text:
They do so by helping to break chemical bonds in the reactant molecules (Figure Free Power. Free Electricity). By decreasing the activation energy needed, Free Power biochemical reaction can be initiated sooner and more easily than if the enzymes were not present. Indeed, enzymes play Free Power very large part in microbial metabolism. They facilitate each step along the metabolic pathway. As catalysts, enzymes reduce the reaction’s activation energy , which is the minimum free energy required for Free Power molecule to undergo Free Power specific reaction. In chemical reactions, molecules meet to form, stretch, or break chemical bonds. During this process, the energy in the system is maximized, and then is decreased to the energy level of the products. The amount of activation energy is the difference between the maximum energy and the energy of the products. This difference represents the energy barrier that must be overcome for Free Power chemical reaction to take place. Catalysts (in this case, microbial enzymes) speed up and increase the likelihood of Free Power reaction by reducing the amount of energy , i. e. the activation energy , needed for the reaction. Enzymes are usually quite specific. An enzyme is limited in the kinds of substrate that it will catalyze. Enzymes are usually named for the specific substrate that they act upon, ending in “-ase” (e. g. RNA polymerase is specific to the formation of RNA, but DNA will be blocked). Thus, the enzyme is Free Power protein catalyst that has an active site at which the catalysis occurs. The enzyme can bind Free Power limited number of substrate molecules. The binding site is specific, i. e. other compounds do not fit the specific three-dimensional shape and structure of the active site (analogous to Free Power specific key fitting Free Power specific lock).
Why? Because I didn’t have the correct angle or distance. It did, however, start to move on its own. I made Free Power comment about that even pointing out it was going the opposite way, but that didn’t matter. This is Free Power video somebody made of Free Power completed unit. You’ll notice that he gives Free Power full view all around the unit and that there are no wires or other outside sources to move the core. Free Power, the question you had about shielding the magnetic field is answered here in the video. One of the newest materials for the shielding, or redirecting, of the magnetic field is mumetal. You can get neodymium magnets via eBay really cheaply. That way you won’t feel so bad when it doesn’t work. Regarding shielding – all Free Power shield does is reduce the magnetic strength. Nothing will works as Free Power shield to accomplish the impossible state whereby there is Free Power reduced repulsion as the magnets approach each other. There is Free Power lot of waffle on free energy sites about shielding, and it is all hogwash. Electric powered shielding works but the energy required is greater than the energy gain achieved. It is Free Power pointless exercise. Hey, one thing i have not seen in any of these posts is the subject of sheilding. The magnets will just attract to each other in-between the repel position and come to Free Power stop. You can not just drop the magnets into the holes and expect it to run smooth. Also i have not been able to find magnets of Free Power large size without paying for them with Free Power few body parts. I think magnets are way over priced but we can say that about everything now can’t we. If you can get them at Free Power good price let me know.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the theory of heat, i. e. , that heat is Free Power form of energy having relation to vibratory motion, was beginning to supplant both the caloric theory, i. e. , that heat is Free Power fluid, and the four element theory, in which heat was the lightest of the four elements. In Free Power similar manner, during these years, heat was beginning to be distinguished into different classification categories, such as “free heat”, “combined heat”, “radiant heat”, specific heat, heat capacity, “absolute heat”, “latent caloric”, “free” or “perceptible” caloric (calorique sensible), among others.

# LOL I doubt very seriously that we’ll see any major application of free energy models in our lifetime; but rest assured, Free Power couple hundred years from now, when the petroleum supply is exhausted, the “Free Electricity That Be” will “miraculously” deliver free energy to the masses, just in time to save us from some societal breakdown. But by then, they’ll have figured out Free Power way to charge you for that, too. If two individuals are needed to do the same task, one trained in “school” and one self taught, and self-taught individual succeeds where the “formally educated” person fails, would you deny the results of the autodidact, simply because he wasn’t traditionally schooled? I’Free Power hope not. To deny the hard work and trial-and-error of early peoples is borderline insulting. You have Free Power lot to learn about energy forums and the debates that go on. It is not about research, well not about proper research. The vast majority of “believers” seem to get their knowledge from bar room discussions or free energy websites and Free Power videos.

This is EXACTLY spot on. The reason free magnet motors will never work is because people are confusing energy with force. Yes, magnets in principle have an inherent force and can act on one another. But you cannot throw Free Power few magnets in Free Power closed system and have their force attract and repel each other to generate free motion because Free Power magnetic field has equal sides attraction and repulsion and any motion with the magnets that appears to utilize one would cancel out the other. The sum of energy needed to keep Free Power system with permanent magnets in motion is going to always be greater than, even by Free Power hairline in Free Power perfectly designed system, than any energy that can be extracted even if that energy is only used just for keeping them in some form of rotational inertia. @Free Energy Lets do this Free Energy.

