who played joe in the facts of life

Nancy Justine McKeon (born April 4, 1966) is an American actress. She is best known for her role as Jo Polniaczek on the NBC sitcom The Facts of Life.

Nancy McKeon

McKeon and her older brother Philip appeared in numerous commercials.[1] McKeon also appeared on the soap operas The Secret Storm and Another World. The McKeons moved to Los Angeles in 1975, when Philip won the role of Tommy Hyatt and began appearing on the television series Alice with Linda Lavin.

In 1979, McKeon was discovered by a casting director for The Facts of Life on the basis of her performance in a Hallmark greeting cards advertisement, in which she was able to cry on cue.[2]

She was cast as tomboy Jo Polniaczek in the fall of 1980 during the show's second season when four of the first season's cast, including Molly Ringwald, left the show. [3] This is her most famous role and she portrayed the character throughout the series until the show was canceled in 1988. McKeon also provided the voice for many ABC Weekend Special cartoon characters, including the voice for Scruffy.

Following The Facts of Life, McKeon was courted by NBC executives for the title role in the TV sitcom adaptation of the 1988 film Working Girl; the role, played by Melanie Griffith in the movie, instead went to then-unknown Sandra Bullock for the TV series. In 1994, both McKeon and Courteney Cox auditioned for the role of Monica Geller on Friends. The role went to the latter. When asked in interviews about the auditions, McKeon said, "I have no hard feelings. The role went to the right person. Courteney was brilliant. Now, I can't see anybody playing the role, not even myself."[citation needed] In 1995, she starred in her own series, Can't Hurry Love, which lasted one season. In 1998, she starred in a sitcom with Jean Smart titled Style & Substance. McKeon portrayed Inspector Jinny Exstead on the Lifetime police drama The Division from 2001 to 2004, with her pregnancy incorporated into the storyline of the last year of the series. From 2009 to 2010, McKeon appeared in a recurring role in the Disney Channel Original Series Sonny with a Chance, as Connie Munroe, the mother of Demi Lovato's title character.[citation needed]

McKeon also starred in numerous made-for-TV movies throughout the 1980s and 1990s, including A Cry for Help: The Tracey Thurman Story, in which she portrayed the title role of Tracey Thurman, and The Wrong Woman, portraying a woman framed for killing her boss. In 2003, McKeon starred in the film Comfort and Joy.[citation needed]

While McKeon was on The Facts of Life, she and her parents, all devout Catholics[citation needed], were granted a private audience with Pope John Paul II.[4]

McKeon lives in Austin, Texas.[2] She married Marc Andrus on June 8, 2003, and they have two daughters, Aurora and Harlow.[5][6]

Her older brother is actor Philip McKeon.

Marco Island Film Festival

TV Land Awards

Young Artist Awards


who was the first person who discovered gravitational pull

Aryabhata first identified the force to explain why objects do not fall when the Earth rotates, and developed a geocentric solar system of gravitation, with an eccentric elliptical model of the planets, where the planets spin on their axes and follow elliptical orbits, the Sun and the Moon revolving around the Earth in epicycles. Indian astronomer and mathematician Brahmagupta described gravity as an attractive force and used the term "gurutvākarṣaṇ" for gravity.[4][5][6]

History of gravitational theory

In physics, theories of gravitation postulate mechanisms of interaction governing the movements of bodies with mass.  There have been numerous theories of gravitation since ancient times.

In the 4th century BC, the Greek philosopher Aristotle believed that there is no effect or motion without a cause. The cause of the downward motion of heavy bodies, such as the element earth, was related to their nature, which caused them to move downward toward the center of the universe, which was their natural place.  Conversely, light bodies such as the element fire, move by their nature upward toward the inner surface of the sphere of the Moon.  Thus in Aristotle's system heavy bodies are not attracted to the Earth by an external force of gravity, but tend toward the center of the universe because of an inner gravitas or heaviness.[1][2]

In Book VII of his De Architectura, the Roman engineer and architect Vitruvius contends that gravity is not dependent on a substance's "weight" but rather on its "nature" (cf. specific gravity).

If the quicksilver is poured into a vessel, and a stone weighing one hundred pounds is laid upon it, the stone swims on the surface, and cannot depress the liquid, nor break through, nor separate it. If we remove the hundred pound weight, and put on a scruple of gold, it will not swim, but will sink to the bottom of its own accord. Hence, it is undeniable that the gravity of a substance depends not on the amount of its weight, but on its nature.[3]

Al Hamdānī and Al Biruni quote Brahmagupta saying

"Disregarding this, we say that the earth on all its sides is the same; all people on the earth stand upright, and all heavy things fall down to the earth by a law of nature, for it is the nature of the earth to attract and to keep things, as it is the nature of water to flow, that of fire to burn, and that of the wind to set in motion. If a thing wants to go deeper down than the earth, let it try. The earth is the only low thing, and seeds always return to it, in whatever direction you may throw them away, and never rise upwards from the earth."[7][8]

During the 17th century, Galileo found that, counter to Aristotle's teachings, all objects tend to accelerate equally when falling.

The relation of the distance of objects in free fall to the square of the time taken was confirmed by Grimaldi and Riccioli between 1640 and 1650. They also made a calculation of the gravitational constant by recording the oscillations of a pendulum.[9]

In the late 17th century, as a result of Robert Hooke's suggestion that there is a gravitational force which depends on the inverse square of the distance,[10] Isaac Newton was able to mathematically derive Kepler's three kinematic laws of planetary motion, including the elliptical orbits for the six then known planets and the Moon:

"I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centres about which they revolve, and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the moon in her orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the earth and found them to answer pretty nearly."

So Newton's original formula was:

where the symbol

∝

{\displaystyle \propto }

 means "is proportional to".

To make this into an equal-sided formula or equation, there needed to be a multiplying factor or constant that would give the correct force of gravity no matter the value of the masses or distance between them.  This gravitational constant was first measured in 1797 by Henry Cavendish.

In 1907 Albert Einstein, in what was described by him as "the happiest thought of my life", realized that an observer who is falling from the roof of a house experiences no gravitational field.  In other words, gravitation was exactly equivalent to acceleration.  Between 1911 and 1915 this idea, initially stated as the equivalence principle, was formally developed into Einstein's theory of general relativity.

In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation.  In his own words, "I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve; and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly."

Newton's theory enjoyed its greatest success when it was used to predict the existence of Neptune based on motions of Uranus that could not be accounted by the actions of the other planets.  Calculations by John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier both predicted the general position of the planet, and Le Verrier's calculations are what led Johann Gottfried Galle to the discovery of Neptune.

