I've gone through several phases of centering rings now: 1) A pivot device on a sander. I've done this on the disk sander on my lathe, and later on a belt sander. The lathe produces more accurate results (it's a Unimat with feed screws for tweaking the O.D.), but the belt sander works faster. First mark the ring on the wood. Then I drill a 1/4" hole in the center for my pivot (I first used a push pin, but they wobble in the hole too much). Sometimes it helps to put a drop of thin CA around this hole. Now saw the wood to rough shape. Put the disk on the pivot, and turn while sanding. Gradually move the pivot closer to the sanding surface until you have the correct O.D. 2) Center holes can be done with a hole saw that is close, and then sanded to fit with the Dremel sanding drum. 3) I got much cleaner results, again with more effort, by chucking the disk on the lathe 3-jaw chuck, and machining out the center to the right size. Again, feed screws make this easier. 4) The ultimate solution (so far...): This fall I bought an 8" bench-top drill press. Despite my preference for Delta, the Ryobi and Skil (and probably Craftsman too) appear identical, and I found the Ryobi for $80. I wouldn't buy the no-name $70 version. At any rate, I also bought a General #55 circle cutter. It goes up to about 6". Others are available in the 4-6" range for $10-$25 or so. They have a pilot drill and a single lathe tool cutter. Use a very low RPM with these, and use them in a drill press only! The instructions say 500 rpm max., but the slowest my drill press goes is 610. It seems to work OK. First set the cutter for the OD. I use a caliper to set the distance between the pilot bit and the inside of the cutter to (OD-pilot)/2. Be sure the corner of the cutter is on the INSIDE for this cut. Clamp your plywood sheet, and use some sort of backing block. For thin rings, I cut them in one pass. Anything 1/8" or more I cut about 2/3 through, then flip it over, and use the pilot bit to realign the ring. Now cut the rest of the way through. For the center (motor mount) hole, I've found that many standard tubes are VERY CLOSE to standard hole saw bits. I've bought a set of these that are very close to BT-20, BT-50, 29mm, 38mm, etc. If they are a bit too big, they can be filed or ground down a bit on the outside. This is easier than adjusting the circle cutter when it fits OK. Use the pilot hole for alignment and cut through, again flipping the piece if desired. If you don't have a convenient hole saw, then reset the circle cutter for the desired ID. First rotate the cutter bit 90 degrees so the tip is now on the OUTSIDE. Measure from the OUTSIDE too. Cut the same way you cut the disk. Solid plates with no hole can be cut with the circle cutter if you remove the pilot bit. CAUTION: When you cut through, there is nothing holding the disk in place. It most likely will be thrown around by the cutter. USE EXTREME CAUTION! Wear eye protection, long sleeves, etc. Be careful. Also remember that when running, most of the circle cutter is invisible. Keep your hands out of the way. I've found that setup of the cutter is 90% of the work, and it may take a tweak or two to get it exact. I cut many identical rings at a time, and save them for future use. A ring with just the pilot hole can be used as a pattern next time, to quickly set the cutter bit at the right diameter. So far, I've made rings about 5.5" diameter, and a whole bunch of BT-70 plywood rings for 24mm and 29mm motors. More coming at the NIRA building session on the 19th. I 'stole' the Aerotech method - just make the motor tube about 6" longer, block the end (I use a couple of wire nails criscrossed and epoxied), and stuff a streched out stainless steel pot scrubber up in it. Haven't burned a chute yet! First, with some of the earlier baffels, the baffle tube was a smaller diameter than the motor tube, and used a kind of transition or step down to reduce the diameter. Some folks (me included) thought that in using that kind of design that there was a back pressure or pressure build up that tended to push motors backward at the time of ejection firing, so that you ran a higher risk of losing a casing out the back end. The moral of all of this is when using a baffell, be extra really sure that you have real good positive motor retention. Second comment is to clean the baffle material. It builds up crud after a while. Pull it out and clean it or replace it affter 10 or 15 flights. This is very important, as that crud can catch on fire on ejection, and you'll be watching hopelessly as your rocket drifts slowly down, burning up from the inside out! (i've seen it happen with three different rockets). One can use a nearly zero length baffle plate with 6-8 1/4" holes to reduce the need for wadding to a single thin layer accross the baffle. I have seen people use a reuseable nomex "flap". I guess I wasn't thinking when I built it. I should have done this with my MSH ADR 4.0. Forget the AT/LOC pot scrubber for a baffle. Steal the best design: the Centuri / Original Rockets baffle system. First, you need 3 centering rings. One at each end of a streched motor mount tube, and a third in the middle. Structurally, the best place for the middle ring is just below the fin leading edge, or at the top of the fin tab. That gives you a solid fin can.
Drill 4 holes in the top centering ring, each about 1/2 the diameter of the motor mount tube, and 90 degrees apart. Drill several holes between the top centering ring (the one with the holes), and the middle one, above where the end of the motor will be. These should be out of phase with the holes in the centering ring. Plug the top of the motor mount tube with a plywood disc. Now glue the middle and top (with holes) centering rings in place. Install a shock cord mount in the top ring if that is your mount of choice. Leave off the bottom ring for now. Install the motor mount. You can fillet both centering rings at this point. If you have TTW or TTM fins, install them now, and fillet the INSIDES too. Now install the rear centering ring with the T-nuts, and more fillets.
The gasses go out the MMT side holes, thru the space between the top two rings, and up thru the centering ring. No burning particles make it thru, so nothing gets toasted.
