text:
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
and After (Vol. 5, of Central Works of Philosophy) edited by John Shand (Acumen Publishing, 2006), pp. 86-103
Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), along with John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971), radically changed the landscape in analytic political philosophy. For much of the preceding half-century, under the influence of logical positivism's heavy emphasis on empirical verifiability, much of moral philosophy was taken up with meta-ethics (e.g., the semantics of moral discourse)—with little attention given to normative moral theories. Moreover, to the extent that normative theories were considered, utilitarianism was the center of attention. This all changed with the publication of Rawls's articulation and defense of liberal egalitarianism and Nozick's libertarian challenge to the legitimacy of anything more than the night-watchman state. At the core of Nozick's book are two arguments. One is that a night-watchman state (which protects only against violence, theft, fraud, and breach of contract) could be legitimate, even without the consent of all those to be governed. The other is that nothing more extensive than the night-watchman state is legitimate, except with the consent of all. The argument is complex, and Nozick often inserts long—and very interesting—digressions. Below I shall focus only on his core argument. I shall thus not address his discussions of Rawls' theory of justice (Ch. 7, Section 2) and other arguments attempting to justify more than the night-watchman state (Ch. 8), nor his discussion of utopias (Ch. 10).
1. The Anarchist Challenge Nozick attempts to rebut anarchism, which comes in several shapes and forms. The strongest version says that it is impossible for any state to be legitimate. Almost everyone finds this view implausible because a state seems perfectly legitimate when, for example, it efficiently and fairly promotes individual wellbeing and all those governed by it have given, under fair conditions, their free and informed consent to it. A weaker version of anarchism—moderate anarchism— holds that a state is morally illegitimate unless all those governed by it have given appropriate consent. Relative to many theories of political morality—such as utilitarianism and (hypothetical) contractarianism—even this moderate version of anarchism is implausible. A version of utilitarianism, for example, can hold that a state is legitimate if it maximizes the total wellbeing in society (compared with other social arrangements). Consent and rights of selfdefense play no special role in this theory of political justification. Nozick, however, starts with a libertarian theory of individual rights in which consent and rights of self-defense play very significant roles. In the context of such a theory (which we will examine below), the moderate anarchist position seems quite compelling. Nozick, however, argues that even here it is mistaken. He argues that the state can be legitimate even without unanimous consent. If his argument is successful, it is a very significant result. Before considering Nozick's argument, we need to get clearer on what a state is and on his libertarian theory of justice.
2. The State Defining statehood is no easy matter, and there is no uncontroversial comprehensive definition. Something like the following, however, seems at least roughly right for our purposes: A state is a rule-of-law-based coercive organization that, for a given territory, effectively rules all individuals in
Nozick does not invoke it explicitly. Following Nozick. maiming. A state effectively rules the individuals of a given territory in that those individuals generally obey its dictates. A state is rule-of-law-based in that in general it uses force only for violation of public and proactive dictates (and not on the whim of its officials). for a given territory. The rule of law requirement is controversial.1 This is at least roughly equivalent to the definition given above. a state could be legitimate even if it has no political authority (and vice-versa). we shall focus on the legitimacy of 3 . a state should have both features. and (2) a coercive organization has an effective monopoly on the use of force in a given territory (roughly) if and only if it claims a monopoly on the use of the force in that territory and effectively rules that territory. A state is legitimate just in case its use of force (and threat thereof) is typically morally permissible. or inflicting pain). in any case. A state has authority just in case individuals in its territory typically have at least an all-else-being-equal moral obligation to obey its dictates. killing. This can be unpacked as follows: A state is a coercive organization in that it threatens to use force against individuals who do not comply with its dictates (either via prior restraint to prevent non-compliance or via punishment or the extraction of compensation for non-compliance) and it generally implements its threats. A state claims a monopoly on the use of force in that it prohibits the use of force (or credible threat thereof) without its permission. The (moderate) anarchist claim is thus that no coercive organization that exercises an effective monopoly on the use of force over a given territory is legitimate unless all those governed by it have consented to its rule.g. if we assume.it and claims a monopoly on the use of force (e. that (1) the rule of law requirement is either met or irrelevant. He characterizes the state as a coercive organization that has. as we shall. an effective monopoly on the use of force. Ideally. and. It is worth noting here that the claim concerns legitimacy—as opposed to authority.. but in principle.
Indeed. In the philosophical literature. Libertarianism and Justice Nozick argues that a state can be legitimate even without the consent of those governed. and that the right to bodily integrity is among them.2 So understood. A final general point to note about Nozick's theory of justice is that it is historical. Nozick believes that these rights are nearly absolute: they may not be infringed except perhaps when necessary and effective in avoiding a great social catastrophe. torturing. We shall start. Act-consequentialists (such as act-utilitarians) deny that there are any natural rights. 3. What it is just to do depends in part on what happened in the past. he holds that normal adult humans have certain strong natural rights—including the right to bodily integrity (which prohibits killing. He does this on the basis of certain principles of justice. Positing natural rights is not uncontroversial. but Nozick understands it as the permissible use of force. The legitimacy of a state is thus a matter of its actions being just. It only concerns the moral restrictions on the use of force. or maiming the right-holder). Nonetheless. The rights are strong in the sense that they are not easily overridden by other moral considerations. the term "justice" is used in several different ways. justice is not concerned with all of one's moral obligations. All individuals having the requisite features—roughly. by considering some more general aspects of his theory of justice. which we shall consider below. First. most people would acknowledge that there are some natural rights. Nozick holds a kind of libertarian theory of justice. the ability to make free and rational choices in accordance with some reflectively chosen conception of the good life—have these rights. It is not normally just to punch 4 .the state. These rights are natural in the sense that they do not depend on any legal or social conventions. however.
but it may be if it is part of a consensual boxing match. 3) rights of initial acquisition: the right to acquire full property rights in unowned things as long 5 .3 (2) the right to compensation from those who have violated one's rights in the thing. Nozick's theory of justice is a property-rights based theory. the rights of others. and perhaps to punish such offenders.. and is not in the process of violating. that a theory can be historical (i. sensitive to the past) without being purely historical (i. which rule out killing or physically assaulting one without one's permission). it is not normally just to lock someone in a room.another in the face. Nozick's theory of justice is a libertarian theory. where full property rights over a thing consist (roughly) of (1) the right to use and control use of the thing by others. and his emphasis on this feature has had a very positive impact on theorizing about justice. He claims that individuals have. full property rights (or full ownership) over various things. Likewise. This aspect of Nozick's theory is highly plausible. but it may be so if that person murdered several people in the past..e. to extract compensation from those who have already violated such rights. according to which an action is just if and only if it violates no libertarian rights. (3) the right to use force to stop those who are about to violate one's rights in the thing. making the future consequences irrelevant). and (5) an immunity to losing any of these rights as long as one has not violated. (4) the right to transfer these rights to others.e. Both past consent and past wrongdoings are relevant to what is just at a given time. however. It's worth noting. or can acquire. 4 2) initial rights of common use of the external world: the right to use non-agent things (as long as this violates no one's self-ownership). where the libertarian rights are the following: 1) initial full self-ownership: each autonomous agent initially has full property rights in him/herself (paradigmatically rights of bodily integrity.
One could question. under normal circumstances. they may not be sacrificed or used for the achieving of other ends without their consent" (pp.) The right of initial acquisition is the power to acquire private property rights over things that are not already privately owned by others. One could also question whether one has the right to enslave oneself voluntarily (as full self-ownership asserts). 30-31). Nozick does not systematically defend this theory. 4) rights of acquisition by transfer: the right to acquire any property right in a thing held by another by voluntary transfer. and "reflect the fact of our separate existences" (p. he claims. The rights of self-ownership. Locke's version of this right requires that one "mix one's labor" with the thing and that one leave "enough and as good" for others. Nozick does not spend much time discussing initial rights of common use.as one leaves "enough and as good" for others. to be free of interferences with one's body—seems highly plausible. many would reject some of the other rights included in full self-ownership.g. the view that the world—other than the self-owning agents—is initially owned by some individual or group of individuals. and individuals are free to use any part of it when others are not. He simply asserts that the non-agent world is initially unowned. 33). "reflect the Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means.. Although the core of full self-ownership—roughly the right. (Such a view was invoked by 17th century proponents of the "divine right of kings"—a doctrine which Locke vigorously rejected. for example. He (like Locke) rejects. "express the inviolability of others" (p. a small prick to my finger saves the lives of many).5 Nozick 6 . but he does provide motivation for its key aspects. This theory of justice is modeled on that of John Locke in Two Treatises of Government. whether this right holds even where the harm to the holder is slight and the benefit to others is great (e. 32). for example.
that "enough and as good" be left for others. Extreme right-libertarianism denies that there is any kind of requirement that enough and as good be left for others.. that the first person to discover. for example.e. It holds. Nozick interprets it to require that the situation of others not be worsened by the appropriation. as Nozick does).g. claim. More exactly. or the entire uninhabited universe? Nozick never resolves this issue. 174-75) that the content and significance of the labor-mixing metaphor is not clear: Does an astronaut who clears a plot on uninhabited Mars mix his labor with the plot.g. all of Mars. Given that common use is generally inefficient (e. this interpretation of the proviso sets a low baseline and makes it relatively easy for individuals to acquire full private property in unappropriated things. Nozick calls this "the Lockean Proviso"..g.. publicly declare/register that she is claiming ownership of the object).notes (pp. The Lockean Proviso can be interpreted in different ways. Moderate (or Lockean) right-libertarianism holds that that some kind of Lockean Proviso must be satisfied. he interprets it to require that no one be worse off in overall wellbeing with the appropriation than he/she would if the appropriation were not to take place (i. if the object were to remain in common use). Equal Share Left-Libertarianism—advocated by Steiner (1994)—holds that the proviso applies and requires that one leave an equally valuable share of unappropriated resources for others (and thus allows one to appropriate only up to one's per capita share of the value of unappropriated 7 .6 It's worth noting here that there is disagreement within libertarian theory concerning the right to appropriate unappropriated things.. The crucial question concerns the other requirement. or mix labor with an unowned object can thereby fully own it. because individuals don't have sufficient incentives to preserve the resource). but nothing significant is lost if we replace the labor-mixing requirement with the more general requirement that the individual stake a claim to the object in some appropriate manner (e. but interprets the proviso to be a weak requirement (e.
