Science has become the fulcrum of all developments both good and bad for the past two centuries. Becoming an engineer is not just being part of the periphery of the scientific community but being a bridge between the scientific community (findings, developments etc.,) and the society.

for example we are more like patrons(users) of the library of science, picking and choosing what we want to study. Computer science, civil, mechanical and other branches are not just books inside this library, they are sections which hold thousands of titles. These titles contain laws, theories, systems, protocols, designs, samples, and ways to create, control and manage systems etc.  Engineers are more like people who pick something of the shelf of this library understand these principles and laws etc., experiment with them, combine or use them and develop a system or product which aids in practical application. Engineers can be given different names like problem solvers, system creators, and maintainers of systems. What is fundamentally essential to be able to understand things better is to keep asking questions like What? Why? How? And the answers to these questions are 99% of the time logical, rationale and testable.

The university gives out degrees to students who they believe have gained a fair understanding of their respective disciplines in engineering. But more than half or 70% students have no clue why they are studying engineering and which department to choose, because most of the decisions are guided either by their cohorts or parents, rather than the student deciding on his/her own interest.

Another practice is decisions based on market demands, this was a very good way of choosing what to study in the early 1990’s when the demand was more than availability of engineers. Now companies have to choose from a large pool of engineers, and no company would want to hire someone who is not the best because like all individuals the company’s goal is to constantly improve upon what they already have. So the industry has resorted to range of selections methods and criterion’s to select exceptional and good candidates to work for them. What does any company look for in candidates while recruiting?

-          Consistent performance!!

-          Problem solving & Analytical skills.

-          Communication skills.

-          Expected level of knowledge about the relevant engineering stream.

-          Willing to constantly learn new things & active participation.

Consistent Performance

I personally don’t agree to this criterion, but as mentioned earlier companies have a large pool of engineers to choose from so they are entitled to decide what’s best for them. Recruiters require marks scored in 10^th and 12^th standard to check for consistency, and some even go to the extent of stating that the candidate should have never had an arrear history etc., The best thing to do about this to improve on whatever you have got previously rather than thinking about how high or low you scored in the past. Your resume and application provides these details to the recruiters. (imagine you need to select someone in your team, who would you select someone who has scored 40-45 runs in all matches or someone who has scored 2 centuries, 5 ducks and ten scores of 15-20).

Problem solving & Analytical skills – why do you need it?

At work you will come across problems that are complex and needs solutions, for example you might deal with writing a program or developing a solution to a problem. So employers look for people who can do it fast and get it right, you have logical reasoning tests conducted by recruiters to find out your ability to deal with a problem and provide logical solutions. Analytical skills in simple terms mean how you analyse and reflect upon the situation and provide multiple perspectives to the same. Practising problems are the only way to improve on these skills. (agarwal & co, sample questions etc.,)

Communication skills

You might be good at solving problems and analysing, but what use is it to the organisation if you are dumb or mute?? Communication is the key to put forward ideas and resolving problems. How do you improve this aspect? Reading, writing and watching “English movies, documentaries, discovery, Natgeo”....most importantly speaking to others in English “when you can, not all the time!!”, Recruiters use group discussions and interviews to gauge your communication skills.

Expected level of knowledge

Organisations do not expect you to be thorough in all aspects of your field of study, but they expect some understanding and basic knowledge on your area of interest, recruiters gauge this criterion in the interview based upon your application or resume.

Willing to constantly learn and active participation

This is the last criterion that recruiters look for in a candidate, how willing are you to constantly learn? How do you update your knowledge? How adaptive you are? Also recruiters are interested in your extracurricular activities? Participation in seminars, paper presentations etc., the objective behind this is to know what other things you do other than your studies?    

The reason behind writing all this was, no one told me about all this when I studied!! Or I never asked anyone about these things. To better understand use word web or dictionary to clarify on what the article says. So if recruiters expect certain elements in candidates they are selecting, it’s better to assess one’s own strength’s and weaknesses and start developing areas that needs improvement. But this not a stage by stage process each and every element has to be addressed at the same time.

The most important of them all is to have no arrears when you complete your third year. It does not matter in which college you study, if you are not able to match the criteria of the recruiters you are not going to be selected. Even if you study in Harvard or Cambridge or IIT’s  the naryana murthy’s and azim premji’s are not going to come knocking on your door and present you with an offer letter and pay you every month. The institution that you study in can only guide, nurture and sign post things for you to do.  You need to walk the path. In simple terms there is no such place as heaven where others do everything and you can be happy and enjoy. God would never create such a place he has better things to do. The apple won’t fall of the tree and come running to your mouth. But being in a college does not mean just studying, getting selected by an organisation, there are other things like making friends for life, having fun, learning, helping others, getting helped, etc., but know your priorities, be aware. 

"The secret of getting ahead is getting started" - Mark Twain.

“A mentor is someone who allows you to see the hope inside yourself.” says Oprah Winfrey

Wi-Fi

Wi-Fi (pronounced /ˈwaɪfaɪ/) is a trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance that may be used with certified products that belong to a class of wireless local area network (WLAN) devices based on the IEEE 802.11 standards. Because of the close relationship with its underlying standard, the term Wi-Fi is often used as a synonym for IEEE 802.11 technology.^[1][2]

The Wi-Fi Alliance is a global, non-profit association of companies that promotes WLAN technology and certifies products if they conform to certain standards of interoperability. Not every IEEE 802.11-compliant device is submitted for certification to the Wi-Fi Alliance, sometimes because of costs associated with the certification process and the lack of the Wi-Fi logo does not imply a device is incompatible with Wi-Fi devices.

Today, an IEEE 802.11 device is installed in many personal computers, video game consoles, smartphones, printers, and other peripherals, and virtually all laptop or palm-sized computers.

Common consumer-quality Wi-Fi access point

 Uses

 Internet access

A roof mounted Wi-Fi antenna

A Wi-Fi enabled device such as a personal computer, video game console, mobile phone, MP3 player or personal digital assistant can connect to the Internet when within range of a wireless network connected to the Internet. The coverage of one or more interconnected access points — called a hotspot — can comprise an area as small as a few rooms or as large as many square miles covered by a group of access points with overlapping coverage. Wi-Fi technology has been used in wireless mesh networks, for example, in London.^[3]

In addition to private use in homes and offices, Wi-Fi can provide public access at Wi-Fi hotspots provided either free of charge or to subscribers to various commercial services. Organizations and businesses such as airports, hotels and restaurants often provide free hotspots to attract or assist clients. Enthusiasts or authorities who wish to provide services or even to promote business in selected areas sometimes provide free Wi-Fi access. As of 2008^[update] there are more than 300 metropolitan-wide Wi-Fi (Muni-Fi) projects in progress.^[4] There were 879 Wi-Fi based Wireless Internet service providers in the Czech Republic as of May 2008.^[5][6]

Routers that incorporate a digital subscriber line modem or a cable modem and a Wi-Fi access point, often set up in homes and other premises, provide Internet-access and internetworking to all devices connected (wirelessly or by cable) to them. One can also connect Wi-Fi devices in ad hoc mode for client-to-client connections without a router. Wi-Fi also enables places that would traditionally not have network to be connected, for example bathrooms, kitchens and garden sheds.

Airport Wi-Fi

In September of 2003, Pittsburgh International Airport became the first airport to allow and offer free Wi-Fi throughout its terminal.^[7] It is now commonplace.

