All right. Hello, everyone. Well, we're well before we're going to get started here. But before we dive in, I just wanted to make sure that you can all hear me and see my screen. So if you can hear me talking right now, and you can see me flipping through the first few slides. If you could just go into the chat or the Q&A and just let me know. That would be really helpful. So I'm sure that I'm talking to people who can hear me on. Can you guys hear me. All right. Perfect. Thank you, Dominique. Thank you, Linda. I'm going to go ahead and put myself on pause for just a little bit and we will get started right at the top of the hour. For those of you who just joined us, we're just going to give everybody a minute or so to get logged in and get started right at the top of the hour. All right. Hello, everyone, and welcome to our first Giving Tuesday webinar of 2021, which is hard to believe. And today we're going to be talking about the question of is Giving Tuesday still relevant, which I hope is an exciting topic to go over. My name is Linda Gerhardt and I'm the Senior Community Engagement Manager here at Mighty Cause. I've been with Mighty Cause since 2016. And before that, my career was in the nonprofit sector in marketing and communications. So I've personally lived through quite a few Giving Tuesdays in my time. And that background is actually what inspired me to cover this topic in a webinar because in talking to other people that I know that work in nonprofits. There's been some rumblings about whether or not Giving Tuesday is still relevant, whether it's dead concerns about the role of Facebook and Giving Tuesday and we are going to go over all of that today. So here's a look at today's agenda. We're basically going to be going through a little bit of a history lesson when it comes to Giving Tuesday and dive into the data that we picked up and lessons we learned in 2020. And I also, again, want to address the role of Facebook and Giving Tuesday at a head on way. So we'll talk about that as well. Since we've got a lot of ground to cover today, I'm going to be taking questions at the end of the presentation. So if you think of anything you'd like to ask for the Q&A session, just stick that into the Q&A box in your Zoom window and we will make sure that we get to it at the end. So since Giving Tuesday is nearly 10 years old at this point and amazingly actually predates a lot of people who are currently in the nonprofit workforce. I thought going through the history of the event would be helpful for context for this whole movement and what we're talking about. The first Giving Tuesday was held on November 27 in 2012 and it was created by the 92nd Street-Wise Belfast Center for Social Innovation and Social Impact with the United Nations Foundation. The first event wasn't as much of an organized event, but it was organized around an idea, which is what if we made generosity go viral. Giving Tuesday is held annually. The Tuesday after United States Thanksgiving, Black Friday and Cyber Monday, which is a very intentional date because the goal is to redirect some of the energy that is spent on consumerism back to philanthropy, volunteerism, altruism and giving back. In the first year, it really wasn't an organized fundraising event. It was really all about rallying people around the cause of generosity and giving on a specific day. And it did get a good amount of coverage from the mainstream press, as well as the White House, which is a pretty big deal. Incorporate partnerships were part of Giving Tuesday from the beginning. In its first year, the media company Mashable, Skype and Cisco were actually founding partners who helped fund and champion the cause of Giving Tuesday. In the next couple of years, Giving Tuesday grew. It got a lot more attention, and it became something that was very intensely nonprofit focused, and it picked up coverage from nonprofit industry publications like Charity Navigator and Chronicle of Philanthropy. More than 7,000 nonprofits in the U.S. participated in 2013, which in retrospect with everything that Giving Tuesday has become actually seems like a small number. In 2014, Giving Tuesday partnered with CrowdRise, which is a company that is now owned by GoFundMe, and they launched the Giving Tower, which was a visual representation of all the giving that was happening on Giving Tuesday. And 2014 was also really the year that a lot of fundraising platforms got involved in Giving Tuesday. Previously, BlackBod was the top processor for Giving Tuesday donations, but in 2014, fundraising platforms really got in on organizing events to engage the nonprofits using their technology and to get giving happening on their platforms. In 2014 was also the first year of our own Giving Tuesday event at Mighty Cause, which was then known as Razoo. Giving Tuesday was also global in 2014, raising millions of dollars from 68 different countries. So Giving Tuesday's influence started to grow very quickly in the first couple of years. 2015 was a bit of a turning point for Giving Tuesday, and it was the first year we saw Mark Zuckerberg enter the picture. On Giving Tuesday in 2015, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife released a statement that was formatted as a letter to their newborn daughter announcing their intention of donating 99% of his Facebook shares to charity, and that they were starting that chance Zuckerberg initiative. And this was also a record-breaking year for Giving Tuesday. They released over $100 million globally, which is enormous. And in 2016, everything changed when it came to Giving Tuesday. 2016 was the year that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation first offered matching funds, which were only available to nonprofits collecting donations on Facebook. They started the day out with half a million in matching funds, and those were claimed within hours. So the funds ran out very quickly. And so the Gates Foundation had to add another half million to the pot of prizes that were available or the pot of funding that was available. This was a huge driver in activity for Giving Tuesday, and the total amount raised was over $177 million. And an agency who studied the growth of Giving Tuesday concluded that Giving Tuesday's presence had increased over 300% since its inaugural year in 2012. So this was really a game-changing year, and we're going to circle back to the involvement of Facebook, but this was the first year that Giving Tuesday was primarily centered around a specific platform. And nonprofits and donors were incentivized to use a specific platform for Giving Tuesday fundraising and making their charitable donations. In the next couple of years, Giving Tuesday grew really significantly, but it also became a day that was all about Facebook and winning those matching funds. So in 2017, the Gates Foundation provided $2 million, and the people who were analyzing it closely found that the money was gone in literally seconds, specifically 86 seconds. In 2018, the Gates Foundation was out of the picture and PayPal entered the picture. So Facebook and PayPal joined forces in 2018, and they matched up to $7 million. So the amount of funding that was flowing was really growing exponentially, and that $7 million was also gone within seconds. So in 2017 through 2019, Giving Tuesday really became about competition and fundraising strategy so that nonprofits could win the matching funds that were being offered through Facebook, which was a big shift in the scope of the event, as well as the experience of participating it both as a nonprofit and a donor. And on a different note, 2019 was also the year that Giving Tuesday became its own separate nonprofit entity. So it split off from the 92nd Street Y and became its own organization. They've received their 501C3. So before we move on, I actually wanted to expand upon that, and I thought it might be helpful to go through what the Giving Tuesday organization actually does, because I have found in talking to people that there is a little bit of confusion about that. Giving Tuesday over the years has really become an opportunity for data collection and analysis and tracking trends in giving. And that is one of the primary things that Giving Tuesday, the organization exists to do. The Giving Tuesday data commons coordinates reports from 60 global partners, including Mighty Cause, we are one of their partners, and they report on giving, which is where the totals come from. They really have become a go-to place for information about the state of nonprofit giving and philanthropy, and