This is Twist this week in science interview episode recorded on Friday March 4th 2022 Why do we love? I'm dr. Kiki and today on the show. We will be filling your heads with the science of love and I would love to and invite you to enjoy this episode Welcome welcome welcome. We are here on the special Friday episode for an interview. Thank you for joining me today We're going to be discussing the science of love with Dr. Anna Machen who is an evolutionary Anthropologist at the University of Oxford written the book on why we love I mean, that's what it's called And We have a great show ahead I do hope that you will enjoy the conversation but as we get into everything I want to remind you that if you have not yet subscribed to this program as a podcast this week in science is available as a podcast all places podcasts are found We stream live weekly on Wednesdays at 8 p.m. Pacific time on YouTube Facebook and Twitch We are twist science on Twitch Twitter and Instagram all sorts of things to remember You can find information about the show at our website twist.org Okay, so now let's jump into this wonderful interview. Dr. Machen. I would love to Welcome you to our Friday interview program. Thank you so much for joining me today. Oh, thank you for having me on It's really exciting. Yeah, I'm absolutely thrilled to get to speak with you I mean, I wanted to get you in a conversation closer to Valentine's Day We're still within a couple of weeks. So I think What first got you interested in the question of why we love Enough that you wanted to study it because I mean as humans were all like, why do we love? Yeah, it kind of began a really long time ago long before I studied Alive humans So I did my PhD on the evolution of social and sexual behavior in the middle Pleistocene And the middle Pleistocene for those of you who aren't up on that particular period It's been about 1.8 million years ago and half million years ago But during that period lots of really exciting things in our social behavior began. We saw the formation of families We saw the evolution of fatherhood. We saw the evolution of the lots of cooperation And it was a really exciting time. And so I did my PhD on that and then I Basically turned up on the doorstep of Professor Robin Dunbar at Oxford University I taught his son at university and I turned up on this doorstep and I just went I really want to work with you And I'm basically not going anywhere.   So they're really close Relationships we have and that's basically love And I started where everybody starts when they do love with romantic love But as an anthropologist, I think my role is to really understand the totality of a trait or a behavior in humans And it quickly became apparent and just talking to my subjects that we experienced love in so many different ways And so my role was to really look at that full spectrum To understand what happens in our bodies and in our brains when we fall in love and to just get as big an Understanding of the complexity of love as we possibly could so explanations at every level of explanation I think that's doing the job properly as an anthropologist is to to get that totality of what's going on Right and at the beginning of your book the preface you say I'm not going to give you a simple answer to why we love And is that is that pretty much it? Why is there is there no simple answer? Do we have is it just so big? It's so big and the more you study it the bigger it kind of gets I mean you can stop start to narrow it down to factors But yeah, what I think is amazing about love and I say it in the book is I find it or Inspiring I find it or inspiring because it literally infiltrates every fiber of who are beings every mechanism in your body is involved in love And then if you think about your daily life Infiltrates all your daily life your daily decisions the interactions you have with other people So it's it's a really awe-inspiring thing And I think if we reduce it to one thing or two things and we try and find a formulae We're not doing it justice. So actually the book is about Explaining love in lots of different ways and if you put them all together, hopefully you get the 360 So there isn't one one answer to the question and that's that's what we have to address And I think sometimes people are disappointed Particularly when I do public talks and they think they turn up thinking right science is going to give me the answer And I'm going to go out here and I'm going to have really successful relationships And certainly we can tell you lots of wonderful things that are going to help you and really explain how you're feeling What's going on in your body? But I'm not going to give you a formula at the end saying if you do a plus b divided by c You know to the power of whatever everything's going to be fine because it doesn't work like that So I'm trained as a as a neuroscientist and I also trained my my undergraduate years as a conservation biologist and so I Am very science-oriented, but I come at it from that reductionist Perspective I think of when I think of love, you know I there's the human side the poet the the artist's creative side that I can appreciate as a human But when I come at it, I think about it very very Essentially as okay We've got molecules and electrical signals in the brain and the body and that is how we love Yeah, yeah, so can you help me and the audience kind of make that leap from how we love to the why we love? Well, yeah, I mean the book is sort of like the how why what where all those sorts of things I think Obviously the biological side of it the neuroscientific side of it is one of the really key important elements It certainly certainly is but how somebody experiences love and why they fall in love with a particular person Isn't just about that biological dimension So I I kind of you can reduce love down to two dimensions the biological and the social And the biological side we expand by looking at neuroscience. We expand by looking at genetics psychology You know pharmacology all these sorts of things and the book certainly does that Um, but there's also all those other things that come into why you fall in love So when you fall in love with somebody obviously all this wonderful stuff is happening in your brain your physiology Everything's keying in your sensors But also because we experience love at a very conscious level Also things come into your mind like what will my family think what will my friends think? What's my culture say about this? What does my religion say about this? What do my politics say about this? What are the laws around this? So when you decide who to love and how you're going to love and why you're going to love You're not just an automata a biological automaton doing all that you are bringing in all this other stuff Which is also going to decide Am I going to be in love with this person? And I think because I'm an anthropologist and therefore I'm a scientific end of anthropology But we are taught very much that that we have to understand the total human And not just part of the human and so I think that's that's the direction I come at it from so yeah My research work is in neuroscientific. It's genetic mainly But I also spend a lot of time talking to my participants just talking about Who they love what's their most powerful love? What do they think love is all these sorts of things and I think You only get the full experience when you get that side of it as well I think and I think that's it's my training to do it that way. I think What have been some of the most I guess insightful comments or or interesting Comments that have come out of interviews with with your subjects that have led you to think about things in a slightly different way I suppose there's there's several things that really From talking to people there are two things that really are amazing is first of all How many definitions of love there are so if you say to someone what is love? You get so many different definitions, you know, some people will take down that reductionist thing And I'll go it's just some neurocatheters in your brain And they will go down that route But then you will get people who who could write your whole essay on it or people who will just give you one word So some you know, one person just said to me friendship Or one person said to me understanding, you know or other people who will go on and on and on so first of all That really teaches you a lot about love because Ultimately how I love and how you love are going to be different And I will never experience love like you experience love And as a scientist I will never get to that absolute core of you I will be able to tell you lots of things about yourself about like let's look at your genotype Is it related to love and let's see what happens in your brain? What are your neurochemical levels and all this sort of thing? But there's a bit of your love I will never be able to touch and I think that bit is interesting um, I think the other things is just The sheer breadth of love that people can experience and there's so many different ways and how powerful it is And some of it's quite challenging For what they see as their most powerful love. So I spoke to nuns For the book and that's the looking at religious love. And this is the most amazing body of neuroscience of religion It's really interesting and but I was talking to them about their experience and trying to understand their relationships And I'll speak in one nun obviously we're used to nuns not have not having had You know romantic relationships are not having had children And in fact, I spoke to one nun who had quite rarely before she'd become a nun And I remember saying to her, okay, and I always ask all my interviews. What is the most powerful love you've experienced? And you get lots of different answers And as an anthropologist, you know, you have the poke face. You go, okay, that's great. Thank you very much She said so I said, what's your most powerful love? And I was expecting her like like a lot of people to say my children my grandchildren I don't know my You know my best friend and she just went God And for me that was quite challenging because I am a mum and It's a very powerful love and I was just like, oh my god, you literally you're putting god above all the others And that's quite challenging So you people would get you to look at love in a really different way same like I talked I spoke to polyamorous. I spoke to aromantics And they all made me look at love in a different way And I think that's the power of of talking to people about their love as well as yeah You know getting them to spit in tubes and looking at their genes Yeah Your your comment about the the nun is fascinating. My mother was christian scientist and at one point she She she started repeating the phrase very often god is love So that was just that was her powerful phrase. It was you know, not a question of what is what is god and that relationship It was she wasn't having a relationship with this Uh spiritual religious entity. It was Love and this is yeah much larger thing. And so yeah, yeah I I you know as growing up with that. I I think what you've said about the nun's Love of god being so powerful. Yes, so fine. So fascinating. