text:
MAP-21 - Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Home / MAP-21 / Questions & Answers / Buy America Questions & Answers
Reports/Publications
Funding Tables
Buy America Questions & Answers
Question 1: Did MAP-21 make any changes to Buy America?
Answer 1: Yes. Section 1518 of MAP-21 amends the Buy America statute at 23 U.S.C. 313 to require the application of Buy America to all contracts eligible for assistance under title 23 within the scope of a finding, determination, or decision under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), regardless of funding source, if at least one contract within the scope of the same NEPA document is funded with Federal funding provided under Title 23.
Question 2: What is the effective date of the Buy America amendment of MAP-21 section 1518?
Answer 2: The effective implementation date of section 1518 is October 1, 2012. Thus, on or after October 1, 2012, if one contract within the scope of a NEPA document is awarded using Federal-aid funding, then the Buy America provisions would apply to all contracts within the scope of the NEPA document, regardless of the source of funding. FHWA anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed Rule Making for those regulations in 2013.
Question 3: Does MAP-21 require States to include Buy America provisions in non-Federal-aid highway contracts?
Answer 3: Yes, if the non-Federal-aid highway contract is included within the scope of a NEPA document and at least one other contract within the scope of the same NEPA document is funded or will be funded with Federal-aid highway funds. Awarding any such non-Federal-aid highway contact on or after October 1, 2012, without applicable Buy America provisions would render all contracts within the scope of the NEPA document ineligible for Federal-aid highway funds.
Question 4: What happens if a project is funded by Federal-aid highway funds on one contract and the project also has a non-Federal-aid highway contract without Buy America provisions and the non-Federal-aid highway contract was awarded before October 1, 2012?
Answer 4: If the non-Federal-aid highway contract without Buy America provisions was awarded before October 1, 2012, then the rest of the contracts within the scope of the NEPA document would remain eligible for Federal-aid funding as long as they contain the Buy America provisions. However, all contracts within the scope of the same NEPA document that are awarded on or after October 1, 2012, must include appropriate Buy America provisions.
Question 5: FTA and FHWA have slightly different Buy America requirements, particularly as they apply to manufactured products. On a project with mixed FTA-FHWA funding, which Buy America rules apply?
Answer 5: Further direction will be coordinated and provided by FHWA and/or FTA at a future date.
Question 6: Does Federal participation in contracts or agreements for environmental studies and document preparation, right of way acquisition, preliminary engineering and other non-construction work invoke the application of Buy America to the project under Section 1518 of MAP-21, even if no Federal funds are used in the construction? (added 12/20/2012)
Answer 6: Yes. Section 1518 of MAP-21 (codified at 23 U.S.C. 313(g)) provides that Buy America applies to all contracts eligible for assistance under title 23, United States Code, for a project carried out within the scope of the applicable finding, determination, or decision under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regardless of the funding source of such contracts if at least one contract for the project is funded with title 23 funds. Therefore, if Federal funds are used for any activity within the scope of a NEPA decision, then Buy America applies to the entire project. There is no limitation in the statute that the Federal funds be used only in construction contracts. If any contract or agreement for such work is executed after October 1, 2012 all construction contracts on that project will be subject to Buy America regardless of whether Federal funds are used in any of the contracts for construction.
Page last modified on September 12, 2013

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation
Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation (BNAC) was established as a Not For Profit Organisation to meet the changes in legislation at all levels of Government that requires Aboriginal people to be consulted about their Culture.
If any ground surface disturbance were to occur for any proposed project this triggered the requirement to undertake an Aboriginal Cultural assessment.
To meet this requirement the local Aboriginal Custodians had to be contactable and covered under all legislative requirements ie insurances.
This is why BNAC became a body corporate working for the protection and conservation of our Ngunawal Culture.
BNAC also imparts knowledge about Aboriginal culture and parctices to build a better community awareness.
Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation (BNAC) was set up so that the cultural heritage of the Ngunawal people would be protected and conserved for future generations.
Unfortunately there will be some sites of significance that will be destroyed and lost forever. BNAC has conceded that this will be the case for the sake of progress. BNAC works with all Government agencies to minimise those impacts.
For the ACT BNAC is a member of the ACT Governments cultural heritage body known as the Representative Aboriginal Organisations (RAO's) and for our area within NSW we are registered with the Office of Environment and Heritage.


text:
SUBMIT YOUR FILM Rus Eng
baikalkinofest
Submit your film
Festival President
only honest cinema
September 8-12
offline / online
Dom Kino schedule Zvezdnyi schedule Irkutsk Planetarium schedule
News Films Jury Pitching Film school Schedule
The shortlist of the anniversary People and Environment Film Festival has been announced
39 works were included in the short list of the 20th season out of 186 applications submitted. There are 7 documentary, 5 popular science, 3 feature and 12 animated films in the competition program. The non-competition program consists of 12 works.
Anniversary Film Festival named after V. Rasputin will be held from September 8 to 12 online and offline.
The selection committee:
Art History Ph. D., Associate Professor of Journalism and Economics Department of the Baikal State University of Economics and Law, member of the Union of Journalists of the Russian Federation, member of the Union of Cinematographers of the Russian Federation Olga Krasnoyarova;
director, member of the Union of Cinematographers of the Russian Federation Maria Kelchevskaya;
actress, member of the Union of Cinematographers of the Russian Federation and the Screen Actors Guild, lecturer of Irkutsk branch of Russian State University of Cinematography Tatyana Skorokhodova;
Head of the Film Production Development Department of the Irkutsk Regional Film Fund, member of the Union of Cinematographers of the Russian Federation Polina Stepanova;
Director of the Irkutsk Regional Film Fund, member of the Union of Cinematographers, Andrey Yudin;
General Director of Podkova PR-firm, journalist, lecturer in Journalism and Advertising at Irkutsk National Research Technical University Nadezhda Zaitseva;
animation director Georgy Boguslavsky;
Ph.D. of Culturology, philologist, associate professor of film, television and multimedia directing at Irkutsk branch of Russian State University of Cinematography Tatiana Shemetova;
director Maria Aristova;
Nadezhda Zaitseva, member of the selection committee
«The documentary section of the anniversary season is represented by particularly strong and bright works, including Buromsky Island dedicated to the pioneering polar explorers who gave their lives to the development of harsh territories that can become an event».
1) Buromsky Island (2020, Russia, directed by Olga Stefanova);
2) Russian way (2021, Russia, directed by Tatiana Soboleva);
3) The Last Breath (2021, Iran, directed by Faraz Fadaian);
4) Ground Zero (2020, Russia, directed by Yulia Byvsheva);
5) Earth: Muted (2021, Sweden, directed by Asa Ekman, Oscar Hedin, Mikael Kristersson);
6) Spitak. Thirty Years of Solitaire (2020, Russia, directed by Svetlana Stasenko);
7) Do I love you, Robot, do I? (2021, Russia, directed by Yulia Kiseleva).
The popular science film program turned out to be quite intense. One can single out a couple of projects out of these five: On Thin Ice telling about the consequences of global warming as well as Whale Conversations which is some sort of attempt to decipher the language of communication of sea animals.»
Popular science films
1) On Thin Ice (2021, Germany, Russia, directed by Henry Mario Mix);
2) A Short Tutorial on Raising Seals (2020, Russia, directed by Vladimir Marin);
3) Land of the Spoon-Billed Sandpiper (2021, Russia, directed by Yulia Darkova);
4) Whale talk (2021, Germany, Volker Barth);
5) Mushroom country (2020, Russia, Dmitry Tikhomirov);
Elena Utrobina, member of the Selection Committee
«This year, feature films are represented by strong dramas by foreign directors, but the animation program, on the contrary, includes the works of mainly Russian animators this time.»
1) This is not a Burial, it's Resurrection (2019, Lesotho, South Africa, Italy, directed by Lemohang Jeremiah Mosese);
2) Walnut Tree (2020, Iran, directed by Mohammad Hossein Mahdavian);
3) Bone Cage (2020, Canada, directed by Taylor Olson);
1) The Winter (2021, Australia, directed by Xin Li);
2) Penguin and Whale (2020, Argentina, directed by Ezequiel Torres, Pablo R. Roldan);
3) The Dance in the Depth (2020, Israel, directed by Karina Cananea);
4) The Rain (2020, Russia, directed by Anna Isakova, Vasilisa Makshakova, Ivan Khanzhin);
5) The Set for Creating a Mouse (2020, Russia, Anna Isakova, Vasilisa Makshakova, Ivan Khanzhin);
6) How the Wind Howls (2020, Russia, directed by Ivan Khanzhin);
7) Dogs Smell like the Sea (2020, Russia, Anastasia Lisovets);
8) 10000 Ugly Inkblots (2020, Russia, directed by Dmitry Geller);
9) The Words in the Hillside (2020, Russia, directed by Valentin Telegin);
10) Pishto's Birthday (2020, Russia, directed by Sonya Kendel);
11) White Snake (2020, Russia, directed by Polina Fedorova);
12) Beginning of the Light (2020, Russia, directed by Anastasia Melikhova).
Non-competition program
1) Ichthyosaur (2021, Russia, directed by Krutko Saballos Nadia);
2) #Goodnessbeeverywhere (2019, Russia, directed by Eva Belova);
3) My Friend Yeti (2021, Russia, directed by Vladimir Krivov);
4) Benedikt Dybowski. Secrets of the Sacred Sea (2019, Belarus, directed by Taras Vashchenko);
5) Secret of Karadagsky Sanctuary (2021, Russia, directed by Boris Dedenev);
6) House No. 6 (2019, Russia, directed by Yulia Falina);
7) Shulgan-Tach (Russia, 2021, directed by Dmitry Zavilgelsky);
8) Rescuing the Wooden Churches of Northern Russia (2020, USA, directed by J. Mitchell Johnson);
9) Me Home (2020, Russia, directed by Kristina Koroleva);
10) Mange (2021, Guatemala, directed by Josue Garcia Prado);
11) North for Happiness (2020, Russia, directed by Alexander Porotov);
12) Stalking Chernobyl – Exploration After The Apocalypse (2020, Ukraine, USA, Bulgaria, Slovakia, directed by Iara Lee).
People and Environment Baikal International Film Festival named after Valentin Rasputin is the festival of «pure cinema» on the shore of the cleanest lake on the planet. It is designed as a platform that encourages to reflect on the complex relationship between people and nature in order to shape ecological consciousness. It has been held since 1999. Since 2015, the festival has been named after the writer Valentin Rasputin. The President of the Festival is a documentary filmmaker and screenwriter, producer, teacher, Honored Artist of the Russian Federation Sergey Miroshnichenko.
PEOPLE AND ENVIRONMENT, film festival, Irkutsk Regional Film Fund, Shortlist, Baikal 25.06.2021, 109 просмотров.
Festival story
"People and Environment", Irkutsk, 2021
«Irkutsk Region Film Comission» ©
Developer —