I've installed this system in a Graduator sized rocket (2.6"). The old Centuri baffle went into #13 tube, IIRC, so that would be half this size. It was done with a coupler and 2 baffle plates, one on each side. I used to do the newspaper trick. But I've used dowels now for a long time. An assortment of them from the hardware store. Different diameters for each engine size. Stick one into the engine mount. Then I can rotate the dowel. For big rockets, I have someone else hold the rocket via the dowel. For nose cones, I hang them with string with has a fishing swivel attached. I attach the nose cone to the fishing swivel. Sometimes, I'll use a bent coat hanger to give me more control over the nose cone or other part (not BT). Just slip it into the shock cord attachment on the nose cone. I use aluminum foil for masking large areas instead of newspaper. Major blunder there. Newspaper will bleed onto white paint. Don't do it!!! Save yourself some grief. Plastic bags work too. I like foil because it's opaque and I know for sure I haven't missed an area. The issue of masking tape can go on and on and on. For now, I'm using 3m Magic Tape. Cheap. Easy to find. Works well. Also good are the auto trim tapes. I use 3M masking tape for holding down the foil and non critical masking jobs. Always use primer! A number of coats. Wet/dry sand with 400/600 sandpaper between coats. Use a clear coat. Be careful that all paints, primers and clear coats are compatible. If in doubt, try them first on scrap. Use flat clear coat for scale models or real large models. For some reason, it makes them look bigger and definitely more authentic. Apply decals on gloss paint. Eliminates silvering (tiny air bubbles under decal). If you need a flat finish, then spray over glossy paint with flat clear coat. Believe me. I screwed up my SR-71 that way! What a nice rocket too... I've have reasonably good results from 40 degrees on up by shaking the can in the house, stepping out into the back yard, shooting the paint, and then stepping back inside and standing the rocket and handling stick up to dry.
No arguments there -- in fact, if you don't have good ventilation, a full respirator or full-face gas mask with organic solvent filter is a requirement to avoid possible brain, liver, and kidney damage.
I hang my nose cones by the attachment loop with a piece of insulated wire (and wrap masking tape around the shoulder), then hang the wire on a swag hook while the primer or paint dries.
For some smaller models, I paint the nose cone installed in the body, though you do have to watch for sticking -- it'd be annoying to permanently attach the cone to the tube for a model that isn't designed that way... I save used motors and glue them on to wooden dowels. I have several lengths I use for various size rockets. I built a drying stand that has holes the same size as the dowels. Nose cones can be a problem. LOC nose cones have a round protrusion that I stick inside the spent motor on my paint stick. On Estes nose cones I wrap newspaper around the shoulder to form a paint stick. A friend recently showed me a great, cheap rocket holder for painting. Rubber Maid makes cheap, hard plastic 'Lazy Susans' in 2 or 3 diameters. Two of the sizes are roughly 8" and 14" in diameter. You can screw an 18mm motor onto the center of the smaller one, and a 29mm motor onto the center of the larger one. This gives you both a vertical holder for the rocket AND a way to rotate the rocket while painting. You can stay in the best spot and then just move the rocket. These cost $4-7 at Targets, WalMarts and other places that sell large masses of RubberMaid products. With regard to nose cones:
I usually tie a length of string to the shock-cord attchment so that I can hang it after it's painted (my trusty Luxo lamp proves a handy horizontal beam over the workbench). For fine control while painting, I usually use a hemostat (locking surgical forceps) clamped onto the shock cord attachment. Done that! had to use a rasor to break the "paint seal" also try using a large wood dowl (sp) in the motor mount for the body. For the nose cone I place it in the body (but all the way in, use a bit of tape to mask it off and a bit of paper as not to over spray the body. I used to use the rolled up newspaper method for holding and painting rockets....but it got old fast. I took a block of wood 3/4" thick by 4" square. I cot one corner off at a 45 deg angle. I them drilled a 1/2" dia hole in the corner that was cutoff and both sides on either side of that cutoff corner. I got 2 1 pint funnels, and a 1/2 dowel. I put 1 or 2 old cleaned out 18mm motor casings on the dowl, place the funnel large end down first and put it into one of the 1/2" holes. Then I place the rocket over the dowel, place the other plastic funnel small end first and hold the whole 9 yards together with anoth old used motor casing. I have one side of the 4 x 4 piece of wood fastened to a saw horse. I can either have the rocket verticle, horizontal or at a 45 deg. the taper on the funnels give adequate clearence for painting, and seal the inside of the BT from overspray as well. If I get a run, the entire fixture can be pulled out of the 1/2 inch hole and inserted upside down, or placed on a floor or work bench and rolled, until the paint run evens out and sets up. It sure beats hanging, and trying to manipulate a rocket that your trying to paint or get a run evened out. About the only draw back is the length of the dowel limits the length of the rocket that will fit, as well as 1/2" would be to much for smaller BT, but a fixture on a 1/4 or 3/8 dowel could be made. Also if the rocket has a baffle etc. BUt usually these larger ones are no problem, its the smaller Estes type that gives me problems. After a period of time the buildup on the funnels can be cleaned off with some paint remover or lac or dope thinner, unless you clean them as you go. I have the Mantis and the Interlock controller. I fly everything through Gs off of it. Works great. The Interlock is OK, though I modified it to work off of a car cigarette lighter, which works much better for me. The configuration of the wires needs a little help, but it is not a big problem. The Initiator is obviously a good starter rocket, I have a few of the Aerotech kits, and they are simple to put together. The value of the outfit it great - figure the rocket is $40 retail, the casing $40, the pad $50, and the controller $40 - about $170 retail. I might suggest checking out the Discount Rocketry page - Kevin might have the outfit at a discount. Worth checking out. Overall, though, I would recommend getting the outfit. As much as people dump on the Aerotech products, I haven't really had a problem with it, and I've been flying their stuff for 10 years... The Initiator Starter Set is a great set. Got one several months ago and have flown the Initiator MANY time with no problems (performed poorly on a F14-4J though, wouldn’t recommend this engine). The kit I have seen includes two single use engines and not the RMS systems as you indicated. If the kit truly does include the RMS, GET IT!!! It is a good buy. The only extra equipment you will need is a 12V battery. The Mantis will handle all of the Aerotech Rockets and many others. You may want to get a longer launch rod for some of the larger rockets, but all-in-all very good. If you plan to move into the G range on engines, you may want to get a larger rocket for the larger engines. The Initiator will go out of sight on a G, it is quite a performer. The Mantis launch pad looks