Okay, let me welcome you once again to Political Science 303. This morning we shall be talking about different models. Remember we talked about after a conceptual introduction we did talk about component procedures that there were two approaches to conceptualizing democracy. One was the procedural based approach and the other was, and the other model was the other approach was named, procedures versus outcomes, very good, procedures versus outcomes. And when we talk about the procedures we did talk about on the basis of Schmitzer and Carl's which was based on Robert Dahl's work titled Poliarchy that there were several component procedures. Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens who are acting indirectly through mechanisms or procedures of competition and cooperation of their elected representatives. So here the issue is that we have these component procedures all of which are sine qua non of the system or in the system in the sense that all of them have to coexist simultaneously. So system of governance, rulers, public realm, citizens, cooperation, competition and representatives. So these are the, I mean this is Schmitzer and Carl's discussion on an elaboration in fact of Robert Dahl's work. Mind you the fallacies, problems of majority rule, tyranny of majority, okay so remember these terms, these are very important terms, most of which I know you've covered or you've been covering in other classes. So most of this is not unknown to you, okay. So think of this piece, this bit in the course as a refresher of what we need to know for us to be able to set a level playing field and even playing field to go over the case studies, okay. So any questions from here? Everything is clear, okay. I think we've discussed this quite thoroughly. This morning what I want to do is to start with Leiphardt's article which gives us a discussion on different models of democracy. How do you structure, organize your democracy? How do you model your democracy? How do you forge your democracy? Leiphardt says there are two ways of organizing your democracy, two ways of organizing your political system, democratic political system. One is the majoritarian model and the other is the consensual model. The trick here Leiphardt says or Leiphardt warns what we know as democracy in common parlance in public debates approximates to the majoritarian model, okay. So we tend to think in terms of majoritarian models but Leiphardt says this model exists in way much less number of states or political systems than this model. Though we tend to think of this model as the rule, in fact it is quite an exception. The rule is in empirical reality. The rule is the consensus model. He sets these two models as ideal types. So these are not necessarily real world types of democracy, real world models of democracy. But he says there are some cases, some countries which approximates to these ideal typical models, okay. So once we've covered this warning, let me go over what he means by the majoritarian model. What is, how do we define majority? How does one, how do you, how would we define majority? Majority in a class of 50, 26 which is 50% plus 1. This is one type of majority which is called, does anybody remember? This is one certain type of majority, simple majority, okay. So this is called simple majority or sometimes referred to as absolute majority. But there are other majorities possible. One is plurality, which would mean that's not it. I'm talking about plurality, that's qualified majority which I shall come back to. But plurality, when we talk about plurality in a class of 50, one group gets 20. One group gets 10, one group gets 10 and the other group gets 5 and the other, the final group gets 5. The plurality model centers on the 20, okay. So the largest group, the largest majority in the majorities, okay. So in all the groups. And the final is qualified majority, which is sometimes two-thirds and sometimes three-fourths. It depends on what we qualify that particular majority. It depends on the particular qualification of majority. But once again, let's come back to Leipart's models. Leipart says, the ideal typical majoritarian model concentrates power in the hands of the majority. And it has certain features. One important, one key feature of the majoritarian model is that there is one party controlling the cabinet. So one party in the legislature, one political party in the legislature, one single party controlling the cabinet, okay. So it is this party in the legislature controls the executive. This in turn means that this party, which is representing the executive, dominates the legislature. Is that clear? So one party controls cabinet. The party having parliamentary majority controls cabinet. And this also means that the executive, i.e. the cabinet, the government dominates the legislature. It doesn't have to be this much. It doesn't have to be this kind of a majority. It may be we may have a system like this, a very staggered system. We may even have this kind of a representation depending on the political system. But in most cases, we tend to think in ideal typical terms, two political parties represented by here, forming the cabinet, members of the cabinet, and this, the executive that is, the executive arm of government, dominates the legislature, okay. Which is quite clear. So then it seems that we are talking about the majoritarian model. But there are other features. There is a unicameral legislature. What does unicameral mean? What do you remember as unicameral? There is, you have only one chamber in the parliament. Do you know any parliament which has one single chamber? The Turkish parliament has one single chamber. Do you know of any parliament that has two chambers? Britain, I hear the US. Do I hear some other country? France, Germany, okay. So we, and also Japan which we shall be talking about. So these are all two chamber parliaments. If there is one cabinet, I'm sorry, if there's one chamber in the parliament, and if this party forms the cabinet, that means this party has absolute control over the legislature because there is no other chamber. This is the, it's a unicameral system, let's assume. There's one chamber. This means that this party in a way dominates in almost absolute terms the legislature. The executive dominates the legislature. So the majority model in ideal typical terms is one that concentrates power in the hands of the majority and one majority, almost like in absolute terms. It doesn't allow any sharing or dispersing of political power. It concentrates all kinds of powers. That means there is no competing majority. There's no competing majority in the legislature. A fourth key feature is that there is a unitary and centralized government. If all of these exist, plus, if the system, if the political system is a unitary political system and it is highly centralized, then this looks like the majority model says like part. In this case the parliament or the parliamentary majority has full control of the political system. That is to say there is no federal system in which there is vertical separation of powers. There are no regions, no local governments competing against the central government. It's a unitary political system, centralized political system. That means the majority that is represented here in the parliament, which gets reflected in the cabinet, i.e. the executive, has full control of the system. This jibes with the majoritarian conception or majoritarian model that Leiphardt is talking about. A fifth feature is that there is no constitutional limit on this majority. In the sense that there should not be a constitution at all, Leiphardt says, for the ideal typical model, or that we would have a very flexible constitution, or that we may have an unwritten constitution which would not impinge upon what the majority does. So in the ideal typical majoritarian model, Leiphardt says, there are no constitutional limits on what the majority does. What the executive does, what the parliamentary majority wishes to do, please. We'll do an example. We may have, as in the British case, we do not have one single piece, one single handbook of a constitutional document. There are different texts. There are different court cases. There is customary law, all kinds of cases coming together and forming the tradition, the constitutional tradition, and based on that tradition, the state functions, okay? As the case of Britain, as we shall be talking about later. The UK. New Zealand is another example. New Zealand, yes, which is similar to the Westminster, the British model. But the ideal typical model looks like the British case. New Zealand as an offshoot of Britain is another case. So no constitutional limits or flexible limits on what the majority does. Then comes, as a sixth feature, that there are no supreme court limits in majority, which means that a court does not have or there does not exist any court that has the authority, the competence to review the constitutionality of the legislation passed by the parliament, i.e. the majority. So there is no court which has the power of saying, Fairbottom, you can't do that. I'm not allowing that. There's no supreme court or a constitutional court which says, you majority, you passed this legislation in conformity with the executive, but I'm not allowing the implementation of it. In fact, I am considering it as null and void because it is against the constitution that I represent, that I defend as a watchdog, as an instrument, as a defender of this very important text. So Leipard says, in the majority, an ideal typical system, there does not exist any court like me which says, you can't do that, guys. So it doesn't exist in the system. So judicial review of pieces of legislation does not exist in the ideal typical majoritarian model. In general, in the majoritarian model, there is also a two-party system. That's also an implicit argument that Leipard makes. So this is what the majoritarian system in ideal typical terms look like. One approximation is New Zealand which looks like this system. But once again, Leipard says this is, you know, it's a model that exists approximately in empirical reality in New Zealand. The other model, the consensus model, it's quite the opposite of the majoritarian system or the majoritarian model. Whereas the majoritarian model concentrates power in the hands of the majority, the consensual model disperses, shares, divides power in the hands of many. So think of this as a centripetal system, you know, concentrating power in the system. And think of this as a centrifugal or centrifugal system which disperses power outwards to different elements that make up governance or the political system. So there would be in ideal typical terms one single party dominating the legislature. We would have a broad coalition government and we'd have different political parties represented in the parliament. So we almost never have, especially in ideal typical models. We don't have a two-party system here. We have a multi-party system, as I shall be discussing. But most of these will be represented in the one, two, three, four, five. One, two, three, four, five. So there is a broad coalition cabinet based on the parliamentary structure, based on the parliamentary divisions. So as opposed to the two-party model, we have multi-parties. And this colorfulness, this vibrance gets reflected in the executive, in the government, in the cabinet. This means that there is a way much more balanced relationship between the executive and the legislature. That there is no executive dominance by the cabinet of the legislature. Is that clear? Okay. So far, so good. So there is no executive dominance. There is a balanced cabinet-legislature relationship. A third feature of the consensus model is that there is generally a bicameral legislature as opposed to the unicameral legislatures. As we've just talked about, the case of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in Germany, the case of the Diet in Japan, the case of the Congress in the U.S., okay? These are all examples of bicameral legislatures in which we have two different chambers. One political party may end up dominating one wing or one chamber, but in most cases it happens that the other political party, if there are only two, would dominate the other chamber. Okay? We'll do, I mean, when we discuss the case of the U.S., for example, especially you'll see what we shall be, I mean, you'll see