their reporting was their primary source of information for this webinar. So you can go to the Giving Lab and read their blogs and reports for a lot of great information about Giving Tuesday and philanthropy and nonprofit trends. Now the biggest source of confusion is really the idea that the Giving Tuesday organization runs their own event or they own Giving Tuesday, which isn't really what they do. It's a movement, and there are tons of events. So they essentially collect the data in one central place, have their experts analyze it and report on it, and they also build a map of Giving Tuesday events that are happening around the world. So if you're looking for a Giving Tuesday event to participate in as a nonprofit, as a donor, you can go to GivingTuesday.org and they have a really handy map where you can find local events that are happening on Giving Tuesday. Alright, so unfortunately now we have to get into everything that went down in 2020. I really don't want to spend too long recapping the misery, because we all just lived through it, but it was a really notable year for nonprofits for a lot of reasons. So we're going to break that down and go over what we learned in 2020. So as I mentioned, 2020 was notable for a lot of reasons, but it was also the first year that there were two Giving Tuesdays. One was on May 5th called Giving Tuesday Now, which was a new event that was specifically focused on COVID-19 relief, and then the annual event that happened in December. Obviously, there was a lot of intense stuff happening everywhere, but in the nonprofit sector, there was a lot of concern about the recession that the pandemic had sparked. Because for anybody who was working around nonprofits or in nonprofits during the 2008 recession, that was just a really traumatic time for this sector as a whole. That recession forced nonprofits to lay off workers in record numbers, lots of nonprofits shut down, or greatly reduce their operations, and it did take a really long time to recover from that. So there was a lot of anxiety. And in fact, one of the things that we see is that around the time Giving Tuesday took hold, that's when the sector really started to recover. I don't know if that's a direct, you know, causation, but that was around the time the nonprofit sector started to regain some of what they had lost in the 2008 recession. So Giving Tuesday Now was a huge success. It raised $503 million just in the United States, and around the world, 145 countries participated. And we're going to look at a chart of this a little bit later, but there was a big giving slump in February and March, which is around the time that things started to go haywire in the United States. And then there was a spike in the end of April and through May that really turned things around for the nonprofit sector. So not all of that is directly related to Giving Tuesdays since there were other events that inspired a lot of giving on a grand scale. But it was definitely a factor, and it really signaled to the sector as a whole that this recession was different from the one that we were digging ourselves out of at the beginning of the 2010s. So there was, there was some hope that was really sparked around the time of Giving Tuesday Now. So what did we learn in 2020? There were a lot of really positive reports of nonprofit recovery, and that is accurate overall when we look at the data. But what we can see when we look at 2020 as a whole is that it really wasn't equal across the board. Certain categories saw massive gains in giving such as health and human services, but other categories suffered significant losses. Arts and culture organizations and any real, any nonprofit that relies heavily on ticket sales, memberships and performances were also really, really hard hit. Small nonprofits struggled in particular. And one of the things Giving Tuesdays reporting found was that in 2020, many small nonprofits simply did not fundraise for many months. And that of course hindered them their failure to fundraise. In 2020 also saw a ton of for the first time new donors giving in smaller amounts donor mobility was higher, meaning that donors were giving in smaller amounts to lots of organizations and didn't seem as tied to investing in one particular cause or organization they were casting a really amount of money with their donations. So we saw a lot of people giving for the first time, giving in smaller amounts and giving in lots of different places. One thing that is interesting as well as that the number of small donors increased in a really dramatic way, but the dollars they contributed were only 10% of the total dollars raised so they have this big spike in new donors but they actually didn't contribute that much in dollars. When we looked at the data, midsize donations and donors actually decreased, though there's no real clear cut reason why this would have happened. And giving Tuesday also found concern about the pandemic strongly correlated with charitable giving, which is not super surprising and it's pretty consistent with how we know donors behave. In the survey they found that the more concerned someone was about COVID-19, the more likely they were to give to charitable organizations. So with all of that in mind there were some key takeaways when we looked at this data or when I looked at this data that giving Tuesday put together. One of the key takeaways is that if there's a flood of new donors one year retention needs to be the focus in the following year. So acquisition and retention are often inverse properties, meaning that when one rises the other falls. And that's what we saw in 2020 and hopefully we'll see retention increase in 2021. It's really unlikely that donor acquisition this year can keep up with the pace of 2020. Midsize donors, midsize donors really can't fall by the wayside in 2021. These are valuable donors and a lot of them were unfortunately lost in 2020 so in 2021 it's going to be important for nonprofits to recapture some of those donors they lost and nurture these relationships with their midsize donors. Another thing that is important to remember is that failure to fundraise is failure to stay funded and small nonprofits failed to fundraise frequently in 2020. As for why that is a lot of the reasons were very understandable they were dealing with a big shift and they didn't have the tools necessary, and a lot of them had their operations severely hindered by the or by the pandemic. There are understandable reasons but small nonprofits did fail to fundraise each month of 2020. So if you're not trying to fundraise or ask for donations, the donations are not going to come to you for the most part and being proactive in fundraising, especially as a small nonprofit is very important. I know in talking to nonprofits that a lot of them struggled with the question of whether it was okay to fundraise. But I tried to assure them that it was but there was a lot of uncertainty about whether it was okay to fundraise if they were not specifically helping with the pandemic. And finally the nonprofits that did really well in 2020 seized on what Giving Tuesday calls giving moments where they tapped into public sentiment and opportunities to engage the public in their cause. Obviously we can't orchestrate giving moments like the ones we saw in 2020, nor would we want to, but it's important to continually think about what a giving moment looks like for your nonprofit and how you can use those giving moments to drive philanthropy. I did want to take a moment and call out some key places where I got my data I'm not pulling this out of thin air this data exists out in the world. And you can go to these places if you'd like more information and more data and you'd really like to dive in. Giving Tuesday's report that they just released not too long ago called giving in unprecedented times was my main source of information for all of this webinar, and it's free you can go to giving Tuesday org and download this report. The Giving Tuesday data commons and giving lab are also sources that I use and great places to check for data. Those are both accessible from giving Tuesday dot org slash data. The Association of fundraising professionals fundraising effectiveness project. They actually release quarterly reports and it's a really great source of data and analysis for the nonprofit sector. And the one thing I remember every year is the M and our benchmarks report that is released annually so they typically release it at the beginning of the year. And you can find that at MR benchmarks.com. I did want