real cool with a little bit of paint, have fun with it. PML Phobos comes to mind if you want something with a phenolic tube and G10 fins. Take the version with a 38mm mount and get a 38 to 29mm adaptor from LOC (MMA-2 I believe) if you want to launch the bird with something smaller first. Alot of people have certified level 1 with it here (just check Dejanews ;) ). Seems it's pretty popular, and one of Public Missile's cheaper models too. It'll go up to 2000 feet on a G80 if you don't glass it. Higher with an H ;-) There are 2 kits that I like to recommend for L1 certification: the LOC MinnieMag and the PML 1/4 scale Patriot.The MinnieMag will launch very nicely (but not much over 1000") on an H180. The Patriot will do about 1500' on the same motor. Both are durable and can fly on much larger motors if you have the waiver and the room. If you want a sturdy fiberglass rocket and cost is not a big concern, then I would suggest a 4 inch diameter fiberglass kit from Dynacom. You could also purchase the parts separately if you have a specific design in mind. Certify for level 1 with a mid range I motor (or a high thrust H). While it will certainly be more expensive in the short term (i.e. for your level 1 certification), you could use this same rocket for your level 2 and even level 3 certification attempt. A well built four inch diameter fiberglass rocket should be light enough to fly on an I motor, but strong enough to fly on an M1419. I still favor the R&D 'Brutus' for it's outstanding stability, size and weight. Good flight on an H97! Not too much altitude and an easy recovery first time, fast to build. Comes set-up for a 38mm so you are ready for them as well. My favorite combination Level 1 / Level 2 bird would be the old style North Coast Phantom 4000 HD in 38mm. This way you can Level 1 on an H123-M and Level 2 on a J350-M motor with no stability problems. Another "sleeper" cert bird is the Binder Design Excel/Excel Plus in 38mm or a converted LOC IV in 38mm. I'd disagree. First, the MinieMag is another of the LOC short stubby rockets that can easilly get squirrely in flight. Second, don't start with phenolic. Strong, but easilly damaged if dropped. Requires fiberglass wrap for real durability. Not for the first flight. My standard recommendation is the LOC-IV for level 1. I haven't seen a Mountainside ADR yet, but it looks like another good choice. For doing both L1 and L2 with the same rocket, try the LOC EZI-65 or the THOY Falcon. Both are flyable with a G80, certify with your favorite H (I'd use an H123), and then a J350 or bigger for L2. The LOC Mini-Magg or I-ROC could be used for Level 1 (with a 38 MM AeroTech reload H or I motor and Level 2 with the new 38 MM AeroTech J350W (an awsome motor, I used it in my I-Roc to certify level 2 at RATS IV last fall). I did my HPR 1 cert. flight with a THOY Condor. Its a 57"x2.6" three-fins-and-a-nose rocket ply fins that mount to the motor tube, and a nice payload section. The design of this bird make it very stable, and it flew *perfectly* on a H97J to ~2,200'. I've flown mine on everything from 24mm F39 reload to G33, G64, and the above mentioned H97. The only drawback re: your preference is that the Condor is LOC-style tubing. If that's a big concern, glass-wrap it. The package is correct -- there are neither delays or ejection charges in Estes booster motors. Upper stage ignition occurs when the propellant grain in the booster motor burns through the forward end, and the internal pressure shoots burning bits of propellant forward and into the nozzle of the upper stage motor, igniting it. In about 20 staged flights in the past year, I've only had a single failure to ignite the upper stage; this was when staging from A10-0T to A3-4T -- I think the small nozzle of the A3 upper stage motor just didn't intercept enough burning propellant when the booster burned through. It's possible to ignite an upper stage motor reliably with up to about 12" spacing between them, >if< you put a vent in the interstage near the nozzle end of the upper stage. The vent allows pressure from the booster burn through to carry particles much further than would be the case with a sealed chamber, and prevents that pressure from separating the stages before ignition can occur. For Estes 18mm motors, the minimum vent is one or two 1/4" holes. When the upper stage motor ignites, it quickly pressurizes the interstage, in spite of any vents, and the pressure forces the stages apart -- then the thrust takes over. No, there's not generally any significant scorching in the interstage -- I have a Mongoose booster with at least 15 flights on it, and while there's some propellant residue in the dead space, there's nothing I would call burn damage -- and nothing was done to fireproof the stage. Some of the particles will indeed go out the vent(s) -- but at least some won't make the corner, just as happens in a centrifugal dust separator. You whirl the gas around rapidly, and the dust settles to the outside much faster than it would settle to the ground in still air (due to the increase in apparent G force due to the centripetal acceleration).In the case of gap staging, the vent allows relatively high gas velocity in the interstage; that means when the gas goes out the vent, there's a sharp, high speed turn made, and the burning particles will be forced "outward" toward the upper stage nozzle. Some will enter it -- but this is why the vent needs to be as close as possible to the upper stage motor. If the vent is just above the booster motor, less of the particles will make the full trip, as they'll have to go through air in the interstage that's essentially static. The reason for the vent is to keep pressure from building up inside the first stage and separating them before enough fire flies up the nozzle of the second stage to light it. Remember, this happens quickly so it doesn't vent much for very long. Staging is supposed to occur when the exhaust from the second motor blows the first stage away, not by pressure from the first stage burn through. Multi staging is cool, and fun. You'll like it. Trust the instructions with your kits and they'll work fine. For your own design, go to the library and check out "The Handbook of Model Rocketry" by Harry Stine. It goes into detail about staging and "gap staging" as we are discussing here. "X" type parachutes are two pieces of fabric (plastic, whatever) sewn together to form an "X". Watch any professional drag-car race and you'll see quite a few. I've never seen one used on a rocket, but I would presume it would cause less drag than standard parachute, but more than a streamer. Would definitely be cool to see! To oversimplify a little (and to duplicate a bunch of these that I bought recently): Take two rectangles of nylon, three times a long as they are wide (after hemming the edges). Lay them one across the other so they form an X shape -- they'll overlap in the middle and form five square panels -- one center panel two layers thick, and four outer panels, each a single layer. Now, sew the two strips together wherever the hem of one goes over or under the other -- that is, around the center doubled panel -- and you have an x-form canopy. For use in a rocket, you'll want to couch shroud lines into each of the long-edge hems before joining the two pieces of the canopy -- these, extended beyond the canopy, will give you 8 shrouds, one at each outer panel free corner. Make the shrouds at least as long as the combined panel width of the canopy, and up to twice that length; gather the shrouds