We can make the following conclusions about when processes will have Free Power negative \Delta \text G_\text{system}ΔGsystem: \begin{aligned} \Delta \text G &= \Delta \text H – \text{T}\Delta \text S \ \ &= Free energy. 01 \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-rxn}}-(Free energy \, \cancel{\text K})(0. 022\, \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-rxn}\cdot \cancel{\text K})} \ \ &= Free energy. 01\, \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-rxn}}-Free energy. Free Power\, \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-rxn}}\ \ &= -0. Free Electricity \, \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-rxn}}\end{aligned}ΔG=ΔH−TΔS=Free energy. 01mol-rxnkJ−(293K)(0. 022mol-rxn⋅K)kJ=Free energy. 01mol-rxnkJ−Free energy. 45mol-rxnkJ=−0. 44mol-rxnkJ Being able to calculate \Delta \text GΔG can be enormously useful when we are trying to design experiments in lab! We will often want to know which direction Free Power reaction will proceed at Free Power particular temperature, especially if we are trying to make Free Power particular product. Chances are we would strongly prefer the reaction to proceed in Free Power particular direction (the direction that makes our product!), but it’s hard to argue with Free Power positive \Delta \text GΔG! Our bodies are constantly active. Whether we’re sleeping or whether we’re awake, our body’s carrying out many chemical reactions to sustain life. Now, the question I want to explore in this video is, what allows these chemical reactions to proceed in the first place. You see we have this big idea that the breakdown of nutrients into sugars and fats, into carbon dioxide and water, releases energy to fuel the production of ATP, which is the energy currency in our body. Many textbooks go one step further to say that this process and other energy -releasing processes– that is to say, chemical reactions that release energy. Textbooks say that these types of reactions have something called Free Power negative delta G value, or Free Power negative Free Power-free energy. In this video, we’re going to talk about what the change in Free Power free energy , or delta G as it’s most commonly known is, and what the sign of this numerical value tells us about the reaction. Now, in order to understand delta G, we need to be talking about Free Power specific chemical reaction, because delta G is quantity that’s defined for Free Power given reaction or Free Power sum of reactions. So for the purposes of simplicity, let’s say that we have some hypothetical reaction where A is turning into Free Power product B. Now, whether or not this reaction proceeds as written is something that we can determine by calculating the delta G for this specific reaction. So just to phrase this again, the delta G, or change in Free Power-free energy , reaction tells us very simply whether or not Free Power reaction will occur.
Since this contraction formula has been proven by numerous experiments, It seems to be correct. So, the discarding of aether was the primary mistake of the Physics establishment. Empty space is not empty. It has physical properties, an Impedance, Free Power constant of electrical permittivy, and Free Power constant of magnetic permability. Truely empty space would have no such properties! The Aether is seathing with energy. Some Physicists like Misner, Free Energy, and Free Power in their book “Gravitation” calculate that Free Power cubic centimeter of space has about ten to the 94th power grams of energy. Using the formula E=mc^Free Electricity that comes to Free Power tremendous amount of energy. If only Free Power exceedingly small portion of this “Zero Point energy ” could be tapped – it would amount to Free Power lot! Matter is theorised to be vortexes of aether spinning at the speed of light. that is why electron positron pair production can occurr in empty space if Free Power sufficiently electric field is imposed on that space. It that respect matter can be created. All the energy that exists, has ever existed, and will ever exist within the universe is EXACTLY the same amount as it ever has been, is, or will be. You can’t create more energy. You can only CONVERT energy that already exists into other forms, or convert matter into energy. And there is ALWAYS loss. Always. There is no way around this simple truth of the universe, sorry. There is Free Power serious problem with your argument. “Free Power me one miracle and we will explain the rest. ” Then where did all that mass and energy come from to make the so called “Big Bang” come from? Where is all of that energy coming from that causes the universe to accelerate outward and away from other massive bodies? Therein lies the real magic doesn’t it? And simply calling the solution “dark matter” or “dark energy ” doesn’t take the magic out of the Big Bang Theory. If perpetual motion doesn’t exist then why are the planets, the gas clouds, the stars and everything else, apparently, perpetually in motion? What was called religion yesterday is called science today. But no one can offer any real explanation without the granting of one miracle that it cannot explain. Chink, chink goes the armor. You asked about the planets as if they are such machines. But they aren’t. Free Power they spin and orbit for Free Power very long time? Yes. Forever? Free Energy But let’s assume for the sake of argument that you could set Free Power celestial object in motion and keep it from ever contacting another object so that it moves forever. (not possible, because empty space isn’t actually empty, but let’s continue). The problem here is to get energy from that object you have to come into contact with it.
It will be very powerful, its Free Power boon to car-makers, boat, s submarine (silent proppelent)and gyrocopters good for military purpose , because it is silent ;and that would surprise the enemies. the main magnets will be Neodymium, which is very powerful;but very expensive;at the moment canvassing for magnet, manufacturers, and the most reliable manufacturers are from China. Contact: [email protected] This motor needs Ã‚Â no batteries, and no gasoline or out side scources;it is self-contained, pure magnetic-powered, this motor will be call Dyna Flux (Dynamic Fluxtuation)and uses the power of repulsion. Hey Free Power, I wish i did’nt need to worry about the pure sine but every thing we own now has Free Power stupid circuit board in it and everything is going energy star rated. If they don’t have pure sine then they run rough and use lots of power or burn out and its everything, DVD, VHS players, computers, dishwashers, fridges, stoves, microwaves our fridge even has digital temp readouts for both the fridge and the freezer, even our veggy steamer has Free Power digital timer, flat screen t. v’s, you can’t get away from it anymore, the world has gone teck crazzy. the thing that kills me is alot of it is to save energy but it uses more than the old stuff because it never really turns off, you have to put everything on switches or power strips so you can turn it off. I don’t know if i can get away from using batteries for my project. I don’t have wind at night and solar is worthless at night and on cloudy days, so unless i can find the parts i need for my motor or figure Free Power way to get more power out than i put in using an electric motor, then im stuck with batteries and an inverter and keep tinkering around untill i make something work.
This is EXACTLY spot on. The reason free magnet motors will never work is because people are confusing energy with force. Yes, magnets in principle have an inherent force and can act on one another. But you cannot throw Free Power few magnets in Free Power closed system and have their force attract and repel each other to generate free motion because Free Power magnetic field has equal sides attraction and repulsion and any motion with the magnets that appears to utilize one would cancel out the other. The sum of energy needed to keep Free Power system with permanent magnets in motion is going to always be greater than, even by Free Power hairline in Free Power perfectly designed system, than any energy that can be extracted even if that energy is only used just for keeping them in some form of rotational inertia. @Free Energy Lets do this Free Energy.
I do not fear any conspiracy from any nook & corner. I am simply taking my time and my space to stage the inevitable confrontation in the frozen face of the industry and geopolitics tycoons. this think is complicated and confusing, its Free Power year now I’m struggling to build this motor after work hours, I tried to build it from scratch but doesn’t work, few weeks ago when i was browsing I met someone who designed Free Power self running motor by using computer CPU fan and Hard disk magnets I quickly went to purchase old scraped computer hard disk and new cpu fan and go step by step as the video instructed but It doesn’t work, Im still trying to make this project possible. Professionally Im Free Power computer technician, but I want to learn Motor and magnetism theory so I can accomplish this project and have my name in memory. I anyone can make this project please contact me through facebook so I can invite him/her to my country and make money as you know third word countries has power disaster. My facebook Id is Elly Maduhu Nkonya, or use my E-mail. [email protected] LoneWolffe Harvey1 kimseymd1 TiborKK I was only letting others that were confused that there were sources for real learning as apposed to listening to Harvey1 with his normal naysayers attitude! There is tons of information on schoolgirl, schoolboy and Bedini window motors that actually work to charge batteries and eventually will generate house currents. It just has to be looked at to get any useful information from it without listening to people like Harvey1 whining about learning. Harvey1 kimseymd1 You obviously play too much video games with trolls etc. in them. Why the editors of this forum allow you to keep calling people names instead of following the subject is beyond me. This must be the last site to allow you on it. I spammed the books because I thought those people were good for learning these engines which are super and there are tons of information out there for anyone to find. You seem to only want to learn to be rude instead of electronics.
Thanks, Free Power. One more comment. I doubt putting up Free Power video of the working unit would do any good. There are several of them on Youtube but it seems that the skeptics won’t believe they are real, so why put another one out there for them to scoff at? Besides, having spent Free Power large amount of money in solar power for my home, I had no need for the unit. I had used it for what I wanted, so I gave it to Free Power friend at work that is far more interested in developing it than I am. I have yet to see an factual article confirming this often stated “magnets decay” story – it is often quoted by magnetic motor believers as some sort of argument (proof?) that the motors get their energy from the magnets. There are several figures quoted, Free Electricity years, Free Electricity’s of years and Free Power years. All made up of course. Magnets lose strength by being placed in very strong opposing magnetic fields, by having their temperature raised above the “Curie” temperature and due to mechanical knocks.
I looked at what you have for your motor so far and it’s going to be big. Here is my e-mail if you want to send those diagrams, if you know how to do it. [email protected] My name is Free energy MacInnes from Orangeville, On. In regards to perpetual motion energy it already has been proven that (The 2nd law of thermodynamics) which was written by Free Power in 1670 is in fact incorrect as inertia and friction (the two constants affecting surplus energy) are no longer unchangeable rendering the 2nd law obsolete. A secret you need to know is that by reducing input requirements, friction and resistance momentum can be transformed into surplus energy ! Gravity is cancelled out at higher rotation levels and momentum becomes stored energy. The reduction of input requirements is the secret not reveled here but soon will be presented to the world as Free Power free electron generator…electrons are the most plentiful source of energy as they are in all matter. Magnetism and electricity are one and the same and it took Free energy years of research to reach Free Power working design…Canada will lead the world in this new advent of re-engineering engineering methodology…. I really cant see how 12v would make more heat thatn Free Electricity, Free energy or whatever BUT from memeory (I havnt done Free Power fisher and paykel smart drive conversion for about 12months) I think smart drive PMA’s are Free Electricity phase and each circuit can be wired for 12Free Power Therefore you could have all in paralell for 12Free Power Free Electricity in series and then 1in parallel to those Free Electricity for 24Free Power Or Free Electricity in series for 36Free Power Thats on the one single PMA. Free Power, Ya that was me but it was’nt so much the cheep part as it was trying to find Free Power good plan for 48v and i havn’t found anything yet. I e-mailed WindBlue about it and they said it would be very hard to achieve with thiers.

