All right, I think we'll go ahead and get started. Good morning and thank you for coming out today. I'm Sarah Mills. I'm a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer in the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy here at the Ford School. Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Close-Up is one of our research centers here. And this event is actually part of our Close-Up in the Classroom Initiative. That is a project that's funded by the Provost Office Third Century Initiative to help us better integrate the research that's going on in our center with what's happening in the classroom here. And so as part of that grant, we were able to develop two different courses. This is a course on environmental policy research. And so it really links up with Close-Up's efforts in we have an energy and environmental policy initiative. And so many of the students in the class are engaging with that data. And others are doing work through the class that's directly applicable to this type of stuff that we're doing in the center. In addition to Close-Up sponsoring this, it's also being co-sponsored by the program in the environment, the School of Natural Resources Environment, and the Energy Institute. So I want to thank those partners. And she slipped out of the room. But I also wanted to thank Bonnie Roberts. My colleague got close up for pulling all of the details together for this. Because this is part of the class, there are, as I said, a number of students from that particular class here. And pedagogically, what I really wanted to present them with was the nuts and bolts of research. How do you pull together a policy research process? And while I was in DC for a conference last year, I met Reardon Frost. And he was telling me about this project and really making pragmatic decisions on what categories do you include if you're trying to measure the states against each other in terms of their level of environmental policy. And so that's really what I hope that we'll be able to get out of this in an introduction generally to his environmental index. Reardon is finishing up his PhD in Public Administration at American. Hopefully, it'll be done by the end of the year. In addition to this work, his dissertation is also looking at urban sustainability and urban policy. And I understand he's a blogger on urban policy and planning specifically in DC. So I look forward to your presentation. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you to Barry and Bonnie as well for hosting me. This is a project that I'm working on with the Center for Environmental Policy at American University, which is within the Department of Public Administration policy there. And as Sarah mentioned, it's really about trying to create a modern state environmental index. And I'm going to go over both the results from that index, but also how we're trying to construct that index, the challenges that are inherent in constructing an index. So just to justify why we're doing what we're doing off the bat, we're focusing on the state level. William K. Riley, not to be confused with Bill O. Riley, is the former EPA administrator under George H.W. Bush. He's kind of our Center for Environmental Policy's figurehead. And he gave a speech to the Environmental Council of the States back in 2015 in which he said, climate action and adaptation has been most notable and imaginative at the state and local levels. And if the clean power rule is overturned, it will continue to be. So he said this about a year before the 2016 election. And the clean power rule now is, I would say, on even shakier ground. So the state and local levels are really going to be, I think, the new focus for these types of policies, especially as they are either ignored or worked against on the federal level. So if we agree on the state level, then, why create a ranking? I understand that the students in this class will be creating somewhat similar things, but not necessarily exactly like this. But we wanted to do a ranking because it's great for benchmarking. You can see the progress that you've made or lost, especially over the years. You can see if you're in the leading states or if you're at the bottom of the ranking room for improvement. You can pair yourself to your neighbors. Everybody loves to do that.  I put a logo of US News and World Report college ranking. I went to undergrad at Connecticut College. And when I was there, they signed on to a list of colleges that were boycotting the US News and World Report college ranking because they felt as though the methodology was unfair or maybe not transparent enough, whatever. And I'm sure it probably had nothing to do with the fact that we slipped rankings or something that year. But the fact of the matter is, and as I'll get into later, rankings really can rile people up as to we're really proud that we're at the top. We're really mad that we're at the bottom. Why did you have this methodology this way? So that's what I'm going to explore. So when it comes to environmental rankings, there's quite a few on the national level. This is Yale University's Environmental Performance Index. They've been producing this for a while. These are the 2016 results of environmental performance, blue being good, red being bad. Basically, it looks like a developed country, developing country map. But this is just to show that there's a lot of work being done here on the national level. On the city level, there's a lot of work being done as well. Kent Portneys taking Sustainable Cities seriously is a great look at it. There's an organization called Sustain Lane that was ranking cities in the US. There's a lot of global city rankings, for instance, from Arcadis here. But on the state level, the most recent one that we could find was the Financial Services Blog Wallet Hub, for some reason, has decided to rank the states on environmental policy and performance. But the most recent comprehensive ranking that we could find is the 1991 to 1992 Green Index, which was the Institute for Southern Studies, I believe, Bob Hall and Mary Lee Kerr, and had about 256 indicators in it and was somewhat surprisingly to us one of the most recent we could find. So 1991 to 1992 is quite old when it comes to data, not when it comes to people. But when it comes to data, it's very, very old. And so scholars have been looking at what have people been using in lieu of a good modern index. So Knisky and Woods in 2012 wrote an article that categorized what environmental scholars have been using since then, because there hasn't really been any good ones since then. So they have it in four categories, state government expenditures on environmental protection, private sector pollution abatement, state environmental regulatory enforcements, and then, of course, environmental indices. And the funny thing is that some people, as recently as 2009, including the scholars who wrote this very article, have been using the 1991 to 1992 Green Index, even though it's almost as of 2009, 20 years old. So what has happened since then in terms of indices is one that appeared in Forbes in 2007. It didn't really have its own dedicated website or anything. It was just kind of an article that appeared on it. America's Green Estates, there were six indicators listed there, carbon footprint, air, water, et cetera. The states that led in that ranking were Vermont, Oregon, and Washington. The states over the bottom, Alabama, Indiana, West Virginia. And then more recently, as I mentioned, the Financial Services Blog Wallet Hub, which gives you credit scores and other things, has decided to rank the states. And surprisingly, in depth, actually, as well, with three categories with 17 indicators total, five in environmental quality, eight in eco-friendly behaviors, and four in climate change contributions. The states that lead up on there are Vermont, Washington, and Massachusetts, and the states that are at the bottom of Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. So we set out, at the Center for Environmental Policy, to create a new, modern, comprehensive state policy index. And so we were trying to mirror the 1991 to 1992 Green Index, which, as I mentioned, has 256 indicators, 179 condition indicators, and 77 policy indicators. So that seems like a very high bar. But the fact of the matter is that some, and it is a fairly high bar, but some of their variables were somewhat questionable. For instance, they had things like, what percent of your state is federal land? That's not really anything the state has any control over, necessarily. What percent of your state is forest land? Some states are more forested than others. The climate, the geography, is vastly different across the country. You could argue that you should punish more agricultural states that have torn down their forests or urbanized states that have torn down. But then there's also states that are more deserted in general. So there's just some interesting things that you could take issue with. The number of motor boats was the one that I thought was most peculiar. It was in their kind of fun and lifestyle part of their index, where they're trying to see how much leisure, how good the leisure and recreation is in a state. But I'm from Minnesota, and there's going to be a lot more motor boats in the land of 10,000 lakes than there are in, say, Nevada. So some double counting as well that they were using in their methodology, so it wasn't as rigorous as it could be. And then the biggest problem, though, that I would say is that replicability is very difficult with this index. So if I wanted to just look and say, OK, I just want to make a 2016, 2017 Green Index, I'll use all their same indicators, I actually can't do that. Because a lot of their indicators were publicly available government data, but a lot of their indicators were other indices made by other organizations. And the big problem with that is that those organizations stopped making those indices. And so if I wanted to replicate it, then I have to go to the World Wildlife Fund and say, hey, remember back in 1990 when you made this index, can we make it again? So it quickly becomes an unmanageable task. So when we set out to create our index, we were looking both at policies and conditions. So policies are the things that the state legislatures pass. They funding conservation, water nutrient standards, carbon cap and trade like the regional greenhouse gas initiative in the Northeast. And then conditions are kind of the results, we would say, of those policies and also of things that the policies haven't yet addressed. But carbon emissions, energy consumption, so on and so forth. So we started looking at collecting in both of those. And our guiding principles were, especially for conditions, to normalize the data to be able to compare states to one another because otherwise comparing Rhode Island and California doesn't make a lot of sense. So the most common ways of normalizing that is by GDP or by population. We chose to do it by GDP because it answers the question, how much air pollution do you need to emit to generate $1 million of GDP? And that's what we like to call ecological efficiency. But it actually has pretty similar results when you do it by population as well, which I'll show you. We also wanted to collect data from publicly available sources that were very easily accessible, very transparent, very replicable. So we're just looking for kind of like off-the-shelf data from the Department of Transportation, the EPA, the Department of Energy. We're not really looking for anything where you would need, if you wanted to replicate it, to go to every state and say, hey, what is your data on this specific thing? And that's a problem when it comes to the policy variables. So we're a lot of those policy variables in order to see which states have these policies. You need to go to each state's legislature website, so on and so forth. So what we decided to focus on first was the conditions, the ecological efficiency side normalized by GDP to compare. And we came up with eight to nine indicators in these different categories. So in energy and climate, we have carbon dioxide emissions. We get that from the Energy Information Administration, energy consumption from the same source. Air, we have criteria air pollutants. Criteria air pollutants are six air pollutants that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate. And so we have those, which is from the EPA. Transportation, vehicle miles traveled, this is from the Department of Transportation. That's kind of a proxy variable to get it the numerous effects of the transportation sector from the carbon emissions from it, air pollution from it, runoff from it as well. And then in the water category, again, kind of proxy variables. Fertilizer purchased, we were trying to get it runoff from that, some nutrients from that. Water withdrawals, surface or ground, we can split that into two variables, which is why this is eight or nine indicators. And then in the waste variable, we have toxic release inventory and hazardous waste generation. And these variables aren't perfect, and I'll talk about that as well, how we got quite a bit of feedback on these variables. But these are the results here from the index, including all those variables that were just listed. And as you can see, just so that you can actually read it, I just put the top eight and the bottom eight here. But the top eight are mostly small Northeastern states, and the bottom eight are a little more geographically spread out, but in general, more resource extractive states or fossil fuel dependent states, a little less developed than the kind of small Northeastern states in terms of urbanization. So, and then this is also showing you per, GSP just means gross state products, so same thing as GDP, but comparing that with population and you're seeing that you're basically within one to three ranks on either per GDP or per capita. So, the challenges that we experienced with this particular index were data availability and data quality. Since we were looking for things that were right off the shelf, easily available, data availability was a big problem, and it was basically a big problem in anything except for energy. There's great data in energy. If you're doing a project on energy, congratulations, it's gonna be much easier than, for instance, water. If you're going to do a project on water, reconsider, because water is just a very interesting thing that is not very available and the data quality itself is not high. And additionally, sometimes you'll just have to use variables that are proxy variables. So, vehicle miles travel, as I mentioned, is a proxy variable. It's not directly measuring what you're interested in, but it gets at it through just saying this is the vehicle miles and then that's associated with the different effects of the transportation sector. But data quality, as I mentioned with water, one of the things that we were considering for a policy indicator was what percent of your water is in a state have you assessed? And we thought, okay, maybe that would be a good proxy variable for how good of a handle do you have on your water quality? How committed are you to addressing your water quality? What we noticed in that data set, which is reported to the EPA, is that some states would say, oh, how much percent of our water bodies have we assessed? 