to give you a heads up that there is a strobing graphic on the homepage of the report this year. So if you're sensitive to that sort of thing. I'm just go in and, you know, be aware of that or maybe stick to these other sources. I did say we would circle back to this and I do want to spend a little bit of time talking about Facebook, because as I mentioned they really did change the landscape of giving Tuesday. So first I do want to call out the things that were very good that came about because of Facebook's involvement with giving Tuesday, the brand awareness that giving Tuesday picked up from Facebook was absolutely huge. And it's really hard to say whether or not giving Tuesday would be the massive global happening and movement movement that it currently is without Facebook jumping into the game. There's also been an absolute truckload of money funneled into the nonprofit sector through Facebook's partnerships with the Gates Foundation PayPal and so on. And that money has funded causes and motivated donors to give in a really big way. And most people in the world are on Facebook, even though a lot of us don't like to admit it publicly, but the omnipresence of Facebook made it a lot easier for people who aren't tuned into the nonprofit sector to participate in giving Tuesday as donors as fundraisers and it really helps get the word out about giving Tuesday. That said, there have been a few downsides that the biggest one is that Facebook's mad rush for those matching funds have created a very competitive environment for nonprofits, which to some degree runs contrary to what the giving Tuesday movement is all about focusing on competition for money rather than causes and charity and bringing people together. After the first year there was also frustration brewing among small and midsize nonprofits that the big nonprofits were benefiting through from the funding the most which is true. And that the small guys really didn't have a chance to compete for the matching funds. And that is more for the most part borne out by the data bigger nonprofits got very strategic about winning those funds and they were successful. So a lot of nonprofits, they coordinate larger gifts in the early moments of giving Tuesday to ensure that they get some of the money and smaller capacity or just can't compete on the level of a big nonprofit that's got multi million dollar budgets and entire staffs of people who are just focused on fundraising. So there was some frustration brewing among smaller and midsize nonprofits that they participated year in and year out but they never actually saw any of those matching funds. And this is all anecdotal but there are some high level questions that I've heard expressed in recent years about Facebook's role in giving Tuesday from people in the nonprofit world. And mainly, there have been concerns that Facebook is turning giving Tuesday into an event that's really driven by big tech money and used to drive activity on social media, rather than being about giving in the actual spirit of giving Tuesday. And a lot of people are very understandably suspicious of Facebook's interest interest in giving Tuesday. They put their fees and they put a lot of their time and effort and money into getting people to use Facebook for giving Tuesday, even though there are social media platform that's not really set up or geared toward nonprofits. So what is their motivation. Facebook has come under a lot of fire in recent years from Congress from users. So a lot of people in the nonprofit sector are a little bit cynical about Facebook's involvement in giving Tuesday and whether it's actually good for nonprofits. One of the reasons is that there are some really easy answers to why Facebook wants to dominate giving Tuesday. And if you've been paying attention to the controversies around Facebook in recent years. It really shouldn't come as any surprise that the biggest benefit to Facebook is gobs and gobs of data about their users, which is what they monetize to turn into a profit. The activity on giving Tuesday is very helpful for them. It gives them information about user behavior, what speaks to these users, and the more data they have the more they can use to make a profit for their company. Another important reason that Facebook wants to be involved in giving Tuesday is friction reduction. Facebook sees giving Tuesday as a tool to get more people processing payments through Facebook, which in turn will make it easier in the future to make other payments through Facebook, whether they're sending money or buying products. They want you to be using Facebook to process transactions. So each time you make a purchase or process a payment through Facebook, they learn a little bit more about you. So they're end game they want to know as much about you as possible. And ultimately Facebook wants to be just ubiquitous on the internet. If you are doing something on the internet they want you to be doing it on Facebook. So they can continue to collect data about your behavior and your interests. So of course, Facebook wants to be a big part of giving Tuesday, when there's a flurry of online activity and lots of payments being processed. That is a goldmine for them. And it also serves their interest as a corporation while being good PR for them. Certainly there's been a lot of money funneled into Facebook's giving Tuesday endeavors and stories about Facebook fostering huge nonprofit matches through their platform is good publicity for that make builds goodwill. So there's a lot of reasons why Facebook wants to be involved in giving Tuesday, not all of them are secrets. But hopefully this gives you a little bit perspective of perspective about what Facebook's end game is here. So this brings us to our main point for this webinar, which is the questions and concerns that people have about giving Tuesday it's almost a decade old. And it's changed a lot from year to year, it's gotten bigger and people have questions and concerns about participating in giving Tuesday. One of the most common sources of confusion is whether nonprofits have to use Facebook. I actually hear this a lot leading up to giving Tuesday from our customers and our users on mighty cause. And the answer here is obviously no you don't have to use Facebook. If you're a big player and giving Tuesday, we might even say the biggest, but they don't own the event organizations can do basically anything you want to raise money on giving Tuesday. There are other options, aside from running your campaign on Facebook, you can run your own campaign using your website, a donation page on your website. You can participate in a local giving Tuesday event. And you can also participate on mighty cause we have our own organized giving Tuesday event. And that might be a great alternative for smaller nonprofits because that is our user base mighty cause as a platform is built to serve small and midsize nonprofits. So it's really geared toward that audience our event is we do have prize money but you also get access to a full suite of fundraising tools that can serve you throughout the year. So if you're interested in training and resources and templates and a whole bunch of webinars planned that will help you fundraise better, and you have ownership and control over your donor data which is really important to note. So if you're interested in trying something new for giving Tuesday and you've tried Facebook in the past you don't have to you might want to check out mighty causes event. If you have any information about that we will be announcing our site and our registration soon so just keep your eyes on your inbox for more news about our giving Tuesday event. A lot of people who don't spend hours pouring over giving Tuesday data like I do question, are people still actually giving on giving Tuesday, or is it fading into obsolescence and overwhelmingly people give on giving Tuesday. You can see that in data from the giving Tuesday organization that they gather, and we see it on our own prop platform at mighty cause giving Tuesday has become and it remains one of the biggest days for fundraising all year long. So even if you've got another campaign running, even if you've got one coming up or just came off of a big campaign, or you're focusing on end of year, you should really plan on doing something for giving Tuesday, though the extent of it is up to you. So giving Tuesday did have a little bit of a downturn in 2019 it's picked up momentum again and it's definitely not becoming obsolete or irrelevant people are still giving by droves on giving