City-wide Wi-Fi

A municipal wireless antenna in Minneapolis

In the early 2000s, many cities around the world announced plans for a city wide Wi-Fi network. This proved to be much more difficult than their promoters initially envisioned with the result that most of these projects were either canceled or placed on indefinite hold. A few were successful, for example in 2005, Sunnyvale, California became the first city in the United States to offer city wide free Wi-Fi.^[8] Few of the Municipal Wi-Fi firms have now entered into the field of Smart grid networks.^{[9][clarification needed]}

Campus-wide Wi-Fi

Carnegie Mellon University built the first wireless Internet network in the world at their Pittsburgh campus in 1994, long before the Wi-Fi standard was adopted.^[10]

Direct computer-to-computer communications

Wi-Fi also allows communications directly from one computer to another without the involvement of an access point. This is called the ad-hoc mode of Wi-Fi transmission. This wireless ad-hoc network mode has proven popular with multiplayer handheld game consoles, such as the Nintendo DS, digital cameras, and other consumer electronics devices. A similar method is a new specification called Wi-Fi Direct which is promoted by the Wi-Fi Alliance for file transfers and media sharing through a new discovery and security methodology.^[11]

Future directions

As of 2010^[update] Wi-Fi technology had spread widely within business and industrial sites. In business environments, just like other environments, increasing the number of Wi-Fi access-points provides redundancy, support for fast roaming and increased overall network-capacity by using more channels or by defining smaller cells. Wi-Fi enables wireless voice-applications (VoWLAN or WVOIP). Over the years, Wi-Fi implementations have moved toward "thin" access-points, with more of the network intelligence housed in a centralized network appliance, relegating individual access-points to the role of mere "dumb" radios. Outdoor applications may utilize true mesh topologies. As of 2007 Wi-Fi installations can provide a secure computer networking gateway, firewall, DHCP server, intrusion detection system, and other functions.

 History

Wi-Fi uses both single-carrier direct-sequence spread spectrum radio technology (part of the larger family of spread spectrum systems) and multi-carrier orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) radio technology. The deregulation of certain radio-frequencies for unlicensed spread spectrum deployment enabled the development of Wi-Fi products, its onetime competitor HomeRF, Bluetooth, and many other products such as some types of cordless telephones.

Unlicensed spread spectrum was first made available in the US by the FCC in rules adopted on May 9, 1985^[12] and these FCC regulations were later copied with some changes in many other countries enabling use of this technology in all major countries. The FCC action was proposed by Michael Marcus of the FCC staff in 1980 and the subsequent regulatory action took 5 more years. It was part of a broader proposal to allow civil use of spread spectrum technology and was opposed at the time by mainstream equipment manufacturers and many radio system operators.^[13]

Half-size ISA 2.4 GHz WaveLAN card by AT&T

The precursor to Wi-Fi was invented in 1991 by NCR Corporation/AT&T (later Lucent Technologies & Agere Systems) in Nieuwegein, the Netherlands. It was initially intended for cashier systems; the first wireless products were brought on the market under the name WaveLAN with speeds of 1 Mbit/s to 2 Mbit/s. Vic Hayes, who held the chair of IEEE 802.11 for 10 years and has been named the "father of Wi-Fi," was involved in designing standards such as IEEE 802.11b, and 802.11a.

Key portions of the IEEE 802.11 technology underlying Wi-Fi (in its a, g, and n varieties) were determined to be infringing on U.S. Patent 5,487,069, which was filed in 1993^[14] by CSIRO, an Australian research body. The patent has been the subject of protracted and ongoing legal battles between CSIRO and major IT corporations. In 2009, the CSIRO settled with 14 companies, including Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Dell, Toshiba, ASUS, Microsoft and Nintendo, under confidential terms. The revenue arising from these settlements to October 2009 is approximately AU$200 million. ^{[15][16][17][18][19][20]}

Europe leads overall in uptake of wireless-phone technology but the US leads in Wi-Fi systems partly because they lead in laptop usage. As of July 2005, there were at least 68,643 Wi-Fi locations worldwide, a majority in the US, then the UK and Germany. The US and Western Europe make up about 80% of the worldwide Wi-Fi users. Plans are underway in areas of the US to provide public Wi-Fi coverage as a public free service. Even with these large numbers and more expansion, the extent of actual Wi-Fi usage is lower than expected. Jupiter Research found that only 15% of people have used Wi-Fi and only 6% in a public place.^[21]

Wi-Fi certification

Wi-Fi technology is based on IEEE 802.11 standards. The IEEE develops and publishes these standards, but does not test equipment for compliance with them. The non-profit Wi-Fi Alliance was formed in 1999 to fill this void — to establish and enforce standards for interoperability and backward compatibility, and to promote wireless local area network technology. Today the Wi-Fi Alliance consists of more than 300 companies from around the world.^[22][23] Manufacturers with membership in the Wi-Fi Alliance, whose products pass the certification process, are permitted to mark those products with the Wi-Fi logo.

Specifically, the certification process requires conformance to the IEEE 802.11 radio standards, the WPA and WPA2 security standards, and the EAP authentication standard. Certification may optionally include tests of IEEE 802.11 draft standards, interaction with cellular phone technology in converged devices, and features relating to security set-up, multimedia, and power saving.^[24]

The Wi-Fi name

The term Wi-Fi suggests Wireless Fidelity, compared with the long-established audio equipment certification term High Fidelity or Hi-Fi. Wireless Fidelity has often been used, even by the Wi-Fi Alliance itself in its press releases^[25][26] and documents;^[27][28] the term may also be found in a white paper on Wi-Fi from ITAA.^[29] However, based on Phil Belanger's^[30] statement, the term Wi-Fi was never supposed to mean anything at all.^[31][32]

The term Wi-Fi, first used commercially in August 1999,^[33] was coined by a brand consulting firm called Interbrand Corporation that had been hired by the Alliance to determine a name that was "a little catchier than 'IEEE 802.11b Direct Sequence'."^[34][31][32] Mr Belanger also said, Interbrand invented Wi-Fi as a play on words with Hi-Fi, and also created the yin yang-style Wi-Fi logo. The term Wireless Fidelity was used later as an explanation of what Wi-Fi means.

The Wi-Fi Alliance initially used an advertising slogan for Wi-Fi, "The Standard for Wireless Fidelity",^[31] but later removed the phrase from their marketing. Despite this, some documents from the Alliance dated 2003 and 2004 still contain the term Wireless Fidelity.^[27][28] There was also no official statement for dropping the term.

The yin yang logo indicates that a product had been certified for interoperability.^[27]

Advantages and challenges

A keychain size Wi-Fi detector.

Operational advantages

Wi-Fi allows local area networks (LANs) to be deployed without wires for client devices, typically reducing the costs of network deployment and expansion. Spaces where cables cannot be run, such as outdoor areas and historical buildings, can host wireless LANs.

Wireless network adapters are now built into most laptops. The price of chipsets for Wi-Fi continues to drop, making it an economical networking option included in even more devices. Wi-Fi has become widespread in corporate infrastructures.

Different competitive brands of access points and client network interfaces are inter-operable at a basic level of service. Products designated as "Wi-Fi Certified" by the Wi-Fi Alliance are backwards compatible. Wi-Fi is a global set of standards. Unlike mobile phones, any standard Wi-Fi device will work anywhere in the world.

Wi-Fi is widely available in more than 220,000 public hotspots and tens of millions of homes and corporate and university campuses worldwide.^[35] The current version of Wi-Fi Protected Access encryption (WPA2) is considered secure, provided a strong passphrase is used. New protocols for Quality of Service (WMM) make Wi-Fi more suitable for latency-sensitive applications (such as voice and video), and power saving mechanisms (WMM Power Save) improve battery operation.

Limitations

Spectrum assignments and operational limitations are not consistent worldwide. Most of Europe allows for an additional 2 channels beyond those permitted in the U.S. for the 2.4 GHz band. (1–13 vs. 1–11); Japan has one more on top of that (1–14). Europe, as of 2007, was essentially homogeneous in this respect. A very confusing aspect is the fact that a Wi-Fi signal actually occupies five channels in the 2.4 GHz band resulting in only three non-overlapped channels in the U.S.: 1, 6, 11, and three or four in Europe: 1, 5, 9, 13 can be used if all the equipment on a specific area can be guaranteed not to use 802.11b at all, even as fallback or beacon. Equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) in the EU is limited to 20 dBm (100 mW).

