Hello my friends, this is the 46th episode of Patterson in Pursuit. I am way overdue for some interview breakdowns. We're going back all the way to episode number 30 with my interview at Harvard with Dr. Janet Chiazzo talking about Buddhism. I really loved this conversation and often times when a Westerner holds Buddhist ideas, they do so in a very hippie-dippy way and Dr. Chiazzo is not hippie-dippy at all. She's totally down to earth, versed in philosophy, has a good sense of humor, very frank and blunt. So we really hit it off and can't wait to break it down for you. Before we start I want to give you an update. My wife and I are currently in Wanaka, New Zealand. We have left Auckland, we've flown into Queenstown which is on the South Island and then we've arrived in Wanaka and in a few days we are going to Christchurch. I'm doing an interview there and then we are flying to Sydney, Australia where I've got some interviews that, ooh, I just can't wait but I can't tell you about just yet. Also if you've been following along with the Jason Brennan crowdfunding review of Square One, this past week has been utterly insane. So Jason finished the review and it was exactly as I was hoping it would be. Very critical, very much not about the ideas and I wanted to use it as an example of some of the pettiness and even anti-intellectualism of some participants within academia and it didn't disappoint.  It was very, very, very critical and he didn't like that. So he went from mocking my ideas and mocking my person on Facebook and publicly to going into calling me a criminal and a plagiarist and a thief and I still was intellectual property and it was this really sad and unfortunate situation which, I mean if I'm going to be honest right, this was part of my point in taking on the project. It was just such an extreme example that it devolved into character assassination. So if you guys are interested in drama, then check out my YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Steve Patterson. Now you guys know because I talk about it all the time on the show that this kind of pettiness is one of the reasons why I have rejected the academic route, where I'm trying to capitalize on being a philosopher online, being able to do what I'm doing and there is a large and growing movement of us that recognize just how far off track academia has gone and just how poor of a monetary investment it is for anybody that's, you know, looking to go to college. Fortunately, the sponsor of the show Praxis is a company that is on the front line of this movement where their entire existence is based on taking people who are young, competent and enthusiastic, training them in three months and then placing them immediately at an apprenticeship where they get paid and they get real world job experience. So rather than trying to learn about the world by sitting in a classroom and reading a bunch of textbooks written by people who've never experienced the real world, have no idea how it operates, Praxis is a program that shortcuts that entire system and the net cost to participants is $0. And last I've seen the average salary of Praxis participants after completing their program is $50,000 a year. So in virtually every way, it is superior than going to college. I think there are very, very few exceptions. So that sounds like something that you're interested in. You want to join us in the real world. Then head over to stevedashpatterson.com slash praxis, P-R-A-X-I-S and see if the program is right for you. So I really hope you guys enjoy this breakdown with Dr. Janet Guillazzo talking about Buddhism. What I find and I hope is clear at this point is rational individuals are way, way, way too comfortable with dismissing ideas out of hand. I think in almost every circumstance it's because they don't understand the ideas. Buddhism is one of those cases. A religion in general, and Buddhism whether or not Buddhism is a religion is of course just a taxonomic question, but any of these big world view philosophies that aren't strictly scientific, a lot of people just poo poo straight off the bat and say there's nothing to learn here. I think this is a catastrophic mistake. Even if you don't agree with the ideas in Buddhism, you have to force yourself to understand them. You have to see their line of reasoning and understand it so that you know whether or not you're justified in rejecting the ideas. That's what I try to do with the interview and that's what I'm going to try to do with the breakdown is say look, there's actually a lot of meat here. There's a fantastic argument to be made. Even if like me, you don't agree with it. Enjoy. The self is a very important term in Buddhism and it's one of the sort of key doctrinal insistence that the self is generally a construct that we create and it doesn't refer to anything that exists independently in the world but rather it's dependent upon how we construct it and many things go into its construction. I really love this position and I think it's beautiful and if you guys have listened to my commentary on metaphysics about inanimate objects, this is just a beautiful natural corollary of that. In a nutshell, my argument, which I actually believe, is that what physically exists are base units of spacetime. Those units are arranged in particular ways and we reference particular arrangements of spacetime as objects. For example, I have a water bottle in front of me. It's not the case that there is such a thing as a objectively mind independently existing water bottle. It's that there are bits of matter which are arranged in a particular way that I simply reference as a water bottle. If I were not around, the water bottle itself wouldn't exist. So it is itself a concept. It is something that has a mind dependent existence. This is taking that idea and applying it to the self. It's saying that what I am, what I think I'm referencing, it's like referencing the water bottle in that when I'm conceiving of it, yeah, it kind of exists but if I stopped conceiving of it, it would stop existing. So the idea is that the self really isn't an independent thing which is why when you quiet your mind, they might say with meditation, you can experience what you actually are which is not a self. So I don't agree with this, but I think it's beautiful. And so one of the biggest points in all of Buddha's thought is that we need to be aware of this fact because the ensuing attachment we have to any idea or definition that we have of ourselves as a self gets in the way and leads to a lot of problems. In fact, it's one of our worst problems. So one area that I think people get confused by especially if they have a more rationalist disposition is when they're listening to or hearing, you know, Eastern mystics or Buddhists or Hindus a lot of times they say things like the mind will mislead you or they say, you know, you have to stop the questioning process they say things that sound very anti-intellectual and I used to hear these things and go, oh well that's the complete opposite of everything I stand for.  Then I started looking a little bit deeper and you can't take their claims literally like that. So what she said is, you know, our conception of the self gives us all kinds of problems. In other words, because our concepts construct ourselves we construct the world we mistake the true nature of existence. The true nature of existence is without essence which is something we'll talk a little bit later in this interview.  So the objects that you see the people that you conceive of as being like yourself all of this is kind of an illusion. And if you over intellectualize with the concepts that you've created you're going to be misleading yourself from the truth. So it's not anti-intellectualism or irrationalism just for its own sake. It's actually making a truth claim. It's saying the path towards enlightenment is not one spent in the world of your own artificial conceptual constructions. The path towards enlightenment is actually recognizing what your mind is doing which is in effect constructing the world and stopping that process and just being and seeing what is. Now in Hindu philosophy this goes one step farther I don't think maybe this isn't some Buddhist philosophy but I know in Hindu philosophy they say what actually is you'll discover is everything. So what you actually are is not a self separate from anything else but who are actually everything. Or as they might say all is one. Now if that's true that's a really big deal and it's beautiful and it's humbling I don't think it's true but it's something that before we refute or mock as being anti-intellectual we better understand what they're actually claiming. So the clearer we conceive of what our minds are actually doing I think the more accurate world view we have and the less likely we are to be tripped up by our own minds. I guess for me when I think of the self it has this very intimate connection with the mind, with consciousness but it's almost one layer deeper that there is it's not just the phenomena of consciousness it's my consciousness I feel like I'm this being with the who is experiencing these things it's not just the experience is happening it's that it's my experience that's the main part so that me part you're saying that's a construction can we dive a little more into that so what does it mean for something to be a construction is it an illusion is it something that doesn't actually exist is it something, is it a concept that we think actually has some kind of independent existence but really it doesn't no it is a concept and there are several things that is I'm floating in front of my class all the time I'm teaching my intro to Buddhism class and we're talking about all these questions but the my part of the my consciousness has a lot of different meanings and in what that my consists and what its status is with respect to consciousness could be quite different it's not obvious exactly what that means and Buddhists would say that yeah it doesn't there is no independent existence of this entity that would allow the genitive pronoun my to stand on its own other than an idea that we create or a way of explaining things to ourselves so I love it this is one of the things I find so fascinating by eastern philosophy is their conceptions of the self and the difficulty with conceptions of the self my own position which I am very reluctant and I don't like this conclusion but my own position is that if it is true that there is such a thing as the self that exists even when it is not being conceived that I think that forces you into something like the existence of a soul the existence of a person this is what I was talking about with the interview breakdown with professor Brahm about machines and consciousness but it is either the case that you have a self or you don't have a self there's no wiggle room here if the self is conceptually constructed then it is illusory but if the self is not conceptually constructed if when I'm referencing myself I'm actually referencing something that would exist without it being referenced or conceived then I think that pushes us unfortunately into something like the existence of a soul and that is the position that I am tentatively holding because it's very hard for me to accept the idea that what I'm referencing by the term I isn't or that it's illusory or non-existent or conceptually constructed it sure seems like I am a person and if I am a person that's a really difficult thing to wrap our heads around philosophically and it even seems like I'm a person that's the same person over time I know some people have different internal psychological experiences but they feel like they're completely different than they were 10 years ago or 20 years ago not me, I feel like since I had memories maybe for something I still feel like I'm the same person getting older, gaining experiences so that that internal psychological experience of the self for me is incredibly powerful I think that's one of the reasons it's so hard for me to shake this idea that I am something not, you know, maybe my illusion is very strong, that's just kind of hard to accept given my own internal experience and of course even when I say my own internal experience that seems to only make sense to me if we accept the existence of the self when I experience phenomena