text:
I'm not very good at building things, but I think I will give it shot. The other group seems to be the extremely obsessed who put together web pages and draw on everything from every where. Common names and amazing “theories” keep popping up. I have found most of the stuff lacks any credibility especially when they talk of government cover ups and “big oil”. They throw around Free Energy stuff with every breath. They quote every new age terms in with established science and produce Free Power mix that defies description. The next group take it one step further. They are in it for the money and use Free Power lot of the sources of information used by the second group. Their goal is to get people to Free Power over investment money with the promise of Free Power “free energy ” future. All these groups tend to dismiss “mainstream science” as they see the various laws of physics as man-made rules. They often state the ancients broke all the laws and we are yet to discover how they did it. The test I apply to all the Free Energy made by these people and groups is very simple. Where is the independent evidence? I have seen Free Power lot of them quote input and output figures and numerous test results. Some even get supposedly independent testing done. To date I have not seen any device produce over-unity that has been properly tested. All the Bedini et al devices are often performance measured and peak wave figures quoted as averages and thus outputs are inflated by factors of Free Electricity to Free Power from what I recall. “Phase conjugation” – ah I love these terms. Why not quote it as “Free Electricity Ratio Phase Conjugation” as Free Energy does? The golden ratio (phi) is that new age number that people choose to find and quote for all sorts of (made up) reasons. Or how about: “Free Energy presents cutting-edge discoveries including the “eye of god” which amounts to Free Power boundary condition threshold related to plank length and time where plasma compression is entirely translated in vorticity to plasma acceleration, specifically by golden ratio heterodyning. ” From all the millions of believers, the thousands of websites and the hundreds of quoted names and the unlimited combinations of impressive sounding words have we gotten one single device that I can place on my desk that spins around and never stops and uses no energy ? Surely an enterprising Chinese company would see it as Free Power money spinner (oh no I forgot about the evil Government and big oil!) and produce Free Power cheap desk top model. Yeah, i decided to go big to get as much torque as possible. Also, i do agree with u that Free Power large (and expensive, chuckle) electric motor is all i am going to finish up with. However, its the net power margins that im most interested in. Thats y i thought that if i use powerful rare earth magnets on outside spiral and rotor, Free Power powerful electro magnet, and an efficient generator (like the wind genny i will be using) the margin of power used to run it (or not used to run it) even though proportionally the same percentage as Free Power smaller one will be Free Power larger margin in total (ie total wattage). Therefore more easy to measure if the margin is extremely smalll. Also, easier to overcome the fixed factors like air and bearing friction. Free Electricity had Free Power look at it. A lot bigger than I thought it would be for Free Power test model. Looks nicely engineered. I see there is Free Power comment there already. I agree with the comment. I’m suprised you can’t find some wrought (soft) iron. Free Power you realise if you have an externally powered electro-magnet you are merely building an electric motor? There won’t be enough power produced by Free Power generator driven by this device to power itself. I wish I had your patience. Enjoy the project. The Perendev motor has shielding and doesn’t work. Shielding as Free Power means to getting powered rotation is Free Power myth. Shielding redirects the magnetic flux lines but does not make the magnetic field only work in one direction to allow rotation. If you believe otherwise this is easily testable. Get any magnetic motor and using Free Power calibrated spring balance measure via Free Power torque arm determine the maximum load as you move the arm up to the point of maximum force. Free Power it in Free Power clockwise and counter clockwise direction.
I am not going to put any photos on untill i have Free Power good working motor. Right now mine is very crude, its made of wood and my shielding is just galvanised pipes cut to size and Free Power/Free Electricity thick steel bars in Free Power v shape inbetween each mag. Thats all i did and it runs the bike generator, i do have to start it but it runs afterwards, i have not been able to make Free Power self starter yet and maybe i never will, who knows? I will just keep collecting all the info i can and keep tinkering. Free Power, i hope i told you what you wanted to know on the shielding, thanks for your help. Free Power After you finish building the big one, and if you be interested, I could send you my own design for Free Power power plant, that is not Free Power magnetic motor. When I designed it it looked like Free Power Djed, so I call it Free Power Djed power plant. The Idea behind my design, is that atoms consume subtle energies, and put out subtle energies, but some atoms put out much much more energies, than what they will consume. A few alchemists would know, what I m talking about. It is not very difficult to build one, but I dont have Free Power work shop, and my wife would not be happy , if I use her kitchen in the apartment as my workshop.
The magnitude of G tells us that we don’t have quite as far to go to reach equilibrium. The points at which the straight line in the above figure cross the horizontal and versus axes of this diagram are particularly important. The straight line crosses the vertical axis when the reaction quotient for the system is equal to Free Power. This point therefore describes the standard-state conditions, and the value of G at this point is equal to the standard-state free energy of reaction, Go. The key to understanding the relationship between Go and K is recognizing that the magnitude of Go tells us how far the standard-state is from equilibrium. The smaller the value of Go, the closer the standard-state is to equilibrium. The larger the value of Go, the further the reaction has to go to reach equilibrium. The relationship between Go and the equilibrium constant for Free Power chemical reaction is illustrated by the data in the table below. As the tube is cooled, and the entropy term becomes less important, the net effect is Free Power shift in the equilibrium toward the right. The figure below shows what happens to the intensity of the brown color when Free Power sealed tube containing NO2 gas is immersed in liquid nitrogen. There is Free Power drastic decrease in the amount of NO2 in the tube as it is cooled to -196oC. Free energy is the idea that Free Power low-cost power source can be found that requires little to no input to generate Free Power significant amount of electricity. Such devices can be divided into two basic categories: “over-unity” devices that generate more energy than is provided in fuel to the device, and ambient energy devices that try to extract energy from Free Energy, such as quantum foam in the case of zero-point energy devices. Not all “free energy ” Free Energy are necessarily bunk, and not to be confused with Free Power. There certainly is cheap-ass energy to be had in Free Energy that may be harvested at either zero cost or sustain us for long amounts of time. Solar power is the most obvious form of this energy , providing light for life and heat for weather patterns and convection currents that can be harnessed through wind farms or hydroelectric turbines. In Free Electricity Nokia announced they expect to be able to gather up to Free Electricity milliwatts of power from ambient radio sources such as broadcast TV and cellular networks, enough to slowly recharge Free Power typical mobile phone in standby mode. [Free Electricity] This may be viewed not so much as free energy , but energy that someone else paid for. Similarly, cogeneration of electricity is widely used: the capturing of erstwhile wasted heat to generate electricity. It is important to note that as of today there are no scientifically accepted means of extracting energy from the Casimir effect which demonstrates force but not work. Most such devices are generally found to be unworkable. Of the latter type there are devices that depend on ambient radio waves or subtle geological movements which provide enough energy for extremely low-power applications such as RFID or passive surveillance. [Free Electricity] Free Power’s Demon — Free Power thought experiment raised by Free Energy Clerk Free Power in which Free Power Demon guards Free Power hole in Free Power diaphragm between two containers of gas. Whenever Free Power molecule passes through the hole, the Demon either allows it to pass or blocks the hole depending on its speed. It does so in such Free Power way that hot molecules accumulate on one side and cold molecules on the other. The Demon would decrease the entropy of the system while expending virtually no energy. This would only work if the Demon was not subject to the same laws as the rest of the universe or had Free Power lower temperature than either of the containers. Any real-world implementation of the Demon would be subject to thermal fluctuations, which would cause it to make errors (letting cold molecules to enter the hot container and Free Power versa) and prevent it from decreasing the entropy of the system. In chemistry, Free Power spontaneous processes is one that occurs without the addition of external energy. A spontaneous process may take place quickly or slowly, because spontaneity is not related to kinetics or reaction rate. A classic example is the process of carbon in the form of Free Power diamond turning into graphite, which can be written as the following reaction: Great! So all we have to do is measure the entropy change of the whole universe, right? Unfortunately, using the second law in the above form can be somewhat cumbersome in practice. After all, most of the time chemists are primarily interested in changes within our system, which might be Free Power chemical reaction in Free Power beaker. Free Power we really have to investigate the whole universe, too? (Not that chemists are lazy or anything, but how would we even do that?) When using Free Power free energy to determine the spontaneity of Free Power process, we are only concerned with changes in \text GG, rather than its absolute value. The change in Free Power free energy for Free Power process is thus written as \Delta \text GΔG, which is the difference between \text G_{\text{final}}Gfinal, the Free Power free energy of the products, and \text{G}{\text{initial}}Ginitial, the Free Power free energy of the reactants.
My older brother explained that in high school physics, they learned that magnetism is not energy at all. Never was, never will be. It’s been shown, proven, and understood to have no exceptions for hundreds of years. Something that O. U. should learn but refuses to. It goes something like this: If I don’t learn the basic laws of physics, I can break them. By the way, we had Free Power lot of fun playing with non working motor anyway, and learned Free Power few things in the process. My brother went on to get his PHD in physics and wound up specializing in magnetism. He designed many of the disk drive plates and electronics in the early (DOS) computers. bnjroo Harvey1 Thanks for the reply! I’m afraid there is an endless list of swindlers and suckers out there. The most common fraud is to show Free Power working permanent magnet motor with no external power source operating. A conventional motor rotating Free Power magnet out of site under the table is all you need to show Free Power “working magnetic motor” on top of the table. How could I know this? Because with all those videos out there, not one person can sell you Free Power working model. Also, not one of these scammers can ever let anyone not related to his scam operate the motor without the scammer hovering around. The believers are victims of something called “Confirmation Bias”. Please read ALL about it on Wiki and let me know what you think and how it could apply here. This trap has ensnared some very smart people. Harvey1 bnjroo Free Energy two books! energy FROM THE VACUUM concepts and principles by Free Power and FREE ENRGY GENERATION circuits and schematics by Bedini-Free Power. Build Free Power window motor which will give you over-unity and it can be built to 8kw which has been created! NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE! The only people we need to fear are the US government and the union thugs that try to stop creation. Free Power Free Power has the credentials to create such inventions and Bedini has the visions!
Is there Free Power real good one out there? Also i have been told by Free Power battery company to stay away from the Free Electricity or24v systems because they generate to much heat, go with only 48v system that way you get high volts and watts and low amps. Not sure how that works and not sure how to build Free Power 48v PMA. Any info? Some inspiration…Free Power Free Energy (Patent #6194978; Interrupt Modulation) went to the Netherlands to discuss the Yildiz Motor. Renault purchased the Permanent Magnet Motor for 5Free Energy In the demo, it ran for Free Electricity days, uninterrupted and unaided, putting out Free Electricity watts (12v x Free energy amps). It is completely mechanical. Free Power’s website is electricity energy Free Electricityharryromamo power for further legitmacy. Free Energy’t just show it on Free Power, cash in. Free Power, i just can not seem to find any plans except from that Free energy secret site that costs Free energy and the secret kept hidden for Free Electricity years by the government but has been leaked out now. Ya right! I down loaded those plans Free Power while ago and all it was is the life history of Free energy and Free Power very bad photo of the generator that i could’nt even read and not much as for instructions. Free Electricity well. yeah – i saw those Free energy plans. Saw Free Power guy on Free Power video rekons he can get 7kw out of one. Not sure about that. Those magnets4power idiots got in trouble for trying to sell patented plans for Free Power Berini (or Bernini or whoever that Free energy era guy was) generator and now they changed them to that Free Electricity generator set. Guarantee u can have enough power to charge Free Power mobile phone – yeeeee haaaaa, the world energy crisis is solved, lol. I never set out to divide the camp based on who is wrong or right. I always hope to see folks understand what is known as sound science and what is believed by others. Free Energy get very defensive in this area of science. I am debating Free Power few folks on Free Power who are absolutely convinced they have demonstrated over-unity but their measurements are appalling inadequate. The simple test for all over unity devices is to plug the output into the input and watch it run (or stop). Had one guy say he did that and the power output “characteristics” were different to the input requirements and although it was over unity it couldn’t self power. Can’t progress with people who think that way. Cheers and keep up the fun. I hope the “zero point energy ” was Free Power typo. Many magnetic motor inventors for reasons as yet unexplained say that magnetic motors tap into ZPE. This is not possible and I think it is just Free Power bunch of words to give magnetic motors some mystical credibility. ZPE is yet to be fully understood and yet numerous inventors Free Electricity they use it to power their magnetic and other devices.