Reach

Large satellite dish modified for long-range Wi-Fi communications in Venezuela

Wi-Fi networks have limited range. A typical wireless router using 802.11b or 802.11g with a stock antenna might have a range of 32 m (120 ft) indoors and 95 m (300 ft) outdoors. The new IEEE 802.11n however, can exceed that range by more than double.^{[citation needed]} Range also varies with frequency band. Wi-Fi in the 2.4 GHz frequency block has slightly better range than Wi-Fi in the 5 GHz frequency block. Outdoor ranges - through use of directional antennas - can be improved with antennas located several kilometres or more from their base. In general, the maximum amount of power that a Wi-Fi device can transmit is limited by local regulations, such as FCC Part 15^[36] in USA.

Wi-Fi performance decreases roughly quadratically^{[citation needed]} as distance increases at constant radiation levels.

Due to reach requirements for wireless LAN applications, power consumption is fairly high compared to some other standards. Technologies such as Bluetooth, that are designed to support wireless PAN applications, provide a much shorter propagation range of <10m (ref. e.g. IEEE Std. 802.15.4 section 1.2 scope) and so in general have a lower power consumption. Other low-power technologies such as ZigBee have fairly long range, but much lower data rate. The high power consumption of Wi-Fi makes battery life a concern for mobile devices.

A number of "no new wires" technologies have been developed to provide alternatives to Wi-Fi for applications in which Wi-Fi's indoor range is not adequate and where installing new wires (such as CAT-5) is not possible or cost-effective. One example is the ITU-T G.hn standard for high speed Local area networks using existing home wiring (coaxial cables, phone lines and power lines). Although G.hn does not provide some of the advantages of Wi-Fi (such as mobility or outdoor use), it's designed for applications (such as IPTV distribution) where indoor range is more important than mobility.

Due to the complex nature of radio propagation at typical Wi-Fi frequencies, particularly the effects of signal reflection off trees and buildings, Wi-Fi signal strength can only be predicted generally for any given area in relation to a transmitter.^[37] This effect does not apply equally to long-range Wi-Fi, since longer links typically operate from towers that broadcast above the surrounding foliage.

Mobility

Speed vs. Mobility of wireless systems: Wi-Fi, HSPA, UMTS, GSM

Because of the very limited practical range of Wi-Fi, mobile use is essentially confined to such applications as inventory taking machines in warehouses or retail spaces, barcode reading devices at check-out stands or receiving / shipping stations. Mobile use of Wi-Fi over wider ranges is limited to move, use, as for instance in an automobile moving from one hotspot to another (known as Wardriving). Other wireless technologies are more suitable as illustrated in the graphic.

Data security risks

The most common wireless encryption standard, Wired Equivalent Privacy or WEP, has been shown to be easily breakable even when correctly configured. Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA and WPA2) encryption, which became available in devices in 2003, aimed to solve this problem. Wi-Fi access points typically default to an encryption-free (open) mode. Novice users benefit from a zero-configuration device that works out of the box, but this default is without any wireless security enabled, providing open wireless access to their LAN. To turn security on requires the user to configure the device, usually via a software graphical user interface (GUI). Wi-Fi networks that are unencrypted can be monitored and data (including personal information) may be recorded, but may be protected by other means, such as a virtual private network or by secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTPS) and Transport Layer Security.

Population

Many 2.4 GHz 802.11b and 802.11g access points default to the same channel on initial startup, contributing to congestion on certain channels. To change the channel of operation for an access point requires the user to configure the device.

 Channel pollution

Standardization is a process driven by market forces. Interoperability issues between non-Wi-Fi brands or proprietary deviations from the standard can still disrupt connections or lower throughput speeds on all users' devices that are within range, to include the non-Wi-Fi or proprietary product. Moreover, the usage of the ISM band in the 2.45 GHz range is also common to Bluetooth, WPAN-CSS, ZigBee and any new system will take its share.

Wi-Fi pollution, or an excessive number of access points in the area, especially on the same or neighboring channel, can prevent access and interfere with the use of other access points by others, caused by overlapping channels in the 802.11g/b spectrum, as well as with decreased signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) between access points. This can be a problem in high-density areas, such as large apartment complexes or office buildings with many Wi-Fi access points. Additionally, other devices use the 2.4 GHz band: microwave ovens, security cameras, ZigBee devices, Bluetooth devices and (in some countries) Amateur radio, video senders, cordless phones and baby monitors, all of which can cause significant additional interference. It is also an issue when municipalities,^[38] or other large entities such as universities, seek to provide large area coverage. This openness is also important to the success and widespread use of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi.

Hardware

 Standard devices

An embedded RouterBoard 112 with U.FL-RSMA pigtail and R52 mini PCI Wi-Fi card widely used by wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) in the Czech Republic.

OSBRiDGE 3GN - 802.11n Access Point and UMTS/GSM Gateway in one device.

USB wireless adapter

A wireless access point (WAP) connects a group of wireless devices to an adjacent wired LAN. An access point is similar to a network hub, relaying data between connected wireless devices in addition to a (usually) single connected wired device, most often an ethernet hub or switch, allowing wireless devices to communicate with other wired devices.

Wireless adapters allow devices to connect to a wireless network. These adapters connect to devices using various external or internal interconnects such as PCI, miniPCI, USB, ExpressCard, Cardbus and PC Card. Most newer laptop computers are equipped with internal adapters. Internal cards are generally more difficult to install.

Wireless routers integrate a Wireless Access Point, ethernet switch, and internal Router firmware application that provides IP Routing, NAT, and DNS forwarding through an integrated WAN interface. A wireless router allows wired and wireless ethernet LAN devices to connect to a (usually) single WAN device such as cable modem or DSL modem. A wireless router allows all three devices, mainly the access point and router, to be configured through one central utility. This utility is usually an integrated web server that is accessible to wired and wireless LAN clients and often optionally to WAN clients. This utility may also be an application that is run on a desktop computer such as Apple's AirPort.

Wireless network bridges connect a wired network to a wireless network. This is different from an access point in the sense that an access point connects wireless devices to a wired network at the data-link layer. Two wireless bridges may be used to connect two wired networks over a wireless link, useful in situations where a wired connection may be unavailable, such as between two separate homes.

Wireless range extenders or wireless repeaters can extend the range of an existing wireless network. Range extenders can be strategically placed to elongate a signal area or allow for the signal area to reach around barriers such as those created in L-shaped corridors. Wireless devices connected through repeaters will suffer from an increased latency for each hop. Additionally, a wireless device connected to any of the repeaters in the chain will have a throughput that is limited by the weakest link between the two nodes in the chain from which the connection originates to where the connection ends.

Distance records

Electronics portal

Distance records (using non-standard devices) include 382 km (237 mi) in June 2007, held by Ermanno Pietrosemoli and EsLaRed of Venezuela, transferring about 3 MB of data between mountain tops of El Aguila and Platillon.^[39][40] The Swedish Space Agency transferred data 310 km (193 mi), using 6 watt amplifiers to reach an overhead stratospheric balloon.^[41]

Embedded systems

Embedded serial-to-Wi-Fi module

Wi-Fi availability in the home is on the increase.^[42] Examples of remote monitoring include security systems and tele-medicine. In all these kinds of implementation, if the Wi-Fi provision is provided using a system running one of operating systems mentioned above, then it becomes unfeasible due to weight, power consumption and cost issues.