Tuesday. And I just wanted to give you a little bit of data visualization to go along with this this is from giving Tuesday the organization. And it's on a sort of a chart of giving through 2020. And as you can see it's pretty steady pretty steady and then there's these two large spikes. One is in May, and the other one is early in December. And those both coincided with giving Tuesday events in 2020. So that is the effect of chair of giving Tuesday on charitable giving it's absolutely no joke you can see it in the data. The big spikes are giving Tuesday. So there's always some question about who owns giving Tuesday from nonprofits this is a source of confusion for a lot of small nonprofits who are trying to dip their feet into giving Tuesday for the first time or they just kind of don't know what to do. And that is the original event which is the one I'm supposed to participate in. And the truth is that giving Tuesday is owned by you by me it's owned by all of us, because it's a movement rather than a formalized event that is owned and operated by one company or organization. So every nonprofit can can decide for themselves, where they want to participate in giving Tuesday and how Facebook's giving Tuesday events, local giving Tuesday events on giving Tuesday we have giving events on giving Tuesday, which is a little bit of a mouthful to say, and we host a few of them on our platform on mighty cause. We have our own separate giving Tuesday event that's open to everybody campaigns are run by organizations themselves. They're all equally valid and legitimate, because nobody actually owns the movement it's just a question of where do you want to go as a nonprofit, and what makes the most sense for your organization. And finally the big question, especially for a lot of smaller nonprofits is, is it worth participating in giving Tuesday. As we've discussed it's definitely still worth doing something on giving Tuesday, though what that looks like for each nonprofit can vary. But it's absolutely worth still participating in giving Tuesday. And the other thing is that if you're giving Tuesday campaigns are starting to feel stale or repetitive to you, or if your donors seem to be less responsive to it. The staff is like hey, this is way too much of a grind and we're really tired of giving Tuesday. It's worth looking into ways to invigorate giving Tuesday by trying something new, like focusing on a different aspect of your organization like volunteerism, trying to engage donors in a different way, maybe even having an in person volunteer based event or changing up your storytelling, just something to make giving Tuesday feel exciting and new again like it did in those first few years. You really want to shift forward into looking at the fall and how you can make giving Tuesday work for your organization. First up, if you are finding that Facebook is not a good avenue for your nonprofit. If you've hustled hard every year to get those matching funds, and you didn't pull it off you didn't actually manage to get those matching funds, and you're frustrated with giving Tuesday on Facebook you can totally divest from Facebook. You could try mighty causes giving Tuesday event if you still want to try to win some prize money. You could plan a local event or join an existing local event that there's a lot that you can do off Facebook that is worthwhile for your organization. And you can also think about broadening your scope as we were just talking about, and find a focus for giving Tuesday that helps your nonprofit move toward its long term goals, and what's most meaningful for your organization, whether that's recurring giving retaining donors kicking off your end of your campaign, or even doing some work to build your volunteer base. For organizations the goal of giving Tuesday is basically just as much money as possible. And that's absolutely a worthwhile goal for giving Tuesday and fundraising. But you can also think about incorporating some different goals for giving Tuesday to give you a new focus and purpose for the event. For instance, for example, what are your internal goals as an organization. What are some things that you need to work on or focus on. Maybe you can work with your major gift donors and your existing sponsors and secure your own matching funds from them to get your donors excited about giving. And you can strengthen your existing relationships, or also, or also forge new sponsorship relationships that will pay off well after giving Tuesday is over, rather than just joining in the rat race for Facebook funds. You can also focus on engagement and nurturing your existing donors engaging your community online and in person. And again, you can just think of the long game what are your long term goals and how can you leverage the giving moment of giving Tuesday to achieve them on nonprofit on giving Tuesday a lot of nonprofits focus on quantity of donations and getting as many as possible. But one thing that 2020 really made clear is that recurring giving. It's vital to running a stable nonprofit and one of the things that giving Tuesday, their report giving an unprecedented times predicted was that this would be key for nonprofits moving forward. So giving Tuesday can be an opportunity to launch a giving to a given recurring giving program focus in on getting recurring donors. Think about incentives and sponsorship opportunities that could help you gain more recurring donations and so on. Focusing on recurring giving helps you end the year strong, makes your organization more resilient and it can get you thinking about giving Tuesday as a launchpad for your fundraising success throughout the year and making it part of your efforts to become a stable nonprofit that's bringing in consistent funding. Excuse me. So I wanted to end the presentation by just reiterating that giving Tuesday can really be whatever you make it so pulling back. And thinking about the broader picture of not only giving Tuesday but also your nonprofit can really make giving Tuesday more than just a fight to the death for some matching funds through Facebook, and you can use it as a springboard for your year round Giving Tuesday has been around for nearly a decade, and that decade has seen a lot of changes in what giving Tuesday is and how it operates there's no actual rule book for how to best utilize giving Tuesday. But you can use it well by turning it into a giving moment for your nonprofit that helps carry you well after giving Tuesday is over. And this is the last note. If you're interested in mighty causes giving Tuesday event. It's always a good time I help run that event. So please stay tuned for more details in your inbox. We are going to be launching the site and our registration suit and we have some good prizes that we're working on in lots of training efforts so that should be a really good place, especially for small nonprofits that maybe haven't seen a return from participating on Facebook. So I did want to take some time and go through any questions. So if you have any questions that you'd like to ask any topics you'd like to have me expand on any any disagreements any anything along those lines just go ahead and type those into the Q&A box. And we will make time to get to those. So I'll just give everybody a moment to type your questions I really hope that you all have questions for me. So if there's any burning topics that you want to talk about related to giving Tuesday, I, you have my ear, you have my undivided attention so go ahead and pop those into the Q&A box of your zoom window. It looks like we've got a question, but I just have to actually I think I have to stop sharing my screen in order to see it. Hang on just a second having some technical difficulties. I'm going to stop sharing and now I can see the questions okay sorry about that. The first question is from Antoinette, are we able to get a copy of this recording my internet keeps going out. I'm so so sorry to hear that your internet keeps going out of out of in and out. Yes, I will distribute a recording of this webinar so you can go back and check out anything you may have missed or share it with anybody that you think would benefit from watching this recording. If that answers your questions as soon as I can get it up onto YouTube I will send it out to everybody in an email. This is a question from Rachel. What are the stipulations for matching funds, never really tried to go for it in the past because we were a smaller nonprofit. I'm curious. So I guess we're talking about the matching funds on Facebook. Basically, it's kind of a race against time. They match up to a certain amount that basically the first donations that come in get matched in I think 2018 and 2019. So they have a lot of gap matches, and they put limits on the amount that one organization could get or one donor could have matched to sort of distribute it a little bit more evenly. But it really is a race against time it's not, you know, it's not a meritocracy. It's not on the strength of your fundraising it's not really equitable. It's really just who gets in there first and eats up those matches. That is what happens. So on giving Tuesday on Mighty Cause, we do have prize money available and those can be one in a variety of different ways.  