If you have any additional questions and are still unsure about weather or not you have a valid claim, we offer a FREE Consultation service and would be happy to assist you.
You are entitled to make a claim for injuries suffered as a result of the accident. Some injuries may be very severe but the most common injury resulting from an accident is whiplash.
Whiplash injury is caused with sudden movements of the head and neck and the most common injuries suffered can result in pain to the neck, shoulders, headaches and back pain.
The injury may last a couple of weeks, several months or even several years, we will best advise you on how to proceed with your claim.
Generally the vehicle driver is the owner and will make the claim for the damage, but if you were a passenger in your own vehicle and wish to make a claim for the damage resulting from a non fault accident to your own vehicle then you are entitled to do so.
The Defendant will be liable to put the vehicle back in its position had the accident not have happened. If the vehicle is repairable then the Defendant will be liable for the repair cost and if the vehicle is a total loss then the Defendant will be liable for the pre accident value of your vehicle.
If the vehicle you were a passenger in was owned by you and is not roadworthy due to the accident, then you may be able to make a claim for a replacement hire vehicle, storage and recovery charges. Please contact us and we will be able to advise you further.
If you do not have access to your damaged vehicle as a result of the accident and choose not to hire a replacement vehicle then you can claim loss of use, which on average recovered amount is £15-£20 per day.
If you have reasonable general expenses (i.e. medicine, clothing, etc) and travel expenses as a result of the accident then please keep all receipts and we will claim the expenses back on your behalf.
If you have had to take time off as a result of the accident, then you will be able to make a claim for loss of earnings.
The claim for losses is unlimited to all reasonable losses resulting from the accident.
The losses may be past losses but if the accident has affected future losses, i.e. earnings, job prospects, holidays etc, then the claim may be significant and you will need an experienced solicitor helping you with the claims process.
As a result of the accident you may wish to have private treatment, such as private consultations, surgeries, physiotherapy, CBT (for non physical injuries such as stress, depression etc) and you will be able to claim for the same from the Defendant and we can help you with this.
If you have been cared for by family, friends or a private company as a result of the accident, then you are entitled to make a claim on their behalf for the cost of the care. If a family member or friend provided care, then you can claim an hourly rate on their behalf depending on the care provided.
We and a medical expert will assess your needs and be able to recommend the possible treatments to consider.
In order to assess whether you can make a claim, the accident circumstances will need to be considered and you must have suffered a loss as a direct result of the accident.
Please feel free to make a no obligation free consultation with our claims team who will be able to advise you best without any pressure.
To start the claim we will require your details and details of the accident, i.e. circumstances, defendant vehicle details and injury details.
HOW LONG HAVE I GOT TO MAKE A CLAIM?
If 18 years and above you have 3 years to make a personal injury claim.
Minors under 18 years of age have until their 21st Birthday to make a claim.
For non injury related claims, you have 6 years to make a claim, i.e. vehicle damage, hire, loss of earnings etc.
We recommend you present the claim early as this will mean a quicker settlement for you. The longer you leave in making the claim does not mean you cannot claim but the evidence is best presented when its fresh.
IS THE CLAIMS PROCESS SIMPLE?
It is very straightforward. We obtain the accident details from you over the phone and submit the claim to the insurers on an online Claim Portal. You will be required to agree to our terms of instructions which can be sent in the post or by email. The insurers will have 15 working days to respond and provide a position on the case. If liability is admitted then the claim process will be straightforward and should settle relatively quickly depending on what you are claiming for.
This will depend on various factors in the case, i.e. if liability is admitted, disputed, what you are claiming. Each case is unique and an estimate cannot be given of settlement without the facts of the case. We will try our upmost to settle the claim as quick as possible and on best terms.
Generally straightforward claims can settle in under 6 months.
This will depend on the nature of your injuries and the period of injury suffered. If your injury was minor then we may be able to request an offer from the insurers without the need for a medical examination but this will have to be assessed on a case by case basis.
If your injuries are ongoing or were more than of a minor nature then we will always recommend you see a medical expert to assess your injuries. The expert examination will be arranged local to you, with a time convenient for you and we will always claim your reasonable travel expenses. The examination is very straightforward and can take between 15-20 minutes.
Even if you have recovered from your injuries, a medical examination may be required to assess what injuries you suffered from a medical experts prospective.
WILL I HAVE TO ATTEND YOUR OFFICES?
You will not need to attend our offices unless you wish to do so. We can take instructions over the phone, by letter or email. You are entitled to use any solicitor and are not restricted to local solicitors.
This will depend on the facts of the case and the losses suffered.
Injury claims can vary significantly as all injuries are not the same. A simple whiplash claim with recovery of 6 months can attract an award between £2000 – £2500 and if the injury is over 12 months then the claim could be worth over £4000 but this will depend on various factors.
CAN MY CHILDREN CLAIM FOR INJURIES?
Children under the age of 18 can make a claim as long as they suffered physical injury. If there is no physical injury then the non physical injury has to be a recognised psychological injury, i.e. depression, PTSD etc.
Even if the physical injury is minor, we will always recommend a claim is made as this will be in the best interests of the child.
For a child to claim, a litigation friend (an adult, I.e. parent) will need to act on behalf of the child.
I HAVE HAD TWO ACCIDENTS CLOSE TOGETHER, CAN I STILL CLAIM?
Yes you can as long as the second accident either made the original injuries worse or there were different injuries in the second accident.
WILL YOU ARRANGE TREATMENT FOR ME?
If you require treatment, such as physiotherapy or CBT for psychological injury, chiropractor etc then we can arrange the treatment for you to assist your recovery.
The treatment provided to you will be paid for by the Defendant insurers therefore you will not need to worry about the cost.
WHAT SHALL I DO IF AN INSURER CONTACTS ME DIRECTLY / OR MAKES AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT?
If an insurance company contacts you direct or any other company other than us wanting to discuss your claim then please pass them our details and hang up.
Insurers try to contact clients direct and attempt to severely under settle claims in the hope a client will be tempted with the offer.
We will make sure your compensation reflects the level of damage you have suffered and based on past experiences, the offer made by the insurers is ALWAYS beaten significantly by us when a client takes our advice.
WHAT IF THE OTHER DRIVER WAS NOT INSURED OR CANNOT BE LOCATED?
In the case of a Road Traffic Accident; when making a claim against another driver, in most cases, they will be insured and we would make a claim against their insurers. However, a significant amount of drivers are uninsured or cannot be traced and in this instance, we would make a claim to the Motors Insurance Bureau (MIB). The MIB was set up to compensate victims of untraced and uninsured drivers. So don't let this hold you back from making a claim.
WHAT IF THE VEHICLE WAS STOLEN?
If an accident happens and the vehicle had been stolen at the time of the collision, then you can still claim for your losses.
I WASN'T WEARING A SEAT BELT, CAN I STILL CLAIM?
Not wearing a seat belt, does not mean you are not able to claim.
You are still entitled to make a claim but the insurers may make a reduction to your damages ranging from 15-25% depending on the level of injury suffered and the circumstances of the claim.
WHAT IF THE OTHER DRIVER DOES NOT ACCEPT FAULT?
I AM NOT SURE WHO WAS AT FAULT, WHO SHOULD I CLAIM AGAINST?
Initially a claim can be submitted against the other driver if it is not known who is at fault.
If the other drivers insurance company does not deal with the claim, then on a without prejudice basis a passengers claim can be submitted against the driver of the vehicle where the passenger was sat.
It is not necessary to blame the driver for the vehicle for the accident but a claim can be submitted to the drivers insurance company to ask them to deal with the claim on a without prejudice basis (without blame) as you were the innocent passenger.
The passengers can have their claim dealt with even if fault cannot be established between the two vehicles as the passenger was the innocent party.
WHAT IF MY DRIVER WAS AT FAULT FOR THE ACCIDENT?
Not all accidents are straightforward and when another driver is at fault then a claim would be made against that person and his or her insurers.
One of the biggest misconceptions is that when the passengers in a vehicle are involved in an accident, the passengers cannot make a claim against their driver. This is not correct and the fact of the matter is that passengers can make a claim against their driver as they were the innocent party; their claim should be dealt in full.
SHOULD I CLAIM AGAINST MY DRIVER?
Many people are understandably are hesitant in claiming against their driver, especially if the person is a friend or family, but the main thing to keep in mind is that the insurance company of the driver will deal with the claim in full.
You are technically claiming against the driver but it is the insurance company who pay out the damages.
If you have suffered injury and or losses as a result of an accident then we will always advise you to make a claim as that is your legal right.
IF I CLAIM AGAINST MY DRIVER, WILL THE AFFECT THE DRIVERS INSURANCE?
When an accident happens, it is likely the driver the vehicle will have reported the accident to his insurance company. The minute the accident is reported, the insurance of the driver will be affect as having a claim registered against the policy.
Once a claim is registered against the policy it generally makes very little or no difference if the passengers make a claim against the drivers insurers especially if someone else has made a claim against the driver or even if the driver claims for his / her own damage.
We will always advise the passengers to make a claim for their losses as the drivers insurers will settle the claim in full.


Quebec Maple Candle by True Northern Life at Maker House Co.
We wish there was a way you could smell this candle through your screen, it's that good! Reminiscent of Sugar Shacks and all the maple syrup you could possibly put on your pancakes, these Maple Candles are a must for anyone who wants a bit of Quebec and Canada in their home.
This hand-poured 100% soy wax candle in a recyclable glass jar is 8 oz.
Burn time is approx. 50 hours.
Made by True Northern Life in Ottawa, Ontario.