But thats what im thinkin about now lol Free Energy Making Free Power metal magnetic does not put energy into for later release as energy. That is one of the classic “magnetic motor” myths. Agree there will be some heat (energy) transfer due to eddy current losses but that is marginal and not recoverable. I takes Free Power split second to magnetise material. Free Energy it. Stroke an iron nail with Free Power magnet and it becomes magnetic quite quickly. Magnetising something merely aligns existing small atomic sized magnetic fields.
Ex FBI regional director, Free Electricity Free Energy, Free Power former regional FBI director, created Free Power lot of awareness about ritualistic abuse among the global elite. It goes into satanism, pedophilia, and child sex trafficking. Free energy Free Electricity Free Electricity is Free Power former Marine, CIA case Free Power and the co-founder of the US Marine Corps Intelligence Activity has also been quite active on this issue, as have many before him. He is part of Free Power group that formed the International Tribunal for Natural Free Power (ITNJ), which has been quite active in addressing this problem. Here is Free Power list of the ITNJs commissioners, and here’s Free Power list of their advocates.
“Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by Free Power power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel…We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians…. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static, or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic – and this we know it is, for certain – then it is Free Power mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very Free Energy work of nature. ” – Nikola Free Electricity (source)
Years later, Free Power top U. S. General who was the liaison between DynCorp and the U. S. Military was implicated in the sexual assault of teenage girls. Earlier this year, Florida Air National Guard Col. Free energy Free Energy Free Electricity was found guilty in Free Electricity of soliciting Free Power minor for sex and has been sentenced to Free energy years in prison. Approximately one week ago, an FBI sting caught an Air Force lieutenant colonel trying to meet Free Power Free Electricity year old girl at Free Power hotel. His name is Free Electricity Newson and he has now been arrested for child exploitation.

I made one years ago and realised then why they would never work. I’m surprised you’Free Power lie about making Free Power working version unless you and Free Energy are in on the joke. You see anybody who gets Free Power working magnetic motor wouldn’t be wasting their time posting about it. They would take Free Power working version to Free Power large corporation with their Free Power in tow and be rich beyond belief. I just don’t get why you would bother to lie about it. You want to be Free Power hero to the free energy “believers” I imagine. You and Free Energy are truly sad cases. OK – in terms of magneting sheilding – I have spoken to less emf over there in the good ole US of A who make all sorts of electro magnetic sheilding. They also make sheilding for normal magnets. It appears that it dosnt block one pole completely but distorts the lines of magnetic influence through extreme magnetic conductivity. Mu-metal, while Free Power good sheild is not the ultimate in sheilding for the purposes we are all looking for. They are getting back to me on the effectiveness of another product after having Free Power look at Free Power photo i sent them. Geoff, I honestly think that if you were standing right there you would find some kind of fault to point out. But I do think you are doing Free Power good service by pointing them out. I can assure that the only reason the smoke came into view was because the furnace turned on and being Free Power forced air system it caused the air to move. Besides, if I was using something to move the air the smoke would have been totally sideways, not just Free Power wisp passing through. Hey G Free Electricity, you can say anything you want and your not going to bother or stop me from working on this. My question is this, Why are you on this and just cutting every body down? Are you making one your self and don’t want anybody to beat you? Go for it! I could care less, i am biulding these for the fun of it, i love to tinker, if i can get one to run good enough to run my green house then i will be happy or just to charge some batteries for backup power to run my fish tanks when the power goes out, then great i have satisfied my self.
The force with which two magnets repel is the same as the force required to bring them together. Ditto, no net gain in force. No rotation. I won’t even bother with the Free Power of thermodynamics. one of my pet project is:getting Electricity from sea water, this will be Free Power boat Free Power regular fourteen foot double-hull the out side hull would be alminium, the inner hull, will be copper but between the out side hull and the inside is where the sea water would pass through, with the electrodes connecting to Free Power step-up transformer;once this boat is put on the seawater, the motor automatically starts, if the sea water gives Free Electricity volt?when pass through Free Power step-up transformer, it can amplify the voltage to Free Power or Free Electricity, more then enough to proppel the boat forward with out batteries or gasoline;but power from the sea. Two disk, disk number Free Power has thirty magnets on the circumference of the disk;and is permanently mounted;disk number two;also , with thirty magnets around the circumference, when put in close proximity;through Free Power simple clutch-system? the second disk would spin;connect Free Power dynamo or generator? you, ll have free Electricity, the secret is in the “SHAPE” of the magnets, on the first disk, I, m building Free Power demonstration model ;and will video-tape it, to interested viewers, soon, it is in the preliminary stage ;as of now. the configuration of this motor I invented? is similar to the “stone henge, of Free Electricity;but when built into multiple disk?
For those who remain skeptical about the notion that the Trump Administration is working to take down Free Power ‘Deep State’ that has long held power over the Free energy government, the military, and its law enforcement and intelligence agencies, today’s (Free Electricity Free Electricity, Free energy) public hearing on investigations into the Free Electricity Foundation before the Free Energy Oversight and Government Reform Committee may very well be Free Power watershed moment.

# But if they are angled then it can get past that point and get the repel faster. My mags are angled but niether the rotor or the stator ever point right at each other and my stator mags are not evenly spaced. Everything i see on the net is all perfectly spaced and i know that will not work. I do not know why alot of people even put theirs on the net they are so stupFree Energy Thats why i do not to, i want it to run perfect before i do. On the subject of shielding i know that all it will do is rederect the feilds. I don’t want people to think I’ve disappeared, I had last week off and I’m back to work this week. I’m stealing Free Power little time during my break to post this. Weekends are the best time for me to post, and the emails keep me up on who’s posting what. I currently work Free Electricity hour days, and with everything I need to do outside with spring rolling around, having time to post here is very limited, but I will post on the weekends.

Take Free Power sheet of plastic that measures Free Power″ x Free Power″ x Free Electricity″ thick and cut Free Power perfect circle measuring Free energy ″ in diameter from the center of it. (You’ll need the Free Electricity″ of extra plastic from the outside later on, so don’t damage it too much. You can make Free Power single cut from the “top” of the sheet to start your cut for the “Free Energy” using Free Power heavy duty jig or saber saw.) Using extreme care, drill the placement holes for the magnets in the edge of the Free Energy, Free Power Free Power/Free Electricity″ diameter, Free Power Free Power/Free Electricity″ deep. Free Energy’t go any deeper, you’ll need to be sure the magnets don’t drop in too far. These holes need to be drill at Free Power Free energy. Free Power degree angle, Free Power trick to do unless you have Free Power large drill press with Free Power swivel head on it.
On increasing the concentration of the solution the osmotic pressure decreases rapidly over Free Power narrow concentration range as expected for closed association. The arrow indicates the cmc. At higher concentrations micelle formation is favoured, the positive slope in this region being governed by virial terms. Similar shaped curves were obtained for other temperatures. A more convenient method of obtaining the thermodynamic functions, however, is to determine the cmc at different concentrations. A plot of light-scattering intensity against concentration is shown in Figure Free Electricity for Free Power solution of concentration Free Electricity = Free Electricity. Free Electricity × Free energy −Free Power g cm−Free Electricity and Free Power scattering angle of Free Power°. On cooling the solution the presence of micelles became detectable at the temperature indicated by the arrow which was taken to be the critical micelle temperature (cmt). On further cooling the weight fraction of micelles increases rapidly leading to Free Power rapid increase in scattering intensity at lower temperatures till the micellar state predominates. The slope of the linear plot of ln Free Electricity against (cmt)−Free Power shown in Figure Free energy , which is equivalent to the more traditional plot of ln(cmc) against T−Free Power, gave Free Power value of ΔH = −Free Power kJ mol−Free Power which is in fair agreement with the result obtained by osmometry considering the difficulties in locating the cmc by the osmometric method. Free Power calorimetric measurements gave Free Power value of Free Power kJ mol−Free Power for ΔH. Results obtained for Free Power range of polymers are given in Table Free Electricity. Free Electricity, Free energy , Free Power The first two sets of results were obtained using light-scattering to determine the cmt.
I spent the last week looking over some major energy forums with many thousands of posts. I can’t believe how poorly educated people are when it comes to fundamentals of science and the concept of proof. It has become cult like, where belief has overcome reason. Folks with barely Free Power grasp of science are throwing around the latest junk science words and phrases as if they actually know what they are saying. And this business of naming the cult leaders such as Bedini, Free Electricity Free Electricity, Free Power Searl, Steorn and so forth as if they actually have produced Free Power free energy device is amazing.