We also tend to have hourly competition so there's usually a few of them throughout the day where you're either looking to bring in the most amount of money or the highest number of donors and we typically split those into small and large nonprofits so that the competition is a little bit more fair. So that is one of the benefits of participating on Mighty Cause is that you have several different ways that you can win prizes and win some prize money, and it's not just a race to be there first and that's kind of why bigger nonprofits have had an easier time securing some of those matching funds from the Facebook competition because they just have a whole team of people strategizing and ready to go and they've coordinated some really big gifts during those first few seconds of giving Tuesday which is why they're eating up so quickly. So that's kind of how it works. Facebook is just kind of a free for all where you just need to get in there and get those donations and get those matching funds while they're still available. There's been a lot of disappointment at how quickly they've run out in the past. So that's one of the benefits of participating on Mighty Cause is that there's lots of chances to win some funds for your nonprofit. And let's see. Oh, this is a question from Mary. I thought when I Googled Giving Tuesday and registered our organization, I was registering us as a nonprofit to be on the list of nonprofits, eligible to receive donations. Am I correct. Yes. So basically what happens on Mighty Cause. If you're talking about Mighty Cause I think you're talking about Mighty Cause. There's a few different things and this is where it gets confusing because there's so many things happening on Giving Tuesday, and not all of them are connected. For instance, if you went to Mighty Cause and you were new to our platform and you registered for our Giving Tuesday event, you would at that point be a registered to participate in our Giving Tuesday event and become eligible for prizes. You would also be registering your nonprofit to use the Mighty Cause platform throughout the year. So you would have access to a year round fundraising page that you can use whenever you have a campaign. So you get both of those things when you're registering on Mighty Cause. GivingTuesday.org, the website that is run by the Giving Tuesday organization. When you register there, you are registering an event. Basically you're registering as an organization or an event that is happening on Giving Tuesday, because they don't run their own event. They just sort of capture all of the activity that's happening around the globe related to Giving Tuesday and that they have a map that you can submit your Giving Tuesday event to. They also have some training materials and other things that are of interest if you want to participate in Giving Tuesday. But this is very confusing because there's so many events going on. You've got Facebook, you've got Mighty Cause, you've got the Giving Tuesday folks themselves. You've got some local events and some of those actually happen on Mighty Cause on Giving Tuesday. We have multiple events happening that day in addition to our main Giving Tuesday event. What I'm thinking about here for the most part is our specific Giving Tuesday event that you can register for to let us know that you'd like to participate and be eligible for prizes. And if you're a new nonprofit, you get access to your nonprofit fundraising page that you can use throughout the year and all of our fundraising tools. So I feel like that was a bit of a long answer, Mary. So you can always connect with me offline at lyndaatmightycause.com if you have any follow up questions. And that's kind of the gist of it is there's a lot of different ways that you can register, but on Mighty Cause we do have our own specific event. And there's other things that you can register for as well, but just on Mighty Cause you register for our event to let us know that you want to participate and you get access to your page if you don't already have it. Okay, it looks like there's also some chats so I just want to check those real quick. So great. This is a question from Malcolm. I'm glad I checked this Malcolm asks how much success have you seen with nonprofits using Instagram, as opposed to Facebook for their fundraisers. So the thing that to keep in mind here is that Facebook owns Instagram. So I think we haven't really seen a huge result with nonprofits using Instagram. But if you like go into your Instagram stories and you have a little button that, you know, you click, say, does donate that is actually through Facebook, but you can use your own link if you put the link in your bio. I don't really have any data about how much has been done through Instagram. So that would be an interesting question in in future, giving Tuesday retrospectives is how much activity happens on Instagram. I think it a little bit tough on Instagram, unfortunately, because they have. They don't have a way to directly link people, right. And because of their content surfacing technology, sometimes your posts don't get seen in people's feeds until like a day or two later sometimes even a week later. So Instagram is not the ideal place but if you have a big following there, you can certainly utilize that and raise a lot of money on Instagram if you have people that follow you on Instagram. But just Facebook as a plot I mean sorry Instagram as a platform makes it a little bit difficult. If you can I would recommend getting like a link tree. Link tree is free to use and that allows you to sort of have a repository for any links you want people to be able to utilize. You can put that in your bio so that people can link to your donation page or wherever you're collecting donations. And you can also just play paste the link in your bio and have people go there to make their donation people on Instagram are used to that. So they know that you can't post a direct link. If you have 10,000 followers or more. You can actually do a little swipe up link in your Instagram stories which are the sort of 24 hour Snapchat like things that you see at the top of the Instagram app. So you can always do a swipe up there but I just don't have a lot of data about Instagram so I would be really curious if anybody has used used Instagram to great effect on giving Tuesday I just haven't seen a whole lot of data so that's definitely an interesting question. Let's see. All right, I think that's it for questions. Like I said we are all we are going to distribute a recording of this webinar. So you'll have the recording you can show it you can save it and also distribute the slides. Thank you all so much for joining me today and for all of your great questions. I hope I'll see some of you for giving Tuesday on mighty cause and have a great day and happy fundraising.