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely But as you said being able to talk with all these different people about all this These different kinds of love Do they all impact us the same way so the love of a A partner the love in a polyamorous relationship the love of a friend the love of a child these are We can say to somebody I love you but i'm not in love with you Yeah, well, there are different sorts I mean, it's it's how you personally define love. So that that thing of I love you but i'm not in love with you What that sense to reflect quite a lot is The really intense lustful passionate bit of love, which is particularly there at the beginning Does fade and then you get some sort of companionate level of love Which is underpinned by slightly different neurochemistry And That is a very different feeling. So that's kind of the I love you but i'm not every single day Hungering for your love. I'm not, you know, like I like you feel for Hungry for food or thirsty for water. I'm not yearning for your love And that's that's generally that that's that phase where you've gone out of that lustful passionate bit, which I actually don't Define as love in my work. That's a very different thing into sort of companionate love And in terms of whether there are differences in the different sorts of love They're all underpinned by the same neurochemistry at different levels of intensity Obviously, the brain activations are different because they have different components to them but in terms of if we look at it in the evolutionary Phase of what are the benefits of love? Why did love evolve? The benefits of being in these relationships and having them underpinned by love are the same You know, we know today even though people I mean the very simple question to do the answer why we love Um answer to the question. Sorry. Why we love is survival. That's why we love Love at its most basic level and this is a nice hard scientific answer. Love is biological bribery. Love is what evolution came up with to make sure We cooperate with people because humans are unbelievably cooperative. We have to be cooperative to achieve so much You know to raise our children to do all the learning we need to learn to just function in this incredibly complex world Particularly as we keep on innovating things, you know to subsist and we need to do this for our survival If we don't do those things then our children don't aren't raised, you know We don't eat all these sorts of things trouble is as we all know cooperating with people is really really hard It's stressful. It can in fact threaten your survival anyway, particularly if you're if you're Assuming all your needs for somebody else's so You know evolution needs us to do this cooperation, but sometimes it's really hard And so we get rewarded and motivated by this wonderful flood of neurochemistry and that is the sensation of love Essentially now lust at the beginning is is underpinsed by a slightly different balance of those neurochemicals And then we go into love later on But so ultimately the benefits of love are the same it is your survival and even today people say yeah But it can't be about survival I you know I see in the environment in which we evolved that you know We probably needed to cooperate to you know find water sources for hunt for food Learn how to snap stone tools all these sorts of things But really today we I don't think so But actually this the most amazing body of work linking Love and having healthy relationships and having functioning relationships with other people and your mental and physical health And it's very very powerful to the extent that that and I agree with him My boss Robin Dunbar has argued that love and the nature of the relationships you have is the biggest factor In your healthy longevity and a life satisfaction above everything else If you do not have functioning relationships in your life Regardless of what basis they are regardless of what context they are You know whether they be with friends or family or lovers or whoever it might be Then that is to your detriment Quite severely to your detriment. So yeah Ultimately they all have the same benefit the questions we have going forward into the lesser areas that have been studied Is yes, so does religious love have exactly the same benefit where you're interacting with someone who doesn't manifest in physical form Does love for going forward, you know, there's a whole Dynamic of trying to develop social robots if we built friend relationships of robots Would we have the same benefit and that's kind of a question and we have to look into that But when we look at the standard human relationships, yes, they all have the same benefits really Yeah, and there is research suggesting that people who with um Spiritual religious beliefs that they have healthier mental states Absolutely Yeah, we need more more evidence on that but certainly that's where it seems to be pointing and it's not just because they get a community Right and some people like you get that you get that church community. Well, there we go But actually there is something about the relationship with a higher being They gives you a benefit. Yeah, and then you have to get into well. Is it correlation? Is it causation? Yeah, exactly. How do you tease that out and it's yeah exactly and it gets very complicated But that's kind of where we're at with that kind of work is is yeah What's going on there and is is that a real effect? Along the lines of uh, these relationships you in the book you do talk about the public versus the private aspects of Of love so like your personal private Love versus what happens in our culture and society and I was intrigued by some of the examples of different cultural practices and what are your what's one of your favorite? cultural rituals that you've come across I Related to love What I find amazing is is there's there's one particular Pakistani group that They have really interesting rules about the love for your child, which again, I find quite challenging Um, because you know in in the west we're all into you know You shower your child with love and it's attachment parenting and all this sort of thing and and you praise your child And they have the complete opposite that to show true love for your child is to restrain yourself from showing that love So you can shower the kid next door with love But you do not do that to your child because if you do that you bring the threat of the evil eye upon them And I just find that really interesting that so as a mother you actually have to fight your instinct Which your instinct is generally to bundle your child up and and comfort them and Sing their praises from the rooftops and do all those sorts of things That's not what you do and that shows the huge power of culture to work against What we are actually evolved to do and I think it's really really interesting Um, how strong it's like, you know the cultural ideas about You know monogamy and and that's why some people find polyamory so threatening Because actually it goes against our societal rules about how we should love Um, it's not actually based on any particular scientific evidence But it's based on the idea that you know, we all have we all pair up and that's what you do Yeah, it's a the the aspects of this how it all evolved, you know, if we come from our tribal Beginnings or the small groups It probably, you know, aside from coupling there were not those just the pairing up there was probably much more polyamorous or at least Less monogamous Relationships and much more social connection and maybe even more Group raising of children and so the like and and the question is how did we split off into all these different cultural Identities with these different Exactly. I mean and it's really interesting. I mean monogamy evolved in terms of what, you know, socially imposed monogamy and religiously imposed monogamy Very much as a form of social control. That's what it's about It's it's much easier if we know that everyone's going to pair up with one other person So we can keep controlling that we know if you just let everyone just do whatever they want Then we have chaos and then we can't cope with chaos So we'll so you know, we will have these rules where you know, you can only marry one person at a time and God says you can only marry these sorts of people and then that's nice and neat and everybody knows the rules Um, and that's that's a power thing. That's that's maintaining power over society when in fact, you know As you say in terms of where how we evolved We might have had a form of serial monogamy, particularly when we just maybe just had Tiny babies human babies as we all know are born far too early They need to have been in there a lot longer. So they're very very dependent and maybe far It's why human fatherhood evolved But maybe for a short period of time A pair of parents might stick together for a bit at that really tricky time to invest to make sure the kids survived But after that, you know, it's kind of like a free-for-all You know and certainly we have definitely evolved to raise our children as a community Not as not as two people Definitely and even in those worlds where we have this idea of the nuclear family If you think of the number of people have an input into your child's life Even if they're professionals teachers doctors That's all cooperating.  That's really interesting. I think they would That's a really no one's ever asked me that for and that's a brilliant question. I think If we were less restrained I think there would be much more freedom to choose and to move quite fluidly between different relationship types You know, we have these rules about how you should be and and monogamy or whatever But I think maybe if we just followed what our instincts were and like, you know I'm attracted to this person say today. I'm having a relationship with this person Whether whatever their sexuality whatever their gender that's what I'm going with tomorrow I'm going to go and do this or you know for those people who Can cope with it with jealousy to the extent that they are very happy to be in polyamorous relationships I think you would see much more open behavior along those lines um Yeah, and I think you you would see the removal of those structures And you would see people following their instincts much much more. So it would be a much more fluid thing I think if we just followed our biology um I mean some of our biology, you know for some people isn't helpful um So, you know, but uh But in the long run, yeah, I think it would be a much more fluid and open Open way of being other people restraining themselves and working against some of their biology Right, and uh, there would be a reduction probably in that Societal control cultural control top down. Yes, which is okay Scare the people in power. No, they would no they would not like that. That would not be good um as you you mentioned also the the the positive mental health aspects of So of relationships all the relationships that we have and we're coming into a Like a lull point a dwell point in the covet 19 pandemic where Masks are starting to come off people are coming together again and socializing a lot more than they have over the last couple of years here in the united states People are going back to the offices and things are Going back to I'm not going to say going back to normal. They're they're they're going. Yeah Yeah So what have you seen over the last couple of years in terms of relationships and how they have affected Love and mental health how the pandemic affected that I think we all know the pandemic was not positive for our mental health and I think alongside the fear and You know listening to a lot of negative news the big thing that fed into that was the inability to have meaningful contact with those you love a meaningful contact with other people humans have evolved to Be with each other in person. We don't understand this screen this virtual relationship thing our brains have not evolved to deal with this So we need to be in the room and we need to you know Our the neurochemistry that's released when you interact with somebody Um is based upon touch. It's based upon laughter. It's based upon eye gaze It's based upon all these sorts of things and that's about being in the room with somebody And I think one of the most powerful things that showed to me how important love was was the concept of biobehavioral Synchrony and biobehavioral synchrony is something you observe when two people are interacting and and we all know that if two people are Close and they interact they kind of mirror each other's behavior And we kind of know that but if you look inside their bodies their physiology comes into synchrony as well So it started from different baselines But you get you know a synchrony and heart rate and blood pressure and body temperature And then if you look in the brain We get synchrony and neurochemical release and in brain activation And so every single mechanism in your body is coming together in one sense kind of making two people one person And I think that is very powerful and that underpins The benefits of love now if you are separate You do not get that you do not get that that amazing coming together of two people And that's people would often say, you know, I viscerally or I I feel I feel pain that I'm not holding my my loved ones I feel pain that I'm not with them. I can I can feel it as a physical Sensation and that is why is because you're not getting the biobehavioral synchrony You're not getting the positive neurochemistry. You're not getting the mental and physical benefits And that is I think why it hurts so much And I think in one sense I I write in the preface to the book that if any positive thing has come out of k-vid I think maybe it's a realization Which I really hope we hold on to of the importance of being with each other And of those you love and the support you get from them and acknowledging that Because that's what we were feeling. We were feeling that absolute absence Of this structure that underpins your life. It wasn't there anymore So, yeah from a k-vid point of view, it's it's been very interesting for those of you who study