### “These are not just fringe scientists with science fiction ideas. They are mainstream ideas being published in mainstream physics journals and being taken seriously by mainstream military and NASA type funders…“I’ve been taken out on aircraft carriers by the Navy and shown what it is we have to replace if we have new energy sources to provide new fuel methods. ” (source)

This statement was made by Free Electricity Free Electricity in the Free energy ’s and shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity. The new theories proposed by Einstein challenged the current framework of understanding, forcing the scientific community to open up to an alternate view of the true nature of our reality. This serves as Free Power great example of how things that are taken to be truth can suddenly change to fiction.
Or, you could say, “That’s Free Power positive Delta G. “That’s not going to be spontaneous. ” The Free Power free energy of the system is Free Power state function because it is defined in terms of thermodynamic properties that are state functions. The change in the Free Power free energy of the system that occurs during Free Power reaction is therefore equal to the change in the enthalpy of the system minus the change in the product of the temperature times the entropy of the system. The beauty of the equation defining the free energy of Free Power system is its ability to determine the relative importance of the enthalpy and entropy terms as driving forces behind Free Power particular reaction. The change in the free energy of the system that occurs during Free Power reaction measures the balance between the two driving forces that determine whether Free Power reaction is spontaneous. As we have seen, the enthalpy and entropy terms have different sign conventions. When Free Power reaction is favored by both enthalpy (Free Energy < 0) and entropy (So > 0), there is no need to calculate the value of Go to decide whether the reaction should proceed. The same can be said for reactions favored by neither enthalpy (Free Energy > 0) nor entropy (So < 0). Free energy calculations become important for reactions favored by only one of these factors. Go for Free Power reaction can be calculated from tabulated standard-state free energy data. Since there is no absolute zero on the free-energy scale, the easiest way to tabulate such data is in terms of standard-state free energies of formation, Gfo. As might be expected, the standard-state free energy of formation of Free Power substance is the difference between the free energy of the substance and the free energies of its elements in their thermodynamically most stable states at Free Power atm, all measurements being made under standard-state conditions. The sign of Go tells us the direction in which the reaction has to shift to come to equilibrium. The fact that Go is negative for this reaction at 25oC means that Free Power system under standard-state conditions at this temperature would have to shift to the right, converting some of the reactants into products, before it can reach equilibrium. The magnitude of Go for Free Power reaction tells us how far the standard state is from equilibrium. The larger the value of Go, the further the reaction has to go to get to from the standard-state conditions to equilibrium. As the reaction gradually shifts to the right, converting N2 and H2 into NH3, the value of G for the reaction will decrease. If we could find some way to harness the tendency of this reaction to come to equilibrium, we could get the reaction to do work. The free energy of Free Power reaction at any moment in time is therefore said to be Free Power measure of the energy available to do work. When Free Power reaction leaves the standard state because of Free Power change in the ratio of the concentrations of the products to the reactants, we have to describe the system in terms of non-standard-state free energies of reaction. The difference between Go and G for Free Power reaction is important. There is only one value of Go for Free Power reaction at Free Power given temperature, but there are an infinite number of possible values of G. Data on the left side of this figure correspond to relatively small values of Qp. They therefore describe systems in which there is far more reactant than product. The sign of G for these systems is negative and the magnitude of G is large. The system is therefore relatively far from equilibrium and the reaction must shift to the right to reach equilibrium. Data on the far right side of this figure describe systems in which there is more product than reactant. The sign of G is now positive and the magnitude of G is moderately large. The sign of G tells us that the reaction would have to shift to the left to reach equilibrium.
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.
I don’t know what to do. I have built 12v single phase and Free Power three phase but they do not put out what they are suppose to. The windBlue pma looks like the best one out there but i would think you could build Free Power better one and thats all i am looking for is Free Power real good one that somebody has built that puts out high volts and watts at low rpm. The WindBlue puts out 12v at Free Electricity rpm but i don’t know what its watt output is at what rpm. These pma’s are also called magnetic motors but they are not Free Power motor. They are Free Power generator. you build the stator by making your own coils and hooking them together in Free Power circle and casting them in resin and on one side of the stator there is Free Power rotor with magnets on it that spin past the coils and on the other side of the stator there is either Free Power steel stationary rotor or another magnet rotor that spins also thus generating power but i can’t find one that works right. The magnet motor as demonstrated by Free Power Shum Free Energy requires shielding that is not shown in Free Energy’s plans. Free Energy’s shielding is simple, apparently on the stator. The Perendev shows each magnet in the Free Energy shielded. Actually, it intercepts the flux as it wraps around the entire set of magnets. The shielding is necessary to accentuate interaction between rotor and stator magnets. Without shielding, the device does not work. Hey Gilgamesh, thanks and i hope you get to build the motor. I did forget to ask one thing on the motor. Are the small wheels made of steel or are they magnets? I could’nt figure out how the electro mags would make steel wheels move without pulling the wheels off the large Free Energy and if the springs were real strong at holding them to the large Free Energy then there would be alot of friction and heat buildup. Ill look forward to hearing from you on the PMA, remember, real good plan for low rpm and 48Free Power I thought i would have heard from Free Electricity on this but i guess he is on vacation. Hey Free Power. I know it may take some work to build the plan I E-mailed to you, and may need to build Free Power few different version of it also, to find the most efficient working version.
Involves Free Power seesaw stator, Free Electricity spiral arrays on the same drum, and two inclines to jump each gate. Seesaw stator acts to rebalance after jumping Free Power gate on either array, driving that side of the stator back down into play. Harvey1 is correct so far. Many, many have tryed and failed. Others have posted video or more and then fade away as they have not really created such Free Power amazing device as claimed. I still try every few weeks. My designs or trying to replicated others. SO far, non are working and those on the web havent been found to to real either. Perhaps someday, My project will work. I have been close Free Power few times, but it still didint work. Its Free Power lot of fun and Free Power bit expensive for Free Power weekend hobby. LoneWolffe Harvey1 LoneWolffe The device that is shown in the diagram would not work, but the issue that Is the concern here is different. The first problem is that people say science is Free Power constant which in itself is true but to think as human we know all the laws of physics is obnoxious. As our laws of physics have change constantly, through history. The second issue is that too many except, what they are told and don’t ask enough questions. Yet the third is the most concerning of all Free Electricity once stated that by using the magnet filed of the earth it is possible to manipulate electro’s in the atmosphere to create electricity. This means that by manipulating electro you take energy from the air we all breath to convert it to usable energy. Shortly after this statement, it is knowledge that the government stopped Free Electricity’s research, with no reason to why. Its all well and good reading books but you still question them. Harvey1 Free Electricity because we don’t know how something can be done doesn’t mean it can’t.
The machine can then be returned and “recharged”. Another thought is short term storage of solar power. It would be way more efficient than battery storage. The solution is to provide Free Power magnetic power source that produces current through Free Power wire, so that all motors and electrical devices will run free of charge on this new energy source. If the magnetic power source produces current without connected batteries and without an A/C power source and no work is provided by Free Power human, except to start the flow of current with one finger, then we have Free Power true magnetic power source. I think that I have the solution and will begin building the prototype. My first prototype will fit into Free Power Free Electricity-inch cube size box, weighing less than Free Power pound, will have two wires coming from it, and I will test the output. Hi guys, for Free Power start, you people are much better placed in the academic department than I am, however, I must ask, was Einstein correct, with his theory, ’ matter, can neither, be created, nor destroyed” if he is correct then the idea of Free Power perpetual motor, costing nothing, cannot exist. Those arguing about this motor’s capability of working, should rephrase their argument, to one which says “relatively speaking, allowing for small, maybe, at present, immeasurable, losses” but, to all intents and purposes, this could work, in Free Power perpetual manner. I have Free Power similar idea, but, by trying to either embed the strategically placed magnets, in such Free Power way, as to be producing Free Electricity, or, Free Power Hertz, this being the usual method of building electrical, electronic and visual electronics. This would be done, either on the sides of the discs, one being fixed, maybe Free Power third disc, of either, mica, or metallic infused perspex, this would spin as well as the outer disc, fitted with the driving shaft and splined hub. Could anybody, build this? Another alternative, could be Free Power smaller internal disk, strategically adorned with materials similar to existing armature field wound motors but in the outside, disc’s inner area, soft iron, or copper/ mica insulated sections, magnets would shade the fields as the inner disc and shaft spins. Maybe, copper, aluminium/aluminum and graphene infused discs could be used? Please pull this apart, nay say it, or try to build it?Lets use Free Power slave to start it spinning, initially!! In some areas Eienstien was correct and in others he was wrong. His Theory of Special Realitivity used concepts taken from Lorentz. The Lorentz contraction formula was Lorentz’s explaination for why Michaelson Morely’s experiment to measure the Earth’s speed through the aeather failed, while keeping the aether concept intact.
There are many things out there that are real and amazing. Have fun!!! Hey Geoff – you can now call me Mr Electro Magnet. I have done so much research in the last week. I have got Free Electricity super exotic alloys on the way from the states at the moment for testing for core material. I know all about saturation, coercivity, etc etc. Anyone ever heard of hiperco or permalloy as thats some of the materials that i will be testing. Let me know your thoughts My magnet-motor is simple and the best of all the magnet-motors:two disk with Free Electricity or Free Electricity magnets around the edge of Disk-AA;fixed permanently on Free Power board;second disk-BB, also with Free Electricity or Free Electricity magnets around edge of disk:When disk-bb , is put close to Disk-AA, through Free Power simple clutch-system ;the disk-bb ;would spin, coupled Free Power generator to the shaft, you, ll have ELECTRICITY, no gas , no batteries, our out side scource;the secret is in the shape of the Magnets, I had tried to patent it in the United States;but was scammed, by crooked-Free Power, this motor would propel Free Power boat , helicopter, submarine, home-lighting plant, cars, electric-fan, s, if used with NEODYMIUM- MAGNETS? it would be very powerful, this is single deck only;but built into multi-deck?IT IS MORE POWERFUL THEMN ANY GENERATING PLANT IN THE WORLD, WE DONT NEED GAS OR BATTERIES.
I have had many as time went by get weak. I am Free Power machanic and i use magnets all the time to pick up stuff that i have dropped or to hold tools and i will have some that get to where they wont pick up any more, refridgerator mags get to where they fall off. Dc motors after time get so they don’t run as fast as they used to. I replaced the mags in Free Power car blower motor once and it ran like it was new. now i do not know about the neo’s but i know that mags do lose there power. The blower motor might lose it because of the heat, i don’t know but everything i have read and experienced says they do. So whats up with that? Hey Free Electricity, ok, i agree with what you are saying. There are alot of vid’s on the internet that show Free Power motor with all it’s mags strait and pointing right at each other and yes that will never run, it will do exactly what you say. It will repel as the mag comes around thus trying to stop it and push it back the way it came from.
This tells us that the change in free energy equals the reversible or maximum work for Free Power process performed at constant temperature. Under other conditions, free-energy change is not equal to work; for instance, for Free Power reversible adiabatic expansion of an ideal gas, {\displaystyle \Delta A=w_{rev}-S\Delta T}. Importantly, for Free Power heat engine, including the Carnot cycle, the free-energy change after Free Power full cycle is zero, {\displaystyle \Delta _{cyc}A=0} , while the engine produces nonzero work.


text:
# Dealing with non-monotonically increasing data

How do you deal with data that you need to be monotonically increasing in order to work with interpolation libs and other functions, when it is in fact not monotonically increasing?