given that it requires that rewards match desert from past actions). The core idea is that if I have full property rights over a car (which includes the right to transfer these rights to others) and you and I each give our free and informed consent for those rights to be transferred to you. Nozick's version of the right to acquired unappropriated things is controversial. Equal Opportunity for Wellbeing Left-Libertarianism—advocated by Otsuka (2003) —holds that the proviso applies and requires that one leave enough for others so that they each have an opportunity for wellbeing that is at least as valuable as the opportunity for wellbeing that one acquires with the appropriation. those who are less smart. then those rights are transferred to you. This version of the proviso holds that those with less desirable internal endowments (e. We shall now briefly examine his famous Wilt Chamberlain argument for this claim. He further claims (pp. Nozick emphasizes that justice depends in part on what contractual agreements have been made and thus that no purely end-state (i. Nozick asks us to consider a hypothetical case in which resources are distributed in accordance with our preferred pattern (e.g..g.. and handsome) are permitted to appropriate more than those with more desirable internal endowments.. strong. Consider finally the fourth element in Nozick's libertarian theory of justice—the right of acquisition by transfer. be equality (which is not historical) or moral desert (which is historical.7 Even within libertarian theory. equality or in proportion to moral merit) and Wilt Chamberlain (a famous basketball star in the 1960s and early 1970s) signs a contract with his team according to which he gets 25 cents for each home-game ticket sold. 155-64) that the relevance of contractual agreements shows that no adequate theory of justice—even if historical—can be patterned in the sense of requiring (resources or wellbeing) to be distributed in accordance with some specified pattern of features.resources).e. non-historical) theory of justice can be adequate. for example. Because he plays so 8 . then. The pattern might.
This is an important argument. Consequently. the kind of patterned theory that Nozick was targeting. plausible. One 9 .g. the result must be just.well. the initial situation might include a very high head tax for him that would equalize opportunities for earnings8. he claims. the resulting situation must be just—given our assumption that the original one was. At the end of the season.000 and is much richer than everyone else. but there are several ways of resisting the conclusion. Wilt would thus be free to earn lots of money playing basketball. Nozick claims that such informed and free contractual agreements preserve justice in the sense that. and I shall mention two. equality or proportional to merit). the resulting situation will generally not be in accordance with the specified pattern (e. given (according to Nozick) that transfers of rights in conformance with free and informed contracts are just steps. since it only imposes the pattern on the initial situation and not on later situations. It is not. This would be a kind of historical patterned principle (initial equality opportunity for earnings) in which contractual agreements preserve justice. if the original situation was just. First. however. contractual agreements—and the rights to transfer and to acquire by transfer that make them possible—are incompatible with a patterned theory of justice.. if we stipulate that there were no other relevant influences. A second way of resisting Nozick's conclusion is to note that he presupposes that Wilt has full rights of acquisition by transfer. no patterned theory of justice is. no pattern can be maintained without unjustly restricting people's liberty. Justice. Nozick claims. the team owner freely agrees to this deal. Given that individuals surely have the right to engage in contractual agreements. The crucial point here is that. which preclude any taxation of transfers. Wilt has earned an extra $250. is procedural: if one starts with a just situation and applies just steps. Thus. but he would also have an enforceable duty to pay high taxes based on his earning power. Hence. then so is the situation that results from such agreements (and no other influences). if Wilt's initial earning power is significantly greater than that of others.
A state is legitimate just in case its use (via its agents) of force (and threat thereof) is typically morally permissible.9 In sum. provide a powerful case for thinking that an adequate theory of justice must be historical by being sensitive to what wrong-doings took place in the past and to what agreements were made. His discussion does. and Utopia: the possibility of a state being legitimate without the consent of all those governed. the issue is complex. however. then any coercive organization that claims a monopoly on the use of force is illegitimate. The argument for the legitimacy of the minimal state A state. recall. this will be significant indeed. If Nozick can answer the anarchist challenge and show that—even assuming initial full self-ownership—a state can be legitimate without the consent of all those governed.could. Thus. Obviously. however. quite puzzling how a state could be legitimate without the consent of all those governed—if one assumes (as Nozick's libertarianism does) that individuals initially fully own themselves. It is. 4. endorse less than full rights of acquisition by transfer. Nozick insightfully articulates and motivates a right-libertarian theory of justice. but he would know that they may generate a tax bill. however. State. If individuals do not lose those rights. but does not provide a systematic defense. according to certain consequentialist theories. There is no puzzle about how. Wilt would be free to make contracts. a state could be legitimate without the consent of those governed. 10 . and I am here merely flagging aspects of the argument that have been challenged. for a given territory. is a coercive organization that has. an effective monopoly on the use of force. Such rights protect holders from the use of force by others and give them rights to use force to protect those rights. We are now ready—finally—to turn to the central topic of Anarchy. and these could make transfers subject to whatever taxation is necessary to preserve the specified pattern.
to extract compensation when they do.e.Nozick offers an account of how.10 These rights include the right to enforce these rights by using force to stop others from violating those rights. and uses force against those who violate this dictate. others may assist in this enforcement. It would thus be natural for individuals to form mutual protection associations in which they commit to helping each other enforce their rights. Some individuals may be clients of smaller protection agencies and some may not be clients of any protection agency. There will be no violation of the rights of clients. a legitimate state could arise through an invisible hand process (i. The question is whether a dominant protection agency can have these features without violating anyone's rights. In a state of nature.g. It's important to note that not everyone in the given territory need be a (fee-paying) client of the dominant protection agency. In order for a dominant protection agency to be a state. and (3) it is the only organization or individual that is effective in this way. as we shall see below. they comply in part because it has so dictated).. Nozick argues. This means that (1) it prohibits everyone in the territory from using force in ways that it has not authorized. This could lead naturally to individuals hiring private protection agencies to enforce their rights. each individual fully owns herself and typically has other rights as well. it must have an effective monopoly on the use of force in its territory.11 With the consent of the right-holder. indeed a legitimate one.g. and this in turn could lead naturally (e. and perhaps to punish violators. starting from a state of nature.. (2) it is effective in getting individuals to comply with these prohibitions (e. without anyone intending this result) and without violating anyone's rights.. because of economic efficiencies) to there being a single dominant protection agency. We must consider both the rights of those who are clients of the dominant protection agency and the rights of those who are not. as long as their contracts with the 11 . that such a single dominant protection agency can be a state.
For example. then that agency may use force against anyone—even non-clients—who attempts to use unreliable or unfair enforcement mechanisms against its clients. Given that non-clients have not voluntarily given up their enforcement rights. The net result is that. we may thus suppose. Moreover.g. even though it does not make any claim to a de jure (i. There is no problem when the protection agency uses force to stop a non-client from wrongly applying his enforcement rights against an innocent client. for one). although the dominant protection agency does not claim any monopoly on the right to use force against those using unfair or unreliable enforcement mechanisms (since non-clients also have the same rights). or punish. Nozick claims that in a state of nature each individual has the right to use force to stop others from using unreliable or unfair enforcement mechanisms against herself. 12 . to prevent a rights violation. or punish me. such an arrangement will typically be efficient. Clients. I may use force to resist your attempt to forcibly extract compensation from me. to extract compensation. Here the non-client has no right to use force and is violating the client's rights. If each client transfers this right to the dominant protection agency. for a rights-violation that I did not commit. It claims something close to a de facto monopoly on the use of force. voluntarily give up their enforcement rights as part of the contract with their protection agency. in such a case.e. use force to resist being tried by a corrupt and biased jury that you hand-picked to assess whether I am guilty. Indeed.protection agency require them to transfer all their enforcement rights to the agency.. The problem arises when a non-client reliably and fairly applies appropriate force against a guilty client (e. only the dominant protection agency has the power to impose its own views on what is fair and reliable. I may also. this appears to be a violation of their rights. since it will reduce retaliation and counterretaliation between individuals.12 The difficult case concerns the dominant protection agency's enforced prohibition against the use of non-authorized force against its clients by non-clients.
Nozick argues that the dominant protection agency is not yet a state. because it does not protect everyone in its territory. but it can naturally evolve into one. let us grant this requirement and consider how Nozick believes it will be met. This is because not everyone need be a client of the dominant protection agency. which the agency has not authorized.as a matter of right) monopoly.13 Moreover. For the sake of argument. he claims. Nozick has an extremely interesting and important discussion of the issues that arise in this case. and those who are not clients are not protected. The problem arises when the prohibited enforcement procedure is merely risky in the sense that there is a less than certain chance that it will result in injustice. they would still seem to be states (although illegitimate ones). There is no problem with prohibiting them from using procedures that will definitely violate the rights of clients. The crucial issue for Nozick concerns the justness of the dominant protection agency prohibiting—with a threat of force—non-clients from using enforcement procedures. most have offered at least some protection. if a protection agency prohibits non-clients from using risky enforcement 13 . but. however. It's not clear to me that a coercive organization needs to protect all in a given territory in order to be a state. Many historical "states" have offered minimal protection to slaves and women. it has (and not merely claims) a something close to a de facto monopoly on the use of force. Of course. even if they offered no protection. The crucial problem concerns who counts as part of the "all". It is not a state. against clients. He argues roughly that it is permissible to prohibit risky activities where those activities would generate a general fear in the population even if it were known that compensation would always be provided to those whose rights were violated. It prohibits everyone in the territory—clients and non-clients— from using force against its clients except in accordance with its own rules. but we shall have to limit ourselves to the big picture. because the dominant protection agency effectively rules the territory. The crucial point here is that he further argues that.
