The following three presentations by Ed Clark, Murray Rothbard and Bruce Daniel are intended to provide information to and serve as models for libertarians speaking and writing on the subject of social security, the current crisis and the libertarian alternative. Feel free to reproduce this material in whole or in part. And now, Ed Clark. Americans work at hundreds of different jobs. We are carpenters, bricklayers, salesmen, assemblers, cooks, and computer operators. But almost all of us have one thing in common. We are forced to pay social security taxes. The Social Security Program was started during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when high tariffs and government-induced inflation in the 1920s had destroyed the economy. The motivation for the program was simple. The government had destroyed the savings of American workers and had forced their children into unemployment. Without these resources, retired workers had no source of support. The new Social Security Program was patterned after the program of Charles Ponzi, who had spent several years in jail for implementing a similar scheme in the private sector. Both programs work as follows. Money is taken from a large number of people, held for a while, and then paid back. No investments are made, and the early beneficiaries get a lot more back than they paid in. In the case of Ponzi, contributions were paid back in 45 days with 50% interest. Like Social Security, that program lasted as long as its current income exceeded its current expenditures. Since Ponzi had to rely on voluntary contributions and not taxation, and since he had to pay high interest to get his contributions, his program lasted only a year. Social Security, like the Ponzi scheme, and unlike real private insurance and pension programs, has no savings behind it. Social Security does not own stocks, bonds, buildings, or property. It makes no money from its investments, because it has no investments. It is only a few weeks' worth of cash taken from the paychecks of the American worker. It uses this cash to pay present claims of retired workers. Social Security is not based on the benefits it offers. As real private insurance offers much better benefits for less money. Social Security relies on its physical power to tax workers and to imprison any worker who refuses to pay Social Security taxes. It has continued for 45 years because of this power to tax. Because until recently, the number of taxpayers greatly exceeded the number of people to receive payments. Because the number of workers who paid Social Security taxes grew over the years, because a larger and larger percentage of all wages was taken as taxes, and because the real, after-inflation wages of American workers increased over this period, and they were willing to pay these taxes. Now, however, Social Security faces the same problem that Charles Ponzi faced. The current income of the program is less than its current expenditures. And there are no earnings from investments to make up the difference. Instead of one claimant for every 16 worker taxpayers, as there were in the 1930s, there is now one claimant for every three taxpayers. Real wages of American workers have been dropping since 1977, and only 10% of the workforce is outside of Social Security. Thus, the fact is that kept Social Security alive for so long no longer exists. How did we get into such a problem? It started, of course, in the 1930s, when Congress tried to alleviate the misery that it itself had created. Then in the 1970s, Congress produced a new massive wave of inflation and then raised Social Security benefits to compensate and, in many cases, overcompensate for this inflation. Congress also added new beneficiaries who had not paid into the system. Social Security is a classic case of the incentives of politicians to promise and give special benefits to one group of voters at the expense of the larger group of taxpayers. But in the course of this political corruption, Congress sowed the seeds of the final failure of the Social Security system. Congress succeeded in convincing most workers that they will never be paid. Most workers believe and believe correctly that they will pay into the system during their entire working lives and receive little or nothing in return. Soon there will be only two workers to support every claimant and up to 45% of all wages will have to be taxed away to provide the present schedule of benefits. If you add all of the other taxes that workers pay, say 30% of their wages, then each worker will have only 25% of his wages left to support himself or herself, their home, their family, and their dreams. Clearly, the American worker will not stand for this. The need for change is clear. Now that the elections are over, the politicians are finally beginning to discuss the problem. High on their list of proposed solutions is a further increase in Social Security taxes. Present direct Social Security taxes for most workers is about 7% of their wages. Employers pay another similar amount. Really, all of this burden comes out of the pocket of the workers as the employer treats his tax payments as just another cost of providing jobs. No worker should stand for increased taxes. Since workers get little or no benefit from Social Security, why should they shoulder a new increased burden? In fact, to ask a more fundamental question, why should they be required to make any payments at all? It is their money. They earn their wages. The government simply has no right to that. Furthermore, we workers could buy better and cheaper private retirement and health insurance with the same money we now pay in Social Security taxes. If we invested in real private health and retirement plans, there would be many benefits. First, real private insurance companies would pour billions of the dollars that they receive as premiums into investment in the American economy. Workers would, in effect, be creating their own jobs with their own savings. Authority no less than Martin Felstein, now chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, believes that wages for the average worker would be $2,000 per year higher if such a program of private insurance had been put into effect in the past. Another benefit is that real insurance would provide workers with the opportunity to accumulate savings. With Social Security, there is no such opportunity. A minimum wage worker could accumulate about $180,000 in savings over his or her lifetime and still receive higher retirement benefits if he were allowed to purchase real insurance with the money now going into Social Security taxes. The final and most important benefit is that workers who bought real insurance would actually get paid. For workers, Social Security is a great hoax. For 45 years we have been told that the system is sound, that it is backed by investment, that we each actually have an account that draws interest. None of this is true. We have no legal right to anything. The Supreme Court has said that. The only thing that we have is a political claim on the taxes to be paid by future generations. And now it is clear that the future generations will not pay these taxes. The time for American workers to stop this hoax is right now before they lose billions of dollars more in Social Security taxes. The time to start individual retirement programs is also right now. Only the Republican and Democratic politicians with their belief that there is no such thing as a bad government program stand in our way. If we tell them through our votes, through our letters, through meetings, through resolutions of our associations, through letters to the editor, by joining the libertarian party or by other means, that we don't like the program, they will listen. For our sake, we should end the Social Security program immediately, following our some questions and answers that may be helpful to speakers on the Social Security issue. How are you going to take care of the people who are presently retired and who have no source of income except Social Security? I would return to them the amount that they have paid into Social Security, plus interest, and minus the benefits they have received. Will this provide enough for them to live on? For many people, it will provide the money needed to purchase an annuity to cover their retirement needs. Others will need further help. Since the taxes on their children for Social Security will be abolished immediately under my program, I would expect that their children would be the prime source of this support. Where will the capital come from to return the Social Security taxes to individuals? The sale of oil lands for one. The federal government gets billions of dollars a year by leasing oil lands. It would get much more by outright sale. The federal government owns one-third of all the land of the United States. Selling this would fund these payments. This would only be a beginning. The government should not only get out of the insurance business, it should also get out of the mail business. Selling off the post office and other government buildings in every city and town would produce billions more. Could these sales produce enough to pay back Social Security taxes, which now run about $160 billion per year? Over time, I think they could. And older workers would get priority of the funds available. Younger workers would be able to provide for their own retirement from private insurance so that if there were not enough of both older and younger workers, the older workers could get priority. Even if these sales could produce enough to pay back Social Security taxes over a period of time, surely these properties couldn't be sold immediately. There would have to be a time delay. Yes, there would be a short time delay. To deal with this problem, the individual claims could be bought and sold like stocks and bonds. And thus people who wanted their money right away could get it. What is the total liability of the Social Security system? The total liability is roughly $7 trillion. How much is paid out in benefits every year? Roughly $165 billion. And now, Murray Rothbard. The Social Security scheme is a cruel racket. It's a racket because the scheme was sold to the public on the ground. It was an insurance scheme so that people can contribute and save up for their old age and then money would then be paid out when they got to be 65 or whatever. It was originally sold in the 1930s on the theory that this could eliminate old age, old age pension, old age relief, which the government had been paying before that. The upshot, by the way, is that old age relief payments are now much more than they were in the 1930s so that excuses are fraught to begin with. At any rate, the Social Security system is a racket because as an insurance plan, if this insurance plan were a private insurance company, all the insurance executives would be languishing in jail for a very long