Now, in this second lecture of module 3, we continue the discussion on electrostatic phenomena. The first topic we will take up is one on diffusion potentials and then we will return to one of the questions which I had posed before you and in order to answer that we may have to look at the theory which allowed us to relate the interfacial potential, the total interfacial potential to the distribution coefficients of the cations and anions. So, the analysis that we had seen last time will briefly review before coming to the question about what if the non-aqueous phase is highly non-puller or just does not permit presence of any ions at all like in case of air. So, first to be taken up is the diffusion potentials. Now, conceptually this is a slightly different idea. Like earlier we imagine that there are two aqueous phases between which a polar oil is sandwiched and we measure the transient potential between the two surfaces or interfaces that is the left hand phase of oil in contact with the first aqueous phase and right hand phase which is in contact with the second aqueous phase. Now, if we have cations and anions getting transported from let us say the left hand phase to the right hand phase, then they would do so with certain ionic mobility through the oil corresponding to that there will be a transport number. If the cations and anions are different in size and appreciably different in properties especially with reference to oil then the different transport numbers of these ions will result in different diffusional fluxes through the oil which would mean a time dependent potential delta phi could be measured across electrodes which are in contact with the two aqueous phases and one would say further if the system is ideal then the opposing phase boundary potentials should be equal as per our equation 18. This is appropriate stage to review the derivation that we had seen last time. The equation we just referred to is this equation 18. So, to have a quick recap we started with the definitions of the distribution cations for cations and anions given by RT ln B plus or B minus equal to W mu plus or mu minus 0 minus O mu plus or mu minus 0. Then we had the electrochemical potentials for the cations and anions in water and oil as related to the chemical potentials W mu plus 0, O mu plus 0, W mu minus 0, O mu minus 0. The concentrations W c plus W c minus O c plus O c minus contributing in this RT ln c kind of terms and then for oil we have a positive phi f adding to the chemical potential and minus phi f for the anions. So, those four definitions of electrochemical potentials for two kinds of ions in two phases and then we had the pair of equilibrium relations where in the oil and water phases the cations and anions would have respectively equal chemical potentials W mu plus bar equal to O mu plus bar and W mu minus bar equal to O mu minus bar. And finally, the electroneutrality conditions that in the bulk of water the cations and anions would have the same concentration in the bulk of oil again cations and anions would have same concentration. So, after plugging in those definitions 1 to 4 in equations phi and 6 equilibrium relations and keeping in mind the electroneutrality conditions we had ultimately arrived at this equation for phi, phi as RT by 2 F ln b plus by b minus. We went on to express this in terms of the distribution coefficient for the salt as such. So, that gives you RT ln b square by b minus square that was what we got after adding those equations 9 and 10 which allowed us to arrive at this result finally. So, phi is RT by 2 F ln b plus by b minus or RT by 2 F ln b square by b minus square. The point to be noted here is that the oil is like nitrobenzene, it is not a completely non-polar oil there is a polarity here. That means, it allows the electrical double layer to form within the oil phase. It is here that we come to the topic of surface and interfacial potentials. As proposed earlier the non-aqueous phase is now chosen such that practically no salt can dissolve in it practically. That means, still it is conceivable that very small concentration of the ions may still be formed. An example could be a parafonic like decay or strictly speaking air. Air will be an extreme example when ions cannot exist there and we presume the oil to be at least about 1 mm thick about 1 mm thick not very much higher. Now, the question is among all the equations that we had over here which ones are still applicable and which ones not. The basic definitions relating the electrochemical potentials of cations and anions in the two phases those would remain unchanged. So, equations 1 to 4 would be unchanged. Equations 5 and 6 are statement of equilibrium. So, in principle this should be fine this pair of equations is also admissible. What about electroneutrality? Equations 7 W c plus equal to W c minus that should be fine. We can have cations and anions and electroneutrality in the aqueous phase. Question is only about this equation 8. The last of the equations we required in establishing a relation between phi B plus and B minus. Remember the constraint of our system is that the non aqueous phase is highly non polar. The tiny concentrations which you can imagine for cations and anions there may not be able to build up ever within that 1 mm thickness of oil to give you O c plus equal to O c minus anywhere in the finite system ok. So, that is a constraint now. If O c plus equal to O c minus cannot be taken as a valid relation in the finite extent of the oil, how do we then modify the phi B plus B minus relation? We have water and oil which is non polar in the oil which may let us say have a thickness of about 1 mm. The equality of O c plus equal to O c minus is not valid. Solubility of the cations and anions in this oil is quite low. If this is the case and you could actually at different distances from the interface measure the phi value, how would we expect phi now to depend on B plus and B minus? Earlier relation phi t equal to phi equal to R t by 2 F ln B plus by B minus, we do not expect now to be valid because that last equation 8 is not applicable. Now, this is the starting point for our discussion. I will let you spend a few minutes with the equations 1 to 7, equation 8 is not given to you. Make an attempt to find the relation between phi B plus and B minus on similar lines. And before you do that maybe let me mention the magnitude of the diffusion potentials. Diffusion potentials normally are small about 15 millivolts. And if you think of a very thin film about 1 micron thick, then it is possible that diffusion potential may influence the relative ionic mobilities. And presence of a charged monolayer across the surface of such a thin film may be able to alter the diffusion potentials. Now, you can go into pursuit of relation of phi between phi and B plus and B minus, if we cannot have OC plus equal to OC minus anywhere in this thin film. Perhaps there is no difficulty in arriving at this relation. Last time we calculated potential difference for a slightly Polaroid and the Equus basis. And this time we are trying to calculate it for a very non Polaroid. Non Polaroid. Non Polaroid. Non Polaroid. Right. Now, if you see this, butener said that due to the difference of distribution of ions in that pursuit of resist, they printed them. And to understand that it should be of two different types. Correct. Now, if we have a non Polaroid on one side, then the ions won't be distributed to more is getting dominated. Ok. Ok. Are you able to get what Vijay is trying to indicate? We have deliberately chosen this system such that the oil is highly non polar and therefore, we cannot have now OC plus equal to OC minus. So, this term will remain. Right. But you have gone very far and you said that now we should say bar was right. Right. We have conditions appropriate. Yes and we should be able to prove that. But so far, are you with me? This is ok. Everyone gets this. Since OC plus was equal to OC minus, the second term was absent earlier. Now, it has to be kept. We have to deal with it somehow. All right. What we will do now? We will divide the potential on the oil side of the interface into in general. The contact potential be due to whatever adsorbed or spread layer at the interface. It could be a dipole array or it could be a charge film adsorbed adsorbed or spread at the interface and psi for whatever solubilities they might be for their distribution. And we will show that if the oil solubilities of the interfacial film and of salt which are present there very small, then only delta V will contribute to delta phi when such a film is spread at the interface. So, we are going to prove that now. And the first step in that direction is to obtain this equation which is the result of equations 1 to 7. Four electrochemical definitions, the equilibrium relations and one of the electroneutrality relations right ok. Next and this is something which I had alluded to earlier. I did tell you earlier that we can later think of a situation where only contribution stable contribution can come from delta V. So, we are actually addressing that that particular statement made long time back ok. Now, let us look at this equation 20 closer. What does it tell us? Within the oil we may choose different locations. There is a different distances from the interface and think of what the concentrations of cations and anions are there. Supposing at certain distance the cation concentration is this O c plus. O c minus is the anion concentration. The two are not equal. What does this equation then give you? And this will also address