Thinking of reviewing your financial habits? The best time to start making positive changes to your spending was yesterday – the second-best time is today.
Whether you want to save more money, or you're simply sick of struggling to find enough cash to get through your month, reviewing your financial habits can help you come to terms with the areas you need to work on if you want to achieve your savings goals.
While transforming your habits is easier said than done, the quicker you begin to realise which actions, or inactions have having a negative effect on your bank balance, the quicker you can start to make a lasting difference to your financial health. Here are just a few ways that you can build better money habits today.
If you're a perfectionist or the kind of person that works well with numbers, then you might be tempted to download a bunch of apps or start using various tools to help you get the most out of your budget. While some tools are helpful, others can start to make your budgeting process so complicated, that it becomes increasingly difficult to stick with. Rather than overwhelming yourself with too much work at once, take a minimalist approach, and add extra tools to your process as and when you need to.
If you struggle with your spending quite frequently, then you might benefit from setting a few basic rules for yourself that help you to avoid spending too much too fast. For instance, you could write a list of wants on a piece of paper and remind yourself not to buy anything until you've thought about it for at least three days. This can help you to avoid impulse buys – which are one of the main reasons that people over-spend.
While it's tempting to simply grab a sandwich at work or pick up a pizza when you're exhausted, using your own food can save you a lot of money, and make you healthier too. To ensure that you don't overspend on extra food, plan each meal for every day of the week in advance, and make sure that you stick to your list. Upgrade your lunch box and look online for quick ways to make meals that are going to keep you satisfied throughout the day.
While this isn't exactly a habit in the strictest sense, it is a good way to make sure that you get the most out of your spending. If you set up your bank account so that you automatically send a portion of your wages to your savings every time you get paid – you won't have to worry about accidentally spending more than you need to. You can also set up direct debits while you're at it to ensure that you don't end up having to pay fees and penalties on bills that you owe.
While counting absolutely every penny might seem like the best way to save money – obsessing over your cash can cause some serious damage to your health. Figure out what kind of habits you can implement in your day to save money, without giving yourself too much of a headache. Remember, budgeting might be fun, but it doesn't have to be something you dread either.
If you're constantly struggling with spending problems, then it may be a good idea to figure out where your poor decisions are coming from. Think about the psychology of what's driving your habits. For instance, if you think that you spend too much on takeaway because you get bored of the food you have at home, you can try looking into new recipes and meals to spice things up a bit.
Finally, remember that the basic rules of budgeting still apply. Ultimately, you should always try to spend less than you earn and invest the difference wherever you can. Pay as much off your debts as you can each month and remember to save back extra cash where you can for emergency expenses. Budgeting doesn't have to be complicated. Stick to the basics and remind yourself of why you're budgeting every day – even if that means taping a visual reminder of your goals to your mirror.


For the past several weeks, I've been mulling over ways I might be able to more actively promote blog and site content that I dig. Blogrolls, while succinct, don't really put recommended reading into context. My efforts to champion the great and relevant work of others who share similar cinematic interests will be a running feature going forward, but a recent development has given me a starting point.
Fist of B-List was called out as a recipient of the Liebster Award by my very good friend, Aaron of The Death Rattle. In addition to his work there, he's also El Jefe for The Gentlemen's Blog to Midnite Cinema, so in short, he's one of the hardest-working dudes in genre film coverage. Be sure to check out his written work as well as his terrific guest appearance on The Gentlemen's Guide to Midnite Cinema podcast, where he, Big Willie, and the Samurai covered the first two Howling movies. It will put hair on your balls (and probably your back).
Those who receive the Liebster Award are charged with passing on the achievement to five other blogs of their choosing, but each must have less than 200 Followers. There were plenty of folks I wanted to call out for their excellent work, but it seems only blogs that display their Followers gadget are eligible. So here are five that meet both criteria: having less than 200 regular readers, and being awesome on the regular.
The Ninja Squid - An awesome gal who features her art work, perfect screen captures and captions for films, and unbridled love for martial arts and Anthony Wong. A million times, yes.
Ninja Dixon - There's always room for another blog with "ninja" in the title, especially when it features great writing about genre cinema from around the world.
Video Junkie Strikes Back from Beyond the Grave - Need proof that we're blogging brothers from another mother? Check out the running Gweilo Dojo feature. Hilarious reviews of some really obscure cinema.
Lone Wolves and Hidden Dragons - The two authors have other blogs as well, but you need look no further for your Asian genre cinema fix.
When the Vietnam War raged... in the Philippines - One of the most unique editorial concepts you're likely to find in the wide world of genre film blogging, executed to absolute perfection. Fantastic reading.
Wow! Not only do I have a super sweet award, but I now have more cool blogs to read. Thanks to the max!
Thanks for the kind words and for pointing me out to some great blogs!
I'm certainly glad there's no webcamera at this end cos I'm just looking completely dumbfounded!! What can I say, buddy! That's an awesome descrpition of my wee blog. Thank you so much! I'll try and live up to it in the future as well.


text: export const LOADING = '@@LOADING';

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Michael Cheika is not to blame (entirely)
Dan Cottrell
There are three good reasons to think that the wheels have not come off the Aussie-Cheika revival. However, I do think the national coach has missed one trick…
1. England have upped their game
No one thinks otherwise – England are a better team than they were at the World Cup. They are consistent at the core areas of the game, set-piece, kicking and defence and so will squeeze out tough games more regularly.
We could say it's been all up to Eddie Jones and others might say he's simply taken the same bunch of players, kept them fit and given them a few tough love lessons. Cheika could not have influenced that.
Photo courtesy of Tim Anger
2. Australia are in transition
A World Cup often leads to a lull. Players retire or don't kick on.
Cheika knew that his team lacked experience when he went to the World Cup. Hence the inclusion of Giteau and Ashley-Cooper. Now, without those two and with Kurtley injured and Lealiifano not fully back in the fold, the backline has looked a little ragged at times.
This does have an effect and we have seen some rather strange decision-making by Stephen Moore. If he'd had confidence in what was behind him, perhaps some of his calls might have been different.
England haven't really suffered from retirements and many of these players are better off from the lessons learned at the World Cup and in the Six Nations.
So, no coach can magic up experience from nowhere. And certainly not Cheika.
3. Playing momentum
Australia haven't played since the World Cup final. No matter how many camps you have, you need time on the pitch together and under pressure to maintain momentum. Look no further than New Zealand to see this. They have spluttered their way through the test series with Wales, with some uncharacteristic poor game management and decision-making.
Both Australia and New Zealand's inconsistent form in June has meant at times they have both played well and looked dangerous. Other times they have struggled to create sustained pressure or finish off chances.
Cheika can't do much about scheduling.
Eddie Jones called Israel Folau a 'special' player. Also a 'giraffe' but I'm sure he meant it in a nice way
A missed trick
The run up to the World Cup and the World Cup itself proved why Cheika is a shrewd operator. He shored up areas of weakness (like the scrum and backline direction) and selected in-form players in their positions of choice. The balance just looked right.
The last two weeks lack that previous strain of decisiveness. The scrum looks out-of-kilter. Perhaps he's been unlucky that Kepu arrived late from France, but I would suggest they needed another few pounds of beef in the second row and a more attacking 8 to play off.
The backline needs another playmaker. If you have a runner like Folau at full back, you need a centre who can find him. Alternatively, your full back is a decision maker, like O'Connor (bless his soul) was.
Overall, forget the fog-of-war war-of-words. Michael Cheika should be measured on his on-field outcomes not whether he can hold his own in the press room. Nothing said to a microphone is going change a test match outcome.
Australia have every chance of winning this weekend, as they have done in the previous two. I don't think he's far off the right formula. And he can't be blamed for areas out of his control. I'm happy to cut him some slack (even he beats us Poms on Saturday…)
Dan Cottrell @Dan_Cottrell
Editor - International Rugby Coaching (and English!) Twitter: @Dan_Cottrell
More in England
Keith's Bus was Runneth Over- 19/1/23
Hullo, G&GRs, and welcome to another edition of the Apple Isle rants. Our resident Soap Dodger and...
Thursday's Rugby News 10/11/22
Happy Thursday everyone. Well, it's been the usual week for an Australian rugby fan, joy and heartbreak...
Happyman November 10, 2022
Happy Thursday everyone. The northern tour awaits and many of us will be finding ourselves short of...
Happyman October 27, 2022
Wallaby side named for 3rd Test vs England
The Road to the Women's Rugby World Cup begins


text:
BC wines to reach 21 million new customers online
July 25, 2016, 3:16 pm • Trevor Nichols
British Columbia wines are about to get a big exposure boost, after the premiers of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia came to an agreement to make it easier to sell wine across provincial borders.
At the 2016 Summer Meeting of Canada's Premiers, Premiers Christy Clark, Kathleen Wynne and Philippe Couillard agreed to open up online wine ordering systems to include everything from the partnering provinces.
For BC, this means 21 million people in Quebec and Ontario will now have full access to BC wines on their respective liquor control agency's websites, allowing them to find and purchase BC wine much easier.
"This is good news for Canadians who love BC wine, for BC wineries and the 10,000 British Columbians whose jobs depend on a strong and growing wine industry. It's a good example of what Canada's three largest provinces can achieve when we work together," Clark said.
BC already allows other provinces to list their wines through the Liquor Distribution Branch website, and has built similar listing agreements with Nova Scotia,. Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
But this is the first time such BC wines will be so readily available to such a large group of potential customers.
It is not, however, a "free trade" agreement that will axe taxes for shipping wines out of province, a problem Clark has been trying to solve for years.
"We have not freed the grapes completely but they are freer," Clark said.
Kim Pullen is the proprietor of Church and State Wines. He says the agreement is especially good news for BC's small and medium-sized wineries, who rely much more on online sales to turn a profit.
"Inter-provincial shipping is really the savior for small and medium wineries," he says.
Pullen said while the agreement is a step in the right direction, the best-case scenario for many BC wineries would be completely open borders.
See more posts in the same category: Regional
BC wines to reach 21 million new customers online (Photo: Twittrer @christyclarkbc)
< Google Maps going off-road into B.C.'s deepest, darkest woods March Hare Concert >


