Mitchell, can I invite you back up? And it's great to have you back here again. Well, it's great to be back. And it's nice to be at least on the continent. I must say that it's already a really great change and a different perspective. So this is a really nice start. It's my first venture out since trying to get settled to give a talk. But I didn't want to miss the forum here. Because Mozilla is, of course, about collaboration. We have a mission. And our mission is to build the internet as a global public resource accessible to all. And by accessible, we don't mean you can get to it, but that you can participate, build it, create it, make this a tool that benefits all of us. So we're trying to build public value and civic and social life as a counterpoint, as an addition to the economic value generation that the commercial market aims at. So we do this through collaboration. We started, of course, as an open source and free software project, which is about collaboration always. We collaborate for a particular purpose, though. And we're trying to build a certain kind of internet. We call it the open internet. But it is the internet, as we might have known it in its early days, 10 or 15 years ago. It is a disruptive technology. It continues to be disruptive. And we see today that there's a rebalancing of some of the qualities of the internet. And so as collaboration is important to open innovation, some of the open traits of the internet are also critical to having a foundation of open innovation. And for Mozilla, Europe is not a question of competing or keeping up. Europe has always been in the leadership of Mozilla. Our communities in Europe are among the oldest and the strongest, the most self-organized, and the most dedicated sets of people who've been working for over a decade to build an open internet. And the number of people who use our products in Europe is very high, and the number of people who actually appreciate what we're doing is very high. It's actually hard to be a nonprofit and to have a mission in Silicon Valley. And very often, we hear things like, oh, stop talking about the mission and talk about the product. Or, gee, you want to build an internet that's open. That's just a cover because you don't want to talk about competitive pressures. And so Europe has been the long-term vanguard of understanding actually what Mozilla is all about and what we're trying to do, which is to build open innovation and collaboration and opportunity through the market by putting products in the market that people care about and by building communities of people. So when we think about collaboration and open innovation, we think in two great categories. We're known for our products, and I'll talk a little bit about that since you've asked, but we also focus a lot on building communities, communities of collaboration. And these are people who often find their way to Mozilla because of the mission or the value of the product or they love the web. And what we work to do is to take that spark in people and to support it. So for us, collaboration is not some leadership group somewhere in the world giving direction. For us, collaboration is a framework of innovation and action and empowering people to take action. So our way of working is to say these are the values of Mozilla. This is what we're trying to do. Go out and do things. Go innovate. Don't ask us first. We don't have all the right ideas. Don't look for leadership. Make sure you're in the space we consider Mozilla. Make sure you're in our value set. And once you are, go try something new. Build a new part of the internet, whether it's build an app, build an add-on, build Firefox, build a new product, build a community, get a phone, build an operating system, whatever it is you think is important in your world, go do it. But then come talk to us about it. And if it's working, we'll try and make it bigger. So that's our view of innovation, is to build a framework and a space in which it feels like Mozilla.  Like, don't feel like you need to come ask for permission, go do things. Because once you get into a cycle of asking for permission, it turns out there's a very high opportunity cost. There's the fear of risk as well, but there's also the sense of, oh, should I ask? Is it okay? And on the one hand, when you're in a stable society, that feels fine, people ask. It keeps things, you know what's happening, it's not too surprising, but the hidden opportunity cost is extremely high. It's very hard to innovate. If I have to ask two or three or five or 10 people beforehand. Because I have to explain my idea in that case. And if I'm innovating, you won't understand my idea. Like, the essence of innovation is that I am not in the mainstream. I have some idea, it's innovative, that means it's new, it's different. And so if the first thing I need to do is go ask for permission, that's a very long period and it's a lot of explaining. And particularly if you have to ask for permission of other business organizations, you're pretty much dead when you start. Because then the organization has to figure out, is this good for me, is it bad for me, does your business model fit with mine, does your innovation threaten me? So for example, take Skype. Extremely disruptive, very difficult for the network operators. Imagine what would have happened if the creators of Skype had to go ask the various telecommunications company if they could build it. We would never have it. Now, life would be easier for the telecommunications companies because their business model would not have been disrupted. But every single one of us who is using Skype to talk to people, both our families and other countries and our businesses would not have it. And so that's what innovation is extremely disruptive and just allowing people to try things has a kind of return on investment that is hard to imagine. And the converse of you've got a great idea, yes, you're willing to take risk but you need to clear it through me beforehand, really slows the system down if not actually sort of stopping it. And so with our communities and our products, we work very hard to get people to go try things.  We built a framework, Firefox, go do something that's important to you. You don't like something about the internet, go change it. Here's a system that you can plug into that makes it easy to make change. And so at Mozilla, we're not policy makers and I don't claim that Mozilla has deep understanding of policy but in terms of encouraging innovation and making a setting that allows innovation to happen, this technique of building a framework and letting people go do things, like encouraging them to go do things has been very effective for us. Many of the innovations that have come out of Mozilla are things that central leadership or our equivalent of policy makers would not have thought up. And so they come out of the planting seeds in many places and being happy when you wake up and find somebody has done something you didn't expect. Now that's a change of attitude because it's a little disconcerting when you wake up and there's something new in the world and it's right in my space and I had no idea it was coming. But learning to appreciate that and to sit back and say, wow, that's an innovative idea, like great. So it takes a little bit of work at first. Afterwards, it's liberating. So we did this with Firefox where we did struggle with the anti-competitive environment in the early days and we did, through a process of collaboration, actually managed to achieve what was impossible. Like when we started, everybody knew that in a monopoly setting, it was not possible to an offer and an alternative to the Microsoft operating system. Now that's old history now, maybe, but the reason that we succeeded was the collaborative nature of Mozilla and the open innovation nature. Like we built a browser, we built the plumbing of the rendering engine that makes it work. But the reason it succeeded is because we had the community and the product of people and we had a collaborative technique that allowed everyone who cared about an open internet to go out and make it theirs. And so with Firefox, we achieved what was impossible