Application On Blood Donation Using Android Platform

Application On Blood Donation Using Android PlatformAndroid powers hundreds of millions of nimble devices in more than 190 countries around the world. Its the largest inst exclusivelyed plant of whatever mobile platform and growing fast-every day an opposite million users power up their Android devices for the first clip and start looking for apps, games, and other digital content.Android gives you a world-class platform for creating apps and games for Android users everywhere, as well as an open marketplace for distributing to them instantly.Android is revolutionizing the global cell call up market. Its the first open cite mobile natural covering platform.Android is a Linux based operating system designed primarily for touch screen mobile devices much(prenominal) as smart phones and tablet computers ,which Google backed financially and later brought in 2005, in collaboration with the open handset alliance. Android is an open source market where user can develop any applicati on and get it publicized in the market. Android market is having approximately 4, 50,000 apps but there is no application available in the android market which propels the public regarding communication channel boon.There are many factors that have allowed Android to become the worlds more or less wide used Smartphone platform, overtaking Sembilan in the fourth quarter of 2010, and the software of choice for technology companies who require a low-cost, customizable, lightweight operating system for high tech devices with erupt developing one from scratch. As a result, despite being primarily designed for phones and tablets, it has seen additional applications on televisions, games consoles and other electronics. Androids open nature has further promote a large community of developers and enthusiasts to use the open source code as a foundation for community-driven projects, which add new marks for advanced users or set out Android to devices which were officially released runn ing other operating systems.In this paper we propose algorithm which mainly aims at developing an android application which motivates the youngsters for donating daub and check whether they are eligible for donating or non. This application will serve as an effective tool for creating awareness in public..Furthermore, we will try to essay with an application that might be used by the people using android phones.ObjectivesBy developing this application, we want to create awareness among the android users and motivate them to help the needful. This application will help the user in all the possible ways helpful in blood bequest.Detailed problem translationAfter a long research we found that there are no apps in the Google play store which motivates the public in donating blood and clear there misconceptions. We found out that there is a requirement of an application which is helpful for people in many ways. As we all know that donating blood is a good deed but due to some miscon ceptions people hesitate in donating blood. By going through the applications already available, we found out that all the applications are lacking the feature of connecting the people who are interested in either donating the blood or they urgently require the blood. The main feature of our application is connectivity provided by us. The donors and receivers can reach out to each other depending on their needs. Sometimes in urgency u may have thought of any platform from where we can get the expound of hospitals, blood banks, important contact numbers and contact numbers of social organizations but we fail to get such an application or platform. We found out that there are apps on internet but they are lacking some of utilities which we had developed in our application. solving MethodologyRegistering DonorsThe one who would be using this application is requested to register for the cause. The process of registration is simple no complex interface is used for the same, everyone is congenial for registration. Even a person can register for other person.The following fields for registrationNameContact NumberGenderBlood assortLast Date of DonationRegular Donor/notEmailAddressIt creates a hub of donors who are available of android.People who are under maturate are likewise welcome for registration for prospective donation. The Process and fields are made simple or possible so that the user should not feel hectic while providing the details.DatabaseThe secondary utility of this application is to provide the user the details of various hospitals and blood banks. Irrespective of the application usage, if user wants the contact of hospital or blood bank he can easily get.Efforts are made to provide the nearest hospital and blood bank details with assistance of GPS technologyBulk Messaging For Camps.As we know social organizations and NGOs come in front for organizing blood donation camps at various places with this application we provide another platform for bro adcasting about the event.For this cause, the NGOs can contact using email or Face book page which is also is also administrated.About checking the genuine news of the event the registered donor will be send a message automatically. Even if the user is not under donation period he can spread the news to his friends or relatives regarding the blood donation camp.Motivation and clearing the misconceptions related to blood donationOur application contains videos and picture show albums which plays a very important role in motivating the public. The videos contain motivational quotes and phrases. For clearing the doubts and confusions of the users regarding blood donation, we have created a FAQ section in which all the important questions are displayed. We had also introduced ask questions by using this user can ask questions.WorkingUser Interface of this application asks the user to bring an option by displaying an option lineup. Menu includes the various tabs namely registering don ors tab, direct link to some hospitals, motivational videos, and social net on the job(p) links. A very special occasion about this application is that it includes FAQs (Frequently asked questions) section which is fastest way to clear the doubts of the users. Addition to that, application includes another option through which user can raise his individualized questions the question will be replied by the application administrator at earliest so that the dignity of application is maintained. The interface of the application is made as simple as possible so that even a new user can get familiar to it and use it to full extent.The On-device view characterization of the application looks likeWhen the user click the application icon then the second page opens displaying various menu options.On clicking the first option of