14 Thus. however. the non-clients are free to decline those services. Of course. (Admittedly. After all. They may agree to pay certain fees (taxes) and give up their enforcement rights as part of such agreements. Nozick claims. as if he claims that his hypothetical account could justify an existing state not having that history. those who do not contract with the protection agency. So things are not perfectly clear in this regard. As Nozick emphasizes. it can. 82). See pp.) A more important issue concerns whether Nozick has indeed established that a state can arise without violating anyone's rights. Nozick sometimes writes. there is no violation of rights when individuals voluntarily contract with a protection agency. but given that those services also protect them against other non-clients. This is what he calls "the Principle of Compensation" (p. the hypothetical nature of his account is not a problem. and thus can be legitimate. something approaching universal protection will be achieved by the dominant protection agency.procedures. We shall now briefly review the key steps in this argument. arise without violating anyone's rights. Moreover. and has been interpreted. that is. it must compensate them for any disadvantage this imposes. The cheapest and most effective way of providing this compensation is to provide protection services to the non-clients at a reduced price (reduced by the amount of compensation owed). The mere fact that a state could be legitimate does little to show that any actual state is legitimate. The dominant protection agency will be a state. It would. One point to note is that Nozick's account of how a state could arise without violating anyone's rights does not establish that any existing state is legitimate. and the legitimacy of a state depends at least in part on how it actually arose. even moderate 14 . 292-294. Clearly. justice and legitimacy are historical. show that anarchism is mistaken to hold that no state can be legitimate without the consent of all those governed. Given that this is Nozick's focus. there will be a strong tendency to accept the protective services. The crucial question concerns nonclients.
then..g. Nozick further claims. Consider two examples: (1) Prior Restraint: Suppose that I am perfectly innocent of violating anyone's rights. and the agency 15 . Later I see you on the street with my wallet and after careful observation confirm that it is mine. I have a right (at least on the libertarian view) to use these enforcement procedures (of prior restraint and of restitution) and I violate no one's rights in using them. This seems mistaken. grab my wallet. I then gently strike your hand. the crucial issue is whether the dominant protection agency has enough information about my enforcement procedure to establish that it is reliable and fair. because of lack of information). I claim. Nozick argues that the dominant protection agency violates no one's rights when it prohibits— and uses force to stop—non-clients from using enforcement procedures that it deems unfair or unreliable (provided that it provides appropriate compensation). as long as appropriate compensation is paid? I claim that he is mistaken on this issue.. and you wrongfully attempt to rob me. The dominant protection agency will not deem my enforcement procedure reliable and fair (e.g. In both these cases. it may not prohibit my use of it. I shall now argue that is not so. 102-103). Nozick rightly claims. Suppose that I use the minimum force necessary to stop you and that this merely involves pushing you to the ground and running away. I am fully within my rights to use them. that the dominant protection agency may prohibit my enforcement procedure when the agency does not have enough information to establish that it is reliable and fair. as in the above examples). According to Nozick (pp. Suppose that my enforcement procedure is reliable and fair and that I am in fact applying it appropriately against a guilty party (e. but in this case it is. and run away.anarchists agree that a state can be legitimate if everyone it governs consents to its powers. If it does. however. (2) Restitution: Suppose that I am perfectly innocent of violating anyone's rights and that you have wrongfully robbed me of my wallet. Is Nozick correct that the dominant protection agency does not violate my rights if it prohibits me—as a non-client—from using these procedures.
Of course. as carefully as can reasonably be expected of anyone) (1) gather information about what enforcement procedures are reliable and fair. however. it will deem it morally permissible for it to use of force in response to it. as Nozick emphasizes. it is also so permitted on behalf of its clients. The crucial move that Nozick makes to answer this question is that. and. the protection agency has to act on the basis of its own judgements. the crucial question that Nozick addresses is how a state could be legitimate without the consent of all of those it governs. This remains true even if I am compensated for such interference. if it deems my enforcement procedures unreliable or unfair.g. In sum. that Nozick is mistaken that individuals and protection agencies violate no rights when they mistakenly use force to stop someone from using an enforcement procedure that is in fact fair and reliable. If this is so. I have suggested. as I have defined it. it violates the rights of those whose just enforcement procedures it prohibits—even if compensation is paid.. It could happen by chance.violates my rights if it uses force against me in response to my doing so. Where there is a single dominant protection agency representing individuals. however. Not all is lost. (2) approve all for which there is strong evidence that they are 16 . Nozick's argument for the possibility of a state arising without the consent of all and without violating rights succeeds only if the dominant protection agency approves of all enforcement procedures that are in fact reliable and fair. It may be enough to meet this test that the state scrupulously (e. Given the limitations of human knowledge. and thus. This allows that a state can be legitimate without being perfect. where it is. The legitimacy of the state. requires that the state's use of force be typically permissible. each individual is permitted (as long as appropriate compensation is paid) to use force to stop others from using enforcement procedures that he/she deems unfair or unreliable. The crucial point is that the agency may be mistaken. this is extremely unlikely. but it is not practically possible in the sense that we could reasonably ensure that it is so. prior to any contractual agreements.
fraud.e. and (3) be suitably cautious about using force against non-clients where the evidence is murky. need not be a night-watchman state. however. even if he does not show that a state could arise in practice without violating anyone's rights. The dominant protection agency can permissibly use force (even against non-clients) to ensure that individuals fulfill their duties (e. then none of the following state activities are legitimate: (1) promoting impersonal goods (i.g. (2) providing paternalistic protection (i. he equates the minimal state (which protects all natural rights) with the night-watchman state (which protects only the right-libertarian rights). a right to adequate nutrition or basic health care).g.. which is a state that restricts its activities to protecting the rights of its citizens.. If. then his argument. and breach of contract. A minimal state. individuals have more natural rights than right-libertarianism recognizes (e.. however.. Nozick's argument may well show that a state can be legitimate without the consent of all those governed. 5. that are intrinsically valuable for their own sake and not merely good for any individuals). which by definition restrict their activities to protecting their clients against having their rights violated. Thus. it establishes the possibility of the legitimacy of a minimal state. such as perhaps great art or cultural artifacts. If Nozick's argument succeeds.reliable and fair. protecting individuals against themselves. by prohibiting drug use or 17 . goods.. that nothing more than a night-watchman state can be legitimate. shows that more than a nightwatchman state can be legitimate. however. Because Nozick holds a rightlibertarian theory of justice. Nozick argues. If he is right. theft. if successful.e. The argument so far has concerned protection agencies.g. to provide adequate nutrition) to clients. The argument for the illegitimacy of the more than the night-watchman state. which (following Nozick) is a state that restricts its role to protecting its citizens against violence. e.
Of course. labor) or pay taxes (i. Nothing more extensive than the night-watchman state is justified on the right-libertarian view. it is usually because they believe the arts are good for at least some of the citizens.e. they have no duty to provide personal services (i. Somewhat more controversial is the idea that the state may not restrict people's freedom in order to protect them from themselves (i. and (4) promoting the wellbeing of all by overcoming market-failures (i.. The problem concerns non-clients. for the state to promote the arts.e..e. It would clearly violate the rights of non-clients to impose such requirements..15 The least controversial component of this view is probably the view that it is illegitimate for the state (or anyone) to coercively require individuals to provide aid for the promotion of impersonal goods (i.e. Nozick argues that nothing more than the night-watchman state is legitimate on the basis of his right-libertarian theory of justice. for the state to engage in paternalism). Moreover. This is perfectly legitimate (although few individuals may sign up for such services).g.. goods that are good in themselves. for example. the poor). Given that individuals typically fully own themselves and various external things. (3) aiding the disadvantaged (e. Although many people think that it is legitimate for the state to prohibit recreational drug use and to 18 .requiring retirement savings).. provide such services. It is relatively (but not completely) uncontroversial that coercion is not permissible merely to promote impersonal goods.e.. protection agencies might branch out. providing goods and services that the market cannot provide in a cost-effective manner). they have a right against others—including agents of the state—that they not be forced to provide such personal services or pay such taxes. and contractually require their clients to provide such personal services or pay fees for them. part with some of their wealth) for the above state activities. as opposed to good for individuals). Although many people think that it is legitimate.
Much more controversial is right-libertarianism's claim that it is illegitimate for the state to require individuals to provide aid to the disadvantaged. however. denies the legitimacy of such a role for the state. and health care. Of course. if drug use leads to crime and poor retired people are typically looked after by others. Of course. many people agree with right-libertarianism that such restrictions are illegitimate. The most controversial right-libertarian claim in this context is the claim that it is illegitimate for the state to provide goods and services that benefit everyone and that the market does not provide efficiently or effectively. then such regulations may protect citizens from the costs of other people's choices. shelter. be provided to young orphans and those severely disabled through no fault of their own. the legitimacy of the state requiring citizens to aid others depends on exactly on what is required. Right-libertarianism rejects even such minimal taxation for meeting the very basic needs of others. for example. would agree that it is legitimate to provide goods and services that make everyone better off than he/she would be without state provision. this is often at least in part to protect third parties. 19 . there is much controversy about which goods can be provided effectively by the market and about the role of the state in providing those that are not so provided. For example. The easiest case to defend is one where the state imposes only a small tax on those who are very rich and uses it to ensure merely that everyone has an adequate opportunity to obtain the most basic nutrition. however. Thus. part of the rationale for many seemingly paternalistic laws is the protection of the interests of others. Rightlibertarianism. but most people think that some such taxation is legitimate. Such aid might. The state should leave people free to live their lives as they choose as long as they are not violating the rights (or otherwise harming) others. Most people.require people to make payments to a retirement savings plan. When one considers purely paternalistic state restrictions.
and (2) make everyone's life better by providing goods and services that the market does not provide effectively. to pay for the military or court services).. however.g.It is important to note that the state can require citizens to provide aid for the above kinds of activities in two distinct ways. but most would reject the view that such rights are so strong that they preclude all forms of taxation. and (2) any state prohibition of activities that do not violate the rights or otherwise harm others. serve in the military or serve on a jury). One is to require citizens to provide personal services (e. Right-libertarianism's view that individuals can acquire full private property in external things—which rules out any taxation—is much more controversial. The personal freedom and security of full selfownership is much easier to defend than the freedom from taxation provided by full property rights in external things.g.. If this view is correct. Almost everyone agree that individuals can acquire robust private property in external things. The other is to require citizens to contribute money or other external resources (e. children and the severely disabled). right-libertarianism may be right that individuals fully own themselves and thus that it is illegitimate for the state to limit their freedom by requiring them to provide personal services for the above kinds of state activities.g. then more than the minimal night-watchman state is 20 . on relative weak ground in its rejection of the legitimacy of state taxation to (1) provide for the very basic needs of the most vulnerable members of society (e. we can say that right-libertarianism is on relatively firm ground in its rejection of the legitimacy of (1) any state requirement to provide personal services to promote a purely impersonal good. Right-libertarianism is. In sum. Putting all this together.. Right-libertarianism is on its firmest ground when it rejects the legitimacy of the state requiring personal services for the above activities and on its weakest ground when it rejects the legitimacy of the state requiring the payment of taxes to fund the above activities.