120, of course, 119 percent. And that is impossible. So, we asked the EPA about it and they basically just kind of shrugged and said, if we send it back to the states and say, no, do it again, we get a call from a congressperson that says, hey, stop bothering my state. So, we just kind of tossed that variable at the door. Surface water withdrawals is another thing that has data quality issues because surface water withdrawals we were trying to use as a proxy for water use in a state. And for one, there's the issue of some states are gonna depend more on their surface water, some states are gonna depend more on their groundwater, but surface water withdrawals also includes water that is being drawn up into hydropower dams despite the fact that it's then being put right back. So, we don't really wanna punish states for using hydropower in that variable. So, that's an issue that we ran into as well. There's also the issue of extreme outliers. One of the most important things you can do in projects like this is really kind of delve into your data and see what's happening in terms of the range of the outliers, et cetera. And one of the things that we noticed is that Alaska, for instance, was a crazy high outlier on toxic release inventory. So, number one on toxic release inventory is Vermont. Releases about 271,000 pounds a year of toxic releases. And Alaska, on the other hand, is at 970 million. And Alaska is also much higher than anyone in 49th or 48th place as well. And we don't really know why this is. We've hypothesized that it could be because of the mining operations in Alaska. It could be that injection wells and so on are, you know, that's included in toxic releases. So, you know, it's unclear, but this is something that we've seen in the data. And it troubles us because we're not sure if it's a reporting error or if it's just something that maybe we don't want measured. And when it comes to things that we don't want measured, we also noticed that in carbon intensity there were places like Alaska that had very high carbon emissions, much, much higher than anybody else, even when we're controlling for GDP. And I noticed when I delved into the data that the miscellaneous tier had a lot of the carbon emissions. So I emailed the EPA, and that's another piece of advice is that, you know, emailing these agencies directly and just asking them can be very helpful. And one of the things that the EPA told me was, oh yeah, in some of the earlier years, you know, like besides our most recent data, we are including emissions from forest fires in your carbon emissions. And that's not really something, you know, that I want to punish a state for, you know, because it's not from their direct industry, and it's not necessarily something that they have control over. So those are two issues that we had. And then eco-efficiency index, the feedback that we got, people critiqued the appropriateness of the variables, including like the fertilizer variable, the water withdrawals, proxy variables, people sometimes take issue with. And we also had some critiques about the fairness of comparisons. We presented this index to the Environmental Council of the States, which is an organization of all of the heads of the environment departments in all the different states. They were gathered in D.C. because they were actually considering making their own ranking. And one of the things that a representative from North Carolina told me was, you know, I would be comfortable being compared to Tennessee. I'm not comfortable being compared to New York State. So that's another thing that you can do, is you can do a nationwide comparison, like we've been doing in this project, or, you know, you can kind of break things out by region to see more specifically how people are doing against their neighbors. People also critiqued how it was kind of unfair against certain economic industries. You know, you've got small northeastern states that have a lot of financial services, which don't have a lot of direct environmental impact. And then you have other states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana that are all more dependent on natural resource extraction. And this was kind of punishing them. I was also pointed out to us that fossil fuel dependent states do poorly in this index, but, you know, that's actually pretty intentional because if you're a fossil fuel dependent state, then I think that you shouldn't do well in an environmental index. So additionally, people wanted us to show performance beyond rankings because rankings don't tell you as much. So that's one of the things we changed first is that, you know, rankings are great. You can say, great, I got first place, I got second place, whatever. But it's impossible to tell, you know, what's the distance between 22nd and 23rd place? It could be very, very close, or it could be, you know, a wide chasm that is there. So what we decided to do was start assigning state scores. And this is something that a lot of indices and rankings and everything, like a lot of places assign scores, but people are like strangely proprietary about their score formulas. You know, they say, oh, we based on this, this, and this, but they never show you the actual calculation. So since transparency and replicability was important to us, we came up with a very, very simple formula that I'll show you on the next slide. But you know, this is an interesting thing as well because there are more decisions to make here. Do you base it on the average? Do you base it on the median? Do you base it on the standard deviation? When you base it on the average, it's susceptible to outliers. The median, to a certain extent, is also susceptible to outliers if there's enough outliers to bring it up. Standard deviation is something that was suggested to us at APAM, the policy conference, when we presented this there in the fall. And so we actually then ended up using that because standard deviation is based on the total distribution of the state's performance. And so it's not as susceptible to outliers and it works a little better for us, we found. The other thing that we did with the feedback is we saw that there was definitely issues with the appropriateness, with data quality on several of the variables like the toxic release inventory one or the water withdrawals. So we decided to focus on a subindex and really focus on the variables that had the highest quality data that had the most favorable feedback on them and that were also thematically linked. So we created something called the air, climate and energy subindex, which we'll just call the ACE index. And that has energy efficiency, carbon intensity, vehicle miles traveled and criteria air pollutants. So things that are all connected to air, climate and energy and things that we also had the most confidence in. As I mentioned with energy, a lot of confidence in their data quality and data availability. And that's two of the four variables here. So our scoring formula, as I mentioned, is based on standard deviation. It's super simple. I don't even have any Greek on the board. It's basically just standard deviation, divided by performance times 10 so that you can read it a little easier is the times 10. But, and then we weighted everything in the ACE index except for the vehicle miles traveled variable and our justification for that was that vehicle miles traveled is more of a proxy variable. The other ones are more direct measurement variables. So we weighted vehicle miles traveled a little less. So the advantage of this is that the magnitude between the states is revealed. The rankings don't tell you that, but the scores do. The results are comparable across indicators because the performance and the standard deviation are both within that measurement, but then they produce a score that you can compare across energy efficiency and carbon intensity. So then, just as an example of how simple this formula is and how it works, Michigan consumed about 2000 megawatt hours per million dollars GDP in 2013 and Alabama, which was just the first state in the alphabet, consumed about 3000 megawatt hours per million dollars GDP. So the standard deviations about 806 for energy efficiency, for energy consumption and then you see the results from that. The higher the score, the better you are. So very easy to understand, pretty simple. Based on standard deviation, it's not as susceptible to outliers. So you could do more complicated things that might give you more interesting results, but we really wanted to kind of keep it simple and have something that was easily understandable. So now we are closer to the results, which is something that people always like to see. And when it comes to results, there's a lot of different ways to display your results. So obviously there's tables the classic way, but as you saw earlier, I'm only really showing the top eight and the bottom eight of the states in these tables. And so you can't show all 50 states to a audience like this. So then there's maps, great for comparing the states, but less specific information known on that. Radar charts, I'll show you one of those for Michigan, which kind of shows within state performance. And then scatter plots as well can show you good trends. So on the ACE index, again, this is just the four variables, carbon intensity, energy efficiency, vehicle miles traveling, criteria, air pollutants, these are the results. So the results of the scores and the rankings there. So top eight again, mostly small Northeastern states, but we also have California now, which was not even in the top eight on the Ecoefficiency Index, is second here. We have scores that range up to 47 and down to two. On the bottom we have Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming, more natural resource intensive states, as well as Alaska. Mississippi is not dead last, so they would be happy to see that. But it's still in the bottom eight there and some other states there as well. So this is then showing, again, per GDP versus per capita for the ACE index, not the Ecoefficiency Index, which I showed earlier. And as you can see, it's really pretty similar across the board. There is one bigger difference that I'll point out with Mississippi. They have, I think, a below average GDP, so they do a little worse in the GDP and a little better in the population moving from 46 to 39th place in that particular ranking. So this is what I mentioned earlier, but the different ways that you can do your scoring formulas. So on the left I have standard deviation, which is what I just showed, top four and bottom four here. And these are the scores that are produced when you base it on standard deviation. These are the scores in the middle that are produced when you base it on average and the rankings. The top four are the same there with three and four switched, so New York moves up. And then the bottom four are almost the same, except Alaska does a lot better. And this also you see in the median. The top four stay the same. Bottom four, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, holding down the fort across the board, same rankings. But Alaska moves to 38th place and 40th place when you base it on average and median. And I'm thinking that that's because Alaska's benefiting when they're skewing up the average or the median because then it's a higher, it's closer to them. The average and median are both closer to them when they're doing that, when they're biasing it upwards. Whereas standard deviation, it's less susceptible to that. So everybody loves maps. I say that because I love maps. I'm not sure it's actually true, but there's a bunch of maps that I can now show. And this is the overall ACE index. So we have, again, the variables on the right. For anyone who's interested, Criteria air pollutants, the six are ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead is actually a Criteria air pollutant. But since the successful legislation in the 90s, since 2005, lead has been so negligible that it's been hardly reported, which is really good news. So this is what you see. Darker green is better. Gold is worse. And this is something that you know, you don't think that colors on a map is necessarily gonna make that much of a difference. But one of the most common feedbacks that we got was be nice to the states that aren't doing well. So at one point in time, I listed the bottom states as something like middling performance or something. And I