I'm talking about the reception of Paul's mysticism in European scholarship. Paul was a mystic, so claimed scholars from Adolf Deismann to Albert Schweitzer, although others disagreed, figures no less significant than Adolf Boltzmann, Karl Bart, Ernst Keesermann. The pro-mystic group argued that Paul's theological message was best understood if it is set within Hellenic or Jewish mysticism. The anti-mystic group could not tolerate any similarity of that sort, which in their opinion could only taint Paul's authentic theology. In this paper I will examine the arguments for and against Paul's mysticism to see what was theologically and politically at stake in all of these debates. As I will argue here, these debates resulted from an anxiety about constructing Paul as a rational Christian that happened to be also a Protestant European. This is also relevant to stories I have from teaching Christianity in Iran when sometimes when I'm talking about Jesus and Paul on law, some of the students just say, oh, it's so mystical and it's so relevant to mysticism. And by saying that story, I'm not trying to construct or build my argument on that East-West mystical rational dichotomy which I am critiquing here, but I'm trying to say that many times certain things are not seen like Paul's mysticism perhaps precisely because of your social and political location and others could perhaps see it. So first I will give a history of the debate. Both Dijsman is credited with starting it all in the beginning of the 20th century when he claimed that the entire Pauline teaching could be understood in light of his in Christ mysticism. Dijsman starts his book by saying that after traveling to Anatolia twice he had got significant insights into Paul. And I'm quoting here a long excerpt from Dijsman, but it's pretty interesting because he talks about that experience of traveling to Anatolia and it's from the preface of his book. Besides the Paul who has been turned into a western scholastic philosopher, besides the aristocratized, conventionalized and modernized Paul now suffering his eighth imprisonment in the paper bondage of polynism, I would faint said the Paul whom I think to have seen at Tarsus, Jerusalem and Damascus in Antioch, Lysinia, Galatia, Ephesus and Corinth and whose words became alive to me at night on the decks of Levant shipping and to the sound of birds of passage winning their flight toward the Tarsus aliving in their passionate emotion the force of their popular appeal and their prophetic depth. I mean Paul the Jew who in the days of the Caesars breathed the air of the Mediterranean and ate the bread which he had earned by the labor of his own hand. The missionary whose dark shadow fell on the glittering marble pavement of the great city in the blinding glare of noon, the mystic devotee of Christ who so far as can be comprehended historically at all will be understood not as the incarnation of a system but as a living complex of inner polarities which refuse to be parceled out. This is where Schweitzer starts to disagree and yes we are already in the preface of Dismann's book. I will come back to Schweitzer's contention but as for the title of Dismann's book and again as a title St. Paul a study in social and religious history indicates he was relying on history of religious school to show that the Apostles' teachings were embedded in their Hellenic context but are not in a philosophical tradition rather in a mystical Hellenistic legacy. Paul's preaching therefore resembled a cult of Christ more than the religion of Jesus. As Dismann famously put it, Paul was in Christ and Christ was in Paul but unlike Reisenstein and Boussouet around that time who also claimed that Paul's teaching resembled Gnosticism very much and many times even they are happy to say that Paul was the first Gnostic and was precisely situated within that group Dismann unlike those people could find both Jewish and Greek elements but he was careful to note the differences as well. He claimed that in Paul's theocentric mysticism communion rather than union sanctification or personality, conformation of the human towards the divine are highlighted something which is in contrast with the Hellenic egocentric mysticism which no boundary between humanity and deity is observed. Schweitzer followed up on Dismann but with important criticisms and qualifications he confirmed that Jesus and Paul were involved in different kinds of mysticism namely in God and in Christ mysticism respectively. He disagreed with Dismann in that he believed that Paul's thought was quite systematic. Schweitzer held that the system was wholly in line with Jewish scatology just as Dismann had distinguished between egocentric and theocentric mysticisms Schweitzer emphasized the distinction between intellectual and primitive mysticisms. According to Schweitzer, primitive mysticism has not, I'm quoting from Schweitzer's book, primitive mysticism has not yet risen to a conception of the universal and is still confined to naive views of earthly and super earthly, temporal and eternal. The entry into the super earthly takes place by means of a mystery, a magical act in a more developed form, magical mysticism is found in the Oriental and Greek mystery religions at the beginning of our era. In the cults of Addis, Osiris and Mithras as well as in the Illusinian mysteries in their later more profound form the believer attains by means of initiation unity with the divinity and thereby becomes a partaker in a immortality for which he yearns, end quote. And please note those whom Schweitzer includes in both primitive and intellectual groups as he calls them. In contrast, developed or intellectual mysticism and again I quote Schweitzer is a common possession of humanity. Whenever thought makes the ultimate effort to conceive the relation of their personality to the universal, this mysticism comes to existence. It is found among the Brahmins and in Buddha, in Platonism, in Stoicism, in Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Hegel. In a less end quote, and yes he also mentions other names in a less abstract forms, it may be found in the works of many Christian figures not the least, Hugo of Saint Victor, Francis of Assisi, Jacob Boomer and Meister Eckhart among others. End quote. Now the question is where does Paul stand here? Paul's mysticism according to Schweitzer occupies a unique position between primitive and intellectual mysticism. The religious conceptions of the Apostles stand high above those of primitive mysticism. This being so, it might have been expected that his mysticism would do with the unity of man with God as the ultimate ground of being, but this is not the case. Paul never speaks of being one with God or being in God. He does indeed assert the divine sonship of believers, but strangely enough he does not conceive of sonship to God as an immediate mystical relation to God, but as mediated and affected by means of the mystical union with Christ. End quote. Besides being an in Christ union, Paul's mysticism has another peculiar feature. It involves the believers dying and rising with Christ, that is they really participate in Christ's bodily suffering. Now if the history of religion scholars had heard in assuming a Hellenic origin for Paul's thought over looking the significant contribution of Jewish eschatology, why had Christianity later become Hellenic? Schweitzer responds by saying that it was Ignatius and Johanna in theology that Hellenized Paul's teachings making us miss a lot in understanding Paul. Other theologians also grappled with this issue. It is famously claimed that many Protestant theologians prefer to interpret Paul's in Christ remarks as participation in Christ, many of them showing an anxiety over the word mysticism. Rodolf Boltmann, who shared with Schweitzer an eschatological interpretation of Paul's message, could not concede to the mystical reading. According to Boltmann, Paul's apocalypse was not a passion mysticism because quote, this fellowship or sharing does not take place in absorbed meditation on the passion or in so full appropriation of Christ's suffering and mystical experience. End quote. Although he, unlike Schweitzer, accepted the Gnostic roots of the Pauline in Christ formula, Boltmann emphasized that the formula was ecclesiological rather than a formula of mysticism. Again, I quote Boltmann, it denotes not to be sure an individual mystical relationship to Christ, but the fact that the individual actual life of the believer living not out of himself but out of the divine deed of salvation is determined by Christ. End quote. In Boltmann's opinion, although Paul did have ecstatic experiences as a rare exception, note that Paul has to refer to 14 years ago in 2 Corinthians 12, Paul's in spirit or in Christ experience was about all his way of life. Again, I quote Boltmann. The spirit does not mean to him the capacity for mystical experiences. Rather, everything indicates that by the term spirit, he means the eschatological existence into which the believer is placed by having appropriated the salvation deed that occurred in Christ. But Ernest Casemont could not even allow for this. He went so far as to claim that Paul's doctrine of justification was, quote, a protection against enthusiasm and mysticism, end quote. E.P. Sanders also believed that participationist is a better description of the Pauline experience rather than the controversial word mysticism. James Dunn, quite exceptionally, was fairly comfortable with the term mystic. He does not reject the term mysticism and tries to find historical explanations for its replacement by other terms. For example, he says that one reason that Schweitzer's book was not continued was actually the way Schweitzer had put it. I quote Dunn. The extremness of Schweitzer's view on Paul's mysticism helps explain why the mystical approach faded so quickly as a viable option for Pauline studies in the middle decades of the century, end quote. Dunn generally feels that the insights of pro-mystic scholars could help in understanding Paul's thoughts. His stresses on the fact that Paul's mysticism was by no means an individual union, rather it involved social integration. Even though Dunn does not reject the term mysticism, he seems to prefer to use the word theology instead. The Catholic-alphaed Wickenhauser bemoans a protestant antipathy towards mysticism. But in order to object to the protestant equation of mysticism with Hellenic experiences, Wickenhauser emphasized the difference between Pauline and Hellenistic mysticism. He said that Paul was driven by a monotheistic, clear scatology and that he was aiming at union with a person rather than infinity. Although Wickenhauser and Valentin Prokulski were willing to point to one's attitude toward mystical experience as a confessional marker, that is Catholic protestant, one can see among Catholic scholars like Lucien Seufel, who did not find what he called vague mysticism an adequate explanation of Paul's precise theological ideas, as he put it. Now, I like to talk about the causes of this discomfort. This anxiety about Paul's mysticism can be indicative of underlying theological and political anxieties and marking boundaries between the same and the other. Jules Bessler attributes this anxiety to one's definition of mysticism and to one's personal attitude toward mysticism. I quote Bessler, Only another mystic can grasp the category of reality of which Paul speaks and the mystical scholars are