the menu that is ABOUT. The following page opens and it contains the details regarding the application.When the user clicks the registration menu option the followi ng page is displayed which registers the users and save all the details.When the user clicks on the option CMC hospital it redirected to the CMCs Blood Bank Homepage.Motivation videos Option open the following page which contains some motivational videos.If the User will have any queries regarding our application and its working he can contact the developer/Administrator.ConclusionThis application will help the android users to get information about blood donation. The need of blood donation and all the queries related to that. We had focused on the productivity of the application by maintaining a database of the donors containing their contact numbers and email ids so that we can make the most of it. We had designed the application in such a way that it helps the user in all possible ways when he or she needs help. If time will permit we will add more features and improve the productivity of the application.Referential WebWikipedia http//www.wikipedia.org/Google http//www.google.c o.in/Android.com http//developer.android.com/guide/components/index.html

Facilitation of Voluntary Goal-directed Action by Reward Cue

Facilitation of Voluntary Goal-directed Action by Reward CueTITLEUsing a valet de chambre consternation paradigm, Lovibond et al (2013) flaked to show competition between an instrumental shunning response and a Pavlovian asylum preindication for standstill with skip of shock. Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning atomic number 18 two forms of associative larn. Pavlovian conditioning involves humans breeding that initially neutral conditioned stimuli (CSs), such as a tone or colour, predicts an outcome (US), such as electric shock, or in the case of safety signals, safety, such as an omission of shock. instrumental learning refers to learning associations between voluntary responses (such as a button press, or an avoidance response) and outcomes or reinforcers, such as shock or an omission of shock. In their first, overshadowing, taste, forecast data but non skin conductance levels (SCLs) suggested mutual overshadowing, as when the avoidance response (button press, * ) and safety signal (C) were twain presented with input signal A, expectancy of shock was significantly lower than when A was only presented with the avoidance response or safety signal. In the second, block off, experiment, no matter whether the avoidance response or C was pre-trained, the pre-trained element yielded the lowest expectancies of shock (i.e. greater safety learning), fleck safety learning of the alternate element was suppressed. Lovibond et al (2013) close down that the expectancy data, as well as the non-significant SCL data, in the blocking and overshadowing paradigms exhibit read that competition occurred between the instrumental avoidance response and Pavlovian safety signal, and therefore a common learning chemical mechanism underlies both forms of associative learning. In this paper, Lovibond et als (2013) experiments, and their conclusions, shall be critiqued.StrengthsLovibond et al (2013) exhibited considerable strength in the planning of their experim ents. In both experiments, they ingestiond a variation of a previously used paradigm, such that their experiments already had relatively sound internal consistency and construct validity. They had the foresight to agnise the possibility that participants would learn a response-stimulus-outcome dealingship rather than viewing the avoidance response and safety stimulus C as separate predictors. That is, they saw a potential weakness in their experimental design in that C could become a mediator of the causal efficacy of the avoidance response, rather than a competing cause. As such, in both experiments, they deliberately ad vindicatoryed their design in order to prevent this by adding BC- trials and varying the time interval between the avoidance response and safety signal, to weaken the response-stimulus C association. They additionally asked participants to rate the degree of association between them, as well as with shock, so that they would know if response-stimulus-outcome lea rning had nonetheless occurred. Lovibond et al (2013) used previous research in order to resolve potential issues that could arise in the lead running their experiment. For example, they doubled the number of B- trials in the pre-training phase because a prior study of theirs showed that predictors of no shock are more slowly learnt than predictors of shock, and they needed to ensure differential conditioning to stimuli A and B had occurred. Furthermore, aware that C being novel could be more anxiety-provoking and thus con undercoat results by resulting in more conservative expectancy ratings and a high SCL, Lovibond et al (2013) ensured that the first trial of the compound phase was always a BC- trial to reduce the revolution of C before it was paired with stimulus A. They declare , in experiment 1, the possibility of participants having never experienced a trial with just the instrumental response or just the safety signal before the test phase, and thus participants may al low been more conservative in their judgments, and account for this through directly evaluating competition via a blocking paradigm in experiment 2 where one group pre-trained Pavlovian (AC- trials) and the other pretrained (A* (+)) to ensure wasnt just conservative ratings etceteraLovibond et al (2013) overly exhibited strength in their rigorously check outled experimental design. The use of headphones constantly emitting white noise (except when the tone stimulus was presented), ensured safety signal-shock learning was not confounded by external, extraneous sounds. The one hundred eighty degree rotary dial presented a more accurate measure of expectancy than a typical Likert 1-10 confidence scale. Lovibond et al (2013) used inter-trial intervals to ensure seemly time between trials to prevent confusion, to ensure shock was paired with the correct stimulus (A or B), and to allow SCL to return to baseline levels. Furthermore, they used Bonferroni correction to control for the ext ra possibility of type I error from using two measurements (expectancy and SCL data).In terms of theoretical strengths, Lovibond et al (2013) attempted to explain unexpected results and ply alternate explanations for expectancy data. In experiment 1, they excuse the lack of difference in expectancy to shock between A+ and B- trials in the pre-training phase, by explaining that crossways the remainder of the experiment, there was a significant difference in expectancies between the two (that is, differential conditioning occurred, it simply took longer than they expected). In