waste. 'Buy PSU' is a more accurate message from Mr. Saraswat.
Thanks to you and others, Col. Shukla, I have been educated about the level of nepotism, chamchagiri and bribery that goes on between our Defense PSUs and the Ministry of Defence. All these are of course, par the course for our Secularist(snicker) Congress government.
So long as such people rule our defence establishment and hold power over our defence personnel in deciding their needs the situation will not change.
The scum shall inherit the Earth...


text:
Reporting Services report server (native mode)
A report server configured for native mode runs as an application server that provides all processing and management capability exclusively through Reporting Services components.
You can use either SQL Server Management Studio or the web portal to manage Reporting Services reports. Use the Reporting Services configuration manager to manage a report server in native mode.
If the report server is configured for SharePoint mode, you must use the content management pages on the SharePoint site to manage reports, shared data sources, and other report server items.
This article contains the following information:
Summary of native mode
A Reporting Services native mode installation consists of several server-side features that you need to manage and maintain. The server includes the following features:
The Report Server web service, which runs within the Report Server service.
The background processing applications, which handle scheduled operations and report delivery.
The report server database.
To fully administer a Reporting Services installation, you must have the following permissions:
Membership in the local Administrator group on the report server computer. If your installation includes server features that run on remote computers, you must have administrator permissions on those computers. Specifically, you must have those permissions if you want to manage those servers over a remote connection.
Database administrator permissions for the SQL Server instance that hosts the database.
- If you're installing Reporting Services on a domain controller, you must be a domain administrator.
Managing content
In Reporting Services, content management refers to the management of reports, models, folders, resources, and shared data sources. All these items can be managed independently of each other through properties and security settings. Any item can be moved to a different location in the report server folder namespace. To manage items effectively, you need to know which tasks a content manager performs.
Content management is different from report server administration. For more information about how to manage the environment in which a report server runs, see Configuration and administration of a report server (Reporting Services SharePoint mode).
Content management includes the following tasks:
Securing the report server site and items by applying the role-based security provided with Reporting Services.
Structuring the report server folder hierarchy by adding, modifying, and deleting folders.
Setting defaults and properties that apply to items managed by the report server. For example, you can set baseline maximum values that determine report history storage policies.
Creating shared data source items that can be used in place of report-specific data source connections. A publisher or content manager can select a data source that is different from the one originally defined for a report. For example, select a source to replace a reference to a test database with a reference to a production database.
Creating shared schedules that can be used in place of report-specific and subscription-specific schedules, making it easier to maintain schedule information over time.
Creating data-driven subscriptions that generate recipient lists by retrieving data from a data store.
Balancing the server's report-processing demands by scheduling report processing and specifying which ones can be run on demand and which ones are loaded from cache.
Permission to perform management tasks are provided through two predefined roles: System Administrator and Content Manager. Effective management of report server content requires that you're assigned to both roles. For more information about these predefined roles, see Roles and permissions (Reporting Services).
Tools for managing report server content include Management Studio or the web portal. Management Studio allows you to set defaults and enable features. The web portal is used to grant user access to report server items and operations. You can also use the web portal to view and use reports and other content types, and view and use all shared items and report distribution features.
Securing and managing a resource
A resource is a managed item that is stored on a report server, but that the report server doesn't process. Typically, a resource provides external content to report users. Examples include an image in a .jpg file or an HTML file that describes the business rules used in a report. The JPG or HTML file is stored on the report server, but the report server passes the file directly to the browser rather than processing it first.
To add a resource to a report server, you upload or publish a file:
Operation | File type |
Upload | All files are uploaded as resources except report definition (.rdl) and report model (.smdl) files. To upload a resource, you must use the web portal if the report server runs in native mode or an application page on a SharePoint site if the server runs in SharePoint integrated mode. For more information, see Upload a file or report in the report server or Upload documents to a SharePoint library (Reporting Services in SharePoint mode). |
Publish | All files in a project are uploaded as resources except for .rdl, .smdl, and .rds data source files. To publish a resource, add an existing item to a project in Report Designer and then publish the project to a report server. |
All resources originate as files on a file system, which are then uploaded to a report server. There are no restrictions on the kinds of files you can upload, file sizes up to 1 GB. However, when published to a report server as a resource, file types that have equivalent MIME types are more optimal than others. For example, resources that are based on HTML and JPG files open in a browser window when the user selects the resource. This action renders the HTML as a web page and the JPG as an image that the user can see. In contrast, resources that don't have equivalent MIME types, such as desktop application files, for example, might not be rendered in the browser window.