and we could not have done it in a standard model. We could not have done it without being innovative. And when we started, open source and open standards were unusual. Like open source was not a business model. Everybody knew that no one could use open source to make a consumer product. Yes, maybe you could make a Linux desktop because like normal people never saw it. But we managed to innovate and innovation is a little bit hard. And maybe everything worthwhile in life is a little bit hard. And so sometimes when we talk about innovations, exciting, it's necessary, but all of us, including those of us at Mozilla, have had to sit down and say, wow, this is really hard, but maybe that's because it's really good. And sometimes the things that are the hardest if you can, at least for me, step past my irritation that I didn't think it up or my discomfort that it changes something that I understood. Sometimes those very hardest moments turn out to be the best. So if you are in the middle of the innovation cycle and you find yourself really uncomfortable or disconcerted, try and get through it because the other side can be just wonderful. We've seen that the way of innovating an ICT today is changing and that the computing environment is changing into a mobile environment. And this is an environment which is really quite different in the innovation styles and in the techniques and the types of collaboration that are possible. Some aspects of it are very good. People like app stores, people like apps. The ability to access the internet for a single simple task is really useful. On the other hand, the ways of collaborating and innovating are very centrally controlled, right down to the actual technology or what you can access. So for example, on a mobile phone, if you're a developer, it's actually hard sometimes to get access to the phone number because that's something that Apple finds valuable and controls for itself. So if you wanna develop an app, it's very hard to actually integrate using the phone. So these are the kinds of things where you need to ask permission. And so we're seeing a whole range of change from what used to be, I've got a great idea, I'm gonna build it, I'm gonna see if people like it, to a setting of, I've got this idea, I've gotta see if Apple and Google will accept it into their store and see how it goes and build it using their technologies. So we look at the mobile environment and think that many of the ways of collaborating and innovating that have been successful in the past are being constrained today. And that's a pretty serious problem. We also find that, for example, when you have a phone, you can't actually figure out what it does or get into it. It used to be in the laptop or PC or desktop world that your technically savvy friends or kids or family or classmates could open it up and figure out what was going on. But that's a very different setting in the phone setting. And so for us, their key initiative today is to take the freedoms of the web and the ability to collaborate and innovate and bring them back to the mobile platform. And so that is our major initiative today to answer your question. It's got two parts. You see the little fox is a Japanese sort of cartoon of Firefox with the Android droid because we have brought Firefox to the Android platform to bring the sort of innovation and collaboration and user sort of freedoms to that layer of the web. We had to do that product twice, by the way. The first time it didn't work. And the reason it didn't work is that we held on to the past and we weren't willing to innovate. And in our case, that meant we held on to a technology that we had developed 10 or 15 years ago that we like because it fits our values. It's very developer friendly and we thought it would be good. But we had to give it up and go back and redo the product because we let our own past get in the way of real innovation and a real good product. So that probably cost us a year. So we think we're an innovative organization but we struggle with this too. Innovation change is not easy. And in our case, we're driven by the market. So I think we have it easier maybe than policymakers because the market is pretty brutal. And if your product isn't good enough, it's really clear it's not good enough. And so we had to go back and sort of recommit to innovation and product excellence and changing with the market and being where the, in our case, the users are and in your case, the constituency is, really serving our constituency. And so we had to really look at our values and we had to push our values around a lot and rebalance to really focus on the one that sits on top, which is providing tools to consumers so you can live in an open internet. So anyway, we went through that long process. Firefox on Android is now a great product. We really have the Firefox name and if you have an Android phone, you might try it. But a browser on a phone is not enough since we don't use the browser exclusively as we used to. So we have an operating system underway called Firefox OS. And the idea of that is to reduce the technology on the phone to the technologies of openness that we're used to from the web and make the phone accessible in the way the web was. Then combine it with the app model and discovery piece. This latter product is intensely dependent upon collaboration and community because phones are very tied to your environment and the way you set up an account and who you have an account with and how you pay and how you use the phone are radically different. And so the market pressure to produce a product on a mobile device is once again pushing us back to a recommitment to community and collaboration and to doing something new. So we at Mozilla feel like we need to reinvent ourselves as well. The world is new. The community activities and by community we mean a combination of employees and volunteers. We're a non-profit. Many of the people who work on our products are volunteers from around the world. Mostly they are interested in having the internet as a resource available to them and to having an open and free internet. And so a fair amount of the work that goes into our products comes out of these volunteers and the European communities are intensely strong in this regard. And so once again we find the need to collaborate to innovate critical to our success, critical to our products and critical to our mission. And that reinforces for us the centrality of the open internet. And I'll come to the internet in a moment but we have just one other thing that's on our minds and that is identity. Who controls our identity? As we move into the cloud at mobile phones alone but also cloud computing as our data is living somewhere, like who controls it? Who accesses it? Who says I'm me? Do I want one identity for work and one identity for home and one identity for entertainment and one identity when I vote? Like how do I identify myself? For us that should be a distributed process where if I'm a... my government and I would have a system by which I identify myself for government services and that might be much more secure than the way I identify myself for my social network or my photo sharing. And right now the internet doesn't have a good distributed system for doing that. So we have designed one and we're in the process of building it and rolling it out. Not as a Mozilla piece. We'll do it as an example and we would be one provider but so that we can start to build a way to identify ourselves online that goes through Facebook when we wanted to, that goes through our government when we wanted to and maybe could go through Mozilla or Google or Yahoo or some small startup that's really focused on what you care about. And we think this is going to be a really critical feature and do we have an open internet? Because if you can't control your own identity there's not much else you can control in life. So the community piece here is not only teaching people to build product and giving them opportunities to build product but also literacy. We are digital citizens now and so the need for digital literacy is extremely high. By that we mean technology literacy. We are understanding not just