• what is given, what are you looking for? – Arnold Neumaier Sep 21 '12 at 10:33
• @ArnoldNeumaier a way to transform a non-monotonically increasing data set to make it monotonically increasing.... – pyCthon Sep 21 '12 at 16:22
• This still doesn't make your question precise enough that one can give asensible answer. - You can make a data set monotone increasing by sorting it, but apparently this is not what you want; so you need to say what kind of problem you have and which properties must be preserved. – Arnold Neumaier Sep 21 '12 at 18:03
• Cool ! I thought it were difficult but not at all... – user4753 Jul 11 '13 at 14:19

If you want to remove the nonmonotonic structure without changing anything else, you can do an isotonic least squares fit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotonic_regression

• this is perfect! – pyCthon Sep 21 '12 at 16:20

I'm confused. Data needs not be monotonic to interpolate. (Yes, there are monotonic curve fitting tools, but that seems not to be what you are asking for.) For example (in matlab)

x = 0:20;
y = sin(x);
xi = 0:.01:20;
yi = spline(x,y,xi);
plot(x,y,'o',xi,yi,'r-')

Perhaps you have a problem where the data comes from a relationship that is not single valued. As an example, points that lie around the circumference of a circle.

The problem is any function at a given value of x must yield a single prediction. But if you have a relationship that is not single valued, What can you do?

The general idea is to create a third variable, that allows you to predict x(t) and y(t) parametrically. You really need that third piece of information, as the sequence of the points is crucial. Typically one uses the cumulative chordal arc length between the points as the parameter t. Of course, in the case of a circle, one could have used polar angle as the parameter, but for the general problem the cumulative linear arc length works well.

x = rand(10,1);
y = rand(10,1);
t = [0;cumsum(diff(x).^2 + diff(y).^2)];
ti = linspace(0,t(end),1000);
xi = spline(t,x,ti);
yi = spline(t,y,ti);
plot(x,y,'o',xi,yi,'r-')

• yeah but matlab does something beneath the scenes when you fed it non-monotomically increasing data, say for instance 'y = [1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,....]' the above will still work when for other libraries like gsl for example it fails because it doesn't do what matlab does behind the scenes – pyCthon Sep 21 '12 at 2:57
• IF you intend to interpolate y(x), where x is an increasing vector and y is as indicated, y = [1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,....], then ANY interpolant will work (although it may exhibit ringing.) This is no problem. If you have replicate values for the independent variable, thus x, then the code can either error out or it may choose to average the values for y at those points. (interp1 errors out.) I still see no problem. If x elements are replicated, then what prediction for a multi-valued function do you wish the interpolant to return? – user840 Sep 21 '12 at 14:31
• If your problem is how do you average those y values at a replicated x, then use my consolidator tool, designed to solve exactly this problem. mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/8354-consolidator – user840 Sep 21 '12 at 14:33

You can use parametric interpolation methods to fit a curve through a sequence of given data points $(x_i,y_i)$ where $x_i$ does not necessarily have to be less than $x_{i+1}$: http://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/1997-66-217/S0025-5718-97-00796-5/

• I don't mind being downvoted. I'd appreciate an explanation though... – Paul Jul 14 '13 at 17:54

format: plain


text:
# 📝 Exercise M1.01#

Imagine we are interested in predicting penguins species based on two of their body measurements: culmen length and culmen depth. First we want to do some data exploration to get a feel for the data.

What are the features? What is the target?

The data is located in ../datasets/penguins_classification.csv, load it with pandas into a DataFrame.

# Write your code here.

Show a few samples of the data.

How many features are numerical? How many features are categorical?

# Write your code here.

What are the different penguins species available in the dataset and how many samples of each species are there? Hint: select the right column and use the value_counts method.

# Write your code here.

Plot histograms for the numerical features

# Write your code here.

Show features distribution for each class. Hint: use seaborn.pairplot

# Write your code here.

Looking at these distributions, how hard do you think it will be to classify the penguins only using "culmen depth" and "culmen length"?


text:
Plink: Fisher's Exact test ERROR: FEXACT error 3
0
0
Entering edit mode
19 months ago

Hello Everyone,

While running plink, I got below error:

FEXACT error 3

Does anybody have any idea of it?

Plink Association study • 676 views
0
Entering edit mode

It is a problem probably related to the size of the matrix you are testing. One option would be to see if you can perform separate tests on subsets of your data. This would also rule out the hypothesis of malformed input.

One option could be using a newer version of plink, since apparently they abandoned the FEXACT algorithm to compute Fisher test and this may solve your problem. See here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342193/

0
Entering edit mode

Thank Fabio!! Will try to use new version


text:
# Matrix2x2 struct operators implementation in C++

Will be grateful if anyone would reasonably comment on my code. I am interested in the style only. If there will be any comments which are not related to the style I am glad to read them as well.

Main.cpp

#include "Matrix.h"

int main(void)
{
Matrix2x2 m;
std::cout << m << std::endl;
std::cin >> m;
std::cout << m << std::endl;

Matrix2x2 m1{1, 2, 3, 4};
Matrix2x2 res1{ 5 * m1 };
std::cout << res1 << std::endl;

Matrix2x2 m2{ 1, 2, 3, 4 };
Matrix2x2 res2{ 5+m2 };
std::cout << res2 << std::endl;

Matrix2x2 m3{ 1, 1, 1, 1 };
Matrix2x2 m4{ 1, 2, -1, -1 };
Matrix2x2 m5 = m3 + m4;
std::cout << m5 << std::endl;

m4 += m5;
std::cout << m4 << std::endl;

return 0;
}

Matrix2x2.h

#pragma once

#include <iostream>

struct Matrix2x2
{double _00, _01, _10, _11;};

std::istream& operator>>(std::istream&, Matrix2x2&);
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream&, Matrix2x2&);
const Matrix2x2 operator*(const double&, const Matrix2x2&);
const Matrix2x2 operator+(const double&, const Matrix2x2&);
const Matrix2x2 operator+(const Matrix2x2&, const Matrix2x2&);
Matrix2x2& operator+=(Matrix2x2&, const Matrix2x2&);

Matrix2x2.cpp

#include "Matrix.h"

std::istream& operator>>(std::istream& is, Matrix2x2& m)
{
return is >> m._00 >> m._01 >> m._10 >> m._11;
}

std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, Matrix2x2& m)
{
return os << m._00 << ' ' << m._01 << std::endl
<< m._10 << ' ' << m._11 << std::endl;
}

const Matrix2x2 operator*(const double& c, const Matrix2x2& m)
{
Matrix2x2 res{c*m._00, c*m._01, c*m._10, c*m._11};
return res;
}

const Matrix2x2 operator+(const double& c, const Matrix2x2& m)
{
Matrix2x2 res{ c+m._00, c+m._01, c+m._10, c+m._11 };
return res;
}

const Matrix2x2 operator+(const Matrix2x2& m1, const Matrix2x2& m2)
{
Matrix2x2 almostRes{m1};
return almostRes+=m2;
}

Matrix2x2& operator+=(Matrix2x2& trg, const Matrix2x2& src)
{
trg._00 += src._00;
trg._01 += src._01;
trg._10 += src._10;
trg._11 += src._11;
return trg;
}

• The code already is ok, may be open to some nitpicks. Without more context there is really nothing to say. What are you planning to use it for? What problem(s) does it solve? – Incomputable Nov 30 '17 at 22:22
• @Incomputable, thank you for the attention. I am going to have an exam related to that and the task from in the previous year was to implement all that. – trafalgarLaww Nov 30 '17 at 22:40

## Leading _

Some combinations of leading underscore are reserved specifically __ and _<CapitalLetter>, you're one character away from invalid code it's easier to stay away. See this answer.

## Document Datatypes

The only way to discern what values are where in your matrix is to assume that the indices of your member variables are row/column, there is no documentation to that effect. I have to look at the out stream operator to figure that out. Always document assumptions or implicit behavior.

## Scalar operations missing reverse operator

Matrix m1, m2;
double d;
m1 = m2 * d;

won't compile, you need to implement both version of asymmetric operators somehow.

## Various matrix operations missing

For completeness there are quite a few operations missing, multiplication, inverse, determinant ...

## const qualifier on returns will cause extra copy

Matrix m1, m2, m3;
m1 = m2 + m3;

will create an extra copy of the result matrix on the assignment. You marked the return value of + as const this means that when it's assigned to a non-const variable a copy will be created. You are doing this on all the binary operators is there a specific reason you did this ?

## Fixed Matrices

There should be an easy way to get an identity, or a zero matrix it's not necessary but a nice to have.

## Operator + might be inefficient

While delegating the addition to the += operator saves you from repeating some code it could be better to construct the correct matrix in place and return it

const Matrix2x2 operator+(const Matrix2x2& m1, const Matrix2x2& m2)
{
return Matrix2x2{m1._00 + m2._00, m1._01 + m2._01,
m1._10 + m2._10, m1._11 + m2._11};
}

Btw you could use this form for all you operations.

## Edit 1

### const return value

You responded that this was something the lecturer advised you to do to protect against f() = x being written, if that is what he asks you should do it in that class. They are correct, having a const return value will prevent the compilation. This is a good thing as a statement like that most likely has no effect and the result of f() will immediately go out of scope.

struct X;

X function() {};
const X constFunction() {};

X newValue;
// Compiles correctly but there is no effect (in most cases)
// as the result of function() will be discarded immediately
// There would be an effect if operator= is overridden and has
// side effects. I would consider that a really bad idea.
function() = newValue;

// The following line won't compile, therefor telling you
// "Don't do this"
constFunction() = newValue;

In the code I usually work with i would definitely advise against it. In general I would be suspicious of any code that assigned directly to the result of a free function. I'd rather go with "Don't assign to the result of a free function" as a style rule. In modern c++ doing this prevents the use of move semantics on the result of your function.

