Factors affecting the resistance of a wire Essay Example for Free

Factors affecting the resistance of a wire Essay Theory: When an object is lifted up, work is done. Once the object is in the raised position, it has gravitational potential energy. The energy it is has is the same as the work done to get there. When the ball is lifted to the height it will be dropped from it will, therefore, gain gravitational potential energy. This means that when my ball is in the raised position it will have gravitational potential energy. The equation for this is: Potential energy = Mass x gravity x height When the ball is dropped this is converted into K. The equation for this is: Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity2. However, the energy transfer is not perfect. Some of the energy will be wasted as non-useful energy, mainly heat and sound. This means that when the ball bounces upwards again, it will not have as much energy as when it was dropped and will therefore not bounce up to the same height. Because some of the energy is wasted as heat and sound. The amount of kinetic energy at the end is always less than the amount of potential energy you had to start with. This means that the ball will not bounce up as high, and therefore not have as much potential energy as it started with. Prediction: In this investigation I will investigate the percentage energy loss when a ball bounces. The variables that could affect the amount of energy lost are:   The height the ball is dropped from. The type of ball used   The size of the ball The temperature of the ball.   The type of surface the ball is dropped on. The height the ball is dropped from will affect the energy lost because the higher the ball is dropped from the more force it will it the surface with, and therefore the more power it will lose through sound, vibrations, and heat. The type of ball I use will effect my results, because some balls will have more elasticity than others, causing them to bounce higher. Also, balls will have different levels of pressure inside them. The higher pressure is the higher the speed of the molecules. When the molecules go at a higher speed they will have more kinetic energy, so the molecules will hit the walls with a greater frequency and force, and so the pressure on the walls will increase. This will make the ball bounce higher because it will hold more energy. The size of the balls will effect my results because Force=Pressure x Area so a change in area would also cause a change in force. The temperature of the ball will effect my results because if there is a higher temperature then the molecules will move at a greater speed and the ball will have more energy causing it to bounce higher. The surface I drop my ball onto will effect the amount of energy lost because some surfaces, like softer surface, will absorb more energy and cause the ball not to bounce up as high. To ensure a fair test I will choose one variable to change, and keep the others constant throughout the investigation. There are other variables that could effect the outcome of my investigation, for example gravity. However, gravity is always constant on the earth, and is a force of about 9. 8 m/s2. This would be too hard for me to change in a classroom situation. I will also not exert any force on the ball other than those already acting on it, because it would be to hard to keep the force constant, and would mean the test was not fair. For this investigation I will only change the height the ball is dropped from. I have chosen to use the height because, although all the variables are hard to accurately measure, height is easier than the others. Height is also a constant variable (unlike, type of ball or type of surface dropped on), which will help me when recording my results. Using a variable that I can measure fairly accurately will help ensure a fair test. By investigating the percentage of energy lost when I drop the balls from different heights, I will be able to see if there is a relationship between bounce height and drop height. This is also the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy. Because some of the energy will be transferred into non-useful energy, mainly heat and sound, I do no think the ball will bounce up to the same height as it is dropped from. I think that the percentage of energy lost will remain approximately the same no matter what height I drop the ball from. This is because the amount of energy lost to non-useful energy such as heat and sound is proportional to the gravitational potential energy the ball has to start with. Method: I will drop my balls from various heights up to a meter. (The Heights I will use will be: 40cm, 60cm, 80cm and 100cm) I will then record how high they bounce up on the next bounce. I will do each experiment 3 times and take an average to ensure I have accurate results. I will time all my experiments using a stopwatch. I learnt in my preliminary work, that if I drop a ball from lower than 40cm it is very hard to measure the bounce height. This is why I have left out the bottom height which would have been 20cm. I will try and drop the balls straight downwards because this will make it easier when I measure the height they bounce up to, as I wont have to move the ruler too much. This will also ensure a fair test, as my results will be more accurate if I am not moving the meter rule, as moving it could mean it is not entirely straight and would cause me to take an inaccurate measurement. I will not exert any force on the balls as I drop then, because it would be virtually impossible to keep the force constant, and would therefore make my results unreliable. I will calculate how much energy my balls have using the equation PE = mgh, this will be PE1. I will then drop my ball and record the height it bounces up to. I will then record its potential energy, again using the formula PE = mgh, this will be PE2. I will then find the percentage of energy they have lost using the formula.