together and bind them into a single cord with a loop at the end to make a nice neat mounting point and you have your X-form parachute. Some larger x-forms will also have a seam in the outer panels to give some curvature to the canopy -- essentially, the outer corners of each panel are brought together and a curved seam run from those corners to the edge of the center panel, and the excess cloth cut off (an overlock serger helps a lot for this); this gives an X-form that is a little more positive opening and requires only 4 shrouds instead of 8 or 12, but falls a bit faster than a comparable flat-panel x-form (mainly due to reduced area). A typical x-form parachute is two rectangles of a ratio between 3 to 1 and 4 to 1 sown together in a cross configuration. Top Flight Recovery has an excellent selection of X-form parachutes and the thin mil type material is highly recommended. A good rule of thumb for sizing is to take a comparable round 'chute, and up size by 30% to maintain the same sink rate. For example, a 24" round 'chute would translate to a 30" X-form. My own experience with X-forms (over 7 years) is that they reduce drift by close to 70% over round 'chutes regardless of the 'chute size. This way your 30" X-form will give you the same sink rate as the 24" round, but with 70% less drift. X-form parachutes are almost a necessity if you fly in breezy conditions (typical for the Pacific Northwest). To get your X-form to work most effectively, do not tie the shroud lines together. Use a Quick-Link or swivel snap to retain the shroud line to allow them to move freely. This free movement allows the X-form to center itself to reduce spinning and inversion (i.e. flip inside out), the two major problems people have with X-forms. My research on this same topic came up with this info: 1) X-Type parachutes are also known as X-Form and Cross Form chutes. 2) They significantly reduce drift as compared to chutes with spill holes. 3) They do increase the drag over streamers. 4) The descent rate probably is slower than streamers and faster than chutes. 5) They appear to be two rectangles in a cross shape (+). 6) You need to reinforce the points at which the two rectangles intersect (all inside corners). I really want to make my own X-form chutes as well. I might start out with using mylar material from an emergency blanket. With the same blanket, I can cut out some chutes, some streamers and some para-streamers (streamers with upside down pockets to increase drag). X-form parachutes are made with two long strips of material. The strips are fastened together where they cross and form a X. I have a 18" x form each strip is 18" long and about 2" wide ! I noticed all the descriptions say to overlap two rectangles. Is there any advantage to that extra square of material? It would seem to be just some added but unneeded weight. As crime scene technicians perform their daily duties what bio-hazards are they encountering? How are they safely disposing of the contaminated items? What are bio-hazards in relation to crime scene processing? What could be hazardous to his health or the health of others? All of these questions have two points in common. The safety of people and the civil liability of police departments, including their officers and supervisors. First the issue of "What is bio-hazardous in crime scenes? Think about the last time you entered a Death Investigation scene where there was blood everywhere. How did you enter that scene? No matter how much blood there was on the floor you probably stepped in it, transferring the blood to your shoes. When you left the crime scene where did you go? Everywhere you went you ran the risk of transferring that blood onto other items. What bio-hazard is this? Simply put, you just ran the risk of transferring communicable diseases to others not even associated with the crime scene. O.K., You wore protective coverings on your shoes and you wore protective clothing, including disposable latex gloves to protect yourself from contamination and from contaminating the scene. Disposable is the key word here. Where did you dispose of those items? Were they placed in a container clearly marked as bio-hazardous waste or did you find the closest trash container and throw them away? What about all the utensils that you used in processing this scene? The pipets, scissors, razor blades, tweezers, etc. What did you do with those items? Did you "dispose" of them or clean them with antiseptics before leaving the scene? Or did you just throw them back into your evidence kit awaiting the next scene. Unfortunately we as crime scene technicians have little or no knowledge of the health of the victim we come into contact with. There are no standard tests performed on the victims to see if they are carriers of communicable diseases, so we rely on certain safety precautions to prevent coming into contact with the many diseases prevalent in our work. But what do we do with the contaminated waste from the crime scenes? Healthwise we are creating a possible catastrophe by leaving behind our waste products at the crime scene or improperly disposing of the material elsewhere. Let's use the following scenario as an example: You just finished processing a homicide scene in a residential area. All the waste was carefully placed inside of one container at the crime scene. You wore protective gear and you were very cautious not to contaminate yourself or others in the residence. The last thing you do at the crime scene is throw away the contaminated articles in the trash can or dumpster in the alley behind the residence. The next day a small child is rooting through the trash containers to find aluminum cans. He comes across YOUR contaminated trash and he opens the bag cutting himself on the "disposable" razor blade you used in the crime scene. He also finds in the same bag several aluminum pop cans. He takes the whole bag home and separates the "junk" from the aluminum cans. In this bag are also papers and documents which identify the victim and your department. The boy tells his mother he has cut himself on the contents and requires nothing more then a band-aid. However, the next day the mother opens the newspaper to see headlines telling the public of a homicide involving two AIDS victims at the residence where her son found his "treasure". Where does that leave you and your department? In a liability nightmare. Can you imagine the headlines of the next edition of that newspaper?

It does not seek to engage the reader in a course of action. . . but rather in a process of reflection, and its means of convincing are accordingly limited to the use of evidence and logical proof and the posture of open mindedness. These methods are also associated with the liberally educated person, who is meditative, reflective, dear-headed, unbiased, always seeking to understand experience freshly and to find things of interest in the world. (23)

From lyric poetry—not very popular nowadays, I think—we can learn much about attitudes, little about opinions; much about sense impres­sions, little about ideas. Such also is the case with many particularly satisfying informal “expository” essays that do not provide significant information or advance arguments, but, rather, as Kenneth Burke would say, dance attitudes. The lyric in prose gains its coherence from what Burke calls qualitative progression, in which “the presence of one quality prepares us for the introduction of another” (Counter-Statement 124), not from the syllogistic progression that structures formal essays.

