Early life.

Born Joseph Aloysius Dwan in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Dwan, was the younger son of commercial traveler of woolen clothing Joseph Michael Dwan (1857–1917) and his wife Mary Jane Dwan, née Hunt. The family moved to the United States when he was seven years old on 4 December 1892 by ferry from Windsor to Detroit, according to his naturalization petition of August 1939. His elder brother, Leo Garnet Dwan (1883–1964), became a physician.  Allan Dwan studied engineering at the University of Notre Dame and then worked for a lighting company in Chicago. He had a strong interest in the fledgling motion picture industry, and when Essanay Studios offered him the opportunity to become a scriptwriter, he took the job. At that time, some of the East Coast movie makers began to spend winters in California where the climate allowed them to continue productions requiring warm weather. Soon, a number of movie companies worked there year-round, and in 1911, Dwan began working part-time in Hollywood. While still in New York, in 1917 he was the founding president of the East Coast chapter of the Motion Picture Directors Association.

Career.

Dwan operated Flying A Studios in La Mesa, California from August 1911 to July 1912. Flying A was one of the first motion pictures studios in California history. On 12 August 2011, a plaque was unveiled on the Wolff building at Third Avenue and La Mesa Boulevard commemorating Dwan and the Flying A Studios origins in La Mesa, California.  After making a series of westerns and comedies, Dwan directed fellow Canadian-American Mary Pickford in several very successful movies as well as her husband, Douglas Fairbanks, notably in the acclaimed 1922 "Robin Hood". Dwan directed Gloria Swanson in eight feature films, and one short film made in the short-lived sound-on-film process Phonofilm. This short, also featuring Thomas Meighan and Henri de la Falaise, was produced as a joke, for the 26 April 1925 "Lambs' Gambol" for The Lambs, with the film showing Swanson crashing the all-male club.  Following the introduction of the talkies, Dwan directed child-star Shirley Temple in "Heidi" (1937) and "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" (1938).  Dwan helped launch the career of two other successful Hollywood directors, Victor Fleming, who went on to direct "The Wizard of Oz" and "Gone With the Wind", and Marshall Neilan, who became an actor, director, writer and producer. Over a long career spanning almost 50 years, Dwan directed 125 motion pictures, some of which were highly acclaimed, such as the 1949 box office hit, "Sands of Iwo Jima". He directed his last movie in 1961.  He died in Los Angeles at the age of 96, and is interred in the San Fernando Mission Cemetery, Mission Hills, California.  Dwan has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 6263 Hollywood Boulevard.  Daniel Eagan of "Film Journal International" described Dwan as one of the early pioneers of cinema, stating that his style "is so basic as to seem invisible, but he treats his characters with uncommon sympathy and compassion."  Print E-book

Allan Dwan (born Joseph Aloysius Dwan, 3 April 1885 – 28 December 1981) was a pioneering Canadian-born American motion picture director, producer, and screenwriter.

Allan Dwan (* 3. April 1885 in Toronto, Ontario als "Joseph Aloysius Dwan"; † 28. Dezember 1981 in Woodland Hills, Kalifornien) war ein US-amerikanischer Regisseur, Produzent und Drehbuchautor.


Family and youth.

Manuel Lorenzo José Fal Conde descended from a petty bourgeoisie family originating from Asturias; it is not clear when the family settled in Higuera de la Sierra, a small town in the Andalusian province of Huelva. Although many of his ancestors were connected with medicine, his father, Domingo Fal Sánchez (1857-1926), practiced as an oculist, ran a small workshop producing cork utilities and served as alcalde of Higuera between 1900 and 1905; also later on Domingo Fal exercised influence on Higuera's life. He married a local girl, María Josefa Conde; the couple lived in a building housing also the workshop. They had 4 children, Manuel was the youngest and his mother died 13 days after giving birth. The widowed sister of Domingo helped to look after the children, brought up in fervently Catholic ambience.  Manuel commenced his education in the Extremaduran town of Villafranca de los Barros. He entered the local Jesuit college and joined his two older brothers already being educated there. The Jesuit education proved crucial in Manuel's formative years. It was Gabino Márquez, the Villafranca scholar of biblical studies, papal teaching and pedagogy, who paid particular attention to the student, who he considered promising. Following bachillerato obtained in 1911 the young Fal entered the Jesuit novitiate, but he changed his mind some time afterwards, and considered studying medicine. His father dissuaded him as his older brother, Domingo, was already pursuing that path; eventually Manuel commenced law studies in Seville.  At Universidad Hispalense Fal was drawn to a circle of Manuel Sanchez de Castro, a Carlist, catedratic of natural law and moving spirit behind the emergence of militant Catholicism in Seville. He graduated as licenciado in 1916; following a year in Madrid he obtained the grade of a doctor. In 1917 he served as soldado and in 1918 he entered Colegio de Abogados de Sevilla. Following brief internship Fal opened his own office at calle José Gestoso. In parallel to his law practice Fal commenced also his brief teaching and academic career. He taught history and law and ethics at the Jesuit college of Villasis in Seville. At Universidad Hispalense he worked at department of derecho procesal, at the same time pursuing research in history of Spanish political law. He also briefly managed a car dealership.  In 1922 Fal married María de los Reyes Macias Aguilar (1904-1975), a native of nearby Sanlucar. The newlyweds initially settled in Seville at calle Miguel del Cid. The couple had 7 children, born between 1923 and 1938. Some were active as Traditionalist militants during the Francoist period and afterwards, in the 1970s opposing the socialist bid of Don Carlos Hugo; José Maria, Alfonso and Domingo Fal-Conde Macias were present as supporters of Don Sixto during the Montejurra incidents of 1976. In the 1980s Domingo Fal-Conde Macias served as head of, a new united Carlist organization. Javier became known as.

Early public career.

It is not clear whether there were any Carlist antecedents among the ancestors of Fal; some authors claim there were none, while others quote his family as exemplary case of Carlism having been transmitted from generation to generation as sort of a genetic code. It is known that Fal's father was a devout Catholic, but none of the sources consulted provides clear information what exactly his political outlook was. It is possible that Traditionalist views were if not reinforced then implanted in the young Fal during his education. At the turn of the centuries the Jesuits were clearly sympathizing with Ramón Nocedal and his Integrist vision of religion and Traditionalism; it is likely that his Villafranca years affected Fal accordingly. He admitted juvenile fascination with address delivered to the college audience by Manuel Senante, at that time one of key Integrist politicians. Militant Catholicism of Manuel Sanchez de Castro is likely to have contributed further on, forming the young Fal as an energetic Catholic activist, possibly along the intransigent and ultra-reactionary Integrist lines.  Fal commenced his public assignments already during the academic years in Seville; he joined Asociación Escolar Sevillana and soon grew to be its president; the organization remained a fairly typical student grouping, though politically it tended towards "catolicismo político y social", flavored by Traditionalism in general and by pro-German World War I stand in particular. Following his return from Madrid he started contributing to local Catholic periodicals. In the 1920s he excelled, however, in various Catholic organizations, ranging from educational associations to charity groupings to trade unions to penitentiary circles, like Congregación de los Luises, Conferencias de San Vicente de Paulo, various Hermandades de Penitencia, the Jesuit-sponsored Patronato para Obreros, the Franciscan-sponsored Compaña de las Hermanas de la Cruz and a number of others. He also launched some initiatives himself, like the 1924-inaugurated Romería de la Peña de la Reina de los Angeles. Exposure to a variety of structures provided Fal with experience and confirmed his enormous capacity as organizer.  It is not clear whether during late Restoration or during the Primo de Rivera dictatorship Fal was active in the Integrist ranks. When discussing his post-1931 activity, present-day scholars almost unanimously refer to him as to a former Integrist or even more explicitly as to "antiguo militante del Partido Integrista", though none provides detailed information on his engagement in any party initiatives of the 1920s. When reporting on Fal's activities in 1930, the Integrist daily "El Siglo Futuro" referred to him as "queridisimo amigo nuestro de Sevilla", which suggests that he might have indeed co-operated with Integrism in general and the newspaper in particular also earlier on, especially that he displayed a particular knack for journalism: he is known to have contributed to various press titles before 1923, launched his own daily later and was correspondent of "El Siglo Futuro" in the early 1930s.

Political beginnings.