Adrienne Richs Of Woman Born †The End of Motherhood Essay -- Adrienn

Of Woman Born – The End of Motherhood  Ã‚   In Of Woman Born, Adrienne Rich effectively weaves her own story into a convincing account of what it means to become a mother within the bonds of patriarchal culture. Her conclusion that the institution of motherhood, which she distinguishes from motherhood, must be destroyed in order to release the creation and sustenance of life into the same realm of decision, struggle, surprise, imagination, and conscious intelligence, as any other difficult, but freely chosen work is substantiated by her courageous confession that contradicts culturally normative notions of motherhood. Allowing readers to glimpse her own story as she painfully evaluates her role as mother side by side with historical accounts of other women's experiences provides an avenue for understanding that leads to compassion. By the final chapter, instead of falling into the expected trap of revulsion toward Joanne Michulski's heinous crime, Rich's empathy provides the reader with the insight to realize both the complexity of Michulski's situation and to feel comp...

“One Art” by Elizabeth Bishop Essay

Can one ever practice losing enough to master it? Is it possible to become a master at losing such as an artist can become a master painter, writer, or sculptor? The speaker in the poem â€Å"One Art† presents this question and provides an answer. The poem is an illustration of a common human affliction–grief and regret caused by the loss of another human. Through the use of value progression and the interweaving of denotative and connotative meaning, the speaker shows that no matter how much a person tries to prepare for the loss of one he or she loves, grief and regret are inevitable. By comparing the phrase â€Å"the art of losing isn’t hard to master† with the frequently used word â€Å"disaster,† the meaning begins to take shape. This phrase is used four times in this nineteen-line poem (lines 1, 6, 12, 18). Considered closely with the word â€Å"disaster,† also used four times, one sees the speaker is making a point of rhyming the words master and disaster to emphasize the denotative point that many losses are not disasters–they can be accepted without grief or regret (3, 9, 15, 19). Yet the phrase â€Å"the art of losing†¦Ã¢â‚¬  throws a connotative meaning into the mix by indicating that losing, an uncontrollable event, can be a learned skill. Taken together, the phrase coupled with the word â€Å"disaster† provides foreshadowing to the paradox of trying to prepare to lose a person. The Oxford English Dictionary can shed light onto this interweaving of denotative and connotative meaning. Art 1. Skill in doing anything as the result of knowledge and practice. Human skill as an agent, human workmanship. Opposed to nature. 2. An industrial pursuit or employment of a skilled nature; a craft†¦ Losing 1. The action of LOSE. Perdition, destruction; the being lost or †¦ to be in process of being lost. 2. The fact of losing (something specified or contextually implied). The being deprived of, or the failure to †¦ Denotatively the phrase â€Å"the art of losing† means that a person has acquired skill in being deprived of something or someone. This is directly opposed to nature; in other words, it is not natural for humans to have the skills of losing. The poem illustrates this process of acquisition of skill through value progression in the second though fifth stanzas of the poem. The speaker describes instances of losing beginning with the insignificant and working toward the significant. He or she maintains that by â€Å"practic[ing] losing farther, losing faster† the art of losing will be mastered, therefore it will not bring disaster. Yet, in the last stanza the connotative meaning becomes clear. The final stanza is the only one to have four lines instead of three, which places particular significance upon its message. The final sentence is the key to the connotative meaning of the poem â€Å"It’s evident the art of losing’s not too hard to master though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster† (line 17b-19). Due to the speaker’s need to tell him or herself to â€Å"Write it!,† the connotative meaning of the poem shows that the speaker has been trying to convince him or herself without success that a master loser will avoid the disaster of grief and regret associated with the loss of a loved one. By combining the denotative and connotative meanings, the universal meaning of the poem becomes clear–it is impossible to acquire skills, no matter how much you practice, that will prevent the natural result of grief and regret when someone is lost. In the value progression of loss shown in stanzas one through five, the speaker is trying to convince him or herself that developing the necessary  skills can protect one against major grief and/or regret. It is in the last stanza that the desperateness of the speaker to convince him or herself that it is possible to accomplish this becomes clear. This is where the paradox begins. The speaker is still unconvinced that it is not a disaster to lose a person regardless of the preparation other previous losses may have provided. Stanza one sets the stage of the value progression of loss. It is here that the speaker states what he or she wants to prove. â€Å"The art of losing isn’t hard to master; so many things seem filled with the intent to be lost that their loss is no disaster† (line 1-3). This is the thesis statement of the poem, but instead of proving it true the speaker ends up proving it false. The key idea is that if something intends to be lost then their loss will not cause regret once a person has become a master of losing. The last stanza, particularly the last sentence of the poem, shows the paradox between the thesis and the connotative meaning–humans cannot prepare for the loss of a person. â€Å"–Even losing you (the joking voice, a gesture I love) I shan’t have lied. It’s evident the art to losing’s not to hard to master though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster† (lines 16-19). The old idiom â€Å"if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck; it must be a duck† aptly applies to the last sentence here. If it walks like a disaster, talks like a disaster, and looks like a disaster; it must be a disaster. The speaker even has to force him or herself to write the word disaster as evidenced by the parenthetical phrase â€Å"(Write it!)