as I interact with the world I have developed this explanation for what's going on that I don't know how it can be compatible with what you've just presented is it seems like there is a point of perspective that I have my perspective, we can put that in quotation marks but I also believe that you or at least what I'm referencing when I use that term also have a perspective and it's the same it's very similar in the sense that there is this perspective and that perspective and they're not ultimately the same perspective doesn't that imply some kind of a self or at least some kind of a true metaphysical difference between the perspectives? No, not at all, for one thing your perspective is always changing and my perspective is always changing first of all and that's a really important part of this the sort of logical proof that is given about the self is that it's always changing, it doesn't remain the same and so at the minimum you have to say that such conception is a shorthand for what in fact is always in flux and so once it's always in flux going back to Aristotle something that's always in flux undermines its ability to have an essence the main Buddhist critique is about this notion of essence this is directly related to square one, the book that I just released I have a section on this idea of universal flux and this is one of the most interesting parts of our conversation in my opinion is how central the idea is of flux the argument goes essentially that if things are always changing then at any point they aren't really one particular way they're always turning into something else and therefore you don't have essence this I think is fundamentally backwards, in order to have change you must have essence, you have to have change in order for anything to be changing so my conception of flux is you might have things changing over time so time one you have bits of matter arranged in a particular way time two you have bits of matter arranged in another way then there is change over those times but at any given instant the thing is exactly what it is it has essence now it's really really interesting is where infinity plays into the mix as you'll hear shortly so then I ask her what appears to be true differences in perspective between her conscious perspective and my conscious perspective if that's artificial does that imply that really there's only one consciousness that has artificial divisions between it so would you say then the claim could be something like this that what exists is not a bunch of selves with fundamentally different perspectives that there's one type of thing that's out there one type of consciousness and it's artificially broken up between we're not going there either so that would be to hypothesize a one consciousness so any the the aim, the target that the Buddhists are aiming at is the hypothesization or the essentialization so be it one big thing or a bunch of little individual ones the problem with all of it is not to see that every single one of those things is constructed from out of many different parts and those are constantly shifting and the way that we name them depends on what particular perspective we're taking in any one particular moment which itself is always changing and so there are there's energy, there's phenomena, things are happening but none of them have an essential identity or essential essence so this is really the central part of our conversation and arguably of Buddhism so when you say things are happening but if they don't have an identity then they're not really things, right? No, that's the whole point is that things don't need an identity in order to be there so what are you referencing when you use the term things? I'm always referencing it from whatever particular angle that I'm taking so you need to give things identity and common human communication and you do that all the time but those again are products of our conceptions our set of concepts our set of constructions and they don't necessarily belong to the thing as such so there is no thing per se No, everything's in flux everything's constantly changing so that right there is where Dr. Yatze and I have to part ways to make sense to say that things don't need identity in fact as is one of the central parts of my book all existent things must necessarily be identical with themselves in order to exist you must be some way you might even say to exist is to be some way in whatever way that you are that's the way that you are you have self-identity so the Buddhist teaching is denying the existence really of true identity or what it's saying is insofar as there is identity it is only conceptual identity and not actual identity it is illusory identity and not real identity and this is kind of diametrically opposed to my own position and now here's a little tidbit that I just love this idea which you're about to hear even though it just came out briefly it is absolutely central I'm going to talk a lot about it but there is everything but there's not one particular thing there's not an everything either so you're just moving to making this one big thing in the sky so no there isn't the universe is infinite okay so as you just throw it in there the universe is infinite it comes up later and I talk about it a lot how I think infinity is the cause of a great deal of confusion in the world it is central to these claims in Buddhism so for that something is it does it have any constituent parts to it but each of those parts themselves are made up of constituent parts down to an infinite regress so there's no base anything alright now I'm going to play that again for you so for that something is it does it have any constituent parts to it but each of those parts themselves are made up of constituent parts down to an infinite regress so there's no base anything no isn't this interesting that though it may not appear so at first glance and a pillar you might even say the pillar of this central buddhist teaching about the non-identity is infinity and as I have said in my writing and elsewhere infinity is I consider it to be logic the idea that you could complete an infinity or have an actual infinity or an actual infinite regress is logically contradictory precisely because you run into these type of errors the claim is that things exist they have constituent parts to them but those constituent parts have constituent parts have constituent parts if you follow that logic it means that really there are no constituent parts there are no fundamental actual constituent parts you kind of go all the way down and it dissolves into nothingness now usually I would be making that argument to say well therefore it must be the case that if you have an object with constituent parts it must be constructed from fundamental indivisible base units because otherwise you run into a logical contradiction and she's using it to say no this is actually the truth of the matter is that this is why things don't have identity is because infinity so for those of you who wonder why I talk about infinity a lot this is one of the reasons and it's fascinating that it comes in Buddhism we're talking about infinity as it correlates to Buddhist metaphysics and really the central idea that every part contains within it an infinite regress which I think is logically contradictory so let me present to you an alternative hypothesis that to the extent anything has a constituent part it must have fundamental base units in the physical world that means there is a fundamental base unit of spacetime if we're talking about let's say for example there are cells that would imply that the self is some kind of a simple indivisible base unit if we're talking in mathematics this comes up all the time when we're talking about distances if we're talking about everything from circles and talking about calculus in all of our calculations there is a implied base unit otherwise you get nonsense especially comes up in geometry so anywhere that you have anything it is either the case that you have simple substances if simple base units or you have constructions of those base units that's it there's no infinitely large or infinitely small thing because that would deny that the thing has identity which is logically impossible so now we transition into the second part of the conversation which I asked because I know there's a lot of westerners who like to import eastern philosophy into their world views to try to argue for the existence of irrational positions and they use cryptic eastern paradoxical phrases to try to say look the reality is contradictory so I wanted to give her a softball and ask her about how we should understand how Buddhists use paradoxes are we supposed to take paradoxes literally or are we supposed to solve the paradoxes what is the Buddhist take on paradox or even logical contradiction like are these things that are meant to get at a deeper premise to get us to realize our constructions about the world or do they accept look there are some paradoxes that are actually there we just kind of have to deal with it it's the former for logic specifically would you say in Buddhist thinking there is any acceptance of actual logical contradiction you can make a logical contradiction you can make it all the time it depends what it means and how you're using it so if I say something like I exist and I don't exist you can say that but it doesn't make any sense so then we're not going to bother with stuff that makes no sense you can say that I love the matter of fact well that makes no sense and it's damn true makes absolutely no sense and every utterance depends on its rhetorical context and what you're trying to do with it and how you're using it and so any one single utterance taken out of context can be interpreted in a lot of different ways and that's another major part it's very similar to what I've already been saying that our notion of ourself it depends on what perspective we take on it and the same thing for language so that you certainly can construct a paradox but what's the status of that paradox is it an artificial game or whatever I mean the thing about paradox in certain kinds of Buddhist texts it is the former of the two options you gave that a seeming paradox requires us to maybe move to another level to understand certain assumptions that we're bringing to that paradox yes I think that that makes a great deal of sense and I can you know refer also to the law of the excluded middle which is like saying you know either I exist or I don't exist I've actually worked on this topic a little bit and the law of the excluded middle depends on a faulty presumption that there's a clear dividing line between exist and doesn't exist or yes and no and it's a bifurcated line which yeah that's a paradox if you accept that assumption but if you don't accept that assumption the whole thing falls away so would you say something like that specifically on the law of the excluded middle that it presupposes identity or it presupposes that the boundaries exactly the meaningfulness and absoluteness of boundaries yes that's right absolutely so in my conversations that I've had with a lot of people especially maybe if they haven't heard this perspective the idea that in eastern philosophy they embrace actual logical contradiction this is just this is just an error it's not no not at all no right the you know they're not idiots you know they're again I love for frankness like actual logical contradictions come on they're not idiots I appreciate that perspective and it's an interesting point about the law of the excluded middle this is also something I cover briefly in my book I do think it's the case that the law of the excluded middle is a foundational law of logic but I think it's actually fairly simple there are no gradients of existence we only get gray types of existence with if we're ambiguous with language so this is an example I give in square one I say you know the sentence I am wearing two shoes and a top hat right now it's like well is that true or is it false law of the excluded middle it's either true or false you could say if we were going to be that ambiguous you could say well it's half true because I'm wearing two shoes but I'm not wearing a hat that works in colloquial language but if we're going to be really strict about it it's just simply a false claim a