one of the earlier questions. When I did not have the second term, the question which was rightly raised was where do we measure phi? And I had answered that that is the total potential between the bulk of oil and bulk of water. Bulk of water is given arbitrarily 0 potential. Absolute potential anyway we cannot measure. We attribute absolute potential equal to 0 to water. But here we could choose different locations. There is a different distances from the interface. Have the pair of cation anion concentrations they could be measured maybe. Then what will be phi? Phi should be the potential that will measure at that location within oil relative to bulk water right. So, now in order to go further we have to do something about this pair of concentrations O c plus and O c minus. Now supposing in such a system that is the aqueous and highly non-polar oil or air we think of a certain spread or adsorbed monolayer of film which can offer the contribution to the total potential in the form of say V or delta V ok. And as we go away from the interface the concentrations vary and therefore, we should be able to relate the concentration to the potential which is contact potential at the interface. So, we need basically a relationship between O c plus and O c minus in terms of V or measurable potential. The only measurable potential here will be the contact potential V. So, here we have equations of Boltzmann which are applicable near the interface where there is a contact potential V and these concentrations could be expressed in terms of V as shown in equations 21 and 22. O c plus is equal to O c plus at x equal to infinity at infinite distance into exponential minus epsilon which is electronic charge 4.774 10 to the power minus 10 electrostatic units V minus psi at x equal to infinity upon k t and O c minus is given by O c minus at x equal to infinity exponential plus. If you talk of cations there is a plus sign minus sign if you talk of anions there is a plus sign epsilon V minus psi at x equal to infinity by k t ok. So, the O c plus O c minus here could now be expressed in terms of the measurable quantity V and other entities which are given in this Boltzmann's equations. I would suggest you to plug in equations 21 and 22 in 20 and see what is the consequence. Substitute for O c plus and O c minus in equation 20 yeah you have to know they are certain structure. So, it is not difficult. So, if you substitute for O c plus and O c minus in the expression for phi you can observe that in the hypothetical region at x equal to infinity which is outside the practical region the double layer would be complete and O c plus will be equal to O c minus only at x equal to plus infinity. So, after substituting these equations equations 21 and 22 in 20 and noting that at x equal to infinity O c plus and O c minus are equal we could arrive at this result 24. First term is same as earlier R t by 2 f ln B plus by B minus. In the second term we have minus R t by 2 f ln exponential this by this that will be cancelled that will become minus 2 epsilon V minus psi at x equal to infinity by k t. So, this is what you get ln of exponential minus 2 epsilon V minus psi at x equal to infinity by k t, but what is this R t by 2 f ln B plus by B minus. This is one glance here will tell you at x equal to infinity O c plus equal to O c minus and we get the earlier expression R t by 2 f ln B plus by B minus which was psi, but now this is valid in this case at x equal to infinity right. In the earlier case this phi would be entirely by psi and in this case at x equal to infinity in those terms it will be phi equal to psi at x equal to infinity. So, this is psi at x equal to infinity. Once we make this observation we can write equation 24 I hope all this is clear so far we can substitute for the first term over here psi at x equal to infinity right. So, the first term which is R t by 2 f ln B plus by B minus we can replace by psi at x equal to infinity and therefore, this equation 24 can be written as phi equal to psi at x equal to infinity minus R t by 2 f. Since ln and exponential will annihilate each other now we will have simply result of all this only this bracket minus 2 epsilon bracket B minus psi at x equal to x equal to infinity by k t. So, we have here R t by 2 f into minus 2 epsilon B minus psi at x equal to infinity by k t. Now, we can see that this t cancels with this t ok temperature cancels out Faraday's unit f by electronic charge epsilon is Avogadro's number same way the gas constant R by Boltzmann's constant k will be Avogadro's number. So, basically f by epsilon is same as R by k which is Avogadro's number. So, all this cancels f by epsilon and R by k cancels t cancels. So, we are only left with these terms minus 2 epsilon V minus psi at x equal to infinity. So, when you apply this negative sign we find phi is equal to V right. So, we can prove for a non-puller oil or air in contact with water phi is independent of the two distribution equations B plus and B minus in contrast to the equation 13 where phi was R t by 2 epsilon B plus by B minus. But remember that this is a deliberately chosen system to force conditions that Bohr had visualized. So, there was nothing wrong in that visualization, but just that visualization does not correspond to most of the realistic systems few systems will obey. So, may be broad conclusion could be that serious scientific thought cannot be totally wrong in all context. In reality we can only measure the differences in potential. So, delta phi equal to delta V here the contribution is due to an adsorbed layer. This expectation can be actually blown out by experiments. A capacity method could be used in which an alternating current generated by a small scale amplitude vibration of a gold plate immersed in oil balanced to 0 by a potentiometer connected to the electrode in water shows that if the non aqueous phase is paraffin or air the change in phi is only due to V and change in phi does not depend on B. So, what matters is only the properties of the monolayer and not the properties of the non aqueous phase right. In tune with the expectation from the theory which has given you delta phi now only depend on dependent on delta V. The psi came concept came which is the distribution potential unequal solubilities of cationsilence. We have a system analyzed where phi is RT by 2F ln B plus by B minus right. We have chosen now an oil with which has very little solubility for cations and anions, but does not mean it is practically negligible, but there will be certain amount of ions present anyway, but they will take infinite distance to build up OC plus equal to OC minus. If we were to measure the potential at infinity it will still be psi potential at x equal to infinity. You have to understand a fine difference between the visualization and the theory. According to this theory we have a certain adsorb monolayer or spread film which has ions which have very little solubility in the bulk of oil, but given infinite extent of oil and if you were to measure the potential at infinity you could still call it a psi potential ok. So, and theoretically therefore, that RT by RT ln B plus by B minus is equitable to psi at x equal to infinity. We will see later once more that what is strictly a contact potential could be regarded as a distribution potential or the other way round. So, when we understand the physical picture better and we have an idea about the magnitudes of these entities parameters here it is possible to visualize the situations in an equivalent manner. So, experiments do reveal on 100th molar sodium chloride solution at air water or oil water surfaces. If we have this spread monolayer octa desil trimethyl ammonium ions then the expectation from this equation delta phi equal to delta v is actually confirmed and such potentials are completely stable in time. We require however a high boiling paraffin like petroleum ether that is decaying or near homologs for this to be true. We return now to the old picture if one uses instead a fairly polar oil according to our equation 18 there would be no change in potential between a system where the interface is clean or one with monolayer spread at the interface. Only if the distribution questions are changed will there be a permanent potential delta phi in full agreement with the experiment. Otherwise for the fairly polar oil the adsorbed monolayer or whatever is anchored at the interface will always distribute over time leading to contribution only corresponding to delta psi. So, now we have these two extremes appreciably polar oil