† which indicates that the speaker wants to believe that â€Å"even losing you† isn’t hard to master, yet he or she cannot quite convince him or herself that it is true. In actuality, the loss of a loved person is a disaster because the very act of love requires an attachment that when severed will inescapably cause pain. The OED has this denotative meaning for love: That disposition or state of feeling with regard to a person which (arising from recognition of attractive qualities, from instincts of natural relationship, or from sympathy) manifests itself in solicitude for the welfare of the object, and usually also in delight in his or her presence and desire for his or her approval; warm affection, attachment. Connotatively love carries the concept that its removal will not be positive, for anytime a person whom one is solicitous of is removed from one’s life; his or her absence will leave a negative affect, in other words, pain will result. The poem â€Å"One Art† effectively uses connotative meaning, denotative meaning and value progression to present a paradox of human nature–the desire to find a way to avoid the pain of losing a loved person. This is a universal truth that crosses cultural and temporal boundaries for all of human kind. This essay adheres to the formalism approach to critical analysis by focusing solely upon the text to derive meaning. It analysis the poem’s use of value progression, meaning of words and phrases both connotatively and denotatively. It shows how the thesis is made into a paradox by the last stanza, which in the end provides the ultimate meaning of the poem. The formalist approach has its strength in that it takes a text at face value forcing the analyzer to think for him or herself without commentary from others. But formalism disregards the author’s mindset at the time of writing as well as the effects it may have emotionally upon the readers. In my opinion, this is a major drawback particularly in regards to the poem â€Å"One Art† by Elizabeth Bishop. This poem seems to come from the heart–the soul–of the author. It would have been interesting and meaningful to know what she may have been dealing with at the time she wrote it. But regardless of Bishop’s mindset, the readers’ reaction has a major impact upon the meaning of the poem. Several friends of mine read this poem. The impact upon all of them was, to say the least, profound. Anyone who reads it has either experience a long-term loss of a person such as long-term illness resulting in death or can empathize with the concept. I think that formalism, by removing the emotional element of the reader, greatly diminishes the power of the poem.

Should there be more or less government regulation - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 2162 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Tags: Government Essay Did you like this example? Topic à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" Corporate Responsibility: Should there be more or less government regulation? With over 1 million businesses operating in Canada, corporate responsibility is a major issue that should be recognized by citizens within society. In simple terms, corporate responsibility is the ethics and morals of a business. Many corporations in Canada have a tremendous amount of wealth and power. Regulation is essential in order for good government. Corporate responsibility occurs when initiatives taken by these corporations benefit all the stakeholders. These stakeholders vary from the employees, to the customer, and to the community. Corporate responsibility is necessary in Canada in order to secure its democracy, protection of consumers, and sustainability of our society. Therefore, it is important that Canada has a tight leash on corporations and effective regulations are in place. Lobbying is just one aspect citizens must be aware of. Also, more and more Canadians suffer from precarious employment which implies they have fewer labour protections than others who have stable employment. Additionally, through various acts of parliament pertaining to the environment, corporations are less constrained by regulations. It is important for Canadian citizens to know how these corporate giants are using their power and how they can still fight for their democratic rights. No citizen should be being more outweighed than corporations, because they are just à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“corporate citizensà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  themselves. Lobbyists have a very powerful influence on government policies. Canada is still allowing Corporations to send lobbyist to influence government decisions and polices which endanger the democratic status Canada has. Canadian citizens should be having the most influential impact on our government. Teeple stated that, Lobbying politicians may well be an accepted apart of our democracy, but to describe it as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å" necessaryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ stretches the point. Endorsing the role of professional lobby firms implies acceptance of the notion that those with money and insider knowledge are entitled to superior access to government and policy decisions (Teeple). If citizens need an intermediary of a lobbyist to get the attention of Ottawa, then we have no real democracy. Governments are following lobbyistsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ impulses rather than pursing the common good, which larger democracies are unable to allow a sufficient number of their citizens to have his or her voices heard. This is antidemocratic and causing only an individualsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ pursuit of their own desires which leads to self-centredness and conflict. The people with money and connections with parliament should not be the ones having the most say to implement new polices. Arguments may be made that lobbying is acceptable to Canadaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s democracy because pressuring politicians is sometimes crucial in or der to get their attention. However, corporations lobbying in order to only benefit their company and profits and not the citizens and society are not democratically correct. Distorting the truth is a huge problem with corporations and lobbyists. Lobbyist are there to get many important decisions made by officials, rather than elected representatives. Teeple summarized that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Lobbyist run any number of efforts, from simply mapping the bureaucracy to assist clients make their own way to the right door, to obtaining access to politicians, to running campaigns to distort the truth in mediaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Teeple). Citizens have the right to know the truth and how these corporations will be affecting their society. Lobbyists have an overwhelming amount of power. Majority of citizens do not have access to parliament like these lobbyist do. Giving these lobbyist a front-of-the-line pass in unjust. Everyone should have equal power to communicate with parliament and jus t like the rule of law, nobody should be more powerful than another. If majority of citizens do not have this power, corporations should not either. There seems virtually no limit to Stephen Harperà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s efforts to diminish the government and democracy in Canada. There seems to be an excessive amount of so-called trade deals, which are really just Corporate Right Deals. Not only is harper busy negotiating them, but corporations like Walmart are in on the action too. However, what about the majority and common good of the people, like jobs? Murray Dobbin is one of Canadaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s most popular progressive political commentators and analysts who explained that, They influence politicians and political parties with huge amounts of cash; they threaten government that dare to consider any laws that lessen their power or privilege; they withdraw capital to punish governments that donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t take them seriously; they spend millions on lobbyist to persua de legislators (Dobbin). Officials are not required to keep formal records of their contracts with lobbyists, and there is some scope for lobbyists to avoid registration by claiming that they are merely responding to requests for information from officials. The government has set up regulations relating to lobbying, but these regulations are not restricting lobbying, it is making it even more legal. Teeple outlined that, The process of registering lobbyists began under the Mulroney government in 1989. The Lobbyists Registration Act essentially puts the onus on lobbyists to register, pay a fee, and list their areas of interest. By its very principles, the Act legitimizes the role of the lobbying industry (Teeple). It has to be emphasized that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“registrationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  is not à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“regulationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . Allowing lobbyist to enter parliament legitimately eats away at Canadaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s democracy even more. It is a form of corruption, because really it is money that is buying these policies corporations want. If the Rogers Corporation want the liberals to win the next election, why should they be allowed to give them millions of dollars for their political campaign? The government is going in the wrong direction and making lobbying too easy. One successful example of lobbying is Enbridge lobbying the Harper government. It had to deal with the proposal for a 1700 kilometre pipeline that would deliver bitumen. There were many vocal public campaigns going against this proposition as it affected the environment, First Nations, and three levels of government. Harris, a former Liberal member, noted that, I cant imagine a project thats more complex, yet it (Enbridge) was able to convince the federal government, the Conservatives, of its value to the point that the federal government, who puts in place the regulatory process by which projects are independently evaluated (Enbridge) had themshamelessly out theresupp orting the project before their own process was even completed(Harris). The Conservatives even changed the environmental regulations that affect the project. Enbridge was able to take something that is not well liked and actually get a government too literally shamelessly support it as the federal level, all because of lobbyist. There are 16 people registered as working for Enbridge on the lobby registry of British Columbia. Due to changes in the economy and business practices, many citizens have precarious employment. This causes fewer labour protections and even with the Employment Standards Act and labour laws, some citizens within Canada are still being treated unjustly. Barnes noted that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Precarious employment encompasses forms of work involving limited social benefits and statutory entitlements, job security, low wages, and high risk of ill-healthà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Barnes). The Canadian government should be taking more action in order to protect these at-ri sk workers. Most employees usually do not have the option to be in precarious employment. An example is the Canada Action Plan. This has created many jobs, but majority of them were precarious employment. Construction jobs are becoming a big issue as construction does not last forever. The government is doing the right thing to create jobs, but should be creating stable jobs. Canada is a democratic country and therefore, nobody should truly have an advantage over another. Vosko outlined that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Employees in these more precarious forms are less likely to receive extended health, dental, pension, and life and/or disability benefits than full-time permanent employeesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Vosko). The