got quite an earful for that. So now we don't use green and red or anything like that. It's just kind of a yellowish color if you have room for improvement. So it's something that I did not think I would run into, but it's definitely a useful thing to keep in mind. So again, you have here the overall results and then you can specify this to each variable. So I used a free mapping application used called Tableau Public. I highly recommend it and you can make these great maps pretty easily. Carbon intensity, you have a pretty similar to your last slide, but there's a couple states like Idaho doing better than usual because they've got their hydropower, that's what we think. And then the northeastern states doing well and everything. And one of the reasons that we're making this ranking, this index, is so that researchers will look at these maps and look at these results and say, oh, I wonder why this state is doing well or poorly or whatever. I wonder why these results are the way they are. And that's something that the index can then motivate is further research on these things. That's one of the reasons that we wanted to create it is that researchers would be able to use it as an indicator of their own if they want or to just get into the reasons for these different levels of performance. So criteria air pollutants is a little more interesting. There's outliers on the other side in criteria air pollutants. So there's people who are states rather who are doing really, really well on criteria air pollutants and then other states that are just doing pretty well. So the middle of the country in general is a little lower on these rankings, northeast and west doing a lot better. And again, those are all the criteria air pollutants that are included here. So then energy efficiency states in general do better on this one. But again, you're seeing the same pattern of the northeast and the west coast, but then you also have some states like North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Florida that might be doing a little better than you might expect. North Carolina in general actually in this index does better than you expect and a little bit in the Midwest there as well. And then vehicle miles traveled. You'll notice that Alaska and all of these was doing poorly. Alaska is number one in the country for vehicle miles traveled per GDP. And the reason I think that this is because there aren't many roads in Alaska. Intercity travel in Alaska is largely done by ferry and by plane. And so it's not like a place like for instance in Montana where if you wanna get to anywhere else in Montana you're gonna be driving long stretches. So that's what we're thinking, but it could be easily interesting to get more into that. Same thing with Hawaii. But you see a lot of the kind of southeastern states, more driving dependent states not doing as well on that. And the thing too that I should mention is that some people have registered surprise for instance that Texas is doing better on this variable. And there is a little bit of bias given to states that have very high GDPs since we're controlling by GDP. Texas has very high GDP as does California. So in general they have more room to have like higher vehicle miles traveled for instance because of their very high GDP. So, specifics on Michigan. We have the, Michigan's basically in the middle of the pack but a little better than 25th place on most of these variables. These are its scores. Again the ACE index is with weighting so that's why it's not bigger than the sum of the others. But 23rd in ACE index, 28th in carbon intensity, 31st in vehicle miles traveled, 22nd in criteria, air pollutants, 26th in energy efficiency. So this is on the left an example of a radar chart and this is something that in our experience with the feedback that we've received, states like a little more because they can see where they're doing better or where they're doing worse. But basically as I mentioned before the scores, higher scores are better and what you can see here is like if higher scores are better then a bigger shape is better and Michigan's doing pretty well on criteria, air pollutants. Not as well on vehicle miles traveled, a little better on carbon intensity and energy efficiency. And you know, Michigan and Ohio I wanted to compare and I don't want to get kicked out for this or anything but they're neck and neck and Ohio may be better in some areas but for the most part across the rankings they're one rank away usually. But this is just another way too of showing this is just stacking the scores of all the variables on top of each other which you can do because the scores are comparable across indicators and so then you can just kind of see how that looks and when the states are slightly more different, for instance, Alabama and Michigan you can see the difference better but this basically looks like the same two bars there. So another thing that you can do is you can start to look at variable correlations and so this is something that I just plugged into Stata but you could probably also do this in Excel but it's just seeing how much these variables are correlated, how much they move together and everything and so as you can see vehicle miles traveled, criteria, air pollutants across the board were always higher than 0.5. These are like pretty strong correlations, energy efficiency and carbon intensity are very highly correlated at 0.93 and that's actually a bit of a concern. We like to see some level of correlation with all of these variables. Dan Fiorino who heads the Center for Environmental Policy uses this to make the argument that when you improve one thing you're improving these other things across the board but one of the concerns is that carbon intensity and energy efficiency are so strongly correlated that we might be double counting a little bit there because energy related to carbon emissions and so that would be a concern that we could kind of explore more. So one of the other things that we can explore more is what are the reasons for the variations in state performance? So this is just again the overall ACE index map but why is it that West Virginia's not doing well or Montana's not doing well? And as I mentioned this is the type of thing we want our index to motivate research on but we can come up with our own hypotheses as well. So a few listed here, natural resource extraction I mentioned, fossil fuels I mentioned but two interesting things that I wanna mention as well is that there's what's called a race to the bottom among states and that's something where states will race with each other to cut their environmental regulations to attract businesses to their state. Vogel, this scholar called this the Delaware effect not because of Delaware's environmental regulations but they basically use like their tax regulations and cutting those to attract more corporations to their state. And so that's something that's studied a lot and studied a lot especially with Southeastern states that are trying to create business friendly environments by cutting a lot of those regulations and making it really cheap to set up there but there's also a thing called race to the top and that's where states that are already dark green are basically trying to race to be the best in all the environmental rankings and everything. California comes out with a policy and other states are trying to come out with similar policies because they're also not only businesses but residents that are looking to locate in states with good environmental policies. And then there's also the fact that occasionally the feds will come in and say, we wanna create a new policy, we're gonna base it on for instance, California's policy. And so that's a bit of a race to the top because then California's very stringent policy brings everyone else up as well. So, or it could be as much as we're conjecturing about all these other things, maybe it's just red states are not as good and blue states are better. Or maybe it's a policy thing. So we'll get into some of that here. So, natural resource extractive industries, undisprisingly the top three states on the ACE index have less than 1% of their GDP and their employment in the extractive industry. And then the bottom three states have much more than that. With Wyoming having the most 22% of its GSP is from the extractive industry. This is all from the US Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative which is led by US Interior Department. These numbers though, we're still kind of surprisingly low on the bottom three in terms of like percent of employment especially. But this is just an interesting thing that you can see. Maybe that's the reason that Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming are always 48, 49 and 50. So it could be a policy thing. So one of the things that we did is instead of including other indices within our own index is that we can just compare our index to theirs. So our ACE index is based again on performance, on conditions, so it's like the conditions that are actually occurring. Whereas the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has created a whole index on the policies that each state has passed, specifically relating to energy. And when we compare our index on the bottom there and the ACEE index, it's a pretty up and down positive correlation. Correlation score specifically of 0.67 and this is something that we can use to kind of confirm all results. This looks right. Our air, climate and energy index is matching up pretty well with an energy policy index. And so this is something that if we wanted to then we could get into it even further with regressions and trying to see how strong that relationship holds up. So red states and blue states and those in between, we noticed that we saw this article by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pearson in the New York Times in July of 2016, a couple months before the election and they color coded the states on a zero through four scale based on how many times they had voted democratic in the past four presidential elections. So again, this is before the 2016 presidential election. So the past four presidential elections, you get dark blue, if you went Democrat all four times, you get light blue if it's three times, purple if it's twice, light red if it's once, and then dark red if you didn't vote Democrat at all in the past four elections. So then they put this and ranked the states on a variety of different indicators. So we have like on the right, that's education, we've got on the left, income, innovation, life expectancy, so on and so forth. And the point they were making is that the blue states are pretty much at the top and the red states are pretty much at the bottom of these rankings. So we shamelessly stole this and gave them credit for it and everything, but this is what it looks like with our indicators. And so to compare that, I would argue that it's even more strongly divided with blue states on the top and red states on the bottom. And I updated the color code to include the 2016 and exclude the 2000 elections, so the past four elections, which actually turned more states blue than red because of what happened in 2000. But this is the result of that and it's probably hard to read, but this is carbon intensity, vehicle miles traveled, criteria, air pollutants, energy efficiency and the overall index all the way on the right. And as you can see with vehicle miles traveled Alaska there, the Alaska and Texas actually only deep red at the very top of the rankings there. So I also did a simple correlation with this, so carbon intensity and all of my variables with that color coded variable, just the zero through four variable. And this is what I found, pretty strong correlations across the board. The overall index is almost 70% there, energy efficiency and carbon intensity very high as well. So in conclusion, my advice especially for the students in the room, but for anybody who's looking at these index indices or wants to create their own indices, seek out feedback and listen to it. It can definitely be harsh, but it's really very useful. And I've often said with these types of projects and with life in general, never take yourself too seriously. If someone says, I'm not really a fan of that particular way of ranking it, it's like, okay, maybe they're right. Maybe it's not an insult to your character type of thing. So it's a really interesting thing and anybody can give you feedback on these types of things because everyone has kind of an intuitive sense of what makes sense and what doesn't. So I was talking to your friends or for my case, I talked to the Center for Environmental Policy's advisory board, other professors, so on and so forth. So looking into alternative approaches also really helps. Actually calculating per GDP and per capita because the most common feedback we got is, well, why didn't you just control by population? And then I can show I did and here's what it looks like. Knowing your variables and indicators is very helpful. Obviously keeping good notes to remember why you did what you did. And then being patient. I often kind of chuckle myself when there's news articles about, this is the era of big data and everything like that. But for a lot of the data that we're trying to work with, it's not that great yet. We're not really, we've moved quite a long ways but we're still working with a lot of data that has a lot of quality issues, has a lot of availability issues, everything like that. So just being patient with that and understanding that you maybe have to use proxy variables or you maybe have to use a variable that doesn't report exactly what you want it to. These are just limitations that every project has limitations. So you talk about them and you acknowledge them and you just try to do the best you can with the data that's available. So that's it. I'll be happy to take questions.