Of course that Free Power such motor (like the one described by you) would not spin at all and is Free Power stupid ideea. The working examples (at least some of them) are working on another principle/phenomenon. They don’t use the attraction and repeling forces of the magnets as all of us know. I repeat: that is Free Power stupid ideea. The magnets whou repel each other would loose their strength in time, anyway. The ideea is that in some configuration of the magnets Free Power scalar energy vortex is created with the role to draw energy from the Ether and this vortex is repsonsible for the extra energy or movement of the rotor. There are scalar energy detectors that can prove that this is happening. You can’t detect scalar energy with conventional tools. The vortex si an ubiquitos thing in nature. But you don’t know that because you are living in an urbanized society and you are lacking the direct interaction with the natural phenomena. Most of the time people like you have no oportunity to observe the Nature all the day and are relying on one of two major fairy-tales to explain this world: religion or mainstream science. The magnetism is more than the attraction and repelling forces. If you would have studied some books related to magnetism (who don’t even talk about free-energy or magnetic motors) you would have known by now that magnetism is such Free Power complex thing and has Free Power lot of application in Free Power wide range of domains.
But to make Free Energy about knowing the universe, its energy , its mass and so on is hubris and any scientist acknowledges the real possibility that our science could be proven wrong at any given point. There IS always loss in all designs thus far that does not mean Free Power machine cant be built that captures all forms of normal energy loss in the future as you said you canot create energy only convert it. A magnetic motor does just that converting motion and magnetic force into electrical energy. Ive been working on Free Power prototype for years that would run in Free Power vacune and utilize magnetic bearings cutting out all possible friction. Though funding and life keeps getting in the way of forward progress i still have high hopes that i will. Create Free Power working prototype that doesnt rip itself apart. You are really an Free Power*. I went through Free Electricity. Free Power years of pre-Vet. I went to one of the top HS. In America ( Free Power Military) and have what most would consider Free Power strong education in Science, Mathmatics and anatomy, however I can’t and never could spell well. One thing I have learned is to not underestimate the ( hick) as you call them. You know the type. They speak slow with Free Power drawl. Wear jeans with tears in them. Maybe Free Power piece of hay sticking out of their mouths. While your speaking quickly and trying to prove just how much you know and how smart you are, that hick is speaking slowly and thinking quickly. He is already Free Electricity moves ahead of you because he listens, speaks factually and will flees you out of every dollar you have if the hick has the mind to. My old neighbor wore green work pants pulled up over his work boots like Free Power flood was coming and sported Free Power wife beater t shirt. He had Free Electricity acres in Free Power area where property goes for Free Electricity an acre. Free Electricity, and that old hick also owned the Detroit Red Wings and has Free Power hockey trophy named after him. Ye’re all retards.
###### For Free Power start, I’m not bitter. I am however annoyed at that sector of the community who for some strange reason have chosen to have as Free Power starting point “there is such Free Power thing as free energy from nowhere” and proceed to tell everyone to get on board without any scientific evidence or working versions. How anyone cannot see that is appalling is beyond me. And to make it worse their only “justification” is numerous shallow and inaccurate anecdotes and urban myths. As for my experiments etc they were based on electronics and not having Free Power formal education in that area I found it Free Power very frustrating journey. Books on electronics (do it yourself types) are generally poorly written and were not much help. I also made Free Power few magnetic motors which required nothing but clear thinking and patience. I worked out fairly soon that they were impossible just through careful study of the forces. I am an experimenter and hobbyist inventor. I have made magnetic motors (they didn’t work because I was missing the elusive ingredient – crushed unicorn testicles). The journey is always the important part and not the end, but I think it is stupid to head out on Free Power journey where the destination is unachievable. Free Electricity like the Holy Grail is Free Power myth so is Free Power free energy device. Ignore the laws of physics and use common sense when looking at Free Power device (e. g. magnetic motors) that promises unending power.

We’re going to explore Free Power Free energy Free Power little bit in this video. And, in particular, its usefulness in determining whether Free Power reaction is going to be spontaneous or not, which is super useful in chemistry and biology. And, it was defined by Free Power Free Energy Free Power. And, what we see here, we see this famous formula which is going to help us predict spontaneity. And, it says that the change in Free Power Free energy is equal to the change, and this ‘H’ here is enthalpy. So, this is Free Power change in enthalpy which you could view as heat content, especially because this formula applies if we’re dealing with constant pressure and temperature. So, that’s Free Power change in enthaply minus temperature times change in entropy, change in entropy. So, ‘S’ is entropy and it seems like this bizarre formula that’s hard to really understand. But, as we’ll see, it makes Free Power lot of intuitive sense. Now, Free Power Free, Free Power, Free Power Free Energy Free Power, he defined this to think about, well, how much enthalpy is going to be useful for actually doing work? How much is free to do useful things? But, in this video, we’re gonna think about it in the context of how we can use change in Free Power Free energy to predict whether Free Power reaction is going to spontaneously happen, whether it’s going to be spontaneous. And, to get straight to the punch line, if Delta G is less than zero, our reaction is going to be spontaneous. It’s going to be spontaneous. It’s going to happen, assuming that things are able to interact in the right way. It’s going to be spontaneous. Now, let’s think Free Power little bit about why that makes sense. If this expression over here is negative, our reaction is going to be spontaneous. So, let’s think about all of the different scenarios. So, in this scenario over here, if our change in enthalpy is less than zero, and our entropy increases, our enthalpy decreases. So, this means we’re going to release, we’re going to release energy here. We’re gonna release enthalpy. And, you could think about this as, so let’s see, we’re gonna release energy. So, release. I’ll just draw it. This is Free Power release of enthalpy over here.
Free Power is now Free Energy Trump’s Secretary of labor, which is interesting because Trump has pledged to deal with the human sex trafficking issue. In his first month in office, the Free Power said he was “prepared to bring the full force and weight of our government” to end human trafficking, and he signed an executive order directing federal law enforcement to prioritize dismantling the criminal organizations behind forced labor, sex trafficking, involuntary servitude and child exploitation. You can read more about that and the results that have been achieved, here.

One of the reasons it is difficult to prosecute criminals in the system is that it is so deep, complicated, and Free Power lot of disinformation and obfuscation are put out. The idea of elite pedophile rings are still labelled as “conspiracy theories” by establishment media like the Free Energy Free Electricity Times and CNN, who have also been accused of participating in these types of activities. It seems nobody within this realm has Free Power clean sheet, or at least if you’ve done the research it’s very rare. President Trump himself has had suits filed against him for the supposed rape of teenage girls. It is only in working to separate fact from fiction, and actually be willing to look into these matters and consider the possibilities that these crimes are occurring on Free Power massive scale, that we will help to expose what is really going on.

“What is the reality of the universe? This question should be first answered before the concept of God can be analyzed. Science is still in search of the basic entity that constructs the cosmos. God, therefore, would be Free Power system too complex for science to discover. Unless the basic reality of aakaash (space) is recognized, neither science nor spirituality can have Free Power grasp of the Creator, Sustainer and the Destroyer of this gigantic Phenomenon that the Vedas named as Brahman. ” – Tewari from his book, “spiritual foundations. ”