that you're in a public space but what does the technology actually do? Like the web, it's a little like a car engine. If you don't know anything about it it's really frightening to open the hood on your car. But in fact every element in there is understandable and that's true of the web and kids at 6 or 7 or 8 can learn to manage and have fun mixing the web up and changing it. And so if we really want to be citizens in control of the technology, this understanding how it works, it's mine, I can change it is really key. And so we have some initiatives on this, very small, but I think this is another area where innovation is really important and we're trying to do some examples but I've been looking towards the work that you've been doing here about citizen involvement and digital literacy because I think the best policy in the world will fail over time if as citizens we don't understand its hours and that we should be able to understand it and work with it. So I said we build communities. This was the Moz Camp in Warsaw two weeks ago and so I hope that in the coming months and years you will hear from these people these are the probably 300 most active leaders on the ground in Europe and North Africa of people who are building an open internet. Many of them are students, many of them are young some of them have been with Mozilla for 10 or 15 years and so what we're trying to do at Mozilla is to take these natural leaders and train them. So speaking training. We've always had a rule at Mozilla you should talk about your own experience say whatever you want, it's your life but this is more training about what they're doing what is Mozilla about, what is an open internet what's happening in their community why did they support the protest against ACTA what's going on then some training in leadership and how to build, how to promote web literacy and some policy activities. So our hope is that increasingly we build a citizen base that understands the internet as an active in a productive way something like the Act of SOPA PIPA protests are a last resort. That's not the ideal. What we want to see is a more engaged citizenry more interaction with policy makers on a sort of rational discussion basis before we get to crisis and so this training of communities it goes both through product and also policy and these are likely to be the innovators at least coming out of the Mozilla world other open source projects are starting to do the same thing so these are the people that we think are going to drive innovation because they're local to their environment and they understand what's going on and they are learning to act so the piece about collaboration that we find most important is positive action doing and that's incredibly important because the internet is facing many threats and some of these are quite rational threats there's two sides to many of these things anti-competitive practices prioritized traffic that's another way of saying net neutrality which has you can understand why the operators are concerned about the investment they need to make prioritizing traffic has some very very deep impacts on the structure and the nature of the net and the ability to collaborate and the ability to innovate so it sounds melodramatic but if you over prioritize traffic your actual ability to have innovation especially innovation without permission diminishes really significantly and so that's why you see so much emotion in some of these protests obviously commercial interests if you can own a piece of the internet it's very lucrative so that's a commercial threat that's why we build product you know state surveillance you know the power of the technology of the internet one of the things I worry about the most is that the the power of the technology overwhelms our democratic traditions but we well the United States you know 200 years nothing but here in Europe you have much longer a longer history of democratic traditions and development and so when in the physical world the issues of security privacy national interest we have a long history of them we have a long history of balancing state surveillance with individual freedom and privacy now they're not perfect and each society does it slightly differently but we have an understanding of what it is and one of the things that I see happening is that the power of the internet is so great that sometimes it just overwhelms these and we begin to look at policy or look at decisions divorced from the long history and so we see many laws proposed laws in which the balance between surveillance and privacy or the rights of the state versus your rights as an individual are pretty fundamentally shifted because somehow it's online and I think that's an immense risk to me it's very clear that you know China and India and Pakistan and Europe or Spain or Germany and the US will all have slightly different balances in what we want because we have different balances in our physical life but this aspect of being concerned about what's happening online sort of overwhelming the long history of balancing different values I think we're in a dangerous spot with that right now so there is a huge need for some innovative way to have these discussions like is the role of the state in surveillance and some of these bills out there are absolute surveillance like where you go, whatever you do, whatever you click on everything you do online, track and monitor and say sometimes okay with the government sometimes at the requirement of the government how do we have the discussion about does that make sense and how do we compare that with what's true in our physical life and we need some innovative thinking and policymaking in that area as well that's not traditionally a Mozilla strength I'm particularly interested in it but I think you're much more the experts and there's a set of very serious conversations that we need some innovative frameworks and convening in order to have and so that might be a really different role in the conversations long before we get to the crisis with people in the streets another large issue is regulation to preserve existing successes disruption is disruption for example Skype disrupted the telecommunications companies so you could imagine if you're a telecommunications executive and you could have seen Skype coming a very rational response would have been to try to regulate it so that's also happening and we need some innovation in the discussion between innovation, disruption versus stability and this is going on with the music industry and with the content industry and with Hollywood do we want to regulate so that the existing industries are stable there are jobs there but this is another part of net neutrality and content do we want to regulate so that the existing very successful businesses which have many jobs so lots of people working some number of people getting extremely wealthy but lots of people actually working in jobs which are important do we regulate to help those industries maintain equilibrium or do we regulate or not in order to promote innovation and disruption that's another conversation where some innovative convening and frameworks would be very useful because if as a society one decides stability is more important then sure you're going to regulate to protect the existing businesses and we don't have to talk about whether lobbying is good or bad I mean then you're making a social choice but you can't have that and innovation and leadership the two don't go together so this is one where some innovative and collaborative work and having some discussion we have a rational conversation not lobbyists and protests would be really useful and so at Mozilla what we hope is through some of our experiences that we can help build bridges to an open internet one that's got real collaboration real innovation maybe one where some of these key issues that threaten the open internet finds innovative ways to talk about them and so when we resolve them we know what we've done because I think different cultures will choose stability versus innovation differently and I think because in my view because we don't very often set those out clearly it's hard to get to a