Hello, I'm Denshi. Now, before I begin with this video, you might know I made a video called Manjaro image WD AutoConfig, essentially talking about some scripts I made to automatically configure Nvidia Optimus drivers on laptops running Manjaro that have Nvidia dedicated graphics in them. Now, many people have had absolutely no issues with these scripts. They've been able to run them and they did what they needed to do. They installed the drivers, they configured them and they rebooted their system and everything worked. However, there have been a growing number of people who had issues with the scripts and I want to address that in this video by explaining a relatively, you know, a far far better way of getting all of this done. In fact, I'll be discontinuing the Manjaro MHWD AutoConfig scripts. I'll be deleting those off GitLab and that video won't be privated, but I will put a little link to this video explaining how to actually do things a little bit better. Now, what am I talking about? I'm talking about a piece of software named Optimus Manager. Now, what is Optimus Manager? Now, I talked about these Optimus laptops. Nvidia Optimus, what is that? Well, essentially, I've already touched on this in the MHWD video, but I'll explain it again. In laptops that have Nvidia dedicated graphics cards, so like many gaming laptops out there, normally what you do is you have a processor. So normally an Intel processor and the processors display output. So the, you know, because all Intel processors come with, well, not all of them, but all of the ones that you'd find in laptops come with integrated graphics. That's what's wired to the display. Your Nvidia graphics card isn't wired to the display. It's wired to the motherboard and it can essentially pass through its graphics. So all the frames it renders to the processor's integrated graphics and then to the display. It's essentially a way to get around having to power the Nvidia graphics cards when you don't actually need them. So essentially you'd be able to use the laptop using only Intel graphics without having to power on the Nvidia graphics, even just for an output. It's a power saving, you know, technique. And obviously, you know, it's sort of annoying to deal with, but it's there for a reason. But in this video, I'm going to be explaining how you in Manjaro, whether it be KDE or other versions of Manjaro, will be able to essentially take it and install this program named Optimus Manager along with the Nvidia drivers and switch between these two modes of rendering the whole computer with Nvidia graphics and rendering the whole computer with only Intel graphics. Now, this is only for arch-based Linux distributions and in this video I'm touching upon installing it on Manjaro. There are a couple of differences. On Arch Linux, it's a little bit simpler, but that's not what I'm talking about. If you use Arch Linux, you probably already know how to configure all of this. So anyway, let's begin by not installing Optimus Manager. The first thing we actually have to do is do something completely different. We have to run, actually, I'm going to minimize Firefox here, so it doesn't distract us. I'm going to, there you go, minimize. We're going to install a program named Yeh. Now, what is Yeh? You probably have already used Yeh. Yeh is a package manager that also manages packages not only from the repositories, the main Manjaro repositories, but also the AUR, the Arch user repository. And that's where Optimus Manager is located so we can install it. So we need Yeh for this. However, Yeh is also useful just as a package manager because typing in a sudo pacman-s is longer than typing in Yeh-s, which is the Yeh install command. So anyway, before you do anything, make sure you've updated your system. So Yeh-syu, you run that and make sure your entire system is updated. That's quite important. You also now want to install the actual NVIDIA drivers. Now, how do we do this? We do Yeh-s, NVIDIA, the NVIDIA package group. We're going to press Enter, and it's going to give us all these options. Now, you're probably wondering which one do I choose with these. Well, it's pretty simple. If you don't know which one to choose, press Ctrl-C to cancel the command, Ctrl-L to clear, and we're going to type in this command called Uname, and it gives us the wrong one, sorry, Uname-A. And Uname-A gives us information on the system, including this number over here, the kernel. Our kernel is 5.6. So going back to that Yeh NVIDIA command, you'll notice there's like Linux 4, Linux 5.6. We want to install this one. Linux 5.6 NVIDIA 4.40. 4.40 is the latest package at the moment when it comes to NVIDIA drivers. There is 4.50, but that's only really in arch Linux circles because Manjaro hasn't pushed it to their repositories yet because you know it's a relatively new driver. But at the moment, Linux 5.6 NVIDIA 4.40 XX is the latest NVIDIA driver available on Manjaro for the current kernel that it's using. Unless you install a newer kernel, you should be using this at the moment. In the future, obviously, you'd be using Linux 5.8 or Linux 5.7 or something, and NVIDIA 4.50 or even 4.60 or 4.70 or whatever they come up with, NVIDIA 500 or something, I don't know. But just keep in mind the Uname-A command to check your kernel number. So that's this number 5.7 or 5.6 or whatever. And keep in mind checking this number to make sure it's the newest number. So at the moment with Manjaro, it's 4.40. Soon, eventually, it'll be 4.50, then maybe 4.60 in the future. But at the moment, we have to specify 35 because that's the number associated with this. So 35, sorry, not 25. 35 here at the Enter number prompt. Press Enter. And it's gonna ask you again, it should still be 35. Here we are, 35. So just type in 35 again. This is simply, I believe, for the Utils or something. Press Enter. And as you can see, it's gonna install the package. So press Enter again and it's installing. It should also install the Utils. I don't know why it's not doing that. Here it should automatically do that normally. But there you go. It's running a build hook just for kernel stuff. Ignore that. Anyway, so that's what you gotta do. You gotta wait for this to be done. So there you go. You've installed the NVIDIA drivers. Now we actually have to configure them. Now the first thing you'd actually want to do is something quite interesting. If you're using Manjaro KDE, if you're not using Manjaro KDE, don't do this step. You're going to, also if you're using GNOME, you're going to have to do these steps. I'm not gonna cover that because I'm not using GNOME. But if you are using GNOME, do this stuff. Manjaro KDE users, we have to go into this file called stdm.com in the Etsy folder and comment out display command and display stop command. So we're gonna copy paste this, so Ctrl C. We're going to open up our terminal. And first of all, I'm going to install Vim. Vim is a text editor. So press yay dash. So type in yay dash s Vim. I'm gonna have all these commands linked in the description along with Optimus Manager linked in the description so you can look at it. And the steps. So we have to install Vim. We're gonna do sudo vim and then that file enter. And if you go down here, you see I've already commented these out. But essentially you'd find that they were like this. So you'd find display stop command and display command were not commented out. You want to press the I key? Press type in a number symbol or a hashtag or a pound sign or whatever you call it before these lines. Then press escape colon WQ or right quit and press enter. And then you're done. You've fixed that issue. Now we want to install Optimus Manager. Now you type in yay dash s Optimus dash manager. And if you want the little gooey icon, you can type in Optimus Manager QT. That's the KDE one. I don't know about GNOME. You can check the GitHub, the GitHub page, the GitLab page on that. So GitHub page actually. So type that command, press enter. And as you can see, it has a little bit. It might have a little bit of an error. So it might give, see, cannot find the strip binary. If you're getting that error, do yay dash s base devil. You're going to need that. So just press enter at this, press enter at that. And as you can see, it's installing all those packages. And as you can see, all the packages are installed. What these packages are are things you need to build things from the AUR. And since Optimus Manager and Optimus Manager QT are installed from the AUR, you needed those base devil packages. So obviously, once again, all these commands are in the description. You can essentially run these and it will do things for you. So press enter it here. And press enter at that. Press enter again. Just press enter all the time. Unless it prompts you for your password. In that case, type in your password. And as you can see, it's building the QT interface because it's building from source. It shouldn't take long if you have a relatively modern CPU. And there you go. We've installed Optimus Manager QT as well. Now, what do we do now? Well, you see, there's something called a daemon.  It's essentially a service that runs in the background and we need to enable this service which manages Optimus Manager itself. So system CTL enable Optimus Manager. So type that command. Obviously, sudo it. Press enter and it's enabled. Now we have to reboot. This is important. So you're going to type in the command reboot and press enter and you're going to reboot. So I'm just going to stop the recording and I'm going to come back once, you know, I'm rebooted. Now that we restarted, the daemon is running. So we can activate Optimus Manager just by searching for it and, you know, pressing enter. And then it will show up over here, this little Intel icon. Right click on it. Click on settings and if you want to do things like launch the icon automatically on startup, change the icons for things if you wish. I'm going to set my startup mode to Nvidia. That's pretty much it. You can change your DPI if you wish, all this stuff. The only thing I really think is important is making sure you set launch startup to on and set your startup mode to what you actually want it to be. So press OK. See, as you can see, it saves it now. And now I'm going to stop recording. I'm going to right click on this and I'm going to click switch to Nvidia. I'm going to have to stop recording for that because it actually halts my Xorg sessions. That's the actual, you know, what draws the windows on the screen and I can't be recording with OBS while that's happening.  