Increasingly in the last few years (particularly as of early 2007), embedded Wi-Fi modules have become available that incorporate a real-time operating system and provide a simple means of wirelessly enabling any device which has and communicates via a serial port.^[43] This allows the design of simple monitoring devices, for example, a portable ECG device monitoring a patient at home. This Wi-Fi-enabled device can communicate via the Internet. ^[44]

These Wi-Fi modules are designed so that implementers need only minimal Wi-Fi knowledge to provide Wi-Fi connectivity for their products. Network security

The main issue with wireless network security is its simplified access to the network compared to traditional wired networks such as ethernet. With wired networking it is necessary to either gain access to a building, physically connecting into the internal network, or break through an external firewall. Most business networks protect sensitive data and systems by attempting to disallow external access. Thus being able to get wireless reception provides an attack vector, if encryption is not used or can be defeated.^[45]

Attackers who have gained access to a Wi-Fi network can use DNS spoofing attacks very effectively against any other user of the network, because they can see the DNS requests made, and often respond with a spoofed answer before the queried DNS server has a chance to reply.^[46]

 Securing methods

A common but unproductive measure to deter unauthorized users is to suppress the AP's SSID broadcast, "hiding" it. This is ineffective as a security method because the SSID is broadcast in the clear in response to a client SSID query. Another unproductive method is to only allow computers with known MAC addresses to join the network.^{[citation needed]} The fault with this method is MAC addresses can often, but not always, be set by a user (spoofed) with minimal effort.^{[citation needed]} If the eavesdropper has the ability to change his MAC address, then they may join the network by spoofing an authorized address.

Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) encryption was designed to protect against casual snooping, but is now deprecated. Tools such as AirSnort or Aircrack-ng can quickly recover WEP encryption keys. Once it has seen 5-10 million encrypted packets, AirSnort can determine the encryption password in under a second;^[47] newer tools such as aircrack-ptw can use Klein's attack to crack a WEP key with a 50% success rate using only 40,000 packets.

To counteract this in 2002, the Wi-Fi Alliance approved Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) which uses TKIP as a stopgap solution for legacy equipment. Though more secure than WEP, it has outlived its designed lifetime, has known attack vectors and is no longer recommended.

In 2004, the full IEEE 802.11i (WPA2) encryption standards were released. If used with a 802.1X server or in pre-shared key mode with a strong and uncommon passphrase WPA2 is still considered secure, as of 2009^[update].

Piggybacking

Piggybacking refers to access of a wireless Internet connection by bringing one's own computer within the range of another's wireless connection, and using that service without the subscriber's explicit permission or knowledge.

During the early popular adoption of 802.11, providing open access points for anyone within range to use was encouraged to cultivate wireless community networks,^[48] particularly since people on average use only a fraction of their downstream bandwidth at any given time.

Recreational logging and mapping of other people's access points has become known as wardriving. It is also common for people to use open (unencrypted) Wi-Fi networks as a free service, termed piggybacking. Indeed, many access points are intentionally installed without security turned on so that they can be used as a free service. Providing access to one's Internet connection in this fashion may be contrary to the Terms of Service or contract with the ISP. These activities do not result in sanctions in most jurisdictions; however, legislation and case law differ considerably across the world. A proposal to leave graffiti describing available services was called warchalking. In a Florida court case, owner laziness was determined not to be a valid excuse. ^[49]

Piggybacking is often unintentional. Most access points are configured without encryption by default, and operating systems such as Windows XP SP2, Mac OS X or Ubuntu Linux may be configured to automatically connect to any available wireless network. A user who happens to start up a laptop in the vicinity of an access point may find the computer has joined the network without any visible indication. Moreover, a user intending to join one network may instead end up on another one if the latter's signal is stronger. In combination with automatic discovery of other network resources (see DHCP and Zeroconf) this could possibly lead wireless users to send sensitive data to the wrong middle man when seeking a destination (see Man-in-the-middle attack). For example, a user could inadvertently use an insecure network to log in to a website, thereby making the login credentials available to anyone listening, if the website is using an insecure protocol like HTTP. See also

 References

DOES MAN TRULY LANDED IN MOON

INTRODUCTION

 We all believe that man  have conquered moon, I too believed so, until I came  to read some article in wikepedia suggesting man never landed in moon instead every thing was cooked up by NASA,realy it was unbelievable for me. They have explained every thing in detail and scientifically too. I am here re-writing this article in my own way.

SUBJECT

Various Moon landing conspiracy theories claim that some or all elements of the Apollo Project and the associated Moon landings were falsifications staged by NASA and members of other involved organizations. Since the conclusion of the Apollo program, a number of related accounts espousing a belief that the landings were faked in some fashion have been advanced by various groups and individuals. Some of the more notable of these various claims include allegations that the Apollo astronauts did not set foot on the Moon; instead NASA and others intentionally deceived the public into believing the landings did occur by manufacturing, destroying, or tampering with evidence, including photos, telemetry tapes, transmissions, and rock samples. Such claims are common to most of the conspiracy theories.

Astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong in the NASA's training mockup of the Moon and lander module. Hoax proponents say that the film of the missions was made using similar sets to this training mockup.

 Public opinion

There are subcultures worldwide which advocate the belief that the Moon landings were faked. James Oberg of ABC News stated that claims made that the moon landings were faked are actively taught in Cuban schools and wherever Cuban teachers are sent. A 1999 Gallup poll found that 6% of the American public doubted that the Moon landings had occurred and that 5% had no opinion on the subject, which roughly matches the findings of a similar 1995 Time/CNN poll. Officials of Fox television stated that such skepticism increased to about 20% after the February 15, 2001 airing of that network's TV show entitled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? Seen by approximately 15 million viewers, the 2001 Fox special is viewed as having promoted the hoax claims.

A 2000 poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Fund found that 28% do not believe that American astronauts have been on the Moon, and this percentage is roughly equal in all social-demographic groups. In 2009, a poll conducted by the British Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of Britons do not believe that humans have walked on the Moon. Similarly, 25% of Americans between the age of 18 and 25 are not sure the landings happened.

 Predominant hoax claims

A number of different hoax claims have been advanced that involve conspiracy theories outlining concerted action by NASA employees, and sometimes others, to perpetuate false information about landings that never occurred, or to cover up accurate information about the landings that occurred in a different manner than have been publicized. Believers have focused on perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions. The Flat Earth Society was one of the first organizations to accuse NASA of faking the landings, arguing that they were staged by Hollywood and based on a script by Arthur C. Clarke.

The most predominant idea is that the entire human landing program was a complete hoax from start to finish. Some claim that the technology to send men to the Moon was insufficient or that the Van Allen radiation belts, solar flares, solar wind, coronal mass ejections, and cosmic rays made such a trip impossible.

Bart Sibrel has claimed that the crew of Apollo 11 and subsequent astronauts had faked their orbit around the Moon and their walk on its surface by trick photography, and that they never got more than half way to the Moon. A subset of this proposal is advocated by those who concede the existence of retro reflectors and other observable human-made objects on the Moon. British publisher Marcus Allen represented this argument when he said "I would be the first to accept what [telescope images of the landing site] find as powerful evidence that something was placed on the Moon by man." He goes on to say that photographs of the lander would not prove that America put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem – the Russians did that in 1959, the big problem is getting people there." He suggests that NASA sent robot missions because radiation levels in space would be lethal to humans. Another variant on this is the idea that NASA and its contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were faked, with Apollo 14 or 15 being the first authentic mission.

 Motives

Proponents of the view that the Moon landings were faked give several differing theories about the motivation for the U.S. government to fake the Moon landings. Cold War prestige, monetary gain, and providing a distraction are some of the more notable motives which are given.

The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the Space Race against the Soviet Union. Going to the Moon would be risky and expensive, as exemplified by John F. Kennedy famously stating that the U.S. chose to go because it was hard. Proponents also claim that the U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction from the Vietnam War; and so lunar activities suddenly stopped, with planned missions canceled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.

Bill Kaysing maintains that, despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, it would have been easier for the U.S. to fake the Moon landing, thereby guaranteeing success, than for the U.S. to actually go there. Kaysing claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.017%. NASA raised approximately US$30 billion in order to go to the Moon as well, and Kaysing claims that this amount could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. The issue of delivering on the promise is often brought up as well. Since most proponents believe that the technical issues involved in getting people to the Moon either were insurmountable at the time or remain insurmountable, the Moon landings had to be faked in order to fulfill President Kennedy's 1961 promise "to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

 Critical examination of hoax accusations

An article in the German magazine Der Spiegel places the Moon hoax in the context of other well-known 20th century conspiracy theories which it describes as "the rarified atmosphere of those myths in which Elvis is alive, John F. Kennedy fell victim to a conspiracy involving the Mafia and secret service agents, the Moon landing was staged in the Nevada desert, and Princess Diana was murdered by British intelligence."