social behavior I'm sure they're going to be Research papers coming out for oh, yeah I said so many people to study You mentioned earlier different questions that uh Are still going, you know still having questions more questions about love even after studying it for years and writing this book um One that's interesting to me and I I don't know if you have any insight into this as also having been a primatologist But the question of do other animals feel love if it is For survival of social animals especially Would we expect to see The artifacts of love or things similar to love appear in animals that would give us an idea that Yes, they do love as well. Yeah I very strongly believe animals love as well I think the problem we have is we kind of hold animals to a higher level of proof than Then we do humans. So if I said to you Do you love that person over there and you said yes, I just believe you. Okay. You love that person You know, we don't believe that with an animal So we put we put these tests in place for animals So, you know, do they exhibit do they have the neurochemistry that we have that underpins it Do they exhibit attachment? Do they have empathy and what kind of what kind of empathy I'll be just talking like You know emotional empathy or emotional contagion. Are we talking full cognizant empathy? You know, um, do they have uh relationships beyond the reproductive? So do they have friends for example, do they experience grief which is obviously the absence of a so we set all these little Hurdles up and go right you've got to jump over all these hurdles And there's a lot of animals that jump over those hurdles So, you know, you particularly if you look at elephants, you know, the higher Elephants dolphins the apes monkeys dogs Meet some of them So there are a lot of animals that go over them, but even then you will get some people who's crawling on the book Okay cats cats. We're we're working on cats and I'm sure they do But um, but so we get them to go over all hurdles and then someone will go yes, but Yep, and that's the problem is that we said so I very strongly believe and there was a wonderful neuroscientist Who you might know called yeah panc set and he was an effective neuroscientist And he studied relationships and social behavior in a lot of mammals and what he said was Love is kind of like the cake And lots of animals have the cake But what we've done with human love is we've kind of decorated it on the top with all this other stuff Which is wonderful and gorgeous But not necessary to experience love. So we will say yeah, but you know Yeah, they don't abstract about their love and do they love in the absence of the other person and do they love in this And it's like yeah, but you don't need to do all that to experience love We've just got all that because we have this massive brain and obviously had a lot of time on our hands But actually it's the cake that matters and there are a lot of animals who have the cake I think in this case the cake is not a lie. The cake is love. Yes, absolutely I have I would love to continue talking with you about this But we are at our time and I don't want to keep you late on a Friday evening where you are So can we finish up with a just a couple of question very brief questions Your book why we love What do you hope that people can take from it into their own lives? I hope that they re-engage with all the different types of love in their lives We have a bit of a thing in the west of like privileging romantic love For example, I want you to go into your life and really look at and appreciate it and see where it all is Because actually it benefits you all there is no hierarchy of love There are they are all valuable And is there anything that we didn't touch on that you want to want to comment on before we go? I I yeah, I think just what's really interesting Also, I think is the science behind the individuality of love So in the book we go through a lot of the genetics that explain why people love differently And I think that's also a really fascinating areas We have universals, but there are also many things that make us different And we try I try in the book and really bring that out as to why we all love in a different way Why we love is available All over the world right now. Yeah, it is it's published in america. So that's the british cover There is an american cover, which is very pretty. Um, and yeah, so it's published in america as well And yes, it's available for for order for buying in bookstores if you go to bookstores Which people are doing more and more often these days. Yep and I've really enjoyed getting to speak with you about this and And reading through your book it's so full of interesting stories and interesting science that That I've I've quite enjoyed so thank you very much for joining me today. Thank you. Thank you so much for joining me Thank you And everyone out there, thank you for joining me for this interview I do hope that you will join us again for another Friday fun interview because more and more are getting scheduled This week in science does air like I said weekly 8 p.m. Pacific time On wednesday nights on youtube facebook and twitch and if you have learned anything from the show remember It's all in your head


Hello, let us have a look at how we can do the initial sizing of a military aircraft. As an example, we have taken an aircraft called as our F-16, which is a theoretical aircraft. Do not think it is connected to F-16 in any direct way, it is just an aircraft that has been theoretically derived from F-16 aircraft. So it is a jet fighter aircraft, single-seater. Before I start, let me discuss the color scheme in this presentation. So the general instructions would be given in brown color. The specified values from the mission or from any other source would come or from data textbooks will come in black color. The assumed values would come in blue color. The locations where you need to do some calculations will be shown in red color and there will be a pause button as shown here. I would request you to pause the video at that stage, do the calculations and then proceed further. The calculated values will be shown in the dark blue color. Now since this is a theoretical aircraft, we do not have any data to compare with. Now the source of data and comparison for this particular presentation comes from the basic F-16C parameters which have been listed in this textbook by Brandt, Stiles, Burton and Wittford. And what we have done is we have used an assumed mission profile. So therefore, it has got nothing to do with what F-16 does. So we will assume some data for our F-16C aircraft. The maximum payload weight is assumed to be 7575 kgs. This is similar to the maximum payload of F-16. The mass of the pilot along with the G-suit is assumed to be 100 kgs, 75 kgs for the pilot, 100 kgs total with all the paraphernalia with the helmet etc. etc. The SFC of the aircraft, the single engine aircraft in cruise is 0.8 per hour. And the loiter specific SFC would be slightly more 0.81 per hour. But when we go for a dash segment or a high speed flight at a very high mark number supersonic mark number, then the afterburner has to be used and therefore, the fuel consumption becomes at least 3 times more. So it becomes very high. The wing aspect ratio is 3.0. This also is closely matching with that of the actual F-16 aircraft. As I mentioned, we have assumed a mission profile for F-16C or that is why we call it as our F-16C. Our mission is the low high mission. So you can see this is the mission profile. We start off by takeoff from a base which is at 1 kilometer above mean sea level. The aircraft then climbs to a height of 2.5 kilometers in an accelerated fashion and reaches a mark number of 0.85 at the end of climb. We then cruise to the action of the location of action which is assumed to be 200 nautical miles away. So we fly at the cruise mark number of 0.85, a distance of around 2.5 kilometers which means this aircraft is expected to be operating from close to the border and therefore it just has to rush at a 2.5 kilometer and then it climbs down, climbs down to almost 1 kilometer above mean sea level and then there is a high speed dash at mark 1.05. So there is a supersonic flight at 1 kilometer with afterburner on. During this phase a large amount of fuel is consumed because the SFC is very high. It is a short dash, it is just 2 nautical miles and then there is a 20 minute lighter where you engage with the enemy and undergo combat. This happens at 1 kilometer above mean sea level. We assume the time is 20 minutes. So during that time the aircraft is under lighter. Once the job is over the aircraft is quickly made to climb to a height of 10 kilometer but this climb is unaccelerated climb. So and then it actually cruises back to the base. It went 250 nautical miles away, 200 plus 50. So now it actually heads back to 250 nautical miles but this time it is coming back at a very comfortable mark number of 0.6 and at an altitude of 10 kilometers and then we give another 45 minutes of fuel for it to loiter at that altitude because we do not know if there is any other requirement. So now you are at a friendly area and you are just loitering. You are ready for any further comeback that might be needed or you are in a protective mode in your own territory. After 45 minutes of loiter at 10 kilometers you then come back approach and land at sea level. The reserve fuel fraction is assumed to be 10 percent. Notice that for transport aircraft we assume it to be much larger but for military missions we are assuming it to be just 10 percent. So let us look at the first step in initial sizing which is the takeoff weight built up. Essentially we know that the gross weight W0 can be considered to be a summation of four basic weights the crew, the payload, the fuel and the empty weight. Of these the empty weight is basically the weight of the structure, the engines, the landing gear, equipment, MNX, etc. Now W crew and W pay are known from the requirements or from the specifications. So therefore we know now we have to look at the W fuel and W empty. Now W fuel and W empty essentially are the two unknowns which are remaining to be determined. So what we do is we look at this master equation of force and then the known values are kept in the numerator W crew and W payload and the two unknown values are taken in the denominator through a ratio W empty by W0 which is also called empty weight fraction or W e bar and W fuel by W0 which is also called fuel weight fraction W f bar. So the two unknowns now are W e 0 W e bar and sorry W e bar and W f bar that is the only two unknowns to be determined. So these are the ones which have to be calculated. Let us look at the payload and crew weight for our F16 aircraft that is the basic specification. As far as crew is concerned we have a single seat jet fighter aircraft hence we have just one crew member, the pilot and as I mentioned the pilot is expected to the pilot and the G2 etc is going to be assumed to be 100 kilograms. The payload weight is also specified here as 7575 kgs which closely matches with the maximum payload capacity of F16C fighting Falcon aircraft. So let us start with the empty weight fraction and mostly we do it using historical data. So W e bar is assumed to be equal to a into W0 power c into KVS where A and C are constants these constants depend on the specific aircraft type. So we obtain the values for these constants A and C from statistical curves fits for various aircraft types and KVS is a factor that determines whether the aircraft has a variable sweep wing or a conventional sweep wing. In our case we are assuming the wing to be conventional fixed wing and therefore we will assume KVS to be equal to 1. So let us look at the empty weight fraction trends data taken from a table given in Raymers textbook. Since we are going to work in metric units we will look at only A metric and C. As you can see there are different values for various types of aircraft and these are the values of interest to us for a single seat jet fighter 2.11 for A and minus 0.13 for C. Let us plot these trends on a graph to see where all the lines lie. This is just for your information. So the flying boat normally has the highest values and then we have jet fighters which is our category and after that we have several other types like jet trainer, general aviation twin engine, unpowered sail plane, twin turboprops, agricultural aircraft, home built metal wood aircraft, home built composite a bit lighter. You can see the line is almost parallel to the metal wood line. Then we have sail plane unpowered which is a parallel line to the powered sail plane on the lower side and then we have general aviation