Is Guatemala The Next Big Central American Must-See?
Everyone's been to Costa Rica, most have hit Belize on a cruise ship, and let's face it, the Yucatan Peninsula is pretty much been there, done that. Guatemala, however, is quickly becoming the new, fresh, must-see destination in Central America.
South of Mexico and Belize, and North of Honduras, Guatemala has experienced in the first quarter alone, an 11.5 percent increase in tourism traffic over the same time period in 2013. Pedro Duchez, director of INGUAT (Guatemala's Tourism Institute director) thinks it's due to a little bit of everything.
Big Business is taking notice as well. Royal Caribbean, always in an effort to expand their ports of call, grew their moorings in Guatemala 51 percent from 2011/2012 to 2012/2013.
If you are wondering what there is to do in Guatemala, there is no shortage of activities. Recognized as the "Billfish Capital of the World," the fishing season is just getting underway. (Billfish are those Marlins that everyone wants to catch and put up over the mantel).
In Guatemala, a sportsman's retreat is very affordable, with several lodges offering all-inclusive fishing vacations. Buena Vista Sports Fishing Lodge, Sailfish Bay Lodge, and Casa Vieja Lodge are just a few of the many options. Because of the diversity of these fish in this area, the government passed laws to start protecting them in 1997 and the local anglers do their part by using only circular hooks and practicing catch and release. The season for these beautiful fish runs from October to mid-June and talk about open waters – commercial fishing is prohibited in these areas.
There are more than 33 volcanoes in Guatemala, some of which are still active. Purchase a hand carved walking stick from one of the native children, walk across cooling lava beds, and cook marshmallows over hot rocks while enjoying some of the best views the country has to offer. Hiking the Pacaya Volcano was recently rated by National Geographic as one of the World's Best Hikes.
The Mayan Civilization holds firm roots in the Guatemalan jungle and one of the best in the world is in the department of Petén. Petén is the largest department in Guatemala and has many Mayan sites to speak of. Yaxhá, Ceibal, Aguateca, San Bartolo and El Mirador, where the largest pyramid of the Mayan world is found, are able to be explored.
Probably the most popular site, Tikal, a designated UNESCO Cultural Heritage Site, is one of the largest Mayan sites in the world spanning 357 square miles. This is at least a whole day and possibly a multiple day exploration excursion if you are slightest bit interested in most developed culture in the pre-Columbian Americas.
PHOTO: The Mayan ruins at Tikal.
If you are really interested in playing Indiana Jones for a couple of days, the recently launched Mayan Trekking Expedition is for you. This program, two years in the making, consists of a three-day excursion that entails a trek through the dense landscape of the Petén jungle led by a group of local community leaders who are fully trained in navigation, food preparation and horse handling.
Trekkers are taken on a journey in the Maya Biosphere Reserve to visit ancient Mayan ruins and encounter amazing flora and fauna along the way. The expedition visits impressive sites such as: the Bat Wall in San Miguel La Palotada - El Zotz Biotope; archaeological sites El Zotz; exploring its Acropolis and El Diablo Complex; El Palmar Site, archaeological Site Chiquin – Tikal and Tikal National Park.
In addition to Billfish fishing and Mayan exploration, there is plenty to keep you busy. Canopying (seeing the landscape from above the trees) is an awe-inspiring opportunity. Golf, whitewater rafting at all levels; whale and dolphin watching, rowing, mountain cycling, hiking, and horseback riding are all easily accessible. And for the Avian-centric, the bird watching in this country is second to none.
They say that Guatemala has a Life Lesson worth living for us all, now is the time for you to learn for yourself. For your first lesson, go to www.visitguatemala.com.


text:
Day After Night
Stories of four young Jewish European women who make their way to the land of Israel in the summer immediately following the end of World War II.
Set in 1945, in the summer immediately following the end of World War II in Europe, DAY AFTER NIGHT tells the stories of four young Jewish women — survivors of four different kinds of hell. They make their way to the land of Israel where they confront an uncertain future haunted by the past.
The protagonists — Leonie, Tedi, Shayndel and Zorah — are interned when they arrive, locked up behind barbed wire fences in a place called Atlit, a prison camp run by the British, who ruled Palestine at the time. In Atlit, the women meet and befriend one another as they grapple with a new life in a new land.
I felt like I left my sadness and grief behind in the waters of the mikveh. The prayers for healing touched my soul in a way that no previous prayers have ever done.
– Skip


SQ Surgical Products with maximum care; where care brings quality, quality brings customers and customers brings apprications.
everything you need for your medical office.
everything you need for your Saloon.
Welcome to SQ Surgical Products.
SQ Surgical Products was established with a mission to provide our valued clients with impeccable service in the field of advance and update finest quality hand crafted Surgical Instruments, Dental Instruments, Beauty Instruments,Eye Instruments and Hollowares.
Align with our team of professionals, we always strive for full satisfaction of customers, which is necessary for long term business relations.
Learn about exciting product information by subscribing to the SQ Surgical Products newsletter.


Published 04/25/2019 05:48:08 pm at 04/25/2019 05:48:08 pm in Diy Window Blind.
diy window blind diy window blinds z wave automatic blinds diy window blinds installation best window blind cleaner.
best window blind cleaner,diy window blind brackets,diy window blind cleaner,diy window blinds bamboo,diy window blinds ideas,diy window blind automation kit,diy window blinds installation,diy window blind motor,diy window blinds repairs,homemade window blind cleaner,diy window blinds pinterest.


Hi. Ihave uploaded my photo of Dorfak in your site and it has been saved but I can not see my photo in page of dorfak photos.please answer me because I have a lot of photos of Dorfak in different seasons and want to put them in your site.
Use this relief map to navigate to mountain peaks in the area of Dorfak.


I have a like new Palantic wetsuit for sale. Got it for my father in law, and he decided he wanted a 5mm instead. Looking to get $135 for it and I'll pay for the shipping! Otherwise, I'd be up for trading for a used but in good shape speargun(75-90cm range) or a quality pole spear.
Please feel free to contact me at 218.731.6273 to get in touch with me or for pictures as it won't allow me to upload them.
Don't mean to bump so quickly, but just wanted to say I'd take $120 for it and I'll cover shipping. Wife wants to do some Christmas shopping this coming week, so extra cash would be great.
Make me an offer on this suit, just looking to get some extra cash and free up the space!


text:
using System;

namespace SecuritySwitch.Configuration {

	/// <summary>
	/// The DirectorySetting class represents a directory entry in the <securitySwitch>
	/// configuration section.
	/// </summary>
	public class DirectorySetting : ItemSetting {

		// Fields
		private bool recurse = false;

		/// <summary>
		/// Gets or sets a flag indicating whether or not to include all files in any sub-directories
		/// when evaluating a request.
		/// </summary>
		public bool Recurse {
			get { return recurse; }
			set { recurse = value; }
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Creates an instance with default values.
		/// </summary>
		public DirectorySetting()
			: base() {
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Creates an instance with initial values.
		/// </summary>
		/// <param name="path">The relative path to the directory or file.</param>
		/// <param name="ignore">A flag to ignore security for the directory or file.</param>
		public DirectorySetting(string path, SecurityType secure, bool recurse)
			: base(path, secure) {
			this.recurse = recurse;
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Creates an instance with an initial path value.
		/// </summary>
		/// <param name="path">The relative path to the directory or file.</param>
		public DirectorySetting(string path)
			: base(path) {
		}

	}

	/// <summary>
	/// The DirectorySettingCollection class houses a collection of DirectorySetting instances.
	/// </summary>
	public class DirectorySettingCollection : ItemSettingCollection {

		/// <summary>
		/// Initialize an instance of this collection.
		/// </summary>
		public DirectorySettingCollection()
			: base() {
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Indexer for the collection.
		/// </summary>
		public DirectorySetting this[int index] {
			get { return (DirectorySetting)List[index]; }
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Adds the item to the collection.
		/// </summary>
		/// <param name="item">The item to add.</param>
		public int Add(DirectorySetting item) {
			return List.Add(item);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Inserts an item into the collection at the specified index.
		/// </summary>
		/// <param name="index">The index to insert the item at.</param>
		/// <param name="item">The item to insert.</param>
		public void Insert(int index, DirectorySetting item) {
			List.Insert(index, item);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Removes an item from the collection.
		/// </summary>
		/// <param name="item">The item to remove.</param>
		public void Remove(DirectorySetting item) {
			List.Remove(item);
		}

	}

}


text:
Q: Tidy gives non-standard HTML I use Tidy to clean and make HTML files compliant to HTML/XHTML. However, output contains non-standard attributes values like :
<table id='abc'>...

or
<input type='button' />

(look at the single quotes). How can I configure Tidy to give strict XHTML output? Thank you in advance!

A: This is indeed a valid XHTML. You can put either double quotes or single quotes for attribute values.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Chinese officials satisfied with Estonian dairy producers!
Four Chinese inspectors inspected the Estonian milk processing companies last week and their initial feedback was positive, said the Estonian Veterinary and Food Board Head Ago Pärtel, LETA/Postimees Online reports.
From October 27th to 29th October our Estonian partner Revala Colleagues took part in the Gulfood Manufactueing tradeshow, the biggest event for food and beverage process industries operating in the Middle East, Africa and South West Asia. The three-day event took place at the Dubai World Trade Center, featuring 1,100 suppliers from 60 countries, displaying their latest solutions in the food and beverage processing industry.
Probiotics can change infant gut bacteria to prevent cow milk allergy: Study.
Infants with allergies to cow's milk can become tolerant after treatment with hydrolysed casein and a probiotic formula which alters their gut microbiome, according to a new study.
19.- 21.08.2015 took place the third Baltic Paediatric Congress in Riga, Latvia. The program included different lectures, workshops and meetings/sessions with professors, which covered the entire child-related diseases.
Annual Father's Day celebration in St. Petersburg!
The annual celebration of Father's Day - one of the most important family events for all the residents of St. Petersburg! This year children's food brand NUPPI ®!
is glad to announce its participation in this event.
19th-21st August will take place the third Congress of Baltic Pediatric Society in Riga (Latvia) and NUPPI ® will present its products there.
In April NUPPI once again presented its assortment in Moscow in festival of pregnant women and infants.
WAN Expo Festival - one of the most important events of this spring for prospective mothers, fresh parents and their children.
26th Annual Еuropean Pediatrics and Neonatology Intensive Care Society Congress (ESPNIC 2015) – one of the most influential and important events for the medical personnel all over the world.
On 26 April took place the WAN Expo Festival of preganant women and infants.
The 10th WAN Expo exhibition delighted the capital city residents and visitors with its entertaining and active program and our - the children's food manufacturer NUPPI ® - participation.
Export Fair "Canton Fair 2015"
On 1st-5th May the 117. international import and export fair "Canton Fair 2015" took place in China, Guangzhou.
XVIII Congress of Pediatricians of Russia and XXII International Medical Exhibition "MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH - 2015"
In Moscow took place the XVIII international Congress of Pediatricians of Russia "Actual problems of pediatrics", as well as 22th International Medical Exhibition "Maternal and Child Health - 2015".
Extensive scientific program of the congress highlights the issues of medical care for children, reproductive health of children and adolescents, feeding a healthy and sick child, vaccinal, high-tech methods of diagnosis and treatment of childhood illnesses, school of medicine and other relevant issues.
From 1st to 5th May 2015 China will host the Canton Fair 2015 (The 117th China Import and Export Fair) - the largest biannual China trade fairs held in Guangzhou. This is the most effective way to develop the business relationships you need to succeed in China. It's no wonder that the Canton Fair 2015 has already become a must see for all those looking for business success in China.
Some probiotics like B. lactis are part of a family called Bifidobacteria. Breast milk contains Bifidobacteria – the most prevalent type of naturally occurring cultures found in the digestive system of breast-fed babies.