Whether report users can view a resource depends on the viewing capabilities of the browser. Because the report server isn't processing resources, the browser must provide the viewing capability to render a specific MIME type. If the browser can't render the content, users who view the resource see only the general properties of the resource.
Resources exist alongside reports, shared data sources, shared schedules, and folders as named items in the report server folder hierarchy. You can search for, view, secure, and set properties on resources just as you would any item stored on a report server. To view or manage a resource, you must have the View resources or Manage resources tasks in your role assignment.
Referencing an image resource from a report
Resources can contain an image that you reference in a report. If report requirements include the use of external images, consider the following advantages to storing the image as a resource:
Centralized storage in the report server database. If you move the report server database and its contents to another computer, the external image stays with the report. You don't have to keep track of image files that are stored on disk on different computers.
Secured through role assignments rather than file system security. The same permissions used to view a report can be applied to the resource. In contrast, if you store the image on disk, you must ensure that either the Anonymous user account or the unattended execution account has permission to access the file.
To use an image resource in a report, add the image file to the project and publish it along with the report. Once the image is published, you can update the image reference in the report. You update the reference so that it points to the resource on the report server, and then republish just the report to save your changes. You can now update the image independently of the report by republishing the resource. The report uses the most current version of the image available on the report server.
Related content
Configure and administer a report server (SSRS native mode)
Troubleshoot a Reporting Services installation
Coming soon: Throughout 2024 we will be phasing out GitHub Issues as the feedback mechanism for content and replacing it with a new feedback system. For more information see:Submit and view feedback for


text:
Zhengya Zhang receives Intel Early Career Award
Zhang's research is in the area of low-power and high-performance VLSI circuits and systems.
Prof. Zhengya Zhang has been selected to receive a 2013 Intel Early Career Faculty Honor Program (ECFHP) award. The ECFHP was created in 2012 to help Intel connect with the best and brightest early career faculty members who show great promise as future academic leaders in disruptive computing technologies at the top universities around the world.
Prof. Zhang's research is in the area of low-power and high-performance VLSI circuits and systems for computing, communications and signal processing to leverage emerging nanodevices, architectures, and advanced signal processing algorithms.
He received an NSF CAREER award for research in high performance, energy-efficient communication and storage. The goal of that research was to cut the total energy cost that is needed to achieve near-Shannon capacity information transmission and storage. His approach integrates circuit design and signal processing techniques by addressing low-energy coding algorithms as well as algorithm-oriented circuit techniques.
He joined the University of Michigan in 2009, after completing his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering at UC-Berkeley. He has received a Broadcom Faculty Fellowship in addition to the CAREER award. As a graduate student, he received the David J. Sakrison Memorial Prize for outstanding doctoral research in EECS at UC-Berkeley and a Best Student Paper Award at the Symposium on VLSI Circuits. He is Associate Editor of IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I:Regular Papers.
The ECHFP award was announced at Intel Labs' first annual University Collaborative Symposium, held June 25-26 in San Francisco.


text:
The containers on my deck have grown like crazy in the past month-we are approaching peak season. The weather has been perfect; most days have been sunny. Even so, we have had night temperatures lately in the 60's. There are signs of summer's end, as much as there are signs of summer's peak. Though I could easily do with this weather a few more months, September 1st is just 2 weeks away. Once labor day comes, our summer is in decline. The nights are colder; it seems like less heat and energy comes from the sun. Annual plants grow and bloom with one end in mind; they need to set seed, before they are done in by frost. This is an exhausting task. All the while my container plants are putting on size and blooming great, there are signs of stress. The mildew I have struggled to avoid on my dahlias-it has claimed a few stalks. The fancy leaved geraniums pictured above are so rootbound I have to soak them every day. The Japanese beetles have discovered my canna flowers. The coleus despises the cooler night temperatures.