single engine which is again almost parallel to the line green line which is twin engine aircraft and then we have jet transport aircraft. This already we have seen in case of Boeing 787-8 and then we have the lowest ones which are the military cargo aircraft. In our case what we do is we look at these trend lines for various aircraft types and we choose the relevant line for us it is jet fighter and we assume some WTO and then come on to this line and then we estimate the empty weight fraction by moving horizontally. So for example if we assume the max takeoff weight to be or the size takeoff weight to be 45,000 kilograms for a jet fighter it turns out to be approximately 0.55 as the empty weight fraction. But what is the value for our F-16? The problem is that for our F-16 we do not know WTO. WTO is something that we want to estimate in initial sizing. So really we cannot use this graph. What we have to do is we have to use the equation given by Raymer in which it is specified that the coefficients are 2.11 and the power is minus 0.13. So we are going to use this expression in our calculations because we do not know the value of WTO a priori. So we cannot get empty weight fraction directly. We will get the empty weight fraction as a function of only takeoff weight. Let us look at how the mission fuel fraction is estimated just a recap that the fuel weight is equal to the mission fuel reserve fuel. The mission fuel you know depends upon the type of the mission or the dynamics of the aircraft and the Indian SFC. Reserve fuel is reserved for all these situations which are beyond the normal planning. And then we have an assumption that we do not lose anything along the way in the mission except fuel. So therefore the only way by which the aircraft loses weight is by consuming fuel. Hence we can assume that the fuel consumption in any mission segment is proportional to the aircraft weight and only in that mission segment. So we can use the method. So what we do is we number the mission segments from 0 to 10 in this case and for any IS segment for any segment. So if there are 10 numbers there will be actually 9 segments. So for any segment the fuel for the fuel weight fraction would be wi upon wi minus 1. The total fuel fraction would be W10 by W0 which will be obtained as a simple multiplication of the fuel weight fraction in each of these segments. Please remember that this is possible only if we assume that there is no other way by which the aircraft loses its weight except by consumption of fuel. Only under that condition this equation is valid. So now let us look at how there are these terms to be calculated. We need these ratios. So let us see one by one how for each of the mission legs we can get the ratios. So for the first one W1 by W0 we are going to use the prediction or the suggestion by Ramer to take the ratio as 0.97 which includes the fuel for warm up taxi out and take off. Again for climb we will use historical data because this climb is actually a very climb to a reasonably low altitude although it is accelerated but it is to a very low altitude. So one can assume here that it is a simple climb. For the cruise segment of course we have to calculate the weight fraction in cruise. For descent segment we are going to ignore the consumption of fuel that is why I put it in white color. Then the dash segment is like a cruise segment but at a very high Mach number. So even though it is a very small distance of 50 nautical miles you will notice that there will be a large consumption of fuel. And then if we look at the loiter segment for 20 minutes there will be a consumption of fuel there. So that also has to be calculated but then when we go into an unaccelerated climb to 10 kilometers we again use historical data just like the one that we used for segment 1 to 2. For the turn cruise segment of 250 nautical miles we have to use the data regarding data related to the aircraft. We have to use the data related to the aircraft to get the values and also finally when we go for the last loiter we need to look at the aircraft data. When we come into land once again it is a descent and approach so we ignore the fuel in that particular segment. So as I mentioned the warm-up takeoff and landing weight fractions are estimated by historical trends and fuel consumed and the distance travelled during descent segments is completely ignored. Effect of using historical data this is our basic mission profile and these are the 10 segments for which we had to estimate the mission segment weight fractions. But you know we can use historical data for you know this 0.97 corresponds to the warm-up taxi out and takeoff. So for that we use a constant fraction from Reimers textbook. This one represents the weight fraction in the descent segment which is 1 assume to be 1. This 0.995 corresponds to the climb segment. This 0.995 corresponds to the landing segment and the remaining are the ones to be calculated. So therefore what happens is that when you use these 4 numbers as constants you ultimately end up with 6 numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ratios for whom we have to do basic we have to do some calculations using the basic data of the aircraft. So first start let us first start with estimation of the maximum L by D which is done mostly using historical data. These are the approximate values of the cruise L by D max values for various aircraft types and if we see military fighter aircraft the L by D max range is from 9.2 to 13.9 and the average value is 11.0. This is the one which goes for a subsonic cruise. Our aircraft also goes for subsonic cruise but the dash segment is of course supersonic. So L by D max average value is approximately 11 for such aircraft. Let us get the weighted area ratios for our aircraft. For that we look at the value given in some configurations based on the general geometrical. So you eyeball the aircraft in the figure and then after you eyeball the aircraft you estimate the weighted area ratio estimate by SRF. So where does our F16 fit into this particular landscape? So if you notice it is actually somewhere in between F4 and F104 in the shape. So it will come somewhere here, it will fit somewhere here and if you actually proceed with eyeballing in that particular location you get SF by SF is equal to 4.3. So in our case we will assume the SF by SF equal to 4.3. Now this graph from Reimers textbook shows the value of L by D that can be L by D max that can be expected for various weighted aspect ratio values for various aircraft. So our aircraft is a military jet. So what we do is we calculate the weighted aspect ratio and then we locate the applicable line for our case and then we just proceed from the x-axis to the line and then we go to the y-axis. So for our F16 aircraft let us see the A wing is known to be S3 the aspect ratio of the wing is known to be 3 and therefore the weighted aspect ratio of the wing will be 3 upon 4.3. At this point I would request you to pause the video and calculate this number. The ratio comes out to be 0.7. So if the weighted aspect ratio of the wing is 0.7 that will be somewhere here. So you start somewhere here and go on the line for jet fighters, military jets you come on the x-axis you get the value of L by D max as approximately 11.3. So since our weighted aspect ratio is 0.7 as per this graph the value of L by D max is approximately 11.3. Let us now estimate the fuel weight fraction using mission profile and historical data for the engines. So what you do is for the accelerated climb which is the first one you identify the mark number at the end of the climb and then use this expression given by Raymer in his textbook to calculate the weight ratio. So for our F16 aircraft M and climb has been given as 0.85 because that is the beginning of the cruise. So in this particular chart taken from the textbook by Nikolay and Karikner you start with the end mark number of 0.85 go to the line and get the value of the weight ratio for climb this number turns out to be 0.978. Let us look at the fuel fraction estimation in cruise segments. We can do it using the Brighay range equation V by C L by D log of weight ratios and where as you are aware this is already something which has been used in the past. So I am sure you would remember we have already used this expression for the Boeing 787 sizing L by D has to be used as 0.866 times L by D max and V cruise and C cruise C cruise is the SFC which is already given V cruise has to be estimated based on the mark number and the operating conditions. So for the first cruise of our F16C aircraft we have been given that the cruise range is 200 nautical miles the cruise altitude is 2.5 kilometers and mark is 0.85 this is the specification. So that is why it is shown in the black color. The data is that the value of sonic speed at this altitude from the tables or by calculation is 330.53 at 1 kilometer above mean sea level L by D max we have already obtained as 11.3 SFC cruise we have assumed it to be 0.8 per hour. So to convert it into seconds for matching the units we just divide this by 3600 and you get this value in seconds. So now I think we should we have enough data to calculate the values of the cruise velocity L by D cruise and the weight ratio in the cruise. So at this stage I would request you to pause the video and do these calculations. Let us see the values. So the cruise speed is 0.85 specified mark number into 330.53 that is 280.95 the L by D will be 0.866 times 11.3 which is the maximum L by D that is 9.7858 and using this particular expression now we can calculate the value of the weight ratio. So I would request you to pause the video and do this calculation where RCR is this number in meters this is in per meter. So the units of the numerator are dimensionless on the bottom meter meters and per second. So this is in meter per second that means the units are of velocity in the denominator we have velocity in meter per second and L by D is dimensionless. So the units cancel out and we get just a ratio. So please pause the video and do this calculation it comes out to be 0.970. The dash segment is a segment in which we are going to travel just 50 nautical miles 92.6 kilometers but it is going to be at a supersonic mark number of 1.05. So under this condition of course the value of the value of a can be calculated this is almost known to us the L by D max is the 1.3 and SFC you will notice is 3 more than 3 times that of the cruise. So keeping these numbers in mind let us calculate now the value of V dash L by D dash and the weight ratio. So I would like you to pause the video and do the calculation V dash will be simply mark number into sonic speed remember there is a slight difference because we are assuming conditions to be changing it is not just ISA conditions. L by D dash will be again it is a cruise so it will be 0.866 times L by D max and for the weight ratio we will have a formula. So V dash is 1.05 times 336.4 which is 353.22 meters per second L by D dash is same because it is just 0.866 times L by D max. So putting these numbers in the expression you get these value and I would now request you to pause the video and do the calculation to calculate the ratio during the dash segment. So that ratio comes out to be 0.9818. Moving ahead let us look at the second cruise segment which will come later but since we are already in the cruise I thought we will do the cruise calculations together. This is the return cruise so the total distance is 250 nautical miles the altitude is 10 kilometers and the mark number is 0.6. Therefore if you look at the tables you will get the value of speed of sound at this 10 kilometer altitude L by D max will remain the same and SFC also will remain the same because we are at a low mark number cruise without any afterburner. At this stage I would like you to pause the video and calculate the value of VCR2 and L by DCR and later on we will get the expression for W8 by W7 the weight ratio in the second cruise. So VCR will be 0.6 times 29.44 which is 179.66 meter per second L by DCR will remain the same. For calculating the weight ratio we need to insert the numbers of range the SFC the velocity and L by D in this expression I would like you to pause the video and do this calculation the number comes out to be 0.9431. Now we go to the two Leiter segments. Again you can use the Brighay endurance equation 1 by C L by D log of weight ratio but here the C will be the C for Leiter which is in this case given as slightly more than that for cruise and L by D Leiter is going to be L by D max because it is a jet engine aircraft and we know that a jet engine aircraft obtains its max endurance when it applies flies at a speed corresponding to L by D max. So for