proposition like that contains two parts that I am wearing two shoes and I am wearing a top hat and if both of those aren't true then the proposition simply false or an example to talk about an existent thing is there exists a cat with black hair and an elephant snout now we wouldn't say that that type of thing half exists because there are black cats out there though they don't have elephant snouts we would just say no those type of things don't exist we could say each individual property of a thing exists and those properties that don't exist don't exist so that's the only place that we get vagueness I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever to say in a literal way that there is something or some property that is somewhere between existent and non existent that it's somehow half existent that's just a function of language not metaphysical reality I could say the last thing I asked her has to do again with this conception of boundaries I've seriously entertained the idea that all boundaries are artificial but then I run into one example that I'll be damned if it's not a case of what I consider to be a genuine boundary in the world and this is how she handles my question okay so the last question that I want to ask you is going back to the consciousness and also has to do with this seeming distinction between things that theory that there is a seems to be a unique difference between the contents of my awareness the contents of my consciousness the feelings that I'm having and yours is that a objective distinction of any if I had a theorize of any meaningful objective distinction that isn't relative that seems to be absolute and talking about something in the world that would be right up there probably number one it seems to be that you know even my perspective even from the sense of like I'm looking at you from this side of the table you're looking at me from that side of the table though the actual awareness isn't that something that would be a non-relative distinction well that's one of the hardest things for anybody to explain is the so-called existence of other minds and that was a debate that was taken up in Buddhist philosophy and I don't think was satisfactorily dealt with okay so that's not a fully satisfactory answer so I ask it again in a different way okay so let me ask you maybe this is a better way of phrasing it are there any is the claim that distinctions between things are relative is that a an absolute claim is that saying there is no circumstance in which you have a true absolute distinction between things that isn't a construction yeah because whatever the thing is itself can be deconstructed so would this be a circumstance then with the existence of other minds where it would seem like that distinction is not conceptual or constructed it seems like we're talking about a sense separate the distinction is separate from our minds our conception of it would that be an example of a I'm not so sure because you're trying to pose them as opposites and I'm not sure they're opposites and I think it would be really important first of all to think about the question of your mind versus what's in my purse so I think we're mixing two different problems one of them has to do with the nature of consciousness and one of them has to do with the nature of things and absolute difference okay so she's very uncomfortable with this idea that there are absolute non-relative differences between things and I think again this is one of the central ideas in Buddhism and in fact this is the reason that I'm not a Buddhist I'm not a Hindu is because I do think there are absolute distinctions between things namely the ones that I'm talking about but I give her even another more difficult example of what appear to be genuine things but what if I say okay forget differences in consciousness what have I say the contents of my own perception I'm talking about my visual field there is kind of a tan blob here and there's kind of a blue blob there in my visual field now they have some constructed relationships so for example if this that blob is over here that blob is over there that only makes sense kind of as a together as they're relative to one another but the actual feeling or the actual like qualitative experience of these things seems to be different seems to be meaningfully different that it wouldn't be a construction haven't we found like a non-relative distinction in my own conscious experience say the difference between the experience of blue and tan for example that's a much faster way of thinking yeah so they're different but they're on a continuum with each other the continuum being color color okay and that's where we had in the conversation if I had a little bit more time maybe I would have said okay the experience of blue and the taste of cherries or something I think if we push the envelope here we can find absolute distinctions between phenomena the feeling of seeing blue and the tasting of cherries have some genuine absolute qualitative difference between them if that's true that implies that this is non-relative it's a non-relative distinction so again I love the idea especially in Hinduism of this idea that all is one that all divisions are arbitrary but I believe it's false I think there are some meaningful divisions in the world I think there's I don't think that I am you I don't think that I am everything I think that I am something who has boundaries and even if neither of us are conceiving of those boundaries I still believe those boundaries exist not to mention what I also conceive of being is actual boundaries between base units of physical reality so clumps of matter over here and clumps of matter over there have meaningful absolute distinctions and boundaries between them that are non-conceptual so I really love the aesthetic beauty and power of thinking of boundaries this way as the mystical perspective but I am not persuaded because I think some boundaries do exist now the trouble is if boundaries do exist and if boundaries of the self exist well then you still got a heck of a difficult problem that I'm trying to solve which is how can you make sense of that and right now the most powerful theoretical explanation I have for the boundaries of the self is what philosophers and theologians call the soul you can conceive of the soul as being a bounded person where my person ends is the boundary of my soul sounds ridiculous and doesn't sound particularly scientific but unfortunately I think it's what follows if it is true that I am something and not merely an illusion so that is all for today I hope you guys enjoyed this interview breakdown I'm still behind on these other breakdowns I might do a couple more in a row this next month is going to be pretty smashing so get ready for a spectacular march talking about mathematics and infinities with some special guests that I'll reveal shortly alright that's all for today have a great week


Nowadays, the recent techniques are used in the field of geographies especially in field surveying or in field work. So these techniques belong to the certain environment which are under the digital control. Now these recent techniques are used in geographies especially in field surveys for the representation of various data and in mapping. So if we have the example of the river field work, now these type of field works are conducted because to investigate the causes and impact of river flooding. So in the field of flooding or flood is one of the hazards of the Pakistan. So how we can handle this hazard which become the disaster for the community of that area. First of all we must investigate the causes and the impact of the river. So what are the causes? One of the causes is ice melting due to the rise of the temperature. The ice is melting so that's why we have the water in the river channel and the second factor or cause behind the flooding is the rainfall. So the catchment area of the river actually receives the rain during the monsoon season. So that's why we have the excessive amount of water in the river channel. So that's why we have the flood in the river. So these are the causes. So how we can calculate or investigate the causes. So by the help of the ground service to observe the catchment area or to map the area which is under the rainfall under the melt water. So here we can produce a map for the future generations to investigate the reason of the flood. In the same areas we must know what is the river processes or what are the river processes. So here we again investigate the downstream changes in channel investigating meanders or river plain. So these two are actually belongs to the slope of the valley, the volume of the water, the material that river carries. So all these are the factors. So if we have the knowledge of the area then we can calculate or investigate the channel or the volume of the water within the channel. So how we can investigate. So here we must know the geology of the area. Which kind of structure and geological structure is if the geological structure is for faulted environment. So it has different behavior. If it has folded environment, it has different behavior. So again, the factor of the geology of the rock or the rock structure is very important here. Which type of rock it is? If it is sedimentary rock, so the water carries maximum material. If it is metamorphic rock, so the water carries less material. So the volume of the water or the volume of the material that river carries totally controlled by the geological structure and the lithology of the rock. So the flood plain or the meanderings of the river actually controlled by the geology and geomorphology of the area. Same is the case with the coastal fieldwork. So coastal fieldwork actually controlled by certain type of processes. So here we have the wave erosion and sedimentation of the river delta. So both areas we can investigate the land form and sediment analysis. Again, if we have the knowledge regarding the delta river sedimentation and coastal wave erosion, we must or we can control the coastal environment or we can manage the coastal environment. So by investigating methods, perceptions and impact. So we have again a different example here regarding the geographical fieldwork. If we are dealing with the urban environment, so urban today word is 60% urbanized. So that's why this part of the area is very important regarding the urban inequalities. So here we have certain areas which are controlled by high income group, medium income group and low income group. So all these groups are actually belongs to the urban areas. So we must handle all these things under the equal spaces. Second most important thing regarding the urban environment is urban rebranding. So some of the areas are under degradations like we have the example of the domestic use of water. So we can reuse that water, which is today called the gray water. So in sustainable use of water environment, we can reuse the domestic water for our kitchen garden and for our watering of the plants. So here we can rebrand the urban environment. We have second example regarding the air which is polluted by certain things which are related with our networking. So vehicle are very important here or industries are important. So we must zone the environment or urban zoning is very important. Some areas are under the industrial zones. Some are under the residential places. So these are actually the controlled environment where we can rebrand the urban environment. So we must manage the existing environment through monitoring. And when we can manage the urban areas, we can plan the region. Same is the case with the rural field work. So rural characteristics, multi-village studies of the settlement hierarchies are very important here. And the field work of the rural environment regarding change activity is also very important where we have the counter urbanization and other recent changes. And the last but it is one of the very important area of the field work is the ice field work and ecological field works. So those are actually related with the glacier environment and glacier fluvial environment. When we are studying the ecology of the area, so we must know which type of environment it has. If it is desert environment, we must know the shifting of the sand dunes and the area which is under the vegetal cover.