experiment 1, they also provided an explanation for SCL unexpectedly increasing in the compound phase from trial 1 to trial 2, explaining that only 37% of participants made an instrumental response on the first trial, so that most participants received a shock then (so SCL would have been higher for trial 2 as they would be more dying(predicate) about being shocked), and from trial 2 onwards SCL declined app ropriately. In experiment 1, they provided an alternate explanation for the expectancy data, by claiming that it may have just been the novelty of A*- and AC- (that is, the novelty of testing the avoidance response and safety signal individually) that may have lead to the more conservative expectancy ratings when they were presented individually compared to when in conjunction. That is, they highlighted that it may not have been mutual overshadowing or competition that lead to lowered shock expectancies when in conjunction compared to when elements were presented individually, but rather an effect of novelty. This maintained a sense of objectivity that is oftentimes forgotten in psychological reports which are determined to present their findings as definitive conclusions. Furthermore, while they do not bring this argument up, it is clear that this was not the case based on similar expectancy data from the blocking paradigm in Experiment 2, where all A* or AC- were pre-trained (t hat is, they were not novel in the test phase), and similar results emerged. They conclude by mentioning that the differentiate of a ace learning mechanism found in the paper is preliminary, not definitive, which is a strength as it highlights the need for repetition and an accumulation of more data to prove without a doubt that there is a single learning mechanism Lovibond et al (2013) do not make each assumptions.This is furthered by their outline of limitations in their own experiment by attempting an objective evaluation of their own experiment, a practice which is sometimes forgotten by psychologists who wish to convince their readers of their findings. As they highlight, the strongest evidence for competition was a cross-experiment comparison. They attempt to dismiss this limitation by saying that the same participant pool was used, with the same equipment, experimenter and same time frame, and that the common trials (A+ and B-) gave exceedingly congruent data, suggestin g that the test phases could be directly compared across experiments. Nonetheless, they acknowledge that a within-subjects design would be better. They highlight the limitation that only the expectancy measure yielded significant effects, but attempt to excuse this by explaining that autonomic conditioning results are often insignificant referable to large individual differences which inflate the error term and reduce power.WeaknessesUnfortunately, Lovibond et al (2013)s design had some flaws. Although they added BC- trials and varied time intervals between the avoidance response and presentation of safety signal C to ensure the avoidance response and stimulus C were independent, competing causes of shock, the post-experiment questionnaires where participants rated the degree of relationship between the two revealed that they were aware of a relationship between them. This means that the results (the lowered expectancies to shock when the avoidance response and safety signal were p resented together, than when presented individually), which Lovibond et al (2013) saw as evidence for competition between an avoidance response and safety signal (and thus evidence for a single learning mechanism) may have simply occurred as the safety signal C, as a mediator of causal efficacy of the avoidance response, would have resulted in lower expectancy of shock when combined with the avoidance response, than when they were separate (no competition necessary), whether in the blocking or overshadowing paradigm. Lovibond et al (2013) failed to discuss this, brushing it off as an intrinsic problem when there are voluntary responses. Continuing, while not the most ethical option, conditioning may have been more robust (in particular, SCL results may have been significant) if the level of shock selected for participants was manageably painful instead of just uncomfortable. This is because more variability in SCL would have emerged as participants would have been more anxious. The highly constructed laboratory setting, where they deliberately presented twice as many B- trials, and made as many adjustments as possible to find significant results, begs the question as to how often competition between avoidance responses and safety signals occurs in rattling life, and whether the single mechanism of learning proposed by Lovibond et al (2013) really exists or is just a fabrication of the laboratory procedures used. Furthermore, humans are quite intelligent by giving them instructions telling them that pressing a button or interview a tone may or may not effect an outcome, it would be much easier for them to gain an accurate perception of expectancy of shock, particularly if they were undergrad psychology students, which they probably were, and this may have confounded the results by lowering the expectancies in significant amounts accordingly that is, rather than genuine competition, participants may have just believed that there were connections from the ins tructions given, that there was less chance of shock when a button press or tone, and in conjunction, there was the least chance.Continuing, Lovibond et al (2013) claim, in their first experiment, that they had 53 participants, and in their second experiment, 89 participants, but after exclusions, the sample sizes of these experiments were 30 and 57 respectively. While they still had significant expectancy data, Lovibond et al (2013) should have specified more accurately the number of participants in each experiment. Furthermore, if they had had a larger sample size, they may have found significant SCL results due to greater power.Lovibond et al (2013), make faulty conclusions regarding SCL data. They conclude that the SCL data pattern mirrors that of the expectancy data across both experiments. However, as the SCL results were not significant, it is inappropriate to conclude this, as there is a higher chance that any mirrored pattern could be the result of chance alone. Statistica lly speaking, if the SCL data was not significant, than no real differences between the instrumental response and safety signal tested individually versus together have been found. Furthermore, Lovibond et al (2013) brush off the lack of findings in SCL data by claiming that the SCL measure is unreliable. However, it must be asked then, why Lovibond et al (2013) used such a measure in the first place if it is so unreliable. They claim that SCL have