examples of this, okay? So there are two chambers and, I mean, it's a bicameral legislature. There are, let's say, four political parties, and the elections for these chambers run at different times on different types of constituencies, and one or two parties may get represented or maybe representing the majority in the lower house, and the other parties would happen to be representing the majority in the upper house. So there would be some kind of an alternation, some kind of a difference asymmetry in terms of dominance, which means that in the bicameral legislature, it would be very rare if one single majority would be controlling the executive and also both houses of the parliament. These would be rare moments in history in the consensus model because the consensus model is geared towards producing other types of, other types of governance outcomes. So these would not exist in the consensus model unless there is an exception. In the consensus model, ideal typical cases, we generally see federal systems, highly decentralized systems, which bring a check and a balance on the central government. That is to say, regional governments, which have different powers, would be checking the power of the federal government, that there would be different levels or layers of government, that there would be multiple actors, which would mean that we would see a multi-level governance system. And in this multi-level governance system, there is no centralization of power. So vertically too, there is no power centralization. There is no unitary state. There is generally a federal state in which you see elements of decentralization. Although in the majoritarian system, there's no constitutional limits on what the majority does. In consensual systems, there are strict constitutions, rigid documents, in most cases pages and pages and pages, which really limit the powers, the privileges, the rights, and which really explains the duties, the responsibilities of different branches of government or how the state institutions are organized. So there is a rigid constitution on what all of these guys make. So the constitution really proscribes all of what they do. There are strict limits on what everyone does in the system. And in this system, there is almost always the possibility of a constitutional review. So there is a Supreme Court, a constitutional court, which may say, I'm not allowing it. I'm not playing game with you. Yes, you've passed this legislation, but even if you've passed this legislation in both chambers of your parliament, I see that it does not jibe with my text. So I ban it. I censor it. So you just can't implement this law. In fact, I consider it as non-existing. I consider it as void from the beginning, void of an issue. So I basically repeal it. It's null and void. It doesn't exist your legislation. If under certain circumstances, if you insist to pass it, there is a way. What could be the way? My constitution as is does not allow it, but you're the legislature. Both houses seem to agree on this piece of legislation, which is difficult to do. Change the constitution. So if you change the constitution, kudos. I'll be okay with it. As long as the change happens, according to the procedures that I represent, if you change the constitution, fine. So there is constitutional review, and there's a strong grip of the Supreme Court or the constitutional council or the constitutional court on both arms of the government, on the executive and by implication the legislature, the legislative branch of government. From here onwards, we talk about the political party system. In the consensus model, we talk about the, we talk about not two party systems, but mostly multiple parties existing. So we generally call this multi-party systems. So there are multiple parties. This is not a two-party system. It's quite self-explanatory. There are more than two parties competing for both houses of the parliament. But the trick is, what do these parties represent? These parties represent highly different, very different cleavages, which means that politics is divided into multiple dimensions. So the party system is multi-dimensional, which an empirical reality may mean that the party system may be divided across ethnic lines. The party system may be divided across religious lines. The party system may obviously be divided across left and right in terms of economic ideology. The party system may be divided against one another or parties may be divided against one another in terms of whether they are social liberals or social conservatives or liberals and conservatives and that and the other. So there are multiple dimensions, multiple cleavages in the system. The system may even be divided like it was the case in Italy, like the party Lega Nord, the Northern League.  We want our own party to be represented in the parliament. So even regions, so there are regional differences in the party system, which are represented as clashing competing interests. So multi-dimensional party system means that there are many cleavages represented in the system, in the party system. There are many dimensions when you go to the polls as voters, as the electorate. You think in terms of many, many, many dimensions when you're casting your vote. It's not just economic or social ways of perception, patterns of behavior, normative judgments, value judgments, this, that, and the other. But there are other considerations that the typical voter will be thinking, will be reflecting on when he or she finds herself or himself before the polls. And finally, there is proportional representation. And the polar opposite of this system would be proportional representation on the one hand and what would be the opposite system, which really concentrates power. Do you guys remember? There is proportional representation. But there is also another system called the first past the post system. Sometimes referred to as the winner takes all system. Very good. Let's see how this system works very quickly. Let me remind you how the system runs. Again, I assume that all of you or most of you are familiar with this system. So please help me. In the proportional representation system, in the PR system, party A, party B, party C, party D, party E in one district, OK? The candidate of party A, or the candidate, and let's say there are in total, this district will send, how many parliamentarians? It's a large district. Let's say this district will send 10 MPs to the national parliament, OK? In total, in this district, which is implementing the proportional representation system, will be sending, will be selecting, will be electing 10 MPs to be sent to the national parliament. Let's say this candidate or this party, I'm sorry, gets 40% of the votes. This party gets 20% of the votes. Another 20%, 10%, how many left? Very nice. OK, so how many MPs? There will be in total 10 MPs. Party A will be sending four. Party B will be sending two. Party C, party D, party E, one. Let's assume that there is a national threshold of 10%. And party F gets 9%. Party E will be sending, how many to the parliament? That there is a national threshold of 10%. Party E will be sending, how many? Party F, I'm sorry, party F will be sending the effort. So they'll be sending no MP to the parliament. So all of these will be, these 10 MPs will be represented in the parliament. It seems to be clear, right? This looks like the model that you guys are thinking through in terms of this country, how this country, you know, the electoral system in this country. That's quite clear. What if this was a first pass the post system? Or winner takes all system? There will be different parties. Winner takes all or first pass the post. Party A, party B, party C, party D, party E. The number of MPs that this district will be sending to the parliament is very good. One. So this one MP will be going to the parliament to be represented. So party A gets 40%. Party B gets 39%. 39.9%. Party C gets 10%. Party D gets 3%. Party E gets 2%. Party F, G, blah, blah, blah, other percents. What happens here, ladies and gentlemen? Party A gets the one representative and no other gets any representative or any representation in the parliament, in this district. As you can see, these are smaller districts. These are larger districts. That's quite clear, right? So this system really amasses power to the largest party. In this sense, it quite jibes with the logic of the majoritarian system. Whereas this system produces a more colorful representation, which shares, distributes, divides power to many types of majorities, to many types of dimensions, or to many types of political parties representing different dimensions. So it really jibes with the consensus model. Is that, are these clear? I'm sure you've seen this before. I mean, it's not alien to you. But just to be on the safe side, I wish to show you that there are two, which light part says, there are two types of, two models of democracy, or organizing your democracy. And some elements, some key features really cuddle together to result in a configuration, let's say the consensus model, and others really cuddle together to produce another constellation or a configuration, the consensus model. A good example of the consensus model, like part says, is the country represented by CH. Which country is this? What does CH stand for? Very good. Confederation Elvatica, official languages of Switzerland How many? We've discussed this. One is Andromache. So as you can see, different cleavages, different regions, federal system, rigid constitution, constitutional review possible. We've got the cantons. We've got a multi-party system, multi or multiple dimensional party system. There is different kinds of proportional representation a balanced cabinet, legislature, relationship, broad coalition cabinet running the country almost all the time, most of the time. So these are examples of real world approximations of these two models. And we will have to keep these models in mind, for example, the electoral system, different methods of electing parliamentarians for the parliament. In mind, when we discuss the nuts and bolts of governance and policymaking, and interest representation and participation in the cases that we shall be seeing. And finally, like part says, once again, let me hammer this out very clearly. Majority rule of the majoritarian system he really warns us is seen among many of us as the only legitimate form or model of democracy. But in the empirical world, it is not the rule. It is quite the exception. So although we tend to think about democracy in terms of the majoritarian model, we are plain wrong when we look at how social reality is organized, how political reality is organized. Because of the fact that it is the consensus model, which represents the rule, which represents the majority of countries in terms of the political system, as opposed to the majority rule, which runs in less than 10, 15 states, in total, in fact, much less than 10. In fact, he says six, and then he expands further. The majority rule, he says, provides us with a very narrow and, in many respects, an unrealistic version or definition of democracy. And in that respect, it is a misleading conception of what democracy is. So we have to be very careful when we confront majoritarian systems and when organizing your political system, lawmakers should keep these at the back of their minds. Here is my final question on this piece, on this bit, on the introductory bit part of this course. Why were these articles appearing just in 1991? Are there any coincidence? Oh, very good. I see many hands. Yes, that these articles were written in 1991. Any other ideas? Or does anybody agree with that? The Berlin Wall, collapse of communism, it's time to write new constitutions. Schmitter and Carl says, the original longer version of this essay was written at the request of the United States Agency for International Development, which is not responsible for its content, blah, blah, blah. So mind you, these were written at a time, at a critical juncture, when we observed systems collapsing and that it was time to draft new constitutions. And these guys were saying, hey, look, let's be very careful when drafting constitutions. Look at what democracy is. And always keep in mind what democracy is not. And not only that, but also, let's look at existing models of democracy. Let's examine what works and what doesn't. Any questions? Have a nice weekend.


Ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to be here in Dublin and to have the opportunity to talk to you about the French-European policy in a very specific context, because as you know, we're going to have a new president, or at least we are going to have a presidential election, and you're going to have a referendum. And obviously, both events are deeply related, at least from a Irish perspective. And it is the expression of the existence of Europe, since an event taking place in one country, France, may affect the outcome of a referendum taking place in Ireland. So if we start with the forecast, not of the weather, but the political weather in France, the chances for Mr. Hollande to win are quite good, or very good if you're optimistic. The margin was probably going to be large, because both rounds are deeply related in French elections, even if some people tend to say that they are totally non-related. So we can reasonably think that Mr. Sarkozy will be outvoted next week, and Mr. Hollande would be the next French president. So if we assume that Mr. Hollande would be elected, what are going to be the implication of his election on the French-European policy? So before answering this question in a direct way, let me just make a certain number of remarks concerning the French-European policy in general, because we cannot reasonably understand what Mr. Hollande may or do not if we do not have in mind the context in which this policy is taking place. The first element is that there is obviously a strong continuity in French-European policy since 1957, independently from political changes, which took place. Avogal opposed the Treaty of Rome, but at the end, after he came into power in 1958, implemented it. When Mitterrand entered into office in 1981, he had obviously a pro-European personal background, but he had on his side a communist who was staunchly opposed to Europe, and all his initial choices, economic and social choices, were in a sense conducted against the trend and the constraints existing in Europe. And there was a debate, an intense national debate, a political debate, which took place in 1983, where the choice was between having a kind of nationalist approach to economic problems and not taking into account the European constraints, and those who argued that it would be a political suicide, and that the future of France lies in Europe. And at the end, the choice which had been made in 1983 was definitely on a pro-European choice, which had costs for the government, but the choice had been made in favor of Europe. The period which came after this intense debate was an interesting period, because Jacques Delors, who was at that time Minister of Finance, was appointed at the Commission. And of course, the period between 1985 and 1991 was a golden period for France and for Europe, because there was this kind of trio made of Mitterrand, Kohl, and Jacques Delors. This had obviously an important implication when the Master's Treaty was submitted to a very well-known habit in Ireland, which consisted of putting the treaty in a referendum. And the Master's Treaty was, in a sense, a watershed. It was a watershed in a sense that for the first time, the European issues became strongly related with the internal political debate. So people realized for the first time that Europe was part of their everyday life.  And it was deeply connected with the internal debate. At that time, the stake was sovereignty. Do we accept a common currency? So do we accept the idea of sharing our sovereignty? And a pattern, a political pattern appeared, and which still exists in France, but not only in France, between political forces, in a sense that Europe divided both right and left. The Master's Treaty, the yes won, but very narrowly. And thanks to the commitment of Mitterrand, and obviously the left was on the side of the president, and the right was deeply divided between elites who were themselves actually divided, and the population, the rank and file. So on that time, during the Master's Treaty, you had base, roughly speaking, a no vote which came from the right, and a yes vote which came from the left. So the second time the European debate reappeared in the national context was the debate before the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty. And the Amsterdam Treaty is, of course, very interesting to analyze, because it enshrined the famous stability pact. And at that time, a debate took place in France, and there were general elections in 1997. And at that time, the left said that they would not ratify the Amsterdam Treaty if there would be no reference to growth, which is an interesting reminder for the present debate. At the end, because of the cohabitation between the president, who was actually on that time, the prime minister was Jospin, a compromise was found, and the stability pact became the growth and stability pact, which was a formal lip service paid to growth. But it was enough for the left to show to its constituency that the promise of having a growth component in the pact would be included. Amsterdam Treaty opened a nearer in which Europe became more and more important in the political debate. But the debate shift from traditional sovereignty issues, as it was in the Master's Treaty, to, I would say, the social content of Europe. And obviously all this idea of growth versus stability started in 1997. And the realignment, the political realignment following this treaty were significant in a sense that the left became to be much more skeptical or critical towards Europe. Or precisely because Europe was regarded as a kind of neoliberal adventure, which may potentially destroy the French social model. So this rising tension, which had been limited because the end of the 90s where it appeared of high growth, this tension between the European project and the French model reappeared a few years later with the debate on the constitutional treaty. With here again a referendum, which, as you know, led to the victory of the no in France and Netherlands. The constitutional treaty revealed the fracture line between elites and favored social groups on one side and lower classes on the other side with a divide within the right and within the left. So what was foreseeable 10 years ago had been clearly revealed. And the best illustration of this was that the socialist party in 2009 endorsed officially the constitutional treaty, but the majority of the electorate from the left voted against. And the no in 2005 was a no coming massively from the left. Whereas in Maastricht the no came from the right for two reasons. The first is that the debate shifted from sovereignty to social issues. So we have a French right which is not a liberal right. And who has a traditional constituency attached at least historically to national sovereignty. So which explained why it was massively against the Maastricht treaty. But of course there is another internal reason is that roughly speaking when the referendum is proposed to the French citizen by a French, a rightist government the right and to vote in favor of the treaty and support the government and the reverse is right for the left. In other words people always answer to other questions. And that obviously it's not specific to the French but to the nature of the exercise. So this however the fracture revealed in 2005 became extremely serious and was a source of concern for the left. Because it realized that its constituency its political basis was becoming more and more critical toward Europe. And that is why from 2005 onwards the left shifted toward a more critical approach vis-à-vis Europe and a more leftist approach vis-à-vis let's say social issues and a much more long opposition to neoliberalism which was regarded as the culprit of the problems in France. This picture was in a sense blurred by the rise of the far right which was from the beginning an anti-European force which was a concern for both the right and the left for the right because of course it limited the political influence of the right by definition. But also for the left because many of the argument made by the far right vis-à-vis Europe criticism against Europe were largely endorsed by the average left voter and vis-à-vis Europe with the anti-European approach I mean there are no significant differences between the criticism from the right and the criticism from the left accepted on identity issues and the criticism of the neoliberal movement in Europe is massively rejected both on the right and the left. The main difference lies in the relation to let's say immigration and identity and that is why you and you have the same pattern which had been reproduced during the first round of the French presidential elections between the front gauche with the left front which was on the left of the socialist party and the far right I mean the opposition to neoliberalism to Europe and things like that were basically the same I mean advocating a strong state with strong public services and so on but of course a difference regarding immigration and identity. Now the mainstream left from the left and the right remains committed to Europe with no significant differences no significant differences and that's bringing me back to the idea of continuity between the right and the left and the major common point to the right and the left vis-à-vis Europe is a strong endorsement for a strong Europe including at a global level Europe has a power what we call l'Europe puissance but also a desire and a common desire to limit the influence of European institutions so strong Europe with weak institutions that's defines the French traditional approach vis-à-vis vis-à-vis vis-à-vis Europe and there was no significant alteration of this and Mr. Sarkozy and was the perfect and the best advocate of this exacerbated intergovernmental approach and with the creation of the famous directoire which was called Mercosie which sidelined the European institutions and sidelined the other European countries who didn't see favorably this special relationship so which brings me to a second point which concerns the Franco-Germain relationship which is regarded as crucial by the right and the left when Mr. Sarkozy was elected in 2007 he starts saying or before his election that he will try to rebalance the Franco-German relation with the Brits for example and he used to say that we cannot carry on this policy of having Germany as our only partner and he used to say I mean are you going to spend your holidays in Germany so but it was an attempt to introduce a rupture as he called it with his predecessor so but the reality it was things worked very differently because the relationship had been in a sense reinforced but the reinforcement of the Franco-German axis or relation obviously doesn't mean that French and Germany agree and basically they disagree and they tend to more and more disagree on many issues so why do they disagree whereas they maintain this kind of directoire which had been illustrated by the famous Deauville summit the reason is that the Germans are in a position of strength and the main change which occurred during the last five years at least was a the evolution of the balance of power between France and Germany this relation is more unbalanced than previously but because of the weakening position economic position of France and the strongest position the stronger position of the German economy so both economies are not at the same I'm not on the same playing field the Germans are in a better position and employment trade growth social let's say consensus which much higher than it is in France and the position of France had been weakened so why this relation works to a certain extent on the German side the reason is simple the Germans cannot afford to be isolated in Europe they are largely isolated but without the French consent they would be totally isolated so they absolutely need the support of the French to convey a German message which is rebranded as a European message so it's a very convenient ally for Germany so Mrs. Merkel had resisted all proposals made by Mr. Sarkozy on many fronts but may a certain number of concessions including in the fiscal pact in regard to the court of justice and the automaticity of sanctions even the non-conventional measures monetary of monetary policy conducted by the ECB where the result the partial result at least of a strong French lobbying so the reason why the Germans are I mean still believe and still want to have this core alliance is related to the desire of not being isolated but there is on the French side the alliance with Germany is very useful because it helps France to be at the core of Europe okay so the core of the decision-making process and the Mercosie is the expression of that so we are the core we are the center of the game without being in a position to be equals or in other words we are equalizing our political influence in this direct or in spite of a weakened economic position and that is a traditional