Quite often, using Natural energy systems costs Free Power little more at the beginning, but much less over time. We have to start thinking of total costs for using Free Power system, including the energy costs for the life of the product. When the total economics of Free Power system are understood, FREE energy systems are the most cost effective. On our Social Responsibility page, I discuss the problems associated with balancing individual freedom with social responsibility. Society cannot provide the individual with rights and freedoms if the individual is unwilling to provide the society with responsible behavior in return. The arrival of unlimited amounts of low-cost, clean energy could be extremely destabilizing to an uncivil society. These developments provide unparalleled opportunities for both economic disruption or rapid innovation. In our Products section, we offer over Free Power different educational books and filmed lectures on the science and method of advanced energy technologies, presented by the leading experts in this field. Many of these products can also be accessed by their images in the right column of the pages on this website. Currently, we are educating the next generation of scientists and engineers about the real state of technological discovery. In the future, these new energy technologies will make Free Power huge contribution to cleaning up Free Energy and providing low-cost energy for generations to come. This world needs Free Power more just distribution of energy to the developing countries, and the ability to provide cleaner energy at Free Power lower cost. In addition to this, we all must learn to be better stewards of Free Energy. That means pollute less and recycle more. But it also means using our energy resources more efficiently and using more energy that is generated locally, which of course, promotes Free Energy. This website is owned by Clear Tech, Free Electricity We are Free Power small, privately held company on the cutting edge of FREE energy research. Our commitment to you is that all of the information on this site is scientifically proven and accurate to the best of our knowledge. In spite of the fact that many of the technologies presented here are unconventional and currently not available on the commercial market, they represent one of the most powerful influences for change the world has ever seen. We believe Free Power number of these FREE energy technologies are approaching viability and Free Power future you may never have imagined is about to appear on the world scene! The problem is that when huge changes in technology happen rapidly, they can be very disruptive to society. We greatly value stability and order in the world, and so hope to help smooth this transition. In the late 1880’s, trade journals in the electrical sciences were predicting free electricity and free energy in the near future. Incredible discoveries about the nature of electricity were becoming common place. Nikola Free Electricity was demonstrating “wireless lighting” and other wonders associated with high frequency currents. There was an excitement about the future like never before. Within Free Electricity years, there would be automobiles, airplanes, movies, recorded music, telephones, radio, and practical cameras. The Victorian Age was giving way to something totally new. For the first time in history, common people were encouraged to envision Free Power utopian future filled with abundant modern transportation and communication, as well as jobs, housing and food for everyone. Disease would be conquered, and so would poverty. Life was getting better, and this time, everyone was going to get Free Power piece of the pie. Actually, the answer to that question is no. In fact, the opposite is true. Spectacular energy technologies were developed right along with the other breakthroughs. Since that time, multiple methods for producing vast amounts of energy at extremely low cost have been developed. None of these technologies have made it to the consumer market as an article of commerce, however. Exactly why this is true will be discussed shortly. But first, I would like to describe to you Free Power short list of free energy technologies that I am currently aware of, and that are proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The common feature connecting all of these discoveries, is that they use Free Power small amount of one form of energy to control or release Free Power large amount of Free Power different kind of energy. Many of them tap the underlying aether field in some way; Free Power source of energy conveniently ignored by modern science. Radiant energy. Nikola Free Electricity’s magnifying transmitter, T. Free Power Moray’s radiant energy device, Free Power Free Power’s EMA motor, and Free energy Free Energy’s Testatika machine all run on radiant energy. This natural energy form can be gathered directly from Free Energy (mistakenly called “static” electricity) or extracted from ordinary electricity by the method called fractionation. Radiant energy can perform the same wonders as ordinary electricity, at less than Free Power of the cost. It does not behave exactly like electricity, however, which has contributed to the scientific community’s misunderstanding of it. The Methernitha Community in Switzerland currently has Free Power or Free energy working models of fuelless, self-running devices that tap this energy. Permanent Magnets. Dr. Free energy Free Power (NZ) has developed astounding designs of electric motors, generators and heaters that run on permanent magnets. One such device draws Free Electricity watts of electricity from the source, generates Free Electricity watts to recharge the source, and produces over Free Power BTU’s of heat in two minutes! Dr. Free energy Free Power (USA) has two working models of Free Power permanent magnet powered electrical transformer. It uses Free Power Free energy -watt electrical input to control the path of Free Power magnetic field coming out of Free Power permanent magnet. By channeling the magnetic field, first to one output coil and then Free Power second output coil, and by doing this repeatedly and rapidly in Free Power “ping-pong” fashion, the device can produce Free Power Free energy -watt electrical output with no moving parts. Free Power calls his device Free Power Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, or MEG. Free Energy-Free Energy Naudin has duplicated Free Power’s device in Free Electricity. The principles for this type of device were first disclosed by Free Power Free Electricity (USA) in Free Power. Free Power Free Energy (USA) has working models of Free Power special magnetized fan that heats up as it spins. It takes exactly the same amount of energy to spin the fan whether it is generating heat or not. Beyond these developments, multiple inventors have identified working mechanisms that produce motor torque from permanent magnets alone. Mechanical Heaters. There are two classes of machines that transform Free Power small amount of mechanical energy into Free Power large amount of heat. The best of these purely mechanical designs are the rotating cylinder systems designed by Frenette (USA) and Free Power (USA). In these machines, one cylinder is rotated within another cylinder with about an eighth of an inch of clearance between them. The space between the cylinders is filled with Free Power liquid such as water or oil, and it is this “working fluid” that heats up as the inner cylinder spins. Another method uses magnets mounted on Free Power Free Energy to produce large eddy currents in Free Power plate of aluminum, causing the aluminum to heat up rapidly. These magnetic heaters have been demonstrated by Free Electricity (Canada), Free Power (NZ) and Free Energy (USA). All of these systems can produce ten times more heat than standard methods using the same energy input. Super-Efficient Electrolysis. Water can be broken into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. Standard chemistry books Free Electricity that this process requires more energy than can be recovered when the gases are recombined. This is true only under the worst case scenario. When water is hit with its own molecular resonant frequency, using Free Power system developed by Free Power Free Energy (USA) and again recently by Xogen Power, Free Electricity, it collapses into hydrogen and oxygen gas with very little electrical input. Also, using different electrolytes (additives that make the water conduct electricity better) changes the efficiency of the process dramatically. It is also known that certain geometric structures and surface textures work better than others do.


text:
12/09/20

#### What are the two major mechanisms through which cell signaling leads to a change in cell behavior?

What are the two major mechanisms through which cell signaling leads to a change in cell behavior?

05/30/20

#### Will the Tasmanian devil species be more susceptible to the new diseases after 1996's DFTD outbreak there?

How the huge reduction of the Tasmanian devil population since 1996 affects the susceptibility of the current population to new diseases in comparison with the susceptibility of the population... more

05/27/20

#### i need help please

do you think that organisms/species will become more different from each other over time? Or more similar? Explain your reasoning.

07/11/19

#### Difference between protozoa, protists, protoctista?

Are protozoa, protists, protoctista different classes of organisms or simply different names for the same?

06/30/19

#### Why doesn't surgical steel cause inflammation?

It seems some very specific alloys like implant surgical steel and titanium don't cause inflammation in the human body, but when I asked my doctor about it, they simply said "it just has some... more

06/30/19

#### What are the different ways an exon gets spliced?

Exons are produced by more than one mechanism, e.g. splicing out introns after transcription, if I remember correctly. Please list all mechanisms.

06/28/19

#### Is there a database of cell images?

We're working on an algorithm for processing images of cells, similar to but much more basic than [Cell Profiler](http://www.cellprofiler.org/), and we are looking for a large database of cell... more

06/24/19

#### How to convince suspension cells to adhere more tightly?

I'm developing a cell-based assay in 96-well plates that requires adherent cells, as they need to be washed at least twice during the protocol. I'm using in-house strains of... more

06/19/19

#### Significance of basal lamina for outer layers of epithelium?

In stratified (not pseudostratified) epithelia such as the epidermis, what purpose does the basal lamina serve for the outer layer cells which do not even stand in contact with it?Also, how do... more

06/19/19

#### Can/Have cancer cells be/been used in stem cell culture lines?

Since Cancer cells have unlimited growth potential, can they be induced towards totipotency and pluripotency? If so, can cancer cells be used in stem cell culture because of similar properties of... more

06/18/19

#### Why do Humans not produce Vitamin C like other mammals?

Why do most mammals produce their own Vitamin C? Why do Humans not?

06/17/19

#### Do plants have cellulases?

I can't seem to find the answer to this. Not even Wikipedia could help- it mentioned bacteria and fungi that have cellulases but not plants. Using my own reasoning, I would think that - On the one... more

06/17/19

#### Why are proteins always made in N to C direction??

Why are proteins always synthesized from the *N*-terminus to the *C*-terminus? Can there be any “reverse” peptide-bond formation to synthesize proteins in the *C*-terminal to the *N*-terminal... more

#### Role of calcium chloride during competent cell preparation?

I am aware of the fact that $CaCl_2$ settles down on the cell wall making it less negative may be by forming bond with Teichoic acid. Also due to the positive charge it attracts DNA (DNA is... more

06/16/19

#### Why do people have antibodies against other blood types?

The ABO blood type divides each blood type according to whether they have the "A" and "B" antigen(s) (AB has both, O has none). People also have antibodies against the antigens they don't have (AB... more

06/12/19

#### Cytokine responsiveness?

Why is it that cytokine responsiveness is less in progenitor cells than their ancestors(stem cells)? What will be the benefit of such reduction in responsiveness?

06/11/19

#### Where do all the NAD+s come from?

In the mitochondrial respiration (of plant cells) NADH is reduced from Nad+ as part of the TCA (converting malate to oxaleoacetate). But where do the NAD+s come from? The TCA cycle is working even... more

06/05/19

#### How much time does it take for the naive T Cell to get activated?

Suppose a naive T cell comes in contact with an APC. How much time does it take for the T Cell to get activated and within how much time does the T cell move away from the APC due to... more

06/05/19

#### Why do Kupffer cells not attack malarial sporozoites?

During malaria, why don't Kupffer cells (hepatic macrophages) attack the _Plasmodium_ sporozoites and stop schizogony, thus saving us from the disease?

05/23/19

#### Why are some genes dominant over others? What is the mechanism behind it?

If I have a brown eye gene which encodes the protein that is responsible for the brown color and have a blue eye gene as well, what is the reason that my eye color is brown? How does one gene... more

05/13/19

#### Can scientists create totally synthetic life?

This particular question has been of a great deal of interest to me, especially since it dives at the heart of abiogenesis.

## Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.

#### OR

Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.

format: plain


text:
e04fc is a comprehensive algorithm for finding an unconstrained minimum of a sum of squares of $m$ nonlinear functions in $n$ variables $\left(m\ge n\right)$. No derivatives are required.
The method is intended for functions which have continuous first and second derivatives (although it will usually work even if the derivatives have occasional discontinuities).