consistent answer and so we get these fights back and forth and you see the emotions on both sides of them so we hope that at Mozilla both our products and our communities in particular of educated, empowered active, rational people can help to bridge both the policy aspect and the product aspect and the mobile aspect and the market aspect back into the freedoms and innovation that we've seen for the last 10 or 15 years because open innovation you can't really have it without an open internet you can have certain kinds of innovation but I don't think you can compete I don't think you can lead for sure and if we don't have an open internet we will end up with a much more limited set of innovation and disruption we might end up with more status quo and more equilibrium I personally think that's dangerous right now I mean the world is changing so quickly we have so many problems to solve so we hope to be helpful we hope to build some bridges we hope to continue to lead in product it's definitely challenging the product space is very competitive brutally competitive and of course we're tiny compared to Apple or Google or Microsoft or Facebook so we hope to continue to lead in product we hope to build ever stronger communities we hope you see them soon in a positive fashion and if there's any way to be of assistance or helpful in innovative conversations about what's the right internet how do we get there what makes sense from a policy setting please do let us know we'd be delighted thank you


Welcome back to the discussion on rotational contribution to molecular partition function. In the previous lecture we started with discussion on rotational contribution to molecular partition function for a linear rotor. We will continue the discussion and if time permits we will also discuss in this lecture the rotational contribution to molecular partition function for a non-linear rotor. But prior to that let us continue our discussion for a linear rotor. For an asymmetric linear rotor we derived that the rotational partition function is given by 1 by beta h c b where we know that beta is equal to 1 by k t. So, I can even write k t over h c b. But this is for a rotor linear rotor of type a b. And then we were discussing about that this derivation required an approximation where we converted that summation into integration. And above what temperature this approximation is valid? We discussed that that temperature is described by rotational temperature or you call it characteristic rotational temperature which is given the symbol theta r and theta r can be calculated from h c b by k. And when do we say high temperature? So, this expression we say that we can use in the high temperature limit. And what is that high temperature? That is given by when t the experimental temperature is much higher than the rotational temperature. The rotational temperatures calculated by this expression for some of the molecules are given in this table. For example, for iodine 0.053, for carbon dioxide 0.56, for hydrogen iodide 7.5, for hydrogen chloride 9.4, methane 15, hydrogen 88. If you see a trend in this iodine is a heavy molecule, then carbon dioxide is relatively lighter molecule. Then you have hydrogen iodide, hydrogen chloride, methane, hydrogen. Hydrogen has relatively higher value of rotational temperature. These all are given in terms of Kelvin. So, therefore, if we talk about normal temperature let us say 298 Kelvin. 298 Kelvin is much higher than 0.053 is much, much higher than 0.56 is much, much higher than 7.4. But when we reach at 88 we need to be little careful. In any case when we say high temperature, high temperature means that the experimental value of temperature that is temperature at which you want to calculate rotational partition function should be much, much higher than the rotational temperature only then you can use this approximation. Otherwise, you will have to go by direct summation method numerical evaluation of rotational contribution. So, now let us look at the trend which you see in this table. This is how you define rotational contribution to partition function and we already discussed that theta r can be calculated from this relation. But now let us look at the comments which are made over here. The molecules which have large moment of inertia have small rotational constants and hence low rotational temperatures. If the rotational constant is small then the rotational temperature will also be small. And then we know that B is given by h cross by 4 pi c i. That is what is being mentioned over here that if the moment of inertia is large, if i is large B will be small. And if B is small your theta r is going to be small. That is what you see for iodine. So, that means such molecules will have large rotational partition function. If B is small then qr is going to be large. So, the conclusion is that the molecules which have large moment of inertia they will have small rotational constant and they will also have large values of rotational partition functions. And what does that mean? You know if the value of qr is very large then what does that mean? We go back to our discussion of what is the physical meaning, literal physical meaning of partition function. Partition function is a measure of how many thermally accessible states the molecule can exhibit. So, large values of qr reflect closeness in energy levels of rotation for heavy molecules and large number are populated at normal temperatures. Higher the value of q the more is the fractional population of the upper states. That means the energy levels are very close to each other. Therefore, even at normal temperature such as room temperature many rotational energy levels will be populated alright. Now let us talk about caution. The formula that we derived does that require some modification. We have been discussing from time to time that we should not include too many states when we carry out the sum. That is what is commented over here. Do not include too many rotational states in the sum and when such situation can arise. Let us take the example of a homonuclear diatomic molecule. That means now from non-symmetrical linear rotor we are going to discuss about symmetrical linear rotor. And one such example is C H triple bond C H acetylene or carbon dioxide. These are linear symmetrical linear rotor. Why because when you have this homonuclear diatomic molecule or symmetrical linear molecule then the rotation through 180 degree results in an indistinguishable state of the molecule. For example, if I consider this is one atom this is another atom and then when I rotate it by 180 degree you cannot distinguish this atom from this atom. That means 180 degree rotation results in an indistinguishable state of the molecule. So, therefore by this way you may be counting the rotational states twice just because 180 degree rotation results into indistinguishable state of the molecule. So, therefore the number of thermally accessible states is going to be only half of the number that can be occupied by heteronuclear diatomic molecules. For example, if I take for example, this pen and consider this as one atom and this tip as the other atom and I rotate by 180 degree I can distinguish I can distinguish this from this. That is why this comment that the number of thermally accessible states is only half of the number that can be occupied by a heteronuclear diatomic molecule in which rotation through 180 degree results in distinguishable state. So, therefore that factor of half needs to be applied. Therefore, when you want to modify that expression for symmetrical linear rotor it will be q r is equal to k t by 2 h c b. This additional factor 2 is introduced in the denominator because if you do not include this factor of 2 then you may be counting too many rotational states. That means you may be counting double the rotational states alright. So, that is why this caution is given that do not include too many rotational states in the sum. Can we include sum factor and make it a general formula? Yes that can be done. That means in general let us include that factor in the denominator sigma which is called symmetry number. Here you will require the knowledge of symmetry