the first Leuter segment for our F16 aircraft we have the requirement of 20 minutes of endurance which is 1200 seconds the data is L by D max is 11.3 SFC is given as 0.81 per hour and now we can calculate L by D during Leuter and the weight ratio the L by D is going to be the same as L by D max as I already mentioned and for the weight ratios we just have to do the calculation using this expression pause the video and do the calculations please we get the weight ratio as 0.9763 and then we have the second Leuter segment which occurs for 45 minutes for this the data is the same and the L by D also is going to be the same L by D max we just need to do the calculation by putting in the correct value of the duration of our Leuter in this expression. So this number you can pause the video and do the calculation the number turns out to be 0.9476 so what we do now is we bring we know that we had to calculate these 6 fractions so we bring all the numbers together which we have calculated for the climb for the cruise and all the segments and if you multiply all of them together you get the expression as 0.7725. So if you now use this expression including the reserve fuel fraction of 10 percent you can get the value of Wf by W0 it will be 1 plus 0.1 times 1 minus this particular number please pause the video and calculate this number turns out to be 0.25018. So nearly one fourth of the aircraft weight slightly more than one fourth of the aircraft weight is going to be the fuel. Now let us go to now our basic master equation of design gross weight estimation which is that the W0 is equal to the crew weight plus payload the fixed items upon 1 minus aw0 power minus c which is the empty weight fraction minus the fuel weight fraction notice because this expression has W0 on both LHS and RHS it is going to be obtained in some iterative fashion. So what we do is we plug in in this the value is known to us crew is known to us as 100 kilograms pilot plus G suit etc payload is given as 7575 A is 2.11 and C is minus 0.13 for a fighter aircraft and to the fuel weight fraction we have just estimated so what we do is we solve it iteratively by assuming the LHS to be 4 times the numerator that is 30700 this is just a hint. So I would request you to now pause the video start with the assumed value as 3700 calculate the RHS value that is 100 plus 7575 divide by 1 minus 2.111 into 30700 power minus 0.13 minus 0.25018 then whatever number you get take that and 3700 together and get the mean of that number as the next trial and so on and so forth till you get a converged solution. So I am going to request you to pause the video at this stage and do this calculation because unless you do calculations you do not actually appreciate aircraft conceptual design. So we start with 3700 and we get the we get the empty weight fraction as 0.55074 the RHS is 38554.27 in the next iteration the number on the LHS would be the average of these two numbers 34627 using that if you calculate the value of empty weight fraction you get some number and then you get this number still there is a difference of around 2000 or more. So you take the next value as the average of these two numbers like that you keep on doing till these two numbers slowly converge to each other. So the third trial would be take this number as 36554.7 plus the previous number half of that 36175 and notice now you are slowly converging the left LHS value is 36176 RHS is 364 to 0 difference is only about 200. Keep on doing the iterations once twice thrice three four times ultimately you will achieve a converged value of 36364 for which the empty weight fraction would be 0.53875. Hence the converged value of the grass weight is 36364 kg the aircraft is going to weigh approximately 36 tons. Notice how this value is not very far away from the originally assumed value of approximately 4 times the payload and crew members. Let us have a look at what is the amount of fuel consumed in each segment because we have done the segment fuel calculation. So in the first segment which is the warm-up taxiot and takeoff around 1091 kilograms of fuel is gone. This is actually an over estimate as we saw last time also this number is normally very small but for a military aircraft actually you might end up actually spending large amount of fuel in warm-up and taxi out because you do have to spend a lot of time on the ground testing your system before you actually go for a mission. The next segment is the climb segment for that the fuel weight fraction is 0.978 this is a accelerated climb to 2.5 kilometer unlike a normal climb for where this number is 0.985 this is 0.978 so quite a good amount of fuel has been consumed. The next is the cruise segment where you have consumed 1000 kg. So notice the fuel consumed in the initial segment of warm-up taxiot and takeoff is actually more than that in the first cruise segment as in this case. The next segment is the descent segment in which we actually ignore the mission fuel so therefore it is 0. After that we have a small segment where we had a dash and after we had a loiter first we had a dash and then a loiter. So you can see that the amount of fuel consumed in both of them is almost similar. After that we had a climb and this was a very comfortable climb to 10 kilometer so unlike the first climb where we consumed 776 kilograms we have only consumed 481 kilograms here although we are going to 10 kilometers from the almost the ground level value or 1 kilometer altitude that is because it is unaccelerated. The next cruise is happening at for 250 nautical miles so you can notice that the fuel consumed is here is the largest. This was the fuel consumed the first cruise this is the fuel consumed in the second cruise then you have the loiter segment which consumes 1561 kgs because you are loitering for 45 minutes at this place and then finally you are coming into land and when you come into land so we see that the return cruise and the return loiter in this case have the highest fuel consumption followed by the cruise segment and the warm-up segment. The segments of dash and the loiter of 20 minutes are not consuming that much fuel. So with these numbers let us see what is the weight breakdown that we got. So the empty weight ratio we got was 0.53875 so nearly half the aircraft is empty weight slightly more than that the fuel weight ratio we got as 0.25 which means almost quarter of the aircraft. The empty weight we got is 19591 kgs this number is not very far from the F-16 aircraft although as I mentioned the fuel weight for F-16 is very less it is only about I think 3000 kilograms but here it is 9000 because we are expecting the aircraft to do many, many much bigger mission and much more loiter here and the gross weight we get is 36364 kg. So I would like to acknowledge the contribution of these 4 authors with their very interesting textbook from where I have taken some basic data for the our F-16C aircraft. Daniel Ramer needs to be thanked for his extremely popular and seminal textbook on aircraft design. I also like to thank Leland, Nikolai and Grant Carrickner for their excellent book, textbook on updated data on the large with a large database from where I have taken the, I have taken a couple of graphs from their book for calculations and last but not the least I want to thank my teaching assistant Namanandheem for help in creating this tutorial. Thank you so much.


So today we're out here with the logistics combat element with MRF-D, trying to test the limitations and capabilities of the lightweight purification system. Typically you would deploy it in a quad-con, and what we're doing today is instead of pulling everything out of a box, we're leaving it on the truck, and all we have to do is drive the truck up to the water, put the hoses in the water, and purify from there. It's the first time we actually were able to come out here and deploy it into the water and see how fast we can make it work. We're looking at anything between maybe 30 minutes to 50 minutes, cutting that time out, and it also will cut down time for putting the gear away and driving off. So the biggest struggle, as I would say, is everything is again in a very confined space. Here everything is pre-installed, you can't move the items around, there's very little flexibility. So coming out here with the setup already in mind of what we were going to do was really helpful. We can actually use this in multiple scenarios, whether it's for our own Marines in the field, or if there's a natural disaster and maybe a hurricane hits and there's very limited water to hand out, we can actually go out and whether it's the lake, the beach, the river, we can actually turn that water into water to distribute to whoever needs it.


Faith is like a language. It's like learning a language. You know God speaks a language and going to a Jewish messianic congregation on the weekend. I was convinced God speaks Hebrew. Language is so beautiful. But God's language is not Hebrew. God's language is not Shakespeare's language. God's language is not Greek or even English. God's language is faith. God speaks faith. When you are born for most of us who immigrated into this country, you learned a language that wasn't English. For me, I learned Ukrainian and for 13 years, 11, 13 years, I perfected this language to the best of my ability. But I was able to speak Ukrainian where people could understand me and without any accent. We came to the United States 13 years ago. It's gonna be 14 years and we came into the new world where everybody spoke a different language. And in order to be effective in the United States, I had to learn the language of the United States or else I wouldn't be able to be effective in this country. And it's amazing that there was no prayer I could go to where somebody could lay hands on me for me to learn English. Though I wanted that to happen. They promised on this certain CD. If you listen to this CD, you will learn English in 90 days. But they also were lying. You cannot learn English in 90 days. You can't. You may learn how to close the door and get on the train. But you're not going to learn English in 90 days. You may learn how to say, and I was thinking, thinking, thinking, and you don't know whether he was thinking or he was thinking. But you cannot learn the language in 90 days. Can somebody say amen? But you can learn one word in one day. You can learn few words in few weeks. And as you learn more words and you hang out people around people who speak English, guess what happens? It rubs off on you. And then you begin to speak English better and better and better. And it's been 14 years and my English still has accent if you have not noticed. And today I am in a dilemma because when I go to a Russian church, I have an American accent. And when I go to American church, I have a Russian accent. And I'm stuck. I'm not there and there. In the beginning when I was learning English, I could speak English, but think Russian. I think Russian and has to translate in my mind before I speak English. And that's how many of us start. When we come to the kingdom of God, the language in the kingdom of God is faith. To be effective in the kingdom of God, you have to learn to speak faith, not your feelings and not your circumstances. You have to learn to speak not what you feel, not what your eyes tell you, but what God says in His word. You are in a different kingdom ruled by a different king. When you were born first time on this earth, you were born in flesh. And what rules the flesh is the sight and the feelings. And therefore you learn to speak flesh. You learn to speak your feelings. You always speak what you feel. You always do what you feel. But when you become a Christian, you are born in a new kingdom, in a new language, new opportunities, new glories, new miracles. But in order to be effective in this kingdom, you got to learn the language. And the language is faith. And you don't learn that from the first service. You don't learn that by coming to the front and somebody laying hands on you. And that's it. You have the faith of disciples. No, my friend, disciples walked with Jesus for three and a half years and their faith struggled. They had a big accent. Bartimaeus had a big leap of faith. He got a miracle. But disciples learned a lifestyle of faith and they became a miracle to their generation. God wants you to learn a language of faith and it's not going to happen immediately. At first it's going to be like this. You're going to think feelings. You're going to think doubt. But you're going to try to restrain your mouth and say, No, I know I feel this. I know I think this. But I'm going to speak something else. I'm going to speak the promises of God. And somebody say, man.


