Combustion process, whether used for electricity generation or in Essay

Combustion process, whether used for electricity generation or in engines for transport, produce airborne emissions of environmental concern - Essay Example Acid rain is due to the presence in the atmosphere of SO2 and NOx which, after a series of reactions, are deposited as nitric and sulphuric acid in the form of rain. Particulate matter is known to cause serious respiratory diseases. Carbon sequestration is a method that allows the reduction of CO2 by capturing it at its source (e.g. a power plant) and storing it in non-atmospheric reservoirs such as geologic or oceanic reservoirs (Herzog). The Sleipner project is a working example of carbon sequestration technology. Off the coast of Norway in the North Sea, it is in fact the world's first commercial CO2 capture and storage project collecting about one million metric tons of CO2 each year since it was opened in 1996 (Sleipner CO2 project). The term "scrubber" is used to refer to a group of air pollution control devices that aid the removal of fine particles and/or gases (especially acid gases) from industrial exhaust streams. Scrubbers work by either physically removing substances from the exhaust gas stream or by chemically neutralising them so that they cannot do any harm once released into the environment. Wet scrubbing is used to clean gases from pollutants and particulates by putting in contact the exhaust gas stream with the scrubbing solution. The scrubbing solution can simply be water for the removal of dust or a chemical solution which contains reagents that can specifically target certain compounds. Removal efficiency of pollutants is improved by increasing residence time in the scrubber or by the increase of surface area of the scrubber solution. 2.2. Dry scrubbing Dry scrubbing is generally used to remove acid gases, such as SO2, primarily from combustion sources. All dry scrubbing systems consist of two main devices: 1) a device to introduce a solid sorbent material into the gas stream; and 2) a particulate control device to remove reaction products, excess sorbent material, any particulate matter already in the flue gas. 2.3. Seawater scrubbing The natural buffering capacity of seawater can be taken advantage of by using it as a sorbent in a scrubbing system. When SO2 comes into contact with seawater a reaction takes place between the SO2 and the CaCO3 present in the seawater, producing CaSO4 and CO2. This reaction is complete in a very short time, so the equipment required for seawater scrubbing can be compact. 3. NOx 3.1. Primary measures Primary measures can be applied pre-combustion. In Bowin low NOx technology, air and

Engineer can be characterized as geek or nerd. categorize yourself Essay

Engineer can be characterized as geek or nerd. categorize yourself - Essay Example ay’s modern and competitive world, but also would like to learn such leadership competencies that help him apply that technological knowledge into practice with great efficiency and strength. When both technological expertise and leadership competencies will combine, then such an efficacy of knowledge will arise that will leave behind all field specific or generalized engineering proficiency. I would like to incorporate transformational leadership, in which I would like to set such trends in the chosen field with the help of which many will try to follow me in my footsteps. These trends will help boost the technological world with the right kind of leadership direction. I would create such a vision for myself and for those working under me that would help explain the importance of combining technology and leadership. As a front-runner technocrat, I would incorporate strategic planning in its most efficient form in all the departments of work lying in my control. Strategic plan ning will help me lay out goals and achieve them in the most efficient way

User Frustration Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 2

User Frustration - Assignment Example Errors occur when users get the perception that something in the computing system is not working right making the user unable to reach their task goals. The error might be from either the hardware or the software failure, e.g. a crash. Alternatively, the error might result from actions of users, for example, using wrong commands, or using the correct commands but entering them wrongly, such as a mode error. The situation gets worse if the user is new and is, therefore, unable to troubleshoot the errors. Such users may end up performing actions that only increase the intensity of the error. The error messages given might be too complicated for the user to understand, leave alone responding (Lazar, Jones, Hackley, & Shneiderman, 2006). Users, especially experts, would prefer computer applications that respond promptly. This would save them time and prove to be convenient. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes an application such as web browser may take so long to respond. This inhibits the user from completing the task within the desired time. The time delays occur mostly when users are requesting content from the web. In the end when the user finally gets the requested content, he may not find it that interesting. Long time delays make it harder for users to remember their goals, or even the related context in which the request was made. Web pages that take excessively long to respond make the user believe that an error has occurred, making him frustrated (Lazar et al., 2006). The amount of time spent in running a particular application may cause mood disturbances and discomfort when performing the task. Computer systems that take long response time increase user stress. Emotions play a role in the end-user experience with information technology. Applications complexities and poorly-crafted interfaces result in emotions such as failure, confusion and frustration (Lazar et al., 2006). Frustration originating from errors can be reduced by using bug