Years later, it was another discrepancy in a planet's orbit that showed Newton's theory to be inaccurate. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that the orbit of Mercury could not be accounted for entirely under Newtonian gravity, and all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) have been fruitless.  This issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new general theory of relativity, which accounted for the discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.

Paul Dirac developed the hypothesis that gravitation should have slowly and steadily decreased over the course of the history of the universe.[11]

Although Newton's theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations still use it because it is much easier to work with and is sufficiently accurate for most applications.

The mechanical theories or explanations of the gravitation are attempts to explain the law of gravity by aid of basic mechanical processes, such as pushes, and without the use of any action at a distance. These theories were developed from the 16th until the 19th century in connection with the aether theories.[12]

René Descartes (1644) and Christiaan Huygens (1690) used vortices to explain gravitation.
Robert Hooke (1671) and James Challis (1869) assumed, that every body emits waves which lead to an attraction of other bodies.
Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (1690) and Georges-Louis Le Sage (1748) proposed a corpuscular model, using some sort of screening or shadowing mechanism. Later a similar model was created by Hendrik Lorentz, who used electromagnetic radiation instead of the corpuscles.
Isaac Newton (1675) and Bernhard Riemann (1853) argued that aether streams carry all bodies to each other.
Newton (1717) and Leonhard Euler (1760) proposed a model, in which the aether loses density near the masses, leading to a net force directing to the bodies.
Lord Kelvin (1871) proposed that every body pulsates, which might be an explanation of gravitation and the electric charges.

However, those models were overthrown because most of them lead to an unacceptable amount of drag, which is not observed. Other models are violating the energy conservation law and are incompatible with modern thermodynamics.[13]

In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of to a force.  The starting point for general relativity is the equivalence principle, which equates free fall with inertial motion.  The issue that this creates is that free-falling objects can accelerate with respect to each other.  In Newtonian physics, no such acceleration can occur unless at least one of the objects is being operated on by a force (and therefore is not moving inertially).

To deal with this difficulty, Einstein proposed that spacetime is curved by matter, and that free-falling objects are moving along locally straight paths in curved spacetime. (This type of path is called a geodesic).  More specifically, Einstein and Hilbert discovered the field equations of general relativity, which relate the presence of matter and the curvature of spacetime and are named after Einstein.  The Einstein field equations are a set of 10 simultaneous, non-linear, differential equations.  The solutions of the field equations are the components of the metric tensor of spacetime.  A metric tensor describes the geometry of spacetime. The geodesic paths for a spacetime are calculated from the metric tensor.

Notable solutions of the Einstein field equations include:

General relativity has enjoyed much success because of the way its predictions of phenomena which are not called for by the older theory of gravity have been regularly confirmed.  For example:

Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics.[14] Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.[15][16] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit, but only at the linearized level and postulating that the conditions for the applicability of Ehrenfest theorem holds, which is not always the case. Besides, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length.[14]

It is notable that in general relativity, gravitational radiation, which under the rules of quantum mechanics must be composed of gravitons, is created only in situations where the curvature of spacetime is oscillating, such as is the case with co-orbiting objects.  The amount of gravitational radiation emitted by the solar system is far too small to measure.

However, gravitational radiation has been observed both indirectly, as an energy loss over time in binary pulsar systems such as PSR 1913+16, and directly by the LIGO gravitational wave observatory, whose first detection (named GW150914) occurred on 14 September 2015[17] and matched theoretical predictions of signals due to the inward spiral and merger of a pair of black holes.  It is believed that neutron star mergers (since detected in 2017)[18] and black hole formation may also create detectable amounts of gravitational radiation.


who did the brewers get for will smith

On August 1, 2016, the Brewers traded Smith to the San Francisco Giants for Phil Bickford and Andrew Susac.[14][15]

Will Smith (baseball)

William Michael Smith (born July 10, 1989) is an American professional baseball pitcher for the San Francisco Giants of Major League Baseball (MLB). He has previously played for the Kansas City Royals and Milwaukee Brewers.

Smith attended Northgate High School in Newnan, Georgia, where he played for the school's baseball team as a pitcher.[1] He enrolled at Gulf Coast Community College in Panama City, Florida, where he continued his baseball career. After his freshman year at Gulf Coast, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim selected Smith in the seventh round, with the 229th overall selection, of the 2008 Major League Baseball Draft.[2]

Making his professional debut with the Orem Owlz of the Rookie-level Pioneer League, Smith recorded 76 strikeouts while walking only six batters. He pitched for the Cedar Rapids Kernels of the Class A Midwest League in 2009, and the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes of the Class A-Advanced California League in 2010.[3] On July 23, 2010, the Angels traded Smith along with Sean O'Sullivan to the Kansas City Royals for Alberto Callaspo.[4]

Pitching for the Northwest Arkansas Naturals of the Class AA Texas League in 2011, Smith and Kelvin Herrera combined to pitch a no-hitter on July 19, with Smith pitching the first seven innings.[5] Smith began the 2012 season with the Omaha Storm Chasers of the Class AAA Pacific Coast League.[6]

The Royals promoted Smith to the majors for the first time on May 22, 2012.[6] By the end of the 2012 season, Smith had made 16 starts, his record was 6â€“9 with a 5.32 ERA. During the 2013 season, the Royals transitioned Smith into a relief pitcher. He spent the majority of the season at Omaha. He was called up multiple times to the Royals bullpen while also making a spot start.

Smith was traded to the Milwaukee Brewers in exchange for Norichika Aoki on December 5, 2013.[7] Smith had a 1–3 win-loss record and a 3.70 earned run average (ERA) in 2014.[8] On May 21, 2015, he was ejected from a game vs the Atlanta Braves for having a foreign substance on his right arm.[9] He was  suspended for eight games, pending his appeal and his suspension was subsequently reduced from eight games to six games.[10] Smith had a 7–2 win-loss record and a 2.70 ERA in 2015.[11]

During spring training in 2016, Smith tore the lateral collateral ligament in his knee.[12] He returned to the Brewers on June 2.[13] By the end of the month of July, Smith had appeared in 27 games for Milwaukee, serving as the set-up man.

On March 20, 2017, Smith was diagnosed with possible UCL damage in his left elbow, but no structural damage. He returned to California to seek second opinions with doctors, who petitioned that Smith would require surgery.[16]

On March 24, 2017, it was reported that Smith elected to have Tommy John surgery on his elbow, effectively ending his 2017 season with the San Francisco Giants.[17]

In 2018, he returned to action in mid-season, as both a reliever and closer.


the sympathetic chain of ganglia is found at the

Sympathetic ganglia are the ganglia of the sympathetic nervous system. They deliver information to the body about stress and impending danger, and are responsible for the familiar fight-or-flight response. They contain approximately 20,000â€“30,000 nerve cell bodies and are located close to and on either side of the spinal cord in long chains. Sympathetic ganglia are the tissue from which neuroblastoma tumours arise.