time. Consider to yourself a plan where people contribute to their Social Security, contribute to their insurance, which is supposed to get back the age of 65. Instead of investing the funds, private insurance, of course, invests the funds so it gets a return and then pays an annuity out of the returns. Instead of doing that, the insurance executives spend the money and then when payments or benefits come due, they expect to get the pay, the benefits out of premiums being paid by new people coming into the plan, if private insurance executives did that, it would be in jail. It could be considered fraud, embezzlement, a Ponzi scheme, or a pyramid scheme where the benefits are only paid, the money is spent, the benefits are only paid out of funds being attributed by new suckers. How do you pay the benefits of the new suckers while you hope that still newer suckers will come into the scheme 20 years from now whenever the benefits are supposed to come due? In the case of social security, however, the funds are spent. They're spent by the government. All funds going into the plan instead of being saved and invested are spent by the government on all sorts of government, the usual government boondoggles. And then when benefits fall due, the government taxes once again, taxes out of the social security funds once again of new people coming in to pay the old benefits. Now, the result of all this, well, several results. One is that the original people, the first people who joined the plan back in the 30s and 40s, they were in great shape because they were newcomers. They had just paid into the plan for a couple of years and they were suddenly getting bonanzas, benefits pouring in out of newcomers that were coming in. So they felt, boy, this is a great thing. This is like Santa Claus. They pay in a certain amount and they get paid back a lot more. Now, however, after many years of this, after decades of this, of course, there are no new suckers coming in. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite since the population growth has fallen off. We now have a situation where more and more people are getting old and less and less new people coming in to be inducted into the plan and so that reality is now caught up with the Ponzi scheme. In other words, the new suckers have leveled off and the stark realities of the bankruptcy of the social security system are now admitted by everybody. Years ago, it was considered a subversive and a terrible deceptive and subversive thing for anybody to say the social security plan is essentially bankrupt. Now everybody admits it. Now this is general, almost common knowledge. But the reason for the bankruptcy is that is that the whole thing is a Ponzi scheme that's now been exposed. Even when the scheme is working normally, even without the bankruptcy, the result of the fact that the government spends the money and doesn't invest it means that the worker's return is very low. In other words, if a worker, there have been various studies of this by economists and statisticians that if the worker pays up, pays in the same amount of money pays in the social security, say, every year and then retires at the age of 65 in a private annuity scheme he would get about three times as much as he's getting now on social security plus in addition to the benefit, three times as much monthly or annual benefit, he'd be getting a huge capital sum like a trust fund or a capital sum which he could invest or do anything he wanted to pass on to his children. The average worker would be getting a private insurance plan would have gotten about $500,000 trust fund in addition to his annual benefits which would be about two or three times the amount he's getting now. So the average person, the average worker, the average person is being defrauded, being moated of his money because in a private annuity scheme he would have gotten an enormously greater amount of funds, both in capital investment and the benefits as he is now. Also no private insurance plan works the way this one does in repressing and restricting the recipient. For example, if a person dies now just before 65 he loses or his estate loses all the funds. The private annuity obviously doesn't happen. The estate gets it and the funds are passed on to his beneficiaries, his children, and so forth. Secondly, so in other words, if death means that you're out of the game, so to speak, you don't get your so-called insurance benefits. Secondly, no private insurance company. Can you imagine a private insurance company Metropolitan Life saying to the recipient of an annuity, well, I'm sorry, you're the benefits because you're working somewhere else. You're earning an income somewhere else and therefore we won't pay you. Only the government can get away with this sort of nonsense where they tell the recipient of a so-called insurance scheme that you can't get, we won't pay you unless you're not working in any place else. It's outrageous. And all sorts of other restrictions and tyranny that the social security system imposes in order to try to limit their liability under this fraudulent Ponzi operation. So the recipient, the social security people are being defrauded all along the line. It's not an insurance plan. It's not an insurance in any sense. It's a plan whereby the government taxes people twice. First they tax one person, one set of people, one person, let's say. They spend the money and then when his benefits fall due, they tax somebody else to pay for it. As I said, this is catching up. This whole thing is catching up with the government and the social security scheme. So there is, and also in addition to that, many people think, well, the poor are benefiting from this plan. At least this is sort of a semi-welfare operation. Well, it's true there are some welfare elements in the social security system which would not be in private insurance. However, the poor are being hurt and helped overall by social security. This has also been demonstrated by various studies. There are various restrictions, again, the way the social security plan operates. The fact, for example, that single people are discriminated against in the plan and there are more single people who are poor than there are married people. And particularly also another point here is that the social security tax is I think the only tax in our system and our whole monstrous tax system which is deliberately regressive. In other words, it taxes poor people more heavily than it taxes wealthier people, more than proportionately. There is a maximum limit, of course, in social security income. Whatever the limit is, it keeps changing. Let's say it's $50,000. This means that the person making $500,000 a year pays exactly as much into the social security fund as the person making $50,000. This is, of course, a pretty peculiar kind of tax system. It's hardly a tax system designed to help the poor. Quite the contrary, it's a tax system which deliberately taxes the poor and the middle class much more than the wealthy. So the whole, and yet, even despite the fact that the social security system is probably undoubtedly the biggest single racket in the entire federal government apparatus, the entire structure of misconceived programs, despite that fact, social security is probably the most single beloved program among the public. And obviously it's beloved because the public has been sold a bill of goods. And I think that the education of the public is beginning now, especially with this spreading knowledge that something's wrong, that the system is bankrupt. There are several trillion dollars in the whole.  And then, of course, people think, well, the benefits are somehow due to them. All right, so this is the abysmal and terrible nature of the social security system. The libertarian program is to abolish it. We favor the abolition of the program. The sooner the better. For those people, what about those people who have been misled, the members of the public who have thought that they're owed something by social security and have been misled into thinking this and having claims against the government? Well, we believe that the libertarians believe that the social security victims of this fraud should not have their claims pay for out of the taxpayer because that's simply continuing this Ponzi scheme, keeping it going and also continuing tax oppression and theft of funds that people privately work for and legitimately own. So what we favor is that the social security victims be paid for as much as possible, the claims be paid for as much as possible out of sales and selling of government property. Federal government is a huge amount of property that owns most of the land in the western states. It owns many housing and parks and forests and all sorts of things. All these things should be sold. And as they're sold, the proceeds of the sale could easily pay the social security claimants. Pending or repeal, in other words, we would like to abolish and repeal the social security system forthwith. Pending that, at least what should be done is make participation in social security voluntary so that nobody should be forced into the system. That's the least that could be done at this point. I think that if a war may be voluntary, not too many people would join it, but that should be up to them. It's interesting, by the way, that the federal government, for example, exempts its own people, its own bureaucrats and congressmen, whatever, from the social security system. In other words, everybody else is compelled to go into it, but they're not. Now, this should tell you right away that something is fishy about the whole system. When Congress exempts itself and federal government employees from it, and indeed, of course, as we've seen, there's something very fishy indeed. I'll conclude by reading the platform plaque of the libertarian party on the social security system. It's very short and essentially sums up what I've been saying here. We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, I would say now bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive social security system. Pending that repeal, participation in social security should be made voluntary. Victims of the social security tax should have a claim against government property. We note that members of the U.S. Congress and certain federal, state and local government employees have been accorded the privilege of non-participation, one which is not accorded the working men and women of America. Thank you. And now, Bruce Daniel. My name is Bruce Daniel. I'm a dentist and I live in Newcastle, California. I've been asked to be the national coordinator for the social security effort. Social security is a failure in fraud. It has been a failure in fraud since its very beginning. At last, it's promised to hand the mouth of poverty for everyone is beginning to become evident to anyone who cares to observe. The President's Select Commission