greater individual variability and greater sensitivity to extraneous factors and that is why there were no significant results, but in real life, those extraneous factors are bound to interfere, and if there were non-significant results with such factors, one must ask how applicable a single learning mechanism approach is. Granted, it could be argued that Lovibond et al (2013) is a highly theoretical paper by nature, interested in modeling conditioned learning (by claiming a single underlying mechanism defines conditioned learning structu re), rather than application. However, one must ask how relevant or important a model could be if it does not have any external validity.Lovibond et al (2013), furthermore, make assumptions in their conclusions. They fail to explain why it follows that because there seems to be a common associative mechanism that the critical association in instrumental learning is an R-O association in order to explain competition with a Pavlovian S-O association. They do not attempt to explain why, in their cross-experiment comparison, expectancy measure responding in the blocked condition was significantly higher than in the overshadowing condition. Continuing, they assume that if there is a single-learning mechanism, it must be propositional by nature. This is problematic, because while the common thought among single-learning mechanism theorists is that the mechanism is propositional, Lovibond et al (2013) do not explain how their experiment exhibits a propositional mechanism. Even if they have provided evidence for a single-learning mechanism, they have not provided evidence regarding the nature of this single-learning mechanism. Propositional accounts claim that associative learning depends on labored, attention-demanding reasoning processes. However, one must ask which part of this experiment showed that learning was an effortful process. Continuing, propositional models are faulty. Propositional accounts of learning fail to align with animal and developmental psychology. Non-human animals exhibit associative learning, although they do not have the language to deploy propositions to infer relations about events. If p, then q (or contingency) propositions, are not understood until children are 6years old. However, despite lacking the language abilities and contingency propositions to infer relations about events, backward blocking and other evidence of associative learning has been shown in children as young as 8 months. As X claims, there is not enough evidence to jus tify structured mental representations existing when associative learning occurs (i.e. a propositional model), over a broad, non-propositional associative link between representations.In their introduction, Lovibond et al (2013) are pedantic with their definitions in their introduction when explaining how Pavlovian and instrumental learning could be separate mechanisms. They differentiate between act and learning claiming that Pavlovian performance is goaded while instrumental responses are voluntary, but that does not mean they are not learnt the same way. However, if they are to be differentiated, as Lovibond et al (2013) do, whether in their experiment they are actually measuring an underlying mechanism or performance in the test phase, as generated expectancies could simply be another measure of performance their anxiety levels (CR) conditioned to the safety signal or avoidance response. Continuing, they claim that the notation E1 and E2, where E1 could be a stimulus (Pavlovi an) or action (Instrumental conditioning), and where E2 is the outcome, reinforces the notion that a single learning mechanism may underlie both types of associative learning. However, this is simply induced notation. Equally, one could use the notation S-S for Pavlovian learning (the CS-US link, hence S-S), and R-O for instrumental learning (the response-outcome relationship), to portray them as separate learning mechanisms, and to support a dual-process model. Thus, Lovibond et als (2013) proposal of a single learning mechanism is largely based on unfounded claims.Furthermore, in their introduction, while Lovibond et al (2013) attempt to provide evidence for a single-learning mechanism, evidence can also be provided for a dual-process model. For example, a single learning mechanism assumes awareness is required for conditioning. However, Baeyens et al 1990 found flavour-flavour learning occurred in absence of any contingency awareness. Continuing, in Perruchets delegate where a tone was either paired with an air-puff or was presented alone, when the tone and airpuff had recently been paired together, expectancy of an air puff on the next trial was reduced, the probability of an eyeblink CR occurring was heightened. Furthermore, neurological data suggests different brain regions are involved in different learning processes, for example, the amygdala plays a large role in fear conditioning. Therefore, it is possible that instrumental and pavlovian are equally run by different parts of the brain. Lovibond et al (2013) did not actually provide evidence against such a model. For example, they could have argued against the dual-process model by claiming that the dissociation between the eyeblink CR and expectancy when CS-US pairings have recently been presented in the Perruchet task, which some learning theorists use to support the dual-process model, that the eyeblink CR results from sensitisation from recent US presentation (a recent air puff). Alternately, th ey could counter-argue that while the amygdala has a large part in fear learning, it could simply be a subcomponent of a broader, singular system of learning. It would have been a more convincing argument that the experiments were necessary and that a single learning mechanism were possible if they had had more depth in the lead up to their hypotheses.ConclusionLovibond et al (2013) claim from their experiments that a single learning mechanism underlies Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning. However, despite their attempts to remain objective and their rigorous planning and control of their experiment, they fail to address vital problems to their experiment (such as the possibility of the safety signal being a mediator for the efficacy of the avoidance response), assume, without sufficient evidence, that if a single learning mechanism underlies both types of associative learning, it must be propositional in nature (a faulty assumption), speak of SCL data as if it were significant when it was not, and in the lead-up to their hypotheses regarding a single learning mehcanism, fail to dismiss the possibility of a dual-process model. wingLovibond, P.F. and Colagiuri, B., 2013. Facilitation of voluntary goal-directed action by reward cues.Psychological Science,24(10), pp.2030-2037.