Engineer can be characterized as geek or nerd. categorize yourself Essay

Engineer can be characterized as geek or nerd. categorize yourself - Essay Example ay’s modern and competitive world, but also would like to learn such leadership competencies that help him apply that technological knowledge into practice with great efficiency and strength. When both technological expertise and leadership competencies will combine, then such an efficacy of knowledge will arise that will leave behind all field specific or generalized engineering proficiency. I would like to incorporate transformational leadership, in which I would like to set such trends in the chosen field with the help of which many will try to follow me in my footsteps. These trends will help boost the technological world with the right kind of leadership direction. I would create such a vision for myself and for those working under me that would help explain the importance of combining technology and leadership. As a front-runner technocrat, I would incorporate strategic planning in its most efficient form in all the departments of work lying in my control. Strategic plan ning will help me lay out goals and achieve them in the most efficient way

Appropriateness, Reinforcement, Preferences and Transformation Essay Example for Free

Appropriateness, Reinforcement, Preferences and Transformation Essay Question: According to Eunson (2006, p.15) there are four main criteria to be considered when choosing the medium/s of communication to best articulate an argument: Appropriateness, Reinforcement, Preferences and Transformation. Select one of the criteria and discuss its importance to a communication situation. Any successful communication process requires the presence of a message, appropriate medium   and the desired message’s effect on the receiver.   Ã‚  To effect success in communication, it is important to use a suitable medium based on the Preferences criterion. Modern technologies have greatly facilitated human communication. However, as Priestley’s Paradox illustrates, people get to actually communicate less as communication technologies further advance (Eunson 2006, p.4). Hence, for effective communication, it is more important to consider the message and the effect of that message on the receiver (Eunson 2006, p.7). The successful transfer of message and its effect, however, largely depends on the communication mode used or â€Å"preferred†. The medium is crucial to the effect of a message because as emphasized by Marshall McLuhan (Lister 2003), â€Å"societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media† . In other words, the medium is the message. A case in point would be a Human Resource Department in an office where the HR Manager normally ‘prefers’ communicating with his staff through memos and e-mail notifications. But being a smart manager, he or she will not hesitate to utilize other media as needed, according to the importance of the message and the desired effect to the recipients. He or she may ‘prefer’ to personally discuss an individual’s unsatisfactory ‘Performance Assessment Report’, earlier sent as is via individual e-mail, through   one-on-one review. The richness of media (Daft Lengel 1986, p.557) effected by direct face-to-face discussion is ‘preferred’ to the e-mail channel, which in this case plays a secondary role as preparatory medium of documentation. Herein, interpersonal communication appropriate to a small group (Baker, Barrett Roberts 2002, p.11), is considered and selected to amplify the Report’s â€Å"warning† content with the goal of effecting the desired change in the staffer’s behaviour. Exploring â€Å"Preferences† in choosing media is vital to effectively convey the message. Since the medium, which helps shape the content, is mostly the message itself and that the message’s effect on the receiver is affected by the medium, selecting the suitable channel from a range of Preferences becomes crucial to any effective communication.    Bibliography Baker, E. Barrett, M. Roberts, L 2002, Working Communication, John Wiley Sons Australia Ltd., Milton Qld. Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. 1986 â€Å"Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design,† Management Sci., Vol. 32, No.5, pp. 554–571. Eunson, B. 2006, Communicating in the 21st Century, John Wiley Sons, Australia Ltd., Milton Qld. Lister, M 2003, New Media: A Critical Introduction, Routledge, London.