Fal, who later confessed to approaching politics as Christian responsibility and a call from God, was first recorded as engaged in a political enterprise in the spring of 1930. He was among members of Junta Organizadora of Partido Tradicionalista-Integrista, a new post-dictatorial incarnation of Integrism, and emerged as leader of the Seville branch of the party. In late 1930 he was also busy co-organizing local branches of Juventud Integrista. Fal witnessed emergence of militantly secular Republic with horror; he personally led local Juventud organization trying to protect the Seville churches against. In June 1931 he ran for Cortes from Cadiz; the bid proved unsuccessful. According to a homage publication Fal gained enough votes to be voted in, but it was behind-the-stage manipulations which relegated him to non-electable position; embittered, he has never run for the Cortes again. Instead, he focused on a newly acquired daily, "El Observador", re-launched as an ultraconservative Catholic title in Seville, apart from contributing to other local periodicals.  In early 1932 the Integrists re-united with Carlism in. Fal was entrusted the West-Andalusian jefatura and together with provincial leaders achieved remarkable success implanting Traditionalism where it was hardly popular. Characteristic feature of his leadership was – even in comparison to other Carlist leaders - unveiled hostility towards the Republic. Fal remained enthusiastic about co-operation with Sanjurjo; Andalusia was where the coup was most welcomed by local Carlists. In the aftermath Fal was arrested for 3 months, which did not discourage him from sounding other military on leading a potential Carlist rising. Also his "El Observador" kept making references to violence. Two other specific features of Andalusian Carlism were impact on Catholic youth and initiatives targeting the urban working-class. In many Andalusian districts Carlism emerged as an exclusively youth movement, which in the spring of 1933 pushed Fal to create a federation of local Juventud circles. Acute social problems in turn induced Fal to set up fairly successful Workers Section in early 1933.  Fal gained nationwide attention following the Zumarraga act; in recognition of his excellent organization skills in November 1933 Alfonso Carlos nominated Fal Jefe Regional for all Andalusia, but the most impressive coup was yet to come: in April 1934 regional Carlism organized a massive gathering at Quintillo estate near Seville. This demonstration of local prowess climaxed in parade of 650 uniformed and trained Requetés, which made a stunning impact on guests from other regions. When national leadership of Conde Rodezno was called into question due to rapprochement with the Alfonsists and his gradualist strategy, Fal became one of top contenders for the job. Alfonso Carlos, himself sympathetic to Integrism and personally familiar with Fal since late Restoration, seemed well-disposed. In May 1934, despite his relatively young age and unenthusiastic welcome from Carlist stronghold, Navarre, Fal was nominated Secretary General of the Communión. "El Siglo Futuro" hailed him as "Sevillian Zumalacarregui" and Carlist youth welcomed him as the man who "brought Montejurra to Andalusia". An apologetic biography followed.

"Jefe".

Fal embarked on massive reorganization of Carlist structures. He created 5 central Delegaciones; Council of Culture and Grand Council. Launch of official Carlist gazette enhanced communication. Most importantly, he detached affiliated organizations from local circulos and joined them in nationwide, parallel, centrally commanded structures. The first remodeled were Requeté and Juventud Tradicionalista, with and Margaritas (Carlist feminine organization) somewhat less successful. New affiliated formations were created: urban proletariat was lured to Agrupación Gremial, a Carlist red cross organization emerged as Socorro Blanco and a grouping for younger boys was established as Pelayos. Internal taxation was introduced. Carlist periodicals were co-ordinated within modern propaganda machinery, brought under more discipline in return for financial help.  The change meant vast improvement in terms of steerability, provided critical mass and enhanced homogeneity, though also enforced discipline and laid command of all structures in hands of Fal and his entourage, removing dependence on local juntas and especially on the Vasco-Navarros. The latter complained about "fascistization" of the Comunión, especially that Fal's trusted collaborators were appointed to key positions. Nevertheless, remodeled Comunión was fully able to bear the weight of rapidly expanding ranks; instead of inefficient isolated circulos where zeal of new converts was evaporating, new structures channeled and reinforced enthusiasm. Organization question aside, the change started even to affect the way of life. Comunión began to expand into unlikely areas both geographically and socially; structures were emerging in such regions as Extremadura or the Canaries, while following the example of Western Andalusia, representatives of urban proletariat started to appear in local bodies also elsewhere.  Unlike the Northerners who conceived Traditionalism as rooted in family and regional values, Fal was focused on structures. As alliances were likely to get them dominated by other groupings, victorious campaign – maybe unfeasible as exclusively Carlist affair - should be launched and controlled by Carlists. In line with this vision, under Fal Carlism steered clear of alliances, its strategy dubbed "isolationism" or "exclusiveness". Though he felt compelled to join Renovación Española in National Bloc (the Spanish Right-wing political alliance of the 1930s) late 1934, he made sure the access was as non-committal as possible. In 1935 he grew increasingly skeptical and later that year let Rodezno mix with the Alfonsinos on the private business basis before definitely abandoning the alliance in the spring of 1936. From the onset highly suspicious about CEDA he was more than happy to see it decompose in 1935-6.  Another shift in Carlist strategy under Fal was de-emphasizing of politics and focusing on organizational buildup, with special attention paid to paramilitary. His vision was already set on violent overthrow of the Republic; starting 1935 openly belligerent language became increasingly common at Carlist rallies, with references to sacrifice, blood, arms, violence and power. Permitting taking part in 1936 elections, Fal did not pay much attention to the campaign. Though Rodeznistas viewed him as an uninspiring, colorless, mediocre bureaucrat, Fal gained recognition bordering devotion among Requeté and the youth. Also Alfonso Carlos seemed perfectly satisfied; in December 1935 he raised Fal from Secretary General to Jefe Delegado.

Insurgency and unification.

Convinced that in the battle against democracy Carlists must strike first, Fal threw himself into wartime preparations; his initial plan was abandoned in April 1936. He envisaged a purely Carlist insurrection with conditional assistance of the army. Fal placed his bets on Sanjurjo, who agreed to lead the rising. Talks with Mola proved unsuccessful. The general refused to accept Fal's conditions, which aimed at toppling the Republic and installing Traditionalist monarchy. However, Mola opened parallel negotiations with the Navarrese. Led by Rodezno, the latter bypassed Fal and were keen to commit local Requeté to a joint insurgency with almost no strings attached. Though at that point Fal considered dismissing the entire Navarrese junta, he decided not to risk open confrontation; Rodezno and his entourage outmaneuvered him and elicited hesitant approval from the royal envoy, Don Javier.  Upon the outbreak of hostilities Fal headed the new Carlist wartime executive, Junta Nacional Carlista de Guerra, and had to acknowledge that instead of being equal partner, Carlism was getting reduced to a junior role. His position was already precarious. Death of Sanjurjo deprived him of a key ally among the generals. Death of Alfonso Carlos left the movement with no king and made dissent easier. The Navarrese set up their own Junta Central Carlista de Guerra de Navarra, which emerged as a competitive, though theoretically only regional body, and kept bypassing Fal; Carlist executive was decomposing. As Requeté units, the key Carlist argument, unconditionally left at generals’ disposal were dispersed among various fronts, Carlism – in line with Fal's worst nightmares – was indeed getting dominated by its alliance partners. During the outbreak of the Nationalist uprising in Navarre, a mass killing was conducted by the insurgents against all civilian dissidence in the Navarre rearguard, taking a death toll of circa 3,000. Fal's attitude towards the Republicans is subject to conflicting accounts. Some maintain that he was the instigator of bloody repressions, also directed against the clergy with Basque nationalist sympathies, while others claim exactly the opposite, namely that he did his best to prevent executions. Discussion related to the Carlist - and, due to his political leadership, also Fal's personal responsibility for nationalist atrocities committed in the rearguard is not conclusive.  To enhance Carlist position versus the military Fal launched two new projects in November. The first one was Obra Nacional Corporativa, general labor organization, another one was Military Academy, intended to train Carlist command cadres. Uncomfortable with Fal's independent stance, Franco summoned him to Burgos in early December and presented with the choice between exile and firing squad. Rodezno-dominated Junta Nacional advocated compliance and Fal left Spain for Lisbon, remaining official though increasingly theoretical Carlist leader.  Faced with unification pressure Fal did not dismiss such a perspective, but talking to fellow Traditionalists in Insua he insisted it should be completed on Carlist terms, reiterating this position also during February talks with Falangists. At meetings in Burgos (March) and Pamplona (April), unattended by Fal, the balance tilted towards Rodeznistas, ready to accept Franco's terms of amalgamation. They presented Don Javier with an ultimatum and ensured that he at least did not object. Following Unification Decree Fal was passed over as leader of a technically non-existent movement. Initially he did not protest and even advised to comply. Despite olive branch offered by Franco – including a ministerial job or seat in – he politely refused to join. His exile was lifted in October 1937. He eventually abandoned quiet in favor of direct counter-action, suggesting to Don Javier that all those accepting seats in the FET executive be expelled; the regent acted on his advice. Unification turned into Falangist absorption of Carlist offshoots.