government should be ensuring that all citizens are being treated equally regardless of job type. Some people have to enter precarious employment because it is the only type of jobs available in the economy. Economic efficiency is an issue too. Precarious employment already make less than full-time permanent employees. Then they have added living costs, like dental plans, which are not covered. This lowers their disposable income which causes less money circulating in the economy. Therefore, social costs, like welfare, will increase causing the government to spend even more money which is not efficient. Vosko uses statistics to explain that, An increasing share of jobs are less secure, temporary and contract jobs. Half of the new jobs created since October 2008 have been temporary, and 90 per cent of those are term or contract positions that have increased at ten times the rate of permanent jobs. This direction will continue if governments lay off public servants, contract out services, and increasingly rely on temporary, term and contract employees themselves.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Vosko) The government is doing the opposite of what they should by doing in order to secure citizens work life. The government should be setting regulations on corporations on how much they can contract out services so majority of the Canadian citizens can benefit. Precarious employees should have access to a community union in order to have a say in their employment rights. The focus of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Community Unionism: Organising for Fair Employment in Canadaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ is the limited rights and access to traditional vehicles of representation such as unions, due partly to the prohibitive costs and obstacles associated with organising, confronted by workers in precarious employment (Barnes). Having access to a community union will establish a much needed intermediary in order for citizens to be heard. Precarious do not have access to unions because of the cost and organization of one. Governments should be assisting precarious employment in order to achieve long-term stability. Through various acts of parliament pertaining to the environment, corporations are less constrained by regulations. Corporations have lots of power, while som e companies even make more money that provincial governments. Anderson mentioned that, According to Hawken, not only was business and industry the principal instrument of global destruction, it was the only institution large enough, wealthy enough, and pervasive enough to lead humankind out of the mess we were making (Anderson). Many corporations have the wealth and power to be environmentally friendly, but tend not to care. Corporations are going to keep going about their ways if they are not forced to change. An article from CBC News stated that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The federal environmental directorate à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"does not have adequate information on whom it is regulating and who is not complying [with the act]à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Unit). The government regulation in Canada needs to be more specific. There should be penalties on corporations who are not following the regulations. Officials should be looking over these companies to make sure they are not slipping by. Economic efficiency is argued by some and that it would cost millions of dollars to set higher environmental standards. However, if these regulations are not passed onto corporations, the Canadian government is going to be spending even more to repair the damaged environment. Anderson outlined that, Today, an extremely effective shield is in place against vendors sending us things we do not want. We have used this approach to screen out lead, mercury, perfluoronated alkyl substances, and other persistent bioaccumulating toxic substances and chemicals. What has this cost us? Nothing (Anderson). If Canada is able to easily restrict environmental hazards from other countries, Canada should be setting the same restrictions on corporations within Canada. These regulations will not cost the government money, but rather save money. Global warming and environmental damage will have to be fixed by the government if corporations are not forced to act upon the issues. Corporations have the profit s to make the economy and environment sustainable. Governments do not just have to set regulations and restrictions against corporations, but rather help motivate them. Anderson summaries that, Government never seems to lead; it always seems to follow. Not religious institutions, either. Until very recently many churches helped perpetuate the myth that the earth was ours to conquer and subdue, to abuse as we pleased. And sadly, not colleges and universities; they could train the next generation, but we needed action here and now. Who then? (Anderson). If governments are not going to step their foot out and lead, corporations are not going to do anything. The government should not wait until the environmental effects start hurting the Canadian society, because it may be too late to fix, and not to mention, too expensive. A proper democracy, protection of consumers, and sustainability of Canadaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s environment is very important and must be achieved by making sure corporations are following effective regulations in order to demonstrate positive corporate responsibility. Lobbying is something that happens every day within the government walls which is allowing corporations to have a more influential impact on the government then citizens. Additionally, rising precarious employment must be put to an end and citizens should feel secure with useful labour protections. Also, it is important Canada is environmentally friendly by regulating corporations in order to obtain sustainability and efficiency. Money talks in Canada and citizens should be aware of this because it is eating away their democratic rights. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Should there be more or less government regulation?" essay for you Create order