Conclusion Nozick's defense of the possibility of the legitimacy of the state assumes the rights of full selfownership (including enforcement rights). assumes rightlibertarianism's commitment to full property rights in external things.legitimate.16 21 . It rules out the possibility that individuals have an enforceable duty to pay any taxes to promote any social goals. Given that this view is subject to powerful objections. and this makes Nozick's task particularly easy. however. the significance of the second argument is very limited. and establishing the possibility of a legitimate state from such a starting point would be a significant result. This makes Nozick's task particularly difficult. Nozick's defense of the impossibility of the legitimacy of any state more extensive than the night-watchman state without the consent of all governed. 6.
Bibliography Daniel Attas. "The Justification of Political Authority. Mass. Property. Fried. The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press.. pp. A. Randy. Anarchy. Paul. Exploring Nozick (Aldershot: Avebury. David. Liberty. 2000. Vallentyne. 1995). Steiner.. and Markets: A Critique of Libertarianism (Burlington. "Wilt Chamberlain Revisited: 'Nozick's Justice in Transfer' and the Problem of Market-Based Distribution. Self-Ownership.: Harvard University Press. 2005). 1982). Jeffrey. VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. Cohen. 2000." Philosophy and Public Affairs 24 (1995): 226-245. Tibor. Libertarianism without Inequality (Oxford: Clarendon Press. A Theory of Justice (Cambridge. Peter. Robert Nozick (Stanford: Stanford University Press. Freedom. An Essay on Rights (Cambridge. ed. Miller. Peter. 10-33). eds. and Utopia (Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1974). ed. Machan. eds. Hailwood. Otsuka. Barnett. 1994). Nozick. New York: Palgrave Publishers Ltd. G. ed. New York: Palgrave Publishers Ltd. 1996). 22 ." in David Schmidtz. 1982). Simon. The Origins of Left Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings. Michael. Rawls. Vallentyne. MA: Blackwell Publishing. and Equality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. State. Barbara. Left Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate. and Utopia (New York: Basic Books. Robert Nozick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998). Hillel.. 2003). and Hillel Steiner. John. Wolff. Reading Nozick: Essays on Anarchy. The Libertarian Reader (Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield. and Hillel Steiner. State. Jonathan. 2002). 1971).A. Robert. 1991).
constrained by the rights of others in other things. see Vallentyne and Steiner (2000a. however. 6 In the text. His invocation and discussion of rights against violence (as well as theft and fraud) makes clear. however. 5 Locke also imposes a non-spoilage condition that limits one's property rights to what one can use prior to it spoiling. he does not typically use the term "self-ownership".1 Nozick initially (e. however. 2000b). Note also that full ownership of one's self or of a thing includes enforcement (rectification) rights and thus these rights need not be mentioned separately (as Nozick does). 9 See. 23) says that the state claims a monopoly on the use of force. and (2) as what we owe others. for example.. section 1. that he invokes full self-ownership. This appeal to a general practice/system. but Nozick does not invoke this condition. 7 For an introduction to left-libertarianism. 3 An owner's right to use a thing is. Authors have tended not to keep these three senses distinct. but he later (pp. Thus. I interpret Nozick as holding that a particular appropriation is just as long it leaves no one worse off than non-appropriation in that case. p. 7. Unlike most libertarian authors. Nozick sometimes writes. 117-18) modifies this to it having a de facto monopoly on the use of force.g. The point here is 8 simply that it can be part of a (historical) patterned principle that respects whatever valid contractual agreements people make. 4 Nozick lays out his theory of justice in Ch. does not fit well with Nozick's general libertarian framework. of course. 2 Two other uses of "justice" are (1) as distributive fairness. This latter approach factors in the benefits and costs of the appropriation of other things by other agents. as if the proviso is satisfied as long as the general practice/system of appropriation leaves no one worse off than he/she would be if everything were to remain in the common use. my right to use the baseball bat that I fully own does not permit me to smash your car with it. for example. A head tax on earning power is of course incompatible with full self-ownership. and I here ignore it. . Fried (1995) and various essays in Cohen (1995).
I shall therefore typically focus on those two enforcement rights. Roughly. 11 Nozick assumes that there is a right to punish. because it does not prohibit the use of force by non-clients against non-clients. 14 It's worth noting that. Otherwise.. the story involves everyone selling shares in .10 It's important to note that Nozick's argument for the possible legitimacy of the state assumes full self-ownership but does not assume any of the other right-libertarian property rights (in external things). then there is a sense in which the legitimacy of the resulting state is grounded in a kind of consent. however. 15. They might simply refuse to offer any protection after authorized self-enforcement is used by a client. 12 On p. In what follows. because it limits losses of self-ownership to what is necessary to prevent or compensate rights violations). the agency would not claim a monopoly on the use of force. I believe that a plausible version of libertarianism will not include such a right (e. as long as one person does rejects the offer of protective services at a reduced rate. In this case.g. if the argument is successful. it's not entirely clear that the scenario rebuts moderate anarchism. he assumes that all enforcement rights have been transferred to the agency. be rebutted. but. Still. but the points extend to punishment as well. 15 Nozick does provide an account in Ch. The crucial issue concerns the use of force against a person. When he discusses the dominant protection agency. moderate anarchism will. It will instead limit the use of force to prior restraint and compensation extraction. Nozick notes that protection agencies might not require clients to transfer over all enforcement rights. if all non-clients accept the protective services at the reduced rates. Nozick seems to be assuming that the state only needs to claim something close to a de facto monopoly on the use of force. following Barnett (1998). 13 The dominant protection agency does not literally claim a de facto monopoly on the use of force. Thus. 9 (Demoktesis) of how something like the extensive modern democratic state could arise and be legitimate.
Alan Tomhave. they then collectively decide on how the country will be run. This is not a counterexample to Nozick's claim that no state more extensive than the nightwatchman state can be legitimate without the consent of all governed. Eric Heidenreich. As shareholders. Hillel Steiner. and Jo Wolff.g. Brian Kierland.. . Mike Otsuka. since in this case everyone consents. John Shand. for efficiency reasons) everyone has one share in each person and each thing. Eric Roark. Jon Trerise. 16 For helpful comments. I thank Dani Attas.themselves and their property so that eventually (e. The critical issue—which Nozick discusses but does not resolve—concerns how those who have not so consented—such as people born later—are to be handled.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.


text:
|Publication number
|Publication type
|Application number
|Publication date
|Jan 4, 1977
|Filing date
|Mar 27, 1975
|Priority date
|Mar 27, 1975
|Publication number
|Arthur C. Reiger, Jr.
|Original Assignee
|The Globe Tool And Engineering Company
|Export Citation
|BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
|Patent Citations (9), Referenced by (39), Classifications (19), Legal Events (1)
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a method and apparatus for terminating the wire leads emanating from the field coils of a wound stator for an electric motor. More particularly, the invention relates to a method and apparatus for anchoring the leads to retainer members which support the leads so that the field coils cannot dewind or loosen and which also support the leads at a conveniently accessible position for making electrical connections thereto.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Prior art lead termination techniques applicable to the stators of electric motors appear in the following U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,331,562, 3,725,707, 3,555,316, 3,780,323, 3,551,713, 3,861,026, 3,551,715 Reissued Patent 25,281.
The foregoing patents illustrate various techniques such as crimping, clamping and encapsulation for anchoring the lead wires emanating from wound field coils in a fashion that will prevent loosening or dewinding of the coil and will render the lead terminations accessible for making electrical connections to the lead terminations.
In the present invention the manner of accomplishing a lead termination has been simplified and rendered particularly suitable for automated processes by the placement of wire retainers adjacent the stator core, such wire retainers having posts projecting therefrom, by supporting the lead wires emanating from wound stator coils in positions at which the wire pass closely adjacent the aforementioned posts, by passing hollow needles or cannulas telescopically over the posts, such cannulas having hook portions for engaging the wires passing closely adjacent the posts and by rotating the cannulas in appropriate directions to cause the hook portions thereon to engage the wires and with continued rotation to wrap or wind the wires about the posts.
In the drawings:
FIG. 1 is a fragmentary perspective view illustrating the support of a stator and lead wires emanating therefrom preliminarily to lead termination in accordance with the present invention.
FIG. 2 is an enlarged fragmentary elevation view further illustrating the stator prior to lead termination in accordance with the present invention.
FIG. 3 is a fragmentary elevation view with portions broken away of apparatus utilized in producing lead termination in accordance with the present invention.
FIG. 4 is an enlarged fragmentary section view taken in the direction of the line 4--4 of FIG. 3.
FIG. 5 is a fragmentary end elevation view of the lead termination mechanism of FIG. 3.
FIG. 6 is a section view taken substantially along the line 6--6 of FIG. 4.
FIG. 7 is an enlarged and fragmentary section view taken along the line 7--7 of FIG. 5.
FIG. 8 is a fragmentary elevation view illustrating the manner in which hollow needles or cannulas wind lead termination wires in accordance with the present invention.
FIG. 9 illustrates the manner of winding termination wires at a later stage.
FIG. 10 illustrates the winding of lead termination wires at a still later stage.
FIG. 11 is a fragmentary elevation view illustrating a fully wound termination winding.
FIG. 12 illustrates a modification in which the termination wire is of greater diameter.