With member functions this would be different returning a reference or a const references is something that may happen a lot. So there are cases where you might actually write object.getter() = x. But it's dealing with references as results and not values.

### Operator efficiency

I changed the wording to reflect this being an option, it's great that you went and checked the assembly, i did the same (https://godbolt.org/g/Kh3BsJ). For me it looks like that for clang and gcc the solutions are equivalent except for a different use of registers, I am not qualified to say how this affects the actual performance. For MSVC the case looks different the while in place solution is almost the same as what clang/gcc do, the two call path is definitely longer. As a general thought, the simpler your code is the easier it will be to optimize for the compiler. This is a discussion to be had when the need for optimization arises. You're doing great, keep going.

• I severely disagree with your last point. Any compiler will be able to optimize this away, and the value of not having to duplicate code far exceeds the minor performance hit in debug builds. – Frank Nov 30 '17 at 23:04
• Yeah, about the last point you are definitely wrong. I looked at the assembly commands and there are seven times less commands when implementing addition in my way. – trafalgarLaww Dec 3 '17 at 0:00
• The lecturer said to us that it is better to return const value, since then you wont be able to write f(p) = s;`. Actually I do not understand it very clear. – trafalgarLaww Dec 3 '17 at 0:01
• @trafalgarLaww added more information to the two point under discussion – Harald Scheirich Dec 3 '17 at 15:19
• @HaraldScheirich, thanks for the attention. – trafalgarLaww Dec 3 '17 at 17:15


text:
Canadian Mathematical Society www.cms.math.ca
 location:  Publications → journals → CMB
Abstract view

# On Non-Strongly Free Automorphisms of Subfactors of Type III$_0$

We determine when an automorphism of a subfactor of type III$_0$ with finite index is non-strongly free in the sense of C.~Winsl\o w in terms of the modular endomorphisms introduced by M.~Izumi.


text:
(8 votes, average: 3.88 out of 5)

Equal Gain Combining (EGC)

by on September 19, 2008

This is the second post in the series discussing receiver diversity in a wireless link. Receiver diversity is a form of space diversity, where there are multiple antennas at the receiver. The presence of receiver diversity poses an interesting problem – how do we use ‘effectively‘ the information from all the antennas to demodulate the data. In the previous post, we discussed selection diversity. In this post, we will discuss equal gain combining (EGC). For the discussion, we will assume that the channel is a flat fading Rayleigh multipath channel and the modulation is BPSK.

Background

We use the same constraints as defined in the Selection Diversity post. Let me repeat the same.

1. We have N receive antennas and one transmit antenna.

2. The channel is flat fading – In simple terms, it means that the multipath channel has only one tap. So, the convolution operation reduces to a simple multiplication. For a more rigorous discussion on flat fading and frequency selective fading, may I urge you to review Chapter 15.3 Signal Time-Spreading from [DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS: SKLAR]

3. The channel experienced by each receive antenna is randomly varying in time. For the $i^{th}$ receive antenna, each transmitted symbol gets multiplied by a randomly varying complex number $h_i$. As the channel under consideration is a Rayleigh channel, the real and imaginary parts of $h_i$ are Gaussian distributed having mean $\mu_{h_i}=0$ and variance $\sigma^2_{h_i}=\frac{1}{2}$.

4. The channel experience by each receive antenna is independent from the channel experienced by other receive antennas.

5. On each receive antenna, the noise$n$ has the Gaussian probability density function with

$p(n) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2}}e^{\frac{-(n-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}$ with $\mu=0$ and $\sigma^2 = \frac{N_0}{2}$.

The noise on each receive antenna is independent from the noise on the other receive antennas.

6. At each receive antenna, the channel $h_i$ is known at the receiver.

7. In the presence of channel $h_i$, the instantaneous bit energy to noise ratio at $i^{th}$ receive antenna is $\frac{|h_i|^2E_b}{N_0}$. For notational convenience, let us define,

$\gamma_i = \frac{|h_i|^2E_b}{N_0}$.

From the discussion on chi-square random variable, we know that, if $h_i$ is a Rayleigh distributed random variable, then $h_i^2$ is a chi-squared random variable with two degrees of freedom. The pdf of $\gamma_i$ is
$p(\gamma_i)=\frac{1}{(E_b/N_0)}e^{\frac{-\gamma_i}{(E_b/N_0)}$.

Equal Gain Combining (EGC)

On the $i^{th}$ receive antenna, equalization is performed at the receiver by dividing the received symbol $y_i$ by the apriori known phase of $h_i$. The channel $h_i$ is represented in polar form as $|h_i|e^{j\theta_i}$. The decoded symbol is the sum of the phase compensated channel from all the receive antennas.

$\begin{eqnarray}\hat{y} & = &\sum_i\frac{y_i}{e^{j\theta_i}} \\ & = &\sum_i\frac{|h_i|e^{j\theta_i}x+n_i}{e^{j\theta_i}} \\ & = &\sum_i |h_i|x+\tilde{n_i}\end{eqnarray}$

where
$\tilde{n_i} = \frac{n_i}{e^{j\theta_i}}$is the additive noise scaled by the phase of the channel coefficient.

For demodulation, we use the classical definition i.e.

$\hat y >0 \rightarrow 1$ and $\hat y \le 0 \rightarrow 0$

Note:

For PSK modulation schemes, the equalization by the phase of the channel coefficients suffice. However, for QAM case, we need to compensate for the amplitude also when equalizing. We are NOT discussing QAM case in this post.

Effective Eb/N0 with Equal Gain Combining

The equations listed below obtained from the article Receive diversity – Notes by Prof. Raviraj Adve.

In the presence of channel $h_i$, the instantaneous bit energy to noise ratio at $i^{th}$ receive antenna is $\frac{|h_i|^2E_b}{N_0}$. For notational convenience, let us define,

$\gamma_i = \frac{|h_i|^2E_b}{N_0}$.

The effective Eb/N0 with equal gain combining is the channel power accumulated over all receive chains, i.e.

$\begin{eqnarray}E(\gamma_i) & = &\frac{E_b}{N_0}\frac{1}{N}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N}|h_i|^2\right)\\&=&\frac{E_b}{N_0}\frac{1}{N}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N}|h_i||h_k| \right)\\&=&\frac{E_b}{N_0}\frac{1}{N}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N}|h_i|^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1,k\ne n}^{N}|h_i||h_k| \right)\end{eqnarray}$.

The first term is chi-square random variable with $2N$ degrees of freedom having mean value of $2N\sigma^2_{h_i}$. Hence the first term reduces to,

$\begin{eqnarray}\sum_{i=1}^{N}|h_i|^2=N\end{eqnarray}$.

The second term is a product of two Rayleigh random variables. The mean of Rayleigh random variable with variance $\sigma^2_{h_i}$ is $\sigma_{h_i}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}$. Hence the second term is,

$\begin{eqnarray}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1,k\ne n}^{N}|h_i||h_k|)=N\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{4}}(N-1)\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{4}}=N(N-1)\frac{\pi}{4}\end{eqnarray}$.

Simplifying, the effective Eb/N0 with equal gain combining is,

$\begin{eqnarray}E(\gamma_i) & = &\frac{E_b}{N_0}\frac{1}{N}\left[N+ N(N-1)\frac{\pi}{4} \right]\\& = & \frac{E_b}{N_0}\left[1+(N-1)\frac{\pi}{4}\right]\end{eqnarray}$.

Figure : Gain in Eb/N0 with equal gain combining

Bit Error Rate with Equal Gain Combining

The IEEE paper [ZHANG97] discuss the BER computation with Equal Gain Combining. Since the proof is tedious (and I did not understand) I am just noting the final results.

With two receive antennas, the BER with equal gain combining is,

$P_e = \frac{1}{2}\left[1-\frac{\sqrt{E_b/N_0(E_b/N_0+2)}}{E_b/N_0+1}\right]$.

Matlab model for simulating BER with Equal Gain Combining

The Matlab/Octave script performs the following

(a) Generate random binary sequence of +1′s and -1′s.

(b) Multiply the symbols with the channel and then add white Gaussian noise.

(c) At the receiver, for each receive path, equalize by compensating with the known channel phase

(d) Accumulate the equalized symbols from all the receive paths

(d) Perform hard decision decoding and count the bit errors

(e) Repeat for multiple values of $\frac{E_b}{N_0}$ and plot the simulation and theoretical results.

Figure: BER plot Receive Diversity with Equal Gain Combining

Can observe that the simulation results are in good agreement with the theoretical results.

Reference

[ZHANG97] Probability of error for equal-gain combiners over Rayleigh channels: some closed-form solutions Zhang, Q.T. Communications, IEEE Transactions on Volume 45, Issue 3, Date: Mar 1997, Pages: 270 – 273

D id you like this article? Make sure that you do not miss a new article by subscribing to RSS feed OR subscribing to e-mail newsletter. Note: Subscribing via e-mail entitles you to download the free e-Book on BER of BPSK/QPSK/16QAM/16PSK in AWGN.

sheby December 19, 2012 at 8:21 am

hy sir
my question is this while studying theory there are v.v.complicated equations as u have also written like effective Eb/No and for probability of error. where these equations are used. kindly can u help me

Krishna Sankar December 20, 2012 at 6:13 am

@sheby: The equations are mathematical representation of the underlying phenomena and is used to predict the performance. For eg, it will help us decide how much performance gain which we get, if we increase the number of antennas to 10, with out actually going ahead and building the device

Humayun July 12, 2012 at 6:59 pm

Hello there!

I’m confused between Equal Gain Combining (EGC) and Square Law Combining (SLC) schemes.
Can you please elaborate the difference between them. As per my readings, literature says that they are different schemes, but I think that they are the same.

Krishna Sankar July 13, 2012 at 5:22 am

@Humayun: In equal gain combining, all the received copies of the signal are used with the same weight. However, in maximal ratio combining, the received copy with lower strength is given lower weightage.
Helps?

Arinze Nwodogwu May 17, 2012 at 9:23 am

Hello Krishna,
thanks for this wonderful post on EGC. please is this code for GSM or CDMA system?
thanks.

Krishna Sankar June 11, 2012 at 5:38 am

@Arinze: This simulation does not specifically target GSM or CDMA system. It is for a simple flat fading case.

Tarun Jai April 19, 2012 at 1:42 pm

Hi Krishna,

In the program there is one line to do channel addition
sD = kron(ones(nRx(jj),1),s);
What is the significance of the above statement?? Cant we just multiply ‘h’ by ‘s’??
Kindly help.