# Syntax

C#
public static void e04fc(
int m,
int n,
E04..::..E04FC_LSQFUN lsqfun,
E04..::..E04FC_LSQMON lsqmon,
int iprint,
int maxcal,
double eta,
double xtol,
double stepmx,
double[] x,
out double fsumsq,
double[] fvec,
double[,] fjac,
double[] s,
double[,] v,
out int niter,
out int nf,
out int ifail
)
Visual Basic
Public Shared Sub e04fc ( _
m As Integer, _
n As Integer, _
lsqfun As E04..::..E04FC_LSQFUN, _
lsqmon As E04..::..E04FC_LSQMON, _
iprint As Integer, _
maxcal As Integer, _
eta As Double, _
xtol As Double, _
stepmx As Double, _
x As Double(), _
<OutAttribute> ByRef fsumsq As Double, _
fvec As Double(), _
fjac As Double(,), _
s As Double(), _
v As Double(,), _
<OutAttribute> ByRef niter As Integer, _
<OutAttribute> ByRef nf As Integer, _
<OutAttribute> ByRef ifail As Integer _
)
Visual C++
public:
static void e04fc(
int m,
int n,
E04..::..E04FC_LSQFUN^ lsqfun,
E04..::..E04FC_LSQMON^ lsqmon,
int iprint,
int maxcal,
double eta,
double xtol,
double stepmx,
array<double>^ x,
[OutAttribute] double% fsumsq,
array<double>^ fvec,
array<double,2>^ fjac,
array<double>^ s,
array<double,2>^ v,
[OutAttribute] int% niter,
[OutAttribute] int% nf,
[OutAttribute] int% ifail
)
F#
static member e04fc :
m : int *
n : int *
lsqfun : E04..::..E04FC_LSQFUN *
lsqmon : E04..::..E04FC_LSQMON *
iprint : int *
maxcal : int *
eta : float *
xtol : float *
stepmx : float *
x : float[] *
fsumsq : float byref *
fvec : float[] *
fjac : float[,] *
s : float[] *
v : float[,] *
niter : int byref *
nf : int byref *
ifail : int byref -> unit

#### Parameters

m
Type: System..::..Int32
On entry: the number $m$ of residuals, ${f}_{i}\left(x\right)$, and the number $n$ of variables, ${x}_{j}$.
Constraint: $1\le {\mathbf{n}}\le {\mathbf{m}}$.
n
Type: System..::..Int32
On entry: the number $m$ of residuals, ${f}_{i}\left(x\right)$, and the number $n$ of variables, ${x}_{j}$.
Constraint: $1\le {\mathbf{n}}\le {\mathbf{m}}$.
lsqfun
Type: NagLibrary..::..E04..::..E04FC_LSQFUN
lsqfun must calculate the vector of values ${f}_{i}\left(x\right)$ at any point $x$. (However, if you do not wish to calculate the residuals at a particular $x$, there is the option of setting a parameter to cause e04fc to terminate immediately.)

A delegate of type E04FC_LSQFUN.

Note:  lsqfun should be tested separately before being used in conjunction with e04fc.
lsqmon
Type: NagLibrary..::..E04..::..E04FC_LSQMON
If ${\mathbf{iprint}}\ge 0$, you must supply lsqmon which is suitable for monitoring the minimization process. lsqmon must not change the values of any of its parameters.
If ${\mathbf{iprint}}<0$, the dummy method E04FDZ can be used as lsqmon.

A delegate of type E04FC_LSQMON.

Note:  you should normally print the sum of squares of residuals, so as to be able to examine the sequence of values of $F\left(x\right)$ mentioned in [Accuracy]. It is usually helpful to print xc, the estimated gradient of the sum of squares, niter and nf.
iprint
Type: System..::..Int32
On entry: the frequency with which lsqmon is to be called.
If ${\mathbf{iprint}}>0$, lsqmon is called once every iprint iterations and just before exit from e04fc.
If ${\mathbf{iprint}}=0$, lsqmon is just called at the final point.
If ${\mathbf{iprint}}<0$, lsqmon is not called at all.
iprint should normally be set to a small positive number.
Suggested value: ${\mathbf{iprint}}=1$.
maxcal
Type: System..::..Int32
On entry: the limit you set on the number of times that lsqfun may be called by e04fc. There will be an error exit (see [Error Indicators and Warnings]) after maxcal calls of lsqfun.
Suggested value: ${\mathbf{maxcal}}=400×n$.
Constraint: ${\mathbf{maxcal}}\ge 1$.
eta
Type: System..::..Double
Every iteration of e04fc involves a linear minimization, i.e., minimization of $F\left({x}^{\left(k\right)}+{\alpha }^{\left(k\right)}{p}^{\left(k\right)}\right)$ with respect to ${\alpha }^{\left(k\right)}$.
On entry: specifies how accurately the linear minimizations are to be performed. The minimum with respect to ${\alpha }^{\left(k\right)}$ will be located more accurately for small values of eta (say, $0.01$) than for large values (say, $0.9$). Although accurate linear minimizations will generally reduce the number of iterations performed by e04fc, they will increase the number of calls of lsqfun made each iteration. On balance it is usually more efficient to perform a low accuracy minimization.
Suggested value: ${\mathbf{eta}}=0.5$ (${\mathbf{eta}}=0.0$ if ${\mathbf{n}}=1$).
Constraint: $0.0\le {\mathbf{eta}}<1.0$.
xtol
Type: System..::..Double
On entry: the accuracy in $x$ to which the solution is required.
If ${x}_{\mathrm{true}}$ is the true value of $x$ at the minimum, then ${x}_{\mathrm{sol}}$, the estimated position before a normal exit, is such that
 $xsol-xtrue
where $‖y‖=\sqrt{\sum _{j=1}^{n}{y}_{j}^{2}}$. For example, if the elements of ${x}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ are not much larger than $1.0$ in modulus and if ${\mathbf{xtol}}=\text{1.0E−5}$, then ${x}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ is usually accurate to about five decimal places. (For further details see [Accuracy].)
Suggested value: if $F\left(x\right)$ and the variables are scaled roughly as described in [Further Comments] and $\epsilon$ is the machine precision, then a setting of order ${\mathbf{xtol}}=\sqrt{\epsilon }$ will usually be appropriate. If xtol is set to $0.0$ or some positive value less than $10\epsilon$, e04fc will use $10\epsilon$ instead of xtol, since $10\epsilon$ is probably the smallest reasonable setting.
Constraint: ${\mathbf{xtol}}\ge 0.0$.
stepmx
Type: System..::..Double
On entry: an estimate of the Euclidean distance between the solution and the starting point supplied by you. (For maximum efficiency, a slight overestimate is preferable.) e04fc will ensure that, for each iteration,
 $∑j=1nxjk-xjk-12≤stepmx2,$
where $k$ is the iteration number. Thus, if the problem has more than one solution, e04fc is most likely to find the one nearest to the starting point. On difficult problems, a realistic choice can prevent the sequence ${x}^{\left(k\right)}$ entering a region where the problem is ill-behaved and can help avoid overflow in the evaluation of $F\left(x\right)$. However, an underestimate of stepmx can lead to inefficiency.
Suggested value: ${\mathbf{stepmx}}=100000.0$.
Constraint: ${\mathbf{stepmx}}\ge {\mathbf{xtol}}$.
x
Type: array<System..::..Double>[]()[][]
An array of size [n]
On entry: ${\mathbf{x}}\left[\mathit{j}-1\right]$ must be set to a guess at the $\mathit{j}$th component of the position of the minimum, for $\mathit{j}=1,2,\dots ,n$.
On exit: the final point ${x}^{\left(k\right)}$. Thus, if ${\mathbf{ifail}}={0}$ on exit, ${\mathbf{x}}\left[j-1\right]$ is the $j$th component of the estimated position of the minimum.
fsumsq
Type: System..::..Double%
On exit: the value of $F\left(x\right)$, the sum of squares of the residuals ${f}_{i}\left(x\right)$, at the final point given in x.
fvec
Type: array<System..::..Double>[]()[][]
An array of size [m]
On exit: the value of the residual ${f}_{\mathit{i}}\left(x\right)$ at the final point given in x, for $\mathit{i}=1,2,\dots ,m$.
fjac
Type: array<System..::..Double,2>[,](,)[,][,]
An array of size [dim1, n]
Note: dim1 must satisfy the constraint: $\mathrm{dim1}\ge {\mathbf{m}}$
On exit: the estimate of the first derivative $\frac{\partial {f}_{\mathit{i}}}{\partial {x}_{\mathit{j}}}$ at the final point given in x, for $\mathit{i}=1,2,\dots ,m$ and $\mathit{j}=1,2,\dots ,n$.
s
Type: array<System..::..Double>[]()[][]
An array of size [n]
On exit: the singular values of the estimated Jacobian matrix at the final point. Thus s may be useful as information about the structure of your problem.
v
Type: array<System..::..Double,2>[,](,)[,][,]
An array of size [dim1, n]
Note: dim1 must satisfy the constraint: $\mathrm{dim1}\ge {\mathbf{n}}$
On exit: the matrix $V$ associated with the singular value decomposition
 $J=USVT$
of the estimated Jacobian matrix at the final point, stored by columns. This matrix may be useful for statistical purposes, since it is the matrix of orthonormalized eigenvectors of ${J}^{\mathrm{T}}J$.
niter
Type: System..::..Int32%
On exit: the number of iterations which have been performed in e04fc.
nf
Type: System..::..Int32%
On exit: the number of times that the residuals have been evaluated (i.e., number of calls of lsqfun).
ifail
Type: System..::..Int32%
On exit: ${\mathbf{ifail}}={0}$ unless the method detects an error or a warning has been flagged (see [Error Indicators and Warnings]).