FIG. 13 schematically shows a cutting operation performed on the modification.
FIG. 1 fragmentarily illustrates one stage of a multi-stage production line for producing stators for electric motors. The structure fragmentarily illustrated comprises a turret mechanism 10 which is indexed about the axis of a shaft 11. The turret mechanism 10 includes jaws 14 and 16 between which a stator 12 having field coils 18 and 20 already wound thereon is supported. The body of the stator can be seen to comprise laminated plates 13 which produce an annular flux-carrying body. At the production stage illustrated, the stator 12 is only partially complete and lacks terminal connections by which electrical energy would ordinarily be supplied to the field coils.
As appears in FIG. 2, a number of operations leading toward completion of the stator have already been performed. Thus the field coils 18 and 20 have already been wound, and before such coils were wound conventional insulators 22 were inserted in slots formed between the annular body of the stator and inwardly projecting pole members 24, the coils 18 and 20 having been laid into said slots and wound over the insulators 22. Also, in a preceding manufacturing step, insulating elements 26 were mounted between the insulators 22 so as to be supported by the stator in face-contacting relation to the outermost laminated plate 13 comprising the body of the stator 12. It will be noted that the elements 26 lie adjacent the pole pieces 24 in the body of the stator. The insulating pieces 26 are preferably molded plastic pieces and were molded so as to have upstanding sockets 27 projecting therefrom. As best shown in FIG. 8, the sockets 27 project outwardly from the pieces 26 in a direction generally perpendicular to and outwardly from the body of the stator 12. Prior to the time the coils 18 and 20 were wound, metal posts 28 were press-fitted into the sockets 27 so as to also project normal to and outwardly from the body of the stator. The posts 28, which will serve as wire retainers in accordance with the present invention, are each insulated from the body of the stator by a thickness of the plastic piece 26 underlying the socket 27 into which the post has been press-fitted.
Also, in a prior production stage, after the coils 18 and 20 were wound, start and finish leads 32a, 32b, 32c and 32d to the coils were gripped by suitable clamps 30 as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. In such prior operating stage, the two ends of the single wires forming each of the coils 18 and 20 were cut a convenient space from each of the clamps 30 to produce the wire configuration illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2.
It can be seen that the clamps 30 are so positioned with respect to the posts 28 that the start and finish wires or leads of each of the coils 18 and 20 bear outwardly against a post 28.
The present invention is concerned with a manner in which the start and finish leads from the coils 18 and 20 can be attached to the posts 28 adjacent thereto with a minimum of physical labor and a maximum of production reliability.
As appears in FIG. 1, a cylindrical housing 40 supports a mechanism including four hollow needles, herein termed cannulas, only three of which labeled 42a, 42b and 42c appear in FIG. 1. The needles are arranged in a rectangular array, and the fourth needle does not appear because concealed by the housing 40. The housing 40 is so supported that the housing 40 can be advanced to the left as it appears in FIG. 1 to advance the four cannulas projecting therefrom to positions in which the cannulas fit telescopically over the aforementioned posts 28 in the manner appearing in FIG. 8.
The housing 40 and numerous elements associated therewith are more particularly illustrated in FIGS. 3 through 7. Referring to FIG. 3, the housing 40 has an enlarged wall portion 44 disposed to the right of the housing 40 as it appears in FIG. 3. This enlarged wall portion 44, which may be rectangular, is mounted by means of a gusset plate 46 to a frame portion 48. Spaced from the frame portion 48 by spacer bars 50 is a parallel frame member 52 to which cylinders 54 interiorly lined with ballbearings 56 have been affixed as by welding. The cylinders 54 are coaxially disposed in pairs (only one pair visible in the drawings) to receive ballbearing rods 58 (only one rod appearing in the drawings) passing through the cylinders 54 and cooperating with the cylinders to confine the aforementioned ballbearings 56.
The rods 58 are fixedly mounted between supporting plates 60 and 62, which cooperate with the rods 58 to form a stationary support assembly for the frame member 48 and 52, which can be described as a movable carriage.
As is well known, the ballbearings 56 permit the carriage to slide axially along the rods 58 with a minimum of friction.
Welded to the frame member 52 is a plate 53 which has been apertured to receive a cylinder rod or plunger 64, the plunger 64 being anchored to the plate 53. The plunger 64 is part of a conventional piston mechanism 65 which may be either pneumatically or hydraulically actuated to advance the carriage along the rods 58, thus to advance the aforementioned needles or cannulas to a position in which the needles telescopically encircle the aforementioned posts 28.
Attached to the frame member 48 by means of a supporting block 66 is a generally rectangular cage 70. Affixed to the cage 70 is an air motor 80 having respective inlet and outlet ports 81 and 83 to which appropriate hoses, not shown, are connected. The air motor 80, which is of conventional design, operates to apply a torque to a threaded shaft 82 which traverses the cage 70. The air motor is a reversible motor whose direction of operation is controlled by conventional control circuitry to accomplished the purposes to be described.
Threadedly engaged to the shaft 82 is a traveling, interiorly threaded nut 84 having an outwardly projecting slide member 86. The slide member 86 is trapped between spaced apart guide plates 88 which are affixed to the cage 70 and extend between end plates 90 and 92. Collars 94 and 96 encircle reduced diameter unthreaded extensions of the threaded shaft 82. Both of the collars 94 and 96 are anchored to the staft 82 by transversely extending dowel pins 98 and 100.
Referring to the right end of the shaft 82 as it appears in FIG. 7, the shaft receives bearing support within the end plate 92 by means of a sleeve bearing 102. The collar 94, being pinned to the shaft 82, rotates with the shaft 82 and has an outwardly projecting lug or dog 104 adapted to butt against an abutment 106 formed integrally on the nut 84. Bearing in mind that the nut 84 is restrained against rotation and the collar 94 is permitted to rotate, a rotation of the shaft 82 in the proper direction would advance the nut 84 toward the collar 94 until such time as the abutment 106 butts against the lug 104. This assures a positive and repeatable position of the shaft 82 at which the air motor 80 is caused to stall.
When the shaft 82 is rotated in the reverse direction by the air motor 80, the traveling nut 84 is caused to travel in the leftward direction as it appears in FIG. 7 until such time as an abutment 108 on the nut 84 engages a lug 110 projecting radially outwardly from the collar 96. Such engagement between the abutment 108 and the lug 110 again provides a positive stopping position at which the air motor 80 is stalled.
The foregoing features associated with the cage 70 enable the shaft 82 to execute a fixed number of rotations about its own axis in causing the nut 84 to traverse between the fixed limits established by the lugs 104 and 110. The nut 84 with its abutments 106 and 108 thus cooperates with the shaft 82 and its attached collars 94 and 96 having the lugs 104 and 110, respectively, as a rotation control means.
As appears in FIG. 7, the shaft 82 has a cylindrical end recess 112 traversed by a drive pin 114 and adapted for interlocking engagement to the slotted end 116 of a shaft 118, which is to be driven by the rotary movements of the shaft 82. Affixed concentrically to the shaft 118 is a driving gear 120 engaged to diametrically disposed driven gears 122 and 124, such engagement best shown in FIG. 6. The driven gears 122 and 124 have secondary driven gears 126 and 128 affixed in adjacent relation thereto as appears in FIG. 6. The secondary gears 126 and 128 are sized to mesh with tertiary driven gears 130 and 132.
As appears in FIG. 6, the driven gears 122, 124, 130 and 132 form a cluster of four gears assembled about the driving gear 120. Due to the arrangement of the gears, the gears 122 and 124, both of which are directly driven by the driving gear 120, will rotate in the same direction. Thus if the driving gear is rotating in the counterclockwise direction as it appears in FIG. 6, each of the driven gears 122 and 124 will rotate about their respective axes in the clockwise direction. The driven gears 130 and 132, being tertiary gears driven by the secondary gears 126 and 128, will rotate in an opposite direction, i.e., counterclockwise direction, about their respective axes. Thus if the aforementioned gears 122 and 124 are both rotating clockwise about their respective axes, the tertiary gears 130 and 132 will be driven equiangularly, but counterclockwise, about their respective axes.
As appears in FIG. 7, the gears 124 and 128, which are assembled adjacently for rotation about a common axis, are secured by a threaded fastener 134 to a hollow, internally threaded transmission shaft 136 supported by bearings 138 and 140 within the housing 40. The transmission shaft 136 is traversed by a dowel pin 142, which also traverses a bifurcation in a driven shaft 144. There is thus a direct torque transmission from the driving gear 120 through the driven gear 128 to the shaft 144. In similar fashion, each of the other gears 122, 130 and 132 are drivingly affixed to bifurcated output shafts analogous to the shaft 144. Due to the bifurcations in the shafts 144, each shaft 144 is free to slide axially in its transmission shaft.
Each of the several output shafts, all of which are equivalent to the shaft identified by the reference number 144, has one of the cannulas previously described by the reference numbers 42a, 42b and 42c fixed to a reduced end of the shaft by means of a set screw 146. The cannulas 42a, 42b, 42c and 42d appear in an end view in FIG. 5. Each of the cannulas has a recessed channel encircling the cannula to interfit a notched corner 150 formed in a caging plate 152, which assures that the four shafts 144 will travel axially in unison. The caging plate 152 has a generally rectangular shape in plan view as it appears in FIG. 5 and has it corners partially removed to provide for the notched corners identified with the reference number 150. The caging plate 152 has a centrally disposed and integrally formed socket 154, which slideably receives a bushing 156 having an enlarged shoulder 158. The bushing 156 is internally threaded to receive a threaded shaft 160. The shaft 160 enters the housing 40 where the shaft is enlarged to form a shoulder 162 effective for trapping a bearing 164. The shaft 160 continues in reduced diameter through the bearing 164 to threadedly engage within an internally threaded bore 166 located in the shaft 118 to which the driving gear 120 is integrally attached. The shaft 118 receives bearing support from the aforementioned bearing 164 and a second bearing 170 spaced from the bearing 164. The two bearings 164 and 170 are spaced apart by a sleeve 172, which encircles the shaft 118 between the bearings 164 and 170, the bearing 170 being trapped between the sleeve 172 and a shoulder 174 formed on the shaft 118. The shaft 118 is keyed to the shaft 160 by a dowel pin 180, which passes through the aforementioned sleeve 172. As a consequence of the foregoing construction, it can be noted that the shaft 160 is positively driven rotationally so as to follow the rotary movements of the shaft 82, but is restrained from any axial movements.