few and far between. Yet whatever the language used and whatever the level of insight into the nature of reality, more and more scholars of a non-mystical bent are acknowledging that some form of real union with Christ was important, even central to Paul's experience and thought and quote. The question of definitions is important, as I will make clear. Mysticism is usually difficult to define and obviously theologians had to offer their definitions of the term before stating their disagreement or agreement with picturing a mystical Paul. As we have noted before, those who disagreed with the term mysticism said that their disagreement resulted precisely from a discomfort with the term, although they may not have been uncomfortable with the idea. Moreover, as mentioned above, some have attributed this anxiety about Paul's mysticism to a Protestant Catholic divide and have stated that Catholics were not so uncomfortable with the mystical Paul, but not McGean holds that German Protestants more particularly rejected mysticism, quote, at least God mysticism or the mysticism of union with God as essentially world-negating and salipsistic, and quote. If there is anything like a Protestant Catholic divide in the mysticism debate, it is reminiscent of the all-pervasive and highly influential Bowerian biblical scholarship. FC Bower's church history rested on the idea that Protestantism had yet to be purged from its, quote, unquote, Catholic or Jewish elements. It has to be polinized in a way and rejecting mysticism, which was usually associated with the Christian middle ages, could be a step in that direction. Another factor in this theological discomfort with the mystical Paul might be existentialism. Marcus Bookmore has pointed this out. Mysticism, however, defined is usually a way to bridge the abyss between God and humanity while existentialist and dialectical theology is based on this, depend on this huge gap, even to the point of emphasizing that it is not bridgeable. No wonder then that those theologians like Boltzmann and Bart, who emphasize the infinite qualitative difference between God and humanity, were not happy with the mystical Paul. This explanation seems plausible, but it is also a bit problematic. The problem with mysticism may be that its language of union is overcoming the God-human gap, although Boltzmann and Bart do not state that. The proposed term participation, however, is not solving the problem either. If mysticism is a way to bridge over the God-human abyss, the language of participation or fellowship in Christ is not any less than mysticism a way to cover up this separation. Nevertheless, without refuting the above factors, that is the Protestant-Catholic debate and the existential theology point that Bookmore had made, I'd like to suggest a third factor that contributed to this unease with the mystical Paul. In my opinion, debates on Paul's mysticism can be read in light of anxieties about Paul's political location. Richard King's study of mysticism in religious scholarship can be helpful in this survey. King argues that defining mysticism like its sister-term religion is fraught with difficulties. Mysticism and religion have been invented and reified only in modern times and largely in academia. Like religion, mysticism is a social construct which has over time been relegated to the realm of the private. In the history of the definition and usage of the term, one can see a first instance of disapproval by Luther who rejected the illogical and mystical exegesis of the scriptures. In the 17th century, mysticism gradually began to be used to distinguish science and literature. Why did this happen? King responds by saying that a quote, 17th century usage of the term mystical appears to have become increasingly pejorative. Critics attacked the apparent novelty of the mystic. Having a history, they argued, that spanned barely three or four centuries and usually said to originate with figures such as Meister Eckhart and John of the Cross. Apologists for the mystical responded to this critique in two ways. First, they claimed to reveal only what was already present in holy scriptures. However, the claim to access the secret meaning of scripture was always likely to be seen as a threat to the church's institutionalization of biblical meaning if made by those outside its auspices. So we find the predominance of a second strategy, namely the invention of an ancient mystical tradition within the orthodox walls of Christianity. This involved a selective colonization of classical Christian authors, in particular the early church fathers and a variety of medieval Christian writers and saintly figures. The consequence of the second strategy, of course, was that it tied the newly sanctified mystic and their apologists to the established tradition of exegesis and the overarching authority of the church, as well as binding them to a canon of acceptable and orthodox ecclesiastical literature. So it would seem, then, that the birth of a Christian mystical tradition also coincided with its domestication by the ecclesiastical authorities. Another key moment in the study of mysticism is the emergence of William James' theories on religious and mystical experiences. Although very prevalent to this day, James' understanding of mysticism was largely based on the philosophy of his age as King remarks. He was influenced by romanticism and emphasized the private psychological and individual aspects of mystical experiences. And it also rested on the idea of mystical experiences that could be deemed delusory, subjective and hallucinatory or described as altered states of consciousness. Again, this shows how it was developing as something that is different from normative nature of experience. And it was usually associated with oriental religions. King believes that the modern distinction between private religion and public thought coupled with the labeling of the other as non-rational, which is by no means only a Western phenomenon, led to the association of the mystical with the other. Again, I quote King, in fact the mystical has tended to be defined in post-continent thought in direct opposition to the rational. Mysticism comes to represent the preeminently private, the non-rational and the quietistic. As such, it represents the suppressed other that contributes to the establishment of and high status of those spheres of human activity that are defined as public, rational and socially oriented in the modern academy, end quote. Again, as King remarks, even when in romanticism and new age spiritualities, mysticism is celebrated precisely for the elements of irrational and mysterious that it contains. That is both its celebration and its rejection are embedded in the rational-irrational binary histories of philosophy do not take the Eastern thought into account as they are considered non-philosophical, poetic and irrational, they relegate it to the realm of mysticism. In light of what King has put forward, we can get a better idea of the European reception of the mystical Paul. Let us go back to the scholars we have examined before. First, the very emergence of these debates can be in line with what King has observed about the strategies of the promistic group or the apologists of mysticism to show their long heritage. But more than that, important questions of inclusion and exclusion rise in these debates. The pioneer Deisman made a case for a mystical reading of Paul based on his journeys to the Orient after which he was convinced that Paul belongs more to the mystical Levant rather than the philosophical Greece. Only when he was too close to locating Paul in thought in the Orient, Deisman qualified it by distinguishing between egocentric and theocentric mysticism. Yes, Paul was a mystic. No, not that kind of mystic. Deisman was including Paul in a mystical tradition, excluding him from a philosophical tradition and taking extra care not to include him within the unfavorable mystical traditions. Similarly, Schweitzer, by whose name the mystical Paul is known and remembered, started his book Mysticism of Paul the Apostle with distinguishing two kinds of mysticism, a primitive and an intellectual one. Intellectual mysticism, in his opinion, involved thought while primitive mysticism was more a matter of magic. Schweitzer could not locate Paul in primitive mysticism. He insisted that Paul was an apostle of thought and freedom of thought, and that Paul, according to Schweitzer, was not an intellectual mystic as such because he was not thinking of unity with God, rather his object was unity with Christ. Also note that it is only Schweitzer's own definition of mysticism that excludes the union with Christ from intellectual mysticism. Schweitzer's Paul was influenced by Jewish eschatological beliefs rather than Hellenistic mysteries. His thought was Hellenized only later with theology and Ignatius. Resistance to the Hellenization of Paul in message that was represented in the history of religion schools echoed in the work of other theologians, not the Lees, Barth and Boltman. What they saw in Paul was not at all similar to what they knew of mysticism. Gradually Protestant theologians proposed to use the substitutive terms that said almost the same thing, but also preserved the uniqueness of Christianity and Paul in message. James Dunn held that the wider interest in mysticism, which had been a feature of pre-World War II period, had anyway been diminishing in the face of psychological critique and the horror of World War I. By psychological critique, Dunn means William James' work, although he does not explain it further. Neither does he elaborate on how the horror of World War I influenced the debates. Perhaps the question was forgotten altogether or overshadowed by other overarching themes such as the participation in Christ. In recent years, however, there has been a turn to a mystical Paul and quite a few scholars have tried to read Paul's message in light of his mysticism. Colleen Shuntz, for example, has observed that all of these debates arise from a thought-experience dichotomy that can be reassessed and that then Paul's experience can shed light on his intellectual message. Danielle Margrott notes that Paul had all of the elements of mystical knowledge and his work can be interpreted in light of that. Celia Courier relies on postmodern theology, which according to her provides room for mystical aesthetic and transformative experiences. Courier argues that Paul's mysticism is not confined to certain quote-unquote lofty moments of excitement, which involves one's daily life, which she calls quotidian mysticism. Suffering is part of that daily life. Therefore, it leads to a transformed ethical life and inner tranquility. Conclusion. In this paper, I tried to survey the Western European responses to Paul's mysticism, and I should note that I could also work on charismatic responses and also Western orthodox responses. From what I have surveyed, I can see that the question is highly theological and political. Debates on Paul's mysticism arose only to include Paul within a tradition, Gnosticism according to Bussuere and Reitz und Stein, Drich's eschatology according to Schweitzer, both according to Deismann, neither according to Boltzmann. Many of these studies started with definition, which is methodologically correct and helpful, but when in situating or not situating Paul within mystical traditions, scholars got out of their way to distinguish different kinds