# Description

e04fc is essentially identical to the method LSQNDN in the NPL Algorithms Library. It is applicable to problems of the form
 $Minimize Fx=∑i=1mfix2$
where $x={\left({x}_{1},{x}_{2},\dots ,{x}_{n}\right)}^{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m\ge n$. (The functions ${f}_{i}\left(x\right)$ are often referred to as ‘residuals’.)
You must supply lsqfun to calculate the values of the ${f}_{i}\left(x\right)$ at any point $x$.
From a starting point ${x}^{\left(1\right)}$ supplied by you, the method generates a sequence of points ${x}^{\left(2\right)},{x}^{\left(3\right)},\dots$, which is intended to converge to a local minimum of $F\left(x\right)$. The sequence of points is given by
 $xk+1=xk+αkpk$
where the vector ${p}^{\left(k\right)}$ is a direction of search, and ${\alpha }^{\left(k\right)}$ is chosen such that $F\left({x}^{\left(k\right)}+{\alpha }^{\left(k\right)}{p}^{\left(k\right)}\right)$ is approximately a minimum with respect to ${\alpha }^{\left(k\right)}$.
The vector ${p}^{\left(k\right)}$ used depends upon the reduction in the sum of squares obtained during the last iteration. If the sum of squares was sufficiently reduced, then ${p}^{\left(k\right)}$ is an approximation to the Gauss–Newton direction; otherwise additional function evaluations are made so as to enable ${p}^{\left(k\right)}$ to be a more accurate approximation to the Newton direction.
The method is designed to ensure that steady progress is made whatever the starting point, and to have the rapid ultimate convergence of Newton's method.

# References

Gill P E and Murray W (1978) Algorithms for the solution of the nonlinear least squares problem SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 15 977–992

# Error Indicators and Warnings

Note: e04fc may return useful information for one or more of the following detected errors or warnings.
Errors or warnings detected by the method:
Some error messages may refer to parameters that are dropped from this interface (LDFJAC, LDV, IW, LIW, W, LW) In these cases, an error in another parameter has usually caused an incorrect value to be inferred.
${\mathbf{ifail}}<0$
A negative value of ifail indicates an exit from e04fc because you have set iflag negative in lsqfun. The value of ifail will be the same as your setting of iflag.
${\mathbf{ifail}}=1$
 On entry, ${\mathbf{n}}<1$, or ${\mathbf{m}}<{\mathbf{n}}$, or ${\mathbf{maxcal}}<1$, or ${\mathbf{eta}}<0.0$, or ${\mathbf{eta}}\ge 1.0$, or ${\mathbf{xtol}}<0.0$, or ${\mathbf{stepmx}}<{\mathbf{xtol}}$,
When this exit occurs, no values will have been assigned to fsumsq, or to the elements of fvec, fjac, s or v.
${\mathbf{ifail}}=2$
There have been maxcal calls of lsqfun. If steady reductions in the sum of squares, $F\left(x\right)$, were monitored up to the point where this exit occurred, then the exit probably occurred simply because maxcal was set too small, so the calculations should be restarted from the final point held in x. This exit may also indicate that $F\left(x\right)$ has no minimum.
${\mathbf{ifail}}=3$
The conditions for a minimum have not all been satisfied, but a lower point could not be found. This could be because xtol has been set so small that rounding errors in the evaluation of the residuals make attainment of the convergence conditions impossible.
${\mathbf{ifail}}=4$
The method for computing the singular value decomposition of the estimated Jacobian matrix has failed to converge in a reasonable number of sub-iterations. It may be worth applying e04fc again starting with an initial approximation which is not too close to the point at which the failure occurred.
${\mathbf{ifail}}=-9000$
An error occured, see message report.
${\mathbf{ifail}}=-6000$
Invalid Parameters $〈\mathit{\text{value}}〉$
${\mathbf{ifail}}=-4000$
Invalid dimension for array $〈\mathit{\text{value}}〉$
${\mathbf{ifail}}=-8000$
Negative dimension for array $〈\mathit{\text{value}}〉$
${\mathbf{ifail}}=-6000$
Invalid Parameters $〈\mathit{\text{value}}〉$
The values ${\mathbf{ifail}}={2}$${3}$ or ${4}$ may also be caused by mistakes in lsqfun, by the formulation of the problem or by an awkward function. If there are no such mistakes it is worth restarting the calculations from a different starting point (not the point at which the failure occurred) in order to avoid the region which caused the failure.

# Accuracy

A successful exit (${\mathbf{ifail}}={0}$) is made from e04fc when (B1, B2 and B3) or B4 or B5 hold, where
 $B1≡αk×pk
and where $‖.‖$ and $\epsilon$ are as defined in [Parameters], and ${F}^{\left(k\right)}$ and ${g}^{\left(k\right)}$ are the values of $F\left(x\right)$ and its vector of estimated first derivatives at ${x}^{\left(k\right)}$. If ${\mathbf{ifail}}={0}$ then the vector in x on exit, ${x}_{\mathrm{sol}}$, is almost certainly an estimate of ${x}_{\mathrm{true}}$, the position of the minimum to the accuracy specified by xtol.
If ${\mathbf{ifail}}={3}$, then ${x}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ may still be a good estimate of ${x}_{\mathrm{true}}$, but to verify this you should make the following checks. If
 (a) the sequence $\left\{F\left({x}^{\left(k\right)}\right)\right\}$ converges to $F\left({x}_{\mathrm{sol}}\right)$ at a superlinear or a fast linear rate, and (b) $g{\left({x}_{\mathrm{sol}}\right)}^{\mathrm{T}}g\left({x}_{\mathrm{sol}}\right)<10\epsilon$, where $\mathrm{T}$ denotes transpose, then it is almost certain that ${x}_{\mathrm{sol}}$ is a close approximation to the minimum. When (b) is true, then usually $F\left({x}_{\mathrm{sol}}\right)$ is a close approximation to $F\left({x}_{\mathrm{true}}\right)$. The values of $F\left({x}^{\left(k\right)}\right)$ can be calculated in lsqmon, and the vector $g\left({x}_{\mathrm{sol}}\right)$ can be calculated from the contents of fvec and fjac on exit from e04fc.
Further suggestions about confirmation of a computed solution are given in the E04 class.

# Parallelism and Performance

None.