Reality of Unification Theory

Reality of Unification TheoryIntroductionUnification means pursual the similarities, finding the limiting physical constants, finding the key numbers, trades union the key physical constants, coupling the key physical concepts, coupling the key physical properties, minimizing the number of dimensions, minimizing the number of inputs. This is a precise extensive process. In every(prenominal) these cases observations, interpretations, experiments and imagination play a key role. The main difficulty is with interpretations and observations. At fundamental level understanding the observed new coincidences and irrefutable the observed coincidences seem to be a very tough job. Constructing semi empirical relations among the physical constants of various interdisciplinary branches of physics with all manageable interpretations may help in resolving the issues. Which way/method is the best will be decided by future experiments, observations and interpretations. As it is interconnect ed with all branches of physics, semi empirical approach seems be the easiest and shortcut way. It sharpens and guides human thinking ability in understanding the reality of unification. For any theoretical concept or mathematical model or semi empirical relation, workability is more important than its inner beauty and workability is the base of any semi empirical approach.In this publisher by introducing the unified trade building block the authors made an attempt to fit and understand the origin of the nuclear charge radius, the Plancks constant and the strong coupling constant in a unified approach that connects gravity and strong interaction via the electromagnetic and gravitational military capability ratio of proton and electron. Finally by considering the proton proportion energy and the nuclear charge radius the authors made an attempt to fit the semi empirical jalopy formula energy coefficients in a very simple way.To fit the nuclear charge radius, the Plancks consta nt and the strong coupling constantIt is well known that e, c and G play a vital role in fundamental physics. With these 3 constants space-time curvature concepts at a charged particle heighten can be studied. identical to the Planck draw an interesting unified down unit can be constructed in the hobby way. (1) tuberosity that plays a crucial role in microscopic physics as well cosmology. It is having a long history. It was first introduced by the physicist George Johnstone Stoney 1. He is most famous for introducing the term electronas the fundamental unit quantity of electricity. With this battalion unit in unification program with a suitable proportionality it may be possible to represent the peculiarity mass of any simple(a) charge. It can be considered as the seed of galactic matter or galactic central black locating. It can besides be considered as the seed of any cosmic structure. If 2 such oppositely charged particles annihilates, a large amount of energy can be released. It is well assumed that free space is a reservoir for pair particles creation. If so under certain extreme conditions at the vicinity of long stars or black holes, a very high energy radiation can be seen to be emitted by the virtue of pair annihilation of . Note that the grassroots concept of unification is to understand the origin of mass of any particle. Mass is the basic property in gravitation and charge is the basic property in atomicity. So far no model established a cohesive relation in between electric charge and mass of any elementary particle. From astrophysics point of view the fundamental questions to be answered are 1) Without charge, is there any independent existence to mass of any star? 2) Is black hole a neutral body or electrically a neutralized body? To understand these questions the authors made an attempt to construct the above unified mass unit.The subject of final unification is having a long history. After the nucleus was discovered in 1908, i t was clear that a new force was needed to get over the electrostaticrepulsion of the positively chargedprotons. Otherwise the nucleus could not exist. Moreover, the force had to be strong enough to squeeze the protons into a script of sizing 1015 meter. In general the wordstrongis used since the strong interaction is the strongest of the four fundamental forces. Its observed strength is around 102 clock that of theelectromagnetic force, some 105times as great as that of theweak force, and about 10 39 times that ofgravitation. The aim of unification is to understand the relation that connects gravity, mass, charge and the microscopic space-time curvature. Many scientists addressed this problem in different ways 2-4. The authors also made many attempts in their previously published papers 5-11. Experimentally observed nuclear charge radius 12-15 can be fitted with the following strange and simple unified relation. (2) here can be considered as the Schwarzschild radius 16,17 of th e proposed new mass unit . (3)Whether the expression playing a key unified role or provided a fitting role to be confirmed. With a great accuracy the famous Plancks constant can be fitted with the following relation. (4)Recommended value of and the fallacy is 0.189%. From relations (1) and (2) above relation can be simplified into the following simple form. (5)Comparing this with the standard definition, (6)where is the fine structure ratio.Let (7)Proceeding come along qualitatively and quantitatively currently believed strong coupling constant 18 can be fitted with the following relation. (8)Its recommended value is 0.11847 and uncertainty is ppb. Now the characteristic nuclear force can be expressed as follows. (9)Note that can be considered as the limiting magnitude of any kind of force. Similarly can be considered as the limiting magnitude of any kind of power 1,20,21.To fit and co-relate the semi empirical mass formula energy coefficientsIn nuclear physics, the semi- empirical mass formula is used to approximate the mass and various other properties of an atomic nucleus. As the name suggests, it is based partly on theory and partly on empirical measurements 23-24. The theory is based on the liquid drop model proposed by George Gamow, which can account for most of the terms in the formula and gives peckish estimates for the values of the coefficients. It was first formulated in 1935 by German physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker, and although refinements have been made to the coefficients over the years, the structure of the formula remains the same today. In the following