Hey guys, welcome to Rotorite. I'm Ledriv and this is Community Spotlight where we feature clips from you guys the FPV community We scour the internet find amazing FPV clips and share them because there's a lot of great FPV out there So we have some categories that I always choose arbitrarily Starting it off. We're gonna have some good old freestyles one of my favorites. I'm a freestyle pilot This is what I like to see so we're kicking it off with a video from PDEVX I don't know how to say your pilot name. Let's check it out like the little b-roll intro Getting right into a real silky wall ride and then look at this What was that?  I just like this video. It's just got really good vibes I think it's partially like the song you chose. It's just kind of one of those vibey things I just like watching this it just puts me in a good mood I feel like this pilot was in a good mood flying just really enjoying the flow doing all little tricks Linking it together having a good time and I'm having a good time going on the ride with them Next up. We've got captain chaos in this video titled diving chaos tower This must be like a spot close to his home or something like that I love that it's just this one simple obstacle and he's just having at it and this dive from the moon Oh, he like definitely cut the grass coming out of that. I love it. Next up. We've got terror burb FPV think I said that right set this Bando spot and the song is just got that like that drop that epic feeling Check this out. He's got Maddie flips. He's got double Maddie flips. He's got this like just barely made it dive on his Instagram His bio just says drone destroyer and I imagine with some of these tricks that he's doing at this spot It's probably some truth in that, but I appreciate a good send. Next up. We've got John Arne Iverson with just the most Perfect power loop to yasmin to Maddie out It was so crisp and then he even continues it with another Maddie. It's one of my favorite tricks to do It's one of my favorite tricks to see but this has to be one of the cleanest I have ever seen that yaw is just so locked in and then Perfect our last pilot in the good old freestyle category is dr. Nope I like that it's got some build up with the dramatic drops and then just kind of gets to the point of there is Barely pulling out of it. Give me that slow-motion replay Near destruction near destruction our next category is a new category that I've made up called bucket lists So these are stunts that we've all dreamed of doing with drones like the first time we saw FPV we all had these thoughts of like oh wouldn't it be cool if fill in the blank and there's just a few of those things that I think We all Universally in the back of our mind Really want to do we really want to see it happen. So first off we got Ross has a drone flying through a moving Car this is definitely one of the first things that I thought of when I thought about what you could do With FPV as a camera How cool would it be to be chasing a car and then actually fly through it so you can fold down the front windshield and Remove the whole rear section making it basically a gate on wheels, which is really cool I also like the kind of the soundscape he's got going on just got sounds of the engine you don't hear the drone It's kind of a cool effect. Also. Just want to want to say that there's some serious trust here This is one of those that while it's one of the coolest things I've ever seen I also want to say maybe don't try that at home unless you're using a Cinewhoop or some face coverings on the dryer That was a little risky, but really awesome result. Our next bucket list item is Sergei Balash flying a Demolition site we've seen a few clips like this and Sergei is here is one of the coolest I've ever seen He's got no fear here flying right into the madness of it even around some of these firehose I think he just got sprayed there by the hose just craziness I also like the cutaways to the b-roll showing him on-site kind of like how close he's actually Standing to the madness the dust is hitting the pilot himself He's wearing a face mask and all this stuff. This is this is a cool little edit All right our last item on this video's bucket list category is a roller coaster video Now we've all seen roller coaster FPV drone videos before in fact We've done multiple on the rotor right channel, but this just isn't any roller coaster video Shaggy's actually chasing one of the trains the whole time. This is epic that loop He follows it around the loop that was so cool He kind of got a little far away on the second one But I can't even get mad because that first track was just oh is perfect And then I like the choice to just go straight through the spiral as the roller coaster Circles around you throw in a loop of the drone itself and then meet back right up with it for the circle around That was awesome what what just took it to the next level for me was how it followed around the loop It's just perfection moving on to our next category location a big part of FPV is going to cool Locations and getting to experience those spots in a really unique way now I think one of the coolest things that you could ever get to fly our power plant cooling towers And so here we've got sink FPV doing what might be the best cooling tower video I've ever seen it's just got the perfect vibe. I like how he's flying it to doing some things I haven't really seen before kind of that tick-tock over the edge and then this I love this how he's just doing the infinite Wall ride how cool is that of course you got to dive it and the dives on cooling towers are so cool because they've got the Perfect arc to them where you can enter with some speed trace the upper part of the arc and then add some throttle to keep following it down Really awesome. He throws in a perch. He's just doing everything that you could possibly want to do here I love it.  I'm just loving the spaces that he can get in with this little drone I think this is one of like oh my god's new things. This like I'm a 95 X This is the perfect drone for this application to be able to get in that tight little area flies around some more The area you get to check in with the guy himself and then splitting that light post there That just proves how small this thing is like I said It's just the perfect platform for this because it's really safe to fly around people It's super a lightweight very low risk and in this case high reward All right before we move on to the next category I want to take a minute to tell you guys about something new that we're coming out with and that is the rotor riot sim PC We partnered with apex gaming PCs to come out with a Pre-built PC that was built around the specs that packs enough of a punch to run high performance FPV simulators at the full settings I was never able to get good sim performance out of any of the max that I've owned And so I actually did go through the process of building a PC with my friend Sean and if I didn't have Sean That pretty much build the whole thing for me. It was overwhelming. It's like a whole another hobby that I don't want to get Into I just want a PC that I know I'm going to be able to turn on load up lift off and rip And that's why we're so excited about the rotor riot PC This PC comes with steam Pre-installed which is what you need to run lift off and when you buy this PC You have the option to also get lift off at a discounted price You get half off lift off with night fever when you pick up a rotor riot gaming PC So with all the standard options It's gonna have more than enough power to run lift off or any drone sim And if you want more storage more power more hamsters Spinning on wheels whatever's inside that box if you want more of it There are options you can upgrade it and max it out for whatever your needs are as part of launching this There's a 10% off Discount if you shop at the rotor riot store that discount will automatically be applied if you shop at Apex just use the discount code rotor riot And that 10% will be applied to the rotor riot PC and anything on their store So now usually on community spotlights whatever product we feature We like to give one away to one of the pilots that we're featuring on the episode I wish we could give away a full PC, but that's not quite in the budget So what we will do is we are going to give away a $100 gift card to the rotor riot store that the winner could use on a rotor riot gaming PC Or if they don't need a PC they could pick up whatever else you need for your drone All right, let's get back to community spotlight. Our next category is close calls So we got another vehicular chase situation from Steve McCall But he's getting real close on that chase real close real close. He's under it He is under the car I don't think you've ever gotten a closer look at a vehicle suspension then right then in there You swear you think it's just gonna go right under the tower and get squished and destroyed He gets lucky the drone gets kicked out and he says that all I needed was a prop change and it flew again I love this clip and I like that right before he went under you also see that that fiery backfire great clip Steve I'm glad your drone didn't get totally wrecked. Now. We have Christopher Acosta. He's flying over water Which is always risky and then as he goes under this Bridge structure thing doing a little bit of a yasmin. What do you see? There's a stream of water that he just barely misses in fact It almost looked like his props might have touched it But if he was just one inch over that water could have ran right into his drone Knocked out his flight controller, and I'm thinking if you go down there You're not getting it back. That looks like pretty deep water and pretty treacherous to get down to so good job on not being One inch over and having your drone wrecked in the water Our last close call is brought to you by session FPV who does this massive power loop and then instead of pulling out Oh, he sends it into a matty. He just full sends the power Flying backwards and then right when you think he should you know flip out of it. He goes And gets under the gap and it looked like he was just yay close to a complete concrete wreck I appreciate the commitment there. That was awesome. Our next category is cinematic First up. We have one of the coolest videos I've ever seen not just coolest FPV videos just coolest videos ever Tom has a time-lapse blog So he specializes in time-lapse and hyperlapse video But he's starting to work FPV into his workflow, and I think the results are really stunning I do not know how some of these shots are just so well blended together And I love that I can't tell What's what you can't exactly tell what's being done with a handheld camera? What's being done with a Mavic? But you definitely know when you're seeing that FPV influence that there's no mistake and that was an FPV shot But look how that blended in those those were not the same shot. That was just a perfect seamless transition What what is that dude? It's so cool These these transitions. They just it's like magic. Oh Awesome awesome ending. I love seeing FPV get adopted by video artists and use FPV in all new ways This is so cool. Our next cinematic video is by druno and it is a Cinewhoop