right. So, what is q r is k t by sigma h c b and h c b by k is equal to theta r. So, include that over here that means you can express the rotational partition function for a linear rotor as k t by sigma h c b or t by sigma theta r. So, do not get confused when you come across different versions of the rotational partition function. Different books may give only in terms of b or may also include in terms of theta r. So, therefore, there should not be any confusion. Sigma as we just discussed is the symmetry number for heteronuclear diatomic molecules. What are those heteronuclear diatomic molecules that is for the molecule type a b because here when you rotate by 180 degree you can distinguish between a and b. So, therefore, sigma is equal to 1 you do not require then this correction over there. For homonuclear diatomic molecules for example, C l C l here when you rotate by 180 degree what you see is the atoms are indistinguishable. So, in that case you require a factor of 2 correction factor of 2 that symmetry number becomes 2, but this is for simple diatomic molecules. What about if there are more complex molecules we will discuss about that a bit later. Let us first now discuss how to evaluate rotational partition function for a given molecule. Look at the problem given to us evaluate the rotational partition function of h c l at 25 degree centigrade and what is given is the rotational constant h c l it is a heteronuclear diatomic molecule. Heteronuclear diatomic molecules are straight away when you rotate by 180 degree centigrade you can distinguish when you rotate by 180 degree you can distinguish between h c l. But that you know we need to worry about if we can use the high temperature approximation result. Let us first establish whether the high temperature approximation result can be used in this case or not. So, what we have is the values of k t by h c which is 207.22 and h c b by k t is 0.051 why do we need this because q r rotational contribution to partition function for a linear rotor is 2 j plus 1 into exponential minus beta h c b j into j plus 1 beta can be written as 1 by k t. So, therefore, your expression becomes h c b by k t j into j plus 1. Here we need to decide whether we should go by this explicit summation method or can we use the high temperature approximation result that is q r is equal to 1 over sigma h c beta b can we use that. But for that we need to first calculate the value of rotational temperature. How do you get that k theta r is equal to h c b and when you actually calculate this value of theta r you will see that you cannot ignore that compared to 25 degree centigrade. So, therefore, only if 25 degree centigrade is much much higher than the value of theta r then you can use the high temperature approximation result. In this case when you calculate you will see that you cannot ignore. Therefore, let us go by direct summation method how do you go by direct summation method you start with the values of j as 0 1 2 3 4 and let us say we go up to 10 the value of 2 j plus 1 into exponential term that is this one for different j values are listed over here when j is equal to 0. Obviously this value is going to be 1 j is equal to 0 the 1 exponential 0 is 1. So, you have 1 when j is equal to 1 value is 2.71 when j is equal to 3.68 j is equal to 3 3.79 j is equal to 4 3.24 you can continue and when you see that when j is equal to 10 the value is decreasing to value of 0.08. Look at the trend 1 2.71 increase 3.68 increase 3.79 increase increase decrease which is following this trend you see there is increase and then decrease. If you include the result from j equal to 0 to j equal to 10 you sum up all these when you sum these all up you get value of 19.9 reflects that many rotational states are and then suppose if you keep on calculating and you calculate up to j equal to 50. Let us say you include all the terms for j equal up to j equal to 50 then the sum becomes instead of 19.9 it becomes 19.902. So, that means eventually the if you keep on increasing the value of j the additional contribution becomes less less and less alright. So, in this numerical problem what we did we first checked whether can we ignore the temperature constraint and directly jump to high temperature result for that first calculate theta r compare that with the experimental temperature we decided here let us go by explicit summation method where you vary the value of j from 0 onwards we saw that even for variation of j from 0 to 10 and then sum up all this term gives rotational partition function to be 19.9 and then even if you include the other contributions up to j equal to 50 19.9 only changes to 19.902. Now, let us look at some of the comments made over here q rotational is equal to summation j equal to 0 to infinity 2 j plus 1 exponential minus beta h c b j into j plus 1 the graph shown over here plot shown over here represents contribution to rotational partition function for h cl this is on y axis that means this y axis is the value of 2 j plus 1 into exponential minus beta h c b j into j plus 1 this term for different values of j for j is equal to 0 when you put j equal to 0 this is 1 this factor is 1. So, this should be 1 and you can see here 1 when j is equal to 1 this becomes 3 and then the value rises to this value eventually if you see this passes through a maxima obviously why this passes through a maxima because when you increase the value of j this degeneracy factor gives it gives it a push up that is increases the value, but this exponential term decreases the value. So, therefore, when you consider both then your result passes through a maxima successive terms which are proportional to the populations of the levels pass through a maximum because the population of individual states decreases exponentially, but the degeneracy of the levels increases with the j. Once again when j is equal to 0 this value is 1 this is equal to 1 you have 1 as j increases you see the value increases is part it passes through a maxima and then decreases the reason for this is that you have 2 terms 1 which corresponds to the degeneracy of the system and other which includes the exponential term, but with the negative sign 1 increases the other decreases the compromise of the both is equal to that it passes through a maxima. So, what we have discussed in this case is the result exclusively based upon direct summation and not using the high temperature limit. The high temperature result high temperature limit result is given by this expression where in general we write rotational partition function to be equal to k t by sigma h c b, but in order to use this result and once again reiterating that you will have to calculate the rotational temperature which can be calculated from the value of b, b is an experimental result because b is equal to h cross by 4 pi c i. So, moment of energy i is needed once you have the value of b you can get the value of rotational partition function provided you know the symmetry number and in order to have this symmetry number you will require some knowledge of symmetry, some knowledge of how many indistinguishable forms of the molecules will appear when it is rotated through some number. So, today in this lecture we have completed only the discussion for a linear rotor whether it is a symmetric or asymmetric. When it is symmetric that is homo nuclear diatomic molecule like species for example, C L C L you require sigma equal to 2 and for non-symmetric a b type then you do not require the value of sigma to be different than 1 it is equal to 1. So, by now we have completed the translational contribution and the rotational contribution, but only for a linear molecule to the overall molecular partition function. In the next lecture we will continue our discussion for non-linear molecules when the molecule is linear spherical rotor we need to consider only one moment of inertia. When it is non-linear then we will need to bring other moments of inertia and we will be talking in terms of 2 or 3 rotational constants a b or even including C, but that we will discuss in more details in the next lecture. Thank you very much.