formulae, let be the total number of nucleons, Z the number of protons, and the number of neutrons. The mass of an atomic nucleus is given by (10)where and are the rest mass of a proton and a neutron, respectively, and is the cover charge energy of the nucleus. The semi-empirical mass formula states that the binding energy will take the following form. (11)Its modern re presentation is (12)Here = volume energy coefficient, is the surface energy coefficient, is the coulomb energy coefficient, is the asymmetry energy coefficient and is the pairing energy coefficient. By maximizing with respect to , one can find the number of protons of the durable nucleus of atomic weight as, (13)This is roughly for light nuclei, but for heavy nuclei there is an even better agreement with nature. Now with the following two energy units semi empirical mass formula energy coefficients can be fitted in the following way.Let (14)where, (15)The coulombic energy coefficient can be expressed as (16)The asymmetry energy coefficient can be expressed as (17)The pairing energy coefficient can be expressed as (18)The surface energy coefficient can be expressed as (19)The volume energy coefficient can be expressed as (20)Thus (21)For light and heavy atoms (including first-rate heavy stable isotopes), proton-nucleon stability relation can be expressed with the following semi empirical relation. Clearly speaking by considering its identical stable mass number can be estimated directly. (22)where can be considered as the stable mass number of (23)Please see table-1 for fitting the proton number and its corresponding stable mass number.Table-1 To fit the stable mass numbers of S.No12144.822963.333782.6447107.9.553123.9660142.8769168.0879197.3983209.41092237.311100263.012112303.013118323.7See table-2 for the comparison of the semi empirical mass formula energy coefficients.See table-3 for the calculated semi empirical mass formula nuclear binding energy.Table-2 Existing and proposed SEMF binding energy coefficientsExisting energy coefficientsProposed energy coefficientsTable-3 To fit the SEMF binding energy with the proposed energy coefficientsin MeVin MeV2656490.9492.2542862544.8545.2593484725.3727.341501181005.61004.950601421184.31185.145791971562.91559.40822081634.81636.44922381818.91801.693Discussion and conclusionsThe main object of unification is to understand the origin of elementary particles rest mass, magnetic moments and their forces. Right now and till today string theory with 4 + 6 extra dimensions not in a emplacement to explain the unification of gravitational and non-gravitational forces. More clearly speaking it is not in a position to bring down the Planck scale to the nuclear size. Note thatgeneral relativitydoes not throw any light on the mass generation of charged particles. It only suggests that space-time is curved near the massive celestial objects. More over it couples the cosmic (dust) matter with geometry. But how matter/dust is created? Why and how elementary particle possessesboth charge and mass? such types of questions are not being discussed in the frame work of general relativity. The first step in unification is to understand the origin of therest massof a charged elementary particle. Second step is to understand the combined effects of its electromagnetic (or charged) and gravitational inte ractions. Third step is to understand its behavior with environs when it is created. Fourth step is to understand its behavior with cosmic space-time or other particles. Right from its birth to death, in all these steps the underlying feature is that whether it is a strongly interacting particle or weakly interacting particle, it is having some rest mass. To understand the first two steps somehow one can go for the gravitational constant in sub atomic physics. In this regard can be considered as the natures given unified mass unit. To bring down thePlanck massscale to the observed elementary particles mass scale certainly a large scale factor is required. In this regard, the electromagnetic and gravitational force ratio of proton and electron can be considered as the natures given universal scale factor. Thinking positively the proposed relations for fitting the nuclear charge radius, the Plancks constant and strong the coupling constant can be considered for further analysis po sitively.

Die Wiesse Rose :: essays research papers

Die Weisse RoseThe topic I chose to write my try out about is, Did any thing in this movie castrate your mind about Germany during the Hitler Regime? (Or Nazi years) I would have to answer that question with a response that is non one hundred percent clear cut. On the one hand, I do not think so, because I already knew Hitler and the Nazi party were horrible people. They did do awful thing such as the concentration camps, taking over other countries and etc. What I did not bed however, was that in that respect was a lack supplies given to the German citizen to use. Another thing that I never knew was how closely the citizens were being watched by the Gestapo and other Hitler organizations. The movie did not change my mind to have sense of any sympathy for the Nazis, it did make me more disgusted with them and there behavior, if such a thing is possible. I smell out the people of Germany did not all support him. In fact, I think most detested him and were just afraid to do any thing about it and that is what made me change mind about Germany during that time. First off, the Nazi time was a dark and awful time in the history of the world itself. Those several years they had the index of Germany were most likely the grimmest days for the country. The movie had just shown what was already known. An example of this is in the scene where the Nazis were giving a lecture and the students were outraged. The students were so outraged that they begun to riot. The Nazis, in the movie, gave a speech that women should go to school and they also gave other derogatory and chauvinistic statements. They had many people killed who were suspected of treason. Even if the people were innocent and there was no conclusive evidence.Secondly, I learned more about the wrong-doings of the Hitler administration when I found out the lack of supplies allowed to the people and how they were so suspicious of everyone. In the film, the group needed more stamps, paper, etc. to get there flyers to places the flyers need to go to help the rebellion. The postal workers would have to report anyone who bought a lot of stamps their supervisor. Hanss sister went in the morning, evening and night just to get the supplies.