Surveilled and confined.

Upon return from exile and under security surveillance, Fal tried to avert takeover of Comunión assets by FET; many years later he admitted that these efforts had been largely fruitless. Communicating by correspondence with loyal regional leaders he ordered re-engineering of party structures, but did not prevent Carlism from falling into political confusion and fragmentation. To gain platform for legal action, in 1939 he co-founded Hermandad de los Caballeros Voluntarios de la Cruz, intended as substitute for official Carlist network. As long as the war continued, he focused on maintaining Carlist identity and refrained from open opposition. Though violent confrontations between Requetés and Falangists were recorded all over Spain, almost all were spontaneous and none of the authors consulted claims they were planned or engineered by Fal.  In March 1939 Fal addressed Franco with a memorandum, titled "Manifestación de ideales". Written with all due respect, the document claimed that the emerging regime was not sustainable and argued in favor of traditionalist monarchy; as transitory means it suggested a regency, either this of Don Javier or a collective one, alluding to Franco as its member. Though sounding more like an offer, the document, together with other texts disseminated around that time, is viewed by some scholars as a milestone marking total breakup with the regime and adoption of a decisive opposition strategy. Caudillo did not respond. He reacted, however, to mayhem which erupted in Pamplona following Fal's appearance on the ayunatamiento balcony during re-burial of Sanjurjo on October 21, 1939: Fal was ordered house arrest in Seville.  From his confinement Fal presided over most vehement Carlist opposition, comparable only to hostility of the early 1970s. No collaboration with the regime was acceptable. The strategy was to ignore all officialdom and go public styling Traditionalist initiatives as religious or combatant activities, though conspiracy hand in hand with the communists has been rejected. Corresponding with regional leaders, in 1940-41 Fal went on reconstructing Comunión structures either in traditional shape or in a new format; official party executive existed only in a makeshift mode. He launched veiled Carlist educational network of Academia Vazquez de Mella. Fal banned Carlists from enlisting to División Azul and advocated strictly neutral stand in European conflict, considering the British and German wars equally unjust; this did not spare him charges of entanglement in a British plot, resulting in 4-month-long Ferreries exile in 1941.  Back in Seville Fal was occasionally allowed to travel and was present during the massive Montserrat gatherings in 1942 and 1945. In 1943 he co-engineered "Reclamación del poder", another memorandum signed by many Carlists and left unanswered by Franco. According to an unsure source, in 1944 he supported an aborted monarchist plot to depose the dictator. In August 1945 Fal addressed Franco with a conciliatory personal letter; sort of acknowledging Falangist regime, but presenting Traditionalism as the unique long-term solution, he asked for release from confinement. The house arrest was indeed lifted in November 1945; during the 6-year long period of detention Fal went on practicing as a lawyer.

Resurgence and demise.

In December 1945 Valencia and Pamplona were rocked by Carlist riots; some speculate that they were pre-planned as a revolt against Franco. Fal's presence is unsure; 3 weeks later he met Don Javier in San Sebastián; he also wrote to Don Juan, inviting him to recognize the regency. Soon Fal commenced visiting provincial party structures; the exercise climaxed in monthly tour across the North in September 1946. Considering re-organization complete, in 1947 he assembled 48 local jefes in Madrid, the first such meeting since Insua. The gathering re-established Carlist executive, Consejo Nacional. "La única solución", a document released afterwards, confirmed non-collaborative stance versus Francoism, Juanismo and Carloctavismo. Addressing a massively attended Montserrat aplec of 1947 seemed to demonstrate that Carlism was getting back in shape.  Leadership of Fal was coming under fire from two groups. The Sivattistas suspected that by supporting overdue regency Fal intended to ensure the crown for Borbón-Parmas by appeasing Franco. They were enraged by Fal's recommendation to support in referendum, considering it unacceptable backing of the regime, and demanded that a new Carlist king is declared. On the other hand, the possibilists were getting tired of what they perceived as ineffective intransigency and lack of legal outposts, recommending more flexible attitude. Though in 1948 Consejo de la Tradicion confirmed non-collaborationist strategy, in 1949 some voices called for a more active stance, especially following news of Franco's negotiations with Don Juan.  Fal's reaction was multifold. On the one hand, he fought back militant dissenters like Sivatte. On the other, he tried to address questions raised. Intending to broaden the party's room for maneuvering, he permitted individual Carlists to run in local elections, especially that in some provinces the movement effectively competed for power with Falange. In 1951 he launched a campaign to buy a national daily, ""; the title later served as an unofficial Carlist tribune. Student and worker groupings, AET and MOT, recorded increased activity. Though in 1951 Fal tried to keep low profile of Don Javier's tour across Levante, all this changed in 1952: during Eucharistic Congress in Barcelona Don Javier claimed his rights as a king before having been promptly expulsed from Spain.  As Don Javier soon backtracked on the so-called Acto de Barcelona and Franco's regime showed no signs of cracking, the non-collaborative policy of the Falcondistas was increasingly looking like a dead end street. The so-called "duros" advocated a decisive anti-Francoist course, the so-called "unionistas" opted for rapprochement towards the regime and possibly a dynastical accord with Alfonsinos, some in the party called for a "tercera vía" and many complained about Fal's "estilo autoritario". Fal himself has run out of steam; in his July 1955 letter to Franco he seemed settled for the perspective of mere survival of Carlism. Though he remained in perfect understanding with Don Javier and until that moment the terms "Falcondistas" and "Javieristas" were used interchangeably, also the Carlist king felt that Carlism needed a new leader. In August 1955 Fal resigned as Jefe Delegado.

Retiree.

Following his resignation Fal took a step back from daily politics and functioned as honorary member, sporadically invited to sittings of Carlist executive as late as 1964. He remained loyal to the new Communion leader, Valiente, even given the latter embarked on new, collaborationist strategy. Though continuously anti-Francoist, he avoided uncompromising radicalism. On the one hand, in 1956 he opposed backtracking on Acto de Barcelona, demanded by the Francoist authorities. On the other, when consulted about planned appearance of Carlos Hugo at Montejurra in 1957, he spoke to the negative, warning about a violent reaction from Franco. Though his advice was ignored, he maintained good relations with Carlos Hugo and was consulted on his 1958 Montejurra address. Upon first signs of breakup between Progressists and Traditionalists Fal praised Carlos Hugo for ousting Zamanillo in 1962. He attended some Montejurra aplecs, turning into the prince's promotional stage, himself; in 1963 he needed assistance when climbing the summit. In the mid-1960s he recommended publication of a "libro blanco", advancing the Borbón-Parma claim.  In 1967 Don Javier made Fal Duque de Quintillo, Grandee of Spain, an exceptional honor as it was the only case of Don Javier granting a noble title to anyone beyond the royal family. Despite the elevation, cordial relations between Fal and his king were deteriorating. Quoting health reasons, Fal did not attend the ducado ceremony in Fatima. Though Don Javier and Carlos Hugo urged him to recommend supporting in the, Fal agreed to recommend participation, but clinging to his anti-Francoism he refused to endorse the law. When in 1968 the Borbón-Parmas were expulsed from Spain, Fal resisted their repeated requests to meet Franco seeking reversal of the decision and responded that he had no reason to pay a penitent visit to the dictator. In wide correspondence he expressed concern about the socialist stand of Carlos Hugo of the late 1960s. Despite mounting doubts, he did not join those turned against the dynasty, like Zamanillo or Elias de Tejada; when in 1970 the prince ordered termination of collaboration with "", re-claimed by orthodox Traditionalists, Fal complied. He was particularly embittered by cancellation of annual Quintillo remembrance act in 1972. In 1973 he considered himself dynastically loyal to Don Javier, but in disagreement with his political line. In 1974 Fal lost any illusions as to the Leftist turn of the Borbón-Parmas.  Throughout all his life Fal was a fervent Catholic, receiving communion every day even when visiting frontlines during the Civil War. When released from political duties he was dedicating even more time to religious issues. He co-founded religious associations, accepted posts in others and was active in Andalusian initiatives of various orders. He headed Editorial Católica Española and launched Premio Vedruna, though remained perplexed by new course of the Vatican. In the early 1970s "Don Manuel" enjoyed patriarch status in the realm of Andalusian Catholicism and among Traditionalist Carlists nationwide. He remained emotionally attached to Don Javier. Fal died one month after his abidcation.

Reception and legacy.