text:
Private Equity and Exit Planning—A Mechanism to Unlock Shareholder Liquidity
In this webinar, attendees will learn how private equity groups (PEGs) select investments, how they value those businesses, and how to identify various types of transactions. Additionally, several case studies will be used as examples.
- Formulate a direct correlation between small-deal private equity and exit planning
- Cite the core drivers of valuation multiples
- Use small-deal private equity as a tool to unlock shareholder value
- Create shareholder/equity value and better position the company for exit
- Assess and identify various transaction types commonly attractive to private equity
- Explain how to cash out a portion of the founder's ownership who will continue to control operations
- Recommend how to take cash off the table for the retiring owner and position the next (family) generation to succeed
- Arrange how to bring on an investor to fund a management buyout and/or aggressive growth
Kyle Madden
Mr. Kyle Madden is a vice president with KLH Capital and leads the firm's business development efforts. He serves on the board of directors for Mid-State Machine and Fabricating and Data Display Systems. Prior to joining the private equity group in 2009, he was involved in a variety of brokerage-related capacities within the insurance industry. An active member of the industry, he serves on the board of directors of the M&A Source and was the 2013 chairman of the Alliance of Merger & Acquisition Advisors (AM&AA).
Mr. Madden is a native of Amherst, New Hampshire. He graduated from the University of Tampa's John H. Sykes College of Business with a bachelor of science degree in finance


Born and raised in Huntington Beach, Erin offers a winning combination of business pedigree, real estate savvy, and local knowledge that truly sets her apart. Having achieved marked success working for several Fortune 500 companies, Erin quickly established herself as a top agent and has never looked back.
Since 2002, Erin has successfully guided her clients through challenging market changes. She is money savvy—always aware of the financial ramifications of any transaction—and is well equipped to promote the tax advantages of home ownership. Buyers seek her out for her valuable financial advice and sellers maximize their opportunities by utilizing the services of her skilled marketing team.
Erin credits her success as a Realtor to her steadfast commitment to being not only a professional advisor for her clients, but a close partner and personal resource. As a result, a strong majority of her new clients come as direct referrals from existing clients. A passionate advocate of the industry and the local community, Erin's marketing know-how and services portfolio are simply top-notch.
Erin is a Huntington Beach Mom of two boys. She grew up in Huntington Beach and now her kids are enjoying the same carefree childhood. They love spending time at the beach and helping in the community.


text:
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

Being able to accurately and reliably model the fission process and the resulting observables is important for a variety of applications, including security, non-proliferation, energy, and fundamental science.  While microscopic models for this process, beginning from fundamental nucleon-nucleon interactions, are available \cite{Schunck2014,Bulgac2016}, more often these models are constructed based on a combination of macroscopic and microscopic theories \cite{Randrup2011,Moller2015}.  Still, at the moment, these methods are limited; they are computationally expensive, and the range of observables that can be calculated generally ends at the post-scission fission fragment yields.  These results can then be used as input for codes that calculate the prompt and delayed neutron and $\gamma$-ray observables.

These codes (e.g, {\CGMF} \cite{CGMF,Becker2013}, $\mathtt{FREYA}$ \cite{FREYA1,FREYA2}, $\mathtt{HF^3D}/\mathtt{BeOH}$ \cite{BeoH}, $\mathtt{FIFRELIN}$ \cite{FIFRELIN}, $\mathtt{GEF}$ \cite{GEF}) employ a variety of physics models describing how the excitation and kinetic energies are shared between the light and heavy fission fragments, and determine neutron and $\gamma$-ray observables on either an event-by-event basis or as averages.  Event-by-event calculations allow for the determination of all observables, including correlations, as consistently as possible, from scission to prompt particle emissions, conserving energy, spin, and parity at every step of the decay.
One effect that has been studied over the years, but is not always fully included in these types of codes, is the anisotropic emission of fission fragments and neutrons during the decay.  There are several sources of this anisotropy:  fission fragment emission with respect to the incident beam, neutron emission from the fission fragments (including whether neutrons are emitted from the fully accelerated fragments), along with the emission of scission, multi-chance, and pre-equilibrium neutrons before fission.

Although, there is no reason to expect that fission fragments should be emitted anisotropically with respect to the incoming neutron beam from the compound nucleus, many experimental studies from the 1950's through today have shown that there can be a large degree of anisotropy - defined as the ratio of the cross section at $0^\circ$ to the cross section at $90^\circ$.  The enhancement with respect to the beam axis can be as much as 30\% to 60\%.  There have, in particular, been several measurements of the anisotropy of actinides, including $^{235}$U \cite{Vorobyev2015,Ahmad1979,Brolley1955,Simmons1960,GeppertKleinrath2017}, $^{238}$U \cite{Vorobyev2015,Henkel1956,Brolley1954,Birgersson2009,Ryzhov2005,Vives2000,Simmons1960}, and $^{239}$Pu \cite{Leachman1965,Blumberg1959,Simmons1960}.

This anisotropy was postulated, by A. Bohr \cite{Bohr1956}, to stem from the populated transition states at the fission barrier of the parent nucleus, which would account for the changing anisotropy as a function of incident neutron energy.  At low incident energies, few states are populated, resulting in an anisotropic distribution of fission fragments depending on the quantum numbers of the states that are populated.  As the incident energy increases, more states are available in the parent nucleus (and the angular distribution becomes more isotropic) until the second-chance fission channel opens up, at which point the $A$ nucleus is fissioning instead of the $A+1$ system, lowering the number of available states, increasing the anisotropy again.  Of course, the picture is more complicated than this since the opening of the second-chance fission channel leads to a possibility of fission from either the $A+1$ or $A$ compound nucleus.  A recent measurement of the anisotropy of $^{239}$Pu confirmed that the changes in anisotropy track the shape of the fission cross section \cite{GeppertKleinrath2017}, in agreement with many previous measurements that observed the same trends, e.g. \cite{Leachman1965,Blumberg1959,Simmons1960}.

There have also been several studies to assess whether or not the prompt neutrons are emitted isotropically from the fission fragments, along with whether the neutrons are emitted from the fully accelerated fragments, both of which are commonly assumed in the fission fragment deexcitation codes mentioned above.  Often, differences between the measured and calculated neutron angular distributions are attributed to scission neutrons, those neutrons that are emitted during the rupture of the neck of the compound nucleus.  However, this interpretation does not take into account the assumptions in the model that could change the resulting calculations (such as that all prompt neutrons are emitted from the fully accelerated fragments).  The percentage of neutrons that are not emitted from fully accelerated fission fragments is somewhat of a controversy \cite{Bowman1962,Bowman1963,Kapoor1963,Skarsvag1963,Carjan2019}.

As the incident neutron energy increases, reaction channels beyond first-chance fission open.  Besides the scission neutrons that may be emitted, other pre-fission neutrons can be emitted before the compound nucleus fissions.  Most often, these pre-fission neutrons are emitted from the fully equilibrated compound nucleus.  However, for incident neutrons with high enough energy, $\gtrsim 12$ MeV, a neutron can be emitted with or without the compound nucleus forming.  When the compound nucleus does not form, the emitted neutrons are considered to be pre-equilibrium.  These pre-equilibrium neutrons have a different energy spectrum from the pre-fission neutrons coming from the compound system \cite{PreEqReactions} and have a forward-peaked angular distribution, more akin to the angular distribution of an inelastically scattered neutron than the isotropic distributions of the pre-fission neutrons emitted from the compound system \cite{Feshbach1980}.  Pre-equilibrium neutrons have been definitively observed and their angular distributions measured for the first time for neutron-induced fission of $^{239}$Pu \cite{Kelly2019}.

Recently, the fission fragment anisotropy and pre-equilibrium angular distributions have been implemented into the Monte Carlo Hauser-Feshbach code {\CGMF} \cite{CGMF,Becker2013}.
In this work, we describe the implementation and study of the correlations between the fission fragment and neutron directions.  This paper is organized in the following manner:  in Section \ref{sec:theory}, we discuss the underlying physics of the angular distributions as well as the {\CGMF} code and the implementation of these sources of anisotropy; in Section \ref{sec:results}, we present our results and compared to experimental data; and finally, we conclude in Section \ref{sec:conclusions}.

\section{Theory}
\label{sec:theory}

There are several physical processes that could lead to an anisotropic distribution of the prompt neutrons emitted during the fission process.  The following sections describe these processes along with the Monte Carlo Hauser-Feshbach code {\CGMF}, used here to calculate the decay of the fission fragments by prompt neutron and $\gamma$-ray emissions.

\subsection{Fission Fragment Anisotropy}
\label{sec:FFA}

The first process we discuss is the fission fragment angular anisotropy coming from the population of the transition states \cite{Bohr1956}.  The angular distribution of the fission fragments can be described with the help of the Wigner $d$-matrices \cite{Wagemans}, defined as
\begin{multline}
d^{J}_{M,K} (\theta) = \\
\sum \limits _n (-)^n \frac{[(J+M)!(J-M)!(J+K)!(J-K)!]^{1/2}}{(J-M-n)!(J+K-n)!(M-K+n)!n!} \\
\times \left ( \mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta}{2}\right )^{2J+K-M-2n} \left ( \mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta}{2}\right )^{2n+M-K},
\end{multline}

\noindent where $J$ is the total angular momentum of the compound nucleus, $K$ is its projection on the fission axis, $M$ is its projection on the beam axis, and $\theta$ is the angle of the fission fragments with respect to the beam axis.  The angular distribution of the fission fragments in the lab frame would be
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma_f}{d\Omega} (J,K,M) = \frac{2J+1}{2} | d^J_{M,K} (\theta) |^2,
\end{equation}

\noindent if the fission only occurred through one of these $(J,K,M)$ states.  Instead, each state must be weighted by its population, $P_s(J,K,M)$, and the full angular distribution is given by
\begin{equation}
W(\theta) \equiv \frac{d\sigma_f}{d\Omega} = \sum \limits _{s(J,K,M)} P_s(J,K,M) \frac{2J+1}{2} | d^J_{M,K} (\theta) |^2.
\end{equation}

\noindent The weight of each state is often extracted from experimental measurements, e.g. \cite{GeppertKleinrath2017}, but these weights are connected to the fission cross section, $\sum P_s = \int \frac{d\sigma_f}{d\Omega}d\Omega$.  The anisotropy of the fission fragments is defined as the ratio of the angular distribution at 0$^\circ$ to the angular distribution at 90$^\circ$ relative to the beam axis, often written as $W(0^\circ)/W(90^\circ)$.