on Social Security has failed in its task to propose a solution to dilemma after a full year of work. The commissioners would have had a proposal prepared by the end of 1982. They didn't make it. Their failure has been announced for all to know because of their appeal for more time and political assistance from President Reagan and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chip O'Neill. The commission was granted a two-week extension until the middle of January, where it would deny any political guidance. It is obvious that politicians have refused to assist because in order to save social security and I'm using their term, fundamental and profound changes of a permanent nature must be made that will for all practical purposes destroy the intent of a subservient government proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence to that of an all-powerful, dictator state. Liberty will have gone full circle in a little more than 200 years. Of necessity, they must realize that the philosophy and basic thrust of Liberty in America must be swept aside in favor of the total welfare state. The President and the Speaker don't want to be blamed for that, so the commission then will be held responsible. One can be absolutely certain that in the absence of an outside force, the social security will not be allowed to go bankrupt as it will most positively do by this summer. Congressman Dan Rostinkowski, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, plans to have a bill through Congress by Easter. Congressman Claude Pepper, the Agent Incoming Chairman of the Powerful Rules Committee, will be doing everything in his power and whatever the cost to maintain the solvency and endurance of the social security system. There are bound to be many variations of the basic theme that will be considered, but the essential are that there will be an enormous increase in the social security tax, a significant reduction in benefits to those who have been paying social security taxes to their adult lives, and finally forcing the last 10% of the working population that is not now required to pay the social security tax to do so. This will include the non-profit organization employee, such as a Salvation Army worker or a private school worker, local state and federal government workers not now covered, perhaps the military and even the present social security recipients. Today it takes just under three workers to support one social security beneficiary. Because of the realities of our aging population and the almost zero population growth of our country, this immoral, gigantic Ponzi scheme will shortly, after the turn of the century, reduce the ratios of tax workers to the paid beneficiary almost to one to one. Let me remind you that the turn of the century is only 18 years away. Will this land dedicated to the liberty to be enslaved in the name of social security? Will a saving of social security be the beginning of the final decisive assault in Armageddon of Liberty in America? Who will counter this thrust? Who will speak and fight for liberty? Will it be the Democrats and Republicans who have sold the principles of liberty so ringingly stated in the Declaration of Independence and Independence for the welfare state? Is it not obvious that they would gladly trade liberty in America for a few more years at the public trough? Whether we like it or not, the task is ours. We have identified ourselves as libertarians. In creating and being members of the libertarian party, we have accepted the responsibility of being the defenders of liberty in America. We cannot fail to join the conflict and maintain even a shred of credibility with those who know of us and know what we stand for. More importantly, we could not even maintain credibility and respect for ourselves. The task is ours. The party has been 10 years in preparation to join the battle. It is time to engage the enemy of liberty. Our numbers are few and we are a thinly spaced. But we have the strength and organization to carry the conflict to completion. The people will be with us and we will prevail. We must be bold. We must be decisive. We must be determined. Unlike the President's select commission on the Social Security, the President himself, the House of Representatives, the U.S. Congress, the Democrats and Republicans, Ed Clark's 1980 white paper on Social Security prepared by Peter Ferrara contains the answer. It has been updated and refined to become the libertarian alternative. Unfortunately, the American people will not hear a word of it if we do not carry it to them. The libertarian alternative is fair, practical, completely libertarian in nature. It keeps the promise made to the retired senior citizen within a few years of retirement. Terminates the enormous male investment of individual assets. Places the Social Security in the federal budgetary process. Prioritizes the Social Security against all other federal programs. Reduces federal ownership of vast holdings of land and businesses that are in competition with free enterprise. Develops a mechanism for the eventual disappearance by attrition. The Social Security program in its entirety over a reasonable 20 to 25 year period. And sets the stage with a radically liberalized, no taxes ever, individual retirement account that will usher in because of vast amounts of freed up money a new American golden age. With the individual in control of the money consumed by the Social Security and invested at 6% annual interest and constant 1980 dollars, the average young low income worker could retire at age 65 with one quarter million dollars. The average medium income worker could retire at age 65 with a half million dollars. The professional could retire at age 65 with almost a million dollars. In comparison, the Social Security at present projections will provide an annual meager income of 10,080 dollars for the low income worker. 15,403 dollars for the average income worker and 23,326 dollars for the professional. The promoters and defenders of Social Security claim that it is a superior retirement program for the low income worker. However, in their self-interest, they take great care not to tell him that he would have total ownership in an annual interest income of 17,268 dollars from his individual retirement account rather than 10,080 dollars with Social Security and no ownership. He would be controlling his own account and not being manipulated by a devious, unreliable, irresponsible government. His retirement account would be his property to do with it as he chooses. Needless to say, this is just a fragment of the Libertarian alternative for the Social Security problem. There is much, much more that cannot be mentioned now that you will receive a kit of materials that will go into considerably more detail. The purpose of this tape is to introduce you to the Libertarian Party's first national effort on a subject other than ballot drives or the support of a national candidate. This is the opening phase of a planned and coordinated effort to bring the Libertarian alternative to every corner of the country. It is designed to reach into the grassroots for something that they are intensely concerned about and offers them a solution that they would want to hear. It is the Party's plan to focus that grassroots concern into intense and concentrated pressure on the individual congressman in each one of the 435 congressional districts of the country. Our thrust is intended to be entirely local and objective with you and your activists bringing the Libertarian alternative to your friends and neighbors in your own communities using your local news media arranging visits of various interest groups and delegations to visit frequently with your local congressman or his staff, distributing Libertarian alternative flyers at local population centers and among many other things too numerous to mention staging demonstrations at a local congressman's office or home. Your congressman is intensely concerned about having quiet and docile voters in his district. The very last thing that he wants to see is large numbers of voters all worked up about an issue that he does not particularly want to support. Where is the congressman who will deny this sustained pressure of a significant number of determined constituents? They just don't have the guts. It is our job in our own hometown and congressional districts to see that their feet are held to the fire and well roasted. All of the party effort will be broadly national in scope and will be mostly local in effect. The effort in Washington, DC will be purely symbolic and nationwide. It is planned that the kickoff news conference in Washington on the 31st of January will be duplicated in every major city of the country on the same day. Ideally, every newspaper in the country will receive a news release and time to be printed on the date of the kickoff or shortly thereafter. As the effort progresses, other coordinated and unified activities on the social security issue are planned so as to demonstrate the national organization of the party and the deadly seriousness of our intent to promote a truly libertarian society. Needless to say, this will generate great credibility for us and most definitely will change the direction of politics in America. As the national coordinator on the social security issue, I shall be contacting you soon by telephone to encourage and to help coordinate those activities that will be national and school. May I suggest that you immediately begin the process of identifying your activists, alerting them of the effort, streamlining your communications, identifying target areas and newspapers in your local area, and planning for an intense and hopefully fruitful campaign that will end when the Congress votes on the social security issue about Easter time. Ten years ago, the libertarian party was but a handful of idealistic people. Today, we are seeing that idealism bear fruit. We are considered as a new and growing force on the national political scene. There is no disputing our status and increasing thrust. Now is the time to break for the top and demonstrate an undisputed leadership on the social security issue. It is ours. With it, we have all of those who are concerned and worried about their retirement future, plus all of those who can visualize the investment potential of the social security pigeons on our side. We would be foolish and might even lose our chance for a major party status if we let this opportunity pass us by. This one is ours. Let's not fail. I urge you to help in this important project. Thank you. The four going three presentations by Ed Clark, Murray Rothbard and Bruce Daniel were intended to provide information to and serve as models for libertarians speaking and writing on the subject of social security, the current crisis and the libertarian alternative. Feel free to reproduce this material in whole or in part.