As political event the death of Fal was soon eclipsed by the just commencing Spanish transition to democracy. In the late 1970s and the 1980s his memory was subject to competition on part of the socialist Partido Carlista and various breeds of Traditionalism, especially as they engaged in bitter political struggle. Followers of Don Carlos Hugo presented Fal focusing on his loyalty to Borbón-Parmas and on his anti-Francoism, attempting to mount him in their overall vision of Carlism as a popular class struggle. Traditionalists, including Fal's sons, reclaimed him as fervent Catholic and a conservative who guarded genuine Carlist orthodoxy against Francoism but has also never approved of the socialist turn of the Huguistas. These two visions, offered by militants of both groupings, keep contending until today.  Fal started to figure prominently in historiography in the 1990s, and until today there have been numerous articles published in specialized reviews, dedicated either to particular episodes or to certain dimensions of his activity. However, he gained no full-blown scholarly monograph so far. Two books dedicated to Fal and published in 1978 and 1998 are formatted as homage rather than as scientific historical works. He is usually presented as an intransigent opponent of Franco. He is generally recognized for excellent organizational skills, especially during early years of his leadership, though there are exceptions. Fal is usually not acclaimed as a theorist; some students tend to view him as an inflexible doctrinaire, those who do not underline his Integrist, holistic vision of politics and religion.  In popular discourse Fal, unlike most Carlist political leaders, has generally evaded usual lambasting as "fascista" or "reaccionario". Newspaper pieces claim that he "revived popular character of Carlism" and even maintain that his vision contained threads which could have contributed to "reencuentro de España", but were lost in "tiempos de intolerancia". Nevertheless, naming of a major throughway street honoring Fal in Sevilla was contested; some historians indicated that while in Germany and Italy apology of fascism was illegal, in Spain historical memory suffered a lobotomia and street names commemorating Fal proved that it was "sólo memoria histórica de la derecha". As a result, in 2009 the street was renamed with Fal's name retained only in a short adjacent drive.

Manuel Fal Conde, 1st Duke of Quintillo (1894–1975) was a Spanish Catholic activist and a Carlist politician. He is recognized as a leading figure in the history of Carlism, serving as its political leader for over 20 years (1934–1955) and heading the movement during one of its most turbulent periods. Initially he led the belligerent faction pressing anti-Republican insurgency; during the Spanish Civil War he joined the Nationalists; later on he championed anti-Francoist strategy.

Manuel Fal Conde (* 1894 in Higuera de la Sierra; † 1975 in Sevilla) war 1936 Anführer der Bewegung des Carlismus und in dieser Funktion maßgeblich am Sturz der Zweiten Spanischen Republik während des Spanischen Bürgerkriegs beteiligt.


Procedure.

Pre-operative assessment and planning.

At an initial consultation, the surgeon analyzes the patient's scalp, discusses their preferences and expectations, and advises them on the best approach (e.g. single vs. multiple sessions) and what results might reasonably be expected. Pre-operative folliscopy will help to know the actual existing density of hair, so that postoperative results of newly transplanted hair grafts can be accurately assessed. Some patients may benefit with preoperative topical minoxidil application and vitamins.  For several days prior to surgery the patient refrains from using any medicines which might result in intraoperative bleeding and resultant poor grafting. Alcohol and smoking can contribute to poor graft survival. Post operative antibiotics are commonly prescribed to prevent wound or graft infections.

Harvesting methods.

Transplant operations are performed on an outpatient basis, with mild sedation (optional) and injected local anesthesia. The scalp is shampooed and then treated with an antibacterial agent prior to the donor scalp being harvested.  There are several different techniques for harvesting hair follicles, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Regardless of the harvesting technique, proper extraction of the hair follicle is paramount to ensure the viability of the transplanted hair and avoid transection, the cutting of the hair shaft from the hair follicle. Hair follicles grow at a slight angle to the skin's surface, so transplanted tissue must be removed at a corresponding angle.  There are two main ways in which donor grafts are extracted today: strip excision harvesting, and follicular unit extraction.

Strip harvesting.

Strip harvesting (also known as follicular unit transplantation or FUT) is the most common technique for removing hair and follicles from a donor site. The surgeon harvests a strip of skin from the posterior scalp, in an area of good hair growth. A single-, double-, or triple-bladed scalpel is used to remove strips of hair-bearing tissue from the donor site. Each incision is planned so that intact hair follicles are removed. The excised strip is about 1–1.5 x 15–30 cm in size. While closing the resulting wound, assistants begin to dissect individual follicular unit grafts, which are small, naturally formed groupings of hair follicles, from the strip. Working with binocular Stereo-microscopes, they carefully remove excess fibrous and fatty tissue while trying to avoid damage to the follicular cells that will be used for grafting. The latest method of closure is called 'Trichophytic closure' which results in much finer scars at the donor area.  The surgeon then uses very small micro blades or fine needles to puncture the sites for receiving the grafts, placing them in a predetermined density and pattern, and angling the wounds in a consistent fashion to promote a realistic hair pattern. The technicians generally do the final part of the procedure, inserting the individual grafts in place.  Strip harvesting will leave a thin linear scar in the donor area, which is typically covered by a patient's hair even at relatively short lengths. The recovery period is around 2 weeks and will require the stitches/staples to be removed by medical personnel or sub cuticular suturing can be done.

Follicular unit extraction (FUE).

With Follicular Unit Extraction or FUE harvesting, individual follicular units containing 1 to 4 hairs are removed under local anesthesia; this micro removal typically uses tiny punches of between 0.6mm and 1.0mm in diameter. The surgeon then uses very small micro blades or fine needles to puncture the sites for receiving the grafts, placing them in a predetermined density and pattern, and angling the wounds in a consistent fashion to promote a realistic hair pattern. The technicians generally do the final part of the procedure, inserting the individual grafts in place.  FUE takes place in a single long session or multiple small sessions. The FUE procedure is more time-consuming than strip surgery. An FUE surgery time varies according to the surgeons experience, speed in harvesting and patient characteristics. The procedue can take anywhere from a couple hours to extract 200 grafts for a scar correction to a surgery over two consecutive days for a megasession of 2,500 to 3,000 grafts. With the FUE Hair Transplant procedure there are restrictions on patient candidacy. Clients are selected for FUE based on a fox test, though there is some debate about the usefulness of this in screening clients for FUE.  FUE can give very natural results. The advantage over strip harvesting is that FUE harvesting negates the need for large areas of scalp tissue to be harvested, so there is no linear incision on the back of the head and it doesn't leave a linear scar. Because individual follicles are removed, only small, punctate scars remain which are virtually not visible and any post-surgical pain and discomfort is minimized. As no suture removal is required, recovery from Micro Grafting FUE is less than 7 days.  Disadvantages include increased surgical times and higher cost to the patient. It is challenging for new surgeons because the procedure is physically demanding and the learning curve to acquire the skills necessary is lengthy and tough. Some surgeons note that FUE can lead to a lower ratio of successfully transplanted follicles as compared to strip harvesting.

Follicular unit transplant.

Follicular unit transplant (FUT) is the traditional hair transplant method which involves extracting a linear strip of hair bearing skin from the back or the side of the scalp. The strip is then dissected to separate individual grafts.

Robotic hair restoration.

Robotic hair restoration devices utilize cameras and robotic arms to assist the surgeon with the FUE procedure. In 2009, NeoGraft became the first robotic surgical device FDA approved for hair restoration. The ARTAS System was FDA approved in 2011 for use in harvesting follicular units from brown-haired and black-haired men.

Types of surgery.

There are a number of applications for hair transplant surgery, including:  If donor hair numbers from the back of the head are insufficient, it is possible to perform body hair transplantation (BHT) on appropriate candidates who have available donor hair on the chest, back, shoulders, torso and/or legs. Body hair transplant surgery can only be performed by the FUE harvesting method and, so, requires the skills of an experienced FUE surgeon. However, there are several factors for a potential BHT candidate to consider prior to surgery. These include understanding the natural difference in textural characteristics between body hair and scalp hair, growth rates, and having realistic expectations about the results of BHT surgery.

Post-operative care.

Advances in wound care allow for semi-permeable dressing, which allow seepage of blood and tissue fluid, to be applied and changed at least daily. The vulnerable recipient area must be shielded from the sun, and shampooing is started two days after the surgery. Some surgeons will have the patient shampoo the day after surgery. Shampooing is important to prevent scabs from forming around the hair shaft. Scabs adhere to the hair shaft and increase the risk of losing newly transplanted hair follicles during the first 7 to 10 days post-op.  During the first ten days, some of the transplanted hairs, inevitably traumatized by their relocation, may fall out. This is referred to as "shock loss". After two to three months new hair will begin to grow from the moved follicles. The patient's hair will grow normally, and continue to thicken through the next six to nine months. Any subsequent hair loss is likely to be only from untreated areas. Some patients elect to use medications to retard such loss, while others plan a subsequent transplant procedure to deal with this eventuality.