OK, so as you can see, the little icon in the corner is changed to Nvidia.  You can just press OK. As long as you have a relatively modern graphics card, that should be perfectly fine because all modern graphics cards by Nvidia have all that power stuff sorted. And in fact, it actually says that you will also be prompted to log back in because it restarts your Xorg session. Just type in your password and you'll log in. And if everything goes according to plan, as I've set it up here, you know, you should be now running off the invader graphics card. But how do we actually check that? Well, let's open up our terminal and we're going to type in this command, GLXINFO, then the pipe grep-ivender.  And grep, we're going to pipe that input. Inputs to send that input to a command called grep, which essentially searches the file for vendor information. We're going to press enter. And as you can see, it says, Nvidia Corporation, Nvidia Corporation because it's now running off the invader graphics card. So if I want to switch back to Intel, I can just right click on this and the switch to Intel. The only things that I really didn't cover in this video were setting up on GDM on GNOME because things are a little different. On XFCE, in fact, you don't have to deal with any of that weird like VIM stuff, which I was talking about before. All the commands for installing and configuring will be linked in the description. And, you know, I once again, I apologize for anyone who had issues with my scripts. From now on, I recommend doing this Nvidia driver stuff this way because it's normally just better. And yeah, a couple of tips. Don't install Nvidia DKMS because some people do this. They go and, you know, open up the terminal and they try to install this package called Nvidia DKMS. Don't do that. You shouldn't do that. You shouldn't do that. You should install the Nvidia package and then select the, you know, now it's going to update it for me, but essentially select the correct Nvidia drivers. Be sure to, that's an important, another important note. Be sure to enable that daemon. Always be sure that command is very crucial. Once you've installed Optimus Manager, run that sudo systemctl enable Optimus Manager command. That's key to getting all of this to work. And of course, if you're a Manjaro KDE user, remember to sudo vim etsy scdm.conf and remember to comment out these two lines. Make sure there's a little hashtag or number symbols or pound signs before the display command and display stop command things because Manjaro messes with this kind of stuff. You don't have to do this on Arch, but this isn't an Arch tutorial. So yeah, I hope you enjoyed my video on all of this stuff. And I guess goodbye.


Biofilms are communities of bacteria that form on surfaces exposed to water or moisture. These communities offer protection from environmental stresses such as temperature and pH fluctuations, UV exposure, and predators. They can also cause damage to humans and industry, leading to costly repairs and maintenance. This article was authored by Carla C.C. Ardecarvalo.


Pick mr. Connor. Okay, mr. Connor's having a good weekend league if he matched up instantly with me, okay May she could do better than that.  Oh my god.  Let's go Do the dope so one of y'all get here, uh-huh Oh Easy free 99 What am I gonna do with a vlog, bro?   Oh my god Dude, it's just a rollout show bro.  Do you think I don't know how to click to stick in do you think?  Oh my god. No Come on, man Nice paper back. Oh, come on, baby. Oh Pick oh Simmons.   Good contain. Did we really back up that far, bro? Or just give up a deep corner out.   No, he didn't max protect. Nice play though. Dubby. Can we please go get the quarterback? Thank you. Let's go, man. No huddle.   They almost doubted me Let's go man. Good contains right there good contains I know how to contain when it comes to the car. I know how to contain when I need to Oh Who would how to do was in a perfect zone?  That's why we have Henry right there Scoop man. Let me come on, dude.  What's going on right now? What's up boys? What's up? Are we tired? I mean bro Sherman There's just no way you're letting these little passes go down. Oh, no, I was about to fumble that Oh my god, he was really about a foot. That was the fumble animation if I've ever seen it y'all know that animation clock running Catch it. Let's go Gordon big balls, baby. The best receiver in the game Josh Gordon All right, can we play some defense here boys? Yes or no?


So, let us start with the first example. So, here we have a fixed vessel like this. It contains a saturated mixture of R134A initially at 100 kilopascal. The volume of the vessel is also given. We now supply heat to the vessel until the contents reach the critical state. We are asked to determine the mass of the mixture and the heat transferred to the contents of the vessel. So, as we can see this vessel rigid, so this undergoes a constant volume process. The final state is the critical state that means the property values are actually known. Let us see how this comes about. So, here we have properties of saturated R134A pressure table. So, here we can see that this is the critical state. So, the specific volume of the liquid, specific volume of the vapor are both the same at the critical state and that is the information that we will use. So, you can also see that the specific internal energy of the liquid and the vapor are the same. So, specific volume at the final state is known. We can make use of this information to carry out the analysis. So, the specific volume at the final state is 0.00197 meter cube per kilogram and the specific internal energy may also be retrieved from the pressure table. Since it undergoes a constant volume process, V1 is equal to V2 which is already known. So, the mass of the mixture may be evaluated from the given volume of the vessel. So, M is equal to V over specific volume which gives us the mass to be 10.15 kilograms. So, if we take our system to be the contents of the vessel, the system looks like this. So, delta E equal to delta U equal to Q minus W. No displacement work or any other forms of work. So, W is equal to 0. So, we can now evaluate Q from this, Q is equal to delta U equal to M times U2 minus U1. U2 is already known to us, U1 has to be evaluated. So, at the initial state the specific volume is known and it is at a pressure of 100 kilopascal. So, we go to the pressure table corresponding to 100 kilopascal. We retrieve the specific volume of the liquid, saturated liquid and saturated vapor. And using this we can calculate the dryness fraction, let us see how this is done. So, you can see here that using the specific volume of the saturated liquid and saturated vapor, we can evaluate since a specific volume at the initial state is known, we can evaluate the dryness fraction to be equal to 0.0065. So, the mixture specific volume is known at the initial state, mixture specific volume is known and we know the pressure, so we know Vf and Vg. So, we can calculate the dryness fraction of the mixture using this expression. And once X1 is known, the specific internal energy at the initial state may be evaluated as Uf plus X1 times Ug minus Uf. Now, Ug and Uf may be retrieved corresponding to 100 kilopascal from the table. So, notice that this is Uf at 100 kilopascal, this is Ug at 100 kilopascal. So, we simply retrieve these values and calculate U1 because X1 is also known, X1 is also known, so we get U1 to be equal to this, so Q is equal to M times U2 minus U1. So, the heat supplied comes out to be 2186.54 kilo joules. So, the important concept here is that once we know the specific volume at the initial state, we can calculate the dryness fraction and the property values of the mixture. So, basically we located the state, the final state was given to be the critical state. So, we were able to locate that state initially, so if I draw a PV diagram, so the final state was given to be the critical state. So, this is the final state and because the volume of the vessel remains constant, it is a rigid vessel, the working substance has undergone a constant volume process, so this is state 1 and the initial pressure is 100 kilopascal. But the dryness fraction and the initial state is not known. So, specific volume V1 is equal to V2, so once I know the specific volume here, I can evaluate dryness fraction from this expression and I can also evaluate the specific internal energy from this expression once the dryness fraction is known. So, we have discussed this earlier how to calculate properties in the two phase mixture region. If you have any questions, I suggest that you review that material and then go through the problem one more time. That is why in the initial part, in the previous module, we talked about locating the state on a PV diagram like this for a two phase mixture and once you locate the state, we went through the procedure of how to calculate property values like specific volume or specific internal energy and so on. Let us look at the next example, frictionless piston cylinder device contains 5 kg of saturated R134A vapor initially at 25 degree Celsius. The vapor is compressed slowly until the volume is reduced by two thirds. So, please pay close attention to this volume is reduced by two thirds of the initial volume. Heat transfer during the process with the ambient at 25 degree Celsius keeps the temperature of the contents of the cylinder constant, determine final pressure, work done on the heat transfer. So, basically we have a situation like this. So, this contains R134A. So, this is initially at initially I am sorry it initially contains 5 kg at 25 degree Celsius and it is compressed slowly until the volume is reduced by two thirds. Notice that it initially contains saturated R134A vapor. So, the initial state is saturated vapor and it is compressed until the volume is reduced by two thirds of the initial volume temperature also remains constant. So, we can take this to be our system obviously. Now, the initial pressure is not given, the initial pressure is not need not be explicitly