style video that I believe this is actually A one take continuous shot. So whereas that last video had a lot of really awesome Transitions that made the video feel like one shot This video is more about piloting skills getting all the shots linked together in one run having No chances for mistakes So he gets a full loop around the courtyard under the bridge actually goes into the building Flying around these different rooms taking a look at the painting here Where was the pilot set up to get all this range? Maybe that was multiple shots just done with some really Slick cuts to to make it look continuous But i'm pretty sure that was a genuine one take and so I really appreciate the skill It takes to fly that type of one take cinematic shot. Our last cinematic video is by parasite FPV I've never heard of this guy before but I've got my eye on him now because check this out beautiful location here And then look at I like these transitions, right? So it's it's definitely got that cinematic look where it's stabilized and got some of that that like Lens distortion removal going on But They're doing more freestyle moves here You know, he's not afraid to whip it around with a yaw or a power loop and then check this out It's going to like a matty into whoop Awesome transition. I love that just Oh, gosh, what is happening here? What is happening? What is happening? Is it 3d or is it in effect? I don't know what i'm looking at, but I'm loving it. It's so cool. Basically. I love that He's flying freestyle and then Flying in the face of all the freestyle rules using stabilization Speeding up and slowing down footage playing things in reverse flipping the video upside down He doesn't care about what you should or shouldn't do for freestyle He's just being limitless here and making a really awesome result. It's so spectacular. I just the transitions everything I love it. All right. Our last category is WTF and we've only got one video. This is by yet fpv. Look at this. Look at this. What what is he doing here? Do a little bit of a handstand action while flying a drone I've definitely Never seen this before I don't know what else you can say when you see this other than just WTF made. This is so cool I could never do this. There's no chance. I'll ever be able to do a cross-legged headstand and fly a drone And self orbit like how disorienting oh leg gap. Why not just throwing a leg gap? But just how disorienting must this be? It's so mind-boggling to watch nice So cool So that's going to do it for this episode of community spotlight If you're wondering how you can get one of your fpv videos featured on a future episode of community spotlight Just keep ripping. We're always watching new pilots on youtube and instagram and facebook If you're not already a member check out our facebook group It's a great place to get help help others and of course share your flying Don't forget to leave a youtube link because we always want to include the pilots youtube channels Get them some subscribers when we do these community spotlights So post a video in the rotor riot facebook group leave a link to your youtube channel And we might feature you in a future community spotlight The last thing we have to do is pick a winner from this episode's featured pilots Like I said, this winner is going to get a $100 gift card to the rotor riot store that they could use on the all-new rotor riot gaming pc Or whatever else we got on this store that you might want and today's winner is Parasite fpv like I said, I've not heard of this pilot before but this unique cinematic Freestyle cinna style video really captured my interest and I'm really looking forward to seeing more videos from parasite So parasite awesome work. Keep flying. Just keep doing what you're doing because I'm loving it guys as always There are links in the description to the channels of all the pilots featured on this episode of community spotlight So definitely check them out like some of their videos and hit them with a subscription We hope you enjoyed this episode. I'm ladrib. This has been community spotlight and we'll see you next time on rotor riot


Hello everyone. This is financial author Ahmed Dunn of Aedon Channel. Today, I'll talk about the best and worst cities to live in the world. The Economic Intelligence Unit just released its 2016 report called Global Livability Ranking. This report assesses the best and worst cities to live across the globe. Cities were ranked on categories such as stability, health care, education, infrastructure, culture and environment based on 30 factors. However, cost of living was excluded. The top 10 cities for 2016 are 1. Melbourne, Australia 2. Vienna, Austria 3. Vancouver, Canada 4. Toronto, Canada 5. Adelaide, Canada 6. Calgary, Canada 7. Perth, Australia 8. Auckland, New Zealand 9. Helsinki, Finland 10. Hamburg, Germany 6 of the top 10 cities are in Canada and Australia. Most improved cities are Tehran in Iran, Dubai in United Arab Emirates and Harare in Zimbabwe. Some of the biggest declined cities are Damascus in Syria and Kiev in the Ukraine. Ranked at the bottom, the worst cities to live in the world are Damascus in Syria, followed by Tripoli in Libya, Lagos in Nigeria, Dhaka in Bangladesh and Port Morsby in Papua New Guinea. That's all for today. Thank you.


So, in the microscopic world, what's going on is sort of pictured in this cartoon right here, is you have some material made of atoms and for a conductor, some of the electrons in each atom, one or more of them, have to be loosely bound to their parent atoms so that under the influence of even a modest electric field, they can be removed and motivated to accelerate in a particular direction. But what makes materials interesting is collisions. The electrons might accelerate a short distance, much like the ball bearing in this model here, but they'll hit something as they are accelerated by gravity, they'll get up to some instantaneous speed that's actually quite high, but then they'll bounce off of an atom and they'll have to be re-accelerated by the gravitational field in this case. And the situation is similar for a material with an electric field. So if one puts an electric field across the material, okay, and let's just assume that they're uniform for now to keep this nice and simple, we'll just deal with uniform fields for these cases. One can induce, for instance, an electron to drift, remember the electric field points that way, electrons will drift that way, so correspondingly it can be said that the positive charge is moving this way with the opposite direction but equal magnitude feed drift. This is done in terms of positive charge when you're defining your directions in a circuit. Where does the positive charge move? So microscopically if we wanted to imagine for a moment that the electrons are standing still, but the atoms are moving, that's kind of what Ben Franklin has stuck us with at this point. So it's really the electrons that are moving, but they're moving opposite the direction of the positive current flow. Positive current flows that way if electrons are flowing that way. I know this gets a little backward, but again, these are conventions that we are hindered with by the history of our field. So positive charge is moving this way, and this basically induces a, if I can make that J better, a current density. Now current density is a vector and it points in the same direction that the positive V drift points. So let's call this negative V drift to distinguish it from the velocity with which the positive charge is moving to the right. And then this current density will point in the same direction as V drift. So the direction that positive charge is moving, that is the direction of positive current density. That's the only thing you need to define the sign of that vector as positive or negative. That should point in the same direction as the net electric field on the system. So the positive charge is going to go in the direction that the net electric field is pointing. So that's what I've drawn here in this cartoon. And so we kind of get a feeling that there must be some relationship between electric field and the current density that's set up and that that current density will depend somehow on the properties of the material. If the material offers a lot of resistance to the motion of charge, then you can put an electric field on it, but you won't get a very big J. And if you put more electric field on that same material, you can increase J. Correspondingly, you could instead change your material. You could put the same electric field on a material that offers less resistance to electric current, and that would allow you to set up a bigger current density. So there must be some relationship, which we can write as the electric field equals some constant of proportionality that takes care of all the units, right? Because this is in amps per unit area. This is in Newtons per Coulomb. So whatever this thing is, we'd have to figure it out for each material. Whatever this thing is, it will have units that correctly map one onto the other. Yeah, so this is the Greek letter rho. It is known as the resistivity of the material. So at the microscopic level, there's some relationship between the current density that one can set up and the electric field that you place on the material to establish that current density in the first place. And so if we write that down over here, so here at the microscopic level, P equals rho J, and then at the macroscopic scale, we have the expression of Ohm's law, which is that a potential difference will establish a current, and that current will depend on the amount of resistance of the material. And we can attempt to relate the two of them. We want to find the connection between this rho, this constant of proportionality, and R, the resistance of the material. So that constant of proportionality summarizes atomic physics, what's going on with collisions down inside the material. And this summarizes the net effect of all of those collisions on the relationship between the voltage one applies to a wire, for instance, and the current that one is able to drive through the wire. Well, okay, what's the definition of the voltage, right? Voltage is equal to work done by an applied force per unit charge, right? Okay, and this is the work is, if we do one over two here, the work is the integral of the force times the displacement, okay? Which I can write as one over q e, let's see, q e dot dx. So my q's cancel, and I just have the integral of e dot dx. Well, I've given a nice simple case. I've got a uniform electric field, and it's a length of material L. So in the end, this integral is just going to give me e times L. That's it, okay? So voltage is e times L, nice simple equation. And this is maybe a demonstration of how you can go back to the basic definition of voltage is work from the applied force divided by charge, okay? Well, let's remember the basic definition of current density. This is the current divided by the area of the material. Through which it's passing. So if we were to slice this, if this was some kind of cylinder, we'd have some area A in meters squared, okay? That this current is passing through. That's the definition of current density, current per unit