The boys team hosting Moorhead as well within the first 30 seconds of the game, Bemidji on the attack, Aiden Hellway crosses one in, Ethan Mock redirects it and gets it past the goalie, they take a 1-0 lead. Moorhead would even back up, Jax in the second half looking for a goal, tic-tac-toe to Mock, but a nice chance to set aside. But in the 67th minute, still tied up, Mock passes it up to Ben Hess, completes the perfect run with a perfect shot. There is it, that would be your game winner as they take the win 2-1.


Good day and welcome to Issues and Answers, a production of the Government Information Service. I am your host for today, Jacques Hingston Compton. And with me today is Miss Jacqueline Matthew Favery, a health planner in the Corporate Planning Unit of the Ministry of Health, Wellness and Elderly Affairs. And she's here to talk to us about a relatively new initiative called the OECS Regional Health Project. Welcome, this is Matthew Favery to the program. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Compton. So before we get started on the meat of what we're here to talk about, can you tell us a little bit about your role as a health planner? What exactly is that? Okay, within the Corporate Planning Unit of the Ministry of Health, Wellness and Elderly Affairs, particularly with this project, my role is that of the focal point, the liaison between the Project Implementation Unit of the Willbank and the Ministry of Health. Of course, yes, because the project is actually a collaborative effort of the Ministry of Health and the Willbank. Yes, it is. So let us know what exactly is the OECS Regional Health Project and what is its purpose. Okay, so the OECS Regional Health Project is a subcomponent of a broader health system strengthening project of the Willbank. It's a broader Willbank project and it comprises three components. One is to improve the lab capacity and also in the area of improving the facilities. The other component is on public health emergencies. It has another to improve capacity and build capacity, sorry, within the Ministry of Health. There is also another component under the project which we call the SOCC, and it is a component that in the event of any health emergency, whether it be health or natural disaster, we can trigger that SOCC and we can get funds disboost to assist St. Lucia in the response to that emergency. Okay, we'll get to a little bit more about what you've just discussed there, but can you also tell us a little bit about a brief history of the project, why you saw fit for it to be launched. I know it's called the OECS Regional Health Project, but it doesn't actually fall under the OECS Commission, does it? Why is it called that and what islands were chosen? Okay, so the OECS Commission is separate and apart from the OECS Regional Health Project. The OECS Regional Health Project comprises, it is implemented, sorry, across the OECS countries, Grenada, Dominica, St. Vincent and St. Lucia. We share similar project activities and most of it is to improve our health and public health response in the countries. So what is, can you tell us anything about maybe a few differences between our components of the project as well as there's, or how are we, what are we focusing on in St. Lucia? Because I know each island is handling it their own way or approaching it a different way. Okay, so I'll just go through the components and it will give us an idea of what is happening. So in the first component where we would see the improvement in our laboratory capacity and we will also see an improvement in our health infrastructure. So we will have facilities remodeled and retrofitted in some instances and also the capacity of the labs to respond to natural and health emergencies. For example, you would, we would have experienced, we did experience COVID in 2000 from 2000. 2020. Yes, sorry, 2020. And going back, we experienced chicken gun here and Zika. So with the improvements in the lab and the lab capacity, it would assist us in addressing and dealing with these diseases more efficiently. Yeah, for the improvements to the infrastructure. We started an initiative with PAHO a few years ago to smart some of our wellness centers. Not all of the wellness centers were completed under that project, so we will continue under the World Bank Regional Health Project. And we will see the smarting of some floating health facilities. When we say smart, the facilities are more resilient to hurricanes and natural disasters. They are efficient in terms of what the energy that is consumed within the facilities. And it also gives room for improvement in the general service provision and delivery. In the other component, component two, which more or less addresses surveillance and emergency management. We have here, so we have here, sorry, we will see here in this component, improvement in areas, for example, food safety and food safety handling. That is a unit in the Department of Environmental Health. Also that of the vector control unit. So it will provide some assistance and improve the general service provision that is done by that unit in terms of their response to health emergencies. Another part of that component would be that of the emergency management. We know when we have natural disasters in St. Lucia, we are easily cut off from the north and the south of the island. So what we, this project is allowing us to do is to establish two health emergency operation centers, one in the north and one in the south, which can coordinate activities on the health level in the event of any natural disaster. Okay, we're actually due for our first break. So I'm going to come back to a lot of what you said. Like I want to hear a little bit more about the food security and what exactly goes into smarting of the, into the health facilities. So just stay with us. We'll be back in a moment. You're watching issues and answers. We'll be back right after this. We are working parents. And we breastfed both babies exclusively. Mother's breast milk is naturally the best milk for baby. Love yourself and love your baby. Breastfeeding saves me money and it's free. Every moment I breastfeed strengthens the bond between me and my baby. I breastfed twin boys and lost all my baby fats. We all breastfed. And we have breast milk power. I am Pastor Alvin and I support breastfeeding. For more information called the Nutrition Unit of the Ministry of Health and Wellness at 468-5359. Welcome back to Issues and Answers. I'm your host, Jacques Kingston Compton. I'm here with Health Planner in the Corporate Planning Unit, Mrs Jacqueline Matthew Favre, and we're talking about the OECS Regional Health Project. Now before we went on break, you were speaking about the different components of the project. And I specifically want to know a little bit more about component two, which is the strengthening of public health surveillance. Okay. So the project will support some areas of public health surveillance, particularly in the areas in the Division of Environmental Health. So we will support the Vector Control Unit, food safety equipment, and also to provide some assistance in sourcing equipment for them to better provide the care and services in the tasks they are assigned. For example, we will be sourcing some vehicles to assist them in addressing their Vector Control issues. And we know it is one that we have been battling with sometime. So this is one of the areas they will be getting support in. Also with the food safety equipment, it will assist us in testing food samples and what have you. Can you go in to dive a little bit into what some of the issues are with Vector Control? You mentioned the vehicles. Can you discuss a little bit about that? Okay. With Vector Control, in the past, as I mentioned earlier, we had faced an outbreak of chicken gun near and Zika. With the vehicles, it will give the units a better, it will allow them to respond better to these outbreaks. So they can go down to the areas, the hotspots, if I may, and better tackle these issues. So it would give them an opportunity to have a more hands-on approach where they'd actually be there and to engage and to deal with the matters. Okay. Now, you also mentioned smarting before we came to the break. What exactly is involved in smarting? I know you did mention that you would make the facilities more energy efficient. What exactly would go into doing things like that under the project? Okay. So when the facilities retrofitted to make it smart, you would see, so the aim is to change the usage. So in terms of electricity, we hope the bill to be reduced with water also. So for example, with the water, the faucets that's being used, it would be converted or changed into one that would conserve the water more. So you would have a reduced amount of water coming out of the tap to encourage you to use less to do whatever you have to do. And these would be placed throughout the facility. For example, even with the toilets. So you would have in there toilets that consume less water to enable it to flush. With the bulbs and the electricity, we would move to more energy efficient bulbs and lighting. So at the end, our energy consumption bills for electricity and water would be significantly reduced. Oh, that's excellent. Do you have sort of a general timeline as to when it might happen? At least when we... The project is a couple years old at this point. But do you have an idea of when we might see some of these improvements? Okay. You would have seen some of these improvements have happened. They've already started taking place with the, as I indicated earlier, PAHO did some retrofitting prior to this project. But coming out of this one, we hope to see some of these projects get underway at least by the end of the year. Okay. And with regards to right now COVID is a hot topic. And we have mentioned some of the disease outbreaks we've had before, like chikagonia. Is there anything that we have learned from COVID that the project will address? Anything other than the need for being able to smart or improve the vehicles, as you mentioned earlier? Yes, we have. Actually, we saw the need to improve our specimen transportation. And this project will address this issue and it will help us. They will provide us with transportation. So