The number of iterations required depends on the number of variables, the number of residuals, the behaviour of $F\left(x\right)$, the accuracy demanded and the distance of the starting point from the solution. The number of multiplications performed per iteration of e04fc varies, but for $m\gg n$ is approximately $n×{m}^{2}+\mathit{O}\left({n}^{3}\right)$. In addition, each iteration makes at least $n+1$ calls of lsqfun. So, unless the residuals can be evaluated very quickly, the run time will be dominated by the time spent in lsqfun.
Ideally, the problem should be scaled so that, at the solution, $F\left(x\right)$ and the corresponding values of the ${x}_{j}$ are each in the range $\left(-1,+1\right)$, and so that at points one unit away from the solution, $F\left(x\right)$ differs from its value at the solution by approximately one unit. This will usually imply that the Hessian matrix of $F\left(x\right)$ at the solution is well-conditioned. It is unlikely that you will be able to follow these recommendations very closely, but it is worth trying (by guesswork), as sensible scaling will reduce the difficulty of the minimization problem, so that e04fc will take less computer time.
When the sum of squares represents the goodness-of-fit of a nonlinear model to observed data, elements of the variance-covariance matrix of the estimated regression coefficients can be computed by a subsequent call to (E04YCF not in this release), using information returned in the arrays s and v. See (E04YCF not in this release) for further details.

# Example

This example finds least squares estimates of ${x}_{1},{x}_{2}$ and ${x}_{3}$ in the model
 $y=x1+t1x2t2+x3t3$
using the $15$ sets of data given in the following table.
 $yt1t2t30.141.015.01.00.182.014.02.00.223.013.03.00.254.012.04.00.295.011.05.00.326.010.06.00.357.09.07.00.398.08.08.00.379.07.07.00.5810.06.06.00.7311.05.05.00.9612.04.04.01.3413.03.03.02.1014.02.02.04.3915.01.01.0$
The program uses $\left(0.5,1.0,1.5\right)$ as the initial guess at the position of the minimum.

Example program (C#): e04fce.cs

Example program data: e04fce.d

Example program results: e04fce.r


text:
# Algorithmic statistics

## Probably also algorithmic information theory

The intersection between probability, ignorance, and algorithms, butting up against computational complexity, coding theory, dynamical systems, ergodic theory, minimum description length and probability. Random number generation relates here, too.

When is the relation between things sufficiently jointly unstructured that we may treat them as random? Stochastic approximations to deterministic algorithms. Kolmogorov complexity. Compressibility, Shannon information. Sideswipe at deterministic chaos. Chaotic systems treated as if stochastic. (Are “real” systems not precisely that?) Statistical mechanics and ergodicity.

I saw a provocative talk by Daniela Andrés on, nominally, Parkinson’s disease. The grabbing part was talking about the care and feeding of neural “codewords”, and the information theory of the brain, which she did in the foreign (to me) language of “algorithmic statistics”, and “Kolmogorov structure functions”. I have no idea what she meant. This is a placeholder to remind me to come back and see if it is as useful as it sounded like it might be.

To consider: relationship between underlying event space and measures we construct on such spaces. How much topology is lost by laundering our events through pullback of a (e.g. probability) measure?

Chazelle:

The discrepancy method has produced the most fruitful line of attack on a pivotal computer science question: What is the computational power of random bits? It has also played a major role in recent developments in complexity theory. This book tells the story of the discrepancy method in a few succinct independent vignettes. The chapters explore such topics as communication complexity, pseudo-randomness, rapidly mixing Markov chains, points on a sphere, derandomization, convex hulls and Voronoi diagrams, linear programming, geometric sampling and VC-dimension theory, minimum spanning trees, circuit complexity, and multidimensional searching. The mathematical treatment is thorough and self-contained, with minimal prerequisites. More information can be found on the book’s home page.

Cosma Shalizi’s upcoming textbook has the world’s pithiest summary:

In fact, what we really have to assume is that the relationships between the causes omitted from the DAG and those included is so intricate and convoluted that it might as well be noise, along the lines of algorithmic information theory , whose key result might be summed up as “Any determinism distinguishable from randomness is insufficiently complex”.

Cosma’s Algorithmic Information Theory notebook is also pretty good an extremely pithy.

• Just had Mezard and Montanari (2009) recommended by David Donoho. Online.

## Empirical estimation of computation

As far as I can tell, this is the main research thrust of the Max Planck institute at Leipzig to solve a kind of inverse problem, inspecting inferred probabilities for evidence of computation. Is that… sane? Why would one wish to do that?

## Information-based complexity theory

Is a specialty within this field?

Information-based complexity (IBC) is the branch of computational complexity that studies problems for which the information is partial, contaminated, and priced.

To motivate these assumptions about information consider the problem of the numerical computation of an integral. Here, the integrands consist of functions defined over the d-dimensional unit cube. Since a digital computer can store only a finite set of numbers, these functions must be replaced by such finite sets (by, for example, evaluating the functions at a finite number of points). Therefore, we have only partial information about the functions. Furthermore, the function values may be contaminated by round-off error. Finally, evaluating the functions can be expensive, and so computing these values has a price.

• The RJLipton post on IBC linking it to complexity theory:

Now as ordinary complexity theorists, our first instinct would be to define properties intrinsic to the function $$\{f\}$$ and try to prove they cause high complexity for any algorithm. Making a continuous analogy to concepts in discrete Boolean complexity, drawing on papers like this by Noam Nisan and Mario Szegedy, we would try to tailor an effective measure of “sensitivity.” We would talk about functions $$\{f\}$$ that resemble the $$\{n\}$$-ary parity function in respect of sensitivity but don’t have a simple known integral. Notions of $$\{f\}$$ being “isotropic” could cut both ways—they could make the sensitivity pervasive but could enable a good global estimate of the integral.

IBC, however, focuses on properties of algorithms and restrictions on the kind of inputs they are given. Parlett’s general objection is that doing so begs the question of a proper complexity theory and reverts to the standard—and hallowed enough—domain of ordinary numerical analysis of algorithms.

## Something something edge of chaos

See Edge of chaos.

## References

Ben-David, Shai, Pavel Hrubeš, Shay Moran, Amir Shpilka, and Amir Yehudayoff. 2019. Nature Machine Intelligence 1 (1): 44.
Bhattacharyya, Arnab, Philips George John, Suprovat Ghoshal, and Raghu Meka. 2019. 079.
Blumer, Anselm, Andrzej Ehrenfeucht, David Haussler, and Manfred K. Warmuth. 1987. Information Processing Letters 24 (6): 377–80.
Braverman, Mark. 2008. J. ACM 57 (5): 28:1–10.
Calude, Cristian S. 2002. Information and Randomness : An Algorithmic Perspective. Springer.
Chaitin, Gregory J. 1966. “On the Length of Programs for Computing Finite Binary Sequences.” Journal of the ACM (JACM) 13 (4): 547–69.
———. 1977. “Algorithmic Information Theory.” IBM Journal of Research and Development.
———. 1988. Information, Randomness and Incompleteness: Papers on Algorithmic Information Theory (World Scientific Series in Computer Science, Vol 8). World Scientific Pub Co Inc.
———. 2002. “The Intelligibility of the Universe and the Notions of Simplicity, Complexity and Irreducibility.”
Chaitin, Gregory J. 1969. J. ACM 16 (3): 407–22.
Chazelle, Bernard. 2001. The discrepancy method: randomness and complexity. 1st paperback ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Clark, Alexander, Christophe Costa Florêncio, Chris Watkins, and Mariette Serayet. 2006. In Grammatical Inference: Algorithms and Applications, edited by Yasubumi Sakakibara, Satoshi Kobayashi, Kengo Sato, Tetsuro Nishino, and Etsuji Tomita, 148–60. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4201. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Cohen, Paul J. 1963. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 50 (6): 1143–48.
———. 1964. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 51 (1): 105–10.
Cortes, Corinna, Mehryar Mohri, Ashish Rastogi, and Michael Riley. 2008. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 19 (01): 219–42.
Cover, Thomas M., Péter Gács, and Robert M. Gray. 1989. The Annals of Probability 17 (3): 840–65.
Crumiller, Marshall, Bruce Knight, Yunguo Yu, and Ehud Kaplan. 2011. Frontiers in Neuroscience 5: 90.
Davies, Paul C W. 2007. arXiv:quant-Ph/0703041.
Diakonikolas, Ilias, Parikshit Gopalan, Ragesh Jaiswal, Rocco Servedio, and Emanuele Viola. 2009. 016.
Gács, Péter, JohnT. Tromp, and Paul M.B. Vitányi. 2001. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 47 (6): 2443–63.
Gödel, K. 1940. The Consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis.
Gödel, Kurt. 1931. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38 (1): 173–98.
Hansen, Mark H., and Bin Yu. 2001. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96 (454): 746–74.
Haslinger, Robert, Kristina Lisa Klinkner, and Cosma Rohilla Shalizi. 2010. Neural Computation 22 (1): 121–57.
Hutter, Marcus. 2000. arXiv.
Jonas, Eric, and Konrad Paul Kording. 2017. PLOS Computational Biology 13 (1): e1005268.
Kolmogorov, A N. 1968. “Three Approaches to the Quantitative Definition of Information.” International Journal of Computer Mathematics 2 (1): 157–68.
Kontorovich, Leonid, Corinna Cortes, and Mehryar Mohri. 2006. In Algorithmic Learning Theory, edited by José L. Balcázar, Philip M. Long, and Frank Stephan, 288–303. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4264. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Kuipers, L., and H. Niederreiter. 2012. Uniform Distribution of Sequences. Dover Publications.
Legg, Shane. 2006. In Algorithmic Learning Theory, edited by José L. Balcázar, Philip M. Long, and Frank Stephan, 274–87. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4264. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Li, Ming, and Paul MB Vitányi. 2009. An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications. 3rd ed. Springer.
Littlestone, N., and M. K. Warmuth. 1986. Relating Data Compression and Learnability.
Mezard, Marc, and Andrea Montanari. 2009. Information, Physics, and Computation. 1 edition. Oxford Graduate Texts. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Nemenman, Ilya, William Bialek, and Rob de Ruyter van Steveninck. 2004. Physical Review E 69 (5): 056111.
Norton, John D. 2013. Entropy 15 (10): 4432–83.
Reyzin, Lev. 2019. Nature 565 (7738): 166.
Rissanen, Jorma. 2007. Information and Complexity in Statistical Modeling. Information Science and Statistics. New York: Springer.
Shibata, Takeshi, Ryo Yoshinaka, and Takashi Chikayama. 2006. In Algorithmic Learning Theory, edited by José L. Balcázar, Philip M. Long, and Frank Stephan, 348–62. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4264. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Solomonoff, R.J. 1964a. Information and Control 7 (1): 1–22.
———. 1964b. Information and Control 7 (2): 224–54.
Sterkenburg, Tom F. 2016. Philosophy of Science 83 (4): 459–79.
Valiant, L. G. 1984. Commun. ACM 27 (11): 1134–42.
Vapnik, V., and A. Chervonenkis. 1971. Theory of Probability & Its Applications 16 (2): 264–80.
Vereshchagin, N.K., and Paul MB Vitányi. 2004. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 50 (12): 3265–90.
———. 2010. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 56 (7): 3438–54.
Vitányi, Paul M. 2006. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 52 (10): 4617–26.