Sympathetic ganglion

The bilaterally symmetric sympathetic chain ganglia, also called the paravertebral ganglia, are located just ventral and lateral to the spinal cord. The chain extends from the upper neck down to the coccyx, forming the unpaired coccygeal ganglion. Preganglionic nerves from the spinal cord synapse at one of the chain ganglia, and the postganglionic fiber extends to an effector, a visceral organ in the thoracic cavity, abdominal cavity, or pelvic cavity.

There are usually 22-23 pairs of these ganglia:
3 in the cervical region (cervical ganglia), 11 in the thoracic region (note the presence of the stellate cervicothoracic ganglia), 4 in the lumbar region and 4-5 in the sacral region.   Throughout human evolution, the first thoracic and inferior cervical ganglia merged - and this resulting ganglion is called the stellate ganglion (so called because of its radiating pattern similar in appearance to a star).

The general rule of interaction of the nerve fibres in the sympathetic nervous system begins at the spinal cord.  Here they arise from the thoracolumbar (T1-L2) regions' lateral horn of grey and emerge via the ventral root.  They enter their respective spinal nerve (e.g. T5), and thus enter the white ramus communicans.  This myelinated division can then enter the sympathetic chain.

Here four options are available to the fibres: (1) they can run up the chain and synapse, (2) they can synapse at the level of entry, (3) they can pass straight through and synapse elsewhere - such as in the case of T5-12 (the splanchnic nerves), or (4) they can enter the chain and descend to synapse.  It is this ability to move superiorly and inferiorly along the chain that results in the mass response to the sympathetic nervous system.  A preganglionic fibre may synapse to 15-20 postganglionic fibres.

Upon exiting the sympathetic chain, the fibres enter a less-myelinated gray ramus communicans. There is still a myelin sheath present - just in far lower amounts compared to the white ramus communicans.  This ramus then enters the spinal nerve and is sent to its synapsing target, or becomes a visceral branch to enter a plexus (e.g. the superficial or deep cardiac plexuses), or synapses directly onto a target.

Neurons of the collateral ganglia, also called the prevertebral ganglia, receive input from the splanchnic nerves and innervate organs of the abdominal and pelvic region. These include the celiac ganglia, superior mesenteric ganglia, and inferior mesenteric ganglia.

Schematic Illustration of Sympathetic Innervation

The thoracic aorta, viewed from the left side.

Scheme showing structure of a typical spinal nerve.

Transverse section of human embryo eight and a half to nine weeks old.


what is the meaning of rabi ul awal

Rabīʿ al-ʾawwal (ربيع الأوّل) is the third month in the Islamic calendar. During this month, many Muslims celebrate Mawlid - the birthday of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad. Although the exact date is unknown,[1][2] Sunni Muslims believe the date of birth of Muhammad to have been on the twelfth of this month, whereas Shi'a Muslims believe him to have been born on the dawn of the seventeenth day. The Prophet himself never celebrated the mawlid, instead encouraged Muslims to fast Monday’s of every week due to his birthday being “on a Monday”. The name Rabī‘ al-awwal means the first [month] or beginning of spring, referring to its position in the pre-Islamic Arabian calendar. Hence this is considered to be a very blessed month.

Rabi' al-awwal

The word "Rabi" means "spring" and Al-awwal means "the first" in Arabic language, so "Rabi' al-awwal" means "the first spring" in Arabic language. The names seems to have to do with the celebration events in the month as "spring" is the end to winter (symbol of sadness) and consequently the start of happiness. The Arabic calendar being lunar calendar, the month is naturally rotating over years and Rabī‘ al-awwal can be in spring or any other season every now and then, so the meaning can not be related to the actual season.[3]

Although historians and scholars disagree on the exact date of Muhammad's birth,[4] it is commonly celebrated on 12th or 17th of Rabi' al-awwal. The celebration of the Mawlid is done differently depending on the country. In some areas celebrations begin as early as the first of the month and can continue till the end of the month. Muslims generally put coloured lights on roads, streets, and their homes and put green flags as well to celebrate. In many countries a procession is also conducted on 12th or 17th of Rabi' al-awwal night and day. On these occasions sweets and drinks are also distributed widely from home to home and to the general public. In some areas Muslims also exchange gifts. It is the month of blessings.

The Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, and months begin when the first crescent of a new moon is sighted. Since the Islamic lunar calendar year is 11 to 12 days shorter than the solar year, Rabī‘ al-Awwal migrates throughout the seasons. The estimated start and end dates for Rabī‘ al-Awwal are as follows (based on the Umm Al-Qura calendar of Saudi Arabia[5]):

Other events:

In Islamic eschatology:

There will be an Ayah (sign) in (the month of) Ramadan. Then, there will 'isabah (splitting into groups) in Shawwal. Then, there will be fighting in (the month of) Dhu al-Qi'dah. Then, the pilgrim will be robbed in (the month of) Dhu al-Hijjah. Then, the prohibitions will be violated in (the month of) al-Muharram. Then, there will be sound in (the month of) Safar, then the tribes will conflict with each other in the two months of Rabi' al-awwal & Rabi' al-thani. Then, the most amazing thing will happen between (the months of) Jumada and Rajab. Then, a well-fed she-camel will be better than a fortress (castle) sheltering a thousand (people).[7]


who was responsible for keeping british ships out of the waterways off the coast of virginia

The Battle of the Chesapeake, also known as the Battle of the Virginia Capes or simply the Battle of the Capes, was a crucial naval battle in the American Revolutionary War that took place near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay on 5 September 1781. The combatants were a British fleet led by Rear Admiral Sir Thomas Graves and a French fleet led by Rear Admiral Francois Joseph Paul, the Comte de Grasse. The battle was strategically decisive,[6] in that it prevented the Royal Navy from reinforcing or evacuating the forces of Lieutenant General Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia. The French were able to achieve control of the sea lanes against the British, allowing them to provide the Franco-American army with siege artillery and French reinforcements—all of which proved decisive in the Siege of Yorktown, effectively securing independence for the Thirteen Colonies.