area. And now we can take that equation up there, e equals rho j, and we can rewrite it. So we want to solve for rho. We want to figure out what this thing is. So it's rho is just going to be e divided by j. Well, I have things I can substitute in. E is equal to V over L, and j is i over A. So j is in the denominator, so that flips this relationship over, okay? And finally, I can try to use Ohm's law to figure out the relationship between R and rho. So let's see if we can get this into something that looks like Ohm's law. Let's leave V on this side, but let's move current area and length to the other side. So we're gonna get L over A rho i equals V. And in order to recover Ohm's law, V equals iR, I now only have to make an identity between that thing multiplying i and resistance. So R is equal to rho L over A. And let's think about that formula for a moment, okay? That's the identity that we can solve for from this little exercise. Whatever this rho is, what we see is as it goes up, resistance goes up. And so that's why this thing is referred to as resistivity. So as resistivity increases, so increases the resistance of the material. If I put more material in the path of the charge, if I lengthen the amount of material that it has to go through, I offer the opportunity for more collision and correspondingly R goes up. So if I take a material that's a very good conductor, it has very low resistivity. I can make it a really terrible conductor by just adding more of it. So the longer your house wiring, for instance, the more resistance there is in the wall to the flow of current in your house, okay? So there's an art to engineering a nice short path for current in your house so that it's not looping wildly all over the place. That wastes energy basically because the more copper you put in your wall, even though copper is an excellent conductor, it has some resistivity and that will add up as you add more and more and more lengths of copper.  If you put too much copper in, you basically just create a big resistor in your wall. And now you're wasting energy in the form of heat from collisions in that material. And then finally, if one decreases the area of the material, basically you're squeezing the charge now to travel for a much smaller area. And that will increase the number of collisions as well. And so that increases resistance as overall. So if you want to figure out how to go from the atomic properties of a material, the length the charge has to travel, the area through which it has to travel, and the inherent structure of the material, which is summarized by its resistivity, you have this equation. Right, and so this is why if you're driving a lot of current, your wire thickness goes up. Because if you have a small thickness and a high current, you'll generate a huge resistance and that can heat up the wire to the point of melting. So this is why you need to be very careful with driving more than, say, 15 amps or 20 amps through a house wiring that's rated for 15 or 20. So for instance, the shimmy volt that my spouse and I drive, it can be charged at a higher current, but the company has explicitly limited the rate at which that car will charge to no more than 12 amps. And that's for a couple of reasons. One, that's safely below the limit of the house wiring in any standard house that gets built today. Most of the house wiring is rated for 15 to 20 amps. There are special circuits in the house usually for even higher current appliances, like washers and drivers that can draw a lot more current. The other reason is that the company, Chevy, they don't know whether you're plugging your volt into a new house or a 40-year-old house with 40-year-old wiring, which may be decaying and decrepit and actually have a higher resistance as a result of its lack of input condition. And so they don't want to put it at 14 amps or 15 amps, the limit of the house wiring now. They put it safely below that is for a margin of error, because Chevy doesn't want to get sued for setting houses on fire. And that's also why you have breakers in your house. They're little switches. When they overheat, they trip and break the circuit. And that's on purpose. That's so you can't accidentally put 25 amps of raw on a 15 amp circuit and set your house on fire. So the breakers are there to save you from yourself, essentially, or from a malfunctioning appliance. For instance, we had a heating element in an oven and it exploded one day. And why did it explode? It exploded because the resistance of the material in the heating element suddenly changed for a catastrophic reason. We'll never know why. Could be that there was just some problem with the material in one part. It broke down, the resistance changed, and suddenly the power dissipating through it increased. But it exploded with a bright flash and a pop and a trip to breaker. Because for just a brief moment, as the resistance of the material failed, the current going through that part of the house suddenly exceeded 15 or 20 amps, whatever the stove is going to do. And the breaker trip. And it probably saved our house from burning down. We still have to deal with smoke and sparks and so forth inside the oven. But at least nothing else bad happened behind the walls where we couldn't get to a ton of acts. All right, that's what the fire brigade would have done if they had rolled into town to save our house from a house fire. And electrical house fires, particularly nasty, because it usually starts in the wall. So you have to tear the walls down to get at it. And that means massive amounts of damage to your home. OK, so things to keep in mind. If you're goofing around with too much stuff plugged into one wall socket, think about it carefully. Many of the wall sockets, like this one may be on a different breaker than the one down here that I'm plugging my laptop into. And that's why you should distribute your appliances across multiple plugs so they don't cause too much current. Because your wiring can only handle so much current before you start wasting energy in the form of lots of heat. And you can ignite the wall on fire or melt material or worse. OK, so that's the connection between the macroscopic and microscopic worlds. And we're going to start exercising now Ohm's Law. We're going to exercise Ohm's Law. We're going to exercise it in conjunction with conservation of energy and conservation of charge and start thinking about circuits. So you can look up resistivity of materials on the web. Wikipedia has a great table. Here's copper, for instance. Resistivity is measured in Ohms times meters. And you have to do it at a particular temperature. We'll come back to that later. For instance, copper has a resistivity of 1.68 times 10 to the minus 8 Ohm meters. And that's exceedingly small resistivity. Another convenient way of quoting resistivity or rewriting it is by taking one over the resistivity. And this is known as the conductivity. So if you have a big resistivity, you have a low conductivity and vice versa. If you have a big conductivity, you have a low resistivity. So this is something that, depending on what table of numbers you're looking at, if they give you conductivity, you can get resistivity from it just by inverting conductivity. It's a very simple bit of math. So copper is pretty good. Graphene, which got a Nobel Prize a few years ago now. This is a very special material that's showing up more and more now in electronics. So on this list here, the lowest resistivity material is actually graphene. And so you're going to see a lot more. It's also really cheap to make the way to discover it was they found a mono layer of graphite on a piece of scotch tape. And when they analyzed it, it was this amazing one atom thick layer of repeating carbon atoms. And it turned out to have these incredible electrical properties. OK, and then you go down the list. Platinum has a resistivity that's a bit bigger, actually, than copper. And so forth, let's see here. And then, OK, I wanted to highlight these. So sea water and drinking water. So you'll notice that they have very different resistivity. Sorry, yeah, resistivity is here. And as a result of that, that's because in sea water, you have a lot of salt. So there's a lot of free ions available to be moved. In drinking water, it's been desalinated. It tends to have a lower mineral content. There's less free charge to move. The water dipole really holds onto itself in order to rip that apart. You basically have to make hydrogen and oxygen out of water to get those charges to separate. So they tend to have a much higher resistivity as a result than sea water. You're kind of similar to sea water in terms of your blood conductivity and things like that. What makes you a worse conductor, a better resistor than sea water is the fact that your skin is often dry. And if you're not sweating, you're in good shape. But if you sweat, you're basically putting sea water on your skin. And any current that it wants to flow across you will flow across you very easily. So we're going to start to build up a toolkit to deal with situations that involve a source of voltage, conductor, and resistance. And then eventually, we're going to add capacitors into this. Now, a preview of why this is important to do is something that I mentioned earlier, and I'll show a picture of it. Probably not this lecture, but maybe next one. And that is, for instance, if one wanted to try to model the body as a large group of electric circuits, you could start thinking about the smallest pieces of that circuitry and how it functions. And so one of the things that actually has a long time ago, I believe it won a Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine, was the description of the firing of the neuron as a series of voltages, resistors, and capacitors. And with that model in mind, one could grossly reproduce the features of the action potential that occurs in every neuron in your body. And by changing the potential across the neuron transmits information, the aggregate storage of electrochemical information is possible through the way that voltages and chemicals are controlled in the brain. And this is something which is still not completely understood. Yeah, well, all this is fascinating, right? I mean, neuroscience is really a, it seems like it's advanced, but it's really quite in its infancy. And that's why, for instance, there's a huge attempt to inject lots of federal dollars into this to try to have like a shoot the moon moment with the human brain. Europe is doing this too. They have a huge brain initiative to simply try to answer basic questions about the brain. And that requires synthesizing chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, computation, and a lot of other areas engineering because, I mean, we're just wetware, right? We're just a large computer with some software loaded into it. Where does all that come from? How does it all function together? Nobody really understands that. It's a huge area of opportunity for discovery. And money, no doubt. OK, so back to this boring picture by comparison. Power supply, battery, all right? So let me make a comment on batteries here. So far, we've been assuming that a battery is an ideal provider of an electric potential difference. And one does have to be a little bit careful, right? This is the simplest circuit you could construct. Basically, you take some conductor and here, for the purposes of the schematics, it's assumed that this conductor carries no resistance. And all the resistance of whatever's in this circuit is summarized by this squiggly symbol here, which is the universal circuit symbol for a resistor. So there's some current that's driven by the battery and it's clockwise. So the positive charge is emitted out the positive end of the battery. It flows through the resistive material and then back down here. And it's re-upped by the chemical reaction inside the battery, which won't last forever, but we'll ignore that for now. And then this cycle just continues. Current just keeps flowing. And we know from looking at the drift velocity last time that this is a very slow moving thing.  