when the specimen is taken from the client, it will be transported to the main lab, the National Reference Laboratory in ample time. In good time to have it tested and results produced. Okay. Are there any other sort of improvements we can look forward to? In this project around this area? Yes. That one was the biggest issue, the bigger ticket item. Of course, we will see improvements in the laboratory systems as well because we will improve the lab and the lab's ability to test. So you will see improvements in tests, more tests being available that is generally required at that level. And let's say on the users of primary healthcare level. I'm a patient, I'm walking into any of these health, it newly improved health facilities. How does it affect me as a patient coming in? Okay. So it can and it will affect you. For example, before probably you would need to, when you approach the facility, you would need to get a test done and you would be referred to a private lab. With the improvement in the laboratory infrastructure, some of these tests will be made available within the primary healthcare setting. So you would not necessarily have to be referred to get that test done and it could be done right there at the facility. Not all, but some. Okay. Whatever that has been highlighted or deemed to be a further level required at that level of care. So it even reduces the time that I would spend in a health facility or? Not necessarily. Not necessarily, not necessarily. Okay. We're actually due for our final break. So when we come back, we'll discuss a lot more about the project and what to expect in the future. You're watching Issues and Answers, a production of the Government Information Service. Please stay tuned. We'll be back in a moment. What's in the food you're eating? Do you really? All the chemicals and horrors used to accelerate their growth. All the artificial flavoring, sweeteners and colors too. We consume and we don't spare a thought for the damage that they'll do. Think about the children. Think about the children. We save it. Cells and GMOs are not the solution. Use organic and join. Excessive agrochemical use, additives and genetically modified foods are harmful to health and the environment. Join the Good Food Revolution. Grow, buy and consume organic. A message from Rye St. Lucia and the Ministry of Sustainable Development with funding from the GEF Small Grants Program, UNDP. Good Food Revolution. Welcome back to Issues and Answers, a production of the Government Information Service. I am your host for today, Jack Kingston Compton, and we are with the Health Planner at the Corporate Planning Unit, Mrs. Jacqueline Matthew-Favery, and we're talking about a project that she is the focal point for, which is called the OECS Regional Health Project. So, I want to speak about something that is obviously going to be important to a lot of people, and I know that under this project, those things will improve. So, can you tell us a little bit about how the project will improve accessibility to healthcare for people with disabilities? Okay. Under the project, the component that addresses the retrofitting of the facilities will now encompass all of these areas, just in case it was not there. And in most of our health facilities, we do have access. There is access for people with disabilities. So, if the facilities down for retrofitting, these access areas would be improved. So, probably it would have been expanded to accommodate a larger wheelchair or somebody with the walking assistance to access the facility. So, we will improve it, and we will always consider the access and care for persons with disabilities because it's a health facility as well. We have to make it that any and everybody can access it. Now, with all the issues being addressed under the project, how did you go about determining what needed to be fixed? Did you meet with various stakeholders? You met with the patients. You spoke with doctors. How did the solutions to all of these problems come about? Okay. In order to retrofit them? Anything under the project, but retrofitting as well. Okay. So, before the retrofitting activity happens, there was an assessment that was conducted at all of our wellness centers to determine how we move forward to improve the care and the care services that we provide to the general public. So, that assessment will now inform the retrofitting works that will be done at the facilities. So, it depends on the level of care, and when I say the level, it depends on the service provision and the type of services that we are able to provide at that facility that we will see improvements. Okay. Now, we're also coming very close to the end of the program. Is there anything else that you would like to add before we shuffle off? Okay. Basically, the OECS Regional Health Project, it is a new initiative, one that we have not quite engaged. We have not been engaged with in delivering from the ministry's end. And we're very excited about it for the very reason that it will improve the service delivery and care for the general population. And we look forward to the completion of it in due time and to meet all of its targets and of course meeting the needs of our population. Okay, that's brilliant. So, I assume this is one of your first and hopefully not your last media appearance where you will have to discuss with the public what exactly the project is. Yes. As a matter of fact, I hope you invite me sometime later and I can tell you of the improvements and the strides we've made and how far we've gotten with the project. Of course. I will definitely be calling you back so you can speak about any developments as it is a matter of national importance because it is improving the health care of the entire country. Yes. So, Mrs. Matthew Fabri, I want to thank you very much for coming on our program. We did enjoy having you here. Yes. You're watching Issues and Answers, a production of the Government Information Service. Please stay tuned to more content from the Government Information Service and thank you for watching.


So, this diagram I hope you remember, right, yesterday also we have been discussing this, this is reversible exothermic reaction where this line is the locus of maximum rates, right, where dou r by dou t equal to 0 and we also discussed that, I mean how I can use various sections for various stages for the minimum volume but I want absolutely minimum volume what I should do with the diagram, you cannot have less than that, yesterday we had 3 stages, okay. So, how many stages we should have if you want to have absolutely absolute minimum, it is infinite why? It cannot be isothermal here, it cannot be isothermal, so but where I should be, where is t allowed, here this is reversible exothermic reaction, where is t allowed there, I should be on this line, then you will get absolute, that means all these, you know the rates just touching all these points corresponding excess, okay that is the maximum rates that are possible, all maximum rates will be on this line, so when I have all maximum rates and then if I am able to operate my reactor with all that possible maximum rates along the length of the P f r, then I will have 1 by r, r is maximum, so 1 by r will be minimum, so you will get minimum reactor volume, okay. How do you get this equation, I will just give you for a reaction A going to r, this is K 1 and K 2, K 1 and K 2, you can show that, I am not giving you the final thing, how optimum equal to E 2 minus E 1, instead of changing all these always you write E 1, E 1 minus E 2, this minus will be there divided by r, so ln of K 2 not by K 1 not, that is you know meaning of this K 1 and E 2 by E 1 X A by 1 minus X A, this is the equation, very beautiful equation which connects tau optimum, tau optimum is corresponding to maximum rate or the rate corresponding to this tau optimum will be the maximum rate, right and this is now related with conversion, T optimum, not tau optimum, T T T optimum, yeah temperature optimum, temperature optimum is you know corresponding to that optimum temperature you will have the rate is maximum, so if I am able to draw this profile X versus T or other things are known, in fact E 1 minus E 2 is nothing but delta H r, this is minus delta H r, this entire thing is minus delta H r, so you can also write this one as minus delta H r by r, okay and then E 1, E 2 I know, K 2 0, K 1 0 I know, X A versus T, I can imagine I mean I can calculate for X A equal to 0.1, what is tau, T not tau, okay and again 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 that is what is this line, if I am able to stay exactly on that line then I will have absolute minimum that is possible and if you have mixed flow reactors it is very easy to operate, right. So I will have large number still but in each reactor I can show that okay this optimum is 1, next one here, next one here, next one here, next one here, right, yeah so like that it is very easy to operate that kind of thing in mixed flow reactors whereas for plug flow reactors that is not that easy to maintain at each point what is the how optimum. So that means you just imagine now, you have to put the heat exchangers such that at every cross section you should have that T optimum, correct no, you should have your scheme either removing heat or adding heat such that always you maintain in that small cross section, theoretically speaking it is 0 bit through each cross section, right, you should be able to maintain that T optimum where you can get the minimum absolute minimum reactor volume that is possible, okay because we cannot do that that is the reason why yesterday we have gone and then drawn that okay I will start from here, go here, start, start, start, start, if this is the final conversion that is required, this is X AF, okay this derivation is very beautiful derivation please do that, right it is just nothing but again dou R by dou T equal to 0, okay good very nice, yeah now I also told you that we should have some practice for drawing these lines, right so I will give this exercise please take that develop conversion develop this is the problem this is assignment to you develop conversion X A versus temperature T T plots develop conversion X versus temperature T plots with rate of