Man For All Seasons By Robert Bolt - Henry VIII :: English Literature

Man For All Seasons By Robert Bolt - Is henry octet an important character in the play? Is he the villain?doubting Thomas more(prenominal) was the hero in the play because his standard up for hisbeliefs, he was non scared of anyone, he knows it was a sin if Henry viii come apartd Catherine of Aragon and gets married to Anne Boleyn.Robert Bolt thinks Thomas much was a faithful Catholic and could notaccept this, or affirm the oath of loyalty to the king.Henry VIII wanted to get a divorce with Catherine of Aragon and getmarried to Anne Boleyn. In the eye of the Catholics he could notdivorce Catherine of Aragon. Henry VIII wants his children inheritedthe throne he introduced the act of succession and made himself headof the Church of England. When Henry VIII made Thomas More the LordChancellor, Henry VIII expected Thomas More to support him but ThomasMore did not support him. Thomas More did not like the idea of HenryVIII getting divorce. Thomas More resigned as Lord Chancellor be causehe did not want to give Henry VIII a divorce so he resigns. ThomasMore found it impossible to support the king in the end because ThomasMore knew it was the wrong thing to do.Thomas Cromwell part played in the downfall of Thomas More wasplanning all the evidence and make sure he dies. Thomas Cromwell wantThomas More to come over to the kings side, Thomas more did not comeover to the kings side so Thomas Cromwell give tongue to he had to get rid ofhim. But Thomas Cromwell and Duke of Norfolk are trying to get ThomasMore killed, they are trying to find the person that gave Thomas Morea cup for a bribe and they try to convict him of treason.I think Henry VIII was Thomas Mores friend because Henry VIII did notwant to designate Thomas More on the rack. As we saw earlier in the Gardenscene, Henry VIII has come to put pressure on Thomas More he wantedThomas More to sort out the business with the divorce with Catherineof Aragon. He use a number of different techniques, first he tries toscare him by shouting at him but he also appeals to be a friend.Henry VIII said he was joking but we know he was bulling him. HenryVIII use originates from the record but it does not work, becauseThomas More knows the bible inside out. There is a scene in the videowhich is missing in the book, its when Henry VIII is having a party

Immigration and Immigrants are Destroying America Essay -- Argumentati

The U.S. is slammed by growing numbers in tribe. It seems that many do not think of the long term effects of this increase. This is star of the most significant problems the Statesns face today, yet no one talks close the problem, when it comes to the debate over immigration. The current world tribe is over 6 billion and increases at a rate of 76,570,430 community every year. Since 1950, U.S. population has nearly doubled - growing from 151 million to over 294 million today. If present trends continue, our population will exceed 400 million by the year 2050. Immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually. The total foreign-born population in the U.S. is now 31.1 million, a record 57 percent increase since 1990. About 8 million of those are here illegally--a 4.5 million increase since 1990. most one-third of all immigration during the 1990s was illegal. An NPG demographic analysis of age distribution, fertility, and mortality data shows tha t if there had been no immigration to the U.S. since 1990, the population in 2000 would put one over been 262 million19 million less than the 281 million counted. Thus, post-1990 immigrants and their children accounted for 61 percent of population growth during the last decade. (Negative Population Growth. 2004. http//www.npg.org/index.html). Supporters of letting more immigrants come into the unsophisticated claim that immigrants do not take away jobs from the hard working American. They adopt a claim that it actually helps boost Americas deliverance by increasing the purchasing of goods. Advocates of immigration, claim that Americans think they are too good to hold certain jobs and immigrants fill the jobs Americans do not want. The Director of workforce Success, Phylis Eisen states, Tens of thousands of jobs go unfilled in the high tech industry. The Hewlett-Packards, the Intels, the Motorollas, the entire semi-conducting industry has to fill forty-thousand jobs in the n ext three years. If they cant do this, they have to go overseas. The companies always prefer to stay in America. (Immigration Promise and Hope for Generations. 1998). This does not seem to be the case when so many companies actually ensue their U.S. home factories and build new ones in third world countries. (The Big One. Michael Moore. 1998). Why would any company prefer to stay in America when they could ... ... Jessica. Should We take Them Out? Time Oct. 2001.). If America would have tightened its security to begin with there would not be this problem. All because of the lack of the U.S. immigration policy, America is left sole(prenominal) with the memories of those who lost their live on September eleventh. Where does America draw the line? America is literally destroying itself because there are no solid grounds on immigration in the U.S. After September eleventh, a new secure policy on immigration was launched. How long until this new way of controlli ng Americas immigration is forgot about like so many other actual laws that were proposed? The U.S. cannot let its land be turned into a madhouse where people are everywhere. Americans jobs, education, taxes, comfort, economy, and most important safety, are on the front line battlefield. The U.S. government and its people need to get serious about who is let into this country. A revolution needs to be made and engraved into the public of its new reform. If America continues to sit back and be overtaken by well-fixed numbers from other countries, America will eventually destroy itself. It will be the death of a nation.