Referring to the description of the shaft 82 and the nut 84 which travels thereon, it will be recalled that the shaft 82 has a fixed number of revolutions permitted in one direction of its rotation and an equal number of opposite revolutions permitted in the opposite direction of its rotation. Due to the presence of the dowel pins 114 and 180, this same number of revolutions in either direction is transmitted to the shaft 160.
The bushing 156 is keyed in the socket 154 by a rectangular cross-section. The aforementioned caging member 152 is keyed to the needles 42a, 42b, 42c and 42d so as not to rotate about its own axis. Accordingly, the rotary movements of the shaft 160 threadedly engaged to the bushing 156 cause the bushing 156 to travel axially either toward the housing 40 or away from the housing 40, depending upon the direction of rotation imparted to the shaft 160. It will be noted, however, that the axial movements of the bushing 156 are not necessarily transmitted to the caging member 152 due to the sliding connection therebetween.
Press-fitted into the left-hand face 182 of the housing 40 are a pair of shafts 184. The shafts 184 are disposed on diametrically opposite sides of the threaded shaft 160 and are spaced outwardly from such shaft. Referring to FIG. 4, each of the shafts 184 is threaded at its outer end to threadedly support a collar member 186. Formed integrally with the caging member 152 are socket members 188, which cooperate with the collars 186 to entrap compression springs 190 encircling the shafts 184. Sleeve bearings 192 press-fitted in the socket members 188 assure that the caging member 152 will have relatively frictionless axial travel on the shafts 184. Fitted on each shaft 184 between the housing 40 and the caging member 152 is a tubular spacer 194.
Accordingly, there are two of the shafts 184 press-fitted in the end face 182 of the housing 40 on diametrically opposite sides of the shaft 160; and each of the shafts 184 is assembled with a collar 186 and a spring 190 coacting with a socket portion 188 of the caging member 152 to bias the caging member toward the housing 40; and each of the shafts 184 is also surrounded by a spacer 194.
It can be noted in FIG. 4 that the compression springs 190, only one of which appears in FIG. 4, act to bias the caging member 152 toward the housing 40 but are limited in such effort by the shoulder 158 formed on the bushing 156, which is threadedly engaged to the shaft 160. As a practical consequence, the springs 190 act always to bias the caging member 152 toward the housing 40, but the ultimate advance of the caging member 152 toward the housing 40 is limited usually by the shoulder 158 located on the bushing 156.
It will be noted, however, that the spacers 194 provide a positive limit to the advance of the caging member 152 toward the housing 40, such limit occurring when the socket portions 188 of the caging member 152 contact the spacers 194 disposed on diametrically opposite sides of the shaft 160. It will be noted also that when this positive stop comes into play, a continued rotation of the shaft 160 such as would allow an advance of the bushing 156 toward the housing 40 will not interfere with such positive stop.
Directing attention to the cannulas 42a, 42b, 42c and 42d, each of which as already described is affixed to a separate shaft 144, it will be noted in FIG. 8 that the cannulas, which are tubular, are tapered axially to forward noses 196 and each have a somewhat helical slit 198 axially traversing the forward nose 196. The end face 200 of the nose 196 is also helically shaped between the leading and trailing edges of the slit 198, with the consequence that the end face 200 forms a hook 202 at the leading edge of the slit 198 which is axially spaced on the trailing edge 204 of the slit 198. Placed in FIG. 9 is an arrow 206 which illustrates the direction of rotation that will be imparted to the cannula 42b there illustrated for accomplishing purposes of the present invention.
This direction of rotation corresponds to the direction of rotation shown in FIG. 2 for a wrapping motion of the lead wire 32b about the post 28, which is immediately adjacent the lead wire. Such direction of rotary motion is accordingly the direction of rotary motion that must be imparted to the driven gear 122 illustrated from an opposite direction in FIG. 6. Thus the assembly of gears illustrated in FIG. 6 is so arranged as to drive the driven gear 122 in the clockwise direction as it appears in FIG. 6. Inasmuch as the driven gear 122 is meshed with the previously described driving gear 120, it follows that the driving gear 120 should be rotated in the counterclockwise direction as it appears in FIG. 6 to achieve the direction of winding for the lead wire 32b indicated in FIG. 2. It will be noted, of course, that when the driving gear 120 is being rotated in the counterclockwise direction, the indicated directions of rotation for wrapping each of the wires 32a, 32b, 32c and 32d, as indicated in FIG. 2, are achieved. Of course, it will be understood that the cannulas for wrapping the wires 32b and 32c will be formed as indicated in FIGS. 8 and 9. The cannulas for wrapping the wires 32a and 32d will be similarly formed to the cannula 42b illustrated in FIGS. 8 and 9 but will be designed for rotation in the opposite direction. Thus the end face 200 for such cannulas, as well as the helically formed slit 198 for such cannulas, will be formed oppositely (helical formation but pitched in the opposite direction) so as to produce a hook suitable for hooking a wire such as the wire 32a shown in FIG. 2 by a clockwise rotation of the cannulas.
As a starting condition, one can assume that the traveling nut 84 is to the far left as it appears in FIG. 7. One can further assume that the threads of the traveling nut 84 and of the shaft 82 are so slanted that when the shaft 82 is rotated to advance the traveling nut 84 to the right as it appears in FIG. 7, the drive gear 120, which is directly driven by the shaft 82, will be rotated in the clockwise direction as it appears in FIG. 6. The threads engaging the shaft 160, which is directly driven by the shaft 82, and the threads of the bushing 156 will be slanted similarly to those of the shaft 82 so as to cause the bushing 156 to approach the housing 40 at the same time the traveling nut 84 recedes from the housing 40. Thus as all the cannulas 42a, 42b, 42c and 42d are being rotated in the preferred directions indicated in FIG. 3, thus to wind the lead wires onto their adjacent posts over which the cannulas are telescoped, the bushing 156 is being drawn toward the housing 40 thus to allow the springs 190 to advance the caging member 152 as it appears in FIG. 4 toward the housing 40, thus to draw the cannulas away from the stator 12. It will be noted, however, that the cannulas 42a-d, while positively rotated, are not being positively driven axially away from the stator 12. Rather, the bushing 156 is being positively driven away from the stator 12 and the springs 190 are biasing the caging member 152 and thus the cannulas 42a-d away from the stator 12 at whatever speed will be accommodated by the general helical winding of the leads 32a-d onto the posts 28. Obviously, by an appropriate selection of the pitches for the threads on the shafts 82 and 160, together with compatible pitches for the traveling nut 84 and the threads in the bushing 156, a permissible rate of travel for the bushing 156 can be established wherein the motion of the bushing 156 toward the housing 40 can suitably accommodate a uniform winding of the lead wires about the posts 28.
More particularly, it is preferred in the practice of the present invention that the threads on the shaft 160 pull the bushing 156 toward the housing 40 at substantially the same rate as closely spaced convolutions of the lead wires are formed about the posts 28, at least during the initial wrapping of the wire about the posts.
The spacers 194 are so sized with respect to the posts 28 that when the buildup of lead wire wrapped about each of the posts reaches the end of each of the posts the socket members 188 associated with the caging member 152 will bottom against the spacers 194, thus to prevent a further approach of the caging member 152 toward the housing 40. When such bottoming occurs, it is preferred with fine wire that the traveling nut 84 has not yet reached the end of its travel and, accordingly, the shafts 82 and 160 will continue to rotate. The wire 32b is pulled out of the clamp 30 as the cannula 42b continues to rotate. Depending upon the composition of the wire being wound and the stiffness of the wire, the continued rotation of the cannula 42b is found most typically to cause a clean breakage of the wire adjacent the end of the post 28. If breakage does not occur, a pigtail formation such as illustrated at 208 in FIG. 11 forms due to the continued rotation of the cannula. With heavy wire, it is preferred that only a few turns of wire are wrapped onto the posts.
Whether the wires break or not, the air motor 80 ultimately causes the nut 84 to reach the limit of its travel to the right as it appears in FIG. 7. It will be understood, however, that the nut 84 does not actually reach the end of the cage 70. Rather, the nut 84 is restrained from further rotation as it approaches the right end of the cage 70 by reason of the abutment 104 engaging the lug 106 located on the collar 94. Since the collar 94 is fixed to the shaft 82 and the nut 84 is positively restrained from rotation, the engagement of the lug 106 by the abutment 104 brings about an abrupt termination of the rotary movement of the shaft 82 by stalling the air motor 80. For the same reasons, all rotation of the gears driven by the drive gear 120 is terminated and all rotation of the cannulas 42a-d is also terminated.
The actuator cylinder 65 is next energized to draw the carriage frame 48, 52 to the right as it appears in FIG. 3, thus disengaging the stator 12 by drawing the cannulas 42a-d away from the posts 28 being encircled thereby. When the cannulas are withdrawn the slit 198 in each of the cannulas allows the cannulas to freely slide off the wire theretofore being wrapped, it being unimportant whether pigtail formation had caused such wire to break. Should the wire have not broken at a convenient location, the pigtailed wires are severed by any suitable shearing device so as to cleanly cut any loose wire from the stator 12, thus leaving the stator 12 with outwardly extending posts surrounded by wire for later engagement in any suitable fashion by a means to supply electrical power to the wires remaining on the posts.
During a convenient idle time in the machine operating cycle, a supply of air to the air motor 80 is reversed causing the air motor to rotate the shaft 82 in a direction which will cause the nut 84 to travel to the left as it appears in FIG. 3. As the nut travels to the left, the rotation of the air motor 80 is ultimately interrupted by engagement of the abutment 108 on the nut 84 with the lug 110 on the collar 96. During such reverse motion of the nut 84, the cannulas 42a-d are also reversely rotated, but this poses no problem since the wires previously hooked by the cannulas have been separated from the cannulas.