reaction R as parameter as parameter using the following data using the following data I think I will write here, okay, A going to R then of course minus R A equal to this is K 1 K 2 C A this is K 2 C R of course C R not equal to 0 here that is the pure C A only what we are taking and equilibrium constant K capital K is E power 18000 18000 by R T minus 24.7 yeah everything is in exponential that is K rate constants K 1 is E power 17.2 minus 11600 by R T units are minutes inverse K 1 K 2 because both are first order I think better write minutes inverse K 2 is again E power 41.9 41.9 minus 29 by 6 second by R T this is also minutes inverse yeah this is now where this activation energy these values where activation energy energy is in calories per mole, okay. So I think normally in this when you are drawing these graphs I think your range of temperatures will give you lot of problem so that is why in this problem I am specifying the range of temperatures to draw that graph you can try between minus 10 to 110 degrees Celsius and of course that interval you can have interval 10 degrees that means minus 10 0 10 20 30 40 like that yeah, okay. So then the parameter values rates that is minus R A or R A they will be 0.001 0 0 2 0 0 3 point is there 0.002 0.003 then we can have 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.02 0.03 maybe I think we can shift to 0.05 yeah this is 0.1 0.2 0.5 then 1 2 3 5 how many lines you will have 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lines you will have here in that graph draw that that is an excellent experience if you are able to draw that and minus R A is in moles later minute because this our concentration also in moles per later C A also is in moles per later, okay this one please draw and few of the graphs I may also ask in the examination because you have 3 hours no in the final examination right. So what do you do you have to draw this kind of correction all that 3 hours what do you do. So that is why I may give this examination there, okay K 1 by which K you are talking capital K yeah why run it is correct only check because that is given in a different way that is correct only 17 point 2 and 41 point 9 correct only sir and yeah the other one is 7 point 600 yeah it will it is a standard problem it is not a new problem created by me okay good so that is what you can do it and then yeah so with this this general discussion on graphical design is over right I hope you understood the essence of what we are trying to do in the last 3 4 classes this will give you the overall picture for the actual analytical work also now what we are going to do is for batch reactor separately plug flow reactor separately and also mix flow separately we are going to write the equations but this gives the framework for the coming classes but I think here if you are able to use even graphical one even if it is possible to draw in the examination hall it is excellent because do not think that graphs are going to take more time but I think if you are good artists quickly you can draw that and all engineers must be artists otherwise you do not even know how to draw a straight line right and if you have a B Tech degree or M Tech degree or not able to draw the straight line I think it is waste yeah because I think straight line is the simplest one what you can draw good yeah so that is the one now let us take batch reactors and if you have any questions I am sure you will not have any questions because most of the time I have to question I have to answer okay and you will be seeing there sitting okay now let us take batch reactor good so I think to summarize just Abhishek which will be really thrilling out of all this reversible irreversible reaction reversible endo reversible exo reversible exo reversible exo why why thrilling just thrilling dynamic programming dynamic programming yeah that condition comes through dynamic programming because here the problem is challenging right the challenging in the sense that there are two opposing things you know high temperature yes we like it okay high rate of reaction we like it but you do not have sufficient conversion finally at the end you cannot get if I start here at a very high temperature rate of reaction will be very high but maximum temperature is even if you go vertically up also it is only this much temperature if you go to adiabatic and all that only this much okay so that is why how do you make this one use high rates that means high temperatures plus still get maximum conversion so you start here and then go slowly and you find out what is the required temperature and how many stages you need that is what exactly the question I have asked in the first zero eighth examination where I asked you know why for SO 2 to SO 3 multi bed adiabatic reactor is used multi bed adiabatic reactor for the V 2 O 5 vanadium peroxide catalyst and is the catalyst catalytic reactor and they need generally 2 to 3 beds in series in between and they have heat exchanger by also asked another question why in ammonia reactor heat exchanger type is used it is not adiabatic reactor that also I asked have you thought any type that also comes under non isothermic question is clear first of all manikanta question also not clear what did I tell you just now why in ammonia so then why is a question is not clear that is to avoid answer first thing students says is that question is not clear sir even the simplest question we ask in the interview they say no sir I think as if drama acting as if he has not understood at all no sir not understood okay then again I have to tell the same question in a different way okay answer may not come but anyway question will be repeated many times so but why why should we use now can you expand your brain and then try to think now you know why we have to use for SO 2 to SO 3 this multi bed adiabatic reactor there we need high conversions in SO 2 to SO 3 usually around 85 90 percent conversion it is reversible exothermic right V 2 O 5 you know on the and that catalyst is reversible exothermic right so if I straight away start here because here I have 85 percent conversion if I just use only isothermal and then 85 what are the rates here very less than what will be the volume equivalent to IIT campus you know what is the area of IIT campus very good yeah 632 acres okay so one reactor you cannot have that area so that is the reason why we have to go for high use you know high means an high rate of reaction and then at least the first part will be less and next part will be slightly bigger second reactor third will be slightly bigger than the second one so like that it increases because you are moving towards lower region whereas in ammonia for example that is very very highly exothermic reaction so that is why moderately exothermic reactions where you have a reversible then only we use adiabatic reactors and when you use adiabatic reactors of course reversible exothermic then you will have definitely have to move from low conversions to high conversions so that is why you use multi bed stage 1 at this level at this range high ranges high rate range so then move to low range still further move to low range depending on your conversion okay so that is the reason I think now you appreciate these reasons I say so wonderful theory behind that and everything is you know thermodynamic and kinetic data wonderful okay good now let us take batch reactor so I think we will remove this where is this now let us write these material and energy batch material and energy balance equations for each reactor first let us take batch reactor batch reactor we have been telling that normally we will show like this okay then you may have the yeah may be coolant in T C T C then we will have this stirrer yeah here I may have temperature probe may be thermocouple somewhere here I will have pressure gauge okay if possible we have to also use internal coils again T C T C etc not only bottom I think you can also use side you can also use side right all this is possible okay good so now we need the material and energy balance for this and of course I do not have to draw again the profiles you know like with here with time yeah again depending on if I have adiabatic reactor what kind of temperature profiles you get conversion and temperature profiles if I have a adiabatic reaction that means all this is insulated I am simply so okay draw in the air air means like this yeah XA versus what is the other variable temperature I have asked me I have asked Abdul means Abdul represents the entire class everyone has to draw okay yeah I mean you are enjoying only we are talking and all of you are laughing happily yeah yeah like this what is this what is this first you have to draw like this like this so now you have to draw type temperature like this okay that is adiabatic now tell me for non adiabatic non isothermal non adiabatic non isothermal bala adiabatic also increases non adiabatic non isothermal also increases what do you mean by non isothermal non adiabatic what is the reaction okay dhanavi non isothermal can increase or decrease how under what conditions it will increase under what condition it decreases I am asking I have a system where it is not adiabatic it is non isothermal non adiabatic what is the meaning of nena good so what is the meaning what is the real meaning you have heat exit okay so when they have exothermic reaction now we are removing some heat now bala depending on the heat removal it may go maximum and then decrease okay yeah if you are removing only very very very small amount of heat then also it may slowly increase and then may be flattening out so there are many many possible curves isothermal that is very easy straight line okay good so that is what is the plant and conversion always increases so that is no problem so now we have to have the mass balance equation always we have a reaction something like this a going to r for the simplest cases okay so mass balance of a only normally we write only for one component right mass balance of a this is n a not d x a but this we have already done it so that is why I am not writing again elements and all that okay minus r a and this equation can also be written in terms of delta hos that is required delta x a equal to minus r a v delta t so this