High result Essay Example for Free

High result Essay First of all, I prepare my working place and start my determination. All my measurements are recorded to the table above.  The smallest graduation of the thermometer is 1 C. According to this, I take the absolute uncertainty of my temperature measurements as. I do not add additional uncertainty as I did not encounter any further difficulties in weight measurement.  To determine masses I used a digital scale with provided uncertainty in the instruction of the digital scale of 0.2g. Therefore, I take it as the absolute uncertainty of the mass measurements. I take the temperature of ice as C because the ice was melting when I started to use it in my experiment. I take this temperature theoretically and do not include uncertainty to this measurement as it is in theoretical level.  After having determined the raw data, I fill it into the table.  Further I provide constants that will be used during my determination. These are taken from Giancoli Physics 5th edition, page 421:  cwater = 4186 J*(kg*C)-1  caliuminium = 900 J*(kg*C)-1  Data processing:  Ã‚  Now I will provide the mass of the water. To do this I will subtract the mass of the calorimeter from the mass of calorimeter and water together:  mwater = (163.3 0.2) (35.0 0.2) = (128.3 0.4) g  Now I can compare my result with literatures. In Giancoli Physics 5th edition page 425 it is provided that the latent heat of fusion of ice to 3.33 x 105 J*kg-1. Therefore, the percentage discrepancy is equal to 17%. Also, the theoretical percentage uncertainty is equal to 11%. I will discuss these finding in conclusion and evaluation part. Conclusion and evaluation:  The percentage discrepancy of 17% shows that the determination was done quite precisely. Moreover, the percentage uncertainty of 11% suggests that the determination was done quite accurately as well. However, these are only theoretical assumptions as much energy and heat was transferred to air during the water cooling process. Further, I have to state more weaknesses and limitations of my determination. Some errors were encountered despite the fact that I tried to be as accurate as possible. First of all, the main weakness of the determination was that all the determination was done theoretically and I could not measure how much heat was transferred to air during the water cooling process. I was not able to measure the heat loss. Moreover, I took the ice temperature theoretically as I also could not measure it. These were clearly the weakest parts of all determination. Of course, the results are good enough, as the percentage discrepancy shows, but still it was only a theoretical determination based on the assumption that Qlost = Qgained. However, as for the percentage uncertainty I should blame only the instruments as I had to use quite many of them, but the uncertainty they provided was relatively small. My percentage uncertainty does not include the uncertainty of theoretical assumptions. Furthermore, some systematic errors have occurred as I had to do a lot of calculations and roundings during the data processing part. Also, the instruments may have been badly calibrated and this could have affected my determination. However, systematic errors are not important because even if they even were encountered, they were very small. Another thing is with random errors and heat loss as they were really significant because the percentage uncertainty shows relevantly high result. I could provide several suggestions to improve the determination but obviously I am not able to make this determination not theoretically in schools conditions. First of all, I would rather use more ice, bigger calorimeter and more water. Then, as I would still use the same equipment with same absolute uncertainties, the percentage uncertainty would be reduced significantly. The uncertainty would be less important and more accurate results would come. However, my suggestions would only lesser the uncertainties, but they would not totally cancel them and it would still be only a theoretical determination.

Traditional and Internet Dating Essay -- Dating Social Values Changes

Traditional and Internet Dating At some point in our lives where we are searching for that special someone. The methods of going about dating have changed quite dramatically over the years. Going out has grown from traditional dating, to internet 'dating', to group dating.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Traditional Dating has changed over the years. In my generation the girls can ask the guys, there is no telling where they might go on a date, or they might just hang out at home, which did not happen as much 25 years ago. My generation's moral values are changing too: sex on the first date happens more frequently now. Many Years ago a guy would go pick the girl up at her house, was introduced to her parents and have a talk with them before taking their little girl out for a first date. Now, however, guys and girls meet somewhere or the guy just beeps the horn and in many cases the parents do not meet the guy with whom their daughter is going out. When my parents were young, dating was something taken seriously, and knew someone for a period of time before ever asking her out on a date. Today a date may be just something to do for fun or if you are bored. Nowadays many people "hook-up" at bar, clubs or random parties. : I wonder what changes are to be in the futur e of dating.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  What kind of person goes online and uses personal ads to meet their mate. The Internet changing everything from the way we shop to the way we find driving directions. Cyberspace has become the hottest pick-up jo...

Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie Essay

Throughout history competition has created bitter tension between social classes. Competition has occurred in every social structure that has existed to this day. Social structure has been the determining factor of competition: in essence the poorer classes have always tried to compete with the wealthier classes to seize their wealth and power; the greater the economical gap between the two opposing classes the fiercer the competition between them. Two highly esteemed and different people, Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie, developed their own ideologies to resolve and ease class tension, that is, whether changes should be imposed on the structure and role of social classes. Another writer, Sam Keen illustrates the effect of competition in the extreme. Within their opposing and controversial views, there lies the more efficient social-economic resolution: a modified version of Carnegie’s argument, despite the fact that it has some imperfections. The answer is determined by the ack nowledgment by the powerful and the wealthy of certain responsibilities to the poorer classes. Each author feels that the competition within a capitalist society has definite effects on social structure but disagree as to what this effect is. Competition exists in many forms and in our case it exists in the form of class struggles. The upper class, known as the bourgeois, possess wealth and power over the lower class, known as the proletariats, that consists of the working class in society. The battles between these two classes have ranged from verbal fighting to stages of bedlam and bloodshed. Financial stability allows the wealthy to fulfill their desires and needs by exploiting the working class to a great degree. In response, the working class engages in competing with the wealthy to overcome their control and establish itself as the ruling class. Unfortunately, relatively few people in the poor class ever achieve this goal, thereby showing the level of difficulty of overcoming a higher class authority. To this day true equality has not been established; instead some truce has developed, stemming from their dependency on each other. A very honorable and well-known socialist, Karl Marx, argued that capital should be socially and not privately owned. He analyzed the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeois and claimed that the constant battle  between them, the never ending subordination of the proletariat, has only established new classes, new conditions of oppression, and new forms of struggle in place of the old. Marx believed that the bourgeois, the large middle class of merchants who rule society, have corrupted all the old values of society and turned them into monetary ones. By this he is taking the intellectuals and artists of society, the honorable personnel (those respected scientists and artists who contribute to society), and portrays how the bourgeois made them part of their workforce, thereby, removing all of their value in society. Marx is rather angry that free competition between the bourgeois has created tension in society, and moreover, has removed the natural values of society and replaced them with competitive monetary ones. He believes that with the growing class of the proletariat, eventually they will all unite and overthrow the bourgeois in an effort to revolutionize society and create unified distribution of wealth that removes all conflicts and battles between the classes. Removing competition will enable society to flourish at a constant rate and revive the humanistic values of society. Unfortunately, such an economic system cannot exist because there will always be people trying to garner more power and authority, and thereby aggregate large wealth that will throw off Marx’s Utopian society. In relation to the pursuit of wealth and control, society’s structure is probably determined by the demands of society. According to Sam Keen, people are raised accordingly to the demands of their present society. If society demands a competitive economy then the mindset of the child will be that of a competitive one. However, if society is more complacent then people will be raised with a calm outlook on society without competition. Institutions (schools and industry) try to instill rigid beliefs according to society’s demands. Since society has been based on the demand of goods it caused competition amongst the people that barter for these goods, thereby forming a competitive economy. Keen puts the white collared workers in a favorable position as opposed to the blue collar workers. Here again, the white collared employers lead society and have authority and control over the blue collared workers, the employees. He argues that the white collared workers are always hig hly regarded, but the blue collared workers, regardless of  their income, will always be considered poor. In Keen’s point of view, the competitive economy is the way society inevitably will formulate itself. The problem is that Keen reflects on competition that is taken to the extreme. Competition in practice however, is not necessarily taken to this drastic extreme. In fact, analysis of extreme competition shows that it is not beneficial, but a moderate account of a competitive society is rather useful. Another perspective comes from one of the great industrialists, Andrew Carnegie, who attempted to explain and give reasons for the difference within the classes in a way that brought out the dependency of each class on the other and the responsibilities that each must fulfill. Carnegie considered the biggest problem to be the proper distribution of wealth. He knew very well from his own experience of social mobility that it was every American’s dream. However, it was far from an easily achievable dream, which led him to develop a theory of social reliance, in which one class relies on the other. Theoretically, he saw the Law of Competition in the working world and realized that the wealthy business owners were the true benefactors to society. That competition brings out the true leaders of society, who become the wealthy business owners. With the concentration of business, industrial and commercial interests, in the hands of a few, Carnegie depicted these intelligent leaders a s the rare fruit of society. Carnegie clearly states, â€Å"That this talent for organization and management is rare amongst men is proved by the fact that it invariably secures enormous rewards for its possessor, no matter where or under what laws or conditions.†(The Gospel of Wealth0 p.250) Here Carnegie is referring to the talent that allows those few men to organize and manage large corporations that inevitably provide large profits for them. Running a corporation has to endow profit otherwise it would be shut down, according to Carnegie who claims that there is no middle ground, only either/or. The most intelligent and capable men develop these corporations and bring in large sums of profit that is rightfully theirs, according to Carnegie. Since the overbearing level of competition prevents the many from founding their own corporations, the ones that succeed are undoubtedly entitled to this great wealth that comes with it. However, Carnegie believed that this wealth comes with its own responsibilities which the rightful possessor of the wealth must  acknowledge. These responsibilities include contributing beneficial things to the public such as educational institutions that will allow progress to occur, also, beautification and entertainment centers that the average individual cannot afford to contribute. However, giving back to the public doesn’t necessarily contribute to everyone. It will be limited to the ones that afford to find time to use these facilities since the less fortunate people who have to work long hours will not be able to use them due to time constrictions. As a Great Industrialist who possessed enormous wealth, Carnegie was in a financial position that allowed him to take part in philanthropic events. He believed that the rich business owners possessed this wealth not only for their own use but for the benefit of society as a whole. Carnegie donated a large portion of his earnings to building libraries, parks, museums, music halls, and other public resources. By doing so he was a living example to his theory: that the Law of Competition was only beneficial to society. He explained that the inferior working class was not intelligent enough to benefit society. He did not believe in random charity giving, instead he felt that society should help those that will help themselves, people who need a push forward to start them again. He also felt that the people who were worthy of assistance, seldom required it. With these truths taken into account, society could truly benefit from the wealthy and powerful industrialists. Carnegie embodied the wealthy individual as becoming â€Å"the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they could do for themselves†; this is pointing out the benefit of competition as a positive influence on society. By his statement Carnegie illustrates the superiority of the wealthy class and the beneficence that it gives to the poor class of society. Since the poor class is not capable of managing and distributing wealth in society, the affluent must take upon themselves the responsibility of giving back to the community by using their superior qualities and benefiting society to the best of their ability. In this social-economic structure, Carnegie builds his syste m of two separate classes that compete against each other, yet are codependent for the benefit of one another. With all the viewpoints taken into account we can see that competition has allowed the better suited people to run the economy. Society has developed a codependence on the wealthy and poor classes. Together, the working class, the proletariat, relies on its employers, the bourgeois to provide it with an immediate income to support itself; the employers benefit from the proletariat’s work, accumulate great wealth and take the responsibility upon them to act as the trustees of the proletariat and give back to them via the most efficient public donations. By fulfilling each class’s responsibilities to each other, society will benefit as a whole and progress will occur for everyone. Marx’s utopian society could not exist due to the greediness of people that would try to seize power, which would create competition. Keen has taken the view of competition in the extreme which is rather unrealistic. Allowing a moderate level of competition will have a positive effect on society. Like Carnegie, the few wealthy should possess great resources that enable them to become the trustees and benefit society in the aforementioned ways that an average individual cannot. Although giving back to society is partially ineffective as previously noted, it is a more balanced system of Carnegie’s competitive social structure. P.S- Allegorically speaking, the two competitive classes, the proletariat and the bourgeois, can be viewed as a supersaturated solution. A solvent being the wealthy employers, the solute being the enormous working class and the undissolved particles lying on the bottom: the unemployed. Hypothetically, the wealthy class possesses total control over its solute, meaning how much it will be dissolved.