An important feature of the present invention is that when the abutment 108 engages the lug 110, the cannula 42a-d have been returned to a precise starting positions which will enable the hooks 202 on each of the cannulas to engage new wires 32a-d located on a new stator in a favorable manner. To more particularly illustrate such favorable manner, it is important that the hooks 202 on the cannulas are initially located immediately adjacent the respective wires 32a-d where only a few degrees of rotation such as 20� of rotation will cause the hook to engage the wire in the manner illustrated in FIG. 8. This is a condition which is preliminarily satisfied by adjustment of the set screws 146 to set the cannulas 42a-c to the appropriate starting angles before a production run is commenced.
FIGS. 8, 9 and 10 progressively illustrate the buildup of convolutions of the lead termination wire 32b on a post 28. The orderly arrangement of adjacent convolutions is promoted in accordance with the present invention by an appropriate selection of the pitch for the threads in the threaded shaft 140, thus to cause the bushing 156 to advance to the right as it appears in FIG. 7 at a rate which allows the springs 190 to move the caging member 152 to the right as appears in FIG. 7 at a speed which is sufficient to allow a smooth layering of the coil wire being terminated. It will be understood that while the cannula 42b is being specifically illustrated, the other cannulas 42a, 42c and 42d will layer the wire in a similar fashion although, of course, the cannulas 42a and 42d will be rotated in an opposite direction.
While the present invention has been described as producing a smooth layering of the lead wires being terminated at the posts 28, it will be understood that the pitch of the threads in the shaft 140 is subject to considerable variation without departure from the scope of the present invention. Thus it is unimportant whether the successive convolutions of the lead wire being terminated lie immediately adjacent one another as shown or are spaced apart in a looser type of winding.
As shown in FIG. 11, the traverse of the cannulas may carry the lead wires being wound on the posts 28 beyond the ends of the posts where the lead wires may form pigtails 208 for reasons previously described.
FIG. 12 illustrates the winding of a wire 210 about a post 212, and it can be noted that the wire 210 is substantially larger in diameter in relation to the post 212 than was the case with the wire 32b in relation to the diameter of the post 28. FIG. 12 thus illustrates that by appropriate sizing of the cannulas heretofore described, the pitch in the threads of the shaft 140 and, if necessary, the diameter of the posts on which the wires are to be wound, the principles of the present invention may be applied to a wide variety of wire and post sizes.
When winding a wire having a relatively large diameter such as illustrated in FIG. 12, a pigtailing which would cause the wire to break will rarely occur; and it is uniformly necessary to sever the ends of the wires being terminated as illustrated in FIG. 13 by the broken line 214. Such severance of the wires being terminated is conveniently accomplished with a wire cutting or snipping tool which is sturdy enough to simultaneously sever both the post 212 and the wire 210, thus providing a clean termination of both the wire and the post at any convenient location along the length of the post.
Although the preferred embodiments of this invention have been described, it will be understood that various changes may be made within the scope of the appended claims.
|Cited Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Nov 29, 1954
|Oct 7, 1958
|Bell Telephone Labor Inc
|Multiple spindle wire wrapping tool
|Oct 15, 1954
|Apr 28, 1959
|Bruno New York Ind Corp
|Wire twisting tool
|May 7, 1962
|Mar 3, 1964
|Western Electric Co
|Apparatus for connecting wire conductors to terminals
|Apr 29, 1964
|Sep 24, 1968
|Joseph S. Gebbia
|Preassembled piano strings with tuning pin or pins attached and method of manufacture
|Nov 29, 1966
|May 13, 1969
|Western Electric Co
|Twin bit wire wrapping tool
|Sep 6, 1968
|Jan 5, 1971
|Western Electric Co
|Hand wire wrapping tool with an orientation and cam feature
|Dec 20, 1971
|Jul 24, 1973
|Globe Tool Eng Co
|Wire handling method and apparatus with multiple function cam actuator
|Sep 25, 1972
|Feb 18, 1975
|Dorsey Ted C
|Wire wrap tool
|Aug 10, 1973
|Sep 9, 1975
|Post Office
|Wire wrapping apparatus
|Citing Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Nov 14, 1983
|Nov 19, 1985
|Micafil Ag
|Method for connecting the ends of stator windings to the stator supply terminals
|May 29, 1985
|Mar 10, 1987
|Industra Products, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for positioning and transferring stator coil leads
|Jan 31, 1986
|Feb 9, 1988
|Industra Products, Inc.
|Apparatus and method for transferring coil leads from a partially assembled stator to a lead finishing assembly
|Feb 6, 1989
|Nov 13, 1990
|Axis S.P.A.
|Machine for winding two-pole stators
|Aug 9, 1990
|Mar 5, 1991
|Axis Usa, Inc.
|Methods and apparatus for producing stators with coil terminations at both ends
|Aug 1, 1990
|Nov 19, 1991
|Axis, U.S.A., Inc.
|Apparatus for connecting stator coil leads
|Sep 10, 1990
|Sep 22, 1992
|Axis S.P.A.
|Machine for winding two-pole stators
|Dec 12, 1990
|Mar 16, 1993
|Axis Usa, Inc.
|Two-wire stator winding machine
|Dec 17, 1991
|Aug 10, 1993
|Axis U.S.A., Inc.
|Method and apparatus for connecting intermediate stator coil leads
|Aug 1, 1991
|Sep 21, 1993
|Axis U.S.A., Inc.
|Apparatus for connecting stator coil leads
|Feb 25, 1993
|Mar 8, 1994
|Axis Usa, Inc.
|Methods and apparatus for processing stators
|Jul 9, 1992
|May 31, 1994
|Axis S.P.A.
|Machine for winding two-pole stators
|Dec 21, 1992
|Aug 30, 1994
|Axis Usa, Inc.
|Two-wire stator winding machine
|May 25, 1993
|Nov 8, 1994
|Axis U.S.A., Inc.
|Methods for connecting intermediate stator coil leads
|Nov 5, 1993
|Dec 6, 1994
|Globe Products Inc.
|Stator winding method and apparatus
|Feb 15, 1994
|Jan 24, 1995
|Axis S.P.A.
|Machine and method for winding two-pole stators
|Aug 24, 1993
|Feb 28, 1995
|Axis U.S.A., Inc.
|Methods for connecting stator coil leads
|Oct 25, 1993
|Apr 25, 1995
|Wound electric-motor stator
|Dec 5, 1994
|Aug 27, 1996
|Globe Products Inc.
|Stator winding apparatus
|Jun 7, 1995
|Oct 1, 1996
|Glove Products Inc.
|Stator winding method
|Jun 7, 1995
|Apr 8, 1997
|Globe Products Inc.
|Stator winding apparatus
|Dec 9, 1996
|Jun 16, 1998
|Globe Products Inc.
|Stator manufacturing method
|Feb 24, 1998
|Sep 7, 1999
|Globe Products Inc.
|Stator manufacturing method and apparatus
|Oct 28, 1997
|Sep 14, 1999
|Globe Products Inc.
|Stator coil lead termination method and apparatus
|Jun 15, 1998
|Jul 25, 2000
|Globe Products Inc.
|Stator manufacturing method
|Sep 18, 1998
|Aug 29, 2000
|Globe Products Inc.
|Stator coil finish lead positioning
|May 31, 1995
|Jul 31, 2001
|Globe Products Inc.
|Stator winding method and apparatus
|May 22, 2013
|Nov 25, 2014
|Atop S.P.A.
|Method for terminating leads of plural wires in dynamo electric machine core
|May 22, 2013
|Jan 2, 2014
|Atop S.P.A.
|Method and apparatus for terminating leads of plural wires in dynamo electric machine core
|Oct 21, 1981
|Sep 16, 1982
|Micafil Ag
|Vorrichtung zum verbinden der wicklungsenden mit den anschlussklemmen von statoren elektrischer maschinen und ein verfahren zum betrieb derselben
|Feb 3, 1986
|Dec 3, 1986
|Advanced Machine & Tool Corporation
|Method and apparatus for positioning and transferring stator coil leads
|Feb 3, 1989
|Sep 13, 1989
|AXIS S.p.A.
|Machine for winding two pole stators
|May 7, 1991
|Nov 27, 1991
|AXIS S.p.A.
|Method and apparatus for connecting intermediate stator coil leads
|Jul 22, 1991
|Feb 5, 1992
|AXIS S.p.A.
|Methods and apparatus for connecting stator coil leads
|Nov 24, 1993
|Jun 22, 1994
|Wound stator of an electric motor
|Jul 3, 1998
|Apr 5, 2000
|Otto Rist
|Device for producing coils or coil groups for electric motors, generators or similar
|Nov 14, 2008
|May 20, 2009
|Tubular actuator for a home automation screen and method of assembling it
|Jul 3, 1998
|Jan 21, 1999
|Otto Rist
|Device for producing coils or coil groups for electric motors, generators or similar
|Jul 3, 1998
|Aug 5, 1999
|Otto Rist
|Device for producing coils or coil groups for electric motors, generators or similar
|U.S. Classification
|140/113, 140/124, 242/439.2, 29/596, 242/432.4, 29/736
|International Classification
|Cooperative Classification
|European Classification
|Aug 7, 1989
Owner name: STATOMAT-GLOBE, INC.
Free format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:GLOBE TOOL & ENGINEERING COMPANY;REEL/FRAME:005243/0001
Effective date: 19850923

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Free TrialVersion: demo Buy Now 50% OFF
Exambible are committed to our customer's success. Our products are created with utmost care and professionalism. We utilize the experience and knowledge of a team of industry professionals from leading organizations all over the world.
Exambible HP0-920 dumps are the completely real original braindumps, which are researched and produced by only certified subject matter experts, and corrected by multiple times before publishing.
We guarantee your success in the first attempt, If you do not pass the HP HP0-920 exam (HP Storage Data Protector 6.0 Fundamentals for UNIX) on your first attempt using our Exambible testing engine, we will give you a FULL REFUND of your purchasing fee.