given because it is stated that initially it contains 5 kg of saturated vapor. That means the contents will be at the saturation pressure. So, we go to the table. So, corresponding to 25 degree Celsius. So, here we go to the temperature table for saturated R134A. So, corresponding to 25 degree Celsius, their pressure is 665.80 kilo Pascal. So, the initial pressure is this known. So, initial pressure P1 is equal to P sat of 25 degree Celsius because it is initially a saturated vapor. So, initial state is saturated vapor at 25 degree Celsius mass is also given. So, from the temperature table we can retrieve the following values pressure is also known and the pressure is equal to 665.8 kilo Pascal. Now, if you actually look at the process that the R134A undergoes, we may draw it like this. So, so this is the initial state and the initial pressure is known. So, this is if I draw the isotherm 25 degree Celsius and the initial pressure we retrieve to be 665.8 665.8 kPa. Now, the saturated vapor is compressed while keeping its temperature constant. So, heat transfer takes place. So, its temperature remains constant. What is that for its temperature to remain constant? It has to actually follow the isotherm corresponding to 25 degree Celsius and because it is compressed it has to go in this direction since we are trying to increase its pressure. So, basically what happens is as we compress it because it is a saturated vapor it condenses and when it condenses there is a decrease in the volume occupied by the mixture because the specific volume decreases as you can see. So, as we compress it there is condensation and reduction in volume. So, the pressure remains constant because of the condensation. You see it is undergoing a phase change just like what we saw before when we moved the piston up some of the water evaporated and occupied the additional space that was available. In this case the opposite is happening when we compress it there is a reduction in the volume and some of the R134A condenses and causing the which is able to accommodate the reduction in volume. So, consequently the pressure also remains constant. That is the important part. So, as the vapor is compressed isothermic it condenses. So, the reduction in volume due to the compression is accommodated by the reduction in volume due to the condensation and conversion to liquid. So, this continues until all the vapor has condensed. We are given that the volume reduces by two-thirds which means the final volume is one-third of the initial volume. So, V2 is equal to V1 over 3 which is equal to this. Now, this is greater than Vf corresponding to 25 degree Celsius which means that the final state is going to be somewhere over here otherwise as we compress it all the vapor could condense entirely and as we continue to compress the final state could have ended up somewhere over here. In this case because V2 is greater than Vf the final state is still a two-phase mixture inside this otherwise the process curve or process line would have looked like this. So, it comes like this then it would have gone up this isotherm because we are maintaining the temperature constant and we would have finally reached a compressed or sub cold liquid state. Since V2 is greater than Vf we do not reach that state we still remain in the saturated mixtures region. So, X2 may be evaluated as V2 minus Vf over this. So, X2 comes out to be 0.3148. So, here we have retrieved the values corresponding to T equal to 25 degree Celsius. Let us just take a quick look. So, corresponding to T equal to 25 degree Celsius we can get Vf, Vg, Uf and Ug from the tables. So, the final specific internal energy may also be evaluated. Notice that the specific volume at the initial state is simply equal to Vg and the specific internal energy at the initial state is simply equal to Ug. We can calculate the displacement work there is no other form of work. So, displacement work is P delta V and the pressure remains constant. So, we may evaluate the work interaction as minus 68.644 kilojoules. Clearly work is being done on the system and if you apply first law to the system we have delta E equal to delta U no change in Ke or Pe equal to Q minus W. We are asked to calculate Q. So, we rearrange this expression and get Q to be minus 609.084 kilojoules. So, as we do work on the system it is clear that. So, as we do work on the system and compress it it is clear that heat is being lost to the surroundings. So, the temperature of the R134A remains constant because it is undergoing a phase change because we started with saturated vapor because it is undergoing a phase change the pressure also remains a constant during this phase. The next example that we are going to look at involves frictionless piston cylinder device like this. So, this contains R134A set amount which is actually 2.6 kg of saturated R134A mixture at an initial pressure of 500 kilopascal and occupying a volume of 0.1 meter cube. Actually we know the specific volume we know the pressure. So, with this just with these two property values we should be able to establish that it is a saturated mixture of R134A. Anyway the information is given in the problem statement. So, we can make use of that. So, the mixture expands according to the relation PVE equal to constant until it becomes a saturated vapor and we are asked to determine the final pressure work done and heat transferred. So, if I actually try to show this on a PV diagram. So, initially we have a saturated mixture at a pressure of 500 kilopascal. So, this is 500 kilopascal this is state 1 and the mixture expands according to PVE equal to constant which means the pressure is going to decrease and finally it becomes a saturated vapor. So, the final state is going to be on the saturated vapor line the final pressure has to be determined we do not know what the final pressure is that needs to be determined. So, the process undergone by the by the two phase substance looks like this. So, this is given to be PV equal to constant. So, the initial specific volume may be evaluated as 0.0385 and the pressure is also given we can actually retrieve the required property values from the table Vf and Vg may be retrieved from the pressure table and the specific internal energy may be calculated by using the value of x1 which is calculated by using the fact that the specific volume at the initial state is known. So, x1 comes out to be 0.934. So, we may evaluate the specific internal energy at the initial state as 227.824. Now, the mixture expands according to PVE equal to constant since mass of the mixture remains a constant. So, it is given that PVE equal to constant. So, if I divide both sides by the mass then I may write this as P times V over m equal to again another constant since the mass remains a constant. So, we may alternatively write this as PV equal to constant where V is the specific volume which means P2 V2 equal to P1 V1. Now, remember we need to have or know two independent properties to locate a given state. So, if I look at the final state I know that it is a saturated vapor. So, I have one piece of information. The second piece of information comes from this equation P2 V2 equal to P1 V1. Now, it may appear that there are actually two unknown quantities here P2 is not known V2 is also not known. However, you should remember that it is a saturated vapor. So, V2 is equal to Vg of P2. So, that means there is really only one unknown in this, but that needs to be determined iteratively. So, if you do trial and error you should be able to get the final value of P2 as 100 kilopascal. So, basically the trial and error procedure would go like this. We know that the pressure decreases. So, we guess a certain value for pressure and we get the corresponding Vg. We evaluate the product and see how close it is to P1 V1. So, basically this is what we would do. So, this is the pressure table. So, initial pressure is given to be 500. This is the initial pressure. Now, we know that the pressure decreases as the vapor expands. So, we may take our initial guess for the final pressure to be 200. So, if we take the final pressure to be 200, then the specific volume of the saturated vapor is known. So, we take P2 multiplied by V2 and see how close that is to P1 times V1. If it is not close, then we reduce, we adjust our guess. So, we may actually decrease our pressure to some other value. Again check the product, see how well it matches P1 V1. So, we do this by trial and error which is until we get a final value which is actually acceptable. In this case, we can actually get the final value to be 100 kilopascal. So, the specific volume and the final state is known and the specific internal energy, remember U2 is equal to Ug of P2. So, that is also known. Now, the work interaction for the process may simply be obtained from integral PDV. Since the relationship between P and V is known, we can evaluate this in a close manner and get this to be equal to P1 V1 natural log of 5 which gives us the work interaction to be plus 80.472 kilojoules. As the working substance expands, it is doing work on the surroundings which is why we have a positive sign. Now, if we apply first law to the system consisting of the R134A. So, basically our system is this. So, if we apply first law, we have delta E equal to delta U because there is no change in KE or PE. So, delta E is equal to delta U equal to Q minus W and delta U itself may be written as M times U2 minus U1. So, if you substitute the numerical values, we get Q to be 47.676 kilojoules. So, we are supplying heat to the working substance, it then expands until it reaches a saturated vapor state. One important thing here, again one common mistake that students tend to make in this particular problem is that the moment you are given PV equal to constant, students assume the temperature to be constant. But you have to keep in mind that in this case, the temperature does not remain constant, but that is actually quite clear from this PV diagram. Notice that we are actually moving from one isotherm to another. So, for instance, we go from this isotherm to this isotherm. So, the temperature definitely does change during the process, but that is because it is not an ideal gas, it is a two phase mixture. So, that is something that you should keep in mind. So, it is not an ideal gas.