French pattern aiming at using political creativity to compensate economic weakness in our relationship with the Germans but there is a paradox in the evolution of the couple because the Germans actually under Miss Merkel became closer much closer to the French on a fundamental point which is into governmentals traditionally the division between the French and the German was that the French were and I mean into governmental and the Germans were federalist but it's no more the case and if you read the famous speech given by Miss Merkel in in Bruges it reveals what she called the union method which is different from the community method and which is actually the endorsement of an intergovernmental approach so the Germans and that is a paradox are becoming more and more on the French line not because they are following the French or they are influenced by the French but because they are realizing that in a sense they are more isolated they were to maintain their position of strength and that a intergovernmental approach is the best way to enhance their position and the management of the crisis was for the Germans in a sense a good I mean they have they can be satisfied from their point of view with the the way they carried their own interest and their own messages through the Franco-German relationship now what Mr. Hollande may change or not and doubtedly I mean there's no doubt that Mr. Hollande will remain strongly attached to a strong Franco-German relationship it is part of the French DNA since 1957 and there is no reasonable alternative to that for France in in Europe but obviously the fiscal compact has in a sense created a new situation because Mr. Hollande said that he will renegotiate the fiscal compact because the growth component is terribly missing and that austerity is obviously not sufficient to bring a sustainable solution to overcome the European crisis and obviously Mr. Hollande is having in mind to take advantage of the election to say to Ms. Merkel that I am invested with a new political legitimacy that you need to take into account Mr. Sarkozy was a lame duck so is no more influence and the second factor which is playing in his favor is the European context because obviously all other leaders in Europe independently from the political inclination are waiting for a French signal to increase the pressure on Germany in order to rebalance the fiscal compact because politically it seems that this approach is not sustainable and what we saw recently in Holland not Hollande but in Holland shows that there is a problem there is a political problem of social acceptability so how to maintain a fiscal compact or to reconcile fiscal compact with growth so the first thing and I would like to insist on that I mean Mr. Hollande is definitely supporting the content of the fiscal pact so the fiscal discipline is not put into question so that is a fundamental point so even when Mr. Hollande talked about renegotiating the treaty I mean it doesn't mean that he's not supporting the fiscal compact as such I mean I'm not sure that he will be able to renegotiate the treaty because it would open a Pandora box and the Germans are strongly opposed but I mean political creativity is without borders and there are different ways of dealing with the issues without renegotiating formally the treaty so in this perspective Francois Hollande made four proposals the first is the creation of project bonds which are not euro bonds and this is of course important he dropped two initial proposition he made in his program which are the most difficult proposals for the Germans and which are basically unacceptable at least for the moment for the Germans one was the creation of euro bonds and the second was the transformation of the ESM into a bank which could apply for loans at the ECB so he dropped those two propositions and made four proposals the first is project bonds which aims at raising money in Europe for financing projects the second aims at recapitalizing the European Bank of Investment for the same purpose the third is the use of undisputed funds in Europe structural funds and the fourth is a tax on fiscal transactions if you look at those four proposals I mean they are reasonable in a sense that they are already on the European table so none of those proposals is original but the fact that they are they have been floated in Europe increase the chance for Mr Hollande to get something so it's not a radical change and none of those four propositions are a non-starter for the Germans the use of undisputed funds is had been proposed even by the the commission the tax on fiscal transaction is supported by the commission but of course the repetition of the gains varies according to the different proposals the recapitalization of the Bank of Investment is not a source of concern and the project bonds appears like a second best compared to the Euro Euro bonds Mr Hollande got recently the support of the governor of the European Central Bank who referred specifically to a growth pact but Mr Merkel yesterday who probably understood the political dynamic which was taking place in Europe with the French election reaffirmed that there was no position between austerity or and growth and that she endorsed the idea of a growth pact the problem of course is the meaning and the content of the growth pact and here you have obviously different perspectives on the growth pact for Mr Hollande at least at this stage at the political stage in which he is now the growth pact is regarded or assimilated to a stimulus package to the different proposal he made in the German mind or even in Mr Draghi's mind a growth pact means something different which doesn't mean that it excludes those proposals but it contains some much more sensitive issues such as reform labor in European countries reduction of the perimeter of the state in the case of France which is an important issue and even if Mr Hollande is obviously supported by other Europeans including Mr Monti but Mr Monti is conducting a policy in Italy aiming at both stimulating the economy and reforming the country he has decided to put an end in Italy to the perfectures which had been instituted by Napoleon when he occupied Italy so that is for example something which could be done in France quite easily but politically very difficult to to reach so as a clever politician Mr Hollande is is perfectly aware of those differences and he explicitly in his press conference refers to the different definitions of a growth pact but obviously he will concentrate on the stimulus dimension and we may expect a hope that once this achieved he moved toward internal reform which are obviously indispensable for a full recovery in France so I guess that I can stop here thank you very much


Appalachian Wireless has a plan to make your life simpler. It's called forward pay. No contract, no credit check, no problem. Plans start at $19.99 a month and include unlimited talk and text or ticket to the max with unlimited data plus for only $89.99, which has 50 gig of high-speed data because we are you. We are Appalachian Wireless. Kentucky House of Representatives welcomed John Blanton as the newly appointed state representative for District 92. A special legislative session was held where flood relief efforts were discussed. Well, the special session came in and I was very honored to be able to carry the legislation that put $212 million into our East Kentucky flooding situation that we have here in Eastern Kentucky. So I think it was a very successful special session. It was a special session where we went in and everyone was in agreement with trying to help us here in Eastern Kentucky during this time. And so I think it was a tremendously successful special session that we're still reaping the benefits from. Many in the region are continuing to struggle to get back on their feet following the flooding in 2022. For Representative Blanton, flood relief is a top priority. So obviously continuing to work on the flooding is our number one priority and getting some funding for that housing, even though this is not a budgetary year that we open the budget up to provide monies for that. But also I've been working on a rural jobs legislation and hopeful that that will help to bring investments in the Eastern Kentucky to create jobs and bring industry in here. So that's my top priorities in this session. As 2023 progresses, Blanton looks to make the push for flood relief efforts that so many people still desperately need. For Mountain Top News, I'm Kelsey Dean.


Hi, everyone. I'm really excited to be here today. My name is Jimmy McDermott. Excited to be talking about log analytics and how much chaos search has helped us scale our data lake. So just by way of background for TranZio, our overarching mission is to eliminate the pencil and paper gaps in educational systems. And what that looks like in reality is storing a lot of data for school districts, because everything that's on paper right now can be converted to some kind of electronic digital process. Now we're part of a new ed tech product category that's been emerging over the last few years called readiness solutions. We pulled together all of these disparate data points that schools are housing on students and show it to students in a really consumable and digestible way for them to understand how close am I to graduation? What am I falling off track by picking a particular class or what have you? And so by doing that, you can just kind of start to grasp the sheer amount of data that we're pulling in per student per district across the country at scale and why logging started to become really, really critical for us. When it comes to just the logs themselves, it's actually pretty simple, but the infrastructure and the requirements around it are not simple. We have one big monolithic service, but we've got many different types of logging outputs. So things that are coming from our database driver, things that are coming directly from our application layer, our networking layer, and all of those are coming into currently kind of a central repository. We offer retention for data and for logs up to our longest customer's requirement. So our longest customer's data requirement right now is holding on to data seven years post-graduation. Before chaos search, we had kind of this mismanaged way of bringing all these different items together. It was truly a mess. We were really kind of at our wits end looking for a solution that was going to actually bring all this stuff together. We did consider spinning up a self-managed elk stack. It really struggles at scale with that retention and that historical data. It's fine for spinning something up to analyze really hot data that's hot for like a day and then it needs to get flushed out of that system so that it can stay hot and stay cost effective because standing up those stacks yourself is something that was just going to break the bank for us. So we were truly lost looking for the right solution. And then, perhaps most importantly, in a sense, it couldn't break the bank. Chaos search met all of those needs and then more. We stream our logs directly from our Kubernetes infrastructure right into our S3 buckets, which is amazing, by the way, because when we were setting up our new DevOps environment, we had engineers basically saying, like, why would we do that? Why not just ship it to this? Why go to the extra effort of setting up a Fluent D connector to move things into S3? And they're all sold now. It didn't take long for them to really see the value of why we were doing that. And then the cool thing is that we don't really have to worry about those retention policies being managed by us anymore because S3 has all of that built in. Our developers can actually iterate faster now because they're able to access real life production logs around certain features and around certain capabilities that they previously couldn't. And so they can actually make decisions about new architecture components or refactoring that are backed up by data. And that's really at the core of everything we're doing. On a super tangible level, we actually some recent technical diligence that we had went way faster because we own our logs. Usually that's not something that EdTech companies are really thinking about. And so making this move actually led to a faster turnaround time for us on that tech diligence, which was really exciting for the cost savings that you get for a solution like Chaos Search. And then the fact that you layer on those enterprise type of features like RBAC and SSO and these other things that are part of the platform that with a different company, you would pay ridiculous amounts of money for. That's incredibly appealing for a company that is dealing with intense data security and data governance requirements, but also not a super big company. We can't afford enterprise contracts. So this is exactly right. And it's exactly one of the reasons that we were so drawn to Chaos Search.