But nonetheless, because the electric field is established immediately in the system by the battery, all the electrons over here start to move, even if it's only a little, and they start doing work in the resistor by colliding with atoms. And so that, for instance, will give you light from a light bulb almost instantaneously. All right, so this is our basic picture. Battery, so a voltage source, current driven by the battery, resistor with resistance to motion of current in the circuit. And we're going to play with this archetype as we go forward. Now, there's a symbol here that is introduced in the chapter. It's an old term. It's a vestigial term left over, but nonetheless, it's everything. It contains it when you look at circuits.  But we have a special symbol for the electric potential difference that's established by the battery. And it's this curly E, which is short for electromotive force, or just EMF. It's an old term before we understood what batteries were actually doing. So when people were playing around with these cells back in the 1800s, they knew that they had some electromotive force in them that would drive charge through the system. It would do work somehow, but they didn't know what the force was until later they made the connection to electricity and magnetism and so on. So it's an old term, but it's convenient because whenever you see that little curly E, that's a prettier one than the one I'm drawing. But that means the battery voltage, or a battery voltage. There could be multiple batteries in a circuit. We'll look into that situation later on. All right, so one of the things that we'll have to deal with right away is the organization of resistance in a circuit. Just like capacitors can be next to each other with each end at the same potential, parallel, or just like capacitors can be one after another so that any charge that passes through one has to pass through the other before getting back to the battery, so-called series. You can do the same thing with resistors. You can, if we have a battery here, you can put two of them in the system such that, right? So here's our electromotive force, here's R1, here's R2. You could put two resistors in so that they are parallel to one another. That is that the voltage across them, if I were to measure this here, the voltage is the battery voltage. They both are at the same electric potential difference. But the current that's flowing out of the battery, I, has a branch. It can go through resistor one, or it can go through resistor two. And what you have to figure out is how the current is distributed through the resistors. And your guiding principles on this, as always, are energy conservation and charge conservation. Any current that enters a branch in a circuit, no matter how it branches, the sum of the branches must equal what went in and will equal what comes out. There's no place in these circuits where charge can build up, yet. We'll get to that later when we add capacitors. Capacitors store charge. And so at some point, when they oppose the voltage that's put across them by storing of charge with a separation, current will cease to flow through a capacitor. And that is something that we have to analyze by adding time into the situation. Right now we're ignoring time, all right? So, yearly current is established, it flows through the resistors, it comes out the other side, goes back to the battery, and so forth, all right? So here you have a branch, and any place you have a branch, you can apply conservation of charge, okay? Now, in the case of series, which we'll get to in a moment, you will have the current, well, I'm sure let me just show it to you, all right? All right, so here's series. All right, so I drew this picture so I wouldn't have to repeat it. All right, so in series, you have the voltage from the battery. It is driving a current, so here the plus side is on the right. All right, so the current is going counterclockwise in this circuit, okay? And it has to flow through R2 before it flows through R1. There is no way that current can skip R2 and go to R1. There are no branch points in this circuit, so whatever current goes into R2 goes into R1 and comes out again, all right? So whatever the current is in the whole circuit coming out of the battery, it's equal to the current going through R2, and that's also equal to the current going through R1. All right, and that's written down here. Current is not split anywhere, and by conservation of charge, that means that the current must be the same literally everywhere in this circuit, all right? And we're gonna check that assumption in a moment, all right, with a real example. Okay, so the other thing to keep in mind here is that if I were to, I know what the potential difference is coming from the battery. This could be nine volts, 12 volts, whatever the problem gives you. The potential difference, however, is split across R2 and R1. If I were to make a measurement with a voltmeter, a potentiometer here and here, I would get the battery voltage because there's a path that connects directly back to the battery with no resistor in between. But if I make a measurement of the potential here, okay, I am measuring the potential across that resistor. And if I measure the potential here, I'm measuring the potential across that resistor. And I know from Ohm's law that V equals IR. So if I know R and I know I, I can figure out the V across each of those resistors. All right, so what will be true here is not that the electric potential differences are the same across these two, but rather that the sum of the electric potential differences on R1 and R2 will equal that of the battery, okay, over here. That's conservation of energy. Any energy changes that happen through here have to be matched by the energy changes in the battery. This is a closed system. There's no place for energy to go in or go out, all right? So with those two principles in mind, we can do the same trick that we try to figure, we try to do with capacitors. That is to find the equivalent resistance of these two resistors. So we sketch here for a second. What we would prefer is a simple circuit with just some total resistance, but we've got that picture. So to reduce that picture into that simpler circuit, we have to do a little algebra and we need to use energy conservation and charge conservation as our guiding principles. Let's sketch that out down there, but I'll just rewrite it up here. So we know from energy conservation that that has to be true. And we have Ohm's Law. For every resistor in the system, Ohm's Law applies, all right? So there is a V1 equals I1 R1 and a V2 equals I2 R2. Just like for every capacitor in a system of multiple capacitors, there is a capacitance equation that applies to that capacitor. Similarly, there's an Ohm's Law for every single one of the resistors in the circuit. So that is also true for this R total that we're trying to figure out. So V total here is just I total R total and that's equal to I1 R1 plus I2 R2. Just subbing in with Ohm's Law into this equation, all right? So whatever V is equal to up here, it's equal to the current, total current in the circuit times the total resistance of the circuit. And then similarly, V1 is I1 R1, V2 is I2 R2, we're just plugging in Ohm's Law. Well, the other thing we get to take advantage of now is that the total current in the circuit, all right? So I total is equal to the current going through the first resistor and the current going through the second resistor. There is no place in this circuit where current branches. So in order to conserve current, it has to be the same here, here, here, here, everywhere, current has to be the same everywhere, all right? So that's the last bit of information we need. We now know that I total, I1 and I2 are the same numbers. So they cancel out of both sides of the equation and you're left with this relatively nice formula that for series, series resistors, the total resistance is just the sum of the individual resistances, that's it. Now series capacitors was a little different. In series capacitors, the total capacitance was one over the total capacitance was one, the sum of one over the capacitances of the individual capacitors. So if you can remember the capacitor rules, you can figure out the resistor rules by remembering that the rules that apply for series capacitors apply for parallel resistors and the rules that apply for parallel capacitors apply for series resistors and you just substitute R's for C's, that's it, okay? So if you can remember one of them, you can remember the other one just by swapping them. So I find that tip helpful, but it may just be easier to memorize them all, okay? I don't know, it's up to the buyer, right? Okay, so that's the situation for the series resistance. Now let's look at parallel resistors. So in this case, I have my battery, it's driving a current, I have now a branch in the circuit. So some current will flow through R1, some current will flow through R2, but the sum of those will be equal to the current driven by the battery through the whole circuit. So I have I coming in here, I1 going up through the top branch, I2 going down through the bottom branch, I1 plus I2 meet again over here and I just get I. So whatever goes in comes out, conservation of charge. Now I also have this set up so that the resistors are at the same electric potential difference. These sides of the resistors are both hooked into the same side of the battery, these sides of the resistors are both hooked into the other side of the battery. So whatever the electric potential difference is across R2, it's the same as R1 and the only one that's in the system is the battery. So in this case, V equals V1 equals V2 and I just have to use the fact that I will be equal to the sum of I1 and I2. Whatever the total current is driven by the battery, it will be equal to the sum of the currents in the branch points. So to sketch this out is I want to simplify this picture. So that I have just some total resistance. I have some total current and one resistor, but I'm stuck with that picture to begin with. So I'm going to try to relate the two of them. And to do that, I'm gonna start with the current conservation equation. I1 plus I2, so this is I total. And again, there's an Ohm's law for every one of these resistors. Write that down. All right, so I can make