Side effects.

Hair thinning, known as "shock loss", is a common side effect that is usually temporary. Bald patches are also common, as fifty to a hundred hairs can be lost each day. Post-operative hiccups have also been seen in around 4% of transplant patients.

History.

The use of both scalp flaps, in which a band of tissue with its original blood supply is shifted to the continue bald area, and free grafts dates back to the 19th century. In 1897, Menahem Hodara successfully implanted hair taken from the unaffected areas of the scalp on to the scars that were left bald by favus. Modern transplant techniques began in Japan in the 1930s, where surgeons used small grafts, and even "follicular unit grafts" to replace damaged areas of eyebrows or lashes, but not to treat baldness. Their efforts did not receive worldwide attention at the time, and the traumas of World War II kept their advances isolated for another two decades.  The modern era of hair transplantation in the western world was ushered in the late 1950s, when New York dermatologist Norman Orentreich began to experiment with free donor grafts to balding areas in patients with male pattern baldness. Previously it had been thought that transplanted hair would thrive no more than the original hair at the "recipient" site. Orentreich demonstrated that such grafts were "donor dominant," as the new hairs grew and lasted just as they would have at their original home.  Advancing the theory of donor dominance, Walter P. Unger, M.D. defined the parameters of the "Safe Donor Zone" from which the most permanent hair follicles could be extracted for hair transplantation. As transplanted hair will only grow in its new site for as long as it would have in its original one, these parameters continue to serve as the fundamental foundation for hair follicle harvesting, whether by strip method or FUE.  For the next twenty years, surgeons worked on transplanting smaller grafts, but results were only minimally successful, with 2–4 mm "plugs" leading to a doll's head-like appearance. In the 1980s, strip excisions began to replace the plug technique, and Carlos Uebel in Brazil popularized using large numbers of small grafts, while in the United States William Rassman began using thousands of “micrografts” in a single session.  In the late 1980s, B.L. Limmer introduced the use of the stereo-microscope to dissect a single donor strip into small micrografts.  The follicular unit hair transplant procedure has continued to evolve, becoming more refined and minimally invasive as the size of the graft incisions have become smaller. These smaller and less invasive incisions enable surgeons to place a larger number of follicular unit grafts into a given area. With the new "gold standard" of ultra refined follicular unit hair transplantation, over 50 grafts can be placed per square centimeter, when appropriate for the patient.  Surgeons have also devoted more attention to the angle and orientation of the transplanted grafts. The adoption of the “lateral slit” technique in the early 2000s, enabled hair transplant surgeons to orient 2 to 4 hair follicular unit grafts so that they splay out across the scalp's surface. This enabled the transplanted hair to lie better on the scalp and provide better coverage to the bald areas. One disadvantage however, is that lateral incisions also tend to disrupt the scalp's vascularity more than sagittals. Thus sagittal incisions transect less hairs and blood vessels assuming the cutting instruments are of the same size. One of the big advantages of sagittals is that they do a much better job of sliding in and around existing hairs to avoid follicle transection. This certainly makes a strong case for physicians who do not require shaving of the recipient area. The lateral incisions bisect existing hairs perpendicular (horizontal) like a T while sagittal incisions run parallel (vertical) alongside and in between existing hairs. The use of perpendicular (lateral/coronal) slits versus parallel (sagittal) slits, however, has been heavily debated in patient-based hair transplant communities. Many elite hair transplant surgeons typically adopt a combination of both methods based on what is best for the individual patient.

Research and future techniques.

Stem cells and dermal papilla cells have been discovered in hair follicles. Research on these follicular cells may lead to successes in treating baldness through hair multiplication (HM), also known as hair cloning.

Hair transplantation is a surgical technique that removes hair follicles from one part of the body, called the 'donor site', to a bald or balding part of the body known as the'recipient site'. The technique is primarily used to treat male pattern baldness. In this minimally invasive procedure, grafts containing hair follicles that are genetically resistant to balding (like the back of the head) are transplanted to the bald scalp. Hair transplantation can also be used to restore eyelashes, eyebrows, beard hair, chest hair, pubic hair and to fill in scars caused by accidents or surgery such as face-lifts and previous hair transplants. Hair transplantation differs from skin grafting in that grafts contain almost all of the epidermis and dermis surrounding the hair follicle, and many tiny grafts are transplanted rather than a single strip of skin.

Die Haartransplantation oder auch Haarverpflanzung bezeichnet die Verpflanzung von Körperhaar. Haartransplantationen kommen vor allem bei Haarausfall zur Anwendung, sowohl bei Männern als auch bei Frauen. Der Eingriff wird – insbesondere bei Männern – als emotional besetztes Thema gesellschaftlich diskutiert.


Middleware categories.

All these models make it possible for one software component to affect the behavior of another component over a network. They are different in that RPC- and ORB-based middleware create systems of tightly coupled components, whereas MOM-based systems allow for a looser coupling of components. In an RPC- or ORB-based system, when one procedure calls another, it must wait for the called procedure to return before it can do anything else. In these synchronous messaging models, the middleware functions partly as a super-linker, locating the called procedure on a network and using network services to pass function or method parameters to the procedure and then to return results.

Advantages.

Central reasons for using a message-based communications protocol include its ability to store (buffer), route, or transform messages while conveying them from senders to receivers.  Another advantage of messaging provider mediated messaging between clients is that by adding an administrative interface, you can monitor and tune performance. Client applications are thus effectively relieved of every problem except that of sending, receiving, and processing messages. It is up to the code that implements the MOM system and up to the administrator to resolve issues like interoperability, reliability, security, scalability, and performance.

Asynchronicity.

Using a MOM system, a client makes an API call to send a message to a destination managed by the provider. The call invokes provider services to route and deliver the message. Once it has sent the message, the client can continue to do other work, confident that the provider retains the message until a receiving client retrieves it. The message-based model, coupled with the mediation of the provider, makes it possible to create a system of loosely coupled components.  MOM comprises a category of inter-application communication software that generally relies on asynchronous message-passing, as opposed to a request-response architecture. In asynchronous systems, message queues provide temporary storage when the destination program is busy or not connected. In addition, most asynchronous MOM systems provide persistent storage to back up the message queue. This means that the sender and receiver do not need to connect to the network at the same time (asynchronous delivery), and problems with intermittent connectivity are solved. It also means that should the receiver application fail for any reason, the senders can continue unaffected, as the messages they send will simply accumulate in the message queue for later processing when the receiver restarts.

Routing.

Many message-oriented middleware implementations depend on a message queue system. Some implementations permit routing logic to be provided by the messaging layer itself, while others depend on client applications to provide routing information or allow for a mix of both paradigms. Some implementations make use of broadcast or multicast distribution paradigms.

Transformation.

In a message-based middleware system, the message received at the destination need not be identical to the message originally sent. A MOM system with built-in intelligence can transform messages en route to match the requirements of the sender or of the recipient. In conjunction with the routing and broadcast/multicast facilities, one application can send a message in its own native format, and two or more other applications may each receive a copy of the message in their own native format. Many modern MOM systems provide sophisticated message transformation (or mapping) tools which allow programmers to specify transformation rules applicable to a simple GUI drag-and-drop operation.

Disadvantages.

The primary disadvantage of many message-oriented middleware systems is that they require an extra component in the architecture, the message transfer agent (message broker). As with any system, adding another component can lead to reductions in performance and reliability, and can also make the system as a whole more difficult and expensive to maintain.  In addition, many inter-application communications have an intrinsically synchronous aspect, with the sender specifically wanting to wait for a reply to a message before continuing (see real-time computing and near-real-time for extreme cases). Because message-based communication inherently functions asynchronously, it may not fit well in such situations. That said, most MOM systems have facilities to group a request and a response as a single pseudo-synchronous transaction.  With a synchronous messaging system, the calling function does not return until the called function has finished its task. In a loosely coupled asynchronous system, the calling client can continue to load work upon the recipient until the resources needed to handle this work are depleted and the called component fails. Of course, these conditions can be minimized or avoided by monitoring performance and adjusting message flow, but this is work that is not needed with a synchronous messaging system. The important thing is to understand the advantages and liabilities of each kind of system. Each system is appropriate for different kinds of tasks. Sometimes, a combination of the two kinds of systems is required to obtain the desired behavior.

Standards.