is equation 1 okay this is 1 a this is 1 b okay good so this minus r a can be also you know variable volume means it will have k into c a where variable volume means c a by c a not equal to 1 minus x a by 1 plus x a and all that are there okay good so energy balance this is input plus generation equal to generation will come if it is a big heat right yeah then output plus accumulation oh sorry this fellow is inherently unsteady fellow batch reactor plus accumulation and heat removed or added okay of course again here also have to write you know in general minus generation means you know endothermic right okay good so this is the general one so now let us write for only exothermic so that you know we will have some feeling for that so yeah and we know that it is a batch input 0 and output 0 we are writing for exothermic exothermic let us maintain minus delta hr as a positive quantity that is our convention please write there somewhere minus delta hr equal to some positive maybe 30,000 calories per mole or something like that okay good so generation when I write for this is minus r a v minus delta hr that is equal to yeah that is generation that is equal to then I have sigma of sigma of mi cpi dt by small dt that is the accumulation plus I have heat removed u a t minus t c so we have only three terms now no generation accumulation and heat removed because we are talking about exothermic reaction minus delta hr so that is why this is u a t minus t c good so this is equation and now let me go to other side so this equation this is maybe 1 and this is 2 this is equation number 2 okay so this equation I will just simply try to write like that sigma see if you have the average properties for the entire bulk reaction mixture okay so then that will be simply m c p that is otherwise if you want to write for individual components m a okay m is the mass and c p or m also can be moles but cpi will be in terms of moles okay yeah that calories per mole per degree so that is why that one please do not get confused so this is dt by this is temperature and this is time that is equal to minus r a v minus delta hr yeah minus u a t minus t c yeah so I think maybe for continuity sake or as a clue I can also write here mi cpi where m is mass cpi is the specific heat express it per mass this also equal to mi this is ni cpi dash di where cpi dash di is in terms of moles okay normally here you will make mistakes that is why I am trying to write all those simple things also okay good so you know most of the time we have been talking about energy balance in terms of energy balance that gives me the relationship between x a and but this equation 3 will it give me relationship between temperature and conversion it would not give me so then how do you make that now you use yeah you use this relationship okay and then substitute there so that you will have the relationship between conversion and temperature so that is why substituting equation 1 a in 3 substituting equation 1 a in 3 this is dt by small dt equal to minus r a v no minus r a v only have to change this is minus delta hr this is minus r a into v so this is n a not dx a by dt minus u a t minus t c so this is equation number 4 okay but now the problem here is that you know I have to use these 2 equations this is energy balance equation this is this is material balance equation this is energy balance equation to solve my you know conversion versus rate right finally the design is only 1 by minus r a versus x a only okay then area under the curve will give me here total time that is required for certain conversion okay but here I have only 2 equations and how many variables what are the 3 variables temperature and time 3 are there so that is why we have to go by trial and error we do not have third equation so that is why what we write here is in terms of deltas sigma m i c p i delta t equal to minus delta hr n a not delta x a minus u a t minus t c into delta t this is time small okay I just divided by small dt and then written this in terms of difference equation okay so now what is the procedure because I have to get the relationship between temperature conversion and rate right temperature conversion and rate and of course indirectly that you know this time rate has dx by dt you know okay so that comes there so that is why there is a procedure now by trial and error what we have to do is that procedure to solve equations 1 anyway this 1 b that is also difference equation and 5 okay so what is step 1 is we will just try to have you can start with anyone but I think I am starting with conversion I will assume that I have delta x a equal to 0.1 choose delta x a equal to 0.1 and Abhishek may say no sir I do not want to take delta x a equal to 0.1 I want to take only delta t temperature 5 degrees capital t and Abdul may say no no no sir I do not want to follow him so I want to take small delta t delta small t so then that is time then probably you may think that okay in 5 minutes what is now you have to whether if you assume delta x now you have to imagine that or guess that in this 0.1 increment of conversion what is the increase in temperature time also you can anyone okay then the other one you will check whether your guess is correct or not so now here guess a value for right delta t small t I am taking to calculate temperature small t delta t corresponding to corresponding to this delta x a 0.1 okay now so that means I know delta x from this equation 0.1 and I know delta t 0.5 and other things you should know right so other things means you know UA you should know heat transfer coefficient and area and here of course delta h are I know NA not I know and these properties I know here I have t 0 minus t 0 I know t c I know t 0 is the initial temperature so that is why I know everything except t here so you calculate calculate t t using equation equation 4 how do I know that my guess is right so this step I have temperature conversion x a x a initially equal to 0 right delta x x 0 equal to 0 so x equal to 0.1 corresponding to that I have guessed time 5 minutes right so then I know everything now I have to check this so I will go here and then check in this that means I will substitute whatever values I have there I will put here I know delta x and NA not I know and here in minus r a it can be very complicated need not be simple k c a it can be any complicated equation right so here this minus r a contains temperature and conversion if it is the simplest case if you take this is k c a k is nothing but k 0 e power minus e by r t x so I know x now I know t now and I can calculate minus r a and v you know in this problem you have to assume some v in the beginning and also you know that whatever volume you assume okay and you know you are finally calculating time right time will not change for a batch reactor time whether you take large reactor or small reactor time is same for given conversion okay even if you take 10 meter cube reactor for 90 percent what is the what is the time and even if you take 1 liter time is same but volume will come only when you are calculating productivity right that is what what we have also done know that thing how many batches per day and each batch volume and if you know the densities and all that you can calculate volume of the actual reactor right so that is why some volume definitely you have to assume there so that means I will now put all those values and then check whether l h s equal to r h s okay if not again okay good so that is the procedure so now yeah then step 4 is check equation 1 b 1 b with at this time with known x a small t and t okay so if 1 b is not satisfied equation 1 b you know if equation 1 b is not satisfied then go to yeah then you have to go to step 2 satisfied go to and you will easily get this things and of course next one is repeat 2 2 5 1 because this anyway every time you are choosing that so 2 2 5 yeah so that is the procedure very good this is actually the non-isothermal non adiabatic reactor because you have that you have the c terms for term here good so now let us see for adiabatic system what will happen right for adiabatic system what should be missing from equation 3 for adiabatic reactor u a equal to 0 then this term will not be there then we will have sigma of m i c p i d t by d t equal to not 3 4 4 is easy for me because I want relationship between conversion and temperature right so equation 4 gives me that so this is minus delta h r n a not d x a by d t so this this can get cancel so this is 6 yeah so now if I take this side this is integrate that t minus t not equal to minus delta h r n a not into x a minus x a not x a not usually we take 0 okay x a not so this is the equation so this is what what we have been telling also earlier that you get t minus t not equal to this is beta x a this is easy to solve for me because time is getting cancel here okay in this equation right okay so this is the one and you know how to use this this is the beta is the slope and you have to plot if you want to plot you know on the x versus time diagram so then you can plot that 1 by beta as the adiabatic line and then see what are the intersection points and now you take corresponding x corresponding r 1 by r plot 1 by minus x r a versus x a area under the curve will give you yeah t by c a not or the way how you write the that equation okay good so this is what I think we already discussed about adiabatic system long time so I think we do not have to discuss anything further good yeah so one problem quickly you can do it yeah I will just dictate and I will give the answers you can check okay this is adiabatic reactor batch problem on adiabatic okay good yeah reagent a undergoes an essentially irreversible first order reaction a going to r to stop both a and b are liquids at room temperature and both have extremely high boiling points determine the reactor volume necessary to produce okay I just want to give this one as it is 2 million pounds of r I hope you know the conversion between pounds and yeah kgs okay so that I think you know still this kind of units are required in chemical engineering because we have still lots of data in various units still lot of heat transfer data and all that available in BTUs okay no more joules and all that so that is why I think we should be