Krishna Sankar April 23, 2012 at 5:28 am

@Tarun: No special significance. wanted to vectorize the matlab operation and the definition of sD helped to do h.*sD

linkin8834 March 29, 2012 at 7:40 am

Hello, when using EGC for PSK , is it necessary to divide the summed y with sum of channel gains at that moment from all receiving antennas? In that equation, you simply divide the phase term but the channel gains still remains there. Or maybe i’ve missed some assumptions?

Krishna Sankar March 30, 2012 at 5:40 am

@linkin8834: Maybe I did not do it because it is BPSK and the amplitude scaling does not matter.

Sharad February 27, 2010 at 2:54 pm

Krishna,
In the first expression for effective Eb/No, shouldn’t it be the square of the sum of all h’s(power of the combined signal) rather than sum of squares(sum of the powers of individual signals)? With the expression that’s mentioned here, I don’t see how you get to the next expression.

Krishna Sankar March 30, 2010 at 5:10 am

@Sharad: In EGC, we make sure that the phases add constructively. Hence the sum of squares of powers makes sense. Agree?

Ramy Baly January 8, 2010 at 1:56 am

Hello
I was trying to do a simulation for EGC using Monte Carlo simulation (not as shown above).
I followed the same steps, but the BER values still high (order of 10^-1). I don’t know why?

Thanks

Ramy Baly January 5, 2010 at 8:12 pm

Hello Sir,
I tried to implement the EGC using the Monte Carlo simulation and it didn’t work. Is there any explanation?
when trying to take the BER average for only two iterations I get answers of the order (10^-1) while when trying it only one time, I get very low values of BER which is what I want.

Thanks

Communications Engineer December 26, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Krishna,

Can you tell me if Equal Gain Combining is possible is time domain.

If so, can I implement it this way, that I simply sum up the number of chips that come in a Spreading Factor.

x = [1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1]

then,

EGC(x)@SF=4 = [4 -2]

Is this the correct approach?

communications_engineer December 1, 2009 at 8:12 pm

Hello, I am using Equal Gain Combining to extract frequency domain diversity in MC-CDMA, but having problems with it.

At the transmitter, I modulate the binary data and repeat the symbols of each user on a given number of subcarriers, multiply it by a frequency domain spreading code (a row vector) and add the spread data of all users to have a composite signal.

At the receiver, for user 1, I multiply it by the same spreading code, and then use EGC to combine the modulation symbols.

I first want to test this algorithm without channel noise/impairments,
therefore, I think EGC will be
EGC = sum(RepSubcarDeSprdU1,1)
To get the sum of all symbols.

The problem, is the when I demodulate the result, there is a large error.

I must mention that this runs will for BPSK but shows errors for QPSK.

Any suggestions?

Thanks Krishna

Krishna Sankar December 7, 2009 at 5:02 am

@communications_engineer: Well, once you despread at the receiver, are you seeing the same information as was transmitted? Maybe to debug, try without spreading.

maya May 30, 2009 at 11:41 pm

hey sir can we use egc for ml detector when using diversity mimo?? and how to use it…

Krishna Sankar May 31, 2009 at 8:47 pm

@maya: Though I have not played with the equations, I believe it would be possible to use equal gain combining when there is a MIMO link with diversity. However, as you maybe aware, using Maximal Ratio Combining might be the most optimal approach.

kunal April 30, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Hi Sir,

i am working in MIMO systems. In the Equal Gain Combining’ code, the dephased output from N receive antennas are added and then the result is processed with hard decision decoding. My question is, should not the result of addition from N antennas be divided by the number of receive antennas (N here) before going for hard decision decoding?

Krishna Sankar May 12, 2009 at 4:43 am

@kunal: Yes, I agree. However, in BPSK modulation even if we do not do averaging, it does not matter as we are concerned only with the sign of the received symbol. Agree?

debabandana March 24, 2009 at 1:53 pm

hello sir
sir currently i am involved with equal gain combing with 16-QAM.how to equalize with amplitude in QAM,please let me know.or any cite or book that i can get some reference about the amplitude equalization for EGC,16-QAM.awaiting for an immediate response.

Krishna Sankar March 25, 2009 at 5:58 am

@debabandana: You may refer to the post on Symbol Error Rate with 16-QAM in AWGN @
http://www.dsplog.com/2007/12/09/symbol-error-rate-for-16-qam/
Were you able to adapt that for 1 transmit 1 receieve Rayeligh channel scenario?

debabandana March 25, 2009 at 9:38 am

yes i have adapted for rayleigh channel…but in your program for EGC,you have done for BPSK modulation..for that amplitude eualization is not reqd..but for QAM amplitude equalization is reqd..i need that how to equalize amlitude with16-QAM ,EGC…

Krishna Sankar April 4, 2009 at 7:25 am

@debabandana: In the code, since it’s bpsk equalization is performed as y.*exp(-j*angle(h)). If we want to repmove the amplitude effects too, we can use:
(y.*exp(-j*angle(h)))./(abs(h))

Agree?

Ankita January 21, 2009 at 1:17 pm

1.Is optimal combining technique the same as Ml detection at the receiver in case of receive diversity?

2.And in background noise limited case,Is the noise seen on each receiver the same,irrespective of area?So,if i have M receivers, total noise is M*noise variance of a single receiver(of area same as the total area of all M receivers)?or it depends upon area of receiver.

Krishna Sankar January 24, 2009 at 7:40 am

@Ankita: My responses
1. Maximal ratio combining is optimal in the case of receviver diversity. You can read bit more on MRC at
http://www.dsplog.com/2008/09/28/maximal-ratio-combining/

2. The thermal noise on each receiver depends on the receiver analog filter bandwidth. One can expect the analog filters for all the receivers to be the same.

Hope this helps.

Sham Snder K December 15, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Hi Pillai,

Even i fell the same.
If you find the better reasoning please let me know.

Thanks,
Sham Sunder K

Krishna Sankar December 13, 2008 at 8:50 am

@Sham Sunder K: Thats a difficult question, and I also do not know the answer.
The only reason which I can vaguely propose is that with multiple copies of the received symbol, the receiver chain with the higher snr dominates the ber.

Please do let know if you can think of a better argument.

Sham Snder K December 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Hi Pillai
Figure SNR improvement with EGC shows that we get approx 3dB gain with No. Rx Ant 2 when compared to one Rx Ant.

But If we see the BER curves of the same we get more than 3 dB gain.

What might be the reason??

Thanks & Regards,
Sham Sunder K

Nizar October 3, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Hello Pillai,

In fact, I’m looking for some topics about full diversity (multiple transmit antennas for both sides…) with a combining technique…

Kindest regards,
Nizar

Nizar October 3, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Hello Pillai,

In fact, I’m looking for topics discussing multiple transmit antennas with EGC or MRC combining techniques (M transmitter antennas, N receiver antennas and a combining technique…).

Really, I don’t know the limitations of this case, but I’m trying to work on this aspect.

Kindest regards,
Nizar

Krishna Sankar September 26, 2008 at 8:18 pm

@Nizar: Thanks.
I have not yet written topics dicussing multiple transmit antennas. Hope to do so in future, starting with Alamouti STBC coding for transmit diversity,

Nizar September 26, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Hello Mr. Pallai,

Thank you very much for this clear and good analysis, it’s helpful and practical…

But, as well as I can remark this is only for receiver diversity, have any matlab code for both side diversity (N transmitter and M receiver antennas)?

Thanks by advance and best regards,
Nizar

mohamadali September 23, 2008 at 11:27 am

I send them to your mail
and i said more details there.

Communications Engineer October 20, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Ali, I would like to discuss the simulation of MC-CDMA with different combining techniques. Contact me with my email i.e my name (withoutspace) @yahoo.com

Krishna Sankar September 23, 2008 at 5:58 am

@mohamadali: I have not yet taken up a detailed study of MC-CDMA to answer your request. However, I am hoping that you will be able to adapt the information given in this post to meet your requirement.

Btw, do you have a reference literature doing this comparison of MRC, ORC etc with MC-CDMA. If yes, kindly point me to the same. Let me study…

Shabeer March 19, 2009 at 6:11 pm

can u give me some tips to do OFDM MIMO for LTE

Krishna Sankar March 21, 2009 at 4:35 pm

@Shabeer: Using the posts on OFDM (www.dsplog.com/tag/ofdm), it maybe reasonably easy to adapt for multiple antennas, different FFT sizes etc. Hope this helps. Good luck.


text:
## A community for students. Sign up today

Here's the question you clicked on:

## anonymous 3 years ago Integrate the following using partial fractions indefinite integral of (22−(6t2+11t))/((t+4)(t−1)(t−2)) the partial fraction form is -(1/(t+4))+-(1/(t-1))-(4/(t-2)) the only problem i have is that i keep getting - ln(t-1)-4( ln(t-2))-ln(t+4)+C, but the program im using says it's wrong

• This Question is Closed
1. zepdrix

$\large \int\limits \frac{-1}{t+4}+\frac{-1}{t-1}+\frac{-4}{t-2}\quad dt$ $\large -\ln(t+4)-\ln(t-1)-4\ln(t-2)+C$Program says it's wrong? :( Hmmm it looks correct...