How to Create Classroom Management Routines

Over the years, educators have developed many different methods for keeping classrooms clean and under control. Currently, one of the most effective is a  program of classroom management proposed by educator  Harry K. Wong  in his book  The First Days of School. The focus of Wongs program is on creating orderly classroom routines that help children understand what is expected of them each day. It is a highly effective method, one that works well in both special and general education classrooms. Each day, the children from Room 203 line up outside the classroom and wait to be greeted by their teacher. When they enter the room, they place their homework in the basket marked homework, hang up their coats, and empty their back packs. Soon, the class is busy recording the days assignments in their assignment book, and when completed work on the spelling puzzle they found on their desks. The Importance of Routines Every day, the children in room 203 follow the same routines, routines they have learned. Flexibility comes in instruction, in meeting individual needs or challenges as they arise. The beauty of routines is that they are about what we do, not who we are. A child can be reminded that they forgot to complete a routine, and they will not feel hurt, as they probably would if they were told that they broke a rule. Its well worth the extra time required to create routines, since routines help children understand what is expected of them, where to find the resources they need, and how to behave in the classroom. Routines take time to be taught, but eventually, they become second-nature, and students no longer need to be reminded what to do. The best time to establish routines is at the beginning of the school year.  The First Six Weeks of School, a book by educators Paula Denton and Roxann Kriete, lays out six weeks of activities that teach routines and create meaningful ways for students to interact and create community in the classroom. This approach is now trademarked as The Responsive Classroom. Creating Routines The best routines are those that anticipate common challenges in the classroom and find ways to address them. Before creating a routine, teachers should ask themselves the following questions: How will the students enter the classroom?Where will they place their backpacks? Their homework?Who will take attendance? How will the students record their lunch choices?What does a student  do when his or her work is completed?How does a student  record his or her independent reading?How are seats chosen at lunchtime? A resource room teacher will need to ask: How will the students  get from their general education classroom to the resource room?How will the students know when it is time to move from their desks to the teachers table?What role will a classroom aide play in the structure of the classroom?Who keeps track of homework and class assignments? Teachers should have an answer for each of these questions. Children from communities without much structure will need a great deal of structure in their day. On the other hand, children from more orderly communities will not necessarily need as much structure. As a teacher, it is always best to have too many routines and too much structure than too little—you can more easily take away than add. Rules While routines are more effective for managing classrooms, there is still a place for rules. Keep them short and simple. One of the rules in every classroom should be Treat yourself and others with respect. Limit your rules to a maximum of 10 so that students can easily remember them.