Historically, there was a lack of standards governing the use of message-oriented middleware that has caused problems. Most of the major vendors have their own implementations, each with its own application programming interface (API) and management tools.  One of the long-standing standards for message oriented middleware is X/Open group's XATMI specification (Distributed Transaction Processing: The XATMI Specification) which standardizes API for interprocess communications. Known implementations for this API is ATR Baltic's Enduro/X middleware and Oracle's Tuxedo.  The Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP) is an approved OASIS and ISO standard that defines the protocol and formats used between participating application components, so implementations are interoperable. AMQP may be used with flexible routing schemes, including common messaging paradigms like point-to-point, fan-out, publish/subscribe, and request-response (note that these are intentionally omitted from v1.0 of the protocol standard itself, but rely on the particular implementation and/or underlying network protocol for routing). It also supports transaction management, queuing, distribution, security, management, clustering, federation and heterogeneous multi-platform support. Java applications that use AMQP are typically written in Java JMS. Other implementations provide APIs for C#, C++, PHP, Python, Ruby, and other languages.  The High-Level Architecture (HLA IEEE 1516) is an IEEE and SISO standard for simulation interoperability. It defines a set of services, provided through an API in C++ or Java. The services offer publish/subscribe based information exchange, based on a modular Federation Object Model. There are also services for coordinated data exchange and time advance, based on logical simulation time, as well as synchronization points. Additional services provide transfer of ownership, data distribution optimizations and monitoring and management of participating Federates (systems).  The MQ Telemetry Transport (MQTT) is an ISO standard (ISO/IEC PRF 20922) supported by the OASIS organization. It provides a lightweight publish/subscribe reliable messaging transport protocol on top of TCP/IP suitable for communication in M2M/IoT contexts where a small code footprint is required and/or network bandwidth is at a premium.  The Object Management Group's Data Distribution Service (DDS) provides message-oriented Publish/Subscribe (P/S) middleware standard that aims to enable scalable, real-time, dependable, high performance and interoperable data exchanges between publishers and subscribers. The standard provides interfaces to C++, C++11, C, Ada, Java and Ruby.  The eXtensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is a communications protocol for message-oriented middleware based on XML (Extensible Markup Language). Designed to be extensible, the protocol has also been used for publish-subscribe systems, signalling for VoIP, video, file transfer, gaming, Internet of Things applications such as the smart grid, and social networking services. Unlike most instant messaging protocols, XMPP is defined in an open standard and uses an open systems approach of development and application, by which anyone may implement an XMPP service and interoperate with other organizations' implementations. Because XMPP is an open protocol, implementations can be developed using any software license; although many server, client, and library implementations are distributed as free and open-source software, numerous freeware and commercial software implementations also exist. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) formed an XMPP working group in 2002 to formalize the core protocols as an IETF instant messaging and presence technology. The XMPP Working group produced four specifications (RFC 3920, RFC 3921, RFC 3922, RFC 3923), which were approved as Proposed Standards in 2004. In 2011, RFC 3920 and RFC 3921 were superseded by RFC 6120 and RFC 6121 respectively, with RFC 6122 specifying the XMPP address format. In addition to these core protocols standardized at the IETF, the XMPP Standards Foundation (formerly the Jabber Software Foundation) is active in developing open XMPP extensions. XMPP-based software is deployed widely across the Internet, according to the XMPP Standards Foundation, and forms the basis for the Department of Defense (DoD) Unified Capabilities Framework.  The Java EE programming environment provides a standard API called JMS (Java Message Service), which is implemented by most MOM vendors and aims to hide the particular MOM API implementations; however, JMS does not define the format of the messages that are exchanged, so JMS systems are not interoperable.  A similar effort is with the actively evolving OpenMAMA project, which aims to provide a common API, particularly to C clients. However, at the moment (August 2012) it is primarily appropriate for distributing market-oriented data (e.g. stock quotes) over pub-sub middleware.

Message queuing.

Message queues allow the exchange of information between distributed applications. A message queue can reside in memory or disk storage. Messages stay in the queue until the time they are processed by a service consumer. Through the message queue, the application can be implemented independently - they do not need to know each other's position, or continue to implement procedures to remove the need for waiting to receive this message.

Message-oriented middleware (MOM) is software or hardware infrastructure supporting sending and receiving messages between distributed systems. MOM allows application modules to be distributed over heterogeneous platforms and reduces the complexity of developing applications that span multiple operating systems and network protocols. The middleware creates a distributed communications layer that insulates the application developer from the details of the various operating systems and network interfaces. APIs that extend across diverse platforms and networks are typically provided by MOM.

Nachrichtenorientierte Middleware bzw. Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) bezeichnet Middleware, die auf der asynchronen oder synchronen Kommunikation, also der Übertragung von Nachrichten () beruht. Das Format für die Nachrichten ist nicht festgelegt, in der Praxis hat sich jedoch XML als beliebtes Format etabliert.


North America.

North American distribution boards are typically housed in sheet metal enclosures, with the circuit breakers positioned in two columns operable from the front. Some panelboards are provided with a door covering the breaker switch handles, but all are constructed with a "dead front"; that is to say the front of the enclosure (whether it has a door or not) prevents the operator of the circuit breakers from contacting live electrical parts within. Busbars carry the current from incoming line ("hot") conductors to the breakers, which are secured to the bus with either a "bolt-on" connection (using a threaded screw) or a "plug-in" connection using a retaining clip. "Panelboards" are more common in commercial and industrial applications and employ bolt-on breakers. Residential and light commercial panels are generally referred to as "load centers" and employ plug-in breakers. The neutral conductors are secured to a neutral bus using screw terminals. The branch circuit bonding conductors are secured to a terminal block attached directly to the panelboard enclosure, which is itself grounded.  During servicing of the distribution board, when the cover has been removed and the cables are visible, American panelboards commonly have some live parts exposed. In Canadian service entrance panelboards the main switch or circuit breaker is located in a "service box", a section of the enclosure separated from the rest of the panelboard, so that when the main switch or breaker is switched off no live parts are exposed when servicing the branch circuits.

Breaker arrangement.

Breakers are usually arranged in two columns. In a U.S.-style board, breaker positions are numbered left-to-right, along each row from top to bottom. This numbering system is universal with numerous competitive manufacturers of breaker panels.  Each row is fed from a different phase ("A", "B", and "C" below), to allow 2- or 3-pole common-trip breakers to have one pole on each phase. In North America, it is common to wire large permanently installed equipment line-to-line. This takes two slots in the panel (two-pole) and gives a voltage of 240 V for split-phase electric power, or 208 V for three-phase power.

Interior.

The photograph to the right shows the interior of a residential service panelboard manufactured by General Electric. The three service conductors—two 'hot' lines and one neutral—can be seen coming in at the top. The neutral wire is connected to the neutral busbar to the left with all the white wires, and the two hot wires are attached to the main breaker. Below the main breaker are the two bus bars carrying the current between the main breaker and the two columns of branch circuit breakers, with each respective circuit's red and black hot wires leading off. Three wires (hot black, neutral white, and bare ground) can be seen exiting the left side of the enclosure running directly to a NEMA 5-15 electrical receptacle with a power cord plugged into it. The incoming bare, stranded ground wire can be seen near the bottom of the neutral bus bar.  The photograph on the left shows a dual panel configuration: a main panel on the right (with front cover in place) and a subpanel on the left (with cover removed). The subpanel is fed by two large hot wires and a neutral wire running through the angled conduit near the top of the panels. This configuration appears to display three violations of the current U.S. National Electric Code: the main panel does not have a grounding conductor (here it is fed through the subpanel instead), the connection between the main and subpanel lacks a grounding conductor (it must have four wires instead of three), and the subpanel neutral bar is bonded to the ground bar (these should be separate bars after the first service disconnect, which in this case is the main panel).

Fuse boxes.

A common design of fuse box that was featured in homes built from 1940 to 1965 was the 60-amp fuse box that featured four plug fuses (i.e. Edison base) for branch circuits and one or more fuse blocks containing cartridge fuses for purposes such as major appliance circuits. After 1965, the more substantial 100 A panel with three-wire (230 V) service became common; a fuse box could have fuse blocks for the main shut-off and an electric range circuit plus a number of plug fuses (Edison base or Type S) for individual circuits.

United Kingdom.