\subsection{Pre-equilibrium Neutron Angular Distribution}
\label{sec:PEA}

When the incident neutron energy is high enough, pre-equilibrium neutrons can be emitted before the compound system equilibrates.  Both the energy spectrum and angular distributions of these neutrons are significantly different from those of the neutrons emitted from the fully equilibrated compound nucleus.  Pre-equilibrium angular distributions can be well described by the quantum mechanical theory of Feshbach, Kerman, and Koonin (FKK) \cite{Feshbach1980}.  Here, the angular distributions of the emitted particles can be separated into multi-step direct and multi-step compound parts.  The pre-equilibrium neutrons are described by the multi-step direct part of the calculation, similar to inelastic scattering.

Recently, pre-equilibrium angular distributions were measured from $^{239}$Pu(n,f) for the first time \cite{Kelly2019}.  These neutrons were shown to be first emitted around an incident neutron energy of 12 MeV and were significantly forward peaked.  These forward-peaked angular distributions were well described by the FKK theory, along with Kalbach-Mahn systematics \cite{Kalbach1981}, which represents the shape of the angular distributions as a sum of Legendre polynomials.

\subsection{Other Sources of  Anisotropy}
\label{sec:otherA}

Another source of angular anisotropy for the fission fragments and the emitted neutrons is from the recoil of the compound system due to momentum conservation between the neutron beam and the fissile target.  Although the neutrons are very light compared to the heavy target, this effect is non-negligible.  The recoil had already been included in {\CGMF}, and the resulting effect on the fission fragment and neutron anisotropy will be presented in Sec. \ref{sec:results}.  Similarly, there is also a small amount of recoil to the fission fragments from the emission of the prompt neutrons; this kinematic effect was also already included in {\CGMF}.

There are several other potential sources of anisotropy that depend on how the neutrons are emitted from the fission fragments.  In this work, we assume that the prompt neutrons are emitted isotropically from the fission fragments in their center-of-mass frame.  In addition, we assume that the neutrons are emitted from the fully accelerated fission fragments.  Anisotropic angular distributions of the neutrons in the center-of-mass frame of the fragments could either raise or lower the resulting neutron anisotropy depending on the distribution, while neutrons emitted before the fragments are fully accelerated would reduce the anisotropy of the neutrons with respect to the fragments as the neutrons would receive a smaller kinematic boost from the fragments.  Both of these effects should be investigated and then taken into account, however, that is beyond the scope of this current work.

\subsection{CGMF}
\label{sec:CGMF}

The fission fragment anisotropy and pre-equilibrium angular distributions have recently been implemented into the Monte Carlo Hauser-Feshbach code, {\CGMF} \cite{CGMF,Becker2013}, developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).  As input, {\CGMF} requires yields in mass, charge, total fission fragment kinetic energy, spin, and parity, $Y(A,Z,TKE,J,\pi)$, for the fission reaction of interest, either spontaneous fission or neutron-induced fission for incident energies from thermal to 20 MeV.  The fission fragments are sampled from this initial distribution.  The total excitation energy, TXE, defined through the $Q$-value as TXE = $Q$ - TKE, is calculated and shared between the two complementary fragments based on a ratio of temperatures, currently fit to reproduce the average neutron multiplicity as a function of mass and does not include a dependence on the incident neutron energy.  Each fragment decays through the emission of prompt neutrons and $\gamma$ rays according to the Hauser-Feshbach statistical theory \cite{Feshbach1980}.  At each step in the decay, the probability for the emission of a prompt neutron is determined from the transmission coefficient calculated from an optical potential, and the $\gamma$ emission probability is calculated from the $\gamma$-ray strength function.  Energy, spin, and parity are conserved during the full decay path.

{\CGMF} records the initial conditions of the fragments along with the energies and momenta of the fragments, neutrons, and $\gamma$ rays for each simulated fission event.  This allows us to reconstruct average quantities, such as average neutron energy, photon energy, and number of particles, as well as distributions, such as energy spectra and multiplicity distributions.  In addition, correlations between all observables can be constructed.  Numerous examples of the prompt quantities that have been studied with {\CGMF} can be found in \cite{Talou2018,Stetcu2014,Marcath2018}.

As mentioned previously, {\CGMF} now takes into account the angular distributions of fission fragments and of the pre-equilibrium neutrons.  As far as we are aware, this is the first time that these two effects have been included into a fission decay code such as this.  In the sections below, we describe how these angular distributions were parametrized and included within {\CGMF}.

\subsubsection{Fission Fragment Anisotropy}

The fission fragment anisotropy, $W(0^\circ)/W(90^\circ)$, was introduced in {\CGMF} for all neutron-induced reactions available.  For most of these nuclei, there are several experimental data sets available, shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Splines} for $^{235}$U, $^{238}$U, and $^{239}$Pu as the colored stars.  For each nucleus, these data were fit using cubic splines, shown as the correspondingly colored dashed lines of Fig. \ref{fig:Splines}.  The knots of the splines, black circles, were adjusted to reproduce the features within the experimental data.  Cubic splines fits were also constructed for the anisotropy of $^{233,234}$U, $^{237}$Np and $^{241}$Pu.  However, for the $^{241}$Pu target, data were only available for incident neutron energies below 8 MeV, and because these data have the same shape and magnitude as those for $^{239}$Pu, the anisotropy as a function of incident neutron energy for $^{241}$Pu was taken to be the same as that of $^{239}$Pu, where the data extend up to 20 MeV.  For implementation into {\CGMF}, these fits are tabulated in steps of 0.1 MeV incident neutron energy.  This energy is then matched with the incident neutron energy for each {\CGMF} calculation.  The uncertainty introduced from this rounding is less than the accuracy of the resulting anisotropy determined from a fit to the Monte Carlo results.

The angle, $\theta$, with respect to the incident neutron beam axis of the light fission fragment is then sampled from the distribution
\begin{equation}
P(\mathrm{cos}(\theta)) \propto 1+\left (\frac{W(0^\circ)}{W(90^\circ)}-1 \right )\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta),
\label{eq:FFA}
\end{equation}

\noindent in the center-of-mass frame of the compound system.  When $W(0^\circ)/W(90^\circ)=1$, $\mathrm{cos}(\theta)$ is sampled isotropically.  In all cases, the angle around the beam axis, $\phi$, is sampled isotropically.  The direction of the heavy fragment is determined from the back-to-back momentum conservation of the fragments in the center-of-mass.

\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{AnisotropySplines_PRC.pdf}
	\caption{(color online) Fission fragment anisotropy as a function of incident neutron energy.  Stars with error bars show the data, black circles are the knots that anchor the cubic splines, given by the dashed lines of the corresponding color, $^{235}$U(n,f) in blue, $^{238}$U(n,f) in red, and $^{239}$Pu(n,f) in green.  These represent some of the fits now included in {\CGMF}.}
	\label{fig:Splines}
\end{figure}

This method, however, does not rigorously take into account the opening of multi-chance fission channels.  Ideally, when a fissioning nucleus emits one or more pre-fission neutrons, the anisotropy of the $A_c-\nu$ system - where $\nu$ is the number of pre-fission neutrons emitted - should be considered in Eq. (\ref{eq:FFA}), instead of the anisotropy of the $A_c$ system.  From the measurement of the fission fragment anisotropy, it is impossible to disentangle the joint effect of the anisotropy of each fissioning system without further modeling.

\subsubsection{Pre-equilibrium Neutron Angular Distributions}

The pre-equilibrium neutron angular distributions were fit to theoretical calculations from the FKK model \cite{Feshbach1980,TKcomm}.  These calculations were performed on a two-dimensional grid of incident, $E_\mathrm{inc}$, and excitation, $E^*$, energies and were individually fitted assuming Kalbach systematics \cite{Kalbach1988},
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\theta}{d\Omega}(E_\mathrm{inc},E^*) = a(E_\mathrm{inc},E^*)\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{cos}\theta) + b(E_\mathrm{inc},E^*).
\end{equation}

\noindent Here, both $a$ and $b$ were taken to be polynomial in $E_\mathrm{inc}$ and $E^*$.  This parameterization allows an angular distribution to be calculated for any incident neutron energy up to 20 MeV.  The resulting distributions are then normalized to form a probability distribution function and are sampled when a pre-equilibrium neutron is emitted.  These distributions were calculated for $^{239}$Pu but are taken to be the same for all targets.  For the actinides considered in {\CGMF}, these angular distributions calculated with the FKK model are almost unchanged with the addition or removal of a few nucleons.

The emitted neutrons are then sampled from a cumulative distribution function, CDF.  The CDF was constructed for 50 values of $\mathrm{cos}(\theta) \in [-1,1]$, and points in between were interpolated linearly.  Here, 50 values of $\mathrm{cos}(\theta)$ are enough for converged results, and this grid and interpolation does not introduce any uncertainty compared to a finer grid.  The angular distributions of the fission fragments were sampled in the same way.