Hello and welcome everyone. It's Eva from Bohemian Crafting and I'm here today with another day of the 100 days challenge. Again I'm gonna be using newspapers and again we're gonna create something from newspapers. It is totally inspired by 7 plus a challenge but I know many many other beautiful channels are joining this challenge. Day 4 Margaret created a book page journal card with a pocket. So here I'm gonna be cheating a little bit. I'm gonna use as my base envelope. And I'm gonna create using newspapers some collage on my envelope. Here I'm gonna reinforce the envelope. So I'm gonna glue few parts of the envelope permanently. So my pocket will be actual envelope pocket. And to make it a little bit stronger as a card, as a journaling card. I think this I will have as a pocket. I will have journaling card here with the window around. So to make it stronger as a card I'm gonna grab some old envelope. So from this envelope I'm gonna cut the piece which I can fit inside. So I do have card cut it in the size which I can fit inside. I'm gonna slide it there. I'm gonna take my embossing tool and with that embossing tool I'm gonna trace the shape of this window to that card. Just make sure I know where to do some decoration. Now I can take it off or not. And here I can see the shape and I can do some stamping or stenciling or maybe watercoloring. I'm not watercoloring person. I have no skills at all. So I'm gonna pretend. I'm gonna alter it. I'm gonna alter watercoloring to my skills somehow which are not too big. So first what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna do collage here and collage here on this card from newspapers. I do have prepared pieces of newspapers here. And because I know that I would like to do watercoloring on my project I need to use now glue which is water resistant. Like if I will use this glue stick I know once it's wet again it starts to melt. So I don't want to use this glue stick. I need to use some glue which will stay dry or stay kind of like water resistant when I will do my coloring. For that I'm gonna take Mod Podge and use Mod Podge to glue all my pieces as collage on here and here. So I do have my both pieces covered with book pages. It's already dry. And I can start to do some watercoloring because it's newspaper. To make sure that it will take watercolors the way I want to stay on newspapers. I need to do first layer with some kind of mixed medium. Some acrylic medium or something. I do have here Gesso. So I do have white Gesso or clear Gesso. And I'm thinking I'm gonna be using clear Gesso because I want to actually see the newspapers on my project. If I will use white Gesso it may not be too much visible. Although if I will use the roller to add the white Gesso on my papers that way I can spread it evenly to very thin coat. So newspapers will be kind of like behind the scene semi-transplant. So I do have here this foam roller. And I'm gonna use white Gesso on the envelope and clear Gesso on the cart which I will glue inside later.  So the white Gesso I'm gonna use here on the envelope. And with this I believe I can somehow spread it evenly. And I will don't have there brushes strokes. It does have wrinkles just because I glued that newspaper paper. So it does have wrinkles but the white Gesso it's evenly coated. I'm gonna wash my foam thingy. And on the cart I'm gonna be using this clear Gesso. I'm gonna put just a little bit here. Take it on my roller and apply it. Now I'm gonna let dry both of these. They do look quite similar do they? And meanwhile my envelope and the cart are drying. I'm gonna prepare myself for watercoloring. Because I don't have a painting palette I'm gonna create one. I do have here this empty egg tray. So what I'm gonna do I'm gonna cut it on two pieces. And yeah I think it will sit nicely. I don't want to have it flimsy. So I'm gonna be using hot glue gun and glue it all together. So I do have here my gun. And I'm gonna just put a little bit of that hot glue on the side. And we'll see what will happen if it melt the piece or if it will stay. I do believe it's very strong now. And I've got here this envelope. And I'm gonna be using that to create bottom and sides I guess. And now I do have my little shining palette for my colors. And I can start to watercoloring. Well that's my lighting palette right here. I already mixed up some watercolor washes. I think it's called washes that wash technique. I do have here water. The colors I used to make this mix. And I'm gonna doodle a little bit on both of these. I do have here Arteza roller ball pen. It's perfect when you want to do some doodling. This pen gives you beautiful fine line. And it works really well. So I'm gonna do just some simple doodling. And I think it's perfect relaxing art. Even if you don't know watercoloring just go to try it with the doodling. It's something so perfect I have to say. Some doodling here. And maybe here. So I think I'm gonna leave it like this. I'm gonna grab my watercolor washers. I still have no idea how it's called. Put a little bit of watercolor. Oh water. Not watercolor. Water. Around. Start to apply there some colors. So if you are not skilled like I'm not skilled. These easy applying some colors is very enjoyable. I have to say. So I think I'm gonna speed up this process. Because for me it will take a time. I do have my bases and I really like that. I like these colors so much. I'm not gonna do any watercoloring. Like I'm not gonna do more of watercoloring at all. I was thinking I've got here these beautiful stickers. So maybe I can use these and some of these mini labels. I do have them on Buy Me a Coffee. So I'm gonna put link down below. These I do have on my Etsy. And I was thinking I'm gonna do something.  So I cut out few images from my sheet with labels and I'm thinking somehow like this, not sure yet. But what I would like to do, I do have here this poster pen. And with that poster pen I'm gonna add white splatters. I'm not gonna add anything else. I think that is enough. And now close look what I have created today. I do have here my super shining palette with the create. Sign here at the front. I have to say I love it so much. I do love all these spaces where I can actually mix the colors together. I somehow forget I can do that. So if I will put all these three in another, you know, bow, I can mix these colors here, not on my table. And do not mess up with my hand next time. You will have to think about that, but I do love that. And these are my envelope. I also used same distress ink I used on this side to distress a little bit the edges and around the window. So this is my envelope and my watercoloring and little layout. I did enjoy it so much. This is probably as much as I can do with watercolors. Some kind of splatters and kind of like abstract art. And this is my tag, which I thought I'm going to glue inside, but then I realized that I don't want to glue it in there. I want to try even more that watercoloring. So this is my trying and it looks quite cool together. And it looks like this from opposite side. So I'm very happy with the result. So this is my sharing for today. I hope you enjoyed it and I hope you found some inspiration. Maybe if you are missing your palette for painting, maybe you can do something like this. It's quite good. It does have nice size of the bows here. So it's quite good. And maybe you didn't try watercolors and you want to try it. So I think abstract art is the best one. And do the link and cover any kind of what you think it needs to be covered. You know, just play with it and enjoy it. Thank you so much for spending your time with me and visiting me today. I appreciate that very much. All links will be in the description box below. I wish you all a beautiful day. Take care of yourself and I will see you soon. Bye.


Welcome to lecture number 4 of module 1 of advanced geotechnical engineering. In the previous lecture we have discussed about the particle arrangement and grain shapes and their impacts. In this lecture we are going to discuss about clay mineralogy and clay water interaction. In principle clay mineralogy I about the clay minerals prevalent in soils and clay particle water interaction. As we discussed in the previous lectures if you look into it, in this slide a typical silty sand in dry heap which is shown on the left hand side figure. On the right hand side a 500 times magnified SEM photograph which actually shows coarse sand particles and some fine silt particles. So this allows us to look into the different particle arrangements with respect to the SEM as concerned. So coming to today's discussion particularly clay mineralogy and clay water interaction. So we actually have discussed that the soils when they disintegrate they get into different shapes and sizes. They are classified based on the soil types as cobbles and boulders which size is actually more than 75 mm, gravels size is greater than 4.75 less than 75 mm, anything which is actually more than 19 mm is treated as cobble or boulder in principle. But between 4.75 mm to 19 mm is treated as the bulk size particles or the gravel particles and sand which is actually greater than 75 micron or 0.075 mm to 4.75 mm that is actually treated as sands and silt size greater than 2 micron to less than 75 micron. And clays which are actually fine particles we have introduced and we have told that particle diameter is less than 2 micron that is the clay particle can be as small as 0.002 mm. So most of the coarse particles are approximately equidimensional and most of those in clay size are far from the equidimensional. So most of the coarser particles are approximately equidimensional that is what we have discussed and most of those in clay size are from equidimensional. So we are going to discuss about what type of shapes these particles have and what type of minerals they consist and why the clays behave in this particular manner. Before discussing or introducing clay water interaction or clay mineralogy let us introduce to a particular term called specific surface area SSA. The smaller a particle size the larger its surface specific surface. In this slide if you consider an equivalent shape of a particle let us assume that you have got a particle of size say d units and which is cube in dimensions. So assume a soil with an equivalent shape of a particle as a cube in a total volume of 1 centimeter cube. So if length of the cube side is say 1 centimeter then we knew that the total surface area is 6 centimeter square and surface area per volume is 6. Similarly if you reduce this particle size cut into very very small cubes let us say that we consider 1 micro meter that is 10 to the power of minus 4 centimeters. In that case if you look into the total surface area works out to be 6 into 10 to the power of minus 4 centimeter square and surface area per volume is 6 into 10 to the power of 4. If you cut further is something like 1 nanometer is equal to 10 to the power of minus 7 centimeters the total surface area works out to be 6 into 10 to the power of 7 centimeter square. So this works out to be surface area per volume is 6 into 10 to the power of 7 centimeter to the power of minus 1 that means that if you observe here length of the side is decreased then the surface area is actually increasing. So in the previous slide we have observed that the surface area as the surface area we can see that the surface area goes up directly as the particle size or the cube size goes down that means that the number of particles in a given volume are increasing. So we can define with this background the SSA as SSA is defined as a total surface area of individual grain per dry mass of the grains. So SSA is nothing but surface area divided by volume into rho, rho is nothing but the mass density of the particular soil. So surface area if you indicate d is the size