Welcome to another episode of It's About Time on Think Tech from our downtown studio at the core of Honolulu. I'm your host Becky Sampson, a professional speaker, author, and coach. Do you ever wonder if making money with your passion is possible? And if all the work that you do to grow your business is worth it? And question what it takes to see the fruits of your labors? Well, today our guest is very familiar with the struggles and challenges people face when growing businesses. He is an award-winning author of nine books and is a speaker who has spoken over a thousand times nationally and internationally. He is a master at taking people from where they are getting, where they are, to where they want to be. So today we're going to be talking about the three keys to success and the question that we're going to be answering is, is success an illusion? So welcome my dear friend, Gary Barnes, the Breakthrough Mastery, Business Mastery coach. Welcome Gary to the show. Thank you so much. It's great to be here. And you know, I'm a little bit jealous. I'm in Denver, Colorado. It's a little bit chilly and you're there with the beautiful weather and the ocean. I know. I know. I put it on Facebook yesterday that I swam with six turtles. And you were saying, hey, that's not okay. Right? Correct. I'm sorry, but you've got the snow and I've got the ocean. Right? That's right. And you're coming, you're actually coming to us from outside of Denver, Colorado. Yep. Port of Denver, Nitro, Littleton, Colorado, but Denver is, you know, we all rotate around the city. So we're fine. But yes, it's Denver, Colorado. Awesome. Awesome. Well tell everybody, I always love to start the show off because we're going to talk a lot about entrepreneurship business because that's, that's a lot of what your history has been, but kind of tell people who you are, what you're about, what's your, what's brought you to the point in this life of doing what you do and why you're so passionate about it. You know, my back story is a little bit different than most. I started out in college as a theology and a psychology major and found out very quickly that I was a square pig in a round hole. So obviously when I went into real estate and spent nine years there and then built one of the very first financial planning firms in the country and built it to the top 3% in production, not even knowing that I had done that. I just had built some techniques and strategies and after about 30 years I decided I had needed a change and the industry had changed as well. And people had asked me how I had done, what I had built, how did I do that? And so I have been a speaker of my entire career. And so it really morphed and organically changed into the business coaching, speaking and unfortunately writing. Writing to me is very cool, but I have nine books. I know, seriously, that's, I mean, look, I'm trying to get my first book written and published and you know that, right? So that's quite an accomplishment. I think what there was a, there was actually a, what was it, 82% of Americans want to write a book, but less than 1% actually do. Have you heard that? I have. And the sad part is they think no one will want to read their story. Yeah. It doesn't really matter. And, you know, to be honest, I feel the same way. And when I do my very first book is how I'd be able to save my life. And what the funny thing is, is when I do a speech and I don't include the story, they bring me back up to do the story. And so I can't get away from it now, but yeah, doing that book is really important. Yeah. I think that's, we met many years ago actually at a speaking gig and that's, and you've taught me a lot also about this business in speaking and sharing your story. And I like that you brought up that point that so many people don't think that they have a story or at least a story that nobody wants to hear, but I always say you are sick of hearing that story, but there's other people that are inspired by that.  And you have quite the story. You've had some medical staff that's come up. You've had some challenges in business. You've had, so tell everybody kind of what things that you've struggled with that have kind of gotten to this point. Well, you know, early on, I was, I think I became someone of a salesperson because my mother, every time I went to her, she said, no, so I had overcome that. But really in life, in business, there's adversity. And in 1988, I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and was told that I would be dead or in a wheelchair in 10 years. And Thanksgiving is actually the 31st anniversary of that diagnosis. And so we have downturns in the market. We have challenge cash flow. We have challenges with relationships. And it's really about that reaction to that stimulus that is really the important key in order to get the results that we want, not the adversity that we're facing. And you've had those in your life as well. And that's, I think, one of the reasons you and I connected. Yeah, it's through the adversity.  But in reality, that's what connects a lot of us, right? Is knowing that there is a purpose to that adversity. And especially with what you do too, because you can relate to the people that come into your life that you coach, right? Well, one of the things that I tell speakers is that we are myself or we, as speakers, are the subject, but we're not the message. And how do we translate that to a meaningful, tangible process way for them to actually acclimate or not, you know, to put it into their life to get a difference or a result that they're wanting and how to get over that hump. And sometimes it's just, frankly, staying in the game. Yeah, staying in the game, showing up, right? I know one of the things that I wanted to talk about is, because you do a lot of coaching and teaching people and we want to really focus on the success. But before we kind of get to that point, what are some of the problems, the biggest common problems that you see, whether they're entrepreneurs, speakers, coaches, people that are in business that come to you, what are some of the basic problems that you see over and over and over again? I think one of the things is that we have a tendency not to ask for help as we have a core talent, we have a product or service that we really know what it is and does and what the benefits are. But then in business, once in a while, we have this disconnect as far as we really get it into the marketplace. How is it relevant? And we also have this aversion to be seen. And all of that we hear, here's another one that's really cool, is that we need just a little bit more information. And so we never really launch. And there's a, one of my garrisons is launch and adjust.  It becomes information constipation. And we get stuff in that and it's never enough. Yeah, information constipation, right? And that's what, what do you think is the main reason why people don't, and I, by the way, I can totally identify with that too, right? If we feel like we have a purpose or a passion that we want to do, what stops people from really just going for it? You know, the basic answer is fear. And depending upon their background, the fear of rejection, the fear, you know, and I think for the most part, it is actually not the fear of rejection because we, if we didn't have this, or if we had the fear of failure, we would not have started. But what happens when we succeed? Is it luck? Is it going to go away? Are we going to be disappointed? Whatever that story is. And the interesting thing is one of my other philosophies is facts are stories until they become beliefs. And so what story are we telling us that's actually telling us we're not good enough? We don't deserve. That's another belief that gets in the way. If I don't deserve receiving, or if I have a belief that I have to serve everyone else before I get to enjoy the benefits, we will sabotage what we are doing. And we'll actually back up out of the success instead of going forward embracing it and then being able to bless others. So I know that you focus a lot on breaking through some of these things. Do you focus a lot on the beliefs that people carry? Yeah, I do. Because I really over the years, I've really come to understand that building any successful business is 80% psychological and emotional. 20% is tactical. It's the strategy. All the things that most individuals when they go to programs, they want those little magic bullets or the magic formula that literally does not exist. But they're focused thinking that that's the 80% of where success is. And it isn't. It's in keeping into the game and looking for those ways of, you know, we've heard the story about you come up against an obstacle or mountain, you can go around it, throw it over it or plant the flag right there and succeed at the foot of the mountain. And what most people will do is they'll get a little bit of adversity and start believing the old stories and stop. And then someone else who's the benefit of the effort that they put in and that's really sad.  Right. I mean, it starts with where, you know, what's inside of us and what we believe on the outside world is what we're going to create out there. Um, correct. And I mean, we're all human. Yeah, we're all human. We all, we all feel fear. And I think it is interesting also, I love to hear your insight on that is that people being afraid of success. Because success is just sometimes it's just right around the corner, or as my friend used to say, Becky, it's right there. Just, you know, just grab it. And I think sometimes it's hard. And that's why it goes back to the point that you just said was that we think that we have to do it all on our own. We've talked about that on the show a lot is thinking that we're an island and have to do it on our own. Instead of reaching out for help and saying, Hey, I need help on looking at this differently or doing things differently, like what, because I know you sit down and do strategy. I mean, I've been stalking you. I was watching some of your YouTube stuff and you do strategy sessions with people to be able to evaluate their business of where they're at, where they want to go, what's in the gap, right? And putting strategies together. Absolutely. There's a process that I call the power of yes, because we have opportunities that come to us. But here's the challenge. Which opportunities do we say actually yes to, right? And the question that I would like to say that we use is, does this opportunity take me towards or away from my ultimate vision? Right now, the parents there is, if we don't know where our ultimate vision is, what it is, and we're clearly focused on that, we're not going to be able to work the question to get an answer that's truly going to serve us. And so when we have these opportunities, do we deserve? Are you good enough to be on a TV show, to do TEDx, to be invited to address a large group of people, to receive that million dollar contract? And that's what sometimes when things do go correct and people get excited about it, then the feeling is, well, I just got lucky. Well, I don't really believe that luck is a planned event. If you go back, you're going to be able to see those stepping stones that allow all those things to happen. And when you do that, you can really put yourself in a position of, yes, it's really not about me, but there is a reward in a synergistic connection that if I wasn't part of the equation, it wouldn't have happened or at least happened in that way.   And then what did you do to be able to break through that so that you can help other people with that? So we're going to take a short little break. I'm Becky Sampson and you're watching It's About Time on Think Tech Hawaii and we're talking to my dear friend Gary Barnes about the three keys to success and is success an illusion? So stay tuned for more and we'll be right back. Hi, I'm Rusty Kamori, host of Beyond the Lines on Think Tech Hawaii. My show is based on my book also titled Beyond the Lines and it's about creating a superior culture of excellence, leadership and finding greatness. I interview guests who are successful in business, sports and life, which is sure to inspire you in finding your greatness. Join me every Monday as we go Beyond the Lines at 11 a.m. Aloha. Aloha, I'm Dave Stevens, host of the Cyber Underground. This is where we discuss everything that relates to computers that's just kind of scare you out of your mind. So come join us every week here on thinktechawaii.com 1 p.m. on Friday afternoons and then you can go see all our episodes on YouTube. Just look up the Cyber Underground on YouTube. All our shows will show up and please follow us.  