This study provides valuable insight into the traditional medicinal practices of the Shuei people in Sandu County, Guizhou Province. It documents the use of 505 plant species by 15 local healers and 132 other informants and identifies 85 different diseases treated by these plants. The most frequently used medicinal plants include Isidin amethystoids, Asuramin sygne, and Acorus tartarinoi. The author suggests that further research should be done to explore the potential applications of these plants in the development of functional foods or pharmaceutical products. Additionally, they note that the rapid economic growth in the region has resulted in fewer young people pursuing traditional medicinal studies and recommend initiatives and policies to preserve and promote Shuei medicinal knowledge. This article was authored by Xi Xiao Liu, Beixi Zhong, Qi Lei Yi, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


What if we were all forages, if we were cooking with a little wild food every day, if we were acquainted with the land in tune with the flavors of the seasons, if we thought of the forest as our larder and the beach as a beautiful pantry, if we were able to stroll through the wild and pluck things like we do off the supermarket shelves, if we knew how to track down the ramsons shooting in early spring. What if future generations knew how to harvest sustainably, how to on earth roots that taste like cinnamon? What if the landscape became the focus of the meat, capturing the unique flavor of that point in time? I remember the first time I went foraging. I'll never forget that sensation of suddenly realizing what I was surrounded by.  Where can I walk now? I thought to myself before carefully making my way back to the forest path through a field of wood saw. Wow, there are all these amazing delicious things out there. At that time I discovered a whole new way of interacting with a place by eating it. As a chef, it helps you understand your surroundings more intimately. For us, it spurred inspiration. It vitalizes you even. It reveals a new direction. Ever since I've wondered, how do we teach our kids to read the landscape? And how do we make sure that their children have an edible landscape at all? And how do we make sure that the generation following our grandchildren takes pride in knowing the rhythms of the season? In passing on the understanding that the wild landscape is an endless bounty of flames. Something to take care of. Let's picture a world in which we all looked beyond the lines separating the wild, the urban, and the rural. A world in which we all noticed, let's say the pineapple root. Growing between the cracks in the sidewalk. Realize that the pretty flowers on the tree in our garden are so much more than that. That they're actually delicious. That we can infuse our oils and teas with cherry blossoms. That it doubles the beauty of that very tree. Most of all, let's imagine if we fully understood our inherent connection to nature. That the landscape is not just something we can interact with, should we choose to, but that it's actually something that we're supposed to engage with. In one way or another, every single day. What if we were all foragers?


Okay, welcome back to theCUBE Live in New York City. We are here at day one of Hadoop World Stratoconference and also Big Data NYC, the hashtags, Big Data NYC. This is theCUBE, our flagship program. We're about to advance and extract to see them from those. I'm John Furrier, the founder and co-host of theCUBE with Dave Vellante. We have some exclusive news here. We have a CUBE alumni, I'm George Mathew Altrex. Welcome back to theCUBE. Good to see you. John, thanks for so much having me. So we have some big news here.  We just heard from the analytics folks revolution tell us one, the exclusive news. We're breaking news here on theCUBE. It's going to hit tomorrow morning, but we have a first look. Give us the scoop. Yeah, absolutely. So as we're seeing Hadoop becoming more of a general purpose compute platform, John, we're really excited by how much more is now possible in Hadoop. And so what Altrex and Revolution have been working on is making sure that you can actually take R-based analytics, things that you would basically program inside of the R modeling environment and be able to push that directly in Hadoop. And so what the announcement is that we're making with revolution and cloud era is the full support for R-based analytics in Hadoop where Altrex is now a very seamless orchestration and user experience layer that naturally sits on top of that capability. Orchestration has been the holy grail at many levels, both in the cloud now and the application environment. Why is that important? I mean, it just seems easy. Ours out there, people use it. They're comfortable with it. What's under the hood that people don't understand that makes it really hard to do? I think when you look at how this community has emerged, particularly in the Hadoop world, you have this idea that data scientists are very much a scarce resource. And why is that? Because ultimately, there's only so many people that can actually handle the programming inside of Perl and Python to do the actual scripting and the blending of data and bringing that together. There's only so many people that actually can do the programming inside of R or SPSS or SAS. And so the challenge becomes, how do you get it to a broader set of users most effectively? And how do you make the scalability of that effective for how an enterprise would want to function? And so that's what Altrix has been largely enabling, this delivery of a new analytics stack, which underlies Cloud Era, for instance, or Hortonworks as a data management platform for Hadoop. Being able to do in Hadoop analytics like R has been able to accomplish with the revolution capabilities that are now in market. And Altrix basically operating as an orchestration capability that lets you pipeline data effectively through the analytic function. And then I'll put that to a database. I'll put that back to Hadoop, write it out to Tableau. And that just becomes a much more natural way that data analysts can work today than it ever was before. So that changes the game.  And for the folks out there watching, I've been doing a lot of tweet lately about the whole big debate about women in tech and this big discussion around male dominated. But now you look at the analyst side. There's a lot of really high power women who don't program in Python or Perl, but are math geeks and doing a lot of data science. You see a lot of that new tech user, whether it's women or other job functions, not necessarily the Python programmer. Talk about that trend and what needs to happen to make someone who's just really good at their job as an analyst or a professional worker to become a full blown data scientist. So I think at the end of the day, there is at best 200,000 data scientists in the world. And that's being, I would say kind of generous. And there are well over two and a half million data analysts. Now the skills that are now involved in terms of being able to blend data, being able to analyze information at scale, being able to share that out, those are the skill sets inside of data science that really matter. It's not actually being a programmer within a framework of Perl or Python. It's not actually being a SaaS jockey. It's about being able to run analytics to a way that the organization can succeed and at scale. And so this is where I think there is a real arbitrage, frankly, in the market, right? Because when you look at how much is needed in terms of being able to deliver better tools, better capability for the modern analysts today, this is where the market's terribly underserved. And we really are looking at ourselves as a way of filling that gap very effectively. And the ease of use issue is huge. Whoever can get that abstracted, the complexity abstracted away will be the big winner. Dave, you want to give? Yeah, so I want to follow up on that because we did a crowd chat last week and leading up to big data NYC and the topic was what's needed to make Hadoop Enterprise ready. So you heard a lot of stuff like point in time, consistent snapshots and remote replication, all kind of sort of low level functions, but the maturity of the tooling came up. The ability to put analytics in the hands of business users came up. That's as things that nobody talks about at the low level, but these are the things that enterprises want, need and expect. So I wonder if you could talk about that a little bit and specifically what do enterprises need to make Hadoop Enterprise ready? Sure, so I was just in between the conference today. I actually went and visited one of the major financial institutions down in Wall Street. And what's really fascinating for particularly an institution that I visited, they're one of the largest players in the wealth management arena. And they've been actually looking at ways that they can drive better analytics directly in the hands of their private wealth clients. Now the challenge becomes when you work inside of that arena where you're either programming MapReduce jobs in Java where you're going ahead and doing esoteric R scripting, that only gets so much accomplished inside of an organization. And so when you look at an enterprise buyer today, there's a few things that they want. One is can they get a broader set of capabilities, whether that be tools or apps in the hands of users that are day-to-day functioners who are inside of an organization. And so the second thing is if you do that, does the actual platform itself scale, right? Does the capability from a data management standpoint, from a data orchestration lineage as well as being able to visualize and convey what the analytics are trying to accomplish, do all of those pieces effectively scale? And so really that's where Altrix plays extremely well in this market, right? Because we see companies like Revolution Analytics becoming the de facto for R-based scalability in Peridata and Hadoop as well as just directly on their servers. We see functions like Cloud Era and you guys talked a little bit more about Cloud Era becoming more focused on the enterprise. I mean, it makes perfect sense, right? Because they're largely now going after the space of really building out an enterprise-ready solution into this emerging Hadoop world. And at the same time, you have companies like Tableau that are taking off a storm, right? They just had their announcement a few hours ago and they're up 90% for quarter-over-quarter results, mainly because of this new analytics stack that's emerging right in front of us. Well, in the short-term, what's your take on that analytics stack, the new analytics stack? Well, I think that it is completely displacing the previous generation, right? That's what I think is happening today, right? When you look at the traditional database providers, for instance, the oracles of the world, they're actually very, very challenged by what's happening in the Hadoop world today. If you look at the modern analytics... We've got Red Hat. Red Hat seems to be one of those kind of straddle-in-defense oracles, obviously. You can always poke an oracle. How does Red Hat do that? Because, you know, incumbents like Oracle either adapt or die, right? And they seem to all buy. They buy people, but what about Red Hat? I mean, they're interesting, right? Are they on the side or that side of the street? How do you view them? So let me just finish that one thought and I'll go back to the Red Hat comment. So when you look at the rest of the stack, right, you have older incumbents in the market like SAS and you have older incumbents like SPSS. And they're very, very challenged by companies like Altrix because we're basically built on a modern experience. The same goes for Cognos or business objects, right? When you look at the BI layer, they're challenged by Tableau and QuickTech. And so this stack is becoming much, much more significant for a broader set of users than it ever was today. Now going back to our friends at Red Hat, I think what ends up happening with most of the infrastructure