substitutions. There's also V total equals I total R total. So I can make substitutions. I can rewrite this as I1 is V1 over R1. I2 is V2 over R2. And I total equals V over R total. All right, I will now sub that into the conservation equation. So I have V1, sorry, V over, and V over R total equals V1 over R1 plus V2 over R2. And now I get to use the last equation, this one, that each resistor is at the same potential difference. And that potential difference is given entirely in this case by the battery. So V is equal to V1 is equal to V2. They all cancel out of both sides. And I'm just left with a very familiar looking equation. And this is the parallel resistor case. That one over the total resistance is equal to the sum of one over the individual resistance. So if I had three in parallel here, it would be one over R1 plus one over R2, plus one over R3 plus one over R total. So wherever you see resistors in parallel in a complex circuit, merge them together using the parallel rule. Wherever you see them in series, merge them together using the series rule, your goal with any circuit picture is to get it down to as much, something resembling this as possible. Maybe one voltage supply, one resistor. Do the best you can. What I'd like to do right now is take the last 20 minutes of this lecture and talk about the light bulb game, okay? Because something happened when we did this last week that maybe was a bit perplexing because you attempted to use intuition to answer the question, right? So what had I done? I'll reproduce what I had done. So each of these is just a light bulb. And a light bulb is really nothing more than a resistor. And what we're gonna do is we're gonna exercise resistors in parallel and resistors in series and owns law like mad. And we're gonna look at light bulbs and see, I know, this is so exciting, right? And we're gonna see what happens if we can make predictions about what will happen in this circuit, okay? And these are great. I mean, these are getting harder to find, but these are great demonstrations of resistors, okay? So to illustrate what we did last time, what I'll start by doing is just hooking up the, I've plugged nothing in. I've just plugged in this really sketchy circuit to wall voltage, all right? All right, so what I'm gonna do is set this up so that it's capable of measuring a potential difference of up to 200 volts. All right, and you'll see right now it's measuring zero. All right, so, that way that's terrible. Zero, there we go. So what I'm gonna do now is I'm gonna just hook this into the wall. Yes, I have this on voltage. Last thing I wanna do is short the building out. Okay, so. Okay, we'll let that kind of average up for a second. And how much voltage do we observe coming out of the wall? Yeah, about 125 volts. So that's a 125 volt potential difference that's delivered by that socket, okay? Doing nothing right now, because it's not hooked up to anything. All it's doing is making my screen display the potential difference. So it's doing some work to power this thing now. Okay, we'll take that out, unplug that because I don't wanna die. All right, so now what we'll do is we'll start simply by hooking up the bulbs the way the manufacturer sort of intended this to happen. So one end will go black to black, one end will go red to red. So what I've done now is I've hooked up a single bulb. This is a simple circuit I just showed you. It's this. You have a voltage difference, you have a single resistor, that thing, okay? It's a 40 watt light bulb, all right? So what I will do is now plug that in. Da-da, there was light, okay? So nothing exciting happens. There you go, nice decently soft bulb. You put a shade over that and it actually wouldn't be too bad to have in a room, okay? Now, let's hook up the other bulb. So this is a 100 watt bulb. Exactly as the manufacturer intended it, I'm gonna put 125 volts across just it, just like I just did the 40 watt bulb by itself a second ago. And even brighter, can't even look at that thing, right? Now, I've got my retinas seared like tuna steaks as Archer would say, okay? So there, all right. No one gets the Archer reference, no, okay? Retinas seared like tuna steaks, no, nothing. You should watch more TV. I'm ordering you as a doctor, okay? All right, so that was pretty bright. And let me just ask, how many people think that the 100 watt bulb is the bigger resistor? Raise your hand if you think the 100 watt bulb is the bigger resistor, okay?  Okay, thank you, all right, all right, so good. The 40 watt bulb, how many people think the 40 watt bulb is the bigger resistor, okay? And some people aren't committing at all, you have commitment issues, you should get over that at some point, all right, that would be helpful. All right, so, okay, so fine. All right, so more people tend to think the 100 watt bulb is the bigger resistor than the 40 watt bulb. Let's just keep that in mind.  Now, let's do the following. Let us start, so I want everyone to start keeping numbers here, okay? We are going to figure out what the resistance is of these different bulbs. So we're gonna use them as the manufacturer intended, we're gonna hook it up singly across a single potential difference. V wall is 125 volts, approximately, okay? It's good enough for what we want to do. The manufacturer says that the power of what I'll call bulb one is 100 watts and that the power of bulb two is 40 watts. How can I calculate the resistance of the resistor using power and ohms law? Any ideas? What's power equals? Any ideas? What's power equal to? Anybody remember? IV, yeah, okay, I heard another one in there. So power is current times voltage and we can substitute it with ohms law again. I squared R, all right? So if we put in ohms law, we can get I squared R. Okay, so if we knew the current going through the bulbs, we could figure out the resistance by knowing the manufacturer's rating for the power, but we don't know the current. What do we know? What do we know in this situation when I hook up one of those bulbs to the wall? We've already measured it. Voltage, right? So is there another equation that involves just voltage in R? V squared over R and these are just substitutions of ohms law in for either I or V, inadequately, okay? So if you take V equals IR and if you want to get rid of I, because you don't know it, you can write I equals V over R, plug it in here and you get V squared over R, okay? Get used to exercising these, all right? That's why we're doing this. Okay, great, so we know that the power is equal to V squared over R. So we can solve for resistance of bulb one, right? That's just going to be equal to V squared over P one and R two is P squared over P two. So calculate them. We'll get some numbers here, but what do you already notice collectively, the rest of you, not the two of you who are calculating right now, what do you already notice about the relative resistances of the 100 watt bulb and the 40 watt bulb? If I put 100 in here, is that going to give me a bigger or smaller resistance than if I put 40 in here? Smaller. So the brighter bulb offers less resistance apparently. Very good, okay? And then I'll just check, because I did this exercise before class as well and I get 156 and 39, excellent, okay, great. So let's start playing around with this, okay? Because we can actually do measurements now, we can compare them to predictions. All right, so for instance, what if I hook these up in parallel? All right, we saw what happened last time. Let me do that, all right? So I will hook them up in parallel. What I will do is I will attach the ends of these bulbs here both to the same side of the wall potential. And these ends to the same wall potential, okay? And what happens if I plug this in? Do we get them both kind of at their expected brightness or is one really faint and one really brighter? They both don't come on. What happened last time? They both turn on, yeah. So let's just verify that. Yep, and they're both pretty freaking bright, okay? That one's nicer to look at than that one, all right? That is the situation with a power strip. If you buy, go to Walmart, whatever, and buy a power strip that's got like six or seven or eight sockets on it, you can plug a bunch of things into it. They, and all the things you plug into it are resistors and you're plugging them in in parallel and that's why it is that your appliances can all function normally. You know, you can have a hairdryer plugged into a power strip with a lamp and when you turn the hairdryer on the lamp doesn't dim suddenly. And it's because you're putting them all, all those devices at exactly the rated electric potential difference that the manufacturer intended. About 110, 125 volts depending on your wall outlets, okay? So they both lit up, but let's see if what we think is going on is actually going on. So for instance, we could measure the potential difference. I'm gonna have to turn these on so, you know, don't stare too much. All right, so what I can do is I can measure potential differences across the bulbs. What do I expect them to be in parallel? The same and what value will it be? 125, pretty close. Yeah, close enough for government work probably. Okay, 124.5. All right, and you know, you're gonna start to see a little bit of pattern here as we go that some of the numbers might not be quite what we predict, but this is good because if we fail, we will learn and we'll see if we can fail in this exercise. Failure is very important. All right, but that's basically 125. Okay, let's try the other one now. Average up, 124.5. Okay, so they're at the same potential it's a little bit lower. We have five volts lower than wall potential. We'll come back to that later. That's an interesting observation. Maybe it's just a glitch. Maybe, you know, maybe it's just, that's the error in the instrument or something like that. We'll come back to that in a bit. But yeah, they're at the same potential. That much is clear even if the potential is not quite 125. All right, now we can do another thing too here. Oh man, all right. We can also measure the current flowing through each of the resistors. Now this is a parallel circuit situation. All right, so let me sketch this here. What I like about circuits is that with a few basic things, ohms law, energy conservation, current conservation, you can feel very powerful. You can suddenly start to understand complicated systems by breaking them down. Surprise, surprise. Pieces at a time and understanding each piece and adding it all up, okay. The same trick we've been doing the whole time in the class. All right, so I have created this situation. So the battery, in this case, the wall socket is driving some current I counterclockwise in the circuit. What does it do when it gets to this branch point that I've now created, right? Because current can flow in through the red wire and then it gets to this point here and it can either do what? It can go through a bulb, 40 watt bulb, bulb number two, so resistor number two or it can go through the 100 watt bulb, resistor number one, all right. And what's the relationship again between the currents going through resistor one and resistor two? They add to the total, conservation of current, okay. That's a prediction. Let's see if it's true.