will have delta phi coming only from delta psi. Highly non-polar oil will have delta phi coming only from delta v. So, that should make a comfortable understanding of the situation in theoretical terms. Now, we come to a slightly different picture about the contact potential originating from the contact potential originating from a monolayer. I did talk about water quite frequently earlier. So, you have an idea what water is like. We also talked about influence of hydrocarbons on structure of water in the vicinity of the interface. We revisit that picture. And now think of what might contribute to delta v in such a situation. In other words, if there is a measurable delta v for a hydrocarbon in contact with water or a monolayer in adsorbed condition at an interface what will constitute components of delta v. In a sense we will go first in the analytical direction, visualize what might be happening and then see what are our limitations and come back maybe to some kind of overall description. So, before we do that let us see something about water again. At clean surface of pure water, the potential psi due to free charge may be taken as 0. And as a consequence in absolute potential phi of water is only this contact potential v. And measurements by different people have led to values of v from minus 0.5 to plus 0.4 volts. And many of this researchers agree on a value between minus 0.1 and minus 0.2 volts. That is a small magnitude. We will anyway avoid the absolute potential in our discussion. This is only to give an idea for a clean surface of pure water, the phi coming from contribution of v will be small minus 0.1 to minus 0.2 volts. Now we imagine in this system a monolayer to be adsorbed at the clean water surface or it could be a thin film of hydrocarbon spread on the surface. We must realize that the kinds of molecules we are dealing with water and monolayer forming chemicals, they will have associated with them dipole moments. Remember the case that influence of hydrocarbon on water viewed in terms of entropies led to a picture that water became slightly oriented in presence of the hydrocarbon bonds leading to semi solidification state for water. The entropy change for formation of a unit surface of water influenced by hydrocarbon led to an entropy value which is in between which is below the complete solidification or that of ice. So, that picture still can be brought in here except that it gets finer. If we have a monolayer at the surface that is how or spread, it is going to create certain semi solid like state within water which means the water gets somehow structured, water HOH with its dipole moments will reorient near this interface. And when the water dipoles get reoriented near the surface, they will contribute a certain dipole which is denoted by this later mu sub 1. Secondly, this has happened because you have some kind of long chain molecule anchored at the interface. So, they must be a dipole which is caused behind the orientation of water to give rise to this dipole moment mu 1. So, if you think of something like a long chain amine, then the terminal C NH 2 groups will have their own dipole moment that those dipole moments are responsible for creating this dipole moment within water due to the reorientation of water molecules. So, that is our second entity mu 1, mu 2 coming from this terminal head group C NH 2 like in long chain amine contributing the group dipole moment mu 2. Third we are thinking of electrically neutral films here. At the terminal limit or upper limit of the monolayer, there would still be another dipole moment mu 3 associated with this C H bond. So, if you think of this long chain amine, the head group which is submerged in water is orienting water dipoles, that head group has its own dipole moment. These are respectively mu 1 and mu 2. At the top the C H bond which exists that will have a dipole moment mu 3. So, the picture will be somewhat like this. You take a long chain amine here C H 3, C H 2 and so on that backbone of carbon chains and terminal NH 2 group. This group C NH 2 group has dipole moment mu 2 that orient water molecules, they will have dipole moment mu 1 and this top end here will correspond to a third dipole mu 3. So, we recognize that conceptually delta V should have these components mu 1, mu 2, mu 3 although mu 1 is a consequence of presence of this monolayer. The extent to which ordering or reorientation will occur for water molecules will depend on this mu 2. Coupled with this fact, it is also hard to measure mu 3 sorry mu 1. Therefore, we first write what would be the theoretical contribution. Here Helmholtz formula comes handy. It gives you for n dipoles per area per centimeter square. If all these dipoles are vectorially additive in vertical direction, we will have delta V equal to terms of this type 4 pi n mu 1 plus 4 pi n mu 2 plus 4 pi n mu 3. We recognize mu 1 is hard to measure, but is the result of mu 2. So, we may want to actually combine this and it turns out that mu 3, mu 3 is a constant because these hydrocarbon chains are very common in surfactant like molecules. So, while mu 1 cannot be measured, but depends on mu 2, we may be able to combine them and mu 3 normally being a constant because in surface active molecules we have this paraffinic chains. We may say after visualizing that those will be the three principal components. We could say that we could add up mu 1, mu 2, mu 3 and say it is some kind of overall dipole movement mu D. So, delta V is now 4 pi n mu D and this should be a correct expression for contact potential delta V in terms of the observed or overall dipole moment for any electrically neutral film which only can contribute dipoles. So, if there is a monolayer that should mu 2 and mu 3 represented by a single quantity because since a molecule will have a single dipole moment, then the combined paraffinic chain plus the image should give us one dipole moment. That is what we have done mu 3 because mu 1 is induced by mu 2 and mu 2 and mu 3 can be combined together with mu 1 we get mu D. So, what we are doing is we are looking at what might be the components, but we ultimately add up all these. So, if we add them up beforehand, we would not realize that in a long chain there are these dipole moments at the top different and at the bottom different. There will be always this distribution of electrons leading to dipole moments at the terminal ends is one end which is reorienting water. So, that is dependent we combine everything in mu D now. So, if this picture is adequate it should give us some consequences. For example, I told you about the surface molecules. We should be able to see some changes in measured dipole moments depending on the state of compression of the surface and depending also on the symmetry or the molecules which are anchored the head groups which are anchored in water. So, let us see whether we can have something like that. Before we do that let me mention here that these terms like mu D whatever is the overall dipole moment for such a system it will be measured in milli device m D. And for a head group like of ethyl permeate the head group has a moment of 535 milli device experimentally calculated one from such analysis will be 525 milli device. We chosen ethyl permeate here because this would not be a very symmetric kind of head group. If compressed we might be able to alter the magnitude of the dipole moment. If it were symmetrical it should not matter because then there will be no change of orientation. So, dipoles would not be able to contribute differently. So, if the area available for such single molecule is greater than 72 angstrom square we will have a picture of this sort. If we compress it then we will get a different value. I guess we can conclude lecture this lecture today and we will take up charge monolayers next time.


Here's a Dwayne's type 2. This is characterized by a limitation or absence of a deduction of the eye with a fairly normal to normal AB ducting movement. There you can see there's a little problem there with a deduction of that left eye, but the AB ducting movement is fairly normal. For the most part, Dwayne's syndrome is a congenital disorder. There are not very many pathologic examples of Dwayne's syndromes. Few that have been reported suggest that the problem lies within the brainstem with a genesis of the abducens nucleus and nerve with the lateral rectal muscles receiving partial anomalous innervation from the third nerve, nucleus, and nerve. I would refer you to Walsh and Hoyt's new edition for a summary of the pathologic reports.