Battle of the Chesapeake

Decisive French victory[1]

Admiral de Grasse had the option to attack British forces in either New York or Virginia; he opted for Virginia, arriving at the Chesapeake at the end of August. Admiral Graves learned that de Grasse had sailed from the West Indies for North America and that French Admiral de Barras had also sailed from Newport, Rhode Island, and he concluded that they were going to join forces at the Chesapeake. He sailed south from New York with 19 ships of the line and arrived at the mouth of the Chesapeake early on 5 September to see de Grasse's fleet at anchor in the bay. De Grasse hastily prepared most of his fleet for battle—24 ships of the line—and sailed out to meet him, and the two-hour engagement took place after hours of maneuvering. The lines of the two fleets did not completely meet; only the forward and center sections fully engaged. The battle was consequently fairly evenly matched, although the British suffered more casualties and ship damage, and it broke off when the sun set. The British tactics have been a subject of debate ever since.

The two fleets sailed within view of each other for several days, but de Grasse preferred to lure the British away from the bay where de Barras was expected to arrive carrying vital siege equipment. He broke away from the British on 13 September and returned to the Chesapeake, where de Barras had since arrived. Graves returned to New York to organize a larger relief effort; this did not sail until 19 October, two days after Cornwallis surrendered.

During the early months of 1781, both pro-British and separatist forces began concentrating in Virginia, a state that had previously not experienced more than naval raids. The British forces were led at first by the turncoat Benedict Arnold, and then by William Phillips before General Charles, Earl Cornwallis, arrived in late May with his southern army to take command. In June he marched to Williamsburg, where he received a confusing series of orders from General Sir Henry Clinton that culminated in a directive to establish a fortified deep-water port (which would allow resupply by sea).[8] In response to these orders, Cornwallis moved to Yorktown in late July, where his army began building fortifications.[9] The presence of these British troops, coupled with General Clinton's desire for a port there, made control of the Chesapeake Bay an essential naval objective for both sides.[10][11]

On the 21st of May Generals George Washington and the Comte de Rochambeau, respectively the commanders of the Continental Army and the Expédition Particulière, met to discuss potential operations against the British and Loyalists. They considered either an assault or siege on the principal British base at New York City, or operations against the British forces in Virginia. Since either of these options would require the assistance of the French fleet, then in the West Indies, a ship was dispatched to meet with French Rear Admiral François Joseph Paul, comte de Grasse who was expected at Cap-Français (now known as Cap-Haïtien, Haiti), outlining the possibilities and requesting his assistance.[12] Rochambeau, in a private note to de Grasse, indicated that his preference was for an operation against Virginia. The two generals then moved their forces to White Plains, New York, to study New York's defenses and await news from de Grasse.[13]

De Grasse arrived at Cap-Français on 15 August. He immediately dispatched his response to Rochambeau's note, which was that he would make for the Chesapeake. Taking on 3,200 troops, De Grasse sailed from Cap-Français with his entire fleet, 28 ships of the line. Sailing outside the normal shipping lanes to avoid notice, he arrived at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay on August 30,[13] and disembarked the troops to assist in the land blockade of Cornwallis.[14] Two British frigates that were supposed to be on patrol outside the bay were trapped inside the bay by de Grasse's arrival; this prevented the British in New York from learning the full strength of de Grasse's fleet until it was too late.[15]

British Admiral George Brydges Rodney, who had been tracking de Grasse around the West Indies, was alerted to the latter's departure, but was uncertain of the French admiral's destination. Believing that de Grasse would return a portion of his fleet to Europe, Rodney detached Rear Admiral Sir Samuel Hood with 14 ships of the line and orders to find de Grasse's destination in North America. Rodney, who was ill, sailed for Europe with the rest of his fleet in order to recover, refit his fleet, and to avoid the Atlantic hurricane season.[3]

Sailing more directly than de Grasse, Hood's fleet arrived off the entrance to the Chesapeake on 25 August. Finding no French ships there, he then sailed for New York.[3] Meanwhile, his colleague and commander of the New York fleet, Rear Admiral Sir Thomas Graves, had spent several weeks trying to intercept a convoy organized by John Laurens to bring much-needed supplies and hard currency from France to Boston.[16] When Hood arrived at New York, he found that Graves was in port (having failed to intercept the convoy), but had only five ships of the line that were ready for battle.[3]

De Grasse had notified his counterpart in Newport, the Comte de Barras Saint-Laurent, of his intentions and his planned arrival date. Barras sailed from Newport on 27 August with 8 ships of the line, 4 frigates, and 18 transports carrying French armaments and siege equipment. He deliberately sailed via a circuitous route in order to minimize the possibility of an encounter with the British, should they sail from New York in pursuit. Washington and Rochambeau, in the meantime, had crossed the Hudson on 24 August, leaving some troops behind as a ruse to delay any potential move on the part of General Clinton to mobilize assistance for Cornwallis.[3]

News of Barras' departure led the British to realize that the Chesapeake was the probable target of the French fleets. By 31 August, Graves had moved his five ships of the line out of New York harbor to meet with Hood's force. Taking command of the combined fleet, now 19 ships, Graves sailed south, and arrived at the mouth of the Chesapeake on 5 September.[3] His progress was slow; the poor condition of some of the West Indies ships (contrary to claims by Admiral Hood that his fleet was fit for a month of service) necessitated repairs en route. Graves was also concerned about some ships in his own fleet; Europe in particular had difficulty manoeuvring.[17]

French and British patrol frigates each spotted the other's fleet around 9:30 am; both at first underestimated the size of the other fleet, leading each commander to believe the other fleet was the smaller fleet of Admiral de Barras. When the true size of the fleets became apparent, Graves assumed that de Grasse and Barras had already joined forces, and prepared for battle; he directed his line toward the bay's mouth, assisted by winds from the north-northeast.[2][18]

De Grasse had detached a few of his ships to blockade the York and James Rivers farther up the bay, and many of the ships at anchor were missing officers, men, and boats when the British fleet was sighted.[2] He faced the difficult proposition of organizing a line of battle while sailing against an incoming tide, with winds and land features that would require him to do so on a tack opposite that of the British fleet.[19] At 11:30 am, 24 ships of the French fleet cut their anchor lines and began sailing out of the bay with the noon tide, leaving behind the shore contingents and ships' boats.[2] Some ships were so seriously undermanned, missing as many as 200 men, that not all of their guns could be manned.[20] De Grasse had ordered the ships to form into a line as they exited the bay, in order of speed and without regard to its normal sailing order.[21] Admiral Louis de Bougainville's Auguste was one of the first ships out. With a squadron of three other ships Bougainville ended up well ahead of the rest of the French line; by 3:45 pm the gap was large enough that the British could have cut his squadron off from the rest of the French fleet.[22]