This picture shows the interior of a typical distribution panel in the United Kingdom. The three incoming phase wires connect to the busbars via a main switch in the centre of the panel. On each side of the panel are two busbars, for neutral and earth. The incoming neutral connects to the lower busbar on the right side of the panel, which is in turn connected to the neutral busbar at the top left. The incoming earth wire connects to the lower busbar on the left side of the panel, which is in turn connected to the earth busbar at the top right. The cover has been removed from the lower-right neutral bar; the neutral bar on the left side has its cover in place.  Down the left side of the phase busbars are two two-pole RCBOs and two single-pole breakers, one unused. The two-pole RCBOs in the picture are not connected across two phases, but have supply-side neutral connections exiting behind the phase busbars. Down the right side of the busbars are a single-pole breaker, a two-pole RCBO and a three-pole breaker.  The illustrated panel includes a great deal of unused space; it is likely that the manufacturer produces 18- and 24-position versions of this panel using the same chassis.  Larger commercial, public, and industrial installations generally use three-phase supplies, with distribution boards which have twin vertical rows of breakers. Larger installations will often use subsidiary distribution boards.  In both cases, modern boards handling supplies up to around 100 A (CUs) or 200 A (distribution boards) use circuit breakers and RCDs on DIN rail mountings. The main distribution board in an installation will also normally provide a main switch (known as an "incomer") which switches the phase and neutral lines for the whole supply. (n.b., an incomer may be referred to, or sold as, an "isolator", but this is problematic, as it will not necessarily be used as an isolator in the strict sense.)  For each phase, power is fed along a busbar. In split-phase panels, separate busbars are fed directly from the incomer, which allows RCDs to be used to protect groups of circuits. Alternatively RCBOs may be used to provide both overcurrent and residual-current protection to single circuits.  Other devices, such as transformers (e.g. for bell circuits) and contactors (relays; e.g. for large motor or heating loads) may also be used.  New British distribution boards generally have the live parts enclosed to IP2X, even when the cover has been removed for servicing.

Consumer units.

In the United Kingdom, BS 7671 defines a Consumer unit as " A particular type of distribution board comprising a type tested coordinated assembly for the control and distribution of electrical energy, principally in domestic premises..." These installations usually have single-phase supplies at 230 V (nominal standard) and historically they were known as fuse boxes as older consumer units used fuses until the advent of mini-circuit breakers (MCBs). A normal new domestic CU used as a main panel might have from 6 to 24 ways for devices (some of which might occupy two ways), and will be split into two or more sections (e.g. a non-RCD section for alarms etc., an RCD-protected section for socket outlets, and an RCD-protected section for lighting and other built-in appliances). Secondary CUs used for outbuildings usually have 1 to 4 ways plus an RCD.  Recent (pre-17th edition wiring regulations) CUs would not normally have RCD protected sections for anything other than socket outlets, though some older CUs featured RCD Incomers. Before 1990, RCDs (and split busbars) were not standard in CUs. Fuse Boxes normally use cartridge or rewirable fuses with no other protective device, and basic 4-ways boxes are very common. Some older boxes are made of brown-black bakelite, sometimes with a wooden base. Although their design is historic, these were standard equipment for new installs as recently as the 1980s, so they are very common. Fuseholders in these boxes may not provide protection from accidental contact with live terminals.  The popular 4-way fusebox normally had two lighting and two socket circuits, with heavy or sustained loads such as immersion heater and oven on a socket circuit. This arrangement is not recommended practice today, but it is common for existing installations. Larger boxes with more ways will have separate fuses for large loads such as immersion heater, oven and shower.

Legacy fuseboxes.

A small number of pre-1950 fuseboxes are still in service. These should be treated with caution because exposed live parts are common on these boxes. The installations they supply will not meet modern standards for electrical safety. Another characteristic of very old installations is that there may be two fuses for each circuit; one on the live and one on the neutral. In rare instances, old ring circuits may be encountered with no fewer than 4 15 A fuses per ring, one on each of L and N, and this duplicated for each of the two feeds for the ring.

Manufacturer differences.

Most of the time, the panels and the breakers inserted inside them must be by the same manufacturer. Each manufacturer has one or more "systems", or kinds of breaker panels, that will only accept breakers of that type. In Europe, this is still the case, despite the adoption of a standard DIN rail for mounting and a standard cut-out shape, as the positions of the busbar connections are not standardized.  Certain panels use seemingly interchangeable breakers. However, a given manufacturer will specifically mention exactly which devices may be installed in their equipment. These assemblies have been tested and approved for use by a recognized authority. Replacing or adding equipment which "just happens to fit" can result in unexpected or even dangerous conditions. Such installations should not be done without first consulting knowledgeable sources, including manufacturers.

Location and designation.

For reasons of aesthetics and security, domestic circuit breaker panels and consumer units are normally located in out-of-the-way closets, attics, garages, or basements, but sometimes they are also featured as part of the aesthetic elements of a building (as an art installation, for example) or where they can be easily accessible. However, current U.S. building codes prohibit installation of a panel in a bathroom (or similar room), in closets intended for clothing, or where there is insufficient space for an electrician to gain access to the panel. Specific situations, such as an installation outdoors, in a hazardous environment, or in other out-of-the-ordinary locations might require specialized equipment and more stringent installation practices.  Distribution boards may be designated for three phase or single phase and normal power or emergency power, or designated by use such as distribution panels for supplying other panels, lighting panels for lights, power panels for equipment and receptacles and special uses. Panels are located throughout the building in electric closets serving a section of the building.

Theatre lighting.

In a theatre, a specialty panel known as a "dimmer rack" is used to feed stage lighting instruments. A U.S. style dimmer rack has a 208Y/120 volt 3-phase feed. Instead of just circuit breakers, the rack has a solid state electronic dimmer with its own circuit breaker for each stage circuit. This is known as a "dimmer-per-circuit" arrangement. The dimmers are equally divided across the three incoming phases. In a 96 dimmer rack, there are 32 dimmers on phase A, 32 dimmers on phase B, and 32 on phase C to spread out the lighting load as equally as possible. In addition to the power feed from the supply transformer in the building, a control cable from the lighting desk carries information to the dimmers in a control protocol such as DMX-512. The information includes lighting level information for each channel, by which it controls which dimmer circuits come up and go out during the lighting changes of the show (light cues), and over what fade time.  Distribution boards may be surface-mounted or flush. The former arrangement provides easier alteration or addition to wiring at a later date, but the latter arrangement might be neater, particularly for a residential application. The other problem with recessing a distribution board into a wall is that if the wall is solid, a lot of brick or block might need to be removed—generally for this reason, recessed boards would only be installed on new-build projects when the required space can be built into the wall.

Mobile operation.

Sometimes it is desired to have a portable breaker panel, for example, for special events. In this case, a breaker panel is mounted to a board, together with various sockets. The American one pictured at the right has a cord with an L21-30 plug to supply power. Power leaves the board through four three-phase circuits: three 15 ampere circuits; and one 20 A circuit. The 15 A circuits each go to a triplex box. The 20 A circuit goes to an L21-20 receptacle, and one leg of it goes to a 20 A duplex receptacle shown at the upper left. The neon night-lights on the upper right triplex box are to show the phase presence.  The use of a load center in this type of configuration is dangerous and violates UL and NEC rules for their use. When power distribution is required on movie sets, concert stages and theatrical venues it should be provided via products listed "for portable power distribution."

A distribution board (also known as panelboard, breaker panel, or electric panel) is a component of an electricity supply system that divides an electrical power feed into subsidiary circuits, while providing a protective fuse or circuit breaker for each circuit in a common enclosure. Normally, a main switch, and in recent boards, one or more residual-current devices (RCD) or residual current breakers with overcurrent protection (RCBO), are also incorporated.

Ein elektrischer Verteiler, Stromkreisverteiler oder Unterverteiler, sowie umgangssprachlich auch Verteilerkasten oder Sicherungskasten genannt, ist ein heute meist verschließbarer Kasten, in dem Sicherungs- und Schaltelemente zur Verteilung von elektrischer Energie im Bereich des Niederspannungsnetzes untergebracht sind. Er wird im Fachjargon auch als "Verteilung" bezeichnet und befindet sich in praktisch jedem elektrifizierten Gebäude. Mit Größe und elektrotechnischer Ausstattung des Gebäudes variieren auch Größe und Anzahl der Verteilungen. Es wird unterschieden in "Hauptverteilung", "Unterverteilung" und "Gruppenverteilung". Für Baustellen gibt es so genannte Baustromverteiler und für ortsveränderliche Anwendungen den CEE-Stromverteiler.


Background and education.

Sackville was the third son of Lionel Sackville, 1st Duke of Dorset, and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Lieutenant-General Walter Philip Colyear. His Godfather George I attended his baptism. He was educated at Westminster School in London and graduated from Trinity College in Dublin in 1737. Between 1730 and 1737 and again from 1750 to 1755, his father held the post of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. While in Dublin he befriended the celebrated writer Jonathan Swift. He also encountered Lord Ligonier who would later assist his career in the military.  He then entered the army. Sackville was elected Grandmaster of the Grand Lodge of Ireland in 1751, serving in this post for the next two years.