\subsubsection{Extracting the Anisotropy}
\label{sec:extractA}

Because {\CGMF} calculates the fission events in a Monte Carlo fashion, for each run of {\CGMF}, we end up with a list of properties for each of the fission fragments and associated neutrons and $\gamma$ rays.  To extract the neutron anisotropy, we bin the neutron angles and fit the resulting distribution to Legendre polynomials,
\begin{equation}
W(\mathrm{cos}\theta|\textbf{a}) = a_0P_0 (\mathrm{cos}\theta) + a_1P_1 (\mathrm{cos}\theta) + a_2P_2 (\mathrm{cos}\theta),
\end{equation}

\noindent where $P_0$, $P_1$, and $P_2$ are the first three Legendre polynomials, and $\textbf{a}=[a_0,a_1,a_2]$ are the associated weights of each polynomial.  From each fit, we get best-fit values, $a_0^*$, $a_1^*$, and $a_2^*$, along with a covariance matrix between the three fit parameters.  To quantify the uncertainty coming from the polynomial fit, we draw samples from a multivariate Gaussian distribution centered at the best fit with the associated covariance matrix.  The anisotropy of the neutrons is then defined as $W(1|\textbf{a}^*)/W(0|\textbf{a}^*)$, and 95\% confidence bands are constructed from the samples from the covariance matrix.  This procedure is used to mitigate the lack of statistics when looking at specific neutron energies.  The same procedure is followed to extract the anisotropy of the fission fragments from the {\CGMF} calculations.

\section{Results and Discussion}
\label{sec:results}

We now present results for the case of the neutron-induced fission on $^{239}$Pu for incident energies up to 20 MeV.  Because the sources of anisotropy can become entangled and more difficult to understand when we consider them together, we first examine, in sequence, the compounding effects due to the recoil of the target, the anisotropic distribution of the fission fragments, and then the angular sampling of the pre-equilibrium neutrons.  Figure \ref{fig:FFAnisotropy}(a) shows the compounding effect on the fission fragment angular distribution when each of these three effects is added.  The red dotted line shows the effect due to the recoil of the target from momentum conservation of the interaction with the beam, which can be up to 5\% at 20 MeV.  To this, the fission fragment anisotropy due to the transition states is added (black solid line).  Finally, the angular sampling of the pre-fission neutrons is included (blue dashed line).  As expected, there is very little change in the fragment angular distribution when the pre-equilibrium neutrons are sampled from an anisotropic distribution compared to the isotropic one.

The angular anisotropy of the emitted neutrons is lower compared to the fission fragment anisotropy.  The same additions as in Fig. \ref{fig:FFAnisotropy}(a) are shown in panel (b) but for the angular distributions of the neutrons emitted from the fission fragments, without pre-fission neutrons included.  Because the neutrons are emitted isotropically in the center-of-mass frame of each fission fragment, the values for the anisotropy are reduced.  Although the pre-equilibrium neutrons amount to less than 20\% of the pre-fission neutrons, there is a noticeable boost to the angular distribution at forward angles when these events are included.  The forward-peaked angular distribution translates to an increase in the anisotropy, as seen in the difference between the black solid and blue dashed lines in Fig. \ref{fig:FFAnisotropy}(c).

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{FragmentAnisotropy.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{promptNeutronAnisotropy.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{allNeutronAnisotropy.pdf}
\caption{(color online) Anisotropy for (a) fission fragments, (b) prompt neutrons without pre-fission neutrons, and (c) all prompt neutrons as a function of incident neutron energy for different sources of angular anisotropy.  In each subplot, the red dotted line shows the effect due to the kinematic recoil (labeled R), the black solid line shows the joint effect of both the kinematic recoil and the fission fragment angular distribution (R+FF), and the blue dashed line depicts the anisotropy when the pre-equilibrium angular sampling is added to the first two effects (R+FF+PE), for $^{239}$Pu(n,f).  Note the difference in the y-scale across the three panels, especially for (a) compared to (b) and (c).}
\label{fig:FFAnisotropy}
\end{figure}

We can define a lower bound on the outgoing neutron energy, the neutron threshold energy, $E_\mathrm{thres}$.  As $E_\mathrm{thres}$ is raised, the magnitudes of the neutron anisotropies are enhanced.  In Fig. \ref{fig:nEth}, we show the neutron anisotropy as a function of $E_\mathrm{thres}$ for several incident neutron energies, indicated by the different colored symbols.  Panel (a) shows the neutron anisotropy when pre-fission neutrons are removed from the analysis, and the neutron anisotropy when they are included is shown in panel (b).  In both panels, the hashed areas give the uncertainties coming from the fit to Legendre polynomials, as described in Sec. \ref{sec:extractA}.  When pre-fission neutrons are not considered, as in Fig. \ref{fig:nEth}(a), we see that the neutron anisotropy trends toward the fission fragment anisotropy as $E_\mathrm{thres}$ increases.  Although this picture is complicated by the addition of pre-fission neutrons, there appear to be strong correlations between the neutron anisotropy and $E_\mathrm{thres}$ that could be used to extract information about the fission fragment anisotropy.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{94239convergenceNoPF2.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{94239convergencePF2.pdf}
\caption{(color online) Neutron anisotropy as a function of threshold energy (filled circles) compared to the fission fragment anisotropy (dashed lines in the corresponding colors) (a) only neutrons emitted from the fission fragments are considered and (b) pre-fission neutrons are included in addition.}
\label{fig:nEth}
\end{figure}

As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:FFAnisotropy}, the emission of prompt neutrons dilutes the signature of the anisotropy coming from the fission fragments, as the neutrons are emitted isotropically in the center-of-mass frame of the fission fragments.  However, as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:nEth}(a), as the outgoing neutron energy increases, the neutron anisotropy approaches the fission fragment anisotropy.  Therefore, if neutrons with a high enough energy are measured, the fission fragment anisotropy could be extracted from the neutron anisotropy.  Of course, pre-fission neutrons complicate this picture, as in Fig. \ref{fig:nEth}(b), since they are emitted isotropically in the rest frame of the compound nucleus.  A hint of this difference when the pre-fission neutrons are included is seen in Fig. \ref{fig:Eth0} which shows the anisotropy of the fission fragments in black, prompt neutrons from the fragments in blue, and all neutrons in red, compared to the experimental data for the fission fragments, light grey circles.  Around $E_\mathrm{inc}=5$ MeV, where the second chance fission channel opens, very slight differences can be seen between the calculations of the neutron anisotropy with and without pre-fission neutrons, but these differences are primarily within the uncertainty bands from each calculation.  When the pre-equilibrium neutrons are first emitted, around $E_\mathrm{inc}=12$ MeV, the difference between the two neutron anisotropies becomes more visible, as some of the pre-fission neutrons are now emitted preferentially in the direction of the incident neutron beam.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{94239_0Eth2.pdf}
\caption{(color online) Neutron anisotropy as a function of incident energy without (blue) and with (red) pre-fission neutrons included, compared to the experimental data (grey) that were used to construct the spline fit for {\CGMF} and resulting fission fragment anisotropy (black) when no neutron threshold energy is considered.  The dashed lines show the associated 95\% confidence bands of the Legendre polynomial fit.  The difference between the {\CGMF} calculation for the fission fragment anisotropy and the experimental data is discussed in the text.}
\label{fig:Eth0}
\end{figure}

In most cases, the most energetic neutrons are those that are emitted along the direction of the fission fragments, as they gain the strongest kinematic boost from the motion of the fragments.  Therefore, as can be seen in the differences between panels (a), (b), and (c) in Fig. \ref{fig:239Pu}, as the energy threshold for the neutrons increases, the neutron anisotropy is more aligned with the anisotropy of the fission fragments.  When $E_\mathrm{thres}=7$ MeV, Fig. \ref{fig:239Pu}(b), the neutron anisotropy and associated uncertainties from the fit to the Legendre polynomials covers the spread in the experimental data, with 62\% of the data falling within the confidence bands for the neutron anisotropy when experimental uncertainty is taken into account.  We do see that the fission fragment anisotropy extracted from {\CGMF}, black solid lines in Fig. \ref{fig:239Pu}, is somewhat higher than the experimental anisotropy, due to the kinematic boost from the incident neutron beam.  The correction for the neutrons from the recoil of the target is less than 4\%.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{94239_5Eth2.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{94239_7Eth2.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{94239_9Eth2.pdf} \\
\caption{(color online) Neutron anisotropy as a function of incident energy without (blue) and with (red) pre-fission neutrons included compared to the experimental data (grey) that was used to construct the spline fit for {\CGMF} and resulting fission fragment anisotropy (black).  The dashed lines show the associated 95\% confidence bands of the Legendre polynomial fit.  In (a) $E_\mathrm{thres}=5$ MeV, (b) $E_\mathrm{thres}=7$ MeV, and (c) $E_\mathrm{thres}=9$ MeV.}
\label{fig:239Pu}
\end{figure}

Raising the neutron threshold energy pushes the effect of the pre-fission neutrons to higher incident energies.  For $E_\mathrm{thres}=5$ MeV, as in Fig. \ref{fig:239Pu}(a), pre-fission neutrons only begin to have an effect when the incident neutron energy is above 10 MeV.  As the threshold energy is increased, the pre-fission neutrons have an increasingly smaller effect on the overall neutron anisotropy; the difference in the anisotropy is only seen for higher incident neutron energies.  The pre-fission neutron energy spectrum is typically peaked around 2 MeV and drops off at higher outgoing neutron energies.  However, around $E_\mathrm{inc}\sim 9-10$ MeV, the pre-fission neutrons become more numerous than the neutrons emitted from the fission fragment and dominate the anisotropy when only higher neutron energies are considered.   As the neutron threshold energy continues to increase, the emission of high-energy pre-fission neutrons would not leave the residual compound with enough energy to fission.  Thus, the neutrons with the highest energies are emitted from the fission fragments, in the same direction as the fragments.  The trade-off here is that fewer neutrons are emitted with these highest energies, which is clear from the growing uncertainty bands between each of these energy thresholds.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{239Pu_Energies_Contour.pdf}
\caption{(color online) Ratio between the neutron anisotropy (all prompt neutrons) and the fission fragment anisotropy as a function of the incident neutron energy and neutron threshold energy for $^{239}$Pu(n,f).}
\label{fig:ACorrection}
\end{figure}

We can then calculate a correlation factor between the neutron anisotropy and the fission fragment anisotropy, defined as the ratio of the neutron anisotropy (including pre-fission neutrons) to the fission fragment anisotropy at every incident and threshold neutron energy.  In Fig. \ref{fig:ACorrection}, this ratio is plotted as a function of incident neutron energy and threshold neutron energy.  Thus, knowing the incident and outgoing neutron energies and measuring the neutron anisotropy, the fission fragment anisotropy could be extracted with this correlation factor.  It is worth noting that the correlation factor rises above one at the highest incident energies and neutron threshold energies due to the inclusion of the pre-fission neutrons, consistent with what is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:239Pu} in red.