of mysticism. Again, their struggles about favorable and not so favorable kinds of mysticism show up. Relying on Richard King's study of the politics of religious scholarship, I suggested that the above questions can indicate certain attempts at recognition, inclusion and exclusion. Paul was a pioneering mystic, but not that kind of mystic that can be imagined from other traditions. Paul's was a unique experience. To follow up on that book, I can say that it was a question of constructing a European Paul, the mystic philosopher who while confirming the ancient history of Christian mysticism remained free from certain ancient practices or strange ecstasies. Even while living and dying with the actual body of Christ, the mystic apostle is largely a man of ideas and not the flesh. Disembodied and mentalistic. And now I think that speaks for itself. Now the question is whether this whole thing was necessary at all. If one considers Deismann and Schweitzer if one considers Deismann and Schweitzer only children of their age, when constructing a history of Christian mysticism was significant, when history of religion school was looking for a Hellenic context of Christianity, when political and theological boundaries could be different from our own, then do we have continued it at all? Yes, I agree that Paul's mysticism can even explain a lot of inexplicable elements of his message. For example, his attitude toward the law is in line with what many mystics in Judaism, Christianity and Islam suggested about the significance of law in God-human relation. Paul's understanding of transitory life, his hope for future union with Christ or of God, how can it matter? His focus on the spirit are all parts of a mystical tendency. I especially suggest that a Paul within Judaism scholars take this formulation seriously. Thank you.


okay the four years are now all right hello everyone welcome to the DSC call as always please if you're new to the call keep take a look at the anti-trust policy notice that is being displayed you're also supposed to be familiar with it it's also a kind of conduct that you're supposed to be familiar with which we won't go through now but basically it's linked from the agenda you can follow the links and basically it tells you to be here like a decent human being. The calls otherwise are public. Everybody's welcome to participate and so many we are just those of us at the maintainer's summit in Minneapolis are about 30 in the room right now 30-20 the registration numbers but they're getting close to 200 the leaders that hadn't signed in yet that will be so we should be okay on session leaders I'll just have to make sure to recruit locals more but other than that everything's gone. What are session leaders supposed to do beforehand? So session leaders if they most have already prepped all their materials but we are also doing things on conference style so there is a grid and so there are additional session leaders that we always recruit on premises where they sit there and they're like oh so we can go and talk about something we want to talk about and create a workgroup or something along those lines I might yeah go do it and so those those kind of things that always happen and so those session leaders don't actually have to plan anything other than their own levels of expertise. There's a quality report there are three reports. Is there any questions about any of those or is there something that the TSC did? One of the challenges we seem to have with integrating different components across projects is the programming language and I noticed in the report that SOTU is going through this rewrite in Rust but not everything from what I understand is in Rust yet and so they have to do cross boundaries between the language and some issues that we got to performance impact. I'm curious to know you know is there a less serious problem they're going to be able to address? Yeah yeah it's because the entire code base for the balladator node has been originally in Python and then in order to move it to Rust we started taking off modules one by one but whenever you want to communicate across modules then you've got to serialize it over the FFI and that has gone relatively smoothly with the exception of when we deal with our fork-in consensus for poets there's a lot of complicated things that happen there so there's more of this back and forth and so when we go through our long-running tests that we do before making a release that exposes things that come up you know hundred a thousand ten thousand blocks or something through the lifecycle of the chain and so some of those deeper problems were showing performance regressions as part of being in this intermediate state between languages. Do you expect the Prang to go away because eventually everything will be in Rust and it won't be this one re-crossing anymore? Right. So that doesn't get all but very well for this notion that we can have libraries in Rust and whatever language you have it's okay because you can use it you can always integrate. Don't think that that's a correlation? You don't think that problem will appear everywhere we do that? I think there's lots of examples where you use a library that's written in one language by calling it from another thing it's the Sawtooth performance issue there is sort of unique to Sawtooth and migrating something. It's also GRPC isn't it? So it's much more expensive than a Rust CFSI. I would draw too many conclusions from one defect. It's mentioned there because it held up the release so we're treating it like a defect. Any other questions from anyone else? I know this is Angelo so more than a question I would like to do this consideration because I guess all the TSC member agrees that the fact that you should have the project interoperate more or try to collaborate so I see here that Sawtooth has released the PBFT already. So how can we foster this interoperability? For example in this specific case this PBFT may be used by Fabrik as consensus algorithm or do you have any recommendations here because someone has to put some effort that's the thing but we have to push at some point too loud to close the microphone here. Is it better now? Okay try again slower. Is it better now? Yes right now it's good so don't speak too fast. I was saying about the fact that all TSC members said that we should find a way to have the projects the Hyperledger projects collaborate more or be interoperable in some way so Sawtooth has this PBFT algorithm now that this is what they've released that already. How can we foster this collaboration between multiple projects like integrating this PBFT protocol in Fabrik for example. So how can we do that? Okay thank you very loose notion or it's been discussed from time to time to create some sort of common consensus library so that's that's one area that's not something that I think we would want to enter into lightly because these things are pretty complicated but I think that the abstractions that are created to support forketed and non forketed consensus in Sawtooth there's bound to be lessons that can be extracted from that to be adopted by other projects either through a project of its own that the other projects adopt or directly. So I mean to answer your questions you know practically speaking you know it's just a matter of connecting with the right people from Sawtooth they're working on this part of the code and see how you guys can work out some you know integration path and then you know whether they should become a separate project like consensus library kind of thing we can take that on later on that shouldn't stop you right now. Well consensus is particularly difficult because right now all of the platforms link into the chain code or smart contract layer a little differently they're consistent subreddits. So it'll be a tricky problem but I think something definitely works well in the long run. But I mean you know Jerry's thinking I mean like what we've been doing during the last two days at the maintenance site it's a lot of discussions along those lines right we have different projects with common interest in integrating different pieces and say okay let's get together discuss how it works how it might look what it might look like and then try to figure out a plan for and so I think my first answer is to try and do exactly that for this for the consensus part right. So yeah I think if it's a matter for you and Joe to connect with the right people from the Sawtooth project I think we can maybe then you can take the action item to figure this out. Yeah yeah I think that's the right path. Let's answer your question. So I don't know I'm not really a consensus guy so I'm more a crypto guy so I might connect better with the URSA the URSA project but I was more curious on how can we nudge the participants in doing that because at some point someone has to put an effort right so can we do something as TSC members can we do something to nudge these members in the right direction to say maybe it's better if you report also that you did something to bridge your platform to other platforms. So Angelo while we're on this topic this is Mike, Dan and I wanted to reach out with you on some URSA stuff to discuss some questions we had as a result of the members or the maintainers of it. So we'll get in touch with you on that if that's all right. Yeah I would say yes let's do that I mean if we can do if this can become an example our first way to say oh we finally got a bridge between Fabrik and URSA by the way I looked recently at your project and I found how to connect I mean it shouldn't be too it should be quite easy to connect Fabrik with URSA for what I understood but definitely let's I really because we have to start from somewhere we have to push somewhere to say these projects should collaborate more I will we should ask the members to do something proactively even. Thank you but so to get back to the question of consensus how do we gather people who are interested to work with Angelo's questions? Well I think that's a great question. We need to come up with with different approaches too. There's nothing that we don't usually try to think how to phrase it. So the usual response is we've got to do accuracy so where there's people who are interested that's how things happen. But we could have some kind of call out to say hey you know there are people interested in working consensus together. Yeah so maybe a personalized thing so like if Angelo you see that there's a good opportunity here maybe you can try to stitch together. It isn't that specific example but like component A component B then it's a matter of reaching out to the maintainers there and maybe trying to make a personal appeal. I would propose something slightly different. Email is essentially free. Send an email ask people you know we have unlimited usage of these zoom accounts just to say hey I want to have a boff online whatever and and just you know make it happen doesn't have to be so you know doesn't have to be so much direct one on the trade. Yeah but on the other side you could just take the code. I mean for what it's worth I already looked at code right. If we had an interest in PBFT we would use it right we're not we're not focused on PBFT right now. But to your point Angelo right I mean from an implementation perspective you would have to do something that's going to be similar to what Ursa is trying to do right or similar to how we use that CD raft right and