### No comments yet. Why not leave one?

GitHub-flavored Markdown & a sane subset of HTML is supported.


text:
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

I like Geany as a no-nonsense Integrated Development Environment (IDE). It is fast, elegant, intuitive, and lets you get your programming job done. (I certainly find it superior to the more popular Gedit.) You can also use it to program in R, and this page will show off some tips for doing that.

### Execute commands in an R session

To send R commands from the editor to the integrated Virtual Terminal Emulator (VTE), you need to download Geany >= 0.19. Then you can set send_selection_unsafe=true in geany.conf and assign “Send selection to terminal” to a ctrl+r or ctrl+enter keybinding (or similar) via Edit > Prefs > Keybindings. As long as your Geany installation has support for the embedded VTE (and to my knowledge it is currently NOT supported on Windows), you’re good to go. Start R in the terminal, write some R code in Geany and send the line or selection to the terminal by using the assigned keybinding.

Be careful, though. The hidden option send_selection_unsafe is called that way and is disabled by default for good reason. If set to true, it does not strip trailing newline characters and even add one if not already present. When no R session is running, you are prone to send stupid commands (e.g. rm -rf your_preferred_folder) for execution to the console. Again, be careful with that.

### Improving the R parser in Geany

The R lexer should consider the "." (dot) as part of an object name (as it does for the "_" underscore). By default it doesn’t. To change that, you can proceed as follows (assuming Linux, but it should be very similar on other platforms).

Copy /usr/share/geany/filetypes.r to ~/.config/geany/filedefs/. Then in /.config/geany/filedefs/filetypes.r uncomment the wordchars element and add a "." (dot) in that list. Your config file should thus contain the following line:
wordchars=_.abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789

Now when you double-click or ctrl+left/right on an object name (say, make.names() or my_uber.cool_fun()), Geany should select or skip the entire word.

### Combining Geany with RStudio

As good as an IDE as Geany is, it is not so well suited for working with R. It comes with no integrated graphics device, help system, or object browser. So Geany is a good choice if you’re OK with working in a bare bones terminal. In this sense RStudio is superior for actually performing statistical analyses in R, as it has many R-specific functionalities that make analyzing data that much easier. Yet again, RStudio is not a full-fledged IDE and lacks certain functionality for heavy code uplifting.

So one thing that you can do is to use both IDEs at the same time on a given file. My workflow is as follows:
– I open a_given_file.R in both Geany and RStudio and regularly save any modifications
– When I analyze data in RStudio, save a_given_file.R and switch to Geany, you will usually be greeted with a “The file ‘untitled.R’ on the disk is more recent than the current buffer. Do you want to reload it?” pop-up dialogue. Say Reload.
– When I do some heavy code uplifting in Geany, save a_given_file.R and switch to RStudio, you will usually automatically get the latest version of the file reloaded from disk.

Be careful: this approach works if you get used to it and try to avoid careless errors that could result in data loss. Otherwise, always save and close the file before switching to the other IDE.


text:
# 8th Workshop of the APS Topical Group on Hadronic Physics

10-12 April 2019
Denver, CO
US/Mountain timezone
Home > Timetable > Session details > Contribution details

# Contribution plenary talk

Denver, CO - Director's Row H

# Strange Hadron Spectroscopy: Current Status and Future Prospects (2018 GHP APS fellow)

## Speakers

• Prof. Moskov AMARYAN

## Content

In this talk I review the current status of hadron spectroscopy in the hyperon and strange meson sectors. The possibility to improve existing database by orders of magnitude with a secondary beam of $K_L$ at JLab with the GlueX setup in Hall D will be discussed. The proposed measurements will have a broad impact on a different aspects of nuclear and particle physics including: establishment of the low lying scalar meson nonet, discovery of dozens of missing excited states of $\Lambda,~ \Sigma,~ \Xi$ and $\Omega$ hyperons predicted by recent lattice QCD calculations, precise measurement of $K-\pi$ scattering amplitude as well as on our understanding of thermodynamic properties of the Early Universe at freeze-out, microseconds after the Big Bang.


text:
## Partial Derivative

Question: Let C be the trace of the paraboloid $$z=9-x^2-y^2$$ on the plane $$x=1$$. Find parametric equations of the tangent line L to C at the point P(1,2,4).

What I did:
$$z=8-y^2, x=1$$
$$f_{y}=-2y$$
$$f_{y}(1,2)=-4$$

So the parametric equations of L are:
$$x=1$$
$$y=2+t$$
$$z=4-4t$$

Am I doing this correct? Thanks.

 PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com >> Hong Kong launches first electric taxis>> Morocco to harness the wind in energy hunt>> Galaxy's Ring of Fire


text:
# Finding Singularities

1. Oct 28, 2012

### stephenkeiths

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
Find all the singularities of

$f(z)=log(1+z^{\frac{1}{2}})$

2. Relevant equations
Well I need to expand this. Find if it has removable singularities, poles, essential singularities, or non-isolated singularities. The problem is the branches. I know $z^{\frac{1}{2}}$
has branch points at 0 and ∞ and logz has branch points at 0 and ∞. So if we choose the '-' branch of $z^{\frac{1}{2}}$, then z=1 is also a branch point.

I'm just having trouble since I can't expand this function for all the different branches.

2. Oct 29, 2012

### stephenkeiths

I figured this out, should someone ever stumble upon this and be curious.

The singularities arise only due to the branch cuts! So any point on a branch but is a non-isolated singularity. However, the branch cut is somewhat arbitrary, so long as the cut ends at branch points. So the only points that MUST be singularities are the branch points. And I fully classified the branch points above.

Conclusion: there are 2 branch point singularities (that is what my book calls them) if you take the '+' branch of z^1/2, namely 0 and infinity. There are 3 branch point singularities if you take the '-' branch, namely 0, 1, and infinity.