By 1:00 pm, the two fleets were roughly facing each other, but sailing on opposite tacks.[23] In order to engage, and to avoid some shoals (known as the Middle Ground) near the mouth of the bay, Graves around 2:00 pm ordered his whole fleet to wear, a manoeuvre that reversed his line of battle, but enabled it to line up with the French fleet as its ships exited the bay.[24] This placed the squadron of Hood, his most aggressive commander, at the rear of the line, and that of Admiral Francis Samuel Drake in the van.[23][25]

At this point, both fleets were sailing generally east, away from the bay, with winds from the north-northeast.[2] The two lines were approaching at an angle so that the leading ships of the vans of both lines were within range of each other, while the ships at the rear were too far apart to engage. The French had a firing advantage, since the wind conditions meant they could open their lower gun ports, while the British had to leave theirs closed to avoid water washing onto the lower decks. The French fleet, which was in a better state of repair than the British fleet, outnumbered the British in the number of ships and total guns, and had heavier guns capable of throwing more weight.[23] In the British fleet, Ajax and Terrible, two ships of the West Indies squadron that were among the most heavily engaged, were in quite poor condition.[26] Graves at this point did not press the potential advantage of the separated French van; as the French centre and rear closed the distance with the British line, they also closed the distance with their own van. One British observer wrote, "To the astonishment of the whole fleet, the French center were permitted without molestation to bear down to support their van."[27]

The need for the two lines to actually reach parallel lines so they might fully engage led Graves to give conflicting signals that were interpreted critically differently by Admiral Hood, directing the rear squadron, than Graves intended. None of the options for closing the angle between the lines presented a favourable option to the British commander: any manoeuvre to bring ships closer would limit their firing ability to their bow guns, and potentially expose their decks to raking or enfilading fire from the enemy ships. Graves hoisted two signals: one for "line ahead", under which the ships would slowly close the gap and then straighten the line when parallel to the enemy, and one for "close action", which normally indicated that ships should turn to directly approach the enemy line, turning when the appropriate distance was reached. This combination of signals resulted in the piecemeal arrival of his ships into the range of battle.[28] Admiral Hood interpreted the instruction to maintain line of battle to take precedence over the signal for close action, and as a consequence his squadron did not close rapidly and never became significantly engaged in the action.[29]

It was about 4:00 pm, over 6 hours since the two fleets had first sighted each other, when the British—who had the weather gage, and therefore the initiative—opened their attack.[23] The battle began with HMS Intrepid opening fire against the Marseillais, its counterpart near the head of the line. The action very quickly became general, with the van and center of each line fully engaged.[23] The French, in a practice they were known for, tended to aim at British masts and rigging, with the intent of crippling their opponent's mobility. The effects of this tactic were apparent in the engagement: Shrewsbury and HMS Intrepid, at the head of the British line, became virtually impossible to manage, and eventually fell out of the line.[30] The rest of Admiral Drake's squadron also suffered heavy damage, but the casualties were not as severe as those taken on the first two ships. The angle of approach of the British line also played a role in the damage they sustained; ships in their van were exposed to raking fire when only their bow guns could be brought to bear on the French.[31]

The French van also took a beating, although it was less severe. Captain de Boades of the Réfléchi was killed in the opening broadside of Admiral Drake's Princessa, and the four ships of the French van were, according to a French observer, "engaged with seven or eight vessels at close quarters."[31] The Diadème, according to a French officer "was utterly unable to keep up the battle, having only four thirty-six-pounders and nine eighteen-pounders fit for use" and was badly shot up; she was rescued by the timely intervention of the Saint-Esprit.[31]

The Princessa and Bougainville's Auguste at one point were close enough that the French admiral considered a boarding action; Drake managed to pull away, but this gave Bougainville the chance to target the Terrible. Her foremast, already in bad shape before the battle, was struck by several French cannonballs, and her pumps, already overtaxed in an attempt to keep her afloat, were badly damaged by shots "between wind and water".[32]

Around 5:00 pm the wind began to shift, to British disadvantage. De Grasse gave signals for the van to move further ahead so that more of the French fleet might engage, but Bougainville, fully engaged with the British van at musket range, did not want to risk "severe handling had the French presented the stern."[33] When he did finally begin pulling away, British leaders interpreted it as a retreat: "the French van suffered most, because it was obliged to bear away."[34] Rather than follow, the British hung back, continuing to fire at long range; this prompted one French officer to write that the British "only engaged from far off and simply in order to be able to say that they had fought."[34] Sunset brought an end to the firefight, with both fleets continuing on a roughly southeast tack, away from the bay.[35]

The center of both lines was engaged, but the level of damage and casualties suffered was noticeably less. Ships in the rear squadrons were almost entirely uninvolved; Admiral Hood reported that three of his ships fired a few shots.[36] The ongoing conflicting signals left by Graves, and discrepancies between his and Hood's records of what signals had been given and when, led to immediate recriminations, written debate, and an eventual formal inquiry.[37]

That evening Graves did a damage assessment. He noted that "the French had not the appearance of near so much damage as we had sustained", and that five of his fleet were either leaking or virtually crippled in their mobility.[35] De Grasse wrote that "we perceived by the sailing of the English that they had suffered greatly."[38] Nonetheless, Graves maintained a windward position through the night, so that he would have the choice of battle in the morning.[38] Ongoing repairs made it clear to Graves that he would be unable to attack the next day. On the night of 6 September he held council with Hood and Drake. During this meeting Hood and Graves supposedly exchanged words concerning the conflicting signals, and Hood proposed turning the fleet around to make for the Chesapeake. Graves rejected the plan, and the fleets continued to drift eastward, away from Cornwallis.[39] On 8 and 9 September the French fleet at times gained the advantage of the wind, and briefly threatened the British with renewed action.[40] French scouts spied Barras' fleet on 9 September, and de Grasse turned his fleet back toward Chesapeake Bay that night. Arriving on 12 September, he found that Barras had arrived two days earlier.[41] Graves ordered the Terrible to be scuttled on 11 September due to her leaky condition, and was notified on 13 September that the French fleet was back in the Chesapeake; he still did not learn that de Grasse's line had not included the fleet of Barras, because the frigate captain making the report had not counted the ships.[42] In a council held that day, the British admirals decided against attacking the French, due to "the truly lamentable state we have brought ourself."[43] Graves then turned his battered fleet toward New York,[44][45] arriving off Sandy Hook on 20 September.[44]

The British fleet's arrival in New York set off a flurry of panic amongst the Loyalist population.[46] The news of the defeat was also not received well in London. King George III wrote (well before learning of Cornwallis's surrender) that "after the knowledge of the defeat of our fleet [...] I nearly think the empire ruined."[47]