According to James Longuski, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering at Purdue University, the size and complexity of the alleged conspiracy theory scenarios make their veracity an impossibility. More than 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, and a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences. Hundreds of thousands of people, including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers, would have had to keep the secret. Longuski also contends that it would have been significantly easier to actually land on the Moon than to generate such a massive conspiracy to fake such a landing.

Vince Calder and Andrew Johnson provided a detailed rebuttal to the conspiracy theorists claims, in a question and answer format, on the Argonne National Laboratory web site. They show that NASA's portrayal of the Moon landing is fundamentally accurate, allowing for such common errors as mislabeled photos and imperfect personal recollections. Through application of the scientific process, any hypothesis that is contradicted by the observable facts may be rejected. The lack of narrative consistency in the hoax hypothesis occurs because hoax accounts vary from proponent to proponent. The 'real landing' hypothesis is a single story, since it comes from a single source, but there are many hoax hypotheses, each of which addresses a specific aspect of the Moon landing, and this variation is considered a key indicator that the hoax hypothesis actually constitutes a conspiracy theory.

Many astronauts of the Apollo era have observed that the "hoax" stance has never been officially taken by Russia or members of its space program. Given the importance of the space race during the years leading to the first moon landing, this is usually received as one of the clearest and most significant rejections of hoax theories.

 Imaging the landing sites

Another component of the Moon hoax theory is based on the argument that professional observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope should be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. The argument runs that if telescopes can "see to the edge of the universe" then they ought to be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites, implying that the world's major observatories (as well as the Hubble Program) are complicit in the Moon landing hoax by refusing to take pictures of the landing sites. Images of the moon have been taken by Hubble, including at least two Apollo landing sites; but the Hubble resolution limits viewing of lunar objects to sizes no smaller than 60-75 yards (55-69 meters), which is insufficient to see any landing site features. In 2009 NASA released pictures from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter clearly showing the Apollo landing sites.

Leonard David published an article on space.com, on April 27, 2001 which displayed a picture taken by the Clementine mission showing a diffuse dark spot at the location that NASA says is the Apollo 15 Lunar Module Falcon. The evidence was noticed by Misha Kreslavsky, of the Department of Geological Sciences at Brown University, and Yuri Shkuratov of the Kharkov Astronomical Observatory in Ukraine. The European Space Agency's SMART-1 unmanned probe sent back imagery of the Apollo Moon landing sites, according to Bernard Foing, Chief Scientist of the ESA Science Program. "Given SMART-1’s initial high orbit, however, it may prove difficult to see artifacts", said Foing in an interview on space.com.

Apollo 17 landing site

The Daily Telegraph (London) published a story in 2002 saying that European astronomers at the Very Large Telescope would use it to view the remains of the Apollo lunar landers. According to the article, Dr Richard West said that his team would take "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites". Marcus Allen, a Moon hoax proponent, pointed out in the story that no images of hardware on the Moon would convince him that manned landings had taken place. As the VLT is capable of resolving equivalent to the distance between the headlights of a car as seen from the Moon, it may be able to directly image some features of the Apollo landing site. Such photos, if and when they become available, would be the first non-NASA produced images of the site at that definition.

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched their SELENE lunar orbiter on September 14, 2007 (JST) from Tanegashima Space Center. SELENE orbited the Moon at about 100 kilometers (62 mi) altitude. In May 2008 JAXA reported detecting the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15 lunar module engine exhaust from a Terrain Camera image. A 3-D reconstructed photo also matched the terrain of an Apollo 15 photograph taken from the surface.

On July 17, 2009 NASA released low-resolution engineering test photographs of the Apollo 11, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 landing sites that have been imaged by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter as part of the process of starting its primary mission. The photographs show the descent stage of the lunar module from each mission on the surface of the Moon. The picture of the Apollo 14 landing site also shows tracks created by an astronaut between a science experiment (ALSEP) and the lunar lander. Photographs of the Apollo 12 landing site were released by NASA on September 3, 2009. The Intrepid lunar module descent stage, experiment package (ALSEP), Surveyor 3 spacecraft, and astronaut footpaths are all visible.

While the LRO images have been enjoyed by the scientific community as a whole, they have not done anything to convince conspiracy theorists that the landings took place. The main reason for this doubt is because the LRO is a NASA project, and is therefore assumed to be biased.

 Tapes

Photo of the high-quality SSTV image before the scan conversion

Photo of the degraded image after the SSTV scan conversion

Dr. David Williams (NASA archivist at Goddard Space Flight Center) and Apollo 11 flight director Eugene F. Kranz both acknowledged that the Apollo 11 telemetry data tapes are missing. Hoax proponents interpret this as support for the case that they never existed. The Apollo 11 telemetry tapes were different from the telemetry tapes of the other Moon landings because they contained the raw television broadcast. For technical reasons, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM) carried a slow-scan television (SSTV) camera (see Apollo TV camera). In order to be broadcast to regular television, a scan conversion has to be done. The radio telescope at Parkes Observatory in Australia was in position to receive the telemetry from the Moon at the time of the Apollo 11 Moonwalk. Parkes had a larger antenna than NASA's antenna in Australia at the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, so it received a better picture. It also received a better picture than NASA's antenna at Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex. This direct TV signal, along with telemetry data, was recorded onto one-inch fourteen-track analog tape there. A crude, real-time scan conversion of the SSTV signal was done in Australia before it was broadcast around the world. The original SSTV transmission had better detail and contrast than the scan-converted pictures. It is this tape that was recorded in Australia, before the scan conversion, which is missing. Tapes or films of the scan-converted pictures exist and are available. Still photographs of the original SSTV image are available (see photos). About fifteen minutes of the SSTV images of the Apollo 11 moonwalk were filmed by an amateur 8 mm film camera, and these are also available. Later Apollo missions did not use SSTV, and their video is also available. At least some of the telemetry tapes from the ALSEP scientific experiments left on the Moon (which ran until 1977) still exist, according to Dr. Williams. Copies of those tapes have been found.

Others are looking for the missing telemetry tapes, but for different reasons. The tapes contain the original and highest quality video feed from the Apollo 11 lunar landing which a number of former Apollo personnel want to recover for posterity, while NASA engineers looking towards future moon missions believe the Apollo telemetry data may be useful for their design studies. Their investigations have determined that the Apollo 11 tapes were sent for storage at the U.S. National Archives in 1970, but by 1984 all the Apollo 11 tapes had been returned to the Goddard Space Flight Center at their request. The tapes are believed to have been stored rather than re-used, and efforts to determine where they were stored are ongoing. Goddard was storing 35,000 new tapes per year in 1967, even before the lunar landings.

Apollo 16 Lunar Module

On November 1, 2006 Cosmos Magazine reported that some one-hundred data tapes recorded in Australia during the Apollo 11 mission had been discovered in a small marine science laboratory in the main physics building at the Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Australia. One of the old tapes has been sent to NASA for analysis. The slow-scan television images were not on the tape. Britain's Sunday Express reported in late June 2009 that the missing tapes were found in storage facility in the basement of a building on a university campus in Perth, Australia.

On July 16, 2009, NASA indicated that it must have erased the original Apollo 11 Moon footage years ago so that it could reuse the tape. On December 22, 2009 NASA issued a final report on the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes  Senior engineer Dick Nafzger, who was in charge of the live TV recordings back during the Apollo missions, is now in charge of the restoration project. After an extensive three-year search, an "inescapable conclusion" was that approximately 45 tapes (estimated 15 tapes recorded at each of the three tracking stations) of Apollo 11 video were erased and reused, said Nafzger. In time for the 40th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing, Lowry Digital of Burbank, California has been tasked with restoring the surviving footage. President of Lowry Digital Mike Inchalik stated that, "this is by far and away the lowest quality" video the company has previously dealt with. Nafzger praised Lowry for restoring "crispness" to the Apollo video, which will remain in black and white and contain conservative digital enhancements. The $230,000 restoration project that will take months to complete will not include sound quality improvements. Some selections of restored footage in high definition have been made available on the NASA website.