actually like the raft implementation in saw through this actually loosely based on a port of the CD one right into Rust. So somebody would have to propose you know doing that and have joint interest right but from the other side of it if somebody wants to proactively do it right it becomes down to the notion of not invented here which is a syndrome everywhere right. Take a look at what's out there and say hey I might be interested in using this you know do I need help on it. You know do you want to kick it off etc. For instance I'm looking forward to see the first to interact with transact and to see how can you play with with Fabry. Right so we have work on that underway right I think that's the first example where we actually jointly decided to do something from the beginning that could potentially well from almost the beginning that could be potentially leveraged by multiple projects. Yeah and there were quite a bit of discussions around transact and integration with different projects but there's some in there. Yeah I think we even got HRSA and transact commit. I just added HRSA is another provider to transact for signing for so I mean it was a pretty simple one but Sean and I together. Yeah good benefit again if people sit down face face so think have any different levels. So you know at the end of the day that's what's key is trying to find the people who are interested in working on it. So does it make sense to say let's use transact as a blueprint going forward so we you know sort of watch how trans acts doing it and then we can do a lesson what worked good what didn't and you know maybe come up with a rough guideline for our future interactions. So part of the to your point Mark yes I do think though that oftentimes it's really a function of you know team you know goes off and creates a Jira or writes an RFC or whatever and it falls in the woods nobody hears it and they go off and they do some work or at least only the people that are in the woods actually hear it and and then everybody sort of sees oh look there's a PPFT or there's a rash or there's a whatever and it's like well you know we had known about that we might have gotten involved over the earlier and so forth I think it really is a function of being a bit more outgoing and be sort of mindful of the the notion that you know when we embark on building some new capability the thing to do would be to sort of you know as a suggestion just by Ryan post an email say hey we're gonna start doing this here's an initial spec it might have relevance to this project that project the other project and we love to get feedback and we're interested in you know doing a development effort that potentially involves collaboration and can make this useful in more than one project I think that's the kind of spirit that you need to have in order to make that real you know to Gary's point yeah sometimes it's all just about taking the code plugging it in and not going through and reinventing stuff but sometimes you know as I think we saw with the sort of some of the initial implementation of transact for instance it fit nicely in the song too but it didn't fit with other things and so there had to be a little bit of refactor I think shown describing to me to make it a little bit more useful in other context right so again that's the kind of thing you want to do early rather than late if you have to do that kind of refactor when it's you know already being used that makes it much much so when we say send an email to the TSE list right well I mean you know pretty more probably just hyper leather announce or something hyper leather announces I think closed okay so I think you can if it's maintainer focus you hit the maintainer list of it's maybe broader interest than the TSE list if you know that hey this is something you know hi and here's something that I know the fabric guys are also working on maybe just cross post to those lists by the way you just mentioned the maintainers list I was told earlier this was not really announced some people don't know about it there's a meeting you and so if you're not I mean maintainer should speak up yeah I think we might be we might have conflated two things right I mean there was one question on you know measuring do we want to add a measurement originally right on you know or or should projects you know have some notion of reporting about something they might have done to be interacted with something else I think that was the part of the original question than in Angelo on the other side I mean communication right I mean I don't think we have to process everything to death right I mean I'm pretty sure the whole world knows that you know if you wanted to know something I wanted to interoperate with somebody around here we you know who to talk to about secure a niche of all the core people on the projects not the outside world I get that not not the people who aren't very fairly maintainers or whatever but I mean it's not that hard guys right I mean all the repositories are open I mean me I just went and looked I just go and look at the soft tooth code to see if there's anything interesting just takes motivation right like to mark questions just to close on this I mean you were asking but you know the sun learns and stuff like that lessons learned I you know I don't know anybody would object to this it's clearly too early to do that but eventually I think I suggest we move on with the agenda there was also architecture what you want to say something about the status of the architecture was make online it's no report but Nick is traveling okay yeah so the architecture working group has not been doing as well there's a participation as of late I believe Ram has moved jobs so I don't know what exact what is exact statuses we can try to put together a report summarizing the current state but I think the working group to reboot will be very very useful but I do want to point out the whole point of having those reports is to detect this kind of situation so we shouldn't be you know shy about saying well we're kind of in limbo right now because that's what this is all for so I think it's fine to to have a people that says okay we're kind of in limbo right now we don't know what this status really is I think it's useful conversation but there's a bunch of we'll update you next week on this okay and there are other reports as you for next week so please keep an eye don't make me chase you all right so back to the crux of the meeting I listed a bunch of issues again we're back into territory of like process questions related to the TSE for the must pop and so I think we did some of the easy ones last week but if we started at the very end of the course there was the question of the size of the TSE and whether we should increase the size and I kind of combine two aspects of the two proposals into one so this time I separated them because I think the first one is probably not as controversial as the second one so he should be increased before even the last election you know Chris put together I mean brought up this idea that we should probably increase the size of TSE given the number the increasing number of projects we have to have a better chance of a greater representative representation of the different projects and that seemed to gather quite a bit of support when he bought it up and then so there's a question of how many you know we increase it's kind of arbitrary but I figured if we added four people it wouldn't become out of control we seem to have a lot of opinionated people running for the TSE for better and for worse and so the more people the harder it will be to get to any conclusions on anything but I felt like adding four people would be reasonable so my proposal is to extend the size to 15 seats there is the charter specified it's 11 so we probably need the board to endorse our decision but I think that's really just it's not an issue the board will stay fine so that's my proposal extend the size of the TSE to 15 seats I have a broad I have a broad objection my broad objection is why are these TSE items honestly right I put it in my last comment I don't really understand why these are TSE items I guess if we're saying members of the TSE do we want to create a proposal the real vote here is we would like to create a proposal to the board that's as a team United that says that that we want to expand the size to 15 I guess that's really what we're saying here right because Gary Singh as an individual person I could write a note to the board and come up with a proposal and gather stuff outside of here so I guess you know I mean in reading through everything over and over again things about term length term limits diversity like whatever like I don't really think that those are the domain of the TSE so if we're just saying here that we do we as a TSE as a unified front want to create a proposal to the board to extend the size okay that's one thing but then the rest of this stuff I just don't understand why it's in our domain and why we're going to waste umpteen million hours on it okay so I get your point Gary and I think it's a fair point to make but as I said before the problem is there aren't too many people you can ask to answer those questions there is the governing board and there's the TSE that's it right and the governing board means what once every quarter or so and you know if we I'm sorry I don't remember exactly but you know I don't think it's very effective to wait for them to answer all these questions so maybe I'm naive but I thought those issues were not necessarily controversial and we could quickly address them and then move on to more interesting stuff I do feel a bit you know a frustration from the fact that everybody says that's not the things we want to work on but yet everybody fights through the nail on every single one of those little things because what is this and what is that no they don't but I guess yeah anyway whatever I guess I mean I get the fact that Chris proposed this originally this seems to be a reaction I'm just gonna go on record is saying this all of this and hurrying it up seems to be a reaction to like one or two people's things I that's that's what I don't understand there was never an issue proposed anywhere about this other than there was some ephemeral complaints that were out there no official report no official stuff on this so from that perspective I get it if Chris proposed this and wants to say hey TSE we think we should expand the size and we'd like to take this forward I'm good with that the rest of this stuff I mean it's fine and everybody else wants to vote on it that's fine I'm just gonna go on the record as I'm standing from everything else on the rest of it because I don't think this is our domain and I don't understand why we're voting on it when we don't even know what if you were trying to solve okay I'll tell you one thing I realize the other day because people start adding stuff to the backlog right open issues and it's kind of open-ended and then it puts a lot of burden on us to address them and I thought we really should first make a decision whether we accept those issues or not but you're adding yet more processes and more discussions we then decide whether we should discuss it or not which is in and of itself you know next time and so again maybe they can just solve this and move on so look we just buy another five ten minutes fighting over whether we should do this or not and maybe by now we would have