providers, particularly if you've kind of built yourself on open sources, you have to define what's your material that's open source and what's your material that's basically proprietary that you're going to monetize. And I think for Red Hat, they've actually done a pretty good job of being able to understand what are they making money on and what are they going to be able to contribute back to the open source community. And so any successful provider that's playing the open source game today is going to have to be able to understand what is the monetization element that's commercialized and what is the elements that are going to be contributed back into the open source community. Having some IP basically, that's a unique advantage. So Cloud Air is going down that path. If you look at what Altrix is doing, if you look at what Revolution's doing, all of us have a very strong toehold into the open source community, but we're also understanding what is the commercial aspect of what we're delivering. There's clarity around the role and people are being transparent. Hey, I'll contribute and I'm just going to have my own little differentiator. And we're clear about what's what. Yeah, and Hortonworks is very clear. We don't have any of that just service. Or do they have something? What do you see those guys? Well, I think that there's the last person standing in the Hadoop. Yeah, we were saying they're now number one in the pure play Apache Hadoop. I think they're a great partner of ours. And they have the greatest number of committers in the space from what I understand. I think it will be challenging to be purely an open source provider. And let's look at the Linux space, right? When you look at Linux even a few years ago, or when you look at how much now the Hadoop space has evolved, most of the monetization is still occurring by figuring out what's the commercial elements that make sense, right? Intel's going down this path. Cloud Air is going down this path. MapR went down this path a few years ago. And so I still think that it'll be hard over time to be a purely open source provider. Well, yeah, I mean, if you saw the Mike Olson article about that and there aren't a lot of historical examples of companies that have thrived as a pure open source, it's very hard to choose them. At the same time, open source is still this wild card. On one of the other crowd chats we did, it was sort of having a conversation with Matt, whose last name I can't say I say. And we were talking about canonical and how canonical is disrupting Red Hat, even though canonical is not making any money. But it's such a wild card in terms of being able to predict, we were talking earlier about Pat Gelsinger's statement that there won't be a Red Hat of a dupe. And I interpreted that as, because we're not going to let there be. But at the same time, there's a lot of money to be made around that ecosystem. Well, you know, when canonical comes into this Linux space, for instance, right? It's after quite a few years of the market sedimenting, right? There's an established market, there were winners and losers in the Linux market, even 10 years ago. And now you have this disruptor that's coming in and saying, hey, by the way, we're just going to crush this from an open source standpoint, right? And that's great, right? But once the market is made. But I don't think that's exactly where we are in the Hadoop game today. I mean, I've talked to you guys about this before. I agree, not even close. We're like in the third or fourth inning of this game. But that's why I think George Wyatt makes open source such an unpredictable animal. I agree. It's very, really difficult. I want to go back to something you said about Tableau. Tableau announced about an hour ago, a little more at the close, right? The shorts were out for the last month on Tableau. Yeah, they're hurting right now, aren't they? And the stock is up 4% after hours. And they just announced they're going to promote, they're going to float a secondary. And the stock's still up 4%. So the last time we saw you was at the Tableau conference. So my question is, where are we, in terms of sort of building your own, rolling your own analytics, build your own viz, if you will? Yeah, I think we're at a point where there's good stability in that market. If you look at, particularly where Tableau and ClickTech have taken things forward, you don't have to be in the business of building and rolling your own viz today, right? And there's great options, by the way, in the open source community to do that. But when you look at, say for instance, a dashboard, a visual analysis, a BI application that you might want to package, you see some very, very solid capability, particularly with those two products in market. And I would know, right? Because my last job being the general manager of business objects years ago, I know what was there in terms of the current place where the BI platforms were, versus where they knew to discovery folks. I wasn't clear. So I mean, in terms of a business user being able to build his or her own. Because here's my thesis on Tableau, when all the shorts came out, it was like, just ignore it guys, because they are barely scratching the surface. You know, you can talk about ClickTech and Tableau and blah, blah, blah. They're rising tide for both companies, because the opportunity really is to put analytics in the hands of the business user. Which the decision to support guys, we were talking about SaaS before and Cogniz, they never could do even though that was their vision. Yeah, so Tableau talks about this as power data to the people, right? And we think about it in a very similar way. We think about analytic freedom, right? And this idea that you have to empower the end users that are driving the outcomes inside of an organization. And so Tableau does that through a great visual analysis experience. And Altrix is really looking at it and saying, how do we make it easier to integrate all the data that you would want to be able to bring into the analytic workbench? How do you then make the predictive analytics more usable, right? And so all of the things that underlie, say for instance, a Tableau dashboard or a Tableau workbook can naturally be populated using Altrix as that analytic engine. So we do believe that the user experience is gonna trump all of the outcomes in this market. To me that's so key because it's like a pyramid, right? And this marketplace is just scratching the tip of the pyramid. And there's this huge opportunity beneath it of millions and millions of users who have an enormous appetite for that. One of the things you said that's critical is being able to deal with different data types. So talk about that a little bit. What's your play there and what's your enabler? Yeah, I think one of the challenges that have been in market with the traditional players in the space is that they've been very, very rigid in terms of how data is actually managed, right? And what data comes into the analytic pipeline. And so I think the biggest thing that if you look at what the Hadoop vendors and particularly Cloudera and Hortonworks introduced into the space, well it's the idea that often times when a traditional database comes into the picture you have to organize the schema on the right. The moment you write into the database you have to have a very organized schema to manage that. Well ultimately what those guys have done in the data management space is they've actually provided a schema on read, right? And so the moment that you put everything in you can actually construct the schema to read it out most efficiently. And so what that now changes is then your ability to go after structured, unstructured, semi-structured sources and the analytics that work on top of it have to work in the same way. So the last generation was completely built on structured schema on write. And now we're seeing companies like Altrix have a very natural experience to bring in XML streams, bring in social media content, to bring in data from a Hadoop infrastructure and naturally analyze that where the schema is actually occurring directly on the read. And that's what we really are excited about here. The schema on write is kind, right? Because the schema on write after you've spent months and months and months. I'm being very kind there. Debating, right?  Schema on write after seven months of analysis. Not fun. That's not the way the world is going. George, my final question for you is obviously, you mentioned great user experiences. That's the goal. What about business outcomes? What have you find talking to customers? Is the current situation, current status of the kinds of business outcomes they're seeing and also some of the outcomes they're expecting, what might be the future in this area? Yeah, so John, I think that there are, there's a very tight relationship between user experience and outcomes, right? So when we look at a customer like Southern States that we've actually worked with at Altrix for many years, Southern States went into this business to go figure out how do they sell seed and grain, right? The two farmers. They're the biggest retailer in the US of seed and grain to farmers. And so Southern States went into this business to go figure out, can they optimize the merchandise? Can they optimize the inventory so that with the same level of inventory that they're pushing through their stores, do they have a faster sell-through rate? And if they had a faster sell-through rate, they can actually buy 40% less inventory and more of the things that are basically needed for better merchandising optimization to that customer. So in the case of outcomes here, in a small project that they were actually doing with Altrix being that analytic workbench, largely they were able to accomplish over $20 million in savings of just inventory management in a few short months, three months. So literally you're now talking about a retailer with less than 1% margins in your business who is able to accomplish $20 million of additional top line. And that I think is where it's not just a question of the user experience, but what are the business outcomes that are being driven? And so we're really proud to say that we do this for our customers day in, day out and the user experience creates a business outcome that's extremely positive. Great, final question for you just as we wrap up. What are you expecting here this week at Big Data NYC to happen around us here at the show? Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of announcements that are coming underway. And so you're going to see quite a bit of the major distribution providers. My guess is going to start to update their capabilities, their flagship products and markets. So I would stay tuned for some of those announcements. That's going to be a big thing. And then I think the other thing that you'll see is that Hadoop is becoming a more general purpose compute platform. So more and more things in terms of graph in memory, being able to go R-based analytics in Hadoop. All of the things that were just limitations of the MapReduce world are now being opened up with yarn and the ability to plug other engines directly in. And making things a little bit more easier to use and doing some blocking and tackling kind of fill in the holes. Right, and that's where we see a lot of that orchestration occur on the front end. So the enterprise ready is a valid team? Yeah, because now we've gone away from developers and tinkerers to actually people who are just spend budget and scale this out inside their organizations. Okay, George, thanks for coming on the queue. Really appreciate it. Good to see you again. We're here live at Big Data NYC where there's so much happening. Clear stories, making some big announcements. Revolution, MapR, Hortonworks, Microsoft, Splunk, Cloudera, Altrix, Cognizio, our Aero, SpikeWin, Disco, Platform Pivotal, all of them are making big announcements. We're here at theCUBE covering it like a blanket. Three days of wall-to-wall coverage at Duke Pro Stratocon, with Big Data NYC, hats to hashtag. We'll be right back with our next guest after this short break.