then 6d square divided by volume of that particular cube let us say that d is the size d cube into rho. That means that specific surface area gets simplified to 6 by rho d that units works out to be either meter square per gram or centimeter square per gram. So if you observe here the specific surface area is inversely proposed to the particle size that means that larger particles have low specific surface area and finer particles have higher specific surface area. So the observation is that the specific surface area is defined as the total surface of individual grains per dry mass of the grains and SSA is inversely proportional to the particle size. Now the property of the very fine soil fractions the most important grain property of fine drained soil materials is the mineralogical composition that we have been discussing and if the soil particles are less than about 2 micron the influence of force of gravity of each particles is insignificant. So we have discussed in the previous class that if the particles are less than 2 microns the influence of the force of gravity in each particle actually is insignificant or diminishes compared to that of the surface edges. That means that the surface charges dominate the finer particles. So the colloid particles of soil consist primarily of clay minerals the colloidal state is nothing but the domination of the surface charges. So what is a mineral a mineral is a naturally occurring chemical element or a compound formed by a geological process. Once the rocks disintegrate they possess certain minerals and they transfer that mineral property to the soil from which actually it has been generated. The classification of minerals based on the nature and arrangement of atoms carbonates the typically carbonates, phosphates, oxides, hydroxides and silicates. Carbonates some soils they do consist of carbonates calcite and dolomite basically used to make cement, phosphates mixing for petalizers and hydroxides sheets in clay minerals and silicates most abundant and more than 90% soils consist of this silicate minerals. So silicates present in more than 90% of soils. So minerals are classified based on the nature and arrangement of the atoms as carbonates, phosphates, oxides and hydroxides and silicates. Most abundant and most prevalent mineral is silicate. So what is this silicate? Silicates are nothing but groups of minerals with a structural unit called the silica tetrahedral. So in this case you have seen one silicon and the four oxygen anions. So the central silica cation is surrounded by four oxygen anions and one of each corner of the tetrahedral. So Si plus 4 and O4 minus 8 with that the net negative charge is minus 4 and this cannot exist alone in the sense that the net charge is actually neutral. So it tries to net charge is not neutral and it actually has got a net negative charge of minus 4. So it tries to combine with other minerals. So this primary valence bonding which is prevalent here and here the plan view of the arrangement of the oxygen anions and the silicon cation which is actually shown and this is the expanded side view. So silicates are a group of minerals with a structural unit called silica tetrahedral. A central silica cation is surrounded by four oxygen anions, one of each corner of the tetrahedral. So net negative charge is minus 4 and they cannot exist alone. So because of this they form tetrahedrons units link up in hexagonal pattern and form tetrahedral layer. So combining silicon oxygen tetrahedron gives silicate sheet. So if you have several silicon oxygen tetrahedrons and it forms silicate sheet and even with the formation of silicate sheet still it is not neutral and continues to form octahedral sheets. So tetrahedron units linked up in hexagonal pattern and form tetrahedral layer. So tetrahedral layer is nothing but represented by a silicate sheet. So the silicate sheet is actually represented as in this particular shape which is actually shown here. So combining silicon and oxygen tetrahedron gives this silicate sheet. So the silicate frameworks and composition of granular materials if you look into is tetrahedral form 3D array so that all oxygen are shared and one Si per 2 oxygen anions. Very resistant to weathering and it form it actually has large particles. And here some typical minerals are shown here quartz, K feldspar, plegeoclase and calcite dolomite and muscovite. So if you look into here the order which is actually shown here indicates the relative abundance in the sand. That means that the quartz is actually most abundantly available in the sand then followed by feldspar and plegeoclase, calcite, dolomite and then followed by muscovite. So tetrahedral form the 3D array so that all oxygen are actually shared and one silica per 2 oxygen and they are very resistant to weathering and have tendency to have large particles. The other fundamental unit we have discussed about the silicate sheet. Now in order to discuss the other fundamental unit that is actually called octahedron. Here there are two here in this particular slide an expanded side view which is actually shown here where you have got adroxiles at each corner and either aluminium or magnesium cation which is actually shown here. So here this shows aluminium octahedron wherein you have 3 hydroxiles with minus 3 in A2 charge, one aluminium with plus 3 and 3 OH that is with minus 3 valence here. So if you have a central cation which is aluminium then that is called aluminium octahedron. If you have a central cation magnesium then it is called magnesium octahedron. So in this slide a fundamental unit of octahedron is introduced wherein we have aluminium octahedron or magnesium octahedron. When you link up these several octahedron layers then it forms a octahedron layer. If the anions of octahedral sheet or hydroxiles and 67% of the cation positions are filled with aluminium then it is called gipsite. So it is indicated as a rectangular sheet which is actually known as gipsite. Combining aluminium oxygen tetrahedron gives gipsite, if you happen to find or you have combining magnesium oxygen tetrahedron then it gives a mineral called brusite. So combining aluminium oxygen tetrahedron that is called a gipsite and combining magnesium oxygen tetrahedron gives brusite. So the clay minerals when silicates or hydroxide hydroxides that is gipsite sheets are combined with the help of primary valency bond to form a layer and how these layers are glued to form particles and they form different clay minerals. Chemical weathering results in the formation of groups of crystalline particles of colloidal size less than 2 microns they are basically defined as clay minerals and these clay minerals are formed when you have silica and silicate and gipsite sheets are glued to form a layer and these are actually resulting into the different clay minerals. And these sheets are bonded primarily by predominantly by three different types of bonds they are actually primary valence that is covalent, ionic and metallic very strong which has actually has a capacity of 15 to 100 kilocalories per molecule and then it is followed by hydrogen bonding which is intermediate in nature and which actually has got 4 to 5 kilocalories per mole for H2O and hydrogen cation fluctuates between O2O-2 and then followed by a van der Waals is relatively weak bonding where which is the strength is 1 by 10th of the hydrogen bond. So these silicate sheets and gipsite sheets are connected either by two sheets or three sheets and they are connected by three bonds predominantly they are primary valence bond which is actually consists of covalent, ionic and metallic and very strong bond and which actually has got a strength of 15 to 100 kilocalories per molecule followed by hydrogen bonding which is intermediate in nature and which is actually relatively weak compared to primary valence but it has actually got an energy of 4 to 5 kilocalories per molecule for water and then van der Waals bonding which is one-tenth of the hydrogen bonding as far as the strength is concerned. So the three basic clay minerals are kaolinite basically these minerals are found in sedimentary and residual soils and then illite which is actually found in stiff clay and shales as well as postglacial marine and liquid stream soft clay and silk deposits. So this illite can actually occur in some marine environment and it is common in the stiff clays and shales as well as in the postglacial marine and liquid stream soft clay and silk deposits. Montevallite dominant clay mineral in some clays and shales in some residual soils derived from the volcanic ash. So the other minerals are helosite, chloride, atopulgite, allopane. So there are some other minerals also but we discuss primarily in this lecture about the kaolinite, illite and matrimonite. Here in this particular slide what you see is a kaolinite, its scientific formula is nothing but Al4, Si4, O10 and OH8. Basically repeating layers of one silicate sheet and one gipset sheet or alumina sheet. So it actually has got repeating layers of one silica tetrahedron that is the silicate sheet and alumina. So when they are glued, when they are formed, when they are actually attached with the bonding then it forms actually alumina sheet and silicate sheet will get attached. So the structure of the kaolinite particle is actually written with several layers like this. And this is actually about 7.2 angstrom thickness, one angstrom is equal to 10 to power of minus 10 meters is equal to 0.1 nanometers. So when the kaolinite layers join to form the kaolinite particle, so here the strong glue between the layers hydrogen bonding and van der Waals produce large hexagonal platey shaped particles which is actually typically shown here in this particular slide. This is a platey shaped particle. So one of the common clay mineral which we have discussed is kaolinite basically which actually has got repeating layers of silicate sheet, one silicate sheet and one gipset sheet and which is about 7.2 angstrom thickness and the strong glue between the layers which actually there is a strong bonding is prevalent between the high that is nothing but hydrogen bonding and van der Waals produce, van der Waals bonding produce large hexagonal platey shaped particles. The kaolinite particle if you look into the length and thickness if this is the length dimension and if the thickness dimension formed by typically 7 to 100 elementary layers, the ratio of thickness to length is about 1 by 10 that means that the thickness to length ratio is about 1 by 10. A kaolinite crystal or particle then consists of a stack of several layers of the basic 7.2 angstrom meter thick layers. Or the kaolinite crystal or particle consists of a stack of several layers of basic 7.2 angstrom thick layers. So this forms a strong hydrogen bonds between the hydroxyls of gipset sheet and oxygens of the silicate sheet and little tendency to the interlayers and allow water and to swell. So these particular characteristics of this mineral is that there is a little tendency to allow water and then so there is a little possibility to swelling of a soil which consists of this mineral. So the thickness to length ratio is about 1 by 10. Here in this a photomicrograph of kaolinite is shown, the scanning electron microphotograph of the kaolinite is shown as can be seen here, a cluster of the plates they resembling a pages of a book which actually is the analogous example for the kaolinite particle. Montamelite is another mineral where you have got this is basically a 2 is to 1 clay mineral is called a 3 sheet mineral and is also known as a smactite and is 2 is to 1 clay mineral. So here we have 1 gipset sheet and 2 silicate sheets and they are separated by a several water layers. So we have a structure which is actually formed by 2 silicate sheets and 1 gipset sheet or 1 alumina sheet