Depression in Teenagers Essay -- Exploratory Essays Research Papers

Depression in Teenagers As a teenager, I provoke experienced depression countless look of times. Many times, I just nonion distressing, and otherwise times, I feel like the world is not worth living in. Innumerable incidents also have travel byred where some of my friends get badly depressed. Since many of my friends would pass judgment to talk to me ab step forward how they feel when they argon depressed, I see a lot the pain and feces they are going through. Through these experiences, depression began to fright me because of how inferior and worthless it can make a soul feel, and where these low feelings would lead to. I realized that depression should not be allowed to dominate a persons life as it would slowly eat him away. I felt I had to ascertain out what depression really is, what causes it, and most of all, how to involve with it. There are two main types of depression small fry depression and major depression. First of all, minor depression is th e type of depression that is encountered most in our lives. It is usually preceded by problems such as adverse relationships, doing badly in school, or the loss of a job. In minor depression, people feel sad and anxious, cry, or are pessimistic. Second, major depression is a type of abnormal depression that might occur when a person experiences trauma such as having a loved one pass away. It can also occur when a person has hormonal imbalances or abuses drugs. In addition to what people feel in minor depression, people in major depression feel helpless and guilty, have insomnia, are lethargic and lose self-esteem. The causes of depression are not clear-cut, but the biochemistry of the brain, the environment, and personality all seem to have an effect on how prone a person is to depression.... ...d gets depressed, I have also learned that there are ways to help ease him out of depression. Through my various experiences with depression in others and myself, I believe that m any people are base or badly misinformed about depression. Even though depressed people tend to block out sound reasoning to wallow in disconsolation or anger, some knowledge of depression would help them get out of depression.Works CitedBootzin, Richard R., Gordon H. Bower, Jennifer Crocker, and Elizabeth Hall. Personality,Abnormality, and Adjustment. Psychology Today An Introduction. seventh ed. New York McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991. p. 547-550.Cush, Cathie. Feeling Bad. Teen Hotline Depression. Austin Raintree Steck-Vaughn Publishers,1994. p. 32-36.Goleman, Daniel. The personify of Emotional Illiteracy. Emotional Intelligence. New York Bantam Books, 1996. p. 274-283. Depression in Teenagers Essay -- Exploratory Essays Research coverDepression in Teenagers As a teenager, I have experienced depression countless number of times. Many times, I just feel sad, and other times, I feel like the world is not worth living in. Innumerable incidents also have occurred where some of my friends get badly depressed. Since many of my friends would try to talk to me about how they feel when they are depressed, I see a lot the pain and dejection they are going through. Through these experiences, depression began to scare me because of how inferior and worthless it can make a person feel, and where these low feelings would lead to. I realized that depression should not be allowed to dominate a persons life as it would slowly eat him away. I felt I had to find out what depression really is, what causes it, and most of all, how to deal with it. There are two main types of depression minor depression and major depression. First of all, minor depression is the type of depression that is encountered most in our lives. It is usually preceded by problems such as adverse relationships, doing badly in school, or the loss of a job. In minor depression, people feel sad and anxious, cry, or are pessimistic. Second, major depression is a type of abnormal depress ion that might occur when a person experiences trauma such as having a loved one pass away. It can also occur when a person has hormonal imbalances or abuses drugs. In addition to what people feel in minor depression, people in major depression feel helpless and guilty, have insomnia, are lethargic and lose self-esteem. The causes of depression are not clear-cut, but the biochemistry of the brain, the environment, and personality all seem to have an effect on how prone a person is to depression.... ...d gets depressed, I have also learned that there are ways to help ease him out of depression. Through my various experiences with depression in others and myself, I believe that many people are ignorant or badly misinformed about depression. Even though depressed people tend to block out sound reasoning to wallow in disconsolation or anger, some knowledge of depression would help them get out of depression.Works CitedBootzin, Richard R., Gordon H. Bower, Jennifer Crocker, and Elizabeth Hall. Personality,Abnormality, and Adjustment. Psychology Today An Introduction. 7th ed. New York McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991. p. 547-550.Cush, Cathie. Feeling Bad. Teen Hotline Depression. Austin Raintree Steck-Vaughn Publishers,1994. p. 32-36.Goleman, Daniel. The Cost of Emotional Illiteracy. Emotional Intelligence. New York Bantam Books, 1996. p. 274-283.