In “Form, Authority, and the Critical Essay,” Keith Fort serendipi­tously and convincingly explains what should have been, but was not, the obvious: available forms determine attitudes. If, for instance, the only form available to students for their responses to literature is the conven­tional expository essay, with its dear-cut topic and its tree-able structure, then the attitude expressed must affirm the discursiveness of literature. The prose lyric breaks out of the syllogistic, linear Western form and, in so doing, frees itself of the strictures of discursiveness. The essential difference between the coherence of the formal essay and that of the informal essay can be expressed metaphorically. In its super­structure, the well-formed formal essay is a branching tree diagram or organizational chart with the topic, enthymeme, or macroproposition (Van Dijk 42) at the top. In an image adapted from Kintsch (7-8), the form of an informal essay is that of a galaxy, with dense dusters of bright stars related as subsystems within the whole as it spirals through the universe. The prevailing dogma is that a clear-cut topic (in the scientistic lan­guage of Van Dijk, a “macroproposition”) is essential to coherence, but Witte and Faigley give a more useful view of coherence as “those under­lying semantic relations that allow a text to be understood and used ... conditions governed by the writer’s purpose, the audience’s knowledge and expectations, and the information to be conveyed” (202). In effect, any text will be coherent if the reader takes it to be so, and a case in point is The Waste Land, which Cleanth Brooks interprets as a perfectly coherent whole (138-59), and which Graham Hough likens to a painting with “pointillist technique in one part... and the glazes of the high renaissance in another” (38). One of Wolfgang Iser’s points is that readers must fill “gaps” in the text and, thus, are actively involved in constructing, not merely recovering, meaning. A passage quoted in Clark and Clark demonstrates that readers also construct global representations (that is, coherent wholes) from the individual sentences of a text: The two of them glanced nervously at each other as they approached the man standing there expectantly. He talked to them for about ten minutes, but spoke loudly enough that everyone else in the room could hear too. Eventually he handed ov& two objects he had been given, one to each of them. After he had said a few more words, the ordeal was over. With her veil lifted, the two of them kissed, turned around, and rushed from the room arm in arm, with everyone else falling in behind. (161) Readers eventually realize that the scene is a wedding, even though no individual sentence in the passage says as much, and the text becomes a coherent whole. Clark and Clark also quote a story from a study by Bransford and Johnson. One group of readers was given the title “Watching a Peace March from the Fortieth Floor” and another group the title “A Space Trip to an Inhabited Planet.” Because of one sentence in the passage—”The landing was gentle and luckily the atmosphere was such that no special suits had to be worn—the readers of “A Space Trip to an Inhabited Planet” found the passage much more coherent than did the readers with the other title: The view was breathtaking. From the window one could see the crowd below. Everything looked extremely small from such a distance, but the colorful costumes could still be seen. Everyone seemed to be moving in one direction in an orderly fashion and there seemed to be little children as well as adults. The landing was gentle and luckily the atmosphere was such that no special suits had to be worn. At first there was a great deal of activity. Later, when the speeches started, the crowd quieted down. The man with the television camera took many shots of the setting and the crowd. Everyone was very friendly and seemed glad when the music started. (163) The point is, of course, that the problematic sentence fits readers’ (sci-fi) world knowledge about space travel and conflicts with views from the fortieth floor. But the best way to demonstrate the expressive and cohesive range of the essay is to examine specimens by contemporary writers. I will begin with a discussion of a formal essay by Stephen Jay Gould; next I will turn to informal essays by Joan Didion, Lewis Thomas, and Loren Eiseley. A Formal Essay by Stephen Jay Gould The title is “Natural Selection and the Human Brain: Darwin vs. Wallace,” and the first sentence is “In the south transept of Chartres cathedral, the most stunning of all medieval windows depicts the four evangelists as dwarfs sitting upon the shoulders of four Old Testament prophets—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.” Gould then refers to Newton’s aphorism: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” This point leads him to mention a book on pre­Newtonian uses of the metaphor and Gould’s explanation that the author, Columbia sociologist of science Robert K. Merton, “devoted much of his work to the study of multiple discoveries in science” (47), which is exactly what happened in the case of Darwin and Wallace. A reader might ask why Gould would devote nearly a whole page of his essay to a lead-in when he might have begun directly by stating that Darwin and Wallace almost simultaneously developed theories of natural selection. The answer is obvious: Gould needed to establish his ethical argument by setting a tone and taking a stance. Despite its dramatistic structure, “Natural Selection” is an example of Burke’s syllogistic progression, “the form of a perfectly conducted argu­ment, advancing step by step” (Counter-Statement 124). The body of the essay is an explanation of the dialectic whereby Darwin and Wallace developed nearly identical theories of natural selection and of the way in which the theories diverged. In other words, the essay is essentially an analysis of scientific logic—but in terms of a human drama. The disagreement between Wallace and Darwin hinges on the doctrine of strict selectionism, to which Wallace clung: all evolutionary develop­ments must have been the result of adaptation for survival of the fittest. Darwin argued, however, that adaptive change in one organ of a creature can lead to nonadaptive change in another organ, and that an organ developed for one function can perform another nonselected function as well. Gould writes, “In 1870, as he prepared The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote to Wallace: ‘I grieve to differ from you, and it actually terrifies me and makes me constantly distrust myself. I fear we shall never quite understand each other”’ (52). The crisis came when Wallace attempted to understand the evolution of the human brain. He knew that the brains of savages were as large as those of civilized humans and that “since cultural conditioning can inte­grate the rudest savage into our most courtly life, the rudeness itself must arise from a failure to use existing capacities, not from their absence” (54). As Wallace said, “Natural selection could only have endowed savage man with a brain a few degrees superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one very little inferior to that of a philosopher” (55). The human brain must have been created by a Higher Power. Ironically, then, as Gould says, Wallace’s hyper-selectionism led directly back to the creation­ism that it was intended to replace. Thus, in his essay Gould has cast a technical discussion in the form of a drama, fashioning characters—Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin—that “humanize” the information. These are quite different from the “composite characters” that Hallowell says are one of the devices of the new journalism. Nonetheless, the informativeness of the essay is its primary interest; the technical brilliance of the author in conveying that in-formation engages only the specialized reader, not the common reader. “Natural Selection” contrasts starkly with the essays discussed below. De Candolle, in an eloquent passage, has declared that all nature is at war, one organism with another, or with external nature. [Page 47] Seeing the contented face of nature, this may at first well be doubted; but reflection will inevitably prove it to be true. The war, however, is not constant, but recurrent in a slight degree at short periods, and more severely at occasional more distant periods; and hence its effects are easily overlooked. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied in most cases with tenfold force. As in every climate there are seasons, for each of its inhabitants, of greater and less abundance, so all annually breed; and the moral restraint which in some small degree checks the increase of mankind is entirely lost. Even slow-breeding mankind has doubled in twenty-five years; and if he could increase his food with greater ease, he would double in less time. But for animals without artificial means, the amount of food for each species must, on an average, be constant, whereas the increase of all organisms tends to be geometrical, and in a vast majority of cases at an enormous ratio. Suppose in a certain spot there are eight pairs of birds, and that only four pairs of them annually (including double hatches) rear only four young, and that these go on rearing their young at the same rate, then at the end of seven years (a short life, excluding violent deaths, for any bird) there will be 2048 birds, instead of the original sixteen. As this increase is quite impossible, we must conclude either that birds do not rear nearly half their young, or that the average life of a bird is, from accident, not nearly seven years. Both checks probably concur. The same kind of calculation applied to all plants and animals affords results more or less striking, but in very few instances more striking than in man. Many practical illustrations of this rapid tendency to increase are on record, among which, during peculiar seasons, are the extraordinary numbers of certain animals; for instance, during the years 1826 to 1828, in La Plata, when from drought some millions of cattle perished, the whole country actually swarmed with mice. Now I think it cannot be doubted that during the breeding-season all the mice (with the exception of a few males or females in excess) ordinarily pair, and therefore that this astounding increase during three years must be attributed to a greater number than usual surviving the first year, and then breeding, and so on till the third year, when their numbers were brought down to their usual limits on the return of wet weather. Where man has introduced plants and animals into a new and favourable country, there are many accounts in how surprisingly few years the whole country has become stocked with them. This increase would [Page 48] necessarily stop as soon as the country was fully stocked; and yet we have every reason to believe, from what is known of wild animals, that all would pair in the spring. In the majority of cases it is most difficult to imagine where the checks fall—though generally, no doubt, on the seeds, eggs, and young; but when we remember how impossible, even in mankind (so much better known than any other animal), it is to infer from repeated casual observations what the average duration of life is, or to discover the different percentage of deaths to births in different countries, we ought to feel no surprise at our being unable to discover where the check falls in any animal or plant. It should always be remembered, that in most cases the checks are recurrent yearly in a small, regular degree, and in an extreme degree during unusually cold, hot, dry, or wet years, according to the constitution of the being in question. Lighten any check in the least degree, and the geometrical powers of increase in every organism will almost instantly increase the average number of the favoured species. Nature may be compared to a surface on which rest ten thousand sharp wedges touching each other and driven inwards by incessant blows. Fully to realize these views much reflection is requisite. Malthus on man should be studied; and all such cases as those of the mice in La Plata, of the cattle and horses when first turned out in South America, of the birds by our calculation, &c., should be well considered. Reflect on the enormous multiplying power inherent and annually in action in all animals; reflect on the countless seeds scattered by a hundred ingenious contrivances, year after year, over the whole face of the land; and yet we have every reason to suppose that the average percentage of each of the inhabitants of a country usually remains constant. Finally, let it be borne in mind that this average number of individuals (the external conditions remaining the same) in each country is kept up by recurrent struggles against other species or against external nature (as on the borders of the Arctic regions, where the cold checks life), and that ordinarily each individual of every species holds its place, either by its own struggle and capacity of acquiring nourishment in some period of its life, from the egg upwards; or by the struggle of its parents (in short-lived organisms, when the main check occurs at longer intervals) with other individuals of the same or different species. But let the external conditions of a country alter. If in a small degree, the relative proportions of the inhabitants will in most cases simply be slightly changed; but let the number of [Page 49] inhabitants be small, as on an island, and free access to it from other countries be circumscribed, and let the change of conditions continue progressing (forming new stations), in such a case the original inhabitants must cease to be as perfectly adapted to the changed conditions as they were originally. It has been shown in a former part of this work, that such changes of external conditions would, from their acting on the reproductive system, probably cause the organization of those beings which were most affected to become, as under domestication, plastic. Now, can it be doubted, from the struggle each individual has to obtain subsistence, that any minute variation in structure, habits, or instincts, adapting that individual better to the new conditions, would tell upon its vigour and health? In the struggle it would have a better chance of surviving; and those of its offspring which inherited the variation, be it ever so slight, would also have a better chance. Yearly more are bred than can survive; the smallest grain in the balance, in the long run, must tell on which death shall fall, and which shall survive. Let this work of selection on the one hand, and death on the other, go on for a thousand generations, who will pretend to affirm that it would produce no effect, when we remember what, in a few year, Bakewell effected in cattle, and Western in sheep, by this identical principle of selection? To give an imaginary example from changes in progress on an island:—let the organization of a canine animal which preyed chiefly on rabbits, but sometimes on hares, become slightly plastic; let these same changes cause the number of rabbits very slowly to decrease, and the number of hares to increase; the effect of this would be that the fox or dog would be driven to try to catch more hares: his organization, however, being slightly plastic, those individuals with the lightest forms, longest limbs, and best eyesight, let the difference be ever so small, would be slightly favoured, and would tend to live longer, and to survive during that time of the year when food was scarcest; they would also rear more young, which would tend to inherit these slight peculiarities. The less fleet ones would be rigidly destroyed. I can see no more reason to doubt that these causes in a thousand generations would produce a marked effect, and adapt the form of the fox or dog to the catching of hares instead of rabbits, than that greyhounds can be improved by selection and careful breeding. So would it be with plants under similar circumstances. If the number of individuals of a species with plumed seeds could be increased by greater powers of dissemination within its own area [Page 50] (that is, if the check to increase fell chiefly on the seeds), those seeds which were provided with ever so little more down, would in the long run be most disseminated; hence a greater number of seeds thus formed would germinate, and would tend to produce plants inheriting the slightly better-adapted down *. [Footnote at bottom of page 50] * I can see no more difficulty in this, than in the planter improving his varieties of the cotton plant.