Aloha. So we're back and I'm Becky Samson, the host of It's About Time. I'm talking to my dear friend Gary Barnes from Colorado about the three keys to success. And the question that we're answering today is, is success an illusion? So welcome back to the show and Gary, right before we went to the break, I asked you some personal question, which is, what are some of the times in your life that you were faced against that, those fears or those doubts? And how did you push through it? So how do you help other people through that? Well, it's a great question, Becky. You know, one of the things that I remember early in my career, and I was told from being a kid through my teen years, my early adult that I wasn't good enough and being in my place. But I remember I did a program. I put on an event in Orange County, California, and I was all in. I was dealing with some very high ranking, very popular individuals. We put out the promotion. And guess what? No one actually even inquired about the program. Now, back then, what was the thing is that I actually invested, now that's the key word, I invested almost $30,000. Now, that was in the 70s.  And luckily, my wife still said, okay, she was going to leave me. But the thing is, is that that was really hard to take. That was a total rejection. And it wasn't just that people rejected a concept or me personally. It was a loss in revenue. It was, are you good enough? But if I hadn't done that, I wouldn't have learned some of the lessons that allows me to do events throughout the calendar year in some very international events now. So it was truly, that's why I said it was an investment. There was still a return of investment, even though it wasn't quite that. And what do you think? What were like one or two points that you feel like you learned on that? You know, that it's really an answer to your question of, you know, what is success and illusion? And it depends on what we consider to be a success. And so many times we do, I found out what didn't work, which was successful. But if I had stopped there, it would have been a total loss. Yeah. And it is a matter of keeping the momentum. This is something else too, that I've embraced is momentum does not mean speed. It means movement. And as long as we're moving, we are able to receive the benefits of those experiences. Because out of that experience, I have built some very deep friendships that have benefited me years later. I love that you bring up the fact, look, if something happens like that, is that you keep moving forward, right? You don't just allow that experience to take you over and say, well, that didn't work. And I love that you bring up the fact that even if something like that happens, you look at what worked and what didn't work. And then you adjust and then keep going. Right? That's such an important key for when it comes to business and entrepreneurship. Well, it allows us to be real because I don't know very many people out there that what in the business and all of a sudden everything worked perfectly. Right. And you look at, you know, most of the the entrepreneurs that we think about, Bill Gates, Sir Richard Branson, I mean, these people had what we call in the industry rocks that they could put on the table. It was things that didn't work. And what did we learn from that? That was actually now the foundation of what we have in our life and our businesses that are really benefiting society. Yeah, that's awesome. Well, I know that you teach also one of the main things that you teach is these three steps right to success. And tell everybody what that means and each one of those things and what, you know, how they apply it to their life when it comes to having success. Well, what I have really embraced is that when a business and entrepreneur has these three things in their business or life, they will be successful. What I don't know is what I call the gestation period, the time from when you plant the seeds and you'll have a harvest. But the first thing is to be seen. People think that just because they have this magical product, this service, the best mousetrap in the world, that people are going to come to them. We've been told, build it and they will come. It's a lie. It's not going to happen. That's an illusion, right? And that we get concerned about, well, how do we look and if we're really being seen, are we going to be criticized? Are we going to, you know, have the haters show up? And the answer is yes. Yeah. And, you know, Richard Branson actually said, if you're not being sued, you're not about to far enough. But I'm not going that far. Right. And but the reality is that people will watch you. People will, and you just said you were watching some of my videos that I have no idea that you were doing. Yeah. But if we're the best cup secrets, we do not have the opportunity to make the impact in people's lives that we can if we're willing to be seen. Well, and I want to add to that too, is as I've learned in my own personal experience, we have no idea the influence that we have over people and who's watching, right? I mean, I have people years later come back to me and say, Becky, this happened in my life and I watched one of your videos, whatever it is, and it made such a big difference. And we as people that are that never would have happened if I didn't take the action to at least be out there and share from my heart my authentic, you know, sincere heart.  Right. So the next thing is to be safe. S-A-F-E and I don't know many people if anyone is teaching this right now. And what I mean by that is whenever we're engaged with a person with a project, with a speech tonight, being together on the show, it really is, there is no agenda. There is no hook. There is just a emphasis of making a difference, making a connection. And when you do that, people will start being drawn to you. I call it becoming a people magnet because it's really about what I call active listening. And when you're wanting to know a person's story, really about who they are, what is their backstory? Where did they come from? What makes some of the same questions you asked me at the beginning of the show tonight? And when we do that, people are so taken aback because they haven't had that opportunity. And whether or not you're the solution, you're the connection when you have that relationship, you many times can be that resource to facilitate to whatever solution they may need. But it really is that basic element of having that really strong relationship. Yeah. And being safe. I love that that's not something that people, a lot of people think. But when we create a safe space for people, we open up the opportunity to connect. So I love that you're teaching that. That's so then the third thing is to be relevant. And most people think, well, I have a product or service that is needed. And that's probably true. But that's not being relevant. Relevant is having a product that is not only needed, but now is desired by your perfect client, the person that has that pain point that you're there to solve whatever that might. Oh, true. And then you have that connection and those three elements together that be seen, be safe to be relevant. You will be successful. Now, something that is unique is, you know, many people now as entrepreneurs are doing it virtually. They don't have a brick and mortar store. But if we're doing that, be seen, be safe, be relevant in our marketing, in our videos, in our expression, however, we're showcasing what we have to offer to our society, our niche market, then people will come into our virtual story just like they would a brick and mortar store. Yeah, they'll look at us and see that we have something that they're at least curious about.  And that's a very old rule that I don't think even worked well when I was being taught. So relationships in the kid the basis for success. So when you do teach this also in sales, sales training that you do as well, right? I do, you know, it's really a about elevate and separate. How are you different from not better than when you do that, you can embrace your celebrity. And I'll ask audiences, how many of your celebrities are usually I'll get maybe a third of the room. But when we have the definition that we're different from not better than then every hand can go up. Because what I equate it to is we are all born with a light, a spotlight, if you will, and we have been taught that we push everybody else into the light. But the reality is, if we don't step into our light, the only thing that will happen is it will go out. Nobody will know we're there. And that's that book that dies inside of you, that song that dies with you. And let's tell the stories, let's showcase what it is that we have to offer society. And in fact, J. Abraham, the father of consulting to corporations actually said, if you have a product or service that is needed in society, you don't only have an opportunity, but a responsibility will take that product or service to the world. And that changes the whole game. It's not about just making money. It's about serving and connecting and having a benefit of who and what you have to offer the people around you that makes all the difference. And that'd be responsibility. And one of the things that you said to me the other day when we were talking on the phone and I want just to just briefly talk about that before we end the show is I want to say why is it I mean when you said I'm having more well I said you're having more fun than you should be allowed to have is you said I love what I do. And how many people really can say that about what they do on a daily basis? How did you get to that point? Like at my age, I know people say, women, will you retire? Yeah. And the first time that it was asked of me, I got really almost offended because I said, this is not what I do. This is who I am. And I go, are you never off? Well, in what I do in connecting with people and understanding stories and building relationships. No, I'm never off. And again, with the belief of the law of reciprocal, I don't have to be selling. I can be sharing. I can be connecting and that return on that investment will happen organically. I don't have to worry about it. But I do have to have three elements. But yeah, having fun in what you do, it goes beyond who you are. It's your identity. It's making a difference in the world. And I love that you are such a walking example of that. And I know for me as well as I've looked to you and seen the things that you've done and your journey that you've been on and the people that you've been able to help and the trainings that you do. Thank you for doing what you do. Thank you for sharing today what you have and tell people real quick, really have a few seconds, but tell everybody where they find you. If they want to work with you on a one-on-one basis or come to some of your events. Where can they find you? Gary at Gary Burns International Spell about com and by three day events, you can go to breakthroughbusinessmastery.com. Awesome. Well, definitely worth the time and you've got the experience behind you. But most importantly, I love you do what you do. And that you love what you do because it shows every time I talk to you about that. So thank you so much for coming on the show and sharing your wisdom with us and the listeners today. So my pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. We're out of time. And so we'll have to wrap things up. But I'm Becky Samson, the host of It's About Time on the Think Tech Live Streaming Network series. We've been talking to my dear friend Gary Barnes about the three keys to success and is success an illusion? I want to thank Gary for coming on today and sharing his valuable insights into what it takes to be successful. So thank you, Gary. And I know we all benefit from hearing from you today. So and thanks to our broadcast engineer and floor manager and to J. Videl, our executive producer who makes this show possible. And of course, I'll see you on Wednesday for more of It's About Time on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm your host Becky Samson. Mahalo everyone. Thank you.