decided then yeah I won't beat this horse to death or no but my point wasn't necessarily purely about this topic it's these types of topics to be clear I mean I proposed this actually before the election before we even knew running and it was really mostly in in response to the fact that we now have and I've lost count of how many projects we have we have about 14 or 15 projects now and that 11 TSE members could not possibly cover even a majority of them right I mean that was realistic I think there's a couple that are likely to get more than one and so I felt that you know the thing to do would be to expand the size to at least make it potential that there would be more representatives from across the range of projects so that was really so it's the proposal to vote on extending or extending and adding the next four I know it's the first one only the first one to make it that extending and we have had to put it out of the issue it's not here sorry so we already have that so again anybody objects to this to the proposal yes Gary do you object to this going to abstain I think that's how it works I think there's a motion to vote and then you vote and then I am asking now if anybody wants to abstain and Gary you want to abstain it's fine we can read it we can write down that you abstain just telling us for this abstaining I'm sorry I was on I muted myself just in case I said something under my breath in the background so I know myself well so I yeah I'm abstaining and I'm just abstaining me staining because I don't think that we should be voting on these types of issues the proof thank you so then the question becomes the next question is we can either leave it as is and it will get you know exercised in the next election or we can say oh we can just ask for more people and there are many different ways we can do that but I'm trying to be simple and say hey we just go back to the list and the staff would have to do that and look at the next four people contact them see they're still interested in being on the board if they're not they just keep them we don't need to know anything and they just keep going until they are full proposal I know there are issues people have said well it creates like a second class citizen I've done some survey although it's not scientific by any I have asked a few people were in that situation who might be called to be you know on the TSC in that second round they say I don't care I'd be happy to be on the TSC okay so if I if I could just tweak that slightly and say what we've done with the first agreed proposal which is to expand into 15 and and we have to recommend this board right because the board is going to have to ratify and modification I was so why don't we as a follow-on say and we recommend that you just pick the next four people and let them serve out this year as well and so we're basically making a recommendation for us to how they deal with this that makes sense you really don't have to do the only thing we have to get board approval for is the size increase yeah I don't know that that's the case in the charter it gives the TSC the right to pick how they hold the election and Alan has signed off on that or mine was a little more than a number has given the TSC the ability to make these decisions the TSC the earlier TSC didn't make these decisions so one to have these kind of things written out and if you want to have a cleaner and clearer election process this is something that the TSC has to figure out and do I'd be fine with telling everybody what to do but no one came to help me to do that so ever stopped you before to Gary my problem proposal I know my problem with this proposal is the election was held 11 members so I voted for 11 people I wanted to be on the board now you're saying well we're just gonna add the next four that that's not what we voted on I would have changed my voting properties had I known I was electing 15 instead of 11 so you're tainting by just throwing in the next four because the election was specifically for 11 people hey can I tell you with like a bit of history that I think might actually like inform your decision-making I think it's normal I think it's normal this is Dave use me I think it's normal it's actually there to have an election between it's actually normal to have an election between a change in a composition of a governing body like the TSC and when it goes into effect so I mean what I talked about with our know the other night was yes vote to expand it but then also say that it sunrises with the next election so that to Mark's point it would mean that we were all electing 15 people right like you're voting change though anyway it's there's a long history in in governing bodies all types of having elections yeah you're voting to say look there's gonna be 15 seats in the next election okay thank you we are using the most voting system that does a preferential ballot so I think the other question there is Dom do those same situations apply you know it's particularly in Mark's case if he voted perfectly for those who got elected I suppose that he has a lot of rights to upset but he has four people he voted for who didn't get elected then the endorsement only platform would be it should still work out okay no no no no no it shouldn't because I did the same thing as Mark I voted I numbered everybody one through eleven and then I gave everybody else the last number yes definitely and then I mean again it's mostly it's clearly not moments I mean I recognize that it's just easy simple someday we could do that but it raises concern then the default is to switch the proposal to we will get into play you know at the next election and we remain with four and he sits for now so I'm ready to vote against it so I move to vote if you need to vote against what that proposed to accept the next four people but there's no point if people don't seem to want to do it we don't I mean we can finalize it we voted on it we voted no we had problems before when we make this decision so I second so what am I voting on am I voting for this proposal or my voting for a proposal against this proposal you're kidding we don't need to do that I'm going to change the proposal to say we're not so they want to make it official we are rejecting this proposal that's on the agenda the second one which says to get started we had the next four candidates from the last election that's what has been my motion I'm still confused so I'm going to do the other way anybody want to approve this okay so it's rejected move on unanimous rejection that's a first I said looks like we all voted the same again I don't even think we need to have anything else decided we just leave it that way by default it means it cannot be come to play at the next election yeah and and I would suggest I would suggest term length and term limits be left to the board well there's no no need to do an action because we're not changing anything so let's just skip them now we're making a recommendation the board had received yeah no but I'm saying term limits and term length we're not changing anything that exists now like we're not making it oh they work just so people understand those may follow this is there was a suggestion when we started talking about adding seats that maybe we should change the term so that about half would be for two years another half the one year for the first time and then we would stagger like membership so that they would be some ongoing but Brian killed the proposal I mean he suggested we kill it on the basis that if you look at the results we have that there's been turned over with some overlap there are some incumbents that seem to stick and so we have continued anyway so a lot of the items on this list are just items that I broke out and emails and discussions that were going on and I typed them in here if you look they're like they were like one sentence is one sentence at the beginning from an email so that these items got on the list is not indicative necessarily a huge sport or anything like that right so but it's good capturing that these things came up and we resolved them so we don't have these circular things where somebody brings it up again that's why I put those proposals on okay so can I move that we keep the length the same that we don't change the limit well you could move that we vote against we vote and then people vote against the things as they're working just trying to get it to one so that we just move on so I'm collapsing the two proposals that we don't change anything with regards to the term limit or the term what the only thing that comes up confusing is when we make these verbal changes to proposals and nobody knows what they're voting on and nobody knows what was recorded so we just you vote on these two things as I read that you take like two minutes so just to be clear I actually afterwards read write the resolutions in the issue so with the point you to the to the minutes but first one keep the term left to one year over second anybody objects yes oh wait no sorry yeah I'm you wouldn't help there yeah yeah there it didn't mean that nobody objects right yes actually came up again the two days ago I need to do it so my proposal is we say no it's because of the staff now only doing the results of voting actions and such but if you did want the more detailed pieces then that's what you would need to be this Sunday so for those words at the meeting the discussion came up actually but what was the expectation in terms of like what's mean it is that we only need to actually write down in the minute the resolutions because if you want to know the details of the discussion there's the recording you can consult second move no yeah okay from the beginning we would be done like in two calls and forget a bit harder unfortunately it has to do with membership diversity and if you look at the thread you'll realize so the way was this rather initially it was really targeted I almost want to say against idea against the situation we are in where we ended up with six people and on the board to put the limit 25% and then the discussion kind of you know went around the city there are many dimensions issue including gender projects I thought there was no clear platform it's a bit over the map as we've even seen in this very meeting here they're not even all the idea was agreed it's not like there's some block voting going on here you know and I think that the different look the whole threat is I'm not gonna bring it up as a whole thread is based on the premise that somehow or other there's something you know dark hand of IBM moving stuff you know as I've had many discussions and I know it has similar discussions with people there was nobody knew who was running until the phone started I mean so we didn't I was surprised to see so many people from IBM I did not vote for all the people from IBM I don't know why I was and so and there is no you know I can say this but there was no internal oh my god everybody vote for all the IPMers kind of thing going on so it happened and that's largely because you know that's where a lot of the interest in hyperledger is now is that a healthy no I don't necessarily say that it is I think that it would be great to get a lot more engagement from other places but the complaint was coming from a place where there is almost no contribution and so it's kind of in my mind I don't think we have a problem that we're solving and I don't think that limiting who could be on it if I