The French success left them firmly in control of Chesapeake Bay, completing the encirclement of Cornwallis.[48] In addition to capturing a number of smaller British vessels, de Grasse and Barras assigned their smaller vessels to assist in the transport of Washington's and Rochambeau's forces from Head of Elk to Yorktown.[49]

It was not until 23 September that Graves and Clinton learned that the French fleet in the Chesapeake numbered 36 ships. This news came from a dispatch sneaked out by Cornwallis on the 17 September, accompanied by a plea for help: "If you cannot relieve me very soon, you must be prepared to hear the worst."[50] After effecting repairs in New York, Admiral Graves sailed from New York on 19 October with 25 ships of the line and transports carrying 7,000 troops to relieve Cornwallis.[51] It was two days after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown.[52] General Washington acknowledged to de Grasse the importance of his role in the victory: "You will have observed that, whatever efforts are made by the land armies, the navy must have the casting vote in the present contest."[53] The eventual surrender of Cornwallis led to peace two years later and British recognition of the independent United States of America.[52]

Admiral de Grasse returned with his fleet to the West Indies. In a major engagement that ended Franco-Spanish plans for the capture of Jamaica in 1782, he was defeated and taken prisoner by Rodney in the Battle of the Saintes.[54] His flagship Ville de Paris was lost at sea in a storm while being conducted back to England as part of a fleet commanded by Admiral Graves. Graves, despite the controversy over his conduct in this battle, continued to serve, rising to full admiral and receiving an Irish peerage.[55]

Many aspects of the battle have been the subject of both contemporary and historical debate, beginning right after the battle. On 6 September, Admiral Graves issued a memorandum justifying his use of the conflicting signals, indicating that "[when] the signal for the line of battle ahead is out at the same time with the signal for battle, it is not to be understood that the latter signal shall be rendered ineffectual by a too strict adherence to the former."[56] Hood, in commentary written on the reverse of his copy, observed that this eliminated any possibility of engaging an enemy who was disordered, since it would require the British line to also be disordered. Instead, he maintained, "the British fleet should be as compact as possible, in order to take the critical moment of an advantage opening..."[56] Others criticise Hood because he "did not wholeheartedly aid his chief", and that a lesser officer "would have been court-martialled for not doing his utmost to engage the enemy."[57]

One contemporary writer critical of the scuttling of the Terrible wrote that "she made no more water than she did before [the battle]", and, more acidly, "If an able officer had been at the head of the fleet, the Terrible would not have been destroyed."[43] Admiral Rodney was critical of Graves' tactics, writing, "by contracting his own line he might have brought his nineteen against the enemy's fourteen or fifteen, [...] disabled them before they could have received succor, [... and] gained a complete victory."[47] Defending his own behaviour in not sending his full fleet to North America, he also wrote that "[i]f the admiral in America had met Sir Samuel Hood near the Chesapeake", that Cornwallis's surrender might have been prevented.[58]

United States Navy historian Frank Chadwick believed that de Grasse could have thwarted the British fleet simply by staying put; his fleet's size would have been sufficient to impede any attempt by Graves to force a passage through his position. Historian Harold Larrabee points out that this would have exposed Clinton in New York to blockade by the French if Graves had successfully entered the bay; if Graves did not do so, Barras (carrying the siege equipment) would have been outnumbered by Graves if de Grasse did not sail out in support.[59]

At the Cape Henry Memorial located at Joint Expeditionary Base Fort Story in Virginia Beach, Virginia, there is monument commemorating the contribution of de Grasse and his sailors to the cause of American independence. The memorial and monument are part of the Colonial National Historical Park and are maintained by the National Park Service.[60]

Sources consulted (including de Grasse's memoir, and works either dedicated to the battle or containing otherwise detailed orders of battle, like Larrabee (1964) and Morrissey (1997)) do not list per-ship casualties for the French fleet. Larrabee reports the French to have suffered 209 casualties;[38] Bougainville recorded 10 killed and 58 wounded aboard Auguste alone.[32]

The exact order in which the French lined up as they exited the bay is also uncertain. Larrabee notes that many observers wrote up different sequences when the line was finally formed, and that Bougainville recorded several different configurations.[24]


where is bile reabsorbed in the digestive system

Enterohepatic circulation refers to the circulation of biliary acids, bilirubin, drugs, or other substances from the liver to the bile, followed by entry into the small intestine, absorption by the enterocyte and transport back to the liver.

Enterohepatic circulation

Hepatocytes metabolize cholesterol to cholic acid and chenodeoxycholic acid. These lipid-soluble bile acids are conjugated (reversibly attached) mainly to glycine or taurine molecules to form water soluble primary conjugated bile acids, sometimes called "bile salts". These bile acids travel to the gall bladder during the interdigestive phase for storage and to the descending part of the duodenum via the common bile duct through the major duodenal papilla during digestion. 95% of the bile acids which are delivered to the duodenum will be recycled by the enterohepatic circulation.

Due to the pH of the small intestine, most of the bile acids are ionized and mostly occur as their sodium salts which are then called “primary conjugated bile salts.” In the lower small intestine and colon, bacteria dehydroxylate some of the primary bile salts to form secondary conjugated bile salts (which are still water-soluble). Along the proximal and distal ileum, these conjugated primary bile salts are reabsorbed actively into hepatic portal circulation. Bacteria deconjugate some of the primary and secondary conjugated bile salts back to lipid-soluble bile acids, which are passively absorbed into hepatic portal circulation. Finally, the conjugated bile acids which remained un-ionized conjugated bile acids are passively absorbed.

Venous blood from the ileum goes straight into the portal vein and then into the liver sinusoids. There, hepatocytes extract bile acids very efficiently, and little escapes the healthy liver into systemic circulation.

The net effect of enterohepatic recirculation is that each bile salt molecule is reused about 20 times, often multiple times during a single digestive phase.

The presence of biliary acids in the intestines helps in digestion of fats and other substances.[1]

Bilirubin is conjugated with glucuronic acid in the liver by the enzyme glucuronyltransferase, making it soluble in water. Much of it goes into the bile and thus out into the small intestine. Although 95% of the secreted bile is reabsorbed by the small intestine, conjugated bilirubin is not reabsorbed in small intestine. All conjugated bilirubin in the large intestine is metabolised by colonic bacteria to urobilinogen, which is then further oxidized to urobilin and stercobilin. Urobilin, stercobilin and their degradation products give feces its brown color. [2] However, just like bile, some of the urobilinogen reabsorbed is resecreted in the bile which is also part of enterohepatic circulation. The rest of the reabsorbed urobilinogen is excreted in the urine where it is converted to an oxidized form, urobilin, which gives urine its characteristic yellow color.