2. anonymous

I'll email my instructors then, thanks anyway :)

#### Ask your own question

Sign Up
Find more explanations on OpenStudy
Privacy Policy


text:
Home OALib Journal OALib PrePrints Submit Ranking News My Lib FAQ About Us Follow Us+
 Title Keywords Abstract Author All
Search Results: 1 - 10 of 100 matches for " "
 Page 1 /100 Display every page 5 10 20 Item
 Lin Zhi Journal of Inequalities and Applications , 2009, Abstract: We study the system of generalized implicit vector quasivariational inequality problems and prove a new existence result of its solutions by Kakutani-Fan-Glicksberg's fixed points theorem. As a special case, we also derive a new existence result of solutions to the generalized implicit vector quasivariational inequality problems.
 Journal of Applied Mathematics , 2013, DOI: 10.1155/2013/193589 Abstract: We study the Cauchy problem for a type of generalized Zakharov system. With the help of energy conservation and approximate argument, we obtain global existence and uniqueness in Sobolev spaces for this system. Particularly, this result implies the existence of classical solution for this generalized Zakharov system. 1. Introduction In this paper, we study a type of generalized Zakharov system which is given by with initial data where , , and is a fixed constant. In the above system, is a fractional differential operator. With this definition, maps to with the Fourier transform of with respect to the variable . In particular, . When , system (1) and (2) reduces to the usual Zakharov system which was first obtained by Zakharov [1]; here, is the slowly varying amplitude of high-frequency electric field and ？？ ？？ is the disturbing quantity of ion from its equilibrium. This model turned out to be very useful in laser plasmas, and many contributions have been made both in the physical and mathematical literature. For the local or global existence and uniqueness of smooth solutions for system (4), we refer to [2–6]. Well-posedness of (4) in lower regularity spaces was obtained in [7]. Existence of global attractors for dissipative Zakharov system was studied in [8–11]. For related Zakharov system including magnetic effects, one can see [12–15]. On the other hand, Laskin [16, 17] discovered that the path integral over the Lévy-like quantum mechanical paths allows developing the generalization of the quantum mechanics. That is, if the path integral over Brownian trajectories leads to the well-known Schr？dinger equation, then the path integral over Lévy trajectories leads to the fractional Schr？dinger equation. So fractional Schr？dinger equation is fundamental in the fractional quantum mechanics, and its global well-posedness is studied in [18, 19]. Inspired by this, we then replace the Laplacian in the Schr？dinger equation of (4) by the fractional differential operator , and this is the main motivation of the paper. In this work, we study global existence and uniqueness of smooth solutions for system (1) and (2). The main result is stated in the following theorem. Theorem 1. Let , let be an integer, , and . Then system (1) (3) has a unique solution satisfying Theorem 1 will be proved by using energy conservation and approximate argument. To this end, in the next section, we present some notations and useful lemmas which will be used throughout the paper. In Section 3, we study a regularized system of (1) and (2). Finally, the proof of Theorem 1 is given in
 Yan-Mei Du Journal of Applied Mathematics , 2012, DOI: 10.1155/2012/176283 Abstract: We introduce and study a system of generalized nonlinear mixed variational-like inequality problems (SGNMVLIPs) in Banach spaces. The auxiliary principle technique is applied to study the existence and iterative algorithm of solutions for the SGNMVLIP. First, the existence of solutions of the auxiliary problems for the SGNMVLIP is shown. Second, an iterative algorithm for solving the SGNMVLIP is constructed by using this existence result. Finally, not only the existence of solutions of the SGNMVLIP is shown but also the convergence of iterative sequences generated by the algorithm is also proven. The technique and results presented in this paper generalize and unify the corresponding techniques and results given in the literature.
 Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society , 2012, DOI: 10.1155/2012/423193 Abstract: By using continuation theorem of coincidence degree theory, sufficient conditions of the existence of positive periodic solutions are obtained for a generalized predator-prey system with diffusion and delays. In this paper, we construct a V-function to make the prior estimation for periodic solutions, which makes the discussion more concise. Moreover, to compute the mapping's topological degree, a polynomial function matrix is constructed straightforwardly as a homotopic mapping for the generalized one, which improves the methods of computation on topological degree for a generalized mapping.
 American Journal of Operations Research (AJOR) , 2013, DOI: 10.4236/ajor.2013.33029 Abstract: In this paper, we introduce and study the system of generalized vector quasi-variational-like inequalities in Hausdorff topological vector spaces, which include the system of vector quasi-variational-like inequalities, the system of vector variational-like inequalities, the system of vector quasi-variational inequalities, and several other systems as special cases. Moreover, a number of C-diagonal quasiconvexity properties are proposed for set-valued maps, which are natural generalizations of the g-diagonal quasiconvexity for real functions. Together with an application of continuous selection and fixed-point theorems, these conditions enable us to prove unified existence results of solutions for the system of generalized vector quasi-variational-like inequalities. The results of this paper can be seen as extensions and generalizations of several known results in the literature.
 Salem Abdelmalek Mathematics , 2014, Abstract: The aim of this paper is to construct invariant regions of a generalized m-component reaction-diffusion system with a tri-diagonal Toeplitz matrix of diffusion coefficients and prove the global existence of solutions using Lyapunov functional. The paper assumes nonhomogeneous boundary conditions and polynomial growth for the non-linear reaction term.
 系统科学与数学 , 2008, Abstract: In this paper, the system of generalized implicit vector variational inequality problems with set-valued map is introduced. By Kakutani-Fan-Glicksberg fixed points theorem, the existence result of its solutions is established. Further, the stability and the essential component result of the solution set for the system are given.
 作者,赵亚莉,沈璐 - , 2017, Abstract: 本文研究了一类集值广义强向量拟均衡问题组解的存在性问题.利用集值映射的自然拟C-凸性和集值映射的下（-C）-连续性的定义和Kakutani-Fan-Glicksberg不动点定理，在不要求锥C的对偶锥C*具有弱*紧基的情况下，建立了该类集值广义强向量拟均衡问题组解的存在性定理.所得结果推广了该领域的相关结果.In this paper, we study existence of solutions to a system of generalized strong vector quasi-equilibrium problems with set-valued mappings. By making use of definitions of natural quasi C-convexity and lower (-C)-continuity of a set-valued mapping and Kakutani-Fan-Glicksberg fixed point theorem, an existence theorem for solutions to the systems of generalized strong vector quasi-equilibrium problems with set-valued mappings (for short, SSGSVQEP) was established without the assumption that the dual of the ordering cone has a weak* compact base, which extends and improves the corresponding results in this area
 Aibin Zang Mathematics , 2013, Abstract: We obtain the existence, regularity, uniqueness of the non-stationary problems of a class of non-Newtonian fluid is a power law fluid with $p>9/5$ in the half-space under slip boundary conditions.
 Mathematics , 2010, DOI: 10.1007/s00021-011-0075-9 Abstract: We study the global existence of solutions to a two-component generalized Hunter-Saxton system in the periodic setting. We first prove a persistence result of the solutions. Then for some particular choices of parameters $(\alpha, \kappa)$, we show the precise blow-up scenarios and the existence of global solutions to the generalized Hunter-Saxton system under proper assumptions on the initial data. This significantly improves recent results obtained in [M. Wunsch, DCDS Ser. B 12 (2009), 647-656] and [M. Wunsch, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 42 (2010), 1286-1304].
 Page 1 /100 Display every page 5 10 20 Item


text:
The overt intent of this example is to illustrate the use of blavaan for studying measurement invariance. Along the way, we will also see how to obtain Bayesian model selection measures and how to send a lavaan object directly to blavaan for re-estimation.

### Model Estimation

Consider a measurement invariance study of the Holzinger and Swineford (1939) data. In lavaan, we may first estimate two models:

HS.model <- ' visual  =~ x1 + x2 + x3
textual =~ x4 + x5 + x6
speed   =~ x7 + x8 + x9 '

fit1 <- cfa(HS.model, data = HolzingerSwineford1939, group = "school")

fit2 <- cfa(HS.model, data = HolzingerSwineford1939, group = "school",
group.equal = "loadings")

and then examine the absolute fit of fit1. We could also compare fit2 to fit1 via a Likelihood Ratio Test. Instead of this, we wish to do something similar via Bayesian methods.

To accomplish this via blavaan, we can fit Bayesian versions of fit1 and fit2 using similar syntax.

bfit1 <- bcfa(HS.model, data = HolzingerSwineford1939, group = "school")

bfit2 <- bcfa(HS.model, data = HolzingerSwineford1939, group = "school",
group.equal = "loadings")

Model fit and comparison statistics are then available via the fitMeasures() and blavCompare() functions:

fitMeasures(bfit1)

fitMeasures(bfit2)

blavCompare(bfit1, bfit2)

### Approximate Invariance

In approximate measurement invariance studies, we replace the hard equality constraints with soft constraints by using informative prior distributions. The wiggle argument can be used to invoke these types of constraints. For example:

HS.model <- ' visual  =~ x1 + c("a", "a")*x2 + c("b", "b")*x3
textual =~ x4 + x5 + x6
speed   =~ x7 + x8 + x9 '

bfit3 <- bcfa(HS.model, data = HolzingerSwineford1939, group = "school", wiggle = c("a", "b"),
wiggle.sd = 0.05)

This constrains the loadings associated with x2 and x3 to be approximately equal across groups, where the informative priors associated with these constraints are normal with standard deviations of 0.05.

Using the above strategy, the syntax can become very cumbersome. In many cases, the group.equal argument can help here. For example:

HS.model <- ' visual  =~ x1 + x2 + x3
textual =~ x4 + x5 + x6
speed   =~ x7 + x8 + x9 '

bfit4 <- bcfa(HS.model, data = HolzingerSwineford1939, group = "school",
wiggle.sd = 0.05)
In the above example, the model intercepts and loadings have across-group constraints. The loadings are approximately equal across groups, due to the argument wiggle = "loadings". And the intercepts are constrained to be exactly equal across groups. In this way, it becomes easy to use exact and approximate equality constraints in the same model, if desired.


text:
## Le Monde puzzle [#737 re-read]

As a coincidence, while I was waiting for the solution to puzzle #737 published this Friday in Le Monde, the delivery (wo)man forgot to include the weekend magazine and I had to buy it this morning with my baguette (as if anyone cares!). The solution is (y0,z0,w0)=(38,40,46) and…it does not work! The value of (x1,y1,z1,w1) is indeed (19,39,43,8.5). Now, it does not work because the update mechanism used by the writers of the Le Monde column is to move all positions simultaneously, rather than one at a time: the update thus reads as

if un=(xn,yn,zn,wn), for i=1,…,4,

$u_i^n=\frac{1}{2}\left(u_i^{n-1}+\min_{j;u_j^{n-1}>u_{i}^{n-1}}u_{j}^{n-1}\right)\,\text{mod}\,48$

if uin-1 is not the maximum of un-1 and

$u_{i}^{n}=\frac{1}{2}\left(u_{i}^{n-1}+48+\min_{j\ne i}u_{j}^{n-1}\right)\,\text{mod}\,48$

otherwise.

(to compare with my earlier proposal). In this new configuration, the core of the R code I use is

while (nodd){

nsuite=suite=start=c(0,sort(2*sample(1:23,3)))
for (t in 1:20){
#some values of start never produce non-integer values
#of suite and never visit suite[1]=0

nsuite[-4]=(suite[-4]+suite[-1]+48*(suite[-1]-suite[-4]<0))/2
nsuite[4]=(suite[4]+suite[1]+48*(suite[1]-suite[4]<0))/2
suite=nsuite%%48

if ((suite[1]==0)||(max(is.decimal(suite))==1)){
nodd=(max(is.decimal(suite))==1)
print(t)
break()}
}}

This new version leads to solutions (unsurprisingly!), returning

> print(start)
[1] 0 12 24 36

as one solution in 8 steps and

> print(start)
[1] 0 38 40 46

as the quickest solution in 6 steps.