Family.

He married Diana Sambrooke, daughter of John Sambrooke and Elizabeth Forester, on 3 September 1754. They had two sons and three daughters, including:

Early military career.

Sackville started as a captain in the 7th Horse (later the 6th Dragoon Guards). In 1740, he transferred to the Gloucestershire Regiment of Foot as a lieutenant colonel. The regiment was sent to Germany to participate in the War of the Austrian Succession. In 1743. Sackville was advanced to brevet colonel.

Battle of Fontenoy.

He saw his first battle, leading the charge of the Duke of Cumberland's infantry in the Battle of Fontenoy in 1745. He led his regiment so deep into the French lines that when he was wounded and captured he was taken to the tent of Louis XV. When he was released and returned home, it was to duty in Scotland as the Colonel of the 20th Foot Regiment.  In 1747 and 1748, he again joined the Duke of Cumberland. He became colonel of the 7th Irish horse and served in Holland. There was a break in his military career between wars (1750-1755) when he served as first secretary to his father.  During the Seven Years' War, Sackville returned to active military service. He had been considered for the post of Commander-in-Chief in North America, which eventually went to Edward Braddock who led his force to disaster during the Braddock Campaign. In 1755, he was promoted to major general and returned to active service to oversee ordnance. In 1758, he was given a fourth regiment and joined the Duke of Marlborough as a lieutenant general. He was sworn of the Privy Council in January 1758.

Raid on St Malo.

In June 1758 Sackville was second in command of a British expedition led by Marlborough which attempted an amphibious Raid on St Malo. While it failed to take the town as instructed, the raid was still considered to have been largely successful as a diversion. Follow-up raids were considered against Le Havre, Caen and other targets in Normandy but no further landings were attempted and the force returned home.  Later in 1758 they joined the allied forces of Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick in Germany, with the first detachment of British troops sent to the Continent. When Marlborough died, Sackville became Commander of the British contingent of the army, although still under the overall command of the Duke of Brunswick.

Battle of Minden.

In the Battle of Minden on 1 August 1759, British and Hanoverian infantry of the centre made an advance on the French cavalry and artillery in that sector. They apparently went in without orders and their attacking line formation even repulsed repeated French cavalry charges, holding until the last moment then firing a massive volley when the charge came within ten yards. As the disrupted French began to fall back on Minden, Ferdinand called for a British cavalry charge to complete the victory, but Sackville withheld permission for their advance. Ferdinand sent his order several times, but Sackville was estranged from Lord Granby, the force commander. He continued to withhold permission for Granby to "gain glory" through an attack. For this action, he was cashiered and sent home. Granby replaced him as commander of the British contingent for the remainder of the war.

Court martial.

Sackville refused to accept responsibility for refusing to obey orders. Back in England, he demanded a court martial, and made it a large enough issue that he obtained his demand in 1760. The court found him guilty, and imposed one of the strangest and strongest verdicts ever rendered against a general officer. The court's verdict not only upheld his discharge, but ruled that he was ""...unfit to serve His Majesty in any military Capacity whatever."", then ordered that their verdict be read to and entered in the orderly book of every regiment in the army. The king had his name struck from the Privy Council rolls.

Early political career.

Sackville had been a Member of Parliament at intervals since 1733. He had served terms in both the Dublin and the Westminster bodies, sometimes simultaneously, but had not taken sides in political wrangles.  Between 1750 and 1755 he served as Chief Secretary for Ireland, during his father's second term as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.  When George III took the throne in 1760, Sackville began his political rehabilitation. There did not seem to be negative repercussions to the European stalemate of the Seven Years' War. The victories over the French within the colonial empire provided a chance for events of the war to be forgotten. The difficulty of repaying the debts incurred to fight the war caused a period of unstable ministries and shifting political alliances. In 1765, King George quietly returned him to the rolls of the Privy Council.  Initially he was a follower of George Grenville's faction but he increasingly lined up as a supporter of Lord North and, in 1769, he made this alliance formal. Then, in 1769, Lady Elizabeth Germain died without natural heirs, and left her estates, including Drayton, Northamptonshire, to him. This not only improved his finances, it also gave him the chance to take that name formally. After 1770, he was known as Lord George Germain.

Secretary of State.

Appointment.

On 10 November 1775, Germain was appointed Secretary of State for the American Department replacing Lord Dartmouth in the post. At that time, North's cabinet had three secretaries of state; one each for Europe (the Northern Department), America, and the rest of the world (the Southern Department). Besides international relations, these secretaries were responsible for a great deal of Colonial administration and for military operations within their area. This made Germain the primary minister responsible for suppressing the rebellion that had broken out in 1775 in the colonies. He promoted or relieved Generals, took care of provisions and supplies, and became involved with the strategic planning of the war.

American War of Independence.

Sackville and Lord North made three assumptions about the war they were about to face: firstly, the American forces could not withstand the assaults of the British; secondly, the war would be similar to wars they had fought successfully in Europe; and lastly, their victory would bring about their goal of having the colonies' allegiance. All of their assumptions proved to be false, with the limited and unhelpful exception of the first, in that the American forces usually could not withstand the assaults of the British in open battle but instead adopted other, more successful, tactics.  In 1776 he worked with General Burgoyne to plan, support and issue orders for the Saratoga campaign. However, his unclear orders to General Howe contributed to the campaign's failure. Following the entry of France, Spain and the Dutch Republic into the conflict, British emphasis shifted to focus increasingly on a global war. British troops were withdrawn from Philadelphia and reinforcements were sent to the valuable sugar-producing West Indies. In 1779 one of Germain's associates, Richard Cumberland was sent to Madrid for talks designed to reach a separate peace settlement with Spain, but this attempt failed.

Yorktown.

In 1781, the confusion involving orders sent to Cornwallis from Clinton contributed to the loss at Yorktown. The news of Yorktown reached London on 25 November 1781 and the messenger went first to Germain's residence at Pall Mall. Germain then went to tell other ministers. Together they went to Lord North who reportedly cried out "Oh God - It's all over". It was agreed that Germain, rather than North, should take the news to the King who was at Kew. The King's Speech two days later had to be re-written in light of Yorktown. News of the surrender galvanised the Opposition and government majorities began to shrink over the following months with calls for resignations of senior ministers. Germain drew up a plan to continue the war using the existing British bases in Charleston, New York, Savannah and Canada to harass the American coastline and frontiers. He also advocated re-occupying Newport in Rhode Island to give a foothold in New England.

Departure from office.

Germain became a target for the opposition, and was eventually persuaded to step down in exchange for a peerage, and in February 1782 he was made Baron Bolebrooke, in the County of Sussex, and Viscount Sackville, of Drayton in the County of Northampton. This was considered essential if the North government was to survive by bringing in factions of the opposition, to whom Germain was personally objectionable. He was replaced by Welbore Ellis. In spite of Germain's departure, the North government fell shortly afterwards in February 1782 and was followed by a period of political instability. Shortly after the fall of the North government, news arrived of the decisive British naval victory at the Battle of the Saintes in the Caribbean, which would have boosted the government had it still been in power. The Shelburne government agreed to the Peace of Paris, bringing an end to the war in 1783 and recognising the independence of the United States.

Later life.

The controversy over Lord Sackville's handling of the war continued. Some members were opposed to his taking a seat in the House of Lords, an almost unprecedented incident. In spite of this he was admitted to the Lords, where he was staunchly defended by Lord Thurlow, and his declining health soon made the issue irrelevant. He retired to his country home at Stoneland Lodge and died there in 1785. He maintained to his dying day that he had not been a coward at Minden. Following his death, a defence of Sackville's reputation, "The character of the late Viscount Sackville", was written by Richard Cumberland.  The Drayton House estate passed to his son Charles, who later became the 5th (and last) Duke of Dorset. The Stoneland estate (or Buckhurst Park as it came to be known) passed via the wife of the late 3rd Duke of Dorset to her daughter Countess de la Warr on the Dowager Duchess's death in 1825.

George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville, PC (26 January 1716 – 26 August 1785), styled The Honourable George Sackville until 1720, Lord George Sackville from 1720 to 1770 and Lord George Germain from 1770 to 1782, was a British soldier and politician who was Secretary of State for America in Lord North's cabinet during the American War of Independence.

George Germain, 1. Viscount Sackville (* 26. Januar 1716 in London; † 26. August 1785 in Stoneland Lodge, Sussex), war ein britischer Soldat und Politiker.