  Blueprints

Apollo 15 Lunar Rover

The website Xenophilia.com documents a hoax claim that blueprints for the Apollo Lunar Module, Lunar rover, and associated equipment are missing. There are some diagrams of the Lunar Module and Lunar rover on the NASA web site as well as on Xenophilia.com. Grumman appears to have destroyed most of their documentation, but copies of the blueprints for the Saturn V exist on microfilm.

An unused LM is on exhibit at the Cradle of Aviation Museum. The Lunar Module designated LM-13 would have landed on the Moon during the Apollo 18 mission, but was instead put into storage when the mission was canceled: it has since been restored and put on display. Other unused Lunar Modules are on display: LM-2 at the National Air and Space Museum and LM-9 at Kennedy Space Center.

Four mission-worthy Lunar Rovers were built. Three of them were carried to the Moon on Apollo 15, 16, and 17, and left there. After Apollo 18 was canceled (see Canceled Apollo missions), the other lunar rover was used for spare parts for the Apollo 15 to 17 missions. The only lunar rovers on display are test vehicles, trainers, and models. The "Moon buggies" were built by Boeing. The 221-page operation manual for the Lunar Rover contains some detailed drawings, although not the design blueprints.

An original Saturn V rocket is currently on display at the USA Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama. The rockets components as are on public display as well, as is much of the original equipment used in the Apollo missions.

 Technology

At the time that the Apollo Program occurred, Bart Sibrel claims that the Soviet Union had five times more manned hours in space than the United States, and that they had put the first man-made satellite in orbit (October 1957, Sputnik 1); the first living creature to enter orbit, a female dog named Laika, (November 1957, Sputnik 2), the first to safely return living creature from orbit, two dogs Belka and Strelka, 40 mice, 2 rats (August 1960, Sputnik 5); the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, also the first man to orbit the Earth (April 1961, Vostok 1); the first to have two spacecraft in orbit at the same time (though it was not a space rendezvous, as frequently described) (August 1962, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4); the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova (June 1963, Vostok 6, as part of a second dual-spacecraft flight including Vostok 5); the first crew of three cosmonauts on board one spacecraft (October 1964, Voskhod 1); and the first spacewalk (EVA) (March 1965, Voskhod 2).

On January 27, 1967, the three astronauts aboard Apollo 1 died in a fire on the launch pad during training. The fire was triggered by a spark in the oxygen-rich atmosphere used in the spacecraft test, and fueled by a significant quantity of combustible material within the spacecraft. Two years later all of the problems were declared fixed. Bart Sibrel believes that the accident led NASA to conclude that the only way to win the Moon race was to fake the landings. In any case, the first manned Apollo flight, Apollo 7, occurred in October 1968, 21 months after the fire.

Before the first manned Earth-orbiting Apollo flight (Apollo 7), the USSR had made nine spaceflights (seven with one cosmonaut, one with two, one with three). The U.S. had made sixteen flights (six with one astronaut, ten with two). The USSR and U.S. each had six spaceflights in 1961-63, each with one astronaut or cosmonaut. The USSR had only three spaceflights in 1964-67 (each only a little longer than one day) whereas the U.S. had ten in this period (averaging over four days each). In terms of spacecraft hours, the USSR had 460 hours of space flight; the U.S. had 1,024 hours. In terms of astronaut/cosmonaut time, the USSR had accumulated 534 hours of manned spaceflight whereas the U.S. had accumulated 1,992 hours. By the time of Apollo 11, the United States's lead was much wider than that. (See List of human spaceflights, 1960s.)

NASA and others say that these achievements by the Soviets are not as impressive as the simple list implies; that a number of these firsts were mere stunts that did not advance the technology significantly or at all (e.g. the first woman in space).

A close examination of the many flight missions reveals many problems, risks, and near-catastrophes for both the Soviet and American programs. A negative first for the Soviets was the first in-flight fatality, in April 1967, three months after the Apollo I fire, as Soyuz 1 crash-landed. Despite that disaster, the Soyuz program continued, after a lengthy interval to solve design problems, as with the Apollo program.

Most of the Soviet accomplishments listed above were matched by the U.S. within a year, and occasionally within weeks. In 1965 the U.S. started to achieve many firsts which were important steps in a mission to the Moon. See List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969 for a more complete list of achievements by both the U.S. and USSR. The USSR never developed a successful rocket capable of a Moon landing mission — their N1 rocket failed on all four launch attempts. They never tested a lunar lander on a manned mission.

 Photographs and films

Moon hoax proponents devote a substantial portion of their efforts to examining NASA photos. They point to various oddities of photographs and films purportedly taken on the Moon. Experts in photography (even those unrelated to NASA) respond that the anomalies, while sometimes counter-intuitive, are in fact precisely what one would expect from a real Moon landing, and contrary to what would occur with manipulated or studio imagery. Hoax proponents also state that whistleblowers may have deliberately manipulated the NASA photos in hope of exposing NASA.

1. Crosshairs appear to be behind objects.

·         Overexposure causes white objects to bleed into the black areas on the film.

2. Crosshairs are sometimes misplaced or rotated.

·         Popular versions of photos are sometimes cropped or rotated for aesthetic impact.

3. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.

·         There are many poor quality photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts. NASA chose to publish only the best examples.

·         The Apollo astronauts used high resolution 70mm professional cameras and film.

4. There are no stars in any of the photos. The Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a press conference after the event to have not remembered seeing any of the stars.

·         The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure, and could not detect the faint points of light. Even the brightest stars are dim and difficult to see in the daytime on the Moon. Neil Armstrong said that he could not see stars on the daylight side of the Moon with his naked eyes. Edwin Aldrin saw no stars from the Moon  Harrison Schmitt saw no stars from the Moon. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the brightly sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars. Camera settings can turn a well-lit background into ink-black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed in order not to have the foreground light completely wash out the image. A demonstration of this effect is here. The effect is similar to not being able to see stars outside when in a brightly-lit room - the stars only become visible when the light is turned off. The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon. All of the landings were in daylight.

5. The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.

·         Shadows on the Moon are complicated by uneven ground, wide angle lens distortion, light reflected from the Earth, and lunar dust. Shadows also display the properties of vanishing point perspective leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.

·         This theory was demonstrated to be unsubstantiated on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing".

6. Identical backgrounds in photos which, according to their captions, were taken miles apart.

·         Shots were not identical, just similar. Background objects were mountains many miles away. Without an atmosphere to obscure distant objects, it can be difficult to tell the relative distance and scale of lunar features. One specific case is debunked in who mourns For Apollo? By Mike Bara.

7. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. Up to one photo per 50 seconds.

·         Simplified gear with fixed settings permitted two photographs a second. Many were taken immediately after each other. This calculation was based on a single astronaut on the surface, and does not take into account that there were two persons sharing the workload during the EVA.

8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground.

·         The "C"-shaped image was from printing imperfections, not in the original film from the camera.

9. A resident of Perth, Australia, with the pseudonym "Una Ronald", said she saw a soft drink bottle in the frame.

·         No such newspaper reports or recordings have been verified. "Una Ronald"'s existence is authenticated by only one source. There are also flaws in the story, i.e. the emphatic statement that she had to "stay up late" is easily discounted by numerous witnesses in Australia who observed the event to occur in the middle of their daytime, since this event was an unusual compulsory viewing for school children in Australia.

10. The book Moon shot contains an obvious composite photograph of Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the Moon with another astronaut.

·         It was used in lieu of the only existing real images, from the TV monitor, which the editors of the book apparently felt were too grainy to present in a book's picture section. The book publishers did not work for NASA.