familiar with all that that is why I just would do tell this 2 million pounds of r in 7000 hours of operation in 7000 hours of operation okay that means you have to determine the reactor volumes necessary to produce 2 million pounds of r in 7000 of operation one if reactor operates isothermally at 163 degrees centigrade if reactor operates isothermally at 163 degrees Celsius B 2 okay 1 I said 2 if the reactor operates adiabatically so that means 2 you have to do one is isothermal case other one is adiabatic case okay good use the following data use the following data just below right minus r A equal to k into C A first order reaction very simple okay and liquid phase also we told minus r A equal to k C A then next one is k at 163 k is small k at 163 degrees Celsius is 0.8 hours k at 163 is 0.8 hour inverse okay activation energy E equal to 228960 60 calories per gram more calories per mole mole means always gram more okay so then minus delta H R equal to 83 calories per gram okay molecular weight M W 250 okay the heat capacities of A and R may be assumed constant equal to C P 0.5 calories per gram for a degree centigrade okay that is C P both are same C P value it does not look like C P okay good the density of the reaction mixture may be okay the density of the reaction mixture is 0.9 grams per C C all kinds of units we are giving okay the density is the density of the reaction mixture is 0.9 grams per centimeter centimeter okay next line the times necessary to fill and drain the reactor may be assumed okay next sentence it may be assumed that it may be assumed that negligible reaction occurs during occurs during the 14 minutes during the 1414 14 minutes it takes to heat the feed from from the temperature at which it enters the reactor to 163 degrees Celsius okay in simple words it is heating time required is 14 minutes heating time okay tool to 163 after 97% of A has been converted after 97% of A has been converted the product mixture is discharged so the answer to this problem is that now I think you have to go now see for the first case isothermal the answer is T the time time is 4.383 hours okay T is 4.383 hours and the volume is 740 liters plus or minus 5 this way that way the volume required is 740 liters for non-isothermal case that is adiabatic reactor you expect lower volume or higher volume which one Rahul higher volume higher volume why anyone Dania okay Rajasri you said decree Savita why exothermic decreases mind mind mind because in exothermic reaction temperature increases when temperature increases then you have rate of reaction increasing when rate of reaction increasing in the design expression that fellow is there in the denominator so time will decrease so total volume also will decrease in fact time you will get only 0.12 hours 7.2 minutes okay for adiabatic case time required is for 97% conversion is only 7.2 minutes and what is the earlier number for isothermal yeah see okay good so that is one and volume required is may be around 105 or 110 liters volume required for adiabatic this is a wonderful problem I have chosen the reason is you will know the effect of this adiabatic reaction for exothermic reactions particularly because naturally it also increases the rate of reaction only reversible exothermic only is the problem as the temperature increases conversion falls but this is irreversible reaction so temperature increases rate of reaction increases your time decreases and volume decreases see those things I think you know that should be permanently there in your brain no should be but I think you know okay good we will stop here


Hello guys, my name is Bella and I raised funds to attend LIYSF last year, so what did I do to raise funds? It's first I share my story with my directors of my school and also with people from the government and I receive funds from an organization that the government have here in Mexico to to Give funds to different teams that are going to represent in Mexico in different events like the science firm in London So my advice is that you need to share your story You need to use social media. You need to write letters to different people Maybe people in your school or maybe the government in your country So they can know that you need funds to attend to this important event So my first advice is that you need to communicate. You need to share your story with the others and also you can Raise some funds from your friends and from your family maybe making some activities like a giveaway or something like that, but I think the most important thing is to share your story and Communicate why do you want to be at LIYSF with Governments science organizations and the most important your school


So, something else we can use the derivative for is something known as L'Opital's rule. In the 1690s, Johann Bernoulli, who was rated by Johann Bernoulli as one of the five greatest mathematicians in Europe, began teaching calculus to Guillaume de L'Opital, a French nobleman whose nearsightedness disqualified him from military service. L'Opital proved to be a good student and decided to write a textbook on calculus, the first ever written. He hired his old teacher as a consultant. In exchange for a rather considerable sum of money, Bernoulli agreed to answer questions presented by L'Opital and, in modern terms, waived rights to his intellectual property. In the course of writing his book, L'Opital came across a type of problem that had never been solved before and asked Bernoulli about it. Bernoulli solved the problem, L'Opital published it in his book, and the method has ever since been known as L'Opital's rule. While it was, in fact, discovered by Johann Bernoulli, it is, in fact, L'Opital's rule bought and paid for. So the problem that L'Opital came across that Bernoulli solved is this one. And if you can't read French, here's the English version. Suppose f of x and g of x are continuous and differentiable in the neighborhood of x equals a, except possibly at x equals a itself, and both limits are zero. Then the limit of the quotient is the limit of the derivatives. And an analogous result holds for one-sided limits. Now it's very important to understand and remember that L'Opital's rule only applies to limits of the determinant form zero over zero, and L'Opital's rule does not actually calculate a limit. Rather, it says that one limit is the same as another limit. Now, just a quick note, the circumflex often indicates an omitted s in medieval French. So L'Opital in modern French was actually spelled L'Opital in medieval French. And if you've listened to me this far, you know what to expect. Far too much wordplay around this connection. So let's take a simple initial example. Find the limit as x approaches one of log x over x minus one. So even though the problem says to use L'Opital's rule, let's go ahead and verify that we can use L'Opital's rule. So the thing we have to check is to make sure that we have a limit of the indeterminate form zero over zero. And we see that as x goes to one, log x goes to zero, and x minus one also goes to zero. So this is something we can use L'Opital's rule on. So we'll apply L'Opital's rule. It's a derivative of log over the derivative of x minus one. So we'll take the derivative of log, the derivative of x minus one, which simplifies. And remember that L'Opital's rule does not find a limit. We still have to find the limit. And we get a claimed limit of one. But while we trust our results, we should verify them. And again, the claim is that if x is close to one, then log x over x minus one should be close to one. And so we'll try a value of x that's close to one, how about 1.001. And our work suggests the limit is accurate. So what about the limit as x approaches zero of x cubed over e to the x minus x minus one? Since x cubed and e to the x minus x minus one are continuous and continuously differentiable of x equals zero, we can try to check into the L'Opital. So we'll fill out the admissions paperwork by finding the limits of the numerator and denominator. And since they both go to zero, this is a L'Opital's problem. So our limit as x goes to zero of our quotient is the limit as x goes to zero of the derivative of numerator over derivative of denominator. Again, remember that L'Opital's rule does not actually find a limit. It just says that one limit is equal to a different limit. So we need to find the limit as x approaches zero of 3x squared over e to the x minus one. But this is still an indeterminate of the form zero over zero. And so we should apply L'Opital's rule once again. Of course our insurance company might not pay for another night's stay, so we have to verify that we are allowed. So we'll take the limit of the numerator and denominator. And since both are zero, L'Opital's rule can be applied once more and we get a new limit. Now it's important to recognize that we still have to evaluate a limit at some point. And this time as x goes to zero, 6x goes to zero, and e to the x goes to one. And so this limit can be evaluated directly. Well let's find another limit. So as x goes to zero, both numerator and denominator go to, which means we can be admitted to the L'Opital, applying L'Opital's rule. And this time we get our discharge papers because e to the x doesn't have a limit of zero. So we can't stay at the L'Opital any longer. So what can we do? The important thing to remember is that L'Opital's rule only finds an equivalent limit, so all prior strategies for finding limits may be required. Since this limit can't be admitted to the L'Opital, we'll have to evaluate this limit using some other method. And we might note that in this case as x gets close to zero, e to the x gets close to one, and 3x squared gets close to zero, but always stays a little bit more than zero. And so our limit tends to positive infinity. Well let's support that answer numerically and see what happens. So we're looking at what happens to this expression as x gets close to zero. So we'll try out some x values that are close to zero and see what our expression is. And since all of these x values are positive, we'll take a couple of negative x values and mix it up a little bit. And we see that this does make it appear that as x gets close to zero, our function values do get close to positive infinity.