The mildew seems to be spreading to my petunias, for heavens sake. And the aphids on my licorice-this is a first for me. Do all of my containers grow to perfection-not even close. Just close enough to provide me with a lot of pleasure, looking after and at them. There are a few things I do to make the best of the last leg of the summer. I do feed my pots with liquid fertilizer regularly. Geraniums like lots of feed-ferns, not so much. Each one of my containers has a lot of plants in them, or plants that have grown large. I soak my pots with water, and then soak them with feed. Liquid feed is like a shot of B-12; I avoid the next watering as long as I can, so the plants benefit before a watering washes it all away. I am sure to flush my pots through between waterings, to prevent a build up of salts that can become toxic.
Most of my containers have grown skirts by now. When I water, I lift the plants up so I can see the soil. I water the surface of the soil-not the plant leaves. There is no sense encouraging mildew to spread. I soak them thoroughly, and then let them get quite dry. The rectangles on my north wall only get water twice a week. Overwatering begonias in hot weather is asking for rot. Caladiums will hang their heads when they need water. I snap off the old leaves out that get too tall, and threaten to engulf my chartreuse Janet Craig dracaenas.
Growing plants in containers is a live and learn proposition. As in-this rainbow coleus is a very big grower. This means there are big sections of stalks between sets of leaves. This makes it tough to get a good shape from the plant in a container. These Italian terra cotta urns look like they have top hats-funny, this. This variety would make a great hedge in the ground.
I know Milo is pretty handsome, but the message here is about keeping things clean. I remove dead or diseased foliage. I sometimes thin plants to improve air circulation. And I pick up what falls on the ground. I leave no debris. What I would gladly let decompose in my garden I don't think is good for my containers. My big Norway maple is raining disease ridden leaves; I pick them up, and throw they away. Fungus can live over the winter. Sometimes clean gardening practices is your only defence.
My terrace is my version of a kitchen garden. Buck cooks here, and I look after the pots. My small bi-level deck has 14 containers. It is a rare evening that there is not something to putter over-I like this. I only get into trouble when I let them go too long. Consistent attention is much better than an occasional look. Hauling the containers here from the basement, filling them with soil, and planting-that's real work. The work now is not that tough, and at some time during the process I plain start to feel better.
The jumble pot of petunias and trailing verbena has been great, and still looks great-even on the inside. I have been very careful to pick up the plant mass hanging over the edge, and deal directly with the soil. I have kept this on the very dry side-a strategy that seems to be working.
I only had one shot left on my camera before the battery died the other morning. The pink light at dawn-wow. My little garden is anything but perfect, but at moments like this, I am very glad to have it.


text:
Remembering 7th Street is a project of UC Berkeley's Journalism School and Architecture Department to re-create West Oakland in the 1940s and '50s when it was a thriving community teeming with blues and jazz clubs.
The virtual world video game takes you back in time to post-World-War-II West Oakland, when the area was bustling with shipyard workers and sailors, musicians and locals meeting up at the soda fountains and soul food restaurants, shops and other businesses that lined 7th Street.
Come dusk, music poured from the nightclubs out into the street. You might catch a performance by one of the big names, Lowell Fulson, Saunders King, Sugar Pie DeSanto or Ivory Joe Hunter, who played in this West Coast mecca for the blues.
Today, little trace remains of this rich history. The once thriving businesses are mostly empty storefronts now. The blues and jazz clubs have given way to a sprawling postal facility and an elevated BART train that runs through the heart of 7th Street.
Now you can explore the neighborhood as it once was and help bring 7th Street back to life. Simply log into the game and adopt an avatar – a musician hungry for a break – and soak up the lost music and culture of West Oakland.
You'll cut a record with local producer Bob Geddins and convince a train porter to take your record cross-country. You'll get your music career financed by a notorious local businessman and finally perform your music at the premier 7th Street club – Slim Jenkins' Place.
Good luck!