We also performed these studies for neutron-induced fission on $^{233,234,235,238}$U, $^{237}$Np, and $^{241}$Pu, all available in {\CGMF}.  In all cases, we found very similar results to what was shown here for $^{239}$Pu(n,f).  The most notable difference was for even isotopes of uranium, which were the only even-even targets studied here.  Differences in the spin of the target and the available transition states can lead to large differences in the fission fragment anisotropy between even-even and even-odd target nuclei \cite{Simmons1960,Mueller2012}.  An increase of anisotropy is seen for all targets at the opening of the higher multi-chance fission channels, due to the population of few transition states in residual fissioning nucleus with less excitation energy.  The density of states in the residual nucleus depends on the odd/even character of the nucleus.  For these isotopes, the values of the anisotropy of the fission fragments could reach nearly to 2, significantly larger than any of the values shown here for $^{239}$Pu(n,f).  When the fragment anisotropy was this large, the neutron anisotropy did not reach those values, regardless of $E_\mathrm{thres}$ (within the limits of the statistics of our calculations).  When the fragment anisotropy is high, increasing the energy threshold for the neutrons has only a small effect on the resulting neutron anisotropy.  For this case, the neutrons seem to already be boosted in the direction of the fission fragments.  Increasing the neutron threshold energy would then have a smaller effect on the resulting neutron anisotropy, as fewer neutrons are being excluded based on these cuts.  Further studies on this feature should be performed.

Recently, several measurements of the angles and energies of prompt neutrons from the fission of major actinides have been made with the Chi-Nu detector array at LANL.  The Chi-Nu experimental setup consists of two detector arrays used in separate measurements:  a 22-detector Li-glass array to measure outgoing neutrons with energy from 0.01 -- 1.59 MeV and a 54-detector liquid scintillator array to measure outgoing neutrons from approximately 0.89 -- 10 MeV.  The spectra from these detectors are combined to form prompt fission neutron spectrum (PFNS) measurements from 10 keV to 10 MeV for incident neutron energies from 1 -- 20 MeV.  More details can be found in \cite{Devlin2018,Kelly2018a,Kelly2018b}.  Prompt neutrons from neutron-induced fission on $^{238}$U were measured with the Chi-Nu liquid scintillator array to study the PFNS up to 20 MeV incident neutron energy.  The Chi-Nu liquid scintillator array covers nine outgoing neutron angles from 30 -- 150$^\circ$ in the lab frame, allowing for a comparison between the {\CGMF} calculations of the neutron anisotropies to those measured by Chi-Nu.

In order to exclude many sources of systematic error from the experiment, the neutron anisotropies from Chi-Nu are presented as a ratio of experimental data at 30$^\circ$ and 90$^\circ$, normalized to the lowest incident neutron energy range,
\begin{equation}
\rho(E_\alpha) = \frac{\sum \limits _i C(E_i,E_\alpha,30^\circ)/C(E_i,E_\mu,30^\circ)}{\sum \limits _i C(E_i,E_\alpha,90^\circ)/C(E_i,E_\mu,90^\circ)}.
\label{eqn:ChiNuRatio}
\end{equation}

\noindent$E_i$ are the outgoing neutron energies, $E_\alpha$ and $E_\mu$ are incident neutron energies, where $E_\mu$ is the same for each of the ratio calculations and is taken to be the lowest measured incident neutron energy, and $C(E_i,E_\alpha,\theta)$ is the number of foreground counts in the detector at angle $\theta$ for $E_i$ and $E_\alpha$.  This formulation allows many sources of uncertainty to cancel or cancel approximately, including the number of fissions, the neutron detector efficiencies, and the neutron scattering corrections, leaving primarily statistical uncertainties.  The ratio resulting from Eq. (\ref{eqn:ChiNuRatio}) is intrinsically a shape quantity as a function of incident neutron energy that contains a reflection of the fission fragment anisotropy.  Because this shape is, by default, scaled to have $\rho(E_\alpha)=1$ at the lowest incident energy ($E_\mathrm{inc}=1.54$ MeV), and there is no measurement at thermal energies where the ratio should be one, this shape was scaled to reproduce the magnitude of the {\CGMF} calculations from $6 - 14$ MeV incident neutron energy.

The same ratio can be calculated from the {\CGMF} histories and compared to the measurement from Chi-Nu.  This comparison is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:U238ChiNuComp}.  For the best trade-off between statistics and high incident neutron energies where the neutron anisotropy most closely tracks the fission fragment anisotropy, the sum in Eq. (\ref{eqn:ChiNuRatio}) is taken from $E_i = 5 - 10$ MeV.  The data from Chi-Nu are shown as the black filled stars, compared to the {\CGMF} calculation of Eq. (\ref{eqn:ChiNuRatio}) as the red filled circles.  The {\CGMF} calculations are scaled such that $\rho(E_\alpha)=1$ for thermal neutrons, and Chi-Nu was scaled to match the relative magnitude of the {\CGMF} calculations to be able to compare the shapes of the two ratios.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Rho_Ratio30_238U_paper.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between {\CGMF} calculations, red circles, and preliminary Chi-Nu data, black stars, for $\rho(E_\alpha)$ as given in Eq. (\ref{eqn:ChiNuRatio}) for $^{238}$U(n,f).}
\label{fig:U238ChiNuComp}
\end{figure}

The shapes of the distributions from Chi-Nu and {\CGMF} are mostly consistent within the experimental uncertainties.  The experimental uncertainties are large compared to those of the calculation, which are only statistical and do not account for model defects.  In the calculated and measured ratios, there is a rise up to $E_\mathrm{inc} \sim 2$ MeV, followed by a flattening before the second-chance fission channel opens around incident energies of 6 MeV.  Both ratios flatten off again, and then there is another increase in $\rho(E_\alpha)$ where the third-chance fission channel opens, although there could be a disagreement between the incident neutron energy where this channel opens experimentally and in {\CGMF}.  The Chi-Nu experiment was not optimized to extract the neutron anisotropy, and a different set-up could be put in place to more accurately measure this quantity.  The {\CGMF} calculations could then be used to convert the experimental values of $\rho(E_\alpha)$ to fission fragment anisotropies and compare with data measured directly

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}

In summary, angular distribution sampling for both the fission fragment anisotropy and the pre-equilibrium neutrons were recently introduced into the Monte Carlo fission code {\CGMF}.  Experimental values for the fission fragment anisotropy were fitted using cubic splines while the pre-equilibrium neutron angular distributions were calculated with the semi-direct model of Feshbach, Kerman, and Koonin and fitted as a function of neutron incident energy and compound excitation energy using Kalbach systematics.  In itself, the inclusion of these effects is important to interpret experimental results from detector setups that measure neutron angles and energies, such as the Chi-Nu array.  We also found that high-energy neutrons track the fission fragment anisotropy relatively well, and this congruence improves as the energy threshold of the neutrons is increased.  This was studied for neutron-induced fission reactions on $^{233,234,235,238}$U, $^{237}$Np, and $^{239,241}$Pu.

Excluding pre-fission neutrons, for a threshold energy of 7 MeV for the outgoing neutrons, the uncertainty of the theory coming from the Legendre polynomial fit to the {\CGMF} calculations is similar to the spread in the available data.  When the pre-fission neutrons are included, the neutron anisotropy does not change until after the opening of third-chance fission.  This difference in the neutron anisotropy when not including and including pre-fission neutrons is only seen at increasingly higher incident neutron energies if the neutron threshold energy is increased, but statistics become significantly worse.  A correlation factor, such as the one calculated here with {\CGMF}, could be used to extract the fission fragment anisotropy from the neutron anisotropy or vise-versa depending on the incident and outgoing threshold neutron energies, even when pre-fission neutrons are included in the analysis.  Here, we performed a preliminary comparison with $^{238}$U(n,f) data measured at Chi-Nu, using a ratio method which showed rather good agreement between the shapes of the {\CGMF} calculations and experimental measurement.

There are still other effects that we have not taken into account in this study that could also contribute to neutron anisotropy, including the angular distribution of the neutrons in the center-of-mass frame of the fission fragments, the emission of neutrons from fission fragments that are not fully accelerated, and the emission of scission neutrons.  These effects should be studied theoretically and experimentally and included in the model.

\begin{acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Matt Devlin and John O'Donnell for their feedback on the comparison to the Chi-Nu data and Toshihiko Kawano for his pre-equilibrium neutron calculations and helpful discussions about those calculations.  This work was performed under the auspice of the U.S. Department of Energy by Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract 89233218CNA000001 and was supported by the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research \& Development (DNN R\&D), National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.  We gratefully acknowledge the support of the U.S. Department of Energy through the LANL/LDRD Program and the Center for Non Linear Studies.
\end{acknowledgements}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


Although the block size debate has been the main point of conflict within the Bitcoin community over the past year, the reality is that this conversation is more about the larger topic of scalability. Different Bitcoin users would like to see the network scale via specific methods, and the two main parties in this debate are now Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Classic.
Along with the block size limit, the Lightning Network, and Segregated Witness, another Bitcoin feature that has been covered in controversy is Replace-by-Fee (RBF). Bitcoin Core Contributor Jonas Schnelli recently discussed this new feature, which has been implemented in Bitcoin Core 0.12, during a presentation at a Bitcoin Meetup Switzerland.
Schnelli started his talk by pointing out that Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto originally implemented RBF.
There are advantages to being able to replace a Bitcoin transaction with a new, updated one. For example, if a user has included a transaction fee that is too low, the ability to replace the transaction with another one containing a higher fee allows users to make sure their transactions do not get stuck with a status of "unconfirmed" for long periods of time. Users are also able to correct errors made when creating a transaction via RBF.
The controversial aspect of RBF is that it does not work well with 0-confirmation transactions. When users are able to replace transactions before they are placed into a block, that essentially makes unconfirmed transactions much riskier. Many merchants and payment processors rely on unconfirmed transactions for real-world commerce.
On the issue of the security of 0-confirmation transactions, Bitcoin Core contributor Peter Todd recently wrote a blog post where he outlined the current inability of bitcoin wallets to properly protect users against double spends.
Even with the security concerns often pointed out by Todd and others, it should be noted that the current version of RBF is opt-in.
In other words, merchants should not be vulnerable to an RBF-powered double spend because RBF transactions can be differentiated from traditional Bitcoin transactions.