number or percentage or you know anything is going to necessarily solve the problem if we want to have diversity then we have to be working much harder at growing diversity and the contributions it's a simple and then and that also applies to you know whether it's gender diversity or racial diversity or ethnic diversity all these things apply right we you know I think it's fundamentally important that the focus on trying to sort of set any kind of arbitrary sort of quote is or anything like that as much as it is we should be working to make sure that there are enough people you know there are women in the in the project that there's likely to be somebody nominated in the TSE from that population of women that are engineers working on the project you know as much as it is for you know somebody from China or India or Europe or whatever right I mean it's it's really up to us as a community to be much more effective at being engaged than it is to set some arbitrary numbers so I'm totally opposed to making any kind of changes much as I'd like it to be that there are less ideas on the TSE but that's just caring I didn't I didn't even vote for myself so I think it is made on second motion by Chris Gary, Gary, wait, Nathan is trying to talk. It is important to acknowledge that there is an external PR issue at play here and especially for those projects that are not fabricated, it poses a significant recruiting barrier to us when there is an external PR problem. I don't think that anyone internals a project that there's an IBM cabal or somehow some conspiracy about how participation would work on the TSE. I would say we have really good working relationships with all the people who were elected and you know part of why I think why they were elected is because you know as individual candidates generally they develop a speedy life element as a business and I also have the same concern that Chris expressed that it's easy to overreact to this issue and add a lot of guardrails or constraints that make it hard to get the best participants on the technical series and I really worry that we will have kind of an overreaction we'll add a bunch of guardrails that make it difficult to get the best participants who will do the work and we'll you know really represent the development that's going on as Chris pointed out. So my opinion here is that in talking with the IBMers involved and the other members of the TSEs the ones from IBM are the ones that are actually rather embarrassed by this and think maybe we can talk about it and work with each other to make sure that we don't get a situation going forward and I really like Brian's feedback on the thread about you know people are representing the benefits of hyperledger as a whole in terms of when and how they run for election and I think that discussion alone has done a lot of what we need to have happen to solve the problem. Gary? Well said Nathan actually we're going to need to talk about I did want to say something I think you know but an interesting so not that I you know think that we should be voting on this type of stuff but you know an interesting thing that if we're the TSE you know whatever the technical lead in the technical steering committee and we do think that there's some stuff that could be done to you know the overloaded term you can you can read my little last post if you want to right on you know diversity or whatever then I mean maybe we should think about things that we could enact or that we could do not as like official things that we would do if we think that there's I'm just throwing one out there not to be whatever if we think that there's not enough women involved in hyper hyperledger in general right Do we have ideas about what we would do to do that right are there people who were working on working groups that are making major contributions for an aren't as like known right in the community right I mean so if there's things like that it seems like that might be stuff that could be interesting for us to like tackle and not not even it's not even coming up with a process or whatever just like ideas on like what would we do should be doing these types of events when we want to do X, Y, Z you know can we as individuals in our projects group crew people I think you I think you get the idea that might be you know interesting So with a lot of kind of say I mean there is a diversity working groups that just got started and one of the goals is that survey to figure out where the problems are and using that we can start having recommendations whether that's the TSC or to the board and saying these are the types of events we want to do the type of engagements we want to have to encourage participation I think I definitely I will say I come from a background where the diversity topic comes up a lot around me and particularly anything when it happens as a quota and I get involved in it I'm not really happy and it's like a doubt in your head did I get accepted because I was a diversity candidate or did I get accepted because I was all So things like this make me not want to touch it because that doubt is always in the back of my mind so I'm 100% with we need to get more votes we need to have a more engaging community we need people to feel like their voice count and I think that's what we should be working on and if people have ideas and suggestions I definitely recommend joining our diversity working group call because I mean I would say I think some of the conversations especially we've been a little bit far in terms of how many people get to come every time but there is an active engagement there and people are very interested in solving this problem I think that's great and to be engaged with DCI like the other activities you don't have to join the phone call we've got the mail list and chat and everything else I do want to point out Tracy Costa in the week is something very much along the same lines as when I was talking about so I'm sensing a trend toward saying we don't want to change anything with regard to diversity in this context and we can wait for the DCI working group if they come up with some recommendation would we consider that plan or not but for now it seems like we're not ready to do anything Right and I know could I make a statement It's not prepared or anything but you know I wanted to echo Brian's comments in the discussion that you know you're voting for individuals not for companies or projects but the flip side of that is when you're voting for individuals you tend to vote for people you know and you know that you like the contributions they've made and so there's that conflict that you know you need to the people from other projects need to I don't want to say be more vocal per se but they need to get their name out there because you tend to not just read the bios and vote just based on the bio right you vote for the people you know and think we'll do a good job So there's a PR aspect of it for the people that want to run for the technical theory I'm not sure how to promote that Proposal we can put forward that not doing anything Yeah I mean do nothing I think you know it's back to record the decision so that it doesn't just get really reopened anytime So you guys didn't decide on this Like if we actually agree that we don't want to change anything we should record that Okay so then I'll move that we the TSE agrees that putting quotas or limits on the diversity of the TSE is That we don't put limits on That we should not That's right yeah that we should not put quotas or limits on the TSE TSE members diversity Yeah You know I grabbed that text that I grabbed from the You want me to type it in the charter Well there's the charter text that says blah blah blah that could be an affirmative proposal and then we would just vote against that The charter text for the TSE itself There was a snippet of text for the board that says not more than No no I'm wrong it was for the TSE for the initial phase Right so the proposal the affirmative proposal would be to apply that on an ongoing basis and then you would vote against that No there's no point No I'm actually saying that I don't want the proposal that people are saying they want to agree on It's already made text but yeah Yeah I think the TSE channel is good to put the proposal together the new police Chris I only have two minutes left so Yes that should be enough to just say yes You are so optimistic Arnaud I second it I did it but no we are So I wrote the TSE affirms that there should be no limits or quotas on TSE membership diversity I second that You approve There is point you don't want to spend time talking about this I'm glad we made some progress And hopefully we'll be close to the end of these kind of issues But in any case I also want to point out that there is no other topic that it was proposed to put on the agenda The agenda is a wiki it's open for everybody to use And so if there are topics you feel like we would spend you know it'd be better to spend our time on Please tune on the wiki for the agenda when we build the agenda I try to build the agenda at least to have the page set up by Monday For three days to finalize the agenda In the meeting we exercised yesterday about talking about the maintainer's responsibilities And as part of this we talked about the different files that we expect all the repos in hyperladiates to have Things like you know a code owner We got to what exactly should have in the maintainer's file for instance But how you maintainers be identified is a request from the staff maintainers And it's not that key how we achieve that So I think we need to talk a little bit about those things that we'll put on the agenda And more jewelry speaking you know I think it's fair to bother in just because projects can A different time with their own ways of doing things At the same time we do create new projects now You know they come from scratch like Ursa that didn't stop with anything specific If they don't have a specific reason not to do it one way or another right So I think it'd be good for us to define what should be the default


Crimea is being carefully prepared for Ukraine's counter-offensive. The Russian appointed head of Crimea, Sergei Aksyanov, boasted of the modern echelon defense of the Russian army on the annexed peninsula and declared that the counter-offensive of Ukraine does not frighten the occupiers. About the Ukrainian offensive on Crimea, which everyone and their mother is talking and writing about so much nowadays. You cannot underestimate the enemy, but you can definitely say that we are ready for this and there will be no catastrophe. I believe that the decision to build defense structures in Crimea and on the approaches to the peninsula was correct and justified. This does not mean that they will necessarily be used for their intended purpose. We were obliged to prepare for any development of events and we did it, he said. According to Aksyanov, the armed forces of the Russian Federation built a modern deeply echelon defense, a lot has been done and continues to be done to provide the Russian military with everything necessary. The forces are more than enough, said the Kremlin-backed head of occupied Crimea. Before this, the Washington Post, with reference to Maxar satellite images, reported that Russia started to prepare the annexed Crimea for a Ukrainian counter-offensive with the occupiers building a complete web of trenches and fortifications on the peninsula in just a few weeks.