The Anselm Ontological Argument Philosophy Essay

The Anselm Ontological Argument Philosophy Essay In this paper I will argue that Anselms ontological argument for the existence of God is indeed adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the Greatest Conceivable Being. In order to accomplish this, I will argue that Anselms premises are sound, and that his conclusion rightfully follows his premises. I will also defend Anselms argument by demonstrating that objections to Anselms argument are unconvincing. My focus will be on Gaunilos objection to Anselms argument. Essentially, Gauinilos objection is that Anselms argument can be altered to prove the existence of any concept simply by using the definition that the concept is greater than all other concepts which can be conceived this will be refuted. Before I begin my argument I will reconstruct the a priori ontological argument put forward by Anselm to prove the existence of the Greatest Conceivable Anselm begins his argument by introducing â€Å"the fool†, a reference to Psalms 53:1. This fool â€Å"has said that in his heart, [that] there is no God†, or denying the existence of God. Anselm states that even this fool, â€Å"when he hears of this being of which I speak a being-than-which-nothing- greater-can-be-thought understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding; although he does not understand it to actually exist† (Anselm 15). Essentially, Anselm makes the claim that even â€Å"the fool† is forced to concede that the concept of the Greatest Conceivable Being exists in the mind, because he has been told of it. In order to prove the existence of God, Anselm adopts the fools position for his A priori argument. Anselm does not believe the fools position to be correct, but uses it to show that if God exists in understanding, or the mind, then He must exist in reality. Anselm declares that it is one thing for an object to exist in the mind, yet another to understand that it actually exists. To this end, Anselm moves on to give an example of how something can exist in the mind and in reality. The example of a painter is brought forward by Anselm. Before a painter creates a picture, claims Anselm, he has an understanding of what the painting will look like in his mind. Upon completion of the painting, the painter will understand that it exists in his mind, for they had the image of the painting before he created it, and in reality, because now they can see the painting before themselves with their own eyes (Anselm 15). Anselm next defines God as a being-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived. Anselm follows this definition with the premise that if a being exists in the understanding, but not in reality, then a greater being can be conceived (Anselm 15). To assert this point Anselm argues, â€Å"For if [The Greatest Conceivable Being] exists solely in the mind alone, it can be thought of to exist in reality as well, which is greater† (Anselm 15). Utilizing the idea that if a being exists only in understanding then a greater being exists, Anselm reaches the conclusion that a greater being than God can be conceived. Anselm does not believe that this conclusion is accurate, however, stating that it is â€Å"obviously impossible†. By reaching this conclusion, Anslem is trying to show that if one understands God to be the Greatest Conceivable Being and only exist in understanding as a concept, but not reality, then the conclusion opposes the premises. Anselms case is essentially that because the definition of God is not in question, â€Å"the fool† must be mistaken in assuming that God only exists as a concept. Therefore, Anselm reaches the conclusion that God must exist in both concept and in reality. I will now move on to offering a critical assessment of Anselms ontological argument. To accomplish this task, I will examine both the validity, and the soundness, of Anselms premises. In order to do so, a condensed form of Anselms argument is required. Essentially, Anselms premises can be construed as such: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived We can conceive of a being than which none greater can be conceived God exists in the understanding, To exist in reality and in the understanding is greater than to exist in the understanding alone. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality. According to chapter two of Writing Philosophy, a valid argument is â€Å"an argument that has a form such that if its premises were true, its conclusion would be too.† There is nothing to suggest that Anselms argument is invalid. Provided that the premises are sound, the conclusion does indeed follow. However, while the ontological argument may be valid, it remains to be shown that it is sound. A sound argument is one which is both valid and contains true premises (Chapter 2, Writing Philosophy). In order to show this, the individual premises of the ontological argument must be evaluated. Firstly, The truth of premise B] depends on the acceptance of Anselms definition of God (premise A] ) as that than which none greater can be conceived. If we are to accept Anselms definition of God to be plausible, then premise B] is sound because we have accepted the concept and have the idea in our understanding. If we do not accept the definition, then we are not able to proceed to evaluate the rest of the argument. This is not to say that Anselms definition of God is a controversial one, indeed it is a commonly accepted monotheistic interpretation of the nature of God (Mark C. Smith, January 18th Lecture). Secondly, premise B] is sound because existence of such a being is logically possible. No fault can be found with postulating the existence of such a being as defined by premise A]. Finally, Anselms assertion that â€Å"to exist in reality and in the understanding is greater than to exist in the understanding alone† is necessarily sound by our acceptance of his definition of God. By accepting premise A], as we must in order to evaluate the argument, we must concede this it is necessarily greater for God to exist in reality. As a result, we can see that Anselms ontological argument is both valid, and sound, from an examination of its premises. Anselms conclusion that God exists in reality logically follows the premises, given their soundness and validity. In order to demonstrate that Anselms argument is indeed adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the Greatest Conceivable Being, objections to the argument must first be examined and then refuted. One of the more potent objections to Anselms ontological argument is that of the monk Gaunilo. The objection raised by Gaunilo is that the same logical reasoning used by Anselm to prove Gods existence can be used to prove things certain do not exist. Gaunilo puts forth this objection when he argues about the existence of the â€Å"Lost Island†, a conceivable perfect island. Gaunilos proof of the perfect island follows the same logical reasoning as Anselms. He starts with the premise that the idea of a perfect island can be conceived of by the mind. The perfect island is by definition an island than which no greater island can be conceived, and that if a perfect-island exists in as an idea in the mind but not in reality, a greater island than the perfect- island can be conceived (Gaunilo 17). Using a similar argument as Anselm, Gaunilo has shown that the perfect-island must exist in both the mind and in reality for the same reasons that God must exist in the mind and reality. According to Gaunilo, if one accepts Anselms argument as being valid, one must accept the similar perfect-island argument as being valid as well. Both arguments would appear to valid since if the premises are true then both conclusions must be true. The only critical difference between Anselms argument and Gaunilos argument is the use of the perfect-island in place of God. As a res ult, if Anselms method of reasoning is deemed appropriate, then Gaunilos must be appropriate as well. Gaunilo however states that this â€Å"proof of the existence of a perfect-island is implausible, or â€Å"doubtfully real† (Guanilo 17). Gaunilo contends that it is only the definition of â€Å"a-concept-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived† that allows Anselm and himself to prove the existence of God and the perfect-island respectively. By proving one of the concepts, the perfect-island, to be implausible, Gaunilo feels that the other concept must follow suit (Gaunilo 17). I will now move onto a refutation of Gaunilos objection to Anselms ontological argument. The major fault with Gaunilos objection is that that by proving the existence of a perfect island, using an argument of the same structure as Anselms, he has tampered with the definition of an island. This error becomes apparent when considering what the nature of a perfect island would be. In order for the island to be perfect its characteristics must be perfect as well. Any variation from this â€Å"conceivable† perfection would make the existence of a greater conceivable island possible. Furthermore, the perfect-island could be made greater in a measurable fashion if it was to have a slightly increased landmass this reasoning would persist until the perfect-island becomes infinitely large. An infinitely large island, however, is impossible. An island, by its very definition, must be surrounded by water, and something that is infinite in size cannot be surrounded. Moreover, a perfect island presumably has an abundance of lush trees and pristine beaches. The more of these t hat an island has, the better the island would conceivably be. However, there is no defined maximum number of trees or beaches that an island could possibly have; for any one conceivable island, there is another, even-more -perfect-island with one more exotic fruit tree and one more white sandy beach. As a result, there is no island than-which no-greater-can-be-conceived the more trees and more beaches that are conceived, the more perfect the island would be. Therefore, the perfect-island moves towards infinity in its characteristics once again. The concept of the perfect island is therefore flawed, causing Gaunilos objection to be adequate to impair Anselms ontological argument. In conclusion, Anselms logical a priori ontological argument is adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the Greatest Conceivable Being. The premises of Anselms ontological argument were demonstrated to be sound when examined in the context of Anselms definition of the Greatest Conceivable Being. Moreover, Anselms argument was shown to be a valid argument, with a conclusion that follows from the premises. Gaunilo raised an objection to the ontological argument on the grounds that Anselms argument can be altered to prove the existence of any concept simply by using the definition that the concept is greater than all other concepts which can be conceived. However, this objection was shown to be inadequate on the grounds that the concept of the perfect-island is flawed when conceived with Anselms argument. Therefore, Anselms ontological argument is convincing, despite Gaunilos objections, and is adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the Greatest Conceivable Be ing.