—C. D. 1858. Besides this natural means of selection, by which those individuals are preserved, whether in their egg, or larval, or mature state, which are best adapted to the place they fill in nature, there is a second agency at work in most unisexual animals, tending to produce the same effect, namely, the struggle of the males for the females. These struggles are generally decided by the law of battle, but in the case of birds, apparently, by the charms of their song, by their beauty or their power of courtship, as in the dancing rock-thrush of Guiana. The most vigorous and healthy males, implying perfect adaptation, must generally gain the victory in their contests. This kind of selection, however, is less rigorous than the other; it does not require the death of the less successful, but gives to them fewer descendants. The struggle falls, moreover, at a time of year when food is generally abundant, and perhaps the effect chiefly produced would be the modification of the secondary sexual characters, which are not related to the power of obtaining food, or to defence [sic, defense] from enemies, but to fighting with or rivalling [sic, rivaling] other males. The result of this struggle amongst the males may be compared in some respects to that produced by those agriculturists who pay less attention to the careful selection of all their young animals, and more to the occasional use of a choice mate.  One of the strongest arguments which have been adduced to prove the original and permanent distinctness of species is, that varietiesproduced in a state of domesticity are more or less unstable, and often have a tendency, if left to themselves, to return to the normal form of the parent species; and this instability is considered to be a distinctive peculiarity of all varieties, even of those occurring among wild animals in a state of nature, and to constitute a provision for preserving unchanged the originally created distinct species. In the absence or scarcity of facts and observations as to varieties occurring among wild animals, this argument has had great weight with naturalists, and has led to a very general and somewhat prejudiced belief in the stability of species. Equally general, however, is the belief in what are called "permanent or true varieties,"—races of animals which continually propagate their like, but which differ so slightly (although constantly) from some other race, that the one is considered to be a variety of the other. Which is the variety and which the original species, there is generally no means of determining, except in those rare cases in which the one race has been known to produce an offspring unlike itself and resembling the other. This, however, would seem quite incompatible with the "permanent invariability of species," but the difficulty is overcome by assuming that such varieties have strict limits, and can never again vary further from the original type, although they may return to it, which, from the [Page 54] analogy of the domesticated animals, is considered to be highly probable, if not certainly proved. It will be observed that this argument rests entirely on the assumption, that varieties occurring in a state of nature are in all respects analogous to or even identical with those of domestic animals, and are governed by the same laws as regards their permanence or further variation. But it is the object of the present paper to show that this assumption is altogether false, that there is a general principle in nature which will cause many varieties to survive the parent species, and to give rise to successive variations departing further and further from the original type, and which also produces, in domesticated animals, the tendency of varieties to return to the parent form. The life of wild animals is a struggle for existence. The full exertion of all their faculties and all their energies is required to preserve their own existence and provide for that of their infant offspring. The possibility of procuring food during the least favourable seasons, and of escaping the attacks of their most dangerous enemies, are the primary conditions which determine the existence both of individuals and of entire species. These conditions will also determine the population of a species; and by a careful consideration of all the circumstances we may be enabled to comprehend, and in some degree to explain, what at first sight appears so inexplicable—the excessive abundance of some species, while others closely allied to them are very rare. The general proportion that must obtain between certain groups of animals is readily seen. Large animals cannot be so abundant as small ones; the carnivora must be less numerous than the herbivora; eagles and lions can never be so plentiful as pigeons and antelopes; the wild asses of the Tartarian deserts cannot equal in numbers the horses of the more luxuriant prairies and pampas of America. The greater or less fecundity of an animal is often considered to be one of the chief causes of its abundance or scarcity; but a consideration of the facts will show us that it really has little or nothing to do with the matter. Even the least prolific of animals would increase rapidly if unchecked, whereas it is evident that the animal population of the globe must be stationary, or perhaps, through the influence of man, decreasing. Fluctuations there may be; but permanent increase, except in restricted localities, is almost impossible. For example, our own observation must convince us that birds do not go on increasing every year in a geometrical ratio, as they would do, were there not [Page 55] some powerful check to their natural increase. Very few birds produce less than two young ones each year, while many have six, eight, or ten; four will certainly be below the average; and if we suppose that each pair produce young only four times in their life, that will also be below the average, supposing them not to die either by violence or want of food. Yet at this rate how tremendous would be the increase in a few years from a single pair! A simple calculation will show that in fifteen years each pair of birds would have increased to nearly ten millions ! whereas we have no reason to believe that the number of the birds of any country increases at all in fifteen or in one hundred and fifty years. With such powers of increase the population must have reached its limits, and have become stationary, in a very few years after the origin of each species. It is evident, therefore, that each year an immense number of birds must perish—as many in fact as are born; and as on the lowest calculation the progeny are each year twice as numerous as their parents, it follows that, whatever be the average number of individuals existing in any given country, twice that number must perish annually,—a striking result, but one which seems at least highly probable, and is perhaps under rather than over the truth. It would therefore appear that, as far as the continuance of the species and the keeping up the average number of individuals are concerned, large broods are superfluous. On the average all above one become food for hawks and kites, wild cats and weasels, or perish of cold and hunger as winter comes on. This is strikingly proved by the case of particular species; for we find that their abundance in individuals bears no relation whatever to their fertility in producing offspring. Perhaps the most remarkable instance of an immense bird population is that of the passenger pigeon of the United States, which lays only one, or at most two eggs, and is said to rear generally but one young one. Why is this bird so extraordinarily