So we're going to continue our discussion of thermodynamics and look at adiabatic processes. So you've got a really important thing to deal with in thermodynamics is defining your system and your surroundings, all right? It sounds trivial, but it is not, okay? So we're going to do a couple of examples and you're going to see this. So when we're looking at our system, we want to know how much energy the system has. It's internal energy, U.  So let's talk about the sign convention.  But in thermodynamics, the sign is everything, okay? If you get the sign wrong in thermodynamics, it's the difference between making a refrigerator and a heater, okay? That's pretty wrong, right? So here we have a system and the surroundings. So let's say we have heat and work going from the system into the surroundings. Anybody know what kind of reaction this is called? All right, you got it, exothermic. Okay, so you've got heat going from the system into the surroundings and that's easy to see when your system is a purple box, all right? But let's talk about an example. Let's say combustion. You're at the beach with a bonfire.  So there's an exothermic reaction going on. So you're saying heat's going out of the log. Well, if heat's leaving the log, why is it hot when I pick it up? See, now it's not quite so obvious, right? But if you think about it, the system is, say, the cellulose or whatever is burning in that log or combusting. So, and you are part of the surroundings. So the important thing with thermodynamics, it's not about you, right? It's you're part of the surroundings. So if you feel that log, you're feeling heat transferred from the burning log into your hand. So thus this still holds up. Even though it seems a little backwards, it's not. Okay, here we have one, wait, what? Okay, we just talked about that. Okay, now here's the system. We've got heat and work both going into the system. So if heat and work are both going into the system, what's it called? Good, endothermic. So, yeah, this is an endothermic reaction. Now let's think about this. So you've got an endothermic reaction going on in the hood of your lab. And you grab the container. Is it hot or cold? It's cold, good. Because with endothermic, it's pulling heat into it, right? So you say, well, if it's got all this heat in it, why is it cold? Well, it's pulling that heat energy from the surroundings. Your hand is part of the surroundings. That's why you feel cold. Okay. All right, so now heat's pretty clear, right? Which way heat's going? How do you know which way work is going? Well, here's the equation for work. So if it's got a negative in front of the P, what's the only way that this right side can be positive? If delta V is negative. So all you have to do is look at your change in volume and that'll tell you if there's work is going to be positive or negative. And when you calculate this work, you're always calculating the work performed on the system, not by the system.  And the volume inside the cylinder got smaller. So if you pay attention to what happens with volume if it's getting larger or smaller, that'll tell you your delta V. And hence you'll get, you'll know which way work is going. Okay, so PV work, as it's colloquially called, is just one type of work. We have a bunch of others, but we're only going to be dealing with PV work in this class. So you're not going to need to know how to do these others, but we just wanted you to be aware that that's not the only type of work you can describe. So that's work, how about Q. All right. So if we restrict work to PV work and we look at our equation here, we could substitute for work. We can put p delta V in there, right? And that little p there just means constant pressure. That's what that's there for. So this is a particularly interesting situation for chemists because most chemical reactions are performed under constant pressure, right? If you have reaction going on in a beaker that's open to the environment, your pressure is going to stay the same. It's just going to be 1 ATM, right? So hence, reactions carry out at constant pressure are a point of interest for chemists. They're not always carried out at constant pressure, but most of the time if you have a closed up system, that's a bad thing, right?  So like it's not in your eye if you're wearing your glasses. But all right. So our delta U is our Q is minus our work. So here we're just explaining it, I'm expanding the deltas, right?  So you've got U2 minus U1 and we expand volume in the same way. Then we do some simple algebra and we can rearrange it this way. So we've got the 2's together and the 1's together. The final and the initial are together here. And there's a difference. The reason we're doing that is U plus PV is also known as enthalpy. So if we were able to group those two together, you can say enthalpy final minus enthalpy initial is equal to our heat. So how can we define heat? Well it's our change in enthalpy assuming a constant pressure. And also assuming that the only work we're dealing with is PV work, which is the assumption that you can carry throughout this class. So now we've got a little example here. We've got two different minerals that conform from calcium carbonate, calcite and aragonite. Another thing calcium carbonate in the ocean, it's dissolved in the water and that's what mollusks pull out of the water to create their shells is calcium carbonate. Fun fact. Okay, so let's look at this problem. So the change in U when one mole of calcite is converted to aragonite is 210 joules per mole. Calculate the difference. Okay, so we want the difference between the enthalpy change and the change in the internal energy. So we want a difference, right away when you hear difference, you think subtraction, we're subtracting the two. And they give us the densities and the pressure at which we're working. So first we'll go to our enthalpy equation. And here's our enthalpy equation in terms of changing. So change in enthalpy, P doesn't get a delta, why? Constant pressure, right? So we define pressure as being constant so it doesn't get a delta. And we said we want the difference. So then we know we're just going to subtract the delta U from both sides and we have our difference is going to amount to P delta V or our PV work. Okay, so we've got, they gave us densities, but we're interested in the change in volume. So the way we get volume from density here, we know how many grams of stuff we have because we know how many moles and it's also, it's atomic weight or molecular weight. So if you divide that, the grams cancel, you're left with cubic centimeters. So we know our change in volume between these two forms of the calcite and the arachnite. And then we're going to rewrite it. We're going to rewrite it as Pascals times meters cubed. So we're going to convert our cubic centimeters to Pascals. We're going to convert our one bar to Pascals. And the reason for this is that Pascals times cubic meters gives you joules. And if you don't believe me, just Google Pascals times meters cubed. That's what I did. And yeah, it comes right up. It doesn't even give you a website. It just tells you. Google gets geekier by the day. I love it. So if we plug in everything we know, our change in temperatures and our, excuse me, our change in volumes and our pressure, we get negative 0.28 joules. So looking at this, this is only 0.1 percent of our total internal energy is represented by the PV work. So the reason we did this example is we want you to realize that if you're talking about delta U, change in internal energy, or the change in enthalpy, if you're dealing with solids, they're almost the same number. And it makes sense, right? Because solids, from one solid to another, the volume doesn't change much. The exception, of course, is with really high pressures, right? If you get that pressure really high, even though the delta V is small, we can get that number up overall. So that would be an exception. Okay. So now, here it is graphically. So on the bottom there, we've got internal energy. And up top, we've got the enthalpy. There we go. So what do you think that difference is between those two lines? The gap. What's the difference between these two numbers? That has that added to it, right? Yeah. So it's our PV. So this is just what it looks like graphically. So if you were to plot enthalpy as a function of temperature, these are the graphs you would get. And PV represents our difference. Okay. So we said it's the slope, right? So anytime you guys hear slope, you should always think derivative, right? At this point in your careers, you know slope derivative, automatic. So the important thing too is that it's a partial derivative, right? So anytime we take a partial derivative, we need to hold something constant and then find the slope in another direction, right? So you can hold one of two things constant. You can either hold volume constant and then you get a heat capacity of constant volume or you can hold pressure constant and then you get a heat capacity of constant pressure. So yeah, it's a partial derivative of internal energy with respect to temperature or enthalpy with respect to temperature. These are two forms of heat capacity. It's important you specify which one. Okay. So now we have an example. We've got this gadget here that you've got an electric heater hooked up to a block of copper and we're going to send some current through that and heat this copper up and we're going to measure the change in temperature. And from this, we should be able to figure out the heat capacity both of our specific system here, the block of copper and a molar heat capacity of copper in general. So by the way, Dr. Pener told me this is a kit that you guys can buy online. So if you want to do this at home and impress your friends at parties, you can show everyone the heat capacity of copper. Or not. So here's where the thermometer goes. There's the heater. It's 75 grams of copper, not rocket science. All right, so an important fact you need to know to do this problem is that 1 watt is equal to amps times the voltage. So you multiply the two together. Well, amps describes the flow of current, right? So that's charge per time. So how much charge is going by per time? So how fast the current is flowing through? This is the dangerous one, right? If you get electrocuted, high amps is trouble. Potential, eh, you know, it's the amps that kills you. So good thing to remember. Here we have our voltage here, and that's joules per coulomb, so energy per charge. Multiply them together, coulombs cancel, and we're left with joules per second. So now we know how much energy per second is being transferred from this electric heater to the copper. Yeah. And we also know that we ran the heater