11. There appear to be "hot spots" in some photographs that look like a huge spotlight was used at a close distance.

·         Pits in Moon dust focus and reflect light in a manner similar to minuscule glass spheres used in the coating of street signs, or dew-drops on wet grass. This creates a glow around the photographer's own shadow when it appears in a photograph. (see Heiligenschein)

·         If the photographer is standing in sunlight while photographing into shade, light reflected off his white spacesuit produces a similar effect to a spotlight.

12. Footprints in the extraordinarily fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, is unexpectedly well preserved, in the minds of some observers – as if made in wet sand.

·         The dust is silicate, and this has a special property in a vacuum of sticking together like that. The astronauts described it as being like "talcum powder or wet sand".

·         This theory was demonstrated to be unsubstantiated on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing".

 Ionizing radiation and heat

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning). Some hoax theorists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

·         The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminum hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years. The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.

·         The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.^[103] However, only twenty-seven astronauts left Earth orbit (Apollo 8-LO, 10-LO, 11-LL, 12-LL, 13-LO, 14-LL, 15-LL, 16-LL, 17-LL LO=Lunar Orbit, LL=Lunar Landing - 9 missions times 3 Astronauts per mission equals 27 Lunar Astronauts). At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.

2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

·         The film was kept in metal containers that prevented radiation from fogging the film's emulsion. In addition, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged.

3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

·         There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was adequate to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; lunar module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave it its gold color. Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits as the sun continued to rise and the surface temperature increased, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems. The film was not in direct sunlight, so it wasn't overheated.

·         Note: all of the lunar landings occurred during the lunar daytime. The Moon's day is approximately 29½ days long and as a consequence a single lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly fifteen days. As such there was no sunrise or sunset while the astronauts were on the surface. Most lunar missions occurred during the first few Earth days of the lunar day.

4. The Apollo 16 crew should not have survived a big solar flare firing out when they were on their way to the Moon. "They should have been fried."

·         No large solar flare occurred during the flight of Apollo 16. There were large solar flares in August 1972, after Apollo 16 returned to Earth and before the flight of Apollo 17.

 Mechanical issues

Under the Apollo 11 LM

1. No blast crater or any sign of dust scatter as was seen in the 16 mm movies of each landing.

·         No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, diminished by the 1/6 g lunar gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI). Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads and the pressure drops very rapidly. (In comparison the Saturn V F-1 first stage engines produced 3.2 MPa (459 PSI) at the mouth of the nozzle.) Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To reduce this, rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. However, the descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders commented on its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photographs do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, further making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater". In fact, a blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 Lunar Module using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.

2. The second stage of the launch rocket and / or the Lunar Module ascent stage produced no visible flame.

·         The Lunar Module used Aerozine 50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust. The same fuel was used by the core of the American Titan rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very rapidly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further reducing their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen. This cannot happen in a vacuum.

3. The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.

See the #Moon rocks section below

4. The presence of deep dust around the module; given the blast from the landing engine, this should not be present.

·         The dust is created by a continuous rain of micro-meteoroid impacts and is typically several inches thick. It forms the top of the lunar regolith, a layer of impact rubble several meters thick and highly compacted with depth. On the Earth, an exhaust plume might stir up the atmosphere over a wide area. On the Moon, only the exhaust gas itself can disturb the dust. Some areas around descent engines were scoured clean.

Note: In addition, moving footage of astronauts and the lunar rover kicking up lunar dust clearly show the dust particles kicking up quite high due to the low gravity, but settling immediately without air to stop them. Had these landings been faked on the Earth, dust clouds would have formed. (They can be seen as a 'goof' in the movie Apollo 13 when Jim Lovell (played by Tom Hanks) imagines walking on the Moon). This clearly shows the astronauts to be (a) in low gravity and (b) in a vacuum.

5. The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon. Sibrel said "The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for Earth’s six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over".

·         The astronauts were moving the flag into position. Without air drag, these movements caused the free corner of the flag to swing like a pendulum for some time. A horizontal rod, visible in many photographs, extended from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display. The flag's rippled appearance was from folding during storage, and it could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph. The top support rod telescoped and the crew of Apollo 11 could not fully extend it. Later crews preferred to only partially extend the rod. Videotapes show that when the flag stops after the astronauts let it go, it remains motionless. At one point the flag remains completely motionless for well over thirty minutes. (See inertia.) See the photographs below.

The flag is not waving, but is swinging as a pendulum after being touched by the astronauts. Here is a three-minute video from Apollo 15 showing that the flag does not move except when the astronauts move it. Here is a thirty-minute Apollo 11 video showing that the flag does not move.

·         This theory was demonstrated to be unsubstantiated on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing".

6. The Lander weighed 17 tons and sat on top of the sand making no impression but directly next to it footprints can be seen in the sand.

·         The lander weighed less than three tons on the Moon. The astronauts were much lighter than the lander, but their boots were much smaller than the 1-meter landing pads. Pressure, or force per unit area, rather than force, determines the extent of regolith compression. In some photos the landing pads did press into the regolith, especially when they moved sideways at touchdown. (The bearing pressure under the lander feet, with the lander being more than 100 times the weight of the astronauts would in fact have been of similar magnitude to the bearing pressure exerted by the astronauts' boots.)

7. The air conditioning units that were part of the astronauts' spacesuits could not have worked in an environment of no atmosphere.

·         The cooling units could only work in a vacuum. Water from a tank in the backpack flowed out through tiny pores in a metal sublimator plate where it quickly vaporized into space. The loss of the heat of vaporization froze the remaining water, forming a layer of ice on the outside of the plate that also sublimated into space (turning from a solid directly into a gas). A separate water loop flowed through the LCG (Liquid Cooling Garment) worn by the astronaut, carrying his metabolic waste heat through the sublimator plate where it was cooled and returned to the LCG. Twelve pounds [5.4 kg] of feedwater provided some eight hours of cooling; because of its bulk, it was often the limiting consumable on the length of an EVA. Because this system could not work in an atmosphere, the astronauts required large external chillers to keep them comfortable during Earth training.

·         Radiative cooling would have avoided the need to consume water, but it could not operate below body temperature in such a small volume. The radioisotope thermoelectric generators, could use radiative cooling fins to permit indefinite operation because they operated at much higher temperatures.

Surveyor 3 with Apollo 12 LM in background.

8. Although Apollo 11 had made an almost embarrassingly imprecise landing well outside the designated target area, Apollo 12 succeeded, on November 19, 1969, in making a pin-point landing, within walking distance (less than 200 meters) of the Surveyor 3 probe, which had landed on the Moon in April 1967.

·         The Apollo 11 landing was several kilometers to the southeast of the center of their intended landing ellipse, but still within it. Armstrong took semi-automatic control of the lander and directed it further down range when it was noted that the intended landing site was strewn with boulders near a moderate sized crater. By the time Apollo 12 flew, the cause of the large error in the landing location was determined and improved procedures were developed and were demonstrated by the pin-point landing next to Surveyor III made by Apollo 12. Apollo 11 fulfilled its purpose by simply landing safely on the lunar surface and a pin-point landing was not a requirement on that mission.

·         The Apollo astronauts were highly skilled pilots, and the LM was a maneuverable craft that could be accurately flown to a specific landing point. During the powered descent phase the astronauts used the PNGS (Primary Navigation Guidance System) and LPD (Landing Point Designator) to predict where the LM was going to land, and then they would manually pilot the LM to a selected point with great accuracy.

9. The alleged Moon landings used either a sound stage, or were put outside in a remote desert location with the astronauts either using harnesses or slow-motion photography to make it look like they were on the Moon and acting in lunar gravity.

·         While the HBO Mini-series "From the Earth to the Moon", and a scene from "Apollo 13" used the sound-stage and harness setup, it is clearly seen from those films that dust kicked up did not quickly settle (some dust briefly formed clouds). In the film footage from the Apollo missions, dust kicked up by the astronauts' boots and the wheels of the lunar rovers shot up quite high (due to the lunar gravity), and settled immediately to the surface in an uninterrupted parabolic arc (due to there being no air to support the dust). Even if there had been a sound stage for hoax Moon landings that had had the air pumped out, the dust would have reached nowhere near the height and trajectory as the dust shown in the Apollo film footage because of terrestrial gravity.