abundant, while others producing two or three times as many young are much less plentiful? The explanation is not difficult. The food most congenial to this species, and on which it thrives best, is abundantly distributed over a very extensive region, offering such differences of soil and climate, that in one part or another of the area the supply never fails. The bird is capable of a very rapid and long-continued flight, so that it can pass without fatigue over the whole of the district it inhabits, and as soon as the supply of food begins to fail in one place is able to discover a fresh feeding-ground. This example strikingly shows us that the procuring a constant supply [Page 56] of wholesome food is almost the sole condition requisite for ensuring the rapid increase of a given species, since neither the limited fecundity, nor the unrestrained attacks of birds of prey and of man are here sufficient to check it. In no other birds are these peculiar circumstances so strikingly combined. Either their food is more liable to failure, or they have not sufficient power of wing to search for it over an extensive area, or during some season of the year it becomes very scarce, and less wholesome substitutes have to be found; and thus, though more fertile in offspring, they can never increase beyond the supply of food in the least favourable seasons. Many birds can only exist by migrating, when their food becomes scarce, to regions possessing a milder, or at least a different climate, though, as these migrating birds are seldom excessively abundant, it is evident that the countries they visit are still deficient in a constant and abundant supply of wholesome food. Those whose organization does not permit them to migrate when their food becomes periodically scarce, can never attain a large population. This is probably the reason why woodpeckers are scarce with us, while in the tropics they are among the most abundant of solitary birds. Thus the house sparrow is more abundant than the redbreast, because its food is more constant and plentiful,—seeds of grasses being preserved during the winter, and our farm-yards and stubble-fields furnishing an almost inexhaustible supply. Why, as a general rule, are aquatic, and especially sea birds, very numerous in individuals? Not because they are more prolific than others, generally the contrary; but because their food never fails, the sea-shores and river-banks daily swarming with a fresh supply of small mollusca and crustacea. Exactly the same laws will apply to mammals. Wild cats are prolific and have few enemies; why then are they never as abundant as rabbits? The only intelligible answer is, that their supply of food is more precarious. It appears evident, therefore, that so long as a country remains physically unchanged, the numbers of its animal population cannot materially increase. If one species does so, some others requiring the same kind of food must diminish in proportion. The numbers that die annually must be immense; and as the individual existence of each animal depends upon itself, those that die must be the weakest—the very young, the aged, and the diseased,—while those that prolong their existence can only be the most perfect in health and vigour—those who are best able to obtain food regularly, and avoid their numerous enemies. It is, as we commenced by remarking, "a struggle for existence," in [Page 57] which the weakest and least perfectly organized must always succumb. Now it is clear that what takes place among the individuals of a species must also occur among the several allied species of a group,—viz. that those which are best adapted to obtain a regular supply of food, and to defend themselves against the attacks of their enemies and the vicissitudes of the seasons, must necessarily obtain and preserve a superiority in population; while those species which from some defect of power or organization are the least capable of counteracting the vicissitudes of food, supply, &c., must diminish in numbers, and, in extreme cases, become altogether extinct. Between these extremes the species will present various degrees of capacity for ensuring the means of preserving life; and it is thus we account for the abundance or rarity of species. Our ignorance will generally prevent us from accurately tracing the effects to their causes; but could we become perfectly acquainted with the organization and habits of the various species of animals, and could we measure the capacity of each for performing the different acts necessary to its safety and existence under all the varying circumstances by which it is surrounded, we might be able even to calculate the proportionate abundance of individuals which is the necessary result. If now we have succeeded in establishing these two points—1st, that the animal population of a country is generally stationary, being kept down by a periodical deficiency of food, and other checks; and, 2nd, that the comparative abundance or scarcity of the individuals of the several species is entirely due to their organization and resulting habits, which, rendering it more difficult to procure a regular supply of food and to provide for their personal safety in some cases than in others, can only be balanced by a difference in the population which have to exist in a given area—we shall be in a condition to proceed to the consideration of varieties, to which the preceding remarks have a direct and very important application. Most or perhaps all the variations from the typical form of a species must have some definite effect, however slight, on the habits or capacities of the individuals. Even a change of colour might, by rendering them more or less distinguishable, affect their safety; a greater or less development of hair might modify their habits. More important changes, such as an increase in the power or dimensions of the limbs or any of the external organs, would more or less affect their mode of procuring food or the range of [Page 58] country which they inhabit. It is also evident that most changes would affect, either favourably or adversely, the powers of prolonging existence. An antelope with shorter or weaker legs must necessarily suffer more from the attacks of the feline carnivora; the passenger pigeon with less powerful wings would sooner or later be affected in its powers of procuring a regular supply of food; and in both cases the result must necessarily be a diminution of the population of the modified species. If, on the other hand, any species should produce a variety having slightly increased powers of preserving existence, that variety must inevitably in time acquire a superiority in numbers. These results must follow as surely as old age, intemperance, or scarcity of food produce an increased mortality. In both cases there may be many individual exceptions; but on the average the rule will invariably be found to hold good. All varieties will therefore fall into two classes—those which under the same conditions would never reach the population of the parent species, and those which would in time obtain and keep a numerical superiority. Now, let some alteration of physical conditions occur in the district—a long period of drought, a destruction of vegetation by locusts, the irruption of some new carnivorous animal seeking "pastures new"—any change in fact tending to render existence more difficult to the species in question, and tasking its utmost powers to avoid complete exterminations; it is evident that, of all the individuals composing the species, those forming the least numerous and most feebly organized variety would suffer first, and, were pressure severe, must soon become extinct. The same causes continuing in action, the parent species would next suffer, would gradually diminish in numbers, and with a recurrence of similar unfavourable conditions might also become extinct. The superior variety would then alone remain, and on a return to favourable circumstances would rapidly increase in numbers and occupy the place of the extinct species and variety.

And there, the old man found the truth to his being. What is yours?