for 19 seconds, right? So you multiply by the time, you know, so it's like speed, right? If you're going 50 miles an hour for an hour, you go 50 miles. I think there's a YouTube video about that. I don't know if you've seen it. Same deal. If we got 50 joules per second, you go 19 seconds. You got 950 joules. You just multiply them. So we got 950 joules. Oh, okay, we should probably figure out how many moles of copper we're dealing with, right? Because we want to use both our heat capacity of our system and we want a molar heat capacity. So you just convert that to moles. I'm not going to walk you through that. Guys have done that a million times, I imagine. Okay, so heat capacity or constant pressure is a change in the energy over the change in time, right? So in this case, our change in energy is just heat, right? The volume's not changing, nothing like that, right? All we're worried about is the change in heat. And heat is the transfer of energy, right? So we transferred 950 joules and our temperature changed by 33 Kelvin, therefore our heat capacity is joules per Kelvin. So now down here, we want the molar heat capacity. So all you do is divide the heat capacity for your system by the number of moles that you're dealing with and you got it. All right? All right, nice easy one to start. Now what do we got? Now we want to figure out the change in enthalpy if you're heating 2 moles of oxygen from 24 degrees Celsius to 100 degrees Celsius at 1 ATM. Okay, so we're going to use heat capacity again. But this time, we're going to use it in kind of a little more of a slick way. So if I multiply both sides by DT, yeah, multiply both sides by DT, you can see how we get our DH by itself, we have our DT there, right? So now you can integrate both sides. So if you put an integral on a DT, that's just going to be final minus initial, right? Also known as delta H, right? Or DH, rather. So we integrate DH, we get delta H. Now over here, we have an integral from our initial temperature to our final temperature of our heat capacity and our constant pressure with DT. So if we can find a way to express our heat capacity with T temperature as our variable, we can solve that integral, right? As luck would have it, we can do this, right? I look kind of foolish right now. So there's our heat capacity. Now here's a formula where we express heat capacity in terms of our variable temperature. A, B, and C are just constants. So you guys know the ideal gas law. Well, van der Waals came up with a more precise ideal gas law that you can apply to actual gases. So each gas, whether it's oxygen, nitrogen, whatever, is going to have a different value for A, B, and C. So that's all this A, B, and C are. So that's our formula for heat capacity. So now we can throw that into our equation. There's the parameters we just talked about. That's what they are. So we put them in here. So the left side we already solved. The right side we have this integral now. So the integral of a constant is just going to be the constant times our delta T. Integral of T is just T squared over 2. And integral of T squared, 1 over T squared is minus 1 over T, right? Yeah, there's that formula. So we plug in everything we know. So here's our formula. We took those integrals. And then we just plug everything we know in here. Our temperatures, our constants, and voila. We know how much energy. Everybody got that? Okay. Okay, so now we're going to talk about adiabatic processes. Oh, okay. So for an adiabatic process. So first we're going to take our normal rule here. And then we're going to talk about a change. So if U is changing, so therefore Q is changing and W is changing. So we make it changes. But now we say for an adiabatic process that our Q is zero and our delta Q is also zero for these changes. But we can still make changes to the work. So if DQ is zero, well now we're saying the internal energy is equivalent, the change in internal energy is equivalent to the change in work for an adiabatic system, all right? So make sure these qualifiers are important. You don't want to just apply this blindly, right? So let's see here. That's my spot. Okay, this is just everything we've been saying. So now if we've got our DU as our heat capacity times DT, right? So same equation before, our heat capacity equation. We multiply both sides by DT again. But now we're going to take this fact that we know that if we're adiabatic, that DU and DW are interchangeable, right? So looking at this thing, we've got, that's the equation we knew. We're going to substitute DW in there. But DW, we said the only kind of work we're dealing with is PV work, right? So we put our PDV in there. But now if we know we're dealing with an ideal gas, for an ideal gas PV equals NRT every time, right? So instead of writing pressure there, well that's just the same as NRT over V, right? So I took the ideal gas law, divide both sides by V. So this thing right here is equivalent to pressure, NRT over V. And this is nice, right? Our variable is V. We've got a DV. Things are looking our way. So let's see, we substitute everything in. Our DU is equivalent to DW. Therefore we can bring this down here. So heat capacity DT is equivalent to minus NRT over V times DV. So now we can find a useful expression for this. So let's say we integrate both sides again. Well first of all let's divide both sides by T to get the T with the DT and the V with the DV, right? That's important. So we get all our variables where they need to be. We perform the integration. So the integral of 1 over X is ln of X, good. So let's see, yeah, that's all we did here. So we took the integral of both sides and so you've got the ln of our temperature here and of volume here. But it's going to be final minus initial, right? So the ln of T2 minus the ln of T1. But if you have two ln subtracted from each other, of course, we could put those together, right? And just put them in the same log but divide. So that's all we did here. All right, now to make this a little more usable even, let's divide both sides by CV. We'll get that over there. And then after we do that, we're going to put both sides as E to the X. And when you do this, you'll get rid of the log here, you get rid of the log here and then this will be the exponent. We don't have the algebra worked up here. It's pretty simple. Ask me afterwards if you want me to do it. But you're going to get this equation. So this is really handy because now we have an equation that if we know we're adiabatic and we can relate change in temperature to change in volume given that all we know is our R value which is a constant and our heat capacity with respect to a constant volume. So all we need to know are these things and we can relate these to each other. So now if you look at this graph here, what we're trying to show you, so an isotherm is a surface. Right? And what it means is that if you have this system and you're going to, so like a compressed gas cylinder and you're going to squeeze that volume together, the pressure is going to go up, right? So going along this path, this is if we hold temperature constant and you change this volume, that's what's going to happen to pressure. And this is at a different temperature. So now if we're talking about two different temperatures and we know it's adiabatic, then the change here is going to be larger for adiabatic than an isothermal process. So our change in pressure is going to be larger. So if you just, it makes sense if you look at this thing, right? If we're going along our isotherm and we want to see our change in pressure, well you just go here to there, right? But if you go along the adiabatic process, you've got to go there to there. So it's a longer path, just intrinsically because you're jumping from one surface to the other. It has to be. So let's talk about an isotherm a little bit. Here's our equation for adiabatic, for an adiabatic change. I already figured that out. Isotherm, if we look at this, that should be kind of obvious to you, right? Because down here we've got our delta V, but if that was just a regular V, we could bring that over there. You've got PV equals NRT. So again, isotherm just means you're sticking at the same temperature and you're following the ideal gas law. But your volume is changing. So that's all that is. Is it constant? Oh, for this equation? So yeah, so it's a derivative, but yeah. So each, a specific substance, if you look it up, you can get a value for it. Yeah, so now we're treating it as a constant. Very good point. Yeah, so, yeah, that was a really good point. So now we're just treating this thing as a constant, right? Okay, so now we've got one final problem here. So now we've got two moles of neon that expands adiabatically and we're actually going to figure it out for this one. Two moles of neon expands adiabatically and reversibly from 5 liters to 20 liters and we're staying at the temperature 3, oh no, no, we're not staying at the temperature. We're starting at the temperature of 373 Kelvin and we're going to end at some other temperature. So our temperature is changing. We're not going to use the isotherm equation, right? Isotherm, same temperature. This is not same temperature. So we're going to use our adiabatic equation. There it is. So what is our CV value? So in this case, we get to bring in statistical mechanics.  We bring that back in. So we're talking about neon, which is an atomic gas, right? And as far as stat mechs concerned, we treat atoms as points, right? So any energy that these atoms have as they're bouncing around as a gas, you can't rotate a point, right? So it has no rotational energy and you can't vibrate a point either. So it has no vibrational. So all we're talking about is translational. So just to refresh your memory, if you look at the Hamiltonian for your gas, any value that's quadratic or squared is going to give us a value of r over 2, right? So we're going to get an r over 2 for our CV for any value, for anything that's quadratic. So 1 half mv squared or momentum squared over 2m, right? Both, they're squared, right? So those describe the kinetic energy of the atoms. So, and we can move in the x, y, and z direction. So we've got three total quadratic terms. So 3 times r over 2, that's going to be our heat capacity for this problem. So let's see. Well now we know everything. So we know our initial and final volume. We know our heat capacity. We throw that in there. And our change in temperature we have, or we solve for the change in temperature rather. And it's going to be 148 Kelvin. Is everybody good with that? Did I go a little fast? A little bit? Oh, I did. So that's all I got. If you have no questions, you're free to go. Have a good weekend. Would you have any questions? Okay. Have fun.