Less Could be More in Anna Karenina :: Tolstoy Anna Karenina Essays

Less Could be More in Anna Karenina    Anna Karenina was well-written, with a good plot, and valuable themes. But it fell short in each of these categories, because Tolstoy simply tried to do too much. The language was beautiful but, at times, far too descriptive. The plot was also well written, but tedious and hard to follow in many parts of the book. And the Themes were great and important, but they were many, and at times, not appropriate for this book. The book was great, but it could have said much more, and been better, if Tolstoy had said a little less.    The language in Anna Karenina was wonderful, although graphic and too descriptive in much of the book. Tolstoy was a great writer, and that is why this book is a classic. However, he should have made choices about what to emphasize, and what not to. Tolstoy had a great writing style. He used some wonderful techniques and literary devices in his writing to make is books so great. One example of this is how he often times placed characters in his books that mirrored himself, as is true with Anna Karenina. While this tool can be effective, in Anna Karenina it was mostly awkward. This character seemed to be somewhat misplaced, and unimportant. He also used a good deal of foreshadowing to give his books a more unique style. In one instance during Anna Karenina, Anna arrives at the train station to find that a man has been run-over by the train, which greatly foreshadows her own poignant suicide in part seven of the book. Tolstoy's language is compelling and fluid. He paints a clear and accurate picture in the reader's mind of all the details throughout the book. But his strength can very much be his weakness, because in trying to be so thorough and compelling, he over-analyzed and over-described many parts of the book.    The themes of this book were many. Some were well developed and appropriate to the story, but others seemed unnecessary. The books major themes were marriage and unhappiness, while the book also deals with depression, and making choices. This book follows several marriages and families, and these themes proved themselves to be very important and essential in Anna Karenina.