Okay, welcome back to VMworld. This is theCUBE, VMworld 2013, live in San Francisco. Day three of three days of coverage. This is theCUBE, our flagship program. We go out to the events and extract the signal from the noise. I'm John Furrier, the founder of SiliconANGLE. I'm joined by co-host Dave Vellante, co-founder of Wikibon.org. And our next guest is Sean Douglas, who is the CTO of Service Mesh. Very timely conversation to come on theCUBE right after Pat Gelsinger. Dave and I are all jacked up and amped up for a great conversation. You worked at EMC, EMC Ventures, so you know a little bit about what Pat was talking about. Absolutely. And obviously we ratted on a little bit and called me out on my comment, but I kind of didn't really mean that the way I did. We'll explain that in like six blog posts, it'll be fun. Welcome to theCUBE again. Great job. Thank you, have a great day.  You've been studying the up and downs of what's going on in storage at EMC. You're now at Service Mesh, which is one of the leaders, the leader in orchestration at the high end of the stack. Orchestration and service management, these aren't new concepts, but with infrastructure as a service and what Pat laid out with Software Defined Data Center, it brings up and highlights the importance of it when you want to get to automation and orchestration. Absolutely. And as much as the rhetoric is out there, it's still an open book on orchestration. I mean, every client, every customer has a different process. You can't just throw software at it and say we're done. So explain the nuance in this area of the stack. Absolutely, so it's a tough act to follow your old boss. You know what I mean? So I was working for Pat. We helped define Software Defined Data Center, what that meant, and it's great. In his keynote yesterday, he talked about what are the three things that VMware's doing. One is Software Defined Data Center and virtualization of everything, trying to get the ROI they got traditionally on the server in the hypervisor, now in the network, now in the storage, right? And taking that. And then second thing he said is, we need to rebuild effectively the management platform because nobody has it. Well, we have it actually. We have it today and we were taking down big banks, telcos, people that want to manage a cross hybrid in public cloud. Well, what is service mesh? So let's get into it. Because obviously you work for Pat, was your old boss, and then you were instrumental in the Nassir acquisition that went down between EMC and VMware. And obviously, that was that game change. If you look at pre-Nassir, and Pat Gelser called the shot hurt around the IT world, there really was a game changing moment, it was a shift. That was almost with a tide turning that and everyone's shifted their sales and the wind was blowing in software direction. So I mean, look at me, pre-Nassir, what were we talking about? Post-Nassir, what is it? So I mean, explain service mesh in the software. So service mesh is a hybrid cloud management platform. And what we do is we act as effectively a service broker across VMware's technology, Microsoft's technology, OpenStack, all of the public cloud providers and enable you to do policy-driven provisioning that's application-centric. Now, what does that mean? What that means is you can create one blueprint for your application and then you can click and deploy on top of VMware, on top of Microsoft, on top of OpenStack. So it gives you that vendor contestability and portability across these different software-defined data center infrastructures because VMware's making a big play, you've got Microsoft making a big play, we were just talking about George and IO data, those guys are killing it. They're embracing the whole open compute, open stack. Can you just clarify something before we show it? Absolutely. So a lot of the big guys, VMware, for example, are talking the game, OpenStack, a multi-hypervisor. So they sort of want to do what you just described, is your strategy to just do it better, do it faster, be there earlier, or am I just misunderstanding? Well, we do it today, they're going to build it. They're going to build up your message. Yeah, yeah, that was awesome. He got up here and you know, he's got agility, that's our product. I love it. Have you educated any buyout offers yet? Well, you know, we're popular, but we're going big. I think we're on the ice. So they're trying to get me. That's a non-answer. Okay, so they're trying to buy you, okay, got that. So let's talk about hybrid cloud. I'll see Pat Gelsinger hit a nerd with Pat with my off the cuff haymaker called Halfway House. He called it a way station. There's a big debate. I think what people don't understand about what the conversation with Mark Andriesen and Pat Gelsinger was at the future of IT conference was, there's a fundamental disagreement about what compute is going to look like. And so the reason why I brought up that comment about Halfway House was just kind of needle and I didn't know Pat was going to react that way, but it's kind of good to have a memory like that. Is hybrid just a delivery mechanism or is it actually a product, right? So the question becomes, does compute just sit around in all IT ready to be used by applications? Do applications dictate to the policy of the infrastructure and get services delivered to them? And if that's the case that's going to, that possibly could change the compute paradigm. So that's kind of, I think, Andriesen's perspective is that, hey, compute's just going to be everywhere. It's going to go to zero, infinite resource with virtualization. If that happens, what does it look like? So utilization, server utilization, all those things go away. Software has to be written for that. So that's a different approach than saying, this is a product, this is a data center, extension. That's a pretty loaded question, man. My goodness, how do I parse that? So let me break it apart. Explain that to the audience. So where we sit, we sit across public cloud and private cloud, and we believe that certain workloads, you need to run for compliance reasons today in your data center, and we work in highly regulated Fortune 100 companies, some of the biggest banks in the world, some of the biggest telcos. Those guys have regulations that require, so I'm going to resonate. I'm going to align with Pat here a little bit. Of course, yeah, you see over here. However, with that said, we fundamentally believe that you need to have fungibility across your public cloud and your private cloud and place the right resources at the right time, at the right cost, for where you're at in the life cycle of the application, and doing so in the very, the DevOps-y way, right? And so because we're the architectural control plane across public cloud and private cloud for our big customers that give them this vendor-neutral posture, right? We also agree with what Mark is saying as well, right? You're agnostic how they approach you. Yeah, we think both are going to happen, and we sit in the middle of that and we enable people to do the right thing based on policy at the right time. So it's for us, it's great. We don't have a legacy to lose. You're saying you're not going to sub-optimize some part of the stack in order to drive your revenues or your license. Exactly. You can bridge legacy and bring clean, green field apps to the table. Absolutely, right, right. So we're agnostic there, absolutely. So it's a great place to be. Until you get bought. Let me ask about OpenStack. Let me ask about OpenStack. We're going big. OpenStack as Pat says is a framework, which is obviously an interesting statement from that. And he looks at it as a market expansion opportunity, which is the right way to say it, I mean, I guess. I think OpenStack is the biggest threat to VMware, personally. Look at their software-defined data center strategy, right? So you've got virtualization in the network, virtualization in compute, virtualization in storage. And it's the same thing, right? So they've partnered with Canonical. We're partners with Canonical. I'm a huge fan of Canonical as well. And the reason is Zen is actually the hypervisor of choice for public clouds. They didn't partner with Red Hat, OpenStack, right? Because they're right in their grill, right? So it's kind of an interesting partnering strategy, right? It surely is. I have to be careful, I am at VMworld. No, no, no, first of all, I mean, Pat's right.  