or 2 silicate sheets forms a structure like this and which are actually strongly attached and the montamelite actually has got several layers of such type of this thing and they have a tendency to actually keep the availability of the water up to 400 angstroms thick of water that means that between each inter layers between each inter layer they can actually keep or have a tendency to store up to 400 angstroms thickness. This indicates that this is actually due to weak bonding due to the weak van der Waals forces we have discussed that because of the weak bonding due to weak nature of the van der Waals forces the weak bonding is prevalent. So the spacing between silicate sheet and gipset and silicate sheet depends upon the amount of water available to occupy the space. So in case of availability of the water there is a tendency for the water to enter in between these inter layers. So montamelite is nothing but a 2 is to 1 clay mineral which actually has got 2 sheets of silicate and 1 gipset sheet separated by the possibility of can have a several water layers. So pure seams of montamelite one of the examples is winomic bentonite. So here a typical structure of the montamelite elementary layer is shown wherein you have actually got silicate sheet and silicate sheet attached actually between by using this gipset sheet. So you have got 2 silicate sheets and 1 gipset sheet. In between there is a possibility of lot of water molecules to enter. So that is here at this junction at this surface and at this surface it can actually have what several inter layers of water. So here this particular slide shows the photo micrograph of the montamelite. Among clay minerals sodium montamelite has the smallest and filmy particles. So what you can see is a gel type of tendency. So which actually shows that among the clay minerals sodium based montamelite that means that the montamelite which actually has got sodium ion has the smallest and filmy particles. If it is shown here the length ratio that is 1000 to 5000 angstroms the thickness is 10 to 50 angstroms. So if you look this one the T by L ratio is about 1 by 100. That means that the T by L is 1 by 100 for montamelite. Another mineral which is illite which is also called as hydrous mica which actually has got repeated layers of gipset sheet sandwiched between 2 silicate sheets. It is similar to montamelite except that the adjacent silicate layers are bonded with potassium ions instead of water. So this presence of potassium ions actually bonds these 2 silicate sheets strongly. So these potassium ions which are actually shown and this is particularly nothing but 2 is to 1 clay mineral which is nothing but very similar to montamelite. But the adjacent silicate sheets are actually bonded by with the help of potassium ions with a strong bond. In case of montamelite adjacent silicate sheets have a possibility to have several layers of water that is water molecules can be stored. And the T by L the thickness to length ratio is about 1 by 30. So potassium bond bond the 2 negative surfaces of the silicate layers. So the potassium ion bonds the 2 negative surface of the silicate sheets. So this ensures that if you look the swelling tendency montamelite swells higher and if you compare illite it is followed by illite and then the swelling tendency of the kaolinite will be much more low. Now having discussed about the 3 minerals then if you discuss along with the kaolinite then we can actually also link with whatever we have defined the specific surface area. We also discussed that the specific surface area is inversely proportional to the particle size. Now here according to Lambien-Wittman 1969 the kaolinite actually has got specific surface area of 0.03 meter square per gram and the percentage water absorbed is 1.5 into 10 to the power of minus 4 kaolinite 0.5 percent illite 5 percent and montamelite 50 percent. So the percentage water absorbed absorbed can be calculated as follows for say for example for kaolinite which is nothing but specific surface area into thickness of the layer of water into rho w the mass density of water. So here specific surface area of kaolinite is 10 meter square per gram into 5 into 10 to the power of minus 10 meter that is the thickness of the layer of the water and into 10 to the power of 6 gram per meter cube which is nothing but 5 into 10 to the power of minus 3 or 0.5 percent. So here one thing can be observed is that the kaolinite as we go towards quartzite, kaolinite, illite and montamelite the specific surface area is increasing and percentage water absorbing tendency is also increasing. Now the specific surface area the water absorption is a function of the specific surface area and the specific surface area is a function of the particle size. So a specific surface area of montamelite is 100 times that of kaolinite. If you look into this the specific surface area of montamelite 100 times that of the kaolinite. So this can be visualized when one realizes that 6 grams of montamelite has approximately has a surface area of an entire football field. So a specific surface area of 25 meter square per gram has also been suggested as the lower limit for the colloidal range. So if you take a 6 grams of montamelite its surface area is equivalent to the that of a football field. So the specific surface area of the montamelite is 100 times that of the kaolinite. So if you look these grain size and specific surface area as the grain size decreases the specific surface of the soil which is simply the total surface of the individual grains per dry mass of the grains increases exponentially. So if you compare here in this slide the quartzite, kaolinite and montamelite pictures are shown, micrographs are shown. So in this direction with an increase in specific surface area there is actually decrease in the particle size. So here this is prevalent in sandy type of soils, this is in certain type of clay soils and then this is actually nothing but in montamelite type of soil. So comparison of the size, shape and surface area of several clay particles if you look into it as we discuss kaolinite it can have a specific surface area in the range from 10 to 15 meter square per gram and then you have chloride and clay mica montamelite which actually has got the tendency of 60 and 80 and 800 meter square per gram. So clay particles are plate shaped particles which is evident from the discussion here and the layer lattice structure results in a strong bonding along the two axis but weak bonding between the layers and variation specific surface attributed to different thickness of the plate shaped particles. So the specific surface area is actually varying drastically because of the decrease in thickness of the plate shaped particles. Now having discussed about the clay minerals present in soil, typical minerals present in soils now let us discuss that clay and water interaction. Now we have discussed that the clay particle surface which is actually nothing but a natively charged surface. So the water which is actually dipole in nature has actually has got positive which is indeed as a dipole nature. Water though neutral has its oxygen and hydrogen atoms based in such a manner that the center of gravity of the positive and negative electric charges do not coincide hence water molecule is said as dipolar. And molecule of water is like a bar magnet with the positive and negative charges at the opposite ends. So the molecule of water is analogous to the bar magnet where positive and negative charges at the opposite ends. So here which is actually shown a typical dipole nature model of water molecule where you have got two hydrogen cations and one oxygen anion and which is actually with the distance of 1.4 angstroms between hydrogen and oxygen 0.97 angstroms and this polar representation of the water molecule is indicated as a typical bar magnet. So clear particles have a net negative charge on the both the edges and is a tendency that on the edges they can have the positive charges or when the particles break then they have a tendency of having also at particular breakage points they have a tendency of having the positive charges. So the reasons for this charge accumulation is one is because of the isomorphous substitution which actually takes place. One I said another one is that the breakage of particles and dissociation this association of hydroxyl OH- radicals. So the reason for having clay negative charge is that one predominant reason is that isomorphous substitution then second one is the breakage of particles and the dissociation of the hydroxyl radicals. The process or the isomorphous substitution it is nothing but replacement of a cation in the mineral structure by another cation of lower valence but of the same physical size. So the isomorphous substitution is nothing but replacement of a cation in the mineral structure by another cation of lower valence but of the same physical size. So this may lead to different clay minerals with different physical properties because of this isomorphous substitution there is a tendency to form different clay minerals with different physical properties. So consider for example replacement of silicon that is plus 4 valence ion in a tetrahedral unit by aluminum plus 3 ion which could happen when aluminum ions are more abundantly available in water. When aluminum cations are more abundantly available then this process of this isomorphous substitution can take place. Because of this the typical clay particle which is actually shown here has a negative surfaces on these edges and some positive on these along these surfaces and along this at the breakage points the positive charges are actually shown and the polar water molecule if it is represented as positive and negative. So it is actually attracted towards the clay particle surface because of the negative charge here and the positive charge here and the cations which are actually present in water are the positively charged cations and charged water they are also attracted towards the clay particle. So the negatively charged charge on the clay surface is actually shown here and here these are the positively charged cations present in the water and this is because of the polar water molecules they are also arranged in this because of this attraction. So the mechanism of clay and water interaction can be explained by these three heads. One is attraction between negatively charged faces of clay and positive ends of dipoles that is attraction between negatively charged clay surface and positively positive end of the dipoles that is negatively charged clay surface and positive end of the dipole and attraction between cations in the water and negatively charged end of dipoles that is attraction between cations in the water, cations in the water and negatively charged ends of the dipoles and sharing of the hydrogen atoms in water molecules by hydrogen bonding, sharing of this hydrogen atoms in water molecules in the form of the hydrogen bonding. So this actually explains the general mechanism of the clay water attraction. So if you look into this the negative charge is to be neutralized by opposite charges leading to the formation of a adsorbed water layer and double layer. So here because of this particular observation what we made in the previous slides, so the water molecules are arranged in some fashion here and here up to certain distance you will see that the positive cations and these are actually attracted and attached closely and this particular zone is actually called adsorbed water layer or a double water layer. So water in this zone is adsorbed water, water attracted and bound to the clay particle very very strongly and the water, this is the boundary of that water layer and this water is actually nothing but which is called free water or a the adsorbed water and this is