To all the customers buy the Royal Pack, we provide track service.If you buy the Royal Pack within one year. you can enjoy free update. If in this period, the certified test center change the HP0-920 dumps, we will send the latest version to you in time.
We provide package contains two version, one is HP0-920 Questions & Answers (Printable Version), and the other is HP0-920 Practice Test (Testing Engine). We are the only vendor who offers two versions without charge any other fees.
Over 3 Million Satisfied Customer and Counting...
"You can expect to get certified very quickly if you work with the HP0-920 test questions". This is what I was told three weeks ago and, I don't know about you, but I am extremely skeptical about everything, especially about promotional messages. I answered "No way!" and changed the subject. Time was passing by, the exam was just around the corner and I still wasn't able to master all the requirements. So apparently those HP0-920 dumps were my last chance. I tried them and realized that was what I needed. This is by far the best study material I've ever used.
The comprehensive HP HP Certification exam questions and answers diminished my confusion. They helped me prepare for the HP Certification HP0-920 actual test. Finally, I had scored 92% marks. Only by using the HP Certification HP0-920 exam prep package could I pass the HP HP Certification HP0-920 exam.
exambible.com has made things really simple and easy for me. I could have never thought IT concepts could be so simple to comprehend. The study material and laboratories, that I followed after the practice test exercise for the HP0-920 exam, has earned greatly for me. The reason I scored high marks on my exam is because I followed the guide provided by exambible.com. Thank you so much !!!
The only method of preparation I involved myself in prior to the HP0-920 exam was learning from the questions and answers guide that I got from exambible.com. I was thrilled to see my marks after the HP HP0-920 assessment as it proved that my decision of grabbing hold of this study tool was right after all. I did use to worry sometimes that I might not be able to fare very well at the exam by only studying with the Q&A manual, but thankfully I did score well. The HP0-920 Q&A manual guided me a lot on how to answer the questions at the exam.
Yesterday I passed my HP0-920 exam and what a relief. Thanks a million for this website and its great products. I am scheduled to take my next exam in one months time and will continue using your products to guarantee my success! Thanks so much exambible.com.
Right from the very beginning of my exam preparation, exambible.com impressed me with its efficient, professionally chosen material which helped me to get ready for my IT specialist exam and brought me the results I was looking for. I needed an effective method of getting my HP0-920 exam in the shortest time but to read plenty of books I had no time. Plus I wanted something unique to improve my knowledge. exambible.com gave me all of these results I needed, unique info, time-save, my certification, my success! Thanks for such great product!


text:
Crazy Substitute Teachers
Enjoy, NG4.05 / 5.00 1,382 Views
Vacuum Salesman
This dude and his Megazord vacuum cleaner3.97 / 5.00 2,382 Views
Markiplier Animated | Mark Of The Survey Corps
This took far too long to make...3.93 / 5.00 3,598 Views
i love every part I LOVE THE TECHNO MUSIC I NEED THE FULL VERSIONS OF EVERY YTMND TECHNO SONG or just that one at the end of BFC emo
Good work on this stuff man, I remember some of them from there original Dailytoons. I especially liked the "BFC is Emo" flash, it was great.
Graphics: You do great work, everything runs real smooth too.
Audio: It ranged from the most emo song of all time to inaudible screams of a sad piconjo face. Kudos to you
Keep up the swell work
That was a swell drawling of me.
I am emo... :/
very well done,not much diffrent then all other daily flash today,but still a good flash....
Just a couple things...
Well, one specifically - for the pictures, it'd be nice to have a button to go back through them if you missed one, eh?
Otherwise some funny stuff with pretty good graphics!


text:
With press days for the Detroit Auto Show now behind us, our focus is shifting eastwards. Make that Far East, as the tuners have rolled in for the Tokyo Auto Salon, where Nissan performance tuning arm Nismo has taken on its third compact and given it an attitude adjustment.
- Volvo shoots for self-drivers by 2021
- Jeep spends $1 billion on factories
- Find Parts & Accessories for your vehicle!
- Obama rolls out new EV plan
- Infiniti dealers ranked best, Tesla worst
- Compare Volvo XC90 and Lincoln MKX


text:
Skydiving.com has been linking up people who are looking to skydive with premier sky diving providers throughout the nation for several years! We are excited to serve Hecla, along with the whole entire state of South Dakota. If you are wanting to skydive in the future, give us a call right away at 1-800-617-7948 so one of our team members may reserve your jump for you. Wanting to skydive outside of Brown County? No trouble! Like we stated, we have network affiliated destinations across the whole entire state of South Dakota, in addition to the whole United States. Just grab the telephone and give us a ring!
Each year, loads of people young and old coming out of South Dakota reach out to Skydiving.com in order to carry out their initial skydiving trip around Hecla. We focus to service everyone trying to skydive within the whole entire Country. Having tons of venues throughout the country, there really is zero doubt that Skydiving.com provides the most significant amount of skydiving network partners! The primary step to enjoy the remarkable world of sky diving is to contact us at 1-800-617-7948 and enable one of our helpful team representatives get you on your way! This is unquestionably a special adventure which you would recollect for the remainder of your life, so what exactly are you waiting for?


text:
- ON THE RIGHT: Harmonious regional growth is possible Read More
- ON THE LEFT: Competitiveness a recipe for growth Read More
- Teenage fast bowler in WI Test squad Read More
- Reshuffle the team Read More
- EDITORIAL: Need to revisit Crop Over Read More
- AWRIGHT DEN!: Benefits of travelling Read More
- Kaiso queens Read More
Brownie packs from Trinity Academy and St Winifred's School assembled in the living room of the Bromswood Retirement Home yesterday to spread some Christmas cheer. To conclude their activities for this year, the 38 Brownies sang carols for the enjoyment of the seniors who reside at the facility. Brownie pack leader Marcia Marshall said that the students also collected non-perishable food items for a hamper that they presented to the residents. Marshall said that every year the Brownies tried to visit a facility as an outreach project. Manager of the Bromswood Retirement Home, Maraline Sobers, said the seniors were very appreciative of the children's visit. (LK)


text:
A Nightmare on Elm Street 5 - The Dream Child Reviews
Top Critic
Jonathan Rosenbaum
Chicago Reader
Chicago Reader
April 5, 2010
The series here takes a depressing nosedive into zero-degree filmmaking.
Top Critic
Variety Staff
March 26, 2009
Fifth edition of the hit Nightmare series is a poorly constructed special effects showcase.
Top Critic
Time Out
January 26, 2006
A flimsily plotted but visually impressive addition to the endless Freddy Krueger saga.
Top Critic
Caryn James
New York Times
New York Times
August 30, 2004
A genre film that won't totally insult your intelligence or your eyes.
| Original Score: 3/5
Top Critic
Richard Harrington
Washington Post
Washington Post
January 1, 2000
As for Englund, he still looks as if he's been working at Domino's too long, and he still sounds as if he's stealing his material from Don Rickles.


text:
I have an enormous amount of respect and admiration for Walter Becker and Donald Fagan as songwriters, arrangers and musicians. Steely Dan's output in the 70's is simply innovative, legendary and noteworthy within the movement of modern popular music.
So, I'm curious to see what others on here think of their output and would like to discuss some of their albums. The main 3 favorites of mine are Countdown to Ecstasy, which to me, defines the core sound of the original band that included Jim Hodder, Skunk Baxter and Denny Dias, and expands on the debut Can't Buy a Thrill most convincingly.
Pretzel Logic, the next album, has a little more variedness within the group's repetoire with East St. Louis Toodle-Oo, Through with Buzz and Charlie Freak which add different sides to the group and also would prove to be the last true effort in as far as the core band remaining as a live entity.
Aja is perhaps, Becker and Fagan's peak within their songcrafts and arrangements, as well as having the "creme de le creme" of session musicians within their midst whom were totally repsonsible in the shaping of the material presented.
Fire Away.....
Recent discussions in the Music forum
|Latest Post
|Song Game - Part III
|27 minutes ago
|Parquet Courts' Human Perfromance - anyone want to talk about it?
|32 minutes ago
|What's your favorite Pink Floyd song?
|38 minutes ago
|Musical Diary
|42 minutes ago
|More fascinating threads. It's amazing this place (forum) is still open. How about we....
|49 minutes ago
|★The Music of Our Lives 6.3★
|51 minutes ago
|If you could hang out with any band or artist, who would it be?
|56 minutes ago
|Real bad albums with some absolute cracker songs so good you had to buy
|2 hours ago
|What Are You Listening To? (Volume Four)
|2 hours ago
|Songs that Tell a Story
|2 hours ago
|Pepper or Abbey : Which is the more iconic album cover?
|2 hours ago
|Best Guitarist of All Time
|3 hours ago


text:
Saturday, 23 July 2016
Last updated 13 hours ago
Oct 31 2013 | 11:25am ET
Balyasny Asset Management plans to reopen its funds to new investment next year, no doubt hoping that some of the billions leaving SAC Capital Advisors will find their way to Chicago.
The firm told investors that its funds, which have closed to new investment over the past two years, would reopen in the first quarter, ValueWalk reports. Balyasny cited an improving opportunity set for the move.
It did not mention the difficulties facing its rival SAC, or that Citadel Investment Group is preparing to close its flagship funds to new investments. But it did say it is looking to add to its headcount—and Balyasny has already hired some traders fleeing scandal-tarred SAC, which is expected to plead guilty to insider-trading charges and become a family office.
Balyasny said in its quarterly letter that it is hiring in Asia, commodities, Eastern Europe, macro, telecommunications, media and technology, and healthcare. The firm said it is up 7.02% through September and has added 1.9% this month through Oct. 28.
Jul 8 2016 | 7:01pm ET
Recent market volatility has investors seeking greater insight into alternative...
Jul 7 2016 | 10:47pm ET
A portfolio manager for Louis Bacon's $15 billion hedge fund Moore Capital Management...
Jul 22 2016 | 8:44pm ET
When the press reports extraordinarily strong relative or risk-adjusted returns...