Cat6 vs Cat7, what's the difference between a Cat6 and Cat7 Ethernet cable? Cat6 and Cat7 cables are different in several distinctive ways. Firstly Cat7 cables have a greater amount of shielding. Each pair of cores and the overall cable is shielded. In contrast, standard Cat6 is UTP or unshielded. There are Cat6 shielded versions but only around the whole cable rather than the individual pairs. Furthermore, the cable twists and construction are different to create a better noise to signal ration protection. The above results in a larger cable and bend radius. The biggest difference in the cables is the transmission capabilities. Cat6 cable operates at 250 MHz whereas Cat7 cable operates at 600 MHz. Furthermore, Cat6 is limited to 1 gigabit Ethernet at standard 90 meters distances. However, Cat7 is capable of 10 gigabit Ethernet at the same distance. Cat7 questions are starting to increase in addition to our usual Cat6 cable FAQ queries.


What's up everybody, Jason here for Jasper's Case Breaks.com We're giving away 10 Immaculate NBA spots away with this 2021 Pinini multi-pack break of prism, Sello Number 194. So first we're gonna do the break. We're gonna randomize the customer names and Teams distribute the hits out then at the end of the break. We're gonna take all 30 customer names Randomize them then at the end of the break Top 10 with that randomizer will get spots in Immaculate. So here we go guys. Let's do the break first. Let's roll it We got ourselves a five and a three eight times. Good luck one two three four five six seven and eight Samuel down a nick eight times here one two three four five six seven eight Mavericks down to the Detroit Pistons All right, so again stick to what you got guys. No trades. What do you mean work didn't pay for vacation? That's let's BS Why wouldn't they pay you? It's an I paid vacation. No worries, man Take care of that though. That's weird All right, let's rip this pack in the meantime guys Julius Randall Zubach little Edwards.  Let's move it out pack break done Now let's switch scenes and again the top 10 get in guys After roll it five times one and a four one two three four and Five well five times So Nick you are in at spot ten Nick Nick Nick Carter Samuel Brian Nick Nick and Michael.


parallels with 9-11 are important. We've talked about this before. After 9-11, the laws didn't work. Like they've made massive changes to respond to a new threat. I think we have to face the fact that many of our structures, laws, and policies may not work. After 9-11, we created the Department of Homeland Security. There was the Patriot Act. There was massive change in our entire society to face the number one threat, or at least what was communicated as the number one threat. I think we need the same kind of tectonic shift. It's got to be much more than see something, but maybe our laws need to change. For the last few years, MSNBC and specifically Nicole Wallace's show have been promoting an idea that I've been warning people about since the beginning of this channel, the criminalization of conservatives and generally anyone who opposes the Democrat Party. They're doing this so that over time it shifts public opinion to such a degree that the Democrat Party or Uniparty or whatever you want to call it can criminalize opposition to their policies under the guise of saving the earth or for your safety. Today's MSNBC segment on so-called right-wing extremists exemplifies this threat and we'll get right into it after this quick capitalism break with noble gold. Imagine the confidence that comes with a retirement backed by a tangible proven asset, gold. An asset that's not at the mercy of unpredictable market swings. A crown may not be included, but isn't a future free of financial stress a worthy throne? Like royalty, enjoy the luxury of choice. Gold, silver, platinum or palladium. The realm is yours to command. Vend off concerns about economic downturns and let your wealth thrive with the timeless security of precious metals. This month, the first solid quarter ounce gold standard bullion coin ever issued with Charles the Third's image can be yours with your own qualifying gold IRA or 401K rollover with $50,000 or higher. You can't go wrong with noble gold investments. So call Noble Gold Investments at<PHONE_NUMBER> to get started or visit noblegoldenvestments.com. That's noblegoldenvestments.com. Find the link in the description, pin comment and if you call, make sure to tell them DroneTech sent you. Remember, there's always risk in investment and there are no guarantees of any kind. What is it that we do when prominent figures or someone from the ex-presidents cabinet threatens us?  All right, so I'm gonna have to stop and show you what these nutcases consider a threat. It's literally just Navarro laying out his opinion about a possible scenario based on public polling. Roughly half of Republicans and over a third of Democrats believe America is on the brink of civil war. If such an unthinkable war breaks out, it will be the Democrats' fault. Oh my God! All right, this is the challenge because domestically speech is protected by the First Amendment and that has been interpreted very, very broadly to protect almost everything that can, that including things that can sound pretty threatening unless they cross over the line into sort of what's called a true threat. What? What in the world is she even talking about? That just sounds like people saying things that she doesn't like but would like to make illegal because she erroneously perceives it as a threat. What if we perceive her rhetoric right now from her position of power and influence to be threatening to our First Amendment rights and general freedom? That was different. And so we get more and more and more of this type of extremist language that when you take the comments you just showed of Peter Navarro, he wasn't actually making a direct threat. He was really, I think, trying to inject into the public consciousness this idea of civil war, which he has to know because we've seen it over and over and over again, will cause individuals to start talking about that on social media, to start maybe even mobilizing around those types of things. Eww. And I'd also like to point out that MSNBC has been making these predictions, I mean threats of a coming civil war for many years now. This point, I do think we have to have serious conversations around preparing for actual violence. People keep saying a civil war is coming. I would say a civil war is here. It is the beginning of a modern day civil war. It is fiction, but that could change. We are in a real neo-civil war and it's a battle between democracy versus a kind of nativist authoritarianism. Whatever in a movie you think this guy is capable of doing to create a civil war, he will, I know that's, I'm not speaking it properly. Oh, that was different. So now the segment veers off into familiar Nicole Wallace territory with her guest, Paul Reichhoff, a far left podcaster calling for a new patriot act against Democrats' opposition for saying things they don't like. What does that look like in action? Well, I think that there's a core point here which is a lot of Americans are up for grabs. I wouldn't dismiss it as just something that only people on the right are watching Fox News can latch on to. I mean, we're in a battle for hearts and minds and there are people who are on the fence. You've got to have leaders and messages and messengers and programs that get to those people that bring them over into community organizing and into nonprofit organizations. What? All he seems to be saying is that he wants the government to propagandize people into the Democrat Party. Into community organizing and into nonprofit organizations and away from the Patriot Front and the Oathkeepers.  So you're either in the Democrat Party or you're in the Oathkeepers and Patriot Front. The group that looks like it's 95% feds? You mean the group that everyone on the right hates? It only has around 200 members? And that's probably thanks to the constant coverage that state media gives them, which seems pretty obviously tailored for guys like this to come on national TV and call for the government to crack down on his opponents. And I think the parallels with 9-11 are important. We've talked about this before. What? After 9-11, the laws didn't work. Like they made massive changes to respond to a new threat. I think we have to face the fact that many of our structures, laws and policies may not work. After 9-11, we created the Department of Homeland Security. There was the Patriot Act. There was massive change in our entire society to face the number one threat or at least what was communicated as the number one threat. So here's this left-winger who's about to promote another Patriot Act, which was never popular with people on the left or the right for what turned out to be very good reasons, who also has to acknowledge that the reasons for the Patriot Act were questionable. But he's still gonna consider it anyway because he's assuming that it will never be used against him.  We have purposely trained him wrong as a joke. I think we need the same kind of tectonic shift. It's gotta be much more than see something, say something. But maybe our laws need to change to respond to the fact that someone like Mike Flynn, the former National Security Director, is openly calling for violence consistently. You're wrong. There's already laws against inciting violence. The problem for this hack is that it's not illegal to say things he doesn't like. Over and over in this segment, they conflate people's opinions with calls to violence or threats. Neither Davaro or Flynn called for violence. In both cases, they just gave their opinion. Lots of Democrats wished for violence on Trump and that was considered patriotic free speech. Oh, that was different. Here's what Flynn actually said. I wanna know why what happened in Minamar can't happen here. No reason. I mean, it should happen here. No reason. That's right. One more. Oh my God! So that's what these people consider an incitement of violence that warrants a new Patriot Act and government crackdown on Americans who think differently than they do. And their version of democracy, there's just one way. Their way. Proving once again that they are the actual threat. If you're interested, this segment was sponsored by Liberty Mutual.  All right folks, that's it for that one. If you enjoyed it, please, share, hit that like button and make sure to leave a comment to vent those frustrations. Thanks again and I'll see you all in the next one.