Enterohepatic circulation also means that some molecules which would not otherwise be very toxic can become so because of this recycling process.


the primary reason that a firm has an investment in working capital is to

A company can be endowed with assets and profitability but short of liquidity if its assets cannot readily be converted into cash.  Positive working capital is required to ensure that a firm is able to continue its operations and that it has sufficient funds to satisfy both maturing short-term debt and upcoming operational expenses. The management of working capital involves managing inventories, accounts receivable and payable, and cash.

Working capital

Working capital (abbreviated WC) is a financial metric which represents operating liquidity available to a business, organisation or other entity, including governmental entities.  Along with fixed assets such as plant and equipment, working capital is considered a part of operating capital. Gross working capital is equal to current assets. Working capital is calculated as current assets minus current liabilities.[1] If current assets are less than current liabilities, an entity has a working capital deficiency, also called a working capital deficit.

Working capital is the difference between the current assets and the current liabilities.

The basic calculation of the working capital is done on the basis of the gross current assets of the firm.

Working Capital

=

CURRENT ASSETS

−

CURRENT LIABILITIES

{\displaystyle {\text{Working Capital}}={\text{CURRENT ASSETS}}-{\text{CURRENT LIABILITIES}}}

Current assets and current liabilities include three accounts which are of special importance. These accounts represent the areas of the business where managers have the most direct impact:

The current portion of debt (payable within 12 months) is critical because it represents a short-term claim to current assets and is often secured by long-term assets. Common types of short-term debt are bank loans and lines of credit.

An increase in net working capital indicates that the business has either increased current assets (that it has increased its receivables or other current assets) or has decreased current liabilitiesâ€”for example has paid off some short-term creditors, or a combination of both.

The working capital cycle (WCC) is the amount of time it takes to turn the net current assets and current liabilities into cash. The longer the cycle is, the longer a business is tying up capital in its working capital without earning a return on it. Therefore, companies strive to reduce their working capital cycle by collecting receivables quicker or sometimes stretching accounts payable.

A positive working capital cycle balances incoming and outgoing payments to minimize net working capital and maximize free cash flow. For example, a company that pays its suppliers in 30 days but takes 60 days to collect its receivables has a working capital cycle of 30 days. This 30-day cycle usually needs to be funded through a bank operating line, and the interest on this financing is a carrying cost that reduces the company's profitability. Growing businesses require cash, and being able to free up cash by shortening the working capital cycle is the most inexpensive way to grow. Sophisticated buyers review closely a target's working capital cycle because it provides them with an idea of the management's effectiveness at managing their balance sheet and generating free cash flows.

As an absolute rule of funders, each of them wants to see a positive working capital. Such situation gives them the possibility to think that your company has more than enough current assets to cover financial obligations. Though, the same can’t be said about the negative working capital.[2] A large number of funders believe that businesses can’t be sustainable with a negative working capital, which is a wrong way of thinking. In order to run a sustainable business with a negative working capital, it’s essential to understand some key components.

1. Approach your suppliers and persuade them to let you purchase the inventory on 1-2 month credit terms, but keep in mind that you must sell the purchased goods, to consumers, for money.
2. Effectively monitor your inventory management, make sure that itâ€™s often refilled and with the help of your supplier, back up your warehouse.

Plus, big companies like McDonaldâ€™s, Amazon, Dell, General Electric and Wal-Mart are using negative working capital.[citation needed]

Decisions relating to working capital and short-term financing are referred to as working capital management. These involve managing the relationship between a firm's short-term assets and its short-term liabilities. The goal of working capital management is to ensure that the firm is able to continue its operations and that it has sufficient cash flow to satisfy both maturing short-term debt and upcoming operational expenses.

A managerial accounting strategy focusing on maintaining efficient levels of both components of working capital, current assets, and current liabilities, in respect to each other. Working capital management ensures a company has sufficient cash flow in order to meet its short-term debt obligations and operating expenses.

By definition, working capital management entails short-term decisions—generally, relating to the next one-year period—which are "reversible".  These decisions are therefore not taken on the same basis as capital-investment decisions (NPV or related, as above); rather, they will be based on cash flows, or profitability, or both.

Guided by the above criteria, management will use a combination of policies and techniques for the management of working capital. The policies aim at managing the current assets (generally cash and cash equivalents, inventories and debtors) and the short-term financing, such that cash flows and returns are acceptable.


where did the last name reynolds come from

Reynolds is a surname in the English language. There are two major lineages of the surname,[citation needed] Irish and English. Among the earliest recorded use of the surname is from the early 14th century; Walter Reynolds of Worcester, England.

Reynolds (surname)

In Ireland, the Reynolds surname originates in and around County Leitrim,[citation needed] where the name was rather influential before the seventeenth century. In the Irish language, the surname is rendered Mac Raghnaill, and the name is ultimately derived from the Old Norse Rognvald a Latin borrowing of the two words regal and valor. It was also a surname of Irish Huguenots who came to Ireland from France to evade religious persecution in the 1600s. The original surname being Renault. Throughout Ireland's rich history, the Reynolds family name was a prominent one, and even today, County Leitrim is the principal stronghold of the name, nearly half the people in Ireland so called hailing from that area.

Like many Irish families, the Reynolds began emigrating from Ireland in two fronts, early on in America's history, as they settled in the northeast prior to the American Revolution and during the "Irish Famine", when millions of Irish Catholics came to North America.

There is also a branch of the family which traces its origin to Phillipe D'Reynald, a templar knight who was required to return from the Holy Land and take up the legacy of his deceased brother William. However, this branch is more difficult to locate but is believed to have moved through Normandy and Somerset and on to Ireland.

Some of the better-known Reynolds include:

Reynolds is a patronymic surname meaning "son of Reynold", where the given name of the father, "Reynold", or "Reginald",[3] was a Germanic name composed of *raginą + *waldą, meaning "Powerful Ruler"[4] (possibly an alteration of the Old French name Reinold). The addition of "s" to the father's first name makes Reynolds a simple genitive case patronymic.[5]

Possessors of these names arrived in England with the Norman Conquest of 1066,[6] and early English chronicles indicate a Norman origin, with the name appearing in England from about 1066. Early records of the name mention Willemus filius Raunaldi who was listed in the Domesday Book of 1086, in which "Rainald-us" is a common Christian name.[7] The alternative Saxon origin is less commonly cited (in this etymology, the name is constructed from the Saxon words Rhein, pure, and hold, love).[8]

The name Reynolds appeared in many references, but spellings included Reynell, Reynalds,[7] Renals, Rennels and many more. Scribes recorded and spelled the name as it sounded. Hence, a person would appear to be born with one spelling, married with another, and buried with still another.