called adsorbed water the water which is actually strongly attached to the clay particle surfaces. So here the typical cross section of the or the you know more explanation which actually given here where you have got clay particle, a cross section which of the clay particle is shown here and here there is natively charges and here the polar water molecules which are actually arranged and then this particular water is, this is the adsorbed water and this is weakly oriented or low viscous or free water molecules. In this case it is said that the viscosity is so high or isolic structure where the water molecules are strongly attached to the clay surface. So the adsorbed water cannot be removed by oven drying at 105 to 110 degree centigrade and may therefore be considered as a part of the solid soil green and this adsorbed water is generally held to the surface of the particle by powerful forces of electrical attraction and virtually in a solid state and this is actually this thickness of this adsorbed layer on one side of the clay particle or one edge from the one edge of the clay particle is said as about 10 angstroms thickness. So this cannot be removed by oven drying and if the temperature actually increases then there is a possibility that the structure of the soil has a tendency to get distorted or change. So here in this adsorbed water and here this is the edge of the clay particle and here there is a rigid layer which is actually has got properly oriented cations and water molecules which are actually shown and here disoriented water molecules which are actually there which is actually shown here. So if you see from here the distance from the clay particle and the field intensity which decreases from the edge of the clay particles to when you go away from the clay particle distance. So the cations distribute themselves around the neatly charged surface and of the clay particles with the greatest density near the surface the intensity will be very high and as you go away from the clay particle it actually decreases. The similar situation prevails on the other side of the clay particle also. So the nature of the electric double layer affects the structure of the aggregates of the clay particles and hence the physical properties of the soil. Here again one angstrom is equal to 10 to the power of minus 10 meters or equivalent to 0.1 nanometers. So the thickness of the it is said that the viscosity said to be very high close to the clay particle. So here this is the edge of the clay particle. Let us say this is the edge of the clay particle as you go away from that you actually have got adsorbed layer and some double layer of water up to 400 angstrom thickness and then followed by a free water. So as if this is one side of the particle then other side of the particle also it actually has got the similar distribution of viscosity. So at close to the clay particle there is a tendency that the water which is said that has got a ice like tendency with very viscosity very high viscosity. Close to the clay particle. So in this particular slide a typical kaolinite particle with 10000 into 1000 times angstrom with adsorbed layer and double layer water is shown here. So here this is the kaolinite crystal which is relatively large and here we have 10 angstroms and then the double layer thickness which is actually shown here. So this is that adsorbed water layer surrounding the kaolinite particle and typical in this slide a typical matrimonite particle which is 1000 into 10 angstrom. So here the double layer water which is actually amounting to about 200 angstroms and the adsorbed water layer surrounding the clay particle is about 10 angstrom thickness where actually it possess very high viscosity shown in this slide. So having discussed about clay minerals clay water particle interaction clay particle and water interaction and we also have defined the specific surface area and there is another parameter which is actually called cation exchange capacity which is called CEC which is referred here as CEC the ability of a clay particle to adsorb ions on its surface or edges is called cation exchange capacity. The CEC is basically measured in milli equivalents per 100 grams of dry soil particle in is a measure of the net native charge on the soil particles resulting from the isomorphous substitution and broken bonds at the boundaries. So CEC is function of the mineral structure of the clay and size of the particles. So the CEC nothing but which actually measures the net native charge on the soil particles resulting from the isomorphous substitution or broken bonds at the boundaries. So CEC is a function of the mineral structure of the clay and the size of the particle. So the cation exchange capacities in the units of milli equivalents of 100 grams of dry soil of quartzite, kaolinite, illite and montanolite are given here and where we have got very small due to fine particles and broken bonds. This is very very small and kaolinite actually has got 328, illite actually has got 40 and montanolite is 80. The CEC of montanolite is 10 times the CEC of kaolinite. Similarly, the specific surface area of the montanolite is 100 times the specific surface of the kaolinite but when you look into the specific surface of montanolite it is about the 10 times of the CEC of the kaolinite. So this indicates that the smaller amount of montanolite is required than kaolinite to impart the properties of clay to mixed grain soil. So if a smaller amount of montanolite is actually mixed and that can actually impart its properties than a larger fraction of clay kaolinite. So this indicates that the smaller amount of montanolite is required than kaolinite to impart properties of clay to the mixed grain soil. See the cation exchange capacity, the exchangeable cations are the positively charged ions from salts in the pore water which are attracted to the surface of the clay particles to balance this need to be charged. The cations can be arranged in a series in terms of their affinity for attraction as follows, aluminum 3 plus CA2 plus and Mg2 plus NH4 plus K plus H plus Na plus and lithium plus. This indicates that for example, aluminum 3 plus ion can replace calcium 2 plus and calcium 2 plus can replace sodium ion. So this process is called cation exchange. So the practical example for the cation exchange is that which is used is that the stabilization of sodium based clay soil using lime. If you look into the sodium clay montanolite base and if it is added with calcium chloride then there is a calcium clay and sodium chloride is formed. So here what happens is that the calcium 2 plus ions replace Na plus ions and reduce the swelling of sodium montanolite because of this the adsorbable water layer would become thinner and undergoes a structural distortion. So the affinity for keeping water decreases because of this. So this is actually used or this is how the concept of the lime stabilization which is actually used for strengthening as a stabilization measure used in practice for soils which actually contain montanolite based soils in the field. So here the structure of the clay soils which is actually shown the fine grained soils. The forces between clay mineral particles, if the two particles basically we have discussed that the clay particles are plate clay particles and they have a net negative charges. So there is always a possibility that these two particles or plate clay particles have a tendency to get repulsive tendency they can actually have got repulsive tendency or if they are actually have got the positive charges then there is a possibility of the attraction. So if the two particles plate clay shaped approach each other in suspension the forces acting on them are the Van der Waals forces of attraction the repulsion between the two positively charged ionized adsorbed water layers. So the Van der Waals forces of attraction or the repulsion between the two positively charged ionized adsorbed water layers. So here it is a typical lately charged clay surface which is actually shown here. So because of this particular phenomenon one of the clay structure the soil structure which we are not discussed. So previously we have discussed that if you have got a large particles there is a possibility of the bulk structure or what we said is that bulk structure then we also discussed for some certain silt particles there is a possibility that you have got a honeycomb structure but we actually have not discussed about the type of the structure which is actually prevalent in fine-grained soils. So as we have actually discussed that the fine-grained soils actually has negatively charged clay particles and which are basically have a plate shaped particles which basically they are plate shaped particles. So if you look into this here you have got two plate shaped particles which are actually surrounded by these adsorbed and double layers and there is always a tendency of the net repulsion. So at very small separations the Van der Waals forces are always larger and the particles which approach sufficiently closely will head air however the Van der Waals forces decrease rapidly with increasing separation. So if the adsorbable layer is thick the repulsion will be large at the distances from the surface at which the Van der Waals forces are small. So the particles will remain dispersed and settle independently. So if you have the structure of the clay soils particularly in the fine-grained soils you have got say you have got particles which are actually have edge to face orientation then they have a tendency of the flocculation. So if the adsorbable water layer is thin and there will be little or no net repulsion at any distance and the random movements of particles will be enough to bring them into contact and this process is called flocculation. So what we said is that because of the repulsive forces there is a possibility of some structure which is actually can occur is because of the dispersed structure is called dispersed structure and because of the thinner adsorbable layer and absence of any repulsion then there is a possibility of the flocculation. So net force if it is attraction then you have a flocculation the groups of particles they actually settle together. So this is actually explained that net force between the two particles in suspension if you look into this net repulsion where you have got a low ion concentration in soil water in the soil then there is a possibility of repulsion which actually takes place and when you have got high ion concentration in the soil water there is net attraction takes place. So this particular type of environment makes actually two different types of structures particularly called flocculent and dispersed structures. So in this particular lecture what we try to understand is that we defined specific surface area then we also discussed about the how the specific surface area or cation exchange capacity are varied with reference to the three fundamental three clay minerals and we also discussed about different types of clay minerals and the basic structures which are actually like the gipside sheet and the silicate sheet. So kaolinite is nothing but you have got a two sheet mineral and montaminate is nothing but two is to one mineral it is called two sheets of silicate and one gipside sheet and similarly you have got and illite mineral which is actually formed by also nothing but two is to one mineral but it actually has got two adjacent silicate sheets are bonded with potassium cation strongly. So in the next lecture we are going to discuss about the you know introduce ourselves to this particular flocculent dispersed structures and then we will discuss further on the different types of clay minerals particularly other than the kaolinite, montaminate and illite like some structures of yellow site, muscovite etc.