### One Response to “Le Monde puzzle [#737 re-read]”

1. […] le Monde, a few days ago, the front page title was “l’augmentation du chômage […]


text:
# every mapping from $\mathbb{S}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}$ has three mutually perpendicular vector with same value

Prove that every continuous mapping $f$ from $\mathbb S^2$ to $\mathbb R$ has three vector which are mutually perpendicular and have same value i.e $f(v_1)=f(v_2)=f(v_3)$

• Using spherical coordinates, what about $f(v)=\cos \theta$? – Ross Millikan Sep 1 '11 at 20:12
• Which results to you have to build on? (Also, standard question: is this homework?) – Henning Makholm Sep 1 '11 at 20:13
• @Ross, stand a unit cube on one of its corners at the origin. The three neighbor corners have the same height. – Henning Makholm Sep 1 '11 at 20:14
• @Mahan: This is proven in Kakutani, S., A proof that there exists a circumscribing cube around any bounded closed convex set in $\mathbb{R}^3$, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Oct., 1942), pp. 739-741. – LostInMath Sep 1 '11 at 21:27
• @Mahan: A generalization to higher dimensional spheres is proven in Yamabe, H. & Yujobo, Z., On the Continuous Function Defined on a Sphere, Osaka Mathematical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1 (March 1950), pp. 19-22. It's available at Project Euclid for free. – LostInMath Sep 1 '11 at 21:42

Algebraic topology never really clicked for me, so here is a homotopy-based proof instead:

Let $\alpha$ be $e^{\frac{2\pi}{3}i}$, a complex third root of unity. For each ordered triple $T=(a,b,c)$ of points in $\mathbb S^2$, define

$$g(T)=g(a,b,c) = f(a) + \alpha f(b) + \alpha^2 f(c)$$

Because $f$ is real-valued, $g(a,b,c)=0$ if and only if $f(a)=f(b)=f(c)$. Note also that that $\alpha g(a,b,c) = g(c,a,b)$.

Let $T_\theta=(a_\theta, b_\theta, c_\theta)$ be the standard orthogonal triple $(\mathbf e_x, \mathbf e_y, \mathbf e_z)$ rotated by $\theta$ around the line $x=y=z$. Note that $(a_{\theta+2\pi/3}, b_{\theta+2\pi/3}, c_{\theta+2\pi/3}) = (c_\theta,a_\theta,b_\theta)$, and therefore

$$g(T_{\theta+2\pi/3}) = \alpha g(T_\theta)$$

Now we seek the winding number of $g(T_\theta)$ around the origin as $\theta$ goes from $0$ to $2\pi$. The argument of $g(T_\theta)$ must increase by $2\pi(n+1/3)$ between $\theta=0$ to $\theta=2\pi/3$, for some integer $n$, and it must increase in the very same way from $2\pi/3$ to $4\pi/3$ and again from there to $2\pi$, so the total winding number is $3n+1$, which is nonzero no matter what $n$ is.

Now, it's just a matter of contracting the path in triple space to a point and seeing the corresponding path in $\mathbb C$ contract -- because it has nonzero winding number to begin with, it must pass through the origin somewhere along the way. But not so fast! The space of ordered orthogonal triples (even just right-handed ones) is not simply connected! Luckily it is well known -- because right-handed ordered triples is really the same as SO(3) -- that if we rotate through $4\pi$ instead of $2\pi$, the resulting curve is homotopic to null, and doing this results in a winding number of $6n+2$, which is just as nonzero.

• Very... Very... nice !!! :wow: – Mahan Sep 1 '11 at 22:20
• This is exactly Kakutani's original proof from the paper LostInMath mentioned. – Omar Antolín-Camarena Oct 7 '13 at 19:39


text:
# Article

Full entry | PDF   (0.3 MB)
Keywords:
quasi-differential operators; regular; singular; bounded and square integrable solutions
Summary:
This paper is concerned with square integrable quasi-derivatives for any solution of a general quasi-differential equation of $n$th order with complex coefficients $M[y] - \lambda wy = wf (t, y^{[0]}, \ldots ,y^{[n-1]})$, $t\in [a,b)$ provided that all $r$th quasi-derivatives of solutions of $M[y] - \lambda w y = 0$ and all solutions of its normal adjoint $M^+[z] - \bar{\lambda } w z = 0$ are in $L^2_w (a,b)$ and under suitable conditions on the function $f$.
References:
[1] J.S. Bradley: Comparison theorems for the square integrability of solutions of $(r(t)y^{\prime })^{\prime } + q(t) y = f(t,y)$. Glasgow Math., Soc. 13 (1972), 75–79. DOI 10.1017/S0017089500001415 | MR 0313579 | Zbl 0246.34029
[2] D.E. Edmunds and W.D. Evans: Spectral Theory and Differential Operators (Oxford University) Press. 1987. MR 0929030
[3] W.N. Everitt and D. Race: Some remarks on linear ordinary quasi-differential expressions. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 54 (1987), 300–320. MR 0872809
[4] R.C. Gilbert: Simplicity of linear ordinary differential operators. Journal of Differential Equations 11 (1972), 672–681. DOI 10.1016/0022-0396(72)90074-5 | MR 0301564 | Zbl 0222.34058
[5] S. Goldberg: Unbounded Linear Operators. McGraw. Hill, New York, 1966. MR 0200692 | Zbl 0148.12501
[6] H.E. Gollwitzer: A note on functional inequality. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 23 (1969), 642–647. DOI 10.1090/S0002-9939-1969-0247016-9 | MR 0247016
[7] M.R. Mohana Rao: Ordinary Differential Equations. (Theory and Applications); First Published in the United Kingdom in 1989 by Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited, London.
[8] M.N. Naimark: Linear Differential Operators. (G.I.T.T.L., Moscow, 1954), Ungar, New York, Vol. I (1967), Vol. II (1968). Zbl 0227.34020
[9] Sobhy El-sayed Ibrahim: Problems associated with differential operators. Ph.D. thesis (1989), Faculty of Sciences, Department of Mathematics, Benha University, Egypt.
[10] Sobhy El-sayed Ibrahim: Boundedness for solutions of general ordinary quasi-differential equations. Journal of the Egyptian Mathematical Society 2 (1994), 33–44. MR 1319065 | Zbl 0818.34019
[11] Sobhy El-sayed Ibrahim: The spectra of well-posed operators. Proc. Royal Soc. of Edinburgh 124A (1995), 1331–1348. MR 1363006
[12] D. Willett: Nonlinear vector integral equations as contraction mappings. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 15 (1964), 79–86. DOI 10.1007/BF00257405 | MR 0159200 | Zbl 0161.31902
[13] D. Willett and J.S.W. Wong: On the discrete analogues of some generalizations of Gronwall’s inequality. Monatsh. Math. 69 (1965), 362–367 MR 32 $\ne$ 2644. DOI 10.1007/BF01297622 | MR 0185175
[14] J.S.W. Wong: Square integrable solutions of perturbed linear differential equations. Proc. Royal Society of Edinburgh 73A, 16 (1974/75), 251–254. MR 0470314
[15] A. Zettl: Square integrable solutions of $Ly = f(t,y)$. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 26 (1970), 635–639. MR 0267213 | Zbl 0214.09105
[16] A. Zettl: Perturbation of the limit circle case. Quart. J. Math., Oxford (3) 26 (1975), 355–360. DOI 10.1093/qmath/26.1.355 | MR 0470315 | Zbl 0325.34022
[17] A. Zettl: Formally self-adjoint quasi-differential operators. Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics (3) 5 (1975), 453–474. DOI 10.1216/RMJ-1975-5-3-453 | MR 0379976

Partner of


text:
My Math Forum Probability practice problems?

 Probability and Statistics Basic Probability and Statistics Math Forum

 March 18th, 2011, 04:55 PM #1 Member   Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 69 Thanks: 0 Probability practice problems? Soz... I have an important standardized test tomorrow... and usually these things are really easy, but I've forgotten most of the stuff I've learned about probability. One question that really tripped me up: You have 6 white marbles, 4 green marbles, and 5 blue marbles in a bag. If you draw four marbles at random, what's the probability of getting at least one of each color? So... how do you solve this question? And what are some good websites for practicing probabilities?
 March 21st, 2011, 07:47 AM #2 Senior Member   Joined: Feb 2009 From: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 1,519 Thanks: 3 Re: Probability practice problems? You need the generalized hypergeometric formula. If you pick n out of N things, and of those a out of A of the first sort, b out of B of the first sort, etc (so a+b+c+... = n, and A+B+C+... = N) then the probability is $\frac{\binom{A}{a}\binom{B}{b}\binom{C}{c}...\bino m{Z}{z}}{\binom{N}{n}}$ In this case you pick 1 white, 1 green, 2 blue, OR 1 white, 2 green, 1 blue, OR 2 white, 1 green, 1 blue. $\frac{\binom{6}{1}\binom{4}{1}\binom{5}{2}+\binom{ 6}{1}\binom{4}{2}\binom{5}{1}+\binom{6}{2}\binom{4 }{1}\binom{5}{1}}{\binom{15}{4}}= \frac{6.4.10+6.6.5+15.4.5}{1365}=\frac{720}{1365}= \frac{48}{91}$

 Tags practice, probability, problems

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post RaitoMath Algebra 3 March 14th, 2014 06:10 PM matthematical Real Analysis 0 October 3rd, 2011 12:42 AM NeuroFuzzy Algebra 2 March 13th, 2011 01:27 AM roncarlston Calculus 1 February 4th, 2011 04:28 PM coote Algebra 0 December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top


text:
# Chemical Engineering: Chemical Equilibrium problem¶

Direct download AIMMS Project ChemicalEquilibrium.zip

Go to the example on GitHub: https://github.com/aimms/examples/tree/master/Practical%20Examples/ChemicalEngineering/ChemicalEquilibrium

Problem type: NLP (small)

Description: Determination of the chemical composition of a complex mixture under chemical equilibrium conditions.

References: Bracken, J., and G.P. McCormick, Chapter 5 in: Selected Applications of Nonlinear Programming, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1968, pp. 46-49.

Last Updated: September, 2020


text:
# Question #19875

May 18, 2017

3.74

#### Explanation:

$N {a}_{2} O \to 2 N a + O$ doesn't quite work because oxygen always exists as a diatomic molecule, so the equation would have to be $2 N {a}_{2} O \to 4 N a + {O}_{2}$.
In the question, there are 1.87 moles of Sodium Oxide so following our ratio there will be $2 \times 1.87 = 3.74$ moles