Reynolds emerged as a notable family name in the county of Somerset where Sir Richard Reynell (died pre-1213) was seated at Pitney in Somerset and was given custody of the Castles at Exeter and Launceston by King Richard I when he went to the Holy Land in 1191. In 1198 Godfrey, Robert and Torketil Renoldus were registered in Normandy.

Meanwhile, many of the junior branches had joined the Earl of Pembroke's Irish invasion, where they became the Earls of Cavan, of Lisburne, of Mountmorris. In England the main line was forfeited but Sir Richard's son recovered the lands. This distinguished west country family also branched to other locations in England, mostly under the name 'Reynolds; for example, Walter Reynolds (died 1327) was the son of a Windsor baker, who became the favourite of King Edward II and Archbishop of Canterbury (1313â€“1327).

During the 12th century many of these Norman families moved north to Scotland in the train of the Earl of Huntingdon, later to become King David of Scotland.

In Ireland, settlers became known as the "Adventurers for land." They "undertook" to keep the Protestant faith, and were granted lands previously held by the Irish. This family migrated to Ireland during two periods, first with the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland, and later, in the 17th century giving rise to the Reynells of Reynell castle. In some cases it is difficult to distinguish early migrants from native Irish Reynolds who derive their name from McRannell, formerly spelled "Mac Ragnaill".

Among settlers to North America bearing the family name Reynolds were Henry, Samuel, Thomas Reynold settled in the Barbados in 1688; Christopher Reynolds settled in Virginia in 1622; Nathaniel Reynold settled in Salem in 1630; Robert Reynolds settled in Salem in 1630 with Mary and his four children; Cornelius, Edward, George, Hannah, James, Mary, Nicholas, Richard Reynolds also settled in Virginia. During the American War of Independence some declared their loyalty to the Crown and moved into Canada as United Empire Loyalists.

More recently, notable bearers of the Reynolds surname include: Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723–1792), painter; John Reynolds (US politician) (1788–1865), American politician, Governor of Illinois; James Clark McReynolds (1862–1946), US Attorney General (1913–14) and Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court (1914–41); Albert Reynolds (b. 1935), Irish politician, Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland (1992–95); Debbie Reynolds (1932-2016), American actress, dancer and singer; Christopher Reynolds, Australian Archbishop of Adelaide (1873–1893); as well as Burt Reynolds (b. 1936), American actor.

The most ancient grant[who?] of a Coat of Arms found was a silver shield with a portcullis and three blue bars; A fox was the canting crest (French: renard = fox).

The ancient family Motto for this distinguished name was: Jus meum tuebor ("I will defend my right"[9])

Or, "Favente Deo ("With God favouring").[10]

Originally from Maidstone, Kent, England, the first Reynolds that related to Portugal, Thomas Johnson William Reynolds, born in 1786, was a naval officer but withdrawn, settled later in Chatham, also in Kent, as an importer of fruit, wine corks and virgin cork from Spain and Portugal, until, because of a liver disease, on the advice of a doctor, that Reynolds began a sea voyage that brought him to Porto, where he saw a good opportunity to expand his business. With him came his sons, Thomas, William and Robert Hunter Reynolds, born respectively in 1811 and 1820. His daughter had already been born in Port Elizabeth in 1828.

Portugal proved to be a wealth of opportunities for these Reynolds. His son Robert, was the person that brought him to the Alentejo region, where he began his purchase of cork bark still on the tree, paying in advance, sometimes several years, with risk but with superb profits. Thus came the Alentejo and setting properties in Estremoz, accompanied by a nephew, son of Thomas, born in 1842, named William Reynolds.[11]

People whose family name is or was Reynolds include:

PAINHA, José Maria. Chá de Azeite – O Trajecto Empresarial da Casa Reynolds no Alentejo e Extremadura (1838–1890). Estremoz:Câmara Municipal de Estremoz, 2008. ISBN 978-989-95187-8-0.


backcountry movie is based on a true story

Backcountry is a 2014 Canadian nature–survival horror film, written and directed by Adam MacDonald. It is loosely based on the true story of a man-eating bear and 30-year-olds Mark Jordan and Jacqueline Perry, in the back country of Missinaibi Lake Provincial Park, North of Chapleau, Ontario in 2005, events for which Mark later received the Star of Courage award from Governor General Michaëlle Jean.[1][2][3] Theatrical release was scheduled for August 14, 2015.[4]

Backcountry (film)

Alex (Jeff Roop) and Jenn (Missy Peregrym) are shown driving from the city towards the country in their SUV. They arrive at the visitor center and are greeted by the park ranger (Nicholas Campbell), who warns them of trail closures and late season remoteness. Alex refuses a map, confident that he knows the park well. While hiking, he spots a bear paw print, but does not tell Jenn. He plans to lead her to a lake which he claims is deep inside the park. They believe they have finally reached it, and climb to the top of the peak. However, when they summit, they see no lake, only miles of forest. At this point it becomes clear that they are lost, with no map, and no cell phone. Jenn is infuriated and belittles Alex, demanding to know why he insisted on leading her so deep into the woods. He responds that he planned to propose to her.

The two make camp, and do not wake up when a black bear approaches and sniffs the tent. The following morning they find that all of their food has been eaten.

Now lost, and with no food, matters are made worse when they spot a bear den. Realizing danger is literally at their tent door, they try to hike as far as possible before dark, and then camp for the night. Shockingly, the danger catches up with them the following morning when a bear viciously attacks. No amount of yelling, fighting, or bear spray is working on this bear. Alex is brutally dragged from the tent and eaten alive.
Jenn finds herself running for her life to avoid the stalking bear. She breaks her leg after a fall, and stumbles through the woods for days.

Miraculously, she finds her way back to her canoe, and paddles back to the lodge where she is rescued.

Casting began in October 2013 with Missy Peregrym, Eric Balfour, Nicholas Campbell and Jeff Roop being named for the script.[5]
The movie was filmed in Powassan, Ontario as well as Caddy Lake, Manitoba.

The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 8, 2014.[6] D Films acquired 25% of the film's ownership and the Canadian distribution rights while Uwe Boll's Event Film Distribution bought another 25% ownership and the non-Canadian distribution rights, the latter of which they then sold to independent distributors. Event Film sold the US distribution rights to IFC Midnight after a bidding war with Orion Pictures, Blumhouse Tilt, and Open Road Films.[citation needed]

Backcountry received moderate to positive reviews. It currently holds an 88%, "Certified Fresh", rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 42 reviews, with the critical consensus stating "Tense, well-acted, and at once atmospheric as well as brutally impactful."[7] It has a 62% rating on Metacritic based on 13 reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews."[8]