Virtualization is absolutely critical. That's going to continue to be virtualized. So let's go back to our conversation about Nasirah changing the winds. So maybe the waters are still choppy and still there's a lot of work to be done and competition should be battled out in this new battleground. So let's go through that. Nasirah changed the game with Software-Defined Data Center. It becomes a destination, a marketplace, and there's networking, compute, and storage. What is the competitive landscape look like for all the guys? What are the players? What's the ecosystem look like right now? Right, well, I mean, if you look at just Software-Defined networking, right?  We're working with Plumgrid and one of a big telco deal that we just took down doing some integration there. I think in almost every one of our large enterprise customers, we're starting to see some network virtualization as part of our blueprints and as we deploy things. I think it's here, I think it's now, it's real. And then JR with Cumulus, what they're doing is potentially game changing from a routing perspective as well. So I think that that's interesting. So we're going to have JR and Peter Levine from the entries and all what's on today, shortly. So what should we ask them? I don't know, I'm friends with both of them, so I'm not going there, I don't know. All right, so let's get back to the clouds. So what's the competitive landscape? Obviously, it's a growth market, so people are going to win. It's going to be winners. What's the winning profile look like to you? So just generically, without naming names, what's the winners look like? Well, I think it's really interesting, is what is the landscape today? Is you have the incumbents largely have, you know, piles of software that they've acquired in the past that they're trying to glue together and they're selling a vision that's, you know, six to 18 months out and they're saying trust us, Mr. Customer, we'll build it. And actually what we're seeing is that, I mean, first of all, we have a solution today that works today and our customers are saying, well, you know, we're kind of, we want to get away from that vendor lock-in. We want an open, neutral management platform and that's why we're embracing OpenStack as an alternative to, you know, a pure single vendor management strategy, right? So it's, yeah. So let's talk about lock-in. So we asked Pat the question and they said a hardened top. This was like an infrastructure hardened top in Unable like an Intel processor did for a PC. There could be for a cloud, kind of a base foundation as hardened. That could be proprietary, but functionality is strong and versatile. So where is that? Is there a hardened top? Is that a false premise and a false promise? Or is there one? Is infrastructure to service with OpenStack going to be a open but hardened foundation that you can build on, be agile on top of? I think it's going to be. That's the bet I'm making, right? I mean, we're going to support that. We're huge fans of OpenStack. I mean, it's interesting though, is that when, I mean, if you look at applications, how they were developed in the past, you know, IT was always application centric. You would scope your application, just bear with me on this for one second. You would scope your application, you would procure your hardware, you would deploy your hardware into this test dev stage production, et cetera. And then when infrastructure as a service came up, they bifurcated the ability to spin up an empty virtual machine really quickly and to deliver business value and actually bring that to market, right? And now people, you know, cloud foundries coming in and saying, hey, it's past, right? Well, you know, you got to put all these pieces together, right? So there is, you know, it's interesting times there. So Sean, you were talking earlier about the customers that you talked to, you know, want that openness, they don't want that lock-in. Would you agree that you kind of in the early adopter cycle of those guys that the majority of enterprises are willing to risk that lock-in for the safety of whether it's single vendor simplicity or yes, it's going to work. I'm not going to get fired by an IBM that our VMware in this case, et cetera. Is that a fair characterization? Do you feel like it's the majority of the market that's actually, you know? Every customer we're seeing, so, you know, we don't have 4,000 customers, but we've got a lot and we can't keep up. Well, but they're not hard to find, right? They're not hard to find, right? Right, right. In fact, we're talking to a large bank that I can't disclose and they're basically saying, look, if you bring one of the incumbents to the table, you know, that's not what we're looking for. We, you know, that we need to drive, you know, 40 to 70% reduction in cost. And the only way to get to those numbers is, you know, open stack as an alternative in having a, not buying into entire vendor logic. Can you explain why open stack is, well, so Pat, and it's funny, VMware essentially depositioning open stack as a framework. Right. The guys from, you know, we had, we got some rack space on it. They don't agree with that. They see it as a long deal. Yeah, yeah, the rack space guys get it, yeah. Clearly. So, the guy, the customer that you just talked about, why is it, how is it that open stack using that capability will lower cost by that amount versus sort of the conventional approach? Right, well. Even though we're defying convention here. You cut out all of the, you know. License costs. Yeah, license costs, right. Which is, yeah, it's huge. It's huge. License and maintenance. So it's the Oracle factor. You look at the pie, 70% is license cost. Oh, you speak of Oracle, it's actually funny. It's, oh, a lot of the incumbents' marketing today is the Oracle strategy. Come on, freeze the market, ah, we'll build it.  So, you know, we're challenged that, but we'll take anybody on it and bake off. Because we actually can deliver.  So, ah. Well, right, so it does work for Oracle. Yeah, yeah. Well, there's, I don't know, the big data space is, there's a lot of guys encroaching on, on that.  Sean Douglas, the CTO of Service Match, thanks for coming out to the queue. I'll give you the last word. What are you most excited about right now? I mean, being a CTO at the EMC, playing with EMC Ventures, where you were working on the Nassir deal, among other deals, you had your hand creatively in a lot of the software-defined data center strategy. What are you getting excited about right now? I should take it down in deals. We heard that. What tech are you getting excited about right now? So, you know, you talked about IO data earlier, right? So I think IO data, they're embracing open compute, open stack, and that just drives down costs and we're partnering aggressively with them. There's some interesting opportunities there. So that could be game-changing, I think for the industry. So you had George Sussman on earlier, and in fact, I used his line from that interview with Pat and said, if software-defined data center is all software, what about the data center, the physical asset? And that's an interesting perspective. You kind of forget about that. Whoa, there's actually a physical plant inside the company. I think honestly, the thing that I'm most excited about when you asked me what I'm excited about is that, you know, you had everybody that's on stage here is talking about software-defined data center, hybrid cloud, and the need for a new management platform. This entirely validates everything that we've been doing and are doing, and we have product today and everybody's talking about road map. So that's what I'm stoked about. So service, match, check them out. I mean, obviously, great, hey, that's good. They have the product. They have the product with everyone's, the coolant everyone's passing out. All right, John Douglas, thanks for coming. CTO, service, match, this is theCUBE. We'll be right back with our next guest after this short break.