·         This video from Apollo 15 shows that they were in low gravity and in a vacuum:

10. All six lunar landings occurred during the first presidential administration of Richard Nixon and no other national leader of any country has even claimed to have landed astronauts on the Moon, even though the mechanical means of doing so should have become progressively much easier after almost 40 years of steady or even rapid technological development.

·         Other nations and later presidential administrations were evidently less interested in spending large sums to be merely the second nation to land on the Moon or to explore the barren Moon further. Had Nixon faked the Moon landings, the Soviets would have been happy to argue for a hoax as a propaganda victory, but the Soviets never did. Further exploration by the U.S. or U.S.S.R., such as establishing a Moon base, would have been much more expensive and perhaps too provocative to be in any nation's self-interest during the Cold War arms race.

·         Furthermore, the development of the Saturn V rocket, the Apollo CSM and LM and the flights up to Apollo 8 (which orbited the moon) were completed before Richard Nixon became president on January 20, 1969. Additionally, Nixon did not personally care much for the program started by the man who defeated him in the 1960 Presidential Election, and his administration pushed for NASA to cancel Apollo 18, 19, and 20 in favor of development of the space shuttle.

BOTTOMLINE

Does it really happen, or simply some jealous work, well I don’t know .what you people think.

BY

ANOOP V PILLAI

3^RD YEAR EEE

VICKRAM CE

All entries for Flyer/poster for INTELECTIUM 2010 are here.
Each entry is numbered by the date on which it was received.

[The student name and the department name is also mentioned.
Followed by the entry number from the same student(s).]

Can Anyone Beat This Resume... .........

                                                                                  RESUME

EDUCATION /Qualification:

1950: Stood first in BA (Hons), Economics, Panjab University, Chandigarh,

1952; Stood first in MA (Economics), Panjab University, Chandigarh,

1954; Wright's Prize for distinguished performance at St John's College, Cambridge,

1955 and 1957; Wrenbury scholar, University of Cambridge,

1957; DPhil (Oxford), DLitt (Honoris Causa); PhD thesis on India's export competitiveness

OCCUPATION /Teaching Experience:

Professor (Senior lecturer, Economics, 1957-59;

Reader, Economics, 1959-63;

Professor, Economics, Panjab University, Chandigarh, 1963-65; Professor,

International Trade, Delhi School of Economics,University of Delhi,

1969-71; Honorary professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University,New Delhi,

1976 and Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi,1996 and Civil Servant

Working Experience/ POSITIONS:

1971-72: Economic advisor, ministry of foreign trade

1972-76: Chief economic advisor, ministry of finance

1976-80: Director, Reserve Bank of India; Director, Industrial Development Bank of India;

Alternate governor for India, Board of governors, Asian Development Bank;

Alternate governor for India, Board of governors, IBRD

November 1976 - April 1980: Secretary, ministry of finance (Department of economic affairs);

Member, finance, Atomic Energy Commission; Member,finance, Space Commission

April 1980 - September 15, 1982: Member-secretary, Planning Commission

1980-83: Chairman, India Committee of the Indo-Japan joint study committee

September 16, 1982 - January 14, 1985: Governor, Reserve Bank of India.

1982-85: Alternate Governor for India, Board of governors, International Monetary Fund

1983-84: Member, economic advisory council to the Prime Minister

1985: President, Indian Economic Association

January 15, 1985 - July 31, 1987: Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission

August 1, 1987 - November 10, 1990: Secretary-general and commissioner, south commission, Geneva

December 10, 1990 - March 14, 1991: Advisor to the Prime Minister on economic affairs

March 15, 1991 - June 20, 1991: Chairman, UGC

June 21, 1991 - May 15, 1996: Union finance minister

October 1991: Elected to Rajya Sabha from Assam on Congress ticket

June 1995: Re-elected to Rajya Sabha

1996 onwards: Member, Consultative Committee for the ministry of finance

August 1, 1996 - December 4, 1997: Chairman, Parliamentary standing committee on commerce

March 21, 1998 onwards: Leader of the Opposition, Rajya Sabha

June 5, 1998 onwards: Member, committee on finance

August 13, 1998 onwards: Member, committee on rules

Aug 1998-2001: Member, committee of privileges 2000 onwards: Member, executive committee, Indian parliamentary group

June 2001: Re-elected to Rajya Sabha

Aug 2001 onwards: Member, general purposes committee

BOOKS:

India's Export Trends and Prospects for Self-Sustained Growth -Clarendon
Press, Oxford University, 1964; also published a large number of
articles in various economic journals.

OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Adam Smith Prize, University of Cambridge, 1956

Padma Vibhushan, 1987

Euro money Award, Finance Minister of the Year, 1993;

Asia money Award, Finance Minister of the Year for Asia, 1993 and 1994

INTERNATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS:

1966: Economic Affairs Officer

1966-69: Chief, financing for trade section, UNCTAD

1972-74: Deputy for India in IMF Committee of Twenty on International Monetary Reform

1977-79: Indian delegation to Aid-India Consortium Meetings

1980-82: Indo-Soviet joint planning group meeting

1982: Indo-Soviet monitoring group meeting

1993: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Cyprus 1993: Human Rights World Conference, Vienna

RECREATION:

Gymkhana Club, New Delhi; Life Member, India International Centre, New Delhi

Name: Dr Manmohan Singh

DOB: September 26, 1932

Place of Birth: Gah (West Punjab)

Father: S. Gurmukh Singh

Mother: Mrs Amrit Kaur

Married on: September 14, 1958

Wife: Mrs Gursharan Kaur

Children: Three daughters

Our Prime Minister  is possibly the most qualified PM all over the world.

When students get angry in foreign universities they get a gun and shoot everyone in the class room and campus.

Anger is very often destructive when not correctly directed out. 

After 18 years, when the world expects something back.

Some accuse the world of imperfection, and run around in circles.

 In simple terms, greywater is wash-water. That is, all wastewater excepting toilet and food wastes. greywater contains phosphorous, potassium and nitrogen and other chemicals sourced mainly from soaps and detergents, it is, after all the same ingredients making greywater a cause for pollution for lakes rivers and ground water turns out to be excellent nutrients sources for vegetation, when it is made available for irrigation. Our college hostel produces unbelievably large amount of greywater daily, which were being just gutted out earlier, in the process, creating several environmental problems in addition to the energy cost and ground water depletion.

Now the problem persist no more, thanks to a novel idea conceptualized by our director. The solution is simple, our college needs trees in large numbers and trees need plenty of water to sustain its life and growth, therefore instead of eliminating greywater we are now reusing greywater to water trees. Greywater from different sources are collected and then pumped to specific locations from where it is distributed to trees through canal systems.

One might have questions about the safety factors in this ‘reuse’ project. Greywater collected in our premises are not stored more than 24 hours, storing it longer will make it anaerobic, bacteria rich and malodorous, becoming unfit to be used for irrigation and implicating other environmental problems like spreading of disease etc. This reuse of greywater could represent a safe way to conserve natural water supplies and keep natural freshwater sources free of contamination, and also shows that the elimination or treatment of greywater is not the most efficient way to deal with it.

1.Wisdom is knowing what to do next; Skill is knowing how to do it, and Virtue is doing it. We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.

2.Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein

3.Biggest Mystery of Maths: 1000’s of Years have Passed, Millions of Theorems derived, Crores of Formulas made, but....'X' is Still Unknown

4.Beginnings are usually scary and endings are usually sad, but its every thing thats in between that really makes it all worth living

5.Imagination is more important than knowledge....so keep imagining

6.To know the road ahead, ask those coming back

7.Apologising doesnt mean that you are wrong and that the  other person is right it simply means that you value relationships more than your ego


8."Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon

9.Real success-when your signature become autograph

10.The world suffers a lot,Not because of violence of bad people. But because of silence of good people.