Julia and welcome back to my channel and for today's video I'm going to be sharing with you guys my summer TBR. So these are the books that I want to read in my two months of summer vacation that I hope to get to see if it happens. This is not like a strict TBR, it's just very roughly what I hope to get to. First up here I have Gunslinger Girl by Lindsay Ellie. All I know is this is a Y.E. Western. I've heard decent things from people who've read it. I actually haven't heard many people's thoughts on it but the things I have heard have been positive. I love Westerns so much so I'm so excited for this. At least I don't know much about but it's fine. So next is Fresh Water by I'm gonna butcher that name so here it is. I believe this deals with either schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder. Identity disorder? I can't speak. I'm not exactly sure which one but I know it deals with mental health and it's a new release of this year. It's an adult book. I'm looking forward to it. Coming into some more like YA like fluffy reads. I have Three Signs of a Heart which is like an anthology of stories about love triangles. So I guess I'm gonna read this. The cover is beautiful but this has who might I said it for? Julie Murphy. I love Julie Murphy. There's Katie Gattigno. Saboteure. Yeah so it should be fun. Next up here I also have Autobiography by Christina Lauren. So I know this one is about a male-male couple and it also deals with like religion and then being gay but also being religious I believe is kind of what happens that may not be exactly correct but again I don't want to know too much going into it. I've heard really good things about autobiography and one of my friends really likes it too so I'm really excited to read this one. Next up here I have Listen to Your Heart by Casey West. So I have a few of her books on this list. I've listened to your heart and I have Love Life in the List. So I know this one's like a podcast romance and then this one like this has something to do with podcast romance and then this one is like some list or something. I don't know. Casey West is really good for the summer. Super light, quick, reads, super fluffy so yeah I'm excited for these. Next I also have an ARC here that I want to get to and that is Broken Things by Lauren Oliver. This one's a thriller so I'm hoping I'll like kind of leave it till like August. This comes out in October so technically I'm in no rush to read it. Hopefully August I'll read it but the town called them liars, the world called them monsters but only they can uncover the truth and I read like the first line of this because I was about to start it. I was like oh my. The first line is five years. Five years ago when I turned 13 I killed my best friend. I'm like well that's a good starting line that's interesting. So I'm looking forward to reading this one. I haven't heard anything about it from other people who have ARCs but I did enjoy before I fall by Lauren Oliver so this should be fun. Another ARC that I have here is Escape Big from Houdini by Carrie Mina Skelko. I've been stalling reading this because I want to like make it last and it's bothering me because like I haven't started it because I'm like I'm gonna be obsessed with it like I want to like to vote my time to it.  It's the third book in the Stocking Jack the Ripper trilogy by Carrie Mina Skelko which these are like historical thrillers kind of have some feminist themes to them. They're really interesting. There's a good romance plot in there. There's always some mystery. Our main character is into forensics. It's great time. I'm so excited for this one.  Next up here I have a new release which I'm not including like I'm not gonna put on this list new releases of July and August like pictures. There's gonna be some of those. I don't know. There's a lot of things I want to read but this is the loneliest girl in the universe by Lauren James. All I know is this one. This one came out a few days ago but I know it was released in the UK before and I don't know. I've heard good things about it and I like Sapphire so great explanation. Good job. I'll have a few Kings. I have The Outsider by Stephen King. Want to read this one? I've heard you guys have told me all the Mr. Mercedes and like Bill Hodge trilogy references. That makes me so excited because that's like my favorite series. I'm so excited for this. Again I've been stalling plus all of you guys constantly tell me to read it and I'm super stubborn so I'm like no but like I have to start it. I know I have to start it. Next up here I have Gerald's Game also by Stephen King. I'm hoping to buddy read this with my friend Jessica and this one is about about some girl who gets handcuffed to her bed during sex and her husband like dies.  I don't know it sounds super weird but we'll see. Next I have some like graphic novels and manga and like poetry and stuff so for manga you guys are gonna hate me for the stickers because I sometimes leave my stickers on but I have Dream and Son and this is by Ichigo Takano as the sumo artist who did Orange. I'm so excited it's the same story and artist and all that.   She stumbles upon a mysterious man who never been in love or had a dream of her own but to secure her own apartment she's willing to try. It's supposed to be really cute so I have volumes one, volume two, and volume three. I'm so excited for these. This should be super fun. I also have Snot Girl volume two because Snot Girl volume one left on a cliffhanger and I'm really interested to see where the story goes. Again, Art is Beautiful is about a girl with allergies and there's some mystery components in here as well. She has a fashion blog. This one I should have had in my other stack but this is the little black book a toolkit for working women so it's exactly what it says but I think it'd be good for like a read-a-thon or something so like booktube-a-thon. Oh my god booktube-a-thon. Let's not even start with that. Okay I have three poetry collections so I have Helium hoping to give this one a read. I have this is like a new release I hope my heart doesn't I hope my voice didn't skip I hope my voice doesn't skip by Alicia Cook. She also wrote stuff I've been feeling lately the one that's like half blackout half regular poetry and then I have my friend Julie's collections who down the Wendy birds so I have these to read as well I'm super excited about that there's obviously so many books I want to read this summer so like I'm not trying to put pressure on myself to read a bunch but at the same time I'm like Julie you should try to read 15 books a month like you should try to read 15 books in July so I don't think that will happen exactly but we'll see what happens let me know what you guys are looking forward to reading this summer there's so many releases coming out as well that I'm interested in reading so yes thank you guys so much for watching and I'll see you super soon


German officials believe Ukraine destroyed Nord Stream. German investigators probing the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines are increasingly convinced that the question is linked to Ukraine. Does Spiegel and state broadcaster ZDF reported? Those familiar with the probe consider the clues pointing to Ukraine to be particularly convincing, the ZDF broadcaster said, adding that there is no reliable evidence that would suggest Russia was responsible. Law enforcement agencies are still largely focused on the Andromeda sailing yacht. Western media has previously reported that the vessel was chartered by the alleged saboteurs who used it to plant explosives on the undersea pipelines. Traces of these explosions were reportedly found in the cabin of the yacht. According to the two outlets, investigators now believe the group that used the vessel was in Ukraine before and after the explosions in the Baltic Sea in late September 2022. This was confirmed by technical data which law enforcement officials were able to retrieve and evaluate reports say citing security sources. The Wall Street Journal previously reported that the yacht was chartered by a Ukrainian-owned Warsaw-based travel agency and moored at a Polish port before sailing near each of the locations where the explosions later occurred. Both German outlets said the alleged saboteurs likely used a fake Moldovan passport belonging to a certain Stefan Marku to rent the vessel. The real Stefan Marku, who was contacted by the Spiegel and ZDF, said he learned about the sabotage from the news and never left Moldova in September 2022. He also said that the passport in question expired in October of the same year and that he had burned it. The Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines built to deliver Russian natural gas to Germany were destroyed by underwater explosions off the Danish island of Bornholm in September 2022.


Welcome to All Hands Update. This is Year Week in Navy History. December 27, 1862, during the Civil War, the Ironclad River Gunboat Baron de Cobb returned at their five-day Yazoo River Mission. During the mission, the gunboat captured and destroyed large quantities of enemy equipment and took several prisoners. For distinguished actions during this mission, five men received the Navy Medal of Honor. December 28, 1905, the dry dog Dewey left Solomon's Island, Maryland en route to the Philippines to serve as a repair base. The Dewey arrived at its destination nearly six months later. On the same day, in 1982, USS New Jersey, the first of four Iowa-class battleships, was recommissioned for the third time after its original 1943 commissioning. December 31, 1941, Admiral Chester W. Nimitz assumed command of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. To find out more about naval history, visit the Naval History and Heritage Command website.